Were the Titles of the Gospel on #Sillyboi?

Were the Titles of the Gospel on #Sillyboi?
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/exploringourmatrix/2016/05/were-the-titles-of-the-gospel-on-sillyboi.html#st_refDomain=www.facebook.com&st_refQuery=/

by James F. Mc Grath

May 18, 2016

Comments

You may think I’m a “silly boy” for writing about this. But when Sarah Bond recently wrote a blog post about the ancient Greek use of a tag (sillybos) to indicate the author and title of a work on a scroll, I felt I needed to blog in a bit more detail about the possible implications of this practice for the study of the New Testament, which Bond mentioned briefly. Not that this has not come up before. But one will often hear people outside of the academy (and occasionally even within it) speak about the “anonymity” of the New Testament Gospels as though this were something surprising. The placement of a title at the top of the first page is something relatively new. It goes along with the development of the codex, since in a scroll, you wouldn’t want to have to unwind it all the way to see what it was. And so tags were used. Even in codices, whether a title would be included, and if so whether it would be at the start or end of a work, varied for a long time.

And so it seems to me unsurprising that the Gospels lack titles of the kind modern readers expect. Would the earliest version of Mark ever have been written on a scroll? It is impossible to know (Francis Moloney thinks so, and so too does Ben Witherington). But at the very least, its author would have been more used to reading scrolls than codices, and might therefore have expected any designation for his literary work to go on a tag rather than someplace else.

It is probable that the Gospel of Mark would have been known initially as “The Gospel of Jesus Christ,” with the author certainly known to those who first read the work. The Gospel of Matthew would have been known as Βίβλος γενέσεως Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ (“The Genesis/Genealogy of Jesus Christ”). The author of the Gospel of John may perhaps have hoped that his work would be confused with that other, already famous “In The Beginning,” and so actually have had the evangelistic purpose some have detected in the statement of purpose in John 20:31. With the composition of these other works in the same vein, however, it became natural to refer to them in a similar way, with the author being the point of comparison between them. The fact that the first of them highlighted the word Gospel at its start would then explain well why the titling followed Mark’s lead. And given that it is the conclusion of modern scholarship that Mark was written first, but that this was not the historic view of the order of the Gospels, the convergence of modern scholarship on the order with these ancient considerations about the titles is perhaps noteworthy.

(I’m pretty sure no one ever called the Gospel of Luke ΕΠΕΙΔΗΠΕΡ ΠΟΛΛΟΙ ἐπεχείρησαν ἀνατάξασθαι διήγησινπερὶ τῶν πεπληροφορημένων ἐν ἡμῖν πραγμάτων… And that too is something worth talking about, since it begins in a manner that does not make for easy reference. Might it have been referred to as ‘The Things Concerning Which You Were Instructed’ or perhaps ‘In the Days of Herod the Great,’ the words which follow the introducion?)

When groups tended to use a small number of books (and in those times, very few individuals or groups owned large collections), shorthand ways of referring to them would be preferred. Even today one can find numerous examples of this.

For those who’ve been wondering ever since they read the title, the Greek word σύλλαβος is supposed to provide the origin of the English word syllabus. But in fact, the word for a tag on parchments was σίττυβας, and it seems that “syllabus” therefore derives from a transcription mistake that was made in a Greek word, or a Latin word derived from it. You can read in various places online about the debates regarding the term – and how to make the plural of “syllabus” in English if it is neither properly Greek nor properly Latin.

See also my earlier two posts on the question of whether the Gospels were originally anonymous:

Were the Gospels originally anonymous?

Are the Gospels anonymous?

As you’ll see in the first post, we have actually found a “flyleaf” or attached tag indicating the title of the Gospel of Matthew. We know from the history of literature that the ways works were referred to could change over time.

What do you think the relevance is of this ancient practice of “tagging” literature (with what we today would call “metadata”) for the question of the titles and authorship of the New Testament Gospels?

Book Review - Do We Need the New Testament?

Do We Need the New Testament? A Review

Jul 18, 2015 @ 9:42 by Scot McKnight 28 Comments

John Goldingay. Do We Need the New Testament?: Letting the Old Testament Speak for Itself. Downers Grove: IVP Academic, 2015. ISBN 978-0-8308-2469-4.

Review by Michael C Thompson, doctoral student at Northern Seminary.

Every now and then a book comes along that grabs your attention just by the topic or, as in this case, the title. Do we need the New Testament? is probably a question which most modern Christians have thought about before, and perhaps has the potential to disrupt more than a few people in the pew. But here Professor Goldingay goes directly at the issue of whether or not the Hebrew scriptures have lasting value in light of the New Testament. Given his passion for what he calls ‘The First Testament,’ he is certainly the right person to have authored a book such as this, which finds its foundation on his conviction of a certain unity and continuity between the two Testaments (9).

At the outset Goldingay gives us his answer, and also issues a challenge, “Yes, of course, we do need the New Testament, but why?” (7). This takes the all-too-common discarding of the significance of the First Testament in many contemporary expressions of Christianity and turns it on its head. As the author highlights the importance of the First Testament, the reader is met with statements that will certainly give pause for thought. “In a sense God did nothing new in Jesus. God was simply taking to its logical and ultimate extreme the activity in which he had been involved through the First Testament story” (12). The underlying perspective here is that we cannot rightly understand the New Testament – most importantly Jesus himself – if we do not pay attention to what we have been given in the First Testament. Does such a conviction still exist in our churches today?

The challenge given by Goldingay doesn’t allow for a simple check-the-box acknowledgment of inerrancy, but pushes the reader to better understand the significance of the Hebrew scriptures as a part of God’s grand story and revelation. “God’s promises are not all fulfilled in Christ (in the sense in which we commonly use the word fulfill), but they are all confirmed in Christ” (26, emphasis original). This, of course, leads to the question that is found in Chapter 2: Why Is Jesus Important? In framing this part of the discussion the author states, “In none of the Gospels does Jesus tell his disciples to extend the kingdom, work for the kingdom, build up the kingdom, or further the kingdom” (34).

This pushes the reader to a reconsideration of who Jesus was and what it was that he did. It appears that Jesus came to announce the kingdom, and to draw people into an experience of the kingdom. Thus, the church is called to live in holiness and spread the knowledge of God throughout the world (46). “Implementing God’s reign is fortunately God’s business” (47).

From this the book goes on to explore the presence of the Holy Spirit in the First Testament, and the nuance of language that expresses the understanding of the Spirit in that context. In this fourth chapter Goldingay introduces what he calls Middle Narratives, smaller narrative units that express the Bible’s story (72). The Bible does not come simply as one overarching theme, but also incorporates other “extensive expositions of part of God’s story” (88). This helps the reader better understand the movement of scripture’s story as well as its interconnectedness.

Key to this reading also is Chapter Five: How People Have Mis(?)read Hebrews. This particular discussion is quite insightful, as Goldingay seeks to recalibrate what many casual readings of Hebrews get wrong. It centers on the nature of sacrifice. In keeping with the overall theme of the book, Goldingay pushes the reader to consider the importance of the First Testament as foundational for understanding what the New Testament says of Christ. The notion of a new and better covenant is a key element as well, and here the connection is made between the church’s role as analogous to Israel’s role (97). In the end it is the uniqueness of Christ’s sacrifice that is highlighted, in that he offers an eternal salvation, which is not found in the First Testament (100). Such a reading is vital for understanding the story of salvation.

Chapter Six identifies the loss of First Testament spirituality, a lament for that which goes missing whenever the church ignores its spiritual heritage. This section centers on the way the First Testament presents a worship that is intended to encompass the whole of life, drawing the community deeper into God’s narrative as found in the gospel. Goldingay asserts that in the forfeiture of First Testament use this is lost: “But in worship we have given up on those” (107). He believes that the way forward in this (Chapter Seven) is in recovering a sense of memory as part of hope and life. There are some good perspectives on Israel’s memory found in this chapter, as Goldingay identifies it as the means by which preserves history and ethic within the community, even when such memories conflict (124).

So, what about those times when the New Testament changes the ethical ideals of the First Testament? Chapter Eight addresses this question, and the notion that the New Testament presents a higher or better standard of ethic. “Jesus’ talk of fulfillment and his subsequent examples, then, point to one aspect of what is involved in interpreting the ethical implications of the biblical material” (141). Once more, the continuity of the biblical story becomes key to understanding these dynamics. There is a hermeneutical discussion about how the New Testament interacts with the First Testament, and this chapter has good examples of this as well.

The final chapter is a good summary of the method of theological interpretation from which Goldingay works in this volume. In a sense, this conclusion is the drawn-together theory his study as a whole. As such, he makes good and challenging statements to the process of biblical interpretation: “Theological interpretation is proper exegesis” (160). Goldingay admits that there is a diversity in the New Testament’s view of the First Testament, in that there are a variety of readings that can be identified throughout (161), and he strongly asserts that being christocentric is not the aim of the biblical story, or even of Christ. Rather, the story of scripture and the work of Christ is to be theocentric, which helps define the unity of the two Testaments (162f.).

In the end, this book is accessible to the pastor and a good deal of laypersons, though many in the church might not be ready to think about biblical interpretation quite at this level. But for those asking questions about the relevance of the First Testament to the church, this is a great tool to begin such an investigation. Foundational for this study is the understanding of the work of Jesus, not in bringing a new revelation, but in his life and message that give significance “in who he was, what he did and what happened to him, and what he will do” as the central figure of God’s grand story (177).

Source Link - http://www.patheos.com/blogs/jesuscreed/2015/07/18/do-we-need-the-new-testament-a-review/

Reviews of Konrad Schmid's "A Literary History of the Old Testament" - How the OT was Compiled

 

 

When did the Old Testament become the Old Testament?

(a crash course in the form of a chart)

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/peterenns/2013/08/when-did-the-old-testament-become-the-old-testament-a-crash-course-in-the-form-of-a-chart/

by Peter Enns

August 20, 2013

Comments

 

Last year, an English translation of Konrad Schmid’s (University of Zurich) approach to the literary history of the Old Testament–i.e., when the bits and pieces of the Old Testament originated and when they all came together to form a book–was published with the title The Old Testament: A Literary History.

 

I haven’t read the book, but I read a recent scholarly review (printed below) of it on line. Exactly why and when the ancient writings of Israel came to be, let alone when they were compiled and edited into a one-volume collection we call the Bible, is not the easiest thing to nail down.

 

But one pillar of modern OT scholarship, which isn’t seriously challenged outside of inerrantist writers, is that the OT had a long pre-history before it reached the form that we know today.
 

Author: Konrad Schmid

That process began in at some point during the monarchic period but didn’t pick up serious steam until the exilic and post exilic periods, when Israel was in theo-political crisis and needed a book telling their story with God.

 

That process didn’t come to an end until sometime in the Greek period, which began with the conquests of Alexander the Great (332 BCE) and ended with the Maccabean Revolt (160s BCE). Some books are later still, such as the final form of Daniel and the shaping of the Psalter.

 

Whatever the Bible’s pre-history may be, the "Bible" we have now is a product of the exilic and postexilic periods.

 

That’s generally the broad outline of the historical-critical narrative of the origins of the OT, and, for what it’s worth, it’s pretty uncontroversial in contemporary OT studies.

 

What might be of most help and interest is the chart below complied by the reviewer, Trent Butler, and it’s largely the reason I wrote this post.

As I said, details are part of the scholarly dialogue, and Butler notes Schmid’s Euro-centric bias, but the overall picture that the chart gives is almost a crash course on the state of the field.

 

Study at it. Note how Schmid looks at different genres of OT literature and where he sees them falling within certain historical periods. Don’t let the details overwhelm you. Find a familiar chunk of the OT–say Genesis– and see in what periods (plural) it arose.

 

Again, the overall idea isn’t controversial, but working out the details of the how and when of ancient texts isn’t a hard science. It’s more like model building and there’s always room for more thinking and refinement.

 

The bottom line: Israel’s written (and oral) traditions grew to become the “Hebrew Bible/Old Testament” after a lengthy process, punctuated by the crisis of the exile and an uncertain future after Judah’s return. Or, as I put it elsewhere, it is an exercise in national self-definition in response to the Babylonian exile.

 

I don’t see this as a hushed, back room, discussion among biblical scholars with coded language and secret handshakes. I think all this is important to take in, because knowing something about when and why the Old Testament came to be helps us understand its theology. Afterwhich this saga of Israel gets reframed, redefined, and transformed in the NT around Jesus.

 

K. Schmid, Literary History of the Old Testament

 

 

* * * * * * * * * *

 

 

A Review of:

The Old Testament: A Literary History

Written by Konrad Schmid

Translated by Linda M. Maloney

 

http://www.bookreviews.org/pdf/8508_9319.pdf

 

by Trent C. Butler

Gallatin, Tennessee

 

RBL 08/2013

 

Schmid is professor of Old Testament Studies and Jewish History at the University of Zurich. Fortress Press has served Old Testament studies a great favor by issuing this translation of a book that should be in every theological library and on the reading list of every person doing research in the field of Hebrew Bible. Schmid’s literary-history approach builds on only a few predecessors, as he shows in his history of research section.

 

Schmid sets out his task and purpose quite clearly. “Literary history is an attempt to present and interpret literary works not simply in themselves but in their various contexts, linkages, and historical development” (1). He “deals with the presuppositions, backgrounds, processes, and intertextualities making up the literary history of the Old Testament.” (xi) To do so, he sets himself an even more arduous task, working with whatever consensus recent scholarship, at least European scholarship, has reached in dealing with pentateuchal origins, the unifying elements of the Book of the Twelve, the nature of scribal or literary prophecy, and the questioning of the Deuteronomistic History, to name a few.

 

Literary history explores the linkages among texts both as contemporary dialogue partners and as tradents interpreting the diachronic interpretations of tradition. Following the literary history rather than the canonical order differentiates literary history from introduction to the Old Testament.

 

Methodologically, Schmid isolates three layers of work: (1) literary-historical epochs (pre-Assyrian, Assyrian, Babylonian, Persian, Ptolemaic, and Seleucid); (2) literary types (cultic\wisdom, narrative, prophetic, legal); and (3) concrete literary works. Much of the literary material has both oral and written prehistories as well as posthistories, since the material is basically “traditional literature.” No longer does one point to a JEPD Pentateuch but rather to limited sources dealing with Abraham and Lot, Jacob, Joseph, and Moses. These limited narrative horizons were joined together into the larger theological narratives only in the exilic or early postexilic period. Similarly, prophetic studies have turned to a literary posthistory of the sayings, with redactors seen as writing prophets whose work needs to be studied in its own right. Finally, Psalms study has also turned to the written book whose arrangement shows theological emphases in “a carefully structured literary whole” (29).

 

Corollary to this for Schmid is that “not a single book of the Bible has come down to us in its pre-exilic form.”(12) Beyond this, the Old Testament preserves only a portion of Israel’s literary output, limiting one’s material for comparison and conversation. In reality, “the literary history of the Old Testament  treats those texts that survived as texts available for use in the Jerusalem Temple school that later were recognized as sacred Scripture.” (15)

 

Schmid’s literary history begins, then, with a quite different piece of literature than either evangelicalism or classic critical scholarship has advocated. The Old Testament books have (1) no salvation history frame, (2) no “early source,” (3) a new understanding of Deuteronomism, (4) a new convergence between Israel’s monarchic religion(s) and that of their neighbors, (5) new importance of literary shaping in the exilic and postexilic eras, and (6) roots in scribal interpretation rather than in individual religious geniuses (29–30). With this understanding of the available text, Schmid chooses to deal with a text in the period of its first literary formation.

 

Texts were products of ninth-century and later writers who belonged to a narrow circle able to write, the majority of the population being illiterate. Very few copies of a book were produced, with the Jerusalem library being important in production and preservation. Scribes wrote the Old Testament literature for scribes: “the audience was essentially identical with the authors themselves.” (38)

 

Schmid begins the actual literary history by looking at Israelite literature’s beginning at the time of the Syro-Palestinian city-states in the tenth to eighth centuries. Schmid erases the Davidic/Solomonic empire and its great literary creations. That the historical David and Solomon produced written documents is no more than probable. Israel began “extensive literary production” in the ninth century and Judah in the eighth (51).

 

A history of biblical literature begins under the Assyrians, giving Israel its own cultural and religious identity. The reign of Manasseh (696–642) becomes the flowering of Old Testament literature. Josiah (639–609) apparently gave Judah control of the Bethel traditions. (68) Four theological streams emerged:

(1) accusing king and people, not God, for defeats (prophets and kings);
(2) literary legends of origins without a king (Moses/exodus, judges);
(3) upholding the ideal of the monarchy (Psalms, wisdom); and,
(4) anti-Assyrian concepts transferred loyalty against Assyria and to God (Deuteronomy covenant).

Written law as in the Book of the Covenant was differentiated from ethics and gave rise to written wisdom. Narrative literature in Samuel and Kings focused on individual figures. God’s intervention becomes dependent on the right action of kings. This is expressed in language akin to Deuteronomy, a linguistic style reaching down to Daniel and Baruch. Israel’s ongoing written prophecies stand without parallel and appear under the monarchy whose messenger forms they use.

 

We are stimulated and challenged to new study by this approach to study of the Hebrew Bible. If only the work could incorporate and enter into conversation with a wider range of scholars outside Europe and outside those so totally devoted to Europe’s form of redaction criticism. We look forward to updated forms of this literature pioneer.

 

Schmid organizes by chapters, each one after the opening introductions and historical reviews follows the same pattern. The chapter title is a time period each with historical backgrounds and theological characteristics followed by a classification of the literature first developing in that time period. The literature is divided by types: cult and wisdom, narrative, prophetic, and legal. The following table attempts to summarize his analysis.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

For Further Reading:

 

The Bible as a "Memory-Narrative" or "Mnemo-Narrative" 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The Bible as a "Memory-Narrative" or "Mnemo-Narrative"

[Wikipedia] Hermeneutics /hɜrməˈnjuːtɪks/ is the theory of text interpretation, especially the interpretation of biblical texts, wisdom literature, and philosophical texts.^[1][2]

 

The terms hermeneutics and exegesis are sometimes used interchangeably. Hermeneutics is a wider discipline that includes written, verbal, and nonverbal communication. Exegesis focuses primarily upon texts.

 

Hermeneutic as a singular noun refers to a single particular method or strand of interpretation. (See double hermeneutic.)

 

Modern hermeneutics includes both verbal and nonverbal communication as well as semiotics, presuppositions, and preunderstandings.^[3]

 

Hermeneutic consistency refers to the analysis of texts to achieve a coherent explanation of them.

 

Philosophical hermeneutics refers primarily to the theory of knowledge initiated by Martin Heidegger and developed by Hans-Georg Gadamer in his work Truth and Method. It sometimes refers to the theories of Paul Ricoeur.^[4]

 

 

Introduction

 

The inclusion of biblical stories in the bible used to be thought of as Israel's "oral history." Or, as the disciples of Jesus' "remembered history" with Him. Now, the reconstruction of the Old and New Testaments are being thought of as a "Memory-Narrative" (or Mnemo-Narrative like the cute, orange, Disney fish by the same name). In past articles (see the sidebar under Bible - Development and Canon) we have talked about the construction of the OT through the centuries (and millennia) of Israel's long, long history; and here is yet another good reminder that the church's "literalistic" reading of the Bible may not be the most appropriate way to read its ancient narratives and histories. Why? By way of a simple example, think of how hard it would be to reconstruct what happened in your church fellowship group from a year ago without revising it according to those who are listening to you (what you think they may be interested in hearing), or the topics you may wish to emphasize (and think may be worth remembering to your listeners). The upshot? Remembering a story isn't as "objective" a process as you may think. And repeating that story might not have the same affect upon a different group of listeners, like say, a humorous story, that works for one set of friends but doesn't quite work in the same way for another set of friends, falling flat when told.

The reason for this is because we, the storyteller, can get in the way of a good story. Any Sunday School teacher knows this: should they recite a bible lesson factually? Or colorfully? Or even as a funny homily from a similar life experience? My first pastor, John White, was very good at embellishing his youth raised in the corn fields of Iowa and teaching some very fine lessons from the bible (it also would hold our attention because many were humorous). Mostly, to my way of thinking, God thought that allowing us to use our colorful retelling about Him and His works amongst the nations would be a more useful pedagogic tool than a straight, boring, recitation of dry, factual history (sic, what high school history teacher can you remember? My guess is "not many!"). Left with the choice of His Holy Spirit dictating event-after-event ad naseum, or with the retelling of those events from a human author's perspective (as inspired by the Holy Spirit), God chose the latter (and really, let's be honest, could He chose any other process than ourselves? Not really).

As a result of this process of "remembering of the biblical event" through subjective, personal narration, we get into the academic disciplines of historic reconstruction known as "historical criticism" and "redactionary criticism". The former takes a hard comparative look at world history as we think we know it today from archaeological finds, while the latter analyzes how an author places his - or her's - outlook upon the world within their remembered experience, or, the experience of another.... Speaking of which, how many times have you "remembered" someone else's experience and told it back to that same person who had experienced it first-hand and found out that that wasn't how they remembered it? Perhaps you - or they - making little embellishments or wholesale storyline changes on the second and third times around?

So, you can see the depth of the problem here when it comes to interpreting God's Word.... especially as inerrant history rather than as remembered narrational (not national, but narrational) history that is historical but told from a personal viewpoint. Or remember from a collective viewpoint (by Israel, by her priests, her tribes, her people, etc). But, you say, God's Word is without error! That's true insofar as we interpret it correctly allowing for narrational oversight, undersight, cultural contextualization, ancient historical and educational knowledge (Iron Age, late Empire), etc and etc. But the biblical reader would do much better in asking "why God said this," or "why God was remembered in that fashion" than to get into the mindset of flatly stating "God's Word is without error." This would be to confuse its inspired spiritual authority in our lives pertaining to all things salvific and redemptive. And trying to equate its historical recount as errorless. The former understands that within 1500 years of historical commentary development there may be room for interpretive freedom. When we do my argument would be that we gain a much more interesting, and more complex Bible, in the process. One that isn't so locked down by dogmatic or religious statements. One that can (and well) allow for movement within our own cultures and lives about how we think about God and His revelation to us as given through human agency. Especially as our cultures today have become more dynamically complex than they were in Moses' day, or in the disciple's day, given the massive populations living today as versus the much smaller human populations living back 2000 - 4000 years ago.

Moving forward... a third category (and there are many more as I will shortly suggest) would be "literary criticism" that looks at the speech and language patterns found within a text; the kinds of literary themes present; and even the ambiguity of language itself in delving into topics we seek to dogmatize  rather than leave open lest we unduly restrict God's Word. Much can be said about this but I will leave it open for now as simply another observation.

Another redactive category is that of looking at the Scriptures existentially through ourselves as a necessaryinterpreters of God's profound Word. Or, viewing it through our modern day cultures which may be more pluralistic, multi-ethnic, educated, and certainly quite unlike the socio-cultural contexts of the ancient societies found in the Bible. Or even, by our "era-specific contexts which means how the church in the Medieval, or Enlightenment, eras may have looked at various biblical texts differently than how we do now as Modern, or Postmodern, people of the 21st Century. Thus, individual and societal views do affect how we read the Bible and its meaning of Jesus and the gospel in our lives.

 

Consequently, interpreting the Word of God as a living document (rather than as a static, dead artifact) is not necessarily a simple a process, as many in-the-pews and pulpits today have made it out to be when using the approach of reading the "plain meaning of the word" within the Bible's historical pages. A literalistic, wooden reading of the Bible simply becomes unhelpful as we discover question-after-question that must lie unanswered by this method. An approach that can make God even more distant from ourselves when approached in this haphazard way. Mostly, our street-level, uninformed, pedestrian-way-of-thinking is unhelpful when interpreting the Bible as an ancient document that is believed to be relevant for mankind today. As such, we would do well to listen to the experts rather than using ourselves as reliable guides.

Too, we would do well to remember that Jesus is the Bible's center. Should our Lord and Savior become lost within the Bible's pages than we should consider some other process or interpretation that would see Jesus-theology as the focus of its history.... This would be known as a Christo-centric hermeneutic (or method of interpretation). If not, the Bible becomes a cold, impersonable, history book rather than as a living document for our spiritual lives (kinda like American history when remembered apart from its personal stories). The Bible is God's living word into our lives today. As Paul once said to Timothy, we must enter in carefully to the study of the Word lest we be found fools and false prophets, alarmists and unworthy shepherds. And this is good advice both for the Christian as well as for the non-Christian analyst who would tell us of the Jesus of our faith. I don't expect the non-Christian to be able to tell me of Jesus as my Savior.... Perhaps for that person Jesus may be seen as a political zealot, or as a Jewish insurrectionist, but to understand the God of the universe as become incarnate as my Savior and Lord, will be out of their reach. Which doesn't mean that they don't know what their talking about historically, but that its spiritual impact is beyond them. As believers we listen, we discern, we think, we ask questions at all times. Both to those outside the house of God as well as to those within the house of God. We are at all times culpable (accountable, but flawed) for our interpretation of God and life.

At the last, the Bible for the Christian must be as theological as it is historical, as personal as it is reflective. But it must be historical if it is to be theological. That is, the Jesus of history must also be the Jesus of my Christian faith. The trick is to know what kind of Jesus and Bible we as Christians read. Thus my plea today to divide God's Word carefully using all the resources at hand, and not just our favorite dogmas that reinforce our views (say a preferred church view, for example). For me, literalism doesn't work. It misleads. It misinforms. It doesn't quite fill out the complexity of God's story blending with His creation and with humanity's movement and change.

Hence, the external factors cited above are just some of the observed influences that help open-up and recreate a storyteller's story. By transference, by the time Israel began codifying its Hebraic canon (or Old Testament) in the Second Temple period (600-500 BC) many of its historical events, social movements, and personal experiences of God had already occurred as complete. By the time of its codification Israel had suffered exile into Babylonian lands and there God used this time of "wilderness experience" to teach His people again about Himself (thus the stories of the Exodus, and cycles of judgment in Judges and the prophetic books). These stories held RELEVANCE to Israel's shattered faith as it began to purposefully reconstruct what was left of her belief in God and disbelief in themselves as final anchors in the world of men. At the last, through Daniel and Nehemiah, God restored His people to the land of Canaan, but as a broken people broken into a thousand different pieces, belief groups, and religious viewpoints about God as found in her Intertestamental period between Malachi and Matthew (400BC - 6 BC).

Each of Israel's collective histories paid homage to her belief that God had not abandoned them. That He would lead them to a more sure salvation than by the works of her own hands. To a Messiah that would come, filled with the Spirit of God, declaring by word, deed, and very life, God's love and mercy, justice and wisdom, forgiveness and hope. Each of these collective stories having been preserved by the priests of the restored Second Temple wishing to tell about their God who redeemed them. Their recommitment to this God of their faith. And Israel's place in the world as herald-and-banner to the Messiah to come. As they reconstructed the Old Testament Scriptures they were reconstructing their spiritual beliefs and assurances. Which was not an easy task considering that the worship of God and His Word was not written down in whole, but in part (at best it resided in incomplete fragments and disseparate scrolls). Or dependent upon faded oral stories from long, long ago. Whose temple scrolls had been lost, or ill-preserved, or had undergone desperate times of regional/national upheaval in Israel's life. Times like being forgotten for decades - neither rehearsed nor practiced. Disobeyed. Lost by war, by pride, by Baal worship. And by dominating selective religious interests (sic, Aaron's desire to make an image of God; Joshua and Judges cycles of rebellion and doubt; Samuel's laxity as a great high priest before God; Northern Israel's separation from the Kingdom of Judah, etc).

This was Israel's history. A history filled with societal turmoil amid its spiritual development, and redemptive evolution, from Abraham to Jesus through 1500 years of historical formation. As an example, try retelling America's story of colonialization to its citizens living within the period of the Revolutionary War 350 years ago.... Our modern stories of America's birth will probably sound very unlike how those living in the 18th Century would have retold America's early history. What worked for those early American societies does not have the same impact upon us here today. Even so, Israel's view of itself had changed over the long years of its societal birth and formation. Let us, as readers of God's Word, become then more careful discerners to the Word of God, and not be so easily swayed by pulpit or press just what is, or what is not, God's Word.... My guess is that it is a lot more complex and forgiving than we would like to make it out to be by our pet theories or interpretations. My guess is that God is amazing even as His re-creation in our lives can be too. If anything, Israel's history is one of recreation at the hands of an amazing God. One they misunderstood and didn't count on. Of a God who lifted them up to praise His name even as King David had raised his banners to his God in Psalms, and hymns, and on musical instruments. This is the kind of redeemer God who is beyond our imagination. Who forgives our sin. Our shortcomings. Our disbelief. Who tells us that He loves us as no other. Who will give us life by His life in Jesus. And spiritual assurance. And presence when we had none but ourselves, lost and alone in our own wilderness of sin and turmoil. This is the kind of God that the Scriptures do testify of. To this we may only proclaim Amen, and Amen. Thus is Israel's testament to her own remembered history even as we do today with ours.

 

R.E. Slater

August 2, 2013

 

* * * * * * * * * *

 

 

 

Archaeology and the Exodus Story as a “Mnemo-Narrative”

(and no cracks about “finding mnemo” please)

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/peterenns/2013/07/archaeology-and-the-exodus-story-as-a-mnemo-narrative-and-no-cracks-about-finding-mnemo-please/

 

by Peter Enns

July 30, 2013

24 Comments

 

Below is a half-hour video passed on to me a while back by an archaeologist friend of mine. It is of a lecture given by Israeli archaeologist Aren Maeir of Bar Ilan University.

 

The lecture is entitled, “Can Archaeological Correlates for the Mnemo-Narrative of Exodus be Found?” I think I embed the video properly, but if not, you can click the link above.

 

 

I find this sort of thing fascinating. Maeir’s main point is that the exodus story in the Bible is the end product of  narratives (plural) that came down to the biblical writer from different times and which he compiled into a narrative (singular). He compares the exodus story to an archaeological tell–dig down and you go further back in time to earlier stages of the story.

 

Part of Maeir’s lecture focuses on what he feels are misuses of archaeology by those who seek to find correlation between archaeological findings and the biblical narrative. One of the problems with that approach is that the “biblical narrative,” though still capable of depicting history, is nevertheless a memory–a “mnemo-narrative.”

 

Following the work of such scholars as Jan Assmann, Maeir points out that memories are not simply reports of events but reconstructions of events.

 

Common experience will bear this out when we think of how we recall the past as individuals. We, often unwittingly, shape our retelling of the past to reflect how we see the past and ourselves in general. We collapse together discreet events, we invent dialogue, etc., not to deceive but to in an effort to bring the past into our current experience of ourselves.

 

Understanding the biblical story of the exodus as a mnemo-narrative, Maeir argues, helps explain why there is no archaeological support for it–even though an event of this magnitude could not stay in hiding for long.

 

Based on how these things are normally handled in the ancient world, one would expect Egyptian sources not to ignore the departure of about 2,000,000 slaves and the crippling of the Egyptian power base (as in the plagues). They would need to explain it, i.e., they would have to spin it, as, say, an indication that their gods were angry with them for some failure. That is a common way that ancient cultures “explained” military defeat. The worse the defeat, the better an explanation was needed.

 

Maeir reasons that archaeology and the biblical narrative do not match up not so much because nothing happened, but because of the nature of the biblical narrative as a mnemo-narrative. The exodus story that we have is the result of a process of “remembering” the past through ongoing reception and appropriation over time. Those memories were–as are all memories–transformed and shaped by those very communities that embrace and transmit them.

 

Seeking correspondence between archaeology and the biblical narrative of the exodus is, therefore, misguided, for it treats the biblical narrative is a single-layered report handed down essentially unchanged from early on and that can be placed side-by-side with potential archaeological remains.

 

Put another way, the exodus story we have in the Bible, whatever its historical foundation might be, is a story that is not open to archaeological verification because the story reflects more how later Israelite communities came to understand the past in view of their present purposes for remembering.

On one level, there is nothing tremendously new here, though Maeir helpfully brings the study of memory to bear on the perennial issue of archaeology and the Bible.

 

Any thoughts on this, especially from those who might be abreast of biblical archaeology and the process of memory?
 

 

 

For Further Reading:

 

Reviews of Konrad Schmid's "A Literary History of the Old Testament" - How the OT was Compiled

 

 

 

 

Can an Open Bible compete with a Dead One?

 

 

 

What's It All About Anyway?

 

I've wanted to ask the question for some time now if whether Christians believe in an open bible, a closed bible, or simply follow a dead bible that is irrelevant and of no particular importance except as a religious institution that many people may subscribe too because of guilt, fear, and superstition. Or because of the pressure of cultural mores, personal self-doubts, and uncertainty about life hereafter. I suspect a closed or dead bible will do that. It will create less of a living faith and more of a religious faith. It will concentrate on the Church's do's and don'ts. Or on its congregational creeds and confessions that no one really has taken the time to explore or understand. Or stand in the pulpit or at the Sunday School lectern proclaiming "Thus saith the Lord" wrapped around popular Christian sentiments for faith and life before hurrying off to dinner and Sunday afternoon football.

 

Codex Vaticanus_B

2Thess 3.11-18; Hebr 1.1-2; 2

 

However, an open bible is practiced by those faithful few desiring to read and understand the bible's many mysteries. Who stand back and wonder aloud to themselves why - when reading God's Word - they find themselves so moved and affected by a living spiritual presence that burdens their hearts with honoring the commands of God to love and speak truth to those around them. By praying for personal forgiveness in the face of agonizing failure for being unloving, unkind, petty and mean, to those place around them when presented the opportunity by the Spirit to grow beyond those personal inflection points. By seeking God's daily help to be unlike their sinful selves and more like their Lord practicing deeds of charity and understanding, by patiently listening to those who sorrow, or rejoicing with those who rejoice. Who see living people in front of them unjudged by depersonalized labels of this- or that-. Who attempt to move beyond the words and proscriptions of their faith towards thoughts and attitudes welcoming benevolency, honesty and personal sacrifice. Who study the bible to discover the meaning of life; its many mysteries and majesties; and its bottomless seas of wisdom and love.

 

What Does This Mean Then?

 

In this way an open bible recreates people. It renews them. It heals and forgives. It refreshes and causes great joy within the holy magisterium of God's fellowship including that of His own people. A closed bible cannot. It's joyless, and filled with self-recriminating condemnations that washes over everyone whom God would place before us to minister to and be ministered to. It wants rules and regulations. Laws, and lots of them. It wants to seek out its own righteousness while refusing the righteousness that Jesus  provides through His atoning death on the Cross. It's austere. Formidable. Angry and vindictive. It pounds the table of good works not understanding that works follows from faith and is not a substitute for faith. How many times does the Apostle Paul say in his letters that we have inherited grace and peace? That we are adoptees into a faith that was not made by human hands. That comes by the presence of the Spirit when born again into the newness of life the Jesus has provided. Man's religious legalisms and his human spirit of pride would abjectly refuse Jesus' redeeming work of love and grace, forgiveness and mercy. All is cut off from God's providence and regarded with a niggardly hand of barrenness and shame. Closed bibles will do that to people. So will dead ones. There's no life and consequently, no spiritual life.

 

Why Is an Open Bible Important?

 

Hence, I thought to begin pursuing the history and development of the bible with an eye towards understanding God's revelation as open to all who seek His lifeforce of grace and forgiveness, but closed to those Pharisees amongst us who cannot perceive the mysteries of the Spirit sent by the Father and the Son that fills this old world with the Godhead's holy presence. And when seeking to interpret the bible we might read it as an open document written for every age of man willing to receive God's grace and mercy and thereby become vessels of use for the Master's service no matter the banged-up dings and dents found on the pot. No matter the pot's color or shape. Nor wealth of craftsmanship or poverty of material. But become holy vessels useful for the Potter's plan. Who would serve as God's incarnate hands and feet; His open heart and gracious spirit; His consuming mind and trembling voice. Speaking of a Creator-Redeemer's love birthed through the life and ministry of Jesus, the divine Son of God. And through us - that is, through the Holy Church of God, that covenanted remnant of the bible and elect of the earth - as crucified servants performing cruciform ministries to God's glory and praise. To be a living people of faith who would ask, "What would Jesus do (WWJD)?" And do it. As led by the living God despite the headaches or heartaches the church of this earth may give to those of God's servants willing to step-out and speak-out against the church's dead folklores and presumed traditions. Against its sanctimonious cultural mores and lifeless behaviors dulled by uncircumcised hearts and self-serving feet. Against its high priesthoods of darkness and misguided provincial sayings.

 

Conclusion

 

And so, in the days ahead I hope to explore what an open hermeneutic might look like when stripped away of dithering doctrines lulling followers of Jesus into a false understanding of God's Word. I intend to add to the words we think we know with newer words that would provide further help-and-assistance in examining the bible. And in the process remove some good words that originally seemed to have helped, but have now become a dark woods themselves in lending subservience to self-serving epistemologies that have unwittingly closed God's communication to man in this day and age of postmodern turmoil and turbulence.

 

In the meantime, please begin reading through the Wikipedia references I have provided below to help lend a contextual framework to this heady task of reading God's Word with an eye towards understanding it as best we can until that day when we will see clearly face-to-face and no longer through the dark mirrors of our finite humanity and bounded earthen will.

 

R.E. Slater

November 2, 2012

 

 

1 Corinthians 13

English Standard Version (ESV)

 

The Way of Love

 

13 If I speak in the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I am a noisy gong or a clanging cymbal. ² And if I have prophetic powers, and understand all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have all faith, so as to remove mountains, but have not love, I am nothing. ³ If I give away all I have, and if I deliver up my body to be burned,^[a] but have not love, I gain nothing.

 

⁴ Love is patient and kind; love does not envy or boast; it is not arrogant ⁵ or rude. It does not insist on its own way; it is not irritable or resentful;^{[b] 6} it does not rejoice at wrongdoing, but rejoices with the truth. ⁷ Love bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things.

 

⁸ Love never ends. As for prophecies, they will pass away; as for tongues, they will cease; as for knowledge, it will pass away. ⁹ For we know in part and we prophesy in part, ¹⁰ but when the perfect comes, the partial will pass away. ¹¹ When I was a child, I spoke like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I gave up childish ways. ¹² For now we see in a mirror dimly, but then face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I have been fully known.

 

¹³ So now faith, hope, and love abide, these three; but the greatest of these is love.

 

 

Hebrews 5

English Standard Version (ESV)

 

Warning Against Apostasy

 

¹¹ About this we have much to say, and it is hard to explain, since you have become dull of hearing. ¹² For though by this time you ought to be teachers, you need someone to teach you again the basic principles of the oracles of God. You need milk, not solid food, ¹³ for everyone who lives on milk is unskilled in the word of righteousness, since he is a child. ¹⁴ But solid food is for the mature, for those who have their powers of discernment trained by constant practice to distinguish good from evil.

 

 

 

History and Development of the Bible

 

 

Development of the Hebrew Bible Canon

http://relevancy22.blogspot.com/2012/11/development-of-hebrew-bible-canon.html

Development of the Old Testament Canon

http://relevancy22.blogspot.com/2012/11/development-of-old-testament-canon.html

Development of the New Testament Canon

http://relevancy22.blogspot.com/2012/11/development-of-new-testament-canon.html

The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha

http://relevancy22.blogspot.com/2012/11/the-old-testament-pseudepigrapha.html

The Biblical Apocrypha

http://relevancy22.blogspot.com/2012/11/the-biblical-apocrypha.html

The Jewish Apocrypha

http://relevancy22.blogspot.com/2012/11/the-jewish-apocrypha.html

The New Testament Apocrypha

http://relevancy22.blogspot.com/2012/11/the-new-testament-apocrypha.html

The Gnostic Gospels of the New Testament Era

http://relevancy22.blogspot.com/2012/11/the-gnostic-gospels-of-new-testament-era.html

 

 

 

Continue to -

Index to past articles on "An Open Faith and Open Theology"