Well, after a person spends over ten years reading thousands of scholarly biblical studies books and papers, a certain mode of thinking and writing sort of takes over. However, I did go through the book numerous times making changes that I hoped would make it a bit more entertaining and readable for the non-biblical studies crowd.
But still, it IS a study, a sustained presentation of facts, evidence, and arguments, much like a legal case and that required a certain stringency of approach and exposition.
I didn't want to sound bad. My point was that at the beginning I was a little scared that for a small amount of free time I would not be able to read the book, but thanks to this scientific style I could read faster without losing sense This is just a tip for those who would start reading with the same approach Scientific style rulez
As of now, I read 130 pages. As I don't have any Christian background, I was expecting to be a little dry. But, It was very good. It is like finding few needles in haystack and investigating each needle for its origins( genetic analysis) , setting them in a certain order to see whether that fits in to the current heard narrative. It all reminded me of narration of political parties that became dynasties (in India) and how the narration changes with each generation. I am really enjoying the 2nd chapter( Paul's Literary environment). Laura slayed lot of dragons with this book. I also enjoyed how the belief systems of Indo-Aryans to Iranians (with Zarathustra) and how it translated to pre-Tora texts to later Jewish texts to Christianity.
Some time ago I mentioned that I would like to write a review of Laura's book on Amazon, in recent days I have also bought other books for which I spent more than $ 50, but I still cannot write a review. When I try, I get the following message:
"We apologize but this account has not met the minimum eligibility requirements to write a review. If you would like to learn more about our eligibility requirements, please see our community guidelines."
However, in the Community Guidelines I see:
"To contribute to Customer features (for example, Customer Reviews, Customer Questions, Customer Answers, Idea Lists) or to follow other contributors, you must have spent at least $50 on Amazon.com using a valid credit or debit card in the past 12 months. Promotional discounts don't qualify towards the $50 minimum. You do not need to meet this requirement to read content posted by other contributors, or create or modify Profile pages, Shopping Lists, Wish Lists or Registries."
Beautifully said, Michael B-C, and exactly one of the conclusions I have recently come to, coming in from another angle, as I haven’t read the book yet. I am currently reading a book about Dietrich Bonhoeffer, a German theologian, mystic and freedom fighter, who participated in the failed attempt to assassinate Hitler, and who - 3 weeks before the capitulation of the German Third Reich - was executed by the Nazis.
That is basically what Bonhoeffer was trying to tell his contemporaries. I don’t want to go off-topic here, so once I finish the book, maybe I’ll write a review in the book section, because already - only about half in - it has had a bit of a life changing effect.
I came across the figure of Dietrich Bonhoeffer some time ago during my theological studies. He drew my attention, among other things, with his statements on Christian ethics. I don't want to disturb the topic of the discussion, but I think Bonhoeffer might have been drawing inspiration from Paul. Perhaps he was also someone who understood Paul's teachings correctly.
Bonhoeffer distinguished being a good man from Christian ethics. I remember that he came to my mind also while reading the book, and more precisely when I was reading the subsection: "Paul and Jewish Christians". I believe his understanding was somewhat different from that of most theologians of his time, but to be sure I would have to read a little more about him as well as about his more detailed views on other issues.
I read to 122-3 of From Paul to Mark:PCh and I started from the beginning once more. I'm on pg.130 at the moment. Helpers me to know what's going on more thoroughly as I read further into the book.
I came across the figure of Dietrich Bonhoeffer some time ago during my theological studies. He drew my attention, among other things, with his statements on Christian ethics. I don't want to disturb the topic of the discussion, but I think Bonhoeffer might have been drawing inspiration from Paul. Perhaps he was also someone who understood Paul's teachings correctly.
Bonhoeffer distinguished being a good man from Christian ethics. I remember that he came to my mind also while reading the book, and more precisely when I was reading the subsection: "Paul and Jewish Christians". I believe his understanding was somewhat different from that of most theologians of his time, but to be sure I would have to read a little more about him as well as about his more detailed views on other issues.
I think there have been a few rare souls who really got what Paul was about. In the case of more recent scholars, I was very impressed with the work of Troels Engberg-Pedersen, however I felt that he wasn't fully getting to the heart of things because he was taking a very comparative approach via Stoicism. Timothy Ashworth, on the other hand, seemed to have had deeper insights possibly due to his own transcendental experience. Even so, the latter followed a scholarly approach with his focus on translation and comparison of terminology.
Even earlier, quite a few of us discussed Paul's theology in relation to the work of Gurdjieff. It seemed to me that G, too, had only touched on certain things and there was a distance, a gap, between what he understood and what Paul was truly about. Nevertheless, in Gurdjieff's terms, one could think of Paul's work as a Fourth Way approach.
What really struck me was the realization of how much like what the Cs have exposed in the way of cosmology, anthropology, and theology (including theodicy) Paul's ideas actually were. But, due to time and language barriers, it takes some unpacking to get there, and that's where Ashworth and E-P help so much with their respective studies and insights.
The section of "FPTM" that is of extreme interest in respect of what I have said above is "Markan Epistemology". Note on page 371 where I posit:
1) there are two kingdoms, that of God and that of Satan, which are in deadly opposition to each
other; 2) Jesus has come to rout Satan, ‘plunder his house’ and retrieve those who have spiritual
organs of seeing and hearing; 3) in spite of the fact that Jesus has come to do this, Satan can
still impede the kingdom of God in some ways and one must guard against those wiles if one is
capable. Marcus calls this “the collision of the kingdoms”
This speaks strongly of the STO vs STS positions and that "some love the light and others love the darkness" and "the All blinks neither at the light nor the darkness."
Paul may not have put it in modern terminology, but if one takes care, the "Secret of the Kingdom of God" can be discerned.
Added: One is also reminded of William Blake's poem "Auguries of Innocence" where we find:
Every night and every morn
Some to misery are born.
Every morn and every night
Some are born to sweet delight.
Some are born to sweet delight,
Some are born to endless night.
I think there have been a few rare souls who really got what Paul was about. In the case of more recent scholars, I was very impressed with the work of Troels Engberg-Pedersen, however I felt that he wasn't fully getting to the heart of things because he was taking a very comparative approach via Stoicism. Timothy Ashworth, on the other hand, seemed to have had deeper insights possibly due to his own transcendental experience. Even so, the latter followed a scholarly approach with his focus on translation and comparison of terminology.
Even earlier, quite a few of us discussed Paul's theology in relation to the work of Gurdjieff. It seemed to me that G, too, had only touched on certain things and there was a distance, a gap, between what he understood and what Paul was truly about. Nevertheless, in Gurdjieff's terms, one could think of Paul's work as a Fourth Way approach.
What really struck me was the realization of how much like what the Cs have exposed in the way of cosmology, anthropology, and theology (including theodicy) Paul's ideas actually were. But, due to time and language barriers, it takes some unpacking to get there, and that's where Ashworth and E-P help so much with their respective studies and insights.
The section of "FPTM" that is of extreme interest in respect of what I have said above is "Markan Epistemology". Note on page 371 where I posit:
1) there are two kingdoms, that of God and that of Satan, which are in deadly opposition to each
other; 2) Jesus has come to rout Satan, ‘plunder his house’ and retrieve those who have spiritual
organs of seeing and hearing; 3) in spite of the fact that Jesus has come to do this, Satan can
still impede the kingdom of God in some ways and one must guard against those wiles if one is
capable. Marcus calls this “the collision of the kingdoms”
This speaks strongly of the STO vs STS positions and that "some love the light and others love the darkness" and "the All blinks neither at the light nor the darkness."
Paul may not have put it in modern terminology, but if one takes care, the "Secret of the Kingdom of God" can be discerned.
Added: One is also reminded of William Blake's poem "Auguries of Innocence" where we find:
Every night and every morn
Some to misery are born.
Every morn and every night
Some are born to sweet delight.
Some are born to sweet delight,
Some are born to endless night.
"What really struck me was the realization of how much like what the Cs have exposed in the way of cosmology, anthropology, and theology (including theodicy) Paul's ideas actually were. But, due to time and language barriers, it takes some unpacking to get there, and that's where Ashworth and E-P help so much with their respective studies and insights."
The question, however, is who the individual time and language barriers concern. Are they about Cs? The case seems to gain a certain mathematical character, or maybe rather metamathematical? But this is a thread for a very long statement. And the issue is extremely interesting and significant.
"The section of "FPTM" that is of extreme interest in respect of what I have said above is "Markan Epistemology". Note on page 371 where I posit:
1) there are two kingdoms, that of God and that of Satan, which are in deadly opposition to each
other; 2) Jesus has come to rout Satan, ‘plunder his house’ and retrieve those who have spiritual
organs of seeing and hearing; 3) in spite of the fact that Jesus has come to do this, Satan can
still impede the kingdom of God in some ways and one must guard against those wiles if one is
capable. Marcus calls this “the collision of the kingdoms”
This speaks strongly of the STO vs STS positions and that "some love the light and others love the darkness" and "the All blinks neither at the light nor the darkness."
In terms of terminology, Paul does seem to be relatively heavy. The style in which he writes seems difficult to unravel. However, I think that of all the researchers you have mentioned, you are the best at this point. And I remember page 371! There was a very interesting reference to Qumran texts, if I remember correctly.
"Added: One is also reminded of William Blake's poem "Auguries of Innocence" where we find:
Every night and every morn
Some to misery are born.
Every morn and every night
Some are born to sweet delight.
Some are born to sweet delight,
Some are born to endless night."
Blake is definitely hitting the point as a summary of your speech. However, I am very curious if you met the figure of Emanuel Swedenborg? If so, how do you see the influence of Swedenborg's views on the work of W. Blake? How do you see this influence on his early work and on his later work? It could be important. Like juxtaposing opposites...
My statement was maybe too long and I see that its beginning did not appear, so I will repeat this part. It is addressed to Laura:
“I think there have been a few rare souls who really got what Paul was about. In the case of more recent scholars, I was very impressed with the work of Troels Engberg-Pedersen, however I felt that he wasn't fully getting to the heart of things because he was taking a very comparative approach via Stoicism. Timothy Ashworth, on the other hand, seemed to have had deeper insights possibly due to his own transcendental experience. Even so, the latter followed a scholarly approach with his focus on translation and comparison of terminology.”
In my opinion, Troels Engberg-Pedersen has a very interesting and original approach, although I believe that his views are influenced by John Fitzgerald's research. On the other hand, Engberg-Pedersen significantly expands Fitzgerald's conclusions and interpretations. As for the comparative approach, I see it similarly, but I would like to emphasize something. Engberg-Pedersen seems to me not only a Bible scholar, but a person who tried to penetrate the Greco-Roman culture. Hence, in his thinking and ways of interpreting, one can see the influence of the hierarchical social structure characteristic of the Hellenistic period. He tries to present Paul's letters in the context of a cultural background, although in my opinion he is too entangled in a purely rhetorical analysis. In this respect, he sometimes reminds me of Giovanni Reale (whom I respect a lot, but mainly as a historian of philosophy). Engberg-Pedersen’s relation "I" - "X" - "S" seems to me particularly significant in the context of Greek philosophy. I think he is trying to transfer Paul's philosophy to Greek philosophy. Kind of a transition matrix.
Timothy Ashworth, on the other hand, is not that well known to me, but I am more or less aware of his views. I like his sensitivity and somewhat mystical approach.
“Even earlier, quite a few of us discussed Paul's theology in relation to the work of Gurdjieff. It seemed to me that G, too, had only touched on certain things and there was a distance, a gap, between what he understood and what Paul was truly about. Nevertheless, in Gurdjieff's terms, one could think of Paul's work as a Fourth Way approach.”
Engberg-Pedersen’s relation "I" - "X" - "S" seems to me particularly significant in the context of Greek philosophy. I think he is trying to transfer Paul's philosophy to Greek philosophy. Kind of a transition matrix.
One of my regrets about the book was that I did not find a way to include a section on the development of apocalypticism and an analysis of the Books of Enoch. But that topic would have taken over a hundred pages to do it right so I only referred to it as needed and put in a couple of long footnotes about it.
Had I done so, however, it seems to me that Paul's mysticism would have been obvious and in context. It is there, also, that you find so many of the building blocks of Paul's theology.
I was intrigued by footnote of yours related to the same above, so I decided to pull on a few threads there related to the Book of Enoch and the Zend Avesta, but put it in this thread so as not to distract from the main thrust of this thread on Paul.
I'm almost 200 pages into the book, and it's been a very educational read, not only in its subject matter but as a tour de force in the vein of a truly scientific historical method. This is refreshing in a field that has systematically been starved of it for centuries, or perhaps since ever. I've felt the same response to Collingwood at times as well, where you get introduced to questions you don't even think to ask, or angles you haven't considered looking at before. Given the essence of what we know about the importance of history as a catalogue of all past thought and agency, if one really reads this slowly, taking on and digesting the critical thinking and perspectives, it can be a wonderful tool for training the mind in developing discernment, as well as the critical attitude necessary for seeing the unseen and the unsaid. This book is a tremendous gift on so many levels Laura, and I appreciate you for writing it.
Blake is definitely hitting the point as a summary of your speech. However, I am very curious if you met the figure of Emanuel Swedenborg? If so, how do you see the influence of Swedenborg's views on the work of W. Blake? How do you see this influence on his early work and on his later work? It could be important. Like juxtaposing opposites...
Yes, I read quite a bit about Swedenborg many years ago but wasn't terribly impressed.
At the time he was having his experiences, there was no literature that he might have used to compare and evaluate his experiences. It seems to me that he had a good touch of schizophrenia that allowed him to access other realities, and those realities are most certainly populated with different sorts and levels of entities that will tell and show a person what they want or need to hear.
Swedenborg was so taken with the Bible, both OT and NT, and his conviction that it was the "inspired word of God", that his experiences conformed to that belief. But, since we now know, thanks to dedicated scholars, that the Bible is no such thing, we can see that Swedenborg was either deceived or that his biases seriously warped his perceptions.
That doesn't mean that he did not have real experiences or that there was not something of value there, but going through his work to evaluate and extract what might be useful would be more work than it is worth, IMO.
"Swedenborg was so taken with the Bible, both OT and NT, and his conviction that it was the "inspired word of God", that his experiences conformed to that belief. But, since we now know, thanks to dedicated scholars, that the Bible is no such thing, we can see that Swedenborg was either deceived or that his biases seriously warped his perceptions."
I received it identically.
However, I think Swedenborg had a lot of influence on Blake's early work, but later Blake seems to reject him.
On the other hand, the love of paradoxes brings extraordinary grace to English literature. I think Swedenborg's philosophy may have played a part in this as far as Blake is concerned. However, this is a topic for a different thread.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
This is just a tip for those who would start reading with the same approach 
