Interesting phrase origin of Bible verse below. “1 Corinthians 13:12 (KJV) - For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known”. - Not as metaphorical as you might imagine, apparently ancient mirrors were inherently dark per mirror wiki.
"Stone mirrors often had poor reflectivity compared to metals, yet metals scratch or tarnish easily, so they frequently needed polishing. Depending upon the color, both often yielded reflections with poor color rendering.[6] The poor image quality of ancient mirrors explains 1 Corinthians 13’s reference to seeing “as in a mirror, darkly”
That has to be one of the most confusing Bible quotes ever. I don’t understand anything after darkly. But is does say, "though a glass " as opposed to “in a glass”.
Speaking as a non-believer, it’s one of my favorite chapters. 1 Corinthians 13:12 reminds us that we cannot see each other perfectly, and it does so in the context of reminding us that the greatest by far of all God’s commands is to love each other. It provides us a reason to behave charitably even when our senses tell us we have an excuse not to. In fact, the King James translation doesn’t even use the word “love,” substituting “charity,” but I prefer “love” just for poetic and sentimental reasons.
ETA: and “through” is just the metaphor the author chose: after all, what we see in a mirror is neither on nor in it, so we’re not (exactly) merely looking in or at it.
Oh
I’m caught up in the middle
But I’ll take it to the end
It’s coming back together
And it’s breaking down again
If I could find a reason
I’d say you were my friend
If I could find a reason
I’d say it once again
When I’m with you
The days are bittersweet
I still can’t remember
What it feels to be complete
Yeah
I’ve tried pretending
But it drops off my feet
I don’t know what it’s coming to
But I’m looking through the glass darkly
Yeah
Very interesting if this section is a nod to Plato’s world of forms- I’ve often wondered how many Bible sentiments basically revise and revive older sources.
Philip K. Dick borrowed the image for A Scanner Darkly.
In this lifetime on earth, I can only understand God as a kind of reflection of, or in terms of, myself (as if in a mirror, indistinctly), but in heaven I will truly see God as God is.
Good to know that it is probably referring to a mirror. Seeing thru a glass darkly has a scrying overtone to it. While the Mormons believe the Urim and Thummim were for scrying, that isn’t the most common belief. No glass-like object appears to be referenced in the Bible in this way.
As given in links the English translations vary slightly as for almost every other passage. The Greek words in the original are ‘esoptru’ generally translated ‘mirror’ or ‘looking glass’ but meaning mirror, and ‘ainigmati’, dim obscure, not necessarily the exact connotation of the modern English ‘enigmatic’ though it’s obviously related.
To take a couple of examples in totally unrelated languages it’s 鏡子 and 模糊 in the Chinese Catholic Bible, being the common word for ‘mirror’ and ‘blurry’ or ‘indistinct’, ‘obscure’. In the Korean Catholic Bible it’s 거울 and 어렴풋이 , again the most common word for ‘mirror’ and an indigenous Korean word that’s approximately synonymous with 模糊, which is also a Sino-Korean word.
The modern versions I find in Spanish generally use espejo, “mirror” and amor, “love”. Charity is a type of love; using the more general word includes the other types of love as well. Older versions tended to choose caridad, the specific type.
I always was told the meaning is as explained - ancient mirrors weren’t very good, and “glass” meant “looking glass”. But I grew up on the RSV rather than the King James Version.
Perhaps a better translation would be “now we see an imperfect reflection, but then we shall see face to face”.
You mean to say early Christianism not so much was inspired by the theo-cultural landscape of its day as mugged it in a dark alley and rifled through its pockets for any loose metaphors, half-eaten symbolism or barely used rite ? Get out of here !
Bit of an excluded middle there… It’d be a good question to confirm something like this. Is there a straight line between, for example, any of Plato’s ideas and the Bible? If this Bible verse has a pedigree that traces back, what does that trail look like? At what point are we certain?
If we are talking about Neo-Platonism, that didn’t arise until long after the works of the New Testament were finished. There appears to be much more Stoic philosophy in the letters of Paul than Platonism.
It seems a bit of a stretch to say “Paul mentioned a mirror, therefore he stole the idea from Plato”.
As a sort of “last laugh” for Plato, what if Paul never heard of Plato or any of his ideas, but since Plato was correct that we can sort of dimly perceive an ideal world of forms, they both wound up touching on the same kinds of metaphors anyway.