Originally posted by Big MacMoving from, say, rabbinical exegesis (midrash) to such as form criticism—Yes, I think that there is likely a lot of editing/redaction in the extant texts (such as the J,P,E and D streams that scholars have identified in the Torah).
Even several fundamentalist Christians (those who believe in inerrancy and infallibility) believe in the possibility of inspired editors who have added "connective tissue" between the various texts to make them flow together, revealing a thread of several important themes in the Hebrew Bible as ordered therein as opposed to the ordering found in the Christia ...[text shortened]... ted at the beginning of the book of Joshua: "connective tissue."
Thoughts, Mr. Vistesd?
And even reading the texts contemplatively, those “connective tissues” are now part of the text. Since I am interested in them, I look at the footnotes, so to speak. That doesn't necessarily mean that I reject them--or other possibilities.
I’m not a Biblical inerrantist, so “inspiration” doesn’t carry that connotation for me. If the connective tissues work, fine. But I understand your point.
With that said, I find the rabbi’s reading (yes, reading into) that text from Deuteronomy to be much more aesthetically pleasing that whatever the actual case might be. And I think it adds contemplative possibility to the text, if one imagines it that way. And that is what I think he was up to. Think of the story seen that way: the poignancy of it, what it might say about the human condition in which we are all aware of our impending death; think of anyone finding out they are going to die before accomplishing what they had hoped for, of writing the last lines of their own “story” with tears... etc., etc., etc.
Originally posted by epiphinehasNo. It's clear that the author is speaking about an extant hierarchy, because it assumes that the
Perhaps the church hierarchy was not well-developed during Paul's time, but it had to start somewhere. In 1 Timothy it's clear that Paul is outlining a blueprint for church hierarchy, not simply reiterating what was already in place: "I am writing these things to you now, even though I hope to be with you soon, so that if I am delayed, you will know how ...[text shortened]... hurch hierarchy during his lifetime, but it wasn't well-developed until the second century.
reader understands what he is talking about. If he had been speaking about something that didn't
yet exist, the letter would be unintelligible, like if I told you that the urbleflorps would have be taking
over your church. You'd say, 'What's he talking about?'
No, the author of this letter knows that deacons and bishops are common parlance, and that the
early, evolving hierarchy is already in place, and, I suspect, is perhaps addressing a concern about
the current leadership by insisting upon (reasonable) qualifications for such positions.
Nemesio
Originally posted by epiphinehas
But the fact remains that they were quoted, meaning that they were written atleast prior to being quoted. That there is no evidence of being quoted earlier in the second century is not really conclusive.
Of course they were quoted. But you are further revealing your ignorance about dating practices.
The later that a text was quoted -- that is a later terminus ante quem -- is a supporting
criterion for a later date. That, combined with a vastly different vocabulary, combined with references
to things not extant for decades after Saint Paul's life certainly provide further credence.
Besides, if Paul had been quoted extensively for almost a century, how could anyone possibly believe that a man so long dead had sudddenly penned a new letter? Unless, of course, it had been forged and passed off as a long lost original.
You use the word 'forged' to bolster your case. But such actions weren't thought of as 'forgeries.'
You need to familiarize yourself with pseudographical practices and how such things were viewed by
1st- and 2nd-century readers. As for how someone could believe a man dead could pen a letter,
consider how the 'Donation of Constantine' at least 350 years after Constantine could be believed.
The difference? One had material gains -- the Donation gave worldly power to the Church -- the
other had no end other than the formation of the Church.
You are getting wrapped up in the 'lying' aspect, not realizing that these actions were commonplace.
After all, Saint John's irreconcilable biography of Jesus is precisely the same thing.
Nemesio
Originally posted by NemesioOK, I accede to your apparent expertise. One question though, if this was a common accepted practice back then, what is the big ballyhoo? Does it necessarily mean what blakbuzzrd openly decries that the bible is established on 'outright lies'? In my mind, if the truths of scripture weren't Spirit-inspired, if they weren't founded on God's own timeless insight into future history and himself, then they would have floundered long ago and been relegated to the dust-bin of history, devoid of significance. If this was common practice and accepted by all, then why should this disturb anyone in the slightest? After all, anonymity gives prominence to the message itself.
Originally posted by epiphinehas
[b]But the fact remains that they were quoted, meaning that they were written atleast prior to being quoted. That there is no evidence of being quoted earlier in the second century is not really conclusive.
Of course they were quoted. But you are further revealing your ignorance about dating practices. aint John's irreconcilable biography of Jesus is precisely the same thing.
Nemesio[/b]
Originally posted by epiphinehas
OK, I accede to your apparent expertise. One question though, if this was a common accepted practice back then, what is the big ballyhoo? Does it necessarily mean what blakbuzzrd openly decries that the bible is established on 'outright lies'?
I'm unclear what BB's problem is. I mean, he did come from an Evangelical background, one which
predicated Truth on historical accuracy. I've never shared that viewpoint (at least in my recollection),
so I was never troubled by the knowledge that Saint Paul's attribution was pseudographical. To call
such an attribution a 'lie' is inaccurate, because 'lie' doesn't merely attest to the absence of 'truth,'
but a certain deceptive intent, usually with the attempt to gain something for himself. Frankly,
I don't know what the ballyhoo is myself, but I was just called an 'enemy of Christ' in another thread
because of my beliefs. For some people, it's an 'all-or-nothing' proposition; if Jesus didn't actually
do every single thing attributed to Him, then the whole Bible goes in the garbage can. That's why
people take great pains to 'prove' there are no contradictions in Scripture, even though it's painfully
obvious that there are.
In my mind, if the truths of scripture weren't Spirit-inspired, if they weren't founded on God's own timeless insight into future history and himself, then they would have floundered long ago and been relegated to the dust-bin of history, devoid of significance.
Do you know the parable of the 'Two Sons?' (Mt 21:28-32) I'm sure you do. Personally, it's one of
my favorites. I think it reveals a tremendous amount of Truth. I also believe that the sons never
existed. I'm sure you don't believe that they existed either. I'm sure you don't believe that the
'Good Samaritan' existed either, or the 'Woman looking for the Lost Coin.' You embrace these Truths
despite their being fictional, and it seems natural and healthy to you (and indeed it is). Why, then,
does it seem so unnatural for me to look at Saint John's Gospel as a whole in the same way?
After all, the chronology of Jesus' life is irreconcilable with that of the Synoptic Gospels, the actions
that He took have almost no overlap, the teachings are almost entirely different. It stretches
believability to conclude that the other Gospels didn't include the most magnificent actions in Jesus'
life -- the raising of Lazarus, the water into wine -- if they believed that Jesus was a wonder worker.
I think that the author was indeed inspired, and that the Bread of Life discourses are powerful allegories
worthy of study and inward digestion. I refer to them regularly and they inform and guide decisions
that I take. Why is it necessary that I believe that Jesus actually and literally said it?
Why isn't it sufficient for me to believe that it is 'Spirit-breathed,' that the author put them in the
mouth of Jesus because of inspiration, and that Jesus would have appreciated it?
If this was common practice and accepted by all, then why should this disturb anyone in the slightest? After all, anonymity gives prominence to the message itself.
It doesn't disturb me in the slightest in no small part because it was common practice. Why does it
bother you?
Nemesio