Need Help: NT Manuscript Preservation as Reception History
So, you’ve probably seen these charts that compare the number of manuscripts we have of the New Testament to the number of manuscripts we have of other ancient authors. The New Testament, of course, comes out on top in the number of manuscripts: something like 6000 manuscripts in contrast to the next closest, Homer’s Iliad, which is in the 600-something range.
These charts are often related to conservative evangelical arguments about how reliable the New Testament documents are. All kinds of crazy arguments are made based on this information, including the divine hand in the preservation of early Christian documents and that their sheer numbers of manuscripts somehow means that they are more accurate as historical witnesses to Jesus.
That said, I’m intrigued by a less apologetic and more historically relevant purpose for this information: namely, reception history. Simply stated, reception history, or Wirkungsgeschichte, is the study of how texts have been received. We might think of later authors drawing upon the stories and ideas of earlier authors, or perhaps artistic representations in paintings, sculptures, or even films. In this sense, then, we are not only concerned with the “original” historical context of the sources themselves and those events they claim to depict. We also trace the story of what happened to the texts after they came into existence. Of course, this tells us more about the interpreters than it does the texts themselves.
New Testament documents are preserved more than any other collection of ancient documents because of their importance to the subsequent trends and traditions western civilization. So, teaching about the New Testament documents in the context of a course on western civilization requires some recognition of how those texts have been received — which is something I did in my guest lecture this morning in western civ.
My problem is that I haven’t been able to find a reliable chart describing the preservation of manuscripts of ancient documents. I want to find (or develop) such a chart that considers not only simple numbers (“6000 manuscripts! Hallelujah!”), but also some nuance regarding the nature of preservation. Within the chart, it would be helpful to note the time from the events depicted to the estimated first writing of the “original manuscript,” then the amount of time from the purported original document to the oldest manuscript we have. Perhaps a secondary chart that shows the distribution of manuscripts in each century. There needs to be some recognition of the process of preservation, in which sense we are talking about apples and oranges when we discuss manuscripts for Homer and the New Testament.
My question for you is: Where do I find credible information on these things that is beyond reproach of being accused of an “evangelical” sort of bias? Perhaps even multiple locations. There must be classicists and ancient historians who have published basic and reliable information about the data for classical works. I want something that I could use without being accused of some sort of apologetic intentions myself!
Wait . . . what happened in the first century?
In a recent book review, I read:
Christians in the first century determined to add a second set of texts to the Hebrew Bible and in the fourth century determined to translate the composite text (in Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek) into one coherent and narrative Latin text.
I don’t know if this information comes from the author of the book or the author of the review, but we have a problem here. Even using the word “Christians” is suspect, but I’ll let that issue slide for now. But “in the first century” they did what? Did all the Christians sit down together during the first century and decide, “Hey, we should add stuff to the Bible”?
New Testament Jobs for 2010 and "Ideological" Criticisms
SBL Career Center has been posting positions for 2010 and I thought I’d take a peek at the spots that are out there. I’m not applying for these spots as I’m not on the market yet, but it’s never too early to investigate the lay of the land. I noticed a common requirement. Historical-critical scholars who have no interest in “ideological” criticisms will be at a disadvantage!
Seattle University: Assistant Professor of New Testament & Christian Origins (Ph.D. Required; tenure track): “We are particularly interested in applicants with expertise in liberation, feminist, African-American, Latino/a, Asian, or ecological hermeneutics.”
Xavier University: Assistant Professor of New Testament (Ph.D. required; tenure track). “Candidates should have a facility with diverse interpretive methods and approaches to sacred texts as well as the ability to reflect on and communicate the theological and ethical implications of the early Christian traditions for an engagement with today’s pluralistic world.” Diverse interpretive methods. Today’s pluralistic world.
University of South Carolina: Assistant Professor of Early Christianity and Christian Scriptures [Canonical and Extracanonical] (Ph.D. required; tenure track). The description notes the need for strong candidates to have expertise in one of the following: “interdisciplinary approaches to Scripture; knowledge of various interpretive traditions, including postmodern, feminist, multicultural, or global; knowledge of popular/emerging cultures of the Mediterranean; or material culture.”
Kalamazoo College: Assistant Professor of Hebrew Bible and Christian (New) Testament (Ph.D. required; M.Div. desirable [!]; tenure track). “In addition to expertise in the textual traditions, candidates should be able to teach courses reflecting knowledge of the cultural contexts, interpretations and impact of those texts in Christian and Jewish communities.” Cultural contexts. Interpretations. Impact.
Pacific Lutheran University: Assistant Professor of New Testament (Ph.D. required; tenure track). “The Department seeks a candidate with a primary concentration in biblical hermeneutics, with special emphasis on biblical interpretation in a multi-faith context. Additional competencies expected in 1) Hebrew Bible or Greco-Roman religions and 2) critical methods.” Not quite the same emphasis as the others, but there is a need to be familiar with interpretation and not simply historical-critical research.
So, if you’re a young scholar focusing on historical-critical work, and nothing else, this seems to be a wake up call to think about diverse issues of interpretation in today’s world.
Near Perfect Agreement: Tom Yoder Neufeld
Nick asked an interesting question on his blog, a question that I often consider. Is there any person (“scholar, theologian, pastor, or just regular person in your life”) with whom you agree almost all the time? How about the reverse? A while back, I was answering one of my father-in-law’s theological or biblical questions. We were talking about some author and I said, “I don’t agree with him on everything, but I think he’s got a lot of good ideas.” My father-in-law asked me if there was any one author with whom I agree all the time. I couldn’t think of anyone, but the question stuck with me.
I think I have an answer. I put it in a comment on Nick’s blog, but I’d like to share it here as well: Thomas Yoder Neufeld. Tom is the son-in-law of the late (and legendary) John Howard Yoder. But for my proverbial money, Tom is the better scholar when it comes to the biblical text (not really fair, as JHY was not primarily a biblical scholar). At least, he’s the one I agree with more.
Tom is a Harvard-trained, Mennonite New Testament scholar, teaching up at the University of Waterloo. He has three books out, that I know of, showcasing his scholarly prowess: ‘Put on the Armour of God!’ The Divine Warrior from Isaiah to Ephesians, an Ephesians commentary in the Believers’ Church Bible Commentary Series (check out his treatment of the household code!), and most recently, Recovering Jesus: The Witness of the New Testament. He is currently working on a book addressing violence in the New Testament, which he predicts will be published in 2010 by Westminster/John Knox and SPCK.
Though I had known of his work, I had not yet read it until I saw him present in the Mennonite Scholars and Friends group at the 2007 San Diego SBL/AAR meeting (see my play-by-play of the session). That session may be the single most engaging session I have attended while at SBL (though, I have only been two years thus far). In that session, Tom seemed to be the greatest voice of reason on the topic of the Atonement. He showed himself to be deeply committed to Mennonite theology, but also capable of keeping a nuanced perspective of biblical theology in tension with his personal views. That is the mark of intellectual integrity, as far as I am concerned.
That session spurred me on to read Tom’s works. And I had the opportunity to get to know Tom a bit more during his sabbatical at Fuller Seminary, when he attended my church for several months. As a committed Anabaptist, with a nuanced and complex understanding of biblical scholarship, Tom is the model for the type of biblical scholar I aspire to be.
The New Testament in Antiquity by Burge, Cohick, and Green
The New Testament in Antiquity: A Survey of the New Testament within its Cultural Contexts
Authors: Gary M. Burge, Lynn H. Cohick, and Gene E. Green
Hardcover: 480 pages
Publisher: Zondervan
ISBN: 9780310244950
I have to admit that I was salivating about this book since I first saw the author interview posted on Zondervan’s Koinonia blog. I would like to extend my gratitude to the good folks of Zondervan for sending an advance review copy my way. There is so much in this survey of the New Testament that is right up my alley, though there are some perspectives included that have me wondering whether they’d be deal breakers when it comes to assigning it as a textbook.
The book itself is beautiful. The cover. The pages. The pictures. It certainly has one of the nicest “feels” of most any book on my shelf. The layout is great for students. The chapters are not that long, designed to be read in no more than a 20 minute sitting so it is easier for students to read the New Testament texts themselves alongside it (if the students read any of the required readings at all). Complicated and abstract topics are made more tangible and accessible through charts and pictures. The photos themselves are not generic shots of “the ancient world,” but rather pertinent to the discussion at hand. Shots of mikvehs and pools help with considerations of ritual washing and baptism. Diagrams of tombs with rolling stone entrances demonstrate the sort of tomb that might have been used for Jesus. One of the treats of the book is in the expertise of one of its authors, Gene Green, in numismatics (the study of coins). The eye-catching shot on the cover declares “Iudea capta” minted shortly after the Jewish War in the first century, with a Roman soldier standing over a Jewish slave. Reading through, students can recognize the importance of coins as propaganda. In general, the photos open up the cultural world of the New Testament texts in stimulating ways.
Side boxes are provided with helpful charts, such as a historical outlines of the Herod family or lists related to Roman rule of Judea. One chart suggests links between Paul’s ethical teachings in Romans and those of Jesus (333). Other boxes give us important passages from the era, such as “Cicero and Seneca on Clients” or an inscription on Rufina, a woman synagogue leader.
Sequence of Chapters. If you’d like, you can view the table of contents for yourself in the sample PDF on Zondervan’s website. Generally speaking, the book opens with several chapters discussing the various contexts of the New Testament era. Within these chapters, you find an historical overview of the Hellenistic era, the Secleucids, the Romans, etc. You have geographical discussions of Judea and the surrounding areas. Various groups (Josephus’ four groups, scribes, Samaritans, Herodians), important cultural items (Jerusalem temple, Sanhedrin, villages and synagogues), and Jewish literature (Scriptures, Pseudepigrapha, DSS, rabbinic literature, Josephus and Philo) are outlined quite effectively and concisely. There are three chapters on Jesus before actually getting to the chapters on the individual Gospels (hitting the “synoptic problem” complete with charts). The authors provide two background chapters to Paul before getting into the letters themselves, one on the Mediterranean world in which he operated (including information on social institutions like slavery and family, as well as politics, religion, and philosophy in the Greco-Roman world) and one with an overview of important features of Pauline theology and mission (including a brief, but well-written summary of the “New Perspective on Paul”). The remaining books either have their own chapter or, if shorter, are combined with other NT books. A final chapter, “Preservation and Communication of the New Testament,” is an engaging review of textual traditions. This chapter would be quite helpful for the student and could perhaps even be read before the chapters on the specific books to provide perspective.
Perspectives of This Survey. One of the most profound aspects of this particular survey of the New Testament is its rootedness in social history in concert with the evangelicalism of its authors (all Wheaton profs). And so, in this book you will find the interesting combination of a conservative outlook on authorship issues (traditional views of Gospel authors, Paul probably wrote the Pastorals, and John the apostle probably wrote Revelation), on the one hand, and references to the importance of the honor/shame context of these writings and the inclusion of the marginalized, on the other hand.
The former (authorship issues) is what I referred to as a possible deal breaker to me. It is difficult for me to fathom using a textbook that leans towards a traditional viewpoint on authorship. That said, at least they present both sides of the issue. The authors do a decent job of communicating present day scholarship in an accessible manner. Generally speaking, the authors lean on what early church tradition thought about authorship. One exception they make, however, is on the issue of Hebrews. I am left wondering, if we can break with early church tradition on the authorship of Hebrews, why not the Gospels or Revelation? (I know what the response would be regarding the Pastorals: they have a problem calling those letters pseudonymous.) I can appreciate their decision to hold off the discussion of “authorship and date” until the end of each chapter. While perhaps counter-intuitive, it does help to focus the student’s attention upon the message of the texts themselves without getting distracted too much at first with authorship issues (a conservative student audience seems to be assumed). If I had to classify the text, I would say it is on the progressive end of conservative evangelicalism. It is the sort of book that would be good at perhaps easing fundamentalist students out of uber-narrowmindedness to a more reasonably conservative viewpoint.
A Selection of Perspectives. The authenticity of the Gospels are argued based upon the strength of memory in an oral culture transmitting oral traditions of Jesus’ teachings. Women find a good hearing as they are highlighted as leaders of synagogues and within early Pauline communities. On the downside, while they use a box (page 334) to highlight the women of Romans 16 and they recognize Junia is a woman, they suggest that she is “well known even among the apostles” (rather than being “outstanding among the apostles” as their preferred TNIV translation has it).
On the other hand, they explicitly put the Ephesians household code under the banner of Ephesians 5:21 ( “submit to one another” ; pg 345). The authors also put comments about women in 1 Tim 2 in context with the women of Rom 16, Euodia and Syntyche (Phil 4), Lydia, and Priscilla: “Paul’s churches, then, had men and women leading, teaching, and making decisions in the church” (369). Why stick to the (new) conservative stance on Junia? As far as I can tell, the role of women in Jesus’ ministry seems to be neglected (There is a short paragraph on page 134). The index, which is generally lacking, has no entry for women. From comments made by Lynn Cohick in the video interview, I expected more on women in the text–on the other hand, it is more than other conservative evangelical textbooks.
The authors’ section, “The Implications of the Gospel” (265), in the chapter on Paul’s life and teachings reviews the social implications of Paul’s teachings (including for women, ethnicity, socioeconomic status) and discusses Paul’s future orientation towards the parousia (they provide a quotation from Josephus on Vespasian’s entry into Rome to put the parousia into some context, 286). These (social concerns and apocalyptic eschatology) are a few of my favorite things.
Though the bibliographies and footnotes are sparse so as to remain accessible, members (and friends) of the Context Group may be happy to find themselves well represented among the citations (particularly among the chapters on historical and cultural contexts). The authors do not shy away from Jesus’ message to people on the margins of society, though they could have made a more direct correlation between that sort of teaching and Mediterranean honor/shame culture. They do have a box entitled “A Challenge to Honor” (206) in the chapter on Luke, but they emphasize Jesus’ attempt to gain honor, not his honor-challenging teachings (e.g., “the first shall be last”). Other frequently cited authors include a mix of folks like Dunn and Wright with folks like Blomberg and Bock. (I will try to stay out of trouble and leave the phrase “folks like” undefined.)
Krister Stendahl’s “The Apostle Paul and the Introspective Conscience of he West” receives explicit attention (!) at the end of the chapter on Romans (334). The authors summarize its contents in a mostly positive manner and quite accessibly.
The chapter on Revelation discusses a variety of different approaches, but you’d think a book on the “cultural contexts” of the New Testament “in antiquity” would give more discussion to the preterist approach than a meager two paragraphs ( “futurist” receives five paragraphs). They seem to portray most positively an “eclectic” position on Revelation that combines various views in some manner.
Conclusion. This book is an outstanding work. As mentioned, it rests in the conservative evangelical camp in the areas of authorship and authenticity of historical sources. It pushes the boundaries of conservative evangelicalism in a progressive direction, however, in its inclusion of social issues as prominent. Even where it shares its most conservative perspectives, it will share the views of “some scholars” who hold differing views (and they do so without getting polemical). If I were to use this as a textbook, I would warn the students of the generally conservative viewpoint. I would probably supplement the reading with in-class discussions on the complications of authorship. I would also point out some of my differing opinions (such as with Junia) or where I don’t feel they made important connections explicit enough (such as with honor/shame and the counter-cultural teachings of Jesus). It might be interesting to combine this survey with something like Bart Ehrman’s survey to get discussion going.
Despite my hesitations, I say, snatch it up! It is bound to be a dominant standard survey textbook for years to come.
The book is making its way around the blogosphere. The only other review I see so far is from Nijay Gupta, but a review is yet to come from Nick Norelli. Matthew Montonini has an interview with co-author Gary Burge and Mike Bird makes mention of the book. I look forward to reading other folks’ reviews.
Charles Dickens on the New Testament and Preaching
I was doing some research on references to “New Testament” in English literature and found this interesting piece from Dickens:
In the New Testament there is the most beautiful and affecting history conceivable by man, and there are the terse models for all prayer and for all preaching. As to the models, imitate them, Sunday preachers — else why are they there consider? As to the history, tell it. Some people cannot read some people will not read, many people (this especially holds among the young and ignorant) find it hard to pursue the verse form in which the book is presented to them, and imagine that those breaks imply gaps and want of continuity. Help them over that first stumbling block, by setting forth the history in narrative, with no fear of exhausting it. You will never preach so well, you will never move them so profoundly, you will never send them away with half so much to think of. Which is the better interest: Christ’s choice of twelve poor men to help in those merciful wonders among the poor and rejected; or the pious bullying of a whole Union-full of paupers? What is your changed philosopher to wretched me, peeping in at the door out of the mud of the streets and of my life, when you have the widow’s son to tell me about, the ruler’s daughter, the other figure at the door when the brother of the two sisters was dead, and one of the two ran to the mourner, crying, ‘The Master is come and calleth for thee’? — Let the preacher who will thoroughly forget himself and remember no individuality but one, and no eloquence but one, stand up before four thousand men and women at the Britannia Theatre any Sunday night, recounting that narrative to them as fellow creatures, and he shall see a sight!” ~Charles Dickens, The Uncommercial Traveller
Apparently, Dickens was an advocate for making biblical texts accessible for the masses. I found especially interesting his comment on the abuse of reading by the verse: “many people (this especially holds among the young and ignorant) find it hard to pursue the verse form in which the book is presented to them, and imagine that those breaks imply gaps and want of continuity.” If I ever write an introduction to reading the Bible, I will have to remember this gem when explaining the concept of chapters and verses!
Film: "Birth of a New Religion"
Bartchy had his survey course, “History of Early Christians,” watch a section of a documentary film on Christianity to review. I thought I would share my own thoughts here. Part One of the film “Two Thousand Years: The History of Christianity” (1999), a section entitled “The Birth of a New Religion: 1st and 2nd Centuries,” gives a standard outline of the first two centuries of the movement later called Christianity. Interviewing many respected scholars, including Jim Charlesworth, N.T. Wright, Henry Chadwick, Paula Frederickson, and Elaine Pagels, the documentary does have its foundation in solid scholarship on the early Christian movement. The film briefly mentions the person of Jesus, while especially highlighting the event of the crucifixion and how this might have affected his followers. Though it is not thoroughly examined (and there is a humorous moment when Jim Charlesworth seems to represent the resurrected Christ), the resurrection is discussed as a defining moment for the followers of Jesus of Nazareth. Jesus’ disciples are surprised by both the crucifixion and resurrection, after which they reinterpret the meaning of Jesus’ messiahship. At this point, the documentary outlines the Book of Acts (particularly the issue of Gentile inclusion) in an uncritical manner, moves into the challenges of Roman suspicion of their movement and their subsequent martyrdom in the second century, while finally ending on the crisis of Gnosticism which is quashed by Irenaeus (who is depicted as the sole canonizer of the New Testament and the original author of orthodox Christian doctrine) [catch a free preview of the bit on Irenaeus here].
We can hardly blame the filmmakers for a simplistic presentation of facts that one finds in standard introductions to Christian origins. They cannot solve in 40 minutes all of the conundrums that have confounded New Testament scholars throughout modernity. In fact, there are several quite strong points that should be highlighted, especially comments from N.T. Wright on the influence of Paul within the early movement. In perhaps the strongest articulation of the content of this movement’s ideology, Wright acknowledges that Paul established a “counter empire, a rival empire, with little cells of people giving allegiance to Jesus rather than Caesar.” Wright notes that, while this counter empire is not quite like the Roman Empire, it is “sufficiently subversive to be dangerous.”
Elsewhere in the film, however, we have little discussion of the counter-cultural nature of the Jesus movement and hardly any mention of Jesus’ actual teachings themselves. Though Wright mentions that the new movement is a “new family” created by God, we have no explanation of how this idea challenges conventional understandings of the patriarchal family within the Greco-Roman world. Even with Wright’s comment that the Jesus followers are considered subversive and dangerous, we have no explanation of how this movement is subversive or why it would be considered dangerous.
Further, Jim Charlesworth’s necessary caution that the early Jesus followers are not “Christians” and did not have “churches” is muted by the narrator’s comment that by the end of the first century, “Christianity” is born–implying that a whole monolithic and organized religion already developed within decades. This is paired with the comments of Fr. Paul Lawlor, who suggests that eucharistic meals in the second century would have looked similar to what goes on in small parish churches today. The film has some strange shots in its take on second century Christianity. With mysterious music, images of catacombs, and three people in matching robes around a table, we have the picture of a strange secretive cult (perhaps bolstering certain Roman texts against the Christians cited in the film). Such moves in the documentary are overly simplistic and somewhat careless. In sum, the film does a decent job of surveying a few of the key issues at stake in the Jesus movement, but does a poor job of giving the viewer a reliable picture of “on the ground” social realities. This, however, is a broader symptom of surveys in Christian origins more generally.
Book Review: Christian Origins by Jonathan Knight
I would like to extend my gratitude to Abby at T&T Clark (see their blog) for sending along a fabulous (brand) new survey on the origins of Christianity. Jonathan Knight’s Christian Origins [publisher link - find the table of contents there] is a comprehensive introduction to the Jewish origins of Christianity, with an emphasis on the eschatological connection between Second Temple Judaism and the beginnings of the Jesus movement. The book is particularly relevant for my own interests because (1) I have just begun my doctoral program in Christian origins at UCLA and (2) I’m crazy about apocalyptic eschatology.
Knight’s work is quite ambitious. Within these pages, you find 31 mostly bite-sized chapters ranging topics as diverse as the sources of Second Temple Judaism, Diaspora Judaism, “Who Did Jesus Think He Was?”, Pauline soteriology and ethics, the “breach” between Christianity and Judaism, and the rise of Gnosticism. Knight covers both social and theological topics. He is sensitive to matters of scholarly nuance and introduces readers to important names and arguments within scholarship, while also keeping his prose accessible. Before going to far, we should note that Knight serves as a Research Fellow of the Katie Wheeler Trust and Visiting Fellow in New Testament and Christian Ministry at York St John University, UK. Knight is an ordained Anglican priest and has also written a book on Jesus. His preface notes that his next book will be on apocalypticism, “as if this has become a theme which I cannot evade” (xiii).
Knight attempts to dispossess the reader of the concept of an unambiguous “fixed” Christianity (or Judaism for that matter). He would like to take the reader back past the councils of the early church to the rich complexity of early Christianity. The book is divided into four parts, “From Judaism to Jesus,” “Jesus and His Mission,” “Paul and Christian Beginnings,” and “The Birth of Early Christianity.” The second part, especially the eleventh chapter on “An Approach to Jesus,” is a good primer on “historical Jesus” studies. To my enjoyment, Johannes Weiss receives a whole page and is not simply subsumed as a sentence or two under Schweitzer. Knight’s section on Paul does not survey the history of scholarship in the same way that he does for the historical Jesus, but it does reflect that scholarship. He surveys the writings of Paul (undisputed and disputed), gives a “whistlestop tour” of Pauline soteriology, highlights his eschatology, and considers his ethics.
Having just finished a presentation on the history of Christian writings on Judaism, I was happy to see Knight guide the reader through that difficult issue. For example, when speaking of Christianity’s possible inheritance of apocalyptic eschatology from Judaism, Knight rightly cautions,
In saying this, we must be careful to note the differences between ancient Judaism and modern Christianity and not to impose the younger understanding arbitrarily on older and quite different texts. This is to call for sensitivity in interpretation which allows the ancient texts to speak for themselves and not through a Christian matrix. Christian readers should recognize their natural bias in this respect. [58]
On mentioning E.P. Sanders’ “covenantal nomism,” Knight observes, “Sanders criticizes earlier scholarship on Judaism–particularly Christian scholarship–for its presentation of that relation as dominated by the perennial balance between sins and merits” (33). Knight could have tread a bit more carefully in his chapter on the “breach” between Judaism and Christianity. Even calling whatever “parting of the ways” that occured between the Jesus movement and its religious heritage a “breach” seems a bit harsh (?). Knight’s comment to start off the chapter uncharacteristically lacks some sensitivity to reader reaction: “The separation that occured was the result of reaction against the Christians by people of Jewish descent” (266). Out of context, this statement could be read as “blaming” the Jews for the separation and that is certainly thin ice. The content of the chapter, however, does cover key issues, including christological developments, the “twelfth benediction” of the Jamnian Academy and John 9, the polemic against the Pharisees in Matthew 23, Justin Martyr’s Dialogue with Trypho, and so-called “Jewish Christianity” such as the Ebionites.
To give an idea of his comments on Jesus’ death and resurrection, Knight strongly dismisses the idea that Jesus did not actually die on the cross (148) and more gently suggests that we “need not doubt” statements regarding the empty tomb (155, cf. 260). Contrary to being an intentional apologetic, however, Knight’s agenda in discussing the resurrection of Jesus is in what Jesus’ early followers did with the event. Knight suggests that the empty tomb is an “ambiguous symbol” and that resurrection appearances are “apocalyptic visions in which a heavenly mediator appears to the disciples and communicates a revelation to them” (260).
The biggest oversight in the book from my perspective is its lack of addressing the issue of women in the church. Knight breezes past a comment that the first half of 1 Corinthians 11 is “controversial,” barely mentioning “a statement of the subordination of women to men” (181). In his endnote for this sentence, he does refer to work done by Morna Hooker and Elisabeth Schüssler Fiorenza. Curiously, in the next endnote, which is regarding spiritual gifts in 1 Cor 12-14, he refers to Wayne Grudem’s work on prophecy in 1 Corinthians without explanation. Grudem’s work in this area is highly tilted in favor of the subordination of women. The missing engagement of women’s roles is felt particularly strongly in his chapter on “The Development of the Christian Ministry.” Within this chapter, Knight has the following statement under his treatment of “deacons”:
A whole passage in the Pastoral Epistles (1 Tim. 3.8-13) prescribes rules for their [deacons'] behaviour, including the behaviour of women deacons. The fact that the same epistle forbids women to teach or to have authority over men (1 Tim 2.12) is an indicator of the subordinate role of deacons in the communities addressed at that time. [291]
As far as I can see, this is the only statement on women in ministry in Knight’s book. I believe a book like this must address the patriarchal and androcentric nature of the surrounding society. Regarding gender roles in the family, Knight only casually mentions the household codes (191) and even then does not mention the role of husbands and wives. Within the book’s index, there are no entries for any of the following terms: women, female, gender, family, feminism, patriarchalism, or androcentrism. Knight nowhere mentions Paul’s key text (however one interprets it) in Galatians 3:28, “There is no longer Jew or Greek, there is no longer slave or free, there is no longer male and female; for all of you are one in Christ Jesus.”
The book uses endnotes rather than footnotes, and 100 pages of them at that. While I know Nick Norelli prefers the latter (he demotes his reviewed books one star out of five if they use endnotes!), endnotes do seem appropriate for a book aimed at a survey introducing newcomers to the field. The “Index of Names” is a misnomer, as it is an index of names and topics, where it would be helpful to have them separated.
Any oversights aside, I would highly recommend this book for use in a Christian origins or introductory New Testament course (though the latter should probably supplement Knight with a New Testament introduction proper). My two favorite things about this book are: (1) Knight’s integration of the study of apocalyptic eschatology into nearly all aspects of Christian origins and (2) Knight’s adroit descriptions of complex scholarly arguments in an accessible manner. My most significant caution about using the book would be the need to supplement Knight’s work with solid coverage of gender roles in Christian origins. The material is certainly appropriate for seminarians or other graduate students and may be challenging to undergraduates, but in a positive way. As noted, Knight is a Christian, but his purpose is not to coddle conservative evangelicals–far from it. His insistence on nuance and ambiguity may just make a fundamentalist student’s head explode. But maybe they could grow a new one. On the other end, I do not believe it is too confessional for a secular classroom. With that said, I wish everyone happy reading!
Shame on who? (learning about women and "positive shame")
I am new to the world of honor/shame research and I am now diving in. I know some of the basics, but after reading Bruce Malina’s chapter on honor and shame in his New Testament World, I am still trying to get a hold of this “positive shame” business:
Positive shame, a sense of shame, means sensitivity about one’s own reputation, sensitivity to the opinion of others. To have shame in this sense is an eminently positive value. Any human being worthy of the title “human,” any human group worthy of belonging to humankind, needs to have shame, to be sensitive to its honor rating, to be perceptive to the opinion of others. A sense of shame makes the contest of living possible, dignified, and human, since it implies acceptance of and respect for the rules of human interaction. (49)
Note that “positive shame” is having shame (noun) rather than being shamed (verb). To get shamed or to be shamed occurs when people “aspire to a certain status and this status is denied them by public opinion” (50). So, being or getting shamed is negative shame, then? Malina doesn’t come out and use that term, but it seems implied. But, then, what is negative about the shame?
I tried looking around to see if Malina was just making this stuff up or whether he was misappropriating insights from another field. In addition to other (more scholarly) things, I did find an article in Parade Magazine (!) by Dr. Joyce Brothers (!) about positive shame, entitled “Shame May Not Be So Bad After All.” Brothers seems to connect “bad” shame with unnecessary humiliation or guilt, while relating positive shame to a healthy sense of social norms and respect for others. She relates the story of a man who yells at the refs too loudly at youth soccer games until the fellow parents get fed up and finally “shame” him (verb) by booing his actions. The act of being shamed, for this man, apparently led to a renewed sense of shame (noun) where he began to voice his displeasure with refs in a quieter manner.
Brothers says: “Positive shame occurs when we see ourselves as we really are—perhaps too self-involved to notice that our spouse needs our help, perhaps too scared of what others think to stand up for someone in trouble, perhaps too resentful of the past to allow a wound to heal.” Well, if it’s in Parade Magazine, it must be true. At least I know now that Malina did not make up this category of “positive shame.”
To complicate things, Malina suggests that (for Mediterranean society) “when honor is viewed as an exclusive prerogative of one of the genders, then honor is always male, and shame is always female” (49). I’m confused. Are we saying that only women have this positive sense of shame? But isn’t it required for all of humanity to have a sense of shame? Are we also saying that women in Mediterranean society are not capable of possessing honor?
It seems the male in this society is characterized by open boldness, while the female is characterized by private timidity. Get this interesting bit of symbolism:
First of all, male honor is symboled by the testicles, which stand for manliness, courage, authority over family, willingness to defend one’s reputation, and refusal to submit to humiliation [elsewhere he adds: courage, defense of family's honor, concern for prestige, and social eminence]. . . . Female honor, on the other hand, is symboled by the maidenhead (hymen) and stands for female sexual exclusiveness, discretion, shyness, restraint, and timidity [elsewhere he adds: modesty and blushing]. (47)
Malina says that all of the male behaviors listed are considered honorable behavior for a male in Mediterranean society. All of the characteristics of female positive shame listed “[make] her honorable” (49). This is one of the points that make my head hurt: a strong sense of positive shame for the female (but not for the male?) leads to honorable standing. The idea that some form of shame would be a prerequisite for honor seems like a paradox to me. I have long thought of honor and shame as opposites. I guess this post has been about me figuring out that they have a much more complicated relationship.
Any thoughts?
Jesus in the Qur'an (Part 2)
( . . . continued from part one)
We can also recognize that Muhammad (peace be upon him) had contact with perhaps not-so-orthodox Christianity. When the Qur’an denies the Trinity, is it the same thing as the “official” Christian doctrine of the Trinity? The Qur’an is set within its historical and cultural context. Not only is the Qur’an colored by Arab interaction with Monophysites or Nestorians (for example), but it also appears to reference later non-canonical works, such as the Infancy Gospel of Thomas. The Qur’an seems to refer to a story of Jesus giving life to birds that are made of clay (Sura 3:49; 5:110), which can be found in the Infancy Gospel of Thomas (4:2). The fact that both the NT and quranic understandings of Jesus are historically and culturally conditioned is in itself a bridge (even if that bridge will be little traveled–since people in both faiths often feel uncomfortable with [and even deny] the historical setting of their sacred texts).
Even if the christology of the Qur’an and the New Testament greatly differ, we should note that the Qur’an has an overwhelmingly positive depiction of Jesus. We should expect as much when we note that the quranic Jesus is in many ways a forerunner to Muhammad, as perhaps John the Baptist is to Jesus in the NT. Jesus brings a new sacred text to the world (the Qur’an has Jesus writing the Gospels rather than simply being written about in them). Jesus is a messenger of God who faces persecution for his message. The quranic emphasis on Jesus humanity is to demonstrate that Jesus pointed the way to God through his miraculous signs.
People often use the Gospel of John as a point of discord between the quranic Jesus and the biblical Jesus. I would like to suggest that John offers a unique point of contact. Like the Qur’an, John depicts Jesus as an agent or messenger of God, pointing the way to God through miraculous signs. What do the Johannine Jesus’ signs reveal? The first sign that Jesus performs—changing water into wine—is described as “revealing his glory” (2:11), which harkens back to the prologue’s proclamation that “we have seen his glory,” that is the glory “as of a father’s only son” (1:14). Jesus’ glory does not come from humans (5:41), nor does he seek his own glory (8:50), but his glory comes from God alone (5:44; 8:54). In a question that seems particularly relevant to the Qur’an’s monotheistic concerns, Jesus asks, “How can you believe when you accept glory from one another and do not seek the glory that comes from the one who alone is God?” (5:44).
Though the Gospel of John may suggest the pre-existence of Jesus (“In the beginning was the Word . . .”), both John and the Qur’an have Jesus directing people to God through signs as God’s messenger. The Quranic emphasis that Jesus is able to do miraculous signs by the “leave of Allah” (Sura 3:49; 5:110) is fully in tune with the Jesus of John, who says, “I do nothing on my own, but I speak these things as the Father instructed me. . . . for I always do what is pleasing to him” (8:28, 29).
Though the subordination of the Son to the Father is later denied as heretical by the church, many NT texts seem to suggest such a relationship. Luke’s depiction of Jesus is not simply as the Christ, but as God’s Messiah (Lk 9:20; Acts 3:18). In the transfiguration, God declares that Jesus is “my chosen” (Lk 9:35, cf. Acts 3:20). The testimonies of Acts proclaim that Jesus is God’s servant (Acts 3:13, 4:27). Like John (“the one who sent me is with me,” John 8:28), Luke acknowledges that God is with Jesus (Acts 10:38), empowering him to do the work of God (“deeds of power, wonders, and signs that God did through him among you,” Acts 2:22). While they do not show the same sort of agency, Mark and Matthew espouse themes of apparent subordination, for example, in knowledge of the coming eschaton: “But about that day or hour no one knows, neither the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father.” (Mk 13:32; Matt 24:36).
So, we can see some interesting thematic connections between the NT Jesus and the quranic Jesus. Some like to highlight the titles used for Jesus in the Qur’an as showing similarities in thought, but that is generally a non-starter as the meanings of the titles seem quite different. “Messiah,” for instance, seems to simply be borrowed from the Christian use of the term, “Christ Jesus.” Rather, I think it is interesting to note the “messenger” quality of Jesus in both sacred texts and also to remember all the difficult nuances of historical and cultural settings of these texts.
-
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: