This did take a little time, Arjuna, to run these down again, so I do hope you appreciate it (for whatever worth it may have). I used only up to mid first century sources, because they would be background for general literature knowledge used by Paul. (this is not exhaustive, but fairly representative)



[indent]We can find the style, both indirectly and directly at places such as:

[indent]Sirach 2:1~4, 6, 11, 17; 4:1~10 area; chapter eleven area, and 15:11~16:23 area;
Wisdom of Solomon 3:1~9; 4:1;
2 Esdras 8:49, 50;
1 Enoch 94:6~10; 95:4~7: 96:4~8;
4Q393 (and these are not versed, so I'll write them out)...and let no man walk in the stubbornness of his evil heart.;
521 For the lord will consider the pious and call the righteous by name...For he will heal the wounded, and revive the dead, and bring good news to the poor.;
417 Be like a poor man in your dispute. (also 416 carries this theme of holding the attitude of a poor, thus humble, person in the worship of YHWH);
434 ...For he has delivered the soul of the poor and has not despised the humble...He has been gracious to the humble by his great kindness...For they have pledged their spirit.;
436...You have removed from me the stiff neck and replaced it with humility. You have taken away [from me] the rage of anger and replaced in me a spirit of patience.;
525 (this is most likely mid-first century work)...Allow knowledge to enter your heart. Express [your] utterances with just humility...;
and of course we'll find the likes of Ps 138:6; Zep 3:12, 13; and Isa 57:15.
[/indent] [/indent]


Well, if that road be insisted on being taken, then, the fact of the matter is that there is nothing spiritual at all about what Paul wrote to those people back then, there at 1 Co 1:19~25. Of course Paul had an agenda, there's no doubt about that, and of course he had strong Tanakh education (as can seen in his common pattern of work [to the extent that Acts can be trusted historically]), but he also had a wild imagination--as did the other leaders of that cult (including Yeshua).

You are most incorrect, Deckard, in saying that what Paul had said there is not what he had written there in that context (point in time and circumstance [history], theological based religious belief-system foundation wise [system's culture]). How is it you make such a bold statement? At least it would be good to provide the argumentation for that from the database of information there.

You are also mistaken in attempting to hold a view which appears (at least on the surface) to simply be a present day emotion lacking careful investigation. Paul was an academic, don't you understand?

You are wrong, jeeprs, the only reason that particular letter was preserved was because a dedicated group of believers in Pauline theology made an effort to save some copies long enough, not because it contained any universal truth in and of itself, to any material degree. You are also wrong in trying to assert that it was not a historical development which lead to what was written there, and was not written from the Pauline position of demanding his disciples adhere fast to his teachings.

What you have often tried to 'get at,' jeeprs, is the problem in this case too. Like I said (and I don't really think you'll believe me), it's a useless exercise--why even bother thinking about taking that road? There is no spiritual meaning in 1 Cor 1:19~25, just as there is no spiritual meaning in 1 Cor 15:22~28.

Anyone else concur? Seems dubious to me that one is able to declare unequivocally where in the Bible there is, and is not, 'spiritual meaning'. It think it far more likely it is evenly distributed, but for those without the ears to hear it.

---------- Post added 05-29-2010 at 03:11 PM ----------

I must say, KJ, you are someone I find awfully difficult to understand. But then I guess many people feel like that about me, too. :puzzled:

On the one hand I want to defend my ideas but then on the other hand I think there's a basic communication problem here and I don't want to drag out the conversation any further. Oh well. :whistling:

I hope I didn't derail this thread. It wasn't my intention to do so.

What I do hope to have achieved, on the other hand, is the demonstration of the truth of my earlier suggestion; it is a useless exercise. How can anyone assert that my saying there is no spiritual meaning in the communication at 1 Cor 1:19~25 is incorrect due to my not being able to determine what clauses, sentences, passages, verses, chapters, or books have spiritual meaning, all the while asserting that they can know which clauses, sentences, passages, verses, chapters, or books have spiritual meaning? It's a farce! (or do we admit to nobody's being able to really know...then, it's a useless exercise, as I have proposed.)

I don't think (at least I, for one) that you have derailed the thread, jeeprs, although, come to think of it, this particular matter might fit better on that old thread I'd started back some time ago. But, let me ask you this, jeeprs (if I may, Deckard), by what means do you (if, in fact, you do) think you have the ability call the shots on what clauses, sentences, etc., in these canonical and non-canonical documents relative to the Bible of today, have 'spiritual' meaning, where 'spiritual' has a definition beyond simply 'a quality of emotional value for social bonding/efficiency of order?' Without having very thoroughly undertaken a relatively involved study from as neutral a starting point as possible, I don't reason that one would have that capacity.

What I have presented is the far most likely truth of the matter, however, Deckard, I would like to encourage you to present your position--you may know the Hebrew idiomatic saying, 'with iron, iron is sharpened'. By putting your ideas forward, and making efforts to defend them, a greater learning may well take place . . . may. Do you feel there is meaning in 1 Cor 1:19~25 beyond what Paul had intended the direct and immediate readers of the letter to understand, and what he would have known they were capable of understanding? Of course, you are aware that that letter had been written to those people, for that moment in time only, right? (the letter itself plainly evidences that much) And of course, it's only rational and pragmatic that Paul would have written to them so that they could understand his opinion on that circumstance which had been drawn to his attention by word of mouth--namely that some in the group were not more strictly following Paul's teachings.

If you guys would rather take it to that other thread, that's OK too...or if here is ok with Deckard, that's fine with me too. If any feel there is a communication problem, I would tend to think that that could be overcome--but it'll take some care and diligent reasoning in linguistically logical methods.

Obviously, the letters of Paul were included in the Bible because they speak to other audiences besides (in this example) the Corinthians.

Imagine a preacher saying "Now remember Paul was talking to the Corinthians not to you; please don't make the mistake of thinking that these words have any bearing on your faith...with that caveat I will read from 1 Corinthians..."

There is more than one point to be made about these verses. I understand and recognize what you are saying about the historical context of the verses but I am also interested in what the verses mean today, the "living word" and not just the word quarantined, defused, tamed by historical context etc.

It is not frivolous conjecture to say that Paul (if he were making the speech today) would reject the historical analysis of the religious studies academician as he did the signs of the Jews and the wisdom of the Greeks. I'm sure there are preachers today who use these verses to support anti-intellectualism of one form or another.

Yes perhaps because they were challenging and competing with his authority as the teacher of the faith but Paul also believed that he was teaching the true faith and had a vision of where the movement should go... one that I'm not so sure I like.

These verses from Corinthians contribute to the more formal doctrine of an elect who are saved by faith rather than works. Are you saying that this doctrine arose almost accidentally out of a power struggle between Paul and various competing individuals within early Christianity? It's an intriguing idea.

Of course Paul would deny it.

I think this ties into the nature of text. A text is a series of words. It's that simple. And we can do what we want with these words.

A historical analysis is one fascinating thing to do with them, and a de-(re)-contextualized reinterpretation is another fascinating approach. I'm personally in favor of the latter, while not denying the advantages of the former.

Sentences are viruses. They are codes. The letter itself is dead. It's only within a living human being that any sentence has meaning.

---------- Post added 05-29-2010 at 04:38 PM ----------



Emphasis mine.

I quote this to remind us all how the thread opened. What do we living human beings as a member of a present-tense community have to say on such matters?

I suggest that we welcome all interpretations, including the historical contextual ones.

I agree with that. I am somewhat interested in the scholarly analysis of such matters. When I asked the question about addressing the spiritual import of the verse, it wasn't to downplay the textual analysis, but to explore the other layer of meaning. That is what I actually expected might happen. So, I was flabbergasted when KaseiJin said, well there isn't one, and looking for it is a useless exercise. What book are we talking about, I asked myself? Why, it's the Bible, came the answer, probably the Number 1 Spiritual Book of all times. And which part of it? The Letters of Paul, which are arguably the most important doctrinal sources for the Christian faith behind the Gospels themselves.

Now I think that the interpretation of the character of Jesus as a political revolutionary whose aim was to overthrow the Roman government and establish a Jewish theocracy is a classic case of historical revisionism. It is an attempt to re-interpret the Life and Teachings in such a way as to account for the amazing longevity of the myth of the rabble-rousing preacher from Judea, to those for whom a myth is all it is.

So what do I say that it means? What is 'The Kindgom' which is at the centre of all this? I dispute that this has political, or even temporal, connotations. It has been exploited for political reasons for millenia, but it is a parable about the human condition, about the nature of existence, and the nature of reality, and the destiny of the soul. It is a parable for the urgency of spiritual awakening, and the futility of rationality (= Greek) or religiosity (= Jewish) in that undertaking. The wisdom of God is folly to the world. In the Christian revelation, God was born among men in a lowly manger, and suffered the fate of a criminal on the Cross. This is ridiculous in the eyes of the Roman state (the Gentiles): their Gods rode chariots, ruled the heavens, and were at the top of the celestial hierarchy, so the painful facts of Jesus life were an extremely inconvenient truth and stumbling block to all concerned.

So there's a few words on the spiritual import. I am sure this interpretation would be perfectly orthodox in any Christian church in the world today, Catholic, Protestant, or Orthodox, although I am happy to be corrected by anyone who knows better.

---------- Post added 05-30-2010 at 09:12 AM ----------



Let's explore that. I often wonder who Christians think they are relating to, when they talk of their relationship with Jesus. A ghost? But I think the answer is that, through their faith, they are instantiating the meaning of Christ's life in their own lives. They say that Christ lives 'in their hearts'. What this means is that the example of Jesus' life and teachings becomes real to them through faith. His meaning is eternal and is the eternal archetype, as Christian Platonism would say. As another Pauline verse has it: 'I live, yet I live not, for Christ lives in me.'

By the way, I really, really don't want to discourage your scholarly contributions KaseiJin. They are very welcome and much appreciated.

I strongly sympathize with this. Nietzsche talked of the shockingness of a crucified God. Which would be more obvious to us all except that exposure can dead the power of metaphor and myth.

---------- Post added 05-29-2010 at 08:03 PM ----------



This is generally how I see it. Nietzsche was a bit too hard on Paul. He didn't see how much he may have been Pauline himself. Not me but the will-to-power within me. That sort of thing. Of course Paul writes all sorts of things offensive to modern sensibility. The submission of women, etc.

Not me, but Christ within me. Not the candle, but the flame. Not the accident, but the essence. Not "3" but what "3" refers to, apart from the glyph and the sound involved, both of which are contingent/accidental.

I also really appreciate it. I've only mulled over the crust of the iceberg of understanding how ancient people wrote. Like I've been reading that Plato's Socratic writing was a form that many people used. That kind of blows my mind. Why would so many people couch their ideas in a conversation with Socrates?

As for spiritual meaning... the thing is I think Reconstructo is right: the words are dead scribbles. Hamlet comes to life in a human psyche (soul). There's no living Hamlet to be found by analyzing the text scientifically. Only shadows.

What we do know is the the Semitic people were traveling merchants. They most likely were involved in trade connecting China to Egypt as far back as 1000 BC. Along the trade routes were oases where travelers would stop. One of the favorite pastimes in these oases was talk about religion. It was here that Israelites, Buddhists, and others would share ideas. (Foltz -- Religions of the Silk Road)

Kaseijin is saying there's no spiritual meaning in the OP scripture. I say put yourself in their shoes. Imagine that you go to the doctor and find out that you have two weeks to live. And now look out at the people you know. Go to your favorite watering hole and experience it this way: with the notion that this may be the last time you see any of it. This is the nature apocolypticism. No scholarly analysis will take you there. In fact it will only lead away from it.

Just as Lenin refused to allow conflict with the Communist Party because all questions had already been answered, Paul saw conflict, not so much as a threat to his personal power, but as Lenin's leftist deviation... a failure to grasp the epic magnitude of the unfolding story.

I say we're playing with fire here. The mindset that leads to this state can be literally lethal. I'll warrant though that what a person sees from this vantage point is a rare truth. It's a personal truth. It's most definitely spiritual.

This does, however, fails to come to terms with the empirical fact that Christianity is the single largest faith, and with what Christians say they understand Christ to be.

(I am one of those, incidentally, who believe that Christians misrepresent and misunderstand Christ in many ways. I was never confirmed into the Anglican church, and many of my beliefs would be judged heretical by the Anglicans. It is therefore ironic that I find myself representing Christian apologetics. But then maybe I only realise how Christian I actually am when I engage in these dialogs.)



Check out The Jesus Sutras



And I am saying, how can this be? It is like analysing a computer manual for the type of English used. Now I actually do this, being a technical writer. But interesting though it might be, let's not forget that the purpose of the manual is to instruct readers on how to use the computer. Can't see the wood for the trees, I say.

I still like Wisdom as the ultimate goal, even if knowledge has its own value.

Let me firstly, and quickly comment on this well taken suggestion. While I think I can understand the held emotion which can be deciphered from the wording, I'd be quick to counter-suggest, that the term 'welcome,' actually, may not be the best choice of words. I would suggest the phrasal, 'take note of.'

Then, I see a classic error here, and would like to firstly deal with that; and do hope those who have voiced opinions and thoughts would follow and reason along, most carefully, with me on this.





The word 'revisionism' had come up--in (most specifically) a misguided application--and this is exactly what we should investigate firstly. For that, we have to station our positions in the mid-first century in the Greco-Roman world, in the atmosphere of the moment with a particular new Judaic teaching. This is a fact-of-reality test.

[indent][indent]A particular troupe, whose leader is from Tarsus, Saul, had been the sole source of information (along with a few others who are saying mostly the same basic thing, in diffferent ways), and is whom all matters which need judging are appealed to. What do we have in the way of written documents? Just a few of the smaller scrolls, in Greek, of portions of wisdom sayings and stories of the Hebrew peoples. (although we may have access to some major prophetic scrolls down at the local synagogue...if the rabbi's friendly with us) Of course, when Saul comes around (which is seldom), or when someone appointed from his troupe does, they'll bring some scrolls or parchments, and maybe some stylus-like, pre-codex-like notes on the 'message of good tidings.'

Now, when Saul first started this congregation here, he would always use (and still does, when he comes) proof texts from the law of Moses, Jubilees, a certain Daniel, and Isaiah, yet would quote, from memory, a number of other passages from who knows where...but obviously from the Hebrew's religious scrolls. Of course he teaches us on what Yeshua, the messiah, is, did, and is about to do.

OK, so there seems to have been a small problem, one of us has had sexual bonding with his father's wife (I don't know if that's his biological mother, or not), and there have been some disputes on exactly whose teaching should be followed (they are, as I said, much the same, but slightly different--and of course the teaching styles are different...this Apollos is a great speaker, whereas Saul stammers, and is kind of hard to follow at times (Greek is not his mother tongue). So, Paul has sent us a letter through his fellow worker, Timothy, a Grecian who was raised with the Hebrew religious teaching, and now we have this letter which addresses the matter of both the division issue, and the sexual bonding problem (as well a few other things which cover some of what we've already be taught orally).

Of course, Saul (often called Paul), is like the messenger of the messiah to us, is very respected, has some kind of magic power, and has promised to help us survive the great battle and world end that is soon coming as the kingdom of the messiah arrives. He is like a father to us, a direct connection with YHWH, whose first born son, Yeshua, is the promised messiah all the Hebrew prophetic books had been pointing to. The elders of the congregation read the letter to us (since most here cannot read), and keep it safe to use as evidence for how to be perfect and clean in body and mind.

Bible? What are you talking about? Biblion? OK, which one are you talking about, the Wisdom scroll, Jubilees scroll, the Enoch scroll, that Isaiah scroll over at the synagogue, the congregation notes, or one of the several scrolls on the Hebrew religious teachings that Saul, and his troupe, always carries around with them?

Or, are you talking about all of them collectively? That letter we got from Saul? Oh, that's important, it's from Saul, our father-teacher in the messiah, but that's not a biblos, we learned from the biblous of the Hebrew's religion because that is the story of the messiah, and explains the signs of the time, and the new kingdom that will be set up from heaven by YHWH's son who will soon be coming back to destroy all the other kingdoms of the entire world, from Rome to Persia.[/indent][/indent]

Well, a bit long, and I wanted to make it entertaining as well, but it is based on points scattered throughout (esp. Acts) the extant documents with the highest degree of being truly from Paul, and of that early Christian setting (mid first century), as well as secure understandings in scholarly works.

As Reconstructo had highlighted earlier, we, who have been recently born into a situation wherein many among us have been strongly taught that there is this book, this single-volume book, called The Holy Scriptures, or THE Bible, are the ones practicing the 'revisionism by doing so. And even though it consists of 66 individual books, we were raised being made to view it as a single book which a forced conception. Since when, is this so, we must ask ourselves! Since when did a single book concept appear? It was most clearly not so even in the first decades of the third century, and was absolutely not so in the middle of the first century.

Investigating this thoroughly, and as exhaustively as possible, and in realistic and pragmatic methodology, will tell us that Paul's letter to the Corinthians was saved by those who loved him, those who cherished his loss, and believed he had been telling the truth of YHWH and his messiah, and was passed on to those believers who simply slowly developed in 'the church' which, in turn, had to create a canon to protect itself (a phenomena all large organizations will eventually produce). We have no idea just how many letters Paul had actually written (even that purported letter to the Laodiceans we do not have [Colossians is largely not considered to be an authentic Pauline document, so that information is unsure, but it doesn't mean that there had not been a letter written by some Christian leader, to both congregations there...only not Paul]) and we have a few non-canonical letters.

Simply because a person living in the 21st century, or who had been living in even the 4th century, can be emotionally moved through application of ideas written in any ancient document, as they read through the socio-culturally-environment-instilled eyes of their times, into the passages, in no way means that their emotion is that of the author of the words, or (especially since we are dealing with simply a letter here) the intended direct and immediate audience. In this case, actually, it is quite impossible, simply because it is by far most clear that Paul would never have accepted, at all, another 1900 something years time to follow his death--the messiah was at the doorstep, it was the last hour.

THIS FIRST POINT is, therefore, that there is no single book, no canon of authority, in the year 56, and we are free to use all sources from Jewish religious documents and teachings, as well as the flexible and not yet so fixed oral traditions of the Yeshua story. Additionally, we have to use these by placing our frame and reference points of reading them, in that time-locked religio-socio-culturally-determined environment, of that moment--not ours.

Good post. I just wanted to answer this one line in particular. As much as I value the sort of understanding that comes from this sort of investigation, I still think we can profit from a less restricted assimilation of the text. Of course we shouldn't then claim to understand it historically.

Let's assume for the sake of discussion that there was no historical spiritual meaning. Let's assume instead that the new testament was generated randomly, by a computer. I know that this isn't likely as far as probability goes, but it's good for my point.

Humans are great at finding meanings where arguably there is no meaning to be found but only created-in-response-to. In my opinion, the Bible is generally a profound collection of books. When I find profound meaning in it, this meaning itself is primary for me, or the ultimate goal of reading. While I am interested in the historical context, it's less important to me than the juice I can squeeze from a text. For me, it's the ideas that matter. And a text is a sort of virus, a cold dead thing that only comes to life in a living present human mind. So the meaning is not in the text, but related intimately to it.

This is just my view, and in no way is meant to disparage your view, which I find also quite valid. I am interested in historical meanings.

I can see, Arjuna, that you are crossing real-life boundaries in your applications. One can do that, of course, and it can be interesting making such connections, but the general present history of human activity will by no means alter that of long past human activity history. It is just a simple fact. It is for that reason, especially, that so many of the older Jewish prophetic works are often so loosely worded, because during the Second Temple period there was some re-writing, and (as one would guess) some effort was made to 're-apply the prophecies to that particular time.

I agree, as I have just posted above (and this might merge....oh boy...I hate that) that we must put ourselves in their shoes. We must take care to not try to put them in our shoes, for, as we can all but attest to, time flows one direction for us (as best we can tell). That is, in effect, what one will be doing by jumping such time-locked boundaries. It's fun, it can draw out some interesting thought experiments and patternicities, but it is not realistic at all.

Anyway, I'll move one point at a time . . . because that is the only way to do it right--it's easy to often just go rushing full speed ahead, without involved thought on the details at each and every point, in a good methodological manner.

---------- Post added 05-30-2010 at 11:57 AM ----------



Likewise, good post. And, once again, this is exactly why I had suggested, from the beginning of any talk of 'spiritual meaning' in the text at 1 Cor 1:19~25, that it would be a useless exercise to ask the question, 'what is the spiritual meaning?'

If we were to ask, 'what does that text say to you,' then we could just all give our opinions, and let it go at that...not making any effort to ascribe our internal (as in the brain alone, rather than being actual external elements of the fact of reality [as best known]) emotions to that of that author or those readers.

I stand most firm in the better understanding that there is no spiritual meaning there at the passage in question on this thread, unless by that one simply means emotional element (but then my 'Calvin and Hobbies' (the cartoon strip) book has much spiritual meaning also), but it does speak to me, if one wishes to use such colloquialism.

However, as may be noticed, I also hope to get a number of birds with one stone, here, and help correct some misguided generalizations about the Bible which we most unfortunately still find waaaay too much in Christendom, and so onward I hope to go, with each detailed point, in that way (Deckard allowing, that is).

We may be more in agreement than I realized. See, for me the spiritual can be reduced to the emotion, sensation, and concept. Of course "emotion" is a cold word for the ecstasy that humans are capable of, and the grief.

The text itself is indeed just dead code. Are you saying something like that? Or are you aiming at a rejection of spirit in the supernatural sense? I'm sympathetic to either of these views. There are pre-natural forms to perception, perhaps, but I'm not interested in the supernatural.

Dr. Seuss wrote a story called The Sneeches which I sincerely think is a "spiritual" text in the sense that one can find/create a profound meaning in/from it.

And I say there is a meaning, which you do not comprehend.

If you think the spiritual reading of the bible constitutes a series of 'misguided generalizations' then I am afraid I will never agree. There is a spiritual truth in the Bible which is not discernable to mere scholarship, nor reducible to historical analysis, nor to a matter of opinion. If that position makes me a believer, so be it.

So anyway, here's a clip from Arnold's Culture and Anarchy where Arnold introduces the concept of Hebraism as the drive at action and the concept of Hellenism as the drive to knowledge. (well Arnold says it better).



Hebraism and Hellenism presented here as two different roads to the same goal of salvation. It's a bit of a stretch but I think this can be connected with Paul's describing the Jews as a people who were expecting God to act with miraculous signs while the Greeks represent a God that could be approached through knowledge and learning.

Well in any case Paul and Arnold are both talking about Jews and Greeks as two approaches to salvation.

Arnold seeks to balance and perhaps synthesize what the two traditions represent.

Paul rejects them both in favor of... ?

Reasoning along closely with you, as you have suggested, I will point out there has traditionally been understood to be several layers of meaning in the Bible. A threefold interpretation was common, referring to the literal, moral and spiritual layers of meaning. Each layer was understood to be genuine, but none was exhaustive. The spiritual meaning was understood as the most profound, and was usually understood as something be interpreted allegorically.



Rather garbled sentence, I think, but anyway a good alternative would be to refer to other well-known interpretations of this very passage, to see whether other biblical scholars believe that there is some spiritual import to be gleaned here - which I think I will do.