3 ms·

Agree with the first part of your comment but "that first generation Christians believed the end times would occur within their lifetimes" is at odds with Jesus

Agree with the first part of your comment but "that first generation Christians believed the end times would occur within their lifetimes" is at odds with Jesus's teachings where he said he does not even know when God will choose to bring the apocalypse. In modern culture, it's often asserted the apocalypse has occurred any time someone doesn't get their way.

krapp 2y ago
>"that first generation Christians believed the end times would occur within their lifetimes" is at odds with Jesus's teachings where he said he does not even know when God will choose to bring the apocalypse. The verse where he tells his disciples that “this generation will not pass away until all these things take place” would seem to be at odds with that. A lot of Biblical canon is at odds with itself, the Bible doesn't have a singular coherent narrative. I'm just suggesting an interpretation which seems more likely than not. Just look at history - almost every generation of Christians have believed the end times would occur within their lifetimes, or at least the near future. Why would only the first generation accept that, no, it would be some thousands of thousands of years in the future? That isn't the way these things tend to work.
- ggm 2y ago
  Forgive me hanging a view in a detailed conversation but you're discussing the english translation post James of a work written after his lifetime in any other language than English, assuming literalisms in the metaphorical quality of a transcription of a transcription. I think thats close to a definition of insanity. Either move to the Aramaic, or Greek, or stop discussing the "literalism" of the words in question.
  - krapp 2y ago
    I never used the word "literalism." I refer to the English translation because I am an English speaker having a conversation in English with other English speakers, and the English translation of the Bible is the one commonly understood in the context of this conversation. I have no reason to assume that any English translation of the Bible diverges so wildly from the original sources, given the efforts put into Biblical scholarship, that to even use it in casual conversation could be considered insanity. But fine. Since you brought it up, and since you bring up a fair point tell us your interpretation of the original Aramaic or Greek.
    - ggm 2y ago
      That would demand I become a biblical scholar. As I am not, I won't presume. But I will ask another question: Are you even confident the Aramaic uses a word which translates to "apocalypse" as we understand it or might it mean some other contextual meaning such as a revalation of the relationship with god, rather than the apocryphal end-of-times sense? Because your reply presupposes the modern understanding is inherently sound because of an appeal to authority of the wisdom of times past. I would say instead by the time of the council of Nicea, things were already very political and the church was seeking to confirm words to suit the institution, not for their actual historical meaning. That was only 2-300 years after the record mind you.
      - jarpadat 2y ago
        I tend to agree with your general intuition that presupposing modern understandings creates all kinds of problems understanding ancient texts, some of which is in translation. But the specific case of "apokalypsis" it is kind of the opposite. There is quite the extensive record of first/second century apocalyptic literature, (some of it even became the NT). These preserve remarkably detailed pictures of what apocalyptic thinking looked like long before Nicea. The main thing to say is the concept of apocalypse was much broader than today's. To your question, it did mean a revelation of relationship with god, and then it also meant an end-of-times sense, and it also was political commentary, and it was also a conspiracy theory, etc. People did not distinguish between which modern, narrower concept they meant, because they actually meant the broad concept.
- selfhoster 2y ago
  I believe the latter verse I mentioned is what he wanted us to take literally. I could be wrong.

krapp 2y ago

>"that first generation Christians believed the end times would occur within their lifetimes" is at odds with Jesus's teachings where he said he does not even know when God will choose to bring the apocalypse. The verse where he tells his disciples that “this generation will not pass away until all these things take place” would seem to be at odds with that. A lot of Biblical canon is at odds with itself, the Bible doesn't have a singular coherent narrative. I'm just suggesting an interpretation which seems more likely than not. Just look at history - almost every generation of Christians have believed the end times would occur within their lifetimes, or at least the near future. Why would only the first generation accept that, no, it would be some thousands of thousands of years in the future? That isn't the way these things tend to work.

ggm 2y ago
Forgive me hanging a view in a detailed conversation but you're discussing the english translation post James of a work written after his lifetime in any other language than English, assuming literalisms in the metaphorical quality of a transcription of a transcription. I think thats close to a definition of insanity. Either move to the Aramaic, or Greek, or stop discussing the "literalism" of the words in question.
- krapp 2y ago
  I never used the word "literalism." I refer to the English translation because I am an English speaker having a conversation in English with other English speakers, and the English translation of the Bible is the one commonly understood in the context of this conversation. I have no reason to assume that any English translation of the Bible diverges so wildly from the original sources, given the efforts put into Biblical scholarship, that to even use it in casual conversation could be considered insanity. But fine. Since you brought it up, and since you bring up a fair point tell us your interpretation of the original Aramaic or Greek.
  - ggm 2y ago
    That would demand I become a biblical scholar. As I am not, I won't presume. But I will ask another question: Are you even confident the Aramaic uses a word which translates to "apocalypse" as we understand it or might it mean some other contextual meaning such as a revalation of the relationship with god, rather than the apocryphal end-of-times sense? Because your reply presupposes the modern understanding is inherently sound because of an appeal to authority of the wisdom of times past. I would say instead by the time of the council of Nicea, things were already very political and the church was seeking to confirm words to suit the institution, not for their actual historical meaning. That was only 2-300 years after the record mind you.
    - jarpadat 2y ago
      I tend to agree with your general intuition that presupposing modern understandings creates all kinds of problems understanding ancient texts, some of which is in translation. But the specific case of "apokalypsis" it is kind of the opposite. There is quite the extensive record of first/second century apocalyptic literature, (some of it even became the NT). These preserve remarkably detailed pictures of what apocalyptic thinking looked like long before Nicea. The main thing to say is the concept of apocalypse was much broader than today's. To your question, it did mean a revelation of relationship with god, and then it also meant an end-of-times sense, and it also was political commentary, and it was also a conspiracy theory, etc. People did not distinguish between which modern, narrower concept they meant, because they actually meant the broad concept.
selfhoster 2y ago
I believe the latter verse I mentioned is what he wanted us to take literally. I could be wrong.