tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-232386062024-03-07T04:58:47.541-05:00Biblical RuminationsA Blog dedicated to biblical studies.Chris Petersenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06971062280390918450noreply@blogger.comBlogger109125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23238606.post-52033465263934968922008-10-16T06:07:00.002-04:002008-10-16T06:13:23.665-04:00I have relocated...http://christopher-petersen.blogspot.comChris Petersenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06971062280390918450noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23238606.post-77811808459948306422008-01-14T17:41:00.001-05:002008-01-14T17:41:37.294-05:00Chris Petersenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06971062280390918450noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23238606.post-21740412085147425912007-10-11T01:29:00.000-04:002007-10-11T02:42:12.128-04:00Wrede's Messianic Secret: Introduction 1.1Wrede begins his study by first noting that in regards to the two decisive questions concerning the historical figure of Jesus-"<span style="color:#cc0000;">what do we know of his life? and, what do we know of the history of the oldest views and representations of Jesus's life</span>"-scholarship has on the whole offered only disappointing results. Wrede believes this is because of a defective historical-critical method regarding three areas:<br /><br />1.) Although it should be taken as axiomatic that what lies before the historian examining the gospels is a "<span style="color:#cc0000;">later narrator's conception of Jesus' life and that this conception is not identical with the thing itself</span>" (p.5) scholars often recall this axiom only when they discover strong miraculous features in a text, or when contradictions arise within the same source of a text, or when separate reports clash with one another. This means that unless one of these three features occurs scholars, according to Wrede, are inclined too quickly to proceed with their historical assessment of the gospels as if what is before them is generally historically accurate.<br /><br />2.) Scholars in their haste to utilize the gospel accounts for composing a historical portrait of Jesus too quickly pass over the evangelists' <em>literary</em> presentations of those accounts. What inevitably results from this is that "<span style="color:#cc0000;">something which was not in the writers' mind is substituted for the account and represented as its historical content</span>" (p 5). This neglect of what the <em>narrator</em> is trying to convey by his <em>narration </em>means that scholars will inevitably gloss over important bits of information in the gospel texts.<br /><br />3.) Though psychology has a place within historical Jesus research it is widely abused by scholars: "<span style="color:#cc0000;">The scientific study of the life of Jesus is suffering from psychological 'suppositionitis' which amounts to a sort of historical guess work. For this reason interpretations to suit every taste proliferate.</span>" (p 6). Furthermore, says Wrede, for psycho-analyses to provide a valuable contribution to Jesus research it must have lucid facts concerning Jesus with which to work. Unfortunately, however, too many things about Jesus are historically uncertain and thus for this reason psycho-analyses need to be used sparringly.<br /><br />To summarize, Wrede's beef with the scholarship of his day derives from scholars not approaching the gospels with enough healthy skepticism, and it is this lack of skepticism that results in premature conclusions being made concerning the historical figure of Jesus.Chris Petersenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06971062280390918450noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23238606.post-33366311418890708822007-10-04T04:04:00.000-04:002007-10-04T05:21:49.992-04:00William WredeLike many young aspiring scholars I have too often neglected the reading of classic scholarly works. To remedy this I have put on my reading list the works of several scholars such as Strauss, Weiss, Wrede, Bultmann, Dibelius, et al. Of course, most of them are German scholars and because my German is very limited I am having to depend on English translations which means that I cannot at this juncture in my academic pursuit fully engage these works, something that is a particularly frustrating thought.<br /><br />Nevertheless, I have opted to begin with William (or Wilhelm) Wrede's <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Messianic-Secret-Library-Theological-Translations/dp/022767717X"><em>The Messianic Secret</em></a><em> </em>which was one of the most influential works on the gospels (particularly Mark) at the beginning of the 20th century. Prior to the publishing of this book most scholars viewed the first three gospels, especially Mark, as giving a basically historical representation of Jesus' ministry. But Wrede's work on Mark's messianic secret motif promulgated skepticism among scholars concerning what could be historically asserted about the life of Jesus. In the coming weeks I will blog on this work, reviewing each chapter and then giving a (limited) evaluation of the book. But first, a quote from the book to give you an idea of Wrede's perspective concerning the gospels:<br /><br />"<span style="color:#cc0000;">I should never for an instant lose sight of my awareness that I have before me descriptions, the authors of which are later Christians, be they never so early-Christians who could only look at the life of Jesus with the eyes of their own time and who described it on the basis of the belief of the community, with all the viewpoints of the community, and with the needs of the community in mind</span>." (<em>The Messianc Secret</em>, trans. by J.C.G. Greig, p. 5)Chris Petersenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06971062280390918450noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23238606.post-11690163358007437962007-08-02T00:50:00.000-04:002007-08-02T01:27:33.935-04:00"And now for something completely different..."Before the days of DVDs when VCRs were still prominent I had a peculiar hobby in which I would edit together in a creative and/or unique way clips from some of my favorite movies and would then add my own audio tracks (music, voiceovers, sound effects, etc). For example, I once took the original three <em>Star Wars</em> films and edited them in such away so as to condense the story into about thirty minutes while adding my own music and other audio effects to the story. I did several projects similar to this (many of which have been, sadly, lost). It was always very tedious work (my equipment never involved more than two VCRs, a CD player, and a cassette player) but it was something which gave me great satisifaction whenever a project was completed. But with the advent of DVDs I abandoned this hobby since most VCR's were not able to get around the copyright protection on DVD's and I could never be satisified continuing with VHS copies when I knew the DVD quality of movies was so superior. And so eight years ago I gave up this hobby.<br /><br />But through the help of a good friend who showed me how I could get started doing this again on the computer I have picked this hobby back up. This is part of the reason I haven't been blogging because I have been consumed for the past month with my first project using the computer. For those interested you can view it here (albeit in a lower quality than the original):<br /><br /><a href="http://spikedhumor.com/articles/118419/Jet_Li_as_Master_Wong_Fei_Hung.html">Jet Li as Wong Fei Hung</a><br /><br />However, there are some things to note. If you care neither for martial arts or Jet Li then it will probably bore you so do not bother to watch. Also, if your conscience is panged that I had to use copyrighted material to make this then you may wish to refrain from watching as well. However, I assure anyone concerned that I have not and will not profit from this creation. For those who like this kind of stuff, enjoy.Chris Petersenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06971062280390918450noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23238606.post-30158037748354424992007-07-12T05:09:00.000-04:002007-07-12T05:57:44.707-04:00Difficulties in CommunicationOne of the things that I frequently have trouble with is communicating to people what it is I am pursuing as a career. I currently work in Healthcare as an ER registration person and I have been getting this question a lot from my fellow co-workers. The question arises when people in the ER figure out that I am not pursuing a career in the Healthcare industry and so quite naturally they want to know what I plan to be when I "grow up". But I keep encountering difficulties trying to explain what is I'm wanting to do with my life.<br /><br />This problem partly arises because I try to avoid saying things such as "bible scholar" or "NT professor." I do this for two reasons: one, my interests are wider than the discipline of biblical studies and/or its subsets (e.g., NT, OT) and, two, when you tell someone, especially here in the "bible belt", that you are studying something bible-related the response is always something to the effect of "oh, so you want to be a preacher!" And when I say no and try to explain that my interests are more academically oriented most of these people respond with blank stares. I have found that it is simply futile to try to explain to many of these people that one can pursue the bible in a purely scholarly and/or academic fashion without <em>necessarily</em> doing so from a devotional perspective.<br /><br />However, I have tried in vain to come up with alternative explanations that I feel are adequate. I have attempted things like "historian of Late Antiquity" or "historian of ancient Mediterranean Society" but the response is usually more blank stares because the majority of these people do not know what is conveyed by these terms. Thus I have to spend lengthy amounts of time trying to explain "Late Antiquity" and "ancient Mediterranean Society".<br /><br />Therefore, my questions to scholars and budding scholars of biblical studies related disciplines are:<br /><br />1.) Do you have the same kinds of difficulty explaining to people what is you are doing and/or are pursuing as a career? and,<br /><br />2.) How do you usually explain to people what is you are doing and/or are pursuing as a career?Chris Petersenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06971062280390918450noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23238606.post-34159081065177590762007-06-26T04:49:00.000-04:002008-12-11T15:48:33.600-05:00Pharisaical Ponderings<div><br /><br /><div>I have several times indicated that in my opinion E.P. Sanders' <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Jesus-Judaism-E-P-Sanders/dp/0800620615/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/103-5197270-8932651?ie=UTF8&s=books&amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;qid=1182847875&sr=1-1"><em>Jesus and </a><a href="http://www.amazon.com/Jesus-Judaism-E-P-Sanders/dp/0800620615/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/103-5197270-8932651?ie=UTF8&s=books&amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;qid=1182847875&sr=1-1">Judaism</em></a> is the best work on the historical Jesus to date (<a href="http://resurrectiondogmatics.blogspot.com/2006/07/value-of-ep-sanders-jesus-and-judaism.html">here</a>, <a href="http://resurrectiondogmatics.blogspot.com/2006/07/value-of-ep-sanders-jesus-and-judaism_13.html">here</a>, <a href="http://resurrectiondogmatics.blogspot.com/2006/07/value-of-ep-sanders-jesus-and-judaism_15.html">here</a>, and <a href="http://resurrectiondogmatics.blogspot.com/2006/07/value-of-ep-sanders-jesus-and-judaism_17.html">here</a>). However, my excessive lauding of Sander's work on the historical Jesus has likely given the mistaken impression that I accepted pretty much everything Sanders put forth in <em>Jesus and Judaism </em>(hereafter <em>JJ</em>)<em>. </em>This is not so<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg-LRJxLJ0UJt8Z2QJp9_lRlAW8YMxUyk4uPZuLz9g-7Cgz798lPzGXsmmMkoLq8zOv7prZZ5M_wBE-vWZ6VjIwnSqTInC15inoSnVVicZ1qQWiirrL4UyVi608pVTIt7lxYtEFwQ/s1600-h/175px-Sanders.jpg"><img id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5080324337147976178" style="FLOAT: left; MARGIN: 0px 10px 10px 0px; WIDTH: 175px; CURSOR: hand; HEIGHT: 248px" height="263" alt="" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg-LRJxLJ0UJt8Z2QJp9_lRlAW8YMxUyk4uPZuLz9g-7Cgz798lPzGXsmmMkoLq8zOv7prZZ5M_wBE-vWZ6VjIwnSqTInC15inoSnVVicZ1qQWiirrL4UyVi608pVTIt7lxYtEFwQ/s320/175px-Sanders.jpg" width="175" border="0" /></a>. At the time when I initially read (and then eventually re-read<em>) JJ</em> there were two things that I disagreed with concerning Sanders' reconstruction of the historical Jesus. First, was Sanders' assertion that what most offended Jesus' contemporaries was his claim that sinners need not repent of their sins nor seek forgiveness of their sins in order to have a share in the (soon) coming kingdom and then, second, I had a problem with Sanders' claim that the Pharisees did not play a dominent role in Jewish Palestine and likely were small in number being chiefly located in Judea.<br /><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg1eQ1o0b6cvm92iBScyOAOmMuN9fyTblTu5IeiAdWxXl9W2bJP1Ajgyzlr7QsA71tshmMadAhXSx_kz8bnfR8J4cSPL5XkF3hNir7KNF-77te-GoGXev3ZVSVaT5yiIWna9cQR2g/s1600-h/756779.jpg"><img id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5080324414457387522" style="FLOAT: right; MARGIN: 0px 0px 10px 10px; CURSOR: hand" alt="" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg1eQ1o0b6cvm92iBScyOAOmMuN9fyTblTu5IeiAdWxXl9W2bJP1Ajgyzlr7QsA71tshmMadAhXSx_kz8bnfR8J4cSPL5XkF3hNir7KNF-77te-GoGXev3ZVSVaT5yiIWna9cQR2g/s320/756779.jpg" border="0" /></a><br />I am still not persuaded on Sanders' position concerning Jesus' message to sinners, but I am slowly coming around to accepting the second proposition concerning the Pharisees (principally via the now classic work by Anthony Saldarini entitled <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Pharisees-Sadducees-Palestinian-Biblical-Resource/dp/0802843581/ref=sr_1_4/002-2865468-0085628?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1182851461&sr=1-4"><em>Pharisees, Saducees, and Scribes in Palestinian Society: A Sociological Approach</em></a>). But I have not engaged enough with the requisite material in order to flesh out any thing at the moment here as to why I think I now agree with Sanders. However, what this one issue has alerted me to is the amount of historical questions there are surrounding the Pharisees. Here are, in no particular order, some of these major historical issues surrounding the Second-Temple Jewish group known as the Pharisees:<br /><br /><span style="color:#cc0000;">1.) Were the Pharisees, as some have asserted, major players in Palestinian society or were they a relatively marginal group no more influential than any of the other Jewish groups during the Second Temple period?<br /><br />2.) What (if any) historical truth can be ascertained from the gospels concerning the Pharisees? In other words, how much of the gospels' portrayl of the Pharisees is mere caricature born out of polemic and how much has a historical basis? More importantly, how did the historical Jesus view the Pharisees? Was he in fundamental agreement with Pharisaical points of view or in fundamental disagreement with them or something in between?<br /><br />3.) What was the Pharisaical view of the so called <em>'am a ha'aretz</em> (people of the land). Did they view them as transgressors or simply as the common people who they believed did not necessarily have to adopt the strict purity regulations that governered their own lives?<br /><br />4.) Can one or should one draw a direct historical link between the Pharisees and the post-70 Rabbinic sages? How much of Rabbinic traditions concerning the Pharisees reflect actual pre-70 Palestinian Jewish times?<br /><br /></span>My goal before this year is over is to investigate these issues and to discover where I stand concerning the Pharisees. Here is some of the relevant literature that I hope to read this year in regards to the historical Pharisees:<br /><br />1.) Louis Finkelstein, <a href="http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B000K9O2O6/ref=reg_hu-wl_item-added/002-2865468-0085628"><em>The Pharisees: A Sociological Background of their Faith (2 Vols)</em></a>, 1939.<br /><br />2.) Jacob Neusner, <a href="http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1597524123/ref=wl_it_dp/002-2865468-0085628?ie=UTF8&coliid=I32359TUL8HRKU&colid=2PJVLU936JEXF"><em>The Rabbinic Traditions about the Pharisees before 70 C.E. (3 Vols</em>)</a>, 1982.<br /><br />3.) Anthony J. Saldarini, <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Pharisees-Sadducees-Palestinian-Biblical-Resource/dp/0802843581/ref=sr_1_4/002-2865468-0085628?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1182853229&sr=1-4"><em>Pharisees, Scribes, and Sadducees in Palestinian Society</em></a>, 1986.<br /><br />4.) E.P. Sanders, <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Jewish-Law-Jesus-Mishnah-Studies/dp/0334021022/ref=sr_1_2/002-2865468-0085628?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1182853403&sr=1-2"><em>Jewish Law from Jesus to the Misnah: Five Studies</em></a>, 1990.<br /><br />5.) Jacob Neusner and Bruce Chilton (eds), <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Quest-Historical-Pharisees-Jacob-Neusner/dp/1932792724/ref=sr_1_1/002-2865468-0085628?ie=UTF8&s=books&amp;amp;qid=1182854094&sr=1-1"><em>In Quest of the Historical Pharisees</em></a>, 2007. </div><br /><br /><div></div><br /><br /><div>Hopefully, in future posts I will be able to tackle some of these issues but for the time being I must get to reading.</div></div>Chris Petersenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06971062280390918450noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23238606.post-16919793117115041512007-06-16T20:12:00.000-04:002007-06-16T21:21:52.701-04:00My Synoptic Pilgrimage Part 2For the second part of my synoptic pilgrimage (see <a href="http://www.hypotyposeis.org/weblog/">Stephen Carlson</a>'s post for another pilgrimage “<a href="http://www.hypotyposeis.org/weblog/2007/06/synoptic-pilgrimages.html">story</a>”) post I want to discuss why I believe that the Two-Source theory (hereafter 2ST) will continue to dominant synoptic studies as the "best" solution to the synoptic problem. Along with Goodacre I was pleasantly surprised that the Farrer-Goulder hypothesis garnered so many votes in Brandon’s poll. However, Deconick is surely correct in her assertion that the poll hardly counts as a reliable indicator of the present (or future) state of the synoptic problem in the academy. Now, I certainly wish I could share in Goodacre’s optimism concerning the future of the Farrer-Goulder hypothesis among NT scholars but the fact of the matter is that I do not foresee the 2ST ever losing significant ground to the Farrer-Goulder hypothesis (although it certainly has a better chance than say the Griesbach hypothesis). To understand why I think this is so I must digress for a moment.<br /><br />Those who are avid fantasy readers will surely have read or at least heard of <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terry_Goodkind">Terry Goodkind's</a> <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Sword_of_Truth"><em>Sword of Truth</em></a> series. It is one of the best fantasy series ever written and in my mind rivals the Lord of the Rings (if nothing else it outdoes it in scope with to date 11 books and a twelfth forthcoming). One of the more remarkable things about the books in this series is that every book contains what is called a <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wizard">Wizard's Rule</a> which are basically general principles that the Wizards in Goodkind’s universe adopt and which the plot of each book pivots around. And it is the first Wizard’s Rule (incidentally, this is also the name of the first book in the series, <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Wizards-First-Rule-Sword-Truth/dp/0765346524/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/105-8285746-2326037?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1182042774&sr=1-1"><em>Wizard's First Rule</em></a>) that pertains to our topic. Succinctly, Wizard’s First Rule states the following:<br /><br /><span style="color:#cc0000;"><strong>With minimal persuasion people will generally believe things to be true for one of two reasons: either because they are scared that it may be true or because they strongly wish it to be true.</strong></span><br /><br />What this principle signifies is the problem of trying to achieve a fair level of objectivity when one is emotionally invested in a certain topic. Obviously, a state of complete objectivity can never be attained (since it would mean a complete disinterest in the topic under scrutiny) but this principle indicates that any level of objectivity will be difficult to obtain when one is so emotionally involved in an issue. So what does this principle have to do with the synoptic problem and the 2ST solution?<br /><br />I believe that most Q scholars fall prey to the second part of Wizard’s First Rule, i.e, it is difficult for scholars to relinquish Q because deep down they <em>want</em> and even <em>need</em> it to be true. Why is this so? In short, Q has something for everyone. Its acceptance spans the liberal/conservative spectrum and so finds adherents in virtually every scholarly ideological framework. Goodacre expresses this better than I can so I will quote him at length:<br /><br /><span style="color:#cc0000;"><span style="color:#000000;">"</span>If we were to dispense with Q, it would not be without tears. For Q has been all over the world, loved by everyone, feminists and liberation theologians, the sober and the sensational, the scholar and the layperson, a document with universal appeal. Indeed one of the keys to its success has been its ability to woo both conservatives and radicals alike. While conservatives, for example, are drawn by its early witness to sayings of Jesus, others have seen its lack of a Passion Narrative as witnessing to an alternative stream of early Christianity, one not based on the proclamation of a crucified Christ. For those at one end of the theological spectrum, Q can give us a document of Jesus material from before 70, written within a generation of the death of Jesus. For those at the other end of the spectrum, Q aligns itself with the Gospel of Thomas to form a “trajectory” in early Christianity that contrasted radically with emerging orthodoxy, and which only “canonical bias” can now obscure from out view</span>." (<a href="http://www.amazon.com/Case-Against-Studies-Priority-Synoptic/dp/1563383349/ref=pd_bbs_sr_2/105-8285746-2326037?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1182042109&sr=1-2"><em>The Case Against Q</em></a>, 16-17)<br /><br />Because Q offers so much to so many it is easy to see why Q scholars strongly want the existence of Q (of whatever form) to be true. Because of this and ultimately because of Wizard’s First Rule I simply do not see the 2ST theory ever losing ground to the Farrer-Goulder hypothesis or to any theory which does not invoke Q as a solution to the synoptic problem. Q is simply too valuable and too desired by the academy. Goodacre is right: to dispense with Q would not be without tears and because of this I believe scholars will continue to be persuaded that Q is the best solution to the synoptic problem even if overwhelming evidence were to be presented otherwise.<br /><br /><strong>Note: My more perceptive readers have surely realized that Wizard’s First Rule could be turned around on me since it could be argued that I dispensed with Q precisely because of my frustrations with its abuse which led me to want it not to exist. It can certainly cut both ways.</strong>Chris Petersenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06971062280390918450noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23238606.post-59130147149519246112007-06-13T03:47:00.000-04:002007-06-13T06:23:10.432-04:00My Synoptic Pilgrimage Part 1Recently, <a href="http://www.novumtestamentum.com/blog/brandon-wason/">Brandon <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_0">Wason</span></a> at <a href="http://www.novumtestamentum.com/blog/"><span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_1">Novum</span> <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_2">Testamentum</span></a> created a poll in which he asked readers to vote on what they thought was the most persuasive “solution” to the synoptic problem (<a href="http://www.novumtestamentum.com/blog/280/synoptic-problem-poll/">here</a>). Not surprisingly, the Two-Source theory came out on top but with the <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_3">Farrer</span>-<span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_4">Goulder</span> hypothesis, of which I am an adherent, taking second place. The results of Brandon’s poll elicited some interesting responses, most notably in the exchanges between Mark <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_5">Goodacre</span> and April <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_6">Deconick</span> (<a href="http://ntgateway.com/weblog/2007/06/synoptic-problem-poll-some-reflections.html">here</a>, <a href="http://forbiddengospels.blogspot.com/2007/06/lets-get-real-about-synoptic-poll.html">here</a>, and <a href="http://ntgateway.com/weblog/2007/06/more-on-synoptic-problem-poll.html">here</a>). For my own part, I tended to agree with <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_7">Goodacre</span> against <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_8">Deconick</span> but that is not what I want to discuss. Instead, I would like to offer a brief account of my pilgrimage from the Two-Source theory to an acceptance of the <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_9">Farrer</span>-<span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_10">Goulder</span> hypothesis.<br /><br />Like most young religious studies students I held to the Two-Source theory (commonly referred to as Q) unquestioningly. Everything that I read and/or was taught accepted the existence of Q as a fundamental basis of NT scholarship. But slowly I began to have misgiving after misgiving about Q, especially concerning the way Q was constantly abused by certain scholars in their attempts to locate various <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_11">stratifications</span> or editions of Q, and the extent to which most of these same scholars believed that they could extrapolate a specific Q theology or Q community. This was especially exemplified for me when I was researching burial practices in the Second-Temple period and came across a book called <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Roll-Back-Stone-Death-Burial/dp/1563384027"><em>Roll Back the Stone</em></a> by Byron <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_12">McCane</span>. In this book, <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_13">McCane</span> devoted an entire chapter to an examination of the Q community’s specific burial theology (which was, of course, at odds with typical Second-Temple Judaic practice). His ostensibly dubious analysis especially alerted me to the pitfalls that occur when scholars become strongly dependent on Q.<br /><br />The next crucial thing which happened that started me on a path to Q skepticism was an encounter with of one of the many minor agreements between Luke and Matthew against Mark. Of course, at the time I did not understand the issues surrounding the minor agreements since I had yet to even read anything written against the Two-Source theory. And so, intriguingly, I stumbled upon this minor agreement from a discussion unrelated to the synoptic problem. A friend of mine was authoring a series of posts (I would provide links but the posts nor his blog now exist) attempting to indicate why <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_14">inerrancy</span> was a faulty view of the Biblical texts. One of the several passages he used was Mark 2: 23-28.<br /><br />In this passage the author of Mark attributes to Jesus the saying that it was <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_15">Abiathar</span> who was high priest when David entered into the house of God to feed his hungry men. However, according to 1 Sam 21: 1-6 it is <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_16">Abiathar</span>’s father <em><strong><span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_17">Ahimelech</span></strong></em> who was the high priest at that time and not <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_18">Abiathar</span> as Mark mistakenly indicates. Furthermore, it is not until <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_19">Ahimelech</span> and his fellow priests are slaughtered in 1 Sam 22: 17-19 that <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_20">Abiathar</span> becomes high priest. Given that both <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_21">mens</span>’ names begin with an “A” and the proximity of the two narratives to one another it is easy to see how Mark could have made the mistake. But it is a mistake nonetheless.<br /><br />My friend further pointed out to his readers that what was interesting was what Matthew did with this passage. In the <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_22">Matthean</span> version of this passage (Matt 12: 1-8) the author of Matthew simply omits Mark’s reference to who was the high priest during this particular <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_23">Davidic</span> episode. More than likely, as my friend observed, given the gospel of Matthew’s probable Jewish authorship, the author of Matthew being more acquainted with the Hebrew scriptures recognized that Mark made a mistake and so remedied it by simply omitting the reference altogether. Immediately curious as to how Luke dealt with this passage I read <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_24">Lk</span> 6: 1-5. Now, you must realize that I was still operating under the rubric of a Two-Source theory and so recalling that the consensus of scholarship has been that Luke was of gentile authorship I expected Luke to replicate Mark’s mistake since he most likely was not as versed in the Hebrew scriptures as Matthew. Instead I was astonished to discover that his version followed Matthew’s verbatim by simply omitting the reference to the high priest. Here's how it all worked out in my head:<br /><br /><span style="color:#990000;">1). Mark mistakenly identifies the high priest in 2:23-38 as <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_25">Abiathar</span> and not <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_26">Ahimelech</span>.<br /><br />2). Matthew because his gospel is more Jewish and well versed in the Hebrew scriptures (as his preoccupation with finding passages in the <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_27">Tanach</span> which he felt Jesus had fulfilled clearly exhibits) spotted the error and chose to "fix" the situation by omitting the reference to the high priest altogether.<br /><br />3). Luke follows Matthew by omitting the reference to the high priest thus agreeing with Matthew against Mark.<br /><br />4). Generally, scholars view the author of the gospel of Luke as a Gentile and so it seems rather unlikely that the author would have recognized Mark's mistake on his own.<br /><br />5). Therefore, it seems more probable to assert that Luke knew Matthew and chose to follow suit with Matthew by omitting the reference to the high priest.<br /></span><br />Once I had worked this out in my mind I realized that the principal implication of these conclusions was that, contrary to what the Two-Source theory stated, if Luke in fact knew Matthew then this would entail that invoking Q as a source might be superfluous. Now of course this one minor agreement does not prove that Luke knew Matthew and at the time I was still a bit reluctant to dispense with Q. However, what was chiefly important for me concerning this encounter with one of the minor agreements was that I could for the first time conceive of the possibility of Luke's literary dependence on Matthew. Eventually, I read Mark <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_28">Goodacre's</span> <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Case-Against-Studies-Priority-Synoptic/dp/1563383349/ref=pd_bbs_sr_2/103-7908706-8659829?ie=UTF8&s=books&amp;qid=1181728322&sr=1-2"><em>The Case Against Q</em></a> and was persuaded that Q was an unnecessary postulate of the synoptic problem and that the literary relationship between the synoptics could in part be <span class="blsp-spelling-corrected" id="SPELLING_ERROR_29">satisfied</span> with reference to Luke's dependence on Matthew.<br /><br />To be continued...Chris Petersenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06971062280390918450noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23238606.post-19706726212190582542007-05-24T06:50:00.000-04:002007-05-24T07:36:17.709-04:00Goodbye to UndergradMy undergraduate days have finally come to an end. Paradoxically, this last semester was my worst as well as my best semester at Union. Academically, it was my worst since I did garner my first "C" at Union (in an Ethics class of all things) but I also feel like it was my most important semester because an interest in genoicidal and Holocaust studies was ignited. The two major research papers I did this semester concerned these two respective topics and they were probably the best ones that I have ever written. The papers of course still require some tweaking but I am considering posting them on this blog for those who might be interested in reading them. The first paper examined the Cambodian Genocide and the second paper was an analysis of anti-Jewish perceptions in ancient Greco-Roman and early Christian thought. Thus, do not be surprised if some of the topics dealt with in future posts reflect these new found interests.<br /><br /><br /><br />I will be taking a year off before going to graduate school in order to work, work, work and work some more so that I can pay off loans and save money. Hopefully, this means I can regularly blog now since my academic obligations are completed (at least momentarily). I must have read 30 or more books this past semester so I definitely have a lot of material to use for future posts. So please bear with me as I attempt to get my blogging faculties back to optimal effeciency. In the meantime, be sure to check out Matt Hopper's excellent series on John Piper's criticism of biblical academic scholarship <a href="http://jesusandpaul.blogspot.com/2007/05/in-defense-of-our-labor-and-worship.html">here</a>.Chris Petersenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06971062280390918450noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23238606.post-17140373086896581082007-04-11T05:59:00.000-04:002007-04-11T07:37:16.936-04:00A Negative Implication Concerning the ResurrectionThose who have followed this blog from its inception (roughly a year ago now) know that part of its purpose was the elucidation of various resurrection themes especially concerning the implications of Jesus' resurrection. And though I have changed my academic tune a bit as far as my blog is concerned I felt that since this past weekend was Resurrection Sunday, i.e. Easter, that I should say something about the resurrection of Jesus.<br /><br />In the past my reflections on the resurrection have been decidedly positive. In fact, I do not think I posted one blog entry that indicated anything negative about the resurrection or its implications. But I want to consider here something that at least I believe is a negative implication that the resurrection or, perhaps better, the disciples' <em>belief</em> in Jesus' resurrection birthed.<br /><br />For this to make sense you must understand that for the past year I have been probing into the origins of anti-semitism/anti-judaism, especially in its relation to the event of the Holocaust (or Shoah as most Jews refer to it as). That thousands of years of Jewish hatred perpetuated by Christianity made the soil fertile for the rational, racial anti-semitism that led to the slaughter of nearly all of European Jewry (1/3 of the global Jewish population at the time) is not a difficult conclusion to arrive at. However, pinpointing the origins of Jew hatred is another matter altogether.<br /><br />Some try to locate the origins of Jew hatred in the pre-Christian era, especially in Alexandrian Egypt. Ostensibly cited in support of pre-Christian anti-semitism/judaism are a handful of Greco-Roman writers who often speak derisively about the Jews, especially concerning their customs which tended to isolate them from the rest of society (this is why the charge of <em>misanthrope</em> was often leveled against them). But more often than not it seems to me that those who push for this option do so for apologetically motivated reasons such as the desire to exculpate any role that nascent Christianity, especially the writings of the NT, may have played in the fomenting of anti-semitic/anti-Judaic strains of thought. On the other hand there are others (cf. Rosemary Ruether's <em>Faith and Fratricide </em>for a good example of this) who wish to lay full blame on nascent Christianity and who further perceive the NT to be crawling with anti-Jewish rhetoric. The truth is, I believe, somewhere in between but I do not wish to deal with that in this post.<br /><br />Nevertheless, without a doubt one of the greatest sources for the development of the immense Jew hatred which characterized Europe for roughly two thousand years was the supersessionistic attitude of the Church toward Judaism in its first few centuries. But from where did the notion of supersessionism arise? This belief followed quite naturally from the notion that Christianity constituted the fulfillment of the promises made to Israel of old. But then we must ask what gave rise to the conviction that God's promises had been fulfilled? I believe the principle motivation for this belief which colors the NT was the disciples' fervent belief that God had raised Jesus from the dead.<br /><br />The resurrection of the dead in Second-Temple Judaic thought was understood as involving a general resurrection of the dead at the end of the present age. There is no evidence that Jews believed in isolated resurrections from the dead but rather viewed the resurrection as an a pan encompassing act which would take place in the new aeon. Thus when the disciples came to believe that Jesus had been raised from the dead and when this belief was combined with their experience of the apocalyptic tenor of Jesus' message, it is pretty clear that they would have come to believe that the promises were being fulfilled, especially since they would have thought that the resurrection of everybody else was just around the corner. (I have explicated this point elsewhere more fully: beginning with this <a href="http://resurrectiondogmatics.blogspot.com/2006/04/et-resurrexit-initial-implications.html">post</a>)<br /><br />Thus, it was ultimately the resurrection (plus Jesus' apocalyptic message) or, rather, the disciples belief in the resurrection of Jesus which was the catalyst for the notion that the promises of old had been or were being fulfilled. However, much time eventually passed and the general resurrection of the dead was not forthcoming nor was the new age for that matter. Israel was not restored and evil still reigned throughout the world. But Christianity could not bring itself to give up the notion that it was the fulfillment of Israel of old. This then led to supersessionistic modes of thinking which contributed in a significant way to the overall <em>Adversus Judeaus</em> tradition of the Church which made the route towards Jew hatred and Jew demonization much smoother.<br /><br />In conclusion then there is a real sense in which the resurrection of Jesus has contributed to anti-semitic and anti-Judaic modes of thought. For someone like myself who has prized the place of the resurrection in Christian thought this is certainly a disturbing thought but true nonetheless.Chris Petersenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06971062280390918450noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23238606.post-66546882736578455332007-04-05T05:18:00.000-04:002007-04-05T05:30:38.638-04:00A ChangeOnce again it has been some time since I have blogged. I am making some changes most notably of which is the name of my blog. (For those of you who are linked to my blog feel free to change the name if you wish but I will be keeping the same url, at least for the time being.) The name change reflects my ever widening interests in the world of Late Antiquity, especially the Greco-Roman and cultural-anthropological background to the era of Second-Temple Judaism. I have two months left of undergraduate work and will be taking a year off before entering graduate school and fortunately I have a new job which is third shift which means sometimes I have downtime with internet access at hand. All of this means, hopefully at least, that I will now be able to blog on a frequent basis. Thanks to all of you who have put up with my lack of blogging and I look forward to getting back to full speed.Chris Petersenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06971062280390918450noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23238606.post-23806400403117408482007-02-07T17:14:00.000-05:002007-02-08T12:32:33.789-05:00Brief Thoughts Concerning the "Kingdom of God"One of the few nearly unanimous points of agreement among NT scholars is that a central (if not <em>the</em> central) theme of the synoptic Gospels is the "kingdom of God" (or Mt.'s equivalent phrase "kingdom of heaven"). Furthermore, though there are many diverse and often times opposing historical reconstructions of Jesus (e.g., compare Albert <span class="blsp-spelling-corrected" id="SPELLING_ERROR_0">Schweitzer's</span> fully apocalyptic Jesus with Dominic <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_1">Crossan's</span> <span class="blsp-spelling-corrected" id="SPELLING_ERROR_2">egalitarian</span> promoting Cynic peasant) most scholars in this field agree that the "kingdom of God" was an integral component of the historical Jesus' mission. But the agreement often ends there with any further elucidation of the "kingdom of God" diverging widely. The discussion tends to get weighed down by scholarly baggage over whether or not the kingdom should be defined in a purely spiritual or physical sense (or both) and if the kingdom should be understood as principally imminent or present or somehow both. The disagreement on this matter is enhanced further by the fact that the phrase itself is rarely found in the Hebrew Bible, <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_3">Deutero</span>-canonical, <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_4">Qumranic</span>, and <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_5">Pseudepigraphal</span> literature. There is then little to no background information with which to inform scholars of the possible connotations that the phrase "kingdom of God" might carry. And so disagreements understandably arise.<br /><br />But for many evangelical Christians, especially those of a verbal plenary inspiration stripe, the matter is easily settled and it goes something like this: Jesus was sent by God (indeed, was God in the flesh) to fulfill the prophecies of the OT which included the coming of God's kingdom; Jesus fulfilled these prophecies of the kingdom by inaugurating its coming principally via his death and resurrection; the <em><span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_6">ekklesia</span> </em>or Church which his apostles founded is in some sense the incarnation or manifestation of this inaugurated kingdom of God; and this kingdom will be fully realized or <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_7">concretized</span> at Jesus' <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_8">Parousia</span>. Thus the "kingdom of God" has two stages: fulfillment and consummation. Jesus at his first coming ushered in the former stage and will usher in the consummate stage at his second coming.<br /><br />I at one time subscribed to this viewpoint known as "inaugurated eschatology". But the more and more I've come to study and analyze the Hebrew Bible, especially concerning its restoration of Israel motifs, the more and more that I'm beginning to see this interpretation as apologetic nonsense. The uncomfortable fact that many of the <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_9">eschatological</span> kingdom characteristics normally associated with its arrival such as the general resurrection of the dead, a Messianic rule, the restoration of Israel, etc. did not occur at Jesus' coming has forced Christians into this semantic <span class="blsp-spelling-corrected" id="SPELLING_ERROR_10">word game</span> by neatly dividing up the kingdom into '<span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_11">fulfillment'and</span> 'consummation' stages. <br /><br />I will have more to say on this in the next post.Chris Petersenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06971062280390918450noreply@blogger.com7tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23238606.post-83306238066382949312007-02-05T09:28:00.000-05:002007-02-05T09:31:11.090-05:00Bible QuizThis was rather easy. Hat-tip to <a href="http://biblical-studies.ca/blog/wp/2007/02/03/ultimate-bible-quiz/">Tyler Williams</a>.<br /><br /><br /><div style="BORDER-RIGHT: gray 1px solid; PADDING-RIGHT: 6px; BORDER-TOP: gray 1px solid; PADDING-LEFT: 6px; PADDING-BOTTOM: 6px; FONT: 12px arial, verdana, sans-serif; BORDER-LEFT: gray 1px solid; WIDTH: 320px; COLOR: black; PADDING-TOP: 6px; BORDER-BOTTOM: gray 1px solid; HEIGHT: 201px; BACKGROUND-COLOR: white"><b style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN-BOTTOM: 8px; FONT: bold 20px 'Times New Roman', serif; COLOR: black">You know the Bible 100%!</b> <div style="BORDER-RIGHT: black 1px solid; BORDER-TOP: black 1px solid; BACKGROUND: white; BORDER-LEFT: black 1px solid; WIDTH: 200px; BORDER-BOTTOM: black 1px solid; TEXT-ALIGN: left"><div style="FONT-SIZE: 8px; BACKGROUND: red; WIDTH: 100%; LINE-HEIGHT: 8px"></div></div><p style="BORDER-RIGHT: medium none; BORDER-TOP: medium none; BACKGROUND: white; MARGIN: 10px; BORDER-LEFT: medium none; COLOR: black; BORDER-BOTTOM: medium none">Wow! You are awesome! You are a true Biblical scholar, not just a hearer but a personal reader! The books, the characters, the events, the verses - you know it all! You are fantastic!<br /><br /><b><a style="COLOR: blue" href="http://www.gotoquiz.com/ultimate_bible_quiz">Ultimate Bible Quiz</a><br /><a style="COLOR: blue" href="http://www.gotoquiz.com/">Create MySpace Quizzes</a></b></p></div>Chris Petersenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06971062280390918450noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23238606.post-74973264101030073292007-01-20T13:24:00.000-05:002007-01-25T13:43:57.639-05:00"The New Testament World: Insights from Cultural Anthropology": Part 1<strong><a href="http://resurrectiondogmatics.blogspot.com/2007/01/new-testament-world-insights-from.html">Introduction</a></strong><br /><strong></strong><br /><strong></strong><br /><strong>Introduction: Bible Study and Cultural Anthropology</strong><br /><strong></strong><br />Malina's introductory chapter is divided into three sections. For the first section, Malina's concern is to emphasize to the recent student of biblical studies the nature of the cultural gap between us and the 1st century Mediterranean world. Malina makes many observations towards achieving this goal but perhaps one of his more important statements in this regard is the following:<br /><br />"<span style="color:#cc0000;">Perhaps the first and largest step that a contemporary American can take toward understanding the Bible is to realize that in reading the Bible in English (or even Greek), we are in fact listening to the words of a transplanted group of foreigners. It takes only the ability to read to find out what these foreigners are saying, but it takes far more to find out what they mean</span>." (NTW, 2)<br /><br />The notion of the interpreter's role as akin to eavesdropping on a group of foreigners is consistently used by Malina throughout the book. It is, I think, a useful metaphor which highlights the cultural gap between interpreter(s) and ancient text. But Malina's point here is a fairly simple one. In order for one to completely understand a text one must ascertain what it <em>means</em>. In other words, knowing what a text <em>says</em> and what a text <em>means</em> can be two different things. One can know what a text says but still not fully grasp its meaning. To highlight this feature, one of the examples Malina provides is Mt 19: 12 which says:<br /><br />"<span style="color:#cc0000;">For there are eunuchs who have been so from birth and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by other people, and there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven</span>."<br /><br />Malina notes concerning this passage that,<br /><br />"<span style="color:#cc0000;"> the author of Matthew's Gospel speaks of eunuchs, for example, can be easily verified. That the word "eunuch" refers to a castrated male can also be easily verified. But why the reference to a castrated male? What does being called a eunuch mean to a first-century Palestinian man? What does it mean in terms of male social roles and values? How can a person in contemporary America find out such information relative to the first-century Mediterranean world</span>?" (2)<br /><br />It is the answer to the last question that indicates the essential purpose of the book which is "<span style="color:#cc0000;">to explain how we might retrieve such information</span>" (2). Malina then spends the next several pages elucidating this purpose further. Malina's concluding point(s) in this section concerns how modern biblical commentators tend to focus on literary analysis of texts which include the <em>what</em>, <em>when</em>, <em>where</em>, and historical <em>how</em> questions but exclude the <em>why </em>question (6). And it is precisely this <em>why </em>question which socio-cultural approaches seek to answer. The conclusion then is that the type of "context" approach which Malina is advocating is requisite for the bible student if he is to properly understand an ancient text or people.<br /><br />The next section looks at some of the essential presuppositions behind the book. The first presupposition Malina tackles is epistemological in nature. Malina observes that knowledge about others, as well as ourselves, can be divided into three distinct types:<br /><br />1. awareness knowledge or "that" knowledge-this primarily involves information about something or someone.<br /><br />2. usable knowledge or "how to" knowledge-chiefly concerns the kind of information that is necessary in order to properly engage with something or someone.<br /><br />3. principle knowledge or "why" knowledge- this is "<span style="color:#cc0000;">information about cultural scripts and cues, about the cultural models behind the applicable facts</span>" (7). In other words, it concerns the overall or big picture; the totality of cultural experiences.<br /><br />The second major presupposition which Malina discusses is perhaps the most important one. This presupposition can be summarized as follows: "<span style="color:#cc0000;">All human beings are entirely the <em>same</em>, entirely <em>different</em>, and <em>somewhat the same and somewhat different at the same time</em></span>" (7). The first part of this presupposition focuses on the similarities possessed by all cultures and correlates to what we call "nature" which Malina suggests is "<span style="color:#cc0000;">all that exists apart from purposeful, willful human influence</span>" (8). This would include regular patterns of similarity in nature (e.g., laws) that human beings cannot change. The second part of the presupposition focuses one's direction on the uniqueness of individuals. That is to say, no two people are alike and each individual "<span style="color:#cc0000;">lives out their stories in unique fashion</span>" (8). Furthermore, this second aspect of the presupposition corresponds to what we would call "person". Now, the third part of the presupposition examines the relatedness or "<span style="color:#cc0000;">interplay of similarities and differences within human communities</span>" (8). Not surprisingly then, this part of the presupposition corresponds to "culture". And by culture, Malina means:<br /><br />"<span style="color:#cc0000;">an organized system of symbols by which persons, things, and events are endowed with rather specific and socially shared meanings, feelings, and values</span>." (9)<br /><br />Recognizing and appropriating these presuppositions into one's studies of ancient texts and cultures is vital according to Malina in order to insure that one does not engage in misinterpretation which occurs when the interpreter <em>makes his or her own cultural story normative for all of human nature</em>. Therefore, these presuppositions are essential in that they force the interpreter to acknowledge the cultural gap between them and the text or culture they are studying.<br /><br />The last section of this introductory chapter is rather long and chiefly involves attempting to define "culture" more precisely (pp 11-17). Once Malina has established more clearly what he intends by the word "culture" he then proceeds to discuss the three different kinds of models that are often employed in cultural studies. They are as follows:<br /><br />1. <em>Structural functionalism</em>- this model "<span style="color:#cc0000;">pictures social systems as the result of consensual obligation, with people freely choosing to oblige themselves in a certain way</span>." (20) In this model there is a sense of cooperation by the members of societies in the development and maintenance of their respective cultures. Also, this model emphasizes the stability and "<span style="color:#cc0000;">well-integrated structure</span>" of societal reality.<br /><br />2. <em>Conflict theory</em>- this model is the opposite of the above model because it indicates that societal systems are chiefly set up my means of "coercive tactics" in order to protect "<span style="color:#cc0000;">the distinctive interests of its members</span>." (20) In other words, it is not consensual obligation that holds a system together but coercion or force. Furthermore, because of this factor this type of model tends to understand two particular aspects of society as that of conflict and change.<br /><br />3. <em>Symbolic</em>-this model examines the nature of how symbols function in society in the assigning of meaning and value to a culture. Malina insists further that the symbols of a society are not limited to concrete objects alone but include "<span style="color:#cc0000;">the self, others, nature, time, space, and the All (God)</span>" )(22). Thus, one can learn much about how a culture functions by examining its use of symbolic appropriations and how these operate in investing meaning into a society's world.<br /><br />Malina then concludes this section by emphasizing that the best approach is to utilize all three models while acknowledging that they are <em>models</em> which means they are at best abstract generalizations that can never give us the entire story of a culture. Nevertheless, it is the preferred approach to take and Malina concludes the introductory chapter by stating that the rest of the book will follow these three models which have as their foundation the very important axiom that "<span style="color:#cc0000;">all human beings are entirely the same, entirely different, and somewhat the same and somewhat different at the same time</span>." (24)<br /><br />Next time we will look at chapters 1 and 2.Chris Petersenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06971062280390918450noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23238606.post-68108037004865245452007-01-18T13:41:00.000-05:002007-01-18T16:11:13.572-05:00"The New Testament World: Insights from Cultural Anthropology": IntroductionI have to confess that in the past I have been reluctant to read anything by the aptly named "context-group" of scholars. I think this has been partly due to my bad experience with Crossan's <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Historical-Jesus-Mediterranean-Jewish-Peasant/dp/0060616296"><em>The Historical Jesus</em></a> in which he utilizes the cultural anthropological features of the 1st century Mediterranean environment as his controlling paradigm for his reconstruction of the historical Jesus. Admittedly, Crossan's abuse of sociological and anthropological models for his historical Jesus investigation left a bitter taste in my mouth for such "context" approaches.<br /><br />However, since entering the biblioblogosphere, I have softened my stance significantly on context writings. The blogs of <a href="http://lorenrosson.blogspot.com/">Loren Rosson</a> and <a href="http://earliestchristianhistory.blogspot.com/">James Crossley</a> in particular have been most helpful in this development. I must say that I have benefited greatly from the sociological and anthropological insights of both men. Additionally, Loren has repeatedly alerted his readers to the works of such erudite context scholars as <a href="http://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/divinity/esler1.html">Philip Esler</a> and Crossley has written a book on Christian Origins from a socio-contextual perspective of which he has been summarizing on his blog (first post <a href="http://earliestchristianhistory.blogspot.com/2006/10/why-christianity-happened.html">here</a> and book available <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Why-Christianity-Happened-Sociohistorical-Christian/dp/0664230946/ref=sr_11_1/002-7607896-1265668?ie=UTF8">here</a>). But I still needed a further impetus to get me to read some actual context works. This final impetus had its origin in a strange place, namely<em>, <a href="http://travel.discovery.com/">The Travel Channel</em></a>. The <em>Travel Channel </em>has a new show that premiered last Sunday called "<a href="http://travel.discovery.com/fansites/kombai/kombai.html">Living with the Kombai</a>" which basically is about two Westerns who attempt to live among an isolated group of people known as the Kombai from West Paupa. For some reason, witnessing the vast cultural gap between these men and the Kombai prompted the desire in me to finally begin reading more "context" works.<br /><br />And so I am beginning by reading a book that has been sitting on my shelf awhile entitled <a href="http://www.amazon.com/New-Testament-World-Insights-Anthropology/dp/0664222951"><em>The New Testament World: Insights from Cultural Anthropology</em></a> by <a href="http://www.kchanson.com/CONTEXT/malina.html">Bruce J. Malina</a>. It is as a good place to start as any since it is written principally as introductory material. In the coming posts I hope to provide an adequate review of the work plus any additional reflections and/or insights that I may acquire on my way to completion of this book.<br /><br /><br /><a href="http://travel.discovery.com/"></a>Chris Petersenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06971062280390918450noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23238606.post-25957993498262746452007-01-10T12:07:00.000-05:002008-12-11T15:48:33.958-05:00LXX Scholars of Old<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhwInlrnNiF1A-blpN4LIAdddbUumIX6FYZ0r6nngOlOtKhlKL2Ju-gUjRs8vs0pkuV99zCBA3Tz5RiQs-waVnvq1-Xsoy0KLQzAtzJGwl6f1I1bUVW9PQvdAvnjd5hz29oi4Zw9Q/s1600-h/660v-at150.gif"><img id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5019610704802047618" style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN: 0px auto 10px; CURSOR: hand; TEXT-ALIGN: center" alt="" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhwInlrnNiF1A-blpN4LIAdddbUumIX6FYZ0r6nngOlOtKhlKL2Ju-gUjRs8vs0pkuV99zCBA3Tz5RiQs-waVnvq1-Xsoy0KLQzAtzJGwl6f1I1bUVW9PQvdAvnjd5hz29oi4Zw9Q/s200/660v-at150.gif" border="0" /></a><br /><div>One of the books that I have been reading lately is <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Invitation-Septuagint-Karen-H-Jobes/dp/0801022355"><em>Invitation to the Septuagint</em></a> by scholars <a href="http://www.wheaton.edu/Theology/Faculty/jobes/index.html">Karen Jobes</a> and <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moisés_Silva">Moises Silva</a>. It has been on the whole an enjoyable read. The first half of the book caters towards readers who have little or no knowledge of the LXX while the latter half is intended for students (and scholars) more familiar with Septuagintal studies and who possess at least an intermediate reading level of Greek and Hebrew. (For my own part I could not completely finish the chapter entitled "Interpreting the Septuagint" because my reading knowledge of Hebrew and Greek was not on par with this section.)<br /><br />However, I do not wish here to engage in a book review principally because my language skills are not such that I feel qualified to do so. But I do want to say a word about the chapter entitled "Our Predecessors: Septuagint Scholars of a Previous Generation". As the title indicates this chapter is devoted to briefly examining the important contributions of various scholars of old to LXX studies. In fact, the current state of LXX work would not exist had it not been for the intellectual efforts of these men as the authors note:<br /><br />"<span style="color:#cc0000;">this chapter introduces some of the prominent scholars who have set the agenda for LXX studies and on whose work the discipline still stands</span>" (239).<br /><br />The scholars discussed include <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constantin_von_Tischendorf">Friedrich Constantin von Tischendorf</a>:known especially for his important collection (and collation) of manuscripts, especially one of the most important for NT textual criticism, namely, <em>Codex Sinaiticus</em>; <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edwin_Hatch">Edwin Hatch</a>: produced (along with Henry Redpath) a still widely used concordance for the LXX; <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_de_Lagarde">Paul A. de Largarde</a>: considered by many to be the father of modern LXX textual criticism principally due to his invaluable work on the Greek text of Proverbs and Genesis; <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alfred_Rahlfs">Alfred Rahlfs</a>: a student of Lagarde who took up the mantle of finishing the work his mentor left incomplete by reconstructing a LXX text based on the unicals B, S, and A; <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Max_Margolis">Max Leopold Margolis</a>: a Jewish scholar who devoted his entire scholarly life to a reconstruction of the orginal Greek text for the Book of Joshua.<br /></div><br /><div>The thing that is most impressive about these scholars is their philological skills. For instance, Lagarde in his lifetime published works in Latin, Syrian, Babylonian, Arabic, Coptic, Persian, and Armenian while Margolis wrote his entire dissertation in Latin on the textual criticism of the Jewish Talmud! At the least, most of these scholars had an excellent reading knowledge of four or five ancient languages. To be sure, many of them already had acquired a working knowledge of Greek and Latin from secondary school, something the school systems here obviously lack. Nonetheless, these scholars knowledge of ancient languages would readily put many of us to shame. I must admit that upon reading this chapter I became a bit depressed. It forced me to realize just how little philological skills I possess in comparison with these erudite scholars of old. </div>Chris Petersenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06971062280390918450noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23238606.post-24246839024134879322006-12-21T11:08:00.000-05:002008-12-11T15:48:34.534-05:00The Magic is Back<img id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5011025999417669874" style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN: 0px auto 10px; WIDTH: 319px; CURSOR: hand; HEIGHT: 205px; TEXT-ALIGN: center" height="185" alt="" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjWJ4E74U-IRXKzQ4omvS_dRdKpKTsChd-OJaJTY_6kdx6ZJbGPb1wrktJcem5fViU89Mfd4KY1fb9Xp1Osm47oTMeCazVEVEr1sIy9OwQcXg98qJBN0ktIDIaFCEmR5ThXRqTSTA/s320/rockybalboa11.gif" width="319" border="0" />Normally I do not do movie reviews on this blog unless it has something to do (if only indirectly) with biblical studies, but because I have always been a big <em>Rocky </em>fan I feel compelled to say something about the most recent installment of the series entitled <a href="http://imdb.com/title/tt0479143/"><em>Rocky Balboa</em></a>. When I first heard about another Rocky film in the works a little over a year ago, I initially had somewhat mixed feelings on the matter. Being a Rocky fan I was both excited and anxious at the prospect of another film, yet I could not shake the memory of the lackluster fifth film of the series which just wasn't that palatable. Thus, I was a bit concerned that Stallone would be unable to recapture the magic that has characterized the <em>Rocky </em>franchise, especially that of the original film (which won best picture in 1976).<br /><div><br /><div><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjPyEGlZjdO6dI68QmVlz6iPk3ephTawtlXWeHQMdbp45PhEduhZ3JchJ-EgDAjX_LYcsBJ6xKr7WADAziPhX5R7wxN3NKV_mlHFGLnHe1A3AXcdrs5xCna_dnf1Abx89TtWVCP2w/s1600-h/rockybalboa9.gif"><img id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5011024633618069730" style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN: 0px auto 10px; CURSOR: hand; TEXT-ALIGN: center" alt="" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjPyEGlZjdO6dI68QmVlz6iPk3ephTawtlXWeHQMdbp45PhEduhZ3JchJ-EgDAjX_LYcsBJ6xKr7WADAziPhX5R7wxN3NKV_mlHFGLnHe1A3AXcdrs5xCna_dnf1Abx89TtWVCP2w/s320/rockybalboa9.gif" border="0" /></a> But as I watched the film last night those concerns gradually dissipated. The movie was remarkably well done and Stallone, in my opinion at least, managed to recapture that magic. I know that it sounds silly but when Rocky stepped into the ring with Mason Dixon I became overwhelmed with nervousness for the Italian Stallion. It was at that point that I realized the movie had really worked. I am not going to give away plot details here but both the script and the acting were excellent. The movie parallels the storyline of the first film and so I would encourage those of you who are planning to see this one to <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_0" onclick="BLOG_clickHandler(this)">rewatch</span> the first film. My only gripe with the film is that it is too short (without the credits run time is just over an hour and a half). If it had been a little longer there could have been more of a build up to the final fight. This is the only aspect of the film that I felt needed work. The brief work up to the fight also resulted in a short training montage. For me, one of the pleasures of the Rocky films has been the training scenes and I just thought this one was too short. Nevertheless<em>, Rocky Balboa </em>succeeds in wrapping up this beloved series and I can only commend Stallone for the excellent writing, directing, and acting he did for this final Rocky movie. Therefore, I heartily recommend it. <em></em></div></div>Chris Petersenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06971062280390918450noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23238606.post-27876201058318610652006-12-20T10:37:00.000-05:002006-12-20T10:49:36.984-05:00Wrapping upWell, things have finally come to an end this semester. The paper was finished (for the second time!) and I did well in all of my classes. Hopefully, I will begin blogging frequently here very soon once the retail season slows down after Christmas. I miss blogging and am looking forward to getting back into it. By the way, for those of you who are curious, my research paper focused on the theme of Israel's final restoration as it appears in the Prophets, in the mission of the historical Jesus, and Romans 11. In the coming weeks I will probably post a summarized form of the principal observations of that paper. But until then I want to wish everyone a happy holiday.Chris Petersenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06971062280390918450noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23238606.post-1163784837242213712006-11-17T12:26:00.000-05:002006-11-17T12:33:57.270-05:00FrustrationsI had always purposed this blog for purely academic writing and never for the fleshing out of personal issues. However, I'm particularly frustrated right now. Along with not be able to go to SBL my truck was broken into the other night. My laptop and work items were stolen. The trouble is that I only had my paper on two places: the laptop and a cd-rom. Unfortunately, the cd-rom was in the same bag ast he laptop so the last two weeks of work on this research paper has been in vain. Moreover, almost a thousand dollars of cell-phone money was taken of which I will have to pay because my company has a very high deductable. My mind just is not in the best place right now. For those of my readers who are believers, I would greatly appreciate any prayers. Many thanks.Chris Petersenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06971062280390918450noreply@blogger.com5tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23238606.post-1163632281093794262006-11-15T17:22:00.000-05:002006-11-15T18:12:14.366-05:00SBL WoesUnfortunately, due to various reasons I am having to back out of going to the SBL. I was very much looking forward to the sessions, the book fair, and meeting many of the bloggers who I read. But financial problems and the need for more time to complete my research paper have convinced me to hold off this year. To those 0f you going to the SBL, do enjoy!Chris Petersenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06971062280390918450noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23238606.post-1161361157802715372006-10-20T11:30:00.000-04:002006-10-23T17:19:52.460-04:00The Passover Discrepancy Part 6<a href="<a">Part</a> 5</a><br /><a href="<a">Part</a> 4</a><br /><a href="http://resurrectiondogmatics.blogspot.com/2006/09/date-of-passover-and-pitfall-of.html">Excursus</a><br /><a href="<a">Part</a> 3</a><br /><a href="<a">Part</a> 2</a><br /><a href="<a">Part</a> 1</a><br /><a href="http://resurrectiondogmatics.blogspot.com/2006/08/date-of-passover-and-pitfall-of.html">Introduction</a><br /><br />It is now time to address the main proposition in support of Kostenberger's position which states:<br /><strong></strong><br /><strong>1.)</strong> The phrase "day of preparation of Passover" (Jn 19:14) refers to the preparation of the coming Sabbath and not to the preparation of Passover day proper when the lambs are slaughtered for the evening meal. This is evidenced by the fact that the Greek term <em><strong>paraskeue</strong></em> was a technical term equivalent to "Eve of the Sabbath" thus referring to the preparation for the Sabbath and not of Passover day itself. (cf. Josephus' Antiquities 16.163-64).<br /><br />Before refuting this proposition I want to first express my frustration with a particular subtle move that Kostenberger makes in his arguments against a discrepancy between the Synoptics and John. When Kostenberger attempts to make the case that <em>paraskeue tou pascha </em>means "preparation of Passover <em>week</em>" he fails to inform his readers that "week" is not in the actual Greek. It is literally "preparation of the Passover". Even if it can be plausibly argued that <em>paraskeue </em>was a technical term referring to the preparation for the Sabbath, Kostenberger is still responsible, because he is a scholar, to let his readers know that "week" is not in the Greek and that he is supplying it in view of his interpretation of <em>paraskueue </em>(and <em>pesach</em>). However, he does not do this. In both the passage from <em>Biblical Theology </em>and his commentary on John he simply quotes from the NIV which, interestingly enough, supplies "week" to the Greek. Here are the relevant passages again:<br /><br />"<span style="color:#cc0000;">The reason many have seen John as placing the Last Supper on Wednesday night with the crucifixion taking place on Thursday afternoon (when the Passover lambs would have been slaughtered in preparation for Passover later that evening) is the reference to 'the Day of Preparation of Passover Week' in John 19:14 (NIV [throughout this essay]; cf Jn 18:28)." </span><span style="color:#000000;">(BT, 148)</span><br /><br />Notice in this passage Kostenberger's subtle indication that he is using the NIV which is the only translation to my knowledge that interpolates "week" into the translation (which is itself not surprising since the translation committee of the NIV was made up predominately of conservatives). And then the passage from the commentary on John:<br /><br />"<span style="color:#cc0000;">If this is accurate, then tou pascha means not 'of the Passover,' but 'of Passover week.' Indeed, 'Passover' may refer to the (day of ) the actual Passover meal or, as in the present case, the entire Passover week, including Passover day as well as the associated Feast of Unleavened Bread. "Day of Preparation of Passover week' is therfore best to be taken to refer to the day of preparation for the Sabbath (i.e., Friday) of Passover week</span>." (John, p 538)<br /><br />In both of these passages Kostenberger never indicates to his readers that the Greek does not contain "week". He does hint at this in the latter passage but does not state this as the case explicitly. Moreover, even the footnote to this passage is obscure and simply says <em>Contra </em>Brown and a list of other scholars who disagree with him. It is only when you follow the references, especially that of Raymond Brown, that you realize Kostenberger is arguing for the injection of "week" into Jn 19:14. Again, though he implies as much in this latter passage, those readers who are not already familar with the issue would never have realized this. Therefore, even if the case can be made that "week" should be added to the Greek on the basis of a certain technical interpretation of <em>paraskeue</em>, Kostenberger is responsible to inform his readers of such details. To do otherwise is simply, dare I say, irresponsible scholarship.<br /><br />With that aside the issue here does center around the question whether or not <em>paraskeue </em>was a technical term which could be translated as "preparation for the Sabbath). The argument is essentially as follows:<br /><br /><span style="color:#000000;"><strong>1.) <em>Paraskeue</em> was used as a technical term by Greek-speaking Jews to indicate the "day of preparation for the coming Sabbath", thus<br /><br />2.) when Jn 19:14 says "the day of <em>paraskeue</em> of Passover (which itself can indicate the entire feast week following Passover day proper)" he is indicating that it is the day of preparation of the coming Sabbath in Passover week.<br /><br />3.) Therefore, Jn 19:14 can (and does) refer to the day after Passover proper and not to the day before when the lambs are slaughtered in preparation for the <em>pesach</em> meal.<br /></strong></span><p>Unfortunately, Kostenberger's only (extrabiblical) support for this interpretation is a reference to Josephus' <em>Antiquities </em>16. 163-64 which states:</p><p>"<span style="color:#cc0000;">and that their sacred money be not touched, but be sent to Jerusalem, and that it be committed to the care of the receivers at Jerusalem; and that they be not obliged to go before any judge on the Sabbath day, nor on the day of the <em>paraskeue</em> <em>(</em>preparation) to it, after the ninth hour</span>"</p><p>That Josephus' "day of preparation" refers to the day before Sabbath proper is not in dispute. Yet this passage is far from conclusive in showing that <em>paraskeue </em>was in any sense a technical term for Greek-speaking Jews. If we wish for a fuller argument we will need to revert back to the first scholar to propose this solution to the Passover discrepancy, Charles Torrey. I should mention that Torrey's analysis is much too complex to lay out in a blog. Those of you who wish to view his entire argument go <a href="http://www.jstor.org/view/00219231/sp050080/05x5132j/0?currentResult=00219231%2bsp050080%2b05x5132j%2b0%2cFFFF&searchUrl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.jstor.org%2Fsearch%2FBasicResults%3Fhp%3D25%26si%3D1%26Query%3DThe%2BDate%2Bof%2BCrucifixion%2BAccording%2Bto%2Bthe%2BFourth%2BGospel">here</a>. Nevertheless, here is the summary of the argumentation in Torrey's own words:</p><p>"<span style="color:#cc0000;">There are at all events three undoubted facts to be borne in mind: (1) The <em>paraskeue</em> in John 19.14 is not the colorless Greek word, 'preparation,' but the Jewish technical term. This is shown conclusively by vv. 31 and 42. (2) The Greek can give no testimony as to the exact form of the Aramaic which lies behind it for the proper noun 'Friday', or 'Preparation,' would ordinarily appear in the Greek without the definite article; cf. also Mark 15.42, Luke 23:54. (3) If John had wished merely to adopt in his own gospel what his predecessors had established, and to give in a single phrase <em>their</em> <em>date</em> of the crucifixion, he would most naturally have done so <em>in precisely the phrase employed in 19.14</em></span>." ( Torrey, "The Date of Passover According to the Fourth Gospel" in <em>JBL</em> Vol 50, No. 4 [1931] , 237)</p><p>Torrey comes to these conclusions based on a supposed Aramaic form underlying the Greek <em>paraskeue </em>whose form would have been <em>erev shabbat </em>(lit., eve of Sabbath). Notice what this would accomplish for the overall argument:</p><p>If <em>paraskeue </em>was a technical term for Greek-Speaking Jews which had underlying it the Aramaic <em>erev shabbat </em>then Jn 19.14 could be translated as "the eve of the Sabbath of Passover". And if a connection is exhibited between the phrase "eve of Sabbath" and a feast day such as "Passover" then one is further justified in translating as Torrey does, "the Friday of Passover Week" (236). </p><p>The key here then is to show not only that <em>paraskeue </em>can be translated as "eve of Sabbath" but also give evidence that when the phrase is employed it is often done so in connection with a feast day such as Passover. However, Torrey's evidence for this festal connection is lacking and concerns only one (late!) rabbinic passage that is itself inconclusive ( see 237). Moreover, Torrey himself admits that all the early examples of the Aramaic phrase "are in connection with the sabbath only (and none of the feast days)" (236) but then <em>suggests</em> "the possibility may be admitted that it was given an equally early application to the principal festal days"(i.e., Passover, 236). This possibility is then thought to have a firm basis in one rabbinic example. </p><p>But what about <em>paraskeue </em>itself<em>? </em>Is Torrey (and Kostenberger for that matter) correct that it was understood as a technical term by Hellenistic Jews as being equivalent to <em>erev shabbath</em>, "Eve of Sabbath"? Solomon Zeitlin argues to the contrary:</p><p>"<span style="color:#cc0000;">The word <em>paraskeue</em> is not Jewish technical term at all. When the Hellenized Jews translated the words <em>erev</em> <em>shabbat</em>, Eve of Sabbath, they did not translate them by the word <em>paraskeue, </em>but by the words <em>pro</em> <em>sabbaton</em> (before Sabbath). The author of the book of Judith, when he states that Judith fasted all the days of the year except the Eves of Sabbath and Sabbaths, also uses the word <em>pro sabbaton kai sabbaton </em>and not <em>paraskeue. </em>Philo quite frequently uses the word <em>paraskeue</em>, but only in the sense of <em>preparation</em>. This shows quite clearly that the word <em>paraskeue </em>is not a Jewish technical term equivalent to <em>erev shabbat</em>, Eve of Sabbath</span>." (Zeitlin, "The Date of the Crucfixion According to the Fourth Gospel" in <em>JBL </em>Vol 51, No. 3 [1932], 268-69) </p><p>Zeitlin argues convincingly against the assertion of a technical connotation of <em>paraskeue </em>for Hellinistic Jews that could have been translated as "Eve of Passover". No doubt I will be accused of depending on Zietlin at this point and I admit to this fact. I would, therefore, encourage those who doubt Zeitlin's examples to read the full article (<a href="http://www.jstor.org/view/00219231/sp050083/05x2940b/0?currentResult=00219231%2bsp050083%2b05x2940b%2b0%2cFF02&searchUrl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.jstor.org%2Fsearch%2FBasicResults%3Fhp%3D25%26si%3D1%26Query%3Dthe%2Bdate%2Bof%2Bcrucifixion">here</a>) and then to reference each and everyone of his footnotes, especially those quoted on the pages above. </p><p>But some may still demur and will ask: what about the evidence of the gospels themselves? Do not they indicate some sort of technical usage of <em>paraskeue</em>? The passages in question are Mk 15.42 and, as Torrey points out, Jn 19.31, 42 (Luke's usage poses no problem since he would have most likely been copying Mark at this point). The case is somewhat stronger here since all three passages do use <em>paraskeue </em>in reference to the coming Sabbath. Interestingly, when Mark uses <em>paraskeue </em>he promptly clarifies this with "<em>ho estin prosabbaton"</em>, lit. that is, before the Sabbath. Nevertheless, this can hardly be as conclusive as Torrey thinks. For one, the problem still exists for the lack of evidence of an extrabiblical technical usage. The one extrabiblical source adduced as evidence by both Kostenberger and Torrey does not use <em>paraskeue</em> in a technical fashion. Look at it again:</p><p>"<span style="color:#cc0000;">that they be not obliged to go before any judge on the Sabbath day, nor on the day of the preparation to it, after the ninth hour</span>." (Josephus, <em>Antiquities 16.164)</em></p><p>Clearly, <em>paraskeue </em>is being used in practical sense in this passage and not in a technical fashion. Secondly, even if the gospels are using <em>paraskeue </em>on the basis of prior technical usage<em> </em>it must be kept in mind that the gospel writers did not have a monopoly on the Greek word <em>paraskeue.</em> As Zietlin mentioned concerning Philo, <em>paraskeue </em>was a common word that meant, yes, "preparation". Therefore, context is obviously the key. I would admit that the contexts of Mk 15.42 and Jn 19.31, 42 clearly are in reference to the preparation of the Sabbath. I am not disputing this. Moreover, if 19.14 used <em>only paraskeue</em> <u></u>then there would be no issue. But Jn 19. 14 says:</p><p><em><strong>hen de paraskeue tou pascha </strong>(the day of preparaton of Passover)</em></p><p>The question I would submit is: suppose John did want to inform his readers that it was the day of preparation for the Passover meal and so before Passover day proper, how would he have said it without utilizing <em>paraskeue? </em>Moreover, the disputers of a Passover discrepancy know themselves that proving <em>paraskeue</em> was a technical term referring to the eve of the Sabbath is not enough. This is why they must go to great lengths to argue that <em>tou pascha</em> does not refer to the day before Passover but to the entire week of the festival which is what Torrey tries to do in the rest of his article (see pages 238-239). However, I argued against this interpretation of <em>tou pascha </em>in <a href="http://resurrectiondogmatics.blogspot.com/2006/09/date-of-passover-and-pitfall-of_14.html">part 5</a>. </p><p>In conclusion, I find the assertion that <em>paraskeue </em>was used regularly as a technical term to be built on a shaky foundation. Even if some of the gospel passages use it as such, there is virtually no extrabiblical evidence that it was used likewise. In fact, Zietlin's evidence exhibits that when Greek-speaking Jews wanted to speak of the "Eve of Sabbath" they regularly translated this not as <em>paraskeue</em> but as <em>prosabbaton. </em>Finally, for the entire argument to be valid at all it must show that the addition of <em>tou pascha </em>in Jn 19.14 refers not to the day before Passover proper but to the entire festal week of Passover itself. Yet this was shown in part 5 to be an illegitimate rendering of <em>tou pascha. </em>Therefore, this translation of Jn 19. 14 as "day of Preparation of Passover Week" should be rejected.<br /><br /><span style="color:#330000;"></span><br /><br /><br /></p><p><span style="color:#33cc00;"></span></p><p><em><span style="color:#33cc00;"></p></span></em><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /></span>Chris Petersenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06971062280390918450noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23238606.post-1161280826767549422006-10-19T12:56:00.000-04:002006-10-19T16:19:31.676-04:00Candler and DukeFor those who still visit my blog I do apologize for the lack of posting. As I near the completion of three papers and getting together my graduate applications I should finally then be freed up to blog more frequently. Speaking of graduate schools I have had the pleasure of visiting both <a href="http://www.candler.emory.edu/">Candler School of Theology</a> and <a href="http://www.duke.edu/">Duke University</a> during the last month. I enjoyed both visits thoroughly. In regards to Candler, though I am no particular fan of Augustine's, I had the pleasure of sitting in on a class by the well-established Augustine Scholar <a href="http://www.candler.emory.edu/ABOUT/faculty/ayres.cfm">Dr. Lewis Ayres</a>. Like I said I have never been too much of a fan of Augustine but Ayres succeeded in grabbing my attention. One of the illuminating things that Ayres discussed in the lecture was his belief, contra most Augustine scholars, that Augustine's religous pilgrimage was not quite like what Augustine himself laid out in his <em>Confessions. </em>In this book Augustine presents his religious journey as moving from a superficial Christianity in his young days to Manicheaism, to Astrologly, to Platonism, to Skepticism, and then finally to the acceptance of a <em>genuine</em> Christianity. Ayres position was that Augustine in reality never completely left the Christianity of his younger days (due to his Mother's influence) but dabbled in these other religions with the hope of answering some hard questions he had concerning Christianity (like the problem of evil for instance). I had never heard of Augustine's journey interpreted in such a manner and so was quite intrigued at the lecture.<br /><br />Excepting the long drive there and back, Duke was a wonderful visit as well. Without a doubt the highlight of the trip was finally meeting and visiting the father of biblioblogging and genius behind <a href="http://www.ntgateway.com/weblog/">NT Gateway</a>, <a href="http://ntgateway.com/goodacre/">Dr. Mark Goodacre</a>. Goodacre is especially significant for myself for two reasons. First, it was by chance that I happened upon his blog which ignited my own interest in biblioblogging and which introduced me to the many other blogs that I've come to enjoy reading. Secondly, Goodacre's <a href="http://ntgateway.com/Q/"><em>The Case Against Q</em></a> was the final push in convincing me to become a Q skeptic. Before reading Goodacre's book I had started to have some problems with the Q theory but was reluctant to investiage further into my misgivings. For one thing, I think many scholars are reticent to even consider the invalidity of Q because, like myself, the idea of an extra source, let alone an <em>earlier</em> extrabiblical source of Christianity, is hard to dispense with. But upon reading Goodacre's book, I was persuaded. Aside from that, it was a, again, a great pleasure to meet with Goodacre. And, Dr. Goodacre, if you read this, many thanks again for taking the time to meet with me.<br /><br />For those who still wish to see the final post in my Passover series, I will have it up tomorrow. This is my fall break this weekend so I have plenty of time to complete it. I apologize for its belatedness.Chris Petersenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06971062280390918450noreply@blogger.com6tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23238606.post-1158239285144267722006-09-14T08:18:00.000-04:002006-09-14T14:06:10.016-04:00The Date of Passover and the Pitfall of Inerrancy: Part 5<a href="http://resurrectiondogmatics.blogspot.com/2006/09/date-of-passover-and-pitfall-of_13.html">Part 4</a><br /><br /><a href="http://resurrectiondogmatics.blogspot.com/2006/09/date-of-passover-and-pitfall-of.html">Excursus</a><br /><br /><a href="http://resurrectiondogmatics.blogspot.com/2006/08/date-of-passover-and-pitfall-of_17.html">Part 3</a><br /><br /><a href="http://resurrectiondogmatics.blogspot.com/2006/08/date-of-passover-and-pitfall-of_15.html">Part 2</a><br /><br /><a href="http://resurrectiondogmatics.blogspot.com/2006/08/date-of-passover-and-pitfall-of_13.html">Part 1</a><br /><br /><a href="http://resurrectiondogmatics.blogspot.com/2006/08/date-of-passover-and-pitfall-of.html">Introduction</a><br /><br />Now it is time to critique proposition two which states:<br /><br /><strong>2.)</strong> The reference in Jn 18:28 to the desire of the Jews to "eat the passover" most probably is a general reference to "celebrating the feast" which probably would have been the <em>chagigah</em> meal on the Day after Passover, namely, the day of the Feast of Unleavened Bread. (2 Chron 30:21)<br /><br />Kostenberger's argument here is essentially that <em>phagosin</em> <em>tou pascha </em>(to eat the passover)<em> </em>does not refer to the <em>pesach </em>meal which is celebrated on Passover day but refers instead to the <em>chagigah </em>feast on the day after Passover, the day of the Feast of Unleavened Bread. He claims that "to eat the passover" would be a general phrase meant to convey a desire to "celebrate the feast" (which is itself a reference to the following seven days following the Feast of Unleavened Bread, the <em>chagigah</em> being eaten on this first day). He cites 2 Chron 30:21 and Num 28: 18-19 to be cross referenced. Let's look at them briefly:<br /><br />"<span style="color:#cc0000;">And the people of Israel that were present at Jerusalem kept the feast of unleavened bread seven days with great gladness; and the Levites and the priests prased YHWH day by day singing with all their might to YHWH. And Hezekiah spoke encouragingly to all the Levites who showed good skill in the service of YHWH. So the people ate the food of the festival for seven days, sacrificing peace offerings and giving thanks to YHWH the God of their fathers</span>." (2 Chron 30:21-22)<br /><br />"<span style="color:#cc0000;">On the first day there shall be a holy convocation: you shall do no laborious work, but offer an offering by fire, a burnt offering to YHWH: two young bulls, one ram, and seven male lambs a year old; see that they are without blemish</span>." (Num 28:18-19)<br /><br />It is not altogether clear why Kostenberger cites these two passages in support of his interpretation. Even reading them as they stand I do not see where Kostenberger gets the notion that these texts exhibit a tradition which uses the phrase "to eat the passover" as a circumlocution for "celebrating the feast" or more specifically, eating the <em>chagigah</em>. All that the first passage informs us is that the people ate food for the seven days of the feast and gave peace offerings. Likewise the second passage states simply what the people are to sacrifice on the first day of Unleavened Bread. Neither one of these texts indicate a tendancy to correlate "celebrating of the feast" with "eating the passover."<br /><br />At this point, I need to make a clarication. In doing this series it may seem like I'm presenting Kostenberger's interpretations of these key passages as novel. But they are not. In fact, the first to propose the type of solutions that Kostenberger presents was Charles C. Torrey back in 1931 in Vol. 50, No. 4 (pp. 227-241) of the <em>Journal of Biblical Literature</em>. Thus it was Torrey who first suggested that in Jn 18:28 the phrase "to eat the passover" is a general reference to "celebrating the feast." Torrey is also responsible for seeing 2 Chron 30:21-2 as evidence for this. What he attempts to do there is to say that in vs 22 the Hebrew translates literally as "so they ate the feast" but then then says that the literal translation is too literal and that on the basis of the fact that the passage cannot mean they ate "through the feast" as some English translates the phrase. . Thus he retranslates it as "they celebrated the feast" and then states that this is equivalent in Greek to "<em>ephagon to pascha</em>" which is, except for a difference in tense , the same as Jn 18:28: "<em>phagosin tou pascha</em>." Why the translation move? Because Torrey argues that leaving it as "they ate the feast" "<span style="color:#cc0000;">would imply too much eating, besides being untrue to the Hebrew</span>" (240)<br /><br />Is this convincing? Not at all. For even if we allow Torrey's shuffling around of the translations, it is still not clear at all that this passage is equating "to eat the passover" with "celebrating the feast" for no such equation is ever posited. Torrey is simply inferring this based on the fact that the previous context of 2 Chron 30 speaks of passover. The passage in its fuller context is as follows:<br /><br />"<span style="color:#cc0000;">And they killed the passover lamb on the fourteenth day of the second month. And the priests and the Levites were put to shame, so that they sanctified themselves, and brought burnt offerings into the house of YHWH. They took their accustomed posts according to the law of Moses and the man of God; the priests sprinkled the blood which they received from the hand of the Levites. For there were many in the assembly who had not sanctified themselves; therefore the Levites had to kill the passover lamb for every one who was not clean, to make it holy to YHWH. For a multitude of the people, many of them from Ephraim, Manasseh, Issachar, and Zebulun, had not cleansed themselves, <em><strong>yet they ate the passover otherwise than as prescribed</strong></em>. For Hezekiah had prayed for them saying, 'YHWH pardon every one who sets his heart to seek God, YHWH the God of his fathers, even though not according to the sanctuary's cleaness.' And YHWH heard Hezekiah and healed the people. And the people of Israel that were present at Jersualem kept the feast of unleavened bread seven days with great gladness and the Levites and the priests praised YHWH day by day singinging with all their might to YHWH. And Hezekiah spoke encouragingly to all the Levites who showed good skill in the service of YHWH. So <em><strong>the people at the food of the festival for seven days</strong></em>...</span>" (15-21)<br /><br />Forgive me for quoting this passage at length but it was necessary to show one important thing, namely, that even if we grant Torrey's translation of the last sentence as "they celebrated the feast" the only time the passage uses the phrase "eat the passover" (v18) it is without a doubt in reference to the lamb which was slain for passover in v15. Moreover, the "eating of the passover" in verse 18 clearly takes place before the "celebration of the feast" in verse 21 because when the Passover was partaken of, it was done improperly which caused Hezekiah to pray for his people. It was only subsequently, after this prayer that the text tells us the people then celebrated the feast (or the seven days following the passover meal). Thus a distinction is made in the text between the passover meal and the subsequent feast of seven days. And, again, when we do find the phrase "eat the passover" it is without a doubt in reference to the lamb. There is absolutley no responsibly, exegetical way in which to argue from this passage that "to eat the passover" can generally mean "to celebrate the feast" so that Jn 18:28 can be interpreted as celebrating the feast of the <em>chagigah</em>.<br /><br />At this point some of you may be recalling the fact that in a previous post (<a href="http://resurrectiondogmatics.blogspot.com/2006/09/date-of-passover-and-pitfall-of.html">here</a>) I argued that by the time of the first century some Jews, as evidenced by the gospels and Josephus, began to conflate the Day of Passover with the First Day of Unleavened Bread. If this is the case then it seems <em>at least a possibility</em> that the phrase "to eat the passover" could have come to refer to the <em>chagigah</em> feast since there was a tendancy to conflate these feast days. But let us grant that this is in fact the case and that in Jn 18:28 we should translate "to eat the passover" as "celebrate the feast" so that Jesus is crucified on the Feast of Unleavened Bread. However, recall Luke 22:7 which says:<br /><br />"<span style="color:#cc0000;">Then came the day of Unleavened Bread, on which the passover lamb had to be sacrificed</span>."<br /><br />What's the problem? The problem is that as it stands in the biblical text there would still be a contradiction because Luke (and his synoptic counterparts) would be presenting Jesus as being crucified on the day after Passover/Feast of Unleavened Bread whereas John's Jesus would then be crucified on the day <em>of </em>Passover/Feast of Unleavened Bread. Either way you end up with a contradiction in dates. Therefore, though it initially appeared this might help Kostenberger's case in actuality there would still be a contradiction in dates between the Synoptics and the Gospel of John.Chris Petersenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06971062280390918450noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23238606.post-1158151887210430632006-09-13T08:31:00.000-04:002006-09-13T10:12:40.736-04:00The Date of Passover and the Pitfall of Inerrancy: Part 4<a href="http://resurrectiondogmatics.blogspot.com/2006/09/date-of-passover-and-pitfall-of.html">Excursus</a><br /><br /><a href="http://resurrectiondogmatics.blogspot.com/2006/08/date-of-passover-and-pitfall-of_17.html">Part 3</a><br /><br /><a href="http://resurrectiondogmatics.blogspot.com/2006/08/date-of-passover-and-pitfall-of_15.html">Part 2</a><br /><br /><a href="http://resurrectiondogmatics.blogspot.com/2006/08/date-of-passover-and-pitfall-of_13.html">Part 1</a><br /><br /><a href="http://resurrectiondogmatics.blogspot.com/2006/08/date-of-passover-and-pitfall-of.html">Introduction</a><br /><br />We have finally arrived at the moment of critique of Kostenberger's interpretation of the various Passover passages in John. By way of a refresher, here are Kostenberger's three main propositions as presented in <a href="http://resurrectiondogmatics.blogspot.com/2006/08/date-of-passover-and-pitfall-of_15.html">Part 2</a> with some modifications:<br /><br /><strong>1.)</strong> The phrase "day of preparation of Passover" (Jn 19:14) refers to the preparation of the coming Sabbath and not to the preparation of Passover day proper when the lambs are slaughtered for the evening meal. This is evidenced by the fact that the Greek term <em>paraskueue </em>was a technical term referring to the preparation for the Sabbath and not of Passover day itself. (cf. Josephus' <em>Antiquities 16.163-64).</em><br /><br /><strong>2.)</strong> The reference in Jn 18:28 to the desire of the Jews to "eat passover" most probably is a general reference to "celebrating the feast" which probably would have been the <em>chagigah </em>meal<em> </em>on the Day after Passover, namely, the day of the Feast of Unleavened Bread. (2 Chron 30:21)<br /><br /><strong>3.)</strong> The time reference in Jn 13:1-2 does not indicate that the meal in chapter 13 is not a passover meal but rather is meant to show that the footwashing occurs before the Passover meal that does occur later in the chapter.<br /><br />Since proposition one is Kostenberger's principal one and three the weakest of his arguments we will argue against these propositions in reverse order. In regards to proposition three let's take a look at this passage once more:<br /><br />"<span style="color:#cc0000;">Now <em><strong>before</strong></em> the <em><strong>feast of the Passover</strong></em>, when Jesus knew that his hour had come to depart out of this world to the Father, having loved his own who were in the world, he loved them to the end. And <em><strong>during supper</strong></em>, when the devil had already put it into the heart of Judas Iscariot, Simon's son, to betray him, Jesus, knowing that the Father had given all things into his hands, and that he had come from God and was going to God <em><strong>rose from supper</strong></em>, laid aside his garments, and girded himself with a towel. Then he poured water into a basin, and began to wash the disciples feet, and to wipe them with the towel with which he was girded</span>." (13:1-5, emphasis added)<br /><br />Just on a plain reading of the text these verses clearly seem to say that the following events that are narrated (the footwashing, the promise of the Holy Spirit, Jesus prayer for his disciples, etc.) occur <em>before</em> the feast of the Passover, i.e. the <em>pesach</em> meal. But Kostenberger claims that the Last Supper and the footwashing are distinct events narrated in the same chapter, so that when the text says "<span style="color:#cc0000;">before the feast of the Passover</span>" the temporal force is to be understood only in reference to the footwashing and not the later meal that occurs in verses 21ff.<br /><br />However, this interpretation is clearly in error. For one, the footwashing episode is clearly occuring in the context of a meal as verses 2 and 4 clearly indicate. Therefore, in order for Kostenberger's interpretation to work he must posit that between verses 20 and 21 a whole day has lapsed and that the meal narrated after verse 21 is completely different from the meal narrated in the context of the previous footwashing episode. But does this make sense of the text? As Barth would say, "Nein!". Let's look at verses 20-21:<br /><br />"<span style="color:#cc0000;">Truly, truly, I say to you, he who receives any one whom I send receives me; and he who receives me receives him who sent me. When Jesus had thus spoken, he was troubled in the spirit, and testified, 'Truly, truly, I say to you, one of you will betray me</span>.'" (20-21)<br /><br />Verse 21 clearly connects back with verse 20 and this verse cannot be disjoined from verses 12-20. Moreover, verse 12 clearly continues the events narrated in 13:2-11 for it states: "<span style="color:#cc0000;">When he had washed their feet and taken his garments, and resumed his place, he said to them...</span>" If this is not convincing let's look at most of the temporal references in this chapter:<br /><br />"<span style="color:#cc0000;">Now <em>before</em> the feast of Passover, when Jesus knew...And <em>during</em> Supper, <em>when</em> the devil had already put it into the heart of Judas...to betray him... (Jesus) rose from supper, laid aside his garments, and girded himself with a towel...<em>began</em> to wash the disciples feet...<em>when</em> he had washed their feet, and taken his garments, resumed his place, and said to them...<em>when</em> Jesus had thus spoken, he was troubled in spirit, and testified, 'Truly, truly, I say to you one of you will betray me'...so <em>when</em> he had dipped the morsel, he gave it to Judas...<em>then after</em> the morsel, Satan entered into him...<em>so after</em> receiving the morsel (Jesus) he <em>immediately went out</em> and it was night...<em>when</em> he had gone out, Jesus said...</span>" (1,2, 4, 5, 12, 21, 27, 30, 31)<br /><br />In short there is no where in the text of John 13 in which one can posit such a temporal rift without destroying its unity.To engage in this task is simply poor exegesis. Everything that is narrated from verses 2-30 take place in the same context and in the same <em>night</em>. Moreover, the author(s) of John inform his readers that all of this takes place before the feast of the Passover. I would encourage those who remain unconvinced to simply read through chapter 13 and discern for yourselves if there is such a temporal rift anywhere which could refer to two distinct evenings.<br /><br />In conclusion, I find Kostenberger's suggestion that John 13 includes two different evenings, one in which a footwashing occured and one in which the Last Supper was partaken of as simply unwarranted exegesis. Kostenberger would have done better to argue that John 13:1 was never in the original text (as some have done before him).<br /><br /><strong>Note: I did not realize I would spend this much time critiquing each proposition. Therefore, I am dividing the critiques into individual posts. Tomorrow I will post my critique of proposition number two and then the third the following day. </strong>Chris Petersenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06971062280390918450noreply@blogger.com0