Re: Any comments? (Deconstructing WBC)


"LX-i" <lxi0007@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:49ee7$4435bd75$45491d7a$17592@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Chuck Stevens wrote:
"LX-i" <lxi0007@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:7e4e9$443478e0$45491d7a$27836@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx

It would be equally presumptuous of us to assume or declare that
somebody else had the same problem, and/or that it was our
responsibility to point it out to them and to describe to them exactly
what the solution to the problem we perceived in them ought to be.
For me to apply a solution like this to myself for a problem that I
perceived myself as having -- or even that reading the passage led me
to believe that I was having -- is one thing. To apply either the
diagnosis or the solution to anybody else is quite another.
I'm guessing you're talking about your past in this - as I used that
passage to Howard with no implication anywhere.

I wasn't really clear about this. Let me take another example that I
think I've mentioned before. (Direct Pauline authorship is assumed
herein for the sake of simplicity).

In Titus 1, I read (using the NAB) "My purpose of leaving you in Crete
was that you might accomplish what had been left undone, especially the
appointment of presbyters in every town. As I instructed you, a
Presbyter must be irreproachable ... In his teaching he must hold fast
to the authentic message ... There are many irresponsible teachers ...
They must be silenced ... A man of Crete, one of their own prophets, has
testified 'Cretans have ever been liars, beasts, and lazy gluttons,' and
that is the simple truth! Admonish them sharply ..."

Now, how should we read this passage?

I believe your first interpretation here is the right one...

Well, it should go without saying that I do, too ... ;-)

*My* inclination is to read it that Paul was pretty tweaked about the
behavior of *some*, or even *many*, of the elders he'd appointed there,
and was simply venting his frustration through a generalization he knew
NOT to be universal. Moreover, the only people Paul is *really*
concerned about here are the elders -- the "them" in "admonish them
sharply" -- and the whole passage is intended as a caution to Titus to
keep an eye on what *these elders* are teaching and to whip 'em into
shape if they wander.

If the passage has significant applicability today, it's to the ministry
as an admonishment for *them* to keep an eye on *each other's* teaching.

Yup...

Now, if I take this as the Perfect, Unchanging Word of God, I can't
presume that Paul wrote something the way he did because he was tweaked
over a particular behavioral issue among a subset of the Christians on
Crete, and moreover I have to presume that he wasn't just writing to
Titus, he was writing to *everybody*.

Why not? You're taking one half ultra-literally, while generalizing the
other half. If it always applies to people from Crete, then it also only
applied to Titus. Your rendition above (minsters, keep each other in
line) generalizes *both* sides of the equation.

The passage of most interest here (NAB again) is " 'Cretans have ever been
liars, beasts, and lazy gluttons,' and that is the simple truth!". *Paul*
is the one that seconded this and went on to characterize it as "the simple
truth" about Cretans -- not just some of the presbyters who were messing up,
but Cretans *in general* -- not I.

The logic is: If Paul wrote it, and it ended up in the Bible, that means God
dictated it, and every word of it is God's perfect truth, then and now.

They don't call them "cretins" for nothin'! ;)

In all seriousness, I thought the etymology of "cretin" really was "someone
from Crete" and had its current semantics at least in part because of this
passage (I think I was told that by someone who was in a position to know
back too many decades ago).

However, I checked to be sure, and found that Merriam-Webster disagrees on
that point: "Fr. dial. *cretin*, Christian, human being, kind of idiot found
in the Alps [1779])". No mention of Crete.

I don't have an OED here at the office, and I would defer to that (because
its etymological entries are *much* more detailed than M-W's) if it differed
substantially, but I'd be really surprised if M-W and Oxford disagreed in
any significant way on the etymology of the word "cretin". When I think of
it at home I'll double-check the OED.

Too, Jesus' harshest rebukes were for the moneychangers in the temple, and
the religious leaders who were fakes. I don't see sharp admonishment as
losing his temper. :)

Paul didn't admonish the individual Cretan presbyters who were misbehaving,
he told Titus to take care of it. That's not the problem I see with the
passage.

First he quoted somebody as saying "Cretans always [are] liars, evil wild
beasts, lazy gluttons" (Berry's Interlinear of the TR) with the indication
"Hey, this is one of their own folks saying this!. Even that's not the
issue.

What he did next was characterize and second that opinion as absolute truth.
There's *no* implicit or explicit indication that the unnamed prophet's
opinion -- or Paul's support for it -- applies to anything less than the set
of all Cretans, living as well as dead. *That's* where I think Paul lost
his cool.

We can say "Yeah, well, I know that's what he *said*, but it's not really
what he *meant*" -- which is pretty much what I've done.

But to the literalist, the "simple truth" is that the Bible says Cretans are
liars, beasts and lazy gluttons, Paul agrees, and that means God agrees if
God dictated the Bible and the Bible is without any errors (semantic,
grammatical, diplomatic or otherwise). Nobody from Crete is, or ever has
been, or ever will be, fundamentally able to rise above that
characterization. "God dictated it, Paul wrote it, I believe it, and that's
the end of it." That's not the camp I'm in, at least in part because that
sort of generalization is what is logically required from the absolute
literalist position.

-Chuck Stevens


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Lying is wrong, deception not always wrong
    ... I am "guilty" of speaking the Truth. ... pose and bombasted around--but you haven't explained away how Paul ... I have no doubt that all scripture (and many written things that are ... whether one could really by a Christian and have a foreskin. ...
    (soc.religion.quaker)
  • Re: Any comments? (Deconstructing WBC)
    ... passage to Howard with no implication anywhere. ... A man of Crete, one of their own prophets, has testified ... the only people Paul is *really* concerned about ... moreover I have to presume that he wasn't just writing to Titus, ...
    (comp.lang.cobol)
  • Re: Any comments? (Deconstructing WBC)
    ... For me to apply a solution like this to myself for a problem that I perceived myself as having -- or even that reading the passage led me to believe that I was having -- is one thing. ... In Titus 1, I read "My purpose of leaving you in Crete was that you might accomplish what had been left undone, especially the appointment of presbyters in every town. ... that Paul wrote something the way he did because he was tweaked over a particular behavioral issue among a subset of the Christians on Crete, and moreover I have to presume that he wasn't just writing to Titus, he was writing to *everybody*. ...
    (comp.lang.cobol)
  • Re: AN OPINION Re: Is Devin a real MD?
    ... that will *confirm* who is telling the truth. ... hard facts and truth before I speak. ... I would hate to back Devin or the organization and then found out I ... Of course Paul <vbg> ...
    (alt.med.fibromyalgia)
  • Re: Paul might have made small tents for men to wear to pray under
    ... Pay attention at the back of the class Jeff, the very passage we are ... It is of course possible that Paul meant that the women ... your head before praying to God as is Apostolic teaching? ... divine command) and he leaves the decision on hat wearing to the ...
    (uk.religion.christian)
Loading