i barely even take people's fuss about translations seriously anymore, but a thought did occur to me the other day. The New Testament writers largely used and quoted from the Septuagint. The Septuagint was a translation of the Hebrew scriptures into Greek. Wouldn't it be interesting to determine the kind of the translation it is? How accurate of a translation is the Septuagint? Does it use strict formal equivalence, or is there some dynamic equivalence used? If the Septuagint fudged in places and if any dynamic equivalence was used, wouldn't it then be interesting if Jesus and the apostles used that translation? How could strict KJV-only or strict formal equivalence advocates deal with that fact?
i imagine someone has already done the kind of work i'm proposing, but i haven't come across it myself.
Monday, February 23, 2009
Inspiration and Biblical Authorship
Do i take the books of the Bible to be inspired, inerrant, and authoritative because of a prior belief about their authorship?
It seems fairly intuitive that if an apostle wrote something down, his words bear authoritative weight. If i lived in the first century, wouldn't i take it upon myself to listen carefully to Peter or John or Paul? If they wrote me a letter, i don't see why it'd be any different.
But what about someone like Luke? Luke was no apostle. He was a doctor. --A gentile doctor at that. He was an educated man who was the travelling companion of Paul and possibly others. It seems fairly evident that when he wrote his two volume work, he was consulting various sources (were they all written? were some oral? were some from his memory?--i have no idea which and how much). So what would lead me to believe that Luke's words should be taken as inspired and authoritative? There's nothing special about a gentile doctor who hung out with Paul is there?--something special enough to make me believe he wrote by way of the Holy Spirit? And knowing that he was probably doing real nitty-gritty historian work (checking and cross checking sources, laying out a chronology by investigation, etc.) which seems like a very *human* process, why would i think that the end product must be, in some sense, miraculous?
Don't get me wrong. i believe Luke and Acts are inspired and authoritative. Whether these works or others are inspired is not my point. My point is to examine the connection between our belief in inspiration and our belief in authorship. For instance, how solid a case can be made that Matthew, the apostle, truly authored (penned or dictated) the gospel we refer to as "Matthew"? Suppose you found out that the apostle, Matthew, did not write "Matthew." Would you no longer believe it was inspired and authoritative? Is your acceptance of this work (as an example--i could making the same point about any New Testament writer) as inspired and authoritative founded on your belief that Matthew authored it?
It seems fairly intuitive that if an apostle wrote something down, his words bear authoritative weight. If i lived in the first century, wouldn't i take it upon myself to listen carefully to Peter or John or Paul? If they wrote me a letter, i don't see why it'd be any different.
But what about someone like Luke? Luke was no apostle. He was a doctor. --A gentile doctor at that. He was an educated man who was the travelling companion of Paul and possibly others. It seems fairly evident that when he wrote his two volume work, he was consulting various sources (were they all written? were some oral? were some from his memory?--i have no idea which and how much). So what would lead me to believe that Luke's words should be taken as inspired and authoritative? There's nothing special about a gentile doctor who hung out with Paul is there?--something special enough to make me believe he wrote by way of the Holy Spirit? And knowing that he was probably doing real nitty-gritty historian work (checking and cross checking sources, laying out a chronology by investigation, etc.) which seems like a very *human* process, why would i think that the end product must be, in some sense, miraculous?
Don't get me wrong. i believe Luke and Acts are inspired and authoritative. Whether these works or others are inspired is not my point. My point is to examine the connection between our belief in inspiration and our belief in authorship. For instance, how solid a case can be made that Matthew, the apostle, truly authored (penned or dictated) the gospel we refer to as "Matthew"? Suppose you found out that the apostle, Matthew, did not write "Matthew." Would you no longer believe it was inspired and authoritative? Is your acceptance of this work (as an example--i could making the same point about any New Testament writer) as inspired and authoritative founded on your belief that Matthew authored it?
Thursday, February 12, 2009
Were Early Christians Lobbyists?
While there are several individuals converts mentioned in the NT who held "state jobs" (soldiers, politicians, jobs, etc.), is there any evidence from the NT that the early Christians tried to spread Christianity by way of Christianizing their political and state institutions?
It seems many contemporary religious leaders (especially of the evangelical persuasion) act as though this is their whole focus in life, yet I personally don't find any examples of it being done or taught in the NT. My best guess at this point is because those first century people had a better understanding of what it meant to accept that Christ was King.
There was no need to hunt down some local ruler or governor in Ephesus or Colossae or even the Emperor himself and try to persuade them to outlaw (for instance) homosexuality. Why? Because Christ is the true King and Ruler of the world and He has already outlawed homosexuality whether Caesar outlaws it or not. And if Caesar refused to outlaw it, that wouldn't make Christ any less truly in charge of the whole world; and if Caesar did outlaw it, that wouldn't grant Christ's laws any more authority or legitimacy than they already had. Christ has absolute, totalitarian authority. He doesn't need Caesar to "help" Him be King. Christ's decrees are *the* decrees over the world regardless of what Caesar decrees. Simply put, Christ is Lord and Caesar is not.
Maybe i've misunderstood the project, but it appears to me that at least some mainstream evangelicals act as though Christ needs America's legal system to "help" Him be King.
It seems many contemporary religious leaders (especially of the evangelical persuasion) act as though this is their whole focus in life, yet I personally don't find any examples of it being done or taught in the NT. My best guess at this point is because those first century people had a better understanding of what it meant to accept that Christ was King.
There was no need to hunt down some local ruler or governor in Ephesus or Colossae or even the Emperor himself and try to persuade them to outlaw (for instance) homosexuality. Why? Because Christ is the true King and Ruler of the world and He has already outlawed homosexuality whether Caesar outlaws it or not. And if Caesar refused to outlaw it, that wouldn't make Christ any less truly in charge of the whole world; and if Caesar did outlaw it, that wouldn't grant Christ's laws any more authority or legitimacy than they already had. Christ has absolute, totalitarian authority. He doesn't need Caesar to "help" Him be King. Christ's decrees are *the* decrees over the world regardless of what Caesar decrees. Simply put, Christ is Lord and Caesar is not.
Maybe i've misunderstood the project, but it appears to me that at least some mainstream evangelicals act as though Christ needs America's legal system to "help" Him be King.
Wednesday, February 4, 2009
Emphasis on This World, The Next, or the Next After That?
i think i've made this point before, but it's on my mind again:
It seems in the OT, there is very, very little to be said about an afterlife. Judaism was a very here-and-now, this-world sort of religion. Judaism was not apocalyptic until at least the time of the major prophets. But even then, their "apocalypse" was still this-worldly in nature insomuch as they accepted the advent of an earthly Messiah.
Christianity does place considerably more emphasis on the afterlife than did Judaism, however, the emphasis is on yet-future state. The emphasis is on what will happen "at the end" so-to-speak. Resurrection and judgment and new heavens and new earth--these are the components of the afterlife emphasis in the New Testament.
It seems to me that contemporary Christianity (especially "evangelicalism") emphasizes neither of the above, but instead emphasizes the state of things immediately following a person's death. We should most worry about whether we're "going to heaven when we die." We should do what we do, say what we say, practice the things we practice, spiritually invest the way we do all for the sake of where we'll be immediately following our deaths. The next world after that receives some attention, and life in the here-and-now is strongly de-emphasized and even nearly degraded.
This seems to be a point where our current view of which-bits-of-the-timeline-are-important does not coincide with a biblical view of such.
It seems in the OT, there is very, very little to be said about an afterlife. Judaism was a very here-and-now, this-world sort of religion. Judaism was not apocalyptic until at least the time of the major prophets. But even then, their "apocalypse" was still this-worldly in nature insomuch as they accepted the advent of an earthly Messiah.
Christianity does place considerably more emphasis on the afterlife than did Judaism, however, the emphasis is on yet-future state. The emphasis is on what will happen "at the end" so-to-speak. Resurrection and judgment and new heavens and new earth--these are the components of the afterlife emphasis in the New Testament.
It seems to me that contemporary Christianity (especially "evangelicalism") emphasizes neither of the above, but instead emphasizes the state of things immediately following a person's death. We should most worry about whether we're "going to heaven when we die." We should do what we do, say what we say, practice the things we practice, spiritually invest the way we do all for the sake of where we'll be immediately following our deaths. The next world after that receives some attention, and life in the here-and-now is strongly de-emphasized and even nearly degraded.
This seems to be a point where our current view of which-bits-of-the-timeline-are-important does not coincide with a biblical view of such.
Corporate vs. Individual
i've been thinking for at least a year or two now that the Bible presents a concept of corporate bodies of people that we are unfamiliar with in the modern West.
Consider how often in the Bible God addresses groups of people and holds them accountable or marks them in a special way. Israel is the most ubiquitous case of this. It's true we get stories about individual Israelites who were good and bad, but far more times God simply addresses the nation of Israel as a whole and pronounces them good or bad, faithful or unfaithful, due to receive promises or punishment. Should we really assume that in each case each and every individual was "bad" if Israel was condemned as "bad"? God sent the nation of Israel into Babylonian and Assyrian captivity due to their idolatry; should we really assume that every single individual in the nation was an idolater? That seems like too great a stretch to me. i think it'd be a safe assumption that at least some Israelites weren't idolaters or at least weren't nearly as corrupt as others. Yet God sends the whole nation into captivity.
When God dealt with Gentile peoples in the Old Testament, this seems to hold true as well. Jonah was sent to Nineveh. God didn't say "Go straighten out just the few bad individuals," nor did He say "Everyone is rotten except this small handful of individuals." Should we then assume that every single person in Nineveh was a rotten jerk? Yet God had Jonah tell the people that the entire town would be destroyed in 40 days.
Maybe God's punishment of the Canaanites through Israel's warfare is even clearer. When He told Israel to attack Canaanite towns and villages, He commanded them to destroy every living thing. Really? Even each individual toddler and pre-schooler was so wicked that he or she deserved to be slaughtered? First, i admit to you that i am of the opinion that children are "safe" until a certain age of accountability. Thus, i don't think any of them individually meritted this punishment. But secondly, even if these children were born with some sort of "original sin" (pick whichever version you like), notice that God has brought upon these children a distinct punishment; it's not as though He treats all children this way. These children were included in the group of people who received retribution via the sword of Israel. God held all the Canaanites responsible.
The same trend is present in the New Testament as well. True, individuals are singled out for correction (Euodia and Syntyche in Phillipi; Hymanaeus and Philetus in Ephesus; etc.). Nevertheless, groups of people are addressed and dealt with. The book of revelation contains letters from Jesus to churches, and in those letters (with little exception) each congregation is held faithful or unfaithful collectively. Jesus in Matthew 25 talks about a large-scale separation and judgment of 2 collectives of people: "sheep" and "goats." Jesus also pronounces judgment on entire towns for how they responded to His earthly ministry (Matthew 11:21f). [Maybe this is a stretch:] Each of Paul's epistles is addressed to and deals with an entire city's church.
Anyway, i say all that to make the following points: We seem very bent on making every point of praise or accountability or redemption or salvation or election etc.--we speak as though all of it comes to bear on individuals only. It appears to me that God doesn't deal with people or accomplish His purposes as individualistically as we've made it seem. There seems to be such a thing corporate accountability and corporate election. [i think Calvin and other reformers have especially missed the latter boat.] But i admit to you that the correlation between corporate and individual dealings isn't entirely clear to me. What does seem fairly clear to me, as i argued above, is that corporate dealings do not imply equivalent dealings with each individual within that corporate body.
i'm not even sure what all this difference entails or what all we need to change about ourselves faith and practice because of it. The point i mean to make is that this exclusively individualistic thought-trend present among us 21st century people is not a biblical thought-trend.
Consider how often in the Bible God addresses groups of people and holds them accountable or marks them in a special way. Israel is the most ubiquitous case of this. It's true we get stories about individual Israelites who were good and bad, but far more times God simply addresses the nation of Israel as a whole and pronounces them good or bad, faithful or unfaithful, due to receive promises or punishment. Should we really assume that in each case each and every individual was "bad" if Israel was condemned as "bad"? God sent the nation of Israel into Babylonian and Assyrian captivity due to their idolatry; should we really assume that every single individual in the nation was an idolater? That seems like too great a stretch to me. i think it'd be a safe assumption that at least some Israelites weren't idolaters or at least weren't nearly as corrupt as others. Yet God sends the whole nation into captivity.
When God dealt with Gentile peoples in the Old Testament, this seems to hold true as well. Jonah was sent to Nineveh. God didn't say "Go straighten out just the few bad individuals," nor did He say "Everyone is rotten except this small handful of individuals." Should we then assume that every single person in Nineveh was a rotten jerk? Yet God had Jonah tell the people that the entire town would be destroyed in 40 days.
Maybe God's punishment of the Canaanites through Israel's warfare is even clearer. When He told Israel to attack Canaanite towns and villages, He commanded them to destroy every living thing. Really? Even each individual toddler and pre-schooler was so wicked that he or she deserved to be slaughtered? First, i admit to you that i am of the opinion that children are "safe" until a certain age of accountability. Thus, i don't think any of them individually meritted this punishment. But secondly, even if these children were born with some sort of "original sin" (pick whichever version you like), notice that God has brought upon these children a distinct punishment; it's not as though He treats all children this way. These children were included in the group of people who received retribution via the sword of Israel. God held all the Canaanites responsible.
The same trend is present in the New Testament as well. True, individuals are singled out for correction (Euodia and Syntyche in Phillipi; Hymanaeus and Philetus in Ephesus; etc.). Nevertheless, groups of people are addressed and dealt with. The book of revelation contains letters from Jesus to churches, and in those letters (with little exception) each congregation is held faithful or unfaithful collectively. Jesus in Matthew 25 talks about a large-scale separation and judgment of 2 collectives of people: "sheep" and "goats." Jesus also pronounces judgment on entire towns for how they responded to His earthly ministry (Matthew 11:21f). [Maybe this is a stretch:] Each of Paul's epistles is addressed to and deals with an entire city's church.
Anyway, i say all that to make the following points: We seem very bent on making every point of praise or accountability or redemption or salvation or election etc.--we speak as though all of it comes to bear on individuals only. It appears to me that God doesn't deal with people or accomplish His purposes as individualistically as we've made it seem. There seems to be such a thing corporate accountability and corporate election. [i think Calvin and other reformers have especially missed the latter boat.] But i admit to you that the correlation between corporate and individual dealings isn't entirely clear to me. What does seem fairly clear to me, as i argued above, is that corporate dealings do not imply equivalent dealings with each individual within that corporate body.
i'm not even sure what all this difference entails or what all we need to change about ourselves faith and practice because of it. The point i mean to make is that this exclusively individualistic thought-trend present among us 21st century people is not a biblical thought-trend.
Monday, February 2, 2009
if you admit God intended things to change...
i'm not making this argument myself, but it did occur to me as one that someone could make against a cessationist (someone who believes that the possession of miraculous gifts by Christians ceased after the early church).
The first century church had a method of revelation that God did not intend to continue into the later church. (The cessationist has no problem with this statement.) If that is the case, then there is at least one thing God intended to be different between the early and later church. Why then, is it not the case that other major themes or methods or practices of the church may have only been intended for the early church but not the latter? And how can we know which trends of the early church God meant to be permanent for the church in any age?
The first century church had a method of revelation that God did not intend to continue into the later church. (The cessationist has no problem with this statement.) If that is the case, then there is at least one thing God intended to be different between the early and later church. Why then, is it not the case that other major themes or methods or practices of the church may have only been intended for the early church but not the latter? And how can we know which trends of the early church God meant to be permanent for the church in any age?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)