Views from Crestmont Drive

Next set of Biblical commentary. See Part 1 about sources used — NRSV, Asimov, Miller, KJV via Wells.

List of previous posts:
Intro and sources used (Oxford’s edition of the New Revised Standard Version, the King James Version via Wells’ Skeptical Annotated Bible, Stephen M. Miller’s Complete Guide to the Bible, Isaac Asimov’s Asimov’s Guide to the Bible); Matthew; Mark; Luke; John; Acts; Paul #1: 1 Thessalonians, 2 Thessalonians, Galatians; Paul #2: 1 and 2 Corinthians; Romans; Paul #3: Colossians, Ephesians, 1 and 2 Timothy

Hebrews

This letter was not attributed to Paul until the end of the 2nd century, according to Oxford; modern scholars tend to regard it as anonymous. It does not begin with Paul introducing himself, as do his other epistles; and as both Oxford and Asimov discuss, stylistic differences between this and earlier epistles argue against it being written by Paul. Still, those who argued it *was* written by Paul succeeded in getting this book into the NT canon, in the 4th century. Thus it is taken, by believers, to have equivalent authority as every other book in the Bible.

• Like Paul’s epistles, this is another sermon, and the opening chapters strike me as a lot of specious ‘reasoning’ based on the *absence* of detail in Genesis to deduce something about Jesus, an argument keying off the supposed resurrection as the justification for eternal life. I suppose this might some powerful sense to the illiterate listeners of this sermon who never had any occasion to read copies of the ancient scrolls to study for themselves.
• 2:6, famous line, “What is man, that thou art mindful of him?” in KJV; “What are human beings that you are mind of them” in NRSV. Asimov used “That Thou Art Mindful of Him” as a title for one of his stories, in fact.
• 8:7, the writer is obsessed with dismissing the “first covenant” in favor of the new; “For if that first covenant had been faultless, there would have been no need to look for a second one.”
• 8:13, and this verse, “In speaking of ‘a new covenant,’ he has made the first one obsolete.” (Miller sees this as the central point of the book.)
• Two points: first, 8:13 is the kind of verse one would quote to deny that OT proscriptions still apply. (Though as I recall Jesus said the opposite—but the gospel where he supposedly said that hadn’t been written down yet, and so wasn’t handy to constrain the writer of Hebrews.) If you want to excuse Biblical pronouncements against homosexuality, or about the stoning of disobedient children, just cite Hebrews 8:13, to dismiss everything in the OT. If you want to cite Biblical pronouncements against homosexuality, or…. (well nothing else comes to mind; homosexuality seems to be a preoccupation among fundamentalists)… then ignore Hebrews 8:13 and cite Leviticus.
• Second, presumably the Muslims and the Mormons think they have good reasons for overturning, or at least amending, the testimony of the NT. If the witness of the apostles and the revelations of Paul and others are convincing to a modern person, why aren’t the justifications for the Qur’an and the Book of Mormon? (Answer: because people don’t actually think about these things. They follow the teachings of their tribe — their community, their family. And there is no reason to disrespect their reason for doing so. Unless you are some kind of scientist, obsessed with tracking down the actual truth of reality.)
• Ch9, this writer, like many in the OT, is obsessed with blood sacrifice, e.g. 9:22.
• 9:28, “Christ… will appear a second time”. Still waiting.
• 10:4, “For it is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins.” The writer here is stating that a basic principle of the OT is invalid. What is his authority to say so? Why would these rules have changed? One wonders to what extent, and when, did the various religions move away from blood rituals to more symbolic kinds of sacrifice; i.e., how did the ancient religions need to ameliorate their more barbaric practices to accommodate a gradually more civilized world? Because otherwise those religions would not have survived, in a more civlized world. (Natural selection!)
• 11:1, famous line, KJV: “Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.” The explanation for this sentiment is the first phrase, and its evocation of what we now understand as self-serving human nature; its undermining is the second, which implies that *anything* not seen can be the basis for any kind of faith. See Jerry Coyne’s Faith Versus Fact to spell this out.
• 12:7, “Endure trails for the sake of discipline. God is treating you as children; for what child is there whom a parent does not discipline?” The analogy of God to a stern father laid bare. (See Sagan’s book, lecture 7, summarized here.) This was the best these ancients could imagine about the nature and purpose of the universe, at that time, that it’s all about fathers and disobedient children.
• 13:2, “Do not neglect to show hospitality to strangers, for by doing that some have entertained angels without knowing it.” Only be nice to people in case they are angels. Is that what Jesus counseled?
• On this point as on many, many others – the Bible is an anthology of texts from various authors with various agendas directed to various audiences, that obviously do not agree with each other on many, many points. The more I read the Bible, and listen to preachers and politicians cite particular verses, the more I think anyone citing any Bible verse to support some position, is being disingenuous; it’s the well-known issue of cherry-picking verses to support whatever one wants to believe, or support.
• 13:9, “Do not be carried away by all kinds of strange teachings…” Like Paul, this author warns his audience listening to any lessons or sermon from anyone else. Don’t think, just believe!

James

A short, controversial book, whose theme is that faith without deeds is useless. (2:20)

There are a couple famous James in the Bible, and no one really knows who wrote this book, if either of them did.

• 1:19, “You must understand this, my beloved: let everyone be quick to listen, slow to speak, slow to anger…” Good advice.
• 2:17, “So faith by itself, if it has no works, is dead.” Key point.
• 4:13ff, “Come now, you who say, ‘Today or tomorrow we will go to such and such a town and spend a year there, doing business and making money.’ Yet you do not even know what tomorrow will bring.” That is, if you are so presumptuous to make any kind of plans, 4:16, “you boast in your arrogance; all such boasting is evil.” Really?? (I’m trying again to think why this book is regarded by so many as a fount of wisdom. Because most of its followers have not actually read it, I suspect.)
• 4:14, “…What is your life? For you are a mist that appears for a little while and then vanishes.” Wells in SAB alludes this to “All we are is dust in the wind”.
• 5:15, “The prayer of faith will save the sick, and the Lord will raise them up; and anyone who has committed sins will be forgiven.” There are people to this day who let their children die because they pray rather than seek medical attention. This would be a key reason why the Bible is an evil [edit] incoherent and obsolete book — to the extent that it counsels believers about how to live and survive.

These follow Romans chronologically, written from 60 to 67, along with Philippians, Philemon, and Titus, which I read but about which I don’t seem to have taken any notes. (These epistles by Paul, or his surrogate, are all pretty similar.) See previous post for links to my earlier posts on Biblical commentary and sources referenced.

Colossians: Paul counseling his follows to avoid false prophets (i.e. anyone besides himself).

• Asimov, 467b, interprets the concern here as about the attraction of Gnostic ideas, which included doctrines concerning a vast hierarchy of angels, all intermediaries between God and man. This would make Jesus just another intermediary. No, says Paul—
• 1:16, “for in him all things in heaven and on earth were created… all things have been created through him and for him.”
• As always, I’m impressed by the certainty with which Paul makes such claims.
• 2:4, and so he warns that “no one may deceive you with plausible arguments” – or, in KJV, “enticing words”. The curious vocabulary suggests that the issue is not about argument or debate in any modern sense, but rather rhetoric and sermonizing. (Remember, even the early Greeks hundreds of years earlier, theorizing about the nature of the universe, presented them as interesting concepts to consider, without any notion of looking at the evidence of the world for verification. Those concepts did not arise for another 1500 years.)
• 2:8, similarly, “See to it that no one takes you captive through philosophy and empty deceit, according to human tradition, according to the elemental spirits of the universe, and not according to Christ.” Oxford notes that ‘philosophy’ includes ethical and religious teachings. Word meanings change.
• And 2:18, “Do not let anyone disqualify you… insisting on self-abasement and worship of angels, dwelling on visions, puffed up without cause by a human way of thinking.” How ironic of Paul to dismiss visions – of others.
• Asimov, p468, comments on this: “Nevertheless, in the centuries after Paul, mystical thought invaded Christianity and hierarchies of angels were adopted in profusion, although Jesus was recognized as transcending them all. The two highest, seraphim and cherubim, come from the Old Testament, as do the two lowest, archangels and angels. The intermediate levels: thrones, dominions, virtues, power, and principalities are, however, taken from the Gnostic theories that Paul denounces.”
• 3:22, “Slaves, obey your earthly masters in everything…”, one of many citations throughout the Bible of an ethical standard never questioned therein.
• 4:1, in which the slave/master relationship is explicitly cited in reference to God: “Masters, treat your slaves justly and fairly, for you know that you also have a Master in heaven.”

Next is Ephesians, which Oxford notes, in a table of matching verses, is very similar to Colossians. There is emphasis here about how the followers of Christ are “chosen”; more about masters and slaves – 6:5, “Slaves, obey your earthly masters with fear and trembling…” – a practice which Miller defends as not so bad, p415, “Slavery was usually much different in Roman times than it was in the United States…”; and an extended metaphor, 6:13-17, about suiting up for battle, i.e., against “the rulers, against the authorities, against the cosmic powers of this present darkness, against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly places” (6:12).

1 Timothy.

These letters, as arranged in the NT, get increasingly short; this one, in NRSV, is five full pages (including footnotes). This is one that scholars think might not have been written by Paul himself. The theme is proper conduct in the household of God.

• It begins by immediately warning against other doctrines, “meaningless talk” (1:6), and discusses how “the law” is “not for the innocent” (1:9) but rather for “the lawless and disobedient” including “…murderers, fornicators, sodomites, slave traders, liars” and so on. (Curious that slave traders are condemned but slavery itself is fine.) Why doesn’t the “law” (i.e. OT) apply to everyone? [Isn’t everyone a sinner?]
• 2:7, “For this I was appointed a herald and an apostle (I am telling the truth, I am not lying), a teacher of the Gentiles in faith and truth.” Curious protestation! In KJV it’s “I speak the truth of Christ, and lie not”. Why does Paul need to say this?
• 2:9ff, Paul goes on about how women should properly dress and fix their hair.
• 2:11, in particular, “Let a woman learn in silence with full submission. I permit no woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she is to keep silence.” Because Adam was formed first, and the woman was deceived [Eve, by the serpent]. Needless to say, this advice is today widely ignored.
• Ch3, and then Paul goes on about proper behavior of bishops, deacons, et al.
• Ch4, More about false teachings and avoiding useless activities; 4:8, “for, while physical training is of some value, godliness is valuable in every way…” KJV has this as “bodily exercise profiteth little”.
• 5:3, curious passage that says “Honor widows who are really widows”, with a list of standards a widow should meet (being over 60, with no children or grandchildren, etc.) before they can be honored. ‘Honor’ presumably means support.
• 5:23, “No longer drink only water, but take a little wine for the sake of your stomach and your frequent ailments.” Really! Perhaps an example of how, in ancient civilizations, alcohol was safer to drink than the water, from available streams or rivers. (There was no modern sanitation in those days.)
• 6:5, Paul warns against those who imagine that “godliness is a means of gain”, which would seem to impugn the many wealthy mega-star pastors of our current age.
• 6:10, More to the point: “For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evil…”. There are many today who would agree.
• 6:20, “Avoid the profane chatter and contradictions of what is falsely called knowledge…” KJV says here, “avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called.” Don’t think, just believe!

2 Timothy

This is just 3 ½ pages in NRSV. Another book possibly not written by Paul himself.

• 2:3, the recurring theme that Christians should welcome persecution: “Share in suffering like a good soldier of Christ Jesus.”
• The letter goes on to warn against “profane chatter” and “controversies” and generally railing against anyone who teaches differently than Paul.
• 3:16, “All scripture is inspired by God…” A useful premise to discourage any questioning of what Paul is reliant on to justify belief in Jesus; but without any evidence whatsoever.
• 4:7, “I have fought the good fight, I have finished the race, I have kept the faith.”

Returning to my notes upon reading sections of the Bible for the first time. The last couple posts here were about Genesis, but before that I’d finished the New Testament, and left off with the two books of Corinthians, trying to read Paul’s epistles more-or-less in chronological order as written. Eventually I stopped bothering with that and just read them in Bible order; and some of the later ‘books’ are so short, and similar to the others, I took no specific notes.

List of previous posts:
Intro and sources used (NRSV, KJV via Wells’ SAB, Miller, Asimov); Matthew; Mark; Luke; John; Acts; Paul #1: 1 Thessalonians, 2 Thessalonians, Galatians; Paul #2: 1 and 2 Corinthians.

So next, chronologically after Corinthians, and first of those I hadn’t read in Bible order, is Romans.

The longest of Paul’s letters, and thus placed immediately after Acts in the NT, but not written until 57 CE or so, following the five earlier epistles I’ve already talked about but which come later in the NT.

What’s strikes me about these epistles of Paul is that they are perhaps the only books in the entire Bible that are fairly likely to have been written by the claimed author (though even some of Paul’s are doubtful). The OT books were oral stories written anonymously after hundreds of years; the NT gospels also were oral traditions not assigned their authors for a century or more after they were written (which was decades after the events they describe). Acts is assigned to the author of Luke, but there are several odd first-person passages that interrupt the third-person narrative, that suggest at least two authors crudely edited together.

Paul’s epistles, therefore, bear a common resemblance not seen anywhere else in the Bible. They are consequently rather repetitious—basically, it strikes me, a series of long-winded sermons by a zealous proselytizer who repeats certain hobby-horse themes (the evils of sex beyond the necessities for reproduction, the resurrection as evidence of immortality, correspondence to OT prophecy, the centrality of sin) and ignores other elements of what became central to Christianity, notably the supposed virgin birth and most of the life of Jesus. (The NT gospels were still oral stories at the time Paul wrote his letters, not part of any ‘bible’ Paul had to consult.)

That these epistles are all from one hand in a way somewhat undermines them. Why take them any more seriously than the sermons of any preacher today? Pat Robertson, say? They’re just one guy’s opinions (and the huge variations among the sermons of modern day preachers, who find very different lessons from their common Bible, should caution us in this regard), whereas the legends and histories and gospels that weren’t written down until having survived being retold for decades or centuries – stories that both grew in the telling, as stories always do, but which also were shaped by the needs of the storytellers and those being told the stories – were in some sense more robust and tempered by time, somewhat more, so to speak, authoritative. They were the results of many tellers, not just one. Be that as it may.

Romans: Paul assures his followers in Rome that everyone is a sinner and deserves the death penalty (including notably the homosexuals), but that they’ll be forgiven if they believe in Jesus.

• 1:20, “Ever since the creation of the world his eternal power and divine nature … have been understood and seen through the things he has made.” Argument from design. This line of thinking still persists, though it’s mostly disappeared among the educated. It was the basis for Thomas Paine’s deism in his The Age of Reason (1796), which I read recently and will discuss soon.
• 1:24, “There God gave them up in the lusts…”, where “them” refers to those who suffer “wickedness” in 1:18; that is, only nonbelievers suffer “degrading” passion. (Remember Paul is the ascetic who’d just as soon everyone remain unmarried.)
• 1:27, “…men, giving up natural intercourse with women, were consumed with passion for one another”. These are the famous lines in the NT that Christians like to quote, in addition to Leviticus in OT, to condemn homosexuality, and consign homosexuals to death. (And there are numerous modern Christian preachers who take Paul at his word and advocate government extermination of homosexuals — see references in my previous posts on this blog.) Oxford suggests that Paul is talking more about “immoderate indulgence” that “weakens the body” more than about orientation; Miller also offers alternate explanations for what Paul was talking about; as recently does Matthew Vines; but all of these attempts seem to deny the plain meaning of Paul’s words, attempts to explain away the uncomfortable parts in order to save the whole. (More likely is the instinctive animus toward behavior that doesn’t promote tribal growth, as I discussed in previous post.)
• 1:32, all these people with debased minds “deserve to die”.
• Ch2, But don’t judge those wicked others because you do those things too! This line of thinking about how we are all sinners presumably has appeal to some (i.e. bad people), but ignores the obvious evidence that most people are more-or-less good in their conduct toward others, in contrast to a minority who are genuinely harmful toward others. Belief in Jesus, being born again, strikes me as a get-out-of-jail free card for even the worst murderer to get into heaven at the last minute of their lives, if they just *believe*. (Where as nonbelievers like me, no matter how much good we do in our lives, are consigned to Hell.)
• 2:25, still obsessed with circumcision.
• Ch3, Jews are special.
• 3:10, OT scripture citations about awful everyone is; how Paul does dwell on this, in an almost a sadistic way.
• Ch4, yet more!
• 5:12, “and so death spread to all because all have sinned.” Seriously? (Do animals die because they too are sinners?)
• 5:18, Paul finds some kind of parallel between the lives of Adam and Jesus. He’s just making this up; a skilled rhetorician can explain anything.
• 6:4, Paul claims Jesus’ resurrection implies immortality for believers. (Thomas Paine describes why this doesn’t follow at all.)
• 6:9, famous line: “death no longer has dominion over him” in NRSV; “death hath no more dominion over him” in KJV.
• 6:15, in several places Paul asks a rhetorical questions and answers himself “By no means!”, in NRSV. In KJV these passages are translated as “God forbid”.
• 6:23, famous line: “For the wages of sin is death”.
• Ch7, Paul is obsessed with sin, and the “law”.
• Ch8, more rhetorical parallels; sermonizing. (How does he know?)
• 8:18, “the sufferings of this present time are not worth comparing with the glory about to be revealed to us”. Again, moaning about the sorry state of the world is a historical cliché across all time (usually accompanied by a longing for a lost, glorious past – c.f Donald Trump!); and here is Paul yet again alluding to the second coming, which has never happened.
• Ch9, It’s all about Israel; more from scripture. What went wrong? Rationalization. (No doubt every oppressed people throughout history has excuses for their misfortunes, and their leaders promise them eventual redemption. Human nature. We hear about the winners, but not the many more losers whose leaders made similar promises.)
• 9:11ff, “Even before they had been born or had done anything good or bad…” suggests it doesn’t matter what you do in your life, you are predestined to be either saved or damned. (Wells’ SAB.)
• Ch10, Yet more on this theme. Paul can explain away anything.
• Ch12, Welcome persecution! 12:14, “Bless those who persecute you; bless and do not curse them”. Oxford notes how this echoes statements of Jesus, though obviously Paul can’t be quoting as he does from OT. Presumably oral ‘gospels’ about Jesus were in the air, and collections of Jesus’ sayings.
• Ch13, Instruction to obey authorities, always sensible advice. More echoes of Jesus’ sayings.
• 13:9, a very similar list of commandments as Jesus sometimes cited, leaving out the strictly religious proscriptions.
• 13:11, “For salvation is nearer to us now than when we became believers” places a fairly tight schedule on the second coming, which, of course, never happened. (How did Paul think he knew?)
• Ch14-16, more about not passing judgment, his travel plans, and introductions with long lists of names. Asimov, p435ff, traces the significance of some of them that are mentioned elsewhere in the Bible.
• 16:17, “I urge you… keep an eye on those who cause dissensions and offenses, in opposition to the teaching that you have learned; avoid them”. Not exactly a recipe for multiculturalism or a modern pluralistic society—but advice that some Christians seem intent on passing into law via “religious freedom” bills that allow them to discriminate and disassociate with people who are unlike themselves.

A bit more Genesis, before pausing on this subject for a while.

• 2:9, And in the garden were two trees. An extremely potent metaphor: one is a tree of life, one is a tree of knowledge, and the latter is forbidden. I’m reflecting on the latter item today while beginning to read Yuval Noah Harari’s SAPIENS, but I’ll discuss that later.
• Asimov spends several pages speculating on the identity of the four rivers flowing out of Eden. Two are obvious, two obscure.
• 2:17, God promises they will die if they eat of the tree of knowledge of good and evil. Later they do, and God does not kill them, thus breaking his promise.
• 2:19, In this version animals are created as potential ‘companions’ for man/adam, and man/adam names them all. It would be churlish to point out the number of species on the planet as we now understand, and the obvious implausibility of these passages that presume man/adam can inspect and name them all. Yet, there are people who believe the Bible literally true.
• 2:22, woman made from the rib of the man. Miller, annotator of his Skeptical Annotated Bible (SAB), points out that 16th century anatomist Vesalius shocked the faithful by pointing out that women really do have the same number of ribs as men.
• 2:24, Wait, what, what? At this point, the sudden discussion of father and mother and how a man “clings to his wife”, seem premature and out of context, since so far in this narrative there’s only one man and one woman. Hmm.
• Ch3, Asimov points out how the story of the talking serpent, a talking animal, is one of only two such incidents in the Bible (the other is a story about Balaam’s ass), is quite un-Biblical, more likely a vestige of a more primitive nature myth. (Asimov p31.7)
• 3.8, the Lord God is “walking in the garden” and so the man and his wife “hid themselves”. This is oddly anthropomorphic on the first point, and beggars God’s omniscience on the second. This entire parable is perhaps related to early humanity’s concern about agriculture, which might have been thought a kind of slavery compared to the freedom of hunter-gathering. (Asimov p32). Thus, for eating fruit from the tree, the man [not yet named Adam in NRSV until 4:25] is cursed to work the ground and eat the plants of the field (3:17-18). But note that God blames first the serpent, and then the women, before getting around to the man.
• Ch4, Oxford notes that the name Cain derives from the Hebrew word for create, while Abel is the same word translated as “vanity” in Ecclesiasites. On the agricultural theme, it is Cain, tiller of the ground, who is jealous of his brother the sheepherder. Asimov, p33, says Cain is taken to mean “smith”, since metal-working was important in early civilization. (And a smith is a kind of creator.)
• 4:7, “sin is lurking at the door”, another example of this obsession
• 4:15, the Lord puts a “mark on Cain” before sending him a way, a handful of words that have inspired long traditions of racism. (The Mormon church, in particular, long prohibited blacks to be priests, because the mark of Cain was taken to mean black skin.)
• 4:17, “Cain knew his wife”, a famous phrase about which it is completely fair to ask, where did she come from? The context (of the second creation story) implies the Garden and the area where Cain and Abel lived was imagined to be the creation of one particular god, suggesting other tribes in other lands (such as Nod), presumably with their own gods.
• 4:17… Cain presumably remains a nomad; it is his son who builds a city. Asimov, p34, compares notions of farming vs roaming to the 19th century ideal of being a cowboy.
• Ch5, the descendants of Adam listed here (from the priestly source) do not match those listed in Ch4 (from the Yahwistic source)…of course!
• 5:3 and other verses: not only are the long lives of these generations implausible, so is how old all the men were before they had their first sons. Except that such exaggerations were common in the myths of other cultures at the time, I haven’t seen any good explanation or suggestion for such inflated numbers. Asimov, p36: “These ages were legendary, reflecting parts of earlier Babylonian tales picked up the Jews during the Exile…” And, as Asimov goes on to explain, these figures were used by some to deduce the time since creation: the Jews, in the Middle Ages, figured it to be 3761 B.C.; Bishop Ussher, in 1654, figured it to be 4004 B.C.

Enough for now. Taking a break from this reading, but will get back to it.