|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: This is the thread where we talk about Old Testament genocide.
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
Of course it's oversimplified - I only came up with it at midnight last night, and this is hardly the place to develop a real thesis.
On the Dualism front, I ommitted to emphasise that of course we are all mixtures of different ways of thinking about things, and the right/left brain dichotomy is itself a model rather than a precise description of an objective reality. But I maintain it can be a useful way into the underlying issues - I think the same issues probably underlie the inerrancy and homosexuality dead horses. It is not that some of us are Artists and others Logicians, but which approach is dominating our thinking at any given time.
But at least it contained something useful.
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Seeker963
Shipmate
# 2066
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
But because what if I'm right? You've already said it Esmerelda. You can't worship the God of 80% of the Bible.
If you're right there really is no difference between heaven and hell. Except possibly that heaven will be worse than hell. So why should anyone care?
--------------------
"People waste so much of their lives on hate and fear." My friend JW-N: Chaplain and three-time cancer survivor. (Went to be with her Lord March 21, 2010. May she rest in peace and rise in glory.)
Posts: 4152 | From: Northeast Ohio | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Wood
The Milkman of Human Kindness
# 7
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by linzc:
quote:
Originally posted by Wood:
quote:
Originally posted by linzc
The text is only problematic if you feel an obligation to affirm the idea within the text that God desires (these particular) genocides.
No, it's problematic because God affirms genocides within the text.
Ok, let's take it another iteration. Would you say that the fact that God affirms genocide within the text is problematic because you feel an obligation to affirm the view of God represented by the text? If so, does this obligation apply uniformly to all aspects of Scripture?
The way I see it is this. Scripture is the main lingusitic source that we have to go on for the character of God. Jesus is the Word of God. How do we know? Because the Bible tells us so.
Therefore, any Christian at all has to to attach some sort of authority to the canon (I'm not implying that you don't, incidentally - just trying to get across my tortuous and frankly Lovecraftian logic here).
Does the obligation apply equally to all the bits of Scripture? I don't know.
Problem with most Biblical scholarship is that it's both conjectural and circular: while it might be right, more often than not it's actually a bunch of theories about what the text might mean and where it might have come from. Like the theory about Joshua being written in the reign of Josiah. Might be true, but where's the evidence? Um, it's in the Bible, mainly. Most of the earlier books in the OT are so ancient and come from a period of history which is so hazy that it's actually the best source by a long way.
Which is a problem, because it's not really a history book.
The first person ever to write history as a bald retelling of what actually happened was Polybius, a Greek who wrote about the Roman Republic. But before him, no one west of India (can't speak for the Far East - don't know anything about it) ever considered history to be worthwhile on its own merits. It always had to be about something. The "history" presented in Scripture, therefore, is about something. What's itabout? Israel and God.
It presents a view of God as the commander of genocide. Even though this view of God changes in the various texts in the canon, this one is given equal validity - in fact, possibly extra validity on the grounds of its place as the sequel to the Torah - as a view of God that the wroters held to and saw as good.
I'm part of a tradition that runs from that right up to now, that grew from that. Even though I might not now believe in a God who orders genocide, that view of God stands at the beginning, the foundation of the tradition in which I stand.
And so it's important that I make sense of it. Since somewhere along the line, it's where our religion comes from.
quote:
That would be what I refer to as a 'flat' reading of Scripture (and I certainly understand that you are not thereby arguing for an inerrantist position).
Um, OK. But you see, the implication of a flat reading of the text is a literalist one, and actually, believe it or not, it's the meaning that I'm groping for. Which may not be literal.
quote:
However, surely the particularly exclusive nationalistic interpretation of Israel's election held at the time of Christ was similarly culture-defining and history-defining, arguably more so. Yet we note that the New Testament overturns this national theology quite comprehensively.
Does it? There was me thinking it extended it.
quote:
So the fact that a belief has had even a central role in forming the character of Israel as a nation does not, in and of itself, require an affirmation of that belief.
No, but it requires an affirmation that it's part of the history of the development of our own beliefs.
quote:
As to authority, I think that it is in the understanding of how such authority operates that we most likely part company. For myself, the authority of Scripture comes from the fact that it is part of the pathway to encounter with Christ.
I don't think we part company all that drastically, you know, Linz.
quote:
So I would quite happily see passages like the 'genocide' ones as accurate recordings of one aspect of Israel's struggle to understand God and his character, and thus as important (though limited) steps to the understanding of God which we find expressed in its fullness in Christ.
But it's still about...
Aaaaaand here we go again... ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
--------------------
Narcissism.
Posts: 7842 | From: Wood Towers | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Seeker963
Shipmate
# 2066
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Luigi:
So Seeker963, I think we are pretty close on a lot of issues but I think - I could be wrong - that the answers that satisfy you don't really work for me. This is also true of Linxc and Esmerelda.
Perhaps I'm a little odd - I know the split personality response where I pretend to myself that all of this can be harmonised by mere assertion doesn't hold water, but, having moved from that evangelical understanding, I still don't think that most of the suggested answers work. Indeed, I think there is a danger of not taking the text seriously enough.
I do actually understand what you're saying. My problem is that I don't yet have the language to communicate something which is still at the stage of "intuition". (I'm a very high Meyers-Briggs "N" and have to bring intuition into the congnative place and then put words on it.)
For me there have been no really satisfying intellectual answers since leaving received-evangelical theology. That's why I communicated the difference between faith and theology to Sebastian. And maybe, he wasn't all that off-base even though myself and others took excpetion to things he's said. At the end of the day, I actually resolved a lot of this stuff by praying.
I do actually take the biblical text a lot more seriously than most people on internet groups give me credit for. I think, in real life, the narrative has a huge amount of power and authority. When I preach as a lay person, I preach at a sort of "post-critical"/literal level and the evangelical congregations love me and the liberal ones don't like me very much because I'm not feeding the liberal congregations their William Barkley "explain away this miracle" interpretations; I'm challenging them to encounter God in the text.
Not very theologically sophisticated, I guess, but that's what I think is most important - encountering God in scripture, prayer and life. The suggestion "pray", really isn't a bad one.
--------------------
"People waste so much of their lives on hate and fear." My friend JW-N: Chaplain and three-time cancer survivor. (Went to be with her Lord March 21, 2010. May she rest in peace and rise in glory.)
Posts: 4152 | From: Northeast Ohio | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Esmeralda
Ship's token UK Mennonite
# 582
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Seeker963:
quote:
Originally posted by Esmeralda:
Thank you, Seeker, for adding 'experience' to the triad of 'Scripture, reason and tradition'; I have always wanted to do this, and in my experience the people I've known intimately who believe in the 'non-violent, pacifist God' at whom you are so willing to sneer, are generally much more Christlike, in my experience, than the people I've known who believed in a 'killer God'.
I don't think you're talking to me, but just want to be sure (sorry, it's my pedantic side).I most certainly don't sneer at pacifism
Sorry Seeker, I moved sentences around and failed to update my pronouns. The 'you' in the second half of the sentence is Martin, whom I'm primarily addressing. I thought his tone when he spoke of a non-violent God was unwarrantedly dismissive; some of the most Christlike people on earth have followed this God.
The only bit addressed to you was the thanks for adding 'experience' to the classic triad.
--------------------
I can take the despair. It's the hope I can't stand.
http://reversedstandard.wordpress.com/
Posts: 17415 | From: A small island nobody pays any attention to | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Seeker963
Shipmate
# 2066
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Luigi:
Speaking of the story of Lot's daughters seducing him.
I think you should attempt an answer to that question first - I have spent a great deal of time studying parts of the OT - nowhere near enough of it admittedly - but that isn't one of the passages I have spent a great deal of time looking at.
Look forward to your answer Seeker
Luigi - I'm afraid I might disappoint you and I'm not even certain if you're being facetious. Yes, I could go study that story in detail and I might even learn something interesting, but I don't really think I'm going to do that now.
My point about history is that the history of the people of Israel is holy. (Again, put aside the idea of whether it is necessary that every single event happened exactly as told) That history is recorded warts and all because God's people interact with God warts and all.
Not saying this is an exegesis, but just off the top of my head. A people might do desperate things in order to survive - including procreating with close relatives. Some individuals might do desperate things to have children; could we meditate on this and learn something about the ethics of human cloning, for instance.
These are stories of a real people with a real interaction with God. As someone else said, Lot's daughters in this narrative are at least 3-dimensional characters - doing things we'd consider desperate and breaking huge taboos. The Old Testament (and the New Testament) - as you know - is filled with stories about real people doing real - and sometimes sinful things. They are grappling with God in a real way. They are arguing with God, wrestling with God. They are not looking glassy-eyed and saying "Thy will be done" in a squeeky, faux-pious voice - like we often seem to want to think of "religious" people.
A well-known Rabbi who survived the holocaust (name escapes me at the moment) said something along the lines of "A Jew may argue with God, and he may get angry with God. What he may not do is ignore God." I think this is a wonderful, real way to look at our relationship with God. And I think this "real relationship" is what is recorded in the bible. It wouldn't be real if everything recorded in it were fairy-tale, black and white morality.
--------------------
"People waste so much of their lives on hate and fear." My friend JW-N: Chaplain and three-time cancer survivor. (Went to be with her Lord March 21, 2010. May she rest in peace and rise in glory.)
Posts: 4152 | From: Northeast Ohio | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Seeker963
Shipmate
# 2066
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Wood:
It presents a view of God as the commander of genocide. Even though this view of God changes in the various texts in the canon, this one is given equal validity - in fact, possibly extra validity on the grounds of its place as the sequel to the Torah - as a view of God that the wroters held to and saw as good.
Wood, I confess that I've long lost an understanding of the gist of your problem. I don't know if this helps at all. Rabbi Joseph Telushkin (sp?) thinks, if I recall correctly, that Israel interpreted all the "crushing the Caananites" stories as being God's will because they were the only monotheists around and it was a story of minority monotheism trying to survive in a majority polytheistic world
I didn't present this theory previously because you seemed to not like the "the Victor re-wrote history" idea as being insufficiently PoMo and too far above the narrative level. But just thought I'd throw it out there to see if it would fly.
--------------------
"People waste so much of their lives on hate and fear." My friend JW-N: Chaplain and three-time cancer survivor. (Went to be with her Lord March 21, 2010. May she rest in peace and rise in glory.)
Posts: 4152 | From: Northeast Ohio | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Seeker963:
Rabbi Joseph Telushkin (sp?) thinks, if I recall correctly, that Israel interpreted all the "crushing the Caananites" stories as being God's will because they were the only monotheists around and it was a story of minority monotheism trying to survive in a majority polytheistic world
Good point.
It's true that most of the battles are presented as defensive ones. The offensive battles were also mostly presented as a matter of the survival of the good monotheists against their idolatrous enemies.
They were commanded to utterly destroy the enemy not because they deserved it, but because they were an intolerable threat to the worship of Jehovah, that is, to peace and goodness in the world.
As long as we accept that this was really true, then Jehovah can be seen, not as one who authorizes genocide, but as the powerful protector of all that is good and true.
I suspect, however, that most of us don't really accept that the preservation of Israel, and giving them the land of Canaan, was the key to world peace, or that the battle was essentially a defensive one.
--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg
Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Peppone ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Seeker963, if "I'm" right, i.e. if Esmerelda is right AND I'm right by dialectical synthesis, i.e. both OT and NT salvation history are accurate: God is every positive good thing we could desire AND the God who drowned the world, etc, etc up to assassinating Ananias and Sapphira, then heaven is perfect ... and so is hell.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Wood
The Milkman of Human Kindness
# 7
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
Seeker963, if "I'm" right, i.e. if Esmerelda is right AND I'm right by dialectical synthesis, i.e. both OT and NT salvation history are accurate: God is every positive good thing we could desire AND the God who drowned the world, etc, etc up to assassinating Ananias and Sapphira, then heaven is perfect ... and so is hell.
Martin, you're a genius.
A mad, visionary genius, but a genius nonetheless.
I know this is going to create a conundrum for the emergency services across the developed world, as people reading the Ship suffer a spate of seemingly unconnected cerebral haemorrhages, but how, how, how does the paradox of God being both/and result in a perfect heaven and a perfect hell?
[ 16. July 2004, 16:46: Message edited by: Wood ]
--------------------
Narcissism.
Posts: 7842 | From: Wood Towers | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Wood:
how, how, how does the paradox of God being both/and result in a perfect heaven and a perfect hell?
Because the alternative view is that God could have done something different, and better, than He did.
That's impossible.
So we are left with a world that is as good as it can be.
But I don't believe that God is both/and. ![[Disappointed]](graemlins/disappointed.gif)
--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg
Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Seeker963
Shipmate
# 2066
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
quote:
Originally posted by Seeker963:
Rabbi Joseph Telushkin (sp?) thinks, if I recall correctly, that Israel interpreted all the "crushing the Caananites" stories as being God's will because they were the only monotheists around and it was a story of minority monotheism trying to survive in a majority polytheistic world
As long as we accept that this was really true, then Jehovah can be seen, not as one who authorizes genocide, but as the powerful protector of all that is good and true.
Actually, I have no problem seeing it as a narrative that says "Israel experienced God as faithful when God helped them to crush their enemies". I do have a huge problem with seeing it that way "if this was really true". It means I worship a God who can't manifest himself in the hearts of people but rather "really" needs to obliterate them instead.
quote:
I suspect, however, that most of us don't really accept that the preservation of Israel, and giving them the land of Canaan, was the key to world peace, or that the battle was essentially a defensive one.
Rabbi Telushkin, interestingly, thinks that the mission of the Jewish people is and was to spread ethical monotheism (i.e., the worship of Yahweh) to the world. He accuses the Jewish people of having failed. I don't want to speak for him, but from what I've read, he holds all peoples as being equal before God and probably would not see Jews as having a unique divine right to the land.
--------------------
"People waste so much of their lives on hate and fear." My friend JW-N: Chaplain and three-time cancer survivor. (Went to be with her Lord March 21, 2010. May she rest in peace and rise in glory.)
Posts: 4152 | From: Northeast Ohio | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Seeker963
Shipmate
# 2066
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
Peppone
Seeker963, if "I'm" right, i.e. if Esmerelda is right AND I'm right by dialectical synthesis, i.e. both OT and NT salvation history are accurate: God is every positive good thing we could desire AND the God who drowned the world, etc, etc up to assassinating Ananias and Sapphira, then heaven is perfect ... and so is hell.
Sorry, no, I've lived with a mad bully who loves a person one minute and rounds on them the next minute, inflicting confusion and hurt. If heaven is all good things and all bad things, I don't want to be there. You might be cute and clever with your arguments, but I've lived with the madness and I'm praying that God is not like that.
--------------------
"People waste so much of their lives on hate and fear." My friend JW-N: Chaplain and three-time cancer survivor. (Went to be with her Lord March 21, 2010. May she rest in peace and rise in glory.)
Posts: 4152 | From: Northeast Ohio | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Seeker963:
Rabbi Telushkin, interestingly, thinks that the mission of the Jewish people is and was to spread ethical monotheism (i.e., the worship of Yahweh) to the world. He accuses the Jewish people of having failed. I don't want to speak for him, but from what I've read, he holds all peoples as being equal before God and probably would not see Jews as having a unique divine right to the land.
I love that. I agree that this was the mission of Judaism, and I don't see Christianity's mission as being much different. They ought to be one and the same church.
--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg
Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Seeker963
Shipmate
# 2066
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
quote:
Originally posted by Seeker963:
Rabbi Telushkin, interestingly, thinks that the mission of the Jewish people is and was to spread ethical monotheism (i.e., the worship of Yahweh) to the world. He accuses the Jewish people of having failed. I don't want to speak for him, but from what I've read, he holds all peoples as being equal before God and probably would not see Jews as having a unique divine right to the land.
I love that. I agree that this was the mission of Judaism, and I don't see Christianity's mission as being much different. They ought to be one and the same church.
For once we agree
By the way, it was Rabbi Telushkin's thoughts on Hebrew scripture that finally helped me to realise that Jews don't see the God of their scripture as being anything like a raging and angry God. If God's covenant was for all peoples - and I believe Paul got that right - then the theology that God was "for" Israel and "against" everyone else doesn't work very well.
--------------------
"People waste so much of their lives on hate and fear." My friend JW-N: Chaplain and three-time cancer survivor. (Went to be with her Lord March 21, 2010. May she rest in peace and rise in glory.)
Posts: 4152 | From: Northeast Ohio | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Esmeralda
Ship's token UK Mennonite
# 582
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
I suspect, however, that most of us don't really accept that the preservation of Israel, and giving them the land of Canaan, was the key to world peace, or that the battle was essentially a defensive one.
Indeed we don't - especially considering that present day Israel's supposedly 'defensive' killing of Palestinian civilians, for possession of the same territory, is possibly the greatest threat we have to world peace today. And I say this as a Jew who believes utterly that Israel has a right to existence.
quote:
Because the alternative view is that God could have done something different, and better, than He did.
That's impossible.
So we are left with a world that is as good as it can be.
All's for the best in the best of all possible worlds? God's in his heaven, all's right with the world? Whatever is, is right? Hmmm... hardly.
Of course God could have done something different. God could have fixed everything without us, or manipulated us like puppets.
But where then would be our human maturing? Where would be the joy of discovering that our paltry little efforts actually contributed to God's great plan of transformation? I'd rather have the slow, painful, two steps forward one step back, process of getting to the Kingdom, knowing that God in infinite mercy has chosen to use us weak, confused, glorious, marred, God-imaging human beings in the renewal of the world.
--------------------
I can take the despair. It's the hope I can't stand.
http://reversedstandard.wordpress.com/
Posts: 17415 | From: A small island nobody pays any attention to | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sebastian
Apprentice
# 7494
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Seeker963:
quote:
Originally posted by Sebastian:
I believe in free will - I see now how my post could have been deemed otherwise...
I just also believe there are many who have yet to ask God for assistance in understanding difficult passages of scripture.
It's surprisingly easy to forget to ask God for assistance with a whole range of things. I know I forget often and I sometimes get caught up trying to do things in my own strength having completely forgotten to pray about the matter. I catch myself doing this embarrassingly frequently.
I think the suggestion to pray is sort of addressing a different level than this conversation has been on, which is perhaps why it seemed to jar.
I don't quite know how to express the idea, but for me there is a difference between faith and theology, although they both inform and feed each other. For me personally in my walk with God, theology is always provisional. I don't believe I'll ever know the full truth in this life. It's just trying to express a synthesis about "scripture, tradition, reason and experience". Faith, on the other hand, ultimately has a "little child" aspect to it. At the risk of sounding too Muslim, at the faith level, all I can ever really do is submit and obey.
In the terms I expressed above (which I suspect some will not agree with), you were talking at the "faith" level when the rest of the conversation had been at the "theology" level. Hope this makes sense.
Yes, what you say there does make sense - and I see your point clearer than I have before. - and this in light of what my original post as well.
I think there are those who were overly critical of what I had to say.
You've enlightened me on how the conversation differences between the faith or theology level
.
I believe they don't have to be mutually exclusive - in that it is good to ask God for assistance discerning passages of scripture (2 Cor chapt. 2).
Although some (not you) seem to consider that worthless (wow) and get quite ruffled over the idea, even suggesting it - even though others (a larger audience beyond this one) may benifet from the idea.
I appreciate your enlightenment - that helps. Your post was far more human and decent than some.
I remember a church in Alaska that lived by the principle saying that one could be dead right, but completely wrong if they violate God's first rule of love for others.
Thanks again for your enlightenment.
God bless
Sebastian
--------------------
"A wise man is a fool with a good memory"
Posts: 29 | From: USA | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Seeker963
Shipmate
# 2066
|
Posted
Thanks for your kindness, Sebastian. I appreciate it in the face of my earlier sarcasm.
--------------------
"People waste so much of their lives on hate and fear." My friend JW-N: Chaplain and three-time cancer survivor. (Went to be with her Lord March 21, 2010. May she rest in peace and rise in glory.)
Posts: 4152 | From: Northeast Ohio | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Esmeralda:
I'd rather have the slow, painful, two steps forward one step back, process of getting to the Kingdom, knowing that God in infinite mercy has chosen to use us weak, confused, glorious, marred, God-imaging human beings in the renewal of the world.
That's my feeling also. So doesn't that make this the best of all possible worlds? ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
Not so great a world, maybe, only better than one in which people were not free. ![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg
Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Tuggboat
Shipmate
# 7001
|
Posted
I've found an interesting discrepancy that relates to this subject. I went back to the first original battle and tried to puzzle out why the Lord Cursed the Amalekites in the first place. At first I thought the Israelites were cursed to fight them for generations because Moses had took the decision to retaliate into his own hands without conferring with the Lord as to the proper manner or even if He should use his Staff. It is one of two time he uses it without God's instruction to do so. The second time he uses it instead of speaking to the rock and for this he doesn't get to go into the promised land. all the rest of the times God tells him what to do and how to do it.
It still might be that fighting the Amalekites was a consequence of Moses use of free will but I found besides what I call the curse references that the reason they were bound to fight for generations is because the Amalekites or Moses "raised" " their fists or hand" "to or onto" the "Throne" of God. Perhaps this belongs in Kergymania. A majority of bible versions translate three Hebrew words as "Hath sworn" The Hebrew doesn't even suggest this. The three words in question bare these Strong Numbers 3027, 5921 and 3676.
Roughly for those without Strongs
3027 Open hand literal or figurative
5921 Above over or beyond
3676 a contraction of properly covered. Translated as Throne or improperly Banner because a banner isn't covered But Gods throne is covered by angels wings if I remember.
The root 3680 (3676 w/o the contraction) is used as "covered" close to 6000 times
Ex 17:16-18:1
16 For he said, Because the LORD hath sworn that the LORD will have war with Amalek from generation to generation. KJV
Many versions follow the KJ's lead
Ex 17:15-18:1
15 Moses built an altar and called it The LORD is my Banner. 16 He said, "For hands were lifted up to the throne of the LORD. The LORD will be at war against the Amalekites from generation to generation."
(from New International Version)
Ex 17:16
16 He said, "They have dared to raise their fist against the Lord's throne, so now the LORD will be at war with Amalek generation after generation."
NLT
Ex 17:16-18:1
16 saying, "A hand upon the banner of the LORD! The LORD will have war with Amalek from generation to generation."
RSV
These get closer but they disagree. Does anybody know what this means in relation to our topic? I feel we can find our answers in the original decision better than the battles that followed. At least that's been my own experience with myself. I always look to my original quarrel with somebody when I'm looking for an honest cause of discord, hence my following this line of logic.
--------------------
The wind blows, and restless are the sails;
Even the rudder begs direction;
Posts: 78 | From: Providence Forge, VA | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
hermit
Shipmate
# 1803
|
Posted
Hadn't really intended to get back into this thread since I've had my say, but here's an extra bit of information ... according to my NIV study Bible the Amalekites were Bedouin descended from Esau, who "despised his birthright".
--------------------
"You called out loud and shattered my deafness. You were radiant and resplendent, you put to flight my blindness... You touched me, and I am set on fire to attain that peace which was yours." Confessions, St Augustine
Posts: 812 | From: Seattle | Registered: Nov 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Tuggboat
Shipmate
# 7001
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by hermit:
Hadn't really intended to get back into this thread since I've had my say, but here's an extra bit of information ... according to my NIV study Bible the Amalekites were Bedouin descended from Esau, who "despised his birthright".
Yeah Hermit, He sold it for a bowl of soup. What gets me is how we (me) often sell myself or my faith to make a Buck. My hunger for things of this earth outweighs my reliance on God.
His description as ruddy and hairy makes me wonder if he was a different species of man. Since god loves his creation but Hated Essau I wonder if whether he was God's creation or the Devil's meddling attempt to create a life that hated and resisted God. Atthe least It contended with the other from the very beginning
Gen 25:22-23
22 The babies jostled each other within her, and she said, "Why is this happening to me?" So she went to inquire of the LORD.
23 The LORD said to her,
"Two nations are in your womb,
and two peoples from within you will be separated;
one people will be stronger than the other,
and the older will serve the younger."
(from New International Version)
--------------------
The wind blows, and restless are the sails;
Even the rudder begs direction;
Posts: 78 | From: Providence Forge, VA | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Weed
Shipmate
# 4402
|
Posted
quote:
Hadn't really intended to get back into this thread since I've had my say, but here's an extra bit of information ... according to my NIV study Bible the Amalekites were Bedouin descended from Esau, who "despised his birthright".
Hermit and Tuggboat -
This illustrates perfectly why the flat interpretation of these particular passages of scripture isn’t a matter of angels dancing on a pin. What all these passages are clearly saying on their face is that the cosmic God decided who to punish on the basis of which bloodline they came from, ie by race, and that that race had to be wiped out because it was irredeemably anti-God and therefore anti-Jew. It seems to me that the implications of this are vast and not only concerning the nature of God. However, to discuss any further whether we apply the plain meaning means we have to do something with the dead horse that’s been lying in the corner during this discussion. I will post something to the inerrancy thread if anyone wants to continue the discussion there.
I’m still interested in what more Luigi has to say because he’s been very good at inviting others to speak without disclosing his own hand fully.
--------------------
Weed
Posts: 519 | From: UK | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Luigi
Shipmate
# 4031
|
Posted
Little Weed – first let me say how much I have enjoyed reading your contributions. I think in many ways we are on a similar page and you may well be heading into similar waters. However we will see.
The reason I haven’t responded earlier is because I don’t seem to have that much time to post and be a deputy head, in a particularly difficult period, in a school on the south coast of England.
quote:
Originally posted by Little Weed:
quote:
Originally posted by Luigi:
If there is a problem with this passage in the text - and we accept that it is acceptable to 'go against the text' as it appears to be what Jesus did and it certainly seems to be part of a lot of Jewish thinking. Then we are left with the question of why this passage is there in the first place.
This is all very pragmatic and non-learned I’m afraid, and I am deliberately avoiding the question of divine inspiration. The points are in no particular order of importance.
Why include it in the Jewish Bible?
1. It was Jewish history, recording an important part of the story. From the beginning God is woven into the structure of Jewish life and politics. It’s a practical rather than mystical religion for the vast majority.
This is still a problem – why record this part of the story as if it affirms genocide when we both believe it is wrong.
quote:
2. Joshua, read straight, has nationalistic value. Israel was constantly being lax and rebellious against the political-religious leadership of the time (there being no difference between politics and religion). It was a good message on both counts: if you obey God you will win battles; if you don’t, he will give you over to captivity.
I’m afraid I don’t buy this. This whole ‘if you’re a good guy you get rewarded and if you’re a bad guy you get punished’ doesn’t hold water. I’ll could just mention the holocaust or point to the number of faithful Christians who have not been protected by God throughout history.
quote:
3. We revere the works of earlier times, especially military heroes. Things get hallowed with time and reputations enhanced.
This is true but why repeat a text that seems to revere a genocidal maniac?
quote:
4. I don’t know when it was written. Was it handed down first orally then written down? From internal evidence within Joshua and Judges there are conflicts with the timing and battles won and lost during Joshua's lifetime. There seem to me clearly two different voices and no attempt to reconcile the texts.
Now I think you are really onto something. Two voices within the whole of scripture, but how do we distinguish between the two? Which voice should we follow? Which voice is right?
quote:
5. People were theologising as they wrote it. It wasn’t seen as invention to put words of God into eg Joshua’s mouth. There’s a way of thinking in the Middle East (see Saddam Hussein’s Information Minister) that says if it ought to happen/have happened it must happen/have happened. It isn’t lying through your teeth or spin in the western sense; it’s telling the truth even though it conflicts with reality.
I think putting words in God’s mouth *is* invention. This deception is deeply problematic because it is so misleading.
Will try to put my position forward when I have time.
Luigi
Posts: 752 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Luigi
Shipmate
# 4031
|
Posted
A few comments:
Karl – I think you are right, for me an answer must be satisfying. Some problems can be explained away using the wriggle room that logic and language give us. That doesn’t mean it is satisfying. I think virtually any position can be defended by making logic turn in on itself. Having said that, I want an answer that works when approached logically and when approached artistically.
For me logic is very important but unless a subject is looked at with an awareness of the emotional resonances then it is almost certainly illogical. After all it isn’t logical, in my view, to leave out so much important data. I cannot see how those justifying OT genocide are engaging with the emotional resonances. Perhaps they look at the passage and think: ‘Yeah, I could slit a two year olds throat. I could cut a pregnant woman in half – probably the most humane way to kill both quickly.' And if anyone says that they would find it difficult but God would help them to do it, then I will scream.
Seeker 963 – I hope I don’t come across as being facetious.
Linxc – the whole idea that it is all just a part of the story of a journey towards a better understanding of God seems to be true. But what I couldn’t work out was why the text affirms the Israelites taking two steps back when they needed to take two steps forward. Humans have enough problems walking away from evil without them being encouraged to do evil because ‘God said’. BTW I don’t buy all the God did it to show how special the Jews were. A few problems there methinks.
Lapsed heathen – you said ….. quote:
Could it be not that it's the opposite of sinful people refuse to commit genocide but exactly that sinful people do commit genocide. God may not have ordered the genocide but the Israelites who saw themselves as God's chosen could not live in good conscience with genocide without invoking God as the author of the action.
The Bible is not a collection of individual little lessons. It's a collection which taken together make one lesson. We are redeemed and can attain our original true purpose, to love and serve God.
I think you are going in the right direction there.
Will respond to grey face later when I have time.
Luigi
Posts: 752 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zeke
Ship's Inquirer
# 3271
|
Posted
Tuggboat:
Different species? Give me a break. If you are going to get all literalist about other things, do recall that Jacob and Esau were twins, albeit very different fraternal ones.
And where does it say that God hated Esau? He certainly seems to have blessed him in those years when Jacob was away, so much so that there was no bitterness left at all toward his brother--he welcomed him with open arms and graciously refused the lavish gifts Jacob had prepared to give him. Esau actually seems to have been a much nicer person than Jacob, but God occasionally seems to make odd choices in whom to favor.
Please elucidate about God hating Esau, because I don't see it--possibly I missed a verse somewhere.
--------------------
No longer the Bishop of Durham
-----------
If men are so wicked with religion, what would they be without it? --Benjamin Franklin
Posts: 5259 | From: Deep in the American desert | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Paul Mason
Shipmate
# 7562
|
Posted
quote:
"I have loved you," says the LORD. But you say, "How have you loved us?"
"Is not Esau Jacob's brother?" declares the LORD. "Yet I have loved Jacob but Esau I have hated. I have laid waste his hill country and left his heritage to jackals of the desert."
(Malachi 1.2-3)
quote:
As it is written, "Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated."
(Romans 9.13)
--------------------
Now posting as LatePaul
Posts: 452 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zeke
Ship's Inquirer
# 3271
|
Posted
Well, I stand corrected. Thanks for the quotes.
--------------------
No longer the Bishop of Durham
-----------
If men are so wicked with religion, what would they be without it? --Benjamin Franklin
Posts: 5259 | From: Deep in the American desert | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Tuggboat
Shipmate
# 7001
|
Posted
I don't have the connecting logic but this looks like an extension of the original Angelic conflict. I'm open to the idea of a Demonic race.
Maybe this lacks sensitivity toward the newborn but:
Gen 25:25-26
25 The first to come out was red, and his whole body was like a hairy garment; so they named him Esau.
5:25 e Esau may mean hairy; he was also called Edom, which means red.
(from New International Version)
Red and like a Hairy garment doesn't sound real human to me. It actually sounds like he was hairy like the abominable snowman. The word more aptly means mantle or robe. We're not talking about a baby with a full head of hair here. If I saw a Hairy Red man coming at me I'd be tempted to say what instead of who.
And If the race actually contended for the throne of God like the verse I am contending with several posts above seems to indicate I can see why they'd have to have battles like they did.
The Amalekites would have been the personification of evil at a national and racial level.
All the connecting logic and stories on the Angelic conflict are in spurious texts that I'm just barely familiar with.
How's that for a flat reading of scripture?
--------------------
The wind blows, and restless are the sails;
Even the rudder begs direction;
Posts: 78 | From: Providence Forge, VA | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Paul Mason
Shipmate
# 7562
|
Posted
Red and Hairy says to me that he was red and hairy - it's quite an extrapolation to see that as another species. If you think these qualities are unknown in the human race you may need to meet a wider variety of people.
I find the idea that these were some demonic sub-human species that therefore it's ok to destroy them wholesale as repellant as the idea that it's ok because God says so.
I think you're putting too much weight on too little evidence for that theory to fly. With me at any rate. You haven't by any chance been reading/watching Lord of the Rings lately have you?
--------------------
Now posting as LatePaul
Posts: 452 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Tuggboat
Shipmate
# 7001
|
Posted
Hahhaa
No it stems from a tape series that I went thru. It taught about the invisible conflict of angels and demons around us. It talked about Satans original fall and the angels that followed him.
Does sound like Lord of the Rings doesn't it.
It was really farfetched but fascinating until I found the sources of his ideas. The idea of spiritual warfare intrigues me and makes sense at a basic level. I often read from this spiritual viewpoint when I read of conflict and demons.
I did not always believe in Evil and this stuff was nuts until I ran into evil and came to believe its real. Still, that other races or groups are evil has been used as an excuse for genocide and war. Its always been a false excuse. But, Could the devil manifest evil in a race of man?
--------------------
The wind blows, and restless are the sails;
Even the rudder begs direction;
Posts: 78 | From: Providence Forge, VA | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Luigi
Shipmate
# 4031
|
Posted
Tuggboat - I guess your post shows the lengths that some Christians go to, to square circles.
I have read a number of holocaust apologists and their far fetched beliefs sound alarmingly sensible compared to some of the stuff proposed by some Christians to justify / explain away OT genocide.
Really quite bizarre!
Luigi
[ 18. July 2004, 21:19: Message edited by: Luigi ]
Posts: 752 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Luigi
Shipmate
# 4031
|
Posted
In response to Greyface:
quote:
I'm still sat on the fence as far as the nature of this passage goes but I'll have a shot at it.
Why is it there? I can think of several possible reasons other than the literalist/inerrantist one (sorry Lep, I think the cap fits on this one and I don't mean it in a derogatory sense).
1. Progressive revelation - has the time come now for this perception of God's actions to be challenged? Is it in the Bible for this very purpose - to be reinterpreted? I'm curious as to how people see the application of the passage that has the Spirit leading us into all truth, in the light of, for example, the abolition of slavery, or the ordination of women, or wearing hats in church etc. Changing views (and I'm aware that at least one is highly contentious) of the Bible can happen over a long period of time.
Yeap! Almost certainly right
quote:
2. Metaphorical - it's, to be blunt, a kick up the arse to those on the fringes of the Church to make the jump, because Bad Things Happen to those outside (this isn't a character of God issue, I see it in much the same way as Jesus' warnings of hell, which is another topic)
No – don’t buy this at all. I don’t think that God only looks after those inside church.
quote:
3. It was there to make the Israelites/Jews act in a particular way in their later history as they read the Scriptures. It no longer has this effect (note how ready we are, as a whole, to condemn the idea that God would command genocide today, particularly those of the cons-evo persuasion, which is what makes this thread to a certain extent a bit silly, other than from the apologetics angle)
Don’t think this thread is silly at all. The fact that most on this thread imply that they would be reluctant to kill two year olds etc doesn’t mean much at all. As far as I can see humans have the same extremely violent tendencies as they have always had. Just because the opportunity and motivation aren’t there at the moment means very little.
As to your first sentence in the above paragraph - how does this work? Are you saying that by affirming genocide this will ensure that the Israelites will not commit genocide later in their history? You see I think you are right but for a long time I couldn’t see how a text that was so wrong could push the Israelites in the right direction.
quote:
4. It's there because that was the view of the writer and it's wrong, much like the other apparent contradictions, and God intended us to realise that, allowing us to deduce the nature of Biblical authority - hence this discussion and many others like it.
Again I think this is true, but it still lacks clarity.
quote:
Then there's 5. The Bible is as full of holes as a Swiss cheese, and not to be trusted on much at all. I leave it out on the grounds that I don't think we have any non-Christians left in the discussion.
Went through a stage of thinking this – by the way it isn’t only non-Christians that think the Bible is full of holes. There are plenty of liberal scholars who still consider themselves Christian even though they think the Bible is like Swiss cheese.
quote:
Can I insert my usually disclaimer about being a baby theologian here? There are people on this thread who've studied and lived Christianity for longer than I've been alive and many times longer than I've been doing it, and many that are far cleverer than me too , and don't anyone be stupid enough to think that's false modesty. I know when I'm outclassed.
My view on which is true is a combination of 0 to 4 that changes from minute to minute, so don't read much into what I wrote, please, but you did ask.
This isn’t meant to be patronising, but it will probably come across as such, I think your instincts push you in the right direction much of the time. The right direction is of course to move towards the same conclusions as I have.
Luigi
Posts: 752 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Esmeralda
Ship's token UK Mennonite
# 582
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by LatePaul:
quote:
"I have loved you," says the LORD. But you say, "How have you loved us?"
"Is not Esau Jacob's brother?" declares the LORD. "Yet I have loved Jacob but Esau I have hated. I have laid waste his hill country and left his heritage to jackals of the desert."
(Malachi 1.2-3)
quote:
As it is written, "Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated."
(Romans 9.13)
May I comment on this as a Jew by birth, though admittedly a Central European one a long way from Jacob and Esau?
In my experience of the Jewish way of saying thing, you generally put your case in the most extreme terms possible, just for the sake of argument and to get heard above the sound of everyone talking at the same time. In terms of this culture, 'Esau I hated' is not meant to be taken literally, it's just meant to make the biggest possible contrast with 'Jacob I loved'.
ISTM that one of our problems in reading the Bible in general is that we read as Anglo-Saxon folk who think that what's said is exactly what's meant - after all, in my experience of English people, they either say what they mean or somewhat less, or don't speak at all. Exaggerating is highly frowned upon.
I first became aware of this culture gap when, for a course, I read through Paul's epistles all in one go, without stopping to analyse every verse. 'Oh, I get it!' I suddenly thought. 'He's one of those dogmatic Jewish men who overstate everything - I've met loads, especially rabbis'. I could just see him dictating to Silas, and then saying - 'Hang on, did I just say that? Well I didn't really mean it quite like that, I'd better qualify it a bit'. That's how his stuff reads.
If we apply this to the OT, recognizing that it wasn't written by Christians, but by Semites who always made their stories as dramatic as possible - well, it doesn't solve the genocide thing but it gives us a whole new perspective.
So - maybe we should stop reading in such an English (and possibly Protestant, too) manner?
--------------------
I can take the despair. It's the hope I can't stand.
http://reversedstandard.wordpress.com/
Posts: 17415 | From: A small island nobody pays any attention to | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
John Holding
Coffee and Cognac
# 158
|
Posted
Further to what Esmerelda has posted:
Some years ago I read a book by an Aramaic speaker, who made the point that exaggeration is inherent in spoken aramaic and always has been. He used the example of Jesus referring to a mustard plant growing to be as big as a tree, so that the birds could nest in it, and explained that Jesus was speaking in typical aramaic fashion, using exaggeration (mustard does not grow like this). Many of the hard saying in the gospels need to be read through this lens rather than literally.
I would guess that this charateristic of aramaic may be inherited (?)/shared with Hebrew, and that as a result, as she says, we need to avoid reading much of the text "plainly".
John
Posts: 5929 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zeke
Ship's Inquirer
# 3271
|
Posted
Thank you both for bringing this up. This was indeed my own impression of the two verses, but didn't want to be accused of just coming up with something that sounded slick because I was suddenly confronted with them.
Don't forget either that Jesus said whoever doesn't hate his own family isn't worthy of the Kingdom of Heaven. Although I have not a doubt that there are a few to take this "as Gospel" so to speak, I think he was grossly exaggerating to make his point there. I am glad to see that a couple of people have made this point as well.
[added clarifying word]
[ 19. July 2004, 02:12: Message edited by: Zeke ]
--------------------
No longer the Bishop of Durham
-----------
If men are so wicked with religion, what would they be without it? --Benjamin Franklin
Posts: 5259 | From: Deep in the American desert | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Luigi
Shipmate
# 4031
|
Posted
I think you are right about Jewish use of hyperbole. However, I also think that it may be significant that it is not in the gospel. I personally think Jesus used hyperbole rather more cleverly than the OT prophets or Paul did. That is not to disparage either of them - particularly the OT prophets.
I realise this may be almost blasphemy to those who worship the Bible as much as they worship Jesus.
Luigi
Posts: 752 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Luigi
Shipmate
# 4031
|
Posted
Little Weed wanted to know my take on this issue so here goes. First let me say that on my journey away from a conservative evangelical position 80% of my journey I found I could improvise largely on my own. However the final 20% I just couldn’t work out a way forward that didn’t duck the difficult questions. And that 20% is all about this issue and issues related to it. I knew that the OT genocides – and many other practices - were problematic to say the least, but why were they there? Then I looked everywhere I could and read a great deal and still couldn’t find any satisfactory answers. Not even in the liberal camp which I was becoming a lot more sympathetic to.
The following was the only answer that I found satisfying and in actual fact it answered a lot more questions than I thought it would. It is unashamedly based on Rene Girard’s thinking, the Christian anthropologist, although I have improvised here and there. Apologies for its reductive tendencies – how do you distil 30-40 years of scholarship (well over 5 books) into a few posts? I don’t know but this is my effort.
Let’s step back from the ‘evangelical received text’ view of the scriptures and approach them in a totally different way. Sorry but this will take more than one post – even though the ideas are in many ways very simple.
Let’s consider how founding stories seemed to operate in the ancient world.
Many founding stories were stories told to tell of how the community emerged. And they seem to have been told to produce coherence within that community. Now many of the founding stories seem to be based on violence and disguising the role it had in producing peace and unanimity within the community. The role it appears to have had has been massive – the more I read in this area the more I was convinced.
Now just suppose that almost all the ideas that emerge from the OT are also present in other cultures. (We just happen to be more aware of the founding stories in the Judeo-Christian tradition.) The idea of a god (gods?) who will be on the side of those who worship him; a god who will give good harvests to those who bring animal sacrifices for him to consume, was just too attractive to the most of the ancients for them to ignore.
Of course when God, no matter what you call him, doesn’t always make your tribe the most powerful, the weather systems still seems to be alarmingly unpredictable no matter what your religious practices, then you have to up the ante and sacrifice children from your tribe, or the deformed, some of your enemies etc. Hence the reason for the incredibly widespread practice of human sacrifice in the ancient world.
Now this was just one of the key ways in which violence played a central role in ancient religion. Violence appears to have happened for a number of other reasons, all probably related, and from the tribe’s point of view these stories and rituals could not be questioned because of the cohesion they brought to the tribe.
Just suppose that this sort of sacrificial logic was present in almost all ancient people – control of the Gods was an imperative for the vast majority of people groups. Therefore the practices and rituals were almost always just variations on a theme. Of course if these practices troubled them in the same way they do us – and they had, I believe, consciences that potentially found these practices equally repugnant - then this would mean that the rituals would be questioned.
Therefore the role that these founding stories had to play was to hide the problematic parts of the story from the tribe. They had to be told in such a way that the barbaric practices that needed to become ritualised, had to be disguised or euphemised. They had to avoid troubling the conscience of the participants.
Now suppose that the OT is every bit as immersed in the same sacrificial logic and consequently the stories are in many ways almost identical. However, there is in my view one key difference and this difference means that certain things emerge from the OT scriptures that don’t emerge as clearly from other founding stories. (Incidentally, I don’t think it matters that much what they called their God, the question is how accurate was their perception of God.... Did their perception of God mean that love of God and love of neighbour were in opposition?)
So the OT tells much the same stories but the key difference is that the opposition between the two great commands becomes increasingly obvious because of the way in which these stories are told. Put simply this is how the leitmotif of the OT emerges – the debunking of sacrificial logic is its key theme.
Do you see what I am saying so far? I realise this is very sketchy and I haven’t even spoken of the role of founding murder stories but I think this will do to start with.
Luigi
Posts: 752 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Weed
Shipmate
# 4402
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Esmeralda:
I first became aware of this culture gap when, for a course, I read through Paul's epistles all in one go, without stopping to analyse every verse. 'Oh, I get it!' I suddenly thought. 'He's one of those dogmatic Jewish men who overstate everything - I've met loads, especially rabbis'.
Yes!! I get such a different picture of Paul from reading his epistles straight through and quickly than if I linger on each verse. I said before that he fairly fizzes with enthusiasm and ideas like "better marry than burn" can come across somewhat differently from the way they do through the very stolid, analytical, academic way we more often use.
And yes, too, to John Holding and Zeke. And it's not only a Jewish way of expressing things, from my albeit limited experience it appears to be a real cultural difference between the Middle East and the West.
Recently I heard a translator explaining the difficulties of conveying the tone of Saddam Hussein's rhetoric to a western audience. He said that it was an ancient way of speaking that had been preserved to the present day because of the Koran. As the Koran was believed to be the dictated and unchangeable words of God and regularly read out loud, the style of expressing oneself in everyday life hadn't changed that much. To an English person, used to saying, "This is quite nice" whilst meaning, "I like this very much indeed" the high flown, apocalyptic and violent language spoken by some people in Iraq would naturally come over as utterly alien and extreme. His dilemma as translator was whether to convey the words accurately and give the wrong meaning or to tone down the words so they would carry the right weight to western ears.
This is why I believe it is so important to try to understand the OT as a first century Jew would have understood it to understand the NT fully and why I find it sometimes an impossible task to understand what meaning some of the OT writers were trying to convey at the time they were writing. Maybe it just is impossible in some cases and we should recognise our limitations.
--------------------
Weed
Posts: 519 | From: UK | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leprechaun
Ship's Poison Elf
# 5408
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Little Weed:
This is why I believe it is so important to try to understand the OT as a first century Jew would have understood it to understand the NT fully and why I find it sometimes an impossible task to understand what meaning some of the OT writers were trying to convey at the time they were writing. Maybe it just is impossible in some cases and we should recognise our limitations.
Can I just clarify - and this is a question based on my ignorance, rather than any desire to win points - are you saying a first century Jew would have viewed the events in Joshua as
a) non-historical
or
b) historical but not ordered by God?
Posts: 3097 | From: England - far from home... | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Wood
The Milkman of Human Kindness
# 7
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
Can I just clarify - and this is a question based on my ignorance, rather than any desire to win points - are you saying a first century Jew would have viewed the events in Joshua as
a) non-historical
or
b) historical but not ordered by God?
I don't know where Little Weed is going with this, but, from what I know about the period (which is far from authoritative), I think a first century Jew would have seen it as ordered by God, and as "historical", although - and this is the important bit - a first-century idea of the meaning of the word "historical" is different to ours.
This can't be stressed enough. We live in a world with cameras, and audio recording stuff, and video, and film, and we can recall an event by going into an archive; we can tell what someone important said by accessing a recording of it. For a long, long time, all that anyone had to go on was memory. People recognised that memory was unreliable, and that therefore there was only so close any "historical" account would get to what actually happened. That was why, for example, people had no problem with taking two, three or even maybe four accounts of important accounts together, even if in some specifics they disagreed. An eyewitness could tell a different story to another, and both could be telling the whole truth.
Consequently, their emphasis on "facts" was a lot less than ours is, and so they tended to value other facets of their historical accounts, primarily: what can I learn from this? and: Is this entertaining to read?
The theory of "Profit with Delight"* was more or less hardwired into the way the ancients thought about historical writing.
(Tangentially, those who believe in the doctrine of Plenary Inspiration shouldn't feel that grasping this fact is a threat to that, for obvious reasons. There are plenty of arguments against it, but this isn't one of them.)
__________
*Incidentally, the title of a fascinating book by the unfortunately named Richard Pervo, which analyses the Acts, the Apocryphal Acts and some other early Christian texts from a narratological standpoint. Possibly in the library of your local academic institution.
[ 19. July 2004, 10:37: Message edited by: Wood ]
--------------------
Narcissism.
Posts: 7842 | From: Wood Towers | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Wood:
Tangentially, those who believe in the doctrine of Plenary Inspiration shouldn't feel that grasping this fact is a threat to that, for obvious reasons. There are plenty of arguments against it, but this isn't one of them.
I agree that this fact is not a threat to believing in the truth and inspiration of the Bible.
However, in deference to Leprechaun's question, it does seem to me that many of the explanations we are giving here assume that the accounts have their origin in people and not God. This is fine with me if what we mean is that God works through the people and cultures involved.
For Wood's original question to be answered, it seems to me that it is necessary for the account of these events be divine in origin, or in some way held to be legitimately from God. Otherwise we just chalk it up to the hyperbolic, violent, and chauvinistic ideas of an ancient people and culture. If we do that, the reason for the thread vanishes. Or am I misunderstanding the point of the thread?
--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg
Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leprechaun
Ship's Poison Elf
# 5408
|
Posted
Thanks Wood. And Freddy for being deferential to my question!
My issue is with the direct line that is seems to be being drawn between the way ancients "understood" history and the way some people on the thread have, in a pretty postmodern way said "yes that's what it says, but this is what it actually means. And by the way, that's because of the way the ancients understood history".
I was aware of the phenomena of the way history was understood that Wood explained very accessibly. Yet I can't help feeling that a first century Jew would actually be quite surprised at some of the explanations of Joshua being floated here - they seem to be borne out of rather more twenty-first century sensibilities.
--------------------
He hath loved us, He hath loved us, because he would love
Posts: 3097 | From: England - far from home... | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Wood
The Milkman of Human Kindness
# 7
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
I was aware of the phenomena of the way history was understood that Wood explained very accessibly. Yet I can't help feeling that a first century Jew would actually be quite surprised at some of the explanations of Joshua being floated here - they seem to be borne out of rather more twenty-first century sensibilities.
Hence my discomfort with some of the "yeah, but it didn't really happen, did it?" explanations.
I think that a first-century Jew wouldn't have had any problems at all with the morality of genocide.
--------------------
Narcissism.
Posts: 7842 | From: Wood Towers | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
"yes that's what it says, but this is what it actually means. And by the way, that's because of the way the ancients understood history".
I agree. The whole point here is to reconcile two things: - 1. That the accounts of genocide in the Old Testament are genuinely divine in origin or in some way sanctioned by God.
- 2. That they appear to be completely contrary to the nature of God as modern Christians understand Him.
The two obvious way of achieving this reconciliation are - a. That these accounts are NOT genuinely divine in origin or sanctioned by God. Or:
- b. That these accounts really ARE consistent with what God is like.
But these explanations do not reconcile, they simply deny one half of the equation.
--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg
Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Weed
Shipmate
# 4402
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
My issue is with the direct line that is seems to be being drawn between the way ancients "understood" history and the way some people on the thread have, in a pretty postmodern way said "yes that's what it says, but this is what it actually means. And by the way, that's because of the way the ancients understood history".
I'll adopt Wood's explanation if I may to your previous question, Leprechaun. I still think you are drawing a false distinction above between what the bible says and what it actually means. Judaism has some pretty esoteric methods of scriptural interpretation and the ancients had to be taught what the scriptures meant.
quote:
I was aware of the phenomena of the way history was understood that Wood explained very accessibly. Yet I can't help feeling that a first century Jew would actually be quite surprised at some of the explanations of Joshua being floated here - they seem to be borne out of rather more twenty-first century sensibilities.
It depends on which 1st century Jew you're thinking of though, doesn't it? You have the religious elite who are legalistic and have lost sight of the overall reasons behind the Law and then you have Jesus (not to mention all the other groupings such as the Zealots).
Jesus himself gives a reinterpretation of various aspects of the Law. He doesn't condemn his disciples for grinding corn in their hands on the Sabbath, yet to the rich young man who has obeyed the Law precisely he says that isn't enough. When he talks about anger being as bad as murder, even if you accept it as over the top language, do you think he commended all the killings in the OT? The gospels are frustratingly silent for the most part on the specifics but we have all those instructions about loving one's enemies and this from a man who was all too familiar with the Roman occupation and the longing of Israel to be free.
Incidentally, I read the whole of Matthew yesterday with Joshua in mind, thinking that as it was addressed specifically the Jews it might shed some light on these issues. What struck me as never before about Matthew's emphasis on Jesus as the Messiah was the continuity with the OT. On the other hand, what also shines out from the gospels is what has always seemed to me a most contemporary attitude of Jesus to the value of the individual.
--------------------
Weed
Posts: 519 | From: UK | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leprechaun
Ship's Poison Elf
# 5408
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Little Weed:
It depends on which 1st century Jew you're thinking of though, doesn't it? You have the religious elite who are legalistic and have lost sight of the overall reasons behind the Law and then you have Jesus (not to mention all the other groupings such as the Zealots).
Well yes. Which was why I was a little confused at your offering "geting into the mind of the contemporary Jew" as an explanation.
IMO Matthew's Gospel is not at all silent on Jesus attitude to the acts of "barbarism" in the OT, although admittedly Joshua is not mentioned. Jesus does say for example that Capernaum (I think, I haven't got a Bible beside me) deserves a worse fate than Sodom, if we could really imagine such a thing.
I don't doubt there were some esoteric methods of interpretation. What I doubt is that any of these led to your particular interpretation, which as I said appears to owe more to 21st century values, with a tokenistic appeal to 1st century understandings of history than anything else.
Posts: 3097 | From: England - far from home... | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Weed
Shipmate
# 4402
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
Well yes. Which was why I was a little confused at your offering "geting into the mind of the contemporary Jew" as an explanation.
As the scriptures we are talking about are ones that the two faiths have in common, don't you think it is useful to know how present day Judaism sees them?
quote:
IMO Matthew's Gospel is not at all silent on Jesus attitude to the acts of "barbarism" in the OT, although admittedly Joshua is not mentioned. Jesus does say for example that Capernaum (I think, I haven't got a Bible beside me) deserves a worse fate than Sodom, if we could really imagine such a thing.
Does that imply that God deliberately destroyed Sodom? It doesn't to me.
quote:
I don't doubt there were some esoteric methods of interpretation. What I doubt is that any of these led to your particular interpretation, which as I said appears to owe more to 21st century values, with a tokenistic appeal to 1st century understandings of history than anything else.
In that case, a genuine question. When Jesus talked about loving your enemies, was he talking purely about personal morality rather than what Israel did as a nation? If he wasn't and this was intended to be a universal commandment, why is his message different from when he was part of the Trinity commanding genocide?
--------------------
Weed
Posts: 519 | From: UK | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
The problem I have with writing off disquiet at the concept of genocide as "21st Century Values" is the implication that we should abandon them, as God doesn't share them - in other words, accept that genocide is sometimes right.
That I cannot do. I'm back to Winston in the chair again. How can I see five fingers when there are clearly four?
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leprechaun
Ship's Poison Elf
# 5408
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
The problem I have with writing off disquiet at the concept of genocide as "21st Century Values" is the implication that we should abandon them, as God doesn't share them - in other words, accept that genocide is sometimes right.
Karl, in this case, that's not I was asking anyone to do. I agree with you that the explanation for this passage requires much more than a doff off the cap to "post enlightenment views of humanity." The reason I am still reading this thread is to try and work out that explanation.
What I was objecting to was the dressing up of what are clearly twentieth first century values in the guise of "this was the way ancients wrote their history". No doubt there needs to be some of that in our analysis of the passages, but please let's not "miraculously" find that reading it in the context of the ancient world actually means that the message we find difficult is non-applicable. As Wood rightly said, there seemed to be little in 2nd temple Judaism that would have found these passages a moral problem.
Posts: 3097 | From: England - far from home... | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
