 |
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.Quote:
but mainstream protestant churches, definitely not.
Thank you for the correction. Even I confuse myself sometimes.Quote:
Originally Posted by dwashbur
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.Quote:
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.
Not at all. The intervention of God, knowing Mary would be chosen, eliminated that requirement.Quote:
But how? Wouldn't that require her mother to be immaculate, and her mother before her, ad infinitum?
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.Quote:
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.
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.Quote:
The flaw in logic happened when someone slipped an emotion-based opinion in when nobody was looking.
There is an excellent theological reason. Namely, that the Son of God would be born sinless.Quote:
There is no good theological reason why he couldn't.(ed: that Jesus couldn't have been born from a perfectly normal woman)
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?Quote:
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.
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).Quote:
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.
No offense taken.Quote:
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.)
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, 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, which hardly seems fitting if she were sinless.
God could do anything. He could have had an angel impregnate a tree. But he didn't.Quote:
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?
Mary was full of grace and without sin.Quote:
If she were sinful, that baby would have to be sinful too?
Mary wasn't making a theological statement. She was simply expressing her joy using a title of God.Quote:
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, 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, which hardly seems fitting if she were sinless.
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.
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.Quote:
Mary was full of grace and without sin.
That's a leap.Quote:
Mary wasn't making a theological statement. She was simply expressing her joy using a title of God.
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.
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?Quote:
Mary was full of grace and without sin.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dwashbur
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.
(This referred to Mary using the title Savior of God.)Quote:
That's a leap.
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?
The issue was not Mary's sinlessness among Lutherans. It was Mary's perpetual virginity which was held by Martin Luther.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wondergirl
Lutherans believe she had children after Jesus. Although...some high-church Lutherans say they were cousins, not siblings.Quote:
Originally Posted by Athos
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.Quote:
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.
That's exactly what it means. It's why the favor wasn't merited.Quote:
Unmerited favor and full of grace does not remotely suggest Mary was a sinful human.
Martin Luther's view of Mary.
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.Quote:
“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.”
5 Protestants Who Surprisingly Defended Mary’s Perpetual Virginity | (churchpop.com)
Thankfully, it would not seem to be an essential doctrine in any regard.
Thanks for adding the language info. I truly appreciate that.Quote:
Originally Posted by dwashbur
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.
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.Quote:
That's exactly what it means. It's why the favor wasn't merited.
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.
Got a documentary source for that? The pre-Nicene papyri don't seem to show any such development.Quote:
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.
No.Quote:
Originally Posted by dwashbur
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by dwashbur
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.
First, I never said the Mary stories were redacted multiple times after Constantine. My opinion on Mary's Magnificat was PRIOR to Constantine.Quote:
And none of it seems to support the hypothesis that the stories about Mary were redacted multiple times after 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.
It's no overstatement at all. Again, I refer you to Metzger's book. He presents the material in an understandable way.Quote:
I disagree that textual criticism can "quite nicely reconstruct these things". That is simply another tool that has value but not to be overstated.
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.Quote:
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.
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.
My error.Quote:
First, I never said the Mary stories were redacted multiple times after Constantine. My opinion on Mary's Magnificat was PRIOR to Constantine.
Unless I am mistaken, P4 contains only a handful of verses from chapters 1 and 2, so the Mary narrative is probably largely absent.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by dwashbur
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.Quote:
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.
Only partial sections of the first three chapters of Luke are in P4. None of the P4 sections contain the Mary story being discussed.Quote:
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.
I think this is easily explained by considering both P75 and Vaticanus being close in time as late as the 4th century.Quote:
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.
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.Quote:
Again, the mss themselves don't show any signs of redaction in any era.
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?Quote:
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.
Don't be sorry, that's quite all right.Quote:
I'm sorry, but there is just no evidence for this idea.
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.
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.Quote:
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.
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.Quote:
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 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.Quote:
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.
A change such as inserting the magnificat is a redaction.Quote:
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 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.Quote:
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?
It's your prerogative not to buy the evidence I presented, but I ask one favor: please define "common sense".Quote:
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.
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.Quote:
but I ask one favor: please define "common sense".
Sorry for delay - life intervened. I'll begin at the end.
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.Quote:
It's your prerogative not to buy the evidence I presented, but I ask one favor: please define "common sense".
Please define "fair".Quote:
Originally Posted by dwashbur
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.Quote:
It's only a logical fallacy when used in isolation, which I am not doing.
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.Quote:
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.
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).Quote:
Provenance matters. Vaticanus originated most likely in Rome. P75 was found in Alexandria Egypt. Sinaiticus was found in a monastery in the Sinai.
Wouldn't that support my position (opinion) that they are close in time.Quote:
Their texts are so homogenous it baffles textual critics.
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.Quote:
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 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.Quote:
...in textual criticism or form criticism, we say the words are definitely Luke's.
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.Quote:
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.
OT = allegories / NT = miracles
Where does the Bible endorse that idea?Quote:
OT = allegories / NT = miracles
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."Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
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?
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
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.Quote:
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.
You were the one who pointed out that P4 doesn't include the passage in question, something I had missed. So I moved on.Quote:
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).
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.
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.Quote:
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".
Thanks for clarifying.Quote:
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.
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.Quote:
Not all scholars have come to the second century conclusion. Frederick Kenyon dated P4 to the 4th century.
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.
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.Quote:
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.
Your material shows that we keep learning and when a theory doesn't cut it, we put it to bed.
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.Quote:
...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.
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.
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.Quote:
As Athos said, the OT is "a larger tale about a tribe's origins and that tribe's relation to God."
Well said. I have frequently heard the 99% reliability figure, and the 1% in question usually has no great bearing on doctrine.Quote:
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.
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!Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
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.
I should have put in clear English when riffing off what Athos had said. OT contains allegories / NT contains miracles.Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
What is it? (Please don't google a definition.)Quote:
Yes, I know what an allegory is.
I HAVE answered: "The OT is full of history, poetry, wisdom literature, parables, law, and so much more -- and yes, allegories."Quote:
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.
And yet again, you're out in the orchard, picking cherries.Quote:
Anytime you refer to "cherry-picking", I know that you have run out of answers and are attempting to deflect attention.
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.Quote:
OT contains allegories / NT contains miracles.
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, 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.Quote:
And yet again, you're out in the orchard, picking cherries.
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?)Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
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.Quote:
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.
But I digress. Erasmus is one of my personal heroes, but he blew that one.
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.Quote:
I have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. I never said the OT is strictly allegorical.
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.
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 02:59 AM. |