Threads from Henry's Web

Author: henry

  • The Search for the Historical Simon Peter

    I’m continuing reading and blogging through Ben Witherington’s book What Have They Done with Jesus?, and have just finished chapter 3. This chapter discusses the person of Jesus. I would like to remind readers again that I’m blogging the experience of reading the book and not reviewing it. Thus my impressions result from where I am in reading at the moment. (The previous post in this series is here.)

    One might get the idea that Dr. Witherington is simply telling the story of Jesus and his companions as it can be extracted from the canonical materials. A large portion of both chapters 2 and 3 simply catalog what we have and add some speculation–educated speculation, but nonetheless still speculation.

    What seems to be missing here is the reasoning behind historical conclusions about these individuals. Toward the end of each chapter, however, we begin to get the point. Witherington is developing a profile of the people who are recorded as eyewitnesses to the life and most importantly (I believe) the resurrection of Jesus.

    Witherington is not a fundamentalist, and deals with the text that would not be possible under most common definitions of inerrancy. On page 59, for example, he says:

    . . . In this narrative [the call of Simon] the first words Jesus is said to have spoken to Simon are “You are Simonson of John; you shall be called Cephas.” It is likely that the Fourth Evangelist, in order to introduce his dramatis personae up front, has moved this tradition to this spot, for Simon received this nickname much later in the ministry, according to the synoptics. . . . (What Have They Done With Jesus?, p. 59)

    I would note two things. From the point of view of more liberal scholarship, this places a greater historical weight on the fourth gospel than many would place on it. From the point of most who accept inerrancy, it would have John either in error or lying, because Simon receives the name “Peter” at a different point in history. (Some could quite comfortably accommodate this issue by appealing to the literary genre and noting that readers probably did not expect chronological accuracy in such a document.

    Thus Witherington is by no means in the hard-line conservative camp that essentially constructs a history of Jesus based on harmonization of every detail of the gospel accounts.

    He carries on with a considerable discussion. Many readers will be interested in his discussion of “upon this rock” from Matthew 16, which Witherington does believe apply to Peter, but in particular to Peter who is confessing. He suggests that while in that text it particular it may have meant Peter himself, it can be extended to all those who make a similar confession.

    So why are we going into all this detail with regard to Peter? It is because of this question that I’ve titled my blog post as I have. Witherington moves from the discussion of who Peter is historically to making the assertion that Peter was in a position to know what Jesus confessed about himself in his lifetime. Thus he says:

    . . . These stories about interconnections within the inner circle must make some sense, and they bear a telling witness to the fact that Jesus was seen and confessed as a messianic figure both before and after his death on a cross. No one knew this better than Peter, and no one would have been more vehement in rebuttal of the suggestion that Jesus had not presented himself in an exalted and messianic ight during his ministry. He became a shepherd of Jesus’s flock for a good reason: he knew the Story, he belieed in the Christ, and he accepted his commission. In the next chapter we will see what the post-Easter Peter has to say to us about these things. (ibid. 76)

    Update: It looks like my conclusion is missing. Thus far I see substantial profiles of claimed eyewitnesses presented without sufficient basis for the claim that the canonical gospels themselves are historically reliable at this level of detail. I’m hoping this will be covered further down the line.

  • A United Methodist Bible?

    A friend e-mailed me notice of a new Bible translation project which is being sponsored by a subsidiary of Cokesbury, which in turn is associated with the United Methodist Church. (He also passed me a link to this post at Metacatholic.)

    There is a basic outline of the purposes and intentions of this translation at Our New Bible. I can only hope that they translate with greater clarity than they use in their writing. (And no, my writing would not provide the clarity necessary in a translation that aims for an eighth grade reading level.) I noted the same paragraph that Metacatholic quoted:

    A new translation must attend to evocative language that is more engaging emotionally than precise, systematic syntax.

    Does this sentence actually mean anything? I am not too certain just what the translators are trying to say. Far be it from me to oppose a translation project, but I certainly hope that the cost of this translation has been well considered, and that the translation will effectively meet a real need that current translations do not.

    One further note: I am aware that the translation committee will be ecumenical, which I applaud, but the translation committee is sponsored by a denominationally connected group, albeit one that is involved with interdenominational curriculum development.

  • 10 Psalms Not Heard (much) in Modern Worship

    Don has a post titles 10 Tough Psalms for Worship Songs that deserves some serious thinking. I relate it to my recent post Psalm 95 and 81: Interrupting Praise with Prophecy?. Do we tend to censor the more challenging material in our worship?

  • Of Rules and Fairness

    When I was in my early teens I remember playing a game (I can’t remember what) with a younger cousin. I was old enough that my idea of fairness was that you followed the rules and that was fair. It didn’t matter how many wins each person had. My younger cousin, after losing a few times, told me that I was not being fair. He should win as often as I did. I was obviously not wise enough to realize that fairness might also involve my being older than he was, and that perhaps I should have introduced a handicap. But he would have been satisfied with nothing other than an even number of wins and losses.

    I was reminded of that incident when I read this poll in which there is a substantial, and perhaps significant dip in Barack Obama’s popularity against John McCain in Florida. The article suggests that his stance on Florida delegates might just be to blame.

    I live in Florida, but I’m registered independent, so I don’t have a dog in that particular hunt. Nonetheless, it’s interesting to watch. Americans have very little tolerance for procedures and rules. Like my young cousin, they like fairness (evenness?) in the results. Our court system is more interested in procedure, in following the rules. Justice has to take a back seat. On first look, that tends to offend many people. But you should consider the opposite. Supposing that the rules could be set aside so that a particular judge’s idea of justice or fairness would prevail. What would happen then? We would certainly not have much fairness in the way different people were treated before different judges.

    This kind of attitude comes into play in the issue of Florida’s Democratic delegates. We have too basic arguments that clash. The first argument is that the rules were set, everyone knew them, and Florida didn’t follow those rules. I have great sympathy with that particular argument. The second, however, is not at all like the first. It says that everyone’s vote should be counted, that people have a right to be heard, and that the process has left Florida’s Democrats without a voice in their party’s convention.

    It is not coincidental, either, that the campaign that would benefit most from Florida’s delegates is advocating their inclusion, while the other campaign, well, not so much! It might be that one or the other campaign is arguing from principle, of course, but self interest is fairly obvious. Clinton is not arguing that the delegates should be seated. It’s funny that she and her staff didn’t make that argument in Iowa or New Hampshire, where it would not be well received. In fact, we don’t hear about seating those delegates until she has won both Michigan and Florida, and is behind in the delegate count.

    But there is a large constituency for that type of fairness argument. Government campaign financing involves it. Spending limits for campaigning, which I regard as egregious violations of free speech (in principle–the Supreme Court seems to think otherwise, and for some reason people listen to them instead of me, go figure!), are also based on the idea of the getting the fairest results. The better fundraiser is limited in the benefit he can get from his better fundraising. At the last election there were people prepared to roll out arguments on both sides if someone didn’t win the popular vote and yet won the electoral college. The electoral college is one of those procedure things. It doesn’t seem “fair” to many Americans.

    Of course, we could go back behind the rule that Florida violated, and ask whether that rule itself was fair. But for that we have to ask the same question. Are we concerned with whether it was properly proposed and passed, or whether it adheres to some other standard of fairness, such as “count all the votes.”

    I don’t think these issues are very easily resolved. Despite being a Florida resident, my own feeling is that the rule that Florida violated was a bad rule, but it was the rule nonetheless. Florida’s politicians would have done well to try to get it changed, but violating it was a bad idea. I wouldn’t seat the delegation. That’s my feeling, but I can think of many arguments against my own position.

    More importantly, I think that Americans need to learn more about procedure and process, and their importance in producing reasonable fairness and justice. They may not work all the time, but their absence would result in much less fairness. We may have little patience for procedure. We laud the person who cuts through the red tape and gets the job done. But sometimes those hoops we have to jump through have a purpose. Even if the system looks troubling, consider what might happen without it.

    Let’s reform the rules and procedures wherever they apply, but let’s not just bypass them in the interest of the moment’s notion of fairness.

  • On the Processes of Science

    Dr. Tony has an excellent post on the processes of science, discussing some words like “theory” and “fact” and also talking about how one goes about doing science. This is from a general perspective, not just from biology or evolutionary theory.

    One of my favorite books on Evolution, What Evolution Is by Ernst Mayr, seems to blur this point badly by using the terms “fact” and “theory” more in the popular sense. This makes trouble for all of us, I think, though obviously Mayr is a guiding scientific light:

    “. . . Eventually it was widely appreciated that the occurrence of evolution was supported by such an overwhelming amount of evidence that it could no longer be called a theory. Indeed, since it was as well supported by facts as was heliocentricity, evolution also had to be considered a fact, like heliocentricity. . . .” (p. 12)

    It’s troubling that a biologist of his stature uses that loose of definitions. Otherwise, his book is excellent, and I heartily recommend it. But I’m sticking with this: “Theories don’t grow up to be facts. They explain facts, and they grow up to be more firmly confirmed theories.”

    I like the practical way in which Dr. Tony explains the process. Besides the meaning of “theory” he addresses the “science is what happens in the lab” error common in creationist circles. They announce that evolution cannot be science, because not every aspect can be repeated in a laboratory. His presentation deals nicely with that.

  • Florida Adopts Compromise Science Standards

    The Florida Board of Education voted 4-3 today to add the words “scientific theory of” before the word evolution in the standards. It was my understanding that the phrase would be added also before every scientific theory in the standards if this was done, but I don’t yet know if that is the case.

    The fact that this is regarded as a compromise illustrates how little some know about the use of the word “theory” in a scientific context. The meaning should not be changed at all, but obviously some people think that evolution is weakened in this way, and presumably hope to introduce religious alternatives. But evolution is a theory, and “theory” in a scientific context refers to an explanation of a variety of observations, not to a “weak” fact.

    We will have to keep watch on Florida’s educational community to see that teaching is not weakened due to some perceived meaning in the word “theory.”

  • Tension Between Tradition and Innovation in John 4

    I have used John 4 in many ways, especially in discussing various methods of teaching. But something struck me more forcefully this morning than it has before–the tension between tradition and innovation. It is not that Jesus denies all tradition and favors innovation, which one could conclude based on the living water vs. well water contrast (4:10-14). It’s clear that is not the case when he says that salvation is “of the Jews” (v. 22).

    I think the author of John could hardly have built up the tension any better than setting this story beside Jacob’s well, yet the wall is in Samaritan territory. Both Samaritans and Jews claimed to be coming from the same traditional “well.” Notice also that while Jesus affirms the Jewish position as the source, he doesn’t support their continued position as sole possessors of current truth. He points to himself for that.

    In fact, in the Johannine community, I would say it is the Samaritans of this story who are playing the Jews who are opposed to the community. Since the Johannine community was probably Jewish, but Jews who had been recently forced out of the synagogue, you can see the interesting interplay. Salvation is from the Jews, but through Jesus comes the innovation–the living water that doesn’t fail. This parallels the “spiritual worship” in which the location (synagogue, temple, or other location) no longer matters. The Samaritans, who think they are the heirs, are really not, but have to come to Jesus (represented in the Johannine community) in order to get the living water and truly quench their thirst.

    On the other hand, there is encouragement for the community, who are to look back at those who have thrust them out, and consider them ready for harvest.

    I just have to add that I find John endlessly fascinating with its layers of meaning.

  • Christian Carnival #212 Posted

    . . . at The Evangelical Ecologist. Thanks to Don for hosting a fine carnival.

  • Another Reason to be Involved with your Children

    MSNBC.com reports on a study showing that internet predators aren’t behaving the way people assumed they behaved. Instead in many cases they’re picking up teens by openly looking for sex, and there are some teens who are willing to go along.

    How can you actually protect your children? Even though I came into the parenting game a bit late (I became a stepfather in my early 40s), let me make a suggestion: Teach your children good social behavior either on the internet or off, and then be involved with their lives, on the internet or off. Without your parental guidance, your children are not safe. Automatic parental control systems are helpful. Law enforcement is necessary and helpful. But the final line for protecting children and grandchildren is being involved. It takes time, it’s not necessarily easy. Children, especially teenagers may act like they resent it, but it’s the one and only way you have to protect them.

    Studies like this suggest the possibility that we may close the door on 5% of the problem (or try!), while leaving it open on the other 95%. Involvement means that whatever the danger, there is some adult experience and hopefully wisdom there to evaluate it. You can’t be there all the time and cover everything, but the more you are there the better.

  • Florida Citizens for Science Blog on Standards

    Brandon Haught has blogged much of the discussion on the Florida Citizens for Science Blog. My previous post is here. I doubt the standards opponents would have gone to such trouble over the word “theory” if they didn’t intend some underhanded tactics based on the popular definition as curriculum is developed and textbooks are chosen.