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.

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.

The Episcopal Muslim

I read this story first over at Targuman. The Rev. Ann Holmes Redding says that she is both a Christian and a Muslim. Notice the "Rev" before her name. She has been an Episcopal priest for 20 years, a Muslim for 15 months.

The Reverend Redding sees no problem with her two faiths, noting that, "At the most basic level, I understand the two religions to be compatible. That's all I need." She goes on to say that, "I am both Muslim and Christian, just like I'm both an American of African descent and a woman. I'm 100 percent both." Here is where I have to call shenanigans. Her analogy is mind-blowingly fallacious. There aren't any ideologies involved with being an American of African descent. They aren't mutually exclusive. Islam and Christianity are mutually exclusive. What's scary - She starts teaching New Testament at Seattle University next semester (Firstly, because of what she's teaching, and secondly...because someone is allowing her to teach at a university when she makes analogies like that!).

Chris Brady at Targuman gave his two cents on it, and I agree. However, a key part in the article let me know that her beliefs aren't really incompatible. The article goes on to say that the Reverend Redding does not believe in the Trinity and that Jesus was just a man who was filled with God's will. That's what separates Him from the rest of humanity. These few little bits let me in on something....she wasn't a Christian in the first place. In fact, she's nearly been a Muslim the whole time without realizing it. Islam teaches that Christ is just another created being, and worshipping any created thing is the highest sin (cf. Surah 4:48, 116). The sad thing is that she's been in a leadership position in a church (and will continue to be; the article says her Bishop is excited about her new faith...?). This is what has always ruffled my feathers about John Shelby Spong. The man uses the title "Bishop" at every opportunity, but then proceeds to bash all Christian beliefs (which is fine, but quit calling yourself a Christian).

She admits that she believes that Jesus died on the cross and was resurrected, which obviously conflicts with Islamic teaching. There's no standard interpretation of what happened to Jesus in Islam. Some say he hid in a niche in a wall, others say Judas Iscariot actually died on the cross, and others say that Jesus switched with Simon of Cyrene and allowed him to die. Regardless, in Islam, Jesus did not die upon a cross, and in Christianity, He did. You can't adhere to both the Biblical account and the Islamic account. That's not something you ponder the rest of your life while feeling very spiritual. That's breaking the law of non-contradiction. She is essentially saying, "I'm willing to believe that X and not X are simultaneously true."


Then...she just throws me for a complete loop. She says that she considers Jesus her savior, and that he connects her to God. But..."That's not to say she couldn't develop as deep a relationship with Mohammed. 'I'm still getting to know him,' she said." Do what to who? Does she realize that you don't have a relationship with Muhammad in Islam? And it's particularly unlike the one you have in the Christian faith with Christ. Very odd.

Oral Transmission of the New Testament

I was reading Bauckham's Jesus and the Eyewitnesses the other night at work and I had a thought. Did skepticism ever play an editorial role in the oral tradition/scribal habits in ancient times? Granted, I realize that most of the hyper-skepticism today is the result of the Enlightenment, however, Herodotus mentions in several places in his The Histories that he thinks certain things are dubious, yet he records them anyway (and the things about which he has doubts generally turn out to be right!). But do we know of instances where the miraculous is edited out or "toned down" because of the skepticism of the storyteller/scribe.

Also, Bauckham says that the Gospel of John is written by an eyewitness, the "Beloved Disciple." The classic view on the Gospel of John is that it gives the highest Christology. Operating within Bauckham's theories, I wonder if a case could be made for the Evangelists (atleast Matthew and Luke) "toning down" the high Christology we see in John. I'm not saying that John was a source, but that the common oral history concerning a miraculous Jesus passed to the Evangelists was not edited out completely (we still have a Jesus who forgives sins, heals people, etc) but perhaps toned down?

Mind you, I realize that there are a number of complications with this idea. And I'm not advocating the idea, I'm simply wondering if there's any possibility to that being a viable idea.

Whose obedience? 1 Peter 1:2

I was reading in my Greek New Testament when I came across 1 Peter 1:2. Now, the Greek reads as follows:

κατα προγνωσιν θεου πατρος εν αγιασμω πνευματος εις υπακοην και ραντισμος αιματος Ιησου Χριστου χαρισ υμιν και ειρηνη πληθυνθειη

The NASB translation:

according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, by the sanctifying work of the Spirit, to obey Jesus Christ and be sprinkled with His blood: May grace and peace be yours in the fullest measure.

I don't mean to be nitpicky, but I think the NASB has it wrong and there may be significant theological ideas that can come about with a (perhaps) more accurate rendering. The idea of obedience in the NASB is ours alone ("to obey Jesus Christ"), whereas I think the Greek is indicating that the obedience is both ours and Jesus'. I realize that υπακοην is singular, but I think instead of that being an argument against the idea of a mass obedience, it argues for the singularity of the ultimate obedience. According to Peter, it was Jesus' obedience which brings about the blood with which believers are sprinkled in order to be sanctified by the spirit. I think that there's a larger theology at hand than what the NASB lets on. I believe it's by "getting into" this obedience, by becoming joint members in the obedience of Christ, that Christian salvation is brought about.

The Apostle Paul reiterates this position in the well-known Philippians 2:5-8 where Paul states that Jesus was "obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross." See also Romans 5:19 where Paul writes that "through the obedience of the One the many will be made righteous." It seems there's a Biblical precedent for Jesus' obedience being essential to salvation. This seems like an obvious statement, but I mean to say that obedience is often secondary, if not wholly forgotten in salvation-speak. I think most modern English translations are guilty of this in respect to 1 Peter 1:2.


Thus, my translation is as follows:

According to the foreknowledge of God the Father, by the sanctification of the Spirit, into the obedience and sprinkling of Jesus Christ's blood, your grace and peace multiply.

Theology aside, this seems to make more literary sense. Perhaps it's my Protestant tendency to want the text to be neatly subdivided (so that we can get our 3 points and a poem for a sermon), but I think the text identifies three persons who are acting in different ways for salvation. The NASB (and most English translations that I've read) are spot-on as far as the Father's foreknowledge and the Spirit's sanctification, but they miss the point about the third person. It's not about the blood, it's about the obedience.

So, in my mind the verse is broken down into four parts:
a. The foreknowledge of God the Father
b. The sanctification of the Spirit
c. The obedience of Christ and his blood through which we are obedient and are sprinkled with to bring about B according to A
d. The blessing that comes about from this sanctification through obedience

Islamic Christology

I wrote a paper last semester on the issue of Islamic Christology. Something that peaked my interest was the possibility of "familiarity with" Gnostic* documents (to use Mark Goodacre's wording).

For example, the Qu'ran states that Jesus created birds from clay, blew on them, and they were alive (Surahs 3:49; 5:110). The mention of this miracle in 5:110 is especially interesting because of the repitition "by My Permission" (referring to Allah). None of Isa's miracles in the Qu'ran are actually his own, but are done by the permission of Allah.

At any rate, the story is similar to that in the Infancy Gospel of Thomas (Chapter 2). In the Infancy Gospel, the child Jesus is playing by a river on the Sabbath and forms twelve sparrows out of clay. When Joseph came to Jesus and asked him why he was doing these "unlawful" things on the Sabbath, Jesus clapped his hands, spoke to the sparrows and they flew off.

The second story in the Qu'ran which seems to show some familiarity with Gnostic documents is that in Surah 3:46 where the Angel tells Mary (who earlier gives the Angel an objection based on her virginity much like the objection given in Luke) that Jesus will "speak from the crib" and teach the people "scripture, wisdom, the Torah, and the Gospel."

The idea of Jesus speaking from the crib is recorded in the "Gospel of the Infancy of Jesus Christ", a 2nd Century Arabic text. In this text, Jesus says to Mary (as an infant):

...Jesus spake while in the cradle, and said to his mother, "Mary, I am Jesus, the Son of God, the Word, which you brought forth according to the declaration of the angel Gabriel, and My Father has sent me for the salvation of the world.

This is one self-aware infant! It's interesting that Muhammad has these two very distinct stories in the Qu'ran (or perhaps they're later additions? I'm no Qu'ranic scholar). It seems unlikely that he would create these on his own.

I haven't been able to find any books concerning interaction Muhammad may have had with Gnostic texts, but I'd be really interested in finding one. If you know of any, feel free to leave the suggestion in the comments or you can email me at Joshua.McManaway[at]sebts.edu.

*I understand that texts which don't necessarily show signs of Gnostic theology are labeled as such. I use the term simply as a convenient way to reference a set of documents without being too specific about the theology contained therein.