Freethought & Rationalism Archive

rhutchin · 01-08-2010, 06:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by avi

Quote:

Originally Posted by Johnny Skeptic

Message to rhutchin: If we may get back on topic, the title of this thread is "Inauthentic sayings of Jesus." In your opinion, how should historians try to establish what Jesus said, and what Jesus did not say?

I endeavored to follow this prescription:

Quote:

Originally Posted by rhutchin

However, let's deal with the situation in the byzantine text where we read "the" father in one place and "my" father in another. I don't have a problem here because one of my sons refers to me as "the" father at various times and at other times as "my" father. He is usually referring to my authority and a particular decision I made (especially if he does not like it) when he refers to me as "the" father and will refer to me as "my" father when introducing me to someone
I sense a distinction like that between the byzantine rendering of John 14:28 and John 10:30.

Then, is it generally acceptable to employ one's own customs and habits, in attempting to interpret the original meaning of those who wrote the new testament?

I don't think that this example should be identified with my personal customs and habits. I think my son used the terms as they might easily be used within the general population. I don't think it unusual that people speak of those using their authority (even within the family) different from the way they may speak of those same people in a more personal setting. I don't see this as being out of the ordinary. However, it was offered not as the definitive explanation of what we find in John but to illustrate that there are ways to explain it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by avi

I am troubled by your casual reply to my query about the distinction between the two texts, since, in my view, perhaps incorrect, there is a significant theological distinction between Jesus uttering "my father", and saying "the father". I appreciate, and smiled, with your casual, and friendly response, invoking your own children's behaviour, but, I doubt that this sort of analysis is productive in the long run.

Your comment was the first time I had ever seen it. There was not much that came to mind on the spur of the moment as I typed a response.

Quote:

Originally Posted by avi

In other words, I think we ought to attempt to dispassionately analyze the Greek writings, attributed to Jesus, in order to clarify not only which version is correct, but, more importantly, to ascertain, to the best of our ability, the message that Jesus was attempting to convey to his listeners...

I like that.

Quote:

Originally Posted by avi

I was also dissatisfied with your explanation of why Jesus apparently refutes himself, having claimed in John 10:30, to be "one" with God, then, explicitly denying such a relationship in John 14:28. In my uninformed opinion, this is a remarkable contradiction, worthy of a detailed explanation.

I can think of two reasons for this disparity.

I guess both are incorrect, but that's why I am posting this, to gain a better explanation for what seems to me to be an enormous hurdle.

1.
Jesus says he is subservient to "the" father (not "my" father, if the HortWestcott version accurately portrays the ink drying from John's quill)
AFTER having insisted that he and the father are one, i.e. identical.

The Greeks (perhaps not the Hebrews) were nothing if not mathematically precise. They constructed enormous cities, conquered huge empires, and constructed entire cities from the desert sands, in a brief minute of time. They accomplished these incredible feats of engineering wizardry because of a rock solid foundation in mathematics. So, to my way of thinking, coming not from a biblical background, the notion that

X = Y

and

X < Y

are both true, is a falsehood.

I believe, obviously without proof, that no educated Greek citizen would have accepted this dichotomy either.

Therefore, I conclude, as the first possible explanation, that this bizarre situation represents an anomaly, i.e. that "John" did not intend to make this distinction. Whether the error represents a casual blunder by him, or by one of the scribes copying his work, is irrelevant to me, it is, in the first instance, a simple blunder, an unintended mistake by someone.

2. Alternatively, it is not a blunder, but rather, a deliberate attempt to represent Jesus as a person of dual personality. This could be some sort of "gnostic" influence, or some kind of clue, or wink, some notion that someone is pulling our leg....

I hope you can address these two points with a more elaborate explanation: do you consider that the distinction between 10:30 and 14:28 is a mere error, or do you see it as something more distinct? Can Jesus really be so intellectually deficient that he could not perceive the dichotomy between the two phrases? In your view, rhutchin, was it not evident to Jesus, that he was contradicting himself, in a serious way, a contradiction which no intelligent, educated, Greek citizen would have committed, save in jest?

If you cannot accept the validity of the Hort Westcott text, can you explain why you prefer the Byzantine version?

If you believe that the proper text is "my" father, instead of "the" father, as I assert represents the original text from John, can you explain the theological consequences of that derivative?

Let me do some research and get back to you.

Johnny Skeptic · 01-08-2010, 08:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Johnny Skeptic

Message to rhutchin: If we may get back on topic, the title of this thread is "Inauthentic sayings of Jesus." In your opinion, how should historians try to establish what Jesus said, and what Jesus did not say?

Quote:

Originally Posted by rhutchin

Read the Bible and see what people wrote that He said.

How does reading the Bible specifically identify what Jesus said, and what he did not say?

If some Gospel writers got creative, and made up some non-inspired writings that were innocent but inaccurate revelations, what evidence would suggest that that happened? I assume that innocent but inaccurate revelations are common in many religious texts.

rhutchin · 01-09-2010, 03:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Deus Ex

Quote:

Originally Posted by rhutchin

Quote:

Originally Posted by Johnny Skeptic

In your opinion, how should historians try to establish what Jesus said, and what Jesus did not say?

Read the Bible and see what people wrote that He said.

How do you know which parts that he actually said and which parts are legendary embellishment?

Within the context of the Bible, there would be no legendary embellishments. The presumption would be that Jesus said the things attributed to Him absent information to the contrary.

rhutchin · 01-09-2010, 03:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Johnny Skeptic

Quote:

Originally Posted by rhutchin

Quote:

Originally Posted by Johnny Skeptic

In your opinion, how should historians try to establish what Jesus said, and what Jesus did not say?

Read the Bible and see what people wrote that He said.

How does reading the Bible specifically identify what Jesus said, and what he did not say?

If some Gospel writers got creative, and made up some non-inspired writings that were innocent but inaccurate revelations, what evidence would suggest that that happened? I assume that innocent but inaccurate revelations are common in many religious texts.

As you read the Bible, it is pretty clear what Jesus said although there are some passages when it is not clear where Jesus stopped speaking and the author is adding information. For the most part, that which Jesus said is easy to identify.

If the Gospel writers got creative, there is no way that we would know it. We presume that Jesus said the things attributed to Him absent information to the contrary.

Deus Ex · 01-09-2010, 03:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rhutchin

Quote:

Originally Posted by Deus Ex

How do you know which parts that he actually said and which parts are legendary embellishment?

Within the context of the Bible, there would be no legendary embellishments. The presumption would be that Jesus said the things attributed to Him absent information to the contrary.

It is not my presumption that everything in the bible is historical. I am asking how you know that it is all historically true. Why presume that your current bible is one hundred percent historically accurate?

rhutchin · 01-09-2010, 03:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by avi

Quote:

Originally Posted by rhutchin

However, let's deal with the situation in the byzantine text where we read "the" father in one place and "my" father in another. I don't have a problem here because one of my sons refers to me as "the" father at various times and at other times as "my" father. He is usually referring to my authority and a particular decision I made (especially if he does not like it) when he refers to me as "the" father and will refer to me as "my" father when introducing me to someone
I sense a distinction like that between the byzantine rendering of John 14:28 and John 10:30.

...
I was also dissatisfied with your explanation of why Jesus apparently refutes himself, having claimed in John 10:30, to be "one" with God, then, explicitly denying such a relationship in John 14:28. In my uninformed opinion, this is a remarkable contradiction, worthy of a detailed explanation.

I can think of two reasons for this disparity.

I guess both are incorrect, but that's why I am posting this, to gain a better explanation for what seems to me to be an enormous hurdle.

1.
Jesus says he is subservient to "the" father (not "my" father, if the HortWestcott version accurately portrays the ink drying from John's quill)
AFTER having insisted that he and the father are one, i.e. identical.

...

Therefore, I conclude, as the first possible explanation, that this bizarre situation represents an anomaly, i.e. that "John" did not intend to make this distinction. Whether the error represents a casual blunder by him, or by one of the scribes copying his work, is irrelevant to me, it is, in the first instance, a simple blunder, an unintended mistake by someone.

2. Alternatively, it is not a blunder, but rather, a deliberate attempt to represent Jesus as a person of dual personality. This could be some sort of "gnostic" influence, or some kind of clue, or wink, some notion that someone is pulling our leg....

I hope you can address these two points with a more elaborate explanation: do you consider that the distinction between 10:30 and 14:28 is a mere error, or do you see it as something more distinct? Can Jesus really be so intellectually deficient that he could not perceive the dichotomy between the two phrases? In your view, rhutchin, was it not evident to Jesus, that he was contradicting himself, in a serious way, a contradiction which no intelligent, educated, Greek citizen would have committed, save in jest?

Within the book of John, Jesus refers to "the" father here (I used the byzantine text to search on as I have that and not the Nestle-Aland edition which I believe is based on Hort Westcott):

Joh 5:19 Then answered Jesus and said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do: for what things soever he doeth, these also doeth the Son likewise.
Joh 5:23 That all men should honour the Son, even as they honour the Father. He that honoureth not the Son honoureth not the Father which hath sent him.
Joh 5:45 Do not think that I will accuse you to the Father: there is one that accuseth you, even Moses, in whom ye trust.
Joh 6:46 Not that any man hath seen the Father, save he which is of God, he hath seen the Father.
Joh 6:57 As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father: so he that eateth me, even he shall live by me.
Joh 10:15 As the Father knoweth me, even so know I the Father: and I lay down my life for the sheep.
Joh 14:6 Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh untothe Father, but by me.
Joh 14:9 Jesus saith unto him, Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me, Philip? he that hath seen me hath seen the Father; and how sayest thou then, Shew us the Father?
Joh 14:16 And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever;
Joh 14:28 Ye have heard how I said unto you, I go away, and come again unto you. If ye loved me, ye would rejoice, because I said, I go unto the Father: for my Father is greater than I.
Joh 14:31 But that the world may know that I love the Father; and as the Father gave me commandment, even so I do. Arise, let us go hence.
Joh 15:16 Ye have not chosen me, but I have chosen you, and ordained you, that ye should go and bring forth fruit, and that your fruit should remain: that whatsoever ye shall ask of the Father in my name, he may give it you.
Joh 16:3 And these things will they do unto you, because they have not known the Father, nor me.
Joh 16:16 A little while, and ye shall not see me: and again, a little while, and ye shall see me, because I go to the Father.
Joh 16:23 And in that day ye shall ask me nothing. Verily, verily, I say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall ask the Father in my name, he will give it you.
Joh 16:26 At that day ye shall ask in my name: and I say not unto you, that I will pray the Father for you:
Joh 16:28 I came forth from the Father, and am come into the world: again, I leave the world, and go to the Father.

Jesus refers to "my" father here:

Joh 5:17 But Jesus answered them, My Father worketh hitherto, and I work.
Joh 6:32 Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Moses gave you not that bread from heaven; but my Father giveth you the true bread from heaven.
Joh 8:28 Then said Jesus unto them, When ye have lifted up the Son of man, then shall ye know that I am he, and that I do nothing of myself; but as my Father hath taught me, I speak these things.
Joh 8:54 Jesus answered, If I honour myself, my honour is nothing: it is my Father that honoureth me; of whom ye say, that he is your God:
Joh 10:29 My Father, which gave them me, is greater than all; and no man is able to pluck them out of my Father’s hand.
Joh 14:23 Jesus answered and said unto him, If a man love me, he will keep my words: and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him.
Joh 14:28 Ye have heard how I said unto you, I go away, and come again unto you. If ye loved me, ye would rejoice, because I said, I go unto the Father: for my Father is greater than I.
Joh 15:1 I am the true vine, and my Father is the husbandman.
Joh 15:8 Herein is my Father glorified, that ye bear much fruit; so shall ye be my disciples.

Instances where "the" father and "my" father appear together in the same context.

John 5
17 But Jesus answered them, My Father worketh hitherto, and I work.
18 Therefore the Jews sought the more to kill him, because he not only had broken the sabbath, but said also that God was his Father, making himself equal with God.
19 Then answered Jesus and said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do: for what things soever he doeth, these also doeth the Son likewise.
20 For the Father loveth the Son,...

John 6
32 Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Moses gave you not that bread from heaven; but my Father giveth you the true bread from heaven...
34 Then said they unto him, Lord, evermore give us this bread.
35 And Jesus said unto them, I am the bread of life:...
41 The Jews then murmured at him, because he said, I am the bread which came down from heaven...
43 Jesus therefore answered and said unto them, Murmur not among yourselves.
44 No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day.
45 It is written in the prophets, And they shall be all taught of God. Every man therefore that hath heard, and hath learned of the Father, cometh unto me.
46 Not that any man hath seen the Father, save he which is of God, he hath seen the Father.

Joh 14:28 Ye have heard how I said unto you, I go away, and come again unto you. If ye loved me, ye would rejoice, because I said, I go unto the Father: for my Father is greater than I.

Given that Jesus uses the terms "my father" and "the father" with some regularity, I am not inclined to see the problems that you see. I don't think math contributes anything to our understanding here. Just looking at the verses, I don't see a particular reason for Jesus to say "my father" in one instance and "the father" in another.

Quote:

Originally Posted by avi

If you cannot accept the validity of the Hort Westcott text, can you explain why you prefer the Byzantine version?

Basically, I read stuff by John Burgon and thought he knew what he was talking about.

Quote:

Originally Posted by avi

If you believe that the proper text is "my" father, instead of "the" father, as I assert represents the original text from John, can you explain the theological consequences of that derivative?

I don't really see any theological consequences.

rhutchin · 01-09-2010, 04:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Deus Ex

Quote:

Originally Posted by rhutchin

Within the context of the Bible, there would be no legendary embellishments. The presumption would be that Jesus said the things attributed to Him absent information to the contrary.

It is not my presumption that everything in the bible is historical. I am asking how you know that it is all historically true. Why presume that your current bible is one hundred percent historically accurate?

Why do you presume that the Bible is not historical?

That it is historically true is a presumption that I make. I cannot prove it absent going back into the past and personally viewing the events that are described.

Deus Ex · 01-09-2010, 05:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rhutchin

Why do you presume that the Bible is not historical?

I believe that the bible contains some historical accuracy.
Let's narrow our focus off of the entire bible to just the NT gospel accounts.

A)We have four accounts which purport to tell the same story, yet they contain considerable discrepancies.

B)These accounts tell of supernatural events which I consider implausible using the principle of analogy. Consider this statement by Robert Price:

Quote:

As F.H. Bradley showed in The Presuppositions of Critical History, no historical inference is possible unless the historian assumes a basic analogy of past experience with present. If we do not grant this, nothing will seem amiss in believing reports that A turned into a werewolf or that B changed lead into gold. 'Hey, just because we don't see it happening today doesn't prove it never did!' One could as easily accept the historicity of Jack and the Beanstalk on the same basis, as long as one's sole criterion of historical probability is 'anything goes!' [Robert M. Price, By This Time He Stinketh]

Johnny Skeptic · 01-09-2010, 07:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Johnny Skeptic

In your opinion, how should historians try to establish what Jesus said, and what Jesus did not say?

Quote:

Originally Posted by rhutchin

Read the Bible and see what people wrote that He said.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Johnny Skeptic

How does reading the Bible specifically identify what Jesus said, and what he did not say?

Quote:

Originally Posted by rhutchin

As you read the Bible, it is pretty clear what Jesus said although there are some passages when it is not clear where Jesus stopped speaking and the author is adding information. For the most part, that which Jesus said is easy to identify.

I do not understand what you mean. Please quote a specific example of something that Jesus said and explain why you believe that he said it.

Johnny Skeptic · 01-09-2010, 07:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rhutchin

Why do you presume that the Bible is not historical?

Why do you presume that the Bible is historical? Why do you presume that Deism is not true?

You can find some of my reasons for not believing that the Bible is historical in a thread at http://www.freeratio.org/showthread.php?t=270530. The title of the thread is "Maybe the historical Jesus really did do miracles." The thread was started on June 25, 2009 by a Christian who went by the name of "freetrader." Please make a post in that thread.

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

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.