Scriptural literacy

[Radrook]

Having read the bible, your talents are completely wasted on radrook. snip

Godless Penchant for Strawman and Evasion.

Here a some salient examples:

Comment: The Bible should be treated like any other literary work.

Strawman: The Bible isn't infallible

Comment: I am not talking of infallibility

Evasion: How about all the contradictions?

Comment: There are evaluation principles that are applied to all literary works

Evasion: I wonder when Radrook is going to give examples?

Comment: Examples given.

Evasion: Toot! Toot! Toot! He! He! Toot!

Comment: Not all interpretations are acceptable. Examples given:

Evasion: What about all the contradictions?

Comment: I'm talking about the obvious basic errors made because of ignoring agreed-upon context.

Evasion: Ummm what about all the contradictions?

Comment: That's irrelevant to the application of basic literary principles.

Evasion: Toot! Toot! Toot! Chuckle! Chuckle! Toot!


Comment after placed on ignore: Radrook doesn't want to discuss the subject cause he ummm, don't have foot stand on. Tootitoottoot! Bebedeebebedeeebebedee! Toot!

 

[Foster Zygote]

I find it ironic that Radrook levels accusations of evasion at others. If anyone wants to see Radrook being evasive all one has to do is ask him why he knowingly lied about the source of the list of scientists who allegedly rejected evolutionary theory.

So Radrook, any comment?

 

[Radrook]

Well, I'm (somewhat) guilty of number 2. That was going on in this thread about heaven. He still hasn't responded to my question that I posed to him there. I was trying to keep things light....I didn't expect...a sort of...Spanish Inquisition.(Begins glancing nervously around the room)

No Spanish Inquisiton intended. Will get over to the thread. Sorry I gave that impression.

 

[Radrook]

This is hilarious! The NT writers quoted copiously from the OT and they had no access to it! Go figure! The gospels have quotes from the OT included in them in reference to the Messianic prophecies in relation to Jesus. So that other accusation against the Gospel writers is just as ridiculous.

BTW
What were the Jews reading in their synagogues-comic books? And that's one of the reasons I don't waste my time in debates with people who posture to know but know nothing.

 

[Piggy]

Any book was rare in the first few centuries BC, a book was something that had to be copied out long-hand. Try writing out the Old Testament and tell me how long it takes.

Now there were various scrolls about at the time in various versions, most of them incomplete (see "The Book of Leviticus By Gordon J. Wenham, pp 13-15), it seems utterly unlikely that a Hebrew text of the Pentateuch would be a common item at that time.

Jealously guarded - the texts have always been regarded as sacred objects in the Jewish religion - subject to strict rules and rituals. The same is true today.

Unfamiliar tongue - well you tell me what languages the writers of Matthew, John or Luke, for example would have been familiar with. What language would Paul have been familiar with?

Scrolls were certainly painstaking to produce, but you forget the tradition of public reading. Familiarity with the contents of the scrolls -- those considered sacred, as well as those not considered sacred -- which were used within a community was not rare. The scrolls may have been jealously protected, but the contents were well known.

The original question was whether the NT writers would have been familiar with the Hebrew Bible. The answer is certainly yes, as they go to great pains to align their theology with it.

Of course, there's a continuum. The author of Luke/Acts and the author of The Gospel According to John, for instance, would be less concerned with alignment with the Hebrew scriptures than would the authors of the gospels according to Mark and Matthew. Paul was a Jew, of course, but since his mission was to the gentiles, he was likely quite familiar with the Jewish scriptures of his community, but not very concerned with aligning his evangelistic message with them. James and Simon Peter would have been much more inclined to want such an alignment.

 

[Piggy]

Radrook, are you ever going to get around to addressing the legitimate questions of Biblical scholarship I've asked you about?

 

[Radrook]

Thge Bible clearly tells us that the Jews were biblically familiar witrh the OT. l

Luke 4:16
And he came to Nazareth, where he had been brought up: and, as his custom was, he went into the synagogue on the sabbath day, and stood up for to read.


Acts 13:15
And after the reading of the law and the prophets the rulers of the synagogue sent unto them, saying, Ye men and brethren, if ye have any word of exhortation for the people, say on.

Acts 15:21
For Moses of old time hath in every city them that preach him, being read in the synagogues every sabbath day.

Anyone unfamiliar with this has absolutely no business posturing as biblically literate much less postiuring as a Bible critic. Otherwise his cover is soon-um exposed.

: )

 

[bokonon]

Thge Bible clearly tells us that the Jews were biblically familiar witrh the OT. l

Luke 4:16
And he came to Nazareth, where he had been brought up: and, as his custom was, he went into the synagogue on the sabbath day, and stood up for to read.

Doesn't say he was familiar with anything, just that he was literate. Doesn't say how often he went to the synagogue (strongly implies that it was only once a week), doesn't say how much time he spent there reading, doesn't say how extensive the reading material in the synagogue was, or whether he had access to all of it.

In short, he could have been asked to read one verse out of thousands here, and been completely unfamiliar with the verse he was reading before he read it.

Acts 13:15
And after the reading of the law and the prophets the rulers of the synagogue sent unto them, saying, Ye men and brethren, if ye have any word of exhortation for the people, say on.

Doesn't say what "the law and the prophets" consist of. I doubt they read the entire old testament out loud every time there was a reading of "the law and the prophets." Sounds like a thumbnail version, probably more like the "Apostles Creed" than anything extensive.

Acts 15:21
For Moses of old time hath in every city them that preach him, being read in the synagogues every sabbath day.

So something about Moses is read every Sunday. There's still a vast body of literature in the Old Testament which hasn't been mentioned.

Anyone unfamiliar with this has absolutely no business posturing as biblically literate much less postiuring as a Bible critic. Otherwise his cover is soon-um exposed.

Well, you've been pretty well exposed here. Your tactic is to dismiss anyone who doesn't subscribe to your interpretation, without backing up your interpretation with facts. Saying "Unless you've come to the same conclusions I have, you are unqualified to discuss the matter with me" is a facile way to avoid defending your conclusions, but it's also a transparent dodge. You're just wasting everyone's time with your litany of excuses and sidesteps.

 

[Piggy]

well you tell me what languages the writers of Matthew, John or Luke, for example would have been familiar with. What language would Paul have been familiar with?

Most likely (using the gospel names for their authors) all would have known Greek and Aramaic, and at least Matthew and Paul would have known Biblical Hebrew.

 

[Piggy]

Doesn't say he was familiar with anything, just that he was literate. Doesn't say how often he went to the synagogue (strongly implies that it was only once a week), doesn't say how much time he spent there reading, doesn't say how extensive the reading material in the synagogue was, or whether he had access to all of it.

In short, he could have been asked to read one verse out of thousands here, and been completely unfamiliar with the verse he was reading before he read it.



Doesn't say what "the law and the prophets" consist of. I doubt they read the entire old testament out loud every time there was a reading of "the law and the prophets." Sounds like a thumbnail version, probably more like the "Apostles Creed" than anything extensive.


So something about Moses is read every Sunday. There's still a vast body of literature in the Old Testament which hasn't been mentioned.


Well, you've been pretty well exposed here. Your tactic is to dismiss anyone who doesn't subscribe to your interpretation, without backing up your interpretation with facts. Saying "Unless you've come to the same conclusions I have, you are unqualified to discuss the matter with me" is a facile way to avoid defending your conclusions, but it's also a transparent dodge. You're just wasting everyone's time with your litany of excuses and sidesteps.

Well, Radrook's method, while helpful, is not strictly scholarly, of course.

The scholarly method is to look for instances where NT authors incorporate material from the Hebrew Bible (cited or uncited) into their writing, and to attempt to determine their purposes in doing so.

This would be considered in conjunction with evidence from archeology and sociology.

 

[Radrook]

Of course what the Bible says and what the godless say is very often diametrically opposed. But isn't that to be expected? After all, why would a godless person choose to believe a book that teaches of God? Better yet, why should a godless person not feel irate and feel it his obligation to denigrate that book at all costs. Even at the cost of misrepresentation of himself as knowledgeable and misrepresentation of what that religious book tells us. After all, the person is convinced that he is rendering a service to a higher cause-godlessness.


BTW

A sort of crusade in reverse-so to speak. Unfortunately, such endeavors do sometimes encounter opposition due to unexpected and annoying differences of opinion. No?

 

[Greediguts]

I doubt this.

Mark is the most Jewish of all the gospel writers.

The problem here is that in Jesus' day there were any number of scrolls held as canonical by any number of various factions.

The idea that there are "incorrect texts" to cite is an error arising from our modern perspective on what is canonical and what is not.

Understood. The use of "incorrect text" was my choice of words. I dug the book out and author states that the author of Mark was "quoting from a written document that itself was based on oral tradition rather than directly from the unstable tradition itself".

The author of Mark would appear to have knowledge of the Greek Septuagint, as he would take passages almost word-for-word from it, but would never "fact check" when he would write of Jesus referring to a story told in the scriptures. An example is when Jesus' followers pluck grain on the sabbath:
"And the Pharisees said unto him, Behold, why do they on the sabbath day that which is not lawful? And he said unto them, Have ye never read what David did, when he had need, and was an hungred, he, and they that were with him?

How he went into the house of God in the days of Abiathar the high priest, and did eat the shewbread, which is not lawful to eat but for the priests, and gave also to them which were with him?"(Mark 2:24-26).

Abiathar was actually the son of the high priest Ahimelech (I Sam. 21:1-6). Again Matthew(12:3) and Luke(6:4) correct this error by removing the reference to Abiathar.

BTW how is Mark the "most jewish"? Not exactly sure what you mean....if you could clarify please?

 

[Foster Zygote]

Well, I'm (somewhat) guilty of number 2. That was going on in this thread about heaven. He still hasn't responded to my question that I posed to him there. I was trying to keep things light....I didn't expect...a sort of...Spanish Inquisition.(Begins glancing nervously around the room)

...What?... Oh, right! Sorry to leave you hanging there...

*ahem*

NOBODY expects the Spanish Inquisition! Our chief weapon is surprise...surprise and fear...fear and surprise.... Our two weapons are fear and surprise...and ruthless efficiency.... Our three weapons are fear, surprise, and ruthless efficiency...and an almost fanatical devotion to the Pope.... Our four...no... Amongst our weapons.... Amongst our weaponry...are such elements as fear, surprise.... I'll come in again.

 

[Mark Felt]

Godless Penchant for Strawman and Evasion.

I can't be the only one stunned at the irony.

 

[Piggy]

Of course what the Bible says and what the godless say is very often diametrically opposed. But isn't that to be expected? After all, why would a godless person choose to believe a book that teaches of God? Better yet, why should a godless person not feel irate and feel it his obligation to denigrate that book at all costs. Even at the cost of misrepresentation of himself as knowledgeable and misrepresentation of what that religious book tells us. After all, the person is convinced that he is rendering a service to a higher cause-godlessness.


BTW

A sort of crusade in reverse-so to speak. Unfortunately, such endeavors do sometimes encounter opposition due to unexpected and annoying differences of opinion. No?

Of course, it's also true that what the Godly say and what the Bible says are also often diametrically opposed.

Bible scholars of all faiths -- or no faith -- don't set out to "believe" the Bible, but to understand it.

None of them are interested in "denigrating" it. Why spend one's time, one's energy, one's career, one's life studying a book that one wishes to denigrate?

Radrook, you don't seem to want to discuss Biblical scholarship or scriptural literacy at all. Instead, you appear to want to accuse those who do not share your modern theology of being "Godless" and to make baseless and insulting assumptions about their motives.

 

[Piggy]

Understood. The use of "incorrect text" was my choice of words. I dug the book out and author states that the author of Mark was "quoting from a written document that itself was based on oral tradition rather than directly from the unstable tradition itself".

The author of Mark would appear to have knowledge of the Greek Septuagint, as he would take passages almost word-for-word from it, but would never "fact check" when he would write of Jesus referring to a story told in the scriptures. An example is when Jesus' followers pluck grain on the sabbath:
"And the Pharisees said unto him, Behold, why do they on the sabbath day that which is not lawful? And he said unto them, Have ye never read what David did, when he had need, and was an hungred, he, and they that were with him?

How he went into the house of God in the days of Abiathar the high priest, and did eat the shewbread, which is not lawful to eat but for the priests, and gave also to them which were with him?"(Mark 2:24-26).

Abiathar was actually the son of the high priest Ahimelech (I Sam. 21:1-6). Again Matthew(12:3) and Luke(6:4) correct this error by removing the reference to Abiathar.

BTW how is Mark the "most jewish"? Not exactly sure what you mean....if you could clarify please?

Mark is the "most Jewish" because his theology is a clearly Jewish theology and his writings are directed at a Jewish community.

We don't see, for instance, John's Hellenistic philosophy, or Paul's sense of mission to the gentiles, or Luke's accusations against the Jews.

Mark is a Jew writing for Jews, and he sees the Jesus movement as a Jewish one.

As for errors such as the one you mention, we have to keep in mind that during the 1-2c CE, there existed a multiplicity of scrolls used by the various communities, and differences and errors of various types -- transcriptional or intentional -- were rampant.

So it's not particularly surprising to find that Mark used a source which confuses Abiathar and Ahimelech.

 

[joobz]

Of course what the Bible says and what the godless say is very often diametrically opposed. But isn't that to be expected? After all, why would a godless person choose to believe a book that teaches of God? Better yet, why should a godless person not feel irate and feel it his obligation to denigrate that book at all costs. Even at the cost of misrepresentation of himself as knowledgeable and misrepresentation of what that religious book tells us. After all, the person is convinced that he is rendering a service to a higher cause-godlessness.

Who do you think you fool with such games?
You have failed to actually answer any scholarly question that has been presented to you.

Your rants ring hollow.
Your bluster is empty.
A noisy gong, a clanging cymbal.
Your posts are noises that draw attention but fail at meaning. Without substance.

 

[bokonon]

Radrook, you don't seem to want to discuss Biblical scholarship or scriptural literacy at all. Instead, you appear to want to accuse those who do not share your modern theology of being "Godless" and to make baseless and insulting assumptions about their motives.

Bingo.

His modern theology has been shown to be at odds with the scripture he claims it's based on so often that he now finds himself backed into the corner of "I won't discuss it with anyone who doesn't agree with me." For everyone else, it's just slap on a label that makes him feel more comfortable about his choice to avoid discussion with them. The label itself doesn't matter, "godless," "false prophet," or "collaborator," the important thing is to back away quickly while trying to save face.

 

[MIKILLINI]

Godless Penchant for Strawman and Evasion.

<Snip>

Comment after placed on ignore: Radrook doesn't want to discuss the subject cause he ummm, don't have foot stand on. Tootitoottoot! Bebedeebebedeeebebedee! Toot!

Rad are you just avoiding to show examples (And what I mean by examples is well studied, researched, and discussed) that solidify your argument?
Or can you not answer the questions or examples put forth to you so they can be discussed?

 

[Frozenwolf150]

Godless Penchant for Strawman and Evasion. (snip) *Hypocritical ass-pull putting words in other people's mouths...*

How appropriate, considering that every last one of your arguments has been with no one but yourself. Thanks for demonstrating that true "scholarship" consists of imposing one's own flaws on other people, debating against straw atheists, and sitting there arguing with the imaginary voices in one's head. You think your statements are clever or convey an air of superiority, but they prove no more than the petulant complaints of a schoolchild who didn't get his way. Your arguments, if I can even call them that, are actually demolishing your own credibility; the same credibility on which you have leaned so heavily when attacking other people.


Let's look at a claim Radrook has actually made several times on this forum, and see where that falls in terms of scriptural literacy. Radrook has repeatedly argued that Satan and his demons, not God, are responsible for the problem of evil in the world. Satan is the prime evil entity, dedicated to the temptation, corruption, and destruction of mankind. This is why it's necessary for God to pass judgment and slaughter (sorry, put to sleep) people on a massive scale, from time to time. It's all Satan's fault!

The problem? There are several. First, Satan and his demons are God's creations, and therefore they can't exceed his design. If we assume God to be all-powerful or all-knowing, it makes even less sense that evil forces could pull off stunts like this behind God's back, let alone force his hand to the point where he has no choice but to spill rivers of blood.

Secondly, consider Satan's most prominent role in the bible, the book of Job. That book describes Satan as subservient to God, an agent acting on God's orders, as opposed to a rogue entity that God can't control. The only people we ever see Satan kill are in that book, and it was on God's orders; remember, it was God's idea to test Job's faith, not Satan's. (If we assume just for a second that Satan really is an uncontrollable evil being, then why the hell would God allow him to have his way, even once?) Other parts of the bible cast Satan as the one whose role is to inflict punishment on sinners. Remember that sin is an affront to God, not Satan; if Satan were evil, why would he punish people for doing what he really ought to be encouraging them to do? He is clearly working for God in all respects. Given that his name means "accuser" it's reasonable to regard Satan as the divine prosecutor who brings charges and carries out punishment against the sinners.

Whether or not you think Jewish lawyers are trustworthy is a different topic altogether.

Third, if one is going to contrast God and Satan, consider that Satan only kills a handful of people, and with God's permission. God, on the other hand, commits 99% of the evil acts described in the bible, whether by sanctioning his followers to do it, or by unleashing the holy vengeance himself. The bible never says that Satan smote the Canaanites, Amalekites, Midianites, Amorites, Moabites, etc. it credits God with smiting them.


Any religion that requires a prime evil entity to use as a scapegoat for all the world's problems, or to handwave all the inconsistencies in its own dogma, must be very shallow indeed.