Getting back in the groove

Well it has been way too long since I've done anything at all on this blog! What better time to remedy the situation than by blogging at 1 in the morning on the eve of a morning presentation and a 5-hr car ride down to DC ?!?!?!?

Anyway, I mainly wanted to say that my wife's new blog (did I mention I got married, can you use that as an excuse to blow off blogging???) peaked my enthusiasm to rev up the blogging and start posting again. We're off to visit my dad over Easter - and do the free museum tours of the nation's capitol - before settling back in for the stretch run of the semester. Speaking of stretch runs, the Yanks have absolutely zero chance this year if Bret G can't hit .150 in center and CC and Wang pitch bad back-to-back outings in meaningful series.

In all seriousness, I do want to get some pictures of the wedding, play with the blog's format, and dive in to some of the more meaty stuff that's been on my mind.

By the way, did I also mention that Carolina won the national championship??? Boo-ya!

Christian individualism

When you study the apostle Paul, you have to keep in mind that the typical ancient Mediterranean person was far-less individualistic than the average American. Whereas "our" actions are self-focused and identity is constructed in terms of vocation and personal interests, the ancient person was a collectivist, dyadic, and group oriented. Just think about your average dinner party, or what happens when you meet a stranger. The first question, "What is your name?" The second question, "What do you do?"

It's interesting to think about how this instructs & informs our prayer lives. Far too often my prayer instinctively drifts to self-concerns. Help me do this. Help me see this. As a corrective we should look more to the prayers of the NT. I ran across this quote from Josephus, and I think it serves purpose in illustrating bits of Paul's background. Keep in mind that Josephus is trying to extol the Jewish people & their way of life:

"Our prayers are not occasions for drunken self-indulgence - such prayers are abhorrent to God-but for sobriety. At these sacrifices prayers for the welfare of the community must take precedence of those for ourselves; for we are born for fellowship, and he who sets its claims above his private interests is specially acceptable to God" (Against Apion, 2.195-96; Loeb).

I just don't understand this

So John Piper has harsh words regarding President-elect Obama's decision to invite Gene Robinson to pray at the inauguration.

I just can't figure out why Piper, whom I generally respect, has decided to join the rank-in-file of American evangelicalism's obsession with homosexuality. I'm wondering, based on Piper's logic, if Christ becomes a minister of condemnation every time an obese pastor steps up to the pulpit? what does the lying deacon make him? or the elder who cheats on his taxes? What's more disturbing is the implicit assumption that the American president should endorse a view commensurate with Piper's evangelical belief system. This is the false assumption that is killing the evangelical church in this country. Instead of preaching a robust gospel that attracts the public, we push our views into the mainstream by crying foul every time we think someone has stepped on our toes. Believe it or not, there are other citizens in this country who embrace views very different than our own. Believe it or not, the best way to reach them is by drawing them in, not selfishly pushing our way on them (especially in the political arena). 

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.

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.

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! 

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.