Liam found a mistake in the Bible
A couple of weeks ago Pastor moon spoke on the Genealogy of Jesus from Matthew. There’s another one in Luke, in this one Joseph’s father is given a very different name from the Matthew text. Can you give an explanation as to why this is so?
– Liam
Um, Liam. Are we quite clear on the concept of this site?
The tagline at the top of the page reads, “A ton of useful information about screenwriting.” There is no mention of Jesus or testaments (new or old).
Maybe you were looking for John August Swanson, an artist who deals with religious themes.
Anyway, you’re here now, so let me try my best to answer your question.
The Bible, the book you’re holding in your hand? Contrary to what a lot of people assume, it was written by a bunch of different people, over a very long period of time. Unlike the important texts of certain religions (c.f. Scientology), the information didn’t all come through one person. It’s natural that multiple storytellers might disagree on certain details.
As centuries passed, different texts were added and removed, and there’s always been controversy about these decisions. Plus, not a word of the Bible was written in English, so you’re always dealing with translation issues.
For these reasons, many people would say that what’s important is the larger themes, rather than a certain person’s name.
If your Pastor Moon says the Bible is the word of God, make sure he clarifies exactly what he means. Some Christian scholars will say the Bible is divinely inspired, which to me is an elegant way of addressing the human role in putting thought to parchment.
I hope this helps. If you’re still frustrated by the contradictions in the text, you might prefer a more free-form religion like Flying Spaghetti Monsterism.
Articles
December 14th, 2005 at 10:36 am
Time to branch out, John. Do you believe in the word of the Lord? I hope so, or he might smite you or something to that… notion, or something. I heard he’s really tough against reamers, involuntary or voluntary, and such. So remember to keep your hobbies clean, John, or he’ll probably make you juggle torches in hell. Or something. It’s all rather foggy to me, honestly.
December 14th, 2005 at 11:04 am
I would like to see the WGA arbitrations over authorship of the bible. Would God win?
December 14th, 2005 at 11:08 am
I’m a new FSM convert! Somebody should adapt his FSM idea into a film…hint hint
December 14th, 2005 at 11:19 am
I’d read about this before, actually. Turns out it’s a non-issue. One of them traces the geneology through Jesus’ natural ancestry, and the other through his legal ancestry. That is why Matthew mentions Joseph (legally his father, though not naturally) and Luke skips Joseph and goes straight to Jesus’ grandfather (women were not included in such tables, so Mary isn’t mentioned). This is from memory, so if anyone else has read about this, feel free to correct. Their ancestry tables eventually converge again later on, though.
December 14th, 2005 at 12:06 pm
As one who has been touched by His noodly appendage, I say ramen, brother. Ramen!
December 14th, 2005 at 12:18 pm
Okay, so I dont know precicly. But the people who wrote the books of Matthew and Luke (people probably not named Matthew and Luke) had very different goals in mind when they wrote their gospels. Luke, (I think) was trying to convert the gentiles and so his geneology wasnt that interested in Jesus family. Matthew on the other hand (again, I think) was trying to convert the jews and for him it was very important to prove that Jesus was decended from King David and therefore the king of the Jews.
December 14th, 2005 at 12:45 pm
I’m a practicing Pastafarian. All hail His Noodly Appendage!
December 14th, 2005 at 1:03 pm
Who cares…?
December 14th, 2005 at 1:35 pm
Oh! That’s my territory… (Among other’s)
After both name David, the two genealogies do not agree in the names of descendants, and Luke’s genealogy has fifteen more names than Matthew’s does. Plainly they are not the same genealogies, although both finally include Joseph the husband of Mary. But Matthew’s genealogy begins at the opposite end from that of Luke. Luke begins with Jesus and runs back to Abraham and on back to Adam. Matthew begins with Abraham and runs down to Jesus, and he leaves out the names of a number of men in between. Matthew therefore concerns himself with tracing the genealogy man by man, or male by male, and he does not include women indirectly.
So, in Matthew it says that “Jacob became father to Joseph the husband of Maryâ€?, while in Luke that Joseph was “the son of Heliâ€?.
Hence it must be understood that Joseph, the son of Jacob, was merely the son-in-law of Heli, because his wife Mary was the daughter of Heli.
Understand now Liam??
By the way, the Bible always is accurate, if you are willing to find an explanation…
December 14th, 2005 at 2:59 pm
FSM into film: Inherit the Marinara
December 14th, 2005 at 3:02 pm
hahahahahha! This is too funny.
December 14th, 2005 at 4:13 pm
The Bible is God breathed and therefore perfect in every way.
December 14th, 2005 at 9:34 pm
LOL.
December 14th, 2005 at 10:18 pm
Hahahaha! That was excellent. Yup, moving on…
December 15th, 2005 at 1:02 am
The question is not what the noodle can do for you, but what you can do for the noodle.
RAmen.
December 15th, 2005 at 3:27 am
FSM - Suddenly life makes sense!
December 15th, 2005 at 9:18 am
Anyone read the DaVinci Code?
One of the worst written books of all time. Think of a graduate student stringing a bunch of religious studies research papers together and then gluing them together with very thin plot. “Joe did this. Joe did that. TERM PAPER!!!”
The movie will be better than the book for once.
December 15th, 2005 at 7:37 pm
yes! yes! if you’ve been truly touched by his noodly appendage, mr. august, you will write the screenplay!
December 16th, 2005 at 12:02 pm
Hey Liam–should you be a writer as well as a theology buff, you might like to know that the Bible (the KJV, anyway) has been a source of material for many screenwriters and novelists. Titles for books, films, songs, and slogans. Even a soap opera (The Days Of Our Lives). Can’t say the same for Dianetics.
Don’t want to take up Mr. August’s space, but try reading Paul for a very poetical, somewhat mournful style:
“O death, where is thy sting? O grave, where is thy victory?”
December 18th, 2005 at 10:36 am
Dear Liam: Given the season, this is indeed the time of year likeliest for the Christ to be born of a virgin screenwriter. Then again, if Jesus went to film school, they’d only crucify him with a set of notes about how the greatest story ever told needs to look more sparing on the page. Yours very truly, Julie of Hollywood
December 19th, 2005 at 5:24 pm
John, this is a brave post. But I e-applaud you for it.
In case anyone is interested, the technical name for what John is talking about in terms of the Torah (to Christians the “Old” Testament) is the Documentary Hypothesis. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Documentary_hypothesis has a good explanation in terms of its academic study. It’s a totally fascinating topic, when you consider Western Civilization might be vastly different if the belief had come into being before its modern inception in the 19th century. I’m taking up space.
Happy Chrismahanakwanzikahmas, everyone.
January 3rd, 2006 at 6:44 pm
John,
Love the blog, and even enjoyed the departure from the usual subject. I am mostly in agreement with your perspective here, though I feel the need to point out one statment that I viewed as misleading.
You said: “As centuries passed, different texts were added and removed, and there’s always been controversy about these decisions.”
This gives me the impression that you view the list of sacred texts (the “canon”) as having been continually in flux. More accurately, the canon of the New Testament has been pretty well set since the second certury AD, and all-but cemented by 300 AD. (One remaining dispute, if I’m not mistaken, remains about the book of Revelation, which is not recognized by the Eastern Orthodox Church.) It would be hard to identify more than 2 of your passing centuries. Given the two millenia of church history, it was a relatively short time between when the texts started circulating and when people stopped adding more texts to the list.
The Old Testament as we know it was officially recognized even sooner, before 100 AD, but the matter gets slightly more complicated when you consider the Apocrypha, a set of texts generally recognized by Catholics, but not most Protestants. However, as I understand it (as a Protestant myself), even most Catholics categorized these books as ‘deutero-canonical’ (e.g., a secondary canon), so they viewed as importants, but are not given the same weight of authority as the books which have unanimous agreement. Many protestants would likely feel the same way if they took the time to read these texts. (I do, and so did some of the writers of the New Testament.)
So in my view, the problems we have with applying the Bible to our lives today are not so much textual as they are interpretive. But when it comes to the important doctrines (”Jesus is God and he wants you to love your neighbor, which means your enemies too”) Christians everywhere are in agreement, at least those who respect the authority of Scripture and of the Church as a whole in its various forms down through the ages.
By the way, Elizabeth Gunness is also in agreement with you, though I suspect she doesn’t know it. The greek word translated “God-breathed” in some translations means “inspired.” The connection still exists faintly in english: inspire -> respire -> breath.
Finally, as a student of the Bible in its original languages (but not a professional scholar - I make my living in creative development), I must point out that the King James Version is one of the worst versions you could read in terms of faithfulness to the original manuscripts. Though admittedly, it does have a unique poetic flair to it that is lacking in many recent translations. I use the New American Standard Bible for serious study along side my Greek text, and the New Living Translation is pretty good (and easy) for casual reading, particularly for those of us raised on the NIV who tend to gloss over familiar passages too easily. A change of pace is good.
Hope this is helpful to somebody. Comments, Questions, or corrections? BlogLurker[at]chapmanmedia.com
January 3rd, 2006 at 6:45 pm
Whoa! Sorry, didn’t mean for that to get so long-winded…
January 8th, 2006 at 9:36 pm
“By the way, Elizabeth Gunness is also in agreement with you, though I suspect she doesn’t know it.”
Young man I really don’t appreciate your condescending tone! You’ll be in my prayers.
March 11th, 2006 at 12:08 am
Actually, I think this is one of the coolest displays of how God fulfilled the prophecies. As previously mentioned, these geneologies differ because they are actually two different geneologies: one through Joseph (legal father), and the other through the virgin Mary (the only biological parent). Both of these geneologies go back to King David, in order to fulfill the prophecy that the Messiah would be a descendant of David. So, if anyone argued that women don’t matter, then you could point to the geneology through Joseph, and if anyone argued that Joseph didn’t help conceive Jesus and thus doesn’t matter, then you could point to the geneology through Mary. At first glance, though, they do appear to be flawed.