Wittenberg Door Campus Ministry - Blog

A Legal Defense of Christianity

4/6/2020

Mondays are for Church History
4/6/20

Schaff, Philip. History of the Christian Church (The Complete Eight Volumes in One). Amazon Kindle Edition, 2014.
Volume 2, Ante-Nicene Christianity A.D. 100-325, “Chapter 13. Ecclesiastical Literature of the Ante-Nicene Age, and Biographical Sketches of the Church Fathers.” sec. 159-204.
§ 172. Quadratus and Aristides.

Schaff moves in his survey to the writers known as Apologists. These authors “refuted the charges and slander of Jews and Gentiles, vindicated the truths of the Gospel, and attacked the errors and vices of idolatry” (Schaff 2014, loc. 21441). Schaff finds that these people had a background in rhetoric or philosophy. They turned their rhetorical or philosophical pursuits to explaining and defending the Christian faith. Schaff here introduces two of the earliest, Quadratus and Aristides.

Quadratus is known to us only from a quotation in Eusebius, describing him speaking to Aelius Hadrian in defense of Christianity (Schaff 2014, loc. 21450). Aristides, who lived in Athens, wrote an Apology addressed to Hadrian. As with Quadratus, we do not have his writing, though a fragment in Armenian was published in 1878 (Schaff 2014, loc. 21460). Schaff quotes his description of the Christ at some length. It is quite orthodox in nature.

Word or Text? Mutually Exclusive?

4/3/2020

Kelber, Werner H. “The Authority of the Word in St. John’s Gospel: Charismatic Speech, Narrative Text, Logocentric Metaphysics” Oral Tradition 2:1 (1987) 108-131.

Kelber considers Walter Ong’s work with the Logos concept to be foundational to bridging the gap between the humanities and the sciences. He therefore considers the concept of Logos in the fourth Gospel and as a metaphysical idea (Kelber 1987, 108).

Kelber notes that much recent scholarship has focused on the Logos as an element of Jewish Wisdom literature and mystic thought. However, Kelber wonders why John would choose a Wisdom model, as well as why John, possibly with a Wisdom model in mind, would discuss Jesus as Logos rather than as Wisdom (Kelber 1987, 109). Kelber finds in John’s Gospel a use of “words” spoken prophetically and having intrinsic power. This continued in early Christianity. Further, “in this essentially oral sense the logoi are endowed with sacral quality” (Kelber 1987, 110). The problem, seen by Polycarp, was that such an emphasis on the “words” could erode the attention given to Jesus as the incarnate, singular Logos.

Kelber recognizes that the sayings of Jesus are of immense importance. They make up a significant majority of the content of John’s Gospel. And not only the volume, but also the function, seems to matter. “The words, when spoken, are primarily regarded not as carriers of ideas or records of information, but as manifestations of power. They grant access to what is perceived to be real, and pose concomitant threats and danger” (Kelber 1987, 111). At heart, Jesus’ words are representated as giving life (Johyn 6:68).

The authority shown in Jesus’ speech is not unlike that of prophets. Kelber observes that in Judaism and the other religions of the time, prophets would make claims to authority which was based on their identity (Kelber 1987, 112). Jesus likewise makes claims to authority and bases those claims on the aspects of his identity which he has just stated. Kelber also considers the narrative to show signs of prophetic call. “As the baptizer is sent in prophetic fashion, and as Jesus is sent following him, so also will the Paraclete be sent when he comes to replace Jesus” (Kelber 1987, 113). The work described of the Paraclete is specifically that of guiding and teaching. Kelber, interestingly enough, sees the concept of vivid prophetic consciousness as a projection from “the Johannine community” rather than a description of reality as observed (Kelber 1987, 114).

Kelber proceeds to take ideas beyond the sending narratives out of context as well. He finds John 3:13 as a prohibition of pursuit of ascent into heavenly realms rather than Jesus’ affirmation that he came down from heaven (Kelber 1987, 114). He takes John 1:18 as a prohibition of hoping for a vision of God, rather than as John’s comparison of Jesus’ view of the Father when compared to our view (Kelber 1987, 115). Despite these failings, Kelber does note that John depicts Jesus as the one who works as a mediator to provide acess to the Father.

Kelber pulls his ideas together when he concludes that “the overall function of this [John’s] gospel is used not to produce an unedited version of oral verbalization, but to recontextualize orality, and to devise a corrective against it” (Kelber 1987, 116). Because Jesus is depicted as coming from above, Kelber says, the idea of a mystical ascent is prohibited. Jesus is the one who ascends, though there is no ascent story. Kelber considers the description of glorification to take the place of ascent in John’s Gospel, and further says, “In this gospel ascent is synchronized with death, and death serves to consummate the prophetic ego eimi identity of the Son of Man” (Kelber 1987, 116). Further, Kelber considers John 13:16 and 15:20 to be spoken in a context of “differentiating legitimate from illegitimate successorship” (Kelber 1987, 117). He clearly sees the future of the followers of Jesus as a likely struggle for power and authority, especially during and possibly after the time of the Paraclete. Kelber reinterprets historic Christian thought by removing the idea of a resurrected, present Christ. “The time of the presence of the Paraclete is [thus] also a time of the absence of Jesus who is with the Father. For the time being, the disciples are orphaned (14:18)” (Kelber 1987, 118). They are, however, reminded of what Jesus said, a statement Kelber takes to mean the disciples would depend on the words which were eventually written by the evangelist, leaving much of orality behind (Kelber 1987, 118). This conclusion makes only limited sense, as it draws a sharp distinction among oral communication, written communication, and memory or emotive concept. However this is conceived, though, Kelber then describes John placing words of power into Jesus’ mouth so as to make Jesus the Logos who could then be used to express authoritative ideas (Kelber 1987, 119).

Kelber moves on to discuss the concept of Logos taken philosophically in John’s Gospel. The Logos is separate from the text, being given a pre-existence, from “the beginning.” “Subordinated to the metaphysical authority of the Logos, the text is but a transition, a detour even, toward what is considered o be real” (Kelber 1987, 119). It is the living Logos of God which is real. Kelber cites Derrida for the idea of logocentrism, where there is a Logos corresponding to Platonic Form, and all other words are shadows of this form (Kelber 1987, 120). Kelber addresses three ways in which the logocentrism possibly shown in John is eroded.

First, Rabbinic hermeneutics after the fall of Jerusalem became a practice of interpreting and reinterpreting texts, adding multiple layers of commentary. By this method, Judaism came to be understood as based on texts (Kelber 1987, 120) rather than on the presence of God or the sacrificial system. Kelber finds that this prevents a move from the plural Logoi to the singular Logos, as found in John.

Second, the New Criticism of the 20th century held “a formalist understanding of language which, when reduced to a single formula, states that language, above all written language, has a life of its own. Culture and history are no longer taken seriously as a causal or contributing factor in the making of exts (Kelber 1987, 121). Text comes from other text, and tradition is found only in texts. There is no concept, in this philosophy, that spoken words are relevant in any way (Kelber 1987, 122). Kelber, following Ong, suggests that the textuality in this time period is related to an erosion of the influence of the originator, or speaker, of an idea. Rather, it focused on the fixed, printed record as the ultimate authority.

Third, in the work of Derrida, texcentrism completely replaces logocentrism, though it apparently has some difficulty shedding it entirely (Kelber 1987, 123). In Derrida’s philosophy texts never refer to any overarching concept outside of texts. Traditional Western understanding has been that a text refers to an idea, which may have been at least partially explicated orally prior to being “reduced” to writing. Derrida, takes the text to be the beginning and end (Kelber 1987, 124).

Kelber returns to the presupposition of John’s Gospel, that of “divinity incarnated in a person” (Kelber 1987, 126). He communicated that divine nature through oral utterance. His words pointed to the one Logos. John’s Gospel, a text, contains a tremendous bulk of recorded oral interactions. Kelber considers much recent scholarship to be overly concerned with textual elements rather than oral expression (Kelber 1987, 127). The fact is, the Gospel accounts are written accounts of events communicated orally. There is a level of textcentrism which may be appropriate. However, through most of history, a logocentric reading was the norm (Kelber 1987, 128). Kelber concludes that our interpretation needs to seek the trascendence apparently intended in John’s use of Logos. He finds that divine presence manifested in verbal action, and thus elusive (Kelber 1987, 129).

Matthew 27:11-66 - Lectionary for Sunday of the Passion

4/2/2020

4/2/20 Read the passage here.
Many churches throughout the world use a Bible reading schedule called a "lectionary." It's just a fancy word meaning "selected readings." Posts like this reflect on the readings for an upcoming Sunday or other Church holiday, as found in the historic one-year lectionary.

Matthew’s Gospel does two interesting things that we might not notice immediately but which I would like to bring out a little today.

It is relatively easy to see that from the beginning Matthew points us to Jesus’ work fulfilling prophecy. This is particularly intense near the end of the Gospel account, though Matthew mentions it less. In this week’s reading, among the many actions leading up to the crucifixion, even the Gentiles are presented with dreams and visions, make prophetic statements which accord with the Old Testament, and engage in prophetic activities. The crowd even asks that Jesus, the Son of God, should die in place of Barabbas, whose name means “son of father.” They ask that his blood should be upon them. The actions of veses 32-46 specificlly fulfill prophecies, many of which are found in Psalm 22, which Jesus refers to from the cross. The culmination of the Gospel account is that Jesus has fulfilled prophecy.

Another feature of Matthew, which doesn’t show up quite as obviously, is that Matthew almost always leaves people needing to decide for themselves how they are going to understand Jesus. In the end, Pilate seems to have concluded that he is the son of God, a king, and someone he does not wish to offend. Others have decided to revile him regardless, but they seem to have an accurate account of his claims. He claims to be the Son of God, but they are not going to believe. There are bystanders who seem eager to hear whatever he says. Maybe he is calling Elijah who will usher in the kingdom of God! The centurion understands that Jesus’ death was not normal. He concludes that Jesus is the Son of God. The rich man gives his tomb over, indicating that he doesn’t think Jesus is any common (or uncommon) criminal. The Pharisees think something is going to happen, so they ask for guards. Pilate’s orders suggest that he thinks something may just happen and that the guards won’t be of much use.

When we look at the death and burial of Christ, his rest in the tomb, how do we consider him? What conclusions do we make about life, death, and the eternal hope Jesus has promised? Matthew leaves that conclusion to us. Yet is is clear how he wants us to understand it. Jesus, God the Son, lived a life of righteousness in our place, died as an innocent man, tore the veil of separation between God and man apart from top to bottom, and rose victorious over death. He kept all the promises he made. Jesus is presented as the very real and living God, coming for us. I pray that we will all come to the same conclusion, that we will find ourselves in agreement with this good news, for the Gospel is indeed a book of good news.

If this brief meditation was helpful to you, I hope you will check out the other materials on our website at www.WittenbergCoMo.com and consider supporting us.

. . . be cut off . . .

4/2/2020

Thursdays are for the New Testament
4/2/20

Jerome, Commentary on Galatians, [J.P. Migne, Editor]. Patrologiae Tomus XXVI. Paris: D’Ambroise, Pres La Barriere D’Enfer, ou Petit-Montrouge, 1845. pp. 307-438.

In Galatians 4:11, Paul reflects on the fact that he endures persecution for the sake of the cross. It could stop if he preached circumcision. Jerome recalls how Paul, as described in Acts, regularly endured persecution specifically because he didn’t require circumcision for Gentiles (Jerome, Galatians, 404). The persecution is in Jerome’s opinion because the cross is a stumbling block to those who hope in the Law. If it fulfilled the Law, there is not more need for circumcision. The persecution is a sign that the people are still scandalized by the cross of Christ (Jerome, Galatians, 405). In verse 12 Paul even suggests that it would be a good idea for the troublers of the Galatians to “be cut off.” Jerome recognizes the double meaning of emasculation and of being cast out of God’s covenant. He remarks that it is a forceful statement coming from the one who said, in Romans 12, to bless those who curse you (Jerome, Galatians, 405). Jerome takes this to be said not from hatred of the opponents but as a way of defending and nurturing the Galatians, whom he loves. The concern is that the opponents could cause the Galatians to stumble in their faith, and thus condemn themselves (Matthew 18). Jerome observes this is precisely why Marcion and Valentinus were condemned as heretics, because their doctrine could harm the Church and thus condemn them themselves (Jerome, Galatians, 406).

Verse 13 returns more directly to the difference between Christian liberty and depending on the Law. Jerome observes that the flow of Paul’s thought here is difficult to follow, so some editors and commentators think the verse belongs elsewhere. Yet he doesn’t speculate much about that. He does quote Origen extensively, saying that those who are free should follow the truth of their freedom in Christ (Jerome, Galatians, 406). At issue is the Galatians’ use of their liberty to pursue “the flesh” rather than to serve their neighbors. This is what Jerome understands as “walking by the Spirit” (Jerome, Galatians, 407). The great concern is that, as with the ancient Israelites, those who trust in the flesh could turn away to the works of the flesh and be just like those who followed idols. Jerome lists numerous examples of Old Testament people who fell into sin while trusting their own works. This is a way of falling from grace into the law, exactly what Paul cautioned against (Jerome, Galatians, 408).

Philippians 2:5-11 - Lectionary for Sunday of the Passion

4/1/2020

4/1/20 Read the passage here.

Many churches throughout the world use a Bible reading schedule called a "lectionary." It's just a fancy word meaning "selected readings." Posts like this reflect on the readings for an upcoming Sunday or other Church holiday, as found in the historic one-year lectionary.

Central to Jesus’ attitude in dealing with the worldwide pandemic crisis of sin, death, and destruction is his humility. This may just make a lot of sense to a lot of people at this moment in our history. Actually, I don’t know that for certain. I happen to be writing this post nine days before it will post. I’m in quarantine (no, nobody in the family is showing any symptoms of illness, but we had some travel which brought us through places crowded with a lot of people from other placs as well), actually comfortably recovering from some strenuous socially-distanced gardening. A few weeks ago, “social distancing” was a novelty term. Two weeks ago today I was engaged in some language coaching, some visits to people who couldn’t get to church due to age and health issues, and some work on a busy college campus where people were looking forward to Spring Break! Circumstances can certainly change, and change fast.

What does this have to do with Jesus and Philippians chapter two? A great deal. As the Bible portrays him, Jesus, creator and lord of all, understands the seriousness of sin. It brings death. It may bring death today, it may bring it with a delay, but it brings death, eternal destruction. That isn’t what he created it to be, but it is the just curse of a sinful and fallen condition. We all get to suffer from it. As the world was made to run, sin can be forgiven. That forgiveness comes about by perfect righteousness, which means we may never sin in any way, or by someone else’s perfect righteousness and death on our behalf. Since we, as sinful beings, cannot possibly earn forgiveness, we have to depend on someone who is perfect, and that perfect someone has to be completely human. This is Jesus, who had no sin, who could become a human like we are, and who lived a life of perfect obedience to God the Father, finally dying in our place. The passage in Philippians two describes the way Christ, God the Son, considered our need more important than the majesty and glory he held with the Father. He humbled himself to meet our need. We were unable to do anything ultimately meaningful against the enemy. But he was able, and did all that was necessary for our salvation.
All this Jesus does out of care for us. He is motivated by our need. In the end, all the praise and thanksgiving we give is certainly due to Jesus, but we do it not to earn his favor but because of his favor which has been poured out upon us already.

Does this influence the way we live in our society? I sure hope it does. In the past several weeks we have all been hearing of many people who are in need, some in situations of critical need. We are able to help some of them. Others, we cannot help. But imagine what happens if Christians, who have a confidence in eternity and who have seen Jesus’ work for them, commit themselves to loving and serving their neighbors in the ways they can! This may include, as in my case just now, avoiding contact with neighbors who may be in fragile health. It may include picking up the telephone in the old fashioned way and making a voice call to a friend who is worried, a relative who can’t get out, someone who is tired. Above all, Christians can pray for the sick, just like we have been doing for centuries. We can remember that the prayers of the Church have regularly been, among other things, for good government, for protection against plague and pestilence, for the strength and health of community and family, and for God’s Word to bring comfort to the hurting. Could we possibly care for others in that way?

Jesus thinks of us before he considers his own honor, glory, position, and prestige. We can think of others in the same way. Have this same mind in yourself, the apostle says. Will we do it perfectly? Not at all. But we can try.

If this brief meditation was helpful to you, I hope you will check out the other materials on our website at www.WittenbergCoMo.com and consider supporting us.

Radical Teachers

4/1/2020

Wednesdays are for Bits and Pieces
4/1/20

Niederwimmer, Kurt. “An Examination of the Development of Itinerant Radicalism in the Environment and Tradition of the Didache” pp. 312-339 in Draper, Jonathan (editor). The Didache in Modern Research. Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1996.

Niederwimmer states as a given that within early Christianity “we find groups of homeless missionaries and prophets of the new movement who travelled from place to place” (Niederwimmer 1996, 321). He even suggests that this phenomenon may have been more significant than the settled Christian communities. The movement may have sprung up from those who wished to continue the itinerant discipleship found among those receiving Jesus’ teaching prior to the crucifixion. In Syria he finds “an independent branch of early Christianity’s developmental history emerges, important among other things for casting light upon the transition . . . from the original atmosphere of eschatological immediacy to the early catholic mentality” (Niederwimmer 1996, 322). Niederwimmer attempts to distinguish between traditional material and the ideas of the Didachist so as to identify stasis and change in the Christian practice of that place and time.

Niederwimmer sees Didache 11:1 as an important transition point, as there is a shift from the description of the community to an explanation of how to deal with visiting teachers (Niederwimmer 1996, 323). During the course of chapters 11-15, there are what Niederwimmer considers to be newer and older ideas, a feature he catalogs without many specifics (Niederwimmer 1996, 325). He goes on to lay out a chart of the passage, showing transitions from traditions to the redactor’s work (Niederwimmer 1996, 326-327). The Didachist’s view and the recognized traditions seem to be related to a community of Christians in a particular place, not to the itinerant teachers.

The traditional view, from 11:4-12, shows communities of Christians living in close proximity. The itinerants, who seem charismatic in nature, arrive in the community but do not stay very long (Niederwimmer 1996, 328). These travelers do not demand care but receive it anyway. They have renounced their own property and appear to live a life of voluntary poverty (Niederwimmer 1996, 329). Apostles are treated differently than the prophets (Niederwimmer 1996, 330). These apostles do not appear to be “the twelve” but they are treated as special emissaries of the Lord (Niederwimmer 1996, 330). There are also prophets, itinerant spiritual people who speak for God. These too appear to be wanderers who are received briefly and then are sent on their way (Niederwimmer 1996, 331). It was important to identify the true and false prophets for everyone’s protection. The existence of the apostles, teachers, and prophets was accepted but the particular individuals were to be tested (Niederwimmer 1996, 333).

Niederwimmer sees a very different situation in the Didachist’s ideas, which he details from 11:1-3; 12; 13; 15 (Niederwimmer 1996, 333). He thinks it unclear whether there are actual established communities in view. There are all sorts of itinerants, not just apostles, teachers, and prophets. Teachers are only incidental in importance (Niederwimmer 1996, 334). Niederwimmer also considers a shift of culture in which some prophets wanted to join communities. Care for hem was a matter of uncertainty (Niederwimmer 1996, 335). Further, the required selection of bishops and deacons, in chapter 14, suggests a further change of community culture. The bishops and deacons, rather than the apostles and prophets, would have the role of leadership in regular worship. Niederwimmer sees this as a shift to the dominance of the established community (Niederwimmer 1996, 338).

Niederwimmer sees this shift as a move toward “catholicization” with a stabilization of the community. This is not an entirely bad move. It is necessary to develop a structure for life. “The solution does not lie in the disappearance of the eschaton as motivation, but in finding ways of living that allow for eschatological motivation on the one hand and life under the conditions of social reality on the other hand” (Niederwimmer 1996, 339). This allows eschatological hope to be passed on through history.

Psalm 118:19-29 - Lectionary for Sunday of the Passion

3/31/2020

3/31/20 Read the passage here.

Many churches throughout the world use a Bible reading schedule called a "lectionary." It's just a fancy word meaning "selected readings." Posts like this reflect on the readings for an upcoming Sunday or other Church holiday, as found in the historic one-year lectionary.

Verse 21 of our reading in Psalm 118:19-29 says, “I thank you that you have answered me and become my salvation.” This is a difficult saying for many, because we easily put our hopes in someone or something other than the Lord God as revealed in Scripture. We hope in things which cannot become our salvation, yet all along we want that salvation. Yes, I know some people say they really don’t feel a need to be saved from anything. They are doing just fine on their own. Yet when push comes to shove, they end up wishing for something bigger than themselves, something outside themselves. Likewise, the people who are in the more inwardly focused and emotive branches of Christianity seem to want something outside themselves. When trouble comes we try to trust our hearts and we find that we are not all that trustworthy.

A friend of mine from another country contacted me on the day I wrote this post, saying things were looking bad and frightening in his country. They now had two cases of the Corona virus. Public transportation and businesses are shut down, schools are closed, and they are not sure of the way forward. My observation was that I would certainly continue praying for them, and that when I last checked, we had about 23,000 cases of the Corona virus identified in my country, which is a much larger country than his. What do we do? As Christians we give thanks to God. We recognize that He is the one who gives us salvation. We try to stay clean and healthy, and we try to love and serve our neighbors. All the while, though, we put our ultimate faith in Christ for us, rather than in anything we or anyone else can do.

God answers his people. God is the salvation of his people. He knows precisely what is happening in this world. He has overcome the world and will gather his people, one day, to his side so they overcome the world as well. He is the one who is outside of us, bigger than us, and able to do all things well.

If this brief meditation was helpful to you, I hope you will check out the other materials on our website at www.WittenbergCoMo.com and consider supporting us.

Christ as the Strong Man Hunted

3/31/2020

Tuesdays are for the Old Testament
3/31/20

Augustine. Exposition on the Book of Psalms. Schaff, Philip (editor). New York: Christian Literature Publishing Col, 1886. Nicene and Post-Nicene Church Fathers: Series 1: Volume VIII. Re-published 2014, Catholic Way Publishing. Kindle electronic edition, ISBN-13: 978-1-78379-372-3.
“Psalm 59 part 1”

Augustine’s comments on Psalm 59:1-12 jump immediately to an allegorical understanding of Christ as the one who sees no corruption, who is head and body together, signifying the entire Church, and who was guarded in the tomb, as David’s house was watched by Saul’s soldiers (Augustine Psalms, loc. 327094). Verse one, then, calls out for deliverance and redemption. Augustine considers the redemption which David called for to be accomplished in Christ, as well as in us (Augustine Psalms, loc. 327103). Those who would attack Christ, just like those who attacked David, were violent men, intent on killing (v. 2). Augustine sees this as a continuing pattern, as he lists numerous persecutions against the early Christians, after Christ’s death and resurrection (Augustine Psalms, loc. 327113). This is the way Augustine sees the Church growing, particularly noting that “there was shed largely and frequently the blood of Martyrs: wherewith when it had been shed, being as it were sown, the field of the Church more productively put forth, and filled the whole world as we now behold” (Augustine Psalms, loc. 327122).

Augustine asks, based on verse three, what kind of strong men would be hunting David, as if he were weak or powerless (Augustine Psalms, loc. 327122). His conclusion is that all humans are subject to weakness. There is nobody who is able to overcome all people, and certainly nobody greater than God. For this reason, Augustine in verse four concludes that David, like Christ, was assailed by sinful humans who would not stop in their rush to obtain power. In humanity, none could resist such a mob (Augustine Psalms, loc. 327150).

Verses 4-5 make a contrast with the first three verses. David asks for God’s deliverance, that God may meet him and see how he is walking (Augustine Psalms, loc. 327160). Augustine observes that Jesus’ self-humiliation was his way of preparing, as it were, a nest in which to gather his people (baby birds) to himself and provide them shelter. He comments that nesting birds become weaker and less well groomed during the nesting process (Augustine Psalms, loc. 327169). Augustine then seems to tie the humiliation and weakness of this state of servitude to the disorder which enters the world temporarily when God comes in judgment. David asks that God would show no pity on those who work iniquity (Augustine Psalms, loc. 327188). At the same time, though, Augustine recognizes that God showed mercy on Paul, who had persecuted the Church. The call to repentance goes out to all in the time of Christ. This is the good news of verse 6 (Augustine Psalms, loc. 327216).

In verse nine, David confesses his safety because he receives strength by holding fast to Christ. Auygustine portrays Christ as the one who gives all virtue and wisdom. In his work of reconciliation Christ has made all people along the lines of sin and redemption. Those who are under God’s judgment are one. Those receiving God’s favor are one (Augustine Psalms, loc. 327263).

Isaiah 50:4-9a - Lectionary for Sunday of the Passion

3/30/2020

3/30/20 Isaiah 50:4-9a
Many churches throughout the world use a Bible reading schedule called a "lectionary." It's just a fancy word meaning "selected readings." Posts like this reflect on the readings for an upcoming Sunday or other Church holiday, as found in the historic one-year lectionary.

Our Old Testament passage this week, from Isaiah 50:4-9a, points us to Jesus. While we might be tempted, from the first few verses, to say it instructs us in how we should be, we fall short if we stop there. Yes, we should be taught by God, yes, we should speak words of sustenance to the weary, yes, we should be ready to follow God wherever he leads us. But what do we do with verse six?

Verse six, though it could be about many people enduring persecution, has always been understood by Christians to be about Jesus, the one who gave himself over to trial in an illegal court, the one who refused to say anything in his defense before the Roman authorities, the one who was mocked, beaten, had his face disfigured, and was disgraced publicly.

Who vindicated Jesus? God the Father, in the resurrection and the ascension. Who will vindicate the Christian? God the Father, who raised the Son, who gives life to the dead, and who has been reconciled to us through the work of Christ, living and dying on our behalf. Jesus is the one who always gives comfort to his people. Jesus is the one who sustains the weary. Jesus is the one who received pain and suffering in our place. Jesus is the one who died for us. Jesus is the one who unflinchingly faced all the terrors which we could ever face.

Is this a good example for us? It certainly is. What will we do with it? While we try to bring help and comfort to others, we realize our ultimate help and comfort is in the Gospel of Christ, redeeming us and reconciling us to God. He has done his work. He leaves us to represent him in this world. During times of trial, then, we remember Jesus, even as we remind others about Jesus.

If this brief meditation was helpful to you, I hope you will check out the other materials on our website at www.WittenbergCoMo.com and consider supporting us.

Sixtus - but probably not

3/30/2020

Mondays are for Church History
3/30/20

Schaff, Philip. History of the Christian Church (The Complete Eight Volumes in One). Amazon Kindle Edition, 2014.
Volume 2, Ante-Nicene Christianity A.D. 100-325, “Chapter 13. Ecclesiastical Literature of the Ante-Nicene Age, and Biographical Sketches of the Church Fathers.” sec. 159-204.
§ 171. Sixtus of Rome, also referred to as Sextus, bishop of Rome from around 119-128. Schaff identifies him as the sith bishop of Rome. He is thought to be the “author of a remarkable collection of moral and religious maxims” (Schaff 2014, loc. 21366). However, Jerome considered the attribution of the writing spurious, belonging rather to a Pythagorean named Xystus (Schaff 2014, loc. 21375). Others have attributed the work to a Quintus Sextus who was a Stoic philosopher. The writing never mentions Christ, so it has often been considered unlikely that any Christian, particularly a bishop, would write it (Schaff 2014, loc. 21384). Schaff makes a number of quotations (in Latin) to illustrate the flower of these maxims.

WDCM Newsletter April 2020

3/27/2020

We've had a lot of changes, hopefully temporary, hopefully very temporary, around Wittenberg Door Campus Ministry. Please check out our latest newsletter at the button below for more information. Look around our website too, especially the home page at www.wittenbergcomo.com! Though change is difficult, and current conditions are not at all what we would like to have in the long run, we do learn flexibility and endurance through it.

April 2020 Newsletter

What Does Oral Tradition Mean Anyway?

3/27/2020

Rosenberg, Bruce A. “The Complexity of Oral Tradition.” Oral Tradition 2:1 (1987) 73-90.

The idea of “oral tradition” is not one which is understood in the same way by all scholars. Rosenberg sees this lack of clear interdisciplinary definition to be problematic (Rosenberg 1987, 73). There is evidence of primarily oral societies in which writing is used, as well as, rather clearly, societies in which written communication is very common but in which oral communication is considered perfectly normal. Oral and literate societies, says Rosenberg, are not completely disparate. They are also not indicative of a different level of intelligence (Rosenberg 1987, 74).

Rosenberg suggests that the term “oral literature,” though an oxymoron, could be useful in describing fixed works which are composed, transmitted, or performed orally. This is also a problem because it does not specify a phase in which the oral activity governs the process. Rosenberg has tried a coinage, “Oralature,” but that has also not gained much traction (Rosenberg 1987, 75).

Rosenberg asserts that many of the matters of prime importance to a culture are transmitted orally, in face to face interactions. While they may well be preserved in writing, adoption of values routinely comes about through orality. Rosenberg thinks this is an important feature of a culture. “While literature has made many aspects of culture available to a very great proportion of society’s members, the impersonality of print has also made culture easy to avoid. Print removes a portion of learning from that immediate chain of personal confrontations” (Rosenberg 1987, 76). There are cultural reasons to think oral interactions are superior ways of identifying and preserving truth. Writing, however, is a superior means of disseminating truth broadly and preserving a record of the truth claims.

In contrast to oral accounts, Rosenberg observes that modern industrialized societies are incapable of functioning apart from large amounts of written data - dates, specific records of particular events, timelines, and statistical information. These records are not kept effectively in oral tradition, but are quite easily kept in writing (Rosenberg 1987, 77). Further, oral accounts tend to add or subtract pieces of information which are considered necessary or unnecessary. This is a much more complicated process in written traditions. For this reason, the literate academic distrusts oral traditions, as they are more likely to change details of an account (Rosenberg 1987, 79).

A significant problem in research is the fact that we have very few genuinely non-literate societies in the world. Additionally, to make a true comparison of literacy and orality we would need cultures where the same cultural background exists in a parallel non-literate and literate branch. As this is not possible, Rosenberg notes that research has continued among those who are largely literate. When engaged in oral communication, speakers tend to use the tools of literacy. This may be a result of habitual exposure to reading (Rosenberg 1987, 80).

An additional factor in oral and written traditions is that of memory. Rosenberg cites studies in which participants are found to remember important pieces of information, then fill in the details, rather than remembering a piece of communication verbatim (Rosenberg 1987, 81). Poetry may be recited verbatim, but it is possible that the ability to do this has some relationship to the actual poetic form. A poetic line is roughly parallel to the verbal formula as described by Milman Parry. For this reason, it fits into the category of expressions which can be easily remembered and strung together (Rosenberg 1987, 82). Rosenberg further observes that in nonliterate socieites the mention of a commonly held concept will spark a connection with the whole concept. It is normally not necessary to explain it in detail (Rosenberg 1987, 83).

Rosenberg further notes that in oral performance traditions it is common for audience members to correct the performer, and certainly to provide ongoing feedback. This internal correction process is an aid to memory on the part of both the audience and the performer (Rosenberg 1987, 85). The speech and even thought patterns are therefore more fluid and spontaneouus than those used in written communication.

John 8:46-59 - Lectionary for Lent 5

3/26/2020

3/26/20
Many churches throughout the world use a Bible reading schedule called a "lectionary." It's just a fancy word meaning "selected readings." Posts like this reflect on the readings for an upcoming Sunday or other Church holiday, as found in the historic one-year lectionary.

In John 8:46-59, Jesus says some things which threw his Jewish questioners into an uproar. Christians recognize that Jesus’ words here are true and right, that he had every reason to say what he did. Let’s evaluate some of those claims.

First, Jesus says that he is speaking God’s words and that his listeners are apparently not of God. For a little context, we think about verse 46, where Jesus asks how his listeners can convict him of sin, based on his words and deeds. The fact is that they can’t do so. He is telling them the truth and doing things consistent with the truth. Christians seek, though they often fail, to say and do everything in a way that is consistent with God’s Word. Others can convict us of sin, no doubt. But they can’t bring an attack against Jesus which will stand up. If we are honest about God’s Word, we will realize that.

Second, Jesus flatly rejects their claim that he is a Samaritan and that he has a demon. He is seeking God’s glory, not his own. He knows where he is from, and it is not Samaria. He is willing to be justified by God. The Samaritans were normally viewed as substandard in matters of faith. They were descendants of those who had been deported from Israel by the Assyrians and had intermarried with foreign nations before coming back. Their orthodoxy was not trusted, in general. Jesus points out here that he is trustworthy. Christians don’t rely on the way Christianity in general has been managed through history. It is informative, but we don’t consider it normative. Practices are continued because they hold up to biblical scrutiny. They fit in with what Jesus passed down to his apostles and they passed down to us. This is what Christians claim to be pleasing to God.

Jesus claims in this passage to be the one who will take death away from all those who keep his word. His critics observe that Abraham and the prophets died. Jesus is portraying himself as greater than they are. Jesus does agree with his critics in this matter. He is claiming to be greater than Abraham and the prophets. He claims precedence over Abraham, and goes so far as to say, “before Abraham was, I am” (v. 58, ESV). This claim, in popular linguistic usage, could well be tantamount to a claim to be God. The Jews who heard Jesus certainly understood this to be a statement which would be a capital offense. Jesus seemed to be claiming divine authority.

Christians recognize that in the death and resurrection of Christ, as well as his perfect obedience during his life, that Jesus is proven to be exactly who he says he is, exactly who the Jews thought he said he was. He shows himself to be the one who is greater than death itself. He claims to be greater than Abraham. He certainly appears to be the very God of very God.

How do we respond? Like the Jews, do we become angry and reject Jesus? Or do we recognize that he has a valid claim to rule over heaven, earth, and us as well? The Christian recognizes Jesus as the Lord of all.

If this brief meditation was helpful to you, I hope you will check out the other materials on our website at www.WittenbergCoMo.com and consider supporting us.

Early Text Analysis and Leaven

3/26/2020

Thursdays are for the New Testament
3/26/20

Jerome, Commentary on Galatians, [J.P. Migne, Editor]. Patrologiae Tomus XXVI. Paris: D’Ambroise, Pres La Barriere D’Enfer, ou Petit-Montrouge, 1845. pp. 307-438.

Jerome, speaking of Galatians 4:7, pulls the reader from the Latin back to Greek. Where the Latin says, “not to obey the truth” the Greek says something much more like “not to believe the truth” (Jerome, Galatians, 401). He goes on to explain that if we believe that Jesus both gave and did grace and truth, it is our obligation to believe him and act upon that belief. To do otherwise and to think that came from God is foolish.

Jerome notes a scribal error in Latin manuscripts. some of which say, “...is not from God who called…” but which should read, “...is not from him who called…” (Jerome, Galatians, 402). He does recognize that the “him” in the sentence is God nonetheless. It is certainly the work of God to call and of a man “either to believe, or not to believe” (Jerome, Galatians, 402, personal translation).

Verse nine makes a comparison to leavening, which works through the whole loaf. Jerome quickly points out that language about infusing or working through the lump is more faithful to the Greek than is language about “corruption” used in some translations (Jerome, Galatians, 402). In some contexts corruption is the right idea, but Jerome does not think it fits here. Though the metaphor in both cases is the same, that the leavening spreads through the whole mass, here it may be that Paul is speaking to the spread of good doctrine. Here, in verse nine, Paul continues to say he trusts in the Galatians that they are in the Lord. They should expect good doctrine to grow (Jerome, Galatians, 403).

Counter to the Galatians, in verse 10, Paul says the one who troubles them is bringing on his own judgment. Jerome recognizes that Paul is not acting as the judge, but he is entrusting that judgment to God (Jerome, Galatians, 403). Jerome compares this burden of judgment to the burdens which the Pharisees would bind on others. They are burdens which no human can carry. Only Jesus, who overcame the world, can do so (Jerome, Galatians, 404).

Hebrews 9:11-15 - Lectionary for Lent 5

3/25/2020

3/25/20
Many churches throughout the world use a Bible reading schedule called a "lectionary." It's just a fancy word meaning "selected readings." Posts like this reflect on the readings for an upcoming Sunday or other Church holiday, as found in the historic one-year lectionary.

There is a new covenant. It is in effect, through Jesus’ perfect life, death, and resurrection. This is the message of Hebrews 9:11-15. It is difficult to mistake. There is a new covenant and it is one which is clearly and specifically of eternal effect (v. 15).

We are used to thinking in terms which are a little simplistic, that God’s decrees are all essentially the same in all their important elements. By this line of reasoning, we conclude that all God’s decrees are going to be eternal and unchanging. Yet this doesn’t work. It is clear that it doesn’t work that way. God makes a promise to Israel that if they obey His commands He will bless them. They disobey. He chastises them and then blesses them anyway. He establishes David with an eternal kingdom and a throne in Jerusalem. Jerusalem is quite safe for many years. Eventually the Babylonians sack Jerusalem. Christians then argue that Jesus, the promised child of Abraham and of David, takes up his throne at Jerusalem, though it is a cross-shaped throne just outside the city.

In fact, God’s decrees are not always eternal. But here we are told that the covenant is one that won’t pass away. It secures eternal redemption v. 12). Christ’s offering of himself does free us from the bondage of earthly covenants, ushering in his new covenant.

What hope can we gain from this idea? Perhaps you haven’t noticed it, but our world has a tendency to fall apart. Yes, I know, often things go along quite well. At other times we are confronted with weakness. There’s sickness, poverty, hunger, and strife all around us. We can and do make some significant strides to reduce the effects of this fallen state, but it keeps on showing us we live in a fallen world. There’s no ending it, at least not by means available to us.

Our passage from Hebrews shows us that salvation is of the Lord, not of our own devices. We don’t look to actions we can do or a covenant we could initiate in order to purify our world. We don’t try to create a clear conscience by our own good deeds. We look to the Lord and His good deeds. He is the one who can purify our consciences so we can stand before God unafraid.

If this brief meditation was helpful to you, I hope you will check out the other materials on our website at www.WittenbergCoMo.com and consider supporting us.

Caring for Christian Workers

3/25/2020

Wednesdays are for Bits and Pieces
3/25/20

DeHalleux, Andre. “Ministers in the Didache” pp. 300-320 in Draper, Jonathan (editor). The Didache in Modern Research. Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1996.

DeHalleux considers the presence of various ministers in the text of the Didache. By 1884, Harnack thought he had found a “link between 1 Corinthian and the Pastorals in the evaluation of the spiritual and ecumenical ministries of the Word towards the local monarchical episcopate” (DeHalleux 1996, 300). However, this analysis may have been invalidated by the conclusions made by redaction critics who consider Didache 11-13 to be from an earlier time period than Didache 15. After questioning the issues involved in text transmission and redaction, DeHalleux concludes that it “is better [then] to respect the only known text than imprudently to forge an amalgam which probably never existed in the tradition. In any case, no major textual correction has been proposed for the section in hand” (DeHalleux 1996, 301). DeHalleaux continues to speak to authorial integrity as he recognizes that the Didache was not being original. “The author was certainly not the creator of the traditions that he reports, but interpretation cannot confer on those heterogeneous elements a higher significance than the Didachist confessed on them when he collected them” (DeHalleux 1996, 302). In particular, he does not find it at all necessary to create a model which places chapter 15 at a different point in history than chapters 11-13.

As a matter of context, DeHalleaux notes that the prayers of chapters 9-10 seem to be led by one individual. Although it is not exactly clear what normal role this person would have, DeHalleaux suggests it may be a bishop or a deacon, as identified in chapters 14-15 (DeHalleux 1996, 303). The bishops or deacons seem to have a different role than the prophets in the community life, as they would conduct regular events and the prophets seemed to have a less distinct, more spontaneous role. The prophets of 10:7 are not designated as itinerant people engaged in ecstatic prayer. DeHalleaux points out that in the biblical account prayer is regularly expected to be intelligible (Luke 1:67-8;1 Cor. 14:16; Eph. 5:19) (DeHalleux 1996, 303).

Didache 11 speaks to a necessary evaluation of teachers. Some teach specifically according to the standards stated and known in the community, some go beyond those standards. The hearer is to evaluate whether the new teaching is consistent with what the community has learned in the past (DeHalleux 1996, 304). The text does not ascribe the teaching to a bishop, a deacon, or a prophet. The people may well be prophets, but we have no way of confirming this. However, in 11:1 we do know that they come from outside the community. DeHalleux considers this and the need to evaluate teaching as the central point of 11:1 (DeHalleux 1996, 305).

Didache 11:3-5 prescribes a specific way of treating apostles and prophets who come. DeHalleux notes the apostles were probably not the Twelve, but that the group possibly included their successors (DeHalleux 1996, 305). There was, by this time, a need to consider whether the visitors might be false prophets. Though these rules showed the people were apparently somewhat itinerant, DeHalleux says “one should not twist their sense by interpreting them as an ascetic life or as asocial vagabondage” (DeHalleux 1996, 306). Yet those who could be of harm to the community were to be rejected. This suggests that some people would seek recognition though they were not worthy of it.

Didache 11:7-12 further speaks to the fact that some, claiming prophetic authority, are only looking for money. The message of the prophet must agree with his life. That is a simple enough message. However, DeHalleux finds numerous statements in the passage which are more obscure (DeHalleux 1996, 307). The content of the teaching and the way of life would both require evaluation, but the criteria are not made clear (DeHalleux 1996, 308). The prophet who has been tested participates in the more formal, liturgical acts of the community (DeHalleux 1996, 309). The meaning of having a meal “by the spirit” is quite vague DeHalleux concludes that while we may not know what the meal referenced is hat we do know is that the work of the prophet is “prayer, teaching, and charity” (DeHalleux 1996, 310).

Didache 13 distinguishes between those normal people who wish to join the community and the prophets and teachers who come. DeHalleux notes that while most people must support themselves, the prophets and teachers are to be supported in their prophetic and teaching work (DeHalleux 1996, 310). DeHalleux suggests that verse two is explaining not a separate group, the teachers, but the teaching function of the prophet. Because the prophet served as a teacher, he should be supported (DeHalleux 1996, 311). Members of the community support these people with offerings of their firstfruits. DeHalleux recognizes that the prophets, called “high priests,” are not so in the sense of the Jewish priesthood or that of later instances of Christianity. Again, he does not think we need to try to read ideas from different historical contexts into the text or to take the language as symbolic of too much (DeHalleux 1996, 312).

Didache 15:1-2 speaks about selecting bishops and deacons. DeHalleux asks if it is necessary to assign this to a later, better developed, more sophisticated time period. His answer is that bishops and deacons were known to the earliest Christians, but did not have a relatively monarchical status described in the 4th century at the early time described in the Didache (DeHalleux 1996, 313). The emphasis of the passage is on selecting bishops and deacons of appropriate character. DeHalleux finds no reason to require a model of bishops and deacons replacing apostles and prophets. They apparently existed at the same time and may have had different gifts which sometimes left them in conflict with one another (DeHalleux 1996, 314).

DeHalleux, having reviewed Didache 10:7-15:2, notes that there are references to “apostle and prophet” and to “prophet and teacher” but never to a trilogy of “apostle, prophet, teacher” (DeHalleux 1996, 315). He thinks this to be an indicator of three roles, possibly held by one individual. However, much scholarship has suggested three separate offices, adducing also Acts 13:1; 14:4, 14; Matthew 10:40-41; 23:34, and possibly 1 Corinthians 12:28-30 and Romans 12:6-8. He counters, “The titles of apostle, prophet and teacher could then always have been applied to three modes of exercise of the same gospel ministry” (DeHalleux 1996, 315).

DeHalleux observes that some commentators take the prophets as dysfunctional revolutionary outsiders, though this view has no serious support in the Didache. There, the prophets are a valued part of the community. Other commentators take the Didache as an archaizing document from the late second century, promoting a Montanist view. Again, the text itself does not bear out the idea very well (DeHalleux 1996, 317).

In conclusion, DeHalleux endorses taking the Didache at face value, as “true to life, and not a nostalgic idealization of the ministerial structures that it intended to codify” (DeHalleux 1996, 318). It would be very unlikely that the Didache was written as an attempt of a prophet or apostle to revise history and grasp power. Such an effort would be unlikely to gain power and credence.

Psalm 43 - Lectionary for Lent 5

3/24/2020

3/24/20
Many churches throughout the world use a Bible reading schedule called a "lectionary." It's just a fancy word meaning "selected readings." Posts like this reflect on the readings for an upcoming Sunday or other Church holiday, as found in the historic one-year lectionary.

Psalm 43 calls on God for vindication. Here the Psalmist recognizes that much of the world is opposed to him, and specifically to his stance for God. We see this kind of opposition all the time. In my culture it is not so much the overt kind of opposition which tries to kill people. However, we don’t have to observe the media for very long before we see that Christians are mocked for praying that God would intervene in our world. They are treated as though faith in God cannot be present in a person who is intelligent or thoughtful. There is an assumption that the very people who hold a central creedal tenet that they are dealing with sin and failure should be completely immune from sin.

Vindicate me, Lord. Lead me by your truth and bring me to the altar of God, the very place where sacrifice is made on my behalf. Lead me to the place of forgiveness, even if my culture says I need to work out forgiveness myself. Let me trust in God, so I can be filled with hope and again can praise Him.

This is the hope of the Christian, which the world cannot understand. What should I do about it? No amount of argument on my part will persuade the rest of the world. I suppose I should simply persist in trusting the Lord, as the Psalmist did.

If this brief meditation was helpful to you, I hope you will check out the other materials on our website at www.WittenbergCoMo.com and consider supporting us.

Doing Justice Requires Right Judgment

3/24/2020

Tuesdays are for the Old Testament
3/24/20

Augustine. Exposition on the Book of Psalms. Schaff, Philip (editor). New York: Christian Literature Publishing Col, 1886. Nicene and Post-Nicene Church Fathers: Series 1: Volume VIII. Re-published 2014, Catholic Way Publishing. Kindle electronic edition, ISBN-13: 978-1-78379-372-3.
“Psalm 58”

Augustine jumps into the body of Psalm 58 immediately and forcefully, saying that we who would speak of justice need to have right judgment (Augustine Psalms, loc. 326837). He alleges that we who are eager to complain of injustice are also likely to ignore the Scripture, where God speaks to us. Augustine points out that we have both a law of God written on our hearts and a law written in the Scripture, since we deny what is written in us (Augustine Psalms, loc. 326844). To take away all doubt, Augustine speaks individually of various laws of God which almost all humans will view as universally applicable. The actual problem, then, is hypocrisy, since we affirm good and evil but we live as though they are not what we confess (Augustine Psalms, loc. 326875). Verse three goes on to condemn all the wicked, because they were born that way. Sinners sin because they are sinful (Augustine Psalms, loc. 326890). Augustine is clear that sin comes from alienation from the truth. It is the separation from Christ and the Church that leads us into sin and falsehood (Augustine Psalms, loc. 326913). Out following falsehood makes us deadly dangerous, as said in verses 4-5, like a deadly sname that can’t hear the snake charmer. But unlike the deaf snake, Augustine says these people who could hear will block their ears to avoid hearing (Augustine Psalms, loc. 3269828).

The judgment of God comes upon those who pursue falsehood. Verse six proclaims this judgment, which consists of a shattering of their mouths (Augustine Psalms, loc. 326936). Augustine sees the injury focused on the mouth, from where the slander and biting speech come. The location of the injuries is significant of the crimes (Augustine Psalms, loc. 326943). Augustine illustrates several other places in Scripture where penalties may be seen as related to wrongdoings. The result of God’s rejection of evil is that, in verse seven, the evils tend to run away. Augustine repeats that heresies run their course then pass away (Augustine Psalms, loc. 326982). It may well be a difficult process, involving pain, as the evil burns away like wax (Augustine Psalms, loc. 327012). Yet God is in control of the process.

Genesis 22:1-14 - Lectionary for Lent 5

3/23/2020

3/23/20
Many churches throughout the world use a Bible reading schedule called a "lectionary." It's just a fancy word meaning "selected readings." Posts like this reflect on the readings for an upcoming Sunday or other Church holiday, as found in the historic one-year lectionary.

In Genesis 22:8, when Isaac asks where the lamb for the burnt offering is, Abraham gives the answer of faith. God will provide the lamb. This is surely the right answer. God had previously told Abraham he would have a child, and that Isaac would be the child of promise, through whom all the nations of the earth would be blessed. It was God’s express intention that the world would be blessed, including through this incident.

Abraham, not to mention Isaac, had no clear idea how it would work out. But they did know that by God’s mercy it would be all right. Christians can have the same confidence, even in a world full of uncertainty. If the Lord has said he will keep His people, He can do it. This has been demonstrated beyond doubt through the death and resurrection of Jesus, the promised child of Abraham, through whom all nations of the world are blessed.

In Genesis 22 God provided a ram to take the place of Isaac. In the Gospels, God provided a lamb, the perfect lamb of God, Jesus, to take the place of you and of me. Death could not hold Jesus. Likewise, all those who trust in him can face even death unafraid. God has provided a substitute.

Our world has plenty of uncertainty. As I write this post, many have been speaking of a viral epidemic which may well be as bad as the flu of 1917-18. Financial markets, fearful of interruptions in manufacturing, shipping, and trade are shaky, to say the least. One country in the world recently inaugurated two different presidents at the same time, sparking what may be an increase in armed conflict throughout its region. There is uncertainty all around. However, from a Christian perspective, there is no room for ultimate fear. God has provided.

If this brief meditation was helpful to you, I hope you will check out the other materials on our website at www.WittenbergCoMo.com and consider supporting us.

Diognetus - A Shadowy Figure

3/23/2020

Mondays are for Church History
3/23/20

Schaff, Philip. History of the Christian Church (The Complete Eight Volumes in One). Amazon Kindle Edition, 2014.
Volume 2, Ante-Nicene Christianity A.D. 100-325, “Chapter 13. Ecclesiastical Literature of the Ante-Nicene Age, and Biographical Sketches of the Church Fathers.” sec. 159-204.
§ 170. The Epistle to Diognetus.

After a fairly comprehensive bibliography, Schaff notes that this letter “was unknown in Christian literature until Henry Stephens, the learned publisher of Paris, issued it in Greek and Latin in 1592, under the name of Justin Martyr” (Schaff 2014, loc. 21324). Though there is considerable doubt about the provenance of the text, Schaff considers it to be a genuine second century document, brilliant in its composition.

The letter, addressed to Diognetius, describes Christianity, the reason why Christians can look on the world with contempt, face death with courage, and love one another (Schaff 2014, loc. 21331). Schaff suggests the recipient may have been the Stoic tutor of Marcus Aurelius, who influenced him around 133 AD.

The letter is twelve chapters long, beginning with an address and compliments to Diognetus, a Gentile. It speaks of the nature of idols, of Jewish superstitions, then of the nature and strength of the Christian life (Schaff 2014, loc. 21339). The author speaks of the condition of the word without Christ, the blessings of his coming, and the hope found in Christ (Schaff 2014, loc. 21347).

Schaff considers the authorship, concluding that, thoguh the manuscript ascribes the letter to Justin Martyr, the style is different. Authorship is not actually known, but Schaff again places the letter in the second century, probably about the time of Marcus Aurelius (Schaff 2014, loc. 21360).

Oral Influences on Written Poetry

3/20/2020

Jeffreys, Elizabeth and Michael. “The Oral Background of Byzantine Popular Poetry.” Oral Tradition 1:3 (1986), 504-547.

The Jeffreys discuss popular poetry from Byzantium dating to the 12th and 14th centuries as a small corpus of poetic work, extending to a number of genres, and possibly having an influence on later works after the fall of Byzantium in 1453 (Jeffreys 1986, 504). Of particular interest is the idea that these Greek writings may have preserved an oral style which differed significantly from the literary style of the time. The Jeffreys suggest that scholarly studies of this body of popular poetry may have been neglected in part because popular poetry describes culture and events differently than does scholarly literature, and in part because modern Greeks tend to be biased against the importance of any material from the Byzantine period (Jeffreys 1986, 505).

While the Byzantine popular poetry being considered here has some roots in oral composition, it does not seem to be a mere transcription of oral poetry. However, it was apparently presented so as to be readily accessible to listeners, even those with little education (Jeffreys 1986, 506). The authors readily admit there is not much evidence, since the corpus of literature is small and did not seem t obe commented on extensively in its period. However, they list numerous works in which the poetry and signing are a matter of itinerant performance. This suggests a high level of orality (Jeffreys 1986, 508).

To develop a clearer case for oral roots, the Jeffreys first speak of the characteristic meter of popular Byzantine poetry. Greek folk songs dating back to the 14th century have predominantly used the decapentasyllabos as a meter (Jeffreys 1986, 509). According to research by M. Jeffreys, the meter is first identified in dated works in 913, but seems slightly tentative at the time, evidenced by some partial lines in the work (Jeffreys 1986, 510). Rather than assuming the meter spread from the literate elite to the masses, especially in the relatively centralized byzantine culture, there is a real possibility that the poetic form existed in folk song all along. The Jeffreys supply an example of such a condition by quoting a period poem which says it is written in a simple, even playful way (Jeffreys 1986, 511). It is even contrasted with more thoughtful and pleasing hexameter verse. The idea is that the fifteen syllable meter is uncultured (Jeffreys 1986, 512). It appears, then, that the meter was adopted by the more erudite and courtly elements so as to be readily understood and appreciated by the population at large.

One of the difficulties of the Jeffreys’ hypothesis is that we have several centuries with no evidence of popular poetry. It is therefore impossible to analyze the poetry from that time period. However, it is virtually impossible that popular poetry did not exist during those centuries. It is much more likely that the patterns were oral in nature and were only written down later (Jeffreys 1986, 513).

The content of the poems may provide more insight into their links to oral tradition. The Jeffreys therefore turn their attention to these considerations. The epic-romance Digenis Akritas attracts attention. It has six manuscripts with similar story elements but signfiicant variations (Jeffreys 1986, 514). However, upon analysis, the Jeffreys consider four of the six versions to be purely literary, and the remaining two unclear. It is of interest to them that roughly half of the epic may well have existed in an earlier oral poem (Jeffreys 1986, 516). Another group of poems, known as the ptochoprodromic poems, satirical in nature, though they use the fifteen syllable meter, seem to be reaching toward the vernacular rather than springing from it (Jeffreys 1986, 517). The Jeffreys class several other twelfth century works in the same category.

The 14th century was a time of great upheaval in Byzantium. The Jeffreys observe that the various invasions and cultural challenges led to a new emphasis on historic linguistic and literary devices, and even cultural censorship (Jeffreys 1986, 518). In the Chronicle of the Morea we find a poem using the fifteen syllable meter, composed in Greek, with a very high percentage of formulaic half lines (Jeffreys 1986, 519). Compared to other works from the period, not only are the oral formulas much more common but the organization is loser and factual accuracy is lower. This suggests a root in oral, even spontaneous, composition (Jeffreys 1986, 520). A further marker of orality may be the use of archaisms to enable the author to meet the demands of the meter. This was described by Milman Parry in his work on HOmer, and has never been challenged seriously (Jeffreys 1986, 522). It is altogether possible that the author of the Chronicle was using a nonstandard poetic dialect either to meet metrical demands or to sound adequately poetic. The Jeffreys, although they do not givea detailed explanation in the course of this article, suggest that the development and mutations of the Greek language provided the oral poet with tools which were only later adopted in written composition (Jeffreys 1986, 524). There are many examples of alternative suffixes used for metrical purposes within the Chronicle (Jeffreys 1986, 526). The Jeffreys eventually conclude that, though the Chronicle identifies itself as a written work, it has significant roots in oral tradition, which influenced its structure and word choice (Jeffreys 1986, 527).

The dozen or so other poems from the fourteenth century, mostly romances, are more difficult to analyze. One of the difficulties mentioned by the Jeffreys is that the best examples of Greek oral style are in poems translated from other languages (Jeffreys 1986, 528). The Jeffreys discuss at some length Spadaro’s analysis of this corpous of poetry, generally considering his conclusions to be poorly grounded. One poem of note for discussion is the elisarios, a didactic poe centered on Constantinople (Jeffreys 1986, 531). This poem, with a populist slant, would seem to come not from the elites but from a more common source. It fits well into the analyses which identify oral roots.

The question of the fixity of oral poetry is always important. Was there one version of an oral work, or were there many? The Jeffreys approach this question, though with some caution (Jeffreys 1986, 533). Their experience with editing texts suggests that written and oral transmission proceeds in very different ways. In transmission of oral sources, the concept matters much more than the wording (Jeffreys 1986, 534). The standard of accuracy was a different one in oral transmission than in textual transmission. Yet those people passing on the material would see it as equally accurate. This is not absolutely uniform, as seen in the different manuscripts of Digenis Akritas and some other works. However, as a general rule it does seem to be in operation (Jeffreys 1986, 536).

The Jeffreys conclude that, in the case of Byzantine popular poetry, a common vernacular expressive style was used in composition, which was likely oral in nature. This vernacular style was eventually adopted by the literary elite (Jeffreys 1986, 537). This adoption allows us to get some idea of the vernacular style which existed, particularly in oral artistic communication.

John 6:1-15 - Lectionary for Lent 4

3/19/2020

3/19/20
Many churches throughout the world use a Bible reading schedule called a "lectionary." It's just a fancy word meaning "selected readings." Posts like this reflect on the readings for an upcoming Sunday or other Church holiday, as found in the historic one-year lectionary.

Our Gospel reading this week takes us to John chapter 6 and a miraculous food event. There’s certainly plenty to be said about it, but I want to look at the little, almost offhand comments about context that the Evangelist gives us. John is very detail oriented, particularly in matters of time and location. Of all the Gospels, John has historically been considered the most chronological one.

John places Jesus near the Sea of Galilee, and not only near it, but specifically on the other side of the Sea of Galilee. He was last seen in Jerusalem, so he is now in more traditionally Gentile territory. This is important when paired with the date information John gives us. It is nearly time for Passover.

Jesus, the true and lasting Passover Lamb, goes away from Jerusalem, the seat of divine power and the toyal throne, at the time of Passover, the time when God’s people remember and celebrate their deliverance from bondage. He brings that rescue to the people who would not be part of the “inside” group. They are not the Jerusalem Jews, but those who would be aliens and strangers in Jerusalem.

What happens? Jesus is surrounded by thousands of people who want to hear the Gospel and receive healing. Specifically, John says that the people saw the signs of healing that Jesus was doing. They wanted it for themselves. Or at least they wanted to see if He would do more healing. Regardless, they are swarming around Jesus.

So here John portrays Jesus as the one who leaves the place of his rightful throne, brings mercy and healing to all nations, and does it at the time of Passover, when rescue from bondage would be at the front of people’s minds. We know the rest of the story. Jesus feeds the huge crowd of people with the amount of food needed for lunch for two. They have more leftovers than they had at the start of the meal. God rescues people from every nation, cares for their needs, and reminds them that the true deliverance they need is that of eternal life. This is the Gospel of the Lord.

If this brief meditation was helpful to you, I hope you will check out the other materials on our website at www.WittenbergCoMo.com and consider supporting us.

Eloquence Doesn't Trump Truth

3/19/2020

Thursdays are for the New Testament
3/19/20

Jerome, Commentary on Galatians, [J.P. Migne, Editor]. Patrologiae Tomus XXVI. Paris: D’Ambroise, Pres La Barriere D’Enfer, ou Petit-Montrouge, 1845. pp. 307-438.

As he introduces the third part of his commentary on Galatians, Jerome recalls to his readers the lack of careful training and background they are likely to have. Many are led astray by false teachers who appeal to their audiences using beautiful sounding words. Jerome cites Ezekiel 33:32 to demonstrate that the challenge is not new, but that it remains necessary to speak out in every generation (Jerome, Galatians, 399). He is aware that it is important to shed light on the comments of others, not based on eloquence, but on truth. For this idea, Jerome adduces Paul’s words in 1 Corinthians 1:26-28, where he emphasizes the power of God to overcome falsehood through simple teaching (Jerome, Galatians, 400). The same apostle determined not to pursue worldly eloquence but the Christ who was crucified for sinners. Jerome is convinced that this is in no manner an easy way out, but a show of God’s power (Jerome, Galatians, 401). Therefore, he intends to speak very clearly.

Galatians 4:21-31 - Lectionary for Lent 4

3/18/2020

3/18/20
Many churches throughout the world use a Bible reading schedule called a "lectionary." It's just a fancy word meaning "selected readings." Posts like this reflect on the readings for an upcoming Sunday or other Church holiday, as found in the historic one-year lectionary.

The images in Galatians are vivid, to say the least. In this week’s reading from Galatians 4:21-31 the apostle Paul draws a night and day distinction. The children of Hagar, the slave woman, are altogether different from the children of Sarah, the free woman. The children of the flesh are different from the children of promise. The children of the Law are different from the children of the Gospel.

The apostle describes those who would wish to keep the law as children of slavery and bondage. Rather than depending on God’s promise, they strive to reach redemption by their own efforts. The efforts to earn salvation are going to be utterly fruitless. We are only able to achieve the level of our sinful, fallen nature.

This idea explains the possibly cryptic remark of verse 27. The one who is barren is Sarah. She is unable to give birth except for God’s promise. Her nature is to have no offspring. It is God who gives the increase. Although it didn’t appear that Sarah would have children, God’s promise was fulfilled. Her offspring cannot be counted. In this offspring all nations of the earth are blessed. God brings his promise to all the world.

So with Paul we ask whether you want to be children of the flesh or children of the promise. The promise of eternal life in Christ is free for all. That’s the kind of promise we need.

If this brief meditation was helpful to you, I hope you will check out the other materials on our website at www.WittenbergCoMo.com and consider supporting us.

Eucharist in Didache 9-10

3/18/2020

Wednesdays are for Bits and Pieces
3/18/20

Mazza, Enrico. “Didache 9-10: Elements of a Eucharistic Interpretation” pp. 276-299 in Draper, Jonathan (editor). The Didache in Modern Research. Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1996.

Mazza, after a brief survey of scholarship pertaining to the use of the term “eucharist” in Didache 9-10, notes that the heart of current debate is which of the Jewish ritual meals would give rise to this protion of the Didache (Mazza 1996, 277). The issue becomes more complex because the meal described in the Didache is not a Jewish ritual meal but apparently a Christian adaptation of some sort. It is also closely related to New Testament theology and practice, though the exact relationship is not clear (Mazza 1996, 278).

As to the special nature of this relationship among Jewish custom, the New Testament, and the Didache, Mazza provides a particularly interesting comment. “We must suppose that the Christian community had immediately begun to live according to the message of Christ in continuity with what the apostles had experienced in living with him. Under the influence of the Spirit his teaching matured in them and the memory of Jesus became the source from which they drew all that the community required by way of reputation for the growth of the faith” (Mazza 1996, 278, footnote 10). In effect, Mazza is alleging a direct connection of theology and practice between the Didache and the budding New Testament, though the literary articulations may have diverged. We would therefore look to the New Testament for further articulation of the ideas, rather than make an attempt to find dependence in the written forms.

Mazza therefore reviews the dating methodologies in more detail. The dating of the eucharistic prayers is an important element, chiefly because it can place the ritual meal in an historical context (Mazza 1996, 279). Audet takes the “Hosanna” statement of 10:6 to necessarily predate the fall of the temple and apparent end of the house of David. Mazza further considers that the statement about the “vine of David” is related to the Jerusalem council, though his argument at this point is not entirely explicit (Mazza 1996, 279). Jesus is described as the culmination of the House of David. Mazza notes that Jesus could be seen as working in direct and significant continuity with Judaism. An incipient Christianity with this level of philosophical continuity to Judaism could well say “the kingdom of David is an object of blessing as a historical reality, which has retained its saving power even in the new economy” (Mazza 1996, 280).

Mazza then observes that the council in Acts 15 was intended as a Christian response to those who expected a very high level of continuity, requiring that Gentile converts to Christianity be circumcised (Mazza 1996, 280-281). The apostolic response was that converts did not need to become Jewish but would keep some observances “to avoid unnecessary motives for conflict” (Mazza 1996, 281). There is no rejection of Peter’s affirmation of salvation by grace apart from works, but there is caution against actions which would, by their very nature, bring offense.

The importance of this conciliar decision is made clear, as Mazza notes, by Luke’s repetition of the decree three times. Not only is salvation by grace through faith, but the council clearly identifies Jesus as “Lord” rather than referring to Mosaic law or a history of a Davidic kingdom as the arbiter. Mazza concludes, “We do not believe that the conception of Did 9:2 is compatible with the theology represented by the Council of Jerusalem, and, therefore, we propose the Council of Jerusalem as the latest date for the two eucharistic texts of the Didache” (Mazza 1996, 281). Mazza places this council in 48 or 49, based on G. Bornkamm’s Paul (trns. D.M.G. Stalker, London: Holder & Stoughton 1971, p. 31) and L. Cerfaux’ introduction to Acts in the Jerusalem Bible (Paris: Les Editions du Cerf, 1958, p. 26).

Mazza further finds the vine of David theology depicting a very “close relationship between Judaism and Christianity” (Mazza 1996, 282). The strong sense of continuity suggests to Mazza a time closer to that described in Acts 2 than in Acts 15. The distance between Judaism and Christianity increased after the persecution which resulted in the death of Stephen (Mazza 1996, 283). For this reason, Mazza concludes that Didache 9-10 is best dated “in the first three or four years after the death and resurrection of Christ” (Mazza 1996, 283).

Mazza considers that Didache 14 unquestionably refers to a “Sunday eucharistic celebration” but that the evidence for chapters 9-10 is more tenuous (Mazza 1996, 283). He notes that the arguments for and against chapters 9-10 being viewed sacramentally differ in their nature and preclude any compromise agreement. The eucharistic texts do not clearly lead to a sacramental understanding. The flow of the arguments in chapters 1-8 does lead to a recognition of a sacrament (Mazza 1996, 284). However, between about 1960 and 1990 the trend was increasingly to view chapters 9-10 as eucharist rather than an “agape” meal. The issue is complicated by the fact that the narrative dates from an early period in which terminology may not have been used in a consistent manner.

Because of the difficulty in definition of the eucharist and its terminology, Mazza suggests that scholars have often assumed the meal of chapters 9-10 to be an agape, describing it in terms used by Tertullian and Hippolytus (Mazza 1996, 285). Mazza gathers that this “love-meal” existed within paganism but was not the same as any of the Jewish ritual meals. It was gradually adopted by Christian communities. The agape focuses on the people around the table, while the eucharist focuses on the Christ (Mazza 1996, 286). Because of the different focus, as well as the possibly later development, Mazza rejects the idea of this meal as an agape.

Mazza further considers whether the material in Didache 9-10 refers to a Jewish ritual meal. These ritual meals were centered around words - man blessing God, God blessing man. The meal may be seen as sacred, at least in part, because of an anamnesis - a remembering of God’s miraculous provision (Mazza 1996, 288). Mazza reviews the elements of a ritual meal with its various blessings and times of eating and drinking. The emphasis is not on any sort of effectual consecration but on the recognition of the Lord who provides all we have.

An important element in Mazza’s consideration is the fact that there is no narrative of the Words of Institution (Mazza 1996, 289). However, he cites the anaphora of Addai andMari as an example of a eucharistic liturgy from very early Christianity which lacks the Institution (Mazza 1996, 290). Mazza further notes that “the church of Malabar celebrated its own eucharist with an anaphora which does not contain the account of hte institution” (Mazza 1996, 291), but was not considered to be non-Christian. Mazza emphasizes that the important issue is celebrating the eucharist “in memory” of Jesus, the belief as opposed to the specific words (Mazza 1996, 292).

Mazza observes that the Didache does not include an institution narrative. “Usually, in order to accredit a fully eucharistic reading of chapters 9 and 10 of the Didache, people refer to the eucharistic use made of these texts in later documents” (Mazza 1996, 293). It is quite possible that a reference to a well-known piece of liturgy would havebeen considered sufficient to refer to the whole meaning. Mazza further states that in some cases the actual institution seems assumed in early liturgies and is stated in later ones. He explains. “One can allow that the Church of earliest times was aware of the ‘conformity’ of its own eucharist to the Lord’s Supper, without feeling the need to explain or formulate this conformity by making direct reference to the institution (Mazza 1996, 294, emphasis his). The celebration was in coformity to the Lord’s institution though it did not quote His institution.

In closing Mazza speaks of Didache 10:3 and the allusion to eternal life. There is a commemoration of food which all humans have, followed by a recognition of food which Christians receive (Mazza 1996, 295). From 1 Corinthians 10, Jesus says “do this in memory of me.” Mazza asks what “this” might be. First, Mazza notes that the supper points to Jesus’ death, as a bold proclamation. It does not line up exactly with the Passover, particularly as it has been repeated much more than once yearly (Mazza 1996, 296). The disciples would have understood what they were to do. We trust they did not violate that principle. With this in mind, Mazza walks through the different segments of Didache 9-10, finding a solidly Christological reinterpretation of the Jewish ritual meals. The thanksgiving of Didache 10:3 is reminiscent of the thanksgivings of Deuteronomy 8:10. Mazza finds this ritual meal to start as a parallel of the Old Testament precedent, but with the addition of the certain Christian hope of eternal life (Mazza 1996, 297). Additionally, Mazza notes that Didache 9-10 has no reference to a blessing of “the land,” a typical feature of Jewish thought. Rather than a land, the Christian looks to a less earthly promise of eternal life (Mazza 1996, 298). Jesus left his disciples with a new interpretation of an old meal custom. It bore new meaning along with some new content (Mazza 1996, 299).