That one time Jesus got the Bible wrong

It's so typical isn't it? You are preaching all day long, training your disciples, sparring with the Pharisees, encouraging the poor and down trodden, healing the sick and casting out demons, all day, day after day, and even when you go up a mountain to get a rest the crowds hunt you down and follow you up, and then the one time you get a bit muddled up with some of the details of a biblical text . . . that is the one they write down in the first gospel - verbatim. At least Matthew and Luke had the good sense to do some editing. But Mark, he always had his eye on giving the public the "historical Jesus" whoever that is supposed to be . . . warts and all. Thanks a lot Mark!

Some think I made the mistake on purpose, just to show the Pharisees up.

For some there is no mistake worth mentioning, only a slightly ambiguous turn of phrase.

Others think I am doing something tricky with Abiathar's name, getting him to figuratively stand in for the priesthood.

It really has caused a lot of bother to a lot of people, that nice guy Dan Wallace can give you an overview. It makes me feel tired all over again.

For me the really interesting question is not why I made the mistake: can you not see how exhausted I was? I literally tried to sleep through a shipwreck. The interesting thing is: what made Mark include it? That chap seems to see meaning and Bible-codes in the smallest details. Honestly, I think he is too clever for his own good, no one is going to get what he is up to, and a lot of trees are going to die before the scholars figure it out, if they ever do. I should probably go and ask him, but he is still in a sulk after the last page of his gospel went missing and some idiot tried to write a replacement ending . . . serves him right!

How to type Greek accent and breathing in Tyndale unicode keyboard

I love my free Tyndale unicode keyboard for biblical languages and use it for my work. But I have often found it difficult to type an accent and a breathing mark above the same letter. Often I give up and just copy and paste it from elsewhere. Perhaps I have sometimes done it but then I have later forgotten how. Anyway, today I worked it out and I'm writing a blog post to help me remember the trick. Maybe it will be of use to you also?


e.g. ὄνομα or ἔχω
 
For smooth breathing you hold down [right-Alt] and press [ ' ], if you also want an accent press [ / ] while [right-Alt] is still depressed, then release, then type your letter. 

e.g. ὅσπερ or ὕπαγε

For rough breath you hold down [right-Alt] and [Shift] together, press [ ' ] and then while Alt and Shift are still depressed press [ / ], then release, then type you letter.

NB. nothing will appear until you type the letter. 

It is not as fiddly as it sounds, once you get used to it, and if you can remember what to do when you need to!

You're welcome :-)

Dale Martin does Mark

Dale Martin is an important and frequently controversial NT scholar. Those of us who can't make it to Yale to hear him teach can access some of his lectures, in fact his entire introduction to the NT course, through the magic of the internet.

Here he is holding forth on Mark . . .

Thor Ragnarok and Parihaka: Postcolonial Apocalypse

Thor: Ragnarok is a riot of colour, sound, violence, humour, sci-fi and fantasy. As a piece of entertainment it is the best Marvel has produced so far. As in many of Taika Waititi's films the plot often seems secondary to the humour and a number of quirky moments seemed only to serve for a quick giggle. I left the theatre overwhelmed by the sensory experience, but ultimately unimpressed by any deeper meaning.

It wasn't until the second morning after my trip to the movies that I woke to the realisation that the movie could function as a profound postcolonial metaphor (I do some of my best thinking while alseep, also it can take me a while for the penny to drop). Unfortunately a quick google showed me that I was neither the first, nor the second to have this thought.

[Spoiler Alert!]

It's easy to miss with all the other stuff going on but Thor undergoes a postcolonial awakening during the film as he slowly realises that his beloved Asgard and its dominion of the nine realms has a past built on bloodshed and oppression and conquest. The key line is when his long lost older sister, Hella, the goddess of death, mocks him, "Where do you think all the gold came from?" In an earlier scene she also literally rips the down the sanitised version of Asgard history revealing its evil past.

Thor is fighting for his life and so it doesn't seem like it has much time to sink in, but when the crunch comes [serious spoiler alert] he does not hesitate to destroy the physical Asgard and all its gold. The truth of Asgard's history has sunk in.  The legacy of Asgard's imperialist past returns with a vengeance and destruction is complete.

Today, as I do practically every working day, I cycled past a causeway which supports a road heading on to the Otago peninsula from the town. That causeway was built by slave labour 140 years ago. Those slaves were prisoner who had been arrested for non-violently defending their legally held lands against armed settlers. Those slaves were Maori. They were from a settlement devoted to pacifism follow both Maori and Christian principles. On Sunday, some New Zealanders marked Parihaka day.

A few short years after guaranteeing to Māori the undisturbed possession of any lands they wished to retain, the Crown began systematically to dispossess the tangata whenua of Taranaki of their lands.

By purchase deed, force of arms, confiscation and statute, the Crown took the rich lands of Taranaki and left its people impoverished, demoralised, and vilified. (from the Crown apology)

When the peaceful Maori farmers were arrested and forcibly moved, the government of the day passed retroactive legislation to "legalise" what had been done. Yes, some white men spoke out against the evil, but by and large the settler government and white New Zealanders approved and supported the criminal and immoral act of oppression. They wanted to keep those natives in their place, and preferably encourage their extinction. Parihaka was only one act in a long history of injustice on which the wealth of white New Zealand has been built.

This is part of New Zealand's history of colonial bloodshed, oppression and injustice, which is still not well known in our country or abroad.

So it makes all the difference to me that Thor Ragnarok was directed by Taika Waititi. I've noticed in interviews online that people relate to Waititi as a New Zealander, a Kiwi. But there seems a lack of appreciation of the fact, despite the colour of his skin and his name, that Waititi is also Maori, tangata whenua, indigenous. Why this makes a difference is that those postcolonial themes could just be in there as an accident of plot, to help explain and propel the story. They could just be the proddings of a liberally educated white guy trying to prove his wokeness. But of course, they are not likely to be, because Waititi is himself one of an oppressed and colonised minority, whose people have experienced and continue to experience the disastrous effects of imperialism.

Is it an accident that in the film Waititi chooses to play a Kronan, Korg? In Thor: The Dark World the hero, Thor, murders a different Kronan as part of his "subdual" of Vanaheim, one of the nine realms. In Ragnarok, Korg becomes Thor's friend and helper, and ends up making room on his spaceship (waka) for Thor and the other (formerly) imperialist Asgardians to take shelter.

There's much more that could be said, but I'll leave that to others. Thor's postcolonial apocalypse entails his eyes being opened to the reality of his history and then moving on. He wasn't responsible for the past, but he did need to awaken to it in order to do what needed to be done in the present.

Read this way Waititi's film is not a beat up on the evils of white people but an invitation to look unflinchingly at the truth of the past (not just NZ, but Australia, USA and of course Britain, etc.) and then to move on in partnership with those who were oppressed or who oppressed us. Thor's motley crew of refugee Asgardians and runaway multi-racial gladiators that sail off in Korg's waka will have plenty of challenges to face apart from confronting the colonial legacy: Thanos looms large in the windscreen. Today, in the real world, Maori and settler, refugees and immigrants, we need each other. None of us are equal to the challenges of the future on our own, but we will only be able to meet those challenges if we first deal with the legacy of the past, however painful it may be.

[Just so we're clear, I don't make any claim to speak for Waititi or Maori people, I'm just a migrant in NZ making some observations and connections that could be completely wrong. I've tried to be respectful of all, but if I've failed please let me know.]

Let me know what you think, :-)

Richard Hays on Imagination and Identity

Richard Hays being interviewed,

The figural character of scriptural revelation can encourage and inspire us to think and preach and pray in a way that is boldly imaginative. The New Testament’s richly imaginative reception of Israel’s story should warn us against narrow literalism. The Bible is a complex symphony that invites us to a posture of grateful astonishment at its unexpected harmonic variations on the themes of God’s power and love. Our hermeneutical instructions are clear: “Pay attention to what you hear; the measure you give will be the measure you get, and still more will be given you” (Mark 4:24).

. . . 

The public and personal reading of Scripture offers us, first of all, our true identity as a people. Scripture teaches us to know ourselves not as autonomous, self-inventing “consumers” driven aimlessly by market forces, but as God’s people, the body of Christ. We are given purpose and hope by the biblical story in which we are caught up. And we’re given one another, a community of brothers and sisters that transcends national identity and breaks down the barriers we erect to protect ourselves.

He does have a way with words!

1 Corinthians and Women's Silence

The discussion as to what Paul meant and whether he even wrote parts of 1 Corinthians continues.

Textual evidence that 1 Cor 14:34-35 is a later interpolation.

Which Larry Hurtado think is correct, but not news.

And in 1 Cor 11:3 "head" does not mean "leader" (HT)

Relatedly, Wayne Grudem continues to amaze us all with his warped theology and supreme lack of scholarly depth. Thankfully Beth Allison Barr puts him straight.

Let me know what you think :-)

Galbraith and Rauser - What's Wrong with Children's Bible Stories

Deane Galbraith takes justified aim at simplified and (semi) sanitised Children's versions of violent Bible stories. Although it is not just the incoherent violence but the theology of the book that worries me.



Is the suggestion here that if Goliath had asked God for help he might have won instead? This is not just a simplification, but an addition of a theme which is not present in the original and changes the meaning of the story altogether.

In a Trinities podcast Randal Rauser shares his shock at discovering the "Disney-fied" version of the Bible he grew up with and how much violence and sex the original contained (from the 23 minute mark).

It is a conundrum. Frequently people have given my children "Bible books" which are both Disney-fied and often theologically confused. Because they are generally rubbish compared to the high quality "secular" books also in the home, I don't worry too much, their attention soon wanders. The fact is the state of play in Christian children's publishing is of incredibly low quality. The Jesus Storybook Bible is a welcome change from the usual, while not perfect it is far higher quality both as a story book and theologically.

Deane is quite right that the toleration, consumption and dissemination of such crap is an indictment against (Western) Christianity. Randal is quite right that having young Christians growing up believing in a Bible they haven't read is a bad way to pass on the faith.

I'd like to see people reading the actual Bible with their children (although admittedly showing discretion depending on age and maturity). I think it would do them all good.

1. This would necessitate difficult conversations about sex and violence. Conversations many parents avoid until too late.
2. This would necessitate difficult conversations about the nature of scripture. The simple "God says it, I believe it" doesn't make any sense when you come to asking in what sense the rape of Dinah or the incest of Lot constitutes "God's word."
3. This would require parents to address their own ignorance of the content of scripture and its interpretation, suddenly sermons and Bible studies would not seem irrelevant to the day to day grind of parenting, "how am I going to answer little Johnny's questions about the Tower of Babel?" Pastors might have to buck up their game too, no more sticking to the safe/easy texts.
4. This would result in raising kids who were thoughtful readers of ancient (and modern) texts, whose faith might be a little more complicated and nuanced but who would not so easily lose it when faced with questions or doubts they hadn't heard before about bits of the Bible they hadn't read before.

Let me know what you think :-) 

Sex, Slogans and Σώματα now on Academia.edu!

Back in 2010 I completed a 40,000 wrd, 1 Year EFT, research project on 1 Cor 6:12-20.  It's seemed pretty awesome at the time, although coming back to it 7 years later I'm happy to say I've developed as a scholar. I've already shared some of my research in very rough form on this blog. I have now uploaded it in its entirety to Academia.edu. Click on the Title to go to the PDF.

Sex, Slogans and Σώματα:

Discovering Paul’s Theological Ethic in 1 Corinthians 6:12-20

Abstract:

This study examines 1 Cor 6:12-20, a problematic Pauline text.  It is one of only two places where Paul discusses πορνεία (sexual immorality) in any depth.  A thorough grammatico-historical exegesis is performed in conversation with recent scholarship.  Particular attention is given to the use of metaphor.  The issue of Corinthian slogans within the pericope is also  discussed, with the conclusion being reached that it is not necessary to identify any part of 1 Cor 6:12-20 as a Corinthian slogan.  Following the exegesis, Paul’s use of πορνεία, σῶμα (body), and his theological ethic of sex within 1 Cor 6:12-20 are considered in the wider context of the undisputed Pauline corpus.  It is concluded that Paul’s statement that all sin but πορνεία is outside the body in 1 Cor 6:18 is hyperbolic, but is still indicative of a particularly severe judgement on πορνεία.  It is concluded that 1 Corinthians’ unique emphasis on σῶμα is indicative of Paul’s intention to elevate the Corinthians’ esteem for the σῶμα against a Corinthian “spirituality.”  Finally, Paul’s ethic in 1 Cor 6:12-20 is argued to be theological in both construction and content, concluding that Paul’s ethic is formulated in a way which is distinctly Christian against the backgrounds of both 1st cent. Judaism and Greco-Roman moralism.

The Ancient Origins of the Study Bible

I don't like study Bibles, they annoy me that the Biblical text has to be surrounded by a commentary telling you what it really means, along with little text boxes expounding on various "topics" tangentially related to the biblical text they neighbour. However it  seems they have a longer history than I realised . . .

Roger Pearse writes, 

Not everyone will know what a “catena” (the word means “chain”) is.  The term itself is modern.  It refers to medieval Greek biblical commentaries.  These are composed entirely of extracts from earlier writers, chained together by slight wording alterations at the ends.  They usually appear in the margins of Greek bibles; or, rather, the biblical text appears in a small box in the centre of the page, surrounded by a mass of small writing!  The author of each catena entry is indicated, usually using the first letter of their name or something of the kind.  This of course gives plenty of scope for misattribution!  Often the main author used is John Chrysostom.

Catenas seem to arise in the 6th century, and often incorporate very interesting material.  There can be several catenas for each book of the bible, and the relationships between them are tangled things.

Read more,

If you do you'll be able to work out what my interest in this is.

Mike Bird on Mark's Account of Jesus Baptism: Not Adoptionist!

Mike Bird has a short article over at Christian Origins no doubt timed to help him sell some of his new book, and why not? In the comments though he is lured into addressing the Markan Baptism scene.

He writes:

I left out Mark’s baptism due to brevity.
First, I think Michael Peppard has shown that it is possible to read Mk 1.9-11 in an adoptionist sense, esp. if one regards eudokesa as meaning “chosen” and in light of Roman adoption practices. But I’m just not convinced that that is what Mark is trying to convey or how it was received by its initial readers.
Second, I don’t think Mark’s Gospel as a whole lends itself to adoptionism, since the demons somehow fear that Jesus is the Son who has “come” to destroy them (Mk 1.24; 5.7) and the Son belongs to a heavenly triad of Father, Son, and angels (Mk 13.32).
Third, if a divine voice calling Jesus “Son” marks out an adoption, then Jesus gets adopted three times at his baptism, transfiguration, and crucifixion. If one wanted to pick an adoption scene, Mk 15.39 would be preferable, as it would dovetail better with some notion of apotheosis.
Fourth, I don’t think Mk 1.11 tells us anything about when Jesus become the son, eudokesa could be gnomic. On a plain reading, I’d say that God is simply pleased that his Son has presented himself for baptism.
Fifth, the reception of the Spirit probably relates not to sonship but more to the prophetic nature of Jesus as the Isaianic servant given the allusion to Isa 42.1.

Like Philip Davis' discussion of the same event, I'm not sure I buy the whole cow, but again, there are some pertinent provocations in there. Looking forward to the book, although I hope there is some constructive work in there and not just the "not adoptionist" stuff.

Let me know what you think :-)

SBL Abbreviations Made Easy

Nothing makes using an abbreviation system easier than actually knowing what it is! Online, Roy Ciampa's impressive resources for NT Exegesis webpage has them all on one page. But keeping that open in my browser window for quick access is a pain, so I have made a printable word doc version of that page (it makes 6 A4 pages), so now you can print it out and stick it on your wall next to your picture of a dog on a bicycle. Never again will you wonder how to abbreviate Ezra's Greek Apocalypse or wonder what the heck b. Bic 3b is and why it keeps coming up in conversations about the right way to make a fruit salad.

You're very welcome.

DeConick and the relationship between Christology and Soteriology

April DeConick in a provocative book chapter makes a compelling argument for how Christological developments could fuel soteriological development. Without fully accepting her assumptions or conclusions, I think her point is very well made, who Jesus is understood to be is bound to have an effect on how this Jesus is understood to save us. DeConick sketches the following paradigms.

Christology --> Soterology
Righteous One/Human, became divine at resurrection --> Behavioural/Imitative
Pre-existent Spirit/Angel, created divine, became human --> Atonement/Sacrificial
Precosmogonic/Hypostatic, uncreated divine took on flesh --> Transmutative/Ingestive/Theosis


See further (she kindly makes it available for all on her website), April DeConick, "How We Talk About Christology Matters," in Capes, DeConick, Bond, (eds)  Israel's God and Rebecca's Children. (Waco: Baylor University Press, 2007), 1-23.

In this chapter DeConick does not deal in depth with Mark's gospel which she sees, reasonably enough, as having an atonement soteriology. Aside from Mark 10:45, the lack of ethical teaching in GMark would seem to agree with this. However, that then requires a pre-existent Christology for Mark, within her paradigm, as Christology must precede soteriology. Unfortunately she doesn't comment on this as Matt and Luke (and the virgin birth) are primarily in mind for her pre-existent paradigm.

There is a lot of food for thought there, unfortunately it doesn't look as if she has developed these ideas any further in print, but I guess that leaves room for me to have a go!

Let me know what you think! :-)

Evil Angels?

Really enjoying reading a brilliant article by the magisterial Dale Martin, like all good scholarship familiar texts are revealed to hold surprising and unsettling possibilities!

Angels populated Paul's world in a lively way. Contrary to modern popular assumptions, angels for Paul were not always good. They could be evil and malicious or simply morally ambiguous. There certainly are "good" angels in Paul's world (2 Cor 11:14; Gal 1:8; 4:14), and certainly also "bad" angels. 1 Corinthians 6:3 mentions that "we" (presumably Paul and other followers of Jesus) will "judge" angels, implying that there are angels who are criminal. If Paul's reference to the "thorn in the flesh" that tortures him is to an "angel of Satan" (2 Cor 12:7), which I take to be the case, and not just a metaphorical "messenger of Satan," we would have here a satanic angel as Paul's tormentor.

Some scholars believe that the phrase "because of the angels" in 1 Cor 11:10 is a reference to angels who may threaten women, perhaps sexually. Some scholars take Gal 3:19 to teach that angels were those who gave the law to Moses, rather than God himself. That text, if interpreted in light of Acts 7:53, may imply a less than benevolent, if not downright negative, view of their activity, given what Paul says about the intervention of the law elsewhere in Galatians. Finally, if one takes "the rulers of this age" in 1 Cor 2:6 and 8, who did not understand Gods mystery and therefore "crucified the lord of glory," to be a reference to angels (note that αρχαι are coupled with "angels" in Rom 8:38), this would certainly represent a reference to evil angels.

Dale B Martin, "When Did Angels Becomes Demons?" JBL 129, 2010, 657-77

Let me know what you think, :-)

A Preexistent Christ in Mark?

Just been reading a fun little article with an approach to Jesus' preexistence in Mark's Gospel that I haven't come across before. I think there are some holes in it, but on the other hand it is quite refreshing to see the usual arguments and texts turned on their heads!

The fact that Mark begins his Gospel with the baptism scene has often been taken to indicate his espousal of adoptionist christology which excludes any attribution of intrinsic divinity. On the whole, this proves to be untenable. Mark specifically identifies John’s baptism as the beginning of the gospel, not of Jesus; there is no denial of Jesus’ personal preexistence, a necessary corollary of divinity. On the contrary, even though the ascription of sonship in 1.11 is phrased in terms of Ps. 2.7, the specifically adoptionist element of that verse is omitted. Instead of ‘this day I have begotten you’, we read, ’with you I am well pleased.' The aorist probably indicates that God’s pleasure in Jesus is already established and does not arise as a sudden whim; Mark began his Gospel with one of his rare biblical citations in order to show that the events he narrates are part of God’s longstanding plan (1.2-3). This leaves us with twological alternatives for the origin of God’s pleasure: Jesus’ preexistence; or his uniquely pleasing earthly life before his baptism.

Clearly, the former is to be preferred. If Jesus’ adoption at the baptism was the reward for his previous deportment, how could Mark refrain from describing that meritorious early life? More importantly, Mark’s divine-human dichotomy is too radical to allow for the implication which arises from adoptionism, which is that the gulf could be bridged from the human side (8.37f.). Finally, given the wide attestation of divine-human christology in Christian sources earlier than and contemporary with Mark, any espousal of adoptionism would need to be quite pointed; but this we do not find.

We do, however, find that Mark’s references to Jesus’ relationship to God lend themselves to the suggestion of intrinsic divinity. They issue largely from supernatural beings, either God (1.11; 9.7) or demons (1.24; 3.11; 5.7), implying that these are supernatural revelations about a supernatural person. Mark’s handling of the transfiguration as a whole raises Jesus above Elijah and Moses, emphasizing that he alone is the Son of God, to whom human beings must listen; he alone overcomes the dichotomy. Further, the parable of the vineyard (12.1-11) contains enough evidence of allegorization that the sending of the (already existing) beloved son in 12.6 is most plausibly understood as implying Jesus’ personal preexistence, much like Gal. 4.4.

Philip Davis, "Mark's Christological Paradox," JSNT 35, 1989, 3-18, 12-13. 

Let me know what you think :-)

The Problem with Atheists

Randal Rauser blogs:

The problem, ironically enough, is that when you brand the in-group as “Reason” and align the out-group (e.g. the “religious”) with irrationality, you undermine the ability of your in-group to develop the very skills of critical thinking necessary for the exercise of reason.

I know lots of wonderful atheists who are intelligent and open to other ideas and points of view, I aspire to be like them in that regard. But Rauser pretty much sums up my recent accidental encounter with the evangelical atheist wing of twitter. As Rauser observes, fundamentalist Christians and evangelical atheists suffer from basically the same disease. They are just two sides of the same ignorant coin. So convinced they know it all and focussed on winning an argument, they don't know how to listen to what is actually being said.


Worth reading the whole thing.