How Children Enter the Kingdom

At least once in his public ministry, somewhere, Jesus said to some people: "Unless you turn around and become like little children, you won't enter the kingdom of heaven."

When Jesus himself was a little child, he did enter the Kingdom of Heaven. He sat at the Nazareth Synagogue - and while I couldn't tell you if anyone else was learning anything - Jesus learned of his Father. One of the first things Jesus learned there, as a child, was the Shema.

Brian Fulthorp has a great post about that tonight. I'd better warn some of you, Brian uses the "o" word. I prefer not to use that word out loud, as often as humanly possible. But I do believe that what Brian says happens to be true. And it's very important. So go check it out.

Verb Challenge: Conditional Statements in 1 John 1:5-10

I was trying to make a quick point about LOGIC by referencing a well-known scripture, in English, but then I got caught up in the moment - at which Charles challenged me on the GRAMMAR, in Greek. Bless him. So I spent some time on it, and I'm convinced... that it's a bit beyond me.

Unfortunately, what I found was extremely intriguing. So I'll make this an A.P.B.

HELP!

Here's what little I noticed. Of the five conditional statements, one per verse, vv. 6,8 & 10 are within indirect statements where the main verb ("say") is an aorist subjunctive. With 'ean', that seems textbook so far. But the IF clause in vv. 6 & 8 is present indicative, while in v.10 it's perfect. And each THEN clause keeps changing its verb tense (v.6 pres ind, v.8 pres subj, v.10 imp ind).

In between, vv. 7 & 9 are directly conditional, with 2 IF and 1 THEN verbs in the present subjunctive for "we", but the 2nd THEN verb is a present indicative for "He".

When I line all that up in John's linguistic sequence, I can tell there's a definite pattern at work, somehow, in this grammar. But what is it?

v.6 "If we say" (at a moment?) "that we have" (indefinitely?) "and yet walk" (potentially?) ... "then we lie" (indefinitely?).

v.7 "If we walk" (present & abidingly?) "then we have" (present & abidingly?)

v.8 "If we say" (at a moment?) "that we have" (indefinitely?) ... "we deceive" (present & abidingly?)

v.9 "If we confess" (abidingly?) "then He is" (immediately?)

v.10 "if we say" (at a moment?) "that we've not sinned" (in the past, as in, *ever*?) "then we are making" (constantly from then on?)

???????????????????

For the record, I'm confident my spirit and God's spirit can work past the confusion just fine. But if there's something else here that would help out my mind, I'd dearly love to know that also. So any help here would be great.

Racism and Geography

I once knew a woman from Houston who said, "I wasn't prejudiced before I moved to Atlanta, but these black people around here are something else!" It was an ugly, insensitive comment, exponentially overgeneralized, and she didn't realize she'd said far more about herself (and the paths she had trod) than she'd said about Houston or "Atlanta".

Not far from downtown Atlanta (proper), I spent three years in grad school at night with other school teachers, all intelligent, working professionals at Clark Atlanta U - an HBCU where, humorously, I was offered a UNCF scholarship, which I declined. The perspectives on culture and race that my black colleagues shared in that environment were far more open, informed and well-nuanced than any discussions on race I'd ever had previously. And that tells you something about me. Nevertheless, it was a privilege and honor to graduate there in Education. It certainly was one.

I had forgotten my Houston friend's comment by then, so I can only wonder what my CAU friends would have said about her comment. But I'm sure it would have been interesting. Unlike many who argue about 'black and white', they took the care to discuss shades of grey. But now I'm the one oversimplifying. Ah, well. Short post.

There is always room for some generalization in describing our own past experiences. The sin of prejudice happens when we pre-judge people we've not met because something about them reminds us of others we've known - and yet not known. The sin of racism is when someone thusly prejudges an entire ethnicity. In other words, racism is overgeneralizing broadly misapplied.

Of course racism should always be condemned when it crops up, but generalizations aren't always racism. Ask any Kenyan if they're just like Ugandans. Call a Guatemalan a "Mexican". Tell Canadians they may as well be Americans. You'll find out. When self-referential generalities are held reverentially, they're often called "heritage". The application & attitude is what matters.

Generally, then, groups of people often do differ distinctly from region to region. On today's shrinking planet, ironically, my "prejudiced" friend and I could mingle in two different worlds just a few miles apart. But in the (much larger) ancient world, ethnic geography was, primitively, a bit more consistent. And don't forget, the perceptions of one person who travels across regions may say more about that person and their interactions (or their lack thereof) with a regional ethnic group, than it says about anything really.

All of this leads into a point I need to make about Luke and "the Ioudaioi".

But that's for next time...

Working past IFs

FYI: Whenever I say things like, "IF Jesus rose from the dead...", please understand that's just a logical idiom. It's a way to consider an argument AND what it depends on. It's also a way to be open and fair with various conversation partners. It's also a way to keep ourselves on our toes... imho.

For comparison, try 1st John. IF those "If"s are true of some ones, THEN those ones can just strike out the IF parts, and focus on the THEN parts. IF they want to. It just takes a bit of working past, before you can get to [that side of] the point.

1st John 1:5b-10, as read by a good christian as read by a Christian:

"God is light, and in him is no darkness at all. If we sayWe have fellowship with him. while we We do not walk in darkness. We lie and do not practice the truth. But if we We walk in the light, as he is in the light, and therefore we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus his Son cleanses us from all sin. If we say we We have no sin. We do not deceive ourselves, and because the truth is not in us. If we We confess our sins, and he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. If we We say we have notsinned. We make him a liar, and our Truth, because his word is not in in us."

The Elder John had some annoying compositional habits, but I guess for some reason, at the time, he felt those IFs were necessary. Sometimes they are.

Here's that passage rewritten. Same truth? Yes. Enjoy.

God is light, and in him is no darkness at all. We have fellowship with him. We do not walk in darkness. We practice the truth. We walk in the light, as he is in the light, and therefore we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus his Son cleanses us from all sin. We have sin. We do not deceive ourselves, because the truth is in us. We confess our sins, and he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. We say we have sinned. We make him our Truth, because his word is in us.

Now it reads naturally. Not like a logic puzzle. But for some reason, John gave us the logic puzzle. Curious. By the way, did you catch that "we" after my "therefore"? "WE" have fellowship. That's a very Big "WE". (Cf. 1:1-3.) It's may also be (partly) the same "we" as the next sentence. We have this thing that WE have to deal with, this "sin". Who has sin? We do. Thus, WE do. But look, here's what WE are going to do. (By the way, that may be a corporate confession... but let's not get into that here.)

Get the point? It's often well worth it to work past a few "IF"s. Transforming logic into a Story takes time. So keep at it, with me. And stay tuned...

NE Texas Bibliobloggers

At least 27 Bibliobloggers from the 'Top 50 362' list are currently blogging from Northeast Texas and might possibly be in attendance at the Southwestern Regional Biblical/Religious Scholarpalooza this weekend (the SWCRS). Rod, Lou, David, J.C., Mike, Tim and John (excuse me, and Brian!) are presenting papers. (program guide). That's quite impressive. Have a look see at their blogs, join us if you dare at the DFW Airport Marriott (map), and let me know if I missed anybody.

Bill Heroman	NT/History Blog	Independent
Brian Small	Polumeros kai Polutropos	Baylor
Celucien L. Joseph	Christ, My Righteousness	UD
Charles Savelle	Bible X	DTS
Ched Spellman	Says Simpleton	SWBTS
Dan Wallace	Contra Mundane	DTS
(and also)	Parchment & Pen	DTS
Darrell Bock	Bock’s Blog	DTS
David P. Melvin	Byt Dwd / בית דוד	Baylor
David Ritsema	New Testament Studies Blog	BCHTI
Eric B. Sowell	Archaic Christianity	DTS
J. C. Baker	J. C. Baker	Brite
J. K. Gayle	WOMBman’s Bible, The	TCU
(and also)	Aristotle’s Feminist Subject	TCU
James M. Kennedy	Seek and Read	Baylor
Jason Gardner	Eis Doxan	DTS
John Anderson	Hesed we ‘emet	Baylor
Matt Evans	Broadcast Depth	DTS
Matthew Larson	Matthew D. Larsen's NT Studies Blog	DTS
Michael Burer	Thinking Professor, The	DTS
Mike Fox	Fox’s Wanderings	Brite
Mike Whitenton	Ecce Homo	DTS
Nathan J. Barnes	Nathan J. Barnes	Brite
Nevada (?)	Epiginoskein	Brite
Patrick Woods	So Much For Straw	Baylor
Rob G. Reid	Jesus and Empire: A Postcolonial Perspective	Brite
Robert C. Kashow	Tolle Lege!	DTS
Rodney A. Thomas	Political Jesus	Brite
Tim Ricchuiti	If I Were a Bell I’d Ring	DTS
Todd Bolen	Bible Places	DTS
(and also)	Todd's Thoughts	DTS

Situating Stephen's Speech - 1

Ancient History writers often had to invent speeches. Obviously, they didn't have live audio recording. But neither did they have to purely invent. Writers could reconstruct speeches from interviewing the hearers. And sometimes more.

Our first point, then, is that ancient textual speeches aren't always pure-fact or pure-fiction. Like most human claims, they bear shades of the truth. Thucydides' work was generally much less fictitious than Herododus' was. Likewise, Polybius also built from first hand experience and live witness testimony. And in the 2nd century AD, Dio Cassius had more than enough evidence on Augustus' actual thoughts and opinions to have crafted some pretty believable content - at least - into the speeches he wrote for Augustus.

These were hardly uniform procedures. In early histories, Josephus has people say things he couldn't possibly have known about. But when Josephus worked from Nicolas of Damascus' first hand accounts, his renderings of Nicolas' own speeches must have been fairly close (in many respects) to the actual speeches that Nicolas actually gave.

Not that Nick-o couldn't have embellished his own record to make himself look good, of course: "And then I told Caesar..." Propaganda, no doubt, always begs to be doubted. But how much can ever be proven? Or disproven?

I will admit this much right from the start: Stephen's speech in Chapter 7 of Acts absolutely does fulfill literary and theological needs fitting with Luke's agenda. There's no question about that.

But I will argue this much right to the end: Having agendas doesn't force one to fabricate details. If you happen to have all the cards, then you simply have no need to bluff.

Now. Even supposing that, kindly, as a plausible option, many questions remain: precisely HOW could Stephen's speech be historical? How much of what Luke wrote could possibly be close, at all, to whatever Stephen actually said? How could Paul, as Luke's source, have remembered the content of one particular speech for so many long, drama-packed years? For that matter, why would that speech have been memorable at all, at the time, for the persecutorial Paul?

In other words - if the speech truly happened, and if it merely happened to give Luke such a perfect display piece for what his composition required at that point - then, even still - how on Earth did Paul remember [at least the core and basic thrust of] what Stephen said, when Stephen was so much Paul's enemy at that point? How could Paul have remembered so many particular elements [of what could easily have seemed to be, apart from Luke's surrounding literary context, a very generalized survey of Jewish history]? And - to the ultimate point of this inquiry - why on Earth would Stephen have spoken that [or something or anything like that] particular speech, in the first place?

I'm completely assuming, of course, that the event sequence of Acts 6-7 is historical. No, I won't bother defending that. If you can't entertain this one assumption for the sake of the rest of my argument, that's totally fine. Really, have a nice day. But for anyone game enough to consider these questions, stay tuned.

Or maybe re-read my last post for a hint at what I'll be suggesting...

Why are the Ushpizin so fitting for Sukkot?

I know it's Passover season, but I'm getting a head start on Tabernacles this year. Please read on anyway, friends - I need some real help with this one.

The Hebrew word Ushpizin means honored visitors, or guests. One traditional Jewish custom during the Feast of Booths [Sukkot] is to invite seven ancient figures symbolically into the family's outdoor Booth [Sukkah] as guests for the evening meal. The seven Ushpizin are: Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Joseph, Moses, Aaron & David. A list of real Hebrew all-stars, to be sure, but is there more to it than that? I think there is.

Unfortunately, the origins and date of this custom are disputed. Some attribute the practice to 16th century kabbalists, but other experts (such as Amy-Jill Levine of Vanderbilt U.) believe the custom goes back to the first century or beyond. In fact, Matthew 8:11 may be a reference to the Sukkah table of Sukkot.

I don't have great arguments for the earlier position, but it seems reasonable to suppose the 16th century claimants merely revived in their own region what had never died out in other places.(?) Whatever the case, I think I can state this much safely without arguing forcefully for ancient origins: the custom of the Ushpizin became widely adopted by Jews (in whatever century) because these seven figures naturally represent major themes involved with the season of wandering commemorated by the Feast of Booths. As Rabbi Michael Strassfeld observed in 1985:

"There is another connection between the ushpizin and Sukkot. All of the ushpizin were wanderers or exiles: Abraham left his father's house to go to Israel; all three patriarchs wandered in the land of Canaan, dealing with the rulers from a position of disadvantage; Jacob fled to Laban; Joseph was exiled from his family; Moses fled Egypt for Midian and later, together with Aaron, led the people for forty years wandering in the desert; and David fled from Saul. The theme of wandering and homelessness symbolized by the temporariness of the sukkah is reflected in the lives of the ushpizin." - The Jewish Holidays: A Guide and Commentary (Quill Paperback in 2002, via Harper Collins)

That same quote, by the way, is reproduced almost verbatim in The Complete How To Handbook for Jewish Living (2002), by Rabbis Kerry M. Olitzky & Ronald H. Isaacs, p.407 (w/o direct citation, which may be an honest mistake because they cite Strassfeld elsewhere). At the very least that makes three prominent rabbis who found Strassfeld's observation to be significant. I say 'Strassfeld's observation' because he also gives no citation and because I can't find anyone else making the point before 1985.

I asked Dr. Levine the briefest of questions about this last weekend at the Greer-Heard Point-Counterpoint Forum, and she replied, "Isaac never wandered". Well, maybe not outside Canaan, but Isaac was still nomadic. On that, note Strassfeld's exact wording, above. Still, Dr. Levine has me wondering about the validity of one Rabbi's observation... and I'd like some further opinions on this.

Why does it matter so much to me? Because the story of these seven Ushpizin takes up about 95% of Stephen's speech in Acts 7. Historicity aside for the moment, Strassfeld's observation once convinced me there was definitely a Sukkot flavor to Luke's account (at least) of Stephen's speech. So before I say anything else about Acts 7, I ought to do a bit more on the Ushpizin and Sukkot.

Why are the Ushpizin so very fitting for Sukkot? Is it because they wandered, in the sense outlined above, or was it something more general? (And where can I find more scholarly research about wandering/exile/mobility as a theme of Sukkot - not to mention of Acts 7?)

Dear Readers, if you could please notify any experts on Judaism to view this post, and encourage them to comment, I'd greatly appreciate it. Thanks so much in advance...

About Me

So who is this blogger, Bill Heroman, and what is he doing here? Well, let's see. How can I put this?

I'm a Baton Rouge Episcopalian turned Evangelical who spent ten years doing experimental house church before giving that up to focus on research. My focus is on reconstructing the New Testament Story as History. By trade, I'm a High School Math teacher whose degrees are in English Lit and Learning Disabilities. I also took four semesters of Greek, but that was sixteen years ago at LSU.

If I ever win the lottery, or become gainfully sponsored, I'll probably go back to grad school in history or biblical studies... but I probably won't work towards a degree. I'll just learn all I can, make friends, and look for feedback & advice about my own projects. I don't want to be a professor or make money selling books. I just want to publish them and give them away. Friendly financiers, feel free to phone me about funding!

For now, I'm blogging about Biblical Studies in order to share the main planks of my own thoughts and observations, online, until the most worthy bits can get properly published. I also blog about others' ideas that I'm just catching up to and figuring out. Obviously, I think there are some ways in which I might be ahead of the curve. In others, I frequently admit that I'm still way behind. In some blog posts, I believe I've made stunning observations. In others, I know I'll continue revealing the depths of my ignorance. Of course, on a really good day, I do all this at once!

If you're new to this blog, and especially if you're involved in Biblical Studies, here's what I'd most like you to read, that I've worked on:

Jesus In Nazareth
A Common Error: Dating Herod's Temple
Pauline Chronology
Chronology of the Gospels
Towards a Historical Nativity

In my views, I've been fairly called "very conservative" and it's true I'm extremely content with traditional faith and the Nicene Creed, but it's also well known that I tend to get frustrated with traditional practices... including when evangelical scholarship finds reasons to prefer views of the New Testament which just happen to support overly intellectual God-Theory and/or overly hierarchical Church-Theory. I'm not anti-intellectual or in favor of anarchy. I just don't think anything spiritual should be (or can be, actually) "systematized".

Therefore, if you're one of those in support of the current establishment, it's only fair to show you these posts as well:

Seminarians on History and the Gospels
Inerrancy and Tradition
Ten Books of my 2009
(former About page)

At the very least, please know this much, my conservative readers: I contend here by faith for the sake of the truth... and the facts... and the Story of Scripture! I don't know if all that makes you and I allies or not, but I'd very much like to discuss it. Leave a comment, introduce yourself, and let's begin sharpening one another.

Finally, for you "liberal" readers, know this: I submit that it might be worthwhile for some skeptics to accept - for the sake of argument - all the New Testament's natural and supernatural claims, and yet leave out external theological and ideological suppositions. If some skeptic trusted the scriptures, but looked fresh for their meaning, what would they conclude? In other words, what views have yet to emerge because faith-based research tends to strongly support institutional dogmas? I would LOVE to find out!

Mainly, I just want to help people understand the New Testament as evidence of a Story - a Story about Christ and His Church, above all, but also a particular Story with actual times, places, dates and a solid event sequence. There's a lot left to do to show that my timeline is the most likely, most reasonable reconstruction from all the known data. Personally, I think a lot of the "proof" boils down to reducing the logical options before compiling the chronological numbers. But I mean doing that holistically - taking ALL the first century data and finding out, what are the critical dates to build upon? (More on that, as we go...)

Anyway, that's a bit about me, what I'm doing here, and what you might expect to find on this blog.

So glad you stopped by.

Don't be a stranger...

Go, Go, Google Books!

Thomas Nelson CEO Michael Hyatt lists four reasons why authors, agents and publishers should get behind the Google Book Search program:

1. Google Book Search creates greater book awareness...
2. The biggest problem authors face today is obscurity not piracy...
3. Most people have no desire to read a book on their computer...
4. Google only allows users to preview 20 percent of a book's content...

Check Michael's blog for his expanded thoughts, and the story behind his new position on this. I also notice he didn't say local bookstores should like these reasons. Oh, well. This brave new economy may continue to get worse before it gets better, but I'm all for it.

I'm also keen to explore the benefits of self publishing through a subsidy publishing operation like Nelson's Westbow Press. Just as soon as I decide what to publish! (More on that sometime soon...)

Paul's Arabia (or) Nabatea and the New Testament

East of the Dead Sea and Jordan River valley, south of Philip’s Tetrarchy all the way to the Red Sea, the land of Northern Arabia was called Nabatea by the Jews, Greeks & Romans of Jesus’ time. Here is the story of Nabatea in the days of the New Testament, and how it affected Paul of Tarsus. (See also Acts 9, Galatians 1, & 2nd Corinthians 11:32; Tacitus, Josephus & Dio Cassius; and Roman Arabia, by G.W.B.)

Background:

The first Herod’s mother was Nabatean and the Great King almost let his sister marry a powerful Arab named Syllaeus. That rejected groom then waged a secret war against Herod in his eastern territories, lands claimed by Nabatea before Augustus gave them to Herod in 20 BC. The insurgency Syllaeus funded, which lasted from 12 until 9 BC, was ended when Governor Saturninus came to Syria. But Syllaeus, King Obodas’ chief minister, fled to Rome and accused Herod before Augustus. During the year or so before Herod was able to clear his name with the Emperor, Augustus had Saturninus begin a population census of Israel. By the end of 8 BC, Herod was proclaimed innocent, but the census was allowed to continue. In early 7 BC, the Romans had gotten as far as Bethlehem, where Jesus was born.

Meanwhile, Nabatea had a new King, Aretas, whose army helped Governor Varus put down the Judean uprisings after Herod’s death in 4 BC. But Arabian soldiers burned innocent villages along the way, so Augustus sanctioned Nabatea in various ways until 1 BC, a punishment most likely made shorter by Aretas’ betrothing his daughter to Herod Antipas of Galilee. Also during that span, the Herodian Philip took over the lands north of Nabatea, the same disputed territory of Syllaeus’ secret war. However, Philip managed a peaceful rule on the Arabian border, even though his Tetrarchy was half-peopled with ethnic Nabateans.

Herod Antipas married his Nabatean princess some years later but divorced her in 28/29 AD. John the Baptist was imprisoned and later killed for denouncing this move, but the more offended party by far was King Aretas. The Nabatean-Herodian treaty was now dangerously void... and yet Aretas took no action against Antipas while his brother Philip was still alive.

The War over Philip's Tetrarchy:

With incredible timing, Philip the Tetrarch died in the winter of 33/34 AD, mere months after Jesus had died (and risen) and not long since the new cult had been run out of Jerusalem. From Nabatea, King Aretas - who had been raised by the generation of Arabs who’d lost so much land to the Herods - now began operations to reclaim those eastern territories.

As the Nabateans began marching north, Rome was otherwise occupied. Tiberius Caesar was retired on the Isle of Capri and his praetorian prefect Macro (Sejanus' replacement) was running the Empire. The Province of Syria had also gone through a decade of absentee rule by one Governor Lamia, who was followed by Governor Flaccus, who died in 33 (or 34) and who was not replaced until Governor Vitellius, who arrived in Sytria in the year 35. But Vitellius’ attention was immediately absorbed by conflicts in other areas.

Aretas took the advantage of the moment, pressed as far north as the Golan Heights, and captured Gamala – a city of Philip’s now being held by the army (!) of Herod Antipas. Meanwhile, the Galilean Tetrarch himself had been working to gain favor with Vitellius, and got back in late 35 (from negotiating with Parthia on the Euphrates) to find his army destroyed at Gamala. Having already boasted by letter to Tiberius (about his efforts with Parthia), Antipas now spent that political capital by writing to Tiberius about the Nabatean attack. Of course, Antipas wanted Rome to avenge him.

By the summer of 36, Tiberius (via Macro) had ordered Vitellius to attack Nabatea, but the Governor chose to delay the attack (resentful of Antipas’ stealing credit for the Euphrates negotiations) and continued delaying for several months, until word came (in late March of 37) that Tiberius had died. At that, Vitellius turned back north, having advanced his Legions no farther than Trachonitis. Wisely, Aretas’ forces had retreated to within their old borders, and had done so probably before the end of the year 36.

King Aretas may never have expected his land grab to last forever, but the old man settled a debt to his ancestors in making the attempt. Nabatea pushed far enough north that Aretas' countrymen could take pride for at least that duration, and meanwhile (perhaps more importantly) the King himself took vengeance against his daughter’s ex-husband for his offense in disgracing her.

Tiberius’ proxy Macro went on to advise Caligula for about the first year of his rule, but it seems Rome took no further action against Nabatea after Vitellius turned back.

The Nabatean aggression was over and done with. Aretas died in 39 AD. In 106, Rome annexed Nabatea as Provincia Arabia. "Nabatea" was no more.

Paul's "three years" in Arabia:

It was during Aretas’ three year offensive (33/34 to 36/37), that Paul of Tarsus spent something like three Passovers in Aretas’ home country. Having previously fled from the Jews in Damascus, Paul entered Nabatea in early or mid-34 AD. Less than a year after "the" Pentecost, Paul most likely was able to locate and join with the (few?) Arabian Jews and god fearers who had believed after Peter’s message (Acts 2:10-11). Paul, the zealous ex-Pharisee, may have been more ostentatiously Jewish than others in Nabatea, and Paul’s new sense of mission to gentiles must have also made things interesting at some point... especially during a war between Arabs & Jews!

Some kind of conflict in Arabia is most likely what caused Paul to return north - despite the Damascene Jews’ wanting Paul dead - and whatever trouble was that bad could also explain the long distance arrest warrant Aretas’ official was holding. Although the Ethnarch himself may indeed have been a local representative of the Arabians resident in Damascus, nevertheless that official was also Aretas’ direct subordinate (2Cor.11:32). Thus, whatever details we are lacking, the overall implication is that someone in Nabatea wanted Paul brought back to Nabatea. Of course - somehow - Paul was able to escape from Damascus again, probably by the same basket/hole-in-the-wall trick that worked so well the first time.

Because the Damascene Council would have been far more likely to cooperate with such extradition requests before the war, and far less after, and because Aretas is very unlikely to have ordered or allowed a forcible extradition from Syria after Vitellius had swept Nabatea's forces out of the region, we conclude that Paul’s second escape from Damascus must have come prior to 37 AD, and thus Paul’s “three years in Arabia” now appears to mean three Passovers and perhaps a long summer – but no more than 32 months or so, altogether – in Nabatea.

So now to sum up, chronologically.

Year-by-Year Digest (34 to 37 AD):

Paul of Tarsus fell off his donkey sometime very early in 34 AD. The Syrian Governor had just died and so had Philip the Tetrarch. All territory between Damascus and Nabatea had just become leaderless, and with no Roman oversight at the moment. Aretas began taking steps to exert his influence in Trachonitis, and Herod Antipas (with or without Roman approval) occupied Gamala. Paul was in Nabatea (probably Bostra or Petra) by the middle or end of 34.

In 35, Aretas took Gamala while Antipas was away at the Euphrates with Governor Vitellius. So far as we know, this year marks the farthest Aretas pushed north. There is no evidence that Nabatea ever had any control of Damascus in this era, at all. As for Paul, he stayed in Arabia/Nabatea all year - far away from the fighting.

In 36, Vitellius received Tiberius’ order to repulse the Nabateans, but the Governor was busy elsewhere. Aretas probably got wind and began to withdraw late this year. (At any rate, there was no Roman-Nabatean fighting.) Paul fled Nabatea, probably that summer, and escaped from Damascus on his way to Jerusalem. His short stays in those cities preceded a sea voyage home to Tarsus (Acts 9:30), upon which Paul must have embarked before October.

In 37, Vitellius spent an extended personal visit in Jerusalem, before and after the Passover, spitefully forcing Antipas to play host while further delaying his attack on Nabatea. Tiberius died on March 15, and the news reached Jersualem (by relay couriers, surely) a few days after Passover. At that point, Vitellius considered the Emperor’s orders as moot, and turned back to Antioch without bothering to avenge Antipas.

Epilogue - the rest of 37 AD:

The prefect Macro eased Rome’s transition to Caligula (whose first year in power was devoid of his later, infamous lunacy). One of the new Emperor’s first acts was to give Philip’s Tetrarchy to Caligula's own uncle Claudius’ childhood playmate, Herod Agrippa I. Maintaining decades of continuity in Eastern policy, Rome once again placed a buffer state between Petra and Damascus.

Finally - some time after Paul left Jerusalem, most likely while Vitellius and his Antioch staff were lingering during the festival, rumors came to the church there about Christians in Antioch. Soon after, Barnabas was headed for northern Syria, by way of Tarsus in Cilicia...

And of course, that's the start of a whole other story.

Furniture & Location in James 2:3

There's some good conversation budding below Matt Sevans' post on "Synagogue" in James 2:2, and I wanted to ask this follow up question over here. Does James' contrast between places to sit (in 2:3 - "a good place" versus "here by my footstool") offer any clues as to whether his readers were expected to meet in a home setting or inside a 'traditional' Synagogue?

It may be impossible to say, largely because we can't even say all Synagogues (assemblies) met in a Synagogue (building). Not hardly. As I noted somewhere here previously, about Nazareth's Synagogue, it's likely the architectural form was less important before the Temple's destruction, and we have plenty of evidence that Jews gathered in open areas, by rivers, gates and in personal houses. At least, I think I recall reading that archaeologists date most extant Synagogues after 70 AD, for whatever that's worth.

Still, I've often thought about this question in conjunction with Jesus' words about Jews who loved to sit in the "chief seats". Before I knew more about Synagogue history, I used to lean pretty heavily on that thought, supposing that . I still think James was most likely writing to Christian-Jews who still went to their Synagogues. (Actually, my personal theory is that James' Epistle was good public relations, sent to the entire Diaspora on behalf of those Jewish Christians, for the express purpose of showing that Christ's followers were (or at least, could be) still Jews first. And really good Jews at that. But I digress...)

Getting back to my point about furniture. Whether in a home setting or 'Synagogue', the likelihood of having "good" seats may have been better among congregations that had been established for decades (if not centuries). Likewise, such mature congregations would also have more corporate awareness of budgetary realities, and be more tempted to court the affection of rich visitors. In both points, it's also fair to suggest James was writing about something he'd seen happen generally (assuming the letter's points were general admonitions to a wide assortment of congregations). In all of these cases, I think it more likely James wrote to Jewish congregations.

Any thoughts?

Gamaliel's Galilean Theudas

The Sanhedrin had been confident. No prophet comes out of Galilee. Jesus had never been educated, and the same was true of his followers. But these north country fishermen were converting multitudes, and when the surrounding villagers swarmed in for a new wave of healings, the Council had their first real crisis moment since Jesus died.

We know Annas, Caiaphas & the Sadducees drew power from Jerusalem's wealthy, while Gamaliel and the Pharisees were preferred among common folks. The Sadducees had no trouble keeping control - partly because Rome favored the upper classes - but if local villagers were joining with Galileans, the Sadducees had new reasons for concern. If two separate Pharisee constituencies came closer together, it could bring on unpredictable political change.

Annas had maintained stability since Quirinius' census (6 AD) and there had been no outright rebellion in Israel since King Herod's death (4 BC). The last revolt that almost broke out was Judas the Galilean, whose plot to rebel was snuffed out by Quirinius in 6 AD. Prior to that, multiple uprisings had occurred in Judea, Idumea and Galilee after Herod's death in 4 BC. It had been four decades since an uprising, but Annas was aiming at a legacy and a dynasty. There must not be another.

Gamaliel, for his part, knew it was much better to keep the smaller half of a loaf than to try seizing it all. Like his predecessor Hillel, Gamaliel focused on teaching the law. Practically, therefore, he had nothing to gain from political turmoil. He, too, did not want the people to swell and demand more.

The Sanhedrin had been confident. But now they feared revolt. "You intend to bring this man's blood upon us." Peter, oddly, didn't deny the rebellion charge - and the Sanhedrin was ready to kill them.

Then Gamaliel spoke up.

Wait. Time out. Most commentators assume Luke has made a chronological error by having Gamaliel refer to "Theudas" in Acts 5:36. The famous Theudas of 45 AD - who claimed to be the messiah and led people out toward the wilderness - would indeed be anachronistic to mention at this point, and Luke's error is plausible even if we date Acts as early as possible. However, it may not be so simple as that.

The Sanhedrin's crisis in Acts 5 was the threat of rebellion, but Theudas' peculiar uprising was non-aggressive, so far as we can tell. Josephus calls his followers deluded, which they must have been to think that merely crossing the Jordan (into what was still Provincia Judaea in 45 AD) would mean anything at all. They were easily cut down by a single troop of horsemen and Josephus specifically tells us it ended before they had been able to make any advantage (at all) out of Theudas' crazy designs.

Commentators suggest that Gamaliel's description of Theudas "claiming to be somebody" best fits the Theudas of 45 AD, who did claim to be the messiah. But there's nothing strictly messianic about Gamaliel's statement. Furthermore, Gamaliel's Theudas - whoever he was - had 400 men, perhaps enough (even without weapons) to suggest more than "one troop of horsemen" be sent after them.

If Luke was merely confused, all bets are simply off, but if Luke was specifically referring to this messianic Theudas, as most commentators claim, then Luke's "chronological" error would be more problematic than a simple mistake in arithmetic. The movement in 45 AD came four years after the family of Annas lost control of the High Priesthood, one year after Herod Agrippa's death, about the same time when the sons of Judas the Galilean were also snuffed out trying to resurrect their father's philosophy.

When this Theudas was killed, Claudius was Emperor and Judea was under Procurators for a second time, having just lost their independent kingdom under Agrippa. The political tension that was building up at that time was pro-Jewish, anti-Roman, independence flavored.

But Gamaliel claims to speak of a Theudas who came before Judas of Galilee, who rose up in the days of the census. Whatever else Luke thought about Quirinius, and whether he ran one or two censuses, there can be no mistaking who Gamaliel means by this Judas. That gives us a Theudas whom commentators believe Luke has placed - not just in the wrong year - under the wrong Emperor, King and much worse.

To belong before Judas of Galilee, Luke's Theudas should have rebelled under Augustus and Herod the Great, or his son Archelaus. Josephus' Theudas (45) was killed by Romans. Gamaliel does not specify who killed his Theudas, but any Theudas before 6 AD would have been killed by Herodian forces (unless he rebelled in 4/3 BC). In short, the contextual differences are enormous, making it hard to believe Luke was somehow that confused.

To the point, if Luke WAS so confused, how can we possibly believe he knew enough to specifically meant the later Theudas? And if Luke merely grabbed a name, again, how can commentators be sure which Theudas Luke meant? Just as Josephus names two Galilean rebels named Judas, it is certainly possible there was some other, earlier Theudas. At any rate, the problems listed above suggest the usual critique is too easy.

If we're going to find fault with Luke on Acts 5:36, it would be simpler and more plausible to suggest Luke got the name wrong. If Gamaliel's "Theudas" were instead the earlier "Judas" (son of Ezekias) who led one of the 4 BC uprisings, a lot of things about Acts 5:36 would suddenly make a lot more sense.

For one thing, the Judas of 4 BC was from Sepphoris in Galilee. Changing Theudas to Judas gives Acts 5 a thoroughly Galilean context, making Gamaliel's speech even more appropriate, and explaining why he chose that particular rebel of 4 BC, instead of Athronges or Simon the slave, whose movements also came quickly to nothing.

For another thing, Judas of Sepphoris did militarize. He terrorized people physically and led enough men to seize a royal armory and hold Sepphoris briefly against a Roman siege. Instead of "one troop of horsemen", Judas of Sepphoris was brought down when an entire Roman Legion burned the whole city. Could "about 400 men" hold an entire city? They could - especially if they'd already terrorized the rest of the populace into going along, most of whom presumably would have claimed coercion afterwards and thus avoided being counted as Judas' men.

Okay, let's consider this in context. Time back in.

Gamaliel stands up and reminds everyone of the last two rebellions that started in Galilee. Popular in rural Galilee, the Pharisee specifically indicts his own constituency, perhaps partly to ease the fears of the Sadducees. His laizzez-faire attitude is backed up by his confidence that Galileans (especially) don't ever get very far with these things. His acceptance of those past failures reminds everyone that the Pharisees are content with the current political situation. In this context, Gamaliel's phrase "if it is of God" sounds as skeptical as it does logical. In the subtext, he's already declared his true expectations.

I submit this reading of Acts 5 is more emphatic with a Galilean Theudas. If both movements mentioned by Gamaliel were rooted in Galilee, it's not only more appropriate to the situation - it also helps explain why the prominent Pharisee voice would have been the best one for quieting controversy on that particular day.

-----------------------------
*Compare, by the way, the incident in John's Gospel (7:52) when Nicodemus (also a Pharisee) was shouted down for speaking well of a Galilean.

**PS: Thanks also to Mike Koke for reminding me to blog about this one.

We follow only the Torah!

When James & Paul wrote about "works of the law", they each meant "the law" according to their own interpretation of it. Or according to the traditional interpretations through which they'd come up. So says Martin Abegg, according to David Stark.

I gasped audibly when I made the following connection. This sounds exactly like when christians say "We follow only the Bible!" What they always mean, of course, is the Bible according to them.

Suddenly I'm re-reading Paul's critiques on "works of the law" as if he were attacking "only the Bible". That's fascinating, and fun, but I don't know how well it fits in the first century. So if anyone who's read Abegg would respond to my sudden apostrophe, I'd be glad for the feedback. Or just try it on with me and see what you think...

Does Living Water "seek its own level"?

This is a bit philosophical for me, but I was just reading skimming Daniel Kirk's longish post on Douglas Campbell's massive book about Romans, so blame them! Anyway, here's the question:

God said, "Jacob have I loved, Esau have I hated." Pontius Pilate said, "What I have written, I have written." And a lot of human beings have figured out a lot of instances in which certain things just only work in certain ways. And while I don't have any idea what the arguments are about God, Jacob & Esau - I think I heard once that Calvinists have some strong ideas about that one - all I'm wondering is this:

What if God was simply saying, after the fact, "It is what it is."(?)

I really don't know. Maybe not. Maybe Jacob was simply chosen. Maybe Jacob was simply a divine exercise in nature vs. (divine, long term) nurture. Maybe it was just like what the Duke Brothers did to poor Dan Aykroyd that one time. Or maybe... maybe God could just look inside both young men as they were developing and see which of Isaac's sons was going to be more suitable for loving, for a lifetime, by God's own divine standards.

Maybe God was thinking (partly): Jacob, I was able to work with.

Again, I'm not after theological implications of all this, but I will point out these are precisely the kinds of questions I think we should most avoid drawing firm conclusions about. In either case, it's the same for us, here & now.

Practically, we should just do our 'best' to make a way for the Water. (Amen?)

Did Peter visit Corinth?

Ph.D student Philip J. Long has a great post today about "the Historical Peter". One of the issues discussed there caused me to (finally) write this post here. Enjoy. (Update (2/23): Philip and I have extended this discussion here.)

Concluding that Peter did visit Corinth is a lynchpin of my Pauline Chronology, because it pushes 1st Corinthians back at least one sailing season after Acts 18:18-22 (which, combined with Paul's plans changing after Claudius' death, nails 1st Cor. down to 54 AD). But is this certain? Did Peter travel and minister to Paul's church in Corinth? While it's not the tightest slam dunk in the history of History, here are FIVE REASONS why I believe Peter DID go to Corinth.

1) It makes more sense for the faction brandishing Peter's name to do so if Peter had actually visited them personally. One thing that is clear from the Gospels, Acts & Galatians is that Peter stood out and stirred things up. He was a dynamic figure, evoking reactions from people wherever he went, even by accident. The mere mention of Peter in Rome inspired the Catholic tradition that Peter was Pope number one. True or not, there's a reason that sold so well. If Peter DID visit Corinth, it would be nearly impossible to imagine him NOT starting a faction - if inadvertently so.

2) If the faction had merely been looking for a figurehead from the mother church, James was a much better choice. After the Council in Acts 15, it is clear that James (not Peter) was the head honcho in Jerusalem. Furthermore, James' letter had gone out by this time, to the entire diaspora. James was revered among Jews who were not even believers, and James' was the name brandished by Judaizing factions elsewhere (Galatia, Jerusalem, Antioch). If Peter did NOT visit, we should more likely expect to see James' name in 1st Corinthians (not Peter's).

3) Dating Galatians after Acts 15 means Paul didn't go out of his way to share Jerusalem's letter with churches other than Antioch. But the issues of Jerusalem's letter - especially meat sacrificed to idols, and fornication - are extremely prominent in much of Paul's letter. Although there are many ways those issues could have come up in Corinth, it seems as if they have all come up at once. Combined, this suggests Corinth had recently heard about Jerusalem's letter to Antioch - and the best way for that to have happened is if an elder or apostle present at that Council meeting had personally come to Corinth and shared about it.

4) Similarly to point 3 - the amount of ink Paul spills on the issue of tongues suggests that something (or someone) has recently stirred up the Corinthians regarding this issue. Yes, Paul spoke in tongues (14:18), but - assuming things in Paul's letters are generally things Paul had not gotten to say to a church during his time in their city - it seems Paul had previously left the Corinthians somewhat if not largely "ignorant" (12:1) about much of what he has to say on the topic. Again, there are many ways the issue could have gained prominence, but our best guess is that Peter came to town speaking in tongues (his particular giftedness in that area was world-famous, after all).

5) Also likewise to points 3 & 4 - The two mentions of healing in chapter 12 similarly demand that we ask: who was healing? In the NT, Paul is not reported to heal until Acts 19 & 20. We might imagine there were lots of believers performing miracles at that time, but we don't have evidence for that. So, once again, if we ask how the Corinthians could have met anyone with healing powers, a visit from Peter must be our chief hypothesis.

Now let's be clear. Only points 1 & 2 directly address the question at hand - Did Peter visit Corinth? In contrast, points 3-5 reverse the issue, raising three other questions and suggesting Peter's visit to Corinth as the most likely answer in each case. Full disclosure: these three issues are what first convinced me that Peter must have gone there. But for more on that question directly, start with Philip's post again.

Want some fun? Here's a dare.

Try this. Assume Peter DID go to Corinth. If so, it was only his second apostolic foray into Gentile territory, as far as we know, and we do know his first foray set off a major crisis at Antioch. It makes sense that something similar could have happened again. For instance...

If Peter had innocently assumed all the gentile issues had really been fixed by Jerusalem's letter (an assumption easier to maintain from Jerusalem, but one which Paul's entire career proves is false) - then Peter probably went in unprepared; overconfident that all was well. The controversies were all taken care of. In that mindset, Peter casually mentions Jerusalem's letter. At that point, most likely, someone in Corinth says, "What letter?" (Open can. Eat worms. Commence barfing.)

Now, read 1st Corinthians again, add then judge for yourselves. Like too many things, the evidence isn't airtight, but of this much I'm certain:

If Peter did go to Corinth, it would really explain quite a lot.