So what's the point?
I've prattled on about elephants in rooms (http://theofrag.blogspot.com/2008/01/elephant-in-room.html),
Joseph's grandfather (http://theofrag.blogspot.com/2008/02/genealogies-part-2.html) and other things.
We've all been to churches where the pastor pounds the pulpit and chastises us for thinking too much (well, they don't *say* that... we're encouraged to think for ourselves, but then criticized if we decide we disagree). And in every church I've ever been to, sooner or later someone said "in the original Greek, this word means...". Stop. Red sign. First, we don't have the "original Greek". We don't even know that it was written in Greek. Doesn't it make sense that Hebrews was written in ... well.. Hebrew? Or maybe Matthew was written in Aramaic? Or maybe the reason the words in John are so simple is that they were written in Aramaic and translated to Greek by a translator who wasn't very good.
We don't have the original text. And we don't really know what's in it. We think we know. We are pretty sure about parts of it. But to tear apart origins of some Greek word and ascribe meaning to it is misleading. We simply can't read the Bible that way.
It presents a huge problem theologically. We end up binding ourself to a group of guys who met in Nicaea. The Catholics have it easy. They say these guys were "infallible" since the Pope was there, and that they were part of "Divine tradition". But the Protestants have it tougher. We either have to cling to the Catholic teachings about this, or admit we don't know.
It's not about truth. It's not really about "right-ness". Is it possible that the story of the woman taken in adultery was in the first ever version of John? Of course.
Could there be a reasonable explanation as to why Joseph had two different fathers? Absolutely.
Is it possible that the story of the virgin birth is authentic and original? Totally.
The problem is that we are guessing. Oh you don't have to call it that. You can call it "hypothesis" or "inspiration" or "reasonable faith based on historical fact". (I love that one by they way. You have to have faith to believe the fact, then use the fact to support your faith).
But whatever word you use, it's a guess. It is speculation. There are many reasons to believe it. There are many very bright scholars who will agree with it. There are many reasons to doubt it. There are many very bright scholars who will disagree.
It doesn't make our faith any less real, or less valuable, or less powerful. But it makes it different. It means that first of all, we have to take Kierkegaard's "blind leap".
You could argue, that any way you choose would be speculation. It is speculation that the Great Commission is NOT in the original manuscript of Mathew. And that is true.
And that's the point. It is not a pastor pounding the pulpit. It is not a great thinker who has all the answers if you just listen. It is not Josh McDowell or Lee Strobel addressing the "modern myths" of the doubters.
It is faith.
It is something you believe because you want to, because you need to, because it seems to make sense, because someone told you to or because of whatever drives you. But it is faith.
I think it must say a lot about a God who does this. It is so easy to take the easy way out -- to find Joseph Smith's golden tablets or the soothsayers "do this" pronouncements. But we don't have that. We have copies of copies of translations of copies. As Metzger points out astigmatism is very old. And there's no doubt that some of the scribes had it.
What does it say about God to allow this?
How you answer that is your faith.
It is faith.
Tuesday, February 19, 2008
Friday, February 8, 2008
Why-eth King-eth James?
I generally quote from the KJV for 2 reasons. First, the flow and wording is familiar to people:
"Go, ye, therefore, into all the world and make disciples" [KJV]
"Update your MySpace page so that it 'wins souls for Christ'" [some more modern version]
But also, let me say this. I really like the NIV. I actually know a couple of the guys who worked on it (namedrop avoided). I think it is probably the best translation on the market -- save, maybe "Today's NIV" (how can you have a New New version?).
But it's owned. It's copy-protected. And the copyright owners are very serious about that. (I won't name any names, let's just call them... oh, i dunno... "Z"). Try this. Go out to the web and do a Goodsearch (like google but gives profits to charity) for something like "online Bible" or "Bible on the web". You'll get a ton of hits. But notoriously absent is the NIV. It's because "Z" will sue the living breath out of anyone who does that.
So I use eSword . It is a free Bible software. You can freely download it, install it, add Bibles to it, pull down reference books into it and generally add on as much or little as you like. It gives you the ability to search, make margin notes, look up word origins and all the "good stuff" that "Z"'s software does, but (did I mention?) it's free. If you want to donate to them, they'll send you a nice CD with a ton of content and no lawyers making sure you don't actually *use* it.
I'm not really angry with the publishers of the NIV. I understand the need for capital. I'm just disappointed. Not everyone who has a computer has the $80 needed to get "Z"'s version of this type of software. Hey, look, if you want to sell a nice leather-bound Bible, with some parchment pages for family trees and charge $60, right on. But if we believe that the Bible is given of God, then we shouldn't sell the basic translation, right? Isn't that like the false prophets who sold their words for money? Oh, but this is worse. We're selling God's words, right?
There's a big market in the U.S. for this kind of thing. If you want to sell little plastic communion cups to churches or the latest Veggie Tales videos -- rock on. But if you have something that can really change the world, if you believe that what you have is the cure for the cancers of the world, if you believe it can save souls and pull people out of despair -- if you really believe it -- how can you go so far to keep people who are less affluent from seeing it?
I think that's true with a lot of Christian books and music -- we will "minister" to you and provide you something that can change your life.... oh, but only if you have enough money. It most bothers me with these worship concerts some large bands have been giving. Hey, how can you charge people to come and worship God? And more, how can you lock the doors to people who can't pay?
It bugs me. People don't realize it, but a lot of folks are getting quite rich off this. What's more is that 1000 years ago, the Pope dictated doctrine by what he said. Now, in the U.S. it seems like the Christian bookstore industry dictates it by what sells. I've got some stories about this, but that's too much typing for now. But I will tell you that I've walked into Christian bookstores looking for the writings of Martin Luther King, Jr. and walked out disappointed (should I say Rev King? -- ahem, he was a Christian, you know). But along the way, I ran into whole shelves of Ronald Regan and G.W. Bush books and even some on (*gulp*) Dan Quayle. Nothing against any of those fellows, but I wonder how our churches would be different if the bookstore industry didn't have quite so much influence.
so.... long live the King....
"Go, ye, therefore, into all the world and make disciples" [KJV]
"Update your MySpace page so that it 'wins souls for Christ'" [some more modern version]
But also, let me say this. I really like the NIV. I actually know a couple of the guys who worked on it (namedrop avoided). I think it is probably the best translation on the market -- save, maybe "Today's NIV" (how can you have a New New version?).
But it's owned. It's copy-protected. And the copyright owners are very serious about that. (I won't name any names, let's just call them... oh, i dunno... "Z"). Try this. Go out to the web and do a Goodsearch (like google but gives profits to charity) for something like "online Bible" or "Bible on the web". You'll get a ton of hits. But notoriously absent is the NIV. It's because "Z" will sue the living breath out of anyone who does that.
So I use eSword . It is a free Bible software. You can freely download it, install it, add Bibles to it, pull down reference books into it and generally add on as much or little as you like. It gives you the ability to search, make margin notes, look up word origins and all the "good stuff" that "Z"'s software does, but (did I mention?) it's free. If you want to donate to them, they'll send you a nice CD with a ton of content and no lawyers making sure you don't actually *use* it.
I'm not really angry with the publishers of the NIV. I understand the need for capital. I'm just disappointed. Not everyone who has a computer has the $80 needed to get "Z"'s version of this type of software. Hey, look, if you want to sell a nice leather-bound Bible, with some parchment pages for family trees and charge $60, right on. But if we believe that the Bible is given of God, then we shouldn't sell the basic translation, right? Isn't that like the false prophets who sold their words for money? Oh, but this is worse. We're selling God's words, right?
There's a big market in the U.S. for this kind of thing. If you want to sell little plastic communion cups to churches or the latest Veggie Tales videos -- rock on. But if you have something that can really change the world, if you believe that what you have is the cure for the cancers of the world, if you believe it can save souls and pull people out of despair -- if you really believe it -- how can you go so far to keep people who are less affluent from seeing it?
I think that's true with a lot of Christian books and music -- we will "minister" to you and provide you something that can change your life.... oh, but only if you have enough money. It most bothers me with these worship concerts some large bands have been giving. Hey, how can you charge people to come and worship God? And more, how can you lock the doors to people who can't pay?
It bugs me. People don't realize it, but a lot of folks are getting quite rich off this. What's more is that 1000 years ago, the Pope dictated doctrine by what he said. Now, in the U.S. it seems like the Christian bookstore industry dictates it by what sells. I've got some stories about this, but that's too much typing for now. But I will tell you that I've walked into Christian bookstores looking for the writings of Martin Luther King, Jr. and walked out disappointed (should I say Rev King? -- ahem, he was a Christian, you know). But along the way, I ran into whole shelves of Ronald Regan and G.W. Bush books and even some on (*gulp*) Dan Quayle. Nothing against any of those fellows, but I wonder how our churches would be different if the bookstore industry didn't have quite so much influence.
so.... long live the King....
Genealogies Part 2
If you're like me, you've seen it and read it and let your eyes go numb overlooking it many times.
Mat 1:17 : "So all the generations from Abraham to David are fourteen generations; and from David until the carrying away into Babylon are fourteen generations; and from the carrying away into Babylon unto Christ are fourteen generations." [Someth Oldeth Kingeth's merry ole' version]
Wow. It sounds so impressive, doesn't it? That proves the time was right for the Messiah, no? Can't you see it? A Biblical defender in a nice suit with appropriately slicked hair (why is it that televangelists always have such nice hair? is there some kind of screening? ) pounding some pulpit to emphasize that we clearly know that the timing of Jesus was perfect.
OK. Forget about the number 14 for a moment. Just look at the time durations. Abraham lived in around 2000BC (give or take), David around 1000BC. The Jews were taken to Babylon in around 600BC. And of course Jesus' birth is something around 0BC/AD (Wikipedia-me if you want to check the dates).
The times aren't the same. Fourteen generations is something like 550 years. So maybe it was about 14 from the captivity to the birth of Christ, but that's about it.
You don't even need dates, really. You can count all the kings of Israel before Babylon if you are good with your Old Testament trivia. But we know that the Israelites were in Egypt for (what?) something like 400 years, right? And that's only one small part of the time from Abraham to David.
And the "14" is strange. Go to the book of numbers sometime... well, ok don't. But if you did, count the generations listed. Here's a clue. It isn't 14. Do the same thing with Kings and Chronicles. What you'll find is that there are number of generations missing from this genealogy.
The Defender may point out that this was a common practice -- kind of a short hand -- to skip generations. That makes a lot of sense. And I believe it. Can you imagine being that poor scribe that had to maintain this stuff? Sooner or later you'd be very tempted to say "just go look over there for the rest".
In addition, the word translatedeth "begat" probably really means "caused to be born" or something. That is, it is not necessarily the father. It could be a grandfather or even great-grandfather.
But.... but.... but...
what's with the 14?
I mean, OK, the genealogy skips some people. I can deal with that. But then why turn around and make a big deal out of how many there are? "Let me pick 14 people and then I'll make a proof out of the fact that there are only 14." The scholar in me says: "Whasafras?"
How does that make sense?
It seems like there are 2 things we can say: there were *not* 14 generations between all these people, and the number of generations wasn't even the *same*.
So why is it there?
There's a really simple reason. It's wrong. You can spin it. You can dodge it. You can lay awake at night trying to think of clever ways of explaining it. But either it's wrong or the genealogies in the Old Testament are wrong. Either it's wrong, or all of the dates that we know and archeology around them is wrong.
If I'm a Critic, I shrug and say "of course it's wrong." Someone got overzealous with numbers. It probably wasn't even Mathew, but some scribe who added it later. It fits.
But if I'm a Defender, I ... am ... hosed. Once I say that, then I'm saying that the Bible has flaws. If it has contradictions or scribal errors in the genealogy in Mathew, then where else are there flaws? You see, with this section, we have something unusual: we have something verifiable. We know that there are 2 such genealogies in the Bible (Matt and Luke) and that these reflect the ones in the books of the Jewish Bible. There are lots of places to cross reference. And if this is true, and we find out that they do not match, then what about the places where there are no cross-references? What about the story of the woman taken in adultery (only in John) or the virgin birth (only Matt and Luke) or any of the other stories where we just don't have a frame for comparison. If we look at the places that we can compare and they are "wrong," then there is no rock on which to rest the other parts. In that case, I am saying "the places I can verify aren't right, but the places I can't verify are."
Of course, there's a lot more here. The history of the scribal work that produced this is very important. And of course, you can wonder whether the verse is even original. And of course, you can ask when Matthew was written -- and by Matthew or someone else -- since that may help explain why this verse is here.
But it shakes up the world.
Mat 1:17 : "So all the generations from Abraham to David are fourteen generations; and from David until the carrying away into Babylon are fourteen generations; and from the carrying away into Babylon unto Christ are fourteen generations." [Someth Oldeth Kingeth's merry ole' version]
Wow. It sounds so impressive, doesn't it? That proves the time was right for the Messiah, no? Can't you see it? A Biblical defender in a nice suit with appropriately slicked hair (why is it that televangelists always have such nice hair? is there some kind of screening? ) pounding some pulpit to emphasize that we clearly know that the timing of Jesus was perfect.
OK. Forget about the number 14 for a moment. Just look at the time durations. Abraham lived in around 2000BC (give or take), David around 1000BC. The Jews were taken to Babylon in around 600BC. And of course Jesus' birth is something around 0BC/AD (Wikipedia-me if you want to check the dates).
The times aren't the same. Fourteen generations is something like 550 years. So maybe it was about 14 from the captivity to the birth of Christ, but that's about it.
You don't even need dates, really. You can count all the kings of Israel before Babylon if you are good with your Old Testament trivia. But we know that the Israelites were in Egypt for (what?) something like 400 years, right? And that's only one small part of the time from Abraham to David.
And the "14" is strange. Go to the book of numbers sometime... well, ok don't. But if you did, count the generations listed. Here's a clue. It isn't 14. Do the same thing with Kings and Chronicles. What you'll find is that there are number of generations missing from this genealogy.
The Defender may point out that this was a common practice -- kind of a short hand -- to skip generations. That makes a lot of sense. And I believe it. Can you imagine being that poor scribe that had to maintain this stuff? Sooner or later you'd be very tempted to say "just go look over there for the rest".
In addition, the word translatedeth "begat" probably really means "caused to be born" or something. That is, it is not necessarily the father. It could be a grandfather or even great-grandfather.
But.... but.... but...
what's with the 14?
I mean, OK, the genealogy skips some people. I can deal with that. But then why turn around and make a big deal out of how many there are? "Let me pick 14 people and then I'll make a proof out of the fact that there are only 14." The scholar in me says: "Whasafras?"
How does that make sense?
It seems like there are 2 things we can say: there were *not* 14 generations between all these people, and the number of generations wasn't even the *same*.
So why is it there?
There's a really simple reason. It's wrong. You can spin it. You can dodge it. You can lay awake at night trying to think of clever ways of explaining it. But either it's wrong or the genealogies in the Old Testament are wrong. Either it's wrong, or all of the dates that we know and archeology around them is wrong.
If I'm a Critic, I shrug and say "of course it's wrong." Someone got overzealous with numbers. It probably wasn't even Mathew, but some scribe who added it later. It fits.
But if I'm a Defender, I ... am ... hosed. Once I say that, then I'm saying that the Bible has flaws. If it has contradictions or scribal errors in the genealogy in Mathew, then where else are there flaws? You see, with this section, we have something unusual: we have something verifiable. We know that there are 2 such genealogies in the Bible (Matt and Luke) and that these reflect the ones in the books of the Jewish Bible. There are lots of places to cross reference. And if this is true, and we find out that they do not match, then what about the places where there are no cross-references? What about the story of the woman taken in adultery (only in John) or the virgin birth (only Matt and Luke) or any of the other stories where we just don't have a frame for comparison. If we look at the places that we can compare and they are "wrong," then there is no rock on which to rest the other parts. In that case, I am saying "the places I can verify aren't right, but the places I can't verify are."
Of course, there's a lot more here. The history of the scribal work that produced this is very important. And of course, you can wonder whether the verse is even original. And of course, you can ask when Matthew was written -- and by Matthew or someone else -- since that may help explain why this verse is here.
But it shakes up the world.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)