A Prayer Of Salvation (4 Viewers)

[dgreen]

I'm not necessarily arguing that Biblical interpretation is always really easy and that we have near 100% confidence about its meaning. I think there are difficulties given the passage of time and differences in culture and language. I just think, whatever the confidence % is for a particular verse, it is higher than our confidence can be about whether or not a particular Biblical character said something or did something. In other words, despite the various interpretations of what Jesus meant by "fulfill the law", I think we are closer to knowing what that meant than we are to knowing whether Jesus actually said those words and in what setting he might have said those words (or whatever other historical questions a historian might ask).

I think we have more evidence that can help with the interpretation questions than we do for the historical questions. Proper interpretation can even be an important piece of evidcence to answering a historical question, so if interpretation is really difficult then that just makes the historical question even harder. Tabor's historical argument that Paul's message diverged from Jesus' message requires a proper interpretation of both Paul and Jesus.

I'm not sure the varied interpretations of Matthew 5:17 means that we can't have confidence in what Jesus meant by "fulfill the law". We don't need to give each opinion equal weight in the discussion. I think we can think of some other topics (the only ones coming to mind right now are political so I won't' mention them) where there are different opinions out there where I assume you'd agree that we can have high confidence what the right answer is.

Admittedly, I say all of this with far more experience in Biblical interpretation than i do in thinking about the historical questions. I could be overestimating how hard it is to make some of these historical claims. So, maybe our disagreement isn't so much on how confident we can be in interpretation, rather in how confident we can be on the historical questions.

That makes sense and I agree that historicity is more difficult than interpretation. I still like the exercise of attempting to simmer things down to what Jesus most likely taught versus what was layered on by scribes, Paul, etc. who had their own agendas. For example, there is nothing is the Gospels that compares to 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 and based on Jesus' treatment of women, it's probably not something he would have taught. Would you agree with that?

Strangely, despite being a member of a congregation that leans pretty conservative on women's roles in the church, I haven't spent time studying that issue. I agree at first glance Paul seems to be out of line with Jesus here. But, since my bias is to assume that Paul's primary mission is to take the Jesus way of life and apply it in new (largely gentile and former pagan) contexts, then I'll tend to look for reasons why Paul is NOT out of line with Jesus,

As I start to look at this, it does appear that there might be some validity to a more skeptical view of these verses. Some scholars have argued that these verses don't belong and weren't original. Others argue they don't belong as verses 34-35, but should come at the end of the chapter. Many obviously argue they are original and belong right where we have them. To me, it sounds like there's enough noise to not make any definitive church congregation decisions without a ton of study, especially if those decisions are going to contradict something clearer from Jesus (and from Paul elsewhere) like, "love you neighbor as yourself". So, I agree this looks, at worst, anti-Jesus and, at best, complex. Having said that, while I'm comfortable with some Biblical "contradictions", I'll do my best to harmonize this with Jesus to fit my bias.

The initial problem is that It sounds anti-woman and Jesus doesn't appear to be anti-woman. However, it's possible it is not anti-woman. Women aren't the only ones being told to be silent. The preceding verses also talk about those speaking in tongues and prophets to be silent in certain situations. The women are being treated the same as whoever is in those groups and I don't think interpreters see Paul's instructions to them as being anti-Jesus. Paul certainly isn't being anti-tongue or anti-prophecy. He spent the bulk of this chapter talking about speaking in tongues and prophesying. Just a few chapters earlier (11:5), Paul talks about women who pray and prophesy, so I think it's clear that this command to be "silent" is a little different than what it might appear.

In verse 26, Paul says "Let all things be done for building up" and then he ends 40 with "But all things should be done decently and in order." That, in the context of "When you come together", seems to be the main point of this section. Those ideas bookend a section that has this in the middle (verse 33a): "For God is not a God of confusion, but of peace." It is then interesting to take a look at different translations and their paragraph breaks. The NASB, ESV, and NET all put 33b as the start of a paragraph with 34-35. However, the NIV puts 33b as the end of the previous paragraph. That reads very differently to me because 33b sounds like a universal statement, while the commands about tongues, prophecy, and women come off as more specific insider talk between Paul and Corinth.

So, I think Paul uses the three examples of tongues, prophecy, and women in church gatherings in order to make a point about God desiring order and peace and building up the body. The women is one application of that larger principle. When you ask, "it's probably not something he [Jesus] would have taught," I guess that depends on what you think Paul is teaching. I think the principle that God desires order, peace, and building up when his people gather is something Jesus would support. I suppose it's possible that Paul then misapplies the principle to his new gentile/recently-pagan audience and could then become something Jesus wouldn't teach. And I definitely think modern interpreters should be very careful what lesson they get from this and try to apply to their own context. If they can see the principle about order, peace, and building, then that's what a modern church should apply to their meetings rather than a straight-forward "all women should be silent in church."

I think Jesus challenges some cultural norms, but he also doesn't completely overturn everything. He cared a lot about how people were treated. He especially spent time addressing how insiders/leaders were treating outsiders and those who they were supposed to be leading. I think it's possible that's what Paul is doing here. He's not admonishing the single group of "women", but has instructions for particular people who are acting a particular way that must have been hurting other people's opportunity to be built up and to experience order and peace in their gatherings.

So that's my biased interpretation for now. Like I said, it does seem like there could be good arguments that this doesn't even belong as being originally from Paul. I mean, it's pretty weird to have a whole chapter that repeatedly talks about tongues and prophecy and then throws in one comment at the end about women disrupting things. It seems out of place. If it doesn't belong, then that gets at the questions you're asking about simmering things down to what Jesus would have supported. It's an interesting exercise.

Thanks for presenting your thought process. Paul does seem to be crafting things in the context of cultural norms of his time. Perhaps Jesus did the same, but I don't think we see evidence of that in the Gospels here. ChatGPT summarizes the key difference as:

"Jesus and Paul share the principle that women are spiritually equal and fully capable of discipleship and ministry, but Jesus emphasizes ethical inclusion and relational modeling, while Paul emphasizes practical order and cultural symbols in worship. In other words, Jesus acts radically within social norms, whereas Paul adapts women’s participation to maintain decorum in the early church."

That distinction makes sense to me, but speaks more to Paul's agenda (not meant as a pejorative) rather than what Jesus actually taught.

I think the "different agendas" idea makes sense. Do you see this distinction as Paul being in conflict with what Jesus taught or just focusing on areas that Jesus didn't necessarily cover?

I wonder if Paul "maintains decorum" for decorum's-sake or for a better reason. The direction my mind was headed earlier was that Paul could have been commanding orderly worship because some level of decorum/order is what's needed to benefit others ("Let all things be done for building up"). Paul says in Philippians, "Do nothing from selfishness or empty conceit, but with humility consider one another more important than yourselves." In my church, we have what's called a praise team. It's a small number of people with microphones so you can hear the different parts of the songs as you sing along. One of people who occasionally leads singing and participates on the praise team will sometimes beatbox. This really bothers some people's personal preferences of how worship should be. Now, I think a mature Christian should be able to deal with it without complaining (sometimes angrily) to church leadership. But, on the flip side, I also wonder if someone should tell this guy to stop beatboxing since he knows it bothers some people. To me, that would seem analogous to Paul telling women (and prophets and tongues) to remain silent for the benefit of decorum.

 

[Captain Cranks]

I think the "different agendas" idea makes sense. Do you see this distinction as Paul being in conflict with what Jesus taught or just focusing on areas that Jesus didn't necessarily cover?

I wonder if Paul "maintains decorum" for decorum's-sake or for a better reason. The direction my mind was headed earlier was that Paul could have been commanding orderly worship because some level of decorum/order is what's needed to benefit others ("Let all things be done for building up"). Paul says in Philippians, "Do nothing from selfishness or empty conceit, but with humility consider one another more important than yourselves." In my church, we have what's called a praise team. It's a small number of people with microphones so you can hear the different parts of the songs as you sing along. One of people who occasionally leads singing and participates on the praise team will sometimes beatbox. This really bothers some people's personal preferences of how worship should be. Now, I think a mature Christian should be able to deal with it without complaining (sometimes angrily) to church leadership. But, on the flip side, I also wonder if someone should tell this guy to stop beatboxing since he knows it bothers some people. To me, that would seem analogous to Paul telling women (and prophets and tongues) to remain silent for the benefit of decorum.

Hmm. Good question. To answer that I'm trying to put Jesus in Paul's position and asking whether he would direct the Corinthians in the same way. On one hand you have the cultural norms and the need for order; on the other you have the Gospel depicting someone who treated women as equals and acted somewhat outside of cultural norms. I guess I'd say, while perhaps not in conflict, I think Jesus would have handled it differently. Jesus tended to challenge restrictive norms rather than reinforce them, so the culturally specific instructions Paul gives don’t reflect the way Jesus typically addressed issues of gender.

ETA - Fun little thought exercise.

 

[dgreen]

I think the "different agendas" idea makes sense. Do you see this distinction as Paul being in conflict with what Jesus taught or just focusing on areas that Jesus didn't necessarily cover?

I wonder if Paul "maintains decorum" for decorum's-sake or for a better reason. The direction my mind was headed earlier was that Paul could have been commanding orderly worship because some level of decorum/order is what's needed to benefit others ("Let all things be done for building up"). Paul says in Philippians, "Do nothing from selfishness or empty conceit, but with humility consider one another more important than yourselves." In my church, we have what's called a praise team. It's a small number of people with microphones so you can hear the different parts of the songs as you sing along. One of people who occasionally leads singing and participates on the praise team will sometimes beatbox. This really bothers some people's personal preferences of how worship should be. Now, I think a mature Christian should be able to deal with it without complaining (sometimes angrily) to church leadership. But, on the flip side, I also wonder if someone should tell this guy to stop beatboxing since he knows it bothers some people. To me, that would seem analogous to Paul telling women (and prophets and tongues) to remain silent for the benefit of decorum.

Hmm. Good question. To answer that I'm trying to put Jesus in Paul's position and asking whether he would direct the Corinthians in the same way. On one hand you have the cultural norms and the need for order; on the other you have the Gospel depicting someone who treated women as equals and acted somewhat outside of cultural norms. I guess I'd say, while perhaps not in conflict, I think Jesus would have handled it differently. Jesus tended to challenge restrictive norms rather than reinforce them, so the culturally specific instructions Paul gives don’t reflect the way Jesus typically addressed issues of gender.

ETA - Fun little thought exercise.

Yep, I think it's interesting to ask whether Jesus would have said the same thing Paul said. I guess I'm not really convinced that 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 is treating women as unequals nor necessarily is it a gender issue. That doesn't necessarily mean Jesus would have handled it the same way, though.

Jesus left; ascended into heaven. He left the Spirit for guidance, but that seems different than having the actual human Jesus with you. The plan appears to be that its up to Jesus' followers to do their best to implement his plan. Without a doubt, they got it wrong at times. But, interesting thought to consider that maybe some scripture itself gets that wrong.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

For example, there is nothing is the Gospels that compares to 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 and based on Jesus' treatment of women, it's probably not something he would have taught. Would you agree with that?

In context with Jesus vs Paul, original vs "what was layered on by scribes, ..., etc. who had their own agendas", Paul most likely didn't write 1 Corinthians 14:34-35. A blog freebee. Christianity in the early days was very much spread via women. Then it grew to the point where culture took over.

 

[Paddington]

Good conversation about the difference between Paul and Jesus' messages.

TL;DW - Jesus taught others to follow his path (be loving, humble, etc) to be with God; not that he was a sacrifice you had to buy into to be with God. Paul changed this message so that you had to accept Jesus' sacrifice to be with God.

Thanks. I listened this morning. He's doing history, but the history he's trying to do requires properly interpreting the meaning of the texts. And I think he gets Paul wrong.

I've been influenced by scholars in the New Perspective on Paul (NPP) school of thought (also called Paul within Judaism). For a long time, Jesus had his Jewishness stripped from him and he was gentilized. Over the last 100ish years, that picture of Jesus has moved in favor of a Jewish Jesus. There was a movement from seeing Jesus as only ethnically Jewish to Jesus being fully Jewish in his teachings, actions, and rituals. So, as Jesus becomes more Jewish in our modern eyes, that causes some tension between Jesus and Paul. But, that's because we kept Paul as being anti-Jewish. This is where all the NPP scholarship comes in as they also depict Paul as being fully Jewish. My understanding is that this is the direction most of scholarship is going regarding Paul. It's still contested to what extent Paul remained Jewish, but Paul is seen as more and more Jewish over the years.

I think that matters here because it seems like Tabor is reading Paul through a presupposition that diminishes Paul's Jewishness. I'm certain Tabor is familiar with NPP and has his own good reasons for disagreeing with that approach.

What are your thoughts on the methodology he (and other scholars) uses to get at "the historical Jesus before it's been overlayed by theology"?

Not sure. I'll admit that I'm not super familiar with the methodology. It seems like it is chasing after something that is unknowable, though. Nobody cared to document things in a way to answer that question so we are trying to use texts against their intended purpose.

One analogy I use for this is studies about charitable contributions. People have looked at tax returns and made claims about the charitable contributions of Americans. But, tax returns aren't trying to collect those data to answer that question. An obvious problem is that tax returns don't show charitable contributions for people who don't itemize.

Of course, if all you have is something that wasn't designed to answer your questions, then you make the best with what you have.

I'd say the "chasing after something unknowable" would apply to correctly interpreting the Bible, though. Especially when we consider it's not just the original author's purpose, but the layers of scribes and other authors that have made changes along the way.

Tabor's intent is to isolate what is most likely the accurate depiction of Jesus and his teachings before the theological and embellishment layers were added on. It's obviously not going to be perfect and some errors will be made along the way, but that's always going to be the case with this stuff.

I guess I'll have to read his book to know "what falls out" once all the theoretical add-ons are stripped away.

Yeah, I can see some parallels between a difficulty to interpret and a difficulty to uncover the historical Jesus. But, I think we have far more pieces of relevant evidence to answer a question like, "What does Matthew 5:17 mean?" than we do, "Is Matthew 5:17 an accurate quote of Jesus?" (Then again, I guess I'm not too familiar with what types of questions historical Jesus historians are trying to answer. I remember the Jesus Seminar came up with a % of the number of Jesus quotes that we can confidently say were actually his, so that's why I used "accurate quote" as an example.) So, even if the first question can't be answered with 100% knowledge, and in that sense is "unknowable", I think our chances of answering it are way higher than the second question. And different passages will vary in our confidence to interpret them correctly. My understanding is that, despite any changes to the texts along the way, textual critics are pretty confident in saying that we are probably really close to whatever the originals said. That's a big part of the battle of answering the interpretation/meaning question, but does far less, in my mind at least, of answering the historic question.


I'm definitely not saying that I find this type of research useless. If people are interested in such questions then they should use whatever they think gives them the best answer right now and future research can continue as new discoveries are made. I think that's how it works. I think the historic Jesus research is fairly young, so I'm sure it will get better as we go. I just currently question how well we're doing answering these questions.

I think we have disagreement on how confident we can be when determining the meaning and intent of Biblical passages. Take Matthew 5:17 for example. Each of the Christian and Jewish traditions have a different opinion on it. Here's a summary from Chatgpt. There is definitely disagreement on what is meant by fulfill the Law, each pointing to different sources for corroboration but no real way of knowing which is most valid.

Tradition	What “Fulfill” Means	Primary Basis for Interpretation
Evangelical / Reformed Protestant	Jesus completes the purpose of the Law; ceremonial & civil laws end; moral law continues under Christ.	Paul’s letters (Romans 10:4; Gal. 3:24–25), Covenant Theology, Greek meaning of plērōsai.
Catholic	Jesus perfects, deepens, and completes the Law; moral law endures, interpreted through the Church; ritual law fulfilled.	Scripture + Sacred Tradition, Aquinas (Summa), Catechism, Natural Law theory.
Eastern Orthodox	Jesus brings the Law to its spiritual goal: restoring humanity to God (theosis). The Law’s deeper moral intent continues.	Church Fathers (Chrysostom, Athanasius), theosis theology, liturgical continuity.
Lutheran	Jesus satisfies the Law’s demands for us (active obedience). The Law no longer condemns believers but guides them.	Law–Gospel distinction, Luther’s writings, Book of Concord, emphasis on Galatians & Romans.
Messianic Jewish	Jesus correctly interprets and upholds Torah. Torah remains valid for Jewish believers; not abolished.	Rabbinic meaning of “fulfill the Torah,” Matthew’s Jewish context, Acts 15.
Seventh-day Adventist	Jesus confirms the continued validity of the Ten Commandments—especially the Sabbath. Ceremonial laws end.	Literal reading of Matt 5:18, Exodus 20, Revelation 14:12, SDA 28 Fundamental Beliefs.
Judaism (non-Christian)	“Fulfill the Law” = correctly interpret and fully obey it; Torah is eternal and cannot be abolished.	Talmudic/rabbinic definitions, Deut. 7:9; Psalm 119; doctrine of Torah’s eternality.

You left off Dispensationalist and Mid Acts Dispensationalist views.

 

[dgreen]

For example, there is nothing is the Gospels that compares to 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 and based on Jesus' treatment of women, it's probably not something he would have taught. Would you agree with that?

In context with Jesus vs Paul, original vs "what was layered on by scribes, ..., etc. who had their own agendas", Paul most likely didn't write 1 Corinthians 14:34-35. A blog freebee. Christianity in the early days was very much spread via women. Then it grew to the point where culture took over.

Here's the NET footnote:

Spoiler

Some scholars have argued that vv. 34-35 should be excised from the text (principally G. D. Fee, First Corinthians [NICNT], 697-710; P. B. Payne, “Fuldensis, Sigla for Variants in Vaticanus, and 1 Cor 14.34-5,” NTS 41 [1995]: 240-262). This is because the Western witnesses (D F G ar b vgms Ambst) have these verses after v. 40, while the rest of the tradition retains them here. There are no mss that omit the verses. Why, then, would some scholars wish to excise the verses? Because they believe that this best explains how they could end up in two different locations, that is to say, that the verses got into the text by way of a very early gloss added in the margin. Most scribes put the gloss after v. 33; others, not knowing where they should go, put them at the end of the chapter. Fee points out that “Those who wish to maintain the authenticity of these verses must at least offer an adequate answer as to how this arrangement came into existence if Paul wrote them originally as our vv. 34-35” (First Corinthians [NICNT], 700). In a footnote he adds, “The point is that if it were already in the text after v. 33, there is no reason for a copyist to make such a radical transposition.” Although it is not our intention to interact with proponents of the shorter text in any detail here, a couple of points ought to be made. (1) Since these verses occur in all witnesses to 1 Corinthians, to argue that they are not original means that they must have crept into the text at the earliest stage of transmission. How early? Earlier than when the pericope adulterae (John 7:53-8:11) made its way into the text (late 2nd, early 3rd century?), earlier than the longer ending of Mark (16:9-20) was produced (early 2nd century?), and earlier than even “in Ephesus” was added to Eph 1:1 (upon reception of the letter by the first church to which it came, the church at Ephesus)—because in these other, similar places, the earliest witnesses do not add the words. This text thus stands as remarkable, unique. Indeed, since all the witnesses have the words, the evidence points to them as having been inserted into the original document. Who would have done such a thing? And, further, why would scribes have regarded it as original since it was obviously added in the margin? This leads to our second point. (2) Following a suggestion made by E. E. Ellis (“The Silenced Wives of Corinth (I Cor. 14:34-5),” New Testament Textual Criticism: Its Significance for Exegesis, 213-20 [the suggestion comes at the end of the article, almost as an afterthought]), it is likely that Paul himself added the words in the margin. Since it was so much material to add, Paul could have squelched any suspicions by indicating that the words were his (e.g., by adding his name or some other means [cf. 2 Thess 3:17]). This way no scribe would think that the material was inauthentic. (Incidentally, this is unlike the textual problem at Rom 5:1, for there only one letter was at stake; hence, scribes would easily have thought that the “text” reading was original. And Paul would hardly be expected to add his signature for one letter.) (3) What then is to account for the uniform Western tradition of having the verses at the end of the chapter? Our conjecture (and that is all it is) is that the scribe of the Western Vorlage could no longer read where the verses were to be added (any marginal arrows or other directional device could have been smudged), but, recognizing that this was part of the autographic text, felt compelled to put it somewhere. The least offensive place would have been at the end of the material on church conduct (end of chapter 14), before the instructions about the resurrection began. Although there were no chapter divisions in the earliest period of copying, scribes could still detect thought breaks (note the usage in the earliest papyri). (4) The very location of the verses in the Western tradition argues strongly that Paul both authored vv. 34-35 and that they were originally part of the margin of the text. Otherwise, one has a difficulty explaining why no scribe seemed to have hinted that these verses might be inauthentic (the scribal sigla of codex B, as noticed by Payne, can be interpreted otherwise than as an indication of inauthenticity [cf. J. E. Miller, “Some Observations on the Text-Critical Function of the Umlauts in Vaticanus, with Special Attention to 1 Corinthians 14.34-35,” JSNT 26 [2003]: 217-36.). There are apparently no mss that have an asterisk or obelisk in the margin. Yet in other places in the NT where scribes doubted the authenticity of the clauses before them, they often noted their protest with an asterisk or obelisk. We are thus compelled to regard the words as original, and as belonging where they are in the text above.