Science vs. Faith

[_Aristotle Smith]

Paul's behavior as proto-Joseph Smith

Umm, WTF?

[_Aristotle Smith]

You know, Stak, it's at times like this I find myself wondering why Christianity gets a pass despite having core concepts developed from a misuse of the Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible (not to mention the blatant butt-rape of Jewish prophecy perpetrated by the author of Matthew to make his view of Jesus fit the apocalyptic Messiah)

OK, do you know anything about how the Tanak was read by Jews during second temple Judaism? Because if you think the New Testament authors had a different hermeneutic than did pretty much every other Jew during this period, think again. The New Testament authors no more raped the Tanak than did any other Jew during the period. See Ben Sira, Jubilees, Wisdom of Solomon, 2 Maccabees, 2 Esdras, etc., etc..

And why the hell is everyone stuck on this translation stuff? Yes, if you want to do scholarly work on the Bible, learn the original languages. But a good modern translation in English (hint, the KJV doesn't count) along with reading a few scholarly works on the subject (hint, CES manuals don't count), will get you pretty far.

[_Nightlion]

One almost has to posit a God who sets the smart people up for failure.

Ya think?

1 Cor. 1: 26
26 For ye see your calling, brethren, how that not many wise men after the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, are called:

Alma 32: 23
23 And now, he imparteth his word by angels unto men, yea, not only men but women also. Now this is not all; little children do have words given unto them many times, which confound the wise and the learned.

2 Ne. 9: 42
42 And whoso knocketh, to him will he open; and the wise, and the learned, and they that are rich, who are puffed up because of their learning, and their wisdom, and their riches—yea, they are they whom he despiseth; and save they shall cast these things away, and consider themselves fools before God, and come down in the depths of humility, he will not open unto them.

[_honorentheos]

You know, Stak, it's at times like this I find myself wondering why Christianity gets a pass despite having core concepts developed from a misuse of the Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible (not to mention the blatant butt-rape of Jewish prophecy perpetrated by the author of Matthew to make his view of Jesus fit the apocalyptic Messiah)

OK, do you know anything about how the Tanak was read by Jews during second temple Judaism? Because if you think the New Testament authors had a different hermeneutic than did pretty much every other Jew during this period, think again. The New Testament authors no more raped the Tanak than did any other Jew during the period. See Ben Sira, Jubilees, Wisdom of Solomon, 2 Maccabees, 2 Esdras, etc., etc..

Hi AS,

I don't think it's particularly insightful to remind ourselves that the early Christians appeared to use the Septuagint as their source when refering to or quoting the Hebrew Bible. But for some reason it seemed funny to me that this thread took such a turn that, had our New Testament authors been partisipants they may have found themselves having to defend why they would be using this translation. If the authors of the foundational text of Christianity are so guilty (and in the case of the author of Matthew also guilty of revising his version of the narrative of Christ's life to better fit with Jewish beliefs about the Messiah, etc.) perhaps you'll forgive that I found myself wondering the same question you asked in the post above.

I am curious, though, about using 2nd Temple period reinterpretations of the narrative of Israel for a defense of Christianity's truthfulness. In my personal study of the period it's generally served to strengthen my perception of a natural explaination for the New Testament story of Christ. I'd be interested in your thoughts as to how this has played into your different faith journey. For what it's worth, I think this is an area that more LDS are likely uninformed as the transition between Old Testament and New seems to get lost in the Sunday School lessons. In fact, if I am not misremembering it seems to me that the story of Lehi and the Book of Mormon often takes the place of much of what transpired post-exhile. I've wondered since leaving the LDS faith if this isn't in part due to taking a stand on the Hebrew prophets as being much more unified in voice than they were as well as rejecting the Deutero-Isaiah theory? That in some ways the narrative of the people of Israel ends for LDS with Lehi leaving the City of Jerusalem (symbolic of the faith's departure from viewing the Hebrews as important to "the Gospel" from this period on) and only picking back up with John the Baptist.

[_honorentheos]

Oh, about the Paul/Joseph Smith comparison. I guess it is understandably opaque and even with explaination probably won't satisfy. I was refering to Paul's tendancy to reinterpret scripture to suit his version of the gospel as well as "buck" the establishment of both traditional judaism as well as the Jerusalem Christian leadership. I suppose it makes more sense to someone who views both as inventing rather than conveying ideas.

[_Aristotle Smith]

I don't think it's particularly insightful to remind ourselves that the early Christians appeared to use the Septuagint as their source when refering to or quoting the Hebrew Bible. But for some reason it seemed funny to me that this thread took such a turn that, had our New Testament authors been partisipants they may have found themselves having to defend why they would be using this translation. If the authors of the foundational text of Christianity are so guilty (and in the case of the author of Matthew also guilty of revising his version of the narrative of Christ's life to better fit with Jewish beliefs about the Messiah, etc.) perhaps you'll forgive that I found myself wondering the same question you asked in the post above.

I'm really at a loss as to why reading from the Septuagint is such a big deal. Most of the authors of the New Testament were likely native Greek speakers, so it's natural that they would read the Septuagint. Also, it's not uncommon for modern English translations to correct a passage from the Masoretic text in light of a Septuagint passage, especially if there is confirming evidence from the Dead Sea Scrolls (DSS) or an Aramaic Targum.

I am curious, though, about using 2nd Temple period reinterpretations of the narrative of Israel for a defense of Christianity's truthfulness. In my personal study of the period it's generally served to strengthen my perception of a natural explaination for the New Testament story of Christ. I'd be interested in your thoughts as to how this has played into your different faith journey. For what it's worth, I think this is an area that more LDS are likely uninformed as the transition between Old Testament and New seems to get lost in the Sunday School lessons. In fact, if I am not misremembering it seems to me that the story of Lehi and the Book of Mormon often takes the place of much of what transpired post-exhile. I've wondered since leaving the LDS faith if this isn't in part due to taking a stand on the Hebrew prophets as being much more unified in voice than they were as well as rejecting the Deutero-Isaiah theory? That in some ways the narrative of the people of Israel ends for LDS with Lehi leaving the City of Jerusalem (symbolic of the faith's departure from viewing the Hebrews as important to "the Gospel" from this period on) and only picking back up with John the Baptist.

The LDS do have a problem in reading the Bible because they have to see the Mormonism in its full form preached from Adam. They also have to see every prophet, patriarch, apostle, etc. essentially saying the same thing. They see them all as essentially Thomas S. Monson, sans business suit. This does lead to lots of bad readings, eisegesis, and just plain making stuff up. The problem with Deutero-Isaiah is that Nephi quotes Deutero-Isaiah, when he would not have had access to it.

As for how 2nd temple Judaism read the Tanak, I'm NOT using this as a defense of the truthfulness of Christianity, and I think it would be silly to try. My only point is that the writers of the New Testament were not doing anything out of the ordinary for their time and place. In general I DON'T think it's proper for a modern reader to follow their lead, but rather the modern reader should try and get back to the original meaning of the text through some variation of the grammatical/historical/critical method. But it needs to be understood that 2nd temple Jews were not as interested in the original meanings, they were interested in what the scriptures meant for them in their time and place.

As an example, take the Pesher commentaries of the DSS community. The loved to interpret Habakkuk. If you look at how they read and interpreted it, they seemed to take everything out of context and misread it. But there was a method to their madness. The DSS community started with the experience of their community which involved the Teacher of Righteousness, the perceived corruption of the Jerusalem temple, and their community lifestyle. They then interpreted Habakkuk in light of those situations. They saw themselves in Habakkuk. What looks to us like taking stuff out of context was simply the way they lived their scripture and saw it as having the utmost importance to their community life.

The New Testament authors did something similar. They started with the experience of the resurrected Jesus and then read the Old Testament in light of that experience. They tried to make sense of the history of Israel in terms of this very unexpected event, that of a crucified and resurrected Messiah. No one expected that. However, modern people tend to approach the problem exactly the opposite. They look at the Old Testament for prophecy and then see if is fulfilled. In other words moderns tend to look at the past to try and predict/understand the present. But the DSS and New Testament authors were looking at the present to try and understand the past.

If you want some books which lay this out:

The Bible As It Was. Lengthy book on how second temple Jews read Torah.
http://www.amazon.com/Bible-As-Was-Jame ... 0674069412

Inspiration and Incarnation: Evangelicals and the Problem of the Old Testament. Takes the problem of New Testament usage of the Old Testament seriously and places the New Testament authors in their proper context of 2nd Temple Judaism.
http://www.amazon.com/Inspiration-Incar ... 0801027306

[_Aristotle Smith]

Oh, about the Paul/Joseph Smith comparison. I guess it is understandably opaque and even with explaination probably won't satisfy. I was refering to Paul's tendancy to reinterpret scripture to suit his version of the gospel as well as "buck" the establishment of both traditional judaism as well as the Jerusalem Christian leadership. I suppose it makes more sense to someone who views both as inventing rather than conveying ideas.

OK, I see what you are getting at. If you see my previous post, I think this explains how Paul and Joseph Smith were different. Joseph Smith's modus operandi was either to clarify meaning, to try and restore the "original meaning," or to restore something that was lost. I don't think that was what Paul was doing. I think he knew very well what the plain meaning of the text was. He simply was using it differently, I don't think he was trying to get at some original intent or restore some scribal corruptions.

[_honorentheos]

If you want some books which lay this out:

The Bible As It Was. Lengthy book on how second temple Jews read Torah.
http://www.amazon.com/Bible-As-Was-Jame ... 0674069412

Inspiration and Incarnation: Evangelicals and the Problem of the Old Testament. Takes the problem of New Testament usage of the Old Testament seriously and places the New Testament authors in their proper context of 2nd Temple Judaism.
http://www.amazon.com/Inspiration-Incar ... 0801027306

Thanks for the book suggestions, AS. I went looking for the first one at the library but they didn't have a copy in the local system. They did have a newer book by Kugel titled, "How to read the Bible" that sounded similar so I have it coming on transfer. I'll let you know what I think when I'm done.

[_Franktalk]

OK, I see what you are getting at. If you see my previous post, I think this explains how Paul and Joseph Smith were different. Joseph Smith's modus operandi was either to clarify meaning, to try and restore the "original meaning," or to restore something that was lost. I don't think that was what Paul was doing. I think he knew very well what the plain meaning of the text was. He simply was using it differently, I don't think he was trying to get at some original intent or restore some scribal corruptions.

There is a view that Paul knew the church would fall and thus wrote in code so his epistles would not be cut out of the canon. I will supply a link to a youtube video which describes this. I don't believe everything said in the video but it is interesting.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sTaXxvQ1eOY

If this has any truth then Paul as well as Joseph Smith were / are trying to restore the gospel in the latter days.

[_Chap]

There is a view that Paul knew the church would fall and thus wrote in code so his epistles would not be cut out of the canon. I will supply a link to a youtube video which describes this. I don't believe everything said in the video but it is interesting.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sTaXxvQ1eOY

If this has any truth then Paul as well as Joseph Smith were / are trying to restore the gospel in the latter days.

Frankly, when someone says of a question of New Testament scholarship "There is a view that ..." they usually mean that someone with credentials in the subject has presented a reasonably argued and evidenced case that has drawn serious attention from others in the field, even if most or all of them disagree.

They don't just mean "There's this guy who has posted a long video on Youtube expressing this idea". But go on - set out for us a summary of the arguments and evidence for his idea about Paul writing in code that you think are particularly persuasive.