Great song and video.

I’m not huge into the Christian music scene (even though I play for our worship team at my church), I think this is a great song. I found the video yesterday. Good energy from these guys.

Phd question

I am wondering if anyone in the biblioblogosphere has any thoughts about phd models: research based or residence based? I am considering pursuing a phd in either Biblical studies or NT studies (hopefully focusing on narrative criticism and Mark’s Gospel). However, gainful employment is required in order to pay for a phd program .

‘Literal’ misunderstanding – How poor theology encounters reality with dire results

I read this in the Globe and Mail the other day and could only shake my head. Not in disbelief (because this type of thing occurs more often than not), but in sadness at how people take Scripture literally and then attempt to apply their literal interpretation to life. (In addition, how could a father do this to his four year old son?) Read here and judge for yourself. I agree with the judge’s verdict of negligence. Therefore, theology (and hopefully a reasoned understanding thereof) has real implications in one’s life.

Philippians 1:18 ; Simple contrast or Rhetorical Device?

The question posed for this verse is: “What is the meaning of the contrast εἴτε προφάσει εἴτε ἀληθείᾳ?” As the title of this post suggests, is Paul simply contrasting two opposing parties or using a rhetorical device? If this phrase is a rhetorical device, then to what effect is it being employed? However, it is erroneous to categorize this phrase in such black and white terms (i.e., it has to be ‘this way’ or it has to be ‘that way’ and there can be not middle ground or synthesizing of the two ideas). The language here is ambiguous as to whether Paul wants his reader to understand this phrase as either a simple contrast or a rhetorical device. I argue that the language can allow for both.

Paul is expressing two opposites as a rhetorical (or literary) device for a specific reason in the text. Previously, Paul mentions those who seek to discredit Paul because of his chains and have selfish motives (v. 15-16). In verse 18, Paul contrasts those who preach out of false motives and those [who preach] with honorable/truthful motives. Unfortunately, Paul doesn’t mention which conduct is better or worse; Messiah is proclaimed by both parties, despite their internal motives, and Paul rejoices (ἐν τούτῳ χαίρω). He then emphasizes his rejoicing with the contrastive coordinating conjunction Ἀλλὰ (Wallace, Greek Grammar: Beyond the Basics, 657) followed by the future passive indicative 1. singular χαρήσομαι. Paul will rejoice even if the motives of some are unworthy, because Messiah is proclaimed. The internal motives are overshadowed by the proclamation of Messiah.

A second option is that this phrase is a subtle backhanded verbal twist against those with impure motives. Paul implies to his listeners that for all the efforts of the selfish, vain and with false motives are in vain. He deftly brushes aside their feeble attempts to belittle Paul’s imprisonment and equates them with those who preach Christ out of love and truth. Essentially, Paul says that they are of one accord. They preach the same message, which is more important to Paul than his honour or self-esteem.

How would you respond to those who besmirched your ministry, yet preached the resurrected Christ? Like Paul? Some thoughts to ponder as a I contemplate if I should enter into full time ministry.

Reflection on Philippians 1:18

this post will have to wait until tomorrow. I need to help my wife with a very unhappy 6 week old daughter. A crying baby – quite the sound!

Mediation verse of the week and reflections

I have been challenged to begin memorizing scripture again. In the church bulletin there is a weekly verse to memorize, which spurned me into meditative action. The only difference is that I am going to make the attempt to begin memorizing passages from the Greek (UBS 4th Revised ed.) This weeks verses are from Mark 1.17-18: καὶ εἶπεν αὐτοῖς ὁ Ἰησοῦς· δεῦτε ὀπίσω μου, καὶ ποιήσω ὑμᾶς γενέσθαι ἁλιεῖς ἀνθρώπων. 18 καὶ εὐθὺς ἀφέντες τὰ δίκτυα ἠκολούθησαν αὐτῷ.
Today’s thought as I reflected (a nicer evangelical term instead of meditation? ) on this passage was the phrase “ἀφέντες τὰ δίκτυα” and I thought ‘what net, or thing, or idea, etc., am I holding on to? What do I need to immediately drop and follow Jesus in my life? This phrase is interesting when contrasted with the response of the disciple in Mt 8:21 who hesitates before following Jesus and wants first to bury his father (κύριε, ἐπίτρεψόν μοι πρῶτον ἀπελθεῖν καὶ θάψαι τὸν πατέρα μου). Then Jesus leaves the crowds with his disciples and gets into a boat. Am I like the sons of Zebedee who drop their nets and immediately follow Jesus, or am I like the disciple who has other things to do before he follows Jesus?

Discussion on Philippians 1:15-17

Several questions arise when one reads this text, particulary Paul’s use of φθόνον καὶ ἔριν (v. 15), θλῖψιν ἐγείρειν (v. 17), ἐξ ἐριθείας (v. 17), and the repetition of the μὲν…δὲ construction in verses 15, 16 and 17. I am following along with some questions that Dr. Larry Perkins has made to assist our breakfast and Greek group in exegeting, analyzing, etc., our way through Philippians. The question that interested me was how does one proclaim the Gospel out of strife, jealousy, and selfish ambition?

Four possible answers come to mind. (NB I haven’t read any commentaries or journal articles at this point; these are my musings; however, I will follow up on them and see what other scholars say. If I’m way off target, then I will rethink my answers accordingly). First, is it possible that there are leaders, (ἐπισκόποις καὶ διακόνοις) who are jealous of Paul’s status as an apostle? Second, perhaps they are Greek Christians ,who with good intentions, don’t like Paul because he’s Jewish or vice versa. Third, are they Jewish Christians who maybe question Paul’s preaching to Gentiles and disagree with him. Fourth, these proclaimers of the Gospel out of jealousy, strife and selfish ambition do so to advance their honour or social status amongst their fellow Christian brothers and sisters. Then Paul contrasts them with those who ‘out of love’ (ἐξ ἀγάπης) know that Paul is appointed in the defense of the Gospel (εἰδότες ὅτι εἰς ἀπολογίαν τοῦ εὐαγγελίου κεῖμα). They respect his status as an apostle, despite his chains, and they don’t find him a threat to their social status or honour. In addition, they do not place him in a status of shame because of his chains for Messiah.

Those who seek to gain from Paul’s imprisonment probably consider Paul’s situation shameful. How could an apostle of the Most Holy God be in chains, especially in the custody of the Romans? What a disgrace, and thus they seek to cause strife and besmirch Paul’s name. Yet, for Paul, he is glad that the Gospel is preached even if it is with bad intentions (Χριστὸς καταγγέλλεται, καὶ ἐν τούτῳ χαίρω, v. 18). So how does this situation apply to our modern context? Can it? HOw is it good that the Gospel is preached when the preacher does so out of selfish ambition or to cause strife or from simple jealousy? I guess, for Paul the fact that the good news of Jesus’ life, death and resurrection and the hope of salvation in Messiah is preached outweighs the motives; therefore, it seems that the motives are irrelevant and Paul continues to proclaim Christ as Lord and leaves the matters of motive to God.

I wonder how this would translate into today? If my motives were out of jealousy (i.e., I was a sessional faculty and was jealous of the Professor of NT studies and did everything to get that position, even cause discord in the academy) but Christ was preached, would that be a good thing?

Brief Primer on Narrative Criticism – Some Objections

For the naysayers of Narrative Criticism (NC) here are your objections to the usefulness of NC as a hermeneutical method. Let it be known that every critical method has their set of objections and shortcomings. I do not claim that NC is the only and best method, rather I enjoy how it allows the exegete to read biblical texts (especially the Gospels) in a new way previously ignored in the history of critical methods (e.g., form criticism, redaction criticism, source criticism and so forth). However, I will save the advantages of NC and responses to the objections of NC in a later post. (I am taking this from a section of my unpublished MTS thesis pages 36-40).

Critics of narrative criticism raise three major arguments against the usefulness of narrative criticism as a critical method for interpreting the gospels. First, the gospels are historical documents rooted in history and must be read as such. Second, it is anachronistic to apply modern literary techniques, like those applied to The Lord of the Rings, to ancient literature. Third, Mark’s Gospel is a redacted theological document not intended to be read as an organic whole. Although, there are further critique’s against the usefulness of narrative criticism, these three major arguments highlight the disadvantages of narrative criticism, which may lead to poor interpretation of Mark’s Gospel.(1)

The first issue to be considered is the claim that “[n]arrative criticism rejects or ignores the historical witness of the Gospels”2 treating them as works of literature. Thus, reading Mark’s Gospel as literature reduces it to a work of fiction, removed from its historical roots. According to the modern critic of narrative criticism, turning these historical events into mere stories(3) implies that Mark’s Gospel is a fable and undermines the truth of its message.(4) Powell says, “[h]istorical critics sometimes complain that it treats texts as mere stories rather than as records of significant moments in history.”(5) Thus, the argument that the Gospels are historical documents (6) asserts that the gospels are not works of literature, and must be read as historical documents. Therefore, it is highly problematic to interpret Mark’s Gospel as one would Sophocles’ Oedipus Rex, or Tolkien’s The Lord of the Rings.

The second issue against narrative criticism is that it applies modern literary techniques upon the text under interpretation. Opponents criticize narrative critics for using modern techniques on ancient literature (7) without regard of the historical nature of the ancient texts, or how a first-century reader might have understood the text. “Narrative criticism imposes modern literary techniques to ancient literature,” which creates confusion between non-biblical and biblical literature. (8) Ben Witherington III asserts, “Mark is not a work of ancient or modern fiction, and this means that some things which apply especially to modern fiction do not apply to Mark.” (9) Malbon agrees, “stories may be historical, fictional, or historical fiction – although this categorization is anachronistic when applied to first-century texts.” (10) Thus, narrative critics must be cognizant of narrative criticism’s tendency to use modern literary techniques, (11) which might not apply to a text written in the first-century. (12)

The third major argument against narrative criticism is that Mark’s Gospel is a redacted document, and therefore, cannot be read as unified narrative. Mark’s Gospel, (including Matthew, Luke and John), is a collection of stories, sayings and tradition of a theological nature pieced together by the author(s) from various sources. (13) Therefore, Mark’s Gospel should not be interpreted as a unified whole. “In creating his Gospel, Mark has taken stories about Jesus, many out of the oral tradition, and fashioned a narrative which moves and develops.” (14) The writers of the gospels reconstructed the story of Jesus in such a way as to communicate a distinctive theological message. (15) According to Ernest Best, one’s interpretation of Mark’s Gospel begins with redaction criticism. (16) Therefore, since Mark’s Gospel is a well-crafted collage gathered from various available sources, this implies that his gospel should not be read as a piece of ancient literature. Rather, Mark’s Gospel is a redacted collection of historical events written to deliver a theological message. (16) Redaction criticism “discovered that the Gospel-writers were much more than mere compilers; they were genuine authors in their own right, each with a distinctive theological message to communicate.” (18)

Footnotes:

1. I believe that it is wise to know the arguments of a critical method to be aware of the errors critics make, such as depreciating “the religious value of a text in favor of its aesthetics, even if sometimes this is done to correct a past imbalance in the other direction” (Klein, Blomberg, and Hubbard, 71). See also Rhoads, Reading Mark, 28-29; and Christopher Tuckett, Reading the New Testament: Methods of Interpretation (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1987), 174-75. However, “[p]ostmodern critics say that ancient works and even modern fiction cannot be a unified whole, rather, texts are not unified and are full of gaps, multiple meanings, and the like” (David M. Rhoads Reading Mark, Engaging the Gospel [Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2004], 29).

2. Mark Allen Powell, What is Narrative Criticism, 96

3. Rhoads, Reading Mark, 27.

4. Powell, What is Narrative Criticism, 96. Powell refutes this argument in his book and says, “[n]arrative criticism demands that the modem reader have the historical information that the text assumes of its implied reader” (97).

5. Powell, “Narrative Criticism,” 253. Contra Rhoads, who argues, “by emphasizing the integrity of the narrative, one is able to enter the fictional world of the story. By using the term ‘fiction,’ I do not mean to deny that Mark used sources rooted in history or that his story does not reflect historical events of Jesus’ day. Rather, by ‘fiction’ I mean to suggest that in the end the narrative world of the story is a literary creation of the author and has an autonomous integrity” (Narrative Criticism,” 413). See also Tolbert, Sowing the Gospel, 30. Thus, Mark’s Gospel can be read as a unified whole with all the events, triads, repetitions and so forth working together to create a story that follows Aristotle’s model of beginning, middle and end.

6. This argument raises two questions. First, should we or can we read Mark as both a literary and historical document. Second, how is this done without sacrificing one to the other? I would argue that the narrative critical approach I am using synthesizes both concerns. The assumed author writes about historical events in a literary fashion, not necessarily in a strict linear fashion often associated with a biography. Mark uses creative license to shape historical events for literary effect. Determining what that literary effect is, is the task of the narrative critic.

7. Powell, What is Narrative Criticism, 93. He also adds, “[i]t is important to recognize distinctions between modern and ancient literature, and narrative critics may sometimes fail to do so” (93).

8. David M. Gunn, “Narrative Criticism,” in To Each its Own Meaning: An Introduction to Biblical Criticisms and their Application, ed. Steven L. McKenzie and Stephen R. Haynes (Louisville: Westminster/John Knox Press, 1993), 193.

9. Ben Witherington III, The Gospel of Mark: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2001), 56.

10. Elizabeth Struthers Malbon, Hearing Mark: A Listeners Guide (Pennsylvania: Trinity Press International, 2002), 4.

11.David M. Gunn, “Narrative Criticism,” in To Each its Own Meaning: An Introduction to Biblical Criticisms and their Application, ed. Steven L. McKenzie and Stephen R. Haynes (Louisville: Westminster/John Knox Press, 1993)

193. Gunn argues that narrative critics need to be aware of this argument as they perform their analysis of first century texts.

12. Powell, “Narrative Criticism,” 254.

13. Witherington III, 16-17. Witherington notes, “[t]he strong evidence that Mark is presenting a biography of Jesus means that he will have proceeded like other ancient biographers in the gathering and use of sources” (16); and Joel Marcus, Mark 1-8, 59-62. Strecker asserts, “Mark writes as a member of his community. Mark’s redactional messianic secret must therefore be seen in connection with the kerygma of the evangelist’s community” (57). Bilezikian seems to not be concerned if Mark used sources, rather he is concerned with how Mark uses his sources. “The comparative brevity of Mark cannot be explained merely in terms of the limited amount of sources available to him. The very diversity of the birth narratives, the genealogies, the resurrection appearances in Matthew and Luke attest to the richness of early tradition” (G. G. Bilezikian, The Liberated Gospel: A Comparison of the Gospel of Mark and Greek Tragedy [Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1977] 134).

14. James L. Bailey, “Perspectives on the Gospel of Mark,” Perspectives 12, no. 1 (Fall 1995): 25. For a redaction critic’s analysis of a portion of Mark’s Gospel see Norman R. Petersen, “The Composition of Mark 4:1-8:26,” Harvard Theological Review 73, no. 1-2 (Jan-Apr 1980): 185-217.

15. Stephen Smith, A Lion with Wings: A Narrative-Critical Approach to Mark’s Gospel (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1996), 15. In Smith’s book, he briefly outlines a history of biblical criticism and the development of narrative criticism.

16. Ernest Best, “Mark’s Preservation of the Tradition (1974),” in The Interpretation of Mark, ed. William R. Telford (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark Ltd., 1995), 153. He says further, “we should think not of an author but of an artist creating a collage” (163).

17. Francis J. Moloney, Mark: Storyteller, Interpreter, Evangelist (Peabody: Hendrickson Publishers, 2006), 24. “According to Wrede, the Markan story of Jesus was not primarily a reliable history, and had never been intended to be such. It had been written out of a theological conviction, and for a theological and evangelical purpose” (Moloney, 24).

18. Smith, A Lion with Wings, 15.

New Robert Jordan prologue at Tor.com

If any of you are Robert Jordan fans, then you’ve probably heard the news that the 12 installment of the “Wheel of Time” series is coming out Nov. 3, 09. Since I am a super fantasy fiction aficionado (aka: nerd) I can hardly wait to get my hands on this new volume. At Tor.com you can read the prologue for “The Gathering Storm” by registering for free. Not quite a biblical studies discussion, but if you have never read any of this series, you are missing out on great heroic, epic fantasy on a grand scale that will keep you wanting more until the final conclusion, which will be book 14.

A musing on my Master’s thesis

Yesterday I received my master’s thesis in the courier. I defended my thesis on March 25, 09 and passed with an amazing mark (to my surprise, but excitement). After a final edit I submitted my thesis to my program chair (Dr. Bruce Guenther – a history professor at ACTS) and then he forwarded it off to a format checker to ensure my thesis is following the precise formatting for binding and placement in the library. I laboured for 10 months on my thesis and still it comes back riddled with the infamous red pen. I always find it amazing what another reader finds in a paper, thesis or probably a dissertation even after you have spent many hours meticulously searching every page for grammar, editing and spelling errors. Now I’m back at it and hopefully I can get this beast of my shelf and start thinking about a proposal for a PhD in NT Studies (but first I need to find a job so I can pay for a PhD program…)