A Prayer Of Salvation (3 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.

 

[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.

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.

Interesting. In browsing some of the footnotes it seems they get Mark's ending correct (as noted in the spoiler). Seems to whiff on Luke 22's two additions. Above suggest Paul wrote 2 Thess, something that is very much in doubt assuming he wrote 1 Thess.

I guess they get around the break in the flow with the scribes lost the information on where it went and took guesses. But my problem with the verses is that Paul's mission of spreading his gospel would be thwarted if the lady folk stayed quiet. While maybe not the driving force behind the early spread, women were certainly a force in Paul's success. So, unless Paul is sucking up to that community (maybe similar to his "I behave as a Jew among Jews, and I don't always among Gentiles ") then it doesn't make logical sense. Christianity early on was spread domestically, as in around dinner tables. It was spread by those without much of a voice otherwise. At least until the educated city folk in places like Alexandria and Rome took over.

But I can maybe buy into an "ends justifies the means" approach by Paul, but once I do that, it makes everything he wrote useful only to the time and place and circumstances of his audience. I kind of think that Paul himself probably thought. That he was writing to specific people about specific problems within their community (or with Romans his specific hopes). Not something to be used in the generic sense. But obviously 1960+ years of Christians have held a different view since his death.

And circling back to the context of this discussion, that would mean Paul could very well contradict Jesus if it served his greater purpose. And then agree in a different time, place, circumstance. That seems problematic. Scribal interpolation is a more comforting explanation. Am I "wish casting" as a believer wanting Paul to be better? Wanting the Holy Spirit to have inspired better?

Maybe!

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

However, Aristotelean/ Scholastic philosophers like Thomas Aquinas would reject this paradigm. They see God as more like a musical composer, who is writing or playing music in a single instant or divine thought. So, the idea is that God is conserving everything in existence at every single moment that things exist. From this lens, divine intentionality is everywhere and there is no mistake that needs to be remedied. It’s all a beautiful symphony of his making, and once the music stops everything ceases to exist.

I have given this quite a bit of thought and while "we are constrained to move through time, but for God it is all the same instance" certainly has some appeal, I think this explanation suffers in that it creates an even greater "blaming the victim" situation. By "blaming the victim" I mean the idea of original sin. It is bad enough already to blame you and me, blame Adam for either what God always intended or what God screwed up. Then you layer in that Adam, like us is operating in a universe still being constructed, still being defined, designed, whatever. That idea is contrary to my faith rather than one that reinforces it.

 

[Captain Cranks]

That seems problematic. Scribal interpolation is a more comforting explanation

If we agree that 34-35 is a striking departure in tone from the rest of the chapter, then I'd say it's also the most likely explanation.

Are there any more examples where Paul is theorized to have written in the margins?

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

That seems problematic. Scribal interpolation is a more comforting explanation

If we agree that 34-35 is a striking departure in tone from the rest of the chapter, then I'd say it's also the most likely explanation.

Are there any more examples where Paul is theorized to have written in the margins?

This would be beyond my level. However, I would think that if I was a more inerrant, literal Christian kind of guy I might argue that Paul usually dictated his letters to scribes and only hand wrote the greeting and closings himself. In this kind of scenario, I could then argue that maybe Paul added the note in the margin when he proofed what the scribe written intending for a rewrite to include it in the correct place.

But I'm not that kind of Christian and I could see all kinds of problems with this even as I typed it out. But the idea that Paul dictated at least some of his letters is an actual "thing".

 

[dgreen]

But I can maybe buy into an "ends justifies the means" approach by Paul, but once I do that, it makes everything he wrote useful only to the time and place and circumstances of his audience. I kind of think that Paul himself probably thought. That he was writing to specific people about specific problems within their community (or with Romans his specific hopes). Not something to be used in the generic sense. But obviously 1960+ years of Christians have held a different view since his death.

Do you not think Paul could be writing to a specific people about specific problems AND it be useful to people outside of that specific audience? That's kind of the way I see the whole Bible, so I'm not sure why we can't do the same with Paul's letters.

 

[Captain Cranks]

I mentioned before that I listen to The Story of Civilization when I go to sleep. Last night's reading covered Judea and the culmination of the Jews worship of Yahweh. It's interesting to hear this covered in a historical context rather than in isolation.

Spoiler: The Story of Civilization

Slowly the conception of Yahweh as the one national god took form, and gave to Jewish faith a unity and simplicity lifted up above the chaos and multiplicity of the Mesopotamian pantheons. Apparently the conquering Jews took one of the gods of Canaan, Yahu,* and re-created him in their own image as a stern, warlike, "stiff-necked" deity, with almost lovable limitations. For this god makes no claim to omniscience: he asks the Jews to identify their homes by sprinkling them with the blood of the sacrificial lamb, lest he should destroy their children inadvertently along with the first-born of the Egyptians; he is not above making mistakes, of which man is his worst; he regrets, too late, that he created Adam, or allowed Saul to become king. He is, now and then, greedy, irascible, bloodthirsty, capricious, petulant: "I will be gracious to whom I will be gracious, and will show mercy to whom I will show mercy."" He approves Jacob's use of deceit in revenging himself upon Laban; his conscience is as flexible as that of a bishop in politics. He is talkative, and likes to make long speeches; but he is shy, and will not allow men to see anything of him but his hind parts."

Never was there so thoroughly human a god. Originally he seems to have been a god of thunder, dwelling in the hills," and worshiped for the same reason that the youthful Gorki was a believer when it thundered. The authors of the Pentateuch, to whom religion was an instrument of statesmanship, formed this Vulcan into Mars, so that in their energetic hands Yahweh became predominantly an imperialistic, expansionist God of Hosts, who fights for his people as fiercely as the gods of the Iliad. "The Lord is a man of war," says "Moses";" and David echoes him: "He teacheth my hands to war."" Yahweh promises to "destroy all the people to whom" the Jews "shall come," and to drive out the Hivite, the Canaanite and the Hittite "by little and little"; and he claims as his own all the territory conquered by the Jews. He will have no pacifist nonsense; he knows that even a Promised Land can be won, and held, only by the sword; he is a god of war because he has to be; it will take centuries of military defeat, political subjugation, and moral development, to transform him into the gentle and loving Father of Hillel and Christ. He is as vain as a soldier; he drinks up praise with a bottomless appetite, and he is anxious to display his prowess by drowning the Egyptians: "They shall know that I am the Lord when I have gotten me honor upon Pharaoh."

To gain successes for his people he commits or commands brutalities as repugnant to our taste as they were acceptable to the morals of the age; he slaughters whole nations with the naive pleasure of a Gulliver fighting for Lilliput. Because the Jews "commit whoredom" with the daughters of Moab he bids Moses: "Take all the heads of the people, and hang them up before the Lord against the sun"; it is the morality of Ashurbanipal and Ashur. He offers to show mercy to those who love him and keep his commandments, but, like some resolute germ, he will punish children for the sins of their fathers, their grandfathers, even their great-great-grandfathers." He is so ferocious that he thinks of destroying all the Jews for worshiping the Golden Calf; and Moses has to argue with him that he should control himself. "Turn from thy fierce wrath," the man tells his god, "and repent of this evil against thy people"; and "the Lord repented of the evil which he thought to do unto his people." Again Yahweh proposes to exterminate the Jews root and branch for rebelling against Moses, but Moses appeals to his better nature, and bids him think what people will say when they hear of such a thing. He asks a cruel test human sacrifice of the bitterest sort from Abraham. Like Moses, Abraham teaches Yahweh the principles of morals, and persuades him not to destroy Sodom and Gomorrah if there shall be found fifty forty thirty twenty ten goodmen in those cities; bit by bit he lures his god towards decency, and illustrates the manner in which the moral development of man compels the periodical re-creation of his deities.

The curses with which Yahweh threatens his chosen people if they disobey him are models of vituperation, and inspired those who burned heretics in the Inquisition, or excommunicated Spinoza: Cursed shalt thou be in the city, and cursed shalt thou be in the field. . . . Cursed shall be the fruit of thy body, and the fruit of thy land. . . . Cursed shalt thou be when thou comest in, and cursed shalt thou be when thou goest out. . . . The Lord shall smite thee with a consumption, and with a fever, and with an inflammation. . . . The Lord will smite thee with the botch of Egypt, and with the emerods (tumors), and with the scab, and with the itch, whereof thou canst not be healed. The Lord shall smite thee with madness, and blindness, and astonishment of heart. . . . Also every sickness, and every plague, which is not written in the Book of this Law, them will the Lord bring upon thee, until thou be destroyed.

Yahweh was not the only god whose existence was recognized by the Jews, or by himself; all that he asked, in the First Commandment, was that he should be placed above the rest. "I am a jealous god," he confesses, and he bids his followers "utterly overthrow" his rivals, and "quite break down their images." The Jews, before Isaiah, seldom thought of Yahweh as the god of all tribes, even of all Hebrews. The Moabites had their god Chemosh, to whom Naomi thought it right that Ruth should remain loyal; Baalzebub was the god of Ekron, Milcom was the god of Ammon: the economic and political separatism of these peoples naturally resulted in what we might call their theological independence. Moses sings, in his famous song, "Who is like unto thee, O Lord, among the gods?" and Solomon says, "Great is our god above all gods." Not only was Tammuz accepted as a real god by all but the most educated Jews, but his cult was at one time so popular in Judea that Ezekiel complained that the ritual wailing for Tammuz' death could be heard in the Temple. So distinct and autonomous were the Jewish tribes that even in the time of Jeremiah many of them had their own deities: "according to the number of thy cities arc thy gods, O Judah"; and the gloomy prophet goes on to protest against the worship of Baal and Moloch by his people. With the growth of political unity under David and Solomon, and the centering of worship in the Temple at Jerusalem, theology reflected history and politics, and YahWeh became the sole god of the Jews. Beyond this "henotheism"* they made no further progress towards monotheism until the Prophets.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

But I can maybe buy into an "ends justifies the means" approach by Paul, but once I do that, it makes everything he wrote useful only to the time and place and circumstances of his audience. I kind of think that Paul himself probably thought. That he was writing to specific people about specific problems within their community (or with Romans his specific hopes). Not something to be used in the generic sense. But obviously 1960+ years of Christians have held a different view since his death.

Do you not think Paul could be writing to a specific people about specific problems AND it be useful to people outside of that specific audience? That's kind of the way I see the whole Bible, so I'm not sure why we can't do the same with Paul's letters.

That is what Paul's letters are and have been since they have been gathered and spread and canonized and etc. Accepting an "'ends justifies the means' approach by Paul" is what would be problematic for Paul's letters, and how they are then used. If Paul is changing the message in his letters from audience to audience rather than being consistent then the usefulness is greatly diminished or even worse. Especially for these points that are tangible to his main message and, thus unimportant (or at least less important) to Paul.

If Paul needs women to be the leaders in one community and for them to shut up in another in order to ultimately spread his gospel message, then this passage and how it has been used for almost 2000 years certainly seems by any reasonable definition as problematic. I don't believe this is what happened, but I think an argument could be made that this is what had to happen if you attribute those words to Paul based on the fact that women were, per Paul leaders in various places where he set up his communities. Again, it makes more sense that those are not his words. But if they are, they make everything else Paul wrote less useful to anyone with my thought process.

Consistent message in all circumstances being useful. A message that can change 180 degrees based on situation being problematic.

 

[dgreen]

But I can maybe buy into an "ends justifies the means" approach by Paul, but once I do that, it makes everything he wrote useful only to the time and place and circumstances of his audience. I kind of think that Paul himself probably thought. That he was writing to specific people about specific problems within their community (or with Romans his specific hopes). Not something to be used in the generic sense. But obviously 1960+ years of Christians have held a different view since his death.

Do you not think Paul could be writing to a specific people about specific problems AND it be useful to people outside of that specific audience? That's kind of the way I see the whole Bible, so I'm not sure why we can't do the same with Paul's letters.

That is what Paul's letters are and have been since they have been gathered and spread and canonized and etc. Accepting an "'ends justifies the means' approach by Paul" is what would be problematic for Paul's letters, and how they are then used. If Paul is changing the message in his letters from audience to audience rather than being consistent then the usefulness is greatly diminished or even worse. Especially for these points that are tangible to his main message and, thus unimportant (or at least less important) to Paul.

If Paul needs women to be the leaders in one community and for them to shut up in another in order to ultimately spread his gospel message, then this passage and how it has been used for almost 2000 years certainly seems by any reasonable definition as problematic. I don't believe this is what happened, but I think an argument could be made that this is what had to happen if you attribute those words to Paul based on the fact that women were, per Paul leaders in various places where he set up his communities. Again, it makes more sense that those are not his words. But if they are, they make everything else Paul wrote less useful to anyone with my thought process.

Consistent message in all circumstances being useful. A message that can change 180 degrees based on situation being problematic.

What is the message? I don't think "women should be silent" is the message. I think "women should be silent" is a contextual application of a message.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

Here's the NET footnote:

Spoiler

The post is too long with this included. Sorry.

Interesting. In browsing some of the footnotes ... Seems to whiff on Luke 22's two addition...

Going back to this for a second, after a day of letting it sink in, I think this very telling of the decision being made in translating this edition. Not arguing good or bad, but informative. https://netbible.org/bible/Luke+22

sn Angelic aid is noted elsewhere in the gospels: Matt 4:11 = Mark 1:13.
tc Several significant Greek mss (P א A B N T W 579 1071*) along with diverse and widespread versional witnesses lack 22:43-44. In addition, the verses are placed after Matt 26:39 by ƒ. Floating texts typically suggest both spuriousness and early scribal impulses to regard the verses as historically authentic. These verses are included in א* D L Θ Ψ 0171 ƒ M lat Ju Ir Hipp Eus. However, a number of mss mark the text with an asterisk or obelisk, indicating the scribe’s assessment of the verses as inauthentic. At the same time, these verses generally fit Luke’s style. Arguments can be given on both sides about whether scribes would tend to include or omit such comments about Jesus’ humanity and an angel’s help. But even if the verses are not literarily authentic, they are probably historically authentic. This is due to the fact that this text was well known in several different locales from a very early period. Since there are no synoptic parallels to this account and since there is no obvious reason for adding these words here, it is very likely that such verses recount a part of the actual suffering of our Lord. Nevertheless, because of the serious doubts as to these verses’ authenticity, they have been put in brackets. For an important discussion of this problem, see B. D. Ehrman and M. A. Plunkett, “The Angel and the Agony: The Textual Problem of Luke 22:43-44, ” CBQ 45 (1983): 401-16.

The underlined part tells me that they want to acknowledge such controversies, but at the end of the day it is about "our lord". Nothing wrong with that, but not necessarily the same choices that a historian prioritizing historical methods or a textual critic prioritizing their trade would make.

As a six month reader of Ehrman's blog, the argument that M. A. Plunkett came up with against this being part of the original is pretty simple-

My colleague, Mark Plunkett, pointed all this out. And he argued one other thing: when Luke reworked the story from Mark, he did so by creating a literary structure for the passage that is both absent from Mark and central to understanding Luke’s own emphasis. The structure is called by the technical term, a “chiasmus.” A chiasmus (named after the Greek letter of the alphabet, “chi,” which looks like an English X) is a structure in which a passage has a number of statements in two parts, with the statement in the first part being mirrored by a statement in the second part, as follows: the first statement of the first part is similar in substance to the last statement of the second part; the second statement of the first part is similar in substance to the second to last of the second part, and so on. Usually it is diagrammed like this (if the passage has seven statements):

A

B​

C​

D​

C’​

B’​

A’

The point of the structure is that the focus of the readers attention naturally falls on the middle element (in this case, with 7 statements, the statement that is found in D). In the case of this passage in Luke, it works like this

A Jesus tells the disciples to pray so they not fall into temptation

B He leaves the disciples​

C He takes his knees​

D He prays: Father, if it be your will….​

C’ He arises from his knees​

B’ He returns to the disciples​

A’ And again he tells them to pray so they not fall into temptation

Or would have worked like that if the scribe didn't feel the need to add some suffering to Luke's passionless passion account. Maybe "such verses recount a part of the actual suffering of our Lord", but they just don't fit with Luke's narrative. Like how a bit earlier some doctrine of atonement was clumsily added breaking the narrative flow where it exists nowhere else in Luke or Acts.

Again, I have no problem with their choices, or how they made them. It looks like they want to provide as much information on the controversies as they can. And the footnotes for the end of Mark were a pleasant surprise. But ultimately, I think they just lean in a different way.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

But I can maybe buy into an "ends justifies the means" approach by Paul, but once I do that, it makes everything he wrote useful only to the time and place and circumstances of his audience. I kind of think that Paul himself probably thought. That he was writing to specific people about specific problems within their community (or with Romans his specific hopes). Not something to be used in the generic sense. But obviously 1960+ years of Christians have held a different view since his death.

Do you not think Paul could be writing to a specific people about specific problems AND it be useful to people outside of that specific audience? That's kind of the way I see the whole Bible, so I'm not sure why we can't do the same with Paul's letters.

That is what Paul's letters are and have been since they have been gathered and spread and canonized and etc. Accepting an "'ends justifies the means' approach by Paul" is what would be problematic for Paul's letters, and how they are then used. If Paul is changing the message in his letters from audience to audience rather than being consistent then the usefulness is greatly diminished or even worse. Especially for these points that are tangible to his main message and, thus unimportant (or at least less important) to Paul.

If Paul needs women to be the leaders in one community and for them to shut up in another in order to ultimately spread his gospel message, then this passage and how it has been used for almost 2000 years certainly seems by any reasonable definition as problematic. I don't believe this is what happened, but I think an argument could be made that this is what had to happen if you attribute those words to Paul based on the fact that women were, per Paul leaders in various places where he set up his communities. Again, it makes more sense that those are not his words. But if they are, they make everything else Paul wrote less useful to anyone with my thought process.

Consistent message in all circumstances being useful. A message that can change 180 degrees based on situation being problematic.

What is the message? I don't think "women should be silent" is the message. I think "women should be silent" is a contextual application of a message.

I think this is for you to explain that other message providing overlooked context beyond all women in all churches for all time for this passage to be "useful to people outside of that specific audience".

As in all the churches of the saints, 34 the women should be silent in the churches, for they are not permitted to speak. Rather, let them be in submission, as in fact the law says. 35 If they want to find out about something, they should ask their husbands at home, because it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in church. 36 Did the word of God begin with you, or did it come to you alone?

 

[Paddington]

I mentioned before that I listen to The Story of Civilization when I go to sleep. Last night's reading covered Judea and the culmination of the Jews worship of Yahweh. It's interesting to hear this covered in a historical context rather than in isolation.

Spoiler: The Story of Civilization

Slowly the conception of Yahweh as the one national god took form, and gave to Jewish faith a unity and simplicity lifted up above the chaos and multiplicity of the Mesopotamian pantheons. Apparently the conquering Jews took one of the gods of Canaan, Yahu,* and re-created him in their own image as a stern, warlike, "stiff-necked" deity, with almost lovable limitations. For this god makes no claim to omniscience: he asks the Jews to identify their homes by sprinkling them with the blood of the sacrificial lamb, lest he should destroy their children inadvertently along with the first-born of the Egyptians; he is not above making mistakes, of which man is his worst; he regrets, too late, that he created Adam, or allowed Saul to become king. He is, now and then, greedy, irascible, bloodthirsty, capricious, petulant: "I will be gracious to whom I will be gracious, and will show mercy to whom I will show mercy."" He approves Jacob's use of deceit in revenging himself upon Laban; his conscience is as flexible as that of a bishop in politics. He is talkative, and likes to make long speeches; but he is shy, and will not allow men to see anything of him but his hind parts."

Never was there so thoroughly human a god. Originally he seems to have been a god of thunder, dwelling in the hills," and worshiped for the same reason that the youthful Gorki was a believer when it thundered. The authors of the Pentateuch, to whom religion was an instrument of statesmanship, formed this Vulcan into Mars, so that in their energetic hands Yahweh became predominantly an imperialistic, expansionist God of Hosts, who fights for his people as fiercely as the gods of the Iliad. "The Lord is a man of war," says "Moses";" and David echoes him: "He teacheth my hands to war."" Yahweh promises to "destroy all the people to whom" the Jews "shall come," and to drive out the Hivite, the Canaanite and the Hittite "by little and little"; and he claims as his own all the territory conquered by the Jews. He will have no pacifist nonsense; he knows that even a Promised Land can be won, and held, only by the sword; he is a god of war because he has to be; it will take centuries of military defeat, political subjugation, and moral development, to transform him into the gentle and loving Father of Hillel and Christ. He is as vain as a soldier; he drinks up praise with a bottomless appetite, and he is anxious to display his prowess by drowning the Egyptians: "They shall know that I am the Lord when I have gotten me honor upon Pharaoh."

To gain successes for his people he commits or commands brutalities as repugnant to our taste as they were acceptable to the morals of the age; he slaughters whole nations with the naive pleasure of a Gulliver fighting for Lilliput. Because the Jews "commit whoredom" with the daughters of Moab he bids Moses: "Take all the heads of the people, and hang them up before the Lord against the sun"; it is the morality of Ashurbanipal and Ashur. He offers to show mercy to those who love him and keep his commandments, but, like some resolute germ, he will punish children for the sins of their fathers, their grandfathers, even their great-great-grandfathers." He is so ferocious that he thinks of destroying all the Jews for worshiping the Golden Calf; and Moses has to argue with him that he should control himself. "Turn from thy fierce wrath," the man tells his god, "and repent of this evil against thy people"; and "the Lord repented of the evil which he thought to do unto his people." Again Yahweh proposes to exterminate the Jews root and branch for rebelling against Moses, but Moses appeals to his better nature, and bids him think what people will say when they hear of such a thing. He asks a cruel test human sacrifice of the bitterest sort from Abraham. Like Moses, Abraham teaches Yahweh the principles of morals, and persuades him not to destroy Sodom and Gomorrah if there shall be found fifty forty thirty twenty ten goodmen in those cities; bit by bit he lures his god towards decency, and illustrates the manner in which the moral development of man compels the periodical re-creation of his deities.

The curses with which Yahweh threatens his chosen people if they disobey him are models of vituperation, and inspired those who burned heretics in the Inquisition, or excommunicated Spinoza: Cursed shalt thou be in the city, and cursed shalt thou be in the field. . . . Cursed shall be the fruit of thy body, and the fruit of thy land. . . . Cursed shalt thou be when thou comest in, and cursed shalt thou be when thou goest out. . . . The Lord shall smite thee with a consumption, and with a fever, and with an inflammation. . . . The Lord will smite thee with the botch of Egypt, and with the emerods (tumors), and with the scab, and with the itch, whereof thou canst not be healed. The Lord shall smite thee with madness, and blindness, and astonishment of heart. . . . Also every sickness, and every plague, which is not written in the Book of this Law, them will the Lord bring upon thee, until thou be destroyed.

Yahweh was not the only god whose existence was recognized by the Jews, or by himself; all that he asked, in the First Commandment, was that he should be placed above the rest. "I am a jealous god," he confesses, and he bids his followers "utterly overthrow" his rivals, and "quite break down their images." The Jews, before Isaiah, seldom thought of Yahweh as the god of all tribes, even of all Hebrews. The Moabites had their god Chemosh, to whom Naomi thought it right that Ruth should remain loyal; Baalzebub was the god of Ekron, Milcom was the god of Ammon: the economic and political separatism of these peoples naturally resulted in what we might call their theological independence. Moses sings, in his famous song, "Who is like unto thee, O Lord, among the gods?" and Solomon says, "Great is our god above all gods." Not only was Tammuz accepted as a real god by all but the most educated Jews, but his cult was at one time so popular in Judea that Ezekiel complained that the ritual wailing for Tammuz' death could be heard in the Temple. So distinct and autonomous were the Jewish tribes that even in the time of Jeremiah many of them had their own deities: "according to the number of thy cities arc thy gods, O Judah"; and the gloomy prophet goes on to protest against the worship of Baal and Moloch by his people. With the growth of political unity under David and Solomon, and the centering of worship in the Temple at Jerusalem, theology reflected history and politics, and YahWeh became the sole god of the Jews. Beyond this "henotheism"* they made no further progress towards monotheism until the Prophets.

Is this the Bible or is this a book that is a secular history of it?

 

[Captain Cranks]

I mentioned before that I listen to The Story of Civilization when I go to sleep. Last night's reading covered Judea and the culmination of the Jews worship of Yahweh. It's interesting to hear this covered in a historical context rather than in isolation.

Spoiler: The Story of Civilization

Slowly the conception of Yahweh as the one national god took form, and gave to Jewish faith a unity and simplicity lifted up above the chaos and multiplicity of the Mesopotamian pantheons. Apparently the conquering Jews took one of the gods of Canaan, Yahu,* and re-created him in their own image as a stern, warlike, "stiff-necked" deity, with almost lovable limitations. For this god makes no claim to omniscience: he asks the Jews to identify their homes by sprinkling them with the blood of the sacrificial lamb, lest he should destroy their children inadvertently along with the first-born of the Egyptians; he is not above making mistakes, of which man is his worst; he regrets, too late, that he created Adam, or allowed Saul to become king. He is, now and then, greedy, irascible, bloodthirsty, capricious, petulant: "I will be gracious to whom I will be gracious, and will show mercy to whom I will show mercy."" He approves Jacob's use of deceit in revenging himself upon Laban; his conscience is as flexible as that of a bishop in politics. He is talkative, and likes to make long speeches; but he is shy, and will not allow men to see anything of him but his hind parts."

Never was there so thoroughly human a god. Originally he seems to have been a god of thunder, dwelling in the hills," and worshiped for the same reason that the youthful Gorki was a believer when it thundered. The authors of the Pentateuch, to whom religion was an instrument of statesmanship, formed this Vulcan into Mars, so that in their energetic hands Yahweh became predominantly an imperialistic, expansionist God of Hosts, who fights for his people as fiercely as the gods of the Iliad. "The Lord is a man of war," says "Moses";" and David echoes him: "He teacheth my hands to war."" Yahweh promises to "destroy all the people to whom" the Jews "shall come," and to drive out the Hivite, the Canaanite and the Hittite "by little and little"; and he claims as his own all the territory conquered by the Jews. He will have no pacifist nonsense; he knows that even a Promised Land can be won, and held, only by the sword; he is a god of war because he has to be; it will take centuries of military defeat, political subjugation, and moral development, to transform him into the gentle and loving Father of Hillel and Christ. He is as vain as a soldier; he drinks up praise with a bottomless appetite, and he is anxious to display his prowess by drowning the Egyptians: "They shall know that I am the Lord when I have gotten me honor upon Pharaoh."

To gain successes for his people he commits or commands brutalities as repugnant to our taste as they were acceptable to the morals of the age; he slaughters whole nations with the naive pleasure of a Gulliver fighting for Lilliput. Because the Jews "commit whoredom" with the daughters of Moab he bids Moses: "Take all the heads of the people, and hang them up before the Lord against the sun"; it is the morality of Ashurbanipal and Ashur. He offers to show mercy to those who love him and keep his commandments, but, like some resolute germ, he will punish children for the sins of their fathers, their grandfathers, even their great-great-grandfathers." He is so ferocious that he thinks of destroying all the Jews for worshiping the Golden Calf; and Moses has to argue with him that he should control himself. "Turn from thy fierce wrath," the man tells his god, "and repent of this evil against thy people"; and "the Lord repented of the evil which he thought to do unto his people." Again Yahweh proposes to exterminate the Jews root and branch for rebelling against Moses, but Moses appeals to his better nature, and bids him think what people will say when they hear of such a thing. He asks a cruel test human sacrifice of the bitterest sort from Abraham. Like Moses, Abraham teaches Yahweh the principles of morals, and persuades him not to destroy Sodom and Gomorrah if there shall be found fifty forty thirty twenty ten goodmen in those cities; bit by bit he lures his god towards decency, and illustrates the manner in which the moral development of man compels the periodical re-creation of his deities.

The curses with which Yahweh threatens his chosen people if they disobey him are models of vituperation, and inspired those who burned heretics in the Inquisition, or excommunicated Spinoza: Cursed shalt thou be in the city, and cursed shalt thou be in the field. . . . Cursed shall be the fruit of thy body, and the fruit of thy land. . . . Cursed shalt thou be when thou comest in, and cursed shalt thou be when thou goest out. . . . The Lord shall smite thee with a consumption, and with a fever, and with an inflammation. . . . The Lord will smite thee with the botch of Egypt, and with the emerods (tumors), and with the scab, and with the itch, whereof thou canst not be healed. The Lord shall smite thee with madness, and blindness, and astonishment of heart. . . . Also every sickness, and every plague, which is not written in the Book of this Law, them will the Lord bring upon thee, until thou be destroyed.

Yahweh was not the only god whose existence was recognized by the Jews, or by himself; all that he asked, in the First Commandment, was that he should be placed above the rest. "I am a jealous god," he confesses, and he bids his followers "utterly overthrow" his rivals, and "quite break down their images." The Jews, before Isaiah, seldom thought of Yahweh as the god of all tribes, even of all Hebrews. The Moabites had their god Chemosh, to whom Naomi thought it right that Ruth should remain loyal; Baalzebub was the god of Ekron, Milcom was the god of Ammon: the economic and political separatism of these peoples naturally resulted in what we might call their theological independence. Moses sings, in his famous song, "Who is like unto thee, O Lord, among the gods?" and Solomon says, "Great is our god above all gods." Not only was Tammuz accepted as a real god by all but the most educated Jews, but his cult was at one time so popular in Judea that Ezekiel complained that the ritual wailing for Tammuz' death could be heard in the Temple. So distinct and autonomous were the Jewish tribes that even in the time of Jeremiah many of them had their own deities: "according to the number of thy cities arc thy gods, O Judah"; and the gloomy prophet goes on to protest against the worship of Baal and Moloch by his people. With the growth of political unity under David and Solomon, and the centering of worship in the Temple at Jerusalem, theology reflected history and politics, and YahWeh became the sole god of the Jews. Beyond this "henotheism"* they made no further progress towards monotheism until the Prophets.

Is this the Bible or is this a book that is a secular history of it?

It's a non-fiction series about the history of human civilization as far back as the Sumerians. It explains each civilizations' attributes including their rise and downfall, economy, culture, laws, and religion. Put in this context, it's easy to see the patterns that humans like to repeat.

 

[Paddington]

I mentioned before that I listen to The Story of Civilization when I go to sleep. Last night's reading covered Judea and the culmination of the Jews worship of Yahweh. It's interesting to hear this covered in a historical context rather than in isolation.

Spoiler: The Story of Civilization

Slowly the conception of Yahweh as the one national god took form, and gave to Jewish faith a unity and simplicity lifted up above the chaos and multiplicity of the Mesopotamian pantheons. Apparently the conquering Jews took one of the gods of Canaan, Yahu,* and re-created him in their own image as a stern, warlike, "stiff-necked" deity, with almost lovable limitations. For this god makes no claim to omniscience: he asks the Jews to identify their homes by sprinkling them with the blood of the sacrificial lamb, lest he should destroy their children inadvertently along with the first-born of the Egyptians; he is not above making mistakes, of which man is his worst; he regrets, too late, that he created Adam, or allowed Saul to become king. He is, now and then, greedy, irascible, bloodthirsty, capricious, petulant: "I will be gracious to whom I will be gracious, and will show mercy to whom I will show mercy."" He approves Jacob's use of deceit in revenging himself upon Laban; his conscience is as flexible as that of a bishop in politics. He is talkative, and likes to make long speeches; but he is shy, and will not allow men to see anything of him but his hind parts."

Never was there so thoroughly human a god. Originally he seems to have been a god of thunder, dwelling in the hills," and worshiped for the same reason that the youthful Gorki was a believer when it thundered. The authors of the Pentateuch, to whom religion was an instrument of statesmanship, formed this Vulcan into Mars, so that in their energetic hands Yahweh became predominantly an imperialistic, expansionist God of Hosts, who fights for his people as fiercely as the gods of the Iliad. "The Lord is a man of war," says "Moses";" and David echoes him: "He teacheth my hands to war."" Yahweh promises to "destroy all the people to whom" the Jews "shall come," and to drive out the Hivite, the Canaanite and the Hittite "by little and little"; and he claims as his own all the territory conquered by the Jews. He will have no pacifist nonsense; he knows that even a Promised Land can be won, and held, only by the sword; he is a god of war because he has to be; it will take centuries of military defeat, political subjugation, and moral development, to transform him into the gentle and loving Father of Hillel and Christ. He is as vain as a soldier; he drinks up praise with a bottomless appetite, and he is anxious to display his prowess by drowning the Egyptians: "They shall know that I am the Lord when I have gotten me honor upon Pharaoh."

To gain successes for his people he commits or commands brutalities as repugnant to our taste as they were acceptable to the morals of the age; he slaughters whole nations with the naive pleasure of a Gulliver fighting for Lilliput. Because the Jews "commit whoredom" with the daughters of Moab he bids Moses: "Take all the heads of the people, and hang them up before the Lord against the sun"; it is the morality of Ashurbanipal and Ashur. He offers to show mercy to those who love him and keep his commandments, but, like some resolute germ, he will punish children for the sins of their fathers, their grandfathers, even their great-great-grandfathers." He is so ferocious that he thinks of destroying all the Jews for worshiping the Golden Calf; and Moses has to argue with him that he should control himself. "Turn from thy fierce wrath," the man tells his god, "and repent of this evil against thy people"; and "the Lord repented of the evil which he thought to do unto his people." Again Yahweh proposes to exterminate the Jews root and branch for rebelling against Moses, but Moses appeals to his better nature, and bids him think what people will say when they hear of such a thing. He asks a cruel test human sacrifice of the bitterest sort from Abraham. Like Moses, Abraham teaches Yahweh the principles of morals, and persuades him not to destroy Sodom and Gomorrah if there shall be found fifty forty thirty twenty ten goodmen in those cities; bit by bit he lures his god towards decency, and illustrates the manner in which the moral development of man compels the periodical re-creation of his deities.

The curses with which Yahweh threatens his chosen people if they disobey him are models of vituperation, and inspired those who burned heretics in the Inquisition, or excommunicated Spinoza: Cursed shalt thou be in the city, and cursed shalt thou be in the field. . . . Cursed shall be the fruit of thy body, and the fruit of thy land. . . . Cursed shalt thou be when thou comest in, and cursed shalt thou be when thou goest out. . . . The Lord shall smite thee with a consumption, and with a fever, and with an inflammation. . . . The Lord will smite thee with the botch of Egypt, and with the emerods (tumors), and with the scab, and with the itch, whereof thou canst not be healed. The Lord shall smite thee with madness, and blindness, and astonishment of heart. . . . Also every sickness, and every plague, which is not written in the Book of this Law, them will the Lord bring upon thee, until thou be destroyed.

Yahweh was not the only god whose existence was recognized by the Jews, or by himself; all that he asked, in the First Commandment, was that he should be placed above the rest. "I am a jealous god," he confesses, and he bids his followers "utterly overthrow" his rivals, and "quite break down their images." The Jews, before Isaiah, seldom thought of Yahweh as the god of all tribes, even of all Hebrews. The Moabites had their god Chemosh, to whom Naomi thought it right that Ruth should remain loyal; Baalzebub was the god of Ekron, Milcom was the god of Ammon: the economic and political separatism of these peoples naturally resulted in what we might call their theological independence. Moses sings, in his famous song, "Who is like unto thee, O Lord, among the gods?" and Solomon says, "Great is our god above all gods." Not only was Tammuz accepted as a real god by all but the most educated Jews, but his cult was at one time so popular in Judea that Ezekiel complained that the ritual wailing for Tammuz' death could be heard in the Temple. So distinct and autonomous were the Jewish tribes that even in the time of Jeremiah many of them had their own deities: "according to the number of thy cities arc thy gods, O Judah"; and the gloomy prophet goes on to protest against the worship of Baal and Moloch by his people. With the growth of political unity under David and Solomon, and the centering of worship in the Temple at Jerusalem, theology reflected history and politics, and YahWeh became the sole god of the Jews. Beyond this "henotheism"* they made no further progress towards monotheism until the Prophets.

Is this the Bible or is this a book that is a secular history of it?

It's a non-fiction series about the history of human civilization as far back as the Sumerians. It explains each civilizations' attributes including their rise and downfall, economy, culture, laws, and religion. Put in this context, it's easy to see the patterns that humans like to repeat.

Sounds interesting.

 

[dgreen]

But I can maybe buy into an "ends justifies the means" approach by Paul, but once I do that, it makes everything he wrote useful only to the time and place and circumstances of his audience. I kind of think that Paul himself probably thought. That he was writing to specific people about specific problems within their community (or with Romans his specific hopes). Not something to be used in the generic sense. But obviously 1960+ years of Christians have held a different view since his death.

Do you not think Paul could be writing to a specific people about specific problems AND it be useful to people outside of that specific audience? That's kind of the way I see the whole Bible, so I'm not sure why we can't do the same with Paul's letters.

That is what Paul's letters are and have been since they have been gathered and spread and canonized and etc. Accepting an "'ends justifies the means' approach by Paul" is what would be problematic for Paul's letters, and how they are then used. If Paul is changing the message in his letters from audience to audience rather than being consistent then the usefulness is greatly diminished or even worse. Especially for these points that are tangible to his main message and, thus unimportant (or at least less important) to Paul.

If Paul needs women to be the leaders in one community and for them to shut up in another in order to ultimately spread his gospel message, then this passage and how it has been used for almost 2000 years certainly seems by any reasonable definition as problematic. I don't believe this is what happened, but I think an argument could be made that this is what had to happen if you attribute those words to Paul based on the fact that women were, per Paul leaders in various places where he set up his communities. Again, it makes more sense that those are not his words. But if they are, they make everything else Paul wrote less useful to anyone with my thought process.

Consistent message in all circumstances being useful. A message that can change 180 degrees based on situation being problematic.

What is the message? I don't think "women should be silent" is the message. I think "women should be silent" is a contextual application of a message.

I think this is for you to explain that other message providing overlooked context beyond all women in all churches for all time for this passage to be "useful to people outside of that specific audience".

As in all the churches of the saints, 34 the women should be silent in the churches, for they are not permitted to speak. Rather, let them be in submission, as in fact the law says. 35 If they want to find out about something, they should ask their husbands at home, because it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in church. 36 Did the word of God begin with you, or did it come to you alone?

See my previous post.

A big key to an interpretation of these verses is where 33b belongs. That text isn't part of the potential interpolation, so it makes sense to me that it belongs with 33a and not with 34-35.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

But I can maybe buy into an "ends justifies the means" approach by Paul, but once I do that, it makes everything he wrote useful only to the time and place and circumstances of his audience. I kind of think that Paul himself probably thought. That he was writing to specific people about specific problems within their community (or with Romans his specific hopes). Not something to be used in the generic sense. But obviously 1960+ years of Christians have held a different view since his death.

Do you not think Paul could be writing to a specific people about specific problems AND it be useful to people outside of that specific audience? That's kind of the way I see the whole Bible, so I'm not sure why we can't do the same with Paul's letters.

That is what Paul's letters are and have been since they have been gathered and spread and canonized and etc. Accepting an "'ends justifies the means' approach by Paul" is what would be problematic for Paul's letters, and how they are then used. If Paul is changing the message in his letters from audience to audience rather than being consistent then the usefulness is greatly diminished or even worse. Especially for these points that are tangible to his main message and, thus unimportant (or at least less important) to Paul.

If Paul needs women to be the leaders in one community and for them to shut up in another in order to ultimately spread his gospel message, then this passage and how it has been used for almost 2000 years certainly seems by any reasonable definition as problematic. I don't believe this is what happened, but I think an argument could be made that this is what had to happen if you attribute those words to Paul based on the fact that women were, per Paul leaders in various places where he set up his communities. Again, it makes more sense that those are not his words. But if they are, they make everything else Paul wrote less useful to anyone with my thought process.

Consistent message in all circumstances being useful. A message that can change 180 degrees based on situation being problematic.

What is the message? I don't think "women should be silent" is the message. I think "women should be silent" is a contextual application of a message.

I think this is for you to explain that other message providing overlooked context beyond all women in all churches for all time for this passage to be "useful to people outside of that specific audience".

As in all the churches of the saints, 34 the women should be silent in the churches, for they are not permitted to speak. Rather, let them be in submission, as in fact the law says. 35 If they want to find out about something, they should ask their husbands at home, because it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in church. 36 Did the word of God begin with you, or did it come to you alone?

See my previous post.

A big key to an interpretation of these verses is where 33b belongs. That text isn't part of the potential interpolation, so it makes sense to me that it belongs with 33a and not with 34-35.

I think your prior post supports that this verse is "problematic". For more reasons than my narrow approach. Including the part where you come from a church with conservative ideas about women's roles in the church.

To make things simple, by problematic I simply mean that if Christians are going to take Paul's words as being useful outside of very specific context that they were wrote, and if Paul is willing to change those words based on the audience, then those words be available to be used universally, especially literally is a problem. It is not more complicated than that.

I didn't argue that Paul did this, just that there could be reason to believe he might, based on a passage where he said he behaved (followed the Law) according to his audience. Whether or not this specific passage was the message or not, is irrelevant. Where it should be placed in the text to render the best interpretation is irrelevant. Problematic just means that if the passage can be used in ways that Paul never intended (presuming he wrote it at all), to silence women, then it is a problem. Just because some of us don't think that every phrase in the bible is meant to be taken literally as God's unchanging truth, doesn't make it a problem that there are those that would being overlooked when this was being breathed into Paul.

I'm also going to reiterate that neither Jesus nor Paul were interested in upsetting the social norms of the evil world of the present [their present], but of pointing people to live now as individuals according to how it will be when "God's kingdom comes here on earth". "As it is in heaven." For Jesus the end times were coming soon. For Paul, Jesus' resurrection meant that they had begun. So as much as I want to see them as social reformers of their day, to them there just was "no time to waste" on these kinds of things. God was going to take care of that soon enough.

 

[Paddington]

Paul's writings were specifically and primarily written to the Gentiles who are under grace. The rest of Scripture was primarily written to the Jews who were under the Law. Even Matthew, Mark, Luke and John were written to Jews who were still observing the Law.

 

[Paddington]

Happy Thanksgiving Everyone! Remember to give Thanks unto the Lord.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

Happy Thanksgiving Everyone! Remember to give Thanks unto the Lord.

You also. And everyone that makes this place special.

 

[Paddington]

Happy Thanksgiving Everyone! Remember to give Thanks unto the Lord.

You also. And everyone that makes this place special.

I very thankful for the discussion here.

 

[Paddington]

1 Corinthians 2:9 KJV

[9] But as it is written, Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, Neither have entered into the heart of man, The things which God hath prepared for them that love him.

 

[Captain Cranks]

What's everyone's thoughts on Revelation? My Evangelical father-in-law, seemingly a Bible literalist, described what we should expect when Jesus comes back. He told me I shouldn't get the mark of the Beast which is likely coming as part of Artificial Intelligence.

 

[dgreen]

What's everyone's thoughts on Revelation? My Evangelical father-in-law, seemingly a Bible literalist, described what we should expect when Jesus comes back. He told me I shouldn't get the mark of the Beast which is likely coming as part of Artificial Intelligence.

A message of hope to a persecuted people. Anti-Caesar, claiming that it is God who is ultimately in charge and who will eventually make everything right. Choose wisely which King you will serve. It does this through the use of images and symbols and heavy use of scripture. The symbols aren’t meant to be predictions of specific future events that tell us exactly when Jesus will return to finally put an end to evil and sin.

 

[Captain Cranks]

What's everyone's thoughts on Revelation? My Evangelical father-in-law, seemingly a Bible literalist, described what we should expect when Jesus comes back. He told me I shouldn't get the mark of the Beast which is likely coming as part of Artificial Intelligence.

A message of hope to a persecuted people. Anti-Caesar, claiming that it is God who is ultimately in charge and who will eventually make everything right. Choose wisely which King you will serve. It does this through the use of images and symbols and heavy use of scripture. The symbols aren’t meant to be predictions of specific future events that tell us exactly when Jesus will return to finally put an end to evil and sin.

Can you tell that to my father in law for me?

 

[dgreen]

What's everyone's thoughts on Revelation? My Evangelical father-in-law, seemingly a Bible literalist, described what we should expect when Jesus comes back. He told me I shouldn't get the mark of the Beast which is likely coming as part of Artificial Intelligence.

A message of hope to a persecuted people. Anti-Caesar, claiming that it is God who is ultimately in charge and who will eventually make everything right. Choose wisely which King you will serve. It does this through the use of images and symbols and heavy use of scripture. The symbols aren’t meant to be predictions of specific future events that tell us exactly when Jesus will return to finally put an end to evil and sin.

Can you tell that to my father in law for me?

That’s a topic I avoid with most Christians . Maybe I will set a goal for myself to do a Revelation class at church in a few years. Give myself plenty of time to learn a lot more and figure out how to structure such a class. My church doesn’t have a ton of people taking about China and Russia and black helicopters, but there are a few.

 

[The Longtime Lurker]

Something i dove into long ago and found interesting was the Book of Enoch. Does this work(s) have any place in Christianity? I believe there's a few Ethiopian based religions where it's canonized? It makes some wild claims, but paints a pretty fascinating picture of heavenly beings interacting with Earth.

 

[Scoresman]

What's everyone's thoughts on Revelation? My Evangelical father-in-law, seemingly a Bible literalist, described what we should expect when Jesus comes back. He told me I shouldn't get the mark of the Beast which is likely coming as part of Artificial Intelligence.

It's been the backdrop/inspiration for some great horror movies and metal albums, that's for sure.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

was the Book of Enoch

I've only briefly read about it, never read it. And only of the first "book" (of five?) in Enoch 1 (vs 2 and 3). And only to provide background on ...

Does this work(s) have any place in Christianity?

Supposedly the only apocryphal work known to be quoted in the New Testament (Jude 14-15) and quoted in such a way to imply it was recognized at least by the author as scripture.

but paints a pretty fascinating picture of heavenly beings interacting with Earth.

Supposedly an elaboration of Genesis 6:1-6, or at least one interpretation of that setup for Noah.

I believe there's a few Ethiopian based religions where it's canonized?

Not sure about being part of a canon, but I believe the only full copy (or copies) are Ethiopian with fragments of it found elsewhere (such as Dead Sea Scrolls) in other languages. From what I read it fits solidly among the apocalyptical writings of the "second temple" era and John the Baptist/Jesus/Paul.

So, my guess is that most Christians do not engage in it in any way other than as they read past Jude.

 

[Paddington]

What's everyone's thoughts on Revelation? My Evangelical father-in-law, seemingly a Bible literalist, described what we should expect when Jesus comes back. He told me I shouldn't get the mark of the Beast which is likely coming as part of Artificial Intelligence.

How can you say you believe the Bible & then not believe what it actually says? Are there any other books you do that with? Why not believe what it actually says?

 

[Captain Cranks]

What's everyone's thoughts on Revelation? My Evangelical father-in-law, seemingly a Bible literalist, described what we should expect when Jesus comes back. He told me I shouldn't get the mark of the Beast which is likely coming as part of Artificial Intelligence.

How can you say you believe the Bible & then not believe what it actually says? Are there any other books you do that with? Why not believe what it actually says?

That's not a question for me, good man. I'm in the camp that the Bible is a patchwork of mythological and allegorical stories, many of which never literally occurred in history. Books like Revelation just harden this opinion.

 

[The Longtime Lurker]

was the Book of Enoch

I've only briefly read about it, never read it. And only of the first "book" (of five?) in Enoch 1 (vs 2 and 3). And only to provide background on ...

Does this work(s) have any place in Christianity?

Supposedly the only apocryphal work known to be quoted in the New Testament (Jude 14-15) and quoted in such a way to imply it was recognized at least by the author as scripture.

but paints a pretty fascinating picture of heavenly beings interacting with Earth.

Supposedly an elaboration of Genesis 6:1-6, or at least one interpretation of that setup for Noah.

I believe there's a few Ethiopian based religions where it's canonized?

Not sure about being part of a canon, but I believe the only full copy (or copies) are Ethiopian with fragments of it found elsewhere (such as Dead Sea Scrolls) in other languages. From what I read it fits solidly among the apocalyptical writings of the "second temple" era and John the Baptist/Jesus/Paul.

So, my guess is that most Christians do not engage in it in any way other than as they read past Jude.

I'm mostly curious as to why it's omitted if it's referenced in other works as you've shown. Curious what practicing Christians think about it and why is it not canon. In your link Jude describes Enoch as 7th from Adam, the link to Genesis and according to the Book of Enoch, the great flood was caused by the corruption of humanity and the Earth through the actions of fallen angels called the Watchers. Also Enoch as the father of Methuselah, who in turn was the grandfather of Noah. There's a lot going on here from an ancient text that ties into the Bible whether it's convenient or not. Fallen angels, their half human children called Nephilim and ofcourse the giants. If these works are found in the dead sea scrolls and corroborated by snippets or fragments it would seem part of the story of Christianity even if it was discovered later (I'm not entirely sure how long it's been known) and contains some pretty fantastic claims.

Not sure about being part of a canon

Per Wikipedia: "1 Enoch is not considered to be canonical scripture by most Jewish or Christian church bodies, although it is part of the biblical canon used by the Ethiopian Jewish community Beta Israel, as well as the Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church and Eritrean Orthodox Tewahedo Church."

 

[The Longtime Lurker]

What's everyone's thoughts on Revelation? My Evangelical father-in-law, seemingly a Bible literalist, described what we should expect when Jesus comes back. He told me I shouldn't get the mark of the Beast which is likely coming as part of Artificial Intelligence.

How can you say you believe the Bible & then not believe what it actually says? Are there any other books you do that with? Why not believe what it actually says?

That's not a question for me, good man. I'm in the camp that the Bible is a patchwork of mythological and allegorical stories, many of which never literally occurred in history. Books like Revelation just harden this opinion.

I appreciate his answers. I'm with you that most religions are a guiding set of stories not to be taken literally, but that's not what Christianity is claiming in modern times. If one believes the miracles of Jesus are real then why not every claim? Who gets to decide? Taking the entire Bible (Enoch included) as god's word and having the faith that it's correct is the point isn't it?

 

[Joe Bryant]

What's everyone's thoughts on Revelation? My Evangelical father-in-law, seemingly a Bible literalist, described what we should expect when Jesus comes back. He told me I shouldn't get the mark of the Beast which is likely coming as part of Artificial Intelligence.

How can you say you believe the Bible & then not believe what it actually says? Are there any other books you do that with? Why not believe what it actually says?

That's not a question for me, good man. I'm in the camp that the Bible is a patchwork of mythological and allegorical stories, many of which never literally occurred in history. Books like Revelation just harden this opinion.

I'm with @dgreen it's not a topic, I spend much time discussing.

For, "I'm in the camp that the Bible is a patchwork of mythological and allegorical stories, many of which never literally occurred in history. Books like Revelation just harden this opinion.", as I understand it, no one ever claims the events in the book have occurred. It's the Apostle John recounting a dream or vision he had. How those things actually might play out have been an explosive topic for a great many years.

Some people think they can predict with certainty a lot of what will happen and when it will happen. I've never bought much into that.

Jesus said, in Matthew 24:36
“No one knows the day or the hour, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father.”
Jesus was very direct here.

Paul wrote about Jesus return not being know calling it like a "thief in the night"

1 Thessalonians 5:2
“The day of the Lord will come like a thief in the night.”

Peter wrote:
2 Peter 3:10
“The day of the Lord will come like a thief.”

So to answer your question about thoughts on Revelation, my honest answer is I don't have a ton other than I think it's difficult to tie down a lot of specifics on it

It seems most theologians and commentaries seem to agree on:

• John is reporting a vision.
• It blends earthly events and heavenly symbolism.
• It’s written to comfort and challenge believers.
• The ending is about restoration and hope, not fear.

As a bonus, one of my favorite songs from one of my favorite artists, with legendary Bluesman Son House's "John The Revelator."

- YouTube

Enjoy the videos and music you love, upload original content, and share it all with friends, family, and the world on YouTube.

youtu.be

 

[The Longtime Lurker]

It's the Apostle John recounting a dream or vision he had.

Them why include it? If it's just a dream or slight on Ceasar and not the word of God what value does that have from a religious standpoint? Some guys dream doesn't mean much in comparison to God's literal word.

 

[Joe Bryant]

It's the Apostle John recounting a dream or vision he had.

Them why include it? If it's just a dream or slight on Ceasar and not the word of God what value does that have from a religious standpoint? Some guys dream doesn't mean much in comparison to God's literal word.

As I understand it, it's seen as the word of God. It's a vision John had that was given to him by God / Jesus.

I was responding to @Captain Cranks who said "I'm in the camp that the Bible is a patchwork of mythological and allegorical stories, many of which never literally occurred in history. Books like Revelation just harden this opinion." I think Christians who believe the Bible are in the same camp that the things described in Revelation have never literally occurred.

 

[Captain Cranks]

What's everyone's thoughts on Revelation? My Evangelical father-in-law, seemingly a Bible literalist, described what we should expect when Jesus comes back. He told me I shouldn't get the mark of the Beast which is likely coming as part of Artificial Intelligence.

How can you say you believe the Bible & then not believe what it actually says? Are there any other books you do that with? Why not believe what it actually says?

That's not a question for me, good man. I'm in the camp that the Bible is a patchwork of mythological and allegorical stories, many of which never literally occurred in history. Books like Revelation just harden this opinion.

I'm with @dgreen it's not a topic, I spend much time discussing.

For, "I'm in the camp that the Bible is a patchwork of mythological and allegorical stories, many of which never literally occurred in history. Books like Revelation just harden this opinion.", as I understand it, no one ever claims the events in the book have occurred. It's the Apostle John recounting a dream or vision he had. How those things actually might play out have been an explosive topic for a great many years.

Some people think they can predict with certainty a lot of what will happen and when it will happen. I've never bought much into that.

Jesus said, in Matthew 24:36
“No one knows the day or the hour, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father.”
Jesus was very direct here.

Paul wrote about Jesus return not being know calling it like a "thief in the night"

1 Thessalonians 5:2
“The day of the Lord will come like a thief in the night.”

Peter wrote:
2 Peter 3:10
“The day of the Lord will come like a thief.”

So to answer your question about thoughts on Revelation, my honest answer is I don't have a ton other than I think it's difficult to tie down a lot of specifics on it

It seems most theologians and commentaries seem to agree on:

• John is reporting a vision.
• It blends earthly events and heavenly symbolism.
• It’s written to comfort and challenge believers.
• The ending is about restoration and hope, not fear.

As a bonus, one of my favorite songs from one of my favorite artists, with legendary Bluesman Son House's "John The Revelator."

- YouTube

Enjoy the videos and music you love, upload original content, and share it all with friends, family, and the world on YouTube.

youtu.be

The part that you bolded was in reference to the entire Bible, not Revelation specifically. I realize those events have yet to occur, but I'd say there are a good many Christians who believe they will eventually occur as written. My father in law is one of those people and I surmise Paddington is too. Thus I believe his question "How can you say you believe the Bible & then not believe what it actually says?" is more appropriately directed at someone like you, not me.

Do you believe Paddington is wrong in his literal interpretation of Revelation?

 

[dgreen]

It's the Apostle John recounting a dream or vision he had.

Them why include it? If it's just a dream or slight on Ceasar and not the word of God what value does that have from a religious standpoint? Some guys dream doesn't mean much in comparison to God's literal word.

Can you lay out what you think it means for a text to be "the word of God"? What does that look like to you? How does it require that the texts behave? For example, why can't a dream or vision that is then written down be "the word of God"? Why can't a slight on Caesar be "the word of God"?

 

[The Longtime Lurker]

It's the Apostle John recounting a dream or vision he had.

Them why include it? If it's just a dream or slight on Ceasar and not the word of God what value does that have from a religious standpoint? Some guys dream doesn't mean much in comparison to God's literal word.

As I understand it, it's seen as the word of God. It's a vision John had that was given to him by God / Jesus.

I was responding to @Captain Cranks who said "I'm in the camp that the Bible is a patchwork of mythological and allegorical stories, many of which never literally occurred in history. Books like Revelation just harden this opinion." I think Christians who believe the Bible are in the same camp that the things described in Revelation have never literally occurred.

Sure, they never occurred, but if God provided the vision then it must be something that will occur?

Here's my dilemma, how do we decide what's literal and what's not? Revelation isn't literal, but rising from the dead is? Nephilim and giants are too out there to be included, but all of Jesus' miracles are literal and happened.

Which is why i appreciate Paddington's takes. Did it happen or not? Why are some parts literal and others just stories? Who says, who decides? It's this convenience that the believer picks and chooses what is allegory and what isn't that is a major hang up from my vantage point.

I know this can't be answered and if it can it's just more assumptions and interpretations. To me you either accept the included works as God's word, or it strengthens Captain Cranks take that it's a collection of works not to be taken literally. Feels like wanting your cake and eating it too.

 

[The Longtime Lurker]

It's the Apostle John recounting a dream or vision he had.

Them why include it? If it's just a dream or slight on Ceasar and not the word of God what value does that have from a religious standpoint? Some guys dream doesn't mean much in comparison to God's literal word.

Can you lay out what you think it means for a text to be "the word of God"? What does that look like to you? How does it require that the texts behave? For example, why can't a dream or vision that is then written down be "the word of God"? Why can't a slight on Caesar be "the word of God"?

Yeah, so if God spoke or directly caused the vision then it's the word of God, his literal words. If it's just John having a dream and writing it down then it's a story. So to me which is it? Did God send the message to John? If he did then it's God's literal words and should be taken as such. If it's just John telling a story why bother attaching it to the word of God?

Does that make sense?

 

[dgreen]

It's the Apostle John recounting a dream or vision he had.

Them why include it? If it's just a dream or slight on Ceasar and not the word of God what value does that have from a religious standpoint? Some guys dream doesn't mean much in comparison to God's literal word.

As I understand it, it's seen as the word of God. It's a vision John had that was given to him by God / Jesus.

I was responding to @Captain Cranks who said "I'm in the camp that the Bible is a patchwork of mythological and allegorical stories, many of which never literally occurred in history. Books like Revelation just harden this opinion." I think Christians who believe the Bible are in the same camp that the things described in Revelation have never literally occurred.

Sure, they never occurred, but if God provided the vision then it must be something that will occur?

Here's my dilemma, how do we decide what's literal and what's not? Revelation isn't literal, but rising from the dead is? Nephilim and giants are too out there to be included, but all of Jesus' miracles are literal and happened.

Which is why i appreciate Paddington's takes. Did it happen or not? Why are some parts literal and others just stories? Who says, who decides? It's this convenience that the believer picks and chooses what is allegory and what isn't that is a major hang up from my vantage point.

I know this can't be answered and if it can it's just more assumptions and interpretations. To me you either accept the included works as God's word, or it strengthens Captain Cranks take that it's a collection of works not to be taken literally. Feels like wanting your cake and eating it too.

We decide the same way we decide for any other literature. The first thing we need to know when reading something is what genre it is. You know when you're reading a metaphorical poem or a history textbook. You know when you're reading an AP news wire article or a political opinion piece. You know when you're reading a sci-fi novel or a self-help book. Of course, this is all easier with modern literature that we are more familiar with. It gets trickier when the writings are thousands of years old on the other side of the world. So, personally, I rely on people who have studied these texts and understand their genres better than I do.

Does the author intend for his audience to take them literally? If so, judge it based on that. If not, don't judge it based on that. I think the NT authors stress the reality of Jesus' resurrection as an actual historical event. I don't think they stress the reality of an actual literal beast rising out of the sea as an actual literal historical (or future) event.

"The Bible" isn't all one genre. There's no reason to apply the same level of literal reading to every verse when different verses clearly call for something different. Nobody thinks Jesus is an actual lamb. Even Biblical literalists recognize that as a metaphor. Nobody thinks David thought God was a literal shepherd and literally made him lie down in green pastures. Everyone recognizes that as a metaphor. But, when Acts says that Paul traveled somewhere, it seems pretty obvious that the claim is that he actually traveled to that place. Of course, there are going to be verses that are less clear and debatable. There's going to be a spectrum from clear metaphor to clear literalism. I see no reason to require every verse to fall the same place on that spectrum.

I think this discussion goes with my other question to you about what it means for something to be "the word of God". It's all tied together in what we expect it to be because of the label we've given it.

 

[dgreen]

It's the Apostle John recounting a dream or vision he had.

Them why include it? If it's just a dream or slight on Ceasar and not the word of God what value does that have from a religious standpoint? Some guys dream doesn't mean much in comparison to God's literal word.

Can you lay out what you think it means for a text to be "the word of God"? What does that look like to you? How does it require that the texts behave? For example, why can't a dream or vision that is then written down be "the word of God"? Why can't a slight on Caesar be "the word of God"?

Yeah, so if God spoke or directly caused the vision then it's the word of God, his literal words. If it's just John having a dream and writing it down then it's a story. So to me which is it? Did God send the message to John? If he did then it's God's literal words and should be taken as such. If it's just John telling a story why bother attaching it to the word of God?

Does that make sense?

Yes, makes sense. That sounds close to a dictation theory; that God literally dictated the words to the authors. Is that your view of what is being claimed for Paul's letters and Genesis, for example? For those to be "the word of God", it would mean that God told Paul exactly what to write and God told the author of Genesis exactly what words to use to describe something that Abraham did?

BTW, I'm not sure I have a clear thought on what I think "word of God" means. I just have a bunch of things that I think it doesn't mean.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

How can you say you believe the Bible & then not believe what it actually says? Are there any other books you do that with? Why not believe what it actually says?

I believe that there are truths in all kinds of mythology, not just the stories of the bible. There are truths in the George Washington cherry tree story even if it never happened. I recently watched Death by Lightening. I believe the general portrayal of the main characters and the main events of the story even if there were all kinds of literary license in shaping a three-hour narrative.

As for the bible, many of the stories in the bible simply could not have happened as written without contradicting the same event written elsewhere. It is the Christmas season. The stories in Luke and Matthew both cannot be an accurate historical account at the same time. That assumes things that would be ordinarily nonsense like following a star have divine explanations. The bible is sprinkled with countless other examples - the genealogies of Jesus. If the criteria are that each and every one of these must be 100% factually accurate telling of history, then the bible fails miserably. And those non-believers have easy pickings to be dismissive. Of course, they will prefer to argue against someone arguing for a literal interpretation, they have endless material!

But when Matthew was setting down and writing his gospel with a copy of Mark among other sources in front of him, Matthew had no issues "fixing" Mark to serve his purposes. Luke did the same. So, if the gospel writers didn't take Mark as 100% literally accurate, why should we? And why didn't they? Because the stories, the events, etc. are not the point. The point is who is Jesus and how that helps us understand God and ourselves. So, I do believe what it actually says.

And guess what, the same point is pretty much true in those crazy non canon gospels. Jesus's character as in his absolute obedience to God and his absolute selfless love for people are everywhere. Regardless of the settings and stories or the quotes. This is what it actually says, and I believe it!

 

[Captain Cranks]

Regardless of how you interpret the Bible, you still need to reconcile Christian/Jewish theology with the existence of countless other religions that profess divine inspiration. If God revealed himself to John, did he also reveal himself to Muhammad? Does Krishna actually speak to Arjuna or was that just a hallucination?

I don't think I'll ever have an appreciation for the "ours is valid, theirs isn't" position. It's obvious to me that they're all different flavors of the same thing.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

Regardless of how you interpret the Bible, you still need to reconcile Christian/Jewish theology with the existence of countless other religions that profess divine inspiration. If God revealed himself to John, did he also reveal himself to Muhammad? Does Krishna actually speak to Arjuna or was that just a hallucination?

I don't think I'll ever have an appreciation for the "ours is valid, theirs isn't" position. It's obvious to me that they're all different flavors of the same thing.

I don't have such an exclusive belief. That to me is a "Man creating God in his own image" kind of thing. If God is merely "me" [or those like me], then all of the praise and worship is misplaced, though the ego appreciates it.

 

[The Longtime Lurker]

It's the Apostle John recounting a dream or vision he had.

Them why include it? If it's just a dream or slight on Ceasar and not the word of God what value does that have from a religious standpoint? Some guys dream doesn't mean much in comparison to God's literal word.

As I understand it, it's seen as the word of God. It's a vision John had that was given to him by God / Jesus.

I was responding to @Captain Cranks who said "I'm in the camp that the Bible is a patchwork of mythological and allegorical stories, many of which never literally occurred in history. Books like Revelation just harden this opinion." I think Christians who believe the Bible are in the same camp that the things described in Revelation have never literally occurred.

Sure, they never occurred, but if God provided the vision then it must be something that will occur?

Here's my dilemma, how do we decide what's literal and what's not? Revelation isn't literal, but rising from the dead is? Nephilim and giants are too out there to be included, but all of Jesus' miracles are literal and happened.

Which is why i appreciate Paddington's takes. Did it happen or not? Why are some parts literal and others just stories? Who says, who decides? It's this convenience that the believer picks and chooses what is allegory and what isn't that is a major hang up from my vantage point.

I know this can't be answered and if it can it's just more assumptions and interpretations. To me you either accept the included works as God's word, or it strengthens Captain Cranks take that it's a collection of works not to be taken literally. Feels like wanting your cake and eating it too.

We decide the same way we decide for any other literature. The first thing we need to know when reading something is what genre it is. You know when you're reading a metaphorical poem or a history textbook. You know when you're reading an AP news wire article or a political opinion piece. You know when you're reading a sci-fi novel or a self-help book. Of course, this is all easier with modern literature that we are more familiar with. It gets trickier when the writings are thousands of years old on the other side of the world. So, personally, I rely on people who have studied these texts and understand their genres better than I do.

Does the author intend for his audience to take them literally? If so, judge it based on that. If not, don't judge it based on that. I think the NT authors stress the reality of Jesus' resurrection as an actual historical event. I don't think they stress the reality of an actual literal beast rising out of the sea as an actual literal historical (or future) event.

"The Bible" isn't all one genre. There's no reason to apply the same level of literal reading to every verse when different verses clearly call for something different. Nobody thinks Jesus is an actual lamb. Even Biblical literalists recognize that as a metaphor. Nobody thinks David thought God was a literal shepherd and literally made him lie down in green pastures. Everyone recognizes that as a metaphor. But, when Acts says that Paul traveled somewhere, it seems pretty obvious that the claim is that he actually traveled to that place. Of course, there are going to be verses that are less clear and debatable. There's going to be a spectrum from clear metaphor to clear literalism. I see no reason to require every verse to fall the same place on that spectrum.

I think this discussion goes with my other question to you about what it means for something to be "the word of God". It's all tied together in what we expect it to be because of the label we've given it.

I think this gets to where I'm going. Metaphor and parables are easy to recognize and so much of the Bible are just that, how much is my question. There are historically accurate places and events as a backdrop, which we can also find in modern literature.

Saying a man rose from the dead or walked on water while also saying a different man parted a sea, other men lived 100s of years, or a description of end times isn't all that much of a leap. How can we reliably believe certain aspects (rising from the dead, i don't think Christians debate this as fact) is literal vs a metaphorical retelling of stories already told 1000s of years earlier for a new audience. The need to rely on men to explain the words of other men, who either were told directly by God or by signs they interpreted as divine, or are simply telling stories in a way the masses at the time could understand muddies the water. God's words vs men's words.

It's the acceptance of some miracles as literal, but others as simply a story that i struggle with. If Jesus rising from the dead isn't metaphor then i need to suspend disbelief when reading the other fantastic claims.