In Judaism we have a term "70 faces of Torah". This means that we can read a text or verse trying to gain a different layer of understanding or depth, or that each reread might have something new to offer. It could also mean that using academic methods could add a new layer to the traditional methods, or that there's some synthesis we have not fully discerned. But there's also a phrase "70 and not 71" to caution against motivated reasoning or sloppy methods. A rabbi at my yeshiva says that the Talmud is a jungle that people keep trying to flatten into roads instead of navigating the beauty and complexity.
My church's insistence that God spoke to people only in Biblical times and completely ceased giving new scripture after the King James translation was one of the earliest holes in my faith. I can remember being a little kid and wondering why God's divine word became frozen in time and never happened again, that seemed really weird to me. How come no one after the year 382 ever heard God's voice or interacted with God, the way the people in the gospels did? Now I know better. Excellent video as always! Don't lose yourself in the mirror, keep your soul firmly in place, remember the text is a reflection and not reality. There are as many ways as there are people who approach them!
For folks interested in the historical contexts in which the books that comprise the Christian Bible(s) were written, and the ways dogmas around those books and their "univocality" were developed, I can't recommend strongly enough the videos and podcasts of scholar Dan McClellan. The videos are super short and accessible, and Dan does a great job centering the scholarship (for example, he's an LDS guy, but has no qualms citing and centering scholarship that explicitly contradicts LDS writings, traditions, and beliefs).
There are so many comments I want to make, but when I type them, I realize it's not useful in a non-personal discussion setting. But I will say, I'm glad I go to a church with many intelligent, well studied people, and where we are free to not agree on everything and openly discuss it.
Thank you Mr. Color-of-my-shirt for this video, which is especially timely for me as I am preparing my class in Biblical Hermeneutics for next semester.
As an athiest I kind of feel that if a book is going to be the guide to whether or not we get eternal life I would really want it to be specific because otherwise a great many people are going to suffer for all eternity because they didn't land on the right version of the right interpretation of the right sects holy book.
People often say "there's many ways/infinite ways to interpret a text". But I rarely hear people say "There are very limited interpretations that is correct".
I liked this episode, but I think I would have preferred more focus on the theories behind ways of interpreting texts. It felt like we spent a while listing specific debates about practices from the bible, without really getting into what role texts actually play in those debates. Like do homophobic and pro-LGBT christians actually read the Bible differently? It kind of just seems like they read the Bible the same way, they're just motivated differently. Totally get how hard it is to make a ten minute episode on such a wide and complicated topic though!
Will this series be talking about Sikhism in any more depth? I'm absolutely fascinated by the idea of a religious text being considered a Guru and a person unto itself
I always assumed John was hosting this because they didn't want "throw someone under the bus" as it were for all the hate talking of religions is likely to bring. This episode leads me to think that maybe there's hasn't been as much backlash at he was expecting and he's pushing it a bit. LOL Keep up the good work
This reminds me of how one of the most controversial doctrines for islamic scholars today is abrogation: can the hadith cancel quranic verses? (the big difference between two of the sunni legal schools), do later verses of the quran cancel earlier ones, or do they just recontextualize things? (traditionalists cancel, modernists recontextualize)
Christianity holds that the original Hebrew and Greek as the most authentic word of God. A large part of Theological schooling is learning those two languages. Translations are all imperfect versions and there is occasionally parts of the message that is lost in translation. There are denominations that hold particular (notably the King James Version) as superior, but they are the minority.
Most of the Taoist themed self help books I have read have espoused environmentalist beliefs about climate change knocking nature out of balance, even though the Tao Te Ching was written at a time when climate science wasn’t a thing.
And like you've said in the original episode, this interpretation that a religion is one with a sacred text favors literary/scholarly cultures. Subsaharan Africa, the New World, and Oceania were illiterate cultures that couldn't produce a sacred text, even though that'd help them greatly. In fact, even in literary cultures, we don't have access to all the texts we could have, like the Bible would probably have a bigger corpus if more texts survived from back then...
@2:10 the problem with both of these books in the Bible is that they aren't written accounts of God and his wills, rather they are written interpretations by humans. And humans by our very nature are flawed and we and our societies change. So we cannot for certain take what is written by these two authors as being concrete in how God wants his will to be established or to be aplicable to today's society since the society of today and the society of when these texts were written are wildly different. Arguably, Paul's letter to the Romans could hold more weight as it is believed Paul actually wrote this text, whereas the letters to Timothy are believed to have been written by somebody claiming to be Paul, and not Paul himself.
Sooo... Sacred texts are "sacred" only in that a group of people thinks they're special. Other than that, it's just mob rule as to what the texts actually say. Sorta makes you wonder if we should change the definition of "sacrosanct".
“Hi I’m John Colour of My Shirt” has to go down as one of the best intros ever in the history of RUclips.
John: “did I just compare my self to something sacred? Yes.”
John in his head: and I’ll do it again too
"John, Color of my shirt" is my new favorite opening of this show
In Judaism we have a term "70 faces of Torah". This means that we can read a text or verse trying to gain a different layer of understanding or depth, or that each reread might have something new to offer. It could also mean that using academic methods could add a new layer to the traditional methods, or that there's some synthesis we have not fully discerned.
But there's also a phrase "70 and not 71" to caution against motivated reasoning or sloppy methods.
A rabbi at my yeshiva says that the Talmud is a jungle that people keep trying to flatten into roads instead of navigating the beauty and complexity.
Catholic theologian here. You did a tremendous job with this video. Again. Thanks a lot!
I'm so glad this series is still going! I've been getting anxious it's going to end. There's so many interesting parts of religion.
I was today years old when I realized he pronounces his last name “lime”
My church's insistence that God spoke to people only in Biblical times and completely ceased giving new scripture after the King James translation was one of the earliest holes in my faith. I can remember being a little kid and wondering why God's divine word became frozen in time and never happened again, that seemed really weird to me. How come no one after the year 382 ever heard God's voice or interacted with God, the way the people in the gospels did?
Now I know better. Excellent video as always! Don't lose yourself in the mirror, keep your soul firmly in place, remember the text is a reflection and not reality. There are as many ways as there are people who approach them!
For folks interested in the historical contexts in which the books that comprise the Christian Bible(s) were written, and the ways dogmas around those books and their "univocality" were developed, I can't recommend strongly enough the videos and podcasts of scholar Dan McClellan.
The videos are super short and accessible, and Dan does a great job centering the scholarship (for example, he's an LDS guy, but has no qualms citing and centering scholarship that explicitly contradicts LDS writings, traditions, and beliefs).
I'm colorblind. What color is John Green's shirt?
There are so many comments I want to make, but when I type them, I realize it's not useful in a non-personal discussion setting. But I will say, I'm glad I go to a church with many intelligent, well studied people, and where we are free to not agree on everything and openly discuss it.
😂 that quiet "please don't sue me" at the end 😂
Harry Potter and the Sacred Text taught me so much about how people interact with both texts and the sacred ❤
Thanks for the Bahá'í shoutout 🙏🏽 Alláh'u-abhá
Thank you Mr. Color-of-my-shirt for this video, which is especially timely for me as I am preparing my class in Biblical Hermeneutics for next semester.
I’ve watched crash course since I was a teenager. I must say I’m happy with how it has expanded over the years 🎉
i appreciate how you described the clear difference between the Bible and the Quran in how people view them.
I'm a queer Episcopalian woman, and I appreciate your mention that some Christian denominations are becoming more accepting of queer folks :)
I feel this series is CC's magnum opus. Each episode feels so well researched and thought provoking. A true pleasure.
As an athiest I kind of feel that if a book is going to be the guide to whether or not we get eternal life I would really want it to be specific because otherwise a great many people are going to suffer for all eternity because they didn't land on the right version of the right interpretation of the right sects holy book.
People often say "there's many ways/infinite ways to interpret a text". But I rarely hear people say "There are very limited interpretations that is correct".
Please don't delete your Tumblr John... It's one of very few little glimpses of pure wholesome joy on the hellsite I love with my whole entire heart.
Thank you John and Crash Course team! Such a good series!!
Hello, John Color-of-your-shirt. Pleased to meet you
I'm going to be honest I miss the alternate John Character from the future that screams "Mr Green, Mr Green" during from the class
Looking for Alaska is a scared text to people who used tumblr in the late aughts and early 2010’s
I liked this episode, but I think I would have preferred more focus on the theories behind ways of interpreting texts. It felt like we spent a while listing specific debates about practices from the bible, without really getting into what role texts actually play in those debates. Like do homophobic and pro-LGBT christians actually read the Bible differently? It kind of just seems like they read the Bible the same way, they're just motivated differently.
Totally get how hard it is to make a ten minute episode on such a wide and complicated topic though!
I was so relieved you mentioned the Guru Granth. I would have been delighted had you mentioned The Principia Discordia.
Quick let us preserve his Tumblr
So what good are religious texts as an authority if they can be interpreted many different ways?
And we also need to include sacred oral literature as well!!! There are traditions where the oral history and stories are passed down from centuries
"Hi I'm John Color-of-my-shirt"
Me, colorblind: Hello John...... uhhhhhhhh.......... Sh-shirt?
hahahaha "colour of your shirt"! Love your start already hahaha
Now I know this man got a deal with Ralph Lauren by this point. 😂 I'm extra grateful for all the work y'all do in your years of excellent videos. 🙌
That Mona Lisa quote is divinely inspired!
Will this series be talking about Sikhism in any more depth? I'm absolutely fascinated by the idea of a religious text being considered a Guru and a person unto itself
This is my favourite crashcourse yet, love this series!
Looking for Alaska is a Sacred Text to me!
Do an episode about what it would take to make a new religion in the modern age
7:12 Did John just compare himself to William Shakespeare? Yes. Yes he did.
I always assumed John was hosting this because they didn't want "throw someone under the bus" as it were for all the hate talking of religions is likely to bring. This episode leads me to think that maybe there's hasn't been as much backlash at he was expecting and he's pushing it a bit. LOL Keep up the good work
visiting after a long time
I was really hoping you'd cover Morminism here. I feel its take on sacred texts is fairly unique within Christianity.
0:00 Hello John Red. My doctor says Im partially color blind but I don't think thats true
Marvelous as always!!
This reminds me of how one of the most controversial doctrines for islamic scholars today is abrogation: can the hadith cancel quranic verses? (the big difference between two of the sunni legal schools), do later verses of the quran cancel earlier ones, or do they just recontextualize things? (traditionalists cancel, modernists recontextualize)
This man is precious
Christianity holds that the original Hebrew and Greek as the most authentic word of God. A large part of Theological schooling is learning those two languages. Translations are all imperfect versions and there is occasionally parts of the message that is lost in translation. There are denominations that hold particular (notably the King James Version) as superior, but they are the minority.
Welcome to Hermeneutics by John Greene lol
great first question!
Amazing intro.
6:25 ❤
Most of the Taoist themed self help books I have read have espoused environmentalist beliefs about climate change knocking nature out of balance, even though the Tao Te Ching was written at a time when climate science wasn’t a thing.
Thank you!
And like you've said in the original episode, this interpretation that a religion is one with a sacred text favors literary/scholarly cultures. Subsaharan Africa, the New World, and Oceania were illiterate cultures that couldn't produce a sacred text, even though that'd help them greatly. In fact, even in literary cultures, we don't have access to all the texts we could have, like the Bible would probably have a bigger corpus if more texts survived from back then...
Religious texts can be interpreted as you want
Yay to scripture Looking for Alaska
"Please don't sue me."😂
@2:10 the problem with both of these books in the Bible is that they aren't written accounts of God and his wills, rather they are written interpretations by humans. And humans by our very nature are flawed and we and our societies change. So we cannot for certain take what is written by these two authors as being concrete in how God wants his will to be established or to be aplicable to today's society since the society of today and the society of when these texts were written are wildly different.
Arguably, Paul's letter to the Romans could hold more weight as it is believed Paul actually wrote this text, whereas the letters to Timothy are believed to have been written by somebody claiming to be Paul, and not Paul himself.
I can watch a whole hour of John adorably comparing himself to religious figures 😂
Looking for Alaska is my sacred text
good you see you john still the same vibe love your work man keep it up and god will make you more heathy
Views shirt!!
In fairness John, you probably are a sacred figure in the minds of many Tumblr users
10:33 On a similar topic, (a movie instead of a book), what's your opinion of Dudeism?
John Colour-of-my-shirt feelin particularly silly today huh?
No reference to the Book of Mormon?
Color of my shirt 🤣
Im supprise there is no comment section war
I mean I might be in the minority here but I've only casually read some religious texts, and I've read looking for Alaska six times.
Hello, John Color-of-my-shirt.
Who’s the best at moving the goal posts? Religion.
❤❤❤
The bishop of Oslo is a woman and has dreadlocks. she's so cool. Sunniva Gylver
So young and dapper in his haircut.
I’m totally down for Looking for Alaska being considered a religious text
Love is All Inclusive. 1 Corinthians 13:7 my interpretation.
Sacred texts didn't change. Yeah ... about that... LOL.
Sooo... Sacred texts are "sacred" only in that a group of people thinks they're special. Other than that, it's just mob rule as to what the texts actually say.
Sorta makes you wonder if we should change the definition of "sacrosanct".
Oof... Can't wait until we get to the part where he discusses religion and the LGBTQ+ community... Because, ohhhh boy... 😮💨