The Genealogies of Jesus and the Laws of Logic
This is a follow-up to my last post "The Gospel of Matthew Debunks the Messiahship of Jesus." There is nothing like applying the standards of logic to a hopelessly irrational target like the genealogies of Jesus.
As a reference, I will re-state the laws of logic below
A is A: This is the law of identity:
For a proposition, if it is true, then it is true.
For a thing, it is what it is. A thing is itself.
A or non-A: This is the law of the excluded middle:
For a proposition, it is either true or it is false.
For a thing, it is either A or it is non A, itself or not itself.
A and non A: This is the law of contradiction:
For a proposition, it cannot be both true and false.
For a thing, it cannot be both itself and not itself. Either-or.
For the record, I do not believe that either the genealogy of Jesus as offered in the Gospel of Matther or the one offered in Luke are an accurate genealogy of either the figure of Joseph or Jesus as the case may be. It is my opinion that they were independently concocted by later interpolators for apologetic reasons. Note that the Gospel of Luke which first has attestation in the hands of Marcion (mid 2nd century) did not contain a genealogy, birth stories, or childhood stories. It began with the appearance of Jesus at the Jordan, just like the Gospel of Mark on which it was based.
That said, I will still subject the genealogies Jesus/Joseph as given by Matthew and Luke to the laws of logic.
A is A: A genealogy is the pedigree of a person running through generations of individuals related by normal parentage. If I were to describe the genealogy or pedigree of my Pug, I would list its genetic forbears for as many generations back as possible. If my Pug's grandfather was adopted by a family owning another Pug generated from a previous champion, could I call the genetic line of the champion part of the pedigree of my Pug? Of course not, that would be fraud. But it would also break the meaning of "genealogy." It is important to clarify a concept to be identified as "A". Once that is done, it is what it is. A genealogy is a genealogy. DNA from DNA.
In the case of Matthew's Gospel, the opening chapter purports to be the "genealogy of Jesus, son of David". Though the current form of Matthew does not specifically say that Joseph fathered Jesus, it may have originally, only to be cleaned up by orthodox theologians of the fourth century. Even lacking that statement, it still claims to be the genealogy or pedigree of Jesus linking him as an heir to David through Joseph obviously carrying the implication that Joseph fathered Jesus. Otherwise as a "genealogy" of Jesus, it has no purpose. Since it is claimed to be the Genealogy of Jesus, then it is meant to be the genealogy of Jesus.
In the case of Luke's Gospel, the genealogy runs from Jesus (supposedly fathered by Joseph) back to David. It is a genealogy intending to show that Jesus was descended from David with a royal claim.
A or non-A: If in fact these genealogies are intended to accurately link Jesus or Joseph to David, they must either really be genealogies or they are not really genealogies. The problem exists because the genealogies are entirely different. They link two individuals by Pedigree, David and Joseph. Yet they show lines of descent with no common links. Matthew's genealogy portrays David's line descending through his son Solomon down to Joseph. Luke's genealogy portrays David's line descending through his son Nathan down to Joseph with a completely different set of intermiary names. Simply put, both genealogies cannot be true. Both lists of ancestral fathers without commonality cannot be the pedigree of the same individual. One or the other is excluded.
A and non-A: This is an either-or consideration. At least one of the genealogies is bogus. Both might be bogus, but at least one must be bogus and excluded by the law of contradiction.
This has caused no little consternation for biblicists. For the skeptic, the answer is as plain as the nose on your face. The lists are irreconcilable. Logic prohibits two divergent lists of pedigree as belonging to the same person. Therefore, while both could be false, one certainly is.
The job of the systematic theologian (an oxymoron if there ever was one) is to find a plausible explanation to reconcile the contradiction. Since no actual contradiction can be tolerated,the systematic theologian inserts the word "apparent" before "contradiction." In his mind, there must be a way to smooth over the mountain of logic. In the event of the problem at hand, the ingenious theologian simply redefines the concept. Though both genealogies clearly state that the line descends from David to Joseph, and since both lists cannot be the ancestors of the same individual, one must posit that they are both genealogies of Jesus, but one (Matthew's) is the genealogy of Joseph, and Luke's is the genealogy of Mary. That way, all the problems are smoothed over. The worried believer can rest in the peace that greater minds have overcome the obstacles and that biblical inerrancy has once again triumphed over the powers of reason.
However, this can only be done by assuming that both genealogies of Jesus are true (they just have to be because the Bible says so) and that the introduction of Mary as the true descendent of the genealogy, cleverly disguised as Joseph so as not to offend partiarchal sentiments, is the best way to outmaneuver the laws of logic.
Read the words of the systematic theologian, Dr. William Smith, "They are both the genealogies of Joseph...Mary, the mother of Jesus WAS IN ALL PROBABILITY the daughter of Jacob, and first cousin to Joseph, her husband...(Godet, Lange and many others take the ground that St. Luke gives the genealogy of Mary). Mary's name was omitted because 'ancient sentiment did not comport with the mention of the mother as the genealogical link." emphasis supplied.
What an ingenious exercise. He argues from that which is probable in his own mind to that which he wishes to be true. By suggesting a probability with no textual support whatsoever and quoting that some scholars "take the ground" that Mary (unmentioned in the text as part of the genealogy) and not Joseph (who is actually mentioned in the text as the descendent) the systematic theologiann amasses the appearance of solid argumentation built upon nothing more than a pious imagination meant to fool the average dupe in the pew into thinking that the Bible has once again been successfully defended against the wiles of satan (logic).
As a reference, I will re-state the laws of logic below
A is A: This is the law of identity:
For a proposition, if it is true, then it is true.
For a thing, it is what it is. A thing is itself.
A or non-A: This is the law of the excluded middle:
For a proposition, it is either true or it is false.
For a thing, it is either A or it is non A, itself or not itself.
A and non A: This is the law of contradiction:
For a proposition, it cannot be both true and false.
For a thing, it cannot be both itself and not itself. Either-or.
For the record, I do not believe that either the genealogy of Jesus as offered in the Gospel of Matther or the one offered in Luke are an accurate genealogy of either the figure of Joseph or Jesus as the case may be. It is my opinion that they were independently concocted by later interpolators for apologetic reasons. Note that the Gospel of Luke which first has attestation in the hands of Marcion (mid 2nd century) did not contain a genealogy, birth stories, or childhood stories. It began with the appearance of Jesus at the Jordan, just like the Gospel of Mark on which it was based.
That said, I will still subject the genealogies Jesus/Joseph as given by Matthew and Luke to the laws of logic.
A is A: A genealogy is the pedigree of a person running through generations of individuals related by normal parentage. If I were to describe the genealogy or pedigree of my Pug, I would list its genetic forbears for as many generations back as possible. If my Pug's grandfather was adopted by a family owning another Pug generated from a previous champion, could I call the genetic line of the champion part of the pedigree of my Pug? Of course not, that would be fraud. But it would also break the meaning of "genealogy." It is important to clarify a concept to be identified as "A". Once that is done, it is what it is. A genealogy is a genealogy. DNA from DNA.
In the case of Matthew's Gospel, the opening chapter purports to be the "genealogy of Jesus, son of David". Though the current form of Matthew does not specifically say that Joseph fathered Jesus, it may have originally, only to be cleaned up by orthodox theologians of the fourth century. Even lacking that statement, it still claims to be the genealogy or pedigree of Jesus linking him as an heir to David through Joseph obviously carrying the implication that Joseph fathered Jesus. Otherwise as a "genealogy" of Jesus, it has no purpose. Since it is claimed to be the Genealogy of Jesus, then it is meant to be the genealogy of Jesus.
In the case of Luke's Gospel, the genealogy runs from Jesus (supposedly fathered by Joseph) back to David. It is a genealogy intending to show that Jesus was descended from David with a royal claim.
A or non-A: If in fact these genealogies are intended to accurately link Jesus or Joseph to David, they must either really be genealogies or they are not really genealogies. The problem exists because the genealogies are entirely different. They link two individuals by Pedigree, David and Joseph. Yet they show lines of descent with no common links. Matthew's genealogy portrays David's line descending through his son Solomon down to Joseph. Luke's genealogy portrays David's line descending through his son Nathan down to Joseph with a completely different set of intermiary names. Simply put, both genealogies cannot be true. Both lists of ancestral fathers without commonality cannot be the pedigree of the same individual. One or the other is excluded.
A and non-A: This is an either-or consideration. At least one of the genealogies is bogus. Both might be bogus, but at least one must be bogus and excluded by the law of contradiction.
This has caused no little consternation for biblicists. For the skeptic, the answer is as plain as the nose on your face. The lists are irreconcilable. Logic prohibits two divergent lists of pedigree as belonging to the same person. Therefore, while both could be false, one certainly is.
The job of the systematic theologian (an oxymoron if there ever was one) is to find a plausible explanation to reconcile the contradiction. Since no actual contradiction can be tolerated,the systematic theologian inserts the word "apparent" before "contradiction." In his mind, there must be a way to smooth over the mountain of logic. In the event of the problem at hand, the ingenious theologian simply redefines the concept. Though both genealogies clearly state that the line descends from David to Joseph, and since both lists cannot be the ancestors of the same individual, one must posit that they are both genealogies of Jesus, but one (Matthew's) is the genealogy of Joseph, and Luke's is the genealogy of Mary. That way, all the problems are smoothed over. The worried believer can rest in the peace that greater minds have overcome the obstacles and that biblical inerrancy has once again triumphed over the powers of reason.
However, this can only be done by assuming that both genealogies of Jesus are true (they just have to be because the Bible says so) and that the introduction of Mary as the true descendent of the genealogy, cleverly disguised as Joseph so as not to offend partiarchal sentiments, is the best way to outmaneuver the laws of logic.
Read the words of the systematic theologian, Dr. William Smith, "They are both the genealogies of Joseph...Mary, the mother of Jesus WAS IN ALL PROBABILITY the daughter of Jacob, and first cousin to Joseph, her husband...(Godet, Lange and many others take the ground that St. Luke gives the genealogy of Mary). Mary's name was omitted because 'ancient sentiment did not comport with the mention of the mother as the genealogical link." emphasis supplied.
What an ingenious exercise. He argues from that which is probable in his own mind to that which he wishes to be true. By suggesting a probability with no textual support whatsoever and quoting that some scholars "take the ground" that Mary (unmentioned in the text as part of the genealogy) and not Joseph (who is actually mentioned in the text as the descendent) the systematic theologiann amasses the appearance of solid argumentation built upon nothing more than a pious imagination meant to fool the average dupe in the pew into thinking that the Bible has once again been successfully defended against the wiles of satan (logic).
28 comments:
Bart,
Here we go again. You said, "What an ingenious exercise. He argues from that which is probable in his own mind to that which he wishes to be true"
I have debated John on this issue of probability and certainty. Correct me if I am wrong but this site normally espouses the idea that history is only known with probability and not certainty right?
How can a historian or literary critic affix a certainty outside of obtaining best possible evidence or evaluating extant evidence? He can't.
Whatever IS NOT known or clear through the geneologies are not actual contradictions. Neither are they discrepencies. At best they are inscriptions for which you ONLY have partial information and cannot adjucate with CERTAINTY that they are wrong and all available evidence leads us in the direction that they are correct...
Now, who's standards are illogical? The one who claims with certainty that the geneology is wrong against the evidence, or the one who acquiests and yields to the existing evidence and bases that on the probabilities that are known to exist and that fit the extant data?
This is not just a history book we are talking about. This is supposed to be GOD's word. There are 2 versions. They contradict each other. One is true OR the other is true or NEITHER of them is true. Pick one. If one is true, the other is an ERROR in GOD's word. If neither are true, there are TWO errors in GOD's word.
If there are obvious errors like this, how can one trust any of it? Which is more likely, a god who allows obvious errors in his word, that it is not actually god's word at all (people wrote it), or that there simply IS no god (people wrote it)?
and giving jesus two human geneologies does seem to deny that he is the product of a virgin and the holy spirit. how ya gonna get past that?
and tracing the geneology of a woman back thru her MALE ancestors is meaningless and would not be done - GOD, if such an entity existed and was causing a book to be written, might trace the woman's geneology back thru her FEMALE ancestors. 'god' could do that, right?
goprarie,
All of your points or supposed points have been argued HERE for the last week.
This guy has moved from those arguments to basically criticize how the apologetic for the geneologies is made.
For one, others may engage your comments but I won't in this post.
Bart,
The church about 6 miles down the road is pastored by a BJU New Testament professor. Since his PhD topic was on the very post you wrote, I sent him a copy.
That was 4 days ago. he has yet to respond.
His 1983 disertation is not published (and looks like it never will be)...I wonder why?!!
Regards,
Harry
___________________________________
Pastor Mark Minnick:
After completing an M.A. in Bible from Bob Jones University in May 1977, Mark was burdened to continue his education. While continuing to pastor a small church in North Carolina, he began pursuing a doctoral degree. During this time, he accepted a call from Mount Calvary Baptist Church (Greenville, SC) to serve as a part-time associate pastor along with then-Pastor Jesse Boyd, a man with 40 years of pastoral ministry experience whose influence on Mark had already been formative. Soon Mark began teaching full-time at BJU, eventually teaching both Bible and Homiletics on the undergraduate and graduate levels. After three additional years, he completed a PhD in New Testament Interpretation in 1983 with a dissertation on “The Matthean Genealogy and Birth Account of Jesus Christ."
Pastor Minnick's philosophy of ministry places a priority on serious attention to the precise, systematic exposition of the Word of God, coupled with an emphasis on faithful, systematic community evangelism—taking the Word to the world. His passion is to seek and to display the glory of God revealed, through the Bible, in the face of Jesus Christ.
(Can you believe the type of PhD BJU puts out? "places a priority on serious attention to the precise, systematic exposition of the Word of God" BULL SHIT!!)
According to Rabbinical Judaism there are 70 correct ways to interpret any text of Scripture.
Being that Matthew is a Jewish text, most likely intended to be read as Scripture, at least following a Hebrew Scripture template (with a Helenestic overlay), it would be safe to assume that from its inception there have been 70 ways to interpret any given passage, including the genealogy.
I've given a couple, there are more.
Logic is to be used to test the integrity of the interpretations. Since simple logic shows that a literal/historical/chronological interpretation leads to obvious contradictions, it would seem that such an interpretation is not very useful. One down, 68 to go.
(You probably COULD get a PhD on the genesis of Jesus)
Anybody want to vote for metaphorical literature instead?
Jodie said:
"Anybody want to vote for metaphorical literature instead?"
The purpose of a genealogy is to show the line of descent of a given individual. As such, a genealogy would make no sense as a metaphor in that it would have no value. Ie - "See, Jesus is metaphorically descended from David, therefore he's the Messiah and King (of the Jews)." Rebuttal to example: So? That means nothing. Anyone could be said to be metaphorically descended from David (or anyone else for that matter).
Thus, your objection is completely senseless.
you are right, dshb, i don't follow every post, and since they won against you every argument at that post, there IS not point in rehashing it her. thanks for the tip - i enjoyed the read.
District Supt. Harvey Burnett said...
Bart,
Here we go again. You said, "What an ingenious exercise. He argues from that which is probable in his own mind to that which he wishes to be true"
I have debated John on this issue of probability and certainty. Correct me if I am wrong but this site normally espouses the idea that history is only known with probability and not certainty right?
How can a historian or literary critic affix a certainty outside of obtaining best possible evidence or evaluating extant evidence? He can't.
Whatever IS NOT known or clear through the geneologies are not actual contradictions. Neither are they discrepencies. At best they are inscriptions for which you ONLY have partial information and cannot adjucate with CERTAINTY that they are wrong and all available evidence leads us in the direction that they are correct...
Harvey, you are amazing. The philosopher was correct when he said, "Scratch the surface of a believer and you will find an agnostic."
I agree that much historical knowledge is based to some degree on probabalities or possibilities. That you would apply this principle to the interpretation of scripture is fascinating. Using this principle as a hermeneutic as you propose would mean that the message of the Bible is fundamentally unknowable; that events and understandings described therein can only be known by us partially through our best guess as to that which is probable.
You, my friend, in order to rescue the Bible from an obvious and glaring contradiction, have taken the agnostic position that knowledge and certainty are impossible.
I would ask you to answer one simple question though.
Is it conceivable to you that the Bible could ever be self contradictory? This is a simple yes or no question.
If the answer is yes, then the fundamentalist/innerantist position must be abandoned.
If the answer is no, then the careers of systematic theologians are safe. There must always be a solution to the most vexing conundrums only waiting for an ingenious, imaginative interpreter to divine an answer, no matter how implausible.
Jodie said...
According to Rabbinical Judaism there are 70 correct ways to interpret any text of Scripture.
Being that Matthew is a Jewish text, most likely intended to be read as Scripture, at least following a Hebrew Scripture template (with a Helenestic overlay), it would be safe to assume that from its inception there have been 70 ways to interpret any given passage, including the genealogy.
I've given a couple, there are more.
Logic is to be used to test the integrity of the interpretations. Since simple logic shows that a literal/historical/chronological interpretation leads to obvious contradictions, it would seem that such an interpretation is not very useful. One down, 68 to go.
Bart says,
So now Christianity has become worse than a seven hydra which when a head is cut off, another grows back in its place. Now the beast has 70 heads. According to your hermeneutic, at any time that a contradiction is apparent, the principle is that one abandon the tenets of literary exegesis and opt for a Jewish midrashic method instead. Ingenious. You should have been a systematic theologian. What happens if 70 metaphorical interpretations also fail? Do we then use the Jesus principle of 70 times 7?
It seems that the only fallback the believers have to deal with the problems I have exposed is to use the principle of holy imagination to suggest interpretations suitable to their wishes. No wonder there are thousands of Christian sects. Christianity is a piece of music with no rhythms or set notes, and every man is an accordian player.
Goprarie,
Thanks man.
Bart,
You said: Using this principle as a hermeneutic as you propose would mean that the message of the Bible is fundamentally unknowable;
It's not an either /or proposition Bart. There are events and places that can only be known through what the text says and since there are over 25,000 current archaeological finds that support what is said within the text, on a natural tip I can have assurance that what I cannot definitively pin down is more than likely correct also. This has nothing to do with a "shaking of faith" or an "exercise of faith" It has to do with a reasoned response to what I know...example, If your car is running well today, you have all reason and expectation to believe that it will start tomorrow morning right?
Let's go further, if it DOESN'T start is it not still a car? Does it stop being a car if it doesn't meet your expectation?
There have been NO SELF-EVIDENT contradictions found within scripture and greater minds than ours have turned it over and every which way for longer periods than us.
So after reading Ehrman, Loftus and others and examining your posts, I am confident that Christianity is on safe ground.
DSHB - thanks for what? for noticing that you lost the last round? sure, any time.
and as to the man, how many times do you have to be told THAT one before you get it? you assume anyone who can think faster than you has to be a man?
Bart,
"Christianity is a piece of music with no rhythms or set notes, and every man is an accordian player."
Your bitterness aside, and staying with your metaphor, you could be right. But it could also be that you have just become tone deaf.
Perhaps after listening to heavy metal at 130 dB too long you have done permanent damage to your eardrums, so that any appreciation for any other kind of music is now hopeless.
So you close your eyes and ears to the cacophony of the multitude and beg for silence.
It's been tried before. As Andrew Lloyd Webber once said,
"Why waste your breath moaning at the crowd? Nothing can be done to stop the shouting. If every tongue were still the noise would still continue. The rocks and stones themselves would start to sing"
As you aptly demonstrated, metaphorical reasoning is quite common, not at all unreasonable, and really not so hard to master, so long as you have a decoder ring. (Seven [headed] hydra... ) We all use it to some degree or other.
Why should the Bible be any different?
Goprarie,
I didn't lose anything, your simpleton questions were answered like they have been for about , let's say 200 plus years or more...anyway, I don't care who or what the freak U R. Male or female, stupidity has no gender boundaries I see.
Later.
Dist Sup. Harvey
A contradiction cannot exist in reality. To recognize a contradiction allows us a chance to correct error. To attempt to maintain a contradiction is irrational.
Apply Occam's Razor.
The simplest approach requiring the least amount of convulated argumentation is to recognize:
Matthew proposes a genealogy linking David to Joseph.
Luke proposes a genealogy linking David to Joseph.
The intermediate descendents are completely different people and don't follow the same patronage even from the second generation.
Thus, the two genealogies are in contradiction. It is impossible that they are both accurate.
Both many be fictional, but both cannot be authentic.
Logic decrees that at least one, either Matthew's or Luke's genealogy must be rejected.
The lame tangent of arguing that Luke's genealogy of Joseph wasn't really his (in spite of the text actually claiming this), and to introduce Mary as the real descendent of the genealogy based on the need to eliminate a contradiction, speculation by apologists, and the interpretation of medieval Jewish writings, is a clear illustration of why Occam's razor is needed.
The least complicated reasoning decrees that there is a contradiction between the gospels; an error. Live with it.
I notice that you refused to address my question. I'll try again.
Can you conceive the possibility that the Bible might contain errors? Yes or no.
I'm not asking you if any have been demonstrated. I am only asking if you admit to the possibility of error.
jodie,
in midrashic terms, the bible can be interpreted in a number of ways. however, this is because there are a number of textual genres.
a geneaology, though, can only be interpreted in one way. midrash and any metaphoric reading is not relevant. it is a purely factual passage.
if you went to the national records office and asked for some information because you were researching your geneology, they would never ask "excuse me ma'am, but is that a metaphoric family tree, or a real one you are researching?"
we must remember that the bible is written by humans, and is thus fallible. the sooner people realise this, the more we will understand the bible.
it is interesting that ancient israel is the only culture and history in the world that bypasses normal historical methodologies. we know, causally, why the aztecs disappeared, why ww2 happened, why mt st helens blew. all natural and human phenomena can be causally reasoned with enough quality data. however, the main causal reason for almost anything happening in biblical israel is 'God did it'. No other culture in the world allows this massive sidestep of historical methodology to happen. would you accept, really, the aboriginal australians' many versions of how ayers rock appeared, or do you rely on historical and geographical evidence? why apply a different set of rules to the bible? why should israel be allowed a different set of rules when we are researching its genesis as a nation?
Johnny,
"a geneaology, though, can only be interpreted in one way. midrash and any metaphoric reading is not relevant. it is a purely factual passage."
But obviously it is not. A simple comparison with OT texts will show you that out of hand. Matthew's command of OT texts is impeccable. Yet do you think he did not know the genealogies of the OT? He clearly >>chose<< to >>interpret<< them in his own way.
(making the math add up just so)
Matthew had a literary objective in seperating the genealogy into 3 sections of 14 as he did and highlighting certain patriarch instead of others. It was partially due to setting forth something both memorable and something that could be repeated as oral recitation of the narrative would have continued to be done.
Bart Ehrman in his God awful book 'Jesus Interrupted' at least makes ONE valid observation and covers another reason on Pg. 36...David's name in Hebrew has a numerical value of 14. (DVD) {D-4, V-6, D-4 = 14} Jesus was to be the "son Of David" as specified in Mt. 1:1. Once again this was a way to both remember and relay the story of Jesus beginnings.
This technique had NOTHING to do with slopiness, forgetting or deceit. It had everything to do with telling the story, making it memorable, and relating certain FACTS not mythys pertinent to the understanding of individuals as they received the accounting of events of Jesus life.
So in essence there are 2 good reasons Matthew skipped generations and condensed his list to 42 people instead of the 75 that Luke installs.
That should clarify that for the understanding.
I am now reminded of the definition of a theologian that I heard a while back.
Theologian: "Someone trained to explain why the bible does not actually mean what it says, and does not actually say what it means."
Zorg,
That was a good one. I'll be laughin' about that one all day. Thanks.
I'm serious, I really can't think of any other literary work that has been subjected to the same linguistical contorsionism in the attempt to maintain relevance, as the bible.
Wait, no, I'm wrong. All other religions, with holy books are equally persistent in their dogmatism.
intersting how some people feel free to redefine words to make the bible work, and then seem to think because they have redefined words, they have 'won' the argument.
jodie,
as seen above from some other comments, these are extremely ad hoc arguments, retrojected onto the text by modern christians, in order to satisfy their own belief that the bible surely can't be wrong. why is matthew, a mere mortal, so infallible? there are countless times when evangelicals, even archaeologists such as Kitchen, contort and gerrymander, in order to make the bible infallible. occam's razor, at least, would indicate the simpler version, that the bible, with its myriad of authors, many unknown, does get it wrong from time to time.
the book is a cultural memory (see davies' 'memories of ancient israel') rather than a history. the people who wrote it were not, in any way, historians. they were priests and scribes, and all with very different agendas. every piece of writing has an agenda, and the biblical naaratives were certainly no exception - every piece had its own reason, and take on everything - they are in no way objective.
so to sit back, a millenium later, and piece it altogether so that all the 'facts' harmonize is a ridiculous concept. these people that wrote the bible, did so in the early days of literacy. they relied on oral tradition, and cultural memory. there were no history books, no internet, no way of verifying any 'fact'. just to get from one place to another to 'verify' anything was virtually impossible.
thus, it really is a crazy concept to think that this set of disparate writings can be cobbled together in a coherent, harmonizable fashion.
but i know you would only believe this if a christian told you. it is like my christian theologian friend who didn't believe in evolution, in all our correct arguments, until he had them sent to him by a published christian evolutionist. you just believe what you want to - it is a very human trait.
one that the writers of the bible had too.
one believes, and then spends their whole life finding evidence to back it up, rather than looking at all the evidence objectively, and then believing.
Interesting discussion. My own readings of the Gospels (supplemented by say Tacitus,Founding fathers, a bit of Hume and Nietzsche, and Karl Popper) leads me to believe that none are to be taken as authoritative--especially Pauline epistles, or the Book of Revelation.
That said, Matthew seems the "most reliable" of the NT, though I am sure there are glosses (miracles, exaggerations, hearsay, who knows). Nietzsche thought along those lines--he says it happened, but JC was a sort of a wandering holy man. Possibly even had been to the East.
Luke and Mark seem to rank higher on "gloss-o-meter". The Vulgate I can read--Koine a bit more challenging, but the Vulgate itself--due to Jerome??--takes many liberties with the greek text. And we should remember the Koine greek itself sort of like the trader's tongue--not classical greek. Probably many errors in transmission--then I would say the same for OT.
Hume of course simply rejects the entire text (anyone who tells you pigs fly, or dead men come back to life cannot be trusted), except perhaps as interesting myth.
District Supt. Harvey Burnett, why do you bother posting comments here? Why not answer the simple question of which genealogy you find more credible, Matthew's or Luke's? And DO NOT LIE!
Because if you claim both are equally (in)credible, you are admitting that neither one can be supported by any historical evidence.
Circleh,
First, I've been posting here and debating for almost a year and a half now and only a radical fundy would encourage one to pick and choose which gospel to believe.
Just in case you missed it the differences are the strengths of both accounts. OK?
Thanks.
Post a Comment