Doc's Ebonic Sunday skoo, foo'
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 9 Votes - 4.22 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
04-10-2017, 07:35 AM
RE: Doc's patristic Sunday School (the Fathers know best)
(04-10-2017 06:55 AM)docskeptic Wrote:  Alright, carrying on with John the Baptist, we read in Matthew 11:13-14 that Jesus said "For all the prophets and the Law prophesied until John. And if you care to accept it, he (John the Baptist) himself is Elijah, who was to come."

However, Matthew must have forgotten to check with John the evangelist, because he (John the evangelist) says in John 1:21, "(the priests and Levites) asked (John the Baptist), “What then? Are you Elijah?” He said, “I am not.” “Are you the Prophet?” And he answered, “No.”

Either Jesus or John was lying. Hmm... which one, do you think?

Doc

In all fairness, wasn't the Gospel of Matthew written something like 10 - 30 years earlier than the Gospel of John? Also, it's pretty well established that the same story keeps getting embellished in later gospels.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-10-2017, 08:02 AM
RE: Doc's patristic Sunday School (the Fathers know best)
(04-10-2017 07:35 AM)RobbyPants Wrote:  
(04-10-2017 06:55 AM)docskeptic Wrote:  Alright, carrying on with John the Baptist, we read in Matthew 11:13-14 that Jesus said "For all the prophets and the Law prophesied until John. And if you care to accept it, he (John the Baptist) himself is Elijah, who was to come."

However, Matthew must have forgotten to check with John the evangelist, because he (John the evangelist) says in John 1:21, "(the priests and Levites) asked (John the Baptist), “What then? Are you Elijah?” He said, “I am not.” “Are you the Prophet?” And he answered, “No.”

Either Jesus or John was lying. Hmm... which one, do you think?

Doc

In all fairness, wasn't the Gospel of Matthew written something like 10 - 30 years earlier than the Gospel of John? Also, it's pretty well established that the same story keeps getting embellished in later gospels.

Yes, but assuming that Matthew and John, the disciples were actually the authors of their eponymous books, they were contemporaries, were they not?

Doc
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-10-2017, 08:04 AM
RE: Doc's patristic Sunday School (the Fathers know best)
(02-10-2017 02:11 PM)docskeptic Wrote:  
(02-10-2017 01:43 PM)morondog Wrote:  Um. I believe quotation marks are a later interpolation surely? (ETA: I mean, when were quotation marks even invented?) Perhaps Matthew is not at fault and rather more modern translators (e.g. KJV guys) who had a particular interpretation in mind?

Great point, MD. The Greek for Matthew 3:3 "phone boontos en te eremo Hetoimasate ten hodon..." makes it clear that John is in the wilderness, crying "Prepare the way...". The quotation marks are a later English translation addition but the meaning to be conveyed is that above and not as Isaiah meant it.

unsapien, it's who you know...

Doc

I hate to go back to this doc but I have another question. You said that Greek has no quotation marks and I am assuming neither does Hebrew. So does anyone have an idea whether the author of Matthew was using a Hebrew text or the Septuagint? I am not sure whether one could really tell. We know about mistranslations from the Hebrew to Greek so does reading Isaiah in Hebrew change anything? Also, on another note, how do you denote a quote in Greek without some punctuation to show it? Your point was intriguing because simply changing where the quote begins in the sentence changes how it reads. So from a practical standpoint, how does that work?

"If we are honest—and scientists have to be—we must admit that religion is a jumble of false assertions, with no basis in reality.
The very idea of God is a product of the human imagination."
- Paul Dirac
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-10-2017, 08:12 AM
RE: Doc's patristic Sunday School (the Fathers know best)
(04-10-2017 06:55 AM)docskeptic Wrote:  Alright, carrying on with John the Baptist, we read in Matthew 11:13-14 that Jesus said "For all the prophets and the Law prophesied until John. And if you care to accept it, he (John the Baptist) himself is Elijah, who was to come."

However, Matthew must have forgotten to check with John the evangelist, because he (John the evangelist) says in John 1:21, "(the priests and Levites) asked (John the Baptist), “What then? Are you Elijah?” He said, “I am not.” “Are you the Prophet?” And he answered, “No.”

Either Jesus or John was lying. Hmm... which one, do you think?

Doc

There are other options Doc, Matthew was mistaken or Matthew was lying. These words could have been put into Jesus' mouth by Matthew's source or by Matthew himself (whoever Matthew really was). Just pointing that out.

"If we are honest—and scientists have to be—we must admit that religion is a jumble of false assertions, with no basis in reality.
The very idea of God is a product of the human imagination."
- Paul Dirac
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-10-2017, 08:53 AM
RE: Doc's patristic Sunday School (the Fathers know best)
(04-10-2017 08:04 AM)The Organic Chemist Wrote:  
(02-10-2017 02:11 PM)docskeptic Wrote:  Great point, MD. The Greek for Matthew 3:3 "phone boontos en te eremo Hetoimasate ten hodon..." makes it clear that John is in the wilderness, crying "Prepare the way...". The quotation marks are a later English translation addition but the meaning to be conveyed is that above and not as Isaiah meant it.

unsapien, it's who you know...

Doc

I hate to go back to this doc but I have another question. You said that Greek has no quotation marks and I am assuming neither does Hebrew. So does anyone have an idea whether the author of Matthew was using a Hebrew text or the Septuagint? I am not sure whether one could really tell. We know about mistranslations from the Hebrew to Greek so does reading Isaiah in Hebrew change anything? Also, on another note, how do you denote a quote in Greek without some punctuation to show it? Your point was intriguing because simply changing where the quote begins in the sentence changes how it reads. So from a practical standpoint, how does that work?

Well, the short answer is that Matthew copied much of his gospel from Mark and from Q. These were both Greek documents. I believe Mark used the Septuagint for his OT source. Since the Greek of the Septuagint was written without quotation marks (or any other punctuation, for that matter), context is often what determines the meaning.

Doc
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-10-2017, 08:55 AM
RE: Doc's patristic Sunday School (the Fathers know best)
(04-10-2017 08:12 AM)The Organic Chemist Wrote:  
(04-10-2017 06:55 AM)docskeptic Wrote:  Alright, carrying on with John the Baptist, we read in Matthew 11:13-14 that Jesus said "For all the prophets and the Law prophesied until John. And if you care to accept it, he (John the Baptist) himself is Elijah, who was to come."

However, Matthew must have forgotten to check with John the evangelist, because he (John the evangelist) says in John 1:21, "(the priests and Levites) asked (John the Baptist), “What then? Are you Elijah?” He said, “I am not.” “Are you the Prophet?” And he answered, “No.”

Either Jesus or John was lying. Hmm... which one, do you think?

Doc

There are other options Doc, Matthew was mistaken or Matthew was lying. These words could have been put into Jesus' mouth by Matthew's source or by Matthew himself (whoever Matthew really was). Just pointing that out.

I agree. This is the most likely solution. I was simply presenting the argument from a believer's standpoint who has to believe that both Matthew and John were inerrant when they said what they said. How do they reconcile the difference?

Doc
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-10-2017, 10:10 AM
RE: Doc's patristic Sunday School (the Fathers know best)
(04-10-2017 08:55 AM)docskeptic Wrote:  
(04-10-2017 08:12 AM)The Organic Chemist Wrote:  There are other options Doc, Matthew was mistaken or Matthew was lying. These words could have been put into Jesus' mouth by Matthew's source or by Matthew himself (whoever Matthew really was). Just pointing that out.

I agree. This is the most likely solution. I was simply presenting the argument from a believer's standpoint who has to believe that both Matthew and John were inerrant when they said what they said. How do they reconcile the difference?

Doc

Gotcha. I imagine that unless it is a literalist, they may say that in their original form was inerrant and that today is close but errors do happen. My wife's church has this specifically on their beliefs page. They say that the texts were inerrant in their original form. This of course omits the little fact that we have no idea what the original form was exactly and is a sleazy way of getting around this little problem. Of course, I bet that few in the church actually realize this.

"If we are honest—and scientists have to be—we must admit that religion is a jumble of false assertions, with no basis in reality.
The very idea of God is a product of the human imagination."
- Paul Dirac
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like The Organic Chemist's post
04-10-2017, 11:32 AM
RE: Doc's pharisaic Sunday School (holier than thou since 2013)
(04-10-2017 08:55 AM)docskeptic Wrote:  I agree. This is the most likely solution. I was simply presenting the argument from a believer's standpoint who has to believe that both Matthew and John were inerrant when they said what they said. How do they reconcile the difference?

Doc

I dunno. The last time we ran into an issue with John and the synoptic gospels not lining up, we ended up with the Trinity. Following on that, if we find that two gospels do not line up, we simply assume both to be literally true, then use some Orwellian double-speak to handwave the logical contradiction.

"Wait, is Jesus God, or the son of God?"

"Both. They're separate, distinct entities, but all are a single God, cuz we're monotheists."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like RobbyPants's post
04-10-2017, 12:58 PM
RE: Doc's pharisaic Sunday School (holier than thou since 2013)
(04-10-2017 11:32 AM)RobbyPants Wrote:  I dunno. The last time we ran into an issue with John and the synoptic gospels not lining up, we ended up with the Trinity. Following on that, if we find that two gospels do not line up, we simply assume both to be literally true, then use some Orwellian double-speak to handwave the logical contradiction.

"Wait, is Jesus God, or the son of God?"

"Both. They're separate, distinct entities, but all are a single God, cuz we're monotheists."

I love this one. Especially when you point out that this makes no sense to which the reply is some essence of, "yeah, well that is the mystery of the whole thing........it's not supposed to make sense to us.....it makes sense to god....you just have to believe." Amazing that a statement of bullshit and this are indistinguishable.

"If we are honest—and scientists have to be—we must admit that religion is a jumble of false assertions, with no basis in reality.
The very idea of God is a product of the human imagination."
- Paul Dirac
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes The Organic Chemist's post
05-10-2017, 06:48 AM
RE: Doc's pharisaic Sunday School (holier than thou since 2013)
Speaking of reincarnation, I see Mark Dreher has been reborn! I never knew what made him tick, but now I see him TOC.

Doc
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes docskeptic's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: