WinAce

This is where I mention my parody of improbable Bible inerrantists, "There are no Contradictions in Star Trek".

Yuri Kuchinsky

Yes, CX, but, still and all, you'd have to admit that some of them "real biblical scholars" are more sceptical than some others...

Quote:

Some of them (perhaps most) are Xian but that doesn't a priori invalidate their scholarship. Here's my short list: Israel Finkelstein Elaine Pagels Udo Schnelle Burton Mack Michael Goulder John Dominic Crossan Bruce Metzger Kurt Aland Raymond Brown

Of these, I would certainly describe,

Bruce Metzger,
Kurt Aland, and
Raymond Brown

as the very opposite of "sceptics". These are simply mainstream hacks. Especially Metzger and Aland, I would describe as Alexandrian drones. In all their writings, I've never seen even a slight suggestion that their Alexandrian baby might not be the "original text".

And the real sceptics?

Alfred Loisy
George Howard
Boismard
Morton Smith
"The Journal of Higher Criticism" folks

I can name a few more, but, I'm afraid, because they are dissidents, their names wouldn't be very well known to the people here.

Regards,

Yuri.

yguy

Evangelion,

You have yet to respond to my last post in this thread regarding the daughter of Jephthah:

http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.p...5&pagenumber=3

KnightWhoSaysNi

Perhaps it might be better to neglect McKinsey:

How Not to Argue Against the Historicity and Resurrection of Jesus

Evangelion

yguy - you presented a quote from Strong's Concordance, which is hopelessly outdated (it was written in the 19th Century) and has since been superceded.

The Keil-Delitzsch Commentary of the Old Testament clearly states:

• Jdg 11:39-40 - At the end of two months she returned to her father again, “and he did to her the vow that he had vowed, and she knew no man.”
  In consequence of this act of Jephthah and his daughter, “it became an ordinance (a standing custom) in Israel: from year to year (see Exo_13:10) the daughters of Israel go to praise the daughter of Jephthah the Gileadite four days in the year.
  
  תּנּה does not mean θρηνειν, to lament or bewail (lxx, Chald., etc.), but to praise, as R. Tanchum and others maintain.

John Gill's Commentary likewise:

• Jdg 11:40 - That the daughters of Israel went yearly to lament the daughter of Jephthah the Gileadite,....
  Either the death of her, as some, or her virginity, as others; though the word used may signify to talk and discourse with her, to hold a confabulation with her, and comfort her, as Kimchi and Ben Melech interpret it; to bring her some news, and tell her some diverting stories, to cheer and refresh her in her solitude.
  
  De Dieu observes, that the word signifies in the Arabic language to "praise", or speak in commendation of a person or thing; and indeed in this sense it seems to be used in this book, Jdg_5:11, "they shall rehearse", that is, with praise and thanksgiving, "the righteous acts of the Lord";
  
  and so the daughters of Israel went every year to the place where the daughter of Jephthah was, to speak in the praise of her, of her heroism, in so cheerfully submitting to her father's vow, and expressing such gratitude and joy at the same time for victory over the enemies of Israel.

In the KJV, a marginal note correctly provides "to talk with" as an alternative to "lament." The lamed (&#1500) attached to the noun "daughter" is often translated as the word "to", being also translated as "at," "in," "in reference to," "of," "by," and other words.

Rabbinical commentaries have traditionally disagreed on the fate of Jepthah's daughter, with some saying that she lived and others arguing that she died. However, the textual evidence for her continued existence is strong.

yguy

The Bible was written before the first century, so if Strong's is hopelessly outdated, what does that make the Bible?

If you're implying that these other commentaries are based on information not available to Strong - other than perhaps the fact that readers would naturally recoil at the idea that God would induce a man to sacrifice his daughter - clue us in. If not the implication of obsolescence is meritless.

IOW, nobody really knows what the passage means. How convenient for those whose faith rests on the inerrancy of the Bible.

Evangelion

Fallacy of equivocation. Irrelevant.

Yes, these other commentaries are based upon information not available to Strong. That is demonstrably true. Strong's Concordance has been superceded by modern scholarship. That is also demonstrably true.

Alas, it is not a mere "implication" of obsolescence; it is a demonstrable fact. Your ignorance of adequate scholarship is no concern of mine. If you wish to verify the irrelevance of Strong's Concordance, I suggest that you contact my good friend Ronald Fay (Teaching Fellow of New Testament at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, Illinois.)

And if you wish to criticise the Bible in future, may I suggest that you take a little time to familiarise yourself with the right tools for the job? It will greatly assist your credibility.

No, there are simply two schools of thought on the matter. But the textual argument is far more logical. So I can understand your preference for the alternative...

Straw man. My faith does not rest upon the inerrancy of the Bible. But you didn't know that either, did you?

Never mind.

yguy

Are there two schools of thought about whether Jesus is the Son of God? No, because the Bible is clear on that. Likewise, if the Bible were as clear on the matter of Jephthah, you wouldn't have two schools of thought about it.

According to the school of thought you evidently adhere to, I have no doubt that it is. An idea can easily be logical without being true.

Bad try.