Writing the big paper on women and ministry…
My final hurrah for David Scholer’s class is a 15-20 page paper outlining my thoughts coming out of the class. I figure it’d be a good thing to do some pieces of it on this blog to get me going. It’s supposed to be a very personal wrestling match with the texts and personal experiences. Here’s the assignment:
Write a position paper (15-20 pages, including notes) on the role and status of Women in the New Testament and in the church today. It is assumed that this paper is based on class lectures and discussions, the New Testament (and Old Testament as appropriate), all required texts (especially those of Belleville, Doriani, Mickelsen, Pierce/Groothuis and Scholer) and any other reading and experience of the student. The paper should make frequent and appropriate mention of relevent biblical texts and clearly reflect use of the required reading. Due: December 6 before 5:00 p.m. to David M. Scholer’s office; 50% of the course grade.
In our class, Dr. Scholer emphasized that the issue of women in the ministry comes down to an hermeneutical approach. The complementarians (or traditionalists) hinge their argument on 1 Tim 2, while the egalitarians (or evangelical feminists) place Gal 3:28 in the place of hermeneutical honor. Complementarians see 1 Tim 2 as a clear text and therefore worthy of guiding the discussion. From their point of view, there is no arguing with the fact that Paul says, “I permit no woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she is to keep silent” (2:12). Some feminists would agree that this text is clear; that is, the text is clearly oppressive to women and therefore is unacceptable. Evangelical egalitarians such as Dr. Scholer, on the other hand, feel that no biblical text can simply be thrown out of the canon and instead suggest that this text has a different primary meaning. Scholer does not call it an easy text, but he does point out some tricky points for the complementarians argument (which I’ll get to in another post). Gal 3:28, which proclaims that there is “no longer . . . male and female,” is seen by egalitarians as a principial text, one that announces a clear (gospel) principle that colors the whole conversation. It is the ideal of the new creation. The reason we have difficult New Testament texts on this issue at all is an indication that Paul and other NT authors had one foot in the new creation and one foot in the old. They lived with the ideals of the gospel liberty within them, but existed within a patriarchal and androcentric culture.
Interestingly, Christina (my wife) and I have been watching Shakespeare in Love one bit at a time. [PLOT SPOILER] We’ve just watched the point when Viola has shockingly appeared on stage as Juliet in an era when only men played women and women would never be seen on stage. In fact, Mr. Tilney attempts to shut down the play and arrest the players for the very reason that a woman was among the actors. But this is only after Viola has given a stirring, beautiful performance as Juliet and the crowd is awestruck by the wonder of the play. Queen Elizabeth prevents the arrests by insisting that Viola is in fact Master Thomas Kent, a man, and thus no violations occurred. Elizabeth says: “Yes, the illusion is remarkable and your error, Mr. Tilney, is easily forgiven, but I know something of a woman in a man’s profession, yes, by God, I do know about that.” In this play, the people have seen that the woman player has done a magnificent job of filling in for a man, but it must be done with a wink and a nod. The tides of culture cannot be changed in an instant, even if the ability of women has just been proven.
Christians who view women’s roles in traditional ways must deny women’s pastoral/leadership abilities exist, find an alternate explanation for them, or grant they exist but only for certain (limited) roles. For example, when lauding the great strength of Perpetua, the 2nd-3rd century woman martyr, Augustine of Hippo wonders how Perpetua, a woman, could do such great things? He concludes that she was a woman on the outside, but a man on the inside (Scholer, class lecture 11/29/2006). As a matter of fact, Perpetua envisions herself as a man when she dreams of taking on Satan in the arena (“My clothes were stripped off, and suddenly I was a man,” Passio Perpetuae et Felicitatis , 10:7). It calls to memory the last verse of the gnostic text, The Gospel of Thomas, “Simon Peter said to them, ‘Make Mary leave us, for females don’t deserve life.’ Jesus said, ‘Look, I will guide her to make her male, so that she too may become a living spirit resembling you males. For every female who makes herself male will enter the kingdom of Heaven’” (114). The assumption was that women did not have the same abilities or virtues as men. The explanation for the appearance of those abilities and virtues: these particular women (the exceptions to the rule) have transcended their femaleness and have attained inner maleness.
It would be a rare complementarian these days that would argue, publicly at least, that women truly are not capable of doing the same things as men. Instead, the primary arguments are made theologically and biblically. Only men can be senior pastors, for example, because that’s the way that God made humanity, that’s what it says in the Bible. Are there women that are capable of doing it? Sure. But that is not the way it is supposed to be, they would say. This is why the conversation, if there is to be one, must take place on biblical grounds. If we toss aside the Bible, we make our arguments irrelevant to Bible-believing Christians. If we are Bible-believing (and Bible-following) Christians, we must wrestle with even the most difficult texts. There must be no proof text mudslinging here.
Dave's Top Ten Reasons Why Men Should Not Be Ordained
So I’m in the thick of end-of-the-quarter work and I have one more reflection on SBL in the works, but David Scholer handed out this top ten list in class yesterday and I just have to share it:
Dave’s Top Ten Reasons Why Men Should Not Be Ordained
10. A man’s place is in the army.
9. For men who have children, their duties might distract them from the responsibility of being a parent
8. Their physical build indicates that men are more suited to tasks such as chopping down trees and wrestling mountain lions. It would be “unnatural” for them to do other forms of work.
7. Man was created before woman, obviously as a prototype. Thus, they represent an experiment, rather than the crowning achievement of creation.
6. Men are too emotional to be priests or pastors. Their conduct at football games and cricket matches shows this.
5. Some men are handsome; they will distract the women worshipers.
4. To be an ordained pastor is to nurture the congregation. But this is not a traditional male role. Rather, throughout history, women have been considered to be not only more skilled than men at nurturing, but also more fervently attracted to it. This makes them the obvious choice for ordination.
3. Men are overly prone to violence. No really manly man wants to settle disputes otherwise than by fighting about it. Thus, they would be poor role models, as well as being dangerously unstable in positions of leadership.
2. Men can still be involved in church activities, even without being ordained. They can sweep paths, repair the church roof and maybe even lead the singing on Father’s Day. By confining themselves to such traditional male roles, they can still be vitally important to the life of the church.
1. In the New Testament account, the person who betrayed Jesus was a man. Thus, his lack of faith and ensuing punishment stands as a symbol of the subordinated position that all men should take.
This was presented by David M. Scholer on February 20, 1998, at the Fuller Follies [at Fuller Theological Seminary, Pasadena, CA]. It was taken, with small modifications, from a November 24, 1997 internet communication from W. Ward and Laurel Gasque [it is not known whether they are the authors].
SBL 3: “Where do you want to study?”
When I told them that I am an MDiv student hoping to do a NT PhD, this was the inevitable question that arose from scholars I met at the conference. Of course, there are a bunch of schools that would be wonderful to attend and a plethora of exciting scholars under whom I’d love to study. But the real answer is: wherever I can get in. Good stats (GPA and GRE) only get you past the first round of elimination, then good recommendations make a considerable difference. After that filter, so I’m told, admissions committees assess your letter of intent. They may not even look at your writing sample unless there is a close call between you and another applicant. [If anybody has different information about these things, please share!] [Update (9/19/07): I just would like to make clear that "wherever" is strongly qualified by being within a select group of programs that I feel will be a good fit for me, and that will find me to be a good fit for them]
On Monday afternoon, I got a picture of North American graduate programs from a kind of behind-the-scenes perspective. I attended the 4-hour session entitled, “Graduate Biblical Studies: Ethos and Discipline.” Representatives from 10 different programs shared on the details of their curriculum and the ethos of their program. The idea was to get the discussion going between the graduate programs and see how things should be affirmed or transformed. Some representatives were quite honest about the situation within their schools.
The schools (and their reps) were: Catholic University of America (Timothy Friedrichsen & Frank Matera), Dallas Theological Seminary (D. Jeffrey Bingham), Drew University (Melanie Johnson-Debaufre), Duke University (Eric Meyers), Emory University (Michael Joseph Brown), Fuller Theological Seminary (Donald Hagner), Princeton Theological Seminary (Jacqueline Lapsley), Union Theological Seminary (Brigitte Kahl & Hal Taussig), Vanderbilt University (Douglas Knight), Yale University (Adela Collins).
Here are some thoughts and things that stood out to me (but my disclaimer is that these are things as I heard them, I might be misrepresenting the facts):
- Drew University’s most recent admission roster of graduate students was (“proudly”) 100% international and/or underrepresented minority. I had been interested in Drew University, but now I wonder: Can a North American white male make it in? I know three profs who taught or teach at Messiah who went to Drew (all in OT) and they are all white men. [Clarification: Don't get me wrong. I think it is great that there is a place so welcoming to underrepresented minorities in a largely white-male academia. But my conflicting emotion is my own desire to enter academia as a white male. I want minorities empowered, but I (naturally) don't want doors closed for me because of my own race and gender. So it goes.]
- Universities have more funding than independent seminaries like Fuller and Dallas. I know from personal stories that Fullerites have a hard time making the bills (especially in SoCal), so are distracted from their studies. It sounded like Yale and Emory had significant stipends available to students. Emory has an added bonus for minorities. At PTS, the TA income is in addition to the stipend received.
- Emory and Yale (at least) admit a pool of the best applicants into the entire religious studies division and then divide them up by area of interest. That means that I wouldn’t just be competing against New Testament folks, but also theology, Christian history, Hebrew Bible, etc.
- PTS emphasizes biblical theology and interdisciplinary studies at the university, Penn, and other schools are encouraged. Vanderbilt has a nonconfessional approach to the Bible and offers no courses on theology of biblical texts. Union and Drew emphasize nontraditional social-reading approaches to the Bible (the program at Drew enables students to “drive around in the complex three-dimensional map in time and space” that is biblical studies). Yale emphasizes the “text of the canon,” but does not neglect the historical context. Dallas students must agree with the school’s doctrinal positions and research cannot “offend” their doctrinal base.
- It seems like the schools with the biggest emphasis on foundational linguistic tools (like advanced ancient Greek and Aramaic) are Catholic University of America, Princeton, Yale and Vanderbilt.
- Duke’s NT program is a bit of a maverick compared to the other Duke programs. They do not require an external minor (like the other programs) and there are less language requirements in the divinity school exegetical classes as compared to the Religion Dept. exegetical classes. There is sometimes conflict in balancing the perspectives of the confessional students in the Divinity School and the nonconfessional students in the Religion Dept.
As an added bonus, I met a biblical scholar from Eastern Mennonite Seminary yesterday and she recommended Union Theological Seminary in Virginia to me. I will have to take a look into who is there and how their program is set up. People say to focus on potential mentors rather than the prestige of schools, but I’ve also been told to make sure the school’s program is something I want in case the mentor leaves the school or is unable to remain in the supervisory role (Duke admits that this has happened a number of times). Of course, there are always other factors: the size of the preferred advisor’s current plate, the perception of Fuller Seminary and Messiah College, etc. So the search continues and the answer remains: [among the "good fit" programs,] wherever I can get in.
SBL 2: (Un)Important Interactions?
I am generally having a good time at SBL thus far. I am certainly not one of those people who has dreams of biblical or religious academia, goes to one conference, and calls it quits because of a horrible time. Well, at least not yet. I still have a few days to go. My personal favorite presentations have been two done by Richard Hays, who is ever the skilled communicator. I also got to have dinner with my former prof and college mentor and some of his friends last night, then a good Quiznos lunch with a fellow PMCer (Pasadena Mennonite Church, that is . . . we’ve got a bunch of people here). I wanted to highlight two interactions, though, as an interesting moment of the day. One that made me feel about as significant as a gnat, another that boosted me up quite a bit.
I was perusing the grand book exhibition, looking for super deals, when the first incident happened. I found a book that is on my list of “priority books” that I made for the conference and it was a third the price. I had picked it up and was looking for the place to purchase it, when one of the women working there said (in a tone befitting a scolding parent slapping the wrist of a child with a hand in the cookie jar):
“Oh, we’re not selling the last copy.”
Me (feeling scolded): “Oh. I’m sorry, I didn’t realize it was the last one” (nor did I realize they weren’t selling the last one as there was no sign indicating such). She handed me the catalog where you can order it for 20% (whoop-dee-doo, I can get it for less on Amazon).
Me: “Will you be selling it on the last day?”
Her (hesitantly): “Yes . . . but it’s first come first serve” (meaning: I don’t think you’re going to be the first served.)
As I placed it back, she said (as if with hope for some alternate means of discount . . . i.e. a free review copy?): “Do you teach?” Alas, she had found my weakness. “No.” “You’re a student?” “Yes.” “Yeah, you look too young to be a teacher . . . [pause] I hope that’s not offensive to say.” Me (feeling belittled and, yes, offended): “No.” And I walked off.
But then, I turned the corner and saw my adviser from Messiah, Mike Cosby. He was on his way to a meeting with an editor, but he stopped and said hi. Then, he said (in a laudatory fashion): “You look very professional.” “Thanks!” There wasn’t much else said and I hope I get to see him again during the conference, but it was just the medicine I needed to get over the unfortunate incident with the no-last-book lady. I should note that I understand why they weren’t selling the last book, it was just the way she handled me as an unimportant customer that was bothersome.
I’ve got more to check out this afternoon and evening. It looks like it’s going to shake out into a good evening.
Update (11/21/2006): Two things:
- I went to the booth for the book in which I was interested to see if I could indeed be the first one to grab it and, lo and behold, it had been “reserved” with a scholar’s business card. Interesting that they extended the privilege to “reserve” a book to someone other than myself. I am still a peon.
- The next day, I found Mike Cosby after going down to the exhibition hall for the express purpose of finding him again. We had a great little 5-10 minute catch-up conversation.
Reading justice into the Bible?
[This is an email that I sent to a friend this past week during a discussion about our congregation, Pasadena Mennonite Church. I had raised concerns about a possible overemphasis in social justice issues in the Bible reading of our church's membership. My friend (correctly) challenged me on generalizing about the congregation being too justice-oriented, suggesting that it is a good counter to all the congregations that ignore (or are antagonistic to) those issues. My response turned out to be, I think, a good articulation of many things I've been thinking in the past few years regarding Bible reading and relates to the title of this blog (what it means to live "according to the book"). I've taken all identifiers out of the text, so as not to incriminate my friend!]
Dear Friend,
Thanks so much for your comments. I can resonate with so much of what you say. I think you are right to point to my overstatement of the situation. I’m sorry if I’ve mentioned my concerns several times, I didn’t realize I was as outspoken about it as you say. But I don’t doubt it’s true. You’re also right that I am oversaturated with social justice issues. It has a lot to do with my own journey. I tend to get uncomfortable with things when one aspect of faith is emphasized over another, be it spirituality or social justice/peace concerns. Towards the end of college I started to get really into social justice concerns. And I went gung ho down that road to the detriment of other aspects of my faith.
I have to tell you a story that I think of all the time when it comes to this topic. During one of our Bible studies in our small group from PA several years ago, I got into a heated debate with my friend Chris. We got to talking about what was the most important part of serving a person in need, giving bread to the hungry, for example. Chris made a comment that what matters most is not the act of service itself, but your willingness to follow God in discipleship. I argued that God ultimately wants the hungry person to be fed and that the most important part of the action was that the hungry person no longer be hungry (we grossly oversimplified the problem of world hunger for the sake of the argument).
Although neither of us were saying the other part was unimportant, Chris thought that I was calling him selfish and I felt he thought I wasn’t being spiritual enough about it. We went back and forth in a very tense-filled room until one of our friends made the astute observation that Chris is in a place of spiritual revival right now and I am trying more and more to discover what it means to be a Christian with social justice concerns. You two are just emphasizing what is important to you in your journey right now, our friend observed. Chris and I prayed for one another and hugged afterwards, but I always remember that debate. Nowadays I go back and forth on it within myself. I tend to think that both are equally important, but the question makes me feel very uncomfortable (in a good way).
So I will certainly admit that my frustration comes more from my own walk than from the true makeup of PMC. I know that there are wonderful people who love the Bible and have very deep spiritual lives, which shows in the way they attend to others around them. I find great comfort from these people (because I’m not one of them! My spiritual life could use much more depth).
I do understand your concern to be a loud voice for social issues in order to swing the pendulum of the larger church more towards peace and justice. I think I agree with the idea. What concerns me is the way we (or any Christian) approach(es) the Bible. When I read the Bible, am I looking for something in particular? Be it justice or peace or Spirit-baptism or predestination or health-and-wealth-gospel, I think it is wrong for me to only read the Bible looking for the things that will comfort me in my view of faith and the world. I don’t want the Bible to be used like the U.S. Constitution for Democrats and Republicans, picking out the parts they like (their proof texts) and throwing them at the other side. I’m not saying that people at PMC do this, but I think the danger is there for all Christians and I think we should be aware of it. Our church is a solid peace and justice church, we will more likely look for peace and justice when we read the Bible. It’s natural.
But I think that we should allow everything to be challenged when we read the Bible (and when we pray, for that matter). One of the verses that really challenges me on this is Hebrews 4:12: “Indeed, the word of God is living and active, sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing until it divides soul from spirit, joints from marrow; it is able to judge the thoughts and intentions of the heart.” I knew a lot of fellow Evangelical youths when I was in high school who called the Bible their “sword” as if it were a weapon against the big ol’ nasty world, when really that sword is pointed at us…. me. One of my profs claims that no Christians actually change their minds by reading the Bible, they just reinforce what they already believe and explain away things that they don’t like. I’d like to prove her wrong.
I am completely on your side when it comes to trying to get more people motivated towards action. I am disturbed that we do not put our money where our mouths are (at least not all of us). One of the reasons that I think it could be more talk than action is because our faith is not holistic enough. In our ethics class, Erin emphasized the importance of “character ethics,” which basically refers to the idea that what we do stems from our character. If we are spiritually-shaped disciples of Jesus, we will be prepared to do things that seem impractical by worldly standards, but serve God’s concerns in the world. It gets back to that whole debate I had with Chris. We need to be disciples, both inwardly and outwardly. If we are nourished by Scripture and the movements of the Holy Spirit, I believe we will be spurred towards action and not just words. This is a challenge to myself more than anybody else.
So I’m saying that I agree with you about our emphasis as a congregation, but I think we need to be careful we don’t bring our emphasis into our reading of Scripture and our prayer lest we miss God’s attempt to mold us from the inside out.
I really should be packing instead of writing this, but I am enjoying this discussion with you. It’s helping me to articulate myself more carefully. I hope that I won’t be as careless with generalizations in the future.
Peace,
Pat
First Day at SBL
What a blessed time. I got into DC last night at about 9pm and, since we had similar flight schedules, traveled with Chris Spinks to our hotel. My first steps out into the brisk, cold air were a beautiful welcome back to the East Coast, which feels so much more like home. After checking in, Chris and I went out to a place called “Dakota Cowgirl,” which apparently is a place where same-sex male couples go for food and drinks before or after hitting the gay club upstairs. So I guess Chris and I could have seemed like a gay couple, while our waitress called us each “baby” a few dozen too many times, but I had a good cup of chili.
This morning I went with Rob Muthiah over to the session for Mennonite Scholars and Friends, with a presentation from Daniel Boyarin responding to J. H. Yoder’s ideas of the Jewish-Christian schism. It was a great presentation with excellent responses. Afterwards, I greeted my former pastor (and now Goshen College president) Jim Brenneman and several other fellow Anabaptists from Pasadena Mennonite Church.
We walked over to the Convention Center and I picked up my tote bag and name tag holder and took awhile to try to find a place to eat in the Convention Center. We ended up eating at the “Café” behind the publisher exhibit, where I paid $10 for a salad, an orange, 10 oz. of OJ, and a sugar cookie. I’m going to stay away from the Café in the future. In the meantime, though, I ran into several Messiah profs (John Yeatts, Reta Finger, Susie Stanley, the Jacobsens, and Brian Smith [though, that was intentional]). It makes me wonder if I’ll run into any fellow Messiah alums. I surveyed the vast offerings of books and made a couple bargain purchases and generally had a grand old time.
Fantastic resource on women and ministry
For our “Women, the Bible, and the Church” course, Dr. David Scholer has a fantastic resource in a collection of many of his essays on the issue of women and ministry. If you’re interested in the issue, I’m not sure there is a better book covering the significant biblical texts along with some of the history and contemporary issues. Even though it’s not published widely, it is available if you go through the Fuller Seminary Bookstore and search for “Scholer” under author. The work is entitled “Selected Articles on Hermeneutics and Women and Ministry in the New Testament” (a mouthful) and the current ISBN is “0000599719″ (although I imagine that might change as new editions get printed for future classes at Fuller). My version is the fifteenth printing from December 2005. In its introduction, Dr. Scholer says:
This is a collection of twenty-one articles of mine, two on hermeneutics in general (Chapters 1-2), one on early church organization and governance (Chapter 3), sixteen on women in the New Testament (Chapters 4-18), one on women in early church history (Chapter 19), and two on the NIV inclusive language controversy (Chapters 20-21). The articles included here are those I deem most helpful out of my writings for my teaching and lecturing on women and ministry in the New Testament. I regret the fact that I have no articles here on the two crucial texts in 1 Corinthians (11.2-16; 14:34-35); I hope to remedy this in the not-too-distant future.All of these articles were previously published except for Chapter 14 ["Euodia and Synthyche: Bishops at Philippi?"]. The original publication date is given at the beginning of each chapter and is also found in the list of my publications on women in the New Testament (pages 1-6). Permission has been obtained in every case for reproduction of these articles in this form for use in my teaching.
I hope that this collection makes it into a bona fide published book by a major publisher because it is a phenomenal resource. One more recent article that is a general overview of Dr. Scholer’s history with the issue from the last fifty years was published in Christian Feminism Today, formerly known as the EEWC Update: “My Fifty Year Journey with Women and Ministry in the New Testament and in the Church Today.” That gives you a sense of why a man, this man in particular, is teaching a class on “Women, the Bible, and the Church.” If you’re interested in more of his personal story, you can read it in the LA Times story that was done on his battle with cancer: “Living With Cancer, a Scholar Inspires Students” (reproduced on Fuller Seminary’s website).
Thinking about the "ugh" and the "mmm"
Since the annual meeting for the Society of Biblical Literature (SBL) is coming up later this month, and it’s my first run-in with the bigwig conference, it may be a good time for me to think about what I am interested in pursuing as a potential scholar. What captures my attention, passions, and interests in the field of biblical studies? I’m still trying to figure this out myself, so I’m just going to do a list format here. And maybe I should start with what I don’t want to do, since that’s easier to know.
Things that make me go “ugh…”:
- Highly speculative historical reconstruction of events: What is the dating for Paul’s various letters to the Corinthian churches? Did the exodus really happen and, if so, when? What were the origins of the Dead Sea Scrolls community and who was the “Wicked Priest”? It’s not that I don’t appreciate the work that others do in trying to figure these things out, but it’s just not my bag, baby. These actually are pretty tame as far as speculation goes. Generally, the more speculative it is, the more abhorrent I find it.
- Source and redaction criticism: Did one definitive “Q” source exist (that is, a source used by both Matthew and Luke) and of what did it consist? What parts of the Pentateuch were written by the J, E, D, and P sources? Again, not bad work, but not for me.
- Highly philosophical interpretive methods: Highfalutin language and incomprensible systems and grids is a major turn off. I do like a bit of poststructuralism in moderation, but for me, it can sometimes skate the edge of boredom.
- Historically disconnected and overly postmodern “reader-response” criticism: Boy if that doesn’t show my bias, eh? I don’t like history to reign supreme in hermeneutics, but I also don’t think that each individual reader is the be all and end all of the interpretative endeavor.
- Solely ideological criticism: I am a feminist and at times I like to dance with… (no, not with the devil in the pale moonlight)… liberation theology. I think that it goes over-the-top, however, when it is an undergirding hermeneutical method. I appreciate the work that some feminists and liberationists are doing to ask the difficult questions, but I worry about losing historical perspective . . . similar to my concerns about reader-response criticism.
Things that make me go “mmm…”:
- Jesus: This is a little complicated. I’m not into a ton of speculation about the “historical Jesus,” but I don’t mind it as much as other speculative issues. I’m more intrigued by how Jesus is remembered by the New Testament documents and what that means for the history of the church and for Jesus followers today. But I do enjoy thinking about Jesus’ historical and cultural context. This is the purpose for historical research for me: not figuring out exactly how things happened, but pondering the significance of the surrounding culture (especially early Jewish culture).
- Anabaptist hermeneutics: What does critical New Testament scholarship mean when interpreted through the lens of a radical lived-out faith community? For example, what do we do with the early chapters of Acts and the Sermon on the Mount?
- Intertexuality: What is the relationship between various texts? As far as specific textual relationships go, having taken VanderKam’s course on early Judaism, I’m particularly interested in Second Temple Judaism. I’m also interested in texts that have no direct link (that we know of) and yet still share similar language and themes.
- Narrative or literary criticism: I like looking at the final form of the text in Scripture and wondering what it means, rather than contemplating what its source was and how it came to be… blah, blah, blah.
- Canonical criticism: What is the relationship of this text within the larger canon and what might it have meant to the community which pulled it together? I like the emphasis on community here. Inspired community formed the canon and hopefully an inspired community interprets it. My former pastor and newly inaugurated Goshen College president, Jim Brenneman (who studied with James Sanders) has dragged me a little closer to canonical issues.
- Apocalyptic literature: The last year or so of seminary life has really hit home the idea that apocalyptic literature was not an escape from present requirements but a motivation to “stay the course,” as it were. I’ve fallen in love with Matthew 25 and I think I could do a dissertation just on that text!
- Second Temple Jewish literature: I mentioned this above, but I think it deserves its own bullet point. I really enjoy reading about Jewish ideas around the time of Jesus and the early church. I can see myself getting into rabbinic literature at some point, but I’m not there yet.
- Some text criticism: Though you might think it too laborious for one such as myself, I nevertheless do enjoy doing some nitty gritty textual research. I really like some of the things I’ve read from Bart Ehrman (even though we don’t hang our hat on the same theological presuppositions).
In sum, I am not enthused by a lot of historical speculation, but don’t like total historical apathy. In that way, I would hope for some balance between the extremes. Most of my “mmm” category entails thinking about interpretation. Historical context is good only in service to our reading of the biblical text, not the other way around. At least that’s my way of looking at it. At the end of the day, the most important question to me is: what do we do with the words and narratives of Scripture?
To be perfectly honest, though, what really excites me is working through issues with other people. My eyes are more towards teaching, communicating, and discussing difficult things about biblical interpretation than it is making a name for myself on the details of lonely scholarly work. But you have to go through the latter to get to the goal of the former. And it’s not that I’m terribly adverse to
the academic minutia, that just isn’t my focus. Some of it is more interesting than other parts, but I don’t want to get lost in the abyss of research while forgetting the joy of the community.
[By the way, the pictured teacher is Brian Smith at Messiah College (my esteemed alma mater). Brian is hands-down and without-a-doubt the most significant inspiration that I have in becoming a teacher of biblical studies. He's an OT guy, but that's okay. Some of us need to take a look at the introduction to the New Testament 
KIDDING! Anyway, he's the best teacher I've ever had and I want to be like him.]
VanderKam on Qumran and the Early Church
During my class with James VanderKam this past Summer, “Introduction to Early Judaism,” I was reading the Rule of the Community (1QS) from the Dead Sea Scrolls (DSS) and the concept of communal sharing of goods struck me. There seemed to be an interesting parallel with Qumran (if that’s truly where the DSS were written) and the Jesus-following community in the early chapters of Acts. I asked Dr. VanderKam if any scholars had examined the relationship. He informed me of some other interesting links, not least of which is the fact that they both admitted new members to the community at the culmination of the Festival of Weeks (AKA Pentecost) and pointed me to two brief suggestions that he had made in print, which are more teasers for further research than actual studies but it seems appropriate to share them here. As an Anabaptist, thinking about connections and contrasts between the Qumran community and the radical community of the early church sounds like something worth exploring!
From his chapter, “Sinai Revisited,” for Biblical Interpretation at Qumran (2005), edited by Matthias Henze (Studies in the Dead Sea Scrolls and Related Literature):
Before concluding, we should note that the Qumran community was not the only one in ancient Judaism that allowed its self-image to be shaped by Israel at Mount Sinai. In the New Testament the earliest Jerusalem church, as pictured in Acts exhibits a number of the same traits. That community was constituted in a new way at the Festival of Pentecost, the Greek term for the Festival of Weeks. On that day many new members were welcomed into the fellowship. Those first followers of Jesus also established a unity, an ideal society in which property was held in common, meals were eaten together, and prayers were offered in community. It too was a community that received revelation in this state in a dramatic divine manifestation. As a matter of fact, an entire series of traits in the Pentecost story (such as the tongues of fire, revelation in the languages of the world) also have their origin in reflection on the Sinai event, an event that was central in the Hebrew Bible and continued to exercise influence for many centuries. (pg. 60)
In addition, this following quote is from his essay, “Covenant and Pentecost,” which appeared in Calvin Theological Journal (Volume 37.2, Nov 2002, 239-254):
Another aspect of the story in Acts 2–the nature of the community formed by the first Christians–may also be paralleled by Jewish understandings of the events at Sinai. As we have seen, the Bible itself gave rise to the idea of imagining the situation as ideal when Israel encamped at Mt. Sinai and received the Torah. The Qumran community embodied those ideal features in its structure, and the church of Acts 2-4 seems to have done the same. They, too, had all things in common and lived a life characterized by prayer and obedience to the apostles’ teaching, just as Israel had been unified and receptive to the revelation at the mountain. (pg. 252)
The latter essay is more focused on the Acts community (cf. 246-254), while the majority of the former article is in regards to the community at Qumran. This connection between the earliest church and the DSS community is something I hope to develop further in the future. I find it interesting in thinking about the ideals with which these two Jewish communities began. Since the majority of the DSS are most likely written in the first century BCE, and thus prior to Jesus and the early church, was the early church familiar with the ideas of the DSS group or other groups like them? The parallels are inviting. For another specific example, 1QS 6:25 addresses those who are deceitful about property: “If one of them has lied deliberately in matters of property, he shall be excluded from the pure Meal of the Congregation for one year and shall do penance with respect to one quarter of his food” (Vermès translation). And we are reminded of the admittedly more serious fate of Ananias and Sapphira in Acts 5:1-11.
Yet there are obvious contrasts. The Community Rule outlines a very defined sense of ranking among its members, especially regarding its communal meal. Though it is not the same kind of ranking, it is division nonetheless that concerns Paul about the Corinthian practices of the Lord’s Supper (1 Cor 11:17-22; 10:17). 1QS also has a strict view of insiders and outsiders. This is one of the strongest issues with which the early church wrestled, particularly in Acts 15. That chapter, of course, comes down on the significantly more liberal side of things by allowing Gentiles into the community, only requiring of them four “essentials” of the Law: “that you abstain from what has been sacrificed to idols and from blood and from what is strangled and from fornication” (15:29). Perhaps it is this more liberal side of the early church that leads to the abandonment of the early ideals of community (since there isn’t much mention of sharing of goods elsewhere in the NT). When the community busts open its doors to hoards of all kinds of people, keeping a strict and committed community life becomes difficult.
The questions nevertheless remain for the nature of the early church in Acts: Did they have some awareness of the DSS community? Did its leaders have some kind of “strategy” or “plan” about how to organize this new community based on a knowledge of other communities, groups, and sects? If they were aware of the DSS community or at least the kinds of views held at the DSS community, it would appear that they adapted this for the needs of the early church and some of the much different ideas of Jesus. So much to think about.
-
Elsewhere . . .- Blog titles beginning with "A" to "Z" on your reader Mark Goodacre
- Of making many books there is no end Chris Brady
- Free Online: The Liddell-Scott Jones Lexicon S and C
- Does Higher Criticism Attempt to “Destroy the Bible”? II agathos
- Steven J. Friesen and the Identity of Satan’s Throne in Pergamum alan
- Does Higher Criticism Attempt to “Destroy the Bible”? agathos
- Bloomsbury buys Continuum Mark Goodacre
- Imperial America Peter J. Leithart
- C.F.D. Moule on the Birth of the New Testament d. miller
- Responding to Kostenberger (with comparisons to Marshall) Jeremiah
-
As a member of RevGalBlogPals, I am committed to building a supportive online community for women clergy, women church professionals, and women in religious life.
Research assisted by: