Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Matthew 27:9: Quoted from Jeremiah?
ReformedRob
Member (Idle past 5721 days)
Posts: 143
From: Anthem AZ, USA
Joined: 08-27-2006


Message 46 of 74 (344570)
08-29-2006 12:33 AM
Reply to: Message 45 by Nighttrain
08-28-2006 11:18 PM


Re: How God/Man works
nighttrain writes:
Haley`s piece of bunk contradicts itself. After titling 'Alleged', he then proceeds to excuse strings of real discrepancies as 'scribal errors'.
Be responsible and demonstrate it. He who asserts must prove. Haley's is quite good, a standard in the field and the first of it's kind and anyone interested in the topic of supposed. I have read the entire thing and do not find your statement to be even remotely accurate so I dispute it and challenge you to be responsible. I will be looking into the Jeremiah grouping explanation later when I have more time as I proposed it from memory from research I did years and years ago on purported contradictions in the Bible which 99.9% end up being poor superficial scholarship on the part of the critic.
Edited by AdminPD, : Fixed quote box.

"...but according to their own desires, because they have itching ears, they will heap up for themselves teachers; and they will turn their ears away from the truth, and be turned aside to fables"

This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by Nighttrain, posted 08-28-2006 11:18 PM Nighttrain has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 47 by Nighttrain, posted 08-29-2006 1:49 AM ReformedRob has replied

  
Nighttrain
Member (Idle past 3993 days)
Posts: 1512
From: brisbane,australia
Joined: 06-08-2004


Message 47 of 74 (344594)
08-29-2006 1:49 AM
Reply to: Message 46 by ReformedRob
08-29-2006 12:33 AM


Re: How God/Man works
Since you have reading comprehension problems, go through it yourself and tick every time Haley mentions 'scribal errors'. Come back with a list and we`ll discuss them.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by ReformedRob, posted 08-29-2006 12:33 AM ReformedRob has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 48 by ReformedRob, posted 08-29-2006 2:22 AM Nighttrain has replied

  
ReformedRob
Member (Idle past 5721 days)
Posts: 143
From: Anthem AZ, USA
Joined: 08-27-2006


Message 48 of 74 (344595)
08-29-2006 2:22 AM
Reply to: Message 47 by Nighttrain
08-29-2006 1:49 AM


Re: How God/Man works
It's your assertion it's up to you to prove. Why should I fulfill your argumentation burdens? Again he who asserts must prove a basic tenet of logic and argumentation.
Just what I expected a cop out.
Nighttrain - Please read Admin msg below before responding.
--AdminPD
Edited by AdminPD, : AdminMsg

"...but according to their own desires, because they have itching ears, they will heap up for themselves teachers; and they will turn their ears away from the truth, and be turned aside to fables"

This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by Nighttrain, posted 08-29-2006 1:49 AM Nighttrain has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 49 by AdminPD, posted 08-29-2006 6:59 AM ReformedRob has not replied
 Message 54 by Nighttrain, posted 09-01-2006 4:48 AM ReformedRob has replied

  
AdminPD
Inactive Administrator


Message 49 of 74 (344620)
08-29-2006 6:59 AM
Reply to: Message 48 by ReformedRob
08-29-2006 2:22 AM


Add to the Discussion Please
ReformedRob and Nighttrain,
Please remember rule #4
Points should be supported with evidence and/or reasoned argumentation. Address rebuttals through the introduction of additional evidence or by enlarging upon the argument. Do not repeat previous points without further elaboration. Avoid bare assertions.
Your last volley of posts did not add to the discussion.
Please make your posts count.
Please direct any comments concerning this Admin msg to the Moderation Thread.
Any response in this thread will receive a 24 hour timeout.
Thank you Purple

This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by ReformedRob, posted 08-29-2006 2:22 AM ReformedRob has not replied

  
Brian
Member (Idle past 4958 days)
Posts: 4659
From: Scotland
Joined: 10-22-2002


Message 50 of 74 (344637)
08-29-2006 8:11 AM
Reply to: Message 42 by ReformedRob
08-28-2006 6:03 PM


Re: How God works
In Evidence demands a Verdict McDowell merely makes an outline of the topic then cites the experts themselves.
I already know who the expert biblical scholars are.
Since you were unaware of basic answers to commonly miscomposed supposed contradictions it is a good starting point or reference point.
I don't know how you get the conclusion that I was unaware of anything, wasn;t it my awareness that higlighted the lack of evidence for the ad hoc Jeremiah claim?
R.C. Sproul however is a good scholar. He isnt biased you unjustly concluded that because he has come to a definate conclusion that is other than yours ...that does not equal bias.
I didn't mention Sproul, so I have no idea why you say this.
I mentioned McDowell, Geisler and Strobel, that was all. The reason I mention them is precisely because they are rank amateur in their approach to biblical studies, and their work is not of a decent academic quality.
To be versed on both sides of an issue you should get a couple of these books on christian apologetics to know both sides and investigate the claims then of the apologists. I have done so.
What makes you think I haven't already done so?
I debated in college for the #1 ranked college at the time
Wow, that is so exciting, you will be a great addition to EvC.
and did exactly this type of study on the bible
What kind of study, trying to provide ad hoc unsupported assertions to make the Bible 'perfect'?
evolution, economics and psychology. I can recite both sides of an issue and the strenths and weakenesses of each but I have come to a definate conclusion as has McDowell and Sproul...a definate conclusion does not equal bias.
I didn't say it did. I said McDowell, Geisler, and Strobel's research was biased, and that they are either unaware or ignore a great deal of the contrary evidence and are too ready to accept anything to support their position.
If you think they are biased take your own advice you gave me here and demonstrate it..."it isnt so just because you say it is". If you are unwilling to read the apologists and their sources on an issue you will be biased and closed minded yourself.
But I have read them, how else can I conclude that their work is poor?
Read Paul Johnson a noted award winning historian "A History of the Jews." You cant argue with that source!
Would you like to bet?
Anyway, this is off topic as this is the thread regarding the error by the author of Matthew's Gospel.
I will respond to the 'grouping' evidence when it materialises. Meantime, if you wish to discuss apologists then we need to open another thread.
Brian.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by ReformedRob, posted 08-28-2006 6:03 PM ReformedRob has not replied

  
Brian
Member (Idle past 4958 days)
Posts: 4659
From: Scotland
Joined: 10-22-2002


Message 51 of 74 (344641)
08-29-2006 8:21 AM
Reply to: Message 44 by purpledawn
08-28-2006 8:18 PM


Re: Head of the Group
I've tried to find something other than an apologetic source that would back up that idea, but I haven't found a truly Jewish source yet.
It doesn't even sound in the slightest bit credible to me. In fact, it sounds intensely disrespectful to God's chosen medium.
The impression I get is that while the scrolls may have been grouped together, I haven't found a Jewish source that supports the custom of quoting a minor prophet by referring to the major prophet in the grouping, which your examples brought out.
I am sure Reformed must have some evidence or he wouldn't be so convinced. I think he is just having some trouble tracking it down, which is surprising since it is supposed to be well known.
Even the author of the Yashanet site doesn't think it is likely.
I think it is more likely that whoever wrote gMat made a boo-boo, which is no big deal really.
More problematic is the fact that the author of gMat has made a completely misunderstood the original 'prophecy'. Either that or he meant to take it out of context by quote mining the earlier texts.
Brian.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by purpledawn, posted 08-28-2006 8:18 PM purpledawn has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 52 by ReformedRob, posted 08-29-2006 10:36 PM Brian has not replied

  
ReformedRob
Member (Idle past 5721 days)
Posts: 143
From: Anthem AZ, USA
Joined: 08-27-2006


Message 52 of 74 (344912)
08-29-2006 10:36 PM
Reply to: Message 51 by Brian
08-29-2006 8:21 AM


The practice of Hebrew Practice of Gezera Shewa
Sorry I did not have time to find this last nite. I got involved in too many threads but here is a good reference to the practice of the jews at the time of Jesus to quote the head of a grouping for a passage in the grouping
Shabir claims that Matthew falsely attributes a prophecy made by Zechariah to Jeremiah:
"So they decided to use the money to buy the potter's field as a burial place for foreigners. That is why it has been called the Field of Blood to this day. Then what was spoken by Jeremiah the prophet was fulfilled: 'They took the thirty silver coins, the price set on him by the people of Israel, and they used them to buy the potter's field, as the Lord commanded me.'" Matthew 27:7-10
Matthew's citation is actually a conflation of Zechariah 11:12-13 and Jeremiah 19:1-13 and 32:6-9. There is a very simple explanation why Matthew would attribute the prophecy to Jeremiah:
"... Why did Mattiyahu ascribe the words to Jeremiah? One suggestion is supported by Talmudic references: the scroll of the Prophets may have originally begun with Jeremiah (the longest book, by word count), not Isaiah; if so Mattiyahu, by naming Jeremiah is referring to the Prophets as a group; not naming the particular prophet quoted." (Dr. David Stern, Jewish New Testament Commentary [Jewish New Testament Publications, Inc.; Clarksville, Maryland 1996 fifth edition], p. 83)
Furthermore, it was a common Jewish exegetical practice to link together passages which had identical words or phrases. Liberal NT exegete John C. Fenton, a Muslim favorite, while commenting on Matthew 2:5-6, noted:
"The prophecy is from Mic. 5.2, but it is not given in the LXX translation, nor is it an exact rendering of the Hebrew text, 2 Sam 5.2 MAY have been combined with the Micah prophecy; combining of similar Old Testament passages WAS A REGULAR FEATURE OF RABBINIC STUDY OF THE SCRIPTURES." (Fenton, Saint Matthew - The Penguin New Testament Commentaries, Penguin Books, 1963, p. 46; bold and capital emphasis ours)
This practice is known as gezera shewa, and demonstrates that Matthew was thoroughly Jewish in his use and exegesis of the OT text. http://answering-islam.org/...abir-Ally/favorites.htm#mt27_9

"...but according to their own desires, because they have itching ears, they will heap up for themselves teachers; and they will turn their ears away from the truth, and be turned aside to fables"

This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by Brian, posted 08-29-2006 8:21 AM Brian has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 56 by purpledawn, posted 09-01-2006 2:13 PM ReformedRob has replied

  
ReformedRob
Member (Idle past 5721 days)
Posts: 143
From: Anthem AZ, USA
Joined: 08-27-2006


Message 53 of 74 (344915)
08-29-2006 10:49 PM


Another Jewis Source for Gezera Shewa
"However, composite attributions suit a common practice of Jewish exegetes. Z. H. Chages in The Student's Guide to the Talmud [172ff] relates a practice of the rabbis of quoting various persons under one and the same name. The rabbis "adopted as one of their methods that of calling different personages by one and the same name if they found them akin in any feature of their characters or activities or if they found a similarity between any of their actions." Thus for example Malachi and Ezra are said to be the "same person" (Meg. 15a) because they both say similar things (Mal. 2:2, Ez. 10:2). Chages gives examples of as many as three people being treated as one person because of such similarities."
Hope this helps, as I said it was a common Jewish practice. Apologies are in order!

"...but according to their own desires, because they have itching ears, they will heap up for themselves teachers; and they will turn their ears away from the truth, and be turned aside to fables"

  
Nighttrain
Member (Idle past 3993 days)
Posts: 1512
From: brisbane,australia
Joined: 06-08-2004


Message 54 of 74 (345647)
09-01-2006 4:48 AM
Reply to: Message 48 by ReformedRob
08-29-2006 2:22 AM


Re: How God/Man works
It's your assertion it's up to you to prove. Why should I fulfill your argumentation burdens? Again he who asserts must prove a basic tenet of logic and argumentation.
Just what I expected a cop out.
Alleged Discrepancies of the Bible--John W. Haley
Baker Book House--Reprinted 1977
Scribal errors:
PP 19-25,42,312,313,321,332,333,334,336,338,351,352,365,368,369,378,380,381, 382,383,385,388,390,391,393,396,398,399,400,401,402,403,413,422.427,431.
Edited by AdminPD, : Added space in long list of numbers so page would return to normal.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by ReformedRob, posted 08-29-2006 2:22 AM ReformedRob has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 55 by ReformedRob, posted 09-01-2006 5:10 AM Nighttrain has not replied

  
ReformedRob
Member (Idle past 5721 days)
Posts: 143
From: Anthem AZ, USA
Joined: 08-27-2006


Message 55 of 74 (345650)
09-01-2006 5:10 AM
Reply to: Message 54 by Nighttrain
09-01-2006 4:48 AM


Re: How God/Man works
Wow impressive follow up!
It looks like you made your point! I'll have to follow up as well.
but I am curious about the point of this thread and the practice of
Gezera Shewa one of Hillel's 7 points. Doesn't this jewish practice (that no one believed me about!) satisfactorily answer the original question, the topic of this thread?

"...but according to their own desires, because they have itching ears, they will heap up for themselves teachers; and they will turn their ears away from the truth, and be turned aside to fables"

This message is a reply to:
 Message 54 by Nighttrain, posted 09-01-2006 4:48 AM Nighttrain has not replied

  
purpledawn
Member (Idle past 3456 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


Message 56 of 74 (345753)
09-01-2006 2:13 PM
Reply to: Message 52 by ReformedRob
08-29-2006 10:36 PM


But Is It Prophecy?
Your source doesn't really say that referencing the major prophet in the group is a custom. He just speculated what the author of Matthew might have done.
the scroll of the Prophets may have originally begun with Jeremiah (the longest book, by word count), not Isaiah; if so Mattiyahu, by naming Jeremiah is referring to the Prophets as a group; not naming the particular prophet quoted."
quote:
Matthew's citation is actually a conflation of Zechariah 11:12-13 and Jeremiah 19:1-13 and 32:6-9. There is a very simple explanation why Matthew would attribute the prophecy to Jeremiah:
So it isn't a true quote. While I do agree with your source that "Furthermore, it was a common Jewish exegetical practice to link together passages which had identical words or phrases."
I would question the authority of blended phrases that are deemed prophecy and have a different meaning than the original texts.
27:9
Then that which was spoken through Jeremiah the prophet was fulfilled: "AND THEY TOOK THE THIRTY PIECES OF SILVER, THE PRICE OF THE ONE WHOSE PRICE HAD BEEN SET by the sons of Israel;
Neither Zechariah or Jeremiah spoke of something to be fulfilled.
Zechariah
11:11
So it was broken on that day, and thus the afflicted of the flock who were watching me realized that it was the word of the LORD.
11:12
I said to them, "If it is good in your sight, give me my wages; but if not, never mind!" So they weighed out thirty shekels of silver as my wages.
11:13
Then the LORD said to me, "Throw it to the potter, that magnificent price at which I was valued by them." So I took the thirty shekels of silver and threw them to the potter in the house of the LORD.
11:14
Then I cut in pieces my second staff Union , to break the brotherhood between Judah and Israel.
Jeremiah
32:6
And Jeremiah said, "The word of the LORD came to me, saying,
32:7
'Behold, Hanamel the son of Shallum your uncle is coming to you, saying, "Buy for yourself my field which is at Anathoth, for you have the right of redemption to buy it."'
32:8
"Then Hanamel my uncle's son came to me in the court of the guard according to the word of the LORD and said to me, 'Buy my field, please, that is at Anathoth, which is in the land of Benjamin; for you have the right of possession and the redemption is yours; buy it for yourself.' Then I knew that this was the word of the LORD.
32:9
"I bought the field which was at Anathoth from Hanamel my uncle's son, and I weighed out the silver for him, seventeen shekels of silver.
Personally I feel that the author of Matthew knew exactly what he was doing and it had nothing to do with real prophecy. Message 11

"Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz

This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by ReformedRob, posted 08-29-2006 10:36 PM ReformedRob has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 57 by ReformedRob, posted 09-01-2006 11:36 PM purpledawn has replied

  
ReformedRob
Member (Idle past 5721 days)
Posts: 143
From: Anthem AZ, USA
Joined: 08-27-2006


Message 57 of 74 (345909)
09-01-2006 11:36 PM
Reply to: Message 56 by purpledawn
09-01-2006 2:13 PM


Re: But Is It Prophecy?
I'm assuming that the practice of Gezera Shewa enumerated by Hillel in his approach to scripture finally answers the question of this thread "Matthew 27:9: Quoted from Jeremiah?" Everyone who doubted me has dropped the issue and dont even have the decency to acknowledge it. But in debate lack of response is to concede the point.
The new question you pose 'but is it prophecy' I would have to state the obvious...yes because Matthew, the disciple said it was after an encounter with the risen christ "And beginning at Moses and all the Prophets. He expounded to them in all the Scriptures the things concerning Himself" Luke 24:27
The rest of the book does not even remotely support your satire theory. It would be a hasty generalizing taking a small part and qualifying the whole with it with the small part highly questionable.
Edited by ReformedRob, : No reason given.

"...but according to their own desires, because they have itching ears, they will heap up for themselves teachers; and they will turn their ears away from the truth, and be turned aside to fables"

This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by purpledawn, posted 09-01-2006 2:13 PM purpledawn has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 58 by ringo, posted 09-02-2006 12:27 AM ReformedRob has replied
 Message 60 by purpledawn, posted 09-02-2006 7:46 AM ReformedRob has not replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 411 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 58 of 74 (345920)
09-02-2006 12:27 AM
Reply to: Message 57 by ReformedRob
09-01-2006 11:36 PM


Re: But Is It Prophecy?
ReformedRob writes:
But in debate lack of response is to concede the point.
In that case, you have conceded points in several other threads.

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

This message is a reply to:
 Message 57 by ReformedRob, posted 09-01-2006 11:36 PM ReformedRob has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 59 by ReformedRob, posted 09-02-2006 12:59 AM ringo has not replied

  
ReformedRob
Member (Idle past 5721 days)
Posts: 143
From: Anthem AZ, USA
Joined: 08-27-2006


Message 59 of 74 (345928)
09-02-2006 12:59 AM
Reply to: Message 58 by ringo
09-02-2006 12:27 AM


Re: But Is It Prophecy?
Ringo writes:
In that case, you have conceded points in several other threads.
Or I got involved in too many threads and havent had time to gather my evidence and respond!
In this thread there has been ample time for many protagonists to have responded!
You do keep me on my toes!
Go back to the Tyre prophecy I just reamed you and purple dawn in my response to purple dawn.

"...but according to their own desires, because they have itching ears, they will heap up for themselves teachers; and they will turn their ears away from the truth, and be turned aside to fables"

This message is a reply to:
 Message 58 by ringo, posted 09-02-2006 12:27 AM ringo has not replied

  
purpledawn
Member (Idle past 3456 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


Message 60 of 74 (345977)
09-02-2006 7:46 AM
Reply to: Message 57 by ReformedRob
09-01-2006 11:36 PM


Re: But Is It Prophecy?
quote:
I'm assuming that the practice of Gezera Shewa enumerated by Hillel in his approach to scripture finally answers the question of this thread "Matthew 27:9: Quoted from Jeremiah?" Everyone who doubted me has dropped the issue and dont even have the decency to acknowledge it. But in debate lack of response is to concede the point.
You assume incorrectly.
Gezera Shewa only confirms the practice of blending similar verses. It doesn't confirm or promote the practice of attributing a quote to a major prophet because the minor one may or may not have been grouped with the major prophets scroll. It doesn't address why the blended product was attributed to Jeremiah.
The simplest explanation aside from the satire theory is that the author created a prophecy from blending verses from two prophets and attributed it to the major prophet or the one who came first alphabetically. We'll can never really know what was actually going through the author's mind at the time he wrote Matthew.
quote:
The new question you pose 'but is it prophecy' I would have to state the obvious...yes because Matthew, the disciple said it was after an encounter with the risen christ "And beginning at Moses and all the Prophets. He expounded to them in all the Scriptures the things concerning Himself" Luke 24:27
The author of Matthew did not make that claim and the verse from Luke is not Matthew speaking.
25 He (Jesus) said to them, "Foolish people! So unwilling to put your trust in everything the prophets spoke! 26 Didn't the Messiah have to die like this before entering his glory?" 27 Then, starting with Moshe and all the prophets, he (Jesus) explained to them the things that can be found throughout the Tanakh concerning himself (Jesus).
Not to drag this thread off the main topic, I just thought it was an interesting question as to whether a blended statement could really be considered a prophecy when the blended statement wasn't actually stated before the time it was spoken. So it was spoken after the event and not before the event.
quote:
The rest of the book does not even remotely support your satire theory. It would be a hasty generalizing taking a small part and qualifying the whole with it with the small part highly questionable.
I feel that it does, but there is a thread for that.
Book of Matthew - Serious or Satire?.

"Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz

This message is a reply to:
 Message 57 by ReformedRob, posted 09-01-2006 11:36 PM ReformedRob has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024