• Don't want to see ads? Install an adblocker like uBlock Origin or use a Europe-based privacy-friendly browser like Vivaldi or Mullvad.

Religion Biblical Texts: Explication and Discussion

There were two disciples named Judas, Judas Iscariot and Judas son of James. I think the gospel in question was penned by the former, or at least dictated.

Interestingly enough,where the lists of apostles appear in the gospels, about eight to ten are almost always consistent, but for the other two to four-- they don't match up- giving different names (ie Levi/Matthew) for the same people-- omitting one and substituting others...
 
Mitsuo Oda said:
Would you agree that the bible is very gender bias. I mean to go as far as to say that women were made out of the rib of man. I think that made women think that men were the superior gender back then, which made it easier for men to treat women the way they wanted.
I don't know if that was mentioned. I still have to read more. You guys are in so much more depth than me. I have to read some things over again. Sorry, if I make any stupid comments. Im trying to keep up and do my best.
later
Click to expand...
In a sense you're right, but I don't think it's in a negative mannor. When it says woman was made from the rib of man, I don't think is was implying that man takes charge over woman, and woman is less than him. It says later in Corinthians that as Jesus is head over the church, man should head over woman. From a relationship point of view, it's saying wives be obedient to your husbands, and husbands respect and watch over your wives. It's not saying wives are less, we're all equal. Just that men are to look over women as Jesus looks over and directs the church.
 
Morning at the tomb scene.

I will go ahead, and go into that last point that I had raised to our long since missing posting partner Pararousia in the 'Christianity: Conceptions &' thread, that of the historical nature of the scene presented by the several Gospel accounts about the morning at the tomb, on the first day of the week.

The first point is the time of day. The writer of Luke claims that it had been in the early dawn that the women who had come out of Galilee, Mary Magdalene, Joanna and Mary the mother of James and others (Lk 23:49,55,56; 24:1, 10), went to the tomb taking the spices they had prepared.

The writer of Mark claims that the two Marys and Salome--at the least, we can take it-- had gone to the tomb in the very early morning after the sun had risen. (Mk 16:1, 2)

The writing accredited to Matthew says it was when the day was lighting up when the two Marys came.

The editor(s) of John tell us that it was still dark when only Mary Magdalene had gone to the tomb.

The attempts that I have seen claiming that all scenarios can be combined to make one true history lean heavily into pleading. After looking over the whole of the stories related, it can be seen that the answer most obviously lies in the several authors having different ideas of just what had happened. I will go into that slowly.
 
Again, taking Luke to be the historically correct report for the development of the argument, the following can be seen. (note: please recall that 'YOU' is plural second person, whereas 'you' is singular.)

At Luke 24:2 we have the women come to the tomb and finding the stone having been rolled away. They then enter the tomb, and having entered they do not find the body. [we would have to think that it would have been light enough to see inside the tomb]

24:4--While they were perplexed, suddenly two male persons (andres) stood forth (very literally, 'stood upon', showing an emphasis) The suddenness of their appearance is shown in the 'Look' imperative.

24:5--They said, "Why are YOU looking for the living with [among] the dead (ones)?

24:6--This verse is considered spurious by Wescott/Hort [thus their conclusion is that it had not been in the earliest exemplar] and is shown to missing in 'D' and 'it' by Nestle/Aland. They went on to say, "Remember as/like he spoke to YOU yet being in Galilee, saying the son of man (anthropou) it is necessary to be handed over into the hands of men (anthropon) sinners, and be impaled and (of) the third day stand up/rise."

Up to this point we will find error in the historical report provided by the 'John' document; John 20:1~18.

That report has Mary Magdalene going to the tomb by herself--again, while it was still dark [even assuming that allowable word usage would not have to necessarily be pre-twilight, it could not be after the sun had risen in any understanding of word usage by those same writers.]

After having seen the tomb opened, she ran back to where Simon and (possibly) John had been, telling them, and then running back to the tomb with them. They went in, one by one, it seems, and found the bandages rolled up but no body. The text then inserts here, and this is important, that they had not yet known the scripture that it was necessary (for) Jeshua to stand up/rise out of/from dead (ones).

At verse 11, while the other two had gone back, Mary was at the tomb weeping. She went inside and then she beheld two angels sitting where the body had been [one at the head, one at the foot--again an important point]. They ask, "Women why are you weeping?" She answers but no reply is recorded. She turns to see Jeshua, who asked, "Woman why are you weeping? Whom are you seeking?" Upon her realizing it was Jeshua, he said, "Do not touch me because not yet have I ascended towards the father. Go to my brothers and say to them I am ascending towards the father (of me) and father (of YOU) and god (of me) and god (of YOU)."
She goes off and reports to the others, telling them what he had said to her [another important point].

In the following post, I will present the basics of Mark's account and a few of Matthew's, before looking at the historical errors more closely.
 
I doesn't seem clear to me that there is a clear discrepency in the timeline here. I'm not certain I can connect the dots here, Mars... I don't see anything in one account that excludes any of the other versions.
 
OK, let me get back with that a bit latter, if I may, after first giving the points in the Gospels of Mark and Matthew.

The time line can be forced, it's true, to have no contradiction depending on how one takes the intention behind word usage. That's where one problem lies. I'll get back on it. Thanks for the reply.
 
Mark 16:3--Has the women thinking about who would roll the stone out of the doorway for them as (or before) going to the tomb. When they arrive, the extremely great [a rather direct translation of the Greek] stone had been rolled away. [Note that Matthew 28:2 has an angel do that in a big earthquake when the women had come to view the grave, and that that angel had been sitting on the stone.]

Mark 16:5--They go into the tomb, they encountered a young man (neaniskon) sitting on the right side who said, "Do not be stunned. Jeshua, YOU are seeking, the Nazarene, the (one) put on the stake was stood up/raised up. He is not here. See! the place where they had put him. But YOU go say to the disciples (of him) and to Peter [and for Mark's writing, this insertion has meaning of affection] that he is going before YOU into Galilee. There YOU will see him according as he told YOU.

At verse 8, they flee the scene, in fear and joy, and told no one.

The short and long endings are of course extremely doubtful and are double bracketed by both Westcott/Hort and Nestle/Aland 27th. That is understood by the earlier extant texts and by a careful anaysis of the content of those addages.

In the next post I put here, I will go into more detail and reasoning on what can be seen and understood here, and in what way there is error. It may be a few days though.
 
Regarding the time lines presented in the four accounts of the morning at the tomb, it would be best, for the person really interested in looking at it closely to see what it shows itself to be, it would be best to copy the four accounts, cut them out and paste them one under the other one a single sheet of paper. In that way, the mind can more easily notice subtile differences in the communications.

With the way this posting thing goes, as I found out from the beginning, it is not easy to do here, because margins cannot be controlled--or I just don't know how to do it. But I will attempt something of the sorts, below. I'll omit verse numberings and will go in this order....

Luke.....John......Mark......Matthew

On one (of the) sabbaths [first day of the week] in deep dawn they came to the tomb

On one (of the) sabbaths ["] Mary the Magdalene is coming early (of) darkness yet being to the tomb

Having come to be finished (of) the sabbath [the ladies] exceedingly early...are coming to the tomb

Any effort to harmonize these will first have to give credit to the charge that there is indeed, in the first place, a need to harmonize them--otherwise there would be no need to harmonize them. The fact that there is a need to harmonize them clearly proves that there is at least on the surface of what is called 'the plain' meaning, disagreement among the several reports.

This fact, in turn, tends to support the understanding that a single individual is not responsible for these several historical reports--they are without a doubt historical. Therefore the information contained within these reports rely on human construct. [not used here in the strictest sense, but that of events recorded by some means in the brain]

In looking at those four reports, we can say that it would have had to been early in the morning, but was it after the sun had risen--usually taken to be coming into visability over the horizon--or had it been while things were still in darkness--say, for this time of year, around 4:30~5:00 am?

The word used for darkness in John, skotias is used to contrast 'darkness' with 'light', and is used very strictly as a night time matter. We could yet see the 'early darkness' as leaving some room, in the mind of the writer or editor for simply very early in the morning, yet even so, not for a period of time after the sun had risen.

If we acquiese that all of them had had twilight in mind even, we still have to admit that the wording in Mark's work [quite likely the base source for Luke and to a degree Matthew] disagrees with that in John's work. [and keep in mind that the apostle John may not have been the editor of the work and that possible at least four people had worked together to write that, with one of them editing it.]

I argue that the conclusion quite clearly shows that a single individual who had known exactly at what time of day it had been, is not responsible for the information contained in three of the choices [holding one to be a true and accurate report] and that yet, it cannot be definitely ascertained which one may be truer or truest to the facts.

I will discuss the other points next, unless there is feedback to this consideration. I would hope that arguments could be clearly laid out with their supporting parts. :wave:
 
The next bottle-neck comes with the reporting of the 'angel' spottings. According to Luke's work, the ladies were in the tomb, wondering over what may have happened when two men in shinning garments appeared. Those related the message that Jeshua would go in advance of them into Galilee, and then it is said that the ladies recalled having been told that by Jeshua. No one is to have seen Jeshua here. (because that is to be done later)

Now the document of Matthew linguistically insinuates that an 'angel of the lord' descended out of heaven and rolled away the stone covering the tomb as or after the ladies had arrived there, and sat down on it. And then, as the ladies were frozen in shock, that angel told them that Jeshua, for whom they were looking, had been raised up and would go ahead of them into Galilee. Then, after leaving the tomb, they meet Jeshua, touch his feet, and do obeisance to him.

Mark kind of goes along with a mixture of the two--although it is most widely considered that Luke and Matthew's texts pick and chose and built upon that of Mark's. If one were to carefully compare them, the differences can be seen.

The Gospel of John gives us a very different picture. First of all, there is no room for any angels. Secondly, she is said to have run off to John and Peter in contextual setting that has no room for any mention of the knowledge of meeting in Galilee--although Tiberius comes up later, after two previous appearances. Thirdly, Jeshua did not allow Mary, in John's account, to touch him--again nothing about any plans to meet in Galilee come up. (which in itself does not show lack of knowledge of such, but remains questionable in light of the whole single context idea and differences in that context with the other writers.)

If Luke is the true historical event, the others contain errors.
 
I have gone over at least two varying attempts to harmonize thist tomb scene, which only goes to show that the several narratives do not harmonize at face value. Anyway. . .

Again, holding Luke's account to be historically correct the following will amount to counts of historical error:

1. Mary Magdalene didn't go to the tomb alone in the early morning.

2. The claim to know that an angel had come down from heaven and had rolled away the stone as the women had arrived causing a great earthquake, and had sat down on it and had spoken to them.

3. The claim to know that there had been one young man in a white robe sitting inside the tomb when the women had gone in it.

4. The claim that any of the eleven had gone to the tomb with any of the women very early in the morning. (cross-examine by Lk 24:1,2,9,11)

5. The claim to know that any angels had told the women to tell the disciples to go to a pre-arranged meeting place in Galilee. (Luke's gospel narrative does not connect very smoothly with his following letter to that person--that is Acts--but yet leaves no real room for that matter.)

The latter portion of Luke (24:13~32) has been well argued to be a tool in Hebraic symbolism, in a paper in one issue of The Journal of Biblical Literature. I have that at the school, and so cannot provide the bibliography here. I may do so later, but would first like to look into the question asked by sabro as to why I doubt the historicity of the 'spearing Jeshua while he was still on the stake' insert.
 
This is in answer to sabro question as to how I reason that the 'spear in the side while on the stake' insert is not reliable or believable.

The insert, or scene, comes up in the Gospel according to John. There are two primary considerations to keep in mind--one, each instrument is complete context of itself; two, the document carrying John's name is the lastest writing of the canonical group and likely had been compiled by a number of people. (this latter point simply highlights that although that document cannot be shown to have knowledge of the other texts, it cannot be disregarded that the writer(s) could have known of them. [not the tradition, the texts])

John 19:31~34 describes the Jewish leaders having asked Pilate to have the legs of those impaled broken. While doing so, as the report goes, they are to have found Jeshua already dead, so they didn't break his legs. One soldier, however, is said to have jabbed his spear into Jeshua's side from which blood and water are to have come out. There is an immediate appeal to believe this as it had been witnessed by a man (John is the insinuation) who himself is said to know that he himself tells true things.

John 20:26~29 reports the scene where Jeshua (after resurrection) is said to have appeared in the room where the disciples were and to have challenged Thomas to put his hand into Jeshua's side--implying the spear wound--as well as to touch the nail wounds on his hands. The emphasis here is on the importance of believing, and that carries on into verses 30,31 too.

Luke's narrative gives no report of a spear jab/wound at all, even though there is ample room to insert that point at 24:39--if the writer knew of it. (see Lk 23:32~46, 24:36~43) The most reasonable conclusion, rather than that known information of a historical fact had been purposefully withheld, is that the writer knew of no such event.

Up to this point, it only be seen that the fourth gospel does not agree with the third one. However, the synoptics more favorably agree here, so the bulk of validity would surely go with those. There are other points which could be brought up, but which I'll leave aside for now. (please notice Lk 23:46,49 in cross-examination with Jn 19:30,25 respectively; the tomb scene, etc.)

I'll have to get the journal, it's not here either (if in fact it was one of the journals that I had read it in) but there are some good theories on the symbolism which especially the works of John or editors of his troupe used. The symbolism is very obvious in Revelation, and in early Christianity as well, about water purification and that of the blood 'rite' if you will. These could be being played on here. Fragment Oxyrhynchus 840. . .Witness of an Early Christian Controversy over purity, by Francois Bovon (The Divinity School, Harvard University) SBL VOL 119, No.4, 2000; pp 705~728

The purpose for the writing of that document does not lend itself to so clearly show any purpose to be filling in where the other accounts are silent, as well. Syntactical and Text-Critical Observations on John 20:30~31--one more round on the Purpose of the Fourth Gospel, by D.A. Carson (Trinity Evangelical Divinity School) SBL VOL 124, No. 4, 2005; pp 693~714

I'll try to run down the more specific paper, but the two above do touch on that area to some degree, while focusing on a different point.

I'll post this much now--not that there is more to input, but maybe just to point out. :-)
 
Now, going back to post #250 on page 10, I'd like to provide the essence of the understanding that can be taken on the symbolism involved in Luke 24--especially verses 13~49. I would love to lay out the whole data base and argument, but will refrain--otherwise we'd end up with the likes of those posts on 2 Peter 3:15~17.

Where is Emmaus? Clues in the text of Luke 24 in Codex Bezae by J. Read-Heimerdinger (in the collection of papers of the first Birmingham Colloquium on the textual Criticism of the New Testament--Studies In the Early Text of the Gospels and Acts, pp 229~244; Society of Biblical Literature) is the title of the work.

The textual forms of Luke are generally more so divided into two: Alexandrian (AT) and Western (WT). The major and common representatives of AT is Codex Sinaiticus (alph01) and Codex Vaticanus (B03). The major player in WT is Codex Bezae (D05).

At verse 24:13, B03 gives us Emmaous as the name of the town to which the two men were to have been going while D05 gives us Oulammaous. That latter reading only comes up in the Greek and Latin sides of D05 textual tradition and in some LXX versions of the story of Jacob fleeing his brother, and seeing the ladder.

The name of that place was formerly Luz, but had then been Beth-El, which fact seems to have been mistaken (but possibly deliberately) by LXX scribes, and thus a 'misreading' of the Hebrew into Greek resulting in the LXX giving us Oulammaous there. The details show that there is a special connotation in the word usage. On top of that D05 also chooses the word Nazopaios (the Nazarine, vs 19) which is the Messianic overtone, rather than the nationalistic Nazarenos used by AT.

The name of the town given by AT, Emmaous, is found in the account about the Maccabean wars ( I Macc 3:40, 57; 4:3) as a literal location where a battle had occured, with no 'spiritual' overtones. However that location is more like one hundred sixty stadia from Jerusalem--which may well account for alph01's reading as an attempt to overcome that distance problem. Trying to understand Bethel as the intended location does not fit either. Therefore, in the final analysis, the evidence for Luke's intention to be symbolic rather than a literal event is strongest.

I intend to present details of the Pauline Corpus starting in the next run of posts.
 
I just wanted to let you know that I have read your posts to my mom, and she enjoys it very much.

She says that it's great that you're doing this, because it helps people look at multiple ways of thinking, instead of one set way of thinking.
 
Wow...that was a bit of a surprize, Mitsuo Oda san, thanks for the inside story there. I will come back soon with the continuation of the Pauline letters part. Hang in there...and thanks for your comments !!
 
Mars Man said:
Wow...that was a bit of a surprize, Mitsuo Oda san, thanks for the inside story there. I will come back soon with the continuation of the Pauline letters part. Hang in there...and thanks for your comments !!
Click to expand...


Lol.

Yeah, sorry I haven't been much help in discussing this with you guys. But for now it's good for me to just read on. I don't want get anything wrong, or in the way.

Looking forward to it!!
 
sabro said:
I think you should also look into where the gospels describe the birth year of Jesus. Luke lists a governor of Syria (Cyrenius) that would not have been working at the same time Herod-- who had died three years before he took office. http://www.religioustolerance.org/xmas_date.htm#year
Click to expand...

Will do. I have looked at it a little bit, but primarily as to how various Hebrew canonical and non-canonical texts were used and at various attempts to connect the 'star' concept with astronomical events in history.

Interesting link there, and I will take the time to have a look at it in the relatively near future. Thanks !!
 
The document written to one Theophilus as a follow up to an earlier narrative of Jeshua's travels and teachings, is for the most part an attempt to write a history of the development of the first century Messianic movement. The writer was in Paul's troupe, and thus focuses mostly on his trips and experiences than on what had been happening in Judea or Galilee.

In that document, we find that Paul and his troupe had visited a town named Thessalonica during his second trip (if my memory serves me right). (1 Thess 17:1) He is said to have started a group of followers there from among those of the synagogue he had visited, but didn't stay there so long; he later wrote to them, however.

Some letters attributed to Paul traditionally are questioned as to authenticity--especially, for example the letter to the Hebrews, 1 and 2 Timothy, and 2 Thessalonians. 1 Thessalonians, however, is considered to be one of the seven letters authentically from Paul, without any editor's hands and with little, if any, spurious lines. It is also seen to be the earliest copied letter that had been handed down. (It cannot be said just how many letters, notes, and commands Paul had sent to those groups in written form.)
For those reasons, I will start there in looking at the works left behind by Paul and his troupe.

The method of looking at these documents could be said to be a combination of textual critical and literary methods, but perhaps more than that, just an analysis of the historical, linguistical and textual content of the individual documents. I will explain that in my next post as I go into the letter entitled 1 Thessalonians, written, as it is most widely accepted, around the year 50 CE.
 
NOTE: In looking at these, I have kept in mind the reminder provided by the author of the Muratorian Fragment (c. 170) that one can understand the what and why's of the epistles by looking at them. I have focused on the elements of genre, direct and immediate audience, and, universal & timeless element/principle.

Thessalonians 1 is a representative of the earliest remaining written records of first century Christian activity by that body. It is a letter that one Paul had written to the elders of a congregation which he had set up.

1:1~10--From this running context, it is clear that the document is one of correspondence from Paul's troupe to those in Thessalonica, Greece. The subject of the verb forms in vs 2. is the second person plural pronoun and is used at all instances of second person. Verse 9's ending implies that the letter had been written to the non-Jewish elements of the congregation.

2:1~20--From this running context, it is clear that the need was felt for some reassurance and praise for that immediate and direct audience, and at the same time, to perhaps explain why Paul had not been able to visit.

It is important to grasp the historicity of the situation and setting behind the what and why of what is written. Verses 2~4 are to give authority to Paul's teachings. It is also important to take mental note of verses 2, 13--Paul had written there about what had already taken place (Acts 17:1). Some try interpret the terms 'goodnews of god' and 'word of god' as having the NT or the aggregate contents of NT as their referents--this is incorrect.

Up to this point, we find that what had been communicated in the letter thus far, is history based and caused. The elements of what had been written were to a direct and immediate audience for a very locked-in-history reason and therefore there is extremely little universal & timeless principle intended.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top