Unsettled Christianity

One blog to rule them all, One blog to find them, One blog to bring them all and in the darkness bind them.
April 1st, 2013

Melito of Sardis: Mystery of the Passover

This is a series of repost for Easter from Melito of Sardis.

What more can I add here?

Components of the Mystery of the Passover (46-71)

1. The Passover (46-47a)

46. Now that you have heard the explanation of the type and of that which corresponds to it, hear also what goes into making up the mystery. What is the passover? Indeed its name is derived from that event–”to celebrate the passover” (to paschein) is derived from “to suffer” (tou pathein). Therefore, learn who the sufferer is and who he is who suffers along with the sufferer.

47. Why indeed was the Lord present upon the earth? In order that having clothed himself with the one who suffers, he might lift him up to the heights of heaven .

2. The Creation and Fall of Man (47b-48)

In the beginning, when God made heaven and earth, and everything in them through his word, he himself formed man from the earth and shared with that form his own breath, he himself placed him in paradise, which was eastward in Eden, and there they lived most luxuriously.

Then by way of command God gave them this law: For your food you may eat from any tree, but you are not to eat from the tree of the one who knows good and evil. For on the day you eat from it, you most certainly will die.

48. But man, who is by nature capable of receiving good and evil as soil of the earth is capable of receiving seeds from both sides, welcomed the hostile and greedy counselor, and by having touched that tree transgressed the command, and disobeyed God. As a consequence, he was cast out into this world as a condemned man is cast into prison.

3. Consequences of the Fall (49-56)

49. And when he had fathered many children, and had grown very old, and had returned to the earth through having tasted of the tree, an inheritance was left behind by him for his children. Indeed, he left his children an inheritance–not of chastity but of unchastity, not of immortality but of corruptibility, not of honor but of dishonor, not of freedom but of slavery, not of sovereignty but of tyranny, not of life but of death, not of salvation but of destruction.

50. Extraordinary and terrifying indeed was the destruction of men upon the earth. For the following things happened to them: They were carried off as slaves by sin, the tyrant, and were led away into the regions of desire where they were totally engulfed by insatiable sensual pleasures–by adultery, by unchastity, by debauchery, by inordinate desires, by avarice, by murders, by bloodshed, by the tyranny of wickedness, by the tyranny of lawlessness.

51. For even a father of his own accord lifted up a dagger against his son; and a son used his hands against his father; and the impious person smote the breasts that nourished him; and brother murdered brother; and host wronged his guest; and friend assassinated friend; and one man cut the throat of another with his tyrannous right hand.

52. Therefore all men on the earth became either murderers, or parricides, or killers of their children. And yet a thing still more dreadful and extraordinary was to be found: A mother attacked the flesh which she gave birth to, a mother attacked those whom her breasts had nourished; and she buried in her belly the fruit of her belly. Indeed, the ill-starred mother became a dreadful tomb, when she devoured the child which she bore in her womb.

53. But in addition to this there were to be found among men many things still more monstrous and terrifying and brutal: father cohabits with his child, and son and with his mother, and brother with sister, and male with male, and each man lusting after the wife of his neighbor.

54. Because of these things sin exulted, which, because it was death’s collaborator, entered first into the souls of men, and prepared as food for him the bodies of the dead. In every soul sin left its mark, and those in whom it placed its mark were destined to die.

55. Therefore, all flesh fell under the power of sin, and every body under the dominion of death, for every soul was driven out from its house of flesh. Indeed, that which had been taken from the earth was dissolved again into earth, and that which had been given from God was locked up in Hades. And that beautiful ordered arrangement was dissolved, when the beautiful body was separated (from the soul).

56. Yes, man was divided up into parts by death. Yes, an extraordinary misfortune and captivity enveloped him: he was dragged away captive under the shadow of death, and the image of the Father remained there desolate. For this reason, therefore, the mystery of the passover has been completed in the body of the Lord.

April 1st, 2013

Melito of Sardis: The Old Testament and the New Testament

I am reposting Melito for Easter.

I have posted on Melito some before, and find myself returning to him for a bit especially his homily on the Passover. He provides us with an accurate manner in using the Old Testament, and it is an example that is well served for the past few millenia. He does not create something that is not there, no drench the Prophets with our Hope, but stands in the good Tradition of using the New Testament to read the Old. For a New Testament example of this, we need to turn no further, dig no deeper than the Epistle to the Hebrews.

Note, if you will, the powerful images that Melito presents us with.

Read the rest of this entry »

November 8th, 2011

Knowing Jesus Through the Old Testament – Author

This is the first post in a three part series reviewing Christopher Wright’s Knowing Jesus Through the Old Testament from IVP-Academic. Thanks to IVP for sending along a copy.

This book has had a long shelf-life considering it was published originally back in 1992. But, for those who, like me, have not read the book previously, the nearing 10th anniversary of publication seems like as good a time as any for a review. In this post, I will introduce the author followed by posts overviewing the contents and giving my personal thoughts.

For those interested in a fuller intro to the author, I would recommend checking out Wright’s bio on the Langham Partnership International (LPI) website. According to this bio, Wright has studied both Classics and Old Testament at the University of Cambridge. His doctoral degree is from Cambridge in Old Testament. He has taught Old Testament courses at Union Biblical Seminary in Pune and served as the academic dean at All Nations Christian College in the UK. Wright now serves as the international director of LPI. He is also an ordained minister in the Anglican church. His work, then, represents the concerns of both the church and the academy.

Wright has an impressive publication list, also listed on the LPI website. His better known monographs include the following (many also from IVP):

1992 Knowing Jesus Through the Old Testament. London: Marshall Pickering; Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity.

1996 Deuteronomy. New International Biblical Commentary. Peabody, Mass.: Hendrikson; Carlisle, U.K.: Paternoster.

2004 Old Testament Ethics for the People of God. Leicester, England, and Downers Grove, Ill.: Inter-Varsity Press.

2006 Knowing the Holy Spirit through the Old Testament,  Oxford: Monarch Press; Downers Grove: IVP.

2007 Knowing God the Father through the Old Testament, Oxford: Monarch Press; Downers Grove: IVP.

2009 The God I Don’t Understand: Reflections on Tough Questions of Faith, Grand Rapids: Zondervan.

2010 Mission of Gods People The (Biblical Theology for Life), Grand Rapids: Zondervan.

Wright has also written articles and entries for the Anchor Bible Dictionary, Tyndale Bulletin, the New International Dictionary of Theology and Exegesis, and Princeton Theological Review, among others.

Considering Wright’s educational background and publication record, Knowing Jesus through the Old Testament should provide a wealth of insight for anyone interested in the relationship between the Old and New Testaments, especially with relation to Jesus. I will examine more fully what these insights are in subsequent posts on the contents and my reaction.

Enhanced by Zemanta
August 25th, 2011

Paul Among the People – Personal Thoughts

This is the third installment of my review of Sarah Ruden’s Paul Among the People from Image Catholic Books.  You can read my Q&A with Sarah as well as get an idea of the contents of the book.  In this post, I will give my own personal thoughts.

First,  I think that Ruden’s command over the primary literature is phenomenal.  I discussed this in relation to the contents of the book in my previous post; however, it bears mentioning again that her long-standing work as a translator of Greek and Latin texts really pays off here.  Ruden’s examples are always pertinent to the issue she is discussing and always shed a great deal of light on the subject.  Other books on Paul’s writings might include references to the ancient world; however, if authors have not scoured the primary literature, the examples they use might not really be the best.

Second, I very much enjoyed Ruden bringing in a number of personal anecdotes.  She admits to being a person once uncomfortable with the apostle Paul, placing him in the same category many of the Hebrew prophets (though I guess it depends on how the word prophet is being used here).  However, she notes how she has come to appreciate Paul much more.  Further, having recently completed my degree from the University of Stellenbosch, I enjoyed many of her anecdotes about living in South Africa.  She relates several instances that show she how clearly speaks her mind.  The book, then, is not a dry academic tome, but communicates much of the enthusiasm of the author.

Third and probably most importantly, Ruden really does accomplish her goal with the book, namely “to get further inside Paul’s world, and, through this, to understand him better.”  I felt like after reading the book I had a better understanding of the Greco-Roman world in which Paul lived.  And, I can’t think of anything much better that I can say about book, other than that it accomplished its goal.

As one point of critique, I would mention that the book did lack detailed focus on Paul’s jewishness.  It is not as if this aspect of Paul’s life is completely absent, as there is some information in the preface and throughout the chapters.  Yet the focus is overwhelmingly on the Greco-Roman world.  Of course, there are a number of excellent books on Paul’s jewishness.  So, I’d recommend reading Paul Among the People alongside other texts that help fill out the picture of who Paul was.

Overall, I’d recommend the book.  It’s a fairly easy read and not too long.  And you should leave with a better understanding of Paul’s thought on a number of important topics.

Enhanced by Zemanta
July 25th, 2011

Fear of Catholicism and the New Testament Use of the Old Testament

This morning I was reading in Three Views on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament.  I read Kaiser’s chapter on the single referent view.  It seemed that part of his problem with the sensus plenior approach was that it was formulated by Catholic scholars and that it only would only work within a Catholic context.  He states:

Since (Raymond) Brown takes it (meaning) out of the hands of the human authors who stood in the counsel of God, the question is: In whose hands now does the final court of appeal rest for discovering the authoritative meaning of a biblical text?  Roman Catholic scholars, of course, can fall back on the magisterium of the church, to the ecclesial tradition.  But to what can Protestants appeal that matches such additional grounds of appeal?

I wondered if maybe I was reading a bit much into this to take offense, but it’s almost as if he’s saying that something like the sensus plenior approach couldn’t possibly be correct because it emerged in a Catholic context and could only work in a Catholic context.  But, I was glad to see I was not alone because Peter Enns calls him out for this in his response to Kaiser’s essay.  He states:

Kaiser’s discussion of sensus plenior is likewise problematic.  By citing Roman Catholic scholar Raymond Brown, Kaiser seems to be using guilt by association to undermine sensus plenior.  Brown is able to take meaning “out of the hands of human authors who stood in the counsel of God” because Brown’s Catholicism has an ecclesiastical tradition that allows him to treat scripture so shabbily.  I am no Catholic, but I was a bit offended by such a caricature, since Protestant scholarship owes so much to the careful nuanced work of Roman Catholic scholars.  Moreover, it is somewhat beside the point to portray Roman Catholics as manipulating the meaning of scripture so casually.  The real hermeneutical issues before, generated as they are by the NT evidence itself, will not be settled by such rhetoric.

Kudos to Peter Enns (who actually has an excerpt from Divino Afflante Spiritu on his blog).  I’m quite certain I could not have said that better myself.  I have appreciated the work of Enns for quite some time on account of this kind of clarity of thought.  I’m not saying that I personally agree with the sensus plenior approach, but it really doesn’t matter one way or another where it came from or in what context it might work.  What matters is how the NT authors themselves actually treated the Old Testament.  In fact, I think this is the gist of Enns’ critique of Kaiser, namely he doesn’t really deal with the raw data of the New Testament.

Enhanced by Zemanta
June 10th, 2011

Overemphasizing Adam

Let me start off with what I’m not saying. I’m not saying that Adam is unimportant.

With that out of the way, in some discussions I’ve glanced at lately, I do think that some assign more importance to Adam than necessary. What I’m referring to is the idea of “no literal Adam = no Jesus.”  Perhaps someone has covered this ground already. In fact, I hope they have, and I’m a late to the game. Only my schedule has flown all over the map this summer.

I’ll just make three brief points about “no literal Adam = no Jesus.” First, I don’t think this does justice to relative lack of a role Adam plays in the rest of the bible, in general, and Hebrew Bible, in particular.  I know that some people read parts of the Hebrew Bible, but I’d swear that the only part that many pay attention to is Genesis 1-5.

Many people don’t realize that the Hebrew Bible contains only one undisputed reference to Adam outside of Genesis 1-5.  The reference comes in the genealogy in 1 Chronicles 1:1.  The word Adam in Hosea 6:7 is likely referring to a place as in Joshua 3:16.

The New Testament, in general, also contains very few references to Adam, especially outside of the epistles attributed to Paul.  The only time a gospel writer explicitly mentions Adam is Luke’s inclusion of him in Jesus’ genealogy.

At this point, I would ask the question: Does “no literal Adam = no Jesus” make more out of Adam than scripture actually does?  The Bible came along just fine, at least from my perspective, without mentioning Adam nearly as often as some groups seem intent on mentioning him in modern times.

Second, I would mention another related point.  Since the Hebrew Bible makes little reference to Adam outside of Genesis 1-5, messianic hopes develop among a people for whom, in their scriptures, Adam does not play that significant of a role, especially compared to say … Moses, who has four whole books devoted to his activities.  In light of this, I don’t think it makes sense to say “no literal Adam = no Jesus.”  A person can still have messianic hopes without having everything hinge on Adam as evidenced by many Jews in modern times who maintain messianic hopes while not having a doctrine akin to the Christian doctrine of original sin.

Finally, from my perspective, it is not Jesus’ connection with a literal Adam that imbues his death with utmost significance, but rather his resurrection from the dead.  I doubt seriously New Testament authors would really have thought to relate Jesus back to Adam if they did not believe he had been raised from the dead.

At any rate, this is my two cents.  I think we must discuss Adam.  Yet I also believe that the relative importance that we attach to him often does not reflect the relative importance of he plays within the whole of either the Jewish or Christian scriptures.

Enhanced by Zemanta
May 17th, 2011

Old Testament Theology (vol 1.) – One Thing That Doesn’t Work

This will be the final installment in my review of Old Testament Theology (vol. 1) from IVP Academic.  You can see the previous posts HERE, HERE, HERE, and HERE.

In this post, I will discuss one of the things that doesn’t work very well, at least in my opinion.  This should not overshadow that this is an excellent Old Testament theology text.  I think that anyone who is serious about the study of Old Testament theology from a religious believer’s perspective, should read this book.

The one major problem that I have with the book is that the Old Testament as story leading into the life of Jesus doesn’t work very well for me without the Deuterocanonicals. I know, I know, enough with the Catholic stuff, right?

But, really, for me not having a serious treatment of the deuterocanonicals feels like a gaping hole.  Goldingay seems to feel this tension himself at times:

None of these considerations is watertight-my community is not sure whether to recognize the Hebrew canon or Greek canon ….

So, why not discuss the deuterocanonicals at least like an appendix to the Old Testament (e.g. as the NRSV does)?  In Catholic theology, the term “deuterocanon” does two things. It marks the books as both canonical and disputed.  I realize the Protestant perspective is different marking these books as “apocryphal.” But, why not treat the books in such a way to at least recognize that they are disputed?

I cannot say too much about Goldingay’s reasoning because he only gives a few lines in the introduction as to why he focuses on the texts of the Hebrew canon.  But, I am unconvinced, especially when it feels to me like a chapter is missing at the end.

I realize that for some this is a matter of perspective.  But, once a person goes from reading the Old Testament with the deuterocanonicals to reading it without them, it’s not quite the same.  It is especially not the same when one reads from the perspective of the Old Testament as a story.  The Old Testament story does not have the same flow into the New Testament without them.

Enhanced by Zemanta
April 6th, 2011

A death He freely accepted

The reason my Father loves me is that I lay down my life—only to take it up again. No one takes it from me, but I lay it down of my own accord. John 10:17-18 (NIV)
Indeed, out of love for his Father and for men, whom the Father wants to save, Jesus freely accepted his Passion and death. Catechism of the Catholic Church.
Before he was given up to death, a death he freely accepted, Eucharistic Prayer II, English translation of The Roman Missal.
Freely You gave it all for us. Surrendered Your life upon that cross. This is our God, by Reuben Morgan. Hillsong.

Jesus freely gave His life for all of us. Salvation, from Adam and Eve till the last person born before He comes again, is only through the grace of Jesus – And salvation in the OT is through the grace of God, just as it is in the NT. The OT sacrifies in themselves were not enough. A point I discovered last week, and want to read more about.

Amazing.

March 29th, 2011

Essays on John and Hebrews – Contents

This is a continuation of my review of Essays on John and Hebrews by Harold Attridge and published by Mohr Siebeck.  As suggested by the title, this book is a collection of essays on these two books Biblical books.

In terms of the division of the contents, the essays are not quite evenly split between John and Hebrews.  The main body of the text is right around 350 pages, with around 200 devoted the Gospel of John and around 150 devoted to the Epistle to the Hebrews.  This is somewhat reflective of the length of John as compared with Hebrews.

Each of the essays in this volume has appeared elsewhere.  This may make the text less valuable for those who may only want to read one or two of the essays. They might be able to xerox a hard copy or get electronic versions through a library.  Yet for those who rely heavily on Attridge’s work this text puts many of his important essays in one place.

The essays range from fairly general introductory matters to fairly specialized matters.  For example, the authorship of the gospel of John is the focus of one of the essays.  For someone like myself, who, either in the context of the university or even in the context of a church parish, sometimes has to give general introductions to Biblical books, essays like this one should be very helpful.  I have had the opportunity to read through that essay, so far, and Attridge appears to summarize much of the important literature.  As an example of a more specialized essay, Attridge looks at matters like the relationship between logos in the Gospel of John and in Philo.  This essay and ones like it may or may not prove useful to me in the contexts in which I teach, as most of the people that I deal with may not want to delve quite so deeply.

With this said, this book could prove helpful for the generalist and the specialist alike.  To conclude, I’m also providing the publisher’s description below:

Harold W. Attridge has engaged in the interpretation of two of the most intriguing literary products of early Christianity, the Gospel according to John and the Epistle to the Hebrews. His essays explore the literary and cultural traditions at work in the text and its imaginative rhetoric aiming to deepen faith in Christ by giving new meaning to his death and exaltation. His essays on John focus on the literary artistry of the final version of the gospel, its playful approach to literary genres, its engaging rhetoric, its delight in visual imagery. He situates that literary analysis of both works within the context of the history of religion and culture in the first century, with careful attention to both Jewish and Greco-Roman worlds. Several essays, focusing on the phenomena connected with “Gnosticism”, extend that religio-historical horizon into the life of the early Church and contribute to the understanding of the reception of these two early Christian masterpieces.

Enhanced by Zemanta
March 28th, 2011

Essays on John and Hebrews – Author

This is the first time that I’m reviewing a book for Joel’s blog.  But, in seminary, I was taught that a book review should consist of information about the author, an overview of contents, and a reaction.  In this post, I’ll give a bit of background information on Harold Attridge whose essays fill out this collection of Essays on John and Hebrews from Mohr Siebeck.

I am not a New Testament scholar, but my first acquaintance with Attridge’s work was in the HarperCollins Study Bible for which he was an editor.  When I was looking for a Bible to require for students in an Old Testament introductory course in a situation where the goals were more critical, this is the one that I decided on.  Knowing that Attridge had a significant role to play in that work gives me high expectations for Essays on John and Hebrews.

For those who may not be familiar with Attridge’s background, a great deal more information can be found HERE.  As a few highlights, Attridge has BA and MA degrees from Cambridge University, and his PhD is from Harvard.  He is currently on faculty at Yale University Divinity school as the Reverend Henry L. Slack Dean and Lillian Claus Professor of New Testament.  He has served as the president of the Society of Biblical Literature.  His list of publications is pretty incredible, though some of us might not be terribly familiar with them, as some of them seem pretty specialized.  At a more general level, his commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews in the Hermeneia series may be most widely known.

In light of Attridge’s background, if you are looking on a volume on John and Hebrews by a top-notch scholar, this text seems to be a very good candidate.  Up next, I will post an overview of the contents of the book.

Enhanced by Zemanta
September 15th, 2009

Mark Goodacre and the Open Mic

Excellent news, dear readers!

Good afternoon,

I thought the readers of your blog might be interested in this. Mark Goodacre at NT Blog has agreed to hold live, online “office hours” this Friday, Sept. 18, at noon EDT on Duke’s Ustream page: http://www.ustream.tv/dukeuniversity. Professor Goodacre will be giving his take on “the New Testament in the news” — and responding to questions from anyone who submits them online.

To submit a question, in advance or during the webcast, email live@duke.edu , tweet with the tag #dukelive, or post a comment on this Facebook page — http://apps.facebook.com/dukeuniversitylive/.

I hope you will consider watching the webcast and participating. If you are interested in sharing this event, you can also embed the live video of the event using the embed codes on the Ustream site here: http://www.ustream.tv/dukeuniversity.

For more info, see the Duke News story at http://news.duke.edu/2009/09/goodacre.html.

Please let me know if you have any questions or need any additional information.

Many Thanks,

Meg McKee