Piggy
Unlicensed street skeptic
- Joined
- Mar 11, 2006
- Messages
- 15,905
There are competing threads woven through all of that, both of which are propagandistic.
One of the touchstones here is the story of the establishment of the kingship.
In one version, it's the fulfillment of God's will. In the other version, it is against God's will.
In version 1, Samuel is a seer who anoints Saul as leader over Israel and he is "crowned before YHVH".
In version 2, Samuel is a judge. The elders demand that he appoint a king, which eventuall he does, but he warns them that having a king makes them the equivalent of slaves.
So this quandary is emblematic of the challenges of Biblical scholarship, teasing apart the strands from this fabric.
Greediguts
Atheist for Jesus
- Joined
- Feb 12, 2007
- Messages
- 653
I notice 3 different strands for David's rise to power as well:
1. Samuel goes to Jesse's house, God rejects seven sons, then chooses the last (David), and then God has Samuel anoint him on the spot (1 Samuel 16:1-13).
2. Saul is tormented by an evil spirit. The servants look for someone who plays the lyre to help Saul feel better. Someone mentions David, son of Jesse. They send for him and David becomes Saul's court musician/armor bearer (1 Samuel 16:14-23).
3. The Philistines gathered an army at Socoh and Saul's army goes out to meet them. The Goliath challenges Saul's army to produce one person who would fight him man to man. After forty days (hmmm...40 days) of taunting, Jesse sends David to the front with food and to see if his other sons are alive and well. David hears the Goliath's taunts and asks Saul's permission to face the giant Philistine. Saul's says ok. David hits the Goliath with a rock and then cuts off his head. Saul then finds out the identity of David's father (1 Samuel 17).
The only one of these stories I remembered was #3, which was taught to me in Sunday school (minus the cutting off of the head of Goliath). Reading through Samuel 1 & 2 helped to give me more insight into David the prophet, not just David the warrior.
BTW - Good to hear from you Piggy! I hope this is more than a drive-by posting!
Hokulele
Deleterious Slab of Damnation
Yay! Piggy is back!
slingblade
Unregistered
- Joined
- Jul 28, 2005
- Messages
- 23,466
I found him. He was in the sofa.
A dead god's not much use, I'll admit.
Oh, I followed them faithfully for 30 years. And now, I know. Bye.
Piggy
Unlicensed street skeptic
- Joined
- Mar 11, 2006
- Messages
- 15,905
BTW - Good to hear from you Piggy! I hope this is more than a drive-by posting!
I hope so, too.
Due to unfortunate circumstances, I have some time on my hands lately, so hey, why not check in w/ my favorite folks?
Still keeping a low profile, tho.
Foster Zygote
Dental Floss Tycoon
- Joined
- Jun 24, 2006
- Messages
- 22,102
I still haven't found any leprechauns either, but I'm pretty sure that claims regarding their existence are false.
So you admit that thinking hinders faith.
Piggy
Unlicensed street skeptic
- Joined
- Mar 11, 2006
- Messages
- 15,905
I have followed the instructions, and now I know -- the instructions of the Lord, creator of worlds, my saviour....
Greediguts
Atheist for Jesus
- Joined
- Feb 12, 2007
- Messages
- 653
I'm about halfway through Raymond Brown's book The Churches the Apostles Left Behind and I've found it quite interesting. By looking at the NT, Brown sees seven different churches with different emphases in their perspective communities. He sees three churches in the heritage of Paul, one in the heritage of Peter, two in the Johannine heritage, and one is the church addressed by Matthew. Brown points out the strengths and weaknesses of each churches ecclesiology.
Example:
The two dominant factors in the ecclesiology of Acts are continuity from Israel through Jesus to Peter and to Paul, and the intervention of the Holy Spirit at crucial moments (Brown feels the Holy Spirit is the main "actor" in Acts, not Peter or Paul. Peter is never mentioned after the meeting in Jerusalem and then the story ends once Paul reaches Rome. He feels that when people deduce that Acts was written when Paul was alive fail to see the parallelism with Peter.)
So the strengths these factors offer to the Lucan churches would have been a sense of divinely prepared continuity and the belief that the Holy Spirit could intervene when church leaders needed help. The weaknesses would be how the members would deal with setbacks and defeats. Acts paints a triumphal picture. The Christian movement is just gaining follower after follower. The church cannot fail. He sees that the "worldview" of Acts has been used to explain away Christian failures. Islam took areas of North Africa, but it was ok because God gave them the Germanic and Scandinavian tribes as new converts. The church lost many members due to the Reformation, but Catholics said no problem, God gave us ever larger numbers in Central and South America. Brown states that the historical manipulation is obvious in these explanations and that God has never given an unconditioned promise of increasing numbers across the globe. As for the Holy Spirit intervening, Brown asks "Does not the picture in Acts lead easily to a deus ex machina concept of the Spirit? Has God really given a blank check so that in every major instance the Spirit will make sure that the church will muddle through?"
It's a pretty interesting read and I recommend it.
Example:
The two dominant factors in the ecclesiology of Acts are continuity from Israel through Jesus to Peter and to Paul, and the intervention of the Holy Spirit at crucial moments (Brown feels the Holy Spirit is the main "actor" in Acts, not Peter or Paul. Peter is never mentioned after the meeting in Jerusalem and then the story ends once Paul reaches Rome. He feels that when people deduce that Acts was written when Paul was alive fail to see the parallelism with Peter.)
So the strengths these factors offer to the Lucan churches would have been a sense of divinely prepared continuity and the belief that the Holy Spirit could intervene when church leaders needed help. The weaknesses would be how the members would deal with setbacks and defeats. Acts paints a triumphal picture. The Christian movement is just gaining follower after follower. The church cannot fail. He sees that the "worldview" of Acts has been used to explain away Christian failures. Islam took areas of North Africa, but it was ok because God gave them the Germanic and Scandinavian tribes as new converts. The church lost many members due to the Reformation, but Catholics said no problem, God gave us ever larger numbers in Central and South America. Brown states that the historical manipulation is obvious in these explanations and that God has never given an unconditioned promise of increasing numbers across the globe. As for the Holy Spirit intervening, Brown asks "Does not the picture in Acts lead easily to a deus ex machina concept of the Spirit? Has God really given a blank check so that in every major instance the Spirit will make sure that the church will muddle through?"
It's a pretty interesting read and I recommend it.
Hokulele
Deleterious Slab of Damnation
Aha! All this talk about Samuel and my recent re-reading of Acts just triggered something in my little pea brain.
At least once (maybe twice?), Acts refers to Samuel as a prophet. This ties in with the Thread #1 Piggy just mentioned. Is it possible that the Hebrew Bible (OT) used by the Luke author may have been different from the one we know today? Is it possible that the Luke author may have deliberately followed Thread #1 to tie Jesus more closely to the other OT prophets?
More pondering ensues...
At least once (maybe twice?), Acts refers to Samuel as a prophet. This ties in with the Thread #1 Piggy just mentioned. Is it possible that the Hebrew Bible (OT) used by the Luke author may have been different from the one we know today? Is it possible that the Luke author may have deliberately followed Thread #1 to tie Jesus more closely to the other OT prophets?
More pondering ensues...
Greediguts
Atheist for Jesus
- Joined
- Feb 12, 2007
- Messages
- 653
Acts 3:24 and 13:20 mention Samuel and both refer to him as a prophet.
(Interesting side note: Acts 13:22 - this verse is a mixture of 1 Samuel 13:14 and Psalms 89:20 - Oxford commentary)
I don't believe there was a "different" OT in use that only had one version of Samuel's story. From what I have read, the Deuteronomistic historians respected the ancient traditions enough that instead of cutting out whole stories and replacing them with what they want, they made some editorial additions, but fitted these stories with the others to preserve the old text as well.
(Another side note - I know of at least one longer version of Acts. The Codex Bezae)
Overall, the author of Acts wants to highlight the continuity between the old and the transition to the new.
I do sometimes wonder if the author of Acts wrote what he did not just for a "Christian" audience but also for Roman officials....
Hokulele
Deleterious Slab of Damnation
That makes sense. I really need to learn more about Jewish practice (especially at the time of the founding of the Christian church) and the provenance of the Hebrew Bible one of these days. If anyone has any recommendations...
Greediguts
Atheist for Jesus
- Joined
- Feb 12, 2007
- Messages
- 653
I'm trying to learn more about Jewish practice as well. Two books I had picked up are: How to Read the Bible by James L. Kugel and How to Read the Jewish Bible by Marc Zvi Brettler. Also a few web pages like this, this, and this. If you come across any good books or resources please pass them on!
-------
NT question-
Matthew 17:24-27
"When they reached Capernaum, the collectors of the temple tax came to Peter and said, "Does your teacher not pay the temple tax?" He said, "Yes, he does." And when he came home, Jesus spoke of it first, asking, "What do you think, Simon? From whom do kings of the earth take toll or tribute? From their children or from others?" When Peter said, "From others," Jesus said to him, "Then the children are free. However, so that we do not give offense to them, go to the sea and cast a hook; take the first fish that comes up; and when you open its mouth, you will find a coin; take that and give it to them for you and me."
Jesus seems to be basically saying kings don't tax their families, so God doesn't tax Israel, yes? Jesus still makes payment possible but by giving a coin "found" in a fish, isn't the author stating Jesus still felt the tax was not legitimate? He just apparently didn't want to offend anyone? Who exactly does he not want to offend?
Also, is the temple tax being referred to here the one mentioned in Exodus 30:13 or would this be the temple tax that the Romans imposed after the revolt in 66 CE. when the payment went to support the Jupiter temple in Rome (mentioned by Josephus in War book 7)?
Piggy
Unlicensed street skeptic
- Joined
- Mar 11, 2006
- Messages
- 15,905
The tax was the one imposed in order to build and maintain the Second Temple, after the repatriation of the Jews from Babylon by Cyrus of Persia, under the leadership of Ezra and Nehemiah.
And this passage goes back to the populism of Jesus.
He appears to have been strongly rabbinical, and anti-Temple. (You might compare this to the opposition of Luther to the central authority of Rome, based on a view that the leadership had become corrupted and that in any case a hierarchy of intercession between God and His children was not necessary or scripturally justified).
There is every indication that Jesus did believe that supporting the Temple priests through a tax was an illegitimate and destructive practice not sanctioned by God. (See also his "den of pirates" comment.)
The offense would be to the Temple. To my eyes the implication here is that Jesus is picking and choosing his time, and the time is not yet ready.
Greediguts
Atheist for Jesus
- Joined
- Feb 12, 2007
- Messages
- 653
Yes, I see, but, now looking at this from a different perspective, could not the author of Matthew been helping to answer a question his Jewish-Christian audience would have? Namely, are we still Jews? Are we bound by the same taxes? And if this is the case, then wouldn't Matthew's Jesus be basically telling them, no you don't have to pay the tax, but the problems that would arise by not paying are worse. Plus if the taxes were being collected by devout Jews, Jesus would be showing concern for not offending them (the devout Jews) as they felt they were doing God's work...
(Kinda spitballin' I know but I've really been trying to remind myself to look at each Gospel individually and not mush it all together like it had been spoon-fed to me as a child.)
Also Piggy, could you please define what you mean by "strongly rabbinical"? I think vaguely understand what you mean, but I would rather be sure.
Speaking of rabbis, do you think the author of Matthew was making any type of statement by only having Judas use that title when addressing Jesus at the Last Supper? The author of Mark didn't seem to have a problem with Jesus being addressed as rabbi...
Piggy
Unlicensed street skeptic
- Joined
- Mar 11, 2006
- Messages
- 15,905
I believe with Matthew the reference would have had more theological and social/political value since I think by that time there was no Temple tax, but I'd have to dig on that. I'm going off the cuff here.
Jesus is not depicted as anti-tax per se. The point seems to be more specifically the taxing of the agricultural folk to support the Temple bureaucracy in Jerusalem, an issue he speaks about more than once. He accuses the scribes of taking food from the mouths of the poor.
As for the rabbinical/priestly split, you can draw parallels between the modern day split between highly centralized churches (Catholicism, Mormonism) on the one hand, and decentralized churches (Baptists, Methodists) on the other.
And since Israel was a theocracy, you can also draw parallels between the division of powers -- and wrangling over those powers -- between federal and state governments in the USA.
The priesthood in Jerusalem was rigidly central and hierarchical. The Temple is the only sanctified place of worship, the priests are the arbiters between Israel and their God, the scribes are their representatives in the villages, sacrifice must be made by all Jews and it must be made at the Temple, and all of this is supported by taxation and the sale of sacrificial animals.
The synagogues at that time were not what we think of today, kindof the Jewish equivalent to the local First Baptist Church. They were village councils, but in a theocratic system in which the Law was also Scripture.
The rabbinical tradition grew up around local communities, and the rabbis who studied and commented on Torah (the Law).
The scribes, in a way, mediated between the Temple and the synagogues.
Jesus appears to have been a Galilean rabbi with his own school (or sect) who favored autonomy from Jerusalem -- not a split, but a kind of independence.
He seems to have viewed the Temple as bloated and corrupt, and essentially unnecessary. It's very likely that he opposed the practice of sacrifice altogether.
He was not a proponent of revolution against Rome, however, as were the Zeolots and certain other groups who viewed the Romans as unclean and believed God would punish Israel for allowing them to interact with Jews. By all accounts, Jesus opposed the kind of xenophobic racism inherent in that sort of strict interpretations of Torah.
So Jesus didn't oppose the Temple because it associated with Rome. He opposed them because he felt they were living high on the hog at the expense of the farmers and merchants in the countryside.
I believe that the most likely reason for his crucifixion was indeed sedition, but against the Temple, not Rome. During that time, Rome oversaw Judea, but allowed it to have its own internal Temple-based government.
So it makes sense that something like the synoptic account could be accurate, but without all the drama there at the end.
I imagine that it's very likely he was brought up on charges, arrested by the Romans at the behest of the Temple (the Romans had control of law enforcement) and executed for inciting sedition against the Jewish government which was sanctioned by Rome.
ETA: You can also draw parallels with the current situation in Afghanistan and parts of Pakistan, where local mullahs interpret sharia (traditional Muslim law) and often resist the imposition of power by the centralized governments in Kabul and Islamabad.
Last edited:
Greediguts
Atheist for Jesus
- Joined
- Feb 12, 2007
- Messages
- 653
Do you think Jesus was a disciple of John the Baptist for a period of time?
Piggy
Unlicensed street skeptic
- Joined
- Mar 11, 2006
- Messages
- 15,905
I think it's very likely. If he had not been, it's difficult to see why anyone would have invented stories of his being baptised by John, for instance. It's more likely that the gospel accounts are included in order to explain why the supposed Son of Man needed to be baptised by someone who was not his equal. If Jesus had come from John's school, it makes a lot more sense that we would see the gospels reflecting the relationship between the two that we see there.
Greediguts
Atheist for Jesus
- Joined
- Feb 12, 2007
- Messages
- 653
Yes. Agreed. I've been slightly disappointed with what little I've come across in regards to John and his role in the development of Jesus' ministry. I just became aware of the works of John P. Meier and the several volumes he has written about the historical Jesus. Vol 2 of the series apparently deals with John's role as a mentor to Jesus. Are you familiar with his work?
Actually Piggy, what books would you recommend? I started with Randel Helms and Bart Erhman, then picked-up some Raymond Brown, Elaine Pagels, and just recently started reading John Dominic Crossan and Bruce Metzger. You had mentioned in the past that you had some problems with the Jesus Seminar. Would you care to elaborate why?
As always, I appreciate your time and input.
Piggy
Unlicensed street skeptic
- Joined
- Mar 11, 2006
- Messages
- 15,905
For my money, the Anchor Bible series is an excellent place to start if you've already got a lot of the big picture and want to explore individual books and topics.
As for the Jesus Seminar, the problem I have is that in attempting to get everyone under the tent, they end up putting on a sideshow, a revival, and a lecture at the same time.
If you want scholarship, you have to have scholarship. You can't take one-third scholarship, one-third tradition, and one-third faith-based belief and end up with scholarship.