Threads from Henry's Web

Author: henry

  • John Cassian on Bible Reading

    John Cassian was a monk and ascetic writer from Gaul and lived in the late 4th and early 5th centuries AD [source].  I found this in Hebrews: Ancient Christian commentary on Scripture, New Testament X, though I went to the Order of Saint Benedict Lectio site for the translation I use here:

    YOU must then, if you want to get at the true knowledge of the Scriptures, endeavour first to secure steadfast humility of heart, to carry you on by the perfection of love not to the knowledge which puffeth up, but to that which enlightens. For it is an impossibility for an impure mind to gain the gift of spiritual knowledge. And therefore with every possible care avoid this, lest through your zeal for reading there arise in you not the light of knowledge nor the lasting glory which is promised through the light that comes from learning but only the instruments of your destruction from vain arrogance. Next you must by all means strive to get rid of all anxiety and worldly thoughts, and give yourself over assiduously or rather continuously, to sacred reading, until continual meditation fills your heart, and fashions you so to speak after its own likeness, making of it, in a way, an ark of the testimony,which has within it two tables of stone, i.e., the constant assurance of the two testaments;and a golden pot, i.e., a pure and undefiled memory which preserves by a constant tenacity the manna stored up in it, i.e., the enduring and heavenly sweetness of the spiritual sense and the bread of angels; moreover also the rod of Aaron, i.e., the saving standard of Jesus Christ our true High Priest, that ever buds with the freshness of immortal memory. … [emphasis mine]

    As always, I strongly recommend going to the referenced site and reading the larger passage in context.  I find the use of thetemple/tabernacle imagery here in connection with the spiritual life extremely interesting.

  • Why both Bock and Borg are on my Ready-Reading Shelf

    I have been wanting to respond further to the excellent discussion over at Reclaiming the Mind, to which I linked a couple of days ago, but I’m not really an academic, and Karl Barth notwithstanding, I’m not really a theologian either. (I now am close to 100 comments behind on keeping up with the thread a Reclaiming the Mind. It’s a great discussion.)

    Nonetheless, I’ve been involved in Christian education at the congregational level for many years, most of my life, in fact, and I’m an avid consumer of Biblical scholarship. I think that the attitudes that folks are discussing there are evident in places other than academia. They show up in the books I read and often in Sunday School classes that I teach. So here goes with some comments from outside the academic environment.

    Some points:

    1. Much of the discussion has centered on Dr. Wallace’s definition of a Christian. We have gotten so sensitive to definitions, that it seems that to define is to discriminate. If you think about it, defining is discriminating. Any definition includes some and excludes others.

      If Dr. Wallace had defined “scholar” so that it only included Christians who hold something like his own views, then I think that would have significant. He would be trying to exclude on a basis similar to the one about which he was complaining. But he didn’t do that.

      I might have a slightly broader definition of Christian, but any definition includes some and excludes others. If we didn’t do that, we couldn’t communicate. By letting us know his definition, Dr. Wallace let’s us understand what he has to say, which hardly seems inappropriate.

    2. In just about any group of people based on ideas there will be some who narrowly define an “in” and an “out” group. I experienced this in my own graduate education when a professor refused even to talk to me after he read a paper I had written (not for one of his classes, fortunately!) because I was using comparative material and critical methodologies to excess. As the story was related to me, he managed to prevent publication of the paper as well. But the key point is this: I learned a great deal from that professor as well.
    3. Presuppositions abound on all sides, and sometimes we just suppose things that others have studied because we have to start from somewhere. But there is great value in examining such presuppositions and making sure we are supposing things that really need to be supposed rather than examined and established. Interaction between people with different presuppositions sometimes forces such examination.

    I think there is a distressing lack of building basic foundations in much of the literature, particularly literature written for a popular audience. Thus folks in Sunday Schools in both liberal and conservative churches believe that they are simply following the best scholarship, but they are often reading material that comes from a completely different set of scholars in each case, and those sets don’t agree.

    In one Sunday School class in which I discussed historical Jesus research, the members generally had read something by one of the Jesus Seminar scholars, or someone with a similar approach, and they were very surprised to learn about scholars who disagreed not only with the details of any particular reconstruction, but also with the method by which the reconstruction was done.

    In another class, members expected that I would dismiss Jesus Seminar material out of hand. They just wanted to hear that they didn’t have to concern themselves with any of that stuff. When I tried to explain the idea of criteria for historicity to them, I might as well have begun speaking Greek. They didn’t want to ask why one would take such an approach.

    Both of these classes were in United Methodist churches within the same general area. There was an obvious difference in what these various people were reading. But they had something in common. Neither group could explain how the other one had come to their conclusions. Both groups thought that they had the backing of good scholars.

    You may be wondering about my title at this point. I keep about six shelves of books within arm’s reach of the desk where I do my personal devotions and book study. There I keep those books that I look at regularly when I’m studying. Amongst the lexicons and grammars, I include some other works, one of which is Darrell Bock’s Jesus According to Scripture.

    Now Dr. Bock is somewhat more conservative than I am. I’m much more willing to question the historicity of portions of the stories told in the gospels. But one thing I want to do is understand how these passages have been harmonized by others. In other words, I don’t want to say that two stories are irreconcilable in their current form without both trying myself and seeing how others may have done it.

    That’s where Jesus According to Scripture comes in. Dr. Bock outlines the relationships between the various gospels for each pericope in the gospels. Once I have read that material I may not agree with any of the reconstructions, but at least I have considered the possibility.

    Now I doubt that there are many historical Jesus scholars who have never given consideration to any of these options. But I’m certain that there are other areas where scholars have not fully considered alternative ways of looking at a text. I find this in some conservative commentaries in which historical-critical research is dismissed out of hand. Fortunately, there is a substantial crop of excellent recent commentaries where this is not the case. Those commentaries are matched by critical commentaries that do not take the time to cover the possibility of some conservative options, for example for dating or authorship.

    But amongst the readers of this material, there are indeed many people who simply read one commentary or one book on a topic and believe they have a good view of what Biblical scholars believe on the topic.

    I had this emphasized to me in a study group I once led. They had asked me to lead a study on the book of Revelation, so I proceeded to used multiple commentaries in my own preparation, and also to look at some of the background texts, such as portions of Ezekiel, Daniel, Zechariah, and so forth. After a couple of weeks I was told I was making it much too complex. The majority of the group asked me to teach from David Jeremiah’s book Escape the Coming Night, if I remember correctly. They pointed out to me how simple he made it, and wanted me to follow that so that they could understand clearly.

    I had to tell them that I really couldn’t teach that book because I very simply didn’t agree with it. It was a great shock to them. To them, this was what Revelation meant. It was the only way. There might be minor variations, but not a completely different approach. (I take a completely different approach in my study guide, Revelation: a Participatory Study Guide, for what it’s worth.) They pointed out where Dr. Jeremiah said that Revelation was really quite easy to understand once you knew how to interpret it.

    In turn, I pointed out that I have a complete shelf of books on Revelation (and I still feel I need many more), and that many of them claimed it was quite simple, and no two of those agreed. Of course, quite a number quite correctly say it’s not simple at all.

    This is why I think that there is a great need in our Christian education departments for teaching about the nuts and bolts of Biblical studies. It seems to me that much of what goes on in Sunday School classes is a sort of “vain repetition” reinforcing the stuff that we already know and have studied year after year.

    So whatever needs to happen in academia–and I’d generally favor a great deal of openness–we need more dialog between various viewpoints in our churches.

    Now here’s the hard question: Will we allow discussion of serious issues, complete with the possibility that people might come to “unapproved” conclusions in our churches? That’s perhaps a little tougher of a question than one about an academic environment. I have found that many quite liberal individuals in churches can get very wary of materials from any other denomination used in their churches. I even heard one liberal education director complain that a book had “too much Jesus” in it. (I must point out that I vigorously disagreed.)

    On the other hand, I know of many conservative churches where similar materials would be rejected. I have worked with folks who would accept invitations to speak at my church in my education program but would never consider inviting me or anyone from my church to speak at theirs.

    Which brings me to what I think is the most important point: This isn’t about quid pro quo or tit for tat. It’s not about whether liberals or conservatives are more closed minded. I kept right on inviting those folks who weren’t inviting me back. In fact, I had never imagined that they would invite me back. I and my students benefited from their expertise and from being exposed to their point of view. Not having a speaker come to their church that might reflect my perspective was entirely their loss.

    High quality diversity is an advantage, and it needs to be pursued irrespective of how others behave. Those who pursue it will reap the benefits.

  • Origen on the True Meaning of Scripture

    From his Commentary on the Gospel of John X.27, copied from newadvent.org:

    When He was raised from the dead, John 2:22 His disciples remembered that He spoke this, and they believed the Scripture and the word which Jesus had said. This tells us that after Jesus’ resurrection from the dead His disciples saw that what He had said about the temple had a higher application to His passion and His resurrection; they remembered that the words, In three days I will raise it up, pointed to the resurrection; And they believed the Scripture and the word which Jesus had said. We are not told that they believed the Scripture or the word which Jesus said, before. For faith in its full sense is the act of him who accepts with his whole soul what is professed at baptism. As for the higher sense, as we have already spoken of the resurrection from the dead of the whole body of the Lord, we have now to note that the disciples were put in mind by the fulfilment of the Scripture which when they were in life they had not fully understood; its meaning was now brought under their eyes and made quite clear to them, and they knew of what heavenly things it was the pattern and shadow. Then they believed the Scripture who formerly did not believe it, and believed the word of Jesus which, as the speaker means to convey, they had not believed before the resurrection. For how can any one be said in the full sense to believe the Scripture when he does not see in it the mind of the Holy Spirit, which God would have us to believe rather than the literal meaning? From this point of view we must say that none of those who walk according to the flesh believe the spiritual things of the law, of the very beginnings of which they have no conception. [Emphasis mine. Links in the text go to the Bible or Catholic Encyclopedia on NewAdvent.org.]

    I think Origen here makes an important point about knowledge of scripture.  Whether or not one acknowledges the divine origin of scripture, I think it is clear that there is a difference in understanding between the believer and one who does not.  That doesn’t mean that those who don’t believe cannot understand the statements of scripture, but simply that there will always be a difference that it would be helpful for both to acknowledge.

  • The Mosaic Bible and the Lectionary – Update

    As I mentioned in an earlier post I’ve been trying to test the value of Holy Bible: Mosaic NLT (Meditations) for a lectionary preacher or teacher.  I use the weekly lectionary texts regularly for my personal devotions, attend a lectionary study group each Wednesday at noon, and also use the texts on those few occasions when I’m asked to preach.

    Of course, the texts in the Mosaic Bible are not the same as any one of the three years of the lectionary cycle, though they are done in the same pattern.  One could preach through this Bible for a year in one’s church with profit, I think as it would follow the church’s liturgical year, even though one would not be using the regular set of texts.

    But the alternative is to use some of the mosaic resources, the materials that come from various times and places, to supplement the regular materials.  In that, I’ve found that there is a scattering of texts I can use during ordinary time, but as I approach Advent, I’m finding that things are much more helpful.  This is to be expected, because the many weeks in ordinary time are not so precisely themed.

    For example, in the material for the first Sunday of Advent, titled “Longing” Matthew Woodley has a meditation titled “Imagine.”  One line will illustrate the value for Advent–“Advent trains us to ache again.”  (p. 18)  (My sister wrote a poem related to this point, which she has graciously permitted me to post.)

    I do think it is necessary to go through the various advent readings, because you may not be using them on the same week as indicated.

    Overall, I have found this to be a valuable resource, but not quite first rank overall in my lectionary reading and study.

  • Translating Philippians 1:9-11

    Philippians 1:3-11 is one of the Lectionary passages this week, and so I read through it this morning during my devotional time in Greek.  Now Paul is good at long sentences.  I remember the embarrassment once working with a Greek student who was translating this passage in his second year.  He was doing OK in literal terms, but I was suggesting how he might make the English clearer.  Well, pride goes before a fall, and I had hardly begun to do my “freer” translation when the moorings came completely loose and I got totally tangled up.  It took three or four tries before the result was coherent, and it still wasn’t that great.

    It’s not that I’m not well acquainted with the passage.  It is even one of those I have recorded for myself on CD so I can listen while driving.  But you wouldn’t have known it from my English that day.  The problem is that you can either translate one of Paul’s long Greek sentences into a harder to understand long English one, or you can try to keep the right sense in the transitions using shorter sentences.

    This morning, after reading, I looked it up in the NLT, and then compared that first to the NRSV and then the CEV.  I’m going to put the NRSV first, as it’s most equivalent in a formal sense, then comment on what I noticed.  Also, before anyone decides I’m beating up on one translation or another, I have a high regard for all three of these translations in the appropriate context.

    NRSV NLT CEV
    9And this is my prayer, that your love may overflow more and more with knowledge and full insight 10to help you to determine what is best, so that in the day of Christ you may be pure and blameless, 11having produced the harvest of righteousness that comes through Jesus Christ for the glory and praise of God. 9I pray that your love will overflow more and more, and that you will keep on growing in knowledge and understanding. 10For I want you to understand what really matters, so that you may live pure and blameless lives until the day of Christ’s return. 11May you always be filled with the fruit of your salvation–the righteous character produced in your life by Jesus Christ–for this will bring much glory and praise to God. 9I pray that your love will keep on growing and that you will fully know and understand 10how to make the right choices. Then you will still be pure and innocent when Christ returns. And until that day, 11Jesus Christ will keep you busy doing good deeds that bring glory and praise to God.

    I think both the NLT and the CEV have some difficulty keeping the relationships between the concepts clear. Obviously, how well one thinks each translation did at that task will depend on how one things those elements are related in Greek.

    So let me say how I hear this when I read it in Greek.  Paul starts from the point of love, but he is not merely saying that he wants love to grow in quantity.  He’s praying that their love will be filled with knowledge and insight.  When love is filled with knowledge and insight, one can discern what is most important, which leads in turn to pure and blameless living.  That in turn brings brings forth the fruit of righteousness, bring honor to Jesus, who brought all this forth in any case.

    Now I can find that in the NRSV, though I do acknowledge that many modern readers will have a hard time holding that long of a sentence together, so the readers may not benefit from it.  (Communication is not accomplished unless the recipient actually receives the message!)  The NLT, however, seems to me to make the growth in knowledge and understanding coordinate with, rather than part of, the growth of love.  Then “determining what is best” is the reason Paul wants them to grow in love.  I must note that I prefer the NLT’s “what really matters,” though I acknowledge the Greek will support either rendering.

    I think the CEV does a better job coordinating the growth of love and the knowledge and insight, but there the translation “make the right choices” seems to lose some of the nuance of the message.  Both the CEV and the NLT break what seems to me to be a tightly linked chain.

    Now I may be too picky here, and as I acknowledged at the start, I find it impossible to satisfy myself with a translation of this passage, along with a number of other long sentences from Paul.  I find elements to commend in all three translations, along with those I have questioned.

  • Biblical Studies Carnival XLVIII Posted

    … at Clayboy.

    On the topic of the size of this carnival, allow me to give an opinion.  I’m not in the current carnival.  I didn’t nominate any of my posts, and not surprisingly nobody else did either.  This is a good approach, I think.  Use only the nominations as those of us involved in the Christian Carnival do.  I didn’t nominate a post of my own thus there is none there, and all is right with the world.  At least in that one small way.

    It’s a good carnival, with lots of good material.  I would hope that if the carnival goes to a “nominations only” mode, many folks would submit their own best work for the month.

  • St. John Chrysostom on Law and Perfection

    From Hebrews: Ancient Christian commentary on Scripture, New Testament X, p. 116, (with translation taken from A Collection of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church), commenting on Hebrews 7:

    Was the law then of no use?  It was indeed of use and of great use, but to make humans perfect it was of no use.  For in this respect he says, “the law made nothing perfect.”  All were figures, all shadows: circumcision, sacrifice, sabbath.  Therefore they could not reach through the soul, and thus they pass away and gradually withdraw.  But “a better hope is introduced, through which we draw near to God.”  — ON THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS 13.4

  • Leo the Great on Melchizedek Priesthood and Anointing

    I found this in my reading of the Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture, Volume X, Hebrews, this morning.  Since the translation used there is under copyright, and this is an extended quote, I’m getting the material from sacredtexts.com:

    As often as God’s mercy deigns to bring round the day of His gifts to us, there is, dearly-beloved, just and reasonable cause for rejoicing, if only our appointment to the office be referred to the praise of Him who gave it.  For though this recognition of God may well be found in all His priests, yet I take it to be peculiarly binding on me, who, regarding my own utter insignificance and the greatness of the office undertaken, ought myself also to utter that exclamation of the Prophet, “Lord, I heard Thy speech and was afraid:  I considered Thy works and was dismayed 661 .”  For what is so unwonted and so dismaying as labour to the frail, exaltation to the humble, dignity to the undeserving?  And yet we do not despair nor lose heart, because we put our trust not in ourselves but in Him who works in us. And hence also we have sung with harmonious voice the psalm of David, dearly beloved, not in our own praise, but to the glory of Christ the Lord.  For it is He of whom it is prophetically written, “Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchizedeck 662 ,” that is, not after the order of Aaron, whose priesthood descending along his own line of offspring was a temporal ministry, and ceased with the law of the Old Testament, but after the order of Melchizedeck, in whom was prefigured the eternal High Priest.  And no reference is made to his parentage because in him it is understood that He was portrayed, whose generation cannot be declared.  And finally, now that the mystery of this Divine priesthood has descended to human agency, it runs not by the line of birth, nor is that which flesh and blood created, chosen, but without regard to the privilege of paternity and succession by inheritance, those men are received by the Church as its rulers whom the Holy Ghost prepares:  so that in the people of God’s adoption, the whole body of which is priestly and royal, it is not the prerogative of earthly origin which obtains the unction 663 , but the condescension of Divine grace which creates the bishop. [Emphasis mine.  Footnotes lead to source notes on sacredtexts.com]

    Of course, unction = anointing.  I’m interested particularly in this comment on ordination or any selection as leaders.  We should, as a church be simply acknowledging those whom God has chosen and prepared for the office.

    I’m still meditating, however, on the idea that this leadership derives from the nature of Christ’s priesthood.  I have generally read Hebrews to say that temporal human beings in priestly office were no longer needed.  Yes, there are some intercessory activities of one person for another, but no established priesthood.  Whether a careful reading of Hebrews should change my views is something that will require time and study.

  • Dan Wallace has a Complaint about Liberals

    … and I think he’s right, at least about some of us. He writes in reference to graduates of Dallas Theological Seminary.

    After my own difficulties, though rather minor ones, with my more conservative graduate school, it annoys me that liberal schools might look down on graduates of conservative institutions.

  • Seals Prosecuted for Capturing Terrorist

    … at least according to the Fox News headline: Navy SEALs Face Assault Charges for Capturing Most-Wanted Terrorist.

    But there’s a problem with the headline. There are, of course, no charges for capturing the terrorists, but rather for his treatment after the capture. Now I don’t know the facts of the case beyond what is in the article, but if the contents (as opposed to the headline) are correct, the charges have to do with the way the detainee was treated after capture.

    There would be two considerations there. The first is simply military discipline. Civilians may not understand this as well, but “punching in the gut” is not something you get to do because you’re a tough guy. There are times and places. The second is, of course, the treatment of someone that is under your control. I find it quite easy to justify violence before someone is captured. But once the defendant is under your control, that person should be treated properly according to military regulations. Your status as a hero, and Seals are heroes in my book just by virtue of their job, doesn’t exempt you from the rules.

    What actually happened in this case? That is something to be determined by the military court. In this case, were I one of these men, that would be precisely the court in which I would wish to be tried. The members of the court will also be members of the military who should be capable of understanding the situation and rendering a verdict.

    That there is a court martial as such, however, should not cause outrage. The military services are, as they should, investigating the behavior of their own.