Paul . . . Paul . . . such an intriguing personality!
Paul’s authorship of this letter is generally accepted. The uncertainty arises from the questions of the churches it was addressed to and exactly when it was penned during Paul’s career. De Silva concludes that it’s most likely that the letter was addressed to churches in South Galatia – the ones mentioned in Acts – because there is no mention in either Paul’s letters or in Acts of a mission to North Galatia. De Silva does note that the people of the South were not ethnically “Galatians,” but he notes that it was a correct designation for the geographic region, as that was the name of the Roman province. As to when the letter was penned, de Silva believes that it was probably written early in Paul’s career, before the Jerusalem council mentioned in Acts 15, because if it had been written later, the council’s decisions would have served as a trump card for Paul’s arguments that strict observance of Torah was not mandatory for Gentiles.
As to Paul’s message – it deals with a dispute regarding issues we have encountered throughout this course. Paul had converted the people he’s addressing in the letter. After he left them, “rival teachers” arrived, telling the new followers that mere faith in Jesus – and the visitation of the Holy Spirit – was not sufficient. They should also observe the Torah, the Law, and of course first and foremost this meant that the males should be circumcised.
Paul’s letter seeks to confirm the Galatians in their faith, his commission direct from God, the efficacy of the Spirit, and the fact that their trust and faith was sufficient to make them part of the people of God – erasing distinctions of Gentile and Jew, slave and free, and male and female.
Paul reminded the Galatians that he understood Torah better than the rival teachers, that he had persecuted the followers of Jesus in his zeal for the Torah (which was in the tradition of Phinehas and Mattathias), and he knew that it would be a grievous error – would result in the people being cursed – if they were to return to the observance of Torah, which had been obviated by Christ’s sacrifice on the cross.
Following Torah would also be wrong, because it was part of the means of rendering the Jews pure and segregating the Jews from the Gentiles, when with faith in Jesus and the visitations of the Spirit, the people would become one people of God.
Paul emphasized the efficacy of Divine grace in permitting the believers to be saved, rather than the “works” of Torah observance. In effect, he labeled the rivals hypocrites, because he said they attempted to pervert the faith, not out of belief or out of love for the Galatians, but because they feared the hostility of traditional Jews, the zealots who in effect were taking up where Paul had left off at the time of his conversion. He wrote that they wished to place the yoke of Torah observance on the Galatians, but they were not prepared to submit to such rigourous observance themselves.
Interestingly, I caught the last part of a program on the Omni Channel last week, called something like “What kind of Jew are you?” It featured a young Jewish man, married to a Gentile lady, and they had a boy who was about 8 or 9 years old. It seemed that they wanted to raise the boy observing the best part of both faiths, but the father was having trouble bringing the boy into the synagogue. The boy was not considered Jewish (which is passed through the matrilineal line in Judaism). Ergo, the boy was considered “unclean.” If the father wanted to bring him to synagogue, he would have to be purified in a Mikvah ritual bath. This did not please the father, and he basically said that there are some things he liked about his faith and some things he did not. But apparently not long after the program was filmed, he split up with his wife and started living with or married a Jewish lady.
This just shows that these issues – which to us seem like ancient history – are still alive today, at least in some sects of Judaism. It suggests to me that perhaps the insularity of some aspects of Judaism may have made the split between what one author called the “fraternal twins” of Christianity and Judaism was inevitable, once Christianity did become a majority Gentile faith.
Saturday, December 12, 2009
Monday, November 30, 2009
Week 11 - Chapter 11 - Prologue to Paul's Letters -
Paul becomes the most vivid of the early figures of the Christian church, thanks to his being portrayed in such detail in Acts and through the messages of his letters. None of the other apostles are portrayed with as much immediacy, not even Peter or James the Just, Jesus’ brother.
Paul was born Saul in the city of Tarsus in Asia Minor, the child of a Pharisee and raised as a Pharisee. Paul’s strict interpretation and zeal for Torah logically led him to become a persecutor of the early followers of Jesus (we first see him in Acts as a witness to the stoning of Stephen). Yet he received a miraculous vision of the risen Christ on the road to Damascus and as a result of that vision, he came to accept that Jesus as the Christ was part of God’s plan, rather than the traditional way of Torah. He also interpreted his vision as a commission from God to preach both to traditional Jews and to convert the Gentiles. Almost immediately he began his missionary work, first heading into Arabia (the kingdom of the Nabateans) and over the course of almost three decades (or more if he survived his trial in Rome in 60 A.D.) traveling throughout the lands bordering the eastern and northern coasts of the Mediterranean Sea where he founded and nourished a number of churches.
Paul was like a one-man wrecking crew. There are suggestions in one of de Silva’s earlier chapters that he was rather testy and difficult to get along with – including the fact that he seems to have picked up and dropped off traveling companions like Barnabas rather often, as well as the fact that he himself refers to disputes he had with “false apostles,” as in 2 Corinthians 11, and Peter himself (in Galatians 2:11-21), over the resurgence of the issue of the Jewish Christians refusing to dine with the Gentile Christians. Here is one passage in particular that jumped out at me, at Acts 9:29-31:
“He talked and debated with the Grecian Jews, but they tried to kill him. When the brothers learned of this, they took him down to Caesarea and sent him off to Tarsus. Then the church throughout Judea, Galilee and Samaria enjoyed a time of peace. It was strengthened; and encouraged by the Holy Spirit, it grew in numbers, living in the fear of the Lord.”
Since Paul seems to have caused an uproar wherever he appeared, perhaps there is some cause and effect relationship at work here.
I might suggest that Paul was exhibiting the zeal of the converted, and I think it is possible that he challenged the traditional Jews in a more overt way than the other apostles did, thereby making himself more of a target. He certainly seems to have been the target of more efforts to do away with him, judging from passages in Acts like the above one.
Paul’s is a strikingly modern voice, speaking to us across the centuries. Paul exhorts the congregations, he can be wheedling or pleading from time to time, but I think one cannot deny that his writing is not only inspired but it has a remarkable forthrightness and sincerity, and thus his messages are persuasive. I would suggest that he may have had “issues,” as the saying is today, given his failure to marry and his sometimes rather . . . dismissive comments about women, but regardless he may have been uniquely placed to move Christianity beyond its purely Judaic roots. I feel his writings are a living part of my roots – perhaps because his words have always played such a large part of the scripture readings in Protestant services.
I think part of the key to understanding Paul, and the reason he seems like such a modern voice, is that he was a cosmopolitan, a figure who was able to transcend racial and cultural barriers due to the diverse heritage he had inherited, from Pharisaic Judaism to citizen of the Helleno-Roman world. His language was most striking in its modernity, I though, where he considers the irrelevancy of circumcision or the dietary laws in perfecting one’s holiness in the sight of God. His reasoning in those matters seems to me to be both logical and rational. In addition, Paul’s contribution to the churches was very much like we would expect of a caring pastor today – he was like a counselor to his flocks, rather than a performer of miracles as was observed in the original apostles. Perhaps the fact that he was an acknowledged late-comer impelled him to “try harder.” He was like the “Energizer Bunny” of the apostles. He transformed Christianity from a sect of Judaism into a church with Christ at its core rather than the Torah, a church that had numerous branches throughout the eastern and central regions of the Empire and in which the Gentile members enjoyed equal status with the traditional Jewish Christians.
Paul was born Saul in the city of Tarsus in Asia Minor, the child of a Pharisee and raised as a Pharisee. Paul’s strict interpretation and zeal for Torah logically led him to become a persecutor of the early followers of Jesus (we first see him in Acts as a witness to the stoning of Stephen). Yet he received a miraculous vision of the risen Christ on the road to Damascus and as a result of that vision, he came to accept that Jesus as the Christ was part of God’s plan, rather than the traditional way of Torah. He also interpreted his vision as a commission from God to preach both to traditional Jews and to convert the Gentiles. Almost immediately he began his missionary work, first heading into Arabia (the kingdom of the Nabateans) and over the course of almost three decades (or more if he survived his trial in Rome in 60 A.D.) traveling throughout the lands bordering the eastern and northern coasts of the Mediterranean Sea where he founded and nourished a number of churches.
Paul was like a one-man wrecking crew. There are suggestions in one of de Silva’s earlier chapters that he was rather testy and difficult to get along with – including the fact that he seems to have picked up and dropped off traveling companions like Barnabas rather often, as well as the fact that he himself refers to disputes he had with “false apostles,” as in 2 Corinthians 11, and Peter himself (in Galatians 2:11-21), over the resurgence of the issue of the Jewish Christians refusing to dine with the Gentile Christians. Here is one passage in particular that jumped out at me, at Acts 9:29-31:
“He talked and debated with the Grecian Jews, but they tried to kill him. When the brothers learned of this, they took him down to Caesarea and sent him off to Tarsus. Then the church throughout Judea, Galilee and Samaria enjoyed a time of peace. It was strengthened; and encouraged by the Holy Spirit, it grew in numbers, living in the fear of the Lord.”
Since Paul seems to have caused an uproar wherever he appeared, perhaps there is some cause and effect relationship at work here.
I might suggest that Paul was exhibiting the zeal of the converted, and I think it is possible that he challenged the traditional Jews in a more overt way than the other apostles did, thereby making himself more of a target. He certainly seems to have been the target of more efforts to do away with him, judging from passages in Acts like the above one.
Paul’s is a strikingly modern voice, speaking to us across the centuries. Paul exhorts the congregations, he can be wheedling or pleading from time to time, but I think one cannot deny that his writing is not only inspired but it has a remarkable forthrightness and sincerity, and thus his messages are persuasive. I would suggest that he may have had “issues,” as the saying is today, given his failure to marry and his sometimes rather . . . dismissive comments about women, but regardless he may have been uniquely placed to move Christianity beyond its purely Judaic roots. I feel his writings are a living part of my roots – perhaps because his words have always played such a large part of the scripture readings in Protestant services.
I think part of the key to understanding Paul, and the reason he seems like such a modern voice, is that he was a cosmopolitan, a figure who was able to transcend racial and cultural barriers due to the diverse heritage he had inherited, from Pharisaic Judaism to citizen of the Helleno-Roman world. His language was most striking in its modernity, I though, where he considers the irrelevancy of circumcision or the dietary laws in perfecting one’s holiness in the sight of God. His reasoning in those matters seems to me to be both logical and rational. In addition, Paul’s contribution to the churches was very much like we would expect of a caring pastor today – he was like a counselor to his flocks, rather than a performer of miracles as was observed in the original apostles. Perhaps the fact that he was an acknowledged late-comer impelled him to “try harder.” He was like the “Energizer Bunny” of the apostles. He transformed Christianity from a sect of Judaism into a church with Christ at its core rather than the Torah, a church that had numerous branches throughout the eastern and central regions of the Empire and in which the Gentile members enjoyed equal status with the traditional Jewish Christians.
Monday, November 23, 2009
Week 10 - Chapter 10 - The Epistles of John
This topic is following the order of the chapters in our text, not the order of the class lectures . . . I am fighting an insecure feeling that I’m getting the order of the material wrong. (I hope that’s not the case!) Or that I may be blogging a week ahead of the schedule in the syllabus. (That wouldn't be so bad, I guess.)
There are three “epistles,” designated 1 John, 2 John and 3 John, relatively short pieces which, according to de Silva, form sequels to the Gospel of John in somewhat the same way that Acts forms a sequel to Luke’s Gospel.
The major difference is that Acts forms a sort of apologia for Paul, in particular, while the Epistles of John were written in response to a split, or schism, in the Johannine community, in which a group of “secessionists” (as de Silva refers to them) broke off from the parent church. Although they were not properly Gnostics (which arose later), de Silva indicates that it appears (from what can be inferred from the Epistles) that they minimized the human nature of Christ and also that they substituted the Baptism of Christ for the death of Christ on the cross as the crucial “salvific act” (again, de Silva’s term). Though not Gnostics per se, de Silva indicates that these beliefs formed another stage on the path that led to Gnosticism in the second century.
There are three Epistles of John, logically designated 1 John, 2 John, and 3 John. Their authorship is uncertain; some ascribe all three to the author of the Gospel of John. De Silva discusses the various options and concludes that it is likely that all three Epistles were written by the same person (who refers to himself in 2 and 3 John only as “the Elder”), but that it is most likely that that was not the same person who was the author(s) of the Gospel of John. All three Epistles are believed to have been composed about the same time, likely after the writing of the Gospel – although de Silva does indicate that the final redactor of the Gospel may have been aware of 1 John. (In other words, it is acknowledged that the Gospel was composed in stages and that 1 John at least may have been written before the Gospel was put into its final form.)
All three are referred to as Epistles, although 1 John does not take the form of a classical Epistle, as 2 and 3 John do. De Silva indicates that 1 John may actually be a tract, or homily, or handbook. As de Silva notes, it does not purport to be a fair and dispassionate view of the secessionists but rather adopts a polemical tone and denounces them, promoting what the author espouses as true beliefs while disclosing as little as possible of exactly what the secessionists’ beliefs were. De Silva states that this tract was written for the authors’ closest associates/community, and he states that it seeks to purge secessionist influences, provide a prophylaxis (protection against the spread) of secessionist influence, and help in healing the rift caused by the secessionists.
2 and 3 John do follow the form of ancient Epistles. De Silva notes that they start off as “friendly” letters, then 2 John morphs into the “advisory” type, while 3 John morphs into the “praising” type and finally closes with a “vituperative” form. According to de Silva, these letters were addressed to a church or a number of churches further afield than the community addressed in 1 John.
The author of the Epistles emphasized God’s love for his people, and as evidence of that love, the fact that he sent his Son to die for us, to be an atoning sacrifice, in order to save us from our sins. The death of Jesus was the supreme revelation of God in the world, and believers were to “walk in the light” in imitation of the example provided by Jesus. He seems to have had a complex view of sin, as he proposed on the one hand that those who are walking in the light should be without sin as proof that they are born of God, but on the other hand, to accept that even those who are born again may sin in the future and that Jesus’ sacrifice can save us from our future sins as well as from past sins.
According to de Silva, it was the Fourth Gospel that contained in itself the seeds that would lead to the development of Gnosicism in the second century. These Epistles give us evidence of some of the first attempts to deal with/quash the heretical impulse of minimizing Christ's humanity which recurred throughout the early centuries of Christianity.
There are three “epistles,” designated 1 John, 2 John and 3 John, relatively short pieces which, according to de Silva, form sequels to the Gospel of John in somewhat the same way that Acts forms a sequel to Luke’s Gospel.
The major difference is that Acts forms a sort of apologia for Paul, in particular, while the Epistles of John were written in response to a split, or schism, in the Johannine community, in which a group of “secessionists” (as de Silva refers to them) broke off from the parent church. Although they were not properly Gnostics (which arose later), de Silva indicates that it appears (from what can be inferred from the Epistles) that they minimized the human nature of Christ and also that they substituted the Baptism of Christ for the death of Christ on the cross as the crucial “salvific act” (again, de Silva’s term). Though not Gnostics per se, de Silva indicates that these beliefs formed another stage on the path that led to Gnosticism in the second century.
There are three Epistles of John, logically designated 1 John, 2 John, and 3 John. Their authorship is uncertain; some ascribe all three to the author of the Gospel of John. De Silva discusses the various options and concludes that it is likely that all three Epistles were written by the same person (who refers to himself in 2 and 3 John only as “the Elder”), but that it is most likely that that was not the same person who was the author(s) of the Gospel of John. All three Epistles are believed to have been composed about the same time, likely after the writing of the Gospel – although de Silva does indicate that the final redactor of the Gospel may have been aware of 1 John. (In other words, it is acknowledged that the Gospel was composed in stages and that 1 John at least may have been written before the Gospel was put into its final form.)
All three are referred to as Epistles, although 1 John does not take the form of a classical Epistle, as 2 and 3 John do. De Silva indicates that 1 John may actually be a tract, or homily, or handbook. As de Silva notes, it does not purport to be a fair and dispassionate view of the secessionists but rather adopts a polemical tone and denounces them, promoting what the author espouses as true beliefs while disclosing as little as possible of exactly what the secessionists’ beliefs were. De Silva states that this tract was written for the authors’ closest associates/community, and he states that it seeks to purge secessionist influences, provide a prophylaxis (protection against the spread) of secessionist influence, and help in healing the rift caused by the secessionists.
2 and 3 John do follow the form of ancient Epistles. De Silva notes that they start off as “friendly” letters, then 2 John morphs into the “advisory” type, while 3 John morphs into the “praising” type and finally closes with a “vituperative” form. According to de Silva, these letters were addressed to a church or a number of churches further afield than the community addressed in 1 John.
The author of the Epistles emphasized God’s love for his people, and as evidence of that love, the fact that he sent his Son to die for us, to be an atoning sacrifice, in order to save us from our sins. The death of Jesus was the supreme revelation of God in the world, and believers were to “walk in the light” in imitation of the example provided by Jesus. He seems to have had a complex view of sin, as he proposed on the one hand that those who are walking in the light should be without sin as proof that they are born of God, but on the other hand, to accept that even those who are born again may sin in the future and that Jesus’ sacrifice can save us from our future sins as well as from past sins.
According to de Silva, it was the Fourth Gospel that contained in itself the seeds that would lead to the development of Gnosicism in the second century. These Epistles give us evidence of some of the first attempts to deal with/quash the heretical impulse of minimizing Christ's humanity which recurred throughout the early centuries of Christianity.
Sunday, November 15, 2009
Week 9 - Chapter 9 - The Gospel According to John
John was probably the last of the Gospels to be composed – closer to 100 A.D. than 70 A.D. or earlier, as is likely with the Synoptics. John’s Gospel may reflect the experiences/viewpoint of the unnamed Beloved Disciple (only identified as such in this Gospel), preserved in communities of Jewish Christian followers located in Palestine, who re-located to other parts of the mid-east (perhaps to Ephesus or elsewhere in Asia Minor) when the Temple was destroyed. Stylistic evidence indicates that, like the Synoptics, there appear to have been stages in the development of the Gospel, a gradual evolution of the material from the original witness to Jesus until it was recorded in finished form by the final writer/editor.
It appears that part of the purpose of the Gospel was to present a different viewpoint and different material than was presented in the Synoptics. Another purpose is clearly to provide an ethos for the Christian communities, marked by “love, mutual help and service, and unity.” (pg. 403) The basic “plot” is the same but there are more differences of style and subject matter than there are similarities with the Synoptics. It is especially noteworthy that you don’t have to read very far into the Gospel of John to find people acknowledging that Jesus is the Son of God (by John the Baptist at Jesus’ baptism in John 1:29-34) and the Messiah (Andrew, one of Jesus’ first disciples announces to his brother Simon (Peter) that he has found the Messiah (John 1:41)). No messianic secret here!! In fact, de Silva notes that Jesus’ miracles in John are done more to give signs as to who and what Jesus is than to announce the Kingdom of God or to show God’s power to bring benefits to His people.
This highly-developed Christology is usually cited as a factor in favour of a late date of composition for this Gospel, though that is not proof positive of course. I would interpret this as meaning that the Gospel provides a more “other-worldly” view of the story of Jesus – as the “Word made flesh,” rather than a man who was Son of God.
(As an aside, at pg. 411 de Silva writes that it appears that Luke may well have used John (or the traditions of John’s community) as a resource, since there are some 36 points of agreement of Luke with John over Mark – but the reverse does not appear, that John used Luke (or either of the other Synoptics).)
Where the Gospel of Matthew was the most widely read and accepted Gospel of ancient times, de Silva writes that today it is the Gospel of John that is most widely disseminated, largely due to its highly symbolic nature, which gives its text a timeless quality. I am surprised to read that – because of the interest in recent years on the “historical Jesus,” which perforce relies more on the Synoptics than John. I know that for myself, I usually turn first to Matthew to read the sayings and teachings of Jesus, secondarily to Mark and Luke, and only occasionally do I turn to John. The eternal 3:16 (“For God so loved the world . . .”) and the story of the woman taken in adultery (which appears to have been added to John’s Gospel by later scribes!) are two of my favourite readings. But there is nothing like the Beatitudes, those eternal gifts to nourish the spirit.
De Silva notes that Greco-Roman (Hellenistic) influence can be seen at the outset in John 1:1 where Jesus is announced as the pre-existing Logos, also a concept known to the Stoic philosophers. Many of these concepts were more common in Jewish thought of the time than modern scholars have generally recognized. De Silva notes that many of the concepts evident in John (like Jesus as light, or fountain, or shepherd) can be seen in manuscripts of the Qumran community, which followed a “teacher of righteousness” and used similar metaphors to those in John, and that similar concepts were expounded by Philo of Alexandria, the thoroughly Hellenized Jewish philosopher. But most scholars of the last hundred years or so have emphasized the Gnostic elements in John.
My recollection is that the Christian Gnostics believed that the god who created the world was not the benevolent creator God but an evil being (Satan?) who trapped divine sparks (our souls) in earthly flesh. So the Gnostics believed that the earth and our bodies were evil and that Jesus was sent by the *real* God (not the one who created the earth) to help our spirits reach salvation. Gnosticism reached its greatest height of popularity (I believe) in the second century A.D., when it was condemned as heresy by the forces of orthodoxy in the Christian church and gradually died out. Gnosticism had an element of “secret knowledge” which was at odds with the mainstream of Christianity. There is some sense of that otherworldliness and sharing secret knowledge among members of the community in John. But in light of the probable dates of composition of John, it appears that, as de Silva notes, the Gospel reflects a sort of “proto-Gnosticism.” I agree that, from what I recall of Gnostic writings, John does not go as “far” in its symbolic language as the Gnostics generally did. But from at least one point of view, one might view some of the tendencies in John to be somewhat “dangerous,” considering the path that led down the road from that Gospel. I wonder if there was any movement to quash John’s Gospel before it became unequivocally accepted as part of the canon – or even afterward?
It appears that part of the purpose of the Gospel was to present a different viewpoint and different material than was presented in the Synoptics. Another purpose is clearly to provide an ethos for the Christian communities, marked by “love, mutual help and service, and unity.” (pg. 403) The basic “plot” is the same but there are more differences of style and subject matter than there are similarities with the Synoptics. It is especially noteworthy that you don’t have to read very far into the Gospel of John to find people acknowledging that Jesus is the Son of God (by John the Baptist at Jesus’ baptism in John 1:29-34) and the Messiah (Andrew, one of Jesus’ first disciples announces to his brother Simon (Peter) that he has found the Messiah (John 1:41)). No messianic secret here!! In fact, de Silva notes that Jesus’ miracles in John are done more to give signs as to who and what Jesus is than to announce the Kingdom of God or to show God’s power to bring benefits to His people.
This highly-developed Christology is usually cited as a factor in favour of a late date of composition for this Gospel, though that is not proof positive of course. I would interpret this as meaning that the Gospel provides a more “other-worldly” view of the story of Jesus – as the “Word made flesh,” rather than a man who was Son of God.
(As an aside, at pg. 411 de Silva writes that it appears that Luke may well have used John (or the traditions of John’s community) as a resource, since there are some 36 points of agreement of Luke with John over Mark – but the reverse does not appear, that John used Luke (or either of the other Synoptics).)
Where the Gospel of Matthew was the most widely read and accepted Gospel of ancient times, de Silva writes that today it is the Gospel of John that is most widely disseminated, largely due to its highly symbolic nature, which gives its text a timeless quality. I am surprised to read that – because of the interest in recent years on the “historical Jesus,” which perforce relies more on the Synoptics than John. I know that for myself, I usually turn first to Matthew to read the sayings and teachings of Jesus, secondarily to Mark and Luke, and only occasionally do I turn to John. The eternal 3:16 (“For God so loved the world . . .”) and the story of the woman taken in adultery (which appears to have been added to John’s Gospel by later scribes!) are two of my favourite readings. But there is nothing like the Beatitudes, those eternal gifts to nourish the spirit.
De Silva notes that Greco-Roman (Hellenistic) influence can be seen at the outset in John 1:1 where Jesus is announced as the pre-existing Logos, also a concept known to the Stoic philosophers. Many of these concepts were more common in Jewish thought of the time than modern scholars have generally recognized. De Silva notes that many of the concepts evident in John (like Jesus as light, or fountain, or shepherd) can be seen in manuscripts of the Qumran community, which followed a “teacher of righteousness” and used similar metaphors to those in John, and that similar concepts were expounded by Philo of Alexandria, the thoroughly Hellenized Jewish philosopher. But most scholars of the last hundred years or so have emphasized the Gnostic elements in John.
My recollection is that the Christian Gnostics believed that the god who created the world was not the benevolent creator God but an evil being (Satan?) who trapped divine sparks (our souls) in earthly flesh. So the Gnostics believed that the earth and our bodies were evil and that Jesus was sent by the *real* God (not the one who created the earth) to help our spirits reach salvation. Gnosticism reached its greatest height of popularity (I believe) in the second century A.D., when it was condemned as heresy by the forces of orthodoxy in the Christian church and gradually died out. Gnosticism had an element of “secret knowledge” which was at odds with the mainstream of Christianity. There is some sense of that otherworldliness and sharing secret knowledge among members of the community in John. But in light of the probable dates of composition of John, it appears that, as de Silva notes, the Gospel reflects a sort of “proto-Gnosticism.” I agree that, from what I recall of Gnostic writings, John does not go as “far” in its symbolic language as the Gnostics generally did. But from at least one point of view, one might view some of the tendencies in John to be somewhat “dangerous,” considering the path that led down the road from that Gospel. I wonder if there was any movement to quash John’s Gospel before it became unequivocally accepted as part of the canon – or even afterward?
Saturday, November 7, 2009
Week 8 - Chapter 8 - The Acts of the Apostles (and Gospel of Luke continued) -
The two core issues which Luke deals with in his Gospel and Acts are 1) the failure of the mission to the Jews, traditionally the people of God, and 2) the place and role of the Gentiles, who were quickly becoming the majority of followers of Jesus.
It seems that, as one progresses through the Synoptic Gospels and Acts, there is a sliding scale from the largely Judaic milieu in Mark, through recognition of the increasing number and importance the Gentiles in the Church in Matthew (with perhaps some defensiveness toward non-Christian Jews, perhaps reflected in Matthew 10:5, where Jesus directs the first mission to be to the Jews and specifically not to the Gentiles), and then on through the Gospel of Luke and Acts, with the increasing acknowledgement of the growing presence of Gentile converts and the evolution of the mission – perhaps enhanced by the fact that Luke himself was a Gentile, with a different perspective than a Jewish Christian would have had.
The process that we viewed in the Gospels is carried in Acts to its logical conclusion. We read about Peter’s vision from God in Acts 10:9-16, in which God declared all sorts of birds and animals clean. Peter is then summoned to the household of Cornelius, a Roman centurion who was also a devout follower of the one God. He and his family were receptive to the message of the risen Christ – and the positioning of Peter’s vision just prior to his visit with Cornelius indicates that the Gentiles, like those multitudes of God’s creatures, are also clean and can be accepted as equal partners in the faith community of the Christians. At Acts 15, all the leading members of the Church, the apostles and elders, meet in Jerusalem to consider the burning question of the standard of Torah observance which is to be expected of these Gentile converts. Did they have to be circumcised? What about observance of the Jewish dietary laws and other parts of the Mosaic law?
Luke makes it clear that, after a report from Paul and Barnabas on the promising results of their mission to the Gentiles, and a vigourous debate, Paul submitted that scripture (Amos 9:11-12) foretold that the Lord would rebuild David’s tent and that the Gentiles as well as Hebrews would seek the Lord there. Paul asked the council not to make it difficult for the Gentiles to convert but rather to insist on just four basic laws being followed – 1) that they not eat food that had been sacrificed to idols, 2) that they be sexually moral, 3) that they not eat meat from animals that were strangled, and 4) that they not drink blood. According to de Silva, these were very fundamental rules to the Jews which represented prohibitions on behaviour that they found particularly repugnant. And, interestingly, de Silva says that these rules pre-dated the Mosaic Torah. (I can’t help wondering when these rules, which seem like a reasonable compromise to allow Gentiles to be accepted into the fold, were abandoned by the early Church. Did these practices lapse as paganism died, or were they abandoned as the congregation of Jewish believers became less influential in the Christian church?)
While it is a bit of an anti-climax to see the belief in Jesus dwindling among the Jews, we do see how the Church was able to create a vital mission into the Gentile lands. We see the faith being promulgated further and further outside of Palestine “even to the ends of the earth” – even as far as Rome, which was the “end of the earth” to the Jews from Palestine. In many episodes Luke indicates that the mission to the Gentiles, the spreading of the Gospel outside of their Jewish homeland, is the mission which has been ordained by God.
It seems that, as one progresses through the Synoptic Gospels and Acts, there is a sliding scale from the largely Judaic milieu in Mark, through recognition of the increasing number and importance the Gentiles in the Church in Matthew (with perhaps some defensiveness toward non-Christian Jews, perhaps reflected in Matthew 10:5, where Jesus directs the first mission to be to the Jews and specifically not to the Gentiles), and then on through the Gospel of Luke and Acts, with the increasing acknowledgement of the growing presence of Gentile converts and the evolution of the mission – perhaps enhanced by the fact that Luke himself was a Gentile, with a different perspective than a Jewish Christian would have had.
The process that we viewed in the Gospels is carried in Acts to its logical conclusion. We read about Peter’s vision from God in Acts 10:9-16, in which God declared all sorts of birds and animals clean. Peter is then summoned to the household of Cornelius, a Roman centurion who was also a devout follower of the one God. He and his family were receptive to the message of the risen Christ – and the positioning of Peter’s vision just prior to his visit with Cornelius indicates that the Gentiles, like those multitudes of God’s creatures, are also clean and can be accepted as equal partners in the faith community of the Christians. At Acts 15, all the leading members of the Church, the apostles and elders, meet in Jerusalem to consider the burning question of the standard of Torah observance which is to be expected of these Gentile converts. Did they have to be circumcised? What about observance of the Jewish dietary laws and other parts of the Mosaic law?
Luke makes it clear that, after a report from Paul and Barnabas on the promising results of their mission to the Gentiles, and a vigourous debate, Paul submitted that scripture (Amos 9:11-12) foretold that the Lord would rebuild David’s tent and that the Gentiles as well as Hebrews would seek the Lord there. Paul asked the council not to make it difficult for the Gentiles to convert but rather to insist on just four basic laws being followed – 1) that they not eat food that had been sacrificed to idols, 2) that they be sexually moral, 3) that they not eat meat from animals that were strangled, and 4) that they not drink blood. According to de Silva, these were very fundamental rules to the Jews which represented prohibitions on behaviour that they found particularly repugnant. And, interestingly, de Silva says that these rules pre-dated the Mosaic Torah. (I can’t help wondering when these rules, which seem like a reasonable compromise to allow Gentiles to be accepted into the fold, were abandoned by the early Church. Did these practices lapse as paganism died, or were they abandoned as the congregation of Jewish believers became less influential in the Christian church?)
While it is a bit of an anti-climax to see the belief in Jesus dwindling among the Jews, we do see how the Church was able to create a vital mission into the Gentile lands. We see the faith being promulgated further and further outside of Palestine “even to the ends of the earth” – even as far as Rome, which was the “end of the earth” to the Jews from Palestine. In many episodes Luke indicates that the mission to the Gentiles, the spreading of the Gospel outside of their Jewish homeland, is the mission which has been ordained by God.
Sunday, November 1, 2009
Week 7 - Chapter 7 - The Gospel According to Luke
Here are some almost random thoughts –
1) Apostolicity – It appears from all the evidence that has been presented by de Silva that none of the (Synoptic) Gospels is directly the result of the efforts of an Apostle. (I can’t write about John at this point.) I think it is fair to say that even if the words of the Apostles – say, Peter – were recorded after the fact as faithfully as human memory would allow, there might still be errors and omissions in human recollection. That is, no doubt, the reason that Biblical scholars seek material from multiple independent sources. Even the Apostles, I suppose, may have had an agenda or views or interpretations which would have differed from one another. I believe it is possible that all could have been inspired by the Holy Spirit as well as the experience of the risen Jesus, and still end up putting the Spirit into practice in different ways.
2) Textual history – de Silva refers in the Exegetical Skills section of Luke on “Textual Criticism” to “the vicissitudes of textual history.” (at pg. 302) This suggests to me that the survival of a particular text may be more a matter of Man’s free will and fallibility, combined with the vagaries of chance. Given that, I believe it is fair to say that we are fortunate to have as much we do that I believe to have been authentic teachings and sayings of Jesus and of his passion and resurrection.
3) Scribal errors – de Silva writes, “If you were to set the approximately 5,300 surviving New Testament manuscripts side by side, you would not find any two (of any sizeable length) to have exactly the same text.” (pg. 300, citing Bart Ehrman, “Textual Criticism of the New Testament,” in Hearing the New Testament: Strategies for Interpretation, ed. Joel B. Green, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995, pp. 129, 131. De Silva explains that some scribal errors are inadvertent, the result of misapprehension when taking a text down from dictation, perhaps, or the result of the eye skipping from one phrase or word to another similar phrase or word elsewhere on the page, thus omitting a portion, or perhaps accidentally duplicating a word or phrase. Other errors were intentional – or a combination of intent and inadvertence – as for instance when a scribal explanatory gloss became eventually incorporated into the text, or when a scribe sought to “improve,” explain or harmonize a text with another, more accepted version elsewhere in the Old or New Testament. An example of this is the tendency in various versions to make the Lucan version of the Lord’s Prayer (short and simple) more nearly resemble the more widely accepted version in Matthew.
4) “Majority Text” – at pg. 302 de Silva discusses the fact that there may have been three manuscripts bearing two different readings in ancient times, one of which, perhaps the one with the most “scribal variations,” may have been copied 500 times, while no copies of the first two were made. Thus later texts and translations may have been based on the “most widely copied” version – though this version may not have been the most correct, the closes to the original. He states that this is the phenomenon behind the creation of the King James Version and by many conservative students. It seems to me that the arguments agains the “Marjority Text” (that the one with the fewest copies may be the best) is counter-intuitive and appears to contradict the proposition stated lower-down on the same page, as well as earlier in the text, that the more widely-disseminated texts are more likely to be authentic.
I recall one student in an early lecture commenting that one shouldn’t “cherry-pick” the Gospels. But, given the opinions of those much more learned than I, who are also Christians, I believe that one does have to exercise some critical judgment as well as devotion and belief to one’s reading of the Bible. I would point out, for example, Jesus’ core messages – telling us how we should relate to God and to one another and of the coming of the Kingdom of God. I believe all texts in the New Testament should be read at least partly in how they accord with Jesus’ teachings. For example, Jesus taught that we should love our enemies, because anyone can favour those who love him. But God provides rain on the good and the evil alike. (I am paraphrasing, of course.) How can this be reconciled with the incident in Acts 5:1-10 of Peter’s killing (or God’s killing?) a man and wife (Ananias and Sapphira) who attempt to withhold part of their wealth from the Church. Every time I read this incident I am shocked. I cannot imagine God or Jesus sanctioning such an action. Ergo, I am in effect forced to cherry-pick – or rather, read critically, as well as reading to learn and to confirm my beliefs.
1) Apostolicity – It appears from all the evidence that has been presented by de Silva that none of the (Synoptic) Gospels is directly the result of the efforts of an Apostle. (I can’t write about John at this point.) I think it is fair to say that even if the words of the Apostles – say, Peter – were recorded after the fact as faithfully as human memory would allow, there might still be errors and omissions in human recollection. That is, no doubt, the reason that Biblical scholars seek material from multiple independent sources. Even the Apostles, I suppose, may have had an agenda or views or interpretations which would have differed from one another. I believe it is possible that all could have been inspired by the Holy Spirit as well as the experience of the risen Jesus, and still end up putting the Spirit into practice in different ways.
2) Textual history – de Silva refers in the Exegetical Skills section of Luke on “Textual Criticism” to “the vicissitudes of textual history.” (at pg. 302) This suggests to me that the survival of a particular text may be more a matter of Man’s free will and fallibility, combined with the vagaries of chance. Given that, I believe it is fair to say that we are fortunate to have as much we do that I believe to have been authentic teachings and sayings of Jesus and of his passion and resurrection.
3) Scribal errors – de Silva writes, “If you were to set the approximately 5,300 surviving New Testament manuscripts side by side, you would not find any two (of any sizeable length) to have exactly the same text.” (pg. 300, citing Bart Ehrman, “Textual Criticism of the New Testament,” in Hearing the New Testament: Strategies for Interpretation, ed. Joel B. Green, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995, pp. 129, 131. De Silva explains that some scribal errors are inadvertent, the result of misapprehension when taking a text down from dictation, perhaps, or the result of the eye skipping from one phrase or word to another similar phrase or word elsewhere on the page, thus omitting a portion, or perhaps accidentally duplicating a word or phrase. Other errors were intentional – or a combination of intent and inadvertence – as for instance when a scribal explanatory gloss became eventually incorporated into the text, or when a scribe sought to “improve,” explain or harmonize a text with another, more accepted version elsewhere in the Old or New Testament. An example of this is the tendency in various versions to make the Lucan version of the Lord’s Prayer (short and simple) more nearly resemble the more widely accepted version in Matthew.
4) “Majority Text” – at pg. 302 de Silva discusses the fact that there may have been three manuscripts bearing two different readings in ancient times, one of which, perhaps the one with the most “scribal variations,” may have been copied 500 times, while no copies of the first two were made. Thus later texts and translations may have been based on the “most widely copied” version – though this version may not have been the most correct, the closes to the original. He states that this is the phenomenon behind the creation of the King James Version and by many conservative students. It seems to me that the arguments agains the “Marjority Text” (that the one with the fewest copies may be the best) is counter-intuitive and appears to contradict the proposition stated lower-down on the same page, as well as earlier in the text, that the more widely-disseminated texts are more likely to be authentic.
I recall one student in an early lecture commenting that one shouldn’t “cherry-pick” the Gospels. But, given the opinions of those much more learned than I, who are also Christians, I believe that one does have to exercise some critical judgment as well as devotion and belief to one’s reading of the Bible. I would point out, for example, Jesus’ core messages – telling us how we should relate to God and to one another and of the coming of the Kingdom of God. I believe all texts in the New Testament should be read at least partly in how they accord with Jesus’ teachings. For example, Jesus taught that we should love our enemies, because anyone can favour those who love him. But God provides rain on the good and the evil alike. (I am paraphrasing, of course.) How can this be reconciled with the incident in Acts 5:1-10 of Peter’s killing (or God’s killing?) a man and wife (Ananias and Sapphira) who attempt to withhold part of their wealth from the Church. Every time I read this incident I am shocked. I cannot imagine God or Jesus sanctioning such an action. Ergo, I am in effect forced to cherry-pick – or rather, read critically, as well as reading to learn and to confirm my beliefs.
Thursday, October 29, 2009
First Interlude - the Hayward Lectures - October 19 - 21, 2009 -
I had hoped to sign up for one of the intensive courses (several three-hour courses were offered for credit or audit) during the same week that the Hayward Lectures were held on the Acadia campus, sponsored by the Acadia Divinity College. The guest lecturer this year was John Webster, a professor of Systematic Theology at the University of Aberdeen in Scotland. Those lectures took place every evening from 7:30 to about 9:00 pm, and there was also a talk-back session at 1:00 pm on Wednesday.
I ended up not signing up for any of the credit courses, and I’m glad I didn’t, because I wouldn’t have been able to do justice to one or the other. Finishing a 3-credit course in just five days requires a lot of effort – and a lot of time on homework just when I would have been attending the lectures. Another factor would have been expense. I was on a budget, and ended up with *just enough* for the three days’ stay and travel to and from Wolfville. I did stay one night at the lovely and gracious Blomidon Inn in Wolfville, which I highly recommend, and I treated my friend Trinda, with whom I stayed for the next two nights, to a yummy gourmet dinner with wine. Although I didn’t take a formal course, I was able to absorb a lot, just by being able to spend some time on the campus, though I sure suffered on Tuesday as the consequence of the unfamiliar slog up and down the hill from the Divinity College to the Library and the main street and back again several times. I have never had such cramps – in my left shin of all things – in my life! But parking is so scarce on the campus that my instinct, once I succeeded in finding a spot, was to stay put and walk as needed. Fortunately, although I walked as much on Wednesday as I had the day before, I wasn’t afflicted by cramps again.
It was great to see Trinda again and renew our friendship. She was a year ahead of me at Dalhousie Law School in the early 1980’s, but there has been a lot of water over the dam for both of us since I saw her last. Her longtime partnership with David broke up (I can still scarcely believe it), and I lost Arthur, my husband, partner and best friend of 30 years in June 2009 after a long struggle with Non-Hodgkins Lymphoma. It was also great to meet (in rough order) Lorraine Higgins, Deputy Registrar, Shawna Peverill, the Registrar, my prof of New Testament, Danny Zacharias, “virtual classmate” Carolyn Steeves, and several other classmates previously known perhaps only auditorily (Charla and Denise, class auditors, and Libby Amirault, just briefly) who attend classes in person (of all things!). In addition, I obtained an inordinate amount of excitement just by picking up my Acadia Student ID (Axe-cess) card. I love being a student again after all these years! Less exciting but worthwhile experience was being able to obtain an ASIN card to use if I intend to do searches in person at any of the universities in Halifax or the Atlantic School of Theology, and to begin a library search in the Vaughn Library for my exegetical paper, which is going to be on the passages Mt 22:34-40, in which Jesus spoke of the greatest commandment.
On the lighter side, I was able to pick up a case of what I think is a lovely local wine from Gaspereau Vineyards, Lucie Kuhlmann, which we were served last April at the Blomidon Inn when they were out of the usual house wine. Very mellow and mild, much like a Merlot. Mmmmmm!!! And I was also able to buy a super hoodie and matching ball cap from Marion Dorey at ADC, as well as a fuzzy blanket (a thank you gift for Trinda) and T-shirt from the Harriett Irving Botainical Gardens, adjacent to the K.C. Irving Auditorium, where the lectures were held, both embroidered with the lovely HIBG floral logo..
Regarding the lectures themselves, while I am really glad I had the few days’ experience of the campus and the wonderful people who staff it, I was . . . a bit disappointed in the lectures. Prof. Webster is a brilliant academic, I have no doubt, and is a typically British master of the English language. But I was really looking forward to the talks on the themes centering around God the Creator and was a bit let down when what I got seemed to be an academic exercise somewhat akin to the medieval debates about the number of angels who could dance on the head of a pin. The sense I took away from the first lecture was of an entirely self-contained and self-sufficient creator, who has no need of us mere mortals, and who therefore we should be wary of characterizing as just “the biggest thing around.” I detected a lot of references to St. Augustine, author of *City of God,* which I have never read but which makes me suspect that he was a rather rigid and judgemental father of the Church. The second lecture dealt largely with God’s creation ex nihilo (literally, “from nothing”) also apparently an idea pursued by Augustine. The danger we were cautioned of here was in thinking of *something* (besides God in the form of the Trinity) existing before the creation of the world. And the third lecture, which could have been illuminating, dealt with God’s relationship with us, bestowing upon us our “creaturely dignity” and us having the choice to act in accordance with our higher natures or sinning, which he termed descending to the bestial.
I could not be drawn to or love a God who was so detached from his creation. Prof. Webster minimized the importance of the concept (which is itself contained in Scripture, as I recall) that Man (that is all of us, men and women) is created in the image of God. And, being a believer that all of God’s creation was “good” in God’s site, I was disturbed to hear “beasts” characterized as being somehow sinful. By the way, it was rather interesting to me to hear Prof. Webster somehow characterize beasts as being somehow “fallen” as a result of “Man’s fall.” Hmmmm . . . I think a lot of us animal lovers feel that, though we may be fallen, God’s creatures still retain the pure goodness in innocence that He has given them – and that therefore our beloved animals can help us retain or regain our better natures. Of course, my notion is that God put us here “to tend the Garden,” that is, be good stewards of this Earth on his behalf, and that that includes responsibility for our environment and creation, including our fellow creatures.
Some such discussion was what I expected of the theme, God and Creation, but what we got was a lecture of “us” versus “them,” with “us” being wholly unworthy creatures subject to a God who is so much greater than us as to be beyond comprehension. This seems to me to be a rather futile belief system, more designed to drive away ordinary people than to provide them with hope and comfort.
I think God, as Creator of all, would want us to love our fellow creatures as well as our fellow man. Jesus did not say much about animals, but I think it is reasonable to say that it is implied in his preachings and his actions, such as the cleansing of the Temple and the innovative concept that God did not require animal sacrifice in his honour – which of course had been the usual custom in the Temple and was still the norm (several times a day, with more on special occasions and holy days) during Jesus’ lifetime.
Again, in discussing the nature of the Trinity as pre-existing (everything else) and of equally divine nature in all its parts, I think the essentially human nature of Jesus was superseded. Again, for us, it is not most important that Jesus existed before time, but rather that he was God’s Chosen One, and that as God’s Chosen One, he suffered the most ignominious death possible, rather than reigning in glory. The sacrifice of God’s beloved son, to show us that in this world, justice does not always come to those who deserve it in their lifetimes – but that it is more important to build up one’s treasure in Heaven than on this Earth – and that people who have much status, wealth, and education in this world must be prepared to be servants of all.
I can’t help but think of some of our class members who have found it concerning to hear about the layers of composition of the Gospels, with perhaps some parts being more “authentic” (as reflecting things Jesus actually said and did during his lifetime) than other parts, which may have been created a generation or more after Jesus’ death. I am currently reading two books by John Dominic Crossan, a former Roman Catholic priest and teacher, who left the priesthood in pursuit of more academic freedom and because he wanted to marry. One of the books is Jesus: a Revolutionary Biography, San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco, 1994, a shorter version of Crossan’s best-selling 1991 book on the historical Jesus. There is a lot of the discussion in Crossan that I am skeptical of – he uses social sciences to prove things about the historical Jesus which may or may not be true – for instance, that Jesus was illiterate, while I think it’s possible that as a precocious youngster he may have been taken out of his “peasant” milieu and better educated than most boys of his era. Jews as a people valued education and literacy, and I think his parents Joseph and Mary would likely have encouraged such an opportunity if it was opened to him. This possibility is not ruled out by the material in the Gospels, since we have little information about Jesus’ life prior to commencement of his ministry, and some of that material may not be historically accurate.
To get to my point, I am currently reading Crossan’s takes on Jesus’ miracles, raising the dead and exorcising demons. He notes that “demoniac possession” may have actually represented involuntary “trance states,” sometimes called “altered states of consciousness,” and that such states can be caused by a people’s being subjected by foreign conquerors, as the first-century Hebrews were. He posits that there is a correlation between an individual’s body and the “body politic,” and that therefore some events were particular to an individual but were symbolic of things occurring in society at large, while other things were systemic to the society but became reflected in the individual. So he refers to a couple instances of Jesus’ exorcisms, one the “Gerasene demoniac” referred to in Mark 5:1-17. He states that this specific event probably never occurred but the specific details of the story may have been originated at the time of the First Jewish War (66-73 A.D.). Crossan is not saying that such exorcisms never took place, but rather that “. . . they may have been too commonplace for oral memory to record in any save the most general descriptions.” (pg. 89)
Crossan notes specifically in the instance of the demon(s) named Legion:
An individual is, of course, being healed but the symbolism is also hard to miss or ignore. The demon is both one and many; is named Legion, that fact and sign of Roman power; is consigned to swine, that most impure of Judaism’s impure animals; and is cast into the sea, that dream of every Jewish resister. (pg. 90)
Here is the crucial point Crossan makes regarding these tales and perhaps much else of the material of the Gospels:
The case of the Galilean leper [in Mark 1:40-44] shows us how an action performed on one single body reaches out to become an action performed on society at large. And it would happen with or without Jesus’ intention, since body/society symbolism is a permanent given. As all the theological apologetics exercised on that story emphasize, Jesus is making claims about who regulates social boundaries, who determines cultural norms, who defines religious authority, and who decides political power. In that case, event becomes process. But the case of the Gerasene demoniac indicates the opposite phenomenon. I do not think there was ever an event such as that. It is, of course, possible that there was such a happening, but the event is just too perfect an embodiment of every Jewish revolutionary’s dream. In that case, most likely, process becomes event. For example, if in front of a hypothetical Lincoln High School in America there stands a statue of that president with upraised ax ready to smash through the chains binding a slave’s feet, is that true or false? Do we not have to respond that it is not true as event but is quite accurate as process? (pg. 94)
I ended up not signing up for any of the credit courses, and I’m glad I didn’t, because I wouldn’t have been able to do justice to one or the other. Finishing a 3-credit course in just five days requires a lot of effort – and a lot of time on homework just when I would have been attending the lectures. Another factor would have been expense. I was on a budget, and ended up with *just enough* for the three days’ stay and travel to and from Wolfville. I did stay one night at the lovely and gracious Blomidon Inn in Wolfville, which I highly recommend, and I treated my friend Trinda, with whom I stayed for the next two nights, to a yummy gourmet dinner with wine. Although I didn’t take a formal course, I was able to absorb a lot, just by being able to spend some time on the campus, though I sure suffered on Tuesday as the consequence of the unfamiliar slog up and down the hill from the Divinity College to the Library and the main street and back again several times. I have never had such cramps – in my left shin of all things – in my life! But parking is so scarce on the campus that my instinct, once I succeeded in finding a spot, was to stay put and walk as needed. Fortunately, although I walked as much on Wednesday as I had the day before, I wasn’t afflicted by cramps again.
It was great to see Trinda again and renew our friendship. She was a year ahead of me at Dalhousie Law School in the early 1980’s, but there has been a lot of water over the dam for both of us since I saw her last. Her longtime partnership with David broke up (I can still scarcely believe it), and I lost Arthur, my husband, partner and best friend of 30 years in June 2009 after a long struggle with Non-Hodgkins Lymphoma. It was also great to meet (in rough order) Lorraine Higgins, Deputy Registrar, Shawna Peverill, the Registrar, my prof of New Testament, Danny Zacharias, “virtual classmate” Carolyn Steeves, and several other classmates previously known perhaps only auditorily (Charla and Denise, class auditors, and Libby Amirault, just briefly) who attend classes in person (of all things!). In addition, I obtained an inordinate amount of excitement just by picking up my Acadia Student ID (Axe-cess) card. I love being a student again after all these years! Less exciting but worthwhile experience was being able to obtain an ASIN card to use if I intend to do searches in person at any of the universities in Halifax or the Atlantic School of Theology, and to begin a library search in the Vaughn Library for my exegetical paper, which is going to be on the passages Mt 22:34-40, in which Jesus spoke of the greatest commandment.
On the lighter side, I was able to pick up a case of what I think is a lovely local wine from Gaspereau Vineyards, Lucie Kuhlmann, which we were served last April at the Blomidon Inn when they were out of the usual house wine. Very mellow and mild, much like a Merlot. Mmmmmm!!! And I was also able to buy a super hoodie and matching ball cap from Marion Dorey at ADC, as well as a fuzzy blanket (a thank you gift for Trinda) and T-shirt from the Harriett Irving Botainical Gardens, adjacent to the K.C. Irving Auditorium, where the lectures were held, both embroidered with the lovely HIBG floral logo..
Regarding the lectures themselves, while I am really glad I had the few days’ experience of the campus and the wonderful people who staff it, I was . . . a bit disappointed in the lectures. Prof. Webster is a brilliant academic, I have no doubt, and is a typically British master of the English language. But I was really looking forward to the talks on the themes centering around God the Creator and was a bit let down when what I got seemed to be an academic exercise somewhat akin to the medieval debates about the number of angels who could dance on the head of a pin. The sense I took away from the first lecture was of an entirely self-contained and self-sufficient creator, who has no need of us mere mortals, and who therefore we should be wary of characterizing as just “the biggest thing around.” I detected a lot of references to St. Augustine, author of *City of God,* which I have never read but which makes me suspect that he was a rather rigid and judgemental father of the Church. The second lecture dealt largely with God’s creation ex nihilo (literally, “from nothing”) also apparently an idea pursued by Augustine. The danger we were cautioned of here was in thinking of *something* (besides God in the form of the Trinity) existing before the creation of the world. And the third lecture, which could have been illuminating, dealt with God’s relationship with us, bestowing upon us our “creaturely dignity” and us having the choice to act in accordance with our higher natures or sinning, which he termed descending to the bestial.
I could not be drawn to or love a God who was so detached from his creation. Prof. Webster minimized the importance of the concept (which is itself contained in Scripture, as I recall) that Man (that is all of us, men and women) is created in the image of God. And, being a believer that all of God’s creation was “good” in God’s site, I was disturbed to hear “beasts” characterized as being somehow sinful. By the way, it was rather interesting to me to hear Prof. Webster somehow characterize beasts as being somehow “fallen” as a result of “Man’s fall.” Hmmmm . . . I think a lot of us animal lovers feel that, though we may be fallen, God’s creatures still retain the pure goodness in innocence that He has given them – and that therefore our beloved animals can help us retain or regain our better natures. Of course, my notion is that God put us here “to tend the Garden,” that is, be good stewards of this Earth on his behalf, and that that includes responsibility for our environment and creation, including our fellow creatures.
Some such discussion was what I expected of the theme, God and Creation, but what we got was a lecture of “us” versus “them,” with “us” being wholly unworthy creatures subject to a God who is so much greater than us as to be beyond comprehension. This seems to me to be a rather futile belief system, more designed to drive away ordinary people than to provide them with hope and comfort.
I think God, as Creator of all, would want us to love our fellow creatures as well as our fellow man. Jesus did not say much about animals, but I think it is reasonable to say that it is implied in his preachings and his actions, such as the cleansing of the Temple and the innovative concept that God did not require animal sacrifice in his honour – which of course had been the usual custom in the Temple and was still the norm (several times a day, with more on special occasions and holy days) during Jesus’ lifetime.
Again, in discussing the nature of the Trinity as pre-existing (everything else) and of equally divine nature in all its parts, I think the essentially human nature of Jesus was superseded. Again, for us, it is not most important that Jesus existed before time, but rather that he was God’s Chosen One, and that as God’s Chosen One, he suffered the most ignominious death possible, rather than reigning in glory. The sacrifice of God’s beloved son, to show us that in this world, justice does not always come to those who deserve it in their lifetimes – but that it is more important to build up one’s treasure in Heaven than on this Earth – and that people who have much status, wealth, and education in this world must be prepared to be servants of all.
I can’t help but think of some of our class members who have found it concerning to hear about the layers of composition of the Gospels, with perhaps some parts being more “authentic” (as reflecting things Jesus actually said and did during his lifetime) than other parts, which may have been created a generation or more after Jesus’ death. I am currently reading two books by John Dominic Crossan, a former Roman Catholic priest and teacher, who left the priesthood in pursuit of more academic freedom and because he wanted to marry. One of the books is Jesus: a Revolutionary Biography, San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco, 1994, a shorter version of Crossan’s best-selling 1991 book on the historical Jesus. There is a lot of the discussion in Crossan that I am skeptical of – he uses social sciences to prove things about the historical Jesus which may or may not be true – for instance, that Jesus was illiterate, while I think it’s possible that as a precocious youngster he may have been taken out of his “peasant” milieu and better educated than most boys of his era. Jews as a people valued education and literacy, and I think his parents Joseph and Mary would likely have encouraged such an opportunity if it was opened to him. This possibility is not ruled out by the material in the Gospels, since we have little information about Jesus’ life prior to commencement of his ministry, and some of that material may not be historically accurate.
To get to my point, I am currently reading Crossan’s takes on Jesus’ miracles, raising the dead and exorcising demons. He notes that “demoniac possession” may have actually represented involuntary “trance states,” sometimes called “altered states of consciousness,” and that such states can be caused by a people’s being subjected by foreign conquerors, as the first-century Hebrews were. He posits that there is a correlation between an individual’s body and the “body politic,” and that therefore some events were particular to an individual but were symbolic of things occurring in society at large, while other things were systemic to the society but became reflected in the individual. So he refers to a couple instances of Jesus’ exorcisms, one the “Gerasene demoniac” referred to in Mark 5:1-17. He states that this specific event probably never occurred but the specific details of the story may have been originated at the time of the First Jewish War (66-73 A.D.). Crossan is not saying that such exorcisms never took place, but rather that “. . . they may have been too commonplace for oral memory to record in any save the most general descriptions.” (pg. 89)
Crossan notes specifically in the instance of the demon(s) named Legion:
An individual is, of course, being healed but the symbolism is also hard to miss or ignore. The demon is both one and many; is named Legion, that fact and sign of Roman power; is consigned to swine, that most impure of Judaism’s impure animals; and is cast into the sea, that dream of every Jewish resister. (pg. 90)
Here is the crucial point Crossan makes regarding these tales and perhaps much else of the material of the Gospels:
The case of the Galilean leper [in Mark 1:40-44] shows us how an action performed on one single body reaches out to become an action performed on society at large. And it would happen with or without Jesus’ intention, since body/society symbolism is a permanent given. As all the theological apologetics exercised on that story emphasize, Jesus is making claims about who regulates social boundaries, who determines cultural norms, who defines religious authority, and who decides political power. In that case, event becomes process. But the case of the Gerasene demoniac indicates the opposite phenomenon. I do not think there was ever an event such as that. It is, of course, possible that there was such a happening, but the event is just too perfect an embodiment of every Jewish revolutionary’s dream. In that case, most likely, process becomes event. For example, if in front of a hypothetical Lincoln High School in America there stands a statue of that president with upraised ax ready to smash through the chains binding a slave’s feet, is that true or false? Do we not have to respond that it is not true as event but is quite accurate as process? (pg. 94)
Sunday, October 25, 2009
Week 6 - Chapter 6 - The Gospel According to Matthew
As everyone knows, Matthew’s Gospel is the first in placement in any New Testament – reflecting the prominence given to the Gospel in antiquity and also perhaps reflecting ancient thoughts on the order of composition (Matthew, Mark, Luke, and then John last of all).
Whereas Mark’s Gospel contains the bare essentials of the story of Jesus, along with parables and sayings, in a rather basic and concise format, Matthew’s Gospel reflects the expanded and mature development of the Gospel. According to de Silva, again, Matthew’s Gospel is directed particularly at early congregations – that is, communities of believers in Jesus – rather than being intended as essentially a vehicle for proselytizing. Authorship of Matthew’s Gospel is not certain, though its ascription to Matthew the disciple of Jesus (the tax collector) was part of early Church tradition. De Silva does a good job of summarizing current scholarly opinion that Matthew authored a compilation of Jesus’ sayings which was retained by communities founded by Matthew, and that somewhat later, that collection of sayings was combined with elements of the Gospel of Mark and other sayings and traditions to create the fully-developed Gospel that we see today. While Mark is generally believed to have been composed by a follower of Peter’s in Rome, de Silva notes that Matthew’s was probably composed in a Jewish-Christian community, in a geographical area where relations with non-Christian Jews were also significant, most likely in Syrian Antioch. The issues dealt with by Matthew would have been important to these communities, and, as de Silva also notes, Matthew refers to Jewish customs without elaboration, assuming the reader is familiar with them.
De Silva notes that Matthew does away with Mark’s careful structure and substitutes his own – in particular, the creation of five lengthy discourses, which it has been suggested by Bacon, were designed to create a “new Pentateuch.” Also, de Silva notes an alternate structural device, in which the Gospel is broken down into three parts, the first dealing with the beginning of Jesus’ ministry, and the last two consisting of Jesus’ teaching on the Kingdom of God, followed by works confirming the coming of the Kingdom and teachings for the conduct of the Church.
The strength of the Jewish heritage in Matthew is noted by all commentators, but as de Silva indicates there is no agreement on whether the community in which and for which the Gospel was created was attempting to retain close relations with the synagogues and non-Christian Jews or not. What is certain is that there is material in Matthew that is severely condemnatory of the “traditional” strain of Judaism. It’s like Matthew is saying, “Look here, we are the true heirs of the Jewish traditions, the Prophets and the Covenant. Our forefathers often strayed into error, failing to heed the warnings of the prophets of former times, and now our fellow Hebrews are again failing to recognize God’s ultimate bringer of salvation, Our Lord and Messiah.” So, Matthew is on the one hand challenging the traditional Judaism which became embodied in Rabbinic Judaism, and which rejected Jesus, and also the non-Christian Gentile community – attempting to give recognition to the unique nature of the Christian-Jewish community which also included Gentile members as followers of Jesus.
Also noteworthy is the fact that whereas the disciples are presented as rather ignorant and lacking in perspicacity in Mark’s Gospel, Matthew portrays them, through some of the same narratives as Mark, as much more understanding and intelligent, comprehending the lessons of Jesus, despite the fact that they do abandon him at the time of the passion, as they also are depicted in Mark. Thinking of the fact that Mark’s Gospel was likely written by a follower of Peter’s, and Matthew’s was likely created in a community founded by Matthew the tax collector, I can imagine Matthew saying something like, “Speak for yourself, Peter.” Given their disparate backgrounds – Matthew was probably rather well educated in comparison to the poor fisherman Peter, it is not too surprising that Matthew’s Gospel, like Luke’s, seems to reflect the thoughts and experiences of a learned man. That is not to rule out the importance of divine inspiration – but it is apparent from the Gospels that the divine was able to make use of men and women from all backgrounds, if they repented and believed. It is this sort of understanding that can make the message of the Gospels alive and vibrant for our own day, in our own lives.
Whereas Mark’s Gospel contains the bare essentials of the story of Jesus, along with parables and sayings, in a rather basic and concise format, Matthew’s Gospel reflects the expanded and mature development of the Gospel. According to de Silva, again, Matthew’s Gospel is directed particularly at early congregations – that is, communities of believers in Jesus – rather than being intended as essentially a vehicle for proselytizing. Authorship of Matthew’s Gospel is not certain, though its ascription to Matthew the disciple of Jesus (the tax collector) was part of early Church tradition. De Silva does a good job of summarizing current scholarly opinion that Matthew authored a compilation of Jesus’ sayings which was retained by communities founded by Matthew, and that somewhat later, that collection of sayings was combined with elements of the Gospel of Mark and other sayings and traditions to create the fully-developed Gospel that we see today. While Mark is generally believed to have been composed by a follower of Peter’s in Rome, de Silva notes that Matthew’s was probably composed in a Jewish-Christian community, in a geographical area where relations with non-Christian Jews were also significant, most likely in Syrian Antioch. The issues dealt with by Matthew would have been important to these communities, and, as de Silva also notes, Matthew refers to Jewish customs without elaboration, assuming the reader is familiar with them.
De Silva notes that Matthew does away with Mark’s careful structure and substitutes his own – in particular, the creation of five lengthy discourses, which it has been suggested by Bacon, were designed to create a “new Pentateuch.” Also, de Silva notes an alternate structural device, in which the Gospel is broken down into three parts, the first dealing with the beginning of Jesus’ ministry, and the last two consisting of Jesus’ teaching on the Kingdom of God, followed by works confirming the coming of the Kingdom and teachings for the conduct of the Church.
The strength of the Jewish heritage in Matthew is noted by all commentators, but as de Silva indicates there is no agreement on whether the community in which and for which the Gospel was created was attempting to retain close relations with the synagogues and non-Christian Jews or not. What is certain is that there is material in Matthew that is severely condemnatory of the “traditional” strain of Judaism. It’s like Matthew is saying, “Look here, we are the true heirs of the Jewish traditions, the Prophets and the Covenant. Our forefathers often strayed into error, failing to heed the warnings of the prophets of former times, and now our fellow Hebrews are again failing to recognize God’s ultimate bringer of salvation, Our Lord and Messiah.” So, Matthew is on the one hand challenging the traditional Judaism which became embodied in Rabbinic Judaism, and which rejected Jesus, and also the non-Christian Gentile community – attempting to give recognition to the unique nature of the Christian-Jewish community which also included Gentile members as followers of Jesus.
Also noteworthy is the fact that whereas the disciples are presented as rather ignorant and lacking in perspicacity in Mark’s Gospel, Matthew portrays them, through some of the same narratives as Mark, as much more understanding and intelligent, comprehending the lessons of Jesus, despite the fact that they do abandon him at the time of the passion, as they also are depicted in Mark. Thinking of the fact that Mark’s Gospel was likely written by a follower of Peter’s, and Matthew’s was likely created in a community founded by Matthew the tax collector, I can imagine Matthew saying something like, “Speak for yourself, Peter.” Given their disparate backgrounds – Matthew was probably rather well educated in comparison to the poor fisherman Peter, it is not too surprising that Matthew’s Gospel, like Luke’s, seems to reflect the thoughts and experiences of a learned man. That is not to rule out the importance of divine inspiration – but it is apparent from the Gospels that the divine was able to make use of men and women from all backgrounds, if they repented and believed. It is this sort of understanding that can make the message of the Gospels alive and vibrant for our own day, in our own lives.
Saturday, October 17, 2009
Week 5 - The Gospel of Mark
Augustine dismissed Mark as an abridger or compiler of Matthew, but de Silva’s indicates that Mark (who is believed to have been John Mark, a follower of Peter’s) created the first Gospel, probably in Rome, or at least in the West, around the time of the destruction of the Jerusalem Temple in 70 A.D. or shortly before. The clues to its geographical source are that, although written in Greek, he uses a number of “Latinisms,” and he explains Aramaic terms for an audience that may not have been familiar with them. He cites Papias, an early collector of information about the Apostles and the Gospels, that Mark wrote down Peter’s teachings, taking care not to mis-state anything. Mark intended his Gospel to confirm the beliefs of the early Christian community, he writes, those who already believed that Jesus was the Messiah, rather than for the purpose of proselytizing.
We have been hearing a good deal about “Q,” a posited early written source of stories about Jesus and his sayings which was believed to have been used by both Matthew and Luke as a source. It appears that Mark did not use Q, so his Jesus sayings and stories are believed to be independent and early material, and his Gospel is also believed to have been used as a source for Matthew and Luke. I also understand that Mark’s Greek was not terribly erudite but de Silva does indicate that being rather simple and straightforward makes it particularly forceful. He also indicates that Mark traditionally did not get a lot of respect, partly because his was considered to be a later and lesser Gospel.
De Silva indicates that Mark’s structuring fosters his theological purpose. He utilizes what has been referred to as a “Marcan sandwich,” which suggests that this is unique to his Gospel. For example, he frames a narrative with two parallel stories, which serves to indicate the beginning of a thematic narrative and its ending. An example of this (of which there are several in Mark’s Gospel) is Mark 8:22 – 10:52, which de Silva describes as “a very tightly interconnected segment structured by three passion predictions and teachings on discipleship framed by an inclusion of stories of healing blind men.” (pg. 199) “Inclusio” is de Silva’s term for the Marcan sandwich technique, which he says was a common device in the ancient world, particularly in cultures where the oral tradition was strong.
Mark also uses the theme of the “Messianic secret” to further his theological goals. We know that Jesus is Messiah and Son of God, and the demons know (but are forbidden from revealing the secret) but the disciples and followers of Jesus must take the journey with him to gradually learn the truth of his identity and mission here on earth. Thus there are several instances of miracles and miraculous events, such as the transfiguration, in which the disciples know that Jesus is not an ordinary man – but even when Peter recognizes and confesses that Jesus is the Messiah in Mk 8:29, he seems to have a memory lapse of that fact as Jesus’s journey to the cross continues. Jesus also gives them hints but doesn’t fully disclose his Messiahship. For example, he forgives the paralyzed man’s sins at Mk 2:5, eliciting the reaction from the scribes that “He’s blaspheming! Who can forgive sins but God alone?” (Mk. 2:7 – NIV Study Bible) Jesus responds, inter alia, “Which is easier: to say to the paralytic, Your sins are forgiven,’ or to say, ‘Get up take your mat and walk’?” (Mk 2:8 – NIV Study Bible) To signify that the Son of Man has the authority to forgive sins on earth, Jesus then commands the man to take up his mat and walk. The people are amazed by events such as this but do not fully comprehend the truth.
What is the reason for the “Messianic secret”? De Silva suggests that one reason that Jesus didn’t openly declare his messiahship is that it would have been misunderstood during his lifetime. The belief that the Messiah would be a soldier-liberator for the Jewish people would have been so widespread that this hope would have overtaken Jesus’s real message and purpose had it been prematurely disclosed. Another more practical reason in my view is that had he been proclaiming himself the Messiah earlier, his life might have been terminated prematurely. I believe that the drama of Jesus’s life is that during his lifetime he did such miraculous things, he did bring hope, he did bring an ethical message for people, and he did proclaim the Kingdom of God – and then he was subjected to the abuse, the suffering and the death on the cross – and then rose triumphantly. Then the truth of his message of Messiahship could be perceived – but only when the disciples shared his appearances after the Resurrection were they fully able to bring his message to the world.
So – Mark’s Gospel contains a lot of good stuff and needs to be appreciated for what it brings to the life of believers and the church during some of the earliest years of Christianity.
Monday, October 12, 2009
Week 4 - Chapter 4 - The Four Gospels and the One Jesus
de Silva is starting to get into the “meat” of the debate about the composition of the New Testament, including a discussion of the search for the “historical Jesus” which may be recovered from the layers of the New Testament, extra-canonical sources, and even non-Christian sources. In particular, de Silva discusses the Augustinian Hypothesis (Matthew was written first, Mark abridge Matthew, and Luke used both Matthew and Mark), the Griesbach Hypothesis (which also gives Matthew priority, but says that Luke drew from Matthew and Mark used both in writing his gospel), and the Two-source (or Four-source) Hypothesis (Mark was written first, and both Matthew and Luke used Mark and Q as sources, perhaps with Matthew using special material (“M”) and Luke using other special material (“L”), given classic form by B. H. Streeter. De Silva pays scant attention to the “Holy Spirit Theory,” the theory of independent Divine inspiration for each of the Gospels.
De Silva discusses the various techniques, disciplines, theories, which have grown up in various academic communities, including “form criticism,” in which the sayings and stories about Jesus are studied to see which appear to be very early and thus authentic, “source criticism,” which considers what material was used by the Evangelists to compose their Gospels, and “redaction criticism,” which studies the ways each Evangelist edited the material available to him and incorporated it into his own Gospel, serving his particular ends.
Reading all the academic debate about the “historical Jesus” reminds me of the Hindu fable of the blind men and the elephant, an Indian fable. Here is a portion of the Wikipedia entry -
“The blind man who feels a leg says the elephant is like a pillar; the one who feels the tail says the elephant is like a rope; the one who feels the trunk says the elephant is like a tree branch; the one who feels the ear says the elephant is like a hand fan; the one who feels the belly says the elephant is like a wall; and the one who feels the tusk says the elephant is like a solid pipe.”
Yes, I do believe there’s a constructive purpose to be served by the search to uncover the “real” Jesus, but that too often scholars and writers tend to adamantly defend their own positions while refusing to accept the possibility of merit in the views which appear to contradict their own. De Silva quotes John Dominic Crossan, with approbation: “It is impossible to avoid the suspicion that historical Jesus research is a very safe place to do theology and call it history; to do autobiography and call it biography.” (Crossan, The Historical Jesus, San Francisco: Harper San Francisco, 1991, pg. xxviii, in de Silva pg. 182)
The reason to analyse the Gospels (and other material) to try to know Jesus is at least in part because of what de Silva says Augustine posited: that the Holy Spirit stands behind every word of the Evangelists, even if some parts of the Gospels seem contradictory. (pg. 177) That is, the Gospels reflect a higher, spiritual truth and are a challenge to believers to find the core of that truth. Historical Jesus studies can be seen as the results of the effort to uncover what Jesus actually said and did in First Century A.D. Galilee and Judea.
That is commendable surely, even if the effort is fraught with peril. Consider the above quote from Crossan. I am enjoying reading Crossan’s The Birth of Christianity, San Francisco: Harper San Francisco, 1998, which reflects many of the issues that de Silva discusses, from Crossan’s own perspective. Crossan was born and raised in Ireland and spent years as a Roman Catholic priest before leaving the priesthood in order to be able to marry and have more academic freedom. For some years he was the leader of the Jesus Seminar, which is referenced extensively in this chapter of de Silva. Crossan is imbued with a passionate interest in worldwide peasantry, and although he himself was not a peasant, he grew up with the tales of the oppression of Irish peasants down through the 19th. century. For example, in The Birth of Christianity he cites the example of a couple thousand of Irish peasants, naked and starving, dumped on the shores of New Brunswick by Lord Palmerston. Perhaps not too surprisingly, Crossan utilizes inter-disciplinary methods, including anthropology, archeology and history, as well as the traditional Gospel critical methods, and comes to the conclusion in his Jesus: a Revolutionary Biography, San Francisco: Harper SanFrancisco, 1995, that Jesus in reality was an illiterate Jewish peasant leading a social revolution.
My point here is that people become too fixated on their own theories. This may be a danger in attempting to place Jesus too much in the context of his era. That minimizes the possibility of Jesus being a messenger of the Divine, perhaps sent, in part at least, to correct excesses or errors in beliefs and practices of the traditional Jewish Temple priesthood, the Pharisees and other sects of traditional Judaism. There is a danger, in my view, not to recognize the possibility that Jesus may have been able to transcend his time and place, bringing the Good News for all time and all places.
De Silva discusses the various techniques, disciplines, theories, which have grown up in various academic communities, including “form criticism,” in which the sayings and stories about Jesus are studied to see which appear to be very early and thus authentic, “source criticism,” which considers what material was used by the Evangelists to compose their Gospels, and “redaction criticism,” which studies the ways each Evangelist edited the material available to him and incorporated it into his own Gospel, serving his particular ends.
Reading all the academic debate about the “historical Jesus” reminds me of the Hindu fable of the blind men and the elephant, an Indian fable. Here is a portion of the Wikipedia entry -
“The blind man who feels a leg says the elephant is like a pillar; the one who feels the tail says the elephant is like a rope; the one who feels the trunk says the elephant is like a tree branch; the one who feels the ear says the elephant is like a hand fan; the one who feels the belly says the elephant is like a wall; and the one who feels the tusk says the elephant is like a solid pipe.”
Yes, I do believe there’s a constructive purpose to be served by the search to uncover the “real” Jesus, but that too often scholars and writers tend to adamantly defend their own positions while refusing to accept the possibility of merit in the views which appear to contradict their own. De Silva quotes John Dominic Crossan, with approbation: “It is impossible to avoid the suspicion that historical Jesus research is a very safe place to do theology and call it history; to do autobiography and call it biography.” (Crossan, The Historical Jesus, San Francisco: Harper San Francisco, 1991, pg. xxviii, in de Silva pg. 182)
The reason to analyse the Gospels (and other material) to try to know Jesus is at least in part because of what de Silva says Augustine posited: that the Holy Spirit stands behind every word of the Evangelists, even if some parts of the Gospels seem contradictory. (pg. 177) That is, the Gospels reflect a higher, spiritual truth and are a challenge to believers to find the core of that truth. Historical Jesus studies can be seen as the results of the effort to uncover what Jesus actually said and did in First Century A.D. Galilee and Judea.
That is commendable surely, even if the effort is fraught with peril. Consider the above quote from Crossan. I am enjoying reading Crossan’s The Birth of Christianity, San Francisco: Harper San Francisco, 1998, which reflects many of the issues that de Silva discusses, from Crossan’s own perspective. Crossan was born and raised in Ireland and spent years as a Roman Catholic priest before leaving the priesthood in order to be able to marry and have more academic freedom. For some years he was the leader of the Jesus Seminar, which is referenced extensively in this chapter of de Silva. Crossan is imbued with a passionate interest in worldwide peasantry, and although he himself was not a peasant, he grew up with the tales of the oppression of Irish peasants down through the 19th. century. For example, in The Birth of Christianity he cites the example of a couple thousand of Irish peasants, naked and starving, dumped on the shores of New Brunswick by Lord Palmerston. Perhaps not too surprisingly, Crossan utilizes inter-disciplinary methods, including anthropology, archeology and history, as well as the traditional Gospel critical methods, and comes to the conclusion in his Jesus: a Revolutionary Biography, San Francisco: Harper SanFrancisco, 1995, that Jesus in reality was an illiterate Jewish peasant leading a social revolution.
My point here is that people become too fixated on their own theories. This may be a danger in attempting to place Jesus too much in the context of his era. That minimizes the possibility of Jesus being a messenger of the Divine, perhaps sent, in part at least, to correct excesses or errors in beliefs and practices of the traditional Jewish Temple priesthood, the Pharisees and other sects of traditional Judaism. There is a danger, in my view, not to recognize the possibility that Jesus may have been able to transcend his time and place, bringing the Good News for all time and all places.
Monday, October 5, 2009
Week 3, Chapter 3 – The Cultural and Social World of the Early Church –
De Silva presents an analysis of societies governed by conventions of behaviour – social customs and beliefs that were the glue that held the Greco-Roman and Judaic worlds together and were subsequently reflected in the writings of the early Church.
Firstly, de Silva discusses notions of purity and pollution. I am not an anthropologist, but when I read about purity and pollution, I think of “taboo,” and I think the concepts of purity and pollution in the Jewish religion operated in the same way.
Here is an excerpt from the Wikipedia entry on “Taboo” –
A taboo is a strong social prohibition (or ban) relating to any area of human activity or social custom that is sacred and forbidden. Breaking the taboo is usually considered objectionable or abhorrent by society. The term comes from the Tongan language, and appears in many Polynesian cultures. In those cultures, a tabu (or tapu or kapu) often has specific religious associations. Captain James Cook introduced the word into English in 1777 after returning from the South Seas.
The article mentions a number of examples of taboos, including ones from Judaism, such as the maintenance of a kosher diet and circumcision of males.
These concepts were one way for Jews to maintain social cohesion in a world where they were in a minority and non-Jews held most of the political and economic power. Thus there was a powerful temptation to assimilate with the larger populations in order to “get along,” but the strict belief systems including the notions of purity and pollution – for example, the fact that a person maintaining a strict kosher diet could not even eat with those who did not follow the same regime – encouraged the sense of group solidarity against the hordes of non-believers. And this was reinforced by the belief that these practices were commandments from God.
I recall two sayings of Jesus relating to Jewish tradition of purity and pollution – when his disciples were chided by picking some corn to eat on the Sabbath, Jesus said, “The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath.” And regarding the necessity of maintaining of a kosher diet, Jesus said (I am paraphrasing), that defilement occurs not from what a man eats but from every word that proceeds out of his mouth.
In the New Testament, Jesus frequently denounces hypocrites, defined in Wikipedia: “The word hypocrisy comes from the Greek ὑπόκρισις (hypokrisis), which means
"play-acting", "acting out", "coward" or "dissembling.”” Hypocrisy is an almost natural consequence, in my view, of beliefs which emphasize the propriety of external behaviour, rather than the sincerity of one’s internal feelings. Jesus frequently denounced, for example, people who made a great show of fasting or praying or praying in public.
De Silva moves on to a discussion of honour and shame in the ancient Greco-Roman and Jewish societies. At pg. 125 he states, “Honor comes from the affirmation of a person’s worth by peers and society, awarded on the basis of the individual’s ability to embody the virtues and attributes his or her society values.” He makes it clear that one could be in a position of great honour by virtue of one’s family origins, and that one could give honor or dishonor to one’s family through one’s behavior. I believe this is a belief system which is centered on an aristocracy, like the Roman Senatorial class, in which one must keep up appearances.
Although de Silva mentions that the use of appeals to honor were used by the authors of the New Testament as well as Greco-Roman rhetoriticians, this is another area in which Jesus’s teachings bucked the trend. For one thing, I suppose he himself, having originated from humble earthly roots, did not have the automatic aura of great family and position that many of the Pharisees and Sadducees would have had. For another thing, Jesus preached more of the importance of building up treasure in Heaven, rather than on Earth. Many of his preachments would have resulted in the visible externals here on Earth being modest in the extreme. So his exhortations were more on the line of “being right with God” rather than doing the proper thing so as to bring honor to oneself or one’s earthly family.
It should perhaps be noted that many Muslim societies today have a continuing strong belief in honour and the shame that may be brought – for example, if a woman of the family is raped, she may be killed. These are known as “honor killings.”
The next theme of this chapter is the discussion of “patronage and reciprocity.” Like the notions of purity and defilement, the relationship of patrons and their clients was central in the ancient Mediterranean world. This is a fascinating discussion, in which it is obvious that many of the terms which came to describe the mutual relationship between man and God were derived from client-patron relations. God is the “benefactor,” who gives to man by means of “grace,” despite the fact that men are often ungrateful for his gifts. Having been benefitted, man owed God a duty of “gratitude,” including loyalty to the benefactor, which would enhance the prestige of the benefactor. In this system there might also be a “broker” or “mediator,” who was himself a patron but arranged for his own client(s) to be benefitted by a patron greater than himself. In the Christian Church it is clear that Jesus was the mediator between the early Christians and God.
De Silva writes at pg. 135:
We gain access to God only through the Son, and apart from Jesus there is none who can secure for us God’s favor (Lk 9:48; 10:22; Jn 13:20; 14:6). Paul, in his formulation of “salvation by grace,” uses this background to articulate the gospel.
Perhaps most tellingly, de Silva continues at pages 135-136:
Paul reacts so strongly against requiring circumcision and observance of dietary laws for Gentile converts because this displaces the favor of God (Gal 2:21), evidenced in the benefaction of the Holy Spirit (Gal 3:1-5), which Jesus has gained has gained for his faithful clients (Gal 2:21; 5:2-4). It casts doubt on Jesus’ ability to secure God’s favor by his own mediation and thus shows distrust toward Jesus.
He also discusses the fact that among friends and family (who were equals) the relationship was one where all property was held in common. This became the model for relations between individual church members and between churches. Therefore, although the language of client and patron and mediator was used to describe the relationship with God and Jesus, the concept of stewardship came to displace the notion of patronage for the earthly members.
Lastly, de Silva considers the significance of the family in the ancient world. I already alluded to this in considering the concepts of honor and shame. de Silva states that family reputation was “the starting point for an individual’s own reputation.” (pg. 137) This was true throughout the Mediterranean world. Interestingly this is another area where, in a close reading of Jesus’s own words, the “family” of believers seems to be more significant for him than who one happened to be related to by blood. I think it’s fair to say this would have been almost heretical in the context of Judaism, especially as it was manifested in later days with the rise of Rabbinic Judaism. And, as the Church grew, de Silva makes it clear that the Christian community became a new family to the members, providing support and sometimes shaming actions toward those who did not live up to the standards of the community. These often replaced the traditional notions of family in cases where one’s blood relations (especially the father, head of the household) did not share the faith of the more junior family member(s), thus in some cases resulting in the junior member being cast out or disowned from his blood kin.
In summary, the concepts of purity and pollution, patronage, honor and shame, and family were the bedrock concepts on which Greco-Roman and Jewish society were based. These concepts held full sway in the world that Jesus was born into and grew up in, as well as that in which the early Church developed. I believe that Jesus, who preached to his fellows outside the context of a church or priests, seemed to be preaching the importance of the individual’s relationship with God and the individual choices which one makes rather than externals which in many cases are beyond one’s control. The beliefs and behavior which he espouses he says will give one eternal life. Jesus could almost be seen as being a First Century anarchist – just the relationship of the individual with God, going through Jesus, was of ultimate importance. And he even denigrates some of the traditional notions of purity and impurity and honor and shame and family relationships.
Recall the case of the woman taken in adultery. Jesus says to the crowd who are going to stone her, “Let those of you who is without sin cast the first stone.” He’s not saying that the woman’s behavior is proper – he says to her, “Go and sin no more.” But he is rejecting punishment based on traditional notions of honor and shame. Likewise, he says that people pay more attention to the “mote” (a small speck) in their neighbor’s eye than they do to the beam (huge piece of wood) in their own eye. It’s much easier for people to be judgmental about others, and they tend to rationalize their own failings.
The history of the Church, as it developed, to a certain degree, is a history of the development of equivalent institutions in a Christian context – different but analogous to the tradutional pagan and Jewish concepts of purity and pollution, honor and shame, patronage, and family. These things, in other words, enabled the Christian community to become established and to develop traditions which also bound the members to one another in solidarity against non-believers and heretics in the centuries to come..
De Silva presents an analysis of societies governed by conventions of behaviour – social customs and beliefs that were the glue that held the Greco-Roman and Judaic worlds together and were subsequently reflected in the writings of the early Church.
Firstly, de Silva discusses notions of purity and pollution. I am not an anthropologist, but when I read about purity and pollution, I think of “taboo,” and I think the concepts of purity and pollution in the Jewish religion operated in the same way.
Here is an excerpt from the Wikipedia entry on “Taboo” –
A taboo is a strong social prohibition (or ban) relating to any area of human activity or social custom that is sacred and forbidden. Breaking the taboo is usually considered objectionable or abhorrent by society. The term comes from the Tongan language, and appears in many Polynesian cultures. In those cultures, a tabu (or tapu or kapu) often has specific religious associations. Captain James Cook introduced the word into English in 1777 after returning from the South Seas.
The article mentions a number of examples of taboos, including ones from Judaism, such as the maintenance of a kosher diet and circumcision of males.
These concepts were one way for Jews to maintain social cohesion in a world where they were in a minority and non-Jews held most of the political and economic power. Thus there was a powerful temptation to assimilate with the larger populations in order to “get along,” but the strict belief systems including the notions of purity and pollution – for example, the fact that a person maintaining a strict kosher diet could not even eat with those who did not follow the same regime – encouraged the sense of group solidarity against the hordes of non-believers. And this was reinforced by the belief that these practices were commandments from God.
I recall two sayings of Jesus relating to Jewish tradition of purity and pollution – when his disciples were chided by picking some corn to eat on the Sabbath, Jesus said, “The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath.” And regarding the necessity of maintaining of a kosher diet, Jesus said (I am paraphrasing), that defilement occurs not from what a man eats but from every word that proceeds out of his mouth.
In the New Testament, Jesus frequently denounces hypocrites, defined in Wikipedia: “The word hypocrisy comes from the Greek ὑπόκρισις (hypokrisis), which means
"play-acting", "acting out", "coward" or "dissembling.”” Hypocrisy is an almost natural consequence, in my view, of beliefs which emphasize the propriety of external behaviour, rather than the sincerity of one’s internal feelings. Jesus frequently denounced, for example, people who made a great show of fasting or praying or praying in public.
De Silva moves on to a discussion of honour and shame in the ancient Greco-Roman and Jewish societies. At pg. 125 he states, “Honor comes from the affirmation of a person’s worth by peers and society, awarded on the basis of the individual’s ability to embody the virtues and attributes his or her society values.” He makes it clear that one could be in a position of great honour by virtue of one’s family origins, and that one could give honor or dishonor to one’s family through one’s behavior. I believe this is a belief system which is centered on an aristocracy, like the Roman Senatorial class, in which one must keep up appearances.
Although de Silva mentions that the use of appeals to honor were used by the authors of the New Testament as well as Greco-Roman rhetoriticians, this is another area in which Jesus’s teachings bucked the trend. For one thing, I suppose he himself, having originated from humble earthly roots, did not have the automatic aura of great family and position that many of the Pharisees and Sadducees would have had. For another thing, Jesus preached more of the importance of building up treasure in Heaven, rather than on Earth. Many of his preachments would have resulted in the visible externals here on Earth being modest in the extreme. So his exhortations were more on the line of “being right with God” rather than doing the proper thing so as to bring honor to oneself or one’s earthly family.
It should perhaps be noted that many Muslim societies today have a continuing strong belief in honour and the shame that may be brought – for example, if a woman of the family is raped, she may be killed. These are known as “honor killings.”
The next theme of this chapter is the discussion of “patronage and reciprocity.” Like the notions of purity and defilement, the relationship of patrons and their clients was central in the ancient Mediterranean world. This is a fascinating discussion, in which it is obvious that many of the terms which came to describe the mutual relationship between man and God were derived from client-patron relations. God is the “benefactor,” who gives to man by means of “grace,” despite the fact that men are often ungrateful for his gifts. Having been benefitted, man owed God a duty of “gratitude,” including loyalty to the benefactor, which would enhance the prestige of the benefactor. In this system there might also be a “broker” or “mediator,” who was himself a patron but arranged for his own client(s) to be benefitted by a patron greater than himself. In the Christian Church it is clear that Jesus was the mediator between the early Christians and God.
De Silva writes at pg. 135:
We gain access to God only through the Son, and apart from Jesus there is none who can secure for us God’s favor (Lk 9:48; 10:22; Jn 13:20; 14:6). Paul, in his formulation of “salvation by grace,” uses this background to articulate the gospel.
Perhaps most tellingly, de Silva continues at pages 135-136:
Paul reacts so strongly against requiring circumcision and observance of dietary laws for Gentile converts because this displaces the favor of God (Gal 2:21), evidenced in the benefaction of the Holy Spirit (Gal 3:1-5), which Jesus has gained has gained for his faithful clients (Gal 2:21; 5:2-4). It casts doubt on Jesus’ ability to secure God’s favor by his own mediation and thus shows distrust toward Jesus.
He also discusses the fact that among friends and family (who were equals) the relationship was one where all property was held in common. This became the model for relations between individual church members and between churches. Therefore, although the language of client and patron and mediator was used to describe the relationship with God and Jesus, the concept of stewardship came to displace the notion of patronage for the earthly members.
Lastly, de Silva considers the significance of the family in the ancient world. I already alluded to this in considering the concepts of honor and shame. de Silva states that family reputation was “the starting point for an individual’s own reputation.” (pg. 137) This was true throughout the Mediterranean world. Interestingly this is another area where, in a close reading of Jesus’s own words, the “family” of believers seems to be more significant for him than who one happened to be related to by blood. I think it’s fair to say this would have been almost heretical in the context of Judaism, especially as it was manifested in later days with the rise of Rabbinic Judaism. And, as the Church grew, de Silva makes it clear that the Christian community became a new family to the members, providing support and sometimes shaming actions toward those who did not live up to the standards of the community. These often replaced the traditional notions of family in cases where one’s blood relations (especially the father, head of the household) did not share the faith of the more junior family member(s), thus in some cases resulting in the junior member being cast out or disowned from his blood kin.
In summary, the concepts of purity and pollution, patronage, honor and shame, and family were the bedrock concepts on which Greco-Roman and Jewish society were based. These concepts held full sway in the world that Jesus was born into and grew up in, as well as that in which the early Church developed. I believe that Jesus, who preached to his fellows outside the context of a church or priests, seemed to be preaching the importance of the individual’s relationship with God and the individual choices which one makes rather than externals which in many cases are beyond one’s control. The beliefs and behavior which he espouses he says will give one eternal life. Jesus could almost be seen as being a First Century anarchist – just the relationship of the individual with God, going through Jesus, was of ultimate importance. And he even denigrates some of the traditional notions of purity and impurity and honor and shame and family relationships.
Recall the case of the woman taken in adultery. Jesus says to the crowd who are going to stone her, “Let those of you who is without sin cast the first stone.” He’s not saying that the woman’s behavior is proper – he says to her, “Go and sin no more.” But he is rejecting punishment based on traditional notions of honor and shame. Likewise, he says that people pay more attention to the “mote” (a small speck) in their neighbor’s eye than they do to the beam (huge piece of wood) in their own eye. It’s much easier for people to be judgmental about others, and they tend to rationalize their own failings.
The history of the Church, as it developed, to a certain degree, is a history of the development of equivalent institutions in a Christian context – different but analogous to the tradutional pagan and Jewish concepts of purity and pollution, honor and shame, patronage, and family. These things, in other words, enabled the Christian community to become established and to develop traditions which also bound the members to one another in solidarity against non-believers and heretics in the centuries to come..
Monday, September 28, 2009
Week 2 - The Environment of Early Christianity
Week 2 – Chapter 2 of de Silva – “The Environment of Early Christianity” –
My initial criticism of de Silva’s decision to open his book with a discussion of the development of the canon of the New Testament is answered here. In Chapter 2, he delves into the historical background of the New Testament, commencing with Judaism of the “Intertestamental period.”
The pressures commenced with the conquest of Jerusalem and the taking of the Jews into captivity in Babylon around 587 B.C. until Cyrus of Persia allowed the Jews to return in 539 B.C. Disillusionment with the reality experienced when compared with the promise of Isaiah meant that the Temple became not only the focus of the Jewish cult observances but also the focus of disunity as well. And continued pressure from power centers outside of Judea – most significantly the pressure of Hellenism that arose with the conquests of Alexander the Great from 336-326 B.C. - resulted in numerous factions springing up within Judaism. De Silva notes that apocalyptic eschatology became widespread at this time and is reflected in many of the early Christian writings.
I would explain “apocalyptic eschatology” (off the top of my head) as the effect of the distress caused with the reality with which Jews of the time were faced, the loss of self-determination, the belief that the problems were caused by insufficient adherence to the Lord’s commandments, the belief that if the Torah was observed with sufficient correctness, that ultimately the Lord would help His followers overturn the evildoers and would reward the just. Some believed this would occur on this earth – a soldier-messiah who would free the Land of Israel and re-establish the reign of God on earth. Some believed the rewards would occur in the hereafter, in the spiritual realm.
It does appear that, regardless of the form the reaction took, the majority of Jewish thinkers concluded that the oppression of the Jews, the dominance of the Hellenistic culture and the Roman polity, was caused by insufficiency of adherence to Torah. God had made a covenant with the Jews, bringing them out of slavery in Egypt in the time of Moses, giving the Jews his commandments, and bringing them to the Promised Land. According to de Silva, there was another promise made by God, that he would establish King David and that his line would rule for all time. The apparent failure of these promises led to successive crises of belief and the creation of what we would call coping strategies.
De Silva notes that each of the Jewish factions had “firm convictions, rooted in centuries of experience. . .” (pg. 38) He defends many Jewish practices, noting that they were not mere petty legalism but the result of beliefs that correctly following the Law was necessary to regain God’s favour. He notes that, in the face of the dominance of alien cultures, there were three options – 1) assimilation to the dominant Gentile world (especially the dominant Hellenistic culture) in varying ways, 2) to fight for political independence and autonomy (which included the dream of the Messiah, although he says belief in the Messiah was not essential to this option), and 3) spiritual renewal and purification, which included renewed covenant loyalty through Torah, the belief in priestly messiahs, and so on.
In the opening paragraph of the chapter, de Silva notes at page 37:
The word that Jesus brought was a “word on target” for Jews in early-first-century
Israel. The challenges that Christ-followers faced as they sought to respond to the
gospel were challenges posed by the conflict between the call of God and the demands
(and opportunities) of the society and culture around them (and inside them!). The
apostles’ visions for their congregations took shape with reference to and in response to
the local settings in which Christians were called to witness to the one God and his Christ.
Now this paragraph is poses an interesting and challenging premise. One could say Jesus’s gospel, bringing the “good news” is spot on for all time, not just the 1st. century A.D. But there was a confluence of factors, including Jewish monotheism with its belief in the one God, operating on their behalf through history, Hellenistic culture, and Roman hegemony, as well as acute disillusionment with the world, expressed partly through Platonism and Neo-Platonism, that Jesus’s message would not have been accepted earlier and would not have been possible in the same way after destruction of the Temple in 70 A.D. The conditions were just right at that moment in time, for a message such as Jesus’s to find fertile ground in Palestine and then to be spread around the Roman Empire and beyond in subsequent centuries.
On the other hand, one could say that Jesus’s message was not on target, in the sense that he was rejected by those with the political power and was executed by them in one of the most awful ways open to them. Probably those people thought at the time that the execution of Jesus would also be the end of his movement – just another rural would-be messiah, of whom there had been and would be a number in 1st. century Judea. It was the events after his crucifixion – his resurrection and appearances to the apostles after his death – that fueled a new courage and enthusiasm in them, to spread the Word of God throughout the nations.
My initial criticism of de Silva’s decision to open his book with a discussion of the development of the canon of the New Testament is answered here. In Chapter 2, he delves into the historical background of the New Testament, commencing with Judaism of the “Intertestamental period.”
The pressures commenced with the conquest of Jerusalem and the taking of the Jews into captivity in Babylon around 587 B.C. until Cyrus of Persia allowed the Jews to return in 539 B.C. Disillusionment with the reality experienced when compared with the promise of Isaiah meant that the Temple became not only the focus of the Jewish cult observances but also the focus of disunity as well. And continued pressure from power centers outside of Judea – most significantly the pressure of Hellenism that arose with the conquests of Alexander the Great from 336-326 B.C. - resulted in numerous factions springing up within Judaism. De Silva notes that apocalyptic eschatology became widespread at this time and is reflected in many of the early Christian writings.
I would explain “apocalyptic eschatology” (off the top of my head) as the effect of the distress caused with the reality with which Jews of the time were faced, the loss of self-determination, the belief that the problems were caused by insufficient adherence to the Lord’s commandments, the belief that if the Torah was observed with sufficient correctness, that ultimately the Lord would help His followers overturn the evildoers and would reward the just. Some believed this would occur on this earth – a soldier-messiah who would free the Land of Israel and re-establish the reign of God on earth. Some believed the rewards would occur in the hereafter, in the spiritual realm.
It does appear that, regardless of the form the reaction took, the majority of Jewish thinkers concluded that the oppression of the Jews, the dominance of the Hellenistic culture and the Roman polity, was caused by insufficiency of adherence to Torah. God had made a covenant with the Jews, bringing them out of slavery in Egypt in the time of Moses, giving the Jews his commandments, and bringing them to the Promised Land. According to de Silva, there was another promise made by God, that he would establish King David and that his line would rule for all time. The apparent failure of these promises led to successive crises of belief and the creation of what we would call coping strategies.
De Silva notes that each of the Jewish factions had “firm convictions, rooted in centuries of experience. . .” (pg. 38) He defends many Jewish practices, noting that they were not mere petty legalism but the result of beliefs that correctly following the Law was necessary to regain God’s favour. He notes that, in the face of the dominance of alien cultures, there were three options – 1) assimilation to the dominant Gentile world (especially the dominant Hellenistic culture) in varying ways, 2) to fight for political independence and autonomy (which included the dream of the Messiah, although he says belief in the Messiah was not essential to this option), and 3) spiritual renewal and purification, which included renewed covenant loyalty through Torah, the belief in priestly messiahs, and so on.
In the opening paragraph of the chapter, de Silva notes at page 37:
The word that Jesus brought was a “word on target” for Jews in early-first-century
Israel. The challenges that Christ-followers faced as they sought to respond to the
gospel were challenges posed by the conflict between the call of God and the demands
(and opportunities) of the society and culture around them (and inside them!). The
apostles’ visions for their congregations took shape with reference to and in response to
the local settings in which Christians were called to witness to the one God and his Christ.
Now this paragraph is poses an interesting and challenging premise. One could say Jesus’s gospel, bringing the “good news” is spot on for all time, not just the 1st. century A.D. But there was a confluence of factors, including Jewish monotheism with its belief in the one God, operating on their behalf through history, Hellenistic culture, and Roman hegemony, as well as acute disillusionment with the world, expressed partly through Platonism and Neo-Platonism, that Jesus’s message would not have been accepted earlier and would not have been possible in the same way after destruction of the Temple in 70 A.D. The conditions were just right at that moment in time, for a message such as Jesus’s to find fertile ground in Palestine and then to be spread around the Roman Empire and beyond in subsequent centuries.
On the other hand, one could say that Jesus’s message was not on target, in the sense that he was rejected by those with the political power and was executed by them in one of the most awful ways open to them. Probably those people thought at the time that the execution of Jesus would also be the end of his movement – just another rural would-be messiah, of whom there had been and would be a number in 1st. century Judea. It was the events after his crucifixion – his resurrection and appearances to the apostles after his death – that fueled a new courage and enthusiasm in them, to spread the Word of God throughout the nations.
Saturday, September 19, 2009
Week 1 – Preface: The Perspective of this Introduction;
- Using the “Exegetical Skills” Sections;
- Chapter 1: The New Testament as Pastoral Response.
Prof. Zacharias’s first lecture on September 15, 2009, followed the text fairly closely, which felicitously allows one to both hear and read the most important points. Both Prof. Zacharias and Mr. De Silva emphasized in their opening words the contrast between a devotional reading of the Bible and its academic study, which emphasizes an understanding of the Bible in its historical context.
Firstly, Mr. De Silva emphasizes that he is taking a “text-centered” approach and thus his book is not an attempt to elucidate “early Church history,” “Christian origins” or “the Jesus of history.” Thus the focus is on the chapters of the New Testament as pastoral responses to challenges faced by the early Church fathers.
Secondly, he states that he will be devoting a substantial portion of the book to “interpretive strategies that represent the major trends in scholarly stud of the New Testament,” through one or more “Exegetical Skills” sections in every chapter. This is amplified in the next part of the book, “Using the “Exegetical Skill” Sections,” which contains a daunting Index of Exegitical Skills by order of their appearance and by area of focus.
Thirdly, De Silva states that the discussion of how the texts being studied contribute to ministry formation gives the book a “distinctive focus on the church” and “the work of ministry.” By this he means not only men and women who are actually engaged as pastors or who are envisaging becoming pastors but also “the general ministry of all Christians.” So the book is intended to be of use to any Christian engaged in the serious study of the New Testament, not those who are involved in professional ministries per se.
Chapter 1 commences with a discussion, as the chapter heading indicates, of the New Testament as a pastoral response. He notes that the composition of the New Testament was a two-stage process, in which, first, the individual texts were composed, and second, those which were to comprise the agreed canon were selected. He notes that the earliest followers of Jesus had the Jewish Scriptures (the Old Testament), but that both Jewish Christians and Gentile Christians had been reoriented by the creation of the Christian community. Thus they needed something more particular to their needs.
De Silva devotes relatively little space in Chapter 1 to the discussion of the creation of the Gospels and more to the determination, after the texts were written, of which ones would be considered part of the approved canon.
I don’t have a source off-hand but recall having read that the first followers of Jesus believed, in light of his words, that the Kingdom of God was imminent. Presumably if it had in fact come about in the first years after Christ’s death and resurrection, the compilations which became the Gospels would not have been necessary. But as time passed and the Kingdom was postponed, the early Church felt the necessity of having the words of Jesus and the apostles written down before all living memory faded. This is alluded to only in passing by De Silva.
De Silva discusses the methods used by prominent men of the early Church – like Eusebius and Origen – who sought establishment of the canon by seeking consensus, classifying the texts as “acknowledged” and “disputed.” But he also notes significantly, despite acknowledging these early Church leaders, that the process appears to have been at work at the grass-roots level among the Christian communities of the day. The criteria which became established were 1) apostolicity, 2) antiquity, and 3) catholicity. And he also notes that some of the very earliest Biblical codices in existence, from the 4th, 5th, and 6th. centuries do nevertheless leave out some material (e.g. Hebrews) later included and include other texts (e.g. Shepherd of Hermas and Epistle of Barnabas) which were later generally eliminated from the approved canon.
De Silva concludes that, while all texts included were inspired by God, there were also other inspired texts (such as the letters of Clement) which, because they did not adequately meet the above criteria, were not included in the New Testament.
- Using the “Exegetical Skills” Sections;
- Chapter 1: The New Testament as Pastoral Response.
Prof. Zacharias’s first lecture on September 15, 2009, followed the text fairly closely, which felicitously allows one to both hear and read the most important points. Both Prof. Zacharias and Mr. De Silva emphasized in their opening words the contrast between a devotional reading of the Bible and its academic study, which emphasizes an understanding of the Bible in its historical context.
Firstly, Mr. De Silva emphasizes that he is taking a “text-centered” approach and thus his book is not an attempt to elucidate “early Church history,” “Christian origins” or “the Jesus of history.” Thus the focus is on the chapters of the New Testament as pastoral responses to challenges faced by the early Church fathers.
Secondly, he states that he will be devoting a substantial portion of the book to “interpretive strategies that represent the major trends in scholarly stud of the New Testament,” through one or more “Exegetical Skills” sections in every chapter. This is amplified in the next part of the book, “Using the “Exegetical Skill” Sections,” which contains a daunting Index of Exegitical Skills by order of their appearance and by area of focus.
Thirdly, De Silva states that the discussion of how the texts being studied contribute to ministry formation gives the book a “distinctive focus on the church” and “the work of ministry.” By this he means not only men and women who are actually engaged as pastors or who are envisaging becoming pastors but also “the general ministry of all Christians.” So the book is intended to be of use to any Christian engaged in the serious study of the New Testament, not those who are involved in professional ministries per se.
Chapter 1 commences with a discussion, as the chapter heading indicates, of the New Testament as a pastoral response. He notes that the composition of the New Testament was a two-stage process, in which, first, the individual texts were composed, and second, those which were to comprise the agreed canon were selected. He notes that the earliest followers of Jesus had the Jewish Scriptures (the Old Testament), but that both Jewish Christians and Gentile Christians had been reoriented by the creation of the Christian community. Thus they needed something more particular to their needs.
De Silva devotes relatively little space in Chapter 1 to the discussion of the creation of the Gospels and more to the determination, after the texts were written, of which ones would be considered part of the approved canon.
I don’t have a source off-hand but recall having read that the first followers of Jesus believed, in light of his words, that the Kingdom of God was imminent. Presumably if it had in fact come about in the first years after Christ’s death and resurrection, the compilations which became the Gospels would not have been necessary. But as time passed and the Kingdom was postponed, the early Church felt the necessity of having the words of Jesus and the apostles written down before all living memory faded. This is alluded to only in passing by De Silva.
De Silva discusses the methods used by prominent men of the early Church – like Eusebius and Origen – who sought establishment of the canon by seeking consensus, classifying the texts as “acknowledged” and “disputed.” But he also notes significantly, despite acknowledging these early Church leaders, that the process appears to have been at work at the grass-roots level among the Christian communities of the day. The criteria which became established were 1) apostolicity, 2) antiquity, and 3) catholicity. And he also notes that some of the very earliest Biblical codices in existence, from the 4th, 5th, and 6th. centuries do nevertheless leave out some material (e.g. Hebrews) later included and include other texts (e.g. Shepherd of Hermas and Epistle of Barnabas) which were later generally eliminated from the approved canon.
De Silva concludes that, while all texts included were inspired by God, there were also other inspired texts (such as the letters of Clement) which, because they did not adequately meet the above criteria, were not included in the New Testament.
Friday, September 18, 2009
Welcome to the Webworld!
Hi, All - or at least You Two! :-)
Having created the blog, I want to see how this looks now that I've added a pic.
This blog has been created as part of the course assignments for Danny Zacharias' course at Acadia Divinity College in the New Testament. I am excited to be taking the course by means of a "virtual seat," but feel to a certain extent I'm there on false pretenses. That is, I am studying at the graduate level, which I think is probably proper considering my academic background, but I have no, zero, zilch, nada background in Divinity studies. However, if I can outline some of my story, I do think my path of trial and error and discovery which has led me to this point may be of some interest. It will take some work to illuminate, however. Perhaps I might start by noting that I was the only child of two loving parents, who, however, came from different religious upbringings (my dad having been raised Roman Catholic and my mom Good Methodist :-)). For one reason and another, I never saw either of my parents attend church in my lifetime. Instead, I was sent on my own to the Presbyterian church which was within walking distance - but to which I had to make my way on my own on Sunday morning. I must say that this was not particularly conducive to my developing a strong sense of belonging in the traditional church environment - at least to that one. Perhaps it was a beneficial if perhaps unintended consequence that I have spent my entire life looking for the belief system that seemed the right one - hopefully the True one. :-)
Our first assignment, as I understand it, is to blog about our impressions of the first part of our text, David A. DeSilva's An Introduction to the New Testament: Contexts, Methods & Ministry Formation - and perhaps also our first "virtual" class, which took place on Tuesday, September 15, 2009. I will provide that hopefully later today!
Having created the blog, I want to see how this looks now that I've added a pic.
This blog has been created as part of the course assignments for Danny Zacharias' course at Acadia Divinity College in the New Testament. I am excited to be taking the course by means of a "virtual seat," but feel to a certain extent I'm there on false pretenses. That is, I am studying at the graduate level, which I think is probably proper considering my academic background, but I have no, zero, zilch, nada background in Divinity studies. However, if I can outline some of my story, I do think my path of trial and error and discovery which has led me to this point may be of some interest. It will take some work to illuminate, however. Perhaps I might start by noting that I was the only child of two loving parents, who, however, came from different religious upbringings (my dad having been raised Roman Catholic and my mom Good Methodist :-)). For one reason and another, I never saw either of my parents attend church in my lifetime. Instead, I was sent on my own to the Presbyterian church which was within walking distance - but to which I had to make my way on my own on Sunday morning. I must say that this was not particularly conducive to my developing a strong sense of belonging in the traditional church environment - at least to that one. Perhaps it was a beneficial if perhaps unintended consequence that I have spent my entire life looking for the belief system that seemed the right one - hopefully the True one. :-)
Our first assignment, as I understand it, is to blog about our impressions of the first part of our text, David A. DeSilva's An Introduction to the New Testament: Contexts, Methods & Ministry Formation - and perhaps also our first "virtual" class, which took place on Tuesday, September 15, 2009. I will provide that hopefully later today!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)