NT/History Blog

Faith & Skepticism

2012-02-10T18:23:00.001-06:00

In a way, both involve a suspension of judgment. That is, when either faith or skepticism are serving us at their greatest capacity, they enable us to replace some prejudice or ingrained expectation with an alternative possibility.

With Faith, that replaced expectation most often takes a particular focus. With Skepticism, it's just the same but in negative. Faith concludes 'X' before seeing the evidence. Doubt precludes 'X' despite common opinion.

The twist tonight is that expectation isn't all plus or minus. Few of us are complete positivists or minimalists. Many profound believers leave plenty of doubt in the details. Most skeptics take personal comfort in holding onto a few central convictions.

This goes farther than saying we're all being peculiar in the ways we select what to uphold and to challenge, and it's hardly as simplistic as the false trendy pith, "doubt equals faith".

The encouragement here is we all need to question our judgment.

The challenge here is we all need to seek out real Truth.

Miracles, History and Probability

2012-02-02T21:13:00.001-06:00

The miraculous is always "unlikely", but reported miracles are not always "improbable". Yes, both statements are true; it's just difficult to reconcile the Math with the Language on this one. To explore how we talk about such things, let's use Jesus' Resurrection as example 'A'.

If we frame the discussion in terms of actual occurrence, then the miraculous is always "improbable". That's mathematically verifiable because human history absolutely records countless moments during which a dead body did NOT miraculously rise from the grave. The data set on this one, in fact, is ridiculously huge. The improbability of human resurrection occurring within days after undergoing circumstances such as Jesus' execution... well, it's a very big number approaching infinity.

Note (1): The probability of a dead body returning to life is virtually and effectively nil.

By comparison, the probability of a dead body staying dead is also mathematically verifiable, based on a very large and well documented set of data. That is, we have a nearly unlimited record of dead bodies that stayed dead after dying. Again, if we frame this discussion in terms of comparable known events which have actually happened, there's no possible way to equivocate.

Note (2): The probability of a dead body remaining dead is/was virtually infinite - as close to certainty as it comes.

However, since measuring probability requires such large data sets the game changes when we begin to consider reports of unverified and unprecedented events. Although we still have a very large data set of dead bodies remaining dead, we do NOT have a very large data set of people attesting to resurrections that subsequently turn out to be false or imagined. Likewise, we do NOT have a very large data set of people attesting to resurrections that subsequently turn out to be verified as actually having occurred. Therefore, if we give any consideration at all to testimony in such a case, then all talk of "probability" should be ended.

Note (3): Unique testimony of miraculous events may seem credible or incredible, and historians may assert one or the other on whatever grounds seem justifiable, but there is no mathematical basis for measuring the "probability" of whether such testimony may be true or untrue.

To sum up - if we frame the discussion in terms of what typically happens to dead bodies, then the resurrection of anyone seems unlikely, and this does include Jesus. However, if we also take into account the various testimonies which purport Jesus did miraculously resurrect, then we are left with no measurable likelihood, no "odds", and certainly no "probability" that these people were or were not telling the truth. The data set of such claims is unsurprisingly small.

Miracles, by definition, are "unlikely". However, a reported miracle under unique circumstances is neither "improbable" nor "probable". It's unverifiable. Trust the report or do not. There is no "verify". ;-)

To conclude - here's my personal takeaway.

Let's quit arguing over factuality and discuss hypothetical scenarios. If Jesus did rise, then what does that mean? If Jesus did NOT rise, then what does that mean? Those are much more interesting conversations to have, in my personal experience. They are often more fruitful as well...

"Historically" having it both ways?

2012-01-31T13:57:00.000-06:00

Why do conservative scholars defend the Gospels as historically reliable yet deny that it's possible to write a reliable History based on the Gospels? If daunting chronological work were the only obstruction, I suspect we'd have more people working on fixing those problems. So what's the real hold-up?

Apparently, and for whatever reasons, Institutional Christendom has thus far felt better served by keeping Jesus in this vague historical limbo. The Gospels can be relied upon, but not built upon. That is, unless we're writing Theology...

Two questions: What will it take to finally alter this indefensible trend? When it changes, will it change for the better?

Caesar vs Satan?

2012-01-29T06:00:00.000-06:00

If Nero got to hear Luke's version of Jesus' wilderness temptations, one must wonder (I think) what Nero thought about Satan claiming to be the chief Kingmaker over all worldly kingdoms. Considering that Rome had taken up that precise role over recent centuries - especially in the East - Luke's testimony definitely would have tickled the Emperor's ears in a particular way. Actually, the NLT might best capture the key line, as Nero would have taken it's full meaning: "I will give you the glory of these kingdoms and authority over them," the devil said, "because they are mine to give to anyone I please."

To modern readers, this often makes Luke's devil sound like Rome's puppet master. But is/was this the case? Did Luke intend to tell us that the Devil rules Earth through his appointees? And is that true? Does Satan appoint Caesars... Kings... US Presidents?

If so, and if Luke was even partly intending his Gospel to be read at Paul's defense, then Luke seems like a total moron to have slipped in such an insult. He may as well have said, 'By the way, Caesar, we believe our God's greatest enemy is the one who appointed you Emperor!' But if not, or if Luke was fully expecting Rome's Emperor to learn of this passage, or perhaps merely if Luke was not a complete moron, then something else must explain what's going on with his text.

Here's my suggestion:

The Latin Vulgate renders "devil" as diabolo, a transliteration of Greek διαβόλου, which meant something like accuser, slanderer or enemy. Thus, any ancient hearer of Luke 4 was introduced to this 'Satan' as a non-credible figure. As far as Nero was [or would have been] concerned, the devil may or may not have presented a vision to Jesus, and even spoken this claim, but the strength of this claim should have been - to Rome's authorities - strictly laughable, especially given the deceiving nature of "devil". To the point, I suggest Luke should have expected this reaction precisely, from Caesar.

These days, if you read Luke 4 theologically then it's fair game to extract this choice nugget and apply it however you ~~like~~ best see fit. The Devil rules Earth. He appoints rulers. Caesar was Satan's pawn, as was Herod, and Jesus could have become like them all, if he'd wanted. However, read Luke 4 historically and things become far less certain. Of course, in some cases less certainty is a very good thing.

The point of Luke's passage - for Nero's sake - is that Jesus refused Satan's offer. Thus begins a strong anti-political theme running all the way through both Luke's Gospel and Acts. For all Jesus' talk about "God's Kingdom", he obviously meant something else... but as for what, that's a whole other post.

To the point, once again: If we realize that Nero wouldn't have taken the devil's world-rulership claim as sincere, or as valid... then should we? This will seem ironic to some, but as I see it, the greater our faith in the text, the more we might be better off thinking like Nero.

Accepting the temptation as historical fact assumes the quote to have been somewhat accurately reported. Granting Jesus actually did hear the devil's offer that day, and granting that Luke wrote it down somewhat accurately, what we have is a story being told for what it says about Jesus... not for what it says about Satan.

The deceiver could have offered to make Jesus a ham sandwich on Herod's front porch. It would matter no less, and no more. Jesus didn't give in so we'll never know whether the devil was telling the truth.

I might guess that he wasn't... or I might guess that he was... but then maybe the point of the story is that I'm better off not worrying much about world kingdoms, in any event.

.

Roger Beckwith's Blind Spot, (or) The Profitability of Intercalation, Part 4 (of 4)

2012-01-27T05:48:00.000-06:00

Now, at last, here's the major problem with Beckwith's proposal that Passover might have been one month earlier, sometimes, than we've tended to retroject when looking at lunar cycles. (See Parts 1, 2 and 3 if you're missing the details behind that statement.) To be simple about things, winter parties are smaller than spring parties, and bigger parties bring in more spenders. Yes, that's the whole point, but it certainly requires fleshing out in much greater detail.

Here, then, is the single most practical point.

The capacity of the festival season to bring in revenues depended on the ability of the Sanhedrin to maximize pilgrimage, and that required the Sadducces to provide at least one simple, reliable, logistical necessity: scheduling!

To make the case with one famous example: Simon of Cyrene would not have been able to attend any festival that was in danger of being moved back by a month, for any reason at all, let alone because some Pharisee said the growing grain suddenly looked like it was fattening too slowly! [We can probably clock that with more rigor if somebody helps me with ancient Judean agriculture. For now, I'll admit I don't know how early the grain heads would sprout, or be measurable by, but for now we hardly need such precision in measurement. If Simon needed a month to get to Jerusalem, and the Sanhedrin needed a month before that to get word out of the schedule, then the Sadducees would have to reach final decision no later than three months before the latter moon Passover, and that's cutting it too close to maximize revenues, if you want pilgrims staying in town one or two weeks before the big feast day itself. And again, why? So they could have a cold festival?]

In short, the Sadducees would not have left such major profits to revolve around Pharisaical whims. We should be almost certain, I think, that after decades upon decades of hosting the festivals, especially after 7 AD, they should have arrived at the logically most business savvy decision. The festival had to be scheduled for whichever of the two viable moons gave them the greatest potential for both travel and ancillary sales. Pilgrims move better the warmer it gets. Doves sell better when fatter, relatively speaking, in any year, good or bad. And even if a pre-70 Gamalliel argued in a very extreme year that Passover needed to be pushed to May, we can absolutely expect that the Sadducees would have ignored him. The ideal month was late March to mid-April, partly because they'd prefer to keep Tabernacles in the moderate season as well, but mainly because the festival had to be scheduled and announced well in advance, in order to attain maximized (say it with me, now) profitability.

With this as our final analysis, one can easily look over a calendar of dates for the entire first century and predict which full moon would have been preferable for the Sadducees from a profitability standpoint. No, the Metonic Cycle wasn't around yet and the equinox 'rule' wasn't an officially documented requirement, at least, not that we're aware. Nevertheless, we should have no trouble concluding with that Passover in the first century should have always been scheduled after the equinox.

The bottom line now is their bottom line then. Scheduling Passover was entirely about revenue.

In 2001, Roger Beckwith did a magnificent job of detailing the intricacies of ancient intercalation, and for bringing such rigor to our awareness about such historical details, he is still very much to be commended. Unfortunately, Roger's blind spot was in failing to see the inevitability of convenient intercalation. It isn't what the calendar might have said that we need to be skeptical about. Rather, we should put our historical faith in what Jerusalem's upper classes needed that calendar to say, just in order to keep the whole thing going year after year, not to mention earning enough to pay for that giant Temple rebuilding project that was (apparently) still underway.

Jerusalem's calendar needed to say, "Open for Business", and it needed to say so many moons in advance.

-------------------------------------------
For more of my (earlier) writings on these points, see the following posts:

Dating the Crucifixion: Sadducees, Calendars and Festival Finances (Nov '09)
Dating the Crucifixion, Despite Lunar Details (Nov '09)
The Passover Travel Itinerary of Simon, from Cyrene (Aug '11)

.

Roger Beckwith's Blind Spot, (or) The Profitability of Intercalation, Part 3 (of 4)

2012-01-26T05:26:00.000-06:00

Let's cut to the chase about this Rabbi Gamalliel's letter, and what it might mean. (See Part 1 and Part 2 if you need to get caught up quickly.) As I said, there are two major oversights in Beckwith's whole argument, one minor and one major.

The minor problem is political and the major problem is economic.

First, the minor problem. It is well established that Jerusalem's local government was dominated by Sadducees before 70 AD, and that the Pharisees rose to much greater prominence only after the Temple's destruction. Thinking about Rabbi Gamalliel's concerns should lead us to question not in which era that letter might have been written, but to ask in which era that letter might have carried weight with decision making authorities. The answer is both obvious and clear. Before 70 AD, Jerusalem's ruling elite had no political reason to change course [as Beckwith's scenario suggests might have been the case] simply due to one Pharisee's opinion.

Now, we must quickly admit, despite this, that Gamalliel's ineffectiveness before 70 AD would not necessarily be a problem for Beckwith's scenario. That such a Pharisee could have felt moved to write such a letter, before 70 AD, is itself reason enough to suggest that the Sadducees could have scheduled Passover too early in some year for that Pharisee's preference. But as I said earlier, this is a theoretical possibility. It's not really a practical likelihood. Therefore, while this first problem isn't technically a problem for Beckwith's argument, it does display a lack of practical consideration about the political reality surrounding such a plea in the pre-70 era. That's a 'minor problem', to say the very least.

But this minor problem eventually leads us to the major problem, which we'll get to in a moment.

There's another angle to question things from, altogether. Instead of asking in which era the letter was more likely written in, or in which era it would have been more likely to carry weight, we can ask more pragmatically, in which era was such a letter more likely to be necessary? Again, the answer should be immediately clear.

After 70 AD, with Jerusalem no longer able to host major festivals, and no Temple to hold the official sacrifice of each family's lamb, the Rabbis had to begin coming up with new procedures for largely decentralized observances. That the Rabbis had not been in charge of this ever before is one factor. That custom in general was now facing upheaval is another factor. Beckwith's Gamalliel letter is theoretically plausible in any part of the first century, but it makes much more practical sense in the post-70 time period. Likewise, in turn, such a letter makes much less practical sense in the pre-70 era, and for this we have several more reasons.

Up to 70 AD, the Sadducees had been lording it over Jerusalem for over two centuries. In the 30's AD - including all possible dates for Jesus' crucifixion (that question being the whole point of all this, remember), the Sadducees had just spent 20 to 25 years managing Jerusalem beneath the comfort of Rome's direct rule. Point being, for the first time in centuries Judea's local government did not have to concern itself one iota with the business of self defense.

Human History has long since revealed that local governments in such situations tend to increase their aptitude for furthering economic prosperity, and they can often do so quite dramatically (the obvious 20th century examples come quickly to mind, but Roman Provincialism also bore this out over and over). The local ruling elite, the Sadducee Party - who naturally included the landowners, the brightest, and the most capable men in Jerusalem - they simply must have spent all of those decades becoming more skillful at increasing both civic and personal revenues. And when you look at first century Roman Jerusalem, between AD 7 and 70, the biggest single source of annual revenue was the festival season.

All this background, finally, brings us to the 'major problem' with Beckwith's proposal:

The Sadducees should have been way ahead of Gamalliel, in any year, because waiting for more grain and fatter birds and lambs, in any year, would have always been much, much more profitable.

In other words, it's a money thing. Duh.

To be concluded...

Roger Beckwith's Blind Spot, (or) The Profitability of Intercalation, Part 2 (of 4)

2012-01-25T05:03:00.000-06:00

Without an official Metonic Cycle to go by, in the early first century, the particular Moons under which we'd expect Judea to have celebrated Passover each year may not be the same Moons that were actually used. If you caught that, it means that Jesus might have been crucified in March of some year, and not April. At least, so said Roger Beckwith, in 2001.

But maybe Beckwith missed something. Or maybe more than one something.

As I alluded in my last post, there were in fact other factors the Jewish authorities also had to consider.
The equinox, however, was not one of those factors - at least, not officially. In this, I once more agree with Beckwith - it does seem most likely the vernal equinox was not (yet) being used as an official boundary for the new year. Although the start of spring did eventually become a cut-off for when the Jewish new year could begin, but it doesn't seem to have been so quite yet, in Jesus' day.

On the other hand, in order to be thorough, we must consider that the equinox may have become a practical factor, affecting considerations de facto. (Note: On the Gregorian calendar, that equinox falls about March 22nd. On the Julian calendar, it was nearly the same, but the Roman calendar (reset in 46 BC) was already about two days behind by the time of Christ's death. For the record, if the equinox HAD been in use, officially, it would have settled the Passover in almost all years. As with Easter today, it would come in late March on occasion, but more often in April.)

Now, without the equinox as a boundary, what positive factors could be used to determine which full moon (March or April) the Passover week would be scheduled around? According to Beckwith, these pertinent but extraneous factors included two things: (1) the health of that spring's incoming grain harvest, and (2) the satisfactory girth [or lack thereof] of acceptable lambs and/or turtledoves as determined from sampling the available stocks.

More practically speaking - from a socio-political and economic standpoint, anyway - Beckwith's pertinent factors all seem to boil down to one thing: the exactitude of pharisaical preference.

Beckwith argues from one piece of evidence, from the Mishnah. In some unknown year, a certain "Rabbi Gamalliel" wrote a letter advising that Passover should be moved back a month, because the Judean lambs, doves and grain-heads had not yet reached the acceptable size for proper sacrificing. Once again, Beckwith brings good evidence as this does, in fact, seem like a trustworthy example of how Rabbis like this Gamalliel would have and likely did think & feel about Passover preparations throughout the first century, and probably even before 70 AD (although the Pharisees had far more power after 70 AD, due to decentralization after the destruction of Jerusalem).

In all, Beckwith has found a magnificient piece of historical evidence, and he's applied it with careful insight.

However, the conclusion that Beckwith draws from this evidence - that Passover before 70 AD was therefore liable to being held before the equinox in unpredictable years - is almost certainly unfounded.

There are two problems with Beckwith's application of his evidence - one minor, and one major.

And we'll cover both of those next time.

To be continued...

Roger Beckwith's Blind Spot, (or) The Profitability of Intercalation, Part 1 (of 4)

2012-01-24T04:11:00.000-06:00

Among other things, Roger Beckwith's Calendar and Chronology (2001) argued persuasively that Jerusalem's Passovers didn't follow the 19 year metonic cycle of lunar observance. Of course, he was right because the cycle had not yet been standardized. In Jesus' day, the spring New Year was set by observing the moon visually. Observe one day too late (or too quickly, perhaps?) and the Passover Night could wind up "one day off" from the actual date of the moon's astronomical fullness. (We'll get to months in a moment.)

We'll get to the money part very soon, also. Bear with me for just a bit, please.

Although modern astronomy can now retroactively calculate which precise dates new and full moons appeared on, Beckwith's best point is that we can't be sure *they* called it precisely, each year. Therefore, in any given year, it's somewhat possible that the festival might have been held a day early - or a day late - although presumably they also got it precisely right on occasion. Perhaps the sky watchers even called it correctly most of the time. We're not 100% sure.

However, none of that is Beckwith's major point, nor the point of this post. The day was not the big deal. As alluded to just above, the real problem is knowing which month the Jerusalem festival was held, each year. Since the lunar cycle naturally requires a 13th month in occasional years - a bit more than every 3 years, or more approximately 7 of every 19, just about - that "leap month" would push back the religious new year, and the Passover season was always held in that first month.

Point: while we've long believed Jesus died in April, Beckwith suggested it could have been March.

Again, the key point is that Judea doesn't seem to have developed a formalized schedule of leap years based on the Metonic Cycle... and despite just how naturally as the Metonic Cycle really does kind of work itself out for anyone who looks into it veeeery deeply, Beckwith's general point here has to stand - we shouldn't retroactively insert the Metonic Cycle into our expectations of when the Jewish leap years occured. Therefore, it's entirely possible that the Judean authorities chose not to insert a leap month in some year we'd expect them to... which means the crucifixion - in whatever year it took place - could have taken place possibly a month sooner than we think.

At least, that's the theory. On paper, it's true. But how practical is Beckwith's concern?

Was there any other way of determining time, at that time? How early could Passover be scheduled?

April? March? February?

If there were no firm rules about this whatsoever, were there any other constraints on their judgment?

As I'll show you very soon, I believe that they were.

To be continued...

'NT Backgrounds' - Chronology

2012-01-23T05:13:00.000-06:00

Chronology on the Roman Empire is much easier to sort through than chronology on the New Testament for one simple reason – because ancient historians like Livy, Tacitus and Cassius Dio followed the custom of writing in Annalistic fashion. In other words, they wrote Year Books. Other writers on Roman Events left accounts that blend easily in with the major sources. Chronological problems become easier to judge by using the Annals.

Dating events in Palestine is a little bit harder because Josephus rarely stops to tell us the year and often litters his narrative with flash-backs and flash forwards, and sometimes flash-backs which give way to flash-forwards before jumping back to the previous narrative-time. Sequencing these events can be tricky enough, but for actually dating them we rely heavily on tie-ins with Roman sources. Without dates for the terms of the Governors of Syria, many events in the lives of the Herods would be undatable with any kind of precision.

Roman History also gets dates from inscriptions and archaeology, of course, but the major Timeline comes from the literature. Translations of these works can be found commonly in bookstores, while Greek and Latin versions are available online.

Here is a sample of what I'm working towards putting together - all the major Roman source material, arranged by date of events told in content, for 9 BC to AD 14, a span which covers the Advent and first 20 years of the Lord Jesus' personal lifetime. (For source notes, see below chart.)

YEARS	Roman History (Major Sources)	New Testament
9 BC thru AD 14	Josephus’ Antiquities Dio Cassius’ History Suetonius’ Lives Velleius’ Compendium	Matthew Luke John
9 BC	Ant.16.271ff; Dio 55.1.1-5.4; Suet.2.61; Vell.92	Lk.1.5-23
8 BC	Ant.16.c.320ff; Dio 55.6.1-7.6; Suet.2.31	Mt.1.18-25a Lk.1.24-80
7 BC	Ant.16.c.358ff Ant.17.1-45; Dio 55.8.1-7	Mt.1.25b-15a Lk.2.2-38 Lk.2.1 @27 BC Jn.1.1-5,9-14,18
6,5 BC	Ant.17.c.46ff; Dio 55.9.1-9; Suet.3.10-11; Vell.99	Mt.1.15a
4 BC	Ant.17.c.148ff	Mt.1.15-23 Lk.2.39-40
3,2,1 BC & AD 1	Ant.17.c.324-340; Ant.18.27-28; Dio 55.9.10-10a.5; Suet.2.48,65,69,93; Suet.3.13-16; Vell.99-103	Lk.2.40
AD 2,3,4,5	Ant.17.341; Dio 55.10a.6-24,9; Suet.2.65; Suet.3.13-16; Vell.102-109	Lk.2.40
AD 6,7	Ant.17.342ff; Ant.18.1-26,29a; Dio 55.25.1-32.4; Suet.2.49,65; Suet.3.15-16; Vell.109-114	Lk.2.41-52
AD 8,9,10,11	Ant.18.29b-31; Dio 55.33.1-7; Dio 56.1.1-25.1; Suet.2.23; Suet.3.16-19; Vell.114-121	Lk.2.52
AD 12,13,14	Ant.18.32-33; Dio 56.26.1-47.2; Suet.2.97-101; Suet.3.20-21; Vell.121-124	Lk.2.52

Again, these are the major sources. Swan’s excellent commentary on Cassius Dio Books 55 & 56 happens to cover precisely this span of years and provides many other cross references for each Annum’s worth of Roman events, includingminor source material. Naturally, a similar work on Josephus’ Antiquities would be very difficult to produce, because of his non-annalistic structure, but Richardson and Hoehner’s studies are among the best studies on Herod the Great and his son Antipas, respectively.

Chronological placement of scriptural events is according to me, natch. For year-by-year explanations on those points, visit my Timeline page, or search the site for particular points.

Bill Heroman, on Acts 1-10 (Twelve Posts)

2012-01-19T02:36:00.000-06:00

I've kept trying to get back to these posts that I did about Peter and Stephen a couple years ago. With one more last month and one this week, I feel like it can rest for now. In sum, then, here are my posted views on Acts 1-10. Someday, I'm hoping to re-tell this story straight through. For now, here are the order of things as I'd recommend going through them.

Can we question Peter? Please? - Mar'10
Peter and Cornelius - Mar'10
No Spirit for Eunuchs! (or Gentile widows, apparently) - Dec'11

The Circumcision Party - Jan'12

Racism and Geography - Mar'10
Luke Liked Most Jews - Mar'10
Stephen's Real Bias - Mar'10

Why are the Ushpizin so fitting for Sukkot? - Mar '10

Situating Stephen's Speech - Mar'10

Situating Stephen's Speech at Yom Kippur - Mar'10

The Scapegoat & The Scattering - Sept'10

Chronology of Acts 1-9 - Mar'10

By the way, everything covered in Acts 1-9 took place in less than 1 year, between the Passovers of AD 33 and AD 34. As for Peter's travel throughout Acts 9, 10 & 11 - it can't be dated precisely but I include it here because it reflects strongly on what must have been going on during that previous era in Jerusalem, before the scattering. In my humble opinion, it is the harsh bigotry of Peter's two-tier gospel (albeit a position that's forgivably ignorant) which, perhaps more than anything, helps explain why GOD (yes) HIMSELF was (evidently) so eager to move on from this beginning stage of the Church.

That last statement is one I've been waiting six or seven years to post online. Grapple with it accordingly, please. ;-)

As always, if some amazing young grad student wants to take this and run with it, any piece or all whole, you have my complete blessing. There's a lot of rigor left to be desired in these presentations. But the core, I believe, is quite solid. And it's basically all there, I think.

Thanks for reading.

Nicholas Perrin, on Biblical Chronology

2012-01-18T03:19:00.000-06:00

Please enjoy this abridged excerpt from four wonderful pages I only wish I had written. May their tribe increase mightily.
-------------------------

In order for us to make sense of ourselves, we need to make some sense of history. And history, we find out soon enough, makes absolutely no sense apart from some awareness of chronology, sequence, and causality. Without the ability to place figures and events on a kind of a map, the study of history soon degenerates into an insipid exercise of rehearsing assorted and seemingly meaningless facts.

But then why is it that when it comes to "sacred events" (call it the "history of Israel" or the "human history of the kingdom of God"), it is almost a mark of piety not to know about precise dates and times? Why is it considered in so many circles almost a matter of true spirituality not only not to know the historical facts but also not to care?

It is an odd state of affairs but it is a dynamic which I think can hardly be denied in the contemporary church. It is a dynamic in which we tacitly agree on the necessity and value of pinning down "real history" with real dates, but somehow make a virtue of keeping biblical history vague, fuzzy and hopelessly muddled in our heads.

The problem is that even though we grow up intellectually in how we think about things like law and economics and human psychology, we somehow cordon off the Bible from rigorous intellectual handling so that it in fact never grows up along with us. It remains more the stuff of storybook than real history.

God made history and history matters. Apart from the conviction that our faith is a historical faith, we are left only to cast about. But, when we are fully persuaded that sacred history meshes with the history in which we live and move and have our being, that is when biblical faith becomes a real possibility.

-------------------------

You have just read a succinctly abridged version of Nicholas Perrin's amazing and wonderful Foreword to Andrew E. Steinmann's recent book, From Abraham to Paul: A Biblical Chronology. All 309 words, above, are taken directly from Perrin's amazing foreword. Nothing was rearranged. Excerpts were spliced. It's certainly a lot to quote, and I didn't ask permission, so you should all rush out and buy the book, right now!

Full disclosure: I have not yet read Steinmann's work other than his timeline, with which I will unsurprisingly take certain issues. So goes discourse in this discipline, generally for the worse and not better! However, when the subject matter has to be justified so vigorously, is it any wonder that a consensus body of work has yet to be properly developed?

My greatest hope is that, perhaps given a few more uplifting messages like this one from Nick Perrin, a small field of diligent scholars might start devoting serious time to Biblical Chronology (or at least New Testament Chronology for starters!) After some decades of work, then, a few standard chronologies should emerge, and continue to be examined. One of those standard works will be Heroman's Chronology, naturally!

But in all deepest sincerity, arguing over this stuff, with proper scholarly rigor, will be light years better than leaving it "fuzzy and vague". And we'll get there before long, I pray.

Thank you, Nick Perrin, for lighting a torch on the path.

Also, H/T to Ched, from last October.

The Circumcision Party

2012-01-17T01:49:00.000-06:00

(so called): Did it really exist before Acts 10:45? If it did, it was fully inclusive of all believers in Christ, at that time. Or, to put that more clearly - No, it did not.

I know, depending on your translation, Luke seems to say one particular group of circumcised believers was especially stunned when the Holy Spirit fell on Cornelius. However, a major problem here is that there simply were not any uncircumcised [male] believers in Judea, at this point. For one thing, that's the entire point of Luke telling Cornelius' story! But there's more.

Here's what Acts 1-10 tells us, about conversion and gentiles:

First, the whole problem of the gentile widows in Acts 6 was their lack of having a husband, whether Jewish or Gentile, who could have been circumcised. Otherwise, where were the gentile orphan boys also being overlooked? There were none. The overlooked persons are entirely widows. As for Philip & Stephen (etc), they simply must have been circumcised. Since Peter required a vision from God (10:28) merely to cross over Cornelius' threshold (10:25) and to touch him (10:26), there's no way 'The Seven' were walking into Jerusalem's christian storehouse if they had each been unwashed and uncircumcised. (On Nicolas the proselyte, see note at bottom.) But, again, if those hungry widows had even had gentile husbands, that daily chore could have been solved once for all, with a knife!

More broadly, there's a definite pattern that forms in Judean evangelism, after the scattering. The Samaritans, every male presumably being a circumcised son of Abraham, were baptized by Philip in water, and given the Holy Spirit by Peter and John (who evidently knew more about Samaritans than did Philippos). The Ethiopian eunuch, being uncircumcisable, was baptized only in water. Last, Cornelius, upon receiving the Holy Spirit while still being uncircumcised (the astonishing part), now only has to be baptized in water. Quite consistently, each new convert required (1) baptism and (2) the Holy Spirit, but only received HS if circumcised into Judaism.

Back to Cornelius' house, where, depending on your translation in 10:45, this may not be so clear. A cursory reading of most renderings gives a definite impression that there were already two well established positions on whether circumcision was required. There's no evidence in Acts 1-10 for taking on that position. None at all. To create the appearance of such evidence, one must anachronistically rehabilitate Peter before his transformation's complete (or even begun, hardly, really).

Let's look at the scripture for Acts 10:45.

NASB says, "All the circumcised believers who came with Peter were amazed..." (Yes, but that statement would be equally true if omitting the word "circumcised".) ESV says, "the believers from among the circumcised who had come with Peter were amazed..." (Right. As opposed to which other believers?) NLT says, "The Jewish believers who came with Peter were amazed..." (What? In the context of this particular story, WHO were the "Gentile believers" standing there, unamazed, in Cornelius' house?)

The Greek, of course, says καὶ ἐξέστησαν οἱ ἐκ περιτομῆς πιστοὶ ὅσοι συνῆλθαν τῷ Πέτρῳ ὅτι καὶ ἐπὶ τὰ ἔθνη ἡ δωρεὰ τοῦ ἁγίου πνεύματος ἐκκέχυται, which being approximately transliterated, means something like "and they were amazed, those of the circumcised believers, the ones who came with Peter, that also upon the nations the gift of the holy spirit was poured out."

There are two possibilities here.

First, Luke may be putting in a deliberate allusion to Paul's phrase, τοὺς ἐκ περιτομῆς ('those of the circumcised', Gal.2:12), which Paul likely repeated elsewhere, including probably after his arrest. A few verses later in Acts, Luke uses almost the same construction at 11:2, οἱ ἐκ περιτομῆς A(same meaning), this time to reference Peter's vigorous opponents in this suddenly realized debate. This may be the same point in both verses. But if Luke is using the phrase in 10:45 to refer to the opponents of 11:2, or Gal.2:12, or anywhere in the historical middle... in other words, if Luke is referring to the oft labeled and partly mythical movement scholars long ago labeled "The Circumcision Party"... then Luke is creating a deliberate anachronism.

By deliberate anachronism, I mean something like "America's first president was commanding general in our Revolutionary War." or "I met my wife at Hartsfield International Airport". In both cases there's a chronological discrepancy, but if you know the backstory of either situation, there's no misunderstanding. This is a common enough way of speaking, efficiently adding additional information into a conveniently succinct statement.

Now, the second possibility is that Luke may have meant to refer simply to ALL the believers who were standing at that moment with Peter. As has been pointed out here, above, Luke's statement DOES in actuality refer to all such persons, anyway. Even so, it may ALSO be the case that Luke was foreshadowing 11:2 with this phrase in 10:45. Either way, this second possible view says that Luke had no intention of identifying a sub-sect which was instantly forming at this time, and certainly not one already existing prior to this time.

By all accounts, this sub-sect "of the circumcision" had pretty well started forming by the time they returned to Jerusalem... but of course that's getting things backwards. Whichever view took the early majority after Peter's return, that first sub-sect within Christianity began in Cornelius' house. Prior to that, all believers in Christ were required to be circumcised (or have circ'd husbands). All of them.

It's anachronistic to think anything other than this, about Acts 1-10.

As Peter himself said to Cornelius, up until then the procedures for gentile proselytization were internationally well known (10:35) and it had been made very clear that the way to salvation in Christ was through joining with certain Jews in Jerusalem (10:39). Yes, according to Luke that's what Peter believed, right up until that next moment. While the full meaning of God's sheet letting down and the clean/unclean talk becomes clear to a reader at this point (10:45), one of Luke's purposes in telling the story this way is to point out that not even Peter understood this before now - not after Joppa, not after initially knocking on Cornelius' door. In fact, Peter was still spouting off about what the plan was when the Spirit intervened.

And at that point, Peter, he of the circumcision, was astonished.

And the other believers, also circumcised, were astonished right along with him.

At 11:2, we've got the start of division. Maybe Luke's slight ambiguity in 10:45 is the spark of that division, but there's no evidence in Acts 1-9 to suggest there was any other opinion for how gentiles could be saved but "Circumcision". Indeed, that was how everyone in the Jerusalem church had been taught. Luke doesn't bring it up quite so early, in Acts 2, but the Day of Pentecost may have included several circumcisions of God-fearing proselytes. (Note: that double term is not a redundancy. A circumcised Gentile was also called 'proselyte'.)

That, of course, would be a Circumcision "Party" of an entirely different kind!

I'd go on to show how translators also anachronistically rehabilitate Peter's sincere question at 10:47, making it into a noble rhetorical defense of Cornelius... but this post is too long as it is. Suffice it to say that the situation was unprecedented (and perhaps also that Peter was used to communal decision making) and I'll let you all go look at the Greek and its popular renderings for yourself!

Yes, Religion > Hypocrisy

2012-01-15T18:20:00.000-06:00

Nick's right. Duh. But 1,000 ships launched vs. one word? Wow, people. To the well educated it's obvious that Jeff Bethke could have spoken with more precision, and he admits it. But is that really the thing to get up in arms about? Apparently, hordes of bibliobloggers thought so, this week.

My deeper questions are these:

I'm addressing *you* if you were feeling defensive about *your* Religion this week. If, however, you were just taking any good chance to quibble with public misuse of theological language, then you're off the hook. At least, this hook.

(1) Why do so many young people feel that *your* Religion is dead, when you don't? Why are *you* so quick to say they're wrong, and *you're* not? How does one tell the difference? By superior wordsmithing?

(2) Are the maladjusted merely uneducated? (*You* don't really think the video would have been as big a hit if Bethke used the word "Hypocrisy" instead, do *you*?)

(3) Do you think word lessons are going to make them feel as positively about your Sunday Service as they did about that video? Do you think a semantically adjusted semi-agreement with Bethke's message is going to make them reject *your* Religion any less than they already do? Or embrace it any more?

(4) Do these anti-religionists merely want "New Wine"? Or are they just sick of *your* "Old Wine"? Is this merely a cultural thing? Or is there a deeper problem with them? Or with you? Or with all of us?

(5) Is anti-religion popular largely because recent generations are becoming more lazy and licentious? Or does Christian Religion at large, even that of the stripe which stays largely hypocrisy free - does it often display symptoms of actually turning people away from wanting to know Jesus?

I'll refrain from answering myself, for today.

Feel free to blow up the comments, below...

Apologetics aren't for Unbelievers

2012-01-14T23:06:00.001-06:00

They're like BMW commercials, which are primarily on the air so that people who've already bought one can feel good about their expensive purchase after the fact. (Think about it. Who buys a $70,000 car just because it came on during the Super Bowl? No, it comes on during the Super Bowl so the BMW owners can puff out their chest a bit while the other guys reach for more nachos. Anyway.)

I say this to piggyback on Tim Hendrson's blog post the other day, which points out that one doesn't hear of tons and tons converting to Christendom just because someone defended the resurrection of Jesus. True. Apologetics programs are generally much better at protecting confused sheep than at transforming goats. As I said once, regarding Apologetics vs. History:

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.

By the way, Henderson was discussing Mike Licona's book on The Resurrection of Jesus, about which I also blogged my thoughts a while back:

As long as resurrection isn't ruled out a priori, it's the best explanation for everything the apostles did (and also for what Paul did) after Jesus' death. Of course it is. Seriously, this really is very old news.

...it's clear that his goal must have been, from the outset, "to defend the faith once delivered". And again, that's fine... [but] the book as a whole remains yet another example of a conservative Jesus history which *concludes* with a positive judgment about *historicity* - See, brethren, we can still believe that it's all really true!

I'll keep on repeating these points till I'm blue in the face. Or until the tide someday turns.

...the ironic tragedy here is that skeptical reconstructions display plenty of confidence in what they assert - and unbelievers lap that stuff up, despite their indefensible presuppositions, because of their confidence - but our christian scholars are the ones who won't go so far as to build one fluid chain of events based on the Gospels.

In other words, it's WE who don't seem to have faith!

But we do. Or we say that we do. We believe in the Story.

Lord, increase our Faith in the Story.

Amen?

Fish + Cat = Orange

2012-01-12T12:22:00.001-06:00

Doing History is 2 + 2 = 5, but Theology often seems like Fish + Cat = Orange. At least, it often seems like that to me.

Anyway, I said so on Facebook today and a friend posted this picture. I like it.

I think I'm converted now. Mesmerizing. Maybe Fish plus Cat does equal Orange.

Discuss.

The Historical MJ

2012-01-11T09:47:00.001-06:00

Turns out, Michael Jordan both was and wasn't "cut" from his HS team, a story he's often repeated. Obviously, the scare quotes indicate spin, but the interesting part isn't whether it's "true". To see what I mean, and how Jordan's spin sheds far more light on his personal history than it ever cast shadows, see Kelly Dwyer's succinct post over at Ball Don't Lie.

It's a fun illustration of something I mentioned just last month. Slanted testimony can often reveal BOTH what it attempted to hide AND more information besides... which is one reason why it's much more fun as historians (and more productive as well) to grant the basic historicity of someone's narrative, but weigh various interpretations of the account.

Was MJ cut from that team, or wasn't he? Let's not debate historicity. Let's try to get at the deeper Story.

Well done, NBA Blogger. Well done.

How to Hire Bill Heroman:

2012-01-10T06:08:00.001-06:00

Please review my updated resume, and then give me a call.

William J. Heroman,Teacher in Transition

billheroman@gmail.com

TransitioningBACK into Business after 12 years of Teaching & Ministry

Relocating four times with a church planting mission (’96 to ’08) led to teaching in various schools (’00 to ’09). Now my family is settled. Soon my career will be.

Objective: to build connections and maximize opportunities

Business Experience (1994 – 2000, 2011)

· TheDance Company, Arlington,TX (Mar ‘11 – Oct ‘11) Invited tomanage a struggling dance studio for a largely absentee owner, who gave megreat latitude to alter policy, I improved customer satisfaction in all areas,increased enrollment to record heights, added three teachers and raised monthlytuitions from about 12k to over 18k/mo, not counting merchandise or other fees.Enjoying profitability, the owner reclaimed full control, and I resigned.

· Heroman’sPressure Washing, Atlanta,GA (Aug ‘96 – Aug ’00) Opting out of a M.Ed. program at LSU to start churchplanting (above), I learned a new trade quickly and went solo within 9 months.Washing houses, restoring decks & patios, and painting, I boughtadvertising and took leads to generate steady business around North MetroAtlanta. After two years I wasgenerating over 50k annual revenue as a sole proprietor, limited only byweather & fatigue.

· Thomas NelsonPublishers,Nashville, TN, Morganton, NC (Summer ’94) Selling Bibles & Educational Books, I worked a given territorydoor-to-door, prospecting, cold calling and setting appointments. I gave full presentations at over 20% of allhouses I visited, and sold roughly 1 in 3 of those prospects. I generated 100% of my own prospects, working80 hrs/wk, kept thorough records and turned in weekly sales reports to myregional manager.

· LaVilleFood Emporium, LSU Food Services, BR, LA (4 Semesters, ’92-’95) Promoted toStudent Manager my first semester in college, I kept the job for one year:opened on weekends & locked up nights; directed student and adult staffpersons; kept ledgers, registers, tills & safe; made or serviced pizzas,hot sandwiches, salad bar & cafeteria line; restocked pantry, freezers,supply room and convenience aisle shelves; washed dishes and supervised cleanup. After scaling back sophomore year tofocus more on academics, I went back in some semesters for odd hours at other LSUcafeterias.

· BillyHeroman’s Flowerland,BR, LA (Familybusiness, up through ’96)I spent several semesters of Saturday delivery at my father’s FTD store acrosstown, with traditional overtime each December and February. By ‘92 I washelping coordinate the Valentine’s Week deliveries, routing and supervisinganywhere from 30 to 50 temporary contract drivers for up to 3 days, while carefullyshelving, pulling & packing thousands of plants, gifts & floralarrangements through three coolers and into dozens of personal vehicles.

Teaching Experience (Jan’00 – Present)

In teaching Math (5 yrs), English (4 yrs) and othersubjects (3 yrs), I planned, prepared and presented daily lessons, cruncheddata, managed student & parent relationships, and completed interventionreports, contact logs & performance summaries. For the first 7 years I also managed caseloadsof special needs advisees, coaching behaviors and facilitating success in both accommodated& regular settings. My accomplishments at each teaching campus include:

· LithiaSprings HS, Lithia Springs, GA (Jan – May ’00) Subbing long-termin Math & English while earning initial Cert. at 2 grad schoolssimultaneously.

· PebblebrookHS, Cobb County, GA (Aug ‘00 – June ’03) Vigorous Co-teaching won honorary Math Dept ‘membership’.Creating a Study Skills class transitioned learning challenged 9^thgraders into general ed HS classes.

· SamHouston HS, Arlington, TX (Aug ‘03 – June ’07) Reorganizing Special Ed Dept small group classes by skilllevel strategically aligned our instruction with the Texas Alternate Assessment,SDAA, briefly prominent in that era.

· SandalwoodHS, Jacksonville, FL (Aug ’07 – June ’08) Served on the AVID Team all year, including at the nationalconvention in ATL; also drew dozens to 4pm tutoring, 5 days/wk, and taughtclasses on both off periods (2^nd sem).

· SouthHills HS, Fort Worth, TX (Aug ’08 – June ’09) Delivered test scores that helped my Alg I team &Math Dept surpass both Campus & District goals, earning a personal bonus of$8k for significant 9^th grade TAKS gains. Unfortunately, “Algebrafor All” (no solving for x) was a steep learning curve.

· ArlingtonSchools: Seguin, Martin, Flint, Etc (Jan ’10 – Present) Subbing& Networking in the AISD, Summer School Math at Seguin HS got me asked backas a Tutoring Specialist (long term sub), pulling out targeted freshmen and Senior Re-Testersfor tailor made remediation; over 70% of my active seniors passed their nextTAKS retake. Leaving Seguin for 4 days/wk at The Flint Academy (Oct’10 – May ’11) helped make ends meet, and I rebuilttheir Latin program, but it wasn’t a permanent fit. I continued SaturdayTutoring at Seguin and then returned to subbing in AISD, despite the hiring slowdown.

Earliest TeachingExperience

· CountryDay School, BatonRouge, LA (Sept’95 – May ’96) Teaching p/t daily, while at LSU, Icoached PE, kept ‘after-care’ for grades K-4, and had a blast.

· Strong River Camp & Farm, Ltd., Pinola, MS (Summers,’89 – ’93, ’95) Canoeing Instructor 6 yrs, Lifeguard 3 yrs,Senior Counselor 2 yrs

Education& Licensure:

BRHS (Diploma) – LSU (B.A., English Lit) – Clark Atlanta U. (M.Ed., Learning Disabilities)

TexasCertifications in Math (K-8,8-12) & Special Ed. (EC-12) good thru 2015

Ten Things I've Learned

2011-12-28T15:53:00.000-06:00

In four years of researching NT/Historical methodology:

1) Chronology is the bedrock of History.
2) The primary goal of historiography is reconstruction.
3) Incredible testimony may as well be accepted, as not.
4) Relevance is the enemy of the historian's task.
5) All history is interpreted, as all narrative is selective.
6) Ideas can both cause and arise from events.
7) God acts within History, as do others, with varying impact.
8) Slanted testimony shines helpful light from surprising angles.
9) The "whole story" is as lost as it would be untellable.
10) There are many valuable ways to re-present what is past.

The rest, perhaps, is in the works.

Anon, then...

Gospel Based History

2011-12-20T03:14:00.000-06:00

Here is my four point proposal for a new way of discussing the Gospels. I still say I've not seen any complete work done in quite this fashion, yet, but it should happen before too long. If *you* would like to take part, here are four areas in which I humbly suggest your Gospel Based History project could break new ground:

First, basic historicity should be largely assumed but 'literalism' should be eschewed whenever nuanced distinctions may be practically helpful for reconstruction's sake. In other words, be neither defensive nor critical for theo/ideological reasons. If we're going to be trusting or skeptical, both should only apply in the interest of furthering historiographical objectives. We aren't trying to shore up our camp, here. We're trying to analyze the Gospel's content with greater historical sensibility.

Second, causal factors must be held in tension with theological humility. Each interpreter has their own philosophy of History, and their own philosophy of God's involvement with History, but we must accept that Jesus at various moments acted, reacted and was acted-upon, and that divine power was neither absent from nor dominant over the recorded events, practically speaking, from what we can tell. In other words, as events actually unfolded, the Father and Son were precisely, and only, two of our players. History's stage must respect all the dynamic personae.

Third, we must draw careful distinctions about what our finished project will or won't claim to be, and thus sidestep traditional fears of constructing this summarized narrative. Far from producing a Tatian-esque textual rearrangement, we'll not craft a remastered medley of four separate tunes. Instead, we'll compose in our own words a song that is technically new, but which succeeds at three tasks: 1) to faithfully capture the spirit and soul of our source texts, 2) to represent both Gospel content and contextual 'background material' holistically, and 3) to provide greater awareness and insight into aspects of texts that we should already know, but often fail to recognize.

Fourth, the purpose of writing this Gospel Based History is not to discover something the Gospels didn't already tell us, but to build upon and make more from what they actually do tell us. In other words, reconstructing sound History is a lot like constructing sound Theology, except that Historians naturally ask different kinds of questions, primarily focusing on scripture's testimonies about practical happenings and examining how persons who carried ideas and beliefs both took actions and interacted with one another, in ways that may or may not have been fully in line with anything God Himself was attempting to do, at particular times.

All in all, a Historian of Jesus' life needs to believe in the texts of the Four Gospels, but analyze those texts historically. She must read, consider, comment on them while asking different sorts of questions than theologians typically ask. She must write different sorts of overviews than theologians have usually written. Like any good Theologian, she must build up and make more of scripture's God-breathed content, in ways that neither add to nor take away from scripture's claims, but which enhance what is already contained there. The Historian must engage with historical issues without ignoring theological truths, and construct narrative summaries without ignoring the deep perspectival distinctions of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John.

Like any good work of Theology, a Gospel Based History should impact readers by making them *more* eager to dive into the scriptures, not less. Such a project will produce neither a radical new vision nor a regurgitation of church tradition, but a fresh four-dimensional (ie, fully spatial & temporal) perspective on the most living and active aspects of the One Story of the four irreplaceable Gospels.

Practical Advent

2011-12-16T20:31:00.002-06:00

The Word became flesh in 7 BC, but Jesus’ public Advent came at the Jordan, when God declared that more than three decades of Christ’s earthly life was “well pleasing” to Him. Today, we wait for 30 days to open up a few gifts. Mary waited for nine months for the birth. God Almighty had waited a much longer time for that blessed event, and then God kept on waiting, for thirty-something more years, until he could actually send that boy somewhere. Talk about devoting oneself to the season of Advent!

Paul says, “In the fullness of time, God sent his son, born of a woman, born under the law.” And John’s Gospel tells us, over and over, that Jesus came “into the world”, reminding us many times that the Word had been made Flesh. But John’s Gospel also has Jesus say, many times, “The Father has sent me” – apparently, to Jerusalem, to Capernaum, to some festivals, even to his to his last meal. In other words, I believe, we should properly notice that God “sent his son into the world” many times over.

Obviously, John’s Gospel is very spiritual, but it’s also deeply geographic (if you pay close attention). Likewise, the irony John plays on for 21 chapters is that Jesus’ hearers don’t recognize the spiritual impact of his words, but we can. Yet today, too often, *we* overlook the more practical side. When Jesus stands at the Temple and says, “God sent me”, the Jerusalemite’s natural response should be, “Oh, so that’s why we have to put up with your crazy talk here, today? Because God sent you?” In such cases the double meaning was absolutely intended, and probably in both directions.

Likewise, I suspect Paul’s summary to the Galatians has a double meaning that we often skim past way too quickly. Yes, of course, Jesus was ‘heaven come down’, but just as importantly, if not more so, Jesus was ‘heaven sent round’, and few could know this any better than Paul. At that writing, the apostle himself hailed from Taurus, from Jerusalem, from Damascus, from Arabia, and from Antioch. Paul had a deep appreciation of the eminent practicality of that word, sent.

Each December we're challenged to celebrate the Lord’s Manger-Advent with tremendous fanfare, and rightly so, because something mystical started to happen on Earth that day. But Jesus’ Jordan-Advent is something I wish we could celebrate with equal fanfare, if not even more. On that day, after more than three decades in Nazareth, Jesus’ mystical mission, bringing Light to the World, jumped up several big notches on the ‘practical’ scale.

In the Fullness of time, God sent his Nazarene into the world.

.

Twenty Questions for Leen Ritmeyer

2011-12-13T23:00:00.000-06:00

or for anyone else at the big Boca Raton conference this weekend, on Jesus and the Temple... or for any other scholarly expert on the Temple of Jerusalem, for that matter. If you're going, and if you get a chance to ask any of these questions*, I'd genuinely love to hear back about how Leen or anyone else answers them.

Without further ado:

1) Was the Temple in Jesus' day basically the same shape and size in all aspects as it was when Josephus described it? If so, how do we know? If not, which features or structures were different?

2) For instance, was the Temple courtyard in Jesus' day paved, or was it mostly dirt? How do we know?

3) If the Temple in Jesus' day was more or less structurally complete, then what if anything did the workmen of Agrippa II actually contribute to the "finishing" of that great complex? What do you suppose was the very last element of construction they might have been working on? Why?

4) Do you accept the suggestion that recently found coins may indicate the Western (retaining) Wall had not yet been built at the death of King Herod the Great? If not, why not, and what do you think they do indicate?

5) If the Western Wall had not yet been constructed by 4 BC, what other parts of the grand structure Josephus describes might possibly NOT have been finished by that date, either?

6) Would it be logical to assume that the Western Wall must have been finished before the temple court could be leveled, and that the leveling would be necessary before the court (the entire outer court) could be paved?

7) Would it be logical to assume that the courtyard was unlevel before the retaining wall(s)* went up, and that the courtyard would therefore have been unpaved before the courtyard was leveled?

8) Would it be possible for the outer court to have boundaries before the plateau had been fully leveled? Would those boundaries therefore have been necessarily smaller than they were later on? Is it possible that such an expansion of the courtyard could have happened at any given time between 20 BC and 63* AD?

9) What other developmental sequencing (or 'phases') of construction would have necessarily regarded the full retaining wall boundary (and leveling) as a prerequisite construction? Does the recent coin find therefore potentially change how we view the "Colonnade of Herod", or could it then push back the date at which it might have been completed?

10) Does a later wall construction affect the veracity of Josephus' account of the Battle of Pentecost, 4 BC, where rebel assailants are said to have hurled great stones down upon Roman legionaries [as from a great height directly above them]?

11) Do you believe the account of that passage that "[those noble structures were burned completely to the ground]"* at the end of that battle? If Josephus exaggerates, how extensive do you suppose the real damage actually was? Can you specifiy which structures are most likely to have gone down at that time, or to not have gone down, and why so? Can you speak to the physics of temperature and fire on limestone and marble(?*)? And on the bonding agents between them? (Or any other materials involved?*)?

12) If some significant portion of Herod's complex did burn down in the year 4 BC, how long did it take to rebuild? Who funded that rebuilding? With Archelaus partying hard for a decade and the Procurators coming in after that, was reconstruction funding therefore left to Jerusalem? Should we then expect they most likely applied a much smaller reconstruction budget, as compared to King Herod's original budget, and if so, again, how many years might it have taken for the rebuilding after that fire?

13) Is it possible that Jerusalem's Temple, in Jesus' day, was far from being the same structure that burned in 4 BC?

14) Is it possible that Jerusalem's Temple, in Jesus' day, was far from being the same structure Josephus had known from his Judean life in the 40's to 60's AD.

15) To what extent have archaeologist's reconstructions considered such questions of chronological development over the 'lifetime' of Herod's ongoing Temple project, from 20 BC until 63* AD?

16) To what extent might the following research scenario qualify as irresponsible misrepresentation: If someone reads Josephus' description of the Temple and then works out convenient arguments as to why that same location, in Jesus' ministry phase, would have supposedly looked quite exactly the same? To what extent has your research and writing attempted to avoid such a tactic? What do you personally find most difficult about that particular challenge?

17) To what extent does the lack of developmental aspect in typical discussions of Herod's Temple Complex possibly enable the not-too-uncommon-in-print generality that "[Herod's Temple was under construction for around 80 years]"? To what extent does this generality contradict the surface claims of the typical scholarly view?

18) What other aspects of New Testament research, or any other field within christian study, might also be suffering from a slight lack in developmental awareness?

19) Do you think we owe people a four-dimensional view of the past? Does that include archaeology? Does that include reconstruction? Why, or why not?

20) Lastly, how many of these questions have you pondered before? I'm just curious.

Thanks so much for your time...

---------------------------------
* To the reader - Please forgive my lack of thorough fact checking tonight. This is purely from memory, and the conference starts soon.

No Spirit for Eunuchs! (or Gentile widows, apparently)

2011-12-11T15:17:00.001-06:00

In the earliest days of the christian church in Jerusalem, under Peter's Regime, there were two tiers of Christianity. This becomes unarguably clear when we read of Cornelius, but that discrimination must have been going on from the start. What Peter blessed should be counted as spiritually unconscionable - that Jewish believers were ~~permitted~~ instructed to receive the Holy Spirit, but the Gentile believers were not.

In retrospect, this comes out nowhere more forcibly than Acts 8, where Philip meets the Ethiopian eunuch, and especially because this occurs fresh after Philip gets schooled in Samaria by Peter & John, about how to make converts, and when to "give" them the Spirit. Evidently, Philip had not known that Samaritans - while not 'Judean' - were indeed people of Abraham. Thus, all their men were circumcised. Thus, Holy Spirit. But, alas, Philip had no special grace for his second-tier convert, the eunuch.

Seen in this light, I believe it shines clear that Luke's purpose in Acts 8 was far less to foreshadow the great reach of the Gospel's Global Advance than to show what a dangerous state that GGA was in about to be in, under Peter's direction. For Luke, this is not a good ending: an entire continent had just been inflicted with a Holy Spirit-less Gospel! And as Acts goes on to show, later, even Jewish Apollos, the African, was some time later producing disciples who had "not even heard" of the HS.

Of course, it's only on a second read-through of Acts that we can retroject these attitudes into the otherwise glorious sounding adventures in Acts' early chapters. Yet, retroject them we must, and by doing so we may be surprised in quite a few ways.

For example:

It was a genuine, righteous fury that inspired Stephen in denouncing the Temple (that very place where the Twelve had met daily since Pentecost, and the same place Luke later shows leading Paul towards his doom) but perhaps Stephen's anti-Temple rhetoric was being aimed in two directions at once. Given the full picture, it couldn't have been merely the Sanhedrin's entrenched institutionalism that Stephen strongly resented. Consider also the ~~mindless~~ heartless traditional bigotry of Peter and the Apostles.

We know Stephen was circumcised because "the seven" were allowed to take food directly from the responsible hands of fellow Jewish believers, but it must have grated on Stephen to be told he could share only food with these widows - with these unmarried women who could not be converted by the proxy of husbands submitting to cutlery. Under Peter's instructions, Stephen had HS, but these widows did not.

Again, please imagine at some length the daily pleasure of being tasked to bring food to the needy, but the daily pain of being told it was unrighteous to share with them also what the rest of Christ's body was sharing. That daily, from house to house, the believers were eating and praying together, instructing one another with words from the Apostles, and having spiritual fellowship with the Father and Son. But if these gentile widows were so unclean that they couldn't come into the house of a Jewish Believer, to even eat together, then how could the church think they were holy enough to pray, learn and fellowship with? If you can't even break the same bread with us, how can you ingest the same Spirit as us?

I expect Stephen was frustrated with many things in Jerusalem, of which the Temple was roundly symbolic.

Extrapolate as you may...

Bauckham on Jesus (QOTD)

2011-11-27T22:21:00.001-06:00

From the final paragraphs of Chapter 6 in Richard Bauckham's Jesus: A Very Short Introduction:

Could Jesus act with fully divine authority and exercise the divine prerogative of giving life, while being himself no more than a human servant of God? No, because in Jewish theology such prerogatives belong uniquely to God and cannot simply be delegated to someone else. They help to define who God is. Hence, even in the Synoptic Gospels, Jesus' claims to divine authority - to forgive sins or to share God's universal sovereignty - are regarded as blasphemy by Pharisees and chief priests. ...

And the payoff...

The only Jesus we can plausibly find in the sources is a Jesus who, though usually reticent about it, speaks and acts for God in a way that far surpassed the authority of a prophet in the Jewish tradition. His opponents recognized this. Probably a lifetime of pondering it led to John's theologically creative interpretation of it. To do his Gospel justice, we must see that he is engaged, not in free creation, but in creative interpretation of the same Jesus the other Gospels, in their more restrained ways, also interpret.

(Italics by Bauckham).

Well said, I do believe. Any questions?

The Individualist Accident (Medievalism)

2011-11-10T06:12:00.000-06:00

Ken Schenck's continuing posts on Scot McKnight's King Jesus Gospel have been really engaging so far. Told ya they would be. In the latest installment.. well, you should really go read it for yourself. (Menu: Here!) I'll just begin here with my major takeaway, so far.

Ken's last post made me realize how directly the Medieval Church was responsible for influencing the Protestant message into emphasizing individual salvation. Now, I've long recognized Catholic Individualism. For one thing, when all of Europe became evidently "God's Kingdom", what else was there but to get everyone into heaven? For another, the emphasis was good marketing AND good governance. How do we make sure all these ignorant, filthy peasants keep the faith? Talk up the next world! And how do we make sure these disenfranchised, poverty stricken peasants remain good subservient citizens? Threaten them with the next world!

At least in protestantism, to some degree, it turned more positive: what began as a method of control and abuse ("Be good, peasants, or you won't get to heaven") was unconsciously adopted/retained as the context of the new proclaimed liberty ("be graced, peasants, and you will get to heaven"). Incidentally, the loss of that stick may be one reason protestantism had so much trouble maintaining stability in governance, itself.

At any rate, all ninety-five of Luther's Theses (last I checked) were about how wrong it was to "sell" individual salvation. The purpose of that mindset is what infuriated Luther, but the form of that thinking was never rejected by Luther's mind, and that's fascinating. Scot McKnight can blame Luther and Calvin for increasing the blatant emphasis (in their written Confessions) on individual salvation, but it's not as if L&C were thinking their 'new' thoughts in a total vacuum. The Medieval emphasis had arisen for very practical reasons (though I admit I've probably oversimplified somewhat, above), and that basic situation hadn't changed one bit, despite all the new visioning.

Below Ken's post, I wondered if Scot was going out of his way to avoid the appearance of Catholic-bashing, but this morning I think, perhaps Augsberg & Geneva were simply more convenient ways to make Scot's case a bit more objective, and that's probably valid. Of course, it could also be true that Scot just doesn't see things this way. I may have to find out. (Once again, the more I engage with a review of a book, the more likely I am to wind up reading the book itself. Go figure.)

Finally, this all reminds me of NT Wright's IBR lecture in Atlanta, and Michael Bird (responding) comparing "kingdom" language in the early fathers, versus the lack thereof by the time of the reformers. My question at that time was to wonder why any Medieval powers would have written words about "kingdom" for any reason? When God had seemingly already conquered the world, politically, what else was there to be talking about? And so, the focus, quite naturally, turned to individual salvation.

To be clear, I'm all in for avoiding the appearance of Catholic bashing. I just don't think Luther & Calvin are really ultimately to blame. And when we talk about Medieval Catholicism, let's be clear, we're also talking about a very different organization in many ways than the RCC that stands today. But let's also be clear...

Evidently, there is something at work in the systematization of religion, on the massive scale, which eventually cannot help but to process believers on an individual basis. Call it the precursor of the factory-model, perhaps, but it's absolutely systemic. To increase the scale of doing business, one absolutely must create efficiencies. It is no accident that today's mega-churches are the place where believers are most likely to wind up with a totally individualized church-going experience. When you consider practical dynamics, the mega-churches can hardly do otherwise.

Think upon these things...

The Homanadensian War

2011-11-08T23:24:00.000-06:00

The timeline of the career of Sulpicius Quiriniusincludes at least three solid points – his consulship in 12 BC, his service toGaius in the East, from 2 to 4 AD, and his census of Judea in 6/7 AD. There is some question about his status asgovernor of Crete & Cyrene (c.15 BC?) as it seems to have been a militarycommand before the General had yet served as Consul, but the most significantquestion about the career of Quirinius is about the time at which he executedthe Homanadensian War.

Given the inscriptional attestation in Antioch Pisidiafor the presence of Legions V and VII in southern Galatiauntil after the Isaurian War (6 AD), it is unnecessary to suggest any SyrianGovernor pursued the Homanadensians from the other side of the Taurus Mountains. Further, the situation in the East during those years would have made itunwise to remove two of Syria’s three Legions (they were still not four at thedeath of Herod the Great) – aside from which any General starting a campaignfrom Antioch into the Taurus range should have begun with the Cilicianmountains or Isaurians.

Besides all this, the only suggestions that Quiriniusattacked Pisidia from Syriaare from those suggesting it happened from 3 to 1 BC. Their motive is to contrive a late death forHerod and an early governorship for Quirinius, both of which should seemimpossible after any thorough historical analysis. Aside from this present volume*, they shouldcheck the works of Mitchell and Levick on Galatia, in the bibliography*. But now having addressed his, we move on.

Accepting that Quirinius executed the HomanadensianWar as Proconsul of Galatia, probably from Antioch Pisidia, means hisgovernorship there must have occurred between 12 BC and 2 AD. Fortunately the milestones of the Via Sebasteattest the presence of Cornutus Aquila and his completion (or near completion; see Levick) of that road in 6 BC. Further, as the path of that road follows adifficult route through the mountains that is many miles west of the KestrosRiver valley, where the modern road lies, it seems even more certain that theRoman road was built as a limes(boundary road) before Pisidia had been fully pacified.

That suggests Quirinius’ earliest arrival in Galatia at themiddle of 5 BC. At any rate, with arange between 6 BC and 2 AD it could hardly have been much later, and as thepurpose for the road was for rapid military transport around a hostile area, itseems most natural to assume the next stage of preparation for that war beganin the following year. Galatia was not a strategic point at which tostation Legions except to direct them locally, and the greater needs of theEmpire would have motivated Augustus to pacify Anatoliaas quickly as possible.

On essentially this basis, among other points, Levickconcurs with the great Ronald Syme who suggested the war belongs in the years 4-3BC. With their recommendation on top ofsuch historical evidence, I simply conclude Quirinius arrived in 5 and left in2, leaving two full summers for a campaign so difficult Augustus rewarded himwith an ornamental triumph. Obviously,this view excludes Quirinius from any participation in Syria between 3 and 1BC, but as stated above, that prospect never had any firm historical footinganyway.

------------------

*This entire post excerpted from an unpublished draft manuscript.

Comments and feedback will be much appreciated.