Context Context Context

[ydoaPs]

I think the Bible is largely taken out of context as a whole in modern Christianity. There's not a lot of thought given to what kind of documents comprise the Bible. AFAICT, the Gospels aren't even intended to be entirely historically accurate; they're largely midrashic. I've yet to see any indication that the authors of the NT wrote expecting their text to be included in a holy compilation rather than just be read by the intended audience. I think there is much to gain in reading the gospels how they were meant to be read-as individual documents by different authors(who may or may not have differing opinions about God just as different posters here may or may not have differing opinions about God) writing to different audiences. It really makes sense; would you try to understand what one poster here thinks by what a different poster writes? Reading the Bible in this manner lets us see what each author was trying to get across rather than a muddled mish-mash of opinions trying to be forced into one coherent view. A good example is the book of Matthew.

There's much reason to believe that Matthew is heavily midrashic. One example of many is the virgin birth. This is one example of which Matthew is forcing prophecy on Jesus, because Matthew wanted to make it clear that Jesus WAS the promised Messiah. Keep in mind, that in midrash, literal truth isn't nearly as important as meaning; saying it is prophesy is good enough to make his point.

In Matthew 1:22-23, the author of Matthew quotes Isaiah 7:14. That's all fine and dandy until we go and actually read it in context. The author of Matthew even cuts off Isaiah mid-sentence. The prophecy in question(read the whole chapter and you'll see), is that the pregnant woman in the room will have a son named Immanu-El and the principle enemies of Ahaz will be defeated before said boy is old enough to know right from wrong. The birth isn't what is being prophesied at all; it is the timescale for the actual prophesy-the defeat of the armies.

Other things about 7:14. The word 'virgin' is the Hebrew word 'alma' meaning 'young woman'. It in no way implies anything about sexual experience or lack thereof. It is likely that Matthew used a greek word meaning virgin in order to make Jesus even more special. The author of Matthew essentially invented his own prophesy for midrashic purposes.

From a Christian book(Interpreting the Old Testament: A Guide for Exegesis):

A danger in functional equivalency is importing too much into the target language, supplying more meaning than the original provided. An example is adding specificity lacking in the original. Many English translations did this in Isaiah 7:14 when they rendered the Hebrew word almah, meaning "a female...who has not yet borne a child,"69 as "virgin." The lack of sexual experience that is an integral part of the meaning of the English term virgin is not part of the specific meaning of the Hebrew term. That is, an almah may (Isa. 54:4) or may not have had sexual relations, since that is not the distinguishing semantic feature for the word, while virgin by definition cannot have had sexual relations.

69. John Walton, NIDOTTE 3.415-19, here 418. The LXXX renders the word as parthenos, which also indicates sexual maturity but not sexual experience or its lack.

Another example is the massacre of the innocents. There is no historical record of this event outside of Matthew. Does that alone mean it didn't happen? No. Did it happen? Probably not. Does it really matter if it happened if the gospel of Matthew is midrashic? No; what matters is the meaning.
Now, you might be wondering why I said it probably didn't happen. There are a few reasons:

1)Josephus goes through the trouble of a detailed chronicling the various atrocities of Herod. On the massacre, he is silent. It would be very unlikely for Josephus to leave it out.
2)By human nature(especially of the people of antiquity), numbers get exaggerated(think of the fisherman recounting the prize catch of the day and the fish gets bigger with each telling). People involved tell other people and exaggerate a little bit. They tell others and exaggerate a little bit, etc. The event would likely be recorded by someone.
3)The author of Matthew has other places that point to a tendency toward midrash.
4)The story greatly parallels that of Moses(which is a great indicator that it's likely midrashic)


Now, the last point is really of interest, as it allows us to start to see why this story was added. To the author of Matthew, Jesus was a son of God, just like David(Psalm 2:7); he was the chosen one, just like Moses. As such, the author of Matthew makes several parallels between Jesus and Moses. The first one is the massacre of the innocents. The second is Jesus being brought out of Egypt afterward. We can see that the massacre of the innocents, like the virgin birth, are added to make Jesus special; to make him the chosen one. They may or may not be true, but they are clearly there for meaning, rather than history.

[naz]

I basically agree although I would not dismiss all those events as being probably unhistorical. I don't there is any good data to really support that view.

The virgin birth is another matter. It is odd Mark and John would leave out such an important detail. And Paul seems to even contradict it.

[ydoaPs]

Nov 26, 2009 20:28:51 GMT naz said:

I basically agree although I would not dismiss all those events as being probably unhistorical. I don't there is any good data to really support that view.

The ones I discussed in the OP probably didn't happen. That, however, doesn't mean the entire thing is made of fictional events.

And Paul seems to even contradict it.

I'd like to hear more about that.

[Roarian]

Paul never mentions a virgin birth, instead simply saying 'born of a woman...' He also mentions that Jesus is from Davids lineage by flesh, which would suggest that Joseph is his father.

[brentbranaman]

Nov 26, 2009 20:14:20 GMT ydoaPs said:

I think the Bible is largely taken out of context as a whole in modern Christianity. There's not a lot of thought given to what kind of documents comprise the Bible. AFAICT, the Gospels aren't even intended to be entirely historically accurate; they're largely midrashic. I've yet to see any indication that the authors of the NT wrote expecting their text to be included in a holy compilation rather than just be read by the intended audience. I think there is much to gain in reading the gospels how they were meant to be read-as individual documents by different authors(who may or may not have differing opinions about God just as different posters here may or may not have differing opinions about God) writing to different audiences. It really makes sense; would you try to understand what one poster here thinks by what a different poster writes? Reading the Bible in this manner lets us see what each author was trying to get across rather than a muddled mish-mash of opinions trying to be forced into one coherent view. A good example is the book of Matthew.

There's much reason to believe that Matthew is heavily midrashic. One example of many is the virgin birth. This is one example of which Matthew is forcing prophecy on Jesus, because Matthew wanted to make it clear that Jesus WAS the promised Messiah. Keep in mind, that in midrash, literal truth isn't nearly as important as meaning; saying it is prophesy is good enough to make his point.

In Matthew 1:22-23, the author of Matthew quotes Isaiah 7:14. That's all fine and dandy until we go and actually read it in context. The author of Matthew even cuts off Isaiah mid-sentence. The prophecy in question(read the whole chapter and you'll see), is that the pregnant woman in the room will have a son named Immanu-El and the principle enemies of Ahaz will be defeated before said boy is old enough to know right from wrong. The birth isn't what is being prophesied at all; it is the timescale for the actual prophesy-the defeat of the armies.

Other things about 7:14. The word 'virgin' is the Hebrew word 'alma' meaning 'young woman'. It in no way implies anything about sexual experience or lack thereof. It is likely that Matthew used a greek word meaning virgin in order to make Jesus even more special. The author of Matthew essentially invented his own prophesy for midrashic purposes.

From a Christian book(Interpreting the Old Testament: A Guide for Exegesis):

A danger in functional equivalency is importing too much into the target language, supplying more meaning than the original provided. An example is adding specificity lacking in the original. Many English translations did this in Isaiah 7:14 when they rendered the Hebrew word almah, meaning "a female...who has not yet borne a child,"69 as "virgin." The lack of sexual experience that is an integral part of the meaning of the English term virgin is not part of the specific meaning of the Hebrew term. That is, an almah may (Isa. 54:4) or may not have had sexual relations, since that is not the distinguishing semantic feature for the word, while virgin by definition cannot have had sexual relations.

69. John Walton, NIDOTTE 3.415-19, here 418. The LXXX renders the word as parthenos, which also indicates sexual maturity but not sexual experience or its lack.

Another example is the massacre of the innocents. There is no historical record of this event outside of Matthew. Does that alone mean it didn't happen? No. Did it happen? Probably not. Does it really matter if it happened if the gospel of Matthew is midrashic? No; what matters is the meaning.
Now, you might be wondering why I said it probably didn't happen. There are a few reasons:

1)Josephus goes through the trouble of a detailed chronicling the various atrocities of Herod. On the massacre, he is silent. It would be very unlikely for Josephus to leave it out.
2)By human nature(especially of the people of antiquity), numbers get exaggerated(think of the fisherman recounting the prize catch of the day and the fish gets bigger with each telling). People involved tell other people and exaggerate a little bit. They tell others and exaggerate a little bit, etc. The event would likely be recorded by someone.
3)The author of Matthew has other places that point to a tendency toward midrash.
4)The story greatly parallels that of Moses(which is a great indicator that it's likely midrashic)


Now, the last point is really of interest, as it allows us to start to see why this story was added. To the author of Matthew, Jesus was a son of God, just like David(Psalm 2:7); he was the chosen one, just like Moses. As such, the author of Matthew makes several parallels between Jesus and Moses. The first one is the massacre of the innocents. The second is Jesus being brought out of Egypt afterward. We can see that the massacre of the innocents, like the virgin birth, are added to make Jesus special; to make him the chosen one. They may or may not be true, but they are clearly there for meaning, rather than history.

I think that you have presented the soundest perspective for approaching the gospels (in this case, Matthew) from a Christian perspective. There are so many problems with taking the gospel story literally and this is one very good explanation as to why it probably isn't totally historical.

Another thing "Matthew" does is portray Joseph as the Joseph everyone would recognize from the O.T. He dreams. Several times. This is only found in Matthew and it is most surely not a record in history. Instead, the author is composing a story that portrays Jesus a certain way.

If Christians would present the gospels more "loosely," the rest of us would probably be able to have better discussions about it. Otherwise, the problems with the text itself are always in the front of our minds.

[ydoaPs]

Nov 27, 2009 14:13:39 GMT brentbranaman said:

Nov 26, 2009 20:14:20 GMT ydoaPs said:

I think the Bible is largely taken out of context as a whole in modern Christianity. There's not a lot of thought given to what kind of documents comprise the Bible. AFAICT, the Gospels aren't even intended to be entirely historically accurate; they're largely midrashic. I've yet to see any indication that the authors of the NT wrote expecting their text to be included in a holy compilation rather than just be read by the intended audience. I think there is much to gain in reading the gospels how they were meant to be read-as individual documents by different authors(who may or may not have differing opinions about God just as different posters here may or may not have differing opinions about God) writing to different audiences. It really makes sense; would you try to understand what one poster here thinks by what a different poster writes? Reading the Bible in this manner lets us see what each author was trying to get across rather than a muddled mish-mash of opinions trying to be forced into one coherent view. A good example is the book of Matthew.

There's much reason to believe that Matthew is heavily midrashic. One example of many is the virgin birth. This is one example of which Matthew is forcing prophecy on Jesus, because Matthew wanted to make it clear that Jesus WAS the promised Messiah. Keep in mind, that in midrash, literal truth isn't nearly as important as meaning; saying it is prophesy is good enough to make his point.

In Matthew 1:22-23, the author of Matthew quotes Isaiah 7:14. That's all fine and dandy until we go and actually read it in context. The author of Matthew even cuts off Isaiah mid-sentence. The prophecy in question(read the whole chapter and you'll see), is that the pregnant woman in the room will have a son named Immanu-El and the principle enemies of Ahaz will be defeated before said boy is old enough to know right from wrong. The birth isn't what is being prophesied at all; it is the timescale for the actual prophesy-the defeat of the armies.

Other things about 7:14. The word 'virgin' is the Hebrew word 'alma' meaning 'young woman'. It in no way implies anything about sexual experience or lack thereof. It is likely that Matthew used a greek word meaning virgin in order to make Jesus even more special. The author of Matthew essentially invented his own prophesy for midrashic purposes.

From a Christian book(Interpreting the Old Testament: A Guide for Exegesis):


Another example is the massacre of the innocents. There is no historical record of this event outside of Matthew. Does that alone mean it didn't happen? No. Did it happen? Probably not. Does it really matter if it happened if the gospel of Matthew is midrashic? No; what matters is the meaning.
Now, you might be wondering why I said it probably didn't happen. There are a few reasons:

1)Josephus goes through the trouble of a detailed chronicling the various atrocities of Herod. On the massacre, he is silent. It would be very unlikely for Josephus to leave it out.
2)By human nature(especially of the people of antiquity), numbers get exaggerated(think of the fisherman recounting the prize catch of the day and the fish gets bigger with each telling). People involved tell other people and exaggerate a little bit. They tell others and exaggerate a little bit, etc. The event would likely be recorded by someone.
3)The author of Matthew has other places that point to a tendency toward midrash.
4)The story greatly parallels that of Moses(which is a great indicator that it's likely midrashic)


Now, the last point is really of interest, as it allows us to start to see why this story was added. To the author of Matthew, Jesus was a son of God, just like David(Psalm 2:7); he was the chosen one, just like Moses. As such, the author of Matthew makes several parallels between Jesus and Moses. The first one is the massacre of the innocents. The second is Jesus being brought out of Egypt afterward. We can see that the massacre of the innocents, like the virgin birth, are added to make Jesus special; to make him the chosen one. They may or may not be true, but they are clearly there for meaning, rather than history.

I think that you have presented the soundest perspective for approaching the gospels (in this case, Matthew) from a Christian perspective. There are so many problems with taking the gospel story literally and this is one very good explanation as to why it probably isn't totally historical.

Another thing "Matthew" does is portray Joseph as the Joseph everyone would recognize from the O.T. He dreams. Several times. This is only found in Matthew and it is most surely not a record in history. Instead, the author is composing a story that portrays Jesus a certain way.

If Christians would present the gospels more "loosely," the rest of us would probably be able to have better discussions about it. Otherwise, the problems with the text itself are always in the front of our minds.

The best thing, imo, about reading the Gospels how they were intended(as well as in context of the authors, audience, and time period), is that you can see how vastly different the stories are from what you hear in Church. For instance, Matthew portrays a fully human apocalyptic Jewish reformist who taught salvation by works.

[brentbranaman]

Nov 27, 2009 14:23:28 GMT ydoaPs said:

Nov 27, 2009 14:13:39 GMT brentbranaman said:

I think that you have presented the soundest perspective for approaching the gospels (in this case, Matthew) from a Christian perspective. There are so many problems with taking the gospel story literally and this is one very good explanation as to why it probably isn't totally historical.

Another thing "Matthew" does is portray Joseph as the Joseph everyone would recognize from the O.T. He dreams. Several times. This is only found in Matthew and it is most surely not a record in history. Instead, the author is composing a story that portrays Jesus a certain way.

If Christians would present the gospels more "loosely," the rest of us would probably be able to have better discussions about it. Otherwise, the problems with the text itself are always in the front of our minds.

The best thing, imo, about reading the Gospels how they were intended(as well as in context of the authors, audience, and time period), is that you can see how vastly different the stories are from what you hear in Church. For instance, Matthew portrays a fully human apocalyptic Jewish reformist who taught salvation by works.

Sure, I'm fine with that.

However, how does one determine what words Jesus actually said?

Do you think textual criticism is the best means for determining that so far?

[ydoaPs]

Nov 27, 2009 15:07:36 GMT brentbranaman said:

Do you think textual criticism is the best means for determining that so far?

Yes.

[naz]

Nov 27, 2009 13:19:03 GMT Roarian said:

Paul never mentions a virgin birth, instead simply saying 'born of a woman...' He also mentions that Jesus is from Davids lineage by flesh, which would suggest that Joseph is his father.

Yes, that is what I was referring to.

Rom 1:1-3 ¶ Paul, a servant of Jesus Christ, called [to be] an apostle, separated unto the gospel of God, (Which he had promised afore by his prophets in the holy scriptures,) Concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh;

Of course what does "made of the seed" really mean? It doesn't rule out the miraculous. In any event that is not how the Greek reads. It has "the one who came of the seed of David" which seems a bit vague as well.

[ydoaPs]

Nov 27, 2009 17:02:51 GMT naz said:

Nov 27, 2009 13:19:03 GMT Roarian said:

Paul never mentions a virgin birth, instead simply saying 'born of a woman...' He also mentions that Jesus is from Davids lineage by flesh, which would suggest that Joseph is his father.

Yes, that is what I was referring to.

Rom 1:1-3 ¶ Paul, a servant of Jesus Christ, called [to be] an apostle, separated unto the gospel of God, (Which he had promised afore by his prophets in the holy scriptures,) Concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh;

Of course what does "made of the seed" really mean? It doesn't rule out the miraculous. In any event that is not how the Greek reads. It has "the one who came of the seed of David" which seems a bit vague as well.

Thanks! I'll look into that further.

[naz]

What seems more damning to the idea of the VB is its omission from both Mark and John. Mark because its probable early date suggest the VB is a later embellishment and John because it late date of comp argues for its inclusion especially considering its particularly high christology.

Other factors to consider is why does it seem like both Jesus' mother and brothers expressed doubts about him? One would think if this miracle had occurred they would have been ardent believers and followers right from the start.

[ydoaPs]

Nov 27, 2009 17:55:33 GMT naz said:

Other factors to consider is why does it seem like both Jesus' mother and brothers expressed doubts about him? One would think if this miracle had occurred they would have been ardent believers and followers right from the start.

Wow. I never even thought about that. That is AMAZING evidence for the VB to be midrashic.

[naz]

Nov 27, 2009 17:57:33 GMT ydoaPs said:

Nov 27, 2009 17:55:33 GMT naz said:

Other factors to consider is why does it seem like both Jesus' mother and brothers expressed doubts about him? One would think if this miracle had occurred they would have been ardent believers and followers right from the start.

Wow. I never even thought about that. That is AMAZING evidence for the VB to be midrashic.

There is no doubt that the author is drashing the Jewish texts as we know alma does not mean "virgin" nor does the context of the original prophecy fit with a literal interpretation. But the question arises if this really didn't happen why was the idea introduced? I know it's common to find sources in other religious myths but after investigating those claims in detail I don't find that idea convincing. For that reason I don't completely rule the idea out problematic as it seems to be.

[Roarian]

I wonder how much of Jesus' history was retroactively edited to fit the real person? I mean, it is possible that the real Jesus wasn't born in nazareth (or of a virgin) and that stories were created later to get rid of the inconsistencies with jewish scripture. This would mean that someone involved was essentially being a fraud, though.

[naz]

Nov 27, 2009 20:03:31 GMT Roarian said:

I wonder how much of Jesus' history was retroactively edited to fit the real person? I mean, it is possible that the real Jesus wasn't born in nazareth (or of a virgin) and that stories were created later to get rid of the inconsistencies with jewish scripture. This would mean that someone involved was essentially being a fraud, though.

No way to know for sure but I do not believe there is any good reason to believe that.