Pre-Christmas Notes: Huge Edition

Clearing out the coffers before the New Year. Merry Christmas!

• Christianity's new (and possibly deceptive!) naming practices.
• Josh McManaway and I traded a few posts about the canon (among other things). Michael Bird takes up the same subject in a series of posts he is doing on scripture. [Related: More canon goodness from RDTWOT]
• Shawn Anthony, one of the contributors to the Daily Scribe, posts on Jesus as "Savior" in Luke. Definitely worth a read.
• What's your theological worldview? I'm looking forward to confirming that I am a fundamentalist. [Via Jake Bouma]
• The 'War on Christmas' goes global.
• Also, in your face, war-on-christm-icans! Personally, I would like to start a 'War on Sanity.' (And this is where I would start.)
• Correction: This is where I would start. [Via Notes From Off-Center]
• When I first came to seminary, I very much wanted to do a thesis involving Hip-Hop. Since I never thought of a topic that would have been any good, I moved on to the transmission of apocryphal gospels (a short step away, I figured). T. Michael W. Halcomb and Nick Norelli, where were you? [Bonus: Jim West auditions for the part of 'Grumpy Old Man']
• Three years ago, in my first seminary class of any note, our professor was trying to sell the class on the modernist's elevation of reason above all else, and the impotency of a Christian apologetic built specifically in that mode functioning in an increasingly post-modern world. (I went to film school just for sentences like that one.) In illustration of his charge that we had won the "battle against modernism," he spoke of the conversion of Anthony Flew to deism from atheism. I had no idea who that was. Now I do. [Partially via Exploring Our Matrix/Richard Carrier raises some questions about the book/See also NYT Review]
• British people getting frisky. I resisted the temptation to use an apostrophe instead of the final 'g'.
• That is a really big camera.
• Apparently, Tony Blair converted to Catholicism. This was actually really interesting, so if you're picking up any sarcasm, put it down.
• To anyone that I know or anyone that I don't, but you have stumbled across this exercise in narcissism, Merry Christmas and Happy New Year!

Friday Notes

• The drawbacks and merits (I use the word loosely) of standardized testing. There are so many ways to juke the system (including the one that pays my bills), that testing becomes a referendum on how well the student can prepare for the exam, rather than an accurate measure of either their "achievement" or "aptitude." Explain to me again how being able to correctly compute questions straight out of 9th grade Geometry textbooks is an accurate measure of how, say, a photojournalist is going to fare in graduate school? [Bonus: a commenter calling out the blatant self-promotion of one of the panelists. Extra bonus: a commenter calling out tutors like me!]
• Jim West posts some personal faves from December in lieu of a Biblical Studies Carnival this month.
• I glibly took a look at this story a few days ago, but Pat McCullough of Kata Ta Biblia had to go and ruin my fun by taking it seriously. The context in which Pat imagines a legitimate lesson taking place:

  I can certainly imagine a context in which the teacher is raising legitimate concerns about corruption in the religious institutions of European history. For example, let’s say that part of the lesson for the day is this: The state churches of Europe were not interested in worshiping God, but rather protecting their power. For the religious institution, religion was not “connected with morality.” Many Christians today don’t recognize the corruption of the church’s past because they are trying to see church history through rose-colored glasses. But we have to recognize the truth of history and “when you put on your Jesus glasses, you can’t see the truth.”

  I would love for that to be the case, and I loved teachers who could bring things to light that way when I was coming up through high school and university. But when the teacher is also saying things like "Conservatives don't want women to avoid pregnancies – that's interfering with God's work,” well, I'm not sure you can give that teacher the benefit of the doubt. Was that meant as a joke? Almost surely. Do I get the joke? I get it and I enjoy it thoroughly. It is a joke you should make in a class full of high school kids? Almost certainly not.
• From that same L.A. Times story:

  "We just want him to stop," she said while holding a sign that read "Stop Dr. Corbett's Intolerance." "If he wants to teach like that, he should be at a university."

  I'm not sure what makes that sign better: that in the student's mind, we need to push intolerance into higher education, or that she wants the teacher she is protesting to get a promotion. Of course, even that pales in comparison to this:

  "I'm tired of being criticized and ostracized for being a Christian. I'm glad Chad filed his suit. It's time we Christians fought back," Drake said.

  Just like Jesus said.
• Just for the headline: "2007, a bad year for God squadders."
• Last minute Christmas ideas.
• A haiku, in honor of striking writers:
  
  Stewart and Colbert,
  
  returning to air, sans scribes.
  
  Writer's Guild dismay.
  
  Check out that pic of Colbert. He has a secret, and he's not telling.
• Must-read for me each year: Ebert's Top 10. [Tenuously related: Christianity Today's Top Stories of 2007. Via DMN Religion Blog.]
• Why is this man not writing a thesis. Scotty, we need you!
• Just found this blog. Not sure what it is, not sure if it's good. But he's got a "top posts of 2007" and I've got a links post to fill up.

'Heresy, Church Authority, and the Canon' Continued

I don't wish to be a toady, yes man, flunky, fawner, or flatterer (synonyms courtesy of dictionary.com, because I've been using the word 'sycophant' too much lately), but in Josh's latest post in our ongoing dialogue, I thought he made an excellent point:

The heretics had Scripture too... What the heretics didn't have is the Church (particularly Rome).

I struggle with the fast food churches that dot Dallas and many other U.S. cities, where churches exercise almost no authority whatsoever, so it is nice to be reminded from time to time the importance the Church (and church) is to have in our lives.

Tischendorf's Novum Testamentum

Not sure how useful these links will be, but if you ever find yourself wondering, "Hmm, I wonder how I could get a copy of Tischendorf's 8th edition," then they will be VERY useful.

Vol. I

Vol. II

Wednesday Notes

• Quite a few blogs have mentioned Tyndale Tech going online in blog form. It has immediately made it into my RSS reader, and if you like electronic resources or doing more efficient research or anything like that, it will immediately go into yours.
• College students: more spiritual, less church-y. [Previously: Forums on the Religious Engagement of American Undergraduates] [Via DMN Religion Blog]
• If for no other reason, the headline: Christians Called to Resist Aggression this Christmas. SO HARD TO RESIST!!
• This year's Greer-Heard Forum: On the Textual Reliability of the NT. Bart Ehrman, Dan Wallace, SMACKDOWN. Not really though, 'cause they call it a "dialogue" which everyone knows just means "debate without any fun."
• Since I've been writing so much lately about Christians vs. Atheists and the "New" Atheism and general vitriol in the public square, it was nice to see James McGrath's post of a rational conversation between a Christian and an atheist. We need more nuance, theologically, politically, and otherwise, not less, and conversations like these are a fantastic example of why.
• Since it's Christmas: more about the Virgin birth! I actually had some thoughts after reading through this, but I can't remember what they were now, and so I'll just encourage you to check it out.
• This Monday, KERA's Krys Boyd interviewed John Dominic Crossan. I only got to hear the first part on the radio, but it's worth a listen (as is nearly everything on NPR).
• Last, but certainly not least, the most entertaining basketball clip you could possible imagine. It just doesn't seem to be the Mavericks' year (which, of course, I am really broken up about). [Via TrueHoop]

rules of blogging i'm discovering along the way #1

every post should end with a Metzger quote.

Heresy, Church Authority, and the Canon

Josh McManaway was kind enough to comment on a post of mine yesterday (regarding a comment on a post of his), covering a couple of my questions. On the place of heresy before Arianism:

When I call Arianism the first great heresy, I mean that it was the first time that a heresy had really spread within the Church. Whereas earlier heresies (Cerinthianism, Docetism, etc) certainly existed, they were always considered vulgar by the orthodox. Arianism was a horse of a different color in that people within the Church accepted it.

We might just be saying the same thing at each other in different ways, but that was kind of my point. Heresy existed before a Church council was convened to condemn it, therefore heresy must be able to take place without Church authority coming into the discussion. Or, let me put it another way, there must be something that points out heresy other than the Church because heresies were being recognized before Church councils were condemning them. I would posit that the "something else" that allowed for that recognition is scripture, making, as Josh anticipates, the recognition of the canon all the more important. Once again, his comment:

I mean that one could cite a letter of Paul as authoritative, but likewise, could cite the Didache or Clement of Rome's Epistle to the Corinthians as authoritative too until the canon was decided officially

Quite simply, I don't think this was actually the case. From very early on, there was a recognition that what we would call scripture today was different from other Christian works being produced around the same time. I would point to the Muratorian canon once more, which went so far as to point out works (e.g. the Shepherd of Hermes) that, while edifying, were not to be held to on the same level as scripture. Indeed, Bruce Metzger, (Canon of the New Testament, p. 254) pointed out:

...though the fringes of the New Testament canon remained unsettled for centuries, a high degree of unanimity concerning the greater part of the New Testament was attained within the first two centuries among the very diverse and scattered congregations not only thoughout the Mediterranean world but also over an area extending from Britain to Mesopotamia.

"A" does not necessarily lead to "B"

Harold Myerson points out some of the hypocrisy that comes about when you combine Christianity and politics. Matthew Yglesias takes that ball and runs:

How is it that the political mobilization of Christianity in the United States seems to have gotten us so much torture, aggressive warfare, and xenophobia? Where's the humane, universalistic ethic of the Gospels go?

I suppose Yglesias' point is really that the Gospels don't actually contain a humane and universalist ethic, and that there's a direct causal relationship between "Christians get involved in politics" and "country turns into war-mongering, torture-happy state." On the other hand, perhaps this is simply a case of those who wish to push the United States in the direction of torture, aggressive warfare, and xenophobia doing a much better job of appealing to particularly political Christians.

Tuesday Notes

• Apparently, Richard Dawkins is not a soldier in the War on Christmas. I guess they need to step up their recruiting.
• Some recent (and not-so-recent) thoughts on heresy. Josh McManaway puts forward what he feels is an element lacking in such discussions: The Church.

  When the first great heresy arose, there wasn't a Biblical canon. How did the early Church combat it? By the Church's authority. Out of the 318 Bishops that showed up, all but 2 voted against Arius, and the decision was signed by the Papal Legates sent by Pope Sylvester.

  In the first place, it seems a little misleading to say "there wasn't a Biblical canon." There were already collections of the Gospels and Paul's letters, as well as the development of more formal canon lists by c. 200 C.E. (see the dating of P64 for the Gospels, P46 for Paul, and the Muratorian Canon), well before the First Ecumenical Council in 325 C.E. In the second place, aren't there two logical questions following such a claim: (1) Where did the Church get its authority (i.e. didn't it at least partly rest on appeals to scripture) and (2) Is this really the first heresy? I don't disagree that it was the first heresy combatted in the form of a Church council, but I think it's a bit of a stretch to claim that 325 C.E. was the first time anyone committed heresy. Surely there was some individual who had been corrected, yet continued in their false beliefs prior to Arius.
• One of those silly polls about the crazy things Americans believe. The best part?

  More than four out of five born again adults embrace the story of Eve while less than half as many among the non-born again subgroups believe in it. Only eight percent of atheists and agnostics accepted the story.

  Eight percent of atheists and agnostics?? What are they teaching atheists these days?
• Excellent post on a recent article in U.S. News and World Report about the return to "tradition" (another word for liturgy here) happening, apparently, all over the place. I've lamented about a lack of liturgy in the American evangelical church in the past (and the article gets extra plusses for mentioning a church I used to attend in Dallas), but this is a much fuller treatment of the topic.
• Awesome rant at Rightly Dividing the Word of Truth. My first car was a 1989 Chevy Baretta. It sat in my parents' driveway for about two years before I could even use it. The "ceiling carpet" had completely seperated from the roof of the car, the painting was chipped so much that it looked like a rusty DeLorean. I had that car until a few trips back and forth to California about killed it. I promptly sold it to my brother. I loved that car.

wait...now THAT'S the best thing i've read today

a few more minutes of clicking around, a few more thoughts to contend with, a few more blogs to add to the roll. but most of all, the best quote of the day (immediately knocking out the previous title-holder):

...language like "sky-fairy" is just deliberately insulting and not worthy of anyone over 14. I think keeping a gun around the house is a really bad idea but I don't describe anyone who thinks otherwise as "wanting to stroke their big metal penis."

best thing i've read today

From one of the commenters to Yglesias's With Friends Like These (Emphasis mine):

Hitchens is little more than an angry religious zealot. He may be an atheist, but he's still pure, unadulterated, religious-style faith behind that anger. This comes through loud and clear whenever Hitchens veers off topic from a generalized criticism of theism and religion to criticisms of specific religions or topics not touching on religion at all. As an atheist myself, Hitchens seems a total nutter who happens to accidentally be right about god. Hitchens is to god as Ron Paul is to the Iraq war.

I love that quote so much I'm going to buy a refrigerator to put it on.

The New Atheism

Matthew Yglesias chimes in today on "The New Atheism" or "Militant Atheism" or "Fundamentalist Atheism" or whatever you want to call it. I've posted my feelings on the subject before, at least tangentially, and when I initially read Yglesias's post (and the linked article by Damon Linker), I thought "what a fantastic opportunity to write on this." However, from the vantage point of the end of the day, doing the research I feel that would require and putting up some thoughts seems insurmountable. But it still deserves a look.

Oh, also, his commenters are not a happy lot.

spring cleaning

as you may notice, last night i performed some long overdue updating of the sundry blogs and template settings. perhaps i will even get motivated enough to adjust the template from the blogger default settings, beyond just colors and fonts (though i doubt it).

Daily idea file

A few years ago, a professor recommended I keep a file of ideas. If I could come up with three per day (just three!) after a month I would have 100 ideas to choose from. I could write to my heart's content at that pace. Like the good student that I used to be, I kept that file. Today I checked it. The file was created on October 25, 2002. It had one entry from October 25, 2002. Nice.

inerrancy round-up

First, there was Jim West's original post on Darrell Bock's article in Christianity Today. His labeling of Bock as a fundamentalist drew a number of interesting responses, and eventual lead to the question of what exactly West meant by fundamentalist.

So, he posted his definition of a fundamentalist. Here is where the discussion began to turn to inerrancy. A number of people took issue with the rather narrow definition, especially with the apparent historical contradictions involved in such an anachronistic definitions. Others interacted with the definition. Jim retorted to a few who attempted to use his definition historically.

Ignoring those problems, West further posted a challenge (though he was not the only one) to any and all newly minted Fundamentalists to defend inerrancy. Some tried, but all failed (to West's mind) to succeed in such narrowly defined parameters.

There were a few round-ups. Still more questions. It was quite a weekend.

you can't win 'em all

But you can certainly try.

conversations that don't generally happen with non-seminarians

"running late"
"me too"
"why are you running late?"
"inerrancy"

Chalcedonian Christology

These posts are functioning more as footnotes than anything else, but alas, I did not want to submit a 10-page paper of a comment under Dr. Jim West's challenge. So I will try to split up some things here.

Obviously, Christ's divinity and humanity are affirmed throughout Scripture, I have no qualms with that. The exact nature of their interaction with each other, however, is not affirmed explicitly in Scripture. And so, and this is why I believe theology takes place, orthodoxy attempts to delineate that nature, putting forward a doctrine (that Jesus was both God and man, not in some combination or hybrid, and not with preference given to either pole) even though we could not point to one particular verse that says, "this is exactly how it happens."

What is fundamentalism?

The thought system defined by those who, rather than endeavor to discover truth, would opt to remain secure in their own ontological, pseudo-intellectual bubble--without questioning their own presuppositions, without pursuing the evidence, and without weighing an argument on the basis of its own merits. Conservative or liberal is an inclination. Fundamentalism is a state of mind.

Famous Fundamentalists

[Fuller version of this comment] [UPDATE: that link goes nowhere, principally because the comment did not make it onto the page. however, i did finally get it down (i think) as can be seen here.]

Dr. Jim West has been opining on the evils of Fundamentalism. Normally, that would be totally cool, and I would join in mercilessly. Unfortunately, it seems when we talk about fundamentalism, Jim and I have a bit of a different idea. From a recent post, his definition:

A fundamentalist is a person who believes that the Bible is inerrant or infallible.

Now, I am not the biggest fan of the concept of inerrancy in the world. (I am also not the biggest fan of my school's policy to require graduating students to affirm inerrancy, so I will be writing veeeeery carefully). BUT I am not ready to give it up yet, and moreover, I see no reason to vilify those who would affirm it. Let's face it, labeling someone a fundamentalist accomplishes that, especially when West is saying things like (linked above):

I’ve spent a good bit of my eyesight reading fundametalist authors and always with the same outcome: what they write is garbage.

That being said, let's look at some famous fundamentalists, whom we may now unceremoniously dismiss (according to Jim):

Martin Luther: "It is impossible that Scripture should contradict itself; it only appears so to senseless and obstinate hypocrites" (W2 9, 356)

"Everyone knows that at times they [the fathers] have erred as men will; therefore, I am ready to trust them only when they prove their opinions from Scripture, which has never erred" (WA 7, 315)

John Calvin (Institutes, IV, 8, 8): "Moses and the prophets did not utter at random what we have from their hand, but since they spoke by divine impulse, they confidently and fearlessly testified, as was actually the case, that it was the mouth of the Lord that spoke...We owe to the Scripture the same reverence which we owe to God, because it has proceeded from Him alone." Bibliolatry! Bibliolatry!

Augustine (Contra Faustum, Book XI, #5, or, if you prefer, the Latin): "If we are perplexed by an apparent contradiction in Scripture, it is not allowable to say, The author of this book is mistaken; but either the manuscript is faulty, or the translation is wrong, or you have not understood." (Emphasis mine.) Way to go, Augustine! Insult their intelligence. Could you BE any more fundamental?

Oh, also (Epistulae 82.1.3): "of [the canonical books of scripture] alone do I most firmly believe that the authors were completely free from error."

P.S. Please feel free to click through to the context (in those places I was able to procure links). I would hate to come off as a proof-texter. Becoming fundamentalist was quite enough excitement for one day.

Comment Controversy Update: Turns Out I'm Foolish!

yes, indeed, it seems there was nothing more going on than an overzealous spam filter. nevertheless, i think we've all learned an important lesson today. a lesson about responsibility. (any clone high fans out there?)

my neck burned terribly as if i'd done something i shouldn't have

But whether or not Bock actually IS a fundamentalist is quite relevant. If you're simply laying the charge on the basis of his bibliology (in which case you'd have to put Dan Wallace in that category as well, despite the fact that he explicitly rejects the kind of bibliolatry you decry), the term fundamentalist becomes meaningless: why not simply say 'inerrantist' or 'not.' On the other hand, if you define a fundamentalist as one who would rather mire in their own presuppositions than deal with the evidence (regardless of whether their particular bent is conservative or liberal), the type of screed such as that above becomes much more difficult to write.

That is the comment that I attempted to post in response to a note on Jim West's blog (and further defense a few comments down) about a Darrell Bock article in Christianity Today (that is quite a mouthful). I found his post intriguing, as they nearly always are, but felt that at least in this one post, he had gone too far in his labeling--indeed, it seemed, some other commenters had as well. I was particularly interested in hearing (or reading) why West found Bock so fundementalist-y. I'm new to this whole 'commenting' thing, and so I probably should have simply said that. While I didn't think I said anything particularly offensive (though, I will admit, I thought 'screed' might have been a bit too much), it seems that Dr. West has moderated my comment into oblivion. Again, I am new to commenting, and perhaps I am wrong and this is just a quirk in the Blogger servers (in which case this post is little more than a lesson and five minutes folly). If not, though, I apologize for my offense (it was not intended...well, perhaps only intended a little bit), and look forward to attempting to comment on more posts in the future.

Translating Thomas

Finished Coptic for the semester. We were able to finish Layton's grammar (the one that comes in 20 Lessons) and go through a little over half the logion of Thomas. Now, all my time will be spent comparing the Greek and the Coptic, in an attempt to extrapolate wildly from four manuscripts and come to some conclusion regarding the transmission of Thomas. Merry Christmas to me!

History or Theology

April DeConick recently posted something on her blog in reaction to a session between James Crossley and Richard Bauckham at SBL. I've quoted the interesting portion below:

First, if biblical scholars were more concerned about operating as historians than theologians this wouldn't even be a discussion. Historians do not begin with the position that miracles can happen (because God can do anything he wants to do) therefore Jesus performed (or: could have performed) miracles.

When miracles are attributed to famous people in historical writings - and there are many examples beyond Jesus - historians start with the position that these are stories meant to attribute certain superpowers or status to the famous person, or are being used to show the ancient reader that the person being described was thought to be extra-ordinary, divine or godlike. Why should the historical study of Jesus be any different in terms of method?

Second, the fact that this IS a discussion, and that some biblical scholars actually approached James Crossley, maintaining that we can't rule out that Jesus could have performed miracles, should not come as a surprise. The issue at stake is really not about miracles, is it? It is about apology and having it dominate and control our discourse as biblical scholars. It is no wonder that classicists and archaeologists and ancient historians look at our work with suspicion.

There's something about this that rubs me the wrong way. On one level, I understand the objection. It does seem a bit odd (or perhaps unfair) on an intellectual level to have a huge gaping exception for Jesus particularly, and the Bible in general, when it comes to supernatural events. The fact is, I would most likely dismiss any other claims to supernaturalism in history (though I suspect I would still consider them longer than these unbiased historians DeConick speaks of). On another level, however, as a Christian, it seems irresponsible not to argue that miracles are possible, and that they themselves and the evidence of their occurences are important factors in reconstructing biblical history. On yet another level entirely, I don't know if the only worthwhile scholarly pursuit is the reconstruction of history, nor do I see why a biblical scholar ought to be motivated by what classicists, archaeologists, or ancient historians think.