Stephen said Polygamy?  Really? That’s the beef you have against Prof Ehrman?

Well i have some questions for YOU but I don’t have time right now unfortunately.  Maybe later this evening.

On polygamy…

In context Deut 17 is not saying what you think it’s saying.  The proscription is against excess.  Don’t have too many wives, not that the King can’t have multiple wives.  Just like he shouldn’t have too many horses and too much silver and gold. (It’s all property see.)

Lev 18:18 is about family relations not a general principle about polygamy. Don’t do your wife and her sister. (Still good advice!)

Then there’s Deut 21:15 which actually regulates the practice and provides for offspring resulting from such relations.

Then of course see 2 Samuel 12: 8!

Polygamy was endemic to these ancient patriarchal Iron Age tribal cultures.  It never occurred to them to forbid it.  As I said, women were property.  Having a big family and lots of wives was a sign of God’s favor.  

You are simply wrong on the Deuteronomy 17 front. It is too narrow. You have not responded to the scholars (especially AJ Köstenberger, ME Köstenberger, and DW Jones) who say that Deuteronomy 17 commandment regarding not multiplying wives appears to be against polygamy, the behaviour of multiplying the number of wives beyond one without the heart to serve YHWH by caring for relative widows in one’s context. So Levirate marriage not to be considered with ‘polygamy’ as YHWH understands it since it is intended to be done in order to serve YHWH not gain advantage (e.g. pleasure, and satisfaction of ungodly desire) for oneself. These scholars I referred to above do mention Deuteronomy 21:15 but I skipped over the references with ellipses (…). Are the scholars I cited wrong? Don’t they represent the consensus of scholarship on the topic? For Deuteronomy 21:15 and more information, I would recommend another excellent scholar Copan (2011, p. 114, emphasis mine, words in square brackets mine) who states that

‘ ‘”If a man has two wives …” is an an example of case law. It doesn’t necessarily endorse a practice gives guidance for when a particular situation arises. For example: Exodus 22:1 states, “If a man steals an ox or a sheep and slaughters it or sells it, he shall pay five oxen for the ox and four for the sheep.” This law isn’t advocating stealing! It offers guidance in an unfortunate circumstance – namely when a theft takes place … The Old Testament makes clear the ideal built into creation. In Genesis 2:24, note the singular “wife” as well as “father and mother.” Leviticus 18:18 expresses strong disapproval for polygamy … The biblical writers hoped for better behavior … The Old Testament presents polygamy as not only undesirable but also a violation of God’s standards. Old Testament narratives subtly critique this marital arrangement. God warns the one most likely to be polygamous – Israel’s king: “He shall not multiply wives for himself, or else his heart will turn away” (Deut. 17:17). God himself models covenant love for his people; this ideal union of marital faithfulness between husband and wife [note: not wives] is one without competition. ‘

Apologies for the wall of text.

You are wrong that it never occurred to the originator of the Law of Moses to prohibit polygamy. The Law of Moses does. The Law of Moses is about not being like the other cultures you are speaking of after all. Why are there so many commands for committing such and such (people and their ways) to utter destruction? Because allowing ways which are not YHWH’s ways to flourish among YHWH’s people will obstruct YHWH’s people from seeing YHWH’s way and living YHWH’s way. Polygamy was one thing they were to commit to utter destruction otherwise it would cause them to go astray, and kings were particularly vulnerable with how much influence and power they have to go beyond having just the one wife YHWH commanded for Israelite kings to have (Deuteronomy 17:17). Kings also want peace for the nation they are in charge of, and marrying to do gain peace can be a temptation if the are such opportunities. This, and more, is why the condemnation of polygamy with the punishment for disobedience of exile is so strong.

Obviously singleness or having just one wife would be obeying Deuteronomy 17:17 to the fullest extent. Israelite kings would have been leaving themselves open to God’s condemnation if they didn’t obey the Law of Moses to the fullest extent. They shouldn’t have been looking for the minimum way to fulfill the Law of Moses but the maximum way. If an Israelite king has just one wife or is single they are clearly not multiplying wives. Similarly not having slaves would be obeying the Law of Moses in regards to the owning of slaves and the treatment of one’s own slaves to the fullest extent because if someone doesn’t have slaves the case laws regarding treatment of slaves one owns wouldn’t apply to them. If someone does have slaves, then treating them better than even how employers in the 21st century treat their employees would be how to obey the Law of Moses to the fullest extent. There is nothing in the Law of Moses which prohibits treating slaves better than 21st century employers treat their employees. In fact this seems to be what is encouraged (not having slaves, or treating them better than 21st century employers treat their employees [including paying them what they deserve for the work that they do and the time they spend doing it, and ensuring that they have a safe and secure working environment]). Having laws regulating a practice is an incentive not engage in the practice at all. That way there are less laws to worry about.

(I don’t drive a motor vehicle or have a license to drive a motor vehicle. I only walk or use public transportation. I can say that I am obeying Sydney and Australian laws and regulations for driving motor vehicles to the fullest extent. If I do eventually choose to get a license to drive a motor vehicle and a motor vehicle it would be much harder to obey the law to the fullest extent because then I would have to obey so many more laws and regulations. But then the fully obeying the Sydney and Australian law would involve not breaking any driving and motor vehicle laws or regulations such as by always driving slower than the maximum speed at which you can drive if there are speed limits, not using your hands for text messaging while driving, and wearing seat belts.)

Of course polygamy was endemic in those ancient cultures such as the culture of the Ancient Israelites. Why was it endemic in the Ancient Israelite culture? Because YHWH’s people were disobedient and took on the behaviour of the Ancient Near Eastern nations around them (and failed to abandon a behaviour they took up) contrary to the law given by YHWH to Moses. It was one of the many reasons YHWH eventually judged them by tearing the united monarchy into two nations and then exile.

I’m pretty sure the consensus of scholarship is that the ideal for marriage according to the the biblical writers is between one biological male and one biological female. And that any sexual relationship outside the bounds of a marriage between the marriage of one biological male and one biological female is a departure from the ideal. And that any sexual behaviour outside the bounds of a marriage between the marriage of a one biological male and one biological female is to miss the mark in terms of living in the ‘fear of the Lord/YHWH’ (Acts chapter 9 verse 31; cf. Proverbs chapter 14 verse 26) who is Jesus of Nazareth (Acts chapter 9 verse 31 is using the phrase found in Proverbs 14:26 and elsewhere in Hebrew Scriptures for YHWH and referring to Jesus). That includes both polygamous sexual relationships of every sort and same sex sexual relationships of every sort. Again, Levirate marriage is not applicable, and rightly not condemned, because it is intended to be done in order to serve YHWH in a world full of suffering by caring for widows who would be in hard times. But there would be no widows in an ideal world. That is message of Job (‘All of us are born of women, have few days, and are full of turmoil.’, Job chapter 14 verse 1, ** you do not have permission to see this link **) as illustrated well by the beginning of the tale found in the book of Ruth.

Not that this would mean much to you but I’ve already asked my church pastor (who has received education at an Australian Christian theological college) and he agrees with me that those words in Ehrman’s book are wrong, and that Deuteronomy chapter 17 verse 17 should be interpreted as condemning Solomon’s polygamy along with Deuteronomy chapter 28 verse 36 as clear punishment of exile against for Israelite kings who practice polygamy condemned earlier in the book. Obviously, I recognise a level of mercy was shown to Solomon which meant that in the narrative YHWH didn’t sent Solomon himself into exile.

On 2 Samuel chapter 12 verse 8, where else would they go? Do Saul’s one wife (‘Saul’s wife was Ahinoam’ [1 Samuel chapter 14 verse 50, ** you do not have permission to see this link **) need to lose their high position/status as Israelite king’s wife and concubine (wives) just because YHWH rejected Saul as king and chose David to take Saul’s place as king? King David inherited a problem but YHWH’s solution was compassionate on the women who got to stay under no less than King David’s care and protection.

Reference:

Copan, P 2011, Is God a Moral Monster?: Making Sense of the Old Testament God, Baker Books, MI.

magpie said
Hi col8lok8,

Welcome to the forum.  I have put some time in wondering if I should try to reply to your comment as I have nowhere the depth of knowledge that you have, but I will give it a try looking at the questions from a different perspective.  Truly, if YHWH had given a level of mercy to theology students, He would have been more plain spoken.  However, that aside, in the era in which the OT was written, women frequently died in childbirth so I can see that it made some sense to have a few extra on hand both for procreation and to tend the offspring of those that died.  Women might not have objected because having other wives available to a husband meant that they could be spared the physically draining experience of constant childbearing.  I believe I read that each woman would have to bear five children to have one survive to adulthood.  So if one wife is good, more is better, but really Solomon went to great excess. Women and children were regarded as property, after all, and not accorded much respect.

How is it that no one gets their knickers in a twist over mixed fiber garments? It seems to be the sexually related pronouncements that get all the angst and attention.   

Hello to you too. Thanks for the welcome.

While that principle – if one wife is good, more is better – was without a doubt regularly found in the YHWH-disobedient Ancient Israelite culture and so was polygamy, it is not found commanded as a principle to be followed in the Law of Moses or in the rest of the Old Testament. Yes, polygamy is described in Scripture, but it is not commanded (‘The Lord God commands husbands of his chosen people, those with one wife, to increase the number of wives beyond one or else the Lord God will _[insert punishment]_’ said no biblical writer ever). One wife is good. More than one is against God’s ideal. But widows would not exist in an ideal world, and so Israelite kings would not leave behind wives and concubines which successor Israelite kings have to care for and protect (2 Samuel chapter 12 verse 8). It is always inevitably portrayed in the Old Testament to be non-ideal by, for example, as the response of a situation involving death / loss / suffering / tragedy which would not occur in an ideal world, or continuing badly and/or ending badly either for one or some of the spouses or for all involved as Köstenberger & Köstenberger (2014, p. 51) state

‘the narratives featuring patriarchs who had multiple wives indicates that there were invariably negative consequences, whether disruptive favoritism int he marriages in the marriages of Jacob (Gen. 29:30), Elkanah (1 Sam. 1:4-5), and Rehoboam (2 Chron. 11:21) or jealousy in the marriages of Abraham (Gen. 21:9-10), Jacob (Gen. 30:14-16), and Elkanah (1 Sam. 1:6). Solomon’s foreign wives turned away his heart after other gods (1 Kings 11:4). Monogamy continued to be upheld and presented as God’s ideal’.

Reference:

Köstenberger, AJ & Köstenberger, ME 2014, God’s Design for Man and Woman: A Biblical-Theological Survey, Crossway, IL.

Judith said
I want to welcome you, too, colBlock8!

The Levirate marriage (men marrying their brothers’ widows) would have seemed bordering on a commandment as a principle to be followed in the Old Testament, don’t you think?  

Yes it is pretty much a commandment given to respond to a situation in a world full of evil and suffering that would never happen in an ideal world. It is non-ideal. But it is intended to be a behaviour fundamentally about serving God. YHWH does not look upon it (or classify it) as ‘polygamy’, which he condemns, although it is biblical marriage. As the book of Deuteronomy (chapter 10 verse 18, CEB, ** you do not have permission to see this link **) tells us

‘He [YHWH] enacts justice for orphans and widows, and he loves immigrants, giving them food and clothing.’

How does YHWH want justice for women among his chosen ancient Israelite people who have lost their husbands leaving this life without children to support her? Basically by telling the male siblings of the deceased husband take the widow under his wing and with great love, seeing her desperate plight, bring her to himself and into his household with care and protection that comes with that just as the book of Exodus (chapter 19 verse 4, CEB, ** you do not have permission to see this link **) tells us that YHWH saw the desperate plight of His people in Egypt and carried her to Himself:

‘You saw what I did to the Egyptians, and how I lifted you up on eagles’ wings and brought you to me.’

Stephen said
Colin, apologies, I should have started my reply to your first post with a welcome.  I enjoy divergent points of view and look forward to your posts.  I’m a bit overwhelmed by the length and extensiveness of your reply and hope you didn’t spend an excessive amount of time on it.  I have to confess that on my own list of subjects of interest polygamy doesn’t make the top ten  so I’m not sure what I can do other than restate my earlier comments and I don’t see the point of doing that.  I would just say context is everything and there is no substitute for a close reading.   My perception is that your point of view is shaped by a prior faith commitment.  Things might not look so cut and dried to someone who does not share that commitment.  On the subject of human sexual relations I’m strictly from the “try not to scare the horses” school.

 

Since you broached the subject of autobiography I would like to ask you some questions if I may.  Our backgrounds are similar but not identical although the trajectories of our lives are almost polar opposites.  I started where you are now and moved, shall we say…in the other direction.  So…with your permission…

1.  You say you were originally an atheist.  How did you decide that was what you were?  What did that mean to you?

2.  You say you “came away from reading academic literature on those topics” as a Christian believer.  What was it specifically that convinced you?  

3.  You say “YHWH is the pre-existent creator of the universe…”  How do you know this to be true?

 

I think you in advance for any answers you might wish to give and of course would be happy to reciprocate.  

I am quite happy to share autobiographical details, and answer the questions you’ve asked. I have a lot of time right now. I also enjoy telling people how I started to follow and worship Jesus of Nazareth as YHWH, and why I continue to do so. Skip over anything you feel like skipping over as this is long.

RE (1).

Growing up in the last decade of the 20th century and first decade of the 21st century, I was what might be described as a high school video (online computer, but also Gameboy Color/Gameboy Advance/DS) game atheist. I did not believe in any God. I didn’t go or care about going to church. I just wanted to play video games on my holidays and weekends, including Sundays. Even if there was a God I didn’t believe in, I was disposed to dislike or hate him because I didn’t feel he/she/it – like my father (I lived with my divorced mum) – was actively involved with my life although I did not hate my father. That and because I was not particularly happy that I was not a popular teenager in high school. No teenage dating relationship at any stage, including no date on formal (prom) nights. Without any deep knowledge of the New Testament, I had thought – based on what I saw through Googling and in online video game discussions about religious matters growing up – the Christian scriptures were originally written hundreds of years after the first century when Jesus was supposed to have but never actually lived and filled to the brim with inconsistencies that could then be properly interpreted to say anything someone wanted it to say, including to justify all kinds of hate and violence. I thought Jesus in Christian scriptures would have said only what you would expect if the authors of the stories made up a person who never existed because as far as I was concerned it was almost certainly completely made up. I basically held the view any god, including the God of the Bible, would have to coerce my wits in quite a deterministic (I didn’t use that word – this is retrospective) sense and make me understand that he exists and be unable to understand any differently before I believed in him. I discovered the term ‘atheist’ was an accurate description for what I was in my last years of high school and applied to myself. I egocentrically thought it was just ‘normal’ up till then, that most young people thought like me about the Christian scriptures and Jesus. Atheism to me meant being a normal teenager in some sense, and it certainly meant that I could spend Sundays playing games on my computer at home while some older and senile people in society attended church. Dr Michael Bird’s experience, shared in his debate with Bart Ehrman, of growing up in his part of Australia with fictional Ned Flanders of the Simpsons television show as the most influential (although fictional) Christian in his life is familiar as I watched the Simpsons on television and it was very influential part of my spare time. It certainly shaped what I thought of Christians in Australia as well even though I knew it was not Australian-made.

RE (2).

So I thought of myself as an atheist until I read the the academic literature of the historical figure of Jesus and earliest Christologies , and read the gospel accounts with the guidance of the literature by firstly by scholars like ** you do not have permission to see this link ** (click link for a page listing his books, not all directly focusing on the historical figure of Jesus) provided me with a very accessible list of the historical Jesus literature’s major scholars when I was unsure what scholars to read next. This was really helpful because I was not studying ancient history, Biblical studies, or Christian biblical theology (although studying philosophy at university was certainly helping me to understand Christian philosophy of religion and Christian philosophical theology and I was reading that as well).

As I said, I studied philosophy in university, not history (Macquarie University has a pretty decent history department for studying ancient history by Australian standards) nor Christian theology (which was not an option at Macquarie University). This Jesus, early Christology, and New Testament academic literature was, at the beginning, all the leisure reading of an atheist.

Around this time, I encountered the philosopher William James (see ** you do not have permission to see this link **. You have to read the full essay to get the fullest sense of it.

To understand this famous philosopher’s essay, first understand that a momentous option for him is like a precious unique once-in-a-lifetime offer for which the treaure is lost should one refuse to accept it. And simply not choosing (between whether to take it up or not) for a momentous option is regarded by the one offering it as a refusal to take it up. As an analogy, imagine if Bart Ehrman offers to freely travel to the area where you living now and offers you a whole daytime to spend with him asking him, and casually going back and forth with him, on your Jesus and New Testament questions for him. Imagine if Ehrman were to say you can take up his offer or leave it but you only have a week to accept or decline. Imagine if no response after a week has passed would be regarded as a declining of his offer. I am not sure how appealing that is for you. It would be very precious for me. I would accept unless there was an even more momentous option for which I had already taken up. The philosopher William James (1956 [1897-98], pp. 1-31, emphasis mine, words in square brackets mine) continues in his essay

‘A living option is one in which both options are live ones .. if I say “Be an agnostic or Christian,” each hypothesis makes some appeal, however small to your belief [unlike, for example, “Be a [1] Jesus mythicist or [2] Muslim” absurd based on such strong evidence for [1] Jesus’ mere historical existence and [2] Jesus’ crucifixion death under Pontius Pilate facts denied by each group respectively – so ‘Jesus mythicist or Muslim’ was a dead option with both being dead or unattractive choices based on what I was reading on the Jesus literature]

 

…

 

Next, if I say to you: “Choose between going out without your umbrella or without it,” I do not offer you … [an] option … forced. You can easily avoid it by not going out at all. [This is a second distinction he makes between forced and avoidable options.]

 

….

 

Whenever the option between losing truth and gaining it is not momentous, we can throw the chance at gaining truth away, and at any rate save ourselves from any chance of believing falsehood, by not making up our minds at all till objective evidence comes in. In scientific questions, this is almost always the case; and even in human affairs in general, the need of acting is seldom so urgent that a false belief to act on is better than no belief at all. Law courts, indeed, have to decide on the best evidence attainable for the moment … The next question arises: Are there not somewhere forced options in our speculative questions, and can we (as men who may be interested at least as much in positively gaining truth as in merely escaping dupery) always wait with impunity till the coercive evidence shall have arrived?

 

…

 

Moral questions immediately present themselves a questions whose solution cannot wait for sensible proof … the .. moralist .. clings to it that he is not a dupe, and that there is a realm [in which the moral values and moral truth come from] … when we stick to it that there is truth … we do so with our whole nature, and resolve to stand or fall by the results. The sceptic with his whole nature adopts the doubting attitude; but which of us is the wiser, Omniscience only knows.

Turn now from these wide questions of good to a certain class of questions of fact, questions concerning personal relations, states of mind between one man and another. Do you like me or not? – for example. Whether you do or not depends, in countless instances, on whether I meet you half-way, am willing to assume you must like me, show you trust and expectation. The previous faith [trust] on my part in your liking’s existence is in such cases what makes your liking come. But if I stand aloof, and refuse to budge an inch until I have objective evidence, until you shall have done something apt, as the absolutists say, ad extorquendum assensum meum [a Latin phrase William James uses which means leaving one with no other response possible but to recognise and agree to show trust, notice the root letters extor and assen which we can observe that we get the English word ‘extort‘ and ‘assent‘ etymologically], ten to one [odds are such that] your liking never comes …

 

The question of religious faith. Let us pass on [turn] to that … we see first religion offers itself as a momentous option. We are supposed to gain, even now, by our belief, and to lose by our non-belief a certain good. Secondly religion is a forced option, so far as that good goes. We cannot escape the issue by remaining sceptical and waiting for more light, because, although we do avoid error in that way if religion be untrue, we lose it good, if it be true, just as certainly as if we positively chose to disbelieve. It is as if a man should hesitate indefinitely to ask a certain woman to marry him because he was not perfectly sure that she would prove an angel after he brought her home. Would he not cut himself off from that angel-possibility as decisively as if he went and married someone else? … If religion be true and the evidence for it be still insufficient, I do not wish … to forfeit my sole chance in life of getting upon the winning side – that chance depending, of course, on my willingness to run the risk of acting as if my …. taking the world religiously might be prophetic and right.

 

All of this on the supposition that it really may be prophetic and right, and that … religion is a live hypothesis which may be true. Now to most of us religion comes in a still further way that makes a veto on active faith even more illogical.

 

…

 

[William James’ conclusion] I, therefore, for one, cannot see my way to accepting the agnostic rules for truth seeking, or to keep my willing nature out of the game … we have the right to believe at our own risk any hypothesis that is live enough to tempt our will … the freedom to believe can only cover living options which the intellect cannot be resolved; and living options never seem absurdities to him who has them to consider [unlike the caricature that faith is ‘believing something you know is absurd and you know isn’t true’ which William James discuses earlier and rejects saying it fails to apprehend what faith really is].’

Although it may strike one as very similar to it, please don’t mistake this essay for what is known as Pascal’s wager from Blaise Pascal if you are familiar with it as there are significant differences although he is clearly influenced by Pascal. He is actually critically responding to Pascal’s wager idea, and the arguments of another philosopher called William Kingdon Clifford on the ethics of belief and believing. For example, James (1956 [1897-98], pp. 1-31, emphasis mine, words in square brackets mine) states

‘the option offered to the will by Pascal is not a living option … The talk of believing [simply] by our volition [intellectually gambling?] seems, them, from one point of view, simply silly. From another point of view it is worse than silly, it is vile .. There are passional tendencies [temptations to our will?] … which run before and others which come after belief’.

The philosopher William James had convinced me that I had set the bar far too high for responding with ‘yes, I want to be a part of this – I will worship you, Jesus, as YHWH Lord of all’ to Jesus of Nazareth and his ideas and perspectives. The issue was no longer whether the God of the Bible has determined what my thoughts would be such that I could only think the way of worshiping Him. The issue then at that time was whether God – if a god existed – had tempted (without any sense of coercing) my will with evidences so strongly with what evidences that there are that the only response I can freely bring myself to make after all my reading so far about Jesus of Nazareth and his ideas, as well as my reading so far on some of the earliest understandings of Jesus of Nazareth that are found in the New Testament writings, is to worship the man as YHWH. “Was that the case?” I asked.

I looked back at my view of Jesus, early Christianity, and the New Testament from my high school years in utter amazement and shock at how mistaken it was, and how mistaken I was. I had arrived at the view that the philosophical arguments for the existence of the God of the philosophers had held up pretty well. Similarly with what we know about the Resurrection of Jesus (such as the belief of some of His followers, that Jesus had risen from the death, which had changed everything for them). And similarly again with the Christological understandings of Christ which see him as YHWH – the God described in the Bible – which I thought held up well to scrutiny. Also I recognised that the gravitas of the man Jesus of Nazareth who historically walked the earth was persuading and tempting my will to worship him as YHWH. Or as the writer of the Johanine gospel (chapter 12 verse 32, CEB, ** you do not have permission to see this link **) places upon the lips of Jesus of Nazareth, with a more theological portrait of Jesus of Nazareth – but one with a historical core – than the other three earlier gospels,

‘When I am lifted up from the earth, I will draw everyone to me.’

I felt this sort of pull, a temptation upon my will, from the entire collection of the New Testament writings with the academic literature available on it. With my eyes open, I freely decided from that point on that I would worship Him, and stand up in attempt to conquer, with the Spirit in me, the hearts and minds of those I came across in my life ‘for the faith delivered once and for all to God’s holy people’ (Jude verse 3, CEB, ** you do not have permission to see this link **).

MORE SPECIFICALLY FOR (2).

The continuing research into pre-Pauline traditions quoted by Paul, as one thing I could definitely specifically point to, was very amazing for me as an atheist since I had believed the Bible was written by authors living hundreds of years after the first century. In particular, the amazingly very early date at which 1 Corinthians ** you do not have permission to see this link ** (CEB) were composed by those who had composed those traditions even before Paul, our earliest New Testament writer, had wrote his letters:

As I said, N.T. Wright was one of the major authors that stuck out at me when I first dived into the academic Jesus literature. In his book The Challenge of Jesus: Rediscovering Who Jesus Was and Is, Wright (1999, InterVarsity Press, p. 141, emphasis mine) states, in relation to 1 Corinthians 15, that

‘we find in verses 1-7 what Paul describes as the very early tradition that was common to all Christians. He received it and handed it on; these are technical terms for the handing on of tradition, and we must assume that this represents what was believed in the very earliest days of the church back in the 30s. The tradition includes the burial of Jesus (conveniently ignored by Crossan, who suggests darkly that Jesus’ body was eaten by dogs as it hung on the cross so that there was nothing left to bury). In Paul’s world, as has been said often enough but still not heard by all scholars, to say that someone had been buried and then raised three days later was to say that the tomb was empty – though the emptiness of the tomb, so important in twentieth-century discussion, was not something Paul felt the need to stress.‘

***When I had read about that, as an atheist, I felt that a bomb had dropped on and shattered my atheistic view of the Christian scriptures. As an atheist, I did not think it was possible that anything in the New Testament could have represented what the church believed in the very same decade in which Jesus had supposedly (not but not actually since I had previously thought there was not very good evidence he actually lived) died and rose from death. Certainly nothing so central to the Christian faith as the death, burial (in a tomb – although this is not something Paul felt the need to add to the excellent tradition he received), and Resurrection of Jesus. This was far too earth-shattering and life-changing to reconcile with the atheism I held.

How many atheists really know this significant fact? It grieves and saddens me that atheists on many corners of the internet are so fixated with Jesus mythicism that they are unable to see we have many spots in the New Testament, here and there, that can be traced back before the New Testament writer like Paul wrote their work, and this is very early indeed when it is pre-Pauline.***

RE (3).

I came to believe the truthfulness of 1 Corinthians chapter 8 verse 6 as a very early pre-Pauline tradition (which has Deuteronomy 6 verse 4 in mind), comparable to what is found 1 Corinthians 15 but without the technical term for passing on a tradition, after being persuaded by the academic literature on the many various philosophical arguments for the god of the philosophers’ existence. I saw theologically YHWH’s very real existence in the historical existence of Jesus of Nazareth. Although I had not read this book until recently (earlier this year), in short looking back retrospectively today, I had began to resonate with these words in Anthony C. Thiselton’s (2009, SPCK: London, p. 49, italics are with the book, emphasis with bolding mine, words in square brackets mine) book The Living Paul: An Introduction to the Apostle and his Thought that

‘God’s ways for Paul are ‘unsearchable’ and ‘inexhaustible’ (Rom. 11:33). He agreed with the Old Testament legacy that God is holy and ‘other’ or transcendent (cf. Isa. 6:2-5). [I would personally add that this nothing like the Islamic conception of God because we are, at the same time – according to the Judeo-Christian conception of God – uniquely of all the animals in the animal kingdom made in the image and likeness of God which imbues every human individual with inestimable dignity, value, and worth, and that should be visible in how other human beings are treated. One might say there is something of God himself in every person, and we are to be conscious of that at all times. So I resonate also with Ehrman’s treasuring of the historical Jesus’ lesson on the dividing of the sheep and goats.] Through Christ God, however is, is also approachable, or in the words of Eberhard Jüngel today, also ‘thinkable’ or ‘conceivable‘. Through Christ God becomes a daily reality in Paul’s life.’

Jesus of Nazareth is certainly approachable as a historical figure, and – as I had come to leave my former atheism and come to believe he is YHWH in the form of a first century apocalyptic Second Temple Jewish human male – through him historically, one can come see YHWH, to believe in Him, or to know him theologically as Paul did. Theological knowledge was certainly an entirely valid way of knowing for the Apostle Paul as a historical figure although he didn’t call it theological knowledge He had clearly combined this with his historical knowledge in his daily life, missionary activity and letter writing. The two forms of knowledge – these two ways of knowing – are inseparable for him. So I have come to a view I take to be similar to Paul’s own view. See 1 Corinthians chapter 11 verses 23 to 26 (CEB, ** you do not have permission to see this link **, words in square brackets mine):

‘I received a tradition from the Lord, which I also handed on to you: [technical receiving and passing tradition language again]

On the night on which he was betrayed, the Lord Jesus took bread. [historical knowledge – the betrayal of Jesus]

After giving thanks, he broke it and said, [historical knowledge – the instituting of the Lord’s supper]

“This is my body, which is for you; do this to remember me.” [theologically significant historical knowledge on Lord’s supper]

He did the same thing with the cup, after they had eaten, saying, [historical knowledge – the instituting of the Lord’s supper]

“This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Every time you drink it, do this to remember me.” [theologically significant historical knowledge on Lord’s supper]

Every time you eat this bread and drink this cup, you broadcast the death of the Lord until he comes.’

References

James, W 1956 [1897-98], The Will to Believe and Other Essays in Popular Philosophy, and Human Immortality – Both Books Bound as One, Dover, NY.

Thiselton, AC 2009, The Living Paul: An Introduction to the Apostle and his Thought, SPCK, London.

Wright, NT 1999, The Challenge of Jesus: Rediscovering Who Jesus Was and Is, InterVarsity Press, IL.

spiker said
col8loc8

So is it that you consider the question of Matt 24:34 to be unimportant?  

No. Definitely not. It is important. As you said in a previous post

Words have an established meaning.

Although also not the topic I wanted to discuss in this particular forum thread, let us quote the verse you want to discuss with two verses before it and after it (Matthew chapter 24 verses 32 to 36, CEB, ** you do not have permission to see this link **, emphasis mine):

‘Learn this parable from the fig tree. After its branch becomes tender and it sprouts new leaves, you know that summer is near. In the same way, when you see all these things, you know that the Human One is near, at the door. I assure you that this generation won’t pass away until all these things happen. Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will certainly not pass away. “But nobody knows when that day or hour will come, not the heavenly angels and not the Son. Only the Father knows.’

In the Greek, the two sections I have emphasised in bold are very similar (words with no real difference in meaning for our purposes). Does it make sense to say that the generation will never pass away in an ultimate eschatological sense (since this is an eschatological text)? In the same way that if you were to burn a Bible (or New Testament) the words of Jesus of Nazareth in it would not pass away, so also that even if every person in that generation were to have spontaneously burst into flames simultaneously they would not pass away ultimately. When will Jesus of Nazareth’s words pass away? Never. When will the generation pass away? Never, at least not until the final judgement. Indeed, in the very next chapter (chapter 25 verses 31 to 33, CEB, ** you do not have permission to see this link **, emphasis mine, words in square brackets mine), according to writer of Matthean gospel, Jesus of Nazareth said these words (This is one of Ehrman’s favourite lessons that Jesus of Nazareth taught! He should be aware of this but doesn’t connect the dots in his books! As I have said, I love this passage too.)

‘Now when the Human One [CEB rendering of Son of Man] comes in his majesty and all his angels are with him, he will sit on his majestic throne. All the nations will be gathered in front of him. He will separate them from each other, just as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. He will put the sheep on his right side. But the goats he will put on his left.’

To repeat what you said in that previous post

Words have an established meaning.

When, according to the Matthean gospel, Jesus of Nazareth said that every nation will be found standing in his majestic presence did he not also mean people from the nations of ‘this generation [that] won’t pass away’ or just those nations that are around when he comes in his majesty? Yes. Jesus of Nazareth did not just mean people alive at the time but everyone from every nation throughout history from the earliest human beings ever to have walked upon the Earth to United States of America under Barack Obama today and after that (assuming – although I do not know – there is a next POTUS and the ultimate end does not come before then). Everyone will not pass away, but be preserved in some sense at least for the final judgement. That is the most natural interpretation of panta ta ethne (all the nations) for the lesson Jesus of Nazareth is teaching.

Now compare Matthew chapter 24 verse 3 (CEB, ** you do not have permission to see this link **) and the first of the words I quoted from chapter 25 (found above):

‘ Now while Jesus was sitting on the Mount of Olives, the disciples came to him privately and said, “Tell us, when will these things happen? What will be the sign of your coming and the end of the age?” ‘

Not only has Ehrman failed to connect the dots for when the generation he is speaking of will pass away, and what pass away means (never, just as surely as Jesus of Nazareth’s words will not pass away), he has failed to connect the dots as to who, or the identity of, the Son of Man is in his favourite lesson from Jesus of Nazing using the very beginning of the chapter 24 eschatological text. Ehrman believes the Son of Man is someone other than Jesus of Nazareth but his cherished passage (from chapter 25), and the eschatological text (from chapter 24) he quotes from to make it appear that Jesus of Nazareth was wrong, taken together, says otherwise. Jesus of Nazareth is the Son of Man who is to come.

When will all those things of chapter 24 will have happened by? See verse 36 cited above, or as the excellent New Testament scholar Dr Donald A. Hagner (2012, p. 746) indicates

‘the whole of the NT is reluctant to disclose details about the end. In the eschatological discourse itself Jesus comments “But of that day or that hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father” (Mark 13:32; cf. Matt. 24:36). And when the disciples ask the risen Lord about the time of the end, Jesus responds “It is not for you to know times or seasons which the Father has fixed by his own authority” (Acts 1:7).’

___

Does my view of the preservation of all peoples from the past and present (as well as any future people to live and die) in the hands of YHWH for a final judgment make sense of ‘this generation won’t pass away’ eschatologically? I think it does. The generation Jesus is speaking of would not pass away because it is being kept in the hands of YHWH until the final judgement. I think it fits within and is supported by the Jewish apocalyptic narrative, such as the one espoused by Jesus of Nazareth.

As Ehrman (1999, p. 122, emphasis mine, [emphasised] words in square brackets mine) writes in his book Jesus – Apocalyptic Prophet of the New Millennium:

‘This final vindication would involve a day of judgment for all people. Those who had aligned themselves with the powers of evil would face the Almighty Judge and render an account of what they had done; those who had remained faithful to God would be rewarded and brought into his eternal Kingdom. Moreover, this judgment applied not only to people who happened to be living at the time of the end. No one should think, that is, that he or she could side with the powers of evil, oppress the people of God, die prosperous and contented, and so get away with it. God would allow no one to escape. [[So basically Ehrman is saying that even if people die they would not eschatologically or ultimately pass away but rather be preserved in the hands of God for this judgement. And how would God accomplish this?]] He was going to raise all people bodily from the dead, and they would have to face judgement, eternal bliss for those who had taken his side, eternal torment for everyone else. And there was not a sweet thing that anyone could do to stop him.’

This Jewish apocalyptic sense of God not allowing anyone to escape is what Jesus is pointing out with his words about the generation not passing away. Even if this generation died before all these things have passed, this generation should not think that they have avoided the end and final judgement. For they would never eschatologically pass away, at least not until the final judgement.

___

Possible objection. Matthew chapter 16 verse 28 (CEB, ** you do not have permission to see this link **) states that Jesus says

‘I assure you that some standing here won’t die before they see the Human One coming in his kingdom.’

Doesn’t that mean Jesus thought some of his disciples would still be alive when the kingdom fully comes? No.

Context is key. Matthew chapter 16 verse 28 to chapter 17 verse 3 (CEB, ** you do not have permission to see this link ** states

‘ “I assure you that some standing here won’t die before they see the Human One coming in his kingdom.” Six days later Jesus took Peter, James, and John his brother, and brought them to the top of a very high mountain. He was transformed in front of them. His face shone like the sun, and his clothes became as white as light. Moses and Elijah appeared to them, talking with Jesus. ‘

That is a sign that Jesus is the Son of Man. Moses and Elijah are part of his kingdom and coming into their presence means that Jesus, on that mountain, comes into his kingdom through them.

References

Ehrman, BD 1999, Jesus: Apocalyptic Prophet of the New Millennium, Oxford University Press, NY.

Hagner, DA 2012, The New Testament: A Historical and Theological Introduction, Baker Academic, MI.

spiker said
Glad to see you liked my point about established meaning, but why you felt the need to eliminate the clarifying example is telling; particularly when you spend numerous paragraphs demonstrating you’ve missed the point.

The point of established meaning is that it is the lifeblood of communication; a point established by my example. Thus when you tell your friend I will see you Tuesday, he doesn’t think 3 Tuesdays from now, but understands that you mean the very next Tuesday. Not to put to fine a point on it,but the question here is what would Jesus audience have understood when he said “Truly I tell you, this generation will not pass away until all these things have happened.”

We can determine a couple of things right away. Jesus’ audience

1.) Didn’t have the Gospel of Matthew to flip through. In the odd- very odd- chance they did, it is highly probable that they wouldn’t have been able to read it.

2.) Probably did not speak or read Koine Greek- although the similarity of the sections in Greek has absolutely no bearing on the question- Nor does Ehrman’s understanding of the title Son of Man.Further the speech is not escatology so much as it is
Apacalyptic. The shall not pass statement is no more about ultimate escatology than my example of Tuesdays is about some ultimate horological meaning(although it was about time) We need only appeal to the most excellent thought of Friar Occam.
So let’s go back to the video tape, shall we?

‘Learn this parable from the fig tree. After its branch becomes tender and it sprouts new leaves, you know that summer is near. In the same way, when you see all these things, you know that the Human One is near, at the door. I assure you that this generation won’t pass away until all these things happen. Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will certainly not pass away. “But nobody knows when that day or hour will come, not the heavenly angels and not the Son. Only the Father knows.’

The parable is about signs just as the fig tree gives signs for the arrival of summer; so there are signs of the coming kingdom. The point, of course, is imminence. Jesus expected these things to occur in his own generation: “Truly I tell you, this generation will not pass away until all these things have happened.”

As Ehrman put it,

“Jesus was not referring to a kingdom that would come to individuals when they died and went to heaven. It was a real kingdom, here on earth, with a real king. And peace, tranquility, harmony, and justice would prevail. This would come while some of the disciples were still living to see it. Or as he says elsewhere, “Truly I tell you , this generation will not pass away before all these things take place”

In sum, either Jesus thought the Kingdom would arrive in his own lifetime or he was a god awful(a pun?) communicator.

The rest of your argument, I’m afraid is apologetic overkill.  

You say that 

‘ the question here is what would Jesus audience have understood when he said “Truly I tell you, this generation will not pass away until all these things have happened.” ‘

I say that the question is what would Jesus’ audience have understood when he said ‘my words will certainly not pass away‘? Did Jesus’ audience understand that Jesus is saying that his words will pass away within their lifetime? No, they didn’t. They understood that Jesus’ words would never pass away, certainly not until the final judgement whenever that will be. Same goes with the generation. Jesus’ audience would have understood that this generation will never pass away, certainly not until the final judgement whenever that will be.

The question of when the end will come is answered with Matthew chapter 24 verse 36, not Matthew chapter 24 verse 34. Verse 34 is making a point about the certainty of this generation with regard to facing the judgement at the end (when such things will have happened by). The generation will not escape the final judgement whenever that will be. It will not pass away as far as the Son of Man is concerned. The generation will stand before the Son of Man who will judge them on his majestic throne as a shepherd might divide up sheep and goats.

The most coherent reading of this text in terms of questions and how Jesus would respond in terms of questions and how Jesus would respond to those questions:

Will the generation pass away before all these things have been accomplished?

‘No, this generation will not pass away (verse 34), and certainly not before the judgment. This is just as sure as my words not passing away (verse 35), and certainly not before the judgement. My words will never pass away (verse 35). As far as you are concerned, this generation will never pass away (verse 34) even if every member of it dies off at the same time. No one will pass away. All those who are living at the time will face judgement. All dead will be raised and face judgement whenever that will be.’

When will all these things have taken place by? When will the judgement occur? When will God’s kingdom fully come?

‘We don’t know.’ (verse 36)

___

Your reading of the text misses the point of verses 35 and 36 to deliberately distort Jesus’ message. Jesus compares the generation not passing away to the not passing away of his own words. If his words never pass away ultimately, then at the very least this generation will not pass away ultimately before the final judgement. This does not preclude the generation from dying before the judgement occurs. Dying is not an escape. God does not allow anyone to pass away from having to face the judgement. All dead will be raised. Jesus does not disclose detail about the end in terms of the day, hour (, week, month, year, decade, century, millennia, et cetera) it will occur. Jesus provided two examples of time references (day and hour – hemeras [kai] horas) to demonstrate that he was not disclosing any details about the time at which the end will occur. No exhaustive list of time references need be provided by Jesus. Matthew chapter 24 verse 36 is found in Mark as well with Mark chapter 13 verse 32.

When will all those things of chapter 24 will have happened by? See verse 36 cited above, or as the excellent New Testament scholar Dr Donald A. Hagner (2012, p. 746) indicates

‘the whole of the NT is reluctant to disclose details about the end. In the eschatological discourse itself Jesus comments “But of that day or that hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father” (Mark 13:32; cf. Matt. 24:36). And when the disciples ask the risen Lord about the time of the end, Jesus responds “It is not for you to know times or seasons which the Father has fixed by his own authority” (Acts 1:7).’

Reference:

Hagner, DA 2012, The New Testament: A Historical and Theological Introduction, Baker Academic, MI.

Stephen said
I say that the question is what would Jesus’ audience have understood when he said ‘my words will certainly not pass away‘? Did Jesus’ audience understand that Jesus is saying that his words will pass away within their lifetime? No, they didn’t. They understood that Jesus’ words would never pass away, certainly not until the final judgement whenever that will be. Same goes with the generation. Jesus’ audience would have understood that this generation will never pass away, certainly not until the final judgement whenever that will be.

Well unfortunately we don’t have access to Jesus’ “audience” to take a survey but I think you’re obfuscating here a bit to avoid the obvious problem.  John was clearly an apocalypticist who expected the end soon.  Paul was clearly an apocalypticist who also expected the end soon.  Who is the obvious link between John and Paul?  There is a clear trajectory in the writings of the NT away from the apocalyptic view (which of course was never completely suppressed, how could it be?).  By the time of the gospels the apocalyptic fervor had been tempered somewhat, hence the qualifying statements put in Jesus’ mouth.  But why would you report Jesus’ unequivocal predictions about “this generation” unless they were authentic?  Jesus was wrong and the early christians wouldn’t have made up statements showing he was wrong, would they?  But you can easily see where they would make up qualifying statements and instances where he hedged his bets.

John the Baptist did not say the end will come within the lifetime of those standing before him. He did say the axe is positioned next to the tree and ready to strike at any moment. That moment for John was not a clearly defined time as far as the gospel writers (as well as Josephus) are concerned. Where does Josephus say that John the Baptist taught the defeat of the Roman Empire within 100 years? I’ve read Josephus on John the Baptist. Josephus never says that of John the Baptist.

Ehrman says Paul thought he would be alive when the end comes in 1 Thessalonians. Ehrman (2008, p. 243), after quoting 1 Thessalonians chapter 4 verses 15 to 17, says

‘Paul appears to think that he will be one of those still living when this cataclysmic event takes place (he includes himself among “we who are alive, who remain”).’

I disagree. I think Paul is referring to the humankind or those who are God’s people among the humankind with ‘we’, and Paul thought some of God’s people among humankind would be alive at the end. Fact: ‘We’ is commonly used to refer to members of humankind (Homo sapiens), rather than members of humankind and non-human animals together (Animalia).

I agree that the words of Jesus about ‘this generation’ are authentic. The point is that ‘this generation’ is not a prediction about when the end will come. It is a statement about the certainty with which the generation will be present at the end. Even if the generation dies, it will not pass away from the end and the apocalyptic divine judgment. All who die will not ‘pass away’ from judgement by being dead (or having died) but rather be raised for judgement. No one can escape, not even by dying.

The focus of any moment/imminence/soon as far as the New Testament is concerned can be summarised with something like this statement: God’s people don’t know when it will be but God’s people are to make sure that they are prepared for it at any moment whether that moment arrives a week from now or 7000 (arbitrary number like any number is – again God’s people don’t know) years from now. The way to be prepared is by being on God’s side, and to live as people who are on God’s side. God’s people are those who have gone from the side of darkness/night and have been brought to the side of light/day. God’s people belong to the day. Let God’s people, then, not journey onward as if they belonged to the night.

This is not movement away from Jewish apocalypticism. It is fundamentally apocalyptic. Jesus clearly taught he was not about battling the might of Rome. He affirmed Caesar’s authority over the people’s money through taxation. That, and other statements, clearly point to an ‘end’ happening well and truly after the Roman Empire has had its day. Did Jesus think the mighty Romans would be crushed within the lifetime of those standing with him? No, I have no reason to think Jesus thought that. That was not his message. His message was not about how he would form a large army to crush the mighty Romans.

In order to see this as movement away from Jewish apocalypticism you must assume Jewish apocalypticism is fundamentally about failed predictions, and exclude views from consideration as Jewish apocalypticism which allow for an end that is still to come in our future (after June 2016). On this view, any Jewish apocalypticist is a failure because no Jewish apocalypticist can believe that the end could possibly happen one billion years from his time and still come to the Jewish people with a message of an end that is nevertheless ‘soon’. I am not going to come to the conversation about Jewish apocalypticism assuming that Jewish apocalypticism is about failed predictions. For me, it is about making predictions of an end that is soon whether or not soon comes with defined limits or undefined limits. Sure, many Jewish apocalypticists failed. But I am not going to throw Jewish apocalypticism proverbial baby out with bathwater. I don’t think Jewish apocalypticism is fundamentally a failed mythological and superstitious viewpoint. It was (and is) a religious viewpoint. I think John the Baptist, Jesus, Paul, and the followers of Jesus are Jewish apocalypticists worth listening to today. Did some (many?) Jewish apocalypticists make the mistake of thinking the end was going to come and the Romans would be defeated in their lifetime? Yes. There were certainly many failed messiahs. But John the Baptist, Jesus, Paul, and the followers of Jesus are not among those who failed within the broad category of views that might be considered Jewish apocalypticism.

Why assume that Jewish apocalypticism, as a category of various ways to look at world and various ways to look at time, is wrong when trying to define it?

Reference:

Ehrman, BD 2008, God’s Problem: How the Bible Fails to Answer Our Most Important Question – Why We Suffer, HarperOne, NY.