"Saul who is also called Paul" - Michael Compton and the Patristic interpretation of "Paul"

I'm currently reading through different essays in "In Dominico Eloquio: In Lordly Eloquence: Essays on Patristic Exegesis in Honor of Robert Louis Wilken." Recently I read through Michael Compton's essay on the Patristic interpretation of the names of the Apostle Paul. He writes:

What is the relationship between these two names? To many Christians (and non-Christians as well), the answer to the question has been and continues to be quite obvious. For them there is, in fact, no problem at all: Saul the persecuting Pharisee received the name Paul when he converted to Christianity. I confess that this is the answer I was first taught, and I have met many who were taught likewise.

Indeed, this was something I had always assumed as well. Saul isn't used anywhere in the Epistles and when one reads Acts, Luke phases out using Saul in favor of using Paul. Thus, it was natural to assume some kind of a name change had occurred. Compton's article focuses on a few ancient interpreters who shared this view - Jerome, Augustine, etc. Though Origen had already stated that no name change had taken place. Compton focuses especially on Chrysostom, whom Compton believes is responding to the "triumphalist" view of Jerome. Essentially, Jerome's view was that because Sergius Paulus was Paul's first convert (Acts 13:7), Saul took Paul's name.(cf. De Viris Illustribus 5 (PL 23:615) quoted on pg 58). Kind of an odd interpretation, but there you have it.

The article also mentions G.A. Harrer who espoused the theory that Paul was "the Apostle's cognomen while 'Saul' was his signum."(pg 53) I wonder if anyone has anything to say about that, because it seems like a convincing theory to me.

Tertullian and Eschatology

Considering a lot of modern Christians' view on eschatology, I found this quote by Tertullian interesting.

"We pray, too, for the emperors, for their ministers and for all in authority, for the welfare of the world, for the prevalence of peace, for the delay of the final consummation." (Apology 39)

Tertullian is being accused of treason by the Romans and he replies as such. What's interesting to me is praying for the "delay of the final consummation." I'm not going to try and explain Tertullian's eschatological viewpoint here, but I do find it interesting how often modern Christians are at odds with the ancients. For instance, a lot of American Christians seem to think the rebuilding of the Temple in Jerusalem would fulfill God's promises, but the ancients thought that its destruction was a fulfillment of God's promises (which is why Julian tried to rebuild it). I have a lot of modern Evangelical friends who pray that Christ will return and bring about a "final consummation", and Tertullian discusses here asking God to delay it.

So, I've sold out

Since about 2007 my particular interests have shifted away from doing work strictly in New Testament and have moved more towards New Testament and Early Christianity (both its history and theology). I've even considered changing the name of the blog or starting an entirely different blog all together, though I don't think that's necessary. I'm still deeply interested in New Testament scholarship and I think that interest is pertinent to my interests in the early Church. However, I think that studying Early Christian History (or Patristics or whatever title is given to it) allows me to have my cake and eat it too. It allows me to explore my interests in philosophy, history, textual criticism, New Testament, etc. It's a field in which I think I could do well and one in which I would feel entirely comfortable.

This fall I will be applying to graduate programs that reflect my more current interests. I'm most interested in Duke's Early Christian History program for a variety of reasons. I'd love to study Coptic with Zlatko Plese at UNC, do textual criticism with Ehrman, learn Syriac with Lukas Van Rompay, learn about Origen with Liz Clark, learn about Gregory of Nyssa with Smith, and - certainly not a minor reason - I would love to study with Duke's outstanding NT faculty. An interest I have never been able to shake is the Synoptic problem and though I realize Mark Goodacre is a multi-faceted scholar, to study that with him would be amazing.

Other places I'm looking at are, of course, Notre Dame (Brian Daley's work is very interesting and they have amazing funding), Yale (but, for some reason, I think I have no chance there...ever), UVA (Though Wilken is retiring, the work that Kovacs and Gamble are doing is very interesting), and a few others.

I'm going to be applying to both Ph.D programs and Masters programs. If you read this blog, you know there's no reason I should go straight into a Ph.D program, but perhaps I can hoodwink an admissions committee into thinking I'm smart enough. So, for the next few months, on top of little ideas I have, I'm going to be blogging about preparation for applications and such. If any of you have wisdom to bestow, let me have it.

Margaret M. Mitchell on St. John Chrysostom

Mitchell's book The Heavenly Trumpet: John Chrysostom and the Art of Pauline Interpretation is an absolutely fascinating read. On a personal note, I find the ancient way of reading texts more refreshing and far more interesting. I've yet to have to wade through 100 pages of an ancient redaction theory before any kind of commentary is provided. Academically, I enjoy reading these texts because of the light it sheds on ancient epistolary theory and hermeneutics in general. Consider Chrysostom's comment on the "inexperienced" reader reading a text:

και επιστολην ο μεν απειρος λαβων, χαρτην ηγησεται και μελαν ειναι. ο δε εμπειδος και φωνης αχοθσεται, και διαλεξεται τω αποντι.

"The inexperienced reader when taking up a letter will consider it to be papyrus and ink; but the experienced reader will both hear a voice, and converse with the one who is absent."[1]


According to Mitchell, it was common to see a letter as a conversation between the reader and the author.

Most interesting in Chrysostom's "author-centered hermeneutic"[2] is the idea of imitation. Essentially, Chrysostom is the best interpreter of Paul because of how much he loves Paul. Chrysostom states that one should look to Paul as a "αρχετυπος ειχων", an archetypal image. This is the "accurate portrait from which copies are to be made."[3] Paul served as the examplar into which Chrysostom tried to mold himself. Mitchell states that imitation is the ultimate goal, and that creating a portrait from the text is the task of hermeneutics.

___
[1] Margaret M. Mitchell, The Heavenly Trumpet: John Chrysostom and the Art of Pauline Interpretation (Louisville: WJK Press, 2002) 49 (quoted from hom. In 1 Cor. 7.2 [61.56])
[2] Ibid
[3] Ibid

A Confession Stele and Montanism

In Central and Western Anatolia people were noted for their strict morality. Something that was more developed in their religion was the notion of human deeds offending the gods and incurring divine punishment from the gods. An inscription that is particular to this area is something known as a "confession stele" which recounts what a deity has done because of sin. For instance, one inscription reads: "To Zeus Sabazios and Mother Hipta; Diokles son of Trophimos: because I made an attempt on the gods' doves (doves in the sacred temple), I was punished in my eyes and inscribed an account of the gods' power."(1)



Aside from having something in common with the Judeo-Christian notion of sin, this is particularly interesting because this is the area in which Montanism originated and thrived in the 2nd Century CE. One wonders whether this strict morality was a factor in the development of Montanism.





(1)As quoted in Rives, James B. Religion in the Roman Empire, pg. 62.

Julian the Apostate and the Jerusalem Temple

Julian the Apostate is a curious figure in Christian history. Raised as a Christian, he was a self-proclaimed Apostate later in life. He took a bath in bull's blood (the taurobolium) in order to wipe out his Christian baptism as a child. Julian is intriguing because of how much he knew about Christian beliefs (vs. the earlier pagan writers). Warren Carroll, in his second volume of his History of Christendom series (titled: Building of Christendom), discusses Julian's plans to rebuild the Temple in Jerusalem.

"He, Julian the Apostate, unchallenged autocrat of the Western world, would rebuild the Jewish Temple in Jerusalem, overriding and cancelling out Christ's prophecy of its destruction which had been so memorably fulfilled." (Pg 52)

He then cites a Roman historian who was a contemporary of Julian (he served on the Persian frontier with Julian in 363 - ibid), Ammianus Marcellinus:

"Though Alypius (JM: The man in charge of the operation under Julian) pushed the work forward energetically and though he was assisted by the governor of the province, frightful balls of fire kept bursting forth near the foundations of the temple and made it impossible for the workmen to approach the place, and some were even burned to death. And since the elements persistently drove them back, Julian gave up the attempt"

A German Muslim Theologian on Muhammad's existence

Although my interests are in Christianity, I find Islam fascinating because of its intersection with Christianity in history and in thought. A professor at the Munster University who himself is a convert to Islam, Muhammad Sven Kalisch has gone into historical Muhammad research (I wonder if this trend is going to pick up? Historical Alexander the Great Research, Historical Atilla the Hun research, etc). He is Germany's first professor of Islamic Theology and he is causing quite the stir with his assertion that it is unlikely that Muhammad existed. Read the article here.

An Interesting Post on Christology and Development of Doctrine

This post here on the blog "Army of Martyrs" titled Development of the Various Dogmas in Light of the Universal Acceptance of Nicaea. The post and comments that follow are interesting.

Hurtado's Lord Jesus Christ

Now that I'm back at school I have a bit more free time to get some reading done. One thing I had not yet read and knew I needed to is Larry Hurtado's Lord Jesus Christ: Devotion to Jesus in Earliest Christianity. I had read his The Earliest Christian Artifacts awhile ago and really enjoyed his style, so I knew I'd like this one.

I've just read through the first chapter and there are some interesting points. For one, his emphasis on liturgical practice as a lense through which we can see the theology/ies of the christian community is really convincing. I think (and this may be departing from Hurtado) that the NT documents are primarily focused on orthopraxy, particularly within the setting of liturgy, more than theological orthodoxy. Now, this is not imposing an either or - obviously the NT is concerned with both, but I think the NT has put the accent on the liturigcal syllable more than its concern with doing theology (particularly concerning Christology). Some things that have led me to this have been Scott Hahn's book, The Lamb's Supper which is a wonderful little gem, and taking the class on Hebrews with Fr. James Swetnam, SJ. At any rate, I think Hurtado's emphasis on looking at the historic practices will help us to discern their underlying theologies. Even if they aren't articulated with the precise theological language of later eras, the theology within the liturgy is of utmost importance in understanding the earliest christian communities.

This is probably totally obvious to everyone (or totally bogus) - either way, I felt like this was a cap on an "aha" moment.

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?

The Nomina Sacra and Mary

In his book The Earliest Christian Artifacts, Larry Hurtado mentions on pg. 97 that other than the four divine nomina sacra, others began to be used in the Byzantine period. One of these NS was for ΜΗΤΗΡ (Mother, specifically in reference to Mary). I'm wondering if there's some way I could find the earliest manuscript known that uses the NS for Mary. Anyone know? (I'm looking your way, Evangelical Textual Criticism!)

This is why I love this guy

Dr. Black has written an article on his blog concerning two of my favorite things in New Testament/Early Christian studies: The Synoptic Problem and the Fathers! Could I ask for anything more? I think Dr. Black is touching on an issue that carries over into all NT studies (as I've stated before), that the Fathers are important for the study of the NT.

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.

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.

More thoughts on Church...

This will serve as a comment to Michael Halcomb’s request to convey the importance of Patristics in New Testament study as well as furthering my ideas on Church. Taking a completely different route than the one I’m about to take, Mike over at εν εφεσο has commented on how (or how not) churches should be run.

I’ll start with why Patristics is so important. I view it as being essential because it allows us to see how the earliest Christian communities, some shaped by the Apostles themselves, interpreted Scripture. We know that we don’t have the full record about Christ, early Christianity, etc in the New Testament. These were men who had received tradition through a chain in the early church. Bishop to Bishop, etc. Look at 2 Timothy 2:2 where Paul encourages Timothy to share what Timothy has heard from Paul with other people. Not, “Make sure and copy this letter down word for word, because this is all there is.” No, that’s silly. Of course Paul taught Timothy a great deal more than is written down. So where did all of that go? To the Fathers! They are our windows into how this tradition helped shape the church, hermeneutics, etc. They allow us to see Orthodox interpretation of Scripture from the outset of this movement. How do we know what the Apostles taught? Not only by their writings, but the writings of their students, and their students, etc.

Now, on to the Church. My studying of Patristics has led me to some puzzling conclusions. We in Evangelical Protestant circles hear a great deal about “New Testament churches” which are springing up left and right. These churches pride themselves on being the “house churches” that mirror the New Testament church. However, I have to disagree for a few reasons:


1) Neither the New Testament, nor extant Christian literature, indicates anything that looks like these Protestant churches. In fact, I think Acts 15 is a great indicator of how the Church actually was run. Already we see a hierarchy of ruling Apostles who had Elders (πρεσβυτεροι). Pauline literature indicates the office of deacons as well. These weren’t “free to do whatever they wanted” churches; they were held in line by their leaders, the Apostles, the guarantors of the Faith. As far as what the Liturgy looked like, I would encourage you to take a look at the book of Revelation. The liturgical themes in this book are striking! These are all stolen from Scott Hahn’s The Lamb’s Supper: The Mass as Heaven on Earth (119):
Sunday Worship 1:10
High Priest 1:13
Altar 8:3-4; 11:1, 14:18
Priests 4:4; 11:15; 14:3 ; 19:4
Incense 5:8; 8:3-5
Book or Scroll 5:1
Sign of the Cross 7:3; 14:1; 22:4
Lift up your hearts 11:12
“Holy, Holy, Holy" 4:8

There’s considerably more on the list, I’ve just included some of the things I think are interesting as they seem to point to a very early, established liturgy.

2) Indeed, reading the Fathers leads us to some conclusions with which Protestants may not be entirely comfortable. The Church, in its earliest form, is extremely Catholic. The office of the Apostles was understood as ongoing, and they were the heads of the Church, with the Bishop of Rome being the lead Apostle (as he was the successor of Peter). First, I’ll start at Peter. Matthew 16 is quite hard to get around and most Protestant exegetes stumble over Christ’s affirmation and separation of Peter. Luke 22:31-32 again is difficult if Peter didn’t hold a prominent position. Jesus says to him, “Simon, Simon, behold, Satan has demanded permission to sift you (plural) like wheat, but I have prayed for you(singular), that your faith may not fail; and you, when once you have turned again, strengthen your brothers.” Why is Peter set aside? And why is Jesus commissioning Peter to strengthen his brothers? Well, it’s because Peter was the head of the Church. After Peter, it was assumed that his successor took over. If Judas received a successor, certainly Peter would. Pope Clement I in A.D. 80 affirms Apostolic Succession in his Letter to the Corinthians. Are these the pop-up house churches we’re told scattered the New Testament and early Christian landscape? Not at all. In fact, Tertullian mentions that the only way to tell a real Church is whether it enjoys Apostolic succession! (See Demurrer Against Heretics).

3) The real question for me is this: If these New Testament churches didn’t have the hierarchy that Catholics say they did, then why in the world does the Church immediately look like the Catholic church? Why do the Fathers support a hierarchical Church that enjoys Apostolic succession? The Apostles would be, by far, the worst teachers on the face of the planet if their students got it that wrong! There is often this imagined disconnect between the Apostles' teaching on "Biblical ecclesiology" and the Catholic Church. Where is it? It would've had to have been sometime in the first century, while some of the Apostles were still alive!

Some thoughts on church...

For whatever reason, I've been suckered into Ecclesiology. I enjoy figuring out what exactly the "Church" is. There are a great many blogs out there dedicated to this topic. However, something I'm noticing is that they stay only within the New Testament for their views on the Church. Is this proper? Is the New Testament the handbook on ekklesia? My answer: It's not *the* handbook. We have to look not only at the New Testament, but also at the history of the Church and how the Apostolic Fathers viewed Church, etc. How did the earliest Christians do it after the New Testament period?


I'll be posting more on this later, but I wanted to generate some discussion and ideas.

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.

Hurtado and the Nomina Sacra

As I've most assuredly stolen a blog name from someone who is more well-versed in NT studies than I am, I feel obliged to write something about the subject.

I'm on my 2nd reading of Larry Hurtado's The Earliest Christian Artifacts: Manuscripts and Christian Origins and I'm really enjoying it. The chapter on the nomina sacra is by far my favorite. Hurtado says that the Christian nomina sacra with the supralinear stroke (a device used in Greek writing to indicate letters being read as numbers) came out of a desire for the word ιησους, or rather the abbreviation IH, to be read as the number 18 because it would correspond to the Hebrew חי (pronounced "Hi", which means life). This is known as "gematria", which is the practice of reading religious significance into the numerical values of letters in Holy texts and is generally associated with "ancient Jewish exegesis" (Hurtado, 114).

This is really intriguing to me! Has anyone else read the book? If you have, what are your thoughts on the origin of the Christian nomina sacra?