The mind of biblical authors – they knew their audience would span generations

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

One thing to notice when reading the bible is that the authors were not writing for merely a short term purpose, but rather they were writing for the ages:

1Pet 1:8 Though you have not seen him, you love him; and even though you do not see him now, you believe in him and are filled with an inexpressible and glorious joy, 9 for you are receiving the goal of your faith, the salvation of your souls.  10 Concerning this salvation, the prophets, who spoke of the grace that was to come to you, searched intently and with the greatest care, 11 trying to find out the time and circumstances to which the Spirit of Christ in them was pointing when he predicted the sufferings of Christ and the glories that would follow. 12 It was revealed to them that they were not serving themselves but you, when they spoke of the things that have now been told you by those who have preached the gospel to you by the Holy Spirit sent from heaven. Even angels long to look into these things.

Similar comments can be seen throughout scripture, even in the OT…

Dt 31:9 “ So Moses wrote down this law and gave it to the priests, the sons of Levi, who carried the ark of the covenant of the LORD, and to all the elders of Israel. 10 Then Moses commanded them: “At the end of every seven years, in the year for canceling debts, during the Feast of Tabernacles, 11 when all Israel comes to appear before the LORD your God at the place he will choose, you shall read this law before them in their hearing.”

And even in the NT…

Mat 24:15 “So when you see standing in the holy place ‘the abomination that causes desolation,’ spoken of through the prophet Daniel—let the reader understand—then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains.”

Mark 13:14 “When you see ‘the abomination that causes desolation’ standing where it does not belong—let the reader understand—then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains.”

These authors understood they were writing for future generations, proof they did NOT expect an immediate apocalypse.  In addition, since they knew they were writing for future generations, they wrote in a manner that would be easily understood by future generations.

[John Dibble]

And what, you think the authors of other long lasting religious texts thought they wouldn't have an audience that would span generations?

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

how did other religions enter into this discussion?

[John Dibble]

I don't see why the biblical authors thinking their audience would span generations is a particularly unique feature in terms of religion, but for some reason you think it is, hence I'm pointing out to you that it isn't really interesting because it's just obvious. Any religion that's going to be successful has to think about how to get the message across to future generations - it's just plain obvious.

[memphis]

Charlotte Bronte also repeatedly refers to "gentle reader."

[falling apart like the ashes of American flags]

I've always found the Gospels interesting to study from a literary perspective, and to think of reading them from the perspective of someone who doesn't already know the "spoilers".

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

I don't see why the biblical authors thinking their audience would span generations is a particularly unique feature in terms of religion, but for some reason you think it is, hence I'm pointing out to you that it isn't really interesting because it's just obvious.

when in my ten years on this forum have I EVER claimed that  biblical authors thinking their audience would span generations is a particularly unique feature in terms of religion?! 

Look, if you're going to attempt to get out in front of me in my own thread, at least stay out from under my feet.  Even my dog knows better than that.

---

Any religion that's going to be successful has to think about how to get the message across to future generations - it's just plain obvious.

well, if they wrote knowing their audience would be future generations that spanned the world, then they certainly wrote:

1) in universal terms that would be applicable to future generations
2) did not think the Second Coming was imminent
3) expected their writings to be distributed and studied

Do you know how many biblical critics and Christian who try to distort the truth do not understand this?  You see it ALL THE TIME, it is even common on this forum.  That's why I stress not to approach the bible with preconceived notions of the writers' intent by attempting to preface the letters with an exterior context.  Instead, glean their intentions from the letters themselves.   

[John Dibble]

I don't see why the biblical authors thinking their audience would span generations is a particularly unique feature in terms of religion, but for some reason you think it is, hence I'm pointing out to you that it isn't really interesting because it's just obvious.

when in my ten years on this forum have I EVER claimed that  biblical authors thinking their audience would span generations is a particularly unique feature in terms of religion?!

I can't think of a particular time, but this thread kind of implied it. I just don't see why it's a particularly interesting thing to point out, and when you make these threads it's pretty much always about how you want to show people how great you think Christianity is.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I know you think your insults are clever, but they add nothing to the debate and only serve to make you look like a troll.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

well, if they wrote knowing their audience would be future generations that spanned the world, then they certainly wrote:

1) in universal terms that would be applicable to future generations
2) did not think the Second Coming was imminent
3) expected their writings to be distributed and studied[/quote]

Aside from the second one which only can apply to Christianity, the other two features are again something any religion that wants to last will have in its writings.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Yes, I'm well aware there are people who interpret the Bible in a way you don't agree with. That's always been the case and always will be - you could give the Bible to 100 different people who've never heard of it and come out with 100 different interpretations.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

I don't see why the biblical authors thinking their audience would span generations is a particularly unique feature in terms of religion, but for some reason you think it is, hence I'm pointing out to you that it isn't really interesting because it's just obvious.

when in my ten years on this forum have I EVER claimed that  biblical authors thinking their audience would span generations is a particularly unique feature in terms of religion?!

I can't think of a particular time, but this thread kind of implied it. I just don't see why it's a particularly interesting thing to point out, and when you make these threads it's pretty much always about how you want to show people how great you think Christianity is.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I know you think your insults are clever, but they add nothing to the debate and only serve to make you look like a troll.

Look, Einstein, the purpose of this thread is clearly stated in the title – “The mind of biblical authors”…even though I was character limited in my title, it is pretty clear the intent is to get into the mind of the writers of the bible.

---

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Yes, I'm well aware there are people who interpret the Bible in a way you don't agree with. That's always been the case and always will be - you could give the Bible to 100 different people who've never heard of it and come out with 100 different interpretations.

I am arguing for an interpretation that takes into account the mindset of the writer.  Which, to me, seems so logical and natural, it should be a given.

Now, if you want to argue that interpretation of the bible should NOT consider the mindset of the writer, then be my guest.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Yes, I'm well aware there are people who interpret the Bible in a way you don't agree with. That's always been the case and always will be - you could give the Bible to 100 different people who've never heard of it and come out with 100 different interpretations.

I am arguing for an interpretation that takes into account the mindset of the writer.  Which, to me, seems so logical and natural, it should be a given.

Now, if you want to argue that interpretation of the bible should NOT consider the mindset of the writer, then be my guest.

The problem is: how do we know what that mindset was?  The only way we have of determining the mindset is by interpreting the bible in the first place, so it makes it rather predictable that the mindset perceived by an interpreter would be supportive of his interpretation.  Hence, a person with a different interpretation than you could perceive a different writer's mindset than you perceive.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

The problem is: how do we know what that mindset was?

Simple – by reading the statements within their letters which express their intent.

---

The only way we have of determining the mindset is by interpreting the bible in the first place, so it makes it rather predictable that the mindset perceived by an interpreter would be supportive of his interpretation.  Hence, a person with a different interpretation than you could perceive a different writer's mindset than you perceive.

Well, if a writer explicitly states, "read this to all the churches", and a hack 2000 years later attempts to claim the writer didn't intend the laity to be his audience…is the hack correct?

[The Mikado]

Dibble, what Jmf is arguing against is the view that the Church Fathers expected the Second Coming to occur within their lifetime, the view that early Christianity was explicitly an apocalyptic cult.  Just so we're all on the same page.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

The problem is: how do we know what that mindset was?

Simple – by reading the statements within their letters which express their intent.

If only if it always were always that simple. Authors do not always express their intent as clearly as they do in the example you gave.

---

The only way we have of determining the mindset is by interpreting the bible in the first place, so it makes it rather predictable that the mindset perceived by an interpreter would be supportive of his interpretation.  Hence, a person with a different interpretation than you could perceive a different writer's mindset than you perceive.

Well, if a writer explicitly states, "read this to all the churches", and a hack 2000 years later attempts to claim the writer didn't intend the laity to be his audience…is the hack correct?

Which writer are you referring to?  While it's similar to what Paul wroye in 1 Thessalonians 5:27, there he write to have his letter read to all the "adelphois"  and the only possible textual dispute there would be over whether he meant just "brothers" or "brothers and sisters".  In either case, he definitely is referring to the laity.  However, if the hack you are referring to is the one I think you are, I can vaguely see how he may have derived his hackery, but as usual without comprehending why he bothered to do so.

(In case you are interested in the details of the grammar involved, "adelphois" is the dative plural form in Ancient Greek of both "adelphos" (brother) and "adelphon" (sibling).  Considering that in the previous verse Paul uses "adelphous" the accusative plural of brother and not "adelpha" which is the accusative plural of sibling, I have little doubt that the writer was intending the masculine form. However, Paul generally used masculine and not neuter forms to refer to people even in contexts where a neuter meaning is clearly indicated, so that seems to be just part of his personal style of Koine Greek, not any effort to restrict his message to a subset of Christians.)

[John Dibble]

Dibble, what Jmf is arguing against is the view that the Church Fathers expected the Second Coming to occur within their lifetime, the view that early Christianity was explicitly an apocalyptic cult.  Just so we're all on the same page.

Ah. Well, in that case I don't think his quotes necessarily show that much against it - the fact that the people who wrote down the gospels thought people would read them isn't unusual either. Doesn't say anything about how long they expect the readership to last.

That said, there have been Christians who thought the Second Coming was nigh since there have been Christians. It could be some of the authors thought that, could be some didn't. Doesn't really matter that much since it obviously hasn't.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

The problem is: how do we know what that mindset was?

Simple – by reading the statements within their letters which express their intent.

If only if it always were always that simple. Authors do not always express their intent as clearly as they do in the example you gave.

well, can't we at least start with the ones where they clearly state their intent?

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Dibble, what Jmf is arguing against is the view that the Church Fathers expected the Second Coming to occur within their lifetime, the view that early Christianity was explicitly an apocalyptic cult.  Just so we're all on the same page.

yes, that was an example, but I am taking it beyond that...that instead of introducing exterior contexts and intentions based on one's own prejudices, it is possible to deduce many of their intentions by reading their statements within their own letters.

I can’t tell you how many times I’ve turned on the History channel and listened to some dufus of an “expert”, reportedly a professor teaching biblical studies, spout some half-baked theory that is directly contrary to the stated intentions within the NT.

I fell like writing and saying, “How on earth are you a professor when you aren’t even objective enough to accept to the most direct evidence from the writers own statements of their intentions?”

So, in order to go about introducing the forum to the apparently lost art of considering the most direct evidence…I’m considering a series of threads examining their stated intentions.