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.
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
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?
Will we get a teaser of your philosophy of mind book soon. Maybe just a paragraph or 2 to wet our whiskers
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.
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
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.
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?
How is the second edition of the NT different from the first? Please advise.