Tag Archives: Bible

An ‘Other’ Example: Mark’s “Crowd”

Posted on by
Reply

(A follow up to #2 in the LOST in Theology Series)

To give another example of the function of an unidentified group within a single narrative, consider for a moment at the character development of “The Crowd” in Mark:

He went out again beside the sea, and all the crowd was coming to him, and he was teaching them. (Mark 2:13 ESV)

Jesus withdrew with his disciples to the sea, and a great crowd followed, from Galilee and Judea and Jerusalem and Idumea and from beyond the Jordan and from around Tyre and Sidon. When the great crowd heard all that he was doing, they came to him. (Mark 3:7-8 ESV)

And he said to them, “Come away by yourselves to a desolate place and rest a while.” For many were coming and going, and they had no leisure even to eat. And they went away in the boat to a desolate place by themselves. Now many saw them going and recognized them, and they ran there on foot from all the towns and got there ahead of them. When he went ashore he saw a great crowd, and he had compassion on them, because they were like sheep without a shepherd. And he began to teach them many things. (Mark 6:31-34 ESV)

And when they came to the disciples, they saw a great crowd around them, and scribes arguing with them. And immediately all the crowd, when they saw him, were greatly amazed and ran up to him and greeted him. (Mark 9:14-15 ESV)

And immediately, while he was still speaking, Judas came, one of the twelve, and with him a crowd with swords and clubs, from the chief priests and the scribes and the elders. (Mark 14:43 ESV)

And the crowd came up and began to ask Pilate to do as he usually did for them. And he answered them, saying, “Do you want me to release for you the King of the Jews?” For he perceived that it was out of envy that the chief priests had delivered him up. But the chief priests stirred up the crowd to have him release for them Barabbas instead. And Pilate again said to them, “Then what shall I do with the man you call the King of the Jews?” And they cried out again, “Crucify him.” And Pilate said to them, “Why, what evil has he done?” But they shouted all the more, “Crucify him.” So Pilate, wishing to satisfy the crowd, released for them Barabbas, and having scourged Jesus, he delivered him to be crucified. (Mark 15:8-15 ESV)

How does the so-called “crowd” change?  What’s its effect on you (the reader) or on Mark’s audience?

LOST with the Others

Posted on by
1

2nd in the LOST in Theology Series. (1st)

This is about gaps–not logical gaps, lacunae–but about questions the story creates and then doesn’t answer.  Case in point: in LOST, who the heck are the Others?  What do they want with children, you know, Walt?  There are more of these gaps, and from having watched all the episodes consecutively in a short time, they stand out more.  Now, this could be a blog about pondering who the Others are, picking out pieces of evidence and making hypothoses based upon that evidence.  But that’s exactly the kind of thinking that I try to guard against on this blog.  Rather, I want to take this opportunity to turn the analytical eye back on the LOST viewer.  How do the Others play on LOST viewers?

For me, Seasons 1-3 drove me to ask the question: Who are the others?  In many ways, the genre of Lost (a serialed, weekly thriller) demands that it has constant unanswered questions, most of which are answered as new questions are posed during Season transitions.  It is a form used to a lesser extent by Dickens and Dostoyevsky, but still directed by market forces.  The genre structure keeps you watching, like an addictive chemical that makes you crave for it nightly.  But if such a driving question of the narrative is never answered, it is fair then to ask its function.

Narratives are primarily functional, somewhat rhetorical, and rarely ontological (concerned with the true nature of things, like Systematic Theology or Creedal statments).  They lead the audience through doors that they choose, passing other doors by.  The identity of the Others is one of those unopened doors, simply because the author, the narrative, enters into another door.  Then why include them at all?  The answer, I believe is functional, and a clue lies in the wisdom of Locke again:

LOCKE: He is one of them. To Rousseau, we’re all Others. I guess it’s all relative, huh? (One of Them, S2.14)

We are all others.  The Others fuction as a backdrop, so we can see the shapes and true colors of the 815ers, and we (the viewers) can engage and reflect on the 815ers’ moral choices.  We do this in real life, locating those we disagree with the most (GOP, Democrats, Muslims, etc.) and defining our own identities and morals against the backdrop of those ‘others.’  But in real life, those views are not always challenged.  But narratives often help us to see the moral complexity in others–most of Literature has this purpose.  In LOST, we encounter touching back stories of Juliet and Benjamin Linus.  We wrestle with Benjamin Linus, his betrayal, his tyranny, his redemtion, his further betrayal, his further redemption, and in the end we are no longer left with the burning curiosity of who the Others are, nor why they needed children.  That door is left closed.

As a Bible teacher, I’m often asked a question that shows me that when many people read the Bible, they are looking for ontological answers, rather than reading a functional narrative: “When did Jesus realize he was God?” (for other face-palming questions, look here.)  Truth is, there’s little (read: nothing) of Jesus’ divinity in the first three Gospels, so… But in John, we are given four statements that equate Jesus (or the Word) with God (1.1; 5.18; 8.58; 10.30).  However, in none of these statments does Jesus explicitly say that he is God.  In fact, Jesus’ suggested divinity is one of those doors closed by John’s narrative.  We glance at it as we pass it by, but we are more concerned with other things: Jesus’ farewell speech, his clash with Pilate, his call to feed his sheep.  As responsible readers/viewers, we must let the narratives take us where it leads, asking good questions along the way, but letting them linger as they do in the narrative.

What other unanswered questions are in LOST?  In what other ways to Christians skip the narrative to find theological answers?

Are you “one of them”?

LOST in Theology

Posted on by
3

This is the first in a series of posts on LOST in Theology based on the ever popular TV series that I just finished watching on Amazon Prime for the first time… I know, I know, I really don’t like theology, but that is the point really: to realize how lost in theologies we are when we forget to read the story.  It’s really about working through Biblical narrative, but everyone (esp. Schools of Theology) seems to conflate Bible and Theology.  Don’t get me started.

And I know I’m late to the party, but LOST is still in the public memory, and it was so popular that it works as a good case study for the way in which we interact with narratives, metanarratives, and cosmic themes like determinism, hermeneutics, apocalypticism, death, and redemption.  I plan to touch on each of these this week as I reflect on my first viewing of LOST.  You will get an insight into the boring mind of a Bible scholar who watches a famous TV show.  I hope you at least have a good laugh in my general direction.

LOST is a collection of stories that come together on the island bound by the beginnings and endings of serial episodes and seasons.  The Bible is a collection of stories, bound in book covers.  Each limited by its genre, they try to convince us of the value of certain themes in the lives of living humans, one for its market, and other to spread its truth.  I would love your comments and suggestions for future themes.  First up is LOST in Determinism.  Be ready.

Live together or die alone.

Friday’s Favorite 2/3/12

Posted on by
Reply

My favorite reading this week (although it’s from January 10th) goes to “A Thoreau Look at the Undead”

Look for a series called “LOST in Theology” soon, based on the popular TV series, relating to my work on Bultmann and Existential Hermeneutics.

I’m teaching the Formation of the Canon this weekend, so I’ll leave you with this quote from Athanasius in 367CE:

They have fabricated books which they call books of tables, in which they shew stars, to which they give the names of Saints. And therein of a truth they have inflicted on themselves a double reproach: those who have written such books, because they have perfected themselves in a lying and contemptible science; and as to the ignorant and simple, they have led them astray by evil thoughts concerning the right faith established in all truth and upright in the presence of God.

To you and Athanasius, I ask “Who says so?”

Cheers.

History is Relevant, Historicity Should Not Be:

Posted on by
2

A few thoughts on yesterday’s post concerning mythology and history…

I am perfectly willing to accept the possibility of the historicity of the Bible–that the Bible is historically accurate in its entirety.  This is efficient.  Yet, I doubt every Christian is willing to accept the possibility of the opposite–that the Bible is historically inaccurate.  If this is the case, I say that wanting the Bible to be historical does not make it historical, and such a faith claim is efficient and biased.  If, however, one can accept both possibilities, then we are left with two options.  First, we can weigh the evidence, and try to determine which parts are and which parts are not historical.  Much time and effort in and out of scholarship has been given to this task, and Bultmann critiques these efforts, since he claims there is not enough evidence to say either way.  The second option, then, is to disregard the historicity of the Bible.  Worry not about the historical actions of its characters.

Instead, know as well as one can about the history and culture surrounding the composition of the various Scriptures.  In this way, one contextualizes the language used to tell the stories, helping the modern reader access (and reproduce) the meaning.  This is of course, problematic, because the interpretation of history, even recent history, is known to be biased, and spun (Fox News, MSNBC).  But still, it is the best we have, and we make do what we have.  More later, but I just wanted to make the distinction clear on the relevance of history versus historicity.

Talk amongst yourselves…

Bultmannia: ‘Mythology’

Posted on by
Reply

(Slightly Wonkish)

“For the conception “Kingdom of God” is mythological, as is the conception of the eschatological drama. Just as mythological are the presuppositions of the expectation of the Kingdom of God, namely, the theory that the world, although created by God, is ruled by the devil, Satan, and that his army, the demons, is the cause of all evil, sin and disease. The whole conception of the world which is presupposed in the preaching of Jesus as in the New Testament generally is mythological; i.e., the conception of the world as being structured in three stories, heaven, earth and hell; the conception of the intervention of supernatural powers in the course of events; and the conception of miracles, especially the conception of the intervention of supernatural powers in the inner life of the soul, the conception that men can be tempted and corrupted by the devil and possessed by evil spirits. This conception of the world we call mythological because it is different from the conception of the world which has been formed and developed by science since its inception in ancient Greece and which has been accepted by all modern men.”– Jesus Christ and Mythology, 1958.

Let’s be frank.  To Christians, the term “mythological” is scary.  Bultmann caught a good deal of flak for this term, and he admitted it was not the best term, yet it was the best one available to him.  I imagine though, that even if there were a perfect term for Bultmann’s mythology, it would still be controversial among Christians. But keeping in mind that Bultmann did scholarship in service of the Church and is a giant in the field, I believe there is a great deal of value in Bultmann’s analysis.

The best place to start is in the first sentence above.  Bultmann does not say that the Kingdom of God is mythological, an ontological claim that it is not real, and simply part of an ancient narrative.  Rather, mythological refers to the conceptual framework of the ancient authors and audiences of the Bible, which is then juxtaposed to our modern “scientific” conceptual framework.  This is hard to grasp, but if one wants to criticize Bultmann, one must grasp this first, before all else.

Two remarks to conclude, and let us take the example of Jesus walking on water.  First, those, who want to claim that the historical Jesus actually walked on water in a modern scientific way, are interpreting outside of the ancient framework within which the stories were composed.  This does not mean that Jesus did not walk on water, for this question is irrelevant, especially to Bultmann. We will discuss more about history in the future.  And second, since stories with characters who walk on water were common in ancient literature, the most important question then beccomes (since we cannot easily enter into a mythological conception of the world), “Why does the story-teller include a story about Jesus walking on water?”

More Bultmannia soon!  Cheers.

The Wall Street Bible

Posted on by
Reply

I normally don’t post twice in a day, but this Wall Street Journal article “inspired” me.  Now, I have nothing positive or negative to say about modern day capitalism, unless of course we compare it with the oppressive argrarian societies of history, like feudalism.  For me, capitalism is a social tool to decentralize wealth and create incentives.  Fine.  It has its strengths and weaknesses, and I could probably list many of them, but we are not here for that.  We are here because Rabi Aryeh Spero has made a biblical argument for capitalism, and that just doesn’t sit right with me.

His biggest blunder is a common one, to pit capitalism against socialism.  It is an unfair dichotomy in the present Western World, and in America.  Most Western countries are a messy mix of both public and private sectors, and it is unlikely that such things will change soon.  What is really being argued over is the relationship and ratio between the two: How big should the public sector be? And how can the public sector be involved with the private?  Great questions, and the arguments need to be placed in concrete contexts, rather than abstract ideas.

While Spero has pointed out some of capitalisms strengths, his use of the Hebrew Bible (Christian Old Testament) takes quite a leap of faith between our cultures.

Because the Hebrew Bible sees us not simply as “workers” and members of the masses but, rather, as individuals, it heralds that characteristic which endows us with individuality: our creativity… At the opening bell, Genesis announces: “Man is created in the image of God”—in other words, like Him, with individuality and creative intelligence.

I’m going to give Spero the benefit of the doubt, since he may get this interpretation from some Rabbinic sources that I’m not aware of.  However, I’m still going to express my doubts over his interpretation, not only because of the Wall Street Journal, nor because of his “Caucus for America,” but because I doubt the Bible has much to say on Western individualism or capitalism.  One of the defining characteristics of an Individual-Oriented society is the emphasis placed on personal happiness and individual liberty.  These themes are severely lacking in the Hebrew Bible.  Rather, the Hebrew Bible is more concerned with political independence, critique of corrupt leadership, and social identity.  Also, the Hebrew people lived in an agrarian society, thus making a leap to modern economic systems require heavy exegesis–something Spero has not done at all here.

While, I am a Christian and focus on the New Testament, I still hold that even the Hebrew Bible cannot defend Capitalism or Socialism.  Rather, all we can really look for are the reasons that both Testaments critique their own agrarian societies.  And correct me if I’m wrong, but the strongest critiques are aimed at corrupt elites, who gain at the expense of the weak, the poor, and the marginalized.  So whatever economic system one supports, someone claiming the authority of either Testament ought to make sure that all economic systems prevent such exploitation.

Supposing the Kingdom

Posted on by
Reply

 

As they heard these things, he proceeded to tell a parable, because he was near to Jerusalem, and because they supposed that the kingdom of God was to appear immediately.
(Luke 19:11 ESV)
 
Ἀκουόντων δὲ αὐτῶν ταῦτα προσθεὶς εἶπεν παραβολὴν διὰ τὸ ἐγγὺς εἶναι Ἰερουσαλὴμ αὐτὸν καὶ δοκεῖν αὐτοὺς ὅτι παραχρῆμα μέλλει ἡ βασιλεία τοῦ θεοῦ ἀναφαίνεσθαι.

This is the transitional statement that links the Zacchaeus story with the Parable of the Minas (Lukan version of the Parable of the Talents).  Truthfully, for the modern reader, this is an ambiguous statement.  We are given two reasons for the telling of the parable: 1) Jesus is near Jerusalem, and 2) Jesus’ audience thought, because of the Zacchaeus incident, that “the kingdom of God was to appear immediately.  Yet, it seems by the telling of the parable that the kingdom has not arrived, nor will it arrive soon.  Scholars typically deal with two options for interpreting the Minas Parable.  First, in Matthew, the parable is told next to the bridesmaids, suggesting that the parable exhorts the listeners to wait vigilantly for the return of the master.  But we do not have this context in Luke.

Another option for the interpretation of the parable is that Jesus tells it as evidence that the kingdom of God is not about to appear.  In other words, Jesus tells this parable against the master, against the nobleman who wants to be king (19.12).  The exploitation of the nobleman is evidence that the kingdom of God has not arrived, nor will it arrive soon.

Yet, I am curious, if there is a more complex answer, for when the people expect the nearness of the kingdom of God, Jesus tells a parable about the proximity of a different type of kingdom.  And in Luke’s version of the parable, the third servant is not condemned, but those who defy the king are (19. 14, 27).  There is a conflict over the kingdom and to whom it belongs, and it is not clear which is the good side.  Perhaps, the parable suggests that the “war” for the kingdom is on.  Thoughts?

Re: Why I hate Religion… and other nonsense.

Posted on by
Reply

Look, I get what Bethke is saying, and he says a lot of good things: church is not Republican, church should help the poor, the inside rather than the outside is crucial, the church is a “hospital for the broken,” and Jesus never liked self-righteousness.  But his overall premise is, in my opinion, harmful and unbiblical.  For an initial rebuttal, look here (thanks, Katie).

Bethke’s premise is that Jesus came to “abolish religion.”  I believe this to be directly contradictory to the Canonical Gospels.  Rather, the Gospels claim Jesus as a radical Judean (Jewish) reformer. [“I was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.”--Matthew 15:24] Never once does Jesus break stride with Judeanism (the predecessor to Judaism) in terms of following the law.  Admittedly, there is some debate over Mark 7.19, but it is an enigma in an otherwise clean slate as comes to following the law and challenging some religious authorities over their interpretation and implementation of the law:

 

“But woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you shut the kingdom of heaven in people’s faces. For you neither enter yourselves nor allow those who would enter to go in. Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you travel across sea and land to make a single proselyte, and when he becomes a proselyte, you make him twice as much a child of hell as yourselves.
“Woe to you, blind guides, who say, ‘If anyone swears by the temple, it is nothing, but if anyone swears by the gold of the temple, he is bound by his oath.’ You blind fools! For which is greater, the gold or the temple that has made the gold sacred? And you say, ‘If anyone swears by the altar, it is nothing, but if anyone swears by the gift that is on the altar, he is bound by his oath.’ You blind men! For which is greater, the gift or the altar that makes the gift sacred? So whoever swears by the altar swears by it and by everything on it. And whoever swears by the temple swears by it and by him who dwells in it. And whoever swears by heaven swears by the throne of God and by him who sits upon it.
“Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you tithe mint and dill and cumin, and have neglected the weightier matters of the law: justice and mercy and faithfulness. These you ought to have done, without neglecting the others. You blind guides, straining out a gnat and swallowing a camel!
“Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you clean the outside of the cup and the plate, but inside they are full of greed and self-indulgence. You blind Pharisee! First clean the inside of the cup and the plate, that the outside also may be clean.

“Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you are like whitewashed tombs, which outwardly appear beautiful, but within are full of dead people’s bones and all uncleanness. So you also outwardly appear righteous to others, but within you are full of hypocrisy and lawlessness.Mt. 23.113-28

Point: the Pharisees nor the scribes represent the entirety of the Judean religion.  In Jesus accusation, the Pharisees and the scribes are hindering the people who are practicing their religion of following and worshipping the very same God that Bethke worships.  Not only does Jesus not critique these “religious” people, but he uses the Torah to critique the religious leaders–the very same Torah, they use to neglect justice and mercy.  Jesus is reforming the religion the authorities have corrupted.

There’s more to critique from Bethke, like his use of pornography or his claim that religion starts wars, but that would take more than I have time.  There will be other pundits, I’m sure.  The truth is that Bethke is not the problem.  This video went viral because so many Christians loved it, without thinking critically about their own faith or Bible… or religion.  People, faith is something you DO; Not a work to be judged by, but a way of life.  Get into it.  Call out hyprocrisy and be vessels of “justice, mercy, and faithfulness.”  For in the words of Shakespeare and Edward R. Murrow,

“The fault, dear Brutus, is not in our stars/ but in ourselves.”

Good day… and good luck;)