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 -
I do not accept luke as canon either, and neither Acts. Both books, allegedly written by the same hand, have serious flaws. I believe Luke is a perverted version of Marcion's gospel, which can be well reconstructed from his critics. It does not mention the census.
The academy does some good work as in all fields, but also like in other fields I land somewhat far from the « consensus ». Maybe it is unfair to compare Ehrman to a Turkheimer, however he is no Jensen. I would not take most of his conclusions seriously, though he seems to be a leader in the field.
With Paul the mainstream admits many of the letters are forgeries. What they are more quiet on is obvious interpolations in the widely-accepted-to-be-legitimate letters. In the legitimate letters Paul reads like a gnostic that occasionally insert stomach churning, Yahwehist pablum that reads like it was written by the composer of Matthew or Luke, which often contradicts with something else he said. For example, I believe Romans 12:10 to 13:10 is likely fraudulent; elsewhere he discusses the evil of the archons kai exousia but here he demands the nastiest form of earthly obedience to the low from above. Well, I do not believe that St. Paul wrote that. There are some scholars here and there who have written in agreement with this but it is not a mainstream position. The evidence for it is low criticism (the letter flows better without it, you can see where it would have been inserted if you connect passages from before and after) as well as the fact that our earliest source is from around 200 AD, which is not original. In addition we can attempt to reconstruct the original; Valentinus and Marcion both claimed to be disciples of Paul and no other apostle through a line of descent. Marcion claimed a literal reading of Paul while Valentinus claimed Paul had secret traditions through Theudas. You can see how Marcion is the exoteric doctrine (the two gods, minimal complexity) and Valentinus the esoteric (Aeons, metaphysics, pneumatic-psychic-hylic hierarchy). It is widely accepted that the proto-orthodox wrote Acts and the forged letters after this to reclaim Paul. I think they also edited his original letters. In reconstructions from early anti-heresy books for instance, we find no evidence of 12:10-13:10, even where it would be pertinent; so I think it was written later. There are many other passages such as this, basically anywhere where « Paul » starts writing about Abraham and Israel and other such things, this was not in Marcion's letters.
When authentic Paul says theo, what does it mean? Yes, that can be confusing where there is a higher and lower pantheon . I take it to mean the higher pantheon, beings in the pleroma, the Autogenes, the Son of Man (cosmic) etc. Like how in the mainstream view there are three persons.
Another issue with Yawhehists is what Son of Man means. In gnosticism is means the cosmic Seth. This is a divine figure, so the reading of Mark and John on this topic is easy. In the orthodox church they wish he had called himself Son of God exclusively and not Son of Man excessively.
The issue is priors in a field where that matters a lot. If your prior is atheism with a side of childhood orthodoxy I think you get the mainstream consensus. My priors are that Plato was a pneumatic so his system is inspired and that's why it pops up in gnosticism, that's why Jesus preaches it, that's why it was lost but found again independently in Catharism, Rosicrucianism, Hermeticism, and now the old writings have been uncovered. But this is not a secular prior so the academy will never share it. It is coherent, however.
More options
Context Copy link