Doug Shaver

No, that isn't happening.

sotto voce

Excellent.

Toto

Here's a believing Christian who disagrees with you:

This commentator finds parallels with Joshua 2 and with the baby Moses' rescue in a basket (that's where the basket comes from?)

You see how this whole game of reading the Bible is much more interesting if your mind isn't wedded to a naive and literal interpretation of the text?

aa5874

A "BELIEVING CHRISTIAN" is probably the worst example one can find when accusing others of "naive and literal interpretation" of the Bible.

Toto

This particular believing Christian is not a naive fundamentalist.

aa5874

Well, you must first read what the Believing Christian wrote before you accuse others of "naive and literal interpretation" of the Bible.

This is from the very same link.

Your Believing Christian is indeed "wedded to a naive and literal interpretation of the text".

And this also exposes that you may be naive to the manner in which Believing Christians generally interpret biblical text.

Toto

aa - the emphasis is on naive.

aa5874

Is English your first language? Look at what you wrote before you post.

Your emphasis was on "naive and LITERAL interpretation of the text".

You seem to be playing a game but your posts are recorded. I simply cannot understand why you cannot admit what you wrote.

andrewcriddle

I think that these elements strike us as being maybe merely literary conventions because of our different culture.

In the ancient near east if someone holding police power in a city wanted to arrest someone wthin the city then then they would as a first step guard the gates. Their target's best option would be to try and leave the city by an irregular route e.g. over the wall.

If Paul had to get out of Damascus in a hurry, in order to escape the authorities, then going over the wall would be a likely route.

Andrew Criddle

DCHindley

Generally, the only folks who received a good formal education were those of the elite classes (and their key slaves), and some of the merchant class, both essentially in the cities, and village scribes (more than likely these are home taught sons of scribe fathers). Those in the cities would be taught by a class of paid tutors called "Sophists," and quality varied between them. If you were very rich or famous, you could entice a real philosopher down on his luck to teach your kids (e.g., Aristotle, in self-imposed exile from Athens, moved to Macedonia and taught young Alexander - not yet the Great - for a couple years).

You would learn Attic Greek grammar and composition, Latin grammar and composition (if Roman), be exposed to works of prose and poetry produced by the elite classes, and learn elements of mathematics and geometry, and summarized ("handbook") descriptions of the teachings of the principle schools of philosophy, including logic, ethics, physics and mathematics. If you were very bright, you might go off to study with the real philosophers directly, as long as practical.

This is what sociologists call the "Greater tradition" within a culture, the accurate knowledge of which was essential in order to demonstrate your sophistication.

If you were using a lower tier sophist (merchants, better-off artisans, some slaves vying for promotion within the master's household), you might get the basics (Readin', 'Ritin' and 'Rithmetic, as we say here) for yourself or child, say to help in one's trade, contract negotiations, general communication with patrons and potential patrons, and marketplace business. This is called the "Lesser tradition" and is usually bawlderized and includes elements of the profane and ignorant. This is what you master in order to pretend to be sophisticated (like me :innocent1.

The "real" philosophers (Platonists, Aristotleans, Stoics, etc) did not accept the popular myths about the Gods as being accurate, and generally saw the supreme God as The One (the essence of all things) and everything else as derivative. Many philosophers did accept the reality of a universal soul which manifests itself in the created universe by means of gods, daimones (demons), and individual human souls. Some of them were happy to use some elements of the popular myths to teach about God (Zeus being the usual God to equate with The One), but only for the purpose of instruction in morals and ethics. They rejected all the mythical stories of the gods doing savage and immoral things to one another as unworthy.

Now there was a certain willingness in city life to get along with one another as much as possible. Jews (who would not be citizens of the city but "foreigners," and organized in their own communities with separate courts, etc) were often the merchants in cities, and as a result depended upon patrons for their business.

It was not uncommon for Synagogues to accept gifts (buildings, mikvas, etc) from pagan patrons, which were often given in the name of the god that the patron believed equated with the god of the Jews. Inscriptions indicate that the Synagogues did not argue with the patron, seeing his/her gift as made sincerely, and would accept the dedication as the patron wanted. They were often dedicated in the name of Zeus Hypsistos. This is also evident in funerary inscriptions.

After the 1st Jewish revolt, the Jews were ordered to continue to pay the Temple Tax to the temple of Jupiter (= Zeus), as the emperor felt this was a reasonable substitute now that the temple was destroyed, and he had no plans to let them rededicate one in the immediate future.

One of the reasons I posted that stuff about the pagan poets/writers cited by the authors of Acts ch 17, 1 Cor 15, and Titus, is that it shows that NT writers were aware of these pagan equations of the Jewish God with Zeus, but did not seem to dwell on them, probably no more than Jews of those Synagogues dwelt on the dedication inscriptions at the doors of the building.

Now, the author of 1 Corinthians 15:33 then the author was familiar with Menander the comic dramatist (342-291 BCE).

Titus 1:12, usually said to be spurious but I am not so sure, demonstrates familiarity with the works of Epimenides of Crete (5th-6th century BCE).

Acts 17:23ff shows a familiarity with a tradition about Epimenides and the Athenians erecting alters to gods with no names (i.e., local daimones).

Acts 17:28a shows familiarity with the same poetical work of Epimenides as cited by the author of Titus 1:12 (although citing a different line of the poem).

Acts 17:28b shows a familiarity with either Aratus (ca. 310 - 240 BCE) or Cleanthes, (331-232 BCE), although more than likely it is Aratus.

This kind of evidence could support any number of scenarios regarding to relative dates of writing and whether any one influenced another.

DCH