I would like to know more about the historicity of Christ

pagancornflake

I recently had an argument with a guy about the historicity of Jesus. I was dumbfounded at the idea that someone would deny that Jesus existed given the enduring paradigms among classical historians, the fact that it forms the basis for the largest religion in the world, and my own knowledge of Roman sources from the period of his life (I relied on sources like these more than anything during the argument, since they were pagan and thus had no vested interest in a hypothetical fabricational conspiracy. This is what one must do when arguing with the minority of non-believers who seem to have rabies).

Among those I am aware of are the works of Flavius Josephus, Tacitus, and Seutonius (and ofc the canonical gospels). I would like to open this thread for people (especially those who have studied classical history in depth) to discuss the life of Christ.

Also, I have never started a thread before, so I hope that this is posted in the right forum. God bless!

PDN

According to wikipedia, which is, of course, not infallible, "the historicity of Jesus is accepted by almost all Biblical scholars and classical historians."

However, if you are unfortunate enough to have met someone who denies Jesus' historicity then I doubt that any amount of authorities or evidence will convince them. Such folks tend to be extreme atheists who argue their position from ideological blind faith rather than any evidence (we've had a few of them visit this forum).

Whatever sources you cite, they will claim that old texts become corrupted and altered by scribes.

If you mention that the vast majority of historians accept the historicity of Jesus then they respond that all those historians are doing so out of a desire to avoid controversy and because they would lose their academic positions.

You might as well debate with a brick wall.

getz

PDN wrote: »

According to wikipedia, which is, of course, not infallible, "the historicity of Jesus is accepted by almost all Biblical scholars and classical historians."

However, if you are unfortunate enough to have met someone who denies Jesus' historicity then I doubt that any amount of authorities or evidence will convince them. Such folks tend to be extreme atheists who argue their position from ideological blind faith rather than any evidence (we've had a few of them visit this forum).

Whatever sources you cite, they will claim that old texts become corrupted and altered by scribes.

If you mention that the vast majority of historians accept the historicity of Jesus then they respond that all those historians are doing so out of a desire to avoid controversy and because they would lose their academic positions.

You might as well debate with a brick wall.

there is no doubt in my mind that jesus did exist-i do believe that some of the texts have been exaggerated, the proof of this is in the number of books that the early church rejected as not reliable-for me ,the ball is still in the air- jesus said ;i am the son of god; did he?it is now believed by some hebrew translators that he really said, i am a son of god,that could make a lot of difference, the other area with a small cloud over it is ,the compleat belief that mary was a virgin,as in the time of jesus ,there wasent a old hebrew word for virgin, the word that it was translated from was unmarried, yet we know mary was married-so its up to you what you want to believe ,

philologos

Why would Hebrew translators have any interest in a Greek text? (New Testament was never in Hebrew)

getz

Jakkass wrote: »

Why would Hebrew translators have any interest in a Greek text? (New Testament was never in Hebrew)

may be i should have said the old jewish languages-i am only repeating [as i wasent around at the time ] what the experts were saying on a history tv program, the other area that is not clear is of a virgin birth ,the jewish people would not have excepted a woman who had a baby by anyone except her husband [jewish law dictated that] so it would not be the kind of thing that would be claimed as the new testament seems to promote--i am not trying to claim it isent true , all i am saying at times it just dosent add up, its no good saying that all the jews spoke greek -as one person said in another thread-fishermen like most spoke only their native languege

Seoid

Surely the question of whether you believe the specific claims made of Jesus by the ancient texts is a separate issue to the historicity of his existance?
Old texts were corrupted and altered by scribes - sometimes by accident, sometimes on purpose - but there are people who have spent their whole lives devoted to the historicity of Jesus and I have never heard of one of them who came to the conclusion that he never lived. It would be very strange for the Christian movement to have gotten so popular so quickly if there had never been an instigator. Also the fact that Jesus died and his followers had to figure out how best to go on themselves meant there was a lot of disagreements.

Although I have looked at some of the sources (Josephus, Tacitus) I haven't time to examine them all so I accept the conclusions (by and large) of people who have - just as I do in other areas on knowledge that I haven't time to study in depth, such as the theory of evolution, the theory of the Big Bang, dinosaurs, what life was like in various ancient civilisations, what diamonds are made of....

philologos

Seoid: The Bible is very consistent when you compare the large large amount of manuscripts we have. There is more reason to consider it authentic than any work of Plato or Aristotle.
http://www.thewayhome.asn.au/lesson?id=50

Seoid

But other ancient texts have less to compare to. For example, Josephus was deliberately preserved by Christian scribes and a lot of scholars believed it was altered by them.

Zombrex

Jakkass wrote: »

Seoid: The Bible is very consistent when you compare the large large amount of manuscripts we have. There is more reason to consider it authentic than any work of Plato or Aristotle.
http://www.thewayhome.asn.au/lesson?id=50

Yes but there has always been debate over how authentic work from Plato or Aristotle (or anyone else ancient times) actually are and there are quite a few works attributed to Plato and Aristotle that modern historians believe were not written by them.

From that the lesson would seem to be that it is a mistake to assume that any ancient document is 100% accurate or genuine.

Yet this is the type of debate that, for religious reasons, a lot of Christians refuse to consider with their own holy books. The emphasis is always placed on the question "How do you know they have been altered" rather than the far more reasonable question "How do you know they haven't been altered"

As yet no one has built a religion around the idea of the infallibility of Plato's works. If they do I will say exactly the same thing to them.

philologos

Wicknight wrote: »

Yet this is the type of debate that, for religious reasons, a lot of Christians refuse to consider with their own holy books. The emphasis is always placed on the question "How do you know they have been altered" rather than the far more reasonable question "How do you know they haven't been altered"

Wicknight: I'm going to turn the atheist argument on you. "You cannot prove a negative. The onus of proof is on you".

However, I won't leave it there. I will have the courtesy to give you a proper answer:

How do we know the Bible hasn't been changed. Quite simply the source manuscripts of the Bible themselves show consistency between one another. 5,600 is a large source amount of manuscripts to look at in Greek alone, and 24,000 in other languages is also an extraordinary amount to be able to use to assess this. You'd need a fairly good reason to suggest that this isn't the case given the vast array of samples we've had to look at.

A comparison in Hebrew manuscripts between the Isaiah scroll found at Qumran from the 1st century BC, and it matched the previous Hebrew that had been used to translate for Bibles. There is a pretty strong case for authenticity and a weak one for compromised texts. It's probably the most common objection that is raised though which is wierd that people don't do their homework before arguing tripe.

PDN

Jakkass wrote: »

Wicknight: I'm going to turn the atheist argument on you. "You cannot prove a negative. The onus of proof is on you".

Just to point out that this is the Christianity forum. This is a place for discussion of Christian issues and Christians are under no obligation to have to continually justify their beliefs.

If atheists want to come in here and attack Christian beliefs then the onus, and burden of proof, is always on them.

O'Coonassa

getz wrote: »

jesus said ;i am the son of god; did he?it is now believed by some hebrew translators that he really said, i am a son of god,that could make a lot of difference,

It's wiki but..."Son of God is a phrase found in the Hebrew Bible, various other Jewish texts and the Christian Bible. In the holy Hebrew scriptures, according to Jewish religious tradition, Son of God has many possible meanings, referring to angels, or humans or even all mankind."

In the synoptics he refers to himself as the Son of Man around 70 times.

mdebets

I thought that was already discussed in previous threads, but I just add my comments to it.
For all who havent't read my previous comments, just to make it clear, I believe (not know) that Jesus did live, but i equally believe that there is no evidence in any historic writing that stands up to a proper test, that could be seen as proof that Jesus lived. There are some writings that give hints towards an existing of a historical jesus, but in my opinion they are too small to base a proper evidence on it.

Contrary to what the OP stated, there is very little historical written about Jesus. The main body of work comes from Christian writings, like the 4 gospels, other text of the New Testament and other apocryphic writings.
The only (known to me) non-Christian source that writes about Jesus is Josephus' "Antiquities of the Jews". All other ancient writings (Plinius, Tacitus, etc.) are about early Christian communities, not about jesos or even one of the Apostels.

The Christian writings are unreliable as evidence for a historic Jesus for two reasons. On the one hand, they are highly biased, as they were written by people who wanted to let Jesus, or that what they thought of Jesus to be, shine in a good light, to further their course. On the other hand, and this point is more important, were they never intended to be histories, but texts for teaching a new religion. They are therefore less reliable when looking at the events as facts, then other historians, like Josephus or Tacitus would be, as they were most likely tweaked in a way that would suit their message. In addition to this were most texts written long after Jesus' death, which would make them even less reliable.

Josephus is for other reasons less reliable. As far as i know, the current consensus under scholars is that most of the part about Jesus was not written by Josephus, but was added later (probably by Christians), but that a small part might be authentical. There is however still the problem that all texts we have from Josephus are from Christian sources, therfore is still the possibility that the original text looked totaly different from the one know today and all references to Jesus were added later. This chance might be slim (due to comparison done to other work), but cannot be totally dismissed.

If all this literary evidence taken together, there are hints that Jesus has indeed lived, but in my opinion none that would hold a proper argument.

Just one point to PDN's quote from Wikipedia that "the historicity of Jesus is accepted by almost all Biblical scholars and classical historians.".
If you look at the references mentioned to that statement, you see out of 8 2 Roman Catholic Priests, 1 Church of England Bishop, 1 Vice-Precident of the Lutheran Church Missouri Synode and most of the others are related to religious faculties, so they might not be the most independent scholars.
I haven't read any of them, but If anyone has, I'd love to hear some of their theories and on what they base them and discuss them.

Zombrex

Jakkass wrote: »

Wicknight: I'm going to turn the atheist argument on you. "You cannot prove a negative. The onus of proof is on you".

That is not quite the atheist argument. It is easy to demonstrate a negative (I won't use the term "proof" for reasons I'm sure you understand by now). Demonstrate that I'm not in Spain right now. Ok here is a picture of me, with a time stamp, in Dublin.

The important bit of the argument against requests to prove God doesn't exist is that God is supposed to be omnipotent, and thus can be what ever he likes. There is no test that can demonstrate the difference between a universe where God exists and where God doesn't exist since God can make the two look the same, so demonstrating he doesn't exist becomes impossible.

But I digress ...

Jakkass wrote: »

How do we know the Bible hasn't been changed.

You know the Bible hasn't been changed up to a point, that being the common ancestor copy of all surviving copies (that are the same).

The problem is that (as far as I understand) there is no evidence that the common ancestor copy is the original copy. Without that it is simply speculation that the New Testament has never changed.

Say you have the original version of one of the books, call this A. From that two copies are made, B and C.

   A
   |
------
|    |
B    C 

B is an exact copy of A (o), but C is changed significantly (c). Copies are made from both B and C, but for some reason the copies of B are lost (d). F and G are identical and survive (s)

           A
           |
    ----------------
    |              |
  B (o)          C (c)
    |              |
----------     --------------
|        |     |           |
D(x)   E(x)  F(s)        G(s)

So what can we say. Well F and G are identical. So it is safe to assume that neither F nor G have been changed from C. But since we have no copies of branches of B we cannot say that much about how closely C relates to A, the original document. The only way to determine that the New Testament has not changed is to have identical copies from independent branches that go right back to the original. My understanding, and correct me if I'm wrong, is that this has not been determined. If this is what we did have then yes it would add a huge amount of weight to the assertion that the New Testment has not changed since it was originally written.

Equally, since A is unknown, it is not possible to assert that the New Testament has been changed from the original documents, a point Christians seem more than happy to make themselves.

Jakkass wrote: »

Quite simply the source manuscripts of the Bible themselves show consistency between one another. 5,600 is a large source amount of manuscripts to look at in Greek alone, and 24,000 in other languages is also an extraordinary amount to be able to use to assess this. You'd need a fairly good reason to suggest that this isn't the case given the vast array of samples we've had to look at.

Only if we have source branches that can be traced back to the original copy. Imagine that John wrote down what he did and then handed it to some who copied it, changed it significantly, and gave it off to someone else. All copies would stem from this altered version. An extreme example, not saying that is what happened, but it highlights the issue at hand.

robindch

pagancornflake wrote: »

I recently had an argument with a guy about the historicity of Jesus. I was dumbfounded at the idea that someone would deny that Jesus existed given the enduring paradigms among classical historians, the fact that it forms the basis for the largest religion in the world, and my own knowledge of Roman sources from the period of his life

Notwithstanding the silly, waspish claims in one of the earlier posts, there are actually very few people who claim that Jesus didn't exist. I've certainly never met anybody who claims this, and in my capacity as one of the mods of the atheists and agnostics forum, I don't recall that more than a handful of posters have ever claimed this, and most of those who have claimed it have come and gone pretty quickly.

pagancornflake wrote: »

Among those I am aware of are the works of Flavius Josephus, Tacitus, and Seutonius (and ofc the canonical gospels). I would like to open this thread for people (especially those who have studied classical history in depth) to discuss the life of Christ.

The topic has come up before, but the evidence from these other authors is not as strong as it might seem. Quoting from previous posts on the topic:

The Testimonium Flavianum appears in Josephus' Antiquitates Judaicae and Wikipedia's article gives a useful overview of why few people accept this as genuine. To summarise, it fails standard textual consistency tests (it uses words + constructions not used elsewhere in Josephus); it's a strangely 'christian' comment to include for a jew to make; it's very similar to comments that Eusebius made, and the passage is not referred to by other relatively contemporary authors who did quote from Josephus. Interestingly, the Catholic Encyclopedia, not known for being overly critical of texts which support its point of view, says that the Josephus passage seems to suffer from repeated interpolations. And in any case, even all 100 words of the 'testimony' were incontrovertibly known to have been written by Josephus, it's still not convincing evidence. Jesus had been dead for some years by the time Josephus was born, so Josephus was clearly not a witness to any of the events described, nor does he even appear to have been a close second-hand witness.

Elsewhere, Tacitus wrote two sentences which referred to group of troublemakers in Judea which had been founded by a chap called "Christus". Suetonius wrote just one sentence which referred to a group of people led by "Chrestus" who were causing trouble. Pliny (The Younger), whom you've omitted from your list, simply refers to a group of people who used to be "Christians", but under pressure, had abandoned whatever it was they believed. And that's really about all that's there is from mainstream contemporary authors. You can find the complete quotations here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus

While the external sources certainly do provide evidence that a jewish preacher with a name like Christ or Chrest existed, not a single word of what any of Tacitus, Pliny, Josephus or anybody else corroborates a single word of the extravagant truth-claims of the NT.

In summary, it's largely undisputed that Jesus existed. It's moderately disputed that the NT that we have today is the same as the text that was first written an unknown place, at an unknown time, by unknown authors. It is heavily disputed that the original authors wrote nothing but the truth. Contemporaneous texts do little or nothing to resolve the real question concerning whether the text can be uncritically trusted.

mdebets

robindch wrote: »

While the external sources certainly do provide evidence that a jewish preacher with a name like Christ or Chrest existed, not a single word of what any of Tacitus, Pliny, Josephus or anybody else corroborates a single word of the extravagant truth-claims of the NT.

No, only Josephus (outside Christian writings) makes any claim about Jesus (and they are disputed). Pliny, Tacitus and the others give only evidence that a group called Christians exited in the second half of the first century and that they claimed to be following someone called Christus, but this is no evidence that jesus existed. These groups could have made him up.

mdebets

Wicknight wrote: »

You know the Bible hasn't been changed up to a point, that being the common ancestor copy of all surviving copies (that are the same).

The problem is that (as far as I understand) there is no evidence that the common ancestor copy is the original copy. Without that it is simply speculation that the New Testament has never changed.

Say you have the original version of one of the books, call this A. From that two copies are made, B and C.

   A
   |
------
|    |
B    C 

B is an exact copy of A (o), but C is changed significantly (c). Copies are made from both B and C, but for some reason the copies of B are lost (d). F and G are identical and survive (s)

           A
           |
    ----------------
    |              |
  B (o)          C (c)
    |              |
----------     --------------
|        |     |           |
D(x)   E(x)  F(s)        G(s)

So what can we say. Well F and G are identical. So it is safe to assume that neither F nor G have been changed from C. But since we have no copies of branches of B we cannot say that much about how closely C relates to A, the original document. The only way to determine that the New Testament has not changed is to have identical copies from independent branches that go right back to the original. My understanding, and correct me if I'm wrong, is that this has not been determined. If this is what we did have then yes it would add a huge amount of weight to the assertion that the New Testment has not changed since it was originally written.

Equally, since A is unknown, it is not possible to assert that the New Testament has been changed from the original documents, a point Christians seem more than happy to make themselves.



Only if we have source branches that can be traced back to the original copy. Imagine that John wrote down what he did and then handed it to some who copied it, changed it significantly, and gave it off to someone else. All copies would stem from this altered version. An extreme example, not saying that is what happened, but it highlights the issue at hand.

I do think (I'm not sure, maybe someone with more knowledge of literature research knoews more about this) it might possible, to detect changes to documents done before the oldest copies of a book that has survived.
You can have a look at the text, compare grammar, use of words, vocabulary used, etc., to determine if some texts are written by one author or if passages were added or changed at a later stage, similar like it is done for the passages about Jesus in Josephus.
I don't know if this has been done for the bible, but this might be a test to check of authenticity.
Of course, there might still be chances that changes are not detectable with this method.

philologos

Wicknight: Fair enough. That is mere speculation though. The fact that thousands of manuscripts remain consistent on the issue is a very very strong indication that the text hasn't changed. You argue that the text may have been changed before the copies were made, that may be so but you should be the one saying why you think this is the case instead of expecting us to just assume it.

PDN

mdebets wrote: »

I do think (I'm not sure, maybe someone with more knowledge of literature research knoews more about this) it might possible, to detect changes to documents done before the oldest copies of a book that has survived.
You can have a look at the text, compare grammar, use of words, vocabulary used, etc., to determine if some texts are written by one author or if passages were added or changed at a later stage, similar like it is done for the passages about Jesus in Josephus.
I don't know if this has been done for the bible, but this might be a test to check of authenticity.
Of course, there might still be chances that changes are not detectable with this method.

It has been done with the Bible, but the results tend to vary according to the presuppositions of the people concerned. The result is a lot of highly subjective speculation that goes round in a lot of logical circles.

mdebets

I just have a common point about this whole discussion, which is mostly directed towards the christian, so please Christian replies to this, as otherwise this would lead to totally new discussions.

I can understand why Atheists want to prove that jesus didn't exist. I can however never understand that Christians want to prove (in a non-Christian, historical way without reliying on because the bible said so) that he was indeed a historical person.
If God would have wanted for us to be able to know for sure that Jesus was indeed a real historical figure, it would have been easy for him to do so. There would be dozends of texts from independance sources telling us that they saw Jesus doing his miracles.
Yet these evidence doesn't exist. So it seems that God doesn't want us to know for sure that Jesus existed. Instead we have documents that require us to belive in his existence, rather than knowing it for sure.
I personal think that we might be much worse off if we knew exactly what happened there, rather than having to constantly work for our believe in it.

mdebets

Jakkass wrote: »

Wicknight: Fair enough. That is mere speculation though. The fact that thousands of manuscripts remain consistent on the issue is a very very strong indication that the text hasn't changed. You argue that the text may have been changed before the copies were made, that may be so but you should be the one saying why you think this is the case instead of expecting us to just assume it.

Just to counteract this argument. if you look at the surviving documents, you have to look how and why they survived. Most of them survived, because they were looked after by monks. They had a very good reason, to keep these documents in sync, because their main theology was based on this. They had equally good reasons, to destroy documents that varied from their approved text. At the same time, there was no organisation who looked after the documents that varied from the approved text.
it is therefore much more likely that the texs that have survived have very little variations from the oldest to the newest.

Of course this does not mean that thousands of different versions existed that have all been destroyed in the past, but the possibility still exists.

PDN

mdebets wrote: »

I just have a common point about this whole discussion, which is mostly directed towards the christian, so please Christian replies to this, as otherwise this would lead to totally new discussions.

I can understand why Atheists want to prove that jesus didn't exist. I can however never understand that Christians want to prove (in a non-Christian, historical way without reliying on because the bible said so) that he was indeed a historical person.
If God would have wanted for us to be able to know for sure that Jesus was indeed a real historical figure, it would have been easy for him to do so. There would be dozends of texts from independance sources telling us that they saw Jesus doing his miracles.
Yet these evidence doesn't exist. So it seems that God doesn't want us to know for sure that Jesus existed. Instead we have documents that require us to belive in his existence, rather than knowing it for sure.
I personal think that we might be much worse off if we knew exactly what happened there, rather than having to constantly work for our believe in it.

Sometimes we just give honest answers and opinions rather than trying to prove ideological points.

Most historians agree that Jesus existed as a historical person, it just takes too much of a stretch of their imaginations to posit a scenario where the Christian faith could have developed from a basis of a completely fictional character. Therefore I answered the OP as straightforwardly as if he had asked if I believed in the historicity of Julius Caesar.

Of course the issue of Jesus' miracles etc. is a completely separate discussion.

Schuhart

Jakkass wrote: »

Why would Hebrew translators have any interest in a Greek text? (New Testament was never in Hebrew)

I'd suspect this isn't news to you, but would be reasonable to assume that the poster is referring to this issue.

In other words, what's argued is that the concept of a virgin birth emerged from a Greek translation of the Old Testament taking a prophecy in Isaiah to refer to a child being born to a 'virgin', rather than to a 'maiden'. The authors of the Gospels then copied that mistake into their account - retrofitting the story of Jesus to fit this tale of a virgin birth.

The icing on the cake is when this error gets repeated in the Quran 600 years later. Mohammed contests the divinity of Jesus, but not his birth to a virgin. All because someone got the Greek translation of the old testament wrong.

Now, I'm not a scholar. I might have garbled the precise nature of this debate. But I take it that anyone who takes this stuff seriously knows the issue at stake. I think you'll agree its not addressed by trying to play silly buggers with that poster's misunderstanding of the exact details of this issue.

robindch

mdebets wrote: »

These groups could have made him up.

Yes, they could have, but at this remove, we really have no way of knowing for sure one way or the other. It's certainly safe to say that hundreds of millions of people sincerely think he existed and it's pointless trying to convince them that he didn't, especially since we don't know ourselves.

What we do know is that biographies of the time -- such as they were -- are not like biographies of today. Ancient authors were wont to create quotations, invent speeches (and possibly entire situations) that they thought illustrated the character of the person, or their interpretation of the character. With low literacy levels and, other than speech, no means of recording and transmitting words and actions, there was no alternative.

In all likelihood, an ancient would not have thought that direct quotes really were said by the people they were attributed to. And the intense letter-by-letter reading that goes on would have seemed odd.

PDN

Schuhart wrote: »

I'd suspect this isn't news to you, but would be reasonable to assume that the poster is referring to this issue.

In other words, what's argued is that the concept of a virgin birth emerged from a Greek translation of the Old Testament taking a prophecy in Isaiah to refer to a child being born to a 'virgin', rather than to a 'maiden'. The authors of the Gospels then copied that mistake into their account - retrofitting the story of Jesus to fit this tale of a virgin birth.

The icing on the cake is when this error gets repeated in the Quran 600 years later. Mohammed contests the divinity of Jesus, but not his birth to a virgin. All because someone got the Greek translation of the old testament wrong.

Now, I'm not a scholar. I might have garbled the precise nature of this debate. But I take it that anyone who takes this stuff seriously knows the issue at stake. I think you'll agree its not addressed by trying to play silly buggers with that poster's misunderstanding of the exact details of this issue.

I don't think it is playing silly buggers at all. The translators of the Septuagint weren't exactly ignorant of Hebrew - but they plainly felt that 'virgin' was a better translation. There are very good linguistic reasons why they did so. 'almah' in its other occurrences in the Hebrew Scriptures, never refers to a woman who wasn't a virgin - so it is a bit of an urban legend to claim it was a mistranslation.

Anyway, for Christians this is a non-issue, since the New Testament plainly states that Mary was a virgin at the time of Jesus' conception.

PDN

robindch wrote: »

Yes, they could have, but at this remove, we really have no way of knowing for sure one way or the other. It's certainly safe to say that hundreds of millions of people sincerely think he existed and it's pointless trying to convince them that he didn't, especially since we don't know ourselves.

What we do know is that biographies of the time -- such as they were -- are not like biographies of today. Ancient authors were wont to create quotations, invent speeches (and possibly entire situations) that they thought illustrated the character of the person, or their interpretation of the character. With low literacy levels and, other than speech, no means of recording and transmitting words and actions, there was no alternative.

In all likelihood, an ancient would not have thought that direct quotes really were said by the people they were attributed to. And the intense letter-by-letter reading that goes on would have seemed odd.

Yet Paul, writing just 20 or 25 years after the death of Christ, goes in for exactly such intense letter-by-letter reading of the Book of Genesis - so much so that he hangs an entire argument on a single letter at the end of a word.

It's a pity you weren't there to correct him and tell him how he was supposed to think as an ancient.

philologos

Schuhart: I'm aware of that. The Matthew translation isn't corrupted. It uses the Greek version of the Old Testament or the Septuagint (LXX).

Zombrex

Jakkass wrote: »

You argue that the text may have been changed before the copies were made, that may be so but you should be the one saying why you think this is the case instead of expecting us to just assume it.

I thought I already had (I even drew a diagram ffs :pac:)

I'm not saying it has changed, simply that one cannot assert that it hasn't, which I believe you have.

BTW there are thousands of Greek manuscripts but the majority date from the 11th and 12th centuries. There are only a small handful of manuscripts that date from the 2nd century.

eightyfish

This has possibly already been said in a longer form but... I am convinced that global warming is manmade because most climatologists agree that it is. I do not know enough about the subject to understand the evidence directly, so I must divert to qualified authority. Similarly, I am convinced that Jesus lived because most historians agree that he did.
(Though I am not a Christian)

mdebets

robindch wrote: »

Yes, they could have, but at this remove, we really have no way of knowing for sure one way or the other. It's certainly safe to say that hundreds of millions of people sincerely think he existed and it's pointless trying to convince them that he didn't, especially since we don't know ourselves.

You are right with the first and last part. Based on the historical evidence, there is no proof that jesus existed (but also no proof that he didn't).

You are however wrong with your middle part. I'm not trying to convince people that Jesus didn't exist (that would mean convincing me, as I believe he did). What I'm trying to convince people of is to not use flawed evidence in their arguments. Your argument that Jesus existed, just because Christians existed in the late 1st century, is flawed. That would be simlar to someone claiming in 1000 years, just because Trekkis existed in the 21st century, the Borg existed too.

mdebets

PDN wrote: »

Yet Paul, writing just 20 or 25 years after the death of Christ, goes in for exactly such intense letter-by-letter reading of the Book of Genesis - so much so that he hangs an entire argument on a single letter at the end of a word.

It's a pity you weren't there to correct him and tell him how he was supposed to think as an ancient.

Could tell us which of his writting this is (My biblical knowledge is unfortunately not that good to deduct the passage from your reference).

I would normally agree with robindch's assesment of ancient biographies, which of course doesn't mean everyone thought like this at the time. But i would be really interested to see, how Paul's passage can be read in this light.

PDN

mdebets wrote: »

Could tell us which of his writting this is (My biblical knowledge is unfortunately not that good to deduct the passage from your reference).

I would normally agree with robindch's assesment of ancient biographies, which of course doesn't mean everyone thought like this at the time. But i would be really interested to see, how Paul's passage can be read in this light.

My apologies, I was referring to Galatians 3:15-20
Brothers, let me take an example from everyday life. Just as no one can set aside or add to a human covenant that has been duly established, so it is in this case. The promises were spoken to Abraham and to his seed. The Scripture does not say "and to seeds," meaning many people, but "and to your seed," meaning one person, who is Christ. What I mean is this: The law, introduced 430 years later, does not set aside the covenant previously established by God and thus do away with the promise. For if the inheritance depends on the law, then it no longer depends on a promise; but God in his grace gave it to Abraham through a promise. What, then, was the purpose of the law? It was added because of transgressions until the Seed to whom the promise referred had come. The law was put into effect through angels by a mediator. A mediator, however, does not represent just one party; but God is one.

Paul applies Gen 12:7 to Christ on the basis that the word 'seed' is singular rather than plural.

The reason for this, of course, is that Jews (and early Christians) did not treat Scripture in the same way they treated secular biographies etc. Their belief that the words were divinely inspired caused them to go in for exactly the kind of intense letter-by-letter reading that Robin decries.

Schuhart

PDN wrote: »

I don't think it is playing silly buggers at all.

You’ll appreciate, my reference to ‘silly buggers’ related to brushing off that poster’s remarks just because he wrongly thought that what was at issue was a translation of the New Testament, rather than a case of the New Testament quoting a translation of the Old Testament. This left the substantial point unanswered, which I accept you have now addressed.

PDN wrote: »

The translators of the Septuagint weren't exactly ignorant of Hebrew - but they plainly felt that 'virgin' was a better translation. There are very good linguistic reasons why they did so. 'almah' in its other occurrences in the Hebrew Scriptures, never refers to a woman who wasn't a virgin - so it is a bit of an urban legend to claim it was a mistranslation.

I’m no scholar, but I’ve certainly read people who make a similar case to yours. However, the case for it being a mistranslation equally seems to be made by folk with at least some expertise in the field. Would it be fair to say it’s a point on which there is scholarly debate, rather than something that can be equated to an urban legend.

PDN wrote: »

Anyway, for Christians this is a non-issue, since the New Testament plainly states that Mary was a virgin at the time of Jesus' conception.

It sure does, but is there not some significance to whether or not this was part of a prophecy. I thought that it was felt necessary for some reason to link Jesus with identifiable Old Testament predictions. So, again, ‘non-issue’ seems a bit strong if potentially Christians are meant to accept that the Greek translators were divinely inspired to ‘correct’ the Old Testament text.

Jakkass wrote: »

Schuhart: I'm aware of that. The Matthew translation isn't corrupted. It uses the Greek version of the Old Testament or the Septuagint (LXX).

Which you’ll equally understand is not really the crucial point. The crucial point is that a part of Matthew’s Gospel (assuming that to be the one that quotes Isaiah – I haven’t checked, but I assume for these purposes that you know) seems to quote a mistranslation in the Greek version of the Old Testament.

Hence, you’ll appreciate, the contention isn’t that the author of Matthew’s Gospel made the mistake. All that is suggested is that he repeated a mistake made by others. Can I state frankly that I feel the point I’m making is perfectly clear, and I shouldn’t really need to go into all this painful detail. The point is that addressed by PDN – that it is conceivable that the translators had good reasons for translating the word as ‘virgin’.

Cool Mo D

All the discussion above skirts over an important point: What do people mean when they deny that Jesus existed. I can see a few points of disagreement.

One could say that they deny Jesus on the basis that they do not believe that Jesus as described in the bible lived, performed miracles, was the son of God, rose from the dead, etc, etc. This does not necessarily mean that they don't believe there was someone, maybe called Jesus, maybe not, who travelled around Israel, cultivating followers, and starting of the religion that became Christianity.

By obvious necessity, all non-Christians deny the biblical account of Jesus. But if an atheist such as myself says that they believe there may have been a person called Jesus, or something similar, who founded Christianity, but who was utterly and totally different in every way to the way the bible describes him, am I then denying that Jesus existed?

philologos

Schuhart: It's not necessarily a mistranslation. Firstly, it could well have been the best word to describe it in Ancient Greek. Secondly, a young woman could well be a virgin so it doesn't nullify the Gospel of Matthew anyway.

Schuhart

Jakkass wrote: »

Schuhart: It's not necessarily a mistranslation. Firstly, it could well have been the best word to describe it in Ancient Greek.

I'm not qualified to judge, to be honest. All I know is that people who would purport to have expertise argue over whether it is actually accurate.

For what its worth, I believe they also contend that the quote should be along the lines "the young woman will give birth" i.e. that the author of Isaiah had a particular individual in mind who was known to the people for whom he was writing. The context, apparently, would have made it clear to them, in a similar way to someone saying 'yer wan who used to be on Podge and Rodge will give birth' might identify Lucy Kennedy. In other words, he was saying 'that girl right there will give birth to Immanuel' not 'some young woman (virginal or not) will give birth to Immanuel at some as yet undetermined time'.

But clearly that's not particularly impacting on whether Isaiah thought that girl was a virgin.

Jakkass wrote: »

Secondly, a young woman could well be a virgin so it doesn't nullify the Gospel of Matthew anyway.

Erm, it does if Matthew is trying to say that the virgin birth was foretold by Isaiah - which IIRC is exactly what he's doing. It seems to me most material if Matthew repeats an inaccurate translation, as it means he's not repeating Isaiah's prophecy. He's repeating what some eejit of a translator thought was Isaiah's prophecy.

Now, it would seem to me reasonable that you would contend that the translation is correct, making the sort of argument that PDN (and others) make about 'virgin' being the correct meaning (even if that is disputed by others).

But I don't see how you could contend that whether it is correct or not is immaterial.

philologos

Schuhart: You're still not getting the point. The prophesy in Hebrew is still fulfilled if Mary was a virgin. Young women can be virgins. It's perfectly reasonable.

Schuhart

Jakkass wrote: »

Schuhart: You're still not getting the point. The prophesy in Hebrew is still fulfilled if Mary was a virgin. Young women can be virgins. It's perfectly reasonable.

Au contraire, old boy, you're not getting the point.

Matthew says (and I've looked it up all special, like, to put this to bed

1:22 Now all this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying, 1:23 Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us.

So if the translation is wrong, Matthew is simply wrong to say that "the prophet" said "a virgin shall be with child".

So, you see, it very clearly is material as Matthew is claiming "the prophet" said "a virgin shall be with child".

So, as I've said, you can contend the translation is correct. And maybe it is. But you cannot simultaneously contend the translation is wrong and that Matthew is right, unless we want to go to a place where language ceases to have meaning.

Apologies on being so persistent, but I really don't see the need to disagree on something so plain.

PDN

Schuhart wrote: »

But I don't see how you could contend that whether it is correct or not is immaterial.

I think you need to understand the way the Gospels, particularly Matthew, cite prophecy. Matthew looks at numerous events in Jesus' life, ministry, and death, and then searches out Old Testament prophecies that he sees as being fulfilled in them. But that is a very different thing to saying that Matthew invented fictitious events to match Old Testament prophecies.

I see something similar in the writings of those who see current events as fulfillment of biblical prophecies. They see events such as the re-establishment of Israel as a nation, the setting up of the EU etc. as fulfilling prophecy. Now, you can argue that their application and interpretation of prophecy is wrong, but it is clear that they are not inventing these events (Israel & the EU) in order to pretend that prophecy has been fulfilled.

So, even if Matthew had misunderstood the prophecy in Isaiah (and I personally, on linguistic grounds, don't think he did) it would be more likely to be a misapplication of prophecy to an event (the virgin birth) that he had already heard of, rather than that he fabricated an event to suit the prophecy.

Schuhart

PDN wrote: »

So, even if Matthew had misunderstood the prophecy in Isaiah (and I personally, on linguistic grounds, don't think he did) it would be more likely to be a misapplication of prophecy to an event (the virgin birth) that he had already heard of, rather than that he fabricated an event to suit the prophecy.

That's fine so far as it goes. But recall all I'm really contending here.

What I'm pointing out is that someone cannot simultaneously contend the translation is wrong and that Matthew is right in claiming the virgin birth was foretold. And that is, very clearly, what he says.

I'm almost certain you get the point. The point is that, if the translation was wrong, the Gospel contains a false claim. That false claim is not whether there was a virgin birth or not. The false claim would be that the virgin birth was foretold.

The implication of that is, presumably, that the Gospels are not free from error. And not just free from error on minor things. But free from error as to the extent to which the birth of Jesus fulfilled prophecies.

That's really all I'm saying. I'm not being dogmatic in saying 'virgin' is an incorrect translation, as I'm not qualified to judge. I'm am insisting, however, that the question is not immaterial. If the translation is wrong, then there is a problem for the accuracy of Matthew's Gospel.

PDN

Schuhart wrote: »

That's fine so far as it goes. But recall all I'm really contending here.

What I'm pointing out is that someone cannot simultaneously contend the translation is wrong and that Matthew is right in claiming the virgin birth was foretold. And that is, very clearly, what he says.

I'm almost certain you get the point. The point is that, if the translation was wrong, the Gospel contains a false claim. That false claim is not whether there was a virgin birth or not. The false claim would be that the virgin birth was foretold.

The implication of that is, presumably, that the Gospels are not free from error. And not just free from error on minor things. But free from error as to the extent to which the birth of Jesus fulfilled prophecies.

That's really all I'm saying. I'm not being dogmatic in saying 'virgin' is an incorrect translation, as I'm not qualified to judge. I'm am insisting, however, that the question is not immaterial. If the translation is wrong, then there is a problem for the accuracy of Matthew's Gospel.

But, I don't think anyone who knows anything about Hebrew has ever seriously suggested that the translation is 'wrong'. That would mean saying that the word 'almah' could not possibly have meant 'virgin'. All anyone has ever said is that they think 'young woman' is a better translation.

Biblical prophecy often uses phrases in a way that gives them a double meaning or a dual fufillment. This happens dozens of times in the Gospels. For example, Caiaphas said that it was expedient that one man should die for the sake of all the people. Now he meant one thing (that it was better to kill a rabble rouser than for the Romans to kick everyone's ass) but the Gospel writer sees it as prophecy in that one man (the Saviour) would die for the sins of the world.

So, even if 'young woman' were a better translation (and for linguistic reasons I don't think it is) that would not make 'virgin' a mistranslation, nor would it mean Matthew was wrong.

That is why it is so frustrating for us in this forum when every 3 weeks someone barges in with a garbled version of mistranslation and the virgin birth that they've obviously picked up on skepticismfordummies.com and they present it as if they've discovered some amazing truth. Do you understand why, after a while, that gets on our wicks?

monosharp

PDN wrote: »

But, I don't think anyone who knows anything about Hebrew has ever seriously suggested that the translation is 'wrong'. That would mean saying that the word 'almah' could not possibly have meant 'virgin'. All anyone has ever said is that they think 'young woman' is a better translation.

Noone who knows anything about Hebrew ? I think the Jews might have something to say to you about that.

The vast majority of Jewish scholars/Rabbi's etc DO say that the translation is wrong and have been saying it since the early days of Christianity.

The correct translation is 'young woman', which doesn't mean it can't ALSO mean a virgin but its NOT the same thing as meaning 'virgin'.

The word for virgin is bethulah.

So, even if 'young woman' were a better translation (and for linguistic reasons I don't think it is) that would not make 'virgin' a mistranslation, nor would it mean Matthew was wrong.

Your correcting the Jews on their translation of Hebrew now ?

Jewish scholars argue that the word betulah is used instead of almah in verses where a reference to a virgin is clearly intended (see Genesis 24:16, Exodus 22:16-17, Leviticus 21:14, and Deuteronomy 22:13-21) and that almah is more correctly translated as "young woman."

I'll assume you know Isaiah 7:14, where 'almah' is used and most certainly is NOT referring to a virgin.

That is why it is so frustrating for us in this forum when every 3 weeks someone barges in with a garbled version of mistranslation and the virgin birth that they've obviously picked up on skepticismfordummies.com and they present it as if they've discovered some amazing truth. Do you understand why, after a while, that gets on our wicks?

And don't you realise how frustrating it is when someone comes here trying to find out the truth only to be knocked down by people who refuse to accept the possibility that they could be wrong and choose ANY and ALL possible excuses.

PDN

monosharp wrote: »

Noone who knows anything about Hebrew ? I think the Jews might have something to say to you about that.

The vast majority of Jewish scholars/Rabbi's etc DO say that the translation is wrong and have been saying it since the early days of Christianity.

No, that is not true. The vast majority of Jews prior to the advent of Christianity accepted that 'virgin' was a perfectly legitimate translation and as such it was included in the Septuagint which was the Greek translation of the Old Testament as used in synagogues and homes all over the known world for 400 years. Jewish reverence for this translation was so strong that many Jews, including Philo and Josephus, ascribed to its translators similar divine inspiration as the actual biblical authors.

Those rabbis who want to engage in apologetics with Christians try to claim that it is a mistranslation, similar to the way they have reinterpreted Isaiah 53. But this is not done on linguistic grounds but rather out of a desire to attack Christianity (sound familiar?)

The correct translation is 'young woman', which doesn't mean it can't ALSO mean a virgin but its NOT the same thing as meaning 'virgin'.

The word for virgin is bethulah.

No, that is not true. The word 'bethulah' can mean 'young woman' or 'virgin', as can 'almah'. 'almah' is used several times in the Old Testament, and it always refers to a virgin - it is never used to refer to anyone who is not a virgin.

Your correcting the Jews on their translation of Hebrew now ?

As someone who can read Hebrew, and passed my exams in Hebrew, I'm certainly more qualified on the subject than you are.

Also, the translators of the Septuagint certainly knew more about ancient Hebrew than modern Jews who have an axe to grind. They were convinced that 'almah' meant 'virgin'.

I'll assume you know Isaiah 7:14, where 'almah' is used and most certainly is NOT referring to a virgin.

And I'll assume your knowledge of Isaiah is on a par with your knowledge of Hebrew. The context of Isaiah favours 'virgin', and it makes sense linguistically. The conception was supposed to be a miraculous sign to confirm the Word of the Lord. Somehow the Septuagint translators thought any young woman getting pregnant somewhere in Israel was less than impressive.

And don't you realise how frustrating it is when someone comes here trying to find out the truth only to be knocked down by people who refuse to accept the possibility that they could be wrong and choose ANY and ALL possible excuses.

I'm calling your bluff on that one. I see nothing whatsoever in your posts to suggest that you have the slightest interest in finding out the truth. You appear to be asking questions, then getting annoyed when people don't give you answers that fit your prejudices. When people try to give you scholarly balanced answers you get aggressive and accuse them of dishonesty.

monosharp

PDN wrote: »

No, that is not true. The vast majority of Jews prior to the advent of Christianity accepted that 'virgin' was a perfectly legitimate translation

So now your using older then 2000 year old text evidence to support younger then 2000 year old piece of text that people can't agree on ?

and as such it was included in the Septuagint which was the Greek translation of the Old Testament as used in synagogues and homes all over the known world for 400 years.

parthenos is the greek word your referring to which does not ALWAYS mean virgin.

Those rabbis who want to engage in apologetics with Christians try to claim that it is a mistranslation, similar to the way they have reinterpreted Isaiah 53. But this is not done on linguistic grounds but rather out of a desire to attack Christianity (sound familiar?)

Out of curiousity why would they want to attack christianity ? This debate has been ungoing since the very beginning of Christianity.

No, that is not true. The word 'bethulah' can mean 'young woman' or 'virgin', as can 'almah'. 'almah' is used several times in the Old Testament, and it always refers to a virgin - it is never used to refer to anyone who is not a virgin.

I just showed you where it was used for a woman who was certainly not a virgin.

As someone who can read Hebrew, and passed my exams in Hebrew, I'm certainly more qualified on the subject than you are.

As the Rabbi's I am using as source are more qualified then you.

Also, the translators of the Septuagint certainly knew more about ancient Hebrew than modern Jews who have an axe to grind. They were convinced that 'almah' meant 'virgin'.

Your arguing that a greek word which doesn't always mean virgin, in this case always means virgin against a hebrew word which MAY mean virgin.

Not exactly winning this argument.

I'm calling your bluff on that one. I see nothing whatsoever in your posts to suggest that you have the slightest interest in finding out the truth. You appear to be asking questions, then getting annoyed when people don't give you answers that fit your prejudices. When people try to give you scholarly balanced answers you get aggressive and accuse them of dishonesty.

You have been dishonest and yuour been dishonest right here. The greek word you mention does not ALWAYS mean virgin, you obviously know that if I do and yet you didn't mention it.

And honestly I am looking for answers but I am not getting any. I'm getting answers which look for any loophole out of accepting what MAY be the truth.

Even if you said there was a possibility of a mistranslation I could easily accept your answer but you completely deny any possibility. I cannot help but think that because of your faith you simply cannot accept any possibility of it being wrong and would defend it against all reason.

kelly1

Groan

philologos

monosharp wrote: »

Out of curiousity why would they want to attack christianity ? This debate has been ungoing since the very beginning of Christianity.

Well. They don't want Jews to accept Christianity, that is why they attack Messianic prophesies that suggest that Jesus is the Messiah. In Israel especially there is a lot of hostility to Christian missionaries and there have beeen attempts to legally restrict evangelistic activity in Jerusalem. This was soon stopped as their beloved ally the United States let them know of their objection to it.

Orthodox Jews in particular are extremely hostile towards the Christian faith, secular Jews seem much more receptive to it. There have been cases where Orthodox Jews have persecuted members of the Jews for Jesus evangelistic team in Israel and other Messianic Jewish households.

monosharp wrote: »

As the Rabbi's I am using as source are more qualified then you.

Easy on... No need to make a use of the Argument from Authority. PDN has clearly said that those Rabbis have an agenda, now knowing the political situation in Israel regarding Christians that seems to make sense.

monosharp wrote: »

You have been dishonest and yuour been dishonest right here. The greek word you mention does not ALWAYS mean virgin, you obviously know that if I do and yet you didn't mention it.

If you want to engage in an adult discussion about this you might want to stop the personal accusations. Just a thought that is.

monosharp wrote: »

And honestly I am looking for answers but I am not getting any. I'm getting answers which look for any loophole out of accepting what MAY be the truth.

There is no incompatibility between Isaiah chapter 7, and Matthew chapter 1 none whatsoever. No matter what way you take Isaiah chapter 7, Matthew chapter 1 has fulfilled that prophesy.

monosharp wrote: »

Even if you said there was a possibility of a mistranslation I could easily accept your answer but you completely deny any possibility. I cannot help but think that because of your faith you simply cannot accept any possibility of it being wrong and would defend it against all reason.

monosharp, if I may. I think it is because your desire for Christianity to be mistaken that you don't accept PDN's answer. He's explained it rather well.

Schuhart

PDN wrote: »

But, I don't think anyone who knows anything about Hebrew has ever seriously suggested that the translation is 'wrong'. That would mean saying that the word 'almah' could not possibly have meant 'virgin'. All anyone has ever said is that they think 'young woman' is a better translation.

I know what you mean, to the extent that I've seen it explained as (IIRC) being like the word 'maiden' in that it carries a hint of virginity, but does not always mean virgin. That said, I'm straying into space where I've already stated I don't have expertise. My only contention in this space is that the meaning is disputed by folk who do have expertise.

PDN wrote: »

So, even if 'young woman' were a better translation (and for linguistic reasons I don't think it is) that would not make 'virgin' a mistranslation, nor would it mean Matthew was wrong.

I don't think this holds. If, for the sake of argument, we were talking about a word being translated as 'wall' or 'fence', in a verse that said "Matthew leaned against the wall/fence", and it didn't really matter whether it was a wall or a fence, then indeed the translation would be immaterial. If someone was to build a case saying 'in those days there were no walls in Jerusalem, only fences' you could quite rightly respond 'fences, schmences, the purpose of the verse is just to say Matthew was there and, anyway, the word can mean both'.

But, as I've said before and as (tbh) I guess you appreciate, in this context its material as what's at stake is if Matthew is contending the virgin birth was foretold. So either your linguistic reasons are valid (and maybe they are) or Matthew is just plain wrong to say (as he does very clearly) that a prophet foretold that Jesus would be born to a virgin.

And its not as if the virgin birth is a minor, dispensible detail.

PDN wrote: »

That is why it is so frustrating for us in this forum when every 3 weeks someone barges in with a garbled version of mistranslation and the virgin birth that they've obviously picked up on skepticismfordummies.com and they present it as if they've discovered some amazing truth. Do you understand why, after a while, that gets on our wicks?

In fairness, I could respond whether you've any idea how frustrating it was to grow up in a country where human thought and feeling was deeply scarred by religion. But, in truth, that would just be **** throwing.

This is just the world we inhabit. As it says in that made-up biblical quote in "Pulp Fiction"

The path of the righteous man is beset on all sides by the inequities of the selfish and the tyranny of evil men. Blessed is he who, in the name of charity and good will, shepherds the weak through the valley of the darkness. For he is truly his brother's keeper and the finder of lost children. And I will strike down upon thee with great vengeance and furious anger those who attempt to poison and destroy my brothers. And you will know I am the Lord when I lay my vengeance upon you.

All I'm trying to do is sort out contentions that can be made from contentions that can't. All that dragged me in to this thread was a feeling that the sum total of knowledge was being reduced rather than increased, as an individual with a garbled knowledge of the 'virgin' issue was been lead astray by someone who knew enough to set them right.

That's my honest read of this situation. But, yes, we are all part of a human community that has a very imperfect knowledge of itself. And, in saying that, I'm not particularly claiming my knowledge is so much more perfect.

monosharp

Jakkass wrote: »

Easy on... No need to make a use of the Argument from Authority. PDN has clearly said that those Rabbis have an agenda, now knowing the political situation in Israel regarding Christians that seems to make sense.

And PDN has no agenda ?

If you want to engage in an adult discussion about this you might want to stop the personal accusations. Just a thought that is.

It was PDN that started the personal accusations not I.

There is no incompatibility between Isaiah chapter 7, and Matthew chapter 1 none whatsoever. No matter what way you take Isaiah chapter 7, Matthew chapter 1 has fulfilled that prophesy.

And where do you think I am arguing against it ?

My only question and it is a question, I am not trying to push my POV. Is that MAYBE the Bible has some errors. I don't particularly care if it is or isn't. I want to see whether Christians can admit that their religion just might not infallible.

monosharp, if I may. I think it is because your desire for Christianity to be mistaken that you don't accept PDN's answer. He's explained it rather well

As I have explained mine. I accept I may be wrong, yet your faith and PDN's deny him the ability to accept the possibility that he/Christian thinking on the subject is wrong.

mdebets

Just one sm,all point about the 'almah' debate.
One point overlooked here is the contect of the original passage in the Old Testament. It's a prophecy. Without needing to know much about the linguistics behind the word, look at the two possible translations.
The Messia will be born by a young woman.
The Messia will be born by a virgin.

Which of these two looks like a prophecy and which doesn't?
If the translation would be young woman, it would not really be a prophecy, as it would apply to everyone.
Virgin on the other hand makes it a prophecy, as there are not too many virgins out there who give birth to babies.

PDN

monosharp wrote: »

So now your using older then 2000 year old text evidence to support younger then 2000 year old piece of text that people can't agree on ?

What on earth are you talking about? I'm using an older than 2000 year old text (the Septuagint) to demonstrate that almah was translated as 'virgin' and that translation was happily accepted by the Jews of that time.

I'm using that to support a younger than 2000 year old text (Matthew's Gospel), that everybody agrees teaches the virgin birth.

parthenos is the greek word your referring to which does not ALWAYS mean virgin.

If that were true then you would be arguing against yourself, because Matthew, by using the word 'parthenos' would hardly be mistranslating anything would he? :rolleyes:

However, 'parthenos' is the usual Greek word for 'virgin'. In fact our English word 'parthenogenesis' (virgin birth) is derived from it. In all its occurrences in the New Testament is never used of anyone other than virgins - just like 'almah' in the Old Testament.

Out of curiousity why would they want to attack christianity ? This debate has been ungoing since the very beginning of Christianity.

Because some Jewish rabbis hate the fact that Christianity uses Old Testament prophecies. They want to 'protect' their own from being converted and so have an agenda to argue that the New Testament writers misused the Hebrew Scriptures. This causes them to reject interpretations that were accepted by Jews in the time of Jesus and to advance new interpretations.

I just showed you where it was used for a woman who was certainly not a virgin.

No you didn't. You showed no such thing.

As the Rabbi's I am using as source are more qualified then you.

As the translators of the Septuagint were more qualified than them - so my Hebrew scholar is still bigger than your Hebrew scholar.

Your arguing that a greek word which doesn't always mean virgin, in this case always means virgin against a hebrew word which MAY mean virgin.

No, I'm arguing that the normal Greek word for 'virgin' was a suitable translation for a Hebrew word which, given the context in Isaiah, almost certainly was used to denote a virgin.

Not exactly winning this argument.

No, you're not, are you? But I'll give you full marks for persistence, although you fail when it comes to content.

You have been dishonest and yuour been dishonest right here. The greek word you mention does not ALWAYS mean virgin, you obviously know that if I do and yet you didn't mention it.

OK, let's get something clear. You are bang out of order accusing another poster of dishonesty. If you want to discuss Christian issues (the purpose for this forum) then we can discuss Christian issues. If you want to act like a little troll then we can treat you like a little troll. The choice is yours.

stevejazzx

I did a debate before on this (Christian Nativity) and read all kinds of old historical articles. The conclusions I found that most people were favoring were not as stated in this thread (if he argument is that the only or more reasonable way for us to translate 'almah' is virgin and at the same not reasonable for us to translate it as just 'young woman of good reputation or just young woman'.

Mikulski argues that references to 'almah' always carried the connotation of virginity but fails to provide proper exmaples of this or to provide a reason why the more concise work 'bethulah' was not used.

I have taken extracts from the article linked which I relied heavily on for my debate having looked closely at his references I must say I find it a really good article -

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/virginprophecy.html


There is an explanation offered by Raymond Brown who is said to be the expert on Christian naitivity that this argument first appeared in 2 century Christian apologetic work Justins dialogue with Trypho (dialogue with a jew). This proves, against Mikulski, that even ancient Jews didn't believe almah meant only virgin, for Christians had to defend their reading of 'virgin' against Jewish critics, from the very earliest times (cf. Larue, above, for more on this point). Brown also relates some of the colorful history of the debate, like that fundamentalists once burned copies of the RSV translation of the OT because it had "young woman" in Isaiah, and Catholic bishops compelled Catholic translators of the NAB translation to go against their better judgment and put 'virgin' there. Thus Brown observes that many modern translations are the victim of ideological censorship (a common problem, and a main reason why if you haven't read the Bible in the original languages, then you haven't really read it).URL="http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/virginprophecy.html#14"][COLOR=#0000ff]14[/COLOR][/URL

[the even if we accept that 'parthenos' was used originally argument-]
Besides all that, the argument Mikulski uses works against him just as forcefully: for if the choice of parthenos over neanis by the Greek translator implies virginity, then the choice of almah over bethulah by the original authoJewr (presumably Isaiah--or, according to Christian belief, God Himself, speaking through his prophet) implies nonvirginity


All in all, Brown's detailed analysis only confirms Callahan's point, not Mikulski's. For instance, as Brown explains, Justin knew that Jews understood Isaiah to be referring to Hezekiah, son of Ahaz, and thus the Christians were "reinterpreting" a prophecy that had already been fulfilled. Brown also cites important scholarship on the meaning of almah and other details, making him an essential reference on this, if you want to explore the matter further. He surveys additional points and concludes that "Isa. 7:14 does not refer to a virginal conception in the distant future" but to "the imminent birth of a child, probably Davidic, but naturally conceived" (§ 5B2, i.e. p. 148). Since this comes from a renowned authority who is Catholic (and thus going against his biases), this conclusion carries special weight here.


A plausible alternate explanation using the contended translation a 'virgin will conceive':
Brown points out, in the sense that a man might in the future take as a bride someone who is now a virgin. On that reading, "a virgin will conceive" in the sense that someone who is now a virgin, at the time Isaiah spoke, would at some point marry and have a child (possibly even conceiving the moment she loses her virginity). Certainly that would be considered a fulfillment of the prophecy.