• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Scriptural literacy

Just had to post and say the discussion here is absolutely fascinating! For a while I've been interested in learning a bit about the historical/literary aspects of the Bible, but never really known where to start. After reading this thread I've ordered 2 books by Ehrman that I can't wait to read. I'll be following this thread with interest. :)

/back on lurk mode
 
Gytha Ogg said:
Just had to post and say the discussion here is absolutely fascinating! For a while I've been interested in learning a bit about the historical/literary aspects of the Bible, but never really known where to start. After reading this thread I've ordered 2 books by Ehrman that I can't wait to read. I'll be following this thread with interest. :)

/back on lurk mode
Click to expand...

Glad you enjoy the thread! PLEASE feel free to post with any comments, questions, stories, etc.
------

I'm about halfway through Friedman's book and so far I have not come upon the "crossing the Jordan" theory. The only reference I find to the Song of the Sea is on page 258. He has notes for the identification of authors and he states, "This song, known as the Song of the Sea, like the blessing of Jacob, was probably not composed by the author of J, but was rather a source that this author used and then wove into the narrative." That seems to fit with Kugel's theory.

Ichneumonwasp, correct me if I'm wrong (and I may very well be) but wasn't it in Numbers where it is mentioned that Moses never gets to cross the Jordan? Am I remembering this correctly? Ack! I'll have to take a look.
 
Greediguts said:
Glad you enjoy the thread! PLEASE feel free to post with any comments, questions, stories, etc.
------

I'm about halfway through Friedman's book and so far I have not come upon the "crossing the Jordan" theory. The only reference I find to the Song of the Sea is on page 258. He has notes for the identification of authors and he states, "This song, known as the Song of the Sea, like the blessing of Jacob, was probably not composed by the author of J, but was rather a source that this author used and then wove into the narrative." That seems to fit with Kugel's theory.

Ichneumonwasp, correct me if I'm wrong (and I may very well be) but wasn't it in Numbers where it is mentioned that Moses never gets to cross the Jordan? Am I remembering this correctly? Ack! I'll have to take a look.
Click to expand...


Jeez, don't remember. It would probably be in Numbers though, since that was one of the priestly books and the priests tended to make Moses look bad at the expense of Aaron.

I really don't remember where I ran into that theory about crossing the Jordan. I thought it was in Friedman but it was probably somewhere else.
 
Two questions:

1. I know I argued before that Paul may have thought of himself as a new Jonah, but why did he take the message to the gentiles? Did he really think of himself that way, and was this the idea that evantually the message was supposed to go to everyone within judaism (that is in a apocalyptic context), or could he have had another motivation? Could it be that Jesus message was that God dwells among the unclean - the tax collectors, prostitutes, etc. (which makes sense of some of his sayings) -- and that Paul simply extended the idea? Who was the most unclean afterall?

2. What's up with the women at the tomb in Mark? Are we to believe that a small group of women went to annoit Jesus' body when they knew there should be a huge rock covering the opening of the tomb? How did they hope to move that stone? Does the story make sense internally?
 
Ichneumonwasp said:
2. What's up with the women at the tomb in Mark? Are we to believe that a small group of women went to annoit Jesus' body when they knew there should be a huge rock covering the opening of the tomb? How did they hope to move that stone? Does the story make sense internally?
Click to expand...
That's a part that has always bother me.
The story makes a big deal about how the stone was no longer blocking the tomb, and boy-oh-boy was it a big rock.

I had always thought tombs (Especially family tombs) were designed to be entered and exited multiple times. why should we be shocked to think that it was no longer blocked?
 
Ichneumonwasp said:
Two questions:

1. I know I argued before that Paul may have thought of himself as a new Jonah, but why did he take the message to the gentiles? Did he really think of himself that way, and was this the idea that evantually the message was supposed to go to everyone within judaism (that is in a apocalyptic context), or could he have had another motivation? Could it be that Jesus message was that God dwells among the unclean - the tax collectors, prostitutes, etc. (which makes sense of some of his sayings) -- and that Paul simply extended the idea? Who was the most unclean afterall?

2. What's up with the women at the tomb in Mark? Are we to believe that a small group of women went to annoit Jesus' body when they knew there should be a huge rock covering the opening of the tomb? How did they hope to move that stone? Does the story make sense internally?
Click to expand...

Well, looking at Galatians, you can see some of Paul's reasoning and justification for what he is doing. Chapter 3 of Galatians shows how Paul uses scripture to support his interpretation of Moses' law and what it means.

Anyone who believes is descended from Abraham. God told Abraham "All the Gentiles shall be blessed in you." God blessed Abraham due to his faith and not his adherence to following laws. (Gal. 3:6-9) Paul seems to be taking Genesis 12:3, 15:6, 18:18 and 22:18 into account in how he puts this idea together.

Paul points out that "all who rely on the works of the law are under a curse" which comes from Deuteronomy 27:26. Then he quotes Habakkuk 1:4 "The one who is righteous will live by faith", but then he points out that the law doesn't rest on faith. "Whoever does the works of the law will live by them." (Leviticus 18:5) Christ redeems everyone from the curse by becoming the cursed (a reference to Deuteronomy 21:23...only problem is that it really applies to hanging, not crucifixion. Paul seems to think tree = wood = cross) so we are then able to be part of God's promise to Abraham. (Galatians 3:10-14)

Jesus is Abraham's offspring. (Paul takes offspring as singular here, which comes from the Septuagint text, not the actual Hebrew according to the Oxford Annotated) The promise by God was made to Abraham and his offspring, who is Jesus. Since Moses' Law came later it would not nullify God's promise to Abraham. Paul basically feels that the law was put in place so there would be discipline until Jesus arrived. (Galatians 3:15-19)

So then Paul sums up what it all means:

"But now that faith has come, we are no longer subject to a disciplinarian, for in Christ Jesus you are all children of God through faith. As many of you as were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. There is no longer Jew or Greek, there is no longer slave or free, there is no longer male and female; for all of you are one in Christ Jesus. And if you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham's offspring, heirs according to the promise." (Galatians 3:25-29)

I think Paul saw himself as a final prophet. He would bring everyone to God, Jesus would then return, and the curtain would come down. I don't think he cared about social status or sex (in more ways than one...wink, wink, nudge, nudge). I think his overall apocalyptic beliefs drove him. Plus, Paul doesn't really talk about Jesus' sayings or deeds (except the crucifixion) all too often in his letters. So would Paul really know if Jesus ate with tax collectors? Maybe, but perhaps not. I think Paul based his view more on interpreting the Hebrew Bible through Jesus, than what Jesus might have been actually teaching...

Ack! I'm running late. I'll post more later...
 
Greediguts said:
I think Paul saw himself as a final prophet. He would bring everyone to God, Jesus would then return, and the curtain would come down. I don't think he cared about social status or sex (in more ways than one...wink, wink, nudge, nudge). I think his overall apocalyptic beliefs drove him. Plus, Paul doesn't really talk about Jesus' sayings or deeds (except the crucifixion) all too often in his letters. So would Paul really know if Jesus ate with tax collectors? Maybe, but perhaps not. I think Paul based his view more on interpreting the Hebrew Bible through Jesus, than what Jesus might have been actually teaching...
Click to expand...


This agrees with what I think. There are a lot of themes from Isaiah in Paul's letters as well.
 
Greediguts said:
Well, looking at Galatians, you can see some of Paul's reasoning and justification for what he is doing. Chapter 3 of Galatians shows how Paul uses scripture to support his interpretation of Moses' law and what it means.

Anyone who believes is descended from Abraham. God told Abraham "All the Gentiles shall be blessed in you." God blessed Abraham due to his faith and not his adherence to following laws. (Gal. 3:6-9) Paul seems to be taking Genesis 12:3, 15:6, 18:18 and 22:18 into account in how he puts this idea together.

Paul points out that "all who rely on the works of the law are under a curse" which comes from Deuteronomy 27:26. Then he quotes Habakkuk 1:4 "The one who is righteous will live by faith", but then he points out that the law doesn't rest on faith. "Whoever does the works of the law will live by them." (Leviticus 18:5) Christ redeems everyone from the curse by becoming the cursed (a reference to Deuteronomy 21:23...only problem is that it really applies to hanging, not crucifixion. Paul seems to think tree = wood = cross) so we are then able to be part of God's promise to Abraham. (Galatians 3:10-14)

Jesus is Abraham's offspring. (Paul takes offspring as singular here, which comes from the Septuagint text, not the actual Hebrew according to the Oxford Annotated) The promise by God was made to Abraham and his offspring, who is Jesus. Since Moses' Law came later it would not nullify God's promise to Abraham. Paul basically feels that the law was put in place so there would be discipline until Jesus arrived. (Galatians 3:15-19)

So then Paul sums up what it all means:

"But now that faith has come, we are no longer subject to a disciplinarian, for in Christ Jesus you are all children of God through faith. As many of you as were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. There is no longer Jew or Greek, there is no longer slave or free, there is no longer male and female; for all of you are one in Christ Jesus. And if you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham's offspring, heirs according to the promise." (Galatians 3:25-29)

I think Paul saw himself as a final prophet. He would bring everyone to God, Jesus would then return, and the curtain would come down. I don't think he cared about social status or sex (in more ways than one...wink, wink, nudge, nudge). I think his overall apocalyptic beliefs drove him. Plus, Paul doesn't really talk about Jesus' sayings or deeds (except the crucifixion) all too often in his letters. So would Paul really know if Jesus ate with tax collectors? Maybe, but perhaps not. I think Paul based his view more on interpreting the Hebrew Bible through Jesus, than what Jesus might have been actually teaching...

Ack! I'm running late. I'll post more later...
Click to expand...

Right. Some of that seems to fit directly into the "taking it to the unclean" scenario. And, yes, Paul apocalypticizes it. Maybe that's where he runs into trouble?

Let me tell you where I'm coming from. I've been trying to re-think Crossan's viewpoint about Jesus -- the radical egalitarian schtik -- and listening again to Tom Sheehan's Stanford lectures on the Historical Jesus. Sheehan's theory (which I don't quite buy but I want to play with) is that Paul's conversion experience consisted in him coming into contact with a group of Christians when he might have spied on them in their practices. The theory is that what he would have seen is a group of downcast losers who would have been considered ritually unclean -- but they were sharing amongst themselves and living the kind of life that an apocalypticist thought was the ideal (that radical egalitarian ethos).

Taking it back a bit -- why did Paul persecute the Christians? Possibly because they thought a ritually unclean man was the chosen one of God. How could that be from a Pharisaic viewpoint?

When he sees a group of people living the life that Isaiah and Jeremiah spoke of -- what the prophets always extolled (I demand mercy not sacrifice) -- he may have turned against his Pharasaic heritage and relaized that God dwells among the unclean and that cleanliness (the law) is not important.

I can sort of see some of this story in the gospels, but I'm not sure that I see it very well in Paul's letters. One thing that would potentially argue for it would be that at the meeting with the pillars of the church (in Galatians) the only clear instruction Paul says he gets as far as what to do is to make sure that he feeds the poor. The lack of any other clear instructions is interesting, but I'm not sure what it means. The instruction itself fits with a radical egalitarian ethos (so that might well have been the orientation of Peter and James).

Keep in mind, too, that Galatians is rhetoric designed to counter the pro-circumcision group.

What bothers me about Paul as fitting into the radical egalitarian crowd is that while he often speak of "love one another" he concentrates in other letters on his elaborate theology, especially in Romans. And he specifically seems to state in 1st Corinthians that no one has yet begun to enjoy the fruits of the resurrection -- which one might expect if radical egalitarianism were being preached and practiced.
 
Ichneumonwasp said:
Right. Some of that seems to fit directly into the "taking it to the unclean" scenario. And, yes, Paul apocalypticizes it. Maybe that's where he runs into trouble?

Let me tell you where I'm coming from. I've been trying to re-think Crossan's viewpoint about Jesus -- the radical egalitarian schtik -- and listening again to Tom Sheehan's Stanford lectures on the Historical Jesus. Sheehan's theory (which I don't quite buy but I want to play with) is that Paul's conversion experience consisted in him coming into contact with a group of Christians when he might have spied on them in their practices. The theory is that what he would have seen is a group of downcast losers who would have been considered ritually unclean -- but they were sharing amongst themselves and living the kind of life that an apocalypticist thought was the ideal (that radical egalitarian ethos).

Taking it back a bit -- why did Paul persecute the Christians? Possibly because they thought a ritually unclean man was the chosen one of God. How could that be from a Pharisaic viewpoint?

When he sees a group of people living the life that Isaiah and Jeremiah spoke of -- what the prophets always extolled (I demand mercy not sacrifice) -- he may have turned against his Pharasaic heritage and relaized that God dwells among the unclean and that cleanliness (the law) is not important.

I can sort of see some of this story in the gospels, but I'm not sure that I see it very well in Paul's letters. One thing that would potentially argue for it would be that at the meeting with the pillars of the church (in Galatians) the only clear instruction Paul says he gets as far as what to do is to make sure that he feeds the poor. The lack of any other clear instructions is interesting, but I'm not sure what it means. The instruction itself fits with a radical egalitarian ethos (so that might well have been the orientation of Peter and James).

Keep in mind, too, that Galatians is rhetoric designed to counter the pro-circumcision group.

What bothers me about Paul as fitting into the radical egalitarian crowd is that while he often speak of "love one another" he concentrates in other letters on his elaborate theology, especially in Romans. And he specifically seems to state in 1st Corinthians that no one has yet begun to enjoy the fruits of the resurrection -- which one might expect if radical egalitarianism were being preached and practiced.
Click to expand...

A theory known that, in time, will be known as "Smell you later, Pater."
 
Elizabeth I said:
No, but I started Misquoting Jesus today. Then my husband started reading it and now I'll probably have to fight him for it.
Click to expand...

slingblade said:
They used to stone you for that. Or is it that you have to be stoned...? :p
Click to expand...

Well, it's not exactly misquoting Jesus, but there's always "Gladly, the Cross-eyed Bear."

And when I was just a small child, I thought the first line of "The Battle Hymn of the Republic" was, "Almond Christian soldiers," and that Joseph's brothers threw him into the pit because of his "Coke of many colors" (I thought it was a case of Nehi soda...you know, orange, grape, cherry...)
 
Ichneumonwasp said:
Right. Some of that seems to fit directly into the "taking it to the unclean" scenario. And, yes, Paul apocalypticizes it. Maybe that's where he runs into trouble?

Let me tell you where I'm coming from. I've been trying to re-think Crossan's viewpoint about Jesus -- the radical egalitarian schtik -- and listening again to Tom Sheehan's Stanford lectures on the Historical Jesus. Sheehan's theory (which I don't quite buy but I want to play with) is that Paul's conversion experience consisted in him coming into contact with a group of Christians when he might have spied on them in their practices. The theory is that what he would have seen is a group of downcast losers who would have been considered ritually unclean -- but they were sharing amongst themselves and living the kind of life that an apocalypticist thought was the ideal (that radical egalitarian ethos).

Taking it back a bit -- why did Paul persecute the Christians? Possibly because they thought a ritually unclean man was the chosen one of God. How could that be from a Pharisaic viewpoint?

When he sees a group of people living the life that Isaiah and Jeremiah spoke of -- what the prophets always extolled (I demand mercy not sacrifice) -- he may have turned against his Pharasaic heritage and relaized that God dwells among the unclean and that cleanliness (the law) is not important.

I can sort of see some of this story in the gospels, but I'm not sure that I see it very well in Paul's letters. One thing that would potentially argue for it would be that at the meeting with the pillars of the church (in Galatians) the only clear instruction Paul says he gets as far as what to do is to make sure that he feeds the poor. The lack of any other clear instructions is interesting, but I'm not sure what it means. The instruction itself fits with a radical egalitarian ethos (so that might well have been the orientation of Peter and James).

Keep in mind, too, that Galatians is rhetoric designed to counter the pro-circumcision group.

What bothers me about Paul as fitting into the radical egalitarian crowd is that while he often speak of "love one another" he concentrates in other letters on his elaborate theology, especially in Romans. And he specifically seems to state in 1st Corinthians that no one has yet begun to enjoy the fruits of the resurrection -- which one might expect if radical egalitarianism were being preached and practiced.
Click to expand...

Hmmm, I'm not seeing Paul pushing radical egalitarianism. As you point out, what we would expect to see, we don't. When I read his letters, I get the sense of someone driven by his faith to preach and convert.

Paul would have been aware of the Essene sect and how they lived...why not just join them? Their communal lifestyle, plus no sacrifices and no sex, would seem to be a perfect fit for Paul if that was what he really wanted.

Many different Jews over the years had claimed to be a prophet or messiah. Most died at the hands of the Romans. So the old way of interpreting scripture did not seem to work. God had still not stepped in to help. No real change had come about. Paul mentions in some of his letters of how devoted he was to the law and being a Pharisee. I think Paul began to have doubts and so started to question everything. Why hasn't God helped? I follow and even enforce God's laws, yet nothing changes...

He starts having more contact with early Jewish/Christians. If he began looking through the Hebrew Bible for verses to refute/support their claims, he is struck by an idea. The law had not brought the kingdom of God but faith in Jesus' sacrifice and resurrection would. I think Paul, following Jesus' lead, began looking at the Hebrew Bible and interpreting it differently. Everyone else had gotten it wrong, but Paul would get it right.
 
Greediguts said:
Hmmm, I'm not seeing Paul pushing radical egalitarianism. As you point out, what we would expect to see, we don't. When I read his letters, I get the sense of someone driven by his faith to preach and convert.

Paul would have been aware of the Essene sect and how they lived...why not just join them? Their communal lifestyle, plus no sacrifices and no sex, would seem to be a perfect fit for Paul if that was what he really wanted.

Many different Jews over the years had claimed to be a prophet or messiah. Most died at the hands of the Romans. So the old way of interpreting scripture did not seem to work. God had still not stepped in to help. No real change had come about. Paul mentions in some of his letters of how devoted he was to the law and being a Pharisee. I think Paul began to have doubts and so started to question everything. Why hasn't God helped? I follow and even enforce God's laws, yet nothing changes...

He starts having more contact with early Jewish/Christians. If he began looking through the Hebrew Bible for verses to refute/support their claims, he is struck by an idea. The law had not brought the kingdom of God but faith in Jesus' sacrifice and resurrection would. I think Paul, following Jesus' lead, began looking at the Hebrew Bible and interpreting it differently. Everyone else had gotten it wrong, but Paul would get it right.
Click to expand...


I agree. I just can't fit Paul into that round hole since he seems mostly to care about Jesus as the awakened, so the general resurrection was coming -- and most of his theology tries to work out what Jesus as the chosen one meant.

And he does use the language of sacrifice quite a bit.

I like the idea of Jesus as a radical egalitarian/Essene-type, but I agree that Paul just seems to be something very different.

I guess this fits the Northern/Southern distinction that Crossan makes -- the Southern/Jerusalem group being apocalyptic and the Northern/Galilean group being primarily concerned with the original Kingdom message/social justice.

We know there were different Jewish groups at the time, so why not different reactions to the nascent Christian community?
 
Greediguts said:
Ichneumonwasp, correct me if I'm wrong (and I may very well be) but wasn't it in Numbers where it is mentioned that Moses never gets to cross the Jordan? Am I remembering this correctly? Ack! I'll have to take a look.
Click to expand...

It's in Numbrs 20. The story is rather odd. The Israelites are short of water in the wilderness and, as usual, start to grumble against Moses. So Moses and Aaron pray to God with the following result (Num. 20:6 - 8):

Then Moses and Aaron went from the presence of the assembly to the door of the tent of meeting, and fell on their faces. And the glory of the LORD appeared to them, and the LORD said to Moses, "Take the rod and assemble the congregation, you and Aaron your brother, and tell the rock before their eyes to yeald its water; so you shall bring water out of the rock for them; so you shall give drink to the congregation and their cattle."

Moses and Aaron respond as follows (Num. 20:9 - 11):

And Moses took the rod from before the LORD, as he commanded him. And Moses and Aaron gaathered the assembly together before the rock, and he said to them, "Hear now, you rebels; shall we bring forth water for you out of this rock?" And Moses lifted up his hand and struck the rock twice; and water came forth abundantly, and the congregation drank, and their cattle.

So far, we have a pretty straight-forward miracle story. Then it gets weird (Num. 20:12):

And the LORD said to Moses and Aaron, "Because you did not beleive in me, to sanctify me in the eyes of the people of Israel, therefore you shall not bring this assembly into the land which I have given them."

This is one of those head-scratching passages in the Bible, where things don't make any sort of sense. Moses and Aaron seem to have done what God asked them to do. Yet, for this one infraction (whatever it was) he denies them entry into the Promised Land. There are generally two explanations for God penalizing the two men for doing what he told them to do. One is that Moses says, "Shall WE bring forth water for you out of this rock?" meaning that he was claiming to be the power behind the miracle. The other is that he struck the rock twice, indicating that he wasn't trusting in God, in which case he would have struck it once. Both explanations seem rather lame.

The problem is complicated further when Moses says in his farewell speech to the people of Israel, in Deurteronomy, that he asked God if he could go across the Jordan to see the Promised land (Deut. 3:26, 27):

But the LORD was angry with me on your account, and would not hearken to me; and the LORD said to me, "Let it suffice you; speak no more to me on this matter. Go up to the top of Pisgah, and lift up your eyes westward, northward, southwrd and eastward, and behold it with your eyes; for you shall not go over this Jordan."

So here, in a rival document (D) Moses isn't being punished for any lapse on his part, but is, rather unjustly, punished for the sins of his people.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom