tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3559910.post8780665201099185978..comments2024-02-17T19:58:47.311-05:00Comments on Textuality: Historical Jesus: No Clear PictureLarry Tannerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14642725101009530480noreply@blogger.comBlogger10125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3559910.post-60883020080817223902010-01-06T15:54:08.599-05:002010-01-06T15:54:08.599-05:00Johan,
I tried to explain more fully in a separat...Johan,<br /><br />I tried to explain more fully in a separate post, http://larrytanner.blogspot.com/2010/01/biblical-translation-why-it-matters.html<br /><br />I'm interested to get your thoughts.Larry Tannerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14642725101009530480noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3559910.post-48931810299531723742010-01-06T14:08:44.049-05:002010-01-06T14:08:44.049-05:00Yes the order of the books is different in the OT ...Yes the order of the books is different in the OT and the Hebrew Bible. I disagree partially about your point on translation however, this depends crucially on how liberal the denomination is. Here in Sweden the Jewish congregation is planning to use the same translation as the Church of Sweden. (And many of the people who worked on the translation, including their main academic expert on Hebrew, were not religious at all.) <br /><br />Modern historical-critical scholarship is remarkably little affected by formal religious boundaries. Jewish, Lutheran, Catholic and agnostic scholars can cooperate quite successfully. <br /><br />But their conclusions tend to be rejected by fundamentalists. That is why I say that if you want to say that the OT and the Hebrew Bible are different texts you should recognize many more texts than just a Christian and a Jewish one. You ought to recognize a liberal Christian one, where God does not really mean all the nasty stuff; a historical-critical one, where one tries to understand how people read it when it was written; a angry atheist one, where everything is interpreted as badly for the author as possible; a liberal Jewish one and so on. <br /><br />I do not understand which points you are referring to at the end.Johanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14957635441637987216noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3559910.post-25653865228041814742010-01-02T08:02:22.152-05:002010-01-02T08:02:22.152-05:00Let's go up a level, then. This 'debate...Let's go up a level, then. This 'debate' began over whether the Hebrew Scriptures and the Old Testament are the same text.<br /><br />My main point has been that the Christian frame that sees everything - absolutely everything - as prefiguring Jesus makes the Hebrew Scriptures and the Old Testament different texts.<br /><br />Now, the OT does have a different order to its books, right? OT translators tend to prefer readings that support prefiguration. To me, this all works to support difference.<br /><br />But if you want to leave this discussion on different texts/different interpretations - where were you going with your points?Larry Tannerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14642725101009530480noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3559910.post-15665792094346780892010-01-02T07:39:56.242-05:002010-01-02T07:39:56.242-05:00Yes, I read it. It was a cute example.
I guess w...Yes, I read it. It was a cute example. <br /><br />I guess we are debating semantics but I prefer to separate the fact that people have different texts from the fact that they have different interpretation of the same text.Johannoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3559910.post-32823486376343903692009-12-29T10:10:28.258-05:002009-12-29T10:10:28.258-05:00Have you seen the Skeptics' Bible over at Sam ...Have you seen the Skeptics' Bible over at Sam Harris' site - the Reason project?<br /><br />And the folks at Conservapedia are working on a "Conservative Bible." Check it out, it's no joke.<br /><br />The very question is to what extent we can call it "the same text." <br /><br />Origin of Species was published in six different versions. Version 1 and version 6 are not identical. Which one, if any, is authoritative?<br /><br />But is you look at my "Againt Interpretation" post you'll see a great demonstration of how "the same text" is not the same text to two different audiences. One group's text is a list of names; the other group's text is a religious poem.Larry Tannerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14642725101009530480noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3559910.post-68193108389450884632009-12-29T09:59:43.012-05:002009-12-29T09:59:43.012-05:00Well, in that case atheists would have our own ver...Well, in that case atheists would have our own version of the Hebrew scriptures as well. For if we read it in a historical-critical way we interpret differently than would a Jew, Christian or Muslim. <br /><br />Of course the text can mean different things to different people and they can interpret differently but I still call it the same text.<br /><br />The Origin of the Species is still the same text, whether it is I who read or Dembski even though we may have different reactions to it.Johannoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3559910.post-92082873496957612012009-12-29T09:16:46.502-05:002009-12-29T09:16:46.502-05:00"However the part of the Bible found in most ..."However the part of the Bible found in most modern Bibles that is called the Old Testament is simply a translation of the Hebrew scriptures and thus I would regard it as the same text."<br /><br />Johan, well I'll question you on the "same text" statement because a Christian applies a special frame to the "Old Testament." To the Christian, the governing idea is that Jesus' life and deeds (and all of Christian doctrine) are pre-figured in the Old Testament. The "Old Testament" names both the identity of the text and the way it's read.<br /><br />Someone who is Jewish or otherwise ignorant of Jesus and the New Testament read a different Hebrew Scriptures and in a diffferent way. It may be the same words, but the same text I am not sure about.Larry Tannerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14642725101009530480noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3559910.post-40115241559764231232009-12-29T08:03:35.890-05:002009-12-29T08:03:35.890-05:00"Belief in Christianity being true does not d..."Belief in Christianity being true does not depend on either the Hebrew Scriptures or the Old Testament being historically/factually true. "<br /><br />Since there are plenty of Christians who do not think that the Old Testament is factually correct history you are right. As a general rule liberal Protestants tends to heavily deemphasize the Old Testament. The Church of Sweden tends to see it as important only because it is referenced in the New Testament for example. (Of course they probably do not see the New Testament as factually correct history either. The idea that there are contradictions in the New Testament is commonplace among liberal Christians.) <br /><br />The New Testament is definitely more important to Christians of all sorts. But for more fundamentalist Christians the Old Testament is important. For a traditional Christian the idea that Christianity is the completion of the Jewish religion is very important and without the "prophecies" in the Old Testament supporting this a crucial part of their faith would be weakened. <br /><br />I understand your point about the Hebrew Scriptures and the Old Testament being different texts. Certainly many quotations of the Old Testament in the New Testament are misquotations.<br /><br />However the part of the Bible found in most modern Bibles that is called the Old Testament is simply a translation of the Hebrew scriptures and thus I would regard it as the same text. <br /><br />Mr Branderud, your view of history is interesting. Especially your view regarding the Sadducees. Of course, most conventional historians think that the Sadducees disappeared after the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem. Furthermore many of the beliefs of the Sadducees were different from Christians beliefs. (Ie no resurrection of the dead.) Finally the New Testament makes it quite clear that that the Sadducees were enemies to Jesus.Johannoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3559910.post-91553870900387684002009-12-15T10:00:10.177-05:002009-12-15T10:00:10.177-05:00Anders,
It is important to distinguish, but as I ...Anders,<br /><br />It is important to distinguish, but as I say, I have seen no tangible evidence that a historical person (you name him Ribi Yehoshua but don't say why) ever existed.<br /><br />on the Talpiot Tomb: see this interesting article on the odds that the tomb is the family tomb of Jesus, http://www.bibleinterp.com/articles/tomb357926.shtml<br /><br />In short, though, it's impossible to to say whether Talpiot is or is not what you claim.<br /><br />I read your logical "proof" of a Creator. Sorry, but it's naive and inconsistent, a bad version of the Kalaam argument.<br /><br />Besides, why would you value logic, the sometimes ingenious thoughts of people, over physical evidence, which is supposed to be a source of signs to people?Larry Tannerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14642725101009530480noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3559910.post-52911838863052465112009-12-15T09:38:14.000-05:002009-12-15T09:38:14.000-05:00Hello Lary Tanner!
It is important to distinguish...Hello Lary Tanner!<br /><br />It is important to distinguish the historical Pharisee named Ribi Yehoshua, and the counterfeit Jesus.<br />To quote our website: “No one can follow two polar-opposite masters — the authentic, historical, PRO-Torah 1st-century Ribi from Nazareth and the 4th-century (post-135 C.E.), arch-antithesis ANTI-Torah apostasy developed by the Hellenists (namely the Sadducees and Roman pagans who conspired to kill Ribi Yәhoshua, displaced his original followers and redacted the NT).”<br /><br />The tomb of the historical Ribi Yehoshua is found (the Talpiot Tomb) – you will find a section about that in the “History museum” in the website <a href="http://www.netzarim.co.il" rel="nofollow">Netzarim</a>.<br /><br />You also write that you’re an atheist. I would like to recommend the formal logical proof found in my blog (<a href="http://bloganders.blogspot.com" rel="nofollow">bloganders</a>, which proves the existence of a Creator and His purpose of humankind.<br /><br />Anders BranderudAnders Branderudhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12590420531095058999noreply@blogger.com