Wednesday, September 24, 2008

Are humans basically good?

My brother Tim has a short piece on sin in recent film at the First Things website. He explores the title question via characters such as The Joker, Magneto, Saruman, and Lord Voldemort. My only question for Tim after reading the fine piece is whether he sees a difference between The Joker and characters like Magneto and Lord Voldemort. The latter characters are driven by their backstories, Lord Voldemort's especially penetrating portrayal as we learn more about his doomed childhood as we see more and more into his depravity. The Joker, however, is filled with meaning precisely because he has no backstory. Thoughts, Tim? Anyone?

Friday, September 19, 2008

For all that the Canadian elite supposedly hates American politics...

...this is evidence to the contrary. Here's an assistant to Conservative Party of Canada MP Lawrence Cannon. One of whom I would consider Canada's elite, Warren Kinsella, charges her with using an aboriginal slur. I'll let you decide whether or not anything close to a slur is used by this woman. If this isn't "gotcha" politics, I don't know what is. (Full disclosure: Cannon is the MP for the riding of Pontiac, which was where I grew up, and my Dad really likes him. And I really like my Dad.)




Labels: ,

Wednesday, September 17, 2008

The story we will be looking through this Sunday, 2 Samuel 11-12, has tremendous implications for the role of the church in Canadian and American politics. The story is of a prophet going to a country's political administration to uncover the murder of a soldier and the adultery of the King. The prophet fools the King into ordering his own condemnation with a story and then pronounces judgment: this King will always lead a violent government and the LORD will bring threats against him from his own family. While the King has tried to cover things up, the prophet announces that God will shame this King in daylight. While God will not kill the King, he will strike down the son of his adultery. The prophet then leaves and returns to his own home (2 Samuel 12:15).

This last sentence is most pertinent to the church in elections. Oliver O'Donovan makes the point that the prophet is not in the employment of the King; he has his own home. The prophet's freedom to speak is not from the King. The prophet is sent by the LORD. The LORD gives the prophet freedom. The church, sometimes sadly seen as a voting bloc, is not charged to maintain its own freedom, but to challenge, uncover, speak. The church is not in the safety of the powers of this world, but of the LORD Jesus.

While I think the church can act as a chaplain, I think the desire to cling to chaplaincy can hinder its ability to return to being a prophet.

Tuesday, September 16, 2008

The Front Fell Off?

This video is really funny. Thanks to Tim for sending it to me. Thanks to Whitey for teaching me how to put a video right on the blog!

Thursday, September 11, 2008

Jesus and the Eyewitnesses, Chapter 6

Now Bauckham turns his attention to the structure of the gospels themselves. He notes that both John and Luke structure their work with accounts from people who were with Jesus "from the beginning" (Acts 1:21-22, John 2:11). The preface to Luke's gospel, one of the most studied passages in the New Testament, records that Luke's works is from eyewitnesses who were from the beginning of Jesus' ministry. Eyewitness does not have a forensic (courtroom) meaning, but a meaning of observer of events. Bauckham focuses on this phrase, "from the beginning," because in antiquity going to the beginning of the story was important. The right start was essential, citing examples from Josephus and Polybius. What Luke has done, Bauckham suggests, is understood (examined) the story from the beginning (of Jesus) because he has spoken with people who were with Jesus from the beginning--the eyewitnesses to certain events. Not only were eyewitnesses essential to the stories, but eyewitnesses who were present from beginning to end were essential.

Can we see this principle in the gospels? Bauckham argues yes. He argues that Peter is the disciple in Mark mentioned first and last. The first mention of Peter says literally, "Simon and Simon's brother," which emphasizes Simon's name. The final mention of Peter is that the women who saw the empty tomb are to tell the disciples and Peter that Jesus is going ahead of them into Galilee. Bauckham says these uses form an inclusio that bracket everything between them as Peter's testimony.

Bauckham also sees this literary device in the gospel of John. In John the first two disciples of John the Baptist are anonymous, until Andrew is named. The other, however, remains unknown. Bauckham argues that this anonymous disciple is the Beloved Disciple and author of this gospel. A few points make the argument: first, John is written from the perspective of the ideal witness (21:24) and ideal witnesses are from the beginning, whom Jesus affirms is to testify to him (15:27). Second, Jesus turns to see the anonymous disciple following him (1:38) and at the end of the Gospel Peter turns to see the disciple whom Jesus loved following (21:20). The connotation of following is of discipleship, as is the word, "remain." (Remember Jesus' words to remain in me.) The first disciples ask Jesus where he is staying and remain with him the whole day (1:38). At the end of the gospel, Jesus tells Peter that if he wants the Beloved Disciple to remain until he comes, then Peter shouldn't worry (21:22). If this disciple is one and the same and author of John, then he has displaced Peter as the authority of this gospel, but Bauckham thinks this is more of a friendly rivalry but with a serious purpose of showing the author a qualified witness.

Bauckham also examines this device in Luke with the women. This is not surprising as Luke draws on more witnesses than just the Twelve. Luke mentions three women in Jesus' Galilean ministry (Luke 8:2-3). They reappear at 24:10, at the crucifixion. While Luke also has a Petrine inclusio, this shorter inclusio shows that Luke owes some of his special material to people other than the Twelve and Peter. The only gospel not to include such a literary device is Matthew and along with the fact that Matthew adds no names other than the ones in Mark, even dropping some of those, this gospel seems not to be as concerned with eyewitness authority as the other gospels.

After examining works by Lucius and Porphyry for the same literary device, Bauckham offers his conclusion. He says that most authoritative witnesses were present for the events narrated and they can therefore vouch for the overall shape of the story. Mark, Luke, and John all use a device to tell us this is the case for the eyewitnesses of their work.

Labels: , , ,

Monday, September 08, 2008

Jesus and the Eyewitnesses, Chapter 5

"The Twelve"

What are we to think of this group that seems to be around Jesus constantly, even while he has much larger crowds in his company? No doubt they are symbolic, in number, of Israel and pertinent to Jesus' mission in their calling. Bauckham takes their role a step further, positing that this body was the group that was authoritative over the body of Jesus traditions--teaching and actions.

The lists of the twelve reflect a post-history to Jesus. Just as a genealogy forms a pre-history to a person, so a list of disciples forms a post-history. Their teaching lives on. The lists of the twelve, with small differences, cannot be to introduce them in the gospels because so many of them never reappear in the gospels, but instead serve as the source of these teachings in general. Not one of them is responsible for the traditions, but as a group they are. As a result, all of their names are important.

But if they were so important, then why are their differences? Well, suggests Bauckham, the differences are really quite minimal. All the lists (he gives a table with lists from Matt, Mark, Luke, and Acts) have three groups of four, all headed by the same name (Peter, Philip, James son of Alphaeus). Three of the four lists end with Judas--a sign that this list was developed post-mission. There are, however, a few points of difference.

One such difference is that the lists from Matthew and Mark have Thaddaeus, while Luke and Acts have Judas son of James. Could these names have referred to the same person? While some suggest that this "smacks of harmonization," Bauckham thinks it very plausible. First, individuals often bore two names. Thaddaeus seems to be a Greek name (perhaps Theodosios, Theodotos, Theodoros) which has been shortened into an Aramaic name (Taddai) and then made Greek again, Thaddaeus. The above Greek names were popular with Jews because they contained the Greek word for God (Theo). Several ossuaries (bone boxes) held Palestinian Jews who had double names, and so it would not be out of the question for Thaddaeus to be both Thaddaeus and Judas. In this event, it makes sense that a man named Judas among the twelve would need to be distinguished from Judas Iscariot and that Luke, the historian, would have official lists of the twelve, Judas son of James, when this person was often simply called Thaddaeus among the twelve.

This notion is given more credence by the fact that many of the names in the twelve are distinguished from one another using some of the categories Bauckham mentioned last chapter. Simon is given a nickname, Peter, which helps distinguish him from Simon, the zealot. These distinguishing features seem to originate in the group itself. You have paternal lines added (e.g., James son of Zebedee); paternal lines subbed into a name (Bartholomew--not likely Nathaneal from John's gospel because what makes Bartholomew handy is that Tolmai (Tholomew) is a rare name, as is Nathanael. If his name was Nathanael, you wouldn't need to distinguish him from many people.); nicknames (Peter, Simon the zealot); nickname as a name (Thomas--"twin"; other non-biblical sources call this disciple, "Judas Thomas"); place of origin added (Judas Iscariot, meaning 'of Kerioth'); and occupation (Matthew the tax collector). This last example, however, brings us to another difficulty.

Why does Matthew's list have this piece of information about Matthew, but no one else? Could the story of Levi the tax collector be about the same person as Matthew the tax collector? Bauckham judges this to be implausible. While Matthew, Mark, and Luke have the story of a tax collector called, Mark and Luke refer to this man by the name of Levi. They do not connect him with the Matthew of their lists at any point. While they simply may not have known they were the same person, getting lists and eyewitness account from different sources and not connecting the dots, this is not likely because both Matthew and Levi were fairly common names. One does not find evidence of Palestinian Jews having two common names. Bauckham suggests that the person who collected Matthew wanted to give a calling narrative for the disciple whose accounts formed this gospel and so applied the narrative of Levi, which he knew from Mark, to Matthew. It's possible that the very simplicity of the calling of Levi the tax collector could be applied to just about any tax collector, which was, evidently, Matthew's occupation. If this is true, then the redactor of Matthew was not the disciple himself, as he could have simply told his own conversion narrative.

Labels: , , , ,

Saturday, September 06, 2008

Is "God" Political Bitterness?

In case some thought I was being awfully tough on Gov. Palin--and I know one did because he told me so this morning! :)--let me show someone from the other side. Only this time I don't think "God" is being used for political capital, but for something else. Here's Michael Moore saying Gustav is proof that there is a God in heaven.

Friday, September 05, 2008

Political Capital redux

Here is a link to my friend Ray Nothstine's piece on this issue from the Acton Blog, where he is an editor. It comes at the issue from a slightly different perspective and is a good addition to the discussion we had.

Thursday, September 04, 2008

Is "God" Political Capital?

Just a reminder that I believe that God has established political authority and that Christians can faithfully engage in this vocation, even in the midst of obvious tensions (sanction and ordering of violence) and more opaque ones (potentially divided loyalty).

As a result, I think it not only fair, but wise and absolutely necessary for faithful Christians to pray and seek God's guidance on issues of policy and decision making. However, I think this is an example of using "God" as political capital, shoring up one's opinion, which may or may not be in line with God's desires, in order to gain the support of others. What's important to note is that whether or not the politician believes their actions to be in line with God (and/or have prayed about it), invoking God as being on my side is pastorally abusive from those who are not pastors.