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.

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. 

Rosson's review of Bird & Crossley

Loren Rosson recently posted a review of How Christianity Began. Here's a quote I found particularly interesting:

Bird's take is transparently confessional, going so far as to defend the virgin birth, that Jesus thought he was divine, and that he wasn't wrong about the kingdom's timetable. Crossley's rejoinder on all these points is right on the money, and as he notes, Bird's evangelical view makes him more or less obligated to argue this stuff. I was getting a very bad feeling for Bird in this chapter, but thankfully he gets better as the book goes on.

Jumping to the end, where Crossley and Bird give alternative accounts of Christianity's ultimate success, I think the former again shows more argumentative strength. Believers like to hold up what's theologically distinctive and appealing, but religions usually triumph for more mundane reasons, even accidentally. The west would have probably become Islamic if Charles Martel had lost the Battle of Tours in 732 (think how different the world would be today if a very minor battle had gone the other way). Sociological accounts of Christian origins may not be the most exciting things to read about, but Crossley is right that "Bird's near-complete reliance on ideas and individual influence is odd and outdated" (p 166)

I think, generally speaking, that Rosson's review is fair and well-done. And I think scholarly skepticism of the virgin birth is something evangelicals HAVE to learn to deal with. It's a leap of faith, and, in my humble opinion, that's exactly how it should be. Faith is faith precisely because it lacks scientific verification. I agree that religions do, to some extent and with many exceptions, rise to a degree of prominence based on historical factors such as economics, class warfare, colonialism. I think we can, and should, look at Marxist accounts when doing religious studies. That being said, I feel Rosson overstates the "gullibility," if you will, of the evangelical position. What is inherently wrong with the faith-based assumption that historical factors are so construed as to give Christianity the seedlings necessary to plant and grow? Obviously this is a Christianization of history. And, perhaps more obviously, such a statement draws ire from the academy at large. But, I personally don't find quite the dichotomy between theology & history as Rosson posits.

For the record...

It's Sally's!

Social Dissonance

Social dissonance is a term commonly used in anthropological studies to classify the phenomenon that occurs when cultural boundaries, either artificially imposed or embedded, are unnaturally transcended. For example, when a gladiator, otherwise considered a lower-class individual, gained fame in the classical world through his exploits in the arena, he could become more honored than a member of the upper-class. An equestrian of upper-class status may lack the fame, or notoriety, that one would naturally assume he would have in greater quantity than the aforementioned gladiator. In biblical studies we see this play out with the apostle Paul. If Paul was indeed a citizen of Rome, he downplays citizenship and embraces the metaphor of slavery in service of Christ. To that extent, his status as a Roman citizen is in dissonance with his lower, adopted status as a slave.

In our class discussion, we jokingly paralleled this ancient phenomenon with our current lives as poor graduate students! Think of it this way. As a graduate student you go to the local Starbucks. The average working class Joe may perceive you to be of higher status simply because you're seeking higher education. In truth, based on economic indicators, the average Joe is (probably) bringing in more money and, at least for the foreseeable future, has greater stability. Of course, fortunes can change, but the current socio-cultural comparison is askew. 

This phenomenon is something to think about when we do/discuss church composition and mission. I think we have to think about the ways we implicitly and, rather naturally, categorize people according to categories which, unfortunately, do not reveal the whole truth. As believers, we are commanded to regard all people as equals (Gal. 3.28). However, when we think about outreach and putting together small groups, it may help to think about how we are more alike in ways which we may not think about, and more different in ways we may assume. And, as Paul modeled, we should be willing to make less of ourselves than our economic successes may imply.

"The Big Sin"

Tim tagged me on this one, so here goes:

I've always harbored a dark, secret (some would say destructive) desire to engage in open-seas piracy. I know piracy has become a bit more en-vogue after Johnny Depp's performances in the Pirates movies, but for some of us, it's an "all-too real" allurement that can wreak havoc on the soul. To think of all the time I've wasted dreaming of salty air, bad rum, and cannons blasting. Sometimes when I'm alone I wear an eye-patch....

Actually, for a more serious answer, I would have to say that my greatest fear is to be overcome with greed. I think it's easy, particularly after years of graduate school, to want to divorce yourself from all the material sacrifices you've made. When others of your peer group are buying homes and decent cars, it's only natural to feel frustrated & embittered by what you lack; i.e. a small apartment and a beat up honda. And, ultimately, the pay-off is, well, not really a financial pay-off. So, it's easy to want more; financial security and independence, better stuff, and vacations! In themselves they aren't bad things, but when you inordinately desire them, the consequences can be severe.

On a side note, some guys started a Pirates club when my sister was at Carolina. I always thought it would be the coolest thing you could ever do. Imagine waking up at 6am, putting on a good pirate's garb, loading 10-deep on a small skiff, and then "attacking" the women's rowing team!

Missional Theology

Art links to David Congdon's series on missional theology. I've only skimmed the surface, but it seems well worth the time investment. 

Faith & Academy

One of the internal debates I've wrestled with over the last year is the interaction of historical-critical scholarship and practical theology. Naturally, there are about a million ways to discuss this topic. But, my question is simply this: If one is not a confessing believer, then what is his/her motivation for pursuing a doctorate & dedicating a lifetime to teaching and studying the biblical texts? I don't ask this question out of any particular frustration. In fact, as a believer, I love critical scholarship. I struggle to integrate it (thank you Kenton Sparks & Peter Enns), but I enjoy the challenges and, in the end, find them both fruitful and inspiring. I hope my motivations in pursuing doctoral work are entirely transparent both in the academy and in the church community at large. I wonder, however,  what drives an atheist or agnostic biblical scholar? It seems that, at best, each day would be an exercise in deconstruction. Honest questions.

VP debate

When you're expecting a Gomer Pyle and you end up meeting an Andy Griffith, has anything changed? 

Here's my problem with tonight's debate: The expectations were so low for Palin, she had absolutely no chance to make a bad impression. 

Golly gee!

Kind Words & an Explanation

Tim has some very kind words.  I do want to get into a blogging groove (if there is such a thing!). 

Things have been incredibly busy, but I'll make an election '08 style pledge to make some changes & get to writing!

If anyone has the time, I do suggest following Tim's links to the discussion on M. Patton's page. It's a great synopsis of the problems involved in "evangelical politics." Earlier today I had the opportunity to attend an open-forum meeting held between members of the on-campus "Politics & Faith" group & the Evangelical Fellowship. The discussion centered on this year's election. The misconceptions (by both sides) were incredible. There's a lot to think through & I urge VOTERS to embrace the tensions and work through the issues with an open mind.

Getting Worked over.

My class schedule has now been finalized (sort of!), and the end result is incredibly promising yet just a bit on the pyscho side of the scale. I've added Dale Martin's doctoral seminar on the Greco-Roman environment. For those of you that have never met Dale Martin, I highly suggest trying to at some point! The class meets once a week, and it's expected that you will not be able to be fully prepared. In his words, the premise of the course is to learn how to read everything when it's impossible to read everything! In terms of content, at some point will be reading Tacitus' writing on sperm in the ancient world. So, there you go! Dr. Martin brings an incredibly interesting and energetic approach to the table, so I think this will be a great class. For the record, he's the godfather of Bart Ehrman's kids and calls Ehrman a close friend. Should be a fantastic class!

Life Repeats Itself.

It's a beautiful semi-Fall afternoon up here in New Haven. This comes on the heels of last week's rain fest featuring my ill-conceived hour long trek to New Britain in the midst of a tropical storm! So as part of the beautiful afternoon, I decided to leave class and drive out to Starbucks for an afternoon of translation (seemingly all I do these days!). On the way over I have one of those "I've done this before moments." So, without further ado, I give you the shocking parallels:

September 1995 (I was 18 - let me emphasize that again, 18!)

1. I drove a small, red Honda CRX with a sunroof. Today I drive a small, red Honda Civic with a sunroof.
2. After class I'd throw my books in the car & rock out to Led Zeppelin before long jump practice. After class today I threw the books in the car, and the first song on the radio after I hit the highway: Over the Hills and Far Away.
3. I was a poor student applying to colleges. I'm a poor graduate student getting ready to apply for doctoral programs.
4. I spent most of my evenings working on French. I'm going nuts learning Hebrew.
5. Class consisted of my 18-yr old peers. Did I mention that my last class of the day was downtown at the main campus....with 1st year undergrads?

There you go!

Funniest line of the week.

We're sitting in a classical Greek prose class. The professor asks a few of us divinity school students to give three examples of how the optative is used independently:

Gideon (knowing I'm from DTS): Quick, get Wallace on the blackberry!