I am new to this blog but, knowing the work of Dr. Ehrman, I am sure that this topic has been covered; however, I want to take a look at it from a slightly different approach.
The late Bruce Metzger pointed to physical evidence for the historicity of John. For example, John 5:1-15 speaks of the five porticoes of the pool of Bethesda, which was originally thought to be an error until such pools were later discovered. Furthermore, Metzger claims that the Pool of Siloam and Jacob’s Well, both mentioned solely in John (9:7, 4:12), have been identified.
How do critical scholars respond to Metzger’s claims? Would these discoveries bolster the claims of the historicity of John or do they simply show that the author of John knew the area of Palestine well?
dzongkha said
I am new to this blog but, knowing the work of Dr. Ehrman, I am sure that this topic has been covered; however, I want to take a look at it from a slightly different approach.The late Bruce Metzger pointed to physical evidence for the historicity of John. For example, John 5:1-15 speaks of the five porticoes of the pool of Bethesda, which was originally thought to be an error until such pools were later discovered. Furthermore, Metzger claims that the Pool of Siloam and Jacob’s Well, both mentioned solely in John (9:7, 4:12), have been identified.
How do critical scholars respond to Metzger’s claims? Would these discoveries bolster the claims of the historicity of John or do they simply show that the author of John knew the area of Palestine well?
Ehrman, like many “critical scholars” studied ancient Greek. But this isn’t to deconstruct Greek mythology, it’s to challenge the bible. When the famous model Bettie Page was challenged over her scanty attire she pointed out the Adam and Eve were naked too, and God walking in their garden was probably naked too. Why was she saying this? Because the ultimate authority on moral issues was the bible. In the West the bible remains an authority – the place our “critical scholars” want to assume for themselves.
So, according to postmodernism and deconstructionism there are no truths – except the views of the “critical scholars” telling this. And life has no meaning – an accidental universe created itself before it existed, like magic.
So sure, bit by bit, many of the things “critical scholars” said didn’t exist have come to light. An interesting one is the “invisible archaeology” in Edom which points to the possibility there were far more people living in Israel in the Bronze and Iron Age than previously thought. I grew up being told things like there is no such thing as a racial Jew and that King David never existed – it would be nice if “critical scholars” did a self assessment of their former claims. I am fine with John being the author of John’s Gospel and writing what he actually saw. No one can prove otherwise.
Hngerhman said
Hi Poohbear – quick thing: pretty sure Dr Ehrman studied ancient Greek when he was a believer. There are many critical scholars who are also deep believers, who also had to study ancient Greek as part of their curriculum. Because the NT manuscripts are in Greek.
Certainly. But I have never heard anyone deconstruct Greek mythology using their original language, just the bible. Deconstructing, by the way, as Derrida meant it, is to “subvert” text. And Greek language is often used to subvert religion. For instance “virgin” is “almah” in Greek which means “young girl.” So “scholars” want to pour cold water on your Christmas sentiments because THEY want the authority once accorded to scripture. But “almah” has other connotations, and Isaiah said this particular almah having a child would be “sign” to Israel. Back then most “almah” had children so “young woman” was no sign at all. “Scholars” will study the word but not its context because there’s an agenda. Or, they will study the context and ignore a word, for the same agenda.
Stephen said
…it would be nice if “critical scholars” did a self assessment of their former claims.Poohbear, rather ironic coming from someone so obviously unwilling to perform such a self-assessment about any of your claims that might be questioned by modern scholarship.
We grew up being told “There’s no evidence of any King David.”
This was meant to say “There is no King David.”
In 1993 we had the first evidence for the “house of David” (Tel Dan inscription)
To this day I haven’t read any scholarly article pointing how the absence of evidence was employed to prove evidence of absence – and how we got it wrong. I am not talking about archaeologists, who are more circumspect, but the modern day scribes who “interpret” findings.
Same thing happened this year with excavations in Edom. These findings suggest the populations of these countries was much higher than previously thought – giving the lie to the claim that Israel and Judea were just a few tribes and couldn’t have done what the bible claimed.
And on it goes…
Poohbear said
Certainly. But I have never heard anyone deconstruct Greek mythology using their original language, just the bible. Deconstructing, by the way, as Derrida meant it, is to “subvert” text. And Greek language is often used to subvert religion. For instance “virgin” is “almah” in Greek which means “young girl.” So “scholars” want to pour cold water on your Christmas sentiments because THEY want the authority once accorded to scripture. But “almah” has other connotations, and Isaiah said this particular almah having a child would be “sign” to Israel. Back then most “almah” had children so “young woman” was no sign at all. “Scholars” will study the word but not its context because there’s an agenda. Or, they will study the context and ignore a word, for the same agenda.
I will leave definitive statements of what scholars who study Homer et al do with respect to deconstruction of the texts in Greek, but I think those on this Forum who have studied such topics might disagree with the first assertion.
The NT writings were in Greek. Analyzing them, to understand them fully and their context, requires Greek. To bolster (or subvert) the NT in ancient Greek seems the language in which to do it. Do you have a different language to propose?
Almah is Hebrew. Parthenos is Greek.
I’d be interested to hear you unpack further your thoughts on why the analysis that “almah” in Isaiah not directly mapping onto “parthenos” is not correct.
Hngerhman said
Poohbear said
Certainly. But I have never heard anyone deconstruct Greek mythology using their original language, just the bible. Deconstructing, by the way, as Derrida meant it, is to “subvert” text. And Greek language is often used to subvert religion. For instance “virgin” is “almah” in Greek which means “young girl.” So “scholars” want to pour cold water on your Christmas sentiments because THEY want the authority once accorded to scripture. But “almah” has other connotations, and Isaiah said this particular almah having a child would be “sign” to Israel. Back then most “almah” had children so “young woman” was no sign at all. “Scholars” will study the word but not its context because there’s an agenda. Or, they will study the context and ignore a word, for the same agenda.
I will leave definitive statements of what scholars who study Homer et al do with respect to deconstruction of the texts in Greek, but I think those on this Forum who have studied such topics might disagree with the first assertion.
The NT writings were in Greek. Analyzing them, to understand them fully and their context, requires Greek. To bolster (or subvert) the NT in ancient Greek seems the language in which to do it. Do you have a different language to propose?
Almah is Hebrew. Parthenos is Greek.
I’d be interested to hear you unpack further your thoughts on why the analysis that “almah” in Isaiah not directly mapping onto “parthenos” is not correct.
A “sign” would be given through a special child born. To “us” a son is “given” – he will belong to the Jewish people but his glory would be to the Gentiles. He will be the “mighty God” and “Counselor.” His “judgment” and “justice” was “forever.”
He would be a “tender shoot… in a dry ground.” A “great light” to Galilee of the Gentiles. God gave Him no attractiveness and no children of His own. He would be the healer to “the eyes of the blind” and “the ears of the deaf” and even to restore the dead to life.
Yet He would be “despised and rejected” and a “man of sorrows.” He would be taken from prison and judgment and like a lamb He would be “pierced” and “crushed.” Yet He will see life again and be “satisfied” for “suffering of His soul.”
I will make a thread from this as I spent so much time in looking all this up.
Thank you – for putting this together and for starting the new thread.
I’m still fuzzy on why, prior to Jesus coming on the scene, one would ever think “virgin birth” when reading Isaiah’s Hebrew almah. It seems only (a) post-Jesus and (b) through the lens of the Greek’s parthenos that one could read Isaiah foreshadowing a virgin conceiving.
Whether the rest of the passage is messianic prophecy about Jesus is something to discuss separately. But it is my understanding from people who are expert in ancient Hebrew that “virgin birth” is in no way an obvious reading of the Hebrew almah prior to someone (Matthew?) trying to retrofit Jesus into it.
Hngerhman said
Thank you – for putting this together and for starting the new thread.I’m still fuzzy on why, prior to Jesus coming on the scene, one would ever think “virgin birth” when reading Isaiah’s Hebrew almah. It seems only (a) post-Jesus and (b) through the lens of the Greek’s parthenos that one could read Isaiah foreshadowing a virgin conceiving.
Whether the rest of the passage is messianic prophecy about Jesus is something to discuss separately. But it is my understanding from people who are expert in ancient Hebrew that “virgin birth” is in no way an obvious reading of the Hebrew almah prior to someone (Matthew?) trying to retrofit Jesus into it.
Most Jewish young women had children. Why would Isaiah say a “young woman” having a child is a “sign”?
Why did the Septuagint, written long before Jesus, use “virgin” instead of “young woman”?
Why would Matthew use “virgin” to a largely Jewish audience who most likely read Isaiah?
Did “young woman” also mean “virgin” in Isaiah’s day?
Why do people call this verse a “litmus test” of the New Testament when the same author speaks of the Messiah as being one who heals the sick, recovers the blind, raises the dead, is rejected of his people, offers up his life and is resurrected?
Do you think the verse attracts attention, whilst more significant verses are ignored, because there’s an opportunity to interject doubt into people’s faith?
I have precious little incremental to add to Robert’s concise and excellent points about the languages. It is yet another reminder for you and me, Poohbear, that those who cannot read the ancient languages will inevitably miss important nuances that are lost in the process of translation.
Wrt your last two questions:
‘Why do people call this verse a “litmus test” of the New Testament when the same author speaks of the Messiah as being one who heals the sick, recovers the blind, raises the dead, is rejected of his people, offers up his life and is resurrected?’
‘Do you think the verse attracts attention, whilst more significant verses are ignored, because there’s an opportunity to interject doubt into people’s faith?’
Different people have different motivations – most benign/charitable (as Robert rightly says), some not. Personally, I try (but clearly do not always succeed) to respect other folks’ theism, atheism, agnosticism, pantheism, whatever-ism; one, because it seems good ethical policy (I think Jesus said something about this…), but two, because there are deep enigmas in our existence that in our minds cry out for answers, and no one has yet succeeded in concerning the market on truth.
What I struggle with is how to handle conversations that take the form:
Person 1: X is both important and true.
Person 2: Why is X true?
Person 1: Because Y is true, and X follows from Y.
Person 2: But Y is at best ambiguous, and at worst factually incorrect.
Person 1: Y is self-evident. And it is supported by Z.
Person 2: Neither Y nor Z are self-evident, and both are at best ambiguous, and at worst factually incorrect.
[Impasse]
Person 1: By pushing back on X, Y and Z, you are seeking to undermine my worldview.
Person 2: No, I just think X, Y and Z as statements of fact are at best unsupported by the evidence (or, at worst, wrong). I’m not intending to attack your worldview, I just cannot see my way to it if a key rationale for it is X, Y and Z.
There are nonbelievers who gleefully poke holes in others’ faith, and there are believers who gleefully press nonbelievers that their lack of faith will lead to eternal torment. Both sets of uncharitable motivations are wrong, IMHO. But responding, politely, respectfully, genuinely, to points where one disagrees on matters of fact – that doesn’t seem out of bounds to me.
Poohbear wrote
We grew up being told “There’s no evidence of any King David.”
Because there was no archeological evidence for a historical King David.
In 1993 we had the first evidence for the “house of David” (Tel Dan inscription)
So now scholars have revised their opinions based on the evidence. That’s how it works.
But there is still no evidence for the Davidic world empire described in the Hebrew Bible.
Poohbear are you seriously suggesting there is an active conspiracy among Biblical scholars to undermine the faith of believers?
Robert said
Because he’s using a typical technique in Jewish exegesis of the time to find secret secondary interpretations of prophetic texts that can be applied to contemporary figures. You find this type of pesher exegesis at Qumran.
Poohbear said
Did “young woman” also mean “virgin” in Isaiah’s day?Depends on the conext.
Poohbear said
Why do people call this verse a “litmus test” of the New Testament when the same author speaks of the Messiah as being one who heals the sick, recovers the blind, raises the dead, is rejected of his people, offers up his life and is resurrected?
Do you think the verse attracts attention, whilst more significant verses are ignored, because there’s an opportunity to interject doubt into people’s faith?I think most people merely want to understand these texts as best they can.
Maid, vestal virgin and chaste are the translations given to the Greek bible – centuries before Jesus. These translators had no reason other than context to chose this word.
If a mother is a virgin then a baby WOULD be a miraculous birth.
Christianity didn’t exist. These translators were likely Jews who knew Greek or Greek converts to Judaism.
Isaiah inserted prophecy into the midst of natural conversation – he did this all the time. He is writing to an essentially pagan Jewish people who had no time for the Torah. This is mystery. God’s word is a revealed word – it doesn’t come to us in hidden text kept in sealed vaults, it’s there in plain sight.
Re ‘secondary interpretations.’ The whole bible is full of this. Thus the ‘angel of death’ and the saving blood of the lamb and the Promised Land and God’s people and rebuilding the walls and exile and a tiny people in a tiny land etc.. Saying the virgin birth is secondary is quite acceptable.
Re ‘I think most people merely want to understand these texts as best they can’ in this case isn’t true. Many people are trying to explain away texts, and most of these texts can’t be reworked through “translations” so they are simply ignored.
I will leave the discussion about the Ancient Greek translations to those who are qualified to make them. However, given our earlier elliptical discussion earlier about ‘almah’ as Hebrew (not Greek), if you would like to discuss Ancient Greek translations, would you kindly cite your sources alongside?
“Explain away” is in eye of the beholder. Please try to take a moment to step outside your worldview to see why someone, who is honestly seeking truth here, might come to a different conclusion than yours.
I will put myself out there a bit to try. If you showed me a text that said, “a young woman will conceive in the future,” my first thought would not be “virginal conception”, nor would it be that conclusion if the word for young woman could include virgin, nor if the word chosen actually says virgin. You would have to show me why I should read it that way, because it would not accord with what we know about the ways babies work (at least 100 billion of them minus one). Matthew and Luke do try to show me why this is the case for Jesus, but Isaiah most certainly doesn’t. It’s only Isaiah through a Matthew/Luke lens that does. And that’s precisely the issue we’re discussing (quite lively!).
Stephen said
Poohbear wroteWe grew up being told “There’s no evidence of any King David.”
Because there was no archeological evidence for a historical King David.
In 1993 we had the first evidence for the “house of David” (Tel Dan inscription)
So now scholars have revised their opinions based on the evidence. That’s how it works.
But there is still no evidence for the Davidic world empire described in the Hebrew Bible.
Poohbear are you seriously suggesting there is an active conspiracy among Biblical scholars to undermine the faith of believers?
Yes and no. I told Ehrman I am not against ‘scholarship’ but its abuse. One archaeologist can say ‘We have found no evidence for the Exodus’ and a hundred ‘experts’ on the bible will say ‘Exodus never happened.’ We know now from Edom excavations that there’s this thing called ‘invisible archaeology’ so we should temper our judgments of nomadic and migratory peoples – but such things don’t factor in with anti-Exodus people. A true scholar would say ‘We have no evidence about Moses, but we don’t know’ and someone pushing a POV (usually of the Postmodern variety who see all text as ‘power’) will say ‘Moses is a myth.’ That’s what I am against.
Poohbear something tells me your idea of “abuse” is when the findings of scholars calls into question your deeply held beliefs. Archeologists don’t deny there were migrations to and fro in this area. We have ample evidence of such. They deny that a mass migration as described in the Hebrew Bible took place because there would be traces and none exist. I wouldn’t be surprised if Moses turned out to be based on a historical figure just like David. But there is no evidence of the Davidic world empire described in the Book of Samuel. Such empires leave traces and there is no such in the historical record.
A true scholar would say ‘We have no evidence about Moses, but we don’t know’
Perhaps but the question becomes why would YOU believe anything without evidence?
Person P asserts X exists. Expert in field researching diligently to uncover evidence says, “To date we have no evidence for X‘s existence.” Why should this expert then be further obligated to caveat the lack of evidence hereto as, “To date we have no evidence for X’s existence, but who really knows?”
Plug X = Leprechauns, and then defend the rationale for the caveat, please.
When you plugged X = Moses, you demand a caveat. Why?
I suspect the reason is you deem Moses more important than Leprechauns. As do I. But does my idea of what’s important necessitate that this same view of importance be shared or even countenanced by someone else? Especially when that person is well more versed in the archaeological evidence than I?
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert
1 Guest(s)