• 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

I was honestly sorry to have learned that my interest in knowing how you had felt about that, sabro, would have drawn a response of that quality. I would have expected as much from those who more often than not, tend to speak through megaphones. . .

I appreciate the honesty implied in your wording, and do not hold it against you as a person. I would yet like to point out a number of things; just for the record, and for those who may be following.

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.

The time spent, is not in finding, but in writing up what I have found; the 'finding' element having essentially finished. I would in no way whatsoever deny that I do have an 'agenda'--though not necessarily for this forum nor just through this means of communicating--in sharing what I and others have learned through more careful and broarder research than the greater majority of the 'simply churched'. It is not on the Gospel accounts alone, by any means, that is just one point among others, and I will admit, it isn't for everyone--not all can wade through the volume.

There are yet a great number of things, in the line of thought that I've been working on which need to be pointed out, yet I am at a bit of a loss at the moment--do I continue in detail?, only present the major lines of thought?, or just drop it all altogether.

You see, it's kind of like this, to be brief here, the three synotptic narratives are three distinctly individual works by non-witnesses to the events written on. All the three canoical works are considered to most likely have been based on a source labeled 'Q', and Matthew's as most likely being intertwined with the Didache and the Logia, out of Syria during the seventh to eighth decade of the first century. (Matthew and the Didache: Two Documents from the Same Jewish-Christian Milieu? ;Assen: Van Gorcum, 2005--this is an assembled scholarship work) According to John is even more 'evangelizing' than the other three, but likewise has roots in oral tradition--even considering the Muratorian Fragment's claim of John and Andrew both being among those who compiled it. The oral tradition makes the body of Christian history, and to a large degree, teaching.

Therefore, even though occasional parallels had obviously been drawn on from Hellinistic and Rabbinic stories, and some embelishment occured (Narrative Parallels to the New Testament, [SBL RESOURCES FOR BIBLICAL STUDY 22]. Fancis Martin 1988; STUDIES IN THE EARLY TEXT OF THE GOSPELS AND ACTS D.G.K Taylor 1999) the narratives are giving the historical account to the degree that they can well be 'classified as instances of Greco-Roman Biography.' (ibid) They can thus be tested on their historicity as equally as any biography from that era and culture can.

There is so much more I can add here. . .I'll let this sit for a while, think about what to do, then come back. If there are any comments by others, on the presentation structure, I'd like to hear you. On hold--for a while. MM
 
I, of course, have to agree with Sabro that these lengthy ramblings seem more like an obsession. Please don't be personally offended, Mars, but when you say things like: "I would in no way whatsoever deny that I do have an 'agenda'--though not necessarily for this forum nor just through this means of communicating--in sharing what I and others have learned through more careful and broarder research than the greater majority of the 'simply churched' ", that it is rather insulting. I, as well as others, have given you good, sound objections to your arguments which you have dismissed totally as ignorance. So why go on? You're not convincing me of anything but your liberalism and bias. I'm sorry again to be so blunt, but, if nothing else, this will save you time and effort. Our arguments are as sound as yours but because you disagree, you simply cannot SEE our points. There is no discussion in this topic, only a lengthy diabribe. Many of the same passages that you see as error, I see as the power of God working through different people with different personalities and writing styles. Where you see fragments, I see a long continuous preservation of history that covers over 5,000 years. Where you see error, I see the faithfulness of God. *shrugs* So again, my opinion. Feel free to disagree.
 
I appologize if my response was offensive. I was not meant as a slap. I read your (Mars Man's) posts diligently and carefully, and I was entirely underwhelmed. It is probably because I am the wrong person to disect biblical details with, and a few words or details here or there concerns me very little. I don't see them as "historical errors." It seems like the normal amout of variation you would find by picking up four different news sources or interviewing four different witnesses to the same event. Details vary slightly, but the core event and the meaning one might draw from it is unchanged.

I put my bias right out there- that I totally believe in God, and that belief is largely dogmatic... so debunking the bible with me is sort of a futile excercise that has little chance of success. Still, I believe that everyone deserves the time and care and at least the appearance of respect. Keep digging and seeking and you will find the truth.
 
Last edited:
Good morning there folks !!

sabro, I greatly appreciate the apologetical essence of your most recent post, although I will be frank in saying that I took nor felt any offense by your earlier post; but perhaps my use of 'sorry' could have been misleading. I aplogize for that ! As I had mentioned at least twice, it's (the detail involved, etc.) not for everybody. It did seem that the quality of that response had not been you, if you catch what I mean; that's all. I have seen you as being careful in thinking out things, and it seemed to have been lacking. Again, I have no hard feelings at all, and was not offended, yet am very grateful for your consideration of the possible situation.

I will point out here, that in my #76 post, final paragraph, I had primarily had others in mind, and the explanations laid out in #81, were not directly nearly so much towards all your earlier posts, as it was simply for clarification for all those following. Pararousia seems to have felt some offense with that, and others too, perhaps--I will go into that later. This post is for you, sabro. I would hope that your last comments there, would help in bolstering the acknowlegement that the search is far from over, for humanity. :-)
 
Last edited:
I'm glad to hear from you Mars Man. I'm certain you put a lot of work into this and I don't want to be dismissive at all. The problem is, I am having trouble understanding what you are saying. For example:

Mars Man said:
Historical errors in the Gospel Narratives #6b

We are looking at a discourse which the writers are claiming Jeshua had told his followers on that day, in the Jewish month of Nisan, just a couple of days or so before the 14th-- it has been thought to be. It is in a single, continuing flow of thought development through words and sentences, as any speech would naturally be. It is a report on the history of what had been said by Jeshua.

>Luke 21 (again, these bold headings are the chapters of the document)
20 has 'Jerusalem being encircled by encamped armies, know that the desolation of her has drawn near.'

.....Mt 24
. 15 has 'the disgusting thing of desolation, that spoken through Daniel the prophet, having stood in a holy place.'

..........Mk 13
. 14 has 'the disgusting thing of the disolation having stood where it ought not to (stand)'

This is one count of historical error. In the span of the idea developed which concurs fairly enough, it is only reasonable and realistic to conclude that two of the full claims cannot be true history, therefore an error has occured, and it is historical in nature; a historical error.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure what the difference between the three narratives is, or why it should make a difference, or why it qualifies as an Historical Error.

Please forgive me for being dense. (Bossel can testify as to my mental density at times.) I do have a couple of master's degrees and I fear my learning has made me stupid. Can you explain this example in simpler terms?
 
Pararousia, my dear Alabamian sister,

I'm glad to have recieved input from you, as well as to have been able to get back directly with you, at this point. As with sabro's earlier post, I take no offense at all with what you have related. I'm glad that you are honest with your feelings, regardless of what they may be--thank you. Like we all are, I am quite capable of not being so clear with word usage, and I just came up with the notion that there could possibly have been a misconception in my usage of the word 'simply' there. It was used in the sense of 'only'--that is, to that degree and no further.

I wish to ask you, in mildness, and with good intentions, to read and conscientiously meditate on what I will say and point out in the following, please:

The purpose to be served by this particular thread, was fairly and clearly enough laid out in the first post of this thread--I reason that there can be little room for misunderstanding there, if one were to apply oneself. Then, on top of that, it was kind of Mycernius to open the '(mis/con)ceptions' thread, if you will recall, particularly for you and I to continue the discussion which had been on the 'Missionaries' thread. I have been working on that continuation, but I decided to lay down a foundation upon which to debate and consider statements and points made--a thing which takes, and commands a certain amount of patience and willingness to suspend conclusion for a degree of time.

I am quite willing to go back to my #180, p 8 (Aug 6) and discuss just how it is that your objections [your #184, p8 (Aug 8)] are invalid, and to what degree they are so, on all the textual and historical points. I would be quite willing to exhaustively cover it all, if you were too. By doing so, there could be no room, as far as I can determine, for charges from either you or myself, of inadequate consideration on the other's behalf. Although I have said before, that it is not my immediate concern to de-convince you, or those who are convinced of the anti-thesis, it is, rather, my hope to instill proper thinking, research, and discussion patterns--and I will use Overcomer's post as an example to show what I mean here.

Overcomer claimed in #26, p 2, (Sep 21) par. 7, that the original autographs were perfectly without mistake and were "God's own true words." Then, although (s)he pointed out that "(a)ll christians recognized the fact that there have been copyist errors and mistranslations (from what into what language was suspiciously ignored, and no details to support the claim provided) in that same paragraph, counter-points that the Scriptures are "(a)wesomely reliable!" (obviously in the sense that the recensions of today can be construed to be rather accurate copies of the original pennings) in paragraphs 16-19.

All that space and time could have been saved if a careful consideration of my very first post on this thread had been seriously undertaken. This evidences a lack of attention.

But then, (s)he contradicts the entire notion most obviously intended (as I read it) in these points, especially the former one, by correctly noticing that the original autographs had been penned from "different people" telling "the same story different ways." A lack of attention and thoughtfulness is evidenced here as well, in that if it is held true--as it most evidently is--that several human minds participated in the act of writting and remembering, then it cannot be true that one, single super-human mind had superintended the writing so as to make it the words of that same supernatural mind.

Overcomer's claims in the second to last major paragraph about the New World Translation are, relative to allowable translating margins, absolute falsehood. Most clearly, (s)he has done no research into that particular work. And right on the trail of that expose of ignorance (my force of words here only equalling those of Overcomer) (s)he states that "no legitimate scholar finds [The New World Translation] valid"--which is completely groundless. ( I don't have the works on hand at the moment, but have read reports to the contrary by the scholars themselves.)

(S)he charged me with being "dishonest" by using that work--although I clearly had used it only once, and that there would have been no harm whatsoever if I had used it continusously--and insinuated that there was also deceit in my doing so. At that point, a quick shift was made back to the Bible's being reliable (ie the recensions being fairly accurate copies of the autographs) without giving one shred of evidence to back the claims which had just been made. This once again shows not only a lack of attention, but gross negligence.

In the same order of irresponsibleness, rather than asking to verify a pet notion of unknowability, (s)he haphazardly assumes that my forum name came from "Mars Hill"--which again, has no truth value at all.

The same type things happened again in #64, p 3, (Oct 5).

Pararousia, I mentioned back on the missionaries thread, that you needed to look at the details more, and think about the things you said, as well as your reasonings. To avoid the arousal of feelings of hurt, as it occurs in your brain, to concretely compose your objections as 'sound', it may well be advisable to be more careful with what is simply thrown out on the table without forethought, due research, and realistic ration.
I would hope that at least some degree of introspection would be in store on this humble, yet firmly worded suggestion, regarding claims and statements made--and not only by you, Pararousia, my dear Alabamian sister. :-)
 
Mars man, I see a far simpler answer to your comparison of Luke 21:20 and Matthew 24:15 and Mark 13:14. (You agreed that the Matthew and Mark texts were basically the same.) All three say basically the same thing. Luke was a gentile and wrote in Greek I believe. Quoting Daniel wouldn't make a whole lot of sense to a greek, but he did mention prophets and scripture. Matt and Mark were Jews and wrote in Aramaic and understood that their readers would be familiar with the prophesy in Daniel. It still does not seem like a "historical inaccuracy," just the same story told from a different perspective.

The writers had different audiences in mind and used differnt wording so their readers would understand.
 
Good morning sabro (when you read this) !!

Thanks for that input. There are some sound aspects to look at there.

Yes, as has been pointed out by both Overcomer, and, somewhat more indirectly, by myself, each writer did have a specific, direct and immediate audience to whom they were directing their works--especially is this the case with Luke's narrative. If my understanding is correct, Luke was a non-Jewish christian worker; a member of Paul's troupe. The other three narrative writers were all Jewish. (But please keep in mind that the work attributed by name to Matthew, is not considered to have been written by the disciple Matthew, but rather by a Jewish Christian from a Syric gourp--possibly Essene. Mark was with Paul's troupe at only a spot or two after a break from Paul--he may have been Peter's interpreter. Luke more likely had penned in Greek--you're right on target there--not for a large overall audience, but rather to one individual. (as far as can be known or deduced) Matthew was compiled within that Jewish group for that Jewish group,* and runs very, very close to the Didache. (of course I've said all that already) Mark seems to have had the Roman audience in mind.

I think you'd notice, when we look at our copy of the Bible at those places, and compared that from which it is deemed to have come (Dan. 12:11; 11:31--also note Ez. 7:12-16) we will notice that no quotes were given, but the having-already-been-taught-thus-understood referents were implied, so you are right there in your thinking, I'd reason. Of course, we should bear in mind that these instruments were written to those who already were Christians and basically already knew what had been taught via oral tradition and the various troupes and loosely knitted groups.

I think to point which needs to be considered more, is whether each writer's claim that Jeshua had spoken those words could be considered to have been proposed by each individual writer, to have been historically correct or not. It just seems to me, that if we were to say, for example, that it could be gleened from his work, that Luke had presented that dialog as having been Jeshua's actual, historically spoken words, we would have a problem. If such can be said of any of those four when they write on the one and same scene, we would have a problem. If we take them to be just generalzations, then it would be improper to say that we know that, for example, this is true, whereas that one is not. If they are generlazations, they are not specific, and if not specific, not necessarily true history anyway--unless, of course one spot is in this work and is not in that one.

You did some good thinking there, sabro, I really appreciate your input and thoughts. I will look at it some more, and reason on it. Are the specifics to be overlooked for the sake of the general? Do these points fairly represent superintendence by an single mind of absolute knowledge, memory, and truth? How do we consider these in light of John's claim at 14:25, 26? (although it may be needed to look at the verification of that claim to know what had been spoken too) These are things to think about.
* Matthew and the Didache, Van Gorcum; 2005

Boy, you must have been up late at night !! Grading papers? See you !! :cool: OH no !! I missed your #85,just now saw it. will explain later. Sorry :sorry:
 
Last edited:
Let me look at the John verses tonight. I'll give it a shot.
As for exact quoting- I don't think the concept was even developed until a few hundred years ago. I'm pretty sure that the authors viewed accurate paraphrase with the same weight as direct quoting gets now. I don't have a source for this, but there wasn't really any type of "journalistic" ethics until relatively recently and the expectation of exactness would not have existed.
 
Mars Man said:
If we take them to be just generalzations, then it would be improper to say that we know that, for example, this is true, whereas that one is not. If they are generlazations, they are not specific, and if not specific, not necessarily true history anyway--unless, of course one spot is in this work and is not in that one.


O.K. sabro, I've gotta a big weekend coming up, and may not be able to get back until Tues or so. The above sentences, I later noticed, were sloppily worded. The concept I'm poking at, is that of the 'specifics'. So the specifics can questioned as to historical accuracy, if we take only the general flow of events and words spoken to be true history, I would reason.

I'm not real, real sure of the general understanding of such Greco-Roman biographical writings, but from what I have seen at the moment, it appears to have been not much different from that of today--only since there were no video recorders, tape recorders, and writing was no easy task (no reporters standing in the background scribbling down on palm-sized notepads) people could only take the teller/reporter/biographer's word for it. In mythology, there is much superstition, and embelishment, and although the Bible narratives and letters as well as the far greater portion of the Jewish historical and poetical works, have almost no superstition, per se, there is some embelishment. This is from the several scholars I've looked into as well as general scholarship of religious knowledge. Those who are from the 'scholarly religious camp' never admit to such, and the others are kind of split, but quiet silent on it.

Anyway, I gotta run now. I'll catch you later on ! :-)
Click to expand...
 
I think exact quoting is even more "foreign" in an environment in which many different languages are spoken. Aramaic and Greek were common, and there were many more languages in common use. The miracle of different languages being spoken and understood at Pentecost is an example of the diversity of languages.

I'm still not bothered by small differences in details. Yes, differences in details do undermine the pedestal on which some have placed the scriptures, but it does not undermine the message of God's grace and salvation. And that pedestal (perfection of the original autographs, for example) is not something claimed in scripture but added as a doctrine later by those seeking to enhance the authority of the scriptures. Unfortunately, what was meant to bring enhanced authority actually caused diminished acceptance in some cases -- such as Mars Man's recognition of the minor differences and his view that these differences degrade the authority. I do think these minor differences do tarnish the theory of perfection of the original autographs (a doctrine nowhere to be found in the Bible), but the messages of scripture are clear and true. We are God's creation and can believe in and accept the gift of salvation make possible through Jesus Christ.
 
Last edited:
Opps! He did it again!

Mars Man said:
I will point out here, that in my #76 post, final paragraph, I had primarily had others in mind, and the explanations laid out in #81, were not directly nearly so much towards all your earlier posts, as it was simply for clarification for all those following. Pararousia seems to have felt some offense with that, and others too, perhaps--I will go into that later.
Click to expand...

Yup, dismissed the points I made again, and went back to what you said in your posts as the only valid points made.

And no, don't think I am personally offended. It takes a great, great deal to offend me.
 
I guess if you look hard enough you will find flaws in every masterpiece. The fact that the gospels agree so often impresses me, since I'm certain that the authors did not plan cooperatively, nor did they seem to use a single common source. I still have to go back and look at the verses Mars Man compared, but differences in exact quoting, punctuation, or minor differences in details are unlikely to impress me due to the reasons I previously stated.
 
Pararousia, I have no earthly idea why you would go and post a quote that had been specifically directed to sabro, then say that I had gone 'back to what said in [my] posts as the only valid points made' when the 'going back' in that quote were for the purpose of explaining my ideas to sabro rather than trying to validate them. Anyway, what I'd like to say, is that I'd love to spend more time communicating with you, but we are both going to have work on it. I will take that back to the 'Christianity conceptions/mis~' thread. . .this one is more so for looking at textual matters. I hope to post tomorrow or next Tuesday there. :cheer: :sing: :dance:
 
Last edited:
There are a few well accepted matters which I think would be good to outline again here, more clearly, perhaps. When going from Aramaic into Greek, of course you are gonna have some margin--it's a matter of linguistical fact. For that reason, there is going to be some variance in the Greek in some ways, but this does have a ceiling, it's not that just anything goes.

When it comes to direct quotes, it would naturally follow that when two or more quotes are given of a single spoken sentence, by two or more parties, there will be times (I'm talking about the NT Gospel Narratives here) when a possible original Aramaic sentence can be deduced:

Lk 4:3 "if son you (sing.) are (of) the god say (to) the stone this; for (it) may become a loaf [of bread]"
Mt 4:3 "if son you (sing.) are (of) the god say for the stones these bread (they) may become" Other than for the plural .vs. singular 'stone/s', an Aramaic single sentence can be fairly produced.

Lk 3:22 "you (sing.) are the son (of) me the beloved (agapetos) in you (sing) (I) thought well (eudokesa)"
Mt 3:17 "this is the son (of) me the beloved (agapetos) in whom (I) thought well (eudokesa)" To go back and arrive at a single Aramaic sentence would not be impossible, but very strained, in that 'you are my son' and 'this is my son' have very different linguistical forms and speaker/object/audience relationships.

Lk 9:3-5 "nothing be you (pl) lifting/carrying into the way either staff nor pouch nor bread nor silver nor two undergarments (to be) having and into (whatever) house you (pl) may enter there be you (pl) staying and from there be you (pl) going out..."
Mt 10:9-13 "not you (pl) should procure gold nor silver nor copper into the girdles (of) you (pl) mot pouch into way nor two undergarments nor sandals nor staff ; worthy for the worker (of) the food (of) him (11) into (whatever) city or village you (pl) may enter search out who in her worthy is and there stay until likely you (pl) may go out. . ." Now notice that Mark's narrative uses indirect speech (reported speech) here for the first section of this story. There are a number of places where indirect speech is given, thus emphasizing the intention of direct speech in the places where direct speech is given. In the above situation, going back to an original Aramaic sentence, containing all of the concepts and meanings presented while protecting the normal syntax of Aramaic, is not possible.

These are the three type of sentences we find in NT narratives. I will go to the other points which are highlighted in posts #91, 93, in a following post.

You are correct in your understanding, Cobra03, that I have come to reason that the authority of the claim to know what has exactly been said and done, in many, but not all cases, has been weakened, but there is much, much more than just that which caused me to eventually reason that the idea of a message from the Judeo-Christian god model was an unlikely proposition.

I have to go now, and will try to get back soon--just SOoooo busy these days. See you on the other thread Pararousia ! :wave:
 
As brought out in #96, there are incidents of indirect speech in the Gospel narratives, as well as the far more common direct speech transaltions. There are at least a couple of direct transliterations offered too. (Mark 15:34) In looking over the entirety of the narrations, the conclusion that the writers intended to present what, in their understanding, had actually been spoken has greater likelihood than the proposition that the direct quote style was simply a summury of the jest of what had been spoken. There are some places where embellishment had obviously taken place, and, in some manuscripts where 2nd/3rd hands have varied the text.

In the literature and narratives of that day and age, it was not any uncommon thing to use direct quotations. Punctuation carries no weight at all, and is not even considered since syntax weighs heavier than punctuation in giving meaning anyway. All the texts of that day were the same in that regards, and there are few places among the many that presents any major problem for scholarship.

I thought it might do some good to present some portions of texts that were circulating and very well known in that world at that same general time period. This will have to take a couple of posts, but should prove to be informative, and educational at the same time. From these, it can be seen that there is not really that much difference from narration and reporting that we can generally find today--except for the preciseness, speed of circulation, and general educational level of the populace, against which those writings were accepted or refused.

Pliny the Elder (mid to late first century) Natural history 7, 37 Loeb. 2,589
But the highest reputation belongs to Asclepiades of Prusa, for having founded a new school, despised the envoys and overtures of King Mithridates, discovered a method of preparing medicted wine for the sick, brought back a man from burial and saved his life, but most of all for having made a wager with fortune that he should not be deemed a physician if he were ever in any way ill himself: and he won his be, as he lost his life in extreme old age by falling downstairs.

ibid 26, 8 Loeb 7,277
His fame was no less great when, on meeting the funeral cortege of a man unknown to him, he had him removed from the pyre and saved his life. This incident I give lest any should think that it was on slight grounds that so violent a change took place. One thing alone moves me to anger: that one man, of a very superficial race, beginning with no resources, in order to increase his income suddenly gave to the human race rules for health, which however have subsequently been generally discarded.

I have to go now, but will post some more on Tuesday or earlier if possible. Again, the purpose is to show that we can fairly accept that the NT writers usage of direct quotations (and on other point to be mentioned later) was with the clear intention of presenting what had actually been spoken at any particular occasion.
 
sabro said:
Interesting web site: http://www.livingconnections.com/pages.asp?pageid=10654
"Proof of God." So there you go...
Click to expand...
He tries circumstantial evidence to prove the existance of God, but many lawyers will throw out that argument just as easily as he uses it. I agree with Tsuyoiko on this one. A well written piece, but doesn't really prove a thing.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top