The man Ebionite Peter was in some way at the center of all this. Clement (according to Eusebius) regarded Peter and Cephus as two distinct persons, the finished traditions ultimately fused them. There was a lot of politicking going on among rival sects. The Church Fathers are as it turns out exactly what their name implies.
Christians Encouraged to Read 'Pagan' Works
by peacefulpete 21 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
-
-
TTWSYF
Early Christians were made up of Jews, who had their own variations in sects of paganism infused Judaism. And they added pagans. Everyone else that wasn’t a Jew, was a pagan, and you can’t help but to bring that influence in. Plato, Aristotle? Those guys Had some very rich writing and opinions. It would be a loss not to be familiar with their writings, wouldn’t it?
TTWSYF
-
PioneerSchmioneer
Thanks, Peacefulpete. I appreciate your comments very much as well.
The stories in the New Testament are full of Jewish tropes, having been written by Jews, including Luke. So the stories of the 12 Apostles fits the idea of the Messiah establishing the Davidic monarchy due to the belief that during the Messianic Age the 12 tribes that were dispersed and lost would return and be restored to Israel--but now under Christ's leaders.--Matthew 19:28; Acts 1:6.
Whether or not there were a literal 12 Apostles is hard to say. The narratives in the gospels are hard to reconcile with historical reality. The authors were trying to teach religion like Gamaliel or Hillel, not write like Josephus. This is true even of Luke who composed the Acts of the Apostles.
Luke himself seems to be more of a Jewish convert than a "Gentile," as often claimed by the Watchtower. While it is clear that he was of Gentile birth, it is also clear he knows a lot about Jewish religion--a little too much for a mere Gentile. The first two chapters of his gospel are dripping with Judaism and details about the Temple, even what the inside of it looked like and liturgical details that most non-Jews today don't catch when reading it, such as prayer times during the day and how long preistly service lasted, etc. (Luke 1:8-11, 21, 23) And in Acts he talks about how Peter still keeps kosher and how all the Christians in Jerusalem are doing the same, following the Mosaic Law, even how Paul does this--though Paul keeps some of these details out of his own letters.--Acts 10:13, 14; 18:18; 21:20-26.
Luke, like the other authors, is obviously a Jew, though a convert, and when he writes narrative, it is likely filled with religious overtones, folklore, and the like. Luke 2:1-2 is definitely the employment of the genre of Jewish mythology. Not only do the dates not work for any of the rulers mentioned, nor the events, the Roman government never had a census at this time nor did it have a census where it would make people return to their own hometown to register. Could you imagine the chaos of having the population of the Roman Empire do this? It's a narrative device to set up the story of the "birth of Jesus" so he, a Nazarite, could be born in Bethlehem--an origin story genre similar to the types used in Genesis.
So the same author writing about the Apostles in Acts cannot be leaned upon for modern historical accuracy about what really happened in the first days of the Christian community.
-
joe134cd
The apostle Paul was also well versed in the Greek culture. I guess it shows his versatility in his methods of preaching. In Acts 17:28 he quotes the Greek poets of the time. The apostle Paul was an intellectual, and was certainly not a man confined to the walls of Jerusalem. But most of all he was a man of God.
pioneerschmioneer - Luke was the only Bible writer he was not a Jew. Tradition has it that he was executed in Greece been hung from an olive tree. This may be indicative that he may of been Greek. He also wrote the book of Acts. So basically 20% of the New Testament was authored by a gentile; none Jew.
-
Phizzy
P.S shows in the post above yours, quite clearly, that "Luke" was very likely a convert to Judaism, and then to Christianity according to what he writes.
-
peacefulpete
Step back a bit. Who wrote the Gospels? We have no idea. Nearly unanimously accepted is the model that Mark was written first followed by the redactions Matt and Luke. John might well have been written prior to Luke but within a community somewhat isolated. Anyway, all are anonymous works. The naming convention "The Gospel according to....." makes clear that these titles were assigned by a central highly influential authority not the authors/redactors themselves.
Randel Helms and others make a very compelling argument that Luke/Acts (or some early form of them) was the work of an influential woman. If you pause and look at it the role of women and the inner voice of women is unique in being positive. The author goes so far as to change passages in their source texts to make the men look less favorable and women more so. The choice of naming the author "Luke" is likely as simple as picking a name mentioned in texts as a companion of Paul (Philemon 1:24, no mention of him being a writer) to add to the authenticity/authority after the unique aspects of it had gained popularity. Same for "Mark". Given the misogyny of the majority of the burgeoning orthodoxy, it is understandable the redactor wished to be anonymous.
-
peacefulpete
Back on topic, Augustine and Emperor Constantine himself declared that Virgil was practically a Christian prophet. Virgil's works included the promise that a virgin would birth a son from heaven to rule the world in a golden age. Now much has been said on this topic that might be called, overzealous, however, not appreciating the cultural giants of the day and their role in Christian formulation is a mistake.
-
PioneerSchmioneer
I don't know who literally wrote any of the gospels.
I was discussing contrary to Watchtower doctrine. I thought that in the context of this discussion, as a rule, you, likely did not accept the traditional views that "the apostle Matthew wrote Matthew, etc."
So I wrote that "Luke" is obviously a Gentile convert to Judaism--whether he is the traditional Luke figure, the "divine physician," the Gentile traveling companion of Paul, I don't have that data from the writing.
As for Mark, the latest theory is that it may indeed be "Petrine tradition" as attested to since Q source theory is fading--leaving it later than a primative pre-redacted Matthew (but who was "Mark," I don't know).
I wasn't off topic. Your brain was reading off topic--again.
-
PioneerSchmioneer
I'm leaving this thread with this final post:
I've said it before: we often confuse a certain familiar earmark of the Watchtower for "Watchtowerism" itself, and when we leave that type of belief system, when we see it elsewhere, we attack it, no matter where we see it, in whomever we see it.
If the Watchtower served us its cult teachings via the medium of banana splits, we might mistakenly tell everyone how "evil" banana splits were, calling everyone who enjoyed them fools and jumping on any study that criticized the ingredients of banana splits with praise.
In reality, banana splits are innocent fun. A cult can take any medium and twist it to do its bidding--including religion and a holy text.
The fact that I became a teacher of religion and have taught critical textual studies does not mean that I also taught that religion and holy texts of any kind are evil, including Christianity or the Bible. Religion in itself can be good. The Bible is not evil nor necessarily incorrect in what it tries to teach, though it is a product of its time.
What happens to people who leave the JWs is that they don't tend to shred the fear of the Governing Body and the elders and those who taught them their religion. So they invent targets that have nothing to do with what happened to them. Instead of blaming people that deserve the blame, we blame a thing that can't defend itself.
You can't blame a banana split, even though many of its ingredients are, to be honest, artificial. It's yummy.
I will leave you with the following to explain, even though it comes from a Catholic source. It's pretty smart, as it talks about the limits of critical study:
Pseudepigraphy is the common ancient practice of attributing texts to a popular figure in order to assert authority, honor a legacy, or build on someone else’s work. Consider the Ripley’s Believe it or Not franchise. While the original author, Robert Ripley, has been dead for decades, the brand retains his name to assure audiences that his work lives on. Or consider Caleb Weatherbee, the eternal fictional weatherman from the Farmer’s Almanac. If copies of this almanac are analyzed thousands of years from now, someone likely might posit the existence of a historical Caleb. Those of you who are fans of The Princess Bride will recall that the legendary Dread Pirate Roberts was later revealed to be not one person but several people who carried on his legacy, since no one would have feared or respected names such as “Wesley” or “Cummerbund.” Ancient Judaism and early Christianity were constantly threatened by heterodox works like the Book of Enoch and the Gospel of Thomas. To establish legitimacy, the leading authorities of the time often attributed their texts to legendary figures like Moses....
I fondly recall convincing my little cousin to eat broccoli because it was what gave Yoda from Star Wars his strength (and color). Similarly, Santa Clause is an excellent conduit for teaching children the virtue of justice, and George Washington’s ahistorical chopping of the cherry tree teaches them honesty. Children, who are vastly imaginative, craft impressive lore to understand the world, just as our pagan ancestors did when theologizing about God. If Christ had made Himself known to the Buddhist tradition, I guarantee that he would have invoked its mythical figures to teach His commandments, but God chose to reveal Himself to the Jewish tradition, which means Christ had to speak to His people by invoking their beloved characters, both historical and legendary.
Christ was given the impossible task of translating perfect, immutable, divine laws into fallible, changing human language. His words are strictly analogous to a perfect and infinitely beautiful theological reality that goes beyond the limits of human vocabulary. This is likely why He spoke in so many parables. These stories conceal matters of faith and morals, regardless of their historicity. We do not care about who the Prodigal Son was or if he really lived. We are only concerned by how his story impacts our faith journeys. Americans have traditionally portrayed our founders as idealized caricatures, even if they were flawed human beings. When we teach our children to be like George Washington, we refer to George Washington the legendary symbol of strength, grace, and humility, not George Washington the historical owner of slaves. Likewise, Christ calls us to emulate Moses the myth, the beloved caricature constructed from generations of reflection and theologizing, not Moses the man.--Who Wrote the Bible? Three Catholic Perspectives on Biblical Authorship, Clarifying CatholicismDon't get angry or hurt when someone mentions a fact about religion or the Bible that does not sit well with you once you left the Watchtower. It is not the fault of religion or the Bible that the Watchtower screwed you over. The medium used by a cult is not the problem. The cult did it to you. A cult is people.
A banana split is not people...unless you are thinking of those Sid and Marty Krofft characters (but they were just people in suits). Even if you got a banana split painfully smushed into your face, you can't be mad at it. Someone had to put it there.
-
peacefulpete
P.S. I was returning my comments to the topic. Your comments have been wonderful and insightful. Regarding the conventions of using "Mark, Luke, Matt" etc when talking about the authors, I do as well. My point wasn't a critique. Simply adding it to the discussion assuming someone else might be reading.