/ Topic > Re: My claim of new revelation from the Lord / Date > 19 April 2002 / Forum > TheologyOnLine - General Theology / Ngz > alt.bible.prophecy, alt.religion.christian.biblestudy /
> On 18Apr JShugart wrote: The Checklist should be the Word of God. And IMHO,
> Anyone claiming to be a "Prophet of God" would know this scripture by heart :
.
"Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God:
because many false prophets are gone out into the world." - 1John 4:1
.
> Just my 2cents, JShugart -- 1Thes 5:21 "Prove all things; hold fast that which is good."
.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
.
> On 17Apr Eugene wrote: No, I'm not keeping any revelations secret. I'm wishing to start a
> serious Bible study for interested persons who have the patience and time to understand
> a whole new paradigm of prophetic interpretation. That involves a serious commitment to
> investigate and consider a new explanation of many texts of Scripture, based on tried
> and true grammatical-historical exegesis, and the patience to reserve judgment until the
> complete picture develops.
.
textman replies: Hi Eugene. Well I don't know about the quality of your commentary,
but I sure do LUV the way you're talking here!
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
.
>> On 18Apr Eugene Shubert wrote: It’s amazing how much sarcasm I’ve received just by [my]
>> making the claim of [receiving] new light [from God] on Daniel and Revelation. I don’t think
>> those persons know their Bible. The Apostle Paul said "Do not quench the Spirit; do not
>> despise prophetic utterances, but examine everything carefully; hold fast to that which is
>> good" (First Thessalonians 5:19-21).
.
> me again answered: <snipsome> That’s true. But if God speaks to you, how are we to
> know it? "Then Jesus throughly opened up their minds to understand the scriptures."
> (Luke 24:45, Amplified Bible)
.
On 19Apr textman replied: It seems to me that Lk.24:45 provides the best means of verifying any and all claims to prophecy. Testing a prophet is therefore a relatively simple matter of seeing whether or not the prophet's writings show a good understanding of scripture. This does not necessarily mean that the prophet must never say that there is some sort of mistake or error in this or that text. Being in line with NT traditions is one thing; being forbidden to criticize the texts is quite something else. Thus the true mark of the prophet is not absolute unanimity with biblical teachings, but rather the presence in *his* writings of the spirit of truth. This is the only infallible test that can be confidently applied to any and all would-be-prophets. As for myself, I think that the highly developed concern to test immediately upon any claim of prophecy also shows a certain ignorance about Christian prophecy. Not to mention a certain basic lack of faith.
.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
.
> On 19Apr Nineveh wrote: <snipsome> When that happens, aren't we supposed to compare
> what they say to Scripture, or reality as to certain prophesied events? As far as I know,
> no one has prophesied anything on this thread.
.
textman sayeth: Don't look at me! I'm not at all into the fortune-telling game.
.
> To make a judgment as to a person's prophet status is a bit premature.
.
Yes, but so is claiming to be a prophet solely on the strength of a few impressive commentaries. It would take more than that to convince me that an over-eager scribe has something more substantial in him than a galloping case of equine enthusiasm.
.
> I am patiently waiting for something to compare before I decide if one is a prophet,
.
You can always compare my biblical exegesis with the standard works of the bible scholars, or with philosophy, or with early church history. There is plenty of my pomo-brand of prophetic literature for you to compare away with anything you like; although I would rather urge you to compare it to other examples of prophetic literature wherever they be found lurking in the many rooms and byways of church-history.
.
> or one I should not fear.
.
LOL ... You're one funny dude there Nineveh. Why should you fear any prophet? Fear the Lord instead, for there is your judgment and salvation. The prophet's authority pales by comparison.
.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
.
> On 19Apr o2bwise wrote: Title A Stumbling Block (for me) The title of this thread turns me off. It
> sounds very arrogant. <snipsome> The exact same concept could have been worded in a more
> humble manner. I'm having a hard time not thinking there is so much "self" interwoven that the
> claim itself can have any veracity.
.
I tend to agree, o2bwise. The claim itself is surely degraded when presented in a "very arrogant" manner; and all in bold characters yet! However, arrogance in and of itself does not disprove the claim. This is because while some prophets are humble (eg. Silvanus), others are anything but (eg. Paulos). 'To each his own' means that each prophet must find his own way to carry out the mission as best he can.
.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
.
> On 19Apr Jim Hedstrom wrote: A New Revelation. I'll see what you have to say,
> ask Father about this, and be back. It may take awhile.
.
textman replies: It always does.
.
> Is there a hardcopy version of this,
.
Not yet, but perhaps someday :)
.
> because I really am a book person more than a sitting in front of the monitor person.
.
Me too. Books are *way* better. People even send them to me by snail-mail.
.
> Also, is there a short version?
.
Only on my web-site ... somewhere.
.
> <snipsome> It was stuff I am always glad to know more about, but am not trained to think
> all that crucial, as a Presbyterian historian.
.
It doesn't sound all that crucial to me either. Maybe your working definition of what Christian prophecy is all about could use an overhaul. That would be my first guess.
.
> Thanks for any help you can give me.
.
I haven't really done much of anything. Yet.
.
> I've never been visited by an angel. My door is open, though, if one ever wanted to drop in.
> Holy Spirit generally tells me where to walk and talk, so maybe I'm not enough in need of
> additional direction, for any to arrive. -- Dr. Jim
.
If you are content with your lot, that is all well and good. If the angels decline to dine with thee, that is not such a tragedy after all. However, if you have no serious interest in the early Christian prophets, and their role in the history of the NT, why then I daresay that is entirely inexcusable!
> On 20Apr Jim Hedstrom wrote: Backseat truth <snipsome> Same with the apostolic prophet
> who built Zion, Illinois, and just a bunch others, and I have quite a lot of books on people like
> this, going back all the way to the beginning of prophetic claims,
.
textman asketh: When and where and who was that, Dr Jim?
.
> if you can believe things like this have been around that long.
.
As far as I know, the earliest individual who merits the title of prophet is the pharaoh Akhenaton (13th cent BCE). Before that time there were traces of prophetic literature in Egypt, but no recognizable historical person.
.
> This is a LOT of reading for me to do, to kind of get up to speed with YOUR claims, and know
> exactly what I want to say. If I have to follow you down a lot of rabbit holes of prophetic Biblical
> interpretation, maybe I won't say very much, when all is said and done, because I am a historian,
> not a Biblical scholar.
.
The two disciplines (of early church history and NT study) converge at many points, I've found, and indeed are indispensable to each other.
.
> Maybe I will just point to several other prophets, and ask you how YOU got to be king of the hill.
> They ALL said God talked them into whatever they came up with, so the SIMPLE CLAIM of being
> beset upon by the spirit of prophesy doesn't automatically settle anything. <snipsome>
.
I quite agree. By their fruits you shall know them, as the scriptures say.
.
> I am the friend of truth, and of true prophets.
.
Yes?
.
> How could a good historian, and a good Christian, be other than this? <snipsome>
.
Oh let me count the ways! Good Christians are the first to persecute all those prophets who fail to tickle the ears of the devout. When the early Quakers came over from England preaching the evil of slavery they were very not well received. In the same way, the churches' dedicated scribes and pharisees seem most intent to write the prophets OUT of early church history. I have never come across any church historian who even takes the Christian prophets seriously, let alone befriends them. Yet you say you are the friend of true prophets? How does that work?
.
> I have read about some prophets who came to a bad end. I have read about other prophets,
> who came to a better end. I have read about prophets, who finally decided the worst false
> prophet in the world, was themselves, and they came out ok, mostly. So this is complicated
> stuff, <snip> Dr. Jim, fellow believer in Truth
.
I quite agree that it is complicated stuff, but it is well worth the effort, I think.
> On 21Apr servantofChrist wrote: Eugene, <snipsome> Here is the answer to your claim of a new
> revelation from God - from His word: 1. Jesus said to His apostles there with Him at that time, "But
> when He, the Spirit of truth, comes, He will guide you into all the truth" (John 16:13) Notice that
> Jesus said that they would be guided "into ALL the truth"! Not just part of it. He didn't say, "You
> will be guided into some of the truth, the rest will be revealed to various individuals throughout
> the centuries to come."
.
tx: He didn't say that, no, but I think it's clearly implied by his statements. How do you know that Jesus intended the operation of the Spirit of Truth to be restricted to just a few short months or years? Isn't it far more likely that the 'you' Jesus mentions refers to all believers, and that the Spirit is not bound and chained to a tiny temporal slice of history? Such a proposal is, by its very nature, soaked in bad-faith, and thus unworthy of any believer.
.
> Who would be guided into all the truth? Jesus' apostles living right there contemporary
> with Him. His apostles would be guided into how much of the truth? "ALL of the truth."
.
When Jesus says that the Spirit of truth "will guide you into all truth" he is speaking to the disciples in a very general way (ie. present and future disciples). In other words, there is no implication anywhere in 16:12-16 that Jesus' words about the operations of the Spirit of truth should be taken in the very narrow and restrictive sense of servantofChrist's grossly skewed interpretation. Look at what the NETbible's footnote to verse 16:13 says about this: "What Jesus had said in 8:31-32: 'If you continue to follow my teaching you are really my disciples, and you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free', will ultimately be realized in the ongoing ministry of the Holy Spirit to the disciples after Jesus' departure". Thus there can be no temporal limitations to the operations of the Spirit of Truth. As long as there are disciples in search of freedom, the Spirit of Truth will be available to them (through the prophets, of course) to guide them (although not all to the same measure or extent, obviously) 'into all truth'. Clearly, truth is an ongoing enterprise because truth is always in process. But servantofChrist, and those that think like him, would wrap up 'ALL TRUTH' and stick it in a tiny box which only their blind and silly minds can access!
.
Moreover, this idea that only those apostles living in Jesus' day had access to the Spirit of Truth makes a mockery of the NT teachings as a whole. If only those Jesus could see would know all the truth, what does the 'now' mean at the start of the verse? Take a close look now at all the temporal terms in the following verses: "I have many more things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now. But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all truth. For he will not speak on his own authority, but will speak whatever he hears, and will tell you what is to come. He will glorify me, because he will receive from me what is mine and will tell it to you. Everything that the Father has is mine; that is why I said the Spirit will receive from me what is mine and will tell it to you. In a little while you will see me no longer; again after a little while, you will see me." -- John 16:12-16 / NETbible
.
Where does the Word testify that all of this will happen within the space of one generation? servantofChrist emphasizes "ALL of the truth" but apparently verse 12 plays no role in his interpretation of this passage. Accordingly, since servantofChrist's interpretation is clearly false to the cosmic scope and spirit of the text, in whole and in part, it naturally contains more than merely historical and theological errors. It also raises some philosophical issues: How can "ALL of the truth" be revealed instantly or suddenly (as implied by servantofChrist's reading)? The Holy Spirit certainly doesn't work like that. How can any finite mortal mind even contain "ALL of the truth"? How does servantofChrist know that Jesus was as narrow-minded and as literal-minded in his thinking and speaking as servantofChrist is?
.
... Here is a good example of how fundy-hermeneutics degrades, dishonors, and disgraces the truth.
.
> 2. Approximately 35-40 years later,
.
Jude is a second-century document; and it is only within a second-century context that the letter can be correctly read and understood. Any other approach is already hip-deep in error.
.
> Jude spoke of "the faith which WAS ONCE FOR ALL DELIVERED unto the saints" (Jude v.3).
> Thus, "the faith" that we are bonded together by, and in, was delivered ONCE for all some
> 2000 years ago!
.
That's right. This apostolic faith of the first generation was *received* by Judas (a prophet of the third generation), but he does not mention anything about the Spirit of truth being no longer available to believers. On the contrary, he encourages believers "to contend for the faith", and also "in building up yourselves in your most holy faith, be sure to always pray in the Holy Spirit" (v.20). Clearly, what separates true believers from false believers (such as the Ones of Old) is the presence or absence of the Holy Spirit; being the same Spirit of truth that activates and empowers all the true prophets from the first and second century right on up to the present.
.
> 3. <snipsome>
.
These two bible-bytes in no way support your over-literal interpretation of John 16:13.
.
> 4. Then, the apostle Paul said "not to go beyond what is WRITTEN" (1Cor.4:6)
.
Paul himself (and every other NT author) went beyond the scriptures of his day, and Paul certainly was not aware of any entity called ‘the New Testament’ (which lay centuries in the future); so obviously this command is not meant in any absolute (no exceptions) sense; ie. it certainly does not apply to apostles and prophets (such as himself). Again, this verse does *not* prove or support (in any way) your faulty interpretation of John 16:13.
.
> What all this is saying is: All that we need, and are to adhere to, for our "faith" in Christ, and all
> that we need to "KNOW" that we have eternal life, has already been "WRITTEN" --- ONCE FOR
> ALL DELIVERED to the saints! And then we are told NOT to GO BEYOND WHAT IS WRITTEN in
> those writings inspired by the HOLY SPIRIT some 2000 years ago! <snip-remainder>
.
What a gross and distorted misinterpretation of the texts we have here! It’s true that our knowledge and faith in Christ are based on the testimonies within the NT, but Paul was NOT referring to the NT documents in 1Cor.4:6 (most were not even written yet), he was referring to what would only much later be called the Old Testament. The fact that you don't know this, or deliberately misrepresent Paul's thinking, demonstrates that your arbitrary cut and paste hermeneutics (not to mention your understanding of the scriptures) is extremely flawed and dangerously inadequate, and therefore not worthy of acceptance by any believer who wishes to take the Word of God seriously.
P.S. "I have many more things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now" (Jn.16:12).
a simple answer.
/ Topic > Re: The Spirit of Prophecy / Forum > TOL - General Theology / Newsgroups > alt.bible.prophecy, alt.christnet.theology / Date > 24 April 2002 /
.
> geralduk asketh: What does the church need?
.
textman answers: What the churches *need* is the will and desire to listen to the prophets that the Lord hath sent among them. What the churches *have* is an endless legion of scribes and pharisees who go to great lengths to convince the People of God that they really don't need any prophets at all. Most believers believe their lies, hence the current sad condition of the churches. Nuff said.
P.S. The good life is one inspired by love and guided by knowledge. -- B. Russell
/ Topic > Re: The Spirit of Prophecy / Forum > TOL - General Theology / Newsgroups > alt.bible.prophecy, alt.christnet.theology / Date > 26 April 2002 /
.
> On 25Apr Carl Smuda wrote: I don't agree Textman. I think Jesus is alive and sitting on the right
> hand of God until ALL His enemies are His footstool. I think He is building His Church (as He has
> been all these centuries) and the gates of hell will not prevail against it. <snipsome> Does that
> make me a "glass half full" kind of guy?
.
textman replies: Hi Carl. Optimism is good, but not very realistic. Yes, the Lord is building his church, but this is by no means a simple and straightforward process. The history of the churches shows alternating cycles of growth and decay. Prior to Martin Luther the Catholic Church was in a sorry mess, and it was only with the Counter-Reformation that things began to change. Today the Catholic Church in America is likewise in a sorry state. Can your optimism deny the truth of these things?
.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
.
> On 25Apr harambee wrote: textman, you are possibly right. But what I think coprinus is pointing
> out that this situation is largely due to the trivial future-telling conception of prophecy that has
> taken hold in American churches.
.
tx: I agree. Prophecy is more forth-telling than foretelling.
.
> So, he's asking questions and looking for input. For the historians: HOW did it get that way?
.
The roots of the problem go back a long way. All the way back to the earliest centuries in fact. When the Faith entered the larger arena of the Roman Empire it was subject to many influences that varied from region to region. As the Faith took hold in the major urban centers differing traditions developed out of the unique circumstances facing the various churches. Paul's churches were different from those in Syria, just as the churches in Egypt were different from these. Variety in traditions was not the problem, however. The problem was how to retain continuity and authenticity while undergoing all these necessary growing pains. In Egypt, Gnostic influences led some believers to suppose that Jesus, being divine, was not really a flesh and blood man at all, but rather only *appeared* to be so. John's Gospel addresses this heresy in the most uncompromising terms. But the battle continued for centuries before new ideas and theologies made the Gnostics obsolete.
.
So the problem quickly became one of authority. Who has the authority to say whether this or that tradition is authentic or not? In Egypt the prophets were the highest authority (in the early generations), but prophecy is impossible to institutionalize, and can sometimes go astray (as with Montanism). The churches needed an authority that could be relied on from one generation to the next; one that was constant, and acceptable to all the churches. This was the three-fold system of deacon, presbyter, and overseer (ie. bishop). And because this system was useful and practical it gradually spread out across the Empire until all the major centers had adopted it. Naturally the new system was very jealous of its power, and had no use for rival systems, or the prophets. So as the priests gained power, the prophets were forced out, or driven underground. And the legacy of the priestly hatred for the prophets has continued unabated ever since those olden days. Even today the vast majority of believers will regard any man who claims to be a prophet as a lunatic; which is, of course, just the sort of response that is most pleasing to the scribes and pharisees.
.
> For everyone with ideas: HOW can we change that conception back to one in which a prophet is
> someone who speaks God's will into the lives of individuals and institutions? <snip>
.
Alas, this cannot happen at the institutional level. It can only change with one believer at a time coming to the realization that the scribes and pharisees have robbed the Faith of something that is essential to the spiritual growth and well-being of the People of God. When enough believers have awakened to the necessity of the prophetic ministry, THEN it may be possible to recover the previous prophetic traditions that have been buried under mountains of priestly deception and misinformation. IF the churches can then find their way back to the prophets, then it will be possible to address the corruption and spiritual dissolution that is even now poisoning the Faith of the People of God.
/ Topic > Re: Favorite Books of the Bible-1 / Date > 24 Oct 2000 / Newsgroups > alt.religion.christian.baptist, alt.bible, alt.religion.christian.biblestudy /
.
> On 23Oct Bro. Frank wrote: http://www.gallup.com/poll/releases/pr001020.asp
> GALLUP NEWS SERVICE - Favorite Books of the Bible
> When Americans are asked to name their favorite books of the Bible eight books are mentioned
> by 2% or more of those interviewed, split equally between Old and New Testament books.
> Psalms is the most popular, named by 13%, followed by Genesis (9%), Matthew (7%), John (6%),
> Revelation (6%), Proverbs (3%), Job (2%), and Luke (2%).
.
textman replies: Dear Bro Frank, I am not really surprised that the Psalms are the most popular with bible-readers, for that has always been the case. But these numbers you cite are very curious indeed!
.
> The book of Mark is the only one of the four Gospels in the
> New Testament not mentioned by 2% or more of Americans. -- Frank
.
Thus sayeth the cybrwurm: "Good Lordy!"
.
> Isaiah 26:10 Let grace be shown to the wicked, Yet he will not learn righteousness...
.
The most unfortunate of those living in error are those to whom grace is an insult.
/ Topic > Re: Favorite Books of the Bible-2 / Date > 24 Oct 2000 / Newsgroups > alt.religion.christian.baptist, alt.bible, alt.religion.christian.biblestudy /
.
> On 23Oct Bro. Frank wrote: <snip> The book of Mark is the only one of the four
> Gospels in the New Testament not mentioned by 2% or more of Americans.
.
Thus sayeth the Lord:
.
"What shall I do with you, O Ephraim?
What shall I do with you, O Judah?
Your love is like a morning cloud,
like the dew that goes early away.
Therefore I have hewn them by the prophets,
I have slain them by the words of my mouth ..."
-- Hosea 6:4-5 / Revised Standard Version
/ Topic > Re: Favorite Books of the Bible-3 / Date > 6 Nov 2000 / Newsgroups > alt.religion.christian.baptist, alt.bible, alt.religion.christian.biblestudy /
.
> On 23Oct Bro. Frank wrote: http://www.gallup.com/poll/releases/pr001020.asp
> GALLUP NEWS SERVICE > Favorite Books of the Bible >
> When Americans are asked to name their favorite books of the Bible ... <snip remainder>
.
textman replies: Dear Cyber-Saints, while it is true that the Holy Bible remains the world's greatest number-one best-seller of all time, this datum may lead the unwary believer to all the wrong conclusions. For example, it would seem reasonable to accept the view that the Word of God is even stronger and more popular today than it ever was, but this opinion is (in fact) incorrect, and about as wrong as wrong can be. The plain truth is that in North America the Bible continues its long slow slide into obscurity; a fact that will surely please the cold black-hearts of skeptics and rationalists and all manner of cyber-unbeliever. It is also a fact that most Christians (being busy wallowing in their arrogant vanity) prefer to ignore the bible; as if ignoring it will somehow make the unpleasant thing go away!
.
And yet the current gross ignorance regarding the scriptures is difficult to ignore when even the papers stop to notice it:
.
"Bible-reading in decline - pollster : According to a recent Gallup Poll, American readership of the Bible has declined since 1990, from 73 per cent to 59 per cent. About six in 10 Americans say they read the Bible at least on occasion, with the most-likely readers being women, nonwhites, older people, Republicans and political conservatives, say the pollsters. The percentage of those who read the Bible at least once a week has decreased slightly over the last decade, from 40 per cent in 1990 to 37 per cent today. Forty-six per cent of those with a postgraduate degree said the Bible answers the basic questions of life, compared to 72 per cent of those with a high school education or less." -- from 'Western Catholic Reporter', 6Nov2000, page 2.
.
In other words, and despite all appearances to the contrary, the Word of God is weaker, less influential, and less popular with the People today than it has ever been at any time in the past! I strongly suggest that all Cyber-Saints accept the simple truth of this, for it points directly at the dismal spiritual condition of the current People of God, and at the sad and shabby quality of their Faith ...
.
One of my favorite books of the Bible is the book of Hosea. Now this book is surely one of the most timely and relevant books among all the scriptures because it is to this current generation that the prophet's words are addressed. Yes, it is no mystery to the Word of God why the People should now forget their faith, and close their ears to His Voice:
.
"Their deeds do not permit them to return to their God.
For the spirit of harlotry is within them, and they know not the LORD ...
They have dealt faithlessly with the LORD; for they have borne alien children."
-- Hosea 5:4,7 / Revised Standard Version
/ Newsgroup > soc.religion.quaker / Topic > Re: More Stuff on Prophets / Date > 24 Sept 1998 /
] Marshall wrote: And as for Elizabeth's greeting of Mary (Lk 1:42-45) and Mary's answering
] Magnificat (vv 46-55): they are not explicitly termed prophecies, but who can honestly
] deny that is what they were?
.
>>>> textman replies: textman can. Luke's reworking of history into legend is about as prophetic
>>>> as predicting who will be the next pope ... After the fact. btw: the Magnificat is spoken by
>>>> Elizabeth, not Mary. Check it out . . .
.
>>> Bill Jefferys answers: I don't know about your bible, textman, but in my Bible, Mary speaks
>>> the Magnificat: 46 and Mary said, my soul doth magnify the Lord, -- Bill
.
>> Eric Volkel replies: There are ancient authorities that read "Elizabeth" instead of Mary in the verse
>> listed above. "its language, which is steeped in the poetic tradition of the OT, shows notable
>> resemblances to that of the 'song of Hannah' (1Sam2:1 ff.); this fact, among others (notably that
>> at Lk 1:46 a few Latin MSS read et ait Elisabeth, instead of et ait Maria) has led some scholars to
>> argue that Luke attributed it originally to Elizabeth and not to Mary." The Oxford Dictionary of the
>> Christian church, 3rd ed. -- Eric
.
> I wasn't aware of this. But further digging around on my part shows that No Greek NT MSS have
> this reading. It is also the case that virtually no translations follow these scholars, though some
> footnote it. In view of the fact that the NT was written in Greek, not Latin, I am unimpressed with
> the position you mention above. - Bill
.
textman replies: Now here is a prime example of how a simple gloss (ie. the name in Lk 1:46) can lead us astray and totally change the meaning of an entire passage. Are you aware that in the early centuries transmission of the scriptures was often accompanied by editorial liberties that would offend modern sensibilities (but then were no big deal)? Yes? Excellent. Then please do bear with me through what follows. [To those who are pleased to see that textman has been made a fool of, the rest of this article will be of no interest to you.]
.
Basically, what I am suggesting is that the name 'Mary' in v46 was not part of the original MS. And is there any evidence to support this outrageous proposal? Why yes, as a matter of fact, there is. If you have a fairly decent bible (4x: NRSV) you may notice that there is a short footnote accompanying v46. It reads: "Other ancient authorities read 'Elizabeth'". Ah ha! And what does this mean? It means that we have two versions of v46; one with 'and Mary said', and one with 'and Elizabeth said'. So how do we decide which was actually written by Luke? Well, we could take the easy way out and simply follow the long church tradition of exalting Mary ... Or we could examine the surrounding pericope for any clues to support this or that reading of the verse in question.
.
So is there anything therein that suggests that Elizabeth could have sang the song? Indeed there is. Consider please the preceding verses (1:39-45), the bulk of which has Elizabeth speaking. Also note that Mary's greeting is NOT recorded (ie. Mary is completely silent). I would like to draw your attention to one significant verse in particular: "And it came about when Elizabeth heard the greeting of Mary, leaped the baby [ie. John] in the womb of her [ie. Elizabeth], and Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit" (1:41). And what does one do when filled with Luke's Holy Spirit? One bursts forth into song, as Elizabeth does in 1:47-55. In the same way, v56, and the song itself, also supports this interpretation of Elizabeth as the singer of the Magnificat.
.
All in all the cumulative weight of all the evidence strongly suggests that the reading 'and Mary said' is NOT original, but rather is the result of Mariolatry, pure and simple. The fact that most Christians take it for granted that the Magnificat is Mary's precludes any possibility of approaching this text with an open mind willing to consider the alternatives based on the evidence of the text [4X: Harnack's suggestion that the text originally read simply *kai eipen*, "and she said," is also a serious contender, and is very probably the correct reading (ie. it would account for the confusion and variation in the early manuscripts.]
.
As to Bill's observation that the evidence for the Elizabeth reading comes mainly from Latin sources, and can therefore be dismissed, I would only point out that sometimes it is the Latin witnesses that are more accurate (ie. closer to the original autographs). Also remember that even the oldest Greek fragments are copies of earlier copies, and not necessarily 'better' simply by virtue of the fact that they bear the Koine script. As to Bill's further observation that modern translations never carry the alternate reading, I would say that this proves nothing; except that translators, like the Church in general, are enslaved to the deep rooted Mariolatry that possesses the entire tradition by the short and curlies. Therefore do not suppose that bible translation is a scientific endevor. It is NOT! Wherever alternatives present themselves, the choice made is invariably not based on what the text demands, but rather is the one that will cause "the least resistance", if you know what I mean.
.
> Marshall Massey writes: For me, the fact that the Greek texts -- which are, of course, the oldest
> texts extant -- are unanimous in reading "And Mary said", is decisive. The other clues are valuable,
> but secondary: they must be read *in the light* of the Greek consensus.
.
This approach does not properly appreciate the enduring force of Mariolatry. The translations are never enough. Always we must ask if the text is better served by this reading, or not. The weightiest evidence, in other words, comes from the pericope itself. My contention is that the passage as a whole is better served with either 'she' or 'Elizabeth' in place of 'Mary'.
.
> <snip> However, the Magnificat was almost certainly not *really* sung by Elizabeth,
> any more than it was *really* sung by Mary,
.
Exactly! This is typical of Luke's re-envisioning of early church history. Indeed, putting complex speeches and songs into the mouths of various heroes and heroines was just the way history was practiced in classical times. Nor do I buy the suggestion that the Magnificat was appropriated by Luke from "very early Jewish-Christian sources".
.
> because it is clearly the work of someone who was referring to the Song of Hannah
> in its Greek LXX form rather than in the original Hebrew.
.
Yeah, so? You think Luke was unable to read the LXX?
.
> So this cannot be a translation of a speech made by either Elizabeth or Mary; it's either an entirely
> independent composition by a native Greek speaker, not originally related to the conception narrative
> at all, which Luke simply inserted into the story at this point for his own purposes,
.
Nothing is "simple" where Luke is concerned! Do you have any idea how one of his bite-sized stories found its way into John's gospel? . . . I sometimes have nightmares about that puzzler!
.
> or else it's some Greek speaker's free poetic *representation* of what Mary or Elizabeth
> had to say in entirely new words, which Luke adopted because he felt it was fitting.
.
OR … Luke could have written it himself. He WAS a rather talented writer after all, don't you know!
.
> <snip> … what *should* have been would now be more believable to Greek-speaking
> Christians than what had actually happened.
.
This has ALWAYS been the case with Christians! That's why it's just so bloody difficult to make any progress at all in biblical studies. Theological blinkers are placed over rose-colored lens of piety, and packed about with the wool of ignorance, and doused with the wine of pleasing fantasies. Truly, it's a marvelous thing indeed that we know even that Mark was the first gospel. The awesome consequences of this revelation have yet to be fully appreciated!
.
> <snip> ... but he [ie. Luke] would not have substituted black for white or white for black.
.
HA! Who do you think you're kidding, Marshall? Luke was NOT a 'scientific' historian in any way, shape or form. He was a story-teller, and he was out to tell one whopper of a story. A story of two heroes, Jesus and Paul, and he certainly would not let "the facts" get in the way of his grand design!
.
> If he felt that the Magnificat's emphasis on devotion, prophecy and the social gospel was
> a fair reflection of what Mary actually said and did, then I am inclined to take his word for it.
.
GOOD GRIEF!!!
.
> As far as I *personally* am concerned, then, the Magnificat is acceptable evidence that
> a woman, Mary, did prophesy. Regards, Marshall Massey at mmassey@earthwitness.org
.
Excuse me? Didst thou say: "evidence that Mary didst prophesize"? I think I missed that part. Where is the evidence, please? Is a prophet now to be understood as someone who sings a rousing good song? ... Hey, maybe Elton John is a prophet too?! ... Stranger things HAVE happened, you know.
P.S. "And so on every possible point modern Christianity is a wretched lie, so far as it pretends to be the Christianity of the New Testament" (Kierkegaard, 'Journals').
