John Hobbins is starting a series on Leviticus 25. It looks interesting.
Author: henry
-
Church Sign: An Eye for an Eye
An Eye for an Eye Church Sign At first glance, this is a good sign for a Christian. After all, Jesus replaces “an eye for an eye” with “Do not resist the one who is evil” (Matthew 5:38-39).
But I think it illustrates the way we fail to understand certain phrases as they were intended.
“An eye for an eye” or lex talionis was originally also a way to keep the whole world from going blind. It was intended not to mandate revenge, but to limit it. Modern Christians understand it as some sort of command to mass mayhem, and are thankful that Jesus overruled it.
But in fact Jesus simply moved us further along the same path. Limiting revenge was good. Forgiveness was even better, though in justice we still find some value in the idea of proportional penalties.
This sign demonstrates a quite frequent response to the Old Testament, and in many cases to other things that are old. In seeing the New Testament as good, these Christians have to see the Old Testament as bad. It is almost as though there was no grace for thousands of years and then suddenly at the appearance of Jesus God’s grace came into being.
But in fact the grace that Jesus taught was also taught in the Old Tesament, with the teaching accommodated to time and place.
So yes, I think Jesus improved on the attitude of “an eye for an eye.” But “an eye for an eye” was, in its time and place, also a forward looking measure of justice.
-
Is Canonical 2 Corinthians a Hypothetical Reconstruction?
As I’ve noted before, I’m now reading Calvin J. Roetzel, 2 Corinthians
, in the Abingdon New Testament Commantaries series. I want to emphasize here that I accept the use of historical-critical methodology in Bible study. That does not, however, force me to find all critical theories plausible. I’m arguing against this specific set of theories, not against historical-critical methodologies generally.
In arguing against the unity of the book, Roetzel says:
… Most [scholars who argue for the integrity of the book] side with Kümmel that the canonical version of 2 Corinthians was Paul’s original epistle, and they tend to ignore the hypothetical nature of their own construction even while repudiating the hypotheses of others (Kümmel 1965 [Introduction to the New Testament. Nashville: Abingdon, 1965], 292). — p. 25
This seems to me to be an odd statement. Though it is not explicit, it appears to aim to place all views on a level playing field, from unity to the five letter hypothesis. But that doesn’t seem the correct approach.
If I have a letter with an essentially unified textual history, in this case meaning that the partitioning of the letter is nowhere evident in the textual history as we have it, then we might give at least slight preference to the notion that it is, in fact a letter. When it fulfills all the forms, that suggestion is strengthened.
I suppose that the idea that the letter is a unity is, indeed, an hypothesis, but it seems a rather obvious one. Suggestions of Paul’s changes of mood and/or rhetorical intention are based on observing the text based on this first and most obvious hypothesis.
On the other hand multiple letter hypotheses are immediately much more complicated. First one has to assume that someone combined multiple letters into one, cutting out the salutation of at least one and the conclusion of another. If we assume five letters, then the situation becomes more complicated.
There are clearly shifts or seams in 2 Corinthians. The question is why? The problem for multiple letter hypotheses, I think, is to answer the question not just of why such seams are there (which they answer by proposing multiple letters), but also just why someone should put the document together in this way.
I don’t see this addressed anywhere. What is the purpose of the redactor? If he wishes to preserve all the letters why not just copy them in succession? If he has some theological purpose, then the question goes right back to the start–what is the meaning of the text as it stands? (I would welcome comment from someone who has spent more time studying New Testament than I have.)
I’m suggesting two things. First, that the hypothesis that the letter as we have it is a unity should be privileged in discussion to some extent, because it is supported by the best possible evidence–that’s what the letter looks like now. Second, that a theory that involves redaction must also explain the actions of the redactor. Simply producing plausible pieces and providing a chronology for them does little without some reason why they would have been combined as they were.
Let me illustrate from some texts where I feel I’m on more solid ground. Many people try to solve the chronological differences between Genesis 1 and 2 by attributing them to two sources. Now I believe they are from two sources. I think the evidence is fairly solid for that. But having said that, I have solved nothing regarding the difference in chronology between the two chapters, because I still must think about a redactor who somehow thought that putting them together made sense. So now I must ask about his motivations and what message he intended to convey bringing them together.
In the case of Isaiah, we again have a composite book, but here were have a hypothesis for why redactors would want to add to the book. Very likely there was a school of prophets or scribes who preserved Isaiah’s work and added to it from time to time. Their motivation is to preserve the prophet’s (or prophets’) words. They are not cutting pieces out and combining them, but rather putting the pieces together, generally as they were.
I don’t see any similarly plausible hypothesis for 2 Corinthians, which makes me find the arguments for unity much more plausible in view of the lack of solid reasons for someone to sew the book together from two to five pieces as various theories suggest.
-
Commentary: II Corinthians (NTL)
I have really enjoyed studying 2 Corinthians with this commentary. Since I’ve used a number of volumes from the New Testament Library before, the easiest evaluation of this commentary I can give is that it meets and in some cases exceeds the expectations I have of volumes in the New Testament Library series. If you have used and liked other volumes in either the OTL or the NTL, you won’t be disappointed.
There are several things I look for in a commentary, and of course different commentaries serve different purposes. In a scholarly commentary intended for the preacher or teacher I look for solid coverage of critical issues, reasonable accessibility, good theological applications (or at least hooks on which to build them), and comprehensive coverage without going overboard. On all these points this commentary stands up well.
For my personal use I like good coverage of text-critical issues and language issues. As is usual with NTL or OTL volumes, the language and text issues are a little less prominent, being largely covered in short notes following the translation. Considering the purpose of the commentary, this is actually a feature, since overdoing minor textual issues is simply distracting for someone who need to go out and preach to a congregation that will have limited use for that type of information.
Two things stood out in reading the commentary. First, Matera covers the literary integrity of the book in some detail, including discussion of the various arguments for believing that more than one letter has been combined to make the single book we call 2 Corinthians. Matera supports the literary integrity of the book as we have it. He does not treat the other side unfairly, however.
Second, Matera covers rhetorical issues in some detail, which helps the reader see the book as a whole as well as digging into the details. I had never been able to really “feel” 2 Corinthians, even though I’ve studied it and read it many times. It always seemed like a patchwork of topics. That’s OK for a letter, but with Matera’s comments I see more connection and structure and less of a loose collection of topics.
I find it helpful two compare one commentary to another to give a more precise idea of what it’s like. In this case I’m starting to read 2 Corinthians
Of these two, the Abingdon volumes aim at theology students, but are expected to also be useful to pastors and teachers. NTL volumes aim a bit higher on the scholarly scale. The Abingdon volumes do not use footnotes, while the NTL uses them quite extensively. This might give an impression that the text is more dissimilar than it is. While I haven’t completed my read of the Abingdon volume, I find it about the same reading level, provided one skips the footnotes in NTL, which I don’t.
The NTL volume is 314 pages of content, while the Abingdon is only about 138 pages. That in itself is quite a difference, but the Abingdon pages are about 70% of the length of those in the NTL. That, of course, means that the larger volume can cover a great deal more data.
As for writing style and content, Matera, as I have noted, argues for the literary integrity of 2 Corinthians, while Roetzel goes for a five letter hypothesis. I found Matera’s discussion of the various hypotheses on how to divide the book quite helpful; Roetzel sounds dismissive of those, like Matera, who argue that the book is a single letter largely for rhetorical reasons. I realize that Roetzel has less space to work with, but he found the space to go through the various views in some detail.
The Abingdon volume is printed in the order in which Roetzel has reorganized the text. That has the advantage of clarity for those who want to understand just what the fragments from which he thinks 2 Corinthians was constructed would have looked like.
If I might add my own note in response, I find it quite easy to believe a two letter hypothesis, such as 1-9 being one letter with 10-13 added from a second letter. It’s not hard to imagine a scribe copying two letters into one manuscript and assuming everyone would know there were two letters, though it’s hard to understand in that case why all the elements that one would expect from a letter have been removed from this second one.
What I find hard to believe is that five different letters were pasted together out of order. I just don’t understand the motivation and what the redactor, if one should call him that, was trying to accomplish. Any good redactional theory should be able to explain what the redactor was up to.
I found Matera’s explanation, even where it tends to stretch things a bit, such as in explaining Paul’s change of mood from chapter 9 to chapter 10, to be very carefully thought out and well worth considering. I strongly recommend this commentary (5 of 5 stars).
-
A Brief Thought on Partitioning Epistles
I’ve just completed reading Frank J. Matera’s II Corinthians: A Commentary
in the New Testament Library series. I’m going to post a few notes in review of that commentary, but this is just a brief note, a passing thought, and definitely not a completed theory.
There are many cases in which critical theories about authorship strike me as rather well-taken. First and second Isaiah come to mind with a very striking change in style and theme between chapter 35 (36-39 provide an historical interlude) providing at least a substantial basis to consider multiple authorship. The entire book gives evidence of collection, and so one shouldn’t be too shocked to see evidence of a seam here and there.
But in other cases such suggestions seem a bit less well taken, and epistles are one case. Keep in mind that I’ve done much more study of Isaiah than I have of any New Testament epistle, but still it seems to me that the very nature of an epistle should suggest that it is not necessarily going to be a coherent theological presentation as might be expected of a thesis or dissertation.
But some of the arguments seem to depend on a slightly too sanitary an image of what an epistle should be. Second Corinthians reads to me like a letter written by a volatile, emotional, and very intense man. That he goes from a “that’s OK now” view at the end of chapter 7, invites them to participate in a collection, and then switches back to castigating them about certain other faults in chapter 10 seems out of place if Paul wrote a carefully planned, drafted, and edited letter. On the other hand if Paul was responding to the situation with mixed emotions–you’re getting it! some of it! not all of it! let me tell you what else you need to do!–then the letter actually seems fairly coherent.
Matera deals with the literary integrity of 2 Corinthians on pp. 24-32 and then again briefly on pp. 214-215. I think he makes some excellent arguments. He doesn’t appeal to anything like the idea I’m presenting here. He relates this to Paul’s rhetorical goals. I’m afraid I think that the letter might have been structured better rhetorically (from a certain point of view) if drafted by a committee of bishops, but Paul was hardly to be compared to a committee of bishops!
I recall the recent pastoral letter from the United Methodist bishops on care for God’s creation, titled God’s Renewed Creation: Call to Hope and Action. I think that letter should be strongly contrasted to 2 Corinthians. While I disagree with very little in the bishops’ letter, though in some cases I think they are not doing well in terms of priorities, I nonetheless find the letter boring and unchallenging. I have heard several of those bishops preach and without exception they produce a better sermon on their own.
What I’m getting at here is that it seems to me that some critics expect Paul to produce something akin to the bishops’ letter. Paul was not too likely to do such a thing, so instead we have 2 Corinthians.
-
Dangers of Superficial Bible Study
Henry Neufeld and Geoffrey Lentz at Lectionary at Lunch, First UMC Pensacola, hold new copies of Learning and Living Scripture I was reminded of this by two events during the last week. First, the arrival of copies of my new book with co-author Rev. Geoffrey Lentz. One of the things we emphasize in that book is hearing what the text is actually saying before trying to explain it. This is a difficult task, probably impossible to get completely correct, but often discussions of Bible texts are carried on with very little reference to the actual texts. Someone reads it, and then discussion goes on without anyone looking back at the text and asking, “But does it actually say that?”
The second was my Sunday School class. Now please don’t get me wrong here. My current Sunday School class is one of the best I’ve been in, but at the same time, we often attempt to discuss questions that are quite broad. The topic this past Sunday was how a God of love could slaughter millions of people. (Pesky detail: was it actually millions?) I was asked to comment on a number of issues in the Hebrew scriptures, and we were perhaps half way through when someone pointed out to me that I wasn’t answering the question.
Indeed I was not answering the question. I was laying groundwork. But a deadline of 45 minutes worth of discussion time can make one impatient with laying groundwork and getting down to details. Yet if you don’t do the necessary groundwork your answer may have very little to do with the text.
Of course, simply discovering what the text actually says and does not say is just a starting point. Seeing that text in its proper contexts is also important. But even that doesn’t get us where most of us want to go. We want some sort of relevant application. And that takes even more time.
When I teach classes on Bible study I usually start by asking if anyone is looking for a five minute a day study method, and suggesting they’ve come to the wrong class. I firmly believe people without seminary training can and should study the Bible. But there is no shortcut to actually learning and living scripture. It’s hard work.
One of the protections against superficial Bible study is sharing, entering into dialogue about the text as you understand it. Now if you just share with other people who think as you do, or others who are not experts, you can end up pooling your ignorance. Part of this dialogue must be with the experts using commentaries, Bible handbooks, Bible dictionaries, and the notes in quality study Bibles. If you have locally available experts, take advantage of their teaching.
This doesn’t mean you have to slavishly accept what the experts say. But if you read their views, always asking why they have come to the conclusions they have presented, you will find places where your study may have fallen short. You will hear ideas that didn’t occur to you. Listening to experts does not mean giving up your own judgment. It does mean letting your judgment be tested against worthy dialogue partners.
Finally, while it may be painful for some, treating all ideas as equal won’t build understanding. You need to examine not only what people believe but why, using their “why” to challenge your “why.”
-
Christian Carnival CCCXVII Posted
… at my Jevlir Caravansary blog. I’m obviously delighted with myself, thus the link!
-
How About Planting a Church?
That’s what Allan Bevere suggests as the ordination process, based on his experience in Cuba.
I find the idea attractive, at least for certain types of ministry. There might be other ways to test various gifts. It does relate to a problem I’ve noted amongst United Methodist ministers, many of whom come out of seminary with a decent theological education, but much less practical knowledge than they need.
Note that I’m not a pastor, so I hardly can speak here as an expert from that perspective. But from the perspective of a theologically educated person in the pews, I think I have some basis for comment. Unfortunately, I think that my main comment goes back to my post from Monday. The first thing we need to do is rethink the pastor’s job description. Right now what we expect of pastors is insane.
-
Book: For Girls Only! Devotions
Some of you may justifiably ask just what some guy moving on through middle age is doing writing a review of a book whose title starts For Girls Only! And that was indeed my reaction when I first saw the book in an e-mail from Tyndale House. Indeed, I had just about deleted the e-mail before I thought, “You know, this particular middle aged guy has two granddaughters, and it’s just possible this might be interesting to them.
So there are contributions from at least three girls to this review: My wife Jody, my daughter Janet, and my eldest granddaughter Anna.
Two things my wife mentioned after only a few minutes working with the book. It’s a small, ordinary looking book. If you expected a large, glossy, children’s book, then you’ll be disappointed. Second, it was not quite suited to Anna’s age, and in fact she is about a year younger than the lowest age, eight, indicated on the cover. I thought it might be useful to her, however.
And it turned out to be. While Janet had to select some of the readings she used, there were many that were applicable. She sent me this note about the book:
I have found that For Girls Only! Devotions is a really great book if you just want a few moments with your daughter everyday to spend together discussing topics that she may or may not be facing. This book gives a great platform to open talks with her about other things. It’s great for getting the two of you to just sit and talk! Keeping the lines of communication open during this age is crucial!
One thing I don’t like about the book is that there us no way of knowing the subject matter of each devotion before reading the whole thing. If you would like to find one that maybe your child is going through at the moment, you would not be able to find it without reading each one.
I liked the idea of have short devotionals complete with exercises that a parent can do with a child. Janet also mentioned to me that many of the devotionals deal with issues one might encounter at school, so those devotionals were less relevant to Anna, who is being homeschooled. At the same time, however, I believe this would be a feature for parents whose children are in public school.
(I received a free copy of this book as part of the Tyndale Bloggers Network for which I want to thank them.)
