Loading...In this post I would like to address some questions I have received about blog “comments” and in so doing reaffirm the blog’s policies and procedures.
As all of you know, blog members at the Silver, Gold, or Platinum level are allowed to make comments on posts and respond to comments of others. The limit is 200 words for a comment and only two per day are allowed. These limits are designed to help commenters keep their remarks direct and on point, and to make the entire enterprise manageable for the one person who manages them (yours truly).
A lot of the comments the posts invoke involve a question for me and I try to respond to each and every one. Since we began the blog in 2012 we have had over 112,000 comments and I have written some 37,000 responses. Ouch.
Most of the time, commenters give a remark or reflection on a particular post. You can ALWAYS do so on an old post, no problem. I’ll post it/answer it no matter how old the post. EVEN MORE: if you simply have a random question or comment, simply attach it to any post you want, whether it is relevant to what you want to say/ask or not.
Since its inception, the blog has had two requests of every comment. Actually, these are not just requests; let’s consider them requisites (!).
- First is that comments be polite and respectful of others. I realize that is not an etiquette generally well served on the Internet as a whole, which, it seems to me, originally took its approach to civil conversation from the old Saturday Night Live Weekend Update (Dan Ackroyd!) (For those of you from my generation). But on this blog, at least, I want people to be able to express their views without being attacked for being idiots or miscreants, and so I don’t post comments that (seem to me) a bit (or a lot) snarky, rude, or overly personal.
- Second is that the comments be relevant to the guiding concerns of the blog and its members, the understanding of the New Testament and early Christianity in non-sectarian, historical, and literary ways. I think everyone has the right to believe and think whatever they want; but for the purposes of the blog, I want us to stick to literary/historical views. For that reason, I don’t post comments that are overtly political or religiously proselytizing (fundamentalist or Free Spirit; Muslim or Mormon; Buddhist or Bahai. I try to be even-handedly even-handed).
The problem with these two requisites, of course, is that deciding when someone has crossed the line is a subjective business. On the other hand, since I am personally a subject (as well as an object), hey, I’m qualified to be subjective. But I will be the first to acknowledge (though not the first to point out) that sometimes inappropriate remarks slip through the cracks, and some (other) times I judge badly. But my intent is to keep the blog courteous, respectful, and focused on our mutual concerns.
Finally, sometimes members have asked about comments that don’t get approved right away, and I know that can be frustrating. To be transparent: my practice is to review post comments five days a week. Sometimes I do more than that, but hardly ever less. BUT, there are occasions when a comment requires me to think more than usual, or to look something up that’s not already stored in my head when I’m not around my books, and if so, then it may take a couple of days. And sometimes I simply miss one. Sorry ‘bout that. But as a one-time committed Calvinist, I’ve never said I was perfect.
In any event, if you have posted a comment and wondered why it hasn’t appeared, you may want to re-read it and see if was respectful and relevant. If that’s clearly not a problem, just send a note to Support (Click Help) and just ask what’s gotten into me lately…
I hope these comments on comments help. I think it’s a terrifically useful feature of the blog, and hope those of you who participate in making or reading them do as well. As always, if you have suggestions, do let me know. As long as the suggestion is not to allow more and longer comments. 😊
After several years of reading your posts, I did not know you were a Calvinist. It seems so severe and devoid of hope. Is it? What is the basis for predestination and election?
Well, there are lots of bases, from biblical verses such as Romans 8:30 to theological logic: If God knows everything he is never surprised; it he is ultimately Sovereign he controls history and the future; that means that he is ultimately in control of salvation. INcluding yours and mine. I”m not saying a hold to the view, but there is certainly a lot of support for it given by proponents. YOu should read some of the defenses of it some time! THere’s a lot there.
I’ve heard it argued that God is timeless, and that God’s knowing what happens at some point in human experience does not mean that it had to have happened, just as historians are not determining history by knowing that some historical event happened. But all this presumes a theistic God, which leaves unanswered your question of how a good God could allow bad things to happen. But what about a non-theistic God? Am I misreading your many comments about “God” which seem to presume a theistic God? Perhaps you are just saying that the sources you are studying thought God was theistic, and there is no evidence of belief in a non-theistic God in those days.
Yes, I’m talking about a theistic God. I don’t think there’s any evidence for any other kind either; and if one did exist, I’m not sure why it would be relevant or a matter of concern? Though I know lots of people are concerned!
I don’t think there is “evidence” regarding spiritual matters; each person’s “truth” is based on their personal experience that cannot be duplicated or scientifically compared. But there are those who reject the idea of a theistic god, yet look for some overarching framework for understanding our universe. There are a number of liberal, humanistic Christians, some who refer to “the ground of our being” and some who define “God” as the power of love that infuses everything. Personally, I think it is possible that the universe could have been a static, fixed, unchanging reality, frozen in amber. But it obviously is not — everything at every scale ultimately changes. If pressed, I could name this change-power “God.” I find the scope of what change has wrought to be awe-inspiring and, for us humans, a great blessing. And the fact that the outcome of change is not always predictable offers hope of change for the better. (Could Jerry Seinfeld have been predicted from the formation of the first carbon atom?) I do not think of this as a spiritual truth, because the universality of change can be verified. Whether it “works” for someone else is a different matter.
Have you ever considered the concept of God that would be consistent with the gold standard of Physics, Quantum Theory?
In his final book ‘Brief answers to the Big Questions’, Professor Stephen Hawking contrasted Einstein’s dictum that “God does not throw dice”, with his own observation: “all the evidence is that God is quite a gambler. The Universe is like a giant casino, with dice being rolled, or wheels being spun, on every occasion.”
I agree with Dr Hawking. However, I believe that ‘God’ does not throw dice. ‘God’ built ‘The House’, ‘God’ set the odds, and then ‘God’ gave us the dice. ‘God’ lets us throw them as often as we choose, as no matter how many times we throw them, as ‘God’ knows, ‘The House’ will always win.
‘God’ would not have to know each individual outcome because he knows all possible outcomes. Also, the ‘Many Worlds Interpretation’ of Quantum Theory would provide an elegant Theodicy.
“But as a one-time committed Calvinist, I’ve never said I was perfect.”
As I understand it, Catholics reject the Calvinist teaching of “Total depravity”
but believe in Original Sin. Other Christians reject the doctrine of Original Sin
but would never claim to be perfect. It would be nice to have more posts
on such differences between Christian denominations, or differences
between Christianity and other religions.
By the way, my impression is that you are doing a great job handling comments here.
THanks. IN that case I better post yours. 🙂
I use my comments to ask questions. A lot of times I am bouncing ideas off you just to see if I am on the right track. It’s nice to have a biblical scholar at your finger tips to ask those questions about which I have always wondered but never found the answer to in the books that I have read. I wish that I had that resource for questions in other subjects in which I am interested.
It may also be useful to know that the limitations on comments (both in number and word-count) were initially suggested to Bart by commenters.
Commenters who make suggestions almost always want unlimited numbers of comments and unlimited numbers of words; actually they tend to complain rather htan suggest. 🙂 And originally that’s how we started out. But I had to cut back when the powers that be would not provide me with more hours in the day.
So, a Criterion of Dissimilarity, of sorts–the less popular the comment, the more credible?
I”m not sure what you mean by “popular.” But often the less “expert” comments are the most intriguing and interesting.
Do you ever get threats? Like threats that someone will do something to you in *this* life, not that you’ll go to Hell.
Not often. THough sometimes on speaking gigs I’ve been provided with security. And my wife often says I”m gonna get shot….
200 words is a bit light to answer some of the involved questions people pose. I would prefer a 250 word limit.
I know, I know. When I had a 300 word limit people pled for a 400 word limit (!). And almost always when there was a 300 word comment, it could EASILY have been edited into 200 words, without loss of sense. It’s a good skill to acquire, or at least so I tell my student. ANd ey, 200 is better than 1! (Each comment: “What?” “Why?” “How?” or “NUTS!”)
My college roommate attended a physics research conference where speakers were given TWO MINUTES to present their papers. Physicists: true masters of succinctitude!!
Now THAT’S a great word!
Being able to ask the best early Christianity Professor in the world (okay I’m being subjective too 🙂) questions (sometimes from thousands of miles away) and get answers within a day or two is just absolutely brilliant and worth every penny of the Blog membership fee. And if I weren’t a cheap-skate I’d upgrade right now. (I am considering it though- seriously).
It’s like heaven: the higher you go, the more perks you get.
Yes, more perks and that is why St. Paul mentions a “third heaven.” “I knew a man in Christ above fourteen years ago, (whether in the body, I cannot tell; or whether out of the body, I cannot tell: God knoweth;) such an one caught up to the third heaven.”
“And I knew such a man, (whether in the body, or out of the body, I cannot tell: God knoweth;) 2 Co. 12:2 – 3
In the ancient Sanatana-dharma tradition, they also talk about a “third heaven.” Yogananda mentions it and calls it the causual world.
“… still higher (than the astral or “heaven” of Christians) is the unconditioned existence of almost completely liberated souls in the causal world, who eat nothing save the manna of bliss.”
Yogananda, Paramahansa. Autobiography of a Yogi (p. 299). Wilder Publications, Inc.. Kindle Edition.
Sanatana-dharma is the oldest religion in the world. It is based upon the collection of spiritual laws discovered by Rishis thousands of years ago.
Bart, Thanks for the clarification.
No doubt the comments are the 2nd best part of the blog. Really wish more members to members interaction alongside your participation as it will enhance learning for all of us.
Hats off to you for keeping the mood light and entertaining alongside serious scholarship.
Hope it remains the same.
Great! Thanks. YOu may want to check out the Members Forum, which is all about members interacting with each other without my participation.
Hmmm possibly personal question. Besides being a Calvinist, was Creationism something that your Conservative Evangelicalism supported?
I’m still trying to gauge the influence creationism has in modern western evangelical Christianity.
Absolutely!
Thought I’d ask a question here because not sure where to actually ask it.
In translating the bible, or even early related texts, are there words that we have no translation for? Words that even today we have no idea what was meant? I’d be curious to know how many are in the old and new testament. I would think it not a very long list but there must be some.
Thanks!
YEs indeed! A lot more from the Hebrew Bible. That’s because ancient Hebrew is known *only* from these texts, and so if a word occurs only once in them, it sometimes takes a bit of guess work to know what it meant. It is not pure guess-work, though: scholars see how the word was used in otehr ancient near eastern languages that have numerous similarities to Hebrew (Ugaritic, Akkadian, etc). It obviously takes a highly skilled and trained semitic linguist to pull this off. In the NT we’re better off because we have so *much* Greek literature that we pretty much know what virtually all the words mean. But there are some exceptions, including important ones, such as the word that frequently gets translated as “homosexual.” There actually was no word in Greek for what we think of as “homosexual” today; the Greek word ARSENOKOITES has to be understood in light of its etymology (male-sex act) and its usage in later contexts (e.g., one scholar has pointd out that it is often listed with “economic” sins; so is it referring to male prostitution instead of simply all same-sex acts among males?)
As a gay man, that Greek word caught my attention. Published by an MCC group.
https://www.stopbibleabuse.org/biblical-references/paul/arsenokoites.html
I had several posts on homosexuality in the Bible (some of which ruffled feathers), which you may want to look up via a word search on the blog.
I mostly have questions completely unrelated to the blog post I’m replying to, often about my arguments with fundamentalists and all the obscure points they bring up.
It’s extremely helpful to be able to ask an actual scholar a question and get a prompt response. The scholarship around the Bible is incredibly interesting to me. It’s a piece of scripture thought of as the inerrant word of God by billions, and that makes its convoluted and very human origins all the more interesting. I’ve always been a bit of a history nerd, but I’m seriously considering going into Biblical scholarship, largely because of you. Decided to buy one of your books, and then I found your debates, and later this blog.
I won’t name names, but after spending the better part of your life becoming one of the leading scholars on the New Testament, isn’t it somewhat frustrating to have someone come on the blog and tell you that you have gotten virtually everything wrong and that you really don’t understand the message of the New Testament? Or maybe you can just laugh at things like that.
Yeah, I usually just laugh — either on the blog or off. Experts in the field often disagree with me, and often on fundamental things; but I”ve never any of them (or heard *of* them) say I didn’t have a clue what I was talking about. Just that I was, well, wrong….
As a person who also has a blog with many comments, (and a group of volunteers who review them)and as a person who sometimes doesn’t get comments approved expeditiously I think you are doing an amazing job!!!
The two hundred word thing I have found to be helpful in both improving my own writing and encouraging me to read what others have written, because neither I nor they go on and on.
Actually, none of my volunteers reviews comments. It’s just little ole me….
Quote: This isn’t simply the approach of “liberal” Bible professors. It’s the way historians always date sources. If you find a letter written on paper that is obviously 300 years old or so, and the author says something about the “United States” — then you know it was written after the Revolutionary War. So too if you find an ancient document that describes the destruction of Jerusalem, then you know it was written after 70 CE. It’s not rocket science! But it’s also not “liberal.” It’s simply how history is done. If someone wants to invent other rules, they’re the ones who are begging questions!
Can I receive a formal confirmation that you have actually written this? It has been lost somewhere in comments and I cannot find it again. It is important because I quoted it inside Wikipedia and needs a source.
The first part sounds like something I would have said. The second part not so much. BUt I sometimes do say things that are phrased more strongly than I would typically phrase them (unless it’s over drinks). Are you quoting this from one of my comments? Then yes, that’s what I said. If I did, I was stressing the point “describes.” THat is, if you have an account that refers in some detail to airplanes striking the Twin Towers, then the account was certainly written after 9/11, even if it is phrased as a prophecy.
I appreciate your clarifications. As someone born with an especially large snark-bone, I find it difficult to ask questions that are entirely snark-free, and I admit I have been puzzled when it takes a few days for my questions to pass muster and get posted. Probably, I was being snarkier than I realized, or possibly as a lifelong hardcore atheist I tend to find certain core beliefs of Christianity so ridiculous that I can’t easily phrase questions about them that are entirely snarkless. But I will endeavor to extend politeness to my phrasing in the future. Thanks for your generosity in addressing this issue.
I get it. WHen I moved to the South the biggest shock was that my cynical sarcasm did not go down here. “That just ain’t POLITE….”
Have you ever written about Jesus’s prayer life? Since prayers are internal, there probably can be no historical evidence. But the Gospels are full of references to Jesus praying. Do you find any clues to what praying meant to Jesus — petitions, gratitude, mystical communion, reflection, guidance, adoration, meditation, etc.
YEs, he prays a lot, esp. in Luke’s Gospel (it’s a standard motif there). In the Gspels he intercedes to God, thanks God, petitions God. He certainly never prays for forgiveness! BUt he teaches his disciples to do so, and to request that the kingdom come soon.
YEs, he prays a lot, esp. in Luke’s Gospel (it’s a standard motif there). In the Gspels he intercedes to God, thanks God, petitions God. He certainly never prays for forgiveness! BUt he teaches his disciples to do so, and to request that the kingdom come soon.
You have delved deeply into what the followers of Jesus thought about his divinity. Have you delved into what they thought about his humanity? Was he a human body with a divine mind? Did he have a rull range of human emotions (including fear, regret, willfulness, etc.? Did he have limitations on his wisdom, knowledge of outcomes, etc.? Obviously, I am struggling with the question of how could Jesus be simultaneously human and divine.
Yes, I’ve dealt with that, but the reality is that the earliest CHristians provide us with no speculations on what became central issues. What you’re discussing very much came to the fore in the fourth century and later, leading to all sorts of heresies and opinions, Arianism, Nestorianism, Apollinarianism, etc. IT gets quite involved. You might want to look up the book The Christological Controversies by Norris and Rusch.