Sunday, November 16, 2008
great learning opportunity
If you follow college basketball, love playing pick-up, or just want a great opportunity to get some floor burn, then you should definitely check this out.
Friday, November 14, 2008
When you read something boring
It's brilliantly gray and foggy outside. You can see your breath with every step you take, and the old gothic buildings never looked any cooler. Top it of with some hot coffee at the on-campus Bucks, and you're good to go! Oh, and then........................................................read the dullest material you'll ever come across.
This leads me to a survey that only fellow biblical studies nerds can appreciate. Right now I'm reading an article on Galen & ancient medical practices. Misery loves company. With that in mind, what's the dullest material you've ever read when studying the ancient world? I'm thinking the qualifier here is that it should date between 200 BCE -400 CE. There's lots to choose from, so have it.
My first vote (calling it a choice would be far too generous!) is the Oxyrhynchus Papyri, specifically the Corn Dole records. I wanted to chew a spoon.
Oh, and you can't vote for anything TC related because I think TC is pretty cool even if most people find it ridiculously boring and/or trivial.
This leads me to a survey that only fellow biblical studies nerds can appreciate. Right now I'm reading an article on Galen & ancient medical practices. Misery loves company. With that in mind, what's the dullest material you've ever read when studying the ancient world? I'm thinking the qualifier here is that it should date between 200 BCE -400 CE. There's lots to choose from, so have it.
My first vote (calling it a choice would be far too generous!) is the Oxyrhynchus Papyri, specifically the Corn Dole records. I wanted to chew a spoon.
Oh, and you can't vote for anything TC related because I think TC is pretty cool even if most people find it ridiculously boring and/or trivial.
Thursday, November 13, 2008
Making Progress with Matthew
So I'm going to try and get a few posts rolling here over the next few days. I've been knee deep trying to nail down paper topics & reading an INSANE amount of material for Dale Martin. This week we've got about 1,000 pages on the docket dealing with medicine in the ancient world (primarily using Galen as an entry point). Dr. Martin makes the case that the medical material in the ancient world consistently uses terminology that emphasizes seeking balance. If someone was sick or ill, they were "out of balance." Something was too hot, so you made it cold. Something was too cold, so you made it hot. Naturally, you can see how this leads to draining blood. Removing the "bad" blood restored a good an healthy condition. What's fascinating is that these terms and this concept shows up extensively in the political literature of the period.
Regarding Matthew, I'm looking at the function of gift-giving in Matthew's gospel & this means I get to spend way too much time trying to work through Seneca's De Beneficiis. The question, which has some functional value for contemporary discussion, is whether or not one can have pure interests in giving a gift. Can a gift be given without an eye toward some sort of return? I think you can investigate this in Matthew and I think the cool thing is that Matthew uses the concept to navigate the Gentile mission. Paul uses Seneca's conception of gift-giving in Romans 1-8.
In terms of 4 Maccabees, I'm trying to look at how the ancient world viewed old age. I'm hoping it's as interesting as I think it can be. There's some pretty good material on youth that Beverly Gaventa of Princeton has recently edited.
Anyway...sorry for just kind of throwing up a little bit on this post!
Friday, November 7, 2008
Apocalyptic & Matthew 24
Here's something I'm considering on the apocalyptic in Matthew 23-25:
Scholars (ahem, N.T Wright) often level out the vertical eschatology of Matthew by placing a heavy emphasis on the destruction of the temple during the Roman invasion in 70. But, I'm wondering if this doesn't do justice to the narrative flow of chapters 23-24. In 23.38, Jesus declares "your house is left desolate." Many take this as an oblique reference to his spirit leaving the Jewish Temple permanently based on Jewish rejection of the gospel (23.37). What if the symbolic nature of 23.38 is physically represented in 24.1, when Jesus leaves the temple? The syntax could bring this out with a bit more force, but I'm at Starbucks and don't have a grammar near-by.
I'm wondering if Jesus' words in 24.2, obviously in reference to the temple, are also word-pictures of a physical reality to be flushed out in response to the disciples' questions in 24.3. What merits attention is the temporal/thematic distance of 24.3 from 24.1. Jesus sits on the Mount of Olives when disciples approach him and ask the question. They've digested the meaning of the word-picture in 24.1-2 and the complexity of the rich symbolism. They know that the prophecy of the temple destruction must take on symbolic significance parallel to the physical representation of Jesus actually/physically leaving the temple. So, instead of asking what will happen, they ask when it will happen.
I think this may show that Matthew was sharpening the apocalyptic nature of Mark's gospel. Mark brackets the temple incident with the fig tree account. He curses the fig tree, and upon returning later the tree has withered. The connotation obviously, in my opinion, links the withering of the tree with the temple's imminent destruction. Hence, clearing the temple indicates a picture of the temple's soon-to-come destruction (at least in Mark's gospel!).
Matthew, writing to a community disillusioned by the delay of the parousia, condenses the fig tree account into a single event. Jesus curses the tree and immediately it withers (22.18-22). Notice two important details. First of all, Matthew does not bracket the temple incident with the fig tree account. I think he does this because he doesn't want to make the connection between the event - he wants to lessen the rhetorical force of Mark's gospel. He does not want the fig tree to directly correspond to the temple incident (perhaps only obliquely!). Notice also that Matthew changes Jesus' words to the poor fig tree. In Mark, no one will ever eat from the tree. In Matthew, the tree will never bear fruit again (21.19). I think there's significance here. IN both cases, I think Jesus was fully aware of the fact that it was not the season for the tree to bear fruit. What's operative here is an object lesson.
Matthew wants to explain to his audience why there has been a delay in the second coming. So, instead of stressing the immediate coming of the messiah, in the sense that he will come in this generation, he stresses the immediacy of the events when they actually do happen. It's the difference between when and how. That's why he does not stress the correspondence between the fig tree and the Temple. That's also why he emphasizes the immediate results of Jesus' curse. This helps explain the reference to the fig tree when it reappears in 24.32-34. When the season is right, then the tree will bear leave. Similarly, when the disciples see the signs, they will know that "it is near, right at the door" (24.32-33).
Granted, the major hole is 24.34, where Matthew has Jesus say that all these things will happen within this generation. However, I still think the author expects the second coming. He's trying to explain why it hasn't happened yet. This is the rhetorical significance of 21.21-22. In contrast to Mark, Jesus curses the tree to never bear fruit. In 24. 32-33, the second coming will occur when the fig tree bears leaves! Why the discrepancy? I think this is a brilliant use of literary technique. The Matthean Jesus has issued a curse on the tree, much like the author's generation labors under the curse of persecution (24.4-29). When Jesus returns, the curse will be reversed. In the interim, the author's generation must respond in faith. They must pray for the return to come speedily. This is the explicit point of 24.21-22. They can and should pray for the eschatological reversal of their present circumstances, just as the curse on the fig tree will be lifted, signaling, as it were, the second coming.
Scholars (ahem, N.T Wright) often level out the vertical eschatology of Matthew by placing a heavy emphasis on the destruction of the temple during the Roman invasion in 70. But, I'm wondering if this doesn't do justice to the narrative flow of chapters 23-24. In 23.38, Jesus declares "your house is left desolate." Many take this as an oblique reference to his spirit leaving the Jewish Temple permanently based on Jewish rejection of the gospel (23.37). What if the symbolic nature of 23.38 is physically represented in 24.1, when Jesus leaves the temple? The syntax could bring this out with a bit more force, but I'm at Starbucks and don't have a grammar near-by.
I'm wondering if Jesus' words in 24.2, obviously in reference to the temple, are also word-pictures of a physical reality to be flushed out in response to the disciples' questions in 24.3. What merits attention is the temporal/thematic distance of 24.3 from 24.1. Jesus sits on the Mount of Olives when disciples approach him and ask the question. They've digested the meaning of the word-picture in 24.1-2 and the complexity of the rich symbolism. They know that the prophecy of the temple destruction must take on symbolic significance parallel to the physical representation of Jesus actually/physically leaving the temple. So, instead of asking what will happen, they ask when it will happen.
I think this may show that Matthew was sharpening the apocalyptic nature of Mark's gospel. Mark brackets the temple incident with the fig tree account. He curses the fig tree, and upon returning later the tree has withered. The connotation obviously, in my opinion, links the withering of the tree with the temple's imminent destruction. Hence, clearing the temple indicates a picture of the temple's soon-to-come destruction (at least in Mark's gospel!).
Matthew, writing to a community disillusioned by the delay of the parousia, condenses the fig tree account into a single event. Jesus curses the tree and immediately it withers (22.18-22). Notice two important details. First of all, Matthew does not bracket the temple incident with the fig tree account. I think he does this because he doesn't want to make the connection between the event - he wants to lessen the rhetorical force of Mark's gospel. He does not want the fig tree to directly correspond to the temple incident (perhaps only obliquely!). Notice also that Matthew changes Jesus' words to the poor fig tree. In Mark, no one will ever eat from the tree. In Matthew, the tree will never bear fruit again (21.19). I think there's significance here. IN both cases, I think Jesus was fully aware of the fact that it was not the season for the tree to bear fruit. What's operative here is an object lesson.
Matthew wants to explain to his audience why there has been a delay in the second coming. So, instead of stressing the immediate coming of the messiah, in the sense that he will come in this generation, he stresses the immediacy of the events when they actually do happen. It's the difference between when and how. That's why he does not stress the correspondence between the fig tree and the Temple. That's also why he emphasizes the immediate results of Jesus' curse. This helps explain the reference to the fig tree when it reappears in 24.32-34. When the season is right, then the tree will bear leave. Similarly, when the disciples see the signs, they will know that "it is near, right at the door" (24.32-33).
Granted, the major hole is 24.34, where Matthew has Jesus say that all these things will happen within this generation. However, I still think the author expects the second coming. He's trying to explain why it hasn't happened yet. This is the rhetorical significance of 21.21-22. In contrast to Mark, Jesus curses the tree to never bear fruit. In 24. 32-33, the second coming will occur when the fig tree bears leaves! Why the discrepancy? I think this is a brilliant use of literary technique. The Matthean Jesus has issued a curse on the tree, much like the author's generation labors under the curse of persecution (24.4-29). When Jesus returns, the curse will be reversed. In the interim, the author's generation must respond in faith. They must pray for the return to come speedily. This is the explicit point of 24.21-22. They can and should pray for the eschatological reversal of their present circumstances, just as the curse on the fig tree will be lifted, signaling, as it were, the second coming.
Wednesday, November 5, 2008
Shifting Gears
A while back I promised that this blog would become more "academic" and less about trivial ramblings. On the heels of last night, I too promise change!
The rub of it all is that this semester has been an incredible adjustment. I've been challenged spiritually and academically in ways that, frankly, I haven't been before and probably desperately need! Things will undoubtedly remain hectic, and at times confusing, but blogging has proven therapeutic and a great way to engage in critical interaction with the blogging community.
A couple of academic projects in the works:
1) Communal boundaries & "benefaction" language in the Matthean community.
2) Socio-rhetorical function of the "young & old" in 4 Maccabees.
3) Gift-giving in Greek novels.
4) Morality in Dostoevsky's Crime and Punishment. This one is for fun, but I'm aiming to present a comparison between the novel & the historical reception of the Sermon on the Mount.
I'm aiming to get a couple of book reviews up soon from my seminar under Dale Martin. I'd love to start with Rupke's work on Roman religion.
Election Reflections
1) The joy and hope I see in the faces of African-Americans today is nothing short of beautiful and has been utterly delightful to witness. There's no way I can understand the enormity and significance of last night in comparison to those who have suffered the injustices of slavery and discrimination. However, I am incredibly grateful that we have taken a major step in healing the racial divide that has tragically characterized this nation for the greater part of it's short history. I rejoice with those who now have new-found hope in the power of American democracy!
2) Apparently I have a LOT of rich friends! I never knew that so many people under the age of 30 were making more than 200k a year. And to think you can make that kind of money and still find time to update your Facebook status! No wonder Obama's tax policy is so maligned!!!
3) McCain's acceptance speech was well-done and brilliantly composed. It's a shame that his campaign took a decidedly negative path when Palin went rogue.
4) There are far more ways to limit abortion than moral legislation. When we give up the Constantinian notion that our civil forefathers embodied the faith of our spiritual fathers, than we can make some headway.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
