Category: Uncategorized

2 Corinthians constitutes the first preserved “sequel” in Paul’s letters.  In fact, Paul wrote three or possibly four letters to Corinth. Some scholars speculate 2 Corinthians is actually an edited copy of two letters smushed together, based on differing tone and structure. (There’s a break in 2:14 that picks back up in 7:5). In fact, the whole thing is a bit confused. This is one of those letters that emphasizes the fact that we get only one side of the conversation, and have have to muddle through in trying to piece it together. We know Paul’s travel plans to revisit Corinth had changed, that something or things significant had happened since the last time he had written. Let’s look at a few things about the entirety of the letter, then some specifics. Continue reading

The latter half of Paul’s letter to the Corinthians has a definite flow and organization to it. While our tendency is to zoom in on a single verse or even sentence, sometimes we miss the forest for the trees. So, start with an overview and then we’ll zoom in a little.

We pick up Paul in chapter 11, where he regulates some issues about how the community should function, both relating to gender and the Lord’s Supper, which we call “the sacrament.” Then he moves on to a potentially more destructive issue, namely, the Corinthian saints are highly competitive and trying to one-up each other, but with spiritual gifts. Who is the most blessed? Who is the most spiritually in tune? (This is not terribly unusual. The Apostles themselves had argued about which of them “was the greatest” and even asked Jesus to settle the matter- Luke 9:46, 22:24, Matt 18:1)

For whatever reason, the Corinthians decided that the highest manifestation of spiritual gifts is speaking in tongues; not in known languages (like missionaries), but unknown languages. Consequently, their meetings appear to be disproportionately filled by babbling in sounds that no one understands.

Paul’s response is brilliant. First, he points out why speaking in tongues isn’t worth much unless someone also interprets. Second, he tries to equalize the spiritual gifts somewhat by introducing the body of Christ metaphor. A body needs feet as well as hands, eyes as well as ears. If everyone does the same thing, the body can’t function. Third and most brilliantly, Paul harnesses their competitive nature for good, by saying in essence, “Fine. You want to compete? Love (KJV “charity”) is the highest spiritual gift.  Why don’t you see who can best embody charity instead of speaking in tongues?”

Lastly, Paul turns to the important issue of a physical resurrection. The crux is in 15:12, “Now if Christ is being preached as raised from the dead, how can some of you say there is no resurrection of the dead?” (1Co 15:12 NET) He makes several arguments here, beginning with Jesus resurrection, moving on to one of the rare New Testament mentions of Adam, and the otherwise cryptic reference to baptism for the dead. If there’s no real afterlife, what’s would be the point of baptism for the dead?

That’s the overview.

Tidbits, trees, and details–

11:1-16 Men, women, long hair, “nature”, and other weird stuff

Paul says several confusing things to us, likely due to operating out of a very different cultural mindset. Basically, the ancient view of physiology underlies part of his statements here. If you’re interest, see this technical article in Journal of Biblical Literature. LINK

Long hair is tied to two other confusing things: head coverings and the question of what women could or should be doing in Church.

Taking the latter question first, 1Co 14:34 (NRSV) says “women should be silent in the churches. For they are not permitted to speak, but should be subordinate, as the law also says.” Two points- This passage seems a bit out of place, and if you remove it, the text flows nicely. Some scholars think it’s a later interpolation, while others think it’s original. Second, if it is original, however we understand this passage in light of  1Co 11, where Paul specifies that women who pray and prophesy in church must do so with covered heads. The clear implication is that women are praying and prophesying in church, and Paul thinks that’s perfectly fine,  which means, at minimum (and if original) the silence of 14:34 is not absolute.

But what about the other aspect, “head,” head coverings/veils/hair? Frankly, the whole thing is puzzling. Says NT Wright

I have to admit that I didn’t understand this passage [in the past], and I’m not sure I’ve understood it yet. But I think we can see the main point Paul wanted to make, even if the reasons why he’s put it like this may still be puzzling.
Paul wasn’t, of course, addressing the social issues we know in our world. Visit a different culture, even today, and you will discover many subtle assumptions, pressures and constraints in society, some of which appear in the way people dress and wear their hair. In Western culture, a man wouldn’t go to a dinner party wearing a bathing suit, nor would a woman attend a beach picnic wearing a wedding dress. Most Western churches have stopped putting pressure on women to wear hats in church (Western-style hats, in any case, were not what Paul was writing about here), but nobody thinks it odd that we are still strict about men not wearing hats in church.
In Paul’s day (as, in many ways, in ours), gender was marked by hair and clothing styles. We can tell from statues, vase paintings and other artwork of the period how this worked out in practice. There was social pressure to maintain appropriate distinctions. But did not Paul himself teach that there was ‘no male and female, because you are all one in the Messiah’ (Galatians 3:28)? Perhaps, indeed, that was one of the ‘traditions’ that he had taught the Corinthian church, who needed to know that Jew and Greek, slave and free, male and female were all equally welcome, equally valued, in the renewed people of God. Perhaps that had actually created the situation he is addressing here; perhaps some of the Corinthian women had been taking him literally, so that when they prayed or prophesied aloud in church meetings (which Paul assumes they will do regularly; this tells us something about how to understand 14:34–35) they had decided to remove their normal headcovering, perhaps also unbraiding their hair, to show that in the Messiah they were free from the normal social conventions by which men and women were distinguished.

That’s a lot of ‘perhaps’es. We can only guess at the dynamics of the situation—which is of course what historians always do. It’s just that here we are feeling our way in the dark more than usual. But, perhaps to the Corinthians’ surprise, Paul doesn’t congratulate the women on this new expression of freedom. He insists on maintaining gender differentiation during worship.

Another dimension to the problem may well be that in the Corinth of his day the only women who appeared in public without some kind of headcovering were prostitutes. This isn’t suggested directly here, but it may have been in the back of his mind. If the watching world discovered that the Christians were having meetings where women ‘let their hair down’ in this fashion, it could have the same effect on their reputation as it would in the modern West if someone looked into a church and found the women all wearing bikinis.
The trouble is, of course, that Paul doesn’t say exactly this, and we run the risk of ‘explaining’ him in terms that might (perhaps) make sense to us while ignoring what he himself says. It’s tempting to do that, precisely because in today’s Western world we don’t like the implications of the differentiation he maintains in verse 3: the Messiah is the ‘head’ of every man, a husband is the ‘head’ of every woman, and the ‘head’ of the Messiah is God. This seems to place man in a position of exactly that assumed superiority against which women have rebelled, often using Galatians 3:28 as their battle-cry.

But what does Paul mean by ‘head’? He uses it here sometimes in a metaphorical sense, as in verse 3, and sometimes literally, as when he’s talking about what to do with actual human heads (verses 4–7 and 10). But the word he uses can mean various different things; and a good case can be made out for saying that in verse 3 he is referring not to ‘headship’ in the sense of sovereignty, but to ‘headship’ in the sense of ‘source’, like the ‘source’ or ‘head’ of a river. In fact, in some of the key passages where he explains what he’s saying (verses 8, 9 and 12a) he is referring explicitly to the creation story in Genesis 2, where woman was made from the side of man.

The underlying point then seems to be that in worship it is important for both men and women to be their truly created selves, to honour God by being what they are and not blurring the lines by pretending to be something else. One of the unspoken clues to this passage may be Paul’s assumption that in worship the creation is being restored, or perhaps that in worship we are anticipating its eventual restoration (15:27–28). God made humans male and female, and gave them ‘authority’ over the world, as Ben Sirach 17:3 puts it, summarizing Genesis 1:26–28 and echoing Psalm 8:4–8 (Ben Sirach was p 142 written around 200 BC). And if humans are to reclaim this authority over the world, this will come about as they worship the true God, as they pray and prophesy in his name, and are renewed in his image, in being what they were made to be, in celebrating the genders God has given them.
If this is Paul’s meaning, the critical move he makes is to argue that a man dishonours his head by covering it in worship and that a woman dishonours hers by not covering it. He argues this mainly from the basis that creation itself tends to give men shorter hair and women longer (verses 5–6, 13–15); the fact that some cultures, and some people, offer apparent exceptions would probably not have worried him. His main point is that in worship men should follow the dress and hair codes which proclaim them to be male, and women the codes which proclaim them to be female.

Why then does he say that a woman ‘must have authority on her head because of the angels’ (verse 10)? This is one of the most puzzling verses in a puzzling passage, but there is help of sorts in the Dead Sea Scrolls. There it is assumed that when God’s people meet for worship, the angels are there too (as many liturgies, and theologians, still affirm).
For the Scrolls, this means that the angels, being holy, must not be offended by any appearance of unholiness among the congregation. Paul shares the assumption that the angels are worshipping along with the humans, but may be making a different point.
When humans are renewed in the Messiah and raised from the dead, they will be set in authority over the angels (6:3). In worship, the church anticipates how things are going to be in that new day. When a woman is praying or prophesying (perhaps in the language of angels, as in 13:1), she needs to be truly what she is, since it is to male and female alike, in their mutual interdependence as God’s image-bearing creatures,  that the world, including the angels, is to be subject. God’s creation needs humans to be fully, gloriously and truly human, which means fully and truly male and female. This, and of course much else besides, is to be glimpsed in worship.
The Corinthians, then, may have drawn the wrong conclusion from the ‘tradition’ that Paul had taught them. Whether or not they could follow his argument any better than we can, it seems clear that his main aim was that the marks of difference between the sexes should not be set aside in worship. At least perhaps.
We face different issues, but making sure that our worship is ordered appropriately, to honour God’s creation and anticipate its fulfilment in the new creation, is still a priority. There is no ‘perhaps’ about that.

Tom Wright, Paul for Everyone: 1 Corinthians

So. There you have it.

1 Co 11:17 onwards

This is the prime example of the occasional nature of Paul’s letters. If the Corinthians hadn’t been screwing it up so badly, we’d not have any passages about the Sacrament outside the Gospels.

Now, the Lord’s Supper was more of a community meal, an actual supper. It probably had a special loaf of bread and cup of wine (and yes, it was wine), but was otherwise a regular group meal.

Paul hints at several purposes

1. Remind/memorialize Christ’s death (11:26), which is covenant-related.
2. But also, to build unity (1Co 10:16-17)

Irony is, the way the Corinthians are doing it totally violates the purpose, leading Paul to say in 11:17 “your meetings do more harm than good.” Note Elder Packer’s statement, “It takes a pretty good meeting to be better than no meeting at all.” This is actually the case here! In fact, things are so bad that Paul suggests in v. 30 that divine punishment, sickness, and death has resulted.

What’s happening here? Remember the diversity at Corinth? The problem is that church is held at someone’s home, generally a large enough home to accommodate people, which probably means some degree of wealth. But most of them are not wealthy or high-born. Perhaps the Corinthians are following the cultural norm, wherein wealthy people invited less well-off people and the upper-class folks ate the nice food in the nice room, and the others… well, not quite as good. Some who have leisure arrive early, chow down, and drink wine excessively, getting drunk. The others who arrive later find the communal meal already eaten. That’s not going to erase class lines and build unity.

Paul’s suggestions?

1) eat and drink at home beforehand (11:22, 34)
2) Examine yourself, that you do not partake unworthily (11:27-28)
3) “discern the Lord’s body” (11:29), which probably refers both to the church community as a whole, a la chapter 12, as well as Christ’s body, atonement, crucifixion, resurrection.

In contrast to the previous issues around sexuality and gender,

Paul now has to tell the Corinthians that, if they have been blurring the lines between male and female which should have been clearly marked (11:2–16), in another area they were marking out clearly a line which should have been obliterated altogether. When they are coming together to celebrate the Lord’s meal, the ‘supper’ or ‘eucharist’, they are reinforcing a social distinction which has nothing to do with God’s intention in creation, and nothing to do, either, with God’s achievement of salvation through the Messiah. This is the division between rich and poor, which ran like an ugly line through ancient society as much as in our own if not more, and which threatened to deface the very celebration at which the church’s unity in the Messiah ought to have been most apparent.

Tom Wright, Paul for Everyone: 1 Corinthians, 144.

Now, to put to bed a not uncommon LDS reading of the New Testament, if you’re getting drunk on the wine of the Lord’s Supper, it’s clearly wine and not grape juice. (This is not the only place this is clear in the New Testament.) Further, in an LDS context, the First Presidency and Apostles continued using wine in their weekly sacrament meeting in the temple until 1906, according to BYU prof. Thomas Alexander’s Mormonism in Transition: A History of the Latter-day Saints from 1890-1930. (Page link to reference in google books. The whole chapter on the Word of Wisdom is great.)

 1 Corinthians 13– “Charity”

Very quickly, this chapter doesn’t use a special word meaning “charity” here, but  the same Greek for “love” agapē (“ah-GOP-eh”) as elsewhere in the New Testament. (There are three greek terms translated as “love” which are sometimes distinct and sometimes overlapping.) Why the KJV chose to translate it as “charity” here, I don’t know. Both the Bishop’s Bible (1595) and Tyndale read “love”, as do most modern translations. Here, it’s quite worth reading in a modern translation, to hear it differently.

Mormons mostly know “charity” from Moroni 7, which has some literary connections to 1Co 13.

One of my personal philosophies in Gospel Doctrine is that I don’t make a comment unless it’s productive and constructive. (Or, in extreme cases, if something really really wrong is said about a central principle, I’ll speak up without spending time carefully formulating my thought. On that line, Paul says “Let all things be done for building up.” (1Co 14:26 NRS) Love that verse. Similarly, 1Co 14:12- “Try to excel in gifts that build up the Church”

That’s a good takeaway.

Resurrection in chapter 15

Why might the Corinthians struggle with the idea of a physical resurrection?

Both Paul and much Greco-Roman thought held that the soul is immortal, and some of the Corinthians, thinking in Greco-Roman categories, denied the resurrection of the body. But they seem to have accepted Jesus’ resurrection (v. 4) as being similar to the so-called resurrections of many Greek heroes.- NIV Zondervan Study Bible (2015), 2354.

And so,

Paul follows the standard argument technique of beginning with an agreed-on premise; the Corinthians must agree with the very gospel by which they were converted…. Following a typical rhetorical form, Paul’s argument forces the Corinthians to accept the resurrection of all believers, because they already agree with him (and objectively could not help but do so—15:1–11) that Jesus had been raised. Jewish teachers also often used the particular to prove the general principle that it presupposed.- The IVP Bible Background Commentary: New Testament 

Lastly, as always, you can support this site and my research by making Amazon purchases through this link, or the Support My Research links at the bottom of the About page. You can get updates by email whenever a post goes up (subscription box on the right). If you friend me on Facebook, please drop me a note telling me you’re a reader.

This week, we’re all in one place, 1 Corinthians, which is a smorgasbord of interesting topics, conflict, and controversy. There is a lot to say, and as long as this is, I’ve left out plenty.

First, I’ve uploaded a copy of the rough text (link now fixed) from my presentation at the BYU Conference on the New Testament a few weeks ago, “Christian Accommodation at Corinth.” It’s adapted from one of the groundwork chapters in my Genesis book.

Second, some background from Jim Faulconer’s New Testament Made Harder– Continue reading

We’re moving into very very dense historical, textual, and doctrinal territory today. Today I lean pretty heavily on Wright and the Anchor Bible Dictionary. Continue reading

Since I am posting this and the last lesson two nights apart, I’m going to repeat my housekeeping remarks.

First, at the bottom of every post and on the About page, there is a special Amazon link. You can support my work by buying things on Amazon through that link; whatever you would normally buy on Amazon, just buy it through that link. All my book links go to Amazon as well, and clicking on one of them and then purchasing other things has the same effect. Thanks for your support.

Second, I’ve stopped accepting Facebook requests from people I don’t know, unlessthey send me a message via Facebook explaining who they are, that they’re a reader, etc.

Third, I posted the midterm and final I gave when I taught the 2nd half of New Testament at BYU in 2006. (Handouts and answers are down in the comments of that post.) Although we’re just getting into the material covered there,  it may be useful for study/question ideas.

Fourth, we are starting to run out of story and narrative, Paul is approaching fast. If you haven’t already gotten one, in Paul’s letters it becomes critical to supplement the KJV with a modern translation of the Bible to grasp what he’s saying. As C.S. Lewis said, ” I cannot be the only reader who has wondered why God, having given [Paul] so many gifts, withheld from him… that of lucidity and orderly exposition.” My Bible recommendations and reasons are here. Please check them out.

On to the text!

10- Cornelius and Gentiles The visions leading to the full conversion of Cornelius mark the beginning of a major shift, which will prove to be both a source of strength and conflict in the early Christian Church. There were far more non-Jews than Jews in the Mediterranean, and many of those non-Jews would become Christians. That rapid growth would create challenges, and as well as the cultural confliect between the Judaic base and Gentilic influx of convert, which Paul must address multiple times in his letters, as those of the different backgrounds clash. Cornelius, as v. 22 explains is both a Roman centurion (a man of rank and importance) in the Italian Regiment (“Italian Band” per the KJV always conjures up visions of accordions and such) as well as a “God-fearer.”

The latter term refers to non-Jews who did not convert completely (circumcision?), but played a role in the life of the synagogue, became quasi-monotheistic, and kept  some Jewish laws. The God-fearers were apparently numerous in the ancient mediterranean, though just how much has been the subject of debate. They show up several times in Acts, e.g. 13:16, where Paul addresses synagogue attendees in Antioch. He addresses them this way- “You Israelites, and others who fear God, listen. (NRSV). In 1987, a long inscription from a synagogue was published, which listed some of the God-fearers of that synagogue. See this post elsewhere.

10:10 Peter falls into a “trance” – The Greek word has broad meaning, variety, but in here refers to “a state of being in which consciousness is wholly or partially suspended, freq. associated with divine action, trance, ecstasy.”- BDAG The Greek word, in fact, is  ekstasis, and English “ecstasy” is a cognate. Elsewhere, ekstasis means something closer to our modern ecstasy, “a state of consternation or profound emotional experience to the point of being beside oneself” as in Mark 5:42.

10:15– What is divinely commanded is sometimes counter-intuitive. Peter’s response is one of instinctive rejection. From the time he was a small child, he has been taught the divine commands of the Torah, which designate some animals as “profane” or “unclean.” (The latter word is not terribly helpful, as a dirty animal could be “clean” or legal to eat, and a clean animal could be illegal to eat.) Peter has to be shown this three times, and even then he is “greatly puzzled about what to make of the vision” (v17). At this point, Cornelius the Gentile appears, and this coordinated revelation helps make clear to Peter what is to be done, at least initially. However, it does not clearly resolve questions about how non-Jews are to be integrated into this salvation that was taught by a Jew, made possible by a Jew, and prophesied by Jewish tradition and scripture. Shouldn’t they still have to become, well, Jewish, with everything that entails? This and related questions will prove a trial to the early Christians, and we’ll see it addressed repeatedly.

Later on in v. 45, Peter is preaching to Cornelius and the group of Gentiles he has assembled at his house.

While Peter was still speaking, the Holy Spirit fell upon all who heard the word. The circumcised believers who had come with Peter were astounded that the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out even on the Gentiles, for they heard them speaking in tongues and extolling God. Then Peter said, “Can anyone withhold the water for baptizing these people who have received the Holy Spirit just as we have?”So he ordered them to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ. Then they invited him to stay for several days.- (Act 10:44-48 NRSV)

Now, I want to suggest something without being dogmatic about it. We tend to take “the gift of the holy ghost” as a technical term for something that only happens after baptism, and by the laying-on of hands. Whatever is going on here, the Apostles are clearly surprised, but view it as a divine sign. Are they in fact receiving the “gift of the holy ghost” as we understand it? I would suggest that it’s possible. Note the view of Joseph Fielding Smith.

“the Lord gave the commandment to Joseph Smith that those who are baptized for the remission of sins shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost by the laying on of hands, and this is the practice in the Church. This does not prove, however, that the gift of the Holy Ghost may not be received without the laying on of the hands, although we assume that this was the general custom of the Church in ancient days….We discover in the reading of the scriptures that the Lord conferred authority on some of his chosen servants and gave them exceptional powers without the laying on of hands, but merely by his spoken edict. In this manner Elijah obtained the keys of power in the priesthood to raise the dead, heal the sick, close the heavens that it did not rain only by his word, and for more than three years there was no rain, and moreover he had the power to call down fire from heaven to destroy the enemies of the Church….We may correctly believe that the Lord may bestow the gift of the Holy Ghost by other means than by the laying on of hands if occasion requires it. While it is the practice to lay on hands, there are many incidents recorded in the scriptures where divine authority has been bestowed by the divine edict to the prophets.” – Answers to Gospel Questions, 4:93

In Chapter 11, Peter’s actions are immediately controversial to “the circumcised believers” (Act 11:2 NRSV), since he seems to be abandoning the Jewish nature of salvation. Peter explains, convincingly, that although surprising, this seems to be God’s plan and intent. The reaction in v. 18 is

“When they heard this, they were silenced. And they praised God, saying, “Then God has given even to the Gentiles the repentance that leads to life.” (Act 11:18 NRS)

Clearly, that God would extend salvation outside Judaism was a surprise. God acts in surprising, sometimes counter-cultural, and unpredictable ways. There is tension between holding fast to what has been revealed through God’s prophets, while also anticipating new revelation pointing in new directions.

Now, something similar happens in Antioch, and Barnabas brings Saul/Paul there to preach. The stay for a year, to great success. Notably, it is in Antioch that “the disciples were first called Christians.” (Act 11:26 NRSV) Well, what else would they have been called? As it turns out, the following of Jesus was called “the Way” sometimes “the Way of God” or “the Way of the Lord.” This is obscured in the KJV, but appears in several passages. Back in Acts 9:2, for example, Paul had asked “for letters to the synagogues at Damascus, so that if he found any who belonged to the Way, men or women, he might bring them bound to Jerusalem.” (NRSV)

Then some itinerant Jewish exorcists tried to use the name of the Lord Jesus over those who had evil spirits, saying, “I adjure you by the Jesus whom Paul proclaims.” (Act 19:13 NRS)

Jesus’s name has been found in the so-called “Greek magical papyri,” being invoked among many other names as a name of power used to drive out or conjure spirits. Indeed, there is evidence to suggest that some had seen Jesus as a “magician” and a powerful one at that. I put the word in quotes, because there is no good definition of “magic” vs. “religion” really, except that “magic” is someone else’s illegitimate religion. (Not really a good definition.) The suggestion that some of Jesus’ contemporaries viewed him as a “magician” was put forth by a controversial scholar (Morton Smith), and has been widely criticized. John Welch of BYU has reexamined it, however, in an interesting paper which  can be downloaded here. I’ll post, if I can get permission. It was presented at SBL, later published here, and spoken of positively by the editor, James Charlesworth.

11:27-28 and 13:1 Note that there are explicitly prophets after Jesus; contrary to some Christian views, Jesus did not mark the end of revelation or prophesy (which is usually an interpretation of Hebrews 1:2). LDS on the other hand, tend to misunderstand prophesy and “prophet” as if it were a priesthood office, instead of a gift of the Spirit.

Lastly, as always, you can support this site and my research by making Amazon purchases through this link, or the Support My Research links at the bottom of the About page. You can get updates by email whenever a post goes up (subscription box on the right). If you friend me on Facebook, please drop me a note telling me you’re a reader.

We’re about half way through the year, and I felt it appropriate to repost some housekeeping things I hope you read.

First, I posted the midterm and final I gave when I taught the 2nd half of New Testament at BYU in 2006. (Handouts and answers are down in the comments of that post.) Although we’re just getting into the material covered there,  it may be useful for study/question ideas. Continue reading

Today’s readings cover the events of Gethsemane, Jesus being brought before Pilate and a Jewish council, and other such well known events of the last days of Jesus.

We’ll pick up in  Matthew 26:50- And Jesus said unto him, Friend, wherefore art thou come? Then came they, and laid hands on Jesus, and took him. (KJV)

Does Jesus mean it when he refers to Judas as “friend”? Is he making a point by using a term of address that contrasts with “brother,” the usual form of address between the disciples? Or is he perhaps being ironic? Could he be offering Judas an opportunity to repent?

Is Jesus really asking Judas why he has come?What is the point of Jesus’ question? Some translations take this as a statement, “Do what you have come for” rather than a question. Which way of reading what Jesus says makes more sense to you?  Why? – Faulconer, New Testament Made Harder

Pilate offers to release someone, including Barabbas. Little is known about him beyond what the NT tells us. However,

An interesting [manuscript] variant occurs in Matt 27:16–17, where he is called “Jesus Barabbas.” While extant manuscript evidence is weak, Origen implies that most manuscripts in his day (ca. A.D. 240) included the full name. Many scholars today accept the full name in Matthew as original and suggest that it was probably omitted by later scribes because of the repugnance of having Jesus Christ’s name being shared by Barabbas. It is not improbable for Barabbas to have the very common name Jesus. Matthew’s text reads more dramatically with two holders of the same name: “Which Jesus do you want; the son of Abba, or the self-styled Messiah.” There is some evidence that the full name “Jesus Barabbas” also originally appeared in Mark’s gospel.- “Barabbas (Person),” ABD

Breaking up Barabbas into its parts, this was Jesus Bar Abba, Jesus, son of the father. Pilate released Jesus son-of-the-father, and arrested Jesus the actual Son of the Father.

St. Peter’s of Gallicantu “crowing rooster”, the traditional location.

I heard a lecture this week from BYU Classics prof. Mike Pope, who presented some of his solid research on the background of rooster crowing. Surprisingly to us, there was a lot to be said, and his paper is under review in an academic journal. A very incomplete summary would include the ideas that roosters were taken as paragons of masculinity, as aggressive, fearless, and pugilistic. Soldiers might have a depiction of a rooster on their shield, for example. Cock-fighting was huge, culturally speaking. These gave rise to several axioms and aphorisms, e.g. about crowing before you win, as an unfit fighting cock might do.

“and a cock in a fight, when defeated in the struggle against an opponent, would not crow. Indeed his pride is broken, and he slinks away because of shame.” Ael. NA 4.29

How does this apply to our lesson today?
Note Peter’s bold and vehement declarations.

• Mark 14:31/Mat 26:35- Peter “said vehemently, ‘Even though I must die with you, I will not deny you.'” (NRSV)
• Luke 22:33- Peter “said to him, “Lord, I am ready to go with you to prison and to death!”(NRSV)
• John 13:37- “Peter said to him, “Lord, why can I not follow you now? I will lay down my life for you.” (Jn. 13:37 NRS)

Each of this is followed by Jesus prophesying that Peter will deny him three times before the rooster crows.

What happens?

When the fight comes, Peter defaults on his macho boasts, dissociates himself from Jesus three times, and crows no more, he slinks away in anonymous shame. “And he went out and wept bitterly.” (This is only half the story, but it must await publication.)

I’ve always found President Hinckley’s application of this moving.

What pathos there is in those words! Peter, affirming his loyalty, his determination, his resolution, said that he would never deny. But the fear of men came upon him and the weakness of his flesh overtook him, and under the pressure of accusation, his resolution crumbled. Then, recognizing his wrong and weakness, “he went out, and wept.”

As I have read this account my heart goes out to Peter. So many of us are so much like him. We pledge our loyalty; we affirm our determination to be of good courage; we declare, sometimes even publicly, that come what may we will do the right thing, that we will stand for the right cause, that we will be true to ourselves and to others.

Then the pressures begin to build. Sometimes these are social pressures. Sometimes they are personal appetites. Sometimes they are false ambitions. There is a weakening of the will. There is a softening of discipline. There is capitulation. And then there is remorse, self-accusation, and bitter tears of regret.- General Conference, 1979.

Looking NE from St. Peter’s to the old city and Mt. of Olives

Regarding Jesus’ trial, we need to be careful about the claims we make and how we read it. We have no contemporary records of the laws or customs governing such things, and people have usually gone to Talmudic records 200+ years later and read those back in to the NT, claiming it was illegal or irregular in several ways. While that is quite possible, it’s also not legitimate in terms of methodology or assumptions. Are todays laws and court procedures (whether civil or religious) identical to those 200 years ago? Certainly not. So, a grain of salt with any of those claims.

Jesus is taken to the temple authorities, whom Mark names as “the high priest, and all the chief priests, the elders, and the scribes” (14: 53) and as “the chief priests and the whole council” (14: 55). What follows is often called “the Jewish trial of Jesus” before “the high priest” and “the whole council,” resulting in Jesus’s condemnation to death. As narrated in Mark and the other gospels, it has led most Christians throughout the centuries to assign primary responsibility for the death of Jesus to the highest-ranking members of the Jewish nation and thus, uncritically, to “the Jews.” The story of Jesus’s interrogation and condemnation by the high priest and his council has often become a text of terror for Jews in subsequent centuries. Thus we need to pause for some historical comments. Though our purpose is to exposit Mark’s story of Holy Week and not to reconstruct the history behind it, here it is important to do so and to emphasize:

• Most likely, Mark (and other early Christians) did not know exactly what happened. The reason is that, according to Mark (and the other gospels), no follower of Jesus was present with him subsequent to his arrest (they had all fled). Though it is possible to imagine that somebody within the high priest’s circle later disclosed what happened, we cannot be at all certain of this. Thus the trial scene may represent a post-Easter Christian construction and not history remembered. We need to remember that this is the way Mark tells the story around the year 70. [Ben adds, other scholars date Mark earlier, but it is still at least a few decades after the events described.]
• It is unclear whether we should think of Mark as presenting a formal “trial” or an informal but deadly “hearing.” “Trial” implies a legal procedure that follows the accepted rules of the time; “hearing” implies a para-legal or even extra-legal procedure. Moreover, the “council” referred to by Mark may not have been the Sanhedrin of later centuries, but a “privy council” consisting of the high priest and his circle of advisers.
• The temple authorities did not represent the Jews. Rather than representing the Jewish people, they were, as local collaborators with imperial authority, the oppressors of the vast majority of the Jewish people. They did not represent the Jewish people any more than the collaborationist governments of Europe during World War II or during the time of the Soviet Union represented their people.

Borg and Crossan- The Last Week

Lastly, as always, you can support this site and my research by making Amazon purchases through this link, or the Support My Research links at the bottom of the About page. You can get updates by email whenever a post goes up (subscription box on the right). If you friend me on Facebook, please drop me a note telling me you’re a reader.

Between a family reunion on the east coast, and a busy work week, I offer a few tidbits on today’s readings.

First, though, a note on my work. I’m at BYU for the summer working on their New Testament Commentary series, at the summer seminar. Many people don’t know about either the series or the seminar. This project has been in the works for years and is just now coming to light. This is a formal, scholarly, confessional series of New Testament commentary. S. Kent Brown’s volume on Luke is the first to appear in print, though others have seen early release in “beta” form. The printed versions of those volumes are likely to differ, even significantly, from the early Kindle releases.

Many LDS are not in the habit of using commentaries, and we can hypothesize several reasons for this: lack of obvious models, uncertainty about what is good to use, discomfort with non-LDS views, or even theological arrogance (e.g. “We have the restored Gospel and prophets; what can non-LDS scholars possibly have to teach us?”) We can categorize commentaries several ways.

Depth: Study Bible; Single Volume commentary; Multi-volume commentary.

A study Bible is the Bible text, but augmented heavily with footnotes and essays. A single-volume commentary rarely includes the bible text, just commentary. Multi-volume commentaries can extend to, e.g. Marvin Pope’s 800 page Anchor Bible Commentary on the Song of Solomon.

Intended Audience: Lay people;  pastors/teachers;  Academic. These are essentially degrees of technicality and focus.

Approach or bias: General or Confessional (e.g. Jewish, Evangelical, Mormon, etc.). This means, to what extent does a commentary reflect a particular theological viewpoint? Or none at all, in the case of general/academic volumes?

BYU’s New Testament Commentary Series is multi-volume, quasi-academic, and represents LDS perspectiveS.

I say quasi-academic because it includes Greek text and analysis, with terms like aorist and genitive. These things are explained in a not-yet-available volume to be written, addressing things like Greek language, LDS assumptions, the role of the JST, etc.

I bold and capitalize the S to emphasize that these are perspectives, not representing some monolithic or official doctrinal view of many of the topics treated.

So this commentary is much more like, say, the Word Biblical Commentary series than the Anchor Bible Commentary series.

There will be a conference on July 31 about the commentary series, focused on 1 Corinthians, with speakers such as Kevin Barney and Julie Smith.

For more information, see the commentary home page.

Today’s tidbits.

 1) Matthew 26:30/Mark 14:26 both record that before going to the Mt. of Olives, they “sang a hymn.” This was probably part of the hallel or “praise” Psalms  (think hallelu-yah, a plural form). Psalms 113-118 were often sung at Passover.

2) On the Mt. of Olives is a garden called Gethsemane is Gath-shemen “the oil press.” (Shemen rhymes with Brehmen) Because of all the pilgrims who came to Jerusalem for passover, it is unlikely that Jesus and the disciples were completely alone there. More importantly, some Mormons have gone overboard in the past, playing up the events of Gethsemane and playing down Jesus’ death on the cross. (Protestant critics love to highlight those statements to argue Mormons aren’t Christians.) Both, however, are important and necessary, and such statements go out in official print with the missionaries and from President Hinckley.