jump to navigation

Leaving on a Jet Plane… November 19, 2009

Posted by Mike Koke in miscellaneous.
add a comment

Now that the song is stuck in your head, I just wanted readers to know that all will be quiet on the blog front as tomorrow morning I am flying out to New Orleans for the SBL conference.  So after a long semester it is time to party in New Orleans… and catch some papers and schedule some meetings and do all the other stuff that scholars do.  When I get back, I hope to blog about my experience at SBL (Doug Chaplin is even adding a theme on SBL for the upcoming carnival) and then finish the last installment of my series on Barnabas.

The Golden Calf: Barnabas Part III November 17, 2009

Posted by Mike Koke in Apostolic Fathers.
4 comments

I know many a Hebrew Bible scholar shudders when they hear the mistranslation “Jehovah”, but I thought it was a funny way to introduce a main theme in Barnabas.  Barnabas argues that Israel completely forfeited the covenant when Moses shattered the Law tablets after the worship of the golden calf (Barn. 4:7-8; 14:1-4).  Other Christ followers could use the language of a “new covenant” (2 Cor 3:6-18; Heb 8; Justin Martyr Dial 11:2-4) or could use the Golden Calf story for polemical purposes (Acts 7:40-43; Dial. 19:5-6; 20:4), but Barnabas’ view was far more radical.  There is only one single covenant, which the Israelites immediately lost at Sinai and which the Lord delivered to the church as the ”people of the inheritance” (laon klēronomias) (4:8; 14:4).   Barnabas conveniently forgets that Moses inscribed the Law on a second set of stone tablets, but the author may have understod this “second law” to be the covenant intended for Jesus followers (Horbury, 144).

This reading has recently been challenged by Rhodes innovative work The Epistle of Barnabas and the Deuteronomic Tradition.  He writes off Barnabas two statements that Israel lost the covenant at Sinai as rhetorical hyperbole and the Golden Calf is only a paradigmatic event in Israel’s whole history of rebellion and sin that reaches its full measure in the death of Jesus (e.g., Barn. 5:11; 14:5)  (Rhodes, 17-18).  Rhodes views Barnabas as advocating a radicalized Deuteronomistic theology where Israel’s history is one of repeatedly rejecting divine messengers that culminates in the rejection of God’s Son, the destruction of the second temple and the end of the covenant with Israel (with a side warning to his own congregation to not feel overconfident should they prove equally faithless) (Rhodes, 88-112).  However, in my reading, Barnabas seems to go beyond a Deuteronomistic theology and stresses that ”those people” (ekeinoi) never understood the covenant. Instead of a historical continuity, accepting the literal observance of Torah for a limited duration before Christ, Barnabas uses allegory to stress the timeless unity of the Testaments (Horbury, 143).  The dietary restrictions really signified the need to avoid certain types of people (Barn. 10:3-8).  The Sabbath cannot be hallowed in the present evil age (15:6-7) but there will be an eschatological Sabbath (15:4-5).   The  scapegoat and heifer on the Day of Atonement are read typologically as types of Christ (7:6-8:7).  The temple is truly the community of Christ (16:6-10).  Barnabas is ruthless on circumcision:  while using traditional imagery of circumcision of the ears and heart (9:1-3), he scorns the idea that circumcision is a seal of the covenant when it is the custom of Syrians, Arabs and Egyptians (9:1-6).  As explained in the last post, his view of Abraham’s circumcision was an elaborate parable pointing to Jesus, but no one got the hint because those who take circumcision literally have been deceived  by an evil angel (9:4)!   What could have led Barnabas to take such a radically negative stance towards Israel’s history and Law?  This will be the subject of the final post on Barnabas and the parting of the ways…

  • Horbury, William.  Jews and Christians in Contact and Controversy.  Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1998.
  • Rhodes, J.N.  The Epistle of Barnabas and the Deuteronomic Tradition.  WUNT 2.188; Tubingen: Mohr/Siebeck, 2004.

Barnabas Part II: Questions About Identity November 16, 2009

Posted by Mike Koke in Apostolic Fathers, Parting of the Ways.
add a comment

Trying to determine the identity of the community to whom Barnabas is written is pretty tricky.  What is so curious about the epistle is that on the one hand it is thorougly indebted to Jewish methods of interpretation while on the other hand it exhibits one of the most radical stances of all early Christian literature towards Jewish tradition and praxis.  For Jefford, Barnabas is a Jewish Christian work because it is too steeped in Jewish tradition and exegesis to be someone who is outside of the tradition and that his radicalism is the stance of a “true believer” who has completely shifted ideological allegiances (Jefford, 34, 41).  Here are some examples: 

  1. The Presence of midrashic techniques (Barn. 6:8-19):  for instance, see the free word play and the identification of the Promise Land flowing with milk and honey with Jesus’ body in Barn. 6:8-19.  See further Tim Hegedus, ”Midrash and the Letter of Barnabas.” 
  2. Apocalyptic eschatology infuses the letter and Barnabas believes that they are living near the end of the evil age (2:1-2; 4:1-5, 9-14; cf. 12:9 for the eschatological defeat of “Amalek”).
  3. Familiarity with extra-biblical traditions (7-8):  He quotes the same passage, Isaiah 58:3-10, that is read on the Day of Atonement (Meg. 31a), only Barnabas uses it to completely dismiss the importance of literal fasting.  He is familiar with tradition about the Day of Atonement not found in Lev 16 but later codified in the Mishnah, such as the two goats must be alike (Barn. 7:6; m. Yoma 6:1) and the binding of the scarlet wool on the head of the scapegoat (Barn. 7:8; m. Yoma 4:2).
  4. Practice of gematria (words equivalent to numbers) (9:8):  Abraham’s circumcision of 18 and 300 men was an elaborate parable foreshadowing Christ – the number 10 equals the letter “ι” and 8 an “η” for  Ἰησοῦς (Jesus) and 300 equals “τ” for the Cross. 
  5. Two Ways material (Barn. 18-20): there is a way of light and a way of darkness (see Deut 30:15-20 for background), a motif that is found in a variety of Jewish and Christian literature (e.g., 1QS 3:13-4:26; Didache 1-6, etc.).

However, two pericopes make a Gentile authorship more likely.  Speaking in the first person plural, 3:6 warns of being shipwrecked by becoming proselytes to the law and 16:7 speaks of a former life full of idolatry.  Moreover, while the word  Ἰουδαῖος (“Judaean” or “Jew”) is not found in Barnabas and references about Israel are mostly to the ancient past (5:2; 6:7; 8:1; 9:2; 12:2, 5) or to Jesus’ ministry (5:8; 8:3), the language of “us” (autoi) versus “them” (ekeinoi) along with other contrasting pronouns are sprinkled throughout the epistle (2:9-10; 3:1-3, 6; 4:6-8, 14; 5:2; 7:1-2, 5; 8:7; 9:1-4; 10:12; 13:1-6; 14:1, 4-5) (Hvalvik, 137-40,helpfully lays out the contrasting pronouns in a chart).  As we shall see next, Barnabas makes it clear that his community does not share the covenant with the Jews and that the Jews have completely misunderstood the Law since Moses shattered the tablets.  So here we have is a Gentile Jesus community with close interactions with the local Jewish community, but with Barnabas adamantly insisting on the differences.

Passed My Thesis Defense November 14, 2009

Posted by Mike Koke in miscellaneous.
13 comments

I just passed my thesis defense yesterday and it feels great to be done.  I just have to format it and email it off and then I have completed the MA degree at the University of Alberta (I’m also taking a German class but it is not technically a part of the degree).  I really liked my time at the University and working with all the faculty.  I especially thank the two advisors who worked the closest with my project and supported me throughout my degree, Dr. Willi Braun and Dr. Francis Landy, who are both excellent scholars and great friends.  So after having the burden of having to defend my work to four brilliant scholars lifted, I decided I wanted to give this blog a new look and update all my pages.  Ok, back to the series on Barnabas, where the next posts will cover the identity of Barnabas community, Barnabas radical take on Scripture and the Law and Christian-Jewish relations in light of Barnabas.

Barnabas Part I: Who, When and Where November 11, 2009

Posted by Mike Koke in Apostolic Fathers.
5 comments

One thing that drives me crazy about apologetics is the double standard between canonical and non-canonical texts:  canonical texts are dated as early as possible and traditions about authorship assumed authentic, while non-canonical texts are treated much more critically.  In trying to determine authorship, date or provenance of any work, what matters is evidence and argument.  So what can we say about Barnabas?

The external evidence as early as Clement of Alexandria (Strom.  2.6.31; 2.7.35; 2.20.116; 5.10.63) assigns the epistle to Barnabas, which is followed by Vaticanus 859 (part of G), Origen (c. Cels. 1.63), Jerome (Vir. ill. 6), Didymus the Blind (Zech. 259.21-24) and Eusebius (Hist. Eccl. 3.25.4; 6.13.6; 6.14.1 – but now among disputed writings).   However, the academic consensus is that the author is not the Barnabas we meet in Galatians 2 and Acts 4-15.  The post-70 CE date and extreme radicalism on the Law which far exceeds even Paul (odd for the conservative Levite Barnabas) rules out Barnabas, but it is not pseudonymous because the epistle does not exploit “apostolic authorship” and the ascription is likely secondary (Paget, 3-5).

The epistle can be dated roughly between the destruction of the Temple in 70 CE (Barn. 16:1-3) and the Bar Kochba revolt in 132-135 CE which it fails to exploit.  But debate centers around two texts:  4:4-5 has a succession of 10 kings followed by a “little excrescent horn” (mikron keras paraphuadion) who subdues 3 kings (Galba, Otho, Vitellius->Vespasian; Vespasian, Titus, Domitian ->Nerva; small horn -> future antichrist) and 16:3-4 speaks of the rebuilding of the temple by “servants of the enemy.”  On the one hand, 4:4-5 may be irrelevant because it is taken from scriptural (Dan 7:24; 7:7-8) & other source material and 16:3-4 may refer to Hadrian’s attempt to build a pagan Temple  on the site of the old Jerusalem one (Cassius Dio, Hist. 69.12 and Eusebius, Hist. Eccl. 4.6.4 disagree whether his plans for the temple took place before or after the Bar Kochba Revolt) (e.g., Hvalvik, 17-26).  This is supported by the use of ginetai (it is happening) and nun (now), for the only temple actually built was by Hadrian for Jupiter in his new city Aelia Capitolina (Hvalvik, 20-23).    But  “rebuild”  (anoikodomēsousin) implies the old Jerusalem Temple and there is little evidence for this during Hadrian’s reign.  Peter Richardson and Martin Shukster attempt to date the epistle to the time of emperor Nerva (96-98 CE) in “Barnabas, Nerva and the Yavnean Rabbis” and a number of scholars follow them (Paget, 27-29; Murray, 44-47; Wilson, 133-136).  This is supported by the identification of Nerva’s short-lived reign with the “little excrescent horn” and Nerva may have excited dreams of a rebuilt temple when he suppressed the Jewish tax (fiscus Iudaicus).   Unfortunately the evidence is circumstantial and it may be impossible to be too specific about a date.

The same could be applied to questions of provenance.  Some propose Alexandria based on the prominence of the allegorical approach in Barnabas, the reference to the circumcision of the priests of the idols and contempt for other Egyptians (shared by Greeks in Alexandria) (Barn. 9:6) and early attestation by Clement of Alexandria (Kraft, 12; Paget, 36-42; Horbury, 142, 150; Jefford, 31-34).  Others argue for Syro-Palestine based on familiarity with Jewish and especially rabbinic traditions (see Barn. 7-8), lack of Logos theology and the emphasis on the circumcision of the Syrians and Arabs in contrast  to Egyptians ( “Egyptians” may be an interpolation) (Barn 9:6) (Shukster and Richardson, “Temple and Bet Ha-midrash,” 17-20; Murray, 48).  Finally, Wengst proposed Asia Minor in part on the similarities between Barnabas and Ignatius’ opponents in Philedelphia who would not believe his Gospel unless it could be verified in the scriptural “archives (Phil. 8.2) (Wengst, 114-118).  Note Hvalvik’s general skepticism on the matter and that the safest conclusion is that “the epistle originated in the Greek-speaking Eastern part of the Mediterranean” (Hvalvik, 35-42, 41).  The next post will touch on the tricky questions of identity in Barnabas and discuss whether the epistle can be put in a Jewish milieu.

Introducing the Epistle of Barnabas November 8, 2009

Posted by Mike Koke in Apostolic Fathers, Parting of the Ways.
3 comments

A major part of my MA thesis focuses on the Epistle of Barnabas, so I want to begin a new series summarizing what scholars have been saying about this fascinating and controversial early Christian work.  I will cover issues such as authorship, date, provenance, audience and theological worldview.  I also want to look at what light the Epistle of Barnabas sheds on Christian/Jewish relations in the end of the first/early second century and on the so-called “Parting of the Ways” model (see my posts here and here).  Here is a bibliography of sources for those interested in Barnabas (let me know if there are any more that should be added to the list):

Does Q Represent an Alternative Jesus Movement? November 6, 2009

Posted by Mike Koke in Christian origins, Q.
11 comments

I know many people do not accept the existence of the hypothetical sayings source Q (see discussion here):  some think it more plausible that Luke knew Matthew, others find the view that the common non-Markan material in Matthew/Luke derives from a single Greek document to be too simplistic, and still others reject outright the idea of an early “Christian” text centered around Jesus’ sayings/some biographical anecdotes but without a Passion narrative.  But I want to propose a thought-experiment:  if we allow even a possibility of the existence of a sayings collection like Q (or multiple sayings collections used by the evangelists), does it dramatically alter our picture of Christian origins?

Some scholars would answer yes.  The classic and influential work by Helmut Koester and James Robinson, Trajectories through Early Christianity is a case in point.  In the introduction, Robinson argues that the basic categories used by scholars (e.g., “Judaism”, “Christianity”, “Gnosticism”, etc.), which have been used to suggest these entities are monolithic and have fixed essences, need to be dismantled in favour of speaking about different trajectories or streams within a larger movement (see “Introduction: The Dismantling and Reassembling of the Categories of New Testament Scholarship”, 1-19).   In a later chapter on “LOGOI SOPHON: On the Gattung of Q”, Robinson puts Q within ”the trajectory of this genre of ’sayings of the sages’ [which] is traced from Jewish wisdom literature through Gnosticism, where the esoteric nature of such collections can lead to the supplementary designation of them as ’secret sayings’” (71).  In Q, Jesus is Wisdom’s Envoy (Luke 7:35/Matt 11:19; Luke 11:49/Matt 23:34 - in both cases Matthew seems to go further by identifying Jesus as Wisdom) who advocates a social program.   Sayings collections like Q or earlier traditions in Thomas were discontinued by the proto-orthodox church in favour of the narrative canonical Gospels (Q survived as embedded in Matthew and Luke along with Mark’s narrative structure) while various Gnostic groups developed the sayings tradition into esoteric dialogues between the Risen Christ and the disciples (102-103).

Others scholars answer no.  Edward Meadors’ article, “The ‘Messianic’ Implications of the Q Material” defends an implicit christology in Q.  While the term Χριστός or Messiah is absent in Q, he examines related titles such as “son of God”, “son of man” or“coming one” (267-72).  The conflation of Isa 61:1-3 with other Isianic oracles in Luke 7:22-23/Matt 11:4-6, in light of parallels with the Qumran fragment 4Q521, views Jesus as the spirit anointed one performing eschatological miracles (258-261).  Jesus speaks of the messianic banquet in the parable of the great supper (Luke 14:15-24/Matt 22:1-10) or of many in the east/west reclining at the table in the kingdom (Luke 13:28-29/Matt 8:11-12) (367).   The “Johannine thunderbolt” (Matt 11:25–30/Luke 10:21–22) uses remarkably similar language to John about Jesus as the Son who alone reveals the Father.   Jesus’ messianic authority is displayed in 14 uses of the λέγω ὑμῖν (“I say to you”) formula in Q (in 22 more examples only Matt or Luke use the formula in a Q saying) (264-265).  Finally, Q’s omission of a passion narrative or focus on the cross may be due to the limitations of genre (primarily a sayings collection) and not all of the beliefs of a “Q community” are reflected in a single document.  Hurtado contends that scholars who argue that Q represents a Passion-free Jesus group due to the absence of a Passion narrative is an argument from silence  (Lord Jesus Christ, 240-244).  Since salvific construals of cross-resurrection were early and widely circulated (1 Cor 15:3-7;  1 Thess 1:9-10), Hurtado finds it unlikely that a “Q community” was isolated from such developments and notes the lack of polemic in Q against such views (226-33).  

What do you think?  Does the acceptance of the hypothetical Q source mean one must concede much more diversity in early Christian origins and the existence of an early Jesus group that did not hold to the centrality of the death and resurrection of Jesus?  Where do you place yourself on the spectrum between seeing early Christianity as fairly uniform (e.g., Acts of the Apostles) versus seeing a wide diversity of Jesus movements before the accession of proto-orthodox Christianity?

  • Hurtado, Larry.  Lord Jesus Christ: Devotion to Jesus in Earliest Christianity.  Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2003.
  • Koester, Helmut and Robinson, James.  Trajectories Through Early Christianity.  Philadelphia: Fortress, 1971.
  • Meadors, Edward P.  “The ‘Messianic’ Implications of the Q Material.”  Journal of Biblical Literature 118 (1999): 253-277.

Scholars Galore November 5, 2009

Posted by Mike Koke in Biblical Studies.
6 comments

John Anderson and Michael Whitenton point out a really excellent resource of online lectures from Baylor Truett Seminary.  I just listened to one really informative lecture by Loveday Alexander on social memory and oral tradition and a comparison of how anecdotes about famous teachers were transmitted in Hellenistic education (παιδεία) with the Gospel tradition.  There are several well-known scholars including Dale Allison, Ben Witherington III, Francis Watson, John Barclay, Stephen Westerholm, Marcus Brockmuehl, Bruce Longenecker, Walter Brueggemann, Richard Hays, Gustavo Guiterrez, NT Wright, Stan Grenz, Greg Boyd and Jürgen Moltmann.  Definitely check it out.

An Evolutionary Creation November 4, 2009

Posted by Mike Koke in Biblical Studies, Christian Theology.
4 comments

Michael Halcomb and James McGrath both note a new  blog, Evolutionary Creation, which seems like a very timely subject to address.  After all, Steve Wiggins’  podcast notes that young earth creationism is relatively modern and the always entertaining Dr. Jim has been taking on creationism on his blog for some time.   I have not really entered the debate because I blog more on the New Testament and Christian origins, but here are a few of my thoughts on this.

First, I appreciate the sincerity of some of my young earth creationist Christian friends who feel they are only defending the Bible.  If that describes where you are at, I would encourage you to listen to a lecture by Dr. Denis Lameroux entitled Beyond the Evolution and Creation Debate and take a look at his handout.  There are two distinct creation accounts in the early chapters of Genesis.  In the Priestly account of creation (Gen 1:1-2:3),  Elohim is completely sovereign over the primordial waters of chaos (Gen 1:2) and just speaks an order cosmos out of chaos.  The order is reflected in the parallelism between Days 1-3 and Days 4-6 (see “Creation Account Panels”) and culminating in the Sabbath.  Genesis 2:4-25 is the Yahwist creation narrative and pictures Yahweh as intimately involved in creation in a Garden, fashioning man (‘adam) out of the ground (‘adamah) and breathing life into his nostrils and then forming the woman from his side (an image of equality).  The presentation of God as both transcendent and immanent in creation in these two chapters is for Christians theologically true (calling them “creation myths” does NOT imply they are not true but is just a question of genre).  But taken as literal history or science, not only is there many inconsistent details (were animals created before or after humans [1:20-26; 2:18-19]?; were men and women created simultaneously or separately [1:27; 2:21-23]?, etc.) but it continues to perpetuate the false dichotomy between Religion and Science that, ironically, both Richard Dawkins and young earth creationists share.

It is Carnival Time November 3, 2009

Posted by Mike Koke in Blogging.
add a comment

The latest biblical studies carnival has been posted by Kevin Scull.  Kevin gives a very straight-forward and excellent summary of some of the academic posts of October, so definitely take a look and catch up on anything you might have missed last month.  I am happy that my post on postcolonial biblical criticism made the cut.