DeConick on Miracles Once More

DeConick as posted an additional post in her Creating Jesus series. Have a look here. In it she clarifies her position quite effectively.

DeConick on the miraculous – Creating Jesus 3

April DeConick logs another installment in her series Creating Jesus here and here. In this piece, she articulates a fairly standard view within historical-critical scholarship that miracles are to be entertained in the historical venture. Essentially, she argues that events are historical, but labling them miraculous, contrived, or whatever is an interpretive step that moves beyond the event itself. Fair enough. I am not as convinced as she is, however, that modern examples like the one she uses (the flight Eilan Gonzalez from Cuba to the States) are indicative of what happened with ancient stories like those that surround Jesus of Nazareth. Maybe they are, but maybe they are not. We simply have no way of knowing. This was my point an earlier post: agnosticism, not historical certainity in any direction, is the most approrpiate response to miracles.

The thing about miracles like, for example, Jesus walking on water, is that there does not seem to me to be great historical warrant to believe that a bunch of rag tag disciples would fabricate ex nihilo these events that they interpreted as miraculous. It seems to me that they probably believed that there was something special, different about Jesus that prompted that move on their part.

Review of Biblical Literature, April 29, 2009

Here’s the latest from RBL. There’s a few a gems in this one. Enjoy!

____

William S. Campbell, Peter S. Hawkins, and Brenda Deen Schildgen, eds.
Medieval Readings of Romans
http://www.bookreviews.org/bookdetail.asp?TitleId=6528
Reviewed by Francis Dalrymple-Hamilton

Adrian Curtis
Oxford Bible Atlas
http://www.bookreviews.org/bookdetail.asp?TitleId=6734
Reviewed by George Athas

Lois M. Farag
St. Cyril of Alexandria, a New Testament Exegete: His Commentary on the Gospel of John
http://www.bookreviews.org/bookdetail.asp?TitleId=6274
Reviewed by Hennie Stander

Terence E. Fretheim
Abraham: Trials of Family and Faith
http://www.bookreviews.org/bookdetail.asp?TitleId=6633
Reviewed by Hallvard Hagelia

Susan Haber; edited by Adele Reinhartz
“They Shall Purify Themselves”: Essays on Purity in Early Judaism
http://www.bookreviews.org/bookdetail.asp?TitleId=6736
Reviewed by Joshua Schwartz

Justin K. Hardin
Galatians and the Imperial Cult: A Critical Analysis of the First-Century Social Context of Paul’s Letter
http://www.bookreviews.org/bookdetail.asp?TitleId=6651
Reviewed by Mark D. Nanos

Susan R. Holman, ed.
Wealth and Poverty in Early Church and Society
http://www.bookreviews.org/bookdetail.asp?TitleId=6597
Reviewed by Preston M. Sprinkle

Cornelia B. Horn and Robert R. Phenix Jr., eds. and trans.
John Rufus: The Lives of Peter the Iberian, Theodosius of Jerusalem, and the Monk Romanus
http://www.bookreviews.org/bookdetail.asp?TitleId=6705
Reviewed by Pauline Allen

Henry Ansgar Kelly
Satan: A Biography
http://www.bookreviews.org/bookdetail.asp?TitleId=5590
Reviewed by James A. Metzger

Dale B. Martin
Pedagogy of the Bible: An Analysis and Proposal
http://www.bookreviews.org/bookdetail.asp?TitleId=6609
Reviewed by Renate Viveen Hood

R. J. R. Plant
Good Figs, Bad Figs: Judicial Differentiation in the Book of Jeremiah
http://www.bookreviews.org/bookdetail.asp?TitleId=6432
Reviewed by C.A. Strine

Regards croisés sur la Bible: Études sur le point de vue (Actes du IIIe colloque international du Réseau de recherche en narrativité biblique Paris, 8-10 juin 2006)
http://www.bookreviews.org/bookdetail.asp?TitleId=6101
Reviewed by Jean-François Racine

Kenneth Schenck
Cosmology and Eschatology in Hebrews: The Settings of the Sacrifice
http://www.bookreviews.org/bookdetail.asp?TitleId=6593
Reviewed by Jason A. Whitlark

F. Scott Spencer
The Gospel of Luke and Acts of the Apostles
http://www.bookreviews.org/bookdetail.asp?TitleId=6499
Reviewed by Gregory E. Sterling

Ivar Vegge
2 Corinthians-A Letter about Reconciliation: A Psychagogical, Epistolographical and Rhetorical Analysis
http://www.bookreviews.org/bookdetail.asp?TitleId=6980
Reviewed by Laurence Welborn

Goodacre on the Trouble with Jesus Research

Mark Goodacre has just posted a thought-provoking piece on a major, though seldom emphasized, problem in Historical Jesus work: what if key pieces are missing from the Jesus puzzle?

There are some, if not many, questions regarding Jesus to which the historian must opine, “We don’t know. We can’t know. There simply isn’t enough evidence.”

The last paragraph of Mark’s entry has implications that ought to bring us all to a renewed sense of humility in the historical venture of Jesus research. He writes,

Let me illustrate the kind of thing I am talking about. According to almost everyone, one of the most certain things that we can know about the historical Jesus is that he was a disciple of John the Baptist. This is bedrock stuff and anyone familiar with Jesus research will know all about why.  As it happens, I am inclined to agree with this;  I suspect that Jesus did indeed have an association with John the Baptist and that it was important, in some way, in his development.  But how important was John the Baptist, as an influence on Jesus, in comparison to other people?  We know about the link between the two men because John the Baptist was himself famous — Josephus devotes more time to him than he does to Jesus.  So the tradition remembers and underlines the association between the two men.  But our influences are seldom solely other famous people.  Perhaps the major influence on Jesus was his grandfather, whose fascination with Daniel 7 informed Jesus’ apocalyptic mindset.  Or perhaps it was Rabbi Matia in Capernaum who used to enjoy telling parables drawn from local agriculture.  Or perhaps it was that crazy wandering Galilean exorcist Lebbaeus who used to talk about casting out demons by the Spirit of God.  The fact is that we just don’t know.  We can’t know.  Our knowledge about the historical Jesus is always and inevitably partial.  If we take the quest of the historical Jesus seriously as an aspect of ancient history, we have to admit that many of the key pieces must be missing, don’t we?

So that’s how it ends. But how does it begin? Click here to find out.

Gorman on Theological Interpretation

Curious about what exactly is meant by “theological interpretation”? Michael Gorman begins to flesh out the principles of theological interpretation in part 1 of a several part series. Enjoy!

DeConick- Creating Jesus 2

DeConick’s discussion on the exaltation of Jesus from rabbi to God now has it’s second installment. In this segment, DeConick sets forth the “ground rules” for the discussion. Not much surprising here. DeConick’s approach is solidly historical-critical. Here’s her points (she offers a discussion under each):

1. This is a critical venture, not an apologetic one.

2. We cannot grant special privileges to the religion we are studying.

3. We must suspend canonical thinking and boundaries.

4. [Christianity] originated on earth among human beings and developed in complex social, political, and religious environments.

5. The sources that have been left behind were written by human beings and reflect the complexity of the growth of Christianity.

6. Our sources are not neutral.

7. Our sources are dependent on the human being, physiologically, psychologically, emotionally, socially.

There’s already discussion brewing in the comment section over the interpretation of the miraculous in the historical venture. This is sensitive topic that requires careful articulation of the issues if one is to be fair to all sides of the discussion. For my part, I think that it is mistake to bracket out the possibility of miracles from the historical venture. However, I think this should be applied to the study of all religious/historical material, not just the Hebrew Bible and the NT. Each account needs to be taken on its own merits. It will not due to assume a priori that miracles cannot happen. To do so is to omit the possibility that (1) there is a god, and that (2) he/she/it is active in the world. Of course, one doesn’t have to believe those points, but one should at least allow for the possibility (just as those who are religious must all for the possibility that these points are not true). In my view, agnosticism is the ledge at which historical queries on miracles must stop. To move to belief or unbelief in miracles is beyond the historical process.

I’m still in process on these matters and would love to dialogue. So feel free to chime in!

Gupta on New Verbal Aspect Book

Nijay Gupta has offered a few comments on Contantine Campbell’s new book, Basics of Verbal Aspect in Biblical Greek (Zondervan, 2008).

Check it out, his appraisal is worth your time.

Sorry for the Lag

Sorry for the silence over here at Ecce Homo. I’ve been scrambling to finish up the work for the semester. I’ve got all my papers written. All I have left is some translating in Romans, about 1000 to 1500 pages of reading, and a research proposal to be carried out next semester. Oh. That’s quite a bit, isn’t it.

In other news, some time in the next few weeks Mike Bird and I should be hearing back about the article we submitted for peer review. If I don’t give you an update soon with title and abstract, then it either means (1) it got rejected, and we submitted somewhere else, or (2) we haven’t heard back for our first pick. Either way, I won’t be telling you! : )

Be patient with me. Good things come to those who wait.

Review of King and Messiah as Son of God – Part 1 of 2

(You can download a PDF copy of this review here.)
Collins, Adela Yarbro, and John J. Collins. King and Messiah as Son of God: Divine, Human, and Angelic Messianic Figures in Biblical and Related Literature. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2008, xiv + 261 pages.

Originating from the Speaker’s Lectures, delivered at Oxford in May 2006, the present work is comprised of a total of eight chapters, four by John J. Collins and four by Adela Yarbro Collins, each of which are designed to mine the crevices of antiquity for conceptions of the king and/or messiah as a divine figure. John J. Collins, Holmes Professor of Old Testament Criticism and Interpretation at Yale Divinity School, is one of the most eminent scholars in the field of Old Testament apocalyptic and messianic expectation is early Judaism. Adela Yarbro Collins, Buckingham Professor of New Testament Criticism and Interpretation at Yale Divinity School, is broadly published in the field of early Christian apocalyptic, with special reference to messianic conception, focusing especially on the book of Revelation and the Gospel of Mark.
After an introductory chapter orienting the reader to the recent discussions of the divinity of the messiah and surveying the individual chapters of the present work, King and Messiah as Son of God proceeds to trace the concept of “Son of God” as King from ancient Mesopotamia to the book of Revelation.

Chapter 1 – The King as Son of God by John J. Collins
In this chapter, John Collins sets out to answer the question, in what sense were ancient kings considered to be divine? He begins by tracing the concept of kingship and the epithet, “Son of God,” through ancient Egypt, Mesopotamia, Canaan, and Judah. Having traced the concept to the region of Ancient Judah, a discussion of relevant texts is undertaken, focusing primarily on royal enthronement psalms (Psalm 2 and 110). Set within their original context, John Collins argues that these psalms present the king’s relationship to God as one of unique sonship that is more intimate than adoption, but not as explicit as the literal begetting (via sexual intercourse) found in Egypt. Collins concludes, “The main implication of the declaration that the king was son of God is the implication that he is empowered to act as God’s surrogate on earth” (22). Further, these texts are said to “attribute to the king a love for justice and righteousness that is closely associated with kingship in the Canaanite tradition” (23). Yet, he is careful to stress, “that there is no evidence that the king in ancient Judah as an object of cult or veneration” (23). Lastly, he notes, “Granted that the king is not divine in the same sense as the Most High, the claim that he is ‘begotten’ by God is a statement about a nature and status conferred on him, not just a tutorial relationship” (24).
Chapter 2 – The Kingship in Deuteronomistic and Prophetic Literature by John J. Collins
The second chapter provides a discussion of texts from Deuteronomistic literature, as well as prophetic texts. The discussion begins with 2 Samuel 7. He finds the present form of this text to be “no earlier than the time of Josiah, and possibly postexilic” (26), but notes that many scholars “believe that the Deuteronomist was working with an older tradition about the promise to David” (27). Finally, he concludes that there is “good reason to believe that the Deuternomistic writer was working with older traditions” (27).
Moving beyond issues of provenance and source criticism, Collins undertakes an analysis of the mode of sonship present in 2 Sam 7, which promises “I shall be a father to him, and he shall be a son to me” (‏אני אהיה לו לאב והוא יהיה לי לבן). Collins notes that this covenantal promise is portrayed as unconditional. However, as he points out, in 1 Kings 8, that promise is presented as conditional (v. 25), just like the Mosaic covenant.
Next, Collins turns to the Davidic covenant in the Psalms, particularly Psalms 89 and 132. The former, Collins notes, displays an understanding of the Davidic covenant that roughly corresponds to that of 2 Sam 7, rather than 1 Kings 8, in that the promise itself stands in perpetuity, despite the certainty that some kings will disobey the covenant. The latter, however, reflects a position closer to that of 1 Kings 8.
Having dealt at length with kingship in the Deuteronomistic tradition, Collins sets his attention to the same topic in the prophetic corpus. Discussing pertinent texts, primarily from Isaiah (e.g. Isa 8:23 – 9:6, HT), Collins appropriates his findings to the topics of growing messianic expectation, as well as messianism proper, which he defines as “the hope for restoration of the kingship” (43). This chapter then moves onto a brief discussion of the material that from the prophetic corpus that may present the king as divine.
This chapter concludes that, “in the heyday of the monarchy the king in Jerusalem was conceived in mythological terms as the son of God in a way that was influenced by Egyptian tradition but less emphatic in its presentation” (47). This tradition was subsequently altered by the “Deuteronomistic theologians” in the late 7th century BCE, as evidenced by Deut 17; 2 Sam 7; and Psalm 89 (all of which present the king as subject to the law and its penalties for disobedience). These texts, which were typically seen as unconditional, were later modified to make the promise conditional in the exilic and early restoration periods (e.g. 1 Kings 8; Psalm 132). The “messianic predictions” that we find in the prophetic books are rather modest in their hopes for the future king. These hopes are not for a divine king until the Hellenistic period (47).
Chapter 3 – Messiah and Son of God in the Hellenistic Period by John J. Collins
This chapter offers a survey of, as its title suggests, the epithets “messiah” and “Son of God” in the Hellenistic period. Here Collins gives a treatment of Hellenistic ruler cults, including the infamous story of Alexander the Great, in which Alexander visits of the God Ammon in the Libyan desert at Siwah, after which he emerged as the son of Zeus, the Son of God. After his death, Alexander became the object of cultic worship.
Antiochus Epiphanes, who claimed divine descent, also makes an appearance here, as do the Seleucids. Collins then turns his discussion to the impact that the the divinity of these figure likely had on early Judaism. For these “faithful monotheists.” While some scholars reject any confluence of these two cultures, Collins points to Philo’s praise for Augustus (Legatio ad Gaium 143-50) as evidence of the impact of Hellenism on early Jewish treatment of their leaders.
Following on the treatment of the influence of Hellenistic ruler cults, Collins turns his attention to messianism in the LXX, focusing primarily on the Psalms Isaiah, especially Isa 7:14, which moves from ‏הנה העלמה הרה וילדת בן וקראת שמו עמנו אל to ἰδοὺ ἡ παρθένος ἐν γαστρὶ ἕξει καὶ τέξεται υἱόν, καὶ καλέσεις τὸ ὄνομα αὐτοῦ Εμμανουηλ, dealing specifically with the shift from העלמה to ἡ παρθένος (59). Collins concludes his discussion, “Nothing in the LXX of Isaiah requires that Immanuel be identified as the messiah” (61). Following this assertion, he offers a brief defense in which he surfaces the various difficulties inherent in concluding otherwise.
After his discussion in the LXX, Collins turns his attention to messianism in the Dead Sea Scrolls (DSS). In his discussion of the DSS, Collins focuses primarily on the “Son of God” text (4Q246), offering an extended discussion of the ins and outs of this problematic passage. He concludes this chapter noting that “the depiction of the ‘son of God’ in 4Q246 fits nicely with the portrayal of the Davidic/royal messiah in the scrolls. He functions as a warrior to subdue the Gentiles: God will make war on his behalf and cast peoples down before him. ‘Son of God’ is an honorific title here” (73). Lastly, he points out that their is a tendency in the LXX (at least in a few places) to attribute to the messiah “preexistence and angelic status” (74).

Chapter 4 – Messiah and Son of Man by John J. Collins
This is the last chapter from John Collins in the present work, and it serves as somewhat of a climax of his section, dealing specifically with the epithet, ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου, literally, “the son of man” (בן אדם in Hebrew or בר אנש in Aramaic). After dealing with the well-worn issues in translating this semitism as either a general reference or an epithet Collins dives into a treatment of several important Jewish (Dan 7, 11QMelchizedek [11Q13], the Similitudes of Enoch [1 Enoch 37 –71], 4 Ezra 13). Most attention is, rightly in my opinion, spent on the Similitudes since they have as a central figure one who is called the Son of Man. This figure, according to 1 En 46 and 48, is preexistent, bears the divine name, judges the wicked and vindicates the righteous; he also accepts proskynesis alongside the “Lord of Spirits” and even sits on God’s throne. Even to the untrained eye, this figure bears a striking resemblance to the presentation of Jesus of Nazareth in the NT, especially in the Matthew, Mark, Luke, and the Fourth Gospel. Interesting, 1 En 71 presents the Son of Man not as Jesus, but as non other than Enoch himself. Collins then offers a brief discussion of the similarities and differences between the Similitudes, which he dates pre-70 CE, and 4 Ezra, which post-dates the destruction of Jerusalem. He concludes that the Similitudes and the 4 Ezra represent different strands of tradition and that there is no reason to posit literary influence between them. Thus, they represent independent attestation to similar, though not synonymous, “assumptions about the meaning of Daniel 7 in first-century Judaism. Very similar assumptions underlie the use of Son of Man imagery derived from Daniel in the Gospels” (98).

He concludes this his final chapter with the following:

In the context of first-century-CE Judaism, it is not surprising or anomalous that divine status should be attributed to someone who was believed by his followers to be the messiah. At the same time, it should be noted that neither the king in ancient Judah nor the messiah in most instances was the object of worship. There is, however, an important exception in the case of the Son of Man in the Similitudes of Enoch, before whom all who dwell on the earth are said to perform proskynesis by falling down and “worshipping” before him (1 Enoch 48:5), but this is distinguished from the honors paid to the Lord of Spirits. Whether proskynesis should be deemed to constitute “worship” is a patter of definition, on which there were different opinions already in antiquity. At the least, it acknowledges the superior status and power of the figure who is honored, in this case the Messiah, Son of Man (100).

Concluding Comments
One is hard-pressed to find a more concise and engaging presentation of the issues surrounding the understanding of the king as divine in antiquity, particularly in Jewish antiquity. One gets the impression that not even one word was waisted in his presentation and argumentation. Perhaps the two most-provocative issues that surface in this first section of King and Messiah as Son of God is (1) lack of clear and pronounced messianic expectation in the OT, and (2) the potential impact that the Hellenistic ruler cults had on the divinity of the king in early Judaism. Perhaps more conservative readers will find themselves unsettled at the complexity of issues surrounding the divinity of the the Son of God. Others will receive Collins’ argument with joy at its clarity and acumen.
In what follows I will offer a summary of Chapters 5-8, composed by Adela Yarbro Collins. This review will then conclude with a brief discussion of what I believe are the strengths of the present work, as well as places where I feel there is room for improvement.

Quote of the Day

Jim West – You’re the winner!

Using Strong’s Concordance for exegesis is like using toilet paper to wash your car.

- Jim West

Oh, Jim! You really tell it like it is!