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.

NTW QOTD

2011-11-02T21:25:00.005-05:00

From NT Wright's Simply Jesus, Chapter 1

"Many Christians, hearing of someone doing "historical research" on Jesus, begin to worry that what will emerge is a smaller, less significant Jesus than they had hoped to find. Plenty of books offer just that: a cut-down-to-size Jesus, Jesus as a great moral teacher or religious leader, a great man but nothing more. Christians now routinely recognize this reductionism and resist it. But I have increasingly come to believe that we should be worried for the quite opposite reason. Jesus--the Jesus we might discover if we really looked!--is larger, more disturbing, more urgent than we--than the church!--had ever imagined. We have successfully managed to hide behind other questions (admittedly important ones) and to avoid the huge, world-shaking challenge of Jesus's central claim and achievement. It is we, the churches, who have been the real reductionists. We have reduced the kingdom of God to private piety, the victory of the cross to comfort for the conscience, and Easter itself to a happy, escapist ending after a sad, dark tale. Piety, conscience, and ultimate happiness are important, but not nearly as important as Jesus himself."

Comments?

Back Links and Banter (October 2011)

2011-10-30T23:32:00.002-05:00

Here's some worthwhile NT and/or History material elsewhere, recently (not necessarily appearing in Tom Verenna's November BS Carnival) with banter and counterpoint, of course:

Ken Shenck began blogging about Scot McKnight's King Jesus Gospel, and it's fantastic so far. Shenck's better than most about sticking with his blog series. Stay tuned to Ken's blog for the rest. Speaking of Scot's new book, Derek Ouellette offers some interesting observations about McKnight's view of things as compared with NT Wright's. Speaking of NTW, Nijay Gupta began reviewing Simply Jesus, pointing out that it's a simplification of Wright's own work, so that it could have been better named "Withouth-going-into-all-the-details-Jesus". Heh. Still, it should be good. I'll get to it on my Kindle after I've finished Richard Bauckham's A Short Introduction to Jesus. Boy, the Lord can still sell those books, can't he! Don't even try to keep count...

Brian LePort interviewed his fellow Portlander Matt Mikalatos (Part 1, Part 2). Coincidentally, I just finished re-reading Imaginary Jesus out loud to my wife and kids. We all thoroughly enjoyed it, and I think the kids learned a lot. To my wife's comment that she found the end a bit disappointing, I said, "Well, it's easier to tear down than it is to build up." Still, there's a lot of ground left to clear. Anyway, Matt, I'm a big fan. Thanks for giving us something to share as a family.

Over at RBL, Richard Horsley reviewed 2009's big IBR 'HJ' release, Key Events in the Life of the Historical Jesus. In a strong essay, well worth reading, Horsley commended Robert Webb & Scot McKnight but noted several areas where Darrel Bock & the rest need to make serious improvements. Webb's stuff is without question the best in the book, and I fervently hope the others all pay close attention to Horsley's advice... especially if they're planning to do any more historical work on events in the Gospels.

Speaking of theologians and Gospel events, Daniel Kirk found another reason why we need multiple voices in the Four Gospels to show us the multiple meanings of Jesus' life and teachings. Amen. Daniel also spoke against people who want a harmonized fifth Gospel to promote "the one meaning" of Jesus' teachings. Well, I must confess that never occurred to me. I'm grateful. But as regards Daniel's hopes for scholarship inspiring action, I humbly suggest a historical synopsis of Jesus' life and ministry should primarily inspire action, not simply further interpretation. At any rate, it's a good reminder of why theologians dislike "harmonies", and I don't disagree.

Last but not least, Brian Small pointed out a really impressive feat. Joel Shorey must have rehearsed for months in order to recite Hebrews. I'd love to see more people do things like this, but I'd recommend Reader's Theater instead. (Read the whole letter, but with great feeling. Why spend energy remembering lines, if you can focus instead on the content and delivering it well. And yes, I've done this. It's tough enough, without memorizing.) Nevertheless, if you have as much talent and time on your hands as Joel obviously did, go on and memorize. Again, this is a really amazing accomplishment. Check it out

BRIEFLY: Irene Hahn drew my attention to a new book on Caesars' Wives. Note the plural appostrophe. * David Lamb said what I thought ages and ages ago when I quit reading Study Bibles' study notes. * Omnes Viae is still really cool! * Jona Lendering summarized his entire (new) book, Classics in Decline. * Larry Hurtado pointed out that HJ studies finally and rightfully have a "very Jewish" Jesus, but still don't focus very much on Jesus' own relationship to God. * And the Godfather, Jim West, featured Amy-Jill Levine's just out project, The Jewish Annotated New Testament. I am definitely going against David Lamb to read this one, which should be here by Tuesday!

More to come, month by month...

Stick around!
.

Did Adam fail to lead?

2011-10-12T06:52:00.000-05:00

Of course he did. And so did Eve.(*)

That is, I mean, if you define “lead” as deliberately setting a positive example for one’s companions. On the other hand, if “lead” means to “dominate” or “seize control over”, then... well, actually in that case I must absolutely note that he did fail at that also. Of course, in the first sense, Adam’s failure was regrettable. In the second, highly laudable... yes, despite the results.

Now, what is my point? Why bother with this today, really?

Because it’s a difficult thing to successfully influence others without taking control.

However, to the underlying question about Genesis 3, why did Adam’s sin cause the fall? Was the MAN more responsible than the woman, for their mutual sin? Historically speaking, there probably was that patriarchial assumption among the original storytellers and story-hearers. But in all honesty, there’s probably also a communal aspect of ancient life that's also assumed in the story - one that we individualistic westerners (internet readers, especially) may genuinely be missing.

One naturally wonders, if Adam had eaten first, would Eve have immediately fallen? (IDK, but...) From a storytelling standpoint, having the woman eat first satisfies BOTH the communal AND patriarchal expectations of the ancient world. Objectively, therefore, we might honestly speculate that the timing [of sin's consequence having arrived] wasn't entirely because Adam was male. Even considering the ancient Jewish mindset, the other aspect might deserve equal consideration - that Adam was the other half of their social unit, and when Adam ate forbidden fruit, sin had total sway over their entire group, corporately. Not to speculate too hard, but it's good food for thought.

At any rate, none of that is my point, today. This is: It’s a difficult thing to successfully influence others without taking control. It may sometimes get easier in situations where mutual influence is the custom... but even then, even these days, results are still known to vary.

Dear Lord, open our eyes to what your kind of "leadership" truly is.

-------------------------------
(*) Caveat 1: this post inspired by the blogosphere's thorough trouncing of some complimentarian blowhard, about a week ago, a trouncing possibly more set against his fundamentalism than his patriarchalism.

(*) Caveat 2: see my view on Genesis AS IF History.

All Roads

2011-10-11T20:13:00.000-05:00

The Peutinger Table is now online and interactive! What is it? An ancient map. Sort of.

Basically, the Peutinger Table was a picographic route finder for using Rome's highways. The famous copy we possess is 4th century, but older models were used in the 1st century. In the PT itself, the cartography was cartoonishly (and deliberately) painted askew, so that roads, cities and mileage data could all be fit together sequentially.

The new site is called Omnes Viae, and it remains absolutely the coolest thing I saw all day. Here's what the PT lists for an inclusive route Ab 'Athenas' ad 'Philippis'. The milage may not be 100% accurate, but it's accurate to what the PT said. And that's very interesting indeed.

H/T Deirdre Good, the Non-Sausage (on 9/7/11)

PS: Yes, I am enjoying getting caught up on my reader. Thank you, Google, again.

CK Barrett's obit writer confused me

2011-10-11T18:30:00.005-05:00

when he said, "but a historian" and "theological character". Here's the full quote, from last Tuesday's Guardian:

“Barrett saw himself as a historian rather than a doctrinal theologian – but a historian with a sensitivity for the religious and theological character of the texts not always so evident as the discipline has become more secularised.”

Putting aside for the moment whether the dichotomy of "historian" vs "theologian" is even appropriate, it's the latter part of the quote that I honestly found so confusing. First, for the NT texts to have such "character" presumably means that the texts themselves can be characterized as religious and theological. Okay, obviously the NT texts are nearly everywhere characterized that way. But a text itself isn't actually "religious". It's the people's use of the text that's religious. Thus, the praise here isn't for being sensitive to the text, but for sensing how most people feel about it.

That's not very scholarly, and yet it's being made to sound as if it were.

Please note, I mean no disrespect to the dearly departed Dr Barrett. It's the Guardian's phrase. In this case, the obit writer has chosen to praise someone for sensitivity to the "character of the texts", but what he really means is that Dr Barrett was sensitive to Christian bias and doctrine. Again, this makes no comment on the scholar himself, but I must note he's being praised here in a way that makes political sensitivity sound like textual sensitivity.

It's a shrewd phrase, and the obit naturally is going for positive spin. But my real target here isn't even the writer. My real complaint is that this type of phrasing feels very unoriginal. The writer's not really going out on a limb very far. This type of compliment is probably typical. It sounds vaguely like other vaguely similar statements I've heard many times before.

Btw, the term "theological" is a bit squishier. Strictly, of course, it may only mean that the NT texts are about God. But seriously, what professional scholar can read the NT and ever NOT be sensitive to that simple and obvious fact? No, "theological" here most likely takes the colloquial meaning, so that to say the NT texts have a "theological character" is to say that the content of those texts are extra sacred because they've been used to make much theological doctrine. The obit writer, again, is saying Prof. Barrett should be much praised because he studied the text but *also* remembered what Christians believe about it.

And none of that is my most serious beef. Apologies to CK's memory, but he's absolutely none of my real concern here. This is.

Why can't the writer say that taking the text seriously as a historian INCLUDES taking its theological claims seriously? Or why haven't I heard anyone write about any scholar who "takes a historical approach that considers the supernatural content of scripture with assumed historicity, for the sake of reconstructing events". As far as I've noticed, that last sentence probably wouldn't be formed by any writer but me, and I myself ain't much to brag about, yet. Still, there's a blind spot here. That's all I'm trying to say.

To be fair, the obit writer's very next words are, "The relationship of theology and history in New Testament theology is at issue in many of his articles". Indeed, the precise nature of that relationship is the major question still. Obviously. But a truly academic approach would seem to require embracing that the text itself states things which are challenging and often difficult to believe. It does no good to falsely rope off certain elements of the text and preserve them under a "theological" banner.

Unless "I and the Father are One" has historical value, it has no value at all.

At any rate, if scholars are to be scholars, perhaps they should pay less attention to the pressures of religious authorities, and be more sensitive to the text itself. Not to certain aspects of the text, or traditions about the text, or ways in which religious theologians have characterized the text. They should be sensitive to the text itself.

To end with this post's title again, I started out being genuinely confused by the article, a week ago now. But more and more, when I hear this “historian” versus “theologian” type of language being appealed to, I realize how much we’re constrained by our politics. And that is not at all academic.

The Approachable Jesus

2011-10-08T15:04:00.002-05:00

He had such bossy disciples, and supplicants. Try that with anyone else! Or don't.

Read the Gospels and count how often people just walk up and demand his immediate action on some point or issue. (No seriously, please do. I haven't got time to be thorough just now.) Maybe most of these commands Jesus doesn't obey, but I think some he does. (Update Pending...)

In general, perhaps, the ones that got into the record are the ones where the contrast was instructive. "Lord, do such and such." And Jesus No, I tell you, and here's why. But no matter how many NO answers he gave them, they kept coming back with more direct, bossy instructions.

Now, to be fair, this may have been partly because of a cultural difference, a sort of ancient 'blue collar' or poverty mindset that cut straight to the point. Some demands from the twelve may be due to their heady position as his inner circle. (Note to self: some time, research whether Kings and Emperors' counselors also gave 'advice' in the imperative mood.)

Or - as I quickly admit that I'd very much like to believe - was this also just something about JESUS? Did he make the disciples, and even folks he'd just met, feel somewhat empowered? Was this part of his reputation? A reason why crowds followed him with so many requests? Was Jesus known for doing what people told him to do? Or did Jesus' very presence give people the idea they should take genuine opportunity for initiative-taking?

Again, part of this is probably the ancient world being different from ours. Kings and rulers may or may not have heard imperative 'advice' from advisors, but they certainly didn't have crowds of peons chasing after them issuing demanding 'suggestions' all the time. Yes, most westernized, "civilized" folks have been pretty well tamed, and the natural bent for the rest of humanity isn't too far from *take what you can if they'll give it, demand things from everyone who doesn't punch you or threaten to*.

But still, people kept coming to Jesus. They came and they came and they kept coming. And they kept on demanding.

Even the disciples, who surely had the most opportunities to be shut down, to be gently scolded or not-too-subtly dressed down - not just on each point, but on the very attitude of attempting to share Jesus' own agenda setting decision power - not even the disciples seem to have stopped coming again and again with their bossy instructions for Jesus. Despite all the times he rejected their points, point for point, in general, they kept on making suggestions.

I've known "christian" leaders who cast withering glances at people who even dared to ask whether they might suggest ideas toward future decisions. I've seen both men and women in leadership use nonverbal cues like posture and feigned inattention, just to make clear that their position wasn't meant to be open for sharing with others. In my own world, I've rarely seen anyone fail to get the point. And in my visits to poverty-land, where the reaction is more public, harsher and quicker, even there the powerless one making suggestions learns pretty quick when the leader doesn't want her suggestions.

And yet Jesus, in the Gospels, kept on receiving these impositions. Repeatedly.

It says one of two things. Maybe both. Either (1) Jesus somehow made it clear that he really didn't mind when the disciples were bossy like that, no matter how many times he rejected each specific demand. Or (2) there must have been plenty of times when they told him their ideas and Jesus said "Sure. Go ahead. That sounds pretty good. Do that." Again, both could definitely be true.

At the very least, without any specific research today, here's a hypothesis I assume will hold true.

The fact that we have so many rejections on record proves that people didn't get tired of giving the Lord straight up orders. Whether he gave in or rejected the majority, or if there is any discernible pattern... I'll hold off on attempting to figure that out. But this one thing I do think must be clearly embraced.

He must have been one extremely approachable Lord.

And yes, he remained "leader". Think about that, practically. Obviously, no one held Jesus' agenda hostage with sniping, pouting or conniption fits. He often made his opinions quite forcibly clear. At the same time, however, evidently, Jesus remained immanently approachable. Everyone obviously kept feeling free to express their opinions quite openly, right to the end.

What a man. What a Lord.

What a loss.

What a goal.

.

Certain Men from James/Judea

2011-10-06T06:24:00.004-05:00

If one gets the idea that Antioch wasn't overly fond of Jerusalem, then one should also conclude Antioch felt much the same way about James. By the time of Acts 15, James was essentially head of the church in Jerusalem, and therefore any christian emissaries sent "from Judea" were highly likely to have been sent directly or indirectly "from James". The same word "certain ones" (τινας, τινες, in Gal.2:12 as in Acts 15:1) is merely circumstantial, and doesn't prove my assertion, but the most logical guess is that these were the very same men.

Chronologically, this would mean that Antioch had gone unmolested by Judean controversy until these men came along. Apparently Peter himself was the first one to visit, which seems fairly appropriate, and then while Peter was still there in Antioch, these "certain men" came to visit as well. Again, this makes perfect sense. Acts tells us that Peter encountered resistance after meeting Cornelius. Paul tells us that an "circumcision party" was alive and well in Antioch on the day Paul rebuked Peter, and this "party" must have been the same group, who had just come up from Jerusalem. It seems as if someone in the C party was deliberately following Peter, who very clearly was susceptible to their influence.

So, Paul says "men from James", instead of "men from Judea". Well, Galatians pulls no punches anywhere, does it? But for Luke to say, "men from Judea" may have been just a bare bit of diplomacy. The obvious conclusion to draw here most likely correct.

In fact, the famous Judaizers (who went to Galatia) are most likely also to be identified with these very same men from Judea. At the very least, we know of no other such devouts from the C party who would travel as far as the 300+ miles to Antioch. So, is it easier to suppose that these troublemakers at Antioch went back home from Antioch and then some other group of devout Judaizers left Judea and walked all the way into Pisidia? Or is it easier to suppose that these "certain men" - who had come up from James/Judea, who had already caused such controversies in Antioch - that these were in fact the same "certain men" who went on through the Lion's Gate in Cilicia and found their way to the four very young churches of Southern Galatia.

This view simply makes good logistical sense, and I believe it makes the best sense of the evidence altogether. These men, having just been daunted by Paul in Antioch, must have also heard about Galatia while in Antioch - for Paul had not yet testified about Gentile salvation in Jerusalem (Acts 15:3) - and these men there, in Antioch, evidently decided to move on and hope for better results with new Galatian believers than they'd been able to produce while in Syria.

Finally, this could also explain Paul's literary sequence in building up to the flashback in Gal.2. It seems absolutely certain that these Judaizers had already told Galatia about Paul rebuking Peter... Paul's self defense proves they had tried to destroy Paul's reputation... but the news of the Council (2:1-10) would have been unknown to Galatia because the Council was happening at about the same time as the Judaizers were busily brandishing knives in Derbe, Lystra, Iconium and Pisidian Antioch.

To wrap it all up: Paul's "men from James" were the same men as Luke's "men from Judea". The Council of Acts 15 is absolutely the focus of Gal.2:1-10, and Paul's letter was written to Southern Galatia very soon after the Council had ended. Paul & Barnabas got back to Antioch, parted ways, and then Paul somehow heard that Galatians were in trouble. He sent the letter ahead with Luke - and apparently Titus as well - and those two were probably also keeping Jerusalem's letter in their 'pocket' for back-up. Luke & Titus went on then to find their pre-arranged rendezvous at "Troy", to wait there while Paul & Silas headed for follow up visits in Galatia, having deliberately given the churches some brief time to digest and respond to the letter(s) and letter carrier(s).

That's the simplest way I can see - not to harmonize seemingly divergent texts (blech!), but - to synchronize all the accounts. Or, in other words, that's my brief sketch at a historical reconstruction.

Think upon it...

When to Quit

2011-10-05T22:28:00.002-05:00

When I've done all the good I can do, in a place, with a group. When the even better I'd like to be doing isn't working for someone who's throwing their weight around. When the road seems blocked up ahead and I struggle a while and can't find any way to get through. When I'm absolutely convinced there's no more chances for me to keep working on making things better. When the people around me want something better for themselves, personally, rather than what seems (to me) to be best for the common good, long term.

Sadly, it's become quite a pattern in my life. In multiple cities, and churches, and jobs. I don't regret any decisions I've made to quit. Not one. What kills me is the left behind opportunities, the wistful longing, the sick feeling of loss, and the knowing. That if so-and-so had just listened to me, had just let me keep going, then we could have broken on through to a whole new level of awesome, but for various reasons, too often, my particular vision touched things that they wouldn't let go of.

Maybe if I was better at being cool, kissing up, or playing along. Maybe then I'd quit less. Maybe if I could chill out more and not push the pedal down all the way to the floor. Maybe if I cared less about making things better, and better, and better. Maybe if I didn't always want to do something else MORE.

But if I was better at all of those things, I'd be worse. If I was like that, then I wouldn't be able to bring change. And what purpose is there in belonging to something that does not want to change, to improve things?

Somewhere, someday. Maybe. I'll get to make awesome.

I just need the right mix and timing.

Anon, then...

Stephen as Scapegoat, Scattering as Ingathering

2011-09-26T00:15:00.002-05:00

Chronology tells me Stephen's martyrdom came around this time of year. Typology makes it more interesting still. Nevertheless, on any given date, Stephen's martyrdom and the scattering offer parallel typology with events from the Day of Atonement to the Festival of Tabernacles. That may not suggest Stephen died on a certain day, but it does suggest some things about Acts 6-7.

As always, first we must do the Chronology.

With Jesus' temporary death at the Passover of 33 (see here and here) and Paul's temporary blindness coming before Passover of 34 (see here and here), the necessary event sequence undoubtedly puts Stephen's death at some time around the Feast of the Booths. On Atonement Day? It doesn't matter. At any time even close to the High Holy Days, these events easily should have seemed extra pregnant with meaning.

Which events, you ask? Forget the speech for a moment. Here's what happened.

Merely a few months into the tumultuous days of Acts 1-6, the Sanhedrin and Temple authorities were still fighting against fresh claims about Jesus' resurrection, trying to convince everyone in Jeruslaem that they themselves were not, in fact, guilty of helping to execute Israel's Messiah.

So, on the day they heard Stephen's "blasphemy", they had him executed to set an example, and quite an effective one, evidently. In the moment, however, at some psychological level, this execution also must have been partly to cover up their own suspicions of self-guilt. Whatever their internal thoughts, the Sanhedrin evidently decided that killing Stephen was a sacrifice needed for Israel's good. That makes him a "scapegoat" in the absolutely most classical (if not absolutely the most biblical) sense.

Next, all but twelve Christians fled Jerusalem. Not only Stephen, but the Church was therefore sent out of the camp, exiled to wander away, in the Wilderness. Not only Stephen, but the Church became Israel's - well, Jerusalem's - Scapegoat.

But then, what happened next is even more typologically interesting.

Acts 8-11 shows that believers fleeing Jerusalem reassembled in various towns, both near and farther away. With a bare bit of basic logistics, we can imagine quite easily how long that took. If the scattering happened the day Stephen was stoned, then believers began reassembling (in nearby towns) within 24 hours after fleeing Jerusalem. Obviously, those who reached as far as Phoenicia and Antioch took much more time, probably at least one to three weeks. But that only shows the upper limit.

Within Judea, and more near to Judea, daily and for several days after Stephen was stoned, the scattered believers were reassembling themselves. Daily and for several days, after the Christian Church became exiled, the members of Christ's body found one another in various places. And God himself put up temporary dwellings.

Just like the events in Jerusalem on Atonement Day, and for several days afterward... Spiritual Sukkot were being assembled, from the day of the scapegoating, for several days afterward. The Lord God himself was building tents, for himself, out of Christian believers. Temporarily - and whether a given church met in each place there for ten days or for forty more years, each was temporary - the dwelling of God on Earth was moving onward again.

The Tabernacle of God, the Movement of God, the House of God, the Testimony of God. Moved again.

It almost doesn't matter what Stephen said, or how much of Luke's speech in Acts 7 might have any historical root in all actual fact. (Of course, I also have an idea that the time of year made something like Stephen's speech incredibly memorable to Paul and the other eyewitnesses on that day, but that's a post for another day.)

What matters is what happened.

Stephen's martyrdom - on any day that it happened - was a type of the Scapegoat event.

The Church's scattering - in the same way - was a type of both Scapegoat and Sukkot.

And the scattering - given what should be the most obvious logical implication from simple practical sense - quickly led to a tremendous ingathering. God himself reaped the fruits of one marvelous season, brought his crop of new Christians (who'd spent a scant few months in the city that crucified Christ) out from that troubled field and into brand new storehouses. Fresh produce, fresh dwellings, fresh new direction.

Thousands of new believers suddenly scattered, reproduced themselves into dozens and probably hundreds of new gatherings. The Son of Man, who'd had no place to lay his own head, had suddenly produced many spiritual houses for his Father to dwell in. And, like in the days of Moses, like the Tabernacle in the Wilderness, and unlike the previous thousand years beyond King David... these houses could move.

It doesn't matter what Stephen said. It doesn't matter what day it took place.

What matters is what actually happened. Even from the barest fact claims of Acts 6-12, we should be able to tell this much, without much real debate.

The martyrdom of Stephen and the scattering fulfilled, in this view, new, deeper and possibly final categories of meaning for the (prior to then) pregnant symbolism of the third and last movement in Israel's festival cycle.

The types of the Scapegoat and Sukkot were thereby fulfilled, in these ways, and almost certainly about this time of year, in the year 33 AD.

Mazel tov!

Matthew's Minor Mystery

2011-09-15T11:18:00.003-05:00

Brian LePort drew my attention to "the Licona Controversy", which is nice I guess, because I can't keep as close tabs these days as I'd like to be keeping. But my first comment has to be - poor Mike Licona, having his new surname become "Controversy". Dang, dude. Rub some salt in that wound and then wrap it down with duct tape. At any rate, Mike Bird has also commented today, after which point I had two things worth posting. So that means I'll take this brief moment to do so.

First, Yes, Mohler and Geisler are bullies. Duh. As it happens, that's an occasional part of their official job description. Seriously, it is. (Sigh.) Someday, semi-independent evangelical protestants are going to wake up and realize that you can't ask leaders to be kinder, gentler dictators. Although I do personally and wholeheartedly believe in the concept of benevolent dictatorship, it works best in places like Kindergarten, or small task force missions, and maybe also - someday, somehow - in the great hereafter. However, once you get up past a dozen or two thousand people (or somewhere in between, all depending) the "benevolent" dictator must inevitably run up against someone who isn't towing the line, AND who's also rocking the boat. There is NO way for the dictator to simultaneously hold down his/her job description while ALSO avoiding bullying tactics. None. It doesn't happen, Brian. You either give up power and control, giving in or creating a compromise with the radicals, or else you hold the line you've decided must be held, and in the process you become something you swore not to become. There is never a third option. Oh, with a lot of boat rockers there are polite, subtle, friendly ways to maintain control without your "bullying" being so obvious. But it's still coercion. In the family of God. And we baptize it every day. Every Sunday, at least.

To quote an old friend: "These things ought not to be."

Second, Mike Bird and Brian agree with Licona and several others that the first Gospel's author didn't really intend for his readers to take 27:52 literally. He didn't? Well, I don't see how the heck not. I mean, don't get me wrong! The sentence may or may not be intelligible, and the fact claims as they appear may or may not have happened quite in that way, but that isn't really my point at the moment. My issue at present is merely the passage itself: v.54 tells us that the earthquate in v.51 actually happened and was witnessed to by the centurion; v.50 is obviously a fact claim, because Jesus died; the torn veil in v.51 has always been hard to believe but it seems plain enough... until v.54 says the centurion and his cohort also witnessed this veil tearing... which they couldn't have viewed at the moment from Calvary... but that would then merely and logically imply that the centurion was called in to investigate, presumably after some Temple authorities made noise about it, or someone tried to blame Jesus' followers. Again, all this as the text reads is clear enough. It may or may not have happened quite as we think we understand what Matthew's telling us. (For instance, who are the "saints" at this point? How far back in Israel's history does one have to go to find "many Jewish holy men" (Bird's interpretation)? But they'd certainly be decomposed. It's a very odd problem.) I don't know what to make of this passage. A straightforward interpretation certainly poses some problems, but what Bird and LePort are proposing seems to me like a much bigger problem, grammatically. If the risen dead weren't an actual happening, then what about the earthquake and veil tearing? What about v.54 which says the soldiers at Cavalry observed both Jesus' death and these other things? Mike, Mike & Brian, if you find ways to conveniently jettison the risen saints into "allegory-land", then why not the earthquake? And how, in any event, does v.54 make any sense at all, if the centurion didn't really see what it says he did? I don't know what solves the conundrum, but the allegory "defense" seems like nonsense to me.

What else can I say?

In the text being fought over this month, we have major problems and ultimately little to go on. But to go back to my first point, we might shed some grace on the second. If evangelical christendom hadn't already built itself on the foundation of "inerrancy", we might not be striving so hard to attack one another or defend poor old Matthew. But "inerrancy" itself is a convoluted facade. The doctrine purportedly works to assure us that Scripture itself is a sure foundation, but Scripture-as-a-foundation was the Reformers' (de-facto) hat trick for blessing themselves with the political authority they needed to keep mass Christian Chaos from breaking out all at once. Thus, "inerrancy" today is just a circularly self-justifying game. Why believe it? Because they say that we must. Why such a must? Because if they're wrong then we don't have to listen to them anymore.

Authoritarian dogma is one Medieval holdover I really hope the post-evangelical movement makes some progress against. Embracing Mystery, however, is a different Medieval tradition. That one, I'd like to see Fervent Bible Affirmers attempt to enjoy more. Perhaps.

Hoehner's Chronological Aspects

2011-09-10T00:04:00.000-05:00

I wrote this post two years ago, in late July 2009. I should probably rewrite it, but I'll let it stand as is, with this necessary explanation. At the time, biblioblogger Nick Norelli had challenged me with the big meme of that summer, which was to post about five Biblical Studies books that one wanted to like, or should have agreed with, but couldn't quite get fully behind. I blogged separate posts on my chosen books, One, Two, Three and Four, in that same month. This post was to be my fifth, but for reasons that will soon become obvious, I couldn't bring myself to post it at that time. Now, perhaps it's been long enough. We shall see.

Two years late, unaltered and for the first time... here it is:

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

It has scarcely been six months since we lost Dr. Harold Hoehner. Longtime blog readers know how much I value his work and how upset I was at his unexpected passing, even (especially) considering I never met the man. I kick myself even harder for that now, because after confessing to one of his students recently the main reason I never contacted him (I realized my main purpose was wanting to argue with him about what I considered to be flaws in his Chronological Aspects), I was told "Actually, he would have really enjoyed that." Yes, I had gathered as much from the many tributes I read after his death. So I will always regret never meeting him, unless perhaps it was somehow for the best.

As I said, it has not been long since his passing, but when I was recently challenged to write about "Biblical Studies" books I cheered for but felt some reservations about, I decided it could actually be the best time to go ahead and blog my critique of Chronological Aspects of the Life of Christ, by the great Dr. Hoehner. Hopefully, furthering that important conversation will be taken as another way of also furthering his memory. So here goes everything...

Chronological Aspects remains one of my most cherished academic books, because of its uniqueness and because of the same thorough scholarship poured into Hoehner's Herod Antipas. The footnotes alone are tremendous. I could quote the entire preface right here, cheering loudly. His treatment of the major points and their issues is comprehensive and arguably definitive. I have long since worn out the glue in the spine. (Making this the one book of my "5" that I actually did read every word of, and that several times over.) But... yes, I have a few problems with this book, and they are not minor.

Hoehner's arguments are arranged chronologically, on dating the birth, baptism, duration of ministry, and crucifixion of Jesus - in that order - but my gripe is not with the presentation. A proper argument should proceed by skipping forward and backward through time as necessary. Since Hoehner didn't do this, it was not always clear how each chapter depended on points previously (or yet to be) made. Dates for the (1) commencement, (2) duration and (3) consummation of Jesus' ministry are supported by seemingly independent arguments, when in fact, solid conclusions on any two of these points should automatically render the third set of arguments unnecessary. Instead, Hoehner admits (p.37) to his views on all three of these points early on and then argues each separately, as if none are dependent on each other. Of course the strongest arguments are those for dating the crucifixion year, which therefore ought to predominate the overall work, and yet it comes last.

This automatically makes his earlier arguments suspect. The chapter on duration, for example, consists mainly of objections to Johnston Cheney's 4 year view followed by arguments supporting the 3 year view. The fact that 30 and 33 AD have been presupposed as the boundaries of that duration is only mentioned in the chapter summary, and never acknowledged during the arguments. However, IMHO, a carefull reading of Hoehner's presentation shows that the 3 and 4 year arguments come off as equally inconclusive and I'm sorry to say his assertion that only one had "suppositions" was simply unfair.

Unfortunately, the biggest problem is that for all Hoehner's laudable and high view of the "grammatical-historical interpretation of the New Testament", an overall reading of the book suggests his primary mental orientation was not to reconstruct chronology but to defend the integrity of scripture on chronological points. That is also laudable, but the particular apologetic efforts Hoehner used to reconcile John 2:20 and Luke 3:1-3 & 3:23 with other historical data are the real reason - combined with 33 AD - why he HAD to argue for a three year ministry.

A holistic view of his arguments shows which ones really depend on certain others. The defense of scripture was more important than building a historically based chronology, leaving a work that I believe - for all its great qualities - was less than perfectly faithful to either. Academically, it would have been more accurate to say this much: Luke 3:1-3 cannot mean 26 AD, so 30 AD is out. Therefore, 33 AD is in. The 3 or 4 year views each have their challenges, and we could easily date Christ's baptism to 28 or 29 AD. For all our investigations, we may or may not know the best way to "break the tie".

In the end, nothing in Hoehner's book, other than his [somewhat contrived] interpretaion on John 2:20 (as compared with Josephus) gives an entirely unflexible resistance to 28 AD and the 4 year view. The argument for John 2:20 therefore becomes the central governing point, de facto, of the book's major argument, which is hardly fair.

The fact that we have no idea how long the prep work lasted (after Herod announced the Temple project in 20 BC) means we don't know what year construction actually began. Our ignorance of that prep time means John 2:20 is inconclusive - unless we wish to guess whether prep work began in 18 or 17 BC - for settling this one year difference in question.

Therefore, the de facto "tie breaker" of all Hoehner's arguments is actually irrelevant. Therefore, Cheney and the implications of his view deserve much greater attention. We desperately need a new tiebreaker. (Personally, I think it may be the death of Sejanus - which must fall either just before or after the death of John the Baptist - because the 4 year view (the 'after' view) better explains the timing of Jesus' final movements into Judea.)

Despite my strong critique, finding these flaws only increases the value of Chronological Aspects of the Life of Christ, imho. The book remains a wonderfully comprehensive treatment of the key points, and Hoehner was certainly able to process more scholarship on the topic than I'll ever be able to review in my entire life. I'm a layman, like Cheney. I deal with the major points. So this book is a major influence in my life as much for its flaws as for its strengths. If I didn't care so greatly for it's subject matter, for which Hoehner obviously felt a great deal of passion as well, I would never spend so much of my life trying to improve on what it attempted to accomplish... nor could I ever have hoped to, probably.

As Samuel Johnson said in the preface to his first English Dictionary, "I have only failed at that which no human powers have hitherto completed." In that regard, Hoehner is even more a giant, in my estimation. What other book like his has ever gone to print? None so comprehensive, as far as I can tell, and certainly none since Chronological Aspects. To call it required reading in the field should be putting it lightly. I say again, I will always treasure my old, worn out copy.

I heard a rumor last May from someone who corresponded with him that Harold Hoehner had mentioned a desire to revise his book, if not also (?) his chronology. On the hopeful prospect of this, I began trying to make my arguments stronger and more worthy of his valuable time. Time, alas, we did not have.

If anyone reading this, today or in the future, was working with him on such a project, or had been hoping to, I would very much love to argue with you about it. In my experience, arguing is the sport of friends. Since I hear Dr. Hoehner liked arguing as well, and if you were his friends, I would look especially forward to meeting you. Perhaps soon... or at least soon enough, hopefully.

Thank you, Lord, for Harold Hoehner and his Giant work. From his shoulders, give us eyes to see farther. Amen.

The Gospels and History

2011-09-05T00:24:00.001-05:00

What is History? Eventsreconstructed with words aren’t what happened. They’re the best we can do at describing what we think might havehappened. And that’s not what mostpeople think History is. But – for worseand for better – that’s what History is.

So then, what are the Gospels? Most scholars these days will concede thatthe Four Gospels of the New Testament are the best window we have into Jesus ofNazareth, Son of God, Son of Man, the Messiah. Skeptics debate how much accuracy they offer, on face value. Theologians defend Christian Faith byretreating from fights over historical value. The Gospels aren’t History, say our Christian Scholars. They are narratives, written to conveytheological views of our Lord Jesus Christ. That view's worked well for christendom at large, at least in recent centuries.... but now times are in flux. Today, many say 'We don't care as much for dogma and defense of the faith. We want more questions asked, fewer answered.'

So, again, what is History? All written accounts of the past are limited re-presentations of reallife situations we can no longer access. The people, events, ideas, relationships, physical structures, socialcontext and the infinite number of decisions made based on unknown factors –decisions both simple and complex, either rash or deliberate – the vast web ofinteractive human experience for a given region and time – these areinscrutable. All we have is aspects,pieces, cross-sections of real life, as it actually took place. All we have is accounts of the past. We do not have the past, any longer, at hand.

Yet, we do have these accounts. We do have the Four Gospels. And they do give us a great deal about Jesusand his activities. He taught. He healed. He prayed. He led women and menacross Galilee and Judea, proclaiming that God was eager to make a new way torule over them all. And he did manythings. We don’t know all that the Lorddid, but we do know – however sharp or fuzzy this picture may turn out to be –that these are indeed aspects of the true past. The Four Gospels do give us something of Jesus’ History. The only debates on this topic – yes, in allof the many debates across the vastness of Christian and Secular New TestamentScholarship – always boil down to howmuch they do give us.

Now to you, my dear blog reader, come these very same questions. In what ways, to what degree, and to what effect are the Gospels qualified to speak of Jesus historically? Does his actual life matter?

Personally, I say that if his life mattered not, then our life matters not. But if the Gospels all about meaning and message, and if my Christian life is really all about what I believe... then why would his life matter? And what about mine? I could just sit and listen, think and agree, pray the right prayer, and voila! The power of the Gospel is my name on a salvation card.

Paul of Tarsus wrote a lot about why Jesus died, and I absolutely do believe each little word.

But the New Testament opens with how Jesus lived.

It also says a lot more about how Jesus lived than some think it does. But that's a topic for some other day. For now, here is what we should just stop disputing:

History matters. Events matter. What we do to, with and for one another... these things matter much more than what we believe about salvation or angels or even (gasp) the Holy Spirit. Facts are facts, and the more often it happens that Christians come out from inside the barrier walls of their institutional borders, the less it sounds like we still care so much about fine theological distinctions.

These Christian scholars who need to make narratives all about hidden theology, well, they're no longer doing quite so well as they used to at holding congregations together, using that old approach. God protect us from whatever they cook up next, to keep their flocks in the pens... and it'll probably be a retreat back to authoritarian dogma... but in the meantime I'd like to put out my little cry that we might take advantage of a growing opportunity here.

People are starting to seem less automatically predisposed against what I've been yearning for.

We should study the life of the Lord Jesus Christ, through the Gospels, as History.

Anti-Semites must love the term "Jesus' Silent Years"

2011-08-27T18:57:00.005-05:00

It took nineteen centuries for Christian scholars to embrace the fact that Jesus was fully Jewish. Consciously or unconsciously, some experts still try to minimize theimpact of that realization. But the primary and most certain conclusion about Jesus’ early life must be that his life in the Synagogue was extremely significant.

According to Luke, Jesus, the Jew, grew in favor with his Jewish community. That community, of course, was the Synagogue. It was more than his custom to meetthere on Sabbath days. Not only are we told this distinctly, but logic demands we believe Jesus attended the Synagogue faithfully. He could not have remained in good standing in Nazareth otherwise.

In his sovereignty, God chose for Jesus to grow up learning Torah, every Sabbath, with the Nazarene-Jewish community. The Lord's faith, life and practice all blossomed, however uniquely, in the light and the life of that Nazareth Synagogue. Any Biblical Historiography of the Lord’s life has to deal with those facts, and that context. But with such a realization, can there be any question that established Christendom, in centuries past, would have been less than eager to embrace such a view? And yet, given what little the Gospels reflect of Jesus' early life and hometown experience, there is no other view that can possibly be taken.

If Jesus' early years aren't to be muzzled, our Gospel based conclusion must inevitably be that those years must have been very centered on Synagogue, for Jesus. My own investigation took place two years ago, and remains online, right here. As research based argument, it's a crude treatment, of course. But I'd appreciate very much everyone taking another good look.

On today's point: The past predominance of antisemitism certainly doesn't prove that my reconstruction of Jesus' early years is on track. It does, however, point out at least one reason why scholars ought to be more skeptical of the old, oft repeated mantra, "The Gospels are silent on Jesus' early life." In this amateur historian's opinion, they reflect much... but only to those who are willing to look.

Consider these things...

Mary should have stayed home!

2011-08-22T00:41:00.000-05:00

If Joseph & Mary returned home as soon as their Judean business was finished, as Luke 2:39 seems to say that they did, then why was Mary even along for the journey at all? Did the census require women to register in the land of their husband's father? Did the Nazarene community ostracize her so badly that she had to be near Joseph at all times until the baby was born? I doubt option one very seriously, but if option two is correct, then why should they go back to Nazareth?

The fact that Luke puts Mary in Bethlehem at all makes it highly suspect that Luke 2:39 is accurate to the letter. Luke's own readers must have wondered. Really? "All" had to go to be registered? (2:3) But otherwise, why would Mary even be down in Judea? It obviously makes no sense that Mary would prefer to give birth in a borrowed room in a strange city with seemingly only her husband around for help! Plainly, women about to give birth should have remained at home, with her relatives and whatever passed for the local community midwives all remaining nearby.

The only reasonable inference as to why Mary would be in Bethlehem is to suppose that Mary *had* been somewhat ostracized from the Nazarene community and that Joseph was moving his new family down to Judea for permanent residence. But in that case, again, why does Luke 2:39 say that they went back "when" all of their Judean business and post-birth requirements were finished. Really?

To me, it seems like Luke 2:3 and/or 2:39 has some purposeful 'squishyness' pre-built into its wording.

Of course, if Matthew's testimony is true - that Joseph & Mary had a "house" and a "child" in Bethlehem, before fleeing to Egypt - and if Luke's basic narrative is accurate about Mary being from Nazareth at the time of betrothal and conception - then the most obvious solution would be to conclude that Mary & Joseph must have chosen to leave Nazareth, because of the scandal, and relocate to live with his family in Bethlehem.

The only interpretive trouble, at that point, is at 2:39... and perhaps also at 2:3.

We cannot know for sure whether Luke knew about Matthew's testimony, but if Luke did know, and if Luke had some reason to avoid telling the Egypt digression, then the squishiness of 2:39 would fall down to one word: "when". The sentence, "when they finished all things, according to the Law of the Lord, they turned back to Galilee" now seems... well, misleading, at the very least. On the one hand, if Luke knew about Egypt, he's been willfully inaccurate. But if Luke didn't know about Egypt, the directness of his "when" shows either sloppy work or a misunderstanding of true facts.

None of these options encourages faith in the so-called inerrancy of scripture... and certainly not the most politically useful versions of "inerrancy"... which is probably one reason why Evangelicals shrink from historically reconstructing these events, plausibly.

Personally, for the sake of historical sanity and a reasonable super-narrative, I'll quickly opt in for a squishy word or two and a Luke who's deliberately misdirecting the audience at some points. Maybe Egypt was left out to avoid angering Herod's descendants, two of whom sat in at one of Paul's trials. Or maybe Luke didn't know why Mary went along OR that anyone went down to Egypt. Maybe "all" (in 2:3) was Luke's slapdash and deliberately vague effort to explain what he'd heard and believed to be true, that Mary gave birth to Jesus in Bethlehem.

Maybe something else explains Luke's apparently rough seamed transitions. I don't know. But at any rate, if Matthew 2 is at all accurate, then Luke 2:39 must be somewhat 'squishy', in fact, regardless of Luke's unknown intentions.

Otherwise, if the implication is that Joseph & Mary had planned to remain residents of Nazareth, after the census, then Mary should have stayed home and had the baby with family nearby, in Galilee.

The Passover Travel Itinerary of Simon, from Cyrene

2011-08-08T01:05:00.003-05:00

How early would you suppose ancient Judean (and Jewish proselyte) Pilgrims begin making plans for their Passover journeys? Perhaps as early as you start getting ready for Christmas? Putting yourself into the first century pilgrimage question... your answer might not depend on - but may have to contend with - what Roger Beckwith argued in his 2001 book, Calendar and Chronology.

According to the Mishnah, a certain "Rabbi Gamaliel" once wrote a letter to someone in authority, declaring that Passover should be postponed (!) by a month. The Rabbi's reasoning? Lack of girth. From a sampling of local/regional livestock, it seems lambs and turtledoves had not yet grown to the preferable sizes for sacrificing. Also, the spring harvest had not yet produced grain heads of acceptable size. Not to make light, but it should go without saying this Gamaliel was almost certainly a Pharisee.

Now, Beckwith admits this letter may well post-date 70 AD, but suggests that it may not, and even if so, that it likely reflects practice in pre-70 Judea as well. Thus, Roger concludes, Passover was so unfixed it was possible to reschedule the whole festival by a month if the incoming grain wasn't ripening quickly enough. Lambs and turtledoves, perhaps, could have been sized months in advance, but to disapprove grain heads it must have been past January, surely. If not past February. (Anyone?)

These agricultural questions I can't answer, but we can nevertheless consider the same question from another, equally valuable position. In three parts:

(1) How early did Simon of Cyrene NEED to know which month that particular Passover was going to be held in? (2) How much time did Simon require to get himself and his two boys from North Central African coast to Jerusalem, including time required for travel planning in addition to actual self-transportation? (3) How much time did the news take to spread that Jerusalem's authorities had determined WHICH MOON the festival would be held under, that year, in March or in April?

It may not be necessary for us to answer these questions precisely so much as consider their general significance. I find it difficult to believe that Jerusalem before 70 AD - especially with the Saducees leading under Annas & Caiaphas - would have allowed such nit-picking questions to amend Passover's date *after* the first of the year. If Simon of Cyrene needed a month's travel time, minimum, just to arrive, and if the scheduling announcement required approximately the same lead time, then 'Rabbi Gamaliel' would have needed to CONCLUDE his successful calendar protest by mid-January at the very latest. This seems unlikely, I must say, for a number of reasons.

Granted, I've only sketched out these reasons here, and in my earlier posts (October, 2009). Also November '09 here and here.) Someone else should try a more thorough logistical, financial and agricultural analysis of the possibilities here. However, it also goes to show that general skepticism about Gospel Chronology should be as doubtable as overconfidence. Just because Roger Beckwith built a head of uncertainty around this issue since 1996, doesn't mean we should be quite so un/certain of what Beckwith asserted so confidently.

...

Augustus' Registration of the 'Oikoumene'

2011-07-23T12:13:00.001-05:00

The Roman registration of Herod's Kingdom is historically bizarre, and could not have been part of any "worldwide" registration. For Caesar to order a mass registration of all Roman Provinces and Client Kingdoms, at once? There is no cause to believe that. No, not even if we accept Luke 2:1-5. And personally, my desire is to trust every word of Luke 2:1-5. But what DID Augustus decree?

Regarding tax registration, Augustus' only known policy change that actually did go "worldwide" was a key facet of his provincial reforms. After 27 BC, the Princeps made sure that Proconsuls sent to govern the Provinces would be less likely to overtax their poor local subjects. Prior to that reform, the oversees Governors had normally held auctions for the job of chief tax collector, and the winning bidder had typically gone on to extort, steal or to outright seize as much "tax" as needed to make up the bid value, and then some!

Naturally, this "tax farming" system encouraged provincial unrest and potential uprisings. Wisely, Augustus decided it was finally time for Rome to start counting heads OUTSIDE OF ITALY! That is, before 27 BC, Roman Hegemony had not included the registration of foreign tax payers. After 27 BC, Rome's Provinces were now eligible for census-style registration.

However, for client kingdoms, like Herod's, the amount of the annual tribute was a matter negotiable only between Rome and the King, and this fact did NOT change after 27 BC. Clearly, Augustus was less concerned about whether some client-King's subjects were being over-taxed. To the contrary, revolts against such Kings could at times lead to Rome's occupying the kingdom, seizing the King's assets AND being hailed as liberators. (!) So, no, Augustus was not eager to meddle in client Kingdoms politically, at least not on the level of micromanaging local head-counting systems.

Thus, Caesar's 27 BC decision to start provincial registrations is the only event that we know of which could possibly be what Luke was trying to reference. Luke's Greek, of course, refers to something called the "oikoumene" - literally, "the inhabited world", but which some translators believe is more closely rendered by "the civilized world". That second sense, in Roman eyes, could mean that Luke was referring properly to the jurisdiction of all Roman Provinces. When Augustus decreed the provinces should be censused, one could nearly just as well say that Augustus decreed the oikoumene should be censused.

Herod's Judea, Civilized? Well, he was working hard to get there... but no, it wasn't. Not hardly, by Rome's standards.

By the way, Luke 2:1-5 is MOST CLEAR on one point - that a Roman census of some sort took place within Herod's Kingdom while Herod was still in charge. Such a thing was completely unprecedented, so far as we know. So, accepting Luke's clear insistence on this point, the primary historical question must be - how, when and WHY did such a unique census take place?

This raises many more questions, as does the issue of Quirinius. However, if Luke meant for 2:1 to refer to an event which took place in 27 BC, and if Luke 2:2 refers to the well known Governor of the year AD 6, then this odd juxtaposition may be more of a boon than a hindrance. The combination of these references - twentyish years before Jesus' probable birth and twelve or thirteenish years after - make it appear Luke was trying to collapse more than three decades of time into one sentence. In other words, whatever Luke meant to write, in that sentence, he was packing it in very densely, perhaps trusting his readers to sort out that which should have been somewhat familiar to them at the time.

Again, other more pressing historical questions remain; most critically, how and why did Augustus decide to actually go do this thing? But regarding the text itself, and regarding its composition, it seems most likely that Luke was simply trying to reference the two most critical bits of well known Judean tax history - one from 27 BC and one from AD 6, in between which the Lord became human.

Quick Links, 6-19-11

2011-06-19T23:33:00.000-05:00

Busy month, like the two beforehand. But here's a quick bit or two.

Somehow I missed that George Athas began blogging last September. I loved his post on the passion narratives, siding with Mark Goodacre against Dominic Crossan, and then taking it up a notch higher.

in this case the scriptural ‘varnish’ doesn’t distort the basic shape of the historical facts... [but] simply alerts us to the agenda of the Gospel writers. They are telling us about the ministry of Jesus because they believed that what happened to him was of revelatory significance...

Nicely said. My reaction: "Of course!"

Also tonight, check out Mike Bird's challenging post on "The Inclusive Jesus". I do think Jesus was more inclusive in his day than most other people, in some ways. I do NOT think that first century Judaism has to be tarred and feathered with ethnocentrism in order to emphasize Jesus' awesome graciousness, merely by contrast. The way he entertained sinners, trained unlearned fishermen, and allowed women into his circle - those aren't things normal JEWS didn't do, they're simply things normal PEOPLE did not do. Not anywhere. Not in those days.

Anyway, check out George's blog and Mike's great post, including my comment there. You'll be challenged. Enjoy.

Eleven Days?

2011-05-19T03:32:00.002-05:00

Yup. And I predict I may blog less than five times a month for the rest of the year... but you never know what else may erupt. For starters, as a stair-step into my book projects, I've got these tabs up above that need to get fleshed out a ~~bit~~ lot more. So you *might* want to watch for updates on that, beginning (maybe) in June.

Of course, all of this means that it's still a really great time to subscribe, so you won't have to keep stopping by.

Anon, then...

Curating Art - and my NT/History projects

2011-05-08T14:20:00.000-05:00

Any blogger gets out there. Great stuff gets re-shared. Any writer can now publish an e-book. Only great stuff will get word-of-mouth. At least, that's one way of looking at things.

At a recent 50th Anniversary party, a dozen people were snapping digital pictures of my family, as we stood in the staging area. The family had hired a professional photographer for the event, and all these digital hacks were surrounding the pro. Here is one of the pictures a niece took:

And that's a nice memory indeed. But then, again, here's the image Dana Heckler produced, from her shot, taken at about the same moment:

And THAT, if I do say so myself, is a wonderful memory captured within a beautiful portrait.

My point today is that this illustrates precisely what artists (and writers) are facing as the marketplace of ideas integrates more fully with the digital age. Anyone can snap a pic. Anyone can write a blog. But not everyone can make ART that is equally compelling.

A friend of mine helps run the Professional Photographers Association in Atlanta, GA, and it's an interesting time for their business. On the one hand, the technology has made entry into the profession easier than ever. PPA's membership has soared in recent years, but the pros are now struggling to sell themselves. Why hire somebody who costs money, when your cousin has a laptop and twelve megapixels, or whatever? Why? That second photo, above. That's why. That is, IF you want quality.

By the way, yes this is getting back to my usual themes around here. Just gimme one minute more.

Seth Godin has influenced me more in the past several months of my life than probably anyone else. It's not just that he's a brilliant marketing guru, it's that he's a visionary about interpersonal dynamics and he talks about the interplay between business and art. For as long as I can remember, I've wanted to write books and sell them. Here, in May of 2011, the book business is ON it's most dramatic tipping point in probably 500 years. And where major Publishing Houses are no longer the exclusive gatekeepers they used to be, the alternative - being a lone voice out here in the ether - hasn't been smashingly effective just yet, either.

In Biblical Studies Land, in particular, this blog provided me with access into the biblio-blogosphere at large, which allowed me to greet, meet and get to know scholars and grad students from around the world. Five years ago, I knew my observations and ideas about were worth sharing. Having been picked up, shared and linked to several times since then, I still believe there's more work to be done. But I've met people. I've posted most of what I'm prepared to post, and I've tried to find out whether blog posts can be useful to any extent, for accomplishing things, for having an impact on the conversation, for History's sake.

But I think one reason I took this night job seven weeks ago is because - of the many other ways in which it was simply good timing - it was also good timing for me here, with the blogging. I think I needed an excuse to make a break here. And although there's still much that I'd like to do going forward - many topics on which I'd like to focus on and ruminate about here, both in Paul, Acts & the Gospels - there's probably a greater need for me to focus on polishing up some of my earlier work. Blog posts can be great, but a book is a whole other level of work, and potentially, a whole other level of effectiveness.

E-books are great. Making the BibSts Carnival a few months in a row, that's been great. But I need to (1) get out of debt, (2) get my nights and/or summer vacation back, possibly, for 2012, (3) put together as much as I can, as best as I can, for an SBL audience, and then (4) publish it. Darn it.

As Michael Hyatt said recently:

I rarely meet a person who says, “that movie changed my life.” Or, “your blog post transformed me.” I’m not diminishing either of these. Both of their place in inspiring, educating, and entertaining others.// But there is just something about a book changes everything. I have met thousands of people through the years who have reported, “That book changed my life.” I can certainly point to the books that have shaped my own life. In fact, we can point to specific books throughout history that have changed entire civilizations.

And I can't get around that. A book is much more than a blog. A blog is - at best - one voice added to several conversations. This blog hasn't yet started much significant conversation. Books START conversations, and they do it in spades. But they need to be GOOD.

When I moved to Atlanta in 1996, I was hoping our churchlife experiment there would have an impact on changing the future of Church History. When I quit doing house church in 2005 and in 2007, I was hoping my time spent on research and writing would help make an impact on the way we think about primordial Church History. And if I do *(mostly)* quit blogging here, soon, it ought to be for the same reasons.

I started "biblio-blogging" in April of 2008 to get feedback. After three years interacting with Biblical scholars, I'm convinced it's now time to do more. The one manuscript I finished in 2009 had been fully first-drafted by December of 2007. Since then, I tried to revise it, make the right preface for it, add the right footnotes and/or appendices. Wrong idea. It never quite worked. That's why it stayed in the box on my shelf, where it should be.

But the time has now come where I need to get serious about putting out a book GOOD ENOUGH to make the impact at SBL that I absolutely believe DOES very much need to be made.

Any idiot can write a whole book. Any friend with a laptop or digital camera can create "art". But can _I_ do what Dana Heckler did? Can I make _my_ art so much obviously better than what others have done on the topic(s), that it will get word of mouth, make a difference, provoke NEW conversations, and inspire change? I sure hope so.

Perhaps we shall see.

Life Ain't Bad

2011-05-07T11:32:00.003-05:00

Still working 70 hours a week. No real time for research or writing. Sure could use a truckload of money. Oh, well. At least we're dancing and smiling and having fun. See?

Regular NT/History blogging should commence sometime between now and June 1st. Hopefully.

Enjoy the weather, y'all.

The Death and Resurrection of Corinth (3 of 3)

2011-04-24T00:41:00.187-05:00

Among the most emotional words of 2nd Timothy, for all of us, should be these: "Erastus remained at Corinth". The power of these words all depends on who Erastus was. As I shared here the other day, there's an institutional mindset that wants to see this man as having "remained" there for many years previous to Paul's letters. But for Paul's word "remained" to be noteworthy at all, it must be somewhat unexpected.

This suggests three things. First, it says Timothy knew Erastus as an itinerant church worker, an apostle/evangelist of some sort, a characterization which gives us sound reason to identify this Erastus with the man named in Acts 19. Second, it says Corinth may not have been a place Timothy would have expected such traveling ministers to stay in for long. This reading, of course, also depends on whether we suppose the church there to have died or survived past the time they received 2nd Corinthians, but as I noted in part one of this series, Paul's pointed silence in Romans, about Corinth, suggests they probably didn't make it.

But thirdly, this reference in 2nd Timothy suggests that there yet remained hope.

One advantage: it had been a good while since the death. Corinth met Paul in the year 51 AD. Paul left them in 53. Apollos and Peter visited in 53/54, and Paul wrote his first letter(s?) to them before Emperor Claudius died, in late 54. That death changed Paul's plans dramatically, so instead of visiting Corinth in 55 as he'd hoped to do, Paul stayed busy preparing to plant churches in Dyrrachium, Illyricum (in person) and in Rome, Italy (long-distance, by proxy).

When Corinth was dying for attention from Paul, in 54 and 55, they received visits from Timothy and Titus. After Paul left Ephesus in early 55 it took him until late 56 to write 2nd Corinthians. After three years of crisis, with no recent data, Paul wrote a desperate letter, confessing much of his own angst, hoping that something in Corinth would hold fast, corporately speaking. By early 57, in his letter to Rome, Paul may as well have revealed Corinth's fate. It should have been the church's six year anniversary. Instead, she was no more.

But 2nd Timothy speaks of Erastus setting foot there in Corinth at some point during the year or so in between Paul's last imprisonments, around 62/63/64. At that moment, to our knowledge, no itinerant worker associated with Paul's churches had made contact with saints there in over six years. Granted, of course, our knowledge is likewise dim about other cities in Paul's circuit around this time, but the thin beam of light we do have in this case centers on (1) the most likely conclusion I put forth in part 1, that Corinth had in fact ceased gathering as a body, and (2) those hopeful words, which I now cite again: "Erastus remained at Corinth."

Within all bounds of consideration, there are generally only two reasons why an apostle-type such as Paul or Erastus might stay behind in one city instead of moving onward. Possibility number one is that Paul & Erastus were hoping the spirit would blow upon embers still burning from years past, and rekindle the fire of a remnant at least. In other words, one scenario is that Erastus had arrived to begin finding out if a remnant was indeed there, and open to being built with once more (by a worker and by God); or perhaps - failing that - to begin building from scratch with new converts.

Possibility number two is more interesting to say the least, but may also, actually, be slightly more likely.

Given that a decision had already been made for Erastus to stay there in Corinth, it seems likely that some hope had already been sparked. In other words, Paul is writing to Timothy *after* he and Erastus apparently had gone through the city. How briefly they lingered is unknown. That Paul even went there himself is unclear, but the immediate context of 2 Tim 4:20 does sound as if he's recounting his own recent travels. In any case, if Paul the-even-more-aged-than-ever had been willing to let Erastus remain, their mutual hope for the mission was very likely more than an empty hope. There had probably already been signs of a church resurrecting in Corinth.

Thus, scenario number two seems more likely: Erastus stayed because a new/renewed work in Corinth had already/just begun.

It's an odd thing, when a church "dies". Usually all the saints remain living, physically. Often most of the saints remain living, spiritually. But anything traumatic enough to cause a group of Christ-ones to quit assembling as Christ's Body, often causes a tragic amount of individual quitting as well. And though Paul could not cite anything positive about Corinth in AD 57, and though many of those most hardy souls may have by that point moved a few miles away to the city of Cenchrea, there must have been some saints in Corinth who'd remained faithful, throughout all those dark years. They may or may not have gathered at times, but they had nevertheless stopped meeting with the rest of Christ's Body in Corinth. And they evidently went on like that for five or six years, at least.

If Erastus had already met with those saints, and been impressed with their desire to resurrect God's Testimony, corporately, in that place, it would certainly help explain why "Erastus remained in Corinth".

Like all historical reconstructions, naturally, this one's a hypothesis. But - as I said the other day in my post on Erastus, I happen to think this view of what most likely happened in Corinth is "more reasonable, more plausible, more supported by the text, less wistful, more accurately representative of how divine life in a people-group actually operates here on Earth most of the time, [and] more encouraging to the kind of corporate experiences and struggles we're all likely to face..."

It's also far more compelling than the institutional whitewash that says Corinth obviously bounced back when the man in charge wrote to them personally, and that Erastus had obviously "remained" there in Corinth because he was their city-manager.

If it's true that the church in Corinth indeed died, but returned to life years down the road...

What a powerful and encouraging message that could stand as for all of us!

There's a big difference between dying and staying dead.

But we, saints and struggling saints, we embrace death that Christ might be raised anew, within all of us. And, preferably that ought to mean not merely in each of us, but rather in all of us, as an "us".

And that, in about so many words, is the Gospel.

A church can embrace death. A church can die. A church can experience resurrection.

Say Amen, saints. Happy Easter.

.

The Death and Resurrection of Corinth (2 of 3)

2011-04-22T18:38:00.005-05:00

Why don't we expect churches to die? It must be the furthest thing from our minds. We spend all that money on architectural drawings, construction, furnishings, a marquee, carpets & air-conditioning. We sign a mortgage for 20 to 30 years. We collect pledge cards from members who promise to pay and keep paying indefinitely. We do this because it's become custom, because our forebearers did this. We expect churches to last. Like Solomon did with his Temple. As if God deigns to stay put for our vanity.

It's the single worst facet of having an institutional mindset. Your goal is that nothing should change. Nothing should move from its place. Nothing should stop. And, also, nothing should die.

But death, as I've opined here at least once before, might be something a church needs to embrace. Death, in more ways than one, can be part of the cycle of life. Nature composts itself into fertile new ground. Why don't we? Most human enterprises fail at some point. Why don't we expect churches to?

Culturally, here in the west, the increasingly common move to embrace one's own failures is a recent phenomenon. Historically, administrative heads made themselves nothing but vulnerable if they admitted a fault, let alone huge mistakes. It used to be that the best way to succeed was to take over someone else's failure. Today, at the upper end of the world's economic scale, there's more success to be had elsewhere. Therefore, failure is safer. Thus, our new philosophical trend was protected, and now it's starting to spread.

But God was way ahead of us, natch. So was Paul, even while trying to stave off Corinth's threatening demise:

We have this treasure in earthen vessels... struck down but not destroyed.. carrying around the dying of Jesus.. constantly delivered over to death.. death works in us.. but we do not lose heart. Though our [plural] outer man [singular, corporate?] is decaying, yet the inward is renewed day by day... (emphasis mine)

If only Corinth could have fixated on the inward, and thus also embraced a bit more that constant deliverance to death. Clearly, Paul was hopeful, and aggressively encouraging. But Paul was also completely sober about the late hour of the Corinthians' situation, as well.

If the earthly tent [singular] which is our house [plural, corporate?] is torn down, we have a building from God.. in the heavens.

Yes. If the church here does die, we will still in some sense cling to the fact that God is still working to make us a part of his permanent House. Yes. If God's tabernacle in one place is torn down - if its many-pieced structure, built together from that which every ~~tribe~~ joint ~~carries with them~~ supplieth, is tragically disassembled - if our local Tent ceases to stand, we may take comfort that there yet does remain - both for God and for us - one eternal Temple which always stands in God's realm.

Churches die. We all know that they do. We just don't like to think about it.

This is one reason, I believe, why the historical interpretation I shared in part one of this series hasn't been offered before, as far as I've yet been able to detect. The institutional mindset prefers to avoid this consideration. Frankly, even the so-called radical ones who think they're starting churches based on the New Testament, they don't want to consider this either. There's a lot more institutionalizing going on in the human heart of a founder of something, than there is in the walls of a long dead organization.

If your church doesn't think it can die, I'd question whether it's truly alive. But the church which embraces its death may yet attain resurrection from the dead!

In fact, that may also be part of what Corinth experienced.

There's a big difference between temporarily dead and permanently dead.

To be continued...
.

The Death and Resurrection of Corinth (1 of 3)

2011-04-21T19:24:00.158-05:00

The most significant words NOT in Romans, which really should have been in there, as you'll see in a moment, and the words which I believe would have been there, if only Paul could have honestly written them... (*Ahem*) Those words would have gone something like this:

"The church in Corinth sends greetings."

That these words are not there, I believe, is a really big deal. Please allow me to explain.

Acts 20:2 puts Paul in southern Greece for three months, the time when Paul wrote his letter to Rome. Paul had not yet, of course, actually set foot in Rome. The farthest west Paul had recently been, as it so happened, was to the ancient kingdom of Illyricum, a region Luke accurately refers to as being within the limits of Provincia Macedonia. This matters, because Illyricum, for Paul, was a stepping stone to Italia. For the struggling church in Corinth, however, Illyricum was more of a tragic delay.

To briefly sketch the events which fit in between Acts 20:1 and Acts 20:3, we know Paul did the following: leaving Ephesus, Paul made his way up to Philippi, traversed the full length of the Via Egnatia, and planted a church in Dyrrachium. Dyrrachium was the ferry point just across the Adriatic Sea from the 'boot heel' of Italy. It connected the Vias Egnatia & Appia, and yes, Paul planted a church there.

Evidence known to historical specialists on the city of Durres, Albania (for starters, see Edwin Jacques, The Albanians, p.139) suggests strongly that a Pauline church was established in Dyrrachium. The proper geographical identification of Acts 20:2 with Romans 15:19 (Cf. Strabo 7.7.4.) also suggests this. So does basic logistical and human need... and that last point may be most convincing.

At the end of his letter to Rome, Paul greets dozens of people he claims to know very well. Some of these names we know lived in other churches from Paul's past. Rufus (16:13) must be Simon's son, Simon of Cyrene (Mark 15:21) and of Antioch, for Paul to call Rufus' mother affectionately his own. Priscilla & Aquila (16:3) are of course instantly recognized. But the predominance of familiarity overall, in this chapter, tells us that these saints must have known Paul from different times in his christian experience.

But how did they get there?

The timing of Claudius' death, in October of AD 54, while Paul was still in Ephesus, tells us that Paul's friends all rushed to Rome over the next two years, undoubtedly assuming the new 16 year old Emperor, Nero, would ignore his murdered stepfather's banishment of the Jews (Acts 18:2). This was very likely a plan at least semi-concocted by Paul himself, as a way to ensure Gentile Christianity would be well represented in Rome, because odds were certain that many Jewish believers (most likely converted at Pentecost) also would soon flock back to the capitol.

In other words, most of these people in Romans 16 must have known Paul from the gentile churches. A larger number than two of them probably came from Ephesus and/or Corinth, specifically. (That's statistically likely for two reasons - larger cities suppose larger churches, and larger churches were more prepared to lose members.)

So, at last, all this background leads me back to the point of this post.

Here it is. The people named in Paul's letter to Rome were people with intimate knowledge about Corinth's struggles. The Macedonian churches who'd received apostolic visitors recently were very likely to have been told some details, if not others, and the whole church at Ephesus seems to have had multiple opportunities to meet with a handful of Corinthian saints who seem to have sailed back and forth bringing news and questions for Paul. (Check all the names in I & II Cor., to see who these saints might have been.)

Overall, therefore, saints in Rome knew that Corinth was struggling to remain intact. Two, at least, must have been personally grieved. Paul had no burden greater, at all times, than the care of the churches (2Cor.11:28). And - believe it or not, here's the first thing in this whole post I admit qualifies a bit as speculation - Paul would have dearly loved to give those saints some encouraging word about their beloved Corinthians.

"The church in Corinth sends greetings."

It's not there, I know. And yes, yes, "absence of evidence". But in this case, under these circumstances, as I've just laid them out, something like those words really should have been there. It would have been so encouraging to the new Roman christians, facing all of the challenges they had. I mean, especially those gentile saints, newly acclimating to Rome's Christian community, for whom Corinth's particular Jew/Gentile struggles must have seemed particularly relevant. For dozens of Pauline-style gentile believers, mingling in the same neighborhood (The Aventine Hill district*) with Jewish believers who had newly returned to the city? Think about this for a moment.

EVERYTHING in the first fifteen chapters of Romans presupposes that ongoing daily potential for religious, cultural and theological conflict. EVERYTHING in those chapters plays back and forth to the Jews, then the Gentiles, flaying ALL of them equally, yet uniquely, depriving both groups of the right to claim righteousness over the other. In THAT context, I humbly but strongly suggest, very little could possibly have encouraged the gentile believers in Rome any more than to hear, Corinth made it. The only church that we know which has been nearly destroyed by this particular conflict, internally... they pulled it out. They're okay!

"The church in Corinth sends greetings." Those words would have been like a thunderclap of encouragement. Great rejoicing and probably some weeping, cheers, applause, and perhaps shaking sobs should have poured out from that first group of Paul's friendlies who gathered to hear Phoebe read to them.

But Paul did NOT add those words. Doubtless, in my historical judgment and opinion, this means that Paul did not have the ability to write such words. Instead - and with pointed evasiveness, please note - all we get is that "Achaia" has contributed to Jerusalem, and that Phoebe belongs to Cenchrea, a city 7 or 8 miles away from the gates of the city of Corinth. "Achaia" is the same generalizing term used by Luke in Acts 20:2, probably as a dodge, because we'd expect him to say "Corinth". But neither man uses that word at (or of) this particular time.

The inevitable conclusion? The former church in Corinth was no longer intact. My strongest hunch is that some of them moved to Cenchrea. Perhaps there were sister saints in that city beforehand, or perhaps someone had family, or a business, and took in others. But the fact that Paul pointedly says Cenchrea, and avoids saying Corinth, cannot be a meaningless coincidence.

The corporately spiritual body that had formerly assembled in Corinth, was dismembered.

In all practical sense, it appears, the church in Corinth was dead.

But now: why haven't you heard (and why haven't I found) this historical interpretation anywhere else, before now? There are at least two reasons, and I'll cover each of those in parts two and three... when we'll also see that the Christ-Body in Corinth may not have stayed dead.

There's a big difference between temporarily dead, and permanently dead.

To be continued...

----------------------------------------
(*)The Christian 'neighborhood' in Rome was the Aventine Hill district, on of few which did NOT suffer in the great fire of AD 64, a fact which enabled Nero to blame the great fire on the Christians. Interestingly, the traditionally Jewish district, Trastavere, was just over the river from A.H.

Which city did Erastus manage? Probably NOT Corinth.

2011-04-20T08:04:00.004-05:00

Sadly, the common view is a classic case of misdirected assumptions. But now, here are the facts.

The NT cites the name "Erastus" three times: Acts 19:22, Rom 16:23, 2 Tim 4:20. The man in Acts is being sent by Paul into Macedonia, alongside Timothy. The man in 2 Tim is being left behind by Paul at Corinth. The man in Romans is sitting with Paul in Achaia, sending greetings. In order to equate any two of these three named persons, we've got to have good reasons for doing so. And for two of the three, we very much do have those reasons.

It makes sense to identify the Erastus of Acts with the Erastus of 2nd Timothy; as a traveling companion of Paul, seemingly even a junior apostle-in-training. He's being sent somewhere, he's remaining behind somewhere, he's traveling alongside Timothy and being utilized by Paul much as Timothy often was utilized. That all fits, quite reasonably, and the historical interpretation of both references in tandem can even provide a fuller picture of who this Erastus might have been than could any sum of the two separate readings. Please note, this is both positive, helpful and normal, for historical method.

The problem only comes in with the reference in Romans.

The traditional identification of this man with the Erastus of Romans rests on three fallacious bits of reasoning: (1) that the name is enough, (2) that Paul wrote Romans from Corinth, (3) that Erastus must therefore have been the city-manager of Corinth, and that this parallels the 2 Tim reference. To each, now, in turn:

On the first point, I'm speaking more about pulpiteers than scholars, although it's shocking how often, how quickly and how uncritically some credentialed commentators still equate all three names. Certainly, without the same name we wouldn't even be having this conversation, so evidently they must give that some weight.

On the second point, Acts 20: 2-3 only offers that Paul wrote Romans from southern Grece (Achaia). It does not say Corinth. We cannot even assume that Paul walked into Corinth on that trip, because we don't know if the church in Corinth was still welcoming to him at that point (2nd Cor 12:20ff), let alone that the church there was still gathering. Paul may not have stayed in that city long enough to shake the dust from his shoes, let alone write a masterpiece such as Romans. But even with all those necessary doubts to one side, one thing we do know is that Phoebe, the letter-carrier, was from Cenchrea. Phoebe was not from Corinth. This (at least) suggests that Paul more likely wrote from Cenchrea, a town roughly 7 miles east of Corinthian gates.

On the third point, the Erastus with Paul in Achaia doesn't have to have been a city manager currently. It could easily have been a job the man held at some point, but a title by which his friends continued to call him. Thus, if this Erastus were to be identified with the Erastus of Acts & 2 Tim, then - precisely because of his lifestyle as a pauline traveling companion - he could surely have managed any other city in which Paul might have met him, and simply held on to the nickname.

Thus, the traditional view, that Erastus the traveling companion was also (somehow?) a city-manager of Corinth - this should be firmly and completely rejected. At the very least, no man could have simultaneously remained BOTH one who traveled to Ephesus and Macedonia, doing apostolic/evangelistic business alongside Paul and Timothy AND one who displayed enough civic devotion within Corinth (or any other town, for that matter) for the local authorities and/or aristocracy to support his appointment as city-manager. Nor could any man have come back from such travels [adopting a foreign religion and leaving town for a long while simply for that devotion] to then gain the appointment as city manager. That simply would not have happened, and especially not in economically mighty Corinth.

In sum, the full identification of all three Erastus citations is a classic example wistful harmonization that's devoid of real historical thinking. It's also somewhat convenient for institutional preferences.

Putting the Acts & 2 Tim Erastus into Romans provides two things that appeal to established religious authorities. First, Erastus being the city manager of Corinth suggests the Corinthian church must have survived their struggles after both of Paul's letters, even up to the days of 2Tim. That's comforting (and possibly essential) if your job is to maintain status quo. Second, stringing Erastus from Romans to 2 Tim leaves a formerly traveling man now sitting in one spot for a very long time. Much like the anachronistic references to Timothy becoming "pastor" of Ephesus, this helps support a cessationist view of apostles and other itinerant workers.

Traveling ministers ought to stop and remain in one place for the rest of their lives. Also, Churches always stay together, being ruled by their local authorities. Yes, I do think that's a bit too much to put onto poor old Erastus, but it appears that this is what's been put onto him.

None of that, however, is the main problem I have with the mis-identification of Erastus.

The real reason I can't stand this awful slight is because it obscures what I happen to think is a clearer view of what most likely happened in Corinth. And this clearer view is more reasonable, more plausible, more supported by the text, less wistful, more accurately representative of how divine life in a people-group actually operates here on Earth most of the time, and - this view really ought to be - therefore more encouraging to the kind of corporate experiences and struggles we're all likely to face in something approaching genuinely organic* church life.

(See also: "The Death and Resurrection of Corinth, Parts 1, 2 & 3", which provides my own historical interpretation from the evidence, and will be posting this weekend.)

In conclusion, therefore, please take note. We have logical reasons for concluding that Erastus in Acts and Erastus in 2nd Timothy sound like the same kind of a man. We have no good reason for concluding that Erastus-the-city-manager was the same man as the travelling companion of Paul and Timothy. But if he was, then the name must belong to some post he'd held long years before. That is, if the traveling Erastus did just happen to be in Cenchrea with Paul when his Romans was written, then he most likely arrived there and kept moving along from there, just as Paul did.

In other words, the man named in Romans was probably merely a former city-manager, and there's no reason to think Corinth was necessarily the city he'd managed. But of the man named in 2 Tim, for it to have been noteworthy that he'd been "left behind", such a man must have been typically mobile. Thus, the Erastus of 2 Tim 4 implicitly seems like the same man as in Acts 19, but the Romans 16 reference adds nothing analogous to this same picture. They were probably two different men.

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

*Please forgive the trendiness of the term "organic". It's still the most precise one to use there, above.

Life these days...

2011-04-17T16:27:00.003-05:00

has been very eclectic. By which I mean insanely busy. I've been working at three different schools, two of which I teach at. On Mondays and Wednesdays, I've been teaching individualized Latin (elementary level) to 7th thru 12th graders at the Flint Academy. On Tuesdays and Thursdays, to the same group at Flint, it's been 20th century History. Both have been really fun, actually, but I sometimes miss teaching Math.

Since this delightfully unique private school only goes four days a week, I substitute Fridays at various public High Schools, especially Seguin, where I've also been tutoring Geometry and TAKS-prep for the last dozen Saturdays. It's a blessing to enjoy both schools so much, though for different reasons. As long as the Texas budget crisis keeps up, I'll probably keep on splitting my time. But if/when Seguin offers a contract, I may have a difficult choice to make. Time will tell.

Outside school hours, in recent weeks, I've also become interim manager for a friend's Dance Company, where my daughter also takes nearly twelve hours of classes a week. The business side is in my blood, the operations are familiar because it's organized educationally, and there's tremendous potential for positive growth (in more ways than one). I see my wife as much there now as I do here because, suddenly, the violin-playing long-distance running boy has decided to take up ballet also. Didn't see that coming, but hey, football players do it all the time. He may try out at receiver for Jr High ball, too.

Busy and busier, but it's all good for now. Nothing to report on the renewed church meetings around here. I've missed several for busyness, and made one that my FB friends heard about. Believe me, when/if there's any news worth calling news, I'll report it. Until then, assume it's just a dozen saints sitting around singing a few songs and gabbing about stuff. I'm not saying that's all it is on a given night, necessarily, but you can go ahead and assume that, if you want to, I guess. ;-)

Someday, something more, somewhere... somehow. Sigh.

Meanwhile, this weekend my loving wife's wonderful parents just had their 50th wedding anniversary, and I don't think I've ever danced more hours in one night, or had more fun. So we had that go well for us all, which was nice. :-)

In all this, I found about one hour yesterday to work on some posts (on the most arresting words NOT in Romans, and also on the church in Corinth) that may actually go up by this weekend. Stay tuned for those, hopefully.

The quest here continues as always. It just may go in spurts for a while.

. . . . .

In other words, now's still a good time to subscribe: Get a Reader OR Email updates.

.

I'll Be Back...

2011-04-03T11:19:00.001-05:00

and with plenty more to say, surely. But I'm currently working three jobs. That's all.

Unfortunate lapses like these are a good time to subscribe, if you haven't already, so you'll be notified of my next post in your E-mail or "Reader". You'll find both options linked by the orange button above my picture, at right.

See y'all back here by late May, at the latest...

My Imaginary Jesus

2011-03-23T08:27:00.002-05:00

sometimes sounds like a few of Matt Mikalatos' Imaginary Jesus... es... do. I admit it. Of course he does.

I finally started my kindle version last night, and couldn't stop reading until I'd finished the whole thing. I can truly say I both laughed and cried. It's a wonderful book.

Beg, borrow or buy a copy somewhere soon, if you can. Easy reading, too. Really a great book...

.

on Jesus' Obedience in Tasks

2011-03-22T07:01:00.003-05:00

Here's a multiple choice question. How old was Jesus the first time God asked him to DO something specific and significant task?

A) Twelve
B) Younger than twelve
C) About thirty
D) We don't know

In some ways, a case might be made for all four. In adulthood, Jesus definitely seems to have some specific instructions from God, at least at some times. Many assume God directed the 12-year old Jesus to stay in the Temple, but the scripture itself doesn't say so. Likewise, we don't know what God might have told Jesus to DO during his teens and twenties.

Then again, depending on how we define this question, the best answer might be: B) Younger than twelve.

Think about what I mean. It's a blessing, and yet one of the more frustrating aspects of spiritual life, that God's prompting us towards action doesn't have to come with particular instructions. It certainly doesn't come very often with particular words.

There is one form of God's directive communication which speaks simply to us all in our consciences, even as children, but usually without words. When/If the nine year old Jesus was tempted to sass his parents, but his knowledge of the Shem'a and the Ten Commandments brought him back into temperance, that simple awareness was - in that moment - Jesus' sincere, loving obedience to God.

Getting back to the question above, however, if we're talking about Jesus receiving direct and explicit communication with God, tantamount to words in his mind, then in that case I don't think it's heresy to suggest that this probably didn't happen for Jesus early in life. I do think that whenever this did happen for Jesus, it came largely as a fruit of that early and beginners-level experience. The advanced ability (if we want to put it that way) came in time as the payoff for earlier (countless hours and years of) spiritual exercise.

In other words, in short, I think Jesus grew. I believe Jesus learned how to sense His Father's presence at a very early age. He found comfort. He found conscience-bracing firmness. He found companionship. But I do not necessarily think that *hearing direct words from His Father* came anywhere near the beginning of their earthly relationship. The notion that Jesus got marching orders from age twelve onwards is unnecessary, and seems unnatural.

So. How long before the Jordan Baptism was Jesus hearing directly from God? I don't know.

If I ever live enough years with the devotion that little Jesus had there in Nazareth, and if my pursuit of God's presence ever lasts as long as Jesus' did between 4 BC and AD 29... then maybe I'll get to that point myself.

Until then, let's not try to put a clock on anything. Let's just seek out spiritual nourishment that results in some positive growth. Yes, for many of us, at times, some growth would be something to shoot for!

.

The Jesus Diaries: a hypothesis

2011-03-21T06:00:00.000-05:00

Sure, Ancient Literacy was near 10%, but ancient life was communal. If a Synagogue housed at least one scroll, the whole community owned that scroll. If a few people - or several - had a particular urge to hear those blessed words once again, they could schedule an evening and call in one of their literate townspeople to read for them. Although less than 10% of each city was literate, nearly all the Jews everywhere loved literature.

Thus, every literate man was obliged to his Synagogue. Thus, every Jew could be literarily minded. To put that another way, all Jews were communally literate, if not personally literate, to some degree or another. It's no accident they ALL came to be known as "The People of the Book", instead of "The People with some Book People among Them".

Now, it is these people to whom Jesus grew up with and to whom He eventually began preaching. It was of such a people that Jesus selected his disciples, of whom he appointed twelve to be special envoys of the approaching Kingdom. And of these twelve, who saw Him as their incoming King, we ought to suppose perhaps one or two may have been literate. Perhaps more, if Jesus deliberately selected somewhat capable men.

Probably Levi (Matthew) was at least able to keep basic records, in his work as a Publican, but the four fishermen were almost surely illiterate (Acts 4:13). We've not much to go on beyond that, apart from wild guesses like - Thomas, who doubted, may have been somewhat more educated than others. Yes, that's a joke. We have no idea, except that statistically, we might guess that at least one of those twelve should have been able to read.

And don't forget, Jesus also could read. If he could also write basic words, perhaps Jesus tutored his lone literate(s?) towards basic competency in composition. Or perhaps not. However, Jesus also had others who followed along with the twelve for good stretches of time, especially after Joanna and Susanna began paying for everyone's food. Perhaps Joanna also paid for a transcriptionist. Perhaps not. But I hope you see my point. Honestly, speculation isn't what I'm after here.

Overall, these people provide Jesus with more and more opportunities to take on ONE person who could have taken initiative by their own literacy level to start putting down a few written notes, producing early written sources for the Gospels. Yes, that's hypothetical, but so is treating Oral Tradition as if there were no early writings whatsoever.

It's a simple thought, really. Which is more statistically likely? That there were no writings because soemthing like 90% of the population was illiterate? Or that, among the literate folks who did follow Jesus, at least one of them took some pains to keep a journal?

Among known associates of Jesus, historically speaking, I still think Matthew and Nicodemus are the most likely candidates to have actually done so. A Nicodemus journal in the hands of the beloved disciple could explain quite a lot about John's composition. And if Mark had both Matthew's original notes and/or Matthew's finished Gospel to work from, it could help explain at least some of the textual variances among Matthew, Mark & Luke.

Just a theory, but one I continue to like infinitely more than vague "Oral Tradition" alone, or worse, OT with "Q". Although something like a "little q", I can totally see.

.

Two Questions, on the Bethsaida controversies

2011-03-19T15:01:00.037-05:00

Reading Fred Strickert's piece at B&I today has me finally digging a bit harder since last this came up. Back then, Todd Bolen assured us that R. Steven Notley "demolished" the otherwise prevailing opinion. Having read Notley (2007, Strickert's 2nd citation today), I'm not yet convinced that Todd's right. But then, what's at stake? Why of course, scripture's accuracy. Maybe.

First, on today's article, let me say that I'm completely persuaded by the geological assessment which concludes land silted up below the present[ly-believed-to-be] site of Betsaida, a spot called "et-Tell". This happened elsewhere in antiquity, as with Macedonia's capital Pella, and the harbor of Miletus, near Ephesus. In each case, the town's prominence declined as its shoreline got farther and farther away. So it makes perfect sense, for the two competing candidates in question, that the northernmost site was the eldest, and the southernmost would have replaced it. But how soon replaced it? And how much so? In all ways, immediately? No.

To compare: Alexander's successor Cassander moved the Macedonian fleet to Thessalonica, a city he must've founded partly for that purpose, which tells us that Pella's harbor had probably begun silting up prior to 314 314 BC. However, no Macedonian King is recorded as [possibly?] taking up residence in Thessalonica until Philip V, or his successor Perseus, about a hundred to 140 years later. Point: in a situation like this, the old town doesn't entirely dry up overnight. Pun, I guess, intended.

Obviously the harbor activity moves on about as quickly as harboring becomes crowded, or difficult. However, most of the socio-political, economic and cultural-religious infrastructure (which had grown up slowly around the harbor, over many years) would naturally be far too invested (and very likely too cash-strapped, due to a gradually dwindling population) to simply move right on downstream. Besides, ancient land didn't just go up on the MLS for perusal by realtors. Land was either seized or handed over between business associates, the latter mostly by inheritance. Point: shipbuilders might have moved on sooner than others, but upstream pub [sic] owners and innkeepers had no better option than to ride their diminishing returns all the way into obscurity. Yes, their grandchildren were being doomed to a much smaller inheritance, but they'd keep the roof and the locks for as long as they beat open road. In ancient business, exponentially moreso than today, present needs necessarily trump.

In its turn, the downstream town would have to be settled entirely 'from scratch'. Whatever lord there was of the land would determine a time at which newly silted up territory had become suitable for building. That lord would decide whether and when to run out the squatters, and to whom he might parcel out the (literally) new lands. Again, this shows the inhabitants of the old town were in no hurry to move on. If the King/Tetrarch of their day had some reason to favor them, they could move when he deigned fit and not earlier. But if they had no favor from him, they wouldn't likely risk everything (however dwindling) for the promise of nothing.

Conclusion: In the case of the present controversy, the full replacement of one fishing village by another, more downstream, didn't happen overnight. Therefore, I suggest my TWO questions, as promised above:

(1) When did the harbor activity begin moving south?

(2) When did the old town lose prominence to the new?

At the moment, it seems to me that the question of what these towns might have been called at some point or another is of less primary importance. But these are just preliminary thoughts. I've got a lot more reading and thinking to do. Your critical feedback is eagerly hoped for, in the comments below...

Quote of the Decade

2011-03-17T11:07:00.000-05:00

Of the past decade, that is, for me, personally:

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.

That, of course, comes from Gordon Wood's wonderful essay collection, The Purpose of the Past.

As many of you will recall, I blogged excerpts from several TPotP chapters, since last summer:

The Battle for History
Narrative History
The Lessons of History
the task of a historian
on 'the New Historicism'
History as Fiction
Microhistory
Truth in History
History vs. Political Theory
History and Heritage

There were a few chapters left to go, but I may just rest with those. If you're engaged by any of these quotes, I highly recommend picking this up. Enjoy.

.

Bauckham explains "Microhistory"

2011-03-16T02:02:00.001-05:00

An excerpt from his recent lecture in Waco, TX, The Gospels as Microhistory and Perspectival History, hereby transcribed by moi:

Microhistory is a reduction of scale, narrowing the historian’s scale to a specific small social group. But this reduction of scale is not meant simply to make it possible to observe the same things at a micro level that one can perceive at the macro level. The micro studies are not to be mere case histories illustrating what macro history already claims to know. The rationale for the micro history is that at the micro level one will see different things.

Another of the Italian microhistorians Giovanni Levi, says, “The unified principle of all micro-historical research is the belief that microscopic observation will reveal factors previously unobserved. Phenomena previously considered to be sufficiently described and understood assume completely new meanings by altering the scale of observation.”

So the microhistorical studies are not examples for macrohistory, but experiments in search of what can only be seen at the micro level – in particular, what from the macro historical perspective is anomalous and discontinuous.

This from around the 11 or 12 minute mark, perhaps. I'm not sure, because Baylor's video has been misbehaving a bit. Tonight, I had to close all other windows - AND be patient - to get the video to buffer and play. And Baylor's videographer seemed like such a capable guy. Meh.

As for how this applies to the Gospels as examples of Microhistory, for now, I'll merely direct you back to the video (or audio). But you know I'll be back to offer more here, in time...

Soldiers in Jesus' Times

2011-03-15T13:48:00.001-05:00

Gary Manning has posted a helpful survey on military presence in Palestine during the NT era, including references from the Gospels themselves.

The piece is called Soldiers in the Gospels, and it's cross-posted at Talbot Seminary's faculty blog (which is a great undertaking, but which really needs to shrink its header drastically) and also at Gary's personal blog, Eutychus.

Well worth checking out. (H/T Charles Savelle)

What kind of dancer was Salome?

2011-03-14T08:25:00.004-05:00

According to Jesus, Galilean street children would play flutes and expect other children to dance (Mt.11:17, Lk.7:32). Matthew (14:6) uses this same word (orcheomai) when Salome dances for her stepfather, as does Mark (6:22). In its only four NT appearances, the same word refers to a dance kids can do in the street, and to whatever Salome did. We can only imagine the details.

Shamefully, however, many commentators have assumed Salome's dancing was lascivious, and Herod's "pleasure" was improper. Of course, it wasn't so long ago in the Puritan USA that any dancing was considered lewd, except perhaps childhood jigs. To be fair, though, Matthew's account does seem to set both the dance and its offered rewards in a private one-on-one setting. Or, does it? We don't know what Matthew's audience would assume about a "birthday" celebration - but it's possibly NOT the same thing modern hedonists might be thinking today.

Fortunately, Mark's account implies something much more specific, which also happens to seem much more innocent. Mark puts both dance and promise in the middle of a party, says plainly that Salome's dancing pleased both "Herod and his dinner guests", and cites the oath as a phrase from the Esther story.

Furthermore: Since this "birthday" feast likely fell soon after Purim, and if Herod's remark came down accurately, it seems the dinner host was cleverly referencing that prior feast night, where a professional orator would have given the traditional Purim tale. All that may seem by the by, but if valid it helps complete the picture of what may have been going on.

Put together, all of this clearly suggests that a harmless, plafull interaction is what probably happened here. Salome's dance need have been nothing more than a preteen or young girl performing her tricks for the family's guests. That is all. Neither Matthew nor Mark suggests that Herodias had anything to do with promoting the dance. Neither Gospel paints this as a plot from the beginning. In both Matthew and Mark, the mother's scheme begins only after the girl doesn't know what to ask for. That itself might possibly speak to her age... but we have better recourse than that.

In considering Salome's historical age on that night, we actually do have some slight clues. First, since the girl was still strongly influenced by her mother, she must not have been married, and thus cannot have been very old. But since her future husband, her uncle Philip, dies in AD 33/34, we must also presume Salome was at least 13 by that year. Thus, if John is beheaded in AD 31 (or AD 29, or AD 32(*)), the dancing girl may have been as young as 11 (or 9, or 12, respectively(*)). At least, those are the early limits.

Interestingly, these competing chronologies (*below) all agree in making Philip's marriage fairly brief - only about 2 years (or 4, or 1(*)). What we don't know is how old Salome was when she married him. But just for example, let's suppose she was married by seventeen, at the latest. If so, and if she married Philip as late as possible, in 33, then Salome's infamous dance would have occurred at age 15 (or 13, or 16(*)). But supposing she married at seventeen, and married just after dancing, then she would have been 17 when she danced.

This all seems simple enough. If Salome married young, then she danced even younger. Still, the early part of our range here seems surprising. Could the dancing girl really have been so young as 11 (*or 9, or 12)? It's an age worth considering, at least as likely as the older end of our range, and it could help some to imagine a more innocent context for Antipas' appreciation of her performance, which - whatever Salome's age - is probably more fitting to what the Gospel accounts offer, anyway. On the odds alone, Salome was probably midway between 11 and 17 when she danced. (And 11 to 15 on my own preferred chronology.) But anywhere in this range, we should not assume Herod was pleased because of improper thoughts.

There are dancers who dance for lascivious men, and there are dancers who dance for the sake of the dance, but a class above all these are rich daughters who get called upon to entertain family guests at a party. If this particular girl's most showcase-able talent was dancing, then we ought to be confident she took some care for performing it well, and that to some degree she probably regarded it as her art.** In other words, some of us need to exorcise what those old dance-o-phobes passed down about this passage, for as much as it's still in our memories.

Historically, I'd guess Salome was 13 when she danced, simply because I don't think Uncle Antipas would have waited much longer than that to "sell" her to his brother Philip. But even at 15 or 17, I suggest all evidence leads us to conclude that the evening's entertainment was in some style of dancing that would have been considered completely appropriate for a large gathering, in those days. Herod's showy largess could have been customary or spontaneous, but Herodias couldn't have known he would offer her "anything".

Mommy just took advantage of a nice little surprise. The dance wasn't calculated to exact a beheading.

Bravo?

--------------------------
*On the competing chronologies, referenced above: The first numbers listed, before each parentheses, correspond to my own timeline. After that, the asterisked, parenthetical numbers correspond to Meier's [the standard two-year] & Hoehner's Chronologies, respectively.

**Full disclosure: my own daughter, age 9, is a budding dance artist, and has loved taking dance for six years. In my early life, the only dancing I saw was on MTV and during halftime shows. Ballet was a snoozer back then, but it's not any more. It's like any other art, or sport. Once my dad taught me golf, I found an appreciation for watching (!) golf. So, back to my dancing daughter - as grateful as I am for this wonderful girl, I must confess that her influence did not occur to me until after the first draft or two of this post. At least, not consciously. But she has taught me a lot about dance. PTL.

Why Pastors Fail

2011-03-13T18:00:00.003-05:00

In my opinion, but in Seth Godin's terms, it might be because:

You think you're being a leader, but you're probably being a manager. Managers figure out what they want done, and try to get people to do it. ... Leadership is finding the right people, agreeing on where you want to go, and getting out of the way. Leadership means embracing the failure of your people if it leads to growth.

After the 1:08 mark, things veer directly towards business and marketing, but the first 67 seconds apply directly to any group effort, imho. Of course it's all worthwhile, because Seth's a genius. Enjoy - then scroll down for my commentary.

Exclusive interview with Seth Godin from GiANT Impact on Vimeo. (H/T Michael Hyatt)

First and foremost, I hope this kind of thinking gets into the Epic Fail Pastor's Conference, happening next month in Philadelphia. It's one thing to embrace the fact that Pastors often fail. It's another to shift into a lifestyle of encouraging failure, as a purposeful part of individual and congregational growth.

It's sad that, in some ways, the world knows this much better than Christians do. But it may be that church dynamics are much more complicated than business groups, or artistic teamwork. (Hmm. Or maybe not.) Either way, all of us need to think deeply on this.

Are we seeking to inspire and empower others, so *they* can find ways of contributing, to make our mutual life in Christ become better and better? Or are we merely attempting to ride herd, or enact our own vision for how things should go? Are we trying to maintain some particular status quo or a personal vision? Or are we promoting the growth of others' contributions to the joint effort, come what may?

Perhaps it's not our own failure we're most afraid of; perhaps what we fear most is the failure of others (to live up to our expectations).

And yes, of course, these are difficult questions for me also, in my own church context. Moreso recently than ever.

Lord, hear our prayer...

.

Surely Jim knows better

2011-03-12T09:17:00.001-06:00

My response to Jim West, who says my last post was "wrong". Comment left on his blog:

Apparently you missed the part where I said, “the human institution of Pastoring has some grounds for justifying itself based on the extraction of scriptural principles and the application of those into differering contexts. Which is fine.” Or were you just deliberately overlooking that point for the sake of this response?

At any rate, you exegete out of context. Again, re-apply those principles in your own context if you prefer, but don’t imply that you’re following those principles sans anachronism. To wit: Your first quotation above refers to a plurality of shepherds, not to sola pastora. The Baptist model of elder board and teaching/preaching elder – it just so happens – is not matched in the NT itself. Your second quotation refers to a travelling apostle receiving an income. Peter’s travelling ministry precedes his visit to Corinth by many years, and poor Paul had to start a new business in every town he arrived at – not that he had much time for business, while he was mothering a new baby church.

You’re right, Jim, that I do respect the men and women whose hearts are drawn to pastoring, and that includes you as well. My critique of pastoring is simply that I find the structure to be counterproductive; it seems to inherently inhibit what Ephesians 4 builds towards, “that which every joint supplies”.

But I do respect your heart, Jim. You shared once about your upbringing, and it gave me new sympathy for your total depravity posts. At the bottom of Jim West – it appears – there is someone who simply hates to see sinful behavior causing pain, destruction and hurt to other folks. And Pastoring does limit that. It absolutely does.

In sum, I respect and affirm your right to Pastor as you do. I just don’t think you should imply that your kind of pastoring is structured at all like the NT’s pastoring. It’s not.

Seriously, we just need to embrace this, y'all. Keep on pastoring. Better yet, start finding better ways to pastor. (Some of y'all might start with Michael Hyatt's post on the difference between Leading and Managing.) But don't get your hissies in a fit because somebody says it's not scriptural. It's not. Neither are church buildings. But really, so the heck what?

.

Scriptural Warrant, Pastor Jim?

2011-03-11T21:14:00.003-06:00

I don't hold to Lent or Pastoring, not because they're "unscriptural", but because I've not found either practice conducive to my spiritual life (such as it is).

But Jim West? He condemns Lent as a "human institution", and yet holds a salaried post as Pastor of Petros Baptist Church. Which is fine. But there's no Christian person in the entire New Testament whose ministry fits the job description Jim holds there on the edge of the smokies.

Historically, the institutionalized practice of Protestant Pastoring is based on the traditionally pastoral duties of Catholic Priesthood. Which is fine. But neither Peter, Paul, Timothy, Titus, Priscilla, Aquilla, nor even Apollos engaged in the daily activities of Pastors/Priests as we know them today. Jesus' brother James comes the closest, in Jerusalem, but where do we see him (or anyone else) preach once a week? Preside over the sacraments? Legally preside over all administrative business, while being supervised by an elder "board"? Etc...

Again, the human institution of Pastoring has some grounds for justifying itself based on the extraction of scriptural principles and the application of those into differering contexts. Which is fine. But if so, Jim, then why isn't Lent?

As a final note, I appreciate what Pastor Mark Stevens said at the Near Emmaus blog: "Lent isn't about giving up..." I do believe I'd like to dwell more on that notion. Yes, and I may... perhaps even during Lent.

Look, the only thing ANY Christians can do while on Earth here is improvise, and that's true whether we've got Pastors & Pews or Couches & a travelling ~~apostle~~ coach/umpire. Personally, I'd be thrilled to try out a head minister who facilitated more than s/he dominated. (Can't find one, so far.) And no, that's not anywhere in the Bible. But - his officialized title aside - neither is what Jim does.

Anyway, my point is about "scriptural warrant". One of these days, we Protestants really should quit pretending we do everything just like the Bible says.

.

Paul's First Shipwreck

2011-03-07T22:10:00.005-06:00

may have caused John Mark some Deuteronomical angst - as in, sensing God's judgment for Paul & Barnabas' failure to circumcise Sergius Paulus.

That is, the voyage from Paphos to Perga was already one of the top candidates for Paul's first shipwreck (2.Cor.11:25 almost surely refers to three of the seven sea voyages between Acts 13 and 18 - and John Mark's departure at Acts 13:13 has always suggested resistance to hardship). But on top of that, Moises Silva has teased out some reasons why John Mark's desertion may have been bigoted. (H/T Matthew Crowe)

That Sergius Paulus was converted but not circumcised, that John-Mark went back to Jerusalem (not to Antioch), and that Luke pointedly takes this moment to mention Saul taking the name Paul - these points may underscore Mark's opposition (at this point) to a non-Judaizing mission. Again, so says Silva. Personally, I'm buying it. Except for one little thing.

If Silva is right, then why didn't John Mark just take a separate ship from Paphos? If the reasons for leaving were all found on Cyprus, then why sail over to Pamphylia at all? Ah, but add in this shipwreck, and it looks as if John-Mark was still conflicted about things until the moment he received sudden clarity on the issues, right after their whole mission team was apparently punished by God with a nearly fatal disaster!

Quick aside: Long ago, I used to read Acts as if Peter and John Mark had been enlightened much earlier than others, and that Acts 15 was all about getting James and his hard-line constituency to come over to that way of thinking. However, for a while now, I've been convinced that Peter barely changed his beliefs at all, after visiting Cornelius. Pre-Cornelius, Gentiles had to be circumcised before receiving the Holy Spirit. Post-Cornelius, the Holy Spirit could come when he willed, but the knife and Moses' Law were still expected to follow.

Bottom line: teasing out John-Mark's bigotry in Acts 13 fits perfectly into the context of Palestinian Christendom, before AD 50. But that brief delay between Paphos and Perga means that Paul's first shipwreck is very likely what scared John-Mark into sticking with the old ways, and fleeing from God's wrath. This immature judgment Paul may have forgiven, but understandably remained wary of working alongside in his mission to Gentiles... at least, in the years soon thereafter.

.

Home from Waco

2011-03-03T17:35:00.001-06:00

where Richard Bauckham's lecture this morning (audio) just about made my year. Alas, no time to report at the moment, but yes, the audio has been posted on Baylor's website. No video yet. The whole series can be found here, if you scroll down.

Tonight I've got chores to do, papers to grade, and family to be with. Plus, this weekend is the regional SBL (SWCRS). Hopefully, I'll post something on the Waco lectures some time next week. (By the way, they were WONDERFUL!)

Oh, yeah. I also got picked up several times in the Carnival this month. That Matthew Crowe is okay in my book. I don't care what Rodney says! ;-)

Roman Emperors (Short Video Summaries)

2011-03-01T13:55:00.017-06:00

Suetonius wrote of the first Twelve Caesars, but Adrian Murdoch has done a wonderful thing by skipping uncle Julius and beginning with Augustus - who was, of course, the first "Emperor".

Chronologically, Adrian has already video-posted about: Augustus, Tiberius, Caligula, Claudius, Nero, Galba, Otho, Vitellius, & Vespasian. Those first nine, plus uncle Julius, are most likely the Ten Caesars represented in more than one part of Revelation. But let's not get into that kind of thing just at the moment!

These are phenomenal videos for historical research. Go enjoy! Or read on, for a bit more detail:

Newbies should bear in mind these are Murdoch's own reconstructions, and other scholars naturally disagree on some points. Also, be warned Adrian's YouTube page could use a bit of organization, but of course it's going to be under construction for a while. Adrian's still got about 400 years of Emperors left to go, at the rate of one per week. Here's how he set out his goal, early this year:

The idea is to cover every Roman emperor from Augustus to Romulus Augustulus in under two minutes. A new episode will be published on a Monday morning. By the end of the year we should be in the middle of the third century.

He then included this hysterical thought:

I originally wanted to call the series "Who the hell was Nerva?" on the basis that while most of us have a fair idea of what big name emperors like Augustus, Hadrian and Constantine were up to, many - myself included - have only the haziest idea of the reign of emperors like Nerva.

Nothing against Nerva, but I've basically no idea who the heckfire he was, either. ;-)

At any rate, these videos really are a tremendous public service. Here's hoping Adrian Murdoch inspires other professional scholars to post comprehensive collections of summaries like this one. We could all stand to benefit. Besides, a good summary can be just the incentive someone needs to start digging into things a bit more deeply.

And yes, some of you can take that as a warning. If you like. ;-)

Confession of the Month

2011-02-26T23:43:00.001-06:00

With some trepidation, I quote my 11 year old, from his blog (to which I shall not link):

"Last night I had a wonderful time singing and listening to the brothers and sisters of the house church I have recently begun to re-experience since my early childhood. I think that it's amazing to sing together and be with the lord, and that there is no one better to do it with than the people I grew up around for my four year old, to six year old life. I am thrilled to be able to spend time with them again and to sing in the lords name!

Reports of her demise had always been somewhat exaggerated. Resurrection may be a bit premature, even now. But this boy, he may not let me out of it this time. And that might be a God thing.

It's a gift to see one still so simple.

Come what may...

Tilling on Bauckham on Jesus and Testimony

2011-02-25T18:17:00.002-06:00

The first lecture from my last post has me re-reading Richard Bauckham's 2006 book Jesus and the Eyewitnesses - or at least the most intelligible parts of it, which being the Intro and Concluding chapters. And naturally, when I opened the book last night, I found my folded up print out of Chris Tilling's 35 page "Summary and Short Critical Reflection" of that work.

From that summary, here's one great quote, of very many:

Significantly, modern scholars now focus heavily on extracting evidence from the testimony of witnesses in spite of themselves, which is an important insight (c.f. M. Bloch and especially R.G. Collingwood). 'But', Bauckham proceeds, 'we should also note that nothing about modern historical method prohibits us from reading the explicit testimonies of the past for the sake of what they were intended to recount and reveal' even if some deny that the 'past voluntarily "gives" the historian anything'. This is all the more true as this denial tends to lead to the unsustainable assertion that 'whereas in everyday life we treat testimony as reliable unless or until we find reason to doubt it, in scientific history testimony is suspicious from the outset and can only be believed when it is independenly verified'. But at this point 'it ceases to be testimony'. Testimony, despite the attitudes of much modern Gospel scholarship, invites to be trusted; comprehensive doubt is impossible. (p.30)

One might add that the modern "science" of Psychology also depends often on subject testimonials. Good psychologists qualify and disclaim their data, of course, but they also go forward and build towards conclusions based on that data. In many areas of that particular field, they can hardly do otherwise.

I don't mean the scare quotes around "science" like you might think. It's just that some fields of study can be more scientific than others. Physics, Chemistry, Biology, Psychology and History - each in it's own right - can be no more restrained by controlled testing than their own nature allows. And no less, certainly.

More anon...

How'd I miss this?

2011-02-24T20:55:00.001-06:00

Richard Bauckham on the Gospels as History* - video & audio from 1 week ago - HERE.

* Play List: "The Gospels as Histories: What sort of history are they?"

Vid 1 - The Gospels as Historical Biography
Vid 2 - The Gospels as History from Below, Part 1
Vid 3 - The Gospels as History from Below, Part 2
Vid 4 - The Gospels as Micro-History and Perspectival History

Glad I caught these. Hope to watch them - and possibly comment here - soon...

UPDATE: RB's giving the same talks in Waco next week. I might even be able to get there for some or all of it. Stay tuned...

Mis-Dating Herod's Temple

2011-02-21T10:52:00.001-06:00

In John 2:20, Jerusalem's elders cite 46 years for the building of Herod's Temple. That number is not in dispute here, but in calculating its significance to history and chronology, scholars often claim Josephus tells us precisely when Herod began to build. The common statement is something to the effect that "Josephus tells us the rebuilding began in Herod's eighteenth year, 20/19 BC." All such statements are inaccurate, because Josephus nowhere tells us any such thing.

Everyone catches the revision of "fifteenth" to "eighteenth" from Josephus'Jewish War (1.401) to his Antiquities (15.380). No one seems to catch the significance of the other revisions. In War, Josephus literally said Herod restored (epeskeuasen) the Temple that year. Obviously no one thought that was true, but in correcting himself, Josephus also takes pains to convey a more nuanced process. Now he says Herod "undertook (epebaleto) an extraordinary work, (namely) the reconstructing (kataskeuasasthai) of the temple of God".

Note that Wikgren's Loeb translation made an infinitive into a gerund. Interestingly, Whiston did not: "undertook a very great work, that is, to build". If we isolate this sentence, Whiston seems awkward and Wikgren's decision is justifiable, but in the larger context, Whiston underscores a key point, and Wikgren, although inadvertently, has misled us.

The other critical detail here is that "undertook" does not exactly mean "began". The verb (imperfect passive form of epiballw, taking the accusitive case) more literally means Herod had it thrown upon him, which suggests something like Liddel & Scott's alternate glosses for "undertook", which are, "took (or put) it upon himself". Essentially, the desire has taken firm root, but there is no implication that the intended action has necessarily been embarked upon, as of yet.

In the War, Josephus told us one year in which Herod built. In the Antiquities, Josephus corrects this with exacting qualification. He now tells us only what year Herod devoted himself to the building project. Every detail of the narrative following bears this out. Herod's offer to begin the project was met with skepticism by Jews who feared he might tear down and not build up again. So the King promised "he would not pull down the temple before having ready all the materials" (15.390) and Josephus concludes that Herod indeed, "began the construction [note the same root in kataskeuhs] only after all these preparations had diligently been made by him."

The materials included "a thousand wagons to carry the stones" and the preparations included the training of "a thousand priests" as masons and builders. There is no telling how long it took to train a thousand priests into skillful laborers. There is no telling how many trips the thousand stone wagons took, before enough stone was piled up at the site to begin tearing down... which tearing itself may not even have been considered as the beginning of "reconstruction".

The only thing we can date to 20/19 BC, according to Joesphus, is the speech in which Herod promised to build. The actual building must have begun quite some time later. One or two or even three years is not an unthinkable amount of time for the immense amount of preparations that had to take place before reconstruction could begin. The tearing down would probably have been very quick, so the rebuilding could have begun in 19, 18, or perhaps early 17 BC.

Josephus later says the Temple sanctuary was completed in "a year and six months" (15.421) but this by itself does not contradict anything else. We still do not know how much time passed after the speech before work on that new sanctuary was actually begun. However, we also know that shortly after this eighteen month period Herod visited Caesar in Rome (16.6). Since Caesar went north into Gaul in 16 BC, Herod can only have sailed to Italy in 18, 17 or early 16. The latest possible date for sanctuary construction to begin would therefore be winter of 18/17 BC. The earliest, we should think, not before 19. Most feasibly, it could have been anywhere in the 24 month window of 19 to 18 BC.

The point of all this - for New Testament chronologists - is that these references from Josephus are not enough, by themselves, to inform us precisely about what year the Jerusalemites were speaking in when they told Jesus, "This Temple was under construction (oikodomhthe) for forty-six years". Without inventing a time span for the prep-work, that "46 years" could have ended in 27, 28, 29 or even early 30 AD (counting strictly or inclusively).

Therefore, John 2:20 does provide us with a tight range of dates, but not one so restrictive that it should have daunted apologetic concerns in the past. Naturally, these considerations renders moot a vast chunk of everything that has been written by apologists about John 2:20 and Josephus' Antiquities 15, before now.

----------------------
Repost from October 2009

Malcolm Gladwell

2011-02-21T01:08:00.002-06:00

simultaneously takes a hit and a high five from xkcd:

Personally I couldn't finish Tipping Point, and I never bothered picking up Blink, but I tore through Outliers in two days and I think it's a phenomenal book that everyone in America (yes, especially America) should read ASAP.

FYI.

Did this get your attention?

2011-02-17T21:37:00.001-06:00

Title included, the feed line cuts off before the 90th character. Twitter gets maybe 120, with the 'goo' link.

I mention this because I just caught up in my Google Reader for maybe the third time since Christmas. And yes, I skim headlines. So, bloggers, give me a good head's up quick on what I *might* get to read.

I thank you all, in advance! :^)

[Update: Okay, in my reader, this one's headline made 96 characters total. And yes, of course I subscribe to my own blog. Don't you? Gotta see how it looks in the feed, dont'cha know!]

Shepherds without Sheep (= All Shepherds, nearly)

2011-02-16T20:22:00.001-06:00

In the ancient world, as a rule, wealthy landowners hired shepherds to take care of *their* sheep. In other words, a shepherd could talk about "his sheep", but he wasn't their owner. In that sense, not even Jesus strictly claimed to possess his own (metaphorical) sheep, because even though he was Lord, and even though he did call them "my" sheep, he was also the Righteous Man who did everything on behalf of Another.

In the ancient world, if someone ever died to protect sheep, it probably wasn't the sheep's owner. Instead, the one who might have to die while protecting the sheep is a shepherd, who was hired by the owner. The owner who hired a good shepherd would expect that good shepherd to protect *His* sheep with his life. And the shepherd would risk everything right up to death, because the shepherd owed his own life to the owner whose sheep brought them both of their livelihoods.

In Jesus' case, especially, the only reason the Good Shepherd would lay down his life for "his" sheep, was because they belonged to the One whom the Good Shepherd most cared about pleasing.

All sheep need shepherds, but - and I'm talking about churches now - christian shepherds should never think of "their" sheep as *theirs*. If there's anything at all scriptural about the way someone might pastor one of God's flocks, that shepherd should only feed and protect sheep on behalf of Another.

(H/T - this post was sparked by a FB thread underneath Alan Knox's latest post.)

The NT has a Story?

2011-02-14T10:08:00.000-06:00

I'm teaching at a private school now, and Homeroom is for "Christian Studies". We're supposed to be discussing the New Testament, but a vigorous debate started up about Comic Book movies, mainly centering on whether aspects of the characters' personalities and origins were portrayed faithfully on the screen adaptations. (Obviously, that's my summary, but that's what they/we were talking about.)

It was a fun discussion, and rapport building too, so I let the discussion go throughout HR (20 min), and with two minutes left, I asked, "Hey. What would it take for us to be able to have this kind of a discussion about the New Testament?"

Silence. Finally, one kid said, "I'm just not that comfortable talking about philosophy."

"Aahh!" I said, "Is that what the New Testament is to you? Philosophy?" (pause) "That's certainly what it is to a lot of people..." I added, trying to balance my challenge with some encouragement. It's okay to be honest.

"Well, yeah. I guess."

Then I said to the class, "But aren't there characters and stories in the New Testament? Aren't there people who DO things?"

Silence. Pondering. Quizzical looks.

Hmmmm. What to offer them next?

Phileo beats Agape

2011-02-12T13:52:00.000-06:00

at least, in Pre-Christianized Greek, which sometimes includes the New Testament.

One major reason Paul wrote "the love chapter" into 1st Corinthians was to recondition those native Greek speakers as to what "agape" could indicate, in the new Christian usage. If the word already meant such things, that chapter would not have been so radical. And as for the popular rendering, "unconditional love", excuse me, but what heathen Greek, before Jesus, ever conceived such a thing? When Jesus said, "Agapate your enemies", that was radical even for Jews! Not even Septuagint uses of Agape had conditioned this word for the meanings that Jesus and Paul brought to God's people.

"Love" may have always been the most excellent way, but- it had not yet been stated in so many words.

Meanwhile, in the minds of the people whose tongues gave us Greek, Friendship was the highest form of devotion. Period. Plato and Aristotle did no better than suggesting that "helping someone else is a way of serving oneself". The best one could aspire to was great personal loyalty, idealized by the legend of Damon & Pythias. Even non-idealized, loyal friendship was the greatest "love" any Greek speaking soul ever knew, before Christ. (That's not to knock loyalty, which remains pretty fantastic in it's own right.)

Back to proper linguistics, search the Liddell-Scott Lexicon some time for phil- stems and agap- stems, and see which word was more highly though of, not to mention more commonly used, in the classical age. Agape meant something else, like caress[ing], affection, contentment, or perhaps general positive regard. However, to be remarkably fond of something, or someone, you would be called a phil-something. In English also, Philosopher and Philharmonic are but two cognates the OED lists in its ten full pages of phil- words, to say nothing of suffixed loans such as audiophile. In both Greek and English, the phil- stem stands tallest.

Which brings us back to the reason you're still reading.

In the Gospel of John, agap- forms outnumber phil- forms (33 to 16), although the noun forms balance out (6 to 6), and there are admittedly times when the meanings may seem interchangeable. But while chapter 17 leaves no doubt that God's most Enduring Love, in the author's opinion, is "agape", there are only two chapters where the agap- and phil- forms appear together with significant contrast or interplay. On this comparison, chapter 21 usually gets all the (erroneous) attention, but less noticed (sadly) is that Chapter 15 had already set up a semantic relationship between phil- and agap- words.

In that chapter, the Friend is the one who Loves, and the one who loves is the friend (v.13,14,15). And while the world loves "like a friend" (15:19), so had the Father loved Jesus "like a friend" (5:20); so had Jesus loved Lazarus (11:3,36); so had Phillip's supplicants been challenged (12:25); and so (once) is called the beloved disciple (20:2). And in John 16:27, Jesus tells Peter and the rest of his disciples "the Father Himself philei you, because you pephilekate me". Thus, if Christian Linguists must think of phileo as "love like a friend loves", they must also admit this type of love gets contextualized with a very High pedigree, in John's Gospel.

So, then what's going on with Peter and Jesus, in chapter 21?

Here's how I put it a couple of years ago:

having breathed in the Holy Spirit and learning to practice the Lord’s presence during His periods of physical absence, Peter was simply itching for some more active type of occupation, besides being just spiritual. [Which is why he went fishing.] So when Jesus sounded like he wanted a favor, Peter sounded eager to please, but then he clammed up at the favor that was requested. Finally, Jesus challenged Peter’s confident claim to be such a friend... if he didn't want to go [where God wanted him to].

Jesus' question, "Agapete me?", was an obvious prompt for a favor. Peter's "Yes, Lord, philw" was an affirmative, both times. "You want agape? A friend loves." In other words, Peter was saying, "I'm your man, Lord, what do you need?"

In Peter's mouth, "Phileo" wasn't less than Agape. It was more.

From the upper room to the Sea of Tiberias, Jesus needed his best friends to prepare for a new mission - to love one another, yes, but to do so in Jerusalem; not heading back to their former vocations, not to feed their own families, but to trust God's provision for fish and bread, and to come provide food for God's family.

And so they did. Because that's what Friends do. They Love.

---------------------------------
For a more Story-based investigation, incorporating Luke 24:34, and to see how I initially formed this opinion, peruse my series from 2009:

A New Take on John 21
preface 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 summary

Tiberius the Wannabe Non-Leader

2011-02-11T07:00:00.003-06:00

Rome's Senate wanted him to be Augustus, but the successor was hoping to be a kinder, gentler overlord. Tiberius was a delegator, not a micromanager, and he was hoping the Senate would take up more initiative. Of course, this only makes it sound like the new Emperor was being noble, as if Tiberius genuinely wanted to exert less control. But nope. In truth, Tiberius was merely hoping for less day to day burden, less responsibility, and the Senate saw right through it.

Barbara Levick does a masterful job of explaining the Senate's debate with their new Emperor, on 9/17/0014. From Tiberius the Politician:

They should not refer everything to one man, but take responsibility themselves. ... [but] What Tiberius wanted was impossible because power was indivisible. Once gathered into one pair of hands it could not be redistributed throughout the body politic; the sway of the Princeps extended far beyond his legal prerogatives and it was useless to pretend that it did not...

The debate petered out, and Tiberius stopped protesting that he was not going to be Princeps as Augustus had been, that he was not stepping into Augustus' shoes. He had failed to get the Senators to acknowledge that the burden of government lay ultimately on them and so he seemed tacitly to accept the responsibility that they had fallen on their knees to avoid....

At the end of the debate, he must have had to content himself with a private resolve to educate his peers into their responsibilities... (end of Ch.5)

His very first day on the job, Tiberius Caesar wanted to surrender all the initiative, but maintain his veto power. Naturally, that would only result in everyone guessing and second guessing themselves before initiating only those things they'd be sure their new overlord would ultimately favor.

It just goes to show, you cannot both BE in power and be NOT in power. If you take the position as chief over all peons, don't start making speeches as if you want the peons to behave as if you're not the chief. You're the chief. And, as the chief, you're the only one you can temporarily fool into thinking you're not.

This is Roman Government. Tiberius nearly ruined the Empire because he spent two decades trying to sit back and let others take initiative, and yet he always came back in at the end, awkwardly casting non-assertive non-judgments on whatever he found unacceptable. It paralyzed just about everyone. Thus, in a way, the very odd case of Tiberius' overlording is an exception that proves the rule.

Hierarchy is overlordship. Period. Do it right, or else quit altogether.

But, Jesus told his Apostles, don't be like the overlords of the Gentiles...

*ahem*

Romans.

Pharisees vs. the Poll-tax

2011-02-08T08:23:00.009-06:00

Caesar's Image on that coin might not have been their main issue, in actuality. Here's why:

To begin with one representative sample of Pharisaism, the historical Hillel school dates from an era when Julius' Caesar's famous tax exemption still applied in Judea - that Jews would pay no tribute in the seventh year. While King Herod seems to have challenged that custom, and his son Archelaus infamously gathered ten harvests in ten seasons, the direct Roman poll tax did not come into Judean experience until the registration of Quirinius.

At any rate, before the year 6 AD, Pharisees who were sticklers about the Mosaic Sabbatical custom had an easy scapegoat for that custom's latest demise - it was all because of the Herods. However, in 6 AD, the newly established Government under Quirinius introduced a new poll tax (tributum capitis) which, distinct from the land tax (tributum soli), was not agriculturally based. But one thing the poll tax was, obviously, was perennial.

Whatever else changed about Judea's tax situation, in this sudden transition to direct Roman rule, the poll tax (by itself) was probably seen by many Pharisees as the first Roman reversal of Caesar's famous decree. And in that, I suspect, certain Pharisees may have taken the poll tax as an affront in itself, in all years, from the standpoint that - from where they sat - this new tax seemed deliberately contrived as a method of sidestepping controversy about Judea's traditional sabbatical laws.

One caveat: I'm not certain Quirinius actually instituted the land tax, or that one had yet been levied on Judea to this point. But even if it had, any Pharisee who wanted to be strict about the year of rest could store up his own grain supply for six years. As long as he was not a farmer, then (1) the debate was largely on principle, if not merely academic, (2) the land tax would not affect him directly, and (3) the poll tax would still come to him in the seventh year, and thus could still feel like an affront.

Of course, I'm not suggesting all Pharisees were concerned about this, and I'm sure that on a more common level of outrage the Image of Tiberius on that coin had to be the most [or, rather, least] popular sticking point with any traveling Rabbi's constituency. I admit, that aspect of the poll-tax issue probably had become a very common complaint, but was it really a significant problem? There's no record of grass roots non-payment across Judea, and anyway, practically speaking, isn't that why Judea had money changers?

Point: As long as Roman tax collectors took shekels, a Pharisaic complaint about Roman imprinting seems more like empty rhetoric. The more I think about it, empty rhetoric may really be all that it was.

We now have to consider that maybe this trap-question, as laid out in Mt.22, Mk.12 & Lk.20 (but also assuming historicity, here) was nothing more than a really weak effort to trap Jesus, which then turned into a good story for the Gospel writers, largely because it makes Jesus' response look more brilliant by comparison. On balance, all of that seems quite plausible; but there's another side to this *coin*, also, which requires more thought.

What if, instead, we consider that maybe the trap set for Jesus on that day invited him into a slightly more complicated debate, one involving more than just moral shagrin for the imprinted face of Tiberius, on a coin no Judean was ever required to touch. It should occur to us that - even though the graven image aspect may have played best with the crowds, and may still be what plays best in repeating the story - a more entrenched kind of dispute appears to be what we ought to expect from the larger historical context. That is:

Both Mark and Matthew* frame the trap as a "choose sides" demand, as if the Pharisees and Herodians have been fiercely debating the poll tax issue for quite some time. However multi-faceted that debate might have been, I don't see the Herodians giving it much time or respect if the Pharisees' major case could have been overturned with the quick response, "Well, they take shekels, don't they?"

To modern readings, the Gospel writers seem to suggest the main coin issue was about graven images. But our 'impression' here may only be due to the fact that we've lost hold of what everyone knew, back then. When Mark and Matthew say, "Pharisees", "Herodians" and "κῆνσον" (poll tax) in the same sentence, I suspect there were some in their original audience who knew much better to what larger political conflict those three elements alluded. So, each writer wisely included that data, but overall managed to play to the crowd. Just like the Pharisees did... and just like Jesus, as well.

By the way, just to clear up one side point, from above: Jesus' response in the Gospels is most brilliant NOT because it overturns the tax trap so effectively, but because the Lord steered his way through a divisive contention by turning it into a challenge for all souls to acknowledge the centrality of God.

Because, naturally, we all have been formed in the image of God.

-------------------------------
*I don't want to distract from this post here, but I find it characteristic for Luke-Acts to avoid repeating negative views of the Herodians, as often as possible. I've always suspected this had something to do with Agrippa & Bernice being on Paul's side before his voyage to Nero, but I've not worked through that arugment yet at all. Something else someone (else) should work on, someday. (!)

Did John preach in a Sabbatical Year?

2011-02-06T14:59:00.001-06:00

And if so, would that mean anything? One question at a time.

According to Zuckerman & Blosser, the year AD 26/27 was a Jewish year of rest. (According to Wacholder, it was 27/28.) But we also have competing dates on John's ministry. If the two year chronology of Jesus' ministry were correct, then John's public phase began at some point in AD 27, likely overlapping with the year of rest (whether early or late that year). If Hoehner's three year chronology were best, then John's preaching began in AD 29, farther out of this question. And if Cheney's four year chronology is correct, John started preaching in AD 28, early enough to intersect with Wacholder's year, but a handful of months after the end of Zuckerman & Blosser's.

First point: it's worth considering some possible connections here.

In one scenario, assuming anyone still observed Moses' law on these things, it might have raised John's profile to deliberately coordinate his public splash with a Year 7. Furthermore, if some agricultural workers had time off, his crowds might have grown somewhat, and though most farmers seem to have ignored the Sabbatical by this era, it may have been precisely such people - the sacrifically observant, the 'radically orthodox', the 'Essene like' among Israel - whom John most wanted to draw.

In a different scenario, John - or perhaps, rather God - waited until just after the Year of Rest to begin this new work. This theological supposition may not be historically scrutable, but it would fit the chronology beautifully. In fact, with Cheney's chronology and Zuckerman's years, the ministries of Jesus and John - together - would fill up the six year period in between Sabbath Years, with some spare months left over at either end. A six year run for the first man of a new race, in the sixth of six Sabbath-Weeks during Jesus' 38 years on the Earth... *Ahem* (???)

I repeat: Numerology and Theology do NOT serve as historical evidence. For completely separate reasons, however, I happen to prefer scenario two.

But none of this is my point. This is:

These are merely examples of questions, both theological and historical, of the kind that simply cannot be asked until after chronological work has been done. So, the fact that most New Testament Chronology work tends to stop asking questions - usually at whatever point it 'concludes' for some dates over others - says something about what NT Chronology may have been all about, in the past. And maybe that was just fine, for the past.

Moving forward, NT scholars who work with Chronology should attempt to do much more than assign dates. In my humble opinion, chronological investigation has no point - no purpose whatsoever - unless it's the launch pad for doing actual History... and yes, maybe even Theology.

Quirinius is Fascinating

2011-02-04T20:54:00.008-06:00

Forget that census controversy. I mean the man's whole life!

Born in the years around Caesar's assassination; the first of his bloodline to become Senator (a 'novus homo'); commanded Legions in Africa, Galatia, Armenia and Judea; granted at least one (minor) Triumphal parade (an 'ovatio'); Governed Crete, Cyrene, Galatia and Syria twice (once solo, once by proxy); befriended Tiberius during his exile; guided Augustus' first grandson to an early death; married the bereaved fiance of Augustus' second grandson; handpicked again and again for the most difficult assignments; his Proconsular career alone lasted for two decades; retired wealthy; lived to old age; and was honored in death with a state funeral, receiving high praise in a personal eulogy from the Emperor Tiberius.

The biography of Publius Sulpicius Quirinius would be riveting history. He's famous for something he didn't do, and yet somehow escaped infamy for what may have been willful neglect in the young Caesar's fatal accident. If Quirinius doesn't fail to protect Gaius in Armenia, the next thirty to fifty years of Imperial rule could have been drastically different. The delicious rivalry of two grandstanding incompetents (Gaius vs. Germanicus) might have led to a stunning political struggle between their mother and wife, respectively (Julia vs. Agrippina the Elder). There might have been no Sejanus, and perhaps no Caligula. Of course, this is just speculation, but Gaius' death absolutely has that level of significance. And Quirinius was (or should have been held) responsible for it. Why wasn't he!?!

What Quirinius did accomplish was pleasing two Emperors and seizing a grand life of power for himself. He pacified difficult regions on two continents and nipped off the bud of Judean Zealotry (for a few decades, at least). Perhaps most impressively, Quirinius managed to retain the favor of both Augustus and Tiberius during the very time of their most aggravated feud.

There have been full length academic treatments done on historical figures with much less to work from. It must be the darn controversy that cheats us from having such a treasure. Of course, any scholar who attempts the work could spend easily half of her time on the history of opinions on Luke 2:2. As soon as someone's that bold, they should read what Stephen Carlson has written, here. And my Timeline, along with the other 34 posts on this site that mention Quirinius (or at least this one, this one, and perhaps this one). In the end, however, the focus of such a project should be the man. Not the minutae.

A critical biography or some such work on Quirinius is extremely overdue.

Won't you take on this challenge as your life's work, dear current or prospective grad student?

Yes, that's right. I mean YOU.

Between the Testaments

2011-02-02T16:02:00.001-06:00

The angel Gabriel appeared twice to Daniel in Babylon. In the years 539 & 537 BC, God's messenger predicted the rise of Persia, Greece and Rome. The angel also told Daniel to write everything down, because a very long time was going to pass before everything happened the way he was saying.

Gabriel's biggest prediction was about the Messiah. He said Jerusalem's Temple and wall were going to be rebuilt, and then, a little less than 500 years after that, Israel's Messiah would appear. Of course, no one was exactly certain just how to interpret Daniel's writings while the events were still going on. Nevertheless, Gabriel's predictions continued unfolding.

Around 480 BC, the Persian King Xerxes tried and failed to conquer Greece. Back in Babylon, Xerxes found comfort in a new wife from the Hebrews, named Esther. Twenty-two years later, Xerxes' son Artaxerxes decreed the Jews could go home to rebuild the entire city of Jerusalem.

In the Autumn of 458 BC, returning exiles in Jerusalem heard Ezra read the law. Israel recommitted themselves to their Lord and dedicated the next twelve months as a Sabbath to the Lord. This renewed the Weeks of the planting cycle. From then on, every seventh Autumn began a new resting year for the land.

Near the middle of the second Week, in 445 BC, the King of Persia decided to let Jerusalem rebuild their wall. This marked the Week as the first of the sixty-nine predicted by Gabriel to Daniel.

The last Old Testament Prophet, Malachi, finished speaking around 430 BC, while Socrates was still a young man in Athens. But another hundred years passed before Alexander the Great came from Greece to take the Mid East away from Persia in 332 BC.

Another century passed, as Alexander's Successors who took Egypt and Syria kept fighting each other for Israel. For all of the 200's BC, these Eastern Dynasties battled back and forth. Meanwhile, Italy had conquered the Western Seas and began moving East.

From the 190's to the 160's BC, while the Maccabees were fighting against the Syrians, the Romans were claiming dominion over all of Greece and Macedonia. In the 140's BC, Israel proclaimed itself independent thru the Hasmonean Dynasty. By the 120's BC, Rome began claiming portions of Asia Minor. Gabriel's fourth Empire kept stretching farther into the east.

The Hasmonean Dynasty was sovereign in Jerusalem for eight decades, until Rome conquered Syria in the 60's BC. The Roman General Pompey took Jerusalem but left the young prince Hyrcanus in charge. From then on, Israel sent its annual payments to Rome in order to remain officially "Independent".

In the 50's BC, Pompey lost to Julius Caesar in the Italian Civil War. Caesar was killed in 44 BC and his nephew Octavian was ruling by 42 with his partner, Marc Antony.

In 40 BC, Parthia (no longer Persia) conquered Israel and a young Governor fled to Italy whose name was Herod, son of Antipater. In 37 BC, Marc Antony helped Herod re-conquer Judea and the two became fast friends. The Romans proclaimed Herod King of Israel and Herod rewarded Antony richly for the privilege.

Antony joined Cleopatra of Egypt and fought against Octavian Caesar in the second Civil War. Caesar defeated Antony & Cleopatra, who died a year later, in 30 BC. From Israel, King Herod quickly transferred his valuable loyalty from Antony to Octavian. Caesar accepted, and Herod developed a strong, lasting friendship with the new Emperor of the civilized world.

In 28 BC, the Roman Senate granted Octavian the title "Augustus" which means "Revered One". In 27 BC, the new Augustus expanded the Roman Census for the first time to include all provinces outside of Italy. Each province renewed its census records every ten to fourteen years, but independent "Client-Kingdoms" like Herod's Israel never had to submit to the practice. Italy simply continued accepting the annual tribute sent in each year by such Kings.

By this point, the Senate had essentially conferred ultimate power on Augustus for life. During these decades, the Empire was generally peaceful. So Herod spent many years maintaining his friendship with Caesar. The King gave Rome’s Emperor expensive gifts and built pagan temples in Caesar's honor. Herod spared no expense and took all pains to keep Augustus pleased.

In 20 BC, Caesar granted Herod territories east of the Jordan River which were hotly coveted by the Nabateans of Northern Arabia. In the same year, Herod promised Jerusalem's Jews he would enlarge their Temple. But the Jews made Herod promise to lay up every beam and stone before tearing down the old building, so the actual construction did not begin until 18 BC.

In 12 BC, the Nabateans stoked rebellion in Herod's East, which the King was unable to put down easily. Herod couldn't prove Nabatea was involved without evidence, but Rome's Governor in Syria wouldn’t give the King permission to cross the boundary with armed support. So the fighting dragged on, over the Jordan River, until a new Roman Governor arrived, in the year 9 BC.

That same year, after 528 years, the angel Gabriel finally reappeared on the Earth, to an old priest in Jerusalem...

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Please continue by clicking over to this Timeline of NT Era Events.

Judaism & Ritual

2011-01-30T23:39:00.002-06:00

Another thing Jesus and Paul both had in common was love for God's Law. I don't share that devotion, so much, but I'm convinced they both did. Whatever else we do with that, it means we shouldn't overgeneralize or misapply Jesus' specific critiques about certain aspects of pre-70 AD Palestinian Judaism. Note well these words by Notre Dame scholar John P. Meier:

an implicitly hostile opposition between the "cultic", "ritual", or "purely legal" elements of Mosaic Law on the one hand and the "truly moral" or "ethical" elements on the other would have been alien to the mind-set of the ordinary Palestinian Jew of Jesus' day. For such a Jew, what was "moral" (if we may use that term) was to do God's will and to walk in his ways as laid out in the Torah God had given to Israel. Doing God's will applied to all areas of one's life, in and out of the temple, in and out of the marketplace, [etc...]. But ancient Jews saw no opposition between a type of behavior that was "purely ritual" (and hence to be considered of little value) and a type of behavior that was "purely moral" (and hence to be highly valued in the eyes of God). -- A Marginal Jew, Volume IV: Law & Love, p.45

Not sure? Think about it. If this hadn't been true, Paul's dear Gentiles would never have had so much trouble dealing with their Jewish brothers and sisters in Christ. And although Jesus himself (following several Old Testament Prophets) emphasized "moral" adherence as more important than "ritual" adherence... it must be noted that neither Jesus nor Paul condemned Jewish customs right out - neither absolutely nor categorically. In fact, both Jesus and Paul criticized Jewish custom *only when* such custom was held over and above the more important aspects of Torah.

Now, shifting gears slightly, let's talk about rituals. I love mine and you love yours, but the Galatians didn't like the Judeans' rituals, and the Reformers didn't like the Catholics' rituals. To this day, it remains common for Protestants (like me!) to rail against someone else's (or one's own former) program as "stiff", "empty", "legalistic", "performance driven", etc. All too often, people leveling such accusations take great encouragement in the example of Jesus' critiques of "the Jews" in the Gospels... but these people are getting things backwards.

Once that connection's been made, the Protesters play up those negative stereotypes of Judaism even more. The worse Jewish religion can be made to look, the better Jesus' message looks by comparison, and the stronger that contrast becomes, the more vehemently the new breakaway sect can justify their vitriol against "Religion". This sad tradition goes back at least as far as Martin Luther, whose view of those Judaizers in Galatia was unquestionably influenced by his opinions of the 16th century 'Papists' he was struggling against. Not that those Judaizers weren't bad, but they weren't selling indulgences!

We should all be more careful about what we add to our readings of scripture.

Another person whose influence I'm grateful for in this area is Amy-Jill Levine, whose wonderfully challenging book The Misunderstood Jew helped inform a great deal of this post so far. (I highly recommend you purchase a copy today.) One of A.-J.'s many helpful illustrations (p.221) comes from stanza 3 of the popular 1965 recording (yes, it's that recent) "Lord of the Dance":

I danced on the Sabbath/ And I cured the lame;
The holy people/ Said it was a shame.
They whipped and they stripped/ And they hung me on high,
And they left me there/ On a Cross to die.

Now, the songwriter, Sydney Carter, doesn't seem to have been anti-semitic, but the London company that's sold his music since the 1950's (and apparently still holds copyright) does proudly remember Sydney as a "radical", "no stranger to controversy" and one "outside the theological establishment". His 1994 obituaries confirm his WWII era pacifism, and his sympathy to the Shaker and Quaker traditions. Carter himself wrote, "By Christ I mean not only Jesus; in other times and places, other planets, there may be other Lords of the Dance. But Jesus is the one I know of first and best." Ahem!

Whatever else we might say, this was clearly a man who felt disenfranchised by the authorized programs of London's "holy people".

Now, although the lyric doesn't seem motivated by anti-semitism, and although congregations may not think consciously of "the Jews" when singing this song, many others have often insisted that the lyric still subconsciously promotes the idea that "Jews are Christ killers", which we should always denounce. To do so once more: It wasn't an entire race that crucified Jesus. It was a few powerful men, afraid that a man being proclaimed 'King' would bring Rome down upon them. Period.

My own point today is that Protestant Christians who like to demonize "Religion" should - firstly - be very careful not to demonize the New Testament's Jews, which includes nearly all the NT's chief protagonists, of course, and - secondly - become a little more thoughtful about whether Jesus and Paul were actually quite as anti-religionist as we've been told that they were.

Neither Jesus nor Paul ever condemned Jewish ritual, right out. Neither Jesus nor Paul ever critiqued "holy people" in general. Neither Jesus nor Paul was categorically against "Religion", per se.

Deal with that as you read and re-read your New Testament, and sing your hymns.

Please.

Evangelizing Believers

2011-01-29T08:10:00.002-06:00

"This story was written so that YOU may believe that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God, and so, by believing, that YOU may have life in his name."

Assuming John wrote to a mixture of believers and unbelievers, then apparently John felt believers and unbelievers alike both needed to be "evangelized". And we do. So, then, what is True Evangelism?

If Evangelism is defined as sharing Jesus with someone so that they may believe and have life... why would anyone think we're supposed to do that only for non-christians?

Personally, although I do NOT believe every christian is necessarily called to attract new believers into the fold, I most certainly DO believe every christian is automatically gifted with a spirit and voice that is able to speak His Name. And this means that if someone will just teach us how, we can all be trained to bring Life to the church by speaking HIM to one another.

There is LIFE in His Name. Why do some act like the "laity" should minister Jesus Christ only to unbelievers, and never on Sunday morning?

Sin does have an actual opposite...

2011-01-26T09:03:00.002-06:00

but it's usually called a word that we don't like to use, or to hear. At least, we don't think we like this word. (Btw, this opposite word business follows up on my last post.) Nevertheless, in English, the double negative of "don't sin" can best be replaced with the positive imperative term, "obey".

Ahem. However...

Naturally - and unfortunately, for many reasons - we haven't all felt the same graciousness from others while being called (by them) into obedience. There are no perfect parents, but it's certainly true that many children at least don't often perceive that their parents' commands and demands are coming purely from the context of love and care for that child. And of course, some parents are just horrible, aren't they? Still, 'Honor thy parents' is the first commandment with a promise. "That it may go well with you..." Hopefully, one way or another.

In the best situations, in the context of strong relationship, obedience doesn't often need to be underscored verbally. There have been people in my life (who never used that "o" word) for whom I would have run through burning buildings, at a moment's notice. And there have been people in my life whose most earnest demand couldn't get me to stand from my seat. It should be obvious to anyone else who's had both heroes and villains in life that the difference between such loyalties had little or nothing to do with vocabulary. It's always all about how much someone cares about pleasing another.

Apparently, if John 15 is any indication, Jesus waited until the end of his life to tell his closest lieutenants, "If you love me, you will obey me." The first time we read that Gospel, we at least get to wait till the end of the story to hear it. But I guarantee, the people who quote that verse to you most quickly, in starting a new relationship - they're the ones you're most likely to NOT wish to please. Oh, dear God, help us all...

Without question, "obedience" is a very good word. Or it ought to be. But I try not to use it, in general, and when I do talk about it (to anyone, including my own kids), I think the best way to speak of obedience is within the context of a loving relationship. No. The *best* way is to speak of Jesus' obedience to the Father, and that being within the context of *their* relationship. For instance...

We should know for an absolute fact that, in Nazareth, there were moments when young Jesus heard, spoke and meditated on this word, from the scriptures. But there's always more than one way to hear scriptures, such as, "I desire obedience and not sacrifice." Most of us probably hear the o word loudest in that sentence. I suspect Jesus fixed in on the "I desire" part. If we can see Jesus rightly, by looking at the Gospels, I believe it's fair to say His devotion was never to a task list. It was always to a Person.

May we all learn to be so devoted.

"Sinless Jesus" - Why so negative?

2011-01-23T14:47:00.002-06:00

A bad swimming pool lifeguard says, "Don't run!" Half the phrase is subliminally counterproductive, and the last word the kid hears reinforces what he's already doing. Instead, a good lifeguard says, "Walk!" Try both, some time. It's amazing, what a difference it makes. It also works in school and at home, with all kinds of topics.

In some discussions, however, sometimes points need to be made with a "not". It's very different to say "good" versus "not bad". And ZERO is a "non-negative" number, but not the seeming opposite of a non-negative. That is, zero is also "non-positive". Therefore, sometimes precision requires mathematicians to say "non-negative". And so forth.

Theologians appreciate precision also. Sometimes a bit too much, maybe.

Now, the following scriptures are true and I fully believe them. Paul says, "he who knew no sin". Peter says, "He committed no sin". John says, "In him is no sin". Hebrews says he was "without sin". Even Pilate said, "I find no fault in this man." And Jesus himself said, "Can any of you prove me guilty of sin?"

All true. All necessarily negative. All make a more absolute point than anything that would approach an opposite, "more positive" rendering. But all these are not all that scripture says.

A bad preacher spends an hour or so declaring how it might have been possible that Jesus "did not sin". What a horrible thing to talk about for a whole hour! There's no need for all that! There's certainly no passage of scripture that remains totally negative for even a half-page! But during such preaching, what must be the predominant thought in the audience's mind. As we listen to such a message, are we thinking about Jesus? Or are we thinking about sin? And what must we begin to imagine was on Jesus' mind all those years?

"Not sinning"? Is that how Jesus lived? He was thinking "Avoid sin"? No. That could not possibly have been his lifelong most predominant thought. So why should we speak about his whole life in such terms?

So then, here is a better alternative.

It may or may not be the precise theological equation with "not sin" to proclaim instead that Jesus loved - that Jesus loved God, and that Jesus loved others. But it's true. Jesus did. And which of these two messages is more inspiring? More encouraging? More effective? More helpful? Jesus loved. Plus, in terms of the forest being more than a few trees, the more positive message is by far the more scriptural.

Jesus loved his Father and his neighbors, daily. But how? And how do we? Ah, yes, I think that is what scares us.

Subconsciously, resisting sin is a better message to preach because it's a self-perpetuating problem and message. If we focus on sin, we'll always be resisting, and we'll always need reminders to keep right on resisting. Thus, preachers maintain job security. Thus, christendom found institutional sustainability. Thus, christianity floundered into muddling humanism.

In contrast, proclaiming the more positive message [of what Jesus' life must have been like] should rightly cause any preacher (and audience) to fall down on their faces and repent before God. We can't live like he lived. Glory! Oh, how he lived!!!

Resist sin? Yeah, he did that. But not by focusing on sin. Jesus simply cared more about God, and about pleasing God, than he cared about anything else. Or, to put that another way, He was simply the number one "fan" God has ever had.

Preachers, as often as you preach, talk about God and Jesus in a way that might make us care more about him. Don't merely make us focus more on our own behavior. If you must preach, preachers, be good preachers. Don't challenge us to resist sin. Inspire us to please him.

Be more positive, about God. Make us bigger fans of Him. Please.

It might even... possibly... perhaps often... make us less sinful. But you know that's NOT my point. ;-)

Did Peter follow John the Baptist?

2011-01-22T21:35:00.001-06:00

Probably not. At least, not for long. In fact, if Peter stayed in John's company at all, I think the Gospels give us plenty of reasons to doubt that it could have been much more than a week or two. In the simplest terms, here's why:

We know Peter & Andrew shared a home. We don't know if other adult males were involved in that household, but we do know somebody had to provide food for a large family there. And Andrew is the one who appears to have been with the Baptizer for some time. But let's hold on comparing the brothers for just a moment.

More generally, the Gospels give us a broadly consistent view of Peter that suggests he was far more likely to be found fishing than to be long-suffering in prayer. But, and this goes especially more to the point, apart from miraculous catches of fish (or wealthy women providing for peoples' needs), we just don't see Peter leaving his family to travel with Jesus. At least, not for very long stretches.

First, upon leaving Jesus in Samaria, Peter had only been gone for some weeks. Lastly, upon leaving his post-Easter devotionals in the [surely] 'presence-practicing' upper room, it had been at least eight and some days after Easter. By that point, the days of unleavened bread were gone, meaning Peter left Jerusalem not too long after it became non-conspicuous for him to be doing so. In other words, he didn't over-linger. Sure Jesus' Spirit was in them, but hey! People still had to eat.

At another point, this also happened: IF the Gospel narrative sections from Mark 1:16-38 and Luke 4:31-5:11 are both chronologically sequenced, and if they can be 'harmonized', so to speak, then it appears Peter here refused a one-on-one invitation to travel with Jesus again. To explain this point in more detail, putting Mark's v.36-39 into Luke 4:42-44 adds specific color to Peter's "sinful man" confession. It also helps explain why Jesus needed to pull up all those fish. Simon's chief concern? Hey! He might be the Messiah, but people still had to eat.

But now let's get back to that household, which was probably in Capernaum, even though Peter may himself have originally been from Bethsaida. But that's all by the by.

The question at hand is - Did Peter follow John the Baptist? And I say the answer to that is quite simple. If Peter left home, who else would provide for that household? The fact that Peter's mother-in-law lived there, as did Peter's wife (assuming the MIL's daughter is the same wife Peter took to Corinth, twenty-something years later) - that, combined with his staunch work ethic, as detailed above - makes Peter the most likely candidate to be acting head of the family home. And that means, Peter likely did not leave them for long stretches, if at all.

To be fair, we don't know that Andrew wasn't married. Maybe he was. For all we know, Peter and Andrew could even have taken shifts following John. But I don't think they did.

What I do think is this. If we conclude from the Gospels that Andrew had been John's disciple at some length, then we should NOT take the family connection as support for a view that Peter probably was also. If anything, the family connection makes it most likely that if Andrew had left home for a long time to follow the Baptizer... then Peter had not.