Or we can use as a teaser the respective mind chapters in The Experience of God:).
BTW, I am really looking forward to that book. Among other, more fundamental things, I am curious if DBH will share which is his favorite school of psychotherapy. I know from his writings that he is not a huge fan of Freud and Jung and does not appreciate the prevalence of drug therapy either.
I remember discovering my mother’s record collection as a boy underneath the record player. She had most Beatles records up to Sgt Pepper, they sounded on another level than the others, only Bridge Over Troubled Water came close. Nothing really compares, does it?
Curious that it’s said they made three ‘music videos’ for Rain. This was recorded during the Revolver sessions and was B side to Paperback Writer. John’s lyrics for Rain, for me, are a close parallel of Origen’s explanation of why scripture says that God hardened Pharoahs heart in De Principiis.
It is generally recognized by reflective souls that the Beatles’ rule of not putting already issued singles on their albums may have prevented the premature end of the world. Had “Rain” been added to the contents of the (British version) of Revolver, the album would have achieved such a pitch of perfection that history would have ended for want of anything more to accomplish.
Flaunting my age, this takes me back to my first year as an undergrad at Cambridge and the wonderful trumpet solo in For No One, to my mind, along with Eleanor Rigby ,one of their truly Great greats
For No One is probably my favourite Beatles song, it's so lovely and humble.
I'm also really glad they included the giggling version of And Your Bird Can Sing. It was in the Anthology and I was eagerly hoping it would be on the Deluxe as well. Such a joy to listen to
I bought Revolver when it came out and although I can rattle off (Rubber Soul, Abbey Road. and the White Album) as close contenders, I agree--Revolver is sacred text.
Two questions: first, while I am happy to support your endeavors and purchase the 2nd Ed. of your NT translation, I am curious if consists of additions to your previous work in the form of annotations and appendix explanations of the translation and/or are there substantive changes to the translation worth checking out. Second, are you familiar with Daniel McClellan? He's very popular on social media platforms (particularly TikTok) where he addresses biblical scholarship, although I believe his specialty is in OT biblical works. His rips on the tropes of "American" Christianity and critiques of people like Jordan Peterson, I think you would find insightful, but at least entertaining. Thanks for the content.
I was recently reading about the consensus on modern NT Scholarship, as well as your "Notes on Authorship" section of you NT translation. I have a couple of questions, if you would care to answer them. For context, I am not a fundamentalist, an inerrantist, or even a Christian; I'm just an inquirer to the faith.
1. If some of the NT epistles were really written as late as people think, what exactly was the goal? If Peter was martyred in the 60s, how would a letter supposedly from him written in the late 1st or early 2nd century convince anyone? I know that word took a while to get around in those days, but there's no way that the people receiving the letters could have thought he was still alive, right? Obviously the later Church could still be deceived, since they weren't capable of dating the letters by the time of the Council of Rome (382). But how did they even last that long if they claimed to be written by dead martyrs? Were the letters intentional time-bombs for future generations? Would that even make sense as the writers' motivation?
It seems like the only way they could have been accepted into the Church is if it was assumed that they'd "always been kicking around," so to speak. But wouldn't this be unbelievable to the people at the time, or at least warrant suspicion?
2. In Bart Ehrman's Forged, he argues that the pseudepigraphic letters are simply forgeries, and that when people use terms like "a member of their school" to refer to those who wrote them, it's dishonest. However, in your postscript, you seem to go against this stance, and mention that by the "more generous" standards of authenticity in antiquity, a letter composed of redacted materials or from someone's "school" could be attributed to them. Have you changed your mind on this, and if not, could you clarify why you think Ehrman is mistaken or at least exaggerating?
3. Has your opinion on Ephesians and Colossians changed since the publishing of the first edition of your translation? How would you weigh the odds of their authenticity today?
The letters attributed to Peter weren’t sent to anybody. They were simply presented as documents from the past. Many other such documents were in circulation as well. Very few would have had any way of knowing how plausible such claims were.
Ignore Ehrman. It’s quite possible that much of the Pauline pseudepigraphy was a sincere effort of passing on the teachings of Paul within his churches.
I don’t think Paul wrote Ephesians or Colossians, but I think they may well contain real Pauline materials, and that both definitely reflect his teachings.
Will we get a teaser of your philosophy of mind book soon. Maybe just a paragraph or 2 to wet our whiskers
Or we can use as a teaser the respective mind chapters in The Experience of God:).
BTW, I am really looking forward to that book. Among other, more fundamental things, I am curious if DBH will share which is his favorite school of psychotherapy. I know from his writings that he is not a huge fan of Freud and Jung and does not appreciate the prevalence of drug therapy either.
I remember discovering my mother’s record collection as a boy underneath the record player. She had most Beatles records up to Sgt Pepper, they sounded on another level than the others, only Bridge Over Troubled Water came close. Nothing really compares, does it?
Curious that it’s said they made three ‘music videos’ for Rain. This was recorded during the Revolver sessions and was B side to Paperback Writer. John’s lyrics for Rain, for me, are a close parallel of Origen’s explanation of why scripture says that God hardened Pharoahs heart in De Principiis.
It is generally recognized by reflective souls that the Beatles’ rule of not putting already issued singles on their albums may have prevented the premature end of the world. Had “Rain” been added to the contents of the (British version) of Revolver, the album would have achieved such a pitch of perfection that history would have ended for want of anything more to accomplish.
Flaunting my age, this takes me back to my first year as an undergrad at Cambridge and the wonderful trumpet solo in For No One, to my mind, along with Eleanor Rigby ,one of their truly Great greats
For No One is probably my favourite Beatles song, it's so lovely and humble.
I'm also really glad they included the giggling version of And Your Bird Can Sing. It was in the Anthology and I was eagerly hoping it would be on the Deluxe as well. Such a joy to listen to
I bought Revolver when it came out and although I can rattle off (Rubber Soul, Abbey Road. and the White Album) as close contenders, I agree--Revolver is sacred text.
Two questions: first, while I am happy to support your endeavors and purchase the 2nd Ed. of your NT translation, I am curious if consists of additions to your previous work in the form of annotations and appendix explanations of the translation and/or are there substantive changes to the translation worth checking out. Second, are you familiar with Daniel McClellan? He's very popular on social media platforms (particularly TikTok) where he addresses biblical scholarship, although I believe his specialty is in OT biblical works. His rips on the tropes of "American" Christianity and critiques of people like Jordan Peterson, I think you would find insightful, but at least entertaining. Thanks for the content.
Changes to the text
His name is new to me.
Dr. Hart,
I was recently reading about the consensus on modern NT Scholarship, as well as your "Notes on Authorship" section of you NT translation. I have a couple of questions, if you would care to answer them. For context, I am not a fundamentalist, an inerrantist, or even a Christian; I'm just an inquirer to the faith.
1. If some of the NT epistles were really written as late as people think, what exactly was the goal? If Peter was martyred in the 60s, how would a letter supposedly from him written in the late 1st or early 2nd century convince anyone? I know that word took a while to get around in those days, but there's no way that the people receiving the letters could have thought he was still alive, right? Obviously the later Church could still be deceived, since they weren't capable of dating the letters by the time of the Council of Rome (382). But how did they even last that long if they claimed to be written by dead martyrs? Were the letters intentional time-bombs for future generations? Would that even make sense as the writers' motivation?
It seems like the only way they could have been accepted into the Church is if it was assumed that they'd "always been kicking around," so to speak. But wouldn't this be unbelievable to the people at the time, or at least warrant suspicion?
2. In Bart Ehrman's Forged, he argues that the pseudepigraphic letters are simply forgeries, and that when people use terms like "a member of their school" to refer to those who wrote them, it's dishonest. However, in your postscript, you seem to go against this stance, and mention that by the "more generous" standards of authenticity in antiquity, a letter composed of redacted materials or from someone's "school" could be attributed to them. Have you changed your mind on this, and if not, could you clarify why you think Ehrman is mistaken or at least exaggerating?
3. Has your opinion on Ephesians and Colossians changed since the publishing of the first edition of your translation? How would you weigh the odds of their authenticity today?
The letters attributed to Peter weren’t sent to anybody. They were simply presented as documents from the past. Many other such documents were in circulation as well. Very few would have had any way of knowing how plausible such claims were.
Ignore Ehrman. It’s quite possible that much of the Pauline pseudepigraphy was a sincere effort of passing on the teachings of Paul within his churches.
I don’t think Paul wrote Ephesians or Colossians, but I think they may well contain real Pauline materials, and that both definitely reflect his teachings.
How is the second edition of the NT different from the first? Please advise.
Over a thousand changes. More radically literalist in some places. Better notes in others. By far, the better version.