Re: not one stone upon another

[Athetotheist]

Here's another piece I posted in Random Ramblings and thought I would bring over into a debate forum to see if any issue can be taken with it:


In Matthew 24:2 Jesus prophesies that the temple will be thrown down with "not one stone left here upon another". Apologists regard the Romans' demolition of the temple in the year 70 as a remarkably accurate fulfillment of Jesus's words.

This doesn't seem to be the case since the famous Western Wall, dating to the 1st or 2nd century BCE, is still standing stone upon stone.

Apologists may argue that Jesus was referring only to the temple buildings themselves in the Matthew passage, but in Luke 19:41-44 he makes the same prophecy for the entire city, which included the temple complex where the Western Wall stands. Between prophesying every stone at the temple thrown down and prophesying every stone in the whole city thrown down, Jesus didn't have much room to let the Western Wall slip by.

So for a question: Is there any way out of this dilemma?

[Athetotheist]

So for a question: Is there any way out of this dilemma?

Is hyperbole a sufficient answer? The Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy explicitly disclaims hyperbole and in this case, I'd argue that's how the biblical author intended Jesus' statement. Most scholars now consider Mark to be at least contemporary with the Jewish War that resulted in the destruction of Jerusalem and possibly immediately afterward. Even if it was written before the destruction, Matthew and Luke were almost certainly written afterward and saw no problem leaving that part of the prophecy intact despite neither having any qualm about changing other Markan details when it suited them. If the destruction already happened and the evangelists knew of it, I see no problem reading "no stones standing" as a hyperbolic description of the profound destruction that occurred in Jerusalem even if it was literally less than total.

So, the question that raises is that if we agree that the prophecy included intentional hyperbole, does that still wreck inerrancy?

"We affirm that inspiration, strictly speaking, applies only to the autographic text of Scripture, which in the providence of God can be ascertained from available manuscripts with great accuracy. We further affirm that copies and translations of Scripture are the Word of God to the extent that they faithfully represent the original."

It seems to me that the Chicago Statement provides a convenient "out" here. It leaves room to dismiss any discrepancy in scripture as a "copyist error" or "mistranslation".

I would also think it a little too convenient to dismiss as hyperbolic any prophetic pronouncement of Jesus which inconveniently didn't come true.

[Difflugia]

It seems to me that the Chicago Statement provides a convenient "out" here. It leaves room to dismiss any discrepancy in scripture as a "copyist error" or "mistranslation".

I wholeheartedly agree with this. As far as I'm concerned, there's no doctrinal value in the claim that God inspired the Bible if He didn't also preserve it.

I would also think it a little too convenient to dismiss as hyperbolic any prophetic pronouncement of Jesus which inconveniently didn't come true.

I'm of two minds about this. It does become similar to the "metaphor" excuse, but like metaphor, there are legitimate examples of what can only reasonably be hyperbole. The topic of this thread is one, but there are others, like "the smallest of all seeds."

[Tcg]

So for a question: Is there any way out of this dilemma?

Is hyperbole a sufficient answer? The Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy explicitly disclaims hyperbole and in this case, I'd argue that's how the biblical author intended Jesus' statement. Most scholars now consider Mark to be at least contemporary with the Jewish War that resulted in the destruction of Jerusalem and possibly immediately afterward. Even if it was written before the destruction, Matthew and Luke were almost certainly written afterward and saw no problem leaving that part of the prophecy intact despite neither having any qualm about changing other Markan details when it suited them. If the destruction already happened and the evangelists knew of it, I see no problem reading "no stones standing" as a hyperbolic description of the profound destruction that occurred in Jerusalem even if it was literally less than total.

So, the question that raises is that if we agree that the prophecy included intentional hyperbole, does that still wreck inerrancy?

"We affirm that inspiration, strictly speaking, applies only to the autographic text of Scripture, which in the providence of God can be ascertained from available manuscripts with great accuracy. We further affirm that copies and translations of Scripture are the Word of God to the extent that they faithfully represent the original."

It seems to me that the Chicago Statement provides a convenient "out" here. It leaves room to dismiss any discrepancy in scripture as a "copyist error" or "mistranslation".

I would also think it a little too convenient to dismiss as hyperbolic any prophetic pronouncement of Jesus which inconveniently didn't come true.

I think hyperbole is a viable possibility. This picture was included with an article that described the house as having "burned to the ground."



Quite clearly it hasn't literally burned to the ground. There is plenty still standing above the ground. The term refers to a building that is irreparable and will likely be knocked down rather than rebuilt.

Even if one concludes that this isn't an example of failed prophecy, I would think there are plenty others to consider. It wouldn't require one to affirm the idea of the Bible being inerrant in its original autographs.


Tcg

[TRANSPONDER]

I certainly would regard 'not one stone upon another' as a figure of speech and not to be taken Too literally. There are bigger stones to fling at the Glass House of the bible. I'll have one of the flat ones...with the points.

[JehovahsWitness]

DID JESUS USE HYPERBOLE?

I think hyperbole is a viable possibility. This picture was included with an article that described the house as having "burned to the ground."



Quite clearly it hasn't literally burned to the ground. There is plenty still standing above the ground. The term refers to a building that is irreparable and will likely be knocked down rather than rebuilt.

I agree, hyperbole is a part of speech and an understood means of communicating ideas, I see no reason to think Jesus would never have used it.




JW






RELATED POSTS

Is there metonym in scripture?
viewtopic.php?p=998339#p998339

Was the biblical flood story mere allegory?
viewtopic.php?p=1048372#p1048372

Did Jesus ever use metaphor?
viewtopic.php?p=1048251#p1048251

Did Jesus ever use adynaton?
viewtopic.php?p=1060770#p1060770

Did Jesus ever use hyperbole?
viewtopic.php?p=1056274#p1056274

To learn more please go to other posts related to...

THE BIBLE , HERMENEUTICS* and ... BIBLICAL LITERALISM

* bible interpretation

[Athetotheist]

So for a question: Is there any way out of this dilemma?

Is hyperbole a sufficient answer? The Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy explicitly disclaims hyperbole and in this case, I'd argue that's how the biblical author intended Jesus' statement. Most scholars now consider Mark to be at least contemporary with the Jewish War that resulted in the destruction of Jerusalem and possibly immediately afterward. Even if it was written before the destruction, Matthew and Luke were almost certainly written afterward and saw no problem leaving that part of the prophecy intact despite neither having any qualm about changing other Markan details when it suited them. If the destruction already happened and the evangelists knew of it, I see no problem reading "no stones standing" as a hyperbolic description of the profound destruction that occurred in Jerusalem even if it was literally less than total.

So, the question that raises is that if we agree that the prophecy included intentional hyperbole, does that still wreck inerrancy?

"We affirm that inspiration, strictly speaking, applies only to the autographic text of Scripture, which in the providence of God can be ascertained from available manuscripts with great accuracy. We further affirm that copies and translations of Scripture are the Word of God to the extent that they faithfully represent the original."

It seems to me that the Chicago Statement provides a convenient "out" here. It leaves room to dismiss any discrepancy in scripture as a "copyist error" or "mistranslation".

I would also think it a little too convenient to dismiss as hyperbolic any prophetic pronouncement of Jesus which inconveniently didn't come true.

I think hyperbole is a viable possibility. This picture was included with an article that described the house as having "burned to the ground."



Quite clearly it hasn't literally burned to the ground. There is plenty still standing above the ground. The term refers to a building that is irreparable and will likely be knocked down rather than rebuilt.

Even if one concludes that this isn't an example of failed prophecy, I would think there are plenty others to consider. It wouldn't require one to affirm the idea of the Bible being inerrant in its original autographs.


Tcg

Then where do we draw a line between hyperbole and prophecy?

[TRANSPONDER]

So for a question: Is there any way out of this dilemma?

Is hyperbole a sufficient answer? The Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy explicitly disclaims hyperbole and in this case, I'd argue that's how the biblical author intended Jesus' statement. Most scholars now consider Mark to be at least contemporary with the Jewish War that resulted in the destruction of Jerusalem and possibly immediately afterward. Even if it was written before the destruction, Matthew and Luke were almost certainly written afterward and saw no problem leaving that part of the prophecy intact despite neither having any qualm about changing other Markan details when it suited them. If the destruction already happened and the evangelists knew of it, I see no problem reading "no stones standing" as a hyperbolic description of the profound destruction that occurred in Jerusalem even if it was literally less than total.

So, the question that raises is that if we agree that the prophecy included intentional hyperbole, does that still wreck inerrancy?

"We affirm that inspiration, strictly speaking, applies only to the autographic text of Scripture, which in the providence of God can be ascertained from available manuscripts with great accuracy. We further affirm that copies and translations of Scripture are the Word of God to the extent that they faithfully represent the original."

It seems to me that the Chicago Statement provides a convenient "out" here. It leaves room to dismiss any discrepancy in scripture as a "copyist error" or "mistranslation".

I would also think it a little too convenient to dismiss as hyperbolic any prophetic pronouncement of Jesus which inconveniently didn't come true.

I think hyperbole is a viable possibility. This picture was included with an article that described the house as having "burned to the ground."



Quite clearly it hasn't literally burned to the ground. There is plenty still standing above the ground. The term refers to a building that is irreparable and will likely be knocked down rather than rebuilt.

Even if one concludes that this isn't an example of failed prophecy, I would think there are plenty others to consider. It wouldn't require one to affirm the idea of the Bible being inerrant in its original autographs.


Tcg

Then where do we draw a line between hyperbole and prophecy?

Where it changes from 'This did happen...in a manner of speaking' to 'It didn't happen actually means it did'. E.g where the fact that Tyre was rebuilt and Babylon was not destroyed actually means that in some way, they were. Though normally, Bible apologists prefer not to go that far and simply ignore those failed prophecies. But we did see a couple of efforts to argue that Tyre was not rebuilt but a different city (also called 'Tyre' was built on top, or that another Tyre was rebuilt somewhere nearby. Which is respectively a ridiculous evasion and simply not true.

As for the destruction of the Temple, the discussion is not so much whether 'not one stone on another' should be taken literally ( I certainly wouldn't do so) ut whether this signifies a prediction or a gospel written (or re -written) after the Temple destruction.

[1213]

"King Herod built this wall in 20 BCE during an expansion of the Second Temple. When the Romans destroyed the temple in 70 CE, the support wall survived."

Ok, if that is true, it can be seen as external part to the temple and not necessarily what Jesus was speaking of.

[Tcg]

So for a question: Is there any way out of this dilemma?

Is hyperbole a sufficient answer? The Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy explicitly disclaims hyperbole and in this case, I'd argue that's how the biblical author intended Jesus' statement. Most scholars now consider Mark to be at least contemporary with the Jewish War that resulted in the destruction of Jerusalem and possibly immediately afterward. Even if it was written before the destruction, Matthew and Luke were almost certainly written afterward and saw no problem leaving that part of the prophecy intact despite neither having any qualm about changing other Markan details when it suited them. If the destruction already happened and the evangelists knew of it, I see no problem reading "no stones standing" as a hyperbolic description of the profound destruction that occurred in Jerusalem even if it was literally less than total.

So, the question that raises is that if we agree that the prophecy included intentional hyperbole, does that still wreck inerrancy?

"We affirm that inspiration, strictly speaking, applies only to the autographic text of Scripture, which in the providence of God can be ascertained from available manuscripts with great accuracy. We further affirm that copies and translations of Scripture are the Word of God to the extent that they faithfully represent the original."

It seems to me that the Chicago Statement provides a convenient "out" here. It leaves room to dismiss any discrepancy in scripture as a "copyist error" or "mistranslation".

I would also think it a little too convenient to dismiss as hyperbolic any prophetic pronouncement of Jesus which inconveniently didn't come true.

I think hyperbole is a viable possibility. This picture was included with an article that described the house as having "burned to the ground."



Quite clearly it hasn't literally burned to the ground. There is plenty still standing above the ground. The term refers to a building that is irreparable and will likely be knocked down rather than rebuilt.

Even if one concludes that this isn't an example of failed prophecy, I would think there are plenty others to consider. It wouldn't require one to affirm the idea of the Bible being inerrant in its original autographs.


Tcg

Then where do we draw a line between hyperbole and prophecy?

That's the problem isn't it. We aren't always told. In some cases we are as in when Jesus says something along the lines of, "The kingdom of God is like..." It's a problem and I see some individuals or groups crafting the meaning of scripture by claiming certain passages are meant to be taken figuratively. How do we know for sure? In many cases we can't be which is why I find it odd how certain some are in their assessment.


Tcg

[Athetotheist]

"King Herod built this wall in 20 BCE during an expansion of the Second Temple. When the Romans destroyed the temple in 70 CE, the support wall survived."

Ok, if that is true, it can be seen as external part to the temple and not necessarily what Jesus was speaking of.

But wouldn't it have been what he was speaking of when he spoke of the entire city in Luke?