Bias in biblical scholarship

[Mithrae]

Edit: I've cluttered up the screen a bit with my detailed explanations, so for everyone's sanity, here's a link to the last (and shortest) of my explanatory posts
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 759#465759



Almost eight years ago I departed from the Christian faith; I considered myself an 'agnostic theist' for a few months after that, then an atheist/agnostic for seven years or so, and over the past few months have become persuaded that theism is a more reasonable worldview. But on and off through that period (and obviously when I was a Christian) I've been interested in discussing and learning about the origins of Christianity and earlier Jewish history.

While I'm obviously no expert, I've found over the years that there's a few points on which the scholarly 'consensus' views - though to be fair, in most cases I doubt there's anything more than a significant majority - simply doesn't seem compelling to me. Since this is hardly a concrete subject like physics or chemistry, on those issues where I've considered my views carefully enough I've been content to hold my own tentative opinions until shown otherwise.

But we all, myself included, are often heavily influenced by majority scholarly views in areas which we haven't examined extensively, and indeed often very much guided by them even when we do look up things for ourselves. So it troubles me that there's not just one or two points on which I think reference to the scholarly majority is inadequate (or even incorrect), but several - and on each issue, it seems to me that mainstream scholarship's suggestions deviate more from historical/traditional perspectives than I myself would endorse.

The main examples would probably be these:

• 1) Dating of Mark (and Matthew) (link)
  Majority scholarship suggests that Mark was written after 70CE, and that consequently Matthew was written after 75 or even 80CE. My view is that thematic features suggest Matthew was almost certainly written 70-73CE, and Mark could very plausibly have been written before 70.
  
  2) Gospel of John (link)
  Majority scholarship suggests that the fourth gospel was written by a community aligned with or previously led by a disciple of Jesus, rather than the 'beloved disciple' himself. I find no strong evidence to support that view (a couple of possible redactions aside), and quite a solid balance of evidence suggesting that it was indeed written primarily by a disciple.
  
  3) Book of Daniel (link)
  Majority scholarship suggests that the sections of Daniel dealing with events of the Greek period were written in the 2nd century BCE, during the reign of Antiochus IV Epiphanes. Obviously I see things differently, though I haven't yet had the opportunity to test my views on this forum; the lack of response even in McCulloch's recent thread on prophecy was actually the catalyst for this thread.
  
  4) History of Israel (link)
  Majority scholarship (or so I've read) suggests that the peoples who became known as Israel and Judah were not foreign to Canaan, but in fact emerged from native populations whose religion they persisted in until the time of Hezekiah (c 720s BCE) and beyond. The presence of Canaanite religion is certainly acknowledged in the bible, but I believe that the earlier prophets, the J and E sources of the Pentateuch and perhaps external history or even archaeology could imply the influence of an originally foreign culture with monotheistic tendencies.

To keep the OP brief I'll post more detailed comments on these points separately. So without further ado I ask:

Is it plausible that majority or 'mainstream' scholarship may be subject to some (minor) anti-traditional bias? Why or why not?

[Xian Pugilist]

"THIS GENERATION WILL NOT PASS, isn't about the living generation, but the generation of peoples he'd just described prior to the statement. That generation may or may not have occured yet.

Dating of Mark (and Matthew)

Even before the gospels were written the early Christians, or at the very least those influenced by Paul, believed that Jesus was going to come back soon (eg. 1 Cor. 7:29-31). This theme is seen also in the apocalypse of Mark 13, where Jesus supposedly said "this generation" will not pass 'til those prophecies had been fulfilled. I suggest could be the same kind of expectation as Paul's, rather than anachronistic reference to the Jewish revolt, because it's questionable how strongly Mark emphasised that theme. In ch4 Mark's Jesus at great length describes the 'kingdom of God' as an organic, growing process; thus in Mark 8:34-9:1, where Jesus is talking about the process of self-denial which he requires of his disciples, it's questionable (though possible) whether his final comment about the 'kingdom of God' refers to eschatological expectation.

Matthew's gospel changes that passage, making it an explicit reference to "the Son of Man coming in his kingdom" (Matt. 16:28). Whereas the later gospels of Luke (17:20-21 & 21:20-24) and John (21:22-23) carefully downplay the expectation of an immanent eschaton, Matthew more than any other New Testament work emphasises how soon it will be; in 10:23 Matthew alone has Jesus saying that "you will not have gone through the cities of Israel before the Son of Man comes." Matthew is the most Jewish in theme and content of the gospels, and unlike Mark he specifically draws his readers' attention to the writings of Daniel in his apocalypse (Matt. 24:15). Daniel 9:26 says that a future ruler would destroy the city and sanctuary, and verse 27 from which this 'abomination of desolation' is drawn says that in the sacrifice and offering would be halted in the middle of a 'seven,' the end of which completes all prophecy (v24).

I believe that Matthew's extreme emphasis on how soon Jesus would return is best explained (and indeed only explained) if he wrote immediately after the temple's destruction - the end to sacrifice and offering - and expected Jesus' return within three or four years of that event. Some discussion on this point between myself and ThatGirlAgain can be found in the final posts of this page.

Furrowed Brow's thread Is Markan Priority Wrong? includes much discussion about whether Mark was written before Matthew, with most contributors agreeing that the common scholarly view is the most reasonable. There was also considerable, related discussion on whether or not Mark could have been written prior to 70CE, more or less beginning with ThatGirlAgain's arguments here. A couple of highlights from the side which I agree with:

Argument that Mark 13 refers specifically to the First Revolt and the siege and destruction of Jerusalem, spoken as a prophecy by Jesus.

Heres a funny thing. In the heart of London next to the Thames you will find the Tower of London. It is built from stone and so far stood for several hundred years with absolutely no hint it will fall down or be knocked down. Im going to make a prediction. At some point I shall not define Not one stone there will be left on another; everyone will be thrown down. I guarantee you this prediction will come true. Not saying when though.

So what Jesus predicted the destruction of the temple. These are violent times, buildings are no so well built, and Rome is ruthless. Rome already destroyed Carthage 146 BC and plenty of other folk who stood in her way. It was the sort of thing Rome did. Heck he might must have been generalising in a very nonspecific way like just like next few verse that follow. Mark 13:5-8 theyve been true just about every century ever since.

Here are two Messiah claimants associated with the First Revolt.
http://www.livius.org/men-mh/messiah/me ... nts11.html
http://www.livius.org/men-mh/messiah/me ... nts12.html

Okay you need to rethink what you are trying to do. You are taken some very nonspecific claims attributed to Jesus and trying to write in the details, and then give Mark the credit for referencing these possibilities. Just look at how non specific Jesus claims are. Here is a list of messiah claimants How did Mark know about Montanus in in 135-177? If he is not referring to him then why might he be referring to the two you offer as an example. Because their dates work out I guess. What about Simon Magus. What Jesus said could apply to the whole list. If so it makes the claim the reference applies to a specific siege pretty darn meaningless. This is a clear example of trying to rationalise Mark as responding to the Jewish Revolt when what is said is just open to interpretation.

The problem here is getting unnerved by seeing this as some kind of meaningful prophecy on Jesus part and in retreat from that thought look for ways to get the prediction in after the event. So what if the temple was destroyed by Rome 40 years or so later. It really is meaningless much like trying to discern the meaning of a metaphor is a meaningless exercise.

Step outside your theory of Mark for a moment. Go back to the sectiona in Mark 13 you have just quoted and pick out one hard specific prediction with a date and location and name attached. You are seeing Mark referencing events I am seeing you fit some data to very non specific generic statements and truisms. Sure we can make sense of Mark this way, I am not saying this is not just as good a way to rationalise Mark as any other, except it makes it all a meaningless exercise. I kind of prefer the idea these sayimngs are really being attributed to Jesus. Maybe he even said them. It is really not problematic a prophet would come out with such banalities. They tend to do that.

I believe I have already made a pretty good case that the demons into swine pericope indicates that it was written not earlier than 67 CE. This pericope shows up in all three Synoptic Gospels. I believe that analysis of the different ways it is told indicates Markan Priority.
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 7&start=23
See the two consecutive posts from me.

In summary: The story involves the presence of a herd of two thousand swine. The Roman Tenth Legion used a wild boar as its symbol in the timeframe of the First Revolt. Elements of that Legion, arguably two thousand in number, took part in the siege of a rebellious city in 67 CE. That siege ended with many of the Jewish defenders falling to their deaths trying to escape down a steep slope. Jesus tells this story in an area on the east side of the Sea of Galilee where there is a steep slope leading down to the water. Jesus casts two thousand demons whose name is Legion into pigs who run down that slope into the water. This is the way the story is told in Mark.

Matthew tells a shorter version than Mark or Luke, leaving out the name Legion and not mentioning the number.

Luke tells a story very similar to Mark, even with much common language, using the name Legion but leaving out the two thousand.

As described at length in my other posts, the name Legion and the number two thousand tie in well with a revenge fantasy based on a specific historical event. But only Mark has both and Matthew has neither. Why did Luke use the word Legion when Matthew did not? Why did Mark use the number two thousand? The most likely explanation I can see is that Mark wrote first and then Matthew and Luke used parts of his story comprehensible to them and their respective audiences. Again my belief is that Mark got his material about the Revolt from an eyewitness.

Hey ThatGirl, sorry for not replying to this in the other thread. Two obvious problems spring to mind here:
- Mark himself and his gentile (Roman?) audience probably wouldn't understand the reference in the first place
- Matthew and his Jewish audience (Galilean/Syrian, I believe you've said?) probably would get the reference, if such it was, yet he doesn't use it

Positing a Revolt eyewitness for Mark doesn't help much; presumably it'd still have to be Mark himself who decided that his audience really ought to see an obscure tale about demons called Legion taking a herd of swine into the lake at Gerasa. The perfect way to vent this (presumably) non-Galilean author's strong feelings about the fate of one small rebel town amongst the many at the time!

Furthermore, I think there's simply too little in the story to connect it to the siege of Gamala. It occurs near Gerasa instead of Gamala, and while I'm not familiar with Roman-era idioms I wouldn't be surprised if it was common to use 'legion' as we use 'army' - a synonym for a host or multitude. Mark certainly knew enough about Jewish culture to recognise that sending a herd of pigs into the lake would be poetic justice in a Jewish region, and what does it say about this Jesus that he shows that smidgeon of mercy even to demons who plead for it? The only small oddity is that the pigs (not the 'Legion') are actually numbered, and that connection to X Fretensis is somewhat dubious to us (and almost certainly unknown to Mark's readers).

I think what we've got here is simply coincidence; scholars finding an event which vaguely fits in with 'legion,' pigs and a steep slope.

Mark 13:14-17
14 When you see the abomination that causes desolation standing where it does not belong"let the reader understand"then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains. 15 Let no one on the housetop go down or enter the house to take anything out. 16 Let no one in the field go back to get their cloak. 17 How dreadful it will be in those days for pregnant women and nursing mothers!

This is a very interesting passage. The abomination that causes desolation is from Daniel chapters 9, 11 and 12.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abomination_of_Desolation

What Mark is referring to has been debated back and forth. It is usually taken to be something that happens in or to the Temple during the siege of Jerusalem. However note that Mark uses it as a sign of the bad times to come. By the siege it is too late to flee. Jerusalem is surrounded. What might Mark be referring to that comes before the siege. And why does Mark break the proscenium and speak directly to the reader about this?

An interesting point, and to my mind that suggests that the passage was written before the event. An abomination (which didn't actually come to pass) from over thirty years earlier is hardly a fair warning to "flee to the mountains" by any measure. Likewise, as you've pointed out, it'd be strange warning people to flee once they see that Jerusalem has fallen, the rebellion mostly crushed and tens of thousands of lives destroyed. Writing after the events, surely Mark would have put a more appropriate warning in Jesus' mouth?

Or from a different perspective, why does Mark (c71, 72 CE) want the Christians of Judea (should they ever read his work) to flee to the mountains now that they've seen the temple desolated?

On the contrary, this reads more like a genuine concern based on existing prophecy in the Tanakh. Wars and rumours of wars, nations, kingdoms and brothers rising against each other, persecution of believers and even famines and earthquakes are all rather general warnings, and in any case obviously accessible to a writer in the early or mid 60s CE. Rather than looking back to the Revolt history for a relevant warning bell, the author seems to be looking forward to prophecied events and notes the abomination as the biggie to watch for.

On the basis of the above I have formed what I consider to be a very sound opinion that while it's possible Mark wrote in 70CE and Matthew wrote in 71, it's just as likely (if not more so) that Mark wrote before the temple's destruction and reflects only similar eschatological expectations as we see in Paul's work.

If it is the case that most mainstream scholars date Mark at 70-80CE and Matthew to 75CE or later, I question whether their conclusions might not be unduly influenced by the anti-'prophetic' bias which Furrowed Brow mentions in the quote above.

[Fuzzy Dunlop]

For starters, I'm not sure which "known laws of the universe" exclude predicting the future accurately.

The movement of time from past -> future. Guessing, of course, is still possible.

I also doubt that every 'magical' explanation has been examined and, for those that have, it's interesting to wonder how many others (like Daniel) have been dismissed largely because those explanations have "failed everywhere else."

As I understand it methodological naturalism is important in science for two primary reasons:
- To eliminate that branch of ad hoc hypotheses
- To preserve the requirement of testability
But the study of history is not subject to testing in that manner; and if a source claims personal observation/experience of 'supernatural' agency, it clearly is not an ad hoc approach to consider that claim - on the contrary, its automatic dismissal is the arbitrary course.

History is things that happened in the past, and quite often history is indeed subject to testing through the evaluation of evidence. It isn't arbitrary to infer based on the evidence that we have in such a manner as this:

- people have claimed to be able to predict the future via magical means throughout history.
- whenever it has been possible to test such claims, they have been shown to be false.
- thus we should reasonably treat such claims with great skepticism when we find them.

We don't "automatically dismiss" the claims. We would just have to be rather credulous to treat them seriously without very good reason.

The approach of source makes a claim about personal experience -> that experience contradicts certain worldviews -> the claim is dismissed as false -> a rather unlikely alternative scenario is put forth as fact does not seem unbiased, to my mind. I'm not saying scholars should say that Daniel really saw an angel - that's obviously more than we can know - nor even that they should affirm that the work was written in the 6th century - that's just a strong contending possibility. But to put the 2nd century theory forward as fact, using that presupposition as the primary evidence, without ever mentioning the rather significant weaknesses in the theory... no, that is not what I would call unbiased scholarship.

The experience doesn't simply contradict certain worldviews, unless by "certain worldviews" you mean everything we know about how the universe works. The point is that the rather unlikely scenario is still more plausible than the scenario that invokes either magic or extreme coincidence. I don't see that it helps much for scholars to point out that the theory has difficulties that can be solved by magical explanations because every difficulty in every theory can be solved by magical explanations.

[Mithrae]

For starters, I'm not sure which "known laws of the universe" exclude predicting the future accurately.

The movement of time from past -> future. Guessing, of course, is still possible.

If I gave an accurate written account, in considerable detail including (unlike Daniel) various dates, names and so on, of the actions of a person, and said I'd written it many months ago, would you say that my claim must be false because if true I would have violated the known laws of the universe?

What if I claimed that I had spoken to someone (a parent, manager or whatever) who had a great deal of influence in making those things occur?

- people have claimed to be able to predict the future via magical means throughout history.
- whenever it has been possible to test such claims, they have been shown to be false.

I'd suggest that it has far more often been the case that such predictions are dismissed as too vague or subject to intentional fulfilment to meaningfully qualify as predicting the future in a 'magical' sense. It's a bit of a catch 22, wouldn't you say? If it's vague it's dismissed as luck, and if it's specific it violates the known laws of the universe.

You agree, presumably, that there's money, respect and influence to be had from convincing people you can know the future (or that they can learn how to know the future). So surely on face value we should expect most such claims to be false? But then we have here at least one example (if my arguments are correct) where a claim of that type has not been shown to be false; the evidence may in fact imply the opposite. Yet since mainstream scholarly sources present the late-date of Daniel as fact, surely we should be asking ourselves whether there might not be other such examples, rather asserting that the falsity of all such claims justifies the presumption in this case? Your reasoning seems somewhat circular.

The approach of source makes a claim about personal experience -> that experience contradicts certain worldviews -> the claim is dismissed as false -> a rather unlikely alternative scenario is put forth as fact does not seem unbiased, to my mind. I'm not saying scholars should say that Daniel really saw an angel - that's obviously more than we can know - nor even that they should affirm that the work was written in the 6th century - that's just a strong contending possibility. But to put the 2nd century theory forward as fact, using that presupposition as the primary evidence, without ever mentioning the rather significant weaknesses in the theory... no, that is not what I would call unbiased scholarship.

The experience doesn't simply contradict certain worldviews, unless by "certain worldviews" you mean everything we know about how the universe works. The point is that the rather unlikely scenario is still more plausible than the scenario that invokes either magic or extreme coincidence. I don't see that it helps much for scholars to point out that the theory has difficulties that can be solved by magical explanations because every difficulty in every theory can be solved by magical explanations.

Who is this 'we' who knows that no power influences history like this? I certainly don't know that. What evidence do these people have to demonstrate that knowledge?

If I may correct that last sentence for you, it should have been "I don't see that it helps much for scholars to point out that [their theory dismissing the ancient source's claim of personal experience] has difficulties that can be solved by [accepting the ancient source's claim] because every difficulty in every theory can be solved by [accepting the ancient source's claim]." Do I need to point out that the bit in italics is dubious at best? I suspect that it's never the case that every difficulty can be solved by accepting the ancient source on face value, and it is often the case that alternative explanations pose fewer difficulties. I contend that this is not the case regarding Daniel, so the theory dismissing the work's claims should not be presented as a solid scholarly conclusion - it's a consequence of presupposition.

Your references to 'magical explanations' seem to be simply a rhetorical tool, both in attempting to trivialise and misrepresent the claim made by our ancient source, and in obfuscating which theory actually involves more elements of personal speculation and divergence from the available evidence.

[Furrowed Brow]

If I gave an accurate written account, in considerable detail including (unlike Daniel) various dates, names and so on, of the actions of a person, and said I'd written it many months ago, would you say that my claim must be false because if true I would have violated the known laws of the universe?

Sorry to interrupt. But the answer is obviously yes it is literally false. Contravening the known laws of the universe is just about the strongest reason for discounting the literally truth of your account. It is a stronger reason that say finding out you have previously written many false accounts about mundane stuff.

So what historians need to do is turn over every material stone. Look at the writer, their worries, prejudices, conceits, social expectation, ideologies, incompetency and competency, economic and political circumstances etc. If that job is done thoroughly we never ever approach anywhere near having to worry about disturbing the known laws of the universe.

[Names_Bob]

"THIS GENERATION WILL NOT PASS, isn't about the living generation, but the generation of peoples he'd just described prior to the statement. That generation may or may not have occured yet.

This is a highly unlikely, if not impossible explanation.

Even CS Lewis didn't try using the Genea bailout, or the Preterist view that Jesus "already returned".

Lewis: "The facts then are these: that Jesus professed Himself (in some sense) ignorant, and within a moment showed he really was so. To believe in the Incarnation, to believe that he is God, makes it hard to understand how he could be ignorant; but also makes it certain that, if he said he could be ignorant, then ignorant he really could be."(Lewis, The World's Last Night, 1960, p.99)

Rarely do we have the same prophecy found elsewhere within the same author (Matthew)...and there, Jesus says plainly that "some who are standing here will not taste death before they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom." (16:27-28)

By the way, the Greek does have words for both "this" and "that". There's simply very little chance this is a scribal error, because "that generation" makes no sense at all in
the saying.

Further, some say Genea means "race", and that the Jewish race will not pass away
before his return. This seems the most ridiculous explanation of all. Why on earth would the disciples need to know this?

It's equivalent to me saying, "Humans will not be extinct from the earth when the big meteor hits and wipes everyone out. No idea when that will be though." What difference does it make if humans are still around then or not, if I have no idea when it will occur. That's not exactly an out-on-a-limb prophecy, similar to That Girl's great point about the Tower of London.

[Names_Bob]

If I gave an accurate written account, in considerable detail including (unlike Daniel) various dates, names and so on, of the actions of a person, and said I'd written it many months ago, would you say that my claim must be false because if true I would have violated the known laws of the universe?

Sorry to interrupt. But the answer is obviously yes it is literally false. Contravening the known laws of the universe is just about the strongest reason for discounting the literally truth of your account. It is a stronger reason that say finding out you have previously written many false accounts about mundane stuff.

So what historians need to do is turn over every material stone. Look at the writer, their worries, prejudices, conceits, social expectation, ideologies, incompetency and competency, economic and political circumstances etc. If that job is done thoroughly we never ever approach anywhere near having to worry about
disturbing the known laws of the universe.

Exactly!

The term "bias" in the topic title is interesting also.

If a scientist discovers an ancient dig where it appear many animals were killed, is he biased because he doesn't hypothesize that Zeus used lightning to strike all the creatures dead?

Perhaps by the pure semantics. But that is not the way this physical world and it's observers are going to relate, barring a clear metaphysical event....with closed captioning in the sky, to go with the voice.

The assumption that an ancient writing predicting an ancient event post-dated the event is not a bias, anymore than the Zeus lightning storm.

I can say this on the basis of Bayes Theorem:
Future events proven to be clearly predicted in the past: 0
Human deception in recording "predictions" following known events: All known instances.

Thus, magic can be ruled out. Not from bias, but from observable human behavior and the natural world.

[Xian Pugilist]

"THIS GENERATION WILL NOT PASS, isn't about the living generation, but the generation of peoples he'd just described prior to the statement. That generation may or may not have occured yet.

This is a highly unlikely, if not impossible explanation.

What is, my analysis, or some theory not yet pitched?

Even CS Lewis didn't try using the Genea bailout, or the Preterist view that Jesus "already returned".

I don't worship c s lewis, so his views, while entertaining and thoughtful to discuss don't influence what is true, nor what I discover. NO one has sold that Jesus already returned. But from the wording in the verse it's entirely likely. However, my position was, the Generation that Jesus was discussing hadn't been born yet. He described a generation of people in the future, who were marked as living through....that description of events..... and that would be the last generation.

Lewis: "The facts then are these: that Jesus professed Himself (in some sense) ignorant, and within a moment showed he really was so. To believe in the Incarnation, to believe that he is God, makes it hard to understand how he could be ignorant; but also makes it certain that, if he said he could be ignorant, then ignorant he really could be."(Lewis, The World's Last Night, 1960, p.99)

And you find this profound. A half dozen, is a half dozen, except for when it's only six. Impressed? Same logic.

Rarely do we have the same prophecy found elsewhere within the same author (Matthew)...and there, Jesus says plainly that "some who are standing here will not taste death before they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom." (16:27-28)

By the way, the Greek does have words for both "this" and "that". There's simply very little chance this is a scribal error, because "that generation" makes no sense at all in the saying.

Ummm, ok. pedantic much? Skip english/greek class much? That's just a silly comment. Greek had a word for walk, and one for life too, yet Paul uses walk to describe a lifestyle. OMG Paul was ignorant.

There is a word for flesh, and one for body. Paul said the flesh was removed from the body. OMG there were skeletons in the church. You are really reaching there to prove your point.

Further, some say Genea means "race", and that the Jewish race will not pass away before his return. This seems the most ridiculous explanation of all. Why on earth would the disciples need to know this?

Genea could mean race. It means a brotherhood or collective. It could mean generation, race, secret club, group of sailors, vs group of soldiers, whatever. What's your argument. BUTTERFLY could mean margarine with wings too. But that doesn't fit as the most likely meaning in any context I could find.

It's equivalent to me saying, "Humans will not be extinct from the earth when the big meteor hits and wipes everyone out. No idea when that will be though."

No it wouldn't be like that at all. Unless this is inside out day.
It would be like, and meteors will fall, buildings will topple, and fire shall sweep the earth, and this generation will not pass until these events occur.


What difference does it make if humans are still around then or not, if I have no idea when it will occur. That's not exactly an out-on-a-limb prophecy, similar to That Girl's great point about the Tower of London.

[Xian Pugilist]

"THIS GENERATION WILL NOT PASS, isn't about the living generation, but the generation of peoples he'd just described prior to the statement. That generation may or may not have occured yet.

This is a highly unlikely, if not impossible explanation.

What is, my analysis, or some theory not yet pitched?

Even CS Lewis didn't try using the Genea bailout, or the Preterist view that Jesus "already returned".

I don't worship c s lewis, so his views, while entertaining and thoughtful to discuss don't influence what is true, nor what I discover. NO one has sold that Jesus already returned. But from the wording in the verse it's entirely likely. However, my position was, the Generation that Jesus was discussing hadn't been born yet. He described a generation of people in the future, who were marked as living through....that description of events..... and that would be the last generation.

Lewis: "The facts then are these: that Jesus professed Himself (in some sense) ignorant, and within a moment showed he really was so. To believe in the Incarnation, to believe that he is God, makes it hard to understand how he could be ignorant; but also makes it certain that, if he said he could be ignorant, then ignorant he really could be."(Lewis, The World's Last Night, 1960, p.99)

And you find this profound. A half dozen, is a half dozen, except for when it's only six. Impressed? Same logic.

Rarely do we have the same prophecy found elsewhere within the same author (Matthew)...and there, Jesus says plainly that "some who are standing here will not taste death before they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom." (16:27-28)

By the way, the Greek does have words for both "this" and "that". There's simply very little chance this is a scribal error, because "that generation" makes no sense at all in the saying.

Ummm, ok. pedantic much? Skip english/greek class much? That's just a silly comment. Greek had a word for walk, and one for life too, yet Paul uses walk to describe a lifestyle. OMG Paul was ignorant.

There is a word for flesh, and one for body. Paul said the flesh was removed from the body. OMG there were skeletons in the church. You are really reaching there to prove your point.

Further, some say Genea means "race", and that the Jewish race will not pass away before his return. This seems the most ridiculous explanation of all. Why on earth would the disciples need to know this?

Genea could mean race. It means a brotherhood or collective. It could mean generation, race, secret club, group of sailors, vs group of soldiers, whatever. What's your argument. BUTTERFLY could mean margarine with wings too. But that doesn't fit as the most likely meaning in any context I could find.

It's equivalent to me saying, "Humans will not be extinct from the earth when the big meteor hits and wipes everyone out. No idea when that will be though."

No it wouldn't be like that at all. Unless this is inside out day.
It would be like, and meteors will fall, buildings will topple, and fire shall sweep the earth, and this generation will not pass until these events occur.

Or, there will come a time when Nazis will march on France, they will show up en masse, they will break their treaties, and that year will not finish, until Nazi Germany occupies France.

What difference does it make if humans are still around then or not, if I have no idea when it will occur. That's not exactly an out-on-a-limb prophecy, similar to That Girl's great point about the Tower of London.

cough cough.

[Names_Bob]

"THIS GENERATION WILL NOT PASS, isn't about the living generation, but the generation of peoples he'd just described prior to the statement. That generation may or may not have occured yet.

I don't worship c s lewis, so his views, while entertaining and thoughtful to discuss don't influence what is true, nor what I discover. NO one has sold that Jesus already returned. But from the wording in the verse it's entirely likely. However, my position was, the Generation that Jesus was discussing hadn't been born yet. He described a generation of people in the future, who were marked as living through....that
description of events..... and that would be the last generation.

Sorry but I'm not clear what you mean. Are you saying that part of the quote is missing, where he discusses what "this generation" actually refers to? (Note: Apologies for the bold, but I can't figure out how to offset this outside of the blue box. My end quotes appear to be sound, but it's just staying in the box. Any advice will be appreciated.)

Lewis: "The facts then are these: that Jesus professed Himself (in some sense) ignorant, and within a moment showed he really was so. To believe in the Incarnation, to believe that he is God, makes it hard to understand how he could be ignorant; but also makes it certain that, if he said he could be ignorant, then ignorant he really could be."(Lewis, The World's Last Night, 1960, p.99)

And you find this profound. A half dozen, is a half dozen, except for when it's only six. Impressed? Same logic.

I find it nothing more than absolute documented proof that the most respected apologist of the 20th century found only one explanation for Jesus' failed prophecy of his quick return. You are correct that it doesn't make him right, and your interpretation could be. But all things considered, Lewis felt it much more honest to acknowledge that Jesus fully expected "some" of the apostles to still be alive upon his return.

The below was my other point...a supporting verse to my view, found in Matthew. What is your view of this?:
Rarely do we have the same prophecy found elsewhere within the same author (Matthew)...and there, Jesus says plainly that "some who are standing here will not taste death before they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom." (16:27-28)

Ummm, ok. pedantic much? Skip english/greek class much? That's just a silly comment. Greek had a word for walk, and one for life too, yet Paul uses walk to describe a lifestyle. OMG Paul was ignorant.

There is a word for flesh, and one for body. Paul said the flesh was removed from
the body. OMG there were skeletons in the church. You are really reaching there to prove your point. .

Not being snide here, but I honestly don't know why this point is silly. If I am talking to you about a future generation, I will refer to them as "that generation". If I'm talking about the current one, I would say "this generation".

Thus, some might feel that the translation is garbled in English, because "this" and "that" are the same in Greek. They aren't.

Genea could mean race. It means a brotherhood or collective. It could mean generation, race, secret club, group of sailors, vs group of soldiers, whatever. What's your argument. BUTTERFLY could mean margarine with wings too. But that doesn't fit as the most likely meaning in any context I could find.

I completely agree. I listed this argument as an example of the creative lengths some will stretch to in order to defend Jesus. It's even more unlikely than yours.

But not by much, in my opinion, unless you are arguing for missing words in the quote (per my first question). And if there are missing words, that's an entirely new issue concerning inerrancy.

One thing I will add: Even when I was a Baptist, I accepted the Lewis view that Jesus simply didn't know, but was making an observation based on his worldview. This wasn't (and still isn't) an indictment for me, as Jesus is much more real as the Christ if he doesn't have full knowledge he must only take a day and a half off and then come back to life. That's only one example of how Jesus' full humanity is extremely important to the gospel story, whether it literally ever happened or whether it's all metaphorical. A Jesus with the full knowledge of God isn't exactly the most impressive story in the world regarding how he could handle mankind and execution.

Have a great evening!

[Xian Pugilist]

"THIS GENERATION WILL NOT PASS, isn't about the living generation, but the generation of peoples he'd just described prior to the statement. That generation may or may not have occured yet.

I don't worship c s lewis, so his views, while entertaining and thoughtful to discuss don't influence what is true, nor what I discover. NO one has sold that Jesus already returned. But from the wording in the verse it's entirely likely. However, my position was, the Generation that Jesus was discussing hadn't been born yet. He described a generation of people in the future, who were marked as living through....that
description of events..... and that would be the last generation.

Sorry but I'm not clear what you mean. Are you saying that part of the quote is missing, where he discusses what "this generation" actually refers to? (Note: Apologies for the bold, but I can't figure out how to offset this outside of the blue box. My end quotes appear to be sound, but it's just staying in the box. Any advice will be appreciated.)

Ok, first off, what I do is red down until I want to post. I cut out any stuff I won't comment on. Undoubtedly I should not comment on a LOT more than I actually don't comment on. Anyway, when I get to the end of your post there I type the end quote. [/... quote] minus the ... That cuts off all the above in the blue, and leaves my statement in the open. THEN to put it back in blue, do the [.....quote] again, read down to where I want to blab and do the [/...quote]

Forget anyone but the text... read it....
Mat 24:16 then those who are in Judea must flee to the mountains.

for the rest.... http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cf ... SB#conc/34

and then...Mat 24:34 "Truly I say to you, this [fn]generation will not pass away until all these things take place.


He had just explained a ton of events this generation would suffer. "THIS" generation is the one that goes through those events. There are probably 50 times in history since the days of Christ, that you could argue those events took place. I don't think they have yet, but they could have. A strong argument is it was fulfilled with the breaking of the temple. I don't care to make it for them, but it's logically sound.

And you find this profound. A half dozen, is a half dozen, except for when it's only six. Impressed? Same logic.

I find it nothing more than absolute documented proof that the most respected apologist of the 20th century found only one explanation for Jesus' failed prophecy of his quick return.

This isn't intended as catty.
Do you put more faith in c s lewis or the Bible. Does his thoughts dictate your thoughts, or do you ask seek knock?

So what. Who cares what lewis thought. He was a staunch atheist for most of his life. He wrote out of guilt for his previous disbelief. Brilliant mind, grant you that. Would love to sit at a table with him, tolkien, and bonhoeffer which could have happened in those days and just chat theology. Now, I have mad respect for the man, but I want his comments put into perspective.... He's not an authority. He's an opinion giver. AUGUSTINE was a more brilliant mind, and Augie screwed up the faith radically, as did athanasius, I can go on.

What does the words say is all that matters. Quoting lewis is an appeal to authority. He has no authority over me, nor over you. Work out the scripture on it's own merits before you seek opinions of others. Those other opinions are ONLY valuable if you use them as devils advocate for your own due diligence.

You are correct that it doesn't make him right, and your interpretation could be. But all things considered, Lewis felt it much more honest to acknowledge that Jesus fully expected "some" of the apostles to still be alive upon his return.

I find that childishly naieve and simple. Especially since Jesus didn't say anything simple, using metaphors, avoiding direct statements, leaving it for people to figure out, so to take this ONE out of MANY statements and read it in the most simplified of meanings, well, that seems just silly.

The below was my other point...a supporting verse to my view, found in Matthew. What is your view of this?:
Rarely do we have the same prophecy found elsewhere within the same author (Matthew)...and there, Jesus says plainly that "some who are standing here will not taste death before they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom." (16:27-28)

Mat 16:28 "Truly I say to you, there are some of those who are standing here who will not taste death until they see the Son of Man coming in His kingdom."

Before ascension, right? Christ returned, right? Christ is LORD right? Where the LORD is, there is the Kingdom. On Earth as Jesus He was the word made manifest, the son of Mary and Joseph, the son of Man. After death He was the son of God. He was the next incarnation of the WORD which all was created through. He returned from death, thus the Kingdom began, and His Church was established. Some believe until the temple fell, and the Church was rooted and growing, was when the Kingdom was established. Either way, some of the apostles lived for both, and also, rather than just apostles, could be disciples as well. Either way, it NEED NOT refer to the Theocratic reign of God on earth. ALTHOUGH... I could make the case for that too since the Church is now established and HE is head of the Church. Those are all logical possibilities. They all have merits. They all have demerits as well.

Ummm, ok. pedantic much? Skip english/greek class much? That's just a silly comment. Greek had a word for walk, and one for life too, yet Paul uses walk to describe a lifestyle. OMG Paul was ignorant.

There is a word for flesh, and one for body. Paul said the flesh was removed from
the body. OMG there were skeletons in the church. You are really reaching there to prove your point. .

Not being snide here, but I honestly don't know why this point is silly.

You argue this and that..... and say if it was my way it wouldn't have said THIS. That's pure pedanticism. And it's silly, because this and that can be used interchangeably in many instances, this being one of them.

If I am talking to you about a future generation, I will refer to them as "that generation". If I'm talking about the current one, I would say "this generation".

After Christ comes, the dead will rise, this group will not perish at all. <<<< uses THIS for a future generation. Both are indicative. They both point to someone. Either could be used for future or present depending on how the phrase was set up.

PERIPATEO literally means walk. It's also used for LIFESTYLE.
SARX literally means flesh. But it's sometime used for BODY which is more than flesh, and is technically identified as SOMA. You can nit pick at words to the point of just being silly.

Thus, some might feel that the translation is garbled in English, because "this" and "that" are the same in Greek. They aren't.

MATTHEW
this g3778 houtos

generation g1074 genea


MARK
this g3778 houtos

generation g1074 genea


LUKE
this g3778 houtos

generation g1074 genea



THESE THINGS
is also Houtos

THAT, is also used as HE, SHE, IT, etc... in Greek.

There is a generation in this conversation that will not pass.

There is a chain of events the generation will face.

If the generation is now, or in the future, it's still THIS generation, that has gone through those events, that will not pass.

Butterfly. Margarine with wings on it.

Genea could mean race. It means a brotherhood or collective. It could mean generation, race, secret club, group of sailors, vs group of soldiers, whatever. What's your argument. BUTTERFLY could mean margarine with wings too. But that doesn't fit as the most likely meaning in any context I could find.

I completely agree. I listed this argument as an example of the creative lengths some will stretch to in order to defend Jesus. It's even more unlikely than yours.

WHEW, I was annoyed thought it was a hint at my statement.

But not by much, in my opinion, unless you are arguing for missing words in the quote (per my first question). And if there are missing words, that's an entirely new issue concerning inerrancy. [/quote
I dont' need missing words to hold my view. THE GENERATION is the one that goes threw those trials, whether it's this year, next year, or 100,000 years in the future, it's still THIS generation that HE just described.

One thing I will add: Even when I was a Baptist, I accepted the Lewis view that Jesus simply didn't know, but was making an observation based on his worldview. This wasn't (and still isn't) an indictment for me, as Jesus is much more real as the Christ if he doesn't have full knowledge he must only take a day and a half off and then come back to life. That's only one example of how Jesus' full humanity is extremely important to the gospel story, whether it literally ever happened or whether it's all metaphorical. A Jesus with the full knowledge of God isn't exactly the most impressive story in the world regarding how he could handle mankind and execution.

I don't agree with that statement at all.

But I understand how you get there, and how HE got there, and I have no beef with it.



Have a great evening!