_awakening

The Meeting of Heaven and Earth.

While reading Martin Jaffee's Early Judaism for Community of God this week, I came across these thoughts on the conceptual symbolism of the temple, perhaps some of the best I've come across:

The temple linked Jews to the world of heaven as well as serving as a visible link to the Jewish national past. Many regarded the temple as the earthly manifestation of an ethereal palace that existed in God's domain...

In addition to its capacity to evoke speculation about its heavenly counterpart, the temple was also viewed as a visual representation of the cosmos itself...

For the most, to see the temple on earth was to come as close as they would to heaven. Precisely because it was perceived to be an earthly version of a heavenly prototype, the temple was a powerful symbol of the unity of all elements of God's cosmic design. Within its boundaries, the heavenly, earthly, and social realms were all joined together into a seamless whole. Israelite priestly tradition tended to imagine the earth's surface as divided between the clean land of Israel and the unclean lands of the nations, the holiness of the land and the commonness of all other space. The ground plan of the Herodian temple mirrored this conception of things. [pp. 175-6]

Speaking of the Holy of Holies, Jaffee notes:

But these objects [the Ark of the Covenant and the cherubim] had been lost by 587 BCE. What remained, according to later rabbinic tradition, was a flat stone called the Foundation Stone. Upon it, some rabbinic sages insisted, the world had been created. Their insistence upon this point highlights the cosmic function of the Holy of Holies itself. The room served as the meeting of heaven and earth, where all the forces of creation were present in their most intense form. At the center of the temple's rings of holiness, therefore, was nothing at all, an emptiness filled with the potential of infinite presence. God's Glory of Presence (Hebrew: shekhinah), that part of his being capable of worldly embodiment, could descend through it from the heavenly throne at any instant. [p. 179]

On the priestly sacrifices:

When the spectacle of the victim's death and physical destruction was complete, the entire community in the temple court acknowledged the priest's success in bringing the power of life anew into the world. The worshippers sent their own adorations of God skyward with the aromatic smoke of the sacrificial victims whose death they had witnessed.

Although the priest did the work, the participatory witness of a communal audience was a crucial part of the temple's ritual life. The presence of witnesses, indeed, transformed the service from a private priestly rite into a public event that served as a tutorial in priestly conceptions of the world. These were made immediately tangible to the non-priestly majority through the powerful media of massive architectural presence and ritual pageantry. Indeed, the experience of the temple, rather than literary formulations of law and theology, were the primary means by which  common Israelites would have identified with the biblical description of Israel as "a kingdom of priests and a holy nation" (Exod. 19:6). [p. 182]

On the Pilgrimage Festivals:

Thus, the calendar of Pilgrimage Festivals enabled the temple to transform the entire Jewish Diaspora into a series of spokes emanating from the center of the temple and its circumference. The rhythms of the sacrificial seasons transformed the temple into a kind of heart. Its beat circulated a stream of Jews throughout the body of Israel in a perpetuation systolic-diastolic rhythm, geared to the cycles of the seasons. [p. 187]

And one more for good measure:

While the priests were sustaining creation through their sacrifices, villagers were intoning the story of the world's creation. In a real sense, then, through the bystanders, the ritual life of the priests extended beyond the temple into the lives of the Judean population. Non-priestly Jews could incorporate the temple, as the center of the world, into their own experience around the temple's actual borders. [p. 188]

Given Jaffee's descriptions, the impact of the destruction of the temple in 70 CE at the hands of the Roman Empire cannot be overstated. At its core it was a devastating blow to the nation of Israel. Not only did cut off what they saw as their lifeline to God, it had a literal and tangible impact on the cosmos.

More News on APU and the DSS.

Thanks goes out to Jim Davila for this from the Los Angeles Times:

Southern California universities acquire rare religious texts

Azusa Pacific University has acquired five fragments of the Dead Sea Scrolls, the earliest known versions of the Hebrew Bible.

The 2,000-year-old shards, featuring passages from the books of Exodus, Leviticus and Deuteronomy, will be exhibited in May at the evangelical Christian university in the San Gabriel Valley...

... The five fragments in the Azusa Pacific collection, each about the size of an adult's palm, are stored in a campus safe until they can be readied for the May exhibition that will use artifacts to tell the history of the Bible.

The university bought four of the fragments from a private rare-manuscript dealer in Venice. The fifth came from a Christian ministry in Phoenix that collects biblical artifacts.

University officials would not say how much they paid for the pieces, which include a fragment from the Book of Daniel.

But Robert Duke, an assistant professor of biblical studies, sounded almost giddy as he described the university's new acquisitions. "They are 2,000 years old, and you can still see letters . . . with the naked eye," he said.

The university released a photograph of one fragment that already has been studied by an outside researcher. The brownish-colored section with frayed edges shows part of the 27th chapter of Deuteronomy. In it, Moses delivers a discourse from God, telling the Jewish people to build an altar of stone once they cross the River Jordan into the land of Israel.

The fragment lists the location for the altar as Mount Gerizim. Modern Bibles mentioned another site, Mount Ebal.

James H. Charlesworth, a New Testament professor at Princeton Theological Seminary, said the difference suggests that the fragment may be an original copy of Deuteronomy that was altered at some point by warring factions of Jews.

"We finally found the original text of Deuteronomy," said Charlesworth, who directs the seminary's Dead Sea Scrolls Project. "This is sensationally important."

Azusa Pacific said it is only the third U.S. institution of higher education to acquire fragments of the Dead Sea Scrolls. And some scholars say the purchase has elevated the name of the 8,500-student campus virtually overnight. "They are now on the map," Charlesworth said.

Biblical Historicity.

Any serious undertaking in the study of the scriptures has to address a central question - how are we to understand the historic value of the scriptures? Or put another way, when we say the scriptures are "a historical account," what exactly are we claiming about the nature of the scriptures? Are they "historically accurate?" Is "historicity" even on the radar of the writers?

For some the answer is obvious - of course the scriptures are historically accurate. If we cannot trust them historically, then how are we to trust them theologically? However, this kind of all or nothing thinking causes some difficulties. The scriptures are presented as being either 100% "correct and accurate" or 100% "inaccurate and untrustworthy." Hhhmmm.

While doing some reading for Community of God, I came across this:

Biblical examples of such literature ["historic" texts from the Second Temple period] are Daniel and Esther, both of which have proved problematic for those who believe they recount historical events...

... Nebuchadnezzar and Belshazzar (called a king although he apparently never did become one) are known from other sources, and Cyrus, too, is familiar. However, in Daniel he is not the conqueror of Babylon, and no one knows who is meant by Darius the Mede, pictured in Daniel as the immediate successor of Belshazzar and thus as the conqueror of Babylon. The Persian king Darius was not of Median extraction, while Daniel's Darius is said to be the "son of Ahasuerus, by birth a Mede, who became king over the realm of the Chaldeans" (9:1). These are only a few of the reasons that have led many scholars to conclude that the stories in Daniel are not historical literature...

... Neither Esther nor Mordecai appears in extra-biblical historical sources about King Xerxes (in them Xerxes has a wife by a different name), and the book has other improbable claims such as the existence of 127 provinces in the empire. So it too does not appear to be a historical account, but like the other texts mentioned above, it pictures capable Jewish people entrusted with high positions in the great foreign empire." [James C. VanderKam, An Introduction to Early Judaism, pp. 10-11.]

Faced with such historical issues, a whole host of questions necessarily arise that we must wrestle with:

How do these historic inconsistencies relate to theologies of scripture, like inerrancy for example? If the text displays historical inaccuracies, can we still claim inerrancy for the text or do we need to therefore amend our definition of inerrancy? Perhaps the issue of inerrancy is arguing the wrong point.

Is the historic accuracy of a particular text the only determining factor of the truth of a text? What is the role of parable and myth in communicating truth? [If Daniel, or Esther, or even Job for that matter, is not historical literature, does it make it any less true per se?]

Did the biblical authors work with the same sense of need for "historicity" that we modern interpreters do? In other words, were the biblical writers completely adverse to passing along traditions that were less than 100% historically accurate to make a theological point?

I think the last line of question is central to this discussion. My own hunch is that when we argue for a 100% historical position, we can actually miss what certain texts and writers are trying to accomplish. Not every writers is trying to portray "what actually happened, the way it actually happened." The main goal of the writers is to present truth utilizing the history, political and social settings, and literary genres of their day.

Thoughts?

Translation-olatry.

It seems that everyone has an opinion about what translation is best, do they not? While some people are more vehemently opinionated than others, when the discussion moves towards which translation of the biblical text is best and why, watch out. Unfortunately, often these discussions turn into a form of translation-olatry, elevating a particular translation of the text to inspired status.

With all the discussion floating out there about the NIV 2011 version, due out in 2011 [clever, huh], Scot McKnight recently offered this nugget of translation wisdom:

Here's my point: the authority is the original text, not the translation. The original texts are in Hebrew and Aramaic (Old Testament) and Greek (New Testament). The authoritative text is not in English, regardless of how accurate the translation. No matter which translation you prefer, it is not the authoritative text for determining which translation is best. Yes, we need more to devote more time to study of the original languages.

The sweeping conclusion is this: unless you can read the original languages, you should avoid making public pronouncements about which translation is best. Instead, here's my suggestion: if you don't know the languages and can't read them well enough to translate accurately on your own but you want to tell your congregation or your listeners which translate is best, you need to admit it by saying something like this: "On the basis of people I trust to make this decision, the ESV or the TNIV or the NRSV or the NLT is a reliable translation."

You can read the rest of Scot's thoughts here. [In case you're wondering, I'm a bit partial to the NRSV.]

More on APU and the DSS.

Robert Cargill offers a bit more insight on one the DSS fragments acquired by Azusa Pacific University, a fragment of the biblical book of Deuteronomy.

The fragment of Deuteronomy, a portion believed to be 27:4b-6 from the Samaritan Pentateuch text type, was claimed to have originally been found in Qumran Cave IV. The link includes the research of James  Charlesworth and the infra-red photography of Bruce and Ken Zuckerman.

It is well worth the time to read to gain a better grasp of the enormity of the scrolls themselves, as well as one of the fragments APU has just acquired.

Azusa Pacific and the DSS.

This just in:

Azusa Pacific University Acquires Five Dead Sea Scroll Fragments and Rare Biblical Artifacts

September 3, 2009 - In its most significant holding to date―and possibly ever―Azusa Pacific University acquires five Dead Sea Scroll fragments and a collection of rare biblical antiquities.

Joining Princeton University and the Oriental Institute at the University of Chicago, APU becomes only the third institution of higher education to own original Dead Sea Scroll fragments. These earliest known texts of the Hebrew Bible, dating back to roughly 150 B.C., were discovered in the caves of Qumran, east of Jerusalem, between 1947-56. Today, many of the estimated 15,000 known fragments are held in private collections. With this acquisition, APU can study, research, and share these fragments with scholars and the public while carefully preserving the history of Scripture.

Simply incredible. Many thanks goes to the university and the administration in being able to secure such a treasure. This is an acquisition that begins to solidify Azusa Pacific as a top rate academic institution and a place that serious about its scholarship.

If you had a chance to see the DSS exhibit when it was in San Diego, you have an idea of what APU has acquired and how rare this is. The scrolls are perhaps the greatest textual discovery in modern scholarship. The impact the scrolls have had on the development of texts, including canonical texts, is priceless. Having these five fragments at the university, where they can be preserved and studied, is an incredible opportunity for students and faculty.

Since these texts will have a central focus in my doctoral work, I'm blown away. Can't wait to see them in person.

Thesis Abstract.

So today I spent the better part of the day working on my thesis paper. [With it being so blasted hot, this worked out really nicely.] Anyway, if you're interested, here's the abstract in working form. Enjoy.

The interaction between God and his people is one of covenantal journey, one marked by faith and a deep hope. Perhaps nowhere is this ideal more captured than in the textual writings of the Second Temple Period, especially within those texts often demarcated as “apocalyptic” writings. These texts, formulated by various communities within the Second Temple Period, display a yearning and a strong belief that God is not absent, but quite present in their midst. Trusting in his past faithfulness and promises, these communities believed that God was about to act significantly in their present context, bringing about the expectant hope of complete restoration.

To more deeply appreciate these texts and the communities that developed them, we must initially explore the development of apocalyptic literature as a genre and a vehicle for this expression of faith and hope. How did this genre develop and why was it chosen as a central vehicle of the Second Temple Period? Secondarily, we must explore the texts themselves and their relationship to received texts and traditions. How did these authors and redactors see their texts? Were they “scripture” on equal footing as the received texts of their day? How did they use the vehicle of apocalyptic literature to portray their dreams, desires, and understanding of God and his activity in the world? On a broader scale, what can we learn about the category of “scripture” from the texts collected and produced in the Second Temple Period?

The aim of this paper is to explore selected writings of the Second Temple Period in order to gain a vision of how various expressions of Judaism understood their relationship with God and their world. By specifically exploring the nature of their writings, both of content and category, we hope to gain a clearer vision of their self-understanding, along with their vision of God and his activity in the present world. Central to our discussion will be how these communities utilized the writings that had been handed down to them in the development of their own textual traditions. It is in this interaction with received texts that we have an insightful vantage point into their self-understanding and their view of their own particular texts.

We will be examining three main texts produced from three different communities, which exhibit varied nuances of “Judaisms” within the larger Jewish community of the Second Temple Period – 1 Enoch, the book of Daniel, and the Habakkuk pesharim from the community at Qumran. All three texts evidence an unfolding theological trajectory rooted in an apocalyptic worldview. They all display a reliance upon received texts and traditions, which are integrated into new forms and endowed with new meanings, resulting in a wholly new textual creation.

Wright and Justification.

My copy of Justification: God's Plan & Paul's Vision arrived this week on my doorstep. I've been waiting to clear some room in my reading calendar in order to jump into this one. Before the book was released, Jamie and I had dinner with Tom and Maggie and asked him about the book. He said he was perhaps one of the most important books he had written. I'm sure I'll have more to add when I get some time to digest the book.

Until then, Scot McKnight has offered up some insightful posts and thoughts on the book in his series Justification and New Perspective [now up to thirteen posts]. You can follow and be a part of the discussion here.

Voices.

Just as most quests for the historical Jesus have been christology in historical disguise, so too most treatments of Jesus and the Law are simply works of Christian morality and ethics wearing a yarmulke.

[John P. Meier]

[HT: Jim West]

Dangerous.

Apparently James McGrath has caused an issue with one of his more conservative commenters on his blog. This person has taken issue with some of the things McGrath has blogged about and taken it upon themselves to contact his pastor to let him know of McGrath's thoughts...

For those of you who have followed our journey, you will undoubtedly see a eerily common thread here, as it was my blog which caused a firestorm at a church I was on staff at. I saw and experienced some of the most vicious and hateful things said to me and about me in public during that time - things I would not wish on anybody. It was truly unbelievable, and truly heart-rending. [Obviously, I resigned].

In any event, I think McGrath hits the nail on the head when he finishes his post with this:

A conservative blog recently described me as "dangerous", and I realized that I should take that as a compliment. Acknowledging the possibility of being a Christian while at the same time engaging in open discussion of ideas, tolerating uncertainty, and anticipating that you might have something to learn from those with whom you disagree, is dangerous to fundamentalism - but not to Christian faith per se. What is dangerous to Christian faith is viewing it as though it were something static, as though the understanding of it one has as a child should remain static throughout life, or that Christianity itself could or should remain static throughout history. But perhaps more dangerous still is the conviction that our own understanding is God's very truth - that cannot but lead to a spiritual pride and arrogance that is incompatible with the Christian faith in general, and with the fallibility of the greatest heroes of the faith as depicted in the Bible in particular.

Amen.