Category: Uncategorized

Yesterday I ranted about the church. Dave Black pulled some of the better material out of it and commented, so I posted it to The Jesus Paradigm so we’d have a link.

I also posted some notes on recent releases and some not-so-recent ones regarding the church on the Energion Publications news blog.

I blogged about publishing The River of Life a few days ago. Now Energion author and series editor Bob Cornwall has published a review of that book. I want to mention that when I talk about new releases on Monday on the Energion Publications news blog, I’ll be announcing another book, Reframing a Relevant Faith by Dr. Drew Smith, that will make a nice companion. At that time I will tell you who said of  this new book: “One of the best presentations of the progressive Christian vision I have read.”

My own work this weekend involves working on the release of a new novel, Molecricket, for our Eucatastrophe Press imprint. I’ll provide links and images on Monday.

 

 

I’m reading David L. Allen’s volume on Hebrews in the New American Commentary. I’m really enjoying his treatment so far, and this note is not a criticism of Dr. Allen particularly, but rather a concern about claims we make regarding the background of Bible books. By “introductory matters” I’m referring here to all those pesky little details: authorship, audience, destination, where was it written, what’s the main point, what’s the structure, and so forth.

Dr. Allen concludes that the probability is that Hebrews was written from Rome by Luke to a group of converted Jewish priests who lived in Antioch. Now note that he doesn’t skimp on letting us know the alternatives or the potential weaknesses in each of these positions. This is absolutely not a complaint about him in particular. But considering how little evidence we have to work with, how probable is it that he’s right on all those points? For that matter, how probable is it that any of the other folks who have written introductions to the book of Hebrews are right on all of their points?

So everyone who writes an introduction has a series of conclusions on points for which we have extremely little evidence, and then they make specific points about how to read the book based on those conclusions. For example, one might (and I think Dr. Allen does) form conclusions about the meaning of Hebrews 6 based on the idea that the main recipients were priests who converted to Judaism and fled persecution in Jerusalem and Judea, so now reside in Antioch. At this point, based on building probability on probability, what’s the probability that the conclusion is correct?

I would address just one of these points. I have read Hebrews many, many times. I have written a study guide, which awaits completion of a revision and release of its second edition. I do not find any argument in the book that could not be made by someone who had done a reasonably thorough study of the Pentateuch in the LXX (and other passages, but the Pentateuch is most important for this argument), and could not be understood by an audience basically familiar with the material. I don’t see anything there that would suggest that either author or reader would need to be a priest. Yes, there are concerns about priesthood, but people are concerned about priests as well. Further, if one concludes that Luke is the author, as Dr. Allen does, then it seems that he doesn’t see the need for a priest as the writer of the book. What indication is there that this is particularly intended for priests? I just don’t see it. Yes, I can see a non-priestly writer using arguments particularly adapted to priests if writing to priests, though I think the thorough knowledge necessary to such a task might be better attributed to the apostle Paul than to Luke.

My point again is not to attack Dr. Allen, who has written an excellent commentary. I particularly enjoyed his discussion of structure. But I do think that we all need to hold some of these conclusions that are based on speculations very loosely, and try to look for interpretations of the text that are not dependent on such detailed conclusions. I simply don’t see that we have enough text to work with.

Of course, in the case of the book of Hebrews, Luke stands out in the “other than Paul” category for at least having a significant body of literature to which one can compare the style of the book. So many proposals for the authorship of the book are based on such thin evidence that if one doesn’t look carefully, one might mistake it for none at all.

For non-thinness (though I’m not fully convinced), I’d like to recommend David Alan Black’s discussion The Authorship of Hebrews, which I publish.

Bob MacDonald sent me the following link: Growing Wheat. This provides some good background information on the parable. Remember, however, to consider the question in the light of all the passages and don’t be afraid to read more widely for context or for more parallels.

You can find information on the study here.

From my reading in Meditations on According to John (forthcoming next week) by Herold Weiss, pp. 91, 92:

… Jesus’ work was consummated when he was lifted up, on the third day, on the cross.

It is, therefore, somewhat disconcerting to read the promise Jesus makes to those who believe in him: “He who believes in me will also do the works that I do; and even greater works than these will he do, because I go to the Father” (14:12). The work of Jesus was to enact the sign of Jonah by living to do the will of God, something that Jonah had much difficulty in understanding and accepting. By contrast, Jesus understood and fully accepted the purpose of his life. He accomplished the work he was assigned. At the end he was able to truthfully say, “It is finished”. What greater work can be done by the one who believes in him? I don’t think the members of the Johannine community supposed that they would be performing miracles (dynamis) greater than those Jesus had performed. Rather, they saw themselves as witnesses to The Truth and understood that their hour would also come. At that time they would have to work out the sign that points to the work of the one glorified on the cross. Their food, that which sustained their lives, was their determination to transpose the words that Jesus had spoken to them into life-giving works. For them, his words were “spirit and life” (6:63) when incarnated into their lives. They were to give signs that called attention to the one who was in “the heart of the earth” for three days. In the lives of the faithful the connection of their works to their ultimate purpose in life must not be ambiguous.

Jesus lived performing signs that pointed to the time when he would finish his work. Therefore the life of the Christian must provide signs that advertise the source of strength and vision for those who live by faith. Signs and faith must remain closely bound in the lives of the disciples of the one who is THE SIGN that must be seen and believed.

As I’m sitting here on the porch at Dave Black’s place ther is one disappointment. I didnt come here earlier so that I could have met Becky Lynn.

I feel like I know her from correspondence and from her book. She had an enormous impact on so many lives over the years.

Might I commend to you her autobiography, which I published? It was the way I got to know her. I know she was a remarkable lady!

P.S. I originally scheduled this for Monday morning, but it somehow failed to post.

I have already been asked for my reaction a couple of times, and this conference was a great experience, so I definitely think it is worthwhile to reflect on it here a bit. For pictures, see posts by Dave Black and Thomas Hudgins.

First why did I attend the conference? This was recreation for me. I didn’t have a book table or anything! I just went to learn and enjoy. I do, however, think this sort of conference is important. There is controversy about the passage, including a strong consensus of current scholarship that the passage is not Johannine. Pastors need to make a decision about whether to preach the passage, and if they do so, about how to deal with the controversy. I’ll make my own comments on these issues at the end of the post.

The conference was well run, and unobtrusively emceed by David Alan Black. Dave’s assistant, Jacob Cerone, managed microphones during  Q/A times. There was a minimum of time during which people spoke without microphones. This is important in a conference.

I give the content an A+. The speakers were good. They had published some substantial work on this passage (John 7:53-8:11) and they had something to say. Persuasiveness was another matter.

The first speaker was John David Punch, who discussed internal evidence and why he believes the passage is authentically Johannine, but was intentionally removed from some manuscripts and their descendants.

He was followed by Tommy Wasserman, who looked at some of the transmission history. The next morning, Jennifer Knust followed up and contined the same topic. (For a more detailed discussion of the content, see the two referenced posts in my first paragraph.)

Chris Keith, whose blog I follow, provided an interesting challenge to the use of internal evidence in general, demonstrating how it could mislead. Finally, Dr.  Maurice Robinson presented evidence based both on his collation of manuscripts and on evidence of tight linkage with the rest of the gospel of John.

Let me start from the end. My training in New Testament textual criticism was limited to one course and one independent study as an undergraduate, so you can take this for what it’s worth.

Dr. Robinson was the most persuasive speaker. As evidence, I will point out that I walked into the conference rejecting the authenticity of the PA out of hand, and I am now persuaded that it is quite possible. This was entirely the result of Dr. Robinson’s presentation. While I appreciated Dr. Punch’s presentation, I did not find it convincing. It is only fair to note that I am prejudiced in favor of external evidence, though not overwhelmingly so.

While Dr.  Robinson also dealt with internal evidence, and did so effectively, I did not ultimately find that convincing. What he did accomplish was to provide a possible, though not in my view probable, scenario for the removal of the PA from all Alexandrian manuscripts.

His telling point, however, was simply that this is a reading that is supported by both western and Byzantine texts, with only the Alexandrians in opposition. A principle of textual criticism which I learned way back in those classes I took was that older evidence (not necessarily older manuscripts) and more geographically widespread evidence is better.

So why don’t I change my position completely?

First, I find the scenarios both for intentional deletion and for interpolation approximately equally possible, i.e., possible but not probable. An entire story going missing from a family of manuscripts seems odd to me, despite the explanation that it was omitted beacause it is skipped in the lectionary reading for Pentecost.

This story is omitted from an extraordinary number of good manuscripts, some of which show signs of careful copying. I just don’t see that as probable. One of these explanations, or something similar,  must be true, but which or what?

So under the circumstances I find myself moved into a largely undecided camp,  though still, possibly through mental inertia, tending to consider the passage non-Johannine.

So what about preaching it? I would do so without hesitation. I would present the controversy briefly, because it exists, but I would try to keep from making the controversy central.

There are two reasons for this. 1) It’s canonical. It is part of the text as accepted by the church. I do believe inspiration must come before authority as Scripture, but inspiration and authority are not the same thing. Canonization involves the church recognizing the inspiration and the (perhaps inherent) authority of the text. I don’t believe the author must be John for it to be inspired and/or authoritative. It can be both even if God chose another hand to provide it.

Secondly, I do regard it as an authentic story of Jesus. This provides it’s own authenticity. If we can ask and answer the question of authenticity for any pericope of the New Testament, I believe we can do so for this one. I believe that answer would be “yes.” Even so, for authority in the church it would have to be accepted as canonical. (But it was! See #1!)

What was most worthwhile to me was the interaction of the scholars and the methodology involved. That was worth the cost of the conference in itself. I didn’t discuss “persuasiveness” in the case of Drs. Wasserman and Knuth. They provided excellent presentations, but while they interested me in a number of ways, they did nothing to change my thinking. Dr. Keith was quite convincing, but in a sense he did as much damage to his own position as to the other side, leaving us to ponder how the external evidence would look with any internal evaluations rendered impotent.

How the external evidence stacks up depends on a number of technical questions, including the weight one gives to Latin witnesses in the western tradition, what credence can be given to Codex Bezae,  and how much one favors Alexandrian witnwsses over others. Without further study, which I’m unlikely to do given that this is not my field, I’m not prepared to judge that. I will say that with support from two families of manuscripts, originality should not be dismissed automatically.