A star in the east

[JoeTheJuggler]

A friend of mine believes he has found a contradiction in the story of the visit of the magi (in Matthew 2) that no one else has pointed out. It's definitely an error, and I've never run across mention of it anywhere else myself. Here are the first two verses of Matthew 2 (KJV):
Now when Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judaea in the days of Herod the king, behold, there came wise men from the east to Jerusalem,

Saying, Where is he that is born King of the Jews? for we have seen his star in the east, and are come to worship him.

Here is verse 9 (after their audience with Herod):
When they had heard the king, they departed; and, lo, the star, which they saw in the east, went before them, till it came and stood over where the young child was.

If they came from the east following a star, then the star should be in the west, not in the east.

I find it hard to believe that my friend, bright as he is, would be the first person ever to have noticed this. Anyone know if it's been discussed elsewhere?

[Blank]

Not really a contradiction. I think the wise men are saying that they saw the star while they were in the east. They aren't saying that the star was east of them when they saw it.

[Soapy Sam]

I think the error most people fail to spot is that you can't actually use astrology to find babies.

[SezMe]

The fundamental error is interpreting the bible literally.

Most of us here scoff at literal interpretations of Genesis, the burning bush, feeding of the five thousand, turning water into wine, etc.... And rightly so. It's nonsense.

But by the same token, skeptics should not evaluate other passages of the bible by interpreting them literally.

It's simple in my view: The bible is a collection of myths. Christians who interpret it literally are fools. Unfortunately, skeptics who interpret it literally are also fools.

[DangerousBeliefs]

It's simple in my view: The bible is a collection of myths. Christians who interpret it literally are fools. Unfortunately, skeptics who interpret it literally are also fools.

I don't think the Christians have much choice. If the first half is not literally true, then the second half cannot be literally true... in which case, what is true in the Bible?

The best one can say is that it's a great book to pick and choose your beliefs. And we have plenty of evidence that this is indeed happening.

[Beerina]

Magi, as in magician. These guys were magicians and astrologers, doing things that God said they should not do, which is to say, reading the stars.

[triadboy]

Magi, as in magician. These guys were magicians and astrologers, doing things that God said they should not do, which is to say, reading the stars.

Genesis 1:14 And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven ...and let them be for signs, ...

Yahweh was wacky.

[drkitten]

I don't think the Christians have much choice. If the first half is not literally true, then the second half cannot be literally true...

Why not? Modern authors mix fact and fiction all the time -- are you suggesting that God (or Moses) is less creative than Dumas?

As a clear-cut example -- the "novelization" of A Perfect Storm includes several episodes that are pure fiction, because they describe events for which no witness could possibly exist (the last few hours of the crew of the Andrea Gail). On the other hand, it's also extremely well-researched and stays as close to fact as Junger's inability to contact the dead permits.


in which case, what is true in the Bible?

The parts that correspond to real events.

[JoeTheJuggler]

OK--I found that my friend wasn't the first to discover this. The Greek "en te anatole" with "anatole" in the singular can mean "in the east" or "in the rising". Some apologists say it means a time (at dawn), but I find that a bit of a stretch. I also find the reading that it means in their homeland not very likely.

I think it's just a mistake. Of course, the nativity stories are obviously fictional anyway. I just hadn't run across any mention of this before.

[ImaginalDisc]

Why not? Modern authors mix fact and fiction all the time -- are you suggesting that God (or Moses) is less creative than Dumas?

Is this supposed to be an argument? Dumas is not an omnipotent deity who will cast you down into a pit of eternal suffering for failing to understand the subtitles of fiction as a literary device and the importance of taking factual meaning from a vague and contradictory book.

Clarity in writing is the least one should expect from a perfect god and the least one should demand from a religion that classifies people into those who will get flowers and birthday parties forever, and those who will tortured without end.

[drkitten]

Is this supposed to be an argument?

No, it's a response to an argument that because Genesis is obviously fiction, so must be Mark.

That argument simply doesn't hold.

[ImaginalDisc]

No, it's a response to an argument that because Genesis is obviously fiction, so must be Mark.

That argument simply doesn't hold.

Oooook.

That the earliest acts of god are all fictitious fantasies, I accept. As for Mark, let's ignore any internal contradictions in Mark for a second. Mark contradicts all the other four Gospels, especially in regard to then narrative of Easter, the central miracle of Christianity and the foundation of its theology. They each even disagree about who went to J-man's tomb and what they saw there.

It is logically impossible for the New Testament to be factual, because it is internally contradictory.

[DangerousBeliefs]

Oooook.

That the earliest acts of god are all fictitious fantasies, I accept. As for Mark, let's ignore any internal contradictions in Mark for a second. Mark contradicts all the other four Gospels, especially in regard to then narrative of Easter, the central miracle of Christianity and the foundation of its theology. They each even disagree about who went to J-man's tomb and what they saw there.

It is logically impossible for the New Testament to be factual, because it is internally contradictory.

Well, it's logically impossible for NT to be factual because Jesus talks about those fictitious fantasies in OT as if they were real.

And then, I have to ask drkitten, what "important" parts of the Bible are historically accurate? (We've been through this before... the answer is that some of the people and places were real, it's just the stories they are in lack any evidence.)

[sphenisc]

Well, it's logically impossible for NT to be factual because Jesus talks about those fictitious fantasies in OT as if they were real.



That doesn't constitute a logical impossibility.

[ReligionStudent]

Magi, as in magician. These guys were magicians and astrologers, doing things that God said they should not do, which is to say, reading the stars.

Magi was actually the term for Medean priests associated with Zoroastrianism

[drkitten]

And then, I have to ask drkitten, what "important" parts of the Bible are historically accurate?

I'm fairly confident that Egypt is real, as is Rome. Herod is, of course, a historical figure. The cities of both Bethlehem and Jerusalem are real.

The talking snake, not so much.

You didn't really want to ask that question. Among other things, given the amount of genuine historical scholarship that has been done on this question, and the amount of genuine controversy that exists, you don't really expect me to copy the contents of the British Library into the forum.

The simplest answer is "I don't know." And no one else knows, either. Including you. Your statement that "it's logically impossible for NT to be factual because Jesus talks about those fictitious fantasies in OT as if they were real" is, not to put too fine a point on it, wrong. People talk about fictitious characters as if they were real on a fairly regular basis. Do you remember Murphy Brown (and Dan Quayle)?

[ImaginalDisc]

I'm fairly confident that Egypt is real, as is Rome. Herod is, of course, a historical figure. The cities of both Bethlehem and Jerusalem are real.

Evidence for the Roman census during Herod's time that coincided with the agreed upon date of Jesus birth, which miraculously managed to transpire six years after Herod died: None.

Evidence of Herod's slaughter of the boys in Bethlahem, given that he was a wildly unpopular figure, and there is a litany of his atrocities in the historical record: None.

Evidence for any part of Exodus, from the slavery of the Jews, to the parting of the Red Sea, to the numerous specifically described plagues including the entire Nile turning into blood, an event that would have left a geological imprint in the mud of the Nile's banks, and the slaughter of every first born son: None.

Evidence for any part of Genesis, from the creation of light before celestial light sources, to the existence of a firmament that separates "low" waters from "high" waters, to a time when animals did not harm one another, to "giants that roamed the Earth in those days," to numerous men living hundreds of years: None.

Evidence for a trial of anyone named Jesus by Pontius Pilate, a prominent historical figure: None.

Evidence that the Sun stood still in the sky so two tribes of self-righteous barbarians could slaughter one another: None.

The Bible bats 0.000 on facts.

FFS, Gone With The Wind is more historically accurate than a collection of books by anonymous authors billions of people take seriously.

[drkitten]

Evidence for the Roman census during Herod's time that coincided with the agreed upon date of Jesus birth, which miraculously managed to transpire six years after Herod died:

You know, if I had specifically claimed that the census was historically accurate, this might have been relevant.


The Bible bats 0.000 on facts.

You admit in your own writings that that statement is wrong. I don't know why you find it necessary to misrepresent the facts in your quest to establish that the Bible is not a reliable source for history. Very few people -- even among theists -- believe that it is; biblical literalism is a relatively fringe phenomenon.

In fact, about the only statement more stupid than "everything in the Bible is true." is "everything in the Bible is false."

[ImaginalDisc]

You know, if I had specifically claimed that the census was historically accurate, this might have been relevant.



You admit in your own writings that that statement is wrong. I don't know why you find it necessary to misrepresent the facts in your quest to establish that the Bible is not a reliable source for history. Very few people -- even among theists -- believe that it is; biblical literalism is a relatively fringe phenomenon.

In fact, about the only statement more stupid than "everything in the Bible is true." is "everything in the Bible is false."

Where do you get the basis for this accusation? Nothing in the Bible has any basis in fact aside from the names of certain places and figures. It's all a bunch of fairy stories. Jews lived in Israel for a while, Herod was an unpopular king, and Paul wrote a lot of letters. That's it for "accuracy."

[drkitten]

Nothing in the Bible has any basis in fact aside from the names of certain places and figures.

Which is not the same as "nothing in the Bible has any basis in fact"

Except in your fevered imagination.

I stand by my statement. The only thing more stupid than claiming everything in the Bible is true is claiming that everything in the Bible is false. If you want to put that shoe on and go around loudly proclaiming how well it fits,.... well, that's your choice.

[ImaginalDisc]

Which is not the same as "nothing in the Bible has any basis in fact"

Except in your fevered imagination.

I stand by my statement. The only thing more stupid than claiming everything in the Bible is true is claiming that everything in the Bible is false. If you want to put that shoe on and go around loudly proclaiming how well it fits,.... well, that's your choice.

Really? Name one event that was described in the Bible which has been independently verified to have happened as described.

Name one, or admit it's ALL CRAP.

ETA: I'll grant you a few passages of Paul's letters describe contemporary Christians accurately.

[drkitten]

'll grant you a few passages of Paul's letters describe contemporary Christians accurately.

See? By your own admission, it's not "ALL CRAP."

[ImaginalDisc]

Goodness me. I don't even need to prove that you're going over the top. You're willing to do the work yourself.

Go ahead. Find something, anything from Exodus, Genesis, Mark, Luke, Paul or Ringo that is historically accurate. Do it.

[ImaginalDisc]

See? By your own admission, it's not "ALL CRAP."

That would be called a lie.

Paul's letter do not describe resurrection, creation, Jews fleeing Egypt, or any subjects of Christian theology. They're his efforts to organize Christianity under his view. If Paul stands out as the most accurate part of the Bible, that casts the rest of the Bible in a terrible light.

[drkitten]

That would be called a lie.

Did you, or did you not, admit that some of the Pauline letters contain factually accurate elements?

[ImaginalDisc]

Did you, or did you not, admit that some of the Pauline letters contain factually accurate elements?

Factually accurate elements about how contemporary Christians worshiped and where they lived, not factually correct elements about anything regarding the alleged events that formed Christianity aside from Paul's political maneuvering.

We really have to make exception for Paul, as my ETA indicated. It's not relevant to the *claims* of Christianity.

[FaisonMars]

Michael Molnar from Rutgers has an interpretation of this passage in terms of the retrograde motion of Jupiter... "went before" and "stood over" could refer to the apparent stopping and backwards motion of Jupiter relative to the stars during an opposition in the constellation of Aries in 6 BC.

He's got a book out, but the gist is here:
http://www.eclipse.net/~molnar/

I used to work at the Adler Planetarium in Chicago, and every year from Dec. to Jan. they have a star show called "Star of Wonder" that talks about the astrology of the Star of Bethlehem. That show always drove me crazy, and I lobbied hard to get it removed just before I left in 2002. They will never cut it, because it brings in a lot of people around the holidays.

[sphenisc]

Go ahead. Find something, anything from Exodus, Genesis, Mark, Luke, Paul or Ringo that is historically accurate. Do it.


I'm fairly confident that Egypt is real, as is Rome. Herod is, of course, a historical figure. The cities of both Bethlehem and Jerusalem are real.


She already has.

[drkitten]

Factually accurate elements about how contemporary Christians worshiped and where they lived, not factually correct elements about anything regarding the alleged events that formed Christianity aside from Paul's political maneuvering.

We really have to make exception for Paul, as my ETA indicated. It's not relevant to the *claims* of Christianity.

No, we don't. It's not an "exception" when it's the central core of our disagreement and it proves that you're completely and utterly wrong, beyond the possiblity of misunderstanding When my claim is simply that the Bible contains factually accurate elements, and that he statement that "everything in the Bible is false" is stupid, "factually accurate elements about how contemporary Christians worshiped and where they lived" are still factually accurate elements.

By your own admision, the BIble contains factually accurate elements and is therefore not "ALL CRAP."

[ImaginalDisc]

She already has.

Names of places are not events.

[drkitten]

Paul's letter do not describe [...] any subjects of Christian theology.

Er, yeah. Sure. Whatever.

[ImaginalDisc]

No, we don't. It's not an "exception" when it's the central core of our disagreement and it proves that you're completely and utterly wrong, beyond the possiblity of misunderstanding When my claim is simply that the Bible contains factually accurate elements, and that he statement that "everything in the Bible is false" is stupid, "factually accurate elements about how contemporary Christians worshiped and where they lived" are still factually accurate elements.

By your own admision, the BIble contains factually accurate elements and is therefore not "ALL CRAP."

The Pauline letters contain some facts. Fine. I'll revise my statement to, everything but the Pauline letters is CRAP.

Does anything else contain descriptions of events that have been independently verified to have happened as described in the Bible?

[ImaginalDisc]

Er, yeah. Sure. Whatever.

Do mind ceasing being a a belligerent fool? I said, "I grant you," as in, "I make exception for."I revised my statement. The Pauline letters describe contemporary Christians his opinions about alleged events that are described in other works.

[drkitten]

Do mind ceasing being a a belligerent fool?

Yes. I can't cease what I've not been doing.

I said, "I grant you," as in, "I make exception for."I revised my statement. The Pauline letters describe contemporary Christians his opinions about alleged events that are described in other works.

Good. I accept your apology and your acknowlegement that you let your rhetoric get beyond what was supportable by the facts. And in particular, I accept your acknowledgement of the fact that the creation story in Genesis is obviously fictitious does not thereby invalidate anything else in the Bible. It doesn't validate it, either -- each passage obviously needs to be examined independently and on its own merits.

[ImaginalDisc]

Yes. I can't cease what I've not been doing.



Good. I accept your apology and your acknowlegement that you let your rhetoric get beyond what was supportable by the facts. And in particular, I accept your acknowledgement of the fact that the creation story in Genesis is obviously fictitious does not thereby invalidate anything else in the Bible. It doesn't validate it, either -- each passage obviously needs to be examined independently and on its own merits.

Don't accept an apology that wasn't offered to an undeserving dishonest excuse for a human like you.

I made a claim, recalled an exception, and then, when you refused to allow exception, revised the claim.

It is up to you to find any historical events described in the Bible, aside from the Pauline letters, that has been independently verified to have occurred as described.

[drkitten]

I made a claim,

Yes, a false one. By your own admission. I called you on it, you found an exception yourself that proved your claim false, and revised your claim.


It is up to you to find any historical events described in the Bible, aside from the Pauline letters, that has been independently verified to have occurred as described.

Why? I don't need to; my thesis -- that you're letting your rhetoric run away with you beyond your command of the facts -- has already been proven.

[ImaginalDisc]

Wow, drkitten, you appear to have entirely forgotten about this post.

I'm fairly confident that Egypt is real, as is Rome. Herod is, of course, a historical figure. The cities of both Bethlehem and Jerusalem are real.

The talking snake, not so much.

You didn't really want to ask that question. Among other things, given the amount of genuine historical scholarship that has been done on this question, and the amount of genuine controversy that exists, you don't really expect me to copy the contents of the British Library into the forum.

Empahsis added.

Thanks for the stupendous dodge, but we do want to know what parts are fiction and what parts aren't, because billions of people believe in this crap.

See, we can talk about your opinion of me, which I don't care about, or we can talk about facts, fiction and contradictions in the Bible, which you are avoiding.

[drkitten]

It is up to you to find any historical events described in the Bible, aside from the Pauline letters, that has been independently verified to have occurred as described.

Here's an interesting article (http://www.infidels.org/library/magazines/tsr/1998/2/982front.html) you might find informative. From Skeptical Review, no less.


Has archaeology confirmed the historical accuracy of some information in the Bible? Indeed it has, but I know of no person who has ever tried to deny that some biblical history is accurate. The inscription on the Moabite Stone, for example, provides disinterested, nonbiblical confirmation that king Mesha of the Moabites, mentioned in 2 Kings 3:4-27, was probably an actual historical character. The Black Obelisk provides a record of the payment of tribute to the Assyrian king Shalmaneser III by Jehu, king of the Israelites (2 Kings 9-10; 2 Chron. 22:7-9). Likewise, the Babylonian Chronicle attests to the historicity of Nebuchadnezzar, king of Babylon, and his conquest of Jerusalem as recorded in 2 Kings 25. Other examples could be cited, but these are sufficient to show that archaeology has corroborated some information in the Bible.

The article goes on to state the obvious -- that finding evidence for some of the Bible doesn't make it all true. The tribute of Jehu doesn't validate the talking snake. I'd go further and point out that no amount of historical or archeological evidence could ever validate the moral lessons one is supposed to draw from the Bible. "Love thy neighbor as thyself" is not a description of the world, so it can neither be confirmed nor denied.

But I find it interesting that we have on this very thread an example of the sort of idiot this particular author goes to some pains to distance himself from -- "I know of no person who has ever tried to deny that some biblical history is accurate."

[drkitten]

Thanks for the stupendous dodge, but we do want to know what parts are fiction and what parts aren't, because billions of people believe in this crap.

Good. if you were really interested in learning it, you know where the library is.

we can talk about facts, fiction and contradictions in the Bible, which you are avoiding.

All right, let me give you some Biblical content, and you can explain where the facts and fictions come in.

Destruction of Jericho, as documented in the book of Joshua.

Question one -- Did the city of Jericho really exist?
Question two -- Did the city of Jericho have walls?
Question three -- Is there archeological evidence that those walls ever failed catastrophically?
Question four -- If so, when did this happen?
Question five -- Are the answers to any of the above compatible with the Biblical account?

If you really believe that everything in the Bible is false, I'm sure you'll have no problem providing abundant evidence that the walled city of Jericho never existed.

[ImaginalDisc]

Ah, look, a cited fact! Ok, there are a few relatively uninteresting factual elements of the Bible. Ergo, it's not all CRAP. The parts that compose the religious basis of Judaism and Christianity however, are not verified.

You're back on ignore for taking a dozen posts to get past your own arrogance rather than simply citing a fact to prove me wrong.

ETA: And the names of Moabite kings? Really? I did say, "aside from names of people and places." Weak. But hey, I never have to read your supercilious drivel again!

[JoeTheJuggler]

I used to work at the Adler Planetarium in Chicago, and every year from Dec. to Jan. they have a star show called "Star of Wonder" that talks about the astrology of the Star of Bethlehem. That show always drove me crazy, and I lobbied hard to get it removed just before I left in 2002. They will never cut it, because it brings in a lot of people around the holidays.

I worked there too, FM--but some years earlier, I'm afraid. In '84-85 when I was in grad school at U of C. They had the Star of Bethlehem show even then IIRC.

I do believe even most believers recognize the Nativity story as mostly (or wholly) fiction. (Which is the way they're usually handled even in contemporary biographies.)

[triadboy]

Destruction of Jericho, as documented in the book of Joshua.

Question one -- Did the city of Jericho really exist?
Question two -- Did the city of Jericho have walls?
Question three -- Is there archeological evidence that those walls ever failed catastrophically?

Yes

Question four -- If so, when did this happen?

Jericho was in ruins way before Joshua showed up. Once again we have a Jewish Just-So story. (Like the Tower of Babylon is a story about an unfishished zaggurat (sp?)) The Jews made up the conquest to match the scene!

I read this before (in a real book), but here is a link:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Jericho

Current archeology suggests the area was not conquered - but settled peacefully. (Judea was the hillbilly cousins of Israel. You know, the ones with 2 teeth and sharing an eyebrow? :-)) The whole victorious, conquering forefathers was a device to create a history of pride for a simple people.

Bethlehem -- yes, there is a Bethlahem - but that place had nothing to do with Jesus. Jesus was from Nazareth. The whole Bethlehem tale was created (by Matthew) to prove the OT phrophesy that the Messiah would be born in Bethlehem. (Matthews agenda was to convince Jews of the messiahship of Jesus. So he created a few forced stories.)

Egypt -- Isn't it strange that pyramids are never mentioned in the bible?

Herod -- Josephus, who absolutely hated Herod, never mentioned the Slaughter of the Innocents.

Jerusalem -- you are correct, there is a city called Jerusalem.

[ReligionStudent]

The Pauline letters contain some facts. Fine. I'll revise my statement to, everything but the Pauline letters is CRAP.

Does anything else contain descriptions of events that have been independently verified to have happened as described in the Bible?

The seige of Lachish is supported from finds in Ninevah. Many names and events from the Assyrian period through the Machabean period are supported in other writings, inscriptions, and other sources.

[ReligionStudent]

Good. if you were really interested in learning it, you know where the library is.



All right, let me give you some Biblical content, and you can explain where the facts and fictions come in.

Destruction of Jericho, as documented in the book of Joshua.

Question one -- Did the city of Jericho really exist?yes
Question two -- Did the city of Jericho have walls?yes[/QUOTE]
Question three -- Is there archeological evidence that those walls ever failed catastrophically?[/QUOTE]yes, they were deffinatly down, I would count a destruction layer, for any reason as catastrophic
Question four -- If so, when did this happen?
Question five -- Are the answers to any of the above compatible with the Biblical account? I take your point, Dame Kenyon's dating shows Jericho's walls predated the Israelites etc, but some of it does jive witht he bible. (I am largely a minamalist, I just disagree with some of your statements, sorry to knit pick)

If you really believe that everything in the Bible is false, I'm sure you'll have no problem providing abundant evidence that the walled city of Jericho never existed.

However, saying the walled city of Jericho never existed is one thing, and saying the biblical description of it is false is another. The bible says it was walled, circa 1200 BCE, it wasn't. That's like me saying I went to washington DC today and saw President Taft walking around. He existed, but I am making quite a historically inacurate lie.

[ReligionStudent]

Yes



Jericho was in ruins way before Joshua showed up. Once again we have a Jewish Just-So story. (Like the Tower of Babylon is a story about an unfishished zaggurat (sp?)) The Jews made up the conquest to match the scene!

I read this before (in a real book), but here is a link:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Jericho

Current archeology suggests the area was not conquered - but settled peacefully. (Judea was the hillbilly cousins of Israel. You know, the ones with 2 teeth and sharing an eyebrow? :-)) The whole victorious, conquering forefathers was a device to create a history of pride for a simple people.

Bethlehem -- yes, there is a Bethlahem - but that place had nothing to do with Jesus. Jesus was from Nazareth. The whole Bethlehem tale was created (by Matthew) to prove the OT phrophesy that the Messiah would be born in Bethlehem. (Matthews agenda was to convince Jews of the messiahship of Jesus. So he created a few forced stories.)

Egypt -- Isn't it strange that pyramids are never mentioned in the bible?

Herod -- Josephus, who absolutely hated Herod, never mentioned the Slaughter of the Innocents.

Jerusalem -- you are correct, there is a city called Jerusalem.

Current archaeology is largely out on settlment issue. Biblical scholars often hold that there was some sort of migration from Egypt and that there was settlement. Most biblical scholars look at arguments such as conflict or peaceful as too simplified and believe a mixture is more likely of an answer. Though the biblical narrative here is almost certainly false.

[DangerousBeliefs]

Egypt -- Isn't it strange that pyramids are never mentioned in the bible?

You mean almost like the Jews had never been there?

drkitten, if you could just quote some parts of the Bible which are factually accurate maybe that would help things out.

You know... something like...

"The men of Judah carried away very much booty. And they smote all the cities round about Gerar, for the fear of the lord was upon them. They plundered all the cities, for there was much plunder in them. And they smote the tents of those who had cattle, and carried away sheep in abundance and camels. Then they returned to Jerusalem."
..........2 Chronicles 14:13

You know... highlighting the historically accurate parts?

[ImaginalDisc]

You mean almost like the Jews had never been there?

drkitten, if you could just quote some parts of the Bible which are factually accurate maybe that would help things out.

Name dropping is pretty much all that they've got.

[JoeTheJuggler]

Yeah--as has been pointed out, Gone With the Wind probably has more historical accuracy than most of the Bible, and yet we consider it a work of fiction.

At the very least the issue is how much real history might be in the fiction (or how fictionalized the history is). The really big stories in the Bible sure don't line up with known history very well. (Joseph as Potiphar's number one man; Moses as a virtual brother to Ramses II--or whoever that pharaoh was). And some of the biggest stories are obviously just-so myths: Adam & Eve, The Tower of Babel, The Flood, etc.

And there's plenty of literary forms in the Bible that are also obviously not history: songs, poems, allegory, laws, etc.

[aries]

Generally, I do think that is an accepted fact that some of the stories in the old testament don't really hold true or hold water. It is also clear to me that most of the stories in the old testament (of the bible) has been embellished a great deal by the jewish or hebrew authors. Just to prove a point or to make the Hebrew people look better...

As for the star over Bethlehem. The whole thing is a misrepresentation of what these magi did. (and magi is the word used in the original koine-greek text, irrc). The thing is that almost everyone agrees that the Magis were warlocks, sorcerers, and astrologers. And the thing really should read, imo:
'we have seen his star rising in the east'. (meaning they have done his chart or horoscope as some people did at this time...)

Some scientists do believe that this sign in stars were either a comet or the great jupiter/saturn conjunction in the year 6 or 7 b.c. --- but I do think there's still a great deal of debate over this one...

[davefoc]

... sorry to knit pick

And for a little nit picking of my own: nit pick = removing lice eggs (nits).

knit picking = picking at knitted items?

[ReligionStudent]

Name dropping is pretty much all that they've got.

What about the Neo-Babylonian seige of 597 which is supported in the Babylonian Chronicles BM 21946?

Or the seige of Lachish supported in finds at Ninevah.

[ReligionStudent]

And for a little nit picking of my own: nit pick = removing lice eggs (nits).

knit picking = picking at knitted items?

eh my bad, but I am more of a knit picker anyway.

[ImaginalDisc]

What about the Neo-Babylonian seige of 597 which is supported in the Babylonian Chronicles BM 21946?

Or the seige of Lachish supported in finds at Ninevah.

Are you actually saying that these events happened as described by the Bible? Such a place by that name existed and battles were fought there. Lovely. Does this constitute the foundation of a religion of relentless miracles or as trite a fact as one could name?

[ReligionStudent]

Are you actually saying that these events happened as described by the Bible? Such a place by that name existed and battles were fought there. Lovely. Does this constitute the foundation of a religion of relentless miracles or as trite a fact as one could name?

Actually, there appears to be no reason to doubt that either the seige of Lachish or Judah did not happen as portrayed in the bible, and this evidence supports taht interpretation.

No, I am an atheist I do not believe that anything deserves the founding of a religion. I do not believe in miracles. However, your complete write off of the historicity of the biblical narratives shows an ignorance of many extra-biblical sources. How can you write off where Jeremiah accuses women of worshiping the queen of heaven, when Ackerman and Dever have shown clear evidence of such practices among those in Judah. There are clear supports for many parts of the bible, just as there are issues against it. Neither means the entire narrative is true or false. It is a complex text, written over many centuries and by many authors. To say that none of it is true because you as an individual cannot point to archaeological evidence to support it is false logic.

For a good look, read George E. Mendenhall Ancient Israel's Faith and History or anything by Dr. William Dever, an agnostic.



Even those points that are not independantly supported may have happened. These are not supported, but the lack of support does not prove them false, especially when we have contemporary documentation of them. In many cases this is what the bible is, a contemporary text. Additionaly, as Niditch has shown, later texts can still present an accurate history of past events.

You are looking at a text, which has some impossible events, some things that certainly did not happen, and then you are saying that these impossible events mean that nothing in the text is true, including those events which have been validly supported by extra-bilbical sources.

In short, you are cherry picking for scientific impossibilities to disprove the text, just as a Christian might cherry pick for a name or a place to prove the text.

[ImaginalDisc]

In short, you are cherry picking for scientific impossibilities to disprove the text, just as a Christian might cherry pick for a name or a place to prove the text.

Are you out to lunch? I'm cherry picking? You had to find an obscure passing reference to justify your position. Congratulations on finding material about a factual siege on par with Sherman's burning of Georgia. That in no way validates either the Bible or Gone With the Wind.

[ReligionStudent]

Are you out to lunch? I'm cherry picking? You had to find an obscure passing reference to justify your position. Congratulations on finding material about a factual siege on par with Sherman's burning of Georgia. That in no way validates either the Bible or Gone With the Wind.

No, but if I were I would be at the table next to you. I never said that the entire bible was true, just that miracles and impossibilities do not make the entire text untrue. And the Lachish mural is certainly not obscure. It takes up the four walls of an entire room of the palace at Ninevah and shows the seige of an important town that is clearly mentioned in the bible. Additionally, this seems to do exactly what you challenged others to do, present evidence of more than a place or a person.

As for support of the Babylonian conquest, it certainly is not obscure, it is dirrectly in James B. Pritchards The Ancient Near East Volume I an extremely important book when working in biblical studies.

The fact is that there are many supported historic points in the biblical text. Read Suasn Niditch, she makes it quite clear that even the earliest sources could have some historical content.

Is it all historic, no. Is some of it, absolutely yes. But there is certainyl evidence for more than just names and places as you claim. The conquest of Judah by the Babylonians is perhaps the most important event of the formation of Judaism.

There are many other pieces of such evidence. Oded in Mass Deportations & Deportees.. shows clear evidence of support for many mass deportations by the Assyrian Empire, including those mentioned in the biblical text.

Additionally, as Albertz writes in Israel in Exile Archaeological excavations in a whole series of Judean cities (Jerusalem, Ramath Rachel, Lachish, Gezer, Tell el-Hesi, Arad, Tel Masos) have confirmed the destruction wrought by the babylonians in 587/586. (72-73). This is not some "obscure inscription", but hardcore physical evidence.

I think the attack on these inscriptions as "obscure" is not an issue with the source, but apparently with your level of familiarity with the biblcial history and its context. These are intro-level texts, things you learn about in OT 101, not obscure sources you find after years of study focused on some specific point. While I can agree none of this proves the entire bible historically true, your position that it is all esentially false, except for some names and place names is unsubstantiated.

[JoeTheJuggler]

As for the star over Bethlehem. The whole thing is a misrepresentation of what these magi did. (and magi is the word used in the original koine-greek text, irrc). The thing is that almost everyone agrees that the Magis were warlocks, sorcerers, and astrologers. And the thing really should read, imo:
'we have seen his star rising in the east'. (meaning they have done his chart or horoscope as some people did at this time...)


Wait a sec--is there any evidence that this was anything but fiction from the mind of the author of Matthew? Is there any other independent source that such a thing happened?

The Greek sure seems to say that they followed a star (not a chart) that led them to Palestine.

Seems to me it's reading an awful lot into it when the point was just to make out that it was the "birth of a king" sort of thing.

It's on par with taking the legend of the Buddha's birth as fact-based: that he could speak right when he was born, etc.

Edit: Thank you for responding to the thread topic, aries. You're only the second to do so. :)

[ReligionStudent]

Just a quick correction, I had a minor error, the Lachish mural was from Nimrud, not Ninevah. Does not change its importance etc.

[JoeTheJuggler]

I found the following on another forum posting (http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/b-greek/2001-January/014899.html):


>In According to Matthew 2.1 (RSV), we have:
>
>"Now when Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judea in the days of
>Herod the king, behold, wise men from the East came to Jerusalem, saying,
>"Where is he who has been born king of the Jews? For we have seen his star
>in the East and have come to worship him."
>
>Can "wise men from the East" mean "wise men arriving from the East"
>or "arriving wise men who are Easterners" or both?

Grk text: IDOU MAGOI APO ANATOLWN PAREGENONTO EIS hIEROSOLYMA
I'd say that APO ANATOLWN really ought to construe with PAREGENONTO,
"arrived from the East"--I wouldn't think we should understand the phrase
as attributive to MAGOI without an additional article.

>Can "we have seen his star in the East" mean that "we were in the East
>when we saw his star" or that "his star was in the East when we saw it"
>or both?

Grk text: EIDOMEN GAR AUTOU TON ASTERA EN THi ANATOLHi
I'd think that standard usage would refer to WHERE the eyes were oriented
when they saw the star rather than where they were geographically when they
saw; this also best explains the word-order of the Greek.


>According to Matthew 2.9 : "When they had heard the King they went their
>way; and lo, the star which they had seen in the East went before them."
>
>Again, does this mean that "they were in the East when they saw it" or
>that "it was in the East when they saw it" or?
>
>Can "went before them" mean only that the star moved towards the West
>as they moved westerly, in effect, leading them?

Grk text: PROHGEN AUTOUS pretty much has to mean "kept guiding them on
their forward way" Indeed, it's interesting that it's in the imperfect
tense.

At any rate, that's how I read the Greek here.

--

Carl W. Conrad
Department of Classics/Washington University

[davefoc]

Does anybody have any idea where Matthew (meaning the author of Matthew) came up with the idea of following a star? Is this an OT reference? What is the evidence that this was some kind of astrology reference?

If one is following a star in the east it would just gradually rise until it was overhead and sink in the west. So if you start out following a star in the east and keep following the same star eventually you're going to end up going west by the end of the night.

[JoeTheJuggler]

Possibly:
Numbers 24:17
A star will come out of Jacob. A scepter will rise out of Israel.

Isaiah 60:3
Nations shall come to your light, and kings to the brightness of your rising.

Isaiah 60:6
they shall bring gold and frankincense.

Heavenly phenomena connected with important events is pretty common in mythology. A comet appeared in the sky when Julius Caesar died (44 BC); a comet appeared for the birth of Mithridates (132 BC), King of Pontus.

[JoeTheJuggler]

If one is following a star in the east it would just gradually rise until it was overhead and sink in the west. So if you start out following a star in the east and keep following the same star eventually you're going to end up going west by the end of the night.

I was thinking that too (since the Greek can mean "a star in its rising" as well as "a star in the east"). But it doesn't really make a lot of sense--you'd walk east while the star rose to the zenith, then west (back to where you started).

Also, Matthew 2:9 says, "When they had heard the king, they departed; and, lo, the star, which they saw in the east, went before them, till it came and stood over where the young child was."

So the star led them to Palestine, then they met with Herod, then the star led them some more until it stopped where Jesus was. Plainly, this isn't a star as we know stars. It's almost certainly a made-up story.

[ImaginalDisc]

No, but if I were I would be at the table next to you. I never said that the entire bible was true, just that miracles and impossibilities do not make the entire text untrue. And the Lachish mural is certainly not obscure. It takes up the four walls of an entire room of the palace at Ninevah and shows the seige of an important town that is clearly mentioned in the bible. Additionally, this seems to do exactly what you challenged others to do, present evidence of more than a place or a person.

As for support of the Babylonian conquest, it certainly is not obscure, it is dirrectly in James B. Pritchards The Ancient Near East Volume I an extremely important book when working in biblical studies.

The fact is that there are many supported historic points in the biblical text. Read Suasn Niditch, she makes it quite clear that even the earliest sources could have some historical content.

Is it all historic, no. Is some of it, absolutely yes. But there is certainyl evidence for more than just names and places as you claim. The conquest of Judah by the Babylonians is perhaps the most important event of the formation of Judaism.

There are many other pieces of such evidence. Oded in Mass Deportations & Deportees.. shows clear evidence of support for many mass deportations by the Assyrian Empire, including those mentioned in the biblical text.

Additionally, as Albertz writes in Israel in Exile (72-73). This is not some "obscure inscription", but hardcore physical evidence.

I think the attack on these inscriptions as "obscure" is not an issue with the source, but apparently with your level of familiarity with the biblcial history and its context. These are intro-level texts, things you learn about in OT 101, not obscure sources you find after years of study focused on some specific point. While I can agree none of this proves the entire bible historically true, your position that it is all esentially false, except for some names and place names is unsubstantiated.

I am not saying the historical places or events are obscure, they are merely an obscure and largely irrelevant part of the Bible. They have nothing to do with Creation, the fall from grace, the covenant with god, or anything key to the stories of the Bible. If you found evidence for Exodus as a whole, that would be not only be spectacular, but would support a major section of the Biblical narrative. Finding evidence of historical place mentioned in obscure places in the Bible isn't going to support the Bible anymore than mentioning General Sherman supports Gone With The Wind.

[ReligionStudent]

I am not saying the historical places or events are obscure, they are merely an obscure and largely irrelevant part of the Bible. They have nothing to do with Creation, the fall from grace, the covenant with god, or anything key to the stories of the Bible. If you found evidence for Exodus as a whole, that would be not only be spectacular, but would support a major section of the Biblical narrative. Finding evidence of historical place mentioned in obscure places in the Bible isn't going to support the Bible anymore than mentioning General Sherman supports Gone With The Wind.

Remember creation is like 3 or 4 chapters of Genesis. yes its false, but large portions of specifically historical books, such as 1/2 Kings, 1/2 Chronicles are historical and there are historical facts throughout some of the prophets, especially those like Isaiah and Jeremiah.

The portions of the bible mentioned are not obscure, you are just not focused on them. Somethin like Nebuchadnezzar's conquest of Judah is one of the most important facts in the bible. Similar could be said for the conquest of Israel by the Assyrians. Those are not obscure places!

Maybe you are focused on Genesis/Exodus because literalists claim they are true, and they are easy to debate against etc, but scholars know these are not historically accurate. Heck I was talking with a high up scholar at the Jewish Theological Seminary of America this week and he doesn't believe in Joshua as a historical character, but that doesn't mean there is no evidence for other facts.

And the evidence for Nebuchadnezzar is not like using Sherman to prove gone with the wind. First, its archaeology, so it only supports the historicity of an event, not proves it. Secondly, its supporting the evidence of events which occur in at least three books of the bible and influence the development of all other books from that point on.

It is more like using someone's written notes from the First Continental Congress to support the Declaration of Independance. I do not claim to support Genesis with it, but specific portions of the histories. I am simply showing your comment on people and places as incorect, and the specific events are historically supported.

[davefoc]

So the star led them to Palestine, then they met with Herod, then the star led them some more until it stopped where Jesus was. Plainly, this isn't a star as we know stars. It's almost certainly a made-up story.

I think this is right. One of the things that I have learned from these biblical contradiction threads is that with the appropriate parsing and twisting almost everything in the bible can be made to fit whatever one is seeking it to mean.

Here it just looks like someone was making a straightforward description of a supernatural event. He didn't expect to be called on it, it wasn't like somebody was going to back and review astronomy pictures from sixty or more years ago and ask him to show them the magically moving lights. At some point the twisters and spinners take over to try to bring a touch of plausibility to the story or to tie the probably made up story into some possible natural event. But in the end we are left with a story that has so little substance to it that nobody can say for certain what was intended by the story or whether any naturalistic explanation is correct or incorrect.

[JoeTheJuggler]

I think this is right. One of the things that I have learned from these biblical contradiction threads is that with the appropriate parsing and twisting almost everything in the bible can be made to fit whatever one is seeking it to mean.

I sure didn't start this as a Biblical contradiction thread, really. My friend spotted what is obviously an error in a story that most people accept as being just fiction (I mean--the author of Matthew didn't even purport to be a witness to the Nativity or surrounding events).

My question was, does anyone know when this error was first spotted? I know it's been talked about in modern times, but it's been hanging out there for a long time. I have to imagine it was discussed centuries ago. I've read (modern) apologists' warped ways of construing this to get a reading that isn't an error, but those readings are simply not credible.

[davefoc]

I sure didn't start this as a Biblical contradiction thread, really. My friend spotted what is obviously an error in a story that most people accept as being just fiction (I mean--the author of Matthew didn't even purport to be a witness to the Nativity or surrounding events).

I'm not sure what you meant by this. I didn't mean to use the term biblical contradiction thread as a pejorative. I just meant it as a general term for threads where apparent biblical errors and contradictions are discussed. I noticed that you used the word, contradiction, in the OP so my terminology doesn't seem like it would have been that unexpected.

As to your question, it appears to be something that has been noticed quite often judging by the yahoo hits I got on it.

Here's a few that deal with it a bit:
http://www.kencollins.com/Why-01.htm
http://mb-soft.com/public/stareast.html

I think all of the explanations offered in these sites have been suggested by posters in this thread. Although one of them made note of another contradiction in that the magi apparently stopped by King Herod's to ask for direction which other parts suggest wouldn't have been necessary since the star was leading them to Jesus.

[JoeTheJuggler]

I'm not sure what you meant by this. I didn't mean to use the term biblical contradiction thread as a pejorative. I just meant it as a general term for threads where apparent biblical errors and contradictions are discussed. I noticed that you used the word, contradiction, in the OP so my terminology doesn't seem like it would have been that unexpected.
Sorry, I wasn't very clear. I mean, I never thought this thread would be about the error itself, or all the discussion about whether the Bible is purely fictional or based on historical events, whether the names of historical people and places count as events, etc. To me, it's an obvious error, and I can't believe that no one commented on it say 1000 years or more ago.


As to your question, it appears to be something that has been noticed quite often judging by the yahoo hits I got on it.

Here's a few that deal with it a bit:
http://www.kencollins.com/Why-01.htm
http://mb-soft.com/public/stareast.html

I think all of the explanations offered in these sites have been suggested by posters in this thread. Although one of them made note of another contradiction in that the magi apparently stopped by King Herod's to ask for direction which other parts suggest wouldn't have been necessary since the star was leading them to Jesus.

Yup--I've been looking around too, and the discussions I see are all contemporary. I haven't run across references to this being addressed by someone like St. Augustine, for example.

My friend, by the way, was a Classics scholar at a Jesuit university--earned his Masters in the late '60s, which is why it's remarkable that he never heard about this issue before running across it himself.

Another aside: the one about the magi stopping by Herod's to ask for directions is unfounded. Matthew says that when Herod learned that these guys were around, he secretly summoned them. When they left him, they saw the star in the east, and it led the way before them and stopped over the house where Jesus was born.

[The Grave]

The fundamental error is interpreting the bible literally.

Most of us here scoff at literal interpretations of Genesis, the burning bush, feeding of the five thousand, turning water into wine, etc.... And rightly so. It's nonsense.

But by the same token, skeptics should not evaluate other passages of the bible by interpreting them literally.

It's simple in my view: The bible is a collection of myths. Christians who interpret it literally are fools. Unfortunately, skeptics who interpret it literally are also fools.



The FACT that the bible, creation in the bible and the jesus story are FICTION, is borne out by these instances.

Why would the faithers need (or want) WISE men to 'confirm' the son of god had arrived?

Simply to add authority and credibility...in the form of 'science', as it was.

It's like when a film introduces a scene with a speeding police car...

Griff...

And Sez, personally I think your charge of 'fools' for people questioning the literal truth of the bible is naive. Ignorance of a topic is not equatable to foolishness, and everything possible must be done to bring the masses (kicking & screaming) into the light of science, and out of the darkness of belief and faith. Even now as we speak, Children of Tomorrow are being sold the lies of Yesterday!:jaw-dropp

[Beerina]

The 3 wise men/priests/magicians/janitors coming to pay homage couldn't have been just another old story inherited from a dozen previous religions, could it?