Vintage Theologians

I just ran into this wine Aquinas out of the Napa Valley and was lucky enough to be able to secure a case for cheap. I'm pretty sure this is the perfect wine for seminarians and theologians everywhere. Their website says of the wine that: "Aquinas Napa Valley is named for St. Thomas Aquinas {a·kwine·es}, a revolutionary scholar in the 13th century who used the laws of science to support his belief in the existence of the almighty. The same way St. Thomas intersected two, often opposing schools of thought, we hope to bring together two, separate schools of wine, Napa Valley appellation and everyday affordability."

Cheers!

Priest and King

I'm currently reading part 1 of Crispin Fletcher-Louis 2 part JSHJ article entitled "Jesus As The High Priestly Messiah". In it he explores some aspects of 2nd temple political aspirations and specifically how the priestly class played into those aspirations. Fletcher-Louis then lays out five available options for Jesus in relationship to these political and priestly aspirations.

1 Jesus looked to the return of the golden age of the Hasmonean rule where a new high priest would function also as a monarch. He himself would not have qualified for this position being a layman.

2 A second possibility is that Jesus believed the nation should be headed by a priest with no royal responsibilities and no king at his side. I’m not entirely sure how this is distinct from the monarchy option first presented. Fletcher-Louis doesn’t spend much time elaborating on what he means by the priest having “no royal responsibilities”, but he is explicit that this would not involve having a separate king at the Priests side. There doesn’t seem to be any evidence that Jesus ever entertained this possibility.

3 A 3rd option was that Jesus believed that the nation should be ruled by a king along side of, but subordinate to a high priest. If this is the case then Jesus would have looked to another to be the new royal high priest. That might be an early possibly for Jesus as he paired up with John the Baptist early on. If this was the case though, and the evidence is sparse, Jesus changed his mind after John was imprisoned or possibly even before. (Fletcher-Louis notes Mk 2.18-20 as evidence for this) This is important as Fletcher-Louis puts because it “indicates that Jesus consciously rejected one of the ‘messianic’ options open to him—diarchy” (171)

4 Jesus believed him self to be the royal messiah (Son of God), and there would be no need for a royal priesthood. Fletcher-Louis notes this is a common Christian reading of the Gospels and is thoroughly apolitical. Fletcher-Louis rejects this view because it would have made Jesus thoroughly unintelligible to the disciples, crowds, and authorities. Fletcher remarks that there “just wasn’t the widespread expectation for the royal messiah that this scenario assumes. The Sources agree that a high priesthood is to figure somewhere in the nation’s polity.” (172) Fletcher-Louis backs this statement up with a number of footnotes scattered throughout the article for those wishing to follow up.

5 The last option Fletcher-Louis presents is that Jesus believed he was “Israel’s royal messiah, and as such, he was also her true eschatological high priest.” (172) Fletcher-Louis emphasizes the point that this also wasn’t a widespread view, and there’s evidence that it was rejected by at least some. Josephus for example, is clear that torah prohibits it. Fletcher-Louis cites Genesis 1-3 and Psalm 110 as text from which Jesus could have drew from for this position. The later with its mention of Melchizedek is obviously more explicit in making this connection than the former, but there is evidence of both ideas floating all over the New Testament. Earlier in the article Fletcher-Louis had discussed the relationship between the high priest and Gen 1-3. The high priest was the new Adam, wearing Adam’s lost garments, and doing what Adam failed to do in the temple-as-restored Eden. There is a host of footnotes Fletcher-Louis provides for the last 3 points and Fletcher-Louis is careful to point out that it was the office that these items applied to and not the private individuals who occupied the office at various times. All of this has tantalizing implications for the new Adam language in Paul and the high priestly language of Hebrews. Sadly Fletcher-Louis doesn’t pursue the details of the Adamic description and its priestly and royal characteristics and instead leaves them hanging choosing to rather focus on Psalm 110.

On top of Genesis 1-3 and Psalm 110, I believe there is one other pertinent passage that Jesus could and did draw upon for his combination of the kingly and priestly offices. In Mark 2.23 – 28 (note the proximity to earlier mentioned Mk 2.18-20) Lk 6.1-11 Mt 12.1-14 Jesus, when questioned about his unlawful action on Sabbath responds by pointing out that David, when his companions were hungry entered into the house of god and took the consecrated bread, which was lawful only for the priests to eat. Here Jesus’ response points in much the same direction as Psalm 110 and Genesis. Jesus presents David as one who transcends the Priestly and Kingly offices. I see that as I look ahead to the 2nd part of Louis-Fletchers article he address this passage. I’ll end here and see if Louis-Fletcher adds anything to this discussion. He doesn’t seem to include it as a passage from which Jesus may have drawn from for his priestly-king self understanding, but in light of part two that conclusion may be premature. Perhaps he’ll take the passage in a different direction.

The Gay Samaritan?

Stanely Hauerwas impresses me more and more as I read bit and pieces of his writing. Often I'm not sure if I'm laughing more from what seems to be an utterly ridiculous statement, or being challenged more to rethink some of my paradigms in light of Hauerwas brilliant wit. Usually it's a combination of both. Hauerwas' title for an article "Why Gays (as a Group) Are Morally Superior to Christians (as a Group)" is one of those bits of his writing that at first made me roll my eyes chuckle and wonder what Dr. Hauerwas is possibly up to. The focus of the article from what I grasp is that military service is immoral and contrary to the Christian vocation to be the light of the world, and that by being excluded gays are more righteous that Christians who participate in the military. There's of course an absurdity about this claim, gays don't choose to be excluded from service and, if I understand the basic point of the article from the summaries I've read, this absurdity invites Hauerwas' punch line question, why aren't Christians then doing more to be excluded from service in the military. Shouldn't Christians by their very nature as radically radical (see my last post) be excluded from service in the military?

What struck me the most about this title was the way that it preyed upon tightly held assumptions, at least tightly held within most of the moderate wing and almost all of the right wing of the church to deliver a rhetorical kick to the teeth. The shear absurdity of suggesting that gays (as a group might mind you) might be more righteous than Christians (as a group) who support or are involved in the military is likely to bring a number from far right to their feet with lynch ropes in hand and cries of blasphemy. After thinking about this for a bit though I'm convinced that Hauerwas isn't as ingenious as I first thought when I got his punch line, rather he is merely imitating one of his teachers. Think about how absurd it must have been for Jesus to suggest that a Samaritan might be more righteous then the priest and Levite who kept torah. (Or did they?)

Radically Radical?

There has been much talk in the post 9/11 world about radicalism, both Christian and Islamic radicalism. These discussion are much needed and very welcome. They have the potential to burst open some of the ways in which modernity and post-modernity have put up a destructive wall between religion and politics. In some ways these talks are new, but in other ways the reality of these dialogues aren't new. Radicalism was in a number of way a regular part of life in the 1st century world of Jerusalem. In this context and in today context Jesus can be heard calling people to be radically radical. Tom Wright has captured this idea well with his term "doubly revolutionary". Jesus was calling his follower to be revolutionaries in a revolutionary way, by turning the other cheek, and going the extra mile, not rendering evil for evil. It's within this context that Jesus' statement about giving to Caesar what it is Caesar's and giving to God what is God's should be heard. With Jesus' somewhat cryptic answer he both avoids the trap that the Pharisees and Herodians throw before him and casts the question back on them. Where does your allegiance lie and what does it look like in practice to live that out? These are pressing questions for today, what does life as a Christian look like? What's an appropriate rendering to God and Caesar in today’s political climate? Can a Christian be a part of the military and participate in an unjust war? Or is participation excluded by Jesus' call to be radically radical?

Back to blogging, Off to Princeton, and Liteary Criticism

It’s been a while since I wrote my last blog. The last parts of January through March have been overwhelmingly busy months for me. On top of my normal 9-5 job I finished off my application for Princeton Seminary and worked on my syllabus for this upcoming quarter. Fantastic news though, I received an acceptance letter from Princeton just this last Saturday. So I will be attending Princeton Theological Seminary this upcoming fall! If anybody has loads of cash just lying around they might consider helping me figure out how I’m going to pay for it all by providing a nice donation to me. Don’t have loads of cash? If you know of any good scholarships please feel free to point me in their direction. In the mean time I’m about to start my spring quarter of teaching. The class I’m teaching is focused on interactive narratives and motion graphics. I plan on introducing students to some literary criticism and especially narrative criticism. Mark Goodacre over at NTGateway wrote an insightful article here on “The Passion of the Christ” that help cement in my mind the link between literary criticism and interactive media. Since I’m working on getting my notes together I’ll be posting on literary criticism in the next few weeks so long as my time doesn’t get swallowed by scholarship searches and application on top of school and work.

Literary and Narrative Criticism - Part 1

Before digging into some of the specific of narrative criticism I wanted to give a quick look at the history of literary criticism and how it has interweaved with Biblical studies. Most of what follows comes from the book I'm using to prep for class, Mark Allen Powell's "What is Narrative Criticism?" in the Guides to Biblical Scholarship Series by Fortress press. I highly recommend it. It's short and very succinct.

Literary criticism most broadly defined is the study and evaluation of a work of literature. It is seen as early as Aristotle in his book Poetics where he dealt with narrative and dramatic structure. Literary Criticism has been given increasing attention along side of, and even in place of historical and form criticism within the field of Biblical studies recently. The latter two forms of criticism Hans Frei argued in 1974, failed to take seriously the narrative structure of the Gospels. (1 Powell, Mark Allen “What Is Narrative Criticism?”) In 1969 William A. Beardslee suggested that literary approaches to the Bible were much needed in light of much of the historical criticism that had gone on recently before him. Many current scholars have taken this advice and pursued historical Jesus research with this additional tool. Dominic Crossan, and Robert Funk are two names that stick out for their work on the literary nature of the parables. Literary criticism is also a striking feature of New Testament heavy weight NT Wright’s Magnus Opus Christian Origins Series.

There are many different forms and levels of literary analysis. Freytag’s approach is an example of a relatively simple literary analysis. (2 Freytag Techniques of Dramas) Time and Plot are plotted along different axis with the three major elements of a story represented (Desis, or the rising action and complication, Peripeteia, the climax and crisis, and finally Denouncement, falling action and unwinding). A more complicated approach to analyzing a narrative could be seen in the structuralism of A.J. Greimas. Richard Hays’ work on the narrative structure of Paul’s letters employed Greimas method. Hays’ work has been deeply influential in the world of New Testament studies.

Different types of literary analysis can be categorized according to its focus. Expressive types of criticism are author centered and evaluate the sincerity and adequacy of a writer. Historical Criticisms would fall under the category of Expressive and Mimetic. Mimetic types of criticisms focus on the truth of a work of literature in relation to the outer world. Pragmatic and Objective approaches are what have grown in recent years with biblical studies. Pragmatic approaches focus on the reader and the effect a text has on a reader, rhetorical criticism and deconstruction are examples of pragmatic approaches. Objective approaches are text centered, analyzing content according to intrinsic criteria. Here structuralism and narrative criticism find their home.

Evans on the temple and the restoration of Isreal

I ran into a good quote by Craig A. Evans, who get bonus points in my mind for sharing the same first name as me, in his article "Jesus and the 'Cave of Robbers': Towards a Jewish Context for the Temple Action" available over at BiblicalStudies.org.uk Evan writes:

Here [Burton] Mack has put his finger on the classic problem that has confronted interpreters since scholarly life of Jesus research got underway: If Jesus was a teacher and miracle worker and no more, then how do we explain his arrest and crucifixion? But if Jesus was a revolutionary, and so got himself executed for acts of sedition, how do we explain the ancient and widespread portrait of him as a teacher and healer? It is the temple action that provides the vital historical link between Jesus the teacher and miracle worker, on the one hand, and Jesus the crucified criminal, on the other. Jesus’ miracles, teaching, and temple action, as will be shown in the second part of this paper, were all part of a coherent mission and ministry that make sense in and are to a great extent clarified by the Jewish context. His miracles and teaching were not simply acts of kindness and mercy, but were part of an agenda which had the restoration of Israel as its goal. The miracles and teaching anticipated the temple action, which formed Jesus’ final and climactic public teaching. The temple action was not a random, accidental event, but a deliberate and calculated demonstration.

The restoration of Israel as a major motif in Jesus' kingdom proclamation is a theme I hope to explore here more, time willing. It seems to me that when Jesus teachings and actions are put within this broader thought world it become much harder to separate the personal ethic from the national ethic in Jesus' teachings. This has serious consequences for how we today go about both our personal and corporate/national lives and suggests some ways that the church must engage the 'powers of the world' if we want to remain true to Jesus' Kingdom proclamation. It also raises some serious questions about the relation of the Old Testament to the New especially in light of Jesus teaching on non-violence.

Christology in Mark 2.5-12

Mark 2.5-12 is an interesting passage. Here Jesus pronounces forgiveness of sins, Mark then narrates the inner thoughts of the Scribes, “Who can forgive sins but God alone” (εἷς ὁ θεός possibly pointing to Deut 6.4) After this Jesus performs a healing miracle so that they might know that “the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive.” This passage certainly carries Christological implications, but it isn’t entirely clear from a casual reading what that implication is. I want to try and spell out some of what that implication is here.

In v. 2.5 It’s possible that Jesus’ pronouncement of forgiving of sins is a divine passive, so that τέκνον, ἀφίενταί σου αἱ ἁμαρτίαι would be understood as “Child, God has forgiven your sins.” This understanding though is not without problems. It would hardly justify the ensuing controversy in the way that it plays out between the scribes and Jesus. If it were the case the expectation would be that the Scribes response would revolve around authority. Jesus wasn’t a member of the priestly class and would not have been recognized as authorized to pronounce God’s forgiveness of sins. This brings me to one of the major points in question, does Mark, by narrating the thoughts of the Scribes in response to Jesus’ pronouncement of forgiveness, point readers towards identifying Jesus with the God of Israel? Robert Guelich in his commentary on Mark 1-8.20 (WBC) comments that “Jesus was not being accused of claiming to be God but of blaspheming against God by claiming to do what God alone could do” (pg 87) The function of the Scribes response then is to frame the narrative in terms of identity, only God can forgive sins, rather than in terms of authorization, the temple is one authorized to pronounce God’s forgiveness. This is significant in the way that the narrative proceeds.

In v. 9 Jesus ask a questions of the scribes which then functions to invest meaning to the miracle he is about to perform. He makes this explicit when he says, “I want you to know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins.” He then heals the paralytic man in order to demonstrate his authority to forgive. A significant questions rises out of this. How does the authority that Jesus demonstrates relate to the preceding narrative? If Jesus is now claiming that he has merely been authorized to proclaim God’s forgiveness, this would effectively kill the dramatic tension that Mark has set up by narrating the scribes’ thoughts. If on the other hand, Jesus is claiming authority to forgive, this calls for a reexamination of Jesus in light of the Scribes question. Who is able to forgive except God alone? If Mark’s readers agree with the Scribes that only God alone is able to forgive, and I would think that any good Jew of the time would agree with this, the only option is to then see Jesus in terms of what R. Bauckham has called a Christology of divine identity, Jesus must be intrinsically part of the one who the Jews would describe as the one God (εἷς ὁ θεός).

A further piece of evidence invites comment. In v. 2.6 Mark narrates that the Scribes were thinking “in their hearts.” He then narrates that Jesus knew immediately what they were thinking, Guelich notes that R. Pesch (Das Markusevangelium, HTKNT) thinks that this is an allusion to God as the knower of hearts in the OT [1 Sam 16.7; 1 Kgs 8.39; Ps 7.9 (LXX 10); Jer 11.20; Sir 42.18–20; cf. Acts 1.24; 15.8; Luke 16.15], if this is the case then case for identifying Jesus with God is strengthen and solidified. First off though, the question of whether Pesch is warranted in thinking that there is an allusion here is a necessary one? Can Jesus’ knowledge of what the scribes were thinking be attributed to any sort of divine insight on Jesus’ part? One the one hand Jesus would have been aware of the cultural understanding that God alone is able to forgive. By directly engaging this assumption Jesus could have easily anticipated the reaction of the Scribes, so some caution is warranted before attributing divine insight to Jesus in this case. However, Mark has narrated that the Scribes questioning was done in their hearts, he then states that immediately Jesus knew what they were thinking. The ‘immediately’ implies a much more specific link to Jesus’ knowledge than just a mere general understanding based on cultural assumptions. Pesch’s allusion then is at least possible if not likely given the way that Mark narrates the event.


A Christology of divine identity wouldn’t be unique to this one passage in Mark either. At the end of Mark 4.35-41, the disciples ask one another “Who is this? Even the wind and the waves obey him!” (TNIV) As a number of commentators have noted the preceding narrative alludes to a number of Old Testament passages. [Pss 89.9-10, 104.7, 107.25-29; Job 26.11-12, Jonah 1] If these verbal allusions are intentional on Mark’s part, then it is very likely that he is using the disciples’ question in v. 41 to help readers reflect on this aspect of his narrative and draw the conclusion that Jesus and Israel’s God, who is sovereign over all of creation, should be identified in some sense.