judge

This is an excellent point.
There is a site somewhere which summarises where the NT agrees wit the LXX and where it agrees with the hebrew massoretic version but I cannot find it at the moment. (can anyone help?)

Anyway from what I recall the Nt quotes we have agree far more ofetn with the LXX but also at times with the hebrew that has survived.

It may be that Matthew is one of the books which agrees with the hebrew at times and with the LXX at times..
It would be good to check this.

This is my initial thoughts...I will try to find the site , or another like it.

I am not an expert on Jerome but I seem to recall that he argued that the hebrew OT should be used for his translation but others at the time disagreed.
It could also be that in his keenness to have the hebrew used he claimed that it agreed wit the hebrew whereas it may have in fact agreed at times with the hebrew and at times not.
anyway these are my initial thoughts but will continue to try t get a better answer.

here is a link to the Aramaic version

http://www.peshitta.org/pdf/Mattich1.pdf

mike_decock

I read this recently and she does detail in one chapter how John is a response to a Thomas community (and possibly Gthomas itself).

-Mike...

mike_decock

The most exhaustive collection I know of is Dennis McKinsey's Biblical Errancy. When I was deconverting, I started reading trhough this list, refuting most of his arguments, but there were a few I simply couldn't deny as true contradictions.

Yes, it is indeed subjective, especially when you allow for the "context", "translation" or "scribal error" types of handwaving. I think almost any contradiction can be rationalized in one way or another, but the more torturous it is, the more implausible the notion of inerrancy is. Personally, I came to the conclusion that if the Bible was indeed the "Word of God", it wouldn't need to be apologized for at all.

-Mike...

Jack the Bodiless

Perhaps Judas hanged himself on a loop of his own intestine after he burst open.

acronos

For me the strongest contradictions are the numerical ones because they are the hardest to weasel out of. A few examples:

(a) David took seven hundred (2 Sam. 8:4), seven thousand (1 Chron. 18:4) horsemen from Hadadezer;

(b) Ahaziah was 22 (2 Kings 8:26), 42 (2 Chron. 22:2) years old when he began to reign;

(c) Jehoiachin was 18 (2 Kings 24:8), 8 (2 Chron. 36:9) years old when he began to reign and he reigned 3 months (2 Kings 24:8), 3 months and10 days (2 Chron. 36:9);

(d) There were in Israel 8000,000 (2 Sam. 24:9); 1,1000,000 (1 Chron. 21:5) men that drew the sword and there were 500,000 (2 Sam. 24:9), 470,000 (1 Chron. 21:5) men that drew the sword in Judah;

(e) There were 550 (1 Kings 9:23), 250 (2 Chron. 8:10) chiefs of the officers that bare the rule over the people;

(f) Saul's daughter, Michal, had no sons (2 Sam. 6:23), had 5 sons (2 Sam. 21:6) during her lifetime;

Asha'man

I still prefer the multiple Genealogies.

There is no possible way to claim that they are metaphorical, since they are clearly intended to be literal history. And every possible apologetic must agree that the text we have is wrong, and simply try to find an explanation that merely minimizes the error. Claiming that one applies to Mary is still an admission that the text (in every translation we have) is incorrect, whatever the reason.

On the other hand, if you agree that the both genealogies are intended to apply to Jesus (or at least Joseph), then it becomes clear that there are total fabrications in the Bible, and it's entire credability is destroyed.

gregor

Judge

Please set forth from whence you took your quote from Jerome. Was it from the direct, translated book by Jerome? Was it from a published secondary source. Was it from a web-site?

It clearly appears from the two lines of posts that what you posted was not an accurate translation of Jerome.

Please explain the translation differences as well as your take on the arguments for another Matthew.

Amaleq13

Let's use all the stories: A bloated Judas gets hit by a chariot, he splits open, then hangs himself with a loop of his own intestine.

Harmony at last!

Amos

Matthew is the Jewish perspective and the genealogy of Jesus Christ was from family records. It concludes that Jesus, who is called the messiah, was born of Mary and that Joseph was the husband of Mary.

Note that it does not say that Jesus was the Messiah but just that he was called the Messiah as if to say that the title Messiah was born to Joseph and Mary and that we should let the rest of the story tell us who Jesus was according to Matthew.

In Luke the genealogy is given just after the dove descended upon Jesus and this suggests that it came to him by inspiration and not from records. Here it does not say that he was the son of Joseph but that it was "supposed" that he was the son of Joseph which is yet another enigma about who Jesus actually was and, again, we should let the rest of the story tell us who Jesus was according to Luke.

Matthew takes us from Abraham, who is the founding father of Judaism, along the father side all the way to Jesus and Luke takes us from Jesus all the way back to God. Notice that Luke goes past Abraham to God on the son side to indicate that Catholicsm is rightfully a grafted branch into Judaism and from there is inspired by God to become the next religion of choice. It just shows that the Catholic church is fortified with the uninterrupted inspired presence of God and we therefore have Christ as the God of our religion instead of the God of Abraham, Isaak and Jacob.

One must wonder if Luther should not have thought of this because it validates the term "lost brethren."

That's all.

Mageth

I believe you are correct. I read both back-to-back, and they tend to run together (Beyond Belief goes over some of the same ground).