Thoughts on Journal of Early Christian Studies Winter 2008

I'm still catching up on reading those scholarly articles.  Glad I don't subscribe to a large number of publications!

The Winter 2008 edition of Journal of Early Christian Studies (JECT) has three articles that I think are of a bit of interest.  It opens with an article by Ellen Muehlberger entitled "Ambivalence about the Angelic Life: The Promise and Perils of an Early Christian Discourse of Asceticism."  The volume continues with "how Thin Is a Demon?" by Gergory A. Smith, then has "A Cure for Rabies or a Remedy for Concupiscence? A Baptism of the Elchasaites" by Andrea Nicolotti.

All three articles have some strikingly recurring themes.  In all instances we are discussing, well, not surprisingly, early Christian belief and practice, particularly in the period we'd probably think of as late antiquity, rather than the Middle Ages.  In the early years of the monastic movements we see believers who wish to set themselves apart by their life of holiness and separation to God.  While this is generally considered a noble thing, and is certainly approved by Scripture, many of these people thought by their overt and visible acts of asceticism they could earn merit in the eyes of God.  They had moved from a life conformed to the Gospel into a life conformed to the Law.  In this monastic life the believers would humble themselves, depriving themselves of many of the normal things of life, including relationships with believing and unbelieving elements of the society at large.  They would seek to purge themselves of evil through departing from society as completely as possible.  Then, lo and behold, the monks would in fact find evil in their midst.  They would find that they were subject to the same temptations in their monastic life that they had been subject to prior to separating themselves to that monastic service.  Leaders would seek revelation from the Holy Spirit about sins to confront, but would wonder if they were being led by the Holy Spirit or by demonic forces.  The believers in late antiquity, just like believers today, found that they were not able to earn merit before God, that they were not able to flee temptation completely, that they found sin within themselves, and that even in their attempts to weed out and confront unconfessed sin they were not always reliably right.

This leads us to the idea of the demonic presence.  It was apparently a fairly common idea in late antiquity that demons frequently took on some sort of semi-corporeal form.  They seemed to have the characteristics of angels, which makes sense since they are, biblically speaking, fallen angels.  But the demons would apparently show themselves to people and have at least apparent corporeality.  This brings us again to what I mentioned above.  Demonic and angelic revelation is often indistinguishable to the human mind and heart.  Believers must be on their guard against the kind of revelations they perceive which are not explicit in Scripture, which cannot be mistaken for something else.

Finally, we find that believers often seek some sort of remedy for sin, and seek it in physical means.  While I would confess that baptism is sacramental by nature, i.e., it actually accomplishes something through the physical application of the Word of God and the water, as God's appointed means to wash us from sin, there was something going on among a group known as the Elchasaites which was not biblically defensible.  The Elchasaites were apparently not well accepted.  They did not appear to be within the mainstream of Christian faith and practice.  Yet they were accepted at least in some areas.  One of their odd practices was to rebaptize people.  We see this to some extent today in American Christianity, where people who hold to a symbolic view (baptism is an outward sign of an inward change) of baptism will insist that only those who are already confessing their faith in a persuasive manner should be baptized, and that those who were baptized as infants should be baptized again once they make a persuasive confession.  Some of these groups will baptize believers multiple times as those believers find and confess sins which persuade them that they were not really Christians before, so should be baptized again.  The Elchasaites took this to an extreme, apparently.  They applied baptism as a cure for various physical ailments, affirming that the ailments had a demonic source and would therefore be cleansed by the waters of baptism.  They even prescribed the number of times over a particular number of days that those suffering from rabies or consumption were to be baptized.

How does all this tie together?  Do we in this day and age seek to flee from our sin only to find that we could flee it only by leaving ourselves?  Do we persist in unbiblical views of reality, including denial of the bodily resurrection, assuming that angels and demons are different in ways other than the fact that demons are fallen, or deciding that we can seek spiritual information and depend on the revelation we receive in prayer as something definitive?  Do we assign uses and conditions to baptism which aren't there in Scripture?  In fact, we do fall into all the errors I just mentioned and more.  What will serve to rescue us from these errors which so many generations of Christians have fallen into before us?  Dependence on God's Word and the sacraments, the means of grace which our Lord has appointed, giving promises of their efficacy.  Do we want a revelation from God?  Let us look to the Scripture where we have all God wished to reveal about life and salvation laid out in a definitive way, using a format that we can study and review.  Do we want to flee from sin and seek cleansing from sin that we commit?  Let us look to the means God has appointed - the baptism which washes our conscience and cleanses us, drawing us from the corruption of the world as God drew Noah and his companions on the ark from the corruption of the world.  Let us look also to the daily nourishment our Lord has given us in His body and blood, given and shed for us, in which he offers us this divine κοινωνία - a "participation" as Paul puts it in 1 Corinthians 11.  Let us cling to what our Lord has given us, not falling into the error that we so easily find when we try to devise a better plan ourselves.

--
Dave Spotts
blogging at http://capnsaltyslongvoyage.blogspot.com and http://alex-kirk.blogspot.com

The Mystery of a Sacrament

In our adult catechesis class on Wednesday we started talking about the Sacraments. The view of a sacramental life has been very difficult for me to get my head around. I suppose that is to be expected. But it has been the big motivator of my move from the more symbolic Zwinglian and Calvinist branches of the Reformation into the Lutheran branch. I still can't really explain it. Suffice it to say, at least for now, that there seems to be this biblical view of Jesus as not only the one who offers himself once, but who presents himself in his power and majesty whenever we are assembled together in His name, and who presents himself primarily using very simple means - the spoken Word and the physicality of the bread, wine, and water. That's quite a mystery. In fact, it appears that the Greek term "mystery" was frequently translated into Latin as "sacrament." Here's an article I read about it. http://www.lcms.org/ca/www/cyclopedia/02/display.asp?t1=S&word=SACRAMENTANDTHESACRAMENTS

The more I read the Old Testament the more I see I have come from a tradition that tends to look down on the physical. This tradition is consistent with a Platonic view that the material universe is a bad thing, a thing to be escaped. But a true biblical faith seems to present God as intimately involved in the physical, working in and through physical means.

So here's my question. Just how much has God, who set aside priests by sprinkling them with blood from an offering and dressing them with holy garments, who purified sinners through very real dead animals and through washing with water, how much has this God of the Old Testament changed? What does this say about Jesus' work in his perfect life, death, and resurrection? What does this say about baptism and communion? Are these symbols of something larger but less concrete? Are they actual physical elements by which God in Christ conveys life and hope? How are we going to explain our faith in these terms?
--
Dave Spotts
blogging at http://capnsaltyslongvoyage.blogspot.com and http://alex-kirk.blogspot.com

The Myth of the Common School

I finally finished reading over The Myth of the Common School by Charles Leslie Glenn (2002, ICS Press, Oakland, CA).  Glenn talks about the development of a common school (government-sponsored primary and secondary school) primarily in the United States, France, and Holland. He traces the development of a common school philosophy from its initial agenda, common to all three nationalities, through the social and political debate about the validity of a common school, to the widespread acceptance of the concept.  Throughout, Glenn brings up arguments presented for and against common schooling.  

It was particularly interesting to observe that the philosophy underlying a common school education has never been a desire to make sure everyone can read, write, and calculate.  It has never been about literacy.  Especially in New England, where the eighteenth century ministers who valued education for their congregation provided literacy training, school attendance and literacy rates barely changed with the advent of the common school.  The common school, rather, was founded to train young people in the values which the administrators of the common school (the state government or department of education) considered socially important.  School, in short, was for socialization, not for education.  This was especially important within the French school system following the French Revolution, in which there were bold, overt efforts to set up an alternate religion, the religion of the new state.  There was relatively more flexibility in this landscape in Holland, where schools found their identities either as Catholic or Lutheran schools, government sponsored and approved, with their identity based on the religious identity of the community.  In the United States, the common schools first had rather a lot of orthodox Christian teaching, but with the rise of Unitarianism the idea of doctrinal teaching was removed as something which could be divisive.  The Bible remained in use as a manual of social conduct.  This, of course, was offensive to orthodox Christians, who to this day have fought for appropriate use of the Scripture and for doctrinal teaching which is distinctive and clearly defined.

As he closes the book, Glenn observes that in the United States the battle is not over.  There is a recent trend in the United States to withdraw from the common school system, with increasing acceptance of private sector and home schooling.  We are starting to see more and more of the dispute about the common schools to be focused on whether or not they are religious institutions in their own right, celebrating the religion of whatever the state considers good at the current time. 

While this is an intriguing book and brings up a lot of thought-provoking historical research, it is neither an easy nor interesting read.  Glenn is a professor at Boston University in the Department of Administration, Training and Policy Studies.  He has worked extensively with the state Department of Education.  Unfortunately, he writes very much in the style of an educational researcher, using the kind of bland and sometimes circumlocutory language that you would expect among the policy and government elite.  Yet once we get through his writing style, I think there are some gems to be mined in this book.

--
Dave Spotts
blogging at http://capnsaltyslongvoyage.blogspot.com and http://alex-kirk.blogspot.com

Translation Research

Some time ago I was reading the Summer 2008 edition of the Journal of Early Christian Studies.  There were three articles, going from pp. 143-254, which provoked me to thinking about the history of translation.

Here's the concept.  Many ancient works were continued, edited, or expanded by others while retaining the original identity.  This was an accepted practice when "translating" a text.  As a result of this practice, in some instances, it may be impossible to tell what is original to an author in antiquity.

My question?  To what extent, if any, does this practice carry over to the Scripture?  What information do we have specifically of "translations" and other editorial efforts over the near 2000 year history of New Testament transmission?

My theory is that the New Testament documents have historically been treated as documents to be translated literally as opposed to documents to be paraphrased, interpreted, or rephrased, as opposed to other early Christian texts, as well as from other, less orthodox documents.

Now, how to test this theory?  I plan to compare various historic translations to the Greek New Testament to evaluate the level of literal treatment.   Of course, I will not be able to compare the entirety of the New Testament to a very comprehensive list of translations, and my target languages will be fairly limited, as I don't happen to have adequate fluency to make adequate judgments in languages other than Latin and English.

Why do I mention this on my blog?  There are a couple of reasons that I think are worthwhile.  The biggest reason is that this blog is about a theological voyage.  This is part of the sailing.  Maybe it will be encouraging to someone.  Maybe someone reading will have an idea to throw into the mixing pot of ideas.  Maybe someone will be provoked to search out a topic.  And who knows when someone who is fluent in a language that I don't know will read the blog and decide to help out?  

How about a procedure?  I suppose I'll create some sort of a spreadsheet with columns for versions and comments.  Due to copyright restrictions I can't start with my standard - the latest USB edition of the Greek New Testament.  But I can use a version that is in public domain and make some comments about how it compares with the USB.  The differences are very slight.  I'm always impressed with the quality of preservation of the New Testament text.  We'll pick some different translations and make some comments about the level of interpretive language as opposed to literal language in use.

This sounds like something I'll probably get some of my advanced students involved in as well.  After all, something we need to learn to do when learning a language is to evaluate our own translation work as well as someone else's.

--
Dave Spotts
blogging at http://capnsaltyslongvoyage.blogspot.com and http://alex-kirk.blogspot.com

A House Is Like a Cooler

Is there any theological content to this?  I don't know.  But this blog isn't just about theology.  And if your life is a reflection of your theology, there's got to be some theology here somewhere.

Just a reminder as weather is moderating.  Some people don't think too well about the way their houses work.  I've found that thinking of it like a cooler is a good idea.  As you know, you can use a cooler to keep things either warm or cool.  The key is that when sealed it will tend to maintain the interior temperature.

We don't think about it much in cold winter weather.  Opening the window when it's below freezing outside is just plain bad planning.  But how about when the weather is warmer?  Maybe these tips will be useful.

1) If it's hot outside and comfortable inside, keep the windows and doors closed.  You want to keep the cool air inside.

2) If it's chilly outside and comfortable inside, keep the windows and doors closed.  You want to keep the warm air inside.

3) If you blow a fan in a window, it will move air into one room.

4)  If you blow a fan outof a window, it will move air into all the other windows which can feed air to that outgoing breeze.

5) Closing drapes or blinds on a sunny window will keep some of the warmth out.

6)  Heat radiates off of porch roofs that have had the sun shining on them.  It may be much hotter outside a south facing window than outside a north facing window, even if the sun is not currently shining on the window.

7) If you can feel a breeze that you didn't plan you have a leak somewhere.  You might not want to trace it and try to repair it during the winter when it is really expensive, but warm weather is a good time for that.

8) A tube of caulk costs a whole lot less than the energy to heat or cool your house by a degree.

The earth is the Lord's.  So is our home.  If He has given us something to take care of our care for it is part of his plan for our lives.

--
Dave Spotts
blogging at http://capnsaltyslongvoyage.blogspot.com and http://alex-kirk.blogspot.com

Real Presence

Timocrat brought up a good point.  Okay, I probably provoked him to it and thought I had deftly sidestepped the issue when we were talking earlier today in the presence of some other people.  But I guess I didn't sidestep it completely.  Hey, there's a time to sidestep and there's a time to take something on.  Thanks for knowing we needed to take on other things in that other forum, Timocrat.

Here's the question, embedded in a comment.

I have a question, very unrelated. How do you explain and scripturally defend consubstantiation (the belief that Christ is also physically, not only spiritually, present at the sacrament of communion)?

Let's have a go at this.  Timocrat has taken a typical Calvinist view of communion, that Christ is spiritually present.  Actually, from what I've heard coming from really educated thoroughgoing Calvinists is that during communion we become spiritually present with Christ, who is there physically in heaven.  At the time the question was arising earlier today some other people were making comments about a symbolic presence as well.    Unfortunately, Timocrat muddied some of the waters by assigning the label "consubstantiation" to the view of a real presence.  I'd rather not get into all the philosophical reasoning behind it, but historically Lutherans have not affirmed consubstantiation.  They have affirmed a real bodily presence, but did not wish to define it as consubstantiation, which had been condemned as a heresy around the 10th century.  Unfortunately, the label has stuck.

So I can't defend consubstantiation.  I don't believe consubstantiation.  I don't believe transubstantiation either.  But I will affirm a real  bodily presence of Christ in communion.  The scriptural defense is that Jesus uses a simple copulative verb to say "This is my body."  When presenting the cup, he uses metonymy to say "this cup is the new covenant in my blood."  Nobody affirms that the cup is a covenant, but that the use of the term "cup" refers to what is in the cup.  That seems a safe statement, at least for now.  On the surface it seems quite clear that Jesus is saying thing one (bread or wine) is being equated with thing two (body or blood).  There are three basic tracks we can take to understand this.

Track #1 is to say that this is a metaphorical use, just like Jesus saying, "I am the door of the sheep."  While this would be possible, notice that the words of institution of communion are opposite to all the metaphorical statements Jesus makes.  He consistently compares himself, the greater, to a lesser thing.  For instance, when he presents himself as the door of the sheep, he is rather clearly saying that the door exhibits some element of which he is the fulfillment.  But this statement, and only this one, treats the situation in reverse.  The first element, bread, is the lesser.  By that reasoning, Jesus would be saying that his body exhibits some element of which bread is the fulfillment.  This doesn't make a whole lot of sense.  You could certainly make an argument that says this arrangement doesn't preclude Jesus' use of a metaphor in different directions at different times.  But you could not make an argument that says linguistically Jesus must be speaking metaphorically.  I have yet to see adequate argument to make me think Jesus must be speaking metaphorically.

Track #2 is to say that we are able to understand what happens in communion.  This takes in the Roman Catholic view of transubstantiation, the Calvinist view of a spiritual presence, and the Zwinglian view of a symbolic reference.  In all those views we take the very same words of Jesus and say we understand exactly what they mean.  We have come up with an explanation for what Jesus actually means when he says "this is my body."  And in all those explanations, something happens to the word "this," the word "is" or the word "body" to make it intelligible.  Particularly if we are wishing to avoid transubstantiation, we end up having to do something to the word "is" so as to make it somehow mean "represents."  Of course, the Calvinist spiritual presence position winds up unable to explain why Jesus didn't say either, "this is my spirit" or "this represents my spiritual presence."  

Track #3 is very unsatisfying to many people.  It is, however, what I'll affirm.  Jesus says, "This is my body" and it is exactly what he means.  There is something miraculous which happens when we celebrate communion.  Jesus is present bodily.  We don't know how.  We might even have trouble with explaining why.  We may dislike the idea that this means a miracle necessarily happens in communion.  It may make us feel like we are not erudite modernists and postmodernists who can deal with communion in a sophisticated knowing way.  But it is exactly what Jesus said.  Jesus and the apostles had plenty of time and opportunity to explain things more fully.  The Holy Spirit inspired no such explanation.  So I'll just have to accept what our Lord said.

So there you have it.  Is it an explanation?  I guess not.  But it is an affirmation.

--
Dave Spotts
blogging at http://capnsaltyslongvoyage.blogspot.com and http://alex-kirk.blogspot.com

The Tree of Life

Time to lay out a question.  What was the purpose of the tree of life in Eden?  Was it to ward off death even before the existence of sin?  Was it something from which our first parents would have been eating already before the curse?  A friend asked me this question, which someone else had asked him.  Since I'll be on the road for a couple of days I might have a chance to think through this account and deal with the data in Genesis 1-3.

Comments?  Ideas?  I know there are a few people out there who might help inform us all on the issue.