We continue looking at Philo's philosophical discussion of shepherds. We are in section XIV where Philo has just finished telling us something about the character of prosperous Egyptians. Then he goes on to say that people may ask those who claim to be of the shepherding mindset why they would live in Egypt, "the country of the body and the passions."The answer is that they are just sojourners, not inhabitants, because "the soul of every wise man has heaven for its home." According to Philo, wisdom is the true home of the soul, this body is just a place to hang out for a while. Philo appears to be a mind-body dualist.
Pause.
I am not a cursing person, but if I was ever tempted to curse it would be after hearing one of these "this world is not my home" statements. Folks, this world is darn well every person's home. It's the only home we have, and the only home we or our descendants will ever have, if we don't destroy it first. Learn to accept it. Find a way to love the only life you have.
Unpause.
Philo ends this extended metaphor by comparing shepherds, those who rule the flock of their soul well, with kings. He compares keepers of sheep, those who are sluggish and indulgent, with bakers, who supply the means of gluttony to those who wish to gorge themselves.
After that, Philo continues his philosophising with another metaphor about true horsemen and mere riders. I point this out to remind us that Philo's intent in all these metaphors is to extrapolate a spiritual message, not to explore the actual sociological function of shepherds. Nevertheless, we are given glimpses of the standing of shepherds in Egyptian society.
Note that we are not talking about first century Israelite society, which has a distinctly different culture. The original argument was that shepherds were despised, lowly, and unclean in that culture. We certainly do see disdain for sheep tenders by rich Egyptians. I would guess that Egyptians did not make Philo's philosophical distinction between sheep tenders and shepherds. The book of Genesis, chapters 46 and 47, is where Philo decides a distintinction is made between those who tend livestock and shepherds. In 46:2 Joseph says, "the men are shepherds, they tend livestock," making no distinction between the two occupations. It is all in Philo's philosophy. However, the distinction of shepherd and sheep keeper is an interesting one, and before we are done we will encounter it again in a different manner.
Saturday, July 29, 2017
Wednesday, July 26, 2017
Shepherds part 4
If you are still hanging around I appreciate it. Life has to be navigated when the unexpected happens. Sometimes even the expected requires more resources than previously imagined.
Let's continue looking at Philo's shepherding metaphors in his writing On Husbandry. I was last in section XI, which ends with "but what is really desirable is, that our mind should govern all our conduct, like a goatherd, or a cowherd, or a shepherd, or, in short, like any herdsman of any kind; choosing in preference to what is pleasant that which is for the advantage both of himself and of his flock." We have seen that the mind is either a keeper of sheep, pleasure seeking and indulgent, or a true shepherd, diligently controlling the various parts of the body or the flock.
Philo goes on to say, in section XII, that being a (metaphorical) shepherd is a good thing. This is evidenced by Psalm 23, which says "The Lord is my shepherd..." God governs his flock of people and the elements according to law and justice. According to Philo, It is impossible for god to be anything else but a good shepherd, doing what is necessary for the entire world.
In section XIII, Philo goes on to say that a soul governed by god has no need of other things. He seeks after the knowledge of a shepherd and laughs at being a mere keeper of sheep. Then he tells us that Joseph told the Israelites to tell the Pharoah that they were keepers of cattle. (Sheep and other herded animals were all considered cattle.) However, the Israelites, when asked their occupation by Pharaoh, replied that they were shepherds. Philo seems to think this was a deliberate distinction and that the Israelites were allying themselves with their god.
In section XIV, Philo tells us that the Israelites' boast of being shepherds is equivalent to a king boasting of his power and dominion. "Yet, if the discussion had been merely about the care of goats or sheep, perhaps they would have been ashamed to make such an admission through desire to avoid dishonour; for such occupations are accounted inglorious and mean among those who are loaded with great prosperity, without being at the same time endowed with prudence, and especially among kings." Aha! Here we have finally come across a true cultural statement about people who take care of cattle for a living. Philo tells us that rich people who are not endowed with prudence consider the occupation of tending sheep to be "inglorious" (defined: shameful, disgraceful, dishonorable) and "mean" (defined:inferior, poor, lowly). So, in a way, Philo does intimate that shepherds (actual, not metaphorical ones) were despised and thought lowly, by the rich. Considering Philo's phraseology here, it seems that he may not be of that opinion himself.
Further more we must remember Philo is living in Alexandria, Egypt. He is speaking of first century Egyptian opinion of the occupation of shepherd, not first century Israelite opinion. He makes this clear when he says, "And the Egyptian character is by nature most especially haughty and boastful whenever so slight a breeze of prosperity does merely blow upon it, so that men of that nation look upon the pursuits of life and objects of ambition of ordinary men, as subjects for laughter and downright ridicule."
To be continued.
Let's continue looking at Philo's shepherding metaphors in his writing On Husbandry. I was last in section XI, which ends with "but what is really desirable is, that our mind should govern all our conduct, like a goatherd, or a cowherd, or a shepherd, or, in short, like any herdsman of any kind; choosing in preference to what is pleasant that which is for the advantage both of himself and of his flock." We have seen that the mind is either a keeper of sheep, pleasure seeking and indulgent, or a true shepherd, diligently controlling the various parts of the body or the flock.
Philo goes on to say, in section XII, that being a (metaphorical) shepherd is a good thing. This is evidenced by Psalm 23, which says "The Lord is my shepherd..." God governs his flock of people and the elements according to law and justice. According to Philo, It is impossible for god to be anything else but a good shepherd, doing what is necessary for the entire world.
In section XIII, Philo goes on to say that a soul governed by god has no need of other things. He seeks after the knowledge of a shepherd and laughs at being a mere keeper of sheep. Then he tells us that Joseph told the Israelites to tell the Pharoah that they were keepers of cattle. (Sheep and other herded animals were all considered cattle.) However, the Israelites, when asked their occupation by Pharaoh, replied that they were shepherds. Philo seems to think this was a deliberate distinction and that the Israelites were allying themselves with their god.
In section XIV, Philo tells us that the Israelites' boast of being shepherds is equivalent to a king boasting of his power and dominion. "Yet, if the discussion had been merely about the care of goats or sheep, perhaps they would have been ashamed to make such an admission through desire to avoid dishonour; for such occupations are accounted inglorious and mean among those who are loaded with great prosperity, without being at the same time endowed with prudence, and especially among kings." Aha! Here we have finally come across a true cultural statement about people who take care of cattle for a living. Philo tells us that rich people who are not endowed with prudence consider the occupation of tending sheep to be "inglorious" (defined: shameful, disgraceful, dishonorable) and "mean" (defined:inferior, poor, lowly). So, in a way, Philo does intimate that shepherds (actual, not metaphorical ones) were despised and thought lowly, by the rich. Considering Philo's phraseology here, it seems that he may not be of that opinion himself.
Further more we must remember Philo is living in Alexandria, Egypt. He is speaking of first century Egyptian opinion of the occupation of shepherd, not first century Israelite opinion. He makes this clear when he says, "And the Egyptian character is by nature most especially haughty and boastful whenever so slight a breeze of prosperity does merely blow upon it, so that men of that nation look upon the pursuits of life and objects of ambition of ordinary men, as subjects for laughter and downright ridicule."
To be continued.
Wednesday, July 19, 2017
Shepherds part 3
Last time I posted a link to a piece of writing by the first century Jewish philosopher Philo of Alexandria. It is titled "On Husbandry." I think it is pertinent because Philo actually lived during the time Jesus was supposed to have lived and this writing discusses shepherds.
Before we get to shepherds, skim through the first few section of the writing until you arrive at section VII. Philo begins by showing what he believes are the concrete and philosophical differences between a husbandman, a farmer with agricultural skill, and a mere tiller of the soil. One cares for the land and the growing things on it, probably because he is the owner. The other is a mere hireling concerned about his wages. Philo goes on to talk of the various growing things that represent bad traits and how they are tamed, pruned, or destroyed by the husbandman. Then there are the good plants that bear fruit and represent virtues. These are encouraged to grow and multiply. This is the "husbandry of the soul." The mere tiller is an "unjust man" and bears the "heaviest burdens without knowledge." Philo says Moses, in the scriptures, has made an example of Noah as a husbandman and Cain as a mere tiller. (V:20-21)
Philo infuses his extended metaphors with real life examples of differences in life station within a single field of occupation, farming. I don't think he realized the prejudices he betrayed in himself. The wealthier, more educated man with property is equated with the more caring and more virtuous person. The mere wage earner, the tiller, is akin to a murderer, because of what Moses supposedly wrote in the scriptures. I know Philo intended to use this example as a spiritual application, but I find it useful as a look at the sociological class constructs of that era. Next we will see a similar treatment given to Philo's idea of the difference between true shepherds and mere keepers of sheep.(VI:29)
Philo now tells us that a good and faithful superintendant of the flock of the soul is a shepherd, an indifferent manager of the flock is called a keeper of sheep. People are said to have parts of themselves compared to flocks of sheep, specifically: the mind, the five senses, the organs of speech and the organs of generation. Individuals must superintend all these parts of themselves.
In section VII, Philo shows what happens when the superintendant of the flocks indulge them and let them have everything they want, even if it is not good for them. Then the "flocks" get out of control and stray, even if the superintendant tries to reign them in. There comes a slippery slope, leading to gluttony, drunkenness, and illicit "amorous gratifications." These people are mere keepers of sheep.
Those who would be called shepherds practice restraint, inflicting punishment on those parts of the flock that stray. (It sounds suspiciously like self mortification.) Shepherds prefer those things that are "useful, Though mixed with unpleasantness, to those that are pleasant but pernicious." Philo says this is why Jacob and Moses were called shepherds. Moses also declared "The assembly of the Lord shall not be like sheep who have no shepherd."
Philo then compares governing one's own flock (remember it is a metaphor for soul and body) with the various types of government in his world at that time. Not only is tyranny and anarchy evil, but even too much gentleness is to be despised because it is injurious to leaders and subjects, leading to disrespect and insolence.
To be continued.
Before we get to shepherds, skim through the first few section of the writing until you arrive at section VII. Philo begins by showing what he believes are the concrete and philosophical differences between a husbandman, a farmer with agricultural skill, and a mere tiller of the soil. One cares for the land and the growing things on it, probably because he is the owner. The other is a mere hireling concerned about his wages. Philo goes on to talk of the various growing things that represent bad traits and how they are tamed, pruned, or destroyed by the husbandman. Then there are the good plants that bear fruit and represent virtues. These are encouraged to grow and multiply. This is the "husbandry of the soul." The mere tiller is an "unjust man" and bears the "heaviest burdens without knowledge." Philo says Moses, in the scriptures, has made an example of Noah as a husbandman and Cain as a mere tiller. (V:20-21)
Philo infuses his extended metaphors with real life examples of differences in life station within a single field of occupation, farming. I don't think he realized the prejudices he betrayed in himself. The wealthier, more educated man with property is equated with the more caring and more virtuous person. The mere wage earner, the tiller, is akin to a murderer, because of what Moses supposedly wrote in the scriptures. I know Philo intended to use this example as a spiritual application, but I find it useful as a look at the sociological class constructs of that era. Next we will see a similar treatment given to Philo's idea of the difference between true shepherds and mere keepers of sheep.(VI:29)
Philo now tells us that a good and faithful superintendant of the flock of the soul is a shepherd, an indifferent manager of the flock is called a keeper of sheep. People are said to have parts of themselves compared to flocks of sheep, specifically: the mind, the five senses, the organs of speech and the organs of generation. Individuals must superintend all these parts of themselves.
In section VII, Philo shows what happens when the superintendant of the flocks indulge them and let them have everything they want, even if it is not good for them. Then the "flocks" get out of control and stray, even if the superintendant tries to reign them in. There comes a slippery slope, leading to gluttony, drunkenness, and illicit "amorous gratifications." These people are mere keepers of sheep.
Those who would be called shepherds practice restraint, inflicting punishment on those parts of the flock that stray. (It sounds suspiciously like self mortification.) Shepherds prefer those things that are "useful, Though mixed with unpleasantness, to those that are pleasant but pernicious." Philo says this is why Jacob and Moses were called shepherds. Moses also declared "The assembly of the Lord shall not be like sheep who have no shepherd."
Philo then compares governing one's own flock (remember it is a metaphor for soul and body) with the various types of government in his world at that time. Not only is tyranny and anarchy evil, but even too much gentleness is to be despised because it is injurious to leaders and subjects, leading to disrespect and insolence.
To be continued.
Saturday, July 15, 2017
Shepherds part 2
As promised, we will look at the two articles I was given in support of the idea that shepherds in the first century were unclean, despised outcasts. Today, I will focus on the first: Shepherd's Status by Randy Alcorn. Notice that the Wikipedia article on Mr. Alcorn reads like an endorsement commercial. He's probably got people managing his public information. Here is information about his educational background. He apparently has had books on the NYT best seller's list. I'm guessing that very few Christians would question his sincerity, knowledge, and authority. If something he writes sounds reasonable, it is probably accepted without much thought. Most people don't question one of their own tribe who has reputation and influence. It's human nature.
Unless you are a skeptic. Then you are more likely to weigh what you hear against your personal experience and reality. You also ask yourself if there are alternate viewpoints that need to be considered. From where and when did the author's information originate? Is the original material reliable? Who was the author of that? Does it actually say what others claim it says? Is too much liberty taken with the original material, making it apply to things it doesn't mention? Are modern inferences being made about ancient attitudes and lifestyles? These are some questions I asked myself. I admit up front, it took me some time to figure out how to find what I was looking for, and how to find enough material to satisfy my curiosity.
For a skeptic, there are no ultimate authorities on any topic. Noone has all the answers. There are only resources and experts. Even experts can have biases and make mistakes. One doesn't have to be an expert to point out biases and mistakes, but everyone should be ready to back up their statements with some kind of reasonable evidence. We should also be ready to accept evidence that shows us to be wrong.
My personal experience reading the Bible shows me that the Bible, especially the Old Testament, is full of references to sheep and shepherds in positive ways. Just check a concordance. Mr. Alcorn, in the fourth paragraph of his article "Shepherd's Status" (linked above), states that things had changed by the first century. He says, "In Christ's day, shepherds stood on the bottom rung of the Palestinian social ladder. They shared the same unenviable position as tax collectors and dung sweepers. Only Luke mentions them."
That paragraph contains some elements of truth but not the whole truth. While it is true that only Luke mentions the shepherds of the nativity. The word shepherd is mentioned in Matthew, Mark, John, Hebrews, and 1 Peter. Mr. Alcorn's statement gives the impression that any New Testament mention of shepherds is solely in the book of Luke, because shepherds were so poorly thought of. Notice he does not give any 1st century biblical or extra-biblical references that actually say shepherds were considered as lowly as tax collectors and dung sweepers. Maybe he will later.
Some (NIV) Biblical references are: Matthew 9:36, 25:32, 26:31, Mark 6:34, 14:27, John 10:2, 10:11, 10:12, 10:14, 10:16, Hebrews 13:20, 1Peter 2:25, 5:2, 5:4. Most of these passages are similes or metaphors which refer to people as sheep and Jesus as a shepherd. Jesus is called the good shepherd, the great shepherd, and the chief shepherd. Nowhere does there appear to be any suggestion that shepherds were despised.
I will end today's post with a link to an excerpt from the writings of Philo of Alexandria, a first century Jewish philosopher, who lived in the time of Jesus but never mentioned him. In the section titled "On Husbandry," you will find paragraphs referring to shepherds from part IX to about XV. We will examine them next time.
To be continued.
Unless you are a skeptic. Then you are more likely to weigh what you hear against your personal experience and reality. You also ask yourself if there are alternate viewpoints that need to be considered. From where and when did the author's information originate? Is the original material reliable? Who was the author of that? Does it actually say what others claim it says? Is too much liberty taken with the original material, making it apply to things it doesn't mention? Are modern inferences being made about ancient attitudes and lifestyles? These are some questions I asked myself. I admit up front, it took me some time to figure out how to find what I was looking for, and how to find enough material to satisfy my curiosity.
For a skeptic, there are no ultimate authorities on any topic. Noone has all the answers. There are only resources and experts. Even experts can have biases and make mistakes. One doesn't have to be an expert to point out biases and mistakes, but everyone should be ready to back up their statements with some kind of reasonable evidence. We should also be ready to accept evidence that shows us to be wrong.
My personal experience reading the Bible shows me that the Bible, especially the Old Testament, is full of references to sheep and shepherds in positive ways. Just check a concordance. Mr. Alcorn, in the fourth paragraph of his article "Shepherd's Status" (linked above), states that things had changed by the first century. He says, "In Christ's day, shepherds stood on the bottom rung of the Palestinian social ladder. They shared the same unenviable position as tax collectors and dung sweepers. Only Luke mentions them."
That paragraph contains some elements of truth but not the whole truth. While it is true that only Luke mentions the shepherds of the nativity. The word shepherd is mentioned in Matthew, Mark, John, Hebrews, and 1 Peter. Mr. Alcorn's statement gives the impression that any New Testament mention of shepherds is solely in the book of Luke, because shepherds were so poorly thought of. Notice he does not give any 1st century biblical or extra-biblical references that actually say shepherds were considered as lowly as tax collectors and dung sweepers. Maybe he will later.
Some (NIV) Biblical references are: Matthew 9:36, 25:32, 26:31, Mark 6:34, 14:27, John 10:2, 10:11, 10:12, 10:14, 10:16, Hebrews 13:20, 1Peter 2:25, 5:2, 5:4. Most of these passages are similes or metaphors which refer to people as sheep and Jesus as a shepherd. Jesus is called the good shepherd, the great shepherd, and the chief shepherd. Nowhere does there appear to be any suggestion that shepherds were despised.
I will end today's post with a link to an excerpt from the writings of Philo of Alexandria, a first century Jewish philosopher, who lived in the time of Jesus but never mentioned him. In the section titled "On Husbandry," you will find paragraphs referring to shepherds from part IX to about XV. We will examine them next time.
To be continued.
Thursday, July 13, 2017
1Clement part three and wrap up
I finally finished reading chapter 55-to the end of the letter. There is not much more to tell. More Old Testament scriptures are quoted from Psalms, Proverbs, and Job. More Old Testament characters are invoked.
The Corinthians are told that as an example, throughout history many heathens have sacrificed themselves for others, kings and princes in battle, people who became slaves to pay other's debts, people who left their cities so that strife would be ended. Even godly women have performed "manly" dangerous heroic acts! Esther and Judth are given as examples. Judith's feat is found in the book of Judith. The book of Judith is now considered to be historical fiction, but apparently the author of this letter believed it to be actual history.
Lastly, the Corinthians are told that their sinners are being prayed for that they might submit to the will of god, which happens to coincide with the will of the author. Namely, that those causing the sedition should submit to the discipline and correction of the church authorities because god is good, therefore he corrects us. Who is god here?
The letter ends with an admonishment to send back the messengers with the good news that harmony has been restored.
What have I learned from this letter? Not much. There is very little original content, most of it is scriptural quotes or references to famous bible characters. It was very tedious and repetitive to read.
The message could be boiled down to: There are people there causing trouble and disregarding established authorities. It is bad for the church's image. Deal with it by expelling the trouble makers if you have to." Also, the author appears to believe extrabiblical legendary accounts of oracles, the phoenix, and the story of Judith.
There isn't much detail about the actual practices and beliefs of the early church, other than presbyters as authorities and a belief in resurrection because of Jesus. The Old Testament appears to have been revered to a degree that would be extraordinary in protestant churches today. There is no mention of Jesus's special birth or miracles he performed during his lifetime. We get glimpses of teachings attributed to him in the sermon on the mount. Peter, Paul, John, and (I think) James, are the only New Testament characters mentioned. I don't remember seeing any doctrine of hell or eternal punishment.
The Corinthians are told that as an example, throughout history many heathens have sacrificed themselves for others, kings and princes in battle, people who became slaves to pay other's debts, people who left their cities so that strife would be ended. Even godly women have performed "manly" dangerous heroic acts! Esther and Judth are given as examples. Judith's feat is found in the book of Judith. The book of Judith is now considered to be historical fiction, but apparently the author of this letter believed it to be actual history.
Lastly, the Corinthians are told that their sinners are being prayed for that they might submit to the will of god, which happens to coincide with the will of the author. Namely, that those causing the sedition should submit to the discipline and correction of the church authorities because god is good, therefore he corrects us. Who is god here?
The letter ends with an admonishment to send back the messengers with the good news that harmony has been restored.
What have I learned from this letter? Not much. There is very little original content, most of it is scriptural quotes or references to famous bible characters. It was very tedious and repetitive to read.
The message could be boiled down to: There are people there causing trouble and disregarding established authorities. It is bad for the church's image. Deal with it by expelling the trouble makers if you have to." Also, the author appears to believe extrabiblical legendary accounts of oracles, the phoenix, and the story of Judith.
There isn't much detail about the actual practices and beliefs of the early church, other than presbyters as authorities and a belief in resurrection because of Jesus. The Old Testament appears to have been revered to a degree that would be extraordinary in protestant churches today. There is no mention of Jesus's special birth or miracles he performed during his lifetime. We get glimpses of teachings attributed to him in the sermon on the mount. Peter, Paul, John, and (I think) James, are the only New Testament characters mentioned. I don't remember seeing any doctrine of hell or eternal punishment.
Saturday, July 8, 2017
Christian cultural legends- shepherds
I often hear or come across statements by Christians that are said as though they are obvious historical facts that everyone knows. These things are repeated in articles, sermons, and some books. They usually don't reference the sources of information for the statements, it is just assumed that there is no question the statement is factual because it has been heard so often. If a source is mentioned, often there are no specific quotes or an exact location of the information within the documents mentioned. Because these statements are similar to urban legends, I will call them christian cultural legends. They usually only occur within the culture of christianity and are spread widely without much thought of their origins.
Over the years, I have heard a variety of these not quite right historical statements, and last week I encountered another one of these cultural legends for the first time. The story of Jesus's birth was being told and particular focus was brought to bear on the shepherds who received the tidings of the birth from the angels and visited the infant.This story is only found in the book of Luke. I heard it said by someone who is in a position of authority in a church that this story was so amazing because "shepherds in the first century were the lowest of the low, despised by society, and considered unclean." This was supposed to prove that god looked only on the heart, not on one's social position or state of ritual cleanness or that Jesus's coming turned social conventions upside down.
Right away, I questioned the authenticity of this statement and decided to look for verification using a simple google search. What I found was multiple christian sites with articles making that statement, or one similar, almost word for word. Very few referenced where that information came from, and none gave specific quotes or locations where it could be found and verified. However, one contrary article (by a christian) came right out and called it an urban legend of christianity. I was not alone in my opinion!
My three objections were to the phrases "lowest of the low," "despised," and "unclean." I objected because the bible is full of sheep and shepherding images. Abel, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob and his sons, Moses, and David were shepherds. In fact there is a case to be made that most of the Israelites wandering in the desert had livestock that needed tending. What did that make them? For goodness sake, Psalm 23 calls Yahweh a shepherd. Jesus is also called "the good shepherd." He told parables about sheep.
I mentioned these objections to the person who had made the statement about shepherds in the first century. He said things had changed over the years and by the first century, shepherds were disliked immensly. I was given a couple of links to articles about this topic that agreed with this person's assessment. In my next post on this topic, I will give you the links and explain how I researched the information given.
To be continued.
Tuesday, July 4, 2017
1 Clement part two
Continuing on from chapter 37- 55. The chapters in 1 Clement are very short, sometimes just a paragraph. They also seem rather arbitrary in their divisions.
*In this part there are references to Paul's former letter to the Corinthians. The author calls the church there "the ancient church of Corinth." He says the former letter was written at the beginning of the era of gospel preaching and concerned warring parties and factions, just as those happening at the writing of 1 Clement. It appears the church was not unified, even from the beginning. Phrases from 1 Corinthians are quoted in spots.
*The author gets more specific about the issues in Corinth, saying that long time respected leaders of that church had been removed from office. The author says this is not right and only the wicked would do such a thing. The perpetrators of the current strife are urged to confess they are wrong and even volunteer to leave, for the good of the church.
* The letter continues to tell snippets of paraphrased Old Testament stories and again makes multiple quotes, also mostly from the Old Testament. Again, there are a couple of quotes claimed to be from scripture and not found in any existing copies of the scriptures. There is a reference to a quote from Jesus, found in Matthew and Luke, about those who are stumbling blocks needing to have millstones tied around thier necks. This is a not too subtle hint to troublemakers.
*Oddly, chapters 40 and 41 advocate following the law, appropriate times for temple offerings, and a place for priests/Levites in worship. If this is not metaphorical, it would mean the letter was written before the fall of Jerusalem and the destruction of the temple in 70 CE. It would also show that Christianity was still tied to Judaism at that time. The footnotes in the text try to convince us this passage was just referring to an "ideal Jerusalem," but give no justification for that notion. If this letter is that early, Matthew and/or Luke may also have been written that early... Or specific Jesus quotes were going around by word of mouth and used regularly
*One thing that I have noticed, while reading this and looking up quoted scriptures, is how much of the New Testament is cribbed from the Old. Seriously, It's as if someone took scissors and snipped out a variety of passages from the Old Testament, mixed them up, then made a story out of them.
To be continued.
*In this part there are references to Paul's former letter to the Corinthians. The author calls the church there "the ancient church of Corinth." He says the former letter was written at the beginning of the era of gospel preaching and concerned warring parties and factions, just as those happening at the writing of 1 Clement. It appears the church was not unified, even from the beginning. Phrases from 1 Corinthians are quoted in spots.
*The author gets more specific about the issues in Corinth, saying that long time respected leaders of that church had been removed from office. The author says this is not right and only the wicked would do such a thing. The perpetrators of the current strife are urged to confess they are wrong and even volunteer to leave, for the good of the church.
* The letter continues to tell snippets of paraphrased Old Testament stories and again makes multiple quotes, also mostly from the Old Testament. Again, there are a couple of quotes claimed to be from scripture and not found in any existing copies of the scriptures. There is a reference to a quote from Jesus, found in Matthew and Luke, about those who are stumbling blocks needing to have millstones tied around thier necks. This is a not too subtle hint to troublemakers.
*Oddly, chapters 40 and 41 advocate following the law, appropriate times for temple offerings, and a place for priests/Levites in worship. If this is not metaphorical, it would mean the letter was written before the fall of Jerusalem and the destruction of the temple in 70 CE. It would also show that Christianity was still tied to Judaism at that time. The footnotes in the text try to convince us this passage was just referring to an "ideal Jerusalem," but give no justification for that notion. If this letter is that early, Matthew and/or Luke may also have been written that early... Or specific Jesus quotes were going around by word of mouth and used regularly
*One thing that I have noticed, while reading this and looking up quoted scriptures, is how much of the New Testament is cribbed from the Old. Seriously, It's as if someone took scissors and snipped out a variety of passages from the Old Testament, mixed them up, then made a story out of them.
To be continued.
Saturday, July 1, 2017
1 Clement part one
I am about halfway through the letter to the Corinthians attributed to Clement and will share a few observations.
*Like many books of the bible, the letter does not mention Clement or say that he is the author. It says that it is from the church in Rome. I'm not sure how it has been established that Clement actually wrote this letter. It does not give a clear indication of the date of the writing but would have to have happened after the deaths of Peter and Paul, whom he mentions. Like the books of the bible, the original of the letter no longer exists.
*The letter is a rambling treatise that seems to have a general theme of "get right church." It does not go into detail about the nature of the issues the Corinthians are experiencing except to repeatedly use words like strife, sedition, and emulation. The word emulation has me puzzled. Is he talking about oneupmanship?
*Between the exhortations to shape up, the letter is a jumbled mash-up of paraphrased old testament stories and scriptural quotes, with no particular order or literary structure. There has been mention of Abraham, Moses, Cain and Abel, Noah, Lot, Joshua, Rahab, and David. Old Testament scriptural quotes have come from Psalms, Proverbs, Isaiah, Ezekiel, Daniel, Job, and Jeremiah. These quotes are often worded slightly differently than how they occur in my NIV, which is not surprising. Also, a few quotes are pieced together from mutiple books, or don't actually exist in modern bibles.
*So far, very few quoted scriptures appear to come from the New Testament writings. Some that could also have parallels in the Old Testament. Others seem more clearly to have come from the books of 2 Peter, Hebrews, and James. (Unless those authors borrowed from this letter, which seems unlikely.) There is one passage quoting Jesus that appears to have come from the Sermon on the Mount in Matthew. There is also a quote from the apocryphal book of Wisdom of Solomon.
*There are repeated mentions of the resurrection of the christ and the hope of future resurrection for believers. Jesus is called the first fruit of resurrection. Of great interest to me was the legendary story of the phoenix (chapter xxv), told as if true and given as proof of God's power and ability to perform resurrections. Yes, really. The author assures us that nothing is impossible with god but to lie.
*We are given very few details of Jesus's life, or the lives of Paul and Peter, who are said to have worked hard for the church and were martyred. Jesus is said to have descended from Abraham, which is basically another way to say he was a Jew. So far, I've seen very little mention of the actual practices of the church in Rome or Corinth, other than the mention of "presbyters."
To be continued.
*Like many books of the bible, the letter does not mention Clement or say that he is the author. It says that it is from the church in Rome. I'm not sure how it has been established that Clement actually wrote this letter. It does not give a clear indication of the date of the writing but would have to have happened after the deaths of Peter and Paul, whom he mentions. Like the books of the bible, the original of the letter no longer exists.
*The letter is a rambling treatise that seems to have a general theme of "get right church." It does not go into detail about the nature of the issues the Corinthians are experiencing except to repeatedly use words like strife, sedition, and emulation. The word emulation has me puzzled. Is he talking about oneupmanship?
*Between the exhortations to shape up, the letter is a jumbled mash-up of paraphrased old testament stories and scriptural quotes, with no particular order or literary structure. There has been mention of Abraham, Moses, Cain and Abel, Noah, Lot, Joshua, Rahab, and David. Old Testament scriptural quotes have come from Psalms, Proverbs, Isaiah, Ezekiel, Daniel, Job, and Jeremiah. These quotes are often worded slightly differently than how they occur in my NIV, which is not surprising. Also, a few quotes are pieced together from mutiple books, or don't actually exist in modern bibles.
*So far, very few quoted scriptures appear to come from the New Testament writings. Some that could also have parallels in the Old Testament. Others seem more clearly to have come from the books of 2 Peter, Hebrews, and James. (Unless those authors borrowed from this letter, which seems unlikely.) There is one passage quoting Jesus that appears to have come from the Sermon on the Mount in Matthew. There is also a quote from the apocryphal book of Wisdom of Solomon.
*There are repeated mentions of the resurrection of the christ and the hope of future resurrection for believers. Jesus is called the first fruit of resurrection. Of great interest to me was the legendary story of the phoenix (chapter xxv), told as if true and given as proof of God's power and ability to perform resurrections. Yes, really. The author assures us that nothing is impossible with god but to lie.
*We are given very few details of Jesus's life, or the lives of Paul and Peter, who are said to have worked hard for the church and were martyred. Jesus is said to have descended from Abraham, which is basically another way to say he was a Jew. So far, I've seen very little mention of the actual practices of the church in Rome or Corinth, other than the mention of "presbyters."
To be continued.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)