And here was me, thinking what an interesting thread this is. Instead, I end up getting pie-eyed.
Robererasmus, enjoying your posts and your take on Biblical research.
I thought your reading-back to original languages and then re-translating thing was a bit weird to start with. Then I remembered a friend of mine, from Nigeria, who referred to the sides of his chest - the ribs under the armpits - as his "wings". That's his native language word, where native English speakers would probably just say "side" or "chest". Can put a different nuance on things.
And I wondered about the "wings" of angels and other critters in the Bible and wondered if that meant "wings" as typically depicted for angels and cherubs, or whether it meant something different. Looking in Strongs, I see the word (kanaph) has the meaning of something projecting, or an extremity, usually but not always meaning a wing.
Always fun, translating from one language to another - especially if yet another intervenes. bit like Chinese whispers, really.
I frequently hear people say they are thankful they learned some good "stuff" in The Way. Like what, specifically? Reading things in context? Weren't we supposed to have learned that already in jr. high school English class? Even so, The Way may have told you to read things in context but then they set a lasting example of how to cherry pick scriptures to make their point.
So then what, specifically, are all these good things that people learned in The Way?
One good thing might be his reminder to us to, "Read what is written" - that is a good thing. However, he ignored that himself time and time again in his efforts to prove inerrancy.
Example: my post #340 on the previous page about the "fifth" gospel he created from trying to harmonize the existing four gospel accounts. In my view this is a serious error.
PS: I have it to 1.25 million, but I won't bore you all with that - besides, it's 378 pages!
I think we're already way past that. Let's call it a draw. My t-shirt link had it to 5000 as well. Lest I find myself using Cray time.
Wierwille did stumble on a few acorns, but his research was bogus. He preached exegesis, reading the meaning out fromwhat is written, but he practiced and taught eisegesis, reading foreign meanings into what is written, sometimes in the very same lesson, as with "to whom addressed".
Some of the greatest damage from his "research" was that leaders following him learned this as well. The scriptures say whatever they want them to say - loyalty is paramount, their whims = revelation. Control through being an autocrat.
One good thing might be his reminder to us to, "Read what is written" - that is a good thing. However, he ignored that himself time and time again in his efforts to prove inerrancy.
Example: my post #340 on the previous page about the "fifth" gospel he created from trying to harmonize the existing four gospel accounts. In my view this is a serious error.
Yeh, but Charlene, everybody did the harmony thing. But for the most part those who tried to put together a harmony of the Gospels did it for what they thought was a good idea. H.e.l.l, Tatian (circa 165 CE) did his Diatessaron and it became THE gospel for the Syriac speaking church for over 2 hundred years! I suppose if one thinks that is a bad thing and that the four (4) records should never be harmonized I can see their point of view (somewhat), but our work (that means you and me while with TWI, BTW) on the Harmony (and the chronolgy that evolved from that) was a really good thing. I have used it many times since it's publication back in 1984 (and our work through 1986 at that research weekend in Rome City). I made sure that my kids had a copy to take with them when they left the house years ago because I thought it was so good.
To answer Waysider's question about "specifically" what in TWI was "good"; this was one. Are the Dead Alive now? is another. I read this before I got into TWI and it's still a book (if one can put their proverbial hands on...) that I'd give as a primer to understanding the dead, the resurrections and such.
JCOP and JCOPS are good tomes to read about the Death and Birth of Messiah. I'd pass those two on to others. We were working on the middle part of that Trilogy when all the defication hit the rotating oscillator (It was called Jesus Christ our Apostle and High Priest, BTW...and it was never published...though some of us have copies...it's not so good...incomplete research don't ya know).
Anyway certainly the bathwater was tainted, but the baby was only taught wrongly in certain areas.
Yeh, but Charlene, everybody did the harmony thing. But for the most part those who tried to put together a harmony of the Gospels did it for what they thought was a good idea. H.e.l.l, Tatian (circa 165 CE) did his Diatessaron and it became THE gospel for the Syriac speaking church for over 2 hundred years! I suppose if one thinks that is a bad thing and that the four (4) records should never be harmonized I can see their point of view (somewhat),
Bob
I stand by my view that an harmonizing effort, no matter how well intentioned or how long ago it was attempted (which does not give it any more authority than one done yesterday IMO) ignores the different viewpoints of each gospel and crams them together to say, "Voila! it's one continuous story told in bits and pieces by different people and all the bits actually happened and fit together like a jigsaw puzzle and in the order this harmony says they did." I'd rather accept each one on its own terms and for fun, look into who wrote them, where, and possibly why (although motives are usually hard to determine.) But take what I say with a grain of salt...my interest in the topic is not due to matters of faith, only curiosity.
I stand by my view that an harmonizing effort, no matter how well intentioned or how long ago it was attempted (which does not give it any more authority than one done yesterday IMO) ignores the different viewpoints of each gospel and crams them together to say, "Voila! it's one continuous story told in bits and pieces by different people and all the bits actually happened and fit together like a jigsaw puzzle and in the order this harmony says they did." I'd rather accept each one on its own terms and for fun, look into who wrote them, where, and possibly why (although motives are usually hard to determine.) But take what I say with a grain of salt...my interest in the topic is not due to matters of faith, only curiosity.
Yah, I was gonna say it was almost as if you cared about them a little bit...then the last line.
Yah, I was gonna say it was almost as if you cared about them a little bit...then the last line.
Bob
Yes, my interest is a literary curiosity. As a writer, I'd rather let each gospel writer's work stand on its own, rather than smush it into the other ones to make a fifth gospel, but I already said that, right? :-) My "faith" such as it is in an invisible creator, doesn't depend on these things...
I think we're already way past that. Let's call it a draw. My t-shirt link had it to 5000 as well. Lest I find myself using Cray time.
OK - TRUCE! (I used 5k after having seen your "favorite T-shirt" link.)
Besides, in my heart I was seeing it as becoming rather childish. But it was fun! (And I thank the rest of you for your patience while I was getting "carried away".)
I see some interesting takes on the "harmonization of the gospels" here. And I agree with Penworks - my curosity of that area is purely "academic".
Yes, my interest is a literary curiosity. As a writer, I'd rather let each gospel writer's work stand on its own, rather than smush it into the other ones to make a fifth gospel, but I already said that, right? :-) My "faith" such as it is in an invisible creator, doesn't depend on these things...
Cheers
Interestingly enough, Bullinger's works had some of the same viewpoint, although he as a scholar also did a fair amount of timeline work. Remember the "Why 4 Gospels" article? And the perspective focus on king, servant, man, son? Of course those works were "borrowed"
I guess it's just a human thing to pick the gospels over and try to fit them into a timeline. From one perspective, where doing so seems clear due to exact date/time references in the gospels, I suppose it adds a little depth of perspective. There are some fundamental "ifs" to answer though, and some of it boils down to your questioning of basic premises. Such as "can you depend completely on an author's recollection of events that happend decades earlier to be 100% precise concerning date/times?" The "every word in the Word is perfect" premise.
I do recall a fair amount of VPW's attempts to draw people away from mainstream Christianity being related to these harmony of the gospel issues. His teachings / writings on "The Day JC Died", "4 Crucified", "Simon of Cyrene", "Peter's Denials" all seemed to have the underlying message of "if you can't trust mainstream Christianity about the details of JC's life, how can you trust them about your salvation?"
There were some cool points about delving into the details though. Like Joseph of Arimatheia, and the difference in Greek terms of the burial clothing. But there were so many other things that seemed like such a squeezing of concepts.
I frequently hear people say they are thankful they learned some good "stuff" in The Way. Like what, specifically? Reading things in context? Weren't we supposed to have learned that already in jr. high school English class? Even so, The Way may have told you to read things in context but then they set a lasting example of how to cherry pick scriptures to make their point.
So then what, specifically, are all these good things that people learned in The Way?
The spelling and order of the books of the Bible was something useful that I was taught. I also managed to memorize several Bible verses while in TWI and that has proven useful to me even today...that's about it. The rest of the "research" quite frankly is rather unimpressive to me now that I'm older and my skull has fully hardened.
Just a few more words about VPW and inerrancy. The examples he used to "prove inerrancy" are many and can be found in his publications. One way is in his approach to the gospels. For example, in an attempt to "show" that gospel contradictions are not really contradictions, he harmonized different accounts of the crucifixion and resurrection. Refer to the PFAL class and many threads here at GSC like:
To "prove" inerrancy, he tried to splice the gospels together, ignoring their different views, as if he were editing scenes for a film.
In my view, the "film" he produced is actually a fifth gospel which not only does not reflect any of the original gospels writers' accounts as they were written, but makes VPW's account appear as if it is the "real" gospel. In my view, by doing that, VPW placed a false halo around the belief in "inerrancy."
By creating a "fifth" gospel, VPW reinterpreted each writer's "take" on events. In the process, he avoided having to deal with uncomfortable questions about why there are four different gospels to begin with and how we got them. I do not think that VPW's method respects the gospel texts (written about 35 to 65 years after Jesus died) as we have them today; it only makes VPW a 20st century Bible thumper who tries to sound as if he knows what the "real" gospel should be.
BTW – Workman: I checked your GSC profile and saw you mentioned your web site http://www.biblicalr...rchjournal.org/ . Since it is clear you are a proponent of VPW's research and methods, I imagine my line of thinking won't matter much to you since it comes from a different tradition of valuing Biblical documents. So, I offer this post to those interested who happen to still be reading this thread.
Cheers!
Hi Penworks, and thank you for your courtesy.
I am not here to shill for my website, necessarily. I mention it on my profile because it is one part of my life -- a project that I have been pursuing since I got tossed out of TWI by Craig Martindale, and later departed the particular splinter group that sprouted up here. So it is a part that also bears particularly upon what Greasespot is all about.
I decided to post on this thread, firstly, because your essay deals with biblical research. Which as my site indicates, is a subject that I am interested in. I am also posting here to afford myself the opportunity to inform you that I intend to review your essay in a weblog post on my site. But journalistic integrity -- not to mention the love of God -- requires that before I post anything, that I do my best to rehearse my take on your essay with you, in a format where you are able to respond in whatever fashion that you would care to.
Don't jump to conclusions, for instance, that your line of thinking about V.P.'s and E.W.'s methods and conclusions on the subject of Gospel harmony are of no interest to me. I have looked at Oakspear's post that you linked, and I plan on studying ya'll's line of thinking further, whether or not I ever post about it here.
If you want to discuss it here, that's fine with me, but the subject of harmonizing the so-called Gospels is definitely tangential to what I'm going to handle in my weblog post about your essay.
I have no objection to the methods you and Oakspear use in your lines of reasoning on the subject of Gospel harmonizing. You object to their premise, you find their research lacking -- and in V.P.W.'s case -- the errors that you posit represent further evidence, to you, of your and this site's overall theme -- which as I see it is the bad faith behind pretty much everything that V.P. pursued during his life and ministry. Right or wrong, and whether I agree or disagree with you, you are using perfectly valid lines of reasoning.
What I'm going to handle on my site regarding your essay, I have pretty much covered in my previous posts. Which boiled down, is the "category error" that I believe you are making.
Workman, if Charlene posts an essay here, isn't it more courteous to discuss it here, rather than in some other location? Better yet, privately with her?
Workman, if Charlene posts an essay here, isn't it more courteous to discuss it here, rather than in some other location? Better yet, privately with her?
But journalistic integrity -- not to mention the love of God -- requires that before I post anything, that I do my best to rehearse my take on your essay with you, in a format where you are able to respond in whatever fashion that you would care to.
Twinky: (And Workman, please correct me if I am mistaken.)
I believe what Workman is indicating is that he will be posting on his website the results of "his take" of what has been concluded here concerning this topic, after he has had the opportunity to discuss it in detail here first.
I believe what Workman is indicating is that he will be posting on his website the results of "his take" of what has been concluded here concerning this topic, after he has had the opportunity to discuss it in detail here first.
First time I've heard such drama around a blog. To put it in perspective, someone's writing an editorial on an article that 10 people are going to read. No offense, Workman - that's just the nature of the blogosphere.
For those who may be interested, I came across a couple of good books in the last year or two. The first one was Scribal Culture and the Making of the Hebrew Bible by Karel van der Toorn (2007), and the second was The Oral and the Written Gospel by Werner H. Kelber (1983). Both books go into the realities of the transmission of ideas in cultures where the vast majority of people cannot read or write, and they respectively consider how the "Old Testament" and the "New Testament" may have come into written form.
The principles and ideals of writing were vastly different in antiquity than they were in the 19th century, when the fundamentalist response to radical rationalism came into being. I no longer believe in verbatim inspiration of the Scriptures, though I believe God can use them as an objective base for teaching individuals the things He wants them to know.
I think Jesus' ministry was only a year or so long, mainly because I don't think he could have held the crowds at such a fever pitch for much longer than that without raising a rebellion against the Romans or crapping out (which, from an earthly point of view, he did).
I think there are many interesting things to learn by considering the similar incidents in the different gospels, especially thinking about why the incidents might have been recorded differently in the gospels' differing contexts, but I don't think a literal harmony is possible.
and i cant help but nod in all the same directions
to add...
it seems to me that most ancient scripture is not only NOT invalidated by such, but able to become more valuable and practical as we discover more and gain better insight into more and more likely contexts of their creation.
i even suspect that this may have even been a large part of the insight behind the original Christian experience that was so world-shakingingly significant...as if partially a story of an attempt to recover some real sense of the original jewish wisdom and practice from the many natural distortions that simply come with having ancient history.
I think 100% of the New Testament was addressed to Christians, with the possible exception of the Gospel of Luke and the Book of Acts. A strong case can be made that Luke wrote these two volumes as a legal background brief for the Roman magistrate who would hear Paul's case in lieu of Nero.
I got the business about Luke and Acts from a book called Paul On Trial, The Book Of Acts As A Defense Of Christianity by John W. Mauck (2001).
Yet another interesting book is The First Messiah by Michael O. Wise (1999). Wise is a noted scholar of the Dead Sea Scrolls. In The First Messiah, he builds a case that a wave of messianic enthusiasm swept over Judaea about a hundred years before the time of the gospels. That wave was partially a result of events found recorded in the Dead Sea Scrolls, and partially an impetus to the formation and continued existance of the Qumran community.
If Wise is right, then the things he talks about in The First Messiah goes a long way to explain the popular messianic expectations at the time of Christ, and why those expectations took the forms they did.
Yet another interesting book is The First Messiah by Michael O. Wise (1999). Wise is a noted scholar of the Dead Sea Scrolls. In The First Messiah, he builds a case that a wave of messianic enthusiasm swept over Judaea about a hundred years before the time of the gospels. That wave was partially a result of events found recorded in the Dead Sea Scrolls, and partially an impetus to the formation and continued existance of the Qumran community.
If Wise is right, then the things he talks about in The First Messiah goes a long way to explain the popular messianic expectations at the time of Christ, and why those expectations took the forms they did.
Love,
Steve
Thanks for chiming in with these book titles. I think works like this one (there are others) show that Jesus certainly was a part of that messianic movement during that time, along with his cousin John the Baptist, which means he believed the kingdom of God (as he is shown to describe it by the gospel writers) was going to come before very long - even before he died or shortly afterwards. It didn't, so that poses a problem. VP handled that problem by saying gosh, Jesus just didn't know the mystery etc etc., which is a theological explanation based on what Paul wrote ...but that's another topic...
Anyway, Jesus's morality teachings, in my view, were his attempt to warn everyone to shape up or else they woulnd't get into the kingdom. Of course, he wasn't the first one to teach those values...the "golden rule" had been around in other religions for eons...
How does this relate to the topic under discussion? In my view, it is another example of his borrowed ways (from Bullinger, etc.) of "proving inerrancy."
If you have a Jesus who predicts the end of the world and it doesn't come, then "the whole Bible falls to pieces..." you have to do some bible gymnastics to explain or reinterpret what Jesus is recorded as saying or else claim that he just didn't have all the information going on behind the scenes, etc. (VPW's mystery teachings). I think it's worth questioning VP's methods...
P.S. Here are good definitions for research from Merriam Webster:
1: careful or diligent search
2: studious inquiry or examination; especially: investigation or experimentation aimed at the discovery and interpretation of facts, revision of accepted theories or laws in the light of new facts, or practical application of such new or revised theories or laws
3: the collecting of information about a particular subject
Thanks for chiming in with these book titles. I think works like this one (there are others) show that Jesus certainly was a part of that messianic movement during that time, along with his cousin John the Baptist, which means he believed the kingdom of God (as he is shown to describe it by the gospel writers) was going to come before very long - even before he died or shortly afterwards. It didn't, so that poses a problem. VP handled that problem by saying gosh, Jesus just didn't know the mystery etc etc., which is a theological explanation based on what Paul wrote ...but that's another topic...
Anyway, Jesus's morality teachings, in my view, were his attempt to warn everyone to shape up or else they woulnd't get into the kingdom. Of course, he wasn't the first one to teach those values...the "golden rule" had been around in other religions for eons...
How does this relate to the topic under discussion? In my view, it is another example of his borrowed ways (from Bullinger, etc.) of "proving inerrancy."
If you have a Jesus who predicts the end of the world and it doesn't come, then "the whole Bible falls to pieces..." you have to do some bible gymnastics to explain or reinterpret what Jesus is recorded as saying or else claim that he just didn't have all the information going on behind the scenes, etc. (VPW's mystery teachings). I think it's worth questioning VP's methods...
P.S. Here are good definitions for research from Merriam Webster:
1: careful or diligent search
2: studious inquiry or examination; especially: investigation or experimentation aimed at the discovery and interpretation of facts, revision of accepted theories or laws in the light of new facts, or practical application of such new or revised theories or laws
3: the collecting of information about a particular subject
(Brief aside) If we’re talking about the Biblical “kingdom of God”, it had been coming (back) ever since the woman and the man gave up their dominion as God’s vassals in His feif, the earth (Genesis 1:26 “let them have dominion over…” – not just the man, but both!). The rejection of fealty by our forebears was nothing short of that “high treason” we all heard so much about. The “kingdom” was fleshed out (as were many, many theological concepts) during the time of the prophets and while it was never called “the kingdom of God” in the Hebrew Scriptures, it was understood (ultimately) to be the “throne (kingdom by implication) of David" (see Luke 1:32 “the throne of his (Messiah’s) father David”).
So, being a man, Jesus foresaw it just like all the other prophets and when it didn’t quite come to pass as he expected, various reasons were run up the flagpole. As Charlene says, “that’s another topic”, but let’s not say that dispensationalism is a surprise teaching by VP (one of the “various reasons” theologically for Jesus being mistaken…he didn’t know God’s Secret…). It’s roots go back centuries. And it wasn’t just "johnny come lately" point of view.
Now, I can’t tell you (actually I can…but not here) how theologically shortsighted I see the following: “If you have a Jesus who predicts the end of the world and it doesn't come, then "the whole Bible falls to pieces..." (I do like the VPism at the end though...). Neither is it Bible gymnastics to read Paul (if we're talking about the Bible folks) and see that there was a Secret that Jesus knew nothing about (“hid from ages and generations”, “not made known unto the sons of men” (Jesus was one of dem), “hid in God” (Jesus wasn't Him), etc). H.ell, if we want to question (and that’s OK, BTW) those methods (a dispensational view of Scripture) we’d better be prepared to go through all the Biblical arguments and all (OK, maybe not all…) the theological literature with a fine toothed comb. Maybe I’ll start another thread on that (then we can all question “VP’s methods”).
All I’m saying here is let’s just not be too restrictive here in regards to a theological legacy tainted by licentiousness. Inerrancy is something many, many evangelicals proclaim and have proclaimed for centuries (I can say millennia.. almost), including me. Dispensationalism is a very sound and tested system of Biblical hermeneutics, IMHO, and thousands of theologians, including me, ascribe to it’s tenets. Just because there’s one (oh, there are more than one people…) rotten apple…
Just a note about Bullinger. . . .who heavily influenced VP. . . . he was an ultra-dispensationalist. (did I spell that correctly?) :) "Sometimes known as "Extreme Ultradispensationalism" or "Bullingerism" (wikipedia).
Not making a judgment of right or wrong. . . . . it is just a distinction sometimes made in theological circles. . . .
Just a note about Bullinger. . . .who heavily influenced VP. . . . he was an ultra-dispensationalist. (did I spell that correctly?) :) "Sometimes known as "Extreme Ultradispensationalism" or "Bullingerism" (wikipedia).
Not making a judgment of right or wrong. . . . . it is just a distinction sometimes made in theological circles. . . .
Yeh, we love how theology infuses the discussion with hyperbole (ultra, Extreme Ultra, etc.) when indeed it just a disagreement with that author's opinion about interpretation. It's like liberals in the political realm with name calling. If they can't make their point, they resort to the same type of hyperbole.
Actually it's like anyone who disagrees (if they are not honest and fair or careful). Look what the Sanhedrin did with Stephen! And they didn't allow him to finish, BTW.
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
43
39
63
36
Popular Days
Feb 8
30
Nov 3
21
Nov 4
20
Feb 12
18
Top Posters In This Topic
geisha779 43 posts
waysider 39 posts
penworks 63 posts
spectrum49 36 posts
Popular Days
Feb 8 2010
30 posts
Nov 3 2009
21 posts
Nov 4 2009
20 posts
Feb 12 2010
18 posts
Popular Posts
penworks
Hold everything. Some people can believe that they are not sure they believe in God. That is another topic that belongs in a different thread, IMO. I appreciate these lessons in mathmatics and lo
Sunesis
With all due respect Spectrum, who cares when this thread will end? Most people here have enjoyed reading the posts and having their say. Sure, threads meander here, there, everywhere. Its the Body
penworks
I've been thinking about these sorts of things a long time, myself. One thing I found is that there are other ways to value the Bible besides thinkig it is has to be either "God's Word" (thereby it h
spectrum49
Pi to 5000 anyone?
3.1415926535897932384626433832795028841971693993751058209749445923078164
062862089986280348253421170679821480865132823066470938446095505822317253
594081284811174502841027019385211055596446229489549303819644288109756659
334461284756482337867831652712019091456485669234603486104543266482133936
072602491412737245870066063155881748815209209628292540917153643678925903
600113305305488204665213841469519415116094330572703657595919530921861173
819326117931051185480744623799627495673518857527248912279381830119491298
336733624406566430860213949463952247371907021798609437027705392171762931
767523846748184676694051320005681271452635608277857713427577896091736371
787214684409012249534301465495853710507922796892589235420199561121290219
608640344181598136297747713099605187072113499999983729780499510597317328
160963185950244594553469083026425223082533446850352619311881710100031378
387528865875332083814206171776691473035982534904287554687311595628638823
537875937519577818577805321712268066130019278766111959092164201989380952
572010654858632788659361533818279682303019520353018529689957736225994138
912497217752834791315155748572424541506959508295331168617278558890750983
817546374649393192550604009277016711390098488240128583616035637076601047
101819429555961989467678374494482553797747268471040475346462080466842590
694912933136770289891521047521620569660240580381501935112533824300355876
402474964732639141992726042699227967823547816360093417216412199245863150
302861829745557067498385054945885869269956909272107975093029553211653449
872027559602364806654991198818347977535663698074265425278625518184175746
728909777727938000816470600161452491921732172147723501414419735685481613
611573525521334757418494684385233239073941433345477624168625189835694855
620992192221842725502542568876717904946016534668049886272327917860857843
838279679766814541009538837863609506800642251252051173929848960841284886
269456042419652850222106611863067442786220391949450471237137869609563643
719172874677646575739624138908658326459958133904780275900994657640789512
694683983525957098258226205224894077267194782684826014769909026401363944
374553050682034962524517493996514314298091906592509372216964615157098583
874105978859597729754989301617539284681382686838689427741559918559252459
539594310499725246808459872736446958486538367362226260991246080512438843
904512441365497627807977156914359977001296160894416948685558484063534220
722258284886481584560285060168427394522674676788952521385225499546667278
239864565961163548862305774564980355936345681743241125150760694794510965
960940252288797108931456691368672287489405601015033086179286809208747609
178249385890097149096759852613655497818931297848216829989487226588048575
640142704775551323796414515237462343645428584447952658678210511413547357
395231134271661021359695362314429524849371871101457654035902799344037420
073105785390621983874478084784896833214457138687519435064302184531910484
810053706146806749192781911979399520614196634287544406437451237181921799
983910159195618146751426912397489409071864942319615679452080951465502252
316038819301420937621378559566389377870830390697920773467221825625996615
014215030680384477345492026054146659252014974428507325186660021324340881
907104863317346496514539057962685610055081066587969981635747363840525714
591028970641401109712062804390397595156771577004203378699360072305587631
763594218731251471205329281918261861258673215791984148488291644706095752
706957220917567116722910981690915280173506712748583222871835209353965725
121083579151369882091444210067510334671103141267111369908658516398315019
701651511685171437657618351556508849099898599823873455283316355076479185
358932261854896321329330898570642046752590709154814165498594616371802709
819943099244889575712828905923233260972997120844335732654893823911932597
463667305836041428138830320382490375898524374417029132765618093773444030
707469211201913020330380197621101100449293215160842444859637669838952286
847831235526582131449576857262433441893039686426243410773226978028073189
154411010446823252716201052652272111660396665573092547110557853763466820
653109896526918620564769312570586356620185581007293606598764861179104533
488503461136576867532494416680396265797877185560845529654126654085306143
444318586769751456614068007002378776591344017127494704205622305389945613
140711270004078547332699390814546646458807972708266830634328587856983052
358089330657574067954571637752542021149557615814002501262285941302164715
509792592309907965473761255176567513575178296664547791745011299614890304
639947132962107340437518957359614589019389713111790429782856475032031986
915140287080859904801094121472213179476477726224142548545403321571853061
422881375850430633217518297986622371721591607716692547487389866549494501
146540628433663937900397692656721463853067360965712091807638327166416274
888800786925602902284721040317211860820419000422966171196377921337575114
959501566049631862947265473642523081770367515906735023507283540567040386
743513622224771589150495309844489333096340878076932599397805419341447377
4418426312986080998886874132604721
Hey Chockfull - I think I might have missed one or two digits. Care to count them for me?
SPEC
:)
PS: I have it to 1.25 million, but I won't bore you all with that - besides, it's 378 pages!
Edited by spectrum49Link to comment
Share on other sites
Twinky
And here was me, thinking what an interesting thread this is. Instead, I end up getting pie-eyed.
Robererasmus, enjoying your posts and your take on Biblical research.
I thought your reading-back to original languages and then re-translating thing was a bit weird to start with. Then I remembered a friend of mine, from Nigeria, who referred to the sides of his chest - the ribs under the armpits - as his "wings". That's his native language word, where native English speakers would probably just say "side" or "chest". Can put a different nuance on things.
And I wondered about the "wings" of angels and other critters in the Bible and wondered if that meant "wings" as typically depicted for angels and cherubs, or whether it meant something different. Looking in Strongs, I see the word (kanaph) has the meaning of something projecting, or an extremity, usually but not always meaning a wing.
Always fun, translating from one language to another - especially if yet another intervenes. bit like Chinese whispers, really.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
penworks
One good thing might be his reminder to us to, "Read what is written" - that is a good thing. However, he ignored that himself time and time again in his efforts to prove inerrancy.
Example: my post #340 on the previous page about the "fifth" gospel he created from trying to harmonize the existing four gospel accounts. In my view this is a serious error.
the fifth gospel
Link to comment
Share on other sites
chockfull
I think we're already way past that. Let's call it a draw. My t-shirt link had it to 5000 as well. Lest I find myself using Cray time.
Some of the greatest damage from his "research" was that leaders following him learned this as well. The scriptures say whatever they want them to say - loyalty is paramount, their whims = revelation. Control through being an autocrat.
Edited by chockfullLink to comment
Share on other sites
roberterasmus
Yeh, but Charlene, everybody did the harmony thing. But for the most part those who tried to put together a harmony of the Gospels did it for what they thought was a good idea. H.e.l.l, Tatian (circa 165 CE) did his Diatessaron and it became THE gospel for the Syriac speaking church for over 2 hundred years! I suppose if one thinks that is a bad thing and that the four (4) records should never be harmonized I can see their point of view (somewhat), but our work (that means you and me while with TWI, BTW) on the Harmony (and the chronolgy that evolved from that) was a really good thing. I have used it many times since it's publication back in 1984 (and our work through 1986 at that research weekend in Rome City). I made sure that my kids had a copy to take with them when they left the house years ago because I thought it was so good.
To answer Waysider's question about "specifically" what in TWI was "good"; this was one. Are the Dead Alive now? is another. I read this before I got into TWI and it's still a book (if one can put their proverbial hands on...) that I'd give as a primer to understanding the dead, the resurrections and such.
JCOP and JCOPS are good tomes to read about the Death and Birth of Messiah. I'd pass those two on to others. We were working on the middle part of that Trilogy when all the defication hit the rotating oscillator (It was called Jesus Christ our Apostle and High Priest, BTW...and it was never published...though some of us have copies...it's not so good...incomplete research don't ya know).
Anyway certainly the bathwater was tainted, but the baby was only taught wrongly in certain areas.
Bob
Link to comment
Share on other sites
penworks
I stand by my view that an harmonizing effort, no matter how well intentioned or how long ago it was attempted (which does not give it any more authority than one done yesterday IMO) ignores the different viewpoints of each gospel and crams them together to say, "Voila! it's one continuous story told in bits and pieces by different people and all the bits actually happened and fit together like a jigsaw puzzle and in the order this harmony says they did." I'd rather accept each one on its own terms and for fun, look into who wrote them, where, and possibly why (although motives are usually hard to determine.) But take what I say with a grain of salt...my interest in the topic is not due to matters of faith, only curiosity.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
roberterasmus
Yah, I was gonna say it was almost as if you cared about them a little bit...then the last line.
Bob
Link to comment
Share on other sites
penworks
Yes, my interest is a literary curiosity. As a writer, I'd rather let each gospel writer's work stand on its own, rather than smush it into the other ones to make a fifth gospel, but I already said that, right? :-) My "faith" such as it is in an invisible creator, doesn't depend on these things...
Cheers
Link to comment
Share on other sites
spectrum49
OK - TRUCE! (I used 5k after having seen your "favorite T-shirt" link.)
Besides, in my heart I was seeing it as becoming rather childish. But it was fun! (And I thank the rest of you for your patience while I was getting "carried away".)
I see some interesting takes on the "harmonization of the gospels" here. And I agree with Penworks - my curosity of that area is purely "academic".
SPEC
:)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
chockfull
Interestingly enough, Bullinger's works had some of the same viewpoint, although he as a scholar also did a fair amount of timeline work. Remember the "Why 4 Gospels" article? And the perspective focus on king, servant, man, son? Of course those works were "borrowed"
I guess it's just a human thing to pick the gospels over and try to fit them into a timeline. From one perspective, where doing so seems clear due to exact date/time references in the gospels, I suppose it adds a little depth of perspective. There are some fundamental "ifs" to answer though, and some of it boils down to your questioning of basic premises. Such as "can you depend completely on an author's recollection of events that happend decades earlier to be 100% precise concerning date/times?" The "every word in the Word is perfect" premise.
I do recall a fair amount of VPW's attempts to draw people away from mainstream Christianity being related to these harmony of the gospel issues. His teachings / writings on "The Day JC Died", "4 Crucified", "Simon of Cyrene", "Peter's Denials" all seemed to have the underlying message of "if you can't trust mainstream Christianity about the details of JC's life, how can you trust them about your salvation?"
There were some cool points about delving into the details though. Like Joseph of Arimatheia, and the difference in Greek terms of the burial clothing. But there were so many other things that seemed like such a squeezing of concepts.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Broken Arrow
The spelling and order of the books of the Bible was something useful that I was taught. I also managed to memorize several Bible verses while in TWI and that has proven useful to me even today...that's about it. The rest of the "research" quite frankly is rather unimpressive to me now that I'm older and my skull has fully hardened.
Edited by erkjohnLink to comment
Share on other sites
Workman
Hi Penworks, and thank you for your courtesy.
I am not here to shill for my website, necessarily. I mention it on my profile because it is one part of my life -- a project that I have been pursuing since I got tossed out of TWI by Craig Martindale, and later departed the particular splinter group that sprouted up here. So it is a part that also bears particularly upon what Greasespot is all about.
I decided to post on this thread, firstly, because your essay deals with biblical research. Which as my site indicates, is a subject that I am interested in. I am also posting here to afford myself the opportunity to inform you that I intend to review your essay in a weblog post on my site. But journalistic integrity -- not to mention the love of God -- requires that before I post anything, that I do my best to rehearse my take on your essay with you, in a format where you are able to respond in whatever fashion that you would care to.
Don't jump to conclusions, for instance, that your line of thinking about V.P.'s and E.W.'s methods and conclusions on the subject of Gospel harmony are of no interest to me. I have looked at Oakspear's post that you linked, and I plan on studying ya'll's line of thinking further, whether or not I ever post about it here.
If you want to discuss it here, that's fine with me, but the subject of harmonizing the so-called Gospels is definitely tangential to what I'm going to handle in my weblog post about your essay.
I have no objection to the methods you and Oakspear use in your lines of reasoning on the subject of Gospel harmonizing. You object to their premise, you find their research lacking -- and in V.P.W.'s case -- the errors that you posit represent further evidence, to you, of your and this site's overall theme -- which as I see it is the bad faith behind pretty much everything that V.P. pursued during his life and ministry. Right or wrong, and whether I agree or disagree with you, you are using perfectly valid lines of reasoning.
What I'm going to handle on my site regarding your essay, I have pretty much covered in my previous posts. Which boiled down, is the "category error" that I believe you are making.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
penworks
Workman,
Thanks for the heads up.
Charlene
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Twinky
Workman, if Charlene posts an essay here, isn't it more courteous to discuss it here, rather than in some other location? Better yet, privately with her?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
spectrum49
Twinky: (And Workman, please correct me if I am mistaken.)
I believe what Workman is indicating is that he will be posting on his website the results of "his take" of what has been concluded here concerning this topic, after he has had the opportunity to discuss it in detail here first.
SPEC
:)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
chockfull
First time I've heard such drama around a blog. To put it in perspective, someone's writing an editorial on an article that 10 people are going to read. No offense, Workman - that's just the nature of the blogosphere.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Steve Lortz
For those who may be interested, I came across a couple of good books in the last year or two. The first one was Scribal Culture and the Making of the Hebrew Bible by Karel van der Toorn (2007), and the second was The Oral and the Written Gospel by Werner H. Kelber (1983). Both books go into the realities of the transmission of ideas in cultures where the vast majority of people cannot read or write, and they respectively consider how the "Old Testament" and the "New Testament" may have come into written form.
The principles and ideals of writing were vastly different in antiquity than they were in the 19th century, when the fundamentalist response to radical rationalism came into being. I no longer believe in verbatim inspiration of the Scriptures, though I believe God can use them as an objective base for teaching individuals the things He wants them to know.
I think Jesus' ministry was only a year or so long, mainly because I don't think he could have held the crowds at such a fever pitch for much longer than that without raising a rebellion against the Romans or crapping out (which, from an earthly point of view, he did).
I think there are many interesting things to learn by considering the similar incidents in the different gospels, especially thinking about why the incidents might have been recorded differently in the gospels' differing contexts, but I don't think a literal harmony is possible.
Love,
Steve
Edited by Steve LortzLink to comment
Share on other sites
sirguessalot
thanks for the books, Steve
and i cant help but nod in all the same directions
to add...
it seems to me that most ancient scripture is not only NOT invalidated by such, but able to become more valuable and practical as we discover more and gain better insight into more and more likely contexts of their creation.
i even suspect that this may have even been a large part of the insight behind the original Christian experience that was so world-shakingingly significant...as if partially a story of an attempt to recover some real sense of the original jewish wisdom and practice from the many natural distortions that simply come with having ancient history.
Edited by sirguessalotLink to comment
Share on other sites
Steve Lortz
And furthermore...
I think 100% of the New Testament was addressed to Christians, with the possible exception of the Gospel of Luke and the Book of Acts. A strong case can be made that Luke wrote these two volumes as a legal background brief for the Roman magistrate who would hear Paul's case in lieu of Nero.
I got the business about Luke and Acts from a book called Paul On Trial, The Book Of Acts As A Defense Of Christianity by John W. Mauck (2001).
Love,
Steve
Edited by Steve LortzLink to comment
Share on other sites
Steve Lortz
Yet another interesting book is The First Messiah by Michael O. Wise (1999). Wise is a noted scholar of the Dead Sea Scrolls. In The First Messiah, he builds a case that a wave of messianic enthusiasm swept over Judaea about a hundred years before the time of the gospels. That wave was partially a result of events found recorded in the Dead Sea Scrolls, and partially an impetus to the formation and continued existance of the Qumran community.
If Wise is right, then the things he talks about in The First Messiah goes a long way to explain the popular messianic expectations at the time of Christ, and why those expectations took the forms they did.
Love,
Steve
Link to comment
Share on other sites
penworks
Thanks for chiming in with these book titles. I think works like this one (there are others) show that Jesus certainly was a part of that messianic movement during that time, along with his cousin John the Baptist, which means he believed the kingdom of God (as he is shown to describe it by the gospel writers) was going to come before very long - even before he died or shortly afterwards. It didn't, so that poses a problem. VP handled that problem by saying gosh, Jesus just didn't know the mystery etc etc., which is a theological explanation based on what Paul wrote ...but that's another topic...
Anyway, Jesus's morality teachings, in my view, were his attempt to warn everyone to shape up or else they woulnd't get into the kingdom. Of course, he wasn't the first one to teach those values...the "golden rule" had been around in other religions for eons...
How does this relate to the topic under discussion? In my view, it is another example of his borrowed ways (from Bullinger, etc.) of "proving inerrancy."
If you have a Jesus who predicts the end of the world and it doesn't come, then "the whole Bible falls to pieces..." you have to do some bible gymnastics to explain or reinterpret what Jesus is recorded as saying or else claim that he just didn't have all the information going on behind the scenes, etc. (VPW's mystery teachings). I think it's worth questioning VP's methods...
P.S. Here are good definitions for research from Merriam Webster:
1 : careful or diligent search
2 : studious inquiry or examination; especially : investigation or experimentation aimed at the discovery and interpretation of facts, revision of accepted theories or laws in the light of new facts, or practical application of such new or revised theories or laws
3 : the collecting of information about a particular subject
Edited by penworksLink to comment
Share on other sites
roberterasmus
(Brief aside) If we’re talking about the Biblical “kingdom of God”, it had been coming (back) ever since the woman and the man gave up their dominion as God’s vassals in His feif, the earth (Genesis 1:26 “let them have dominion over…” – not just the man, but both!). The rejection of fealty by our forebears was nothing short of that “high treason” we all heard so much about. The “kingdom” was fleshed out (as were many, many theological concepts) during the time of the prophets and while it was never called “the kingdom of God” in the Hebrew Scriptures, it was understood (ultimately) to be the “throne (kingdom by implication) of David" (see Luke 1:32 “the throne of his (Messiah’s) father David”).
So, being a man, Jesus foresaw it just like all the other prophets and when it didn’t quite come to pass as he expected, various reasons were run up the flagpole. As Charlene says, “that’s another topic”, but let’s not say that dispensationalism is a surprise teaching by VP (one of the “various reasons” theologically for Jesus being mistaken…he didn’t know God’s Secret…). It’s roots go back centuries. And it wasn’t just "johnny come lately" point of view.
Now, I can’t tell you (actually I can…but not here) how theologically shortsighted I see the following: “If you have a Jesus who predicts the end of the world and it doesn't come, then "the whole Bible falls to pieces..." (I do like the VPism at the end though...). Neither is it Bible gymnastics to read Paul (if we're talking about the Bible folks) and see that there was a Secret that Jesus knew nothing about (“hid from ages and generations”, “not made known unto the sons of men” (Jesus was one of dem), “hid in God” (Jesus wasn't Him), etc). H.ell, if we want to question (and that’s OK, BTW) those methods (a dispensational view of Scripture) we’d better be prepared to go through all the Biblical arguments and all (OK, maybe not all…) the theological literature with a fine toothed comb. Maybe I’ll start another thread on that (then we can all question “VP’s methods”).
All I’m saying here is let’s just not be too restrictive here in regards to a theological legacy tainted by licentiousness. Inerrancy is something many, many evangelicals proclaim and have proclaimed for centuries (I can say millennia.. almost), including me. Dispensationalism is a very sound and tested system of Biblical hermeneutics, IMHO, and thousands of theologians, including me, ascribe to it’s tenets. Just because there’s one (oh, there are more than one people…) rotten apple…
RE
Link to comment
Share on other sites
geisha779
Just a note about Bullinger. . . .who heavily influenced VP. . . . he was an ultra-dispensationalist. (did I spell that correctly?) :) "Sometimes known as "Extreme Ultradispensationalism" or "Bullingerism" (wikipedia).
Not making a judgment of right or wrong. . . . . it is just a distinction sometimes made in theological circles. . . .
Link to comment
Share on other sites
roberterasmus
Yeh, we love how theology infuses the discussion with hyperbole (ultra, Extreme Ultra, etc.) when indeed it just a disagreement with that author's opinion about interpretation. It's like liberals in the political realm with name calling. If they can't make their point, they resort to the same type of hyperbole.
Actually it's like anyone who disagrees (if they are not honest and fair or careful). Look what the Sanhedrin did with Stephen! And they didn't allow him to finish, BTW.
RE
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.