In 27 BC, four years after becoming sole ruler of the Roman oikoumene (inhabited world), Augustus Caesar expanded his slate of tax reforms to include registrations in all of the Empire's Provinces. Prior to that year, Rome only took a census in Italy. After that year, Augustus made sure his Governors could not over-fleece Rome's provincial flocks.
In 9 BC, Augustus Caesar unjustly demoted Herod the Great from "friend" to "subject". Herod's chief advisor Nicolas wasn't able to clear up the confusion for almost a year, during which time Augustus must have instigated the census recorded by Luke. The Emperor's ex-brother-in-law, Gaius Sentius Saturninus, may be the one who decided on the odd "each to his own city" requirement.
As Governor of Syria until 6 BC, Saturninus may or may not have received assistance from one Quirinius (who in any event did not take a Judean census as Governor until 6 AD). Whether Luke was wrong, or whether Luke's meaning is obscure, Quirinius does not actually factor into the birth of Christ so far as we know.
The logistics were ridiculous but thorough. Above all, they would have been time consuming. Rome could not staff every city in Herod's Kingdom at once, and the cities could not simultaneously have hosted both soldiers and homecoming visitors while also under-staffed locally. It could not have been "fruit-basket turnover" all at once. Somehow, Saturninus had to advance-publish a staggered schedule of times and locations for each city to be registered. If they got behind schedule, the Governor would have had to republish a new schedule, kingdom-wide. Therefore, it's more likely Saturninus drew up a schedule with plenty of breathing room. Or reverted to one.
At any rate, this could not have been a quick census. It probably took most of 8 and 7 BC to accomplish. Once begun, it continued, even though Herod was reconciled with Augustus in late 8 BC.
By the time Syria's cohorts had moved down as far as Bethlehem, Joseph and Mary were living in Bethlehem. The scandal back in Nazareth made it easier to relocate, which must be why Mary went along. (Presumably, women were not required to be present at these registrations. By the way, property was not registered in Judea until 6 AD, at which time it famously sparked talk of rebellion.)
We know Mary was pregnant on the road to Bethlehem. The young couple must have moved in with Joseph's kinfolk (extended-family home living was very common) and yet they did not have enough space for the new mother to take her own room in the house. During her time of uncleanness, after childbirth, Mary and Jesus would have to stay with the household livestock. Whether that meant a stable, cave, lean-to or outbuilding, the son of God was placed in a feed-trough.
Bethlehem's registration took place shortly before or sometime after the Lord's birth. The census itself continued on, probably in a southward direction. We can say for sure it was over before summer of 6 BC, when Saturninus returned to Italy.
If Jesus was born anywhere between April of 7 BC and March of 6 BC, then he was twelve years old in March of AD 7. That was the first spring Joseph allowed Jesus to go to Jerusalem for Passover, because it was also the first spring Herod's son Archelaus was banished from Palestine.
The first conjunction of Saturn and Jupiter took place in late May, 7 BC. The Magi may have arrived after the third conjunction, that December. If Jesus was 6-8 months old when they arrived, it could explain why Herod thought he might be toddling already. The Frankincense and Gold paid for a sojourn to Egypt. And then Herod died. We have already mentioned Archelaus.
One last detail: if Jesus was born in April or May of that year, he would have touched the start of his 40th year just before ascending to heaven, in the middle of May, in AD 33. That may or may not be significant, but whether God required his second Adam to be tested for forty years, God did send His parents to Bethlehem, because of a very unique set of circumstances, which included a census.
The (probable) real story is more complex than the fairy tale.
It is no less inspiring to me.
Bill Heroman, Amateur Academic
December 24, 2009
December 23, 2009
Did Luke err on Quirinius? Does it matter?
Mark Goodacre has an excellent podcast today on the year Jesus was born. Naturally, he gravitates towards Quirinius as he builds to a conclusion. His conclusion is that Luke probably just made a mistake, and "we should commend him for doing a pretty good job".
Mary Smallwood once made a similar comment* and said it well:
Regular readers know where I stand. If Luke' 2:2 is somehow accurate, we have to admit it doesn't mean what it seems to mean. So what does it mean? That's one question. My usual concern is to point out that I'd rather focus on a different question: When was Jesus born? And that's what I appreciate about Goodacre's podcast.
Smallwood had more to say about Tertullian and Saturninus, which I greatly appreciate, putting Jesus' birth in the later portion of his Governorship, which was 9-6 BC. Oddly, Goodacre gives no reason for his estimation of Jesus' birth year "to roundabout 4 BC, perhaps a little earlier, 5, 6 at the most. Something like that." To be fair, of course, it was just a podcast. ;-)
So, did Luke just make a mistake about Quirinius? As believers, we'll keep hoping he didn't. However, as I keep pointing out, that only matters if we're trying to defend scripture. Everything has a time and a place, and when we're trying to reconstruct events, Quirinius just doesn't matter. Every viable apologetic on Luke 2:2 still puts Jesus' birth before Herod's death. That makes Quirinius moot.
-----------------------------------------------
*The Jews under Roman Rule
, Appendix E (1976)
Mary Smallwood once made a similar comment* and said it well:
Is not the simplest explanation that quandoque bonus dormitat Homerus? ['the great Homer sometimes nods'] Knowing that the Nativity coincided with a census taken in Judaea on instructions from Rome, Luke erroneously attached the name of the Roman official responsible for the later, much more notorious, census, to the earlier one, with which Quirinius had had no connection; and having thus created two censuses conducted under the same man's auspices, he distinguished the earlier, obviously, as [prwth]. Tertullian then confirmed his date, while tacitly correcting the name.Now let me be very clear: I agree with Mark and Mary about one thing, at least. The simplest explanation actually is to conclude that Luke just goofed. (It may not be the right explanation, but it is the simplest.) It could be as Smallwood says, or it could be what Mark says. Should we really expect Luke to get it all perfectly?
Regular readers know where I stand. If Luke' 2:2 is somehow accurate, we have to admit it doesn't mean what it seems to mean. So what does it mean? That's one question. My usual concern is to point out that I'd rather focus on a different question: When was Jesus born? And that's what I appreciate about Goodacre's podcast.
Smallwood had more to say about Tertullian and Saturninus, which I greatly appreciate, putting Jesus' birth in the later portion of his Governorship, which was 9-6 BC. Oddly, Goodacre gives no reason for his estimation of Jesus' birth year "to roundabout 4 BC, perhaps a little earlier, 5, 6 at the most. Something like that." To be fair, of course, it was just a podcast. ;-)
So, did Luke just make a mistake about Quirinius? As believers, we'll keep hoping he didn't. However, as I keep pointing out, that only matters if we're trying to defend scripture. Everything has a time and a place, and when we're trying to reconstruct events, Quirinius just doesn't matter. Every viable apologetic on Luke 2:2 still puts Jesus' birth before Herod's death. That makes Quirinius moot.
-----------------------------------------------
*The Jews under Roman Rule
, Appendix E (1976)
December 22, 2009
Ten Books of my 2009
This is my 374th post for the year 2009. Celucien Joseph says that makes me prolific. Lou also tagged me to list my top ten books for 2009. Poor Lou. He really wants to believe that I read at least half as much as I write. (!) Well, let's see...
I had very few reservations about how much I enjoyed Allison's The Historical Christ and the Theological Jesus
. John P Meier's A Marginal Jew, Volume IV: Law and Love
was wonderful from beginning to end, except for much of the middle. I tweeted about that dichotomy a bit, back when I was tweeting.
Reading Craig Blomberg's The Historical Reliability of the Gospels
and then his Jesus and the Gospels
was profoundly headache-inducing, but a conversation with Craig at SBL has me thinking Chronological ignorance may actually trump Theological preference as the main reason why Christian Scholars keep Jesus on the outer fringe of History. Because of that, these may be the most influential and important books I read all year long.
Richard Bacukham's Testimony of the Beloved Disciple
had a chapter on Historiography in John's Gospel that was 97.8% wonderful. I'll always remember the day Nick recommended it. Thanks partly to that, I've recently started through Volumes 1 and 2
of the SBL's John, Jesus and History
compilations. I'm counting them here because that's a big step for me. For all of us, really. I'm so glad liberal scholars are now willing to critique the fourth Gospel just as harshly as they've been critiquing the first three in recent centuries. ;-)
I'll list the last three without comment: Roger Beckwith's Calendar and Chronology
, Thomas Lewin's Fasti Sacri
(reprinted from 1865!), and the IVP's Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels
.
Of course I picked through dozens of other new titles this year, but these were the top ten academic Biblical Studies books that influenced my thinking this year. I also spent more time in the Gospels this year than ever in my life, probably. I also did more of that study in Greek than ever before, thanks partly to the new USB Greek New Testament, A Reader's Edition
which I saw several bloggers raving about early in 2009.
Oh, what to read next year? I don't know, but I'm sure to blog about it and Lou's sure to read it.
After all, I'm one of his top 15 most prolific. :-)
I had very few reservations about how much I enjoyed Allison's The Historical Christ and the Theological Jesus
. John P Meier's A Marginal Jew, Volume IV: Law and Love was wonderful from beginning to end, except for much of the middle. I tweeted about that dichotomy a bit, back when I was tweeting.Reading Craig Blomberg's The Historical Reliability of the Gospels
and then his Jesus and the Gospels was profoundly headache-inducing, but a conversation with Craig at SBL has me thinking Chronological ignorance may actually trump Theological preference as the main reason why Christian Scholars keep Jesus on the outer fringe of History. Because of that, these may be the most influential and important books I read all year long.Richard Bacukham's Testimony of the Beloved Disciple
had a chapter on Historiography in John's Gospel that was 97.8% wonderful. I'll always remember the day Nick recommended it. Thanks partly to that, I've recently started through Volumes 1 and 2 of the SBL's John, Jesus and History compilations. I'm counting them here because that's a big step for me. For all of us, really. I'm so glad liberal scholars are now willing to critique the fourth Gospel just as harshly as they've been critiquing the first three in recent centuries. ;-)I'll list the last three without comment: Roger Beckwith's Calendar and Chronology
, Thomas Lewin's Fasti Sacri (reprinted from 1865!), and the IVP's Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels.Of course I picked through dozens of other new titles this year, but these were the top ten academic Biblical Studies books that influenced my thinking this year. I also spent more time in the Gospels this year than ever in my life, probably. I also did more of that study in Greek than ever before, thanks partly to the new USB Greek New Testament, A Reader's Edition
which I saw several bloggers raving about early in 2009.Oh, what to read next year? I don't know, but I'm sure to blog about it and Lou's sure to read it.
After all, I'm one of his top 15 most prolific. :-)
December 21, 2009
Ancient Jewish House found in Nazareth
The Israel Antiquities Authority is saying it dates to Jesus' time. At a minimum, this confirms the village is at least that old. Of that there should have been little doubt anyway, even without the New Testament.
Nazareth's valley may be a lousy place for a fortified city, but it's a perfect location for a small village (hidden from three sides on semi-high ground with good, sloping run off; midway between Sepphoris and the Lake; close to good farmland and other resources; probably at least one natural spring). I'd have loved to hear them say it was a hundred years older. As I suggested in August, a longstanding community would be more likely to have established a large collection of Hebrew scrolls and to have built a 'proper' Synagogue building. A younger village more likely would have met each Sabbath in somebody's house and may or may not have had scrolls.
As it is, the site could yield more clues to help reconstruct what Jesus' town was like and how many people lived there. Whatever we learn, it's a wonderful discovery. Read all about it: (IAA press release; AP article).
Nazareth's valley may be a lousy place for a fortified city, but it's a perfect location for a small village (hidden from three sides on semi-high ground with good, sloping run off; midway between Sepphoris and the Lake; close to good farmland and other resources; probably at least one natural spring). I'd have loved to hear them say it was a hundred years older. As I suggested in August, a longstanding community would be more likely to have established a large collection of Hebrew scrolls and to have built a 'proper' Synagogue building. A younger village more likely would have met each Sabbath in somebody's house and may or may not have had scrolls.
As it is, the site could yield more clues to help reconstruct what Jesus' town was like and how many people lived there. Whatever we learn, it's a wonderful discovery. Read all about it: (IAA press release; AP article).
December 20, 2009
Angels are really smart
God's highest glory on Earth is when Peace comes inside of a people who please Him.
That's not my translation of Luke 2:14, but something really close to that might just be what the angels meant when they sang it. For some recent discussions on translating Luke 2:14, go here In my humble opinion, all of humanity has always been invited to find God, engage Him, and seek to please Him. Only one Man was ever successfully able to do so, but He has invited us to share in His success. So, therefore, the night the angels sang near Bethlehem was the night when the seed of that promise broke through.
God longs to see people contain His Life and live at peace together.
That's not my translation of Luke 2:14, but something really close to that might just be what the angels meant when they sang it. For some recent discussions on translating Luke 2:14, go here In my humble opinion, all of humanity has always been invited to find God, engage Him, and seek to please Him. Only one Man was ever successfully able to do so, but He has invited us to share in His success. So, therefore, the night the angels sang near Bethlehem was the night when the seed of that promise broke through.
God longs to see people contain His Life and live at peace together.
December 19, 2009
Nazareth "46"
loosely...
Father, my refuge and strength, you are present with me always. This loneliness is not too much trouble because I have You. I'm not afraid of what changes might come. Even if the mountains fall down on this valley, or the seas rose to drown us here, even if this whole town trembles at violent things that might come... You are the River whose constant flow makes me happy. Your kingdom is coming. As you are in me, you will be in the midst of your Kingdom. She will not be moved. She will finally Love you. You will help her when that morning dawns.
The gentiles may cause an uproar and the Kings of the earth will do battle, but when You raise Your voice, the whole Earth will melt. You've been here with me, Lord of Hosts, and you will be with them. You've been my stronghold, God of Jacob, and you will be for them. How I long to see that work of Yours - what you will leave desolate, what you will cease, what you will break and burn. Wars will not end, but oh that all Your children would quit striving and know that you are God. You are to be exalted among all nations. You are to be exalted across this land.
Almighty Father, how I love and live for you. Stay here with me until all Jacob is Your stronghold.
Selah
December 18, 2009
Let's Quarantine all the Defective People
I'm a big Pixar fan. Their storytelling is so tight, it turns coal into diamonds. Seriously, as digital film makers they have complete control over every second of every frame and every bit of every image. That means every detail in a Pixar film serves the film's purpose somehow. Figure out how, and you find new depths in the film's message.
Knowing this, I was surprised at how much time Wall-E
gave to the defective robots in quarantine. It just didn't seem to fit the overall message, until I realized - to a robot, all humans are defective. Just like robots, the Buy-N-Large corporation that managed Earth built a life-ship designed to quarantine human error. But by doing that, they effectively quarantined humanity.
Hollywood artists are naturally anti-business and anti-authority, but we all need to find balance between sustaining life and actually living it. Just as importantly, we all have to decide whether to protect young pioneers from the perils of attempting to seize life... or whether to encourage them.
Overall, the movie Wall-E was about a defective robot, enamored with wonderful things, who acted like a human. His defective behavior was dangerous to himself and those around him, but it was also inspiring. Obviously our non-cartoon world isn't always so safe or rewarding, but we do see times when protocols written for survival actually destroy sources of life-renewing energy. Eventually, the status quo serves only itself. The question is, at what point does Life need to be about more than comfortable safety?
One of the more subtle messages of Wall-E is that humanity and defective behavior simply come as a package deal. Large systems can't quarantine everybody, and the more little defects they save us from the more we fall prey to the big defects of the system itself.
So which is worse? That depends. Who decides?
If we leave things up to the Buy N Large corporation, they'll decide what we can handle and what we cannot. If we prefer comfort and safety instead of adventure and experience, that might be okay. But then again... what if one reason God made human beings was to let us exercise?
What if the process really is more important than the end product? What if we wind up quarantining defective people, because they gummed up our plans, and yet that prevents them from bringing us wonderful and unexpected new sources of Life? We might wind up with a world where everyone keeps letting experts decide what's best for all of us.
In the movie, the Captain makes that decision for everyone on board his ship. "I don't want to survive, I want to live!" Happy ending ensues: everyone loves the results, hardship included. In your world, dear reader, the challenge will have more teeth. Still, the reward may be worth it. Do you want to survive? Or do you want to live?
And yet - that's not the big question. The big question isn't - can you trade in an easy life for the difficulties of pioneering experience? The big question is - can you deal with the inevitable failures of yourself and those who go with you?
Big Box Businesses (including the kind with white steeples) tend to cover up the fact that we are all defective people. Do you want more out of Church Life? Get ready for problems.
Real Life and problems are simply a package deal. That seems to have been true even in Eden, and I'm starting to think God intended for us to be less than perfect.
Hmmm...
Knowing this, I was surprised at how much time Wall-E
gave to the defective robots in quarantine. It just didn't seem to fit the overall message, until I realized - to a robot, all humans are defective. Just like robots, the Buy-N-Large corporation that managed Earth built a life-ship designed to quarantine human error. But by doing that, they effectively quarantined humanity.Hollywood artists are naturally anti-business and anti-authority, but we all need to find balance between sustaining life and actually living it. Just as importantly, we all have to decide whether to protect young pioneers from the perils of attempting to seize life... or whether to encourage them.
Overall, the movie Wall-E was about a defective robot, enamored with wonderful things, who acted like a human. His defective behavior was dangerous to himself and those around him, but it was also inspiring. Obviously our non-cartoon world isn't always so safe or rewarding, but we do see times when protocols written for survival actually destroy sources of life-renewing energy. Eventually, the status quo serves only itself. The question is, at what point does Life need to be about more than comfortable safety?
One of the more subtle messages of Wall-E is that humanity and defective behavior simply come as a package deal. Large systems can't quarantine everybody, and the more little defects they save us from the more we fall prey to the big defects of the system itself.
So which is worse? That depends. Who decides?
If we leave things up to the Buy N Large corporation, they'll decide what we can handle and what we cannot. If we prefer comfort and safety instead of adventure and experience, that might be okay. But then again... what if one reason God made human beings was to let us exercise?
What if the process really is more important than the end product? What if we wind up quarantining defective people, because they gummed up our plans, and yet that prevents them from bringing us wonderful and unexpected new sources of Life? We might wind up with a world where everyone keeps letting experts decide what's best for all of us.
In the movie, the Captain makes that decision for everyone on board his ship. "I don't want to survive, I want to live!" Happy ending ensues: everyone loves the results, hardship included. In your world, dear reader, the challenge will have more teeth. Still, the reward may be worth it. Do you want to survive? Or do you want to live?
And yet - that's not the big question. The big question isn't - can you trade in an easy life for the difficulties of pioneering experience? The big question is - can you deal with the inevitable failures of yourself and those who go with you?
Big Box Businesses (including the kind with white steeples) tend to cover up the fact that we are all defective people. Do you want more out of Church Life? Get ready for problems.
Real Life and problems are simply a package deal. That seems to have been true even in Eden, and I'm starting to think God intended for us to be less than perfect.
Hmmm...
December 13, 2009
The Christmas Story: Luke vs. Matthew?
If we did not have Luke's Gospel, christian tradition would probably hold that both Mary & Joseph were from Bethlehem. In such a parallel universe, the most careful skeptic would rightly suggest doubts about that tradition. In other words, it may be true that someone reading only Matthew's Gospel could well assume the young couple was first betrothed at Bethlehem, but the most careful readers would note that Matthew says no such thing. The first Gospel's first chapter is completely silent as to location.
It is Luke's Gospel that says Mary & Joseph went from Nazareth to Bethlehem because of a census. If we trust Luke, it is perfectly reasonable to reconcile Luke and Matthew's accounts of the period before Jesus' birth. This, from a historian's standpoint, is not a difficult problem. But Luke goes on to speak as if Mary & Joseph went back to Nazareth while Jesus was still a relative newborn. (Lk.2:39 - "When they had completed all that was according to the Law of the Lord, they returned... to Nazareth".) Now, this is the problem.
It is Luke's Gospel that says Mary & Joseph went from Nazareth to Bethlehem because of a census. If we trust Luke, it is perfectly reasonable to reconcile Luke and Matthew's accounts of the period before Jesus' birth. This, from a historian's standpoint, is not a difficult problem. But Luke goes on to speak as if Mary & Joseph went back to Nazareth while Jesus was still a relative newborn. (Lk.2:39 - "When they had completed all that was according to the Law of the Lord, they returned... to Nazareth".) Now, this is the problem.
Does Luke's statement contradict Matthew's story about the massacre and flight to Egypt? James McGrath, Doug Chaplin, and others suggest that it does. Apologists, naturally, suggest that Luke's language is stretchy, that "when" ('ws') gives us enough wiggle room to squeeze in the rest of the story. Who's right? Who knows. I'll gladly stand with the apologists, but I don't care to defend them right now. This post has a different agenda.
Let's entertain skepticism for a few moments. If we take Luke and Matthew as contradictions, how much really has to be wrong? As I showed above, the hometown question is not a real problem. The difficult part comes after Jesus is born. Luke 2:39 seems to deny Matthew's entire second chapter. Any critical analyst now faces a choice. Should we doubt Luke or Matthew?
If we treated both writers with equal skepticism, it would seem more economical to doubt one verse of Luke instead of a whole chapter in Matthew. I know all the reasons why skeptical critics prefer doubting Matthew against Luke. I just think those critics aren't being skeptical enough. In theory, a true skeptic should suspend judgment on God, miracles, angels, dreams, and miraculous stars that stand still over houses. In theory, a true skeptic should point out that OT parallels (dreams, exodus) prove artfulness, but not outright fabrication. A true skeptic doubts their own criticism as much as they doubt the text itself.
Truly, Luke 2:39 does appear to preclude the events of Matthew 2:1-23. Therefore, if a skeptic choses to trust Matthew - for argument's sake - there are two options. Logically, it must be that Luke 2:39 is either incorrect or at least somewhat misleading. Those who wish to defend Luke on this point have got two separate battles to fight. Those who wish to reconstruct events only have this one hurdle to get over.
Skeptics can go on doubting Matthew and/or Luke while believers go on defending them, but I see no logical reason why all cannot agree on the following statement.
The events reported in Mt.2, if factual, must belong to the time spanned by Lk.2:39.
-----------------------------------
Update: You may also wish to read this later post - Mary Should Have Stayed Home.
Let's entertain skepticism for a few moments. If we take Luke and Matthew as contradictions, how much really has to be wrong? As I showed above, the hometown question is not a real problem. The difficult part comes after Jesus is born. Luke 2:39 seems to deny Matthew's entire second chapter. Any critical analyst now faces a choice. Should we doubt Luke or Matthew?
If we treated both writers with equal skepticism, it would seem more economical to doubt one verse of Luke instead of a whole chapter in Matthew. I know all the reasons why skeptical critics prefer doubting Matthew against Luke. I just think those critics aren't being skeptical enough. In theory, a true skeptic should suspend judgment on God, miracles, angels, dreams, and miraculous stars that stand still over houses. In theory, a true skeptic should point out that OT parallels (dreams, exodus) prove artfulness, but not outright fabrication. A true skeptic doubts their own criticism as much as they doubt the text itself.
Truly, Luke 2:39 does appear to preclude the events of Matthew 2:1-23. Therefore, if a skeptic choses to trust Matthew - for argument's sake - there are two options. Logically, it must be that Luke 2:39 is either incorrect or at least somewhat misleading. Those who wish to defend Luke on this point have got two separate battles to fight. Those who wish to reconstruct events only have this one hurdle to get over.
Skeptics can go on doubting Matthew and/or Luke while believers go on defending them, but I see no logical reason why all cannot agree on the following statement.
The events reported in Mt.2, if factual, must belong to the time spanned by Lk.2:39.
-----------------------------------
Update: You may also wish to read this later post - Mary Should Have Stayed Home.
December 12, 2009
Churches need Coaches
I carry a metaphor in my head that an apostle any christian worker who builds up a new church is a lot like the coach of a sports team. Don't misunderstand. Church Life and Sports is the weak part of the metaphor. Coaching and developing gifted persons to move together as a collection of individuals - that's the key point.
Yesterday, College Football Coach Brian Kelly just got announced as the new boss of Touchdown Jesus, Inc. He's also the NCAA FBS Coach of the year. At his Notre Dame introduction, he said this:
How many church leaders develop the talent, and how many just focus on doing their job but complain because others don't do much themselves? Right. Biblically speaking, the worker's main duty is to get the whole church to do their 'jobs' as well. So I say, if some pew sitters like to think that their monthly tithing checks give them the right to be served all year long - then, christian workers, just stop cashing those particular checks! Keep taking money from everyone else, if they keep giving it. But don't accept money from those who expect their gifts to prevent you from doing your job. Please, remember. You don't work for them. And they don't give to you. Right? (Right?)
You've got the idea. Now let's make this practical. HOW does one Coach? The same way one parents. Exhaustively. Tirelessly. Constantly. Incrementally.
A Kindergarten teacher once told me the average child requires 1,000 hours of exposure to print materials before they can read their first word. Father Flanagan learned at Boys Town that teens raised in poverty had never been taught how to make eye contact, introduce themselves, or follow simple instructions. It doesn't get much more basic than that. Good parents, well-off ones at least, consistently demand and tirelessly reinforce the behaviors they know are in their children's best interests. Poor parents, without resources or know-how, muddle through and the kids simply learn what they learn, which ain't much.
We all need to be taught, if we're going to learn. We all need to be trained, to develop and master new skills. In a church, that's as true as in any place else. The little things need to be coached. So church leaders, if your people have done little more than attend and listen for most of their lives, you might need to get started with multiple repetitions of very simple tasks. Then expand as you can. If you're gentle, positive, slow and deliberate, they might not resist overly much. If they do, they're certainly free not to come. They might not like what you're doing, but you'll try to explain that it's for their own good. It is certainly NOT to their benefit to be served and to avoid exercise! So don't let that continue!
If they act like children about it, punish them. How? Refuse to keep taking their money. (That'll show 'em!) But whatever happens, keep straight. Do your job. Coach. Develop the talent.
The Hope of all the Earth is Christ working through His Whole Body. Not just one mouth and a whole bunch of ears. So keep preaching. But Coach. And Pray. Above all else, pray. But start doing what few ever try. For the sake of God's Hope, for the sake of Christ's Glory, for the sake of Him gaining a functional corporate expression of Himself on Earth... Preachers... (or anyone else)... PLEASE...
Coach the Body of Christ!
Yesterday, College Football Coach Brian Kelly just got announced as the new boss of Touchdown Jesus, Inc. He's also the NCAA FBS Coach of the year. At his Notre Dame introduction, he said this:
"It’s not just about getting bigger, stronger, faster," he said. "It’s getting your players to trust, to be accountable on a daily basis, it’s about developing them as young men. … To get people to do things that they would not normally do on their own."Amen. Good Coach. I'd say he provides a strong contrast to most preachers. Here's what I mean.
How many church leaders develop the talent, and how many just focus on doing their job but complain because others don't do much themselves? Right. Biblically speaking, the worker's main duty is to get the whole church to do their 'jobs' as well. So I say, if some pew sitters like to think that their monthly tithing checks give them the right to be served all year long - then, christian workers, just stop cashing those particular checks! Keep taking money from everyone else, if they keep giving it. But don't accept money from those who expect their gifts to prevent you from doing your job. Please, remember. You don't work for them. And they don't give to you. Right? (Right?)
You've got the idea. Now let's make this practical. HOW does one Coach? The same way one parents. Exhaustively. Tirelessly. Constantly. Incrementally.
A Kindergarten teacher once told me the average child requires 1,000 hours of exposure to print materials before they can read their first word. Father Flanagan learned at Boys Town that teens raised in poverty had never been taught how to make eye contact, introduce themselves, or follow simple instructions. It doesn't get much more basic than that. Good parents, well-off ones at least, consistently demand and tirelessly reinforce the behaviors they know are in their children's best interests. Poor parents, without resources or know-how, muddle through and the kids simply learn what they learn, which ain't much.
We all need to be taught, if we're going to learn. We all need to be trained, to develop and master new skills. In a church, that's as true as in any place else. The little things need to be coached. So church leaders, if your people have done little more than attend and listen for most of their lives, you might need to get started with multiple repetitions of very simple tasks. Then expand as you can. If you're gentle, positive, slow and deliberate, they might not resist overly much. If they do, they're certainly free not to come. They might not like what you're doing, but you'll try to explain that it's for their own good. It is certainly NOT to their benefit to be served and to avoid exercise! So don't let that continue!
If they act like children about it, punish them. How? Refuse to keep taking their money. (That'll show 'em!) But whatever happens, keep straight. Do your job. Coach. Develop the talent.
The Hope of all the Earth is Christ working through His Whole Body. Not just one mouth and a whole bunch of ears. So keep preaching. But Coach. And Pray. Above all else, pray. But start doing what few ever try. For the sake of God's Hope, for the sake of Christ's Glory, for the sake of Him gaining a functional corporate expression of Himself on Earth... Preachers... (or anyone else)... PLEASE...
Coach the Body of Christ!
December 07, 2009
Seminarians on History and the Gospels
Dan Wallace's recent post at Parchment & Pen (still growing, with upwards of 500 comments) has now generated at least one YouTube response, which led me to some other videos related to Dallas Theological Seminary, which led me to this video featuring Dr. Dwight Pentecost, of the DTS "Biblical Exposition" Department. At the 2:20 mark, the professor says:
As it so happens, certain DTS persons in Dan's comment thread suggested the BE department may be part of what gives the NT Department's graduates a bad name around Universities. Purportedly, the BE department doesn't "engage with the world of critical scholarship" (or something like that) - at least, not like the NT and OT departments do. From what I can tell, that seems to be very true. But I'm curious. In what ways are they similar?
The Gospels were not viewed as History, but rather as means of teaching truths to believers. While the Gospel [writer]s are often referred to as the evangelists, they were written primarily to provide a foundation for the faith of those who had already believed.The professor goes on to contrast the needs of those early believers against the need of winning unbelievers to the faith. Is it me, or does this not imply that the only reason to get into "History" would be for the sake of soul-winning and apologetics?
As it so happens, certain DTS persons in Dan's comment thread suggested the BE department may be part of what gives the NT Department's graduates a bad name around Universities. Purportedly, the BE department doesn't "engage with the world of critical scholarship" (or something like that) - at least, not like the NT and OT departments do. From what I can tell, that seems to be very true. But I'm curious. In what ways are they similar?
IMHO, Dr. Pentecost's false dichotomy was presented with bald-faced, almost stunning clarity. The question is, do the scholars in DTS' NT department engage with the critical literature for the sake of pursuing truth and knowledge, or do they engage for the purpose of soul-winning and (partly defensive) apologetics? I've complained about Darrell Bock's approach before, stating that as far as I can tell, it's 'Do just enough work to defend, then go back to what preaches.' Blaugh. Blech. Excuse me again, Dr. Bock and company, but I keep waiting to be proven wrong.
I ain't got no problem with engagement. Or evangelism. Or even with preaching, necessarily.
I'm simply frustrated (an emotion Dan Wallace can surely relate to) that so many of Christendom's experts seem content to leave History in the hands of the World.
-------------------------
PS: Yes, I've read the book "Words and Works of Jesus Christ", by Dr. Pentecost. I have no comment on that at this time.
December 04, 2009
Did Paul's Rhetorical Skills Develop?
Completely aside from the question of how often Paul had a secretary (anamnuesis) and how that might have affected his written vocabulary, I've previously considered that letter writing is a developing skill (actually a very involved process) which one generally improves at over time, in various ways. I've also suggested that IF Galatians shows less 'polish' than Romans, then we should argue that probably shows less effort and thought went into 'publishing' the 'final draft' (regardless of which one came 'first').
Assuming the Rhetorical Critics are right, it occurs to me that the 'wildness' of Galatians (being fitted into a standard Aristotelian outline) could arguably make Paul seem like *even more* of an amateur. In other words, the less disciplined composition of each 'section' might still reveal a less experienced writer. I'm not sure, but if Galatians fits more 'obviously' into Aristotle's format, doesn't that smack of an amateur? And wouldn't Paul most likely pick up more sophistication with Rhetoric after living in Greece, or during his extended association with Tyranus of Ephesus?
Obviously, my own thinking is somewhat circular (because I already have firm opinions on Pauline Chronology) but I'm suddenly dying to know what others might think about this. Maybe one of our Biblioblogging NT Rhetoricians (BW3 or BWG - the G is for Georgia) or someone else who's read more on Paul's Rhetoric than I have might be kind enough to stop by and answer these four questions:
So hey, Brandon, you got your ears on?
J.K. Gayle posted some thoughts about Literary development more broadly, but today I'm specifically wondering about Rhetorical technique. I've been skeptical of Rhetorical Criticism in the past, until a friend at SBL encouraged me to give it more consideration. So here goes...
Assuming the Rhetorical Critics are right, it occurs to me that the 'wildness' of Galatians (being fitted into a standard Aristotelian outline) could arguably make Paul seem like *even more* of an amateur. In other words, the less disciplined composition of each 'section' might still reveal a less experienced writer. I'm not sure, but if Galatians fits more 'obviously' into Aristotle's format, doesn't that smack of an amateur? And wouldn't Paul most likely pick up more sophistication with Rhetoric after living in Greece, or during his extended association with Tyranus of Ephesus?
Obviously, my own thinking is somewhat circular (because I already have firm opinions on Pauline Chronology) but I'm suddenly dying to know what others might think about this. Maybe one of our Biblioblogging NT Rhetoricians (BW3 or BWG - the G is for Georgia) or someone else who's read more on Paul's Rhetoric than I have might be kind enough to stop by and answer these four questions:
1) Does the rhetorical(ly structured) view of Galatians necessarily prevent it from having been a one-draft effort?I'm guessing no, maybe, maybe, and no/yes, but the true scoop is probably more complicated. As always, my interest is to work towards reconstructing the True Story, no matter how challenging or difficult it may be.
2) Granting a classically rhetorical outline for Galatians, is there anything else about the composition that reveals a more or less experienced writer?
3) Have any rhetorical scholars noted clear signs of ongoing development in Paul's rhetorical style and/or abilities?
4) Has anyone ever attempted to rank Paul's letters in order of their rhetorical skill, with or without considering chronological issues?
So hey, Brandon, you got your ears on?
December 03, 2009
Academic Link Love
Tyler Williams, when you see this, please pretend it's an e-mail. :-)
Bill Thayer noted the launch of an upgraded Online Bible at NewAdvent.org, where every chapter comes up in Greek, English and Latin (sorry, no Hebrew). Bill likes it so much, he's updating the links on his world famous Lacus Curtius website. *BSC Nominations*.
Brant Pitre shared some very worthwhile thoughts on the first several hundred pages of Craig Keener's new book, The Historical Jesus of the Gospels. Brant believes this book "could be one of the most consequential books published on the historical Jesus in over a decade". That makes it worth a lookey-see, dontcha think? *BSC Nomination*
Phillip Long reflected on some of Gorden Fee's thoughts about 1st Timothy: the "pastorals" are mis-named, Tim & Titus weren't "pastors" (how refreshing), and the letters are more 'reformational' than (from scratch) 'organizational'. Best bit, quoting Fee: "It seems hard to believe that such a wide variety of church structures and styles would all call upon these letters to validate their ecclesiology..." *BSC Nomination*
-------------
To all my readers: there's a lot more good stuff in my shared items, but those are three of the more academically oriented posts (from December so far) that might deserve to get into the Biblical Studies Carnival this month. While Tyler's deciding if this is a good idea or not, I say let's at least try it out.
-------------
To my fellow Bibliobloggers, my suggestion is that we may as well begin blogging BSC submissions publicly, like I just did. Just flag the term *BSC Nomination* or something like that, with a link to the upcoming host. You'll get a post out of it, your submitted links will get more attention, and the host can scan trackbacks to get the submission. Besides, this could also be more fun - and suspenseful, like a month long playoff. Will Tyler approve my submissions? I don't mind saying again, I think they're good. But will Tyler declare them "the best of the best of the best"?
Wait and see...
Bill Thayer noted the launch of an upgraded Online Bible at NewAdvent.org, where every chapter comes up in Greek, English and Latin (sorry, no Hebrew). Bill likes it so much, he's updating the links on his world famous Lacus Curtius website. *BSC Nominations*.
Brant Pitre shared some very worthwhile thoughts on the first several hundred pages of Craig Keener's new book, The Historical Jesus of the Gospels. Brant believes this book "could be one of the most consequential books published on the historical Jesus in over a decade". That makes it worth a lookey-see, dontcha think? *BSC Nomination*
Phillip Long reflected on some of Gorden Fee's thoughts about 1st Timothy: the "pastorals" are mis-named, Tim & Titus weren't "pastors" (how refreshing), and the letters are more 'reformational' than (from scratch) 'organizational'. Best bit, quoting Fee: "It seems hard to believe that such a wide variety of church structures and styles would all call upon these letters to validate their ecclesiology..." *BSC Nomination*
-------------
To all my readers: there's a lot more good stuff in my shared items, but those are three of the more academically oriented posts (from December so far) that might deserve to get into the Biblical Studies Carnival this month. While Tyler's deciding if this is a good idea or not, I say let's at least try it out.
-------------
To my fellow Bibliobloggers, my suggestion is that we may as well begin blogging BSC submissions publicly, like I just did. Just flag the term *BSC Nomination* or something like that, with a link to the upcoming host. You'll get a post out of it, your submitted links will get more attention, and the host can scan trackbacks to get the submission. Besides, this could also be more fun - and suspenseful, like a month long playoff. Will Tyler approve my submissions? I don't mind saying again, I think they're good. But will Tyler declare them "the best of the best of the best"?
Wait and see...
December 02, 2009
Cassandrian Wall in Vergina, Greece
From the Athens News Agency (H/T June Samaras): Before you start scratching your head, this matters because Cassander also founded Thessalonica, in 314 BC. As some of you know, Thessalonica also holds a special place in my heart. It's the first reason I started researching NT Background as heavily as I did.
Discussing the city Paul visited requires reconstruction, but whatever we can put together is a darn sight more helpful than viewing photos of the later Imperial ruins which Paul never saw - even though that's what most publishers generally run in their textbooks and general interest titles on Paul.
Actually, the walls Paul walked within were probably Cassandrian to some extent with Roman style repair work in large patches, most likely dating to after the civil wars. Anyway, here's the item:
Discussing the city Paul visited requires reconstruction, but whatever we can put together is a darn sight more helpful than viewing photos of the later Imperial ruins which Paul never saw - even though that's what most publishers generally run in their textbooks and general interest titles on Paul.
Actually, the walls Paul walked within were probably Cassandrian to some extent with Roman style repair work in large patches, most likely dating to after the civil wars. Anyway, here's the item:
An excavation by the Aristotle University of Thessaloniki (AUTH) at the archaeological site of Vergina has uncovered an exceptional fortification structure surrounding the ancient Macedonian city.By the way, if you've never seen my 2005 effort on Thessalonica in 51 AD, you might enjoy checking it out. One more thing I'll finish "someday". Maybe.
According to a university announcement, the architectural elements of the enclosure indicate that it dates back to the reign of Cassander, in the early 3rd century B.C, a period when Macedonia was plagued by major turmoil, including civil wars and attacks from outside.
The findings are of remarkable importance because the wall is preserved in perfect condition and its height reaches 1.90cm.
December 01, 2009
Structure: Design vs. Longevity
The primary task of physical architecture is stability. All buildings need to stay up. Unfortunately, the sheer weight and straining against one another of pieces within the construction increases the already inherent drive towards self-destruction. All buildings want to fall down. Such is Physics on Earth.
Effectively designed structures redirect these destructive forces and channel them into the ground. Gravity is satiated. Stability depends on redirection of conflict and stress. (That should start your wheels turning...)
The primary challenge for physical architecture is longevity. Design to one set of standards and the building can last for a century. Design with less rigor and the place is going to be vacant much sooner, but suitable for a while. A house made of stone can be lived in for thousands of years. A tent made of leather and poles isn't meant to stay in one spot for so long. Either could work. It depends what the resident wants.
As with physical architecture, so with group dynamics. The way a group structures itself largely determines how long it remains stable. Experts report that large, long-lived, heterogeneous groups eventually institute some kind of permanent order... or else they die. Therefore, the question allgroups churches struggle with is - Which of these four options is less tragic: being small, being short-lived, depending on commonalities, or fighting against institutionalism?
We all have to consider these options. Size is relative. Time gets away from us. Differences are always a struggle. Organizations are not always as strong as they seem to be. But the least challenged factor may be the all present one: Time. A question presents itself, perhaps rarely asked:
Does group structure have to be permanentized?
By the way, this is much more important than HC vs. IC. Whether House Churches pack up when the wet season ends or whether Institutional Churches embrace dry spells and constantly pray for revival [or whether we find some other mix, or some middle ground] we might all want to consider that longevity is strictly a variable, and stability is rarely infinite.
Any group practice repeated two times has been "instituted", but should all helpful habits become everlasting? Should any institutions become permanent?
If we permanentize institutions, do we not make them greater than God?
The only permanency on this earth is not of this earth. Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today and tomorrow, but his Spirit blows where it will. Does it help much to pray for a "fresh move" if your group won't let the Mover do any actual moving? We humans covet stability. God likes to shake every thing that can be shaken. We humans need institutions, but we need God Himself oh so very much more.
In this fleeting life, change is a constant. What, then, in the Spirit? What then, for the church?
Liturgy is good. Structure is good. Leadership is good. Oversight is good. Change itself can be bad or good. But following Jesus (by definition) requires some change. Such is Physics on Earth.
Assuming God wants to move, God therefore wants to create change in position and time. Successful Renewal occurs when a people stays fixed on God in the present. Those who attempt to safeguard established institutions for all future time are aiming straight at a rut. Protecting the church from all change may as well be protecting the church from God Himself.
The fact that a Temple stands for a long time does not mean God is there. He does not live in houses maintained by human hands.
In all types of churches, it seems a desire to permanentize institutions is what ratchets up the negative side-effects of institutionalism. Meanwhile, social stability continues to depend on constant redirection of conflict and stress. It is possible to maintain a church structure that is never threatened by interpersonal traumas, but then where shall we direct our destructive energy? If God Himself cannot move in our church, how can God be the one to absorb all our drama? We might wind up maintaining stability but destroying the key pieces in our well crafted construction.
All church groups must learn how to balance dynamics and structure. Unstable people need some degree of stability and some degree of institutional longevity. In most cases, extremes are probably to be avoided. But God's own vision appears to be Unique.
All buildings need to stay up. All buildings want to fall down.
The house in the heavens that God showed to Moses could do both!
Consider these things...
Effectively designed structures redirect these destructive forces and channel them into the ground. Gravity is satiated. Stability depends on redirection of conflict and stress. (That should start your wheels turning...)
The primary challenge for physical architecture is longevity. Design to one set of standards and the building can last for a century. Design with less rigor and the place is going to be vacant much sooner, but suitable for a while. A house made of stone can be lived in for thousands of years. A tent made of leather and poles isn't meant to stay in one spot for so long. Either could work. It depends what the resident wants.
As with physical architecture, so with group dynamics. The way a group structures itself largely determines how long it remains stable. Experts report that large, long-lived, heterogeneous groups eventually institute some kind of permanent order... or else they die. Therefore, the question all
We all have to consider these options. Size is relative. Time gets away from us. Differences are always a struggle. Organizations are not always as strong as they seem to be. But the least challenged factor may be the all present one: Time. A question presents itself, perhaps rarely asked:
Does group structure have to be permanentized?
By the way, this is much more important than HC vs. IC. Whether House Churches pack up when the wet season ends or whether Institutional Churches embrace dry spells and constantly pray for revival [or whether we find some other mix, or some middle ground] we might all want to consider that longevity is strictly a variable, and stability is rarely infinite.
Any group practice repeated two times has been "instituted", but should all helpful habits become everlasting? Should any institutions become permanent?
If we permanentize institutions, do we not make them greater than God?
The only permanency on this earth is not of this earth. Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today and tomorrow, but his Spirit blows where it will. Does it help much to pray for a "fresh move" if your group won't let the Mover do any actual moving? We humans covet stability. God likes to shake every thing that can be shaken. We humans need institutions, but we need God Himself oh so very much more.
In this fleeting life, change is a constant. What, then, in the Spirit? What then, for the church?
Liturgy is good. Structure is good. Leadership is good. Oversight is good. Change itself can be bad or good. But following Jesus (by definition) requires some change. Such is Physics on Earth.
Assuming God wants to move, God therefore wants to create change in position and time. Successful Renewal occurs when a people stays fixed on God in the present. Those who attempt to safeguard established institutions for all future time are aiming straight at a rut. Protecting the church from all change may as well be protecting the church from God Himself.
The fact that a Temple stands for a long time does not mean God is there. He does not live in houses maintained by human hands.
In all types of churches, it seems a desire to permanentize institutions is what ratchets up the negative side-effects of institutionalism. Meanwhile, social stability continues to depend on constant redirection of conflict and stress. It is possible to maintain a church structure that is never threatened by interpersonal traumas, but then where shall we direct our destructive energy? If God Himself cannot move in our church, how can God be the one to absorb all our drama? We might wind up maintaining stability but destroying the key pieces in our well crafted construction.
All church groups must learn how to balance dynamics and structure. Unstable people need some degree of stability and some degree of institutional longevity. In most cases, extremes are probably to be avoided. But God's own vision appears to be Unique.
All buildings need to stay up. All buildings want to fall down.
The house in the heavens that God showed to Moses could do both!
Consider these things...
November 29, 2009
Dating the Crucifixion, Despite Lunar Details
(Original Subtitle: "Possible Friday Passovers") I reviewed Beckwith's limitations here, recently. Today, I only want to show that the lack of an officialized Metonic Cycle does not cause total chaos for historical investigation, even on Beckwith's most dubious estimations.
First, let's tighten the scope. Pontius Pilate ruled Judea from mid-26 until mid-36 AD. Jesus' baptism dates to 28 or 29 AD. Jesus' public ministry ran between 2 and 4 years. Saul of Tarsus met Jesus Christ on the road in early 34. Challenge any of those points if you dare, but accepting them all leaves four possible years for the crucifixion.
Granting that Passover Night is still going to fall on or within one day of the full moon, in March or April, the options for the Passover Night between 30 and 33 AD are as follows:
At first glance, we have four of eight full moons that fall within one day of Friday. Now, we begin to eliminate. First, we note that 31 AD is completely out. Second, we note that March 5th and 8th are almost certainly too early for the Sadducees to have scheduled in advance, as they would have been in the lucrative habit of doing. This leaves three years to reckon with.
The year 30 AD only works if we posit a two year ministry for Jesus, which is extremely implausible. The year 32 AD is very doubtful because either moon date was viable, and the Sadducees would have been much more prudent event planners to select the April moon many months in advance.
That leaves April 3rd of 33 AD, with a Passover Feast on Friday, suggesting that the careful night sky observers really must have been doing their jobs well - as they most likely should have been. Perfectionists can protest all they want, but the balance of evidence and all our best reasoned considerations very strongly suggest that this year is the start of chronology for Jesus Christ's ministry.
Working backwards, Luke's date on the Lord's baptism (28 or 29) is best fixed by determining whether Jesus' ministry was more likely three or four years in length. On that note, search this site for "28 AD", and also review my post on Chronology of the Gospels.
I should so be charging you people money for all this. ;-)
---------------------------------------------
Note: Obviously, these are not absolute, airtight arguments. Historical ones rarely are. However, I contend these are good arguments, presenting the most likely conclusions. They are probably correct. Anyone willing to proceed with historical reconstruction of Christ's public life should begin here. But any faith-based scholarship which refuses to start somewhere, or which prefers an ahistorical view for some reason, is being an irresponsible caretaker of scripture's facticity. IMHO. History is what it is. Reconstruction is worth what it's worth. Let's work with it.
November 27, 2009
Fifteen Word Story
The latest meme: "Summarize the Bible in five statements, the first one word long, the second two, the third three, the fourth four and the last five words long. Or possibly you could do this in descending order. Tag five people." My contribution:
Peter tagged everyone. That includes you.
Good.
Uh. Oh.
Jacob, Jacob, Jacob...
Second Adam, New Beginning.
God's Hope of glory persists.
November 24, 2009
Opinions? I got 'em.
"Jim's minions" at the BibTop50 asked for input tonight, about returning the "conservative/liberal" labels to the BibTop50 site. Here's what I offered:
“Some people cheat at cards, but not on their wives, and vice versa.”If you're interested, you can follow the continuing conversation here.
Some of the previous labels were more helpful than others. None of them told you what to expect from a blogger on all topics. Other topics are problematic themselves. Is minimalism “conservative” because it’s cautious or is it “liberal” because evangelicals tend to side against it? Furthermore, if all maximalists or Marxists are automatically placed at one far end of the spectrum, why do those issues receive more weight than any others? And are these the issues that *have* been most distinctive, or the ones that *should* be more distinctive, or both, or neither? I’m just thinking out loud here…
You might do just as well with less controversy to list organizational memberships: SBL, ETS, IBR, etc, or nada. That’s factual information that also, to some degree, lets people speak for themselves. On the other hand, I am admittedly “very conservative” in many areas but thus far in life I still cling to anti-denominational ideals, so to date I have refused to even read anyone’s doctrinal statements, much less sign them. (I’ve never shared this position online, before now.) Point: You can’t always judge why someone holds what they hold, denies what they deny, or joins what they join.
A formal rubric would be a nice start towards clarity, at least, but unless you’re soliciting voluntary opinions on an exhaustive questionaire, you might consider expressing somewhere that you’re really only labeling the blog’s content generally, which may or may not reflect the larger views of the blogger themselves. (Not to mention that it may not even reflect the blog overall.)
In the end, if it’s just for fun, do whatever you guys want to do. I’ll probably enjoy it. Be as subjective as you like. But in that case, it’s probably going to bring up a different issue.
After Crossley’s SBL paper on N.T.W. and the Bibliobloggers this morning, a well known biblioblogger raised a question about whether anonymous bloggers face different obstacles in expressing personal opinions as opposed to pseudonomyous bloggers. (I also noted that point on this site, during a recent debate.) If a distinctive personality takes responsibility for subjective labels, they are valid opinions everyone should at least respect. But if it appears to new visitors on this site that these labels have some vaguely officialized legitimacy, some might begin to suspect the endeavor as an unfair attempt to poison the well of public opinion. This site is becoming more and more well known by the day, and will soon be linked (officially or not) with SBL itself. That could potentially make all this become a more serious issue.
Personally, I’m copacetic. I fully embrace(d) my former label as a “very conservative”. I never tire of repeating that I enjoyed interacting with N.T. Wrong. I would still prefer that you all (whomever you are) identify yourselves individually in some capacity or another, but if you choose not to do that, you might prepare to expect more backlash once you start expressing opinions. In any case, you won’t get much backlash from me. Via con gusto. I got more fish to fry.
In summary, y’all (Jim and Jim’s minions, NTW, or whoever wrote this post), I have no concerns whatsoever for anything you all decide to do. I hope it’s clear my cautions are merely directed at the manner in which you decide to do it.
Thanks for specifically soliciting this advice. I just love spouting off. ;-)
I hope you find these thoughts helpful.
N'awlins Day 7
It's almost noon and it's totally over. James Crossley's paper on N.T. Wrong and the Bibliobloggers was entertaining. Then Neil and I hit the book fair and I ordered a few more at half-off. Now we're heading out to go goof around in the city.
It was lots of fun. I've got lots to reflect on. All in all, a very profitable and promising week. I'm convinced all I need to accomplish my goals are infinite amounts of money and time. Instead, I'll gladly settle for an infinitely gracious and loving Father. We'll see what else develops meanwhile. Stay tuned...
This is Bill Heroman, signing off from the Biblical ScholarPalooza.
It was lots of fun. I've got lots to reflect on. All in all, a very profitable and promising week. I'm convinced all I need to accomplish my goals are infinite amounts of money and time. Instead, I'll gladly settle for an infinitely gracious and loving Father. We'll see what else develops meanwhile. Stay tuned...
This is Bill Heroman, signing off from the Biblical ScholarPalooza.
Let's Split the Academy!
On the very encouraging heels of Derek’s post:
Science and Historiography can never confirm nor deny the totality of scripture’s claims. Therefore, we need to go ahead and officialize two separate presuppositional tracts in scholarship.
Skeptics have every right to disbelieve parts of the scripture. If I thought the Bible was all a big bunch of crap, I would absolutely spend the rest of my life trying to figure out why the heck things got to be the way that they are. This is just one of many reasons I have total respect for honest Skeptics and for Skepticism properly applied.
On the other hand, Believers are dying for lack ofcontextual rationalism context and rationality in doing the other things that we do while "trusting" the scriptures. We should accept the claims of the NT at face value, for the sake of argument, and then proceed with a semi-critical historical analysis.
What, from all this, could emerge?
Imagine Believers and Skeptics working together from one side, then the other. Trusting or Doubting the entire NT “for the sake of argument” is an awfully big presupposition, but professionals should be able to pull that off, at least in theory.
What I’d really love to see is a group of honest, logical, historically minded Skeptics with truly suspended judgment approaching the NT from the standpoint of faith “ftsoa”. Which of our traditional interpretations would they question more? Which post-enlightenment conclusions would hold up or fall down?
I would LOVE to find out...
Science and Historiography can never confirm nor deny the totality of scripture’s claims. Therefore, we need to go ahead and officialize two separate presuppositional tracts in scholarship.
Skeptics have every right to disbelieve parts of the scripture. If I thought the Bible was all a big bunch of crap, I would absolutely spend the rest of my life trying to figure out why the heck things got to be the way that they are. This is just one of many reasons I have total respect for honest Skeptics and for Skepticism properly applied.
On the other hand, Believers are dying for lack of
What, from all this, could emerge?
Imagine Believers and Skeptics working together from one side, then the other. Trusting or Doubting the entire NT “for the sake of argument” is an awfully big presupposition, but professionals should be able to pull that off, at least in theory.
What I’d really love to see is a group of honest, logical, historically minded Skeptics with truly suspended judgment approaching the NT from the standpoint of faith “ftsoa”. Which of our traditional interpretations would they question more? Which post-enlightenment conclusions would hold up or fall down?
I would LOVE to find out...
Francis Watson on Historical Criticism
Derek Leman just blogged about the SBL's section on Historical Criticism. This is the one Mike & Rob mentioned the other night, as I said. Here's the most relevant part of Derek's review.
Francis Watson of Durham University gave a provocative lecture. He said we should abandon the term historical criticism altogether for the following reasons:Read the rest here.
(1) Biblical scholars are not historians and should not imply that we are.
(2) Historical criticism is not a neutral characterization. In its origin the term referred to textual criticism, which is about restoring texts. Historical criticism, by contrast, has been about doubting them. The historical critical movement has had an agenda to criticize, in the harsh sense, other views of the Bible.
(3) Historical criticism has claimed that its methods are objective, neutral, and not about dogma. This has been shown to be a farce.
(4) The real issue has been modernity and rationalism versus tradition.
(5) Historical approaches to a text are far from the totality of the work we do. Much Biblical scholarship is not historical but interpretive.
(6) The distance historical critics claim to put between themselves and the text is illusory.
(7) Therefore, we should talk about biblical studies or scholarship and make the term historical criticism defunct.
I was pretty jazzed after Watson’s presentation and the room was buzzing. But things only got better as Michael Legaspi gave a stinging critique of the whole enterprise of historical criticism...
November 23, 2009
N'awlins Day 6
Things I learned today, at the Big Bible Rodeo:
The Tchoupitoulis Omelet at the Sheraton is abso-food-ly divine.
The SBL website has a page on the Bible and Public Schools Initiative that I really wish my local districts would get into. I could definitely get into that.
Michael Halcomb is a snazzy dresser from head to toe.
After almost a week, it's difficult to walk through the hotels without at least saying hi to several people I've spoken with already during the conference(s).
The difference between male scholars and female scholars is that male scholars tend to gesticulate more aggressively during personal conversations.
James McGrath has an incredible amount of energy.
I am really super impressed by Classical Historians. Just being in the same room with Tessa Rajak, Helen Bond and Erich Gruen (at the Hellenistic Judaism section) was the most humbling experience of the entire week.
Neil Carter still laughs at all my dumb old jokes like they're new ones.
Jesus loves me even if my chronology's wrong. ;-)
November 22, 2009
N'awlins Day 5
Nearing the end of the Biblical Studies ScholarPalooza in NOLA. The Bibliobloggers' Dinner was tonight and about 30 or 40 of us wound up getting there, I'd guess. Every moment was absolutely delightful. The other best moment of the day was around lunch when my old friend, neighbor and house church compadre Neil Carter drove in for the rest of the conference. New friends and old. Silver and Gold. Both are priceless. Now here's the rest of the news.
Words that I find equally helpful and ridiculous, which I learned at the Johannine Literature section, today: "figuration", "enplotment", "refiguration", "anachronies", "achronistic". (I'm shocked the spell checker actually knows "figuration"!)
Authors I was encouraged to go read on John's Gospel and Lit-Crit, today: Culpepper, Koester, some others, and Ricoeur.
Most honest Q&A I shared, today: Me (Q), "Is anyone trying to use Lit-Crit as a stepping stone to historical analysis?" New Friend (A), "No, because they all want to keep their jobs."
Most helpful insight I heard about the positive aspects of Lit-Crit, today: It allows a holistic analysis of the entire Gospel, as opposed to the Hist-Crit which always chops it up into tiny pieces. Plus, believers and skeptics can actually have a conversation about the material.
Major reservation I still hold about Lit-Crit, today: Sidestepping Ignoring the entire issue of historicity essentially & implicitly demeans the value of truth itself.
Presentation I absolutely could not have afforded to miss, today: John's Rhetorical Use of Narrative Time, by Mark A. Matson
Bad bowls of Gumbo I ate because Jim West booked us at an Italian place and I felt duty-bound as a native Louisianian to order something both affordable and cajun style: one
There are some memories money can't buy. Seven days at a hotel in New Orleans isn't what I'd call cheap. But it's priceless.
November 21, 2009
N'awlins Day 4
I slept in a little this morning. I keep telling myself, "It's not a sprint. It's a marathon." Two and a half days to go. Today was packed with highlights. In chronological order...
(1) Some Bibliobloggers and Yahoo B.S. Group(ies) had a flash mob in the middle of the book fair, which was really a delight and a thrill. I met so many blog friends for the first time in person. We took a picture. I've run into so many bibliobloggers in the halls the past two days I can't even begin to start listing them. Eighteen months of blogging and I know a lot of people at this thing. Wow.
(2) What I've been looking forward to all week - meeting with Jared Compton aboutQuirinius investigation into the Lukan Census that gets beyond the bog of Quirinius. Plus, I gave him some very old research I'd dug up on Greek grammatical constructions that may or may not parallel Luke 2:2. I hope Jared and his connections can suss it out further for us. (See my recent post and link to his article, here.)
(3) Continuing to dialogue with random strangers at the conference and - not really surprisingly - finding that skeptics are consistently more intrigued by my faith based ("for the sake of argument") non-theological approach to event reconstruction than most of the more institutionally aligned christians tend to be. Btw, if you don't know why that doesn't surprise me, you must be fairly new to this blog. ;-)
(4a) A New Question: We believe Jesus lived without sin, but did people in his world perceive him as sinless? PSA of the day: That intriguing topic is apparently the focus of a new book with a [misleading] deliberately provocative title, Sinners: Jesus and his Earliest Followers
. I didn't know that until I got there, but I saw Dale Allison was moderating and Craig Blomberg was on the panel.
(4b) The session ended early, and I was able to approach Blomberg about my recent frustration with two of his books. He was gracious and engaged with me on the topic but in the end his reservations, as expressed, still seemed to boil down to skepticism that any particular chronology will ever be demonstrably more certain than other possibilities. I wasn't entirely satisfied, of course, but I'm grateful he was willing to engage.
(4c) Incidentally, Dale Allison was sitting alone three seats away from Blomberg when I saw they were both available. I really wanted to thank Allison for his most recent book and tell him why I enjoyed it so much, but he left shortly after he heard the beginning of my convo with CB. Cause and Effect? I may never know. ;-)
(5a) The John, Jesus and History section was really enjoyable. I wish I could describe what that conversation was like in full detail, but I guess it's a bit like a cook going into somebody else's kitchen. All the normal historical tools and the Gospels' ingredients were on the table, and it was just fun to watch what the panelists did with it all. (See next point.)
(5b) One panelist in particular - Ann Graham Brock, in the process of comparing John to the other Synoptics - drew out some fascinating things about Luke that might bind him closer to Paul in an awful lot of people's eyes. I'm not spoiling her big surprise here, but I'm telling you now: watch for her future work. The implications are very exciting.
(6) Shortly after leaving that particular historical mish-mosh, I ran into Michael Whitenton & Rob Kashow who told me about a session I missed, where some scholar(s?) pronounced the historical-critical method ITSELF to be a MYTH. As far as I understood, the point is that everyone still finds ways to insert their own presupposed theology or ideology into the text, so the whole thing may just be a push.
Meanwhile (5.5) I'd just come from engaging a prominent skeptic about my proposed methodologies. See point 3 above. After his gracious but rigorous challenges, I believe I succeeded in genuinely intriguing him. At the end, he - not I - asked to dialog more with me in the future.
Maybe skeptics just like to hear christians questioning institutional christendom. I don't know. But for the moment, this phenomenon continues to motivate me to keep on suggesting this "faith-based, for-the-sake-of-argument" approach to believers and skeptics alike. I genuinely believe it is in ALL of our best interests to see what happens when we expose our own agendas and come to the New Testament afresh - not with pure objectivity, which doesn't exist, but with an openness to consider as factual that which the text itself actually claims... so far as we can determine what the text is actually claiming, and trusting it for the sake of academic argument, to begin with... and then to ask, what from this should we rightly conclude*?
You just never know what might happen from there. But I'd love to find out! Wouldn't you?
By the way, I trust nobody reading this post committed the positivist fallacy. You may trust that I did all the things I just told you I did, but none of you would assume that was all the things that I did. If all the things I've done, said and thunk in this week could be put into words, there might be no end to the blog posts that I'd have to write. ;-)
[*conclude, consider, begin to investigate, etc...]
(1) Some Bibliobloggers and Yahoo B.S. Group(ies) had a flash mob in the middle of the book fair, which was really a delight and a thrill. I met so many blog friends for the first time in person. We took a picture. I've run into so many bibliobloggers in the halls the past two days I can't even begin to start listing them. Eighteen months of blogging and I know a lot of people at this thing. Wow.
(2) What I've been looking forward to all week - meeting with Jared Compton about
(3) Continuing to dialogue with random strangers at the conference and - not really surprisingly - finding that skeptics are consistently more intrigued by my faith based ("for the sake of argument") non-theological approach to event reconstruction than most of the more institutionally aligned christians tend to be. Btw, if you don't know why that doesn't surprise me, you must be fairly new to this blog. ;-)
(4a) A New Question: We believe Jesus lived without sin, but did people in his world perceive him as sinless? PSA of the day: That intriguing topic is apparently the focus of a new book with a [misleading] deliberately provocative title, Sinners: Jesus and his Earliest Followers
. I didn't know that until I got there, but I saw Dale Allison was moderating and Craig Blomberg was on the panel.(4b) The session ended early, and I was able to approach Blomberg about my recent frustration with two of his books. He was gracious and engaged with me on the topic but in the end his reservations, as expressed, still seemed to boil down to skepticism that any particular chronology will ever be demonstrably more certain than other possibilities. I wasn't entirely satisfied, of course, but I'm grateful he was willing to engage.
(4c) Incidentally, Dale Allison was sitting alone three seats away from Blomberg when I saw they were both available. I really wanted to thank Allison for his most recent book and tell him why I enjoyed it so much, but he left shortly after he heard the beginning of my convo with CB. Cause and Effect? I may never know. ;-)
(5a) The John, Jesus and History section was really enjoyable. I wish I could describe what that conversation was like in full detail, but I guess it's a bit like a cook going into somebody else's kitchen. All the normal historical tools and the Gospels' ingredients were on the table, and it was just fun to watch what the panelists did with it all. (See next point.)
(5b) One panelist in particular - Ann Graham Brock, in the process of comparing John to the other Synoptics - drew out some fascinating things about Luke that might bind him closer to Paul in an awful lot of people's eyes. I'm not spoiling her big surprise here, but I'm telling you now: watch for her future work. The implications are very exciting.
(6) Shortly after leaving that particular historical mish-mosh, I ran into Michael Whitenton & Rob Kashow who told me about a session I missed, where some scholar(s?) pronounced the historical-critical method ITSELF to be a MYTH. As far as I understood, the point is that everyone still finds ways to insert their own presupposed theology or ideology into the text, so the whole thing may just be a push.
Meanwhile (5.5) I'd just come from engaging a prominent skeptic about my proposed methodologies. See point 3 above. After his gracious but rigorous challenges, I believe I succeeded in genuinely intriguing him. At the end, he - not I - asked to dialog more with me in the future.
Maybe skeptics just like to hear christians questioning institutional christendom. I don't know. But for the moment, this phenomenon continues to motivate me to keep on suggesting this "faith-based, for-the-sake-of-argument" approach to believers and skeptics alike. I genuinely believe it is in ALL of our best interests to see what happens when we expose our own agendas and come to the New Testament afresh - not with pure objectivity, which doesn't exist, but with an openness to consider as factual that which the text itself actually claims... so far as we can determine what the text is actually claiming, and trusting it for the sake of academic argument, to begin with... and then to ask, what from this should we rightly conclude*?
You just never know what might happen from there. But I'd love to find out! Wouldn't you?
By the way, I trust nobody reading this post committed the positivist fallacy. You may trust that I did all the things I just told you I did, but none of you would assume that was all the things that I did. If all the things I've done, said and thunk in this week could be put into words, there might be no end to the blog posts that I'd have to write. ;-)
[*conclude, consider, begin to investigate, etc...]
November 20, 2009
N'awlins Day 3
ETS ended today and SBL/IBR began this evening. I just had a fifteen hour day, plenty of conversations, great sessions, and heavy yawns here in my room at the moment.
My new favorite word of the day is "monolithic". My passion for the NT Story is because I want to challenge the standard christian view of the NT, which I find monolithic. If everything happens at no particular time then we're working from a hodge-podge or from one giant blob. A sense of time passing lends perspective and depth, besides which it can also show development, which is more true to the way God actually works in our lives as his people, just like it's how He worked in their lives at that time.
My new favorite scholar of the day is Kevin Vanhoozer. In the panel on Moving beyond the Bible to Theology
, Kevin critiqued himself in the third person (both effectively and hysterically) and what impressed me most was the overwhelmingly natural (my word) approach of what he calls the "Drama of Redemption" model. My synopsis of Kevin's view, compared with the others: Our Life Together relies at least as much on improvisation as it does on principle, procedures or plans. In the end, I saw a lot of overlap in the panelists' four approaches. I believe it was the traditional Calvinist on the panel who said, "What's important is that the improvisation is faithful to scripture." Amen, amen!
, Kevin critiqued himself in the third person (both effectively and hysterically) and what impressed me most was the overwhelmingly natural (my word) approach of what he calls the "Drama of Redemption" model. My synopsis of Kevin's view, compared with the others: Our Life Together relies at least as much on improvisation as it does on principle, procedures or plans. In the end, I saw a lot of overlap in the panelists' four approaches. I believe it was the traditional Calvinist on the panel who said, "What's important is that the improvisation is faithful to scripture." Amen, amen! My PSA of the day comes especially for Nick Norelli, in case he's unaware (as I was) about this little factoid. At the SBL workshop on academic publishing, we were told that end notes are cheaper to print than footnotes, and that we should expect more and more academic publications to trend in that direction. So there you go, Nick. So sorry. But don't hate the playa, baby. Hate the game. ;-)
My first lonely moment of the entire trip came at the IBR reception. Everyone I knew was connecting with old friends and I didn't want to be (not feel like, but actually be) a fifth wheel anywhere, for their sakes. I continued making new friends for a little while, but I left early anyway. But that's okay. My brief loneliness was completely natural. My experience at these annual meetings is only beginning, so I shouldn't take a monolithic view. Developing valuable relationships takes TIME.
Speaking of time, I put in a fifteen hour day. YAAAAWN. Scholarpalooza Day 4 starts bright and early.
G'night, y'all.
November 19, 2009
N'awlins Day 2
Oh, the gift to give us - that we should see ourselves as others see us.
Hilights today: (1) meeting bibliobloggers David Stark of New Testament Interpretation and Todd Bolen of the Bible Places Blog. (2) hearing a delightful and wonderful presentation by Randolph Richards entitled (Mis)reading Paul through Western Eyes. Honestly, if I could reproduce the entire speech here, I would do so right this moment. (3) Meeting with Ched Spellman from SWBTS who was kind enough to engage me about Evangelicalism's varying levels of (dis)interest in Historical Reconstruction. (4) The intense challenge of attempting to sympathetically process Bruce Ware's message on how Jesus was able to resist sin as a human.
This is just really worth putting online.
In all fairness, Bruce's presentation completely assumed that Jesus' activity took place within the context of his relationship to the Father. Unfortunately, Bruce rarely presented Jesus' activity of resisting sin with any reference to God. In fact, in my estimation, his presentation was almost entirely negative. Again, Bruce may have assumed the context of Jesus' desire to please God, but his remarks themselves were 90% focused on "sin", "temptation" and "ability". Resisting is a negative activity.
The main issue, according to Bruce, is that "it was hard work" for Jesus to resist temptation, which became more and more difficult through his life, and that Jesus accomplished this great task by (1) prayer (2) focusing on God's Word and (3) the power of the Spirit. Strictly speaking, I don't technically disagree. In fact, I'll affirm the basic thrust of each point he made. However, I'm much more comfortable with a relational presentation.
In my opinion, it's not that Jesus was trying hard to NOT anything. It's that there was something else Jesus cared about more - pleasing the Father whom he genuinely loved with all his heart, soul and strength. IMHO, if you force yourself to keep the discussion in those terms, there's no way Jesus could have sinned because the relational bond underscores all other activity. (As a matter of fact, this point could have been included in Randolph's paper.) It's a very unsophisticated philosophy I'm presenting here, but it makes a whole lot more sense in real life terms. Besides which, it's positive.
If SIN, by definition, is disobedience to God, then avoiding sin is avoiding disobedience; but that double-negative should be turned around into a positive. Avoiding sin is simply obeying God... which comes from loving God... which implies knowing Him in the context of relationship. When pressed, Bruce said that Jesus' relationship to the Father was implied by "the power of the Spirit". I said I agreed. But I also said my concern is that after his message trickles down through the pulpits to the pews - people hear "power of the spirit" like it's a magic energy source. As a result, many people in the pews go home and (1) pray (2) read their Bibles & (3) say, "Okay, now God give me strength to be good." And the rest of all their Christian lives is negative ("resisting sin") and aside from asking for strength and remembering no-no's it may as well be virtually Godless.
Here's what I did not say to Bruce. Of course, he was in a hurry.
The shameful indictment of all this could be that people like Bruce present this sophisticated construction precisely because it boils down to something do-able. Christians can (1) pray (2) read and (3) beg for power. I honestly don't presume to judge the quality of Bruce Ware's spiritual life - or that of the hundreds if not thousands of preachers who communicate this very same message to their pepole. But I do absolutely know that such a message translates automatically into human effort, for anyone who's not already developed a deep relationship with Jesus Christ.
Worse yet, I wonder if these preachers really believe the christian life IS prayer, bible and power. It contains those things. It should not and cannot be reduced to those things.
Jesus Christ never sinned because he was deeply connected to his Father. He was loved by Him. He loved Him. He desired to please Him. He found that obeying Him brought him more of Him. He obeyed Him all the more. So they loved each other all the more.
In stark contrast, if we struggle so, and if our emphasis is entirely fixed on "sin" and "resisting"...
Dear God, what does that reveal about our true apprehension of You?
November 18, 2009
N'awlins Day 1
I do not understand Theology or Theologians. I'm essentially Evangelical but I think Evangelism (via Apologetics) has way too much influence on faith based New Testament Studies. I'm wonderfully social with strangers. Altogether, I suppose that scores me about one-point-five out of three here at the Evangelical Theological Society. Oh, well. Nobody's perfect. ;-)
In all seriousness, I had a great first day. To kick it off this morning I listened to an all-star panel on Theology in the New Testament that focused more on how to write books about the topic than they focused on how to investigate the topic itself. Actually, that was apparently the point (launching a new book series) but I still enjoyed listening in. (Joel Willitts asked a question in that meeting. Maybe he'll offer some more informed impressions some time. If he does, maybe I'll become smrater. Ya think?) Later on, I got to meet fellow bibliobloggers James Spinti at the Eisenbraun's booth and Charles Savelle of Bible X fame, who emphasized the centrality of GOD in the ethical urgings of James' Epistle. I also made a handful of new friends from Texas, Oregon, Wisconsin and right here in New Orleans.
My favorite paper of the day was on Theology and Chronology in John's Gospel - an excellent survey of the issue with some helpful observations by Roland McMillan of NOBTS. Roland's opinions weren't entirely conclusive, but his paper was well attended and his review of the "Tennis Match" that turns our heads back and forth when viewing John's Chronological data (Is it Theologically motivated? Is it Historically motivated?) deserves to be turned into a full length article in the near future. It is my fondest wish tonight that Roland gets his chance to start more conversations in social sciences among faith-based academics... and that he continues to be intrigued by Chronology in the Gospels.
By the way, we had Shrimp Po-Boys for lunch and for dinner I the best seafood gumbo I can remember in a long time. Unless you're allergic or kosher (like Jim West, apparently), when you're here, try the seafood. Avoiding seafood in New Orleans is like avoiding the Eiffel Tower in Paris. If anybody wants to eat well without blowing a wad, come find me this week. Mother's Restaurant is just down the street from the Sheraton. Ooooh-eeeee!
One last point - I've never spent more than an hour in my life studying Revelation but I'm naturally intrigued by a pre-70 viewpoint on its provenance. On that impetus alone, I spent ten minutes in the Preterists' booth today. Apparently, even they feel theology is more important than history. Something about proving that heaven is now.
Oy vei. And I'm not even Jewish!
November 16, 2009
N'awlins Schedule
In less than 48 hours, I'll be making my first trip to the Annual Biblical Studies ScholarPalooza. I'll be in N.O. for seven days and then B.R. for two, eating Turkey. At the conference(s), my main goal is to be a fly on the wall at all major events related to NT and Historical topics, to understand better how and why the various species of Biblical Scholars interact the ways they do in their scholarship.
Of course the highlight by far will be meeting online friends for the first time in real life. That never gets old. For old friends and Blog friends on Facebook, my cell #'s on my FB profile. For others, send an e-mail or look for me in the halls. If we've never met in person, here's a large pic of me in a tie! Laissez les bon temps rouler!
Of course the highlight by far will be meeting online friends for the first time in real life. That never gets old. For old friends and Blog friends on Facebook, my cell #'s on my FB profile. For others, send an e-mail or look for me in the halls. If we've never met in person, here's a large pic of me in a tie! Laissez les bon temps rouler!
November 14, 2009
Top 25
As of tonight, here are the 25 most frequent key terms on this blog, and the number of posts in which they appear. The sidebar index has now been updated.
Augustus and Apollo and the Jews
In late 4 BC, 50 Judean Jews brought along 8,000 Roman Jews to witness Augustus' hearing of their complaints before Herod's will could be settled. I presume it was at least partly to accommodate this large crowd that the Emperor moved the location of the hearing. For one day, the Temple of Apollo became a large courtroom. Two questions are: (1) Where did the crowd stand (my guess: in the courtyard, with the Emperor presiding from the steps; I don't suspect the interior was large enough for so many) and more importantly (2) Why choose a Temple for the gathering? More specifically, why that particular Temple?
Maybe the occasion simply required more formality than a different venue, but Caesar may also have wanted to emphasize Rome's religious hegemony, which Herod himself had always been too happy to acknowledge. Still, why Apollo's Temple, of all places? Was it simply the site's proximity to the Trans-Tiber district where most Roman Jews lived? Or was Augustus subtly delivering a message? If so, what was that message? I have no idea.
A new book just out from Cambridge by Ovid Scholar John F. Miller is entitled Apollo, Augustus, and the Poets
. From the publisher's description:
but and I won't get to read it real soon, but my main question would be what might Augustus have expected the Jews of Rome and/or Palestine to understand about "the Augustan Apollo"? Unfortunately, this is way down there on my list of research topics these days. Maybe someone else will go read Miller and ask these kinds of questions. I hope so.
Maybe the occasion simply required more formality than a different venue, but Caesar may also have wanted to emphasize Rome's religious hegemony, which Herod himself had always been too happy to acknowledge. Still, why Apollo's Temple, of all places? Was it simply the site's proximity to the Trans-Tiber district where most Roman Jews lived? Or was Augustus subtly delivering a message? If so, what was that message? I have no idea.
A new book just out from Cambridge by Ovid Scholar John F. Miller is entitled Apollo, Augustus, and the Poets
. From the publisher's description:Apollo’s importance in the religion of the Roman state was markedly heightened by the emperor Augustus, who claimed a special affiliation with the god. Contemporary poets variously responded to this appropriation of Phoebus Apollo, both participating in the construction of an imperial symbolism and resisting that ideological project. This book offers a synoptic study of ‘Augustan’ Apollo in Augustan poetry...The book's index does cite Josephus on the 4 BC hearing
• The only comprehensive treatment of the reflections by Augustan poets on Apollo as an imperial icon • Discusses the presentation of Apollo and Augustus by all five major Augustan poets as well as minor poets • Carefully situates the literature about Augustan Apollo within the broader culture, as known from numismatic, epigraphical, artistic, and archaeological evidence
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)