- cross-posted to:
- politics@lemmy.world
- cross-posted to:
- politics@lemmy.world
cross-posted from: https://lemmy.world/post/48166923
James Talarico has been found guilty of quoting Jesus. The sentence he uttered, according to right-wing media, was “demonic” and “blasphemous,” exposing him as a “fake Christian.” Talarico is running for the U.S. Senate in Texas on a platform The New Yorker recently described as basically the New Testament. One Newsmax host accused him of using fake Bible passages.
The passages in question are familiar ones, found in Matthew 22 and Matthew 25. Love God and love your neighbor. Feed the hungry, heal the sick, welcome the stranger. They are, in fact, in the Bible.
The right’s attacks on Talarico aren’t about him, or at least not entirely. They’re about a much older argument — one progressive Christianity has been losing in public for 50 years — about whose version of the faith gets to count as real. The answer to that question has consequences far beyond any Senate race. When Christianity becomes a tool of power rather than a challenge to it, it doesn’t just damage the church. It destabilizes democracy. We are watching that happen in real time.
Not only is it in the article, it’s quoted in the post above.
That’s not a quotation, that’s a paraphrase. What did Talarico specifically say that people reacted to? Was it the actual verses? If so, which translation (using a modern-language translation alone could draw that condemnation from some commenters).
It quoted Talarico, at a different event, saying “Politics is just another word for how you treat your neighbors”, but that’s not the thing they were reacting to.
I’m curious to know specifically what he said that pissed people off, because the details are important when you’re popcorning monotheistic textual sectarian religious spats.
So what’s your position, that there’s a possibility that he did say something demonic and its all being misconstrued to make people “feel good?” For someone who’s so interested in ‘just asking questions,’ you don’t seem very interested in finding answers.
The article links to the sources of this controversy in the very first paragraph by the way.
Yeah I’m sure Fox News is hotly debating the merits of Hebrew vs Aramaic vs Greek.
In the Old Testament, only the books of Daniel and Ezra were written in Aramaic; the rest is Hebrew. All of the New Testament was written in koine Greek, though the Gospels quote short phrases of Jesus’s speech that are in Aramaic, which was his primary language (there’s some evidence that people in Galilee knew Greek, and he might have also known Hebrew, which was still spoken by the Samaritans as well as being the liturgical language of the Jewish religion).
The original languages of both testaments is disputed by scholars, there’s evidence both were written originally in Greek (the OT no earlier than 200BC) and translated later into Hebrew, Aramaic, etc. Hebrew was basically a dead language at the time the Old Testament was written, having around 8000 words, and the OT seems to draw heavily from Greek mythological texts available at the time through the Library of Alexandria.
Greek was the lingua franca of the time and Judea, Galilee and Bethlehem were thoroughly conquered at this time and Jesus and the disciples were native Greek speakers. The ruins of synagogues unearthed from the centuries near the crucifixion had Greek text on the walls.
In my opinion, anyone who tries to talk about the Bible but has a lack of understanding of the Grecoroman world is missing 90% of the picture. The most authentic texts are the Greek ones, the Seputagints for the Old Testament and the Greek versions for the New Testament.
Anyone interested in learning ancient Greek is fortunate right now as Dr. Ammon Hillman has a free 2 week intensive course up on his non monetized youtube channel along with a vast amount of supplementary material.
You’re hinting that it’s in some sense invalid to quote the New Testament in some other language than Greek or something?!
I think you want to scrape the bark off two trees in the hope that once you’re done people won’t see the forest.
There is a pretty significant portion of America Christians who believe than any translation besides the 1611 King James version of the Bible is blasphemous, nevermind that they are probably reading the 1769 version, but what matters is what think is the 1611 version.
There’s also a smaller but still significant portion of American Christians who juggle snakes and roll around in the aisles of their churches speaking in tongues.
And some fundies believe that, not only is the KJB the definitive text, but that ol’ JC spoke English.
It’s never wise to underestimate the lumpen stupidity of fundamentalists. They are largely morons led by con artists (though there are a depressingly small number of exceptions).
I’m from a region with snake handlers and it is fascinating! Highly encourage anyone reading this to look more into it.
RTFB[ible]. It says which passages were quoted; look them up yourself if you’re that fucking worried about it!
At least, that’s what you would do if you were actually “curious” and not concern trolling.
I went to Episcopal school and Matthew is the only book I actually liked. But ok sure.
Then why were you even asking when you already knew?
Your bitching was like complaining about a footnote citation because they didn’t copy and paste the entire referenced work into the middle of the article for you.
Oh shit, careful guys this one is for real