Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Sept 4, 2007 15:08:09 GMT -4
(1) The Bible is subjective enough to allow practically anything to be 'read in between the lines', and as such doesn't make for much of a historical document. This goes beyond simple interpretation and into the realm of making up anything one wants to fit one's own view. Adding a few other names to a genealogical list when there are already two different versions present is very different from putting in anything you want. The leap from "the genealogical lists seem to be missing names and conflict with each other" to a broad statement like "the Bible isn't literal" is a pretty far one. I agree that using the New Testament to provide accurate historical information can be problematic, because it has a very narrow focus. If you want to know things Jesus said and did and some of the exploits of Paul it's great. If you wanted to calculate the population in Judea in AD 30 it doesn't help you much. Those sorts of facts simply aren't things the writers were interested in providing.
|
|
|
Post by cr on Sept 4, 2007 15:21:11 GMT -4
(1) The Bible is subjective enough to allow practically anything to be 'read in between the lines', and as such doesn't make for much of a historical document. This goes beyond simple interpretation and into the realm of making up anything one wants to fit one's own view. Adding a few other names to a genealogical list when there are already two different versions present is very different from putting in anything you want. I respectfully disagree. If one part of the Bible is 'open to interpretation', then any part could be. Not necessarily by you, Jason, nor those invloved in this discussion, but by someone. It sets a precedent that, if taken too far, could allow 'anything wanted' to be added. (Or for that matter, ignored.) This is different from revising historical (and/or scientific) texts as new information/facts become available. And in the case of Bible literalists (which I'm not saying anyone here is), it smacks of hypocrisy... the Bible's either literal, or it isn't. Wait, just thought of a third possibility: it's incomplete. In which case nobody should too strongly base their actions on its 'inerrant truth', since, if incomplete, we may not really know just what that 'truth' is. Well, that's certainly food for thought. I'm once again just writing off the cuff here, and once again have to depart soon. Sorry for all my 'hit and run' posts. I'm trying to make points and have ideas addressed; I'm not trying to stir things up and then run away! (Sometimes I think I should have remained a lurker. Especially since the real reason I joined was for the Apollo stuff, and I haven't even posted much there!)
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Sept 4, 2007 15:55:35 GMT -4
I respectfully disagree. If one part of the Bible is 'open to interpretation', then any part could be. Provisionally yes. However, the genealogy lists are not the reason the Bible is valued - the moral lessons are. If someone changes the genalogy lists or they aren't perfect to begin with then nobody cares much. If someone messes with the parables or Jesus' sayings, that's something entirely different. But surely you don't revise historical texts unless you were the author of the original. Instead you write new texts with the new information. I am a Bible literalist in that I believe most of the events it tells were historic events, even if the accounts themselves are not absolutely accurate in every detail (such as the genealogies). As such I am not a believer in biblical innerrancy. Not much of a stretch, since there are refrences in several Biblical books to other books which are not present. Several of Paul's letters are missing, for instance. And, of course, John closes with: "And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written. Amen." So the Bible doesn't contain everything Jesus said or did, or everything the apostles wrote about it. If it's incomplete does that mean we must not use any of it at all?
|
|
|
Post by cr on Sept 4, 2007 16:35:10 GMT -4
If it's incomplete does that mean we must not use any of it at all? No, but I would caution one to avoid using the Bible as the 'be all and end all' of truth. At best, I would (and do) view the Bible as an allegorical guidebook; this would make it more adaptable, even timeless, as time wears on. (One could apply that to any religious text, though. And of course, most religions will state that their texts are the Truth, and others not so. But I digress...)
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Sept 4, 2007 17:05:32 GMT -4
I very clearly stated that the earliest fragment we have of it is called P52 and is from around the year 125. I know that, though it wasn't in this thread, or in relation to this topic, but given that, my dispute is calling it the NT. It wasn't. Excellent, you found it on the Internet, it must be true. Just because they refer to it as the NT doesn't mean that it was considered the NT when it was written. You have pointed out several times it dates at 125 AD. The NT didn't become the NT until 397 AD. As such this fragment, while part of a book that would be included in the NT 300 years later, was not part of the NT at the time it was written, but was a separate book. What part of this do you not understand? So telling you to learn history is insulting you? I guess I'll make a note of it next time you tell an HB to learn the history of Apollo. And I pointed out that according to both Church history and secular documents of the time, members of the family who Cameran claims were in the tomb, weren't buried in a family tomb. Besides, what evidence is there that something is not something besides the documented history. It burden of proof in on Cameran and others to prove that this is the tomb of Jesus. Basing their proof on 2 names, and 5 names that are either dubious themselves, or shouldn't be there according to the history of the time, all of which were common at the time anyways, is not proof. Fine. Prove that books by separate authors should be considered a single source for historical purposes. Show any other situation where documents by individual authors are treated as a single document after having been gathered into a collection.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Sept 4, 2007 17:13:07 GMT -4
At best, I would (and do) view the Bible as an allegorical guidebook; this would make it more adaptable, even timeless, as time wears on. (One could apply that to any religious text, though. And of course, most religions will state that their texts are the Truth, and others not so. But I digress...) I would say that most religious texts contain some degree of Truth with a capital T, or they would not move human beings to believe they are true. My favorite quote from Enemy Mine: Davidge: "If one receives evil from another, let one not do evil in return. Rather, let him extend love to the enemy, that love might unite them." I've heard all this before... in the human Taalmaan. Jerry: Of course you have. Truth is truth.
|
|
|
Post by wdmundt on Sept 4, 2007 18:35:11 GMT -4
On the subject of the genealogies of Jesus, I think a good question to ask is this: what are the genealogies doing there? Why make an extended case that Joseph is a descendant of David? What is the purpose of this?
|
|
|
Post by Ginnie on Sept 4, 2007 19:31:20 GMT -4
Matthew names each person twice, starting with Abraham. "Abraham begot Isaac, Isaac begot Jacob, Jacob begot Judas," arriving at "Matthan begot Jacob. And Jacob begot Joseph, the husband of Mary." So there really isn't any place in Matthew for others to be included or excluded. Luke shows the genealogy in the opposite order, starting with Joseph. "Joseph, the son of Heli, the son of Matthat, the son of Levi, the son of Melchi," in an unbroken string through David and all the way back to "Cainan, the son of Enos, the son of Seth, the son of Adam, who was God." . If this can help: According to my Greek-English NT, Matthew 1:2 reads: Abraham fathered Isaac, and Isaac fathered Jacob... Luke 3:23 reads: In Greek word order: And himself was Jesus beginning about thirty years being the son as it was being thought of Joseph, the (son) of Heli, the (son) of Matthat, the (son) of Levi, the (son) of Melchi... Now literally, after the first 'son as it was being thought of Joseph' part, the word 'son' and 'of' part doesn't actually appear. It reads literally 'the Heli, the Matthat, the Levi, the Melchi...' Must be some Greek grammar possessive thing, which assumes the 'son of' part from the earlier reference. If anyone knows Greek on this forum they could explain this?
|
|
|
Post by Ginnie on Sept 4, 2007 19:50:48 GMT -4
I don't quite get the genealogical debate going on. The way I see it, Matthew and Luke tried to reconstruct the lineage from Jesus to David. Wouldn't that have been very, very difficult? I mean, talk to someone you've known all your life and trace their ancestry back more than twenty generations without modern methods. Better yet, trace your own family back that far. But then again I don't believe in divine inspiration for the creation of the NT. If they were divinely inspired, there should be no conflict between the two passages. I think they both tried hard and did the best they could, but one (or even both) of them came up short...
I don't think that differences like that take away from the historicity of Jesus though, but it does tell you that all the NT shouldn't be taken literally... Has anyone a good explanation for the Star of Bethlehem? This seems like a good bit to tackle as it should be able to explained using astronomical data. Or is the Star of Bethlehem another anomaly that should be ignored as literal truth?
(just a thought: I wonder if we started at the beginning of the NT and went through the Gospels, how much would we eliminate this way)
|
|
|
Post by Ginnie on Sept 4, 2007 20:02:36 GMT -4
On the subject of the genealogies of Jesus, I think a good question to ask is this: what are the genealogies doing there? Why make an extended case that Joseph is a descendant of David? What is the purpose of this? The Hebrews believed that one of David's descendent's would always sit on the throne of Israel. The Messiah would be the king prophesied by Isaiah, who will rule the Jewish people during the Messianic Age.
|
|
|
Post by wdmundt on Sept 4, 2007 20:18:15 GMT -4
Yes, but Jesus is not the son of Joseph. So why bother with the genealogies?
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Sept 4, 2007 20:36:44 GMT -4
As Ginnie points out, several Messianic prophecies refer to the Messiah as descending from David; most notably Isaiah 9:1-7, 11:1-9; Jeremiah 23:5-8, 33:15-16. Jesus is referred to as the Son of David in the NT several times. The genealogies are to show that Jesus was the son of David, fulfilling prophecy. If Mary was also of the line of David then this is true in a biological sense. If not, then it is true under Jewish law, as Joseph was Jesus' legal father.
Tracing someone's genealogy gets very easy if you can tie it to a royal line, and most people can.
The Star of Bethlehem could have been any number of celestial events. Obvious choices are comets or supernovas, neither of which would be obvious today.
Thomas Jefferson attempted to create a version of the Bible that left out everything he considered supernatural.
|
|
|
Post by Ginnie on Sept 4, 2007 20:37:49 GMT -4
Well, personally I've always wondered that too, so I guess they should be tracing Mary's line of descent. Just a few quips off the web (I got lazy): ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Matthew had satisfied the Mosaic Law by showing the male ancestry of Jesus by going through Joseph instead of Mary. Keep in mind that this genealogy shows the legal, or royal, or public record, of descent and not the human descent.-------------------------------------------------------------------------- This matter can be made clearer by interpreting the verse as: "When Jesus began His ministry he was about thirty years of age. He was the Son (so it was thought, of Joseph) of Heli."
The underlying Greek text supports this interpretation as, "...Joseph son of Heli", in the English translation, simply reads, "...Joseph of Eli". The word 'son' before Heli, is not in the Greek text.
So in order to trace the bloodline of Jesus through Heli, we would first have to go through Mary, His mother. This shows that Heli would be the blood father of Mary, and the father in law of Joseph. Even though the name of Mary is not listed, in order to comply with Jewish custom, it is certainly implied.-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- home.inreach.com/bstanley/geneal.htmSo I guess those 'son of' that are missing does have impact after all on how you interpret it!
|
|
|
Post by wdmundt on Sept 4, 2007 20:46:07 GMT -4
The Christian sources I've looked at say roughly the same thing, which is "though Mary's name is not used, it just has to be that way."
|
|
|
Post by Ginnie on Sept 4, 2007 20:58:41 GMT -4
I guess that wouldn't be called 'critical thinking' would it?
Just a thought (ignore if you want); I know that you hate it when we mention other historical figures into this thread but bear with me. Take someone like Herodotus. the Father of History. Scholars often quote from his Histories, and use it as evidence for this or that. But Herodotus is often unreliable as an historian. Indeed his is known also as the Father of Lies. So it seems that sometimes he provides evidence of events that happened and other times he is so prejudiced that he can't be taken seriously. Do you see parallels to the NT of this sort of thing or is it so unrelated that it shouldn't even be mentioned?
EDIT- Question: Couldn't the Bible be considered as evidence, but not necessarily as conclusive evidence?
|
|