Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
8 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Would Mary Have Been In Bethlehem?
Peg
Member (Idle past 4929 days)
Posts: 2703
From: melbourne, australia
Joined: 11-22-2008


Message 103 of 156 (510045)
05-27-2009 3:25 AM
Reply to: Message 99 by deerbreh
05-26-2009 11:57 AM


deerbreh writes:
You make a lot of assumptions about how the gospels were written that cannot be independently verified. And furthermore, most people in the 1st century were illiterate, there were no printing presses, no newspapers, no books or pamphlets - so to talk about the "gospels being circulated" in a form that "the authorities" could find and squash is rampant speculation at best.
most of the population was illiterate???
Are you really saying that because there were no newspapers or books or pamphlets most people were illiterate???
ancient nations invented the written word without books, newspapers and pamphlets...give them some credit.
The apostles and early disciples were able to read and write, Jesus was reading aloud in the synagogues from a young age so I think you can safely conclude that most people could read and write in the first century.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 99 by deerbreh, posted 05-26-2009 11:57 AM deerbreh has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 110 by Michamus, posted 05-27-2009 5:37 AM Peg has not replied
 Message 111 by Michamus, posted 05-27-2009 5:37 AM Peg has replied
 Message 119 by deerbreh, posted 05-27-2009 10:37 AM Peg has not replied

  
Peg
Member (Idle past 4929 days)
Posts: 2703
From: melbourne, australia
Joined: 11-22-2008


Message 104 of 156 (510046)
05-27-2009 3:28 AM
Reply to: Message 100 by deerbreh
05-26-2009 12:02 PM


deerbreh writes:
How does pretending the bible says something based on your preconceived notions of how and why it was written show "respect" for it?
Luke says that Jesus was 'about 30 years of age when he began his ministry'
please explain how this cannot mean 30 years of age... paulk says it could mean 28 or 33
I am not pretending, i believe that Luke wrote exactly what he meant to write...if you can read another age into it then perhaps there is a lack of honest review going on.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 100 by deerbreh, posted 05-26-2009 12:02 PM deerbreh has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 120 by deerbreh, posted 05-27-2009 10:50 AM Peg has replied

  
Peg
Member (Idle past 4929 days)
Posts: 2703
From: melbourne, australia
Joined: 11-22-2008


Message 106 of 156 (510053)
05-27-2009 5:02 AM
Reply to: Message 105 by PaulK
05-27-2009 3:29 AM


PaulK writes:
Since Luke didn't write about the events of 70 AD it is entirely possible that he would not have mentioned it. The more so since Luke's version of the Olivet Discourse appears to have been changed (from that found in Mark) to better fit the actual events - evidence that Luke wrote AFTER 70 AD.
who changed lukes version and when?
And if its known to have been changed, they must also know what it was changed from which means they must have earlier writings to prove that...what manuscripts do they look at to show that its been changed?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 105 by PaulK, posted 05-27-2009 3:29 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 107 by PaulK, posted 05-27-2009 5:09 AM Peg has replied

  
Peg
Member (Idle past 4929 days)
Posts: 2703
From: melbourne, australia
Joined: 11-22-2008


Message 108 of 156 (510056)
05-27-2009 5:14 AM
Reply to: Message 107 by PaulK
05-27-2009 5:09 AM


PaulK writes:
I'm saying that the Olivet Discourse has been changed between the earliest account found in Mark (and Matthew) and the version found in Luke. And the changes indicate that the originator of the new version knew what had happened in 70 AD.
What is the earliest account of Mark/Mathew that you are referring to, which manuscript is it based upon?
and which manuscipt of Luke are you comparing them to??

This message is a reply to:
 Message 107 by PaulK, posted 05-27-2009 5:09 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 109 by PaulK, posted 05-27-2009 5:20 AM Peg has replied

  
Peg
Member (Idle past 4929 days)
Posts: 2703
From: melbourne, australia
Joined: 11-22-2008


Message 112 of 156 (510061)
05-27-2009 5:40 AM
Reply to: Message 109 by PaulK
05-27-2009 5:20 AM


Paul please dont treat me like an imbocile.
You stated in the msg above...
PaulK writes:
Luke's version of the Olivet Discourse appears to have been changed (from that found in Mark) to better fit the actual events - evidence that Luke wrote AFTER 70 AD.
I ask you for evidence for such a claim that "Lukes version of the Olivet discourse appears to have been changed from that found in Mark"
and you say thats not what you said
Its not up to me to provide you evidence that it has not been changed, its up to you to prove back up your statement with evidence for such a change
Btw, im sure you realise that standard texts are merely translations and all translations appear slightly different, so please dont tell me thats your evidence for saying that Luke has been changed.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 109 by PaulK, posted 05-27-2009 5:20 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 113 by PaulK, posted 05-27-2009 6:01 AM Peg has replied

  
Peg
Member (Idle past 4929 days)
Posts: 2703
From: melbourne, australia
Joined: 11-22-2008


Message 114 of 156 (510065)
05-27-2009 6:15 AM
Reply to: Message 111 by Michamus
05-27-2009 5:37 AM


Michimus writes:
es, most of the population was illiterate. In fact, 97% of the population was illiterate.
quote:
Source
Conclusion -
Comparative data show that under Roman rule the Jewish literacy rate improved in the Land of Israel. However, rabbinic sources support evidence that the literacy rate was less than 3%.
Did you read the whole article or just the conclusion?
quote:
the first problem that the social historian of Late Antiquity faces is the lack of contemporary data in this field.
Nonetheless, the modern figures might give us an idea concerning the literacy rate we are dealing with in pre-industrial ancient society: the Jews in the Land of Israel in Late Antiquity.
In this paper we shall examine relevant 20th century data that relate to the encounter between a traditional and a modern society, i.e. western civilization which is based on writing. This cultural confrontation might be taken as a paradigm of a more ancient parallel: the encounter of Jews in the Land of Israel with Hellenism. Judaism, a traditional society, confronted Hellenism, a more 'modern' one, where the literacy rate was apparently higher than that among Jews. (7 footnote: The main proof for that is comparing female literacy where it seems that the percentage in Hellenistic culture was higher than in Jewish culture.)
Reference 7. Susan Guettel Cole, 'Could Greek Woman Read and Write?', Helene P. Foley (ed.), Reflections of Women in Antiquity, New York - London - Paris 1981, pp. 219-245.
I dont know how much faith I would put on his figures LOL .
If you are basing this on females in ancient isreal, then sure, i dont doubt it. Most of them probably were illiterate because educating women was something men condemned...see Jewish oral traditions for more information on that.
But the men in Isreal were most definitely literate as many bible writers attest to this fact. Part of the mosaic law was that fathers should teach their children by reading repetitively the Mosaic law. There is also the scribes or Sopherim who were trained copyists of the law and they spent their lives in this profession making copies of the Mosaic law.
Jesus, a poor carpenter, could read. He did not attend a formal school so obviously his father Joseph was a tutor to him as was required by the law... as were his apostles who the priests recognized as being 'unlettered and ordinary' meaning they were not schooled in the formal system, yet they could write.
Edited by Peg, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 111 by Michamus, posted 05-27-2009 5:37 AM Michamus has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 117 by Michamus, posted 05-27-2009 7:23 AM Peg has replied

  
Peg
Member (Idle past 4929 days)
Posts: 2703
From: melbourne, australia
Joined: 11-22-2008


Message 115 of 156 (510067)
05-27-2009 6:22 AM
Reply to: Message 113 by PaulK
05-27-2009 6:01 AM


PaulK writes:
That's not true. If you had simply asked for evidence I would have given it - as I have just done. Instead you asked for the WRONG evidence, based on a misunderstanding of what I said.
you have not done so at all
You are backtracking because you made a claim that you cannot backup.
As I said, If the manuscript of Luke has been changed, then there must be other manuscripts that show this to be the case, otherwise how is it known that the Luke has been changed. You cannot name a manuscript that shows such a change so now you are doing a backflip and saying i made a mistake in what you had said
LOL give me a break!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 113 by PaulK, posted 05-27-2009 6:01 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 116 by PaulK, posted 05-27-2009 6:34 AM Peg has not replied

  
Peg
Member (Idle past 4929 days)
Posts: 2703
From: melbourne, australia
Joined: 11-22-2008


Message 118 of 156 (510075)
05-27-2009 7:41 AM
Reply to: Message 117 by Michamus
05-27-2009 7:23 AM


a researcher who admits there is no data for the ancient culture he's writing about, and who is using modern day data to try to formulate a picture of an ancient culture
I dont care what you think about my ego, but there seems to be something very odd about using modern data to come up with figures of an ancient culture
you dont find that even remotely unlikely???

This message is a reply to:
 Message 117 by Michamus, posted 05-27-2009 7:23 AM Michamus has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 121 by Michamus, posted 05-27-2009 11:31 AM Peg has not replied

  
Peg
Member (Idle past 4929 days)
Posts: 2703
From: melbourne, australia
Joined: 11-22-2008


Message 122 of 156 (510142)
05-28-2009 5:03 AM


LOL@Michamus

Replies to this message:
 Message 134 by Michamus, posted 05-29-2009 9:24 AM Peg has not replied

  
Peg
Member (Idle past 4929 days)
Posts: 2703
From: melbourne, australia
Joined: 11-22-2008


Message 123 of 156 (510143)
05-28-2009 5:09 AM
Reply to: Message 120 by deerbreh
05-27-2009 10:50 AM


deerbreh writes:
"About 30" does not mean "exactly 30". If Luke had meant to be specific he would have said, "Jesus was 30 years of age when he began his ministry." It doesn't say that. You are pretending that it does. That isn't respecting the word, it is reading your bias into it. No respect is shown when you do that. The intellectual dishonesty is yours.
I know it does not mean exactly 30. As i said above, 'it would mean 30 plus up to 12 months'
but if Jesus was 31 or 32 or 33 etc, there was nothing stopping Luke from writing it that way...if he could write '30' he could just as easily have written '31' or '32' or '33'

This message is a reply to:
 Message 120 by deerbreh, posted 05-27-2009 10:50 AM deerbreh has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 124 by PaulK, posted 05-28-2009 5:21 AM Peg has not replied
 Message 139 by deerbreh, posted 06-01-2009 4:56 PM Peg has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024