True Religion?
"True" is just marketing puffery. It's a lot like saying "Best" laundry soap. "Greatest" movie ever made. #1 Car brand.
Meaning of Puffery in Advertising Examples 2024 (biznewske.com)
i had 50 years in.
here's a few (personal) observations to live by:.
1. the one true religion is not here.
True Religion?
"True" is just marketing puffery. It's a lot like saying "Best" laundry soap. "Greatest" movie ever made. #1 Car brand.
Meaning of Puffery in Advertising Examples 2024 (biznewske.com)
i have several jw family members.
i have been shunned many years now.
i was not baptized, but i was indoctrinated as a child.
However, you dont need to think that way simply because we have a very early church father, Clement of Rome (30-100 AD) who wrote extensively. He knew Paul, Luke and Peter.
What we really have is tradition upon tradition, often contradictory and hundreds of years separated and motivated by the claim for apostolic succession.
The work called 1 Clement is anonymous, it's time of writing is largely assigned due to traditional dating of related writings. The author doesn't claim to have known Peter or Paul only saying they had died and went to heaven. They represent the start of a long listing of OT characters who died. It's pretty doctrinally neutral, apart from pretty stern warnings that women must be obedient. The oldest copy we have dates to the 11th century. It was regarded as canonical by many for centuries. 2nd Clement is a similarly anonymous work often dated to the same period, again because of tradition. Some of the later Church Fathers dismissed 2 Clement because they didn't like some of the content.
The author of 1 Clement included some mythology in his praise for creation:
1Clem 25:2
There is a bird, which is named the phoenix. This, being the only one of its kind, liveth for five hundred years; and when it hath now reached the time of its dissolution that it should die, it maketh for itself a coffin of frankincense and myrrh and the other spices, into the which in the fullness of time it entereth, and so it dieth.
1Clem 25:3
But, as the flesh rotteth, a certain worm is engendered, which is
nurtured from the moisture of the dead creature and putteth forth wings. Then, when it is grown lusty, it taketh up that coffin where are the bones of its parent, and carrying them journeyeth from the country of Arabia even unto Egypt, to the place called the City of the Sun;
1Clem 25:4
and in the daytime in the sight of all, flying to the altar of the
Sun, it layeth them thereupon; and this done, it setteth forth to
return.
1Clem 25:5
So the priests examine the registers of the times, and they find that it hath come when the five hundredth year is completed.
presently there are a number of hypotheses attempting to disentangle the sources and composition of the ot.
the 19th century approaches (wellhausen et al.
) opened the world's eyes to the reality that the torah and histories are the work of a number of contributors with particular agendas and vocabulary.
I'll also add that even when assigning the final form (essentially) of the Tanakh to the late Persian/Greek period, Thompson et al. recognize the compilers had commandeered blocks of tradition, some of which dates much earlier. He made some comment, describing this compiler as both ideological but at the same time something of a librarian/antiquarian. There is just no way around the observations of the framers of the original Documentary Hypothesis. The concern is assuming too much in way of chronological order and original intent for these sources. The diverse legends could easily have been laid in an artificial row to create a fresh patchwork, a new view of history.
IMO the traditions (coming from a larger ethnic grab bag of returnees and indigenous people) were in tension in important ways, the view of the monarchy, the origin of the people in Palestine, the forms of worship of Yahweh as examples. The compiler/s (stages seem likely) created a new idealized yet poignant mashup that was never previously conceived of but explained the present and offered hope.
presently there are a number of hypotheses attempting to disentangle the sources and composition of the ot.
the 19th century approaches (wellhausen et al.
) opened the world's eyes to the reality that the torah and histories are the work of a number of contributors with particular agendas and vocabulary.
Sorry for the delay in replying. I'm not sure we can be sure just who and where the Hosea passage was referring. The work is exceptionally opaque. It's possibly referring the one of the Shalmanesers, but the questions of corruption, redaction have persisted since antiquity. You probably know many see the work as a post exilic revision/rewrite of some older prophet's work.
I'm aware of Thompson's take on the tel Dan inscription, and the objection over no word divider. He may be right. It's even possible the 'Beloved" was an epithet for a deity. This might then suggest the David character also retained a Canaanite deity's reference.
presently there are a number of hypotheses attempting to disentangle the sources and composition of the ot.
the 19th century approaches (wellhausen et al.
) opened the world's eyes to the reality that the torah and histories are the work of a number of contributors with particular agendas and vocabulary.
I see I didn't elaborate sufficiently but a 3rd century BCE date was what I was suggesting. A scribe with affinities to the Priestly work and theosophy living a couple centuries later.
I've read most of Thompson's works. His Mythic Past was one of the first critical books I was exposed to. His Minimalist outlook has certainly influenced my views through the years. Since then, my research has led me to a slightly more middle path. For example, David and Solomon, there is no doubt the stories as they read are mythical, but something as simple as the retention of Canaanite theophoric names like Jerusalem and Solomon (Shalem god of the dusk) makes the antiquity of the legends, in some form, more likely. It would seem if the authors were creating the legends whole cloth, they would have at least created names for the characters featuring Yahweh. It's a small peg to hang from, but it has convinced me that we may have some reimagining of genuinely ancient stories.
I read Barker's book The Great Angel fairly recently. I may have even commented on it some time ago.
presently there are a number of hypotheses attempting to disentangle the sources and composition of the ot.
the 19th century approaches (wellhausen et al.
) opened the world's eyes to the reality that the torah and histories are the work of a number of contributors with particular agendas and vocabulary.
HTBWC....The tangle is an irresistible puzzle. Yes, many have recognized at least 2 if not 3 layers within the DH. D itself was a composition/compilation of old and new.
I was following the advice of others in the assigning the date of the redaction in 1 Kings 6. It makes sense in my estimation. When would you date the redaction?
presently there are a number of hypotheses attempting to disentangle the sources and composition of the ot.
the 19th century approaches (wellhausen et al.
) opened the world's eyes to the reality that the torah and histories are the work of a number of contributors with particular agendas and vocabulary.
I've learned enough to be confidently wrong a lot of the time. I do find the differing P and D conceptions of Yahweh's presence intriguing.
Mettinger hypothesized that both writers (or schools) needed to address the realities of the exile and loss of Temple but approached it in slightly different ways. D (intentionally or not) invented the so-called Name Theology. Yahweh's 'Name' could be uniquely attached to a place and represent him but yet the divine greatness resided in heaven.
P, the priestly approach seems to be more concerned about the mobility of Kabod of Yahweh. Now you see me, now you don't. This Kabod (glory) of Yahweh is often said to be speaking and acting as Yahweh (often used in same passage interchangeably) was said to reside in the movable tabernacle and fixed Temple and so was free to move around as circumstances required. What more, this Kabod was in the Temple as Yahweh but was also in heaven.
It's not hard to see how these terms and others evolved into a Two Powers concept, that we touched on before.
Both authors freed their god from being a localized deity living in a temple. One by denying he ever really lived there, the other by giving his god a new ability to be present and in heaven at the same time.
presently there are a number of hypotheses attempting to disentangle the sources and composition of the ot.
the 19th century approaches (wellhausen et al.
) opened the world's eyes to the reality that the torah and histories are the work of a number of contributors with particular agendas and vocabulary.
I kinda skipped over the ideological/theological evidence of an interpolation. 1 Kings is part of the Deuteronomist History and throughout that source we find a clear rejection of the idea that Yahweh resides on earth, whether in a Temple or anywhere else. For instance in this same pericope in chapt 8:27-29:
But will God really dwell on earth? Even the heavens to their uttermost reaches cannot contain You, how much less this House that I have built! 8:28 Yet turn to the prayer and supplication of Your servant… 8:29 May Your eyes be open day and night toward this House, toward the place of which You have said, “My name shall abide there”….
Yet in this interpolation/redaction we have Yahweh saying just the opposite.:
I will abide among the children of Israel.
This is an expression much more at home within the Priestly source which frequently spoke of Yahweh dwelling with them and in his Temple.
For example:
Ex 25:8 And let them make Me a temple that I may dwell among them.
Lev 25:11 I will put my dwelling place[a] among you, and I will not abhor you. 12 I will walk among you and be your God, and you will be my people.
Therefore the conclusion is that a scribe with affinities for the Priestly source, living at a time prior to the traditional fixation of the text is responsible.
So in this redactional example we have 4 lines of evidence, the interruptive nature of the passage, the contradiction in context that it creates, the documentary/manuscript evidence and ideological evidence.
presently there are a number of hypotheses attempting to disentangle the sources and composition of the ot.
the 19th century approaches (wellhausen et al.
) opened the world's eyes to the reality that the torah and histories are the work of a number of contributors with particular agendas and vocabulary.
Presently there are a number of hypotheses attempting to disentangle the sources and composition of the OT. The 19th century approaches (Wellhausen et al.) opened the world's eyes to the reality that the Torah and histories are the work of a number of contributors with particular agendas and vocabulary. Unsurprisingly there have been refinements, or at least recognition of difficulties, with early proposals. A point in dispute is the role of redactors, who, when, why, how many.
There are often legitimate reasons for disagreement, such is the nature of textual criticism. Often the suspected redaction (or even a source) involves a single word or phrase that interrupts the flow, is anachronistic, or contradicts and unfortunately, without supporting evidence, what may be recognized as a redaction by all, is difficult to be certain as to the who's and when's.
Supporting evidence is difficult given the lateness of our extant documents. Stylistic, idiomatic and theological markers may not provide enough to be dogmatic. Therefore, it's not a failure to admit may need to be willing to be less than certain about details about the bumpy road the OT took to take the form we have today.
However, what follows is an interesting example of a redaction that has a number of good lines of evidence that converge. This is mostly because the redaction/interpolation was pretty late in history.
In the 1 Kings 6 description of the building of the Temple:
He constructed the House and completed it. He paneled the House with beams and planks of cedar. 6:10 He built the storied structure against the entire House—each story 5 cubits high, so that it encased the House with timbers of cedar.
6:11 Then the word of YHWH came to Solomon, 6:12 “With regard to this House you are building—if you follow My laws and observe My rules and faithfully keep My commandments, I will fulfill for you the promise that I gave to your father David: 6:13 I will abide among the children of Israel, and I will never forsake My people Israel.”[13]
6:14 Solomon constructed the House and completed it. 6:15 He paneled the walls of the House on the inside with planks of cedar.
The block of text (11-13 and the repetition in vs 14) are regarded as an interpolation. The vss11-13 section interrupts the narrative flow with a new appearance of Yahweh to Solomon. This created the necessity to repeat vs 9 in vs 14 to bring the readers' mind back to the topic of completing the Temple. As we will see, not only does the narrative flow suggest an interpolation, but the larger context does also.
In 1Kings 3 Yahweh appears to Solomon at the Gibeon high place:
King Solomon went to Gibeon to offer a sacrifice because that was the most important high place. He offered a thousand burnt offerings on that altar. 5 While Solomon was at Gibeon, the Lord came to him at night in a dream. God said, “Solomon, ask me what you want me to give you.”
and yet later in chapter 9 we read:
YHWH appeared to Solomon a second time, as He had appeared to him at Gibeon. 9:3 YHWH said to him, “I have heard the prayer and the supplication which you have offered to Me…”
Clearly the original narrative did not include the appearance in chapter 6 that we are discussing.
What's really unusual in this case is we also have documentary evidence for this being a late (proto-Masoretic) redaction through the reading in the LXX (msB). Note the verses with the appearance to Solomon are not found. Α΄ Βασιλέων (1 Kings) 6 (LXX) - καὶ ἐγενήθη ἐν τῷ τεσσαρακοστῷ (blueletterbible.org)
Regarding why the redactor (likely a 3rd century BC scribe of a school that ideologically identified with the Priestly source) felt the need to insert this new material, it seems consistent with a number of other similar redactions that went to pains to insist the Davidic covenant and Temple were conditional. Simply said, it supplied textual support for their explanation offered for the loss of the Temple and independence. Unfaithfulness.
In my understanding, this redactor's outlook quickly became a minority view, it might already have been when this was done. (e.g. Deutero-Isaiah 2 centuries before argued differently)
the meaning of true love from a man.. by elizabeth rossi, freelance writer .
i hate to say this but most women will go their entire lifetime and never experience the meaning of actual true love.. it's even slightly depressing to think that most people will never understand how powerful this picture actually is; a prime example of how men should be treating their partner with everyday that passes.. we unfortunately live in a generation with men who have no idea what it takes to be a real man.. let me give you a couple examples of a real man ....... a real man asks about your day and genuinely cares about the answer.. a real man respects your boundaries and never forces you to anything you're not ready to do.. he makes time for you, and takes that time to learn and understand who you are as a person.. a real man consistently shows you the definition of effort with every day that passes.. he will call you randomly throughout the day just to check on you and your mental health.. a real man is undeniably committed to you and looks for new ways to fall in love with you with every day that passes.. he makes protecting your heart a number one priority.. a real man never makes permanent decisions based on temporary emotions.. he never confuses you on where you stand in his life.. a real man apologizes when he is wrong and stays true to his character.. he doesn't mind hurting other people's feeling to protect yours.. a real man gives you affection without sexual expectation.. a real man refuses to entertain any women that isn't you.. he has genuine intentions with you from day one and shows you how it truly feels to be a priority rather an option.. a real man will help you heal from the trauma that nobody apologized for.. a real man values you and would never put themselves in a position to lose you.. take my advice and wait for the man that never let's you fall asleep at night questioning your own self worth.. .
.
we unfortunately live in a generation with men who have no idea what it takes to be a real man
Statements like that tell me more about the woman writing than about men.