Christians, Associations, and the State
I’m working on a paper on voluntary associations in the Roman world. The paper itself is not about Christ-confessing communities as associations, but is looking at the other evidence for collegia/thiasoi. Nevertheless, I was reading Stephen Wilson’s chapter to Voluntary Associations in the Graeco-Roman World and he had an interesting comment regarding Christian communities and their relationship to the state:
Two groups that did belong to more active networks, churches and synagogues, were concerned mostly to protect their privileges or to encourage circumstances that allowed them to run their internal affairs without interference. Their aim was not to overthrow the existing political system, but to find their niche within it — even if on their own terms. So while some aspects of early Christian communal life, for example, could be seen as politically or socially destabilizing, in fact most early Christian writers call on their members to support the state (Rom. 13; 1 Pet. 2). It is true that some Jews and Christians envisaged the overthrow of the state in the end times, and that the Judaean and North African Jews anticipated this outcome in a series of revolts against Rome in the first and second centuries CE. These uprisings were, however, driven more by a revolutionary than a reformist impulse, were limited geographically and temporally, and were atypical of the experience of the majority of Jews under Roman rule. (3)
This is not all that different than what many other scholars have said, but I like how it’s been phrased here. As an Anabaptist, I have been connected with a lot of Christians who would like to find a biblical basis for political reform. Texts like Romans 13:1-7 are, of course, the big challenge for them. I’m not sure Revelation 13 is much help because, as Wilson notes about Judean revolts, that apocalyptic critique of the state is “driven more by a revolutionary than a reformist impulse.” This revolution, however, is imagined as the act of God in the end of the age because any present revolutions are quite obviously fruitless (understatement!).
I think reformist Christians in the United States, such as the Mennonites in my own “voluntary association,” do better to recognize the historical circumstance of the early Christian movement. We can be honest that the early Christian movement was not trying to make political changes to the imperial government, but just because they were not reformist does not mean that Christians today cannot be. The same as the Anabaptists themselves could not be reformists in 16th century Europe but often are in the United States today. Christians should understand why the Jesus movement was not that way and then understand how the early values might apply in our very different social and political situation.
Fox’s Fringe Quotes Isaiah, Or Was That Augustine?
In the recent episode of Fox’s Fringe, an apocalyptic fringe-science supernatural sort of show, Dr. Bishop recites a Latin quotation to a devout Christian woman. Here’s the exchange:
Woman: How can we be sure?
Dr. Bishop: Nisi credideritis, non intelligetis.
Woman: I don’t understand.
Dr. Bishop: It is the Latin translation of Isaiah 7:9.
Woman [nodding and remembering the verse, looking very profound]: “Unless you believe, you will not understand.”
Dr. Bishop: Even as a scientist, sometimes I have to rely on faith.
Now, if that quotation feels a bit off to you, here’s why. You will find no modern translation of Isaiah 7:9 that ends the verse with the word “understand.” Instead, they use phrases such as “you will not stand firm” or “remain secure,” etc. That’s because the Hebrew (אמן) means something like endurance or faithfulness. Actually, the Vulgate also has that meaning. Its Latin translation from the Vulgate goes like this: Si non credideritis, non permanebitis (from permaneo, to remain, endure, etc.). So there is basically only a one word difference with Dr. Bishop’s quotation. Is he making it up?
A friend of mine on Facebook actually noticed that the English quote sounded like something she read in Augustine, a contemporary of Jerome (who produced the Vulgate),which is what got me going on this investigation. Indeed, if you google the English phrase “Unless you believe, you will not understand,” you will find a bunch of those cheesy famous quote websites, simply attributing the phrase to Augustine with no real citation. If you go digging in Augustine’s works, however, you find that he is actually quoting Isaiah 7:9. Apparently, this is a favorite biblical quotation for him (see here, here, here, here, here, here, etc.).
The English translations of Augustine seem to attribute this reading to the Septuagint. That doesn’t seem likely. The Septuagint enigmatically uses the Greek word σύνειμι (“to be with”). That may not relate quite so well with the same sort of concept of endurance, but it certainly doesn’t look like “understanding.” Augustine himself seems to offer an answer in chapter 12 of his On Christian Doctrine. He actually notes the Vulgate version of a Latin translation (or at least what became the Vulgate translation–both were writing at the same time) and offers the other Latin statement (used by Dr. Bishop) as an alternate translation (unattributed pre-Vulgate). Augustine uses the opportunity to discuss the relationship between translation and interpretation:
Now which of these is the literal translation cannot be ascertained without reference to the text in the original tongue. And yet to those who read with knowledge, a great truth is to be found in each.
Ah, indeed. An intriguing distinction between “Unless you believe, you will not understand” and “If you do not believe, you will not endure” (translating the two Latin translations). And, sure, both have some profound truth to them. But as far as the Fringe writers were concerned, I’m sure they just wanted to sound all mysterious and deep.
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”?
Stephen Cook on Inspiration and Apocalyptic Literature
Among other things, I am currently reading through Stephen Cook‘s The Apocalyptic Literature in Abingdon’s Interpreting Biblical Texts series. I will have a full review up later, but I’d like to share a couple quotes here. In his first second chapter, “The Danger of Domesticating The Apocalyptic Texts,” Stephen attempts to find a balance between the various interpretive extremes. As a little nugget in that chapter, he shares some thoughts on inspiration:
The apocalyptic texts of the Bible did not come directly from God in any sort of pure form, but bear distinct marks of transmission by finite human authors and editors. As human literature, the biblical apocalyptic texts have blind spots against which an approach of submissive credulity has no defense.
Cook is countering those who take apocalyptic texts too “literally” (or “credulously”) in this quote. On the other hand, he also takes jabs at “overly suspicious” readers of apocalyptic literature:
Beginning in the seventeenth century, there was an eclipse of the Bible’s narrative storyline, of its textual art, and of its theological vitality. Abandoning the biblical literature as a theological witness, interpreters of the modern period substituted an anthropological study of the Bible. Their interests shifted to the Bible’s original authors and the quest of these authors for religious understanding and meaning in life. The Bible’s apocalyptic literature, unfortunately does not fare well when evaluated in these “anthropological” terms.
So, in Cook’s estimation, we’ve got to find the balance between “human literature” and “theological witness.” Should be easy enough . . .
Mike Bird's "Mission as an Apocalyptic Event"
I am reading through Mike Bird‘s published dissertation, Jesus and the Origins of the Gentile Mission, as part of my Graduate Summer Research Mentorship at UCLA. Through that I noticed his 2004 article in Evangelical Quarterly, “Mission as an Apocalyptic Event: Reflections on Luke 10:18 and Mark 13:10.” If you are familiar with my research interests–which you must be as my research fame is currently sweeping the globe–you will notice that the topic of the article relates closely with some of my own research (namely, my upcoming SBL paper presentation). For a moment there, I was worried my research balloon was popped and someone got to my ideas before I had them. But Mike went in somewhat of a different direction than I’m heading–for one, I’m not as interested in whether the Gentile mission originates with Jesus or his followers. And, at present, I have not been too interested in highlighting the restoration of Israel theme, though it is pretty hot stuff. His paper is still quite helpful to my research. As usual, Mike is great with the secondary literature and he also has some excellent observations of his own. Here is his conclusion regarding Luke 10:18 (the verse about Jesus having seen Satan fall from heaven):
Both mission and God’s final intervention at the last day are part of the one salvific event and the one act that orchestrates Satan’s downfall. In this sense any uncertainty about who actually vanquishes Satan is resolved. The act belongs to God alone, but the divine choice of weapons to execute his plan is the witness of the Church. Thus, the Church continues to exist for the purpose of mission which means that it will inevitably he brought into confrontation with the satanic horde. In Lk. 10:18 the entire sending out and return of the disciples highlights, ‘the experience of the mission as the arena of conflict and eschatological engagement with diabolic forces‘ [Joel Green, The Gospel of Luke, 411]. it is upon the globe and not simply in the heavenlies that the battle is fought and won. As the anointed Community who go out with the power of Jesus’ name and authority, it is a campaign that the Church is expected to win. [pg. 125-6, bold type mine]
So, God defeats Satan through the mission of Jesus’ followers [I'm always hesitant to use "Church," particularly with a big C, for this historical period--but I digress...]. This is something for me to chew on. Mike’s concluding thoughts on Mark 13:10 (“the good news must first be proclaimed to all nations”) are highly relevant and directly related to my own research pathway:
In addition, we should not overlook the fact that Mark 13, which in one way or another is an apocalyptic discourse despite the fact that it does not contain every conceivable apocalyptic literary device and motif gives a central place for mission in the divinely determined scheme of salvation. Mission, for Mark and no less Jesus, is part of the eschatological program put into effect in order to achieve that which apocalyptic dreamers hoped for: the revealing of God’s salvation. In this sense, mission does not simply anticipate the final triumph of God, but it actually achieves it in embryonic form. Mission is more than a foretaste of things future and apocalyptic, rather, it is performative apocalyptic. Mission, the proclamation of the gospel, is the pivotal act whereby God begins to repossesses the world for himself. [pg. 132, bold type mine]
That last comment is actually part of the purpose of my presentation this fall. I’m glad to have some more fruit to throw in the blender.
Two Views of History: Apocalyptic and Prophetic/Deuteronomic
In his survey courses at UCLA, Scott Bartchy often highlights the difference between the “prophetic view of history” and the “apocalyptic view of history.” As he outlines the topic, the prophetic view sees history as a series of cycles, in which things get bad, but the people of Israel can reverse the downwards course of history through repentance (the “optimistic” view). The apocalyptic view basically sees history moving in a downward direction and nothing can stop it, calling for a cataclysmic and radical break in history and God’s intervention (the “pessimistic” view).
I have just been reading through Daniel and some of John Collins’ writing on the book. Collins makes a point that connects the supplication of Daniel in chapter 9–an odd passage in relation to the whole of Daniel–with Bartchy’s basic theory:
Most important, the theology of prayer contrasts sharply with the apocalyptic framework of Daniel. The logic of the prayer is that the affliction of Jerusalem is a punishment for sin and will be removed if the people repent and pray. Yet when the angel arrives he tells Daniel that the response was sent forth at the beginning of his supplication (in effect without waiting to hear it) and he emphasizes that the end is decreed. In short, events will follow their predetermined course, irrespective of prayer and repentance. Whether this prayer was deliberately placed here by the author to show this contrast or was inserted by a later redactor, it neatly highlights a fundamental difference between the apocalyptic view of history and the traditional Deuteronomic theology. In the apocalpytic view, the course of events is predetermined. This does not mean that there is no room for human freedom. People can determine their own destiny by their reactions, but they cannot change the course of events. [The Apocalyptic Imagination, 108-9]
What Bartchy calls the “prophetic” view seems equivalent to Collins’ mention of the “Deuteronomic” view. What do you think? Is this a fair dichotomy? Can we point to two distinct views of history in early Judaism and Christianity?
Quranic Studies Taking a Note from Biblical Studies?
In his lecture today, Prof. Bartchy referenced an intriguing article in the NY Times about current study of the Qur’an. The Qur’an is considered by Muslims to be the very words of God, spoken through the prophet (peace be upon him) who spoke the words of God for his companions to transcribe verbatim. For Muslims, then, the Qur’an represents the actual words of God–without a hint of human authorship: the final revelation of God. Prof. Bartchy often says that many Christians (namely, conservative Evangelicals) wish the Bible was the Qur’an. That is, many Christians wish that the Bible was wholly God’s word without any human influence.
Those of us who believe in the authority and inspiration of the Bible, but also engage in true critical scholarship, must be honest about the humanity which drips from every holy page. By accepting the Bible’s (divinely inspired) humanness, I am able to tackle difficult questions of history while also living my life in accordance with the divinely inspired message of the text. This position may make me a liberal to my more conservative Evangelical friends, while it makes me a conservative to my more “secular” friends. However you categorize it, this is the sort of position that is uber-controversial for devoted Muslims to hold when related to the Qur’an.
But are things changing a wee bit at a time? A recent conference at the University of Notre Dame, “The Qur’an in Its Historical Context,” represents a burgeoning intellectual movement seeking to apply critical research to the Qur’an. The site describes the conference as “a major international conference addressing the most recent theories, controversies, and discoveries in the field of Quranic Studies.” It builds off an earlier conference held at Notre Dame, intending to be “a unique forum for a discussion of the historical circumstances in which the Quran was formed, and of its relationship to earlier literature, notably the Bible.” A glance at the conference schedule reads like sessions in the program book for SBL.
Nicholas Kistof’s NY Times article makes an interesting parallel to critical scholarship of the Bible:
“We’re experiencing right now in Koranic studies a rise of interest analogous to the rise of critical Bible studies in the 19th century,” said Gabriel Said Reynolds, a Notre Dame professor and organizer of the conference.
The Notre Dame conference probably could not have occurred in a Muslim country, for the rigorous application of historical analysis to the Koran is as controversial today in the Muslim world as its application to the Bible was in the 1800s. For some literal-minded Christians, it was traumatic to discover that the ending of the Gospel of Mark, describing encounters with the resurrected Jesus, is stylistically different from the rest of Mark and is widely regarded by scholars as a later addition.
Likewise, Biblical scholars distressed the faithful by focusing on inconsistencies among the gospels. The Gospel of Matthew says that Judas hanged himself, while Acts describes him falling down in a field and dying; the Gospel of John disagrees with other gospels about whether the crucifixion occurred on Passover or the day before. For those who considered every word of the Bible literally God’s word [i.e., objective historical truth], this kind of scholarship felt sacrilegious.
This is my favorite bit from the article:
One scholar at the Notre Dame conference, who uses the pseudonym Christoph Luxenberg for safety, has raised eyebrows and hackles by suggesting that the “houri” promised to martyrs when they reach Heaven doesn’t actually mean “virgin” after all. He argues that instead it means “grapes,” and since conceptions of paradise involved bounteous fruit, that might make sense. But suicide bombers presumably would be in for a disappointment if they reached the pearly gates and were presented 72 grapes.
This point gets at the profound task that Quranic (or biblical) scholars have to undertake. An otherwise harmless word study has profound implications for how religious followers understand and act upon their faith. With Bartchy, I think this parallel has profound pedagogical relevance when teaching critical biblical studies to committed Christians.
Chris Wright on the "Great Climax"
On Koinonia, the blog hosted by Zondervan Academic, David Frees reviews Chris Wright’s views on the “Great Climax” in Wright’s book,The God I Don’t Understand: Reflections on Tough Questions of Faith. Here is Wright’s own summary of the relevant chapter (10) in the book:
[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zsvZVAahQEs]
I have not actually read Wright’s book yet, but from Frees’ post, I think Wright is on the right track. The end of the age is not simply about the wicked getting their punishment and the righteous their reward, but in the Jesus tradition, it relates directly to how one lives life in the present. Here is a helpful comment from the post:
While his discussion of the resurrection of the dead and the final judgment are important, I connected most with the first section, concerning the return of Christ. Without commenting on the timing of Christ’s return, Wright speaks about the certainty of it. A certainty that he says should deeply impact the believer. He challenges us as readers to ask ourselves what the sure return of Christ means to our lives today. Do we live as though Christ could return at any minute? Does the truth that Christ is the reigning and returning Lord have any bearing on our daily activities? What Christ’s return means to us is a question that should transform the way we think, speak and live every day?
It is easy to think of the “Big Day” as a time when Christ will return to deal out judgment to those who have done us wrong. The Day of the Lord, however, is more than just a day of judgment for unbelievers; it is also a day of examination for believers.
Well said. I am currently trying to work through the difficult complications of the historical situation myself, but I think the present-day Christian’s theological assessment of apocalyptic expectation must emphasize this point.
Jonathan Z. Smith on Wisdom and Apocalypticism
We are discussing Smith’s landmark essay in our Wisdom and Apocalyptic seminar today and I thought I might share this definitive quote from his summary:
In the course of this investigation, several characteristics of apocalypticism emerged on which I would insist. Apocalypticism is Wisdom lacking a royal court and patron and therefore it surfaces during the period of Late Antiquity not as a response to religious persecution but as an expression of the trauma of the cessation of native kingship. Apocalypticism is a learned rather than a popular religious phenomenon. It is widely distributed throughout the Mediterranean world and is best understood as part of the inner history of the tradition within which it occurs rather than as a syncretism with foreign (most usually held to be Iranian) influences.
From Jonathan Z. Smith, “Wisdom and Apocalyptic,” in Map Is Not Territory: Studies in the History of Religion (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1978), 86.
Happy Birthday, Darwin
Two hundred years ago, on this day, Charles Darwin was born. His work (and reactions to it) has led to some of the most frustrating conversations I have ever had, among other things. NPR had an interersting story this morning about Darwin’s relationship with his wife and her influence on him in his struggle with faith. It should also be noted that the entire library of Darwin’s works are now available for free.
To leave you with some food for thought, I would like to share the last lines of Darwin’s Origins of Species:
Thus, from the war of nature, from famine and death, the most exalted object which we are capable of conceiving, namely, the production of the higher animals, directly follows. There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being, evolved.
-
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: