Scriptural literacy

[Ichneumonwasp]

Did I read that right? Thirty talents? That's like $5 or 6 millions dollars. I'm betting whoever wrote that didn't know what a talent was either.

 

[Greediguts]

Did I read that right? Thirty talents? That's like $5 or 6 millions dollars. I'm betting whoever wrote that didn't know what a talent was either.

Ack! I didn't even catch that! Thanks Ichneumonwasp!

I went back and checked and that is what is written. Now it may be a translation error (as I am reading a Slavonic to French to Hebrew to English version of the text), but I don't know for sure. Even if you use the ancient Greek measurement for talent instead of the Hebrew, you still end up with a boat-load of money. Perhaps the author felt 30 shekels had to be too low an amount and wanted to make it more impressive. Perhaps they wanted to show how important it was to the Jewish leaders that Jesus was killed. Anyway, the amount offered obviously makes one question the validity of the text.

 

[Hokulele]

I did read something else that referred to the healing of Pilate's wife. Damned if I can remember where. All I can recall is that it was something from the Apocrypha.

 

[Greediguts]

I did read something else that referred to the healing of Pilate's wife. Damned if I can remember where. All I can recall is that it was something from the Apocrypha.

The Acts of Pilate was the largest part of the Gospel of Nicodemus. Perhaps you had read it with that title?

 

[joobz]

I wanted to post this in this thread to get some feedback from our biblically literate members.
I had an exchange with ROLFE in a DOC thread regarding the meaning of Matthew 8:21-22 and Luke 9:59-62.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=4842299#post4842299


It was my understanding that this line refers to Jesus stating that to follow him, one needs to split ties with family, especially family who don't believe in him. This view, to me, fit well with what one would expect of a newly budding cult/religion requiring the separation of one's self from family who would potential prevent a person from following the cult.

Rolfe was saying that this was a noncommittal argument from Jesus. That the follower's dad wasn't actually dead, but was merely procrastinating and that Jesus gave him a non-committal response and said that one must follow him now and cannot delay.

I may be fully wrong, but I don't see why Her interpretation would be more valid than mine. If someone could help with a bit more context on this point, I would greatly appreciate it.
Thanks

 

[Rolfe]

I'll just say how I would interpret that particular statement.

First, there is really no particular suggestion in the gospels that disciples generally were required to cut off family ties. There are numerous references to family members, including Jesus' own mother and brother, and Peter's mother-in-law. There were at least two pairs of brothers among the disciples.

Second, nobody in that society would have imagined that the man's father had died and the funeral was yet to take place. Funerals were always held before sunset, and the time between the death and the sunset would have been rather too busy for standing around listening to itinerant preachers. "Let me first bury my father" is simply a circumlocution for "I will come and join you at some time in the future, after my father is dead."

This is about commitment. Jesus is saying that a disciple has to be committed enough to get up and do what they say they will do, NOW. Not waffle vague half-promises about doing it some time in the future.

You also extended your interpretation to suggest that Jesus was specifically insisting on splitting from family who were not followers of his. I admit I'm not a great bible scholar, however I'm not aware that this is stated as a clear requirement anywhere in the gospels. Passages where one (or more) potential followers are spoken to sharply for indecision, procrastination and being Mummy's boys cannot really be extended to carry that interpretation. In my opinion.

I agree that sometimes the "bible class" explanation for awkward biblical passages can be strained or contrived. However I don't think this is one of them.

Rolfe.

 

[Greediguts]

Rolfe and joobz, I don't want to upset anyone as I have read many posts by both of you and enjoy each of your contributions to the forum. Now having said that, I would have to side with Rolfe and her interpretation.
sorry joobz.

Looking at Matthew's verses it helps to start at verse 19 and then go forward.

“Now when Jesus saw great crowds around him, he gave orders to go over to the other side. A scribe then approached and said, "Teacher, I will follow you wherever you go.” And Jesus said to him, "Foxes have holes, and birds of the air have nests; but the Son of Man has nowhere to lay his head." Another of his disciples said to him, "Lord, first let me go and bury my father." But Jesus said to him, "Follow me, and let the dead bury their own dead."
And when he got into the boat, his disciples followed him. A windstorm arose on the sea, so great that the boat was being swamped by the waves; but he was asleep. And they went and woke him up, saying, "Lord, save us! We are perishing!" And he said to them, "Why are you afraid, you of little faith?" Then he got up and rebuked the winds and the sea; and there was a dead calm. They were amazed, saying, "What sort of man is this, that even the winds and the sea obey him?" (Matthew 8:19-27 NRSV)

So to sum up: Jesus is approached by two men. A scribe who calls Jesus "teacher" and the other is said to be one of Jesus' disciples (no name given) who addresses Jesus as "Lord". The scribe offers to follow but the offer is not accepted by Jesus. The disciple addresses him as "Lord" and Jesus issues the command "Follow me". Jesus gets in the boat, the disciples follow him, and whammo! A windstorm rises up and is going to swamp the boat. The disciples are scared and ask JC to help. He gives the old "little faith" line and calms the sea.

The author, I feel, means for these 2 paragraphs to be read together to illustrate a point. The scribe approaches Jesus (a scribe would be literate and probably trained in Mosaic Law). He refers to Jesus as teacher and wants to follow! Jesus' reply is interpreted by some scholars as a reference to Psalm 8 (I'm not so sure of this myself. I have yet to read a convincing reason on how it exactly is supposed to fit here and what the author's purpose would be.) Anyway, the scribe (in my mind) represents tradition. He has followed Mosaic law his whole life and would represent the literate elite. He addresses Jesus as "teacher' (no faith). His disciple (no name given-the author is saying who it was is not important, just pay attention to the story) approaches and calls him "Lord" (faith present-something he can work with). The disciple then asks if he could bury his father first. Jesus replies that the "dead bury their own dead". Jesus does not mean there are zombie gravediggers - he is saying the spiritually dead can worry about such things. To be his disciple you need to start following him now! The time has come! The kingdom of God is approaching and you make excuses and procrastinate? You are more worried about proper traditions and following customs? Whatsamatterwithu?!? This is what every Jew was waiting for! The end of Roman rule!

Now moving into the next paragraph, they all get in the boat. They have started a journey as disciples of Christ. A storm rises up and Jesus saves them. There is peace. The symbolic illustration by the author kinda screams at me here. Being a disciple of Jesus won't be easy, but through faith, all storms will be quelled and peace and serenity will be yours.

(This story has some themes in common with the call of Elisha (see 1 Kings 19:19-21). Elisha destroys what used to sustain him (his plow and oxen) and sets out to follow Elijah. The author of Luke may have had this story in mind...)


Most scholars look at one of the main themes of Matthew as being discipleship. In Mark, the disciples seemed thick and unable to comprehend anything. In Matthew, there is an emphasis on the disciples needing to grow more in their faith and learn what they need to do to be a follower of Jesus.

Ack! It's late and I have to be up early. I'll give a look at "first-class historian" Luke tomorrow.

 

[Greediguts]

"Do you think that I have come to bring peace to the earth? No, I tell you, but rather division! From now on five in one household will be divided, three against two and two against three; they will be divided: father against son and son against father, mother against daughter and daughter against mother, mother-in-law against her daughter-in-law and daughter-in-law against mother-in-law." (Luke 12:51-53)

or again, in the Matthew version:

"Do not think that I have come to bring peace to the earth; I have not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I have come to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law; and one's foes will be members of one's own household. Whoever loves father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; and whoever loves son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me; and whoever does not take up the cross and follow me is not worthy of me. Those who find their life will lose it, and those who lose their life for my sake will find it."(Matthew 10:34-39)

I used to specifically bring these passages up when arguing with fundamentalist Christians. On forums or by e-mail I could go to the online Skeptic's Annotated Bible and fire off whatever verse I needed.
----

Xian: I'm soo sorry that all you atheists can't understand that God is loving, moral, and just.

Me: Oh really? <Insert OT mean and wrathful God verse here> Yur god sux!!!

Xian: Jesus showed us what peace was. He wanted us to love one another.

Me: Riiigghtt. <Insert previous NT verses here> He just wanted you to hate your family! But I'm sure your mythical man-god will return soon...soon as he can play the piano again!
----

I did what they did. I took the bible literally. I became just as dogmatic as they did. It was only after I started reading more scholarly works that I came to see my problem. I was cherry-picking verses and taking them at face value. I never bothered to look deeper. I was just like the people I was arguing with...

My thinking changed because of this thread. It happened in post 454. Since that "epiphany" I have found a whole new world to explore. Gnostic Gospels, textual criticism, proto-Christians, Jewish history and traditions, Roman law...the list goes on and on.

I bring this up because I think I can see where you are coming from joobz. Today we know that cult leaders want to distance the followers from their families.

But what did a first century Jew know? They were a people living under Roman occupation. Part of their national identity was the shared belief in the idea that a Messiah would come and free them from Roman rule.

Shouldn't this be taken into consideration?

When reading verses from the NT (like those quoted above) should I take each at face value and view them through my 2009 atheist-colored glasses or should I try and look at each Gospel as whole and individual, written by different authors, at different times, with different goals in mind, who (as Raymond Brown talked about in his works) were members of early and separate Jewish/Christian communities? Should I look for verses in the Hebrew Bible that compare to the NT verses quoted above (such as Micah 7:6)? Does that in any way help to understand and interpret these verses? Could I end another sentence with a question mark?

If I'm way off base here joobz, then I deeply and sincerely apologize. I just started looking back over the past couple of posts (especially my hastily written interpretation) and wanted to give a bit more context for what my thinking was as to why I preferred Rolfe's view to yours.

Thanks.

 

[Hokulele]

Very well said, Greediguts.

I have to agree, sorry joobz. Although, joobz is on the right track in that you should be very careful with applying biblical lessons to modern life. I know this came from the DOC thread, and DOC does have a slight whiff of biblical literalist about him (although he claims he isn't one).

It is very important to remember that much of the NT is couched in apocalyptic terms, and as such, everything is secondary to supporting the return of the messiah (Jewish-style messiah, that is). Family is less important, reproduction is less important, standing up for political issues is less important ("render unto Caesar" and all that). Re-reading the NT and commentary on several of the works that didn't make the cut really emphasize the fact that early Christianity had very little to do with how to make this the best life possible, but how to prepare for what comes next.

In a sense, that attitude saddens me as much as anything else I have seen/heard any Christian suggest.

 

[joobz]

Why's everyone apologizing? Am I so sensitive that I can't be wrong?

Seriously, I love it when I'm proven wrong about these things. It means I've learned. It was my sole intent to learn from you and I am happy Rolfe was so generous with me.

And I completely understand that historical context does need to be included, but In truth that is what I'm trying to figure out.


To me, The lines quoted here (and the ones greediguts gave about family division) reminds me much of what one would expect of a cult leader. Especially a cult convinced of the end times.

So, this leads me to ask the next question:
What is different about Jesus' request of religion over family to that of any modern day cult leader?

 

[Hokulele]

The main difference between early Christianity and what most people think of as a modern cult is the whole concept of family. Many cults force people to cut ties with their original families in order to replace them. One message of the NT seems to imply that all social ties will shortly be unecessary, no need for replacements, every man/woman/child for themself.

This can be seen in passages such as Mark 12 (repeated in both Matthew and Luke), where the Sadducees ask about the women who was married to seven different brothers, and to which one she would belong after resurrection. Basically, there will be no such thing as marriage, family, or possibly even gender. In other words, instead of the cult members replacing one's family ties, the only relation a good Christian should have is with God. Paul's epistles also make this fairly clear. As an interesting tie-in to this, you may want to read the Acts of Thecla, as it is a pretty good example of how early Christians romanticized celibacy and the repudiation of any type of family life.

As I have said before, if going to heaven means losing everything that makes me human, thanks, but no thanks.

 

[joobz]

The main difference between early Christianity and what most people think of as a modern cult is the whole concept of family. Many cults force people to cut ties with their original families in order to replace them. One message of the NT seems to imply that all social ties will shortly be unecessary, no need for replacements, every man/woman/child for themself.

This can be seen in passages such as Mark 12 (repeated in both Matthew and Luke), where the Sadducees ask about the women who was married to seven different brothers, and to which one she would belong after resurrection. Basically, there will be no such thing as marriage, family, or possibly even gender. In other words, instead of the cult members replacing one's family ties, the only relation a good Christian should have is with God. Paul's epistles also make this fairly clear. As an interesting tie-in to this, you may want to read the Acts of Thecla, as it is a pretty good example of how early Christians romanticized celibacy and the repudiation of any type of family life.

As I have said before, if going to heaven means losing everything that makes me human, thanks, but no thanks.

Interesting... I'll look into the Acts of Thecla.

My only question would then be how does this concept jive with the Commandment, "Honor your mother and your Father"?

 

[Hokulele]

My only question would then be how does this concept jive with the Commandment, "Honor your mother and your Father"?

Short answer, it doesn't.

Longer answer, the Old Testament was essentially about how to live in this life, rather than worrying about any sort of afterlife. Their whole concept of the Messiah and all that jazz revolved around an earthly kingdom (Israel) and an earthly king (the Messiah's eventual role, once he finished busting heads). The New Testament was mainly written after it became pretty clear that an earthly kingdom a la the Old Testament wasn't in the works, what with the potential Messiah being dead and all (or, if not dead, certainly unavailable for head busting). The NT shifts the focus to a heavenly kingdom, and what should be done to prepare for that, screw this life.

Trying to honestly apply OT commandments to a NT mindset will basically result in headaches, which is what makes watching biblical literalists/apologists so entertaining.

 

[joobz]

Another example of why I love this forum.

Thanks, Hok and Greediguts!

Rolfe, you were correct and I apologize for any trouble.

Thank you.

 

[TimCallahan]

First, there is really no particular suggestion in the gospels that disciples generally were required to cut off family ties.

Luke 14:26:

If any one comes to me and does not hate his own father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters, yes, and even his own life, he cannot be my disciple.

According to Strong's listing 3404, the Greek word translated in this verse as "hate" is "miseo," which means "to detest."

 

[CORed]

Let's simplify this. A "scriptural illiterate" is anybody whose interpretation of the Bible disagrees with Radbrroks's.

 

[Greediguts]

Luke 14:26:

If any one comes to me and does not hate his own father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters, yes, and even his own life, he cannot be my disciple.

According to Strong's listing 3404, the Greek word translated in this verse as "hate" is "miseo," which means "to detest."

Tim, do you know if the same Greek is used in Matthew 10:37-39?

 

[Toke]

Let's simplify this. A "scriptural illiterate" is anybody whose interpretation of the Bible disagrees with Radbrroks's.

Correct.
That was establiced some pages ago, the tread have mutated into a discustion/sharing between real litterates.
(Or at least people who have actually read the bible plus some)*

*I stick to reading

 

[TimCallahan]

Tim, do you know if the same Greek is used in Matthew 10:37-39?

Well, no. The word used in Luke is "hate." In the passage in Matthew, Jesus says, "He who loves his father or mother more than me is not worthy of me."
The word ranslated as "more" is, according to Strong's listing 5228, "huper" or "hyper" (the Greek letter upsilon is variously transliterated as "u" and "y") which means "above." The word translated as "worthy is, in Greek, "axios" (Strong's listing 514), meaning, deserving, comparable or suitable.

 

[Greediguts]

Well, no. The word used in Luke is "hate." In the passage in Matthew, Jesus says, "He who loves his father or mother more than me is not worthy of me."
The word ranslated as "more" is, according to Strong's listing 5228, "huper" or "hyper" (the Greek letter upsilon is variously transliterated as "u" and "y") which means "above." The word translated as "worthy is, in Greek, "axios" (Strong's listing 514), meaning, deserving, comparable or suitable.

Right. I was familiar with the passage, I just wanted to make sure there wasn't a translation error. I felt the Matthew verse needed to be mentioned as it is almost, but not quite the same, as the Luke verse. Obviously a common source ("Q" right?) was used between the 2 authors. Are you familiar with any arguments/theories as to why the earliest author (Matthew) used the words he did, and the later author (Luke) chose stronger language ("hate")? Also are you trying to make the point that Jesus actually wanted his disciples to cut all family ties?