Historian of Religion, Science, and Biblical Interpretation
The new manual follows a more logical division than the old, which treated 1 Nephi 8-12 and 15 as one unit, and 1Ne 13-14 as another. Nephi’s vision and then explanation runs from chapters 11-15. However, lacking time for a full rewrite, I’m putting up my two posts separately, which follow the old division. Continue reading
This is a grab-bag of sorts; I’ve been sick for a few days, without full dedicated brainpower to revise/expand. Still, there’s a lot of good stuff here, food for thought.
A medieval scribe. Jean le Tavernier, Public Domain
I first wrote this over 15 years ago, reposted it somewhere else, and both locations have now disappeared from the online ether. So, given that we’re studying Revelation right now, I thought I’d repost it, slightly edited but uncorrected or updated, and complete with my younger, brasher style.
What’s the best LDS response to the idea that Revelation 22:18-19 closes the canon? Continue reading
The final book! We’ve almost made it through! The end is nigh!
First, a note on names. This is the book of Revelation (singular) not the book of RevelationS (plural.) It’s a really common mistake in Hollywood and elsewhere, like the “books of the Bible” tie I have, above The title Revelation comes from Rev 1:1, with that ambiguous “of” preposition. “The revelation of Jesus” can mean “a revelation that is about Jesus,” “a revelation from Jesus,” or “the revelation belonging to Jesus.” Continue reading
1 John opens reminiscent of both the Gospel of John (thematically) and Luke/Acts (in contrast). That is, the vocabulary and ideas resemble John (the Word of life made visible, eternal life, light/darkness, etc). But the point-of-view contrasts Luke. Whereas Luke says he had to investigate and talk to witness, because he wasn’t a firsthand eyewitness himself, 1Jo 1:1 and 1Jo 1:3 strongly imply the opposite for the author (authors?) of 1 John. Note the plural “we” there, present from the first verses onwards. Is this a rhetorical “we” or a real “we”? Continue reading
These three epistles are usually grouped with James and the three epistles of John, together called the Catholic Epistles. Greek katholikos means “universal”, and so they are sometimes called the General Epistles, since they’re written universally, to everyone, in general. Once again, there’s not really an overarching theme, so we’re going to play thematic wack-a-mole. Find something significant you like and expand on it. Continue reading
I assume James gets his own Gospel Doctrine lesson because… Joseph Smith and James 1:5? Not sure, really. But James is “the most socially conscious writing in the New Testament” (Brown, Introduction to the New Testament, 725), so it has that going for it.
Like Timothy and Titus, this epistle lacks a Big Picture woven throughout. Like Timothy and Titus, it contains very practical advice. Like Timothy and Titus, it doesn’t get a lot of attention. Continue reading
Hebrews is fun and different. Note that it comes at the end of Paul’s letters (which are arranged in order of length), because even way way back in the day, they were uncertain if it was one of Paul’s letters. And they were right, it’s not. Continue reading
Philemon used to be covered with Philippians and Colossians, and consequently, it went ignored. (Do you remember the last time Philemon came up in Gospel Doctrine?) However, Philemon merits our close attention. It’s short and it offers a great discussion point for something really relevant and important. So, I’ll go long on Philemon (and the bottom has some old-post leftovers about Philippians and Colossians.) Continue reading
2 Corinthians constitutes the first preserved “sequel” in Paul’s letters. In fact, Paul wrote three or possibly four letters to Corinth. Some scholars speculate 2 Corinthians is actually an edited copy of two letters smushed together, based on differing tone and structure. (There’s a break in 2:14 that picks back up in 7:5). In fact, the whole thing is a bit confused. This is one of those letters that emphasizes the fact that we get only one side of the conversation, and have have to muddle through in trying to piece it together. We know Paul’s travel plans to revisit Corinth had changed, that something or things significant had happened since the last time he had written. Let’s look at a few things about the entirety of the letter, then some specifics. Continue reading
Recent Comments