All The Young Dudes Carry The Good News

You might consider that I wrote this post only so that I could embed the Mott the Hoople video for "All the Young Dudes," a song written for the band by David Bowie, but that would not be true. It would be a shame, though, not to insert the video here, so I will do that, but the more important point I wanted to make has to do with "young dudes," who in the Bowie song "carry the news." But, says Bowie, there is no news, the song is about the end of the world, not a hymn to youth. Bowie did not, at least in 1974, see it as a hymn of hope.

The song has been running through my mind, both because it is a cool song, at least for those of us who came of age in the 70s, and because it does remind me of the "young dudes" who did carry the news, the good news (with a little bit of the end of the world thrown in there, but more on that some other time), with more than a little hope. There is a tendency to see the Apostles of Jesus today as wizened and grizzled old men, which some of them did become, but I am convinced that they were young men, mostly in their late teens, when Jesus called them to follow him.

There are a few reasons for thinking so. One is that Jesus himself was only about 30 when he called disciples (Luke 3:23) and the model of a teacher-disciple relationship in the ancient world was definitely that of students younger than their teachers, as it is even today for the most part. In the rabbinic model, students tended to be in their teenage years, at least as they began their studies. Two is that when Jesus calls the Apostles, however staged the scenes in the Gospels are, the Apostles James and John go when called, leaving behind their father (Matthew 4:21-22). They do not speak of wives or children. It is only Peter, however, who leaves behind a wife, as we learn of his Mother-In-Law in Mark 1:29-30, and some of the Apostles, such as James and John, travel alongside their mothers (Matthew 20:20; see Matthew 27:56), which indicates their youth and the fact they are not married. If there were wives, we would be told, and Jewish men of the first century tended to marry in their late teens (though it could be earlier according to some talmudic accounts - see Let the Little Children Come to Me, chapter 4).

Three, the ability to leave all behind and travel was far easier without family commitments and the sort of energy and enthusiasm necessary to do so is what we find generally among young men rather than middle-aged or older men. Four, it is obvious that Jesus did not choose men who had been formed religiously and academically in the schools of other teachers or rabbis, but that he was looking for people he could form, apart from the regular school system. This would rule out older men who had already been taught in the schools of others and it certainly ruled out professionals, scribes, Pharisees, and Priests. Five, the call of the Apostles probably took place around the year 26-27 A.D. It is unlikely that Peter, who as a married man was probably the oldest of them all, could have lived until the mid-60s A.D.  if he had been much over 20 years old when called by Jesus.  This would put his age in 65 A.D., when it is supposed he was martyred, at about 59 years old. It is not that people did not live to old age in the ancient world, they did, but only 7% of the population lived beyond the age of 59 years old ( Children in the Roman Empire: Outsiders Within, 28).

When the Apostles James and John and James and Joseph were called by Jesus, they were called by him from their fathers. Christian Laes, in his wonderful book, Children in the Roman Empire: Outsiders Within, has a simulated demographic table in which he outlines the percentage of people who would have a father living at various ages (29). At the age of 15, 62% of children would have a father living; at the age of 20, 49% of children would have a father living; and at the age of 25, only 37% of children would have a father living. This makes it far more likely that the first Apostles were teenagers than older men, by which I mean over 25 years old. Finally, though not directly related to the call of the 12 Apostles, Paul, at the time of Stephen's stoning, is described as a neanias, which I would place as a young man in his late teens (see Let the Little Children Come to Me, chapter 1 for terminology for age ranges).

What does all of this mean? As someone who teaches students around the ages of 18-22 on a regular basis, it is important to remember that when Jesus called his Apostles he called young men, with energy, enthusiasm, passion and courage. He did not call older men, though old men can have a little passion, enthusiasm, energy and courage, nor, I suppose most significantly, did he call biblical scholars. I am not exactly certain all of what it should mean to us, but it definitely ought to mean that we listen to the call and the voices of young people. Jesus thought they were capable to carry out a mission of the greatest importance and they did.

John W. Martens

Follow me on Twitter @johnwmartens

BibleJunkies Podcast 1: Dr. Corri Carvalho

This is the first BibleJunkies podcast. It was recorded on January 27, 2012 with Dr. Corri Carvalho. In it she discusses biblical studies in general, the study of the Old Testament and her research on the Prophet Ezkiel. Please join us for the conversation by clicking on the link above or here.

John W. Martens

Follow me on Twitter @johnwmartens

The Gospel of Mark Commentary Act 1. Scene 2

This is the second installment in the online commentary on the Gospel of Mark, which I will blog on throughout the liturgical year. Please see the first installment here. 

21 They went to Capernaum; and when the sabbath came, he entered the synagogue and taught. 22 They were astounded at his teaching, for he taught them as one having authority, and not as the scribes. 23 Just then there was in their synagogue a man with an unclean spirit, 24 and he cried out, "What have you to do with us, Jesus of Nazareth? Have you come to destroy us? I know who you are, the Holy One of God." 25 But Jesus rebuked him, saying, "Be silent, and come out of him!" 26 And the unclean spirit, convulsing him and crying with a loud voice, came out of him. 27 They were all amazed, and they kept on asking one another, "What is this? A new teaching—with authority! He commands even the unclean spirits, and they obey him." 28 At once his fame began to spread throughout the surrounding region of Galilee. (NRSV)

As soon as Act 1. Scene 2 opens, we notice that Jesus is not alone. In the previous and opening scene, Jesus has pronounced the coming of the Kingdom of God and called followers. When he travels to Capaernaum, he travels with the followers he has just called upon announcing the Kingdom. The essential and immediate next step is acting to create that Kingdom; this is essential not just chronologically, but dramatically, so Mark’s next scene is the setting of the tone for the whole story. Mark does not introduce Jesus’ next acts, or place them in context, the audience reads or hears what he does next as the events are occurring. Mark does something else in this scene without pronouncing it, apart from the events themselves unfolding, and that is the declaration of the enemy. If a new Kingdom is to be established, it follows that an old Kingdom must be replaced. When will the battle be engaged? Who represents the old Kingdom?

Jesus initial activity is to enter the synagogue on the Sabbath and teach, which presents us with a wholly Jewish context for Jesus’ teaching (1:21). It is also indicates a part of the conflict that will permeate this narrative, though it is not the enemy against whom Jesus is battling, as the people in the synagogue are “astounded” at Jesus’ teaching, since he teaches with “authority” (exousia). That is, it is the people of the synagogue who recognize the authority of Jesus and his teaching. On the other hand, Mark foreshadows conflict to come as the same people who accept Jesus' teaching as having "authority," contrast Jesus teaching with the that of the Scribes, to the detriment of the Scribes. The Scribes, we will soon learn, are religious authorities, and though they are not even present in this scene, Mark has alerted us to tensions which will arise in Jesus' mission. 

The subsequent picture brings the enemy in full view, a man with “an unclean spirit” appears in the synagogue, and it is the “unclean spirit” who is a representative of the enemy. It is the “unclean spirit,” too, who recognizes Jesus and establishes his authority for the listeners and onlookers in the synagogue: he knows this is Jesus of Nazareth, he calls him by name, so when he identifies him as “the Holy One of God,” we trust that whatever the source of knowledge for the “unclean spirit,” he has knowledge. More than that, it is the “unclean spirit,” the enemy, who recognizes Jesus’ ultimate task first – “Have you come to destroy us?”

Jesus does not answer, instead he demonstrates his power and authority and intent, indeed, to “destroy” them by saying simply, "Be silent, and come out of him!" (1:25). The “unclean spirit” obeys upon Jesus’ request, which is the most powerful display of Jesus’ authority thus far in the unfolding drama. Even in his exit, in “convulsing him and crying with a loud voice” (1:26), Mark demonstrates the chaos of the old Kingdom, which does not care for its subjects, but desires only to overpower and possess them as objects.

The response of the people in the synagogue, who earlier proclaimed the authority of Jesus’ speech, is now to proclaim the authority of Jesus’ deeds, his actions. They repeat the word, “authority” (exousia), but struggle to understand who Jesus is or what his purpose is,  as “they kept on asking one another, ‘What is this? A new teaching—with authority!’” (1:27). It is in the repetition of the questioning that Mark alerts us that the struggle for meaning is underway – here is authority, in teaching and deeds, but what does it mean? What is its purpose?

The story is just beginning, but the reader is cast in the center of the drama, and we must imagine ourselves either reading, hearing or seeing this drama unfold before us for the first time, as we too are asked to wonder, what is the purpose of this man? As witnesses to Mark’s narrative, we are a step ahead of those who encounter Jesus for the first time in the narrative, but as this scene ends,  and “at once his fame began to spread throughout the surrounding region of Galilee” (1:28), we know that this is only the beginning of the story. He has been identified as man of authority, who has the authority not just of speech, but of deeds, who is gaining fame, but the enemy has only just been identified, and all we have seen is a skirmish. Will the enemy give up their Kingdom without a fight? And what of the scribes, whose authority has been contrasted with that of Jesus, but have not even yet entered the picture?

John W. Martens


Follow me on Twitter @johnwmartens

Coming Soon: First Bible Junkies Podcast with Dr. Corrine Carvalho

The first Bible Junkies Podcast  has been recorded, with Dr. Corrine Carvalho as the first guest. Corri is my colleague at the University of St. Thomas and a Professor of Theology, who specializes in Old Testament and the Prophet Ezekiel specifically. Corri has also written a book on biblical methods for undergraduate students.The discussion was terrific, ranging over Corri's initial interest in the Bible, to her education, research, teaching and what makes the Bible come alive for her. Please check back at Bible Junkies early next week to listen to this terrific conversation.

John W. Martens

Follow me on Twitter @johnwmartens

The Intersection of Sports and Religion

You may know of the podcast, Men in Blazers, in which the two hosts discuss association football, better known this side of the Atlantic as “soccer.” Primarily they discuss English Premier League football, but American soccer also makes an appearance as does the rest of the world when they have time. The hosts, Roger Bennett and Michael Davies are erudite, witty, and clever, in a way that only Brits seem able to pull off without seeming over the top. They have the English ability to straddle the line between subtlety and absurdity, while constantly mocking the pretensions of others, which is fine since they engage in that other English comedic staple, self-deprecation. But why bring them up here at Bible Junkies, other than to let you know how I spend my afternoons?

Apart from soccer and WWI poetry, there have been two occasions recently in which citations from The Bible and the Talmud have made their way into the Men in Blazers podcast. A couple of weeks ago it was 1 Thessalonians 4:13-18, in the context of rapturous delight of fans, and today it was a Talmudic saying describing the many reasons the Arsenal manager, Arsene Wenger, offered for pulling a player from the match, with Roger Bennett saying, “there’s a Talmudic saying, Mickey, ‘When someone offers too many reasons for something, there is really no reason.’” The first citation from the New Testament made me happy, but the Talmudic saying made me delirious. I love to see ancient texts quoted in modern contexts, especially sacred texts, as they are intended to be a part of everyday life, not separated from it. It made me realize that sports and citations from the Bible, Talmud and the Graeco-Roman classics ought to be appearing in many more podcasts, blogs, newspapers, magazine, television and other media to make sense of various events and people. With respect to sports, I want to find more ways to bring ancient wisdom onto the field.



Olympic Stadium in Athens



Here are a few ways this could be done:

1.    The History of Sports in Early Christianity and Judaism: there are a lot of books on Christianity and religion in the 19^th century and 20^th century, but how many books on sports in the ancient context of Christianity and Judaism? Not many; there is a chapter in my book on children in early Christianity, but I do not know of a book for instance on the Gymnasium, as mentioned in 1 Maccabees 1:14 and 2 Maccabees 4:9-12, in Jerusalem (though Saul Lieberman discussed it in his excellent Greek in Jewish Palestine).

2.   The History of Sports in The Graeco-Roman World: The Greeks created the Olympic Games, The Isthmian Games, the Delphic Games and more! Do enough people know about this? Mark Golden has written books about this and so have many others, but we need to explore all of the ways in which ancient sport influences us today, including the fact that the ancient athletes used to scrape sweat from their bodies with a metal tool called a strigil, mingled with the oil that they rubbed over themselves, and the famous ones used to sell it! This is made for E-Bay! We need more ancient ideas for athletes today.

3.   Citations from Ancient Literature that Can Be Used to Enlighten or Understand Sports or Sports Figures Today: this is how Men In Blazers has used the Talmudic saying and the 1 Thessalonians passage, but we need to mine many more of these. We need citations and passages and sayings that help shed light, for instance, on tough situations in sports. Instead of “our backs are against the wall” with a minute left in a game, we could say, “I mean, brothers and sisters, the appointed time has grown short; from now on, let even those who have wives be as though they had none” (1 Corinthians 7:29). Talk about focus, eh? The Bible is full of such advice, but we have not even spoken of the Talmud, the Mishnah, or The Tosephta. Tosephta Avodah Zarah says, 

T.1:17- R. Eliezer, son of R. Josi the Galilean, says, "if you saw a sage going along the road and you want to travel on the same road, advance (your trip) on his account three days, or delay (your trip) on his account three days, in order that you may travel with him along the way, because angels of peace accompany him. As it is written, "For he will command the angels to guard you in all your ways"(Ps.91:11).

T.1:18- And if you saw a wicked man travelling along the road, and you want to go along the same road, advance (your trip) on his account or delay (your trip) on his account three days, in order that you may not travel with him along the way, because the angels of Satan accompany him. As it is written, "Appoint a wicked man against him and let an accuser stand at his right hand"(Ps.109:6).

T.1:19- R. Simeon ben Eliezer says, "if children would say to you, 'build the Temple', do not listen to them; and if elders say to you, 'destroy the Temple', listen to them. Because the building of youths is destruction, and the destruction of elders is building. This is seen in the matter of Rehoboam, son of Solomon." (My Translations.)

I am not certain how these sayings could be used, but I think 1:17-18 could be used when you either miss the team bus or plane –“Coach, I feared a wicked man was on the road, so I delayed my travel” or if you do not want to travel to the White House with your hockey team – and 1:19 could be applied when you fear your team has too many young players, not enough veterans or when your city has to decide on whether to build yet another stadium. Anyway, the Talmudic literature, not to mention the Bible and the Classics, are a goldmine of sayings like this.

4.   Sports Images used in the Bible and Talmud: sports images are used in the Bible and the best known book is by Victor Pfitzner, Paul and the Agon Motif: Traditional Athletic Imagery in the Pauline Literature, but I think more could be done: what other sayings, not traditionally seen in the context of sports could be utilized in this way? What about this passage from Acts 8 with Simon Magus? 

Acts 8: 18 Now when Simon saw that the Spirit was given through the laying on of the apostles' hands, he offered them money, 19 saying, "Give me also this power so that anyone on whom I lay my hands may receive the Holy Spirit." 20 But Peter said to him, "May your silver perish with you, because you thought you could obtain God's gift with money! 21 You have no part or share in this, for your heart is not right before God.

I think this passage could be used to argue against the use of agents in sports, trying to make money on gifts given by God. It’s a possibility. It could also be more likely seen in the context of athletes using steroids or other banned substances, trying to gain athletic gifts through monetary means.

 

5.    Sports and its Relationship to Religion (1): that is, sports in the context of religion, such as the ancient Olympic, Nemean, Pythian or Isthmian Games, which were associated with the worship of particular gods. This is to say nothing of the modern attraction of athletes to religion, not just the most famous, Tim Tebow, but many others who belong to Athletes in Action and the Fellowship of Christian Athletes. Is there something about sports that attracts participants to religion? Is this found outside of North America? Outside of the ancient context?

6.   Sports and its Relationship to Religion (2): that is, sports as religion. Has there ever been a time when sports have been as, well, worshipped as they are today? "The similarities between sport fandom and organized religion are striking. Consider the vocabulary associated with both: faith, devotion, worship, ritual, dedication, sacrifice, commitment, spirit, prayer, suffering, festival, and celebration." While ancient sports were associated with religious festivals and rites, the sports themselves were not a part of religious devotion. Why does sport seem to bleed over into religious fervor? Has this always been so? Why now?

I am partly kidding with some of the passages I quoted from ancient religion in the context of current sports, but only partly. I think the more often ancient texts illuminate present realities, the better we are connected to ancient wisdom and ourselves. I think the better we understand the function of sports in our society, the better we understand ourselves, as a culture and as people.Can you think of any other passages from the Bible, the Talmudic literature or the Greco-Roman classics which might fit in making sense of sports today? Can you think of any other ways in which sport and religion intersect? The model has been given to us by the Men In Blazers podcast, who have "fought the good fight" (1 Timothy 1:18, 6:12; 2 Timothy 4:7) and given us a way "to smooth the path of the righteous" (Isaiah 26:7). On we go, our backs are against the wall!

John W. Martens

Follow me on Twitter @johnwmartens

Conference on Vatican II: Teaching and Understanding the Council after 50 Years: Updated With Links

A conference on Vatican II,  “Vatican II: Teaching and Understanding the Council after 50 Years,” will be held at the University of St. Thomas, St. Paul, Minnesota this coming September 20-22, 2012. The conference

has three interrelated objectives. First, it will examine the effects of Vatican II in shaping the methods and content of our work as educators and scholars.  Second, it will consider how theological reflection on the experiences of teaching since the Council has shaped our understanding of the event itself.  Third, it will look more broadly at the role of Catholic colleges and universities in educating students to be agents of the proper development of human culture for “the good of the community and of the whole society” (Vatican II, Gaudium et Spes §59; see also John Paul II, Ex Corde Ecclesiae §32).

This is a unique conference,  focussing on how the Council has been taught and is taught in departments of theology, and the impact it has had on educators and students. There is only a week left for paper topics to be considered and submitted, due on January 30, 2012, but it is not yet too late.If you are not interested in submitting a paper, please note the dates and see if you can attend. Here is the schedule thus far, and it features  Rev. John O’Malley, S.J., Ph.D, Rev. Jan Michael Joncas, S.L.D., S.L.L, Sr. Maureen Sullivan, O.P., Ph.D and Sr. Katarina Schuth, O.S.F., Ph.D.

A driving force behind this conference is Massimo Faggioli, whose newest book Vatican II: The Battle for Meaning has just been released, and who will also be a participant in the conference.

For those involved with biblical studies in a Catholic context, in seminaries, theology or religious studies departments, this conference would be a perfect opportunity to reflect on, for instance, Dei Verbum in the context of teaching the Bible.

Updated:

After many months, I am finally bringing you the link to the keynote talks and the final roundtable discussion of the Vatican II conference held at the University of St. Thomas, St. Paul, MN on September 20-22, 2012, Teaching and Understanding the Council after 50 Years. The keynote speakers were John W. O'Malley, S.J., Sr. Maureen Sullivan, Sr. Katarina Schuth, and Fr. Michael Joncas. Each of these speakers gave terrific addresses to the conference. Also included is a link to the beautiful homily given by Archbishop Emeritus of St. Paul and Minneapolis Harry Flynn. Click here to be taken to the links. Enjoy!

John W. Martens

I invite you to follow me on Twitter @Biblejunkies

The Judgment of Joe Paterno

We are lucky that judgment here on earth is limited in its duration, even when it is for a lifetime, for we are all flawed, biased, hurt, scarred and scared. Judgment is provisional this side of heaven for our knowledge and wisdom are provisional. Judgment, true Judgment with a capital J, belongs to God. With the death of Joe Paterno, he now has the genuine and true Judgment that only God can render. I am certain that whatever the measure of the Judgment, there must be comfort in knowing it is True.

I was critical of Joe Paterno and his role in the Penn State scandal and with my limited knowledge of the events I remain so. This is what I wrote while at America Magazine in the Men Who Were Not There:

Tonight the Board of Trustees at Penn State University fired Joe Paterno and Graham Spanier, the university president. It is not clear that the former football coach yet understands his (in)actions or those of the school administrators, as he spoke to his football team today, 

Earlier Wednesday, Paterno talked to his team for about 10-15 minutes in an auditorium of the football facility on campus. Standing at a podium, he told players he was leaving and broke down in tears.

Players gave him a standing ovation when he walked out. Junior cornerback Stephon Morris said some players also were nearly in tears as Paterno spoke.

"I still can't believe it," Morris said. "I've never seen coach Paterno like that in my life." Asked what was the main message of Paterno's talk, Morris said: "Beat Nebraska."

Tears for the loss of his job, tears for his players are understandable; but does he understand he is not the victim?

 The whole post can be read here.

I stand by what I wrote then, but some of the response to Joe Paterno's death has either wanted to ignore these events or judge him to hell. The reality is that all of us are accountable for our behavior and all of us will account for it, even if it seems we have slipped by accountability here on earth. This is not to suggest that I think that those who are guilty of crimes here on earth should not be punished for their crimes, or that some crimes, sins, are not more heinous than others, just that I am assured that both those who have suffered unjustly and those who caused unjust suffering will account for their deeds, both of commission and omission. But then we do not know how much good has been done by Paterno that also went unseen and many have spoken of his genuine care for those he knew. There will no escaping the Truth for Joe Paterno, for good or for ill, but that goes for all of us.

So, I do pray that Joe Paterno rests in peace and I do wish his family and his friends peace. I wish it, too, for all those who have suffered through the actions and inactions of others, especially in the sexual abuse scandal of Penn State, but for victims and survivors everywhere. When we include ourselves amongst those who do not do enough, or have not done enough, or could have done more, it is a chastening and humbling thought. It focusses one's mind on mercy and forgiveness.

John W. Martens

Follow me on Twitterhttps://twitter.com/#!/johnwmartens

The Gospel of Mark: Commentary Act 1. Scene 1

Throughout this liturgical year, I will be giving a commentary on the whole of the Gospel of Mark. Today is the first installment.

I think that the Gospel of Mark is a dramatic narrative, by which I mean not simply that the content is dramatic, which it is, but that Mark has constructed a Gospel which is in essence a play, a drama, albeit divine and cosmic in its implications. This does not mean that I think that Mark is ahistorical, only that each Gospel author had to make choices in how their Gospels were constructed and Mark functions as a natural dramatist in how he presents material and how he structures the events in Jesus’ life. As the first written Gospel, and with the oral tradition more apparent on the surface, Mark is sometimes seen as simplistic and even shapeless, but I will argue that the Gospel of Mark is formed with great care, shaped by a series of six Acts, with many scenes, naturally, comprising each Act. Each Act is at the service of Mark’s overall purpose, to explain and unfold not only the identity of the Messiah, but the destiny of the Messiah and his followers. Mark draws the reader into his narrative, so that the reader himself becomes one of the disciples following along the journey with Jesus, a point that will become more apparent as we move deeper into the Gospel.

I consider that the first 13 verses of chapter one function as a Prologue to the drama, to set the scene for what is about to take place, the story of the Messiah who once lived in the midst of the people, largely unrecognized and rejected, and why his story has implications for every reader. In these 13 verses, the whole notion of the coming Messiah is established, first in terms of language, identifying the story of the Messiah as “good news” and the Messiah as “son of God” and “Christ,” and second from the promise of the Scriptures that a Messenger would prepare the way of the coming Messiah, drawing from an amalgam of Malachi and Isaiah (1:1-3). Once the premise is established, Mark quickly presents the Messenger, John the Baptist, and the Messenger’s baptism of Jesus (1:4-10), who is identified by God as “my son, the beloved” (1:11). Following the short and direct Temptation narrative in Mark (1:12-13), the Gospel proper begins.

It is a vivid and intense opening, as in the Prologue the reality of the coming Messiah is established, but nothing is explained and nothing is clarified. Mark presents to us the Messiah, drawing from Scripture, from the baptismal experience, and from the Temptation, but we know nothing about him. If we want to know, we must read on. Why is Jesus the Messiah?  What makes him the Messiah? What does the Messiah do? What will be his fate?

The first Act, which I believe runs from Mark 1:14-3:6, will establish through deeds, and sometimes through words, the presence and authority of the Messiah, but again, we will know little more about him than his actions and words reveal. Rarely will Mark give us insight into Jesus' life prior to his ministry, whence he came, his family, his livelihood, or his friends. And so the story begins, abruptly, rapidly drawing us in:

14 Now after John was arrested, Jesus came to Galilee, proclaiming the good news of God, 15 and saying, "The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God has come near; repent, and believe in the good news." 16 As Jesus passed along the Sea of Galilee, he saw Simon and his brother Andrew casting a net into the sea—for they were fishermen. 17 And Jesus said to them, "Follow me and I will make you fish for people." 18 And immediately they left their nets and followed him. 19 As he went a little farther, he saw James son of Zebedee and his brother John, who were in their boat mending the nets. 20 Immediately he called them; and they left their father Zebedee in the boat with the hired men, and followed him. (NRSV)

In the Gospel reading above, Scene 1 of Act 1, the reading for the 3^rd Sunday in Ordinary Time, Jesus begins his ministry only after “John was arrested” (1:14), subtly announcing that this is now Jesus’ time, the time for which John at least partially has prepared him and the people who had been going to John for baptism. According to Mark, John's baptism was for "repentance for the forgiveness of sins. And people from the whole Judean countryside and all the people of Jerusalem were going out to him, and were baptized by him in the river Jordan, confessing their sins" (1:4b-5). John's baptism and message were necessary to prepare the people and to prepare Jesus, but his time, too, is fulfilled. Mark then begins to create the dramatic tension, as Jesus proclaims the Kingdom of God: "The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God has come near; repent, and believe in the good news” (1:15).

While many since the earliest 20^th century, beginning with Alfred Loisy, have stated that Jesus pronounced the Kingdom, but what he received was the Church, this quip does not make proper sense of Jesus’ understanding of “kingdom” or the reality of Church. The whole notion of the basileia, the Greek word for Kingdom, is that of the “reign” of God. Most of Jesus’ counterintuitive proclamation, and Mark’s counterintuitive writing, is still to be unfolded in the Gospel, but if you expected a Kingdom with towers, parapets, moats and armies, a King lording it over his enemies, your expectations will soon crumble. Nevertheless, a “reign” of God needs one thing, as does a Kingdom, and that is people. The Church, ekklesia, a word which is not used in Mark at all, is simply the gathered people of God. Loisy and others have made the same mistake as many who propound a high ecclesiology and that is to think that the nature of the institutionalized Church as structured through buildings and hierachies is the necessary and essential structure of the Church. This is not an argument against the Church, or the authority of the Church, but a return to the bedrock nature of the Church: those who hear the call of Christ and follow him. Jesus is calling people to belong to the reign of God. What the reign of God is and what it means for those who follow, as well as those who do not, is yet to be unfolded, but for Jesus to proclaim the Kingdom is to expect that people will hear the call  and respond to the call and enter the Kingdom, however ill-defined it is to the initial hearers of the word.

This is Jesus’ first task, creating the Church, and so he calls four men, two pairs of brothers, from their livelihoods and families. Simon and Andrew, James and John, “immediately” follow Jesus. Here we have the oral style of Mark, the spartan, pared down narrative, in which actions speak louder than words, at least for those of us reading. Mark would certainly know that more was present in the call of Jesus to his first disciples, but what matters to Mark is that they hear the call, respond and follow. Mark’s use of euthus, “immediately,” gives the Gospel its narrative push all throughout the Gospel: it speaks of orality, the fast paced plot does not stop for needless description, but also builds dynamic tension: why do they follow? How could you leave your family business to follow this teacher? What draws them to this man “immediately”? Rarely does Mark draw us into the inner life of his characters, with the significant exception of Jesus, and so we must derive intent from their actions and the unfolding plot. What will happen next?

John W. Martens

Follow me on Twitter @johnwmartens

Apostle Paul, the Church and Sex

An interesting - is that a weasel word in this context? - post about the Apostle Paul and sex with Scot McNight. Not the Apostle Paul having "sex with" Scot McNight, mind you, as that would be impossible, but Scot McNight discussing the topic of sex within Paul's letters, which basically amounts to a discussion of 1 Corinthians 7. Scot McKnight is the Karl A. Olsson Professor in Religious Studies at North Park University (Chicago, Illinois) and a recognized authority on the New Testament, early Christianity and the historical Jesus, a fine scholar indeed. In this post McNight is responding to Rodney Reeves' book Rediscovering Paul. It is not precisely a review of Reeves' book, or a critique of Reeves' book; it might simply be a basic agreement with Reeves' book, in which McNight concludes:

"For Paul sex had two orientations: the present order is crumbling so marriage and family are second compared to devotion to Christ; sexual disorder is an ecclesial problem more than simply a personal problem."

The post does not deal with anything substantial on the topic of marriage in the ancient world, apart from mentioning it, or why what Paul said about the conditions and reasons for sex and marriage and singleness (and celibacy) ought to have ramifications for the present day, given the much different standard for marriage in the 1st century A.D./C.E. and the fact that we have not taken Paul's teaching on marriage in 1 Corinthians 7 all that seriously for centuries. So that is a topic for another post.

The other topic for a subsequent post is how in a wordlwide Church, made up of millions and millions of people - is it billions? billion? - we are to make sexual practices a corporate sin. By this I do not mean to imply that the Church does not have teachings regarding sexual practice, but as McNight states,

And what Paul says about sex is not the way we talk about, esp when it comes to disordered sex: Paul disciplined the church (not just a person) for sexual disorder in 1 Cor 5 — sexual sins affect the church. Sexual disorder is individual for us: it is not about corporate purity.

I have wondered about this for a long time in the context of Paul's teaching, and not just regarding sex: in large Churches, from large Catholic parishes to large evangelical mega churches, who knows each other well enough to know what peoples' problems are or  to correct one another? Paul speaks of the Church as a family, dysfunctional, but loving, but the Church for many is experienced as corporation, not in corporate terms as"the body of Christ," but "the place I go to worship on Sunday." Do we know people well enough in Church to speak to them about sexual issues? Do they even want to hear about them? I am not speaking about the practice of confession either, a formal sacrament for Catholics, but simply the other members of the family? What does this say about how what Paul teaches us about the corporate nature of sin? Is the Church simply too big to practice what Paul preaches?

John W. Martens

Follow me on Twitter @johnwmartens.

Bible and Management Course Cancelled: 1st Amendment Issue or Bad Academic Course?

I spotted a story on First Things that initially roused my sympathy. It described a course cancelled at Iowa State University because the professor, by all accounts a serious and significant scholar, was teaching a course on “Application of Biblical Insight into the Management of Business/Organization.” This bothered me because at the University of St. Thomas, admittedly a private, Catholic university, in the Theology Department we teach any number of courses that would seem similar to this. For instance, we teach “Bridge Courses,” which are described as

The "Bridge Course," as the third course in the Faith and the Catholic Tradition sequence (400-numbered), will provide an opportunity for students to draw upon their entire program of studies. Serving as the culminating point for the curriculum, the Bridge Course prepares students to build connections between their studies in the liberal arts and the broader world for which their St. Thomas education has prepared them. A principal concern of the course is to guide students toward experiencing a sense of vocation in their professional, familial, and social lives. Because no single course can be expected to address all such areas, students will be offered three different types of bridge courses exploring different aspects of the broader world they are preparing to serve.

It is the first type of Bridge Course which would seem similar to the course cancelled at Iowa State:

The first type of bridge course will address vocation in careers and in the professions and will be thoroughly interdisciplinary in nature and in many cases will be team-taught. These courses will develop a theological reflection on a specific profession (for example, medicine, law, management, and education). Other courses of this type will address the intellectual vocation of various academic disciplines, bringing theology into dialogue with academic disciplines such as art history, English, or psychology. Such courses will appeal especially to majors in disciplines that prepare students for a wide variety of careers. We will give priority to developing as many courses of this first type as we can, although we will always be limited by the availability of faculty who are prepared to address the particular concerns of the professions and the particular academic disciplines from a theological perspective.

Apart from these courses, we have at the UST Center for Catholic Studies The John A. Ryan Institute for Catholic Social Thought, which “explores the relationship between the Catholic social tradition and business theory and practice by fostering a deeper integration of faith and work.” All of this is to say that I was sympathetic to a course combining theology and business, especially as a biblical scholar a course examining biblical principles.

Just following the links, however, to the story at Inside Higher Ed, makes me think it was right that the course was cancelled, not because of the general sort of course this is, or because it is at a public university, or because of the Professor, but because it does not seem to deal with the biblical or theological content in a serious, academic manner. At a public or private university, biblical studies and theology in general cannot be taught as catechesis or advocacy or without academic rigor.

The course, according to Inside Higher Ed, was “to use How to Run Your Business by THE BOOK: A Biblical Blueprint to Bless Your Business by Christian leadership speaker Dave Anderson as its sole textbook.” Colleagues were displeased with the course:

a trio of Iowa State professors started a faculty movement to shut down the class, first by writing a letter to administrators and then by circulating a petition. “It was obvious he was going to be teaching a Sunday school class and giving credit for it,” said Warren Blumenfeld, an associate education professor who helped draft both the letter and petition.  “This is a violation of the First Amendment. This is not teaching world religions or even one religion, but one concept of one religion.”

I personally have no First Amendment issues with such a course, if the course is demonstrably academic, open to debate, taught by an expert and rigorous, but to use a book by a motivational speaker does make one wonder if it is such a course. There is another issue which is often overlooked, even in the criticism of this course, and which can often put biblical studies under the gun: what is the expertise of Dave Anderson or Roger Stover on the Bible? Are they trained academically in its teaching? I can see nothing in Stover's superb resume that has prepared him to teach the Bible.

You do not have to be an expert on the Bible to love it and to guide your life by it – the same, of course, would go for the Qu’ran, Rg Veda, the Platform Sutras of the Sixth Patriarch, etc. – but if you want to teach it in a university, you should have demonstrable and significant expertise in the field. This is why at UST, a bridge course is taught by a team, one with expertise, for instance, in the Bible, the other in management, or by one person who has demonstrated competence in both fields. How would the business faculty feel if I decided to teach a course in finance because of my expertise as a biblical scholar? Jesus talks a lot about wealth and possessions in the Gospel of Luke, and I know Luke well, I have taught it many times. It would never fly. Frankly, I think the religion department at Iowa State should have complained about this course.

The other issue is advocacy. This might be a fine book for Christians in business, but could anyone, atheist, Jew, “other “Christians – those who do not belong to whatever denomination the author of the textbook belongs - feel comfortable in this course? Every theology and biblical studies course ought to make a student feel welcome.  I assure you I have a religious point of view in my classes and share it with my students. I also make it clear that they do not have to share my point of view to be in the class or to succeed in the class.

The professor himself has responded to the controversy:

An Iowa State University professor whose class on applying Biblical principles to business was canceled now says he disagrees with parts of a controversial textbook he planned to use. That book was among the reasons faculty members cited when protesting the course, saying it was inappropriately religious for a public university.

Professor Roger Stover, who declined to speak with Inside Higher Ed for the initial story, wrote Wednesday that his class was to be “a critical evaluation of a popular book’s prescriptions.” The text, Dave Anderson’s How to Run Your Business by THE BOOK: A Biblical Blueprint to Bless Your Business, at one point advises Christians not to go into business with nonbelievers.

In a statement released to Inside Higher Ed Wednesday evening, Stover called that an “extreme recommendation." Stover added that “I professionally disagree with much of the book’s recommendation on borrowing money.”

The professor said he planned to focus his one-credit, independent study class on chapters like “Four Mandates to Maximize Your Time” and “How to Lead Through a Crisis.”

“This was a proposed business management class,” Stover wrote. “These are hardly theological issues – they are management issues.”

The question that arises, though, is why teach a course on “Application of Biblical Insight into the Management of Business/Organization” when you want to disregard the chapters that deal with the (supposedly) biblical recommendations and deal not with theological issues but management issues? Why choose to teach a textbook that discriminates against non-Christians in business? It is not as if one must agree with everything in a course textbook, but if your course is ostensibly on biblical insight into management, why not choose a book that is academically sound and theologically sound at least to supplement your one course text?

Most significant to me, though, is the sense that this is a course dealing with advocacy of particular positions or views of the Bible, written by a non-expert, and taught by a non-expert. He might love the Bible, but what are his credentials to teach a university course on it? I love money, and I know how to spend it, but no one should let me teach a course on finance. This is not, for me, a first amendment issue, it as a question of academic competence.

John W. Martens

Follow me on Twitter @johnwmartens

After The Japanese Tsunami: A Traveler's Account

There is a tendency which I have, and which is shared by many, to let natural or human disasters slip out of consciousness after a certain amount of time has passed. Either I move on to the next disaster or simply allow myself to forget about the one which has passed. This is sometimes referred to as “disaster fatigue” and, at personal level, “compassion fatigue.” I wanted to share with you, in order to combat some of this “fatigue,” a first-hand account of the impact of the Japanese Tsunami. The student who wrote this report and sent it to me wishes to remain anonymous. I include with the report some photographs taken by the student. I did not want to add any comments at the end of the report, but feel free to comment as you feel fit.

John W. Martens

Follow me on Twitter @johnwmartens

I have been traveling around the northeastern part of Japan. In big cities, people live their usual life. And it is rare for us, visitors, to notice the remains of the Great Earthquake. However, once we travel into the countryside, especially the pacific coast area, there are many small communities totally destroyed and abandoned. These three attached files are pictures I took in a small fisherman's community named Taro in Iwate prefecture. Taro had been famous as a model city of preparation for a tsunami before the tsunami destroyed the whole community. They had built huge walls to protect against a tsunami, but the walls were easily broken by the first attack of the tsunami. I didn't know how big the power of waves could be before I saw the destroyed concrete walls.

Breakwater Destroyed by Tsunami in Taro, Japan

People are working for reconstruction. But people are forgetting the great tragedy. On TV, news of the current situation in this area is getting less and less. But here many people are still living in barracks and more than 1000 children lost either their father or mother, and more than 200 children are facing a difficult future.



Elementary School Destroyed by Tsunami in Taro, Japan



Honestly speaking, I cannot find what I can/should do yet. The damage is too huge to think of it comprehensively. But at the same time, it is often reported that personal support and unorganized aid cause problems and confusion. Everyone wants to do something. But in fact, it is difficult to find what we can do more than give a donation. And of course we know that a donation is not sufficient.



Taro Baseball Stadium Destroyed by Tsunami, Taro, Japan



We are powerless under natural disasters and also we are powerless in the reconstruction.  Each personal situation in this area is too delicate for us, outsiders, to "help" decisively. However, we travel by believing it is the first indispensable step to experience the situation here. 

 +++++++++

The Menorah and the Cross in Ancient Laodicea: What does the symbol mean? UPDATED

Did anyone know what these Inscriptions represented? When I was first on the site of ancient Laodicea (Lycus Valley) in August 2002, I did not notice this column or the inscription. It is possible that it had not yet been unearthed, but it is also possible that I just missed it, as I recall my personal tour guide and I being chased off of the site by the archaeologist. The archaeological team was involved in the dig that August and did not want any visitors, no matter how much I pleaded my case. I then returned with students in January 2006 and found this column lying on the ground at the eastern end of the main road of the ancient city. This is when I took these photos:

Cross and Menorah Inscription on column from Laodicea (Image 1), January 2006 (photograph by John W. Martens)

Cross and Menorah Inscription on column (Image 2) from Laodicea, January 2006 (photograph by John W. Martens)

I am not an archaeologist, so I did not know how to "read" inscriptions as more than an interested amateur. In terms of the symbols, I thought that I could puzzle out a few of them, but in terms of the actual date that the inscriptions were made, I had no idea how to interpret these columns, either on the basis of artistic style, the sort of columnar style, the stone used, or, of course, the scientific methods used to date stone inscriptions. For all I knew, these columns came from the medieval period, or had been inscribed even more recently. Yet, I had wondered about it for years, and the column was still lying on the ground when I was back in January 2010: could this be a sign of Jewish-Christian life together?

Even to my untrained eye, and those of my students and colleagues, it was clear that the bottom inscription was of a Menorah. While perhaps not as straightforward an identification, the inscription on the right of the Menorah in Image 1 seems to be that of a shofar, or ram's horn. In Image 2 it stands out even more as a shofar. On the left of the Menorah in Image 1, we debated as to what it might be. It appears that a sheaf of wheat is inscribed, though it could also have been a lulav, or palm frond, commonly waved during Sukkot today.

It is obvious what emerged from the Menorah, however, and the deeper carving, seen in both Image 1 and Image 2, suggested to my amateur eye that the carved "ball" and the cross were added at a later point, as did the seemingly more professional carving. Was this a sign that Christians had taken over a synagogue?

I certainly did not know any of this with certainty, however, and did not know when the carving, either of the Menorah or the Cross, might have taken place or whether they were done sequentially or at the same time. Now, however, a new book has appeared through Brill in 2012, New Perspectives on Jewish Christian Relations: In Honor of David Berger, with an essay by Steven Fine, an archaeologist from Yeshiva University, The Menorah and the Cross: Historiographical Reflections On A Recent Discovery from Laodicea on the Lycus.

The article supports the basic reading of the inscription which I and my students had mused upon, and especially cemented the identification of the branch on the left of the Menorah (Image 1) as a lulav (31-33). More significantly, the inscription is read by a professional and expert, who explains the nature of the carving. While Fine does not date the inscription, as far as I can determine, he says it is in a pile of rubble which dates to a 494 A.D./C.E. earthquake (31). He later suggests that perhaps the inscription of the cross is to be dated to around the time of the Council of Laodicea (363-364 A.D./C.E.) (50).

Yet, there is even more significance to his paper than the identification of the carving and its possible date and that is the claim that this image shows the "Christianization" of the Roman Empire and the destruction and assimilation of pagan and Jewish sacred spaces (34-35). Fine does not see this carving as indicative of "Judeo-Christianity" or a sign of  positive Jewish and Christian relationships in Laodicea, as does the excavator of the site Simsek (43-44), but of the domination of Judaism by Christianity in the later Empire. Perhaps Christians took over a Jewish space, such as a synagogue, and then carved the cross over the menorah as a sign of supersessionism. It is the only example, Fine suggests, of a cross carved over a Menorah, but examples of crosses carved over pagan symbols are more numerous.

His proposal is rather sobering and he adduces other evidence which points to Christians taking over pagan and Jewish sites. This is probably, unfortunately, the best reading of the evidence. But if the column and inscription could be dated to an earlier time, could it be evidence of a "Jewish-Christian" worship site? Is it possible to read this evidence in another way? Could it be evidence of Christianity "emerging" from Judaism? Or is it a true sign of Christians beginning to displace Jews already in the ancient city of Laodicea?
______________

UPDATE: A student from the 2010 Greece and Turkey course, Nicole Pilarski, posted a photograph of the Cross and Menorah column on Facebook this afternoon. This is her photo from January 2010, which I am happy to reproduce here with her permission:

Cross and Menorah Inscription on Column (Image 3) from Laodicea, January 2010 (Photograph by Nicole Pilarski)

She noted that the image (Image 3) seems more faded than my photographs from 2006 (Images 1 and 2), and though that could be partly due to bad lighting or camera resolution, it could also be due to the fact that this looks like a close-up of the image. The worst case scenario would be that the fading is due to the column lying outside on the ground, open to the elements. Fine states that this is where the column remains (50) (see Image 4).

The final photograph, also taken by Nicole Pilarski, shows the location of the column piece on the ground on site in Laodicea (Image 4). Our tour guide, Gokhan Baydur is pointing out the inscription to Peter Gavrilyuk, the son of Dr. Paul Gavrilyuk.




Cross and Menorah column on ground in Laodicea (Image 4) from Laodicea, January 2010 (Photograph by Nicole Pilarski) 

 John W. Martens

Follow me on Twitter @johnwmartens

Biblical Literalism and Inerrantism: Go Together Like Love and Marriage

I wanted to draw people's attention to a blog post by philosopher Alexander Pruss on biblical literalism and inerrantism. It is short and direct, asking why the two, literalism and inerrantism, should so often go hand in hand. He ends by saying,

In fact one would expect a negative correlation between adherence to literalism and adherence to inerrantism. If one is an inerrantist, then one of the exegetical tools available to one is an inference from "p is false" to "Scripture does not assert p", and this exegetical tool, together with modern science, should result in the rejection of literalism.

Make sure to read the whole post. What do you think? I am still thinking his post over. I will go off and teach the New Testament for a few hours and come back and update this post with a few comments and reflections on "literalism" and "inerrantism.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++UPDATED++++++++++++++++++++++++++


It was more than a few hours, but here are my thoughts on this post at the end of the day:

I am frightened whenever I respond to philosophers or attempt to parse philosophical language, which I do not exactly understand. This is not a clever ruse – I truly do not understand philosophical statements, formal propositions of logic – and I am not kidding about the fright. Philosophers are careful thinkers and the conditions which they establish for their questions are rigorous.

The blog post to which I am responding, which I summarized above, proposed that there was a false equation between biblical literalism and biblical inerrantism “in the popular imagination” “and there may well be a positive correlation between adherence to these doctrines.” Pruss asks, “isn't this a strange marriage?” He then defines inerrantism and literalism:

Inerrantism is basically the doctrine that every proposition asserted by Scripture is true (perhaps with an "oeconomic necessity" operator applied). On the other hand, literalism is something like the doctrine that narrative sentences in Scripture, with the exception of those that the Bible marks otherwise and those that sufficiently closely stylistically and/or contextually resemble those so marked, are to be understood pretty much the way they would be understood if their vocabulary were mildly modernized and they were embedded in a present-day work of history.

I am attracted to this post because I am a Bible junkie and throwing around terms like “inerrant” and “literalism” stoke the addiction. But for all of my respect for the carefulness of philosophical speech, such as “from ‘p is false’ to ‘Scripture does not assert p,’” there is a looseness with which he uses these two terms of biblical studies.

Pruss does note that inerrancy is easier to define than literalism, but as he defines the two terms, he proposes that “in fact one would expect a negative correlation between adherence to literalism and adherence to inerrantism. If one is an inerrantist, then one of the exegetical tools available to one is an inference from "p is false" to "Scripture does not assert p", and this exegetical tool, together with modern science, should result in the rejection of literalism.”

He starts with an assumption that a strange marriage exists between biblical inerrancy and biblical literalism, but the first problem is the sloppy definition of inerrancy, “that every proposition asserted by Scripture is true.” One can, of course, assert that, but Catholic interpretation, for instance, does not ask that one accept that “every proposition asserted by Scripture is true,” except in a specific sense:

Therefore, since everything asserted by the inspired authors or sacred writers must be held to be asserted by the Holy Spirit, it follows that the books of Scripture must be acknowledged as teaching solidly, faithfully and without error that truth which God wanted put into sacred writings (5) for the sake of salvation. (Dei Verbum 11)

Inerrancy, as stated in Dei Verbum, is “that truth which God wanted put into sacred writings for the sake of salvation” (DV, 11). Now, this might be what Pruss means by “oeconomic necessity,” but I read his post on that term a few times and could not determine if that was the case. At any rate, if one defines “inerrancy” not in a broad way, but in a specific, theological manner, the claim is simply that God’s truth, that truth essential for spiritual salvation, is found in the Scriptures.

The definition of literalism, though, is quite strange, so I repeat it in full:

literalism is something like the doctrine that narrative sentences in Scripture, with the exception of those that the Bible marks otherwise and those that sufficiently closely stylistically and/or contextually resemble those so marked, are to be understood pretty much the way they would be understood if their vocabulary were mildly modernized and they were embedded in a present-day work of history.

I am not certain why literalism is related to narrative sentences in Scripture alone, as opposed, I would suspect, to poetic or other literary styles, or how one determines which sentences “the Bible marks otherwise and those that sufficiently closely stylistically and/or contextually resemble those so marked” should be excluded or what that even means. I also do not know how literalism as a method of reading or interpretation should be related to modernizing vocabulary or present-day historical work.

The ancient and medieval understanding of literalism was quite sophisticated and is carried over into the present day: there were two senses of Scripture, the literal and the spiritual, and the spiritual was based upon the literal sense, which is the sense conveyed by the words of the text and available through sound methods of exegesis and interpretation. Yet, the literal sense took account of the poetic, mythic and other literary techniques of the author, embedded in the text in whatever age they wrote, that is to say, it is a broad way of reading Scriptural texts not a narrow sense that is being sought.  The literal sense is simply what the author intended to say and which is located in the text.

Spiritual reading, which included allegorical, anagogical and moral readings, were based upon the literal reading. In this manner of understanding the literal sense, one does not say that a dragon’s tail sweeping a third of the stars from heaven (Revelation 12: 4) must be “literally” true, though that is what the words mean. The literal sense, though, is based upon the apocalyptic genre, the mythic precursors for dragons, beasts and chaotic monsters in the ancient near east and in the Old Testament, and the context in the text in which this account is found. What did the author intend to say through this text? From the literal sense one can build spiritual senses, though not in every case. What it does not intend is that the literal sense is mundane, boring and without spiritual meaning.

In both cases, though, the definitions offered by Pruss are too narrow and so he wants to separate “literalism” from “inerrancy.” But the one, inerrancy, refers to the inspired and revealed nature of Scripture, which guarantees its truth at least in a theological sense. And “literalism” is simply a means of accepting that texts carry meaning, intended by their author, or authors, which for Scripture include both the human and the divine voices and which must be discovered by careful exegesis and interpretation. How can one not accept both of these if they accept the truth of Scripture?

John W. Martens

Follow me on Twitter @johnwmartens