Threads from Henry's Web

Author: henry

  • Timo S. Paananen on Forgery Detection

    James McGrath links to a PDF by Tim S. Paananen demonstrating some problems with forgery detection via literary parallels.

    I’ve kept largely silent on the issue of the authenticity of The Gospel of Jesus’ Wife, because I don’t read Coptic and I’m simply not well enough acquainted with the various methodologies that would be required to authenticate such a fragment.

    Paananen’s comments are well-taken, however, and apply broadly to determining literary relationship, and also dependency. Sequences of common words don’t carry much weight.

    I continue to await some sort of consensus amongst scholars who have the time, skill, and access to make a solid determination.

     

  • Sunday School Notes – Ephesians

    Ephesians: A Participatory Study GuideWe’ve completed the first two lessons of Bob Cornwall’s study guide (Ephesians: A Participatory Study Guide) in my Sunday School class. I planned to write some notes earlier, but I’ll try to catch up.

    These first two lessons complete the first chapter of Ephesians. There’s quite a lot of material just in the first couple of verses, and Bob doesn’t hesitate to lead the study into potentially deep waters by bringing up the issue of authorship. Just about anyone with theological training knows that the authorship of Ephesians is disputed, along with a number of other letters attributed to Paul. More people are aware of the dispute with regard to 1 & 2 Timothy and Titus, but Ephesians, Colossians,  and 2 Thessalonians are also disputed by some.

    Bob Cornwall does a good job of giving the basics of the dispute, insofar as one can in a small study guide of this nature. In fact, the way Bob tackles this and other disputes is one of the great features of this particular guide. We went into greater detail in the class, as this was what interested most people there. I was gratified to note that most people had studied the lesson, and so we could safely pick and choose.

    There were three major issues we discussed:

    1) What is the basis for the claim of authorship?

    One of the things that disturbs me concerning Bible study in mainline churches is that many people will simply state that it’s the “scholarly consensus” or more likely “the best biblical scholarship says,” and they’re satisfied with that. I see this as parallel to the conservative tendency to say, “this is traditional.” One side dismisses and the other accepts the results of critical scholarship, while neither side actually understands what is going on.

    We had a good discussion of the theological issues and possible historical connections that indicate to some scholars that Ephesians is not a Pauline work. I tend to think the balance is in favor of Pauline authorship, but at the same time, I tried to make sure people understand that the other view is not just plucked from air. There is valid reason for the dispute.

    2) Was pseudonymous writing an accepted standard in the ancient world?

    I’d reduce this more to whether it was an acceptable practice amongst the early Christians. I don’t know the answer to this. We know a number of books in circulation were not written by the person to whom they were attributed, but whether everyone realized that this was so and found it acceptable, I don’t know.

    Bart Ehrman (Forged) has recently claimed that this practice was not acceptable. I haven’t read his book, so I can’t respond in any detail. This is a topic I’ll be interested in studying further.

    3) How does the authorship issue relate to inspiration?

    In this case, I pointed out that when we dispute authorship of Matthew, for example, we’re dealing with authorship that is attributed outside the text. In the case of Ephesians, the text itself says it’s from Paul, and I know of no textual dispute on this point.

    If writing in someone else’s name was an acceptable practice, for example, honoring a teacher, again there would be no particular issue for inspiration.

    I would tend not to worry in either case, because I would depend on the guidance of the Holy Spirit in the church accepting the work as canonical. I don’t see inspiration primarily as a characteristic of the text, and if the author was imperfect and did something he should not have (by the standards of his time), that would not disturb me.

    All this said, however, I would note that I find the balance of the evidence to lean in favor of Pauline authorship, partially based on the text. When the authorship claim is integral to the text, it seems to me it requires greater evidence to overturn that attribution than when the attribution itself is later.

    So again, thanks to Bob for setting up this discussion.

    The next chapter has such a huge amount of material, even though it again covers only a few verses, well, 21 verses. Bob emphasizes the worship aspects, while my class got completely involved in the word “predestined.”

    Here most of the class came to the same conclusion as Bob did in the lesson. In this case the predestination is more corporate than individual. It refers to God’s eternal plan to bring the gentile believers into God’s people. As agreeable (!) as we all were, we still spent most of the time talking about words like “chosen” and “predestined” and other places they occur where the intention is not quite as clear as it is in this chapter.

    A class using this lesson would ideally spend more time on prayer and worship, which is clearly Bob’s intent in the study guide. We started with the prayer in the book and ended with the hymn at the end, but we didn’t quite stay on the track between the two. But others can do so. Don’t assume you have to spend your time on predestination!

     

  • How Not to Convince Me

    I saw two approaches to political persuasion today that I find particularly unpersuasive. This is besides the truth-limited ads that fail to persuade me every day.

    1) Someone on Facebook posted a note that a particular claim was false. I should go to a particular website to learn the truth. The site? Her candidates web site. I don’t think so.

    2) Romney supporters here in Pensacola are putting empty chairs in their yards. This is supposed to remind people of the “wonderful” speech by Clint Eastwood at the Republican convention. I happen to like Clint Eastwood (as an actor). The empty chair act moved my political position not at all. I fail to see any reason why this should be persuasive to anyone.

    I suspect that if I listed everything I find unpersuasive, my list would include pretty much the entire political arsenal.

     

  • Psalm 1 and Two Ways

    We often read the Psalms legalistically, i.e. all the discussion of the law leads us to believe we’re talking about some sort of righteousness by works, or better earning God’s favor through accomplishing certain works.

    If we read Psalm 1 as a sort of flat discourse rather than as structured poetry, we can easily read it in support of such a mission. After all, righteous people who do certain things are blessed, and wicked people who do certain other things are not.

    But Psalm 1 is, in fact, structured poetry, and it does not intend to make a catalog of good actions that one should do in order to be regarded as righteous. Rather, it contrasts two ways of life. The first is the way of life of the righteous person, and the other the way of life of the wicked, characterized by a lack of what the righteous person has. That particular element is torah or instruction?God’s instruction. The work of God’s Torah in the life of the righteous is not complete. He meditates in that instruction day and night. The Torah forms these righteous people into a community united in following that particular way.

    This contrast is emphasized by the use of ki’ ‘im in Hebrew, which occurs only here in the Psalter (Bob MacDonald, Seeing the Psalter, forthcoming from my company Energion Publications, 2013).

    In contrast, without that Torah, the wicked are like chaff and are blown away by the wind. They lack that community and therefore they lack its blessings.

    This is not about admission requirements. This is about the choice of the way. It evokes Deuteronomy 30:15ff. “See, I have set before you today life and prosperity, death and adversity …” This comes not from a sermon preached to the already righteous, but rather from an invitation to people who had need of that Torah. It was an act of God’s grace.

    In the same way this invitation to contrasting ways of life comes to each one of us.

  • Jerry Coyne on Criticizing Religion

    Despite the obvious difference in our beliefs about religion generally, Jerry Coyne is precisely correct in his comments on the right to criticize religion. He’s also right to point out that however obnoxious some critics of Islam are—face it, that recent video is just bad—that doesn’t compare to actually killing people. Yet somehow we’re supposed to see insult as a justification for killing people.

    And while we’re at it, yes, of course, this same thing should apply to criticism of my religion, including speech that offends me, including speech that ridicules me or my beliefs. There is nothing that can be said about Christianity that would give me the right to kill other people. I’m fairly absolutist about freedom of speech.

    A payoff quote:

    No, Muslims don’t have to take it on the chin and smile.  They can counter anti-Islamic speech with their own speech, and match Qur’an burnings with American flag burnings. And I don’t care whether Muslims question whether defense of free speech is pretext for condoning bigotry. Free speech can indeed be a blanket for bigotry, but if we don’t protect the rights of bigots, we can’t protect the rights of anyone. …

    Precisely. The proper response to criticism is criticism. The proper response to ridicule may be ridicule, but it more likely is criticism. Responding to ridicule with violence is never justified.

    Oh, and I agree on the cat videos too. Like I always do.

     

  • 1935 Series Dollar Silver Certificate Without …

    … “In God We Trust” on the back. See This is NOT a Counterfeit Bill at Yahoo News. I’ve always found the idea of putting “In God We Trust” on our currency to be mildly blasphemous. In our money is precisely where we trust God the least. And that’s in our personal finances. When we come to national finances, putting God’s name somewhere in there is false advertising, or in the biblical sense, taking God’s name in vain. Or so it seems to me.

  • Study Bibles and The Voice

    I think I’m beginning to understand why my original positive response to The Voice Bible has turned to one of annoyance. If you haven’t been a reader of this blog for long, you many not realize that I try to give Bible translators very wide lattitude. On the front cover of my book What’s in a Version? I put the sentence: The best Bible version is one you read.

    My intention is to emphasize the importance of finding a version that you can read and hear well. Apart from a very small number of translations that are either done very incompetently or with an intentional bias (Jack Blanco’s Clear Word Bible is an excellent example of a bad translation), I believe that the vast majority of translations convey God’s word. None do it perfectly. None fail completely.

    So I’ve been asking myself why every time I read a passage from The Voice I find myself getting annoyed. At first I was justifying this with the issues of consistency in the use of italics, and the fact that I find the frequent italics in the text distracting. Then yesterday, in sequence, I read a passage from Ephesians in Greek, then in a study Bible, and then in The Voice.

    Suddenly it hit me. Much of the material that seems to me to distract the reader from the text of scripture is very much like study Bible notes. I tell students that study Bibles are fine, provided you don’t take any one of them as definitive, and provided that you remember the difference between the notes provided in the margin or at the bottom of the page and the text of Scripture itself.

    And that’s why The Voice is getting on my nerves. Despite the number of complaints I’ve voiced here on this blog, I don’t see its translators making an extraordinary number of mistakes. (What I see as inconsistency in the use of italics means I have more complaints than usual, but really that should be seen as one complaint.) The italicized material, the notes blocked out right in the text, and even some section headings strike me as “study note” material. And in The Voice that material is everywhere. It’s not just in the margin or at the bottom of the page. It’s not just in occasional introductions or excurses. It’s everywhere.

    So anyone who is reading my complaints about this version should keep my prejudices in mind. You should also realize that it is very hard to be consistent in determining what is a proper part of translation, and what should be an explanatory note. But that is a matter for another post.

    I would note that in reading through the book of Ephesians, I found the italicized material more annoying than I had in narrative passages. Here material that might seem just inane elsewhere (e.g. a note telling you what the verse obviously said) actually seems to detract from the artistry of the book itself. It reduces the impact. That’s my first impression, at least.

    As I have noted before, I’m writing these notes as I experience The Voice for myself, and I leave open the possibility of changing my mind. I certainly hope to refine my ideas as time goes on.

  • Media Distrust

    Gallup reports that U. S. Distrust in Media Hits New High. Unfortunately, I suspect this distrust does not reflect a dismay at the amount of inaccurate information and a desire to get accurate information whatever the cost. I suspect that it’s more because of the large number of partisans who think their party, candidate, or favorite issue is not getting favorable treatment.

    I too distrust the media, but my problem is that our journalists are trying for balance rather than for accuracy. The way they try to produce balance is by calling on people from both sides of any particular issue and having them argue. Since they have representatives of both sides, the reporting must be fair. No? In my view, most issues have more than two sides, and often having a Republican and a Democrat provide commentary doesn’t even cover two sides.

    Evaluations of media fairness frequently involve counting positive and negative stories about a candidate or issue, and if the counts are right, then the coverage is fair.

    There are several problems with this. One candidate or the other might be providing more fodder for negative stories than the other. If one candidate has more scandal is it to be expected that the media will manage to somehow keep the reporting equal? The problem here is that people can’t agree on just what is a real scandal.

    That’s why I’d rather have the journalists themselves evaluate what they’re presenting and give their reasons and evidence. This is one of the reasons I like organizations like Politifact. I frequently disagree with their rating of a story, but they generally provide enough information such as the source of studies, details, additional context and so forth, for me to make at least a preliminary judgment, and pointers to information if I think I need to find more.

    I think that our entire approach to media fairness should be scrapped. Identify biases, go in depth, and provide references. TV and radio programs can provide such references through their web sites. Over time I suspect the internet will adjust for bias by allowing people to select their own range of stories and opinion shows. That’s how I get my news already.

     

  • Are You Preserving Holy Bricks?

    There’s an insightful article on the Spectrum Magazine web site titled Holy Bricks. This one deals particularly with Seventh-day Adventist bricks, but the principles discussed apply anywhere. I have yet to encounter a community that doesn’t have a few holy bricks to deal with. I particularly liked the point where a constituent in a meeting said, “I don’t care if we don’t have a single student left, you’re not going to close our school!” I suspect most church leaders have heard the equivalent.

    There is a time to move forward in faith, but I don’t think that time coincides with our desire to preserve holy bricks. In any case, read the whole article. There are some great thoughts there.

  • My Continuing War on Study Bibles

    Well, maybe not a war. I don’t really hate Bibles with study notes, and even recommend their use for appropriate purposes. They’re great for giving you background information, pointing out connections, and so forth. When they tell you what the text says, they are not so great. At a minimum, use more than one, and use Bibles from different perspectives.

    I’ve written a number of posts including one comparing introductions to the book of Luke. To get more, just put “study bible” (including the quotes) in the search box at the upper right.

    In any case, my particular annoyance today is with the NLT Study Bible, and particular it’s coverage of the Proverbs 31 woman. The lectionary this week includes Proverbs 31:10-31. Now there are many ways of looking at this passage. On my lectionary notes blog, which I rarely update, I made a few comments on the passage.

    The problem I have here is that the notes are simply flat. They make no mention of how anyone could have any other view of how the passage should be read. It begins: “Proverbs ends with a powerful poem celebrating the virtuous wife.”

    It then mentions that this is an acrostic, a fine thing to note, but the question is just why did Hebrew poetry use acrostics. Was it to make the poem easier to remember? As someone who memorizes scripture from time to time, even in the original languages, I’m not certain that’s an adequate explanation. Perhaps we should start with the way in which thought structure is a core part of Hebrew poetry.

    I know that a study Bible has limited space. The problem is that a reader goes from text to notes and decides that the notes must contain the true meaning of the text. They bypass the hard work of interpretation and they miss out on all the possibilities.

    What would I want to see in such a note?

    1) The note on the structure, with some additional options as to why this might be an acrostic

    2) Some comment on why the editor chose to end his collection of proverbs with this particular passage

    3) Explanation of some of the background, such as what went on at the city gate, and so forth.

    I find this particular note lacking in all of this.

    I do want to add that this shouldn’t be taken as a criticism of just the NLT Study Bible. Many others have similar problems. This is just the one I was reading this morning. Nonetheless, in contrast, I read the notes in the New Interpreter’s Study Bible, which covers points 1 & 2 that I list above, resulting in what I would regard as a much more useful note. The Jewish Study Bible manages to cover all three.