Board index ‹ Specific Bible verses, texts, and passages ‹ Luke

[1.62]

Vision of an angel? I am reading the bible again, this time closer than ever. One of the things that I am having trouble understanding is this. What is the difference between "seeing a vision of an angel" and "actually seeing an angel"? In Luke 24:23 the women were said to have seen "a vision" of an angel. Also it's curious that it refers to a single vision to describe what multiple women saw. Thanks for your help.

[jimwalton]

Hey, good to talk to you again. It's been a while. There are at least 4 Greek words for seeing. The one that is used here (ἑωρακέναι, the perfect active infinitive in indirect assertion of ὁράω) denotes actual physical seeing, not just "perceive" (which at some times can mean you didn't actually see anything). It is the verb of choice pertaining to divine revelation.

The word for "vision" is ὀπτασίαν, and means an actual appearing. It means "appearance." In other words, they actually saw something (angels) that they considered to be a revelation from God.

Why does it refer to a single vision to describe what multiple women saw? Because it wasn't a group hallucination (there is no such thing), but these multiple women together saw something that was actually there to be seen: angels, who had come from God, to give them a message (revelation).

[1.62]

Thanks for the reply! If I understand correctly you differentiate a vision, where there is actually something there to be seen, and a vision where where there is actually nothing there to be seen? I was thinking there must be some sort of underlying difference between the act of causing someone to see a vision and the act necessary to bring about an event that existed in three dimensional reality. An experience of the former, one is left to reflect upon and question and the latter, they would simply witness a fact in reality; they could verify the foot prints left etc..

[jimwalton]

As far as I know, the different kinds of visions in the Bible are either (1) dreams, or (2) something actually appears to them. In a dream vision, the message is still valid and the revelation real, but the vision didn't have material substance (you couldn't verify the footprints); God (or some spirit messenger) appeared to them in a dream (Genesis 2.21; 15.12-21; 37.5ff., 9; Matthew 1.20-21). In #2, something was actually there, and you could verify the footprints, such as the angels at the resurrection tomb, the warrior Joshua saw (Josh. 5.13), or Gabriel appearing to Mary (Lk. 1.26-38).

[1.62]

I'm wondering if you are aware of a possible alternate underlying meaning to someone having a vision. Could this have added more weight or importance to someone's claim, especially during a time when most people valued beliefs in folk stories, ghosts, demons, sorcerers, fortune telling, prophecy, frequent miracles and the like? Just using the bible as a guide, one can begin to understand how quickly people would believe the most unlikely of things almost spontaneously and without investigation.

[jimwalton]

It's an interesting bias you're showing, since it's very possible that demons, prophecy, and frequent miracles are not only possible, but could be actual. In addition, though a lot of sorcery and fortune telling is hokey, there are at times some genuineness to such things that is scary and not easily relegated to superstition.

Secondly, the era of the first century Greco-Roman culture, including Palestine, is that it was a critical, cynical and skeptical era, not at all gullible to believing silly stories. We read the historians, philosophers, and theologians of the day to come to this conclusion.

You seem to have the impression that the populace were a bunch of superstitious imbeciles ready to attribute anything to the work of the spirits. That's not at all the historical picture of the era or the locale. It sounds like you have some stereotypes and caricatures of your own.

There are ghost stories even today that have credibility to them, and are as of yet scientifically inexplicable. Of course, those who don't believe in ghosts brush them off a priori, which is not a scientific approach to dealing with the unknown. To decide ahead of time, and not even bother to pursue the truth is inimical to the scientific method.

There have been many evidences of demons around the world. Our movie industry uses them to scare us, but there have been many such real occurrences in history and even in our modern era. Again, those who will not allow a metaphysical answer a priori close off honest inquiry.

Sorcerers and fortune-telling I already spoke to. Most of it is entertainment, pretense, and money-making schemes. But some of it makes ya wonder.

Prophecy has a lot to speak in its favor. The prophecies of Scripture are established and need to be examined by open minds, not closed ones.

There is nothing in science that precludes the possibility of frequent miracles. It's just that science has no mechanism to study them or explain them. But to write them off as impossible, again, shuts down honest inquiry on the basis of presuppositional biases.

If all of this is true, it can paint scientific naturalists as rather closed-minded people, not willing to even investigate the philosophical and metaphysical, let alone scientific, possibility of the numinous world. It's interesting and ironic that you accuse the biblical population as coming to conclusions without investigation, and yet it almost seems that your biases lead you in the same direction and to the same fault of which you accuse them. It's just an impression, and I would be glad to talk about it more.

[1.62]

> It's an interesting bias you're showing, since it's very possible that demons, prophecy, and frequent miracles are not only possible, but could be actual. In addition, though a lot of sorcery and fortune telling is hokey, there are at times some genuineness to such things that is scary and not easily relegated to superstition.

Let’s look at what you almost concede; “a lot of sorcery and fortune telling is hokey”. Are you kidding me? All of it is. In order to even have a constructive conversation we must leave anything that is only available personally or anecdotally, off the table. I don’t even need to press you for falsifiable evidence for sorcery or fortune telling because you and I know these things have never been shown to be anything but BS. Next, we need to leave off demons, prophecy and frequent miracles. These are in the same realm. I don’t even care to hear you try to make a case for these things because I already know you need to leave a door of opportunity wide open for these things because your beliefs demand them to be VERY possible. They are only possible in the same way that it is possible that I could appear, in full body, in another galaxy 10 seconds from now. Science does not rule that out but I don’t have to consider that “possibility” when I’m scheduling my work week or making a commitment to take mom to the doctor. It is so unlikely that we ought never to concern ourselves with such a possibility.

> Secondly, the era of the first century Greco-Roman culture, including Palestine, is that it was a critical, cynical and skeptical era, not at all gullible to believing silly stories. We read the historians, philosophers, and theologians of the day to come to this conclusion.

I’ll give you an example and two words that describe it. The people of Nineveh, gullible and credulous. A stranger arrives and tells them to change their ways or God will destroy them. Even God said they were so stupid they couldn’t tell which hand was their right or left. Do you think these people were not portrayed as either superstitious or gullible? How many times does Jesus or a disciple simply speak and some throng of credulity “immediately” believes them?

How about people that were killed for practicing imaginary crafts like speaking to the spirits? We cannot say these things did not happen because we just don’t know, but we cannot entertain them at all as something that really happened because there is and never has been any falsifiable evidence, ever. I would not believe you if you said God told you something. I would believe that you believe that to be the case but I would not think that ever actually happened. Nor should you believe me if I said Jesus cured me of a high IQ. It’s not confirmable, unfalsifiable and ridiculous to accept unsubstantiated claims that add any kind of an extraordinary element.

[jimwalton]

There are some events of sorcery and fortune telling that are no so easily dismissible. Science has a hard time examining them, because they are not able to be studied. For example, a friend of mine who has her Ph.D. in educational psychology, teaches at a university, and doesn't have a gullible bone in her body told me this story of an incident from a few years ago, when she was 35: "I was in a hotel room with others in my family. My mom had one bed, and my sister and I had the other. I woke up one night and saw my mom standing between the beds, facing away from me, kind of holding her stomach and swaying. So I whispered to her, 'What’s going on?' and my mom didn't answer. Then I realized my mom was in bed. So I stared at the figure trying to see if it was the curtains in the dark swaying or something, but I couldn’t make it go away, so I just turned away and tried to close my eyes, and not move, and go back to sleep. The next day I told my sister about it, and we tried to figure out if it could have been the curtains or some other shape that looked like a person when all the lights were turned off. That night, my sister woke up in the middle of the night and heard a lot of noise coming from the bathroom. It sounded like someone was in there moving things around, but she could see that none of us were in there. She thought that was weird, but decided maybe she was hearing noise from the bathroom on the other side of the wall or something, and went back to sleep. The next night I had another experience, and it was so terrifying that I didn't even tell anybody about it for weeks after, because I was afraid that I was actually going crazy or something. I woke up again in the middle of the night, and the same woman figure was there again, but instead of standing as a shadow in between the beds, she was sitting on our bed, right next to my sister (while she was asleep). The woman was facing away again, and kind of looking toward the ground. I looked at my mom and my sister to see if I could wake them up, but was too afraid to move because I didn't want this figure to turn around and notice me. I kept staring at it (her), but it (she) was so clear this time, that there was no mistaking it for shadows or shapes or anything. I was so disturbed by that fact that I basically closed my eyes and cried myself to sleep. I ended up taking sleeping pills every night the rest of the time we were there. Then for weeks after that I was afraid that something was wrong with me and that I would see this woman again somewhere else once we left there, and maybe I was going crazy or something. It's one thing to be creeped out by a noise or to see a shadow, but a completely different thing to see a full apparition of a woman sitting on your bed."

But as far as demons, prophecy, and miracles, they aren't in the same realm at all. Dr. Craig Keener, a well-respect scholar, decided to investigate all the crazy claims of miracles and found them not to be crazy at all. A few years ago he published a two-volume set about what he learned. And I already explained how science cannot prove that miracles are not possible. They most certainly are.

As far a gullible and credulous people, you can find those wherever you go. As P.T. Barnum said, "There's a sucker born every minute." But that's not what's going on the biblical stories. Read them closer and you'll see. Learn more about the culture, and you'll see.

[1.62]

I have a question, why did you say: "The pdf article, on the other hand, is from 1868. Wow. Old information, and so much has been learned from archaeology since then it makes this work quite obsolete. Didn't enjoy chapter 1 at all. Didn't agree with most of it."
Archaeology would have nothing at all to add or clarify to anything in the any of the chapters much less the first one. I present as an example from the first chapter concerning the Field of Blood:

As a decisive testimony, however, that Luke had not the intention to chronicle facts, we only need quote what he puts in the mouth of Peter concerning Judas, the traitor (Acts 1:18,19,20). Luke informs us that Peter "in those days," addressing the disciples on a certain topic said, concerning Judas, "Now this man purchased a field with the reward of iniquity; and falling headlong, he burst asunder in the midst, and all his bowels gushed out. And it was known unto all the dwellers in Jerusalem; inasmuch as that field is called in their proper tongue Aceldama, that is to say, the field of blood. For it is written in the book of Psalms, Let his habitation be desolate, and let no man dwell therein: and his bishopric let another take."

In the first place, Peter here contradicts Matthew, who states expressly that the end of Judas was so: "And he cast down the pieces of silver in the temple and departed, and went and hanged himself." The priests, Matthew continues, bought a field with this money (Matthew 27:5). Had Luke supposed that Matthew, whose statement he must have seen, intended to state a fact, he could not have thus flatly contradicted him. In this, and all similar cases, we are forced to admit either one of the narrators stated a falsehood, or each told the legend as such, in a manner best suiting his purpose. In the second place, Peter could not possibly say to his contemporaries, "And it was known unto all the dwellers at Jerusalem;" nor could he say that the field was called, "In their proper tongue, Aceldama," which he must translate for them "the field of blood," if he addressed the eyewitnesses of that event in the very city of Jerusalem whose language was familiar to them. Therefore, we must suppose, Luke added those two verses (19 and 20) in explanation of the alleged statement of Peter.

But here again he betrays his intention not to write history, for he shows us the original sources from which the story sprung, namely, the name of a place near Jerusalem, where deceased strangers were buried, Aceldama; and the passages from Psalms, which were understood to have been spoken against the enemies of David. Had Luke intended to state a fact, he could not call to his aid two points which render the fact itself suspicious. He narrates a legend as he had heard it, and informs us honestly, on what basis it rests.
Even though this was written in 1868 the conclusions are factual and reasonable. Archaeology would be a useless tool to clarify anything written here or after.

I would have rather you have told me that you simply didn't trust this work since it was written in 1868 and that you immediately felt it challenged your cherished belief(s) than to tell me archeology had looked under this rock and found it flawed.

[jimwalton]

Thanks for good conversation. I was only speaking generally in the sense of "so much has been discovered since 1868 to make such things veritably obsolete." The discoveries of archaeology have revolutionized Bible study and historical study.

As far as the story of Judas's death, glad to talk about it. First we must recognize that no historian (or Gospel writer) tells the whole story. No one but no one tries to (or is able to) tell everything there is to tell. Every such writer has to select what *not* to tell. Something is always, always left out.

Secondly, we have to define "contradiction". I make a distinction between discrepancies and contradictions. Discrepancies are unintentional differences, either copying errors, misspellings or misunderstandings. Contradictions are intentional conflicts of position and information, so much so that if you sat the two authors across from each other at a table, they would have a debate over the matter. For instance, if I see a list on the refrigerator to get 3 dozen donuts for the family tonight, and I make a list for my daughter when she goes out, but I write "30 dozen donuts," is this a contradiction? No, of course not. It's a copy error. But suppose I write "4 dozen donuts" on her list, and she comes home with three dozen. Now we’re going to sit down and have it out. "I need four for the family, and you only bought three!" "But the list on the refrigerator says three," she claims. This is a contradiction. We are moving in different directions, both claiming opposing truths.

There is also a situation of different perspectives. Let's paint this scene: Let's say someone gets hit by a car in front of a bus. That’s what happened. As we interview various eyewitnesses, though, we get different stories. Someone standing on the sidewalk at the back passenger side of the bus only sees the bus stop and two people get on. He knows nothing of an accident. Someone standing on the other sidewalk, opposite the bus, sees a man run across the street, then in front of the bus, change directions, and then a car hits him while crossing back across the street to the left. The driver of the car is impatient waiting behind the stopped bus, lurches out around the bus on the left, and a man suddenly dashes out to the left from in front of the bus right in front of his car, and he hits him! Each one of these eyewitnesses is going to tell a very different story that sounds like they contradict each other, but they’re not a contradiction, just different perspectives. A detective sitting them down will be able to piece the whole scene together and figure out what happened.

Here's another illustration: What was the #1 pop song in America this year? It depends how you figure it. If you mean the highest number of downloads, it's one song. If you mean the highest number of radio plays, it's another song. But if you're counting CD sales, or numbers of requests, it could be a different song. So if I were to say this song was number 1, and you were to say another song was #1, we could both be telling the truth because there are different ways of looking at it. These are not contradictions, but varying perspectives.

The Bible has many discrepancies in it, and a few instances of different perspectives, but these are easily resolved, and they actually account for about 98% of what is labeled "contradiction" in the Bible. They are not contradictions at all, but simple and resolvable discrepancies.

The other 2% of "contradictions" are varying perspectives. We are being told the same story from different viewpoints that sound like they contradict, but a small amount of detective work is able to coalesce the standpoints into a sensible and unified whole.
As such I am claiming that the Bible has no contradictions in it—not a single one. There is not a single occasion where the authors are writing accounts that are at odds with each other, where, given the chance, the authors would argue with each other because they disagree, and both would be convinced of their opinion. This situation does not exist in the Bible. There are no contradictions. If we could sit the authors across from each other and let them talk about what happened, they would be in agreement. They may still choose to tell the story from their side of it, and according to the theme of their writing, but they would agree about what happened.

The accounts of Judas's death in Matthew and Luke are not contradictions, but various in complete perspectives. The two stories could easily fit together. It's very possible that he stood on a tree branch, tied one end to the branch, put the noose around his neck, and jumped (Mt. 27.5). It would kill him quite quickly and easily at that rate. And if the rope or the tree branch broke, he could easily spill to the ground and split open (Acts 1.18). Both stories are true.

It's also possible that he hung himself until he died, and when someone cut him down, his body fell to the ground and split open. Again, both stories could be true. This is no contradiction.

So now let's look at historicity. Acts 1.18 obviously includes some theologizing where Luke writes about this being just desserts for Judas's wickedness. Then some historiography (Judas fell and burst open, ew). In verse 19 (not something Peter said), Luke includes a parenthetic explanation about this suicide being common local knowledge, no doubt also because it was connected with the religious rulers in Jerusalem, so much so everybody knew about it, and the field acquired a new colloquial name. Luke is not averse to explaining Jewish customs and terms to his Gentile audience, as is obvious in Acts 1.12, just a few verses earlier. Then in verse 20 we hear Peter's words—a quotation of the Jewish Scriptures, something we would expect from Peter.

This is no betrayal of intention to write history. On the contrary, he is trying to communicate faithfully from sources he openly acknowledged (Luke 1.1-4). This is no narration of legend, but a trustworthy rendering of a historical event from reliable sources.