peacefulpete

Joined

• started 373 topics
• posted 6,615 times   see topics posted on
• send a message

Posts by peacefulpete

• 
  34

  The snake of Genesis 3:1

  by Halcon in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  we've got some really knowledgeable members on here so i have a question for them and everybody.

  what was the earliest adjective used to describe the snake of genesis 3:1?

  currently one can read words in english translations like 'cunning' and 'crafty'....but in other languages you see words like 'wise' and astute...which convey a completely different idea.. i'm wondering what may have been the earliest and most accurate adjective known or used.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  peacefulpete

  OK, I'll stop trying to define you and your beliefs.
• 
  34

  The snake of Genesis 3:1

  by Halcon in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  we've got some really knowledgeable members on here so i have a question for them and everybody.

  what was the earliest adjective used to describe the snake of genesis 3:1?

  currently one can read words in english translations like 'cunning' and 'crafty'....but in other languages you see words like 'wise' and astute...which convey a completely different idea.. i'm wondering what may have been the earliest and most accurate adjective known or used.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  peacefulpete

  I don't have a minimalist approach to Scripture.

  Whether or not you identify with the label, by the usual definition your comments place you in the 'Minimalist' camp. The unbiased dating of the bulk of the material to the Persian and Greek periods and caution about the assumption of historicity of the United Kingdom and Patriarchs.

  Davies, Thompson and Lemche are popular scholars endorsing this position. So, in my view, you are in good company.

  Biblical minimalism - Wikipedia
  
  
• 
  34

  The snake of Genesis 3:1

  by Halcon in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  we've got some really knowledgeable members on here so i have a question for them and everybody.

  what was the earliest adjective used to describe the snake of genesis 3:1?

  currently one can read words in english translations like 'cunning' and 'crafty'....but in other languages you see words like 'wise' and astute...which convey a completely different idea.. i'm wondering what may have been the earliest and most accurate adjective known or used.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  peacefulpete

  By wholistic I meant as I said, reading the final product as a whole, with primary concern for the intents of the compiler and less concerned about the more ancient elements that it was constructed from. Your 'teachers' are those who taught you this approach and world view. Your 'ignostic' take is just one of many views held by Jews. You have commented earlier how even within Reform Judaism, belief in the literalness/historicity of the text is sometimes present. I appreciate your sharing your minimalist approach, but really, we can't say this is 'standard'. Judaism is as diverse as Christianity, liberal to conservative regarding historicity.

  I called audacious (daring, bold) the assertion that the redactors/writers deliberately used archaisms to give the story an appearance of antiquity. This included anthropomorphisms of God and primitive cult practice. That seems a counterproductive effort. If the goal was a new identity and absolution from barbarity of the past, why invent a vibrant past filled with it. It seems more plausible to see the author/compiler as a reformer but yet bound and inspired by more ancient traditions. Building a new house from reclaimed materials, not taking new materials and distressing and aging them to make a new house.

  Or have I again misunderstood you?
• 
  34

  The snake of Genesis 3:1

  by Halcon in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  we've got some really knowledgeable members on here so i have a question for them and everybody.

  what was the earliest adjective used to describe the snake of genesis 3:1?

  currently one can read words in english translations like 'cunning' and 'crafty'....but in other languages you see words like 'wise' and astute...which convey a completely different idea.. i'm wondering what may have been the earliest and most accurate adjective known or used.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  peacefulpete

  
  

  The Law was written during the Iron Age attempting to use tropes of the Bronze Age to make it look like it was written by the patriarchs of the Jews. So the Levitical priests gave God anthropomorphic features, like the gods of the Gentiles. The only problem is that God is never the same in any of the stories.

  Italics mine

  That's an audacious suggestion, but not only does God present differently, so do the priests and Levites. Multiple origin stories and roles. This takes me back to the source material and what it might tell us about evolving Yahwism. You and your teachers prefer a wholistic approach, asking only 'what do the final compilers/redactors intend by their repetition of this story?'

  I see these approaches as two sides of a shekel.
• 
  15

  Did you consider Paul as false prophet?

  by PeterNobody in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  dear brothers!

  you as a bible researchers, refused the catholicism, but still use the books which catholic church defined as the source of truth.

  did you consider paul as a false prophet?

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  peacefulpete

  At the most basic level that can be substantiated, we know very little about Christian origins. What we know is that at some point a movement 'perceived' that God sent an emissary. Did they arrive at that through eisegesis of the OT and visions? Some comments in the extant writings of Paul would suggest that. There are scholars who argue that the 'soft' start of Christianity was a hundred years before the time the Gospel story indicates, as a branch of the Essenes. Regardless, it would seem that the death of the emissary was an original tenet of that movement, but to be honest, there were even early Christians who did not believe this emissary died either through docetic Christology or substitution. There were many rival factions that held many very different views at a very early point, that makes certainty regarding any 'original' form impossible. The writings of Paul, at best, represent a selection of what was written. Some 'letters' are collections of snippets have been heavily redacted and supplemented. Through critical analysis, what seems to be authentic, reveals a man who is convinced of his importance, having been chosen before birth to deliver a message received through visions. Contrary to the 2nd century Acts of the Apostles conversion story, he adamantly denies indebtedness to any human.

  Paul is not the originator of Christianity; he encounters Christians of different types as he preaches his own unique form of the faith. However, his successes influence the broader Christian movement in profound ways a century later.

  Someone deeply influenced was Marcion. What we know of Marcion comes unfortunately, through the writings of his opposers and those writings themselves are suspect of redaction/pseudonymity. Nevertheless, in those writings we read of a Marcion convinced that the dominant Proto-orthodoxy, of which he is part, has altered the texts of Paul and the Gospel of the Lord and claimed to have restored the original form. He resolves the contradictions of a vengeful God of the OT with his more refined take on Christianity by adopting the view that Yahweh was an imposter who had planned his own Messiah to rule the world through. He is charged by some of his opposers of having read the OT too literally. Marcion adopted the OT Yahweh demiurge concept from Gnostics, and claimed the true God was not this creator of the physical world , but rather the heavenly Father of Jesus, who was sent to enlighten and inspire humanity to better itself and thwart the efforts of Yahweh. No judgement day no hellfire, no miracles in the church. It was a kinder gentler form of Christianity that attracted many for 100 years. It seems impossible now to separate the OT from Christianity, but the reformer Marcion tried. What doomed his efforts was likely the celibacy requirement, lol.

  As has been said many times here, the Canonical Gospels, especially the Synoptics, Mark, Matt and Luke, are anonymous recensions of the same anonymous work. They are not separate works, as can be seen by a parallel examination. G.Matt and G.Luke are rewrites of G.Mark, incorporating nearly the entirety of the shorter version verbatim, with many additions and redactions. The end products are different enough to pass as separate Gospels. The names attached to them is the result of a later effort to give them authoritative clout by the proto-orthodoxy with its doctrine of Apostolic succession (i.e. only works of direct companions of the Apostles can be authoritative) 'Luke', is a name mentioned in Paul's Philemon 24 as a "fellow worker". (The name reappears in the later Deutero-Pauline Colossians and 2 Timothy.) We know nothing else about Luke other than very late tradition and there is no reason to be convinced he was involved in the writing of G.Luke (or an early form of Acts which a later editor combined with it). There were many other Gospel versions in use that were not favored by the emerging orthodoxy. It was the golden age of pseudonymous Christian writing. The Gospel of Mark, itself anonymously produced, perhaps in Rome, has been convincingly argued to have been a narrative version of a stage production, in Homeric style, utilizing OT typology (and possibly Sayings Gospels) to 'flesh out' the emissary's experiences and make what may have been an already aging movement a new contemporary touch. It certainly influenced many Christians that followed. Paul, apart from some late glosses, seems to know of no such extensive tradition such as is described in the story of Mark. Neither does the author of Hebrews. Even Justin (150ish), (unlike Papias his predecessor) who favors written over oral tradition quotes from what he calls Memoires of the Apostles (a later gloss identifies them as Gospels) but doesn't use the names as assigned later nor does he refer to them as 'scripture' reserving that for the OT. If the extant copies of Irenaeus can be trusted, at some point between Justin and Irenaeus (180ish) the Gospels were given their names.
• 
  12

  A Few Simple Conclusions

  by mrquik in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  i had 50 years in.

  here's a few (personal) observations to live by:.

  1. the one true religion is not here.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  peacefulpete

  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)
  
• 
  49

  Q about Jesus' sacrifice

  by oncebitten in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  i have several jw family members.

  i have been shunned many years now.

  i was not baptized, but i was indoctrinated as a child.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  peacefulpete

  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.
• 
  10

  Study in the Work of Late Redactors

  by peacefulpete in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  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.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  peacefulpete

  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.
• 
  10

  Study in the Work of Late Redactors

  by peacefulpete in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  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.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  peacefulpete

  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.

  Many years ago I did a thread discussing the twins Shalem and Shahar. To me this makes clear the familiarity of OT writers.

  Using mythology to understand obscure passages.

  Shalim - Wikipedia

  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.
• 
  10

  Study in the Work of Late Redactors

  by peacefulpete in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  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.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  peacefulpete

  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.