Humor in the New Testament

I was recently asked in an email why the Bible isn't funny. "Why isn't there any humor in there?" I could think of two instances that I actually find really funny:


1) Luke 11:5-7 : I find this scene funny, whether it's intended to be or not. A friend arriving at midnight, asking for three loaves of bread, is silly. But the excuse the man indoors gives is even funnier. He yells back from inside and tells his neighbor that he can't get up because he and his family are in bed. In other words, the man is yelling from the bed outside, telling his friend to go away lest he wake his family.

2) Acts 12:14-16 : Peter is miraculously released from prison and arrives at John Mark's mother's house. Inside, a group is praying for his release. He knocks on the door and a slave girl (Rhoda) recognizes his voice. Instead of letting him in, she runs back to the others and they debate whether it could actually be Peter. After Peter kept knocking, they finally let him in. This is hilarious to me. One can imagine Peter hearing Rhoda's voice, and then hearing her run away back into the house. The scene inside is a bunch of people debating over whether it could actually be Peter outside or not - the easiest way to resolve the debate, of course, is to just go outside and check.

The Triumphal Entry: An observation

This came up in my Greek and Roman Religions class. Most are familiar with the myth of the Phoenix, a being that dies and then rises from the ashes to live again. Interestingly, this comes up in Jesus' triumphal entry.

Greek NT:
τῇ ἐπαύριον ὁ ὄχλος πολὺς ὁ ἐλθὼν εἰς τὴν ἑορτήν, ἀκούσαντες ὅτι ἔρχεται ὁ ἰησοῦς εἰς ἱεροσόλυμα,ἔλαβον τὰ βαΐα τῶν φοινίκων καὶ ἐξῆλθον εἰς ὑπάντησιν αὐτῶ, καὶ ἐκραύγαζον, ὡσαννά· εὐλογημένος ὁ ἐρχόμενος ἐν ὀνόματι κυρίου, [καὶ] ὁ βασιλεὺς τοῦ ἰσραήλ.

New American Bible:
On the next day, when the great crowd that had come to the feast heard that Jesus was coming to Jerusalem, they took palm branches and went out to meet him, and cried out: "Hosanna! Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord, (even) the king of Israel."

The "palm tree" from which the "palm branches" come is called a φοινιξ, -ικος - a phoenix! Here in John 12, the people are waving symbols of Jesus at Jesus as He rides by.

A personalized message to you, from God

I learned about the Personal Promise Bible through Scotteriology. I think this is a fine example of how our Enlightenment-fueled hyper-individualistic philosophy ruins theology. This is the logical conclusion of the "me and Jesus" ideology that pervades modern Christianity. Nevermind the communal nature of these texts. Take a text written for communities of people, take out the 2nd person plural pronouns and insert your name. St. Paul really was writing to you - it's in the Bible, after all.

The Mark of the Beast and Aniconic Jews

In the dissertation I'm currently reading by Deborah Taylor, she discusses the "mark of the beast" from Revelation 13. She recounts how Jews in Palestine had been provoked by "perceived idolatry of representations of the Roman emperor: by athletic trophies; by a golden eagle on a temple gate; by Pilate's brining 'the effigies of Caesar...' into Jerusalem." (Pg 105, citing Josephus Antiquities 15.8.1 and 17.6.2-3).

She goes on to give a brief history of the monetization of the East's economy and then talks about the mint that produced "virtually all" of Palestine's coinage, the mint at Tyre. Not only was the coinage produced at Tyre of a very high quality (Taylor states that it was about 96% silver - pg 108), but that it did not offend the aniconic Jews' sensibilities being that it bore the image of Melqart, the Phoenician Hercules.

However, during Nero's reign, both economic and political forces caused the Tyrian mint to be closed and later its currency to be removed from circulation (109). The closest mint was the Antiochene mint, which produced coinage bearing the image of Nero. Thus, as Taylor states, "[b]y the late 60s, aniconic Jews in Palestine would have compromised their principles with every major purchase."(109)

This isn't her entire argument (nor the focus of her argument, she simply uses this to help date the book of Revelation to the time of Nero's reign) - but I find it an interesting one. For the fact that there's incredible speculation about what the mark of the beast will be (I've heard everything from barcodes to credit cards to social security numbers), it's refreshing that someone has taken the book in its historical context and given an extremely compelling explanation of the mark.

The Liturgical Nature of Christ's Death

My favorite Christology text to date is titled The Mystery of Jesus Christ by Ocariz, Seca, and Riestra. I think they've taken a very smart route in writing the book by employing three authors with different disciplines (one has a degree in Biblical Studies, another in Historical Theology, another in Systematic Theology). I read something last semester, however, with which I don't entirely agree. They write:

Some authors have raised the objection (against the sacrificial character of Christ's death) that that death did not have a cult-like character (or, to put it more accurately, lacked the external rite of an act of cult); others (defending the idea that Christ's death was a sacrifice) have sought that ritual character in the interior offering Christ made of himself on the cross...Therefore, it can be stated that Christ's death is cult-like without being liturgical; it is also the origin, the source and the centre of all liturgy. (Emphasis theirs)

I agree that Christ's death is cultic in nature. However, I think there is a liturgy involved - a very ironic liturgy. The irony is found throughout the passion - for instance, Jesus has already prophesied about his own death and resurrection, but the people yell out to him "Prophesy!" (Mt 26:68//Mk 14:65).

So how is the death of Christ liturgical? Jesus is wearing a purple garment (a high-priestly color - Ex 28:6) and a crown of thorns (Mk 15:17, Ex 28:4 and also see Zech 6:11-12). The cross is a mock altar upon which the sacrifice is given, even though it is "outside the camp" (Heb 13:13). Instead of the ritual washing the High Priest was to do before entering the Holy of Holies, Jesus is washed in his own blood after the scourging (Mk 15:15). There is the recitation of Scripture (Mt 27:46 reciting the opening lines of Ps 22). There are even "conversions" (Lk 23:42). There's probably a myriad of other things that I've thought about and since forgotten that seem to parallel the liturgy of the Temple, but certainly in an ironic way.

Sargon of Akkad and Nimrod

My first post of the new year and it's not even about the New Testament. But, my question is: Could Nimrod, son of Cush, be Sargon of Akkad?

My reasons for asking:

1) Neither Nimrod nor Sargon are names, but titles.

2) The Bible records that Nimrod founded the city of Accad (אכר) and Sargon is from "Akkad". Nimrod also founded the city of Nineveh and there was a mask of Sargon found in Nineveh.

3) Sargon is the first empire builder in antiquity. Nimrod is credited with founding Erech (Unug or Uruk, the oldest city in antiquity).

Could these two be the same people?

Aprl DeConick puts National Geographic Society in a Headlock

Feel the wrath of Dr. DeConick here.

Messianic Expectations

It is often repeated that the Jews during the 1st Century AD were simply looking for a political messiah. I think it's one of those phrases that is thrown around without much thought. For instance, the findings at Qumran seem to indicate otherwise.

Another text that is of particular interest is The Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs. Although most assuredly pseudepigraphical, it was in wide circulation during the 1st Century AD. The "Testament of Simeon" has a really striking passage -

Then shall Shem be glorified, because the Lord God, the Mighty One of Israel, shall appear upon earth as man, and saved by Him Adam. Then shall all the spirits of deceit be given to be trampled under foot, and men shall rule over the wicked spirits. Then will I arise in joy, and will bless the Most High because of His marvellous works, because God hath taken a body and eaten with men and saved men.


This sounds almost too Christian - in fact, I believe the second bit may be under suspicion as being a later addition by Christians. One thing that's interesting is the fact that Shem will be glorified. Why?

Shem in Hebrew is "name". Shem, in the Old Testament, had a dynasty. In fact, the slogan (if you will) in Gen. 11:4 is "let us make a name (lit. Shem) for ourselves." Shem is the father of Eber (from which we get "Hebrew"). Shem is also the only good firstborn son in Genesis. All of that put together really seems to prefigure Jesus. Jesus inherits a name (Heb 1:4). He is the fulfillment of the Davidic Kingship. He is a spiritual Father not to a race, but to all peoples. And He is the supremely good firstborn son. Perhaps the messianic expectations in the 1st Century were more rich than we realize.

Quadratus and Jesus' miracles

Quadratus was an apologist in the 2nd Century, writing to the Emperor Hadrian. He is quoted in Eusebius as claiming that some of those who were raised from the dead by Jesus were still alive in his time. Whether his time means the time of his writing or his earlier years is disputed. When I read this, I remembered Mk 5.21ff/Lk 8.41ff, the account of Jairus' daughter being raised from the dead. I think it's entirely plausible that she could have been young enough that when raised from the dead, she lived into the time of Quadratus. Any thoughts?

Hebrews 4:12 and Christology

A popular passage for Evangelicals to show the magnificence of Scripture is Hebrews 4:12. I used to think this was talking about Scripture until recently. I'm convinced that ο λογος του θεου is Christological. For one, I don't know that Paul (the obvious author of Hebrews) would have seen Scripture as "living and active." Nor do I think Paul would've seen Scripture as having the power to "judge the thoughts and intentions of the heart."

There's a myriad of other reasons why I think this is Christological, but I was wondering if anyone thinks the same.

Also, this is my 100th post. You would think I would have written something better.

Luke 16:19-31 - The Rich Man and Lazarus

Last Sunday the Gospel reading was Luke 16:19-31. This story is odd, if anything. It fits well within Luke's theme of eschatological role reversals with the poor receiving their due reward in Christ (which is why he quotes so much from Isaiah 61). At any rate, something I had never noticed before (and this is a very duh thing) is the way Jesus ends the parable:

But he said to him, 'If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be persuaded even if someone rises from the dead.'


I can't help but think that Luke included this quote as an encouragment for the Church to be aware of the Old Testament. It also seems that, to Luke, Jesus is in the OT (Lk. 24:27). This gives creedance to the Church Fathers' interpretation of the Old Testament with Christological lenses (for modern Christological Exegesis of the OT, I'd say look at Graeme Goldsworthy).

I'm also trying to figure out if there's some kind of a "dig" involved here. Did Jesus say this as a sort of prophetic "slam" to the Pharisees, saying that since they don't believe in Moses and the Prophets, they wouldn't believe in a walking talking supposedly dead guy? Jesus also doesn't say it himself, but has Abraham saying this (a double slam?). Did Luke include it for the reason I stated above, or did he include it also as a way to shock people?

Resources on the Gospel of John

Hello all. I've got an idea brewing and I need to do some research. I need the best resources you know of for the Gospel of John. I'm specifically interested in the Gospel's sources and intended audience. Just leave your suggestions in the comments if you don't mind!

A Rebuttal to Matthew Rondeau

Generally I try to keep things around here on the neutral side of things, not discussing my own faith beliefs and such. However, over on the blog "Splanknois tou Christou", Matthew Rondeau is having a go at the Catholic Church in a series titled "Why I am not a Catholic". We're up to part 2. He posts :

I am hearing of more and more protestants who are joining the Roman
Catholic Church. As I think about this trend, I am intrigued as to what the impetus might be behind such a move.

Later, he writes about the long list of reasons why one might become Catholic, none of which I'd endorse. For instance:

Is it the magical fixation with the belief that “corpus meum est” actually refers to a piece of bread?

For one, I don't know how magical one's fixation can be. Secondly, it does, in fact, not refer to a piece of bread. That's the point.

Or:

Is it the megalomanaical [sic] lust for a single leader that the Israelites had before they were given what they asked for in King Saul?

Leaders are not, in and of themselves, bad. What the Israelites did wrong is desiring their own leadership over God's. They were subverting the authority that God had established because it did not fancy them (perhaps something to think about).

Then, in "Why I am not a Catholic (part 1)" he begins his argument against the Catholic Church. I will here give a rebuttal as one of those formerly of the Protestant persuasion who has found a home with Rome (no, my rebuttal will not rhyme....or will it?).

He states:

For instance, my presupposition, first principle, axiom, whatever you want to call it, is that the 66 books contained in the old and new testaments - commonly called the Bible - are the inerrant word of God...I am not a Catholic because I place no faith in the tradition of the Church.

I have to ask: Why? For one, where is the idea of sola scriptura in the Bible? And where exactly does he get this canon of 66 books? Can he show me where in the Bible the list is? If the Church hadn't the authority to convene a council and decide which books are Scripture, then Matthew is with a "fallible collection of infallible books", as R.C. Sproul puts it. If he has put no faith in the tradition of the Church, I would hope he would stop using their NT canon.

Also, the idea of sola scriptura is anachronistic. This idea isn't even possible until the 4th century. Why was Peter able to write an infallible book, but not able to say things that were infallible that were carried on by his disciples? Is infallibility somehow particular to writing? Can it not pertain to speech?

As I've stated in previous comments/posts, that tradition was alive and well during the Apostolic age is a Biblical idea. For instance, 2 Thess 2:15 has Paul encouraging the people to believe everything that was passed down to them, both in writing and orally. Or perhaps 2 Tim 2:2 where Paul encourages Timothy to remember "that which you have heard from me..." so that he could "entrust these (the teachings) to faithful men who will be able to teach also." Sounds a bit like carrying on traditions.

On John 3 and Baptism he writes:

Relying solely on the Bible, and reading John 3, I conclude that baptism is not even in view here, but that being born of “water” refers to the first and natural way we are born from the wombs of our mothers, and the birth of the “spirit” is what takes place the moment we have faith.

The key here is context (as always). For one, Jesus' ministry begins after St John the Baptist's, who came baptizing with water. John states in Matt 3:11 that he came "baptizing with water", but that someone was coming after him who would baptize with the "holy spirit." Who makes a reference to "water and spirit"? Also, I'm unaware of the phrase "born of water" being used idiomatically for natural birth. And it would've been a tautology for Jesus to say, "Unless you exist, you cannot enter the Kingdom of Heaven." Jesus was cryptic, but not ridiculous. So, I'm skeptical that being born of water means natural birth. I think the plain reading of the text, through Christian lenses, is that Jesus is speaking of something that happens with "water and spirit", that is, Baptism. Secondly, I think 3:22-23 has some gold for us. After discussing these things with Nicodemus, what does Jesus go and do?

"After this Jesus and his disciples went into the land of Judea; there he remained with them and baptized. John also was baptizing..."

We seem to have a real emphasis here on Baptism. This isn't without reason. John places these baptisms immediately after Nicodemus for a reason. Also, I'll refer to my friends, the Fathers, who viewed this passage as a reference to Baptism: Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Hippolytus, Cyprian of Carthage, Cyril of Jerusalem, Athanasius, Basil the Great, Ambrose of Milan, Gregory of Nyssa, etc.

We'll pick up Part 2 later.

The Zebach Toda in Hebrews 13

In discussing Hebrews 13 the other day in class, Fr. Swetnam discussed reading the chapter in light of the Mass, and more specifically the zebach toda (Sacrifice of Praise). I won't go into the full lecture, but rather something I found really interesting. I'm dealing specifically with Heb. 13:15. Here is the Greek:

δι αυτου αναφερωμεν θυσιαν αινεσεως δια παντος τω θεω τουτ εστιν καρπον χειλεων ομολογουντων τω ονοματι αυτου


While translating the Hebrew texts for the Septuagint, the translators had to dabble in a little neologism for the word αινεσεως because an appropriate word did not yet exist for the Hebrew idea of a sacrifice of praise.

Now, one of my arguments for Luke being Paul's amanuensis for the letter to the Hebrews is the use of the Septuagint. Paul generally prefers to quote from the Hebrew, while the Gospel writers prefer the Septuagint. The letter to the Hebrews only contains one Hebrew OT reference (10:30), and every other OT reference is from the Septuagint. Perhaps the use of the Septuagint was to point the readers in the direction of the zebach toda in the OT as a precursor to the Eucharist. This strange phrase (θυσιαν αινεσεως) would've clicked with Hebrew readers who were familiar with the Septuagint and familiar with the way the LXX translators translated zebach toda.

A question about pedagogy

Mark Goodacre's recent post about his first day of teaching a class on the New Testament this term has brought up a question that I've asked myself so many times: how do professors separate faith from the classroom? I don't mean to ask this in the sense that I think it's impossible, I've dialogued with people about the NT numerous times without having to resort to even talking about faith or my own personal beliefs (although I'm sure it creeps through without me knowing it). Is it ever appropriate for a professor to divulge his own beliefs on the matter, though? I know if you take Bart Ehrman's NT course at the University of North Carolina, he is extremely vocal about what he thinks. Does that unnecessarily bias the students towards your belief? I think it does. The professor is such an icon in our world. He is the supposed guarantor of all knowledge in his field, an expert among experts. If he believes it, it must be true!

As someone who wants to be a professor, my idea is that I want to keep my students guessing. I want them to have zero clue where I stand on the matter because I want to have as little influence over them as possible. My big revelation over the last few years has been that there's too much indoctrination (in almost every field) in universities today. Students end up being fundamentalists, able to rattle off the professor's arguments for whatever stance. My hope for myself is that when I finally get around to teaching (sometime in the year 3056, I think) is that I'll be able to discuss Bultmann, Sanders, Wright, Black, Robinson, Tilling (oh yes, he'll be famous by then), Goodacre, etc without my students knowing which parts I agree with and which I don't. Is this sound pedagogy? Is it possible?

Even more thoughts on Church....

So, after having had some time to think through some of my thoughts about the importance of the Fathers, particularly in our view of the Church, I'm back with another post. How terribly exciting for all of us.

Basically, I think that the problem with modern Protestant views of the Church stem from the problem of sola scriptura. Stanley Hauerwas, in a lecture given at Boston College, called this "the great Protestant heresy." I don't know if I'm willing to use the H word here, but I think he's got a point, particularly in ecclesiology. If we look just to the New Testament for our view on the Church, we're going to get a strange animal. We're going to have to piece together a few verses here and there, try and look at Acts a bit, and see what we can figure out. But this has lead to a multiplicity of denominations. If the New Testament were all we needed for ecclesiology, why isn't it more clear? How does the same text provide us with Senior Pastors, Multiple Elder-led congregations, and the whole lot? Well, it's because we're only looking at half the story. We are only looking at half of what the Apostles revealed to their disciples.

I think what happens when we exclude Patristics from our study of the Church is we isolate the NT in an unnatural way from the earliest Christian communities that used the text. These communities had various traditions concerning liturgy that can be traced back to the Apostolic age. We don't read about this in the NT because that's not the aim of the NT. It's not a handbook on ecclesiology. So, we must look to the Fathers and their witness about the Church during their time. They are our glimpses into the first fruits of the Apostles' evangelization.

Also, on the topic of the Fathers from some of the comments in the earlier post:

The Fathers do disagree sometimes. The Church is made up of people, and people are going to disagree about some things. However, their disagreements are often fairly minor. Overall, there is an orthodoxy maintained throughout the Fathers. And like I said before: we are hard-pressed to find this notion of pop-up house churches that are without set liturgy and clergy in the Fathers. My comment on the Apostles having to be the worst teachers still stands (not that they are, but that they would be if their students got it that wrong). Yes, students sometimes go astray from their teachers, but the idea that the Apostolic Fathers and their students got it so wrong is without merit. It would be tantamount to reading Mark Goodacre's The Case Against Q and walking away believing he believes in Q. You would either have to be beyond stupid (which the Fathers weren't, their writings are really wonderful and deep) or Dr. Goodacre would be the worst communicator on the face of the planet (which he isn't and his book is one of the best I've ever read concerning the issue...I can't stress how much I love that book). Likewise, the Apostles would've had to have said, "Okay guys, no priests, no sacraments, Peter's not the Pope, and Christ isn't literally present in the Eucharist" and then their students would've said, "Okay, so you're telling us to have priests, sacraments, Peter is Pope, and Christ is literally present?" It just doesn't make any sense that the Apostles instruction would've produced something that different from what was intended.

New Testament Scholarship

Something that concerns me in New Testament studies is the splintering of one large study (the New Testament, or even The Bible) into various little sub-disciplines. This may work for something like a Biologist who just wants to study fungus or something the rest of his life, and has no need to know about zebras. But in Biblical Studies, I think we have be more well-read than our counterparts in other fields. Indeed, I think this is why Aquinas calls Theology the "Queen" of the sciences. I have people ask me all the time, "So, what are you, a systematic guy, Biblical theology, or Biblical studies, or what?" and I have to answer them: "Yes." I'm not a master (or even a novice yet) at any of them, but I realize that they all hold a place within the grand scheme.

How does one understand the New Testament without the Old? How do you separate systematic and Biblical theology when both are important? And a huge one for me: how are so many NT scholars so completely unaware of patristics? Yes, they may use a quote from Ignatius here and there, but I know a great many NT scholars who are in no way well-versed in Church Fathers. This seems vital to me! Historically, you can separate the two, but ideologically you cannot. The history of the ideas of the church is, in my most humble and uneducated opinion, quintessential for understanding Biblical studies. Or, as April Deconick has written about, how do we toss aside important information contained in these Nag Hammadi texts? Yes, I realize they're late and don't provide a great amount of historical information concerning Jesus, but they provide historical information concerning the beliefs of a particular subset of people. Why did they interpret the New Testament in such a way as to arrive at these beliefs? That's valuable, I think.


***Note***

Immediately after posting this I went to Dr. Deconick's blog and she shares a similar conviction about the matter:

My third point was that most biblical scholars aren't interested in studying the NH documents because they are perceived to be late and therefore of no consequence to Christian Origins. The same is true, I suppose, for ante-Nicene literature in general. Not many biblical scholars take the time to become well-versed in much beyond the apostolic fathers.

Brilliant Exegesis

This is really a brilliant exegesis of Matthew 16. Groundbreaking and revolutionary. I suspect this will shock the world of New Testament studies overnight! (HT: Chris Tilling)

What are you praying for?

The Lord's prayer is so often prayed that I think its significance has decreased in modern Christianity. I know that I chant through it instead of honestly thinking about the implications of the words I'm saying. Something has really stood out for me in the last few months concerning the Lord's prayer, however.

Matthew 6:10

Your Kingdom come,

Your will be done,

On earth as it is in heaven

Now, I've intentionally made the two lines italicized because I think "Your will be done" is the only thing people focus on when considering earth and heaven. But what did Jesus mean about God's kingdom coming on earth?

One thing that bothers/perplexes me is that God's kingdom is not divided or fractured in Heaven, why should it be on earth? I think the Lord's prayer has huge implications for ecclesiology. However, this is because I take God's Kingdom on earth to be his Church (contrary to both George Ladd and J. Millard Erickson). I like things to be practical and real. As such, I'm generally less inclined to follow Luther, Calvin, and even Augustine in dividing up the "visible" and "invisible" church. I want the invisible to be the visible! I like the idea of one corporate body working together. In fact, I think denominations are the inability of Christians to work through the Spirit within the community. I suppose I'm just not theologically inclined enough to see how one can pray for God's Kingdom to come on earth and be as it is in Heaven, and then remain divided from Christian brethren because that's the way things have always been. The Lord's prayer seems a bit like spiritual nonsense if we're saying to God, "Make your Kingdom on earth as it is in Heaven.....but do it without me having to do anything."

So, the question is: What exactly are you praying for when you pray the Lord's prayer? Or, a more historical-critical approach: what do you suppose Jesus meant here? Is this a validation for a one Church world? Did Jesus equate God's Kingdom coming on earth as the Church?

Also, something that's well-worth a read is Pope John Paul II's encyclical letter titled Ut Unum Sint. He discusses a reunited and reconciled Church. (HT: Michael Barber)

Interview

I recently did an interview with Michael Halcomb of Pisteuomen. Please do check it out. I feel like a real Biblioblogger now....interviews and everything. Also, he's doing an exciting series on Mark that's an interesting read.