"She ought to kneel for a prayer, but she was too tired; Mary who fled to Eygpt would understand. Kossara sat down on what looked like pale grass and wasn't..." (Chapter IX, p. 467)
Poul Anderson always tells us that the ground-covering plant on terrestroid planets is not grass.
I read in a New Testament commentary that:
the OT verse, "I have called my son out of Egypt," meant that God had called His collective adopted son, Israel, out of bondage in Eygpt;
however, NT writers interpreted such verses as prophecies about the Messiah;
therefore, the author of Matthew's Gospel invented the story of the Holy Family fleeing into Egypt so that they could be called back from it.
On p. 468, Mary becomes almost a sky goddess when the blue of the summer sky over the Kazan is compared to the blue of her cloak.
14 comments:
Kaor, Paul!
And some planets had Terrestrial grasses introduced, where appropriate, such as Altai. And we both remember Stirling's comments about how important grasses were!
And both meanings of the text from the Book of Hosea is correct: the people of Israel being called out of Egypt and the Holy Family returning to Israel after the death of King Herod. And I don't think it was merely an invention of St. Matthew to have Joseph taking the BVM and Christ to Egypt. Given Herod's well known cruelty and paranoia, it's not impossible that any reports of a new born King of the Jews reaching him would have provoked a violent reaction from him.
Sean
Sean,
But this contradicts Luke's story of Joseph and Mary ttaking jesus to Jerusaalem to present him in the Temple.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
I'm in haste, having to go to work soon. But I agree you raised a good point. I know such things have troubled many commentators, who have tried to make sense of such alleged contradictions. I do have Fr. Raymond Brown's THE BIRTH OF THE MESSIAH, his massive commentary on the opening chapters of Matthew and Luke. I will look up what he said about the point you raised.
Sean
Sean,
Written separately decades after Jesus' birth, Matthew's and Luke's birth and infancy stories are legendary like any other stories abour miraculous births and early lives of great men.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
Yes, I can see that Luke used other sources besides what he took from Matthew. And I no longer believe in the Q Theory or a late dating for Matthew, Mark, and Luke. The Oxford Fragments of Matthew and David L. Dungan's HISTORY OF THE SYNOPTIC PROBLEM has convinced me Matthew was written by the mid AD 50's at latest, not AD 80.
Sean
I think it's clear that the basic outline of the stories of Jesus in the Gospels are grounded in actual events. I'd doubt the miracles, myself, but even allowing for that something very significant seems to have happened, and I think the authors of at least some of them were working from eyewitness testimony.
On the other hand, as anyone who's done investigative and courtroom work can tell you, memory is fallible and no two witnesses ever give exactly the same account. Unless they're allowed to talk it over, whereupon the version of the strongest personality usually replaces the others even in the memory of the rest. This is why it's important to get individual statements as soon as possible.
Mr Stirling,
I think the trauma of Jesus' death devastated the disciples. Not only was he killed but execution as a criminal disproved his Messiahship - so they thought, until they rationalized the situation by reinterpreting scripture as prophesying his death and resurrection. The man on the road to Emmaus was not Jesus but a stranger who consoled and inspired two disciples, then slipped away when they began to latch on to him. Crucifixion victims were thrown in a mass grave but the pious story of a decent burial in an unused tomb would have grown early in the oral tradition. The surviving disciples would have fled from Jesusalem and returned much later. The figure of "three days" was symbolic.
Paul.
Dear Mr. Stirling and Paul,
Even allowing for the differences in the Synoptic Gospels, it's also plain they have MUCH in common. I no longer believe in the Q theory or Markan priority. My view is now that of the Neo-Griesbachian Hypothesis. The Synoptics were composed in the order Matthew, Luke, and Mark. David L. Dungan's A HISTORY OF THE SYNOPTIC PROBLEM and the Oxford Fragments of Matthew destroyed the Q theory.
Paul, needless to say I absolutely disagree with the hypothesis you outlined. I don't in the least believe the Apostles were such liars and con men as I would have to consider them if I accepted your hypothesis. My view remains that of the Gospels and St. Paul, the actual, literal resurrection of Christ is the supreme proof of Christianity.
Recall our discussions about the Shroud of Turin. I think you agreed that, at the very least, some thing very strange happened to the Person who was wrapped in the Shroud. Also, the image seen on the Shroud was imposed on it by means TOTALLY unknown in the first century AD.
Sean
Sean,
But I don't believe that the Apostles lied. The disciples on the road to Emmaus were convinced that they had met Jesus. Peter, distraught by bereavement, disilluisonment and guilt, could have had a traumatic vision. Paul saw a light and heard a voice. The Evangelists received a story of a tomb burial. Beliefs emerge without a need for conscious deception.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
Granted, I can see how distraught people could have traumatic visions, such as what you think happened to Peter and Paul. Where we differ is that I believe the Resurrection was REAL and Peter and Paul actually met the Risen Lord.
Sean
Sean,
I apply Occam's Razor and David Hume's rule: in our experience, death is irreversible whereas men are often mistaken; therefore, it is always more probable that a report of a resurrection is mistaken.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
Except, of course, the claims made about Our Lord were TRUE. That is, He is truly God Incarnate, both Man and God. Iow, Christ is the EXCEPTION to that general rule.
Sean
Sean,
We will be disagreeing about this when Gabriel blows his trumpet...
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
Ha, ha!!! Very true!
Sean
Post a Comment