I am a Christian -- sometimes in spite of myself.
I've never been one to fit neatly into a box. The T-shirts with the logos on them are usually a horrible fit for me.
But at the end of the day, you have to be *something* and I am a Christian.
As a Christian -- in order to call myself that -- I have to believe in Christ. So what does that mean: "believe in Christ"? Part of it means, I have to believe that, as the old bumper sticker said, "Jesus is the answer."
I always used to joke around about that, saying "what is the question"? But the truth is, it doesn't matter.
In order to be a Christian, I have to believe that Christ was right. I have to believe that the basic principles of Christianity are accurate. I'd be an idiot to knowingly be a Christian and still believe that Christianity is wrong. Can you imagine? "well, I believe that Buddha is probably right about how to live, so I'm a Christian".
When I look at the world, and the church, I don't see much of this "Christ is the answer" attitude, though.
Listen. Go to church, watch TV, read the newspapers and listen. Tear it apart, bounce it off of the sayings of Christ and think.
What you hear is that Christ is the answer, unless you're talking about money, then you need a good financial adviser. What you hear is that Christ is the answer, unless you're thinking about politics, then you need a good political agenda. Or that Christ is the answer, unless you're talking about saving your marriage, then you need a 10-step plan which involves Dr. Phil. ("How's that working for you", by the way?).
How do you address the poverty in Africa? What programs do you believe in to really solve the aids crisis? What do we do as a nation about the political instability in Central America? How do I plan for my retirement? How do I live a more healthy and active lifestyle? How do I win my lover's heart?
Christ is the answer.
We want laws. We want movements. We want organizations. We want plans and strategies. We call in the military. We apply economic pressure. We consult the pop-sages. We join Jenny Craig. We apply sound, academically approved economic models to our businesses. We set up our youth groups to mimic the way the boy scouts are organized. We read articles on how to be promoted at work. We embrace political candidates and ideas.
These are all great and everything. But Jesus didn't do any of it.
None. Zero. The closest thing to His financial adviser was Judas. The nearest He ever got to a political campaign was "Render unto Caesar...". The closest He got to starting an organization was "go ye, therefore".
And Christ is the real answer.
How do you address political corruption in Central America? You show them Christ. You help them. You serve them. You show them that there is an alternative to hatred and greed.
How do you address the aids crisis? You show them Christ. You help them. You serve them. You show them that there is an alternative to hopelessness and abuse.
How do you plan for retirement? You look at Christ. You help others. You serve them. You show people that there are other things in life besides 401Ks and early retirement.
All of the other things we chase after are great. We need to vote in November and so it is important to vote responsibly. But we need to move beyond the naivety of thinking that a President can have the answer. Presidents can impact the world, but they cannot fundamentally change it. Only Christ has that power.
Presidents can do good things or bad things that help people or hurt them. Of course, the truth is that they will do some of both. But in the end, after a zillion Presidents and Princes and Shahs and Kings, we are basically the same. The boarders change, the power shifts, the people rise and fall, but the world doesn't really change much.
Christ is the answer.
And if you believe anything else, then I would humbly assert that you're either not a Christian or a fool for following what you don't really believe.
Saturday, March 15, 2008
Saturday, March 8, 2008
Sin
I've been thinking about original sin. Seems to me there are 2 kinds of original sin. There is the original sin – that is, Adam and Eve in the garden and the apple and all. And then there’s “Original Sin” as a systematic doctrine. That is, the sin we’ve inherited what Calvin and(as usual, Wikipedia has an nice section on it).
It always seemed strange to me that we could inherit sin. I mean, how could we be held responsible for something someone else did? Not that we don’t have enough sin in our lives anyway, but the idea that a newborn baby is guilty of “Original Sin” has always confused me. So I started thinking about what “Original Sin” really is. Maybe it has to do with power.
The sin of Adam and Eve was that they wanted to be “like God”, knowing the difference between right and wrong. This is really strange, since they clearly knew that eating the apple was wrong. So didn't they already know the difference, but weren't acting on it?
But I am thinking the "know good from evil" is a bigger question and somewhat of a paradox. I think it may be more like "wanted to proclaim good from evil." In a sense, isn't that what we do? We have our opinions on good and evil about everything from ethics to wars to politics to people's choice in clothing. I *think* they may have wanted to know it all -- to be in a position where they were able to sit and proclaim right and wrong in every situation. And perhaps, the implication is that they wanted to have the power to make it so.
Perhaps the real thing maybe was that they wanted to be “like God” -- not in that they wanted to be Godly. They wanted control over the universe. But they weren’t gods. In some ways, they were given control over the universe. And even today, we pretty much control everything. But they didn’t have God’s “Godness”. So they were left trying to control a universe that they didn’t understand and couldn’t really master.
Perhaps that desire, that need to push along what's right -- to know emphatically the best course every time about everything -- and the the "God-like-ness" to be clever enough or powerful enough to carry it out is the Original Sin.
We are born into a world that is ruled by those who are trying to play God. So, from birth, we’re taught that we’re in control and we’re not taught about God. And we have to deal with the world system controlling parts of our lives, but this isn’t God. We are rewarded as "leaders" if we take charge and enforce "good." We pass laws to force people to obey the "good." In that, we proclaim that we know good from evil and that we have the power to force people to obey.
I'm honestly not sure I'm right, but it does seem to make sense to me. To be less "Adam-esque," we should be less convicted of our own discernment. I'm not saying we should never render a thought on what is good or evil, but that our focus should be on how we live that out, not how we can enforce our ideas on someone else. Had Adam & Eve just focused on how to live what God had already told them was good, they wouldn't have gotten into trouble. The irony is that they did what was evil in the name of the good. But that seems so natural in our world, doesn't it?
On the other hand, I don't see how a baby can be "sinful" as the Calinists teach. I am still not sure this answers that.
I've thought a lot about how we use the ends to justify our means the way that Adam & Eve did, but I'll save that for later.
Wednesday, March 5, 2008
Speechless
I saw this today:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080303/od_nm/italy_saint_dc_2;_ylt=ApYlTTQxGAPAlxl9krcavvoE1vAI
I was going to blog my thoughts on this, since it touches on a question I've long wondered -- how do evangelical Christians explain miracles outside the evangelical Christian faith?
But I'm left so speechless by this, that I can't even add to it. Let me know what you think.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080303/od_nm/italy_saint_dc_2;_ylt=ApYlTTQxGAPAlxl9krcavvoE1vAI
I was going to blog my thoughts on this, since it touches on a question I've long wondered -- how do evangelical Christians explain miracles outside the evangelical Christian faith?
But I'm left so speechless by this, that I can't even add to it. Let me know what you think.
Sunday, March 2, 2008
the end of the world is near
One of our local mega-churches is running a "we are in the final days" series, complete with TV adds showing a ticking clock.
Do you think the congregation realizes that people have been convinced we were in the final days for two *thousand* years? It's clear that the early disciples were generally convinced that the world would end in their lifetime.
I am convinced that, had I been alive in 1940, I would have been absolutely convinced it was the end. Adolf Hitler seemed to fit the "anti-Christ" model so well, that I can't believe he wasn't. The persecution of the Jews, the alliance of nations build on the rubble of the Roman Empire (it was the Germans who sacked Rome, after all), the mark of the beast (Nazi flag), the persecution of Christians (Bonhoefferand others), how could you think otherwise. The whole 666 thing was not quite as simple, but just about everything else seemed to fit.
But, the best information I can find is that the world didn't end in 1945. Perhaps we will look back from eternity and find that this was the beginning of the end -- the starting of the Jewish state, the ushering in of atomic war. Or perhaps we will find it was not.
But I wonder whatever happened to the bookcases filled with books about the end of the world being in the year 2000 or in 1988 or 1955 or 1970 or whenever.
And I wonder if the people in the congregations actually think that maybe the pastor may not know the exact day or the hour or even the century. And if he doesn't, he would be in the company of 20 centuries of others just like him
Do you think the congregation realizes that people have been convinced we were in the final days for two *thousand* years? It's clear that the early disciples were generally convinced that the world would end in their lifetime.
I am convinced that, had I been alive in 1940, I would have been absolutely convinced it was the end. Adolf Hitler seemed to fit the "anti-Christ" model so well, that I can't believe he wasn't. The persecution of the Jews, the alliance of nations build on the rubble of the Roman Empire (it was the Germans who sacked Rome, after all), the mark of the beast (Nazi flag), the persecution of Christians (Bonhoefferand others), how could you think otherwise. The whole 666 thing was not quite as simple, but just about everything else seemed to fit.
But, the best information I can find is that the world didn't end in 1945. Perhaps we will look back from eternity and find that this was the beginning of the end -- the starting of the Jewish state, the ushering in of atomic war. Or perhaps we will find it was not.
But I wonder whatever happened to the bookcases filled with books about the end of the world being in the year 2000 or in 1988 or 1955 or 1970 or whenever.
And I wonder if the people in the congregations actually think that maybe the pastor may not know the exact day or the hour or even the century. And if he doesn't, he would be in the company of 20 centuries of others just like him
Tuesday, February 19, 2008
elephants, ancestors and points
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.
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.
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)