|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: All scripture is given by inspiration of God.
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
SL I know this is hard to accept, but the point is that the two accounts contradict each other. They cannot both be literally true in their straight reading. Ergo, the literal straight reading is the wrong way to read them. Ditto David's census in Samuel and Chronicles - God's idea or Satan's?
[ 01. February 2018, 10:47: Message edited by: Karl: Liberal Backslider ]
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nick Tamen
Ship's Wayfaring Fool
# 15164
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
Only if you insist on rendering 'katalyma' as an 'inn', with the necessary implication that Joseph is going to a place where he doesn't actually live, do you need to challenge that 'default assumption' and start producing gratuitous further assumptions and suppositions outside the text to justify the idea of Joseph being sent to enrol where he doesn't actually live . . . .
Good grief, would you please let the “inn” thing go and actually pay attention to what people in this thread have said? No one is insisting on translating “katamyla” as “inn.” What people have insisted is that even if “katamyla” is properly translated as “guest chamber” or “lodging,” your assertion that Joseph really lived in Bethlehem is not consistent with what Luke actually says. You seem to want to dismiss what Luke says because you think it doesn’t make sense—and many would agree it doesn’t make sense—or because you want him to line up with Matthew’s account. But it is what he says.
Is it really so hard to believe that in the decades between Jesus’s birth and the time Matthew and Luke wrote their gospels, the details of that birth—and particularly why it happened in Bethlehem rather than Nazareth—had gotten muddled, with different people and different communities having heard and passed along the story somewhat differently, and even with improbable aspects slipping in? Encountering that sort of thing is an everyday experience for me, and with events much more recent than what we’re talking about here.
As others have said, instead of doing mental gymnastics to make Matthew’s version and Luke’s version line up exactly, our time is better spent reading each according to what he said, seeking to understand what they thought the story as they had heard it meant.
--------------------
The first thing God says to Moses is, "Take off your shoes." We are on holy ground. Hard to believe, but the truest thing I know. — Anne Lamott
Posts: 2833 | From: On heaven-crammed earth | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eliab
Shipmate
# 9153
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
Bethlehem is his own city because he is of Davidic lineage. That is why he lives there. There is no reason in the text at that point to suggest that Bethlehem is Joseph's 'own city' in a radically different sense to other people's 'own cities'.
Apart from the 12 year period where he is depicted as being a resident of a completely different city, you mean?
quote:
Only if you insist on rendering 'katalyma' as an 'inn', with the necessary implication that Joseph is going to a place where he doesn't actually live, do you need to challenge that 'default assumption'
Doesn't guest-chamber also imply "not the usual place of residence"? Doesn't the "guest" part of "guest-chamber" suggest a room for non-residents, or are you giving it a special meaning?
Or you could translate it "lodging", "place to stay" or even simply "room", and in Luke's text it would still imply that Joseph wasn't habitually resident there, because there was no space for him when he needed it.
The only thing that "inn" materially adds is the implication that the commercial places of temporary accommodation were full up - that it was not just Joseph who was looking for space, and that Bethlehem was full of travellers. You could make a good case for saying that this isn't explicit in the text, and ceases to be implied if "inn" is dropped. That's fine. You still aren't anywhere near showing that Joseph lived in Bethlehem, given that Luke could hardly be more clear that in fact he lived somewhere else.
--------------------
"Perhaps there is poetic beauty in the abstract ideas of justice or fairness, but I doubt if many lawyers are moved by it"
Richard Dawkins
Posts: 4619 | From: Hampton, Middlesex, UK | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601
|
Posted
by Stejjie;
quote:
2) What point do you think Luke is trying to make and how do you think reading the text using your interpretation helps us to grasp that better than the 'traditional' way (whether inn or inn-less)?
I think Luke is trying to fulfil the intention he expresses in the first verses of the gospel - to provide his readers with the truest account he can of Jesus' life. And I think he might be both worried and entitled to feel a bit insulted that at least some of you out there seem to think otherwise.
Beyond that there is one issue you're all rather dancing round - or should that be "doing (really extravagant) gymnastics around"....
It does seem to be pretty unanimous - and certainly both Luke and Matthew agree on it - that Jesus was born in Bethlehem.
It also seems absolutely clear that Luke says the immediate or proximate cause of Joseph taking his family to Bethlehem was the need to be enrolled in whichever census this was.
Now simply, IF LUKE HAS THAT ONE FACT RIGHT, then he is telling us that Joseph is a resident of Bethlehem - because essentially there is no other credible explanation for Joseph having to go to Bethlehem to be enrolled. And if you think about it, you'll realise that that has to hold good from the simple fact of Joseph being registered in Bethlehem, whether or not Luke and/or his source fully understand the implications of what they are reporting.
"Joseph of Nazareth" having to go to Bethlehem to enrol even though he doesn't live there just doesn't work. The idea that he has to in the eyes of the authorities because of his mere lineage falls apart in all kinds of ways as soon as you try to think it through properly.
"Joseph of Bethlehem" having reason for an extended stay in Nazareth from which he is called back to enrol, in contrast, works quite well, just starting with the fact that his betrothed lives there.
And if Luke is right on Joseph needing to be enrolled in Bethlehem, and therefore being a resident, then in interpreting the rest of Luke's account you basically have to interpret any apparent ambiguities as compatible with that.
Ok, we don't have details and have to make some suppositions; but these are far more credible suppositions than any that I've yet seen for the "Joseph of Nazareth" proposition. Sepphoris just down the road is described in quite a few sources as basically a burgeoning cosmopolitan city during Herod's reign, with a considerable number of what we'd call 'nouveau riche' types benefiting from Herod's policies, so yes, looks like a builder like Joseph can do quite well in the area.
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
Why is it "basically impossible"? Today it is most unlikely to occur, but was that the position 2 millenia ago?
The fact that you put that as the question "...was that the position... ?" rather makes the point that you don't know that the 'basically impossible' was the position two millennia ago. Suggesting it was is a gratuitous assumption without real evidence.
Reality check - in this kind of enrolment people are registered where they live because it is completely useless to register them at the other end of the country where they don't live. A generalised descent from a former king is nowhere near enough to overturn that practicality without clear evidence.
Let's be honest. I have nowhere said what the position actually was a couple of millenia ago; rather I have suggested that family/tribe etc was of very great importance and that may well have prompted the order to return to the tribal centre. As to the importance - look at today's reading from a bit further on in Luke 2 : 36 There was also a prophet, Anna, the daughter of Penuel, of the tribe of Asher. THe identification of Anna with the tribe of Asher (or perhaps the association is that of Penuel, either is possible on this translation) places her as a real person for Luke's readers.
As to where Joseph and Mary lived, just go a few more verses further on: 39 When they had finished everything required by the law of the Lord, they returned to Galilee, to their own town of Nazareth. Not Bethlehem, but Nazareth. When you add to these points all that Nick Tamen has said, I find it very difficult to see your reading as being that Luke intended.
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Indeed.
Your point about Sepphoris, Steve Langton, has been made before and I seem to remember that the animated puppet kiddies film 'The Miracle Maker' had Jesus working in Sepphoris before he started his ministry.
That's fine as far as background and context goes, but you can't elide the fact that Luke has the holy family going back to Nazareth.
Speculate as much as you like. That's what it says in the text.
At any rate, it's no big deal unless, for whatever reason, one feels the need to reconcile and tie up every apparent loose-end.
I don't see how or why that is necessary.
Real life isn't like that. The scriptures aren't like that.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
It does seem to be pretty unanimous - and certainly both Luke and Matthew agree on it - that Jesus was born in Bethlehem.
It also seems absolutely clear that Luke says the immediate or proximate cause of Joseph taking his family to Bethlehem was the need to be enrolled in whichever census this was.
Now simply, IF LUKE HAS THAT ONE FACT RIGHT, then he is telling us that Joseph is a resident of Bethlehem - because essentially there is no other credible explanation for Joseph having to go to Bethlehem to be enrolled.
And THIS is where you are injecting your own ideas, and stop reading the text as given.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nick Tamen
Ship's Wayfaring Fool
# 15164
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
Now simply, IF LUKE HAS THAT ONE FACT RIGHT,
Yelling does not enhance the persuasiveness of your argument.
quote:
then he is telling us that Joseph is a resident of Bethlehem - because essentially there is no other credible explanation for Joseph having to go to Bethlehem to be enrolled.
And yet Luke specifically gives another reason.
quote:
And if you think about it . . .
We have.
--------------------
The first thing God says to Moses is, "Take off your shoes." We are on holy ground. Hard to believe, but the truest thing I know. — Anne Lamott
Posts: 2833 | From: On heaven-crammed earth | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jamat
Shipmate
# 11621
|
Posted
quote:
that the two accounts contradict each other.
A contradiction suggests you cannot reconcile them or that cannot both be true. You can do this simply by looking at the time frames. At Jesus’ birth, there were shepherds but no Magi. The birth was in a ‘stable cave’. These were common. There was burial cloth kept in then as often bodies were temporarily stored in them. Shepherds would have been conversant with these as part of the local geography.
The magi probably arrived 18 months later and the flight to Egypt occurred subsequent to their visit. At that time, the family were in a house..in Bethlehem. They could easily have done the temple dedication, returned to Nazareth but later settled in Bethlehem, where, as SL points out, Joseph probably had family.
From there, they travelled to Egypt and later returned to Nazareth when recalled from there, but did not return to Bethlehem from fear of Archelaus. The time frame of all the events mentioned could be up to 3 years.
The accounts are not irreconcilable, they are simply different in that the narratives are varied in viewpoint and selection of detail. If, as I said above, they were identical, one would suspect a set up.
Posts: 3228 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Stejjie
Shipmate
# 13941
|
Posted
Steve:
Thanks for the reply, I'm not going to quote it in full because it would make this post enormous!
I'm right with you that a) Jesus is born in Bethlehem and b) that Joseph and Mary travel to Bethlehem because of the census.
But, as mousethief points out, you make a massive leap here:
quote:
Now simply, IF LUKE HAS THAT ONE FACT RIGHT, then he is telling us that Joseph is a resident of Bethlehem - because essentially there is no other credible explanation for Joseph having to go to Bethlehem to be enrolled.
But as has been said countless times to you on this thread, Luke does give us another explanation: Joseph is of the line of David. And as I outlined in this post, that is a huge deal for Luke, given how many times he mentions David in relation to Jesus and Joseph.
Whether or not you or I think this is "credible" is besides the point: this is what Luke says happens and the reason for it. It's not taking Luke seriously to assume he means something other than what he actually tells us, and it's certainly not taking the text seriously to ignore or play down the single most important thing that Luke tells us about Joseph, besides his betrothal to Mary. At this point in the narrative (assuming we're going to take the narrative as Luke presents it seriously and not bring in our own assumptions), we don't know that Joseph is a carpenter/builder/whatever, because Luke hasn't told us that yet; so we can't factor that into our interpretations of what Luke is trying to say to us here.
It feels like Luke is putting up a big, flashing neon sign that says "David! David is the reason for the journey to Bethlehem!", and you're asking us to ignore it and follow a hand-written piece of cardboard pointing in the wrong direction, not for any good reason in the text, but simply because it seems more credible to you. And that, I would suggest (and I'm trying to avoid getting Hell-ish here) is not a sign of taking the text, as we have it seriously - impracticalities and loose ends and all - but of being so concerned of those impracticalities and loose ends that we have to try and make the text say something else. And I'm sorry, but when you ignore the big, obvious things the text is saying in favour of your assumption of what's credible then that's what you're doing.
--------------------
A not particularly-alt-worshippy, fairly mainstream, mildly evangelical, vaguely post-modern-ish Baptist
Posts: 1117 | From: Urmston, Manchester, UK | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Stejjie
Shipmate
# 13941
|
Posted
Apologies for the double post:
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
quote:
that the two accounts contradict each other.
A contradiction suggests you cannot reconcile them or that cannot both be true. You can do this simply by looking at the time frames. At Jesus’ birth, there were shepherds but no Magi. The birth was in a ‘stable cave’. These were common. There was burial cloth kept in then as often bodies were temporarily stored in them. Shepherds would have been conversant with these as part of the local geography.
The magi probably arrived 18 months later and the flight to Egypt occurred subsequent to their visit. At that time, the family were in a house..in Bethlehem. They could easily have done the temple dedication, returned to Nazareth but later settled in Bethlehem, where, as SL points out, Joseph probably had family.
From there, they travelled to Egypt and later returned to Nazareth when recalled from there, but did not return to Bethlehem from fear of Archelaus. The time frame of all the events mentioned could be up to 3 years.
The accounts are not irreconcilable, they are simply different in that the narratives are varied in viewpoint and selection of detail. If, as I said above, they were identical, one would suspect a set up.
2 points:
1) I'd still suggest there's a contradiction between the two stories, when Matthew says that the family made their home in Nazareth after the escape to Egypt, but Luke says they returned home after the encounter with Simeon and Anna.
2) You're right, there are differences in the narratives; they're effectively different narratives. So why try and reconcile them; why not honour the fact that Matthew and Luke wrote them that way for a reason and work out what those reasons might have been?
--------------------
A not particularly-alt-worshippy, fairly mainstream, mildly evangelical, vaguely post-modern-ish Baptist
Posts: 1117 | From: Urmston, Manchester, UK | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Stejjie:
being so concerned of those impracticalities and loose ends that we have to try and make the text say something else.
The phrase that came to my mind this morning thinking of this thread was "straining at gnats and swallowing camels".
And I'd still like to know about Galatians vs Acts and the accompanying reasoning.
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601
|
Posted
by Stejjie
quote:
But as has been said countless times to you on this thread, Luke does give us another explanation: Joseph is of the line of David. And as I outlined in this post, that is a huge deal for Luke, given how many times he mentions David in relation to Jesus and Joseph.
by SL;
quote:
"Joseph of Nazareth" having to go to Bethlehem to enrol even though he doesn't live there just doesn't work. The idea that he has to in the eyes of the authorities because of his mere lineage falls apart in all kinds of ways as soon as you try to think it through properly. (boldening of 'mere' added for this citation SL)
Yes, ultimately Joseph goes to Bethlehem because he is of Davidic lineage - obviously!!!
But the point is that for purposes of enrolment lineage is not on its own enough to force the guy to go to a place he doesn't in fact live.
Think it through - everybody has all kinds of lineage; even in what were relatively stable times in terms of many people moving around at all, it would be totally impractical to expect everybody generally to go register in every place they had ancestors.
So for starters, even if they do this, and bear in mind that it's not exactly practical anyway, there'll be limits on it. Only some lineages could be important enough for this to be necessary in the first place, and even then it wouldn't be about every person of that ancestry by any route whatever. It kind of has to be limited to the line of primogeniture plus any side-skips that may have taken place when the direct line ended without issue; and perhaps you include some close lines that might be involved in such side-skips in future.
And when you're talking about the Davidic lineage, in a land now ruled by either Herod or Rome, and with prophecies of a Messianic ruler from David's line, that's political dynamite. Even if they did take such account of lineages in deciding where you register (and nobody seems to be producing any actual evidence that they did anyway), claiming to be that close to being a possible 'pretender' to rule is going to get you bigger problems than a pointless journey to Bethlehem.
As an explanation of "Why Joseph had to go to Bethlehem" in the eyes of the enrolment authorities, that simply doesn't work. Waffling about Luke's theological reasons is just that - waffle compared to real life practicalities; that is, you register people where they LIVE, not at the far end of the country where they've basically got nothing but remote ancestry.
But "Joseph's own town is Bethlehem because that's where he lives - and the very relevant reason why he lives there is his Davidic ancestry" - that works very well indeed.
Soon after he ceases to live there because of the unwanted Herodian attention drawn to him by the Magi - a pretty good indication of why he wouldn't want to be drawing attention to his lineage. He goes to Nazareth - where as Luke has told us, Mary and her family come from.
Luke is a Gentile from outside Judea who researches Jesus' life on his travels with Paul; he tells us what his sources tell him, and he tries for the most reliable sources he can for something by then, in the case of the nativity, fifty or more years in the past. He doesn't quite get a complete story, but he tells us what he does get, and as far as I'm concerned it's substantially true.
Matthew - slight difficulty because of the account that suggests a Matthew writing an Aramaic gospel for a Jewish audience which is later translated and integrated with Mark for a more complete account, and the translator possibly adding from other sources as well. Whether Matthew or the translator/editor, he tells us what he learned from his sources, a part of the whole account which Luke doesn't give us and may not have known.
In both cases the gospel writer may not have fully understood what he was told - Matthew doesn't seem to have fully grasped what Magi/astrologers would mean by a 'star' for instance. But there is substantial accuracy and substantial compatibility between the accounts, including - if it is right that Joseph was required to register in Bethlehem - compatibility about Joseph being a Bethlehem resident.
It is swallowing a whole herd of camels to insist that Joseph would be sent to register where he doesn't live; and it is also forcing artificial incompatibility between the accounts and introducing a strange wooliness into the whole thing for no necessary reason.
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
OK. Let's assume, momentarily and for the purposes of the present discussion, you're right.
Now tell me about Paul's account of his early travels in Galatians and the one given in Acts.
Specifically, is it important to "reconcile" them, and if so, why?
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Stejjie
Shipmate
# 13941
|
Posted
(Apologies if this distracts from a reply to Eutychus' point, but I wanted to reply to Steve.)
I think we're arguing at cross-purposes. In my last post to you, I said this:
quote:
Whether or not you or I think this is "credible" is besides the point: this is what Luke says happens and the reason for it.
My point isn't, "there are no problems with the 'traditional' account". Perhaps Luke was aware of the problems when he wrote this down, we don't know. My point is that interpreting the text isn't just about whether we think such a thing is credible, or practical or anything else (otherwise we chuck out huge amounts of Scripture, if we're going to be consistent with that). Whatever our view of the practicalities of Joseph going to Bethlehem because, and only because, he is a descendant of David, that's what Luke says happens. That's the reason, the sole reason, Luke gives: it's not "Bethlehem is Joseph's 'own town' because that's where he lives; and he lives there because he's a descendant of David" (attractive as that interpretation might be), that's adding something to the text that isn't there. And the leap you made in the post I replied to (which I understand to be "Luke says Bethlehem was where Joseph went to register, therefore he must be a resident of Bethlehem") is just that, a leap based on your assumption of how the census should've worked.
I don't have the evidence of how Roman censuses worked, but that's not my point. My point is, regardless of the difficulties it seems to present to us, however impractical or crazy it might seem to us, Luke seems to be telling us that Joseph and Mary went to Bethlehem because - and only because - Joseph was a descendant of David. That's what's important to Luke - nothing else.
And it won't do to list all the practical problems with this, they're not the point: Joseph is a descendant of David and so he goes from Nazareth to David's town, Bethlehem, to be registered. That's the point. Let's try and work out why Luke tells us the story this way, rather than the way we think he should've told us.
BTW, it seems strange to talk dismissively of "theological waffle" when we're dealing with what is, in essence, a work of theology (as well as history): the theological meanings are surely as important as the historical.
--------------------
A not particularly-alt-worshippy, fairly mainstream, mildly evangelical, vaguely post-modern-ish Baptist
Posts: 1117 | From: Urmston, Manchester, UK | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
"Joseph of Bethlehem" having reason for an extended stay in Nazareth from which he is called back to enrol, in contrast, works quite well, just starting with the fact that his betrothed lives there.
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
As an explanation of "Why Joseph had to go to Bethlehem" in the eyes of the enrolment authorities, that simply doesn't work. Waffling about Luke's theological reasons is just that - waffle compared to real life practicalities; that is, you register people where they LIVE, not at the far end of the country where they've basically got nothing but remote ancestry.
Isn't this a self-contradictory argument? If Joseph is having "an extended stay" in Nazareth, why not simply register him there? I mean, if you're going to argue that Joseph is in Nazareth because he works there and resides there for an extended period with his betrothed, why isn't that good enough for the census takers to simply register him in Nazareth?
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nick Tamen
Ship's Wayfaring Fool
# 15164
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
Soon after he ceases to live there because of the unwanted Herodian attention drawn to him by the Magi - a pretty good indication of why he wouldn't want to be drawing attention to his lineage. He goes to Nazareth - where as Luke has told us, Mary and her family come from.
But Luke says nothing about the Magi or about unwanted Herodian attention. Nothing. He simply says, after describing the encounter with Simeon and Anna: "When they had finished everything required by the law of the Lord, they returned to Galilee, to their own town of Nazareth." He says nothing to suggest that the return to Nazareth was anything other than a return home after concluding the business that had taken them to Bethlehem, and then to Jerusalem. The motivations you’re supplying come from Matthew, not Luke. (Of course, Matthew says the magi and the unwanted Herodian attention made the family go to Egypt, not Nazareth.)
The magi and the unwanted Herodian attention only come into play in Luke's account if you’re trying to make Luke's account agree with Matthew's. And as others have repeatedly said, if you're trying to make Matthew and Luke agree in all respects, then you're applying special rules of interpretation that would not be applied to any other writing.
[ 02. February 2018, 14:35: Message edited by: Nick Tamen ]
--------------------
The first thing God says to Moses is, "Take off your shoes." We are on holy ground. Hard to believe, but the truest thing I know. — Anne Lamott
Posts: 2833 | From: On heaven-crammed earth | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
Soon after he ceases to live there because of the unwanted Herodian attention drawn to him by the Magi - a pretty good indication of why he wouldn't want to be drawing attention to his lineage. He goes to Nazareth - where as Luke has told us, Mary and her family come from.
But Luke says nothing about the Magi or about unwanted Herodian attention. Nothing. He simply says, after describing the encounter with Simeon and Anna: "When they had finished everything required by the law of the Lord, they returned to Galilee, to their own town of Nazareth." He says nothing to suggest that the return to Nazareth was anything other than a return home after concluding the business that had taken them to Bethlehem, and then to Jerusalem. The motivations you’re supplying come from Matthew, not Luke. (Of course, Matthew says the magi and the unwanted Herodian attention made the family go to Egypt, not Nazareth.)
The magi and the unwanted Herodian attention only come into play in Luke's account if you’re trying to make Luke's account agree with Matthew's. And as others have repeatedly said, if you're trying to make Matthew and Luke agree in all respects, then you're applying special rules of interpretation that would not be applied to any other writing.
"They returned" to "their own town" - Nazareth. So yeah, obviously Joseph normally lived in Bethlehem.
This harmonisation is desperate, it really is.
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Desperate and unnecessary.
As has been said, the need to harmonise all the various accounts only applies if you don't actually read the Bible as you would any other text.
The irony is monumental.
If we really read the Bible in the same way we read any other text we wouldn't be so concerned about harmonising it all.
The only reason to attempt such a thing is to reinforce a particular view of how we think that scripture should 'work'.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jamat
Shipmate
# 11621
|
Posted
quote:
this harmonisation is desperate, it really is.
On the contrary it is perfectly reasonable. Of course we do not Know all the facts, only the details included but why should Nazareth not be Mary’s home town where they returned briefly, before deciding to settle in Bethlehem which was Joseph’s?
She wouldn’t be the first woman to insist that what was hers was ‘theirs’ and Luke is obviously relating her account. She took in all the detail of the temple,Anna, Simeon etc. Joseph probably had his eye on his ist century timepiece so they could get on the road.
Posts: 3228 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jamat
Shipmate
# 11621
|
Posted
quote:
.. the need to harmonise all the various accounts only applies if you don't actually read the Bible as you would any other text.
No one here reads the Bible as any other text and that includes your good self. I totally agree that the issue of harmonisation is only of academic interest. It is just that we have a strong lobby for ‘proving’ or assuming contradictions lest an unbelieving position may be discredited and some may have to deal with scriptural truth.
Posts: 3228 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
She wouldn’t be the first woman to insist that what was hers was ‘theirs’
Woah. quote:
we have a strong lobby for ‘proving’ or assuming contradictions lest an unbelieving position may be discredited and some may have to deal with scriptural truth.
Are you seriously asserting that all the people challenging Steve Langton's explanations, which go further from the text than it is from Nazareth to Bethlehem, are doing so purely out of an agenda to avoid dealing with the truth of Scripture?
Because that is a pretty serious allegation.
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jamat
Shipmate
# 11621
|
Posted
quote:
Are you seriously asserting that all the people challenging Steve Langton's explanations, which go further from the text than it is from Nazareth to Bethlehem, are doing so purely out of an agenda to avoid dealing with the truth of Scripture
I am not endorsing anyone’s view but merely pointing our that there is an agenda behind the assertions against Biblical integrity. It is a serious assertion and a necessary one. It is the kind of challenge that Jesus confronted the Pharisees with when he said in effect that they trusted in scripture but the scripture spoke of him but they chose to reject him. The strong inference was that they had their own agenda..their own interests that they needed to protect.
--------------------
Jamat ..in utmost longditude, where Heaven
with Earth and ocean meets, the setting sun slowly descended, and with right aspect
Against the eastern gate of Paradise. (Milton Paradise Lost Bk iv)
Posts: 3228 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
It is the kind of challenge that Jesus confronted the Pharisees with when he said in effect that they trusted in scripture but the scripture spoke of him but they chose to reject him. The strong inference was that they had their own agenda..their own interests that they needed to protect.
Right, so just to get this clear beyond all doubt, in your citing of Jesus in that passage you are positioning yourself as Jesus (or at least devoid of any agenda or interests you need to protect) whereas every last damn one of us who disagrees with you has their own agenda and interests causing us to reject him?
[ 02. February 2018, 21:14: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
quote:
this harmonisation is desperate, it really is.
On the contrary it is perfectly reasonable. Of course we do not Know all the facts, only the details included but why should Nazareth not be Mary’s home town where they returned briefly, before deciding to settle in Bethlehem which was Joseph’s?
She wouldn’t be the first woman to insist that what was hers was ‘theirs’ and Luke is obviously relating her account. She took in all the detail of the temple,Anna, Simeon etc. Joseph probably had his eye on his ist century timepiece so they could get on the road.
That second paragraph (apart from its fairly contentious introduction) sounds like more of the desperate attempts at harmonisation, loads of baseless speculation, and much scrabbling to find a justification where there is none.
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jamat
Shipmate
# 11621
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
It is the kind of challenge that Jesus confronted the Pharisees with when he said in effect that they trusted in scripture but the scripture spoke of him but they chose to reject him. The strong inference was that they had their own agenda..their own interests that they needed to protect.
Right, so just to get this clear beyond all doubt, in your citing of Jesus in that passage you are positioning yourself as Jesus (or at least devoid of any agenda or interests you need to protect) whereas every last damn one of us who disagrees with you has their own agenda and interests causing us to reject him?
That is just stupid. You can assume whatever conclusion you like of course. I am not suggesting that I am like Jesus at all only that those with an agenda protect it.
[ 02. February 2018, 22:51: Message edited by: Jamat ]
Posts: 3228 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
quote:
Are you seriously asserting that all the people challenging Steve Langton's explanations, which go further from the text than it is from Nazareth to Bethlehem, are doing so purely out of an agenda to avoid dealing with the truth of Scripture
I am not endorsing anyone’s view but merely pointing our that there is an agenda behind the assertions against Biblical integrity. It is a serious assertion and a necessary one. It is the kind of challenge that Jesus confronted the Pharisees with when he said in effect that they trusted in scripture but the scripture spoke of him but they chose to reject him. The strong inference was that they had their own agenda..their own interests that they needed to protect.
Usual bollocks - attack everyone else's motivation. We're all evil Satanically inspired reprobates desperate to discredit Scripture. Bugger it, lads, game's up, he'd rumbled us. Back to the Black Altar for some gay sex devil-worship.
[ 02. February 2018, 22:57: Message edited by: Karl: Liberal Backslider ]
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jamat
Shipmate
# 11621
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
quote:
this harmonisation is desperate, it really is.
On the contrary it is perfectly reasonable. Of course we do not Know all the facts, only the details included but why should Nazareth not be Mary’s home town where they returned briefly, before deciding to settle in Bethlehem which was Joseph’s?
She wouldn’t be the first woman to insist that what was hers was ‘theirs’ and Luke is obviously relating her account. She took in all the detail of the temple,Anna, Simeon etc. Joseph probably had his eye on his ist century timepiece so they could get on the road.
That second paragraph (apart from its fairly contentious introduction) sounds like more of the desperate attempts at harmonisation, loads of baseless speculation, and much scrabbling to find a justification where there is none.
And your reply looks more like a desperate attempt to discredit harmonisation..which is evidenced by your use of emotional language like baseless,scrabbling and desperate. Such terms are usually the last resort of the lost cause.
--------------------
Jamat ..in utmost longditude, where Heaven
with Earth and ocean meets, the setting sun slowly descended, and with right aspect
Against the eastern gate of Paradise. (Milton Paradise Lost Bk iv)
Posts: 3228 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
Where do I bill you for a new irony meter, as you just blew mine?
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
You sod, I CANNOT stop laughing.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
Let me try and keep this out of Hell.
Jamat, do you have any idea how rude it is to impugn the motivations of anyone with a dissenting opinion to yours in those terms?
As someone who preaches regularly, I have a responsibility for what I preach, one I try to take seriously. When I expound the Scriptures I try to "sit under" them rather than just use them to further my agenda, and if what I find there causes me to re-examine my presuppositions, I have to address that, sometimes from the pulpit (as it were), and take responsibility for having perhaps misled people in the past - something I believe I will one day have to give an account of before God.
I have to consider that the people hearing me expound the Scriptures may have differing ideas about issues like inspiration, and try and edify them all rather than become a stumbling-block for some, whilst remaining true to my own understanding before God. This can be an agonising process, and for you simply to suggest I (or anyone else here) am simply pursuing an agenda to undermine the integrity of Scripture is deeply insulting.
Besides, I think you have that passage in John, which I often allude to, all wrong.
The idea that the Pharisees had an agenda to protect is, once again, a complete interpolation into the text at this point. It's not what Jesus says. Jesus says (John 5:39) that the reason they studied the Scriptures diligently was not because they had an agenda to protect, but because they believed the Scriptures themselves were the source of eternal life in them. They were not entirely wrong in that; their mistake was not studying the Scriptures, but rather, failing to come to Jesus to have life.
To my mind that is as good a definition of bibliolatry as one is likely to find.
The issue here is not about disputing the integrity of the Scriptures - if I believed they had no integrity at all, I wouldn't be wasting my time here, and neither would anybody else here, I suspect. Rather, it's about whether attempting to harmonise them is an appropriate approach to them, just as one might challenge whether "harmonising" Monet's Water lilies is the most appropriate approach to the series.
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jamat
Shipmate
# 11621
|
Posted
quote:
do you have any idea how rude it is to impugn the motivations of anyone with a dissenting opinion to yours in those terms
No one was impugned. No names were used, the point stands that in this discussion of whether gospel accounts conflict, that an agenda exists to prove contradictions in order to justify a stance of unbelief in those accounts. That is not offensive unless common knowledge is so. It is true that agendas exist on te other side of the argument also.
But to answer your question on the question of rudeness..
Perhaps something akin to the rudeness of suggesting someone using an illustration that includes Jesus, is actually ascribing themselves the status of him...yes, perhaps that rude..but maybe a fraction less so.
[ 03. February 2018, 10:13: Message edited by: Jamat ]
Posts: 3228 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
You only point in using that illustration was to allege that the sole purpose of all the arguments ranged against you was to undermine the integrity of Scripture, and set yourself up opposite that as the sole defender of Scripture's integrity.
You did more than suggest the agenda existed in general - you suggested that agenda was that of dissenters to your view here.
You are entitled to your view, but impugning everyone else's motives is absolutely no substitute for engaging with the argument, and suggesting yours are purer than everyone else's will not facilitate discussion.
If your response to everyone who disagrees with you, despite their protestations to the contrary, is "well you're just out to undermine the integrity of Scripture" there's not much to discuss.
[ 03. February 2018, 10:35: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
There's not much to discuss.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jamat
Shipmate
# 11621
|
Posted
quote:
You only point in using that illustration was to allege that the sole purpose of all the arguments ranged against you was to undermine the integrity of Scripture, and set yourself up opposite that as the sole defender of Scripture's integrity.
No, just that such as they were, the arguments stemmed from a similar agenda as the Pharisees had. That agenda was in their case to repel the threat Jesus posed to them, in this case to justify unbelief by suggesting that the texts contradict..which they don’t.
That is all I will posting on this.
Posts: 3228 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
So everyone here who acknowledges that there are contradictions in the Gospel accounts and are quite comfortable with that, are only doing so out of a Pharisaical desire to resist the claims of Christ and to justify their unbelief?
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jamat
Shipmate
# 11621
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
So everyone here who acknowledges that there are contradictions in the Gospel accounts and are quite comfortable with that, are only doing so out of a Pharisaical desire to resist the claims of Christ and to justify their unbelief?
No, not what I said.
Posts: 3228 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Barnabas62
Host
# 9110
|
Posted
I've made no attempt to check this great long list, but have fun, Jamat.
What do you make of these?
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Yes, but be fair, Barnabas, the list comes from a virulently secularist site that is just as, if not more fundamentalist than some of the Christian fundies it's tilting at.
But yes, if we are insisting on complete and utter, total consistency then we son tie ourselves in knots.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601
|
Posted
just - about half an hour ago - got back from a nice if slightly damp day riding trains in Scotland to find ... well, the above.
I'm leaving it alone till at least tomorrow night after church....
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Host
# 9110
|
Posted
Why should the source matter, Gamaliel? If the claimed contradictions are nothing of the sort, then that can be demonstrated.
Let's look at the Genesis creation ones. I simply respond that it has been mainstream theological belief that Gen 1-2 contains not one creation myth, but two. So of course there are contradictions. There are two different stories.
For the Pentateuch, we have multiple source Wellhausen type theories, developed precisely because Wellhausen et al took the contradictions we see as a natural consequence of different sources.
Those of us who have taken seriously the theological findings of the past couple of centuries have no problems with sites like the secular one. Our understanding of the authority and inspiration of scripture is based on an honest facing of these contradictions, first pointed out by the Deists in the 18th centuries.
We are comfortable with them. Our theology has already taken account if this stuff. We do not seek to deny the existence of these differences. We have moved on.
[ 03. February 2018, 23:24: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
Oh dear me. And what Eutychus and others have said.
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nick Tamen
Ship's Wayfaring Fool
# 15164
|
Posted
I agree generally, Barnabas. But some of the alleged contradictions are a stretch, I think. For example, he claims Luke says that Mary became pregnant after the Annunciation, but Matthew says she was already pregnant when the Annunciation happened. But the verse from Matthew he cites for that claim is about the angel appearing to Joseph, not to Mary, so not a contradiction at all.
And then there seem to be some where the apparent contradiction may really be a result of translation or may depend on exactly what is meant by specific terms and concepts (such as creation of light before creation of the sun).
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
Oh dear me. And what Eutychus and others have said.
Yes.
[ 03. February 2018, 23:34: Message edited by: Nick Tamen ]
--------------------
The first thing God says to Moses is, "Take off your shoes." We are on holy ground. Hard to believe, but the truest thing I know. — Anne Lamott
Posts: 2833 | From: On heaven-crammed earth | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Host
# 9110
|
Posted
Heck, Nick, I didn't say I accepted all of them as true. Haven't even looked at all of them.
And in principle there is nothing wrong with seeing our world as others see it.
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
And in principle there is nothing wrong with seeing our world as others see it.
O wad some Pow'r the giftie gie us.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nick Tamen
Ship's Wayfaring Fool
# 15164
|
Posted
To see oursels as ithers see us!
Agreed, all.
--------------------
The first thing God says to Moses is, "Take off your shoes." We are on holy ground. Hard to believe, but the truest thing I know. — Anne Lamott
Posts: 2833 | From: On heaven-crammed earth | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
The thing that gets me about Jamat's take on that John 5 passage is that it's so much not what John is saying at that point; the irony is that this kind of sums up how inerrantist arguments often seem to be on close inspection (just like the 'almâ fiasco in Isaiah and the "Joseph really lived in Bethelehem" one).
There are plenty of places where the Pharisees are depicted as having an agenda, but that passage in John 5 isn't one of them. That passage has Jesus being persecuted by the Pharisees, not because he was threatening their position, but because in their eyes he was committing sacrilege. Sound familiar?
Their opposition is not depicted at this point as self-preservation, but due, as Paul puts it in Romans, to their zeal, righteous though it may have been, not being "after knowledge".
And what it says to me about Scripture is that it is possible to diligently, sincerely, and religiously study it and miss the point entirely.
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Host
# 9110
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
And what it says to me about Scripture is that it is possible to diligently, sincerely, and religiously study it and miss the point entirely.
Truth sets you free. Loyalty to an idea can imprison you. Inerrancy can be such an imprisoning idea. It prevents people looking for answers outside a certain range of 'sound' solutions. The circularity is caused by fear of the 'unsound'.
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Host
# 9110
|
Posted
If I might add. I have read Mein Kampf, Of the Jews and their lies, Das Capital, The Little Red Book. I've also read The Hiding Place, The Diary of Ann Frank, the whole of Solzhenitsyn's books, fact and fiction re Russian Communism and the Gulags I don't believe the polemicists. I believe the witnesses.
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
