Welcome Guest!
 II Errancy
 Previous Message All Messages Next Message 
The Lightfoot "Solution"  Farrell Till
 May 27, 2003 20:14 PDT 

TILL
I am writing this on my laptop in Colorado where I am without internet
access, so I don't know if Alward has yet responded to Schmuel's third-hour
"solution" or not. If he hasn't, I think that that would speak volumes
about Alward's ability to debunk biblical inerrancy. As I will show,
Schmuel's "Lightfoot" solution is no solution at all, but since Schmuel
indicated below that he had posted his "solution" on TWeb, I think that
Alward should get busy and answer it; otherwise, the biblical simpletons in
that forum will assume that his "solution" cannot be rebutted..

SCHMUEL
 I was recently invited by DeeDee to register for the Theology Web debates
referred to here ... the debate between Joe Alward and James Holding on a
supposed contradiction interested me so I placed a post in.

TILL
Holding's real name is Robert Turkel, so if I have any occasion to refer to
him in this reply or any other post, I will use his real name.

SCHMUEL
 This forum has the honor of a preview, while the TW mod gets up to speed,
with very minor editing changes and a postscript.

TILL
What honor is there in seeing another attempt to find a far-fetched,
how-it-could-have-been "solution" to a biblical discrepancy? They get
rather tiresome.

SCHMUEL
 Hello TW folkies, and thanks to DeeDee for the invite [sic] over..

On the discussion of the timing of the resurrection, and the supposed
contradiction between Mark15: 25 and John 19:14-15 may I first suggest
simply deep-sixing the ideas of "two measures of time" or "scribal errors".

TILL
Well, Schmuel has said at least one thing that I can agree with, but I
think he will soon see that it would be a good idea to "deep six" his
Lightfoot solution too, although I certainly don't expect him to do it.

SCHMUEL
 Please note that my discussion below (quoting John Lightfoot) is
referencing the King James Bible, (which is the only English version that
I, and many others, will defend as inerrant), while the claim of error by
Joe was based on quoting a 'modern version'
(NIV). <"http://sol.sci.uop.edu/~jfalward/Scribal_Error_in_John_19.htm">

TILL
Schmuel is begging a question that he needs to prove. The King James Bible
isn't inerrant just because he and "many others" think that it
is. Likewise, the NIV's translation of Mark 15:25 isn't inaccurate just
because Schmuel says that it is. In my rebuttal of Lightfoot's "solution,"
I will show that using "when" in Mark 15:25 did not affect the meaning of
the verse.

To accommodate Schmuel's simplistic opinion of the King James Bible, I will
use it to show that Lightfoot's "solution" to this discrepancy is even less
likely than Turkel's two-different-time systems. Before I go on, I will
say that Schmuel's KJV-only belief speaks volumes about his level of
critical thinking. As I said before I left for Colorado, I will expect him
to defend his assertion that the KJB is inerrant. After all, he has made
an issue over the logical axiom that says he who asserts must prove and has
twisted a comment of mine into an assertion, so now it is his turn to
practice what he preaches and defend his claim of King James inerrancy..

SCHMUEL
 I will leave it up to the Greek scholars to check if there is any any
differences in the underlying Byzantine vs Alexandrian Greek, and to
debate the prepositional difference. Suffice to say that time and again
only the KJB can be truly defended as inerrant.

TILL
If Schmuel has the courage to defend that assertion, I will show him that
time and time again the KJV can be shown to be errant. We have had many
inerrantists in this forum who always quoted from the KJV, and they were
consistently taken to the cleaners when they tried to propose
"explanations" of biblical discrepancies. I have no reason to think that
Schmuel will fare any better.

By the way, Schmuel's "solution" below did not involve a "prepositional
difference," because "kai" was not a Greek preposition. It was a
conjunction that usually meant "and." Does Schmuel think that the English
word "and" is a preposition? If so, that doesn't say much for his
qualifications to discuss linguistic matters.

SCHMUEL
 Please note the small, yet substantive, difference between the KJB and NIV
translations of the Mark passage. (Note also that Joe, not surprisingly,
did not offer the KJB translation on his web page, and, more surprisingly,
none of our believer friends have pointed out the important difference, afaik).

TILL
Schmuel is begging the question of KJB inerrancy. That is a question that
I will be urging him to defend. It will be a pleasure to show that those
who think that the KJB was divinely protected from error and even corrected
scribal mistakes that had been made in copying Hebrew/Greek manuscripts are
living in Never-Never Land.

SCHMUEL
 Mark 15:25 (KJB)
And it was the third hour, and they crucified him.

Mark15:25 (NIV)
And it was the third hour when they crucified Him.

This difference is used to create "contradiction"; with the John passage,
where they [sic] simply is not any problem in the historic Scriptures.

John 19:14-15 (KJB)
And it was the preparation of the passover, and about the sixth hour: and
he saith unto the Jews, Behold your King! But they cried out, Away with
him, away with him, crucify him

TILL
The KJV has literally translated the Greek word "kai," which was a
conjunction--not a preposition-- that most often conveyed the sense of the
English conjunction "and," but "when" doesn't necessarily distort the
meaning of Mark 15:25. For example, John 19:14 says, "It was... about the
sixth hour, AND [kai] he [Pilate] saith unto the Jews...." Now would the
meaning of this sentence be in any way altered if it was translated like
this: "It was about the sixth hour when he [Pilate] saith to the Jews"?

I would like for Schmuel to tell us when Pilate said to the Jews, "Behold
your king!" Did he say this at the 6th hour, or did he say it two or three
hours later? This question is appropriate, because the Schmuel/Lightfoot
spin on Mark 15:25 seems to be that it was the third hour, but it was three
hours later when Jesus was crucified. Of course, if I were narrating my
activities yesterday and said, "It was nine o'clock, and I went to town,"
Schmuel wouldn't think that I was saying that I went to town at twelve
o'clock, but when what the Bible clearly says conflicts with what it
clearly says elsewhere, biblicists will spare no effort to make one of the
statements not mean what it clearly says. This is what Schmuel is doing
with Mark 15:25.

[I am adding this note to what I wrote in Colorado. I didn't have any
Greek lexicons with me, so I couldn't quote what I was sure that experts
have said about the Greek conjunction "kai." They recognize that it was
sometimes used "to connect an expression of time with that which had
occurred in that time." In other words, it was sometimes used to denote
"when" something had happened. Now that I am back home, I have taken the
time to check Arndt & Gingrich's discussion of the Greek conjunction "kai."
under section 2, c.

"It [kai] is coordination rather than subordination when k. connects an
expr[ression] of time with that which occurs in the time" (*A Greek Lexicon
of the New Testament,* 1960, p. 393).

A & G proceeded to give several examples from secular Greek and then cited
Matthew 26:45, MARK 15:25, and John 2:13 as examples of where "kai" connect
an expression of time with that which occurred in that time in order to
denote when an action had happened.

 Matthew 26: 45 Then cometh he to his disciples, and saith unto them,
Sleep on now, and take your rest: behold, the hour is at hand, and [kai]
the Son of man is betrayed into the hands of sinners.

 John 2:13 And the Jews' passover was at hand, and [kai] Jesus went up to
Jerusalem....

The KJB rendered "kai" in these two passages as "and," as it also did in
Mark 15:25, but A & G, who I suspect are a bit more knowledgeable in Greek
than Schmuel gave these as examples of where "kai" was used to denote when
an action took place. In other words, the hour had come WHEN the son of
man was betrayed into the hands of sinners,and Jesus went up to Jerusalem
WHEN the passover was at hand .

It Schmuel is still not convinced, he may want to consider another example
given by A & G where the inerrant King James Bible DID use the English word
"when" to translate "kai."

 Hebrew 8:8 For finding fault with them, he saith, Behold, the days come,
saith the Lord, WHEN [kai] I will make a new covenant with the house of
Israel and with the house of Judah:

"Kai" was also used in this sense in Act 1:10, but the infallible KJB
translators omitted it entirely.

 10 And while they [the disciples] looked stedfastly toward heaven as he
went up, behold, two men stood by them in white apparel....

In the Greek text, the word "kai" appeared before the word "behold"
(idou), but it was left out of the KJB. Even Schmuel should be able to
read this verse and see that "kai" was used here to denote WHEN the two men
in white apparel stood by. They stood by WHEN the disciples were watching
the ascension of Jesus.

These examples show very clearly (except to someone with a pet theory to
prove) that "kai" was sometimes used to denote "when," so Schmuel's task,
if he chooses to accept it, is to prove to us that the NIV mistranslated
Mark 15:25 by using "when" instead of "and."

SCHMUEL
 John Lightfoot, quite knowledgeable on the various issues of Hebraic
timing and thinking, as well as the Sannhedrin modus operandi, offered a
very insightful commentary on this over 300 years ago.

TILL
And, of course, John Lightfoot believed that the Bible is the "inspired
word of God," or, as Schmuel said below, "had great respect for the Word of
God," so he would have spared no effort to resolve discrepancies in the
biblical text In other words, Lightfoot was simply the Gleason Archer/John
Haley/William Arndt/Norman Geisler/Robert Turkel/Glenn Miller of his
day. One would not expect to read a book of his and see him saying, "Well,
this is a discrepancy; no doubt about it."

SCHMUEL
 Lightfoot dd not have the "modern versions" available to create confusion,
and had great respect for the Word of God, so it was easier for him to
write with clarity and insight.

TILL
Again Schmuel begs the question of the inerrancy of the KJB, but that is a
question that he must prove. He can't just assume it. I look forward to
showing him that the KJV is riddled with errors.

That Schmuel would say that the "modern versions" create confusion speaks
volumes about his qualifications to assess the accuracy of the
translations, because some modern versions have eliminated confusion in the
KJB. The KJB, for example, sometimes translated idioms literally, and the
result was confusion that English readers couldn't understand.

 1 Samuel 24:3 And he came to the sheepcotes by the way, where was a cave;
and Saul went in to cover his feet....

"To cover one's feet" was a euphemistic idiom that meant to defecate,
because the act of squatting to defecate caused the garments of that time
to cover the feet. Without knowledge of what this idiom meant, English
readers would not understand why Saul went into the cave, but some of the
"modern versions" that Schmuel disdains translated the idiom with an
English idiom that meant essentially the same thing.

NIV:   He came to the sheep pens along the way; a cave was there, and Saul
went in to relieve himself.

NRSV: He came to the sheepfolds beside the road, where there was a cave;
and Saul went in to relieve himself.

The KJV contains a discrepancy in parallel passages that gave the age of
Ahaziah when he began to reign.

 2 Kings 8:25 In the twelfth year of Joram the son of Ahab king of Israel
did Ahaziah the son of Jehoram king of Judah begin to reign.
26 Two and twenty years old was Ahaziah when he began to reign; and he
reigned one year in Jerusalem.

2 Chronicles 22:1 And the inhabitants of Jerusalem made Ahaziah his
[Jehoram's] youngest son king in his stead: for the band of men that came
with the Arabians to the camp had slain all the eldest. So Ahaziah the son
of Jehoram king of Judah reigned.
2 Forty and two years old was Ahaziah when he began to reign, and he
reigned one year in Jerusalem.

The NIV eliminated the Masoretic confusion about Ahaziah's age when he
began to reign by making him 22 in both passages, so it certainly isn't
true that "modern versions" necessarily create confusion. Sometimes, they
eliminate confusion. Any person with a shred of objectivity would
recognize that there are strong points and weak points about every
translation, including even the KJV. Only an uninformed radical would say
that the KJB is superior to all other versions.

SCHMUEL
 I will bring over his [Lightfoot's] most germane points here.
http://www.studylight.org/com/jlc/view.cgi?book=mr&chapter=15#Mr15_25

Mark 15: 25. And it was the third hour, and they crucified him.

 John Lightfoot explains how the Sannhedrin met at the third hour
Maimonides; "The great Sanhedrim sat from the morning daily sacrifice,
until the afternoon daily sacrifice."; But now when the morning daily
sacrifice was at the third hour, the Sanhedrim sat not before that hour.

TILL
Schmuel, through Lightfoot, has presented information that, instead of
solving anything, opens a whole can of worms about the historical accuracy
of the NT resurrection accounts. Informed Jews have ridiculed these
accounts because they not only had the Sanhedrin meeting before the third
hour but meeting during the night.

Jesus was betrayed by Judas at night, after Jesus had eaten the "last
supper" with his disciples.

 Mark 14:17 And IN THE EVENING he [Jesus] cometh with the twelve.
18 And as they sat and did eat, Jesus said, Verily I say unto you, One of
you which eateth with me shall betray me.

After they finished the supper, they went to Gethsemene (v:32), where Judas
betrayed Jesus (vs:43-45). At this time, it was still night, but despite
the time, Jesus was led before an assembly of the high priest and chief
priests.

 Mark 14:53 And they led Jesus away to the high priest: and with him were
assembled all the chief priests and the elders and the scribes.
54 And Peter followed him afar off, even into the palace of the high
priest: and he sat with the servants, and warmed himself at the fire.
55 And the chief priests and all the council sought for witness against
Jesus to put him to death; and found none.
56 For many bare false witness against him, but their witness agreed not
together.
57 And there arose certain, and bare false witness against him, saying,
58 We heard him say, I will destroy this temple that is made with hands,
and within three days I will build another made without hands.
59 But neither so did their witness agree together.
60 And the high priest stood up in the midst, and asked Jesus, saying,
Answerest thou nothing? what is it which these witness against thee?
61 But he held his peace, and answered nothing. Again the high priest
asked him, and said unto him, Art thou the Christ, the Son of the Blessed?
62 And Jesus said, I am: and ye shall see the Son of man sitting on the
right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven.
63 Then the high priest rent his clothes, and saith, What need we any
further witnesses?
64 Ye have heard the blasphemy: what think ye? And they all condemned him
to be guilty of death.

Verse 55 says that the council sought witnesses so that they could put
Jesus to death, and verse 64 says that "they all" condemned him to death,
so clearly the Sanhedrin, according to this story, was "sitting" to judge
Jesus and had made a decision about his guilt, and this meeting took place
at night. That the meeting did occur at night is evident from
the   passage that followed Peter's denial and the crowing of the cock..

 Mark 15::1 And STRAIGHTWAY IN THE MORNING the chief priests held a
consultation with the elders and scribes and the whole council, and bound
Jesus, and carried him away, and delivered him to Pilate.

So the Sanhedrin sat in judgment of Jesus during a night session, and
then when morning came they took him to Pilate. Before Schmuel tries to
argue that "straightway in the morning" didn't mean in the early morning, I
suggest that he read Luke's parallel account in his inerrant KJB.

 Luke 22:66 And AS SOON AS IT WAS DAY, the elders of the people and the
chief priests and the scribes came together, and led him into their
council, saying,
67 Art thou the Christ? tell us. And he said unto them, If I tell you, ye
will not believe:
68 And if I also ask you, ye will not answer me, nor let me go.
69 Hereafter shall the Son of man sit on the right hand of the power of God.
70 Then said they all, Art thou then the Son of God? And he said unto
them, Ye say that I am.
71 And they said, What need we any further witness? for we ourselves have
heard of his own mouth.
23:1 And the whole multitude of them arose, and led him unto Pilate.

There is actually a discrepancy in the time that Mark said that this
meeting took place and when Luke said it happened. According to Mark, it
happened during the night, but Luke said that it happened AS SOON AS IT WAS
DAY. This is a problem in Schmuel's inerrant KJB that he may want to
address when he tries to defend his assertion that the KJB is inerrant,
but, as I will show, either time spells disaster for Lightfoot's "solution"
to the third-hour discrepancy.

Daylight comes well before the third hour, which was when Lightfoot argued
that the Sanhedrin held session to judge Jesus, but Luke said that it
happened "as soon as it was day." Whether it happened at night, as Mark
and Matthew (26:57-68) claimed, or whether it happened "as soon as it was
day" (as Luke claimed) is immaterial, because either time would have been
well before when Lightfoot said that the Sanhedrin met to condemn
Jesus. Thus, Schmuel has just seen the props kicked right out from under
Lightfoot's "explanation," and I'm not even finished yet.

SCHMUEL
 And Lightfoot agrees with our skeptics on one basic point.

"For Pilate could not deliver Christ to be crucified about the third hour,
when the Sanhedrim sat not before the third hour, and Christ was not yet
delivered to Pilate."

 The meeting of the Sannhedrin in the AM relates to the phrasing 'It was
the third hour'

TILL
Unfortunately, for Lightfoot's "solution" to this problem, I have just
shown that the inerrant King James Bible clearly had the Sanhedrin sitting
in judgment of Jesus well before the third hour of the morning. Jewish
judgment of Jesus had already occurred before the Jews took Jesus to
Pilate, so the third hour could not have been the time when the Sanhedrin
met to judge Jesus .

SCHMUEL
 Lightfoot-
You may observe that he saith not, "it was the third hour when" but
"it was the third hour, and they crucified him." That is, when the third
hour now was, and was passed, yet they omitted not to prosecute his
crucifixion,

TILL
I addressed this quibble above, but inerrantists have to be hit with
overkill in order to make any impression on them, so I will run it by
Schmuel again and
and then analyze the context of Mark 15:25 to show that it too is
incompatible with Lightfoot's "solution."

In John's account of the time when Jesus was delivered up to be crucified,
he said, "(I)t was... about the sixth hour: and he [Pilate] saith unto the
Jews, Behold your King!" Schmuel will not argue that this meant that it
was the sixth hour and then some three hours later, Pilate said to the
Jews, "Behold your king," because this would present numerous problems that
Schmuel couldn't resolve even with his inerrant KJB, not the least of
which would be the synoptic claims that Jesus was on the cross when a
midday darkness fell at the sixth hour (Matt. 27:45; Mark 15:33; Luke
23;44). I will be saying more about this in a follow-up to this rebuttal post.

The context of Mark 15:25 shows that the crucifixion of Jesus was already
in progress when Mark said that it was the third hour.

 Mark 15:15 And so Pilate, willing to content the people, released
Barabbas >unto them, and delivered Jesus, when he had scourged him, to be
crucified.
16 And the soldiers led him away into the hall, called Praetorium; and
they call together the whole band.
17 And they clothed him with purple, and platted a crown of thorns, and
put it about his head,
18 And began to salute him, Hail, King of the Jews!
19 And they smote him on the head with a reed, and did spit upon him, and
bowing their knees worshipped him.
20 And when they had mocked him, they took off the purple from him, and
put his own clothes on him, and led him out to crucify him.
21 And they compel one Simon a Cyrenian, who passed by, coming out of the
country, the father of Alexander and Rufus, to bear his cross.
22 And they bring him unto the place Golgotha, which is, being
interpreted, The place of a skull.
23 And they gave him to drink wine mingled with myrrh: but he received it
not.
24 And when they had crucified him, they parted his garments, casting
lots upon them, what every man should take.
25 And it was the third hour, and they crucified him.
26 And the superscription of his accusation was written over, THE KING OF
THE JEWS.

This passage has all the earmarks of a narrative written in chronological
sequence with all of the events tied together with the conjunction--not
preposition--"kai" [and]. If this is so, the narrative can be rewritten
with "then" inserted after the "ands" to show more clearly that the writer
was relating events in chronological order.

"And so Pilate, willing to content the people, released Barabbas unto them,
and delivered Jesus, when he had scourged him, to be crucified. And [then]
the soldiers led him away into the hall, called Praetorium; and [then] they
call together the whole band. And [then] they clothed him with purple, and
[then] platted a crown of thorns, and [then] put it about his head, And
[then] began to salute him, Hail, King of the Jews! And [then] they smote
him on the head with a reed, and [then] did spit upon him, and [then]
bowing their knees worshipped him. And [then] when they had mocked him,
they took off the purple from him, and [then] put his own clothes on him,
and [then] led him out to crucify him. And [then] they compel one Simon a
Cyrenian, who passed by, coming out of the country, the father of Alexander
and Rufus, to bear his cross. And [then] they bring him unto the place
Golgotha, which is, being interpreted, The place of a skull. And [then]
they gave him to drink wine mingled with myrrh: but he received it
not. And [then] when they had crucified him, they parted his garments,
casting lots upon them, what every man should take."

The insertions of the "thens" make the chronological sequence obvious. In
other words, they scourged Jesus before they led him away, and then they
clothed him in purple before they platted a crown of thorns, and they
platted the crown of thorns before they put the crown on his head, etc.,
etc., etc. The last sentence in the quotation above says that they
crucified him before they parted his garments, so the obvious intention of
Mark 15:25, on which Lightfoot has based his quibble, was to relate the
time when the crucifixion, which had already been mentioned in verse 24,
took place. Otherwise, why would Mark have said in verse 24 that they
crucified him and then say again IN THE VERY NEXT VERSE that they crucified
him? His intention in verse 25 must have been to state the time of the
crucifixion. Hence, the NIV translation is really a more accurate (to
English-speaking ears) rendition of verse 25: "And it was the third hour
when they crucified him."   Arndt & Gingrich, quoted above, agree with this
conclusion, and they even cited Mark 15:25 as an example of where "kai" was
used to denote "when" an event had occurred.

Verse 25 had said that they crucified Jesus, and so in the next verse Mark
was simply stating WHEN they crucified him. Lightfoot's quibble, however,
requires readers to think that after relating a series of chronological
events that terminated in the crucifixion of Jesus, Mark then jumped back
in time three hours to refer to the meeting of the Sanhedrin at the third
hour to pass judgment on Jesus. This interpretation is so strained that
only a biblical inerrantist would resort to it. Besides this, there is the
obvious fact, which I have already shown above, that the Sanhedrin had met
the night before or "as soon as it was day" (take your pick) and passed
judgment on Jesus. Either pick would have been well before the third hour,
so the Schmuel/Lightfoot "solution" to this problem turns out to be just
another inerrantist act of desperation to find inerrancy in the Bible.

SCHMUEL
 Prax notes.

Above Lightfoot can be viewed as presient in pointing out the exact
prepositional usage in the verse, as opposed to a textual version/corruption
that did not, as far as we know, even exist at his time! , yet is represented
today in the NIV, carefully chosen for quotation by Joe :-)

TILL
Well, I have shown that there was no "textual/version corruption" in the
NIV translation of Mark 15:25,. Incidentally, the NIV is not a version that
I would recommend because of its attempts to resolve discrepancies through
translations (as in the case of 2 Chronicles 22:2 mentioned above), but its
sloppy translation in some places doesn't mean that its translation of Mark
15:25 corrupted its meaning. I have shown that it didn't, and A & G agree
with me.

Furthermore, the so-called problem in the NIV translation of Mark 15:25
didn't involve a preposition but a conjunction. That Schmuel would not
recognize the difference tells us a lot about his qualifications to make
judgments in linguistic matters.

SCHMUEL
 And Lightfoot astutely continues to explain the Sannhedrin's customs and
methods.

TILL
Since Schmuel doesn't know the difference in a preposition and a
conjunction, I find it hard to believe that he is qualified to pass
judgment on the "astuteness" of Lightfoot's "explanation."

SCHMUEL
 ===============
JOHN LIGHTFOOT LONGISH SECTION

....a custom usual in the Sanhedrim, but from which they now swerved. They
are treating concerning a guilty person condemned to hanging, with whom
they deal in this process: 'they tarry until sunset approach, and then
they finish his judgment and put him to death.'

Note that:
'They finish not his judgment until sunset draw [sic] near.'

TILL
If I understood the situation in this fragmented, out-of-context quotation,
I would comment on it. The only thing I can determine from the sketchy
information given here is that this event, if it happened, disregarded
Deuteronomy 21:22-23, which prohibited bodies to hang after dark.

SCHMUEL
 If you ask the reason, a more general one may be given which respected all
persons condemned to die, and a more special one which respected him which
was to be hanged.

TILL
How did this event respect Deuteronomy 21:22-23? A more relevant question,
however, is what does it have to do with Mark 15:25? Schmuel seems to
think that as long as he is quoting something, regardless of what it is, he
is scoring points.

SCHMUEL
 I. There was that which is called by the Talmudists the affliction of
judgment: by which phrase they understand not judgment that is not just,
but when he that is condemned, after judgment passed, is not presently put
to death.

TILL
Here is another fragmented, out-of-context-quotation that gives
insufficient information to assess what Lightbrain, er, foot was trying to
say, but I can't see its relevance to Mark 15:25. For one thing, Jesus was
either condemned to death at night or "as soon as it was day" (take your
pick), or else the KJB is errant, so Jesus wasn't put to death immediately
after judgment was passed but hours later. So what is Schmuel's point in
quoting this?

SCHMUEL
 "If you finish his judgment on the sabbath [mark that], and put him to
death on the first day of the week, you afflict his judgment."

TILL
What is the relevance of this? Jesus wasn't put to death on the sabbath
(Luke 23:54; Mark 15:42).

SCHMUEL
 Where the Gloss is,
"As long as his judgment is not finished, it is not the affliction
of judgment, because he expects every hour to be absolved: but when
judgment is ended, he expects death,"

Therefore they delayed but little between the finishing of judgment and
execution.

TILL
????????

SCHMUEL
 II. As to those that were to be hanged,

" **they delayed the finishing his judgment, and they hanged him not in the
morning**, lest they might grow slack about his burial, and might fall into
forgetfulness," and might sin against the law, Deuteronomy 21:23; ";but
near sunset, that they might presently bury him."; So the Gloss. They put
him to death not sooner, for this reason; they finished not his judgment
sooner for the reason above said.

TILL
Whatever Schmuel's/Lightfoot's purpose in quoting all of this may be isn't
exactly clear, but if he was trying to show that the Sanhedrin had meeting
laws that they rigidly respected, he is ignoring the fact (as I have
already shown) that in the case of the trial of Jesus, the inerrant KJB
clearly shows that those laws were ignored, and Jesus was tried either at
night or "as soon as it was day" (take your pick). Schmuel's argument
seems to be that because the Sanhedrin rigidly respected their judgment
laws, they respected them in their trial of Jesus too, but the synoptic
texts, even in Schmuel's inerrant KJB, show that those laws were not
respected in the trial of Jesus.

Anyway, all of this about Jewish customs concerning the timing of
executions is completely irrelevant, because the Jews were living under
Roman rule at this time and did not have the authority to execute. Why
does Schmuel think that the Jewish leaders took Jesus to Pilate instead of
just taking him out and executing him? They were under Roman law and had
to convince the Roman authorities to execute him. Does Schmuel seriously
think that the Romans sought the advice of the Jews on when would be an
appropriate time to execute Jesus?

This is the kind of nonsense that results when biblicists grasp any straws
in sight to try to resolve biblical discrepancies.

SCHMUEL
 And now let us resume the words of Mark,
"And it was the third hour, and they crucified him.";

The Sanhedrim used not to finish the judgment of hanging until they were
now ready to rise up and depart from the council and bench after the
Mincha, the day now inclining towards sunset: but these men finished the
judgment of Jesus, and hastened him to the cross, when they first came
into the court at the third hour, at the time of the daily sacrifice,
which was very unusual, and different from the custom.

TILL
Repetition here is not necessary, because I have shown above, especially in
my chronological analysis of Mark 15, that the trial and scourging of Jesus
took place early in the day and that Mark's summation of the crucifixion
says that it was done at the third hour. In a follow-up reply to Schmuel's
Lightfoot "solution," I will show that even if he could make this solution
stand, the reference of John 19:14 to the sixth hour would be in conflict
with chronology given in he synoptic accounts.

At any rate, Lightfoot's argument seems to be that because the Sanhedrin
usually followed a time schedule, it also did so in the trial of Jesus, but
I have shown above that the synoptic accounts say otherwise. If Lightfoot
were still alive, I would suggest that he get a textbook in logic and read
what it says about "non sequitur."

SCHMUEL
 Prax-
Very simple, very nice, matches the wording of Mark in the King James
Bible, and matches the customs of the Sannhedrin.

TILL
Sorry, Schmuel, but there is nothing "nice" or "simple" about Lightfoot's
"solution." It matches nothing in the KJB, as I have shown above, because
the trial of Jesus before the Sanhedrin took place well before the third
hour. You can take your choice between night time or "as soon as it was
day." Either way, your inerrant KJB clearly claims that the "customs of
the Sanhedrin" were not followed during the trial of Jesus; hence,
Lightfoot's "solution" crumbles like crushed crackers.

SCHMUEL
 As often happens, a supposed contradiction, when researched, offers us
greater understanding of the Scriptures :-) One of the wonderful aspects
of apologetics.

TILL
One of the wonderful aspects that I find in apologetics is dismantling the
solutions that apologists like Lightfoot dream up to try to find inerrancy
in the Bible.

SCHMUEL
 And please, my friends in apologetics, an appeal ..
Men like John Lightfoot and John Gill and David Baron and Alfred Edersheim
(and today, Risto Santala) have offered their time and experience and
understanding and research to us, often delving deeply in the Hebraic
writings and commentaries. We would do well to seek out and read the
results of their studies before we fall for liberal modernistic ideas of
"harmonizations"; including the usually tacky 'scribal error'.

TILL
Bring them on, Schmuel. My experience with professional apologists has
been that they offer some solutions to alleged discrepancies that are quite
sensible, but these are usually solutions to the "discrepancies" claimed
by skeptics who are a bit too eager to find mistakes in the Bible. I try
to avoid this kind of discrepancy and even oppose those who resort to them,
but I know of many discrepancies in the Bible that not even the
professional apologists have been able to resolve without resorting to
absurd how-it-could-have-been scenarios. I will be glad to point some of
these out to Schmuel when he begins his defense of KJB inerrancy.

Anyway, I wonder why a KJV-only apologist would be concerned about what
commentators know about "Hebraic writings." As long as Schmuel has his
KJB, why worry about Hebrew or Greek?

SCHMUEL
 And thanks especially to John Lightfoot for his excellent exposition (which
is, btw, also mentioned by John Gill :-).

TILL
Well, as I have shown, Schmuel's thanks to Lightfoot were a bit premature,
because his "solution" has collapsed like a house of cards, and I'm not
even finished yet. I will be posting a follow-up to this.

SCHMUEL
 PS to ii_errancy
Schm-@bigfoot.com here, posting as Praexus to attempt to bypass
Farrell's censorship through Till-Filters. When I know I can post freely
through my standard address to his forums, we can continue to address
the Aqaba crossing, the virgin birth, and other issues left "hanging by
filtering".

TILL
I have shown that Schmuel's notion that I have censored him has been all in
his mind. He can't seem to get into his head that if a list owner filters
the posts of a member but allows the filtered member to continue posting,
he is not "censoring" that person. He is simply choosing not to read the
posts of someone he thinks is a waste of time. With this post, I will be
sending a detailed rebuttal of his Gulf-of-Aqaba theory. If Schmuel
replies point by point to my rebuttals of his assertions, I will continue
to read his posts and reply to them, but if he resorts to his usual
evasions and trolling, I won't waste hours writing replies that he is just
going to ignore.




Farrell Till
The Skeptical Review Online
http://www.theskepticalreview.com
	
 Previous Message All Messages Next Message 
  Check It Out!

  Topica Channels
 Best of Topica
 Art & Design
 Books, Movies & TV
 Developers
 Food & Drink
 Health & Fitness
 Internet
 Music
 News & Information
 Personal Finance
 Personal Technology
 Small Business
 Software
 Sports
 Travel & Leisure
 Women & Family

  Start Your Own List!
Email lists are great for debating issues or publishing your views.
Start a List Today!

© 2001 Topica Inc. TFMB
Concerned about privacy? Topica is TrustE certified.
See our Privacy Policy.