Ehrmann asks, given the large number of versions of early Christianity, why did the one we know today become dominant?  He suggests three crucial factors -- the three C's.

 

This unified front involved (a) developing a rigor­ous administrative hierarchy that protected and conveyed the truth of the religion (eventuating, for example, in the papacy), (b) insisting that all true Christians profess a set body of doctrines pro­moted by these leaders (the Christian creeds), and (c) appealing to a set of authoritative books of Scripture as bearers of these inspired doctrinal truths (the "New" Testament; see Chapter 1). Or to put the matter in its simplest and most allitera­tive terms, the proto-orthodox won these conflicts by insisting on the validity of the clergy, the creed, and the canon.

 

We had another look at Hebrews 10-13.  Chapter 10 continued the complicated metaphor of Christ as priest, and again ascribed passages in the Old Testament as sayings of Jesus, reinforcing the suspicion that a collection of sayings was being used, rather than scripture itself.  Chapter 11 is known among English evangelicals as the “Westminster Abbey of the Bible”, with its great collection of vignettes of OT characters, rather like the Irish lists of saints.  The reference at the end to saints “sawn in two” is puzzling; there is a statement in the “Ascension of Moses” that Isaiah was so treated, but this apocryphal work is thought to be later than the epistle, if not medieval.

 

The imagery of the final chapters reaches great heights  -- as we have noted before, more like a speech or a sermon than a letter, though there are some personal references at the end.  Did someone send out a transcript of a sermon, and add a few greetings?

We did a review of the Pauline epistles, and produced a chart of one-liner summaries.  This chart is in the "One-Liners" category.

We read chapters 9 and 10 of Hebrews, leaving 11-13 to the following week.

The writer continues his dense comparison of the duties of a high priest in the Temple with the role of Jesus as Redeemer.

The writer describes the contents of the Ark of The Covenant in the Holy of Holies; references in the Old Testament differ as to what these contents were, butit is possible that they changed over time.  The Ark is shown being carried away by Roman soldiers on the celebratory Arch of Titus in Rome; it current whereabouts are unknown, though one church in Ethiopia claimsto hold it.  It has been the subject of much revisionist history, from "Holy Blood, Holy Grail" to "Raiders of the Lost Ark".

Statements which are ascribed to Jesus and to the Holy Spirit are quotations from the Septuagint.  This supports that the idea that New Testament writers used a "bookof sayings" that did not always give the provenance of the quotations.

Chapters 5 thru 8 of Hebrews do a complicated piece of bible study based on Exodus 28 and Psalm 50. The writer theorises that Jesus followed the pattern of the mysterious figure Melchizedek. Without beginning or end, Jesus takes the place of the high priest who officiated in the Jerusalem Temple in a new temple in the heavens. The theology is complicated and somewhat non-Pauline. Would Paul have talked of Jesus "learning obedience" or entering the Holy of Holies?

Hebrews 1-4. The "Epistle to the Hebrews" prsents a puzzle, because no early manuscript contains the name of the author, or of the adressee. An early Bishop of Rome, Clement, thought that Paul must have written it in Hebrew, and got Luke to translate it into Greek. Tertullian, writing atthe very beginning of the Third Century, thought that it was written by Barnabas. Martin Luther put forward the idea that it was written by Apollos. The English scholar and archeologist, Dr. Ramsey, prosed that it was written by Philip The German theologian Hernack, made the startling suggestion that it was written by Priscilla, which might make it easier to explain why the author's name was removed from early documents. This argument is developed in the Wikipedia reference. Some have suggested, on the basis of its elegant, well-thought out Greek,, that it is not a letter at all, but a transcript of an early sermon, which would make it the only complete sermon to have survived from the early church. The record of Stephen's partial sermon in Acts is rather similar. When was it written The author spends much time arguing that temple ritual had been superseded. However, the destruction of the temple is not mentioned, suggesting that the letter was written before 70 AD. Clement quotes from it in around 90 AD To whom was it written? The only direct hint is the mention of "those who are from Italy" at the end of the letter, perhaps indicating that the letter was written to Rome. The heavy emphasis on arguments that Jesus outranks all other authorities, inlcuding angels, reminds many of the arguments against Gnostics (or proto-Gnostics) in Colossians, suggesting that it was written for a similar purpose. its focus on Jews suggests that it was written to a Jewish community. One suggestion has been that it is addressed to a community of Jewish ex-priests, (mentioned in Acts 6) under pressure to return to the temple. Other suggestions have been Jewish Christians, disappointed by the non-arrival of the Second Coming, tempted to return to orthodox Judaism. Other Jewish Christians may need instruction on the universalist aspect of Christianity, as against the nationalistic Judaism of c. 60 AD.   more »

The Epistle to Titus is a short letter, and reads to at least one commentator to describe it as "a Reader's Digest version of I Timothy", to which it is indeed very similar in content. The epistle describes the qualifications for bishop, deacon, and elder, though one wonders whether some of the qualifications do not apply to the laity as well ("The bishop should not be a drunkard"). The emphasis on church discipline reflects the transition to an institutional church, such as we find in the Second Century. The stress on the subordinate role of women comes strangely to current ears, and seems to conflict with Paul's reliance on such women as Priscilla and Phoebe.

It is difficult to place the letter in the context of Acts -- Paul is at liberty and planning to winter in Nicopolis, on the Western coast of Greece, very close to the battle site of Actium. This cannot be fitted into the Acts chronology, and some have suggested that the letter belongs to a missionary period after Paul was (presumably) released after his first trial in Rome. However, Eusebius suggests that Paul went West -- "to the Pillars of Hercules" (Gibraltar).

Paul is in prison, awaiting trial, and not expecting to survive.  He is alone but for Luke, and writes an urgent letter to Timothy, asking him to come before winter, and to bring his manuscripts, and his cloak.  Some of the writing reflects bitterness over the enemies he has made -- he mentions "Alexander the coppersmith", who may be the same Alexander we met in Acts 19 in the riots at Ephesus.  However, he sends personal greetings to a list of friends.

In Chapter 2, was Paul writing ex cathedra about the role of women in the church?  Or do we have, rather, some professional tips to one of his bishops about how to deal with disorder in his church – “What I do, Timothy, is not to let the women be teachers of the men…. And I tell them not to speak in church…..” Paul does not speak here as one with authority – compare “in the presence of God I charge you” in Chapter 6.

In Chapter 5, Paul has some complicated instructions about how to treat widows.  Commentators have surmised that there was some kind of formal arrangement, whereby those on the “Widows’ List” were financially supported by the church.  Paul thinks such payments should be restricted to the older, respected, widows in the church, and not made to young widowed women on the lookout for replacement husbands.

Again, there are instructions about the qualifications for elders , and in Chapter 6, instructions to slaves to carry out their duties responsibly.

Finally, Paul warns against the temptation of pursuing esoteric “knowledge” – gnosis – which may damage the faith.

 

We returned to I Timothy on Easter Day, April 12, for a closer look.

Chapter 1: Paul and Timothy

Paul's opponents teach the (Jewish) law, and are also obsessed with "myths and genaologies". This corresponds with no organized group that we know of, and may have been peculiar to Ephesus.

We were puzzled by Paul's reference to "slavetraders" (Ch 1:10 NIV) in his list of evil people whom the law exists to regulate. As we saw with the letter to Philemon, Paul seemed to have no particular objection to slavery as an institution. the word -- andrapodistes -- does not occur elsewhere in the NT, and seems to mean something like "menstealers". John cited the case of those in the US Civil War who captured ex-slaves to return them to slavery, and suggested the rendering "kidnappers".

Did Paul excommunicate Hymnenaeus and Alexander, and how can "delivering them to satan" teach them not to blaspheme? We shall meet Hymenaeus, at least, again in II Timothy.

 

Chapter 2: Worship and Order

Paul calls for prayers for those in authority, which seems to indicate that the letter was written either before the Neronian persecutions or much later.

We read Paul's strictures against particularly flamboyant female dress, and noted that some commentators have suggested this was to avoid the customs of some mystery cults, such as that of Cybele, who used distinctive headdress.

How can women be saved "by chidbirth"? Ronal Knox suggested that the reference was to the curse on Womanhood, which was redeemed by the bearing of the Christ Child by the archtypal Woman, the Virgin Mary.

Chapter 3: Discipline

The technical term in verse 1 - episkopos -- is translated as "bishop" in the KJV, and "overseer" in NIV. "Overseer" appeals to those who see I Timothy as written in an early stage of church development, and "bishop" to those who see the letter as written in the Second Century,when church organization had reached a more formal stage.

Cerainly the writer's emphasis on the married state of church officials contrasts with Paul's early letters, where marriage is seen as irrelevant in view of the imminence of the Second Coming.

We spent most of the class looking at arguments for detecting pseudepigraphy, in particular whether some of Paul’s letters were written by another author. Indicators of pseudepigraphy may be: 1. Change of vocabulary (e.g. Ephesians uses 116 words not found in the “un-disputed” letters) 2. Change in theology – e.g. {in Romans Paul attacks the idea that the resurrection has already come – in Colossians he assumes that it has) 3. Expressions change of meaning , e.g. Paul’s use of apparently Gnostic terminology in Colossians. 4. Discrepancies with Acts – e.g. Timothy’s movements as recounted in I Timothy compare with Acts 5. Anachronism – 1 Timothy seems to assume a fixed structure of bishops and deacons, which did not occur until later 6. Change of style All of these can be challenged. One counter argument is that the experts at the Council of Nicea, speaking the same language, and much closer in culture to the 1st century church, had no difficulty on approving the letters of Paul as authentic.   more »

Starting with "Finally...." -- Paul continues for another two chapters. He denounces his opponents, though it is not clear whether they are Jewish Christians or libertarians. We discussed the Jewish kosher laws, and their possible relevance to contamination caused by keeping milk in unglazed pottery.

Paul asks Eudoa and Syntyche to resolved their differences, and asks a mysterious "companion" to act as mediator. Possibly Paul is trying to reconcile two sects in the Philippian church.

He thanks Philippi for its financial assistance, and we were reminded of the backing that Paul received from the entrepreneur Lydia, in that city.

Philippi was founded by Philip pf Macedon to administer the silver mines in the area.  It became a major city, sited on the main roads to Rome (the Appian Way) and to Byzantium (Via Egnatia).  It was the site of the climactic battle between the army of Brutus and Cassius and the army of Octavian.  After the Battle of Actium, the survivors of the losing side were resettled in Philippi, which became a full Roman city, administered with Roman law, and with its inhabitants granted Roman citizenship. 

 

When Paul and Silas arrived there, on Paul’s Second Missionary Journey, they ran afoul of vested commercial interests, were beaten and thrown into prison.  An earthquake freed them from prison, but they refused to leave until the local magistrates personally escorted them out. The magistrates, learning that Paul and Silas were Roman citizens, were only too anxious to do so

 

Paul writes to Philippi from prison.  There is some discussion as to the city of the prison, but refers to a sympathetic audience in the praesidium, a term usually reserved for the Guards’ headquarters in Rome.  However, Paul writes as if within easy traveling distance of Philippi, so some prefer to think in terms of his imprisonment in Ephesus, about which little is known.  A third candidate is Caesarea Maritima, where Paul was under arrest by Roman military units.

 

Did Paul contemplate suicide?  One passage in Philippians can be read that way, but the group was unsympathetic to the idea.

 

Chapter Two contains what looks like all or part of an early Christian hymn.  It uses high Christology, describing a pre-creation Christ, who “emptied himself” to become man – what is known as Kenotic theology.

Epaphroditus had been sent from Philippi to look after Paul.

Chapter 3 starts with “Finally ----- “ with two more chapters to go.

The Epistle to Philemon qppears to be a letter from Paul to an important man in Colossae on behalf of his errant slave, Onesimus, whom Paul is sending back to his master. We compared the letter with an extant letter from Pliny the Younger, who wrote on behalf of a freedman who had misbehaved. This indicates that Paul may have been acting as an "amicus domini" to save Onesimus from punishment. Later, there was a bishop of Colossae named Onesimus, and, according to Ignatius, a bishop of Ephesus with the same name. If, as tradition suggests, these were all the same person, then Paul's letter may well have been effective. It has even been suggested that Onesimus was an early collector of Paul's letters, and kept the letter of Philemon in the collection as a personal reference. Did Paul ask Philemon top give Onesimus his freedom? This is not explicitly stated, but some early church documents show that the church had no difficulty with master and slave both being Christians, the latter being a slave "according to the flesh" while a brother "in the spirit". Paul asks that Onesimus be a a brother in the spirit and in the flesh, implying a requested change of legal status for Onesimus.

Chapter 4 contains a remarkable piece of "bible study" that on the face of it is a misreading of a verse from Psalm 68, wrenched out of context, and apparently misquoted (though possibly Paul was quoting the Septuagint rather than the Hebrew). Throughout the Epistles there is the question as to whether Paul felt it reasonable to quote short passages out of context. Conceivably he carried with him a set of "useful quotations" rather than a complete set of Hebrew sacred literature.

Chapter 5 has a section on Christian living, similar to the corresponding section in Colossians, unappealing today for its subservient view of women and its acceptance of slavery as an institution.

Verse 12 of chapter 6 seems to take gnostic terminology for granted, with its talk of "archons" and heavenly powers. As in several epistles it talks of "heavens" and the possibility of traveling between them.

Was Paul a prisoner when the letter was written? The phrase at the start of Chapter 4 is "Paul, a prisoner in Jesus Christ", so it might be that Paul is speaking metaphorically, as he does when referring to himself as a "slave of Christ". However, it is rather more difficult to apply that argument to the phase "an ambassador in a chain" in Chapter 5.

Was Aslan inspired by Roger Lancelyn Green's tiger?

Does the Ring in The Lord of the Rings represent a nuclear weapon?

C.S. Lewis applies the techniques of biblical criticism to some 20th century literature, with surprising results.

 

http://members.tripod.com/orthodox-web/papers/fern_seed.html

 

The document shows many similarities to the Epistle to the Colossians, and appears to attack Gnostic or proto-Gnostic tendancies. The writer seems not averse to using Gnostic terminology himself; there are references to archons, powers, and principalities, and well as several references to multiple heavens. As with Colossians, the emphasis is on the supremacy of Christ above all such concepts.

 

 

 

We reviewed some of the arguments for considering Colossians to be non-Pauline, and looked in detail at the apparent conflict between Colossians 3:1 (and 2:12) -- which describes Christians as having already been resurrected -- and Romans 6:4 -- which says that their resurrection is yet to come. This discrepancy has been cited as evidence for non-Pauline authorship of Colossians, but the group saw it more as rhetorical overkill, partcularly if the passage is seen as starting at 2:20 and continuing through 3:4.

We also looked at the Haustafeln passage in 3:18-4:1, which hints at a longer term approach to Christian living, compared with the tendancy in other Pauline letters to think in terms of an imminent Second Coming.

The letter to the Colossians is controversial.  Some claim its attacks on Gnosticism are anachronistic, since Gnosticism did not develop until the second century.  Others trace Gnostic development back two or three centuries earlier, which would make Paul's comments not out of place.

Some forms of Gnosticism posit a multiplicity of spheres of action, with the cosmos in a relatively outer sphere, controlled by a malificent archon.  The human soul, trapped inside the body, needs to learn secret passwords in order to escape to a better sphere.  The writer of Colossans actually uses some Gnostic terminology, such as "archons", "mystery", and "secrets", and warns his readers not to worship angels.  Oddly, there is also a warning against celebrating (Jewish?) festivals.

Did Paul ever visit Colossae?  The letter implies that he did not.  An oddity is that Colossae is not far from the main road between Antioch and Ephesus, which Paul traveled during his third missionary journey.  (Laodicaea, which he also seems not to have visited, is actually _on_ the road).  Possibly the letter was written before the third journey, in which case the best candidate for the place of writing would be Ephesus.

Paul sends greetings to the Roman church from a remarkably long list of contacts. One is Erastos, whom he describes as a high-ranking official -- the oikonomos of Corinth. Translators struggle with the term, usually coming up with something like "city treasurer", but the Greek word literally mans "Law of the Household". This may well of been a semi-obsolescent term in Paul's time -- we use an equally odd and rather similar term "Speaker of the House" -- but it has survived to this day as the word "economist". An inscription excavated in Corinth confirms the existence of Erastos, and describes him as the "aedile".

Once again, Paul quotes scripture out of context, using a despairing Psalm by David to make a point about Jesus. The verse does not make his point in context, strengthening our suspicion that Paul traveled with something like a booklet of useful quotations, rather than complete set of Jewish writings such as the Septuagint.

Paul is eager to journey to Jerusalem to hand over the collection for the poor, and then use Rome as a staging post on his way to Spain. Things turned out very differently, attacked by the Jerusalem church itself, by orthodox Jews in the courts of the temple, and arrested by a Roman snatch team, he found himself entering Rome at last, but under military escort, with little prospect of reaching Spain, though early church fathers such as Clement maintained a tradition that Paul survived his trial and eventually took the Word to the Western limits of the Empire.

Paul emphasises the requirement that Christians obey the secular authorities. This is a little surprising, since it was presumably written at a time when resistance to Roman rule in Judaea was increasing. For that matter the civil authority that Paul cites is that of the Emperor Nero. We also discussed the possible response to this chapter from figures like George Washington and Oliver Cromwell.

Were there Jews who were vegetarians? It seems unlikely, yet Paul discusses the Christian attitudes to vegetarianism. Some claim that this is a translation problem, and Paul is actually discussing whether Christians should eat non-kosher meat.

Chapter 11 closes Paul's long discussion of the roles of Jewish and Gentile Christians, comparing Gentile Christians with a new olive branch grafted onto the old tree of Judaism. All Israel would eventually be saved.

We looked at some translation issues in Romans 11 -- the good News Bible appeared to add extra explanation by appending the words "the false god" to the word "Baal", though the original Greek does not support this. The imagery of the "table" that as a "snare" and a "trap" was lost in this translation, though it was the only translation to hand that noted that Paul's concept of "hospitality" may well have been wider than the idea of entertaining fellow-Christians.

It has been suggested that the New Testament is good theology but poor farming -- the parable of the Sower -- in which the sower recklessly misuses priceless see corn -- has been thought of as a parable that would amuse an agricultural audience, whicle explaining the complex theology that the response to the Word depends on the listener. Paul appears to have the theory of grafting backwards; usually one grafts a new branch onto an less advanced tree, whereas Paul's image does the opposite when explaining how Christianity will be a "wild branch" grafted onto the rich tree of Judaism.

 

 

 

 

Is any of the Bible written by women?

No book of the bible cites a woman as its author.  However, there are books without any ascription – a notable example being the Epistle to the Hebrews in the New Testament.  Various attempts have been made to guess at the author of Hebrews, and one of the candidates is a woman – Prisca.  She was a Christian who left Rome in 49 CE when Claudius expelled all the Jews from the capital.  She worked  with Paul in Ephesus, and was sufficiently intellectual and eloquent to take on the Alexandrian missionary, Apollos, in debate, and convert him to Pauline Christianity. [1]

Another possibility for feminine authorship is the Book J.  If the first five books of the Bible, the Pentateuch, are dissected according to the name they give to God, one of the “books” that emerges is “J”.  Some have posited that the author was a woman[2].

 When Paul was traveling to Jerusalem for the last time, he stayed for some time (according to some translators – “an unexpectedly long time”) with the deacon Philip and his daughters, who were prophetesses (preachers).[3]   It has been suggested that these daughters provided source material for Luke, who may have been gathering material for a defense document for Paul.  The Gospel of Luke is one of the two gospels that contain a nativity story, and this is full of feminine touches, such as Mary’s visit to her cousin Elizabeth, unmentioned by the other gospels.[4]

The Song of Miriam[5] is sometimes quoted as the oldest material in the Old Testament, and the Magnificat[6] as the oldest Christian document.  Both are attributed to  women.

Romans 7-8  January 4, 2009

 

 

Paul continued his line of complex reasoning, developing the thought that he might be controlled by sin, so that he did not do what he wanted, but what sin wanted.  Some of the class compared this to the role of the Devil in some of Luther’s writings, others to Flip Wilson’s famous line “The Devil made me do it”.

 

We looked briefly at how Paul describes the Devil as “Lord of this World”, and discussed how this might answer the question “Why does God let bad things happen to good people”.  Paul, indeed, does not expect Christians to have a comfortable life, but warns them to expect suffering.

 

Paul describes how the Law could suggest sinful actions, and thus be counter-productive.  Paul suggests that Jesus can be the solution to these dilemmas, and concludes chapter 8 with the famous statement “I am persuaded that neither death not life, neither angels nor demons, neither the present nor the future, no any powers, neither height nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God that is in Jesus Christ our Lord."

 

A discussion we had on whether any scripture was written by women is posted separately.

 

We made a little headway with the heavy-duty theology of Romans 5-6, looking at Paul's development of his thesis that as creation had begun, and been corrupted by one man, Adam, so it would be restored by one man, Jesus.  In Romans, Paul talks of Christians participating in Jesus' death, with resurrection as a future event.  In Colossians, he talks of Christians already participating in Jesus' resurrection.  Some scholars (e.g. Ehrmann) take this as evidence that Colossians was not written by Paul, but the class was more open to the idea of a preacher developing his ideas, or for that matter, using different analogies and explanations of complex concepts.

We talked a little of the paucity of archeological evidence for Paul, and, for that matter, Jesus, and wondered if current excavations in, say, Capernaum, might in the future provide some documentary evidence.

Some of us can remember when executives had secretaries to whom they could dictate letters.  Usually, this worked well, but occasionally things could go wrong, as when the executive digressed into conversation, which the secretary included as part of the letter, or when the secretary, at the executive's request, included a well-used paragraph, but without making a clear transition.

 

Possibly we see some such phenomena in the epistles, as in chapter 2, when Paul goes into a long digression about the activities of some sinners, which does not further his argument, or later, when a dissertation on civil authority seems to have little to do with the particular problems of the church in Rome.

 

In Chapters 3 and 4, Paul recovers from his digression, and again puts forward his hypothesis that Christian Gentiles were "children of Abraham" -- the idea that we saw earlier in I Corinthians.  This time, however, Jews are not excluded, and a two-track theory is proposed "the circumcised shall be justified by faith and the uncircumcised by faith".   What then is the advantage of being a Jew?  Well......

 

Paul has been accused of many things, and he repeats some of the accusations.  Was he preaching the idea, that since forgiveness of sins involved the grace of God, we should sin more so that grace might abound?  This is the heresy of antinomianism, and is, in fact not confined to Christianity.  Paul strongly repudiates the idea.

 

To buttress his case, Paul uses long excerpts from Scripture.  On examination, they turn out to be a collection of somewhat out-of-context verses, taken from the Septuagint translation of several Psalms and a couple of sections of Isaiah.  One wonders what literature Paul carried with him, and it is tempting to believe that he carried "Verse of The Day" selections, particularly for the use of his Gentile converts, who might find wading through the whole of the Law and the Prophets rather heavy going, even if they had access to them.