I’m going to try something different for awhile: do a series of posts on the New Testament, but not with any particular reference to the order or content in the LDS Come Follow Me New Testament manual for LDS adult Sunday School, this year’s course of study. I’ll highlight my own scholarly sources as I go along, but of course some of the discussion will cover the LDS view or treatment of the particular book or topic. LDS read the same Bible as other Christians, but take a rather different view of it. It takes a long time to really grasp how different the Mormon Bible is (and by “the Mormon Bible” I mean the Mormon view of the Bible, how Mormons read the Bible, how LDS leaders want LDS to read the Bible, how the Bible is covered in the LDS curriculum and in LDS Seminary, etc.). I expect readers, of course, to chime in with their own thoughts, maybe expanding on my points or possibly presenting a different or contrary view.
I’m going to use Marcus Borg’s Evolution of the Word: The New Testament in the Order the Books Were Written (HarperOne, 2012) as sort of a guide for the order of discussion. Yes, the order the books were written really matters if you are trying to understand who wrote it and who it was written to and how that helps a reader interpret the content of the book. So Borg’s book is a great place to start, and the first “book” is 1 Thessalonians, written about 50 AD. That’s 15 or 20 years after Jesus preached in Galilee. (Aside: the image for this post is a view of the modern Greek city of Thessaloniki.)
It’s All Greek to Me
Here’s the first puzzling thing about the New Testament. Around 30 AD, Jesus of Nazareth wandered through the Jewish villages of Galilee, accompanied by a few peasant-disciples and teaching a reformed version of Judaism in Aramaic to those village folk who would listen. A dozen years later, Paul and others were travelling through the cities of the Eastern Mediterranean, teaching what increasingly became a religion about Jesus (rather than the stuff Jesus taught) and doing it in Greek. So a reformed Judaism preached to villagers in Galilee in Aramaic quickly became an emerging Christianity preached to urban Gentiles (non-Jews) in Greek in the cities of the Roman Empire and beyond. Paul’s authentic letters are firmly in the urban Greek-speaking column.
It wasn’t just a language shift, of course. It was a, to a certain extent, also a worldview shift, with the Jewish concepts preached in Gallilee using Aramaic terminology passing through the prism of Greek culture and Greek philosophy and Greek religion before being written down (in Greek) as the books of the New Testament as we have them. If some archeologist ever digs up a text from the 30s or 40s in Aramaic written down by an early Jewish Christian that reliably recorded some of the words of Jesus in Aramaic — well, a lot of books on Jesus and the early Christian Church would have to be rewritten.
Paul’s Letter to the Thessalonians
Paul didn’t just dictate a letter to his converts back in Thessalonica. He used the accepted format of Greek letters, which follows a standard format of Sender, Addressee, Greeting and Blessing, Thanksgiving, Body, and Closing. Just another imprint of the Greek context on some New Testament documents. Most of the letter is just pastoral encouragement to the newly converted Gentiles in Thessalonica, probably only a couple of dozen of them, plus a few comments on questions they had sent back to Paul via Timothy, one of Paul’s young colleagues.
Personally, I don’t read this book (or others) asking myself, “What does the inerrant and God-inspired text of Paul’s letter tell me about what to believe and how to act?” I ask myself, “What does Paul’s letter show about what Paul believed and what early Christians believed?” And since this is the earliest document in the New Testament, this is the earliest window, so to speak, into the early Church. A Mormon way to put this might be that the letter is the conversation we have between an early Christian leader and his congregation, sort of like the First Presidency letters you hear read over the pulpit from time to time. And as most early Christians were illiterate, Paul’s letters were read out loud to the recipients in Thessalonica and elsewhere, as Paul explicitly directs in 5:26.
A Few Highlights
These are highlights from 1 Thess from my perspective, which as noted is “What does Paul’s letter show about what Paul and early Christians believed?” If you or someone else wants to take the additional step and add “… therefore, that’s what I should believe,” that’s a different approach and will probably make you focus on different concepts and passages. Any quotes are from the NRSV text Borg uses in the book.
- 1:2-3 — “… remembering before our God and Father your work of faith and labor of love and steadfastness of hope in our Lord Jesus Christ.” Right up front, in his very first letter, Paul is using the faith, hope, and charity formula. See also 5:8.
- 1:2-5 — References to God/Father, Jesus Christ/Lord, and the Holy Spirit. As used by Paul here and throughout the letter, that sounds like two rather different beings and an emanation to me. You have to work real hard to read the Christian Trinity (one substance, three persons) into New Testament texts.
- “The Gospel” — to a Mormon, that term implies the whole assembly (or at least the essential parts) of Mormon doctrine, church organization, priesthood offices and ordinances, and various commandments. It’s not entirely clear what Paul or his readers understood by the term, but it was certainly a much simpler formulation of “the gospel.” In the letter it’s called “our message of the gospel” (1:5) and “the gospel of God” (2:2, 8) and “the gospel of Christ” (3:2). Those phrases may have different references; they may not be using the term gospel (or good news) in the same way.
- “the wrath that is coming” (1:10) — Paul shared the apocalyptic view of John the Baptist and Jesus, although it was not the central idea in his preaching and letters. See “Jesus, who rescues us from the wrath that is coming” (1:10) and the whole “caught up in the clouds together” and “the day of the Lord will come like a thief in the night” discussion from 4:13 to 5:11. Here’s the key point: Paul thought this Second Coming would happen within a few short years. “For this we declare to you by the word of the Lord, that we who are alive, who are left until the coming of the Lord, will by no means precede those who died.” (4:15) That didn’t happen. Paul was wrong. The only question is whether Paul was wrong simply on the timing (off by a few thousand years) or on the whole event.
Mormon Views
Early Mormon doctrine of “the Godhead” (the strange Mormon term for the Trinitarian God), as reflected in the Lectures on Faith, matches my reading of Paul in this letter: two beings and an emanation. Later Mormon doctrine reified and personified the Holy Spirit into the Holy Ghost, a separate person with a body, albeit a spirit body. I sure like the term “Holy Spirit” better than “Holy Ghost.”
Early Mormon doctrine embraced apocalypticism to a much greater degree than current LDS teaching. Even food storage, the practical Mormon response to “the wrath that is coming,” has faded away from most discussions. At least until recently. The Nelson/Oaks presidency may be putting more emphasis on the Second Coming and all the D&C passages that give various details about what might or might not happen. At least the “someday we’ll all go back to Missouri” idea seems to have been permanently discarded.
The Come Follow Me discussion of 1 Thessalonians doesn’t happen until the middle of October. The lesson lumps 1 Thess and 2 Thess together in the lesson, although (following Borg’s analysis and timeline) 2 Thess was written fifty years later, in the early second century, by someone who was not Paul. The concerns of 2 Thess (delay in the Second Coming and freeloaders in the church) were rather different than the concerns of 1 Thess, although the writer of 2 Thess tried hard to imitate the structure and language of 1 Thess.
Conclusion
So what do you think? Which of the following describes your view?
- I don’t like this approach. Go back to your usual discussion of books, football, and gripes about various Mormon things.
- I like discussing the New Testament and find it fairly authoritative for my Christian thinking and belief.
- I like discussing the New Testament but only as an interesting historical and doctrinal inquiry.
- I like discussing the New Testament and found the following book very helpful …
Sources
Marcus J. Borg, The Evolution of the Word: The New Testament in the Order the Books Were Written, HarperOne, 2012.
Wheat & Tares 
For reference, here is Borg’s chronology:
1 Thessalonians
Galatians
1 Corinthians
Philemon
Philippians
2 Corinthians
Romans
Mark
James
Colossians
Matthew
Hebrews
John
Ephesians
Revelation
Jude
1 John
2 John
3 John
Luke
Acts
2 Thessalonians
1 Peter
1 Timothy
2 Timothy
Titus
2 Peter
I think this sort of thing is fascinating and it sort of breathes new life into the New Testament. Trying to put them in chronological order changes a lot from a historical perspective, and helps frame some of the contents.
Paul was writing to existing Christian communities already spread throughout the Roman Empire a couple of decades before there were any written Gospels, which given an interesting window into early Christianity..
Borg made an interesting point that placing the Gospels after Paul makes the point that “as written documents they are not the source of early Christianity but its product.” They were written several decades after the historical life of Jesus and show how early Christian communities saw his significant historically.
Viewing it chronologically helps chart the development of early Christianity and its ideals. It upholds the idea that the principles and ideas are inspired & inspiring but not necessarily the inerrant, literal word of God.
IMO it gives the flexibility to remain inspired by it in the modern world without being slave to the literal text.
As long as it’s not filtered through the typical LDS lens of ‘we know all, know best, have full authority, can totally tell you what was supposed to be in the Bible’ arrogance. I’d like to learn more about the NT because what I’ve read and learned from other Christian faiths teaches of a much bigger, graceful Christ than the legalistic Christ of Mormonism – earning higher degrees of glory through behaviors and temple recommends given by men who are unable to judge anyone’s life, struggles, hearts, attitudes, or character. Behavior is just superficial. Why Christ would allow for higher rewards based on behaviors alone goes against the NT.
I like this – and I appreciate this format. I would encourage you to continue thru the NT in similar fashion.
I vote for more posts like this too. You gave some really interesting context. I haven’t done a deep dive into the historical context of how the New Testament was written.
I also vote in favor of more posts like this. That was some really interesting context you gave. I haven’t done a deep dive into the history of the New Testament books myself, so I think it would be great if you want to break it down into small chunks and present it.
Thanks for the comments, everyone.
Thanks for posting the list, Pirate. I’ll probably cut and paste that into the bottom info of the next post(s). One thing that really jumps out of Borg’s list is how late he dates Luke/Acts, after John, right into the second century.
Janey, context is everything. And there is so little of it presented in LDS lessons and curriculum.
Thumbs up on this discussion. I hope we discuss the reasons for tensions between Christians and Jews when the Gospels were composed just after the Fall of Jerusalem (70 CE). I also believe that the term “Holy Spirit” is better than “Holy Ghost, ” although I heard it makes more sense in German. “Godhead” is not unique to LDS discourse and is frequently used by my Protestant colleagues.. I was also once told that Aramaic was the language of the common people, Hebrew was the language of the Jerusalem elite, while Greek was the language of all non-Jews and Romans in the region. Jews in the trades likely spoke some Greek (like Saul/Paul). Can anyone confirm?
Paul was a diehard celibate, and recommended marriage only if one could not control their urges, not for procreation. The reason being that he thought Christ was returning soon (as in the next few years), and there was no time to raise kids.
“…and teaching a reformed version of Judaism…”:
Well now. It’s not entirely clear what the J-man taught, but the main possibilities (several could be true at once) are all established currents within the Judaism of his time. He was an apocalyptic preacher who followed John the Baptist, then broke off to form his own group…a rabbi who fought with his fellow “Pharisees”…a magician / man of prayer /”spirit person” (to use Borgian language) who performed TV evangelist type tricks,,,a terrorist who attacked money-changers and tried to make himself king. But talk of “reforming” Judaism is just Christian rhetoric. Come on, what were his reforms supposed to have been?
A thing I’ve noticed–atheists tend to like Bart Ehrman, conservative mainline Protestants prefer N.T. Wright, and Marcus Borg appeals to liberals / SBNR!
I really liked this post and am looking forward to future posts on other New Testament books. I think there is much to be gained spiritually from the contents of the New Testament, but I also do not believe in its inerrancy (or the inerrancy of pretty much any other scripture, for that matter).
I’ve stated a number of times on this blog that I believe that the emphasis on the infallibility of current Church leaders is the root cause of many of the problems in the Church today. Many of the Church members who do believe that current Church leaders are effectively infallible also believe in quite a literal reading of the New Testament. Paul’s conversion on the Road to Damascus involved being blinded by a vision of the resurrected Christ and a subsequent healing by Ananias. He is also credited with numerous healings and other miracles including raising Eutychus from the dead. Many Church members accept these accounts of Paul’s teachings and actions to be pretty much 100% true and accurate. This begs the question, if someone like Paul with such amazing spiritual credentials can be so wrong about the date of the 2nd coming of the Savior, the role of marriage, and yet claimed to only “see through a glass darkly” himself, what does that say about the fallibility or infallibility of today’s “prophets, seers, and revelators”, none of whom has been in the presence of the Savior (according to Oaks), performed a single miracle (unless you count Bednar’s faith-not-to-be-healed “miracles”), and whose spiritual knowledge was obtained, just like many of the rest of us, by gradually accumulating like “dust on a windowsill” (again, Oaks)?
mountainclimber479,
I beg to differ. From what I’ve read (and heard) over the years the apostles have both witnessed and performed many miracles–some of them as great as those recorded in the New Testament. But they don’t speak of them openly except on rare occasion. And when the do speak of them (on those rare occasions) it’s typically a truncated version of the event with very few details of what occurred. And many of the apostles at one time or another have spoken of how miracles are still abundant in the church — visions, dreams, healings, visitations, the casting out of evil spirits, speaking in tongues — all of these things are still happening. I dare say that if we were to record all of the miracles that have happened among the saints over the last year it would fill a tome the size of a telephone book. And while the majority of those miracles might be considered “small” there would be a good number of notable miracles and even a fair number of great miracles recorded.
@Jack, I think I’m going to need to take a few deep puffs of whatever it is you’re smoking for me to believe all the supernatural things are happening that you are claiming are happening š
@Jack, I realized my previous comment could be viewed as a personal attack, which is not at all my intent. My comment was intended to just be a good-natured joke. I do not have any reason to believe you are using drugs. There are a lot of Mormons who would share your belief in all of these supernatural events that you believe are happening. I do not share your belief, and I have a number of reasons for my position. However, I don’t want to derail this thread any further, so I won’t say anything more.
I like this approach Dave B.
Hope you will continue.
This is a much more respectful and insightful approach than I have seen in my LDS adult Sunday School classes.
As a convert coming from another denomination that did more of a deep dive and intense study of the New Testament I have been a bit disappointed in the Sunday School classes of the LDS.
I usually do my own study and do not use their own books they hand out to us.
I tried the Come Follow Me booklet but it was so fragmented.
Thanks for this and I hope you keep it up.
No problem at all, mountainclimber479. In fact, you’re free to try my brand of “pharmaceuticals” any time you want. I have it on the best authority that there’s none better–literally out of this world. š
I love this approach, and I and excited to read more of it! The New Testament is a personal favorite, and the Gospel Doctrine treatment of it is a giant disappointment and has been for years, but it’s always something worth more discussion.
Dave, put me in the “I like discussing the New Testament and found the following book very helpful…” camp except the recommendation is a couple of podcasts. First, is “History in the Bible” by enthusiastic amateur Garry Stevens. I think I’ve praised him on this blog before, but his in-depth analysis of what the New Testament says about the times in which it is set and how that should make us think about Jesus and His teachings was really eye opening for me. Second is Professor Bart Ehrman’s podcast “Misquoting Jesus” (named after the bestselling book). Bart just has a way of discussing the events and historicity of early Christianity that I find fascinating, and it has really informed how I now approach the New Testament.
As for your plans for the New Testament, I think it’s going to be a little hard (or at least interesting) to discuss Jesus’s teaching as distilled through Paul because Paul seems to not have known very much about Jesus’s life and teachings. As I recall, Paul only quotes Jesus once (1 Cor 11:24-25), and the limit of his stated knowledge of Jesus’s life was that He was “born of a woman” (not a virgin), was a descendant of David, that He instituted the sacrament, that He was crucified, and that He was raised from the dead. You would never guess from Paul’s epistles that Jesus had a three-year ministry where He became known as a great teacher and performer of miracles. In that way, maybe Paul is a forerunner of many Christian leaders (including many LDS leaders) today who focus obsessively on various social and doctrinal issues but don’t spend nearly as much time talking about what Jesus did and said while on Earth.
@Old Man. Yes, by this point Aramaic was the main language of the Jews living in Judaea, Samaria and the Galilee. The elites, both in Jerusalem and in the wider area, would have spoken Aramaic mainly but also would have been educated in Hebrew as this was still the language of the most important religious texts and the temple liturgy (although the educated elites would also likely have known some Greek, starting with the Hasmonean Period, and some Latin, in order to deal with the Roman authorities). Greek would have been spoken largely in the cities of the Decapolis and the coastal cities, such as Tyre, Sidon and Caesarea, due to being Greek colonies and/or their substantial Greek populations, And yes, trade would have played a part in this on the coast. Some cities in the Galilee also had large Greek speaking populations (If you dig into Josephus, he describes the different demographics of different cities and the sometimes tension between Greeks and Jews that came about as a result.) As for the Romans, they would of course have spoke Latin to each other, would probably have known Greek (as the lingua franca of the Eastern Empire) and also the leading officials would likely have learned some Aramaic, depending on how interested they were in good relations with the Jewish authorities.
So it’s a nuanced picture but those are the broad strokes. Please anyone else chime in with correctives. As an aside, the Passion of the Christ is good for seeing everyone speaking in the original languages. It depicts Pontius Pilate switching between Latin and Aramaic.
I like discussing the NT. Thanks for the post. One observation: the NT contains epistles. That in and of itself really sets it apart from the Old Testament as well as other works of ancient scripture in the Near East, including all religious texts of ancient Egypt, Mesopotamia, and Greece. Paul sat down with scribes and dictated these very lengthy epistles. The scribes would probably write on wax tablets drafts of his words. They would read them back to Paul for approval and then proceed to put it onto papyrus, a difficult medium on which to write. Paul would then find a follower whom he trusted to send the letter to a community in Thessaly. The messenger would arrive, gather the community at a single location and read them the philosophical musings of Paul. What Paul was doing was built on the great Greek writers before him and he clearly learned his craft from them. His epistle-writing and sending had to have instilled a cultural appreciation among Greeks who knew such communication methods from what had been crafted in their environs beginning four centuries before Paul. As the Greeks had done with the writings of others before them, they made copies of the epistles and stored them in important locations where other intellectuals could access them and build their own writings from them. But the Pauline epistles were unique in religion in that these actually turned into scripture. It was a sort of validation of philosophy of an individual, Paul, . In other Near Eastern scriptural works, the author(s) was/were shrouded in mystery, perhaps inadvertently but perhaps also deliberately kept from the reader. The Tanakh came along and introduced the writings of prophets (nevim). But they were revered as having authority and special access to revelation. The Gospels, like earlier scriptural writings, were a mystery as to authorship. But then Paul comes along, without necessarily claiming any known authority from Jesus, and acts as a philosopher through the medium of his epistles. It is here that Christianity attains a massive Greek aspect to it and becomes fused in large part with Greek culture.
Paul, a Roman citizen with high status and enjoying a privilege of citizenship that was rare at that time, took an already existing Christian movement that was thriving in the Levant and propelled it further into the heart of the Greco-Roman world. Thessaly, where the Thessalonians lived, was an important area of historic Greece about which the great writers in the four centuries before Paul wrote considerably. Paul had to have been instrumental in basically making Christianity a Greek religion, going right into the heartland.
While I have many gripes about my former church, one thing that always confuses me about contemporary Christianity is the concept of the āTrinityā.
Itās a construct. Iām admittedly not enough of a biblical scholar, nor anthropologist to be able to pinpoint exactly when the idea developed (aside from its formal institutionalization at the Council(s) of Nicaea) nor what constructions predated and informed the idea itself.
Youād have to go to someone like Dan McClellan for that.
But it is a construct- and therefore has both an origin and a history of changes to its meaning, and associated actors & practices. I view Mormon theology no differently.
Great post, and Iām interested in other posts about scholarly understandings of the New Testament. I do hope that in it all you wonāt completely discontinue your other postsāI always look forward to reading your take on current issues facing so many of us. Thanks!