Ted Hoffman

Tell you what, why dont you email Brown and ask him whether he agrees with the tenor of my argument. Who knows, since there is life after death, he may even email you posthumously.
And if he doesnt respond to your email, take his silence to be a confirmation that he agrees with you and that I have grossly misrepresented him.
Brown's book is easily available to anyone who is interested in checking and I dont want to dignify your silly insinuations with a response. It appears that all you are capable of is insinuating. It means you have nothing to present. If you did, you would have posted it and would not be fishing.

Chris Weimer

You're avoidance of the issue is telling.

Steven Avery

Hi Folks,

After a few irrelevancies and conjectures we get ..

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin There's just no room in the Matthean version but that Mary bore the child in his house after he'd received her as his family.

No "room" in Matthew's account ? Joseph and Mary must have been living in Bethlehem all the time ? Nonsense. Do you read the Matthew text as a monthly or daily diary ?

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin The verb is actually katoikew, for which S&L give 1. settle in, colonize; 2. settle, dwell ... esp. of non-citizens.

Non-citizens ?
What does that even mean in this context.

Matthew 4:13
And leaving Nazareth,
he came and dwelt in Capernaum,
which is upon the sea coast,
in the borders of Zabulon and Nephthalim:

So Jesus was not a "citizen" of Capernaum ?
And if he was a "citizen" of Caparnaum what word would be used ?

Acts 2:5
And there were dwelling at Jerusalem Jews,
devout men,
out of every nation under heaven.

These men were not "citizens" of Jerusalem ?
And if they were "citizens" what word would be used ?
And similar usages are throughout Acts.

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin If you think this way, seriously, why do you deign to post on IIDB?

In the midst of a lot of chaff in IIDB discussions there is some wheat and some good discussions and some decent research and referencing. And a few posters actually have solid, helpful dialog.

Even the 4 BC discussion referenced above is interesting (although Sanders is pretty well covered with the 'circa' which could allow for 3-4 years so my 'overstatement' comment is retractable .. the multi-fallacious and inconsistent Carrian view would come into play if one wanted to contend against the Sanders statement).

However all of that quibble-semantics-parsing-politics we see here of the "c. 4 BCE" comment of Sanders is far less relevant than the error that Sanders made in assuming that there was no genealogical system in place in 1st century Israel and going into absurd flights of numerical fancy based on his own unstated but assumed and dubious conjecture.

The non-lineage-system and his super-weak time claim (where you say that Matthew had no "room" for a Nazareth home and family prior to Bethlehem for Joseph and Mary) are two of the main areas upon which Sanders bases his claim of Luke or Matthew error. One is a totally unjustified assumption (Nazareth-Bethlehem) while the genealogical assumption is a surprising and far-reaching implied claim that must be stated clearly and directly if it is going to be used. And Sanders did not do that.

And if I were not posting it is likely the major Sanders twisting of assuming an unstated major claim would not have even been noticed on IIDB.

So I 'deign' to post on IIDB to learn .. and to share.

Shalom,
Steven Avery

Ted Hoffman

What issue do you think I am avoiding Chris? Maybe you read Gibson better than I do.

jgibson000

Have you actually read Sanders? Or are you, like Ted/Jacob with Brown, just relying on a second hand source for what he says on the "infancy narratives"?

JG

spin

You simply avoided reading the text without importing Luke. Please reread the text of Matt. You'll find Joseph takes "possession" Mary as his wife. She gives birth. The birth is in Bethlehem. No traveling. The magi went to the "house" where she gave birth. When they come back from Egypt they couldn't return to Judea because of Archelaus, so they went to live in Galilee.

Yup, that's from L&S. Just have a look. And if you have problems with it, take it up with them. I merely cited the common understanding.

It means that they weren't originally from the place, ie they didn't go back there; they went there for the first time to live.

Not before he moved there.

He went there.

You need to understand context. Notice the verb combination it was not a durative verb that was being indicated in Mt 2:23, he came and dwelt... ie he took up dwelling. This is the same in Mt 4:13. In Acts 2:5 the verb is clearly durative. It is not the inception of the act of dwelling but the continuity at the time.

I wish I could say the same for your postings.

Your perversions of what people say have no reflection of what they actually said. I asked you to reflect on the text and indicate from the text alone how you could divine a change of location from that text. Are you able to do that or not? If so, I'll read it, if you deign to post it.

The fact that they are new arrivals to Nazareth according to the text is merely a matter of reading and understanding. It is there as I pointed out.

Why are you telling me this? It has nothing to do with the discussion between us.

You don't share anything. You merely apologize. You have no insights into the text. You are too busy defending your image of it. You can't read an opinion and give it a fair reading because of your prior commitments. What can you share when you don't seem to have anything to share with anyone who doesn't hold your beliefs?


spin

JoeWallack

JW:
Ted, I think Brown would deserve more criticism here than praise for the extent to which I think he would agree with Sanders. Gibson has not presented the most relevant comments of Brown here but I'm sure that was not intentional.

Page 666 of his classic, The Birth of the Messiah:

"My own judgment was that Luke confused the troubled times accompanying the death of Herod ten years previously."

The same Apologetic nonsense as Sanders, discrediting (without proper evidence) "Luke's" birth dating of c. 6CE as a serious contradiction to "Matthew's" supposed birth dating. Sanders/Brown share the same fatal flaw here in their arguments as Mainstream Christian bible scholarship, being officially Neutral concerning the Impossible (by the Way Jeffrey, are you ever going to give your position on this subject?). Since both Infancy Narratives consist primarily of the Impossible there is serious doubt in each regarding any possible claim such as birth date. This argument is exponentially better evidence than any other evidence considered by Sanders/Brown.

Actually in the Impossible category "Matthew" is much more impossible than "Luke" as Brown indicates. Their Apology is based on relatively little evidence that there was supposedly some confusion in ancient times between c. 4 BCE and c. 6 CE. It is just a thinly disguised Apology to seize on some reason, any reason, to impeach one of the dates thereby posturing a relatively definite date for the birth of Jesus.

Brown is most relevant here on page 607:

"A. Date of Jesus' Birth (before Herod's death in 4 B.C.). According to Matt, Jesus was born "in the days of Herod the king" (and Luke 1:5 places the annunciation of JBap's conception "in the days of herod, king of Judea"). Above (166-67) there was only a brief note pertaining to the date of Herod the Great's death: "While other possibillities are 5 B.C. and 1 B.C., the best evidence favors March/April 4 B.C. [ = 750 A.U.C.]." I do not have a major commitment to that date, but recent discussions offer no compelling reason to change despite some contrary voices."

Note the significant difference here between Brown and Sanders. Brown is only postulating a date for Herod the Great's death because that is what the secular references refer to. Sanders is going beyond this and postulating the date of Jesus' birth. This is representative of the superiority of Brown's scholarship over Sanders. Brown's term here that I think he would use to describe Sanders effort is "overhistoricizing".

Overall Ted, I think another righteous observation on your part, that Sanders c. 4 BCE almost beyond dispute is just another misleading, overstated, criminally negligent, fraudulent and dishonest conclusion by mainstream Christian Bible scholarship that is not supported by the related argument. Just another Apology, a step removed from claiming that "Luke" meant 4 BCE. A concession that "Luke" is in error but discrediting of her witness as a contradiction to "Matthew" in order to cling to a supposedly definite historical fact of Jesus, he was born c. 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1 BC (before his birth).

I think your secondary point is correct as well, Brown would disagree with Sanders statement of c. 4 BCE almost beyond dispute. It would be nice though Ted if you could explain why. Do you think I enjoy demonstrating that Jeffrey is wrong?



Joseph

BIRTH, n.
The first and direst of all disasters. As to the nature of it there appears to be no uniformity. Castor and Pollux were born from the egg. Pallas came out of a skull. Galatea was once a block of stone. Peresilis, who wrote in the tenth century, avers that he grew up out of the ground where a priest had spilled holy water. It is known that Arimaxus was derived from a hole in the earth, made by a stroke of lightning. Leucomedon was the son of a cavern in Mount Aetna, and I have myself seen a man come out of a wine cellar.

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php/Main_Page

mountainman

To be complete about this analysis, once again, it is
necessary to be aware that the birth of the first century
author, philosopher and neo-pythagorean sage Apollonius
of Tyana is determined to be 4 BCE.

Elsewhere, the historicity of Jesus and Apollonius are
compared - and Apollonius appears "more authentic".

Perhaps the 4 BCE date is related to the memory of
the historical author Apollonius? Eusebius was at one
time very interested in the failings of Apollonius as a
miracle-maker, but at the same time quotes him
generously "On the avoidance of Sacrifice".

jgibson000

Determined by whom? Would you please document this claim?

JG

Doug Shaver

I took a math class last quarter in which we had to prove lots of negatives. Shall I tell the professor that he was asking us to do the impossible?