A: Sometimes. (Duh!) Look, this is really simple.
If the story proceeds from birth to life to death to resurrection, then the basic structure is chronological. If John the Baptist baptizes Jesus before getting arrested, and his disciples relay John's question before he's beheaded, then the basic structure is chronological. If the narrative introduces the disciples before Jesus calls them, and they're called some paragraphs before being named as apostles, which comes before being sent out once or twice, then the Gospel writer absolutely has an eye on chronological sequence, to a significant degree.
The question is not whether, but *how much*. How much of each Gospel narrative stands in chronological order? That's where current research should be focused. And so, therefore, one should not say things like, "[Such and such] suggests that [Gospel]'s orientation wasn't primarily chronological." That's nothing but a convenience for those who would rather dismiss seeming contradictions than deal with them head on.
Regardless, of course, the messy historical trouble hasn't gone anywhere. For example...
"Did Jesus have one or two Nazareth homecomings?" Hmmm. Well, he traversed Galilee for the better part of some (1, 2, or 3) years. For all we know, he could have gone back several times, which brings a double-edged sword to the debate. On the one hand, it's baseless to assume he went only once. However, for those of us who take Luke 4 and Mt.13/Mk.6 to represent separate events, this means we cannot refer to Mt/Mk's episode as "the second homecoming"... at least not without adding "that we know of".
Likewise, we cannot assume the Synoptic writers knew only that which they report. There could be any number of reasons why Mark chose to include only one trip to Jerusalem, and neither Mark nor John was obligated to include every detail of each time Jesus went there. But - and this is a very big BUT - if Jesus only cleared the Temple once, then John OR Mark's placement is inaccurate. I don't think that's likely, but IF it's true, then we ought to simply accept it, perhaps even without trying to justify the 'mistake'.
However... none of that is my point. This is:
The general structure of each Gospel IS chronologically oriented, with respect to a significant extent of its content. Comparing episodes within Matthew, Mark and Luke shows that some passages and events are jumbled slightly in sequence, but there's nothing that steps far out of place within the overall chain of causally related events. And yet, here is the rub.
When comparing John with the Synoptics there does arise one glaring challenge to chronologicity - namely, the Temple cleansing(s) - which, if it happened but once, could have been a very different event at the open or close of the Lord's public phase, according to some. More importantly, there is no other event which two Gospels locate so differently within the general event sequence of Jesus' life. If this is a chronological oversight, dispute or correction on some writer's part, it is one, two or three years in error, an unprecedented leap when compared with all other chronal discrepancies in the Gospels.
And so, my entire point in this post is just to say this. That the question of "one or two" Temple cleansings cannot be easily dismissed by saying "Well [Mark/John] isn't necessarily chronological."
Generally speaking, yes it is.
-------------------------
PS: Accepting two cleansings remains the simplest solution, and I find no reason to exclude John 2:15-16, especially if Mark 2:10 is almost as early. Frankly, I suspect conservatives flee from this position largely for strategic/political reasons. But again, none of that is the point of my post. If you want to dismiss it, do better than vague assertions that Gospels "aren't chronological".
Bill Heroman, Amateur Academic
December 30, 2010
December 26, 2010
Putting "Mass" back in X-mas
Well, okay. The Episcopalian Eucharist Rites, anyway. But nobody's perfect.
This is where I grew up. It's where I acolyted for seven years. It's where my brother got married. It's where my dad's mom got her Catholic husband to baptize their children. And we're home for the weekend, obviously. So we're attending the service.
You should already know how I feel about pews, sermons, etc. And I do. Letting a few people do all the primary functioning while the body assembles (and follows along) is like putting the Body of Christ in an Iron Lung for an hour a week. If all the breathing YOU did was assisted breathing, how strongs would YOUR lungs be? Anyway.
There is, on the other hand, a great deal to be said about "High Liturgy" which some of my "organic church"ey friends impoverish themselves to ignore. First of all, a planned meeting has the advantage of being on target, spiritually. That is, we may rotely recite words others have written, but they're very good words. That is often NOT true for your average living room "church".
In the Rites of the Eucharist, we incorporate various elements of spiritual life (vibrant or not) into our corporate conversation with God. And make no mistake, this is another advantage: the High Liturgy *does* facilitate an actual CORPORATE conversation with God. The fact that its PERFORMANCE is often anemic and fake (within some hearts more than others, natch) does NOT change the nature of what a High Liturgy *IS*.
I've got to run get in the shower, so let me now cut this short.
Ideally, a new "organic" church plant should be trained up, before being released. Ideally, the planters should COACH the church members... who might need years to get off the old iron lung regimen... and who usually have no idea how to function in corporate gathering, let alone how to moderate corporate goings on during that gathering.
The Liturgy - or something much like it, or best of all, SEVERAL somethings just like it - could be used with much profit, methinks, in preparing an untrained church body to walk in the ways they must go.
Think about growing tomatoes. When the plants are young and weak, a gardener ties them to stands, supporting their growth. When the plants become older and stronger, the gardener takes off the stands. They can stand on their own.
POINT: God can grow wild tomatoes from seeds dropped in random soil, anywhere. But God AND a gardener can train up much stronger tomatoes.
This is what posts look like when I've no time to edit. ;-)
Go in peace, to love and serve God.
Preferably, at some point, reaching critical Mass.
You should already know how I feel about pews, sermons, etc. And I do. Letting a few people do all the primary functioning while the body assembles (and follows along) is like putting the Body of Christ in an Iron Lung for an hour a week. If all the breathing YOU did was assisted breathing, how strongs would YOUR lungs be? Anyway.
There is, on the other hand, a great deal to be said about "High Liturgy" which some of my "organic church"ey friends impoverish themselves to ignore. First of all, a planned meeting has the advantage of being on target, spiritually. That is, we may rotely recite words others have written, but they're very good words. That is often NOT true for your average living room "church".
In the Rites of the Eucharist, we incorporate various elements of spiritual life (vibrant or not) into our corporate conversation with God. And make no mistake, this is another advantage: the High Liturgy *does* facilitate an actual CORPORATE conversation with God. The fact that its PERFORMANCE is often anemic and fake (within some hearts more than others, natch) does NOT change the nature of what a High Liturgy *IS*.
I've got to run get in the shower, so let me now cut this short.
Ideally, a new "organic" church plant should be trained up, before being released. Ideally, the planters should COACH the church members... who might need years to get off the old iron lung regimen... and who usually have no idea how to function in corporate gathering, let alone how to moderate corporate goings on during that gathering.
The Liturgy - or something much like it, or best of all, SEVERAL somethings just like it - could be used with much profit, methinks, in preparing an untrained church body to walk in the ways they must go.
Think about growing tomatoes. When the plants are young and weak, a gardener ties them to stands, supporting their growth. When the plants become older and stronger, the gardener takes off the stands. They can stand on their own.
POINT: God can grow wild tomatoes from seeds dropped in random soil, anywhere. But God AND a gardener can train up much stronger tomatoes.
This is what posts look like when I've no time to edit. ;-)
Go in peace, to love and serve God.
Preferably, at some point, reaching critical Mass.
December 21, 2010
He's always Thirty-something
Except when he's a baby. "Born of a virgin, suffered under Pontius Pilate." That's all we really need to know about Jesus, apparently. But then, how can we grow to be like him, when our view of him doesn't include more than one sentence about the time he spent growing?
How do WE get from cradle to grave when all HIS struggles seem to come right near that last part? How should the vast bulk of our life - the boring parts in the middle - reflect his?
It's a question that could have great ramifications. We don't think about Jesus developmentally, and we struggle to see the Christian Life developmentally. We've no idea why Jesus needed those thirty years between the Manger and the Cross, and we're confused about what Christians ought to be doing "until Heaven". Hmm. These things might be related...
There has not been a lack of desire to look at Christ's Life more dynamically, on the part of the laypeople. But there has been a great need for Institutional Christendom to present things in a way that promotes monolithic stability. So it's not the Creed's fault. Nor are the Gospel writers to blame. It's our fault. We've allowed his humanity to recede.
What are some other reasons why Christian authorities (historically) have preferred that we not delve into those three decades in Nazareth? I've some ideas on that which I may share very soon.
In the meantime, I'd like to hear from other bloggers and commenters.
What is (or has been) YOUR OWN view of the time between Christ's birth and baptism?
How do WE get from cradle to grave when all HIS struggles seem to come right near that last part? How should the vast bulk of our life - the boring parts in the middle - reflect his?
It's a question that could have great ramifications. We don't think about Jesus developmentally, and we struggle to see the Christian Life developmentally. We've no idea why Jesus needed those thirty years between the Manger and the Cross, and we're confused about what Christians ought to be doing "until Heaven". Hmm. These things might be related...
There has not been a lack of desire to look at Christ's Life more dynamically, on the part of the laypeople. But there has been a great need for Institutional Christendom to present things in a way that promotes monolithic stability. So it's not the Creed's fault. Nor are the Gospel writers to blame. It's our fault. We've allowed his humanity to recede.
What are some other reasons why Christian authorities (historically) have preferred that we not delve into those three decades in Nazareth? I've some ideas on that which I may share very soon.
In the meantime, I'd like to hear from other bloggers and commenters.
What is (or has been) YOUR OWN view of the time between Christ's birth and baptism?
December 14, 2010
What is Leadership?
Like other corporate/churchey buzzwords, "leadership" can be used and interpreted in various ways. But what IS it? Are there right and wrong ways to lead, or does leadership simply describe whatever happens when some people find themselves following others? More, is "leadership" only for some?
While I appreciate that some folks (like Alan Knox & David Fitch, for example) would like to redefine the term "leadership", I don't suppose definition warfare is likely to make authoritarian leaders become less like overlords and more like gracious servant-examples to their flocks. And that, there, is my point. To their flocks. It's the key question: Do these gracious servants who lead by example still claim authority over the local body and/or its decisions? Or, to put that another way...
When Jesus decried "overlords", was he thinking of style & function, or position & power?
In other words, would Jesus say you're an overlord because of the WAY in which you lead others... or because you occupy a position OVER others? To me, the latter choice fits better. Obviously we're not supposed to be ungracious or controlling. But "overlording" means taking charge over. It's almost a topographical term.
Nevertheless, there's a longstanding tradition through which folks in authority justify their appointed office by interpreting Jesus' words differently. To them, "overlording" is all about HOW leaders lead. Obviously, they say, Jesus knew we would need to have leaders.
Nevertheless, there's a longstanding tradition through which folks in authority justify their appointed office by interpreting Jesus' words differently. To them, "overlording" is all about HOW leaders lead. Obviously, they say, Jesus knew we would need to have leaders.
Well. While it's true that nothing in Church ever happens without someone leading... (that is, quite literally, functional human dynamics cannot produce joint action-taking without specific directives holding sway in the group, directives which most often spring forth from some individual or another) ...I have not seen anything in the New Testament to suggest that "shepherds" (ie supervisors, ie flock protectors, ie wise old caretakers) are supposed to be the ecclesia's primary Activity Directors. In the NT, the Apostles were the primary AD's, and while they instruct local elders to do many things, the Apostles instruct all the saints to do much, much else besides.
Ironically, this is precisely where I most laud Alan & David. Maybe. It does seem that their goal in acting as tier-one direction bringers is, partly, to facilitate more activity from all the saints - encouraging the passive pew sitters to become vocal meeting contributors, or pulling folks alongside during mission work to be nurtured and trained into more active participation within the body. And that's wonderful. But it's not really new, or innovative. More specifically, I'm not sure they're trying to facilitate initiative taking on the part of all saints.
And who would? Do we really want any saint in the body to be able to lead us, in some moment?
We ought to want that. We'd better. That is, IF we want the Holy Spirit to be able to lead us, we ought to be open to him leading us through any saint! And that's why I LOVE the term "leadership". Practically speaking, GOD can only LEAD us as a group IF WE lead one another. And we ought to LEAD one another. At the appropriate times, naturally. Taking turns, naturally.
Again, what is leadership? If group activity requires a spark of direction, at least, to get going... then should those sparks always come from certain folks? If they do, then I don't care what KIND of leadership you're exhibiting. It may be 90% wonderful. But in terms of position, you're OVER those folks. Like a "Lord".
But that's okay, maybe. At least you can be a good lord. For now.
Until someone shows us the next step...
November 27, 2010
#SBL10 Highlights
Chronologically, natch:
First off, at ETS (the week before Thanksgiving week) Michael Licona spoke about his new book The Resurrection of Jesus: A New Historiographical Approach
. I missed that session, unfortunately, but bought the book. It's an absolute pleasure to read, and I'll probably blog more about that real soon.
Nick Perrin responded to Darrell Bock & Robert Webb about their IBR Jesus book, Key Events in the Life of the Historical Jesus
, and about historiography and the gospels in general. Among his other comments, Nick said that he'd like to see more constructive historical work and less defensiveness. Amen, a thousand times, amen.
NT Wright and two other guys argued pleasantly for a few hours, Friday morning. I came in for about 15 minutes near the end, and pretty much confirmed that the whole "Justification" debate is almost purely semantical. As is becoming increasingly common, the reformed gentlemen aren't defending scripture, but their own reformation-based traditions. ((Dear God, thank you for the increasingly post-denominational nature of present day Christendom.))
Also at ETS, I found a wonderful little book called HISTORY-ies and fallacies
, by reformed blogger Carl Trueman (subtitle: Problems Faced in the Writing of History). I hadn't realized it, but Carl's a Church Historian, who apparently specializes in John Calvin. Well, wonders never cease. Considering the above paragraphs, however, I must wonder if Trueman considered that he's implicitly also defending our right to do [with the Gospels] that which his tradition would seem to prefer that we NOT do - namely, Writing History.
Ah well. So much for ETS. ;-)
The IBR meeting kicked off SBL Friday night with a message much discussed on other blogs. (Check my reader.) It was great. In response, Mike Bird was very entertaining. Personally, I think Wright's correct that conservatives these days largely miss the Kingdom in speaking, but I think we miss it in practice, far more. I tried to press Tom & Mike to consider anachronism - how are we missing, in spoken rhetoric, that larger sense of the Kingdom which only recently became missing in practice? But that night - as, probably, now - I wasn't able to express myself well enough to be understood.
At any rate, the main weakness of Tom's message was a lack of brass tacks. Precisely what, Dr. Wright, are you proposing that we should actually do? I don't think anyone knew. And I suppose that's how Tom wants it... for now.
On Saturday, Amy-Jill Levine, discussing "nativity myth" in Matthew's Gospel, remarked that if the so-called Star of Bethlehem was anything, it was an angel. An astronomical star could not only not lead them to a house, it could not stop above the house, or the whole thing would be incinerated. (Not to mention the whole Earth along with it, surely.)
Personally, I'd sure love to hear more "IF" statements like that from A.-J. I keep hoping SOMEONE who's genuinely skeptical of the Gospels could try on the faith hat apply reason to it. I don't think their conclusions would be like anything we've seen before. And I'd LOVE to see what they came up with, from that perspective.
On Sunday, A.-J. responded to Bock, Webb & Craig Keener in the session about whether 'conservatives' and 'liberals' can engage with one another in the Historical Jesus enterprise. For context, I refer you to Derek Leman's write-up. Personally, as much as I enjoyed this entire session, it left me completely uninterested in attending any further HJ sessions for the rest of the SBL conference.
On that note, I must say I'm skeptical about Derek's reported discovery the next morning: "the willingness to suspend many issues of “proving history” and to recreate the story of Jesus as best possible given the sources, not overly worrying about criteria that supposedly make for more or less likely history." That sounds like just what I'm after, but I'm not sure what D's referring to. One particular paper? Or the fact that John's Gospel is officially "in play" now, for critical scholarship. (What was it, Derek?)
Anyway, still on Saturday, I moved on to rediscover why a room full of Classicists can be so mentally and emotionally bracing, when the topic is ancient history. Erich Gruen expressed skepticism about Philo's claim that Caligula ordered all those statues to be sent towards Judea - could he really have been so naive? In her response, Tessa Rajak confessed feeling a temptation to tell Eric "truth is stranger than fiction" and to leave it at that!
That one brief moment was the most memorable sound bite of the whole week. She didn't leave it alone, of course. One more reason I love sitting in on the Philo/Josephus group(s).
Sunday night was the Bibliobloggers' get together at Gibney's pub, and it was easily the social highlight of my week. I saw several folks from last year's SBL, and met a few for the first time, including a Bird, a Barber, a Platypus, and an, uh, Aubrey. Among others. I also met some new (?) folks whose blogs I've not read yet (got to catch up!) But I can't figure out how Philip J. Long and I missed each other for a full week. Oh. Maybe because I decided to stick with Gospels and Classics, and Philip was probably in Acts & Epistles all week. That could explain it.
This being my second Big Bible Rodeo, it was nice to have scholars like Ken Schenck & Chris Tilling give me genuinely warm smiles and just say, "Hey, Bill". You know, like they know me. (!) And Michael Barber (don't hold this against him) said to a colleague, "Bill's done some good work." Albeit bloggership isn't scholarship, but that was very gracious on Michael's part. Encouraging, to say the least. I should start doing some more...
Again, on Monday, another two or three dozen SBL bloggers ordered lunch in the Hyatt, after which most of us met up at the session on Blogging and Online Publication. (For all the latest links, see McGrath, here.) It was the first time I knew all five presenters personally, and - as Mark Goodacre also remarked - it was the first time I completely agreed with everything I'd heard from a panel. Overall, an utterly delightful three hours. (Yes, we ran long. Go figure!)
I'm skipping plenty of other interesting bits from various sessions and personal meetings, of course. But as promised, these are the highlights. And somehow, for me personally, the best presentation of all happened to come in the last paper of the last session on the last day.
On Tuesday morning, Steve Mason talked about doing history from narrative in Josephus. Using a test case from Josephus' War (2.499ff) about Cestius Gallus' retreat from Jerusalem (AD 66), Mason illustrated the difference between "High School History", and "Critical History", and... a third category he's promoting, the name of which I forget, but the practice of which I'm very eager to see advance.
Essentially, Mason suggested that arguing endlessly over historicity gets us nowhere, and stressed an emphasis on hypothetical reconstruction. I can't hardly stand waiting for the book version to come out (2012?) so I can blog about it. But I'll have to. You'll still be reading me two years from now, I trust. (!?!)
I also tweeted quite a few times from the conference, but sometimes forgot the hashtag. To see it all, find me on Twitter. Or Facebook. Yes, you should be on Facebook. So you can friend me. :-)
That's all I've got. I bought five other books that I may mention someday. And I may have come to a decision or three that I'll blog about soon, as well. However soon soon may be. (Now's a great time to subscribe to this blog, so you don't miss a thing.)
Thanks for reading, dear reader. But thanks most of all to my dear wife for giving me a week to go play in Scholarpalooza. It was not only tons of fun, but I obviously learned a lot. Like how even Biblical Scholars disagree on how to pronounce their own trademark terms.
She says: Sep-TOO-a-gint?
He says: SEP-twa-gint?
Let's call the whole thing off. ;-)
First off, at ETS (the week before Thanksgiving week) Michael Licona spoke about his new book The Resurrection of Jesus: A New Historiographical Approach
. I missed that session, unfortunately, but bought the book. It's an absolute pleasure to read, and I'll probably blog more about that real soon.Nick Perrin responded to Darrell Bock & Robert Webb about their IBR Jesus book, Key Events in the Life of the Historical Jesus
, and about historiography and the gospels in general. Among his other comments, Nick said that he'd like to see more constructive historical work and less defensiveness. Amen, a thousand times, amen.NT Wright and two other guys argued pleasantly for a few hours, Friday morning. I came in for about 15 minutes near the end, and pretty much confirmed that the whole "Justification" debate is almost purely semantical. As is becoming increasingly common, the reformed gentlemen aren't defending scripture, but their own reformation-based traditions. ((Dear God, thank you for the increasingly post-denominational nature of present day Christendom.))
Also at ETS, I found a wonderful little book called HISTOR
, by reformed blogger Carl Trueman (subtitle: Problems Faced in the Writing of History). I hadn't realized it, but Carl's a Church Historian, who apparently specializes in John Calvin. Well, wonders never cease. Considering the above paragraphs, however, I must wonder if Trueman considered that he's implicitly also defending our right to do [with the Gospels] that which his tradition would seem to prefer that we NOT do - namely, Writing History.Ah well. So much for ETS. ;-)
The IBR meeting kicked off SBL Friday night with a message much discussed on other blogs. (Check my reader.) It was great. In response, Mike Bird was very entertaining. Personally, I think Wright's correct that conservatives these days largely miss the Kingdom in speaking, but I think we miss it in practice, far more. I tried to press Tom & Mike to consider anachronism - how are we missing, in spoken rhetoric, that larger sense of the Kingdom which only recently became missing in practice? But that night - as, probably, now - I wasn't able to express myself well enough to be understood.
At any rate, the main weakness of Tom's message was a lack of brass tacks. Precisely what, Dr. Wright, are you proposing that we should actually do? I don't think anyone knew. And I suppose that's how Tom wants it... for now.
On Saturday, Amy-Jill Levine, discussing "nativity myth" in Matthew's Gospel, remarked that if the so-called Star of Bethlehem was anything, it was an angel. An astronomical star could not only not lead them to a house, it could not stop above the house, or the whole thing would be incinerated. (Not to mention the whole Earth along with it, surely.)
Personally, I'd sure love to hear more "IF" statements like that from A.-J. I keep hoping SOMEONE who's genuinely skeptical of the Gospels could try on the faith hat apply reason to it. I don't think their conclusions would be like anything we've seen before. And I'd LOVE to see what they came up with, from that perspective.
On Sunday, A.-J. responded to Bock, Webb & Craig Keener in the session about whether 'conservatives' and 'liberals' can engage with one another in the Historical Jesus enterprise. For context, I refer you to Derek Leman's write-up. Personally, as much as I enjoyed this entire session, it left me completely uninterested in attending any further HJ sessions for the rest of the SBL conference.
On that note, I must say I'm skeptical about Derek's reported discovery the next morning: "the willingness to suspend many issues of “proving history” and to recreate the story of Jesus as best possible given the sources, not overly worrying about criteria that supposedly make for more or less likely history." That sounds like just what I'm after, but I'm not sure what D's referring to. One particular paper? Or the fact that John's Gospel is officially "in play" now, for critical scholarship. (What was it, Derek?)
Anyway, still on Saturday, I moved on to rediscover why a room full of Classicists can be so mentally and emotionally bracing, when the topic is ancient history. Erich Gruen expressed skepticism about Philo's claim that Caligula ordered all those statues to be sent towards Judea - could he really have been so naive? In her response, Tessa Rajak confessed feeling a temptation to tell Eric "truth is stranger than fiction" and to leave it at that!
That one brief moment was the most memorable sound bite of the whole week. She didn't leave it alone, of course. One more reason I love sitting in on the Philo/Josephus group(s).
Sunday night was the Bibliobloggers' get together at Gibney's pub, and it was easily the social highlight of my week. I saw several folks from last year's SBL, and met a few for the first time, including a Bird, a Barber, a Platypus, and an, uh, Aubrey. Among others. I also met some new (?) folks whose blogs I've not read yet (got to catch up!) But I can't figure out how Philip J. Long and I missed each other for a full week. Oh. Maybe because I decided to stick with Gospels and Classics, and Philip was probably in Acts & Epistles all week. That could explain it.
This being my second Big Bible Rodeo, it was nice to have scholars like Ken Schenck & Chris Tilling give me genuinely warm smiles and just say, "Hey, Bill". You know, like they know me. (!) And Michael Barber (don't hold this against him) said to a colleague, "Bill's done some good work." Albeit bloggership isn't scholarship, but that was very gracious on Michael's part. Encouraging, to say the least. I should start doing some more...
Again, on Monday, another two or three dozen SBL bloggers ordered lunch in the Hyatt, after which most of us met up at the session on Blogging and Online Publication. (For all the latest links, see McGrath, here.) It was the first time I knew all five presenters personally, and - as Mark Goodacre also remarked - it was the first time I completely agreed with everything I'd heard from a panel. Overall, an utterly delightful three hours. (Yes, we ran long. Go figure!)
I'm skipping plenty of other interesting bits from various sessions and personal meetings, of course. But as promised, these are the highlights. And somehow, for me personally, the best presentation of all happened to come in the last paper of the last session on the last day.
On Tuesday morning, Steve Mason talked about doing history from narrative in Josephus. Using a test case from Josephus' War (2.499ff) about Cestius Gallus' retreat from Jerusalem (AD 66), Mason illustrated the difference between "High School History", and "Critical History", and... a third category he's promoting, the name of which I forget, but the practice of which I'm very eager to see advance.
Essentially, Mason suggested that arguing endlessly over historicity gets us nowhere, and stressed an emphasis on hypothetical reconstruction. I can't hardly stand waiting for the book version to come out (2012?) so I can blog about it. But I'll have to. You'll still be reading me two years from now, I trust. (!?!)
I also tweeted quite a few times from the conference, but sometimes forgot the hashtag. To see it all, find me on Twitter. Or Facebook. Yes, you should be on Facebook. So you can friend me. :-)
That's all I've got. I bought five other books that I may mention someday. And I may have come to a decision or three that I'll blog about soon, as well. However soon soon may be. (Now's a great time to subscribe to this blog, so you don't miss a thing.)
Thanks for reading, dear reader. But thanks most of all to my dear wife for giving me a week to go play in Scholarpalooza. It was not only tons of fun, but I obviously learned a lot. Like how even Biblical Scholars disagree on how to pronounce their own trademark terms.
She says: Sep-TOO-a-gint?
He says: SEP-twa-gint?
Let's call the whole thing off. ;-)
November 03, 2010
When Joseph heard Archelaus... (2 of 2)
According to Matthew, who should Joseph have thought was the ruler of Galilee, when he chose to move there instead of to Judea?
This is not a simple situation to suss out. (See part one.) We know that Archelaus was officially sole ruler of both Judea & Galilee until Caesar ruled differently, and the Emperor's ruling did not come until October or November of 4 BC (after Varus' war was wrapped up, Philip had sailed to Italy late in the season, and Caesar had deliberated some more). In other words, from late March of 4 BC until the end of the year, no one in Palestine had any reason to think Archelaus was not ruling Galilee, as well as Judea.
Now, Matthew and most of his readers certainly knew what happened later on - that Archelaus, Antipas & Philip returned from Rome early in 3 BC having each received only 1/3 of the Kingdom. Furthermore, Matthew draws a definite contrast here between Judea and Galilee, almost as if he's deliberately reminding us (perhaps only with his subtext) that we know why Galilee turned out to be safe, after all. But at face value, Matthew's use of "Judea" seems very odd. If Joseph departed the night Herod died, and (most likely) reached the outskirts of Judea just after Passover, then Joseph should have been fully aware that Galilee was also within the jurisdiction of Archelaus the horrible.
Once more, the question at hand is this: according to Matthew, who should Joseph have thought was the ruler of Galilee? The answer must be: Archelaus. That is, according to Matthew, Joseph was afraid to go into Judea AND he had not considered Galilee EITHER, because, of course, Archelaus was ruling there also.
This brings us to Matthew's point. The dream was necessary. Having been instructed ('warned' is a poor translation of χρηματισθεὶς here, and an editorial completely unnecessary, because Joseph was already afraid. The word simply means receiving a divine message, as from an oracle) in a dream, Joseph went to Galilee, a bit further from Archelaus' center of power, which was Judea.
By any reading, it should already have been apparent that Joseph would not have gone to Galilee without having that dream. But by reconstructing the details - and assuming that all Matthew's statements are entirely accurate - we see more clearly why Joseph needed the dream in the first place.
Of course, if anything Matthew said is non-factual, then the whole thing might be hooey. But if taken at face value, it all actually fits. And it fits very well. That's worth considering.
Fini.
This is not a simple situation to suss out. (See part one.) We know that Archelaus was officially sole ruler of both Judea & Galilee until Caesar ruled differently, and the Emperor's ruling did not come until October or November of 4 BC (after Varus' war was wrapped up, Philip had sailed to Italy late in the season, and Caesar had deliberated some more). In other words, from late March of 4 BC until the end of the year, no one in Palestine had any reason to think Archelaus was not ruling Galilee, as well as Judea.
Now, Matthew and most of his readers certainly knew what happened later on - that Archelaus, Antipas & Philip returned from Rome early in 3 BC having each received only 1/3 of the Kingdom. Furthermore, Matthew draws a definite contrast here between Judea and Galilee, almost as if he's deliberately reminding us (perhaps only with his subtext) that we know why Galilee turned out to be safe, after all. But at face value, Matthew's use of "Judea" seems very odd. If Joseph departed the night Herod died, and (most likely) reached the outskirts of Judea just after Passover, then Joseph should have been fully aware that Galilee was also within the jurisdiction of Archelaus the horrible.
Once more, the question at hand is this: according to Matthew, who should Joseph have thought was the ruler of Galilee? The answer must be: Archelaus. That is, according to Matthew, Joseph was afraid to go into Judea AND he had not considered Galilee EITHER, because, of course, Archelaus was ruling there also.
This brings us to Matthew's point. The dream was necessary. Having been instructed ('warned' is a poor translation of χρηματισθεὶς here, and an editorial completely unnecessary, because Joseph was already afraid. The word simply means receiving a divine message, as from an oracle) in a dream, Joseph went to Galilee, a bit further from Archelaus' center of power, which was Judea.
By any reading, it should already have been apparent that Joseph would not have gone to Galilee without having that dream. But by reconstructing the details - and assuming that all Matthew's statements are entirely accurate - we see more clearly why Joseph needed the dream in the first place.
Of course, if anything Matthew said is non-factual, then the whole thing might be hooey. But if taken at face value, it all actually fits. And it fits very well. That's worth considering.
Fini.
November 01, 2010
When Joseph heard Archelaus... (1 of 2)
According to Matthew, Joseph & Mary left Egypt the night King Herod died, traveled towards home, but were frightened because "Archelaus was reigning over Judea". Even accepting the miraculous departure, there are several odd things about this return. At least three, in particular:
First, which son of Herod did Joseph think would be ruling? Second, why was it Archelaus in particular that caused Joseph to fear? Third, who did Joseph think was in charge of Galilee, at that time?
To the first question: If the Massacre of the Innocents took place before mid-6 BC, Joseph would have remembered Herod's famous son Antipater as the chosen successor. If Joseph & Mary lived in Alexandria, or anywhere that heard big news from Judea, they would also have learned about Antipater's imprisonment (for deviously sending two of his brothers to the executioner) but probably did not know which remaining son (Archelaus, Antipas or Philip) would be taking Antipater's place. As if anyone did, before Herod died. (The choice of Antipas, confirmed by Caesar over the winter, may not yet have been made public knowledge, and Herod changed his mind almost as soon as Caesar's approval arrived.)
Thus, it actually makes sense that the succession of Archelaus would have been news to Joseph.
To the second question: All that we know about Archelaus suggests the young prince had virtually no reputation whatsoever around the Kingdom before his announcement. Optimistic crowds entreated him before Passover and all indications are that these crowds held at least modest hopes for a kinder more generous King. Why, then, could Joseph have been afraid? The only reason we can supply is that Archelaus presided over a massacre of 3,000 pilgrims that year, on the Passover Day. In that light, the text of Mt.2:22 could shift slightly towards a very strong sense of ἀντὶ - on behalf of, or in place of - meaning, for example, something like, 'much in the way of'.*
Thus, it was probably not so much that Archelaus ruled which frightened Joseph, as much as how he was ruling. He was ruling ἀντὶ Herod the Great.
That's two down. But our third question may be the most difficult.
To be continued...
------------------------------------
*Note: Matthew's other uses of ἀντὶ are also very strong. An eye ἀντὶ an eye, a tooth ἀντὶ a tooth. Pay the tax ἀντὶ [both] me and you. [I came] to give my soul as ransom ἀντὶ many. (Mt. 5:38, 17:27, 20:28) It's not just "okay, now it's your turn". If ἀντὶ means "in the place of" it means fully in place of, or as if he were him.
First, which son of Herod did Joseph think would be ruling? Second, why was it Archelaus in particular that caused Joseph to fear? Third, who did Joseph think was in charge of Galilee, at that time?
To the first question: If the Massacre of the Innocents took place before mid-6 BC, Joseph would have remembered Herod's famous son Antipater as the chosen successor. If Joseph & Mary lived in Alexandria, or anywhere that heard big news from Judea, they would also have learned about Antipater's imprisonment (for deviously sending two of his brothers to the executioner) but probably did not know which remaining son (Archelaus, Antipas or Philip) would be taking Antipater's place. As if anyone did, before Herod died. (The choice of Antipas, confirmed by Caesar over the winter, may not yet have been made public knowledge, and Herod changed his mind almost as soon as Caesar's approval arrived.)
Thus, it actually makes sense that the succession of Archelaus would have been news to Joseph.
To the second question: All that we know about Archelaus suggests the young prince had virtually no reputation whatsoever around the Kingdom before his announcement. Optimistic crowds entreated him before Passover and all indications are that these crowds held at least modest hopes for a kinder more generous King. Why, then, could Joseph have been afraid? The only reason we can supply is that Archelaus presided over a massacre of 3,000 pilgrims that year, on the Passover Day. In that light, the text of Mt.2:22 could shift slightly towards a very strong sense of ἀντὶ - on behalf of, or in place of - meaning, for example, something like, 'much in the way of'.*
Thus, it was probably not so much that Archelaus ruled which frightened Joseph, as much as how he was ruling. He was ruling ἀντὶ Herod the Great.
That's two down. But our third question may be the most difficult.
To be continued...
------------------------------------
*Note: Matthew's other uses of ἀντὶ are also very strong. An eye ἀντὶ an eye, a tooth ἀντὶ a tooth. Pay the tax ἀντὶ [both] me and you. [I came] to give my soul as ransom ἀντὶ many. (Mt. 5:38, 17:27, 20:28) It's not just "okay, now it's your turn". If ἀντὶ means "in the place of" it means fully in place of, or as if he were him.
October 27, 2010
on Chronologizing Jesus' Ministry
The idea isn't to date each verse, or passage. The idea is to reconstruct a sequence of events which occurred in actual history, during Jesus' public phase - a sequence which can then be viewed as [a part of] the broader context of all Jesus' actions and sayings, first as a whole, and then perhaps somewhat developmentally.
In how many ways was his final year of traveling & preaching at all different from his first? In how many ways did his strategy change after John's arrest, and after John's death? What, if anything, does that say about Jesus' mission *before* his Passion took place? Does a brief (1 or 2 year) ministry support those who want Stephen and Paul to get on stage as quickly as possible? Does a longer (3 or 4 year) ministry require us to consider more carefully that God may have wanted something from Galilee and Judea, also?
The idea isn't to reconstruct a context for reinterpreting particular sayings and actions of Jesus. The idea is to care about the fact that Jesus' enormous impact on his own day didn't take place in a chronological or developmental vacuum. The idea is that some event-based context is better than none. The idea is that sequenced events tend to influence one another. If Jesus' actions stay in the Gospels, they remain that much more insulated from the book of Acts.
Why don't Christian believers put more effort toward reconstructing a History - an historical synopsis of Gospel events?
To date, I still can't think of any good reasons not to.
In how many ways was his final year of traveling & preaching at all different from his first? In how many ways did his strategy change after John's arrest, and after John's death? What, if anything, does that say about Jesus' mission *before* his Passion took place? Does a brief (1 or 2 year) ministry support those who want Stephen and Paul to get on stage as quickly as possible? Does a longer (3 or 4 year) ministry require us to consider more carefully that God may have wanted something from Galilee and Judea, also?
The idea isn't to reconstruct a context for reinterpreting particular sayings and actions of Jesus. The idea is to care about the fact that Jesus' enormous impact on his own day didn't take place in a chronological or developmental vacuum. The idea is that some event-based context is better than none. The idea is that sequenced events tend to influence one another. If Jesus' actions stay in the Gospels, they remain that much more insulated from the book of Acts.
Why don't Christian believers put more effort toward reconstructing a History - an historical synopsis of Gospel events?
To date, I still can't think of any good reasons not to.
October 26, 2010
Did Priscilla write Hebrews?
That could explain a lot more than just the anonymity. Priscilla was a Hellenized (Italian*) woman with a Jewish husband, Aquila. She'd lived in Rome, Corinth and Ephesus. She'd become soaked in Paul's thought in all three of those cities, and probably became acquainted with Johannine thought before Nero exiled the writer to Patmos. She'd either lived through the horrors of Nero's persecution or lived to hear about friends dying in horrible ways.
Luke says Priscilla knew how to lay out the way of God - not 'teach', not 'proclaim', but to expound. Luke says 'laid out', like the baby moses was laid out. It's the same word Luke uses when Peter recounts his experience at Caesarea, and when Paul expounded his way through the scriptures with Rome's Jews. That kind of instructive exposition fits the style of the Hebrews writer, who laid out her/his arguments more like relating a saga than imitating a sage.
And who among early Christian leaders, more than Priscilla, had known the wandering life of an exile? When the Emperor Claudius kicked her husband out of Rome, they moved to Corinth. P&A left Corinth to help prepare Ephesus for Paul, they left Ephesus for Rome after Claudius died, and they left Rome for Ephesus again some time before Paul's execution - most likely soon after Nero's persecutions began. That's a lot of personal transition for the ancient world, and it must have brought some personal sensitivity towards the themes found in Hebrews.
-----------------------------------------
I now+ see this suggestion - that Priscilla wrote Hebrews - has been made before, and I'm not surprised. By whom, and for what reasons, I've not yet ascertained. Intriguing, though. Don't you think?
-----------------------------------------
*Most Greeks were never Romanized, but all Italians had become somewhat hellenized after the 2nd century BC.
+Post originally written for 9/17/10
Luke says Priscilla knew how to lay out the way of God - not 'teach', not 'proclaim', but to expound. Luke says 'laid out', like the baby moses was laid out. It's the same word Luke uses when Peter recounts his experience at Caesarea, and when Paul expounded his way through the scriptures with Rome's Jews. That kind of instructive exposition fits the style of the Hebrews writer, who laid out her/his arguments more like relating a saga than imitating a sage.
And who among early Christian leaders, more than Priscilla, had known the wandering life of an exile? When the Emperor Claudius kicked her husband out of Rome, they moved to Corinth. P&A left Corinth to help prepare Ephesus for Paul, they left Ephesus for Rome after Claudius died, and they left Rome for Ephesus again some time before Paul's execution - most likely soon after Nero's persecutions began. That's a lot of personal transition for the ancient world, and it must have brought some personal sensitivity towards the themes found in Hebrews.
-----------------------------------------
I now+ see this suggestion - that Priscilla wrote Hebrews - has been made before, and I'm not surprised. By whom, and for what reasons, I've not yet ascertained. Intriguing, though. Don't you think?
-----------------------------------------
*Most Greeks were never Romanized, but all Italians had become somewhat hellenized after the 2nd century BC.
+Post originally written for 9/17/10
October 24, 2010
Reverend Augustus & his PR Machine
Barbara Levick's latest book is out. Augustus: image and substance
attempts to show that "Augustus’ overriding purpose was always to keep himself and his dynasty in power". Well, of course it was, but that's mainly because Revered Caesar (the 'August One') genuinely believed his own person and legacy was the only way to keep Rome at peace. Honestly.
By the way, I can't help thinking I've known other men with and without that same title who believed similar things of themselves. Anyway...
Whether the Empire's Revered One was justified in his belief is debatable. What should be undisputed, however, is that once Augustus had justified that self-centric decision to himself, from that point onwards Reverend Caesar had to pull out all the stops to make sure everyone else believed it (and kept on believing it, even while things were crumbling around him) as well. And that's what Levick's book promises to be about - the difference between what Augustus was (or at least, what he became) and what he portrayed himself as.
From the cover, again: "This fascinating story of the realities of power in ancient Rome has inescapable contemporary resonance..." Indeed. The realities of power. Control begets wickedness. But I digress again.
One reason I wish seminaries focused more on First Century Events is because I often wish ministerial trainees would study more in the area of Imperial Politics. Dear reader, if YOU harbor such noble ambitions as to caretake for God's people, I daresay you could probably do a lot worse than to get a copy of Levick's Augustus, and keep it right next to your Bible... at least for a while. It might show you all the things you do not want to do. It might show you how power corrupts.
Godspeed, all you wanna be Reverends. Godspeed to learn History... and then, hopefully, to fall on your face before God once again.
attempts to show that "Augustus’ overriding purpose was always to keep himself and his dynasty in power". Well, of course it was, but that's mainly because Revered Caesar (the 'August One') genuinely believed his own person and legacy was the only way to keep Rome at peace. Honestly.By the way, I can't help thinking I've known other men with and without that same title who believed similar things of themselves. Anyway...
Whether the Empire's Revered One was justified in his belief is debatable. What should be undisputed, however, is that once Augustus had justified that self-centric decision to himself, from that point onwards Reverend Caesar had to pull out all the stops to make sure everyone else believed it (and kept on believing it, even while things were crumbling around him) as well. And that's what Levick's book
promises to be about - the difference between what Augustus was (or at least, what he became) and what he portrayed himself as.From the cover, again: "This fascinating story of the realities of power in ancient Rome has inescapable contemporary resonance..." Indeed. The realities of power. Control begets wickedness. But I digress again.
One reason I wish seminaries focused more on First Century Events is because I often wish ministerial trainees would study more in the area of Imperial Politics. Dear reader, if YOU harbor such noble ambitions as to caretake for God's people, I daresay you could probably do a lot worse than to get a copy of Levick's Augustus
, and keep it right next to your Bible... at least for a while. It might show you all the things you do not want to do. It might show you how power corrupts.Godspeed, all you wanna be Reverends. Godspeed to learn History... and then, hopefully, to fall on your face before God once again.
September 28, 2010
excerpt: History vs. Political Theory
From Gordon S. Wood's The Purpose of the Past
, Chapter 11:
My thoughts:
New Testament research is often political theory disguising itself as history, in order to support church politics, aka "theology". Day by day, dear Lord I pray, we need to spend more time attempting to see our own past for what it is, just as it was, not for how it might help us to mold our own future/present.
It's fine to extract principles of diversity, or of pastoral care, or of social justice, or of ecclesiological order - whichever principles those may be, for you - and then to apply those scriptural principles in another context. The most educated academics and clerics already know how this works, much better than anyone. But there are still some who push views of the first century (or allow it to appear a certain way) which support their ecclesiology, and their theology. Worst of all, it is very hard to find those who search behind the text for a reasonable History of Jesus and Paul, for its own sake. This should not be so rare.
Lord, hear our prayer.
, Chapter 11:Historians are as interested in the ideas and ideologies of the founders as political theorists like [author]. What is different about the two disciplines is their purpose. Historians attempt to recover a past world as accurately as possible and try to show how that different world developed into our own. Political theorists who work with the ideas of the past have a different agenda. They are primarily interested in the present or future conditions of political life and see past ideas merely as the sources or seeds for present or future political thinking. [T]hey usually see the past simply as an anticipation of our present, and thus they tend to hold people in the past responsible for a future that was, in fact, inconceivable to them.
There is nothing wrong with this sort of ransacking of the past by political theorists; lawyers and jurists do it all the time. But we should never confuse these manipulations of the past for present purposes with doing history... Jefferson's idea of equality, for example, has been used time and again throughout our history, by Lincoln as well as Martin Luther King, Jr. Historians contend that such usages violate the original historical meaning of the ideas and cannot be regarded as historically accurate, but they don't deny the rationality and legitimacy of such violations.
My thoughts:
New Testament research is often political theory disguising itself as history, in order to support church politics, aka "theology". Day by day, dear Lord I pray, we need to spend more time attempting to see our own past for what it is, just as it was, not for how it might help us to mold our own future/present.
It's fine to extract principles of diversity, or of pastoral care, or of social justice, or of ecclesiological order - whichever principles those may be, for you - and then to apply those scriptural principles in another context. The most educated academics and clerics already know how this works, much better than anyone. But there are still some who push views of the first century (or allow it to appear a certain way) which support their ecclesiology, and their theology. Worst of all, it is very hard to find those who search behind the text for a reasonable History of Jesus and Paul, for its own sake. This should not be so rare.
Lord, hear our prayer.
September 23, 2010
excerpt: Truth in History
From Gordon S. Wood's The Purpose of the Past, Chapter 10:
! (This chapter originally published as part of a book review in The New Yorker, November 1994.)
My comments:
Once again, Wood sings to my soul while he sharpens my brain. I have absolutely nothing to add that these excerpted paragraphs have not already said very well, and so very profoundly.
I suggest scrolling up for the sheer pleasure of reading them again.
, Chapter 10:History is one of the last humanistic disciplines to be affected by deconstruction and postmodernist theories. These theories are not the same as ordinary historical relativism, which, as historian Gertrude Himmelfarb describes it, "locates the meaning of ideas and events so firmly in their historical context that history, rather than philosophy and nature, becomes the arbiter of truth." Most historians these days, including Himmelfarb, have become comfortable with this kind of contextual relativism, which accepts the reality of the past and our ability to say something true, however partial, about that past. [But] postmodernism threatens all that...If those excerpts seemed interesting, the entire chapter demands your attention. Better yet, once again, I say go buy the whole book
All may be contingent; all may be relative. But [citation] this prevalence of contingency and relativism does not mean the end of objectivity and the possibility of arriving at practical workable truths in history writing. It is true that historians, like all humans, are subjective: they have passions, desires, political and personal agendas. But so did Newton and Darwin, and they were still capable of discovering objective scientific truths. We can never return to the absolutist world of nineteenth-century positivism, but the alternative to that world is not the postmodernist world of total subjectivity...
[A new theory of objectivity, called "practical realism"] recognizes that there cannot be an exact correspondence between words and what is out there; still, it continues to aim for as much accuracy and completeness as possible in the historical reconstruction of the past. Our interpretation of the past may be imperfect, but practical realism knows that "some words and conventions, however socially constructed, reach out to the world and give a reasonably true description of its contents."
! (This chapter originally published as part of a book review in The New Yorker, November 1994.)My comments:
Once again, Wood sings to my soul while he sharpens my brain. I have absolutely nothing to add that these excerpted paragraphs have not already said very well, and so very profoundly.
I suggest scrolling up for the sheer pleasure of reading them again.
September 18, 2010
The Scapegoat & The Scattering
Leviticus 16 & 23 may find parallel in Acts 8:1 & 11:19. Here's how:
On Yom Kippur, Israel's High Priest would slay a bull and a goat, as a sin-offering to the Lord, for all of Israel's sins committed within the past year. Christ's sacrifice on Passover was the ultimate fulfillment of these rituals for the Day of Atonement. Thus, typology cannot be strictly tied to chronological parallel. (For another example, see here.) With that in mind, consider the following:
After sacrificing on the Day of Atonement, Israel's High Priest would take a second goat and declare all of Israel's sins should now rest with that goat, who then had to depart (or 'escape'). With that, someone would lead the goat out into the wilderness. In later years, the goat may have been led off a cliff. Leviticus prescribed simply that it be led out to wander.
On the day after Yom Kippur, all over Israel, faithful Hebrews would begin constructing their Sukkot, the temporary dwellings used to mark a week of feasting. Each family had four days to build a sukkah (booth). So, on Tishri 11, 12, 13 & 14, the sukkot (booths) would go up, and from Tishri 15 to Tishri 21, they were supposed to be lived in. In later years, the booths were used only at dinner time, but Leviticus prescribed them to be dwelling places for seven days.
Now, here's how all of this may be paralleled by Acts 8:1 & 11:19.
On whatever day/evening Stephen was stoned, certain Jerusalemites unleashed pent up animosity against the new sect - perhaps even subliminal guilt leftover from calling for the death of an innocent man. Jewish believers all over the city were dragged out of their homes and thrown out of Jerusalem. Bearing the rage/shame of their own countrymen on their heads, the believers in Christ were sent out to wander... just like the scapegoat.
On the day after Stephen was stoned, the scattered Christians of Jerusalem began finding one another in cities elsewhere in Judea. Whatever believers gathered together that evening, on that spot, the Lord put up a spiritual Sukkah for Himself - because the Church is a dwelling for Him. Two and three days later, the Lord was still putting up more Christian Houses in places all over Israel. By the fifth day, if not sooner, certain scattered believers must have been gathering unto the Lord in places outside the bounds of the holy land.
In other words, it just so happens that what Stephen spoke about, according to Acts, is what actually happened in days following. Like Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Joseph, Moses, Aaron & David - before them - the new people of God were now vagabonds. As Christ had been. As God had been, before Solomon built the Big Box.
For the first time, since the Ark and the Tabernacle, God's Testimony became mobile on Earth once again.
And all this took place in the pattern - and maybe also around the time - of the High Holy Season.
Praise the LORD.
-----------------------------------------------
Related posts:
3-7-10: Why are the Ushpizin so fitting for Sukkot?
3-9-10: Situating Stephen's Speech - 1
3-10-10: Racism and Geography
3-11-10: Luke liked most Jews
3-13-10: Situating Stephen's Speech at Yom Kippur
3-15-10: Chronology of Acts 1-9
3-16-10: Stephen's Real Bias
5-27-10: Stephen's Day of Atonement
On Yom Kippur, Israel's High Priest would slay a bull and a goat, as a sin-offering to the Lord, for all of Israel's sins committed within the past year. Christ's sacrifice on Passover was the ultimate fulfillment of these rituals for the Day of Atonement. Thus, typology cannot be strictly tied to chronological parallel. (For another example, see here.) With that in mind, consider the following:
After sacrificing on the Day of Atonement, Israel's High Priest would take a second goat and declare all of Israel's sins should now rest with that goat, who then had to depart (or 'escape'). With that, someone would lead the goat out into the wilderness. In later years, the goat may have been led off a cliff. Leviticus prescribed simply that it be led out to wander.
On the day after Yom Kippur, all over Israel, faithful Hebrews would begin constructing their Sukkot, the temporary dwellings used to mark a week of feasting. Each family had four days to build a sukkah (booth). So, on Tishri 11, 12, 13 & 14, the sukkot (booths) would go up, and from Tishri 15 to Tishri 21, they were supposed to be lived in. In later years, the booths were used only at dinner time, but Leviticus prescribed them to be dwelling places for seven days.
Now, here's how all of this may be paralleled by Acts 8:1 & 11:19.
On whatever day/evening Stephen was stoned, certain Jerusalemites unleashed pent up animosity against the new sect - perhaps even subliminal guilt leftover from calling for the death of an innocent man. Jewish believers all over the city were dragged out of their homes and thrown out of Jerusalem. Bearing the rage/shame of their own countrymen on their heads, the believers in Christ were sent out to wander... just like the scapegoat.
On the day after Stephen was stoned, the scattered Christians of Jerusalem began finding one another in cities elsewhere in Judea. Whatever believers gathered together that evening, on that spot, the Lord put up a spiritual Sukkah for Himself - because the Church is a dwelling for Him. Two and three days later, the Lord was still putting up more Christian Houses in places all over Israel. By the fifth day, if not sooner, certain scattered believers must have been gathering unto the Lord in places outside the bounds of the holy land.
In other words, it just so happens that what Stephen spoke about, according to Acts, is what actually happened in days following. Like Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Joseph, Moses, Aaron & David - before them - the new people of God were now vagabonds. As Christ had been. As God had been, before Solomon built the Big Box.
For the first time, since the Ark and the Tabernacle, God's Testimony became mobile on Earth once again.
And all this took place in the pattern - and maybe also around the time - of the High Holy Season.
Praise the LORD.
-----------------------------------------------
Related posts:
3-7-10: Why are the Ushpizin so fitting for Sukkot?
3-9-10: Situating Stephen's Speech - 1
3-10-10: Racism and Geography
3-11-10: Luke liked most Jews
3-13-10: Situating Stephen's Speech at Yom Kippur
3-15-10: Chronology of Acts 1-9
3-16-10: Stephen's Real Bias
5-27-10: Stephen's Day of Atonement
September 14, 2010
excerpt: Microhistory
Have you not bought this book yet? From Gordon S. Wood's The Purpose of the Past, Chapter 9:
My comments:
Some dilemmas can't be escaped from forever. Eventually, I suppose, all these vigorous microhistories will surely contribute towards something larger, but what that might be we surely cannot predict.
Again, though, Wood's focus is on American History. One parallel I see with Biblical Studies is the pattern of specialization. But as with microhistories, one hopes that eventually all such knowledge might converge.
Meanwhile, apparently, not all grand narrative writers are going to remain on the sidelines. Nor should they.
yet? From Gordon S. Wood's The Purpose of the Past, Chapter 9:According to many in the historical profession today, any sort of grand narrative of the past is frowned upon. Even as hard-nosed a historian as Richard D. Brown, who has written several substantial synthetic studies of early America, has succumbed to the postmodern skepticism of the present climate to the point where he doubts the possibility any longer of historians' writing large-scale synthetic accounts of the past. In his presidential address to the Society of the Early Republic, published in 2003, Brown stated that historians' claims to be telling the truth now stand on shaky ground. 'Syntheses cannot make the strongest truth claims because they are based on such selectively chosen facts.' He suggested that historians should escape from this dilemma by writing microhistories, small studies of particular localities, persons, or events. 'By exploring a finite subject exhaustively (though not definitively), the microhistorian commands the evidence on that subject beyond challenge; so within that topic readers learn to accept his or her authority.'" Certainly microhistory has flourished since the mid-1990's... But...Wood goes on to cite specific authors and texts discussed elsewhere in the chapter. He cites one microhistorian who went on to write a "grand narrative of political history" in 2005, which won a Bancroft Prize. Wood calls this "a welcome sign of change."
My comments:
Some dilemmas can't be escaped from forever. Eventually, I suppose, all these vigorous microhistories will surely contribute towards something larger, but what that might be we surely cannot predict.
Again, though, Wood's focus is on American History. One parallel I see with Biblical Studies is the pattern of specialization. But as with microhistories, one hopes that eventually all such knowledge might converge.
Meanwhile, apparently, not all grand narrative writers are going to remain on the sidelines. Nor should they.
September 09, 2010
excerpt: History as Fiction
From Gordon S. Wood's The Purpose of the Past, Chapter 7:
My thoughts:
Wood has the benefit of working with sources on the American Revolutionary Period, and a much vaster reservoir of overall data than we have for Ancient, let alone Biblical History. Still, I think he speaks generally for all historical work in this quote. It remains true that we CAN embrace the extent of our ignorance AND make limited attempts to reconstruct the past for its own sake WITHOUT wallowing in uncertainty for its own sake.
, Chapter 7:Historical scholarship should not be set in opposition to imagination. History writing is creative, and it surely requires imagination, but it is an imagination of a particular sort, sensitive to the differentness of the past and constricted by the documentary record. ...This chapter was previously published as Dead Certainties (Unwarranted Speculations), a book review in the New York Review of Books, June 1991.
One can accept the view that the historical record is fragmentary and incomplete, that recovery of the past is partial and difficult, and that historians will never finally agree in their interpretations, and yet can still believe intelligibly and not naively in an objective truth about the past that can be observed and empirically verified. Historians may never see and represent that truth wholly and finally, but some of them will come closer than others, be more nearly complete, more objective, more honest, in their written history, and we will know it, and have known it, when we see it. That knowledge is the best antidote to the destructive skepticism that is troubling us today.
My thoughts:
Wood has the benefit of working with sources on the American Revolutionary Period, and a much vaster reservoir of overall data than we have for Ancient, let alone Biblical History. Still, I think he speaks generally for all historical work in this quote. It remains true that we CAN embrace the extent of our ignorance AND make limited attempts to reconstruct the past for its own sake WITHOUT wallowing in uncertainty for its own sake.
September 07, 2010
History vs. Apologetics
The first problem with apologetics(*) is an assumption. But I don't mean logical, theological or historical assumptions - which are also problems, at times. I mean one particular assumption, namely, that any plausible explanation provides reason enough for believing the claims of a text. It may. It may not.
The second problem with apologetics(*) is an inconsistency. But I don't mean logical, academic or argumentative inconsistencies - which are also problems, at times. I mean one overarching inconsistency, namely, that many apologists work to support claims of historicity, but they do not focus on reconstructing an actual history. In most cases, once the objection's been covered, they stop.
Plausible explanations nearly always get considered by historians, if the suggestion is properly qualified. We don't have evidence to support every claim of most ancient texts, that can be reasonably verified. But any thoroughly historical analysis of the past can contribute towards historians' attempts at reconstructing that past, even if the analysis may be somewhat uncritical.
In contrast to all this, apologetics(*) is almost purely defensive, and very rarely constructive.
Here's my suggested alternative: Christian scholars, believe that the scripture is trustworthy and affirm that its historical content is accurate. But, don't make proving that your objective. Begin there. Assume historicity, and then go on further to reconstruct actual history.
I think that what most people want is not extra reasons to believe that it happened. More than that, we want a scenario to suggest how it happened. So flesh it out, scholars! Just as the writing process forces stray thoughts into discipline, so can a four-dimensional reconstruction illuminate both strong and weak points in one's historical supposings.
Of course, that makes affirming the scriptural Jesus and the scriptural Church a bit more "leap of faith" than a defensible goal - but that's not just a more Christian strategy for dealing with things. That also happens to be the chief distinction between "apologetics" and good historical work.
-------------------------------
(*) It should be clear that I'm referring to a particular strand of Christian Apologetics, often practiced by leading Christian Scholars, ostensibly focused on defending the historical reliability of scripture, but primarily aimed at shoring up traditional interpretation and practice.
The second problem with apologetics(*) is an inconsistency. But I don't mean logical, academic or argumentative inconsistencies - which are also problems, at times. I mean one overarching inconsistency, namely, that many apologists work to support claims of historicity, but they do not focus on reconstructing an actual history. In most cases, once the objection's been covered, they stop.
Plausible explanations nearly always get considered by historians, if the suggestion is properly qualified. We don't have evidence to support every claim of most ancient texts, that can be reasonably verified. But any thoroughly historical analysis of the past can contribute towards historians' attempts at reconstructing that past, even if the analysis may be somewhat uncritical.
In contrast to all this, apologetics(*) is almost purely defensive, and very rarely constructive.
Here's my suggested alternative: Christian scholars, believe that the scripture is trustworthy and affirm that its historical content is accurate. But, don't make proving that your objective. Begin there. Assume historicity, and then go on further to reconstruct actual history.
I think that what most people want is not extra reasons to believe that it happened. More than that, we want a scenario to suggest how it happened. So flesh it out, scholars! Just as the writing process forces stray thoughts into discipline, so can a four-dimensional reconstruction illuminate both strong and weak points in one's historical supposings.
Of course, that makes affirming the scriptural Jesus and the scriptural Church a bit more "leap of faith" than a defensible goal - but that's not just a more Christian strategy for dealing with things. That also happens to be the chief distinction between "apologetics" and good historical work.
-------------------------------
(*) It should be clear that I'm referring to a particular strand of Christian Apologetics, often practiced by leading Christian Scholars, ostensibly focused on defending the historical reliability of scripture, but primarily aimed at shoring up traditional interpretation and practice.
September 03, 2010
excerpt: on 'the New Historicism'
From Gordon S. Wood's The Purpose of the Past, Chapter 6:
My thoughts:
The New Testament at its best is a Story of how God moved in human beings in the earliest years of Jesus Christ, as he came into his Body. No matter how purely we see that Story, it will not fundamentally change the Institutional Church, as we know her. It can, however, provide a more living perspective on HOW God moves in his people, when they gather as Christians to pursue Him in his Kingdom... and THAT ought to be a benefit for anyone, whether hampered by pew sitting traditions or couch sitting conundrums.
There are many things driving change around Christendom these days. A fresher view of the New Testament Church is worth seeing purely for its own sake. And God help us all, after that.
, Chapter 6:The new historicism wants to deconstruct the past in order to show us that all the values, all the institutions, all the cannons, all the truths, and all the texts by which we live our lives are simply imprisoning fictions that were created by some people in the past (usually white males) for self-serving purposes. These fictions are, therefore, readily susceptible to being destroyed by us in the present, in preparation for the emergence of a new, more just, more democratic order.This chapter was previously published in the New York Review of Books, November 1990.
Such a Rousseauian view, which assumes that knowledge of the fictional character of custom will itself free us, severely underestimates the power of the past and the power of culture. All the beliefs, values, and institutions of the culture may indeed be artificial fictions; but the historical fact of the matter is that they are fictions created by a process so complicated, involving so many participants with so many conflicting purposes over such long periods of time, that no amount of deconstruction, no degree of unmasking, can ever undo them. The culture, of course, can be - indeed, it will be - changed, but in ways that no one, including the radical post-Marxists and the deconstructionist literary critics, ever intended or wanted. Understanding this fact about the process of historical change is true historicism.
My thoughts:
The New Testament at its best is a Story of how God moved in human beings in the earliest years of Jesus Christ, as he came into his Body. No matter how purely we see that Story, it will not fundamentally change the Institutional Church, as we know her. It can, however, provide a more living perspective on HOW God moves in his people, when they gather as Christians to pursue Him in his Kingdom... and THAT ought to be a benefit for anyone, whether hampered by pew sitting traditions or couch sitting conundrums.
There are many things driving change around Christendom these days. A fresher view of the New Testament Church is worth seeing purely for its own sake. And God help us all, after that.
September 01, 2010
NT and/or History Roundup (August, 2010)
Not necessarily the "Best of my Reader", but here are some August 2010 items from all over the blogosphere & interwebs that highlight the kinds of things you'd think NT/History Blog would be most likely to notice. Enjoy! Warning: It came out a bit top heavy with Classical stuff. NT Buffs, feel free to scroll down.
(1) Jona Lendering has been reading the Roman historian Velleius Paterculus, whose reputation has been improving among scholars in recent decades. In observing some deliberate counter-messaging (compliment Augustus, but subtly illustrate his flaws), Jona compared Mark's Gospel (positive declarations about Jesus, surrounded by struggle and ultimate failure) and wondered if this general technique was more common in Antiquity than we've noticed. A very interesting question.
Personally, I was far more intrigued by Jona's insight on Velleius, and what it says about Tiberius' reign (c.29 AD) that a work so set on flattery of the current emperor would be so consistently negative about his previously revered predecessor. Promoting the Tiberian bloodline, and its guardian Sejanus, public statements like Velleius' probably helped undercut the one thing preserving public favor for Agrippina's sons - their claim to the Augustan bloodline. There's more to be found here, if someone's not found it already.
(2) By the way, Jona also wrote a fantastic post about Roman Germany, after Varus, based partly on an artifact called the Tongeren lead bar. Really good stuff, if you're into Roman History. Siiiigh. I wish more Classicists with good historical sense would post online... about the NT era... more than once in a blue moon...
(3) The BMCR Books Received (posted Aug.3rd, for July) included several on Religion in Roman times, which look interesting: Bockmuehl, Markus and Guy G. Stroumsa (edd.). Paradise in antiquity: Jewish and Christian views
; Casadio, Giovanni and Patricia A. Johnston (edd.). Mystic cults in Magna Graecia
; Mitchell, Stephen and Peter Van Nuffelen (edd.). One god: pagan monotheism in the Roman Empire
. AND Monotheism between pagans and Christians in late antiquity
(Co-authors, two titles); Orlin, Eric M. Foreign cults in Rome: creating a Roman Empire
; Várhelyi, Zsuzsanna. The religion of senators in the Roman Empire: power and the beyond
. Of course, none of these will be gracing my shelves, ever, but if some fellow blogger cares to buy and reviews any of these, I'd love to read that!!!
(4) The BMCR also posted a book review of Danijel Dzino's Illyricum in Roman Politics, 229 BC-AD 68
. If you're one of those who enjoyed my reconstruction of the Pannonian War back in 2007 (included in the 'Yearbooks' for AD 6, 7, 8 & 9), then by all means, you'll enjoy this review. *** For the rest of you, work on Roman Illyricum helps cement what Paul said in Romans 15:19 about his personal travels - and that reference is huge for anyone trying to work out Pauline Chronology. ***
(5) Mike Bird put up a much noticed article at Bible & Interpretation - called Gentiles for Moses? - about Gentile Proselytes in Antiquity and whether Jews worked very hard to convert them. I liked it. I haven't quite finished all of it, with its plethora of footnotes. But I liked it. Good stuff. :-)
(6) Last Friday, Dorothy King, Ph.Diva, discussed and linked to a recent dissertation on the Temple Treasure in Medieval Rome, and then Leen Ritmeyer posted the same day, uncannily, about upcoming [further] excavations at Rome's Forum of Peace, which Vespatian built to celebrate the destruction of Jerusalem. Fascinating connections. (The dissertation itself, by the way, was in History at LSU. Geaux Tigers!)
(7) Daniel Kirk and Dan Wallace had a long conversation about Pharisees. Daniel also posted a lot this month about something called "Inerrancy". But I don' know nutin bout dat. I just try my best to always trust the Bible. (!) By the way, Dr. JRDK had several good posts this month and may have peaked in his blogging stride by late summer, two years running. This time, he seems to have warded off the temptation to quit blogging. Good. Of all "theological" blogs that I (try to) read, I like Daniel's Storied Theology best.
(8) I'm getting tired of hearing about it, without owning it, but I still can't afford to buy it. But if anyone wants to send me a copy of The Sacred Bridge: Carta's Atlas of the Biblical World
, I'd surely be much obliged! Or buy any book linked here, and Amazon will give me a few nickels towards it. :-)
(9) Various Bibliobloggers also posted great stuff:
Phillip J. Long had an excellent post on First Century Judaisms? - plural, question mark. RBL has a a review that I still need to read, on a book that offers a political and theological take on Acts. It's called World Upside Down: Reading Acts in the Graeco-Roman Age
. And someone on Twitter said the Bible is like a software license. We all scroll to the bottom and click "agree".
It would naturally be Michael Barber who pointed out that Moses was also a Priest... but of course he's absolutely correct. Not that I want to live at the foot of Mt. Sinai, Michael. ;-) Just joshing, my Catholic Brother! Meanwhile, Scot McKnight enjoyed reading the book Jesus Manifesto
, by Len Sweet & Frank Viola. I still need to read my copy, too. The consensus seems to be that, yes, Jesus is indeed very good. :-)
On the Zondervan blog, Darrell Bock has just said he'll be condensing last year's IBR Jesus book, Key Events in the Life of the Historical Jesus
. Good. Thanks, Darrell. That thing's a dang doorstop. Meanwhile (speaking of apologetics!) the bloggers at History of the Ancient World let us know that it's possible Cleopatra DID drink a pearl, as Pliny claimed, even though most scholars took that to be fiction. Here's a video, with some science on the most likely 'solution'.
Brian LePort blogged about Quirinius here and here, as I blogged about here. Doug Chaplin had a great post about Christians (mis)reading Torah - and yes, that does apply to NT studies, as you'll see if you read Doug's wonderful post. And Charles Savelle alerted us to some great tidbits offered by first century historian Paul Maier.
By the way - this one's not about NT or History, but - Seth Godin has announced he's no longer going to use traditional publishing. Wowie, zow-wow. I am patiently jealous.
(10) Finally, I have to say it seemed like there were tons of posts in August about the possible/supposed historicity of Adam, Eve & Eden. This helped me when putting my thoughts into Genesis AS IF History, which I'll hope becomes the last thing I ever post on this topic. By the way, this one IS related to NT/History. How? I'll repeat that post's thesis:
Us NT folks can't ever forget the OT, folks.
Huh. I guess this post was pretty much the best of my Google Reader, after all. Go figure!
(1) Jona Lendering has been reading the Roman historian Velleius Paterculus, whose reputation has been improving among scholars in recent decades. In observing some deliberate counter-messaging (compliment Augustus, but subtly illustrate his flaws), Jona compared Mark's Gospel (positive declarations about Jesus, surrounded by struggle and ultimate failure) and wondered if this general technique was more common in Antiquity than we've noticed. A very interesting question.
Personally, I was far more intrigued by Jona's insight on Velleius, and what it says about Tiberius' reign (c.29 AD) that a work so set on flattery of the current emperor would be so consistently negative about his previously revered predecessor. Promoting the Tiberian bloodline, and its guardian Sejanus, public statements like Velleius' probably helped undercut the one thing preserving public favor for Agrippina's sons - their claim to the Augustan bloodline. There's more to be found here, if someone's not found it already.
(2) By the way, Jona also wrote a fantastic post about Roman Germany, after Varus, based partly on an artifact called the Tongeren lead bar. Really good stuff, if you're into Roman History. Siiiigh. I wish more Classicists with good historical sense would post online... about the NT era... more than once in a blue moon...
(3) The BMCR Books Received (posted Aug.3rd, for July) included several on Religion in Roman times, which look interesting: Bockmuehl, Markus and Guy G. Stroumsa (edd.). Paradise in antiquity: Jewish and Christian views
; Casadio, Giovanni and Patricia A. Johnston (edd.). Mystic cults in Magna Graecia; Mitchell, Stephen and Peter Van Nuffelen (edd.). One god: pagan monotheism in the Roman Empire. AND Monotheism between pagans and Christians in late antiquity (Co-authors, two titles); Orlin, Eric M. Foreign cults in Rome: creating a Roman Empire; Várhelyi, Zsuzsanna. The religion of senators in the Roman Empire: power and the beyond. Of course, none of these will be gracing my shelves, ever, but if some fellow blogger cares to buy and reviews any of these, I'd love to read that!!!(4) The BMCR also posted a book review of Danijel Dzino's Illyricum in Roman Politics, 229 BC-AD 68
. If you're one of those who enjoyed my reconstruction of the Pannonian War back in 2007 (included in the 'Yearbooks' for AD 6, 7, 8 & 9), then by all means, you'll enjoy this review. *** For the rest of you, work on Roman Illyricum helps cement what Paul said in Romans 15:19 about his personal travels - and that reference is huge for anyone trying to work out Pauline Chronology. ***(5) Mike Bird put up a much noticed article at Bible & Interpretation - called Gentiles for Moses? - about Gentile Proselytes in Antiquity and whether Jews worked very hard to convert them. I liked it. I haven't quite finished all of it, with its plethora of footnotes. But I liked it. Good stuff. :-)
(6) Last Friday, Dorothy King, Ph.Diva, discussed and linked to a recent dissertation on the Temple Treasure in Medieval Rome, and then Leen Ritmeyer posted the same day, uncannily, about upcoming [further] excavations at Rome's Forum of Peace, which Vespatian built to celebrate the destruction of Jerusalem. Fascinating connections. (The dissertation itself, by the way, was in History at LSU. Geaux Tigers!)
(7) Daniel Kirk and Dan Wallace had a long conversation about Pharisees. Daniel also posted a lot this month about something called "Inerrancy". But I don' know nutin bout dat. I just try my best to always trust the Bible. (!) By the way, Dr. JRDK had several good posts this month and may have peaked in his blogging stride by late summer, two years running. This time, he seems to have warded off the temptation to quit blogging. Good. Of all "theological" blogs that I (try to) read, I like Daniel's Storied Theology best.
(8) I'm getting tired of hearing about it, without owning it, but I still can't afford to buy it. But if anyone wants to send me a copy of The Sacred Bridge: Carta's Atlas of the Biblical World
, I'd surely be much obliged! Or buy any book linked here, and Amazon will give me a few nickels towards it. :-)(9) Various Bibliobloggers also posted great stuff:
Phillip J. Long had an excellent post on First Century Judaisms? - plural, question mark. RBL has a a review that I still need to read, on a book that offers a political and theological take on Acts. It's called World Upside Down: Reading Acts in the Graeco-Roman Age
. And someone on Twitter said the Bible is like a software license. We all scroll to the bottom and click "agree".It would naturally be Michael Barber who pointed out that Moses was also a Priest... but of course he's absolutely correct. Not that I want to live at the foot of Mt. Sinai, Michael. ;-) Just joshing, my Catholic Brother! Meanwhile, Scot McKnight enjoyed reading the book Jesus Manifesto
, by Len Sweet & Frank Viola. I still need to read my copy, too. The consensus seems to be that, yes, Jesus is indeed very good. :-)On the Zondervan blog, Darrell Bock has just said he'll be condensing last year's IBR Jesus book, Key Events in the Life of the Historical Jesus
. Good. Thanks, Darrell. That thing's a dang doorstop. Meanwhile (speaking of apologetics!) the bloggers at History of the Ancient World let us know that it's possible Cleopatra DID drink a pearl, as Pliny claimed, even though most scholars took that to be fiction. Here's a video, with some science on the most likely 'solution'.Brian LePort blogged about Quirinius here and here, as I blogged about here. Doug Chaplin had a great post about Christians (mis)reading Torah - and yes, that does apply to NT studies, as you'll see if you read Doug's wonderful post. And Charles Savelle alerted us to some great tidbits offered by first century historian Paul Maier.
By the way - this one's not about NT or History, but - Seth Godin has announced he's no longer going to use traditional publishing. Wowie, zow-wow. I am patiently jealous.
(10) Finally, I have to say it seemed like there were tons of posts in August about the possible/supposed historicity of Adam, Eve & Eden. This helped me when putting my thoughts into Genesis AS IF History, which I'll hope becomes the last thing I ever post on this topic. By the way, this one IS related to NT/History. How? I'll repeat that post's thesis:
it is NOT evidence for Adam's historicity to point out that both Jesus and Paul spoke about Adam as if he were real. This is unfortunate, from one way of thinking. However, the pattern of Jesus and Paul IS an example of how we might speak and write about Adam. Thus, we might do as well as Jesus and Paul did if we continue speaking AS IF Adam were, in fact, a historical figure.And that's why I said it. That, plus it goes with the early posts in my super-long series on The Movement of God, which will eventually build all the way up to the NT.
Us NT folks can't ever forget the OT, folks.
Huh. I guess this post was pretty much the best of my Google Reader, after all. Go figure!
August 31, 2010
Why did Paul write Romans?
My answer, in 2 paragraphs, an exercise suggested by Brian LePort:
After nearly a decade of apostle-ing churches, having founded at least ten to that point, Paul had developed a pretty good working idea of what kinds of problems young churches would deal with - especially problems between Jewish and Gentile believers in those churches. But five years after the Emperor Claudius kicked all the Jews out of Rome, he was poisoned and died. Hearing that news, late in 54 AD, Paul was finally able to put Italy into his own travel plans. Postponing his impending trips to Corinth and Judea, Paul went as far as Dyrrachium, founding a church there as a mid-way rest stop for the future, and for any stragglers among his few dozen friends who were moving to Rome (see Rom.16).
Twenty-nine months (or so) after Claudius died, Paul still seemed no closer to visiting Rome, with his hands full in Corinth/Cenchrea. However, Paul knew many other Jewish-Italian believers (converted at or since Pentecost, like Priscilla & Aquilla) would have moved back to Rome, by that time. Feeling responsible for the 30 to 40 (or more) saints he'dsent helped encourage to move there, and knowing how many conflicts they might be having with Rome's returning christians, Paul poured his heart into one tremendous effort to get Rome's believers to live at peace with one another, in the Lord. The letter was sent around the turn of spring, 57 AD.
That's my 2 paragraph explanation as to why Paul wrote Romans.
Now I'll add two paragraphs of commentary.
That story doesn't only explain why Paul wrote Romans, it also explains why Romans came out the way it did. Paul wasn't trying to be systematic. He was just trying to communicate well to a large group with very diverse perspectives, in order to help mediate between close friends and virtual enemies. Paul was trying to phrase things helpfully for some who may have been more familiar with James' epistle & ministry, and for others who likely preferred the language of Galatians.
But in all that, Paul's motive wasn't to craft some ideal theoretical treatise for unity. He was engaging very practical concerns, among both groups, trying to challenge and honor both groups, and his motive at that time was simply to build common ground among these particular Jews and Gentiles whose particular conflicts and impasses had in fact - to that point - prevented them from standing together as one body, one church.
After nearly a decade of apostle-ing churches, having founded at least ten to that point, Paul had developed a pretty good working idea of what kinds of problems young churches would deal with - especially problems between Jewish and Gentile believers in those churches. But five years after the Emperor Claudius kicked all the Jews out of Rome, he was poisoned and died. Hearing that news, late in 54 AD, Paul was finally able to put Italy into his own travel plans. Postponing his impending trips to Corinth and Judea, Paul went as far as Dyrrachium, founding a church there as a mid-way rest stop for the future, and for any stragglers among his few dozen friends who were moving to Rome (see Rom.16).
Twenty-nine months (or so) after Claudius died, Paul still seemed no closer to visiting Rome, with his hands full in Corinth/Cenchrea. However, Paul knew many other Jewish-Italian believers (converted at or since Pentecost, like Priscilla & Aquilla) would have moved back to Rome, by that time. Feeling responsible for the 30 to 40 (or more) saints he'd
That's my 2 paragraph explanation as to why Paul wrote Romans.
Now I'll add two paragraphs of commentary.
That story doesn't only explain why Paul wrote Romans, it also explains why Romans came out the way it did. Paul wasn't trying to be systematic. He was just trying to communicate well to a large group with very diverse perspectives, in order to help mediate between close friends and virtual enemies. Paul was trying to phrase things helpfully for some who may have been more familiar with James' epistle & ministry, and for others who likely preferred the language of Galatians.
But in all that, Paul's motive wasn't to craft some ideal theoretical treatise for unity. He was engaging very practical concerns, among both groups, trying to challenge and honor both groups, and his motive at that time was simply to build common ground among these particular Jews and Gentiles whose particular conflicts and impasses had in fact - to that point - prevented them from standing together as one body, one church.
August 27, 2010
Quirinius is Irrelevant
Luke is either wrong OR misunderstood, but History doesn't care which it is. Either way, P. Sulpicius Quirinius was never the Governor of Syria before Herod the Great died. In other words, defending Luke 2:2 has nothing to do with reconstructing the Historical Nativity. The Lukan Census (2:3-5) almost certainly belongs to the Governorship of Saturninus (9-6 BC). That is, of course, assuming it actually happened.
Today, however, that's not my point. This is.
Brian LePort recently blogged on Quirinius (here and here) and Stephen Carlson left a link to his own study (Dec.2004) of the verse in question (Luke 2:2). I'm not the master grammarian around here, but what Stephen suggested looks very unique, and very good. I'm not sure how I missed or overlooked it before now, but interested parties should definitely pay Stephen's work very careful attention.
Whether Stephen is right or wrong, however, I want to emphasize again that our view of the Christmas Story does not rest on explaining that difficult verse. Attempting to explain Luke 2:2 is simply a worthwhile challenge unto itself. Personally, I live in hope that separating these two points will help us out in both departments. But I have been accused of optimism before.
Today, however, that's not my point. This is.
Brian LePort recently blogged on Quirinius (here and here) and Stephen Carlson left a link to his own study (Dec.2004) of the verse in question (Luke 2:2). I'm not the master grammarian around here, but what Stephen suggested looks very unique, and very good. I'm not sure how I missed or overlooked it before now, but interested parties should definitely pay Stephen's work very careful attention.
Whether Stephen is right or wrong, however, I want to emphasize again that our view of the Christmas Story does not rest on explaining that difficult verse. Attempting to explain Luke 2:2 is simply a worthwhile challenge unto itself. Personally, I live in hope that separating these two points will help us out in both departments. But I have been accused of optimism before.
August 25, 2010
excerpt: the task of a historian
From Gordon S. Wood's The Purpose of the Past, Chapter 5:
, Chapter 5:In graduate school I was taught that the task of a historian is to describe how people in the past moved chronologically from A to B, with B always closer to us in time. It seems self-evident, but for me it is the most important lesson I received in my training to be a historian. Since people rarely stay the same between A and B, describing and explaining change through time always seems to me to lie at the heart of historical reconstruction.Yes! This is why the impulse of many Christian apologists is all fine, from a historical standpoint, even though the academic discipline, historical sense and overall effort of such apologists is often below par, for historical work. Nevertheless, the desire to do what Wood says above - to describe and explain what's on record, if possible - is a valid historical goal.
August 17, 2010
excerpt: The Lessons of History
From Gordon S. Wood's The Purpose of the Past, Chapter 4:
, Chapter 4:History does not teach lots of little lessons. Insofar as it teaches any lessons, it teaches only one big one: that nothing ever works out quite the way its managers intended or expected. History is like experience and old age: wisdom is what one learns from it. ...This chapter was previously published as a book review in the New York Review of Books, March, 1984.
By showing that the best-laid plans of people usually go awry, the study of history tends to dampen youthful enthusiasm and to restrain the can-do, the conquer-the-future spirit that many people have. Historical knowledge takes people off a roller coaster of illusions and disillusions; it levels off emotions and gives people a perspective on what is possible and, more often, what is not possible...
To much of this historical sense, too much skepticism, is not, of course, very good for getting things done. ... Fortunately, however, there seems to be little danger of our becoming too historically minded in America today.
August 12, 2010
Herodias, Queen of Galilee: Conclusions
Josephus says Antipas "fell in love" with Herodias, his niece & sister-in-law. He suggested marriage. She agreed to wed IF he divorced his first wife AFTER returning from Rome. Indeed, Josephus says Antipas "transacted some business" (loeb) while there. He secured the rights to a mint and the right to break a longstanding treaty with Aretas, King of Nabatea.
Josephus does not strictly say that Herodias waited in Caesarea. If she did not make this voyage with Antipas, she must have written some letters - at least one to her Patron Antonia. In Rome, such a letter would have gotten Antipas an audience with Antonia, who at least had the power to put Herod in front of Sejanus, and probably Tiberius also. It seems most likely Antipas did see Capri.
The letter Antipas eventually wrote to Tiberius (AD 36) reflects that some kind of understanding had previously gone between them about Aretas and Galilee. It wasn't just Antipas' earned favor or Aretas' war crimes that moved Tiberius to send a Legion down for retribution. The assurance of Rome's power had been part of the bargain when Antipas asked for Herodias - when Antipas asked to divorce the Nabatean.
Why did Antipas want Herodias? Was love really a factor? Perhaps. Herodias' ambition, her connections, her Roman sensibility, her Latin (!), her genes, and the financial prospects of all that together - such attractive assets may have helped inspire the Tetrarch's great "love". She was quite the match for him, maybe more than a match.
Of Herodias' ambition, it did run in the blood. Her aunt Salome (HTG's sister) was once briefly the power behind Palestine's throne, for a few months in 4 BC. Herodias was a small child in Rome at that time, but may have visited with aunt Salome while the Herodian parties waited there for Augustus to rule on their succession dispute. At any rate, Herodias named her daughter (with husband #1) after that aunt, and later married that daughter to Philp the Tetrarch. That is some evidence of ambition.
That same royal ambition ironically resulted in Herodias' eventual downfall. Then again, her only real failures at that point may have been misjudging Caligula, and underestimating her brother. Apart from the Emperor's madness, the would-be Queen may have gotten her crown after all. Indeed, if things in 27 BC were as they seem to have been, the entire reason Herodias was selected by Antipas - and approved of by Rome - was to raise the status of Galilee, and effectively become its Queen.
Fini. For now.
Read the Whole Series: Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4, Part 5, Part 6, Conclusion
Josephus does not strictly say that Herodias waited in Caesarea. If she did not make this voyage with Antipas, she must have written some letters - at least one to her Patron Antonia. In Rome, such a letter would have gotten Antipas an audience with Antonia, who at least had the power to put Herod in front of Sejanus, and probably Tiberius also. It seems most likely Antipas did see Capri.
The letter Antipas eventually wrote to Tiberius (AD 36) reflects that some kind of understanding had previously gone between them about Aretas and Galilee. It wasn't just Antipas' earned favor or Aretas' war crimes that moved Tiberius to send a Legion down for retribution. The assurance of Rome's power had been part of the bargain when Antipas asked for Herodias - when Antipas asked to divorce the Nabatean.
Why did Antipas want Herodias? Was love really a factor? Perhaps. Herodias' ambition, her connections, her Roman sensibility, her Latin (!), her genes, and the financial prospects of all that together - such attractive assets may have helped inspire the Tetrarch's great "love". She was quite the match for him, maybe more than a match.
Of Herodias' ambition, it did run in the blood. Her aunt Salome (HTG's sister) was once briefly the power behind Palestine's throne, for a few months in 4 BC. Herodias was a small child in Rome at that time, but may have visited with aunt Salome while the Herodian parties waited there for Augustus to rule on their succession dispute. At any rate, Herodias named her daughter (with husband #1) after that aunt, and later married that daughter to Philp the Tetrarch. That is some evidence of ambition.
That same royal ambition ironically resulted in Herodias' eventual downfall. Then again, her only real failures at that point may have been misjudging Caligula, and underestimating her brother. Apart from the Emperor's madness, the would-be Queen may have gotten her crown after all. Indeed, if things in 27 BC were as they seem to have been, the entire reason Herodias was selected by Antipas - and approved of by Rome - was to raise the status of Galilee, and effectively become its Queen.
Fini. For now.
Read the Whole Series: Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4, Part 5, Part 6, Conclusion
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)