The Nativity and the Weather
by
Samuel Martin
Before my late father began a career as a pastor and then a religious scholar, he was trained as a weather forecaster.
He learned this discipline at first in university, but later in the United States Air Force.
As a scientist training in the observation of the weather, he always took this matter into consideration when it came to his research studies dealing with the Bible.
A number of books that he wrote which he has been recognized for from an academic point of view dealing with the birth of Jesus Christ come to my mind at this time of year.
What is interesting though as far as I can remember, the only point that he mentioned concerning the matter of the weather and its relevance concerning the time Jesus was born is the following quotation from his book "The Star of Bethlehem: The Star that Astonished the World."
"Luke said that Jesus was born at a time when his parents went to Bethlehem in response to Caesar's command for a census. Ramsay showed that considerable confidence can be placed in the belief that the general time of the year for the start of a census was from August to October. The September period for Jesus' birth we are suggesting fits this well.
A late Summer or early Autumn date for Jesus' birth has also been suggested because Luke said the shepherds were tending their flocks at night at his nativity (Luke 2:8). Many have believed this precludes a wintertime birth (either early Winter on December 25th or a late Winter in early March) because it would have been too cold for the flocks to be out in the open at that time.
But this evidence is very problematic. In exceptionally cold Winters this may have been the case, but in mild Winters sheep are often out of doors in Palestine all night. Since no one knows what kind of weather there was in Palestine the year of Jesus birth (either severe or mild), this factor can be of no chronological value." (Martin, pg. 183-4)
The thing is though, in one way we do know what kind of weather there would have been in the land of Israel during this time especially if we say that Jesus was born in late December. Baly shows us the basic seasonal pattern that has existed in the Holy Land for 1,000s of years. It is important because it shows the environment that people who lived in the land would have known about very well. Because of this, the idea that Joseph and Mary would have set out on a trip to Bethlehem in December makes no sense at all in a practical sense.
“The Palestinian year is divided into two major seasons, the dry summer from mid-June to mid-September and the rainy season in the cooler half of the year. The summer drought, during which no rain falls at all, is actually somewhat longer than the true ‘summer’ and extends into the transitional seasons which dive the summer from the winter at either end. Thus, even on the coast of Cis-Jordan (Israel), the drought is usually complete for five continuous months from the middle of May to the second fortnight in October. It is better to avoid using the word “winter” for the rainy season, for winter inevitably suggests to an English-speaking person a cold season, but in Palestine, the cold weather is normally confined to the three months after Christmas, that is to the second half of the rainy season. In modern Arabic, the word “summer” is so emphatically suggestive of the long dry period (cf. Ps. 32:4, ‘My strength was dried up as the heat of summer”) that winter means more than anything else that blessed period when the rain comes. The Arabic word shittah is in fact used impartially for both “winter” and “rain” and there seems to be something of the same thought in Song of Solomon 2:11, “ For lo, the winter is past, the rain is over and gone.” (Baly, The Geography of the Bible, pg. 43)
This description by Baly is 100% correct as anyone who lives here in the land knows. Anytime after October 15, the rainy season starts and in the beginning of that season, the rains start in a sporadic way, but get into December and there is a regular occurrence of rainstorms that come systematically and after January those storms will get more intense.
As Professor Ramsay mentions, the idea the Romans would undertake a census during the rainy season moving to the middle of winter makes zero sense at all.
September though would have been a very suitable time for such a journey to take place and be completed before the beginning of the olive harvest, which was a very important annual agricultural event in ancient times as it still is today.
During September, the days are long and warm and the nights are mild and not cold at all.
Knowing the weather and the seasons of the Bible lands in a practical sense helps us better understand the stories of the Bible especially those ones we hold so dear to our hearts and minds.
The Romans could not require people to travel for a census while there were yet crops to be harvested.
ReplyDeleteCrops remaining unharvested would have been a loss of tax revenue for the Romans and food-instability for the Jews.
The grape harvest came around the Feast of Tabernacles - and after harvest, considerable time was needed to process the grapes.
The Romans would not have had the census before the grape harvest because they were looking forward to the taxes, and the wine.
The olive harvest ended some time in early November - and time was needed to process the crop - or otherwise there's no use in picking the olives.
Olives contain a bitter compound called oleuropein.
Harvested olives must be cured to remove the bitterness before they can be eaten.
Once the olives are cured between one and two weeks, it takes one to four weeks to process the olives.
After the olive crop was taken care of, there was lag time before the spring crop needed be planted - this is the only time available for the census.
Armstrongists hate Christian traditions and are driven to overlook the obvious and/or concoct wild stories to try to discount those traditions.
Regardless of when Jesus was born, the Bible does record that all of Heaven celebrated the event.
Who does not join the rejoicing of Heaven to celebrate the birth of Jesus?
Sad, confused, deluded Armstrongists.
Just a thought. Joseph wasn't a farmer. Would that change things?
ReplyDeleteSetting aside some day to observe the Advent is an irreproachable idea. In the Western Church it happens to be December 25. Paul talks about some regarding certain days to be important within a Christian context and this seems not to cause him heartburn. Paul acknowledges personal conviction as the important factor: "Some judge one day to be better than another, while others judge all days to be alike. Let all be fully convinced in their own minds." He does not discuss calendars, seasons and paganism.
ReplyDeleteArmstrongists exalt the purity of their holy day observances without recognizing that HWA followed the Post-Temple Rabbinic Judaism model rather than the purity of the OT. In this later Rabbinic rendition, the Shalosh Regalim is celebrated sans Jerusalem and Temple. To make this work, HWA determined where "God placed his name" on his own "authority." So then at one time we had the ludicrous notion of God placing his name in Gladewater, Texas. It just gets more bizarre.
******** Click on my icon for Disclaimer
I don't get it. What is his point?
ReplyDeleteI, as with many theologian and church historians, would not be confident that the tax of the Roman world would require that everyone return to his city of origin. Aside from the chaos of all that, there is no record the Romans or anyone else would have conducted such and "enrollment" in that manner. What would be the point? Why would it be necessary to take a near term pregnant wife?
ReplyDeleteThe point is moot as the Birth Narratives of Matthew and Luke, which obviously each author had not read the others tale, are made up from OT scriptures and filled with impossibly mythic elements and contradictions.
No one has a clue when any Jesus of Nazareth was born or the actual circumstances of his birth, if he indeed was a literal person in history and not a literary construct.
Dr Raymond Brown, Catholic author of The Birth of the Messiah noted in his book that he appreciated the work of Dr. Ernest Martin but felt he fell into too literal a view of the narratives. He really took exception with trying to make a conjunction of planets in the day the "star of Bethlehem".
Advent .. In the Western Church it happens to be December 25
ReplyDeleteIn the Eastern Church it also happens on December 25, but on the Julian Calendar, not the Gregorian. And so for Easter, also following Constantine's rules, is sometimes a week later, or a month later, than for the Western Churches.
But, yes, there has been some changing of observed dates and what they were observed for. I remember a nun in Catechism say that her day for receiving presents was on the Day of St. Nicholas.
John Shelby Spong has some interesting observations about the birth of Jesus.
ReplyDelete"True Christian said...
ReplyDeleteI don't get it. What is his point?"
Well of course not! You are in a cult and Dave hasn't given you an answer.
"Advent. In the Western Church, it happens to be December 25"
ReplyDeleteAdvent starts the first Sunday after Thanksgiving and goes till December 24. It is not a One-day event but a four-week event of contemplation, reflection, and anticipation.
Dennis wrote, "No one has a clue when any Jesus of Nazareth was born or the actual circumstances of his birth, if he indeed was a literal person in history and not a literary construct."
ReplyDeleteYou Bible critics all use the same ploy. It's called presumption. But we do have a clue. It is called the New Testament. Your statement above assumes that the NT does not count at the outset. You can't assume that. Its not a freebie. You must prove that assertion.
Many people do not realize that the Jewish historians know hardly anything about Late Second Temple Judaism (Sadducees, Pharisees, customs and manners) outside the pages of the NT. There is a bit in Josephus. But nobody goes around saying that the Pharisees are just a "literary construct." If you had to convince the world that Pharisees did not really exist and were a fiction, I don't think you would get far. The Jews accept the NT as their documentary evidence. And you are going to offer them what? Insistence?
******** Click on my icon for Disclaimer
NeoTherm says "You Bible critics all use the same ploy. It's called presumption. But we do have a clue. It is called the New Testament. Your statement above assumes that the NT does not count at the outset."
ReplyDelete==================
When endeavoring to show that the mythical, historically inaccurate and contradictory aspects of the NT story are untrue and not real, you can't use the story to say "see the story is correct because the story is in the NT and the NT is correct." That's a bit like saying the Bible is true because of the many statements within it that it is true. That's presumption.
Well, I’m really pleased and surprised to say, for the first time I agree with with Neo Therm. Dennis’s post brings up a good question, although it is typical for an atheist. So, is there more to solid history about the Messiah of the NT? How about a little teaser of a surprise from my book?
ReplyDelete“ ON THE SPOT NEWS REPORTING?
One of the biggest criticisms concerning the accuracy of the NewTestament is this. “How could the actual words of the Messiah be recorded since they were written years after the events?” It is not possible in the minds of most in the world for these words to be accurately memorized. The world does not consider valid the idea of “divine inspiration.” So, what is the answer? Please remember, though, this is just one of the criticisms. In this chapter, we will explain this dilemma.
We believe this is the first time this dilemma has been explained. You are in for a wonderful, delightful surprise. I hope the joy of this discovery will fill you as it did me when I was first shown this information!
11.3 A SURPRISING CLUE
What did Luke mean when he said, as we quoted earlier, that he diligently “researched” this information? How could he research anything if there were no accurately written records?
All these hundreds of years, the critics have spurned the writings in what is called the New Testament. It is time to show them, and you, dear reader, how this record was accurately kept.
Surprisingly, the clue that brought the truth to light does not seem like a clue on first observance. But, wow, what a clue it turned out to be! Let me show you the clue here.
“And when they had entered [the city], they mounted to the upper
room where they were indefinitely staying – Peter and John and James
and Andrew, Philip and Thomas, Bartholomew and Matthew, James
the son of Alphaeus and Simon the Zealot and Judas the [son
(brother?)] of James.
“All of those with their minds in full agreement devoted themselves
steadfastly to prayer, [waiting together] with the women and Mary the
mother of Yahshua, and with His brothers.
“Now one of those days Peter arose among the brethren, the whole
number of whom gathered together WAS ABOUT A HUNDRED AND
TWENTY.” Acts 1:13-15 (Amplified)
Your reaction is probably this – “What kind of clue is this? That doesn’t have a thing to do with recording the Messiah’s his history.”
Well, there is the clue. And, it has a great deal to do with how the history was recorded, as it happened. In fact, the law for such things would have been broken if that history had not been written as required.
But, that of course is of no interest to bible critics,, right?
Enjoy.
Dennis:
ReplyDeleteAll right. That's a credible statement. What you mean to say is that there are no extra-Biblical evidences that demonstrate the Bible is valid in your research. You reject the use of the Bible itself. The point of presumption is that you have not established why the Bible cannot be placed in evidence. So you have rejected unstated reasons the only detailed document that witnesses to that period in the history of Judaism.
My guess is that in your rejection of the Bible you would cite internal inconsistencies at the micro level - easily the kind of thing that can be a matter of error in human curation - conflation of geographical locations by Gospel authors and such. But this does not invalidate the Bible at the macro level - the level of theological principle and the larger currents of history.
Your view is probably inerrantist, literalist and my view is that the Bible is incarnational. So we have no common ground for debate. We're talking about two different standards. And those who dwell at the micro level, the bottom feeders, cannot presume that their views invalidate the macro level.
******** Click on my icon for Disclaimer
Dennis,
ReplyDeleteI have to jump into this one. As you know, Neo is NOT a Fundamentalist or a Literalist. Hence, your statement pointing to the circular reasoning which most of those folks engage in CANNOT be applicable to him (Neo). In other words, it doesn't appear to me that Neo's thesis could justly be characterized as "the story is correct because the story is in the NT, and the NT is correct."
Although Bart Ehrman certainly doesn't subscribe to inerrancy and is widely recognized as a biblical scholar and critic of exceptional talent, he finds the gospel accounts to be a valuable resource that can (and do) provide some valuable information about a REAL person named Jesus Christ. In fact, it is extremely presumptuous to discard an entire collection of writings simply because they contain mythical and historically inaccurate elements and provide contradictory or inconsistent information (as do most accounts derived from various independent human perspectives).
The initial comment in this thread offers some very perceptive observations relative to the timing of harvest in Palestine (although his harvest chronology appears to be a few weeks late). The commentator's observation about Romans intentionally interfering in harvests that would directly and negatively impact their ability to collect taxes is a valid one. The fact is that there were three main harvest seasons in the Holy Land: the early grain harvest, the grape harvest, and the olive harvest). Hence, it seems to me that any argument that is advanced against a December date for the birth of Christ based on a Roman tax of an agriculturally based society must take these facts into account.
ReplyDeleteNeo,
ReplyDeleteYes, you and I have reached different conclusions from Dennis about the meaning of the evidence (which is available to all of us), but that doesn't mean he is a "bottom feeder." We have to respect each other's journeys if we are to have any hope of engaging in civil discourse that seeks to understand and address the other guy's (or gal's) view.
As I see it, you are both presuming things about each other's perspectives which may or may not be true. I stand by my original observation to Dennis, but I'm not sure your response in this instance represents your best either. In other words, would you both be willing to reframe your arguments in this instance? You have both made valuable contributions to this blog from very different perspectives, and we are all looking forward to an honest exchange of ideas that doesn't involve a strawman or ad hominem attack.
Great comments so far don’t you think?
ReplyDeleteHere’s another quote about the first writings made live, on the spot, while the Messiah was teaching. These notes were taken and then copies were posted in the Temple archives, according to the laws of the day. From those notes Luke collected his materials.
“FURTHER REQUIREMENTS FOR RECORDS
Without much comment, here is a quote of most of Appendix III from Hellenism In Jewish Palestine by Saul Lieberman, The Jewish Theological Seminary of America, N.Y., Copyright 1950.
“The Greek word pinace, writing-tablet, is very common in
rabbinic literature. From the second century rabbinic sources
it is obvious that the pinace often consisted of more than one
tablet…
“Thus, pinace, in rabbinic literature is sometimes identical with
codex.
“In ancient Jewish sources the … pinaces, codices, ARE USUALLY
SYNONYMOUS WITH RECORDS. To examine one’s pinax merely
signified to examine one’s records. The pinax also contained the record
of a business man…
“We have pointed out above that an ancient injunction prohibited
the publication in writing of the Oral Law. However, rabbinic sayings
and decisions were written down in epistles, in private rolls and, above
all, on pinaxes, codices(or single tablets which could subsequently be
bound in a codex). Most of the Rabbis who are reported to have put
down the Halakhoth of their masters on codices flourished in the first
half of the third century. But the practice itself is UNDOUBTEDLY
MUCH OLDER…
“Now the Jewish disciples of [Yahshua], in accordance with the
general rabbinic practice (‘the Seat of Moses’), wrote the sayings which
their master pronounced not in form of a book to be published, but
as NOTES in their pinaces, codices, in their note-books (or in
private small ROLLS). THEY DID THIS BECAUSE OTHERWISE
THEY WOULD HAVE TRANSGRESSED THE LAW.” (pp.
203-205)
My friends, there is much more that could be said from this and other information presented that most have never seen before. The bottom line is simply this, the NT is authoritative and reliable, and the original writings were verbatim quotes written down as spoken.
So much more disproves the argument presented in this thread about the NT being inaccurate.
Bob Petry,
ReplyDeleteThe points you make about note taking and how writings about Christ's sayings and miracles preceded the gospel narrative accounts are supported by widely recognized biblical scholarship. And you are correct to note that these facts should reassure Christians about the authority and overall reliability of the New Testament.
However, if you are suggesting that these facts sweep aways or somehow explain all of the errors and inconsistencies in those scriptures, the available evidence does NOT support your position. For example, we can certainly understand how one person might interpret the color of Christ's robe as red, while another one saw it as purple; but the fact remains that two different colors were noted. Your comments also do not sweep away the fact that the various accounts of Paul's conversion are NOT in complete harmony with each other.
We must not forget that for whatever "his" reasons (and I can think of a couple), God chose to involve fallible humans in the production of Scripture. Sure, "he" could have written all of it with "his" own "finger" on tablets of stone, but "HE" chose not to do it that way. The inspiration of God's Holy Spirit is perfect; but, as far as we know, there has only ever been one human who perfectly incorporated its guidance into his thoughts, speech and actions.
Miller (10:30)
ReplyDeleteI, too, was uncomfortable with my response (9:07)to Dennis. In defense of my "bottom feeder" label, I believe that many critics of the Bible are essentially this. They invoke a literalist interpretation and when they demonstrate that this inconsequential census does not quite agree with that inconsequential census in the OT, that slips the keystone and the entire structure of the Judeo-Christian tradition flattens to rubble in their triumphant minds. "Bottom feeder" is not so much an ad hominem epithet as a reference to an unreasonable and common strategy among Bible critics. And it is contingent on inerrantism and literalism for traction.
Let me attempt to reframe the argument. I cannot prove to Dennis that Jesus was a real person if he does not want to believe that. I cannot prove to him that George Washington was a real person if he does not want to believe that. There are written records that attest to the existence of both Jesus and George but they may be cast aside as fantasy. Then what if a critic of George were to declare that no one has a clue as to whether George Washington ever existed. That would to most of us appear to presume that all the written records and artifacts concerning George are fake. George is just a convenient Early American patriotic mythology. What is missing from the critics argument is the tight case for fakery. The critic presumes this this case has been established as a support to his "no one has a clue" statement. Likewise, I may be accused of presuming the records concerning George have validity. We are at a stalemate but presumption has to be recognized as presumption. That was my point.
I watched a debate between Bart Ehrman and Daniel Wallace in which Ehrman used a form of this strategy in my view.
******** Click on my icon for Disclaimer
In my immediately previous comment, I used George Washington as an example. Some may regard this as odd. "Everyone knows that George existed" one might counter. But you must examine the roots of your belief. We believe things frequently because some authority figure said they were so - usually a parent or school teacher or politician or minister. And we don't doubt and we don't engage in intensive research. This is why people who assert off-the-wall conspiracy theories are so disconcerting - they catch us off guard using some inane argment we are totally in the dark about. And we may fall back on not research but the appeal to authority. The appeal to authority is powerful. Someone of sufficient authority can stand up make the unfounded claim the last election was stolen and we have seen that nearly half the American electorate will salute - even a few educated people. If that same person stood up on the podium and said George Washington did not exist, millions would believe this. So my use of George Washington in this case is not so far-fetched.
ReplyDeleteSo what of the truth about Jesus? You will not find it, it will find you.
******** Click on my icon for Disclaimer
Neo,
ReplyDeleteThanks for the clarification. Like you, I sometimes get frustrated with the ham-handed approach of some folks. Too many here are still subject to the ALL or NOTHING approach (both theist and atheist). Nuance and gray are very often not popular here. Moreover, one must admit that the Fundamentalist/Literalist approach to Scripture is a tempting target - that's a much easier argument to win.
I'm still wondering if the Greek text of Luke 1:26 .....In the month the sixth....has a double meaning: 6th month of Elizabeth's pregnancy of course, and the 6th month of the calendar?? Jesus' birth then could be about the time of Pentecost.
ReplyDeleteMiller Jones…
ReplyDeleteI was addressing the basic idea offered by Dennis. Every assumed discord must be attended to with a separate presentation. For example the Baby in a manger vs a house? Or, if the bible is such a specific kind of book why oh why did it begin with a B (bereshit) instead of an A? Which in fact it did, but the critic is not going to find the answer to that question due to mindset.
Other examples are why are so many of the same words spelled differently? Why are numbers not corrected between “different” accounts? etc. Most of the answers are simple, but the critics aren’t looking for the answers. They revel in the shock value to others, and the joy of destroying the faith of those they can get to. They are desperate for company in their faithless misery, thinking that will solve their subconscious knowing something is missing in their lives.
There is much more to these things than what shows on the surface.
Anyway, thanks for noticing my post, there’s much more, but that’s it for now.
Miller: "there has only ever been one human who perfectly incorporated its guidance into his thoughts, speech and actions".
ReplyDelete+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
No. Are you limiting what God can do? I believe God can, does inspire any human God chooses to write so that the final written text, thought, speech, action is EXACTLY what God intends. But what we have today are translation errors, evolving spellings, translations to another language that do not have words or phrases that exactly have the same meaning as the original word in the original inspired text, copying errors, etc. When God's kingdom is here all this will be sorted out, corrected.
Anonymous 12/30,
ReplyDeleteNo, I am not limiting what God can do! I am saying that humans (even acting under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit) are not capable of perfection. It is interesting to me that Catholics claim infallibility for one man, while Fundamentalists claim infallibility for ALL of the folks who participated in the writing of Scripture! And, for the record, "translation errors, evolving spellings, translations to another language that do not have words or phrases that exactly have the same meaning as the original word in the original inspired text, copying errors, etc." do NOT explain all of the inconsistencies, contradictions and errors that appear in Scripture (but human fallibility explains it nicely). Scripture has two sets of fingerprints all over it - one Divine and one human (and ONLY the Divine side of that equation is flawless).
Contradictions
ReplyDeleteMt 17:23a They will kill him, and ON THE THIRD DAY he will be raised to life. (NIV).
Mt 27:63 “Sir,” they said, “we remember that while he was still alive that deceiver said, ‘AFTER THREE DAYS I will rise again.’ (NIV).
Another aspect is that what a modern western person may consider as “inconsistencies, contradictions and errors” may not been so considered by an ancient Near-Easterner.
A slight tangent:
“ “Dad, what am I supposed to do with this?” My family and I had just sat down in my parents’ church at a traditional hymn sing and testimony service. When my son Trevor found the hymnal that was placed on his chair, he picked it up, looked it over for a moment, and then whispered his question into my ear. Suddenly, the experiential distance between my son and me became blatantly obvious. It had not occurred to me until that moment that my boys had grown up attending churches where the words to songs were always projected onto suspended screens rather than being arranged in musical scores in songbooks stored in racks behind each pew. Thankfully, our sons were familiar with some of the hymns, since we had sung them together during bedtime prayers. But even with this partial familiarity, my wife and I spent the remainder of that service teaching our sons how to find the hymns and then to read them while they were singing.
“In some ways, my sons’ first encounter with a hymnal illustrates the problem that will occupy us in this volume. All of us who are acquainted with the Bible are aware that NT authors frequently appeal to OT passages to make a theological point, to confirm a prophetic fulfillment, or to ground one ethical exhortation or another. Such basic knowledge might be comparable to my sons’ familiarity with the hymns they had learned during their evening prayers. But when we actually pick up the text and try to make sense of how the NT authors are reading the OT text, we quickly find ourselves asking, “What are we supposed to do with this?”
“For instances, some of the OT passages that are “fulfilled” in the NT don’t look at all like predictions in their original contexts. Others that do look like predictions often appear to have been fulfilled in events that happened or in people who lived far earlier than Jesus. In addition, theological affirmations in the OT are occasionally restated with a new and distinct reference. In sum, the meaning that the NT writers derive from the Scripture often appears inconsistent with what their OT counterparts intended. As we encounter these tensions, what we are sensing is the interpretative distance that exists between the writers of the NT and us. The realization is sometimes so jarring that we are left with a whole new set of questions regarding the literary sensitivity of the NT authors and the nature of their approach to the OT. Issues of legitimacy and authority begin looming in the corners of our minds. “What are we supposed to do with this?”
“What complicates things further is that the NT authors seem to take their clues from Jesus’ own approach to the Scriptures...” (Three Views on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament, pp.7-8).
Actually all spelling “errors” in the bible, i.e. the Greek or Hebrew text, are not errors at all. In making copies often one person read the text out loud, while one or more scribes recorded what they heard. We today make an assumption based on our practices today. That is we have the modern invention of dictionaries that give both meaning and the correct spelling of a word. When the bible was copied there was no such standardized spelling. The scribe wrote the sound he heard. The scribe in those days spelled out the sound he heard, herd, hurd, which is what an alphabet represents. But, if one were to read out loud the material as written, the hearer would understand. (sound familiar? “Let the hearer understand.”)
ReplyDeleteSome other “errors” are also not errors. The Bible, being written under inspiration, has certain things in for a reason. Let’s use 4,000 men in one account and 40,000 men in another. Why wasn’t that corrected under inspiration? Because it’s deliberate. This is one “trap” bible critics fall into so easily. They keep reading the bible to find more and more of the loose bricks, not knowing the “trap” set for them. Remember the old “you can’t unring a bell?” Well, the critic will never be able to use the excuse “I never knew that was wrong.” The “errors” “contradictions” etc. are there for a reason. They keep the critic reading in spite of him or herself!
Other parts of the bible’s “mistakes” are for a similar deliberate reason. They might be compared to Zen Koans. That is, they don’t seem to make sense, and thus keep the critics mentally involved with the bible, again, in spite of themselves.
Here’s one of the non-biblical koans most have probably heard. “What is the sound of one hand clapping?” Do you know? The answer is so simple to understand, except most never do, unless they are told, or somehow they have an insight, or “ah—ha moment.” And, afterwards the koan, or bible answer sticks in their mind the rest of their life. Neat psychology used by the Creator knowing very well the workings of the human mind.
Anyone know what the “sound of one hand clapping is, or means?” Let us know.
Another “Enchanted moment” —- Doc Holliday, Tombstone
“The scribe wrote the sound he heard. The scribe in those days spelled out the sound he heard, herd, hurd, which is what an alphabet represents”.
ReplyDeleteAs an aside to the above:
“Unlike English ... the Hebrew alphabet is a consonantal one: there are no separate letters for vowels (though some letters, in particular Vav and Yod, can function as “consonantal vowels’). This does not mean of course that vowels are not used in Hebrew. In fact is impossible to say anything at all without sounds. But ancient Hebrew contained no written vowels as distinct letter forms: the actual vowels sounds were “added” to the reading by means of oral tradition and long established usage.
“As an experiment, try reading the following:
“Lv th Lrd yr Gd wth ll yr hrt
“If you were able to “figure out: that the above string of letters read “Love the Lord your God with all your hear,” (Deut 6:5), then you might be able to see how a language could be made up of consonants - with the reader supplying the missing vowels...
“In order to properly read this [Hebrew] text, the reader must supply the missing “intonations’ or vowels...
“Sometime beginning around 600 A.D. a group of scribes in Tiberias called the Masoretes ... began developing a system of vowels marks .. to indicate how the text was traditionally read. Since these scribes did not want to alter the consonantal text, they placed these marking under, to the left, and above the Hebrew letters...”
(hebrew4christians.com/Grammar/Unit_Two/Introduction/introduction.html).
Answer to "contradiction" .....on the third day - Mat 17:23 vs after three days - Mat 27:63: The Pharisees and chief priests didn't restate exactly what Jesus said, and twisted "on" to "after".
ReplyDelete9:01 LOL.
ReplyDeleteMk 8:31 And he began to teach them, that the Son of man must suffer many things, and be rejected of the elders, and of the chief priests, and scribes, and be killed, and after three days rise again.