Validity of Written Documents

The examples I've given show what Jewish expectations of the Messiah are, which are that he is to be born in Bethlehem. Are you arguing with them? The stories say he is born there, not that he can trace his ancestry to David.This message has been edited by Faith, 05-16-2005 03:08 PM

internal consistency, consistent testimony from one book to another, from one witness account to another. I don't know. It is a narrative woven around historically factual information isn't it? Is some of it acknowledged by its author to have been fictionalized? Also it is written by someone who experienced none of what he is writing about, knew none of the participants in the story?If these statements are true, it is not the same kind of document the Bible is which is a collection of accounts by people who were there.

Hi Faith, Not at all, your examples show that a messiah has already been born, and it just happens to be in Bethlehem.If it was the traditional view that the Messiah would have to be born in Bethlehem then why did both the questioners have to ask where this messiah had been born? If it had to be in Bethlehem then they would have had no need to ask!Okay, let's break it down a little.The Hebrew Bible says 'among the clans of Judah', the KJV says 'among the thousands of Judah'. Now the Hebrew word for both 'Clan' and 'Thousand' is 'eleph.Now, I would go for 'clan', or 'family' here, as it makes the most sense in the overall picture.Now, if you disagree, what can it possibly be that the KJV is refering to as 'thousands'?For your scenario surely it has to mean among the thousands of places, or it wouldn't refer to a place. But there has never been any time in the history of Judah that there has been thousands of cities, town and villages.So, what can the 'thousands' be?Cheers.Brian.

quote:

---

internal consistency, consistent testimony from one book to another, from one witness account to another.

---

For Jesus birth in Bethelehem we have no witness accounts and the two stories do not display a great deal of consistency. Indeed on the face of it they appear to be contradictory even before the historical evidence is taken into account. How then can you conclude that Jesus was born in Bethlehem based on those criteria ?

Your not serious here are you?Who gave the account of creation, or the Fall, who gave the account of Noah and the Flood?Was there even an Isaiah?If there was then which of the three different authors of Isaiah is the real one?Was the author who wrote this an eyewitness?Genesis 36:31 (KJV)And these are the kings that reigned in the land of Edom, before there reigned any king over the children of Israel.As far as internal consistency is concerned, it isnt really that impressive when the author has previously written texts sitting before him.Have ever really thought about getting into source and textual criticism, it will be a revelation to you? I'm not tryng to offend you by saying that, I really think you would enjoy it.Brian.This message has been edited by Brian, 05-16-2005 01:32 PM

Obviously they were testing to see if this really was the Messiah. They asked test questions. They accepted that he was really the Messiah upon getting the right answers to the questions, which included where he was to be born.This message has been edited by Faith, 05-16-2005 03:09 PM

But this 'messiah' had already been born!!And this is before the fall of the first temple, hundreds of years before Jesus was born.I very much doubt whether Elijah would be testing anything to do with God. But what real test would this be if it was common knowledge that the messiah would be born in Bethlehem. It is hardly likely that any deciever would get something wrong that was so well known.Any idea what the 'thousands' could be, it is central to your argument.Brian.

Every single statement does not have to be directly witnessed in a document that is full of direct witness reports in general. The part is validated by the whole. SOMEBODY witnessed the birth and reported it and it was well known. If other parts of the story are valid so is this part.I haven't read completely through this thread so I don't know what you consider to be inconsistencies, but seeming inconsistencies are usually easily resolved if you read the different accounts as supplying information missing from the others, or referring to a different event in the same basic time frame.When you have such a specific historical reference as that in Luke 2, "And it came to pass in those days, that there went out a decree from Caesar Augustus, that all the world should be taxed" and you are told that Joseph and Mary are of the lineage of David and that the Davidic household paid its taxes in Bethlehem, and Mary was "great with child," I would think that all these time-and-place references would contribute to the veracity of the story.

What are you talking about? The stories I quoted were written some time in the middle ages. They are simply stories, tales, nothing to do with reality. They contain elements that illustrate what the Jews believed would characterize their Messiah when he comes. These include the expectation that he will be born in Bethlehem. I really do not see what the problem is you are having with this. There is nothing whatever realistic about these stories. The character of Elijah is nothing like the real Elijah. The whole thing is made up. The only value of the stories is that they incorporate certain expectations based on scripture about the Messiah, which include that he is literally to be born in a town called Bethlehem.All the would-be messiahs over the centuries have not in fact been born in Bethlehem. The test is to test the facts of the report, not whether the reporter is a deceiver but whether the report is true. The reporter may be carried away with the idea that this is the Messiah without knowing all the prophecies or thinking it all through. I don't see that this has anything to do with my argument, which is simply that some Jewish stories written in the Middle Ages demonstrate the common expectation that their Messiah is to be born in the town of Bethlehem, which is to counter your claim that the prophecy is only a reiteration of the idea that he is to be of the lineage of David.This message has been edited by Faith, 05-16-2005 03:10 PM

It doesn't involve reasoning. It involves only believing the report. However, believing the report DOES rest on the fruit of much reasoning about the veracity of the reporter and the consistency of the rest of the report.

I have disproved this with the quotes from The Messiah Texts which show that the Jews themselves continue to expect their Messiah to be literally born in Bethlehem. Wouldn't you think that THEIR understanding of the scripture might hold a little more weight than yours? Many towns in the Bible are named for the progenitor of the clan that originally established it, and it becomes later simply a place name. What camel are you swallowing while swatting at this gnat?You are also concerned about this mention of the "thousands of Judah" But what's the big deal? The meaning is pretty obvious. Bethlehem was (and still is) a very small town, within an area populated by thousands, the point being it has nothing important about it to recommend it as the birthplace of an illustrious person compared to the bigger population areas of Judah.{Edit: You say other translations have "clans" in place of "thousands?" Same meaning. Other clans are bigger and more important than the little clan of Bethlehem-Ephratah.This message has been edited by Faith, 05-16-2005 02:58 PMThis message has been edited by Faith, 05-16-2005 03:11 PM

Are you saying the these are criteria you can use for determining validity in either one of the literary works in question?What constitutes internal consistency? Does knowledge of the previously-written documents by the later authors invalidate this internal consistency? Why or why not?What is consistent testamony in regards to the two works cited here? Does knowledge of the other witnesses' testamonies invalidate any particular witness' testamony? I admit that I chose the "Kent Family Chronicles" because I knew it was fiction and figured most everyone else would also. However, the acknowledgement by the author or when it was written is immaterial in this case. Let us assume for the length of this debate that the authorship and date of the writing is unknown or in contention. Also assume that many people believe the story to be literal truth. Can we validate or invalidate either of these literary works? If part of a document is true then all of it is true? Maybe I am missing your point.
What do you mean by "part is validated by the whole".
How is that put into practice in the determination of the validity of a work of literature? There are lots of time-and-place and specific historical references in "The Kent Family Chonicles". Those references can be verified more unequivocally than the ones you cite from Luke 2 (as I am sure others will point out). Does this contribute to the veracity of the Kent family line? Please explain your answer.

quote:

---

He asked him 'What is his name?' 'Menahem.'

---

And they still didn't get the name right. Why would this apply to Jesus instead of Menahem the King of Israel?

---

"The average man does not know what to do with this life, yet wants another one which lasts forever." --Anatole France

quote:

---

Every single statement does not have to be directly witnessed in a document that is full of direct witness reports in general. The part is validated by the whole. SOMEBODY witnessed the birth and reported it and it was well known. If other parts of the story are valid so is this part.

---

That doesn't follow. How do you know that either of the stories are directly based on witness accounts ? Or that either story was well-known, given that neither Mark nore John include a Nativity story at all, and Luke and Matthew differ on so much ? Surely the evidence indicates that it was NOT well-known.

quote:

---

I haven't read completely through this thread so I don't know what you consider to be inconsistencies, but seeming inconsistencies are usually easily resolved if you read the different accounts as supplying information missing from the others, or referring to a different event in the same basic time frame.

---

In my experience this is not the case. It is only "easy" if you calue denying inconsistencies above a reasonable reading of the texts.But to offer one example, In Matthew Joseph and Mary are living in Bethlehem when the Magi visit, 1-2 years after Jesus was born. They move to Nazareth only after returning from Egypt.In Luke, Joseph and Mary visit Bethlehem for the census and return to Nazareth about 2 months later.

quote:

---

When you have such a specific historical reference as that in Luke 2, "And it came to pass in those days, that there went out a decree from Caesar Augustus, that all the world should be taxed" and you are told that Joseph and Mary are of the lineage of David and that the Davidic household paid its taxes in Bethlehem, and Mary was "great with child," I would think that all these time-and-place references would contribute to the veracity of the story.

---

Except that there was no decree to tax the world in Augustus' reign. The best fit is the taxation imposed on Judaea when the Romans annexed it. That census took place about 10 years after the death of Herod the Great, contradicting Matthew's story.We aren't told that Mary was of the House of David - that was invented to explain away the contradiction in the lineages given for Jesus in Matthew and Luke.The Davidic household would not have paid taxes in Bethlehem - unless they lived there or owned property there. That's what the Romans were interested in.Mary has to be "great with child" for Jesus to be born in Bethlehem. It hardly tells in favour of authenticity, since that would be the main point of inventing the story.

Huh?We aren't talking about Jesus at the moment or any actual messianic claim. Brian claimed that Micah 5:2 doesn't refer to a TOWN of Bethlehem but to a clan, so that it supposedly is merely another statement that the Messiah will come from the line of David.What I quoted is a STORY, a TALE, a FICTION, about a fictional Messiah, and it shows that Bethlehem is considered by the Jews who wrote it to be the place where the Messiah will be born. It has NOTHING in common with reality or even the flavor of scripture. It merely incorporates Jewish lore about the Messiah according to how the prophecies are understood by at least this Jewish group or writer. I haven't tracked down its source, but it could be from something called the Jerusalem Talmud or something else, most likely from the Middle Ages as many of these stories are.Again, the Messiah in this story as well as the next story is fictional, the whole thing is fictional. Somebody's imagination of the circumstances of the coming of the Messiah. It doesn't refer to any living person. Apparently some Jews expect the Messiah to be named Menahem? And some expect his father to be named Hezekiah? But they also apparently expect him to be born in Bethlehem, and, also, incidentally as far as this topic is concerned, that his birth will be occasioned by the destruction of the Temple.This message has been edited by Faith, 05-16-2005 06:36 PMThis message has been edited by Faith, 05-16-2005 06:37 PM