"The first step [of verification of hypotheses] is to define their conditions as fully as possible, a project stimulated by asking why one is sure of the relevance of relevant knowns, for these are an avenue to the determination of relevant unknowns. Once they are determined, the historian ca cudgel his wits to make them known or, alternatively, settle the matter of their probable or certain unknowability. When all its conditions are known and known to be fulfilled, the hypothesis is invulnerably verified.
The abstract definition may seem forbidding on two counts. First, there is a haunting chimaera, the relativist's demand for the impossible. Everything must be known for anything to be known. But, through flawless as supposition, this is mere supposition, and when tested against the facts of knowledge, it is self-reversing. The conditions of every hypothesis are limited. Second, the historian may suspect that even within the limits of his limited question, there are further pertinent questions which have not occured to him. If this is in fact the case, the contributions of others in the scholarly community may make the hypothesis invulnerable - or reverse it. In any case, verification is invulnerable when no further pertinent questions arise."
Ben Meyer, "The Aims of Jesus," 92
I just thought this was a great argument on how to go about verifying an hypothesis, since this is what I shall be doing in my Jude paper. To repeat the last sentence again: "[V]erification is invulnerable when no further pertinent questions arise."
This phrase is of vast importance to my Jude research. When the phrase "Jude... brother of James" is considered, the question is not about who Judas is, but rather why the insertion of the "brother of James" is important. A majority of scholars believe that this insertion is present to demonstrate an accurate knowledge of which Judas is writing. This is because of the recognition that there are several Judases within the Christian tradition. But does the insertion of "brother of James" help us in any way in understanding which Judas it was? We know James was also a fairly common name in that time period. There are at least two Jameses in the Christian tradition, the disciple and the brother of Christ. The former killed early on in the paschal church, while the later led to Jerusalem church until AD 62 when he was killed (as recorded in Josephus).
And so a pertinent question arises, if Jude is just trying to establish to his audience who he in fact is, why not be more specific? If he was a brother to the disciple James, then he could have said "brother of James and John, son of Zebedee." If he meant James the Just, then he could have said "brother of James and Christ." The important issue at hand is not who Judas is, but rather where he gets his authority.
The early church upheld the tradition that this is Judas, the brother of James and Jesus. He did not formally acknowledge his relationship with Christ because he was struck with humility to not have more authority than a mere man could. A similar argument could be made as to why James does not specify his relationship with Jesus within his epistle. What these traditions also uphold is that Jude founded his own churches, although the exact locations are not known.
Some observations then arise. If Jude is writing to people he is familiar with (and most likely he is, as seen in v.3), then there is no reason to remind them who he is. The question becomes rather, who is he to say these things to them? He is the brother of Christ, but he does not appeal to Christ for having an authoritative response. His appeal to authority is centered within James.
So if we wish to understand what motivates Jude's authority to write, then it is not his own understanding, but rather what James would have said to Jude's churches if given the chance. Certain similarities between Jude and James are seen, especially concerning "certain men." They are "carried along by winds" (Jude 12; cf James 1:6). They are "murmurers and complainers" (Jude 16; cf James 1:26). They also lusters (Jude 16; cf James 1:14-15). They flatter others with the words to gain respect (Jude 16; cf James 2:1-8). These are only a few examples, but I believe that the connections between these two epistles are apparent.
Another connection that is more hypothetical, and only included here for observation, is that these men seem to be believers who now deny Jesus (v 4). If they are believers who have rejected their faith, then a comparison with Hebrews might be in order. The author of Hebrews seems to believe that believers have fallen away from their faith. This is also apparent in James. Since Jude is also assuming this, then what we might realize is that there are now four documents relating to the same heresy in the early church: James, Jude, 2 Peter, and Hebrews (written in this order to show a possible historical order of composition). If James is supposed to be read first, and Jude is concerned with his authority coming from James, then his letter should (and does) direct one back to the general themes that James' letter uses.
The problem that Jude has though, is that he uses writings that are not exactly Scripture to formulate his argument. The men he condemns are of the same mind of the sinners in Sodom and Gomorrah. They also slander celestial beings, and Jude reminds them of a passage in the Assumption of Moses that said that not even Satan did this to Michael. Judas also gives a warning from 1 Enoch on what will befall these men, saying that judgment will come upon them.
The question of why he uses this controversial material is relevant when we come to 2 Peter, which is in direct dependence on Jude to make a similar argument. He acknowledges his readers to remember "the words which were spoken before by the holy prophets, and the commandments of us, the apostles of the Lord and Savior" (3:2). Peter is obviously directing true authority to the holy prophets of Scripture, and to the apostles. He later speaks of Paul's writings, and compares them to the other writings, which some twist to their own destruction (3:15-16). What I believe he is referring to is Jude's use of the Pseudepigraphal writings. Not necessarily that he used them, but rather the way in which he used them. He has proof-texted, so to speak. He makes his arguments, and draws upon a random selection of texts to condemn his opponents. A quick comparison of 2 Peter 1: 20 with Jude 14 shows that Jude has used 1 Enoch as a prophesy against his specific opponents. True authority for Peter lies not in how one can find verses to condemn or prove wrong, but by experiencing Christ. So he can make his arguments in chapter 2 based upon his own experience with Christ. 2 Peter 1:16-18 is an example of his direct knowledge of the events of the Transfiguration, and although it might be that his opponents deny this event and he uses his eyewitness accounts to verify it, he also sees this as witness for authority for his following statement in v 19 ("We have the more sure word of prophecy...").
What Jude has done with using the formation of "Jude... brother of James" is to direct the attention of his readers back to the authority of James. Jude is saying that his readers should follow his authority, and that means ultimately following the authority of James. This does not necessitate a physical blood relation to James, as has so commonly been assumed. There are plenty of instances of metaphorical familiar relationships within the early church communities, e.g. Timothy and Titus as Paul's children, the entire church as brothers and sisters with Christ, Onesimus as a brother to Philemon. Problems occur with how Jude formulates his arguments, using incorrect argumentative techniques. What is apparent by comparing Peter's view of authority is that Jude was not an eyewitness to the events of Christ, now does he base his authority in them. He may think that he is using the same arguments as James, but he has condemned himself by misusing writings to condemn, instead of relying on the experience of Christ to condemn. To take a different light on this, Jude has shown himself to be a novice at combating heresy. He does not have the authority, or seek the proper authority, to properly deal with the situation within his churches. Peter calls him out on this with his second letter. But Peter establishes Jude's argument with the properly based authority.
Sunday, April 29, 2007
Friday, April 27, 2007
Jude Research
Well my Jude research is coming along quite nicely. But the most exciting thing happened last night right after I went to bed. The problem I've had is trying to focus my research into a paper. What I decided on, and I think the direction I'm going, is to incorporate all my ideas into one paper. It's a vast, hard project I know, and possibly going to revolutionize NT research. The title of my paper is probably going to "Issues of Authority and the Epistle of Jude." Below I'll explain how I plan for the paper to unfold once its written.
-Where Jude gets his authority for writing: My argument here is that Jude gets his authority for writing from being related to James, but not a physical relationship. It is similar to an amenuensis (disciple-scribe) relationship. But the only difference is that amenuensistic relationship totally changed with the death of James. He could not write the letter under the name of James (like the normal amenuensis experience), since the news of James' death would have followed the letter. So he wrote, using the same authority that the amenuensis would, but under his own name.
-Where Jude finds his authority for his argument: This section deals with the general observation that Jude uses texts such as 1 Enoch and the (lost) Assumption of Moses to form his argument. This is actually a rather short section, because it a general observation that Jude uses this texts. Where we fall into trouble as a Christian is how do we deal with the texts as far as the rest of the canon is concerned. But this leads us into our next section.
-Authoritative responses to Jude: This is the crux of my argument that will probably rock the scholarly world. My argument is that Peter and Paul both responded in different ways to Jude's letter. 2 Timothy responds by mentioning, almost in passing, in 3:15-16, the difference between "Scripture" and other "writings," which I shall argue is actually answering the question of how to understand what we call Pseudepigraphal texts. 2 Peter does the same thing, only in a more broader way. 2 Pet 1:20 mentions that no prophecy of the "writings" (same word that Paul uses in 2 Tim 3:16) is open to private interpretation. He then comes back to this these in 3:15-16, where he puts the writings of Paul on the same level of the "writings." But he warns that other unlearned people twist these writings (Paul's and the Pseudepigraphal texts) unto their own destruction. Both these texts are dealing with the letter of Jude, because they are two authoritative people in the church.
Now the point of the paper is not to question of whether Jude shouldn't be included within the canon. I do see it problematic that if Peter and Paul do not support the letter, or the argument within it, that we take it as seriously as we do. But then again, church tradition holds it as authoritative because of Jude's physical relationship with James. But if they mistook the meaning of "brother," then are we in a position to exclude the book today based on a better (?) understanding of the relationship between Jude and James? Once again, it's not the purpose of the paper to answer this question, but it is the direction that the paper points.
-Where Jude gets his authority for writing: My argument here is that Jude gets his authority for writing from being related to James, but not a physical relationship. It is similar to an amenuensis (disciple-scribe) relationship. But the only difference is that amenuensistic relationship totally changed with the death of James. He could not write the letter under the name of James (like the normal amenuensis experience), since the news of James' death would have followed the letter. So he wrote, using the same authority that the amenuensis would, but under his own name.
-Where Jude finds his authority for his argument: This section deals with the general observation that Jude uses texts such as 1 Enoch and the (lost) Assumption of Moses to form his argument. This is actually a rather short section, because it a general observation that Jude uses this texts. Where we fall into trouble as a Christian is how do we deal with the texts as far as the rest of the canon is concerned. But this leads us into our next section.
-Authoritative responses to Jude: This is the crux of my argument that will probably rock the scholarly world. My argument is that Peter and Paul both responded in different ways to Jude's letter. 2 Timothy responds by mentioning, almost in passing, in 3:15-16, the difference between "Scripture" and other "writings," which I shall argue is actually answering the question of how to understand what we call Pseudepigraphal texts. 2 Peter does the same thing, only in a more broader way. 2 Pet 1:20 mentions that no prophecy of the "writings" (same word that Paul uses in 2 Tim 3:16) is open to private interpretation. He then comes back to this these in 3:15-16, where he puts the writings of Paul on the same level of the "writings." But he warns that other unlearned people twist these writings (Paul's and the Pseudepigraphal texts) unto their own destruction. Both these texts are dealing with the letter of Jude, because they are two authoritative people in the church.
Now the point of the paper is not to question of whether Jude shouldn't be included within the canon. I do see it problematic that if Peter and Paul do not support the letter, or the argument within it, that we take it as seriously as we do. But then again, church tradition holds it as authoritative because of Jude's physical relationship with James. But if they mistook the meaning of "brother," then are we in a position to exclude the book today based on a better (?) understanding of the relationship between Jude and James? Once again, it's not the purpose of the paper to answer this question, but it is the direction that the paper points.
Sunday, April 15, 2007
Jude 1-2
So anyways, I've started going through Jude. Why? Because I can! Bwa-ha-ha-ha!
And I've been doing a verse by verse translation of the Greek taken from the NTG27. It's a real awesome thing to do, and if you've never done it, it will really help you appreciate what is going on in the Greek.
Verse 1
"Judas a slave of Jesus Christ, and a brother of James, to those, after having been loved by God the father, and after having been kept by Jesus Christ, to those called;"
Notice that the introduction is similar to the rest of the NT letters. The author identifies himself with his name, and his relationship with Jesus. What is interesting here (and not found anywhere else) is that he mentions his relationship to another person, James. Is he getting his authority from James? Tradition says this is Judas the brother of Jesus, so why the authority from James? A paper is necessary...
1b is brilliantly constructed. It begins with "to those" then digresses into what relationship these people have with God the father and Jesus Christ. In this construction, the author uses two perfect passive participles, which Bill Mounce suggests translating with the form "after having been ..." The perfect tense in Greek indicates a completed action that has consequences for the future. So I believe that the author has wished to show what has enabled his audience to be "called."
First they are loved by God the father. (Compare John 3:16 to see the Father's love for the world.) But then they are kept by Jesus. Kept for what? Kept safe? Kept for endurance? Kept in love? The author does not say, but this allows his audience to be drawn into the letter more.
And then the author returns to the dative case, that expands and compliments "to those." Those that are called, but the word can also be translated "invited" (with the connotation of being invited to a dinner or feast. I think what the author has in mind is the theological framework of the wedding feast of the lamb, which as the church we will participate in. But at the same time, the author uses this term rhetorically to draw his readers in further. "Yes, you are invited, called even, to read this letter because of its utmost importance to you." Brilliant move!
v2 Mercy and peace and love be multiplied unto you.
This verse confused me at first, just because I didn't recognize the tense of the verb. After some quick searching, I found that it was an optative. This tense carries with it the connotation of "I wish" or two stages from reality. The author is literally saying, "I wish that mercy and peace and love will be heaped upon you." A valiant prayer for his audience indeed.
Now aside from the authority issue, the author of Jude has shown within the first two verses of being rhetorically brilliant. He is drawing his audience into his letter. But he doesn't tell us who his audience is. It is assumed by the author. Perhaps there is no specific audience in mind, but this letter is supposed to be circular. Time shall only tell.
And I've been doing a verse by verse translation of the Greek taken from the NTG27. It's a real awesome thing to do, and if you've never done it, it will really help you appreciate what is going on in the Greek.
Verse 1
"Judas a slave of Jesus Christ, and a brother of James, to those, after having been loved by God the father, and after having been kept by Jesus Christ, to those called;"
Notice that the introduction is similar to the rest of the NT letters. The author identifies himself with his name, and his relationship with Jesus. What is interesting here (and not found anywhere else) is that he mentions his relationship to another person, James. Is he getting his authority from James? Tradition says this is Judas the brother of Jesus, so why the authority from James? A paper is necessary...
1b is brilliantly constructed. It begins with "to those" then digresses into what relationship these people have with God the father and Jesus Christ. In this construction, the author uses two perfect passive participles, which Bill Mounce suggests translating with the form "after having been ..." The perfect tense in Greek indicates a completed action that has consequences for the future. So I believe that the author has wished to show what has enabled his audience to be "called."
First they are loved by God the father. (Compare John 3:16 to see the Father's love for the world.) But then they are kept by Jesus. Kept for what? Kept safe? Kept for endurance? Kept in love? The author does not say, but this allows his audience to be drawn into the letter more.
And then the author returns to the dative case, that expands and compliments "to those." Those that are called, but the word can also be translated "invited" (with the connotation of being invited to a dinner or feast. I think what the author has in mind is the theological framework of the wedding feast of the lamb, which as the church we will participate in. But at the same time, the author uses this term rhetorically to draw his readers in further. "Yes, you are invited, called even, to read this letter because of its utmost importance to you." Brilliant move!
v2 Mercy and peace and love be multiplied unto you.
This verse confused me at first, just because I didn't recognize the tense of the verb. After some quick searching, I found that it was an optative. This tense carries with it the connotation of "I wish" or two stages from reality. The author is literally saying, "I wish that mercy and peace and love will be heaped upon you." A valiant prayer for his audience indeed.
Now aside from the authority issue, the author of Jude has shown within the first two verses of being rhetorically brilliant. He is drawing his audience into his letter. But he doesn't tell us who his audience is. It is assumed by the author. Perhaps there is no specific audience in mind, but this letter is supposed to be circular. Time shall only tell.
Saturday, April 14, 2007
Done
Well I'm finally done with finals and my Romans paper. My finals went okay, which means I think I should end up with A's on all of them... Hard to tell though.
My Romans paper ended being quicker to do that I originally thought. The topic was who is "all Israel" in Roman 11:26. I only used 10 sources, and I know it wasn't my best paper ever. But I did prove my point, and I'm happy with it. It turned out to be 20 pages with cover page and bibliography, so a good 17 pages of actual writing. Hopefully Bob will like it also. If anyone wants to read it, let me know and I'll send it to ya.
So I took my Greek final on Thursday, then went home and typed up my paper. I got done about 7 on Friday morning. Took me and Melissa a couple hours to proofread (It's great to be married, because you always have a proofreader handy! Thanks hon!) and then to try to print my paper (silly Mac!) but I got in turned in around noon. I was able to take it to school and turn it into the office instead of trying to mail it off at 9 that night, like I originally thought. So after I got back (with McFalafel, the best Lebanese take out there is!) and ate, I went to bed until 7 this morning. It's been a long week, but its finally over, and i can just take the weekend to relax.
My Romans paper ended being quicker to do that I originally thought. The topic was who is "all Israel" in Roman 11:26. I only used 10 sources, and I know it wasn't my best paper ever. But I did prove my point, and I'm happy with it. It turned out to be 20 pages with cover page and bibliography, so a good 17 pages of actual writing. Hopefully Bob will like it also. If anyone wants to read it, let me know and I'll send it to ya.
So I took my Greek final on Thursday, then went home and typed up my paper. I got done about 7 on Friday morning. Took me and Melissa a couple hours to proofread (It's great to be married, because you always have a proofreader handy! Thanks hon!) and then to try to print my paper (silly Mac!) but I got in turned in around noon. I was able to take it to school and turn it into the office instead of trying to mail it off at 9 that night, like I originally thought. So after I got back (with McFalafel, the best Lebanese take out there is!) and ate, I went to bed until 7 this morning. It's been a long week, but its finally over, and i can just take the weekend to relax.
Thursday, April 12, 2007
Grammata vs. Graphos: A Response to the Letter to Jude?
2 Timothy 3:15-16, 2 Peter 3:15-16, and the letter to Jude might go together nicer than previously thought. Jude is the weirdest book in the NT, if for no other reason than because it references two Pseudopidagrapha books: the Assumption of Moses and 1 Enoch. My own belief (and I'll be doing a paper over this in the summer) was that Jude wrote shortly after James' death, therefore allowing him to take the authority of James. This is why we see James' name mentioned in Jude 1:1. But could Jude have been a fraud?
Within another discussion, I realized that 2 Timothy 3:15-16 has two different words that are normally translated "Scripture": grammata and graphos. Now without taking too much time, we assume Paul is in Rome, at the end of his life, and is writing for Timothy to come to him. The grammata and graphos disctinction is interesting, but even more so when we compare it with 2 Peter.
2 Peter is traditionally (but not currently) thought to have originated from Peter, also in Rome, towards the end of his life. If the tradition is correct, then Peter and Paul were around each other during this time. If it is right, then the year about AD 64-68. Now this is a late date for Paul's imprisonment in Rome I realize, but the reason I think it works is because of these two letters are a response to Jude.
Jude writes his letter probably in AD 62 right after the death of James. My argument (I believe) is simple. He uses references from outside what is considered "Scripture." Now depending on how we see Jude's relationship with James, he might be an amanuensis to James (scribe) that now has to write James' last words to a situation he has heard about. Or Jude could be using James' death to write his own thing, that is heretical, and Peter and Paul pick up on this.
So Peter and Paul write separate letters (Paul to Timothy, Peter to the general populace). Paul tells Timothy that he has faith that Timothy will know the difference between real Scripture and the other writings (recognizing that the other writings are good for stuff too). Peter responds more to Jude's letter, filling out the issues, but stay away from the Pseudopigrapha stuff. And then he says that Paul has written stuff like these writings, and some people are twisting his letters, like they do with the other writings (like the ones Jude reference) unto their own destruction. Basically, read them, but understand them.
So was Jude a bad writer? Did he take advantage of the situation by deliberately trying to throw in some heretical teaching, in the name of James as his authority? Or did he really not know what he was doing, tried to address some issues that James had been asked to address, but went about it completely wrong, because he didn't understand his sources? I don't think we have an answer to these questions yet, but it seems to me that the validity of Jude in the canon is dependent on this discussion to some degree.
Within another discussion, I realized that 2 Timothy 3:15-16 has two different words that are normally translated "Scripture": grammata and graphos. Now without taking too much time, we assume Paul is in Rome, at the end of his life, and is writing for Timothy to come to him. The grammata and graphos disctinction is interesting, but even more so when we compare it with 2 Peter.
2 Peter is traditionally (but not currently) thought to have originated from Peter, also in Rome, towards the end of his life. If the tradition is correct, then Peter and Paul were around each other during this time. If it is right, then the year about AD 64-68. Now this is a late date for Paul's imprisonment in Rome I realize, but the reason I think it works is because of these two letters are a response to Jude.
Jude writes his letter probably in AD 62 right after the death of James. My argument (I believe) is simple. He uses references from outside what is considered "Scripture." Now depending on how we see Jude's relationship with James, he might be an amanuensis to James (scribe) that now has to write James' last words to a situation he has heard about. Or Jude could be using James' death to write his own thing, that is heretical, and Peter and Paul pick up on this.
So Peter and Paul write separate letters (Paul to Timothy, Peter to the general populace). Paul tells Timothy that he has faith that Timothy will know the difference between real Scripture and the other writings (recognizing that the other writings are good for stuff too). Peter responds more to Jude's letter, filling out the issues, but stay away from the Pseudopigrapha stuff. And then he says that Paul has written stuff like these writings, and some people are twisting his letters, like they do with the other writings (like the ones Jude reference) unto their own destruction. Basically, read them, but understand them.
So was Jude a bad writer? Did he take advantage of the situation by deliberately trying to throw in some heretical teaching, in the name of James as his authority? Or did he really not know what he was doing, tried to address some issues that James had been asked to address, but went about it completely wrong, because he didn't understand his sources? I don't think we have an answer to these questions yet, but it seems to me that the validity of Jude in the canon is dependent on this discussion to some degree.
Monday, April 09, 2007
Bayes Theorum and "The Jesus Tomb"
Click on the title for the website...
Randy Ingermanson collaborated with another really smart guy to calculate the probabilities that the Jesus Tomb actually contains the bones of Jesus of the Christian faith. I won't try to explain the reasoning behind it, because well, its complicated. But feel free to read the article. I will just mention the conclusions.
Case 1: "Typical Historian" - 1 in 19,000 probability
Case 2: "Historian who really wants this to be Jesus" - 1 in 18
Case 3: "Historian who leans towards choices that this could be Jesus" - 1 in 1,100
Case 4: "Historian who leans towards choices that this isn't Jesus" - 1 in 5 million
Case 5: "Christian who believes in Jesus' resurrection" - 0% probability
So not looking at the extremes (Cases 2 and 5), we see the next level of extremes as having 1 in 1,100 (Case 3). To put it in another way, it is 0.00091% that this is the tomb of Jesus of Nazareth. Even being skeptical, this percentage is way too low for me to believe that this is the tomb of Jesus.
Randy Ingermanson collaborated with another really smart guy to calculate the probabilities that the Jesus Tomb actually contains the bones of Jesus of the Christian faith. I won't try to explain the reasoning behind it, because well, its complicated. But feel free to read the article. I will just mention the conclusions.
Case 1: "Typical Historian" - 1 in 19,000 probability
Case 2: "Historian who really wants this to be Jesus" - 1 in 18
Case 3: "Historian who leans towards choices that this could be Jesus" - 1 in 1,100
Case 4: "Historian who leans towards choices that this isn't Jesus" - 1 in 5 million
Case 5: "Christian who believes in Jesus' resurrection" - 0% probability
So not looking at the extremes (Cases 2 and 5), we see the next level of extremes as having 1 in 1,100 (Case 3). To put it in another way, it is 0.00091% that this is the tomb of Jesus of Nazareth. Even being skeptical, this percentage is way too low for me to believe that this is the tomb of Jesus.
The Books of the NT
It is quite obvious that the general letters get the shaft within New Testament studies, and well, theology in general. James is generally liked, because people try to reconcile it with Pauline theology. And 1 John is loved (pun intended) by most people. Now obviously there has a been a misjustice done to the other books, because of how much they have to offer to our understanding of NT theology. Scholarship is extremely confused over the authenticity of some of them, particularly 1-2 Peter and Jude (the John's to a lesser extent). So what I have done is theorize the correspondence that took place in the early 60's AD.
The authenticity of 1 Peter is usually not as questioned as much as the others, but it still up in doubt. Scholarship assumes that persecution of the Christians only begun in 64 AD with the great fire of Rome. But from other sources we know that after the first 5 years of Nero's reign, we went from "good" to "bad." And if this transition happened around 59-60, then it seems to me that persecution could have begun at this time. Obviously if we assume that the "Chrestus incident" was something to do with an argument over Christ (leading to the expulsion of the Jews from Rome under Claudius), then it might be possible that a similar persecution began towards Christians proper within Rome. I'm not offering anything drastic here, maybe just weekend eggings of Christian homes and the like. It is possible that these persecutions increased enough to merit a letter from Peter to the churches mentioned.
This holds together some traditional understandings with a rational thinking out of historical certainties. Nero's reign begun good, turned bad, and this happened around 59-60. Traditional understanding says that Peter is in Rome during this time, and that an outbreak of persecution prompted the writing of 1 Peter. But it seems to me that smaller amounts of persecution around 60 AD is the prompt for 1 Peter.
Now what is happening in Jerusalem? We know from Josephus that in 62 AD, a new high priest exploited the situation and had James, the brother of Jesus and leader of the Jerusalem church, stoned. I have no need to call Josephus a liar on this story. From what we find in Jude is a lot of random thoughts strung together with no uniformity. Obviously it was to remind its addresses (not mentioned) of these subjects, but not meant to really address these issues. My theory is that Jude was a Christian in Jerusalem, and a person close to James (not a literal brother, but more on that anon) that wrote down what might be considered Jame's last words of advice to the church before his death. What might have caused this was a report to James of false teachers. But before James can address the report, he is killed.
Now this interpretation is based solely on my understanding of the relationship between James and Jude. Jude calls himself a servant of Jesus Christ, and a "brother" of James. Now traditionally the reason for James as a prominient leader in the Jerusalem church was that he was the brother to Jesus. But if Jude is a literal brother to James, that too would make him a brother to Jesus (even if we take into the account of the Catholic belief that both were step-brothers to Jesus, that still makes them close relations). If Jude was a literal brother to James, then he would have been targeted by the Jews as another potential threat... you always kill the leaders of a movement, so this should be the conclusion that Jude was not important person in the church, so he was probably not a literal brother to James or Jesus.
If however Jude is a close friend, close enough to be considered a figurative brother (not a biological brother, but closer than other "brothers and sisters in Christ") and possibly a student of James, then he would have the authority to write in the name of James, but was conscious that people would have known about James' death. But if we examine the way that people wrote "with the authority of someone else" we must look to the pseudopigraphial writings. The writer of 1 Enoch, for example, wrote words that they thought Enoch would have said if he had the chance. But we see a conscious shift away from this: Jude is writing as a "brother" to James, where his authority came from. What this says about pseudopigraphical understandings in the early church is extremely new and profound. People cannot write in the "name" of someone else, but rather that seriousness was given to proper authority.
Anyways, to get to 2 Peter, Peter gets the news that James is now died, and gets a copy of Jude. The timing of this has to be as follows: James dies in 62 AD, Jude writes soon afterwards, and this letter reaches Peter in Rome in 63 AD. Persecution of the Christians by Nero (because of the fire) starts in 64 AD, so this might push back Peter receiving the letter of Jude to 64 AD, which is perfectly reasonable of a timetable during this time.
2 Peter was written as Peter's last words of testimony (he knew that he was going to die because of Nero's persecution), a letter of uplifting in case the persecution spreads (therefore the imagery of "renewal of the earth by fire" as referring to the imagery of the fire of Rome), and to fill out the concerns of the letter of Jude, which was really the concerns of James. Whereas Jude had the authority to write down James' concerns, Peter had authority to expound on these concerns. Paul had already been killed (during the persecution), which left Peter as the highest authority in the church. This is why 2 Peter is so dependent on Jude, but fills out the concerns more. Both 2 Peter and Jude are addressed to specific communities, but the reason these communities are not named because the false teachers were open to infiltrate the church at any time.
It is possible that Peter even sends Mark away from Rome with this letter to save his life. Mark would have come to Rome for the sake of Paul, but tradition holds that he wrote his gospel only after Peter died. As far as I'm concerned, this means that Mark has to be outside of Rome, or otherwise he would have been caught up in the persecutions. Being sent with this letter would allow for his safety, and allow him to begin his gospel, based on the stories that Peter told. Fire in 64, persecutions through 65, this allows for Mark to write his gospel 67-68. Copies spread, and Matthew and Luke can begin their gospels 70-75, using the Markan priority, perhaps as late as 78, but I still take seriously Matthian authorship, so I try to keep this early. This allows John to write his gospel anytime between this time and 100 AD (for different reasons of course). Assuming Johanine authorship for 1-2-3 John and Revelation, the epistles are occasional, and Revelation possibly closer to the time of persecution in Rome, so possibly around 65-68, to uphold the churches in the face of possible persecution. This explains the similarities between 2 Peter and Revelation as they speak of persecution and the eschaton. Of course I know I'm going with Smalley on the date of Revelation, and I need to go back and read Trafton to see if the later date is more appropriate.
What we are left with then is a pretty precise dating system (based on inter-textual evidence) of most of the books of the NT. Paul writes first, James writes his letter anytime before 62, 1 Peter is written just before this time, and Jude, 2 Peter, Revelation are written in response to the situation in Jerusalem and then Rome. The gospels are written last in the chronology. Nobody knows about Hebrews (I think early, with Apollos as the author) and 1-2-3 John as too occasional to tell for sure (although a later date makes the most sense with 1 John forming love as the basis of Christian brotherhood, 2 John as the prelude to 1 John, and 3 John as also warning against a set of false teachers. What is most interesting is my analysis of Jude's "brotherhood" to James as early Christian doctrine of pseudopigraphia writing: followers had the authority to write in the name of their teachers based on how close they were to them, but never taking on their authority. It is most unfortunate that the early church never picks up on this, as it would have been a lot easier to prove, but the fact that they missed it probably shows that it never solidified as a doctrine until much later after heretics had already written in the names of the apostles.
The authenticity of 1 Peter is usually not as questioned as much as the others, but it still up in doubt. Scholarship assumes that persecution of the Christians only begun in 64 AD with the great fire of Rome. But from other sources we know that after the first 5 years of Nero's reign, we went from "good" to "bad." And if this transition happened around 59-60, then it seems to me that persecution could have begun at this time. Obviously if we assume that the "Chrestus incident" was something to do with an argument over Christ (leading to the expulsion of the Jews from Rome under Claudius), then it might be possible that a similar persecution began towards Christians proper within Rome. I'm not offering anything drastic here, maybe just weekend eggings of Christian homes and the like. It is possible that these persecutions increased enough to merit a letter from Peter to the churches mentioned.
This holds together some traditional understandings with a rational thinking out of historical certainties. Nero's reign begun good, turned bad, and this happened around 59-60. Traditional understanding says that Peter is in Rome during this time, and that an outbreak of persecution prompted the writing of 1 Peter. But it seems to me that smaller amounts of persecution around 60 AD is the prompt for 1 Peter.
Now what is happening in Jerusalem? We know from Josephus that in 62 AD, a new high priest exploited the situation and had James, the brother of Jesus and leader of the Jerusalem church, stoned. I have no need to call Josephus a liar on this story. From what we find in Jude is a lot of random thoughts strung together with no uniformity. Obviously it was to remind its addresses (not mentioned) of these subjects, but not meant to really address these issues. My theory is that Jude was a Christian in Jerusalem, and a person close to James (not a literal brother, but more on that anon) that wrote down what might be considered Jame's last words of advice to the church before his death. What might have caused this was a report to James of false teachers. But before James can address the report, he is killed.
Now this interpretation is based solely on my understanding of the relationship between James and Jude. Jude calls himself a servant of Jesus Christ, and a "brother" of James. Now traditionally the reason for James as a prominient leader in the Jerusalem church was that he was the brother to Jesus. But if Jude is a literal brother to James, that too would make him a brother to Jesus (even if we take into the account of the Catholic belief that both were step-brothers to Jesus, that still makes them close relations). If Jude was a literal brother to James, then he would have been targeted by the Jews as another potential threat... you always kill the leaders of a movement, so this should be the conclusion that Jude was not important person in the church, so he was probably not a literal brother to James or Jesus.
If however Jude is a close friend, close enough to be considered a figurative brother (not a biological brother, but closer than other "brothers and sisters in Christ") and possibly a student of James, then he would have the authority to write in the name of James, but was conscious that people would have known about James' death. But if we examine the way that people wrote "with the authority of someone else" we must look to the pseudopigraphial writings. The writer of 1 Enoch, for example, wrote words that they thought Enoch would have said if he had the chance. But we see a conscious shift away from this: Jude is writing as a "brother" to James, where his authority came from. What this says about pseudopigraphical understandings in the early church is extremely new and profound. People cannot write in the "name" of someone else, but rather that seriousness was given to proper authority.
Anyways, to get to 2 Peter, Peter gets the news that James is now died, and gets a copy of Jude. The timing of this has to be as follows: James dies in 62 AD, Jude writes soon afterwards, and this letter reaches Peter in Rome in 63 AD. Persecution of the Christians by Nero (because of the fire) starts in 64 AD, so this might push back Peter receiving the letter of Jude to 64 AD, which is perfectly reasonable of a timetable during this time.
2 Peter was written as Peter's last words of testimony (he knew that he was going to die because of Nero's persecution), a letter of uplifting in case the persecution spreads (therefore the imagery of "renewal of the earth by fire" as referring to the imagery of the fire of Rome), and to fill out the concerns of the letter of Jude, which was really the concerns of James. Whereas Jude had the authority to write down James' concerns, Peter had authority to expound on these concerns. Paul had already been killed (during the persecution), which left Peter as the highest authority in the church. This is why 2 Peter is so dependent on Jude, but fills out the concerns more. Both 2 Peter and Jude are addressed to specific communities, but the reason these communities are not named because the false teachers were open to infiltrate the church at any time.
It is possible that Peter even sends Mark away from Rome with this letter to save his life. Mark would have come to Rome for the sake of Paul, but tradition holds that he wrote his gospel only after Peter died. As far as I'm concerned, this means that Mark has to be outside of Rome, or otherwise he would have been caught up in the persecutions. Being sent with this letter would allow for his safety, and allow him to begin his gospel, based on the stories that Peter told. Fire in 64, persecutions through 65, this allows for Mark to write his gospel 67-68. Copies spread, and Matthew and Luke can begin their gospels 70-75, using the Markan priority, perhaps as late as 78, but I still take seriously Matthian authorship, so I try to keep this early. This allows John to write his gospel anytime between this time and 100 AD (for different reasons of course). Assuming Johanine authorship for 1-2-3 John and Revelation, the epistles are occasional, and Revelation possibly closer to the time of persecution in Rome, so possibly around 65-68, to uphold the churches in the face of possible persecution. This explains the similarities between 2 Peter and Revelation as they speak of persecution and the eschaton. Of course I know I'm going with Smalley on the date of Revelation, and I need to go back and read Trafton to see if the later date is more appropriate.
What we are left with then is a pretty precise dating system (based on inter-textual evidence) of most of the books of the NT. Paul writes first, James writes his letter anytime before 62, 1 Peter is written just before this time, and Jude, 2 Peter, Revelation are written in response to the situation in Jerusalem and then Rome. The gospels are written last in the chronology. Nobody knows about Hebrews (I think early, with Apollos as the author) and 1-2-3 John as too occasional to tell for sure (although a later date makes the most sense with 1 John forming love as the basis of Christian brotherhood, 2 John as the prelude to 1 John, and 3 John as also warning against a set of false teachers. What is most interesting is my analysis of Jude's "brotherhood" to James as early Christian doctrine of pseudopigraphia writing: followers had the authority to write in the name of their teachers based on how close they were to them, but never taking on their authority. It is most unfortunate that the early church never picks up on this, as it would have been a lot easier to prove, but the fact that they missed it probably shows that it never solidified as a doctrine until much later after heretics had already written in the names of the apostles.
Wednesday, April 04, 2007
Rick Watts quote
"When in doubt, try using a chiasm."
"In the presence of two or three witnesses, let genre be affirmed." (Regarding the genre of the Revelation)
"In the presence of two or three witnesses, let genre be affirmed." (Regarding the genre of the Revelation)
Tuesday, April 03, 2007
The Seder that got Passover'ed
So me and Melissa were supposed to meet with the rest of my community group tonight to go to a Jewish Seder in celebration of Passover this week. Now we had called in advance, and explained that we were Christians that were interested in participating. Now the secretary told us that was fine, that it was open to the public. The pamphlets that we got said "Open to all". So when we got there, we were a bit surprised when we were told that it was really just supposed to be for Jews only.
So yeah, we were dissapointed. But we went with our friends Kathy and Courtney to one of the pubs close to where we lived, and had a good dinner with good beer. We just got levened bread instead of unlevened.
So yeah, we were dissapointed. But we went with our friends Kathy and Courtney to one of the pubs close to where we lived, and had a good dinner with good beer. We just got levened bread instead of unlevened.
Sunday, April 01, 2007
Not so good lymric
So long story short, poetry people should stick to poetry, and the rest of us should appreciate their work. That being said, I wrote this. ;)
There once was a man from Galilee,
For salvation's sake, he was the key,
Who had to go die,
And made all the disciples cry,
But now he's raised so we're all full of glee.
In closing, I would like to apologize... to everyone.
There once was a man from Galilee,
For salvation's sake, he was the key,
Who had to go die,
And made all the disciples cry,
But now he's raised so we're all full of glee.
In closing, I would like to apologize... to everyone.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
