Hello Steve, I'm glad you got the membership thing figured out and can post links etc.
Some thoughts... You are welcome to get into mind numbing minutia of your notion of how to properly translate a phrase in this one verse in Matthew, but you might consider if it represents a wise use of your admittedly limited, precious, time. I don't see how it could be but, perhaps you know something you aren't sharing. It's seems to me that the best case scenario is that you show a minority position/case can be made that it
maybe,
could be or
isn't entirely impossible for one to translate the verse in the way you would like it to be translated. Well, obviously. Language has nuance. The NIV thought they could get away with it, so obviously they think they have enough scholarly cover to try it. But as I will show (see below), they are a fundamentalist inerrantist group and have been consistently dishonest with translation tricks they've pulled in the past. That's why a straightforward reading of the preponderance of translations I checked (all ten), disagree with your NIV. Even the EST version you have used to patch your verses together agrees with me and not you.
What you will need to show is that this verse
should be read in the manner you wish. I don't think you can do that. You say 'this study is in response to Till." Again, with your limited time you might want to focus on the much bigger fish you have to fry, rather than this one snip of a verse you have cherry picked out of a list. In
this post on Oct 19 gave two unnumbered problems, then six numbered problems, then six problems regarding who Jesus revealed himself to, then five numbered problems from Farrell. You want to spend all of this time on Farrell's number one? That's fine, if that's what you want to do, but I don't think it is a wise use of time, considering I know what your maximum payback is going to be for all of that effort.
I just don't want you to get tuckered out with small potatoes when you've got much bigger fish on deck. But, whatever, it's your time.
One other point before I address some comments directly. You need your Bible story to be consistent and not contradictory. I don't need that. The Easter story could be exactly 100% consistent with zero contradictions, and this would not suggest to me that its extraordinary claims are true. Lots of fictional, completely false stories are consistent and not self-contradictory. Probably most of them. So if you were able to fix these Easter problems (and you will learn you cannot), you will have achieved not evidence in favor of these stories being true, but rather, a minimal requirement of what we require before we even begin to consider whether something could be true: non self-impeachment or perjury. So I understand the need to start with this, inerrantists must fix these problems, but don't have any illusions that other than a goat, I don't have horse in this race. I think it would be really neat if you could fix these problems.
Now, since it appears you believe you are engaging in scholarship in this quest, let me point out a few reasons why you actually aren't.
First, on
your blog you say:
"So far I have considered sixteen issues I have found firm or potential resolution for so far in the harmonizing of the resurrection to ascension texts. I use the word error in this list a lot, not to signify error in the text, but error on the part of those who use these issues as reason to doubt the reliability of the accounts.... Here is the list for now, which I am sure will grow as the study progresses with a brief mention of why each issue seems “irreconcilable” to those unskilled in understanding the Word of God:"
This is not something a scholar, or someone interested in the pursuit of truth, would ever say. You reveal you are on a mission from God. You start by
assuming your conclusion when you say these things only "seem irreconcilable" but only to "those unskilled" in understanding your "Word of God." You use the word error a lot, but are so terrified that someone might think you could possibly referring to a potential error in scripture you make sure to assure them that it's "not to signify error in the text" but only refers to error "on the part of those who use these issues as reason to doubt the reliability of the accounts."
This is not scholarship and has nothing to do with scholarship. It's an exercise in evangelism cloaked under a thin veneer, a fascade of pseudo-scholarship. Scholarship doesn't assume its conclusion and go hunting for evidence, it follows the evidence to the conclusion best supported by the evidence. Creationists play this same game, and this is why their results are sterile and never lead to new or accurate information about anything. Creationism isn't science and has nothing to do with science for the very same reason your methods have nothing to do with scholarship.
But do continue, as I know/hope you will. I'm just pointing out the difference between the way scholarship works, and evangelism works. Scholarship doesn't begin by assuming a conclusion and then working to support that religious agenda.
I will be going to Dallas Theological Seminary in February for concentrated study time in their huge theological library,...
This fits nicely with the point I just made. I am sure they have a large library, but what is taught at that school is not scholarship and has nothing whatsoever to do with using the skills of scholarship to understand truth about the Bible. It's purely self-indulgent evangelism. Observe their
mission statement:
"The mission of Dallas Theological Seminary is to
glorify God by equipping godly servant-leaders
for the proclamation of His Word and the
building up of the body of Christ worldwide."
And note:
While our faculty and board annually affirm their agreement with the full doctrinal statement (below), students need only agree with these seven essentials:
the Trinity
the full deity and humanity of Christ
the spiritual lostness of the human race
the substitutionary atonement and bodily resurrection of Christ
salvation by faith alone in Christ alone
the physical return of Christ
the authority and inerrancy of Scripture.
http://www.dts.edu/about/doctrinalstatement/
And that's just to be student there! The list of whoppers that the faculty has to affirm with an oath is far far longer and detailed. That's not scholarship, education or learning. It has nothing to do with scholarship. It's pseudo-scholarship and indoctrination dressed up to look like scholarship. It's a joke.
But I don't mean to spoil your fun. Do go and get your ears tickled, your faith built up and have a great time! Just don't confuse what they do at Dallas Theological Seminary as having anything to do with peer reviewed scholarship, because it doesn't.
Again this study is in response to Till:
Mr. Till is elderly and recently had a serious stroke. Please avoid the strawman of going after some complaint about the way he worded some comment. You need to address the scholarship, not Farrell Till, who is not here to respond to you (feel free to address the meat of his arguments, if you think this helps your case).
This is just for Matthew’s usage. But this is not the whole or necessary picture to understand the expression in Matthew’s day. For Matthew was not writing to Matthew, but to others.
Modern scholarship understands that the book of Matthew is anonymous, like the others.
So then, we will also ultimately study the other gospel authors and their use to see how Matthew’s usage compares, as well as considering those outside the Christian community since Matthew’s gospel is to that audience.
There is no evidence the person who wrote Matthew had any interaction with those who wrote the other gospels (other than obviously pinching most of his story from a similar source, "Q"). How others used Greek, including outside of Christianity, is not going to trump how Matthew has consistently used Greek.
The most easily understood elucidation of the steps (which I currently possess for reference), is found in Hermeneutics: Principles and Processes of Biblical Interpretation, by Dr. Henry Virkler, PhD. (Grand Rapids: Baker Bookhouse, 1981)
Dr. Henry Virkler is not a Bible scholar but
an evangelist trained in psychology. When he wasn't training Christian councilors at Jerry Falwell's Liberty University in Lynchburg, he's writing evangelist books for Christians. I bet his "A Christian's Guide to Critical Thinking," is a doosey. Why would a Christian need their own special guide to critical thinking? Oh I know, so they don't go off the tracks and use critical thinking skills to get an answer that conflicts with... Christianity. I'm not sure what that is, but it's not critical thinking. Those engaging in critical thinking don't need to start with the assumption/conclusion that Christianity is true and shouldn't be questioned.
This doesn't mean what he says about things outside of his expertise are wrong, I will certainly consider his arguments. It just gives me some reason to suspect them while noting that you are consistently reaching for evangelical non-scholarly sources, from people speaking outside of their area of training.
To simplify the study somewhat, we will group the texts several ways:
Any differentiation based on genre (literary form) of the passage.
Stephen, you aren't a translator and as you have admitted you have next to no knowledge of ancient koine Greek. Why on earth should I, or any one, take your musings (no matter how much cut and paste guidelines you pass along about study procedure) over those who do have expert knowledge and training in this field? When are you going to address this question? I assure you it is not going to go away. And until you deal with this question, it's going to under cut whatever conclusion you come to that relies upon your own amateur evangelical investigation rather than solid, peer reviewed, non- loyalty oath taking, non-fundie,
scholarship.
D.
--------------
Earlier I made the claim that the NIV has been less than scholarly in their attempts to fix Bible errors/contradictions/problems in their translation. Let me now support this with an excerpt from my book:
***
6.) Custom Translations for a Custom Doctrine, or, when All Else Fails Manipulate the Data.
Another very useful way of making those nasty
errors go away is to translate them away. This is
especially useful if the problem passage turns on a
Hebrew or Greek word that has usable alternate
meanings. Most words, ancient and modern, do have
alternate meanings.
A classic example is found (several times) in the
Book of Daniel, which was supposedly written by
someone in Nebuchadnezzar's court, someone who
should have been intimately familiar with Babylonian
royalty. Well, that writer mistakenly referred to
Nebuchadnezzar as the father of Belshazzer, and
Belshazzer as the son and successor of
Nebuchadnezzar. In fact, Belshazzer was never a
king, nor was he the son of King Nebuchadnezzar!
That and other glaring errors have, long ago,
convinced unbiased scholars that the work is of late
origin. That is to say, the Book of Daniel is a pious
fraud written around 165 BC.
In an effort to get around this glaring error in the
relationship between Nebuchadnezzar and Belshazzer,
the inerrantist has seized upon secondary meanings for
the words "father" and "son." In doing so, they have
violated a cardinal rule of good translation. One must
use the most probable meaning of a word unless
driven to secondary meanings by the evidence. (The
context in Daniel suggests that the words in question
mean exactly what they usually mean.) In short, the
inerrantist has not presented the best solution, the one
with the best track record.
Far worse than an individual monkeying around
with the Hebrew and Greek is the case whereby whole
Bibles are translated by those with a doctrinal axe to
grind. Examples of this type of tampering may be
found in at least two popular, modern
translations the NIV (New International Version)
and the LB (Living Bible, a paraphrase translation).
That was ably demonstrated by Dan Barker in the
Winter 1994 issue of The Skeptical Review. The
following is a excerpt from a portion of his article,
which appeared under the sub-heading, "Why do the
translations disagree?"
"The motives of the NIV and LB translators are
made clear in the preface to each book. The NIV,
translated by a team of evangelical scholars
(instigated by the National Association of
Evangelicals), is introduced with these words: "We
offer this version of the Bible to him in whose name
and for whose glory it has been made. We pray that
it will lead many into a better understanding of the
Holy Scriptures and a fuller knowledge of Jesus
Christ the incarnate Word, of whom the Scriptures
so faithfully testify."
If there is a contradiction in the New Testament,
then it could not "faithfully testify" anything.
The NIV team was extremely selective in
choosing its scholars: "[T]he translators were united
in their commitment to the authority and infallibility
of the Bible as God's Word in written form. They
believe that it contains the divine answer to the
deepest needs of humanity, that it sheds light on our
path in a dark world, and that it sets forth the way to
our eternal well-being." This is not the agenda of a
team of objective scholars! This is evangelism.
If there is a contradiction in the Bible, the NIV
translators, committed a priori to infallibility, could
never see it!. . ."
The Living Bible does not claim to be a strict
translation. It is a paraphrase by Dr. Kenneth
Taylor, who admits in the preface: ". . . when the
Greek or Hebrew is not clear, the theology of the
translator is his guide, along with his sense of logic.
. . The theological lodestar in this book has been a
rigid evangelical position."
What if an atheistic or skeptical organization
were to translate the Bible, putting together a team
of staunch materialists, systematically excluding
conservative or evangelical scholars, announcing a
"rigid skeptical position," claiming to be "united in
our commitment to the fallibility of the bible," and
advertising the "hope that this translation will lead
many astray from faith into a solid doubt of the
reliability of Scriptures?" Such prejudice clearly
would taint the objectivity of the translation.
Undoubtedly.
Dr. Edward P. Blair, in The Illustrated Bible
Handbook, states that the translators of the NIV were
expected to subscribe to the "high view of Scripture"
as put forth by the Westminster Confession of faith,
the Belgic Confession, and the Statement of Faith of
the National Association of Evangelicals. It is no
wonder then, when translators carry so much doctrinal
baggage, that they end up churning out such
disingenuous translations.
Let's examine just one example of such tampering:
NINEVEH
The size of Nineveh as described in Jonah 3:3-4
has always been a problem for inerrantists. It is simply
too big. Much too big. Here are some translations of
the key verses:
"So Jonah arose, and went unto Nineveh,
according to the word of the LORD. Now Nineveh
was an exceeding great city of three days' journey.
And Jonah began to enter into the city a day's
journey,..." (King James Version)
"So Jonah arose and went to Nineveh, according
to the word of the LORD. Now Nineveh was an
exceedingly great city, three days' journey in
breadth. Jonah began to go into the city, going a
day's journey." (Revised Standard Version)
"Jonah obeyed at once and went to Nineveh. He
began by going a day's journey into the city, a vast
city, three day's journey across..." (The New English Bible)
"...Now Nineveh was a city great beyond compare;
to cross it took three days. Jonah began by going a
day's journey into the city..." (The New Jerusalem Bible)
"So Jonah obeyed the LORD and went to
Nineveh, a city so large that it took three days to
walk through it." (Today's English Version)
It was common in ancient times to describe the size
of an area by the amount of time it took to cross it, a
figure often exaggerated in the case of great cities. A
day's journey was understood to be about 20 miles.
That makes for one, unbelievably large city. A city
that is 60 miles across might easily cover an area in
excess of 2500 square miles. That's about twice the
size of the state of Rhode Island! However,
archeology has revealed that Nineveh was definitely
only a fraction of this size. The New Oxford
Annotated Bible candidly gives the dimensions in
their footnote for this passage:
"Exceedingly great city; excavations have revealed
a city about three miles in length and somewhat
less than one and one-half miles wide." (New Oxford Annotated Bible, p. 1121)
It is large by Old World standards, but it falls far
short of the gargantuan city boasted of in the Bible.
As might be expected, various solutions have been
invented to solve the problem. They range from
counting the neighboring cities as "Greater Nineveh"
to the novel idea that Nineveh was so busy with
people and donkey traffic that a day's journey was
considerably less than 20 miles!
Most translations give the sense that is clearly
implied in this passage, that Nineveh was
"exceedingly great" in size, so large that it was "three
days journey" across. A curious exception is the NIV.
Observe how they carefully wrote this problem out of
the script:
"Jonah obeyed the word of the LORD and went to
Nineveh. Now Nineveh was a very important city
a visit required three days." (New International Version)
Quite a hot spot that Nineveh!
The Living Bible translators choose to disguise the
problem in a different way. Rather than discarding the
large-city sense of the scripture, they expand it to fit
the multiple-city theory:
So Jonah obeyed, and went to Nineveh. Now
Nineveh was a very large city, with many villages
around it so large that it would take three days
to walk though it. (The Living Bible)
The subterfuge going on here is obvious. These are
Bibles written by fundamentalists, for
fundamentalists. Other works give many more
examples where these translations suffer from
doctrinal rewriting[17]. Fortunately, by comparing
different but widely respected versions, one can
usually disrobe such tampering.
Footnote:
17. This example is dealt with in much greater detail in a booklet entitled "Bible Errors: A Sampling From 4 Topics," by
Dave E. Matson. He cites Dr. Edward P. Blair in "The Illustrated Bible Handbook" (1987) as a source giving 12 other
scriptures in the NIV that have similarly had their difficulties "translated away."