Previous drafts in this series include:
1a. Born at a Time and Place 1; 1b. Born at a Time and Place 2
2a. A Change in Life Direction; 2b A Change in Life Direction 2; 2c A Change in Life Direction 3
3a. The Unknown Years 1; 3b. The Unknown Years 2; 3c. The Unknown Years 3
4a. Life Beyond Death; 4b. Life Beyond Death; 4c. Life Beyond Death; 4d Life Beyond Death
5a. Disunity at Corinth.
Today is part 2 of chapter 5, "Disunity at Corinth."
__________
It was not long after Paul left Corinth that the church there began to have issues of concern to him. Who knows? Perhaps those issues had been in play even before Paul left the city. [1] The first that we hear about is a problem with certain in the Corinthian church who were "sexually immoral." Although we call 1 Corinthians, "First" Corinthians, it was not actually the first letter Paul sent this church from Ephesus. [2] In 1 Corinthians 5:9, Paul mentions a letter he had previously sent them even before 1 Corinthians in which he had told them not to associate with sexually immoral people.
Perhaps he had been somewhat general or vague in that letter, hoping they would get the hint. [3] Alas, they had not got the point. Now he has to spell it out--he had in mind people who were actually part of their fellowship who were sexually immoral. Indeed he goes on in 5:11 to mention a host of people who should not be part of the church's fellowship: people whose life might be aptly described as full of greed, slander, drunkenness, or cheating others; those who participate in pagan worship or whose pattern of life is full of sexual immorality. In keeping with what it meant to eat together with others at that time, Paul tells the Corinthian believers not to eat with such individuals as part of their fellowship.
However, the key issue that led Paul to write 1 Corinthians--the second letter Paul wrote this church--was disunity. Indeed, we might aptly consider 1 Corinthians 1:10 the key verse of the entire letter: "Now I appeal to you, brothers and sisters, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you be in agreement and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be united in the same mind and the same purpose" (NRSV). In most of the varied issues Paul discusses in the rest of 1 Corinthians, we can hear the not so subtle subtext of division in the congregation.
Because of the group orientation of most people at the time, we would expect that most of these divisions at Corinth involved the same people versus the same people, despite the fact that the issues vary. Independent thinking was not valued at all in the ancient world but coherence to your people and your group. We would therefore be surprised if most of these divisions on issues did not largely involve the same basic people over and against the same basic people.
We also would be surprised if these divisions did not have a great deal to do with the social status--or at least the social aspirations--of the people involved. This dynamic comes out particularly with the issue of food sacrificed at pagan temples. The poor did not generally have access to meat except on the occasion of city festivals. And it was common practice to segregate dining fellowship by social class--sometimes even involving a different menu depending on who you were. [4] Further, the poor probably could resist the temptation to eat at a pagan temple more easily than individuals like Erastus, who apparently was trying to climb the city's social ladder. We can imagine he experienced pressure to "see and be seen" at important civic events relating to the city's temples.
But whatever the underlying dynamics of these divisions were, they presented themselves on the surface as varying allegiances to Christian leaders. Paul writes, "It has been reported to me by Chloe’s people that there are quarrels among you, my brothers and sisters. What I mean is that each of you says, 'I belong to Paul,' or 'I belong to Apollos,' or 'I belong to Cephas,' or 'I belong to Christ.' As is so often the case with human nature, the presenting issue probably only scratched the surface of the interpersonal conflicts going on here.
Those who were loyal to Paul were probably mostly the foundational stratum of the church, those who believed on Jesus while Paul ministered there. But Apollos had soon followed Paul and, as we see so often today, the second "pastor" may not have looked at every issue quite the same way as the first. For example, Apollos was from Alexandria in Egypt and seems to have been a little more educated than Paul--at least in terms of Greco-Roman education. It is at least possible that some of the divisions at Corinth represented differences between his and Paul's perspectives on various things. After all, according to Acts the two never even met each other until after Apollos had ministered in Corinth.
Perhaps, just perhaps, Apollos may have drawn some from the city's upper crust that Paul had not drawn. Perhaps we can hear Apollos' voice in the notion that "no idol in the world really exists" (1 Cor. 8:4) If such were the case, it might explain the tension between Paul's affirmation of this idea in 1 Corinthians 8 alongside his claim that demons inhabit pagan temples (1 Cor. 10:20). The first is Apollos' voice; the second Paul's. Paul does not want to contradict Apollos' teaching but qualify it so that the Corinthians take the appropriate course of action.
It is at least plausible that it is this "Apollos group" that think they know more than the "Paul group." Perhaps it is the Apollos party that is saying, "all of us possess knowledge" (8:1). Is it the upper crust, the social ladder climbers of the Corinthian church, who can get away with certain forms of sexual practice that were even rejected by Greek society? Is it elite wives in 1 Corinthians 7 and 11 who are using Christianity as an opportunity to free themselves of their husbands? Is it these who are getting drunk during the Lord's supper while others go away hungry? And, although it contradicts our modern biases, are these individuals who think of themselves as "spiritual" (e.g., 3:1) those who are speaking in tongues and looking down on others in the church who do not (14:1)?
The primary tension in the congregation would thus seem to be between those who are loyal to Paul and those who are using Apollos as an excuse to behave in a different way than Paul has instructed. Even though Peter and Christ are mentioned in the opening line of 1 Corinthians 1:12, it is primarily Paul himself and Apollos who pop up mostly in the subsequent discussion of chapters 1-4 (e.g., 3:4, 5-6; 4:6). A division between those loyal to Paul and those who champion Apollos would thus seem to be a sub-text of the divisions over issues at Corinth that we will explore in more detail in chapter 7 of this book.
It seems less likely that there was a distinctive "Peter group" or a "Christ group," following the divisions Paul mentions in 1:12. However, it is very possible that some Jewish believers at Corinth did not rank Paul as highly as Peter (cf. 9:5), and Paul does bring Peter back up as a possible source of division in 3:22. [5] We remember from Galatians 2 that Paul and Peter did not see eye to eye on every issue. In particular, if the letter of Acts 15:23-29 already existed by the time Paul wrote 1 Corinthians, it is very conspicuous that Paul never mentions its contents to the Corinthians--even though 1 Corinthians addesses the same issues! Paul apparently does not agree with the position James and Peter took on the issue of meat sacrificed to idols.
In fact, the statement "I am of Christ" most likely is a slam at the Jerusalem apostles themselves. Paul is in effect saying that individuals like Peter, who actually knew Jesus while he was on earth, are no more authoritative than he is. Certainly this is the position he takes in Galatians 2, where he refers to Peter, James, and John as people "so called pillars" (2:6, my translation) and claims it does not really matter to him what they are, because God does not show favoritism...
[1] Acts certainly gives us the impression that the conflict with the Roman proconsul Gallio did not lead to the departure of Paul, Priscilla, and Aquila from Corinth (cf. Acts 18:18). However, some would argue that Acts has a tendency to soften conflicts between Christians and the powers that be. But any speculation that Gallio forced Paul, Priscilla, and Aquila to leave town prematurely is exactly that--speculation.
[2] We do not actually know for sure where Paul was when he sent the letter, but since Paul sent 1 Corinthians while at Ephesus, it is our best guess.
[3] Some have suggested 2 Corinthians 6:14-7:1 might be a displaced excerpt of the letter since it seems out of place where it is currently in 2 Corinthians.
[4] The classic text here is Pliny the Younger, writing in the early second century AD. He complains to his host for having a different menu for each person around the table based on their social status.
[5] We should not think it impossible, however, that there were Gentile believers who might have considered Peter more authoritative than Paul.
Friday, December 04, 2009
Wednesday, December 02, 2009
2 Peter 2 (Video Commentary)
In lieu of class tomorrow, here is a quick video run through 2 Peter 2, with special reference to parallel verses in Jude.
My version of Acts 6: Hebrews and Hellenists
Thought I'd post here too this comment I made in one of our online classes about Acts 6:
_________
We all write little novels as we interpret these stories (it makes for good preaching). Shoving an experience into a string of words inevitably loses a lot of stuff, creates gaps that we all refill in when we retell the story in interpretation.
Here's my "little novel" of this incident in Acts 6. The Aramaic speaking Jews were the home team, the ones in power, ground zero. I'm not sure anyone meant to forget about the fact that there were Greek-speaking Jews who believed Jesus was the Messiah too. But it was easy to think less of them. They didn't speak the home language. They came from somewhere else. "Did we run out of bread again before we go to you all? Rats."
Peter sounds a little irritated when someone else points out they are being missed out. "I have more important things to do than wait on tables. Let's find someone to take care of this." But the names of the committee hardly reads like a by-partisan committee of deacons (a word that is not actually used of these guys--what we actually find them all doing is preaching). The names are all Diaspora, Hellenistic. So what they did was appoint some of them, them others, to take care of themselves.
But God uses it. Stephen stirs up a real ruckus and ends up getting stoned, and the Hellenists are scattered. It is, I would argue, the Hellenists who take the gospel to Judea and Samaria (the apostles do not actually seem the target of the persecution--when Peter is, he leaves town).
_________
We all write little novels as we interpret these stories (it makes for good preaching). Shoving an experience into a string of words inevitably loses a lot of stuff, creates gaps that we all refill in when we retell the story in interpretation.
Here's my "little novel" of this incident in Acts 6. The Aramaic speaking Jews were the home team, the ones in power, ground zero. I'm not sure anyone meant to forget about the fact that there were Greek-speaking Jews who believed Jesus was the Messiah too. But it was easy to think less of them. They didn't speak the home language. They came from somewhere else. "Did we run out of bread again before we go to you all? Rats."
Peter sounds a little irritated when someone else points out they are being missed out. "I have more important things to do than wait on tables. Let's find someone to take care of this." But the names of the committee hardly reads like a by-partisan committee of deacons (a word that is not actually used of these guys--what we actually find them all doing is preaching). The names are all Diaspora, Hellenistic. So what they did was appoint some of them, them others, to take care of themselves.
But God uses it. Stephen stirs up a real ruckus and ends up getting stoned, and the Hellenists are scattered. It is, I would argue, the Hellenists who take the gospel to Judea and Samaria (the apostles do not actually seem the target of the persecution--when Peter is, he leaves town).
New Testament History (Video Lecture)
In the strange transitional zone I seem to be caught in, I had to vidcast two lectures for the next two days since I'm going to be on administrative retreat. Here is the first:
New Testament History
It is a one hour run through some of the history of the first century after Christ in relation to the New Testament. A second will follow, oddly enough, on 2 Peter 2.
New Testament History
It is a one hour run through some of the history of the first century after Christ in relation to the New Testament. A second will follow, oddly enough, on 2 Peter 2.
New Testament Intersections: Late Apocalyptic
Some previous posts in this series:
Most Apocrypha and Alexandrian Literature
Early Enochic Literature
The Dead Sea Scrolls and the New Testament
Here is a litany of later Jewish apocalyptic literature, which may or may not be Essene. I throw in the Wisdom of Solomon and Joseph and Aseneth.
___________
Psalms of Solomon (1st century BC)
Most Apocrypha and Alexandrian Literature
Early Enochic Literature
The Dead Sea Scrolls and the New Testament
Here is a litany of later Jewish apocalyptic literature, which may or may not be Essene. I throw in the Wisdom of Solomon and Joseph and Aseneth.
___________
Psalms of Solomon (1st century BC)
- Possibly Essene, although could be Pharisaic
- Gentiles straightforwardly = sinners (cf. Gal. 2:15)
- Classic text on the expectation of a military messiah (chap. 17 esp.)
- First Jewish writing explicitly to equate the serpent in the Garden of Eden with Satan (Genesis does not)
- Satan is commanded to worship Adam as the image of God (evidence that okay to give royal representatives of God derivative worship)
- Righteous person is a son of God (2:16-18; 5:5), and the righteous are “saints” (5:5).
- Death entered the world by the Devil’s envy (2:23).
- seems to affirm resurrection (cf. 3:7-8; 16:13)
- Romans 1's sense that the truth of God's nature should be known but that humanity has instead turned to idols is very reminiscent of Wisdom 12:19; 13:1; 14:12.
- Hebrews 1:3 seems to allude to Wisdom 7:26.
- Hebrews 4:12-13 describes God's word much as Wis. 18:15-16 does.
- Righteous will receive a crown (Wis. 5:16; compare 2 Tim. 4).
- Spirit of God holds everything together (Wis. 1:7; compare Col. 1:17)
- armor of God (5:17-21)
- Gives example of conversion to Judaism--Aseneth becoming a virgin again involves putting a hair veil back on, possible background to 1 Corinthians 11
- Crucial text for background to some heavenly "Son of Man" passages in the gospels. Very similar to Matthew 25.
- Dating of the Parables has impact on whether Jesus might have had these texts in mind in his use of the phrase (Schenck dates it to early first century AD where it stands more as potential background to Matthew than to Jesus' use of the phrase).
- Crucial text in understanding the worship of Jesus as God's king on the throne of heaven (along with Ezekiel the Tragedian and Life of Adam and Eve).
- Sees the Son of Man as existing in heaven long before coming on the clouds in judgment (pre-existent).
4 Ezra (ca. AD100)
- Calls Rome Babylon, as in Revelation and 1 Peter.
- Adamic “fall” (e.g. 3:21; 4:30; 7:11)
- All have sinned (7:46,68)
- Messiah coming (13:32-36) and pre-existent
2 Baruch (ca. AD100)
- Sense of a fall of Adam
- Heavenly temple shown to Adam and Moses on Sinai
- looks to messiah and resurrection
Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs
- Testament Genre--Richard Bauckham (e.g.) sees 2 Peter in this category.
- Testament of Levi has three heavens, with evil angels in the lowest, God in the highest, and angels in the highest offering bloodless sacrifices. Helpful picture of one Jewish cosmology at the time: 1) Satan as prince of the air, Jesus' exorcist ministry as a "Normandy invasion" of a world under evil powers, kicking out of the church as a delivering over to Satan as power of this world (1 Cor. 5), the world and flesh under the power of Sin; 2) Paul being taken up into the third heaven; 3) possible insights in relation to Hebrews with angelic "temple" service in the highest heaven (cf. Songs of Sabbath Sacrifice).
Testament of Job
- Satan the prince of evil (i.e., not a servant of God as in Job itself)
- Job's daughters speak in tongues--could be evidence for non-Christian Jewish speaking in tongues, although some think this is a Montanist redaction of an original Jewish document.
- If it also was known as the Assumption of Moses, may have contained the curious story in Jude of Michael arguing with Satan over the body of Moses.
- Third oracle involves an indictment of homosexual sex and seems to consider an Egyptian king as a messianic figure.
- Fifth oracle has tradition that Nero would return from the East to retake over the Roman empire. Possible background to Revelation 17--the eighth is one of the five who was, is not, and yet will be, with a mortal wound.
- Angel of God is Iaoel (name like to that of God himself)
- “without mother, without father, ungenerated” (17:10); reminiscent of Hebrews 7:3
- apparently disembodied afterlife rather than resurrection per se.
Martyrdom and Ascension of Isaiah
- 7 layers of heaven
- tradition that Isaiah was sawed in half (Hebrews 11)
- possible worship of an exalted angel
Monday, November 30, 2009
Reading (11-30-09): Dunn's Beginning
Finished chapter 28 on Dating Paul. First half of chapter here. Dunn's dating is fairly conventional and very close to mine, although interestingly I allow for a little more creativity in Acts' presentation than he does at points. He dates Galatians to Paul's stay at Corinth and the (undisputed) Prison Epistles to Rome. I place Galatians, Philippians, and Philemon at Ephesus. As always I am open to the evidence.
I always find "the majority of scholars think" statements interesting. Here are some in this chapter:
1. Majority think Jesus crucified in AD30.
2. Perhaps majority date Philippians to an Ephesian imprisonment.
3. Most do not think Paul released after imprisonment at Rome at the end of Acts.
I'm currently with these "majorities," although probably the majority of evangelical scholars disagree with #2 and 3.
One of the most helpful elements of this chapter is his relaying of Jewett's estimations of distances and walking time between places (p. 513). He also has some interesting material on the kinds of places Paul might have stayed along the way.
Tomorrow, d.v., back to Green.
I always find "the majority of scholars think" statements interesting. Here are some in this chapter:
1. Majority think Jesus crucified in AD30.
2. Perhaps majority date Philippians to an Ephesian imprisonment.
3. Most do not think Paul released after imprisonment at Rome at the end of Acts.
I'm currently with these "majorities," although probably the majority of evangelical scholars disagree with #2 and 3.
One of the most helpful elements of this chapter is his relaying of Jewett's estimations of distances and walking time between places (p. 513). He also has some interesting material on the kinds of places Paul might have stayed along the way.
Tomorrow, d.v., back to Green.
Theological identity of new seminary...
It may be this afternoon before I post another Paul installment. In the meantime, here is a statement from the Dean of our new seminary on who we are theologically.
Sunday, November 29, 2009
What I'm Reading (11-29-30)
Only had a half hour to give to reading tonight and gave it to begin chapter 28 of James Dunn's Beginning from Jerusalem, "Dates, Destinations and Distances." I managed 11 pages on Pauline chronology. Standard fare, although well articulated as everything Dunn writes is.
This line in a footnote caught my eye: "As Murphy-O'Connor observes, the fourteen years [of Gal. 2:1 before Paul's second trip to Jerusalem] could not include the three years [Paul mentions in Gal. 1 between conversion and first trip to Jerusalem], since the clear implication is of fourteen years without contact with Jerusalem..."
If so, the early date for Galatians would pretty much die, the pre-Jerusalem council dating, and the majority position of evangelical biblical scholars.
I'll hope to finish the chapter tomorrow.
This line in a footnote caught my eye: "As Murphy-O'Connor observes, the fourteen years [of Gal. 2:1 before Paul's second trip to Jerusalem] could not include the three years [Paul mentions in Gal. 1 between conversion and first trip to Jerusalem], since the clear implication is of fourteen years without contact with Jerusalem..."
If so, the early date for Galatians would pretty much die, the pre-Jerusalem council dating, and the majority position of evangelical biblical scholars.
I'll hope to finish the chapter tomorrow.
Saturday, November 28, 2009
What I'm Reading (11-28-09)
Today I rotated to Joel Green's Body, Soul, and Human Life: The Nature of Humanity in the Bible. It's research for the philosophy chapter I'm on. Today I read/skimmed chapter 1, "The Bible, the Natural Sciences, and the Human Person." Green's knowledge of literature on everything is exhaustive and irritating.
Notable quotes:
Notable quotes:
- Bultmann--"Man does not have a soma. Man is a soma."
- Robert Jewett--"Paul never uses psyche in the strictest sense of 'soul.'"
- Green--"For Barth, natural science had little relevance for theology, for science comprises a competing ideology... In the history of the interaction of faith and science, however, Barth's is a minority position" (22).
Green rightly points out a number of challenges this issue presents. He gives some helpful definitions of the spectrum from reductive physicalism to radical dualism, with middle positions like holistic dualism and various other forms of middle ground monism. My goal is not to do full reviews with these, however.
Oh me, Oh Translations
I was writing on Paul this morning and came to a place where I wanted to quote 1 Corinthians. I had planned to use the TNIV going forward in my popular writing. But now I hear Zondervan is phasing it out. They're going to revise the NIV with Doug Moo in charge.
So now the TNIV is a bad choice for both the philosophy book and the Paul books and Bible studies I'm under contract to write--a bad choice for promoting in our new seminary or in our undergraduate program. I'm not going to use the outdated NIV or wait till 2011 to finish these books. Frankly I haven't felt that Zondervan is very Wesleyan-Arminian friendly anyway. Why reward them by supporting their translations?
What version to use? There is the ESV, which I suspect is the best literal translation overall currently on the market. But I eschew the politics of its origins. It was created in reaction to the pro-women in ministry trajectory of Christianity. Although thankfully I don't think these political dynamics have harmed the translation I find myself hating to associate myself or Wesleyan institutions with it given what it represents sociologically. Perhaps I will eventually give in but I am still holding off stubbornly, not wanting to support these forces in evangelicalism.
There is the NLT, which is great for preaching, but is a dynamic translation and so not suitable for detailed study of individual passages. Its strength is overall communication, not being able to hear the details of the original meaning.
So I find myself this morning using the NRSV in the quote. It is the choice of mainstream biblical scholarship anyway and bests the ESV in literalness if you understand its dynamic translation of "brothers" with "brothers and sisters" and such. I am not opposed to that dynamic translation for the purposes of communication and it was, after all, part of the TNIV too. Its just that the male-orientation of the original texts was, whether I like it or not, an aspect of the original text, just as those who do not use inclusive language today implicitly function in a male-oriented way.
We have to accept the fact that the original context of the Bible was sexist in its orientation. We can't be as Christians in our context, not and be faithful to the core message of Christ. But when we are studying the original meaning of the Bible, we simply have to deal with the fact that we are reading male-oriented texts, as all the texts of the day were. This is one area, interestingly, where Western society as a whole--even the fallen world at large--has thankfully moved closer to the kingdom than the New Testament itself, since its books were truth incarnated within the thought patterns of its day.
God took where they were, met them there, and pointed them in the direction of the kingdom. Pity those like the Grudems and Pipers of the evangelical world who mistake the wineskins for the wine.
So now the TNIV is a bad choice for both the philosophy book and the Paul books and Bible studies I'm under contract to write--a bad choice for promoting in our new seminary or in our undergraduate program. I'm not going to use the outdated NIV or wait till 2011 to finish these books. Frankly I haven't felt that Zondervan is very Wesleyan-Arminian friendly anyway. Why reward them by supporting their translations?
What version to use? There is the ESV, which I suspect is the best literal translation overall currently on the market. But I eschew the politics of its origins. It was created in reaction to the pro-women in ministry trajectory of Christianity. Although thankfully I don't think these political dynamics have harmed the translation I find myself hating to associate myself or Wesleyan institutions with it given what it represents sociologically. Perhaps I will eventually give in but I am still holding off stubbornly, not wanting to support these forces in evangelicalism.
There is the NLT, which is great for preaching, but is a dynamic translation and so not suitable for detailed study of individual passages. Its strength is overall communication, not being able to hear the details of the original meaning.
So I find myself this morning using the NRSV in the quote. It is the choice of mainstream biblical scholarship anyway and bests the ESV in literalness if you understand its dynamic translation of "brothers" with "brothers and sisters" and such. I am not opposed to that dynamic translation for the purposes of communication and it was, after all, part of the TNIV too. Its just that the male-orientation of the original texts was, whether I like it or not, an aspect of the original text, just as those who do not use inclusive language today implicitly function in a male-oriented way.
We have to accept the fact that the original context of the Bible was sexist in its orientation. We can't be as Christians in our context, not and be faithful to the core message of Christ. But when we are studying the original meaning of the Bible, we simply have to deal with the fact that we are reading male-oriented texts, as all the texts of the day were. This is one area, interestingly, where Western society as a whole--even the fallen world at large--has thankfully moved closer to the kingdom than the New Testament itself, since its books were truth incarnated within the thought patterns of its day.
God took where they were, met them there, and pointed them in the direction of the kingdom. Pity those like the Grudems and Pipers of the evangelical world who mistake the wineskins for the wine.
Friday, November 27, 2009
What I'm Reading (11-27-09)
As part of my goal to read at least 30 minutes a day in relation to my writing, I started Mark Goodacre and Nicholas Perrin's book Questioning Q today. I am such a ridiculously slow reader and easily distracted by children and multitudes of other things. After over an hour I had only read the Foreward by N. T. Wright and the 12 page Introduction by Perrin, "Reasons for Questioning Q."
In any case, I have updated my reading list on the side and will be adding a couple other books in the days ahead. Because I have a short span of attention, I hope to rotate around these books, finishing a chapter in one and then rotating to the next.
I had not known (silly me) that either Wright or Perrin would favor such positions, although to be honest, Wright did not exactly take a position in his Foreward. He rather told his own surprise over the years that the Q hypothesis had not been questioned more often. For those who aren't aware of this issue, the majority position among gospel scholars has long been that Mark was the first gospel and that Matthew and Luke both independently used a sayings source commonly called "Q" (from the German Quelle) to explain the similar material they have in common.
I have generally accepted the majority position on the issue, although in the name of truth I insist on being open to other hypotheses as the evidence is marshalled. I am quite open to the possibility that Luke knew Matthew, for example. On the other hand, I will approach this material wondering whether that possibility in itself eliminates justification for a sayings source. We'll see. In my critical issues series, the Synoptic Problem is next up, so this is my research for that section. Yes, Goodacre is right, I am a "lazy believer" in Q.
Perrin recounts the story of how the Q hypothesis developed. I'll save that story for my own summary to come. One key point is his sense that David Strauss' mid-1800s claims that the gospels were full of "myth" begged for an account like that of H. J. Holtzmann that arrived at some sort of Jesus bedrock--in his case an earlier version of Mark and a collection of Jesus' sayings.
Hopefully more to come. I hate to say it but with 10 more chapters, this may take me a while.
Oh me, oh life...
In any case, I have updated my reading list on the side and will be adding a couple other books in the days ahead. Because I have a short span of attention, I hope to rotate around these books, finishing a chapter in one and then rotating to the next.
I had not known (silly me) that either Wright or Perrin would favor such positions, although to be honest, Wright did not exactly take a position in his Foreward. He rather told his own surprise over the years that the Q hypothesis had not been questioned more often. For those who aren't aware of this issue, the majority position among gospel scholars has long been that Mark was the first gospel and that Matthew and Luke both independently used a sayings source commonly called "Q" (from the German Quelle) to explain the similar material they have in common.
I have generally accepted the majority position on the issue, although in the name of truth I insist on being open to other hypotheses as the evidence is marshalled. I am quite open to the possibility that Luke knew Matthew, for example. On the other hand, I will approach this material wondering whether that possibility in itself eliminates justification for a sayings source. We'll see. In my critical issues series, the Synoptic Problem is next up, so this is my research for that section. Yes, Goodacre is right, I am a "lazy believer" in Q.
Perrin recounts the story of how the Q hypothesis developed. I'll save that story for my own summary to come. One key point is his sense that David Strauss' mid-1800s claims that the gospels were full of "myth" begged for an account like that of H. J. Holtzmann that arrived at some sort of Jesus bedrock--in his case an earlier version of Mark and a collection of Jesus' sayings.
Hopefully more to come. I hate to say it but with 10 more chapters, this may take me a while.
Oh me, oh life...
Friday Paul: 5a. Disunity at Corinth
I have two writing goals for December: 1) finish my first Paul book, 2) nearly finish the philosophy book. I will probably alternate primarily between these two projects over the course of the next month, with the usual smattering of Explanatory Notes and perhaps some book review material as I come back from SBL determined to try to read at least 30 minutes a day. As usual, my goals usually outstrip my capacity.
Previous drafts of chapter material on the Paul book include:
1a. Born at a Time and Place 1; 1b. Born at a Time and Place 2
2a. A Change in Life Direction; 2b A Change in Life Direction 2; 2c A Change in Life Direction 3
3a. The Unknown Years 1; 3b. The Unknown Years 2; 3c. The Unknown Years 3
4a. Life Beyond Death; 4b. Life Beyond Death; 4c. Life Beyond Death; 4d Life Beyond Death
Today we begin Chapter 5: "Disunity at Corinth."
____________
Paul spent almost two years ministering at Corinth. In 1 Corinthians 16:15 Paul mentions that the household of Stephanus was the first fruits of Achaia (southern Greece), meaning that his family was probably the first of those in Corinth to believe Jesus was the Christ. The names mentioned in 1 Corinthians are Stephanus, Fortunatus, and Achaicus (1 Cor. 16:17). We hear smatterings of other names associated with Corinth. [1] For example, 1 Corinthians 1:1 mentions a co-author, Sosthenes, whose name is conspicuously the same as a synagogue leader in Corinth who gets beaten in Acts 18:17.
The conflict mentioned in Acts 18 may very well have played itself out in many parts of the Mediterranean world. Christianity was not yet a distinct religion but only one of many branches of Judaism at the time: Pharisees, Sadducees, Essenes, Christ-followers. [2] The first two were largely confined to Jerusalem, although the Essenes may have spread out some. We have good reason to think that Christ followers sometimes came into conflict with more mainstream Jews in various synagogues around the Mediterranean. For example, this kind of conflict in a Greek-speaking synagogue in Jerusalem seems to have resulted in Stephen getting stoned (Acts 6:9).
Two of Paul's most prominent co-workers, Priscilla and Aquila, were expelled from Rome along with all the Christian Jews of the city because of conflicts between Christ-followers and mainstream Jews in the synagogues of the city. [3] Most would date this conflict to around AD49, which places Paul's work in Corinth around the years AD50-52. This fits with the mention of the Roman proconsul Gallio in Acts 18. We know from an inscription that he was proconsul from AD51-52, giving us the most certain date we have in dating Paul's life and missionary work. Priscilla and Aquila had recently come to the city when Paul first arrived there.
Perhaps this same conflict unfolded at Corinth with this Sosthenes as synagogue leader at the time. Not everyone in the synagogue would have believed that Jesus was the Christ. We hear of others who had. Acts mentions that the person who was synagogue leader when Paul arrived in the city had also believed, Crispus (Acts 18:8). Paul mentions him in 1 Corinthians 1:14 as someone he baptized there, along with someone else named Gaius. Some wonder if the Gentile Titius Justus who is mentioned in Acts 18:7 might have been the same person that Paul calls Gaius. [4]
We hear of two further names in Romans 16:23, which Paul likely wrote from Corinth on a later visit. Erastus is called the city's "administrator," possibly the city treasurer or perhaps director of public works. We actually have among the ruins of Corinth a sidewalk with an inscription in it that says it was paid for by one Erastus, the city's "aedile," a position that generally fits how Paul describes him. Along with Gaius and Erastus, Romans 16:23 also sends the greetings of someone named Quartus. If we add the household of Chloe (1 Cor. 1:11), which may of course include some of the people we have already mentioned, we have no less than nine names of local Corinthians who were associated with the church at Corinth.
[insert photo of Erastus inscription]
These nine names belong to no less than three households, and quite possibly more. We know of the household of Stephanus, of Chloe, and presumably of Gaius. Paul refers to the church at Corinth in the singular in the greeting of 1 Corinthians 1:1. From this fact we should probably infer that the church at Corinth could meet in a single house, regardless of whether they sometimes broke up into even smaller house churches. Since Paul in Romans 16:23 says that the whole church enjoyed the hospitality of Gaius, it seems quite possible that he was somewhat wealthy and could fit the entire church of 40-50 people in his house for worship.
In 1 Corinthians 1:26, Paul says that "not many" of the Corinthians were influential or of noble birth. But individuals like Gaius and Erastus were likely the few Paul implies were. Erastus would need to be a Roman citizen of some means to serve in public office and fund service projects. If Gaius was Titius Justus, he would presumably be a Roman citizen also. This sort of social status created in itself temptations and pressures that most of the believers, who did not have such status, would not have to face. We will return to the social divisions at Corinth in a moment.
At some point after Paul's run-in with the Roman proconsul Gallio, he departed from Corinth. Acts tells us he briefly visited Ephesus before sailing to Jerusalem, traveling back to Antioch in the north of Palestine, and then revisiting the churches he had founded throughout Asia Minor (Acts 18:23). Paul has left little trace of this verse in any of his letters. [5] But eventually, perhaps in AD53 or 54, he finds himself back in Ephesus, which he sets up as his "base camp" for ministry over the next three years or so.
By the time he arrives, Priscilla and Aquila have been ministering there for perhaps a year. They have already had one very significant convert to faith in Christ, an eloquent Jew from Alexandria named Apollos. This incident may provide us with not a little insight into some of the details of the early church. For one, Acts does not say that Aquila and Priscilla invited him to their home and explained Christ to them but that Priscilla and Aquila did. In other words, it implies that the wife took the lead in Apollos' conversion. Priscilla is mentioned in Acts and Paul first more often than not, quite possibly implying that she tended to take the lead between the two (e.g., Acts 18:18, 26; Rom. 16:3). [6]
Another item of interest is that Acts says Apollos was instructed in the Way of the Lord but did not know about Jesus, only John the Baptist. What makes this comment very interesting is that the Essenes at Qumran on the Dead Sea saw themselves as "preparing the way of the Lord," using the same passage from Isaiah 40 to describe themselves as the gospels use to describe John the Baptist. [7] There are enough similarities between some of the early Christians and these Essenes that we wonder if there was some overlap at first between the two groups. [8]
Acts tells us that Paul also has an encounter with such followers of John the Baptist's teaching when he comes to Ephesus (Acts 19:1-7). The book of Acts makes it very clear that John's baptism was not yet Christian baptism. Paul baptizes them in the name of Jesus and lays hands on them so that they receive the Holy Spirit as an element of the equation that John's baptism did not provide. Here we probably find hints of an important need in the early church to distinguish Christ followers from mere followers of John the Baptist.
John baptized with water, but Jesus with the Holy Spirit (cf. Mark 1:8). The Holy Spirit in Acts thus indicates that a person is truly "in," truly going to be saved from the coming judgment. We can build a case for a tension at Ephesus between the followers of Jesus and the followers of John the Baptist by adding to these hints from Acts the hints of the Gospel of John. According to tradition, the Gospel of John originated at Ephesus. Its portrayal of John the Baptist is fascinating in that it consistently downplays his significance. For example, the Gospel of John never actually mentions that Jesus submitted to baptism by John. Unlike Matthew 11:14, John the Baptist himself denies that he is Elijah in John 1:21. Only in John do we hear of John the Baptist's followers leaving him to follow Jesus while John is still alive and baptizing (John 1:37). All these hints probably add up to a group of followers of John the Baptist's teaching at Ephesus who had not, however, come to believe that Jesus was the Messiah.
[1] When it comes to this sort of analysis of the names and social status of individuals at Corinth, we should mention the pioneering work of Wayne Meeks, The First Urban Christians: The Social World of the Apostle Paul, 2nd ed. (New Haven, CT: Yale University, 2003), which rightly takes its place in the fifty books or so that one might read to master Paul's writings. It has recently been reassessed by After the First Urban Christians: The Social-Scientific Study of Pauline Christianity Twenty-Five Years Later (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 2009). Another updated classic book in this area is Gerd Theissen's, The Social Setting of Pauline Christianity: Essays on Corinth (Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 2004), edited by John Schuetz.
[2] We always struggle to know what to call these early believers. I will sometimes call them Christians, but this term often allows us to smuggle in our sense of a Christian as a religion separate from Judaism. Acts sometimes calls them "followers of the Way," but this term may very well have applied to Essenes as well, such as Apollos and the non-Christian followers of John the Baptist that Paul finds at Ephesus in Acts 18-19. We have opted for the non-biblical phrase "Christ-followers," by which we mean individuals who believed that Jesus was the Jewish Messiah, who were baptized in his name, and who were presumed to have received the Holy Spirit.
[3] We hear about this conflict in the Roman historian Suetonius (*). He says the arguments were over Chrestus, a misspelling of Christus, but most scholars conclude it probably is referring to Jesus Christ. It is not clear whether all the Jews of the city were expelled or only Christian Jews like Priscilla and Aquila.
[4] Roman citizens had three names: a praenomen, a nomen, and a cognomen. For example, if Paul's grandfather received citizenship from Julius Caesar, he would have received his praenomen and nomen from him. Paul's full name would thus be Gaius Julius Saulus or Gaius Julius Paulus. In this case, Erastus' full name might be Gaius Titius Justus.
[5] Perhaps in Galatians 4:13 he uses a word for "first time" that may imply he had visited Galatia more than once by the time he wrote this letter.
[6] A fact all the more significant in the overwhelmingly male oriented ancient world.
[7] In the document called the Community Rule.
[8] Just to mention a few, there is this common sense of following the Way of the Lord, the fact that the Essenes tended to share their possessions with one another as in Acts 2:44, a number of messianic Scriptures the Dead Sea Scrolls hold in common with the New Testament, the fact that writings like 1 and 2 Peter and Jude seem to reference 1 Enoch, which seems to have been Scripture to the Essenes, the fact that John the Baptist seems to have been celibate, common indictment of the temple and spiritualization of their own communities as temple communities, a common apocalyptic outlook in terms of angels, demons, and a coming conflict depicted in terms of Rome. There were also significant differences, not least Jesus' inclusion of sinners and apparent disregard for sabbath and purity matters. In these regards, Paul seems more in continuity with Jesus than Jesus' own brother, James, who later became leader of the Jerusalem church.
Previous drafts of chapter material on the Paul book include:
1a. Born at a Time and Place 1; 1b. Born at a Time and Place 2
2a. A Change in Life Direction; 2b A Change in Life Direction 2; 2c A Change in Life Direction 3
3a. The Unknown Years 1; 3b. The Unknown Years 2; 3c. The Unknown Years 3
4a. Life Beyond Death; 4b. Life Beyond Death; 4c. Life Beyond Death; 4d Life Beyond Death
Today we begin Chapter 5: "Disunity at Corinth."
____________
Paul spent almost two years ministering at Corinth. In 1 Corinthians 16:15 Paul mentions that the household of Stephanus was the first fruits of Achaia (southern Greece), meaning that his family was probably the first of those in Corinth to believe Jesus was the Christ. The names mentioned in 1 Corinthians are Stephanus, Fortunatus, and Achaicus (1 Cor. 16:17). We hear smatterings of other names associated with Corinth. [1] For example, 1 Corinthians 1:1 mentions a co-author, Sosthenes, whose name is conspicuously the same as a synagogue leader in Corinth who gets beaten in Acts 18:17.
The conflict mentioned in Acts 18 may very well have played itself out in many parts of the Mediterranean world. Christianity was not yet a distinct religion but only one of many branches of Judaism at the time: Pharisees, Sadducees, Essenes, Christ-followers. [2] The first two were largely confined to Jerusalem, although the Essenes may have spread out some. We have good reason to think that Christ followers sometimes came into conflict with more mainstream Jews in various synagogues around the Mediterranean. For example, this kind of conflict in a Greek-speaking synagogue in Jerusalem seems to have resulted in Stephen getting stoned (Acts 6:9).
Two of Paul's most prominent co-workers, Priscilla and Aquila, were expelled from Rome along with all the Christian Jews of the city because of conflicts between Christ-followers and mainstream Jews in the synagogues of the city. [3] Most would date this conflict to around AD49, which places Paul's work in Corinth around the years AD50-52. This fits with the mention of the Roman proconsul Gallio in Acts 18. We know from an inscription that he was proconsul from AD51-52, giving us the most certain date we have in dating Paul's life and missionary work. Priscilla and Aquila had recently come to the city when Paul first arrived there.
Perhaps this same conflict unfolded at Corinth with this Sosthenes as synagogue leader at the time. Not everyone in the synagogue would have believed that Jesus was the Christ. We hear of others who had. Acts mentions that the person who was synagogue leader when Paul arrived in the city had also believed, Crispus (Acts 18:8). Paul mentions him in 1 Corinthians 1:14 as someone he baptized there, along with someone else named Gaius. Some wonder if the Gentile Titius Justus who is mentioned in Acts 18:7 might have been the same person that Paul calls Gaius. [4]
We hear of two further names in Romans 16:23, which Paul likely wrote from Corinth on a later visit. Erastus is called the city's "administrator," possibly the city treasurer or perhaps director of public works. We actually have among the ruins of Corinth a sidewalk with an inscription in it that says it was paid for by one Erastus, the city's "aedile," a position that generally fits how Paul describes him. Along with Gaius and Erastus, Romans 16:23 also sends the greetings of someone named Quartus. If we add the household of Chloe (1 Cor. 1:11), which may of course include some of the people we have already mentioned, we have no less than nine names of local Corinthians who were associated with the church at Corinth.
[insert photo of Erastus inscription]
These nine names belong to no less than three households, and quite possibly more. We know of the household of Stephanus, of Chloe, and presumably of Gaius. Paul refers to the church at Corinth in the singular in the greeting of 1 Corinthians 1:1. From this fact we should probably infer that the church at Corinth could meet in a single house, regardless of whether they sometimes broke up into even smaller house churches. Since Paul in Romans 16:23 says that the whole church enjoyed the hospitality of Gaius, it seems quite possible that he was somewhat wealthy and could fit the entire church of 40-50 people in his house for worship.
In 1 Corinthians 1:26, Paul says that "not many" of the Corinthians were influential or of noble birth. But individuals like Gaius and Erastus were likely the few Paul implies were. Erastus would need to be a Roman citizen of some means to serve in public office and fund service projects. If Gaius was Titius Justus, he would presumably be a Roman citizen also. This sort of social status created in itself temptations and pressures that most of the believers, who did not have such status, would not have to face. We will return to the social divisions at Corinth in a moment.
At some point after Paul's run-in with the Roman proconsul Gallio, he departed from Corinth. Acts tells us he briefly visited Ephesus before sailing to Jerusalem, traveling back to Antioch in the north of Palestine, and then revisiting the churches he had founded throughout Asia Minor (Acts 18:23). Paul has left little trace of this verse in any of his letters. [5] But eventually, perhaps in AD53 or 54, he finds himself back in Ephesus, which he sets up as his "base camp" for ministry over the next three years or so.
By the time he arrives, Priscilla and Aquila have been ministering there for perhaps a year. They have already had one very significant convert to faith in Christ, an eloquent Jew from Alexandria named Apollos. This incident may provide us with not a little insight into some of the details of the early church. For one, Acts does not say that Aquila and Priscilla invited him to their home and explained Christ to them but that Priscilla and Aquila did. In other words, it implies that the wife took the lead in Apollos' conversion. Priscilla is mentioned in Acts and Paul first more often than not, quite possibly implying that she tended to take the lead between the two (e.g., Acts 18:18, 26; Rom. 16:3). [6]
Another item of interest is that Acts says Apollos was instructed in the Way of the Lord but did not know about Jesus, only John the Baptist. What makes this comment very interesting is that the Essenes at Qumran on the Dead Sea saw themselves as "preparing the way of the Lord," using the same passage from Isaiah 40 to describe themselves as the gospels use to describe John the Baptist. [7] There are enough similarities between some of the early Christians and these Essenes that we wonder if there was some overlap at first between the two groups. [8]
Acts tells us that Paul also has an encounter with such followers of John the Baptist's teaching when he comes to Ephesus (Acts 19:1-7). The book of Acts makes it very clear that John's baptism was not yet Christian baptism. Paul baptizes them in the name of Jesus and lays hands on them so that they receive the Holy Spirit as an element of the equation that John's baptism did not provide. Here we probably find hints of an important need in the early church to distinguish Christ followers from mere followers of John the Baptist.
John baptized with water, but Jesus with the Holy Spirit (cf. Mark 1:8). The Holy Spirit in Acts thus indicates that a person is truly "in," truly going to be saved from the coming judgment. We can build a case for a tension at Ephesus between the followers of Jesus and the followers of John the Baptist by adding to these hints from Acts the hints of the Gospel of John. According to tradition, the Gospel of John originated at Ephesus. Its portrayal of John the Baptist is fascinating in that it consistently downplays his significance. For example, the Gospel of John never actually mentions that Jesus submitted to baptism by John. Unlike Matthew 11:14, John the Baptist himself denies that he is Elijah in John 1:21. Only in John do we hear of John the Baptist's followers leaving him to follow Jesus while John is still alive and baptizing (John 1:37). All these hints probably add up to a group of followers of John the Baptist's teaching at Ephesus who had not, however, come to believe that Jesus was the Messiah.
[1] When it comes to this sort of analysis of the names and social status of individuals at Corinth, we should mention the pioneering work of Wayne Meeks, The First Urban Christians: The Social World of the Apostle Paul, 2nd ed. (New Haven, CT: Yale University, 2003), which rightly takes its place in the fifty books or so that one might read to master Paul's writings. It has recently been reassessed by After the First Urban Christians: The Social-Scientific Study of Pauline Christianity Twenty-Five Years Later (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 2009). Another updated classic book in this area is Gerd Theissen's, The Social Setting of Pauline Christianity: Essays on Corinth (Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 2004), edited by John Schuetz.
[2] We always struggle to know what to call these early believers. I will sometimes call them Christians, but this term often allows us to smuggle in our sense of a Christian as a religion separate from Judaism. Acts sometimes calls them "followers of the Way," but this term may very well have applied to Essenes as well, such as Apollos and the non-Christian followers of John the Baptist that Paul finds at Ephesus in Acts 18-19. We have opted for the non-biblical phrase "Christ-followers," by which we mean individuals who believed that Jesus was the Jewish Messiah, who were baptized in his name, and who were presumed to have received the Holy Spirit.
[3] We hear about this conflict in the Roman historian Suetonius (*). He says the arguments were over Chrestus, a misspelling of Christus, but most scholars conclude it probably is referring to Jesus Christ. It is not clear whether all the Jews of the city were expelled or only Christian Jews like Priscilla and Aquila.
[4] Roman citizens had three names: a praenomen, a nomen, and a cognomen. For example, if Paul's grandfather received citizenship from Julius Caesar, he would have received his praenomen and nomen from him. Paul's full name would thus be Gaius Julius Saulus or Gaius Julius Paulus. In this case, Erastus' full name might be Gaius Titius Justus.
[5] Perhaps in Galatians 4:13 he uses a word for "first time" that may imply he had visited Galatia more than once by the time he wrote this letter.
[6] A fact all the more significant in the overwhelmingly male oriented ancient world.
[7] In the document called the Community Rule.
[8] Just to mention a few, there is this common sense of following the Way of the Lord, the fact that the Essenes tended to share their possessions with one another as in Acts 2:44, a number of messianic Scriptures the Dead Sea Scrolls hold in common with the New Testament, the fact that writings like 1 and 2 Peter and Jude seem to reference 1 Enoch, which seems to have been Scripture to the Essenes, the fact that John the Baptist seems to have been celibate, common indictment of the temple and spiritualization of their own communities as temple communities, a common apocalyptic outlook in terms of angels, demons, and a coming conflict depicted in terms of Rome. There were also significant differences, not least Jesus' inclusion of sinners and apparent disregard for sabbath and purity matters. In these regards, Paul seems more in continuity with Jesus than Jesus' own brother, James, who later became leader of the Jerusalem church.
Thursday, November 26, 2009
Happy Thanksgiving!
I hope everyone has a great Thanksgiving (including those outside the US ;-). There's always something to be thankful for. There's always something to be thankful for about our own lives and even if our own life hits a gloomy stint, there are the lives of others that we can always be thankful for. And for those who believe in God and Christ, we can be thankful for a God who loves the world and works all things for good.
Sunday, November 22, 2009
Most people have no idea what smart really is...
I attended the Philo Group this morning... most people have no idea how smart a human being can be (and, interestingly, are usually equally unaware of how correspondingly dumb they thus make God out to be). I regularly have people tell me they think I'm smart (interestingly again, I never get that from the people I actually live with ;-) ... but I'm not in any danger of actually believing it. Once a year I come to SBL and get to listen to some people who are really smart.
What a privilege!
What a privilege!
Saturday, November 21, 2009
If you want to change Bible teaching at IWU...
... all you need is a well placed bomb during dinner here in New Orleans. All but Wilbur Williams are here: Brian and Elaine Bernius (OT), Steve Lennox (OT), Dave Smith (NT), Bart Bruehler (NT), and me (???).
A browse through the book hall brings the usual feelings:
1) fun to see many faces of old friends--a new phenomenon is meeting old friends you've never met before from the blogosphere,
2) fun to ride the elevator with Gordan Fee or sit at a table next to Kevin Vanhoozer (who in my case you don't announce yourself because of various things you've said on a blog),
3) fun to meet budding scholars and students, some of whom think you know something because you've written a book (you, of course, all the while know better),
4) you feel sad for these budding scholars, knowing that even the best are going to have trouble finding a job and that the guild of biblical studies itself is probably on the decline (cf. Sheffield, Gloustershire, etc...),
5) you look at the book hall and see that Witherington or Tom Wright has published 4 new books this year beyond the ones you already knew about... you figure you'd better get writing,
6) you see a bunch of books that make you think Christian academic publishing is mostly much ado about nothing--I disparage of writing anything else, others think, I could write better than this, why am I not publishing...
7) you feel privileged to get to come to places like this every year, see old friends, grab the most stimulating ideas on many topics before they get published, every once and a while your children get a great experience of some great place... and you're glad your son is in his own world like you are and doesn't even notice the smut all over the place on Bourbon Street (your daughter, on the other hand, who is observant like her mother notices it instantly).
This is Ken Schenck, reporting on the ground in New Orleans...
A browse through the book hall brings the usual feelings:
1) fun to see many faces of old friends--a new phenomenon is meeting old friends you've never met before from the blogosphere,
2) fun to ride the elevator with Gordan Fee or sit at a table next to Kevin Vanhoozer (who in my case you don't announce yourself because of various things you've said on a blog),
3) fun to meet budding scholars and students, some of whom think you know something because you've written a book (you, of course, all the while know better),
4) you feel sad for these budding scholars, knowing that even the best are going to have trouble finding a job and that the guild of biblical studies itself is probably on the decline (cf. Sheffield, Gloustershire, etc...),
5) you look at the book hall and see that Witherington or Tom Wright has published 4 new books this year beyond the ones you already knew about... you figure you'd better get writing,
6) you see a bunch of books that make you think Christian academic publishing is mostly much ado about nothing--I disparage of writing anything else, others think, I could write better than this, why am I not publishing...
7) you feel privileged to get to come to places like this every year, see old friends, grab the most stimulating ideas on many topics before they get published, every once and a while your children get a great experience of some great place... and you're glad your son is in his own world like you are and doesn't even notice the smut all over the place on Bourbon Street (your daughter, on the other hand, who is observant like her mother notices it instantly).
This is Ken Schenck, reporting on the ground in New Orleans...
Thursday, November 19, 2009
Off to SBL
I'm going to bed in a few minutes while my wife and step-daughters head out to the midnight showing of New Moon. When they get back, we'll pile into our Armada and head for New Orleans and my yearly pilgrimage to the Society of Biblical Literature convention. I'm quite honored to have a small part in one of the Philo sessions. I'll attend the Hebrews Group. There are a couple nice dinners, breakfasts, and coffees with old friends from home and abroad. The books are always probably the biggest highlight.
I am giving a paper in the Book of Acts section. I'm quite excited about the idea and will probably try to publish it. I offer the final section in its current form:
3. The Post-70 Context
In a very real sense, we do not need Hebrews to take our interpretation of Stephen’s speech to the next level. The dating of Acts is generally accepted as subsequent to AD70 and the temple’s destruction, so we can fairly assume that Stephen’s speech would have cued in its audience the memory of that event. Similarly, it would have been difficult for a post-70 audience not to hear in Stephen’s indictments of Israel an accusatory explanation for why God had let the modern Babylon—Rome—enslave God’s people again. The rejection of Moses in the speech would have easily translated into broader Israel’s rejection of Jesus, the prophet like Moses. Indeed, the author has deliberately changed the Septuagintal text of Amos 5:25-27 from “Damascus” to “Babylon,” not only to invoke the image of the Babylonian captivity as a consequence of Israel’s disobedience, but perhaps also because the Jews had begun to use “Babylon” as a code name for Rome after Rome destroyed Jerusalem, just as the Babylonians had earlier done.
Although these observations can stand on their own, it is a particular reading of Hebrews that has led us personally to recognize these dynamics. The idea that Hebrews might date to the aftermath of the temple’s destruction is of course heavily debated. Nevertheless, some recent treatments have pondered how Hebrews might read if its rhetoric were taken not as a polemic against participation in the Levitical cultus but as a kind of consolation in the absence of one. The sermon locates itself in second generation Christianity (e.g., Heb. 2:3) and seems to imply that the founding leaders of its community were martyred for their faith (cf. 13:7). Although we cannot know for certain, Rome is the favorite suggested destination for those who hazard a guess, based on 13:24. The only martyrdoms of local Christian leaders we know of in Rome took place in the 60s, particularly after Nero blamed Christians for the fire of Rome in AD64.
If we look to some time thereafter, when a believing community in Rome might have faced discouraging times, not long after Jerusalem’s destruction or perhaps later during Domitian’s reign are what comes to mind. It is at this point that we begin to pay special attention to statements in Hebrews like, “We have here no remaining city” (13:14) and “they are seeking a homeland” (11:14). It must have been devastating for Christians to see the conquered Jews paraded through the streets of Rome and then put to death after the destruction of Jerusalem. After all, Christianity was still Judaism to its believers. What would these believers now do for atonement without a temple? The author admonishes them to have confidence that full atonement—in fact the only atonement that had ever been truly effective—is found in Christ’s sacrifice. They can have boldness to enter into the true sanctuary in heaven for atonement by means of the blood of Christ (e.g., 10:19).
Whenever one dates Hebrews, most would place it prior to Acts. If it was written not long after the destruction of Jerusalem, the two might date within a decade of each other. Given this apparent proximity in time and content, it becomes much more plausible that the author of Acts has portrayed Stephen somewhat like the author of Hebrews, one of his contemporaries, than that the author of Hebrews independently stood in a particular, continuous theological tradition going back to the historical Stephen, who lived perhaps forty years before. What does such a scenario look like in terms of the interpretation of Acts 7, and does it seem to clarify the subtext of Stephen’s sermon or cloud its most likely meaning?
First, when Acts is read in a post-AD70 context, Stephen’s sermon seems less unique and discordant with some other features of Acts than at first might suggest itself. The author, for example, clearly would locate himself and his audience within “the times of the Gentiles,” a period during which Jerusalem was destined to be “trampled on” (Luke 21:24). In this light, the climactic ending of Acts in Rome takes on an explanatory dimension. God turns to the Gentiles for the time being because the Jews have rejected the gospel (e.g., Acts 28:25-28). Paul’s statement here is reminiscent of Stephen’s indictment in 7:51-53. The recurring rebellion of the sons of Israel in Acts 7 comes to mirror the later rejection of Jesus and to explain implicitly why, once again, God had allowed yet another Babylon to destroy Jerusalem. These indictments, however, are not anti-Semitic. They are after the fact explanations of what had already happened to Israel, just as we would argue Hebrews is more a consolation in the absence of a temple than a polemic against one.
In this context, Stephen’s implicit indictment of the Jewish leaders’ over-valuing of the temple in Acts 7 becomes far more an after the fact explanation for the temple’s destruction than a condemnation of the temple per se while it was standing. We thus find no contradiction between the generally positive view of the temple we find elsewhere in Acts. Indeed, we find no clear indication that the author of Acts thought the Jerusalem temple was gone forever. What we find is an explicit condemnation of those who betrayed and murdered Jesus, the prophet like Moses (e.g., 7:52). Those who accuse Stephen are thus false witnesses because Stephen is not speaking against the temple itself, but against those who, perhaps like the revolutionaries of the Jewish War, could not distinguish between the temple in Jerusalem and God’s ultimate dwelling place in heaven.
At the same time, we do seem to find tensions between the theology of the author of Acts and that of the author of Hebrews. The basic thrust of Hebrews is that no Levitical blood sacrifice has ever truly atoned for any sin (e.g., Heb. 10:5). The blood of Jesus, offered by way of an eternal spirit, is the only truly effective sacrifice for all eternity (e.g., 9:14; 10:14). Acts, by contrast, pictures apparently regular participation in the Jerusalem temple, likely including sacrifices, even by Paul himself (cf. Acts 21:24-26), while apparently downplaying the tradition of Christ’s death as a sacrifice or ransom (e.g., compare Mark 10:45 with Luke 22:27). Similarly, it is not difficult to imagine that the historical Stephen actually was remembered as indicting the temple administration in some way, as Jesus apparently did, even if it is unlikely Stephen had nearly as fully developed a “replacement theology” for the temple as the author of Hebrews eventually developed.
We would argue that this overall conception of Acts 7 provides the fullest and richest understanding of its meaning both in its historical and literary contexts. Historically, we have the oral tradition of Stephen's martyrdom, likely associated with certain indictments he had made of the temple leaders and perhaps the fact that they put Jesus to death. Historically, we also have the time in which Acts was written a decade or so after Jerusalem and the temple were destroyed. Further, we have the perspective of the author of Hebrews, a rough contemporary of the author of Acts. Although the emphases and thinking of the author of Hebrews differed slightly from the perspective the author of Acts took in his history, the author of Acts saw in him a relevant model on which to base his portrait of Stephen.
Literarily, then, the author of Acts went about presenting Stephen in these chapters. Having planned Luke with Acts in mind, he omitted in Luke 22:66-71 the story of the false accusations against Jesus in Mark 14:57-59 and saved them instead in relation to Stephen. Then in keeping with good ancient historiography, he fashioned Stephen's martyrdom speech both with a view to Stephen's memory but most importantly with a view to imply an explanation for the current state of Israel with both city and temple destroyed. Acts 7 is thus no general run through the story of Israel but a presentation of key vignettes meant to reflect its current situation. And we suspect very strongly that the author of Hebrews, or someone quite like him, helped the author of Acts to present Stephen in a way that would speak directly to his Christian audience some fifty years later.
I am giving a paper in the Book of Acts section. I'm quite excited about the idea and will probably try to publish it. I offer the final section in its current form:
3. The Post-70 Context
In a very real sense, we do not need Hebrews to take our interpretation of Stephen’s speech to the next level. The dating of Acts is generally accepted as subsequent to AD70 and the temple’s destruction, so we can fairly assume that Stephen’s speech would have cued in its audience the memory of that event. Similarly, it would have been difficult for a post-70 audience not to hear in Stephen’s indictments of Israel an accusatory explanation for why God had let the modern Babylon—Rome—enslave God’s people again. The rejection of Moses in the speech would have easily translated into broader Israel’s rejection of Jesus, the prophet like Moses. Indeed, the author has deliberately changed the Septuagintal text of Amos 5:25-27 from “Damascus” to “Babylon,” not only to invoke the image of the Babylonian captivity as a consequence of Israel’s disobedience, but perhaps also because the Jews had begun to use “Babylon” as a code name for Rome after Rome destroyed Jerusalem, just as the Babylonians had earlier done.
Although these observations can stand on their own, it is a particular reading of Hebrews that has led us personally to recognize these dynamics. The idea that Hebrews might date to the aftermath of the temple’s destruction is of course heavily debated. Nevertheless, some recent treatments have pondered how Hebrews might read if its rhetoric were taken not as a polemic against participation in the Levitical cultus but as a kind of consolation in the absence of one. The sermon locates itself in second generation Christianity (e.g., Heb. 2:3) and seems to imply that the founding leaders of its community were martyred for their faith (cf. 13:7). Although we cannot know for certain, Rome is the favorite suggested destination for those who hazard a guess, based on 13:24. The only martyrdoms of local Christian leaders we know of in Rome took place in the 60s, particularly after Nero blamed Christians for the fire of Rome in AD64.
If we look to some time thereafter, when a believing community in Rome might have faced discouraging times, not long after Jerusalem’s destruction or perhaps later during Domitian’s reign are what comes to mind. It is at this point that we begin to pay special attention to statements in Hebrews like, “We have here no remaining city” (13:14) and “they are seeking a homeland” (11:14). It must have been devastating for Christians to see the conquered Jews paraded through the streets of Rome and then put to death after the destruction of Jerusalem. After all, Christianity was still Judaism to its believers. What would these believers now do for atonement without a temple? The author admonishes them to have confidence that full atonement—in fact the only atonement that had ever been truly effective—is found in Christ’s sacrifice. They can have boldness to enter into the true sanctuary in heaven for atonement by means of the blood of Christ (e.g., 10:19).
Whenever one dates Hebrews, most would place it prior to Acts. If it was written not long after the destruction of Jerusalem, the two might date within a decade of each other. Given this apparent proximity in time and content, it becomes much more plausible that the author of Acts has portrayed Stephen somewhat like the author of Hebrews, one of his contemporaries, than that the author of Hebrews independently stood in a particular, continuous theological tradition going back to the historical Stephen, who lived perhaps forty years before. What does such a scenario look like in terms of the interpretation of Acts 7, and does it seem to clarify the subtext of Stephen’s sermon or cloud its most likely meaning?
First, when Acts is read in a post-AD70 context, Stephen’s sermon seems less unique and discordant with some other features of Acts than at first might suggest itself. The author, for example, clearly would locate himself and his audience within “the times of the Gentiles,” a period during which Jerusalem was destined to be “trampled on” (Luke 21:24). In this light, the climactic ending of Acts in Rome takes on an explanatory dimension. God turns to the Gentiles for the time being because the Jews have rejected the gospel (e.g., Acts 28:25-28). Paul’s statement here is reminiscent of Stephen’s indictment in 7:51-53. The recurring rebellion of the sons of Israel in Acts 7 comes to mirror the later rejection of Jesus and to explain implicitly why, once again, God had allowed yet another Babylon to destroy Jerusalem. These indictments, however, are not anti-Semitic. They are after the fact explanations of what had already happened to Israel, just as we would argue Hebrews is more a consolation in the absence of a temple than a polemic against one.
In this context, Stephen’s implicit indictment of the Jewish leaders’ over-valuing of the temple in Acts 7 becomes far more an after the fact explanation for the temple’s destruction than a condemnation of the temple per se while it was standing. We thus find no contradiction between the generally positive view of the temple we find elsewhere in Acts. Indeed, we find no clear indication that the author of Acts thought the Jerusalem temple was gone forever. What we find is an explicit condemnation of those who betrayed and murdered Jesus, the prophet like Moses (e.g., 7:52). Those who accuse Stephen are thus false witnesses because Stephen is not speaking against the temple itself, but against those who, perhaps like the revolutionaries of the Jewish War, could not distinguish between the temple in Jerusalem and God’s ultimate dwelling place in heaven.
At the same time, we do seem to find tensions between the theology of the author of Acts and that of the author of Hebrews. The basic thrust of Hebrews is that no Levitical blood sacrifice has ever truly atoned for any sin (e.g., Heb. 10:5). The blood of Jesus, offered by way of an eternal spirit, is the only truly effective sacrifice for all eternity (e.g., 9:14; 10:14). Acts, by contrast, pictures apparently regular participation in the Jerusalem temple, likely including sacrifices, even by Paul himself (cf. Acts 21:24-26), while apparently downplaying the tradition of Christ’s death as a sacrifice or ransom (e.g., compare Mark 10:45 with Luke 22:27). Similarly, it is not difficult to imagine that the historical Stephen actually was remembered as indicting the temple administration in some way, as Jesus apparently did, even if it is unlikely Stephen had nearly as fully developed a “replacement theology” for the temple as the author of Hebrews eventually developed.
We would argue that this overall conception of Acts 7 provides the fullest and richest understanding of its meaning both in its historical and literary contexts. Historically, we have the oral tradition of Stephen's martyrdom, likely associated with certain indictments he had made of the temple leaders and perhaps the fact that they put Jesus to death. Historically, we also have the time in which Acts was written a decade or so after Jerusalem and the temple were destroyed. Further, we have the perspective of the author of Hebrews, a rough contemporary of the author of Acts. Although the emphases and thinking of the author of Hebrews differed slightly from the perspective the author of Acts took in his history, the author of Acts saw in him a relevant model on which to base his portrait of Stephen.
Literarily, then, the author of Acts went about presenting Stephen in these chapters. Having planned Luke with Acts in mind, he omitted in Luke 22:66-71 the story of the false accusations against Jesus in Mark 14:57-59 and saved them instead in relation to Stephen. Then in keeping with good ancient historiography, he fashioned Stephen's martyrdom speech both with a view to Stephen's memory but most importantly with a view to imply an explanation for the current state of Israel with both city and temple destroyed. Acts 7 is thus no general run through the story of Israel but a presentation of key vignettes meant to reflect its current situation. And we suspect very strongly that the author of Hebrews, or someone quite like him, helped the author of Acts to present Stephen in a way that would speak directly to his Christian audience some fifty years later.
Tuesday, November 17, 2009
The Doctor's Office is Useless
Most times, you wait forever for an appointment. Then you wait an hour in the waiting room. Then they at best tell you no more than you already knew. Or maybe they prescribe Amoxicillin for your child--which has long since become useless. Your insurance gets charged, you give your twenty dollar co-pay, you get your Amoxicillin knowing it won't do anything, you pay your five dollar co-pay.
This is really just a stalling game, to weed out the really sick from the wimps and paranoid parents. Doctors probably know, they probably talk about it. Sickness is normal human stuff. Giving medicine actually makes these little vermin stronger. You need to let the sickness just take its course for the good of humanity.
So really a second visit is the first real visit. Only then do doctors start to take you seriously.
This is really just a stalling game, to weed out the really sick from the wimps and paranoid parents. Doctors probably know, they probably talk about it. Sickness is normal human stuff. Giving medicine actually makes these little vermin stronger. You need to let the sickness just take its course for the good of humanity.
So really a second visit is the first real visit. Only then do doctors start to take you seriously.
Monday, November 16, 2009
The Dead Sea Scrolls and the New Testament
For previous posts in this series, see here. In this post, I want to boil down and organize what I think are the biggest take-aways from the Dead Sea Scrolls as background to the New Testament. Certainly many have done this sort of thing before, but that's never stopped me before.
_________
Jesus and John the Baptist
1. The Community Rule is striking in its use of Isaiah 40:3--"Prepare in the wilderness the way of the Lord" (e.g., 1QS 8). It then refers to its membership as individuals who have chosen the Way (e.g., 1QS 9; CD 2). The similarity to the way John the Baptist is introduced in the gospels, along with the fact that Acts indicates early Christians saw themselves as followers of the Way is very striking indeed. Apollos, for example, is said to understand the Way of the Lord when Priscilla and Aquila come on him (Acts 18:25), yet only to know the teaching of John the Baptist!
It is very hard for me to read these observations and not conclude that John the Baptist was an Essene and that Essenism stands as the principal background for Jesus' ministry. Luke presents him as someone of priestly descent, which fits the Essenes. He does not seem to be married (although frankly we don't know for sure) and his life as a Nazirite fits as well.
That is not to say, of course, that Jesus was an Essene, quite the contrary. He apparently assented to the call to repentance that was a signature of John the Baptist's message, but his practice of inclusion showed a disregard for boundaries and purity rules that would not only have been massively unacceptable to the Essenes. The gospels depict it as unacceptable to the less "conservative" Pharisees.
2. Messianic expectation is not a regular feature of the books commonly called the Apocrypha. It is, however, noticeable in the scrolls. It may first appear in the Animal Apocalypse around 160BC in terms of literature that has survived. We also find it in the Psalms of Solomon around 50BC. The messiah will be king of the restored Israel. We do not find any good indication that this messiah was thought to be a heavenly figure in the scrolls. His arrival is accompanied in 11QMelch by the archangel Melchizedek who will judge angels and men.
We do know of a few revolutionaries who tried to revolt against Rome. There was Judas the Galilean in AD6. There was Theudas in the early 40s. We know of an anonymous Egyptian from Acts. Simon bar Kochba was thought the messiah in the later 135 revolt. It is hard to know, therefore, how widespread messianic belief was.
3. Dead Sea Scrolls like 4QFlorilegium look to several messianic texts that also appear in the New Testament: Psalm 2; 2 Samuel 7:14; Amos 9:11. It is impossible to know if Jesus used these sorts of texts in reference to messianic expectation during his earthly ministry. But they certainly found their way eventually into the self-understanding of the early church.
4. 11QMelch speaks of Melchizedek bringing good news to captives from Isaiah 61, just as Luke 4 has Jesus say as he commences his ministry. It also quotes Isaiah 52:7 from which arguably come the word "gospel" and the phrase "kingdom of God." It is quite possible that Jesus evoked the image of God's coming salvation using commonly known imagery (drawn from Essene circles?).
5. Language of a new covenant was clearly in play among the Essenes and the Dead Sea Community. It is difficult to know for sure to what extent Jeremiah 31 might have served as a backdrop for Jesus' earthly ministry, but clearly at some point the earliest Christians understood Jesus' death to be the real inauguration of one.
6. The War Scroll looks to a final battle between good and evil, just as Jesus may also have anticipated in the way he framed his mission on earth. The idea that the Dead Sea community was the final generation such as we find in the Habakkuk commentary also seems to have become the understanding of the earliest Christians.
7. Hell fire as a place not only for the Devil and his angels but for the wicked of Israel seems to stand in the background of Jesus' ministry or at the very least early Christian understanding and such imagery is found also to some extent among the scrolls.
Earliest Christians
8. communal living, holding possessions in common
The Community Rule also records a process of a person's property becoming absorbed into the community. Acts 2 also speaks of the early Jerusalem Christian community holding their possessions in common. This would fit a community with strong Essene sympathies. The incident with Ananias and Sapphira reminds us of the penalties for lying about property that pertained to the Qumran community.
9. The literature of 1 Enoch arguably stands in the background of the Dead Sea Scrolls and may in fact have served as Scripture for the Essenes. In this connection, it is noteworthy that Jude 14-15 quote 1 Enoch 1. Similarly, the story of evil angels having sex with human women seems presumed by Jude 6; 2 Peter 2:4; and 1 Peter 3:19-20. By contrast, Paul the ex-Pharisee does not engage any of this Enochic literature. We could argue, however, that some significant Jerusalem Christians did and may even have considered 1 Enoch to be Scripture.
10. Paul goes to Damascus to arrest some Christian Jews. This is peculiar because Damascus was not under the jurisdiction of the Sanhedrin. There must surely have been a significant Christian element there of some kind. Similarly, Damascus plays an important at least putative role for the Essenes. The Covenant of Damascus remembers Damascus in one way or another as the place where the fundamental Essene covenant was first made.
11. New Testament interpretation in general fit with the hermeneutics of the day. For example, some of Matthew's interpretations are reminiscent of the pesher commentaries at Qumran in the way they lift segments of words from the Old Testament from their original contexts and apply them to incidents in the life of Jesus.
12. The DSS repeatedly invoke the Holy Spirit as God's presence in the community. Romans 1:3 may repeat an early Christian "creed" of sort using the phrase, "Spirit of holiness," which of course is attested at Qumran.
Paul's Letters
13. 4QMMT remains excellent background to Paul's use of the phrase "works of law." This phrase apparently evoked images of the kinds of debates Jews had over boundary issues and how to keep the purity issues of the Law. The strongly ethnic overtones of the phrase are clear enough in Galatians, where circumcision is primarily at issue.
If much of the early Jerusalem church was Essene, then we can see Paul's use of Qumran categories in part as effective rhetoric. Paul becomes an ex-Pharisee believer arguing with ex-Essene believers or even still Essene believers. The use of the phrase "doers of the Law" (versus mere "hearers of the Law") in Romans 2 and indeed in James becomes intriguing because Paul possibly throws an Essene mantra back in his opponents face.
14. Paul's language of election and his evocation of mystery to explain God's predestination of the Gentiles ironically finds strong precedent in the Qumran hymns and War Scroll. It is ironic because Paul turns language that had been used in relation to a very separatist, conservative Jewish community and applies it to the inclusion of the Gentiles!
15. Although the DSS are not the only background for the phrase the righteousness of God, they support the strong evidence from the Psalms and Isaiah that Paul's use of this phrase primarily referred to God's righteousness, His propensity to save and show mercy on His people. See the Community Rule and the Hymns.
16. The Qumran hymns, while ironically having a strong expectation of moral perfection, also have a strong sense of human depravity. No one can be righteous in their own strength. Justification is by God's grace. Although some will no doubt quibble that the emphasis on holiness cancels out the insight about human depravity, the New Testament also expects a life above sin.
In that sense the Qumran hymns well dispense with the older view of Judaism as a religion of works righteousness. The NT like the scrolls have a pattern of keeping the Law in response to God's grace and works as an element in the equation of final acceptance while strongly affirming human unworthiness. Paul's evocation of such themes are not so much in disagreement over them but he uses them to lead his opponents to different implications for them.
17. Paul's use of flesh as that part of a human that is susceptible to sin, as well as the sense that humans have a guilty inclination are attested at Qumran. Such ideas probably fit better with an Essene background than with Paul's own Pharisaic background perhaps.
18. Paul's sense of the glory of Adam may be invoked in the scrolls. It is this glory that Paul believed we lacked because of our sin and it was hope of this glory that we aspired to through Christ.
19. Paul's early use of the phrase sons of light in 1 Thessalonians is possibly an artifact of early Christian language he has retained which, again, fits very well against an Essene background for many early Christians.
20. Paul's references to meetings of early believers as "churches," "assemblies," fits very well with Essene origins for earliest Christianity.
21. The one artifact in 2 Corinthians where the word Belial is used of Satan reminds us of the name primarily used of him among the scrolls.
22. The Songs of the Sabbath sacrifice may very well provide us with important background to understand an incipient mystical Judaism that Colossians addresses where certain Jews saw their worship as a participation in the worship of angels. The use of tongues in worship may intersect here at some point as well.
Hebrews
23. The idea that God's throne room was a heavenly Holy of Holies in a heavenly temple is certainly attested at Qumran.
24. The importance of santification of the community understood as purification is certainly attested at Qumran.
25. The Qumran sense of Melchizedek as a heavenly archangel may stand somewhere in the background of Hebrews 7, although if so, probably more in terms of the author using some associations on the part of the audience rather than his own. Hebrews does not equate Jesus with Melchizedek.
Revelation
26. Once again, the idea of a final battle between Israel and the world, with the primary bad guy or image of the primary bad guy based on Rome, stands as an essential part of Revelation and is strongly evoked by the War Scroll.
_________
Jesus and John the Baptist
1. The Community Rule is striking in its use of Isaiah 40:3--"Prepare in the wilderness the way of the Lord" (e.g., 1QS 8). It then refers to its membership as individuals who have chosen the Way (e.g., 1QS 9; CD 2). The similarity to the way John the Baptist is introduced in the gospels, along with the fact that Acts indicates early Christians saw themselves as followers of the Way is very striking indeed. Apollos, for example, is said to understand the Way of the Lord when Priscilla and Aquila come on him (Acts 18:25), yet only to know the teaching of John the Baptist!
It is very hard for me to read these observations and not conclude that John the Baptist was an Essene and that Essenism stands as the principal background for Jesus' ministry. Luke presents him as someone of priestly descent, which fits the Essenes. He does not seem to be married (although frankly we don't know for sure) and his life as a Nazirite fits as well.
That is not to say, of course, that Jesus was an Essene, quite the contrary. He apparently assented to the call to repentance that was a signature of John the Baptist's message, but his practice of inclusion showed a disregard for boundaries and purity rules that would not only have been massively unacceptable to the Essenes. The gospels depict it as unacceptable to the less "conservative" Pharisees.
2. Messianic expectation is not a regular feature of the books commonly called the Apocrypha. It is, however, noticeable in the scrolls. It may first appear in the Animal Apocalypse around 160BC in terms of literature that has survived. We also find it in the Psalms of Solomon around 50BC. The messiah will be king of the restored Israel. We do not find any good indication that this messiah was thought to be a heavenly figure in the scrolls. His arrival is accompanied in 11QMelch by the archangel Melchizedek who will judge angels and men.
We do know of a few revolutionaries who tried to revolt against Rome. There was Judas the Galilean in AD6. There was Theudas in the early 40s. We know of an anonymous Egyptian from Acts. Simon bar Kochba was thought the messiah in the later 135 revolt. It is hard to know, therefore, how widespread messianic belief was.
3. Dead Sea Scrolls like 4QFlorilegium look to several messianic texts that also appear in the New Testament: Psalm 2; 2 Samuel 7:14; Amos 9:11. It is impossible to know if Jesus used these sorts of texts in reference to messianic expectation during his earthly ministry. But they certainly found their way eventually into the self-understanding of the early church.
4. 11QMelch speaks of Melchizedek bringing good news to captives from Isaiah 61, just as Luke 4 has Jesus say as he commences his ministry. It also quotes Isaiah 52:7 from which arguably come the word "gospel" and the phrase "kingdom of God." It is quite possible that Jesus evoked the image of God's coming salvation using commonly known imagery (drawn from Essene circles?).
5. Language of a new covenant was clearly in play among the Essenes and the Dead Sea Community. It is difficult to know for sure to what extent Jeremiah 31 might have served as a backdrop for Jesus' earthly ministry, but clearly at some point the earliest Christians understood Jesus' death to be the real inauguration of one.
6. The War Scroll looks to a final battle between good and evil, just as Jesus may also have anticipated in the way he framed his mission on earth. The idea that the Dead Sea community was the final generation such as we find in the Habakkuk commentary also seems to have become the understanding of the earliest Christians.
7. Hell fire as a place not only for the Devil and his angels but for the wicked of Israel seems to stand in the background of Jesus' ministry or at the very least early Christian understanding and such imagery is found also to some extent among the scrolls.
Earliest Christians
8. communal living, holding possessions in common
The Community Rule also records a process of a person's property becoming absorbed into the community. Acts 2 also speaks of the early Jerusalem Christian community holding their possessions in common. This would fit a community with strong Essene sympathies. The incident with Ananias and Sapphira reminds us of the penalties for lying about property that pertained to the Qumran community.
9. The literature of 1 Enoch arguably stands in the background of the Dead Sea Scrolls and may in fact have served as Scripture for the Essenes. In this connection, it is noteworthy that Jude 14-15 quote 1 Enoch 1. Similarly, the story of evil angels having sex with human women seems presumed by Jude 6; 2 Peter 2:4; and 1 Peter 3:19-20. By contrast, Paul the ex-Pharisee does not engage any of this Enochic literature. We could argue, however, that some significant Jerusalem Christians did and may even have considered 1 Enoch to be Scripture.
10. Paul goes to Damascus to arrest some Christian Jews. This is peculiar because Damascus was not under the jurisdiction of the Sanhedrin. There must surely have been a significant Christian element there of some kind. Similarly, Damascus plays an important at least putative role for the Essenes. The Covenant of Damascus remembers Damascus in one way or another as the place where the fundamental Essene covenant was first made.
11. New Testament interpretation in general fit with the hermeneutics of the day. For example, some of Matthew's interpretations are reminiscent of the pesher commentaries at Qumran in the way they lift segments of words from the Old Testament from their original contexts and apply them to incidents in the life of Jesus.
12. The DSS repeatedly invoke the Holy Spirit as God's presence in the community. Romans 1:3 may repeat an early Christian "creed" of sort using the phrase, "Spirit of holiness," which of course is attested at Qumran.
Paul's Letters
13. 4QMMT remains excellent background to Paul's use of the phrase "works of law." This phrase apparently evoked images of the kinds of debates Jews had over boundary issues and how to keep the purity issues of the Law. The strongly ethnic overtones of the phrase are clear enough in Galatians, where circumcision is primarily at issue.
If much of the early Jerusalem church was Essene, then we can see Paul's use of Qumran categories in part as effective rhetoric. Paul becomes an ex-Pharisee believer arguing with ex-Essene believers or even still Essene believers. The use of the phrase "doers of the Law" (versus mere "hearers of the Law") in Romans 2 and indeed in James becomes intriguing because Paul possibly throws an Essene mantra back in his opponents face.
14. Paul's language of election and his evocation of mystery to explain God's predestination of the Gentiles ironically finds strong precedent in the Qumran hymns and War Scroll. It is ironic because Paul turns language that had been used in relation to a very separatist, conservative Jewish community and applies it to the inclusion of the Gentiles!
15. Although the DSS are not the only background for the phrase the righteousness of God, they support the strong evidence from the Psalms and Isaiah that Paul's use of this phrase primarily referred to God's righteousness, His propensity to save and show mercy on His people. See the Community Rule and the Hymns.
16. The Qumran hymns, while ironically having a strong expectation of moral perfection, also have a strong sense of human depravity. No one can be righteous in their own strength. Justification is by God's grace. Although some will no doubt quibble that the emphasis on holiness cancels out the insight about human depravity, the New Testament also expects a life above sin.
In that sense the Qumran hymns well dispense with the older view of Judaism as a religion of works righteousness. The NT like the scrolls have a pattern of keeping the Law in response to God's grace and works as an element in the equation of final acceptance while strongly affirming human unworthiness. Paul's evocation of such themes are not so much in disagreement over them but he uses them to lead his opponents to different implications for them.
17. Paul's use of flesh as that part of a human that is susceptible to sin, as well as the sense that humans have a guilty inclination are attested at Qumran. Such ideas probably fit better with an Essene background than with Paul's own Pharisaic background perhaps.
18. Paul's sense of the glory of Adam may be invoked in the scrolls. It is this glory that Paul believed we lacked because of our sin and it was hope of this glory that we aspired to through Christ.
19. Paul's early use of the phrase sons of light in 1 Thessalonians is possibly an artifact of early Christian language he has retained which, again, fits very well against an Essene background for many early Christians.
20. Paul's references to meetings of early believers as "churches," "assemblies," fits very well with Essene origins for earliest Christianity.
21. The one artifact in 2 Corinthians where the word Belial is used of Satan reminds us of the name primarily used of him among the scrolls.
22. The Songs of the Sabbath sacrifice may very well provide us with important background to understand an incipient mystical Judaism that Colossians addresses where certain Jews saw their worship as a participation in the worship of angels. The use of tongues in worship may intersect here at some point as well.
Hebrews
23. The idea that God's throne room was a heavenly Holy of Holies in a heavenly temple is certainly attested at Qumran.
24. The importance of santification of the community understood as purification is certainly attested at Qumran.
25. The Qumran sense of Melchizedek as a heavenly archangel may stand somewhere in the background of Hebrews 7, although if so, probably more in terms of the author using some associations on the part of the audience rather than his own. Hebrews does not equate Jesus with Melchizedek.
Revelation
26. Once again, the idea of a final battle between Israel and the world, with the primary bad guy or image of the primary bad guy based on Rome, stands as an essential part of Revelation and is strongly evoked by the War Scroll.
Friday, November 13, 2009
New Testament Intersections 8: Final DSS
Previous posts in this series include:
Most Apocrypha and Alexandrian Literature
Enochic Literature and 4QMMT
Covenant of Damascus
Community Rule
Qumran Hymns
Pesher Commentaries
Songs of Sabbath, 4QTest, 4QFlor, Son of God frag, etc...
And now the remaining Dead Sea Scrolls I am covering.
11QMelchizedek
General Elements
1. Generally known for equating Melchizedek with Michael the archangel, although nothing in the text actually says this. It does seem to make a distinction between the messiah and Melchizedek, otherwise we might suppose that "mlchzdk" should be interpreted as "king of righteousness" in relation to the messiah.
2. Melchizedek is called ELOHIM and EL, "god," which is the basis for seeing him as an archangel here. He brings judgment on Belial and other spirits (=angels) who rebelled, which supports the angelic theory.
3. Atonement seems associated in some way with Melchizedek, which again supports an association with Genesis 15. At the same time, we should remember that more than one scroll sees the messiah as a priest-messiah.
New Testament Intersections
1. Paul seems to understand Christ to lead the (good) angels in judgment of the world and (fallen) angels (e.g., 1 Cor. 6:2-3; 1 Thess. 4:16), which fits with the role of Melchizedek.
2. A couple NT texts are used here. Isaiah 61, used of Jesus in Luke 4, is used of Melchizedek. The programmatic verse of Jesus ministry, Isaiah 52:7 "how beautiful are the feet of those who bring the gospel, our God reigns [kingdom of God]" is evoked in relation to the messiah and Melchizedek, assuming the two are different.
3. There has been much speculation about a possible connection between 11QMelch and Hebrews 7. It may very well be that such Melchizedek traditions stand somewhere broadly in the background of Hebrews argument. However, Hebrews 7 does not equate Jesus with Melchizedek and virtually all of its argument can be explained as a "what is not in the Torah does not exist" argument (non in thora non in mundo).
The Book of War (4Q285)
I only mention this set of fragments because some have claimed that it foretells a murdered messiah. This, however, does not seem to be the case and is based upon extensively hypothetical reconstructions.
Messianic Rule (1QSa)
1. Gives the community's picture of the messianic community in the age to come. Pictures a single priest-messiah (2).
2. the assembly, again (2)
3. again, importance of purity "because the angels of holiness are with their congregation" (2)... remember Fitzmeyer's interpretation of 1 Corinthians 11 again (that I don't agree with)
War Scroll (1QM)
This is an extensive picture of the final eschatological battle. The matter of formation and weaponry bespeaks the Romans as the Kittim and chief enemy.
New Testament Intersections
1. Belial again (1...)
2. sons of light again (1), sons of darkness (3)
3. assembly again (2...)
4. mysteries again (3, 14)
5. sinful flesh* (4) Most of the references to flesh elsewhere have had more to do with weakness than sinfulness
6. righteousness of God again (4)
7. right hand of God (cf. Ps. 110:1; 4)
8. elect of God again (4, 12)
9. twelve tribes of Israel (5), reminder that Jesus chose 12 disciples
10. wrath of God (6)
11. importance of perfection of body, no nakedness, because angels with them in battle (cf. Fitzmeyer on 1 Cor. 11)
12. ranks of angels like 1 Enoch (9)
13. God's lovingkindness not in accordance with our works (11).
14. the messiah, with reference to Numbers 24 (11)
15. the sanctified (11)
16. Belial created for the Pit (13), sounds like predestination, sounds like "created for the Devil and his angels" in Matthew, eternal blaze for sinners (14)
17. poor in spirit (14)
18. In general, the final battle of the War Scroll reminds us of the final battle pictured in the final chapters of Revelation, including the fact that the final opponent is Rome or pictured in terms of Rome.
Copper Scroll (3Q15)
Of no real relevance to the New Testament but very interesting. Post-dates Qumran (ca. AD100), claims to tell where a mess of gold, silver, and massive wealth in general is stashed around Jerusalem. Some think it's all made up. Some think the wealth of the Essenes or of the temple. But no one has found any of it!
Most Apocrypha and Alexandrian Literature
Enochic Literature and 4QMMT
Covenant of Damascus
Community Rule
Qumran Hymns
Pesher Commentaries
Songs of Sabbath, 4QTest, 4QFlor, Son of God frag, etc...
And now the remaining Dead Sea Scrolls I am covering.
11QMelchizedek
General Elements
1. Generally known for equating Melchizedek with Michael the archangel, although nothing in the text actually says this. It does seem to make a distinction between the messiah and Melchizedek, otherwise we might suppose that "mlchzdk" should be interpreted as "king of righteousness" in relation to the messiah.
2. Melchizedek is called ELOHIM and EL, "god," which is the basis for seeing him as an archangel here. He brings judgment on Belial and other spirits (=angels) who rebelled, which supports the angelic theory.
3. Atonement seems associated in some way with Melchizedek, which again supports an association with Genesis 15. At the same time, we should remember that more than one scroll sees the messiah as a priest-messiah.
New Testament Intersections
1. Paul seems to understand Christ to lead the (good) angels in judgment of the world and (fallen) angels (e.g., 1 Cor. 6:2-3; 1 Thess. 4:16), which fits with the role of Melchizedek.
2. A couple NT texts are used here. Isaiah 61, used of Jesus in Luke 4, is used of Melchizedek. The programmatic verse of Jesus ministry, Isaiah 52:7 "how beautiful are the feet of those who bring the gospel, our God reigns [kingdom of God]" is evoked in relation to the messiah and Melchizedek, assuming the two are different.
3. There has been much speculation about a possible connection between 11QMelch and Hebrews 7. It may very well be that such Melchizedek traditions stand somewhere broadly in the background of Hebrews argument. However, Hebrews 7 does not equate Jesus with Melchizedek and virtually all of its argument can be explained as a "what is not in the Torah does not exist" argument (non in thora non in mundo).
The Book of War (4Q285)
I only mention this set of fragments because some have claimed that it foretells a murdered messiah. This, however, does not seem to be the case and is based upon extensively hypothetical reconstructions.
Messianic Rule (1QSa)
1. Gives the community's picture of the messianic community in the age to come. Pictures a single priest-messiah (2).
2. the assembly, again (2)
3. again, importance of purity "because the angels of holiness are with their congregation" (2)... remember Fitzmeyer's interpretation of 1 Corinthians 11 again (that I don't agree with)
War Scroll (1QM)
This is an extensive picture of the final eschatological battle. The matter of formation and weaponry bespeaks the Romans as the Kittim and chief enemy.
New Testament Intersections
1. Belial again (1...)
2. sons of light again (1), sons of darkness (3)
3. assembly again (2...)
4. mysteries again (3, 14)
5. sinful flesh* (4) Most of the references to flesh elsewhere have had more to do with weakness than sinfulness
6. righteousness of God again (4)
7. right hand of God (cf. Ps. 110:1; 4)
8. elect of God again (4, 12)
9. twelve tribes of Israel (5), reminder that Jesus chose 12 disciples
10. wrath of God (6)
11. importance of perfection of body, no nakedness, because angels with them in battle (cf. Fitzmeyer on 1 Cor. 11)
12. ranks of angels like 1 Enoch (9)
13. God's lovingkindness not in accordance with our works (11).
14. the messiah, with reference to Numbers 24 (11)
15. the sanctified (11)
16. Belial created for the Pit (13), sounds like predestination, sounds like "created for the Devil and his angels" in Matthew, eternal blaze for sinners (14)
17. poor in spirit (14)
18. In general, the final battle of the War Scroll reminds us of the final battle pictured in the final chapters of Revelation, including the fact that the final opponent is Rome or pictured in terms of Rome.
Copper Scroll (3Q15)
Of no real relevance to the New Testament but very interesting. Post-dates Qumran (ca. AD100), claims to tell where a mess of gold, silver, and massive wealth in general is stashed around Jerusalem. Some think it's all made up. Some think the wealth of the Essenes or of the temple. But no one has found any of it!
New Testament Intersections 7: Miscellaneous DSS
Previous posts in this series include:
Most Apocrypha and Alexandrian Literature
Enochic Literature and 4QMMT
Covenant of Damascus
Community Rule
Qumran Hymns
Pesher Commentaries
Maybe second to last post in run through the Dead sea Scrolls. I hope on Monday to summarize what I think the rather impressive take-away from this run through the Dead Sea Scrolls might be.
Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice (4QShirShab)
Elements
1. About heavenly worship but is coordinated with the offering of earthly sacrifices
2. Heavenly temple, including Holy of Holies
3. ministers of God’s presence make expiations (cf. TLevi 3)
4. called “elohim”—”gods” (e.g., 4Q403)
5. anticipates Merkabah mysticism (esp. 4Q405)
New Testament Intersections
1. Colossians 2:18— "worship of angels” might mean not worshipping angels but mystical participation with the angels in their worship
2. Hebrews 1—It has been suggested that behind Hebrews repeated contrasts of Christ with angels might be an over-preoccupation of the audience with angels.
3. Hebrews 9-10-- the idea that God dwells in the Most Holy Place of heaven
4. mysteries again (4Q403)
Words of the Heavenly Lights (4Q504)
You sent your Holy Spirit on us (5)
4QTestimonia
Messianic expectation using Deut. 18 and Num. 24)
4QFlorilegium
1. Collection of texts generally connected to the Messiah, including 2 Samuel 7:14, Amos 9:11, and Psalm 2.
2. These three texts are all used in the New Testament (Acts and Hebrews) in relation to Jesus.
3. Might (although perhaps not) support collections of sayings such as Q is alleged to be and the Gospel of Thomas was. More accurately a set of related verses with pesher interpretation.
4. "works of the Law" related to the functioning of the sanctuary.
5. Belial, sons of light cont...
Son of God fragment (4Q246)
Predicts a “Son of God,” a “Son of the Most High” like Luke 1:32, 35
A Messianic Apocalypse (4Q521)
1. May not be sectarian
2. Speaks of reviving and raising the dead
3. Quotes Isaiah 61:1 as Luke 4
Pseudo-Ezekiel (4Q385)
1. not obviously sectarian
2. literal resurrection?
Most Apocrypha and Alexandrian Literature
Enochic Literature and 4QMMT
Covenant of Damascus
Community Rule
Qumran Hymns
Pesher Commentaries
Maybe second to last post in run through the Dead sea Scrolls. I hope on Monday to summarize what I think the rather impressive take-away from this run through the Dead Sea Scrolls might be.
Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice (4QShirShab)
Elements
1. About heavenly worship but is coordinated with the offering of earthly sacrifices
2. Heavenly temple, including Holy of Holies
3. ministers of God’s presence make expiations (cf. TLevi 3)
4. called “elohim”—”gods” (e.g., 4Q403)
5. anticipates Merkabah mysticism (esp. 4Q405)
New Testament Intersections
1. Colossians 2:18— "worship of angels” might mean not worshipping angels but mystical participation with the angels in their worship
2. Hebrews 1—It has been suggested that behind Hebrews repeated contrasts of Christ with angels might be an over-preoccupation of the audience with angels.
3. Hebrews 9-10-- the idea that God dwells in the Most Holy Place of heaven
4. mysteries again (4Q403)
Words of the Heavenly Lights (4Q504)
You sent your Holy Spirit on us (5)
4QTestimonia
Messianic expectation using Deut. 18 and Num. 24)
4QFlorilegium
1. Collection of texts generally connected to the Messiah, including 2 Samuel 7:14, Amos 9:11, and Psalm 2.
2. These three texts are all used in the New Testament (Acts and Hebrews) in relation to Jesus.
3. Might (although perhaps not) support collections of sayings such as Q is alleged to be and the Gospel of Thomas was. More accurately a set of related verses with pesher interpretation.
4. "works of the Law" related to the functioning of the sanctuary.
5. Belial, sons of light cont...
Son of God fragment (4Q246)
Predicts a “Son of God,” a “Son of the Most High” like Luke 1:32, 35
A Messianic Apocalypse (4Q521)
1. May not be sectarian
2. Speaks of reviving and raising the dead
3. Quotes Isaiah 61:1 as Luke 4
Pseudo-Ezekiel (4Q385)
1. not obviously sectarian
2. literal resurrection?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
