Jeremy has December’s Top 50 Biblioblogs up. Take a look.
Monthly Archives: December 2010
thehungersite.com
Every now and then I like to remind everyone of a free way to contribute to feeding the hungry and a number of other causes. thehungersite.com sells ad space on its website that is accessed by clicking on a button on the main page. Each time you click the button (I imagine the limit is once a day per IP address) the equivalent of 1.1 cups of food is donated with sponsor money. Here’s how they explain it:
When you click, we display ads from our site sponsors. 100% of the money from these advertisers goes to our charity partners, who fund programs to provide food to the hungry.
You will notice tabs at the top of the page which take you to affiliated breast cancer, child health, literacy, rainforest, animal rescue sites. Make it your homepage and click every day when you turn on your computer.
Another way to provide will only be available for about 2 more hours. Wal-Mart is donating $1M to a city in the US that ranks among the top 100 needy in terms of hunger. Whichever city receives the most support on Facebook will win. Another $.5M will be split among other cities. Salt Lake City, UT is way out in the lead right now for reasons that aren’t difficult to figure out (Mormons spread across the country will support it). Check it out, and if you’re on Facebook, support a city.
We’re Number One
NT Wrong has posted his Jouissance-meter-determined top 50 biblioblogs over at Biblioblog Top 50, and I appear to have been sarcastically placed at #1. I take my accolades wherever I can get them, though. For those who haven’t yet logged your votes for the blogger-determined top 10 biblioblogs, follow up here.
What is a Christian?
A discussion has been taking place on a number of blogs regarding the criteria that should be met in order to qualify for Christian fellowship. Brian LePort starts things off with the thesis that the Apostle’s Creed is the minimum. Nick Norelli ups the ante, asserting the Ecumenical Creeds are necessary. Diglot is a “doctrinal minimalist” who states that belief in the resurrection of Christ is all he should need. Rod of Alexandria argues it is the canon that forms the foundation of Christian community. Joel Watts sees no other requirement in scripture but humility and the recognition of Christ crucified. I’d like to comment briefly on fellowship and at more length on what makes a Christian.
Latter-day Saints don’t use the word “fellowship” in the same sense it’s being used in the above posts. We think of fellowship as an inner-congregational concept rather than inter-congregational. We don’t really occupy a consistent place in Evangelical Christian fellowship, and there are a few reasons. First, Latter-day Saints view the communion (we call it sacrament) as an ordinance that renews baptismal covenants and has to be administered by a specific authority, which means they’re not going to feel they’ve renewed those covenants if they’re not participating consistently in LDS sacrament meetings. This isn’t to say Latter-day Saints feel they shouldn’t visit other churches—many of them regularly attend the services of other denominations and religions. They just have limited time. I’m always happy to go visit other groups (when I have the time, which I haven’t lately), and I always learn something from them about Christ. This brings up the next impediment to fellowship: many Evangelical groups reject Latter-day Saint participation in the Christian fellowship. If I go to a Protestant meetings the odds are pretty good I’ll find most people trying to convince me that my faith is a fraud.
Now, regarding the identification of Christians, there are a few different methods for such an identification, with some having more value than others. From an etymological point of view, a “Christian” is a “servant of Christ.” In that sense, anyone who believes they serve Christ can call themselves a Christian. When the term was first coined, it was no doubt employed in this general sense, irrespective of a person’s alignment with particular doctrines, but its usage has changed over the years as a result of the development of orthodoxy. Quickly it became a crime to be a Christian, and the method of identifying a Christian was (1) ask them if they are Christian, and if they say no, (2) demand they offer a sacrifice or incense to the gods or the throne (the authorities had been assured that this was something no Christian would do). Persecution contributed Christian self understanding, and the boundaries of Christianity began to crystallize at this point around orthopraxic considerations. Fundamentally, a Christian was someone who served (followed) Christ and refused to serve any others (see Mark 9:38–41).
Orthopraxy gave way to orthodoxy in the second century CE because of an assimilation of Greek philosophical worldviews. What has Athens to do with Jerusalem? When the “Jerusalem” gospel needed to be legitimized for the “Athenian” intelligentsia it required a re-couching of the Semitic gospel in the vernacular of the philosophers. Justin Martyr is one of the first clear examples of this vision of Christianity, which was beginning to be described according to its similarities with, and differences from, Greco-Roman ideologies. They asserted their opposition to Greek ideologies, but they were forced to adopt Greek intellectual methodologies to do so, and they inevitably adopted some ideologies, even as they decried and belittled others. Note, for instance, Origen’s reason for rejecting belief in a corporeal deity (from the Homilies on Genesis):
The Jews indeed, but also some of our people, supposed that God should be understood as a man, that is, adorned with human members and human appearance. But the philosophers despise these stories as fabulous and formed in the likeness of poetic fictions.
When the battleground became one of concepts and ideologies, the opponents became those who disagree, irrespective of their fidelity to Christ or to Christian orthopraxy. This throws up entirely new boundaries and gives birth to sectarianism. With sectarianism, the boundaries are usually defined according to who you want to keep out, not what fundamentally defines your belief. It seems to me that the more criteria one stacks up for identifying Christians, Jews, Muslims, or any other group, the more their definition is designed to keep specific people out. To use the metaphor of the body of Christ, this is one hand telling the other it has no need of it.
The vast majority of scholars who deal with religious identity agree that the first criterion that merits consideration is self-identification. If a person self-identifies as Christian, that ought to carry the most weight. This isn’t to say that it is a trump card, but if a person sincerely identifies as a Christian, some serious mitigating circumstances should have to be marshaled to undermine that. I would agree with early Christians and their opponents that Christians ought to be identified as people who follow, or serve, Christ. Since everyone has a different idea of Christ’s exact attributes, the notion that some groups follow a “different Christ” (mystically described in the exact same verses of the exact same texts) is simply ludicrous. People may also follow Christ in different ways, but all people who serve Christ do so because he’s their savior. Christ’s eternity or his relationship with the Father are really peripheral concerns that only became significant because they were the defining concepts in early Christianity’s battle for orthodoxy.
Based on these considerations, I would have to side with the “doctrinal minimalists” regarding identifying Christians. No first century Christians accepted the Creeds (they didn’t exist), and few, if any, would have done so if they could have seen into the future. Christ said that no one who offers a cup of water in his name will lose his reward, whether or not they follow the apostles. Extending the Christian umbrella to all who do so only creates problems for me if I’m worried about keeping others in line, and that’s ultimately not my job. I think the following lines penned by Edwin Markham are apropos:
He drew a circle that shut me out-
Heretic, rebel, a thing to flout.
But love and I had the wit to win:
We drew a circle and took him in!
Christian fellowship is a different, derivative, discussion that I will leave it to others to decide ultimately. I’m used to not being invited to that party.
Complete List of Biblioblogs
(HT Joel Watts) A new and updated complete list of biblioblogs is available here, as well as an updated Biblical Studies Carnival list and a search engine which allows you to search content on all the blogs on the comprehensive list. Cool stuff.
Thoughtful Post by Tom Verenna
Jim West points out Tom Verenna’s thoughtful discussion of labels in the debate over faith and secularism in biblical scholarship. It’s a good contribution.
RBL Newsletter
I just received the new RBL Newsletter, which has the following reviews:
Alejandro F. Botta and Pablo R. Andiñach, eds.
The Bible and the Hermeneutics of Liberation
http://www.bookreviews.org/bookdetail.asp?TitleId=7294
Reviewed by Jeremy PuntFrançois Bovon
New Testament and Christian Apocrypha: Collected Studies II
http://www.bookreviews.org/bookdetail.asp?TitleId=7323
Reviewed by Christopher R. MatthewsAthalya Brenner, Archie Chi Chung Lee, and Gale A. Yee, eds.
Genesis
http://www.bookreviews.org/bookdetail.asp?TitleId=7448
Reviewed by John AndersonGregg Gardner and Kevin L. Osterloh, eds.
Antiquity in Antiquity: Jewish and Christian Pasts in the Greco-Roman World
http://www.bookreviews.org/bookdetail.asp?TitleId=7540
Reviewed by Matthew W. MitchellE. Grypeou and H. Spurling, eds.
The Exegetical Encounter between Jews and Christians in Late Antiquity
http://www.bookreviews.org/bookdetail.asp?TitleId=7390
Reviewed by Judith M. LieuOlav Hammer, ed.
Alternative Christs
http://www.bookreviews.org/bookdetail.asp?TitleId=7416
Reviewed by Brent LandauThomas Holsinger-Friesen
Irenaeus and Genesis: A Study of Competition in Early Christian Hermeneutics
http://www.bookreviews.org/bookdetail.asp?TitleId=7272
Reviewed by Ludger Schwienhorst-SchönbergerAren M. Maeir and Pierre de Miroschedji, eds.
“I Will Speak the Riddles of Ancient Times”: Archaeological and Historical Studies in Honor of Amihai Mazar on the Occasion of His Sixtieth Birthday
http://www.bookreviews.org/bookdetail.asp?TitleId=7118
Reviewed by Gilbert LozanoHilary Marlow
Biblical Prophets and Contemporary Environmental Ethics
http://www.bookreviews.org/bookdetail.asp?TitleId=7415
Reviewed by Norman HabelSteven L. McKenzie
Introduction to the Historical Books: Strategies for Reading
http://www.bookreviews.org/bookdetail.asp?TitleId=7398
Reviewed by Patrick RussellJuha Pakkala and Martti Nissinen, eds.
Houses Full of All Good Things: Essays in Memory of Timo Veijola
http://www.bookreviews.org/bookdetail.asp?TitleId=6537
Reviewed by Carly CrouchLorenzo Scornaienchi
Sarx und Soma bei Paulus: Der Mensch zwischen Destruktivität und Konstruktivität
http://www.bookreviews.org/bookdetail.asp?TitleId=7161
Reviewed by Christof LandmesserMark S. Smith
God in Translation: Deities in Cross-Cultural Discourse in the Biblical World
http://www.bookreviews.org/bookdetail.asp?TitleId=7225
Reviewed by Christopher B. HaysPeter S. Williamson
Ephesians
http://www.bookreviews.org/bookdetail.asp?TitleId=7529
Reviewed by Markus LangJoel Willitts
Matthew’s Messianic Shepherd-King: In Search of ‘The Lost Sheep of the House of Israel’
http://www.bookreviews.org/bookdetail.asp?TitleId=7440
Reviewed by Don Garlington
I’m especially interested in the review of Mark Smith’s God in Translation, since I’m reviewing it myself. The opening line of the review is kinda interesting:
Mark Smith continues to distinguish himself as one of the most important and (thankfully) prolific biblical scholars of his generation.
Nice. Anyway, enjoy.
Reading Genesis: Ten Methods
(HT Jim Davila) A new Cambridge University Press publication, Reading Genesis: Ten Methods, is edited by Ron Hendel and gathers ten essays on method and reading Genesis. John Barton comments:
Reading Genesis: Ten Methods is a marvelous introduction to recent approaches to the study of biblical texts, accessible yet profound. Distinguished contributors survey methods both old and new, all focused on the book of Genesis. These are classic discussions and offer not only a report on the present state of bibli…cal studies but also fine examples of the biblical scholar’s art.
You can find the Facebook page here and Google Books has a preview here.
Storm God and Sun God
In the study of ancient Near Eastern religion, it’s widely recognized that deities which rule over other deities tend to assimilate the attributes and responsibilities of their subordinates. In early Israel Yhwh likely had a consort named Asherah, who was a mother goddess and fertility deity of some kind (the boundaries of these deities are blurry and overlap). By the end of the exile she seems to have been scrubbed clean from Judaism’s theological landscape, and Yhwh seems to have absorbed her attributes. There are a few different metaphorical references to Yhwh as a mother and even a midwife in exilic literature, for instance. This process likely began as far back as the monarchic period, though. As I’ve argued elsewhere, the asherim which were ostensibly taken from the temple and destroyed during Josiah’s reforms may have had no connection to Asherah by that time period, but rather may have been residual cultic representations of divine power over fertility and childbirth, now attributed to Yhwh.
Other ways this kind of assimilation seeps into Israelite literature is in Yhwh’s nature as both storm god and sun god. A fascinating article by Paul E. Dion (“YHWH as Storm-God and Sun-God: The Double Legacy of Egypt and Canaan as Reflected in Psalm 104,” Zeitschrift für die Alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 103.1 (1991): 43–71) points out elements of both storm-god imagery and sun-god imagery in Psalm 104. This psalm is famous for its relationship to the much older Hymn to Aten, but Dion argues there is a great deal of storm-god imagery as well. We know Yhwh was viewed as a storm deity very early in Israelite history. Yhwh is said to make the “clouds his chariot” (עבים רכובו – Ps 104:3) echoing Baal’s title as “Rider of the Clouds” (rkb ‘rpt – KTU 1.2 iv 8). Psalm 29 shares very close affinities with praise given to Baal for his storm-god status.
Later in Israelite history Yhwh seems to be associated with solar imagery. Hezekiah’s seals on a number of jar handles discovered in and around Jerusalem have a scarab with a sun disk or a bird with a sun disc. This is closely related to Egyptian iconography, which makes sense given his relationship with Egypt at the time. It goes back further than this, though. In the 10th century Taanach cult stand Yhwh appears to be represented as a horse below a sun disc (I discuss these issue here). The popularity of these two divine attributes goes back even further in the wider ancient Near East. In the Amarna letters the pharaoh is sometimes addressed as “My Sun” (EA 45, 49, 60, 61), but is also addressed at least once as “My Storm-God” (EA 52). At Ugarit the king as addressed as “the Sun” as well (KTU 2.81.19, 30). Mark Smith suggests Byblos and Tyre represent the points of contacts for the ideologies of Egypt and Iron Age Syria-Palestine (p. 72 here). It seems Yhwh’s assimilation of these roles is not just a result of his perceived kingship over the gods, but may also be part of a campaign to make sure Yhwh is represented with all the popular imagery.
Does the New Covenant in Jeremiah 31 Suggest an End to the Law of Moses?
Recent discussions on my blog and elsewhere have appealed to Jeremiah 31 (and specifically vv. 31–34) as an indication that an end to the law of Moses was prophesied well before the Common Era. In the context of those discussions Jeremiah’s prophecy is being marshaled to undermine the notion that Matthew was a judaizing Christian who asserted the eternal nature of the Law. I’d like to list my reasons for doubting that Jeremiah 31 was intended to suggest a future end to the Law of Moses.
(1) Restoration to former glory is the theme throughout the chapter.
(2) The old “covenant” in v. 32 ≠ the Law of Moses. The Law is a constituent element of the covenant, as seen in v. 33.
(3) No indication is given that any requirements of the Law will be changed, only that it will be interiorized.
(4) The prophecy of restoration in Jer 29:10–14, Jer 32:37–44, and all of Jeremiah 33 parallel 31:31–34 in many ways, but no change in the Law is intimated, only a closer relationship with Yhwh.
(5) Jer 33:17–18 promise there shall never lack a man to sit on the throne of the house of Israel, nor will the levitical priests lack someone to offer burnt offerings, grain offerings, and other sacrifices “for all time.”
These considerations lead me to conclude that Jeremiah is prophesying a return to the glory days of the United Monarchy, not a fulfillment of the Law of Moses. The only difference noted between the “new covenant” and the old is that the new will be interiorized by Israel and God, as a result, will be continuously among them. No alteration of the Law of Moses is intimated, and the only references to specific aspects of the law indicate those aspects will remain into perpetuity.
