More insanity from a church

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by afc wimbledon

Here's the thing I hate about right wing christianity (well all religeon), it all comes down to how the translator decided to interpret the hebrew, then the Greek, latin, and in this case finally King James to get to the New English translation. Once those 15 or 20 guys have decided how they want to interpret it then you and I get to make our own interpretation.

Translation is not nearly so variable as you or other skeptics suggest. Quite to the contrary, modern translations largely are very precise in how they follow the original languages. What does happen in contemporary Bible translation is that theology will occasionally affect or nuance a particular reading to conform more closely to certain presuppositions (as demonstrated by the NIV), or there is an effort to make them more "inclusive" through eliminating the overt sexism and racism that characterizes much of the biblical texts (such as in the NRSV). In reality though, the translator is faced with very few options with regards to how to interpret the Greek or the Hebrew.

Originally Posted by afc wimbledon

...You want to assume the bible is Gods words and live your life by it, bully for you, but do not assume it is the true word of god, as it can't be, unless God spake in modern English.

So, it can't be the "word of God" because the revelation was not in English?? Since most of the world's population is Chinese, would it not make more sense to insist that the "word of God" have originated in one of their languages? I don't follow what you are saying.

[ynwa03]

It's so enjoyable to watch every thread that has the letters G O and D in a sentence together degenerate into a poop flinging contest between the staunch anti-godders and the religious folk.

Let's lighten up a little guys. No one is changing anyones mind, let alone in a hockey forum.

[Day Tripper]

Originally Posted by ynwa03

Let's lighten up a little guys. No one is changing anyones mind, let alone in a hockey forum.

Maybe you're projecting.

Many people, myself included, have changed their minds because of discussions such as this.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

...Within "right wing christianity" there has been a consensus on Luke 14 for the last 20 centuries.

20 centuries?? I don't have my copy of the Apostolic Fathers in my library here at home, so I can't check the validity of this seemingly preposterous claim. Can you provide some sort of evidence for any interaction with this passage from even the 2nd cent.? To that end, the only NT manuscript that contains this passage from Luke is a late-2nd cent. or early-3rd cent. fragmentary copy, which increases my doubt that there is any such evidence for its interpretation prior to the 3rd century. This is a bit of apologetic hyperbole here.

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

...There has never been a sect which has taught that this passage was a call to hatred. The only ones who ever raise concerns about this passage are enemies of christianity looking to show it or Jesus Christ in a negative light.

The first statement is probably true, although this is somewhat besides the point that I have sought to argue, which is that what has become "Scripture" is not necessarily faithful to the intents and purposes of the original traditions that were preserved in the Bible. "Scripture" is not only the biblical texts, it also must include the very extensive body of interpretive traditions that have always attended to it. The Luke 14 passage is actually a fairly good example of this, in that it is not unreasonable to expect that Jesus said such a thing and meant it beyond mere rhetoric, given that he was likely something of a political revolutionary in his time. Such extreme declarations of how to adjudge ones loyalty and commitment would have been commonplace amid 1st cent. Palestinian tensions, and would furthermore have likely bee understood quite plainly. The Church has never accepted his statement as such, and for good reason, as by the time of the penning of Luke's gospel the theological ends of the Church were considerably different from the much more nationalistic programme of Jesus. In this case, the interpretive tradition is what gives Scripture its actual meaning and is the basis for its own authority.

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

Also looking up a greek word in a lexicon or a commentary doesn't require special training. It doesn't require blind trust either; There are many independant resources at a person's disposal. One can and should look for second opinions.

Second opinions about what? The meaning of μισεω? In all of my resources, its meaning is pretty static and inflexible. It appears 24 times elsewhere in the Gospels, and its meaning is always unambiguous (Matt 5:43; 6:24; 10:22; 24:9–10; Mark 13:13; Luke 1:71; 6:22, 27; 16:13; 19:14; 21:17; John 3:20; 7:7; 12:25; 15:18–19, 23–25; 17:14). It also appears another 15 times elsewhere in the New Testament, and with the same fairly straightforward meaning. It is used 177 times in the Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible, and most frequently to render שׂנא, which certainly carries with it the same force of meaning. The way that lexicographers go about their work is to collect as many of the ancient resources as are available, to survey the same word used in as many contexts as possible, and to arrive at an approximation of its meaning. For a detailed description of the occurences and meaning of this word, one should consult Liddell, Scott, and Jones's standard work: A Greek-English Lexicon.

Having said all that, it also must be noted that "hate" does not tend to carry with it the same adversarial force in Ancient Greek as it does in present day English. There is a clear aversion and repulsion that is always communicated, but not necessarily with it the same violent connotations that it does in our language. I submit that to "hate" in this context was different than the bigoted, genocidal hatred that sadly characterizes much of religious oppression in the present day. But its function here most certainly goes well beyond "simply convey[ing] a ranking of affection". In this context and in a number of places in the Bible, "hate" is better understood as an irreconcilable separation like "divorce": In effect, Jesus IS advocating—even demanding—the abandonment of one's family and circumstances as necessary conditions to follow him in his revolution. Furthermore, I don't believe that in this instance the "hatred" that Jesus has in mind would always preclude violence. Such a requirement is no longer necessary nor desirable, and as such, its meaning has shifted and changed in accordance with Church doctrine.

[ynwa03]

Originally Posted by Day Tripper

Maybe you're projecting.

Many people, myself included, have changed their minds because of discussions such as this.

On some issues, sure. No disrespect intended but if your mind about something like religion can be changed in a hockey forum then your faith was not very strong to begin with.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by ynwa03

On some issues, sure. No disrespect intended but if your mind about something like religion can be changed in a hockey forum then your faith was not very strong to begin with.

Why would you suggest as such? Is it not possible for one to remain "religious" and "faithful" without being so inflexible? I suppose you are immune to having your beliefs and opinions altered? Characteristically, such intransigence and zealous commitment to one's opinion is exactly what critics tend to attach to what they feel is problematic with religion in the first place. I find it ironic that you chastise someone for not being so closed-minded as yourself.

[Calgaryborn]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

20 centuries?? I don't have my copy of the Apostolic Fathers in my library here at home, so I can't check the validity of this seemingly preposterous claim. Can you provide some sort of evidence for any interaction with this passage from even the 2nd cent.? To that end, the only NT manuscript that contains this passage from Luke is a late-2nd cent. or early-3rd cent. fragmentary copy, which increases my doubt that there is any such evidence for its interpretation prior to the 3rd century. This is a bit of apologetic hyperbole here.

If you want to look at the church Fathers writings you don't have to look at a hard copy. They are readily available on line. I'm sure you could easily find a collection with a search engine as well.

It isn't me that needs to provide evidence of the majority position. The absence of controversy regarding this passage over the centuries and the total lack of any 'hatred" doctrine confirms the orthodox interpretation.

I don't understand your suggestion that because the earliest fragments of Luke are found in the 2/3rd centuries that the church Fathers wouldn't have used or quoted from Luke. Their copies weren't fragmented. I think you will find plenty of evidence of Luke in the church Fathers starting as early as Polycarp.

Originally Posted by Textcritic

The first statement is probably true, although this is somewhat besides the point that I have sought to argue, which is that what has become "Scripture" is not necessarily faithful to the intents and purposes of the original traditions that were preserved in the Bible. "Scripture" is not only the biblical texts, it also must include the very extensive body of interpretive traditions that have always attended to it. The Luke 14 passage is actually a fairly good example of this, in that it is not unreasonable to expect that Jesus said such a thing and meant it beyond mere rhetoric, given that he was likely something of a political revolutionary in his time. Such extreme declarations of how to adjudge ones loyalty and commitment would have been commonplace amid 1st cent. Palestinian tensions, and would furthermore have likely bee understood quite plainly. The Church has never accepted his statement as such, and for good reason, as by the time of the penning of Luke's gospel the theological ends of the Church were considerably different from the much more nationalistic programme of Jesus. In this case, the interpretive tradition is what gives Scripture its actual meaning and is the basis for its own authority.

So here you acknowledge the church has never held to Luke 14 being a literal directive to hate ones parents. Why then do you question me for stateing the same thing?

You also hypothesize that Jesus was a political revolutionary. What evidence do you have for this? The political revolutionaries i've read about were motivated by love of country and family; not hatred of them.

Originally Posted by Textcritic

Second opinions about what? The meaning of μισεω? In all of my resources, its meaning is pretty static and inflexible. It appears 24 times elsewhere in the Gospels, and its meaning is always unambiguous (Matt 5:43; 6:24; 10:22; 24:9–10; Mark 13:13; Luke 1:71; 6:22, 27; 16:13; 19:14; 21:17; John 3:20; 7:7; 12:25; 15:18–19, 23–25; 17:14). It also appears another 15 times elsewhere in the New Testament, and with the same fairly straightforward meaning. It is used 177 times in the Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible, and most frequently to render שׂנא, which certainly carries with it the same force of meaning. The way that lexicographers go about their work is to collect as many of the ancient resources as are available, to survey the same word used in as many contexts as possible, and to arrive at an approximation of its meaning. For a detailed description of the occurences and meaning of this word, one should consult Liddell, Scott, and Jones's standard work: A Greek-English Lexicon.

I never said that the word "Miseo" translated in Luke 14 wasn't correctly translated as "hate". I was merely was pointing out that there are plenty of resources availiable to understand the author's original intent. It isn't something that is beyond reach.

The reason why I and the rest of orthodox christianity see Luke 14:26 as an example of hyperbole is other passages where Jesus rebukes the Pharisees for neglecting their duty to their parents. Also this passage in Matthew clearly clarifies Jesus' meaning:

Mat 10:37 He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me.
Mat 10:38 And he that taketh not his cross, and followeth after me, is not worthy of me.

Originally Posted by Textcritic

Having said all that, it also must be noted that "hate" does not tend to carry with it the same adversarial force in Ancient Greek as it does in present day English. There is a clear aversion and repulsion that is always communicated, but not necessarily with it the same violent connotations that it does in our language. I submit that to "hate" in this context was different than the bigoted, genocidal hatred that sadly characterizes much of religious oppression in the present day. But its function here most certainly goes well beyond "simply convey[ing] a ranking of affection". In this context and in a number of places in the Bible, "hate" is better understood as an irreconcilable separation like "divorce": In effect, Jesus IS advocating—even demanding—the abandonment of one's family and circumstances as necessary conditions to follow him in his revolution. Furthermore, I don't believe that in this instance the "hatred" that Jesus has in mind would always preclude violence. Such a requirement is no longer necessary nor desirable, and as such, its meaning has shifted and changed in accordance with Church doctrine.

If you want to investigate the greek in this passage look at the phrase "that forsaketh not" in verse 33 of the Luke 14 passage. According to Zodhiates it does not mean the abandonment of one's belongings, but the proper prioritization of them. This would be consistant with Jesus' words in Matt 10; 32-39.

[afc wimbledon]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

Translation is not nearly so variable as you or other skeptics suggest. Quite to the contrary, modern translations largely are very precise in how they follow the original languages. What does happen in contemporary Bible translation is that theology will occasionally affect or nuance a particular reading to conform more closely to certain presuppositions (as demonstrated by the NIV), or there is an effort to make them more "inclusive" through eliminating the overt sexism and racism that characterizes much of the biblical texts (such as in the NRSV). In reality though, the translator is faced with very few options with regards to how to interpret the Greek or the Hebrew.


So, it can't be the "word of God" because the revelation was not in English?? Since most of the world's population is Chinese, would it not make more sense to insist that the "word of God" have originated in one of their languages? I don't follow what you are saying.

The bible is basically a very violent game of chinese whispers, someone (perhaps God) says one thing at the begining, perhaps ' it ain't a good idea to be eating bacon, the desert being hot and all, you might get sick' and several thousand years and many translations later that is turned into 'kill all the infidal bacon eaters'

And yes, if the bible is the 'true' word of god it can only be in one language, all others are translations and therefore, by definition, the creation of the translator and his level of fluency and bias.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

It isn't me that needs to provide evidence of the majority position. The absence of controversy regarding this passage over the centuries and the total lack of any 'hatred" doctrine confirms the orthodox interpretation...

But it does not ensure that the "orthodox interpretation" is unproblematically traced directly back to Jesus' original utterance of it. This was a bit of a minor quibble in my response, whereby you have assumed a direct line of thought from the Church Fathers well more than a century back to Jesus without any concrete evidence beyond the "absence of controversy". I agree with you that this is an uncontroversial issue as far as the Church has always been concerned, but I take issue with you projecting this back 20 centuries without adequate sources.

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

I don't understand your suggestion that because the earliest fragments of Luke are found in the 2/3rd centuries that the church Fathers wouldn't have used or quoted from Luke. Their copies weren't fragmented. I think you will find plenty of evidence of Luke in the church Fathers starting as early as Polycarp.

I am equally sure that you will, and this was somewhat besides my point, which was to argue that the orthodox collection and interpretation of Jesus' own sayings do not necessarily conform to his original mission.

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

So here you acknowledge the church has never held to Luke 14 being a literal directive to hate ones parents. Why then do you question me for stateing the same thing?

My contention is with the presumption that orthodox Church doctrine was absolutely faithful to the intents and meaning of Jesus original mission and teachings. While I believe that for the most part it probably was, there is enough uncertainty regarding what Jesus really said and did that this is not always such a straightforward proposition.

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

You also hypothesize that Jesus was a political revolutionary. What evidence do you have for this? The political revolutionaries i've read about were motivated by love of country and family; not hatred of them.

Did Jesus ever advocate an abandonment of the collective hope of Israel? Not in any of my reading. As for evidence of Jesus' political programme, contemporary scholars are fairly unanimous in recognizing that Jesus vision was a national one: he was a Jewish teacher who proclaimed the Kingdom of God exclusively within Israel and for Israel. He kept company with at least one other known political revolutionary. He performed eschatologically and apocalyptically significant acts and made use of similarly significant eschatological symbols (i.e. the selection of twelve disciples, and his entry into the Jeruslam which culminated in the "cleansing" of the Temple), which—within his own 1st cent. Palestinian context—ONLY make sense as part of a revolutionary movement to re-establish an ideal Kingdom of Israel. For more on this see Scot McKnight's A New Vision for Israel: The Teachings of Jesus in National Context, and Marcus Borg's now somewhat dated Conflict, Holiness and Politics in the Teachings of Jesus. The danger that Jesus presented to the Sanhedrin and to the Roman government was political: he was charged as a political revolutionary and executed as one.

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

I never said that the word "Miseo" translated in Luke 14 wasn't correctly translated as "hate". I was merely was pointing out that there are plenty of resources availiable to understand the author's original intent. It isn't something that is beyond reach.

Fair enough, but the reader is still exercising a sense of autonomy in choosing which of the many opinions he might encounter of a given passage or tradition which is the "correct" one: that is, which one conforms best to his own theological presuppositions.

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

The reason why I and the rest of orthodox christianity see Luke 14:26 as an example of hyperbole is other passages where Jesus rebukes the Pharisees for neglecting their duty to their parents. Also this passage in Matthew clearly clarifies Jesus' meaning:

Mat 10:37 He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me.
Mat 10:38 And he that taketh not his cross, and followeth after me, is not worthy of me.

If you want to investigate the greek in this passage look at the phrase "that forsaketh not" in verse 33 of the Luke 14 passage. According to Zodhiates it does not mean the abandonment of one's belongings, but the proper prioritization of them. This would be consistant with Jesus' words in Matt 10; 32-39.

I am honestly all that impressed by the work of Spiros Zodhiates, and this is actually a good case as to why, as I cannot really see any good reason from the text itself to warrant such a reading. The inherent meaning of the text in its immediate context is pretty straightforward, and while πᾶς ἐξ ὑμῶν ὃς οὐκ ἀποτάσσεται πᾶσιν τοῖς ἑαυτοῦ ὑπάρχουσιν οὐ δύναται εἶναί μου μαθητής ("anyone from you who will not renounce [or abandon, or take leave of] all of his own possessions is not able to be my disciple") does not carry with it the same sort of violent connotations that our modern understanding of religious "hatred" convey, the meaning quite clearly much more literal than Zodhiates chooses to argue. Zodhiates—like most modern Christians—has come to understand Jesus' words apart from their original urgency; the conditions of discipleship in our present context carries with it neither the same level of social precariousness, nor the same eschatological force. I will refer you again to properly situating Jesus saying here within a NATIONALISTIC context, in which his mission was intent upon the restoration of Israel as the new Kingdom of God. This was a vision for the last days which Jesus clearly believes is imminent. The arrival of the Kingdom of God was as much a political event as an ethical or spiritual one, and it carried with it some expectation of conflict and resistance from adversarial political powers, whether they be Rome or the Jewish religious establishment. Thus, the call to separation was MUCH more than mere "prioritization" or "rank[ing] of affection." Because the disciples were a part of the apocalyptic mission of Jesus to oversee the emerging Kingdom of God, this required absolute and unwavering commitment: such commitment demanded the abandonment of household, family, possessions and any social goodwill. When the eschaton did not happen within the lifetime of the Apostles, or then in the first couple of centuries after the birth of the Church, these sorts of teachings were reshaped into rhetoric, and they remain as such.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by afc wimbledon

The bible is basically a very violent game of chinese whispers, someone (perhaps God) says one thing at the begining, perhaps ' it ain't a good idea to be eating bacon, the desert being hot and all, you might get sick' and several thousand years and many translations later that is turned into 'kill all the infidal bacon eaters'

What on earth are you talking about?

Originally Posted by afc wimbledon

And yes, if the bible is the 'true' word of god it can only be in one language, all others are translations and therefore, by definition, the creation of the translator and his level of fluency and bias.

Not to the extreme sense that you have argued here. Biases can only carry one so far, as there are definite breaking points within the language that will not allow for virtually any and all meanings to be attached to any word. That is preposterous.

The sorts of biases that DO IN FACT occur in modern translations tend to be more in line with those that either seek to harmonize existing texts that appear contradictory, or those that democratize the language to reflect more modern sensibilities, or those that make fairly minor changes to reflect an existing theological programme.

[ynwa03]

My opinions are constantly being altered but just not by an Internet forum. It's ironic and hypocritical you'd mention zealous commitment. I see it quite often from those who constantly feel the need to slam religion. Not only that but often times it's in a pretty immature fashion.
I never chastised anyone. I just mentioned that religious debate is hard to channel in a positive way when face to face with someone, let alone over the Internet where people often times say what they would not normally say.

[Burninator]

Textcritic is there a certain translation (English) of the bible you recommend people read?

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by Burninator

Textcritic is there a certain translation (English) of the bible you recommend people read?

It is an "oldie" but a "goodie": my present favourite is the Revised Standard Version, for its fairly impressive non-confessional approach to the text. I prefer it because despite some of the archaic uses of English, the translation does fairly strictly maintain the inherent sexism within the text in its refusal to render properly masculine constructions with all-inclusive ones. This was a regrettable repercussion in the NRSV revision that resulted from the effort to be more gender inclusive. I have nothing against gender inclusion, but let's stop pretending that the authors of the Bible were anything like us in this regard: let them speak for themselves.

The New Revised Standard Version (NRSV) is otherwise very good, and is presently the "industry standard" in main-stream biblical scholarship. It provides some value in exchange for its attempt at gender inclusion in that it includes the most readings of any modern English translations from the Dead Sea Scrolls (DSS). The DSS remain the singular best resource for the Old Testament, as they are the oldest mss. on the entire planet. Regrettably, they have not made—in my opinion—a sizable enough of an impact on modern Bible translation, mostly due to the persistent prevailing (and wrong) notion that the Masoretic Text (the standard Hebrew text for the Old Testament) was ALWAYS the standard text in Judaism, and this effectively disqualifies numerous other alternative editions that appear to have been in circulation at least as late as the time of Jesus.

Another good one that I have come to appreciate recently is the New Jersualem Bible (NJS): This is a Catholic Church sanctioned edition that has a very nice dynamic style and is very readable, only, some caution should be exercised in recognizing that as a dynamic edition, it will stray some from some of the more "literal" constructions of the Greek and the Hebrew in favour of more flexible, idiomatic expressions that make some better sense in English.

The English Standard Version is also quite good, only I am mad at them for their quite literal rendering in 2 Tim 3:16 "God-breathed", which—while technically correct—utterly fails in that it is marshaled in support by inerrentists of their doctrine of something akin to dictation theory.