Religion Biblical Texts: Explication and Discussion

There was a response, and then that fact was to have lead to some disciples asking a question about when that would occur--that starts what I have titled the 'Mount of Olives' scene. In #6 (the previous of the 'Historical Errors' line) there were at least 8 counts of historical error. That portion had taken us up to Luke 21:19, which is the order-of-theme equivalant of Matthew 24:13, Mark 21:13b.
Click to expand...
?ւ??[??. I counted but 4. 2 visits to the temple as opposed to one. Fig tree cursed, visibly withering immediately as opposed to no change noticed until the evening (the most immediately apparent.) Off hand I can't recall detail for the others... something about the time-of-day of first arrival if I remember one of them correctly.
 
Re-stating and Proposal Regarding Thread--part one

As I had spelled out in my #81 post on page four of this thread, I did spend some time thinking about the format, or the 'going-about-of-how-to-outline' it. I hope to explain that here, and to also re-state the working premise which is being used as a tool for the purpose of methodology.

The following is a quote from post #1:

'Without error', 'inerrant' are modifiers that one often hears along with terms like 'the Word of God'. Although I have seldom heard explanations of just what that may mean, I gather that it means 'without mistake'; 'true'. In the discussion that follows, I hope to encourage testing this fundamental principle, or claim, in a very simple but scientific-like manner--not going to the point of appealing to many various theories or philosophical treatises. First I would like to set out a working premise, as follows: (italics added here)

1. It is held to be true that our recensions of today accurately represent the original autographs, with few variable readings that would change an English translation, to any disclamation.

Here I use the word 'recensions' to be the NT in Greek, as decided on among the three much more largely used Greek Recensions; first and by far formost, that of Nestle and Aland--Novum Testamentum Graece--27th edition [hereafter NTG], secondly and to a far lesser degree, that of Wescott and Hort--The New Testament in the Original Greek, and by far much less than the two above, that of J. J. Griesbach--The Original Greek Text of what is commonly styled the NEW TESTAMENT. I DO NOT mean an English translation of these.

It has been said that there are up to some 250,000 differences among the some 5,000 Greek manuscripts alone. (The Interpreter's Dictionary of the Bible, Vol. 4, pp 594-595). The aparatus in the NTG really drives this fact home. However, of all these possible 'original readings' there are not so many that could drastically change any English translation of the variant Greek words. Those differences which propose a totally different sentence, would of course give us a different translation, but these have usually been accounted for in many of the newer English translations, so there should be no problems there. Those which are, we may occur in our discussion of the Greek text.

2. It is held to be true that the intent to write to a decided recipient implies an intent to have the recipient come to an intended understanding--especially in the case of any attempt to convince, impart knowledge, or debate.

The idea that I am using as a 'working tool of methodology' here, is quite simply the ordinary fact that when a person is writing (in this case, since we are dealing with written documents) to another person, that writer has the intention to put a visualized, understood mental conception contained in that writer's brain, intact--as it is--into the readers brain. The purpose of the writer is too have the reader concieve and grasp that very same idea, exactly as the writer grasps, and conceptualizes it. That is what I mean by 'intended understanding'.

The offshoot of this, is that the writer will obviously use things, ideas, words, and literary 'norms' that the writer would know, or assume, the reader to have knowledge of, in order to help that reader catch the mental picture. In this respect, the cultural and historical matters of the environment that the writing takes place in are actors or building blocks in the communication process.

The next two will be in a post coming soon---for my part all is on hold until this has been finished. I WILL get back to those who have brought up points up until this post, or in the time up until the final post of this 're-stating and proposal' will have been finished. Please bear with me. I am making them shorter for readibility, and 'desire to read through carefully' purposes.
 
OK - I'm beginning to see what Mars Man is driving at... Points of agreement: historical errors exist (now that I understand what the term is aiming at.) Definitely.
Evidence suggests quite strongly that there is a long lead time between events and the act of recording them - memories do get fuzzy with the passage of time. (which means precisely that errors will arise.) Evidence further suggests strongly that the "gospel according to ~" is written by persons who were remembering what the named person said. (Further opportunity for error. Having given witness statements to police on a few occasions, I have yet to find that what I have said is accurately recorded in the policeman's note book... revisions on one or two finer points invariably have to be made.) That errors arise for good reason doesn't mean they are not errors.
As an argument against the possibility that all of the Bible is scripture (inspired by God) rather than just those portions which are prophecy, it is cogent (but perhaps a little long winded, or not, material needs to be presented fully after all.) and very much to the point. And yes, of all the gospel accounts, Matthew has to be counted as the least reliable.

Here we are looking at basically one scene--that of the morning at the fig tree which supposedly got Jesus ticked off. Just how is it that anyone who should have had some degree of knowledge about when a fig tree should have fruit on it, have expected to find fruit on a fig tree? And why would its NOT having fruit on it when it wasn't supposed to have fruit on it, get any one pissed off like that? Just what WAS it that Jesus said? And, for the sake of argument, assuming this scene to be generally accurate historically, just how long did it take the tree to wither? WE CANNOT KNOW. And so with this scene, we have 2 counts of historical error and 1 count of doubt as being true history.
Click to expand...
As to that, a point was being made ... a very pointed point was being pointedly pointed out.
 
Justin Martyr debate with Trypho dates to years 150-160, getting very close to that date which I consider as being accurate for the purposes of establishing the original teachings of the churches.

http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-01/anf01-48.htm#P4159_812391

CHAPTER XLVIII -- BEFORE THE DIVINITY OF CHRIST IS PROVED, HE [TRYPHO] DEMANDS THAT IT BE SETTLED THAT HE IS CHRIST.

And Trypho said, "We have heard what you think of these matters. Resume the discourse where you left off, and bring it to an end. For some of it appears to me to be paradoxical, and wholly incapable of proof. For when you say that this Christ existed as God before the ages, then that He submitted to be born and become man, yet that He is not man of man, this[assertion] appears to me to be not merely paradoxical, but also foolish."

And I replied to this, "I know that the statement does appear to be paradoxical, especially to those of your race, who are ever unwilling to understand or to perform the[requirements] of God, but[ready to perform] those of your teachers, as God Himself declares. Now assuredly, Trypho," I continued,"[the proof] that this man is the Christ of God does not fail, though I be unable to prove that He existed formerly as Son of the Maker of all things, being God, and was born a man by the Virgin. But since I have certainly proved that this man is the Christ of God, whoever He be, even if I do not prove that He pre-existed, and submitted to be born a man of like passions with us, having a body, according to the Father's will; in this last matter alone is it just to say that I have erred, and not to deny that He is the Christ, though it should appear that He was born man of men, and[nothing more] is proved[than this], that He has become Christ by election. For there are some, my friends," I said, "of our race, who admit that He is Christ, while holding Him to be man of men; with whom I do not agree
...
Click to expand...
Here shown that the doctrine of Christ as God was not without challenge even at so early a date, but that it was a doctrine.
 
Re-stating and Proposal Regarding Thread--part two

3. It is held to be true that before any ancient document can be more reasonably understood and appreciated, an understanding of the historical and cultural environment in which it is deemed to have been written, should be considered.


This working premise does tie in with that of number two. Although it has been said that the first century Christian historical narratives represent a degree of novelty for the literary world from which they came, the overall, and greater bulk of the works follow the norms of bio-histographical writings. (The Earliest Gospels Journal for the Study of the New Testament Suppliment Series 258;2004; A New Translation of THE BIBLE introduction by J. Moffatt; Narrative Parallels to the New Testament SBL study#22 1988; Studies in the Early Text of the Gospels and Acts 1999 (the first and fourth are combined-scholar works)

Under this matter, we would have to consider the Jewish religious world from which the oral traditions first sprang, and its impact on the textual format, as well as the Greco-roman world which furthered and added on to the original story. Cliches, aphorisms, motifs and themes would have to studied and compared. Lifestyles, customs, and historical circumstances would have to be kept in mind also. (all of the above, as much as possible--there's a WHOLE lot to look at !!)

4. It is held to be true that any complete ancient document is a complete context, subdivided into further linguistical contexts, and that such context is a major key for understanding meaning, sense, and overt intent in writing.

I had wanted to point out by this working premise, firstly,the fact that a single work contained within the New Testament is just that--a single and isolated context, linguistically. (as well, the entire volume of works that make up what today is called 'the Bible' is so--but only focusing, in this thread, on NT) There is often a tendency to view the entire body of writings that are found in the prsent NT to be one overall context, but that is eventually shown to be of the weakest likelihood.

It is then, only obvious, that the linguistical form and pattern, flow, and content, provide--along with consideration of the other matters of our working premise--any understanding which, as far as can be determined, the writer had wanted the reader to have understood at the time of writing. If there is evidence for any clause, passage, concept to be more than simply applicable for the immediate and contemporary audience in that writing, it will be realizable after the 'shifting' process.

I like your ability to provide humor to humor, Kaminari san. Nice one there !! And I'll take up the other matter--although there is no great disagreement therein--on the other thread, since it doesn't really apply to any further understanding of the Biblical texts. I'll also try to wrap this up as soon as possible in order to get back into the discussion. I still have to offer my proposal. Thanks everyone !! :wave:
 
Greetings MarsMan:
I think I have understood that. If I am wrong, feel free to correct me.

The overall thrust of the contents of the NT is to teach believers the correct understanding of what they are believing in, and what the appropriate conduct is to be. To that extent, no individual text can be taken in isolation.

Individual writers will have an attitude toward any particular topic which may be at variance with other writers. To that extent, what an individual writes needs to be compared with other statements that he has made when addressing the same topic.

As their development continues (or perhaps fails) later opinions may be at variance with earlier opinions. To that extent, each writer's statements need to be taken as complete in themselves.

If I have understood your post correctly, we are in accord.
 
As we dive into page six of this thread, I'd like to first offer a proposal (kind of, at least). The reason for such was stated in my #81, p4, and let me see if I can paste that here. . . here goes folks, now watch as Mars Man Computer-hated, Systems messer-upper Wizkid goes behind the monitor to see where the 'wires' go (drum roll....) ]Cymbal Crash !! I am fully aware that what I'd set out to do on this thread, and what I have, in fact, been doing, could be considered inappropriate in structure for the likes of a forum such as this is. In order to run alongside the 'C:C/M' and support it, as I had described in the opening, I had planned to use this as a kind of data/statistc collection box, with explanation and discussion on those. That would cause it to end up being more of a 'study notes' structure than of a dialog/inter-communication like structure. That could be a miscalculation on my part.

Well, I couldn't do it the same way the other people who really know how to use a computer do it, you know, just posting it as 'quote by 00' in a colored box. . . but anyway, you don't have to run back through old pages and posts to see what I had typed out, at least.

PROPOSAL

I have decided to try to lay out only what is really needed to show that there is evidence for a point, and then, depending on the various degrees of understanding (as I percieve the understanding to be via what is said in posts dealing with that point or subject) or objection, or the type of disagreement, I will post further evidence. In this way, the thread would be much less like a 'data/statistic collection box' or 'study notes', and a little bit more like a forum-like discussion/debate.

I have been accused of 'rambling'. Some have honest-heartedly, and not really with any degree of bitterness nor cynicism, mentioned the aggregate lengthiness of these 'Historical Errors' posts--and that I do not deny. (It was going to have ended up like a small study book)

And yet, in my understanding that such would be the case, I took some shortcuts, and then later, due to some feed-back, realized that that method left the reader with no insight into the point's being developed. In other words, it was not easy for the reader to mentally insert what was inherent in the argument's development when I hadn't spelled it out so clearly in order to make the darn thing shorter. OR...in otherwords I blew it ! feel free to replace that four lettered word there with a seven lettered word [now Pararousia said I had had an obsession with those posts, which I would strongly argue as not really being true, but if that sweet girl were to charge me with having developed an obsession with this 'color' thing in the past few hours, I would be as defenseless as a hairless (which I almost am) cat in a rain storm]

SO...I will only point out and explain as carefully and fully as I possibly can (within limits) the bigger players in the argument that I have been working on as pointed out from the beggining, and re-stated most recently before the working premise. AND NOW LET'S GET BACK INTO THE HOE-DOWN. . . :)
 
Last edited:
Well - I finally got around to reading page 2.

Objections raised regarding the development of spelling, grammar and nuance are based on the history of English. Koine Greek, and even more so, Classical Greek, had more nuance available than modern English can come close to. Koine Greek was deemed to be the language of poetry, and it did in fact have very much the range of input that English today has... It was, after all, the trade tongue of the time. So highly regarded it was, that in Rome, a man could be an able administrator, kind, generous, all the qualities demanded of the "First Man in Rome" in fact - but if he could not speak Greek, he was a barbarian.
 
My concern is about comparing translations of Greek and/or Aramaic into fairly modern English and comparing them based upon modern standards of factual reporting, textual accuracy (especially based upon mechanics and punctuation), and conventions and on some type of contextual nuance that may be more an indication of culture or linguistic difference than "historical innacuracy." It wasn't meant as a criticism of Greek language.
 
All you wonderful people will have to forgive me for my not being able to stay with this as much as I'd like, or should--I'm actually quite busy, to put it in a very mild way.

That was kind of humorous there Kaminari, (the second page bit) and I got a good chuckle out of it; but believe me, I do know just how hard it can be to not only read it all, but to fully grasp and visualize just what the writers had been trying to get across in their posts as well.

(Hey, I like this new format, it's so much faster to put those special touches into the text.)

I think I had caught your concern, at that time, sabro, as you have mentioned again above. At the moment I don't think I could go along with ascribing a more nuanced refinery to Classical Greek than English today; although until further information comes my way, I would go with Greek's being about as nuanced, and more so in just a different way than that of Modern English. What I have learned is that there are shades and senses to words that are not so 'English', if you know what I mean, but the opposite is also true. The simple fact that time has passed, and with it knowledge (including history), lifestyle, and inventions, would automatically give Modern English a greater range of shade and sense--however slim that lead may be even--but it doesn't have all those that the Classical Greek had had.

I believe sabro's concern had been, just as he has now explained (and in at least one other post) about whether we are required to understand those dialogs in the narratives as having been penned with the intent of relating a verbatim conversation. A similar concern had been brought up in Kaminari's "a near miss was as good as a hit when it came to quotes" point in #113 of p5.

This is one matter that I would hope to look at in more detail, perhaps, to better clarify it. From all that I have seen so far in my studies, we don't really have any way to explain away any attempt of the writers of bio-historigraphical materials in that era, to be historical and factual in their writings.

The truthfulness, as I have suggested before, can be checked, and verified as best we can today. For example, in a recent NewScientist article--it's at home, and I'll identify it later--one researcher attempted to prove one Greek historian's account of how mirrow combinations were used to set fire to invading Roman ships; which had been denied possible, and thus untrue history by some other scientists. As it turned out, some number (greater than 10, I'll check and report) of mirrows were used in an array that actually did focus enough sunlight on a wooden model of the hull of a ship of that day to cause it to catch fire. The drawback was, however, that the time and distance required to ensure that that happened would not have been possible with moving objects floating in a even slightly rough sea. That historical report had obviously been false.

The biography, or historical report can be studied to determine whether it is just a tool in teaching, such as in mythology, or morale teachings, and thus not written with the intention of being real history-although it may sometimes be hard to conclude that the writer did not, in fact, see that as having been real history, and that's where we can find difficulty. One good example, out of the many, would be the stories in the life of Apollonius by Philostratus in the late second century--I'll supply a good one later, but the Talmud examples I gave in #104, p5 are good ones for that also.

Another style of historical recounting would be like that of the letter of Aristeas, which discribes the 'original' translating and penning of the Torah, into Greek--the LXX. It is well understood now, that that is historically untrue, most likely a pseudepigraphical (not in the strictess sense of meaning) work. Of course, the style of that document is different from the narrative style, but like those Greco-Roman documents of a historical nature, a work may read so as to be recounting what had taken place, and we have only to belive it or prove it wrong. It cannot be argued that such literature, as a common, accepted matter, was seen by all as not having to be truthful nor factual in its accounts

This is long enough, although I do have more to say about this. I'll post it next, or so. . .
 
Apologies for having mis-understood your intention there Sabro.

I have just completed an examination of the Greek Texts for the healing of the blind man/men (thorough, but not completely exhaustive), only the TR being looked into.

First, an analogy:

account 1: On its way out of the city, the bus was hailed by a man who wanted to go to Paradise. The driver told him that the bus was not going to Paradise, and that the bus going there would arrive in about 10 minutes. Passengers on the bus complained about the unnecessary delay.

account 2: On its way out of the city, the bus was hailed by two men who wanted to go to Paradise. The driver told them that the bus was not going to Paradise, and that the bus going there would arrive in about 10 minutes. Passengers on the bus complained that it was already late, and they did not appreciate the unnecessary delay.

Would anyone insist that there was a factual error and contradiction in these accounts? Or would the possibility be taken into account that there may in fact have been a total of three people who wanted a bus to Paradise?

Note the use of "that" preceding the accounts of what was said - these are paraphrases: had a quote been intended, "that" would not have been used, and quote marks would have been inserted. While Koine Greek does not have quote marks, the use of "that" is reversed. If in Koine Greek, the statement was made, "John said that ~," the ~ would be intended to be interpreted as a direct quote, otherwise it would be a report of the gist of the statement or conversation. The three accounts do not quote conversations, they simply report the gist of conversations and statements made in the events recorded.

Tabulating the accounts of Matthew, Mark, and Luke with regard to the healing of the blind in the neighbourhood of Jericho shows the following discrepancies.
* Matthew and Mark record that healings took place on the way from Jericho, with Luke recording that a healing took place on the way to Jericho. (not that Luke's account inherently states that it was on the way to, just that the next paragraph records the entry into Jericho.) In this matter, I find Luke's account perhaps mildly questionable, on the grounds that a crowd would logically be expected to follow a person out of the city, but not (unless it is specifically stated otherwise) to go out to meet someone.

The particulars of the accounts of the healing match in Mark and Luke, but not in Matthew. In Mark's and Luke's accounts, Jesus simply says that the blind man's faith has made him well, where in Matthew's account Jesus is recorded as having touched the mens' eyes.

Given that Luke's account matches so nearly Mark's account as to particulars, a claim that there is a discrepancy must be considered valid. However, the differences between Matthew's and the other two accounts CANNOT be shown to NOT result from two very similar events occurring within the same general time and place.
 
Howdy, howdy and howdy . . . some good research there Kaminari !! There are a few points which I would like to look at a little more. It will have to wait until Thursday, though. . . thanks for waiting. AND sorry...:sorry:
 
If I am correct in?@understanding that TR refers to the Textus Receptus, then I would suggest that it may not be that worthy a research tool. I would strongly suggest Nestle and Alands 27th ed. , Novum Testamentum Graece. It has all the apparatus that one basically needs, so you can see where other texts differ in any noticably major way.

I appreciate the analogies made, you did a good job there; yet would rather look at the text itself. I would say that you are correct in saying that the indefinite relative hoti ('that', in some cases) can be used to introduce a direct quote, yet wish to point out that it is yet different from quotation marks. It can, in the particular usage under discussion be used to put emphasis on what has been said, but it need not always refer to quotes, per se. Mt 16:20; 28:7; Mk 3:28; 11:23 (twice); Lk 15:7; 18:9 etc. In many, if not most of these cases, it would very much equal the English 'that'.

Again, we are pretty much obliged to understand that syntax and context provide us with the understandability of distinguishing between a direct quote and an indirect one. (I have pointed out indirect styles before) And in neither case, really, is it possible to claim to know that the writer is just giving a gist of what was said beyond the better knowledge of that particular writer or, rather that that writer really understood and intended the direct and immeadiate audience to understand that as what had been specifically said--after allowing marging for translation.

I we were to argue that Luke had known that the actual words of the blind man had been something other than what he had penned at 18:41--kyrie hina anablepso the question would remain as to 1) How could we possibly know that, and 2) Why wouldn't he have penned what he knew--especially when taken in light of his introduction. If we were to argue that Luke had actually known of Mark's text there, we would have to satisfy the question of why Luke had edited it. Which, naturally, we cannot.

The other points which I would like to look at will come later, but for now I would hope to really make the concept clear as to these direct quotes being understandable as exactly that, direct quotes with the intent to relay the understanding that it was the historical event, even if that were not the case. The lack of the Greek word hoti does not change that.

Greek English Lexicon of the New Testament, by J. Henry Thayer, pp3752-3756; A Greek Lexicon, by Liddel and Scott (at home, pages forgot to write down)
 
You seem to have access to somewhat better resources than I do MarsMan. (To quote a worthy source "envy, envy.") So I'll ask regarding Luke's use of "tufloV tiV", which, as I understand it, should translate direct from Koine Greek into Japanese as "目の見えない人や," but which defies any real direct translation into English. Do your sources give a more detailed or contradictory explanation?

kurie ina anableysw as opposed to rabboni ina anableysw. hmmm... It would seem that either one or both of the writers did not know the precise wording, or if they both knew the precise wording - there would necessarily be close similarities between two different events. Luke's accounts, if I have read his preambles correctly, are at third hand until somewhen about 1/3 of the way through Acts, when he picks up with Paul's group.

With regard to this particular sequence, any claim of contradiction can be subject to legitimate challenges. It cannot be demonstrated that there were no crowds on the approach to Jericho, and the similarity of the accounts is in no way conclusive proof of someone getting a detail wrong. As a pastor, I could not possibly use it in a teaching environment.

Just as a BTW though, while I was reading up on this, I noticed that we have two different versions of who asked that James and John sit to the right and left of Jesus when the latter comes into his kingdom. One version has their mother asking, another has them asking - in that, we do have a demonstable contradiction.
 
Last edited:
I can believe it, but dmmmmmmt !! (rant, rant) I had finished a nice answer there, giving the answers to the question you'd asked Kaminari, and explaining the agreement on some other points and giving some detail on tha Jericho scene's understanding, and you know what? At the very end, giving my bibilography, I accidently hit the control button with my wrist--- and wala !! VANISHING ACT BEFORE YOUR VERY EYES !!!!!!!!

I will get back. I have to go do my private lessons now. See you ! :p :p :p :auch:
 
Thanks Kaminari san for the compliments. I too wish I had better sources, although I do have some, and get regular journals and forums from the Society of Biblical Literature. Thank you.

Firstly the usage of the term tuflos (in case this doesn't work) tuphlos (or typhlos ? not sure about the vowel sound here.) All the writers use it in that scene, and Thayer's Lexicon gives it the meaning of 'darken by smoke'. In the LXX it translates the Hebrew i'ver (adj) which means 'blind'. (A Hebrew & English Lexicon of the Old Testament, by Brown, Driver, and Briggs; p734) This Hebrew word is of the same root as the verb 'to make blind, or put out ones eyes.' Another book on Greek vocabulary I have does not give any further discussion of it other than the equivalent English word, which would be 'blind'.

That's a good point there about Luke's sources, as far as I have seen, that is a most correct understanding. I agree with you 100% that all claims of contradiction, or seemingly so, contradictions should be subject to legitimate challenges--here and at other places. That is most important, as it should be in any 'scientific methodologically studied project. I'm glad to know that you understand the importance of that.

Let's look at this:
In this thread I chose Luke's writing as the base from which to go simply because only he claimed any degree of accuracy. (Lk 1:3; (it) seemed good also, to me, having followed closely from the top (or start) all (things) accurately, to write according to logical order to you...) In that regard, we could say that I would holding his report as the control--taking it as being like that tape recording of the events. I then hold it (for the sake of looking at it methodolocially only) to be the true story of what happened.

(The English I use, I translated pretty directly from the recension of the Westcott and Hort text, check up on by the Nestle and Aland recension. I had made photo copies of the synotptics and laid them out side by side to ease the study process, and it did help at that time.)

Lk 18:35--(it) occured, but, in the getting near (of) him into Jericho...
Mt 20:29--And going out (of) them from Jericho. . . .
Mk 10:46--And (they)are coming into Jericho. And going out (of) him
.........................from Jericho. . .

There can be no mistake here, as far as I can determine, that if we were to take Luke's account as being the correct history for this most obviously single event being reported on, Matthew and Mark's claims are in error on this point of direction of movement.

Please notice that Luke 18:39--kai hoi proagontes epetimon auto hina sigese. . . (and the (ones) going before were giving reprimands (to) him in order that he should be silent. . .) is indirect quotation. If this had been a direct quote the verb declension would have likely been kai hoi proagontes epetimon legoutes hoti sigethe, using the imperative form for second person.

If we were to take Luke's report as being accurate in reporting, Mattew's having Jeshua ask, "What are you (second person plural) wanting me to do (to) you?" would automatically be unhistorical, because the second person singular verb declension would have been spoken.

For the above reasons, I had assigned this particular scene with three points of historical error. One error in Matthew's account is that writer's having two blind men there at that point in time on the way up to Jerusalem, when our held-to-be-true (for the time being) report by Luke claims that there had only been one blind man there. One more error is in the other reports having the troupe going out of Jericho, rather than into it, as Luke asserts is truly what happened. The third and final error is in Matthew's claiming to know that Jeshua had used the second person plural verb form rather than the second person singular form. Altogether, three counts of historical error. (I even ignored the difference of direct quotes between Luke and Mark on the address to Jeshua; rabboni or kurie.) This conclusion appears most sound to me. I have considered some arguments that had been pointed out earlier on this thread in the past, and found them considerably lacking.

As you noticed, Kaminari, there are actually quite a few of these if one looks very, very carefully--something which I find many do not take the time to do in a very deep observational mind-set. I'll explain a little more about your recent find in that 'asking to be at the right hand' by them or their mother in the next post.
 
Regarding the texts of Mt 20:20-28 .vs. Mk 10:35-45

I had stated in my #12 post on page one, with that first 'Historical Errors' data, that the reason I had taken up the story from that final trip up to Jerusalem was because all agree that the historical flow was in chronological order in that section. (earlier areas do have some, and could have more double-backing and forward leaping, than this latter section--although I reason the earlier area had actually been intended to be in more chronological order than some will admit, due to its chaotic nature.)

There is a thing called 'sliding' where the presentation of one character slides into that of another. (Young's Analytical Concordance, pg ?[at home]) It could be taken that the request of the sons had been proceeded through their mother, although the source of such a desire had been the sons. It is one possible understanding, in which we could not really claim any major error in the historical element. It is equally possible though, since we have no outside evidence, that each writer had intended the history to have been just as it was written, with the source being the mother herself for one writer, and the sons, for the other.

A similar type possible 'slide' phenomenon can be seen in the army officer encounter of Mt 8:5-13 .vs. Lk 7:2-10. Matthew uses the single person to do the talking at first, but Luke uses the group sent out by that single person to do it. I reason, nevertheless, that the writer of Matthew understood that version to have been how it had really transpired (while Luke, his own) because the quote given at Mt 8:13 uses second person singular, and specifically states that Jeshua had said it to that person himself--which would not fit the account given by Luke. Check it out carefully, please, and let me know what you think there.

There are a lot of other places that we should discuss, in time, such as just when it was that Jeshua's mother and brothers had come to visit him in that crowded house-like situation (before the parable of the 'sower' or after it). And the trip across the lake, in relation to parable is twisted too. There are some which I pointed out today on the 'Christianity: Conceptions and Misconceptions' thread which may carry more weight since they are clearer. I will go into them soon, but would still like to hear from you with this line of thought which we have been working on since your #134 post. Talk to you later !! :wave:
 
John 19:13,14 says:(translating rather directly from the Greek text itself)
"Therefore the Pilate having heard (of) the words these, led the Jeshua outside and (he)[Pilate] sat down upon step into (a) place called Stone pavement--in Hebrew, but, Gabbatha. 14 was, but, preparation (of) the passover, hour was as sixth. And (he)[Pilate] is saying (to) the Jews, See the king (of) you." The sixth hour is 12 noon.

Luke 23:44 says: " And was already as hour sixth and darkness occurred upon whole the earth until hour ninth"
And don't overlook the fact that Mark claims that it was the third hour, nine am, that he had been impaled (Mk 15:24,25).

How is it possible to say that all these claims can be historically true? :eek:kashii:
 
Now the footnotes from Ryrie- which I have no way of checking- give methe following explanation- Jews and Gentiles recorded the begining of days and times differently- John, being Jewish wrote in Aramaic and for him the day begins at sunset...the 6th hour to him would have been either midnight (or possibly from another bible's footnote 6 am). Luke, a gentile, whose day begins at sunrise...wrote in Greek and the 6th hour would have been noon. (Which works okay with Mark's account-- it would mean the crucifixion began sometime around 9am, and Jesus bled out about noon...the religious leaders then would want the bodies down by sunset.)
 
Thanks for that input there sabro san ! It almost amazes me--though not really--at the length so many scholarly religionists (as opposed to religious scholars and scholars of religious knowledge) go to !! Wow.

It is something that we can check into, of course, and I would suggest that we do that, however, up to this point in my studies I can say with surety we can rely on the following:

1. The work attributed to John had not been written by the apostle himself, nor alone, and had not been penned in Aramaic. These are as sure as you're gonna get on that matter.

2. The starting point of the Jewish day was at sundown, whereas for the Greco-Roman world, it was a sunup. The Jews had their own special calendar and year count that had been based on tradition in their religion that was different from that of the Greco-Roman world. Nevertheless, the system for counting the hours of the day had been that of the Greco-Roman world, and it is what everyone understood--literate or illiterate.

Just like that information that Pararousia had quoted back on her #137 post on page 6 of the 'Christianity Concepts &...' thread and those by Overcomer on this one, I see 'understood-by-overall-scholarship-to-be-the-truer' facts mixed with 'known-by-fuller-scholarship-to-be-least-likely' wishful thinking. We are not only obligated to fully screen the details of any argument in order to fully see the possibilties to where a line of argumentation can lead us, but to also apply reasonablness in light of known matters related to the details as well.

Providing misinformation in the form of fixed blocks, with an air of being decided in scholarly circles, as so many of the materials and arguments presented by religionists who are scholarly in nature do, is not fair for those who have no access to other sources before they have been led to an understanding. I really have a bone to pick with such people !!!!

Sabro, in this matter, we can easily conclude that no effort by some to force these actually separate documents into a concurring whole context, will provide the public with the truth of the matter. The sixth hour was the sixth hour of the day as counted by the world at that time, the Greco-Roman world, and not from some Jewish system. Matthew's account is right in line with the Didache (they are closely related) which was written in Aramaic--and the Logios (Words of Jesus) had most likely been in that format--and Matthew's account agrees with Mark's and Luke's. John's account had been written so long after the event, by a number of people, some of whom had not been actually witnesses, that the tradition got bent a little, and so that narrative has given us the judgement scene at noon. The contradiction is because the information came from the memory of the humans who wrote those documents; and as we all know, human memory slips from time to time--that's all.

However, if you were to still require further evidence on this, I'd be happy to supply it, in time. Or, if you have any commentaries trying to patch up the historical error in order to protect a tenent, I'd be happy to counter-argue those too--in time. (I'd have to pull all my strings and stops for that, so it'd take some time) Otherwise, the above, I do assure you, is the greater understanding and the most evidenced, and accepted among total scholarship.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

This thread has been viewed 6631 times.

Back
Top