Imagine being such a persecuted group in America that you get to blast spam mail to everyone in your community in the name of religion with no repercussions.

  • kromem@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    11
    ·
    6 months ago

    Fwiw, 1 Timothy is widely recognized by scholars as a later forgery. So it’s effective at shutting up literalists but not as much people who recognize the text as an at least partially flawed effort.

    But that “shuddup women” stuff in the late first and early second century is pretty interesting.

    Like you had Phillip the Evangelist’s daughters supposedly prophesying, apocrypha where Jesus is privately teaching female students, with later traditions claiming their original teacher was a woman.

    And then Corinth a decade or so after Paul deposed the appointed elders from Rome, and the bishop of Rome writes 1 Clement to them, which is all about how young people should defer to old and how awesome the biblical women who stayed silent were (presumably ignoring the earliest women who were driving tent pegs into the heads of dudes).

    Suddenly after this schism and competing materials and tradition owing themselves to female teachers you have a forged letter about how women shouldn’t teach.

    It’s a fun line from the Epistle to throw in their faces, but it obscures one of the more interesting and eyebrow raising episodes to the early church.

    • ouRKaoS@lemmy.today
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      24
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      6 months ago

      “This line that I don’t agree with is fake, but the stuff you don’t agree with is 100% truth.”

      • kromem@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        9
        ·
        6 months ago

        More like “the stuff in line with extensive and repeated archeological finds which is present in lower layers of textual analysis below what’s clear anachronistic royal propaganda is probably true.”

    • gregorum@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      12
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      edit-2
      6 months ago

      The entire Bible is a lie. For you to argue that any part of it negate any other part of it just shows how much of it you’re taken by.

      None of it was real. Wake up.

      • kromem@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        5
        ·
        6 months ago

        You might be surprised. There’s a ton of BS, but the things it tried to cover up are actually pretty revealing.

        For example, it talks about how one of the earliest leaders and prophets is a woman named ‘bee’ and in her song she talks about how the tribe of Dan “stayed on their ships.”

        Well just in the past ten years there’s been a discovery of the only apiary in the region which was requeening their bees from Anatolia for centuries up until the period when Asa is supposedly deposing his grandmother the Queen Mother, when the apiary and only the apiary is burned to the ground.

        Inside that apiary there’s even a four horned altar to an unknown goddess - a feature that becomes a part of later Israelite shrines.

        Just a few weeks ago there were articles about what’s thought to be a very early Israelite graveyard where they were burning beeswax with a similar chemical profile to this apiary with the imported Anatolian bees and four horned altars.

        Up in Anatolia was a tribe of sea peoples known as the Denyen, who an archeologist in the 50s thought might have been the lost tribe of Dan staying on their ships. And just in the past few years the lead excavator of Tel Dan was remarking that he might have been right given they found Aegean style pottery made with local clay in the early Iron Age layer.

        There’s quite a lot more to all this, but while none of it is straight up acknowledged in the Bible, there’s very valuable evidence of it having been covered up and rewritten in the Bible.

        Just because you don’t like the current version of royal propaganda doesn’t mean there aren’t earlier layers beneath what’s presented that have value in being learned about and analyzed, particularly for history buffs.

        As the science historian John Helibron said, “The myth you slay today may contain a truth you need tomorrow.”

    • HelixDab2@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      6 months ago

      Even if that’s true–and I don’t know if it is or not, because I’m not a true biblical scholar–the fact is that 1 Timothy is recognized as canon throughout the Christian world. Even if it’s a forgery, it’s been accepted as gospel for the last 1800 years or so.

      …And that’s completely ignoring the fact that most people that get really deep into scholarly historical bible studies very quickly end up as agnostics and atheists, because you can’t square the historical record with any religion currently practiced.

      • kromem@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        6 months ago

        Here’s a chart of a poll of scholars on the letters: https://www.reddit.com/r/AcademicBiblical/comments/uq26n8/which_nt_epistles_did_paul_actually_write/

        And yes, often people who pursue scholarship tend to have a deconversion moment, especially if they were coming from more conservative or orthodox backgrounds. I’ve also seen people go the other direction, which is a bit odd to me, but whatever floats their boat. The texts are a mess of revisionism and edits that fly in the face of any kind of literalism.

        But those revisions and edits reveal a lot in what they sloppily cover up, or the motivations behind the changes, etc. It’s actually a really fun field of study.

        For example, I disagree with the consensus linked for 2 Timothy, as if you look at the letters given a recent finding that covert narcissists talk about themselves more in their writing, Paul talks about himself vs others at a similar relative rate as the undisputed Epistles, which isn’t the case for any other disputed Epistle, and is much more than all the other Epistles. (Some other reasons too, but that’s the main data point I think is interesting.) Paul definitely appears to have been that type of narcissist, and it may reveal what he did or didn’t write.