When Apostles Misquote the Bible - Peter Enns

Saint Steven said:

So, was the accusation against the disciples (and Jesus) in Mark 2:24 true or false?

Mark 2:24 NIV
The Pharisees said to him, “Look, why are they doing what is unlawful on the Sabbath?”

Click to expand...

Both false and devious. They were manipulating scriptures for their own devices. If they had
been harvesting a field, they would have been in violation of the Sabbath. Plucking grains to eat
is lawful. The Law required gleanings to be left behind at harvest time for the poor, the stranger
and the wayfarer. Can a brother have a bit to eat, Pharisees?

Saint Steven said:

This is the Harrowing of Hell.

Click to expand...

I must defer to others on this topic. Peace.

Saint Steven said:

As I wrote in post #4

"... Paul writes in verse 8, "This is why it says:" (but it doesn't)

Why did the NIV translators handle it this way if Paul quoted a different text? Not even a footnote to explain." ???

I agree that he reinterpreting it. (unless he is quoting some other translation that says the opposite) But he treats it like an exact quote.

Click to expand...

Here are other translations:
KJV - Wherefore he saith, When he ascended up on high, he led captivity captive, and gave gifts unto men.
RSV - Therefore it is said, “When he ascended on high he led a host of captives, and he gave gifts to men.”

The NIV is a correct translation of the Greek. Paul is the one reinterpreting the Psalm for Christians.

It's pretty obvious that NT writers and Jesus play with the OT text. As Ennis points out, this was perfectly normal Jewish interpretation. The problem with it is the is doesn't match Protestant expectations of the Bible and how we use it.

There are dangers to this approach, though. If something is going on that seems contrary to God's intention, it's hard to cite the Bible if its interpretation can be arbitrarily changed. Ennis point (not made in this video) is that the Bible was, for Jews, only the beginning. The community used it as a starting point for discussion. I would say, however, that that there has to be a limit to how far that can go. There's no way, for example, to build on the Bible and come to polytheism, or an evil God.

But the attempt to interpret the Bible in a completely objective way is not consistent with how the NT uses it. At some point we have to trust the community doing the interpretation. And in fact all Christians groups work that way, Catholic and Protestant, liberal and conservative. Surely discussion in CF should make it clear that there's no objective way to argue people out of membership in one of those communities. I think you can at times see that some Christians have gotten to a point that is simply inconsistent with Jesus. But in the end, it's how people convert to any religion: what kind of life does it lead to? Does it help people be better people?

Saint Steven said:

Unfortunately the Psalms quote has nothing to do with what he is saying in Ephesians.

Click to expand...

Is not the issue whether Christ received gifts from or gave gifts to man, with Paul saying that the basis for the grace of the domata gifts?

Saint Steven said:

I have seen that one as well. Thanks for the suggestion. I appreciate it.

Here is his YouTube channel: The Bible for Normal People
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCrLeEfeGaJakbVMj8e6NKWQ

Click to expand...

Cool I'm subscribing. Some of his stories like his young son disbelieving the Garden of Eden story reminds me of some of the stuff Michael Heiser says "Like I'm through protecting people from their Bible". Heiser believes we should stop coddling people with Sunday school level sermons and not be afraid to tackle the more difficult ancient tropes, iconography etc. that are in the early text. But I think that also applies to precocious youth, like his little 5-6 year old son would have been ready to hear a more simplified version of the below talk on his disbelieving of snakes talking.

Saint Steven said:

I have noticed this in my Bible reading and always wondered about it.

I found this video on the subject and took it as a green light to introduce the topic here.

Is anyone else bothered by this? (biblical misquotes in the NT)

I remember being upset about Jewish people claiming that the Messianic prophecies in the Bible weren't true. Now I realize they were right. With the possible exception of Isaiah 53.

Watch excerpts of Pete Enns speaking at Taylor Seminary at Edmonton, AB.

Peter Enns doesn't give a lot of examples. And the first one in the video is not even an OT quote. Here's an example I am familiar with. Let's discuss others as well.

Ephesians 4:7-10 NIV
7 But to each one of us grace has been given as Christ apportioned it. 8 This is why it says:
“When he ascended on high,
he took many captives
and gave gifts to his people.”
9 (What does “he ascended” mean except that he also descended to the lower, earthly regions"? 10 He who descended is the very one who ascended higher than all the heavens, in order to fill the whole universe.)

COMPARE

Psalm 68:18 NIV
18 When you ascended on high,
you took many captives;
you received gifts from people,
even from" the rebellious—
that you," Lord God, might dwell there.

Click to expand...

Modern translations of the bible are based primarily on the Masoretic Text. The Masoretic Text did not exist prior to 700 AD or so. Since it did not exist at the time, Paul did not quote from it. I would think that anyone claiming to be a teacher of the bible should know that.

Pavel Mosko said:

Cool I'm subscribing. Some of his stories like his young son disbelieving the Garden of Eden story reminds me of some of the stuff Michael Heiser says "Like I'm through protecting people from their Bible". Heiser believes we should stop coddling people with Sunday school level sermons and not be afraid to tackle the more difficult ancient tropes, iconography etc. that are in the early text. But I think that also applies to precocious youth, like his little 5-6 year old son would have been ready to hear a more simplified version of the below talk on his disbelieving of snakes talking.

Click to expand...

Of course ancient people knew snakes didn't talk. I don't think anyone suggests otherwise. However one could reasonably read the story as saying that before the fall there was a serpent who did talk. Heiser's comment about it being the original rebel certainly seems reasonable. Was the serpent supernatural? Well, a talking serpent certainly isn't like snakes today. But still, Gen 3:14 certainly sounds like it was made into today's dumb serpent as a punishment, and is the ancestor of today's serpents. Perhaps this is consistent with what Heiser is saying.

But I certainly wouldn't respond to a 6 year old by saying that the author of Genesis thought snakes could talk. I'd be surprised if anyone would. The serpent in the garden was definitely not like today's snakes, and that's part of the point.

Saint Steven said:

That's an interesting video. I wonder how Heiser explains the consequences God gave to the serpent. (if he was actually a supernatural being) Go on his belly and eat dust?

Click to expand...

In his commentary on Genesis he doesn’t deal with that question. Indeed he assumes that the author has taken material from traditional stories as a way to talk about more important issues, so the literal meaning isn’t something he emphasizes. He does see 3:14 as implying that the animal world shares Adam’s guilt.

I would agree. I think at some earlier point there might have been a story that talked about the origin of snakes, but that’s irrelevant to how Genesis uses the material. It does leave 3:14 as sort of a loose end.

Saint Steven said:

That's an interesting video. I wonder how Heiser explains the consequences God gave to the serpent. (if he was actually a supernatural being) Go on his belly and eat dust?

Click to expand...

That "eating dust" is an near eastern idiom. I believe it is a reference to Sheol, death, etc.


I kind of like some of his other videos a little better, even though this one has new points. But in his other videos it is suggested that snake is understood as a "Throne Guardian". Basically that the ancient Hebrews were using the Egyptian symbolism of the Cobra. And that is the basis of words like seraphim in the Bible.

Saint Steven said:

Thanks for the video links. Very interesting.

I'm torn between thinking there is no way we can ever understand the Bible and it is meant to speak to anyone/anywhere in their own context.

Which may help to explain what Paul was doing with his OT quotes. The quote had nothing to do with what he was trying to say. He was only reminded of it in the moment he was writing.

And I think we do this as well. "It kind of reminds me of this... bad example, I know. Anyway..."

Click to expand...

Well I'm all in on all the ancient stuff. But that process started a long time ago. In the early 90s I was a "non-denominational charismatic" after being raised up conservative Lutheran evangelical (Wisconsin synod and a former independent church that was Missouri synod).


I had this one friend, who was an open occultist, but much more into the knowledge and philosophy end of things than actual spell casting (He was a self described "Neoplatonist"). This guy really had a problem not blurting out rude comments (Was polite to your face) but if he sees a Christian book, poster plaque etc. that you bought he often would blurt out an insult. And this happened when I was teaching him how to drive a car so he could get his license, out of notions of Christian charity etc. (He was very poor, not really benefitting from his knowledge) My best friend (the guy who got me into the Charismatic movement) and him really ended up fighting a lot on issues.


But in a positive way, he had a good impact on me because I decided to benefit from his knowledge reflecting on the saying of Benjamin Franklin, "Our Critics are our friends because they show us our faults". So I discarded some of his conclusions (That the Judeo-Christian tradition evolved from paganism) but I kept the basic facts etc. and that helped give me a larger perspective when dealing with people, especially these people that talk about "Pagan Corruption of Christianity". I have blogged a bit about that, here is half of a Blog entry about folks Crusading against Christmas and Christmas trees because they have some wacky ideas of "pagan" contamination.



2) A) Besides this there are some myths about culture. Many Charismatics have almost a Gnostic conception of a pure “Spiritual” belief or practice that is free of culture. The first time I recognized this was reading a Ken Hagin book, “Plans, Purposes, and Pursuits” when he spoke about “worship in the Spirit”. He chastised people who did “Square Dancing” during the Church service (dancing in the Spirit), and said “that was fleshly”. He however approved of the “Pentecostal hop”, which I guess seems more visceral and therefore more spiritual. This sort of reasoning is nonsense. Almost everything we do is culture related. The Pentecostal hop is just a product of a special sub culture. It is not something that is purely spiritual. Maybe the first people who did it, reacted that way, but once others see others do it. You get into “monkey see, monkey do”. And yes, even if you are against “the teaching of men”, you do end up develop your own unique cultural tradition.


B) One thing should also be said of Hebrew Culture before ending the post. Because Hebrew culture is the culture of the Bible, and the Jews are “God’s Chosen people” many people see Hebrew culture as something that is pure and Holy, spiritual etc. To those kinds of notions, I have to remind people that every culture beyond The Garden of Eden comes from somewhere else! Before Abraham left UR of the Chaldees he resided in a pagan land and had the culture of that land. You can see that in the Old Testament itself. Why do you think God is always appearing in the Pentateuch as a form of fire? That was a vestige of the Sumerian culture and religion that was part of the early Hebrew way of seeing the divine. Similarly, during the Captivity in Egypt the Hebrew culture adopted a number of things from the Egyptians: like the practice of stoning, they adopted their forms of poetry and wisdom literature (psalms, proverbs etc. is based on similar things the Egyptians did). Anyway, if paganism infects true religion and culture the Hebrews were infected 4 or 5 thousand years before the Christmas tree.


Point 4) Some Positive Preaching From aspects of the pagan heritage
Philippians 1:15-18New International Version (NIV)
15 It is true that some preach Christ out of envy and rivalry, but others out of goodwill. 16 The latter do so out of love, knowing that I am put here for the defense of the gospel. 17 The former preach Christ out of selfish ambition, not sincerely, supposing that they can stir up trouble for me while I am in chains. 18 But what does it matter? The important thing is that in every way, whether from false motives or true, Christ is preached. And because of this I rejoice.
It's interesting that saint Paul only cares about one thing, that Christ is preached! He doesn’t sweat the details or motivations. So based on that I will make a few points.

A) The Christmas tree has been a means of celebrating one of “the essential truths” of Christianity the Incarnation of Christ. The Christmas tree does not corrupt true religion but utilizes and engages contemporary culture for the message of the Gospel much like Paul preaching at Mars Hill in the book of Acts.


B) On the subject, of the pagan heritage It should be noted that the pagan heritage has given us a few good things. Without evangelism of the Germanic tribes their might not be any military chaplains. One of the conditions for evangelizing the Germanic tribes was they demanded clergy that would go into battle with them (to replace their priests of Odin and Thor that went with them into battle to have the favor of the gods). And from these we got the warrior priests of the crusades, that is the early ancestor of the modern military chaplain. Can anyone truly say that this is not a benefit? (Given how vulnerable young people are during peace time, let alone when fighting an actual war.)

Not to beat a dead horse
There are many other points that could be made and scriptures that could be quoted.
Overall I see the Crusade against the Christmas tree as a divisive issue that goes against the basic spirit of the original "Counsel of Jerusalem" in Acts 15, and flies in the face of much of the ministry of saint Paul.


Social Myths About Paganized Christianity and (pure) Hebrew culture

Pavel Mosko said:

In reality, as far as sacrifices goes, the Jews were sort of painted into a corner when the temple was destroyed as far as sin offerings etc. goes. They eventually concluded that "it was God's will that this should happen and he wanted those sacrifices replaced with Torah study", but their was very little precedent for that in the text, it was more a position assumed out of Cognitive Dissonance than something that had a strong foundation in prophesy etc.

Click to expand...

Actually I have heard that charity (tzedakah) and prayer (ask for forgiveness) replaces it. "For I desired mercy, and not sacrifice; and the knowledge of God more than burnt offerings."

hedrick said:

Of course ancient people knew snakes didn't talk. I don't think anyone suggests otherwise. However one could reasonably read the story as saying that before the fall there was a serpent who did talk.

Click to expand...

The Talmud teaches that the snake was more humanlike before the fall...

Saint Steven said:

I like what you are saying about "conclusions" and "facts" here.

I had realized at some point that the only difference between an agnostic/atheist and a Christian was the conclusions we came to. We are both basically looking at the same facts, but arrive at opposite conclusions.

Click to expand...

With the atheist, I would kind of disagree a lot of the time. Psychology was my first big field of study, "I wanted to be a Clinical Psychologist" when I grew up. But in grad school, the mathematics part of it tripped me up, so I went through most a masters program in Marriage Family Child Counseling but without getting my degree. But I liked a lot of the rest of psychology, and found social psychology especially fascinating etc.


Our experience is heavily filtered and for atheists etc. I believe in many ways they are framing events in unique ways to get the kind of outcome they desire. But to explain more.


1) Growing up with my Lutheran parents their were no expectations of miracles or really dramatic answers to prayer. My mom herself really had a fear of "Holy Rollers" etc. We believed in praying, that it helped etc. but our expectations were minimal, e.g. "God please guide the hands of the surgeon for the surgery" was the best kind of prayer we could muster for someone. And the church, officially taught Cessianism even though that does not seem to be an official position of Luther (Who was somewhat open minded on the issue).

But in my later years, I learned of two events that would have been labelled differently if my parents were more open to the supernatural (Being Pentecostal etc.). Basically my parents had a kind of blase sense of good luck when relating the stories). But based on my experience with Charismatics & Pentecostals they would have seen these events as something to give "praise reports", "testify" etc. where they would go up before the podium and tell the story as an example of God's hand of protection, healing, provision etc. made manifest.

The Two Stories

A) When my mom was pregnant with me in the 60s their was a Chicken Pox epidemic sweeping through and she got really really sick and was hospitalized. Apparently lots of pregnant women died, or they had babies that died, or at least got the chicken pox in the womb with major complications etc. However when I was born, I was completely healthy with no sign of the Chicken Pox whatsoever. This was rare enough that my case, made at least one Medical Journal of the time in Southern California.


B) My parents had a 61 Chevy that got stolen in Oakland in the summer of 65 or 66. The day it was stolen was the day before California released its program of having the driver's license plates on a mainframe computer that could be checked by police radioing in. "Just by coincidence" on the day the program debuted in San Francisco these two patrol officers on one of the major Boulevards of Frisco decided to test the system, and guess what car was the very first car they tested the new system on..... Yep it was my parents stolen car.


When it comes to belief, people tend to frame the debate to get the answer they want. Most people are not really objective. So many debates with atheists are to that affect. Atheists are more likely to focus on the stuff that they consider to be absurd about the Bible, and make it more about that than whether their is truly a lot of valid scientific reasons for life generating spontaneously etc.


But the issue of framing comes up in politics and social issues a lot. I am a big supporter of Alternative media because so much of our news is heavily filtered, where we see only the stories that the various reporters and editors want us to see, and they basically put on the back burner ones where the facts and implications make them feel uncomfortable.


Anyway "the Construction of Reality" is one of those topics that I like to talk to lots of various people, both believers and nonbelievers.