2-J

My understanding in this area may not be that robust but naively it does seem that usually the devil or Judas or both are acting of their own free will when they betray Jesus. So that Jesus' death isn't a complete setup (though the philosophical argument about how free will is preserved here (and elsewhere) could no doubt run till the cows come home).

Solo

We do not know whether it is evil "necessarily" but Satan's entry into Judas "explains" in Luke Judas treachery and falsehood. To say that Satan acts on God's behalf, simply testing faith in God, or even out of 'zeal for divine justice', as Jeffrey claims, empties the gospels of their most basic and quintessential message - the intervention of God through his Son on the side of good. (Mk 10:18, Lk 18:19). This is an argument - whether conscious or not - for ethical relativism which IMO is completely alien, and anitithetical to Jewish apocalyptism, and early Christianity.

Jiri

dog-on

So how did the Romans feel about ethical relativism? Seems much more apropos, regarding Christianity at least, imo...

Solo

Whoaa....a big can of worms ! What kind of Romans ? Patricians, the plebs ?
Epicureans, Platonists, Cynics, Sceptics, Stoics ?

Bertrand Russell recounted (in A History of Western Philosophy (or via: amazon.co.uk)) an amusing story of one of the leading sceptics of his time and the head of the Academy, Carneades, on a lecture tour in Rome (156 BCE). To illustrate the principles of Scepticism he conducted two lectures. In the first, he expounded the views of Plato and Aristotle that to inflict injustice was a greater evil to the perpetrator than to the one who has suffered it. This was apparently loudly acclaimed by the young men eager for major league philosophy. In the second lecture, Carneades heaped scorn on this ethical theory, not to establish an opposing set of principles but to take it apart as internally inconsistent, and offensive to reason. Great States like Rome become great by unjust aggression against smaller states. This could not be denied in Rome just about ready to crush Carthage for good. But one would be a fool if one did not take advantage of someone weaker to protect one's patrimony. In the same way, if you were fleeing from a victorious enemy on foot and saw a wounded comrade on a horse you would, if you are sensible drag him off the horse, whatever higher ethical principles might apply. One life saved is better than two lives lost. Russell comments sardonically that while this was not an edifying way to argue for a nominal Platonist, it had a great success with "modern-minded" Roman youths.

So, I would say yes, ethical relativism and situational ethics were well-established in the place by the time Paul sent his greetings.

Jiri

squiz

I fail to see anything in this paper that is so radical that it could get even a rap on the knuckles, let alone booted from the academy, but then maybe I just didn't understand it fully. Which specific dogmas is it supposed to be challenging?

Toto

Chili's contribution has been split off

Kelly's post on the origins of the Devil has been split to its own thread here.

squiz

Jeffrey seems to be back from his holiday, so I'll give this question a bump.

Jeffrey Gibson

Did I say it challenged "dogmas"?

In any case, to see if you do understand what I'm arguing and how I adopt a view that opposes and contradicts and challenges the validity of what is (and seems to almost always have been) the scholarly consensus on the meaning of, and the intent behind, Mt. 6:13//Lk. 11:2, why don't you tell me what you presently understand me to be saying/claiming vis a vis (1) what the standard interpretation of Mt. 6:13//Lk. 11:2 is and (2) how the intent of the petition should be understood.

Jeffrey

squiz

No you didn't explicitely. Here's what you said:
Noone of course puts forward the idea that scholars don't challenge established views. The accusation put forward by some, is that scholars only challenge established views within certain safe boundaries. For this article to be demonstrating this, it would have to be crossing those safe boundaries: ie. challenging dogma.

Having said this, your idea that "lead us not into temptation" might mean something like "keep us from putting God to the test" (please correct me if I misunderstood this) is an interesting interpretation, which I guess could have all sorts of implications. This is just the sort of discussion, however, that one would expect from theologians and seems perfectly safe to me. Unless, however, there are some sort of implications that I hadn't thought of.

Jeffrey Gibson

I didn't even say it implicity

And just who might the members of this purported "some" be? More importantly, what reason do we have to think, even if members of this "some" actually exist, that they have any direct acquantaince not only with the nature and the kinds of challenges that scholars have made, but with the "academy" itself and what does and does not go on within it, so that we have there any reason to think that what they say about the type of challenges that scholars issue is well informed, let alone true??

Leaving aside the question of what my article does and does not challenge or what "borders" it does and does not cross, it certainly appears that you are confusing the "academy" with such institutions as the Magisterium and steering committees of church denominations, since "dogma" is usually defined as something church officials within a church pronounce, and relates to those beliefs deemed by officials within church bodies to be those whose affirmation are necessary for salvation and which must be affirmed to obtain salvation.

Slap me silly if I ever heard anything like that being bandied about in the academy when it came to noting that a scholarly proposals had gone beyond what most scholars held to be true about the historical critical questions of what Jesus and/or the authors of Biblical books actually said.

And while we're asking things, what is the nature and extent of your acquaintance with "the academy" that leads you to be as confident as you appear to be in asserting that the academy gets riled when someone challenges "dogma"?

Yep, I'm sure, even assuming that your direct acquaintance with "theologians" and exegetes is as vast and as comprehensive as you imply above it is, that what I argue is exactly what you'd expect from "theologians". But then there's that puzzling little bit of data that I think I've demonstrated in what I wrote demonstrate that very few "theologians" (is that what I am?) have lived up to your expectations and said what I said.

Nah -- except for the implication that people who think they know what Jesus was asking them to pray for when they say "lead us not into "temptation" is wrong and not at all what Jesus had in mind, and that their pastors and priests who told them that the intent of the petition is to be protected from being seduced into sin don't know what they are talking about, you seem to have grasped all the really important ones..

Jeffrey