You Can't Judge a Book (including the NT)
by its first fifty (or in Harry's case, 300) pages (nor by its surface). Harry 5 is getting better with the D.A. and the Room of Requirement. That really is Rowling's strength: invention. From Nocture Alley to the Knight Bus to the floating memoes at the Ministry to the Room of Requirements...her ability to imagine is very great. That kind of imagination is what drew me into the Narnia books and Tolkien as a kid. We were lucky, then, to have Christian mythicists under our child noses. Not that I'm against Rowling's very moral fiction (so far, nothing but snogging) but the Christian allegory of Narnia probably affected me ways I still don't know.
And on Lewis, Markos' book is getting better also. I do recommend it as an introduction to Lewis' 'top down' apologetics. Is the Lewis/Markos approach unassailable? No, but it's thought provoking once again. The apologetics are dated in places because of Lewis' own point in history: surely psychological criticism of Christianity has moved beyond Freud, for example! And Markos makes sweeping, though intriguing, assertions about anthropology (and other things) without providing a single example. This I don't like. It's the kind of thing Chesterton could get away with, Lewis tried not to get away with, and Markos shouldn't get away with. Still, it's a thought-provoking book. Especially, and this will seem odd, as I reflect on it in light of Emerson's subjective soul-world metaphysics. When Markos says the medieval Christians saw angelic presences moving the planets in their spheres and we see only scientific forces, the comparison seems obviously favored toward the scientific description. But not necessarily. If God is, the laws of nature are his laws, Nature can be imbued with mystery and divinity (in a relegated way) in much the same way Emerson saw it...anyway, it's an easy book to read and fun. It's far from the final word, but it continues Lewis' dialogues.
I haven't been back to the edgeoffaithblog for a while. I just don't have the time. And I said I'd read Doherty (who, I think, denies Jesus as historical person at all, an exceptionally weak position in my view) but I've just been keeping up with my school work and family life. The point in Doherty which intrigues me is the lack of gospel stories/sayings in Paul. He even begins his essay saying that 'none' of the early Christian epistles, not James or Peter or Paul, show reflections of the gospel material. I didn't get much past that. The fact is, unless Paul is using idiom common to the culture which sunk in to M/MK/LK/JN (a better designation for the four Jesus books, after reading Wright, than the 'gospels') there are echoes in Paul. As an amatuer just reading a little and listening to the readings in church I've heard some. In I Cor., when Paul says 'if I have all faith and can move all mountains, but lack love...'; that is found in Mark when Jesus says something like 'if you have faith enough you can say to this mountain be cast into the sea...' He's talking about the destruction of the Temple, predicting it even. The disciples can't believe such a huge building could ever cease to exist and he tells them with enough faith they'll have whatever they ask for, including the mountain (the temple mount?) being tossed into the sea.
This is one of the most difficult of all Jesus' sayings for two reasons: it's tough for those who deny he made this prophetic claim because the apocalyptic passages in Mark are much less concrete than those in Matt ane Lk and so most critics assign Mark a date based on the apolcaypse content before 70 a.d. when the Romans levelled the temple. Many scholars, perhaps because of this passage, are pigeonholing Mark into 68-70, during the Roman war but before Jerusalem fell and the Temple was razed. Since Mark is supposed to be written in Greek outside Jerusalem, I really don't know how they figure Mark's author had such precise information. The common sense answer seems to be that yes, Jesus predicted the Temple's destruction and it happened. Or that Mark was written well after 70. There are problems with such a late date for his book, though. Anyway, unless that passage in Mark is a later redaction (and if so, would the redactor have updated the apocalyptic content to be more specific as in Mt and Lk?) Jesus seems to have foreseen the fall of the Temple and recounted it in one of his most horrific and radical sayings.
A saying which is clearly echoed in Paul's undisputed letter to the Corinthians nearly two decades before the Roman war. The statement about having faith to move all mountains is phrased differently in Paul, is almost an aside as he discusses love and its relation to spiritual gifts. Any responsible historian, and I speak now as a critic 'outside' of our own faith, would have trouble saying the reference in I Cor. is not derived from the Markan material. If it can be done, show me.
Without trying, I ran across a few other references like that, echoes of the gospel content in the epistles (the indisputed early ones, not 2 Peter; heck even throw out 1 Peter if you want; James rings so much of the early Jewish Christianity it probably is at least a collection of sayings/sermons from James and I see no reason to toss it). But I drift. The point is, I will not deny that it's interesting to me that Paul doesn't just use material from the gospels to respond to concerns (often very idiosyncratic concerns) from the churches he writes (though most, save two, he had already evangelized). That is a fair question. But the fact that Paul doesn't isn't proof the Mt/Mk/Lk/Jn content didn't exist in oral or written form at the time. Paul, an enemy of the faith and so itinerant later, and not part of the original inner circle, may not have been exposed to much of it, frankly, and certainly would not have been hauling around written copies nor necessarily assigning himself to record large chunks of the oral record as it existed during his life.
And here's where the heavy weights come in. I don't feel as much pressure to respond at edgeoffaith because what I'm finding is that there are genuine scholars who've already addressed these questions in books, or some of them at least; namely Wright and David Wenham whom Wright recommends on this very question (Wenham's next on my list). Look and I (just might) find. Wright's position, or the pieces I know of it, would take another entry at least this long. In brief, the 'gospel' for Paul (and here Wright openly acknowledges Sanders, another scholar I want to read) was not what we mean by the gospel in our post-Reformation culture. The original meaning may have been rather quickly as Gentiles converted and the religion spread. For Wright, the term gospel means something like Royal proclamation, an announcement of kingly victory by the Jewish Messiah flying in the face of the Emperor cult (which he argues grew in the eastern provinces before it was strong in Rome itself). Essentially, Wright analyzes Paul as the first century Pharisee he was.
This is all very interesting, and controversial, especially in light of things he says later in the book (and which I'm still reading/digesting). What I'm saying is that while Wright barely covers the absence of gospel content in the epistles thing briefly, he does make a point that Paul was, in a sense, concerned with one piece of the message. Sure the description of the Supper in Cor. almost certainly came from the earthly disciples; the 'gospel' that Paul says he received directly from God wasn't the same thing as the gospel of Mk, say; those books weren't designed 'gospels' until the second century. Paul is talking about his own vision/belief in the divine victory of Jesus over sin and death, the ushering in of the hopes of the great OT prophets. Mark (who does self-designate, if its original to the book, as 'the beginning of the gospel about Jesus the Messiah/King') is clearly about the same thing in a different way. Jesus is portrayed as victorious over Satan (in some passages I admit I find troubling, a word on that in a second), natural forces, sin, sickness, and death. Mk is a royal proclamation, perhaps, too (and I don't remember Wright addressing this in his book so I may be on shaky ground).
Hence the gospel material for Paul may not have been what some consider it to be now: the divine, perfect, new 'law' to be applied to every issue in his churches. Paul had an overarching vision, one he says was given to him by God directly (Jesus as victor and agent of the eschaton part one) but which he also says was approved by James, Jesus' own brother, Peter, and others Paul met personally (and argued with). Did Paul invent these people when he says he opposed Cephas to his face? Simon/Cephas has to be a historical person. Did Peter invent Jesus? These are complex, and new questions. But one thing seems sure for me at this point: Jesus was a real Jewish person crucified by the Romans (and why lamely dismiss the reference in Josephus to Jesus and James his brother?) He had a real followers and some of those from the inner circle met Paul, agreeing on the larger picture, arguing over the way to include Gentiles (and all Paul had to do was point to the OT prophecies about Israel being the source of salvation for the world; the idea goes back as far as the Psalms at least; it's explicit in Is. 49,6; did he, don't know).
Okay, enough for now. An hour gone when I should be grading. I meant to write about my very humbling snowboard day three which beat me up so bad I can hardly move, but another time. And oh, the exorcisms in Mark are freaking me out! Not because I don't believe Jesus could do such a thing, but because I've never seen a demon-possessed person.
Is the OT full of bizarre tribal silliness and violence? Clearly. Are Paul's letters direct edicts from God? I don't think so, I don't know that he thought so. Are Christians a bunch of great people? No. But a cup of water offered in his name...my own life has changec completely in the last five years and it keeps changing, my inner life I mean, my family life also. Roll that empirical joint and smoke it. Analyzing possilbe psychological explanations for that change would take several books; as the first-person subject let me say I believe God and Jesus are making a slow difference in a stubborn and pissed off person. There are millions of people choosing individual loving actions because of faith in Jesus. Do other religions have the same impact? Great question. One for another time. But to write off all Christians as freakshows actually harmed, further demented, by their faith is simply not doing justice to the phenonemon of faith. If it's a delusion, it's the one delusion I know that improves mental health for millions.
Okay, truly gotta go now. Hope this wasn't too much in one place. Apologize for typos; no time to edit, lame excuse as that sounds to be.
Love and grace to all in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ
And on Lewis, Markos' book is getting better also. I do recommend it as an introduction to Lewis' 'top down' apologetics. Is the Lewis/Markos approach unassailable? No, but it's thought provoking once again. The apologetics are dated in places because of Lewis' own point in history: surely psychological criticism of Christianity has moved beyond Freud, for example! And Markos makes sweeping, though intriguing, assertions about anthropology (and other things) without providing a single example. This I don't like. It's the kind of thing Chesterton could get away with, Lewis tried not to get away with, and Markos shouldn't get away with. Still, it's a thought-provoking book. Especially, and this will seem odd, as I reflect on it in light of Emerson's subjective soul-world metaphysics. When Markos says the medieval Christians saw angelic presences moving the planets in their spheres and we see only scientific forces, the comparison seems obviously favored toward the scientific description. But not necessarily. If God is, the laws of nature are his laws, Nature can be imbued with mystery and divinity (in a relegated way) in much the same way Emerson saw it...anyway, it's an easy book to read and fun. It's far from the final word, but it continues Lewis' dialogues.
I haven't been back to the edgeoffaithblog for a while. I just don't have the time. And I said I'd read Doherty (who, I think, denies Jesus as historical person at all, an exceptionally weak position in my view) but I've just been keeping up with my school work and family life. The point in Doherty which intrigues me is the lack of gospel stories/sayings in Paul. He even begins his essay saying that 'none' of the early Christian epistles, not James or Peter or Paul, show reflections of the gospel material. I didn't get much past that. The fact is, unless Paul is using idiom common to the culture which sunk in to M/MK/LK/JN (a better designation for the four Jesus books, after reading Wright, than the 'gospels') there are echoes in Paul. As an amatuer just reading a little and listening to the readings in church I've heard some. In I Cor., when Paul says 'if I have all faith and can move all mountains, but lack love...'; that is found in Mark when Jesus says something like 'if you have faith enough you can say to this mountain be cast into the sea...' He's talking about the destruction of the Temple, predicting it even. The disciples can't believe such a huge building could ever cease to exist and he tells them with enough faith they'll have whatever they ask for, including the mountain (the temple mount?) being tossed into the sea.
This is one of the most difficult of all Jesus' sayings for two reasons: it's tough for those who deny he made this prophetic claim because the apocalyptic passages in Mark are much less concrete than those in Matt ane Lk and so most critics assign Mark a date based on the apolcaypse content before 70 a.d. when the Romans levelled the temple. Many scholars, perhaps because of this passage, are pigeonholing Mark into 68-70, during the Roman war but before Jerusalem fell and the Temple was razed. Since Mark is supposed to be written in Greek outside Jerusalem, I really don't know how they figure Mark's author had such precise information. The common sense answer seems to be that yes, Jesus predicted the Temple's destruction and it happened. Or that Mark was written well after 70. There are problems with such a late date for his book, though. Anyway, unless that passage in Mark is a later redaction (and if so, would the redactor have updated the apocalyptic content to be more specific as in Mt and Lk?) Jesus seems to have foreseen the fall of the Temple and recounted it in one of his most horrific and radical sayings.
A saying which is clearly echoed in Paul's undisputed letter to the Corinthians nearly two decades before the Roman war. The statement about having faith to move all mountains is phrased differently in Paul, is almost an aside as he discusses love and its relation to spiritual gifts. Any responsible historian, and I speak now as a critic 'outside' of our own faith, would have trouble saying the reference in I Cor. is not derived from the Markan material. If it can be done, show me.
Without trying, I ran across a few other references like that, echoes of the gospel content in the epistles (the indisputed early ones, not 2 Peter; heck even throw out 1 Peter if you want; James rings so much of the early Jewish Christianity it probably is at least a collection of sayings/sermons from James and I see no reason to toss it). But I drift. The point is, I will not deny that it's interesting to me that Paul doesn't just use material from the gospels to respond to concerns (often very idiosyncratic concerns) from the churches he writes (though most, save two, he had already evangelized). That is a fair question. But the fact that Paul doesn't isn't proof the Mt/Mk/Lk/Jn content didn't exist in oral or written form at the time. Paul, an enemy of the faith and so itinerant later, and not part of the original inner circle, may not have been exposed to much of it, frankly, and certainly would not have been hauling around written copies nor necessarily assigning himself to record large chunks of the oral record as it existed during his life.
And here's where the heavy weights come in. I don't feel as much pressure to respond at edgeoffaith because what I'm finding is that there are genuine scholars who've already addressed these questions in books, or some of them at least; namely Wright and David Wenham whom Wright recommends on this very question (Wenham's next on my list). Look and I (just might) find. Wright's position, or the pieces I know of it, would take another entry at least this long. In brief, the 'gospel' for Paul (and here Wright openly acknowledges Sanders, another scholar I want to read) was not what we mean by the gospel in our post-Reformation culture. The original meaning may have been rather quickly as Gentiles converted and the religion spread. For Wright, the term gospel means something like Royal proclamation, an announcement of kingly victory by the Jewish Messiah flying in the face of the Emperor cult (which he argues grew in the eastern provinces before it was strong in Rome itself). Essentially, Wright analyzes Paul as the first century Pharisee he was.
This is all very interesting, and controversial, especially in light of things he says later in the book (and which I'm still reading/digesting). What I'm saying is that while Wright barely covers the absence of gospel content in the epistles thing briefly, he does make a point that Paul was, in a sense, concerned with one piece of the message. Sure the description of the Supper in Cor. almost certainly came from the earthly disciples; the 'gospel' that Paul says he received directly from God wasn't the same thing as the gospel of Mk, say; those books weren't designed 'gospels' until the second century. Paul is talking about his own vision/belief in the divine victory of Jesus over sin and death, the ushering in of the hopes of the great OT prophets. Mark (who does self-designate, if its original to the book, as 'the beginning of the gospel about Jesus the Messiah/King') is clearly about the same thing in a different way. Jesus is portrayed as victorious over Satan (in some passages I admit I find troubling, a word on that in a second), natural forces, sin, sickness, and death. Mk is a royal proclamation, perhaps, too (and I don't remember Wright addressing this in his book so I may be on shaky ground).
Hence the gospel material for Paul may not have been what some consider it to be now: the divine, perfect, new 'law' to be applied to every issue in his churches. Paul had an overarching vision, one he says was given to him by God directly (Jesus as victor and agent of the eschaton part one) but which he also says was approved by James, Jesus' own brother, Peter, and others Paul met personally (and argued with). Did Paul invent these people when he says he opposed Cephas to his face? Simon/Cephas has to be a historical person. Did Peter invent Jesus? These are complex, and new questions. But one thing seems sure for me at this point: Jesus was a real Jewish person crucified by the Romans (and why lamely dismiss the reference in Josephus to Jesus and James his brother?) He had a real followers and some of those from the inner circle met Paul, agreeing on the larger picture, arguing over the way to include Gentiles (and all Paul had to do was point to the OT prophecies about Israel being the source of salvation for the world; the idea goes back as far as the Psalms at least; it's explicit in Is. 49,6; did he, don't know).
Okay, enough for now. An hour gone when I should be grading. I meant to write about my very humbling snowboard day three which beat me up so bad I can hardly move, but another time. And oh, the exorcisms in Mark are freaking me out! Not because I don't believe Jesus could do such a thing, but because I've never seen a demon-possessed person.
Is the OT full of bizarre tribal silliness and violence? Clearly. Are Paul's letters direct edicts from God? I don't think so, I don't know that he thought so. Are Christians a bunch of great people? No. But a cup of water offered in his name...my own life has changec completely in the last five years and it keeps changing, my inner life I mean, my family life also. Roll that empirical joint and smoke it. Analyzing possilbe psychological explanations for that change would take several books; as the first-person subject let me say I believe God and Jesus are making a slow difference in a stubborn and pissed off person. There are millions of people choosing individual loving actions because of faith in Jesus. Do other religions have the same impact? Great question. One for another time. But to write off all Christians as freakshows actually harmed, further demented, by their faith is simply not doing justice to the phenonemon of faith. If it's a delusion, it's the one delusion I know that improves mental health for millions.
Okay, truly gotta go now. Hope this wasn't too much in one place. Apologize for typos; no time to edit, lame excuse as that sounds to be.
Love and grace to all in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ
Comments
Thanks for posting this. Peace.
thanks man. I am convinced reason alone is not enough to find Christ. But it sure helps me when I realize that while the resurrection cannot be proven, it's still a compelling historical event. Skeptics are writing today as though many things have long since been disproved: Jesus as a person, the resurrection, any historical competency in the gospels. Sure I still have questions, but how wonderful it is to find that the inner experience I had reading the gospels years ago, and that I have in church now, does not have to be subjective illusion. The religious experiences of others is a valid question, but one thing at a time.
Anyway, thanks man. Hope you are well in L-ville.
Hope to see you this summer when I'm down.
t