| NT Epistle Passages |
| NT Epistle Passages |
NEW TESTAMENT PASSAGES - LETTERS Paul If you've read much of my site, I'm not too thrilled with 'Paul'. Actually, I admire him. What a driven man for Christ! However, the early church likely agreed with me. Why? Because the gnostics loved Paul. And the churches hated the gnostics. The gnostics (and Paul) separated the spirit (Jesus) from the flesh. The gnostics (and Paul) had visions. The gnostics (and Paul) claimed personal authority. The gnostics (and Paul) claimed higher knowledge. OK ... sure Paul wasn't a gnostic. But Paul definitely had a lot going for him! Doubt me, do you?! Early post-NT writings ignore him (Barnabas; Didache). Justin Martyr made minimal use of him (how?!). Hegesippus ignores Paul. Papias even lists out all of his favorites ... Revelations, Matthew, Mark, 1Jo, and 1Pe ('of course' prefering chatting with the witnesses, instead of reading; don't we all?). Papias was from the Ephesus area. Just like ... who? My doubt of Paul isn't theological ... I doubt him from a witness-ological basis! He had none (vision/theology). Jesus-knowing, anyway. Even Jude by comparison, might be legit, if poorly informed. By the time Marcion showed up (that 2ndC master-heretic, rich and all too engaging), 'Paul' was back on top! Marcion basically chopped the jews out of the NT, and dumped the OT. Plus, Paul was his cutie-pie and portions of Luke/Acts his historian. No doubt Paul was turning over in his grave (still had his body of course). Luckily Tertullian rescued 'Paul', arguing he wasn't that far from the gospels. Whew! Ironically, Tertullian is indeed correct (I think) regarding Paul's theology. When I took the strict Paulian writing segments, Paul does appear to 'toe the line' regarding Jesus, even if he doesn't appear to know Jesus. It's only the post-'Paul-team' later on that introduces the really interesting 'ideas'. My favorite is the gentiles 'saving' the jews. Now that takes some logic! Nail in Paul's coffin? He promised his followers of Jesus' eminent return (see more below). He didn't just bother with 'sometime in the next trillion years'. No, Paul narrowed it down to their own lifetimes. Direct from Jesus, no less. Then, Paul up and died along with all his followers. No apology to be had. Still a doubter?? See how Eusebius describes Paul's 'apostle' status. Eusebius is the one that signed off on your beloved NT. Romans As a member of the NT 'lonely hearts band', I always had my doubts about Paul vs Romans. You'd be hard-pressed to find 'someone' that agrees with me. My reasoning is two-fold. First, the greek syntax mix best matches the later gospels (as do similar chapters in Galatians). There's little match to Paul's core epistles, although there ARE several sections that do match 'Paul'. Secondly, the arguments in Romans are truly obstruse. Even '2nd Peter' had to agree on this. So, was Paul's mind really 'that' convoluted, with the end-time so close? Granted, tent-making used chemical concoctions of mind-expanding proportions. But, then I 'discovered' Acts 6, with Stephen in big trouble in Jerusalem. Interestingly, Stephen pre-dates Saul/Paul's reasoning by almost 15 years. He was falsely accused of threatening the temple (Acts 6:13), with his chapter 7 defense arguing God didn't like the temple anyway (great defense!). Most interesting is 'Jesus of Galilee' going to destroy the temple (future tense, and not knowing about Jesus' birth certificate). But I digress. The issue here is that the 'hellenists', including Stephen, were hot on the trail of destroying the heart of judaism long before Saul/Paul. Of course, the hellenists were diaspora'd out of Jerusalem, apparently re-establishing themselves in Antioch ... just where Saul/Paul showed up. So, what's this have to do with Romans? I'd always wondered how 'Romans' could have impressed conservative jewish (or even gentile) Christians in Rome. It borders on 'nutty'. That's when I realized (duh) that hellenism, Antioch, Paul and Rome were all on the same song-sheet. I forgot my rule #1 in reading the text ... always watch the reader, not the speaker/writer. No matter what, the reader has to understand and probably even agree. Otherwise the relationship to the writer would fail within a few sentences. 'Rome' was likely aleady on-board with Paul. He was singing to the choir. And, I guess he thought he had a 'get out jail' card waiting for him in Rome. So, is Romans still during the time of Mat/Luke (post-Jerusalem)? I haven't decided yet. I have noticed several Mat/Luke passages that would suggest they don't 'know' that Jerusalem is gone. More work needed. Romans 1:3 [TEXT] If you check on Jesus, as a relative of David, you won't find any mention until you hit the later 'dated' books ... Matthew, Luke/Acts, Romans (here), 2nd Timothy, and Revelations. Mark's only mention (10:47) quotes the blind man, who subsequently uses 'Rabboni' as an equivalent. Also, Mark has Jesus toying with the scribes concerning the Davidic expectations (Mar 12:35-37). John's sole quote (7:41-42) contrasts Jesus of Galilee, with the prophesies of David and Bethlehem. A messiah from Galilee? Even more odd, are the 'virgin' accounts. They logically obviate any link to David, since the Holy Spirit was Jesus' father (narrowing down the Holy Spirit's gender, I guess). Joseph, the non-father (step-father for catholics?), steps in to make the catch. Why? You'd think that Jesus' being from David would be a BIG check-off for messiah-ship, right? You just have the thorny problem of 'father-ship'. By the way, in a time of many gods of both genders, the jewish YWWH/elohim has a 'son'. But presumably no one asked concerning 'how so'? (referring to the absence of a female). Oh wait ... I forgot. Matthew and Luke. Romans 4:25 [TEXT] The word of interest here is 'raised'. Do a search on Paul's letters, comparing Jesus 'was raised' (aorist passive) or 'did raise', with 'has risen' (perfect passive). The verse here uses 'was raised'. What you'll find is that the 'later-dated' books (Rom, Eph, Col and 2Ti) use the 'completed' version ('was raised'/'did raise'), while the earlier ones use the 'recently happened' version ('has risen'). I doubt this indicates much ... just interesting. By the way, some commentators also see significance on the transition of 'who' did the raising. I'm not sure about that. Romans 13:11 [TEXT] This is one of the few passages that allow us to actually date Jesus' expected return!! Most other Paul passages simply cite an eminent return. And by the time of 'Peter', the scoffers (2 Peter 3:3) have forced the concept to 'anytime now'. Romans, as a book, has an overall syntax-timing very similar to the Mat/Luk period. Indeed, all three introduce similar concepts. However, some of the Romans text IS earlier, probably near the START of Paul's 'writing' life. But, IF we assume Paul wrote this (??), maybe 60ce on average, and if we assume Paul's early conversion was approximately 35 ce, that would put Paul's expected 'salvation' at no later than 85-90 ad. That's just coincidentally when Peter's scoffers showed up. I wouldn't be surprised if the scoffers calculated just like me (Peter does indeed mention Paul's writings)! Romans 15:8-9 [TEXT] Sometimes I feel really guilty for criticizing Paul so much. But for goodness sakes, after our gifted logic-master squeezes the gentiles into the Abraham-fold (even making the jews into Ismaelites/Arabs), he comes along with these verses. Paul?! WHAT ARE YOU DOING? Actually ... the greek-syntax for much of Romans is likely well AFTER when Paul was supposed to have joined Jesus (or began laying in a buried box, still waiting for a physical resurrection). So, maybe I should apologize. But wait just a gosh-darn minute. I'm a gentile. The writer seems to be saying Jesus came for the jews, just to meet God's prior commitments. And the gentiles? 'A kindness to glorify God'. Whatever happened to the sacrificial lamb-thing? Or destroying the unbelievably evil 'evil-one'? No prior commitments for the gentiles? No prophesies, type-casts, anything?? EXTRA: You'd be hard pressed to find 'someone' that thinks Romans isn't 'Paul'. I suspect the reason is that most define Paul using Romans, and then work outward, eventually running into trouble with Hebrews, the Pastorals, and Ephesians in that order. 1 Corinthians 1:12 [TEXT] . 'Divisions' in 1CO, repeats itself several times, here, and chaps 3,11 and 12. If you just 'pull them out' and look at them, they seem to 'repeat', as if Paul forgot he already discussed it. The commentaries explain Paul was just really concerned about it. I don't think so. Most obvious is the syntactical 'dating' patterns ... early chap 1 is true-blue 'Paul'. Chap 3 is quite late (pastorals). And chap 11 is around the time of Matthew (overall 1CO seems to have three writing periods). I'm most fascinated with 'I of Christ'. Just WHAT could that be?! I'd of assumed all of the Christians joined 'that' group! But Paul lists it, almost routinely. I assume it's referring to the Jesus family (Mary / James / Jude)? In any event, by chap 3 (the likely time of the pastorals), the 'Christ' and Cephas 'sects' have disappeared from the list (guess they 'lost'). Interestingly, that would be AFTER James was killed, Jerusalem was likely destroyed, and Cephas also killed (tradition). Could this just be coincidence? 1 Corinthians 5:11 [TEXT] This passage comes from a chapter where Paul really 'winds up'. Apparently the Corinth church members didn't adaquately distinquish between 'true' believers and obvious sinners. Since Jesus spent quite a bit of time with the latter, it's not clear whether such sinner-associations are bad 'at church only' or just in general. Personally, I'm not sure Jesus knew what he was doing; John-the-B certainly wasn't sure about Jesus. Yes, it's better to stick with Paul. That's why when I go to church, I check carefully around me, to see if there's any brother-sinners. I do this by seeing if they sometimes don't tell the truth, like money (or women), or like fine wines / Tennessee #9. Those are obvious give-aways. We don't have any brother-extortionists at present. I'm not sure how much distance should be assigned to sinner-avoidance; I generally go with 2-3 church pews, since it's easy to measure. That way, accidental conversation with a brother-sinner can be easily avoided. Yep. 1 Corinthians 7:14 [TEXT] . This is one of those verses that catch you by surprise, requiring a double-take. A lot of kids get a little concerned with this verse, since through no fault of their own, they can end up 'unclean'. 'Maam, your kids shore do look a little smudgy.' Oh, but there's more. In v10, Paul quotes 'the Lord' concerning divorce. I'd say almost every commentary I've read uses that verse to demonstrate Paul knew about Jesus (along with money for traveling apostles, specifically 'Paul'). Interestingly, Paul doesn't qualify it with 'except for whoredom' (Mat 5:32). He matches Mark's quote (10:11). No divorce! Obviously Matthew needed to 'clarify' Jesus. But if you follow Paul, he then proceeds to also start helping Jesus too. Starting in 1 Cor 7:15, with a non-believing husband leaving, the wife is 'back in business'. Yahoo! So, to summarize: (1) Kids make sure BOTH parents are believing. Else take a lot of baths. (2) Wives, if your husband leaves, make sure he's a non-believer. (3) Divorce-seeking husbands, make sure your wife is caught in whoredom, to qualify for the 'Matthew exception'. Ignoring the above humor, I really suspect 1 Cor 7:10 was a later insertion to match Mark's or another witness' account of Jesus. The greek flow breaks up, and most significantly, contradicts Paul's personal guidance further on. It's more likely Paul, himself, had little idea 'what' Jesus said. For an exercise, think about Paul's use of jewish marriage rules here, relative to gentiles. 1st Cor 11:3-16 This has GOT to be one of the strangest passages in any of Paul's letters. Let me outline it for you, and then we'll discuss the 'dating'. My outline may appear a little irreverent; please bear with me. Vs 3: Christ is the head of men. Men are the head of women. (ipso facto, Christ is not the head of women, so there!). Vs 4: Men: no hat while either praying or prophesying Vs 5: Women: wear a hat while praying or prophesying. If you don't, you might as well just shave your head. Vs 6: Women: if you missed the point in verse 5: if you don't wear a hat, just shave your head. But shaving your head is shameful. So wear a hat. Vs 7: The reason men shouldn't wear a hat, is that they're the image of God. (presumably God doesn't wear a hat). Women are the glory of men (presumably that explains why they need a hat). Vs 8: If you missed verse 7, men are not of women; just the opposite. (ignoring that women birth men). Vs 9: Writer assures reader that the relation in verse 8 is not pregnancy related; Adam's rib instead. Vs 10: Women without hats are not recognizable by the angels (don't have their token of authority). Or maybe the angels would garble women's prayers, being confused? Vs 11-12: Ok, forget verse 7-10. Instead, men and women are from each other, and all from God. Vs 13: Not convinced? You be the judge. Don't women look awful without their hats while praying? (I guess that assumes you're looking around at the women while praying?). Vs 14: Long-hair dishonors men (that's a law of nature). [I'm sorry ... this is just too much. I'm pretty sure I've never seen a painting of Jesus in short hair, or for that matter Abraham, Moses, Joshua and Solomon. I think David has short hair in all the paintings, but that's because he's always young.] Vs 15: Now, women, if they have long hair, it's quite pretty. This is because long hair is like a hat! Vs 16: Oh, jeepers, if none of this makes any sense, we (Paul & Co.) do(??) / don't(??) have a custom like this. Plus none of the churches do either. Now, show me the commentary that is just a little honest about this passage. More importantly, how many 'the-Bible-is-literal' Christian women have signed up? Well, I couldn't resist ... I had to check, to see if the greek is old (eg Paul), or later and inserted (eg post-Paul). The greek syntax-dating is essentially a toss-up between the time of Paul, and the time of the gospel writers (Matthew, Luke, John), with Matthew-syntax ('Mr OT-Fulfillment'), being the strongest. However, as you move from verse to verse, the syntax-aging bounces between 'Paul' and the time of the gospels. My guess is that Paul initially 'made a run at it', completely confused everybody, and then someone jewish (similar to Matthew) tried to clarify it, ... and made an even bigger mess. What about today? The 'every-word-from-God' folks seem to just ignore it all (appear to anyway). 1st Cor 11:30-32 [TEXT] I don't think too many churches really think about the implications of this passage. As the selected churchmen gather around the 'table' for communion or 'the Lord's Supper' (usually in the morning), the leader intones the seriousness of communion and 'discerning the body of the Lord'. Each time I hear that, I wonder what could 'discerning' possibly mean? In the passage, the problem seemed to be they were having a 'good ole supper-time'! Jesus who? And so, I'd assume 'discerning' means taking Jesus seriously. But it's worse than that. God may make you sick or even kill you! Whoa. Yep, read your Bible. Those darn Corinth Christians were not 'discerning', and so many were sick, and some even died as a result. Goodness. Communion is more risky to believers than most probably realize. We have an entry about 'Communion' on our theology page; in a nutshell, the 'communion' of Jesus was a literal meal, with a conscious rememberance of Jesus' approaching death (instead of remembering the passover). But for whatever reason, after Jerusalem was blown to bits, the dinner became a crackers and grape juice exercise. Personally, I think dinners among believers (remembering Jesus) is theologically far superior to communion. And maybe less risky too! EXTRA #1: If you're wondering about 'discerning', in the greek, it is to 'separate' or create an orderly arrangement (BDAG). For a good example, read 1 Co 4:7. So, probably 'discerning' in this passage is to distinguish between 'fun' dinners, and 'Jesus' dinners (or crackers & grape juice ceremonies if you prefer). Personally, I suspect that after the churchmen finished up with the eating-procedures (communion, eucharist, etc), there was no chance on God's green earth, anyone would make the same mistake as the Corinth Christians. Ever hear a pastor discuss the death-warning? As he gazes at the congregation, does he imagine literal 'death'? See the point? EXTRA #2: The text-popup above is in the YLT (which is similar to the KJV). More modern versions are more blunt ... the ISV is the most striking 'a considerable number are dieing'. Wow. Two thoughts come to mind. First, if indeed the church was sick and dieing, I suppose the 1Th 4 promise to be bodily resurrected 'might' apply, but who knows ... they weren't 'discerning' the Lord's body. That's EVEN MORE frightening. Physically AND eternally dead! Secondly, since I don't think Paul was inspired (since he was wrong about his central argument of the end-time, and seemed to know almost nothing about Jesus), then I'd assume some sort of disease was moving among the Corinth church members. Wonder if it was linked to their communion meal? Maybe ... the crackers/grape-juice approach is both more healthy and theologically safer. EXTRA #3: When Jesus was departing for Heaven, Matthew points out that some of his disciples 'doubted' (in greek, didn't believe; were unconvinced). John mentions Thomas, though the account says he changed his mind. So that leaves others of the disciples. That ALSO means some participants in the first 'eucharist' were not believers. Hmmm. I wonder how Jesus let THAT happen. Probably Jesus, at the 'last supper' cautioned his follows not to 'eat this bread', or 'drink this cup', if they weren't believers. I'm sure he did. 1st Cor 12 This chapter mainly deals with 'gifts': words of wisdom, words of knowledge, faith, healings, in-workings of mighty deeds, prophecy discernings of spirits, divers kinds of tongues, interpretation of tongues (verses 8-10 YLT). Growing up in a non-pentecostal church, we kind of skipped over these verses. Syntax-wise, v1-12 is indeed 'early'. But, looking at them more closely, I have two obvious questions (besides 'tongues'!). First, for a religion so young, 'where' did they get even the idea for these gifts?? It's not like there's a store you go to for religious concepts. And 'what' did they prophesy (in v28, prophets were even 'second' to apostles)? Paul seems to be mainly interested in establishing a little order, but doesn't deny the gifts (though we do). And second, notice the healings and 'mighty deeds'. If various Corinth members had those gifts, how did they establish that 'Paul' was anything unusual (like for example 'inspired')?? 1st Cor 14:34-35 [TEXT] This is the section that many 'modern' commentaries suggest is an interpolation (insertion). The two verses break the flow. The pattern in the two verses exactly matches the pastorals (later syn-dated). Plus, the instruction appears very 'un-Paul'-ish ... Paul more so than even Jesus, placed women as equals in the gospel. When I check the syn-dating for the two verses, they indeed don't match 'Paul'. But they're not 'interpolated' either ... they fit the earlier and later verses quite well. What is curious though is the word 'assemblies' (v33). The sections using this word are all syn-dated around the time of Matthew (six uses). I've discussed this elsewhere on this site, but (1) 1CO has multiple writing periods and (2) the later editing is very embedded. This whole section is likely part of the later editing (though not just v34-35). I'd guess it's probably by the pastoral writer. EXTRA: In some greek manuscripts, the two verses show up in other locations in the chapter, suggesting the two verses may have started out as margin notes that a copyist included in the next version of the greek text. 2nd Cor 11:14-15 [TEXT] You really don't realize how much Paul uses what we call 'non-canonical' references and concepts in his teaching. And each time, you pretty much HAVE to have access to a 'liberal' commentary, to know where he's getting it from. This one (Satan changing) isn't in the OT. Indeed, there's very little 'Satan' in the OT and only once with an 'angel'. The closest you get is the Apocalypse of Moses 17, and Qumran 1QS 3:20-21 and CD 5:18. Now, think about this .... the Qumran scrolls were found in the late 1940s. So absent that chance retention and later discovery, you'd never even know there WERE writings of this nature, right? But Paul's audience in Corinth seems quite familiar with not only the 'angel of darkness' but the fact that Satan could be an 'angel of light' too! Interestingly, quite a bit of 'Paul' can be found in 1QS or Qumran's 'Rule of the Community'. Galatians 2:1-2 [TEXT] Almost from the start, there's been various attempts to reconcile Act's 'Jerusalem Council', with Paul's Galatians account. I think once you accept Paul's dream (or 'vision', similar to the Mormons and Joseph Smith's vision), then anything Paul says is from God. Done. But subtracting Paul's personal dreams, you do have to wonder about '14 years'. That's quite a LONG time to be teaching the gentiles, skipping over circumcision and knowing full-well, he's beyond Jerusalem's (the apostles) involvement. It's even more impressive, that God/Jesus/Spirit would let Paul know for 14 years, and no one else. The apostles must have been crestfallen, finding out after 14 years that Jesus didn't talk to them. But, again, it all depends which dreams are 'ok'. It's also interesting Paul didn't use his 'mighty works' (and miracle hanky) at the council. Probably didn't want to offend anyone. Ephesians and Eph 1:1 [TEXT] Most commentaries (and Bibles) will point out that the first verse of Ephesians doesn't include 'Ephesians' in many of the older manuscripts. This had led many (excluding the crusty old Darby) to suggest that it was a 'circular' letter, meant for many churches in the area. Marcion, in the second century, had it named 'Laodiceans', since Paul mentions a letter to them. I suggest a different 'take' on the picture. I believe it was written 'from' Ephesus to the surrounding churches, as another compilation (similar to Romans). Here's why. Chaps 1-2: These two chapters don't match Paul's typical syntax. Much of chapter 1 is a long run-on sentence, some suggesting some internal structure, with the syntax matching syntax much later in time. Chap 2 is similar, with syntax best matching the period of gospel writing (Luke/Matthew/John). Chap 3-5: If you look at the Eph 3:1, you'll notice Ephesians 'starting over'. Plus the syntax for these three chapters matches the early Paul letters very closely. Chap 6: This chapter up through verse 10, continues 'Paul'. The remainder, however, is completely different from Paul, and much later. I really think Ephesians is several epistles 'glued together'. My curiousity began with the 'seal' in Eph 1:13 (see below), and an odd repetitive 'we'/'you' in chapter 2. Topping it off was the 're-start' in chapter 3. The 'glueing' was likely around the time of John, and presumably in Ephesus. Other reasons: (1) A surprising number of concepts in Ephesians are also found in the gospel of John (also associated with Ephesus). (2) The greek in Eph 1:1 is 'odd', with two recipients (saints and Ephesians); 'from' the Ephesians makes more sense, and (3) 'Paul' oddly doesn't seem to know the Ephesians personally, even though he stayed there 3 years (a later compendium makes more sense). Eph 1:13 [TEXT] See also Eph 4:30. Both of these verses are the only Ephesians mention of the 'Holy' Spirit (there's bunches of Spirit without 'Holy'). Both associate it with the seal and both have an odd greek sequencing ... more like the Spirit of the holy promise (1:13), and the Spirit, the holy, the God (4:30). The seal concept is closely associated with John, and all three have syntax 'dating' around the time of the gospel of John. John is also the gospel writer that doesn't associate 'holy' with Spirit. For reference, Acts emphasizes the 'Holy' Spirit and the promise, but has no seal. (Acts has three sections all of which date before/during the time of Paul.) 2nd Cor 1:22 (the other 'seal' reference) has a seal and Spirit, but is one of the latest syntax-dated letters. Conclusion? I'd say the 'seal' concept originated from Ephesus around the time of John the gospel writer. Eph 2:6 [TEXT] If you're fairly confident Eph 3-5 is 'Paul' and Eph 1-2 is not (see above), reading early Eph can be fun. The issue is 'where did the writer get THAT'! This verse has us (believers of course) already resurrected AND already sitting with Jesus in heaven! Yahoooo! Look around you ... wow, can you believe it?!!! Heaven. Mmmm, it feels so good. Actually (calm down there!), v5-8 is earlier greek (Paul). Now we have to wonder what Paul was thinking! The commentaries aren't too helpful, here either skipping the verse or waffling around on existing jewish cultural background beliefs. Ok, maybe. Eph 2:10 [TEXT] This verse has God preparing all our future 'works' (the ones 'Paul' said we didn't really need). Again, the commentaries either skip this verse, or waffle 20 different ways with it. In the previous verse, the writer assures us that boasting about works is a waste. The obvious reason? God made the list a long time ago. We're just 'filling in the blanks', so to speak! Personally, I think these verses are trying to reconcile the old 'Paul' (at the time of this writing), with James and the new emphasis on 'piety' (pastorals and 1Pe). It's quite interesting as a theological transition. Whoever packaged Ephesians were really good. Quite admirable. Eph 2:20, 3:5 [TEXT] This is another 'fun' passage (see previous). The curiousity here is 'apostles' plural. (1) They're conceptually equated to the prophets (quite radical at the time!). And (2) relative to Paul's previous ranting about them, 'he' seems to have changed dramatically. But wait ... there's more! Moving on seven more verses (3:5), the apostles have become 'holy' AND both them and the prophets just then received revelations. Apostles, I'm familiar with. But prophets?? Since I suspect this is not Paul writing, I wonder if this writer thought Paul was among the 'apostles'. I don't think so. This later greek 'syntax-dating' is close to 2Pe 3:15-16, which had a similar concept relative to the prophets, but Paul had his 'wisdom'. Colossians Colossians seems to have quite a bit of 'Ephesians' mixed in (or visa versa). Overall, it 'dates' to slightly AFTER the 'Pauline' Ephesians chaps 3-5, but for all practical purposes, is the same time period. I thought it might be using the same 'pieces' from which Ephesians was pasted together, but I'm really not sure. Colossians is a lot 'cleaner' (Paul-ish). Soooo, just guessing, maybe 'our' Ephesians is a '2nd version', updated in Ephesus and expanding on both Ephesians version 1 and Colossians? That's a twist, though it WOULD explain all of the patterns. This approach would make Colossians the more 'authentic' of the two. Of course, this doesn't speak to Colossian's 'unique' vocabulary! 2nd Thessalonians This is the only book so far, where the writing is probably 'created'. Our 'modern' western values might view that as 'bad'; I'm not sure the view during roman times. Here's why I don't think it's on the level. (1) The syntactical dating is significantly different on all three chapters. Chap 1 is mainly 'late', from the time of the pastorals/Timothy. Chap 2 is from the time of the Johnines (discusses the son of destruction, etc). And Chap 3 combines an early-Paul ending, with later editing around the time of the pastorals/Timothy. (2) The vocabulary mix is extremely 'tight' overall, and is a combination of Mark and Paul (both similar in 'time'). Normally there is statistical 'error' among all the potential authors in an average NT book ... generally about 7-12% per potential author. The 2nd Thessalonians error mix is much lower and is way too 'controlled'. Pseudo-writing is interesting. If you have a good familiarity with the author you're copying, you can easily match the vocabulary mix and sentence phrasing. But getting past the neural network (high-order analytics) evaluation is difficult. The reason is that the neural net is not just looking at the sentence syntax ... it's also looking at the flow into the following sentences. Each writer not only has a pattern for what he is writing, but also a pattern for the fit into the next sentences. This is very hard to 'create'. And this is where 2nd Thessalonians appears to fail. If you know the 2nd Thessalonians background syntax patterns aren't 'right', the process of 'creating' this book becomes more obvious, as you read the verses. On the surface they seem ok. But pretty quickly, you can see the writer 'pasting' Pauline concepts together. Why? My guess is 'the son of destruction'. If this is like other Johnine-related passages, it was likely composed in/around Ephesus. Later, the pastoral writer, or Timothy cleaned it up, so apparently it was viewed as OK. Maybe so? 1st Tim 1:3-4 [TEXT] There's a rule-of-thumb I've noticed that is quite consistent. Whenever a writer refers 'backward' saying 'remember' or 'as I previously said', it's almost guaranteed the next section is going to be 'late-dated' syntax-wise (meaning 'Paul' didn't write it). When you're reading this type of section, it doesn't appear that it's out of place. But when you isolate it, it becomes more obvious something's not right. These two verses are a good example. The interesting thing is that Matthew and Luke's 'additions' (ie not 'Q' and not 'Mark') came 'out' just a little earlier in 'syntax-time', both containing geneologies (conflicting), Jesus-births (conflicting), and Jesus-ascensions (conflicting). Geneologies and birth-stories were not even hinted at by the previous Jesus-intimate writers ... two of Jesus' brothers, John, Peter(Mark?) ... even our favorite guy Paul. Not quite convinced? Take a look at 2Pe 1:16 . [TEXT], where the fables are also mentioned. 2PE syntax 'dates' immediately after Matthew and Luke additions. Here, the petrine writer is ALSO questioning the fables. He's bragging he didn't use them in his account and he's an eyewitness ... unlike the somebody elses! 1st Tim 2:15 [TEXT] This passage sums up why women should be quiet in the church (starting in v11). Actually, from the greek, the implication is 'wives', since the greek can be either 'women' or 'wives', but here, a 'husband' is involved, along with a 'home' and 'children'. But this verse is positively odd, since it quite clearly says 'moms' are saved by (1) having babies and (2) BOTH her AND her hubby being good (faith, love, sanctification, and sobriety; not just 'any' moms can meet the special test). But, that sounds a little too odd, since it runs counter to the rest of the NT. Where did it come from? Well, surprise, surprise, surprise. It's in the Pseudepigraphia, which shows up quite a bit in the Christian writings. In the second section of the Books of Adam and Eve (Apocalypse of Moses 25:3), God was talking to Eve about painful childbirth: 'But thou (Eve) shalt confess and say: 'Lord, Lord, save me, and I will turn no more to the sin of the flesh.' (With Adam; who else??) And on this account, from thine own words I (God) will judge thee, by reason of the enmity which the enemy (Satan) has planted in thee.' This Adam/Eve section also discusses the source of sin. And so in 1st Tim 2:14: 'Adam was not deceived, but the woman, having been deceived, into sin came.' (Note that ADAM didn't have the original sin; only EVE. The first true MALE sinner would have been Cain, and thus proof of Eve's sin-passing-mitochondrial DNA.) This last verse is interesting, since most translations have the man 'not deceived' and the woman 'deceived'. But in the greek, the two 'deceived's are not the same. The second one is 'really deceived'! (Most translators have to face their wives at home.) Why the difference? Easy. Adam was 'misled' by a woman (not deceived). But Eve was (badly) 'deceived' by a talking-snake. Almost all men know snakes can't talk. Philemon This is one of the few NT passages that are personal in nature. An escaped slave became a Christian. What to do? Apparently, go back to being a slave, of course. Paul foresees a problem with punishment, but luckily the owner is also a Christian and so Paul does some begging. The issue here is the change in Paul's greek. In verses 1-9, the greek style is classic Paul ... I call it his standard greek-y boilerplate. But when the begging starts, the syntactical style shifts to a jewish-y format similar to John and Matthew. That 'tells me' the slave owner is jewish. And thus the slave is not likely jewish. But Paul is such a smoothie (the Essene/Qumran name for pharasees)! Hey Philemon ... I gave you eternal life ... You owe me! Be a nice slave owner! James Martin Luther sure didn't like James. 'STRAW!!'. This is curious, since Martin is worried about James vs Paul, not Jesus. We all know Paul. Jesus talked to Paul. Jesus didn't talk to James (at least about 'works' anyway; maybe about taking out the trash, if James was Jesus' younger brother). I'm not a theologian, but syntactically, 'James' actually matches 'Paul' pretty close in syntax-time. Quite clearly, 'James' was written in the same period as the core Pauline epistles. Conservatives don't like that. They kind of have to admit some sort of 'James' wrote 'James' and was 'inspired'. Just not inspired equal to Paul?! Personally, I'd wonder about 'Paul'. Everybody knew James, who likely lived with Jesus (brother and/or disciple). And Paul knew ????. Who? James 2:14 et. al. (faith vs works) James is most famous for his emphasis on 'works'. Most commentaries happily step up to the plate, pointing out that James is not REALLY attacking Paul (Martin Luther I guess being not terribly swift). Personally, I don't see how you can get 'James' and 'Paul' in the same New Testament, but not on the issue of faith/works (instead: 'the Law!'). But, if you assume James was 'the' bony-knee James that Josephus references (and maybe even Jesus' brother, or step-brother if you're really skittish), then the comparison to 'Paul' doesn't play well. James, as a strong jewish believer, would have been referring to Joel 2:32 [TEXT]. Even Peter in Acts 2:21 uses the reference, the meaning of which is clearly apocalyptic. James, like the apostles in Acts is very much expecting Jesus' immediate return (James 5:8). But, this is NOT the issue here (huh?!). In the James letter, as well as at the Jerusalem Conference (Acts 15:16), James uses the OT as the true authority ... not Jesus! James 'could' have simply quoted 'the Lord' (Mat 7:21 / Luke 6:46, and Luke 13:25). How simple! That's why I don't think the Jerusalem church had access to 'Q'. And presumably James, maybe 20 years after his brother's death, still doesn't seem to know much of what Jesus said (nor Paul for that matter). That sure seems quite a mystery to me, suggesting 'Q' might be the real problem? Of course, I think James was James (syntactical patterns); not a later imposter. Petrine Epistles Going by the greek syntactical patterns and their approximate 'dating': 1st Peter is about the same period as Mat/Luke, and has a very close match to the book of Hebrews (greek, as well as the theology). For comparison, Hebrews does have some likely Pauline passages, but the book as a whole is not likely from Paul. Barnabas might be good candidate for writing both, connecting to both Paul AND Peter. 2nd Peter ch1-2 is clearly different from 1st Peter, closely matching James. If Peter did indeed write, I'd suspect 2nd Peter 1-2 as his. 2nd Peter also uses many Jude quotes, smoothing some of the Pseudepigraphia text. For reference, Jude's syntax falls around the period of the fall of Jerusalem. 2nd Peter ch3 is likely much later, matching neither 1st or 2nd Peter. Obviously this writer is trying to 'tie up loose ends' and probably is redacting the whole petrine group. 1st Peter 3:6. [TEXT] This is an interesting reference to the OT, and tells you a little about whoever wrote Peter (one of several questioned of the canonized writings). Read the actual OT passage in Gen 18:12. [TEXT] First, Sarah didn't actually 'say' anything to Abraham; it was in her 'innerds', as the hebrew is literally translated (or in english, 'thoughts' or 'heart'). Second, 'Lord' is the hebrew equivalent of 'husband', relative to a woman. Review Amos 4:1 for comparison (back to the Bashan cows again!). To Peter's credit, however, the word does have a strong 'who's in charge' emphasis, consistent with his point. However, third, the Sarah 'thought' is not an 'obedient' one concerning Abraham (calls him an 'old' Lord, as Peter would have it). Now, it's more likely that the Peter writer is reading from the LXX or greek version of the OT. Here, the word is 'kurios' or 'Lord', which has as its meaning 'lord','master', and 'owner.' Also, if you compare the LXX to 'our' OT, you'll also notice the LXX subtly changes the meaning a bit in v13, making it incompatible with v14 (I'm not sure why). What draws my curiousity is why the Peter writer selects from such a weak passage, other than it being 'Sarah'. And, whether he was familiar with the hebrew. See Gen 18 for a discussion of the OT version. 1st Peter 3:19-20 and 4:6 [TEXT] The NIV referenced editions connect these two verses, I guess hoping that two 'nutty' verses will yield an un-nutty result. Newer translations try to 'smoooooth' the problem playing with the grammar, following the lead of the commentaries, who 'just can't believe it'. If you've spent much time with the Qumran secular writings (Dead Sea Scrolls) and/or the Pseudepigraphia, you'd immediately recognize the apocalyptic allusions. You have the 'spirits in prison' combined with the reference to the most recent (and only) previous apocalyptic event (Noah). Compare this to the evil ones causing the flood and imprisoned (Enoch 101.13 211.10). Plus you have the gospel being presented to the already dead (which the modern translators happily adjust; the older ones were gut-less). More amusing is a greek testament in the 1700s literally adding 'Enoch' due to the odd emundation in the first phrase. Spooky! Compare these to Paul in Ephesians 4:9 [TEXT]. Most Christians view Jesus' post-Crucifixion journey as 'out of the tomb'. 'Raised up', just like Lazarus. But no, Jesus had some work to do first, in the LOWER parts of the earth (for the listeners at the time, that was a literal place). Of course, you're WELL FAMILIAR with 1 Cor 15:29 [TEXT]. There Paul's struggling with the proof that the dead will be resurrected along with the living. What better proof than 'baptisms for the dead'?! Ah, yes. If Christians only read their Bibles. Head for the cemetaries, boys!! 2nd Peter chap 3. [TEXT] In general, 2nd Peter chap 3 has syntax 'dating' similar to the Mat/Luk/John period (1Pe being later). Presuming literal dating around 80-90ce(?), that would explain why the scoffers are hard at work ... Jerusalem is in ashes, the majority of the apostles are gone, and 'no Jesus'. STEP 1: Identify the source of authority (v2). That would be (1) the sayings of the holy prophets and (2) the commands of the apostles. You'll note Jesus didn't make it into the list. STEP 2: Re-date the prophesy (v8). Here the re-dating is preceded by fire and brimstone (ok, just fire), reserved for impious men. The new date: "thief (in-the-night)" day. Interestingly, this can also be found in the gospels (in-the-night optional), likely written around this same time as well. Gee. STEP 3: What about brother Paul (v15)?? First notice, Paul isn't the 'Apostle Paul'. Second, people were obviously having a little trouble with brother Paul's epistles. Here, the writer DOESN'T mention Paul's 'revelation' or 'commands' (not an apostle). Rather the writer discusses Paul's 'wisdom' or sophia granted to him. Hard to understand, that 'sophia'. In greek times, 'wisdom' was NOT revelation. My personal feeling is that the writer is discussing Paul's writings relative to early gnosticism, but this MIGHT be a stretch. STEP 4: Impious misuse of brother Paul's writings (v16-17). I find it odd that the impious are using brother Paul's writings. Luckily, it is to their own destruction. Whew. Personally, I think it's worth your while to go over chapter 3 carefully ... notice what's there, and what's NOT there. I believe MAT/LUK/JOHN and this writing allowed Christianity to 'recover' from Jesus' no-show. I also really wonder WHERE they got the idea of Jesus' immediate return. I suspect the jewish pseudepigraphia were driving the early expected return (Enoch, Book of Jubilees, Assumption of Moses). Notice during the Jerusalem Council, James references the OT ... not Jesus. I'd bet a similar situation here. 2 Peter 3:8 [TEXT] This is the one-day-equals-a-thousand-years passage. Most cross-referencing Bibles cite Psa 90:4 as what the writer was refering to ('For a thousand years in Thine eyes are as yesterday ...' YLT). The big problem was that the apostles (and Jesus, if you think Mark was 'inspired') had promised the End-Time in their lifetime ('generation'). By the time of 2 Peter 3, obviously some had noticed that nothing had happened. And so the writer provides an explanation ... God's calendar is different from man's. Today, two thousand years later, this little tidbit might seem obvious. But at the time, I seriously doubt so many early Christians would have ever risked life-and-limb for the 'Coming' THOUSANDS of years later! 2 Peter 3 seems a little disingenuous. Earlier this year, I finished 'dating' the greek syntax patterns, stretching from the LXX, through the apocrypha, pseudepigraphia, the NT and into the 'Ancient Fathers'. Interestingly enough, there is indeed a slow transition in the greek syntax patterns that allows sorting the writings and approximating their dates of 'final' composition. What was surprising was that the Epistle of Barnabas (as well as Hermas the Shepherd) sorted at about the same time as Philippians (i.e. much earlier than what scholars assign). And so, I went back through Barnabas, and indeed it does read very similar to early-Acts. Maybe 'Barnabas' was for real? The early Christian leaders thought so. Most interestingly, Barnabas also has the God-time dating, though not as an apology for No-End-Time-Yet. Barnabas mentions the calculation, with presumably 4,000 years before Jesus, 2,000 years after Jesus, and then 'the End'. The NT problem was a little different from 2 Peter's; various writers had to explain why the End-Time would be EARLY! And so you can find references to the time being shortened (Mat 24:22, Mar 13:20, Rom 9:28, 1Co 7:29). But with no end-time, the 2 Peter 3 writer re-introduced God-time as an obvious piece of logic ('6,000 THOUSAND years, guys, remember?'). Sooooo ... hmmmm .... 2,000 years AFTER Jesus? That would be maybe year 2030 or so? I'll still be alive by then (in theory anyway). 1st/2nd/3rd John Who wrote the Johnine epistles? Ignoring scholarly attempts to date the theology, the greek syntax patterns in 1st John VERY CLOSELY match the gospel of John. Indeed, the rabbi'ish chapters in the gospel of John can literally duplicate 1st John BETTER than 1st John can ! This strongly suggests that the 'pre-final' John writer (pre-redactor, if you will) probably wrote 1st John, either about the same time or closely thereafter. Similarly 3rd John almost exactly matches 1st John (and John) on its syntax patterns. To be honest, I had previously thought 1st John would be significantly earlier than John, given its heavy emphasis on the immediacy of the end-time (unlike John). But Romans, Matthew and Luke all 'date' later than the fall of Jerusalem and also expect a near-term end-time (happily commiting Jesus to the timing). So the important question ..... did John the apostle do the writing (both John and 1st John)? I had thought theologically 'not likely'. The gospel of John was just too 'different' from the synoptics. But then I got to looking at the 'Son of Man' and it tracking back to Daniel and Ezekiel (Revelations also tracking to Ezekiel). These in-turn track to Ugarit traditions of 'El' and his visier-god Baal (matching the Daniel 7 write-up). And all of these track to the Enoch Similitudes which appear to show up approximately 45ce. With all these 'clues', I think John's 'high-Christology' might be just the 'greek' version of the 'Son of Man' (which is indeed frequent in the gospel of John). Where the synoptic miracles seemed to have meant the end-time dispensation and messiah of Israel, John's miracles showed Jesus as the eternal Daniel/Enochian Son of Man. 'John' effectively re-wrote the 'end-time' logic. What about 2nd John? That one's a mystery. 2nd John doesn't match 1st or 3rd John. It's closest match is to the Ephesians letter, and to a lesser degree the gospel of John. Just guessing, I'd bet 2nd John provided the tradition that the Johnine community was in Ephesus. It may well have ended up there, even if both John and 1st John (and Revelations) have a strong Palestinian tradition. 1st John 4:20 [TEXT] On our 'Theology' page we discuss 'Love' and the variation between 'conservative' versus 'liberal' Christians. The verse here really illustrates the issue, and is fun to listen to, when a pastor really winds-up. Without a doubt, he'll be stressing the 'love' part, making a flying-leap over the 'brother' part. But significantly, the whole concept falls apart in defining 'brother'. In 1st John, it's clearly not 'mankind' (unlike Jesus). Most likely it's the fellow believers that agree with the 1st John writer (versus the nasty anti-Christ guys). If you're in doubt, the easy way to illustrate this is to ask the pastor who he considers to be his 'brothers'? Ah, there's the rub. Chances are, he'll eventually have to roll out his denomination's creed, after stumbling through some really obvious questions. But even if you get that far, you still have to define 'love'. Christians love to say 'agapeo' love (versus phileo/brotherly), not realizing that at the time, 'agapeo' was also used sometimes in sexually specific environments (to put it nicely, and outside the NT of course). But again, ignoring the details, today's 'Christian love' is quite frankly not a whole lot different than just being a nice person (and often not even that; just ask group campground operators in Oak Creek Canyon near here). Returning to our friendly pastor, my guess is that he KNOWS what 'love' is, but can't demand TOO much from his little flock of human beings (and still keep his job). 1st John 5:16 [TEXT] Check your commentaries on this verse. Most of mine get busy on the 'sin to death', and jump over the 'ask and He (God) will give him (the brother) life' part. Indeed most commentaries quickly discuss 'sin to death' and Ananias / Sapphira, which few churches (any?) these days take literally (and, for that matter, death resulting from 'not discerning the body of Christ'; 1st Cor). The first phrase in the verse, though, is interesting ... praying and thereby saving a brother. The commentaries that do take this one on, quickly start rationalizing, and rationalizing HARD. 1st-John-writer REALLY meant .... what? Of course, also in 1st Cor, you have your baptisms for the dead, so who knows? Maybe you too can save a LOT of people! But only the ones God pre-destined, of course; be careful. Jude 'Hey Jude'. What a great song. But poor Jude. No one seems to love him. At church ... 'Oh, I just loooove reading John!' 'Well, I just can't take my eyes off of Revelations!'. I remember the day I told everyone about how great Jude was. You could have heard a pin drop. I was kind of afraid to bring up Enoch (which is even better). Find the pastor that gustily quotes from 'Jude'! I was a little curious ... were the 'ancient fathers' as reticent? As it turns out, using a comments-per-chapter ratio (Jude only having one), Jude is actually quite well regarded. His 'once delivered' quote was great for closing the barn door on more inspirational utterances. Jude's big mistake was his quoting non-OT sources (Enoch, Assumption of Moses, and who knows what else). Clearly Jude had 'not' been given the 'word' on the NT canon. Now, you can also find Paul referencing the pseudepigraphia (you 'do' know why the 3rd heaven is the 'one' to go to, don't you?). Luke wasn't far behind, seeming to place Jesus as the one to 'wake Israel up' for the restoration. Do a close comparison of 'Q' between Mat and Luke ... you'll find even more Enoch. And if you're still not convinced, ask yourself why the NT readers already seemed to 'know' why they should be 'saved'. Or why they should 'repent'. Or details about 'the resurrection'. Ask yourself why in the world would so many jews be traipsing down to the Jorden river for baptism (Jerusalem having MANY purification pools, and we ARE talking almost a mile vertically ... in the heat)? That's why I think Jude is one of the few 'honest' writings in the NT. Revelations From the greek syntactical patterns, there were likely two sources or at least stages of writing, with the primary (and earlier) author having aramaic as his primary language (both sources apocalyptic and overlapping beginning in chapters 6-7). If indeed this were true, then the first section (and final redaction) would be near the end of the 1st century (when Christians were being attacked), while the second section of Revelations would be much earlier when James and the Jerusalem church were under assault. Given the book's unclear authorship, strange visions, and no other NT attestation, I haven't pursued it further. I apply the 'Moses Rule' (Deu 18:22) for determining who's a REAL prophet (their prophecies actually happen!). However ... in a Flagstaff used bookstore near NAU, I found a commentary on Revelations written by an older professor whom I respected (and who is now departed). So I brought it home and dug in. He was going along fine on his discussions of when the book was likely written and from where. He was refreshingly honest on which evidence was 'strong' and which was pretty weak. Sounded just like him. Then, he came to Revelation's authorship. He noted the problem of the poor greek (versus John's gospel/epistles), admitting greek wasn't his expertise. He pointed out the unlikely conclusions about Papias and 'John the Elder'. OK. And he discussed the similarities of the 'Johnines', plus later church references. Also OK. But good ole Homer. He just couldn't stop there. He said that for believers, it really didn't matter, since God could use ANY penman for inspiration. WHAT?! Of course that's obviously true. But then how would the 'believer' know it's from God? Or ... how do you know your next door neighbor is not one of God's 'penmen'?? How can the 'believer' believe? Normally, I'd procede no further, but I knew this was 'classic' Homer. Homer Haley always insisted on being truthful. I hope Homer is in heaven. For more than one reason, obviously! Rev 13:18 [TEXT] As John sat on the island of Patmos breathing in the fair winds of the Aegean, he probably was chuckling as he wrote this verse. Being able to see the future, he knew of the thousands, maybe millions, of writers, pastors, and even Sedonan mis-fits who would arrive here scratching their heads in synchopated rhythm. Some early manuscripts have '616', but they weren't in on the humor. In western New Mexico, there WAS a US highway 666. Anyone could have seen THAT couldn't be right, since it ran north/south. And so, eventually the true believers importuned the Federal highway folks to re-number the highway (now US491, and thus not fooling anyone). But Tony Hillerman, the mystery writer, refused to re-number the highway in his novels about the tribal police on the Navajo Nation. Just ONE MORE indication of WHOSE SIDE he was on. Yep. | |||
| Copyright ©, 2010, dmbarnhart | |||
| NEXT PAGE: the NT THEOLOGIES >>> Prev Back Next |