Blog Posts - Wittenberg Door Campus Ministry

God's Building

12/21/2021

Tuesdays are for the Old Testament
12/21/21

Augustine. Exposition on the Book of Psalms. Schaff, Philip (editor). New York: Christian Literature Publishing Co, 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 127"

Augustine notes that Psalm 127 is attributed to Solomon. Though Solomon himself fell prey to his sinful desires, Augustine understands that his sin does not invalidate him entirely, or all humans would be of no account (Augustine Psalms, loc. 340655, par. 1). It is, after all, in verse one, the Lord who builds the house. Augustine allegorizes this to refer to the Church. Though apostles, prophets, and other humans labor, the growh comes from God (Augustine Psalms, loc. 340665, par. 1).

Augustine also considers that the Lord is building a city. This leads him to discuss the role of bishops. He sees it as a high position of service and responsibility, guarding the hearts and souls of the people (Augustine Psalms, loc. 340675, par. 2) The bishops still do not guard people of their own accord, but as the Lord directs (v. 1).

Verse two speaks of the folly of arising in the dark to work. Augustine takes this to speak of Christ as the light of the world. We therefore rise to follow Christ, rather than to work in the dark (Augustine Psalms, loc. 340689, par. 3). Augustine continues to describe the rising of Chrsit after his rest "on the cross" rather than in the tomb (Augustine Psalms, loc. 340699, par. 4). The cycle of resting and rising, as we are told of the rest of God's beloved (v. 3), becomes a message of death and resurrection (Augustine Psalms, loc. 340704, par. 4).

Verse three continues by comparing the beloved of the Lord to children born. Augustine again ties the concept of earthly birth to the work of the Church in the cycle of birth, death, and resurrection (Augustine Psalms, loc. 340714, par. 5). Verse four, then, speaking of children as arrows in the hand of a mighty one, naturally suggests God as the mighty one, placing his children near and far (Augustine Psalms, loc. 340719, par. 6).

Augustine also sees the work of revelation, carried out by the apostles and prophets, to be something built by the Lord, and propelled by His hand (Augustine Psalms, loc. 340734, par. 7). Verse five then speaks of the blessedness of desiring God's work, rather than our temporal pleasures. Augustine concludes, then, that our life is to be spent seeking God's glory (Augustine Psalms, loc. 340744, par. 8).

Now About . . .

12/20/2021

12/20/21
Scholarly Reflections

Garrow, Alan J.P. "Chapter Five: The Peri Layer: 6.1-3; 7.1a, c, e, 4a; 9.1-5a; 11.3a, 4-6; 16.1-6, 8-9." The Gospel of Matthew's Dependence on the Didache. New York: T&T Clark International, 2004, 93-106.

Gorrow theorizes a redactional layer in the Didache which features frequent use of περὶ δὲ, hence called the "peri" layer. This layer, he thinks, sheds light on the eucharistic prayers of chapters 9-10 (Garrow 2004, 93).

There is a striking parallel between Didache 7.1a and 9.1. Both passages introduce a concept with περὶ δὲ followed by a genitive of a conceptual noun. Garrow thinks, however, that due to the phrasing of baptismal formulas (7.1, no article, 7.3, article, otherwise "the name of the Lord" rather than a trinitarian statement), he can discern different layers of redaction (Garrow 2004, 94). Scholars do disagree whetehr the various statements show differences in time of composition, as well as possibly indicating a move from allowing anyone to baptize to having specifically designated ministers (Garrow 2004, 94-95). Garrow takes the statements to be an insertion, made clumsily, as evidenced by the change from a plural to a singular address and the lack of instructions about the length of a fast (Garrow 2004, 95).

Garrow considers the peri layer not to have begun with 7.1, but that the statement in 7.1 indicates a change of topic. This suggests to Garrow that there is a link reaching back into the Two Ways materials. For this, he goes to 6.1-3 (Garrow 2004, 97). He then argues that it would be unusual to use two different types of teaching together (Jewish ethics and baptismal instructions) without inserting material that could suggest a relationship (Garrow 2004, 99). To him, this is the redactional layer which justifies the importance of baptism. Garrow's analysis gradually expands material he fits into the peri layer, as he includes anything which could be understood as coordinating two unconnected ideas (Garrow 2004, 100).

Based on this conclusion, Garrow moves to 11.3a, 4-6, dealing with apostles (Garrow 2004, 101). Again, he finds some statements which could seem disjointed, particularly in 11.3-6. Verses 7-12 are only loosely arranged, but do not seem as startling as the earlier passage.

Garrow effectively takes the instructions about apostles and prophets to have been awkward and require sommothing out and also to have been smooth, thus becoming more awkward when material is inserted. The community understanding was not rightly expressed in terms of apostles and prophets, so the text was changed to partially reflect a change of attitude (Garrow 2004, 102-103). In my opinion, this entire line of reasoning is needlessly complicated.

Garrow finally ties the peri layer to chapter 16, as he observes a similarity between 6.1-3 and 16.1-2, which urge diligence in pursuit of godliness (Garrow 2004, 105). He does foreshadow subsequent chapters in his book in which he will delve into the various ideas in more depth.

Pre-Baptism Teaching

12/17/2021

12/17/21
Scholarly Reflections

Garrow, Alan J.P. "Chapter Four: Elements Within Didache 1-5." The Gospel of Matthew's Dependence on the Didache. New York: T&T Clark International, 2004, 67-92.

Didache 1-5 is presented as pre-baptismal catechesis, which provides ethical guidance for the Christian life. Garrow notes that the material incorporates other early traditions. The Didache material can be compared with the other similar texts, especially Barnabas 18-20, to evaluate integrity of the teaching (Garrow 2004, 67). The material in Didache 1.3-6, or alternatively 1.3b-2.1, appears to have a specifically Christian influence. It is also, significantly, not present in the Latin Doctrina Apostolorum. Otherwise, the Doctrina Apostolorum hasa very close relatinship to the Didache's Two Ways material (Garrow 2004, 68).

Garrow notes that the passage which is considered an interpolation does not show the relatively artful work of a redactor which he would expect, unless the interpolation begins at 1.3a (Garrow 2004, 69-70). The Doctrina differs from the Didache at other points as wll, as does the Dead Sea material. In particular, Doctrina is not as forceful in its descriptions of the outcome for those who fall short in the Way of Life, when compared with the other texts (Garrow 2004, 74).

Garrow entertains the idea that there may be two layers of redaction which led to the current text of Didache 1.3-6 (Garrow 2004, 75). He concludes that 1.3-5a and 1.5b-6 are different elements which entered the teaching as independent sayings at different times (Garrow 2004, 77). Taken as a whole, Garrow's inclination is to take the individual sayings in this part of the Didache to be independent in their origin, but to have been gathered and organized prior to being drawn into the Didache (Garrow 2004, 83). He generalizes this tendency to the entirety of 1.3-5a. This passage has a relatively rhythmic structure, while the rest of the Two Ways does not show such care in word choice or arrangement (Garrow 2004, 84).

Garrow recognizes that it would be beyond the scope of his book to review every place in the Didache where there may be a textual insertion. However, 1.2 and 5.2 are locations he considers important in his overall picture. 1.2, with a "golden rule" statement, has no parallel in Barnabas (Garrow 2004, 85). The golden rule statement, not present in all Two Ways versions, may well have been part of the collection of sayings used els3where. Garrow further takes 5.2a, 5.2b, and 6.1 to be statements added at three different times (Garrow 2004, 88). Garrow makes his argument here based on thier absence in Barnabas. Garrow does concede the parallel of 6.1 in Doctrina Apostolorum, a fact which has led some to consider it part of the source material used in the Didache (Garrow 2004, 89). However, Doctrina uses it in a very smooth manner compared to its use in the Didache. The verse does, however, provide a transition into the discussion of baptism (Garrow 2004, 90).

Garrow closes the chapter by detailing segments of Didache 1-5 which he believers were inserted after the original composition (Garrow 2004, 90-92). He considers this chapter and his chapters 2 and 3 to lay the groundwork for the upcoming analysis of compositional history.

Didache 16 and Eschatology

12/16/2021

12/16/21
Scholarly Reflections

Garrow, Alan J.P. "Chapter Three: The Integrity of Didache 16." The Gospel of Matthew's Dependence on the Didache. New York: T&T Clark International, 2004, 29-66.

Garrow sees Didache 16 and Didache 1 as significant contact points with Matthew's Gospel. Because an understanding of Didache 16.5 is important to interpretation of other passages, Garrow starts by discussing that concept, a "curse that saves" (Garrow 2004, 29).

The mostobvious and popular interpretation of this curse is that it refers to Jesus, becoming a curse (Garrow 2004, 29). One difficulty with this point of view is the lack of an established case being made for Jesus as the curse within the Didache (Garrow 2004, 30). If the connection was made adequately in early Christian thought, this would not be a significant problem. However, it is odd that only here would there be a connection, while elsewhere in the Didache Jesus is referred to simply as "the Lord" (Garrow 2004, 31). Garrow spends considerable time discussing Milavec's view of the curse and the motif of burning, along with responses to Milavec's work (Garrow 2004, 33ff).

Garrow goes on to discuss the possibility that the text of the Didache is missing some parts of chapter 16 (Garrow 2004, 39). The ending is abrupt and not representative of material often included in eschatological texts. The manuscript's remaining half-page of space in a codex where all other available space is filled also suggests the scribe Leon expected there to be more to be included (Garrow 2004, 40).

Garrow considers whether a study of redaction history could make matters more clear (Garrow 2004, 43). 16.7, which many see as a gloss, disrupts the flow of eschatological events. The theory Garrow puts forth is that a longer version of the chapter was somehow truncated, then verse six was inserted to make sense of the shorter version (Garrow 2004, 44). Attempts to reconstruct the longer version generally depend on the agreement between statements in the Apostolic Constitutions and the Renunciation of Boniface (Garrow 2004, 45). Both texts have similarities to the extant material of Didache 16. Garrow also observes a parallel of material in Didache 16 and Revelation 14 (Garrow 2004, 47). He does, however, note there are differences in wording among various passages.

Because Garrow has suggested that Apostolic Constitutions 32 may have depended on a longer version of Didache 16, he considers the authenticity and influences on Const. 32 (Garrow 2004, 50ff). He then conflates Didache 16 and Const. 32 to reconsstruct an "original" reading of Didache 16 (Garrow 2004, 57). The reconstructed text can then be evaluated as a piece of narrative to consider whether it has the kind of balanced structure to be expected in the Didache (Garrow 2004, 60). Garrow does find a balanced system of parallelism in the passage.

Garrow concludes that there is a level of integrity to be found in Did. 16.3-6, 8-9, but that 16.1-2 came from a different period of redaction. He also thinks that both passages of chapter 16 were added at the same time (Garrow 2004, 66).

Eucharist? Something Else?

12/15/2021

12/15/21
Scholarly Reflections

Garrow, Alan J.P. "Chapter Two: The 'Eucharistic' Prayers in Didache 9 and 10." The Gospel of Matthew's Dependence on the Didache. New York: T&T Clark International, 2004, 13-28.

There is considerable scholarly disagreement about what actual liturgical celebration is described in Didache 9-10. Garrow notes that there are five actions described, and that the difficulty arises from attempts to identify all five in any one liturgical event (Garrow 2004, 14). Didache 10.1 powerfully indicates a meal which is filling. 10.6 invites the repentant to come as a participant in the liturgy (Garrow 2004, 15). It speaks as describing a future event, not one which just happened. In the interim, 10.2-5 is a thanksgiving for use after a meal, presumably the one which was found filling in 10.1. The scholarly world has a high degree of agreement on this issue, as well as the similarity between 10.2-5 and a Jewish Birkat Ha-Mazon (Garrow 2004, 17). The order of elements in 10.2-5 suggests to Mazza and Garrow that the prayer may be intended as a transition from a time of receiving physical food to a time for spiritual food and drink (Garrow 2004, 19). In the analysis, we then back up to 9.1-5, in which Garrow sees the reading being skewed by scholarly reading of 10.1 (Garrow 2004, 19). Here there is a thanksgiving over a "fragment," rather than over "bread," along with a cup. This is strongly suggestive of the eucharist, particularly when we recognize the parallel statement of 9.1 with 7.1, which introduced baptism (Garrow 2004, 20).

Having reviewed the texts, Garrow enumerates five actions which he considers to creat an incompatibility. These actions are, "1. Did. 9.2-4: thanksgivings prior to a eucharist. 2. Did. 9.5; the eating of a eucharist (implied). 3. Did. 10.1: a filling meal (implied). 4. Did. 10.2-3a, 4-5: a thanksgiving after a filling meal. 5. Did. 10.3b, 6: preparation for, and invitation to, a eucharist." (Garrow 2004, 21). The two apparent eucharists do not make sense in one event. As a result, some scholars have attempted to reinterpret either 9.2-5 or 10.6.

In some scenarios, scholars have attempted to understand 10.6 as an inserted rubric inviting people to come to a future celebration or possibly as a dismissal referring to attendance at a liturgy which is now complete. A few have suggested the statement was moved and belongs at an earlier location. Garrow does not consider these attempts to be satisfactory (Garrow 2004, 23).

Another, and probably the most common, way of dealing with the difficulty is to take the event as a filling meal which then introduces the eucharist. 10.2-5 gives thanks for the meal, the 10.6 introduces the eucharist (Garrow 2004, 23). This causes us to understand 9.2-5 as something other than a eucharist. Some take 9.2-5 as prayers for a filling meal, despite the language of a "fragment." Another theory takes the material from chapter nine as prayers which were later associated with an agape meal, though they may have had eucharistic significance at some point (Garrow 2004, 23). All these proposed solutions fail to persuade Garrow (Garrow 2004, 24).

Garrow suggests that the "fragment" language of chapter nine could be explained by a preceding meal at which bread was broken, thus introducing a sixth action, the "meal before the thanksgiving over the cup and the fragment" (Garrow 2004, 25). This in turn suggests that we are presented with two accounts of one event, which includes a full meal and a eucharistic celebration (Garrow 2004, 25-26). Garrow presents a side-by-side comparison (English) of chapters 9 and 10, identifying the significant level of parallelism (Garrow 2004, 26-27).

What Garrow fails to do, in my opinion, is to provide a reason for the presence of the parallel accounts. He comes no closer than concluding that the two accounts belonged to two layers of redaction (Garrow 2004, 28).

December 2021 / January 2022 Newsletter

12/14/2021

Our December/January Newsletter Is Here (at last)!

December 2021 / January 2022 Newsletter

Sorrow in Work, Joy in Harvest

12/14/2021

Tuesdays are for the Old Testament
12/14/21

Augustine. Exposition on the Book of Psalms. Schaff, Philip (editor). New York: Christian Literature Publishing Co, 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 126"

Augustine begins his comments on Psalm 126 by noting that we sinful humans have given ourselves over into bondage to sin, and cannot redeem ourselves from that slavery (Augustine Psalms, loc. 340564, par. 1). Verse one speaks of the redeemed people of Zion receiving the comfort of the Lord. To understand Zion, or Jerusalem, as being both captive and the eternal heavenly city, Augustine sees the earthly Jerusalem as a shadowy representative of the heavenly one (Augustine Psalms, loc. 340569, par. 2). In verse two, our mouth is filled with joy. Augustine sees the "mouth" as a representative of the heart, which the Lord fills with joy (Augustine Psalms, loc. 340584, par. 3).

Because the heart is to be full of joy, it is necessary to guard the heart from evil (Augustine Psalms, loc. 340594, par. 5). This is done, as we understand from verse three, by remembering what the Lord has done for us. Even for those in sin, the Lord has done good (Augustine Psalms, loc. 340600, par. 6). His work is described in verse four as akin to a work of melting ice, reating a torrent of water (Augustine Psalms, loc. 340604, par. 7).

God's work of mercy brings a joyful harvest, even after sorrow in the time of planting (Augustine Psalms, loc. 340609, par. 8). We do works of mercy, and we look forward to a harvest. Augustine describes several ways in which Christians can plant their good works, and the corresponding harvests.

Matthew Before or After the Didache?

12/13/2021

12/13/21
Scholarly Reflections

Garrow, Alan J.P. "Chapter One: Introduction." The Gospel of Matthew's Dependence on the Didache. New York: T&T Clark International, 2004, 1-8.

Garrow relates the Didache to a map which, when discovered, appears valuable, but which is of only very limited usefulness due to the lack of a key. The time and location of composition, as well as the question of literary dependence were uresolved, thus leaving the work without meaningful and necessary context. Garrow's plan is "to present a detailed map of the relationship between Matthew's Gospel and the Didache." (Garrow 2004, 2).

The Didache has been considered to have a date after Matthew's Gospel due to its manuscript location among Apostolic Fathers and the "four references to 'the gospel' (8.2b; 11.3b; 15.3-4) amid, in the case of 8.2b especially, the passages that relate closely to Matthean material" (Garrow 2004, 3). This second argument has a fundamental weakness, since the Didache is widely considered to have undergone several layers of redaction, so these statements may not have been present from the start. Garrow summarizes his counter-argument to be "a relatively simple explanation of the two texts' relationship: namely, that various elements (disparate in terms of style, origin and age) were incorporated into the Didache over time and that, at a later date, Matthew drew on the resulting text in the construction of his gospel" (Garrow 2004, 4-5).

In Garrow's opinion, the redactional history proposed by other scholars has always presupposed the pre-existence of Matthew. This has skewed the scholarly consensus on the dating of the Didache, while it has also created some difficulties, such as requiring that different redactors would have used material in the same way as each other (Garrow 2004, 6). It also suggests that Matthew and the Didachist repeatedly gathered material from the same version of the same tradition. This strikes Garrow as unlikely (Garrow 2004, 7).

Evaluating Non-Canonical Gospel Traditions

12/10/2021

12/10/21
Scholarly Reflections

Bauckham, Richard. "Chapter Thirteen: The Study of Gospel Traditions Outisde the Canonical Gospels: Problems and Prospects." in Wenham, David (editor), The Jesus Tradition Outside the Gospels. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1984, 369-403.

Bauckham notes that the field of scholarship of Christian literature other than the canonical material has been neglected. However, he says, "there is a good deal of relevant material which is roughly contemporary with the canonical Gospels, while the material which is later is not necessarily unimportant because of its date" (Wenham [editor] 1984, 370). For this reason, he provides numerous reasons for study of "Gospel traditions outside the canonical Gospels" (Wenham [editor] 1984, 370).

There were certainly contemporaneous acounts of early Christian practices and doctrines. Luke's Gospel mentions "many" works (1:1) (Wenham [editor] 1984, 371). It is highly unlikely that the written and oral traditions would have disappeared when the canonical works were first published, or even that written records would have stopped being created at that time (Wenham [editor] 1984, 372). The Gospel tradition should be assumed to be spread freely for some time.

Study of the non-canonical works can be of value for several reasons. The non-caonical works can shed light on the way topics brought up in the canonical materials were understood at the time of composition (Wenham [editor] 1984, 375) They suggest how the Gospel traditions were applied to life.

Bauckham observes that the canonical Gospels derived their material from somewhere. Occasionally the non-canonical works point to similar sources or may tend to show a pathway which a tradition followed as it was adopted for use (Wenham [editor] 1984, 377). Bauckham develops this theme in some detail.

Reserach in this field has many interesting opportunities. However, Bauckham considers three areas of difficulty which require concentrated effort. First, it is difficult (at best) to know whether an author is making a purposeful allusion to another work (Wenham [editor] 1984, 383). Second, the quest for dependence is one which provides us with considerable difficulty. In a manner similar to identifying allusions, the scholar's judgment and predispositions play a significant role (Wenham [editor] 1984, 385). Thirdly, the interplay of orality and textuality is of greater importance than we might have assumed in the past (Wenham [editor] 1984, 385). Oral traditions are, by nature, invisible, thus they are very hard to trace. Yet they can both spring from and lead toward written records. Bauckham sees all three problems easily mixing together, creating countless challenges.

As a case study, Bauckham considers the difficulty of establishing dependence between Matthew and Ignatius (Wenham [editor] 1984, 386). He finds a common assumption that Ignatius was dependent on Matthew, but no consensus on the reasons or evidence.

Bauckham considers that the letters of Ignatius can be dated fairly reliably to about 107 (Wenham [editor] 1984, 388). Matthew's Gospel, which is normally considered to have been written in Antioch a few decades earlier, would probably have been known to Ignatius. However, Ignatius may well have known Gospel traditions before becoming familiar with Matthew (Wenham [editor] 1984, 389). His work has allusions to traditions, some of which would be used by Matthew, some of which would not (Wenham [editor] 1984, 390).

Bauckham details numerous possible scenarios of influence or dependence, all of which would need to be considered in each of the places where similarity of ideas and wording would suggest quotations or allusions (Wenham [editor] 1984, 391-392). The task can readily be seen as a monumental one. Bauckham observes that in his research he has not found authors who have studied all the possible scenarios for a passage, but that reserachers have addressed some of the possibilities of many (Wenham [editor] 1984, 393).

Jesus in Secular Late Antiquity

12/9/2021

12/9/21
Scholarly Reflections

Harris, Murray J. "Chapter Twelve: References to Jesus in Early Classical Authors." in Wenham, David (editor), The Jesus Tradition Outside the Gospels. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1984, 343-368.

Harris uses the term, "early classical authors" in a way unfamiliar to me, and possibly to others. He is speaking of late antiquity, during the "silver Latin" period of the Roman empire. The four authors he deals with are Tacitus, Suetonius, the younger Pliny, and Thallus (Wenham [editor] 1984, 343).

Thallus was a Christian author, preserved in fragments. He does describe the darkness which coincided with the crucifixion (Wenham [editor] 1984, 343). Thallus is commented on by Julius Africanus, by Josephus, and by Eusebius.

Pliny the Younter (ca. 61-112 AD) served as a legate to Bithynia beginning in 110. Letters 96 and 97 of book 10 of his formal letters deal with the problem of Christianity (Wenham [editor] 1984, 345). His description of Christian meetings and ethics shows the Christians believed in Jesus as God and would assemble regularly for worship, prayer, and to sing (Wenham [editor] 1984, 346).

Tacitus (ca. 56-117 or after), in his Annals and Histories, provides a good deal of information about past events of the first century. In his description of the great fires of Rome (64 AD), he describes Nero as shifting blame for the fire from himself to Christians (Wenham [editor] 1984, 348). This may well have simply been an excuse to persecute Christians, rather than any suspicion that the Christians were arsonists. Tacitus does identify the Christians as followers of Jesus, executed under the command of Pilate (Wenham [editor] 1984, 349). Tacitus seems adequately certain of his facts, which he includes in accounts normally accepted as well researched. What is especially compelling to Harris is that the sources used by Tacitus appear hostile to Christians, yet they catalog events affirmed by friendly sources as well (Wenham [editor] 1984, 351).

Suetonius, ca 69-130 AD, was a prolific author working with a broad range of interests (Wenham [editor] 1984, 353). In book five of Lives, he describes Claudius' expulsion of Jews from Rome due to their involvement in riots regarding "Christ." Harris takes this to be a clear reference to conflicts between Jews and Christians (Wenham [editor] 1984, 354). Suetonius seems to refer to this as a title, not a proper name of an individual. He does seem to assume that Christ was in Rome and involved in the riots, but Harris considers this a reasonable misunderstanding (Wenham [editor] 1984, 355).

Harris concludes that the few details provided are significant corroboration of the time, means of execution, and subsequent controversy about Jesus (Wenham [editor] 1984, 357). Christianity may have received little attention because it was considered a religion to be ignored and scorned (Wenham [editor] 1984, 358). For this reason, historians only mentioned it if it seemed compelling. Harris concludes that the mention of Christianity in these circumstances is of great value.

Jesus in Jewish Traditions

12/8/2021

12/8/21
Scholarly Reflections

Twelftree, Graham H. "Chatper Eleven: Jesus in Jewish Traditions." in Wenham, David (editor), The Jesus Tradition Outside the Gospels. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1984, 289-341.

Twelftree in this paper is specifically investigating what Jewish authors tell us about the historic Jesus, not what they may have said which is less closely connected to this factual base of information (Wenham [editor] 1984, 289). He is particularly interested in what can be gleaned from Josephus and rabbinic materials.

Josephus lived approximately AD 37-92. He had strong commitments to his Jewish faith but also became fairly pro-Roman as he gained patronage from the imperial family (Wenham [editor] 1984, 290). Twelftree finds in his writings both a desire to pursue historical accuracy and a desire to mediate pece between the Jews and Romans so as to protect the Jews from harm (Wenham [editor] 1984, 292).

To consider what Josephus might know about Jesus and Christians, Twelftree evaluates passages where Josephus and the Gospels overlap. In the instance of the death of John the Baptist, he concludes that many of the same facts are recorded, but the accounts do not seem to use the same sources of information (Wenham [editor] 1984, 295).

If Josephus were interested in the events surrounding Jesus and Christianity, it is reasonable to expect he would have known them and could use them (Wenham [editor] 1984, 296). Twelftree does think it very likely that Josephus would have known a significant amount about Christians. However, he doesn't necessarily seem to consider Jesus as a very important character (Wenham [editor] 1984, 297). While Twelftree shows that Josephus makes numerous mentions of Jesus, he does not seem to consider his Messianic identity to be an important factor. A challenge in this regard is that some of our passages of Josephus come to us only as quoted by Eusebius, who may have interspersed Christian commentary with quoted text (Wenham [editor] 1984, 302). Twelftree evaluates numerous passages, each time considering whether it would be likely for strongly Christian statements to have been interpolated by Christian copyists. In the end, Twelftree concludes that the picture of Jesus in Josephus is almost always influenced by Christian copyists, with Ant. 18:63f as the only exception (Wenham [editor] 1984, 310).

Rabbinic traditions pose difficulties as well, often because they are hard to date, rather than due to editorial changes (Wenham [editor] 1984, 311). There is also a tendency toward historical revisionism, placing Jesus in radically different times or places than history would indicate (Wenham [editor] 1984, 314). Twelftree does identify some narratives about Jesus' trial and death, however, they don't seem to have much internal consistency and they suggest a lengthier process than can be found in the Gospels (Wenham [editor] 1984, 320-321). Twelftree concludes that the most reliable material suggests that Jesus had at least five disciples and that at least two of them may have had names similar to some of those mentioned in the Gospels (Wenham [editor] 1984, 324). This is exceedingly slim evidence.

Security Is a Mind Fixed on God

12/7/2021

Tuesdays are for the Old Testament
12/7/21

Exposition on the Book of Psalms. Schaff, Philip (editor). New York: Christian Literature Publishing Co, 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 125"

Augustine considers the theme of Psalm 125 to be that of raising our minds to God rather than fixing them on human instability (Augustine Psalms, loc. 340456, par. 1). The people who trust in the Lord (v. 1), dwelling in Jerusalem (v. 2), have security. Augustine does not consider it possible that these are dwellers in the earthly Jerusalem, but that they look to their heavenly home (Augustine Psalms, loc. 340462, par. 3). This, in verse two, is the city with mountains around it, which Augustine identifies as "preachers of truth, whether Angels, or Apostles, or Prophets" (Augustine Psalms, loc. 340472, par. 4). These are the mountains which receive peace from the Lord. He, as Augustine had noted earlier in the Psalms, is the one who shines light on the mountains (Augustine Psalms, loc. 340481, par. 5). He is the one who guards his people forever.

Verse three speaks of the Lord's work of removing the rod of the ungodly from God's righteous people. Augustine takes this to be a work God accomplishes through His Church, which God uses in conflict to the works of the ungodly (Augustine Psalms, loc. 340510, par. 7). He goes on to describe people in their struggle as they work within their various vocations. While there remain conflicts between the godly and ungodly, in the last day, Christ will show his victory over the ungodly (Augustine Psalms, loc. 340539, par. 8). This is the prayer of the Psalmist in verse four. The Lord must lead his people (v. 5) in truth and joy (Augustine Psalms, loc. 340544, par. 10). Augustine sees the hope of the Christian to be bound up with the peace of Christ leading his people.

The Didache and Jesus

12/6/2021

12/6/21
Scholarly Reflections

Draper, Jonathan. "Chapter Ten: The Jesus Tradition in the Didache." in Wenham, David (editor), The Jesus Tradition Outside the Gospels. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1984, 269-287.

Draper briefly summarizes the scholarship on the Didache before concluding that it is most likely from the first century (Wenham [editor] 1984, 269). Identifying sources of its contents poses a scholarly problem, in large part due to its apparently early date. Much scholarship has considered the Epistle of Barnabas ch. 18-20 as a source of the "Two Ways" material in chapters 1-6 (Wenham [editor] 1984, 270). This would place the document in the second century, then open the door to its dependence on Synoptic materials. However, the discovery of the Manual of Discipline amongthe Dead Sea Scrolls has suggested that the Two Ways materials could have an earlier foundation. J.P. Audet's work suggests that most of the first ten chapters of the Didache were written about 50-70 AD, prior to the publication of any canonical Gospel (Wenham [editor] 1984, 270). Draper agrees that the work is composite in natuer and that it went through editorial changes before reaching its current form.

The "Jesus tradition" materials in the Didache are mostly contained in 1:3b-2:1; 8, and 15:3-4 (Wenham [editor] 1984, 271). Draper takes these portions to be from the last phase of the work's development . He also observes that the passages are not clearly tied to the Synoptics, but could well be making reference to an oral tradition. This idea is promoted by the Didache's apparent dependence on elements of Jewish tradition which are not given a specifically New Testament interpretation (Wenham [editor] 1984, 272). Draper takes the trinitarian formula for baptism in 7:1 to be a later insertion, in which he sees the formula and its precursor of being baptized "into the Lord's name" as the earlier tradition. The prayers around the eucharist may resenble a Jewish Berakoth more than John chapter six.

Draper repeatedly concludes that elements of the Didache which seem to reflect New Testament, and particularly Matthean, patterns are more likely to derive from other materials, possibly those which were source material for the Synoptic authors (Wenham [editor] 1984, 273). For convenience, Draper lays some of this material out side by side (Wenham [editor] 1984, 274-276). He then describes the language use as "often clumsier than that of the Synoptic Gospels" (Wenham [editor] 1984, 276), which indicates an earlier date. Word choice also tends to reflect Jewish culture, rather than Christian developments (Wenham [editor] 1984, 27). Most important, Draper does not find any of the sayings to demonstrate dependence on Matthew or Luke (Wenham [editor] 1984, 278).

Draper particularly discusses Didache 8, which cites a "gospel" (Wenham [editor] 1984, 279). However, he considers the chapter to be a later insertion, as it breaks up the natural flow in the catechetical manual from baptism to eucharist (Wenham [editor] 1984, 279). Yet even here, Draper sees it as largely independent of Matthew.

Draper continues by reviewing the apocalyptic material from Didache 16 (Wenham [editor] 1984, 280). Though there are similarities to Matthew 24, the language and order don't suggest dependence.

Draper's overall conclusion is that the Didache drew on material which was also used by Matthew and Luke but not by Mark except when also present in Matthew and Luke (Wenham [editor] 1984, 284).

Sayings of Jesus in the Apostolic Fathers

12/3/2021

12/3/21
Scholarly Reflections

Hagner, Donald A. "Chapter Nine: The Sayings of Jesus in the Apostolic Fathers and Justin Martyr." in Wenham, David (editor), The Jesus Tradition Outside the Gospels. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1984, 233-268.

Hagner, recognizing the space between the events of the Gospels and the written Gospels themselves, observes we would expect there to exist authoritative accounts of Jesus' actions and teachings. One would therefore expect to find some mentioned in early Christian writings even if they were not included in the canonical Gospel accounts (Wenham [editor] 1984, 233). Hagner notes that there are relatively few passages in the 1st and 2nd century FAthers which are clearly intended to be understood as quotes from or allusions to words of Jesus. He catalogs a number for us (Wenham [editor] 1984, 234ff). Of special interest is an oral marker in 1 Clement 13, where we are told to "remember." This suggests that Clement may know the sayings from an oral tradition rather than a written one, which could be consulted rather than being remembered (Wenham [editor] 1984, 235). Polycarp uses some of the same material in a different order, and with a slightly different wording. Though Hagner thinks Polycarp was familiar with 1 Clement, he doesn't seem to depend on it here (Wenham [editor] 1984, 236).

1 Clement 46:8 makes a reference to two sayings of Jesus which are not in proximity to each other in the Gospels. The ideas, though not all the wording, are used by some other Church Fathers, but without the focused structure and vocablyar which would point to a literal dependence (Wenham [editor] 1984, 231).

The seven letters of Ignatius have a few possible allusions to the Gospels, with one presented as a direct quote of Jesus (Smyrn. 3.2). The sayings are not identical in wording to anything in the Scriptures. Jerome and Origen attribute the statements to non-canonical sources (Wenham [editor] 1984, 239).

Polycarp makes a few statements which are at least allusive to Synoptic material. However, Hagner notes they are in relatively strongly liturgical statements which are brief and epigrammatic so the relationship is difficult to identify (Wenham [editor] 1984, 240).

Considering the Didache, Hagner finds a large amount of material which appears closely related to Synoptic material, but which is difficult to consider. 9:5 uses an introductory formula, then quotes Matthew 7:6 (Wenham [editor] 1984, 240). 8:1 makes associations between hypocrisy and fasting, similar to Matthew 6:16 (Wenham [editor] 1984, 241). The Lord's Prayer is then given in a form almost identical to that in Matthew 6:9ff. Here, it is "as the Lord commanded in his gospel," a clause Hagner takes to refer to a tradition other than Matthew's written work. The same idea occurs with the trinitarian formula in 7:1, compared with Matthew 28:19 (Wenham [editor] 1984, 241).

Didache 1:2 juxtaposes Deuteronomy 6:5 and Levitics 19:18b, very much like Matthew 22:37-39 and Mark 12:29-31 (Wenham [editor] 1984, 241). However, Hagner thinks this may be a reference to a common Jewish pattern, as is the similarity of the negative statement of the Golden Rule in 1:2.

I quote the following as it identifies passages which my research should evaluate specifically. "Other passages that deserve mention are 11.7 (Matt 12:31; cf Mark 3:28); 13.1-2 (Matt 10:10; cf Luke 10:7; 1 Tim 5:18); 16.1 (Matt 24:42, 44) and 16.3-5 (Matt 24:10-13). There is no convincing allusion to Ats (cf. 4.8 with Acts 4:32), and in only one instance does an OT allusion (Ps 37:11) occur also in one of the Gospels (Matt 5:5) and the Didache (3.7)." (Wenham [editor] 1984, 241). The case for dependence on the written Gospels is weak, while that for dependence on oral tradition is strong.

Hagner considers the Epistle of Barnabas to make little reference to the Ne wTestament, though there are a few possible connections when Old Testament ideas are used by Barnabas and by the Synoptic authors (Wenham [editor] 1984, 242).

The Shepherd of Hermas makes numerous allusions to the Synoptics, but they are never introduced as quotations. It is not clear to Hagner in any instances whether the material is drawn from the New Testament or from other materials (Wenham [editor] 1984, 243).

2 Clement probably moves us into the second half of the second century. It contains many clear allusions to the Gospels and introduces them clearly (Wenham [editor] 1984, 244). Hagner reviews those which contain introductory formulas. Some of the statements appear to be direct quotations and some gradually diverge in their wording. Hagner acknowledges that this could be due to citation from memory or citation of a different source tradition (Wenham [editor] 1984, 245).

Justin Martyr provides more material for consideration than Hagner considers practicable. However, he does review some representative samples (Wenham [editor] 1984, 247ff). Justin is clearly using written sources, which he refers to as written works which are read in gatherings on Sundays (Wenham [editor] 1984, 248).

Hagner concludes that all these early Fathers were probably writing after the Synoptic Gospels had been written (Wenham [editor] 1984, 249). The lack of specific citation or quotation of these works on the same level as quotation of the Old Testament is not surprising, especially in the earlier period. The differences in wroding may easily be attributed to making reference to the material from memory (Wenham [editor] 1984, 250). However, Hagner considers it significant to consider that non-canonical sources could also be used for quotation or paraphrase. This could explain the very careful use of parallelism and euphony found in some of the syaings of Jesus. Oral tradition and catechesis regularly uses statements presented in a highly memorable manner. Hagner observes that this would sill be the case at the time of Justin, when the canonical sources were being recognized as prominent (Wenham [editor] 1984, 251).

Hagner cites the improtance f orality as evidenced by Eusemius' comments on both. Papias and Irenaeus, who considered the words of a witness or a tradent as bearing special authority (Wenham [editor] 1984, 251). The seat of authority only gradually moved from oral transmission to written transmission of truth (Wenham [editor] 1984, 252). This gradual move complicates the work of identification of the source of written statements. The authority was seen to rest in Jesus, not in the report of his words. The means of the report may not have been considered vey important (Wenham [editor] 1984, 253). The work of the Apostles was considered important primarily because they were transmitting the words of Jesus to the next generation (Wenham [editor] 1984, 255).

Hagner notes that transmission of authoritative truth was understood at the time of the New Testament to take place both throguh oral and written means (Wenham [editor] 1984, 255). The oral tradition could frequently be considered superior in terms of its authenticity and authority. The slight verbal adaptations of Jesus' teachings are very slight, though the narratives which introduce them show more variety (Wenham [editor] 1984, 256). The tradition was well guarded, particularly while the eyewitnesses still lived. It was after that period that the written texts were necessary to guard accuracy.

Apocryphal Gospels and Jesus' Teaching

12/2/2021

12/2/21
Scholarly Reflections

Wright, David F. "Chapter Eight: Apocryphal Gospels: The 'Unknown Gospel' (Pap. Egerton 2) and the Gospel of Peter." in Wenham, David (editor), The Jesus Tradition Outside the Gospels. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1984, 207-232.

Wright, observing that the apocryphal gospels have normally been seen as dependent on the Synoptics and as intent on drawing apologetic conlsuion, sees the Gospel of Thomas as strikingly different. Some of the content strikes many scholars as older than the Synoptic gospels, suggesting that Thomas may be of great importance in determining ocntent of old Jesus traditions (Wenham [editor] 1984, 207). Along with the "unkown gospel" found in the Egerton Papyrus, the Gospel of Peter, and a few other works, Wright thinks we may have helpful sources for evaluation of very early Chrsitian faith (Wenham [editor] 1984, 208). Writht further considers that we find little specific evidence from Christian writers in the first two centuries elevating canonical materials above those we would now consider non-canonical. He therefore suggests the writings were rightly consider as of similar value.

A challenge in studies of early documents is centered in the simple fact that we have relatively little information. A catalog of texts and fragments from the second and third centuries shows that the canonical gospels, particularly the Fourth Gospel, appear more than the apocryphal owrks (Wenham [editor] 1984, 208). When we consider use or apparent knowledge of other works, the picture is not so clear. Authors may well have known, or known of, documents which they would not consider authoritative (Wenham [editor] 1984, 209).

The "Unknown Gospel" is known to us in "three papyrus fragments first published in 1935" (Wenham [editor] 1984, 210). The material is possibly part of a compilation of ideas used in the canonical Gospels but not clearly related in a literary manner. Wright presents the first pericope and makes comments on it (Wenham [editor] 1984, 211ff). The ideas seem more similar to John, while the vocabulary and style seem more like the Synoptics. The second pericope, with a stronger similarity to ideas in John, follows (Wenham [editor] 1984, 215ff) with Wright's notes. The third pericope tells of a healing of a leper, bearing similarity to Matthew 8, Mark 1, and Luke 5 (Wenham [editor] 1984, 216).

Though the ideas are fairly similar the details diverge enough from any synoptic account of a healing that Wright doesn't consider the material to be derived from the Synoptics. The fourth pericope, which has some slight resemblance to John 3:2, follows (Wenham [editor] 1984, 217). The passage, which is quite scattered in its contents, also contains several ideas from the symoptics.

Wright takes the text to be likely from the early second century, possibly as a compilation of some Christian ideas, but not likely intended as an alternative to a canonical Gospel (Wenham [editor] 1984, 220-221).

The Gospel of Peter, much longer than our fragments of the Unknown Gospel, appears to be a secondary composition, drawing on material from the canonical gospels (Wenham [editor] 1984, 221). Wright observes that papyrological discoveries in the 1970s have indicated the presence of significant variations in the text. This makes assessment of its relationship to canonical material much more difficult (Wenham [editor] 1984, 223).

Wright's analysis suggests that it is difficult, if not impossible, to identify material which leads to Jesus traditions and which would antedate the canonical Gospels. The evidence is scanty, and what we have tends to contain significant problems in terms of coherence or consistency of manuscripts.

Narrative Parables

12/1/2021

12/1/21
Scholarly Reflections

Blomberg, Criag L. "Chapter Seven: Tradition and Redaction in the Parables of the Gospel of Thomas." in Wenham, David (editor), The Jesus Tradition Outside the Gospels. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1984, 177-205.

Blomberg considers the Gospel of Thomas to be of great interest because many of the statements attributed to Jesus are similar to statements in the Synoptic Gospels (Wenham [editor] 1984, 177). Eleven of the thirteen parables have New Testament parallels. Of particular interest is the view that Thomas may well not have used the Synoptics as a source, as suggested by the substantial differences in arrangement and style (Wenham [editor] 1984, 178). Blomberg reviews many of the arguments and, though many of them are plausible, they are not overwhelmingly compelling. He also notes that some arguments for dependence on the Synoptic Gospels are fairly strong (Wenham [editor] 1984, 181).

Counter to my expectation, Blomberg notes that narrative tends to grow shorter rather than longer over time. He sees this happening in the different Synoptic texts. The parables which appear in Thomas and which are parallelled in the Synoptics are, in fact, shorter versions. Blomberg walks through some of this evidence (Wenham [editor] 1984, 182).

Blomberg's evaluation of these parables does suggest to me that he is more hesitant to speak of heterodoxy and Gnosticism than I am. What he is able to accept and evaluate in friendly terms tends to provoke me to outright rejection on theological grounds. His conclusion, however, is related to his overal thesis. Thomas has numerous parables which combine tradition and redaction. Where there is redaction, Thomas typically brings in Gnostic ideas (Wenham [editor] 1984, 195). Due to the apparent redaction, Blomberg thinks it unlikely that we can identify any particular pre-Synoptic materials with relaibility (Wenham [editor] 1984, 196).

Resurrection Cannot Be Hindered

11/30/2021

Tuesdays are for the Old Testament
11/30/21

Augustine. Exposition on the Book of Psalms. Schaff, Philip (editor). New York: Christian Literature Publishing Co, 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 124"

Psalm 124 is another Psalm of Ascent, which Augustine reminds us is intended to draw our hearts up to the heavenly realms (Augustine Psalms, loc. 340385, par. 1). It is in our heavenly home that we receive an incorruptible life in an incorruptible body. By saying this, Augustine confesses the centrality of the belief in the resurrection of the body.

Verses 1-2 speak of times when people rise against us. It comes as no surprise that those men would desire to crush us (Augustine Psalms, loc. 340395, par. 3). Yet the Lord prevents our being crushed or swallowed (v. 3). Augustine alleges that, in one way or another, we are crushed and swallowed, taken into the world or into the Church (Augustine Psalms, loc. 340405, par. 3). Whatever fury comes against us, even the fury of the world trying to engulf and drown us (v. 4), it cannot overcome us because the Lord has been raised up on our behalf. Verse five describes our soul as escaping, passing over the water.

Augustine here compares the "water without substance" to our souls which have sins. "Sins have not substance: they have want, not substance" (Augustine Psalms, loc. 340425, par. 6). By this he means that forgiven sins bear no weight. They cannot drag us down under the water. The things which would drag us down are the earthly riches that we would hold to (Augustine Psalms, loc. 340430, par. 7).

In verse six, then, we rejoice in the ord, who has not left us as prey to be devoured by the worldly desires of this life (Augustine Psalms, loc. 340435, par. 8). We escape (v. 7) like a bird which slips away from a trap.

The help of the Christian, in verse eight, is in the Lord, maker of all (Augustine Psalms, loc. 340450, par. 10). The work of rescue is the work of God. He is our helper.

Thomas and Jesus

11/29/2021

11/29/21
Scholarly Reflections

Chilton, Bruce. "Chapter Six: The Gospel According to Thomas as a Source of Jesus' Teaching." in Wenham, David (editor), The Jesus Tradition Outside the Gospels. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1984, 155-175.

"The Gospel According to Thomas consists of some 114 sayings of Jesus, and has no narrative element which can compare with what we find in the canonical Gospels" (Wenham [editor] 1984, 155). There is a valid question as to whether the sayings are actually Jesus' teaching. Chilton observes that the codices containing Thomas are from the fourth century and that some fragmentary parts may be dated to the third century. However, Chilton does consider it within the realm of possibility hat the tradition represents material as old as that in the canonical Gospels. Helmut Koester is a proponent of a view that Thomas is identified as the twin of Jesus and speaks in much the same way, reporting Jesus' statements accurately (Wenham [editor] 1984, 156).

Chilton evaluates some of the syaings attributed to Jesus in Thomas, noting that similar ideas may appear in the New Testament, but that some are contrary in spirit to the message of the New Testament (Wenham [editor] 1984, 157). He concludes that Thomas is not really comparable to Q, assuming Q is a source of the Synoptic Gospels (Wenham [editor] 1984, 159).

Chilton observes that there is a relationship between Thomas nd the Diatessaron, which Quispel considers to stem from mutual dependence on "a tradition he calls 'the Gospel of the Hebrews'" (Wenham [editor] 1984, 159). A substantial difficulty with this view is the fact that Tatian's Diatessaron is not available to us, though some harmonies of it do exist. Chilton further notes that Thomas is really a work of the second century, though it shows some signs of contact with earlier sources (Wenham [editor] 1984, 160). The work reached its current form some time in the fourth century. The structure of Thomas is a series of questions from an interlocutor, answered by sayings of Jesus. This creats a topical collection of sayings (Wenham [editor] 1984, 161).

Chilton considers the reliability of Thomas (Wenham [editor] 1984, 162). This is a challenging issue. The work has a central focus on God's kingdom, as does Matthew. Thomas is easily and often understood as showing a great deal of Gnostic ualism. However, Chilton asserts, "It is no more hterodox, say, than Clement of Alexandria, and is far removed from the elaborate cosmology of The Gospel of Truth" (Wenham [editor] 1984, 163). There is, therefore, some credible reason to consider the work relatively orthodox. The text largely posits an internal kingdom as opposed to one extra nos, but this emphasis can be found throughout the canonical Scripture as well (Wenham [editor] 1984, 164). Chilton also understands the references to "the kingdom" to be a taboo deformation, as they serve as references to God. He illusrates this idea at length.

Chilton concludes that while Thomas has some sayings which seem to be genuinely sayings of Jesus, other parts are inconsistent. The ideas sometimes tend toward those of the Gnostics. "In practice, Thomas can only be trusted as a witness to the sayings of Jesus to a limited extent," he concludes (Wenham [editor] 1984, 171). He advocates careful historical judgment and a sound grasp of tradition to guard our interpretation.

Daniel in Revelation 4-5

11/26/2021

11/26/21
Scholarly Reflections

Beale, G.K. "Chapter Five: The Use of Daniel in the Synoptic Eschatological Discourse and in the Book of Revelation." in Wenham, David (editor), The Jesus Tradition Outside the Gospels. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1984, 129-153.

Beale sets out to demonstrate that the eschatological developments found in Revelation are related to the midrashinc views originating in Daniel, rather than being build on Synoptic material, particularly that used in Mark 13 (Wenham [editor] 1984, 129). While Mark 13, Matthew 24, and Luke 21 appear to be derived from Daniel 7-9 and 11-12, Beale notes the similarity in content with Revelation, but considers the Synoptics to represent Jesus' interpretation of Daniel, but Revelation to represent John's interpretation of Daniel without reference to the way it is expressed in the Synoptics (Wenham [editor] 1984, 130).

Revelation chapters 4-5 have a connection to Daniel. However, Beale observes that "the few works dedicated only to studying the use of the OT in Revelation fail to give proper attention to chapters 4-5, much less to the use of Daniel therein" (Wenham [editor] 1984, 131). Because of this lack of research, Beale attempts to establish his idea that the whole of Revelation 4-5 has a strong influence from Daniel chapter seven. He therefore begins with a list of the elements of each vision, in order, providing verse references for each step of the description (Wenham [editor] 1984, 131-132). In this evaluation, Beale finds both passages have the same fourteen elements of content, with only a slight variation in their order, which he takes to be due to Revelation's expansion of some of the images (Wenham [editor] 1984, 132).

Beale does observe that Revelation 4:1-5:1 bears a very close resemblance to Ezekiel chapters 1-2. However, the order is more significantly different, and five of the elements common to Daniel and Revelation are lacking in Ezekiel (Wenham [editor] 1984, 132).

Beale further considers allusions to Daniel found in Revelation. He dos note a forthcoming book which he authored, discussing the allusions in more detail, but here he provides a compact list (Wenham [editor] 1984, 133).

Beale's conclusion is that the structure of Revelation 4-5 is directly influenced by Daniel chapte seven (Wenham [editor] 1984, 133). Counter to this opinion, Ezekiel chapter one, though it bears some similarity, is probably not a source for structure in Revelation (Wenham [editor] 1984, 134). Beale further observes that other portions have elements suggesting they serve largely as Midrash on portions of Daniel. The connections of Daniel and the overall content of the New Testament are relatively strong (Wenham [editor] 1984, 136).

Beale next provides some evidence that Revelation 1 and 13 may also beclosely related to Daniel 7 and 10. There are a number of clear allusions and the overall structure is similar (Wenham [editor] 1984, 137). Again, there has been some scholarship which points to symoptic source material. However, Beale finds the similarity to Daniel to be more persuasive (Wenham [editor] 1984, 139).

Beale's overall conclusion is that Revelation and the Synoptics tend to draw on the same body of teaching, which includes material from Daniel (Wenham [editor] 1984, 143). This is particularly true of the eschatological portions of the New Testament. Beale does not find these materials used to any significant degree in the non-eschatological portions (Wenham [editor] 1984, 144). Again, when Beale reviews allusions to the Synoptics and to Daniel in Revelation, he concludes that Revelation and the Synoptics are drawing on a common source and not on one another (Wenham [editor] 1984, 147).

1 Peter and Jesus' Teaching

11/25/2021

11/25/21
Scholarly Reflections

Maier, Gerhard. "Chapter Four: Jesustradition im 1 Petrusbrief?" in Wenham, David (editor), The Jesus Tradition Outside the Gospels. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1984, 85-128.

Maier notes that 1 Peter has garnered a great deal of attention not only due to the possible disputes over authorship but also as scholars have attempted to identify the extent of the Jesus traditions appearing in the text (Wenham [editor] 1984, 85-86). A notable debate concerns the role of the words of Jesus as reported in 1 Peter. Maier observes the sides of the debate are represented by Ernest Best and Robert Gundry (Wenham [editor] 1984, 86). Maier proceeds to summarize the elements of both arguments. Best considers 1 Peter to draw on Jesus traditions outside of canonical sources, while Gundry looks for canonical sources (Wenham [editor] 1984, 87).

Analysis of possible parallel texts may shed light on the challenge. Best and Gundry recognize that there are strong similarities between 1 Peter 1:10-12 and Luke 24:25-27 (Wenham [editor] 1984, 88). This recognition leads to an analysis of the similarities. In fact, Best and Gundry examined multiple passages. While there are many parallel ideas, the wording doesn't match very precisely. The debate, then, remaidqns largely unresolved. However, some passages do strongly suggest an influence from material outside the canonical Gospels (Wenham [editor] 1984, 95).

Maier continues by seeking out similarities between 1 Peter and other works, now not as they were considered by Best and Gundry (Wenham [editor] 1984, 96). Again, he finds a good deal of similarity in ideas. However, it is rare to find identity in wording which would clearly point to a specific literary dependence.

Maier's conclusions based on his review thus far suggest that 1 Peter may show more influence from Jesus traditions themselves than from writings which have proven canonical (Wenham [editor] 1984, 102ff).

A number of passages in 1 Peter may be considered as brief catechism.s Though Maier admits of controversy in identifying them, he suggests they are 1:18-21, 2:21-25, and 3:18-22 (Wenham [editor] 1984, 105). He evaluates these passages particularly looking for influences on the readings. In these passages, the pre-existence of Christ, the value of his passion, and the power of his word emerge as essential concepts. In the context of these possibly catechetical passages, Maier also considers possible influence from the Pauline epistles and, to a lesser debree, the Old Testament. As before, while there are many similarities of concept and thought, Maier finds little specific parallel wording.

Maier further considers relationships between the catechetical passages of 1 Peter and material in Acts, particularly chaptesr two, three, and ten (Wenham [editor] 1984, 111). These are significant passages particularly because they describe Peter's preaching and teaching. As we might expect, the concepts are very similar. However, again, the specific wording, though possibly more similar than other passages reviewed thus far, does not compel us to think in terms of depencence.

Maier concludes that there is some literary distance between 1 Peter and the influences thus leading to similarity of ideas but not specifc language (Wenham [editor] 1984, 115). Maier further notes that by the time of composition of 1 Peter, the canonical Gospels would havebeen becoming available. The differences in wording would be more likely a factor of not yet adopting the speech patterns in the canonical materials, but considerin the ideas in the context of materials which could be a source for both 1 Peter and the canonical Gospels (Wenham [editor] 1984, 117). This can also explain, in Maier's opinion, the fact that the ideas in 1 Peter are found in the Synoptics and in John. The traditions underlying both would have been known to Peter (Wenham [editor] 1984, 118).

A brief observation - while Maier provides arather a lot of documentation of the verses he analyzes, he does so consistently in German, rather than in Greek. Perusal of his arguments with a Greek text could be of value.

James and the Teaching of Jesus

11/24/2021

11/24/21
Scholarly Reflections

Davids, Peter H. "Chapter Three: James and Jesus." in Wenham, David (editor), The Jesus Tradition Outside the Gospels. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1984, 63-84.

Davids observes that there has been ongoing discussion of the means of transmitting the traditions of Jesus in early Christianity, particularly focused on preaching as the means to pass the message from teacher to student (Wenham [editor] 1984, 63). The relative absence of evidence for transmission prior to the written Gospels does raise questions. The statements of Paul which can be recognized as references to Jesus traditions suggest to many that Paul was familiar with multiple blocks of teaching, some of which we might not have any longer (Wenham [editor] 1984, 65).

Davids continues with an analysis of James, geared toward identifying statements which assume readers know particular pieces of the Jesus traditions (Wenham [editor] 1984, 65). This evaluation tests the situation apart from the work of Paul. There are also numerous allusions to the Synoptic material in James. Davids catalogs these on pp. 66-67. He observes that the references largely focus on ethical teaching from the Sermon on the Mount/Plain (Wenham [editor] 1984, 67). James does not appear to depend on the Synoptic Gospels. Davids observes that his content is more similar to Matthew and his language is more like Luke (Wenham [editor] 1984, 68).

It is significant to Davids that James does not "cite Jesus as the source of [his] teaching" (Wenham [editor] 1984, 68). He assumes some familiarity with the teaching. This is a common pattern of the period. Davids does mention as an example, "the Didache, which is filled with exact quotations of or allusions to gospel material, [but] only cites Jesus by name twice, both times in liturgical contexts" (Wenham [editor] 1984, 68). It was more common to make reference by indirect allusion (Wenham [editor] 1984, 69).

Davids considers that the allusions in James are spread fairly evenly through the letter (Wenham [editor] 1984, 69). This suggests that James deliberately intended to build his message on the Jesus material. This also suggests a basic cohesiveness in the letter. It is consistent throughout, indicating a unified plan (Wenham [editor] 1984, 70). Davids describes the main thrust of the various segments of James, showing their allusive quality and recognition of material which can be traced to the Jesus traditions.

Through Davids' analysis it becomes clear that not only the ideas of Jesus, but even the wording that was later recorded had an influence on the way James expressed himself (Wenham [editor] 1984, 74). His work, then, is not to teach the Jesus tradition itself, but to show his readers how that tradition mattered in their lives (Wenham [editor] 1984, 75).

What Happens When We Look to Heaven?

11/23/2021

Tuesdays are for the Old Testament
11/23/21

Augustine. Exposition on the Book of Psalms. Schaff, Philip (editor). New York: Christian Literature Publishing Co, 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 123"

Psalm 123:1 speaks in the singular. "I lift up my eyes." Augustine urges this same personalization on his readers, not a corporate looking to the Lord, but a personal and individual action (Augustine Psalms, loc. 340290, par. 1). When our hearts are heavy, we turn to the Lord and ascend to Him. However, Augustine acknowledges that the distance to heaven is great. If we are to ascend, we want to find a ladder (Augustine Psalms, loc. 340301, par. 2). He finds this ladder of ascent in the humble heart.

Augustine asks, though, what we would understand heaven to be. It is not a place we could discern with our physical eyes (Augustine Psalms, loc. 340306, par. 3). Rather, he takes it to be the dwelling place of the soul, where we can go by faith.

Our act of looking to God, in verse two, is both as a servant looks to a master and as a maid looks to a mistress. Augustine is truck by this, that the God of all corresponds both to master and mistress (Augustine Psalms, loc. 340326, par. 4).

Verse three reflects on the contempt and scorn which is heaped upon the Psalmist, and all Christians (Augustine Psalms, loc. 340335, par. 5). This scorn comes upon us because we have a hope in something which cannot be seen. It is not in the temporal things such as houses and wealth. Augustine reflects that a life "hidden with Christ in God" is incomprehensible to our culture at large (Augustine Psalms, loc. 340345, par. 5). The riches which we have in spirit bring mockery upon us. Augustine observes that it is our spiritual satisfaction which sets us apart from our world and ultimately provokes them (Augustine Psalms, loc. 340350, par. 6). Those who suffer in the temporal world also may mock us. Augustine takes this to be a sign of their dissatisfaction with God, who they perceive as letting them down (Augustine Psalms, loc. 340360, par. 7).

In Augustine's view, though the Christian has the riches of heaven, he should consider himself poor (Augustine Psalms, loc. 340370, par. 8). Our righteousness he compares to dew drops, while the righteousness given by God is a great torrent. We find in ourselves weakness and fatigue, but in God strength and life.

Jesus in 1 Corinthians

11/22/2021

11/22/21
Scholarly Reflections

Richardson, Peter & Gooch, Peter. "Chapter Two: Logia of Jesus in 1 Corinthians." in Wenham, David (editor), The Jesus Tradition Outside the Gospels. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1984, 39-62.

Richardson and Gooch freely acknowledge that Paul cites the words and actions of Jesus relatively seldom. However, scholarly opinion generally suggests that he was aware of much that he never stated, due to the actual purposes of his writing (Wenham [editor] 1984, 39). On the other side of the coin, there are arguments that Paul did not know much of the words and actions of Jesus, thus said little. Both sides in the discussion depend on arguments from silence. To make progress in this discussion, Richardson and Gooch suggest not only reviewing Paul's use of material about Jesus, but also evaluating his use of Jesus' words as a ground for his argument, and considering whether he considers it important to use his writings to pass the tradition on to future generations (Wenham [editor] 1984, 40).

This chapter analyzes Paul's use of Jesus' teaching in 1 Corinthians. Paul is clearly considering Jesus' passion as fundamental to his teaching. In 1 Corinthians he never mentions "Jesus' healing, exorcising, preaching, or miracles" (Wenham [editor] 1984, 41). However, he does make specific reference to Jesus' teaching which is reflected in the Synoptic Gospels. This sets 1 Corinthians apart from Paul's other letters (Wenham [editor] 1984, 42).

Paul's specific references to traditions about Jesus are found in 1 Corinthians 15:3-8, 11:23-26, 7:10, and 9:14 (Wenham [editor] 1984, 42). In chapter seven, Richardson and Gooch observe Paul's teaching on marriage and divorce is consistent with the general view expressed in the Synoptic Gospels. He makes a clear distinction between what he understands as the Lord's commands and his own conclusions (Wenham [editor] 1984, 43).

The argument in chapter nine is about God's servants making their living the Gospel. As with chapter seven, Paul couches the Lord's command among his own statements. He does distinguish between his words and Jesus' words, but he uses Jesus to support his argument (Wenham [editor] 1984, 44).

The statement from 1 Corinthians 14:37, that Jesus taught that women should be silent in Church, is difficult. It doesn't line up with any Synoptic tradition. Richardson and Gooch suggest it could be a recollection of a post-resurrection saying (Wenham [editor] 1984, 45).

Richardson and Gooch consider the issue of allusions. One of the primary challenges we face in dealing with allusions is that of defining the criteria by which a statement can be recognized as an allusion (Wenham [editor] 1984, 45). They choose to pursue as allusions those passages in which Paul uses an image for the same purpose that it is used in the Synoptic gospels, then places where Paul uses ideas which agree with those in the Synoptics (Wenham [editor] 1984, 46). Richardson and Gooch pursue these in turn. While we find relatively few passages which make clear quotations, the allusive ideas are fairly frequent.

Richardson and Gooch concllude that Paul seems familiar with and consciously informed by the traditions about Jesus. However, many of the ideas remain below the surface, so we would have no idea of their source if we didn't have the Synoptic Gospels (Wenham [editor] 1984, 50). The references generally seem related to material used by Mark, though Richardson and Gooch consider some of the ideas to be Q materials (Wenham [editor] 1984, 51).

Paul does not seem to use specific claims of Jesus as a foundation for his teaching. While he does use them, it seems more focused on the imagery and to function as a supporting idea to document what Paul intends to teach (Wenham [editor] 1984, 52). While it is clear that in some instances Paul particularly means to pass on information about the Jesus traditions, in general he does not seem to intend a wholesale passing on of the accounts of Jesus 'life and teaching (Wenham [editor] 1984, 54). He is, rather, focused on the facts of the death and resurrection of Christ.

Paul's Use of Jesus' Teaching

11/19/2021

11/19/21
Scholarly Reflections

Wenham, David. "Chapter One: Paul's Use of the Jesus Tradition: Three Samples." in Wenham, David (editor), The Jesus Tradition Outside the Gospels. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1984, 7-37.

Wenham has previously concluded that Paul was familiar with teachings of Jesus, including those which do not appear in the Synoptic Gospels (Wenham [editor] 1984, 7). In this chapter he consders three passages which were not part of his previous study.

In 1 Corinthians 7:10-11, speaking of divorce, Paul cites the Lord's teaching, but the teaching he states is nowhere in the canonical Gospels. Wenham considers it clear that Paul's language indicates a direct and purposeful quotation (Wenham [editor] 1984, 8). There are clear similarities between 1 Corinthians 7:10 and Mark 10:9, 11 and Matthew 19:6, 9. Because of these similarities, Wenham concludes that Paul was familiar with this material.

Wenham next broadens his survey to a larger part of Matthew 19 and Mark 10. He does find some similarity in content. For instance, both Paul and the evangelists speak in terms of marriage being a "one flesh" relationship which is broken by separation. Singleness as a gift of God in 1 Corinthians 7:7 is similar to Matthew 19:11 where some receive Jesus' teaching about singleness (Wenham [editor] 1984, 9). This suggests to Wenham that the tradition put to use here is earlier than many scholars have suggested.

The four important symoptic texts about divorce are Matthew 5:32, Matthew 19:6, 9, Luke 16:18, and Mark 10:9-12. Wenham compares these texts and catalogs the grammatical and content similarities and differences (Wenham [editor] 1984, 10-11). He does find that the construction in part of Matthew 5:32 is similar to Luke, while the other part is similar to Mark, suggesting some element of influence. Wenham goes on to catalog a number of less obvious inconsistencies, then he observes that Paul's text in 1 Corinthians 7:10-15 has points of agreement in his grammar with Matthew and Luke but not Mark.

Wenham proposes a partial solution to the challenge of the origin of the text, that there were two basic narratives and that they were used differently by the various authors (Wenham [editor] 1984, 13).

The last portion of Romans contains many possible references to Jesus traditions. Wenham chooses to analyze Romans 12:14-21, which has strong echoes of the material from Jesus' "Sermon on the Mount/Plain" (Wenham [editor] 1984, 15). Particularly Romans 12:14 has parallelism which is very like Luke 6:28. When comparing the overall ideas expressed in these passages, Wenham observes that there are clear parallels between Luke 6:27-28, 32-33, and Matthew 5:43, 46-47 (Wenham [editor] 1984, 16). Wenham considers that Paul may have used a tradition which was also used in part by Matthew and Luke.

Romans 12:17-20 likewise shows a connection with Matthew 5:38-48 and, similarly Luke 6:27-36 (Wenham [editor] 1984, 17). The ethic described is that of doing good in return for evil. What Wenham finds significant is the similarity of the sequence of ideas (Wenham [editor] 1984, 18). The sequence of ideas is, in Wenham's estimation, quite possibly pre-synoptic, and was used both by the evangelists and by Paul (Wenham [editor] 1984, 19). After displaying the Greek text for both the Matthew and the Luke passages side by side Wenham observes that the differences have been a matter of scholarly debate, and that one or the other is assumed to be more similar to the underlying tradition. He then reconstructs what he thinks to be a likely reading of the traditional material (Wenham [editor] 1984, 21-22).

Wenham again finds that the Pauline material is very similar to the texts he can hypothesize as an early tradition underlying the Synoptic texts (Wenham [editor] 1984, 23).

In Galatians 1-2, Paul knows and tells some things of Peter which we might wonder at, particularly Peter's role as the apostle to the Jews (Wenham [editor] 1984, 24). The portrayal of Peter's apostolic work from Matthew 16 would not have been known to Paul at the time he wrote Galatians. Yet Paul speaks of the differences of his commission and Peter's commission (Wenham [editor] 1984, 25). Wenham concludes that Paul appeared to know about the traditions underlying Matthew's account, and that he knew it independently of the account in Matthew's Gospel itself (Wenham [editor] 1984, 28).

Overall, Wenham concludes that Paul knew quite a lot of the Jesus traditions even though he did not actually have the Synoptic Gospels. This suggests strongly that Paul had a storehouse of information about Jesus, his actions, and his values (Wenham [editor] 1984, 29).

Tabernacles and the Church

11/18/2021

11/18/21
Scholarly Reflections

Daniélou, Jean, S.J. "Chapter Twenty: The Feast of Tabernacles." The Bible and the Liturgy." Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press, 1956, pp. 333-347.

Daniélou notes that while the paschal feast and pentecost were taken into Christianity with a change of focus, the third major feast, that of Tabernacles, was not brought so directly into Christianity (Daniélou 1956, 333). The feast featured dwelling in shelters, reminiscent of God's protection of His people in the desert. It was also interpreted as looking forward toa place of rest in God's eternal kingdom (Daniélou 1956, 334). Since Tabernacles comes at the end of the year's farm work, the Fathers took it as significant of the final gathering in of Christians in God's kingdom (Daniélou 1956, 335).

Judaism had already attached a Messianic significance to Tabernacles, as a time of being gathered together around the harvest, significant of the last days (Daniélou 1956, 337). The early Christians simply attached a more specific and clear interpretation, that the feast would be a foretaste of the heavenly gathering and feast with Christ as his resurrected people (Daniélou 1956, 337). The tabernacle served as a sign of our temporary, earthly, dwelling.

Many of the events of Jesus' life are clearly tied to the paschal and pentecost events. The connection to Tabernacles is not quite as obvious. However, not only Jesus' presentation as the source of living water, but also the Transfiguration, is related in time (Daniélou 1956, 339). The Transfiguration happened six or eight days after Tabernacles. Additionally, the apostles initially responded by an offer to build tabernacles (Daniélou 1956, 340). If the apostolic interpretation of the event was correct, Jesus in his transfiguration was allowing the apostles to look forward to theirs as well.

Daniélou also suggests that the waving of palm branches during Jesus' entry to Jerusalem is signified by a procession which would happen on the last day of Tabernacles (Daniélou 1956, 341). More of the liturgy from Tabernacles is adopted by John in Revelation to describe events around the altar of God.

Because of the chronological difficulty in linking specific events to Tabernacles, some Christians, such as Didymus the Blind, considered Tabernacles as a preview of the entirety of the liturgical year (Daniélou 1956, 343). Daniélou describes how various elements of the celebration of Tabernacles would suggest different events in the year. While some of the connections seem tenuous, there is reason to think that there are many points of connection between Tabernacles and the Church year.