I'm going to be giving a three session class on the Psalms in December as a part of my congregation's adult education. It's a big topic, and not too soon for me to get started.
The Psalms are sometimes called “Israel's Hymnal,” which is surely an oversimplification. But having said so, the point behind today's essay is that the Psalms still inspire song writers, and not just hymn writers. By way of evidence, consider
Psalm 137. By the rivers of Babylon— there we sat down and there we wept when we remembered Zion. On the willows there we hung up our harps. For there our captors asked us for songs, and our tormentors asked for mirth, saying, “Sing us one of the songs of Zion!” How could we sing the LORD'S song in a foreign land? If I forget you, O Jerusalem, let my right hand wither! Let my tongue cling to the roof of my mouth, if I do not remember you, if I do not set Jerusalem above my highest joy. Remember, O LORD, against the Edomites the day of Jerusalem's fall, how they said, “Tear it down! Tear it down! Down to its foundations!” O daughter Babylon, you devastator! Happy shall they be who pay you back what you have done to us! Happy shall they be who take your little ones and dash them against the rock!
This is a unique Psalm in many respects. Robert Alter, in the introduction to his commentary and translation “The Book of Psalms,” characterizes it as an “anti-Psalm.” Psalms of lament often follow an arc that ends with praise: this Psalm goes from lament, to curses, to fury. This Psalm seems in so many ways unpromising for a modern adaptation. Yet I could instantly name two songs from my iTunes collection that quote this Psalm:
- “Jerusalem,” by Matisyahu, and
- “City of Sorrows,” by Fernando Ortega.
And a couple minutes with Google revealed two more:
- “On the Willows,” from the musical Godspell, and
- “Babylon,” from Don McLean.
Look at that last one: Psalm 137 is quoted on the “American Pie” album. And yes, as I studied the lyrics for these songs in greater detail, it's clear that Ortega was relying more on Ezekiel for content than Psalm 137, but I still think the wording and rhythm relies on the Psalm.
Now, it seems to me that if this (initially unpromising) Psalm is so widely quoted, then the Book of Psalms must be quoted in thousands of contemporary songs, although I've not attempted a serious inventory. I would be glad for more examples of modern songs (as well as hymns) that rely on specific Psalms, and I'm more than a little surprised that Google didn't point me to a web page of thousands.
Peace
40 comments:
that's a serious plinth
I grew up putting on
Tephilim,
and davening The Songs:
Davening:
To Daven, to pray. This is the term adopted widely to refer to the act of praying, as in "to daven Shacharit," to pray the Morning Prayer. According to halakha (Jewish law), Jewish men are required to pray three times daily and four times daily on the Sabbath. Jewish women are required to pray at least daily, with no specific time requirement. There are two popular theories about its origin of the word "Daven": The first is that it is related to the Aramaic word meaning "of our fathers". This refers to the tradition that Abraham instituted the practice of morning prayer, Isaac afternoon prayer, and Jacob evening prayer, as recorded in many places (Talmud: Tractate Berachot, folio 26b). The second theory is that it comes from Old French, in which case it is related to the English word "devotion", and entered Jewish vocabulary by way of Rashi (Rabbi Shlomo ben Yitzchak, the medieval French Torah commentator).
Ed—
Many thanks for this. Much food for thought. I've never read the Talmud, and wonder if it would be useful to do so. I would value your thoughts on this. It's hardly a minor undertaking.
try (from) this:
http://www.myjewishlearning.com/texts/Rabbinics/Talmud/Talmud/Studying_Talmud.shtml
those who study and debate The Talmud
can spend an entire lifetime debating/interpreting a single line/ phrase
really, 'not my cup of tea'
I prefer a "hit or miss"
theology..
tho I was a pinyon of ben
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pidyon_haben
(just like jesus was)
and my dad had to buy me from the shule for five silver dollars (in 1941) so as I would not become a Reb..
and
be this that I am now stuck with
here
http://judaism.about.com/gi/dynamic/offsite.htm?zi=1/XJ/Ya&sdn=judaism&cdn=religion&tm=43&f=21&tt=14&bt=1&bts=1&zu=http%3A//www.e-daf.com/
go for it!
or try something here:
http://judaism.about.com/od/studytalmudonline/Study_Talmud_Online.htm
I'm gonna drink another Buddha Beer and work a new poem!
Ed—
I don't know Hebrew, although I'd like to learn. The problem, of course, is in finding ways to allocate enough time. Maybe in a few years, maybe when I retire. I've seen pictures of the Talmud, as in the link in your last comment. It's way beyond me now!
My interest is as a Christian. I know that the Talmud was written after Christianity split off, but it seems to me to be a valid witness into Jesus's faith, and therefore worthy of effort. But then, so too are many other books...
Thanks for the links. I knew about the redemption of first born sons, but wasn't aware of how this was practiced in the modern world.
One question that I have is, what is considered to be the Talmud today? I know a little of Neusner's work on the Babylonian Talmud, which at least makes it a bit more accessible to non-Hebrew speakers like me, but I gather that there has been no comparable effort on the Jerusalem Talmud, for which there are evidently major textual problems. Is this a big concern? Or do people just get by with the Babylonian Talmud?
read some Edmund Jabes as Rosmarie Waldrop translates
http://www.upne.com/0-8195-6247-5.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edmond_Jabès#Works
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edmond_Jabès
my newest book yet unwritten is
The Book of Huh?
the only thing that I "know" about Babylon
is that mythological/poetic/literary tower of..
you wann tlk about the poems/songs.psalms
ell so do
if you want to pontificate about some religious babel
well I ain't yer man!
life I'm in it for the poetry
as a famous poet and friend of mine onece said:
"religion and politics are bologna!"
write on!
> "Jesus" came out of Judaism
>
> not the other way around.
Of course. Except for the quotes :-).
> He was a Essene Jew
> who disappeared for about 30 years
> into India and Biddism..
I'm doubtful about this. I know about the Essenes, and certainly there are parallels, but Jesus it seems much more likely to me that Jesus got his start in the prophetic business as a disciple of John the Baptist. And Siddhārtha Gautama (the Buddha) lived ~ 500 years earlier.
That said, the apostle Thomas did make it to India, and formed a Christian community that still survives. Likewise, there was a fascinating Christian community in China at one time (c.f., "the Jesus Sutras"). There's no doubt that these communities interacted with Buddhists.
> what a mythology has ensued!
>
> well
>
> Bomb them non-believers, eh?
Not my plan. I'm one of those religiously tolerant liberal professor types. I've advised Catholic, Muslim, and Buddhist Ph.D. students. I've written papers with Jewish colleagues. I work with atheists of enviable moral development.
And I don't think it was Jesus's plan either.
ain't the links/connections/ simultaneities
g.r.e.a.t?
why so much angst
and murdering
when we are all
bed-rock
same?
hang in.
why so much angst
and murdering
when we are all
bed-rock
same?
Exactly.
hang in.
I'm trying. You too.
religion at it's best is poetry
politics even at its best seems more like airpollution
i'm a bit too tired tonite
to rack my brain for psalm quotes in folksongs
a friend of mine john mcgill sally's husband wrote a beautiful arrangement of "as the deer longs"
doesn't bob marley have a river of babylon song?
a listen to the leuven brothers would no doubt bring forth something
j
ed
almost all of the sayings attributed to yeshua benyosef
have resonant life in the hebrew scriptures
things like
i am the truth the way and the life
these sound pretty new and radical
the other funky things he did like heal people and cavort with dubious women in public well yeah who knows what camel he hopped on in his wild years
jesus at 18
heyayah
road trip
shalom
"baruch attah adonai"
jh—
Marley. I wasn't expecting that, but I'm not surprised. It's not on ITMS, which is too bad. But "Rivers of Babylon" had 200(!) hits, which seems to me to be too round a number -- more likely an implementation limit than the full count.
I've sampled a few -- I'll need more time to do this any justice -- and most seem to be covers of Marley (based on the Carlos version, which I assume is the same), but there are clearly others too, e.g., Sinead O'Connor's.
Wow.
Psalm 137--a rather odd prayer (or hymn, chant, whatever). You didn't really explicate the section where the Psalmist, neo-con of 800 bc or so, dreams of smashing in the babylonian infants on the rocks.
Human, all too human. Even Vedic tradition does not seem nearly as blood-spattered as the old-test.
You didn't really explicate the section where the Psalmist, neo-con of 800 bc or so, dreams of smashing in the babylonian infants on the rocks.
True, at least, I didn't explicate this explicitly. Implicitly, this is why this is such an unpromising Psalm for modern adoption. We don't do that kind of stuff anymore. [Instead, we hire Blackwater to do it on a no-bid contract.]
It seems to me, though, that this is not (mere) fury. It seems to reflect their experience: may you be served as you served us. In detail.
We might speculate what it looked liked when written. Hebrew wasn't even a language until around the time of Christ--more like various semitic tongues, canaan, punic, etc. That's one of the myths that sunday school teachers have fed us (and rabbis, perhaps).
Say grazi to the greeks who ruled Egypt, what 250 bc or so who allowed the jewish scribes to put together their myths--and nearly all of the knowledge of Old T. comes from septuagint greek. Koine greek was the language of the Levant from about 300 bc on, and of the New Testament. Aramaic was sort of street speak (hebrew as official language not even set down until 3-4 cent. AD).
We might speculate what it looked liked when written. Hebrew wasn't even a language until around the time of Christ--more like various semitic tongues, canaan, punic, etc. That's one of the myths that sunday school teachers have fed us (and rabbis, perhaps).
I'm not buying it. First off, there are semitic (presumbly Hebrew) inscriptions, like the Hezekiel inscription in the tunnel. Second, we have Dead Sea Scrolls manuscripts in Hebrew that go back to at least 100 BCE. Indeed the DSS material together with other ancient sources is large enough that biblical scholars have identified three different textual families of the Hebrew OT as begin active at the time of Christ (Babylonian, Alexandria, and Jerusalem, IIRC). And the Hebrew OT seems itself to witness the evolution of a language, e.g., the introduction of Persian loan words (and concepts) into the books that on the basis of content would have been written during or post-exile.
Look, I buy the notion that the Hebrew OT as we know it underwent a series of redactions, both as individual books, and as a collection. But it seems most likely that the collection redaction began no later than the time of Hezekiah. This process underwent big steps during the exile and immediate post-exile, and seems not to have concluded until 100 CE.
And I'm not one to dismiss LXX. It is an important witness. But it rests on Hebrew originals, not conversely. The "greek" of LXX is translated Hebrew, by people who knew Hebrew better than they knew Greek.
I'm not a biblical scholar, but my reading suggests the DSS show more fluidity to the OT, than consistency. Anyway, they still date to 100-200 years after the Septuagint, which is still the Ur text of the OT. The DSS could be copies of LXX.
The Wiki (of course not the final word) says DSS may have been written as late as 70 AD or so, when Hadrian and his posse were liquidating the jewish rebels (not without reason--they had already attacked the romans, torn down statues, removed the legion, etc), and hidden in caves.
But my point was more about the linguistic history, and even politics: hebrew as a language (with grammar, texts, accepted usage) was NOT formalized . It descends from earlier semitic languages of various tribes (canaanite, I believe). The scholars of the LXX were, I believe, sort of assembling the various dialects and texts, not just working with some accepted hebrew scrolls, etc. Ancient boring stuff, but other languages, even the indo-european/sanskrit which leads to greek, latin, etc precede hebrew by centuries (ie early greek may have appeared in Crete before 2000 bc). And again, the Bible is a greek text, throughout, even the OT (genesis/exodus--greek terms).
It's commonly assumed the standardized greek words follow the hebrew--but there IS no hebrew text before DSS, which do often follow the LXX. The masoretic texts are 8-9 century.
Chinese characters probably predate everything, even egyptian scrawlings.
I'm not into obscure philology and ancient history, but it's quite evident that hebrew is not really a classical language--as even vedic sanskrit was--but more akin to a dialect (ie like aramaic).
J—
I think you're allowing yourself to be confused by the distinction between when a work was created, and the oldest extant manuscripts thereof.
I agree that LXX predates any extant manuscripts of the Hebrew Bible by at least a century. But if you asked what is the oldest extant manuscript of the LXX, you'd be in for a shock. My guess is Sinaiticus, which is a partial NT/OT, where the OT text is LXX, IIRC. My point being that the oldest extant Hebrew Bible manuscripts are older (thanks to the DSS) than the oldest extant LXX manuscripts.
It seems very peculiar to me that you're willing to grant LXX a history older than its extant manuscripts, but not the Hebrew Bible.
A few minor points. It seems fair to assume that none of the DSS material was deposited after Bar Kochba, and some of the material consists of worn out temple scrolls. You don't wear out a scroll in a day, or a decade. So these scrolls would have had to have been manufactured BC-ish. Most likely, the oldest DSS go back to ~100 BCE, or so I've understood.
And there is attestation of Hebrew in inscriptions, ostraca, signet rings, etc., going back to the 8th century BCE, and the language contained therein is consistent (or so I've been lead to believe -- I'm not an expert either) with Hebrew OT language that comes from contemporaneous layers. The Oriental Institute is less than a half-block from my office&mash;I've seen some of the actual artifacts, and have no reason to doubt their published provenance or significance.
I have certainly never before heard the theory that the Hebrew Bible rests on LXX, and I've read a fair bit on the subject, by Protestant, Catholic, and Jewish authors. Certainly this seems far less credible to me than the theory that Matthew was originally written in Hebrew, and that the Greek Mark and Matthew both rest on the Hebrew Matthew.
The Greek Hypothesis is hardly unknown, even in regards to Matthew (mateo, matheos--all greek-based). Koine greek was the lingua franca, even in judea. Under Pax Romana circa Augustus they would have studied greek (and latin, by the time of JC) in school. The NT is thoroughly greek--many of the common terms (including theos, or ouranon) have no semitic equivalents. Indeed, I suspect it's neo-platonist (certainly Gospel of John reads like that).
The language called "hebrew" wasn't really in existence. There were semitic tongues, like aramaic, or punic, earlier forms of arabic going back, and probably inscriptions, etc, but they do not appear like hebrew writing does. As with the "Peshitta" --that odd looking script's what the judean dialect looked like.
J—
I think I figured out what's going on. I think you're half remembering something that is indeed true.
The LXX as a collection is older than the Hebrew Bible as a collection. The LXX was fixed, somewhere around 200-ish BCE, and represented a translation of Hebrew "scripture." The quotes are there because there was no official Jewish canon at the time. But all of the books in the LXX were viewed as scripture at the time.
The foundational documents of Christianity seem to have been written in Greek (modulo the Hebrew Matthew thesis), and the Christian church (which was much more a church of the diaspora than a church of Jerusalem) relied on the LXX as its OT source. And the Vulgate rests on LXX for the OT (although I've read that Jerome wanted to consult Hebrew texts, but was not permitted to do so).
Thus, in some sense, the Catholic OT as a collection, resting on LXX (which might be viewed as an "accidental" collection), predates the Hebrew OT.
The fixing of the Hebrew OT as canon happened after the time of Christ. [We know this, if for no other reason, because the Gospels quote Jesus quoting from both Deuterocanonicals and even from some Pseudepigrapha, IIRC.] Tradition has it that there was a Jewish council at Jamnia (a Jewish center) after the first Roman war which set the Hebrew OT canon. It is a matter of scholarly dispute as to whether this council actually occurred, but there seems to be a consensus that the canon was fixed sometime between 100 and 200 CE, i.e., not only after the time of Christ, but indeed, after the definite split between Judaism and Christianity.
But AFAIK, no scholar of religion claims that the books themselves were written this late, nor that they were translated from LXX originals. Indeed, if they were translated from LXX originals, this makes their date of composition (and therefore their claim to authority) hopelessly late.
I'm not denying that the LXX follows from semitic texts, which probably go back a few centuries--I'm saying that it wasn't a fixed canon, and that they weren't "hebrew" really, but a collection of books with influences from babylonians, canaans etc. That's fairly common scholarly knowledge (not just Wiki-bites), though most sunday schoolers have been taught to think the Old T. predates everything when it doesn't. Even earlier semitic sources predate the Torah--not the least like Epic of Gilgamesh era texts.
And of course there are the numerous parallels between Moses, the bulrushes, pharoahs,and the egyptian deities, Osiris, etc. Or the Akneton heresy.
Another interesting aspect of the DSS--there were nearly as many greek and aramaic texts as hebrew, another point in favor of greek priority (or shall we say greek authority); there were some coptic writings as well. And they do not all confirm the official masoretic--or LXX-- story. The Maccabees' controversy also sort of favors a Greek Hypothesis (Luther actually wanted the Maccabees deleted, along with other apocryphal texts).
J—
The Semitic family of languages is quite large, and there are certainly many languages in that family other than Hebrew. I don't see though how the existence of Aramaic, Akkadian, Ugaritic, and others (many others!) is an argument against the antiquity of Hebrew. As I said before, you still have to deal with inscriptions, ostraca, etc., which attest to the Hebrew language (albeit, as you rightly note, written in script that looks like Syriac).
And I'm certainly well aware of ancient parallels to many of the stories that make up the Israelite national mythology (i.e., everything before the Exodus). As well as the fact that the Hebrew texts were consonantal, and weren't pointed (i.e., normative vowel readings recorded) until the Masoretes in the 8th century ff.
Likewise, not all of the LXX books were originally written in Hebrew. That's a good part of the reason why the Jewish councils ultimately rejected them—they failed the three-fold test of authority, antiquity, and original (Hebrew) language. Daniel is a critical text, as portions of Daniel were written in Aramaic, rather than Hebrew, but Daniel (at least the Semitic Daniel, not including the LXX additions) was accepted into the Jewish canon, Aramaic portions and all.
But recognizing that there is a "Context to Scripture," (the title of a standard reference that contains source material from neighboring civilizations) is very, very different from denying the existence of Hebrew as an ancient language, or of the Jewish people as having a history that goes back at least 1000 BCE. Yeah, archaeology doesn't validate even deuteronomic history in every detail. But it does validate the existence of a people who wrote a language that philologists call Hebrew, and there's solid evidence that the united and divided kingdoms actually existed. You're misrepresenting the evidence and historical consensus if you say otherwise.
Likewise, not all of the LXX books were originally written in Hebrew.
That's the point--yet the later councils had no other texts. Jews and christians may speculate and extrapolate, but the LXX's ( later copies of it) remains the primary text. I didn't say jewish people had no history either; I'm saying it's not unifed to the degree most think it is--not necessarily what's presented in orthodoxy. The deuterocanon issue suggests that as well. The eastern churches bibles are not the KJV or Vulgate or Luther's reduced version. Then consider all the coptic and gnostic stuff (really the gnostic texts as important as DSS, but kept in the dark, or belittled--or some kinky scholar Miss Pagels, etc)
And that holds even now after DSS. There are other DSS issues as well-- like additional aramaic and greek texts (and supposedly even some christian texts). There are political aspects to the DSS debate as well. I believe the orthodox jews are keeping the texts away from scholars because they conflict with official story of genesis and exodus (something on Crooked Timber along those lines a few months ago).
Jews and christians may speculate and extrapolate, but the LXX's ( later copies of it) remains the primary text.
And this is exactly what is wrong.
Look, it's granted that pretty much all of the intertestamental stuff after Daniel was written originally in the Greek. And it's granted that for the early Christian Church, the LXX was the norm, but that's because the Christian Church was (after, say, 50CE) to a first approximation a Greek language Church. The LXX was the Old Testament for Christianity for the critical period from the 2nd century through the Councils of Nicea and Constantinople, superseded in the west thereafter by the Vulgate, which held unquestioned sway until the controversies of the 16th century.
But it's absolutely clear that the Pentateuch, Deuteronomic History, and Former Prophets all come from a time before Alexander, when Greek was all but irrelevant in the Levant (although quite relevant in coastal Asia Minor). And to say that these books come from some undifferentiated Semantic language, and have a history just a few centuries old at the time of LXX, is extreme. Note that I do not rule out the possibility of late editing, I am talking about original composition.
Your position is that of Catholic polemics that had pretty much run their course by the mid-60's. If you look at the English language Jerusalem Bible, you'll see that it really represented a sea-change in terms of the texts that the Catholic Church relied upon. For the NT, JB dumped the old Byzantine/Majority/TR texts in favor of NA, and for the OT, it used the BHS text for those books originally written in Hebrew, with LXX used as the original source for the intertestamental (or deuterocanonical/apocryphal books that are not a part of the Hebrew Bible). LXX was used as the primary secondary ancient witness to the meaning of obscure passages/words in BHS, and so was probably weighted a bit more heavily than in Protestant or Jewish translations, but only a bit.
I think the key issue here is that if we want access to ancient revelation, we have to approach it through the textual sources that are closest to the event itself. Each translation, each editing, takes us a bit farther from the original event. For the material in the Hebrew OT (as specifically distinct from the deuterocanonicals), the Hebrew sources are closer to the originals than the LXX, and therefore primary over it. Claiming otherwise, it seems to me, is not really that different from modern fundamentalists who believe in KJV primacy.
PS. Yes, I'm having a bad day with my editing :-/.
the Hebrew sources are closer to the originals than the LXX.
How do they know that? That's only by assuming the Masoretic texts, from a much later time (8-9th centuries CE), have some built-in reliability --and much of the torah was passed orally as well.
The LXX is the earliest copy (and predates DSS), or shall we say assembling of the jewish tradition. There are no other texts, even copies of texts, to compare with.
Why are one group of copies, the Masoretic "more reliable" than the other, especially since LXX predates Masoretic writing by at least 1000 years--that was one of the catholics' talking points (as was their objection to the protestants' removal of the apocrypha). The theologians (jewish and christian) merely insist the LXX is somehow faulty. No one has proven it. Yes, it could be faulty, or a "gloss", or overlooking some important details, but history will never know. The greek language itself ennobled those old sheepherder's tales: Genesis, Exodus instead of shabmut, zadrak, etc.
When you say "originals" you really have nothing to compare to.
Sigh. I don't think we'll converge, but life goes on.
The assumption is that the process whereby the Hebrew OT was passed down was materially the same as the process whereby the Greek NT was passed down. It is precisely this view that the DSS confirmed, very much as papyri have tended to confirm theories about early NT transmission.
AFIAK, the consonantal text of the Hebrew OT material has undergone fewer changes than the NT material since the time of Christ, which is unsurprising because it didn't pass thorough quite as narrow a bottleneck in the 1st century, and because it possessed a scribal tradition through this period (whereas it was amateur transmitters on the NT side, at least until the mid 2nd century).
We don't have autographs of any of this material. But we do have traditions, copies of copies, mutually supporting ancient witnesses, including originals in the form of inscriptions, ostraca, clay tablets (especially for other Ancient Near Eastern languages and civilizations). Instead of fixing on evidence that doesn't exist, consider for a moment the evidence that does exist.
You're way, way out on a limb claiming LXX primacy. I really know of no contemporary textual scholar who takes a position remotely like what you're defending. If you can find one, send me a citation.
Keep in mind Augustine's criticism of Jerome as well for relying on the rabbis and oral torah.
Aug. considered LXX the real thing. As do the eastern churches. And Aug. never wanted to toss Plato and Aristotle (Euclid, Archimedes, etc) on a bonfire.
It's not that radical a view, except among the evangelicals, who often seem more interested in old testament and maybe Paul's epistles than anything Christ said.
Really, I'm not that religious, though I attended anglican and occasionally catholic services for sometime in 80s and 90s--but I know BS and deception when I see it. And the presentation of jewish myth (whether that of LXX or Masoretic, really) functions mostly as "dogma-formation".
Charlie Darwin and Lyell sort of monkeywrenched that tradition as well.
J—
I just finished a five week course on the OT, given as a part of diakonia, a Lutheran lay deacon training program. Our text was "Reading the Old Testament: An Introduction" by Lawrence Boadt, Paulist Press.
His account is consistent in all major details with the position I've taken, and all of the other books I've read on the subject, and radically at odds with yours.
If you have sources, bring them. If not, your arguments for LXX primacy seem inadequate, given the weight of opinion otherwise.
BTW, Darwin and Lyell don't scare me. They were fine scientists, who had seminal insights into core problems in biology and geology. Yes, their discoveries meant an end to a literal interpretation of Genesis (at least for those who are prepared to understand their arguments), but hardly an end to the utility these stories have in terms of explaining "where we came from" in theological terms.
So Augustine was wrong? And Jerome, working with oral tradition of Torah, and whatever "mystery" Old Testament texts existed, was right? Even the DSS at times confirms the LXX. And it is still used in eastern churches.
I don't have an axe to grind, really. The point concerns dogma-formation, and dare we say verification. We really can't prove some event X happened, historically speaking--even say from 100 years ago. That holds for events, reports, testimony from the reign of Augustus, a fortiori. Add the religious factor--ie supernatural--and you get another a fortiori.
So the best you get from me in regards to the inerrancy issue is, something happened (more likely than not), but we are better off treating that something as literature, and even mythology, than some type of divine history. That holds for the New Testament, and even...the Resurrection.
Scripture presents us with metaphor, knowledge, important wisdom--but it's not to be mistaken for reliable testimony, or history.
J—
We really can't prove some event X happened, historically speaking--even say from 100 years ago.
It depends on the event, and on what you mean by "proof." I don't harbor doubts that the Battle of Gettysburg happened. Do you? I've walked the ground, and even possess a couple of minie balls from the battle—they sold them as souvenirs when I was a kid.
So the best you get from me in regards to the inerrancy issue is, something happened (more likely than not), but we are better off treating that something as literature, and even mythology, than some type of divine history.
What ever gave you the impression that I believe in biblical inerrancy? A belief in inerrancy is hardly a precondition for faith.
That holds for the New Testament, and even...the Resurrection.
I read Willie Marxsen decades ago, and Crossan and Berg this past year. I've heard those arguments, and some have considerable merit. As I see it, the resurrection was the best way the disciples could articulate their experience. If Jesus was fully God, and fully Human, then he was both immortal and had to die. There's a veil there, and the faith question isn't to describe in clinical detail what's behind it, it's to assert that there is indeed something behind it. Resurrection is that assertion.
Scripture presents us with metaphor, knowledge, important wisdom--but it's not to be mistaken for reliable testimony, or history.
Some scripture is more historical than others, but even at its most historical, it is not history as we understand it. The historical sections are history shaped around interpretation. I get this.
But you go too far when you say its not a reliable witness, because it is a witness of revelation, interpretation, and faith, if not history. And scripture was most emphatically shaped by history, and the broad sweep of Deuteronomic History is confirmed by the archaeological record. Do you get this?
Gettysburg occured, of course. But what exactly happened on one day during the battle, times, persons, specifics would be difficult if not impossible to pin down, and I would not mistake a Bruce Catton's report as truth itself. There's always an element of uncertainty to history, which increases as one goes back in time.
I get the Sermon on the Mount, mostly, and I suspect a real person we call "Jesus" said those words (I wager in greek, not hebrew). The actual drama, the events (or supposed events) of the person's life, I am not sure. Sort of secondary to the message, which has merit, significance, even poetic qualities.
Nietzsche claimed Christ existed--bringer of good tidings, etc--though he too suggests the gospels should not be mistaken for some photorealistic documentary of JC's life. And he rejects Paul, completely.
I don't worship FN, but he was a decent philologist, knows his greek and latin, and I actually sort of respect his exegesis, however heretical it might seem to the orthodox.
I get the Sermon on the Mount, mostly, and I suspect a real person we call "Jesus" said those words (I wager in greek, not hebrew).
Most scholars say Aramaic, some say Hebrew. I suppose it is possible that a few say Greek, but I've never heard this, at least as a primary tongue. The Gospels preserve too many semitisms spoken by Jesus (Abba; Cephas; Talitha cum; Eloi, Eloi, lema sabachthani). I think it is reasonable to ask whether or not Jesus spoke Greek, and it seems reasonably likely that he did. Indeed, if we assume that Pontius Pilate interrogated Jesus directly, per the Gospel accounts, Greek seems to be the language they'd have found it easiest to converse in.
Nietzsche claimed Christ existed--bringer of good tidings, etc--though he too suggests the gospels should not be mistaken for some photorealistic documentary of JC's life. And he rejects Paul, completely.
I work in an amazingly diverse community, religiously. I'm hardly scandalized. Outside of the literalists, I don't know anyone who believes that the Gospels are photorealistic. And the tradition of diss'ing Paul has been around a long time too. For my part, I think it helps if you understand which of the "Pauline Epistles" Paul actually wrote, and which are pseudepigraphical.
But stop for a minute and consider this. You accept the historical Jesus, and grant even that he preached the Sermon on the Mount. It seems to me that you're attracted to the message, but afraid that someone will ask you to check your brain at the door. Let me acknowledge that there are Churches where this might be necessary, but there are also Churches where it is not. Perhaps you ought to seek one of the latter out.
Living in New England, or Europe, with fairly sane Anglican, Lutheran, or catholic humans around, I might consider it. Living out west with fairly insane baptists, mormons, and catholic mafia (and other wing nut xtians), I probably won't. I value the Constitution more than I do the good book
Living out west with fairly insane baptists, mormons, and catholic mafia (and other wing nut xtians), I probably won't.
I take your point. Much depends on where you are. My son's found a Lutheran church he's happy with in Laramie. His need for rationality might not equal yours, though. Catholic churches seem to vary. I'll take you at your word that the variance works against you where you are.
Keep your eyes open, along with your ears and heart. Don't join a community that will tear you down. One of the things that I like about Lutheranism specifically (please note that I'm not saying that a Lutheran church would be right for you—that's entirely your call) is the notion of adiaphora (matters of indifference).
The LCMS thing about committing officially to the belief in a young earth is un-Lutheran in a way. Whether you believe in a young earth or not is not material to whether or not you'll be saved. It's really not a question of religion at all, and therefore it's a question that the Lutheran church as such should be silent on.
If you live by a college town, there might be a campus ministry, and they tend to be a bit more open-minded. They pretty much have to be.
Loudmouth fundamentalists like Kirby Olson turn many people away from churches,and christianity as a whole--I don't mean just liberal agnostic sorts, but even moderates or rationalists who might see something valuable in some aspects of Christian tradition.
One could understand a biblethumper on a typical conservative site ranting away like Kirby does, but he's supposedly a literature professor or something. Sad.
Pride, the never failing vice of fools...
Loudmouth fundamentalists like Kirby Olson turn many people away from churches
I wouldn't characterize Kirby as a fundamentalist, but he's definitely conservative. He does have occasional original observations, but my understanding of Christianity (and Lutheranism) is very different from his. In my opinion, he's a bit too much in love with his own dualistic ideas, a particularly academic fault.
But yeah. Let's just say that evangelism isn't his strong suit.
One could understand a biblethumper on a typical conservative site ranting away like Kirby does, but he's supposedly a literature professor or something
Evidently he was leftist once, but he says he burned out on the group think. I know, go figure. In the meantime, he parrots Fox talking points as though its creative. And yes, he is a prof, in the SUNY system. And I gather a very good teacher.
If Kirby gets you down, stop reading his blog. Understand that he's hardly representative of Christianity (then, too, neither am I). I enjoy the discussions on his blog, but I don't expect to prevail (or be prevailed upon). In the meantime, I'm glad to have your participation, here or there.
Kirby Olsen leans closer to, uh, fascism with each post. It may not look like Brownshirt-style nazis yet, but that's what it be, in essence, though with cute, WASPish edge.
Irresponsible.
Post a Comment