Get the entire Tekton site on CD or zipfile. Get a stripped-down copy of this page.

[1-50][51-100][101-150][151-200][201-250][251-300][301-350][351-400][401-450][451-500][501-550][551-600] [600-650][651-700][701-750]

Dedication

Forasmuch as a guy named Joe Wallack thinks he knows his stuff, and thinketh himself funny, few have been handing to us a declaration of those things which are most bothersome about him. Even as they delivered him unto us, with a side of fries, and ended up verily amused; It seemed good to me also, having had better understanding of Biblical scholarship in mine little pinky than that Meister Joe haveth in his whole body, cloned fourscore, to write unto thee in order, most excellent reader, that thou mayest laugh heartily at Joe's naivete, wherein thou may see he is no more than a loud mouth with bad taste.

Purpose Of The 1001 Errors In Wally's Presentation

The primary purpose of the 1001 Errors In Wally's Presentation is to briefly identify laughable errors in the Joe Wallack list of 1001 Errors in the Bible. For those wanting detailed discussions and the chance to convince the author that a potential error is not an actual error please go to TheologyWeb and find Joe, who had been avoiding us like the plague but finally had the nerve to discuss some stuff in detail here, though in the process avoiding many key questions and making jokes to cover his lack of education. Hereinafter shall out comments be in bold, and Wally's in regular type.

#1

Modern Bible scholarship is in broad agreement that Mark was the first Gospel written yet Matthew is always listed first in Christian Bibles. My claimed error is that because "Mark" was written first it should be presented first in the Christian Bible. Modern Bible scholarship is mostly following nose to tail on authorship issue, and seldom critically examines the reasoning behind it. Our full report is here but here are some brief points: 1) the evidence rather suggests that while Matthew in Greek did follow Mark, Mark was preceded by an edition of Matthew in Aramaic; 2) most of the presuppositions of Marcan priority are false, such as that "simpler is earlier"; 3) a collection of secular scholars in the 1970s took a close look at the Marcan priority thesis, and disagreed with it; the favored theory of a literary scholar was the Griesbach hypothesis, while an oral tradition specialist said that common oral tradition was sufficient to explain similarities. Do not expect Wally to do more than toe the line here, because critical examination is too frightening. The Christian Bible implies that "Mark" and "Matthew" are the testimony of witnesses. How? Later information tells us directly that Matthew was a witness and Mark was not, but recorded the testimony of a witness, Peter. Where is this "implication" other than in Wally's imagination? Readers can see and the Church has always taught that there is dependence between the two. Vague and superfluous comment. Of course there is "dependence" but what kind? Oral? Written? Common source? Common sense and legal procedure require that the testimony which was either relied on to some extent or even just available to another witness be presented first as this is what readers or jurys [sic] will assume if not told otherwise. "Legal procedure," however, is not what historians use when they have related accounts. The problem this would create for Christianity with "Mark" being first is why is there no mention of the "virgin birth", any description of a transition from Jesus to the subsequent Church or post resurrection sightings or communications? The Church has always explained that because "Matthew" was written first "Mark" didn't need to cover these topics. Oh? Where is this "explanation" and who used it? No one I know. While it could be true, it is far more likely than Mark mentions no virgin birth because it was just seen as one of many miracles associated with Jesus, and therefore no more "important" than any other to report, as it had yet to be attributed any specific theological meaning. As for post-rez sightings, with the end of Mark actually lost, there is really nothing to say here. And keep in mind that the Gospels were biographies of Jesus written for people who were ALREADY believers -- they were not missionary documents. In fact Mark did not need to cover these topics at all, regardless of Matthew, for his readers would already be Christians and would be expected to know these details from the original kerygmatic presentation. We debated Wally on this on TWeb and he quit the debate with his underoos in flames.

#2

The first Gospel listed in Christian Bibles, Matthew, was written anonymously. The title "Matthew" was added by the Church long after the Gospel was written. Oops. By the standards of other secular works, the Gospels have more authorial attestation evidence than any other work. See the details here. Not surprisingly, Wally refused to accept our offer to debate this issue on TWeb.

#3

Christians have added chapter designations to the Bible which were not used by the original authors. Uh, yeah, so what? Wally counts this as "error" in the Bible, but hello, the works of Josephus have also been chopped into chapters that Josephus never imagined. Is that an error? Or is Wally just a little too desperate for points?

#4

Matthew 1:(KJV) "4 And Aram begat Aminadab" According to I Chronicles 2:10 it was Ram that begat Aminadab, not Aram. The earliest extant Greek manuscripts have the Greek equivalent of the English "Aram" for Matthew 1:4. (so presumably the KJV is correctly translating Matthew's error). The NIV has changed "Aram" to "Ram" correcting Matthew's error. The LXX states that Aram begat Aminadab so it's likely that Matthew made his error by simply copying from the LXX as he apparently was not fluent in Hebrew and so could not check the original Hebrew language. Some Bible scholars do theorize that the LXX was changed in some places to conform to the Gospels and that this is one of those instances. In any case Matthew's appare "Aramree with any known Hebrew text and in the absence of any evidence that the Hebrew use of "Ram" was the result of any change would be an error by Matthew. Behind this contorted complaint there lies a host of idiocies. "Ram" and "Aram" are nothing more than legitimate variations of spelling on the same name -- much like "Joe" and "Joseph" or "James" and "Jim." The LXX does indeed use Aram and this is an acceptable, non-erroneous spelling variation, of the sort we also find in Josephus. The idea that Matthew was not fluent in Hebrew flounders on the simple fact that Matthew regularly uses the Hebrew version of the OT text; it is simply a ridiculous and unsupported assertion to make based on a spelling variation, which appears in the LXX -- composed by persons who were themselves fluent in Hebrew! The "LXX was changed" idea is a throwaway without substantiation, of the sort that Wally loves to throw out without documentation or critical examination, much less showing relevance.

#5

Matthew 1:(KJV) "5 And Salmon begat Booz of Rachab" The only Rachab mentioned in the Tanakh was the Rachab of the Conquest who lived about two hundred years before Boaz. Every significant Church Father who commented on Matthew 1:5 assumed that Matthew was referring to the Rachab of the Conquest. That's nice. So what? Wally doesn't explain the "error" here -- he often does that, as the little elves apparently convince him that the "error" is clear just by reciting something -- but it probably has to do with the 200 years bit, and the idea that, "these guys obviously couldn't have been directly related." News flash, and the first of many times it will be needed: Gaps in genealogies were normal for this period. This was predominantly an oral culture. In an oral culture, things had to be memorized. Memory was made easiest by making things as short as possible while still retaining their purpose. Such fluidity in genealogical records is not exclusive of the Bible. "By virtue of its form a linear genealogy can have only one function: it can be used to link the person or group using the genealogy with an earlier ancestor or group. The actual number of names in the genealogy and the order of those names play no role in this function, and for this reason names are frequently lost from linear genealogies, and the order of the names will sometimes change." [I Studied Inscriptions from Before the Flood, 213] The removal of names and the telescoping of lists is known in other oral cultures -- and it is also known that certain numerical patterns were preferred. R. R. Wilson [ibid., 196n] notes the example of the Luapula people of Rhodesia, who kept a royal genealogy of nine generations; but the genealogies of common people for the same space were telescoped to between four and seven generations. Elsewhere [Genealogy and History in the Biblical World, 33n] he cites the examples of the Bemba, Tallensi, Tiv, Yoruba, and Cyrenician Bedouin. All of these cultures used telescoped genealogies. And in an oral culture, why not? If Uncle Joe wasn't much to behold, and just sat around in his La-Z-Boy eating chips and burping, why keep him once his kid was secure in the line? Why make us remember more? An oral culture had to make such listings as easy as possible to remember. The royal line required more detail; the common lines less. Wilson [Genealogy and History, 33] notes that names are usually dropped out of the middle of such lineages, since the later people are still alive, while the oldest people say the most about the origins of the lineage and "serve as points of lineage unity.") Thus Glenn Miller rightly answers that this is an example of a "simple pedagogical/rhetorical technique of Matthew (common in his day)". Does Joe know? No, Joe knows zip.

#6

Matthew 1: (KJV) "7…Abia begat Asa; :8 And Asa begat Josaphat" Generally, the oldest extant Greek manuscripts such as the Sinaitic and Vatican codices have the Greek equivalent of the English "Asaph" instead of "Asa" who according to the Tanakh should be in this location. The NASB has a footnote for Matthew 1:7 indicating that the Greek word was the equivalent of the English "Asaph". Most of the older Greek manuscripts indicating "Asaph" were unknown to the translators of the KJV. What the point is here is again hard to say. Where's the alleged error? The spelling variation? If so, same as above. Joe don't know. Gundry's Matthew commentary [15] suggests a deliberate allusion to Asaph, composer of the 78th Psalm, which Matthew later (13:35) regards as fulfilled.

#7

Matthew 1: (KJV) "8…Joram begat Ozias" According to I Chronicles 3:11 (JPS), Joram begat Ahaziah so Matthew has omitted Ahaziah from his genealogy. Same dip, different day. See #5 about genealogy omissions. Normal stuff. Not an error.

#8

Matthew 1: (KJV) "8…Joram begat Ozias" According to I Chronicles 3:11 (JPS), Joram begat Ahaziah who begat Joash so Matthew has also omitted Joash from his genealogy. Same dip again, different day. Normal stuff. Not an error.

#9

Matthew 1: (KJV) "8…Joram begat Ozias" According to I Chronicles 3:11 (JPS), Joram begat Ahaziah who begat Joash who begat Amaziah so Matthew has also omitted Amaziah from his genealogy. Same dip again, different day. Normal stuff. Not an error.

#10

Matthew 1: (KJV) "10…Manasses begat Amon; and Amon begat Josias" Generally, the oldest extant Greek manuscripts such as the Sinaitic and Vatican codices have the Greek equivalent of the English "Amos" instead of "Amon" who according to the Tanakh should be in this location. The NASB has a footnote for Matthew 1:10 indicating that the Greek word was the equivalent of the English "Amos". Most of the older Greek manuscripts indicating "Amos" were unknown to the translators of the KJV. Blase squase, rinse, lather, repeat. Whether a spelling variation, or a later scribal blunder (as Wally admits, this is not a "universal" variation), it's all the same. Gundry suggests an intentional "misspelling" as an allusion to Amos the prophet.

#11

Matthew 1: (KJV) "11 And Josias begat Jechonias and his brethren, about the time they were carried away to Babylon:" According to I Chronicles 3:15 (JPS), Josiah (Josias in KJV) begat Jehoiakim who begat Jeconiah (Jechonias in KJV) so Matthew has omitted Jehoiakim from his genealogy. Same dip, different day, see #5 above. No error, just normal genealogical practice.

#12

Matthew 1: (KJV) "11 And Josias begat Jechonias and his brethren, about the time they were carried away to Babylon:" According to the Tanakh Jechonias only had one brother. Oops. I guess Wally thinks Matthew 7:4, "Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye?," means you only talk this way to family. The use of "brethren" here hearkens to the OT use in which it means one's kindred (not just blood brothers, cf. Gen. 31:23 for example). Bauckham in Gospel Women [20] agrees, referring this to his father Jehoiakim's brothers; IOW his uncles.

#13

Matthew 1: (KJV) "13 And Zorobabel begat Abiud; and Abiud begat Eliakim" According to the Tanakh (JPS), I Chronicles, 3:19-20, Abiud was not one of the eight children of Zerubbabel ("Zorobabel" in KJV). Same dip, different day. See #5 above. Normal stuff, not an error.

#14

Matthew 1: (KJV) "17 So all the generations from Abraham to David are fourteen generations; and from David until the carrying away into Babylon are fourteen generations" Matthew has omitted four generations from his genealogy between David and the Babylonian exile. Even without them he still has fifteen chronological names. Same dip, different day. See #5 above. Normal stuff, not an error. Matthew has split into blocks of 14 so as to match the Hebrew sum for the numerical equivalent to the name David (14), and to match the breaks with significant events in Jewish history, and this is a "pedagogical device" as Glenn Miller has noted.

#15

Matthew 1: (KJV) "17…and from the carrying away into Babylon unto Christ are fourteen generations." Almost 600 years separate the birth of Shealtiel from the birth of Jesus resulting in an average of 46 years per generation. This average is contradicted by all known averages for this period outside of Matthew. Luke's average would be 27 years and Josephus' average would be 25 years. Same dip, different day. See #5 above. Normal stuff, not an error.

#16

#17

Matthew 1: (KJV) "18 Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise:" Most extant manuscripts have this wording but a few don't have "Jesus". The name is omitted in Irenaeus' reference to 1:18. The position of "Jesus" in the sentence varies in Greek manuscripts which is often the sign of a scribal addition. There is no other uncontested instance of an article preceding "Jesus Christ" in the Christian Bible. Thus it is likely that "Jesus" is a scribal addition to Matthew 1:18. This is a load of speculative malarkey and rather pointless malarkey at that. Wally doesn't tell us what the mss. evidence specifically is and is obviously trying to create a grievance out of thin air. What is the issue here? Is he trying to argue that "Jesus" and "Christ" were once not identified with each other? Why? The two words are together in 1:1, and Wally said nothing about that, and there are ample connections between the two like Matt. 16:20, the most obvious. Maybe it was added; maybe "Jesus" was later subtracted due to scribal influence, but what the bleck difference does it make? None. Sorry, no panic button. I checked on this in Ehrman's Orthodox Corruption of Scripture [138] and the fact of the matter is that there are several variations: "birth of Jesus," "birth of Christ," "birth of Christ Jesus," and in most witnesses, as Wally rightly says, "birth of Jesus Christ." Ehrman admits that this last reading is "attested by the earliest Greek witness" and is "preserved in every Greek manuscript of every textual group and subgroup from every region of early Christendom" while absolutely no Greek mss. supports the reading "birth of Christ" and Ehrman goes on to posit one of his usual conspiracy scenarios to explain the shorter (and in his view, less original!) reading. As far as we are concerned it is a tempest in a teapot and more likely one of the usual scribal slips than a conspiracy.

#18

Matthew 1: (KJV) "18… she was found with child of the Holy Ghost." Literally, the Greek reads "having in the womb" and not "with child". Gee, what the heck else will be in the womb? A rabbit? In any case, there is no definite article, "the", in front of "Holy Ghost" in almost all Greek manuscripts. The best translation would be "found to be pregnant through Holy Spirit". Christian translators have provided the "the" in English translations (found to be with child of the Holy Spirit) in order to support their belief that the Holy Spirit is a separate person. Even assuming this is correct -- which my interlinear does verify -- last I checked, Matthew 1:18 wasn't a substantive "proof" verse for the personhood of the Holy Spirit. Romans 8:26, yes. Acts 5:3, 9, yes. John 16:13, yes. Wally has a straw man on the other end of that matchbook. In the meantime we also asked an expert on Greek -- a seminary student with a specialty in this area -- for some comments. He said: "The definite article is not the only way that Greek shows definiteness. Wallace, in his grammar Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics, 243, argues that often times the anarthorous noun (a noun without a definite article) will have the semantic of a definite noun since the article in Greek does not carry just definiteness. The article is just a specific modifier, which is why it is often translated as a possessive pronoun rather than with "the." Often the article is just along to show case, especially with names that are indeclinable, but with declinable names there is no article. Thus, the lack of an article can very well show that the Holy Spirit is considered a person and "Holy Spirit" is considered a name. In other words, this is an argument from English and not from Greek."

#19

Matthew 1: (KJV) "18..When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost. 19 Then Joseph her husband," Mary has gone from engaged to married after a mere thirteen words, a record that would stand until Liz Taylor two thousand years later. Wow. As if number of words tells us anything about chronology. But as it happens the Greek word here, aner, simply means "man" though whether the ancients distinguished between "fiancee" and "husband" as we do is another matter. Keener in his Matthew commentary [91] notes that legally, the betrothal was as binding as a marriage.

#20

Matthew 1: (KJV) "19 Then Joseph her husband, being a just man, and not willing to make her a publick example, was minded to put her away privily." The word that KJV has translated as "privily" is normally translated as "quietly". Under Jewish law at the time Joseph would have had to deliver a writ of repudiation before two witnesses so it would have been tough to keep it "quiet" unless the witnesses Joseph had in mind were the blind and mute men of Chapter 9. Um, yeah. Keener [93ff] confirms this, but Wally first of all has the orientation wrong -- the reference is to how publicly Mary would be exposed to shame in an honor-shame setting, not merely a matter of legal proceedings and witnesses. The certificate before 2 or 3 witnesses was actually a very "quiet" or "private" form of divorce (it seems Wally has more of an itch with the KJV English than anything else) compared to a public taking to court in which Joseph could have demanded his dowry back and made a big public fuss about it. That's the sort of miseducation that comes of only reading select sources before mouthing off.

#21

Matthew 1: (KJV) "20… fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife" The literal translation of the Greek is, "do not be afraid to take Mary your wife" which is an incomplete sentence making the meaning ambiguous. Does it mean take as in sexually, take as in accept or take as in bring home? Wally goes on to compare translations of this, but we won't waste time. Why would it mean "take in as in sexually"? What was to be afraid of? What fundamental difference would there be between "accept" and "take home"? (Not that it matters; as Keener [91] notes, a betrothed couple did not live together, and Keener certainly says nothing about this being an "incomplete sentence" in Greek.) The Greek word used simply means to associate one's self and would undoubtedly encompass any sort of contact. It is the same word used in v. 24 and it says he "knew her not" until later, so it is obviously not sexual, and given the culture, does not mean "take home".

#22

Matthew 1: (KJV) 20…"for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost." Same error as #18. There is no "the" before "Holy Ghost" in the Greek. Of the major translations only Darby acknowledges this, "for that which is begotten in her is of [the] Holy Spirit". Same straw man as in #18 also. Matthew 1:20 isn't a proof text for the Spirit's personhood.

#23

Matthew 1: (KJV) 20…"for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost." In the Greek "spirit"(ghost) comes before "holy" and is separated by the verb "to be". A literal translation is "for that which is conceived in her from spirit is holy". No mention of this in the major Christian translations. Again, Christian translators are creating support for their idea of the holy ghost as a separate person in their translations. Same strawman. Matthew 1:20 is again not a proof text for the personhood of the Spirit and never has been, so nothing is being "created" here other than in Wally's paranoid imaginations.

#24

Matthew 1: (KJV) 21 "And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name JESUS: for he shall save his people from their sins." False prophecy. Everyone agrees that for two thousand years most Jews have died not believing in Jesus and therefore, according to Christian theology, were not saved from their sins. Strawman of excess. If Wally thinks that this is meant as a predictor of universal salvation for the Jews, rather than implicitly including the idea of their contingent acceptance of a universal offer, maybe he can explain how Pharaoh spoke to all of "his people" (Ex. 1:9) in Egypt at once. The generalizing target does not imply universal acceptance. If the firefighter says he will "save the people from the burning building" he obviously says so in anticipation of all accepting his offer. False prophecy? No -- straw man. It isn't a "prophecy" at all but a designation of role.

#25

Matthew 1: (KJV) 22 "Now all this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying, 23 Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us." If you're trying to make a list of 1001 errors in the Christian Bible then Matthew 1:22-23 is, as Banta said to Jerry Seinfeld, "Gold, Jerry! Gold!". The "prophecy fulfillment" of sentences 22 and 23 is out of place as the fulfillment happens in the following sentences 24 and 25. Joseph is just dreaming in sentences 20 and 21 and wakes up from this dream in sentence 24. It's likely that sentences 22 and 23 were later additions to the original text. Since the time of Irenaeus Christian commentators have "explained" that the formula citation was spoken by the angel of sentence 21. If you're trying to be funny for a living, don't use Wally as a template. If you're trying to make sense of this objection, don't bother. Verses 22 and 23 are indeed likely to be insertions into the narrative as a matter of process, but what keeps them from being Matthew's own comments on a story he is relating? Footnotes had yet to be invented; and the order makes perfect sense as is. What? Wally's way would apparently have it be: "And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name JESUS: for he shall save his people from their sins. Then Joseph being raised from sleep did as the angel of the Lord had bidden him, and took unto him his wife: And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS. Now all this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying, Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us." That makes no sense at all. "Knowing her not" didn't fulfill anything and the passage cited from Isaiah refers to a future birth, not one already done, which is why it makes sense to place it before a record of the birth as Matthew has done. Wally is inventing grievances out of sheer stupidity.

Humor break!

"Hello, everyone, this is Howard Snozell. With me is Dick Buttkick, and welcome to ABC's Wide World of Snorts. And we have an interesting matchup today, don't we, Dick?"

"We sure do, Howard. We have the fight of the century, with Acharya S taking on Dr. Edwin Bryant, Professor of Hinduism at Rutgers Univeristy. Our topic will be, 'Did Hinduism influence Christianity?' and we expect a real rouser of a match."

"Indeed we do, Dick, and to set up that match for us, we now have joining up Acharya's personal trainer and President of her fan club, Coach Wally Joe Aleck. Coach, how does someone like Acharya train for a match with Dr. Bryant?"

"Well, Howard, there once was a house with three bears, a papa bear, a mama bear, and a baby bear. They each had a bowl filled with bricks, a bowl filled with wood, and a bowl filled with straw. JP Holding came and blew all the bowls away, which proves he's full of hot air."

"Um, we thank you for that story, Coach, but about Acharya's match?"

"Oh, sure! Howard, we employ a variety of training techniques, including the Pompous Puff, the Screech and Run, the You're So Frinkin' Biased and Brainwashed, and the I'm Better Than You Even If I Don't Have Your Education and Experience. I think Acharya will mop the floor with this amateur."

"Well, we'll see, Coach, as it looks like the match is about to start. The combatants are in their places and Acharya is making the first move. Dick, can we turn on the field mike, it appears Acharya is saying something to Bryant. I can't quite make it out."

"Sure, Howard. Here goes."

*click* "...don't care if that statue of Jesus as Krishna dates to the 17th century! This is indisputable proof that those stupid moronic garbagey Christians borrowed ideas about Jesus from the Hindus! This is all in the Akhasic Records, you idiot! Get your blinders off and..." *click*

"Well, Howard, it looks like Acharya is taking charge as usual. Before long we can - HOLY MEATBALLS! Did you SEE that, Howard?!?"

"I think I did, Dick, but tell our listeners, I'm about to do a double take!"

"Howard, it looks like Dr. Bryant simply raised his foot and crushed Acharya right into the ground! Now he's twisting his foot like he's extinguishing a cigarette! Oh my Lord, I can't believe it! Oh, the humanity!"

"Coach, this is surely an unexpected turn of events for you. Please feel free to comment."

"Sure, Howard. In a land far away and many years ago, there was a beautiful princess named Rapoonzil. She had hair that was long and golden which she never washed. It stank, like JP Holding. Ha ha!"

"Yes, but Coach, the match -- "

"Oh, that! A great victory for Acharya, Howard. Did you see the huge stain on his shoe? It's going to take him months to get it all out."

"Uh, thank you, Coach Wally. Well, for Dick Buttkick, this is Howard Snozell, thanking you for watching ABC's Wide World of Snorts. We now return to the Bi-Annual Grease Skaters' Competition in Bithlo, Florida."

#26

Matthew 1: (KJV) 23 "Behold, a virgin shall be with child," It's undisputed that the Hebrew text has the definite article "the" instead of "a" before "young woman" (KJV's "virgin"). A slim majority of major Christian translations now have "the" here instead of "a". The use of the definite article "the" means that the woman in question was known to the speaker of the prophecy, Isaiah, and could not be referring to someone who lived about 700 years later. Yada yada yada. This is the first of many examples in which we will appeal to Miller's article here which shows that such use of the text was normal exegetical procedure in the time of Jesus. The rabbis did it, Qumran did it, and they did "worse" -- because they did not consider themselves tied down to a stunted fundaliteralism. For what it is worth Miller also does not report a "the" in the raw word order of the passage -- neither an "a" nor a "the". See here.

#27

Matthew 1: (KJV) 22 "Now all this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying, 23 Behold, a virgin" Matthew 1:23 uses the Greek word "parthenos" which has a primary meaning of "virgin". The Hebrew word from Isaiah 7:14 that Matthew is referring to is "almah" which has a primary meaning of "young woman" according to all Jewish Bible scholars, virtually all Hebrew/English dictionaries, most Christian Bible scholars and the majority of modern Christian Bible translations. The Greek word "neanis" has a primary meaning of "young woman". Yup. Let's see Wally take on the details from Miller:

The linguistic data is fairly straightforward. [Almah], in contradistinction to bethulah, is NEVER used of a non-virgin (either in the OT or in ordinary cognate usage). It STILL GENERALLY means 'young woman' but always includes the notion of virginity and non-marriage.

Let's dredge up a little data on this one, too:

"The rarity of its usage makes determining its meaning very difficult...In no case is it clear that an almah is married: indeed, Cant. 6:8 contrasts the king's wives ("queens" and "concubines") with the "maidens without number.". So possibly almah means "virgin," since all unmarried girls in Israel were expected to be chaste... Elsewhere almah is never used for girls who are definitely married (Prov. 30:19 is equivocal), so this may weigh against interpretations that suppose that Isaiah was thinking of the king's wife of his own wife. But the lexical evidence is not strong enough to rule out such possibilities.

"Third, the term almah is never used in the OT of a married woman, but does refer to a sexually mature woman. There are no texts in the OT where almah clearly means one who is sexually active, but it is possible that Song of Solomon 6:8 (cf. Prov 30:19) implies this. It would appear then that almah normally, if not always, implies a virgin, though the term does not focus on that attribute. Fourth, several of the Greek translations of the OT (i.e., Aq, Sym, Theod) translate almah with neanis; however, the LXX clearly translates it with parthenos. It is probably correct to say that if almah did not normally have overtones of virginity, it is difficult if not impossible to see why the translators of the LXX used parthenos as the Greek equivalent.

"The Hebrew text says almah ("the virgin") suggesting that a definite woman is in view. The Hebrew word almah is used seven or nine times in the Old Testament (Gen. 24:43; Exod. 2:8; Prov. 30:19; Song of Sol. 1:3; 6:8; Isa. 7:14; Ps. 68:26 [1 Chron. 15:20 and the heading of Ps. 46 are uncertain]) and is the only Hebrew word which without qualification means a mature young woman of marriageable age, but unmarried and presumably a virgin. In Song of Sol. 6:8 the word stands in contrast with queens and concubines, and in Prov. 30:19 "the way of a man with an almah" contrasts the infatuation of youthful love with the infatuation of an adulterous woman (v. 20). Some have suggested that the word bethulah would more accurately suggest a virgin, but this term sometimes requires a qualification such as "neither had man known her" so that it cannot merit serious consideration as a quasi-technical term for virgo intacta [The Emmaus Journal-V8 #1-Sum 99- David J. MacLeod]

"The translation virgin (alma) is widely disputed on the ground that the word means only 'young woman' and that the technical word for 'virgin' is bethulah.' Of the nine occurrences of 'alma' those in 1 Chronicles 15:20 and the title of Psalm 46 are presumably a musical direction but no longer understood. In Psalm 68:25; Proverbs 30:19 and Song of Solomon 1:3 the context throws no decisive light on the meaning of the word. In Genesis 24:43 and Exodus 2:8 the reference is unquestionably to an unmarried girl, and in Song of Solomon 6:8 the "alamoth ' contrasted with queens and concubines, are unmarried and virgin. Thus, wherever the context allows a judgment, `alma is not a general term meaning 'young woman' but a specific one meaning 'virgin'. It is worth noting that outside the Bible, 'so far as may be ascertained, 'alma was 'never used of a married woman'. [Motyer, Isaiah]

When the RSV first translated Isaiah 7:14 as "young woman" it was burned in several parts of the country by Christian fundamentalists. On a humorous note, even though the Catholic translators of the NAB had decided to translate Isaiah 7:14 as "young woman", the American Bishops voted to use "virgin" instead. I guess they thought "it was the Christian thing to do." Nope. They thought it was the scholarly thing to do. And they were right.

#28

Matthew 1: (KJV) 23 "Behold, a virgin shall be with child" In the Hebrew, the verb for "shall be with child", "harah", is in the present tense. Nice try. Miller will kick Wally's patoot once more:

The proper translation of Isaiah 7:14 from Hebrew should be, "Look, the young woman is with child". First of all, there is no Hebrew verb there to begin with--much less one in the "present tense"!

The word translated "with child", "pregnant", "conceives" or "will conceive" is an adjective [hareh, feminine form: harah], not a verb. There IS a verb harah that is used sometimes for "conceiving" but it would have been written haretah (with the h changing to a t, due to the root form being a type III-He; and the 3rd person feminine singular ending -ah) had it been used here. Instead, we have only a derivative form, the adjective "harah" (pregnant). There is no verb form in the first part of the clause.

The 'raw' word order/structure of the verse is like this: "Behold [hinneh], virgin [no verb] pregnant (fem. adjective), and (one) bearing (participle) a son, and she-will-call (perfect, relative weqatalti form)..." Note:

1. there is NO verb between 'virgin' and 'pregnant', so the context has to supply the tense element.

   a. this use of the adjective "pregnant" occurs in BOTH present and future tenses in other passages:

   "Behold, you (no verb) pregnant and you-will-bear (perfect, relative weqatalti form--see OT:IBHS, 32.2.5a-b) a son and you-will-call his name Ishamel" [Gen 16.11, this is most probably a Present, as in "you ARE NOW pregnant"]

   "Behold, you (no verb) pregnant and you-will-bear (same as above) a son" [Judges 13.5--that this is Future, as in "you WILL BECOME pregant" is clear from the parallel, more explicit, verbal statement in verse 3: "you are sterile and childless, but you-will-conceive (perfect, relative weqatalti form) and you-will-bear (perfect, relative weqatalti form)"]

   b. the most decisive context for determining tense (for such a tense-less construction) is grammatical, and in this case there are several grammatical clues that point to a future translation:

   i. The verb at the end of the clause ("and shall call his name...") is definitely future. Its form is called a "relative weqatalti form", whose general function is to indicate futurity (for the technical discussion, see the standard BH syntax reference, OT:IBHS, 32.2.5a-b).

   ii. The 'behold' (hinneh) when followed by a participle 'bearing' (yoledet) is normally rendered as future, and rarely as a present [OT:IBHS:37.6e, 6f]

   iii. The form of the 'she will bear' construction, conveying futurity, requires the preceding concept ('becoming pregnant') to be future in meaning too. The Jewish scholar H. Ginsberg, in the Ency. Judacia, s.v. "Immanuel" (p. 1294), points out that hara must be 'she will conceive' or else the following verb ('will bear') would have to become a converted imperfect to convey futurity. [It is a participial form instead.]

   c. The next most imporant context is literary--how did Isaiah intend other similar/related phrases.

   In this case we have many, many uses of the 'behold' word (hinneh, hin) by Isaiah for study, and a survey of these reveals that it almost always refers to future action. Indeed, Keil and Delitzsch, in their detailed commentary, state it forcefully:

   "Moreover, the condition of pregnancy, which is here designated by the participial adjective hara (cf. 2 Sam xi.5), was not an already existing one in this instance, but (as in all probability also in Judg. xiii. 5, cf. 4) something future, as well as the act of bearing, since hinneh is always used in Isaiah to introduce a future occurrence. This use of hinneh in Isaiah is a sufficient answer to Gesenius, Knobel, and others, who understand ha almah as referring to the young wife of the prophet himself, who was at that very time with child." (KD, Isaiah, p.216).

   I went through the 46 uses of hinneh (ignoring the related form hin) in Isaiah and find that the data tends to support KD's strong statement. Of the 36 uses that occur at the beginning of a verbal clause, at least 72% of them were clearly future, and of the 13 cases in which it began a participial clause (as in Is 7.14), all but two were clearly future. [The two exceptions (19.1; 30.27) could easily be understood as futures as well, but I tried to be cautious here.]

   This would certainly argue strongly for a future translation of this.

2. 2. And in fact, the vast majority of the modern translations/translaters consider this best rendered as a FUTURE as well:

   I already listed the Jewish scholar H.L. Ginsberg above, who translates it FUTURE, even though he believes it refers to someone in Ahaz' harem.

   The famous Jewish commentator Rashi, although holding the woman to be Ahaz's wife, nonetheless states that the phrase means FUTURE:

   "The Lord, of His own, shall give you a sign He will give you a sign by Himself, against Your will. is with child This is actually the future, as we find concerning Manoah's wife, that the angel said to her (Judges 13:3): "And you shall conceive and bear a son," and it is written, "Behold, you are with child and shall bear a son." the young woman My wife (tn: Ahaz' wife) will conceive this year. "

   The standard BH syntax work by Waltke and O'Connor (cited above) actually translates the verse in another section of the grammar as "the alma will be pregnant and will bear a son and will call..." (p.536)

   John Watt in WBC ("Isaiah", in.loc.) gives his translation as FUTURE: "Behold, the woman shall conceive and bearing a son-she shall call his name Immanuel.

   The LXX has two different textual traditions for this word, one with eksei (future of echw, "have", Rahlfs text) and one with lapsetai (future of lambano, "receive"), both FUTURE.

   The NAS, NIV, NAB, NKJV translations all render it Future. [The modern translations that I know of with a present tense rendering are the Soncino/JPS and the NRSV.]

   So, your friend got some bad or incomplete information from somewhere, or maybe meant something else by his/her statement. But as for Isaiah 7.14, the data strongly indicates a future tense meaning for the phrase "the almah (will become) pregnant". Hmm. How much you wanna bet Wally is the "somewhere"?

#29

Matthew 1: (KJV) 23 "Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel" The phrase above, "they shall call", in the Hebrew is in the third person feminine form and should be translated, "she will call". It's likely that "Matthew" intentionally changed the phrase because in verse 21 Joseph was instructed to "call his name Jesus". Even if Wally isn't talking through his hat -- that last bit about tense in Is. 7:14 doesn't bode well for his reliability here -- then yep, it IS likely that Matthew "intentionally changed the phrase" and according to Jewish exegetical practice for the day (see above) there was nothing the heck wrong with it. Case closed, and see below as well.

#30

Matthew 1: (KJV) 23 "Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us." The phrase "call his name", which Matthew has translated from the Tanakh is a Semitic expression meaning to name. The phrase "call his name" would be redundant in Greek or English as one would say either, "call him" or "nameWallyhim". As the phrase in Hebrew refers to an actual name and not a description of someone Matthew has presented a false prophecy as no one ever called Jesus by the name "Emmanuel". Yada yada yada. As Glenn Miller puts it: I am surprised this argument is used here--it is quite weak. A couple of quick pieces of evidence to show this: People and groups in the OT were OFTEN getting special 'place' names and temporary names, to be used for a specific purpose. Solomon, for example, got TWO names at his birth (II Sam 12.25)--Solomon and Jedidiah. No reference is ever made to Jedidiah after that, but it doesn't seem to be an issue. See also the story about Pashur in Jer 20:1-6. Israel and Judah consistently receive 'temporary' and symbolic names in the Prophets (cf. Ezek 23 and Is 62.3-4) Matthew is the one who quotes the 'Immanuel' passage one verse AFTER the he reports the angel's command to name the son JESUS, AND four verses BEFORE reporting that his parents called him 'Jesus'...he doesn't show the SLIGHTEST concern over this "problem"! (in other words, it WASN'T an issue in that culture). This is even more striking in that Matthew is the one arguing that the passage was fulfilled! --the name issue wasn't an issue. If you had to call the kid 'Immanuel" for the prophecy to be fulfilled, what in the world are we gonna do with Is 9.6--where the child gets 4 names (i.e. wonderful counselor, mighty God, everlasting father, prince of peace)?! And actually, we don't think it was his mother who had to call him 'Immanuel' anyway. Most modern bibles have a footnote at the 'she shall call him...' text, that explains that in the MSS, we have a couple of variants (he, she, they)...Matthew quotes it as 'they'...This could apply to ANYBODY who acknowledged that Jesus was God walking among his people--even John 1 would qualify for this. This is just not generally considered a problem: "There is no problem in referring the names Jesus and Emmanuel to the same person. This may well be the reason Matthew spells out the meaning of the name Emmanuel..."God with us" (LXX Isa 8:8, 10). Indeed this is not a personal name but rather a name that is descriptive of the task this person will perform. Bringing the presence of God to man, he brings the promised salvation-which, as Matthew has already explained, is also the meaning of the name Jesus (v 21b). "They" who will call him Emmanuel are those who understand and accept the work he has come to do. Matthew probably intends the words of Jesus at the end of his Gospel-"Behold I am with you always, until the end of the age" (28:20)-to correspond to the meaning of Emmanuel. Jesus is God, among his people to accomplish their salvation (see Fenton, "Matthew," 80-82).

#31

Matthew 2: (KJV) 5 …"for thus it is written by the prophet, 6 And thou Bethlehem, in the land of Juda," The Greek would translate literally as "And thou Bethlehem, land of Juda.". That would be like saying "And thou Chicago, land of Midwest". According to my third grade Greek teacher, Mrs. Soukoupoopalis, that's bad grammar in Greek, Chicago or anywhere else. Codex Bezae and the Old Latin changed the phrase to "Bethlehem of the land of Judea". Yet another manufactured grievance from Wally, who doesn't know dip about Hebrew, Aramaic, or ancient Koine Greek grammar, and neither did Mrs. Soukoupoopalis, who is Wally's own invention, in case you're gullible.

#32

Matthew 2: (KJV) 5 …"for thus it is written by the prophet, 6 And thou Bethlehem, in the land of Juda," In addition to bad grammar in the Greek virtually all translations of the Micah verse that "Matthew" is referring to say "Bethlehem Ephratah" such as KJV: Micah 5:2 "But thou, Bethlehem Ephratah" So Matthew has chopped off "Ephratah" from the words of the Prophet. And in so doing, once again followed normal use of the OT for that period. For a smarter view have a look at Miller's extended presentation here, which Wally won't touch with a nine and a half foot pole.

#33

Matthew 2: (KJV) 6…"art not the least among the princes of Juda" Instead of "art not the least" the Masoretic text says "small to be". Even the Christian Greek translations of Micah generally say, "are too small to be". "Matthew" has changed the quote in the Tanakh to avoid any description of Bethlehem as insignificant. Pass the paranoia! Is Wally really so out of it that he thinks this alleged "change" is going to convince anyone that Bethlehem is any bigger than it really was at the time? Hello? And why would Matthew care how big or small it is? If anything because of the birth Matthew would now be transvaluaing Hosea, once again, in accord with procedure of the day. Does Joe know? No, Joe no know dip.

#34

Matthew 2: (KJV) 6…"art not the least among the princes of Juda" Instead of "princes" the Masoretic text says "clans" (literally, "thousands"). Christian Greek translations of Micah generally say "thousands". The consonants of the Hebrew word (lpy) can mean "clans" or "rulers" so Matthew could have chosen to ignore the Hebrew tradition of "clans" even though it was accepted by the early Christians. In any case, using "princes" creates an error in Matthew's sentence structure because after deleting "Ephratah" in the first part of the sentence he is then referring to a city, Bethlehem, and not a clan, Bethlehem-Ephratah, so saying a city "is not least among princes of Juda" makes no sense. Once again see Miller's article, which shows that indeed a city is in mind; beyond that -- you guessed it -- Matthew's choice is again within proper limits for the day. Not that it matters, because as Keener notes [103], contemporary Judaism DID read Micah's words a prophecy of the Messiah's birthplace; "those who later polemicized against the Christian appeal to the Bethlehem prophecy did so on other grounds" than that the prophecy had been misread or misused. Maybe Wally thinks the other Jews of the day were stupid too.

#35

Matthew 2: (KJV) 6… "for out of thee shall come a Governor, that shall rule my people Israel." The Masoretic text and Christian Greek translations of Micah say, "for out of thee shall come forth for me a ruler". "Matthew" has omitted "for me", apparently so as not to give the appearance that Jesus is ruling on behalf of anyone else. Huh? The "Son of Man" title used over a dozen times by Matthew, and the identification of Jesus with the figure of Daniel 7, already says all of that. A difference that makes no difference, other than in Wally's paranoid state. Notice that KJV (also NKJV) has capitalized "governor" even though the original Hebrew of Micah gives no indication that this ruler would be divine. I'm not calling this an error because KJV is the only major translation which capitalizes "governor" (or "ruler"). Um. And when we capitalize "President" that means we think George W. Bush is *God Almighty*. Gag me with a tongue depressor at this paranoid rant.

#36

Matthew 2: (KJV) 6… "for out of thee shall come a Governor, that shall rule my people Israel." The Masoretic text says, "from you there will come forth for me one who is to be a ruler in Israel". (Early Christian Greek translations generally say, ""a leader of Israel"). "Matthew" has changed the prophecy of a leader of the country Israel to a leader of the people Israel. At the time that "Matthew" wrote he likely realized that Jesus was never a ruler or leader of the country Israel. And once again -- say it with us, ladies and germs -- even if true, it would be nothing that would not be normal exegesis for the Jews of that era. But it isn't true, because there is no functional difference between being ruler of a people and ruler of their country. What? Does Wally think there were rulers who ruled the land and ignored the people living on it?

#37

Matthew 2: (KJV) 9 "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." By modern, astrological standards such an event would be impossible (the location of a star identifying the location of an individual house.) But claiming an error here bas would reflect an anti-supernatural bias. That is correct and if he has the sense to know this, he should not even mention it. However, according to Matthew, this star moved from the East to Jerusalem, then south to Bethlehem and then stopped over Bethlehem. There were non-Christian astrologers around this time who recorded all unusual astrological phenomena and none of them mention this event which easily would have been the most unusual they would have reported. Not quite. There are numerous candidates for the phenomenon; see here. It also assumes that interested astrologers were looking the right place at the right time, and that all such phenomena was recorded; for a corrective to that silly notion, see here.

#38

Matthew 2: (KJV) 15 … "that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying, Out of Egypt have I called my son." "Matthew" is referring to Hosea 11:1 (JPS): "When Israel was a child, then I loved him, and out of Egypt I called My son." Hosea chapter 11 is referring to the history of Israel and is not a prophecy. Hosea 11:2 (JPS): "The more they called them, the more they went from them; they sacrificed unto the Baalim, and offered to graven images. 3 And I, I taught Ephraim to walk, taking them by their arms; but they knew not that I healed them. 4 I drew them with cords of a man, with bands of love; and I was to them as they that take off the yoke on their jaws, and I fed them gently." Christian Greek translations of Hosea 11:1 generally acknowledge the plural subject of Israel by translating: "Out of Egypt have I summoned his children". What's the answer, folks? You know it by now: normal Jewish exegesis for the era. Glenn Miller adds: This passage is just another case of typology, and so the argument doesn't find the intended target. A simplified version of many of these arguments looks like this: The OT passage is describing a PAST event. -- (PAST events can have NO future messianic pattern-predictive content/implications.) -- Therefore, this OT passage can have NO messianic pattern-predictive content/implications. The problem is obviously with statement #2 above, for we have demonstrated amply that the very OPPOSITE was true-MOST major past events in Israel's history were ASSUMED to have predictive elements, under the structure of typology. This was NOT a 'Christian Invention', as we demonstrated. Therefore, all such objections are off-target, due to the incorrect middle premise. But this still doesn't answer the question of WHY Matthew used this passage-it DOES look a bit strange to 'Western minds'. We have seen that typology would be an appropriate vehicle for understanding this connection, but is there something MORE TO IT? Indeed, in this passage we see the peculiar Semitic notion of 'corporate solidarity', that forms an ever-present substrate in biblical teaching, and which goes BEYOND typology.

In what sense can we say that Israel was a type of the Messiah? The 'my son' element in the passage in Matthew tips us off that the element of sonship may be the pivotal concept.

In the OT, YHWH uses the term 'son' in several different settings:

The nation of Israel (Ex 4:22,23-"Then say to Pharaoh, 'This is what the LORD says: Israel is my firstborn son, 23 and I told you, "Let my son go, so he may worship me.")

The promised Son of David (2 Samuel 7: "'The LORD declares to you that the LORD himself will establish a house for you: 12 When your days are over and you rest with your fathers, I will raise up your offspring to succeed you, who will come from your own body, and I will establish his kingdom. 13 He is the one who will build a house for my Name, and I will establish the throne of his kingdom forever. 14 I will be his father, and he will be my son." See also Psalm 2, Psalm 89:26f)

Individual Israelites (Dt 32.19-" The LORD saw this and rejected them because he was angered by his sons and daughters." See also Hos 1.10)

Angelic figures (Job 1,2; Psalm 82:6; Dan 3.25)

In this case, the usage of "My son" for BOTH Israel AND the promised Son of David is the crux of the matter. If there is some REAL identification of the two in Israelite thought, then applying a passage ORIGINALLY used on one semantic target, to the OTHER one, in a different context, would be perfectly acceptable, and be even STRONGER of a link than simple typology.

Enter the concept of Corporate Solidarity. (For the seminal work on this topic, see H.W. Robinson, Corporate Personality in Ancient Israel, 1964). This notion is somewhat bizarre to western minds, to be sure, but was part and parcel of the ANE worldview. It is summarized in Reumann's introduction to Robinson's work:

that important Semitic complex of thought in which there is a constant oscillation between the individual and the group-family, tribe, or nation-to which he belongs, so that the king or some other representative figure may be said to embody the group, or the group may be said to sum up the host of individuals.

Eichrodt has one of the better descriptions of how this looked to the individual in Israel (The Theology of the Old Testament, vol II, 175):

With all the unbroken force of primitive vitality men felt their individual lives to be embedded in the great organism of the life of the whole community, without which the individual existence was a nullity, a leaf blown about by the wind, while in the prosperity of the community, on the other hand, the individual could alone find his own fulfillment. His devotion to the great whole was therefore the natural thing, this being bound to the destinies of the totality an axiomatic process of life. This is seen most clearly in the assertion of collective retribution, which feels it to be a completely just ordinance that the individual should be involved in the guilt of the community, and conversely that the action of the individual should react upon the fate of the group.

Even though there are examples of ordinary individuals affecting the community this way (e.g. Joshua 7.1), the three most explicit identifications are 1) father=offspring; 2) king=nation; and 3) Servant of YHWH=nation (or remnant). ...

The relevance of this to our study here should be clear. The identification of Israel-King-Messianic Servant --at the corporate solidarity level-allows NT (and Jewish) writers to see OT passages in the wider messianic complex of concepts. Longnecker (BEAP: 94) states it carefully:

biblical exegesis, the concept of corporate solidarity comes to the fore in the treatment of relationships between the nation or representative figures within the nation, on the one hand, and the elect remnant or the Messiah, on the other. It allows the focus of attention to "pass without explanation or explicit indication from one to the other, in a fluidity of transition which seems to us unnatural" (Reumann)

The Net: Not only would typology allow Matthew to use Hosea 11.1 in reference to Christ, but the pervasive concept of solidarity between the Messiah and the Nation gives even stronger support for the legitimacy of his exegesis.

#39

Matthew 2: (KJV) 15 … "that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying, Out of Egypt have I called my son." As the KGB agent said to Clint Eastwood in the classic movie, "Firefox", "Your papers, they are not in order." "Matthew" gives a prophecy fulfillment claim that Jesus was called out of Egypt in verse 15. But up to verse 15 Jesus is still in Egypt. Jesus doesn't leave Egypt until verse 21. And as Moe said to Curly, "I'd bat your brains out if you had any!" Check 2:15 in full, Wally: "And was there until the death of Herod: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying, Out of Egypt have I called my son." Hello?

#40

Matthew 2: (KJV) 16 "Then Herod, when he saw that he was mocked of the wise men, was exceeding wroth, and sent forth, and slew all the children that were in Bethlehem, and in all the coasts thereof, from two years old and under" In his excitement to report this dastardly deed "Matthew" neglects to tell us exactly WHAT was sent forth by Herod. Some translations fill in obvious choices such as "orders" and "men". A careless omission by Matthew and also a grammatical error. In his excitement to find mistakes in the text, Wally takes the KJV English over literally, mocking a structure also found in Matthew 10:5 and Rev. 5:6. It never occurs to him that the lack of an object for "sent forth" would not be considered "careless" within the rules of language in the era this was written. Nope, his English is the rule by which all others are judged. What a bigot!

#41

Matthew 2: (KJV) 16 "Then Herod, when he saw that he was mocked of the wise men, was exceeding wroth, and sent forth, and slew all the children that were in Bethlehem, and in all the coasts thereof, from two years old and under" No historian writing close to this time mentions any such massacre. The author of Luke doesn't mention it either. Josephus thoroughly documented the brutal deeds of Herod during Herod's final years yet makes no mention of this incident which easily would have been Herod's worst Blah blah blah blah, see here. Christian apologists estimate that there would not have been much more than 20 such murders of baby males in Bethlehem by Herod based on assumed population and birth rates thereby arguing that such a low number may have escaped Josephus' attention. Even 20 murders of babies would have been Herod's worst act. It would? Compared to what other acts? Wally doesn't tell us, and doesn't compare any of the other acts of Herod, but maybe he thinks 20 babies is worse than hundreds of Jewish notables Herod ordered massacred at his death. Don't take Wally's word for it on grounds of sympathy. The apologists ignore that the text also says "and the regions all around it" (in all the coasts thereof). The early Church assumed that according to Matthew thousands of male babies were killed in the "massacre". Too bad Wally doesn't give us a text supporting this from the early Church, but hello -- the "borders" all around a puny burg like Bethlehem ain't gonna add more than 10% to the total in a rural area surrounding a village. Nice try by Wally at adding numbers to the count, but it drops dead via his ignorance of ancient urban political boundaries. Glenn Miller adds these points: It would be silly to expect Josephus to write an EXHAUSTIVE record of Herod's abuses-there aren't enough books in the world! - Although the act was one of heartless cruelty, it must be remembered that probably no more than a dozen infants were killed in this event. Bethlehem was quite a small town in that day. This event would hardly have been recorded in such violent times. (See RT France, Novum Testamentum 21:98ff //1979) - This event is in PERFECT ACCORD with what we know of Herod's character, esp. at the end of his reign. Barnett has an excellent summary of the data in BSNT:24, which I quote at length here (footnotes are changed to citations, for completeness): - Herod's suspicion bordered on paranoia. He killed his own wife, the Hasmonaean princess Mariamne, and, at a later date, her adult sons Alexander and Aristobuus. At the end of his life he executed another son, Antipater the son of Doris. Augsutus made the grim joke that it was safer to be Herod's pig than Herod's son (Macrobius, "Saturnalia" 2:4:11). The king's pig was safe, due to Herod's studied outward observance of Judaism; his sons were not. When he realised his death was near Herod ordered the arrest of the leading citizens of all the villages. These were to be killed at the news of the king's death. Tears would then be shed, even if not for him! Mercifully the village notables were released unharmed from the Hippodrome where they had been imprisoned. -Civil wars erupted throughout Herod's kingdom when his violent and repressive rule finally ended. Josephus commented that Herod had "an evil nature, relentless in punishment and unsparing in action against the objects of his hatred" (Antiquites, xix:328). - A decade or so after his death an anonymous author wrote inferring that Herod was "an arrogant king...a reckless and godless man...who will exterminate their chief men...and bury their bodies in unknown places...he will slay the old and the young and show no mercy...terrible fear of him will come over all the land" (Assumption of Moses, 6:2ff) - The BBC:50 tells the story of a young but popular competitor of Herod, who had a 'drowning accident' in a pool that was only a few feet deep!

#42

Matthew 2: (KJV) 17 "Then was fulfilled that which was spoken by Jeremy the prophet, saying, 18 "In Rama was there a voice heard, lamentation, and weeping, and great mourning, Rachel weeping for her children, and would not be comforted, because they are not." The real tragedy here is that I can only count this quote as one error. The context of the quote above in Jeremiah is that Rachel is mourning for the captivity of the ten northern tribes in general and the tribe of Ephraim (the main northern tribe) specifically. Rachel was the mother of Joseph who was the father of Ephraim. She is not mourning for anyone's death or for the tribe of Judah which was a southern tribe and not in captivity at the time that Jeremiah wrote the above. 200 points to whoever knows the answer. Yes, Johnny? Correct. Normal Jewish exegesis for the period. Yes, folks, the real tragedy here is Wally's profound lack of education in any exegetical method other than fundaliteralism.

#43

Matthew 2: (KJV) 19 "But when Herod was dead, behold, an angel of the Lord appeareth in a dream to Joseph in Egypt, 20 Saying, Arise, and take the young child and his mother, and go into the land of Israel: for they are dead which sought the young child's life." The above states "THEY are dead" but the antecedent is Herod (singular). The excerpt "for they are dead which sought the young child's life" is almost the exact same wording from Christian Greek translations of Exodus 4:19. Apparently it was more important for the author of Matthew here to try and recreate exact wording from the Tanakh than it was to write a grammatically correct narrative. Apparently it is more ignorance of Jewish exegetical methods that causes Wally to make this sort of asinine statement. From Miller's article, this is most relevant: Midrashic exegesis ostensibly takes its point of departure from the biblical text itself (though psychologically it may have been motivated by other factors) and seeks to explicate the hidden meanings contained therein by means of agreed-upon hermeneutical rules (e.g., Rabbi Hillel's seven Middoth; Rabbi Ishmael ben Elisha's later set of thirteen; Rabbi Eliezer ben Jose ha-Galili's thirty-two). The purpose of midrash exegesis is to contemporize the revelation of God given earlier for the people of God living later in a different situation. What results may be characterized by the maxim: "That has relevance for This"--that is, what is written in Scripture has relevance for our present situation. In so doing, early Judaism developed what George Foote Moore once aptly defined as "an atomistic exegesis, which interprets sentences, clauses, phrases, and even single words, independently of the context or the historical occasion, as divine oracles; combines them with other similar detached utterances; and makes large use of analogy of expression often by purely verbal association" (Judaism in the First Centuries of the Christian Era, 1.248). See that? "Even single words..."detached." Live and learn, Wally.

#44

Matthew 2: (KJV) 22 "But when he heard that Archelaus did reign in Judaea in the room of his father Herod" "Reign" implies that Archelaus was the King but Josephus and extant coins indicate that Archelaus was an ethnarch and not a king. "Reign" implies no such thing, unless Wally thinks death is a king (Rom. 5:14), or lust (Rom. 6:12). Not that it matters, since among the popular folk, even the client-kings were called "Kings". Hyrcanus II was called an ethnarch by Rome, but a "king" by the Jews. So much for that nitpick.

#45

Matthew 2: (KJV) 23 "And he came and dwelt in a city called Nazareth: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophets, He shall be called a Nazarene." This prophecy fulfillment claim is unique in that Christian Bible scholars generally agree that there is no such prophecy in the Tanakh. Christian apologists are reduced to guessing what the author of Matthew meant. Wally is reduced to calling detailed scholarship "guesses" via his own ignorance. Again, Miller's report: ...the first major clue is the use of the plural 'prophets'. Matthew has 11 formulaic fulfillment passages (1.23; 2.15; 2.18; 2.23; 3.3; 4.15f; 8.17; 12.18-21; 13.35; 21.5; 27.9f), but this is the ONLY passage with the plural-EVEN in those passages which are 'compound prophecies' from MULTIPLE prophets (i.e. 21.5; 27.9) attributed to only one of them.

When we begin to study passages in which 'prophets' (or equivalent collective nouns such as 'law' or 'scripture') are 'quoted' we notice a peculiar pattern-the 'quote' turns out to be a summary that finds NO explicit word-for-word occurrence. It seems to work as a summary or a conclusion. Consider some of these:

Jer 35.15: 15 Again and again I sent all my servants the prophets to you. They said, "Each of you must turn from your wicked ways and reform your actions; do not follow other gods to serve them. Then you will live in the land I have given to you and your fathers."

Jer 44.4: Again and again I sent my servants the prophets, who said, `Do not do this detestable thing that I hate!'

Zech 1.4: 4 Do not be like your forefathers, to whom the earlier prophets proclaimed: This is what the LORD Almighty says: `Turn from your evil ways and your evil practices.'

Mt 7.12: 12 So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets.

John 7.38: "If anyone is thirsty, let him come to me and drink. 38 Whoever believes in me, as the Scripture has said, streams of living water will flow from within him."

Gal 3.22: But the Scripture declares that the whole world is a prisoner of sin, so that what was promised, being given through faith in Jesus Christ, might be given to those who believe.

In each of these cases, we have a collective reference, with a 'quote' that has no close parallels in the OT. The quotes seem to be summaries of multiple passages...

What this suggests to us is that Matthew is making a summary statement of OT teaching, which we could not find the 'proof-text' for in ANY SINGLE OT passage. His summary is a pattern-statement, something recognizable to the readers of his day, but something that might elude those of us without their shared backgrounds.

But let's try anyway! What might be the import of the phrase 'Nazarene' to Matthew's readers? (We have seen that the exact word doesn't have to be in the OT, just as the phrase 'prisoner of sin' didn't have to be in the OT for Paul's usage to be correct in Gal 3). What data do we have about Nazareth and "Nazarene" from those times that would suggest a 'content' for this summary phrase?

First, there is no mention of Nazareth in the OT, the Talmuds, or Josephus. In fact, there is only ONE literary reference to N. outside of the Christian scriptures-an inscription discovered in 1962 in Caesarea Maritema (Meyers and Strange, Archeology, the Rabbis and Early Christianity, SCM: 1981, p. 56). It was a small town, of no particular fame or stature.

Second, Nazareth was in Galilee, of which the prophecy Matthew uses from Isaiah 9 (in Mt 4.15f) describes as 'dwelling in darkness and in the shadow of death' and a land 'of the Gentiles'. The land of Galilee (which Jesus is also associated with-cf. "Jesus of Galilee" in Mt 26.69) was accordingly "2nd or 3rd class citizens" from the standpoint of Jerusalem! .

Third, this portion of the land (i.e. Galilee) was originally given by King Solomon to Hiriam, king of Tyre, as a gift but the OT records his appraisal: "King Solomon gave twenty towns in Galilee to Hiram king of Tyre, because Hiram had supplied him with all the cedar and pine and gold he wanted. 12 But when Hiram went from Tyre to see the towns that Solomon had given him, he was not pleased with them. 13 'What kind of towns are these you have given me, my brother?' he asked. And he called them the Land of Cabul, a name they have to this day.[I Kings 9]." [ "Cabul" sounds like the Hebrew for "good-for-nothing"!]

Fourth, the most important information we have about Nazareth is the exchange in John 1: Philip found Nathanael and told him, "We have found the one Moses wrote about in the Law, and about whom the prophets also wrote -- Jesus of Nazareth, the son of Joseph." 46 "Nazareth! Can anything good come from there?" Nathanael asked. The implication is QUITE clear from this derisive comment-Nazareth was a place of low-esteem, contempt, and the LAST PLACE in which one would look for a messiah! (Sounds like the 'good-for-nothing' passage above, doesn't it?!) And this dispersion was by a fellow-Galilean (Nathaniel was from Cana of Galilee), which would have made Nazareth the 'worst of a bad lot'!

Fifth, Jesus' experiences in Nazareth illustrate the rather 'low caliber' of many of its citizenry. In Luke 4, they try to kill him (minutes after 'speaking well of him'!), and in Mrk 6.6 it records that Jesus was 'amazed at their lack of faith'.

Sixth, not only did the Gentiles reject Nazareth in King Solomon's day, but they apparently didn't find it 'good-for-anything' later either. After the Jewish war with the Romans from AD 66-70, it was necessary to re-settle Jewish priests and their families. Such groups would ONLY move to un-mixed towns--towns WITHOUT Gentile inhabitants. The ONE extra-biblical literary reference to Nazareth (cited above) is to such a moving of the priests of the order of Elkalir to Nazareth. The implication is that Gentile populations avoided Nazareth well past the time of Jesus...It still was Cabul-"good for nothing".

What emerges from this look at the data about Nazareth is that the term "Nazarene" would have been quite a disparaging remark, conveying contempt and pointing to the insignificance of the community. As such, it would have been the perfect moniker for conveying the pervasive OT witness to Christ's humble origins and despised status (cf Is 53: "he was despised and rejected of men"). And, in this case, the plural 'prophets' were a constant witness.

[Even after Christ, the term 'Nazarene' (i.e. from Nazareth) remained a contemptuous term for Christians. The first Christians were, of course, Jewish and to their fellow-Jews they were known as Nazoreans (of the Nazarene), although they called themselves 'followers of the Way' and later, "Christians". (see BNTH: 213-215.) As such, the original notion of 'contempt' would have been present in the very name they called the Christians. Indeed, after the fall of Jerusalem, the Sanhedrin had the synagogue prayers changed to SPECIFICALLY exclude the Nazarenes. The twelfth of the Eighteen Benedictions in the Jewish prayer book, towards the end of the first century (it is different now), was changed to read: For apostates let there be no hope, and the kingdom of arrogance do Thou speedily uproot in our days; and let Nazarenes and heretics perish as in a moment; let them be blotted out of the book of life and not be enrolled with the righteous. Blessed are Thou, O Lord, who humblest the arrogant. "This revised edition of the prayer was authorized by the Sanhedrin and adopted in the synagogues, so that Jewish Christians, by keeping silence at this point, might give themselves away and be excommunicated." (BNTH: 386)...

The NET of this: Matthew knew the OT witness to Jesus' insignificant human origins, AND knew how his audience would understand his use of the term "Nazarene". While not as specific a fulfillment as Micah 5.2, it did express a broader pattern in the messianic matrix. Try your hands at refuting that "guess", Wally. A reader adds: The name Nazareth is derived from the Hebrew word netzer ("branch"), and is a synonym for tzemech. Therefore, let me submit that Matthew is alluding to the numerous passages which call Messiah by the title, the Branch: Isa. 11:1 ( netzer), Jer. 23:5 & 33:15, and Zec. 3:8 & 6:12 (tzemech); cf. Rev. 5:5 & 22:16.

#46

Matthew 3: (KJV) 1 "In those days came John the Baptist, preaching in the wilderness of Judaea, 2 And saying, Repent ye: for the kingdom of heaven is at hand." After 2,000 years I think it's safe to say that this was a false prophecy. After 45 examples of such ignorance, it's no surprise that Wally doesn't know that the KoH was certified by events in 70 AD.

#47

Matthew 3: (KJV) 3 "For this is he that was spoken of by the prophet Esaias, saying, The voice of one crying in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the Lord, make his paths straight. The quote from Isaiah in the Masoretic text is: (JPS 1985) 3 "A voice rings out: Clear in the desert A road for the LORD! Level in the wilderness A highway for our God!" The author of Matthew has quoted word for word from the LXX of Isaiah 40:3 (surprise) Yep, "surprise" he did what reams of other Jews of the day did. Shocking. except for substituting the usual reference to Yahweh with a personal pronoun normally used to refer to Jesus. I.e., normal exegetical practice again for that day. The context of Isaiah before and after chapter 40 indicates that Isaiah was referring to the Babylonian exile and subsequent return. Hum. Funny how the Qumranites saw themselves as "fulfilling" this text. Funny too how Ps. Sol. 11:1 understood Is. 40:3 as "applicable to the time of Israel's restoration" [Keener, 117]. You suppose Wally knows something they didn't, from his easy chair 2000 years later? So other than changing the general wording of Isaiah chapter 40, specifically changing the reference to the coming of Jesus instead of Yahweh and ignoring the context of the author's work, "Matthew" has made a perfect match. And done so in accordance with the rules of the day. Next complaint?

#48

Matthew 3: (KJV) 10 "And now also the axe is laid unto the root of the trees: therefore every tree which bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire." False prophecy. I realize it doesn't rain much in the desert but surely the axe head would have rusted off after 2,000 years. On the other hand, maybe it would take 2,000 years to chop down a tree using only an axe handle. Nope. 40 years or so was enough. See #46 above. The only thing rusty os Wally's education.

#49

Matthew 3: (KJV) 11…"he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost, and with fire:" In the Greek there is no "the" before "Holy Ghost". Of the major translations, only Darby acknowledges this. Once again Christian translators are projecting their pre-conceived (pun intended) belief that "the" Holy Ghost is a separate, definite person of God. Simon says "Holy Ghost". Holy Ghost. "The Holy Ghost". The Holy Ghost. Uh, uh, Simon didn't say. For only the 56,756th time, passages like these are NOT proof texts of the Spirit's personhood. Those you will find here, and those justify the "the" although it really isn't necessary anyway. Wally's paranoia is amusing but misplaced. Simon says, Wally needs to take his medication.

#50

Matthew 3: (KJV) 14 "But John forbad him, saying, I have need to be baptized of thee, and comest thou to me? 15 And Jesus answering said unto him, Suffer it to be so now: for thus it becometh us to fulfil all righteousness. Then he suffered him." The Greek word that "Matthew" uses for "fulfill" is generally the same word used by Matthew to claim fulfillment of prophecies from the Tanakh. There is no prophecy in the Tanakh that the Messiah would be baptized in a river. Geez Louise. Matthew uses that same word 17 times, and it is used 94 times in the NT. The Greek Word Use Police missed a few though. Matt. 13:48, "Which, when it was full, they drew to shore, and sat down, and gathered the good into vessels, but cast the bad away." 23:32, "Fill ye up then the measure of your fathers." Plus it's funny how the word "scriptures" is not used in 3:14, but "righteousness." Keener [132] notes that the phrase occurs elsewhere in Matthew (5:17, 20) and probably means general obedience to the plan of God as revealed in the Scriptures. Here it is not being dunked per se, but "identifying with Israel's history and completing Israel's mission" (see the Corporate Solidarity thing above, too hard for Wally to get) by identifying with Israel "confessing her sins to prepare for the kingdom." It is a vicarious act "embraced on behalf of others with whom the Father had called him to identify." As far as performing a commandment from the Tanakh there is no commandment requiring baptism in a river as a general type of atoning or purification ritual. Funny though how the Jews of the day, notably the Qumranites, adopted ritual immersion as a purifying ceremony. Gentile proselyte baptism was performed outside Palestine [Keener, 121]. A related question is, "who baptized John with water?" An appropriate reply is, "Who cares?" John may have been part of the Qumran sect for a while and undertaken one of their ritual baths.

Humor break!

"I'm Ned Dradley. Today on 60 Seconds, we have joining us Dr. Wally MacCrossan, who has new insights into the shopping habits of modern urbanites. Doctor, what is that you have with you?"

"Ned, this is a shopping list, one that appears quite normal on the surface. But through the science of form and redaction criticism, we have discovered that this list is actually the product of no less than three authors, and has undergone a serious editing process. Have a look at it."

"Well, it does look like a typical list. I see eggs, butter, ground beef, soap, carrots..."

"Ah ha! Even in that short space you can easily detect the hand of three, maybe even four authors."

"How so, Doctor?"

"Just look at it! The beef and eggs probably stood alone without the other items when the list was first composed. This is because our primal desire is for meat. Many years later, a redactor with more refined sensibilities added the carrots to the list, knowing that just meat and eggs would make us look like barbarians. Later than that another even more refined redactor added soap to the list, knowing as well that barbarians do not use soap. The list was cleverly redacted to make this family look increasingly sophisticated. In reality there were ignorant and unwashed yahoos."

"Er, Doctor, the list, though, seems to be one product...it's even written in the same handwriting..."

"Doesn't make a difference. The final redactor rewrote the list in order to leave the impression of a seamless whole. But the science of form criticism has uncovered this conspiracy and exposed it. We are no longer beholden to the whims of oppressive nutritionists."

"Er, thank you Doctor. Next time on 60 Seconds, "Ice Racing in Cancun: Will it Last?"

#51

Matthew 3: (KJV) 16 "And Jesus, when he was baptized, went up straightway out of the water:" The author of Matthew likely copied the story of Jesus' baptism either from "Mark" or from the same source Mark used. "Same source" would work -- most likely an oral source -- or Greek Matthew may have been influenced by Greek Mark. This is the related sentence in Mark: Mark 1: (KJV) 9… "and was baptized of John in Jordan.10 And straightway coming up out of the water, he saw the heavens opened" Mark indicates that immediately after Jesus came out of the water the heavens opened. In the Greek Matthew's sentence structure has joined the adverb "straightway" with the verb "went up" so he is saying that immediately after the baptism Jesus came out of the water. Generally, coming out of the water would signal the end of the baptism. Why would anyone stay in the water after the baptism? Maybe to go swimming or take a bath? What is Wally's complaint here? Does he think it is pointless to tell us that Jesus came out of the water? If so, I'd like to introduce him to a series of dumb objections I have seen from Skeptics where such detail is lacking, such as Ronald MacDonald's Homeric Epics in the Gospel of Mark, in which MacDonald makes hash of Jesus using a boat as a floating podium, and then finds it odd that Jesus is mentioned thereafter teaching privately, without ever getting out of the boat. These guys pitch a fit if you have no detail, and pitch a fit when you give too much detail. Who can please people like this looking for grievances?

#52

Matthew 3: (KJV) 16… "and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove, and lighting upon him" In the Greek there is no "the" before "Spirit". Apparently, whenever Matthew does not say "the" spirit of God/holy spirit Christian translations say "the" spirit of God/holy spirit. Blase squase -- you know the answer by now. No, this isn't a proof text for the Spirit's personality either. If Wally wants such a passage, he can check 1 Tim. 4:1.

#53

Matthew 4: (KJV) 8 "Again, the devil taketh him up into an exceeding high mountain, and sheweth him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them;" It would not be possible to see all the kingdoms of the world of a spherical world no matter how high the mountain was. Apparently the author, like most people of his time, mistakenly believed that the earth was flat. Nice try. This verse in Matthew by no means implies a flat earth, nor a monstrous mountain large enough to oversee the earth. Indeed, the trip to the mountain was a cheap psychological ploy by Satan, and the showing of the kingdoms was accomplished by means of projecting images, as is suggested by the parallel verse in Luke 4:5: "The devil led him up to a high place, and showed him in an instant all the kingdoms of the world." Did they have eyes in the back of their heads? No, this was a gross imitation of the "divine mountaintop" ploy, and was clearly supernatural in form, which means it is the same whether the earth is flat, spherical, or hexagonal. Moreover, as anyone who has climbed mountains knows - and the writer of Matthew surely knew, if he lived in the area around Judaea, as Matthew did - the higher up you go, the smaller things down below get, by your perspective. So it is unlikely that (even if he did believe it a flat earth, personally) Matthew's offering is not compatible with a globe. Note that even on a flat earth, a high mountain would be a very poor place to observe the kingdoms of the world "in their glory." Furthermore, if Matthew was implying that a mountain existed from which all the world was visible, then obviously, the mountain would be visible from all parts of the world. It is ludicrous to suggest that Matthew believed such a mountain existed.

#54

Matthew 4: (KJV) 12 "Now when Jesus had heard that John was cast into prison, he departed into Galilee; And leaving Nazareth, he came and dwelt in Capernaum, which is upon the sea coast, in the borders of Zabulon and Nephthalim: That it might be fulfilled which was spoken by Esaias the prophet, saying, The land of Zabulon, and the land of Nephthalim, by the way of the sea, beyond Jordan, Galilee of the Gentiles; The people which sat in darkness saw great light; and to them which sat in the region and shadow of death light is sprung up." Misquote. "Matthew's" translation doesn't agree with the Masoretic text or Greek translations of the Tanakh. Misogyny: Matthew's "translation" is in line, once again, with Jewish exegetical procedure for the day. Note the difference cited by Wally: Isaiah 8: (JPS 1917) "23… Now the former hath lightly afflicted the land of Zebulun and the land of Naphtali, but the latter hath dealt a more grievous blow by the way of the sea, beyond the Jordan, in the district of the nations. 9.1 The people that walked in darkness have seen a great light; they that dwelt in the land of the shadow of death, upon them hath the light shined." Um hm, some missing phrases. And what was said? "..."an atomistic exegesis, which interprets sentences, clauses, phrases, and even single words, independently of the context or the historical occasion, as divine oracles; combines them with other similar detached utterances..." We'll probably have to repeat it another 36573 times before we're done with Wally. Isaiah Chapter 8, JPS translation, is referring to the destruction of the kingdom of Israel by the Assyrians. The "former" and "latter" of 8:23 refers to the Assyrians and Samarians: 7:1 "And it came to pass in the days of Ahaz the son of Jotham, the son of Uzziah, king of Judah, that Rezin the king of Aram, and Pekah the son of Remaliah, king of Israel, went up to Jerusalem to war against it; but could not prevail against it. And it was told the house of David, saying: 'Aram is confederate with Ephraim." What was that again? "...independently of the context or the historical occasion." Thank you. We will skip Wally's repetitive blather on the rest of this.

#55

Matthew 4: (KJV) 17 "From that time Jesus began to preach, and to say, Repent: for the kingdom of heaven is at hand." False prophecy. Fulfilled, 70 AD. See above.

#56

Matthew 5: (KJV) 31 "It hath been said, Whosoever shall put away his wife, let him give her a writing of divorcement: 32 But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery." The author of "Matthew" previously had Jesus say: 5:18 (KJV) "For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled." Regarding acceptable causes for divorce the Law of Deuteronomy states the following: 24:1 (JPS) "When a man taketh a wife, and marrieth her, then it cometh to pass, if she find no favour in his eyes, because he hath found some unseemly thing in her, that he writeth her a bill of divorcement, and giveth it in her hand, and sendeth her out of his house, and she departeth out of his house, and goeth and becometh another man's wife, and the latter husband hateth her, and writeth her a bill of divorcement, and giveth it in her hand, and sendeth her out of his house; or if the latter husband die, who took her to be his wife; her former husband, who sent her away, may not take her again to be his wife, after that she is defiled;" So Jesus stated that he would not change the Law but he did change the Law regarding acceptable causes for divorce. Bzzzzzzt. Big fat decontextualizing error. See here for the real deal. Jesus was agreeing with the Jewish school of Shammai here, who sure as heck did not see themselves as "changing the Law" but interpreting it, over and against the Hillel school's interpretation of Deut. 24:1.

#57

Matthew 5: (KJV) 33 "Again, ye have heard that it hath been said by them of old time, Thou shalt not forswear thyself, but shalt perform unto the Lord thine oaths:But I say unto you, Swear not at all; neither by heaven; for it is God's throne:" Contradicted by Deuteronomy 6:13 (JPS) "Thou shalt fear HaShem thy G-d; and Him shalt thou serve, and by His name shalt thou swear." More decontexualizing errors. Keener's commentary on Matthew (192ff) explains the historical context of these passages. All ancient societies viewed oath-taking as dangerous, since they essentially called upon a deity to execute vengeance if the oath was not fulfilled. A flippant or false oath was in a a real sense a blasphemy, a casual misuse of the name of God. Somewhat paralleling the words of Jesus, the Essenes seem to have avoided oaths altogether, other than their oath of initiation. The Greek philosopher Pythagoras and others similarly taught, "let one's word carry such conviction that one need not call deities to witness." In the context of Jesus' own day, there existed a "popular abuse" of oath-taking in which surrogate objects were introduced to swear by, so as not to profane the divine name -- things like the right hand, Jerusalem, God's throne, and the head. Jesus also addresses this practice in his directive not to swear on such objects, as some thought it easier to break an oath if they swore on something inanimate rather than God! What we therefore have here is an example of Jesus not disagreeing with the OT about oaths, but rather moving beyond the OT into an even more demanding standard that focuses on motivation rather than action (in the same manner as the "adultery in the heart" directive).

#58

Matthew 5: (KJV) 38 "Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth: But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also. And if any man will sue thee at the law, and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloak also." Contradicted by Deuteronomy 19:18 (JPS) "and the magistrates shall make a thorough investigation. If the man who testified is a false witness, if he has testified falsely against his fellow, you shall do to him as he schemed to do to his fellow. Thus you will sweep out evil from your midst; others will hear and be afraid, and such evil things will not again be done in your midst. Nor must you show pity: life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot." When will Wally stop decontextualizing? Never. Is Jesus countering the OT law here? Those who think so, like Wally, need a little training in historical context as well as literal context. In this section of the Beatitudes, Jesus offers points taken from the Pharisaic oral law and refutes them: The sort of wrangling that was done to, for example, get around the "no work on the Sabbath" restriction by nailing a board between two houses so that they could be technically counted as one house! There was an "extra layer" of meaning added to the OT by the oral law, and in this particular case, the layer was added to suggest that "eye for an eye" was not only for civil matters of justice -- as the OT intends -- but also for interpersonal relationships; hence, the examples that follow of someone being slapped, or being forced to carry a Roman soldier's pack, or being sued: Things that may have been irritating or inconvenient, but were by no means illegal. To strike someone as described was an insult against their dignity (usually, only slaves were given such treatment), but it was no crime: Even so would the oral law have insisted that it was just fine to use the principle of lex talionis for personal revenge on the one who had humiliated you.

"Resist not evil" is a popular Jewish proverb (cf. Ps. 37:1, 8; Prov. 24:29) which means, in essence, do not compete with evildoers, trying to "outdo" them in vengeance. (As Bivin and Blizzard put it in Understanding the Difficult Words of Jesus, if your neighbor dumps a pail of garbage on your lawn, "we are not to retaliate by dumping two pails on his lawn." [109]) In other words, don't try to get back at them in more spectacular ways. That is the point of this rebuttal -- it is NOT an abrogation of the OT at all. Wally loses his shorts yet again.

#59

Matthew 6: (KJV) 1 "Take heed that ye do not your alms before men, to be seen of them: otherwise ye have no reward of your Father which is in heaven." Contradicted by Matthew 5: (KJV) 16 "Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father which is in heaven." Ye. Hang him for contextual crimes again. Wally forgets the words from Matthew 5, "in the same way" -- as what? The previous examples are of a city on a hill and a lamp. Lamps and cities don't light for the sake of showing off -- they are passive instruments. They don't seek or take praise; they don't know or care that anyone watches, they just shine and do their jobs. That's our example. On the other hand, the Matthew 6 verse is after a warning about not making a public spectacle out of your giving, and not announcing it with trumpets like the hypocrites do. Now if you are publicly announcing your "good deeds" and being a hypocrite, you are far from letting people see your good works: You are in fact setting a bad example, and being a poor witness for Christ (and actually, just a jerk in general, whoever you are). So the two pieces of direction in Matt. 5 and 6 are progressive education, and they go together: Set a good example, but don't do the peacock strut, lest you tarnish those good works with the stain of hypocrisy, and thereby defame the cause of Christ. The remaining two verses then draw from this lesson.

Another factor Wally misses is that of the relevance of honor and collective scrutiny in the ancient world. Matthew 5 teaches that works should be done publicly, but in the sense that because one is in public and under scrutiny, they should become a "light" -- the instructions here are parallel to OT admonitions to Israel to be a "light" for the nations, who were on the outside, looking in. Hence, it is passive. Salt has no effect unless it is applied to something, but it doesn't go looking for food to jump on in order to season everyone's taste buds. Light does not serve as a guide if it is hidden under a basket, but it also doesn't blind your eyes jumping up and down getting you to notice it. The city on the hill does not serve as an admonishment to build atop hills, but to simply illustrate that the location will result in that city obtaining notice.

Now when we look at Matthew 6: Can one give alms (the example) without benefit to the public? Obviously not; the very purpose of almsgiving is to benefit the public (especially the poorer segment). As we have already stressed, however, the latter chapter simply emphasizes that public works are not to be done for the sake of public attention. Public works done simply for the sake of the public will draw a desirable type of attention, on the other hand. There is a difference between doing good works for the honor of the Father (the word for "see" is eido, and merely means being visible), and doing good works for your own honor (the word for "seen" is theaomai, which implies a much closer examination, and an attempt to grab public honor for one's self). Quite frankly, Wally is mind-numbingly ignorant of the ancient honor-conceptions which underlay these instructions.

#60

Matthew 8: (KJV) 1 "When he was come down from the mountain, great multitudes followed him. And, behold, there came a leper and worshipped him, saying, Lord, if thou wilt, thou canst make me clean. And Jesus put forth his hand, and touched him, saying, I will; be thou clean. And immediately his leprosy was cleansed. And Jesus saith unto him, See thou tell no man; but go thy way, shew thyself to the priest, and offer the gift that Moses commanded, for a testimony unto them." Regarding a mountain near Jerusalem (shew thyself to the priest) I think "Matthew" is making a mountain out of a mohel. Bad joke or ignorance of geography? What was the "Mount of Olives"? Anyway, Jesus tells the man not to tell anyone in order to keep the healing secret but someone has forgotten about the "great multitude" which was following Jesus in the previous connected sentence. Um, yeah. Someone has forgotten that leprosy need not be painfully and visually obvious and that Jesus and the leper didn't need to be yelling at the top of their lungs. If anything the leper would approach furtively, since his uncleanness would be offensive to the other people. But odds are that the "anyone" is the same as the "them" at the end of the verse, which would be the community into which the leper was being restored. And obviously in context, what the man is being told not to tell is not, "I was cured," but who cured him.

#61

Matthew 8: (KJV) 16 "When the even was come, they brought unto him many that were possessed with devils: and he cast out the spirits with his word, and healed all that were sick: That it might be fulfilled which was spoken by Esaias the prophet, saying, Himself took our infirmities, and bare our sicknesses." Here's the quote from Isaiah Chapter 53: (JPS) 4 "Surely our diseases he did bear, and our pains he carried; whereas we did esteem him stricken, smitten of G-d, and afflicted." "Matthew's" quote of Isaiah 53:4 doesn't agree with the Masoretic text and doesn't even agree with Christian translations of 53:4. Isaiah 53:4 states that the subject would bear the diseases while the story by Matthew only says that Jesus made other people's diseases go away. What's the error, boys and girls? Yes, that's right: It's that quote starting with the word, "...atomistic..."

#62

Matthew 8: (KJV) 21 "And another of his disciples said unto him, Lord, suffer me first to go and bury my father. But Jesus said unto him, Follow me; and let the dead bury their dead." Deuteronomy 5: (JPS) 16 "Honour thy father and thy mother" The Tanakh has several verses indicating that lack of a timely burial is an insult so Jesus has contradicted one of the ten commandments here. Oh? Wally doesn't name these verses, but what is referred to here is actually either a father yet dead or one that had been buried once already and was due to have his bones removed to an ossuary. The reference is thus though to refer to the spiritually dead or otherwise deprived (per Keener, 275, examples from Jewish and pagan works) and Semitic idiom of the day shows that the request was actually, "a request to wait until one's father dies -- perhaps for years" so that one could fulfill final obligations. In other words, the man is asking for as much as a year's delay to do the secondary burial, or even many more years than that. But here's the ultimate Wally whack: "In most current interpretations of biblical law, only one person's honor took precedence over the honor shown to parents: God." [Keener, 277] Thus indeed Jesus "scandalously claims the supreme position of attention in his followers' lives." It is a roundabout claim to divinity and in perfect accord with the law as interpreted in that day.

#63

Matthew 8: (KJV) 26 "And he saith unto them, Why are ye fearful, O ye of little faith? Then he arose, and rebuked the winds and the sea; and there was a great calm. But the men marvelled, saying, What manner of man is this, that even the winds and the sea obey him! And when he was come to the other side into the country of the Gergesenes," We will skip Wally's rather boring analysis of this for now. What's the right read? We can eliminate "Gergesenes" right away -- that is a textual error found only in later mss.; better mss. say "Gadara" as Luke does. And Luke may have said "Gerasa" -- the textual tradition is not clear on that either [Archer, Bible Difficulties, 323]. So if there is any dispute, it is between Gadara and Gerasa -- maybe. The differences, by the muddled textual issue, may have arisen at a time of later scribal activity, but it is also possible that one gospel writer said Gerasa, and others said Gadara. Why would they do this, and do they contradict? They do not contradict, because all the Gospels speak generally of the "country" of the town named, and both Gerasa and Gadara were part of the Decapolis, and this was part of Decapolis territory. But, the critic may ask, why would they give different cities in the first place? Geresa as a city grew "tremendously" during the period of 22-76 AD, and may have even been the capital of the Decapolis for a while. We might see why, in this light, someone like Mark would use it as a reference: It was the better-known of the two cities, and Mark's Roman audience would perhaps know Gerasa better than they knew Gadara. On the other hand, Matthew's Palestinian and Syrian readers lived near the area and would know about Gadara. My own life situation offers a parallel to this: I live in an incorporated suburb of Orlando that has its own name and identity. When I talk to people in this area, I tell them I live in that suburb and I mention it by name. But when I talk to someone from another state, I give Orlando as my residence -- knowing that they likely have never heard of such booming sites as "Winter Garden," "Oakland," or "Pine Hills". Thus with respect to Wally's fumbling: The text implies that Jesus has just reached the other side of the lake and Gergesenes was on the eastern coast of the Sea of Galilee. The problem is that Gergesenes is almost certainly not the name of the city originally identified here by the author of "Matthew". Correct for once! Mark (who Matthew and Luke both probably copied from) and Luke both identify the city as Gerasa which was 33 miles from the Sea Of Galilee. Matthew, knowing that Gerasa was too far away, likely changed the name of the town to Gadara which was six miles from the lake. Correct -- and for the reasons stated above. Any questions? No? There shouldn't be. It isn't because Matthew "was not overly familiar with the geography of Israel" but because readers of Mark were not.

#64

Matthew 10: (KJV) 7 "And as ye go, preach, saying, The kingdom of heaven is at hand." False prophecy. Fulfiulled, 70 Ad. See above.

#65

Matthew 10: (KJV) 15 "Verily I say unto you, It shall be more tolerable for the land of Sodom and Gomorrha in the day of judgment, than for that city." In the Tanakh Sodom and Gomorrha are cities. No other Christian Bible author refers to them as anything other than cities. Not even McKinsey nitpicked this extensively, but news for Wally: Cities in the ancient world the size of these guys tended to rule over "lands" -- which included satellite villages.

#66

Matthew 10: (KJV) 23 "But when they persecute you in this city, flee ye into another: for verily I say unto you, Ye shall not have gone over the cities of Israel, till the Son of man be come." False prophecy. Fulfilled, 70 AD.

#67

Matthew 10: (KJV) 35 "For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law." Contradicted by Deuteronomy 5:16 (JPS): "Honour thy father and thy mother, as HaShem thy G-d commanded thee; that thy days may be long, and that it may go well with thee, upon the land which HaShem thy G-d giveth thee." Yoo hoo, Wally? Note again above about how Jewish exegetes agreed that family still came after God, in spite of the commandment (probably because the four commands about God in the 10 C's came first!)

#68

Matthew 11: (KJV) 10 "For this is he, of whom it is written, Behold, I send my messenger before thy face, which shall prepare thy way before thee." Doesn't agree with any known version of a passage from the Tanakh. Yes, once again, what is it? "Normal Jewish exegesis for the day." Thank you. We bypass Wally's spurious analysis beyond this. Yes, it is a combo of Exodus and Malachi with adjustments -- normal ones.

#69

Matthew 11: (KJV) 10 "For this is he, of whom it is written, Behold, I send my messenger before thy face, which shall prepare thy way before thee. Verily I say unto you, Among them that are born of women there hath not risen a greater than John the Baptist:" The author of Matthew is quoting Malachi and saying that John the Baptist was being prophesied by Malachi. But Malachi explicitly says that the quote refers to Elijah. Malachi 3:23 (JPS): "Lo, I will send the prophet Elijah to you before the coming of the awesome, fearful day of the Lord." Didn't I say we'd be repeating this 867,383 times? "Normal exegesis for the period." Too much Paine. Not enough Longenecker. John acted as one who reprised an Elijah role and hence was to be identified with Elijah.

#70

Matthew 12: (KJV) 3 "But he said unto them, Have ye not read what David did, when he was an hungered, and they that were with him; How he entered into the house of God, and did eat the shewbread, which was not lawful for him to eat, neither for them which were with him, but only for the priests?" The author of Matthew is referring to I Samuel 21:2 (JPS): "Then came David to Nob to Ahimelech the priest; and Ahimelech came to meet David trembling, and said unto him: 'Why art thou alone, and no man with thee?' And David said unto Ahimelech the priest: 'The king hath commanded me a business, and hath said unto me: Let no man know any thing of the business whereabout I send thee, and what I have commanded thee; and the young men have I