The story of the transfiguration of Jesus only appears in the synoptic gospels. It appears nowhere in the gospel of John. According to the gospel of Mark, Jesus leads Peter, James and John to a mountain top and he is transfigured before them. "...his garments became glistening, intensely white, as no fuller on earth could bleach them." Elijah and Moses appear to them and they speak to Jesus.
A cloud overshadows them and a voice comes from the cloud saying, "This is my beloved Son, listen to him." Suddenly they're alone with Jesus again. Jesus charges them to tell no one what they have seen until the Son of man has risen from the dead.
In the gospel of Matthew all the same characters appear. The transfiguration is described as "his face shone like the sun, and his garments became as white as light." In this version the voice from the cloud says, "This is my beloved Son, with whom I am well pleased; listen to him." and on hearing it the three disciples fall on their faces and are filled with awe. Again Jesus tells them to keep silent about what they have seen.
The gospel of Luke's version is slightly different again. This time they are going up the mountain to pray. As they do so "the appearance of his countenance was altered, and his raiment became dazzling white." Moses and Elijah appear and talk to Jesus, but this time we are told a bit about the content of their discussion. They speak to Jesus about his departure, which he is to accomplish at Jerusalem. Peter and the other disciples were asleep and hadn't seen anything that had happened so far until they awaken and see Jesus' glory and the two men with him. This time the voice from the cloud says, "This is my Son, my chosen, listen to him." Jesus doesn't charge the disciples to keep silent about what they have seen, but for some reason they do so anyway. One would have thought they would at least share their experience with their fellow disciples.
In Mark and Matthew's version of this story the disciples don't fall asleep so they are awake when Jesus, Moses and Elijah are talking yet no mention is made of the subject matter of their conversation. This would seem to be a very important part of the experience. Why aren't we told about what was said? In Luke's version they do fall asleep yet we seem to know what was discussed. How can this be known to Luke's author? The three disciples didn't hear it so couldn't have told anyone and Moses and Elijah return to wherever they came from. That leaves only Jesus and he told the disciples to tell no one, so I doubt he, himself, would have spoken about the incident and there is certainly no record of him telling anyone in any of the gospels.
How is it that Peter, at least, knows who the two men were who appeared with Jesus. He couldn't possibly have known what Moses or Elijah looked like. Jesus doesn't make any introductions, yet Peter says, " Master, it is well that we are here; let us make three booths, one for you and one for Moses and one for Elijah."
In the Lukan version God refers to Jesus as his chosen one. When did he choose him, at conception, at birth, at his baptism by John the Baptist? This sounds a lot like adoptionist theology and Luke's author has Jesus divine from his miraculous birth so why "my chosen"? According to Luke's author, God, or perhaps more accurately the Holy Spirit, created Jesus. He didn't choose him.
So, did the three disciples fall asleep on the mountain? Did they fall on their faces when they heard God's voice? Did they hear what Jesus, Moses and Elijah were talking about? And what did God say when he spoke to them? It depends which gospel you read.
Saturday 12 December 2015
Wednesday 11 November 2015
Paul on the road to Damascus
One of the best known biblical stories is Paul's conversion from Judaism to Christianity while he was travelling on the road to Damascus. He was on his way there with letters from the high priest written to the synagogues in Damascus, so that if he found any belonging to the Way (Christians) he could bind them and bring them, both men and women, to Jerusalem. As he approached the city a light from heaven flashed about him. He fell to the ground and heard a voice saying to him, "Saul, Saul, why do you persecute me?" Paul asked, "Who are you, Lord?" The voice replied, "I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting; but rise and enter the city, and you will be told what you are to do." The men who were with him heard the voice, but saw no one. Paul was blind for three days. The men led him to Damascus.
This is the version of the story presented by the author of The Acts of the Apostles in chapter 9. In chapter 22 Paul himself, relates his own version of this event. He has been arrested by the Romans and Paul asked them if he might address the crowd of his accusers. They gave him permission to speak to them and he told them what he had been doing that day and how he was converted. But the story is slightly different. In the chapter 9 version it doesn't say whether the men saw the light or not, but it definitely says they heard the voice. In chapter 22 Paul said he fell to the ground. In his own words, "Now those who were with me saw the light but did [NOT] hear the voice of the one who was speaking to me."
Paul revisited his story one more time in chapter 26 before King Agrippa and Paul's accusers. Again the story changes a bit. This time both Paul and all his companions fall to the ground when they see the light. Paul said, "I heard a voice saying to me in the Hebrew language." He doesn't say whether his companions heard the voice or not. Paul makes no mention of being blinded by the light, a significant part of the story.
So, in the chapter 9 and 22 versions, Paul falls to the ground. In the 26th chapter one, both he and his companions fall. In chapter 9 the companions hear the voice. In 22 they don't, and in 26 we don't really know. Paul simply says he heard the voice.
Paul and his companions are all human beings, they all see the light according to chapter 22, but only Paul is blinded by it. Why is this?
What is really interesting is that parts of Acts are written in the first person implying that the author was there at the time the events he's describing were taking place. For example, the first few words of chapter 28 say, "After we had escaped, we learned that the island was called Malta." implying that Acts' author was on board the ship that was trying to take Paul to Rome. However, the conversion story being told in chapter 9 is being related in the third person implying Acts' author was not present at that time. Also told in the third person are the two versions of his conversion that Paul relates to his accusers, implying again that the author wasn't there at those times either when Paul was telling his story.
Therefore, the author's information for these versions of the stories is no better than secondhand and possibly third or forthhand or worse. BUT, he wrote all three versions of these stories himself so how on earth can they not be in perfect sync? Who heard the voice, Paul or everyone present? Who fell to the ground, only Paul or all present? Was Paul blinded by the light or not? How many words did Jesus speak to Paul, 30 (chapter 9), 35 (chapter 22) or 118 (chapter 26)? Most scholars believe that both the gospel of Luke and Acts were written by the same author. Surely this must raise some doubts about the reliability and integrity of his work.
Interesting note:
The Greek word "akouo" appears 374 times in the New Testament. In all but one of these instances it is translated as "heard". The only time it is not translated as "heard" is in The Book of Acts, chapter 22, verse 9 in which it is translated as "understood", and then only in some versions like The New International Version and the Living Bible. The King James Version, The revised Standard Version and most others translated it here as "heard" like they do everywhere else in the New Testament. Why do this? I expect it is to remove a contradiction from their texts. Now their chapter 9 says Paul's companions heard the voice and their chapter 22 implies they heard the voice but didn't understand what it was saying. Bingo! No contradiction. This is dishonest. The bible has many contradictions in it. The Skeptics Annotated Bible website contains a list of 535 of them. They're there. Let's just live with it. It isn't justifiable to get rid of one of them by misleadingly translating a word.
This is the version of the story presented by the author of The Acts of the Apostles in chapter 9. In chapter 22 Paul himself, relates his own version of this event. He has been arrested by the Romans and Paul asked them if he might address the crowd of his accusers. They gave him permission to speak to them and he told them what he had been doing that day and how he was converted. But the story is slightly different. In the chapter 9 version it doesn't say whether the men saw the light or not, but it definitely says they heard the voice. In chapter 22 Paul said he fell to the ground. In his own words, "Now those who were with me saw the light but did [NOT] hear the voice of the one who was speaking to me."
Paul revisited his story one more time in chapter 26 before King Agrippa and Paul's accusers. Again the story changes a bit. This time both Paul and all his companions fall to the ground when they see the light. Paul said, "I heard a voice saying to me in the Hebrew language." He doesn't say whether his companions heard the voice or not. Paul makes no mention of being blinded by the light, a significant part of the story.
So, in the chapter 9 and 22 versions, Paul falls to the ground. In the 26th chapter one, both he and his companions fall. In chapter 9 the companions hear the voice. In 22 they don't, and in 26 we don't really know. Paul simply says he heard the voice.
Paul and his companions are all human beings, they all see the light according to chapter 22, but only Paul is blinded by it. Why is this?
What is really interesting is that parts of Acts are written in the first person implying that the author was there at the time the events he's describing were taking place. For example, the first few words of chapter 28 say, "After we had escaped, we learned that the island was called Malta." implying that Acts' author was on board the ship that was trying to take Paul to Rome. However, the conversion story being told in chapter 9 is being related in the third person implying Acts' author was not present at that time. Also told in the third person are the two versions of his conversion that Paul relates to his accusers, implying again that the author wasn't there at those times either when Paul was telling his story.
Therefore, the author's information for these versions of the stories is no better than secondhand and possibly third or forthhand or worse. BUT, he wrote all three versions of these stories himself so how on earth can they not be in perfect sync? Who heard the voice, Paul or everyone present? Who fell to the ground, only Paul or all present? Was Paul blinded by the light or not? How many words did Jesus speak to Paul, 30 (chapter 9), 35 (chapter 22) or 118 (chapter 26)? Most scholars believe that both the gospel of Luke and Acts were written by the same author. Surely this must raise some doubts about the reliability and integrity of his work.
Interesting note:
The Greek word "akouo" appears 374 times in the New Testament. In all but one of these instances it is translated as "heard". The only time it is not translated as "heard" is in The Book of Acts, chapter 22, verse 9 in which it is translated as "understood", and then only in some versions like The New International Version and the Living Bible. The King James Version, The revised Standard Version and most others translated it here as "heard" like they do everywhere else in the New Testament. Why do this? I expect it is to remove a contradiction from their texts. Now their chapter 9 says Paul's companions heard the voice and their chapter 22 implies they heard the voice but didn't understand what it was saying. Bingo! No contradiction. This is dishonest. The bible has many contradictions in it. The Skeptics Annotated Bible website contains a list of 535 of them. They're there. Let's just live with it. It isn't justifiable to get rid of one of them by misleadingly translating a word.
Wednesday 18 February 2015
Lot, Abraham's Goodie-two-shoes Nephew
According to the bible's Genesis, Lot is Abraham's nephew, his brother Haran's son. When Lot and Abraham come out of Egypt and head east, they decide they should split up with their respective families. Lot chooses his land first. He picks the Jordan valley in which the city of Sodom is located. Abraham (then called Abram) chooses Canaan.
Lot takes up residence in Sodom. Because the outcry against Sodom and Gomorrah is great and their sin is very grave God decides he will go down and check it out for himself, which would seem unnecessary since he is deemed to be omniscient. Abraham converses with God when he learns of God's plan to destroy Sodom. He asks God if he would not destroy the city if he found 50 righteous people living there. God agrees. Then Abraham continues to bargain with God. How about 45 righteous? Again, God says he wouldn't destroy the city because of the 45. Abraham continues, what about 40? 30? 20? 10? Each time God tells Abraham he would not destroy Sodom if he found that number of righteous people in the city. Who has the moral high ground here, anyway?
Two angels come to Sodom in the evening. Lot is at the gates of the city and invites the two angels to spend the night at his house, and continue on their way the next day. They accept his invitation, and Lot puts on a feast for them. Before they retire for the night the men of the city, both young and old come to Lot's house and surround it, all the people (does this mean all the girls and women were there too?) to the last man, surround it. The men call out to Lot, "Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us, so that we may know them." Of course, "know" here is a biblical euphemism for sodomize. Lot goes outside to speak to the men and says, "I beg you my brothers, do not act so wickedly. Behold I have two daughters who have not known man; let me bring them out to you, and do to them what you please; only do nothing to these men for they have come under the shelter of my roof." WHAT? He's prepared to send his two daughters out to this mob so they can be raped and sodomized by the the men of the town. What kind of father is he? Aren't his own daughters under the shelter of his roof too? Most fathers would sacrifice themselves to spare their children. Not Lot. He's not putting his own ass out there on the line. He'd prefer that his daughters did so and didn't even bother to consult with them before offering them up. Fortunately for them, the men of the town weren't interested in women. They only wanted the two angels. As we shall see, these men (angels) had some magical powers and were quite capable of taking care of themselves. The townsmen press hard against Lot intending to break down the door. The angels manage to pull Lot back into the house and close the door. They then strike the men who were at the door with blindness so they can't find their way to the door. (See, I said they had magical powers!)
The angels ask Lot if there is anyone else in the city that he wants to save. Lot considers the two men who are to marry his daughters. It appears he cared more about his future sons-in-law than he did about his own daughters. Somehow, Lot gets past the mob to warn them, but can't convince them he isn't joking. How hard could he have tried? I guess we are to presume that they perished in the conflagration, although we aren't told that they were. The angels send Lot, his wife and two daughters to the city of Zoar, the city of Lot's choosing. They warn Lot and his family to flee the city and not to look back until they clear the valley. Unfortunately, Lot's wife looks back on the destruction and is instantly turned into a pillar of salt. Really? The death penalty for looking back on the destruction? It hardly seems fair not to have advised the family what the actual punishment was for looking back, so they could determine the seriousness of this infraction. The Lord rains fire and brimstone down on Sodom and Gomorrah. The cities and all its inhabitants are destroyed; men, women, children and animals and all vegetation.
Lot is afraid to dwell in Zoar (the bible gives no reason) so he and his two daughters go up into the hills and live in a cave. One day the elder daughter says to the younger, "Our father is old, and their is not a man on earth * to come into us after the manner of all the earth. Come, let us make our father drink wine, and we will lie with him, that we may preserve offspring through our father." So for the next two evenings they get their father drunk and each one takes a turn lying with him. Lot is so drunk he is unaware that his two daughters have sexual intercourse with him. As a result off their intrigue both daughters become pregnant. The elder has a son named Moab, who becomes the father of the Moabites. The younger also has a son, and calls him Benammi, who becomes the father of the Ammonites.
*Really? The whole earth? They had just left Zoar. Was it a city devoid of young men?
This part of the story seems particularly ridiculous. First of all, I'm sure it's not every young woman's dream to have sex with their elderly father, drunk or sober. Secondly, he was old and so drunk he has no idea they were even in his bed. What are the odds he could perform sexually for them? Speaking of odds, what are the chances of both women getting pregnant on their first efforts? Lastly, if they wanted to meet some men who might be interested in them or in just getting them pregnant they needed only to leave their cave and descend from the hills into the city of Zoar. I'm sure they could have found some willing candidates.
What kind of family is this anyway? Could they be any more dysfunctional? These were the righteous people who were worth saving? Lot was purported to be the good guy, yet he was prepared to throw his own children to the wolves. Lot's daughters got their father inebriated and sexually assaulted him in order to become pregnant. His wife disobeyed God and was turned into salt, although the crime and punishment seem a bit ridiculous.
This story has all the look of a fabricated one that was not all that well thought out. The only point of the story seems to be to inform us that God frowns very heavily on homosexual activity and is prepared, at least in this instance to eradicate it by destroying entire cities, including any women, children and animals caught behind their walls, at least some of whom must have been innocent; also that disobeying God can have some serious consequences.
So, what can we conclude? How about Lot wasn't the righteous goodie-two-shoes we thought he was and neither were his daughters, so God is not a very good judge of character or righteousness either for that matter? Maybe Lot wasn't any more righteous than his fellow townsfolk and deserved to perish with them. But God doesn't come off as squeaky clean either. Innocent animals, children, infants were no doubt burned to death in the conflagration.
Lot takes up residence in Sodom. Because the outcry against Sodom and Gomorrah is great and their sin is very grave God decides he will go down and check it out for himself, which would seem unnecessary since he is deemed to be omniscient. Abraham converses with God when he learns of God's plan to destroy Sodom. He asks God if he would not destroy the city if he found 50 righteous people living there. God agrees. Then Abraham continues to bargain with God. How about 45 righteous? Again, God says he wouldn't destroy the city because of the 45. Abraham continues, what about 40? 30? 20? 10? Each time God tells Abraham he would not destroy Sodom if he found that number of righteous people in the city. Who has the moral high ground here, anyway?
Two angels come to Sodom in the evening. Lot is at the gates of the city and invites the two angels to spend the night at his house, and continue on their way the next day. They accept his invitation, and Lot puts on a feast for them. Before they retire for the night the men of the city, both young and old come to Lot's house and surround it, all the people (does this mean all the girls and women were there too?) to the last man, surround it. The men call out to Lot, "Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us, so that we may know them." Of course, "know" here is a biblical euphemism for sodomize. Lot goes outside to speak to the men and says, "I beg you my brothers, do not act so wickedly. Behold I have two daughters who have not known man; let me bring them out to you, and do to them what you please; only do nothing to these men for they have come under the shelter of my roof." WHAT? He's prepared to send his two daughters out to this mob so they can be raped and sodomized by the the men of the town. What kind of father is he? Aren't his own daughters under the shelter of his roof too? Most fathers would sacrifice themselves to spare their children. Not Lot. He's not putting his own ass out there on the line. He'd prefer that his daughters did so and didn't even bother to consult with them before offering them up. Fortunately for them, the men of the town weren't interested in women. They only wanted the two angels. As we shall see, these men (angels) had some magical powers and were quite capable of taking care of themselves. The townsmen press hard against Lot intending to break down the door. The angels manage to pull Lot back into the house and close the door. They then strike the men who were at the door with blindness so they can't find their way to the door. (See, I said they had magical powers!)
The angels ask Lot if there is anyone else in the city that he wants to save. Lot considers the two men who are to marry his daughters. It appears he cared more about his future sons-in-law than he did about his own daughters. Somehow, Lot gets past the mob to warn them, but can't convince them he isn't joking. How hard could he have tried? I guess we are to presume that they perished in the conflagration, although we aren't told that they were. The angels send Lot, his wife and two daughters to the city of Zoar, the city of Lot's choosing. They warn Lot and his family to flee the city and not to look back until they clear the valley. Unfortunately, Lot's wife looks back on the destruction and is instantly turned into a pillar of salt. Really? The death penalty for looking back on the destruction? It hardly seems fair not to have advised the family what the actual punishment was for looking back, so they could determine the seriousness of this infraction. The Lord rains fire and brimstone down on Sodom and Gomorrah. The cities and all its inhabitants are destroyed; men, women, children and animals and all vegetation.
Lot is afraid to dwell in Zoar (the bible gives no reason) so he and his two daughters go up into the hills and live in a cave. One day the elder daughter says to the younger, "Our father is old, and their is not a man on earth * to come into us after the manner of all the earth. Come, let us make our father drink wine, and we will lie with him, that we may preserve offspring through our father." So for the next two evenings they get their father drunk and each one takes a turn lying with him. Lot is so drunk he is unaware that his two daughters have sexual intercourse with him. As a result off their intrigue both daughters become pregnant. The elder has a son named Moab, who becomes the father of the Moabites. The younger also has a son, and calls him Benammi, who becomes the father of the Ammonites.
*Really? The whole earth? They had just left Zoar. Was it a city devoid of young men?
This part of the story seems particularly ridiculous. First of all, I'm sure it's not every young woman's dream to have sex with their elderly father, drunk or sober. Secondly, he was old and so drunk he has no idea they were even in his bed. What are the odds he could perform sexually for them? Speaking of odds, what are the chances of both women getting pregnant on their first efforts? Lastly, if they wanted to meet some men who might be interested in them or in just getting them pregnant they needed only to leave their cave and descend from the hills into the city of Zoar. I'm sure they could have found some willing candidates.
What kind of family is this anyway? Could they be any more dysfunctional? These were the righteous people who were worth saving? Lot was purported to be the good guy, yet he was prepared to throw his own children to the wolves. Lot's daughters got their father inebriated and sexually assaulted him in order to become pregnant. His wife disobeyed God and was turned into salt, although the crime and punishment seem a bit ridiculous.
This story has all the look of a fabricated one that was not all that well thought out. The only point of the story seems to be to inform us that God frowns very heavily on homosexual activity and is prepared, at least in this instance to eradicate it by destroying entire cities, including any women, children and animals caught behind their walls, at least some of whom must have been innocent; also that disobeying God can have some serious consequences.
So, what can we conclude? How about Lot wasn't the righteous goodie-two-shoes we thought he was and neither were his daughters, so God is not a very good judge of character or righteousness either for that matter? Maybe Lot wasn't any more righteous than his fellow townsfolk and deserved to perish with them. But God doesn't come off as squeaky clean either. Innocent animals, children, infants were no doubt burned to death in the conflagration.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)