Posts Tagged Religion

Jesus’ Wife Laid to Rest

Mary Magdalene

As Holy Week begins, I completed some reading this morning in the Gospel of John. I focused on the empty tomb pericope that features Mary Magdalene so prominently. “Magdalene” most likely ties this Mary to the town of Magdala, which was a “strongly Hellenized site . . . five kilometers northeast of Tiberias” (R. Riesner, 37–38, in Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels). Performing a search revealed that there are twelve explicit references in the New Testament to Mary Magdalene:

Gospel of Matthew (NET)

Among them were Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James and Joseph, and the mother of the sons of Zebedee . . .  (Now Mary Magdalene and the other Mary were sitting there, opposite the tomb) (Matthew 27:56, 61).

Now after the Sabbath, at dawn on the first day of the week, Mary Magdalene and the other Mary went to look at the tomb (Matthew 28:1).

Gospel of Mark (NET)

There were also women, watching from a distance. Among them were Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James the younger and of Joses, and Salome (Mark 15:40).

Mary Magdalene and Mary the mother of Joses saw where the body was placed (Mark 15:47).

When the Sabbath was over, Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, and Salome bought aromatic spices so that they might go and anoint him (Mark 16:1).

Early on the first day of the week, after he arose, he appeared first to Mary Magdalene, from whom he had driven out seven demons (Mark 16:9).

Gospel of Luke (NET)

. . . and also some women who had been healed of evil spirits and disabilities: Mary (called Magdalene), from whom seven demons had gone out . . . (Luke 8:2).

Now it was Mary Magdalene, Joanna, Mary the mother of James, and the other women with them who told these things to the apostles (Luke 24:10).

Gospel of John (NET)

Now standing beside Jesus’ cross were his mother, his mother’s sister, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary Magdalene (John 19:25).

Now very early on the first day of the week, while it was still dark, Mary Magdalene came to the tomb and saw that the stone had been moved away from the entrance (John 20:1).

Mary Magdalene came and informed the disciples, “I have seen the Lord!” And she told them what Jesus had said to her (John 20:18).

Another Woman

At times, people have confused Mary Magdalene with other women in the Gospels. In Luke 7, an unnamed woman enter’s a house where Jesus is located and anoints Jesus’ feet. In the pericope adulterae (John 7:53–8:11), Jesus forgives the sin of an unnamed woman caught in adultery.

However, Mark and Luke both inform us of Mary Magdalene’s connection to Jesus—he set her free from the possession of seven demons. She subsequently followed Jesus, even being one of the few present at his crucifixion and an eyewitness to his resurrection.

The Gospel of Philip

You can find out more about the history of the 1945 Nag Hammadi discovery and The Gospel of Philip here and especially here. Suffice it to say that these “other Gospels” (1) are not written by those whose names are attached to them, making them pseudepigrapha, (2) originate from the second century or later, and (3) were not received by the catholic (i.e., universal) church community not only because of their strange, sometimes unorthodox, and sometimes contra-apostolic depiction of Jesus of Nazareth, but also because of their divergent perspectives on the Old Testament, creation, and anthropology. However, I would like to focus on its references to Mary Magdalene. The first mention of this Mary in The Gospel of Philip is found in context with two other Marys:

Three women always walked with the master: Mary his mother, <his> sister, and Mary of Magdala, who is called his companion. For “Mary” is the name of his sister, his mother, and his companion.

The writing again refers to Mary Magdala as Jesus’ companion here,

Wisdom, who is called barren, is the mother of the angels.

The companion of the [savior] is Mary of Magdala. The [savior loved] her more than [all] the disciples, [and he] kissed her often on her [mouth].

The other [disciples] [64]…said to him, “Why do you love her more than all of us?”

The savior answered and said to them, “Why do I not love you like her? If a blind person and one who can see are both in darkness, they are the same. When the light comes, one who can see will see the light, and the blind person will stay in darkness.”

[The brackets] typically identify places in the manuscript where the text is unknown due to some kind of injury.

From this, people have surmised from these sayings that Mary Magdalene was no mere disciple of Jesus, but that she was his wife.

The Gospel of Jesus’ Wife Laid to Rest

In 2012 in Rome, Harvard University’s Dr. Karen L. King revealed a shocking document—a fourth century papyrus fragment—claiming the matrimony of Jesus and Mary Magdalene. With Dr. King’s credentials and backing, the fragment’s reveal sent shockwaves through academia and found its way into the public square as well. The Coptic text and a transcription is available through Harvard University.

Since then, the investigative reporting of Ariel Saber of The Atlantic has exposed the full origin story of The Gospel of Jesus’ Wife fragment. The title “The Unbelievable Tale of Jesus’ Wife” is followed by the subtitle,

A hotly contested, supposedly ancient manuscript suggests Christ was married. But believing its origin story—a real-life Da Vinci Code, involving a Harvard professor, a onetime Florida pornographer, and an escape from East Germany—requires a big leap of faith.

Saber’s work uncovered that the fragment is most likely a very recent forgery. Dr. Karen L. King agreed publicly following Saber’s published work. If you’re up for going further down the rabbit hole, you can find more related material via Dr. Mark Goodacre’s blog here and more recently here. Peter Gurry also commented on the matter in 2016 at the Evangelical Textual Criticism blog.

The Real Mary Magdalene Please Rise

While the story of this forged fragment made for great entertainment, perhaps a positive result may surface. Maybe we’ll allow the real Mary Magdalene to surface once again. Mary’s legacy has been clouded publicly ever since Dan Brown published The Da Vinci Code in 2003.

Some have wondered why Mary Magdalene is not mentioned in the Acts of the Apostles. It seems that the apostles have no problem making mention of women who play a prominent role in the spread of the gospel—Priscilla, Phoebe, Junia, Lydia, Damaris, and a number of other women who are described as devout. One thought is that Mary Magdalene passed away shortly after the resurrection. This can’t be proven. We are never told anything about her age or her death.

We are told three things about this Mary that should stick with any of us who depend on the glorious salvation of Jesus. First, this Mary was set free by Jesus from the darkest kind of spiritual oppression. She was demon-possessed. Sevenfold. We learn from this Mary that Jesus is strong enough to break the bondage of the darkest sources of spiritual slavery.

Second, we find Mary following Jesus to a place where very few of his disciples dared to follow—the cross. I am truly amazed at this. Matthew, Mark, and John testify that Mary Magdalene joined a few other women at the crucifixion. Keep in mind that the other women seem to have been related to Jesus. Mary Magdalene was not. It appears that John the apostle was the only member of the twelve who dared identify himself with the Christ of the cross. While Jesus would continue his fellowship with the other ten disciples after the resurrection, Mary Magdalene was “ahead of the curve” when it came to denying oneself, counting the cost, and following Jesus wherever he went.

Lastly, Mark tells us that this Mary is the first to see the resurrected Jesus. Again, how amazing. Scholars have told us over and over again, that this element of the resurrection narrative—Mary, a woman, as the first eyewitness—is a criteria of the authenticity for the Gospels’ narratives. No first century author who wanted to be convincing and who wanted their movement to catch on would propose that there first eyewitness to the most important element of their story was . . . a woman. This would have been embarrassing, as indicated by the apostles’ reaction to the testimony of the women (Luke 24:10–11). The Gospel writers were clearly concerned with what really happened, with  communicating a historical account of the resurrection of Jesus Christ. Sure, they wrote to evangelize and to make more disciples, but they were not doing so by being irresponsible or deceptive about what really happened. Additionally, I can’t help but also think that Jesus’ appearance to Mary Magdalene is a reward for her faithfulness to follow to the cross. After appearing to Mary, Jesus sent her to report to the disciples (John 20:17–18), and she proclaimed to them, “I have seen the Lord!” making her the first evangelist of the resurrection era.

This Holy Week, let’s lay to rest the Jesus-wife myth that has clouded Mary’s legacy and “resurrect” the real Mary Magdalene and her already impressive resume—a delivered, devoted, eyewitness, evangelist of Jesus Christ. Happy Holy Week.

 

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Leave a comment

Response to Marc5Solas on Top 10 Reasons Our Kids Leave Church—7. You Sent Them Out Unarmed

7. You Sent Them Out Unarmed

As mentioned in my response to number 8, I think we do a fairly good job with regard to imparting quality doctrinal teaching and biblical literacy to our students. They study the Bible in our student ministry. They study doctrine in our student ministry. However, I think that Marc (the author) errs a bit too much if he indeed thinks that catechesis is THE solution. Catechesis or some sort of intentional discipleship is necessary to any ministry for growing believers; however, I am discovering more and more that a young person also needs to experience God in the spiritual life. I am not speaking of the Schleiermachian feeling based liberal theology that has birthed this hip nuance youth workers now call Moral Therapeutic Deism. What I am saying is that our young people need both to know the Triune God and to meet with the Triune God. He or she needs both instruction about God and his doings as well as to fellowship with him through spiritual disciplines and the life of the church. Personally, I sense that our student ministry is at the beginning of entering into a kind of discipleship that seeks to direct students to know God well and to experience his presence too. Here, there is an embrace of both catechesis and the spiritual life.

Now, I sense that our student ministry has some weaknesses too that we need to strengthen. First, while we dive deeply into the biblical text and doctrine every semester, I feel that the way in which I go about selecting biblical books to teach, theological themes to explore, or doctrines to learn is a bit aimless. This is what I am saying, I have six years with a student, 7th grade through 12th grade. Instead of a somewhat spontaneous selection of teaching content, I would like to see a discipleship plan or map for the whole six years . . . maybe even a couple of maps. The book Sustainable Youth Ministry speaks about the importance of developing a long-term teaching plan. This has been something that I have not yet implemented in our student ministry, but which I need to implement. I don’t want to totally remove spontaneity from the teaching curriculum of the youth ministry – come on, it IS youth ministry – but a plan or a map would give general direction for the six years of discipleship that we have with any given student. What do you think? We have six years with a student. What should be THE things that we cover, knowing that we will have Communities of Bible Study on Sunday mornings, Sunday Night Connect (our evening meeting), and Summer Small Groups, as well as at least 6 weekend retreats? This would be wonderful for our leadership team to help me think through. Second, we must continue to couple the knowledge of God and the experience of God hand-in-hand as a student ministry. I want our students experiencing God by answered prayer. I want them to fast and deepen their hunger for God. I want them to practice silence so that they listen to God in his word and to listen, as well as test, their own hearts and minds. I want them to practice personal bible study. I want them to be faithful in the sacraments of the church. I want them to participate in evangelism, real evangelism, where you actually share the gospel of Jesus Christ. So at Scofield, we are arming our students, but we can still do better. It isn’t simply a matter of them not being ignorant or biblical illiterate – which are not okay either – but it is also experiencing what we know about God to be true in our lives.

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Leave a comment

Response to Marc5Solas on Top 10 Reasons Our Kids Leave Church—8. They Get Smart

8. They Get Smart

I don’t agree with Marc here. Our youth group doesn’t dance around difficult questions. We embrace them, discuss them, argue from historic, orthodox Christian teaching, and attempt to humbly admit it when we must embrace mystery and trust God with things. We’ve talked, not directly, but about the ideas in the Epicurus quote. God is both willing and able to prevent evil. Has he not sent his Son to experience the full blow of evil? Does he not seek to unite believers with his Son by the Spirit in the fellowship of suffering? Is he not patiently waiting for all evil persons to repent and turn to him, before he finally and fully judges evil when the cup of his righteous wrath spills over and pours out every last drop? From where did evil come? From pride and disloyalty from within humans? How was it found in humans whom God created? It was enticed by the evil one, the Deceiver and Adversary of God. How was evil found in Satan? From pride and disloyalty from within the angel whom God made? Did God then make Satan evil? No, God tempts no one, for God cannot be tempted with evil, and he himself tempts no one (James 1:13). What then? God created angels and human as good, and he alone is righteous to determine what is good. In this mystery, it seems that what was good to him was to create beings with a will initially free to be loyal or disloyal, prideful or humble, worshipers or idolaters. However, when the angels and the humans were enticed by their own wills to turn from God; they irrevocably found themselves bound in slavery to evil that leads to death apart from God. Therefore, God must have in eternity past desired for us to know him as the one who is both merciful and judge. For because of evil’s presence, he redeems and judges. The Trinity must have desired to be known through the story of redemption. We talk about such things in our youth group.

However, my concern about our students going forward is not that some professor will make them feel intelligent because we have failed to do so. We give our students a lot to chew on, sometimes purposefully too much for sake of awareness. My concern is that many of our students have not either experienced evil in a life altering way, nor have they yet embraced the gospel to the extent that they will be able to interpret evil and fellowship with Christ in the midst of evil, nor have they yet developed the insight or possibly have not taken their fellowship with the saints deep enough in the local church so as to come to realize that the body of believers with whom they meet every week knows the grief of evil well, many of whom continue to rejoice in hope, endure in suffering, and persist in prayer. Despite our best efforts, some teens continue to perceive the local church as some kind of social club, which it is not, rather than a corporate fellowship with Christ and with one another as worshipers through both days of trouble and days of celebration. You can know about evil and all the philosophical debates, and yada, yada, but your real theology shows up when you experience evil.

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

1 Comment

Response to Marc5Solas on Top 10 Reasons Our Kids Leave Church—Marc’s Intro

Assessing the Author’s Intro

I kind of hit on this in the previous post, but not entirely. First, I agree with and share the author’s “love for the church” and his desire . . .

. . . to see American evangelicalism return to the gospel of repentance and faith in Christ for the forgiveness of sins; not just as something on our “what we believe” page on our website, but as the core of what we preach from our pulpits to our children, our youth, and our adults.

However, I am always a bit skeptical of building a “what’s wrong with the Church” article based upon the rantings of those who have left the Church. I’d rather ask those who are faithful to the Church about our weaknesses. There is a wonderful little book that we read in our counseling curriculum at DTS called The Pastor As Minor Poet: Texts and Subtexts in the Ministerial Life. In brief, the author (also my professor) explains that oftentimes what people tell us in conversation or in a counseling setting is the “Text of Their Lives.” It’s the surface. But below the surface is the “Subtext of Their Lives.” It’s the real thing that’s actually causing the situations, feelings, thinking, and circumstances. The problem is that the Subtext is hidden, stuffed, locked away, forgotten, neglected, or perhaps even something about which we haven’t even considered. Tapping into the Subtext almost always reveals an issue with the individual’s relationship with the Triune God. Almost always. This isn’t to say that genuine pain, hurt, or neglect wasn’t experienced, but it is to say how have you worshiped through and interpreted your experiences in light of your relationship with God? He loves the Church; do you? So, I push back a little here.

, , , , , , , ,

Leave a comment

Response to Marc5Solas on Top 10 Reasons Our Kids Leave Church—My Intro

The next series of posts here at LevelPaths will consist of responses to Marc5Solas recent blog post entitled “Top 10 Reasons Our Kids Leave Church, which you can read here: http://marc5solas.com/2013/02/08/top-10-reasons-our-kids-leave-church/. A fellow youth worker directed me to Marc’s blog in March. I sat on it for a little while before I began responding to its introduction and its 10 points in our Scofield Student Ministry Facebook group page. I thought it would be helpful to myself, and potentially to other youth leaders and parents, if I responded on my blog too. Let me offer a few qualifications. I have not read all of the nearly 1,000 comments in response to Marc’s blog post, but kudos to him for getting us talking. Secondly, I am speaking largely out of my personal experience as a pastor engaged in youth ministry at Scofield Memorial Church. At times, I’ll speak outside of my context, but I am largely speaking out of my own context and then making applications on a broader scale to youth ministries in conservative, evangelical local churches.

With that said, here is my introduction to the topic. The next post will examine Marc’s intro to his article.

Part 1

I would say that these 10 things have definitely been weaknesses in the evangelical church’s ministry to young people. The other accompanying (and perhaps more severe) problem is the appetite of young people (and old people) themselves. There is very little hunger for God within. TBH, and this will be painful, if you were to ask me how many of our youth group members hunger for God, the list would be fearfully short. Now, there are many coming to our youth group meetings regularly and many coming on trips or to events, but how many hunger for God?

So what do we do? Well, our job as church leaders has to be to pray and to do the things that create a hunger for God—no matter the ministry changes required. This is painful in the group because it effects the appetites that our students have been used to satisfying. In other words, we have to change the menu of their consumption in the student ministry. It must seek to nurture hunger for God.

Students need to fast and pray. They need to occasionally give up the things that typically satisfy their appetites (food, socializing, media, phones, video games, etc.) and pray for their slavery to these things to be broken and replaced by a hunger for God.

These are my initial thoughts. I write this with a heavy heart as I think of some of my own students, some of them “stars of the youth group,” who are no longer walking with God. I could provide you with a list, a list that makes me weep. Young person, is your hunger for God going to carry you into faithfulness and endurance after high school? Maybe you need to test yourself by such passages as 2 Corinthians 13:5; Hebrews 12:15-17; Deuteronomy 29:18-19. At Scofield, the whole church is being called to a commitment to fasting with the hope of a hunger for God to be ignited. O how we need to hunger for God.

Part 2

I reflected a lot on this last night and this morning. As I look at our last four senior classes, most of them are still walking with God. If I go back five years, that class is struggling. While many of these former students and many of our current students are “striving” to walk with God, my question in the previous post is who among you has a hunger for God? This is a different question. Obviously this is true for a non-Christian, but even the Christian can find himself or herself in a period of dryness in which his/her inner appetites are being satisfied by things – and very good things mind you – other than God. I’ll post more in this later.

Part 3

I am using strong language to you students because this article and my comments are mostly of the nature of a warning. A warning comes from an observation of things that could be symptomatic of a deep pattern that could eventually lead to devastating spiritual consequences. The book of Hebrews is filled with warnings to Christians. It is the job of a pastor to warn the sheep of the dangers ahead. This is what I am doing. I hope you catch the spirit of my warnings.

So with that said, how may one assess whether or not he or she has a hunger for God? Let me back up even further, from where does a hunger for God come? This hunger is not something humanly manufactured, but rather it is divinely imparted. The Spirit of God in us creates a hunger for God. Now, there are many things that may nurture a hunger for God – local church life, fellowship with Christians, Bible reading, prayer, etc. However, those things that may nurture a hunger for God are NOT the things that CREATE a hunger for God. The Spirit of God alone is able to CREATE a hunger for God. For example, yesterday, I got in my car, put on my sunglasses, put in a Lecrae CD, and drove to my youth ministry office at Scofield. Not too far along my way, the Spirit of God said to me, “Rex you are not a Christian because you listen to Lecrae.” Then, he said, “Rex you are not a Christian because you are a youth pastor at Scofield, or because you have a degree from DTS.” Finally, he said, “Rex you are a Christian because I have set apart Christ in your heart as your Lord and Savior. Rex, you are a Christian because I made you one in Christ.” I promptly turned my music off, and turned my heart to the Lord Jesus and worshiped for awhile.

It is the Spirit of God who regenerates us and awakens us to eternal life in Jesus Christ. Further, we may assess our hunger for God by testing our alignment with the aims of the Spirit of God. If he is the source of a hunger for God – and I believe the Bible points us to him – then we may compare his hungers/aims/appetites with our own hungers/aims/appetites, and at least gain some idea of the work of the Spirit in our lives, which is the mark of a true Christian. There is much that could be said here about the aims of the Spirit, but I’ll limit it to three under which I think we may fit everything else we might say. Here they are: (1) The Spirit aims to teach the Christian the truth about Jesus Christ, his faithful life, his death that brings pardon and liberty, and the power of his resurrection (John 16:12-15; 1 Cor. 12:3). (2) The Spirit of God aims to conform the Christian to the image of the Son of God (Romans 8:9-11, 26-29). (3) The Spirit aims to build the Body of Christ into a holy place where God dwells and where God is present and where God is worshiped (Eph. 2:11-22; 1 Cor. 3:16-17; 1 Cor. 12; Eph. 4:11-16).

So, how do we know if we are hungry for God? One way to test our hunger may be to test our alignment with the hungers/aims of the Spirit of God. Because if he is indeed in us, then we should expect to find his hungers in us. What if we don’t have an appetite for the aims of the Spirit? Well then, it would seem that one of two things are true: (1) Maybe you never had the Spirit of God, which means that you are not a Christian. There is no such thing as a Spirit-less Christian. It is the Spirit that awakens you to Christ. So maybe you have been a part of the life of the church for years, but you never received the Holy Spirit who truly leads us to Christ. What do you do? Seek God for the Spirit of God and for the Spirit to reveal Christ to you and to create the above hungers in you. Just ask. God is good. He isn’t stingy. He’s not somehow dangling a bait our in front of you that you cannot reach. Listen to the word of God here: “The Lord is not slow concerning his promise as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing that any should perish, but that all should reach repentance” (2 Peter 3:9). “But to all who did receive him, who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God, who were born not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God” (John 1:12-13). Ask God for the Spirit and receive Jesus. (2) Maybe you have the Spirit of God, but at some point you turned away from the Lord, and you have replaced the Spirit’s aims with aims/hungers of your own. This is called grieving the Spirit (Eph. 4:30) or quenching the Spirit (1 Thess. 5:19). The danger of this is what we read about in Deuteronomy 29:18-19. One who was once a worshiper with a hunger for God, turns from God, and becomes an idolater. When we go down this road, we grieve the Spirit who’s aims are so very different for us. We put out the fire for Jesus that he is seeking to ignite in us. You are numbered among the people of God; you are a Christian, but you have subjected the Spirit of God to your flesh instead of subjecting your flesh to the Spirit of God. This ends my warning to students. Next post will critically examine our student ministry in light of Marc5Solas’ article. Feel free to comment, converse, question, etc. Love you all dearly.

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Leave a comment

Quoting Bonhoeffer #7

Metaxas quotes a friend and classmate of Bonhoeffer’s, Helmuth Goes, who “recalled feeling a ‘secret enthusiasm’ for Bonhoeffer’s ‘free, critical, and independent’ theological thinking”:

What really impressed me was not just the face that he surpassed almost all of us in theological knowledge and capacity; but what passionately attracted me to Bonhoeffer was the perception that here was a man who did not only learn and gather in the verba and scripta of some master, but one who thought independently and already knew what he wanted and wanted what he knew. I had the experience (for me it was something alarming and magnificently new!) of hearing a young fair-haired student contradict the revered historian, his Excellency von Harnack answered, but the student contradicted again and again [Metaxas in Bonhoeffer, 59].

Later Metaxas writes,

Besides Harnack, three other Berlin professors had decided influence on Bonhoeffer. They were Karl Holl, who was perhaps the greatest Luther scholar of that generation; Reinhold Seeberg, who specialized in systematic theology, and under whom Bonhoeffer wrote his doctoral thesis; and Adolf Deissman, who was Bonhoeffer’s introduction to the ecumenical movement, which would play such an important role in his life and provide the means by which he became involved in the conspiracy against Hitler. But there was another theologian who had a greater influence on Bonhoeffer than any of these, and whom he would revere and respect as much as anyone in his lifetime, who would even become a mentor and a friend. This was Karl Barth of Göttingen [Metaxas in Bonhoeffer, 60].

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Leave a comment

Where Many Paths Are Crossing: A Reflection on “An Elephant in the Room: Historical-Critical and Postmodern Interpretations of the Bible” Part 3

In this post, I will finish my thoughts on the five areas “An Elephant in the Room” would like historical critics and postmodernists to discuss: 3) Ideology and Translation, 4) the Author and Her or His Intentions, and 5) the Semiotics (Signs) of Canon. Next week, I will finish my four part series with an interaction with a recent article in JETS by Dr. Daniel B. Wallace, which I believe has some helpful insights for this discussion.

Where Many Paths Are Crossing: A Reflection on “An Elephant in the Room: Historical-Critical and Postmodern Interpretations of the Bible” by George Aichele, Peter Miscall, and Richard Walsh in JBL, vol. 128, no. 2

Where Many Paths Are Crossing: A Reflection on “An Elephant in the Room: Historical-Critical and Postmodern Interpretations of the Bible” by George Aichele, Peter Miscall, and Richard Walsh in JBL, vol. 128, no. 2

In regard to Ideology and Translation, the authors discuss method of translation (i.e., dynamic equivalence vs. word-for-word, etc.), vehicles of translation, and ideological roles/effects upon translation. The authors view dynamic equivalence in a negative light by suggesting that postmodernists have done much to “awaken modernists from the dogmatic slumbers of ‘dynamic equivalence.'” Perhaps this stems from the postmodern challenge to the romantic idea that we can truly know the author’s original thought or intention. Instead, an implied postmodern approach seems to be interested in the methods that have guided the Church in the history of the translation of the Bible. Next, what has been the impact upon the word of God as the vehicles of translation change from oral to written to printed to digitization? I must admit that I am not well read here; however, the authors mention that much dialogue has taken place regarding these shifts. Do any of you have any knowledge in this area and thoughts concerning how both historical and postmodern critics would benefit from such dialogue? Lastly, the authors close this section with this statement:

Finally, we have only begun to explore the role of the texts (and their translations) in constructing gender, sexuality, ethnicity, race, and social class.

I’m not entirely sure what is being suggested here. Do they mean we should consider ideologies behind texts and translations and such things may help us construct our understandings of gender, sexuality, ethnicity, race, and social class? For example, do we need to discuss the ideologies behind the KJV and the TNIV, the NET and the LGBT Study NT and their use of texts in their translations? Or are they suggesting that we need to examine more closely the role texts and translations have had in developing certain mindsets and ideologies regarding gender, sexuality, ethnicity, race, and social class? I think the latter is what is intended. How have translations of the Bible influenced your ideologies on such issues?

Regarding the Author and Her or His Intentions, a stalemate currently exists between historical critics and postmodernists on this issue:

For postmodernists, the historical author is inaccessible and we can at best know only the ‘implied author,’ which is a function of the reader’s interaction with the text. The author is an ‘intention’ of the reader.

For the postmodernist, the intention of the author cannot be known. We cannot step back into time and ask Paul what he intended to mean by 1 Corinthians 3:23; however, the historical critic would counter that we can get pretty dang close. The historical critic places the focus on getting back to the historical intention of the author while the postmodernist believes any proposed authorial intent is rather something that is the result of the reader’s interaction with the text. Is there any reconciliation possible here? One helpful question may be – how has the Church handled authorial intent from the earliest centuries onward (assuming we can know what they intended for us to know about what they thought about authorial intent ;))?

This transitions nicely into our last area of consideration: the Semiotics (Signs) of Canon. I have had some interesting discussion recently with Rob Kashow over at Tolle Lege! about this topic. The authors are clear that the work of biblical theologians and canonical critics is interwoven with this discussion. I am becoming more and more interested in the influence of canonical thinking upon the text, the field of textual criticism and upon our understanding of inerrancy. I have reserved discussion about how canonical criticism may influence matters already mentioned until now. For example, in a previous post, I discussed physical vehicles of the text, and the use of the scroll versus the codex. Movement to the use of the codex allowed the Church to confine its texts into one vehicle. It is also apparent that a particular order was established. Canonical critics would also be able to agree (for the most part) with the postmodern emphasis on both the readers’ relation to intertextual references and to the intention of the author (inaccessibility of the historic author). Some further questions I have deal with TC and inerrancy. What does a canonical approach to TC look like? What is the goal? Can the canon continue to be an evolving canon as textual disruptions enter into the manuscripts if they are received by community(ies)? Or do canonical critics follow a romantic ideology which leads to “the canon” and is more dependent upon historical considerations when it comes to the text? How might a canonical approach assist the text critic in making decisions regarding variants? Related to this, what does a canonical doctrine of inerrancy look like? How can canonical thinking contribute to the needed discussion between historical and postmodern critics?

The authors close this final area of discussion with a warning concerning the toll secularization and pluralism is having on the idea of canon. The influence of canon to this discussion is thus becoming “more important and more problematic.”

As you can see, this “Elephant in the Arena” of historical and postmodern discussion is a place Where Many Paths Are Crossing. This post is entirely too long – but I wanted to finish this part of the series prior to heading off on a mission trip with some of my beloved friends from the Scofield Student Ministry. Feel free to check out our blog at http://ssmissions.wordpress.com if you’re interested in what we’ll be doing. I look forward to hearing from you on some of these issues!

, , , , , ,

Leave a comment

Where Many Paths Are Crossing: A Reflection on “An Elephant in the Room: Historical-Critical and Postmodern Interpretations of the Bible” Part 2

If you have not read Part 1 of this series, please refer to my post on July 11, 2009 entitled,

Where Many Paths Are Crossing: A Reflection on “An Elephant in the Room: Historical-Critical and Postmodern Interpretations of the Bible” by George Aichele, Peter Miscall, and Richard Walsh in JBL, vol. 128, no. 2.

I will pick up here where I left off – discussing the five areas in which the authors call for a discussion between historical critics and postmodern critics: 1) Physical Aspects of the Text, 2) Intertextuality, 3) Ideology and Translation, 4) the Author and Her or His Intentions, and 5) the Semiotics (Signs) of Canon.

In regard to physical aspects of the text, the authors call for discussion surrounding (what I call) both the physical content and the physical vehicle of the text. The physical content of the text is the written text itself. The physical vehicle is the instrument through which the text has been recorded (e.g., scroll vs. codex, printing and the movement toward digitization, etc). Regarding the written text, the authors note that similarities, differences and nomina sacra are all of interest to both historical critics and postmodern critics; however, while the historical critic  interprets these features in such a way that helps him or her repair or recover the original text, the postmodern critic focuses on the “textual disruption of meaning,” questioning the unity of the text, and causes one to hesitate with regard to the romantic idea of an original text. In regard to the physical vehicle(s) of the text, I am not entirely sure what the authors hope to accomplish by discussion of these things (probably due to my own lack of knowledge). Thoughts? What significance does the use of the scroll versus the use of the codex, the printing of the handwritten text and the present digitization of the text bring to the discussion between historical and postmodern critics? Also, is the historical critic’s quest for an original text legit? Is the postmodernist’s lack of concern (not necessarily denial) for an original text qualified? Does the postmodern focus on the disruption and disunity of the text need to be reconciled with/to the historical approach or does it serve the historical critic by causing careful and honest criticism?

Regarding intertextuality, both historical critics and postmodernists agree that earlier inner-biblical and extra-biblical texts have historical influence on later biblical texts [e.g., the influence of Genesis 15 and 17 on Romans 4, the influence of hymnic material in Philippians 2, and the influence of 1 Enoch (whether oral or written) on Jude 14-16]. However, the authors state that the postmodernist is more interested in the relationships “that readers (not writers) establish between texts (of whatever chronological order).” So, while historical influence is accepted, the postmodernist concerns himself or herself with how the readers interpreted the relationship of the two texts. One clarifying question might be what are the basic differences between how a writer views relations between texts compared to how a reader views relations between texts. The writers also mention,

The reader always understands the text as embedded in a world of texts through its use of language and literary form.

Therefore, does this mean that in addition to the emphasis historical critics place on historical influences of earlier texts on later texts, the postmodernist understands the language and literary form of a referenced text to influence the language and literary form of the text? If so, is this observable in the New Testament? What is a quality example?

Let’s stop here, and wrestle with these issues. In the next few days, I’ll continue examining the remaining three areas of discussion proposed by the authors of “An Elephant in the Room.”

, , , , , , , ,

Leave a comment