titus 1:12,13 from the nasb .
one of themselves, a prophet of their own, said, "cretans are always liars, evil beasts, lazy gluttons.
" this witness is true.
Even if not the case, there should still be room for both irony (at a more literal reading) and hyperbole (at a more rhetorical reading).
Our choices then are irony, hyperbole, or error, or some combination therein.Who says textual criticism can't be fun?!
i read the draw close to jehovah book because a jehovahs witness told me that it had some ?deep?
spiritual information in it.
the book appears, at first glance, to be all about knowing jehovah god and his attributes.
Sirona, your analysis is excellent. The entire presupposition behind a book entitled "Draw Close to Jehovah" is that either a) the author(s) know the answer because they have indeed done such already, or b) by "Jehovah" is meant "Watchtower." You already figured out that the institutionalized working for the writing committee and the FDS have no clue what drawing closer to God really means or entails, so then it must be choice b). I suspect that the book is written using a different structure because it is an empty discussion otherwise, in that the theology of the WT is elitist and exclusive, rather than accessible and inclusive, the very essences of what a universal understanding of God engenders. Having nothing left to write about God, Watchtower's primacy is all that's left.
i'd like to get a sense of the scholars any of you out there appreciate most and who's hot right now (in the academic fields!)...
i always liked burton mack myself.
well, who would you love to meet?
Yes I think Matthew's Jesus to be right up there with Luke's Jesus, refreshing yet terrifying. Mark's Jesus gets hungry, tired, cranky, like any wonder worker I suppose: ah but it's a living. John's Jesus is a little ectoplasmic, talks incessantly, and does weird things like walk through walls: that would be the most disconcerting Jesus. Thomas's Jesus and Peter's Jesus are a little more esoteric, but Infancy Narrative Gospel of Thomas's Jesus was to be avoided at all costs!
So, like a cantankerous and stodgy member of AAR/SBL, Kazantzakis's Jesus of his own last temptation would surely upbraid all of today's "modern" scholars for "exacting the tenth of the rue and the cumin" of their own little niche in scholarship, while obviously overlooking the big picture.
from the perspective of a uk observer it seems to me that the divide between 'the world' as it is in conservative heartlands of the us, and the mindset of the jehovah's witness is getting narrower by the day.. is there really a big difference between a jw and a majority of people in such places?
in the newspaper today i read how the new film alexander was being slated for showing alexander the great as a bisexual.
the uk independent reported that one online critic has warned christians that are considering seeing the film to "speak to your pastors immediately because satan is attempting to enter your mind".
Spider I think the point of your question was that it must seem that the evangelical fundamentalist mindset and the JW mindset are seemingly converging, given the colored media coverage of present American politics. While it may seem like this is true, in fact U.S. JWs have always been more uptight about everything than the rest of the world's JWs, where cultural tendencies are given more leeway. (Of course, doctrinally there is not room to budge, as you know.) For example, in the late seventies men in the U.K. congregations freely wore groomed beards, although it was unlikely they would have had a position of responsibility (elder or MS), whereas in the U.S., the fashion and grooming police were everywhere! A beard would have resulted in some sharp looks and ultimately a serious talking to. In Africa, men routinely do not wear ties and coats, whereas these are de rigueur in the U.S., again, because of cultural differences. I'm not sure if these have the moral overtone you describe in your question, but ultimately, JWs have in fact been playing both sides of the "no part of the world" equation for quite some time now. While they don't want to look or seem "worldly," most of the men dress (usually) in lowbrow cheap suits and ties, while those that don't look like lower to middle end management. The women likewise are encouraged to wear the equivalent of "business attire." Yet, for all the cleancut appearance and honest Charlie stance, Witnesses are supposed to take firm stands which make them pariahs in the right context: not saluting the flag, refusing blood transfusions, not saying 'bless you' when someone sneezes...ok, the last one is a little stretched, but you get the point. JWs aren't sure whether to be invisible sometimes or not, but insofar as they are not politically vocal, they are distinguishable from their evangelical, Jesus' gushing, Bible thumping counterparts.
titus 1:12,13 from the nasb .
one of themselves, a prophet of their own, said, "cretans are always liars, evil beasts, lazy gluttons.
" this witness is true.
Hi Googlemagoogle,
Well, I see your point, but the essence is just that Epimenides' statement MUST BE FALSE from a logical perspective. It is not a real paradox, only it can't be true so long as their is even only one truthful Cretan, and that would be Epimenides according to the author of Titus! This isn't the first time there is a logical inconsistency in the Biblical texts. Consider the words ascribed to Jesus at John 15:19:
"If you were of the world, the world would love its own; but because you are not of the world, but I chose you out of the world, because of this the world hates you."
Let W represent you are part of the world, Let L represent the world Loves you.
the first part of the statement says, If W ----------> L; the second half says If NOT W --------------> NOT L. Put simply, that is indefensible logically. If I said If I hit a glass with a hammer, then it will break, it does not lead to the conclusion that If I don't hit a glass with a hammer, it won't break, because it could break for another reason. THe only thing demonstrable is the contrapositive, which would be, If a glass is not broken, I did not hit it with a hammer. Thus the contrapositive of Jesus' purported statement would be, If the world does not love you, then you are not part of the world. Yet the second half of the verse seems to suggest that the world hates you because of your not being a part of it. That is backwards. We only know the result, or consequence when you are not loved, because that must mean you are no part of the world. The verse seems to trip over itself midsentence in its illogic. And, as you say, the author of Titus thought he was pretty slick, probably, also, only to create a necessarily false assertion.
No one ever said wisdom ascribed to Jesus or Paul had to be logical, did they? Worldly wisdom anyway....
titus 1:12,13 from the nasb .
one of themselves, a prophet of their own, said, "cretans are always liars, evil beasts, lazy gluttons.
" this witness is true.
Titus 1:12,13 from the NASB
One of themselves, a prophet of their own, said, "Cretans are always liars, evil beasts, lazy gluttons." This witness is true. Wherefore rebuke them sharply, that they may be sound in the faith;
Does the author of Titus not just get the paradox here, or the intended one, or is this a case of PseudoPauline hyperbole?
The paradox is easy; credited to Epimenides, it goes,
Of course, the same web page shows an interesting solution to the paradox, but notwithstanding, either the author of Titus does not understand this paradox or is using an unusual hyperbole to make a point, or, more strangely, understands the solution to the "paradox."
I thought of this when we were discussing outside sources quoted as prophecy or inspired text. Is Epimenides inspired? How did this paradox sneak in?
I would like to know your opinion as to whether the author of Titus does or does not understand the paradox, and your speculation on what impact such a text being quoted in a pseudepigraphical epistle of the early second century would have had on the fledgling churches. Perhaps it reveals the "Hellenistic gulf," between that which were imports from Hellenistic thought and that which was Eastern in origin. I would contend that the real Paul would have grasped the paradox, but that the author of Titus apparently does not. Could this be a clue into the situs of the composition of Titus?
.
what do the wtbts / jws think this means ?
"when the unclean spirit has gone out of a man, he passes through waterless places seeking rest; and finding none he says, `i will return to my house from which i came.
The issue is one of literal spirit possession, which in the context of the words of Jesus as exorcist make complete sense. In the context of Jesus as moral guide they seem less clear, or rather the analogy becomes stretched, when you become aware that JWs interpret it to mean that a person is in a vacuum-like state if they have not filled their bodies with the "soul" of pure worship, i.e. the body is a temple. The reason this does not make sense from a JW perspective is that it seems to acknowledge possession while rejecting (in other dogma) the notion of soul/body dichotomy. Yet, the problem of God's breath (ru'ach) persists, and this apparently goes into and out of people freely when they're alternately alive or dead, while yet an individualized soul does not exist. But think about this...if everyone is endowed with God's ru'ach while living, it isn't God's ru'ach which is being corrupted/overtaken by the unclean spirit, is it? If not that, then what?
In Jewish thinking of the first century, unclean spirits are apparently vying with their clean counterparts like battling swarms of locusts to inhabit people's bodies, and if you're corrupt on the inside (cf. Jesus' analogy of the Pharisees to white-washed graves) then it's as if you have a "For Rent" sign on your body for the demons! Unclean spirits were likely used to explain common tragic human woes, like mental illness, etc. Clearly, the depressed were not memorizing enough Scriptures!
i've read claims (mentioning origen) that jude 9 would be a quote from the "assumption of moses", also known as the "testament of moses".
however, i can't find any reference in this pseudepigraphical writing that would even losely have a connection to a fight between michael the archangel and the devil.
what i also find confusing, that the "book of jubilees" is sometimes called "testament of moses" too, but that's a whole different story.
Before anyone rushes out and lays down $120 on the Brill critical text with commentary on the Testament of Moses, try to obtain it through your local or university library interlibrary loan. I did that with a Brill critical text on Genesis 18-19 (from the local library!) and in two weeks had what I wanted. Of course, it's nice to own a nice library of important pricey works, but these texts are budget busters sometimes, and Brill is one of the priciest.
The Didymus quote seems to pertain to how both Elijah and Moses were bodily transformed ("metamorphosized") by God.
I don't see Isaiah mentioned.
I also think that Severus' interpretation of the term "body of Moses" he feels pertains to the religious corpus, or the people, Israel. That's not uncommon to make a Philonic extrapolation, especially with the intertestamental literature. Ultimately, what is Jude's point in referring to this?
The issue was one of hierarchical authority in the Jude text, but I just realized you weren't asking about that!:-)
i'd like to get a sense of the scholars any of you out there appreciate most and who's hot right now (in the academic fields!)...
i always liked burton mack myself.
well, who would you love to meet?
I'm sure this board is full of master debaters and cunning linguists...
edited to add
I don't know of any fallacious Joe's on the board though...
i'd like to get a sense of the scholars any of you out there appreciate most and who's hot right now (in the academic fields!)...
i always liked burton mack myself.
well, who would you love to meet?
ok jgnat I'll toot my own horn and say that I should be included with Leolaia and Narkissos, I too have a Hebrew, Greek and Latin pedigree, so, may I say, I'd be happy to me you! I can hold my own with the linguists if I have to!
