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.
Monday, November 30, 2009
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.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)