First of all, forget harmonizing the entire text. I'm talking about reconstructing the Gospels' events into historical sequence. Succinctly, here's how that can be reasonably done.
If we posit two Nazareth homecomings and two fishermen callings, the sequence of major events in Mark and Luke suddenly finds complete harmony, even if minor details continue to diverge. Matthew's sequence differs only between chapters 5 and 13. After John the Baptist's beheading, Matthew's narrative sequence shows no contradictions with Mark and Luke. If we also posit two Temple cleansings, the sequence in John's Gospel also blends perfectly with the rest. (**There are other ways around this little problem, but for time's sake, at the moment, we begin by simply assuming those three points.** Update: see my response to Tim's question in the comments.**) So stipulated, we begin.
The first event to harmonize is Jesus feeding the 5,000. This dates JTB's beheading to the middle Passover of John's Gospel. The first Passover of John's Gospel comes just before JTB's arrest. Jesus left Judea when he heard about that arrest, and that the Pharisees were now more concerned about Jesus than about John. This brings us to a critical point of consideration.
Herod Antipas probably captured the Baptist somewhere in the Transjordan region, which Antipas controlled. Why, then, did Jesus leave JUDEA when he heard about this arrest? The only possible danger for Jesus was if he suspected the Sanhedrin might begin to consider arresting him for extradition to Galilee. At this point, it seems, the Pharisees just wanted Jesus to go back to 'Hicksville'. Wisely, he obliged their desire before they could hatch any plans.
For all of John's imprisonment, Jesus stays in Galilee (except briefly, in Jn.5). After Herod Antipas notices Jesus, the Lord withdraws from Galilee repeatedly, slipping into every neighboring country at some point except in the direction of Judea. After some period of these 'withdrawals' had passed, Jesus made plans to go back south. What had changed? The Pharisees would still want to extradite Jesus back to Antipas, and now the Tetrarch was actually looking for him! Why was it suddenly safe?
Sejanus must have died. Antipas must have had some kind of agreement with Sejanus for the Tetrarch to divorce his Arabian wife, effectively ending the treaty with King Aretas and jeopardizing peace in the region while Tiberius entered his 70's. Herod Antipas would not have risked everything for Herodias, unless he really did have a deal with Sejanus. So the caution Antipas [and Pilate also] displayed at Jesus' trial really must have been because of the climate in Rome. Heads of Sejanus' old allies were still rolling with the slightest provocation.
The point at the moment is that Antipas' caution did not begin at Jesus' trial in early 33. Antipas' caution began at Sejanus' death in late 31. Therefore, if the period of Jesus' withdrawals reflects a time after John's death when Judea was still unsafe to enter, then John must have died before Passover of 31. That makes the second 'half' of Jesus' ministry two years long. The missing Passover of 32 is most likely locatable around the time of the Temple Tax (Matthew's coin in-the-fish episode).
Incidentally, Jesus' visit to Tabernacles and Hanukkah could arguably go in 32 because that was after Sejanus had died, but 31 is not impossible, because Tiberius spread rumors all year long in 31 that Sejanus' life could be in danger. If Antipas got wind of what was coming, the Father - yes, we're getting spiritual now - could have told Jesus it was safe. That is a valid spiritual-historical consideration, especially if we take the word "sent" in its most immediate sense (Jn. 8:16, 18, 26, 29, 42; in contrast, Jn.10:36, "sent into the world", reads very differently.) The dubious level of safety could partly explain why the disciples do not join Jesus on this trip. However, it remains less than perfectly clear at the moment whether John 7-10 could belong in 31 or 32. The earlier date fits better with the overall structure of events and even with the development of Jesus' public discourse, but it requires Jesus to have special confidence that he would remain safe. However, this does fall several months into his period of withdrawals, and on the balance of all considerations the timing does seem to work. Cautiously, then, we should prefer 31 for these two months in Judea.
The last major question is whether John's imprisonment lasted the better part of one year, or two. The sabbath grain plucking incident occurs well in the middle of John's imprisonment in all three Synoptic Gospels. The fact that grain was ripe points to another missing Passover. Therefore, the first Passover mentioned in John's Gospel belongs in 29 AD, and the sabbath grain plucking must have occurred in 30. (Incidentally, the "harvest" Jesus mentioned in Samaria must have been the fall harvest. His reference to "white fields" was merely a mixed metaphor - not so uncommon for him, really!)
We now see a total of five Passovers - 29, 30, 31, 32 and 33 AD. Jesus' ministry in-between those Passovers was four years long. John was in prison for most of the first two years, and Sejanus died in the third autumn. This completely aligns most of the historical landscape for Gospel events. The rest falls into place very quickly.
One other incidental issue, first, is to consider that the death of the Empress Livia in 29 (most likely late winter in early 29) could have called Herod Antipas out of the country to pay his respects in Rome (and most likely also to firm up his relations, whatever they were, with Sejanus, because Livia's death was the start of the Prefect's big power play, and that fact was apparently obvious to everyone but Tiberius at the time). In any event, if Antipas did leave for Rome in 29 it would explain perfectly why Jesus gained fame all over Palestine without Herod noticing, and why the Pharisees went "to the Herodians" in Mark 3:6 instead of "to Herod". (That Antipas was in Rome has been suggested before, but considered implausible because there was no cause for the trip in 30 AD, in Hoehner's chronology.)
Our final task here is to work backwards from the first Passover. We need to account for at least 40 days after the Lord's baptism, plus some recovery time after such an ordeal, plus even more. There had to be some travel time - another trip to and from Transjordan and then to Cana and Capernaum - all before the Passover of 29 AD.
Regarding John's ministry, Luke tells us that "all the people were baptized" before Jesus came to be baptized. Of course we assume Luke means all the ones who-were-going-to-be-baptized, and obviously not every solitary soul in the land, but his phrase still suggests that everyone in Israel had a chance to hear about John that year, and to go to him. Because the 15th year of Tiberius can plausibly refer to all of 28 AD (by more than one method of reckoning, and we must admit we have no way to know which method Luke 'should' have preferred), it seems likely that John preached and baptized through all three festival seasons of that year.
Altogether, this means Jesus most likely came to be baptized around the turn of October in 28 AD. His wilderness trial filled out the rest of 28, leaving three months for recovery, recruiting, moving his family to Capernaum, and final personal preparation before his first public Passover, at which he essentially declared himself the Messiah by cleansing the Temple.
That concludes the entire skeleton of what I contend must be the one, most likely, most plausible reconstruction of the Gospels' events, in chronological order and with full historical context.
================================
Event Synopsis/Timeline:
28 AD - In the fifteenth year of Tiberius' rule, John the Baptist begins his ministry in the wilderness. John baptizes all spring and summer, preparing the way for Jesus. In Autumn, Jesus comes to be baptized. He is 33 years old. (Luke says "about" 30.) Jesus spends the first half of winter alone, fasting and being temped in the wilderness.
29 AD - Jesus recovers from his testing at home in Nazareth. John begins baptizing again in early Spring. Jesus’ disciples begin to follow him. Passover: Jesus visits Jerusalem and clears the temple. Herod Antipas divorces his Nabatean wife (the daughter of King Aretes). John the Baptist is imprisoned by Herod for criticizing the divorce. Herod (possibly) sails for Rome after hearing of Livia's death. Jesus and his disciples flee Judea after John's arrest. Briefly, they visit Samaria on their way back to Galilee. Peter and Jesus' disciples go back to normal life after their trip, as anyone would. Jesus calls the fishermen the first time and invites Peter to go to other towns, but Peter stays in Bethsaida. Jesus travels alone the rest of the year, and rests for some time during winter.
30 AD - Spring: Jesus calls the fishermen the second time and they begin follow him. Jesus calls Matthew. The disciples pick grain on a sabbath. Jesus officially selects his twelve apostles, some weeks before Passover. They travel all over Galilee together, living on fishing profits and free heads of grain. Jesus' fame spreads far and wide. Soon, a few wealthy women begin to travel with the group, providing for their needs financially. Jesus stays in Galilee all year - he does not go down to Judea. Before autumn, Jesus takes his disciples along on his second Nazareth homecoming. As the fall harvest approaches, Jesus sends his disciples out in pairs to many cities. Herod Antipas (possibly) sails back from Rome by October. Again, Jesus appears to be less active during the winter. He is probably resting.
31 AD - Herod Antipas has John the Baptist beheaded sometime before Passover. Shortly after, Herod realizes the reports he's been catching up on are about Jesus, not old news about John. Herd begins trying to see Jesus. Jesus' disciples, having traveled through the winter, find Jesus in some town (Tiberias or Capernaum?) just before Passover. Jesus feeds the 5,000. The people in Judea hail John as a martyr, and condemn Herod for his death. In Autumn, Jesus finally visits Jerusalem again, and stays through December. In October, Sejanus is finally killed, in Rome. This news is confirmed in all Palestine some weeks later. Antipas and Pilate begin ruling with additional caution. Jesus remains safe in Judea for two months, from mid-October to mid-December. He does not seem to rest much this particular winter.
32 AD - Jesus travels up towards Syria, near Tyre and Sidon. On their journey, Jesus begins preparing his disciples for his death. Peter confesses that Jesus is the Messiah. Jesus is transfigured on a mountain with Moses and Elijah. Around Passover time, Peter obligates Jesus to paying the Temple-Tax. After Passover, Jesus leaves Galilee and begins a year-long tour around Judea. They visit at least 35 cities all over Judea. Jesus repeats teachings in Judea which he'd been giving in Galilee since two and three years ago. Jesus and his disciples find a second home in Bethany, with their friends Lazarus, Martha and Mary. Three things prevent the Jews from laying hands on Jesus all year long: He keeps avoiding Jerusalem, the people are still upset about John's martyrdom, and Herod Antipas refuses to allow extradition. Because of the current political climate, Antipas cannot risk causing more unrest in his kingdom/tetrarchy.
33 AD - Jesus has become so popular the Jews have no choice but to plot against him. At what is only the second Jerusalem Passover of his five Passovers in public activity, Jesus cleanses the Temple again. The Pharisees and Herodians try to trap him with a coin, but the Sadducees finally have to strong arm Pontius Pilate into using Rome's garrison to arrest Jesus. Jesus is tried, crucified, buried and ascends. Then he appears to the disciples and gives them the Holy Spirit... and THAT is only the beginning of the next chapter in Jesus' Story!
Bill Heroman, Amateur Academic
Showing posts with label Peter. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Peter. Show all posts
November 12, 2009
November 11, 2009
Pauline Chronology
As of now, this is merely a rough sketch of where the most important key points in Pauline Chronology happen to lie. Someday I'll start writing this all out more appropriately, with supporting research and more sequential arguments. Until then, feel free to have a go at researching and publishing on this arrangement yourself. Just be sure to mention my name. :-)
The three points that will chiefly distinguish this chronology are as follows:
As a package, these points comprise my original contribution to the field of Pauline Chronology, which is simply a new set of boundaries for all other considerations. Based on solid historical judgments, those boundaries happen to be very tight. This is fortunate. The overarching framework of arguments and possibilities, of course, we all owe to many, many scholars and researchers who have gone before. Therefore, beyond the above points, all other evidence should be well established and easily locatable in standard reference manuals.
Note: In the rough sketch that now follows, many points are referred to ahead of time, and again after the fact. To anyone who has studied these issues, the overall argument should (hopefully) come across best if you read straight through this post, without skipping around at first.
========================================
Conversion - early 34 AD - No Roman Emperor ever "gave" Damascus to Nabatea but King Aretas sent the Ethnarch to get Paul at a time when Aretas was still active north of his own territory, which must have been before Tiberius died. It could not have been after. Among other reasons, we know this because the prefect Macro (successor to Sejanus) was essentially running the empire all year long in 37 AD, so Caligula was highly unlikely to reverse policy on Nabatea after Herod Antipas' letter. For more details, see here.
Antioch's relief commission - 44 AD - Because they could not have sent hundreds of ox carts with grain from the coast, especially in the middle of a famine, the church in Antioch must have sent Paul and Barnabas with money. That money was no good unless it came early enough that the church in Jerusalem could begin surreptitiously building a stockpile. (Even if they were going to give it away, the food bank had to built up in secret. Otherwise, what was the point?) Therefore, Paul and Barnabas did not wait until the famine itself (46/47 AD) and therefore Acts 11:30 and 12:25 cannot be extracted from Acts 12. If we leave Acts 12 just as it is written, then the relief visit happens in 44 AD and thus Galatians 2 cannot apply to an inclusive 14 year difference between Paul's conversion and this visit. Therefore, Galatians 2 most likely refers to the Council of Acts 15, despite those who still attempt to suppose an additional visit before the Council. For more on famine relief logistics, see here.
[***UPDATE (7/31/10): If Agrippa died in March of 44, as holds the consensus, then the relief delivery and that traumatic Passover in which Luke sets it, both, belong to 43 AD. Since Galatians 2 cannot refer to any year that's actually before the famine, anyway, this update is a moot point chronologically speaking, as far as affecting the rest of this timeline. Update 2: Red color added to text in paragraph above. For more, see this post. ***]
Galatians - 50 AD - Writen to the four South Galatian churches of Acts; before the Epistle of James, but after the council; it was carried by Titus & Luke, who visited all four churches and went on to wait for Paul at Troas (the one city everyone knew how to find, in West Asia Minor); that Titus' circumcision *was even an issue* and *could have been* "compelled" strongly suggests that this visit was part of the council occasion and virtually confirms that Galatians 2 refers to Acts 15. Further, the fact that Paul expects the Galatians to know who Titus is most likely means Titus himself was the letter carrier. As a witness to the events in Jerusalem, Titus was the perfect one to send, and he could easily have been holding Jerusalem's letter in reserve, as additional support for Paul's position. Thus, Paul had no need to mention the shorter letter because Titus was probably carrying it also - presumably on loan from missionally-minded Antioch. (For even more on Galatians and the Council, see here, here, here, and (again) here.)
1st & 2nd Thessalonians - 51 AD - standard view easily dated by Gallio's time in Corinth. We should note here, for later, that Timothy seems to have trouble sticking with his assignment, and keeps running to Paul for assistance. He's going to do this again, 6 years later, in Ephesus.
Departure from Corinth - 52 AD - Paul must have talked with Peter in Jerusalem, about Corinth, somewhere in the middle or the end of sailing season in 52. At least, that is necessary in order for Peter to have sailed to Corinth here in 53 and caused so much trouble (53/54) in unfortunate preparation for a summer of letters going back and forth between Corinth and Paul, in 54. (On which date, see note at top, and see below.) Incidentally, many of the controversies that arose in Corinth around the time of Peter's visit bear striking parallels to the letter of Jerusalem, which suggests Paul had not shown it to Corinth, but that Peter had. Controversies over tongues and healing are also, most likely, symptomatic of Peter's visit.
Epistle of James - c.52 or 51 AD - Paul's visit to Jerusalem in 52 also means James' letter had probably been written by 52, because there is no chance James and Paul did not see each other during this visit, and that makes this the first chance they had to sit down and iron out their perceived differences [over things they didn't really disagree about, except perhaps semantically]. Circumcision was not argued in James' Epistle, and we have no record that James ever heard Paul say the things written in Galatians, before Galatians was written. James must have been responding, in part, to things Paul wrote in his first letter. (Church Councils are not magic cure-alls. They just aren't.)
1st Corinthians - 54 AD, before October - This is an especially critical point for aligning the rest of Paul's dates, and it is based on the fact that Paul talks about travel plans but does not include Rome. The Jews weren't allowed back in until Claudius died, and Paul's trip to Illyricum (Western Provincia Macedonia) must have been planned as part of preparations for going to Rome. Ephesus is also when Paul began speaking of Rome, according to Acts. Further, this letter must be 54, and could not be 53 because Claudius' death also best explains what interrupts Paul's stated plans to sail after Pentecost (which generally assured safe sailing weather; by the way, Paul's also had all of his first three shipwrecks by now).
2nd Corinthians - 56 AD, around November - Aristarchus, Secundus and Sopater evidently knew how to get through the Greek hinterland (Acts 20:4a). This letter mentions Macedonians currently visiting Corinth and Paul sounds as if he is following them there shortly. This must be at the end of Paul's Macedonian trip, for two reasons. First, the trip to the Adriatic and back (Acts 20:1-2 & Romans 15:19) must have taken over a year, and second, Timothy must have intercepted Paul in Thessalonica on Paul's way back from Dyrrachium, before Paul headed to Corinth. Timothy, of course, had been struggling in Ephesus since Paul left him there to go into Macedonia, and must have spent the winter of 54/55 building up enough angst & frustration to make Timothy, desperately, flee Ephesus to go seek out Paul's help (just as Timothy had done at least twice before, in Thessalonica). All of this means 2nd Corinthians cannot have been written until after Paul's trip to Illyricum, probably only a month or two before Paul himself returned to Achaia. Timothy simply had to leave Ephesus in time to be in Macedonia with Paul, in time to co-sign this epistle. (See also discussion on 1st Timothy, below.)
Romans - 57 AD - the turnover from Felix to Festus in 59 (not 60) is made necessary here by one of our three key starting points (at top) - that Paul was most likely executed in connection with the great fire of Rome. Again, confirming this point removes the need for those often but ill-conceived (and certainly purely contrived) later itineraries of Paul, Timothy and Titus. In fact, scholarship through the ages has generally considered Paul's death in 64 to be the first and most likely option. The only real obstacle to this has been an over-rigidity of interpreting Titus 1:5, as if Paul himself shared the work of the Cretan mission. (On this point, see above and below.)
1st Timothy - 57 AD - handed off in person, in Troas, giving Timothy one week to appoint the Ephesian Elders Paul met at Miletus. This most natural conclusion has been frequently put off without justifiable cause, and only requires 2nd Corinthians to be written in late 56 AD. (Look again at the discussion of Illyricum, Timothy and 2nd Corinthians, above.) On the need to explain who qualified as elders, Paul had only now formed his own personal stance on the issue of how to appoint/recognize them, since his separation from Barnabas. Timothy had not seen Gentile Christian Elders since the Judaizers so easily overcame the "elders" appointed mainly by Barnabas, in Galatia. (For more on this point, see here.)
Philemon, Colossians, Ephesians, Philippians - 60 to 62 AD - The turnover from Felix to Festus in 59 puts Paul's arrival in Rome in early 60 and his release at 62. Somewhere during this imprisonment, these four "Prison Epistles" went out in two waves. Tychicus took the first three to cities near Ephesus because Colosse's own Epaphras came down with a serious illness. Then Epaphras (Epaphroditus) took Paul's thank you letter back to his new friends in Philippi. Most of this affects nothing else in Pauline Chronology, of course, but we note that after 11-ish years, Philippi now has elders. They were most likely appointed by Paul at his last visit, when Luke left, just while Paul was composing 1st Timothy, on his way to Troas.
Titus - 62 AD - This letter was probably written from Illyricum, which strongly suggests that Paul must have planted a church in Dyrrachium in 55/56, as a sort of a rest stop/half-way point for those from the churches who were heading to Rome after Claudius' death. (Again, see discussion on 2nd Corinthians above.) In any event, the cheapest and most efficient itinerary from Rome to Nicopolis was taking the Appian Way to one of the ferries at Brindisi (Brundisium) that sailed directly over to Dyrrachium. From there, the road south leads to Nicopolis. Later on, Titus winds up north of Dyrrachium, heading to Dalmatia. (A church in Dyrrachium is also attested by inscription, cited by the Jesuit scholar Farlati centuries ago - on which, look up Edwin E. Jacques.) Finally, a church in Dyrrachium could also explain where Erastus spent all his time after Acts 19:22, before heading to Corinth (2.Tim 4:20).
T.2. Titus, we presume, had remained on Crete since Paul left him there, at Fair Havens. The only question is, where had Titus been before? Obviously, considering this involves some conjecture, but it is probably necessary if we stick to the natural conclusion that Paul died in 64 AD. Besides, in what follows, only the details require conjecture, which is far more reasonable than inventing four years worth of additional travels.
T.3. We know Paul was at Crete at least once and we know Luke avoids mentioning Titus at least once. Putting these two points together with Titus 1:5 suggests Titus was present at Fair Havens. He must therefore have been part of Paul's sailing party, and he must have abandoned that party - probably because Paul knew from experience that their odds of shipwreck were high, and so one of them had to survive so the churches could know what had happened in case Paul really did die at sea. Besides that, Titus had been on Crete recently, after which he must have visited Caesarea and gotten on board with Luke and Aristarchus.
T.4. Now, if Luke intended Acts at least partly as a defense of Paul for his trial at Rome, and if Paul's three companions were also somehow under the centurion's special jurisdiction (perhaps as witnesses being shipped in at state's expense?) then Titus disappearing at Fair Havens could also explain why Luke deleted Titus from the record. Since only citizens or their slaves were allowed to testify in Rome, Paul (seriously) could simply have 'enslaved' his three friends (a loophole that Roman Law could not have anticipated!) planning to 'free' them later.
T.5. In any event, we know Paul was at Fair Havens and we know Luke avoids mentioning Titus. Somehow or another, Titus must have been at Fair Havens, at which point Paul told him to continue the work which he (Titus only, not Titus with Paul) had already begun. Paul also told Titus to appoint elders in every church before he left the island. This point evidently failed to get through to Titus, probably because the church in Antioch made crisis-level decisions without elders (Acts 15:2). Therefore, Paul had to explain to Titus what elders were because (like Timothy from 50 to 57 AD) Titus had never been part of a church that had elders. (As mentioned above, for more on Paul's evolving opinions about elders, see this post.)
T.6. It should be clear now what I meant that only the details require conjecture. The bottom line on dating Titus should be, in my humble opinion, that IF Paul died under Nero in 64 AD (which has always been the most natural conclusion to draw from Tacitus' report on the great fire and from Paul's second letter to Timothy) then Titus must have been at Fair Havens. It's the only time we know for certain that Paul was there, and educated guesswork to get Titus there with Paul is far more reasonable than inventing entirely new travels for both of them.
T.7. Note well: The only necessary conclusions on this point are that Titus was with Paul at Fair Havens, had previously begun the mission there without Paul's assistance, nevertheless received instructions from Paul at Fair Havens (about how to finish what Titus had begun), and remained on Crete when Paul sailed away. For all we know, Titus could have just wandered onto the beach at the right time, simply by divine providence - but of course, this is not my argument. This is only to make clear that all suppositional details in the previous paragraphs were included merely to show at least one very plausible scenario which might have occurred. Most of Titus' itinerary will simply have to remain a mystery, but again (for the last time) this is far better than inventing four years worth of additional travels.
2nd Timothy - early 64 AD - before the fire, and with enough time for Timothy to receive the letter and still have a chance to reach Rome "before winter". Tacitus' account of events in this year are a much more convincing explanation for the tradition that Paul was considered worthy of execution.
Spain - N/A - Paul's plans didn't always materialize. The trick is to realize, there is no Spain. ;-)
========================================
There you go. That's Pauline Chronology in a nutshell, according to me. Someday, of course, I really must write this up properly, supporting these dates and arguments to the strongest extent possible. Until then - or if I never get around to it - this is pretty much the basics of everything I've got to say on the subject.
If anyone wants to start working on this before I get to it, please feel free. I've got enough else to do for the next several years writing up everything that goes from 9 BC until 37 AD. I don't mind sharing at all.
Personal Observations: A lot of the difficulties that get ironed out in this treatment happen to reveal, I believe, strong institutional/religious biases in previous faith-based scholarship on Pauline Chronology. I deeply wish I didn't have to bring it up, but it really does need to be noticed. Certain aspects of the traditional, ecclesiastical dogmas about the Jerusalem Council and the lateness of the so-called "Pastoral Epistles" seem to be partly responsible for what has kept Pauline Chronology in dispute for so long. If all three "Pastorals" get to occupy an extra four years of vague, non-contextual space-time, then Titus and Timothy look more like permanent local preachers. This may seem shocking, but it must be considered.
Since my own past experience and outspoken preference for house churches is well known, I must admit this sequence could alter (or cleanse) our view of Pauline ecclesiology somewhat. That may be debatable but Paul's ecclesiology does not have to be ours, at any rate. No christian assembly that I know of is currently following Paul's pattern precisely. Besides this, the "Descriptive/Prescriptive" argument is a much more impenetrable defense than pre-emptive gerrymandering of dates (whether or not that is even partly what has been going on).
In any event, the historian's (or exegete's) job is to judge based on facts in evidence, and not to consider potential relevance of any conclusions beforehand. Given the evidence (as laid out above) I would contend that Pauline Chronology seems to have been unfairly beset by institutional biases, although much of it is undoubtedly subconscious. Of course, if it is fully aware, such cheating simply must come to an end.
I would also contend - and here is why this all had to be said - that this mostly explains why no one has solved Pauline Chronology more efficiently or sufficiently than this, before now, and why I myself (an untrained, if unashamed amateur) managed to happen upon it. In any case, if I've put together the argument I think I have, it deserves to be looked at. And no matter who looks here, none of us should allow ourselves to manipulate the data to support our church government practices. Pauline ecclesiology was primitive.
It is a simple historical fact that nobody in the New Testament performed the job duties of a medieval priest or a protestant "pastor". That's really not a big deal, unless we feel the need to pretend otherwise. It's really not even a problem, unless we let tradition or dogma inhibit us from viewing the full context of Paul's letters, as they properly ought to be viewed.
I've been going over this and over this for five years, and unless I'm missing something very significant, I believe I can make the following statement with all confidence.
This really must be the most likely solution to Pauline Chronology, period.
Your comments, questions and challenges are warmly invited, as long as this post remains online.
The three points that will chiefly distinguish this chronology are as follows:
Antioch's relief gift had to be money (not grain) and so had to be earlyFixing those three points amidst all the other significant data requires essentially one specific alignment of all other major events. Furthermore, this process compels us to make only one creative decision - to put Titus at Fair Havens with Paul, thereby concluding Paul had no part in Titus' earlier mission on Crete. To be sure, this offers a reading of Titus 1:5 which is far more economical and less speculative, historically, than all other suggested reconstructions for Titus' travels.
Paul's plans changed to include Rome when the Emperor Claudius died
The best place to put Paul's execution is after the great fire of Rome
As a package, these points comprise my original contribution to the field of Pauline Chronology, which is simply a new set of boundaries for all other considerations. Based on solid historical judgments, those boundaries happen to be very tight. This is fortunate. The overarching framework of arguments and possibilities, of course, we all owe to many, many scholars and researchers who have gone before. Therefore, beyond the above points, all other evidence should be well established and easily locatable in standard reference manuals.
Note: In the rough sketch that now follows, many points are referred to ahead of time, and again after the fact. To anyone who has studied these issues, the overall argument should (hopefully) come across best if you read straight through this post, without skipping around at first.
========================================
Conversion - early 34 AD - No Roman Emperor ever "gave" Damascus to Nabatea but King Aretas sent the Ethnarch to get Paul at a time when Aretas was still active north of his own territory, which must have been before Tiberius died. It could not have been after. Among other reasons, we know this because the prefect Macro (successor to Sejanus) was essentially running the empire all year long in 37 AD, so Caligula was highly unlikely to reverse policy on Nabatea after Herod Antipas' letter. For more details, see here.
Antioch's relief commission - 44 AD - Because they could not have sent hundreds of ox carts with grain from the coast, especially in the middle of a famine, the church in Antioch must have sent Paul and Barnabas with money. That money was no good unless it came early enough that the church in Jerusalem could begin surreptitiously building a stockpile. (Even if they were going to give it away, the food bank had to built up in secret. Otherwise, what was the point?) Therefore, Paul and Barnabas did not wait until the famine itself (46/47 AD) and therefore Acts 11:30 and 12:25 cannot be extracted from Acts 12. If we leave Acts 12 just as it is written, then the relief visit happens in 44 AD and thus Galatians 2 cannot apply to an inclusive 14 year difference between Paul's conversion and this visit. Therefore, Galatians 2 most likely refers to the Council of Acts 15, despite those who still attempt to suppose an additional visit before the Council. For more on famine relief logistics, see here.
[***UPDATE (7/31/10): If Agrippa died in March of 44, as holds the consensus, then the relief delivery and that traumatic Passover in which Luke sets it, both, belong to 43 AD. Since Galatians 2 cannot refer to any year that's actually before the famine, anyway, this update is a moot point chronologically speaking, as far as affecting the rest of this timeline. Update 2: Red color added to text in paragraph above. For more, see this post. ***]
Galatians - 50 AD - Writen to the four South Galatian churches of Acts; before the Epistle of James, but after the council; it was carried by Titus & Luke, who visited all four churches and went on to wait for Paul at Troas (the one city everyone knew how to find, in West Asia Minor); that Titus' circumcision *was even an issue* and *could have been* "compelled" strongly suggests that this visit was part of the council occasion and virtually confirms that Galatians 2 refers to Acts 15. Further, the fact that Paul expects the Galatians to know who Titus is most likely means Titus himself was the letter carrier. As a witness to the events in Jerusalem, Titus was the perfect one to send, and he could easily have been holding Jerusalem's letter in reserve, as additional support for Paul's position. Thus, Paul had no need to mention the shorter letter because Titus was probably carrying it also - presumably on loan from missionally-minded Antioch. (For even more on Galatians and the Council, see here, here, here, and (again) here.)
1st & 2nd Thessalonians - 51 AD - standard view easily dated by Gallio's time in Corinth. We should note here, for later, that Timothy seems to have trouble sticking with his assignment, and keeps running to Paul for assistance. He's going to do this again, 6 years later, in Ephesus.
Departure from Corinth - 52 AD - Paul must have talked with Peter in Jerusalem, about Corinth, somewhere in the middle or the end of sailing season in 52. At least, that is necessary in order for Peter to have sailed to Corinth here in 53 and caused so much trouble (53/54) in unfortunate preparation for a summer of letters going back and forth between Corinth and Paul, in 54. (On which date, see note at top, and see below.) Incidentally, many of the controversies that arose in Corinth around the time of Peter's visit bear striking parallels to the letter of Jerusalem, which suggests Paul had not shown it to Corinth, but that Peter had. Controversies over tongues and healing are also, most likely, symptomatic of Peter's visit.
Epistle of James - c.52 or 51 AD - Paul's visit to Jerusalem in 52 also means James' letter had probably been written by 52, because there is no chance James and Paul did not see each other during this visit, and that makes this the first chance they had to sit down and iron out their perceived differences [over things they didn't really disagree about, except perhaps semantically]. Circumcision was not argued in James' Epistle, and we have no record that James ever heard Paul say the things written in Galatians, before Galatians was written. James must have been responding, in part, to things Paul wrote in his first letter. (Church Councils are not magic cure-alls. They just aren't.)
1st Corinthians - 54 AD, before October - This is an especially critical point for aligning the rest of Paul's dates, and it is based on the fact that Paul talks about travel plans but does not include Rome. The Jews weren't allowed back in until Claudius died, and Paul's trip to Illyricum (Western Provincia Macedonia) must have been planned as part of preparations for going to Rome. Ephesus is also when Paul began speaking of Rome, according to Acts. Further, this letter must be 54, and could not be 53 because Claudius' death also best explains what interrupts Paul's stated plans to sail after Pentecost (which generally assured safe sailing weather; by the way, Paul's also had all of his first three shipwrecks by now).
2nd Corinthians - 56 AD, around November - Aristarchus, Secundus and Sopater evidently knew how to get through the Greek hinterland (Acts 20:4a). This letter mentions Macedonians currently visiting Corinth and Paul sounds as if he is following them there shortly. This must be at the end of Paul's Macedonian trip, for two reasons. First, the trip to the Adriatic and back (Acts 20:1-2 & Romans 15:19) must have taken over a year, and second, Timothy must have intercepted Paul in Thessalonica on Paul's way back from Dyrrachium, before Paul headed to Corinth. Timothy, of course, had been struggling in Ephesus since Paul left him there to go into Macedonia, and must have spent the winter of 54/55 building up enough angst & frustration to make Timothy, desperately, flee Ephesus to go seek out Paul's help (just as Timothy had done at least twice before, in Thessalonica). All of this means 2nd Corinthians cannot have been written until after Paul's trip to Illyricum, probably only a month or two before Paul himself returned to Achaia. Timothy simply had to leave Ephesus in time to be in Macedonia with Paul, in time to co-sign this epistle. (See also discussion on 1st Timothy, below.)
Romans - 57 AD - the turnover from Felix to Festus in 59 (not 60) is made necessary here by one of our three key starting points (at top) - that Paul was most likely executed in connection with the great fire of Rome. Again, confirming this point removes the need for those often but ill-conceived (and certainly purely contrived) later itineraries of Paul, Timothy and Titus. In fact, scholarship through the ages has generally considered Paul's death in 64 to be the first and most likely option. The only real obstacle to this has been an over-rigidity of interpreting Titus 1:5, as if Paul himself shared the work of the Cretan mission. (On this point, see above and below.)
1st Timothy - 57 AD - handed off in person, in Troas, giving Timothy one week to appoint the Ephesian Elders Paul met at Miletus. This most natural conclusion has been frequently put off without justifiable cause, and only requires 2nd Corinthians to be written in late 56 AD. (Look again at the discussion of Illyricum, Timothy and 2nd Corinthians, above.) On the need to explain who qualified as elders, Paul had only now formed his own personal stance on the issue of how to appoint/recognize them, since his separation from Barnabas. Timothy had not seen Gentile Christian Elders since the Judaizers so easily overcame the "elders" appointed mainly by Barnabas, in Galatia. (For more on this point, see here.)
Philemon, Colossians, Ephesians, Philippians - 60 to 62 AD - The turnover from Felix to Festus in 59 puts Paul's arrival in Rome in early 60 and his release at 62. Somewhere during this imprisonment, these four "Prison Epistles" went out in two waves. Tychicus took the first three to cities near Ephesus because Colosse's own Epaphras came down with a serious illness. Then Epaphras (Epaphroditus) took Paul's thank you letter back to his new friends in Philippi. Most of this affects nothing else in Pauline Chronology, of course, but we note that after 11-ish years, Philippi now has elders. They were most likely appointed by Paul at his last visit, when Luke left, just while Paul was composing 1st Timothy, on his way to Troas.
Titus - 62 AD - This letter was probably written from Illyricum, which strongly suggests that Paul must have planted a church in Dyrrachium in 55/56, as a sort of a rest stop/half-way point for those from the churches who were heading to Rome after Claudius' death. (Again, see discussion on 2nd Corinthians above.) In any event, the cheapest and most efficient itinerary from Rome to Nicopolis was taking the Appian Way to one of the ferries at Brindisi (Brundisium) that sailed directly over to Dyrrachium. From there, the road south leads to Nicopolis. Later on, Titus winds up north of Dyrrachium, heading to Dalmatia. (A church in Dyrrachium is also attested by inscription, cited by the Jesuit scholar Farlati centuries ago - on which, look up Edwin E. Jacques.) Finally, a church in Dyrrachium could also explain where Erastus spent all his time after Acts 19:22, before heading to Corinth (2.Tim 4:20).
T.2. Titus, we presume, had remained on Crete since Paul left him there, at Fair Havens. The only question is, where had Titus been before? Obviously, considering this involves some conjecture, but it is probably necessary if we stick to the natural conclusion that Paul died in 64 AD. Besides, in what follows, only the details require conjecture, which is far more reasonable than inventing four years worth of additional travels.
T.3. We know Paul was at Crete at least once and we know Luke avoids mentioning Titus at least once. Putting these two points together with Titus 1:5 suggests Titus was present at Fair Havens. He must therefore have been part of Paul's sailing party, and he must have abandoned that party - probably because Paul knew from experience that their odds of shipwreck were high, and so one of them had to survive so the churches could know what had happened in case Paul really did die at sea. Besides that, Titus had been on Crete recently, after which he must have visited Caesarea and gotten on board with Luke and Aristarchus.
T.4. Now, if Luke intended Acts at least partly as a defense of Paul for his trial at Rome, and if Paul's three companions were also somehow under the centurion's special jurisdiction (perhaps as witnesses being shipped in at state's expense?) then Titus disappearing at Fair Havens could also explain why Luke deleted Titus from the record. Since only citizens or their slaves were allowed to testify in Rome, Paul (seriously) could simply have 'enslaved' his three friends (a loophole that Roman Law could not have anticipated!) planning to 'free' them later.
T.5. In any event, we know Paul was at Fair Havens and we know Luke avoids mentioning Titus. Somehow or another, Titus must have been at Fair Havens, at which point Paul told him to continue the work which he (Titus only, not Titus with Paul) had already begun. Paul also told Titus to appoint elders in every church before he left the island. This point evidently failed to get through to Titus, probably because the church in Antioch made crisis-level decisions without elders (Acts 15:2). Therefore, Paul had to explain to Titus what elders were because (like Timothy from 50 to 57 AD) Titus had never been part of a church that had elders. (As mentioned above, for more on Paul's evolving opinions about elders, see this post.)
T.6. It should be clear now what I meant that only the details require conjecture. The bottom line on dating Titus should be, in my humble opinion, that IF Paul died under Nero in 64 AD (which has always been the most natural conclusion to draw from Tacitus' report on the great fire and from Paul's second letter to Timothy) then Titus must have been at Fair Havens. It's the only time we know for certain that Paul was there, and educated guesswork to get Titus there with Paul is far more reasonable than inventing entirely new travels for both of them.
T.7. Note well: The only necessary conclusions on this point are that Titus was with Paul at Fair Havens, had previously begun the mission there without Paul's assistance, nevertheless received instructions from Paul at Fair Havens (about how to finish what Titus had begun), and remained on Crete when Paul sailed away. For all we know, Titus could have just wandered onto the beach at the right time, simply by divine providence - but of course, this is not my argument. This is only to make clear that all suppositional details in the previous paragraphs were included merely to show at least one very plausible scenario which might have occurred. Most of Titus' itinerary will simply have to remain a mystery, but again (for the last time) this is far better than inventing four years worth of additional travels.
2nd Timothy - early 64 AD - before the fire, and with enough time for Timothy to receive the letter and still have a chance to reach Rome "before winter". Tacitus' account of events in this year are a much more convincing explanation for the tradition that Paul was considered worthy of execution.
Spain - N/A - Paul's plans didn't always materialize. The trick is to realize, there is no Spain. ;-)
========================================
There you go. That's Pauline Chronology in a nutshell, according to me. Someday, of course, I really must write this up properly, supporting these dates and arguments to the strongest extent possible. Until then - or if I never get around to it - this is pretty much the basics of everything I've got to say on the subject.
If anyone wants to start working on this before I get to it, please feel free. I've got enough else to do for the next several years writing up everything that goes from 9 BC until 37 AD. I don't mind sharing at all.
Personal Observations: A lot of the difficulties that get ironed out in this treatment happen to reveal, I believe, strong institutional/religious biases in previous faith-based scholarship on Pauline Chronology. I deeply wish I didn't have to bring it up, but it really does need to be noticed. Certain aspects of the traditional, ecclesiastical dogmas about the Jerusalem Council and the lateness of the so-called "Pastoral Epistles" seem to be partly responsible for what has kept Pauline Chronology in dispute for so long. If all three "Pastorals" get to occupy an extra four years of vague, non-contextual space-time, then Titus and Timothy look more like permanent local preachers. This may seem shocking, but it must be considered.
Since my own past experience and outspoken preference for house churches is well known, I must admit this sequence could alter (or cleanse) our view of Pauline ecclesiology somewhat. That may be debatable but Paul's ecclesiology does not have to be ours, at any rate. No christian assembly that I know of is currently following Paul's pattern precisely. Besides this, the "Descriptive/Prescriptive" argument is a much more impenetrable defense than pre-emptive gerrymandering of dates (whether or not that is even partly what has been going on).
In any event, the historian's (or exegete's) job is to judge based on facts in evidence, and not to consider potential relevance of any conclusions beforehand. Given the evidence (as laid out above) I would contend that Pauline Chronology seems to have been unfairly beset by institutional biases, although much of it is undoubtedly subconscious. Of course, if it is fully aware, such cheating simply must come to an end.
I would also contend - and here is why this all had to be said - that this mostly explains why no one has solved Pauline Chronology more efficiently or sufficiently than this, before now, and why I myself (an untrained, if unashamed amateur) managed to happen upon it. In any case, if I've put together the argument I think I have, it deserves to be looked at. And no matter who looks here, none of us should allow ourselves to manipulate the data to support our church government practices. Pauline ecclesiology was primitive.
It is a simple historical fact that nobody in the New Testament performed the job duties of a medieval priest or a protestant "pastor". That's really not a big deal, unless we feel the need to pretend otherwise. It's really not even a problem, unless we let tradition or dogma inhibit us from viewing the full context of Paul's letters, as they properly ought to be viewed.
I've been going over this and over this for five years, and unless I'm missing something very significant, I believe I can make the following statement with all confidence.
This really must be the most likely solution to Pauline Chronology, period.
Your comments, questions and challenges are warmly invited, as long as this post remains online.
November 02, 2009
Galatians goes AFTER Acts 15
It would be impolite and probably unjust to call this quote "complete idiocy", but it is more than fair to say I find it completely illogical.
Paul's silence in that letter to his converts in Galatia as to the decision of the Jerusalem Council forces the irreconcilable dilemma of saying either (1) that Luke’s account in Acts 15 of a decision reached in Paul’s favor at Jerusalem is pure fabrication, or (2) that Galatians was written before the Jerusalem Council.OR (3) Luke's account is factual, Paul wrote Galatians after the Council, and Paul had his reasons for deliberately failing to mention the whole Jerusalem fiasco. Duh.
We cannot form historical judgments based on happy fantasies that James and Paul got everything all worked out nicely. By all accounts, they didn't. Acts 15 never says one word about Paul's feelings about Jerusalem's decision, so it gives us no reason to expect Paul was or was not a fan of their letter. The church in Antioch took it as an encouragement. Of course they did. Circumcision was officially out of contention and the church at Antioch was 16 years old, mature enough to know it didn't have to obey Jerusalem's three laws! But Galatia was not yet so wise.
We can tell that Paul never mentioned Jerusalem's letter to Corinth because it was not until after Peter's visit that the Corinthians developed all kinds of controversy and questions about food, idols and 'es-ee-ex'. The fact that Paul does not mention Jerusalem's letter does not mean it did not yet exist. It could just as easily mean that Paul did not like the letter. OR, Paul could have been keeping that letter in reserve.
How did the Galatians know who Titus was? The simplest solution is that Titus carried the letter (probably together with Luke). If Galatians 2 is about the Council, Titus was an eyewitness to everything Paul writes about it. Titus was also in Antioch when Paul rebuked Peter. Titus also could have been holding Jerusalem's letter, in which case Paul would have no need to mention it in his own writing.
Put yourself in Galatia's shoes. Paul & Barnabas told you things about Jerusalem. The local Jews (in 2 of 4 cities) told you things about Jerusalem. Then the Judaizers told you things about Jerusalem. How confused would you then be about "the mother church" right up until the day Paul's letter shows up? Now put yourself in Paul's shoes. If you knew the Galatians were that confused about who and what Jerusalem really is, would you really expect them to believe "Jerusalem" agrees with you - and not with the Judaizers - about circumcision? That's why Titus holding Jerusalem's letter in reserve makes good strategy. Still doubting, Galatians? Okay. So now look at this.
Finally, put yourself in the historian's shoes. If we assume Galatians was written after the Council, what would that tell us about Paul's feelings for Jerusalem? Nothing that would be at all inconsistent with the rest of Paul's letters or his next two trips to Judea.
I don't know who Richard Longenecker is, but if I assume he's not an idiot, should I not then assume he's desperately fudging things on purpose? Or blindly following others who once made the same arguments? I don't know. You tell me.
Who benefits if we present a view of Paul submitting to the will of the established "mother church"? Who benefits if we present a church that became at peace politically after theological conflicts (James/Galatians) got ironed out? Who benefits if we present the high assembly of elders and apostles as an effective end to all dispute and division? Who benefits? You know who, saints. You know who.
The Jerusalem above is our mother. Come out of the slave woman.
September 22, 2009
The Promise of Nazareth - 2
[Part 2 of 2] Jesus of Nazareth was every bit as human as we are, so he must have had an advantage. John's Gospel shows us (more clearly than the others) that the Father was intimately involved in Jesus' life. He was not a puppet master. He was not a taskmaster. He was not a power ring. He was a Father. Somewhere between birth and age thirty-four, Jesus learned how to pray, listen for, hear and talk with his Father. Most of us with human fathers will barely be able to relate or imagine what this must have been like, but their relationship was the context for everything.
If he lived by his own teachings, then he must have been living with Encouragement. Therefore, like probably none of us since, Jesus of Nazareth spent three decades practicing God's presence. That ability grew. It developed. Baby Jesus was not quoting the scripture and teenage Jesus was not doing miracles. But from childhood, Jesus took strongly to heart the two "greatest commandments". He genuinely sought to love God with a holistic devotion. His love for the least was love as unto His Father. Thus, the Father was Jesus' advantage. The Life of the Father was in Him. He had emptied himself, but the one thing Life does is, it grows. Over three decades, it filled Him up. Life, abundantly.
On Easter Sunday night, Jesus gave his disciples the same advantage. Life came within. When the church was born at Pentecost, and in Samaria, Peter & John gave them the same advantage. God's Spirit could now move within them. Thirty days after Pentecost may or may not have been as strong an advantage as thirty years in Nazareth, and beginning any serious pursuit from childhood always pays tremendous long term dividends. But He gave Us this same Advantage. Thanks to the Cross, we should understand that God's expectations have far less to do with our lives now, than God's Hope.
The Law came through Moses. Jesus Christ fulfilled the Law and pleased God. Thus, Jesus Christ brought us God's Favor. Christ lived by God's Life, abundantly, and I think He did that partly just to prove it could be done. But if He did not live that Life, then how could we honor Him for asking us to live that Life? Expectation and irony have nothing to do with the Sermon on the Mount. Idealism is closer, but still not quite right. The practical truth is that only the Life of God can live up to the standard of God. But that Life is Jesus Christ, in His Spirit. And that Standard is Jesus Christ, who still delights His Father.
By the way, if you're not quite that full of Him yet (like the rest of us) don't sweat it. Stay rooted in His Life within. Drink in the water. Stretch to the Light. And keep growing. That's what Life does, after all. In Nazareth, Jesus Christ had this Life, this advantage, beginning to develop from a fairly early age. We are older, but we are like Him in that we need time to develop in Life, after becomming believers. We now have the same Spirit in our human spirits that was in his human spirit. Plus, we have his blood. Plus, we are in Him who is eternally pleasing to Him.
The fact that Christ pleased God, in Nazareth, is something we should really celebrate.
If he lived by his own teachings, then he must have been living with Encouragement. Therefore, like probably none of us since, Jesus of Nazareth spent three decades practicing God's presence. That ability grew. It developed. Baby Jesus was not quoting the scripture and teenage Jesus was not doing miracles. But from childhood, Jesus took strongly to heart the two "greatest commandments". He genuinely sought to love God with a holistic devotion. His love for the least was love as unto His Father. Thus, the Father was Jesus' advantage. The Life of the Father was in Him. He had emptied himself, but the one thing Life does is, it grows. Over three decades, it filled Him up. Life, abundantly.
On Easter Sunday night, Jesus gave his disciples the same advantage. Life came within. When the church was born at Pentecost, and in Samaria, Peter & John gave them the same advantage. God's Spirit could now move within them. Thirty days after Pentecost may or may not have been as strong an advantage as thirty years in Nazareth, and beginning any serious pursuit from childhood always pays tremendous long term dividends. But He gave Us this same Advantage. Thanks to the Cross, we should understand that God's expectations have far less to do with our lives now, than God's Hope.
The Law came through Moses. Jesus Christ fulfilled the Law and pleased God. Thus, Jesus Christ brought us God's Favor. Christ lived by God's Life, abundantly, and I think He did that partly just to prove it could be done. But if He did not live that Life, then how could we honor Him for asking us to live that Life? Expectation and irony have nothing to do with the Sermon on the Mount. Idealism is closer, but still not quite right. The practical truth is that only the Life of God can live up to the standard of God. But that Life is Jesus Christ, in His Spirit. And that Standard is Jesus Christ, who still delights His Father.
By the way, if you're not quite that full of Him yet (like the rest of us) don't sweat it. Stay rooted in His Life within. Drink in the water. Stretch to the Light. And keep growing. That's what Life does, after all. In Nazareth, Jesus Christ had this Life, this advantage, beginning to develop from a fairly early age. We are older, but we are like Him in that we need time to develop in Life, after becomming believers. We now have the same Spirit in our human spirits that was in his human spirit. Plus, we have his blood. Plus, we are in Him who is eternally pleasing to Him.
The fact that Christ pleased God, in Nazareth, is something we should really celebrate.
September 01, 2009
Appointing Elders: Barnabas vs. Paul
Barnabas was the senior member of their partnership. Barnabas had been a wealthy landowner. Barnabas had received the spirit and the gospel directly from the apostles in Jerusalem. Barnabas had been selected by thousands of people to be in charge of their food. Barnabas had been an apostle of Peter, before he was an apostle of the Holy Spirit. Barnabas had the deeper resume. Barnabas had more experience. Barnabas had Paul's admiration and respect.
Barnabas helped send Paul away from Jerusalem, retrieved Paul from Tarsus and led Paul to Antioch. Barnabas is mentioned before Paul in Acts until Paul becomes the chief speaker at Antioch Pisidia. From that point on Luke rotates their name order, but it was still Barnabas whom the Lycaonians pegged as Zeus. Barnabas and Paul went to Barnabas' homeland of Cyprus but Paul and Barnabas turned back after Derbe instead of going through the Lion's Gate into Paul's homeland of Cilicia. In their final act as co-workers, Barnabas and Paul appointed elders in all three (or four?) churches on that return trip.
Barnabas had known christian elders in Jerusalem. Paul never lived in Jerusalem as a believer. But Antioch was the first gentile church in the world, and Luke shows us that congregation could handle crisis level decisions without reference to elders, which suggests the church in Antioch may never have recognized any such officers. Given all of the above, we should emphasize that it was most likely Barnabas (with Paul) who decided to appoint "elders" in four brand new Galatian churches.
Unfortunately, however, those elders weren't worth a whole lot of practical help when the Judiazers wreaked havoc in South Galatia. Barnabas never saw that aftermath, so far as we know. Paul went through each town some time after the crisis (and after his letter) and it was Paul who laid eyes on the state of the peoples whose brand new, possibly too quickly appointed elders had been impotent to prevent such catastrophe.
There is one sentence in 1st Thessalonians that some say is about elders, but it more likely refers to Silas and Timothy. If that's true, then we have no evidence Paul appointed elders in Greece during all of his second church planting journey. And why should he have done so, after Galatia? The strong suggestion of all this evidence is that Barnabas was behind the elder appointments in Galatia and Paul sought the Lord about improving the arrangement for a number of years, before appointing (recognizing) who was qualified, a few years later on.
Philippi looks like the next place Paul appointed elders, on his way to Illyricum or else right before Luke left, at the Passover of 57 AD, six and a half years into the life of that church! Paul probably handed the letter we call "1st Timothy" to Timothy in person, one week after that Passover, in Troas. And at that moment, Timothy read about a topic he'd not been exposed to for almost a decade. No wonder Paul needed to be so explicit with his instructions on how to select them.
Paul's instructions to Timothy (and later, to his old colleague Titus) demonstrate that a group of new believers needed time to get to know one another before the whole congregation could recognize who was or was not qualified to be responsible for oversight. By the way, just for the record, and in case you're wondering, I like Elders. But I prefer good ones. ;-)
To sum up: It seems Barnabas was the primary voice in the decision to appoint elders so early in Galatia. And it very much looks like Paul rejected that 'early appointment' approach for the rest of his ministry. This does not necessarily mean Paul temporarily rejected the concept or practice of elders at all. This only suggests Paul somehow determined that "old men" needed to be old in the church.
It is also possible Paul spent those years reflecting before the Lord about what christian eldership was really supposed to be like (or for that matter, gentile christian eldership).
Barnabas helped send Paul away from Jerusalem, retrieved Paul from Tarsus and led Paul to Antioch. Barnabas is mentioned before Paul in Acts until Paul becomes the chief speaker at Antioch Pisidia. From that point on Luke rotates their name order, but it was still Barnabas whom the Lycaonians pegged as Zeus. Barnabas and Paul went to Barnabas' homeland of Cyprus but Paul and Barnabas turned back after Derbe instead of going through the Lion's Gate into Paul's homeland of Cilicia. In their final act as co-workers, Barnabas and Paul appointed elders in all three (or four?) churches on that return trip.
Barnabas had known christian elders in Jerusalem. Paul never lived in Jerusalem as a believer. But Antioch was the first gentile church in the world, and Luke shows us that congregation could handle crisis level decisions without reference to elders, which suggests the church in Antioch may never have recognized any such officers. Given all of the above, we should emphasize that it was most likely Barnabas (with Paul) who decided to appoint "elders" in four brand new Galatian churches.
Unfortunately, however, those elders weren't worth a whole lot of practical help when the Judiazers wreaked havoc in South Galatia. Barnabas never saw that aftermath, so far as we know. Paul went through each town some time after the crisis (and after his letter) and it was Paul who laid eyes on the state of the peoples whose brand new, possibly too quickly appointed elders had been impotent to prevent such catastrophe.
There is one sentence in 1st Thessalonians that some say is about elders, but it more likely refers to Silas and Timothy. If that's true, then we have no evidence Paul appointed elders in Greece during all of his second church planting journey. And why should he have done so, after Galatia? The strong suggestion of all this evidence is that Barnabas was behind the elder appointments in Galatia and Paul sought the Lord about improving the arrangement for a number of years, before appointing (recognizing) who was qualified, a few years later on.
Philippi looks like the next place Paul appointed elders, on his way to Illyricum or else right before Luke left, at the Passover of 57 AD, six and a half years into the life of that church! Paul probably handed the letter we call "1st Timothy" to Timothy in person, one week after that Passover, in Troas. And at that moment, Timothy read about a topic he'd not been exposed to for almost a decade. No wonder Paul needed to be so explicit with his instructions on how to select them.
Paul's instructions to Timothy (and later, to his old colleague Titus) demonstrate that a group of new believers needed time to get to know one another before the whole congregation could recognize who was or was not qualified to be responsible for oversight. By the way, just for the record, and in case you're wondering, I like Elders. But I prefer good ones. ;-)
To sum up: It seems Barnabas was the primary voice in the decision to appoint elders so early in Galatia. And it very much looks like Paul rejected that 'early appointment' approach for the rest of his ministry. This does not necessarily mean Paul temporarily rejected the concept or practice of elders at all. This only suggests Paul somehow determined that "old men" needed to be old in the church.
It is also possible Paul spent those years reflecting before the Lord about what christian eldership was really supposed to be like (or for that matter, gentile christian eldership).
August 21, 2009
12 Bodyguards at the Nazareth Synagogue
On the heels of my last post...
Without question, the Lord's primary practical purpose in selecting disciples was to train (teach, prepare, discipline) twelve of them for their upcoming mission as his apostles to the world. But along the way, they perform other duties as well. They ran errands (food in Sychar/Samaria, a lamb and a donkey in Jerusalem) or talked about doing so (facing the 5,000 at lunchtime). They most likely caught fish a whole lot more than two times.
As 'first-tour' recruits in Judea, they baptized, seemingly on their own initiative (most likely at Andrew's suggestion). Peter, for one, took strong initiative on numerous occasions and was not always shut down (the coin, the two swords). The more memorable rebukes of his worse contributions (building three shelters, denying the cross, attacking Malchus) actually demonstrates that Peter felt perfectly comfortable making bold suggestions at any time.
The others did too, just as boldly, although less individually by most accounts (calling down fire, forbidding the children). "Explain this parable", "Send her away" and "Tell us when" are all imperative statements. So the same Jesus who embraced his role as their Master was also perfectly comfortable following his trainees' commands, to some degree, if the action was appropriate.
The disciples' high level of ownership and empowerment means Jesus didn't have to instruct them to act as his bodyguards, for them to have done so. Their failed attempt to forbid the children suggests a more general practice. Yes, there were some times when the crowd pressed around Jesus, but there were others when the Lord seemed content letting his entourage act as his 'screen'. Although it certainly appears they kept that screen fairly porous at most times, by Jesus' own preference, the leading apostles were fiercely devoted to him. Given their desire to see him become King, they could not help but take initiative concerning his safety.
When the Sanhedrin finally took Jesus, they sent a cohort of armed troops to make sure they got past his apostles. Until the very moment Jesus called it off, Peter and Caiaphas were both expecting a fight. It was not the threat of dozens (or possibly hundreds - on which, see below*) of troops that scattered the Lord's men during that dark night. It was their Master's own shocking surrender.
Up to that night, Jesus' practice of fostering initiative among his apostles-in-training should emphasize for us that there were always twelve extra minds at work, wherever they went. There were twelve extra wills to contend with, if you wanted to get close to Jesus. And there were twelve extra sets of eyes looking over the Nazareth Synagogue [at his second homecoming, in the summer/autumn of 30 AD]. However those eyes did their looking - gently, firmly, harshly or severely - they most certainly would have said, Don't even think about it, if anyone in the crowd so much as stepped in their Master's direction with apparent intent to do harm.
Once again, the authorities over Jerusalem sent an armed cohort to get past these guys. By comparison, the small village community of Nazareth would have been unwise to attempt the same thing with no planning, and probably would not have been able to drag Jesus up the hill to the cliff if the disciples had been there on that occasion. These considerations add significant weight to the view from a harmonized chronology that Jesus' homecoming in Luke 4 was a completely separate occasion from that of Mark 6 and Matthew 13.
---------------------------------------
* If the cohort was indeed Roman, it did not have to be at full strength - up to 500, or according to some, possibly 1000 Legionaries. It does seem less likely that Caiaphas got Pilate to send so many men, but the numbers itself (perhaps somewhere in the low hundreds) are not inconceivable. If the soldiers literally besieged Gethsemane from all sides before moving in, it would have been a foolproof strategy for capturing Jesus. That might seem excessive to us, but Roman military tactics at this stage in the Empire tended heavily towards staging an overwhelming show of force to avoid any unnecessary fighting. Given recent events in Palestine, Pilate might have been far more likely to send one or two hundred than merely a few.
On the other hand, even if we imagine Jerusalem's leaders sent between fifteen and a hundred troops, that's still quite a statement. Jesus had eleven apostles on his side in the garden that night, plus one boy in a sheet, and perhaps several more followers as well. But even if the cohort came merely in equal numbers to the size of His entourage that night, we should be impressed with their respect for the apostles. Twelve, twenty or thirty armed military men, highly trained as a unit, should have easily taken down the same number of simple peasants. Practically, therefore, for our purposes here, the numbers are moot. Even at the smallest reasonable estimate, the authorities had taken the measure of these men for a year in Judea and a week in Jerusalem, and on that undoubtedly careful recognizance, they sent a cohort!
Without question, the Lord's primary practical purpose in selecting disciples was to train (teach, prepare, discipline) twelve of them for their upcoming mission as his apostles to the world. But along the way, they perform other duties as well. They ran errands (food in Sychar/Samaria, a lamb and a donkey in Jerusalem) or talked about doing so (facing the 5,000 at lunchtime). They most likely caught fish a whole lot more than two times.
As 'first-tour' recruits in Judea, they baptized, seemingly on their own initiative (most likely at Andrew's suggestion). Peter, for one, took strong initiative on numerous occasions and was not always shut down (the coin, the two swords). The more memorable rebukes of his worse contributions (building three shelters, denying the cross, attacking Malchus) actually demonstrates that Peter felt perfectly comfortable making bold suggestions at any time.
The others did too, just as boldly, although less individually by most accounts (calling down fire, forbidding the children). "Explain this parable", "Send her away" and "Tell us when" are all imperative statements. So the same Jesus who embraced his role as their Master was also perfectly comfortable following his trainees' commands, to some degree, if the action was appropriate.
The disciples' high level of ownership and empowerment means Jesus didn't have to instruct them to act as his bodyguards, for them to have done so. Their failed attempt to forbid the children suggests a more general practice. Yes, there were some times when the crowd pressed around Jesus, but there were others when the Lord seemed content letting his entourage act as his 'screen'. Although it certainly appears they kept that screen fairly porous at most times, by Jesus' own preference, the leading apostles were fiercely devoted to him. Given their desire to see him become King, they could not help but take initiative concerning his safety.
When the Sanhedrin finally took Jesus, they sent a cohort of armed troops to make sure they got past his apostles. Until the very moment Jesus called it off, Peter and Caiaphas were both expecting a fight. It was not the threat of dozens (or possibly hundreds - on which, see below*) of troops that scattered the Lord's men during that dark night. It was their Master's own shocking surrender.
Up to that night, Jesus' practice of fostering initiative among his apostles-in-training should emphasize for us that there were always twelve extra minds at work, wherever they went. There were twelve extra wills to contend with, if you wanted to get close to Jesus. And there were twelve extra sets of eyes looking over the Nazareth Synagogue [at his second homecoming, in the summer/autumn of 30 AD]. However those eyes did their looking - gently, firmly, harshly or severely - they most certainly would have said, Don't even think about it, if anyone in the crowd so much as stepped in their Master's direction with apparent intent to do harm.
Once again, the authorities over Jerusalem sent an armed cohort to get past these guys. By comparison, the small village community of Nazareth would have been unwise to attempt the same thing with no planning, and probably would not have been able to drag Jesus up the hill to the cliff if the disciples had been there on that occasion. These considerations add significant weight to the view from a harmonized chronology that Jesus' homecoming in Luke 4 was a completely separate occasion from that of Mark 6 and Matthew 13.
---------------------------------------
* If the cohort was indeed Roman, it did not have to be at full strength - up to 500, or according to some, possibly 1000 Legionaries. It does seem less likely that Caiaphas got Pilate to send so many men, but the numbers itself (perhaps somewhere in the low hundreds) are not inconceivable. If the soldiers literally besieged Gethsemane from all sides before moving in, it would have been a foolproof strategy for capturing Jesus. That might seem excessive to us, but Roman military tactics at this stage in the Empire tended heavily towards staging an overwhelming show of force to avoid any unnecessary fighting. Given recent events in Palestine, Pilate might have been far more likely to send one or two hundred than merely a few.
On the other hand, even if we imagine Jerusalem's leaders sent between fifteen and a hundred troops, that's still quite a statement. Jesus had eleven apostles on his side in the garden that night, plus one boy in a sheet, and perhaps several more followers as well. But even if the cohort came merely in equal numbers to the size of His entourage that night, we should be impressed with their respect for the apostles. Twelve, twenty or thirty armed military men, highly trained as a unit, should have easily taken down the same number of simple peasants. Practically, therefore, for our purposes here, the numbers are moot. Even at the smallest reasonable estimate, the authorities had taken the measure of these men for a year in Judea and a week in Jerusalem, and on that undoubtedly careful recognizance, they sent a cohort!
August 19, 2009
Jesus' 12 Bodyguards
In Luke's Gospel, Jesus almost gets thrown off a cliff. Two cities later, he's recruiting Simon Peter in Bethsaida. Shortly after that, he's expanding the push for disciples.
In the blended chronology of Gospel events, his disciples leave him alone after Samaria. Maybe they just needed to go back to earning an income or maybe Jesus' kindness to the woman at the well was too radical for them at that point. Probably it was a bit of both. Either way, that summer/autumn, when Jesus travels alone, is when he almost gets killed in his hometown.
Six to nine months after that dangerous day, Jesus has finally finished re-re-recruiting his twelve apostles. So when he goes back to Nazareth, roughly a year after his previous visit, he's not only become even more famous. He's also got an entourage.
Smart man, that Jesus.
In the blended chronology of Gospel events, his disciples leave him alone after Samaria. Maybe they just needed to go back to earning an income or maybe Jesus' kindness to the woman at the well was too radical for them at that point. Probably it was a bit of both. Either way, that summer/autumn, when Jesus travels alone, is when he almost gets killed in his hometown.
Six to nine months after that dangerous day, Jesus has finally finished re-re-recruiting his twelve apostles. So when he goes back to Nazareth, roughly a year after his previous visit, he's not only become even more famous. He's also got an entourage.
Smart man, that Jesus.
July 05, 2009
About This Blog
This research blog is about improving our view of the New Testament Story in its full historical context. Faith based NT Chronology really should be able to settle on much greater precision in dating the key events. I strongly believe there IS one, most likely, most plausible reconstruction for the timeline of the New Testament and scholars who accept the NT cannon as reliable testimony should be able to agree on this new Chronology with minimal reservations.
Such an accomplishment wouldn't necessarily have served the position of denominational theologians or ecclesiastical authorities in centuries past, but the past hundred years has engendered a more eccumenical approach. Today, it seems conservative New Testament scholarship is transitioning from the entrenched positions of the old guard to a more open minded and faith based rationalism. More and more, Christian scholars of all denominations are searching together for the best answers to good questions - not just their bishops' pet answers.
Verifiable history will always trump theology, but Chronology gives reconstruction a full fourth dimension. Journalists know the Who, What, When & Where of a story is infinitely more discernable in most cases than the Why. To put that another way: Character, Plot, Conflict and Setting are the concrete aspects of any dramatic non-fiction, but Theme is always a bit subjective. Solid literary analysis should always focus on those concrete aspects, the first four W's, before ever declaring itself on the deeper interpretations, but faith based Biblical Studies has not necessarily followed this pattern as thoroughly as it could have. (At least, not from what I can tell.)
This blog exists to proclaim that "backgrounds" and "culture" are not enough context for our sacred texts. We need to reconstruct the events. Classical scholars are staunch critics of Tacitus, Suetonius, Dio et al, but they work as a whole towards reconstructing what actually happened in as much detail as possible. Christian scholars haven't been interested in doing that with the events of scripture, practically ever - not in a thorough way, strictly for events' sake.
The context of a text cannot merely be more text. The context of a text is the author's entire life, plus the lives of those touched by whatever events the text relates and refers to. We need to reconstruct the Historical Events of the New Testament as more than a sketchy mish-mosh, and we need to give it more than piecemeal lip service before launching into theology and homeletics by isolating epistles. We need ONE, most likely, leading, cohesive, comprehensive, exhaustive chronology of the entire New Testament. So why don't we have it?
The first European missionaries to the Americas wrestled with the concept of 'invincible ignorance' - withholding the gospel so natives might not be held accountable by God for their sins. But ecclesiastical authorities have treated the Lord's flock in a similar way. For centuries, Church leaders have covered over a multitude of specific doubts by projecting a strong general doubt about all historical approach to the details of scripture. The punchline to that sick joke was the 20th century gnosticism of Bultmann. But saints, if Christ be not raised physically, we have no hope whatsoever.
We may or may not need to defend the resurrection, but we definitely need to believe it. We may or may not solve the Synoptic Problem, but we should do our best to spell out how, when and where the Christ of our Faith walked around in the Historical Palestine. We cannot put together all the details with one hundred percent certainty, but we CAN put together a plausible reconstruction, based on a minimal number of conditional assumptions. Since Faith is most effective as the foundation of Reason, the end of our christian historical arguments should be reconstructing the Facts - not defending what we already believe.
Classical Scholars do not know for certain who ordered the death of Augustus' last grandson, Agrippa, in 14 AD. It was either Caesar, his wife or Tiberius. We have all three scenarios and many opinions on which is most likely, but that is enough. We do not avoid reconstructing their general histories because of a few specific doubts.
We have more than enough information about the details of scripture to make a reliable, faith based reconstruction on the historical lives of Jesus, Peter and Paul. But we must overcome our own ecclesiastical history if we ever want to know the Historical Context of the New Testament's Events. I humbly suggest we must also focus primarily, for a time, on the Chronology.
So that's what this Site is About. Please argue vigorously with any point above you feel needs to be challenged. And please come back to this site as I do my part to help work out these issues in greater detail.
Such an accomplishment wouldn't necessarily have served the position of denominational theologians or ecclesiastical authorities in centuries past, but the past hundred years has engendered a more eccumenical approach. Today, it seems conservative New Testament scholarship is transitioning from the entrenched positions of the old guard to a more open minded and faith based rationalism. More and more, Christian scholars of all denominations are searching together for the best answers to good questions - not just their bishops' pet answers.
Verifiable history will always trump theology, but Chronology gives reconstruction a full fourth dimension. Journalists know the Who, What, When & Where of a story is infinitely more discernable in most cases than the Why. To put that another way: Character, Plot, Conflict and Setting are the concrete aspects of any dramatic non-fiction, but Theme is always a bit subjective. Solid literary analysis should always focus on those concrete aspects, the first four W's, before ever declaring itself on the deeper interpretations, but faith based Biblical Studies has not necessarily followed this pattern as thoroughly as it could have. (At least, not from what I can tell.)
This blog exists to proclaim that "backgrounds" and "culture" are not enough context for our sacred texts. We need to reconstruct the events. Classical scholars are staunch critics of Tacitus, Suetonius, Dio et al, but they work as a whole towards reconstructing what actually happened in as much detail as possible. Christian scholars haven't been interested in doing that with the events of scripture, practically ever - not in a thorough way, strictly for events' sake.
The context of a text cannot merely be more text. The context of a text is the author's entire life, plus the lives of those touched by whatever events the text relates and refers to. We need to reconstruct the Historical Events of the New Testament as more than a sketchy mish-mosh, and we need to give it more than piecemeal lip service before launching into theology and homeletics by isolating epistles. We need ONE, most likely, leading, cohesive, comprehensive, exhaustive chronology of the entire New Testament. So why don't we have it?
The first European missionaries to the Americas wrestled with the concept of 'invincible ignorance' - withholding the gospel so natives might not be held accountable by God for their sins. But ecclesiastical authorities have treated the Lord's flock in a similar way. For centuries, Church leaders have covered over a multitude of specific doubts by projecting a strong general doubt about all historical approach to the details of scripture. The punchline to that sick joke was the 20th century gnosticism of Bultmann. But saints, if Christ be not raised physically, we have no hope whatsoever.
We may or may not need to defend the resurrection, but we definitely need to believe it. We may or may not solve the Synoptic Problem, but we should do our best to spell out how, when and where the Christ of our Faith walked around in the Historical Palestine. We cannot put together all the details with one hundred percent certainty, but we CAN put together a plausible reconstruction, based on a minimal number of conditional assumptions. Since Faith is most effective as the foundation of Reason, the end of our christian historical arguments should be reconstructing the Facts - not defending what we already believe.
Classical Scholars do not know for certain who ordered the death of Augustus' last grandson, Agrippa, in 14 AD. It was either Caesar, his wife or Tiberius. We have all three scenarios and many opinions on which is most likely, but that is enough. We do not avoid reconstructing their general histories because of a few specific doubts.
We have more than enough information about the details of scripture to make a reliable, faith based reconstruction on the historical lives of Jesus, Peter and Paul. But we must overcome our own ecclesiastical history if we ever want to know the Historical Context of the New Testament's Events. I humbly suggest we must also focus primarily, for a time, on the Chronology.
So that's what this Site is About. Please argue vigorously with any point above you feel needs to be challenged. And please come back to this site as I do my part to help work out these issues in greater detail.
June 23, 2009
A New Take on John 21
Let me take another shot at reconstructing this event. Seven paragraphs, instead of ten posts. All in one. Here goes:
Cleopas said that Jesus appeared to Peter on Easter day, so John 21 is not about restoring Peter in his relationship to Jesus. But it is about restoring Peter to a position of serving the Lord. Since Easter night, Peter has been trying to get used to the indwelling spirit of Jesus inside him. But after the last supper, Peter had been excited about his promotion from “servant” to "friend". The friend of a King is a strong right hand man, trusted with great responsibility, and Peter had been very much looking forward to that. So after two weeks or so of ‘practicing the Lord’s presence’ since Easter, Peter’s got to be thinking “This is nice, but when are we gonna DO something and what’s it gonna be?”
We actually can tell he was thinking something along those lines because Peter antsily gets up and goes fishing. He tries to go alone but some disciples manage to keep it a corporate outing. Either way, Peter is just a man looking for something to do, at this point. He’s killing time until the Lord gives him some new orders. And as it turns out, the moment Jesus shows up he gives him a practical command. “Throw your nets…” And Peter gets excited and runs to him through the water. Then Jesus cooks breakfast, and they eat. And Peter knows that Jesus knows everything that's going on inside of him at this moment.
So Jesus says, “Simon son of Jonah, do you love me more than these [fish?]?” It’s a playful question, probably teasing him for leaving Jerusalem, but it’s serious too. There's a point to this question. When Peter says yes, Jesus doesn’t go, “Oh. Okay, good. Cause I just really wanted to know if you did.” He’s not a teenager in courtship. He’s a man on a mission. And “Do you love me” is a set up for asking a favor. (Now, you can believe the word “agapao” may mean “do you care for me” or “do you love me with God’s love”, but either way, it’s a prelude to making some kind of a request.) The point is, Peter knows this. Peter knows Jesus is about to ask him to DO something. And Peter is as excited in this moment as he was when he jumped off the boat.
So Peter says, “Yes Lord, you know I love you.” And the word “phileo” means “I love you like a friend” but this is NOT necessarily less than what “agape” means. In fact, given the context laid out thus far, it is most likely to read Peter as making reference to the speech when Jesus said, “You are my philos if you do what I command. My command is this, agape one another. Greater agape has no man than this, that he lay down his life for his philos.” So in this case, Peter is responding enthusiastically in the affirmative. Reminding the Lord he is his friend is the same as saying, “Whatever you need, you know I’ll do it.”
But then Jesus says, “Feed my lambs.” And Peter doesn’t respond. We don’t know why Peter doesn’t respond, but we know Jesus feels the need to ask again. And the second time it would be natural for Peter to expect a new favor on the second request. But Jesus repeats the same basic command. “Feed my sheep.” And again, Peter doesn’t respond. So Jesus feels the need to ask a third time, but this time the Lord challenges Peter precisely on his confident affirmation to be God’s right hand man. Jesus says, “Do you love me like a friend?” The implication for us in reading, now, is that Jesus doubts Peter’s implied claim to do whatever the Lord asks. This is the point at which we can tell Jesus wasn’t impressed with Peter’s response to “Feed my lambs.” and “Feed my sheep.”
Now Peter is grieved, because Jesus is questioning his status as a friend of the King. On top of this, Peter is probably confused as to what “Feed my sheep.” means. Was Jesus rebuking him for going fishing to try and feed his human family? Was Jesus saying he had to fish a lot more to feed all Jesus’ followers from then on? Or was Jesus speaking in some metaphor that implied some larger sense of care taking for the spiritual family? A few more weeks from now, Peter will take to his role in Jerusalem with gusto and vigor, but on the beach by the Sea of Tiberias, Peter doesn’t seem to like the way this conversation is going at all. And still he protests, "You know everything. You know I love you like a friend." Peter knows the Lord can see right through him. He means it sincerely. But - for whatever reasons - he's struggling sincerely, too.
That last point is all we need to set up the conclusion of the story. Well, Peter? Do you only want to be my friend when we’re sword fighting and setting up Kingdoms? Or will you also love me like a friend and do what I ask of you when it’s something you don’t want to do? Or maybe when it's something you don't think is so exciting? “When you were younger you dressed yourself and went wherever you wanted to. But when you are old you will stretch out your arms and someone else will dress you and carry you where you don’t want to go.” Can you die on that cross, Peter? Because that’s what being my friend and loving me is really all about.
And that's what John 21 is really all about. IMHO. Love to hear your thoughts...
Index of Recent Posts:
Cleopas said that Jesus appeared to Peter on Easter day, so John 21 is not about restoring Peter in his relationship to Jesus. But it is about restoring Peter to a position of serving the Lord. Since Easter night, Peter has been trying to get used to the indwelling spirit of Jesus inside him. But after the last supper, Peter had been excited about his promotion from “servant” to "friend". The friend of a King is a strong right hand man, trusted with great responsibility, and Peter had been very much looking forward to that. So after two weeks or so of ‘practicing the Lord’s presence’ since Easter, Peter’s got to be thinking “This is nice, but when are we gonna DO something and what’s it gonna be?”
We actually can tell he was thinking something along those lines because Peter antsily gets up and goes fishing. He tries to go alone but some disciples manage to keep it a corporate outing. Either way, Peter is just a man looking for something to do, at this point. He’s killing time until the Lord gives him some new orders. And as it turns out, the moment Jesus shows up he gives him a practical command. “Throw your nets…” And Peter gets excited and runs to him through the water. Then Jesus cooks breakfast, and they eat. And Peter knows that Jesus knows everything that's going on inside of him at this moment.
So Jesus says, “Simon son of Jonah, do you love me more than these [fish?]?” It’s a playful question, probably teasing him for leaving Jerusalem, but it’s serious too. There's a point to this question. When Peter says yes, Jesus doesn’t go, “Oh. Okay, good. Cause I just really wanted to know if you did.” He’s not a teenager in courtship. He’s a man on a mission. And “Do you love me” is a set up for asking a favor. (Now, you can believe the word “agapao” may mean “do you care for me” or “do you love me with God’s love”, but either way, it’s a prelude to making some kind of a request.) The point is, Peter knows this. Peter knows Jesus is about to ask him to DO something. And Peter is as excited in this moment as he was when he jumped off the boat.
So Peter says, “Yes Lord, you know I love you.” And the word “phileo” means “I love you like a friend” but this is NOT necessarily less than what “agape” means. In fact, given the context laid out thus far, it is most likely to read Peter as making reference to the speech when Jesus said, “You are my philos if you do what I command. My command is this, agape one another. Greater agape has no man than this, that he lay down his life for his philos.” So in this case, Peter is responding enthusiastically in the affirmative. Reminding the Lord he is his friend is the same as saying, “Whatever you need, you know I’ll do it.”
But then Jesus says, “Feed my lambs.” And Peter doesn’t respond. We don’t know why Peter doesn’t respond, but we know Jesus feels the need to ask again. And the second time it would be natural for Peter to expect a new favor on the second request. But Jesus repeats the same basic command. “Feed my sheep.” And again, Peter doesn’t respond. So Jesus feels the need to ask a third time, but this time the Lord challenges Peter precisely on his confident affirmation to be God’s right hand man. Jesus says, “Do you love me like a friend?” The implication for us in reading, now, is that Jesus doubts Peter’s implied claim to do whatever the Lord asks. This is the point at which we can tell Jesus wasn’t impressed with Peter’s response to “Feed my lambs.” and “Feed my sheep.”
Now Peter is grieved, because Jesus is questioning his status as a friend of the King. On top of this, Peter is probably confused as to what “Feed my sheep.” means. Was Jesus rebuking him for going fishing to try and feed his human family? Was Jesus saying he had to fish a lot more to feed all Jesus’ followers from then on? Or was Jesus speaking in some metaphor that implied some larger sense of care taking for the spiritual family? A few more weeks from now, Peter will take to his role in Jerusalem with gusto and vigor, but on the beach by the Sea of Tiberias, Peter doesn’t seem to like the way this conversation is going at all. And still he protests, "You know everything. You know I love you like a friend." Peter knows the Lord can see right through him. He means it sincerely. But - for whatever reasons - he's struggling sincerely, too.
That last point is all we need to set up the conclusion of the story. Well, Peter? Do you only want to be my friend when we’re sword fighting and setting up Kingdoms? Or will you also love me like a friend and do what I ask of you when it’s something you don’t want to do? Or maybe when it's something you don't think is so exciting? “When you were younger you dressed yourself and went wherever you wanted to. But when you are old you will stretch out your arms and someone else will dress you and carry you where you don’t want to go.” Can you die on that cross, Peter? Because that’s what being my friend and loving me is really all about.
And that's what John 21 is really all about. IMHO. Love to hear your thoughts...
Index of Recent Posts:
June 19, 2009
John 21 - Any Feedback?
My blogging philos Peter Kirk really proved his agape for me by posting today about my series on John 21. I actually couldn't have paid him to write a better summary and recommendation. Even better, Peter closes by asking "Does anyone have any constructive, or other, criticism of this proposal?" I dearly hope so, in both cases.
I should also say I have no problem with Peter's argument in his first paragraph. Whether the key six lines were spoken in Greek or "crafted into its surviving Greek form by John", I still think we're supposed to take the view I've presented. I tried to make that clear before the series, but Peter said it very well and I thank him again. Either way, here's the series links:
(For related posts, scan the Archives for June.)
I should also say I have no problem with Peter's argument in his first paragraph. Whether the key six lines were spoken in Greek or "crafted into its surviving Greek form by John", I still think we're supposed to take the view I've presented. I tried to make that clear before the series, but Peter said it very well and I thank him again. Either way, here's the series links:
(For related posts, scan the Archives for June.)
John 21 - the Fishy Part
Imagine I'm a really good cartoonist. Okay, now imagine I just drew Jesus sitting in his robe by a fire, next to a big net full of fish. And he holds up a fishbone he's just picked clean, points at the net and looks at Peter. And the caption says, "Simon, son of John, do you love me more than these?"
I won't argue for it, but I'd bet even money that's what he was saying. It gets even fishier if you transliterate from the Greek, "Simon, son of Jonah..." (half joking about that last bit, but only half).
;-)
I won't argue for it, but I'd bet even money that's what he was saying. It gets even fishier if you transliterate from the Greek, "Simon, son of Jonah..." (half joking about that last bit, but only half).
;-)
June 18, 2009
A New Take on John 21 (Summary)
Eleven posts is more than enough. This one’s the wrap-up.
This new take on John 21 is about phileo being more than agape, at least as Peter was using the word. The context is what makes this so plain. Two weeks after being reconciled with Jesus (as Cleopas reported), 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. 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, so capable of loving and doing whatever God wanted, even if he didn't want to go there.
Most often in ancient greek, among the greeks themselves, “phileo” was greater than “agape”. But regardless of which words we use, when the conversation turns to serving Jesus Christ, there is no task that trumps simple obedience – to love Him, to do whatever great or menial task he requests, even merely to serve food, or to die on a cross.
After their Passover supper, Jesus had said, "Greater agape has no man than this, that he lay down his life for his Philos." Peter heard the words and made the proper connection, but the sword wielding fisherman still needed help figuring out just what Jesus actually wanted from his friends, when they offered to serve him.
(This series is now Concluded. :-)
This new take on John 21 is about phileo being more than agape, at least as Peter was using the word. The context is what makes this so plain. Two weeks after being reconciled with Jesus (as Cleopas reported), 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. 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, so capable of loving and doing whatever God wanted, even if he didn't want to go there.
Most often in ancient greek, among the greeks themselves, “phileo” was greater than “agape”. But regardless of which words we use, when the conversation turns to serving Jesus Christ, there is no task that trumps simple obedience – to love Him, to do whatever great or menial task he requests, even merely to serve food, or to die on a cross.
After their Passover supper, Jesus had said, "Greater agape has no man than this, that he lay down his life for his Philos." Peter heard the words and made the proper connection, but the sword wielding fisherman still needed help figuring out just what Jesus actually wanted from his friends, when they offered to serve him.
(This series is now Concluded. :-)
Series Update:
June 17, 2009
A New Take on John 21 (10)
With his third question, Jesus challenges Peter on Peter's own claim. Since that claim was to love Jesus like a friend - loyal brother, right-hand-man, consigliore - this challenge really hurts Peter. It might even have seemed to Peter like the Lord was openly doubting his very manhood. At least in one sense, I think that's exactly what Jesus was doing.
Seen in the light of the overall context, Jesus is actually challenging the overzealousness, the mission-orientation, the task-centeredness of Peter’s ego and his male, human drive to succeed. Jesus says, essentially, “Do you really love me like a friend?” The implication is, “If you’re willing to do anything, why do you seem so much less enthusiastic when I tell you what I want? My true friend wouldn’t hesitate to do a simle chore like what I’m asking.”
This third time, Peter is openly grieved, at least partly because he’s been challenged, but perhaps also partly because he still doesn’t get it. ((Of course we all struggle here, and in some ways I think the male ego struggles especially.)) So the Lord goes on to explain what he means when he asks for a favor... for service…. for Mission… for being his loyal, right hand man… for someone to be his Friend. Of course, this is the crux of the story, and the part that requires no special reinterpretation whatsoever.
Stretch out your arms. Go where you don’t want to go. Die… like I did. (Oh. Lord…)
Do you still love me like a friend, Peter? Are you still my right hand man, Peter? Are you still willing to do what I ask, when you aren't personally thrilled about what I want you to do? And after one of those moments with the Lord, what can any of us say?
That's the climax of the story and the point of the scripture. Now give me one more brief post to wrap up the point of my series, and summarize what I've been saying.
(To be summarized…)
Seen in the light of the overall context, Jesus is actually challenging the overzealousness, the mission-orientation, the task-centeredness of Peter’s ego and his male, human drive to succeed. Jesus says, essentially, “Do you really love me like a friend?” The implication is, “If you’re willing to do anything, why do you seem so much less enthusiastic when I tell you what I want? My true friend wouldn’t hesitate to do a simle chore like what I’m asking.”
This third time, Peter is openly grieved, at least partly because he’s been challenged, but perhaps also partly because he still doesn’t get it. ((Of course we all struggle here, and in some ways I think the male ego struggles especially.)) So the Lord goes on to explain what he means when he asks for a favor... for service…. for Mission… for being his loyal, right hand man… for someone to be his Friend. Of course, this is the crux of the story, and the part that requires no special reinterpretation whatsoever.
Stretch out your arms. Go where you don’t want to go. Die… like I did. (Oh. Lord…)
Do you still love me like a friend, Peter? Are you still my right hand man, Peter? Are you still willing to do what I ask, when you aren't personally thrilled about what I want you to do? And after one of those moments with the Lord, what can any of us say?
That's the climax of the story and the point of the scripture. Now give me one more brief post to wrap up the point of my series, and summarize what I've been saying.
(To be summarized…)
Series Update:
June 16, 2009
A New Take on John 21 (9)
When Peter steps UP from agape to phileo, pledging his love as a friend of the Lord, Jesus does not offer his eager devotee a challenging or seemingly manly campaign to embark upon, but a simple domestic chore. “Feed my lambs.” And this is not only less than what Peter’s testosterone might have been hoping for – this is partly an open critique of his self centered fishing expedition. Feed my family, Peter.
The conversation as recorded shows Peter making no response, but Jesus brings it up again. So when Jesus asks Peter for a second time, “Do you care for me?” – we put ourselves in Peter's place and expect the Lord to add a new request. And with that expectation, we wouldn't stretch hard to imagine at least some part of Peter was probably hoping for a tougher assignment, or at least more than just food duty. Whatever Peter expected, he responds again with an emphatic, “I phileo you.” But the friend of the King gets the same task assignment again. And according to the record of this conversation, Peter goes quiet again.
Unfortunately we can only speculate on how Peter felt about Jesus' instructions at this point. Some will assume Peter knew Jesus meant preaching. I seriously doubt that. But I think the overall text gives us a picture that Peter's silence means he wasn't real sure what Jesus was talking about, yet. And I personally suspect Peter wasn't real thrilled with an assignment that sounded so normal. Whatever he's thinking, here is the man who confidently proclaims "You know I'm your man", falling silent as soon as he gets the details.
Mind-reading aside, Jesus definitely picks up on the difference between Peter's general enthusiasm up front and and his lack of reply when things got specific. Of course, they both konw this moment is about restoring Peter to a position of service to his King. But it's becoming clear that Peter may not understand what type of service Jesus is actually hoping for.
So the Lord decides, with his third question, to challenge the whole "friend" concept, as it currently exists in Peter's mind.
(To be concluded…)
The conversation as recorded shows Peter making no response, but Jesus brings it up again. So when Jesus asks Peter for a second time, “Do you care for me?” – we put ourselves in Peter's place and expect the Lord to add a new request. And with that expectation, we wouldn't stretch hard to imagine at least some part of Peter was probably hoping for a tougher assignment, or at least more than just food duty. Whatever Peter expected, he responds again with an emphatic, “I phileo you.” But the friend of the King gets the same task assignment again. And according to the record of this conversation, Peter goes quiet again.
Unfortunately we can only speculate on how Peter felt about Jesus' instructions at this point. Some will assume Peter knew Jesus meant preaching. I seriously doubt that. But I think the overall text gives us a picture that Peter's silence means he wasn't real sure what Jesus was talking about, yet. And I personally suspect Peter wasn't real thrilled with an assignment that sounded so normal. Whatever he's thinking, here is the man who confidently proclaims "You know I'm your man", falling silent as soon as he gets the details.
Mind-reading aside, Jesus definitely picks up on the difference between Peter's general enthusiasm up front and and his lack of reply when things got specific. Of course, they both konw this moment is about restoring Peter to a position of service to his King. But it's becoming clear that Peter may not understand what type of service Jesus is actually hoping for.
So the Lord decides, with his third question, to challenge the whole "friend" concept, as it currently exists in Peter's mind.
(To be concluded…)
Series Update:
June 15, 2009
A New Take on John 21 (8)
Four posts to set up the problem and rebuild the context. Three posts on Greek. Now we just need to put it all together. So picture this scene:
Here’s Peter, roughly two weeks after the resurrection, still getting used to a new, indwelling spirit – except he’s starting to get antsy for something to do, beyond mysticism. He wants a task, he wants a chore, he wants a position. With all his being, Peter still wants to serve as the Lord's loyal consigliore (so to speak). As we soon learn, Jesus wants all of this too. So Peter’s only fault in all this, aside from being confused, is feeling impatient.
And then, all of Peter's longing became focused in one moment, at the beach. Peter hears Jesus say, “Peter, do you love me?” (“Do you really care about me?”) In any language, this naturally implies, will you do something for me? And so Peter knows this is what he’s been itching for. Jesus is about to ask Peter for a personal favor. And Peter, having just lept into the sea with enthusiasm only minutes ago, is way too excited to just answer "yes". So Peter emphatically – in one word – tells the Lord he’s prepared to take on any challenge and he’s ready to finally start working for Him.
Peter says, “You know I phileo you”. This means, “I love you like a friend.” But that thought here is worth a lot more than many have supposed. If God's love in Christ means anything at all, then true friendship to Jesus must be the highest form of love there can be. And so, in effect, with one word, Peter is saying, “Absolutely I love you, Lord. You know I’m your right hand man. Just tell me what you want. Say the word, and I’ll do it. Whatever it is, I'm your guy.”
Taken this way, John 21 still has the sense of restoring Peter to something, just as everyone always thought. Only, it's not a restoration of relationship, but a restoration to service. After two weeks of exploring his new ability to find Jesus Christ in his spirit, Peter didn't need to reconcile with his Lord... he just needed some practical marching orders. Peter isn't admitting he can't measure up and being sheepish about it. Quite the opposite. Peter is expressing his own bold expectations to Jesus.
However... after Peter's response, there is still a tension that builds through the rest of their conversation. So what is that tension all about? As the end of their talk makes abundantly clear, Peter seems to have a somewhat different idea about service than Jesus does.
(To be continued...)
Here’s Peter, roughly two weeks after the resurrection, still getting used to a new, indwelling spirit – except he’s starting to get antsy for something to do, beyond mysticism. He wants a task, he wants a chore, he wants a position. With all his being, Peter still wants to serve as the Lord's loyal consigliore (so to speak). As we soon learn, Jesus wants all of this too. So Peter’s only fault in all this, aside from being confused, is feeling impatient.
And then, all of Peter's longing became focused in one moment, at the beach. Peter hears Jesus say, “Peter, do you love me?” (“Do you really care about me?”) In any language, this naturally implies, will you do something for me? And so Peter knows this is what he’s been itching for. Jesus is about to ask Peter for a personal favor. And Peter, having just lept into the sea with enthusiasm only minutes ago, is way too excited to just answer "yes". So Peter emphatically – in one word – tells the Lord he’s prepared to take on any challenge and he’s ready to finally start working for Him.
Peter says, “You know I phileo you”. This means, “I love you like a friend.” But that thought here is worth a lot more than many have supposed. If God's love in Christ means anything at all, then true friendship to Jesus must be the highest form of love there can be. And so, in effect, with one word, Peter is saying, “Absolutely I love you, Lord. You know I’m your right hand man. Just tell me what you want. Say the word, and I’ll do it. Whatever it is, I'm your guy.”
Taken this way, John 21 still has the sense of restoring Peter to something, just as everyone always thought. Only, it's not a restoration of relationship, but a restoration to service. After two weeks of exploring his new ability to find Jesus Christ in his spirit, Peter didn't need to reconcile with his Lord... he just needed some practical marching orders. Peter isn't admitting he can't measure up and being sheepish about it. Quite the opposite. Peter is expressing his own bold expectations to Jesus.
However... after Peter's response, there is still a tension that builds through the rest of their conversation. So what is that tension all about? As the end of their talk makes abundantly clear, Peter seems to have a somewhat different idea about service than Jesus does.
(To be continued...)
Series Update:
June 14, 2009
A New Take on John 21 (7)
Again, the main idea of the last two posts is that "phileo" was not necessarily a weaker form of love than "agape", but was often stronger, to actual Greeks. This also seems to hold up in John's Gospel. When Jesus wept for Lazarus, the Jews nearby said, "See how he ephilei him."
To the point of the last post - that John 15 is the appropriate textual background for John 21 - here are some more (crudely spliced) snippets reflecting the interplay between agape and phileo during Jesus' post-dinner chat on their way to Gethsemane. I want to keep stressing/admitting that I’m not a linguist, but the prevalence of this vocabulary says something, even to me. They're not simply interchangeable synonyms. Also, note the sequence:
v.9 – as the Father agapesen me, I also have agapesa you. Abide in my agape.
v.10 – if you keep my commandments, you will abide in my agape, just as I have kept my father’s commandments and abide in his agape.
v.12 – This is my commandment, that you agapate one another, as I have agapesa you.
v.13 – greater agape has no one than this, that one lay down his life for his philon
v.14 – you are my philoi if you do what I command you.
v.15 – I no longer call you servants… but I have called you philous…
v.17 – these things I command you, that you agapate one another.
It seems pretty clear, according to Jesus in John 15, that the stated mission of a friend is to love. (Swords with-or-not-withstanding.) So even if John knew Paul's writings and believed “agape is the most excellent way”, John shows us here that phileo is also not beneath it. To the contrary, in John 15, the philos carries the chief responsibility for delivering agape. So even when we change philos (noun) to phileo (verb), can the relationship be any different in John 21? I think not.
That brings us at last to the major question of this series: If Peter was actually stepping up a rung in his expression of "love" for Jesus, then what do those word changes tell us about what Peter & Jesus were actually trying to say to each other?
(To be continued…)
To the point of the last post - that John 15 is the appropriate textual background for John 21 - here are some more (crudely spliced) snippets reflecting the interplay between agape and phileo during Jesus' post-dinner chat on their way to Gethsemane. I want to keep stressing/admitting that I’m not a linguist, but the prevalence of this vocabulary says something, even to me. They're not simply interchangeable synonyms. Also, note the sequence:
v.9 – as the Father agapesen me, I also have agapesa you. Abide in my agape.
v.10 – if you keep my commandments, you will abide in my agape, just as I have kept my father’s commandments and abide in his agape.
v.12 – This is my commandment, that you agapate one another, as I have agapesa you.
v.13 – greater agape has no one than this, that one lay down his life for his philon
v.14 – you are my philoi if you do what I command you.
v.15 – I no longer call you servants… but I have called you philous…
v.17 – these things I command you, that you agapate one another.
It seems pretty clear, according to Jesus in John 15, that the stated mission of a friend is to love. (Swords with-or-not-withstanding.) So even if John knew Paul's writings and believed “agape is the most excellent way”, John shows us here that phileo is also not beneath it. To the contrary, in John 15, the philos carries the chief responsibility for delivering agape. So even when we change philos (noun) to phileo (verb), can the relationship be any different in John 21? I think not.
That brings us at last to the major question of this series: If Peter was actually stepping up a rung in his expression of "love" for Jesus, then what do those word changes tell us about what Peter & Jesus were actually trying to say to each other?
(To be continued…)
Series Update:
June 13, 2009
A New Take on John 21 (6)
This blog series so far can be said to turn on a simple question, which I will restate from the end of my last post. What if the key to understanding the conversation in John 21 is to suppose Peter thought “phileo” was a step up from “agape” when he said it?
Building on the last five posts, there are reasons to think this makes the most sense of any interpretation. If “phileo” means, roughly, “I love you like a friend”, then Peter was most likely referring to the promotion Jesus made after the Last Supper – from servants to friends. And just like John 16 is fulfilled in John 20, John 15 prepares the textual ground for John's use of agape/phileo in chapter 21. In fact, it does this in more ways than one.
When Jesus told his disciples, “I no longer call you servants… now I have called you my friends”, Peter was wearing a sword. (Lk 22:38) John did not refer to the sword, but it was probably not lost on his audience that this friendship promotion was very King-like. John’s overall narrative had already brought the King motif from Nathaniel’s proclamation in Ch.1 to the rabble’s demand in Ch.6 to the triumphant entry in Ch.12. And now, for a greek audience, this official promotion of his students into a tight circle of “friends” makes a definite parallel with the practice of Hellenistic Kings.
At least from Alexander on, Greek style Kings always had circles of friends. In extant literature, I suspect this has to be one of the most common repetitive uses of the word philos – the “friends of the King”. At any rate, there was certainly no higher honor for a non-royal in the ancient world, than to be a friend of the King. So Peter, holding his sword, who still mostly saw Jesus as the head of God’s coming Kingdom… must have relished being named with such a magnanimous title. He could hardly have done better than “friend of Jesus”.
The friends of the King aren’t just his drinking buddies. They act as his strong right arm. They are loyal servants of his needs, and of his kingdom’s needs. The King’s friends are the ones who do the most work for the King. They hold high positions. They run things.
In other words, they ‘phileo’ the King.
(To be continued…)
Building on the last five posts, there are reasons to think this makes the most sense of any interpretation. If “phileo” means, roughly, “I love you like a friend”, then Peter was most likely referring to the promotion Jesus made after the Last Supper – from servants to friends. And just like John 16 is fulfilled in John 20, John 15 prepares the textual ground for John's use of agape/phileo in chapter 21. In fact, it does this in more ways than one.
When Jesus told his disciples, “I no longer call you servants… now I have called you my friends”, Peter was wearing a sword. (Lk 22:38) John did not refer to the sword, but it was probably not lost on his audience that this friendship promotion was very King-like. John’s overall narrative had already brought the King motif from Nathaniel’s proclamation in Ch.1 to the rabble’s demand in Ch.6 to the triumphant entry in Ch.12. And now, for a greek audience, this official promotion of his students into a tight circle of “friends” makes a definite parallel with the practice of Hellenistic Kings.
At least from Alexander on, Greek style Kings always had circles of friends. In extant literature, I suspect this has to be one of the most common repetitive uses of the word philos – the “friends of the King”. At any rate, there was certainly no higher honor for a non-royal in the ancient world, than to be a friend of the King. So Peter, holding his sword, who still mostly saw Jesus as the head of God’s coming Kingdom… must have relished being named with such a magnanimous title. He could hardly have done better than “friend of Jesus”.
The friends of the King aren’t just his drinking buddies. They act as his strong right arm. They are loyal servants of his needs, and of his kingdom’s needs. The King’s friends are the ones who do the most work for the King. They hold high positions. They run things.
In other words, they ‘phileo’ the King.
(To be continued…)
Series Update:
June 12, 2009
A New Take on John 21 (5)
Yes, I took sixteen semester hours of greek at LSU, but don't ask me how much I remember. Since I’m clearly not a linguist, I eagerly invite any Greek experts reading this to critique my claims here in the comments. That said, I suspect you’ll all mainly agree. Either way, here goes…
I never forgot my 7th grade Latin teacher telling us over and over, "Language was not created in a laboratory". That may partly explain why I just never bought into the supposed agape/phileo dichotomy, per se. What I mean is, “agape” may be the most excellent way in Paul’s most famous paragraph, but if the pagan-born Corinthians already shared Paul’s definition of “agape” then why did he have to spell it out for them? Answer: Because it wasn’t standardized christian jargon yet.
As I see it, 1.Cor.13 is a beautiful exercise in the redefinition of a term. “Agape is… Agape is… Agape is…” I don’t know how this didn’t come up while Paul was in town, but somehow, they still didn’t know! Or maybe they needed to hear it again. Either way, the Corinthians seem to have thought agape was something else. We may as well imagine displaced Eskimos trying to tell ancient Egyptians about snow, because surely, no human being before Jesus Christ ever thought up a word that meant “unconditional giving”.
Here’s all I’m trying to claim. To the ancient Greeks, “agape” wasn’t always, automatically or inherently superior to “phileo”. On the contrary, I believe classical scholars will back me up in asserting that – prior to Christian redefinitions – ancient Greeks valued “phileo” more than “agape”. The Liddel-Scott Lexicon devotes one collumn of space for the three major forms of "agape", but gives eleven full pages of "phileo" and "phil-" based words. When the Greeks needed to invent a new word to mean "fond of fish", they built it on "phil-", not "agap-".
Besides, the root of "phileo" seems to come from "philos", which means friend. Preachers always said this word meant brotherly love or loyalty - as if that's less valuable? Not in the godless, heathen world's mindset! In contrast, the Homeric & Attic "agapao" seems to center on the idea of affection, or expressions of personal regard, such as a simple caress. Think about that. You can pet a cat to express affection, but a blood-strong bond of loving friendship? That can press you to the limit at the cost of your life.
And remember, we're talking about a godless heathen language. Whatever emotional chords the Greeks struck on when they used the word agape (however rarely), they couldn't possibly have placed as much value upon it as upon friendship. A contract of personal loyalty is good credit for mutual fortune, advancement, prestige and many other practical benefits of this life.
Again, this is all just to say “phileo” can be superior to “agape” and generally was, to the Greek speakers up to and during the time of Jesus Christ. Evidently, it stayed that way at least as far as the days of Paul in Corinth as well.
This point alone suggests we consider turning the typical view of John 21 upside down. What if Peter thought he was 'doing one better' for Jesus, by claiming “phileo”?
(To be continued…)
I never forgot my 7th grade Latin teacher telling us over and over, "Language was not created in a laboratory". That may partly explain why I just never bought into the supposed agape/phileo dichotomy, per se. What I mean is, “agape” may be the most excellent way in Paul’s most famous paragraph, but if the pagan-born Corinthians already shared Paul’s definition of “agape” then why did he have to spell it out for them? Answer: Because it wasn’t standardized christian jargon yet.
As I see it, 1.Cor.13 is a beautiful exercise in the redefinition of a term. “Agape is… Agape is… Agape is…” I don’t know how this didn’t come up while Paul was in town, but somehow, they still didn’t know! Or maybe they needed to hear it again. Either way, the Corinthians seem to have thought agape was something else. We may as well imagine displaced Eskimos trying to tell ancient Egyptians about snow, because surely, no human being before Jesus Christ ever thought up a word that meant “unconditional giving”.
Here’s all I’m trying to claim. To the ancient Greeks, “agape” wasn’t always, automatically or inherently superior to “phileo”. On the contrary, I believe classical scholars will back me up in asserting that – prior to Christian redefinitions – ancient Greeks valued “phileo” more than “agape”. The Liddel-Scott Lexicon devotes one collumn of space for the three major forms of "agape", but gives eleven full pages of "phileo" and "phil-" based words. When the Greeks needed to invent a new word to mean "fond of fish", they built it on "phil-", not "agap-".
Besides, the root of "phileo" seems to come from "philos", which means friend. Preachers always said this word meant brotherly love or loyalty - as if that's less valuable? Not in the godless, heathen world's mindset! In contrast, the Homeric & Attic "agapao" seems to center on the idea of affection, or expressions of personal regard, such as a simple caress. Think about that. You can pet a cat to express affection, but a blood-strong bond of loving friendship? That can press you to the limit at the cost of your life.
And remember, we're talking about a godless heathen language. Whatever emotional chords the Greeks struck on when they used the word agape (however rarely), they couldn't possibly have placed as much value upon it as upon friendship. A contract of personal loyalty is good credit for mutual fortune, advancement, prestige and many other practical benefits of this life.
Again, this is all just to say “phileo” can be superior to “agape” and generally was, to the Greek speakers up to and during the time of Jesus Christ. Evidently, it stayed that way at least as far as the days of Paul in Corinth as well.
This point alone suggests we consider turning the typical view of John 21 upside down. What if Peter thought he was 'doing one better' for Jesus, by claiming “phileo”?
(To be continued…)
Series Update:
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)