My friend @apenitentialprayer (who you should be following if you're interested in Catholicism) asked me to expand on my belief that Genesis 3 is an etiological myth for puberty. The following understanding is emphatically not my own, but it comes from my rabbi and I'm not sure whether he published it so I don't have a citation.

Anyway, the basic argument is that we should read the phrase "knowledge of good and bad" (הדעת טוב ורע) ha-da'at tov v'ra (Genesis 2:17) in parallel with "[he] learns to reject the bad and choose good" (לדעתו מאוס ברע ובחור בטוב) l'dato ma'os bara u'vahol batov (Isaiah 7:15). In Isaiah, learning the difference between good and bad (more literally knowing the difference; da'at in Gen 2:17 has the same root as dato in Is 7:15 (dato is a conjugation of yada)) is a metaphor for maturing. If we read the phrase "knowledge of good and bad" in Genesis 2 in the same way, then we can reasonably infer that the consequence of eating the fruit of the Tree is maturation as such rather than the acquisition of forbidden knowledge.

So, what happens when we do that? Human beings in the Garden of Eden have two things in common with God: immortality and the image in which they are made. When they eat from the Tree they gain "knowledge of good and bad" which we've inferred means aging and (specifically) going through puberty. After puberty humans acquire a third divine characteristic: the ability to create life.

The curses that follow for the man and woman then describe the inevitable consequences that they will face by going from childhood and adulthood. The woman will carry babies and have pain in giving birth. She will desire (תשוקה) t'shukah (the verb is used for non-sexual desire in Gen 4:7 and for sexual desire in Song 7:11) her husband. The man will have to labor to bring for the food previously provided by his Parent (i.e. God). And of course both will die (which does happen to children, but is not an inevitable part of childhood the way it is for adulthood).

(Note that the interpretation that the Serpent is Satan comes from later Christian eisegesis is not actually a part of the myth as presented in Genesis 3.)

I never liked the idea that the Serpent is Satan, and I once took a class in college where the professor proposed that the Serpent was God, who wanted his children to have knowledge of good and evil, so that their choices would be more meaningful.

Just adding this because in combination with this interpretation, I like the idea that God-as-Serpent was encouraging his children to grow up.

Some Gnostic Christians took the view that the god of the Old Testament was a demiurge, an inferior being who created physical matter and life. It was a somewhat evil (or at least misguided) entity, and the Serpent was a higher entity who intruded into its creation to rescue it (an operation that was repeated with Jesus).

That’s also pretty interesting, though it doesn’t feel as provocative and poignant to me as the idea of God & the Serpent as the same being (the appeal of the trickster deity I guess) & it feels a little anti-Semitic/supercessionist too, with the addition of the part about Jesus, so I’m not in love with that either (though the Gnostics do seem really fascinating as a collection — much more diverse than contemporary Christianity). Did the demiurge creator also create the Serpent, or did the Serpent come from somewhere else? And where did Jesus come from, in this interpretation?

(I personally like Jesus pretty well but I’m suspicious of any myth that centers his divinity — a worthwhile message or manifesto or ethical philosophy should stand on its own merit & not rest on the laurels of divinity to give it special consideration — or anything that implies he “fixed” a broken or sinful world/society. Partly because it often has a flavor of anti-semitism, and partly because the world continues to be pretty broken, so obviously it wasn’t that impressive an act of divinity if it didn’t stick. Idk, I think talking about Jesus as being particularly divine, beyond other human beings, makes him less impressive in some ways, rather than more, unless it’s just a way of showing reverence for his particular vision. Although I do like the SRF idea that he’s an incarnation of Vishnu…but I think I mostly like that for the novelty, as someone raised well outside of Hindu traditions.)

Also I just want to say that I’ve been following you for a few years & even though I’m not on tumblr much, I really like your blog & I’m a little jealous of your course of study! You have a lot of fascinating stories & insights to share.

The problem with Jesus as simply an exceptional moral teacher is that... his teachings aren't exceptionally moral. Almost nothing Jesus said that was good is original and almost nothing original Jesus said is good (at least as recorded in the Gospels). In the Gospel accounts he mostly comes off as a bit of an asshole, annoyed that everyone else is too dense to understand his teachings and angry at being asked to work miracles for the undeserving.

Jesus was, if not a divine entity, mostly an apocalyptic preacher whose main message was the imminent end of the world, and we would regard him today as the leader of a cult that was not particularly worthy of respect.

I mean that sounds like a plausible take, I guess — I don’t have enough knowledge of the context or history to know which of the things Jesus said were original. I think the proto-communism/communalism of Acts is pretty cool. I honestly kind of enjoy Jesus being a sarcastic asshole mostly because the evangelical context I grew up in was basically unaware of sarcasm & the contrast between the golden serious idea of Jesus & him calling Simon-Peter as dumb as a rock is pretty funny to me. Makes me a little reflective in this moment because I typically don’t care for that approach to philosophy, particularly ethical/relational philosophy, & I never liked Socrates’s stupid smug jokes at the expense of others.

Most of my attachment to Jesus is as a cultural figure, particularly in the ways queer Christians & liberation theologians have interpreted him. I can’t get away from my own cultural Christianity, and I usually characterize the distance I do want to maintain from mainstream American Christianity by saying that I like what Jesus had to say but I don’t care for the idea that he was any more the son of god than any of us are. Maybe even that isn’t really true though — I’m only passingly familiar with accounts of Jesus himself, and most of the bits I’ve read in the Bible and really mulled over are in Ecclesiastes or Song of Solomon.

Might be time to reassess. I love the idea of portraying Jesus in a contemporary setting as an asshole street preacher predicting the apocalypse and easily dismissed by most people. People who predict the apocalypse are rarely 100% wrong — there’s always a major disaster right around the corner. I just think — if someone has divine abilities, that doesn’t make their words any more credible. It’s like saying that because someone can do magic, they’re definitely also psychic. Or because someone is a genius scientist, they can definitely solve geo-political problems. People do jump to those kinds of conclusions, but they don’t naturally follow, and I’m mistrustful of any logic that links them intrinsically.

I don’t think I’m ready to let go of the progressive Jesus headcanons entirely, because as an aspiring storyteller I think they can be evocative & persuasive & I want to meet people where they’re at, but I guess I need to stop conflating them with the historical or strictly biblical Jesus, which I think I’ve done because of how much the reactionary Jesus headcanons are conflated with those 2 distinct entities. It’s politically charged, disputed territory. I don’t want to cede that ground because I think it’s equally valid to create an image of Jesus as a communist & minority community organizer as it is to create an image of him as a reactionary capitalist enforcing punishment for crimes of survival & sexual difference. Both ideas are projecting a lot of modern constructs onto him & neither of them really work with the source texts gracefully.

I guess what I’m discovering here is that I am in favor of a multitude of inaccurate Jesuses totally divorced from historical context, and also I am curious about the historical context because it informs those inaccurate Jesuses and can make them feel more believable. Not sure how I feel about that. Not sure how you feel about that!

#it’s just that he said a few things that make some amount of sense to me#& I’m not too mad about anything he said that I know about except maybe the thoughtcrime

Most of what people think they like that Jesus said is from the Sermon on the Mount/Plain, and thoughtcrime isn't and afterthought of that Sermon, it's a central pillar. Jesus emphasizes several things in that sermon, one of which is that the standard God demands is perfection. And lest anyone think that they are perfect, he says that even if you've been outwardly obeying all the commandments, internally you still break them.

Progressives tend to focus on a particular theme in the Bible. In the Old Testament that theme is expressed as "God loves the poor, the outcast, the stranger, the widow, and the orphan." In the New Testament it's expanded to "And therefore God hates the rich." In Luke particularly there's a sense that salvation is something the poor have by dint of their poverty. Salvation is something needed only by those who aren't poor.

And as a leftist I don't really disagree with the ideal that wealth is (or can be) immoral. But as a person who lives in a society, I'm not sure that "God hates the rich" is a useful belief that aids one in loving one's neighbor as oneself; certainly the corollary, that poverty is virtuous, isn't true.

The Beatitudes are lovely, but they aren't the only message of the Sermon and they aren't original to Jesus. And a lot of the Sermon's other messages are fanatical apocalypticism, a glorification of poverty, a call to abandon your responsibilities to your family and neighbors, and the idea that you can sin without outwardly doing wrong. In my opinion, the good stuff isn't worth the stuff it's packed in with.

Jesus tells us in Matthew 7:22-23: “Many will say to Me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in Your name, and in Your name cast out demons, and in Your name perform many miracles?’ And then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; leave Me, you who practice lawlessness.’” Salvation is not found in our works. The assurance of our salvation is found in the work of Christ, not our own works. Beware of doing all the “right” things like going to church, getting baptized, tithing, etc., only to end up trusting in you rather than Christ. I’ve used to know people who walked away from Christianity after having been exemplary Christians. Don’t let anyone, or anything, lead you astray from Him. Salvation by works is impossible for sinful creatures such as ourselves. As Charles Spurgeon put it, “Dear friends, the system of salvation by works is impossible to you. You cannot perfectly keep the law of God, for you are sold under sin. I recollect when I resolved never to sin again. I sinned before I had done my breakfast.” Remember, our most righteous deeds are “filthy rags” before a most holy God as the prophet Isaiah said (Isaiah 64:6).

That passage from the Sermon on the Mount needs to be read parallel to Matthew 25:31-46. The Parable of the Sheep and the Goats is an elaboration on Matthew 7:22-23. Once more people stand before Jesus to be judged. In one camp are those who knew Jesus and called him Lord, in the other those who did not know him and did not call him Lord.

To the first, Jesus says that since they did not care for the poor and needy, "whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me“ and condemns them. To the second, Jesus says that since they did care for the poor and needy, “whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me.”

The judgment is explicitly according to works, not faith. Interestingly, the parable gives no examples of those who called Jesus Lord and did his will or those who did not call him Lord and did not do his will.

There’s a case to be made for salvation by faith to the exclusion of works in the New Testament, but you won’t find any evidence for it in Matthew.

I was just thinking (a dangerous pastime I know) and something struck me. The Jewish people fled out of Egypt under Moses to escape persecution and slavery while The Holy Family fled into Egypt to escape persecution and Jesus later freed us from the slavery of sin. If I was a smarter person I could draw more meaning, but it just feels significant to me for some reason.

It’s a deliberately drawn parallel. Matthew presents Jesus as a new Moses and this starts with the Massacre of the Innocent (not found in Luke’s nativity account) which parallels Pharaoh’s order to kill all the male Hebrews in Exodus. I read a really good article on this back in my NT class, but that was ages ago and I don’t remember it too well, but iirc, another significant parallel is that Jesus gives five sermons in Matthew (to parallel the five books of Moses).

The Genealogies of Jesus

click here for better resolution

genealogies were often “telescoped” in scripture. sometimes generations were omitted. this was done to keep focus on the most relevant figures. this is why fewer generations are recorded for joseph. the word “son” in terms of biblical genealogies can have multiple meanings: · immediate offspring · grandson / remote descendant · son-in-law · nephew, in the case of Levirate marriage · son of one’s kinsman · step-son

There is literally no reason to think that Luke’s genealogy runs through Mary’s lineage and there are three reasons to think it doesn’t:

The genealogies in Matthew and Luke contradict each other. They do so multiple times in multiple ways. One of the might be accurate, or neither may be accurate, but they cannot both be correct.

A theological clarification-

Joseph and Mary were not refugees. They were responding to a government requirement to make sure they paid their taxes.

When people say “Jesus and his family were refugees”, they’re referring to the flight into Egypt. In that story, Joseph and Mary take the baby Jesus and flee King Herod’s soldiers into Egypt. They live there for a while until Herod dies.

The first occurs in Luke but not in Matthew, the second occurs in Matthew but not in Luke. Neither actually happened.

Abp. Thomas G. Wenski, Archdiocese of Miami (via intrinsicallydisordered)

There is absolutely no reason to think the Flight to Egypt (or the Massacre of the Innocents) happened.

Alright so Matthew 1:1-17 and Luke 3:23-38 both contain genealogies of Jesus and what they’re trying to prove is that Jesus’s lineage can be traced back to certain people such as David and Abraham and Adam in Luke’s case. But in both geneologies they trace the lineage through Joseph even through he had no direct relation to Jesus; he was basically a step-father. The prophesy in Isaiah says that Jesus will be descended from David but unless Mary was descended from David or Joseph was actually the father of Jesus the prophesy wouldnt have been fulfilled. So how can Jesus be a descendant of David when according to the bible (unless i missed something) his lineage is only traced through Joseph?

The Gospels weren’t intended to be works of systematic theology. They were written to prove the legitimacy of Jesus’ claim to be the Messiah, reiterate Jesus’ life and teachings, provide comfort and solace to believing communities, etc.

In some cases, this means interweaving contradictory beliefs about who and what the Messiah must be, as well as interweaving contradictory oral histories about Jesus. Two of these beliefs or oral histories that mattered a lot to Matthew and Luke were that 1) the Messiah must descend patrilineally from David and 2) the Messiah must be born of a virgin.

Of these beliefs, descent from David seems to have been the stronger, because it appears in Romans, Mark, John, II Timothy, and Revelation (and was part of mainstream Jewish beliefs about the Messiah). The virgin birth, found only in Luke and Matthew, comes from a mistranslation of Isaiah into Greek, and was never a mainstream Jewish belief. However, Matthew’s and Luke’s communities seem to have believed in it, and so it too had to be incorporated.

Thus you get both an account of Jesus as a descendant of David through Joseph and Jesus as born of a virgin.

92wordsaday, is that roughly accurate? I’m not an NT scholar by any means.

Does anyone have any good commentary on the passage where Jesus calls the woman a “dog”? That part has always troubled me. 

It shows up in Matthew 15 and Mark 7, but not Luke. Luke was written for a primarily Gentile community whereas Matthew and Mark were written for a mostly Jewish and mixed community respectively. My guess would be that it reflects a view that Israel is God’s chosen, and preferred, community, and that the passage is an attempt to explain why Gentiles are allowed in while still preserving the primacy of Israel.

More generally, the Gospels reflect a mixture of oral traditions, oral histories, theologies, and commentaries. They are not biographical in the modern sense. In other words, don’t assume that the story is reflective on an actual event in Jesus’ life (and likewise, don’t assume it isn’t).

Saturday 13 June 2015

‘Let your word be “Yes, Yes” or “No, No”; anything more than this comes from the evil one.’ Matthew 5. 37 Reflection: There are, of course, times when it is necessary to take an oath. But in general, an honourable person adds nothing by calling on God when they gives their word; and a dishonourable one mocks God by the dishonest invocation of his name.

This verse is why Quakers have historically refused to take oaths and why the Constitution allows presidents and members of congress to affirm into office rather than swear in.

The Census to Collect the Taxes of Quirinius

Turkey (1315-1321)

Mosaic

Chora Church, Istanbul

[Source]

We all know the story of how Mary and Joseph had to travel to Bethlehem on a donkey, don’t we? The Gospel of Luke says it’s because the Romans were carrying out a census:

Unfortunately for anyone who takes the Bible as super-literal truth, this doesn’t quite work out. To paraphrase Wikipedia:

1. This places the birth of Jesus around the time of the census in 6/7 CE, whereas both this Gospel and the Gospel of Matthew, which makes no mention of the census, indicate a birth in the reign of Herod the Great, who died in 4 BCE, at least ten years earlier.

2. No historical sources mention a census of the Roman world which would cover the entire population. Those of Augustus covered Roman citizens only, and it was not the practice in Roman censuses to require people to return to their ancestral homes.

3. As James Dunn wrote: "the idea of a census requiring individuals to move to the native town of long dead ancestors is hard to credit". E. P. Sanders points out that it would have been the practice for the census-takers, not the taxed, to travel, and that Joseph, resident in Galilee, would not have been covered by a census in Judaea.

Thus…

Regarding the symbolic narrative : the census may also have been cooked up as a reason to have Jesus born in Bethlehem, the prophesied birthplace of the Messiah.

And you know what? I’m fine with that. I like symbolic narratives. Religion doesn’t have to be about scripture standing up as unadulterated fact.

Matthew and Luke had a problem. Tradition held both a) Jesus was from Nazareth and b) Jesus was born in Bethlehem. Luke solves it with a census requiring Mary and Joseph to travel from Nazareth to Bethlehem; they return to Nazareth after Jesus is born. Matthew solves it by having Mary and Joseph live in Bethlehem, but flee to Egypt to escape Herod; when they return to Palestine they settle in Nazareth.

Does the escape to Egypt fulfill any prophecies?

No, it's part of Matthew's idea that Jesus is a second Moses. Like Moses Jesus escapes a massacre of infants and eventually comes out of Egypt. Matthew's Jesus also gives five long sermons just as Moses gave Israel five books.

The Census to Collect the Taxes of Quirinius

Turkey (1315-1321)

Mosaic

Chora Church, Istanbul

[Source]

We all know the story of how Mary and Joseph had to travel to Bethlehem on a donkey, don’t we? The Gospel of Luke says it’s because the Romans were carrying out a census:

Unfortunately for anyone who takes the Bible as super-literal truth, this doesn’t quite work out. To paraphrase Wikipedia:

1. This places the birth of Jesus around the time of the census in 6/7 CE, whereas both this Gospel and the Gospel of Matthew, which makes no mention of the census, indicate a birth in the reign of Herod the Great, who died in 4 BCE, at least ten years earlier.

2. No historical sources mention a census of the Roman world which would cover the entire population. Those of Augustus covered Roman citizens only, and it was not the practice in Roman censuses to require people to return to their ancestral homes.

3. As James Dunn wrote: "the idea of a census requiring individuals to move to the native town of long dead ancestors is hard to credit". E. P. Sanders points out that it would have been the practice for the census-takers, not the taxed, to travel, and that Joseph, resident in Galilee, would not have been covered by a census in Judaea.

Thus…

Regarding the symbolic narrative : the census may also have been cooked up as a reason to have Jesus born in Bethlehem, the prophesied birthplace of the Messiah.

And you know what? I’m fine with that. I like symbolic narratives. Religion doesn’t have to be about scripture standing up as unadulterated fact.

Matthew and Luke had a problem. Tradition held both a) Jesus was from Nazareth and b) Jesus was born in Bethlehem. Luke solves it with a census requiring Mary and Joseph to travel from Nazareth to Bathlehem; they return to Nazareth after Jesus is born. Matthew solves it by having Mary and Joseph live in Bethlehem, but flee to Egypt to escape Herod; when they return to Palestine they settle in Nazareth.

santashibe replied to your post: “tsa precheck is the best thing to happen to holiday travel since the…”:

yes

Depends who you ask. Matthew thinks Joseph and Mary were living in Bethlehem when Jesus was born. Luke concocts some completely unbelievable scenario about requiring people to return to the city their ancestors from a thousand years ago lived to be taxed.

Trigger Warning

But did Mary give consent when God knocked her up?

saint-bmo has been discussing this question lately, and can probably say more about it than I can.

In Matthew, Mary barely features in the nativity narrative. All we're told of Mary is that she was found to be with child (Mt 1:18); Joseph is told in a dream that Mary's child is the son of God, but it isn't clear whether Mary knows how she got pregnant.

In Luke, Mary is told that God has chosen her to bear his son, and Mary responds "Let it be according to your word," but the angel never asks her if she is willing, he simply tells her that she is to bear a son. Whether Mary could have refused is ambiguous.

Question: if the first gospel was written by Mark in 70 A.D, then why is Matthew placed first in the New Testament?

The Gospels weren't dated and the Church Fathers mistakenly thought Matthew had been written first.

The Order of Love

The first and greatest commandment is to love God. The second is to love people. Great danger arises from confusing this order.

When we love men more than God, we lose even the true meaning of love. Its foundation is swept away. We reduce it to a mere feeling, with all the attendant malleability of emotions. In our misguided love without obedience to God and His Word, we are in truth without love.

Let’s take a look at Matthew 22:34-40/Mark 12:28-34. Jesus gives two commandments and gives them in that order, but what is he responding to?

Jesus was asked what the greatest commandment was, commandment, singular. But he doesn’t give just one commandment, he gives two and he says they are like each other. The first commandment is to “Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind,” but the second tells you how to do that, by loving your neighbor as yourself.

In truth, Jesus is telling us what the greatest commandment, singular, is here, because the two commandments are identical.

Aggressive reminder that the “goats” who are banished from God’s presence in the parable of the sheep and the goats are sent away not for believing the wrong things but for failing to care for the poor

Equally aggressive reminder that none of the sheep have any idea who this Jesus person is and are really confused when he says they took care of him.