Biblical literacy - Page 5

[DaryLLL]

Was it fair of the proto-Xtian evangelists to use the Hebrew Scriptures in this way? Taking things out of context?

As I understand it, prophecy was not originally meant to be fortune telling.

Prophet-
1) A person who speaks by divine inspiration or as the interpreter through whom the will of a god is expressed.
2)A person gifted with profound moral insight and exceptional powers of expression.
3)A predictor; a soothsayer.
4)The chief spokesperson of a movement or cause

A soothsayer is only one meaning of prophet. Any Jews want to give insights as to the value of the prophets in Judaism today and in the past?

[dado]

Originally posted by DaryLLL
Any Jews want to give insights as to the value of the prophets in Judaism today and in the past?

in the latest Heb/Eng JPS version of Tanakh, Torah proper comes in at 454 pages, Ne'evim, the books of the prophets, weighs in at 953 pages.

prophets were/are the spokespersons for G-d. the vast majority of prophets spoke to and for their own generations - you can think of them as social critics, generational conscience, etc - as role models, not for living, per se, but for the way to approach the process of living. for me, personally, the prophets are really the key, because they are the bridge between what is recorded so legalistically in Torah and the everyday acts of living. and also because they embody so much passion.

prophets are as necessary as ever today, and will remain so until Moschiach comes.

and since i'm sure someone is going to ask, no, daniel was not a prophet. his visions were just that, visions, not prophecies.

[Sean]

Originally posted by DaryLLL
Was it fair of the proto-Xtian evangelists to use the Hebrew Scriptures in this way? Taking things out of context?

Fair or unfair? Those are loaded words, and that question is largely moot, at least for Christians. Bear in mind that for people who believe the Gospels are true and not fictional, it wasn't the "proto-Xtian evangelists" who interpreted Jewish scripture this way; it was Jesus Christ. That pretty much takes it out of the realm of fairness or unfairness, since it's not something a Christian is at liberty to contravene, without simultaneously rejecting Christ and His Gospel.

(For that matter, it wasn't just the evangelists; Paul did it too.)

Besides, we've already established that nobody "owns" the texts, so I don't see how fairness could be called into question.

If it makes you feel better about it, Christian scholars have always held that interpreting scripture is not necessarily an either-or choice. That is to say, the Holy Spirit could have put numerous meanings in a passage, all of which are true. So, assigning a new Christian interpretation to a text does not negate other true interpretations.

I should like to repeat that the differing interpretations Christians and Jews assign to the very same texts should not be taken as evidence of ignorance, bigotry, unfairness, or any other bad thingy. That would be a very bad path to go down.

[DaryLLL]

Originally posted by Sean
.If it makes you feel better about it, Christian scholars have always held that interpreting scripture is not necessarily an either-or choice. That is to say, the Holy Spirit could have put numerous meanings in a passage, all of which are true. So, assigning a new Christian interpretation to a text does not negate other true interpretations.

I do not see evidence they "always" held this viewpoint. They (scholars, bishops and Popes) were pretty big on rooting out "heresy" for centuries.

Leaving the Holy Pneuma and the "Truth" out of it , of course, any time an artist (writer/chronicler, poet, etc) puts something out there, people will read their own personal meanings into it.

Just like Charles Manson and Paul McCartney's song Helter Skelter. Was Paul comfortable with his song being used this way?

I should like to repeat that the differing interpretations Christians and Jews assign to the very same texts should not be taken as evidence of ignorance, bigotry, unfairness, or any other bad thingy. That would be a very bad path to go down.

Leaving simplistic value judgements like "bad" out of it, let's say the syncretizing was very-- creative! (The Septuagint was not the only text the evagelists used. Paul quotes Plato, Jesus quotes Dionysus.)

I think it is worth pointing out that the Xtian interpretation of Jewish prophecies is not the only or original one, as I was led to believe and I am sure many Xtian children still are. Which is why I asked for the Jewish perspective.

Bear in mind that for people who believe the Gospels are true and not fictional, it wasn't the "proto-Xtian evangelists" who interpreted Jewish scripture this way; it was Jesus Christ.

And I know one can be a Xtian and not take the Bible as literal historical fact, word for word.

[dado]

yeah, i'm having trouble parsing that last sentence myself. anyway, i slogged through Tellurian's "Adverso", surprisingly benign stuff really. well not entirely benign, the quality of translation nearly killed me :LOL

i think next i'm going tackle pre-Jamnian material, starting with the Qumran scrolls.

[Sean]

Originally posted by DaryLLL
I do not see evidence they "always" held this viewpoint.

Nonetheless.

They (scholars, bishops and Popes) were pretty big on rooting out "heresy" for centuries.

And they still are. It's their job.

Leaving the Holy Pneuma and the "Truth" out of it , of course, any time an artist (writer/chronicler, poet, etc) puts something out there, people will read their own personal meanings into it.

Yes, they will.

Just like Charles Manson and Paul McCartney's song Helter Skelter. Was Paul comfortable with his song being used this way?

I expect not. (But then, Paul really did "own" that text, so might not the analogy suffer?)

Leaving simplistic value judgements like "bad" out of it, let's say the syncretizing was very-- creative!

Very appropriate. Not to quibble, but I might capitalize Creative.

And I know one can be a Xtian and not take the Bible as literal historical fact, word for word.

Indeed that's the case. Thank you for your response.

[DaryLLL]

Fair or unfair? Those are loaded words, and that question is largely moot, at least for Christians. Bear in mind that for people who believe the Gospels are true and not fictional, it wasn't the "proto-Xtian evangelists" who interpreted Jewish scripture this way; it was Jesus Christ. That pretty much takes it out of the realm of fairness or unfairness, since it's not something a Christian is at liberty to contravene, without simultaneously rejecting Christ and His Gospel.

Coming back to say, hey wait a minute! When did this thread become one for the literalist Xtian viewpoint only? Are you in charge of defining terms now?

You (and 2 or 3 other people) may have decided nobody owns the Hebrew Scriptures. I did not take place in that conversation. I feel the Hebrew Scriptures belong to the Hebrews. At least they get first dibs.

But that's just me.

[tracymom]

You (and 2 or 3 other people) may have decided nobody owns the Hebrew Scriptures. I did not take place in that conversation. I feel the Hebrew Scriptures belong to the Hebrews. At least they get first dibs.

But that's just me.

Nope, not just you. Me, too.

[kama'aina mama]

Maybe someone can help me out. How many times did Jesus quote Hebrew scripture? And how many times did He specifically say that they refered to Him?

[dado]

Originally posted by DaryLLL
I feel the Hebrew Scriptures belong to the Hebrews.

it's ok. Yeshua was a Jew, too, so the interpretations attributed to him fall under the Fair Use umbrella. Saul would be provisionally covered thanks to the Beit Hillel connection attributed to him in Acts, but it has to be said there is now a lot of evidence the Gamliel story is a complete fabrication.

what's ironic is that Saul's brand of Paulinism gained prominence over the more jewish-flavored sects run by people who had actually known Yeshua thanks to the promotion of a Gnostic who himself was later declared heretical. it is interesting to wonder what c'ianity - and judaism - would look like today if constantine hadn't put the pagan stamp of approval on the Pauline stream.

sigh. two peoples separated by a common book.

[dado]

Originally posted by kama'aina mama How many times did Jesus quote Hebrew scripture?

kama, that is an enormous can of worms. in theory, there are hundreds of Tanakh excerpts in the c'ian books.

the problem is that if we take the scriptures as they stand today as "the" word, it means nobody *ever* recorded Yeshua - a Jew in Judea speaking to other Jews about Hebrew scripture - nobody ever recorded him speaking in Aramaic or Hebrew or quoting Hebrew scriptures in their native form. which to me strongly suggests we have lost the original words. we simply don't have them, all we have is greek translations.

the idea that he only spoke Greek when among his own people talking about his own faith strikes me as, well, not very likely. it is difficult to explain just how unlikely i find this without taking you to a yeshiva and letting you see how Jews actually study Torah. especially study at a level warranting the title "rabbi".

imagining a pope from the 1500s walking the corridors of the Vatican quoting the Vulgate to his top cardinal in Swahili is about the level of likelikhood i'm feeling.

[Sean]

Originally posted by DaryLLL
Coming back to say, hey wait a minute! When did this thread become one for the literalist Xtian viewpoint only? Are you in charge of defining terms now?

No, nothing like that, I just thought you might like to be sensible of the orthodox Christian viewpoint while you give voice to your own viewpoint.

(Not the "literalist" Christian viewpoint, though, as I really know very little about that. I would welcome hearing from a literalist, if one happens to drop by.)

I feel the Hebrew Scriptures belong to the Hebrews. At least they get first dibs.

So will you leave New Testament interpretation to the Christians? And can the Catholics have the Septuagint? No one else is using it, and I think they're the only ones who really want it, anyway.

[tracymom]

So will you leave New Testament interpretation to the Christians?

I don't think the point is the interpretation, unless we're talking about Christians co-opting the Torah into the "Old Testament" and completely disregarding any other interpretation of it other than their own, which is what a great number of Christians have done for 1700-1900 years, killing a whole bunch of people in the process. But I digress.

I think the point is the ownership. My personal view is that the Hebrews own the Torah (that's probably an inaccurate statement, apologies for that, like many of my Christian brothers and sisters I'm pretty ignorant!), the Christians own the New Testament, Muslims own the Koran. Et cetera. Now, for interpretation? Nah, anybody can interpret it. But you should interpret it with respect to that cultural and religious tradition. You can't help but interpret it with respect to your own, so you don't have to take special care with that, but you do with the other.

Now, can you take it at face value without doing that? Yeah, but you lose a lot in the process, which is fine if you're going on faith alone, but not so great for scholarship. IMO these are two different things.

My Jesus said to have faith like a little child. So I do. My scholarship and readings of Gnostic texts and other traditions have nothing really to do with that. Like a little child, I have my faith, and oddly enough, through all these explorations, nothing seems to shake that. But then my experience of the Christ had little to nothing to do with the texts, so subtracting them takes nothing away from it.

I apologize if this sounds like proselyting as I don't intend it to be such. I found it was the only way I could illustrate my point as I am not nearly as well read or as articulate as some of the other minds in this thread.

[kama'aina mama]

Originally posted by dado
kama, taking you to a yeshiva and letting you see how Jews actually study Torah. especially study at a level warranting the title "rabbi".

I would LOVE that!

Okay... what I am driving at is this. Off the top of my head, not citations provided, there is room to interpret many of Jesus's Torah citations not as "I am referencing this prophet because I am fulfilling his words" and more as "Well, Isaiah said it and look around you! It's still true today!". If I quote from King Lear you don't think I am claiming to be the heir of Shakespeare. You understand that I am simply refering to our common cultural heritage. Much of what is pointed to as "Jesus laying claim to His fulfillment of the prophecies" has appeared to me to be more often the former.

[dado]

it makes a lot of sense to me, kama, for sure. all dynamic cultures are self-referential.

[barbara]

So will you leave New Testament interpretation to the Christians? And can the Catholics have the Septuagint? No one else is using it, and I think they're the only ones who really want it, anyway.

good one :LOL

[DaryLLL]

Sean, I believe you are Roman Catholic? (I am guessing from where your dw posts. ) Correct me if I am wrong.

You refer to yourself above, I think, as orthodox. A Greek word meaning straight thinking. Is that your meaning?

Saying the Septuagint is not being used today, do you mean to say the Greek Orthodox Church would have no use for a text in Greek? That makes no sense.

(For those that do not know, the Septuagint is a translation of the Hebrew Scriptures into Greek, as commissioned by Alexander the great in 300 BCE.)

I am having trouble with your loose use of terms, you see.

Are you also saying you are not a literalist? Because you come across as one of those inerrancy promoters. You claim to think the gospels are "true and not fictional," you see.

This is a thread for Biblical discussion and history, not for promoting "belief" in the Bible one way or another.

dado said:

kama, that is an enormous can of worms. in theory, there are hundreds of Tanakh excerpts in the c'ian books

In theory, much of the teachings in the Greek Scriptures, and quite a bit of the narrative, are Tanakh exegesis and midrash. And the rest is Greek and Egyptian religion and philosophy. Jesus is the spokesman for the syncretization.

[dado]

a tool i use for perusing passages...

http://www.crosswire.org/sword/index.jsp

there are lots of things still missing - ie, a complete lack of Hebrew commentaries - but the collection of material already available is quite impressive.

[Sean]

Originally posted by DaryLLL
Sean, I believe you are Roman Catholic? (I am guessing from where your dw posts. ) Correct me if I am wrong.

You're right.

You refer to yourself above, I think, as orthodox. A Greek word meaning straight thinking. Is that your meaning?

By orthodox I mean the English word:
or·tho·dox adj.
1. Adhering to the accepted or traditional and established faith, especially in religion.
2. Adhering to the Christian faith as expressed in the early Christian ecumenical creeds.
(The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition)

Saying the Septuagint is not being used today, do you mean to say the Greek Orthodox Church would have no use for a text in Greek? That makes no sense.

I was kidding, as I thought the tone of that sentence would make evident. Sorry to confuse you. (For those that do not know, the Septuagint is accepted as canonical by the Catholic Church, but not by most Protestants. I don't know whether the Greek Orthodox Church uses the Septuagint, or some other Greek translation.)

I am having trouble with your loose use of terms, you see.

I was kidding about the Septuagint, but I used "orthodox" in it's exact sense, and I don't use other terms loosely, either.

Are you also saying you are not a literalist?

Yes.

Because you come across as one of those inerrancy promoters. You claim to think the gospels are "true and not fictional," you see.

That is what I think (but I never claimed that until just now because you brought it up). You seem to think that everyone who believes the Bible is inerrant must be a literalist, but I'd prefer not to use those terms so loosely.

This is a thread for Biblical discussion and history, not for promoting "belief" in the Bible one way or another.

Under the aegis of 'Biblical discussion and history,' many of the posts here are making explicit claims that parts of the Bible are false, and therefore do, to that extent, argue for disbelief. I responded to those posts in the same spirit of inquiry, but only regarding the particular claims being made. I never even said what I believe about any of it, until you asked. You had to look up my wife's posts just to guess what religion I am.

Thank you for starting the thread, I enjoyed it!

[dado]

delete. duplicate.