Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Juststeve · 09-16-2010, 08:58 AM

Spam:

May I call you Spam, or is that too familiar?

The evidence suggests that he used the Septuagint. Whether or not he was familiar with the real deal I don't know.

Steve

Toto · 09-16-2010, 09:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GakuseiDon

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

That quote from Zindler is correct in pointing out that Matthew was wrong.

Then, if Zindler is correct that Matt's linkage between the passage in Judges and Jesus being from Nazareth is a stretch, doesn't that weaken the force of the argument that the mythicist Matt used Judges to create Nazareth as a hometown for Jesus?

No.

Juststeve · 09-16-2010, 09:10 AM

No to which question?

Is it no Zindler is not correct, or

Is it no, it doesn't weaken your case?

Steve

spamandham · 09-16-2010, 09:22 AM

Sure, Spam is fine.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Juststeve

Spam:

May I call you Spam, or is that too familiar?

The evidence suggests that he used the Septuagint. Whether or not he was familiar with the real deal I don't know.

Steve

Ok, is it your contention then that Matthew used *only* the Septuagint?

Juststeve · 09-16-2010, 09:34 AM

Spam:

As to whether he used "only" the Septuagint I have to be agnostic. There are quotations in Matthew and in Paul as well that are clearly from the Septuagint. Those are places where the Septuagint mistranslates the original and that mistranslation is carried into the Christian documents. There are other places where the language could have come from either the Hebrew or the Septuagint because the Septuagint was faithful to the original. .
I don't have the necessary learning to say more on that issue. I read Hebrew but not Greek. I am therefore at the disadvantage of reading the Christian documents in English and trying to decide whether the original was Hebrew translated into Greek then into English or whether their original source was the Septuagint.

I’m sure you can appreciate the problem.

Steve

spamandham · 09-16-2010, 09:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Juststeve

Spam:

As to whether he used "only" the Septuagint I have to be agnostic. There are quotations in Matthew and in Paul as well that are clearly from the Septuagint. Those are places where the Septuagint mistranslates the original and that mistranslation is carried into the Christian documents.

Are you aware of the scholarly consensus that Matthew also used the Book of Enoch as a source (particulartly in regard to prophecy), and if so, do you disagree with that consensus?

Juststeve · 09-16-2010, 10:01 AM

Spam:

I have no opinion but it might have happened. Enoch was popular at the time, if we are in agreement about when the time was, circa 80 C.E. If he quotes from Enoch that would resolve the point and it would be easy to recognize. Does he?

Steve

aa5874 · 09-16-2010, 10:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GakuseiDon

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Bzzzt. Wrong.

Modern scholars have shown literary dependence between Mark's gospel and parts of the Hebrew Scriptures. Very few of these scholars admit to being mythicists.

That's not what I mean. Take Matt 2:23:

"... that what was spoken through the prophets might be fulfilled, 'He shall be called a Nazarene.'".

Some think it refers to Judges 13:5:

"For, lo, thou shalt conceive, and bear a son; and no razor shall come on his head: for the child shall be a Nazarite unto God from the womb: and he shall begin to deliver Israel out of the hand of the Philistines. ".

Here is what Frank Zindler writes:
http://www.atheists.org/Nativity_-_T...Birth_of_Jesus

The first alleged OT prophecy of Jesus that I wish to consider is in Matt. 2:23. After claiming that Jesus and his family returned from Egypt to Nazareth instead of Bethlehem, Matthew comments, "this was to fulfill the words spoken through the prophet: 'He shall be called a Nazarene.'"

Unfortunately for our evangelist, there is no such prophecy to be found in the entire OT. In fact, the village of Nazareth is completely unknown before the writing of the NT. Now you might think that this would be very embarrassing to theologians and the makers of bibles. But in fact, such inconveniences don't seem to faze them at all. In the margin of my King James bible, right beside Matthew's Nazarene pseudoquotation, is a reference to Judges 13:5 -- allegedly the source of the quote.

Turning to Judges Chapter 13, what do we find? Do we find anything about Nazareth? Do we find anything about a Messiah? Do we find anything at all referring to the time of Jesus? You guessed it! The answer is "no"! We do, however, find a prophecy addressed to the barren wife of a guy named Manoah, telling her that despite her sterility, she is going to become the mother of Samson. The passage reads, "You will conceive and give birth to a son, and no razor shall touch his head, for the boy is to be a nazirite consecrated to God from the day of his birth."

Our evangelist either did not know that the Hebrew word nazir was unrelated to the Aramaic-Greek place-name Nazara or Nazareth, or he was dishonestly trying to fool his readers. A nazirite is merely a hippy-type ascetic -- devoted to god and the avoidance of alcohol and personal hygiene. A nazirite is not the same thing as a Nazarene.

So, for Zindler, the evangelist is either ignorant or dishonestly trying to fool his readers. But if the mythicist says that Matthew used Judges to make up a hometown for Jesus (like show_no_mercy did earlier in this thread), is he not doing the same thing? Why does it suddenly make sense when the mythicist does it?

Based on the very passage that you provided Zindler was NOT the one who says Matthew used Judges. The reference to Judges was found in his KJV Bible.

Quote:

...In the margin of my King James bible, right beside Matthew's Nazarene pseudoquotation, is a reference to Judges 13:5 -- allegedly the source of the quote....

Quote:

Originally Posted by GakuseiDon

..Let's put it this way: If there really were a Jesus of Nazareth, would he have fulfilled the 'prophecy' of Judges 13:5? Either there is some logic behind using it (in which case Zindler is wrong and the evangelist is right) or there is no logic in using it (which weakens the mythicist argument about the source of Nazareth).

You appear to have deliberately made claims about Zindler that is just not true. The reference to Judges about "nazarite" is from his KJV Bible and being a "nazarite" is NOT related to any specific geographical location or a CITY of Nazareth.

It is the author of gMatthew or the author of the reference in KJV Bible that are in ERROR.

And further, there is NO CITY called Nazareth in the KJV OT.

spamandham · 09-16-2010, 10:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Juststeve

Spam:

I have no opinion but it might have happened. Enoch was popular at the time, if we are in agreement about when the time was, circa 80 C.E. If he quotes from Enoch that would resolve the point and it would be easy to recognize. Does he?

Steve

I don't know if he verbatim quotes the book of Enoch, but based on similarity of themes not found in the Septuagint, scholarly consensus is that it is one of the sources he used.

Other sources outside the Septuagint generally accepted to have been used by Matthew include:

1. Either Q or Mark
2. Oral tradition

WVIncagold · 09-16-2010, 10:34 AM

Harry Dresden lives in Chicago. That does not mean there is a wizard for Hire private eye livng and working in Chicago who suppiles pizza to pixies.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

09-16-2010, 08:58 AM	#101
Juststeve Senior Member Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: Dallas Texas Posts: 758	Spam: May I call you Spam, or is that too familiar? The evidence suggests that he used the Septuagint. Whether or not he was familiar with the real deal I don't know. Steve

09-16-2010, 09:10 AM	#103
Juststeve Senior Member Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: Dallas Texas Posts: 758	No to which question? Is it no Zindler is not correct, or Is it no, it doesn't weaken your case? Steve

09-16-2010, 09:34 AM	#105
Juststeve Senior Member Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: Dallas Texas Posts: 758	Spam: As to whether he used "only" the Septuagint I have to be agnostic. There are quotations in Matthew and in Paul as well that are clearly from the Septuagint. Those are places where the Septuagint mistranslates the original and that mistranslation is carried into the Christian documents. There are other places where the language could have come from either the Hebrew or the Septuagint because the Septuagint was faithful to the original. . I don't have the necessary learning to say more on that issue. I read Hebrew but not Greek. I am therefore at the disadvantage of reading the Christian documents in English and trying to decide whether the original was Hebrew translated into Greek then into English or whether their original source was the Septuagint. I’m sure you can appreciate the problem. Steve

09-16-2010, 10:01 AM	#107
Juststeve Senior Member Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: Dallas Texas Posts: 758	Spam: I have no opinion but it might have happened. Enoch was popular at the time, if we are in agreement about when the time was, circa 80 C.E. If he quotes from Enoch that would resolve the point and it would be easy to recognize. Does he? Steve

09-16-2010, 10:34 AM	#110
WVIncagold Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2007 Location: West Virginina Posts: 4,349	Harry Dresden lives in Chicago. That does not mean there is a wizard for Hire private eye livng and working in Chicago who suppiles pizza to pixies.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.