Bible Fails

[3rdAngel]

@3rdAngel
Thank you.

Yes, I've come across that proposed solution before, that basically Matthew was referring to an oral prophecy not a written scriptural one. But it's doesn't seem as plausible to me as the more straightforward mistake theory.

For example, I'm not sure someone would accept such a convoluted solution to a similar issue in another book if they weren't already committed to that text's infallibility.

Something that may help strengthen the case, though, is if we have other examples of such a spoken/written distinction used elsewhere in Mathew or other Gospels (or rest of NT). Something that might weaken it is if Matthew uses the same word for spoken here when referring to a written prophecy (or if other NT do so).

Any biblical linguists want to add their findings here on that?

For me it is very plausable in the historical context, as well as it was the custom of other writers to write in a similar way to Matthew 27. Keeping in mind the distintions between the major (Ketuvim) and minor prophets or simply the writings (Nevi'im) that was the custom of the rabbinic separation of the law and the major and minor prophets. So this fits in nicely to the previous post that referenced Jeremiah (major) instead of Zechariah (minor or writings).

So the view of some scholars in relation to the previous post is that Matthew actually blended both men’s writings (see Jeremiah 18:1–4; 19:1–4, 6, 11; 32:6–9 and Zechariah 11:12, 13), but he specified Jeremiah since he was the major prophet and more ranking of the two prophets. For this reason, the entire prophetic category was sometimes referred to as "Jeremiah."

A similar parallel is seen in Luke 24:44. Here Christ designates the third section of the Old Testament canon by the term "Psalms." However, the book of Psalms was only the first book of this section. Evidently, Christ thought it sufficient to name only the first book as a suitable identification of the entire third section.

So in effect, "spoken by Jeremiah the prophet" is the same as saying, "recorded in the Prophets." We can add to this the fact that in the four other places where the New Testament quotes from Zechariah it does not mention his name either (see Matthew 21:4-5; 26:31; John 12:12-15; 19:37).

Finally another way of viewing the text is to look at a reference from Mark. In Mark 1:2-3 Mark cites both Malachi 3:1 and Isaiah 40:3, but Mark does not mention Malachi. He uses the better known prophet only. So, this appears to be a common literary practice of that era.

Hope this helps

 

[Subduction Zone]

I noticed an element of this thread that stands out to me and says a great deal. A number of contradictions of the Bible were pointed out by several posters. Several other posters denied contradictions exist, citing context and poor interpretation as the main explanation. The only contradiction that I actually saw addressed, and then only partially, was the one regarding animals going on the ark. If all these other contradictions do not exist and are so easily dealt with, I am surprised that the examples were not dealt with.

He seems to think that hand waving and grasping at straws is a valid defense of the errors in the Bible. It is the typical defense used by Christian apologists. Who are so aptly named since they try to apologize for the errors in the Bible.

 

[3rdAngel]

He seems to think that hand waving and grasping at straws is a valid defense of the errors in the Bible. It is the typical defense used by Christian apologists. Who are so aptly named since they try to apologize for the errors in the Bible.

I do no need to follow your practices but thank you for the invitation

 

[Subduction Zone]

I do no need to follow your practices but thank you for the invitation

This is a breaking of the Ninth on your part. It appears that you think it is permissible for some Christians to break that Commandment when defending their book of myths.

But let's forget about your sins for a while and discuss the errors of the Bivle.

Can you please tell me your interpretation of the Noah's Ark myth?

 

[sooda]

For me it is very plausable in the historical context, as well as how it was the custom of other writers to write in a similar way to Matthew 27. Keeping in mind the distintions between the major (Ketuvim) and minor prophets or simply the writings (Nevi'im) that was the custom of the rabbinic separation of the law and the major and minor prophets. So this fits in nicely to the previous post that referenced Jeremiah (major) instead of Zechariah (minor or writings).

So the view of some scholars in relation to the previous post is that Matthew actually blended both men’s writings (see Jeremiah 18:1–4; 19:1–4, 6, 11; 32:6–9 and Zechariah 11:12, 13), but he specified Jeremiah since he was the major prophet and more ranking of the two prophets. For this reason, the entire prophetic category was sometimes referred to as "Jeremiah."

A similar parallel is seen in Luke 24:44. Here Christ designates the third section of the Old Testament canon by the term "Psalms." However, the book of Psalms was only the first book of this section. Evidently, Christ thought it sufficient to name only the first book as a suitable identification of the entire third section.

So in effect, "spoken by Jeremiah the prophet" is the same as saying, "recorded in the Prophets." We can add to this the fact that in the four other places where the New Testament quotes from Zechariah it does not mention his name either (see Matthew 21:4-5; 26:31; John 12:12-15; 19:37).

Finally another way of viewing the text is to look at a reference from Mark. In Mark 1:2-3 Mark cites both Malachi 3:1 and Isaiah 40:3, but Mark does not mention Malachi. He uses the better known prophet only. So, this appears to be a common literary practice of that era.

Hope this helps

Psalms is much older.

Book of Psalms - Encyclopedia of The Bible - Bible Gateway
https://www.biblegateway.com/resources/encyclopedia-of-the-bible/Book-Psalms
The recovery of Canaanitish lit. at Ugarit has furnished significant parallels to the psalms, from the time of Moses (cf. J. Patton, Canaanite Parallels in the Book of Psalms) and the major researches of M. Dahood (Anchor Bible, Psalms).

 

[Galateasdream]

@3rdAngel

Forgive if I'm wrong, but it seems you're now proposing an alternative solution to the first - rather than explaining the misattribution in terms of an oral prophecy of Jeremiah recorded by Zachariah, you now favour the 'major prophet given prominence' theory.

That theory too has its faults, and is not as plausible to me as just accepting a mistake. I note, for example, that other scholars reject that explanation (it has no consensus).

 

[3rdAngel]

@3rdAngel

Forgive if I'm wrong, but it seems you're now proposing an alternative solution to the first - rather than explaining the misattribution in terms of an oral prophecy of Jeremiah recorded by Zachariah, you now favour the 'major prophet given prominence' theory.

That theory too has its faults, and is not as plausible to me as just accepting a mistake. I note, for example, that other scholars reject that explanation (it has no consensus).

Not alternative but complmentary if you read the two posts together. I mentioned parts of the first post in the second post but wrote the second in relation to writing styles of the time from other writers that wrote in a similar fashion and custom according to your reply to my first post. The theory does not have any faults in my view as it was the custom in the writings of the day with example already provided. If you believe it or not it is your opinion. It is not mine as I believe I have shown why the writings are not an error but simply a custom of writing excepted by the writers in the time it was written. It seems many simply look for faults if they do not want to believe somerthing but each to their own. Time will tell who is right and who is wrong in this regards. I am sure you would agree.

 

[Subduction Zone]

For me it is very plausable in the historical context, as well as it was the custom of other writers to write in a similar way to Matthew 27. Keeping in mind the distintions between the major (Ketuvim) and minor prophets or simply the writings (Nevi'im) that was the custom of the rabbinic separation of the law and the major and minor prophets. So this fits in nicely to the previous post that referenced Jeremiah (major) instead of Zechariah (minor or writings).

So the view of some scholars in relation to the previous post is that Matthew actually blended both men’s writings (see Jeremiah 18:1–4; 19:1–4, 6, 11; 32:6–9 and Zechariah 11:12, 13), but he specified Jeremiah since he was the major prophet and more ranking of the two prophets. For this reason, the entire prophetic category was sometimes referred to as "Jeremiah."

A similar parallel is seen in Luke 24:44. Here Christ designates the third section of the Old Testament canon by the term "Psalms." However, the book of Psalms was only the first book of this section. Evidently, Christ thought it sufficient to name only the first book as a suitable identification of the entire third section.

So in effect, "spoken by Jeremiah the prophet" is the same as saying, "recorded in the Prophets." We can add to this the fact that in the four other places where the New Testament quotes from Zechariah it does not mention his name either (see Matthew 21:4-5; 26:31; John 12:12-15; 19:37).

Finally another way of viewing the text is to look at a reference from Mark. In Mark 1:2-3 Mark cites both Malachi 3:1 and Isaiah 40:3, but Mark does not mention Malachi. He uses the better known prophet only. So, this appears to be a common literary practice of that era.

Hope this helps

This sort of claim needs valid sources. And that would exclude professional apologists. Find some actual experts on the Bible that can support this claim, otherwise all you have is hand waving.

 

[3rdAngel]

This sort of claim needs valid sources. And that would exclude professional apologists. Find some actual experts on the Bible that can support this claim, otherwise all you have is hand waving.

Most of the above is my view supported by the scriptures and the customs of the day which is also the view of some scholars. There is no use providing references to you as I have done this in other threads that you simply hand waive as if they did not exist. You are free to believe as you wish. God will be your judge not me. Time will tell who is right and who is wrong. I am at peace with what I believe how about you?

 

[Galateasdream]

Not alternative but complmentary if you read the two posts together. I mentioned parts of the first post in the second post but wrote the second in relation to writing styles of the time from other writers that wrote in a similar fashion and custom according to your reply to my first post.

But either proposed solution would stand on its own if the other was discredited? Thus it seems better to treat them as separate.

The first 'spoken' solution is that Jeremiah spoke the prophecy (something we have to accept without any evidence), and then Zechariah wrote it down (as if it was his, without attribution, and again something we have to accept without evidence), and that Matthew somehow knew of this turn of events (how?) and for some reason (he doesn't elucidate) confusingly attributes this prophecy to the one who originally said it, supposedly expecting his readers to infer all this from his use of the word 'spoke' even though this is the exact same word and fulfillment formula used by him in an earlier chapter to introduce an actual written quote by Jeremiah, and where we don't seem to have many (any?) other Matthean (NT?) cases of this occurring. This view doesn't have consensus amongst scholars, even evangelicals.

The second 'prominent prophet' solution also has issues:

"Yet other interpreters are far from convinced with this approach. Morison describes Lightfoot’s view as “too evidently ingenious, and hyper-ingenious,—far-fetched.”42 Furthermore, both Toy and Ridderbos bring attention to the fact that “such a mode of citation is unexampled.”43 D. A. Carson calls this explanation a “highly improbable ‘solution’…[because] it is not at all certain that Jeremiah was first in Matthew’s day.”44 In other words, too much stock is given to Jewish documents written approximately 500 years after Matthew’s Gospel. And even if weight is given to the historical roots of this rabbinical literature, it should be noted that Jeremiah is not always listed first; in fact, Isaiah heads up the list twice as often.45 Michael Knowles further points out that “since the one other ascription of a formula quotation to ‘Jeremiah’ (in 2:17-18) is clearly to the canonical work of the prophet, a more general reference here seems highly improbable.”46 And lastly, if the mention of Jeremiah is truly equivalent to writing “in the prophets,” we should expect Jeremiah to be cited liberally throughout the whole of the New Testament when any passage from the prophets is quoted, which of course, is not the case.47"

From 'Managing Over-Cites'
Managing “Over-Cites”: Learning from Evangelical Treatments of Faulty New Testament Citations of the Old Testament | Bible.org


I really find it difficult to accept that someone without a prior commitment to inerrency would favour either/both of these proposed solutions over the much simpler and direct explanation that figures as diverse as Augustine, Barclay and Ehrman accept, which is that Matthew just made a mistake.

 

[3rdAngel]

But either proposed solution would stand on its own if the other was discredited? Thus it seems better to treat them as separate.

The first 'spoken' solution is that Jeremiah spoke the prophecy (something we have to accept without any evidence), and then Zechariah wrote it down (as if it was his, without attribution, and again something we have to accept without evidence), and that Matthew somehow knew of this turn of events (how?) and for some reason (he doesn't elucidate) confusingly attributes this prophecy to the one who originally said it, supposedly expecting his readers to infer all this from his use of the word 'spoke' even though this is the exact same word and fulfillment formula used by him in an earlier chapter to introduce an actual written quote by Jeremiah, and where we don't seem to have many (any?) other Matthean (NT?) cases of this occurring. This view doesn't have consensus amongst scholars, even evangelicals.

The second 'prominent prophet' solution also has issues:

"Yet other interpreters are far from convinced with this approach. Morison describes Lightfoot’s view as “too evidently ingenious, and hyper-ingenious,—far-fetched.”42 Furthermore, both Toy and Ridderbos bring attention to the fact that “such a mode of citation is unexampled.”43 D. A. Carson calls this explanation a “highly improbable ‘solution’…[because] it is not at all certain that Jeremiah was first in Matthew’s day.”44 In other words, too much stock is given to Jewish documents written approximately 500 years after Matthew’s Gospel. And even if weight is given to the historical roots of this rabbinical literature, it should be noted that Jeremiah is not always listed first; in fact, Isaiah heads up the list twice as often.45 Michael Knowles further points out that “since the one other ascription of a formula quotation to ‘Jeremiah’ (in 2:17-18) is clearly to the canonical work of the prophet, a more general reference here seems highly improbable.”46 And lastly, if the mention of Jeremiah is truly equivalent to writing “in the prophets,” we should expect Jeremiah to be cited liberally throughout the whole of the New Testament when any passage from the prophets is quoted, which of course, is not the case.47"

From 'Managing Over-Cites'
Managing “Over-Cites”: Learning from Evangelical Treatments of Faulty New Testament Citations of the Old Testament | Bible.org

I really find it difficult to accept that someone without a prior commitment to inerrency would favour either/both of these proposed solutions over the much simpler and direct explanation that figures as diverse as Augustine, Barclay and Ehrman accept, which is that Matthew just made a mistake.

I think you need to change your tag to an athiest which it seems would be a better fit for you as all you seem to be doing is posting Athiest suporting threads and posting athiest links which to me shows what side of the fence your on IMO.

What I have posted to you to show that there is no error in Matthew 27 in relation to major and minor prophets, textual examples, writings and customs of the day in other scriptural examples only supports my claims to a plausible solution that you cannot prove is not plausable. If you could you would have done so already.

All you have provided above is the opinion of another who is an athiest. You are free to choose to believe it if you wish to. You still have not proven the non plausability of what has been shared with you that I believe is a solution to Matthew 27 IMO.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Most of the above is my view supported by the scriptures and the customs of the day which is also the view of some scholars. There is no use providing references to you as I have done this in other threads that you simply hand waive as if they did not exist. You are free to believe as you wish. God will be your judge not me. Time will tell who is right and who is wrong. I am at peace with what I believe how about you?

No, that is merely your interpretation of scripture. You are only making excuses at best, you are not refuting. And you are mistaken. All you did was the same sort of hand waving arguments in other threads. You never provided sources.

Mythical beings cannot be my judge. It may not be possible to refute all versions of god, but it does appear that the evil version that you worship has been refuted. Perhaps you should drop the foolish thinly veiled threats. Instead try to support your claims with actual scholars for once.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Most of the above is my view supported by the scriptures and the customs of the day which is also the view of some scholars. There is no use providing references to you as I have done this in other threads that you simply hand waive as if they did not exist. You are free to believe as you wish. God will be your judge not me. Time will tell who is right and who is wrong. I am at peace with what I believe how about you?

No, that is merely your interpretation of scripture. You are only making excuses at best, you are not refuting. And you are mistaken. All you did was the same sort of hand waving arguments in other threads. You never provided sources.

Mythical beings cannot be my judge. It may not be possible to refute all versions of god, but it does appear that the evil version that you worship has been refuted. Perhaps you should drop the foolish thinly veiled threats. Instead try to support your claims with actual scholars for once.

 

[McBell]

I think you need to change your tag to an athiest which it seems would be a better fit for you as all you seem to be doing is posting Athiest suporting threads and posting athiest links which to me shows what side of the fence your on IMO.

Interesting this judgmental reply.
Especially given this:

Bible Fails​

What I have posted to you to show that there is no error in Matthew 27 in relation to major and minor prophets, textual examples, writings and customs of the day in other scriptural examples only supports my claims to a plausible solution that you cannot prove is not plausable. If you could you would have done so already.

All you have provided above is the opinion of another who is an athiest. You are free to choose to believe it if you wish to. You still have not proven the non plausability of what has been shared with you that I believe is a solution to Matthew 27 IMO.

Slapping "IMO" after declaring your opinion as fact only makes you look dishonest.

 

[sooda]

I think you need to change your tag to an athiest which it seems would be a better fit for you as all you seem to be doing is posting Athiest suporting threads and posting athiest links which to me shows what side of the fence your on IMO.

What I have posted to you to show that there is no error in Matthew 27 in relation to major and minor prophets, textual examples, writings and customs of the day in other scriptural examples only supports my claims to a plausible solution that you cannot prove is not plausable. If you could you would have done so already.

All you have provided above is the opinion of another who is an athiest. You are free to choose to believe it if you wish to. You still have not proven the non plausability of what has been shared with you that I believe is a solution to Matthew 27 IMO.

You always play that "you're an atheist- I'm a real Christian" card, don't you?

 

[Subduction Zone]

I think you need to change your tag to an athiest which it seems would be a better fit for you as all you seem to be doing is posting Athiest suporting threads and posting athiest links which to me shows what side of the fence your on IMO.

What I have posted to you to show that there is no error in Matthew 27 in relation to major and minor prophets, textual examples, writings and customs of the day in other scriptural examples only supports my claims to a plausible solution that you cannot prove is not plausable. If you could you would have done so already.

All you have provided above is the opinion of another who is an athiest. You are free to choose to believe it if you wish to. You still have not proven the non plausability of what has been shared with you that I believe is a solution to Matthew 27 IMO.

So a person that reasons rationally is automatically an atheist? Hmmmm, I might accept that definition of yours. I don't think that other Christians will.

 

[Galateasdream]

I think you need to change your tag to an athiest which it seems would be a better fit for you as all you seem to be doing is posting Athiest suporting threads and posting athiest links which to me shows what side of the fence your on IMO.

What I have posted to you to show that there is no error in Matthew 27 in relation to major and minor prophets, textual examples, writings and customs of the day in other scriptural examples only supports my claims to a plausible solution that you cannot prove is not plausable. If you could you would have done so already.

All you have provided above is the opinion of another who is an athiest. You are free to choose to believe it if you wish to. You still have not proven the non plausability of what has been shared with you that I believe is a solution to Matthew 27 IMO.

What atheist links?

The only quote/link I've given is to a paper written by a Christian Master of Theology student from Dalls seminary, which was highly praised by Dan Wallace, where all citations were from well respected evangelical scholars like Carson, put online at a Christian bible study site.

It seems you are equating 'atheist' with evangelical Christian scholars who don't agree with your proposed solution to a specific well known biblical problem. Which is ... Odd.

You provided two proposed solutions to the issue. All I have done is present the case why I don't find either proposal as plausible as the mistake theory, and used evangelical scholarly work to back up that case.

If you feel that that requires someone to self-identify as 'atheist', even though they believe in God, I am unsure as to how anyone can proceed here with a sensible discussion.

Shall we just agree to disagree?

 

[McBell]

You always play that "you're an atheist- I'm a real Christian" card, don't you?

I have never understood why so many theists act as though that is some kind of ace in the hole.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You always play that "you're an atheist- I'm a real Christian" card, don't you?

It is presently my favorite argument of his. Any Christian that beats him with a rational argument is an atheist.

 

[sooda]

It is presently my favorite argument of his. Any Christian that beats him with a rational argument is an atheist.

3rd angel is a man?