When I was being raised in the church, we were taught a lot about Paul, and rightly so. He is a pretty big part of the New Testament. Of the 27 books in the New Testament, I think 13 were written by Paul. He also is the main source of knowledge about the church and he has basically shaped our modern day understanding of what the church is and what it should do. Needless to say, he is pretty important. That being said, in my own mind, Paul sort of took up this super hero sort of mantle in my mind. He could do no wrong. I mean, this is the guy that spread the knowledge of the Word to almost the entire Mediterrean!! He is one of the main reasons why Gentiles are accepted in the church!! However, with the recent critique of Paul that I read in Keefer, it sort of shook my view of Paul in a way. Don't get me wrong, he is still amazing and probably the most influential person to Christianity outside of Jesus, but he isn't the super human that I thought he was.
You know what this really does is even more impress me with Jesus and his flawlessness. Paul is an amazing teacher and follower of God, but he still has many flaws that are evident in his work. Jesus has none of those in his life. It really just makes it more evident how perfect Jesus was.
-Jacob Millay
Saturday, April 27, 2013
Saturday, April 20, 2013
Reading Acts: Theology vs. Literature
Last semester, I took "The Acts of the Apostles" with Jeremy Wynne for my BibLit credit. I really loved that class as we got to learn a lot of the historical context and theological teachings of a book that is normally considered to be just straight history. I know that both Jacob and I will be able to contribute a lot to the theological backgrounds of this text!
As an English major, I found myself wanting to interpret Acts with a more literary than theological lens. I am very excited to see what you have in store for us Doug! But, here are a few things that I am interested in and we hopefully get to explore together...
What are the effects on the reader if one considers Acts to be the "sequel" to Luke? What if Luke-Acts were made into one movie... what then would be the climax? What is the climax of Acts? Why does Luke choose to cut off the book right when Paul gets to Rome - what I was expecting to be the "climax"?
I really love Acts as it shows what the early church was like - and it provides our churches with a "format" to follow. I also think that it has a great place in the canon: between the last gospel and the beginning of Paul's letters. In the New Testament, we have been really interested in authorship and its effects on each gospel's perception/representation of Jesus. For Acts, I think that Luke is setting up the reader with this background for Paul - the man that will be writing most of the New Testament books.
Thursday, April 18, 2013
If This Class Has Taught Me One Thing...
If this class has taught me one thing (although I am pretty sure that I have learned more than just one thing) it is that as a Christian you definitely have to search deeper into the Bible than most Christians tend to do. To know the historical background to a section of verses adds a ton of depth to the passage, and knowing who the author was and what he was about helps understand what he wrote much better. Often as Christians int his modern age we take things at face value and then allow everyone to come to their own interpretation and claim each one is true, which is a very postmodern take on the Bible. When you look at the authors though and what they were writing for, it makes it much more clear what they were actually trying to do, and it makes it more interesting. It also avoids us making the Bible into a collection of myths, even if there may be a myth of two in there in the Old Testament. We can see these were real authors who were trying to document things in different ways since they were different people with different pasts. It all just adds to a reading of the Bible.
-Jacob Millay
-Jacob Millay
Keefer Reading on John.
I thought the Keefer reading of John was very interesting. Growing up in the church I was aware of the separation in a way of John from the other gospels, but I never really knew why it was separated. Reading this explanation of it really helped and I loved the way they explained it. Personally, I never fully understood John, and that is because I was reading it like I would if I was reading Luke. I was thinking of it as more of a narrative more than anything else, when John is not that. It is much more than that in fact. John's use of semantic tones and circular metaphors really add a depth and almost a puzzle to his gospel. To really undertand it, you almost have to learn the code and then go back through and decipher it. This adds the extra bonus lesson within John that you don;t find on the first read through, but only on the second or third, as well as the face value lesson that is in John. This system is pretty ingenious and many novels are written in this way. Great authors use literary tactics just like this, so that leads me to believe that John was a very talented author as well as a type of biographer and theologian. It really just adds depth to the whole book now that I can see these things.
-Jacob Millay
-Jacob Millay
Tuesday, April 16, 2013
Songs and Comparisons
I love to listen to songs and try to find Bible verses that they are based off of. I recently heard another song called 7 times 70, which refers to forgiveness which is in Matthew 18:21-22. The same kind of message is in Luke 17:3-4. In Matthew, Peter asked if you forgive someone 7 times and Jesus says to forgive them 77 times even if they don't ask for forgiveness. Certain versions say "70 times 7 times" instead. In Luke, He says that you are to forgive them when they ask for forgiveness. This verse says that you forgive your brother only if he is sorry.
While the messages are mainly the same, there are some major differences. If you read other verses, you can tell that you're not just supposed to forgive someone when they ask to be forgiven but are to forgive because God has forgiven us. You would think that this point would be an important reminder for us even though it doesn't sound that way.
The number 7 is the perfect number. The number 77 is quite interesting. There were 77 generations between Adam and Jesus according to Luke 3. Another interesting way to think of the number is atomic numbers in chemistry. "The iridium, Ir, atomic number 77, is a white metal which the name is a derivative of the Greek word "iris" meaning" rainbow". It is under the sign of the rainbow that God concludes his Alliance between him and the humanity, and the Christian remains in this Alliance if he forgives 77 times the faults of his brothers (Mt 18,22)"(ridingthebeast.com).
Another thing I found interesting was that Luke was more of the compassionate Gospel but yet it says that you forgive someone only when they are sorry. I thought that the verses would have fit the trend if they were switched.
http://www.ridingthebeast.com/numbers/nu77.php
While the messages are mainly the same, there are some major differences. If you read other verses, you can tell that you're not just supposed to forgive someone when they ask to be forgiven but are to forgive because God has forgiven us. You would think that this point would be an important reminder for us even though it doesn't sound that way.
The number 7 is the perfect number. The number 77 is quite interesting. There were 77 generations between Adam and Jesus according to Luke 3. Another interesting way to think of the number is atomic numbers in chemistry. "The iridium, Ir, atomic number 77, is a white metal which the name is a derivative of the Greek word "iris" meaning" rainbow". It is under the sign of the rainbow that God concludes his Alliance between him and the humanity, and the Christian remains in this Alliance if he forgives 77 times the faults of his brothers (Mt 18,22)"(ridingthebeast.com).
Another thing I found interesting was that Luke was more of the compassionate Gospel but yet it says that you forgive someone only when they are sorry. I thought that the verses would have fit the trend if they were switched.
http://www.ridingthebeast.com/numbers/nu77.php
Luke and the Narrative
I thought all the plays that we watched written by the Creative Writing Class was really interesting, especially since one of the days we watched the plays was when we were going over Luke, which is the one gospel with the most narrative and the one that focuses probably most on narrative. I thought that was pretty ironic. But the whole topic of the narrative in Luke really fascinates me as a whole. Why did he see fit to put these literary tools in his gospels when others did not see it fit to do so with their own? Was it simply because he thought it would be easy to read and understand if there was a story-like quality to it, or was it there some other element in play in his decision making? I don't think the narrative in Luke makes it way easier to understand though. It is still pretty confusing, although when we delve into it in class we can clearly see some of the differences in message and writing style. But I would love to ask Luke why he felt it necessary to include a narrative in his gospel when the others did not as much, especially Mark.
-Jacob Millay
-Jacob Millay
Cycles
Isaiah includes an oracle in the wastelands. Destruction is overtaking the nations "from the desert, from a land of horror" (21).
The repetition of this kind of imagery makes me think of this:
I may be reaching, but I think there's a parallel between the literary Modernists - who wrote in an attempt to make sense of a world destroyed by WWI - and the prophets, preaching God's wrath and the fall of Jerusalem.
"What are the roots that clutch, what branches grow
out of this stony rubbish? Son of man," [that's Ezekiel]
"you cannot say, or guess, for you know only
a heap of broken images, where the sun beats,
and the dead tree gives no shelter, the cricket no relief,
and the dry stone no sound of water" [lines 19-24].
Eliot's fragmented ruins represent a breakdown in style, a rebellion against the way words have been traditionally strung together. But it's a rebellion which echoes a state of reality: war on a scale the modern world had never seen, which affected a whole generation. We talked about the cyclical nature of history. Isaiah's "harsh vision" is of an apocalypse in the ancient world: the fall of Israel and Judah, but of other nations as well. Later in the Waste Land, a succession of world powers -
"Falling towers.
Jerusalem Athens Alexandria
Vienna London -
Unreal."
And the end result is a wilderness where nothing can grow. I wonder if each era-ending cycle of war produces writing like this: disillusioned, desperate, but poetic. Eliot was writing a warning, too, in a way; I wonder if you could argue that Eliot's a prophet.
The repetition of this kind of imagery makes me think of this:
I may be reaching, but I think there's a parallel between the literary Modernists - who wrote in an attempt to make sense of a world destroyed by WWI - and the prophets, preaching God's wrath and the fall of Jerusalem.
"What are the roots that clutch, what branches grow
out of this stony rubbish? Son of man," [that's Ezekiel]
"you cannot say, or guess, for you know only
a heap of broken images, where the sun beats,
and the dead tree gives no shelter, the cricket no relief,
and the dry stone no sound of water" [lines 19-24].
Eliot's fragmented ruins represent a breakdown in style, a rebellion against the way words have been traditionally strung together. But it's a rebellion which echoes a state of reality: war on a scale the modern world had never seen, which affected a whole generation. We talked about the cyclical nature of history. Isaiah's "harsh vision" is of an apocalypse in the ancient world: the fall of Israel and Judah, but of other nations as well. Later in the Waste Land, a succession of world powers -
"Falling towers.
Jerusalem Athens Alexandria
Vienna London -
Unreal."
And the end result is a wilderness where nothing can grow. I wonder if each era-ending cycle of war produces writing like this: disillusioned, desperate, but poetic. Eliot was writing a warning, too, in a way; I wonder if you could argue that Eliot's a prophet.
Thursday, April 11, 2013
The Lord's Prayer in Matthew and Mark
I was interested in what we discussed in class today - the differences between Mark and Matthew. And so, I decided to look up what I thought would be something that would be "universal" in every gospel - the Lord's Prayer. I think I was pretty naive to think that there actually would be universality in the first place because we have learned so far that each gospel is so different!
But, anyways, I looked up the passages where Jesus tells the disciples of the Lord's Prayer and how to pray. Here is what I found:
MATTHEW 6:5-15
MARK 11:24-25:
24 Therefore I tell you, whatever you ask in prayer,believe that you have received[c] it, and it will be yours. 25 And whenever you stand praying, forgive, if you have anything against anyone, so that your Father also who is in heaven may forgive you your trespasses.”[d]
What a difference! I think that these two passages really well represent the different attributes of each gospel. Matthew's version puts a lot of emphasis on Jesus' dialogue - he even goes to put the Lord's Prayer in quotations and separate from the rest of the passage. The passage form Mark is very short and to the point. There is no quotation from Jesus, and the passage comes directly after a parable. It makes one question, "who is this man who has the authority to teach us to pray?" rather than the directness of Matthew that, through using the words Father, portrays Jesus as the Son of God.
But, anyways, I looked up the passages where Jesus tells the disciples of the Lord's Prayer and how to pray. Here is what I found:
MATTHEW 6:5-15
5 “And when you pray, you must not be like the hypocrites. For they love to stand and pray in the synagogues and at the street corners, that they may be seen by others. Truly, I say to you, they have received their reward. 6 But when you pray,go into your room and shut the door and pray to your Father who is in secret. And your Father who sees in secret will reward you.
7 “And when you pray, do not heap up empty phrases as the Gentiles do, for they think that they will be heard for their many words. 8 Do not be like them, for your Father knows what you need before you ask him. 9 Pray then like this:
14 For if you forgive others their trespasses, your heavenly Father will also forgive you, 15 but if you do not forgive others their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses.
MARK 11:24-25:
24 Therefore I tell you, whatever you ask in prayer,believe that you have received[c] it, and it will be yours. 25 And whenever you stand praying, forgive, if you have anything against anyone, so that your Father also who is in heaven may forgive you your trespasses.”[d]
What a difference! I think that these two passages really well represent the different attributes of each gospel. Matthew's version puts a lot of emphasis on Jesus' dialogue - he even goes to put the Lord's Prayer in quotations and separate from the rest of the passage. The passage form Mark is very short and to the point. There is no quotation from Jesus, and the passage comes directly after a parable. It makes one question, "who is this man who has the authority to teach us to pray?" rather than the directness of Matthew that, through using the words Father, portrays Jesus as the Son of God.
The Blind?
This, from Isaiah. In a different translation, because it sounds prettier that way*:
"Make the heart of this people dull, and their ears heavy,
and blind their eyes;
lest they see with their eyes, and hear with their ears,
and understand with their hearts,
and turn and be healed.” (6:10, ESV)
Is it just me, or does this sound like the ultimate curse? Blindness, and hardened hearts, bother me whenever they happen in the OT. It's always God's refusal to allow people to see the truth (the implication being that if they did, they would instantly worship him. Or "turn and be healed," as the case may be), and it seems like stacking the odds against humans, who are disposed to being idiots to start with, is a pretty cheap way for YHWH to win glory. And then I worry that that makes me "this people." Have I been blinded? Oh god. I guess it's an effective literary device, though.
Because the Isaiah curse reminds me of Matthew's predestination-dualism, and also of the disciples' inability to understand the divine mystery, I'm wondering about blindness, as a theme, in the New Testament. Is Jesus' ministry to the blind, or is it only to those who can see well enough to ask for help?
*[Not-really-related note: I get that it must be hard to balance faithful translation with attractive English; still, why does it seem like no version of the Bible is consistent with its literary quality? I think we should combine the most poetic bits from all the different translations: English-Majors' Version. Which would find a market only at Whitworth.]
"Make the heart of this people dull, and their ears heavy,
and blind their eyes;
lest they see with their eyes, and hear with their ears,
and understand with their hearts,
and turn and be healed.” (6:10, ESV)
Is it just me, or does this sound like the ultimate curse? Blindness, and hardened hearts, bother me whenever they happen in the OT. It's always God's refusal to allow people to see the truth (the implication being that if they did, they would instantly worship him. Or "turn and be healed," as the case may be), and it seems like stacking the odds against humans, who are disposed to being idiots to start with, is a pretty cheap way for YHWH to win glory. And then I worry that that makes me "this people." Have I been blinded? Oh god. I guess it's an effective literary device, though.
Because the Isaiah curse reminds me of Matthew's predestination-dualism, and also of the disciples' inability to understand the divine mystery, I'm wondering about blindness, as a theme, in the New Testament. Is Jesus' ministry to the blind, or is it only to those who can see well enough to ask for help?
*[Not-really-related note: I get that it must be hard to balance faithful translation with attractive English; still, why does it seem like no version of the Bible is consistent with its literary quality? I think we should combine the most poetic bits from all the different translations: English-Majors' Version. Which would find a market only at Whitworth.]
Wednesday, April 10, 2013
The Gospels
I took New Testament during Jan Term, and a lot of the time was spent on The Gospels.
Our professor told us that Matthew, Luke, and John most likely got most of their information from the book of Mark. They also could have gotten some other information from what many people call "source Q" or an unknown source.
Even with all of the content similarities, they all emphasize many different things. A lot of verses are the same, but some are just one word different than the others. This can sometimes seem to emphasize the writers specific beliefs or what they think is more important.
For example, two of the books (I cannot remember 100% which book was which) both talk about the poor at the same time in Jesus' teachings. One refers to the poor in spirit and another refers to the physically poor. One praises those who need spiritual help and one condemns the wealthy. This kinda gives you whiplash.
It just seems confusing to me that they have different subjects at the top (or mixed in) when they should have had the same final outcome.
Our professor told us that Matthew, Luke, and John most likely got most of their information from the book of Mark. They also could have gotten some other information from what many people call "source Q" or an unknown source.
Even with all of the content similarities, they all emphasize many different things. A lot of verses are the same, but some are just one word different than the others. This can sometimes seem to emphasize the writers specific beliefs or what they think is more important.
For example, two of the books (I cannot remember 100% which book was which) both talk about the poor at the same time in Jesus' teachings. One refers to the poor in spirit and another refers to the physically poor. One praises those who need spiritual help and one condemns the wealthy. This kinda gives you whiplash.
It just seems confusing to me that they have different subjects at the top (or mixed in) when they should have had the same final outcome.
Tuesday, April 9, 2013
Light and Dark: Peter and Judas
The book of Matthew is probably the most read book in the Bible. I, like many Christians, have read it several times. It wasn't until this class, however, that I was able to notice the contrast of light and dark throughout the book.
Peter is the light in this book. Even though the people in Jesus' hometown do not believe he is the son of God, Peter does. I probably would look at John the Baptist and think he was crazy.. a guy who ate locusts and wore a loin cloth? I'd assume he was a drug-addict. Jesus said the poor, meek, and hungry are blessed. This would be like our equivalent of a homeless schizophrenic. Though it is sad, I can see why most people laughed at Jesus. I hate to admit it, but I would have had a hard time trusting him too. But Peter didn't have a hard time trusting him.
When Keefer mentioned that Peter is a Greek name, meaning 'rock,' the scriptures in Matthew made a lot more sense. In the sermon on the mount, Jesus said "Everyone then who hears these words of mine and acts on them will be like a wise man who built his house on a rock. The rain fell, the floods came, and the winds blew and beat on that house, but it did not fall, because it had been founded on a rock" (Matthew 7:24-25). When Peter calls Jesus the Messiah, Jesus says "Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my father in heaven. And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not prevail against it" (Matthew 16:17-18). I see Peter as a metaphor for faith in these passages. So Jesus is saying to build religion on faith.
All throughout Matthew, the writer was foreshadowing the dark. In this book, Judas represents the dark. Keefer mentions, that while those who were faithful to Jesus called him 'Lord,' Judas simply called Jesus 'teacher' and 'Rabbi.' This suggests that Judas believed Jesus was a good teacher, but not necessarily the son of God. In the sermon on the mount, I think the sand could be interpreted as insecurity, something Judas represents.
Sunday, April 7, 2013
Really Keefer?
I have a bone to pick with Kyle Keefer.
On page nine of The New Testament as Literature, Keefer states: "The Gospel of Matthew, for example, does not favorably compare with Moby Dick with regard to lingustic complexities we often associate with literary works." (Keefer 9)
This statement was made after discussing what Keefer defines "reading literature" to be. According to Keefer, reading literature implies a "serious undertaking," and he says that this does not apply to reading the New Testament.
WHAT? Okay dude, I understand that the New Testament does not employ the "lingustic complexities" that more "modern" pieces of literature do (i.e. Moby Dick). But, you spend pages 29-36 of your book discussing the lingustic complexities of Matthew (the difference between Rabbi and Lord, etc). You totally have contradicted yourself.
And to say that reading the New Testament doesn't have as much of a "serious undertaking" as reading works such as Moby Dick is ridiculous. Yes, the Gospels are more of historical pieces of literature that depict the "plot" of Jesus' life. But, if reading the New Testament was so easy, then why does Whitworth offer Theology Majors? There is so much analytical work that can be done with the New Testament, but like you said, most people read it for strictly religious purposes. Just because that is its common use doesn't mean that reading it is less of a "serious undertaking" for those who are trying to read it through a lens of literature.
On page nine of The New Testament as Literature, Keefer states: "The Gospel of Matthew, for example, does not favorably compare with Moby Dick with regard to lingustic complexities we often associate with literary works." (Keefer 9)
This statement was made after discussing what Keefer defines "reading literature" to be. According to Keefer, reading literature implies a "serious undertaking," and he says that this does not apply to reading the New Testament.
WHAT? Okay dude, I understand that the New Testament does not employ the "lingustic complexities" that more "modern" pieces of literature do (i.e. Moby Dick). But, you spend pages 29-36 of your book discussing the lingustic complexities of Matthew (the difference between Rabbi and Lord, etc). You totally have contradicted yourself.
And to say that reading the New Testament doesn't have as much of a "serious undertaking" as reading works such as Moby Dick is ridiculous. Yes, the Gospels are more of historical pieces of literature that depict the "plot" of Jesus' life. But, if reading the New Testament was so easy, then why does Whitworth offer Theology Majors? There is so much analytical work that can be done with the New Testament, but like you said, most people read it for strictly religious purposes. Just because that is its common use doesn't mean that reading it is less of a "serious undertaking" for those who are trying to read it through a lens of literature.
Tuesday, April 2, 2013
The Antichrist and the Old Testament
I recently watched some sort of documentary on the History Channel about the Antichrist. Most people find the end of times very interesting, especially with all of the "Doomsday 2012" that had become well known.
Since most of the prophecies that come to mind about the end of the world come from the New Testament (specifically Revelation), I would have never thought that warnings of the Antichrist had existed as much as it does. It seemed to me that it wouldn't be necessary for them to teach about it because they would have more important things to worry about in their time. While the information needed to be passed down, it might have given the people the belief that the Antichrist was the person (or people) who ruled over them. Like we were talking about today, many of the leaders brought in their own religions and punished those who followed God. The documentary called them antichrists, not the one Antichrist, which could explain the warnings.
What I'm really trying to say is that most of us have a specific view of the Bible from how we grew up in it or without it. When we look deeper into specific topics or reasoning, it gives us a better perspective on what the book means.
Since most of the prophecies that come to mind about the end of the world come from the New Testament (specifically Revelation), I would have never thought that warnings of the Antichrist had existed as much as it does. It seemed to me that it wouldn't be necessary for them to teach about it because they would have more important things to worry about in their time. While the information needed to be passed down, it might have given the people the belief that the Antichrist was the person (or people) who ruled over them. Like we were talking about today, many of the leaders brought in their own religions and punished those who followed God. The documentary called them antichrists, not the one Antichrist, which could explain the warnings.
What I'm really trying to say is that most of us have a specific view of the Bible from how we grew up in it or without it. When we look deeper into specific topics or reasoning, it gives us a better perspective on what the book means.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)