The Bible And Slavery

[Jarhyn]

From our perspective, raised in a culture that values the new as "innovative" and disregards the old, that's true. In the Roman world, the opposite view prevailed: antiquity was legitimacy. Maintaining the link to the Jewish Scriptures was critical for even the most Gentile of early Christians, their lives depended on being able to show that they were following a religio (ie an ancient liturgy delivered by the gods) and not just a passing cult (which would be subject to legal persecution by the state).

It's also impossible to understand much of the New Testament without first becoming familiar with the Hebrew Scriptures. The Christian faith may get its philosophical underpinnings from Plato and Plotinus, but its mythology is almost entirely from Palestine.

Fair points, especially about why they were originally attached together, when they were. I was just thinking that there is a case for nowadays separating them, which is and was of course often but not always done.

Often I think the attached OT is read (and preached) 'as if it were retroactively Christian' to some extent, which of course it is not, in several ways. It is literally pre-Christian Judaism, and I think that is why I think it is odd that it is attached. I can also see why it is attached.

Personally, I find that it's more easily consumed with ignorance to the prechristian mythology of Judaism.

I approach it like Anime with Christian themes (of note: NGE): there are clear cultural roots but they have neither been executed faithfully nor have they much actual relevance to the plot; it's something that is more easily handled as "this is a story with Jewish flavorings", however the text can be understood just fine without a strong understanding. The only real concepts that are necessary are "sin" and "sacrifice", and knowledge THAT jews believe things. But you don't have to actually know what the jews believe specifically for it to have worth... In the same way youbdont need to read any Christian literature to enjoy NGE.

With regards to culturally flavored media, which I think John's book was, too much context can actually be a detriment since the core material isn't supposed to be considered "binding" anyway.

 

[Politesse]

There is room for interpretation, obviously. But that does not mean that one interpretation is as good as another, or more importantly that certain apparent contradictions can be resolved adequately via interpretation, which I think is closer to the main point of discussion in this thread.

I do think that some interpretations are better than others. On the other hand, digging in your heels and insisting that your first impressions must be objectively correct, and decrying anyone who disagrees with you as a sophist arguing in bad faith etc, isn't a very effective or rational means of arriving at a more accurate synthesis of perspectives.

 

[Politesse]

From our perspective, raised in a culture that values the new as "innovative" and disregards the old, that's true. In the Roman world, the opposite view prevailed: antiquity was legitimacy. Maintaining the link to the Jewish Scriptures was critical for even the most Gentile of early Christians, their lives depended on being able to show that they were following a religio (ie an ancient liturgy delivered by the gods) and not just a passing cult (which would be subject to legal persecution by the state).

It's also impossible to understand much of the New Testament without first becoming familiar with the Hebrew Scriptures. The Christian faith may get its philosophical underpinnings from Plato and Plotinus, but its mythology is almost entirely from Palestine.

Fair points, especially about why they were originally attached together, when they were. I was just thinking that there is a case for nowadays separating them, which is and was of course often but not always done.

Often I think the attached OT is read (and preached) 'as if it were retroactively Christian' to some extent, which of course it is not, in several ways. It is literally pre-Christian Judaism, and I think that is why I think it is odd that it is attached. I can also see why it is attached.

Personally, I find that it's more easily consumed with ignorance to the prechristian mythology of Judaism.

I approach it like Anime with Christian themes (of note: NGE): there are clear cultural roots but they have neither been executed faithfully nor have they much actual relevance to the plot; it's something that is more easily handled as "this is a story with Jewish flavorings", however the text can be understood just fine without a strong understanding. The only real concepts that are necessary are "sin" and "sacrifice", and knowledge THAT jews believe things. But you don't have to actually know what the jews believe specifically for it to have worth... In the same way youbdont need to read any Christian literature to enjoy NGE.

With regards to culturally flavored media, which I think John's book was, too much context can actually be a detriment since the core material isn't supposed to be considered "binding" anyway.

Actual Christian theology could only confuse a reading of NGE.

 

[ruby sparks]

There is room for interpretation, obviously. But that does not mean that one interpretation is as good as another, or more importantly that certain apparent contradictions can be resolved adequately via interpretation, which I think is closer to the main point of discussion in this thread.

I do think that some interpretations are better than others. On the other hand, digging in your heels and insisting that your first impressions must be objectively correct, and decrying anyone who disagrees with you as a sophist arguing in bad faith etc, isn't a very effective or rational means of arriving at a more accurate synthesis of perspectives.

Sure. But then, I don't think I would ever have said otherwise. Who are you referring to? DBT?

If so, I don't think DBT is seeking what you call a synthesis of perspectives. I think that's your game.

 

[Politesse]

There is room for interpretation, obviously. But that does not mean that one interpretation is as good as another, or more importantly that certain apparent contradictions can be resolved adequately via interpretation, which I think is closer to the main point of discussion in this thread.

I do think that some interpretations are better than others. On the other hand, digging in your heels and insisting that your first impressions must be objectively correct, and decrying anyone who disagrees with you as a sophist arguing in bad faith etc, isn't a very effective or rational means of arriving at a more accurate synthesis of perspectives.

Sure. But then, I don't think I would ever have said otherwise. Who are you referring to? DBT?

If so, DBT isn't seeking what you call a synthesis of perspectives. I think that's your game.

No, you would not I shouldn't think.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

From our perspective, raised in a culture that values the new as "innovative" and disregards the old, that's true. In the Roman world, the opposite view prevailed: antiquity was legitimacy. Maintaining the link to the Jewish Scriptures was critical for even the most Gentile of early Christians, their lives depended on being able to show that they were following a religio (ie an ancient liturgy delivered by the gods) and not just a passing cult (which would be subject to legal persecution by the state).

It's also impossible to understand much of the New Testament without first becoming familiar with the Hebrew Scriptures. The Christian faith may get its philosophical underpinnings from Plato and Plotinus, but its mythology is almost entirely from Palestine.

Fair points, especially about why they were originally attached together, when they were. I was just thinking that there is a case for nowadays separating them, which is and was of course often but not always done.

Often I think the attached OT is read (and preached) 'as if it were retroactively Christian' to some extent, which of course it is not, in several ways. It is literally pre-Christian Judaism, and I think that is why I think it is odd that it is attached. I can also see why it is attached.

"The bible" is a 4th century political invention. This point above all others ought to be known and appreciated by all its readers. It's an invention like any other invention. The hammer in my basement doesn't exist so ceramic engineers can talk about the benefits of foam handle technology and the applications of fiberglass. My hammer isn't there to prod discussion on alloys relative to the development of steel technology anymore than "the bible" exists to discuss slavery.

Like any other invention all those biblical pieces already existed and were simply combined to create something new. In the case of the bible it was for political control. My hammer was invented to perform tasks related to the building trades, not to demonstrate the laws of inertia or to illustrate how simple machines work. Sure, my hammer can be used for this but that's now why it's in existence. I can kill someone with it just as easily as I can use it to prop open a door, but neither of those uses are intentional or planned. This thing we call "the bible" exists similarly.

 

[ruby sparks]

The bible is a 4th century political invention. This point above all others ought to be known and appreciated by all its readers. It's an invention like any other invention. The hammer in my basement doesn't exist so ceramic engineers can talk about the benefits of foam handle technology and the applications of fiberglass. My hammer isn't there to prod discussion on alloys relative to the development of steel technology anymore than "the bible" exists to discuss slavery.

Like any other invention all those biblical pieces already existed and were simply combined to create something new. In the case of the bible it was for political control. My hammer was invented to perform tasks related to the building trades, not to demonstrate the laws of inertia or to illustrate how simple machines work. Sure, my hammer can be used for this but that's now why it's in existence. I can kill someone with it just as easily as I can use it to prop open a door, but neither of those uses are intentional or planned. This thing we call "the bible" exists similarly.

Ok I don't agree that the bible is a 4th C invention. That sounds like it might be a version of a very weak conspiracy theory that does the rounds on the internet, and if so, I don't subscribe to it.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

The bible is a 4th century political invention. This point above all others ought to be known and appreciated by all its readers. It's an invention like any other invention. The hammer in my basement doesn't exist so ceramic engineers can talk about the benefits of foam handle technology and the applications of fiberglass. My hammer isn't there to prod discussion on alloys relative to the development of steel technology anymore than "the bible" exists to discuss slavery.

Like any other invention all those biblical pieces already existed and were simply combined to create something new. In the case of the bible it was for political control. My hammer was invented to perform tasks related to the building trades, not to demonstrate the laws of inertia or to illustrate how simple machines work. Sure, my hammer can be used for this but that's now why it's in existence. I can kill someone with it just as easily as I can use it to prop open a door, but neither of those uses are intentional or planned. This thing we call "the bible" exists similarly.

Ok I don't agree that the bible is a 4th C invention. That sounds like it might be a version of a very weak conspiracy theory that does the rounds on the internet, and if so, I don't subscribe to it.

You don't have to agree that the hammer hanging on the wall in my basement is a hammer either. You can believe that it is there for any number of other purposes.

 

[ruby sparks]

You don't have to agree that the hammer hanging on the wall in my basement is a hammer either. You can believe that it is there for any number of other purposes.

I don't understand that.

 

[ideologyhunter]

Fourth century -- roughly the time of the most enduring canonizations. Council of Nicea, 325 CE; St. Jerome's Bible, 400 CE. So, before that, various church's collections of scriptures and lots of manuscripts in circulation.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Fourth century -- roughly the time of the most enduring canonizations. Council of Nicea, 325 CE; St. Jerome's Bible, 400 CE. So, before that, various church's collections of scriptures and lots of manuscripts in circulation.

Right. One doesn't need to buy into any conspiracy theories to understand the importance of the fourth century and the bible. Does anyone have a good link on how exactly this thing we call the bible became "the bible?"

 

[ruby sparks]

Does anyone have a good link on how exactly this thing we call the bible became "the bible?"

Surely you must? You already claimed to know.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Does anyone have a good link on how exactly this thing we call the bible became "the bible?"

Surely you must? You already claimed to know.

Looking for something more academic. Wiki works I guess. Most assume the Council of Nicea gave it its blessing but that is not accurate. Vaticanus and Sinaiticus do peg things in the 4th century as when it was recognized in its current form with further alterations in succeeding generations, though minor.

What I cannot find is a good discussion of the etymology of the word.

 

[Jarhyn]

Does anyone have a good link on how exactly this thing we call the bible became "the bible?"

Surely you must? You already claimed to know.

Looking for something more academic. Wiki works I guess. Most assume the Council of Nicea gave it its blessing but that is not accurate. Vaticanus and Sinaiticus do peg things in the 4th century as when it was recognized in its current form with further alterations in succeeding generations, though minor.

What I cannot find is a good discussion of the etymology of the word.

Oh. That's because it just greek for "Book".

 

[DBT]

As for interpretation and personal bias, when the bible describes love - Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. 5It is not rude, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. 6Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. 7It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres'' 1 Corinthians 13 - is there difficulty in understanding the words and their meanings or the picture of Love that is being painted?

How is this to be interpreted?

 

[Politesse]

What I cannot find is a good discussion of the etymology of the word.

It was originally called simply "ta biblia"; literally, "the codices". Their first detailed description (at least, that is now known to history) is in the Easter Letter of Athanasius (387 CE).

 

[Politesse]

As for interpretation and personal bias, when the bible describes love - Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. 5It is not rude, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. 6Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. 7It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres'' 1 Corinthians 13 - is there difficulty in understanding the words and their meanings or the picture of Love that is being painted?

How is this to be interpreted?

The nature of interpretation is that there is not just one interpretation. What does it mean to you?

One interesting thing about this passage: It's worth noting that if you are reading the Bible in English, several words are getting crammed together under one term, as we do not have separate words for what the Greeks considered to be entirely separate emotions/entities: eros, agape, philia, and so forth. Paul's hymn to love is to agape, the universal form of love which was said to be the way God or the gods loved humanity, the fundamental and universal love that underscores the creation of the whole cosmos. One of Jesus' teachings was that although most people only imagined themselves to owe civic or familial type love to one another, he encouraged his followers to pursue agape, true love, toward all. He was not alone in this; the Stoics had taught likewise.

Incidentally, I find this to be one of the most beautiful chapters in the Christian canon.

 

[DBT]

As for interpretation and personal bias, when the bible describes love - Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. 5It is not rude, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. 6Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. 7It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres'' 1 Corinthians 13 - is there difficulty in understanding the words and their meanings or the picture of Love that is being painted?

How is this to be interpreted?

The nature of interpretation is that there is not just one interpretation. What does it mean to you?

One interesting thing about this passage: It's worth noting that if you are reading the Bible in English, several words are getting crammed together under one term, as we do not have separate words for what the Greeks considered to be entirely separate emotions/entities: eros, agape, philia, and so forth. Paul's hymn to love is to agape, the universal form of love which was said to be the way God or the gods loved humanity, the fundamental and universal love that underscores the creation of the whole cosmos. One of Jesus' teachings was that although most people only imagined themselves to owe civic or familial type love to one another, he encouraged his followers to pursue agape, true love, toward all. He was not alone in this; the Stoics had taught likewise.

Incidentally, I find this to be one of the most beautiful chapters in the Christian canon.

If we are told that love is patient, forgiving, how many ways can this be interpreted?

If we are told that love keeps no record of wrongs, how many ways can this be interpreted?

Are we able to interpret patience, forgiveness, not keeping a record of wrongs in ways that significantly alter the meaning of the narrative?

 

[abaddon]

... he encouraged his followers to pursue agape, true love, toward all. He was not alone in this; the Stoics had taught likewise.

Just curious, is there a link that tells about a Stoic agape? I've taken up an interest in Stoicism but only just started studying it. So this is interesting that they held an impractical, mystical ideal like this.

 

[DBT]

Paul copied and used Greek philosophy in his writings.