New Word Magazine (8.14.13): Further responses to Reza Aslan: Was Jesus Illiterate? Did Jesus Found Christianity?

Running a bit behind after getting back from some vacation last week, but I did get a new Word Magazine posted today.  This is the fourth (and final) issue dedicated to reviewing interviews with Reza Aslan on his book Zealot:  The Life and Times of Jesus of Nazareth.  In it I respond to various challenges posed by Aslan to the traditional understanding of Jesus, including:

Was Jesus illiterate?

Did Jesus found the the Christian movement or was it founded by later men (like Paul)?

Were the writers of the NT eyewitnesses to the life and teaching of Jesus?

Did Jesus expect to be worshiped by his followers?

I hope this will be edifying to those who listen.

JTR

Thomas Vincent on the wider implications of the fifth commandment: citizens and magistrates

Note:  Here are my notes from my 8/4/13 afternoon sermon continuing our series on the wider implications of the fifth commandment, based upon and expanding from Thomas Vincent’s exposition of the Shorter Catechism.  This segment focuses on the implications of the fifth commandment for understanding the relationship between citizens (subjects) and magistrates.

Five Duties of subjects to their magistrates:

First:  High estimation and honor of them.

1 Peter 2:17 Honour all men. Love the brotherhood. Fear God. Honour the king.

This is to be true whether one is in agreement politically with the magistrate or not.

We should note that the early Christians urged honoring the king even when the kings of the earth were all polytheistic pagans.

Second:  Subjection to them, and obedience to their laws, so far as they are not contrary to the laws of Christ.

The key passage in the Bible would be Romans 13, which begins:  “Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers….”

But we also see, concurrently, a constant stream in the Bible of conscientious civil disobedience:

The Hebrew midwives would not murder the male children (cf.  Exodus 2:17:  “But the midwives feared God, and did not as the king of Egypt commanded them, but saved the men children alive.”).

In the days of Elijah God preserved 7,000 who had not bent the knee to Baal (1 Kings 19:18).

Daniel did not cease to pray three times daily to his God, though his life was threatened in Babylon.

When Peter and the apostles were told to stop preaching Jesus they replied, “We ought to obey God rather than men” (Acts 5:29).

Third:   Ready payment of their dues.

Romans 13:7 Render therefore to all their dues: tribute to whom tribute is due; custom to whom custom; fear to whom fear; honour to whom honour.

Fourth:  Defense of them in danger:

The passage Vincent cites here is 1 Samuel 26:15 where David taunts Abner for not protecting King Saul.

Romans 13:4 says the civil magistrate does not bear the sword in vain.

With respect to our Anabaptist Brethren, the Bible does not teach pacifism. When John the Baptist was preaching and soldiers came to him, John did not tell them to lay down their arms and leave military service.  But he said:  “Do violence to no man [in other words, do not abuse your power], neither accuse any falsely; and be content with your wages” (Luke 3:14).

Military men like Cornelius the Centurion were among the early converts to Christ, but nowhere are we told that men like him were required to leave their vocations.

A Christian is expected to be willing to defend his nation.

Fifth:   Prayer and thanksgiving for them.

1 Timothy 2:1 I exhort therefore, that, first of all, supplications, prayers, intercessions, and giving of thanks, be made for all men; 2 For kings, and for all that are in authority; that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and honesty.

Again, Paul could say this is the Christian duty toward pagan rulers.  We must do so today.  If we intensely dislike our civil rulers, the least we can do is to pray for them.  When we visited China in 2008 and talked with some Christians there, one of the things that impressed me most was that they were committed to praying for their government and its leaders.

Four duties of magistrates to subjects:

First:   Government of their subjects under Christ, with wisdom, justice, and clemency, endeavoring above all things to promote the interests of religion among them.

Vincent speaks here as a Puritan, and he describes how a Christian ruler should see his vocation.

He cites here the prayer of Solomon in 2 Chronicles 1:10:   “Give me wisdom and knowledge, that I may go out and come in before this people.”

Second:  Making good laws for the benefit of their subjects, and appointing faithful officers, with charge of due execution of them.

It is said of King Jehoshaphat in 2 Chronicles:

2 Chronicles 19:5 And he set judges in the land throughout all the fenced cities of Judah, city by city, 6 And said to the judges, Take heed what ye do: for ye judge not for man, but for the LORD, who is with you in the judgment. 7 Wherefore now let the fear of the LORD be upon you; take heed and do it: for there is no iniquity with the LORD our God, nor respect of persons, nor taking of gifts.

Why is it that our nation has been able to be free from the degree of corruption suffered by many other nations?  The leavening influence of Christianity.

Third:  Care of the common safety of their subjects.

Vincent again cites a passage from 2 Chronicles 17:1-2 from the rule of Jehosphaphat when he established fortresses to defend his nation.  We can again turn to Romans 13 and the magistrate holding the sword to punish evil doers and to defend society.

Fourth:  Encouragement of them that do well, by their example, countenance, and reward, together with the discouragement and punishment of evil-doers.

1 Peter 2:14 Or unto governors, as unto them that are sent by him for the punishment of evildoers, and for the praise of them that do well.

Again, these are expectations of Christian rulers.  No, we have not always had Christian rulers in this nation.  But we have had men influenced by Christian principles and this made all the difference.  Sadly, it seems our nation is turning a corner.

We can say with the Psalmist:  “If the foundations be destroyed what can the righteous do?” (Psalm 11:3).

Isaiah 5:20 Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!

But we have a greater Sovereign on the throne.  He is working all things together for good and we can trust in him.

The claim that Jesus of Nazareth was illiterate: A snide assertion that flies in the face of the evidence

Blog note:  I’ll be taking a break from blogging this week, including the Tuesday Word Magazine and the Thursday Vision article, so this will be the lone post for the week.  Stylos will resume next week (starting August 11).

Was Jesus “an illiterate Jewish peasant from the hill country of Galilee”?  This is the evaluation put forward by Reza Aslan in interviews and in his book Zealot:  The Life and Times of Jesus of Nazareth, reviving a less that flattering view of the intellectual background of Jesus and correspondingly arguing that the sophisticated doctrinal aspects of the Christian faith were fabricated by later Christian preachers and apologists (like Paul).

Aslan’s assessment of Jesus as “illiterate,” however, is extremely suspect if the Gospels hold any historical credibility at all.  Here is the frank assessment of “Jesus as illiterate” theory from Rodney Stark, Distinguished Professor of the Social Sciences at Baylor University, in his book The Triumph of Christianity:  How the Jesus Movement Became the World’s Largest Religion (Harper One , 2011):

Finally comes the persistent claim that Jesus was illiterate:  This snide assertion flies in the face of immense familiarity with Jewish Scriptures displayed by Jesus throughout the Gospels and the near certainty that he was a well trained rabbi.  It also ignores statements such as in Luke 4:16-17:  “and he went to the synagogue, as his custom was, on the sabbath day.  And he stood up to read; and there was given to him the book of the prophet Isaiah.  He opened the book and found the place where it was written.”  In addition is the frequency with which Jesus prefaces an exchange with the rhetorical question, “have you not read?”  Granted this evidence comes only from the Gospels; but this is true of everything we know about Jesus (pp. 99-100).

What about evaluating the evidence of the likelihood of Jesus’ literacy purely on the basis of what scholars know about the first century Palestinian Jewish environment, an approach which Aslan claims he prefers to do rather than starting with the Gospels.  Here is the assessment offered in the college level textbook The New Testament in Antiquity (Zondervan, 2009) edited by Gary M. Burge of Wheaton University (from pp. 128-129):

Jesus was probably educated in the local synagogue each morning from age five or six and each afternoon worked at his father’s trade [JTR note:  by referring to Joseph as Jesus’ “father” Burge is not necessarily denying the virginal conception but addressing Joseph as a custodial parent of Jesus]…..

Like other boys in his village, from the age of six to ten Jesus became literate in Hebrew through the study of the Torah in the Nazareth synagogue, and he memorized vast quantities of Scripture.  From ages ten to twelve he became acquainted with the oral laws under the direction of the synagogue teacher and custodian, the hazzan.  At this point he ended his schooling and began working full time with his father…..

From the age of thirteen until the beginning of his public ministry (about thirty), Jesus worked in Nazareth and joined the village men at the synagogue for discussion and debate.  These exclusively male gatherings sharpened understanding of the law and were as raucous as they were inspiring.  Thus, Jesus had almost twenty years experience debating in the local synagogue before teaching in the synagogues of Galilee.  By the time he was an adult, he was a skilled craftsman, literate, knowledgeable in the traditions and history of his people, and adept at public discourse.

Thus, based on both the Gospel evidence and our knowledge of the first century Palestinian Jewish environment, we must conclude that the charge that Jesus was “illiterate” is a snide assertion that flies in the face of the evidence.

JTR

New "Reformed Baptist Trumpet"

We sent out the latest edition of The Reformed Baptist Trumpet, the e-journal of the Reformed Baptist Fellowship of Virginia, yesterday.  You can read a pdf of the issue here.

This issue includes:

• An announcement for the 2013 Keach Conference scheduled for Friday-Saturday, September 27-28.
• An article by Dr. W. Gary Crampton, "Teaching the Word of God."
• Book reviews of David Alan Black's "Why Four Gospels?" and David Wenham's "Did St. Paul Get Jesus Right?"
• A Paradosis article from Thomas Boston, "Am I Really a Christian?"

If you want to be added to the mailing list for the RBT, send your request to reformedbaptist.va@gmail.com

To pre-register for the 2013 Keach Conference with keynote speaker Richard Barcellos visit the RBF-VA website.

The Vision (8/1/13): Putting away bitterness

When Llewellyn and I moved to Virginia in 1992 after serving a two year term as missionaries in Hungary we had little more than a pair of suitcases and a few things we had stored with Llewellyn’s parents.  We had sold or given away most of the meager furnishing from our seminary apartment to lighten our load before moving to Budapest.  As we moved into the parsonage of the church that had called me to be their pastor, the folk who came to help us looked incredulous that there really wasn’t that much to help with.

One of the first things we realized we needed was a table and some chairs (lest we sit and eat on the floor), so we went to a local unfinished furniture store and bought an oak table with four matching chairs which we promptly brought home and finished.  As I write this article my computer is lying on that same table, which also now doubles as my study desk.  It is hard to tell just how many meals our family has shared around this table and how many friends, family, and guests have joined us here (not to mention how many bog posts, articles, and sermons have been composed here).  We had to go out and buy three more chairs as our family grew from the two of us to add five children.

The table definitely has picked up some nicks and scratches over the last twenty plus years (nothing a good table cloth won’t hide).  Most telling is a deep black stain, sunk into the grain of the wood, with a wide crack on the same stained side.  How did that get there?  One summer about five years after we got the table, we were preparing to leave for a two week vacation to the Grand Tetons in Wyoming with Llewellyn’s family (it was a great trip).  Just before we left, a neighbor brought us a bag of tomatoes from his garden.  The church we served was in a rural setting, and we had no lack of vegetables from the members’ gardens.  The joke was that when you went into church you needed to lock your doors lest when you returned the seats be filled with corn, squash, and beans.  Anyhow, we ended up leaving for our vacation and leaving that plastic bag of tomatoes sitting on the oak table.

The moment we opened our door two weeks later, we knew (smelled) that something was wrong.  The acidic tomatoes had rotted, leaked, cracked, and permanently stained the table.  Our younger children probably now think this is the way all kitchen tables are supposed to be.

As I sit at that table this evening looking at that stain, I am reminded of what the apostle Paul said in Ephesians 4:31-32:   “Let all bitterness, and wrath, and anger, and clamour, and evil speaking, be put away from you, with all malice: And be ye kind one to another, tenderhearted, forgiving one another, even as God for Christ's sake hath forgiven you.”  If we allow bitterness to remain in our hearts, it will act like that bag of tomatoes.  It will fester, rot, ooze, crack, spoil, and stain.  This is why Paul told the Ephesians to put away all bitterness and instead to respond with kindness and forgiveness.  Do you have bitterness in your heart?  Has it been there for years or is it of recent origin?  Does it relate to broken relationships, unrealized hopes and expectations, disappointments, disability, unkind treatment?  May the Lord grant us the grace to put bitterness away and to live wholesome, healthy, and godly lives for Christ.

Grace and peace, Pastor Jeff Riddle 

New Word Magazine (7.30.13): Continued Response to Reza Aslan: Defending the Crucifixion

This week's Word Magazine continues my review of the 7.15.13 NPR interview with Reza Aslan on his book Zealot: The Life and Times of Jesus of Nazareth, this time focusing on Aslan's comments on the crucifixion of Jesus.

I also made mention of this article challenging Aslan's scholarly credentials as a historian of early  Christianity and the video below of Aslan's uncomfortable interview with Lauren Given in which she challenged his bias in his biography of Jesus:

Thomas Vincent on the duties of churches and ministers (flowing from the Fifth Commandment)

Note:  Sunday afternoon I continued our “series (on the fifth commandment) within a series (the ten commandments) within a series (on the Baptist Catechism)” with a sermon titled The Fifth Commandment:  Part 4.  I was once again flowing the wider implications of the fifth commandment, this time addressing its implications for how ministers and churches are to relate to one another.  And, again, I was using Thomas Vincent’s Puritan exposition of the Westminster Shorter Catechism as a guide.  Here are my notes riffing off Vincent’s listing of mutual duties between ministers and churches:
 

Six duties of the people to their ministers:

First:  High estimation of them, and endeared love to them for their work’s sake.

Consider:

1 Thessalonians 5:12 And we beseech you, brethren, to know them which labour among you, and are over you in the Lord, and admonish you; 13 And to esteem them very highly in love for their work's sake. And be at peace among yourselves.

Paul could write to the Galatians (Gal 4:14-15) and remind them of how they had received him as “an angel of God, even as Christ Jesus” and would have plucked out their own eyes for him.

Second:  Diligent attendance upon the word of God preached, and other ordinances administered by them.

Luke 10:16:  “He that heareth you, heareth me.”

Well has it been said that full pews and attentive listeners lift the preacher as if on wings, while empty pews and disinterested listeners take the wind from his sails.

Third:  Meek and patient suffering the word of reproof, and ready obedience unto the word of command, which ministers shall, from the Scriptures, make known unto them, together with submission unto the discipline intrusted with them by the Lord.

In James 1:21 we read of the necessity of receiving with meekness “the ingrafted word.”

Consider also:

Hebrews 13:17 Obey them that have the rule over you, and submit yourselves: for they watch for your souls, as they that must give account, that they may do it with joy, and not with grief: for that is unprofitable for you.

Fourth:   Communicating to them of their temporals.

That is, the church should, as it is able, give to provide for the material needs of the pastor and his family so that he might pursue with full devotion of his time the ministry of the word and sacrament. 

Compare:

1 Corinthians 9:14 Even so hath the Lord ordained that they which preach the gospel should live of the gospel.

Galatians 6:6 Let him that is taught in the word communicate unto him that teacheth in all good things.

Fifth:  Prayer for them.

Paul in his letters often asked the churches to pray for him.  Consider:  “Brethren, pray for us” (1 Thess 5:25).

Sixth:  Shutting their ear against reproaches and slanders, believing nothing without proof; and standing up in their defense against an ungodly world, and many false brethren, and rotten hearted hypocrites, who are made of the devil to cast dirt upon them, and thereby people receiving prejudices against them, might be kept either from hearing them, or receiving benefit from their doctrine, and so be either drawn to ways of error, or hardened in ways of profaneness.

He cites:

1 Timothy 5:19 Against an elder receive not an accusation, but before two or three witnesses.

Correspondingly, five duties of the minister to their people in the church:

First:  Dear and tender love of their souls.

Consider the example of the apostle Paul:

1 Thessalonians 2:7 But we were gentle among you, even as a nurse cherisheth her children: 8 So being affectionately desirous of you, we were willing to have imparted unto you, not the gospel of God only, but also our own souls, because ye were dear unto us.

Second:  Diligent, sincere, and frequent preaching of the word unto them, with administration of all ordinances.

Consider Paul’s charge to Timothy:

2 Timothy 4:2 Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all longsuffering and doctrine.

The minister’s primary calling and duty is to preach.

Third:  Watchfulness over them, with willingness and cheerfulness.

Consider:

 1 Peter 5:2 Feed the flock of God which is among you, taking the oversight thereof, not by constraint, but willingly; not for filthy lucre, but of a ready mind;

Well has it been said that the minister is to feed the sheep and not to fleece or beat the sheep.

Fourth:  Prayer for them, and praise for the grace of God which is in them.

In Paul’s letters he very often thanks and blesses God for the churches and their dear members to whom he writes. For example:

Ephesians 1:15 Wherefore I also, after I heard of your faith in the Lord Jesus, and love unto all the saints, 16 Cease not to give thanks for you, making mention of you in my prayers;

So ministers are to be addicted to prayer for their people.

Fifth:  Showing themselves an example of holiness and good works unto them.

Consider again Paul’s word to Timothy:

1 Timothy 4:12 Let no man despise thy youth; but be thou an example of the believers, in word, in conversation, in charity, in spirit, in faith, in purity.

Critique of Passion 2013

 This article (from E. S. William's "The New Calvinists" website) includes the video below critiquing the popular "Passion Conference" from a conservative (fundamentalist) Christian perspective:

 

The Vision (7/25/13): The Craving for Extraordinary Experience

Note:  I preached last Sunday at CRBC from Luke11:14-22 about Jesus healing a mute man and the unusual criticism this drew to him.  Here are some of my notes from the exposition of v. 16 in the passage.

The criticism of Jesus in v. 16 is of a different sort.  It comes as a temptation:  “And others, tempting [peirazo] him, sought of him a sign from heaven” (v. 16).  Now, this one is really hard to understand.  They are saying to Jesus, “Do a miracle to prove to us that you are really a miracle worker.”  And they ask this just after he has performed a miracle!  They remind me of a man who went searching his house for his eyeglasses and all the while he was wearing them.

This shows the fickleness of the people (recall Jesus’ parable of the children in the marketplace in 7:31-35).  It also shows how insatiable the craving is in spiritually fallen men for extra-ordinary experiences.  This is true whether the charismatic who goes seeking for higher and deeper experiences or the Roman Catholic who goes from shrine to shrine to venerate weeping statues or the presumed “image” of Jesus in a piece of toast.  Those who base their faith on such experience are like drug users; they need more and stronger doses to achieve a high.

I heard a report on a podcast the other day of a young woman, the child of a Christian apologist, who announced that she is now an atheist.  In a statement she apparently said that part of the reason she did this is that she didn’t feel anything when she prayed.  This is the problem when you base your Christian life on feelings and experiences and miracles.  Authentic faith is not about how you feel or what you experience.  It is about believing what is true.  The greatest miracle has already been performed.  Christ has died on the cross for sinners and been gloriously raised.  And still men crave “proof” that Jesus is the Christ.  When the Rich Man in Hades pleaded with Father Abraham to send someone back from the dead to warn his brothers, Abraham answered, “If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead” (Luke 16:31).

May we find satisfaction in Word of God and in the finished work of Christ.

Grace and peace, Pastor Jeff Riddle

New Word Magazine (7.23.13): Review of Reza Aslan's "Zealot" Interview and Attacks on the Historicity of the Gospel Birth Narratives

Image:  Reza Aslan, author of "Zealot:  The Life and Times of Jesus of Nazareth"

As I note in the program, I hope no one falls over when they hear I have recorded and posted a Word Magazine two weeks in a row.  This edition is a review of another Reza Aslan NPR interview (this one on the "Fresh Air" program from 7/15/13).  Last week's episode has nearly a hundred downloads (as of this afternoon), so there must be some interest in the topic.  In this episode I focus on Aslan's challenges to the historicity of the Gospel birth narratives, including his charge that the historical Jesus was born in Nazareth rather than Bethlehem and that the Gospel birth narratives are "ridiculous" and "unhistorical to the extreme."  Along the way I point out a few of Aslan's factual (like the obvious misstatement that "Bethlehem" is only mentioned in three verses in the NT) and philosophical/theological errors (e.g., false dichotomies between the "Jesus of history" and the "Christ of faith").

JTR

The hermeneutical justification for the wider implications of the fifth commandment

Note:  In our Sunday afternoon services at CRBC we are continuing to work our way through Spurgeon's revised version of the Baptist Catechism.  I have devoted the last three messages in the series to the catechism's instruction on the wider implications of the fifth commandment (first in the so-called "second table" of the law and, therefore, first in treating man's relation to his fellow man) and have at least one (and possibly two) more messages to go before moving on to the sixth commandment.  The Fathers who prepared the catechism note that the applications flowing from the underlying principles of the fifth commandment go beyond merely the duty of children to honor parents but requires, "the preserving the honour, and performing the duties belonging to every one in their several places and relations, as superiors, inferiors, or equals." As Thomas Vincent points out in his study of the Shorter Catechism, this commandment addresses proper relations between children and parents, wives and husbands, servants and masters, citizens and magistrates, churches and ministers, etc.  Here are some notes I shared in the second message in the series offering a brief hermeneutical justification for these wider applications. 

Before going forward I want first to address a question of hermeneutics or the proper interpretation and application of Scripture.  Some of us were discussing the approach of our Puritan and Particular Baptist fathers reflected in this catechism in their interpretation and expansion of this commandment in particular.  Did they go beyond what is written to say that the fifth commandment addresses not only children honoring parents but also other human relationships?

I want to argue that this approach is appropriate for the following two Biblical reasons:

First:  It follows the example of how Jesus interpreted the Ten Commandments in the Sermon on the Mount (see the so-called antitheses of Matthew 5:21, 28 where Jesus says that the prohibition against murder also includes in principle a prohibition against unjust anger and the prohibition against adultery also includes a prohibition against lust).

Second:  It follows the example of how Paul applied the fifth commandment in the household code of Ephesians 6:1-4 [cf. Colossians 3:20-21].  Note especially how Paul's citation of the fifth commandment in Ephesians 6:2-3 appears literally at the very conceptual center of the Ephesian household code:

A.  Wives and husbands (Eph 5:22-33)

B.  Children (6:1)

C.  Citation of the fifth commandment (6:2-3)

B'  Fathers (6:4)

A' Servants and masters (6:5-9)

And for the following logical reason:

If the Ten Commandments are the summation of the moral law of God, then we should be able to trace the root of any moral law to at least one of the Ten Commandments.  One cannot say, for example, the Bible does not forbid bank robbery explicitly, so bank robbery must be OK.  No, the prohibition against bank robbery is included in the eighth commandment, Thou shalt not steal.

There is, of course, a caution here.  The applications we draw from the principles underlying the Ten Commandments must be logically and Biblically consistent.

JTR

The Vision (7.18.13): Prayer without ceasing

We had a good discussion after lunch at CRBC last Sunday on the Lord’s Prayer.  To sum up we determined that, following Jesus’ model, our prayer should be directed to God the Father.  We also determined that it could be appropriate to recite the Lord’s Prayer (from Matthew 6:9-13 or Luke 11:2-4) either personally or corporately, given that is always good to recite Scripture, while also acknowledging that any prayer practice should not become mere formalism or “vain repetition.”

In addition to set apart times of private and public prayer, the Bible also teaches that prayer should be a constant activity of the believer. As Paul exhorted, “Pray without ceasing” (1 Thessalonians 5:17).

Here is an excerpt from Joel Beeke’s book Striving Against Satan on the discipline of always praying:

Some generations ago, several ministers gathered in the Scottish highlands to discuss what it meant to “pray without ceasing” (1 Thess 5:17).  After considerable discussion, one minister asked a little maid girl if she knew what it meant.

“Yes sir,” she said, “As I rose this morning from bed, I prayed that the Sun of righteousness would arise with healing in his wings over me today.  When I got dressed, I prayed that I might be clothed with Christ’s righteousness.  As I dusted the furniture in this room before you arrived, I prayed that the Lord would wipe my heart clean through the blood of Jesus.  When I made refreshments ready, I prayed that Jesus Christ might be my food and drink.  Sir, I pray my way through each day, for prayer is my breath, my life.”

Praying without ceasing means praying at set times and seasons as well as sending up short petitions to God throughout the day. It means praying at stated times of prayer and praying whenever you feel the impulse to do so.  Praying is more important than whatever else you are doing.  Spurgeon said, “We must addict ourselves to prayer.” (pp. 56-57).

May the Lord make us praying Christians and make our church a praying church.

Grace and peace, Pastor Jeff Riddle

Postscript to the Reza Aslan Interview

Here's an interesting postscript to the July 14, 2013 NPR Weekend Edition interview with Reza Aslan, which I reviewed in the last Word Magazine (7.16.13).  NPR has now put up a "correction" note which reads:

Correction July 15, 2013

In the audio of this story, as in a previous Web version, our guest incorrectly says the first Gospel, the Gospel of Mark, contains no statement of messianic identity from Jesus. In fact, in Mark 14:62, Jesus responds affirmatively when asked if he is the son of God.

The note comes in response to Aslan's statement that Jesus in Mark nowhere claims to be the Christ.  In my response I noted that Aslan completely misses the point of the Gospel which opens, "The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God" (1:1), reaches a high point when Peter affirms, "Thou art the Christ" (8:29), and closes with a Roman Centurion affirming, "Truly this man was the Son of God" (15:39).  As I overlooked but apparently other listeners pointed out, Aslan's point is completely refuted by Mark 14:61-62 when Jesus is asked, "Art thou the Christ, the Son of the Blessed?" and he replied, "I am."

BTW, the NPR correction also erroneously calls Mark "the first Gospel."  Not only is this incorrect in that no one knows with certainty which Gospel was written first but also because scholars (whatever their view on Gospel origins) typically refer to Matthew as "the first Gospel" due to its first place in the canonical order.

JTR 

Thoughts on the text of the Lukan Lord's Prayer: Luke 11:2-4

I preached last Sunday on Luke 11:1-13, including Luke’s account of Jesus’ teaching on the Lord’s Prayer (vv. 2-4).  The text of the prayer is abbreviated in the modern critical text in comparison to the traditional text.  The typical modern text critical assessment is that the traditional text has accommodated Luke 11:2-4 to the Lord’s Prayer in Matthew 6:9-13.

The issue:

A comparison of the NKJV (based on the traditional text) and the NIV (based on the modern critical text) illustrates the differences (disputed inclusions in bold and underlined):

NKJV:

Luke 11:2 So He said to them, "When you pray, say:

Our Father in heaven,

Hallowed be Your name.

Your kingdom come.

Your will be done On earth as it is in heaven.

3 Give us day by day our daily bread.

4 And forgive us our sins, For we also forgive everyone who is indebted to us.

And do not lead us into temptation, But deliver us from the evil one."

NIV:

Luke 11:2 He said to them, "When you pray, say:

"'Father, hallowed be your name,

your kingdom come.

3 Give us each day our daily bread.

4 Forgive us our sins, for we also forgive everyone who sins against us.

And lead us not into temptation.'"

External evidence:

When I examined the external evidence in the critical apparatus, I was surprised to see the strength of the manuscript support for the traditional reading. Take the opening phrase in v. 2:  hemon pater ho en tois ouranois [“Our father which art in heaven” KJV]. This traditional reading is supported by codices A, C, D, W, Theta, family 13, and the vast majority of Greek manuscripts.  The truncated reading pater of the modern critical text is supported by only five early Greek manuscripts (though they include the “big two” Sinaiticus and Vaticanus):  p75, Aleph, B, 1, 700.  Similar results (with some variety) are found when the other contested passages are examined.

Internal evidence:

Metzger’s Commentary has a brief note on the pater reading in v. 2 in which he states:

In view of the liturgical usage of the Matthean form of the Lord’s Prayer, it is remarkable that such a variety of early witnesses managed to resist what must have been an exceedingly strong temptation to assimilate the Lukan text to the much more familiar Matthean form.  It is not surprising, therefore, that the great majority of witnesses read [“Our Father which art in heaven”], as in Mt 6.9 (p. 154).

He does not give detailed attention to the other variations.  Instead he devotes more than two pages (pp. 154-156) to what he calls “the most interesting variant reading,” a petition inserted into v. 2 that reads “Your Holy Spirit be upon us and purify us” found only  in two late manuscripts (700, from the 11^th century, and 162, dated 1153 A. D.).

Evaluation:

The external evidence in support of the traditional reading is surprisingly early (A, for example, is typically dated c. 5^th century, putting it on par with the “big two”) and widespread, while the evidence supporting the modern critical reading is, correspondingly, surprisingly weak.

What are we to make, however, of Metzger’s confident assertion that the traditional reading is simply the result of accommodation or harmonization to the Matthean Lord’s Prayer (Matt 6:9-13) based on the extensive liturgical use of the latter?  There seems to be an obvious logical problem with this assumption.  If the scribes wanted to accommodate Luke’s text to Matthew’s the effort was not entirely successful. While the traditional text of the Lukan Lord’s Prayer is substantially like the traditional text of the Matthean Lord’s Prayer, the two are not exactly the same.  For example, in Matthew 6:12 it reads, “Forgive us our debts [ta opheilemata hemon] as we forgive our debtors,” but the parallel passage in Luke 11:4 reads, “And forgive us our sins [tas hamartias hemon], as we also forgive everyone that is indebted to us.”  If the scribes were driven to assimilation, why did they not harmonize this part of Luke’s prayer with Matthew’s?  Most striking is the fact that there does not appear to have been an effort to insert the Matthean doxology (Matt 6:13) into the text of the Lukan Lord’s prayer at v. 4.  At least the 27^th ed. of the N-A apparatus does not cite any evidence of this.

The conclusion we must reach is that the scribes did not see the need to make Luke’s Lord’s Prayer conform exactly to Matthew’s, though it is very similar.  How do we explain the fact that a handful of texts offer a shorter version (which has now been accepted as the authentic reading in the modern-critical text)?  This could be the result of early scribal error in an exemplar repeated by the few manuscripts that contain the shorter reading.  We might also ask if there was some effort to abbreviate the text.  There might also have been some theological reasons for altering the fuller text of the prayer, which we can no longer clearly ascertain. Obviously, the shorter reading of the Lukan Lord’s Prayer was rejected as inauthentic in the common use of the churches in favor of the traditional reading, which is very much like Matthew’s but also clearly not exactly like it.  There is, therefore, ample reason to contend for the retention of the traditional text of Luke’s Lord’s Prayer as adopted in the vast majority of Greek manuscripts.

JTR

New Word Magazine: Response to Reza Aslan's "Zealot: The Life and Times of Jesus of Nazareth"

I finally got around to doing another edition of "Word Magazine" this afternoon.  The topic is a review of an NPR interview with Reza Aslan discussing his book Zealot:  The Life and Times of Jesus of Nazareth.

JTR

New Tract Available: "A Brief Guide to English Bible Translations"

Bonnie Beach has taken a modified version of a Vision article (and blog post) I wrote titled "A Brief Guide to English Bible Translations" and attractively formatted it into a hard copy tri-fold tract.  Copies are now available at CRBC literature table during our Sunday gatherings.  If anyone out of town would like some of the tracts we can send them at cost, if you send a request to info.crbc@gmail.com.

JTR

The Vision (7/11/13): God is Love

"For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son…” (John 3:16).

“We love him, because he first loved us” (1 John 4:19).

Here is one more gleaning from Rodney Stark’s book The Rise of Early Christianity, subtitled “How the Obscure, Marginal Jesus Movement Became the Dominant Religious Force in the Western World in a Few Centuries.”  Stark notes that the Christian teaching that God is love (1 John 4:8) and that love is the proper response to God and also to one’s neighbor would have puzzled pagans who only knew gods that were impersonal, capricious, or cruel:

The simple phrase “For God so loved the world…” would have puzzled an educated pagan.  And the notion that the gods care how we treat one another would have been dismissed as patently absurd.

From the pagan viewpoint, there was nothing new in the Jewish or Christian teachings that God makes behavioral demands upon humans—the gods have always demanded sacrifice and worship.  Nor was there anything new in the idea that God will respond to human desires—that the gods can be induced to exchange services for sacrifices.  But … the idea that God loves those who love him was entirely new (p. 211).

In the new paganism of our own times, perhaps this proclamation will be just as novel. Let us be faithful in our generation to hold forth these basic truths:  God is love.  He delights in the love of his people.  He calls on us to love our brethren and to have that love spill over to our neighbor.

Grace and peace, Pastor Jeff Riddle

Book Note: Guy MacLean Rogers' "Alexander: The Ambiguity of Greatness"

Guy MacLean Rogers, Alexander:  The Ambiguity of Greatness (Random House, 2004):  420 pp.

In this work, Rogers, a classicist and historian, offers a popular level biography of Alexander the Great.  In the Introduction, he notes how contemporary historians have tended to present “a far less flattering portrait of Alexander” than previous generations which tended to see him as a heroic or even messianic figure (p. xv).  The “new scholarly orthodoxy” has suggested that he be “rechristened Alexander ‘the Terrible,’ or Alexander ‘the Insignificant’” (Ibid.).  Thus, “Alexander has been retroactively stripped of his reputation and epithet” (Ibid.).  Rogers adds that the “new image of Alexander has resulted (in part) from the adoption of a more critical and skeptical attitude toward the ancient Greek and Roman sources for his life” (p. xvi).

The body of the book offers a chronological sketch of Alexander’s life from his birth in 356 B. C. and rise to power in Macedonia in 336 B. C. at the assassination of his father, Philip, to his untimely death in Babylon in 323 B.C. after a series of unprecedented military victories that extended his Greek kingdom throughout Egypt, Persia, Afghanistan, and even to India.

At the book’s close, Rogers returns to the historical issues raised in the Introduction.  Chapter 30 is titled, “Alexander:  Mass Murderer or Messiah?” (pp. 280-288).  He concludes, contra the aforementioned tendencies of modern historians, that Alexander “was not a genocidal thug like Stalin or Hitler” nor was he “a kind of ancient conquistador” (p. 283).  On the other hand, Alexander was not a “messianic figure” nor an idealized “philosopher-king” (p. 286).  He was rather “a prodigy or warfare” and a man of his times (p. 283).

In the final chapter (chapter 31:  “Alexander and the Ambiguity of Greatness” pp. 289-294) the author evaluates the “historical legacies” of Alexander (p. 289).  Again, Rogers challenges the conclusions of  some contemporary historians who, he claims, have tended to downplay Alexander’s influence, seeing him as merely a “fiery comet” who flashed across the sky, exploded, and then disappeared in “a cloud of mythic vapor” (p. 289).  On the contrary, Rogers argues that Alexander’s historical influence was profound.  He was “the original architect of an amalgam Greco-Roman civilization in the Near East, which endured politically for more than 1,700 years.  For a mere comet, he had a long historical trail” (p. 292).  He observes that historical “greatness” is “a far more ambiguous and subjective concept than is usually appreciated” adding that those with great abilities often have correspondingly “great flaws” (p. 294).  He concludes:  “We must learn to live with the ambiguity of the great.  If we are able to live with the ambiguity of the great, perhaps we may live better with our own” (Ibid.).

Gleanings:

It is typical for Introduction to the New Testament textbooks to begin with some discussion of the so-called Greco-Roman backgrounds to the New Testament and Early Christianity.  Inevitably, this includes some mention and discussion of Alexander and the “hellenization” of the ancient world.  I read this book to better understand Alexander and his legacy.  Having taught a “Life of Jesus” class I was also interested in the historical question of how to reconstruct a biography of a figure from antiquity.

Rogers addresses both these topics.  First, regarding Alexander and hellenization, Rogers observes that Alexander profoundly influenced the origins and evolution of “the three great religions of the book, Rabbinic Judaism, early Christianity, and early Islam” (p. 292).  According to Rogers, “few people seem to have reflected upon the question of how and why all the central texts of early Christianity came to be written in Greek” (p. 292).  He ponders what the consequences might have been had the foundational texts of Christianity been written “in Hebrew or Aramaic, the everyday language of Jesus and his closest disciples” (Ibid.).  He adds:  “It was largely as a long term result of Alexander’s conquests that Greek became the primary language through which Christianity was spread throughout the Mediterranean world” (Ibid.).  Rogers finds it ironic that the polytheistic Alexander’s efforts to establish “a world empire of the best” had the unintended consequence of “building the civic substructure for a world empire of a god [sic] who made redemption possible for all” (p. 293).  Of course, what Rogers sees as an irony of history, the believer sees as the providential hand of the God of the Bible.

Second, regarding the historical effort to reconstruct the life of a figure from antiquity, Rogers offers an interesting appendix titled “Sources:  Flacks, Hacks, and Historians” (pp. 299-307).  He begins by reflecting on the fact that many of the most ancient sources on the life of Alexander, written by his contemporaries, have been completely lost or must be reconstructed from selective quotations in later authors.  This calls to mind similar challenges in New Testament studies (e.g., scrutiny of quotations from Papias in Eusebius).  Rogers observes:  “Only when we have understood the viewpoint of our sources can we access the value of the information they have provided” (p. 299).

Rogers adds that it is only from our existing sources, whether literary or material (e.g., inscription, coins, artifacts, etc.) that one can draw historical conclusions.  One can know “the real Alexander the Great” from what the sources “have chosen to record about him and his deeds.  Without our sources, there simply is no Alexander, real or otherwise” (p. 300).  He concludes:

The art of creating an objective and persuasive representation of Alexander out of such a jumble of sources is not a task for the faint of heart.  Indeed, reconstructing what Alexander did (or did not do) can be done plausibly only after a careful sifting and weighing of the value of all the pieces of evidence provided by the sources for any given action of Alexander’s (p. 307).

This is striking in comparison and application to the task of reconstructing the life of Jesus of Nazareth.  If the historian can refer to material on someone as influential and well known in his times as Alexander as “a jumble of sources” what might he say of Jesus who left such a light footprint in the historical record of his contemporaries?  In fact, outside brief, scant references to him in extra-biblical literature (by Josephus, Tacitus, Suetonius, and Pliny) we are left in complete dependence upon the canonical Gospels for our knowledge of Jesus.  When the historical reliability of the Gospels is challenged or disregarded it is no surprise that modern historians have either concluded they can know nothing about Jesus except the fact that he did exist historically (so Rudolph Bultmann) or they deny his existence and hypothesize instead that he was a mere mythic fabrication (so Robert M. Price).  This makes all the more important the defense of the historical reliability of the canonical Gospels as our foundational sources for understanding the life and teachings of Jesus.

Jeffrey T. Riddle, Pastor, Christ Reformed Baptist Church, Charlottesville, Virginia