Podcast with Adele Reinhartz Delayed

I was supposed to interview Adele Reinhartz for the podcast tomorrow, but she is currently ill and leaving soon for Israel, so we will talk when she is back, at a date still to be determined, later in March. For those who do not know her work, take the opportunity to check out some of it before the podcast. Professor Reinhartz is a Jewish scholar of the New Testament and Hellenistic Jewish literature - and I hope we will discuss her life as Jewish scholar working with Christian texts, particularly the Gospel of John, and how her unique perspective has opened up the texts for her and her students and readers. I highly recommend her book, Befriending the Beloved Disciple, which begins with a powerful and moving Prologue and asks challenging and compelling questions of the text of the Gospel. Either of her two books on Jesus/Scripture in the movies is worth reading, too, Jesus of Hollywood or  Scripture on the Silver Screen. For more of her books, please see her Amazon author page. Feel free to send me questions if any arise in the next few weeks regarding her research.

I look forward to this podcast as I owe her a special debt for my own vocation and academic passions. I took her class on "Judaism and Hellenism in the Greco-Roman World" at the University of Toronto in 1983 and 29 years later I am still studying the same material.What can I say? Once you are hooked, you are hooked. I did call the blog biblejunkies for a reason. Talk to you soon!

John W. Martens

Follow me on Twitter @johnwmartens

Lent 3: Soaked in Mercy

Repentance consists in first acknowledging sin, “I have done something wrong,” second, confessing this sin, third, performing penance, and fourth, accepting that you have been forgiven. But we can try to go easy on ourselves and fight the personal acknowledgement of guilt. Let me put this in a manner that is easier to understand: “I do not do that!  I did not do that!” Yet, even when we break down and acknowledge guilt, we can then be hard on ourselves, wondering: “Am I even worthy of forgiveness?” We can let guilt overwhelm us, our sins haunt us, and our darkness shrouds us. As Moses Maimonides said, though, in Guide for the Perplexed, God can turn away from a promise of punishment, but not a promise of mercy and forgiveness, which is to say, God’s nature is mercy-soaked, for all people.

In the story of Jonah, Jonah goes to a foreign city, the party town of Nineveh – “what happens in Nineveh, stays in Nineveh,” as the ancient saying went - and pronounces a prophecy to a foreign people.  When they hear the prophecy, that they will soon be overthrown, they repent and perform penance:

5 And the people of Nineveh believed God; they proclaimed a fast, and everyone, great and small, put on sackcloth. 6 When the news reached the king of Nineveh, he rose from his throne, removed his robe, covered himself with sackcloth, and sat in ashes. 7 Then he had a proclamation made in Nineveh: "By the decree of the king and his nobles: No human being or animal, no herd or flock, shall taste anything. They shall not feed, nor shall they drink water. 8 Human beings and animals shall be covered with sackcloth, and they shall cry mightily to God. All shall turn from their evil ways and from the violence that is in their hands. 9 Who knows? God may relent and change his mind; he may turn from his fierce anger, so that we do not perish." 10 When God saw what they did, how they turned from their evil ways, God changed his mind about the calamity that he had said he would bring upon them; and he did not do it. (Jonah 3:5-10)

The people of Nineveh are Assyrians, not Israelites; yet their very acts of repentance, of listening to God and admitting guilt, make them worthy for God to renege on the condemnation:  “God changed his mind about the calamity that he had said he would bring upon them; and he did not do it.” God does not desire condemnation.

Jesus refers to this same story in Luke 11:29-32, when he condemns his generation as “an evil generation”:

30 For just as Jonah became a sign to the people of Nineveh, so the Son of Man will be to this generation. 31 The queen of the South will rise at the judgment with the people of this generation and condemn them, because she came from the ends of the earth to listen to the wisdom of Solomon, and see, something greater than Solomon is here! 32 The people of Nineveh will rise up at the judgment with this generation and condemn it, because they repented at the proclamation of Jonah, and see, something greater than Jonah is here! (NRSV)

The harsh judgment that is coming is obvious in the tone of condemnation – the word “condemn” gives it away - but see who judges, the queen of the South, Sheba, who came to hear God’s wisdom, the people of Nineveh, who listened to God’s call to repent, people who one would not see as models of righteousness and repentance. What makes them worthy? They sought wisdom, to know themselves, their sins, and to turn from them. From what do we need to turn?  Will we allow ourselves to be forgiven? God wants to turn from calamity; God wants to soak us in mercy.

 John W. Martens

Follow me on Twitter @biblejunkies

 

Archbishop Williams and Miracles: A Response to David Jenkins

David Jenkins at Anglican Samizdat, a great blog name by the way, wrote briefly about the recent discussion between Richard Dawkins and Archbishop Rowan Williams (see the whole discussion on video here) saying  that “Rowan says he doesn’t believe God “intervened” when humans came to be or, by implication, in miracles.” The relevant portion of the dialogue is at 40:26 to about 41:20. We are also directed in one of David's comments to a short discussion between Dawkins and Williams which took place earlier and in which Williams speaks about God acting in history and miracles. David excerpts this portion of Rowan Williams’ earlier discussion, which is available in whole from a link in one of his comments:

“If you think of miracle as God watching something going on down there and occasionally thinking, Oh I’d better fiddle around with that a bit or I’d better intervene there, that has the same sort of problems.If you think of miracle as those sets of circumstances in which somehow the underlying action of God breaks through, breaks through the surface to create something new. I think that’s consistent with an underlying stability of divine action.”

Jenkins believes that Archbishop Rowan Williams does not, at least by implication, believe in miracles (see the comments under the post as well), whereas I think that is an unfair characterization or interpretation of Williams’ comments (see my comments under the post as well). I believe that Williams does present a reasonable Christian understanding and definition of miracles which is supported by other Christian thinkers. I wanted to expand on my comments a bit.

This is not a defense of Archbishop Rowan Williams’ views of miracles – he can certainly do that himself, far more ably than I could – but an attempt to understand what he said about miracles in his discussion with Richard Dawkins, which was slight at any rate, and to interpret his understanding in the context of general Christian understanding of miracles. I think his understanding of miracles fits in the mainstream of Christian theological thinking and that one of his comments, beginning at 40:26, which is related to human evolution, should not be understood as bearing on a view of miracles specifically, but the nature of how God acts in creation and through creation generally.

I have written on this blog about miracles before, which I believe in and which are a specific part of the way in which God acts in history. If we are to define everything that God has done in creation, such as the very act of creation, as a miracle, then by definition I suppose we could say that everything is a miracle, all that exists, all that has life, the birth of a child, is a miracle. This is not, however, the normal definition of miracle. It is too broad and when everything is described as a miracle the word becomes meaningless, even though we sense or feel the wonder of life at times which would not otherwise be seen as "miraculous" just "natural".

When Archbishop Williams was asked about human evolution, he was asked if human beings had “non-human ancestors.” He agreed that they did. He was then asked if in the transition from non-human or “proto-human” ancestors there was “divine intervention.” Now, clearly, Williams believes that God is responsible for the origins of all living things, but he did not believe that in this transition in evolutionary status God directly intervened. What did he mean? He says that at some point in the evolutionary process the “proto-humans” become aware of a call from God, enter into a relationship with God, which might, he says elsewhere in the discussion, be called a “soul.” What he rejects is that God “bend(s) down and tinkers with the machinery.”

This understanding does not deny the reality of  miracles; this is said specifically about how the process of human evolution takes place and it is a reasonable position in Christian theology. It also does not deny God’s place in evolution. Terry Nichols, a Catholic theologian who writes on science, evolution and miracles, writes,

Evolution does not have to be understood naturalistically, that is, as a purely natural and unguided process. Instead, I maintain that evolution has a direction, and is ultimately guided by God. But God does not determine every detail of evolution. (The Sacred Cosmos, Grand Rapids, Mich.: Brazos Press, 2003, 89).

Nichols goes on to say,

Modern thought, however, tends to think of nature as an autonomous system, and God as outside of or extrinsic to nature. So if God were to act in nature, he would have to “intervene” from the outside, like a mechanic fixing a clock. (The Sacred Cosmos,  Grand Rapids, Mich.: Brazos Press, 2003, 122).

I believe that Archbishop Williams affirms the first citation quite clearly, but denies the separation of God from nature as modernity tries to do, as described by Nichols in the second quotation. In that sense, Williams is asking for us to see God as immanent and always present and always active in the processes of nature and being and not intervening from “the outside,” a trap into which I think David Jenkins falls.

This is where the quotation of Williams directly related to miracles comes into play, which I will cite again:

“If you think of miracle as God watching something going on down there and occasionally thinking, Oh I’d better fiddle around with that a bit or I’d better intervene there, that has the same sort of problems.

If you think of miracle as those sets of circumstances in which somehow the underlying action of God breaks through, breaks through the surface to create something new. I think that’s consistent with an underlying stability of divine action.”

Williams is consistent with his previous denial of God’s “tinkering” or “intervention” in human life, but not with God’s activity or providence. Again, I will return to Terry Nichols:

The Deist attitude toward miracles was carried forward into the eighteenth century by Enlightenment thinkers. The most famous of these was David Hume, who defined a miracle as “a violation of the laws of nature.” This definition seems calculated (as in fact it was) to turn people against the very possibility of miracles. For what many persons (especially scientists) find so beautiful about nature is precisely its lawful complexity (The Sacred Cosmos,  Grand Rapids, Mich.: Brazos Press, 2003, 183-84).

It is exactly this Humean notion of God as “tinkerer” or “one who reaches down and intervenes” to violate nature and its laws which Williams, to my mind, wants to reject. But how then does he view miracles, at least on the basis of these discussions? Williams’ view that miracles are “those sets of circumstances in which somehow the underlying action of God breaks through, breaks through the surface to create something new” fits with what Nichols writes elsewhere:

Miracles are better understood as signs of divine action that, like grace, do not violate nature but work through it, perfect it, and reveal its divine ground, for nature is not a closed system but an open system within a larger, divine context (The Sacred Cosmos, Grand Rapids, Mich.: Brazos Press, 2003, 186).

And:

Theologically, a miracle, even an exalted miracle such as the resurrection, is always God working through or in cooperation with nature, and not against it (The Sacred Cosmos,  Grand Rapids, Mich.: Brazos Press, 2003, 191).

Finally, Nichols speaks of what a miracle “is” and “is not” and it is the one definition, I think, which Williams wants to support and the other which he wishes to avoid:

My contention is that nature is a system open to the action of divine grace and the miraculous, as I have described it above. The degree to which this occurs depends largely on our openness to God in faith.  It is not the case that God decides arbitrarily to intervene here and not there, now and not then…This means that nature exists with a transcendent order and is capable of being transfigured or elevated by that order, both in the act of grace and the act of the miraculous (The Sacred Cosmos,  Grand Rapids, Mich.: Brazos Press, 2003, 195-6).

Williams is at pains to reject the view of the arbitrarily acting, capricious God. When Williams says, “If you think of miracle as those sets of circumstances in which somehow the underlying action of God breaks through, breaks through the surface to create something new. I think that’s consistent with an underlying stability of divine action,” it sounds much like Nichols stating that “in a miracle, nature becomes transparent to its divine ground, like a window opening onto a higher state of being. Another way of putting this is that miracles are like sacraments: they are visible events in which the divine presence shines forth” (The Sacred Cosmos, Grand Rapids, Mich.: Brazos Press, 2003, 197-8).

I do not think that Archbishop Rowan Williams denies the reality of miracles, I think he sees them as inherent in God’s good creation not something added to it when the creator decides to tinker or intervene by breaking, willy-nilly, into his creation.

John W. Martens

Follow me on Twitter @johnwmartens

Gospel of Mark Commentary Act 1. Scene 7

Introduction to the Series:

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.  

This is my division of the Gospel:

Prologue,  1:1-13;

Act  1, 1:14-3:6;

Act 2, 3:7-6:6;

Act 3, 6:7-8:26;

Act 4, 8:27-10:52;

Act 5, 11:1-13:37;

Act 6, 14:1-16:8(20).

This is the sixth installment, comprising Act 1. Scene 7, Mark 2:13-22, in the online commentary on the Gospel of Mark, which I will blog on throughout the liturgical year. Please see the fifth installment here  which contains a link to the previous installment and from there you can link to all of them.

13 Jesus went out again beside the sea; the whole crowd gathered around him, and he taught them. 14 As he was walking along, he saw Levi son of Alphaeus sitting at the tax booth, and he said to him, "Follow me." And he got up and followed him. 15 And as he sat at dinner in Levi's house, many tax collectors and sinners were also sitting with Jesus and his disciples—for there were many who followed him. 16 When the scribes of the Pharisees saw that he was eating with sinners and tax collectors, they said to his disciples, "Why does he eat with tax collectors and sinners?" 17 When Jesus heard this, he said to them, "Those who are well have no need of a physician, but those who are sick; I have come to call not the righteous but sinners." 18 Now John's disciples and the Pharisees were fasting; and people came and said to him, "Why do John's disciples and the disciples of the Pharisees fast, but your disciples do not fast?" 19 Jesus said to them, "The wedding guests cannot fast while the bridegroom is with them, can they? As long as they have the bridegroom with them, they cannot fast. 20 The days will come when the bridegroom is taken away from them, and then they will fast on that day. 21 "No one sews a piece of unshrunk cloth on an old cloak; otherwise, the patch pulls away from it, the new from the old, and a worse tear is made. 22 And no one puts new wine into old wineskins; otherwise, the wine will burst the skins, and the wine is lost, and so are the skins; but one puts new wine into fresh wineskins." (NRSV)

Conflict returns in Act 1. Scene 7, with the continuing presence of the Scribes, though here they are called “the Scribes of the Pharisees” (v.16), and with the introduction of the Pharisees and the “disciples of John” (v.18). The conflict arises in the second consecutive “slowed” scene, in which  Mark allows Jesus, although surrounded  by crowds (v.13), to teach and to introduce the rationale for his deeds. What causes the conflict in this scene?

 

 Jesus has asked Levi son of Alphaeus to “follow” him, as he did with Simon and Andrew, James and John (1:16-20). The immediacy of the call is no different for the tax collector, who also responds to the call in Mark’s narrative without hesitation, but here is where the murmuring against Jesus begins:  “Why does he eat with tax collectors and sinners?” (v.16). What is the source of the discomfort for the scribes of the Pharisees? It is not that Judaism does not have means for repentance and forgiveness of sins, it does; it is not that those who are in a state of impurity, such as tax collectors and sinners were suspected of being, might not become clean, they can indeed; it is that Jesus seems to join them without first demanding repentance or purity (see Act 1.Stage 5 for an essay on purity/impurity). Jesus seems to flout restrictions on social intercourse with those in need of repentance and purity, though we have seen him send a healed leper to the Priest according to the Torah previously (1:44). On the other hand, since in the previous scene, Jesus has forgiven the sins of the paralytic child, does his call to the tax collectors and sinners and his sitting at table with sinners indicate not just his acceptance of them but their forgiveness?

This is where Mark allows Jesus to teach, even if it is not in depth, and to introduce significant rationales for his behavior, which we have not seen before and which explains the heart of the conflict: “Those who are well have no need of a physician, but those who are sick; I have come to call not the righteous but sinners” (v.17). This does two things for the audience, which includes us naturally: it makes us wonder does Jesus only call those who are not considered righteous by his compatriots? That is, does he acknowledge the righteousness of the Scribes and others who follow the Law of Moses more carefully? Are they “well”? Or, is he suggesting a new measure of righteousness, of “wellness,” to which even those who consider themselves, or who are considered so socially, must now measure up? Is everyone in need of the spiritual physician?

Mark’s dramatic genius is also on display in this scene, as he moves from this challenge immediately to a question not of sin and impurity, but of accepted righteousness and purity. Juxtaposed with the conflict regarding who should be called, but more significantly, how  they should be accepted prior to repentance and forgiveness,  is the question regarding acceptable religious practice: “Why do John's disciples and the disciples of the Pharisees fast, but your disciples do not fast?” (v.18). In many ways, this question is a greater challenge for the onlooker because there is nothing wrong with fasting and, although we have not met the Pharisees, we have met John the Baptist when he baptizes Jesus. Surely there is no condemnation of John implied, and if the disciples of John engage in proper religious behavior, why would not Jesus and his disciples fast as well?

Jesus has explained why he skirts the boundaries regarding those considered sinners, now he must explain why he skirts the practices of the righteous. Jesus’ answer has two parts, both introducing ideas which are opaque,  mysterious. The first answer in vv.19-20 strangely proposes that the “bridegroom” is with the disciples now and only when the “bridegroom” is taken away will they fast. Jesus must be the “bridegroom,” but what does it mean? Surely, they are at a bridal feast now, but when will the “bridegroom” be taken away? How will he be taken away? And who is the bride? The second answer ends the scene and it is even less penetrable of meaning:  “No one sews a piece of unshrunk cloth on an old cloak; otherwise, the patch pulls away from it, the new from the old, and a worse tear is made. And no one puts new wine into old wineskins; otherwise, the wine will burst the skins, and the wine is lost, and so are the skins; but one puts new wine into fresh wineskins” (vv. 21-22).

There are images of “old” and “new” in Jesus’ teaching here. On the one hand, you have “unshrunk cloth,” “new wine,” and “fresh wineskins;” on the other hand, you have “an old cloak” and “old wineskins.”  What is the “unshrunk cloth” and “new wine”? Are these Jesus’ teachings and deeds?  What then are the “old cloak” and “old wineskins”? The old ways and practices? Again, it cannot be that Jesus simply rejects the “old cloak” and “old wineskins,” as we have seen him follow these ways already, but even if “new wine” does emerge from the same vineyards as the “old wine,” perhaps it in need of a “fresh wineskin”? Is this Jesus? And what will this mean for his continuing mission if he categorizes even the disciples of John and this new group the Pharisees, new at least to Mark’s story, along with the Scribes, as “old wine”? How can they be considered "well" if they are the "old wine"?

John W. Martens

Follow me on Twitter @johnwmartens

Lent 2: Isaiah Testifies

Isaiah testifies on behalf of God, who testifies for the Poor; we need to listen:

1 Shout out, do not hold back! Lift up your voice like a trumpet! Announce to my people their rebellion, to the house of Jacob their sins. 2 Yet day after day they seek me and delight to know my ways, as if they were a nation that practiced righteousness and did not forsake the ordinance of their God; they ask of me righteous judgments, they delight to draw near to God. 3 "Why do we fast, but you do not see? Why humble ourselves, but you do not notice?" Look, you serve your own interest on your fast day, and oppress all your workers. 4 Look, you fast only to quarrel and to fight and to strike with a wicked fist. Such fasting as you do today will not make your voice heard on high. 5 Is such the fast that I choose, a day to humble oneself? Is it to bow down the head like a bulrush, and to lie in sackcloth and ashes? Will you call this a fast, a day acceptable to the Lord? 6 Is not this the fast that I choose: to loose the bonds of injustice, to undo the thongs of the yoke, to let the oppressed go free, and to break every yoke? 7 Is it not to share your bread with the hungry, and bring the homeless poor into your house; when you see the naked, to cover them, and not to hide yourself from your own kin? 8 Then your light shall break forth like the dawn, and your healing shall spring up quickly; your vindicator shall go before you, the glory of the Lord shall be your rear guard. 9 Then you shall call, and the Lord will answer; you shall cry for help, and he will say, Here I am. If you remove the yoke from among you, the pointing of the finger, the speaking of evil (Isaiah 58:1-9 NRSV).

Carroll Stuhlmueller, O.P. writes that the judgment speech in vv. 1-7 is held together by two words: "(1) hapes (vv.2a, 2c, 3c) - Israel's desire for external ritual and fasting contrasts with Yahweh's desire for compassion toward the poor; (2) ana - intensely devout in afflicting oneself with fasting (v.3) yet neglecting the afflicted and needy in your midst! (v.7)...Fasting enables comfortable people to share the lot of the hungry poor and from this hunger to look to God as the source of life and nourishment. To fast and yet neglect the poor perverts religion" (NJBC, 345).

The turn in the speech comes at v. 8: "When lowliness unites all men and women, God's glorious presence shall rest upon them" (NJBC, 345).

John W. Martens

Follow me on Twitter @biblejunkies
,

Lent Meditation 1: What is noble in the sight of all?

Yesterday I wrote, “I want to consider my role in the community by starting with these questions: how do you provoke someone to love and good deeds? And am I provoking anyone to love and good deeds? Is it possible that I am provoking people to do the opposite of love and good deeds through my actions? What do I need to change?”  There is a reason I used the word community in the Ash Wednesday blog and not Church.

Here are a couple of the passages from the Bible which motivated my use of the word “community”:

1.       Romans 12: 17 Do not repay anyone evil for evil, but take thought for what is noble in the sight of all. 18 If it is possible, so far as it depends on you, live peaceably with all.

2.       1 Thessalonians  4: 10 But we urge you, beloved, to do so more and more, 11 to aspire to live quietly, to mind your own affairs, and to work with your hands, as we directed you, 12 so that you may behave properly toward outsiders and be dependent on no one.

I do, certainly, want always to consider my role in the Church and how I treat my fellow Christians, but that is not my only role, not amongst my friends, my family, my neighbors,  my students, my colleagues and those people around me whom I do not know.  This might be considered especially the case in a world as multicultural as ours today, that we need to be sensitive and thoughtful of the views and needs of others, but Paul’s letters indicate that this was the case in antiquity too.  Cultures which from the outside seem monolithic are often far more complex than one might expect and that was also the case in the past.

During Lent, I need to consider how my behavior impacts people not just in the Church, but people outside the Church.  How do I take thought of what is noble in the sight of all? How do I attempt to live peaceably with all? How do I behave properly to outsiders? What does it mean to mind my own affairs? How does what I say and do impact my friends who are atheists, Jews, Sikhs, Muslims? How do I provoke those who do not believe as I do to love and good deeds, as well as those who believe as I do?  Some people might write Christians off as the result of past treatment or behavior; how do I provoke them to love? Some people are worried they are being judged unworthy by Christians; how do I provoke them to good deeds?

John W. Martens

Follow me on Twitter @biblejunkies

Ash Wednesday Meditation: Provoke One Another To Love

"And let us consider how to provoke one another to love and good deeds" (Hebrews 10:24, NRSV). This is the verse that Pope Benedict XVI has chosen as his theme for Lent 2012. It is not, however, the translation that he has chosen; the English translation at the Vatican website is  “Let us be concerned for each other, to stir a response in love and good works” (Heb 10:24).

The verb, translated as "let us consider" or "let us be concerned," is katanoeo, which according to the Louw and Nida Greek-English Lexicon might be translated as "to consider carefully, to be concerned about" (Vol.I, 355). Either translation offered above seems to fit the context. It is the noun which follows which is most intriguing. What are we considering? What are we concerned for? We want to "stir a response" or "provoke one another" to love and good deeds.

The word being translated is the noun paroxysmos, derived from the verb, paroxyno. The Theological Dictionary of the New Testament Vol. V says that the verb is a composite based upon oxyno, "to sharpen," and that the verb most commonly means "to spur on," "to stimulate," and, in the passive, "to be provoked" (857). The noun is best understood as "provocation" or "irritation" in most cases, but the author of this entry, Heinrich Seesemann, says that it is "an unusual occurrence...at Hb. 10:24" and that the noun in this verse can only mean "incitement" or "stimulation" (857). This agrees with the Greek-English Lexicon, BDAG, which translates the noun to mean "rousing to activity, stirring up, provoking" (780). It suggests, finally, that the noun in Hebrews 10:24 be translated as "for encouragement in love" (780).

Is that strong enough though? Does encourage get to the same meaning as "stir up" or "provoke" or "stimulate" or "incite"? I do not think so, and so while I do not mind "stir a response in love and good works," I really like "provoke one another to love and good deeds." Which brings me to a question: how do we "provoke one another to love and good deeds"?

Is this accomplished by simply acting in love? By doing good deeds ourselves? "Provoke" seems stronger than "encourage by example," but maybe it is not. This Ash Wednesday and this Lent, I want to consider my role in the community by starting with these questions: how do you provoke someone to love and good deeds? And am I provoking anyone to love and good deeds? Is it possible that I am provoking people to do the opposite of love and good deeds through my actions? What do I need to change?

John W. Martens

Follow me on Twitter @johnwmartens

Muslims, Christians and Bible Translation

There is a sharply-worded post at “Seasons of Grace” relating to biblical translation and especially biblical translation undertaken by Wycliffe Bible Translators for Muslims.  This is from the post:

“Seasons of Grace” states that “Father” and “Son” are being translated otherwise and improperly, such as with the words “Allah” or “Messiah” to avoid offending Muslim sensibilities. The issues raised by this post have to do with significant issues in bible translation in general, missionary activity, missionary activity with Muslims, and the manner in which one presents the Gospel message. These are issues that defy simplistic or simple answers, regardless of the black and white manner in which it is presented at “Seasons of Grace.”

In an over-reaching gesture of solidarity that boggles the mind, some mainline Christian organizations are changing their Holy Scriptures to avoid offending Muslims.

Three well-known Christian translation organizations—Wycliffe Bible Translators, Summer Institute of Linguistics (SIL), and Frontiers—have decided that, rather than risk offending adherents of Islam, they should modify the Christian Bible to make it more palatable to nonbelievers.

Here is the context for these issues from Wycliffe Bible Translators themselves:

The Wycliffe Global Alliance organizations and their personnel are not omitting or removing the familial terms, translated in English as “Son of God” or “Father,” from any Scripture translation. Wycliffe continues to be committed to accurate and clear translation of Scripture. The eternal deity of Jesus Christ and the understanding of Jesus’ relationship with God the Father must be preserved in every translation. The Alliance is supportive of the dialogue and research taking place among Wycliffe Global Alliance participating organizations and partners to ensure appropriate translation practices and to foster greater understanding of translation issues. Wycliffe personnel from nations around the world are committed to working alongside language communities and other partners to translate God’s Word with great care from the original languages of Scripture into the languages of the world’s people so that all may know the redeeming love and glory of God--Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

Susan van Wynen at the Wycliffe site goes on to say about bible translation in general,

Translation is complex because language and thought are complex. Even when it is possible to do word-for-word translation, the meanings those words carry for different audiences may differ.  A translation team’s goal is always to allow the audience to understand the original intended meaning of the text.

We are committed to translating the Scriptures accurately, without losing, adding to, or changing the meaning of the original text. The original text was written many years ago in Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek. These languages spoke directly to the readers and hearers of those times and cultures.

Each generation and each language community needs to be able to hear and understand God’s Word, just as those original recipients did. Even then it did not come easily. The apostle Paul shaped the Gospel message differently for the Gentiles than for the Jews in order to convey the same meaning.

We are committed to translating clearly and naturally, so the speakers of the language can understand the message. Language, culture, history and context all contribute to meaning and understanding. Even within one language, there may be a range of cultures and understanding. This is why it is critical to have translators who are skilled mother-tongue speakers of the language. It is why translation teams and consultants need to understand the language community and do extensive testing of translations in the community.

This is true, and please see the site for more comments on translation and the philosophy behind translation of the Bible.Wycliffe clearly denies that it is engaged in anything other than its regular process of Bible translation in which intercultural sensitivities are considered and weighed as are unique linguistic issues.

People might clamor, as they have for instance with the recent Missal translation in the RC Church, for more ‘word for word’ translation, instead of ‘dynamic equivalence,’ but the bottom line is that you cannot translate any language ‘word for word,’ even if you make that your goal and have genuine understanding. There is a reason translation is essential: we are dealing with different languages. In fact, the German word for “translation,” ubersetzen, gives us a good example. My family was trilingual and German and Russian came before English. If someone in the younger generation could not understand the German, you could often hear one of my Uncles say, as a joke, “Do you need that word to be 'over set'?”  That is, of course, the “direct” translation of  ubersetzen, but it does not work in English. Apart from that were the German jokes that my Grandparents, Parents and other relatives assured us “could not be translated.”

Here is a more formal example the Kouya Chronicle:

As I’ve mentioned more than once, languages are tricky things. Words and phrases slip and slide all over the place and end up meaning something very different to what you might imagine. Just think about the way the phrase “yeah, right” can turn through one hundred and eighty degrees just by a little shift in intonation.

This sort of thing makes translation very difficult; no matter how much you might want to, you can rarely translate word for word. Take this simple example between English and French.

I run	Je cours I run
The motor runs	Le moteur marche The motor walks
I run a company	Je gère une entreprise I manage a company
My nose runs	Mon nez coule My nose flows
I run an errand	Je fais une commission I do an errand

In this simple example, the English word run has to be translated by five different French verbs. I dread to think what a literal French translation of “my nose runs” would actually mean!

Things become even more complicated when you realise that words don’t just have simple dictionary definitions, they also have all sorts of emotional and other resonances which don’t match from language to language.

Please see more on these linguistic issues at the Kouya Chronicle. Clearly, a significant issue in this dispute is how to do proper biblical translation and this is complex no matter into what language you are translating.

Translating the Bible for Muslims, though, raises the difficult issue regarding the Trinity, which, of course, is already an issue at the time of the writing of the Quran.  That is, this is not a new issue, but one which is central to the Muslim critique of Christianity. The realities related to the Christian and Muslim views of God are at the heart of the issues which divided Islam and Christianity. See, for instance Fred Donner's book Muhammed and the Believers for an overview of the early treatment of these theological issues (212-214). The Muslim-Christian Dialogue Center at the University of St. Thomas presents theological statements on many of the theological issues which divide Muslims and Christians, including points of agreement, points of disagreement and points for further discussion. The statement on God/Allah has these concluding statements, written by a Muslim theologian (Adil Ozdemir) and a Christian theologian (Terence Nichols):

Points of Agreement

Muslims and Christians agree that God is the Creator and sustainer of the universe, that God is not a being or entity within the universe, and that God is not contingent. In both religions, God is seen as infinite, all-powerful, all knowing, as well as personal, just, merciful, good, loving, wise, provident, and so on. Indeed, Christians should be able to affirm every one of the ninety-nine names which Muslims attribute to God. Both religions agree that God reveals Godself through prophets. Both would agree that Abraham, Moses, and Jesus (as well as others) were true prophets. The Roman Catholic Bishops, at Vatican II, acknowledged that Muslims profess the faith of Abraham and worship the true God: “The plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator, in the first place amongst whom are the Muslims; these profess to hold the faith of Abraham, and together with us they adore the one, merciful God, mankind’s judge on the last day.” (Lumen Gentium 16).

Points of Disagreement

The greatest point of theological disagreement between Christians and Muslims is the doctrine of the Trinity. Muslims honor Jesus as a prophet, but argue that only God can be called divine. To call a human being or creature divine is to commit the sin of shirk, or idolatry, by associating a creature with God. The Qur’an states many times that God has no consort or Son. However, Christians do not think of Jesus as a son in a polytheistic sense, as if he were another God besides the Father. There may in fact be a parallel to Christian thinking on the trinity in Muslim thinking on the Qur’an. For Muslims, the Qur’an is the Word of God, and can be said to have preexisted in the mind of God before it was revealed to Muhammad. A debate arose in Muslim history as to whether the Qur’an was created or uncreated. This seems to be a close parallel to the debates in early Christianity concerning Arianism: was the Word of God (which became incarnate in Jesus) a creature, as the Arians claimed? Or was it one with God?-- uncreated in other words. Christians chose the latter. But in the same way, many Muslims believe the Qur’an existed in God from all eternity, uncreated, like the Logos in Christianity. 

Points for Further Discussion

An obvious point for further discussion is the Trinity. The Muslim criticism of the Christian claim that Jesus is the eternal Logos of God who has taken on a human nature is that this is idolatry, that it amounts to the worship of a human being. Yet Christians have always denied that their worship is idolatrous and asserted that in worshipping Jesus they are in fact worshipping God. But is there such a thing as “Jesus-olatry” in Christianity, that is, a worship which worships the humanity of Jesus instead of his divinity? This should be explored in mutual discussion. (See the Muslim article on “Jesus.”)

Another point for discussion might be the parallel between the Muslim conception of the Qur’an, and the Christian conception of Jesus as the incarnate Logos.

Since theological dialogue is already being discussed amongst Muslim and Christian theologians, especially on the issue of the Trinity, should there simply be more dialogue on this issue not attempts to “hide” the differences in Bible translation? Is Wycliffe simply translating according to principles of  intercultural sensitivity? Or do the translation techniques of Wycliffe in this case hide the authentic Christian teaching and openness about who and what Christians are? I, too, have faced confusion regarding the Trinity while in Turkey, with a dialogue partner insisting Mary is a part of the Trinity and I insisting that as a Christian I was quite certain that Mary is not considered a person of the Trinity.

Given the long history of relations between Muslims and Christians, from the beginning of Islam frankly, and the poor treatment both religions have received from the other at various times in history, should not the goal be dialogue? Open, honest, clear discussion? Is the Bible translation in this case representative of sensitivity to Muslim views of God,  ignorance of the historical relationship between Christians and Muslims, or is covert missionizing is going on? Are new Bible translations the best means of discussion? How does this impact indigenous Christians in Muslim countries? These new translations might be the best approach in terms of translation, and it might be an attempt to introduce Christian theological concepts in a non-offensive manner,  but will it wind up creating even more confusion, which already exists in Muslim countries regarding the Trinity?

Is this just an issue of  Bible translation? An issue of inter-religious dialogue? Or a chance to create even more confusion?

John W. Martens

Follow me on Twitter @johnwmartens

Richard Dawkins dialogues with Archbishop, Live on Internet!

Here is an event that ought to be well worthwhile: a dialogue between Richard Dawkins and the Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams on "The Nature of Human Beings and the Question of their Ultimate Origin" on February 23, 2012. The dialogue, not a debate mind you, begins at 16:00 hours until 17:30, GMT I suspect, and is available live on by webcast at http://www.archbishopofcanterbury.org/. That is what makes this quite delightful; if you want to watch it live, you can! For those of us on CST, there is a six hour difference from GMT, so the debate would begin at 10:00 am. If you cannot watch the dialogue live, it will be available after the event as well.

The reason this promises to be excellent is that the Archbishop of Canterbury is a skilled philosopher and theologian and Dawkins is often accused of taking down straw men or examining the weakest arguments for religion in his writings or disputing with those who are unskilled and untrained in the ways of dialogue and debate. The Archbishop is a worthy discussion partner for Richard Dawkins. Will Dawkins be able to measure up? That is the question.

John W. Martens

Follow me on Twitter @johnwmartens

Gospel of Mark Commentary Act 1. Scene 6

 Introduction to the Series:

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.  

This is my division of the Gospel:

Prologue,  1:1-13;

Act  1, 1:14-3:6;

Act 2, 3:7-6:6;

Act 3, 6:7-8:26;

Act 4, 8:27-10:52;

Act 5, 11:1-13:37;

Act 6, 14:1-16:8(20).

This is the fifth installment, comprising Act 1. Scene 6, Mark 2:1-12, in the online commentary on the Gospel of Mark, which I will blog on throughout the liturgical year. Please see the fourth installment here  which contains a link to the previous installment and from there you can link to all of them.

When he returned to Capernaum after some days, it was reported that he was at home. 2 So many gathered around that there was no longer room for them, not even in front of the door; and he was speaking the word to them. 3 Then some people came, bringing to him a paralyzed man, carried by four of them. 4 And when they could not bring him to Jesus because of the crowd, they removed the roof above him; and after having dug through it, they let down the mat on which the paralytic lay. 5 When Jesus saw their faith, he said to the paralytic, "Son, your sins are forgiven." 6 Now some of the scribes were sitting there, questioning in their hearts, 7 "Why does this fellow speak in this way? It is blasphemy! Who can forgive sins but God alone?" 8 At once Jesus perceived in his spirit that they were discussing these questions among themselves; and he said to them, "Why do you raise such questions in your hearts? 9 Which is easier, to say to the paralytic, "Your sins are forgiven,' or to say, "Stand up and take your mat and walk'? 10 But so that you may know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins"—he said to the paralytic— 11 "I say to you, stand up, take your mat and go to your home." 12 And he stood up, and immediately took the mat and went out before all of them; so that they were all amazed and glorified God, saying, "We have never seen anything like this!" (NRSV)

Jesus has returned home to Capernaum, which could be Peter’s house (1:29, 33), but it has not lessened the number of people clamoring for his attention and notice. If this was to be a respite, similar to his attempt to find quiet and aloneness in the desert (1:35), it will not work. There he was sought after by his followers; here the people are already waiting for him, “so many gathered around that there was no longer room for them, not even in front of the door” (2:2).  What Jesus has, the people want and Mark, in a short phrase, alerts us that Jesus does not turn against them or push them away from him: "and he was speaking the word to them" (2:2).

This is Jesus’ task, as we have been told (1:38), but the crowds have gathered not only because of Jesus’ word, his proclamation and teaching, however powerful it is, but because of his deeds of exorcism and healing. People want the master’s touch; they want to be well physically. This leads to what I consider the boldest and most desperate of scenes in Act 1, the digging through the roof in 2:4. Four people have carried a “paralytic” to Jesus – this is often rendered as a “paralyzed man,” but as we shall see, it could equally be a child – but cannot get through to him. The four of them decide to take the ladder to the roof, for the homes had ladders to the flat roofs and the roof was used for drying food and many other activities. You must imagine the roof as a significant part of the house. The roof was made of wooden beams filled with clay and thatch; these could be a couple of feet thick. So, when Mark tells us that “they removed the roof above him; and after having dug through it” (2:4), we must visualize their desperation, their determination, their hard work, and the stunned gazes of those at the house. Do we also imagine smiles crossing the faces of the first hearers of this story, as well as those who first witnessed it, at the foolishness of those men digging a hole in the roof? Do we imagine anger on the part of the homeowner that his house has a new skylight? Or are we shocked at their actions, the lengths they will go to have their friend, relative or child healed?

Imagine the stunned look on everyone’s faces as the person is lowered down on a mat before Jesus, appearing out of the sky, though someone must have noticed the hole in the roof developing, did they not? Or were they so caught up in the press of the crowd and the words of Jesus, that the person appears as if out of nowhere? Jesus reads the situation in an interesting way, which also might be seen as shocking at two levels as we linger on it: “when Jesus saw their faith, he said to the paralytic, ‘Son, your sins are forgiven’” (2:5).

Notice that Jesus first praises the four men who dig the hole in the roof, the ones who have brought the paralytic to Jesus, and he praises not their hard work and determination, but their “faith” (pistis). Their actions make concrete their belief that Jesus could heal their friend and they would do anything to get him to Jesus. This is the first shock: Jesus notices them first and then commends their faith. The second shock is that when Jesus heals the paralytic, he says “your sins are forgiven” (2:5). Jesus does not heal the “child,” for he is called teknon in Greek, physically, but spiritually. Is this why the men dug a hole through the roof? Is this why they have damaged a home not belonging to them? Is this why they pushed through the crowds, crowds so thick and unforgiving themselves that they would not let a paralytic on a mat get through to Jesus any other way? I think this is also a “child” by age and not simply a figurative “child” of God, that Jesus calls him teknon because he is a child. So many of the healings which Jesus performs involve children because of the desperation of ancient parents and relatives, as we will see in this Gospel, because medical care in the ancient world was erratic and unreliable. Children died so often after childbirth or in their youth that it was not unusual to have one child out of six or seven in a family make it to adulthood.  This would make sense of the desperation of the four people who bring this child to Jesus and their ability to carry the child up the ladder to a roof and lower him down. It also shocks again because, why would Jesus not bring him to physical wholeness? Is that not why they have struggled all day? Why forgive his sins, but leave his body crippled?

Mark lets this question and this lack of resolution hang in the air, by introducing some new antagonists, the Scribes. Before the four men can ask, “will you not heal the boy?,” the Scribes are introduced into the scene. Interestingly, they were introduced in their absence back in Act 1. Scene 2 when Jesus’ teaching is contrasted with their teaching:  the people “were astounded at his teaching, for he taught them as one having authority, and not as the scribes” (1:22). Conflict was raised, hinted at, but now it is brought to fruition: “now some of the scribes were sitting there, questioning in their hearts, “Why does this fellow speak in this way? It is blasphemy! Who can forgive sins but God alone?” (2:6-7).

Though the viewer or listener cannot know it yet, Mark is just beginning to crank up the conflict and controversy throughout the rest of Act 1. This is the first of five conflict scenes which will bring us to the end of the Act 1 at 3:6. It is not only desperate crowds of people who have caught wind of Jesus, but authorities. Scribes are presented by Mark as religious authorities, interpreters and teachers of the Law of Moses, sometimes associated with the Pharisees and sometimes not. In this first controversy, the Scribes challenge Jesus’ authority to say “your sins are forgiven,” as forgiveness of sins is a responsibility that belongs to God.

The Scribes are correct, forgiveness belongs to God (e.g., Exodus 34: 6-7; Isaiah 43:25, 44:22) and blasphemy is to take on the prerogatives of God (Leviticus 24:16).  Mark wants this blunt challenge made, even if the Scribes as a whole must “ask” these questions silently, for it causes the reader or onlooker to ask: who is Jesus? Since we know Jesus can do wonderful things, such as heal people, teach with authority, cast out demons, what does this charge against him mean? What is the source of his authority if the authorities and representatives of the Law challenge him? Who is he?  Mark wants the question of Jesus’ identity and authority at the forefront, so he takes us away from the resolution of the paralytic child.

“At once Jesus perceived in his spirit that they were discussing these questions among themselves; and he said to them, "Why do you raise such questions in your hearts?  Which is easier, to say to the paralytic, "Your sins are forgiven,' or to say, "Stand up and take your mat and walk'?” (2:8-9). Jesus turns on them – remember, as a reader or viewer of this drama we are given the narrator’s god-like overview of the action, since we know what Jesus knows – and asks for an explanation of their silent questions, for these questions have not been asked aloud. Jesus’ very response to unasked questions is another clue to his mysterious identity and authority. The Scribes are correct: who can forgive sins but God alone? Mark wants you to ask, “who here is in your midst?,” who hears your silent questions of the heart.  

His question, though, “Which is easier, to say to the paralytic, "Your sins are forgiven,' or to say, "Stand up and take your mat and walk'?” is an odd one. Which is easier or harder for the Messiah? Either? Neither? The New Jerome Biblical Commentary (602) suggests that because there is no empirical test for forgiveness of sins that it is easier to say "Your sins are forgiven” than you are healed physically, "Stand up and take your mat and walk.” But this misses the point. Neither is harder for the Messiah to say; if Jesus is the Messiah, both are performed at his word. The point is, “what do you need to see to believe in me? The people crowded around my home already believe, what will convince you of my identity and authority?”

This leads to the climax of the scene, bringing resolution to the paralytic whose sins are forgiven, but whose body remains paralyzed; and bringing an answer to the Scribes: “but so that you may know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins"—he said to the paralytic— "I say to you, stand up, take your mat and go to your home." And he stood up, and immediately took the mat and went out before all of them; so that they were all amazed and glorified God, saying, "We have never seen anything like this!” (2:10-12). The paralytic is healed, as a sign of Jesus’ authority to forgive sins. It indicates that Jesus’ first task is spiritual healing not physical healing. Even though we have seen other examples of Jesus’ physical healing, Mark has subtly disentangled the two: one can gain spiritual wholeness, but remain physically broken. The two do not necessitate each other. The paralytic boy was forgiven his sins prior to his physical healing. Immediately, though, the healed paralytic gets up, showing proof of both spiritual and physical healings – his ability to walk on Jesus’ command is a sign that he had been given spiritual healing on Jesus’ command earlier. This excites the crowd – “We have never seen anything like this!” (see also 1:27) – but what of the Scribes? Are they excited to have been shown up publicly and to have their authority usurped? And what does Jesus mean when he calls himself "Son of Man"? Mark exits the scene with no resolution for the Scribes and Jesus.

John W. Martens

Follow me on Twitter @johnwmartens

 

Sir Isaac Newton: Apocalyptic Prophet

Through a Twitter post by Janelle Peters (@janellepeters), I was alerted to the recent uploading of the theological documents of Sir Isaac Newton to the Internet. Many, of course, know Sir Isaac Newton as a scientist, but he considered himself as much a theologian, especially interested in the apocalyptic texts of Daniel and Revelation. He even predicted the coming end of the world in 2060.  From a newspaper report today comes this account:

Newton revolutionised physics, mathematics and astronomy in the 17th and 18th century, laying the foundations for most of classical mechanics - with the principal of universal gravitation and the three laws of motion bearing his name.
However, the curator of Israel's national library's humanities collection said Newton was also a devout Christian who dealt far more in theology than he did in physics and believed that scripture provided a "code" to the natural world.
"Today, we tend to make a distinction between science and faith, but to Newton it was all part of the same world," said Milka Levy-Rubin.
"He believed that careful study of holy texts was a type of science, that if analysed correctly could predict what was to come."
So he learned how to read Hebrew, scrolled through the Bible and delved into the study of Jewish philosophy, the mysticism of Kabbalah and the Talmud - a compendium of Jewish oral law and stories about 1500 years old.

These handwritten documents, over 7,500 pages, have been digitized and are now available at the website of the National Library of Israel.  These texts are difficult to read, some are written in Latin and others in English, and for young readers I suspect that even his cursive hand will prove difficult, but I think they will be worth the effort. Any text that is titled, "The Synchronisms of the Three Parts of the Prophetick Interpretation," and then begins, "The first part of the prophetick interpretation from the rise of the Beast of the Sea to the end, the second part from the beginning to the end & the third part from the beginning to the casting of the Beast and Fals prophet into the Lake of fire being synchronal interpretations of synchronal prophecies must be synchronal with one another," is a text that I am going to back to read (Newton Papers 6, 6 001r). Check it out!

John W. Martens

Follow me on Twitter @johnwmartens