Last night, Mark outlined the format of content of the 4 lectures as follows:
Night 1 - Overview & setting the scene
Night 2 - 1 Corinthians (Themes and 'problem' passages)
Night 3 - 2 Corinthians (Themes and 'problem' passages)
Night 4 - "What does this mean for today's 'church'?"
I'm particularly anticipating night 4, and have really enjoyed the first 2 nights.
Night 2 consisted of a sweep through the chapters of 1 Corinthians from bird's eye view. Mark shared inscriptions and papyri from the Roman world that shed much light on the text. After the supper-break, he covered as many of the 'difficult' passages as he could. Indeed, time was not on our side as he had to skip over much of what he had prepared, much to his frustration. Here were a few things that stuck out for me.
-The way the Gospel way of life stands out against the Roman lifestyle, particularly their contrasting values (wisdom, honour, the body, rights, the earth, identity, virtue, society, the future.)
-Mark repeated his clear opposition to the immortal soul being a Christian idea. This time, he widened his statement to say that the Scriptures don't teach this. (last week, he had only mentioned the New Testament)
-The depiction (textual, not visual!) of Corinthian sexuality was particularly 'vivid.' I appreciated not only his clarity with which he addressed this issue - which included the reality that Paul was opposed to homosexuality - but even more so, I was glad that he did so with sensitivity.
-His suggestion that Paul wanted the women to wear veils so as not to draw undue attention to the community, and that the 'angels' were human spies, messengers or ancient private-investigators who were paid to and ready to report any suspicious behavour. Duane and I have been chatting about this one.
-His comments about the 'women keeping silent' passage. Not only about translation issues (which suggest that it was loud arguements that were the problem), but also asserting that the underlying reason was (again) not to draw undue attention to the community.
-The insight he gave into the passage about being 'baptised for the dead.' His paraphrase was something like this: "You don't think your baptism was into death, do you? Of course not! It was a baptism into life!"
8 comments:
I'm loving the talks also. Great to have these insights!
Sorry it's taken me a while to comment here Dale!
I haven't compared his 1st half to any other structural analyses of 1Cor. But from my notes it appears all his "another view ofs" fit nicely into chapter divisions. Convenient?
I did like the first half of his talk, but I did start tho think it sounded like I was listening to a very very condensed exegesis of the entire book in an hour.
I don't think this was the best situation, as there was not enough time to give justice to either the material or the thoughts Strom had on it.
He could quite easily have used the entire two hour block for this part of his talk, but I think it would have been a bit dry, and we would have been better off reading the introduction to a commentary.
The second half was different. But again not enough time to do justice to the points he was trying to make.
This bothered me, as I found his arguements to be worth listening to. Made me very anti the marketing guy at the start for wasting all of our time!
I'm just looking through the notes I made on the night.
I notice he did not explain very well the immorality/stepmother issue. I just don't get wht he was trying to say. And this was one of the points in which he had plenty of time...
He then went on to talking about the courts - much the same as last week...
He noted that "all things are permitted for me" is a loose quote from other writers. So something the Corinthians were saying, not something Paul was saying...
He argued that the stuff about husbands and wives in ch7 was brought on by the famine. (I'm not convinced)
But did note the the gospel entials a change from two sets of rules for m/f to one set of rules for all...
Noted that the meat to idols thingy might have been because of the imperial cult. And that's why it wasn't an issue while Paul was with them for all the time he was...
Then there's the veil thing.
I followed his arguement that the men being covered was because that's what men would do to show their power. And so a bad thing.
I agreed that women being under the veil was a cultural thing that wives did at the time, and so casting it off was a bad thing.
(I have verified his sources on these ones)
So I'm fine with the conculsion that the veiled/unveiled thing just isn't an issue for us now...
(Although it does raise one issue - what if keeping women silent and subjugated in church today is offensive to our culture in the same way as throwing off the veil was to theirs...?)
But, as Dale mentions, we have discussed the angels=messengers=spies thing Strom brought up.
It's an interesting idea.
But I do not think it is the best explanation. (I have had a look at what other writers think, and no one other than Strom's main sources follow it, and they dismiss the concept as being unattested)
I thought the anathema Jesus= cursing in the name of Jesus was an interesting take on it. It could well be a good one.
He ran out of time. But he did try to say that the reason Paul didn't allow women to speak was related to the earlier head-covering thing, and it was because of the spies.
Now I find this to be a poor arguement, because it is based on (what I consider to be) an extremely tenuous postulation. Therefore I must reject his arguement.
Problem is, I don't reject his conclusions...
Then there was the baptism for the dead thing. His idea of being baptised into life makes sense.
It'll do for me anyway.
So that was my notes and opinions, I'll try to interact with Dales stuff up the top now:
I agree he was frustrated by the time thing. But he was dreaming if he thought he could fit all that into an hour and a half or less (because that's all they really budget for)
The contrast with Roman life is great! It's so hard for us to understand the difference between our world that has been staurated with Jedeo-Chritian philosophy to recognise how alien the Roman worls is to our won.
The soul thing. Maybe one of us should write down his quotes exactly?
The sexuality thing was interesting. I too appreciated the way he dealt with it, not just ignoring it, but actually explaining it.
It's also interesting to see how different translation render 6:9. It's worth looking at http://www.bible.org/netbible/ and http://www.biblegateway.com/
(Biblegatewy doesn't include the NET bible, so you have to search that one seperately)
So I think that's all from me.
Overall, I am liking his knowledge of Graeco-Roman culture and the way paul's gospel is counter to specific parts of this.
But I'm not convinced that all of the arguements being placed before us are of the same weight.
Mark S here. Like I said in my note to the earlier blog, I know I overdid it in the last half of last Monday night. Waaayyy too much stuff and waaayyy too fast. I'm not surprised some of it was unconvincing. You should be wary and weigh it up. I'll try to tidy up some of the loose ends this Monday before tackling 2 Corinthians. And I promise I will slooowww it down.
Thanks for taking time to comment here, Mark! It's a big ask to try and convey all of the information in a way that makes sense to a 300+ crowd. My wife, for example, is overwhelmed by the amound of info (but still loving it!), while others are able to sit back and think more critically, having been exposed to some of the topics a bit more. You might wonder how much is getting accross, but for many of us, I think we're really taking on some clear principles. Like I said - it's a BIG ask. Be encouraged.
On the angeloi (messenger/spy/angel/etc.) thing, I'm more inclined to see the logic of things. Considering the meeting frequency limits for social/politcal groups, the lack of privacy for the meetings, and the fact that it seemed that people would use any excuse available to 'shame' you, this 'spying' vocation seems a likely one - not to mention that Paul himself recieved 'reports' from 'messengers' as well? There certainly would have been an interest in keeping watch on the gatherings.
Another thing I've been pondering has to do with Paul's usage of 'law' or 'lawful' - recognising that each and every usage doesn't have to be in the same vein. If Paul is making reference to Epicurean philosophy in the 'all things are lawful' passage (1 Cor. 10), I wonder if the 'law' he refers to in 14:34 might not be the Law of Moses, but maybe the Roman law? '...but they are to be sumbissive, as the law (Roman?) also says... - NKJV) When Paul makes reference to the Jewish Scriptures, he often will quote it, but he doesn't here. Could it be that their behaviour was so 'un-Roman' that it was going to cause trouble if they didn't stop? On the flip side, earlier in ch. 14, there is a quote regarding 'tongues' (which I had hoped Mark would address, but alas, it is very controversial!) - [In the law it is written: 'With men of other tongues...' - which is actually not from the books of Moses, but from Isaiah, suggesting a loose usage of the term 'law' by Paul.]. This could be seen as the pre-cursor to Paul's next reference to the 'law' in v. 34 - [...as the law 'also' says...]. (my bible has a reference to Gen. 3:16 underneath...) What seems to be clear from context (v.33, 40) is that the point is order and edification. Why order and edification? Perhaps the best way to teach one another (order) is also a pretty durn good way of not getting noticed...?
Thoughts?
-Dale
Mark: Wow! Thanks so much for commenting. But thanks more for doing these talks, they are absolutely amazing! And I'm loving them!
You've got so much to say that is good and important, I really appreciate all the work you've done to put these together.
Dale: Still on the angel=messenger=spy thing.
Yes, it is logical. I agree with you there.
Yes, running with this theory, there would have been reason to spy on these gatherings.
So show me where angels=messengers-spies in another context. I'm not saying the theory is wrong, just that it's unproven in my eyes and I'm not-yet-convinced.
What other contexts does Paul use angels=human messengers? And what occasions do other people use messengers=spies spying on well-to-do people and reporting back?
Dale: Law - interesting. What law is it it? Roman or Jewish? hmmm.
And then, just throwing things out here, is paul teaching the Corinthian church to keep their heads down? Does this tie in with or conflict with his other teachings and/or actions?
(Acts seems to record him as not always keeping out of trouble himslef)
On the 'messenger' issue:
1. 'Messenger' is an attested translation for angeloi in GR literature and papyri as well as in the NT (Luke 7:24, 9:52, James 2:25).
2. It is used of people carrying information back (ie. scouting and spying) as well as of those carrying information to (eg. herald).
3. Augustus' decrees and policies attempted to curb the 'New Roman Woman' among other perceived breakdowns in social order.
4. Part of the New Roman Woman phenomena was using clothing and adornments to make a statement about no longer appearing under their husband's headship, and even to dressing and cutting their hair to resemble heiterai (high class prostitutes).
5. Corinth was always seeking to prove its loyalty to Rome.
6. At the same time many in Corinth among the more well-to-do also sought to mimick the latest trends from Rome, including what was perceived to be avant garde.
7. Social behaviour in Roman and Corinthian society was constantly on show. Conformity, honour and ambition were everything, though frequently at odds with one another.
8. The followers of Jesus in Corinth operated under a tenuous 'innocence by association' with the Jews by virtue of Gallio's decision.
9. The designation attached to them - 'Christianoi' - marked them as a group worthy of suspicion. 'ianoi' is a latinism often marking out those who followed a political or military leader.
10. Paul's letters show awareness of both insiders and outsiders spying on behaviour inside the ekklesia, eg. 1 Cor 14:23, Gal 2:4.
So...all in all, rather than unravelling a tortuous theological argument about angels, I think it makes better sense of the text to reconstruct a social situation where:
a. the ekklesia included some men with the social standing to control others by assuming the garb of the priest they had previously worn in conducting prayers for pagan gods (were they still doing this or just mimicking it??). This was first and foremost a statement of social power not religiousity,
b. it also included some women (the wives of the men with veils?) caught up to some degree in the phenomena of the New Roman Woman, cutting their hair short and leaving off the veil. This behaviour was every bit as much an ostenacious show of power and superior status (in that no one in the ekklesia will question them) as the men wearing their veils;
c. Paul was very aware of the potential for another governor to rescind Gallio's decision and thus for the believers to lose their ability to meet weekly; so that
d. he sought to remove every trace of unnecessary attention from those who might report ignorantly or maliciously on the meetings to the authorities or even to highly placed suspicious and/or malicious citizens (given their access to and influence over the courts).
Thus I prefer to translate angeloi in 1 Cor 11:10 as 'messengers' not 'angels.'
I also see something similar happening around the 'speaking/silence' issue in 1 Cor 14. 1 Cor 11 is clear that women/wives did pray and prophesy and Paul doesn't seem to censure this. This fits his practice, eg. Priscilla. I think the context of 1 Cor 14 suggests (1) marriage, (2) 'wife' not 'woman' (generically) as the best translation for 'gune,' and (3) a wife judging her husband's prophecy as the scenario. Accordingly I think the prohibition is again designed to minimise the risk of unfavourable report to authorities and to highly placed suspicious and/or malicious citizens with access to and influence over the courts.
In both cases I see Paul making shrewd judgement calls to deal with situations quite different to ours. Having said that, there is a lot to be said for married couples today ensuring their behaviour to one another also models the gospel. I don't see anything here requiring women today to wear head coverings or long hair, nor to remaining silent, nor to teaching women only (I read 1 Tim 2:9-15 similarly).
For a fuller treatment see Bruce Winter, After Paul left Corinth (Eerdmans 2001) and Roman Wives, Roman Widows (Eerdmans 2003).
Phew, that was longer than I intended - just like last Monday!
I'm loving it.
It seems our attempts at interpretation (at least popular attempts) have been limited, misguided and distorted by our ignorance of the historical context. This really shouldn't come as a surprise, though. I mean, should we be shocked when first-century history helps us understand first-century manuscripts better? This is where the intellectual arrogance of much of evangelicalism is so... well... irritating to me. I love the Scriptures, and it's frustrating to hear masses of people being taught things that don't seem right. Rarely, if ever, do you ever hear anyone have the courage to say, "Well, we just don't know what Paul (or John, or Peter or Moses, or heck... even Jesus?) means by this." To hear that more often would really be refreshing.
This is where I wonder if the 'traditional' view of 'illumination' is misleading at best - or quite toxic at worst... Does 'illumination' have to do (at least primarily) with reading the Scriptures? True, the Holy Spirit will lead us into all truth, but have we taken that to mean that He will 'help us to interpret the Bible correctly - even if we have no idea of the historical context?' It would stand to reason that as we engage the Scriptures, the Spirit will help us; but won't the Spirit also lead us to a history book or commentary or library (or the wineskin talks!) or eachother to better understand them? Me thinks yes.
Andrea,
Sorry I didn't respond to your comment earlier. Someone asked (maybe someone that heard the conversation you mentioned?) the same exact question on night 4. The same indeed stands for all the biblical authors. Mark answered the question very carefully. [I have thought much (and will continue to) about this topic, so I was listening with eager ears.] He made reference to the experience of writing something and looking back at it and saying to yourself, 'did I just write that?' and suggested that certainly Paul would have had something of that experience. He commented on how vibrantly we can see Paul's personality in the text, as well as his interesting grammar usage! Then he said the most important thing - I think. He said that the 'human' element of the Scriptures is only a problem if you're a dualist! If you think matter doesn't matter, and that the human body is in itself flawed, faulty, bad, etc., then you will really have a problem with the 'human element' in the Scriptures. I thought that was a fantastic way to answer that question. He didn't dare mention any of what I like to call the 'three I's' (inspired, inerrant, infalliable). Me thinks me has an idea why he didn't... Anyway, a VERY helpful article on the Bible - one of the best I've ever read! - is by N.T. Wright called 'How Can The Bible Be Authoritative?' On the main page, there's a link to the N.T. Wright page that has this article on it. Long article, but WELL worth the read.
This comment is long enough!
Cheers,
-d-
Post a Comment