This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
In preparation for the currently ongoing papal conclave, I decided to read the official rules currently in force, UNIVERSI DOMINICI GREGIS, issued by John Paul II in 1996. The document contains this provision (emphasis added):
Seems simple enough right?
Whoops.
Here I was, a schmuck, reading the canonically promulgated apostolic constitution as if it mattered, as if the supposed men of God involved in this 2000-year-old institution might care about established procedures.
Sure, Francis could have changed the rules, as many popes have done throughout the centuries, but he didn’t. He either didn’t notice or didn’t care, and neither did anyone else with influence within the Vatican either. How am I supposed to take this seriously if the cardinals and popes don’t even take it seriously?
I wish Christianity were true. I really do. It would certainly make my dating life easier. I’d have a sense of purpose in life, defined rules of virtue to follow, but it just doesn’t make any actual sense. The inconsistency I cited above is relatively minor, but it is illustrative of what one finds everywhere when one digs into the claims of Christianity and treats them with the truth-preserving tools of logic. Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus and Vatican II, Matthew 24:34, these are fundamental truth claims that can’t be handwaved away like the finer points of ecclesiastical law.
What's the fundamental truth claim here, in your reading?
That at least one person who is alive at the time Jesus made that statement will still be alive when the second coming happens.
For something amusing, see John 21:22 - 23.
More seriously, why do you think "generation" is the best translation for genea here (which can also be translated "nation" and or refer to a people group – Christ repeatedly, including in the section immediately prior, uses this word when referencing the Jews who opposed his teaching.)
And why do you think "this generation" refers to the generation of people alive at the time, as opposed to the generation that sees the beginning of the things (note the text in question comes at the end of the Parable of the Fig Tree) Christ is speaking of?
It seems to me there's some latent ambiguity in the text and I think that you can claim just about any text makes bad fundamental truth claims if you take the weakest possible interpretation of a single sentence.
(I should mention this is all my surface level reading here. I don't understand much about the period-appropriate Jewish conception of the end times, and given how referential Jewish Scripture is that seems very important – and there's likely other important context too. I am also not getting into the question of whether there's a different topic started at some point, given that the disciples asked three questions and Christ's answer, as recorded, does not necessarily signpost whether it stops addressing one question and starts addressing another – at least, not to the point where it's unambiguously clear to me in the interpretation. I believe some Christians believe that there's a division after verse 35 or so, the preceding verses were fulfilled in the Fall of Jerusalem, which is fairly tempting when because the timeline – and at a minimum some of the signs – line up. But the truth is that I don't feel like I know enough on those questions to have a strong opinion myself. If you, or someone else, has a strong opinion I'd love to hear it.)
Because that's how it's translated in like every English translation, such as the NRSV, the biblical scholar version. More seriously, here's a comment stolen from academicbiblical:
...
The earliest Christians believed that Jesus was returning soon, real soon. That's why Paul has to reassure the Thessalonians that the dead will rise and join Christ before them, the living. You can see the evolution of this belief in John, the last gospel to be written (multiple generations after Jesus's death), where the imminent apocalyptism of the Synoptics has completely vanished, because obviously Jesus hadn't returned yet. There's also the little passage at the end of John, where Jesus remarks, "If I want him [the beloved disciple] to remain until I return, what is that to you?". Now whether or not Jesus actually said this, clearly people thought he did, and so they thought the beloved disciple would be alive when Jesus returned. But because the beloved disciple died in the meantime, the gospel of John has to make clear that Jesus was making a hypothetical statement.
I think this is a pretty compelling reason, but I'd really like to know mechanically why.
You'll be forgiven if I take a Reddit source (which itself sources to scholarly works from between 15 and 20 years ago to represent the modern academic consensus) with a grain of salt. I'm not sure that it's wrong, necessarily, but 2009 was a long time ago. Their argument for the mechanics (which I am pleased that they have) is "context." Which is fine, as that goes, but I'm not sure I'm satisfied with it.
The text you quote suggests that it's a close parallel to 23:36 and that we use that for context. You'll note that I reference this in my text, and it seems to me that this (mildly) strengthens the non-temporal interpretation. Christ there says that the scribes and Pharisees murdered "Zechariah, son of Berechiah" who – was (it seems likely) a historical figure who lived hundreds of years prior to the time of Christ. Christ says elsewhere (Matthew 16:4) that no sign would be given to this generation except that of Jonah – but the people living at the time were given many miracles, and the like, so one interpretation would be that by "this generation" Christ is referring to a group of people (the scribes and Pharisees), right? So if we take Matthew 16:4, roll it forward to Matthew 23:36, and then (in agreement with the scholarship here) apply that here to Matthew 24:34, it seems like using generation to mean a period of time makes less sense than using generation to refer to a group of people – who are (thematically, at least) not limited to a "generation" in a temporal sense.
I'm not sure I'm very happy with that explanation either – it seems more straightforward just to accept that Christ is speaking non-literally in Matthew 16:4 about the zeitgeist. But of course one could roll that forward to 24:34 as well.
The consensus for scholarship seems to be circa 100. I suppose it depends on what you define as a generation!
Biblical scholarship has been a thing for hundreds of years, and the Bible isn't getting many updates. This is not a particularly dynamic field, so I think sources from 2004 are fine in this regard. You can pick up just about any introductory new testament textbook or scholarly commentary and find the same view. It's not controversial like, say, the authorship of the pastoral epistles. Here's what, for example. RT France has to say about it in his commentary:
Sadly I don't have my finger on the pulse as much as I would like to, but from what I can tell – less true than you might think. I'm not saying that sources from 2004 are bad but I'm also not sure that 2004 is "contemporary scholarship."
Still not really seeing engagement with my point about Matthew 16:4. Which is probably fine – I am suspicious of arguments that rely too much on "hyperliteral interpretations of the text" and I think that argument tilts that way.
Again, I've looked through many commentaries, they are pretty unambiguous about this line. I feel confident enough not to bother pirating a more modern one.
Sure, it could be a group of people - contemporary people. Which is in line with every other place he uses it.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link