Showing posts with label New Testament. Show all posts
Showing posts with label New Testament. Show all posts

Thursday, December 3, 2009

Letters from 2,000 years ago

This blog is another in a series on Ben Witherington's book called The Living Word of God, which examines the New Testament. Beside the four gospels covered in two previous blogs, Witherington talks about another portion of the New Testament--the letters that make up so much of it. It's obvious that they are written to specific audiences for specific purposes at a specific time using specific conventions popular during this time. We can gain much from them (and avoid misunderstandings) if we know more about these conventions.

Paul's letters are definitely oral documents meant to be read aloud in Greek to their intended audience. What does that mean for us today? We need to think about the kind of rhetorical devices we will encounter in them -- rhythm, parallelism, rhetorical questions, balanced sentences and phrases. You can see this in 1 Corinthians 13 if you read it aloud.

We need to also understand that these letters are attempts to persuade us. Paul, for example, uses all the tricks in his bag -- he tries to convince us, convict us, and even convert us to his points of view. Some may feel they are being manipulated, but he was simply conforming to the conventions of his own day. A good example of this is a lesser-known letter of Paul's called Philemon. In this letter he tries to convince a slave owner to free a slave who has run away from him. Read it sometime and notice the emotional appeals, the use of puns, the kind of pressure Paul puts on the slave owner.

Something else we need to consider when we read a letter is the fact that it is one long discourse. We tend to zoom in on a verse or a small passage rather than seeing the entire argument. Modern chapter and verse indications make it more difficult for us to see the big picture. It's often a mistake to isolate one chapter from the next when they both may be part of the same point. Look at Romans chapter 8 where the first word is "Therefore." We need to see what Paul covered in chapter 7 so we can understand why it is foundational to what he wants to express in the following chapter.

We must also distinguish between the purposes of these letters. Some attempt to solve a problem (Philemon and 1 Corinthians are examples). Others are there to report on progress, like Philippians, where Paul basically tells the people to keep going. Some letters are sermons meant to circulate through various churches, making them more generic in tone (Ephesians) while still others focus on specific problems in a specific church (Colossians and Galatians).

Probably the most difficult thing about these letters is determining what applies to us today. There's no doubt that much of the content dealt with specific situations in a specific culture two thousand years ago. For example, there are comments addressed to women telling them to have long hair. It would be useful to know that female worshippers of Dionysus often dressed like men and cut their hair very short. It appears that in this passage Paul simply wants the women of the early church to look different than pagan worshipers. We should be careful if we attempt to isolate a verse and apply it automatically to our world today.

We would have far fewer misconceptions if we treated the letters of the New Testament in a different way, acknowledging the style in which they were written.

Wednesday, November 25, 2009

The Gospels--did he really say that??

I just finished reading The Living Word of God by Ben Witherington, a professor of New Testament Interpretation at Asbury Theological Seminary. In this book the author has interesting things to say about portions of the New Testament. He believes it's important to understand the various genres that makeup the twenty-seven books found there. Since I teach the Bible as literature at Palomar College, I wanted to share some of his points here; he believes we can understand the Bible much better if we understand the type (genre) of literature we are reading.

For this blog I'm going to focus solely on the four gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke, John) as ancient biographies and histories. Many of my students assume that these gospels must be like modern biographies, covering the person's entire life, producing a chronological account, and containing precise quotations. They have questions when they discover this is not the case. They assume there must be errors in the text.

But Witherington claims these four gospels "all conform quite nicely to the conventions of ancient biographies, which were quite different in scope and character than most modern biographies." To start with, modern authors have unlimited space to tell their stories, but ancient biographies were restricted to material that could fit on scrolls. These authors had to be selective about what they covered. That's why, for example, we don't learn the entire story of Jesus’ life.

In addition, ancient biographies did not spend much time about early childhood development. People in the ancient world did not believe personality developed over time. Instead, they felt you were stuck with whatever personality you were born with. Again, we can see this when we look at the life of Jesus -- we know very little about him before his ministry started around the age of 30.

Another characteristic of ancient biographies was a focus on the death of the individual since this event was thought to reveal the character of the person. A shameful death was considered to be a revelation that the person did not have a good character. It's no wonder, then, that the gospel writers spent so much time on the death of Jesus -- they felt they needed to argue that this death was necessary to fulfill God's plan.

A fourth difference between modern and ancient biographies deals with the amount of editorializing the author did. Much editorializing abounds in modern biographies; the author is often eager to share his/her comments. However, the ancients tended to portray a person indirectly, allowing the words and deeds of the person in question to speak for themselves. That is certainly true of the gospels in the New Testament. We often hear the words of Jesus and are forced to decide for ourselves what he meant.

There is much more that Witherington has to say, but I'll save that for future blogs. I'm hoping that this information will allow us to appreciate the gospels for what they are rather than what they were never intended to be.

Friday, May 1, 2009

Can We Trust the Gospels?

Last night our apologetics group met and went over the attached outline regarding the trustworthiness of the gospels. Since this is just an outline, feel free to contact me if you'd like clarification in any area.


Can We Trust the Gospels?

A. Standards to judge old documents: how do the Gospels match up?

1. How close to original – gospels only a few years after events

2. How many copies – over 5,000

B. Did Matthew, Mark, Luke, John really write the Gospels?

1. External evidence -- by 100-200 A.D. all four were identified [Irenaeus]
2. Internal evidence -- if fake, why name two after inconsequential people?

C. When were they written?

1. External evidence -- we have papyrus manuscripts 100-200 A.D.
2. Internal evidence -- fall of Jerusalem/destruction of Temple 70 A.D.,
Luke/Acts/Paul timeline

[key—these are closest to time of Jesus, unlike other “gospels”]

D. What sources did the Gospel writers use?

1. Luke 1:1-2
2. 1 Corinthians 15:3-5

E. Is oral tradition reliable?

1. Gossip/telephone game [terrible analogy]

Oral tradition important then—memorizing a lot

2. Jesus spoke in ways that made it easy to remember
3. Strong motivation to remember
4. Not made up later by church -- Jesus doesn't say much about church issues
5. Jesus spoke in public, not secretly (like telephone game)

F. Why don’t the Gospels look as accurate as modern historical writings??

1. Not interested in the exact wording -- Matthew 3:17, Mark 1:11 slide
2. Events are not in the same order -- temptation of Jesus

G. Why do we have four Gospels?

1. Matthew, Mark, Luke--synoptic
1. Good for various viewpoints – Matthew/Jews, Luke/Gentiles;

[compare to portrait painting—not photograph]

H. Does anything outside the Gospels validate the story of Jesus?

1. Romans –Pliny, Suetonius, Tacitus
2. Jewish sources –Talmud [rabbinical writings], Josephus
3. The Pilate inscription
4. The Dead Sea Scrolls
5. Various references to places unknown after the destruction of Jerusalem

I. Did the Gospels get put together by the church later in a power grab?

1. No -- Matthew, Mark, Luke, John all show Jesus very human
2. No -- the four Gospels show the disciples in a bad light
3. No -- by late 100s A.D. a list of accepted texts existed w/four Gospels
4. Standards for inclusion -- old, wide-spread usage, connected to apostle

J. Key question--are the Gospels unreliable since they include miracles?

1. No problem if there is a God
2. The Resurrection of Jesus—are there reasons to believe it?
a. his death [swoon? Crucifixion, spear in side—p. 203 Strobel]

b. the empty tomb [no other burial story; theft? Jews said empty]

c. appearances after death/ burial [1 Cor. 15:8; hallucin.?]

d. change in the lives of the disciples [willing to die]

e. conversion of skeptics [James, Paul]

f. changes in Jewish beliefs/practices
[anim. sacrif.,laws, Sabbath, monotheism, Messiah polit. leader]

g. new religious practices [communion, baptism]

L. For further information

1.Books—
The Case for Christ (Lee Strobel)
Can We Trust the Gospels? (Mark D. Roberts)—basis for this presentation
Jesus Under Fire (J.P. Moreland, editor)

2. Web sites
answers.org [many articles in all areas of the Christian faith]
str.org [Greg Koukl’s site with a lot of resources on many topics]
evidenceofgod.com