New Testament Study Group with Scholarly Focus

The catch-all forum for general topics and debates. Minimal moderation. Rated PG to PG-13.
_kairos
_Emeritus
Posts: 1917
Joined: Tue Dec 01, 2009 12:56 am

Re: New Testament Study Group with Scholarly Focus

Post by _kairos »

LTJ ok but bart ehrman would be worrisome-like the jesus seminar bart can hardly find a phrase that he believes can accurartely be attributed to jesus, so there is not much to discuss except are his sources accurate?

k
_backyardprotege
_Emeritus
Posts: 27
Joined: Sun Apr 09, 2017 4:19 am

Re: New Testament Study Group with Scholarly Focus

Post by _backyardprotege »

Philo Sofee wrote:They won't let me back on Facebook because some self-righteous Mormon who I refute it over and over again because of his utterly insanely stupid arguments turned me in as a phishing site.


What if you used a name combination that was obviously still your name, but not just your name?

Like: "Ker Shirts O'Fee"

OR:
My Facebook address is \GeorgeOfTampa\, but I still use my profile name "George Brooks".

You could use a Facebook URL: \PhiloSofee\, but use your name as the label to comply?

Just thinking out loud....
George Brooks
a.k.a.: Backyard Protégé
Scottish Rite, 32nd
Facebook: GeorgeOfTampa
_Philo Sofee
_Emeritus
Posts: 6660
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 9:04 am

Re: New Testament Study Group with Scholarly Focus

Post by _Philo Sofee »

backyardprotege wrote:
Philo Sofee wrote:They won't let me back on Facebook because some self-righteous Mormon who I refute it over and over again because of his utterly insanely stupid arguments turned me in as a phishing site.


What if you used a name combination that was obviously still your name, but not just your name?

Like: "Ker Shirts O'Fee"

OR:
My Facebook address is \GeorgeOfTampa\, but I still use my profile name "George Brooks".

You could use a Facebook URL: \PhiloSofee\, but use your name as the label to comply?

Just thinking out loud....


I think I tried something similar to that, and it didn't work. They have my server URL and that is how they knew I was trying to come back in through the back door.
Dr CamNC4Me
"Dr. Peterson and his Callithumpian cabal of BYU idiots have been marginalized by their own inevitable irrelevancy defending a fraud."
_MsJack
_Emeritus
Posts: 4375
Joined: Sun Jul 27, 2008 5:06 am

Re: New Testament Study Group with Scholarly Focus

Post by _MsJack »

If non-Mormons are welcome, feel free to shoot me an invite, Bridget Jack Jeffries.
"It seems to me that these women were the head (κεφάλαιον) of the church which was at Philippi." ~ John Chrysostom, Homilies on Philippians 13

My Blogs: Weighted Glory | Worlds Without End: A Mormon Studies Roundtable | Twitter
_Philo Sofee
_Emeritus
Posts: 6660
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 9:04 am

Re: New Testament Study Group with Scholarly Focus

Post by _Philo Sofee »

"MsJack"If non-Mormons are welcome, feel free to shoot me an invite, Bridget Jack Jeffries.


I dunno, we may have to charge you 20% tithe instead of the routine 10% since you aren't as special as the rest of the group... :wink:
Dr CamNC4Me
"Dr. Peterson and his Callithumpian cabal of BYU idiots have been marginalized by their own inevitable irrelevancy defending a fraud."
_MormonsTalk
_Emeritus
Posts: 10
Joined: Tue Apr 18, 2017 1:01 am

Re: New Testament Study Group with Scholarly Focus

Post by _MormonsTalk »

MsJack wrote:If non-Mormons are welcome, feel free to shoot me an invite, Bridget Jack Jeffries.


I'm just seeing this now, and we're glad to have you.
_MormonsTalk
_Emeritus
Posts: 10
Joined: Tue Apr 18, 2017 1:01 am

Re: New Testament Study Group with Scholarly Focus

Post by _MormonsTalk »

Philo Sofee wrote:
"MsJack"If non-Mormons are welcome, feel free to shoot me an invite, Bridget Jack Jeffries.


I dunno, we may have to charge you 20% tithe instead of the routine 10% since you aren't as special as the rest of the group... :wink:


I created the Facebook group. Although I am LDS, the group isn't in any way sanctioned by the LDS church or any other group. There's obviously no cost to it. Anybody is welcome to join. We have some non-mormons, ex-mormons, inactives, and certainly active members. We peacefully co-exist because our focus isn't the LDS Church - it's the New Testament and what scholars have said about it (which itself has plenty of controversy, but we're mostly focusing on Luke Timothy Johnson's textbook). If a person searches for "Mormons Talk" on Facebook, they'll find it, and they'll see what ground rules I've set up to try to create a reasonably harmonious, intellectual experience. If a person agrees to those rules, they're free to join.
_MormonsTalk
_Emeritus
Posts: 10
Joined: Tue Apr 18, 2017 1:01 am

Re: New Testament Study Group with Scholarly Focus

Post by _MormonsTalk »

For your interest, Philo, I'm reproducing a few of my posts. I appreciate your passion for Biblical Studies, which I too share. I make no claims to special New Testament knowledge or training; I'm simply really excited by it.

LTJ. Week 0. April 23, 2017. Ch: Introduction.

In this post, I’m going to give a brief sketch of LTJ’s introduction, then pose LTJ’s study questions, then conclude with comments about why I find the New Testament period so absolutely riveting, as well as further comments on the chapter.
--------------
After reminding what an impact the New Testament has had on the world, LTJ confronts us with a series of questions: Why do the New Testament writings even exist (given that so many religious movements don’t produce writings)? Why do we have the particular writings that we do have – 4 gospels? All these letters? Why are there such similarities between the New Testament and Old Testament, and yet also so many dissimilarities?

In the next section, he makes quick work of competing approaches to this question that he does not favor. He then discusses “methods” vs. “models” – explaining why he wishes to use anthropological, historical, literary, and religious studies techniques in his model. Perhaps to justify this approach, he then discusses limitations in the “historical model” (but not historical method), followed by a discussion of symbols and myths, and how these shape communities. Ultimately, he will argue that early Christians had to re-shape the symbols available to them – those of the Jewish and Greco-Roman worlds – to make sense of their belief in a new reality: a world with a crucified and resurrected Messiah.

As you read this chapter, keep the following study questions in mind:
1. Why is each dimension of the New Testament (anthropological, historical, literary, religious) crucial to its interpretation? (Quick note from me – Do you agree with his premise that they are indeed crucial? Why or why not? Why does he think they’re crucial?)
2. What is meant by the distinction between historical methods vs. historical models in reading the New Testament?
3. How is an understanding of the social construction of reality – the making of symbolic worlds – helpful for reading religious literature?
4. What are the basic features of the “experience interpretation” model used in the book?
------------
Elsewhere, LTJ has said that he doesn’t coddle his readers in his textbook. I see what he means. I found much of the discussion pretty abstract, a little dry. It didn’t have the feel of those first day lectures in college where they pump you up about how exciting the topic is, what you’re going to learn. Nor did it provide a roadmap of what’s to come. LTJ seems to be addressing mature readers who have already had that, or who want to know why he’s departing from the typical historical survey of the New Testament. Perhaps he’s also obliquely addressing those with whom he’s already had debates – the Jesus seminar, or other scholars who prize the traditional historical model rather than his more literary-symbolic approach.

If I were a professor, I’d say the following: “LTJ, if I received this work from another student, I’d almost certainly give them an “A,” but coming from you, it deserves no more than a “B.” You are capable of so much more. Where did the passion, energy, and vitality found in your Great Courses/Audible lectures go? I know you have it. I want you to re-write it until it sparkles as much as your audio/video course. That said, I’ve seen previews of your later writing, which I regard as phenomenal. I literally can’t wait for you to turn it in.”

Since LTJ doesn’t coddle us and particularly try to pump us up, let me try. I’ll ask a question I posed several months ago when the group was much smaller: What fuels your passion for the New Testament? Why does it inspire you? This is an invitation for all of you to rhapsodize in the comments below.

The famous critic, Bart Ehrman, expresses wonderful reasons why he’s continued to devote his life to the New Testament despite no longer believing in it. In his blog post “Why do I devote myself to studying the Bible,” he writes that that you can do so for the same “reasons for being interested in studying Chaucer, or Plato, or Latin classics, or modern German history, or medieval Japan, or most anything else. These are all important topics – historically, culturally, socially, politically, and so on – and are, in themselves, endlessly fascinating.”

He continues: “In our world, the Bible is especially important and interesting. When it comes to importance, there’s no other book that can come *close* to the Bible for its influence on Western civilization in virtually all of its aspects. How can someone interested in books not be interested in the Bible? Moreover, far and away the most important and influential institution in the history of the West is the Christian church. Who shouldn’t be interested in how it all started? And no figure in history is more important and influential than Jesus of Nazareth. Who shouldn’t want to know everything possible about him and the religion built on him?”

Indeed.
Last edited by Guest on Sun Apr 30, 2017 10:48 pm, edited 1 time in total.
_MormonsTalk
_Emeritus
Posts: 10
Joined: Tue Apr 18, 2017 1:01 am

Re: New Testament Study Group with Scholarly Focus

Post by _MormonsTalk »

LTJ. Week 1. April 30, 2017. Ch. 1 “The Greco-Roman World”

In 15 pages, LTJ gives us an overview of a subject that entire books are written about – the Greco-Roman world as pertinent to the New Testament. I kept wanting him to go more deeply into how these things apply specifically, but I think a little patience will be rewarded – particularly when we get to the letters of Paul.
Since Gerald Smith has provided an excellent summary of the chapter, I will focus on the things that stood out to me in reading LTJ, Bart Ehrman, and Dale Martin.

1. Kingdom, Saviors, and Sons of God. There is a delightful scene in “Monty Python and the Holy Grail” where King Arthur asks the French to give them shelter in exchange for the privilege of joining them on their quest for the Holy Grail. The response of the Frenchman shocks him: “Well, I'll ask 'im, but I don't think 'e'll be very keen-- 'e's already got one, you see?”

The Greco-Roman world already had a Son of God, a Savior, a King, and a Kingdom. They were Augustus, and he did not tolerate competitors. As I’ll discuss shortly, there was a high degree of Roman tolerance, but it only went so far. You couldn’t actually threaten the social order that had the Emperor at its head. Pax Romana wanted peaceful submission, peaceful servitude. This creates an inherent tension with Jews who saw themselves as God’s chosen people, and who awaited the time when God would allow them to overthrow their overlords (and there had been many over the centuries!).

Given this background, every time in the New Testament you have Jesus and others discussing Him as the “Son of God,” the “Savior,” “the Kingdom” “the Messiah” – I imagine you have people nervously looking around to make sure there aren’t any Romans in the vicinity. If they hear you, you risk punishment. The Romans don’t take kindly to insurrection.

2. Was the Greco-Roman world one you’d want to live in?

--For most people, life sucked. There was a small upper class, and a very large lower one (perhaps a small middle one as well). 20% or more of the population lived below the subsistence level. Social mobility was minimal (there was a little – slaves could become freedmen, etc.). You would almost certainly stay a member of the class you were born into, regardless of how hard you worked. In some ways, being a slave made you better off than many of the poor.

--Diseases didn’t have the cures we have today. Lots of people died from things that don’t much worry us today. If a miracle worker happened to be passing through town (and who knows how often or rarely this occurred), you wouldn't want to miss the opportunity to get his help.

--90% of people were illiterate. Guess who was educated? (Hint: Not the poor people! Not most of the people who initially adopted Christianity!).

--People had little control over their life.

I’m going to take a stab at how these features might relate to the New Testament. To be clear, I could be completely wrong about all this. First, insofar as the New Testament discusses wealth and riches, you need to remember there’s no social mobility. Once you give your fortune away to follow Jesus, are you now stuck in a life of squalor, along with your wife and kids, and their kids – for as far as the eye can see? In addition, you likely didn’t really “earn” your riches – you likely inherited them or married into them. Do you really "deserve" to keep them? Also, I strongly doubt there were social safety nets in a way we would recognize (although they did have "bread and circuses," so something existed). I can imagine that this is a world where people starve and die of exposure. So when a rich person gives away a fortune, it might be the difference between life and death for recipients of some of the money. Perhaps it creates a risk that you or your descendants will also “live on the edge” so to speak.

3. How did people mitigate this life of “alienation” (a word LTJ uses) and lack of control over their own life?

--People of course hoped that their religion would provide them with material benefits in the here and now. Were the “Pagans” Godless brutes? Nope. To the contrary, their world was swimming with Gods. Gods of this, gods of that – Gods recognized around the empire, local gods, even gods of a particular family. The pagans were not godless, but polytheistic. At first glance, Greco-Roman polytheism seems to contrast sharply with Jewish monotheism. But as Ehrman discusses, the educated Romans thought of their Gods in a sort of hierarchy, perhaps with a “most powerful” God at the top that ruled them all. The Jews, on the other hand, recognized the existence of other divine beings less than God – angels, archangels, and the like. So there are differences between paganism and Jewish religion, but there are also similarities.

--If all the gods above still didn’t bring you comfort and happiness, you could always try a mystery religion out. These mystery religions involved secret rites, initiations, and even promises of a better afterlife (which the polytheism above wasn’t focused on).

--And then there was magic. Workers of miracles and wonders were not unheard of. People probably knew someone who knew someone who had experienced a marvelous miracle from a traveling wonder-worker, but I doubt they were on every street corner. People had magic rites, amulets, and spells.

4. The New Testament exists in a Greco-Roman background. Greek was the common language of the empire, and even the Jews in diaspora read their “Bible” in Greek. The New Testament was written in Greek. Since, as LTJ writes, “language bears with it all the symbols of a culture,” the New Testament necessarily inherits some Greco-Roman culture.

5. Were Romans intolerant? Quite the contrary. They let people keep their Gods, but they usually promoted the idea that the Gods of different peoples were actually the same in some sense (religious syncretism). Prior Jewish revolts had led Romans to come to an uneasy truce with Jews – giving them some liberties with religion that other people didn’t get. But there wasn’t any way that Rome was going to let new fangled religions like Christianity get the same special treatment. If they did, then who is to say that more religions won’t spring up and disrupt the existing social order? Once Christians were identified as being different than Jews, the Christians got punished to the extent they didn’t conform to the same standards as everybody else (except the Jews).

6. Roman philosophy, not religion, concerned itself with how to live a good life. Roman philosophers compiled long lists of virtues and vices. It’s incorrect to regard Romans and pagans as all being immoral heathen, but their morality came from philosophy.

7. People didn’t value novelty, they valued antiquity. Silicon valley this was not. Thus, rather than developing new symbols, you re-interpreted or allegorized the old ones. The farther back you could trace an idea, the better.

8. Roman religion didn’t concern itself with things we normally associate with religion. Bart Ehrman discusses these differences: (1) Roman religion lacked independent religious organizations and hierarchy outside of the state (except, apparently, for those skilled at reading animal entrails and speaking in tongues). (2) There weren’t creeds or doctrinal statements in Roman religion – what mattered was that you appeased the Gods with sacrifices, festivals, and outward ritual. (3) Roman religion did not deal with Ethics, rather, this was a topic of Roman philosophy. (4) Roman religion didn’t concern itself with the afterlife. Most people didn’t believe in the afterlife; the purpose of religion was to make the present one better. (5) Roman religion didn’t have a sacred written canon. (6) There was no separation of church and state – the leaders of Roman religion were political leaders; (7) Roman religion didn’t require exclusive commitments. The more Gods the merrier. If you moved to a new city, you could keep all your old Gods, and start worshiping the new local Gods to.

It’s easy to see some contrasts with Christianity. Roman religion hopefully makes you wealthier; Christianity makes you poorer because it asks you to give your substance to the poor, to voluntarily abase yourself, to give it all up for the Lord. Christianity has a large component focusing on the afterlife. Christianity requires exclusive devotions to the one Father.

Finally, to some outsiders, rumors about Jesus might not have been that big of a deal. A wonder worker? Not unheard of. An itinerant teacher of virtue? Yeah, Cynic philosophers do that. A guy talking about a new Kingdom? Yep, we've had a few of those - they typically have a short lifespan. A Son of God? This guy must be looney – everybody knows there's only one Son of God around here, and that's the Emperor. Kids - stay away from this guy, or you're going to get yourselves in a lot of trouble.
Post Reply