When Were the Pastoral Epistles Written?

Those of you familiar with the standard introductions to the New Testament will be aware that it is common fare for modern scholarship to treat the Pastoral Epistles (1-2 Timothy, Titus) as a distinct grouping of letters within the Pauline corpus that is regarded as pseudonymous: i.e., falsely ascribed to Paul.

From this perspective, these three letters--which are clearly written around the same time to address similar issues--are commonly attributed to an unknown "disciple of Paul" who wrote them up in his name, sometime in the 80s-90s of the first century. Indeed, some scholars would even go so far as to date them to the late 2nd century A.D.

Although there are a number of reasons given in support of this claim of pseudonymity, one of the most common is that Paul's opponents in the Pastoral Epistles are supposedly different from his opponents in his "authentic" letters. Specifically, supporters of pseudonymity often identify the opponents in the Pastorals as early Christian gnostics. Because gnosticism is often held not to have developed in the early Church until the late first or early second century A.D., this fact is held out as proof that Paul could not have written the Pastorals.

But is this correct? Are Paul's opponents in the Pastorals really the gnostics? True, Paul does give a fleeting warning at the end of 1 Timothy to avoid "what is falsely called knowledge" (Gk gnosis) (1 Tim 6:20), but this hardly constitutes an uneqivocal reference to early Gnosticisism. Indeed, even a supporter of pseudonymity such as Raymond Brown admits that, even when one accepts the gnostic hypothesis, "the exact nature of what is being criticized in the Pastorals is hard to discern" (Intro. to the New Testament 665)?

But is it really? Are the opponents of Paul really that difficult to identify? To the contrary, I would submit that he explicitly names them, and that they are the same opponents Paul refers to in the Epistle to the Galatians. Compare the following texts:


For before certain men came from James, [Peter] ate with the Gentiles, but when they came he drew back and separated himself, fearing the circumcision party. (Galatians 2:12)

For a bishop, as God's steward... must hold firm to the sure word as taught, so that he may be able to give instruction in sound doctrine and also to confute those who contradict it. For there are many insubordinate men, empty talkers and deceivers, especially the circumcision party; they must be silenced... (Titus 1:9-10)


Notice here that Paul's injunction to the bishop to teach sound doctrine is not some kind of abstract 'church rule', but is specifically ordered toward refuting and silencing the circumcision party. Indeed, in the Pastoral epistles, the various references to dissidents identify them as those who claim to be "teachers of the Law" but are not (1 Tim 1:7), and those who foster "quarrels over the Law" (Titus 3:9).

Does this sound like the kind of controversies with Gnosticism that the Church was wrestling with in the second century A.D.? Not to me. To me it sounds like the Pastoral epistles reflect the final stage of Paul's life, say, in the mid-60s, after his imprisonment in Rome, when the Circumcision faction that had plagued his early missionary efforts in Galatia continued to spread and cause division within the Churches he had planted.

When the references to the circumcision party and controversy over the Jewish law are given due weight, it seems to me that the situation addressed by the Pastoral epistles gives good reason for thinking them early first-century and authentic.

Catholics Appalled at Anti-Mormon Slur

We put this video up on youtube last night. It now has over 8,400 hits and is rated, as of this writing, the #1 "Favorited" video of the day. Special credit must go to Matt Connors, a very talented JP Catholic sophmore, who filmed the intro, recorded the audio and edited it all together in less than a day. Please help us spread it around. For more on this issue see this important article.

UPDATE: As of 10pm, the video has over 13,000 hits and has received a number of honors. In its category, Nonprofit and Activism, it is the #1 Most viewed video and the #1 Rated video. It also tops categories for other countries: e.g., #2 Most viewed in Mexico, Japan and South Korea, #3 Most viewed in Israel!

St. Paul Center Website 2.0 and Letter & Spirit, vol. 4

A couple of new things available from the St. Paul Center for Biblical Theology.

First, the SPC has radically revamped its website. All I can say is, wow, what a transformation!

I especially like the running blog from Scott Hahn and Mike Aquilina. Go check it here.

Of course of the most impressive things the St. Paul Center is responsible for is its academic journal, Letter and Spirit. The latest edition, Temple and Contemplation: God’s Presence in the Cosmos, Church, and Human Heart is now available.

I just ordered a copy--I couldn't wait any longer!--and I'll be talking more about it after I've received it. In particular, I'm excited about the article written by SITR co-blogger, Brant Pitre: "Jesus, the New Temple, and the New Priesthood". His article focuses on the same themes I'm treating in my dissertation, which is entitled, "The Historical Jesus and Cultic Restoration Eschatology: The New Temple, the New Priesthood and the New Cult in the Synoptic Gospels."

Here's the full Table of Contents. I can honestly say that I'm excited about reading this cover to cover:

ARTICLES
Towards a Theology of the Tabernacle and its Furniture--Gary A. Anderson

Jesus, the New Temple, and the New Priesthood--Brant Pitre

The Rejected Stone and the Living Stones: Psalm 118:22–23 and New Testament Christology and Ecclesiology--Michael Giesler

Temple, Sign, and Sacrament: Towards a New Perspective on the Gospel of John--Scott W. Hahn

Temple, Holiness, and the Liturgy of Life in Corinthians--Raymond Corriveau, C.S.s.R.

The Indwelling of Divine Love: The Revelation of God’s Abiding Presence in the Human Heart--Thomas Dubay, S. M.

NOTES
Living Stones in the House of God: The Temple and the Renewal of Church Architecture--Denis R. McNamara

“The Mystery of His Will”: Contemplating the Divine Plan in Ephesians--William A. Bales

“You Are Gods, Sons of the Most High”: Deification and Divine Filiation in St. Cyril of Alexandria and the Early Fathers--Daniel A. Keating

Scripture, Doctrine, and Proclamation: The Catechism of the Catholic Church and the Renewal of Homiletics--John C. Cavadini

TRADITION & TRADITIONS
The Sign of the Temple: A Meditation--Jean Cardinal Daniélou

Church, Kingdom, and the Eschatological Temple--Yves M.-J. Cardinal Congar

REVIEWS
Christopher J. H. Wright, The Mission of God: Unlocking the Bible’s Grand Narrative

Aidan Nichols, Lovely Like Jerusalem

Robert L. Wilken, Isaiah: Interpreted by Early Christian and Medieval Commentators

John T. Pennington, Heaven and Earth in the Gospel of Matthew

The Great Commentary of Cornelius a Lapide, 4 vols.

Matthew A. Levering, Participatory Exegesis

G. K. Beale and D. A. Carson, eds., Commentary on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament

Jesus Lost The Only Election He Was Ever In

"Pilate said to them, “Whom do you want me to release for you, Barabbas or Jesus who is called Christ?” 18 For he knew that it was out of envy that they had delivered him up. 19 Besides, while he was sitting on the judgment seat, his wife sent word to him, “Have nothing to do with that righteous man, for I have suffered much over him today in a dream.” 20 Now the chief priests and the elders persuaded the people to ask for Barabbas and destroy Jesus. 21 The governor again said to them, “Which of the two do you want me to release for you?” And they said, “Barabbas.” 22 Pilate said to them, “Then what shall I do with Jesus who is called Christ?” They all said, “Let him be crucified.” 23 And he said, “Why, what evil has he done?” But they shouted all the more, “Let him be crucified” (Matt 27:17-23).

(For more, go here.)

My Take on the Election

Thanks to JP Catholic students Molly O'Hare and Joe Connolly I was able to do something with the ultrasound video we have of Michael Jr. We just threw this together... I wish we had some more time to really perfect it, but it makes the point.

Seriously, how can some other issue really trump this?

Of course none can. So, yes, there are other issues--there are many areas in which I disagree with John McCain. But just remember that every 25 seconds another child--just like my little boy--is slaughtered in the womb. No other issue comes close to take the lives of 1.3 million people a year. That actual statistic is outrageous--it's obscene--how can we brush that off? As far as I'm concerned, it is absolutely ridiculous to imagine that any other issue represents a greater evil.

And by the way, not that it is acceptable to kill anyone before that point, but it should be pointed out that already at 9 weeks after conception (first trimester!) a pre-born baby is able to bend its fingers around an object in its hand and feel pain. I mean, we treat animals--skunks!--more
"humanely" than these little children!

How can we do this? How can we look at a little boy in the ultrasound and turn a blind eye? Put simply: how can we vote for someone who supports legalizing killing him on the grounds that "other issues" are more important? And don't tell me we can't legislate morality--we put murderers and thieves on trial every single day.

This is the most important issue in this election. In fact, to make this clear numerous Catholic Bishops have now come forward and stated explicitly--in terms stronger than ever before--that in this election, no issue is more important than defending the unborn. Here are links to their statements:

Cardinal Francis George OMI of Chicago (USCCB president; 15 Oct)
Cardinal Edward Egan of New York (23 Oct)
Cardinal Justin Rigali of Philadelphia (USCCB Pro-Life Chair; 23 Oct, 12 Sept)
Archbishop Daniel Buechlein OSB of Indianapolis (3 Oct)
Archbishop Eusebius Beltran of Oklahoma City (5 Oct)
Archbishop Michael Sheehan of Santa Fe (8 Oct)
Archbishop Charles Chaput OFM Cap. of Denver (18 Oct)
Archbishop Alfred Hughes of New Orleans (11 Oct)
Archbishop Timothy Dolan of Milwaukee (28 Sep)
Archbishop Joseph Naumann of Kansas City in Kansas (8 Sept)
Archbishop Jose Gomez of San Antonio (10 Oct)
Archbishop John Nienstedt of Saint Paul and Minneapolis (19 Oct)
Bishop Patrick Zurek of Amarillo (24 Sept)
Bishop Robert Vasa of Baker (16 Oct)
Bishop Robert Baker of Birmingham (20 Oct)
Bishop William Lori of Bridgeport (USCCB Doctrine Chair; 28 Sept)
Bishop Joseph Galante of Camden (6 Oct)
Bishop Peter Jugis of Charlotte (26 Oct)
Bishop Michael Sheridan of Colorado Springs (17 Oct)
Bishop Kevin Farrell of Dallas (8 Oct)
Bishop Samuel Aquila of Fargo (23 Oct; 8 Oct)
Bishop Kevin Vann of Fort Worth (8 Oct)
Bishop David Ricken of Green Bay (17 Oct)
Bishop Larry Silva of Honolulu (20 Oct)
Bishop Jerome Listecki of La Crosse
Bishop William Higi of Lafayette in Indiana (28 Sept)
Bishop Glen John Provost of Lake Charles (7 Oct)
Bishop Earl Boyea of Lansing (22 Oct)
Bishop Robert Morlino of Madison (16 Oct)
Bishop Alexander Sample of Marquette (17 Oct)
Bishop Arthur Serratelli of Paterson (15 Oct)
Bishop Thomas Olmsted of Phoenix (18 Sept)
Bishop David Zubik of Pittsburgh (28 Oct)
Bishop Thomas Tobin of Providence (29 Oct)
Bishop Michael Burbidge of Raleigh (26 Oct)
Bishop Thomas Doran of Rockford (24 Oct)
Bishop Paul Coakley of Salina (17 Oct)
Bishop Joseph Martino of Scranton (30 Sept; 19 Oct)
Bishop Walker Nickless of Sioux City (4 Sept; 23 Oct)
Bishop Timothy McDonnell of Springfield in Massachusetts (3 Oct)
Bishop Leonard Blair of Toledo (3 Oct)
Bishop J. Vann Johnston of Springfield-Cape Girardeau (3 Oct; 26 Sept)
Bishop Robert Hermann, archdiocesan administrator of St Louis (17 Oct; 24 Oct)
Bishop Robert Finn of Kansas City-St Joseph (17 Oct; 8 Sept)
Bishop Paul Swain of Sioux Falls (2 Oct)
Bishop Gerald Barbarito of Palm Beach (24 Oct)
Bishop Michael Jackels of Wichita (24 Oct)
Bishop Bernard Harrington of Winona (2 Oct)
Bishop Robert McManus of Worcester (24 Oct)
Bishops of Florida (7 diocesans, 2 auxiliaries; 15 Sep)
Bishops of Kansas (4 diocesans; 2006 statement reissued 15 Aug 2008)
Bishops of New York State (8 diocesans, 11 auxiliaries; 1 Oct)
Bishops of Pennsylvania (7 diocesans, 6 auxiliaries; 10 Oct)
Bishops of Virginia (2 diocesans; 1 Oct)

(Source: Whispers in the Loggia.)

***UPDATE: Bishop Finn Weighs In***

Hear Bishop Finn's interview here. Here's an excerpt:

Chris Stigall: There are Catholics listening right now who are thinking strongly or are convinced that they will vote for Barack Obama. What would you say to them?

Bishop Finn: I would say, give consideration to your eternal salvation.

B. F. Streeter on Form Criticism

“If the sources have undergone anything like the amount of amplification, excision, rearrangement and adaptation which the [form-critical] theory postulates, then the critic’s pretence that he can unravel the process is grotesque. As well hope to start with a string of sausages and reconstruct the pig.”

--B. F. Streeter, The Four Gospels: A Study of Origins (London: Macmillan, 1924), 377.

All Sacrifices Will Cease But One

Some of you may know this already, but there is an ancient Rabbinic tradition regarding sacrifice in the the Messianic Age. Although I've read it dozens of times, I'm still stunned every time I see it. 

According to Leviticus Rabbah 9:7 and Pesiqta Rabbati 12, several ancient Rabbis taught the following:

In the Age to Come all sacrifices will cease, but the thank offering will never cease; all songs will cease, but the songs of thanksgiving will never cease." (Cited in Hartmut Gese, Essays in Biblical Theology 133).

In Hebrew, the word for "thank offering" is todah; in Greek, it is eucharistia. The thank offering was a special sacrifice that consisted of both a bloody offering (of a lamb or goat) and an unbloody offering (of bread or wafers) (see Leviticus 7). According to the prophet Jeremiah, the saved will celebrate with thank-offerings at the coming of the Messiah and the ingathering of the exiles (Jeremiah 33).

The obvious question raised by this is: Did Jesus see the Last Supper as the eschatological sacrifice which would replace all the other sacrifices in the Age to Come?

More on this in Michael's forthcoming dissertation and my forthcoming book on the Last Supper.  (Who will finish writing first is another question!)

Benedict's Words at the Synod

Pope Benedict addressed the Bishops gathered for the Synod discussing the role of Scripture in the life of the Church. In particular, he talked about the need to build a bridge between exegesis and theology.

Here's what he said:

_________________________

Dear Brothers in the Episcopate, dear brothers and sisters!

At the start of our Synod, the Liturgy of the Hours offers us a passage from the great Psalm 118 [Psalm 119 in modern numbering] on the Word of God: a eulogy of his Word, expression of Israel's joy at being able to know it, and in it, to know his will and his face.

I would like to meditate with you on some verses of this excerpt from the Psalm.

It starts this way: "In aeternum, Domine, verbum tuum constitutum est in caelo... firmasti terram, et permanet". (Your word, LORD, stands forever; it is firm as the heavens...your truth endures; fixed to stand firm like the earth".)

It speaks of the solidity of the Word. It is solid, it is the true reality on which to base one's life. Let us recall the words of Jesus who continues these words of the Psalm: "Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words never will".

Humanly speaking, the word, our human word, is almost a nothing in reality, a whiff of breath. No sooner said, it vanishes. It seems to be nothing. And yet the human word has an incredible power. They are words that make history, they give shape to our thoughts, thoughts which give rise to words. Words shape history and reality.

But much more so is the Word of God which is the basis of everything - it is the true reality. And to be realists, we must depend on this reality. We should change our idea that material things, those that are solid, that can be touched, are the most solid and sure realities.

At the end of the Sermon on the Mount, the Lord tells us the two possibilities of constructing the house of our own life: on sand or on rock. He who builds only on visible and tangible things, on success, on career, on money, builds on sand. These seem to be the realities.

Only the Word of God is the foundation of all reality - it is as stable as heaven, and more than heaven. It is reality. So we must change our concept of realism.

The realist is he who recognizes in the Word of God - this reality which can appear to be so weak - the foundation of everything. The realist is he who builds his life on this foundation which will stay permanently.

Thus these first verses of the Psalm invite us to discover what is reality and in this way, to find the foundation of our life, how to build our life.

The next verse says: "Omnia serviunt tibi" (All things are your servants). All things come from the Word, they are a product of the Word.

"In the beginning was the Word". In the beginning, heaven spoke. And so, reality is born from the Word, it is 'creatura Verbi', a creature of the Word. Everything is created from the Word, and everything is called on to serve the Word.

This means that all of creation, ultimately, was ideated to create the place of encounter between God and his creatures, a place where the love of the creature responds to divine love, a place where the love story between God and his creatures takes place. "Omnia serviunt tibi".

The story of salvation is not a small event, in a poor planet lost in the immensity of the universe. It is not a minimal thing that is happening by chance in an out-of-the-way planet.

It is the mover of everything, the aim of creation. Everything was created so that this story would take place - the encounter between God and his creature. In this sense, the story of salvation, the covenant with God, preceded creation.

In the Hellenistic period, Judaism developed the idea that the Torah (the Jewish book of laws) had preceded the creation of the material world. This material world was created only to provide the setting for the Torah, to the Word of God which creates a response and becomes a story of love.

Already, the mystery of Christ shines through. It is what we are told in the Letters to the Ephesians and to the Corinthians: Christ is the protòtypos, the firstborn of Creation, the idea for which the universe was conceived. He embraces everything. We enter into the movement of the universe by uniting ourselves to Christ.

We might say that while material creation is the condition for the story of salvation, the story of the covenant is the true reason for the cosmos. We come to the roots of being by arriving at the mystery of Christ, to his living Word which is the purpose of all creation.

"Omnia serviunt tibi". Serving the Lord, we realize the purpose of being, the purpose of our own existence.

Let us jump forward. "Mandata tua exquisivi" (I shall consider your commands with care). We are always in search of the Word of God. It is not just present in us. If we stop at the letter of the Word, we have not necessarily understood the Word of God. There is the danger that we only see the human words and fail to find within the true actor, the Holy Spirit. We do not find the Word in words.

St. Augustine, in this context, reminds us of the scribes and Pharisees consulted by Herod when the Magi arrived. Herod wanted to know where the Savior of the world would be born. They knew it, and gave him the correct answer; Bethlehem. They were great experts, who knew everything. And yet, they did not see reality, they did not recognize the Savior.

St. Augustine says - they showed the way for others, but they themselves did not move. This is a great danger,too, in our reading of Scripture: we stop at the words, human words from the past, a history of the past, and we do not discover the present in the past, the Holy Spirit which speaks to us today in words from the past.

And so we fail to enter into the interior movement of the Word, which hides in human words and opens the divine words. That is why there is always need for 'considering with care'. We should be in search of the Word within words.

Therefore, exegesis, the true reading of Sacred Scripture, is not simply a literary phenomenon, it is not limited to reading the text. It is the movement of my own existence. It is moving towards the Word of God in human words.

Only by conforming to the mystery of God, to the Lord who is the Word, can we enter into the Word, only then can we truly find the Word of God in human words.

Let us pray to the Lord that he may help us to search not only with the intellect, but with all our existence, to find his Word.

In the end: "Omni consummationi vidi finem, latum praeceptum tuum nimis" (I have seen the limits of all perfection, but your command is without bounds). All human things, all the things we could invent or create, are finite.

Even all the human religious experiences are finite, they show an aspect of reality, because our being is finite and always understands only a part, some elements. "Latum praeceptum tuum nimis": Your command is without bounds.

Only God is infinite. And so even his Word is universal and does not not recognize any limits. And so in entering the Word of God, we are truly entering into the divine universe. We leave the limitations of our experiences and enter into that reality which is truly universal.

Entering into communion with the Word of God, we enter into the communion of the Church that lives the Word of God. We are not entering a small group, into the order of a small group , but we go beyond our personal limits. And we go towards largeness. the true largeness of the only truth, the great truth of God. We are really into the universal, into the communion of all our brothers and sisters, of all mankind, because in our heart is hidden that desire for the Word of God which is one.

That is why even evangelization, the announcement of the Gospel, mission - these are not a kind of ecclesial colonialism with which we want to bring others into our group. It is leaving the limits of single cultures towards the universality that links everyone, unites everyone, makes us all brothers.

Let us pray too that the Lord may help us enter truly into the 'largeness' of his Word and thus open ourselves to the universal horizon of mankind, that which unites us despite all our differences.

Let us turn back to a preceding verse: "Tuus sum ego: salvum me fac" (I am yours; save me) (v. 94). it is translated into Italian as 'I am yours'. The Word of God is like a ladder which we can climb, and with Christ, descend as well into the depths of his love. It is a way to get to the Word within words. Because this Word has a face - it is a person, Christ. Before we can say "I am yours", he has already told us "I am yours'.

The Letter to the Hebrews, citing Psalm 39, says: "A body you have prepared for me... And so I said, Here I am, I am coming". The Lord prepared himself a body to come to. With his Incarnation, he said, "I am yours". And in Baptism, he tells me: "I am yours". In the Sacred Eucharist, he says the same thing anew, "I am yours", so that we may respond, "Lord, I am yours".

In the journey towards the Word, entering into the mystery of his Incarnation, of his 'being with us', we wish to appropriate his being to ourselves, we want to expropriate ourselves of our existence, giving ourselves to him who gave himself to us.

"I am yours". Let us pray to the Lord to be able to learn with our whole existence to say these words. Thus we will be in the heart of the Word. And thus we shall be saved.

Origen on Understanding the Gospel of John

As anyone who has studied the New Testament or the Gospel of John knows, modern Biblical scholars love to quote the early Church Father Clement of Alexandria's comment that the Gospel of John is a "spiritual Gospel." It is interesting that you never see the similar comments of the great biblicist, Origen, who had this to say:

"No one can grasp the meaning of the Gospel (of John) unless he has rested on the breast of Jesus, and unless he has received from Him Mary, who becomes his mother also." (Origen, Commentary on John, 1:6)

JP Catholic Students Making Waves

JP Catholic students are all over two big propositions in California--and now the mainstream news media is taking notice of their efforts.

First, Proposition 4, or Sarah's Law, would require parental notification for abortion. Right now, a high school can't give an asprin to a student without notifying parents--but a child can get an abortion and the parents don't have to know a thing about it. This, of course, enables child predators, as our students highlight in this ad. This ad aired in California on television immediately after the Vice Presidential debate last Thursday.

Second, Propoisition 8 would ammend the state constitution to define marriage as between one man and one woman. Yes, we already voted on this a few years ago and such a definition won a majority of the vote (61%). But the California Supreme Court ruled (4-3) that the vote didn't matter and legalized gay marriage despite the vote. The students have been making ads for that as well.

Their ads have become an internet sensation--the LA Times even reported their efforts in a recent story.

Last night the local Fox affiliate ran the story about them below (sorry for the 15 second ad which runs before it!). [See it here.]

For the record, Steve Marshall is right on about the impact these ads can have. While a TV spot reaches far more homes--no doubt about that!--one should remember that TV ads are often simply blocked out. During the commercials you run to the kitchen to get a soda, you fast forward through them if you're watching them on DVR, etc. An internet ad is clicked on by the viewer--the audience is FAR more likely to actually watch the ad. They also reach a different audience than say the people who watch Dancing with the Stars.

And... internet ads can get so big they end up on television. The spot done by the students that ran on broadcast TV after the debate on Thursday started out as an internet ad. Here's another look at it. By the way, the young man playing the pervert is actually a really wonderful guy...


For more about JP Catholic, go to the website.

The Criterion of Coherence in Historical Jesus Research

The last of the "major" criteria of authenticity used in historical Jesus research is the criterion of coherence. As always, I would greatly welcome any feedback here--especially from those who have already worked in this area.

The criterion of coherence, as it is traditionally understood, judges as authentic those elements which fit well with what has been established about Jesus by the other criteria.[1] Yet, such a task will inevitably involve subjective analysis: what exactly constitutes coherence? Morna Hooker writes:

“Subjectivity is still a danger when we turn to the principle of coherence or consistency… We may be able to sort out what seems coherent (or incoherent) to us―but we are living in a completely different world, and what seems incoherent to us may have seemed coherent in first-century Palestine―and vice versa. Moreover, some of Jesus’ sayings―if they are genuine―are paradoxical, and that alone should perhaps warn us against looking for what seems to be consistent.”[2]

In fact, many have pointed out that the criteria are not typically consistent in the use of these criteria.

For example, there appear to be inconsistencies within John Meier’s analysis. Despite his call for objectivity, at points Meier denies the authenticity of various traditions despite recognizing that they meet the standards of his criteria. For example, Meier states that Matthew has to “strain” to explain how Jesus came to be associated with Nazareth. According to Matthew, Joseph went there because Archelaus, the son of Herod, was ruling Judea. Meier thinks this is a poor explanation since by moving to Nazareth Joseph was relocating to the territory of another son of Herod, Herod Antipas, who killed John the Baptist. Yet, as Dennis Ingolfsland points out, what Meier fails to mention is that Herod Antipas had yet to behead John. Moreover, fear of Archelaus was probably justified since Josephus reports that he killed three thousand Jews in Jerusalem after Herod’s death (cf. Ant. 17:218). [3]

Moreover, since the criterion is largely deeependent on the findings of the other criteria it is very likely that it will perpetuate and even magnify the problems created by them. Thus Ben Meyer wrote: “Any errors in the results obtained by the ‘dissimilarity’ principle are liable to be magnified by the principle of ‘coherence.’”[4]

Furthermore, the criterion begs a fundamental question: why must we assume Jesus’ teaching never included elements that were on some level contradictory?[5]


(In an upcoming post, I will discuss how Brant Pitre has redefined this criterion).

NOTES
[1] Perrin’s definition is often-cited. See Perrin, Rediscovering the Teaching of Jesus, 43: “Material from the earliest strata of the tradition may be accepted as authentic if it can be shown to cohere with material established as authentic by means of the criterion of dissimilarity.” In particular, the criterion was developed by those doing parable research. See Dodd, The Parables of the Kingdom, 1; Jeremias, The Parables of Jesus, 11; Perrin, Rediscovering the Teaching of Jesus, 20-22.
[2] See Hooker, “On Using the Wrong Tool,” 577.
[3] Dennis Ingolfsland [“The Historical Jesus According to John Meier and N. T. Wright,” in Bibliotheca sacra 155 (20) 460-73] points out a couple of examples in the work of John P. Meier. [4] Meyer, Critical Realism, 137. See also Hooker, “On Using the Wrong Tool,” 577: “If the core material upon which we build our reconstruction of the teaching of Jesus is inaccurate, then the addition of material which seems to be consistent with that core is likely to reflect those same inaccuracies.” Similarly, see Stein, “The ‘Criteria’ for Authenticity,” 251.
[5] This point is emphasized by Jack T. Sanders, “The Criterion of Coherence and the Randomness of Charisma: Poring Through Some Aporias in the Jesus Tradition,” 1-25, who concludes that Jesus must have in some way have taught things that were at some level contradictory: “Understanding that Jesus was a charismatic leader of [a New Religious Movement] and seeing that, as such, he apparently employed randomness to increase his charisma, we must now give up the academic criterion of coherence… and recognize that Jesus said contradictory things” (24).

Defense of Marriage Ad

Our students at JP Catholic (John Paul the Great Catholic University) have worked on a new ad which supports Prop. 8 in California, which would ammend the state constitution and rein in the activist judicial branch here.

I love it that Catholic students are learning how to use the media like this. Just wait a few more years--I'm sure they will have really perfected their skills by then.

If you're looking for a college that is more than just a school but a place where you become part of a mission, check out www.jpcatholic.com.

One Bad Pig - Bowl of Wrath

READ THIS BEFORE YOU PUSH PLAY!!!

I can't believe this is on-line! This song is hilarious. It draws from the imagery of "bowls" of judgment being poured out in Revelation 16.

It is performed by a Christian Punk Band that made huge waves in the 90's. And I mean, they were big--Johnny Cash loved them and even became closely associated with them. He even performed with them! What started out as a lark between some youth ministers became a phenomenon--a hilarious Christian punk band. I don't get the skateboard stuff in the video and the studio version is much better, but this is still worth it.

Here are the lyrics... they're hilarious.

BOWL OF WRATH by One Bad Pig
I´m sure you´ve heard the story Gomorrah and of Sodom
If hell is not an endless pit I´m sure they´re at the bottom
Of all of their abilities the greatest one was math
Their multiples of curses equaled a bowl of wrath

Chorus:
Bowl of wrath
Breakfast on the crooked path
Bowl of wrath
Bowl of wrath
Breakfast on the crooked path
If you choose to laugh
You can have a bowl of wrath

Moses came down from the mount a dark an gloomy morn´
His eyes and heart fell in distress when he saw the golden form
A ghastly frown fell to his face, "You like this golden calf?"
"Well, get your knifes and slay it and have a bowl of wrath"

Bowl of wrath
Breakfast on the crooked path
Bowl of wrath
Bowl of wrath
Breakfast on the crooked path
If you choose to laugh
You can have a bowl of wrath

You who were
You are just
You who are
You are just
We´ve spilled Your Blood, and killed You saints
And wrath´s what we deserve
You are just in these judgements
The Holy One

Seven bowls before me, served up with all God´s rage
I would´ve had to eat i´, ´til Jesus paid sin´s wage
I´ll take my cross up daily, in You I´ll take a bath
Please cloth me in Your righteousness, not in a bowl of wrath

Bowl of wrath
Breakfast on the crooked path
Bowl of wrath
Bowl of wrath
Breakfast on the crooked path
If you choose to laugh
You can have a bowl of wrath

Bowl of wrath
Bowl of wrath
If you need to laugh, have a bowl of wrath

The Criterion of Multiple Attestation in Historical Jesus Research

In addition to dissimilarity from Judaism and dissimilarity from Christianity, another criterion frequently appealed to is multiple attestation. John P. Meier defines it as a criterion which looks at sayings or actions of Jesus “that are attested in more than one independent literary source (e.g., Mark, Q, Paul, John) and/or in more than on literary form or genre (e.g., parable, dispute story, miracle story, prophecy, aphorism).”[1] In other words, the likelihood of the historical reliability of something increases if it is found in more than one source and even more so if it is found in more than one literary context.

Yet, this criterion is not without its limitations. For one thing, it cannot exclude the possibility that a Christian belief was created early on and gained wide acceptance. Craig Evans writes: “The criterion really only proves that a multiply attested tradition is early and widespread, and not necessarily authentic.”[2]

Furthermore, that some elements are found multiply attested and others not may be little more than historical accident.[3] N. T. Wright explains: “…the number of times a saying happens to turn up in the records is a very haphazard index of its likely historicity or otherwise.”[4] Thus, that something is multiply attested does not therefore make it historical.

Moreover, the criterion is largely dependent on the two-source theory (Mark and Q), [5] to which a growing number of scholars have offered serious challenges. After an exhaustive analysis of the various solutions to the Synoptic Problem, Sanders concludes with Davies.[6] Mark Goodacre, professor of New Testament at Duke Univesity and editor of one of the most presitigious monograph series has leveled one of the most devastating critiques against Q in his The Case Against Q.[7]

NOTES
[1] Meier, A Marginal Jew, 1:174. Meier here combines what are sometimes seen as two criteria, that of multiple attestation and multiple forms, first suggested by C. H. Dodd, History and the Gospel (New York: Scribner’s, 1937), 91-101; idem., The Parables of the Kingdom, 26-29; Holmén, “Authenticity Criteria,” 49; C. H. Dodd, The Parables of the Kingdom (London: Nisbet, 1935), 20.
[2] See Evans, “Authenticity Criteria in Life of Jesus Research,” 9. The point is made by many others, e.g., Meier, A Marginal Jew, 1:175; Fredricksen, From Jesus to Christ, 6. Furthermore, see the discussion in Allison, Jesus of Nazareth, 2-10.
[3] On the difficulty of ruling out a priori singularly attested elements, see C.F. D. Moule, The Phenomenon of the New Testament (Naperville: Allenson, 1967), 71; Warren Kelber, “Jesus and Tradition: Words in Time, Words in Space,” Semeia 65 (1995): 147 [139-67].
[4] Wright, Jesus and the Victory of God, 51.
[5] Likewise, see Ensor, Jesus and His “Works”, 41: “…the usefulness of this criterion is limited by the fact that the Synoptic problem has not yet been finally resolved. No one theory commands universal consent, and it is not always clear from which source a saying may have come.” This weakness is recognized by others, e.g., see Craig A. Evans, The Historical Jesus: Critical Concepts in Religious Studies (New York: Routledge, 2004), 9; Stein, “The ‘Criteria’ for Authenticity,” 230-31; Achtemeier, Green and Thompson, Introducing the New Testament, 60. E. P. Sanders and Margaret Davies, Studying the Synoptic Gospels (London: SCM Press, 1989), 51-119.
[6] E. P. Sanders and Margaret Davies, Studying the Synoptic Gospels (London: SCM Press, 1989), 117 [51-119]. Elsewhere, in an analysis applicable to many contemporary scholars, Sanders has critiqued Bultmann’s method as essentially circular, since the two-source theory is established on “laws of development,” which are in turn derived from the two-source theory. See. E. P. Sanders, Tendencies of the Synoptic Tradition (New York:Cambridge University Press, 1969), 25-26.
[7] Mark Goodacre, The Case Against Q: Studies in Markan Priority and the Synoptic Problem (Harrisburg, PA: Trinity Press 2002). See also the various contributions in Mark Goodacre and Nicholas Perin, eds, Questioning Q: A Multidimensional Critique (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2005).

Catholic Vote 2008

Amen.

Appeals to Scholarly Consensus

"[S]cholarship can rarely appeal to a consensus for anything other than moral support.”
--Scot McKnight, “Jesus of Nazereth,” in The Face of New Testament Studies: A Survey of Recent Research (ed. S. McKnight and G. R. Osborne; Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2004), 170.

[Note: I have been looking for this quote for the last two hours. I knew I read it somewhere, but I couldn't remember where. I thought I had read it in Bockmuehl's book, Seeing the Word and then thought maybe it came from Allison's, Jesus of Nazareth. I was just about to give up. Then, immediately after asking St. Anthony, patron of lost things, to join me in prayer, it came to me where I saw it. No kidding. It came to me immediately. I wish I had it on video. So to celebrate St. Anthony's help I'm posting it here so that at least all the time hunting it down can be chalked up to a good blog post! Just goes to show, it never hurts to ask someone in heaven pray for you!]