There are two different genealogies of Jesus. Which one is the earliest? Why are they different?

One is through Mary's line. The other is through adoptive father Joseph's line. I don't know which is earlier. I'll put on my librarian hat and do some research. I'm guessing Mary's is.

Thank you - I know the Joseph/Mary thing, but why are they separated?

Athos
Thank you - I know the Joseph/Mary thing, but why are they separated?

The authors had different purposes in mind. Matthew played with the genealogy a lot to make into sets of 14. Opinions differ as to why, but it's clear that he saw some significance in the number. Robert Gundry suggested he was doing a gematria-type thing, but evangelical scholars at least have rejected that idea. I don't know what critical scholars think of it, I didn't see anything in the literature when his book appeared. Still, I have yet to see a better theory. His commentary on Matthew caused quite a stir in the evangelical community, though. It's worth taking a look at.

Luke, on the other hand, was tracing Jesus' human lineage and traced it all the way back to Adam to emphasize that this was a real guy with a real lineage, he's not a made-up character, or a deity appearing in a form that only seems to be human. He was a real dude, and this stuff really happened. The Roman Empire had tons of stories of gods coming to people in human form, usually Zeus and usually for somewhat less than honorable purposes. Luke is saying yes, this guy is divine. But he's also thoroughly human and experienced all the things that we humans do. A great older out-of-print book on that subject, if you can get your hands on it, is A. T. Robertson, Luke the Historian in the Light of Historical Research.

A great older out-of-print book on that subject, if you can get your hands on it, is A. T. Robertson, Luke the Historian in the Light of Historical Research.
I checked WorldCat, Athos. Five college/university libraries in your state own this title. If you have a valid library card with your home library, that library can do an interlibrary loan (ILL) and get the book for you.

Dwashbur, this book by Gundry?

Matthew : a commentary on his literary and theological art / Robert H Gundry
1982
English
Book xviii, 652 pages ; 24 cm.
Grand Rapids, Mich. : W.B. Eerdmans Pub. Co.

Athos, seven libraries in your state own this title.

That's the one. His analysis of the infancy narrative got him kicked out of the Evangelical Theological Society (ETS). I was at that annual meeting and watched it happen. That was when/where I lost all respect for Norm Geisler.

Thank you, WG and dwashbur.


Are these genealogies evidence that the story of Mary being impregnated by a spirit is from an author who did not know of the descent line from Joseph? Or was it the author of Joseph's descent line who was unaware of the pregnancy story of Mary? Does it indicate a multiplicity of authors? It would be difficult to believe that one author wrote both stories – one story through Joseph and the other through divine intervention by a spirit.


Could it have been added later to conform to the then current tales of virgin births from deities such as are found in Greek, Roman, and Egyptian religions, among others?

Athos
Thank you, WG and dwashbur.


Are these genealogies evidence that the story of Mary being impregnated by a spirit is from an author who did not know of the descent line from Joseph? Or was it the author of Joseph's descent line who was unaware of the pregnancy story of Mary? Does it indicate a multiplicity of authors? It would be difficult to believe that one author wrote both stories – one story through Joseph and the other through divine intervention by a spirit.


Could it have been added later to conform to the then current tales of virgin births from deities such as are found in Greek, Roman, and Egyptian religions, among others?

All good questions. Matthew played with the genealogy to make everything come out in 14s, and that may have something to do with why he traced the line that he did. We still don't fully understand what was in his head.

Luke probably consulted written genealogies in the temple and/or synagogues. I don't think anything was done to conform to the mystery religions. I'm not sure I follow the question about multiple authors. We know different people wrote the two books. Please develop that thought for me a bit more.

I found this article very interesting. Here's part of it:

[Matthew's] genealogy also mentions some kickass women by name. First Tamar, who is nearly killed for becoming pregnant out of wedlock but then praised for her cleverness and resourcefulness. (Check out her story in Genesis 38). Then there’s Rahab, a Cananite prostitute whose shrewdness saves Joshua and his soldiers. Then Ruth, a Moabite who shows tremendous dedication and love to her mother-in-law. Both Tamar and Rahab could be condemned by a patriarchal society, but they are held up as models. Both Rahab and Ruth are foreingers (sic) coming to nations thought to be condemned by God. Their presence in Jesus’ lineage reinforce God’s love for the immigrant and foreigner and are part of a trajectory of understanding God from exclusion to full inclusion.

And, of course, there’s Mary. Pregnant by the Holy Spirit before she is married to Joseph, she might have received a lot of grief and scorn from her contemporaries. But in referencing other women whose sexuality is not condemned but praised in scripture, Matthew’s Gospel subtly begins to subvert some the patriarchy.
https://www.ravenfoundation.org/the-surprising-and-subversive-genealogy-of-jesus-matthew-11-17/#:~:text=In%20Matthew’s%20genealogy%2C%20Jesus%20i s%20traced%20back%20to,men%20from%20killing%20him% 20in%20jealous%2C%20lustful%20rages.

in referencing other women whose sexuality is not condemned but praised in scripture,Perhaps I am somehow missing the point here, but that would seem to be a pretty questionable statement. Their sexuality not only is not praised in Matthew, it is not even mentioned. There is certainly no endorsement of prostitution there. Ruth is a woman of great character to be sure, but that, again, had nothing to do with sexuality. Strangely missing from the author's list was Bathsheba. She was an adulteress, but that would hardly be an endorsement of adultery.


but they are held up as modelsBeing named is a far cry from being held up as a model. Ahaz and Manasseh are named, yet they could scarcely be called models of Godly behavior. The positive side of the stories of the named women is not that they are praised for sinning, but that they were used by God in spite of their sin.

The positive side of the stories of the named women is not that they are praised for sinning, but that they were used by God in spite of their sin.
As was Mary, a sinful creature like each of us is.

What was Mary's sin?

What was Mary's sin?
Being human ("like each of us is" as I pointed out).

You entered the "like each of us is" after I had responded. At any rate, I don't recall seeing that, so my bad. Still, being human is not a sin.

We're going too far afield. My primary observation was simply this. "Perhaps I am somehow missing the point here, but that would seem to be a pretty questionable statement. Their sexuality not only is not praised in Matthew, it is not even mentioned. There is certainly no endorsement of prostitution there." I think the author was reading his/her own beliefs into the text by saying, "... in referencing other women whose sexuality is not condemned but praised in scripture, Matthew’s Gospel subtly begins to subvert some the patriarchy." I don't see where their "sexuality" is praised in the Bible. Do you?

I don't see where their "sexuality" is praised in the Bible. Do you?

I wouldn't say "praised" so much as "not considered a problem". Judah was ready to have Tamar put to death until she revealed who the father was and what he had done, so she was considered a sinful woman. Rahab was a known prostitute in a pagan city but she's never even slightly bad-mouthed about it.

And Mary was born a person prone to sin just like all of us. Even Joseph considered her a fornicator until God used some extreme means to get his attention. Samson spent the night with a prostitute in Gaza and neither is condemned for it. The list goes on and on.

And Bathsheba was essentially raped. Even if she submitted, she knew she had no choice. It's funny; here in the sex-obsessed west we see the story of David and Bathsheba as one of adultery. The rest of the world sees it as abuse of power.

And Mary was born a person prone to sin just like all of usTrue, but she has no specific sin listed in Matthew.


And Bathsheba was essentially raped.
Speculation. It is also possible she was a willing partner. She certainly never seemed to hold any bitterness against David. Still, there is evidence to point towards at least an improper use of force. The way Nathan described the situation with the lamb parable could point in that way, but it's just hard to say.

I don't know if this is actually being suggested or not, but I think it's really going far out on a limb to suggest that prostitution is fine since, after all, Rahab and Tamar are included in the lineage of Christ. You would also have to conclude that extreme idolatry is OK since Ahaz and Manasseh, two prominent idolaters, are also mentioned. Solomon was a major violator of the Law during his time, but that's not OK either. Jeconiah was a very ungodly man, but that's not being endorsed in the passage. Naming someone is far removed from endorsing their lifestyle. Rahab married and it is safe to assume her sex trade days were over with. Tamar was really never a prostitute to begin with.

Luke probably consulted written genealogies in the temple and/or synagogues. I don't think anything was done to conform to the mystery religions.

The mystery religion question referred to the source of Mary's pregnancy, not the genealogy.


I'm not sure I follow the question about multiple authors. We know different people wrote the two books. Please develop that thought for me a bit more.

I'll try.

Both Gospels have Joseph as the father of Jesus, but they both also have the Spirit as the father of Jesus. It doesn't seem possible that was never questioned at the earliest times when the Gospels were initially being read. If not, does that indicate that one of the stories (genealogy or impregnation) is a later addition to the Gospels? Both stories in one Gospel would have been seen as a contradiction, ultimately leading to one or the other being added to the narrative.

I don't think there's any direct way of checking this since the earliest complete manuscripts are dated much later, time enough to create the Virgin birth story by the theologians to offer a way to explain the two stories being shown side by side in a Gospel.

This connects to the other question about deity-birth in other religions. In the above scenario, the Virgin birth (and the pregnancy announcement by the angel) was needed to assure a pagan world awash in unusual birth stories of famous men.

This gives me a segue to WG's comment on Mary's sin. That one will bring me to modern times.

https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/images/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by jlisenbe https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/images/buttons/viewpost-right.png (https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/showthread.php?p=3885210#post3885210)

What was Mary's sin?

from WG
Being human ("like each of us is" as I pointed out).


Mary was sinless.


The Catholic Church declared this on December 8 in 1854 when Pius IX promulgated the doctrine in Ineffabilis Deus. It is called The Immaculate Conception, not to be confused with the Virgin birth of Jesus.

We declare, pronounce, and define that the doctrine which holds that the most Blessed Virgin Mary, in the first instance of her conception, by a singular grace and privilege granted by Almighty God, in view of the merits of Jesus Christ, the Saviour of the human race, was preserved free from all stain of original sin, is a doctrine revealed by God and therefore to be believed firmly and constantly by all the faithful.


Ten years later, partly to ensure acceptance of the Immaculate Conception, Pius IX convoked the First Vatican Council where, on July 18 in 1870, the doctrine of infallibility was declared and accepted.

This is binding only on Catholics, but many non-Catholics are in general acceptance of Mary's sinlessness.

Mary was sinless
If Mary was sinless, then her mother Anne was sinless, and her mother was also and her mother too and back through the generations until we get to Eve, who was sinless before the Fall and must have had a sinless daughter then too who was at the beginning of that line of sinless women that ended with Mary.

Yeah. The "sinless Mary" idea is pretty much a Catholic invention. It has virtually no support in the protestant world, and no support at all that I'm aware of in the Bible.


If Mary was sinless, then her mother Anne was sinless, and her mother was also and her mother too and back through the generations until we get to Eve,Pretty good reasoning. And so far as I know, no one has any idea what her mother's name was. The "Anne" name was pretty much a Catholic invention based upon a questionable second century manuscript.

Martin Luther would have been proud of you, WG! I finally finished plowing through the biography of his life. It was a good read.

Why would God have to make Jesus' mother sinless? Jesus, as one Person in the Trinity, is sinless all on His own.

Very well said.

If Mary was sinless, then her mother Anne was sinless, and her mother was also and her mother too and back through the generations until we get to Eve, who was sinless before the Fall and must have had a sinless daughter then too who was at the beginning of that line of sinless women that ended with Mary.

No, only Mary was sinless. If the others had been sinless, the Pope would have said so.


Why would God have to make Jesus' mother sinless? Jesus, as one Person in the Trinity, is sinless all on His own.

So that Mary could bear Jesus. Jesus could not have been born from a sinful mother.

Also, as St. Augustine told us, original sin is transmitted via the sperm of the male partner. Mary had the Spirit as the inseminator and spirits do not have bodies: hence, no sperm, no sin.

No, only Mary was sinless. If the others had been sinless, the Pope would have said so.
And how did the pope know?

So that Mary could bear Jesus. Jesus could not have been born from a sinful mother.
God couldn't have managed that?

And how did the pope know?

The Pope, as God's vicar on earth, knows many things that come directly from God.


God couldn't have managed that?

Of course, he could. But he didn't. God has free will.

I edited my answer to include the definitive reason that St. Augustine promulgated. As we all know, St. Augustine was a great saint and holy churchman.

Also, as St. Augustine told us, original sin is transmitted via the sperm of the male partner.
Sooooo, I was sinless before I got married.

Sooooo, I was sinless before I got married.

No, you're not getting it. YOUR sinfulness came from your parents. That's true of everybody - except Jesus. He was born without sin as was his mother. Get it, now? I know it's a little confusing.

No, you're not getting it. YOUR sinfulness came from your parents. That's true of everybody - except Jesus. He was born without sin as was his mother. Get it, now? I know it's a little confusing.
Mary had parents. Thus, she was sinful because of them.

We women need to stop allowing men to bless us with their sperm. That will greatly reduce population totals and after, say, 100 years, this world will be populated only by sinless women.

Mary had parents. Thus, she was sinful because of them.

Ok, good, you're learning.

Now, let's go to the visit of the angel to Mary. The angel told Mary she would be Jesus' mother. Since Jesus could not be born from a sinful mother, Mary was preserved from all sin. You may then ask, "But, Mary was conceived before Jesus was born". Ah, good. We're getting there. As revealed by Pius IX, the Immaculate Conception took place when Mary was conceived.

Mary's conception was IMMACULATE meaning perfect in every way without stain.

Ok?

Since Jesus could not be born from a sinful mother, Mary was preserved from all sin.
God the Father had no power to cause Jesus to be born from a sinful woman? This is starting to sound like a chapter from Greek mythology.

You may then ask, "But, Mary was conceived before Jesus was born". Ah, good. We're getting there. As revealed by Pius IX, the Immaculate Conception took place when Mary was conceived.

Mary's conception was IMMACULATE meaning perfect in every way without stain.

Ok?
No! How could it be immaculate if Mary had earthly, sinful parents?

A completely non-biblical idea. In no place in scripture does it say that Mary was sinless or, for that matter, free from original sin.

God the Father had no power to cause Jesus to be born from a sinful woman? This is starting to sound like a chapter from Greek mythology.

God is All-powerful. He can do anything he wants. For Mary, God wanted her to be born sinless because she would be the mother of his son. Of course, you may now be asking, "Jesus was God's son AND Mary's son?" Does that make God and Mary married? At this stage, it does get a little like Greek mythology.

It's a great mystery which has not yet been revealed by the Pope. There is some speculation that the answer to the mystery lies in the three secrets given to the children at Fatima by the Blessed Virgin Mary. The secrets have not yet been totally revealed.


No! How could it be immaculate if Mary had earthly, sinful parents?

I already answered this. The angel Gabriel came to Mary and said, "Greetings Mary. The Lord is with you". The Lord is with you means Mary is without sin. Gabriel was sent by God to deliver this message.

God is All-powerful. He can do anything he wants. For Mary, God wanted her to be born sinless because she would be the mother of his son.
So Mary had no choices in life, no free will.

"The Lord is with you". The Lord is with you means Mary is without sin. Gabriel was sent by God to deliver this message.
The Lord is with me every day. I haven't seen Gabriel yet.

So Mary had no choices in life, no free will.

Mary had plenty of choices in life including Gabriel's offer. She could have refused, but instead, she said, "Be it done unto me according to thy word".


The Lord is with me every day. I haven't seen Gabriel yet.

That doesn't mean Mary did not see him. It's right there in the Bible.

"The Lord is with you". The Lord is with you means Mary is without sin.That's really a stretch. The expression is used on four other occasions in the Bible. It certainly does not have that meaning at those times.



Judges 6:12
The angel of the Lord appeared to him and said to him, “The Lord is with you, O valiant warrior.”
2 Samuel 7:3. Nathan said to the king, “Go, do all that is in your mind, for the Lord is with you.”
2 Chronicles 15:2 and he went out to meet Asa and said to him, “Listen to me, Asa, and all Judah and Benjamin: the Lord is with you when you are with Him. And if you seek Him, He will let you find Him; but if you forsake Him, He will forsake you.
2 Chronicles 20:17
You need not fight in this battle; station yourselves, stand and see the salvation of the Lord on your behalf, O Judah and Jerusalem.’ Do not fear or be dismayed; tomorrow go out to face them, for the Lord is with you.”


And that's not to mention the many other times where the same basic message is conveyed in slightly different language, such as when it ("the Lord was with him") was said of Phinehas, Hezekiah, Joseph, David, and Samuel.

True, but she has no specific sin listed in Matthew.

No specific sin is listed for Simon either, but when he meets Jesus he cries that he's a sinful man. It doesn't matter.

Both Gospels have Joseph as the father of Jesus, but they both also have the Spirit as the father of Jesus.
More precisely, they have Joseph as the ostensible father, but both make it clear that the Spirit was the real father of Jesus.
Matthew came before Luke, at least that's my conclusion (I don't buy the Mark-and-Q hypothesis). Matthew focused on the wider picture, which is why his account goes straight to the magi, Herod, and all the rest. Luke zeroes in on Mary and her experience. But both make it clear that Joseph hadn't yet touched Mary.

Athos, I admit I'm really enjoying what you're doing here.
ARGH! I wrote that as a separate post. This thing is weird!

No specific sin is listed for Simon either, but when he meets Jesus he cries that he's a sinful man. It doesn't matter.Agreed. My point was simply that she had no sin listed in the Matthew passage we were looking at. I have no problem at all agreeing that Mary had sinned, no doubt many times,

More precisely, they have Joseph as the ostensible father, but both make it clear that the Spirit was the real father of Jesus.

If, as you write, the spirit was the real father of Jesus, then that supports a sinless Mary. Since, as previously mentioned, according to Augustine, original sin is transmitted via the sperm of the male partner, and the Spirit, being a spirit and not a body, had no sperm. Therefore no sin was transmitted to baby Mary. To assume without evidence, as some have, that Mary sinned later in life is ungallant, the mark of a cad.

Further proof is evidenced by Pope Pius XII declaring in 1950, ex cathedra, that Mary was assumed into heaven, body and soul, without passing through purgatory. No one gets past purgatory with sin on their soul. Even a venial sin. Unless, of course, they've been granted a plenary indulgence.


Matthew came before Luke, at least that's my conclusion (I don't buy the Mark-and-Q hypothesis).

Hmmm... interesting. I think that hypothesis has some value.


Matthew focused on the wider picture, which is why his account goes straight to the magi, Herod, and all the rest. Luke zeroes in on Mary and her experience. But both make it clear that Joseph hadn't yet touched Mary.

Also interesting. It touches on the perpetual virginity of Mary. Marital relations are certainly not sinful within the marriage bond. By use of the term "yet", are you implying Mary did have relations with Joseph? If Mary, according to the Gospel, was a virgin before the birth of Jesus, it is equally possible she remained a virgin afterwards. I think that is the position of the mainstream Protestant churches, the Catholic Church, and the Eastern Orthodox.


Athos, I admit I'm really enjoying what you're doing here.
ARGH! I wrote that as a separate post. This thing is weird!

Thank you. I, you. Yes, Roel has created an excellent and very easy website to navigate in, but sometimes it gets a bit weird. Usually, it's my own fault when that happens.

Athos
Quote Originally Posted by dwashbur View Post
More precisely, they have Joseph as the ostensible father, but both make it clear that the Spirit was the real father of Jesus.
If, as you write, the spirit was the real father of Jesus, then that supports a sinless Mary. Since, as previously mentioned, according to Augustine, original sin is transmitted via the sperm of the male partner, and the Spirit, being a spirit and not a body, had no sperm. Therefore no sin was transmitted to baby Mary.

I think you mean baby Jesus. I haven't seen anybody claim the Spirit was Mary's father.

The notion of Mary being immaculate grew out of flawed logic.
1. Jesus, it was reasoned, was sinless.
2. So he couldn't have been born of a normal, sinful woman.
3. So she must have been born sinless.
But how? Wouldn't that require her mother to be immaculate, and her mother before her, ad infinitum?
The flawed logic comes in the second step, because there is no real reason why Jesus couldn't have been born from a perfectly normal woman. The flaw in logic happened when someone slipped an emotion-based opinion in when nobody was looking. There is no good theological reason why he couldn't.


Further proof is evidenced by Pope Pius XII declaring in 1950, ex cathedra, that Mary was assumed into heaven, body and soul, without passing through purgatory. No one gets past purgatory with sin on their soul. Even a venial sin. Unless, of course, they've been granted a plenary indulgence.


As I'm sure you know, not many active participants here follow papal decrees. The most fascinating thing about that one to me is how long it took someone to think it up.


Also interesting. It touches on the perpetual virginity of Mary. Marital relations are certainly not sinful within the marriage bond. By use of the term "yet", are you implying Mary did have relations with Joseph? If Mary, according to the Gospel, was a virgin before the birth of Jesus, it is equally possible she remained a virgin afterwards. I think that is the position of the mainstream Protestant churches, the Catholic Church, and the Eastern Orthodox.

I don't know about Eastern Orthodox, someone else please chime in on that one, but mainstream protestant churches, definitely not. Perpetual virginity is another one based on a logical fallacy. The reasoning there was simply that the vagina that expelled the Son of God couldn't possibly be defiled by anything else, that would just be too icky to contemplate. (I paraphrase.) That's what that one boiled down to. The Catholic Church also teaches that she wasn't just a perpetual virgin, but a virgo intacta even after she gave birth. Pushing Jesus out didn't break her hymen, which leads me to believe we should be building space ships out of whatever it was made of. (Sorry, I can't help myself. If anyone is offended I sincerely apologize.)


Usually, it's my own fault when that happens.

I assume it's my fault until proven otherwise. At the same time, I worked on computers for 15 years and I can attest that gremlins are real. I have scars.

but mainstream protestant churches, definitely not.That's a safe statement. Not too sure how she could have given birth to other children, as she did, and still remained a virgin. Perhaps the basic error is in viewing sexual activity as something sinful or, at the least, a little too enjoyable to be engaged in by the truly Godly people. I've been in this for several decades, and I've never heard a protestant minister on any level suggest that Mary was perpetually a virgin.

I think you mean baby Jesus.

Thank you for the correction. Even I confuse myself sometimes.


The notion of Mary being immaculate grew out of flawed logic.
1. Jesus, it was reasoned, was sinless.
2. So he couldn't have been born of a normal, sinful woman.
3. So she must have been born sinless.

As logic, there is no flaw. The first two premises being true, the conclusion logically follows. The issue, therefore, is not logic but the truth of the first two premises. No Christian denies the first, and the second holds up as explained below.


But how? Wouldn't that require her mother to be immaculate, and her mother before her, ad infinitum?

Not at all. The intervention of God, knowing Mary would be chosen, eliminated that requirement.


The flawed logic comes in the second step, because there is no real reason why Jesus couldn't have been born from a perfectly normal woman.

A woman impregnated by the Spirit is hardly normal. “Perfectly normal” requires a normal partner. That would result in Jesus being tainted with original sin, and it is already agreed that Jesus was sinless.


The flaw in logic happened when someone slipped an emotion-based opinion in when nobody was looking.

Are you saying here that the Gospels were changed or edited in places based on emotion? I think that's quite possible, even likely in several ways, but not necessarily here although possible.


There is no good theological reason why he couldn't.(ed: that Jesus couldn't have been born from a perfectly normal woman)

There is an excellent theological reason. Namely, that the Son of God would be born sinless.


Further proof is evidenced by Pope Pius XII declaring in 1950, ex cathedra, that Mary was assumed into heaven, body and soul, without passing through purgatory. No one gets past purgatory with sin on their soul. Even a venial sin. Unless, of course, they've been granted a plenary indulgence.

fm DW
As I'm sure you know, not many active participants here follow papal decrees. The most fascinating thing about that one to me is how long it took someone to think it up.

On the contrary, papal decrees are followed by the largest collection of Christian participants in the world – Roman Catholics. If by “here”, you mean this AMHD topic and its participants, that's not much of an argument, is it?


Also interesting. It touches on the perpetual virginity of Mary. Marital relations are certainly not sinful within the marriage bond. By use of the term "yet", are you implying Mary did have relations with Joseph? If Mary, according to the Gospel, was a virgin before the birth of Jesus, it is equally possible she remained a virgin afterwards. I think that is the position of the mainstream Protestant churches, the Catholic Church, and the Eastern Orthodox.

fm DW
I don't know about Eastern Orthodox, someone else please chime in on that one, but mainstream protestant churches, definitely not.

Here's a list of those Protestants who believed in Mary's perpetual virginity. Martin Luther, Zwingli, John Calvin, John Wesley – all of whom have mainstream denominations today. Others include Gregory of Nyassa, Augustine, Thomas Aquinas, and the first Archbishop of Canterbury (Anglican/Episcopalian).


Perpetual virginity is another one based on a logical fallacy. The reasoning there was simply that the vagina that expelled the Son of God couldn't possibly be defiled by anything else, that would just be too icky to contemplate. (I paraphrase.) That's what that one boiled down to. The Catholic Church also teaches that she wasn't just a perpetual virgin, but a virgo intacta even after she gave birth. Pushing Jesus out didn't break her hymen, which leads me to believe we should be building space ships out of whatever it was made of. (Sorry, I can't help myself. If anyone is offended I sincerely apologize.)

No offense taken.

For this objection and all the preceding ones, I've left the major reasoning challenging your points to the end. Your arguments are all based on logic. If you want to rely on logic, then, to be consistent, you should apply logic wherever needed. E.g., in the many places from Genesis to Revelation where the Bible defies logic.

Sorry this is so long, but I like to cover all bases, Religion being a favorite subject of mine, and especially when someone of your credentials is involved.

Why couldn't God the all-powerful Father have had His Spirit impregnate an ordinary human virgin in order to produce a sinless Son? If she were sinful, that baby would have to be sinful too?

From https://www.gotquestions.org/was-Mary-sinless.html --
Rather than teach that Mary was sinless, the Bible gives evidence that she was a normal person with a normal person’s need of salvation. In Mary’s praise-filled, humble prayer in Luke 1 (https://biblia.com/bible/esv/Luke%201), she says, “My spirit rejoices in God my Savior” (verse 47). If she were sinless, she would not have needed a “Savior.” Mary receives a gentle rebuke from Jesus in John 2:4 (https://biblia.com/bible/esv/John%202.4), which hardly seems fitting if she were sinless.

Wondergirl -- Why couldn't God the all-powerful Father have had His Spirit impregnate an ordinary human virgin in order to produce a sinless Son?

God could do anything. He could have had an angel impregnate a tree. But he didn't.


If she were sinful, that baby would have to be sinful too?

Mary was full of grace and without sin.


From https://www.gotquestions.org/was-Mary-sinless.html --
Rather than teach that Mary was sinless, the Bible gives evidence that she was a normal person with a normal person’s need of salvation. In Mary’s praise-filled, humble prayer in Luke 1 (https://biblia.com/bible/esv/Luke%201), she says, “My spirit rejoices in God my Savior” (verse 47). If she were sinless, she would not have needed a “Savior.” Mary receives a gentle rebuke from Jesus in John 2:4 (https://biblia.com/bible/esv/John%202.4), which hardly seems fitting if she were sinless.

Mary wasn't making a theological statement. She was simply expressing her joy using a title of God.

Good post, WG. It is also quite likely that when his family showed up to take him home in Mk. 3, it was because they considered him to be unstable. Not exactly a great vote of faith by his mom.

Mary was full of grace and without sin.

Contrary to RC theology, the former does not imply the latter. Grace is unmerited favor. It's something given despite the recipient not deserving it. Being "full of grace" suggest just the opposite, she was a regular sinful human who was given grace despite her condition.


Mary wasn't making a theological statement. She was simply expressing her joy using a title of God.

That's a leap.

I've been checking with Lutheran siblings and other relatives. Might contact a few of the Lutheran seminaries. Luther was an RC monk so heard the "sinless Mary" story, but none of us have ever been taught that she was sinless. My Lutheran pastor father (and his ministerial contemporaries) never taught or preached that. The Lutheran college that I attended many years ago didn't teach it either.

Mary was full of grace and without sin.I looked at several translations and found no place in the Bible where it says Mary was "full of grace" or "without sin". It does say Jesus was full of grace in John 1:14. Did I miss it somewhere?

Contrary to RC theology, the former does not imply the latter. Grace is unmerited favor. It's something given despite the recipient not deserving it. Being "full of grace" suggest just the opposite, she was a regular sinful human who was given grace despite her condition.

Unmerited favor and full of grace does not remotely suggest Mary was a sinful human. Whether it means or suggests Mary was without sin is debatable. Related issues, but not the same.


That's a leap. (This referred to Mary using the title Savior of God.)

Mary using the phrase "Savior of God" meaning that she was sinful because the expression implies she needed a savior is a bigger leap than the one you suggest I made re "full of grace" and "unmerited favor". You are being too literal at how language is used. That's a fault of the fundies, not you.

For example, a Catholic priest is called "Father". When a priest is addressed thusly, it does not mean the person considers the priest his literal, actual father.

Btw, it's ok to have different views about Mary. You are correct in saying/implying that RC theology favors Mary more than other Christian points of view. I assume the other points in my reply you did not address means you have no objection to those points?


I've been checking with Lutheran siblings and other relatives. Might contact a few of the Lutheran seminaries. Luther was an RC monk so heard the "sinless Mary" story, but none of us have ever been taught that she was sinless. My Lutheran pastor father (and his ministerial contemporaries) never taught or preached that. The Lutheran college that I attended many years ago didn't teach it either.

The issue was not Mary's sinlessness among Lutherans. It was Mary's perpetual virginity which was held by Martin Luther.

The issue was not Mary's sinlessness among Lutherans. It was Mary's perpetual virginity which was held by Martin Luther.
Lutherans believe she had children after Jesus. Although...some high-church Lutherans say they were cousins, not siblings.

That's a leap.
(This referred to Mary using the title Savior of God.)

Mary using the phrase "Savior of God" meaning that she was sinful because the expression implies she needed a savior is a bigger leap than the one you suggest I made re "full of grace" and "unmerited favor". You are being too literal at how language is used. That's a fault of the fundies, not you.

Uh uh. It's an understanding of the culture and language. "God my savior" means exactly what it means. If she had simply been expressing her joy with one of the many names of God in her scriptures, she would have been more likely to say Kyrios Eiden, "The Lord sees", in bad Hebrew it's Jehovah Jireh. She would not have used the term "savior" lightly. First century Judaism had several great names for God and she had them all at her disposal. The fact that she used the word "savior" is a lot more significant than you give it credit for.


Unmerited favor and full of grace does not remotely suggest Mary was a sinful human.

That's exactly what it means. It's why the favor wasn't merited.

Martin Luther's view of Mary.


“Christ, our Savior, was the real and natural fruit of Mary’s virginal womb . . . This was without the cooperation of a man, and she remained a virgin after that. […] Christ . . . was the only Son of Mary, and the Virgin Mary bore no children besides Him . . . I am inclined to agree with those who declare that ‘brothers’ really mean ‘cousins’ here, for Holy Writ and the Jews always call cousins brothers.”So he seems to have considered the "brothers" of Jesus to have been merely cousins. Wesley and Calvin appear to have believed the same thing. Hmmm.

5 Protestants Who Surprisingly Defended Mary’s Perpetual Virginity | (churchpop.com) (https://www.churchpop.com/2016/06/26/4-protestant-leaders-defended-perpetual-virginity-mary/)

Thankfully, it would not seem to be an essential doctrine in any regard.

Uh uh. It's an understanding of the culture and language. "God my savior" means exactly what it means. If she had simply been expressing her joy with one of the many names of God in her scriptures, she would have been more likely to say Kyrios Eiden, "The Lord sees", in bad Hebrew it's Jehovah Jireh. She would not have used the term "savior" lightly. First century Judaism had several great names for God and she had them all at her disposal. The fact that she used the word "savior" is a lot more significant than you give it credit for.

Thanks for adding the language info. I truly appreciate that.

However, regardless of that, it is quite possible, even probable in my view, that Mary never said those words in the first place. As the Christ story evolved over the first few centuries, Mary's words were added to the story as the debate about the divinity of Jesus and his role was taking place.

The anonymous author of Luke has Mary answering the angel including the Magnificat - passages so literary that it is difficult to believe Mary had the ability to compose such a response. The mere presence of an angel also indicates the Annunciation is a literary addition. Your take on the quality of the literary Greek in Luke's gospel would be welcomed.


That's exactly what it means. It's why the favor wasn't merited.

On this point, I believe you are flat out wrong. I wrote, "Unmerited favor and full of grace does not remotely suggest Mary was a sinful human." You denied that, implying Mary was sinful.

A favor can be unmerited without the recipient being sinful. Parents do it for their children all the time.

Catholics seem to doubt the Bible while believing the Pope. Protestants' prefer to believe the Bible and doubt the Pope.

However, regardless of that, it is quite possible, even probable in my view, that Mary never said those words in the first place. As the Christ story evolved over the first few centuries, Mary's words were added to the story as the debate about the divinity of Jesus and his role was taking place.

Got a documentary source for that? The pre-Nicene papyri don't seem to show any such development.

Got a documentary source for that? The pre-Nicene papyri don't seem to show any such development.

No.

Documentary sources for analyzing ancient writings are never able to answer every question that rises. In the case of early Christianity, when the Church became the official religion, other viewpoints were either discarded intentionally as heresy or simply were not copied for future reading. An example is gnosticism, a wide-spread philosophy/religion that is primarily known today through the writings of its opponent Christianity.

As you know, there are many tools to reconstruct or re-imagine the era of the first 3 or 4 centuries. Studying the culture, writings, language, and history of the era is essential. Conclusions are often drawn based on little more than common sense added to the basic tools mentioned. I believe that applies to my point about Mary not being a literary light.

However, I don't want to stray too far from the present conversation about Mary's sinfulness or lack thereof.

I welcome your reply to the other questions raised in my post #53.

Gnosticism is well documented and understood through the discovery of the Nag Hammadi documents in 1945. The Oxyrhynchus papyri have told us loads about the time and especially the language. The Amarna Letters give us information about ancient Egypt vis a vis their neighbors. The Lachish Letters give us a chilling view of what being under siege by the Babylonians was like. The list goes on and on.
We can reconstruct these things quite nicely through textual criticism of the New Testament, too. It's estimated that the text we have reconstructed through centuries of analyzing close to 3000 complete manuscripts and 2000+ bits and pieces, represents the text in use around the second century or earlier. See Bruce M. Metzger, The Text of the New Testament for the gory details.
We have complete manuscripts dating from around CE 350, right about the time of Nicea and Constantine. They don't show any signs of interpolation in the Mary stories. Papyrus p4, which dates from somewhere around the second to third century, also doesn't show any signs of a different text. In fact, it's pretty homogenous with later Alexandrian manuscripts.
All that gobbledygook was to say, when it comes to reconstructing the original text of the New Testament, we have plenty to go on. And none of it seems to support the hypothesis that the stories about Mary were redacted multiple times after Constantine.

All that gobbledygook was to say, when it comes to reconstructing the original text of the New Testament, we have plenty to go on.

Gobbledygook (your word) is a good description of the documentation information you provided. I hardly need say it is nowhere near the solution to what the original documents were as you seem to be claiming. You went far afield in your reply which did not cast light on the New Testament. Egypt and Babylon are not germane to the present discussion. I disagree that textual criticism can "quite nicely reconstruct these things". That is simply another tool that has value but not to be overstated. Thank you, however, for your correction on my Gnosticism comment.

You say the complete manuscripts from the time of Constantine don't show any signs of interpolation in the Mary stories. How could they? We don't have the originals to compare them with! (But what about the literary language that emanated from Mary?)

They were certainly the result of three centuries of the transmission of the Gospels that were copied and recopied for about two dozen generations. We know adjustments, changes, and additions/subtractions were made, and whatever else takes place when manuscripts are handed down over hundreds of years by dozens of copyists. We need look no further than the Gospels which were rejected to know for a certainty that decisions were made about which copies were to be selected for those final editions which have come down to us today. If memory serves, there were well over 50 Gospels of which only four made the cut.

Papyrus p4, you wrote, "doesn't show any signs of a different text" re Mary. Of course, it doesn't! P4 has only the first 6 chapters of Luke. Luke has 24 chapters. The Mary story is not even covered in those first 6 chapters! If I'm not understanding this comment of yours, please let me know what I'm missing.


And none of it seems to support the hypothesis that the stories about Mary were redacted multiple times after Constantine.

First, I never said the Mary stories were redacted multiple times after Constantine. My opinion on Mary's Magnificat was PRIOR to Constantine.

Second, my opinion was based on the literary language which I made very clear to you, and even requested your comment on the language, which you did not provide. I thought your scholarly study of Greek could shed some light on the issue. If you choose not to comment, that's ok.

I disagree that textual criticism can "quite nicely reconstruct these things". That is simply another tool that has value but not to be overstated.

It's no overstatement at all. Again, I refer you to Metzger's book. He presents the material in an understandable way.


They were certainly the result of three centuries of the transmission of the Gospels that were copied and recopied for about two dozen generations. We know adjustments, changes, and additions/subtractions were made, and whatever else takes place when manuscripts are handed down over hundreds of years by dozens of copyists.

And we have manuscripts that reflect pretty much all of them, so it's not hard to sift through and determine what's original and what isn't. Precisely my point. I've spent over 40 years in this, have published on the subject, and wrote a thesis in school about it. I did not go into this blind.

I don't understand your comment about P4. The Mary stories are in the first 3 chapters of Luke, which are preserved in the papyrus.

Also, as far as copying and transmission is concerned, P75 is at least two centuries older than the Constantine-era manuscripts, and it has virtually the same text as Vaticanus, one of the most important manuscripts we possess. Again, the mss themselves don't show any signs of redaction in any era.

We can also look at stylistic and formal matters of writing, and it's clear that there are no interpolations in the early chapters of Luke. There are lots of ways to determine this that would be more technical gobbledygook so I won't go into it. but form criticism has also told us these narratives haven't been monkeyed with.

I'm sorry, but there is just no evidence for this idea.


First, I never said the Mary stories were redacted multiple times after Constantine. My opinion on Mary's Magnificat was PRIOR to Constantine.

My error.

Unless I am mistaken, P4 contains only a handful of verses from chapters 1 and 2, so the Mary narrative is probably largely absent.

And we have manuscripts that reflect pretty much all of them, so it's not hard to sift through and determine what's original and what isn't.

How could you know what's original when the originals are not available? I agree you can sift through and make conclusions that are probably very close, but never 100% for all the words in each Gospel.


I've spent over 40 years in this, have published on the subject, and wrote a thesis in school about it. I did not go into this blind.

I'm not sure what your point is with this. Are you saying you cannot be questioned on these matters because of your background. That sounds dangerously like the Argument from Authority - a logical fallacy.


I don't understand your comment about P4. The Mary stories are in the first 3 chapters of Luke, which are preserved in the papyrus.

Only partial sections of the first three chapters of Luke are in P4. None of the P4 sections contain the Mary story being discussed.


Also, as far as copying and transmission is concerned, P75 is at least two centuries older than the Constantine-era manuscripts, and it has virtually the same text as Vaticanus, one of the most important manuscripts we possess.

I think this is easily explained by considering both P75 and Vaticanus being close in time as late as the 4th century.


Again, the mss themselves don't show any signs of redaction in any era.

Changes are not only redactions. They can also be omissions or partial mss. Again, without the originals to verify against, proving originals is always subject to new discoveries and new ways of approaching the problem.


We can also look at stylistic and formal matters of writing, and it's clear that there are no interpolations in the early chapters of Luke. There are lots of ways to determine this that would be more technical gobbledygook so I won't go into it. but form criticism has also told us these narratives haven't been monkeyed with.

This isn't clear what you're saying. My fault. I do understand the comment about there being no interpolations in the early chapters of Luke. Do I take this to mean you have examined the stylistic problem of Mary's Magnificat being literary and concluded that the words are definitely hers?


I'm sorry, but there is just no evidence for this idea.

Don't be sorry, that's quite all right.

I don't believe you have made your case. You seem to be looking for documentation, when I originally stated it was a question of interpretation relying on applying common sense, documentation being unavailable. After all, the Bible itself often requires the application of common sense to fully understand it.

Athos
Quote Originally Posted by dwashbur View Post
And we have manuscripts that reflect pretty much all of them, so it's not hard to sift through and determine what's original and what isn't.
How could you know what's original when the originals are not available? I agree you can sift through and make conclusions that are probably very close, but never 100% for all the words in each Gospel.
Nobody claims 100%. But we get mighty close. And the work still continues. Each new edition of the UBS Greek New Testament, for example, has a thorough re-evaluation of the manuscripts by a committee of the best minds in textual criticism. They re-evaluate in light of new discoveries, new analyses, and new research. We don't have the originals as everyone knows. But the reconstruction we have is a fair representation of them.

I've spent over 40 years in this, have published on the subject, and wrote a thesis in school about it. I did not go into this blind.
I'm not sure what your point is with this. Are you saying you cannot be questioned on these matters because of your background. That sounds dangerously like the Argument from Authority - a logical fallacy.
It's only a logical fallacy when used in isolation, which I am not doing. My point is, I've wrestled with this question and others like it for a very long time. Your objection sounds dangerously close to rejection of any authority or learning that's more involved than yours. Perhaps we'd both do well to be careful.

Also, as far as copying and transmission is concerned, P75 is at least two centuries older than the Constantine-era manuscripts, and it has virtually the same text as Vaticanus, one of the most important manuscripts we possess.
I think this is easily explained by considering both P75 and Vaticanus being close in time as late as the 4th century.
It doesn't work that way. Provenance matters. Vaticanus originated most likely in Rome. P75 was found in Alexandria Egypt. Sinaiticus was found in a monastery in the Sinai (NOT in a garbage can, let's nip that myth in the bud before someone brings it up). Their texts are so homogenous it baffles textual critics. With the other papyri, we can and do have a text that reaches back to at least the second century. Dispute it all you want, but that's the conclusion the scholars have come to, and at some point we have to trust them to know what they're talking about. I don't claim to be one of them; I bask in reflected glory, having rubbed shoulders with them.

Again, the mss themselves don't show any signs of redaction in any era.
Changes are not only redactions. They can also be omissions or partial mss. Again, without the originals to verify against, proving originals is always subject to new discoveries and new ways of approaching the problem.

A change such as inserting the magnificat is a redaction.

We can also look at stylistic and formal matters of writing, and it's clear that there are no interpolations in the early chapters of Luke. There are lots of ways to determine this that would be more technical gobbledygook so I won't go into it. but form criticism has also told us these narratives haven't been monkeyed with.
This isn't clear what you're saying. My fault. I do understand the comment about there being no interpolations in the early chapters of Luke. Do I take this to mean you have examined the stylistic problem of Mary's Magnificat being literary and concluded that the words are definitely hers?

We don't say such things in textual criticism or form criticism. We say the words are definitely Luke's. We leave it to the theologians to take it from there and do the real damage.

I don't believe you have made your case. You seem to be looking for documentation, when I originally stated it was a question of interpretation relying on applying common sense, documentation being unavailable. After all, the Bible itself often requires the application of common sense to fully understand it.
It's your prerogative not to buy the evidence I presented, but I ask one favor: please define "common sense".

but I ask one favor: please define "common sense".That's really a great request considering that this "common sense" is being presented as an essential ingredient for properly understanding the Bible. I look forward to seeing the answer for that.

Sorry for delay - life intervened. I'll begin at the end.


It's your prerogative not to buy the evidence I presented, but I ask one favor: please define "common sense".

Sure. The sense of understanding anything based on rational intelligence that is common to most people. I.e., not particularly based on as an expert in a field tho' that may sometimes be the case (but not necessary). In examining the Bible, it leads to seeing what is written as allegorical, not literal. Common sense tells us snakes do not speak in human language. Common sense also tells us that most, if not all, of Genesis is a collection of stories that make a point and any obvious errors are beside the point. For example, having light before the Sun is created. Or having a woman made from the rib of a man. Common sense tells us these are not actual occurrences but are part of a larger tale about a tribe's origins and that tribe's relation to God. The miracles in the Gospels are an entirely different matter.


Nobody claims 100%. ...............................But the reconstruction (of the originals) we have is a fair representation of them.

Please define "fair".


It's only a logical fallacy when used in isolation, which I am not doing.

Agreed. I should have recognized you as an expert as in the legal sense - courtroom testimony from an expert is not considered hearsay, or, in this case, your position carries weight based on long study.


Your objection sounds dangerously close to rejection of any authority or learning that's more involved than yours. Perhaps we'd both do well to be careful.

No. In fact, I frequently rely on authority greater than mine. But I do not hesitate to question authority greater than mine when it seems to me to be proper to do so.


Provenance matters. Vaticanus originated most likely in Rome. P75 was found in Alexandria Egypt. Sinaiticus was found in a monastery in the Sinai.

The whole provenance paragraph does not relate to the matter of whether the Magnificat was composed by Mary. (And we're doing P4, not P75).


Their texts are so homogenous it baffles textual critics.

Wouldn't that support my position (opinion) that they are close in time.


With the other papyri, we can and do have a text that reaches back to at least the second century. Dispute it all you want, but that's the conclusion the scholars have come to, and at some point we have to trust them to know what they're talking about.

Not all scholars have come to the second century conclusion. Frederick Kenyon dated P4 to the 4th century. Currently, Brent Nogbri has stated that any date from the 2nd to the 4th century is possible for P4. That brings up two points; the argument from authority, and "...at some point we have to trust them to know what they're doing". Doesn't this difference among scholars indicate that any argument from authority is questionable (able to be questioned, not as in "possibly wrong"). As to the second point, simply trusting them is never the final statement. As previously noted from each of us, new ways are always being discovered.


...in textual criticism or form criticism, we say the words are definitely Luke's.

I don't think you've made your case re the Magnificat. You really haven't made any case at all except to state there is no case. As a student of Greek, I was sure you were the perfect person to comment on the style and how it does or doesn't seem like something Mary would say. Luke? Yes.

Common sense tells us snakes do not speak in human language. Common sense also tells us that most, if not all, of Genesis is a collection of stories that make a point and any obvious errors are beside the point. For example, having light before the Sun is created. Or having a woman made from the rib of a man. Common sense tells us these are not actual occurrences but are part of a larger tale about a tribe's origins and that tribe's relation to God. Common sense also tells us that men who are dead do not come back to life, or that men born blind or lame do not suddenly, in a mere instant, have the ability to walk or see presented to them. I would agree that common sense would tell us that believing in the resurrection makes a talking serpent look simple in comparison.

OT = allegories / NT = miracles

OT = allegories / NT = miraclesWhere does the Bible endorse that idea?

Where does the Bible endorse that idea?
Athos said it well: "Common sense also tells us that most, if not all, of Genesis is a collection of stories that make a point and any obvious errors are beside the point. For example, having light before the Sun is created. Or having a woman made from the rib of a man. Common sense tells us these are not actual occurrences but are part of a larger tale about a tribe's origins and that tribe's relation to God. The miracles in the Gospels are an entirely different matter."

The question was, "Where does the Bible endorse that idea?" You gave no answer for that but instead made an appeal to "common sense". Now if a person wants to treat the OT as a great allegory, then that's his or her prerogative, but there is no compelling reason to do so, and there's certainly no Biblical reason for making that choice. Besides, as I said earlier, "...common sense would tell us that believing in the resurrection makes a talking serpent look simple in comparison."

Why would the miracles in the Gospels be an entirely different matter?

Why would the miracles in the Gospels be an entirely different matter?
As Athos said, the OT is "a larger tale about a tribe's origins and that tribe's relation to God." The NT is the revelation of Jesus Christ, our Savior.

The sense of understanding anything based on rational intelligence that is common to most people. I.e., not particularly based on as an expert in a field tho' that may sometimes be the case (but not necessary). In examining the Bible, it leads to seeing what is written as allegorical, not literal. Common sense tells us snakes do not speak in human language.

But as the New Testament shows us, "common sense" and "rational intelligence" can't account for everything. As C.S. Lewis put it, no study of probabilities within a given framework will ever be able to tell us whether or not the framework can be violated. Since the Bible is a book all about an almighty God deliberately intervening in that framework and doing things that are contrary to what we would call "common sense", that's not going to be the best way to approach it. First and foremost, proper interpretation of any ancient text, or indeed any text in general, requires that we seek out the author's intention. What did s/he mean to communicate by writing XYZ? Proper interpretation has to start where they are, not where we are, or our interpretations run a very real, and very historically repeated, risk of anachronism.


Provenance matters. Vaticanus originated most likely in Rome. P75 was found in Alexandria Egypt. Sinaiticus was found in a monastery in the Sinai.
The whole provenance paragraph does not relate to the matter of whether the Magnificat was composed by Mary. (And we're doing P4, not P75).

You were the one who pointed out that P4 doesn't include the passage in question, something I had missed. So I moved on.

Provenance does matter because, regardless of time, they were copied on opposite sides of the Mediterranean. That tells us that the common source text they were working from was much older, because it had to have time to spread to all those places. There's a whole field surrounding this that I simply don't have room to go into here, but it's thorough and solid, scientifically speaking.


Quote Originally Posted by dwashbur View Post
Nobody claims 100%. ...............................But the reconstruction (of the originals) we have is a fair representation of them.
Please define "fair".

A 99 44/100% probability that we have the best possible representation of what the authors wrote. All the convergent lines of study come together to form that conclusion. It's as solid as the sciences of history, linguistics, and textual criticism can make it. Which means it's rock solid.


It's only a logical fallacy when used in isolation, which I am not doing.
Agreed. I should have recognized you as an expert as in the legal sense - courtroom testimony from an expert is not considered hearsay, or, in this case, your position carries weight based on long study.


Thanks for clarifying.


Not all scholars have come to the second century conclusion. Frederick Kenyon dated P4 to the 4th century.

The whole theory that Kenyon used, originated by Westcott and Hort, has been File 13'ed. A much better approach arose around the 50's and 60's known as the eclectic method, and it produces much more reliable results. Kenyon and others of his time was parroting WH and their theory of a "neutral" text, but textual critics rejected that idea within about 60 years of their presenting it. Today their text and the accompanying volume are a historical curiosity, nothing more, and Kenyon's work is nothing but a restatement of theirs.
The Greek papyri aren't all we have, either. The Peta Syriac translation has been dated to the second century, though some push it out to the 4th. There are other very early translations including Ulfilas' Gothic translation around the 4th century. The geographical spread, i.e. provenance, of all these things works to help cement the fact that we have a very early, very authentic text.


Doesn't this difference among scholars indicate that any argument from authority is questionable (able to be questioned, not as in "possibly wrong"). As to the second point, simply trusting them is never the final statement. As previously noted from each of us, new ways are always being discovered.


Not in this kind of instance. The older scholars like Kenyon did the best they could with what they had. The Oxyrhynchus papyri hadn't been found when WH wrote and Kenyon and others failed to take them into account. In 1881 when WH published their book, NT Greek was still considered a special form of the language, especially created for the sacred books. The papyri showed that wasn't correct. The language of the NT is the "gutter Greek" of the common masses of the time, as opposed to the rich and highly educated who spoke a more Atticized form. The "neutral text" that WH came up with and Kenyon propagated, read more like Attic Greek and hence they thought it was better. Turns out the opposite was true. Thus, the work continues and that theory has been put to rest.
Your material shows that we keep learning and when a theory doesn't cut it, we put it to bed.


...in textual criticism or form criticism, we say the words are definitely Luke's.
I don't think you've made your case re the Magnificat. You really haven't made any case at all except to state there is no case. As a student of Greek, I was sure you were the perfect person to comment on the style and how it does or doesn't seem like something Mary would say. Luke? Yes.

I repeat: we don't talk about whether they were Mary's words or not. We leave that for someone else. We can, however, conclude with great confidence that the words came from the same hand as the rest of the book, i.e. Luke's.

Beyond that I don't know what to tell you. I'm not sure what kinds of criteria you have set up for yourself that I'm not meeting with all this evidence, so that's as much as I can do. Little things like inclusion/exclusion of prepositions, articles, pronouns, various turns of phrase, all of that in the Magtnificat is pretty well identical to Luke's style in the rest of the book. I won't try to go into detail because there's so much of it we'd be here all month.
Then there's the culture. Exploding into song was a common thing that people did. It was a way to memorize. And by the way, they were way better at verbatim memorization than we are. They had to be. Writing material was expensive, and from birth young Jewish kids were taught to remember pretty much everything they heard and be able to reproduce it on command. If we judge their ability by ours, we do them a huge injustice.
It all comes together to say, we have the authentic text of Luke and all the rest. I can't do an entire course on textual criticism on a bulletin board, but I've given you the basics plus. What you do with it from there is out of my hands.

As Athos said, the OT is "a larger tale about a tribe's origins and that tribe's relation to God."But the Bible does not endorse that idea. You are giving me a "thus sayeth Athos", but I'm looking for "thus sayeth the Bible". I find no evidence from the writers of the NT to suggest that we are to regard the entire OT as strictly allegorical. In fact we find just the opposite. The NT writers, and Jesus himself, frequently made reference to OT events in an historical and literal sense. You can see this in Paul's lengthy references, for instance, to Abraham in Romans and Galatians, the many references in Hebrews to the OT structure of worship, or in the reference by Jesus to David ( “Have you not read what David did when he became hungry, he and his companions, how he entered the house of God, and they ate the consecrated bread, which was not lawful for him to eat nor for those with him, but for the priests alone?"). So given a choice between Jesus and the apostles versus Athos, I will go with the former. And I say that with all due regard to Athos.

A 99 44/100% probability that we have the best possible representation of what the authors wrote. All the convergent lines of study come together to form that conclusion. It's as solid as the sciences of history, linguistics, and textual criticism can make it. Which means it's rock solid.Well said. I have frequently heard the 99% reliability figure, and the 1% in question usually has no great bearing on doctrine.

I find no evidence from the writers of the NT to suggest that we are to regard the entire OT as strictly allegorical.
I didn't say we should. And please read the ENTIRE quote from Athos and ALL of my explanation in that post. No cherry picking!

The OT is full of history, poetry, wisdom literature, parables, law, and so much more -- and yes, allegories. Do you know what an allegory is?

This was your post. "OT = allegories / NT = miracles" Now you realize, I suppose, that the OT actually should not be regarded simply as allegorical. That's good to know.

Yes, I know what an allegory is. I also know that I have asked you repeatedly, "Where does the Bible endorse that idea." Since you cannot answer, I take that to mean that you realize it does not.

Anytime you refer to "cherry-picking", I know that you have run out of answers and are attempting to deflect attention.

This was your post. "OT = allegories / NT = miracles" Now you realize, I suppose, that the OT actually should not be regarded simply as allegorical. That's good to know.
I should have put in clear English when riffing off what Athos had said. OT contains allegories / NT contains miracles.

Yes, I know what an allegory is.
What is it? (Please don't google a definition.)

I also know that I have asked you repeatedly, "Where does the Bible endorse that idea." Since you cannot answer, I take that to mean that you realize it does not.
I HAVE answered: "The OT is full of history, poetry, wisdom literature, parables, law, and so much more -- and yes, allegories."

Anytime you refer to "cherry-picking", I know that you have run out of answers and are attempting to deflect attention.
And yet again, you're out in the orchard, picking cherries.

OT contains allegories / NT contains miracles.And you can also say that the NT contains allegories while the OT contains miracles. We would agree on that, I think. I'm not sure how that was intended to be an earth-shattering revelation.

You first. "Where does the Bible endorse that idea." Giving me your own view is not telling us where the OT endorses the idea, which you have now discarded anyway, that the OT is strictly allegorical. "Thus sayeth WG" is not the same as "Thus sayeth the Bible". You REALLY need to learn that lesson.


And yet again, you're out in the orchard, picking cherries.And yet again, it's what you always say when you get stuck by your own quotations. It's like the old "deflector shields" in the Starwars movies. It would be much better to be honest, or to be clear and precise in the first place.

You first. "Where does the Bible endorse that idea." Giving me your own view is not telling us where the OT endorses the idea, which you have now discarded anyway, that the OT is strictly allegorical. "Thus sayeth WG" is not the same as "Thus sayeth the Bible". You REALLY need to learn that lesson.
I have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. I never said the OT is strictly allegorical. (Ah, no idea of what allegorical means?)

A 99 44/100% probability that we have the best possible representation of what the authors wrote. All the convergent lines of study come together to form that conclusion. It's as solid as the sciences of history, linguistics, and textual criticism can make it. Which means it's rock solid.
Well said. I have frequently heard the 99% reliability figure, and the 1% in question usually has no great bearing on doctrine.
Yep. There are less than a handful that really affect anything. In fact, the overwhelming majority of variants, as we call them, are basic misspellings. There are the big ones like 1 John 5:7, but only the most die-hard KJV-only people try to defend that one. It got into the standard Greek text that most of the Renaissance translators used because Erasmus kept a promise. He knew it was a bad one, but he kept his word. He should have cried "foul" instead.
But I digress. Erasmus is one of my personal heroes, but he blew that one.

I have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. I never said the OT is strictly allegorical.You certainly intimated it by posting, "OT= allegories", which you then amended to say, "OT contains allegories". So I'm glad you have clarified your position on that.

An allegory is a story in which a symbol or character, and generally the entire story, is meant to teach a moral lesson. Parables are types of short allegories such as the parable of the Prodigal Son in which the son represents a lost sinner, the father represents God, the second son represents stodgy religion, and the basic message is the willingness, and even eagerness, of God to restore and forgive, and it is that lesson which is the basic value of the story. The Apostle Paul represented the story of Sarah and Hagar as being allegorical of the nature of grace versus the nature of legalistic observation. In doing so, he used what he clearly regarded as being an actual historical event in a figurative manner.

Many people, I am convinced, delight in reducing the OT to mere allegory because, at least in part, it allows them to interject their own thoughts and meanings into the text. So the story of David and Bathsheba, for instance, comes to have the meaning of the need to banish the bad, bad patriarchy as opposed to the plain meaning of the exceeding dangers of sexual lust and misuse of authority.

Yep. There are less than a handful that really affect anything. In fact, the overwhelming majority of variants, as we call them, are basic misspellings.As you doubtless know better than me, opponents of the faith try to use the stunningly large number of variants (several hundred thousand) to cast doubt on the NT. But when you consider that, for instance, the finals verses of Mark 16 represent quite a number of variants multiplied by whatever number of manuscripts differ on that text, then it becomes clear why there are so many. And when you consider that the 0.5% of the NT text that is in some doubt would include, as I understand it, the somewhat lengthy Mark 16 passage as well as the story of the woman caught in adultery, then the reliability of what we have becomes astonishingly good.

The final verses of Mark, I am convinced, are not authentic. Besides the manuscript evidence, there is so much in it that doesn't fit Mark's style. Then there's the shorter ending that appears in numerous manuscripts; that one is obviously spurious, but it points up the fact that we don't know how Mark's gospel ended. Various people at various times felt the need to create an ending, but the one in our modern Bibles clearly came from a time when theology was a LOT more developed than it was in the first century.
The woman caught in adultery is problematic, not so much because it may or may not be authentic, but because for whatever reason, the guys making the manuscripts couldn't decide where to put it. Some even put it in Luke. Now, the story fits John's style, it sounds like something Jesus would do, and it's not out of character with the Gospel of John. Why was there so much confusion about where it goes?
In the words of Tevye, "Well, I'll tell you. Idunno."
And as I said, the work continues. I'm doing my daily reading from the United Bible Societies' Greek New Testament, 4th edition. They publish what they call a "Textual commentary" as a companion volume that explains the reasons for the decisions they made on the various readings. The Textual Commentary I have is for the 3rd edition. It's interesting to see the differences between the two editions as we learn more and discover more. We may never reach 100%, but we'll ding dong sure keep working toward it.
From the loose-ends dept.: the 5th edition has been out for quite some time, I'm just too cheap to buy it until my 4th edition wears out completely!

I think your views on Mark 16 and John 8 have become fairly mainstream. I've heard D. Wallace flatly say they should not be in the NT. Reading a book now by Peter Gurry and Elijah Hixson on issues regarding textual criticism. It's been very good.

But as the New Testament shows us, "common sense" and "rational intelligence" can't account for everything.

They can't account for everything in any topic being discussed but they are the best thing we have to determine the facts of anything.


Since the Bible is a book all about an almighty God deliberately intervening in that framework and doing things that are contrary to what we would call "common sense", that's not going to be the best way to approach it.

There you have stated the essential problem in Bible/Torah/Koran/Gita/etc. discussions. When one side ultimately offers "God said so" as part of the discussion, facts become irretrievable. As a student of religion, I don't have the luxury of declaring I'm right because "the Bible tells me so". When a theologian is suggested as the final arbiter in the Mary/Magnificat discussion, that leaves me without recourse. I absolutely accept that someone has faith, but I can't accept the argument from faith (argumentum ab fide) as definitive in this instance. In any case, it's not essential to basic Christianity.

I read the Magnificat in several Bibles in English, and they all seemed like a later addition. I was hoping for your Greek take on the issue, but, after your several posts of methods of Biblical examination which were all very interesting, I was left with a theologian for an answer.

I won't go point by point to your latest reply since you would then be encouraged to come back with your own point by point. I don't accept your insights on this issue and you don't accept mine, so I suggest we leave it at that, otherwise we may end up taking potshots at each other, and that is not in the interest of either of us.

There you have stated the essential problem in Bible/Torah/Koran/Gita/etc. discussions. When one side ultimately offers "God said so" as part of the discussion, facts become irretrievable. As a student of religion, I don't have the luxury of declaring I'm right because "the Bible tells me so". When a theologian is suggested as the final arbiter in the Mary/Magnificat discussion, that leaves me without recourse. I absolutely accept that someone has faith, but I can't accept the argument from faith (argumentum ab fide) as definitive in this instance. In any case, it's not essential to basic Christianity.

Sorry, but that's off topic. I said no such thing. I said that with a book of this type we have to take a different approach than just "common sense". We have to go back to author's intent and the world the author was presenting. I have made no claims, nor did I suggest that theologians are the final arbiter of anything. You read that stuff into my posts.
I'm speaking strictly as a textual critic. I'm making no judgments as to theology or anything else. I'm looking at the text, nothing more.
You won't hear me giving you "because the Bible says so" because I agree with you that that's a cop-out. If that's all one has, it's a sad state of affairs.


jlisenbe
I think your views on Mark 16 and John 8 have become fairly mainstream. I've heard D. Wallace flatly say they should not be in the NT. Reading a book now by Peter Gurry and Elijah Hixson on issues regarding textual criticism. It's been very good.

Is that Daniel Wallace? I've met him, he seemed like a good guy.

You won't hear me giving you "because the Bible says so" because I agree with you that that's a cop-out. If that's all one has, it's a sad state of affairs.I wish you'd elaborate on that.

Yeah, it was Daniel Wallace. I really like him.

jlisenbe
You won't hear me giving you "because the Bible says so" because I agree with you that that's a cop-out. If that's all one has, it's a sad state of affairs.
I wish you'd elaborate on that.

Too many people use that line without first asking the really hard question: what does the Bible really say about this? That requires more than just reading the KJV or any other translation. It requires digging in deeper than one could imagine to understand the grammatical, historical, and cultural information surrounding a particular statement so we can understand what the writer was trying to tell us. Too many don't do that. The creation story is a prime example. I'll just give one example for the sake of brevity.
"There was evening and there was morning, one day". They tell us "Every time the word 'day' is used with a number like this it means a literal day."
The part they don't tell us: the construction they refer to is used exactly once in the Hebrew Bible, and it's right here. There are no others to compare it to. That means somebody made up this rule to back their young-earth creationism.
As I like to tell people, if you have to lie to support your position, your position sucks.
This is why experts are important. I don't consider myself one of them, as the saying goes, I stand on the shoulders of giants. Not everybody can dig into it as deeply as I have been privileged to do (mostly because not everybody is as warped as I am), but we can all draw from those who can and have done so. They come to different conclusions sometimes, and that's when it's incumbent on the rest of us to find the tools we need to evaluate and decide who (if anyone) is right.

That's what I've spent my life doing. I love the egghead stuff and the light it brings to my own study and learning. I also know that 99% of people have no idea what these people are talking about, so I've taken it upon myself to try and translate the scholarese into actual human language. I've had varying degrees of success, needless to say.

Another example: Jesus said if your eye offends you, which is to say, it makes you sin - he was talking about lust as I recall - pluck it out and throw it away. How many of us are doing that when we see a temptation? Well, the Bible says so, we should all be blind. But good analysis of the time, the language, Jesus' way of speaking, and the culture, tell us he was speaking metaphorically. We know eyes are neutral, they're nothing but receptors. Lust and the rest take place in the mind. So he meant, look at something else (grossly simplified but that's what it boils down to).

And so it goes.


Yeah, it was Daniel Wallace. I really like him.

I enjoyed meeting him. It was a long time ago, so I'm sure he has no idea who I am. We were both meeting lots of people.

Too many people use that line without first asking the really hard question: what does the Bible really say about this? That requires more than just reading the KJV or any other translation. It requires digging in deeper than one could imagine to understand the grammatical, historical, and cultural information surrounding a particular statement so we can understand what the writer was trying to tell us. Too many don't do that. The creation story is a prime example. I'll just give one example for the sake of brevity.
"There was evening and there was morning, one day". They tell us "Every time the word 'day' is used with a number like this it means a literal day."You make a good point. A simplistic, single verse/passage approach can be dangerous, but there is similarly a danger with the "consult an expert" approach. Who is an expert? The experts frequently disagree more than they agree. There are, for instance, more opinions on the present day ministry of the Holy Spirit than can be counted. So I'd agree with the text you used as an example, but then there are many other passages where the meaning is clear. John 3:16 comes to mind. It does not take an expert to understand that.

If we are solely dependent on theologians, then we are in trouble. The glory of the story of Martin Luther is that he stood, one man all by himself, in opposition to all of the experts and came out on top. His plea was always the same. He insisted that they show him his error in the Bible by public debate and not by the mere wisdom of man. That business of serious discussion and even public debate is a great safeguard against error.


If that's all one has, it's a sad state of affairs.This statement puzzles me. Perhaps I don't understand what you mean by it. I would suggest that if we do not have Biblical support for our beliefs, and even more if our beliefs are not "birthed" in scripture, then we are in a truly sad state of affairs. I am, of course, referring to our Christian faith.

I said no such thing.
(My comment was - "When one side ultimately offers 'God said so' as part of the discussion, facts become irretrievable."
You implied it by your statement dissing common sense when you wrote "...Since the Bible is a book all about an almighty God deliberately intervening in that framework and doing things that are contrary to what we would call "common sense", that's not going to be the best way to approach it. "

Bringing in "Almighty God" to bolster your position brought the conversation to faith, instead of a rational common sense examination. I don't object to you doing that, I just want you to acknowledge what you're doing. If a person of faith says he/she cannot understand or prove an issue logically since it is a matter of faith, I accept that position. If a person of faith tries to rationally prove the unprovable, I do not accept that and will debate the issue.


I said that with a book of this type we have to take a different approach than just "common sense". We have to go back to author's intent and the world the author was presenting. I have made no claims, nor did I suggest that theologians are the final arbiter of anything.

In post 62, you wrote "We leave it to the theologians to take it from there". You repeated that sentiment in Post 71, I repeat: we don't talk about whether they were Mary's words or not. We leave that for someone else. " I took that to refer to the earlier post.


You read that stuff into my posts.

If I have done that, I apologize.


You won't hear me giving you "because the Bible says so" because I agree with you that that's a cop-out. If that's all one has, it's a sad state of affairs.

Good. I agree with you. The Bible is loaded with excellence. It doesn't need "because the Bible told me so". Christians should follow whatever truth they find in the Bible. Not because it's in the Bible, but because it's the truth.

Bringing in "Almighty God" to bolster your position brought the conversation to faith, instead of a rational common sense examination.

It's literally the first sentence of the book. If you insist on approaching a book of that kind with a view that says "such things don't happen" renders your approach pointless. The only way to approach the Bible or the Qur'an or any other ancient book that reports encounters with deity, is to understand it on its own terms. Whether you believe the events happened or not is irrelevant to understanding the text.

It's literally the first sentence of the book. If you insist on approaching a book of that kind with a view that says "such things don't happen" renders your approach pointless. The only way to approach the Bible or the Qur'an or any other ancient book that reports encounters with deity, is to understand it on its own terms. Whether you believe the events happened or not is irrelevant to understanding the text.

You wrote "Whether you believe the events happened or not is irrelevant to understanding the text." Immediately before that, you wrote "If you insist on approaching a book of that kind with a view that says "such things don't happen" renders your approach pointless".

The first sentence says belief or disbelief is irrelevant. The second sentence says disbelief ("such things don't happen") renders the approach pointless. Which is it? Both sentences can't be true.

I agree that textual criticism and those methods you mentioned are valid. That is a rational approach that aids in understanding and, as you say, renders belief irrelevant.

You further write, "The only way to approach the Bible or the Qur'an or any other ancient book that reports encounters with deity, is to understand it on its own terms". I have always understood the Bible on its own terms. If you mean belief in a Bible deity is necessary to understand the Bible, I couldn't disagree more. You can believe in a Bible deity, but you cannot demonstrate/prove the reality of a Bible deity.

Finally, total extermination of the human race in a flood, Noah's ark with a pair of every living thing aboard, and talking snakes are just three examples of my belief that "such things don't happen".

I hope I'm misreading your comments. If not, and you insist on offering a Bible deity as a proof of your position, I'm afraid we're at a standstill.

We're way off the original discussion. To sum that up, I believe Mary's Magnificat is a later addition to the Gospels because the literary language is not something Mary would say. It was added when Christianity was achieving influence and the Mary story helped to prove the divine intervention re the birth of Jesus who was now being seen as divine himself. You disagree, and that's fine.

Finally, total extermination of the human race in a flood, Noah's ark with a pair of every living thing aboard, and talking snakes are just three examples of my belief that "such things don't happen".[When] calculating the number of animals on the Ark, this would mean that Noah cared for approximately 7,000 animals.
https://arkencounter.com/animals/how-many/

Again, I very much believe the Noah story is an allegory.

1. There are no "talking snakes" in the Bible.
2. Noah's ark is an impossible story unless the power of God is factored into it. There is, for instance, the question of where the 10 to 20 thousand feet of water went to. What did the carnivores on the ark eat? How about fish? How did saltwater and freshwater fish survive being in the water that would have existed during the flood? There is, however, some evidence for such a flood, and the Bible does seem to treat the story as though it actually happened. So perhaps it is allegorical, and perhaps it is accurate history. Either way, the Bible does not rise or fall on the answer to that question.
3. For those of us who believe in the resurrection, a serpent that speaks, or a donkey that speaks, are not big problems at all.

1. There are no "talking snakes" in the Bible.
Read Genesis 3.

2. Noah's ark is an impossible story unless the power of God is factored into it. There is, for instance, the question of where the 10 to 20 thousand feet of water went to.
Many floods mentioned in Mesopotamian (periodic flooding of the Tigris-Euphrates rivers) literature may have included the flood faced by a Sumerian Noah.

What did the carnivores on the ark eat?
Not only carnivores. For 40 days.... Who shoveled the manure? To put it where?

How about fish? How did saltwater and freshwater fish survive being in the water that would have existed during the flood?
They were just fine on their own.

Read Genesis 3.I have many times. There are no "talking snakes" there.

It was much more than 40 days. More like 10 1/2 months before he found dry land.

Salt water fish would not have been "just fine" in an aguatic environment that would have been primarily composed of fresh water.


Many floods mentioned in Mesopotamian (periodic flooding of the Tigris-Euphrates rivers) literature may have included the flood faced by a Sumerian Noah.I was not referring to that.

The carnivores would have been the problem. Herbivores could have, in theory at least, eaten primarily hay brought along for that purpose. I'm not discounting the possibility of Noah's flood being historically accurate. I'm just saying it would have taken God's intervention for it to happen as it did.

I have many times. There are no "talking snakes" there.
Genesis 3
1 Now the serpent was more crafty than any of the wild animals the Lord God had made. He said to the woman, “Did God really say, ‘You must not eat from any tree in the garden’?”
2 The woman said to the serpent, “We may eat fruit from the trees in the garden, 3 but God did say, ‘You must not eat fruit from the tree that is in the middle of the garden, and you must not touch it, or you will die.’”
4 “You will not certainly die,” the serpent said to the woman. 5 “For God knows that when you eat from it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.”

Salt water fish would not have been "just fine" in an aguatic environment that would have been primarily composed of fresh water.
This was a localized fresh-water flood; the Tigris-Euphrates rivers flood in March, April, and May. Oceans were not affected.

No comments on who shoveled manure and dumped it where?

"Serpent"!! The singular "serpent" does not equate to talking "snakes" (more than one). I'm surprised you missed that. The Genesis three account is of ONE snake that supernaturally spoke on ONE occasion. So a person can believe in the Genesis three account and yet not believe in the likely derisively intended "talking snakes". They are not close to being the same.

You cannot have a localized flood where the water depth is measured in thousands of feet.

Done all the time is zoos. Noah and his sons would have dealt with it and simply dumped it in the water. But as I have repeatedly said, I don't see how all of this could have worked without an intervention of God's power.

"Serpent"!! The singular "serpent" does not equate to talking "snakes" (more than one). I'm surprised you missed that. The Genesis three account is of ONE snake that supernaturally spoke on ONE occasion. So a person can believe in the Genesis three account and yet not believe in the likely derisively intended "talking snakes". They are not close to being the same.
You obviously misunderstood Athos' reference.

You cannot have a localized flood where the water depth is measured in thousands of feet.
Thousands of feet??? Who was measuring?

Done all the time is zoos. Noah and his sons would have dealt with it and simply dumped it in the water.
Lots of pollution. By eight humans shoveling the s--+ of 7,000 animals? For the 10-1/2 months you claim?

And what did those eight humans eat?

Misunderstood? In what way? Athos is suggesting that to believe in Gen. 3 means a person believes in talking snakes. That is far removed from the truth. This has all been discussed repeatedly in the past.


Thousands of feet??? Who was measuring? You must read more carefully. Genesis 7:19 (https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%207%3A19&version=NASB1995) "The water prevailed more and more upon the earth, so that all the high mountains everywhere under the heavens were covered."

I'm not claiming 10 months. The Bibles tells us that.


And what did those eight humans eat?Ships carrying dozens and hundreds of people would travel for months in ancient times. What do you think they did...starve???

Misunderstood? In what way? Athos is suggesting that to believe in Gen. 3 means a person believes in talking snakes. That is far removed from the truth. This has all been discussed repeatedly in the past.
He was speaking generically, metaphorically.

You must read more carefully. Genesis 7:19 (https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%207%3A19&version=NASB1995) "The water prevailed more and more upon the earth, so that all the high mountains everywhere under the heavens were covered."
Terrific descriptions to lend credence to this allegory.

I'm not claiming 10 months. The Bibles tells us that.
More detail in the allegory.

Ships carrying dozens and hundreds of people would travel for months in ancient times. What do you think they did...starve???
Noah and family must have enjoyed sumptuous dinners culled from their animal freight.

He was speaking generically, metaphorically.Cop out. He was, I think, trying to disparage those who believe in Gen. 3 by claiming we believe in "talking snakes". With all due respect, that's completely untrue.

You asked about the depth of water and the length of time. I answered both. It would add nothing to an allegory. Sometimes it would nice to see you post, "Well golly. I didn't know that. Thanks for pointing it out." And plainly, you knew neither of them.

Cop out. He was, I think, trying to disparage those who believe in Gen. 3 by claiming we believe in "talking snakes". With all due respect, that's completely untrue.
Ooooh, just ONE talking snake! I get it!

You asked about the depth of water and the length of time. I answered both. It would add nothing to an allegory.
Of course it does! The richer it is with details, the stronger the symbolism and more obvious the truth/hidden meaning.

Ooooh, just ONE talking snake! I get it!No, you don't get it at all. It requires objectivity.


The richer it is with details, the stronger the symbolism and more obvious the truth/hidden meaning.OK. How do thousands of feet of water versus hundreds of feet of water and 10 months versus forty days make the symbolism stronger and the truth/hidden meaning more obvious?

You wrote "Whether you believe the events happened or not is irrelevant to understanding the text." Immediately before that, you wrote "If you insist on approaching a book of that kind with a view that says "such things don't happen" renders your approach pointless".

The first sentence says belief or disbelief is irrelevant. The second sentence says disbelief ("such things don't happen") renders the approach pointless. Which is it? Both sentences can't be true.

Incorrect. We're not talking about belief, we're talking about having an open mind. If we live in a closed system where such things don't happen, well, then, we do. But that can't be proven. In fact, science is telling us in more and more ways that we live in an open system where lots of improbably things can happen, and perhaps have.

It's about having an open mind and allowing for possibilities that don't necessarily fit one's current worldview.

No, you don't get it at all. It requires objectivity.
Ha ha, you're funny!

OK. How do thousands of feet of water versus hundreds of feet of water and 10 months versus forty days make the symbolism stronger and the truth/hidden meaning more obvious?
Lots of water + a long time (keep it simple and believable).

Lots of water + a long time (keep it simple and believable).In other words, you don't know.

Even worse, how does referring to thousands of feet of water and many months in an enormous ark with thousands of animals make the narrative "simple and believable"? If being believable was the objective, then it would have been a local flood of a few days or weeks, and the family would have survived on a raft. "The Story of Noah's Raft" would have worked just as well as an allegory.

Incorrect. We're not talking about belief, we're talking about having an open mind. If we live in a closed system where such things don't happen, well, then, we do. But that can't be proven. In fact, science is telling us in more and more ways that we live in an open system where lots of improbably things can happen, and perhaps have.

It's about having an open mind and allowing for possibilities that don't necessarily fit one's current worldview.

Incorrect? Are you serious? "Belief" was in YOUR comments, where, as I pointed out, they are self-contradictory.

So a closed system is a system where "such things don't happen"? You're confusing closed and open systems with fantasy and reality.

DW, I get a big kick out of your anti-Trump cartoons and comments on your Facebook page, but religion is not your strong suit. I'm referring to the objective examination of religion, not your religious faith. But when it leads you to strange conclusions like above, it's time to take stock. No offense.

In other words, you don't know.
Always the insult.

Even worse, how does referring to thousands of feet of water and many months in an enormous ark with thousands of animals make the narrative "simple and believable"? If being believable was the objective, then it would have been a local flood of a few days or weeks, and the family would have survived on a raft. "The Story of Noah's Raft" would have worked just as well as an allegory.
The Hebrews were very clever and creative storytellers.

Always the insult.No, it was merely an observation which did seem to be correct. I had asked, "How do thousands of feet of water versus hundreds of feet of water and 10 months versus forty days make the symbolism stronger and the truth/hidden meaning more obvious?" Your reply [Lots of water + a long time (keep it simple and believable)] was kind of nonsensical relative to the question.


The Hebrews were very clever and creative storytellers.
A non-answer to, "...how does referring to thousands of feet of water and many months in an enormous ark with thousands of animals make the narrative 'simple and believable'?" That seems to be a habit with you.

It was a LOCAL flood, not a worldwide one!!! The Flood story is an allegory, a story about a man who built a boat to keep his family and maybe some animals safe during flooding caused by the annual snowmelt from nearby mountains.

It was a LOCAL flood, not a worldwide one!!! The Flood story is an allegoryAll speculation. Adding exclamation marks does not add support for your idea. Even worse, if it was merely a local flood, then the entire narrative is just a wildly exaggerated lie.

Two unanswered questions.

"How do thousands of feet of water versus hundreds of feet of water and 10 months versus forty days make the symbolism stronger and the truth/hidden meaning more obvious?"

"...how does referring to thousands of feet of water and many months in an enormous ark with thousands of animals make the narrative 'simple and believable'?"

These are far removed from being thoughtful answers. The first one doesn't even make sense since more water and more time does nothing to make the story more simple or believable. In fact, it would do the opposite.

Lots of water + a long time (keep it simple and believable).

The Hebrews were very clever and creative storytellers.

So a closed system is a system where "such things don't happen"? You're confusing closed and open systems with fantasy and reality.

And with that statement, all further discussion is shut down by definition. I thought you were better than that.

And with that statement, all further discussion is shut down by definition. I thought you were better than that.

I knew you were coming closer and closer to bailing out. You had no place else to go after painting yourself into a corner. You did surprise me with your gratuitous insult - the mark of someone who has run out of ideas. I see you preferred insult to cogent argument.

I return the insult. Sadly.

your gratuitous insult - the mark of someone who has run out of ideas. I return the insult. Sadly, with you, it fits.If serving up an insult is the mark of someone who has run out of ideas, then you sure just seemed to place yourself in that category.

At any rate, DW is the least likely person on this site to throw out a gratuitous insult.

I knew you were coming closer and closer to bailing out. You had no place else to go after painting yourself into a corner. You did surprise me with your gratuitous insult - the mark of someone who has run out of ideas. I see you preferred insult to cogent argument.

I return the insult. Sadly.

Not bailing at all. That statement you made is the kind that is designed to cut off any further discussion. I merely acknowledged it. If it felt like an insult, maybe ask why.

I'm happy to keep discussing, but such all-encompassing statements of dismissal like this

You're confusing closed and open systems with fantasy and reality.
make it impossible. You just wrote off everything with a few keystrokes in a way that leaves no room for discussion.
I'm surprised you can't see that.

Without rehashing X# of previous posts, I will get right to the heart of the matter. (First, a note on the "insult". Your acknowledgement of my statement was not the insult. The insult was suggesting I was "better than that".)

After discussing a specific Bible passage with various methods - based on tested analysis and accepted methods of examination - God was brought into the equation which added a faith basis to the issue.

To wit: Since the Bible is a book all about an almighty God deliberately intervening in that framework and doing things that are contrary to what we would call "common sense", that's not going to be the best way to approach it."

Faith-based is fine but it trumps any non-faith approach including a common sense rational approach since there is no way to challenge that method except by denying God, unless it is specific and then it can be challenged internally from the Bible itself. It is another form of "the Bible tells me so" but loftier. That is how I understood your statement above.

If you forego the idea that "anything can happen" using that as a support for the passage under discussion, then I will refrain from commenting on a closed and/or open system. That can be a separate subject which I will be happy to explore.

To wit: Since the Bible is a book all about an almighty God deliberately intervening in that framework and doing things that are contrary to what we would call "common sense", that's not going to be the best way to approach it."

God is the subject of the whole thing. The entire collection from cover to cover claims to be people at various points in human history having encounters with a being greater than themselves. The moment you disallow such a possibility, you cut off all discussion. Precisely my point.

It's impossible to discuss a written work without discussing its principal topic.


Faith-based is fine but it trumps any non-faith approach including a common sense rational approach since there is no way to challenge that method

You are defining "common sense" in a way that excludes the entire subject of the book. I'm not sure how we're supposed to discuss it under those circumstances. And not everyone agrees with your definition of "common sense".

The entire collection from cover to cover claims to be people at various points in human history having encounters with a being greater than themselves. The moment you disallow such a possibility, you cut off all discussion. Precisely my point.

I don't disallow the possibility. I only ask that when you offer God as a support/proof of your position, you present it with evidence for what you claim, rather than just stating it as a matter of faith.


You are defining "common sense" in a way that excludes the entire subject of the book. I'm not sure how we're supposed to discuss it under those circumstances. And not everyone agrees with your definition of "common sense".

I certainly don't think "common sense" excludes the entire subject of the book. By "common sense", I simply meant a logical, rational approach to examine the book's contents. My understanding of textual criticism and various accepted analyses is that they are supported by logical, rational examination. If I have misled you, I trust this will allay your objections.

Common sense from our view is frequently not God's sense of things.

8 “For my thoughts are not your thoughts,
neither are your ways my ways,”
declares the Lord.
9 “As the heavens are higher than the earth,
so are my ways higher than your ways
and my thoughts than your thoughts.

"As the heavens are higher than the earth"
That's a lot.

I don't disallow the possibility. I only ask that when you offer God as a support/proof of your position, you present it with evidence for what you claim, rather than just stating it as a matter of faith.


When did I do that?

When did I do that?

Wow - welcome back!! I thought you fell off the ends of the earth.

When you wrote the following, "Since the Bible is a book all about an almighty God deliberately intervening in that framework and doing things that are contrary to what we would call "common sense", that's not going to be the best way to approach it.", I took it to mean any discussion about God referencing common sense (i.e., rational discourse) would be subject to the greater idea of an almighty God intervening, which I understand to be a position from faith.

I am not denying faith. I just want to be clear when faith is offered as the definitive reason/answer for a discussion about something in the Bible.

Sorry, stuff has been happening. She went public with it so it's okay to tell, my oldest daughter checked herself into a mental hospital. She's extremely ADHD like me, and she hasn't been able to get medication for over a year because of expletive expletive insurance. She took one job especially to get the insurance because it covered mental health, then learned that they had ONE facility for mental health, that facility had ONE doctor, and the waiting list could stretch from here to the sun. Because of her mental health issues, she lost that job fairly quickly. Fact is, she went through four jobs in a year because she can't get her mind under control.

She finally got onto Medicaid, but it doesn't cover outpatient therapy. It does, however, cover inpatient therapy. Figure that one out if you want to give yourself a headache. She's been having suicidal thoughts, so when she mentioned that they accepted her right away. She'll probably be there for a week or so.

I'm bust-my-buttons proud of her. She did this all on her own. She knew she had to do something, she navigated the ungodly maze of state government insurance, worked the system, and is getting what she needs. That's my little girl! She is beyond awesome!

Very sorry to hear of your struggles, and yet glad to hear of your daughter's courage. Paul's prayer from Romans is what I pray for her. "I pray that the God who gives hope will fill you with much joy and peace as you trust in him. Then you will have more and more hope, and it will flow out of you by the power of the Holy Spirit."

JL:
I'll pass that along to her, thanks!

They already cut her loose. They don't give stimulants in-house, and that's the only treatment they can think of for ADHD. I don't understand, because there are lots of others. Today there are meds that specifically target ADHD.
I tried Ritalin one time. By this time I had been diagnosed but wasn't on any medication. One of my daughters was taking Ritalin so I tried one. I do not intend to do that again. It made me so violent I had to call my wife at work and tell her not to come home until I let her know it was safe, because I had no idea what i was capable of. It was one of the most horrible experiences I've ever had. Antidepressants work best on me, and I've been using one or another to keep my two-edged gift under control since 1993. I expect to be on something for the rest of my life, because with the medication I can have a life.
Anyway, Naomi is back home, and they did give her a long list of doctors that take her insurance and should be able to get her set up with consistent care. So it wasn't a waste of time.
I say "home"; she actually lives in Everett, about an hour and a half north of here. Officially she's staying for an extended visit (don't you love semantics?). But they gave her the names of doctors in both places, and we don't care which town she finds one in. We'll make it work. So the Doctor Derby is officially beginning. Come on, doctors, get some of that sweet insurance money.

I went through a period of terrible emotional darkness about forty years ago. It lasted for a couple of years. God gave me a scripture that carried me in many ways. It is in Psalm 27. "I would have despaired if I had not believed I would see the goodness of the Lord in the land of the living. Wait for the Lord; Be strong and let your heart take courage; Yes, wait for the Lord."

There were many hard days ahead, but that carried me. It gave me hope. I often think that hope is the most precious spiritual commodity we have. Give a person hope and they can endure. I can now say that Jesus is my hope in a more blessed way than ever before, and I say that while facing challenges on several fronts, but it's all OK since I will see God's goodness in the land of the living.

Love her name. "Naomi".

They already cut her loose. They don't give stimulants in-house, and that's the only treatment they can think of for ADHD. I don't understand, because there are lots of others. Today there are meds that specifically target ADHD.
I tried Ritalin one time. By this time I had been diagnosed but wasn't on any medication. One of my daughters was taking Ritalin so I tried one. I do not intend to do that again. It made me so violent I had to call my wife at work and tell her not to come home until I let her know it was safe, because I had no idea what i was capable of. It was one of the most horrible experiences I've ever had. Antidepressants work best on me, and I've been using one or another to keep my two-edged gift under control since 1993. I expect to be on something for the rest of my life, because with the medication I can have a life.
Anyway, Naomi is back home, and they did give her a long list of doctors that take her insurance and should be able to get her set up with consistent care. So it wasn't a waste of time.
I say "home"; she actually lives in Everett, about an hour and a half north of here. Officially she's staying for an extended visit (don't you love semantics?). But they gave her the names of doctors in both places, and we don't care which town she finds one in. We'll make it work. So the Doctor Derby is officially beginning. Come on, doctors, get some of that sweet insurance money.

DW, I stopped by to see if you had replied, and was shocked and surprised to read about your situation. Please don't concern yourself about our original discussion as you deal with far more important matters.

Your posts are very clear and detailed and show good progress for your daughter. That's great. All of us here at AMHD are thinking of you and your daughter and sending both of you good vibes and prayers.

Please check in from time to time and let us know how you and Naomi are doing.

PS - I had no idea Ritalin could have such a terrible side effect like you experienced.

As it was explained to me, Ritalin has a decidedly different effect on adults than it has on children.

As it was explained to me, Ritalin has a decidedly different effect on adults than it has on children.

Thank you - very interesting.

It came from the old principal days. I always felt a little ill at ease over the use of those meds. They did seem to generally work, but we sometimes ended up with overactive kids becoming a little too zombie like. As a teacher, I'd much rather have over-active.

jlisenbe
As it was explained to me, Ritalin has a decidedly different effect on adults than it has on children.
That's as may be, I don't know. I know a lot of ADD adults have taken it since childhood and continue to. We know as much about the actual inner workings of the brain as we know about Martian ducks. That's why treatment tends to be a scatter-gun approach. Or to use a more modern colloquialism, you throw everything at the wall and see what sticks. That's pretty much where Naomi is.
And I'm exhausted enough that I've forgotten what the topic was, so I'm bowing out.

God bless you and your daughter. I have a daughter as well, and I understand very well the heart of a father. I assure you I know how you feel. My heart goes out to you both.