Currently Listening Once By Original Soundtrack see related

listening to music while reading a book

Do the righteous remain?

Are all of my thoughts in vain?

Should they be slain,

in place of hope

and a Higher name?

i've been thinking about how to reconcile the academic realm, as it pertains to the Bible, theology, and history, with the practical "this is how the Bible tells us how to live" format that most pastors seem to use because either they believe thats what the Bible has to offer or because that approach is the only one that will make sense to a collective group of people from different backgrounds. what is the Bible? i suppose that is the question. and depending on how one answers that question, certain ways of teaching will logically follow. for instance, if one were to say that the Bible is God-breathed, heaven sent, then of course sermons turn into literal interpretations of the Biblical text and the application is simple. not easy but simple. however, if the Bible is Divinely inspired through the writings of individual, creative people in a relationship with God then it seems pastors must work a lot harder in trying to understand what is meant in a given book, chapter, verse. it seems the results might not be unanimous on the understanding of the parable of the prodigal son for example. does this parable appeal to the kind of behavior one should have or does it represent an exhilic motif that was internally pervasive in the Judaism of the first century, as n.t. wright believes? i want biblical scholarship to cross over into the congregation. it has to. unless of course the Bible is a perfect, heavenly, transcendant text that requires little, if any, human effort to discern its meaning, then Biblical scholarship is a waste of time. then the Left Behind series becomes legitimate.  why the idea of asserting human responsibility and effort in understanding scripture, acknowledging Jesus as Saviour, and exemplifying missional living, that most Biblical literalists disapprove of is a mystery to me. do they assume that if we hold the aformentioned position that God is discarded? of course He is not. we must seek to glorify God in everything we do. sure it is God's will that we must bring about and not our own. however we must choose to do it. God chooses to act through us most of the time. we can say no. saying no will have terrible consequences. without the ability to say no we are puppets not people.

Currently Listening The Cost By The Frames see related

today is eternity

Currently Reading My Name Is Asher Lev By Chaim Potok see related

march madness

finally!!!!! i have recently finished my bracket of integrity. i'm a one bracket guy. that's how i roll. some people do two brackets, others maybe three, many more may even fill out five or six to increase their chances of winning that coveted office pool. shea butta does one. i like to think i'm a purist but of course i'm delusional. i'm laying myself out there to be scrutinized. * upset

first round winners: florida, purdue*, butler, maryland, notre dame, miami-oh*, georgia tech*, wisconsin, kansas, kentucky, illinois*, southern illinois, duke, wright state*, indiana (go hoosiers!), ucla, north carolina, marquette, arkansas*, texas, george washington*, washington state, texas tech*, georgetown, ohio state, byu, long beach state*, virginia, louisville, texas a&m, nevada, memphis

second round winners: florida, maryland, notre dame, wisconsin, kansas, southern illinois, duke, indiana* (go hoosiers!), marquette*, texas, washington state, georgetown, ohio state, virginia, texas a&m, memphis

elite 8: maryland*, wisconsin, southern illinois*, indiana* (go hoosiers!), marquette*, georgetown, ohio state, texas a&m*

final 4: wisconsin, southern illinois, georgetown, ohio state

ship: wisconsin, ohio state

champ: wisconsin

Currently Listening Life In Slow Motion By David Gray see related

in review: the shadow of the galilean

here is a little book review i had to do for one of my classes. there is not a summary section because my professor didn't want one. basically, we were to examine a few of the ways Theissen, the author, trys to acheive his aims and then argue if in fact he succeeded or failed in doing so. this review was originally 700 words longer and i'm sure that version would be more illuminating for readers to understand what the book was about. i over-shot my word limit so i was forced to cut and revise to escape a penalty.

In The Shadow of the Galilean, by Gerd Theissen, an attempt is made “to sketch in narrative form a picture of Jesus and his time which both does justice to the present state of scholarly research and is understandable to present-day readers” (1).  It seems by Theissen’s own admission this task is a careful one because it combines two traditionally unrelated fields: history and fiction.  As the title of the book suggests, the readers are not dealing with a fictional eye-witness account but “shadows” of Jesus through those who have experienced him or heard rumours about him.  The reader’s perspective is directed through the main character Andreas, a Jewish merchant whose business is in dealing grain, and it is through Andreas’ experiences by which the readers come to learn about Jesus.  The Shadow sheds light on the Jewish diversity of first century Palestine, discovers a fictional yet possible character for the Roman prefect Pilate, and holds the Romans responsible for the death of Jesus.  However, due to the lack of further research by Andreas, which is incoherent to the established framework of the book, Theissen fails in his first aim for the book.

Since Andreas is subject to the demands of Pilate (29) the two significant Jewish groups which are often examined are the Essenes and the Zealots.  Although there were more groups in the setting of first century Palestine like the Pharisees, Sadducees, and Herodians, the Essenes and the Zealots are focussed on because they are deemed to be potential hazards to the Roman occupation.  The Essenes live an exclusive, communal lifestyle far removed from society.  Andreas writes, “They [Essenes] have gone out into the wilderness because they think they cannot fulfil God’s commandments in everyday life” (49).  It is precisely because the Essenes are self-sufficient that the Romans want to watch them closely.  Jesus is seen as being a possible Essene because of his ties to John the Baptist.

“I grant you, I have killed people” (95).  During a conversation between Andreas and Barabbas, who is a Zealot, Barabbas admits to killing several people as a vendetta for Jews who are being oppressed by the Roman occupation.  The Zealots reject Roman rule and seek to end it violently.  The Zealots believe that Rome wrongfully taxes the Jews and has driven most of what modern society would identify as the “middle class” to destitution (91-96).  They steal to survive and to finance their rebellion.  One of Jesus’ disciples, Simon, was part of the Zealots until he left to follow Jesus.  This association along with Jesus’ teachings against the rich (Mark 10:25) align him with the Zealots in the eyes of the Romans. Now, the creative depiction of Pilate has to be necessarily understood as the source of Jesus’ death despite Pilate’s similar concerns with Jesus over the way Jews exchange money in the temple. 

Theissen portrays Pilate as a ruler who desires peace, is sensitive to the Jewish faith, and forcefully demands order.  Theissen implies that the reason for the Jewish hatred of Pilate is founded in misunderstanding.  Pilate says he used money from the temple treasury to fund an aqueduct which would provide Jerusalem with water.  The Jews, seeing the money as being stolen by a non-Jew, then protest violently (16).  The reader is left to take Pilate at his word or take Andreas’ dismissal of Pilate’s explanation for why he took the money.  Because Andreas is Jewish and telling the reader this story in the first person, Theissen is insinuating that Andreas has a natural bias to refute Pilate’s reasons.  The reader must then take Pilate at his word.  Further evidence for Pilate’s sensitivities toward the Jews is exhibited in a striking foreshadow. 

“Hypocrisy everywhere!” Pilate says describing the actions of the Jews (20).  Said in the context of coins being exchanged in the temple forecourt, the Jews are upset because they have to use coins Pilate issued with non-Jewish symbols on them but they choose to use coins with an idol engraved on them to pay the temple tax.  Jews in their strict adherence to monotheism knowingly exchange coins that depict an idol antithetical to the one true God.  Pilate, again in his frustration over this contradiction, says, “Sometimes when I go through the forecourt I want to overturn the tables of the money-changers!” (20)  Later when Jesus overturns the tables of the money-changers outside the temple for obstructing a holy place he not only interferes with the financial interests of wealthier, more powerful Jews but he also insights Pilate’s fear of losing control to the Zealot influenced, lower class majority who desire to have a Jewish king rather than Caesar.  Despite the end result being Jesus’ death at the hands of Pilate, both Jesus and Pilate are portrayed as having sought peaceful ends for the Jewish people and showing a desire for the Jews to re-examine the way they practice their faith around the temple.

As has been stated without substance thus far, according to Theissen, the Romans killed Jesus.  Pilate’s paranoia for control over Judea outweighed the innocence of Jesus and led him to order the execution by way of crude utilitarianism.  The readers are told of an experience Pilate had with defenceless Jews who were willing to be massacred in public because they refused to allow images of the emperor to be displayed in Jerusalem (172).  Pilate, with the help of Andreas, sees this same promotion of defencelessness under tyranny in Jesus’ message.  Pilate understands a people who will sacrifice themselves unarmed as being a greater risk than violent Zealots.  In a move to appease both the Jews who felt oppressed by the Romans and the wealthier Jews who had financial reasons for wanting Jesus dead because of his acts in the temple, Pilate released a convicted criminal who was a Zealot and gave Jesus the Zealot’s sentence.  This way Pilate hoped to be seen as sympathetic to those who felt oppressed by Rome while remaining loyal to the Jews who contribute in taxes.

The Shadow succeeds in its innovation of retelling history in narrative form but it fails in its attempt to discover who Jesus was in a scholarly manner.  Theissen’s point is obviously not to directly encounter Jesus but rather to indirectly meet him through Andreas, as Andreas chronicles the effects Jesus has across Palestine.  In order to make this framework coherent the book should be several chapters longer.  After Jesus’ crucifixion Andreas meets with Baruch, who is a close friend, and Baruch tells Andreas that he has become one of the followers of Jesus.  Baruch says that many have claimed to have seen Jesus alive, risen from the dead.  Andreas dismisses the claim; the two men eat together and then the book ends.  This scene contradicts the character of Andreas as depicted throughout the entirety of the book.  First, the reader is told that Andreas spent time in the desert following an ascetic named Bannus where he studied the “law of God” (14).  Since Andreas acknowledged that Jesus was innovative in his teaching and continued to seek after Jesus with personal interest until his death it would follow that Andreas follow Jesus as he followed Bannus.  Second, Andreas adamantly defended Jesus’ case for a pardon to Pilate.  Last, Andreas expresses a will throughout the book to practice his faith.  This is evident in Andreas’ conversations with Metilius, one of Pilate’s soldiers, who comes to respect and practice Judaism as a result of Andreas’ influence.  It does not follow then that Andreas would refuse to investigate such claims of Jesus’ resurrection precisely because Jesus was a man who inspired Andreas.

Furthermore, Theissen’s approach in The Shadow disregards the resurrection without proper explanation.  Jesus can only be studied through a post-resurrection context.  Theissen begins to track Jesus’ “shadows” a third of the way through the book, where the reader learns about some of Jesus’ teachings and supposed miracles, and as Jesus dies so does the book.  The reader is left asking, “What was so special about Jesus?”  In The Shadow the reader gets a Jesus who, depending on the audience, was either wise or crazy.  Jesus’ impact, excluding a few delusionals, died with him on the cross.  Even if this is Theissen’s point he cannot achieve such a conclusion without examining the claims and the faith which was birthed after the resurrection.  Why does Jesus deserve research if Theissen’s depiction is true?  The only reason why Jesus’ life on earth warrants research is because of the faith of those who experienced him after his resurrection.  Without their faith and the sustained faith of Christians throughout history, contemporary society would not have a Jesus to reconstruct.  At this most crucial point the book is silent.

In conclusion, The Shadow of the Galilean by Gerd Theissen succeeds in innovatively telling history in narrative form but fails in telling the reader why Jesus should be studied.  The everlasting teachings and parables of Jesus that people in first century Palestine bore witness to and preserved for generations to come are abandoned due to the incoherence of the character Andreas and the failure of Theissen to realize the significance of the resurrection.  Theissen should be commended for the immense difficulty of combining the actual elements Judaism and Roman occupation in first century Palestine into a compelling narrative.  The only aspect of the narrative that remains to be compelling is its central figure: Jesus.  Jesus turns out to be no more compelling than the prophets of the Old Testament.  As has been revealed to countless Christians throughout history, the latter claim is utterly false.     

Bibliography

Theissen, Gerd. The Shadow of the Galilean. 2nd ed. London: SCM P, 2001. 1-209.

Currently Listening Sam's Town By The Killers see related

historical jesus

i'm pretty stoked about the newcastle game on saturday. i got a ticket to see newcastle united play middlesbrough which is a big rivalry game. i also finalized my plans for spring break. the last week of march i'm going to london and oxford with the group from baylor and the first week of april i'm going to dublin for half the week and milan for the last half to watch my cousin play soccer. i'm thrilled that the dates worked out to where i can see my aunt, uncle, and two cousins. i haven't seen them in years.

so far the most significant sudject that has consumed most of my learning is that of the historical jesus. it sounds very impersonal when one talks of jesus in this way and indeed that is the point for many 1st century historians. for many historians, like crossan and hermes, the faith of jesus is not compatible with our faith in jesus. what they mean is that empirical, historical evidence illuminates a man like many others of his time who were associated with charismatic judaism. there doesn't seem to be any real uniqueness in what is proved jesus actually did, so one shouldn't put their faith in him. now i probably associated crossan and hermes together unfairly. crossan uses a more empirical approach as well as an approach of antiquity to conclude that jesus was a cynic philosopher since he meets many qualifications of what cynic philosophers did and looked like at that time, whereas hermes focusses on jesus as a charismatic who healed, exorcised, and meditated, like other jewish charismatics of the time (ex. honi the "circle-drawer"). both crossan and hermes conclude differently as to who jesus was but they similarly agree that he wasn't unique and therefore faith in jesus is unwarranted.

all of these reactions are initial and i'm sure i'll change my mind on how i see all of this and make sense of it. however, most of the problems that historians have with the conception of jesus the church adopted in a post easter way could be surmised in the gospel of john. this is fascinating to me. john is excluded from historical study. historians, for other reasons i'll learn later, dismiss the gospel of john. now john is very different from the other three gospels and was written last. the synoptics (mark, matthew, luke), especially mark, seem to present a jesus who doesn't realize his status in the godhead. he seems to be subject to god and fulfilling the will of the father without proclaiming he is in fact god in the flesh. historians raise the roof on this point. they see the jump to having faith in jesus as being silly because he doesn't seem to say that he is the messiah outright. jesus has faith in god and so should we since jesus was such a great moral teacher. since this comes from the gospels that historians have deemed more accurate it must be true. i don't know that it is safe to say that just because matthew, mark, and luke are older that they are somehow truer than john. it seems all four gospels serve specific functions with the centrality of jesus being paramount in all four.

if historians take john seriously, as dr. richard bauckham does (st.andrews), then one can easily acknowledge the necessity of having faith in jesus because he was with god in the beginning and nothing was made without him. john portrays jesus proclaiming himself messiah unashamedly. again, i need to learn more about why historians dismiss john as being somehow less accurate than the other three.

i would like to note that these thoughts and this historical enquiry in no way, shape, or form threatens the living faith in the hearts of those, like myself, who have experienced jesus in a way that demanded we change our lives. all the research in the world cannot attempt to silence a god who seeks us much more than we seek him. i just hope we all stay bold enough and have the courage to do what is expected of us because of the love we experience when we know we are dimly accomplishing the reality we were originally intended to accomplish clearly in the presence of god.