dokeo kago grapho soi kratistos Theophilos

Sunday, May 25, 2008

Statement of Purpose

This blog is dedicated to the writings of Saint Luke. However, there are occasional miscellaneous articles about matters of personal interest. There are also articles about subjects related to my search for a Solution such as the series of Micah and the current investigation of the early Church Fathers. Sometimes these ventures lead to dead ends and other times they have offered valuable insights not always obvious.

Stuhlmacher and Witherington both argue that the teachings and traditions of Jesus were transmitted to the primitive church in Jerusalem by the disciples whom Jesus had called. However, this carefully maintained continuity of tradition was unsuccessful in transmitting the teachings and traditions about the theology of the cross to the early Church Fathers. This failure presents a problem suggesting that the theology of the cross is later development.

My interest in the early Church Fathers is an effort to understand the theology of the early Christians; why Isaiah 53 was not a central text to the Church Fathers and why the early Church Fathers did not have a theology of the cross. I should note that 1 Clement 16:7 may contain an allusion to 1 Cor. 15:3 revealing an awareness of the Eucharistic saying, the significant of which needs to be developed. That is to say, Clement may have modified the Isaiah 53:6 LXX which he quoted in 1 Clement 16:7. However, Clement presents Jesus as the exemplary model for true Christians.

This is not intended as an apology for my straying from the Purpose but merely a disclosure that there may be a method to my madness.

Copyrighted 2008

Wednesday, May 21, 2008

The Implications

The Role of the LXX in the Theology of the Early Church, posted May 10^th, noted that the early Church Fathers relied upon the Septuagint. As Jean Danielou has indicated, early Christian theology saw in the symbolism of the cross the expression of glory, irresistible power and divine efficacy. The apostolic fathers believed that salvation was based on repentance and not solely on the ground of the death of Jesus on the cross. Robert Kraft has stated: “There is no indication in the Didache that an initial repentance connected with the idea of personal sinfulness for which Jesus' death atones was considered basic to the Christian life.”

Why is it, that the early Church Fathers did not have a theology of the cross? The LXX in Isa. 53:9a, 10-11b rewrites the outcome of the servant’s suffering excising his sacrificial death and any notion of vicarious atonement. “The 'punch line' for the Christian gospel--the description of the Servant's divinely intended sacrificial death, his justification of the many, and allusions to his resurrection--occurs only in the Hebrew texts.”[i]

Luke tells us that Philip used the passage from Isaiah 53:7-8 LXX that the Ethiopian Eunuch was reading as the starting point of the good news of the suffering Jesus as the Isaianic suffering servant of Isaiah 53 LXX. Philip’s explanation probably included the story from the 24^th chapter, where Luke tells us that Jesus began with Moses and the prophets to explain to the two disciples on the road to Emmaus the things about himself, especially that “the Christ should suffer these things and enter his glory.” It is no wonder that early Christian theology saw in the symbolism of the cross the expression of glory, irresistible power and divine efficacy. The victory motif was held in high esteem in the early church.

Does this mean that the early Church Fathers did not provide a means of salvation? No. In the Septuagint, the form of righteousness that will provide a ransom for sins is almsgiving, the financial outpouring of compassion on the poor. The Greek translation of Daniel, Proverbs, Tobit and Sirach explicitly claim that almsgiving has the power to purge sin, to atone for and redeem iniquities. The doctrine of redemptive almsgiving states that giving money to the poor provides a ransom for sin. This idea, implicit in the writings of Luke and also Paul, was boldly advocated by the Apostolic Fathers.

2^nd Clement 16.4 states: “Almsgiving is therefore good as repentance from sin. Fasting is better, but almsgiving is better than both. Love covers a multitude of sins but prayer from a good conscience rescues from death. Blessed is every man who is found full of these things for almsgiving lightens sin.

Didache 4.5-6 states: “Do not be one who stretches out his hands to receive, but shut them when it comes to giving. Of whatever you have gained by your hands, you shall give a ransom for your sins.

Barnabas 19.10 states: “You shall remember the day of judgment day and night and you shall seek the face of the saints either laboring by speech and going out to exhort, and striving to save souls by the word, or working with your hands for the ransom of your sins. You shall not hesitate to give and when you give you shall not grumble

. . . .

In addition, Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, Commodianus, Origen, Cyprian, Lactantius, Polycarp and Second Clement, Hennas, Justin Martyr and Irenaeus all wrote favorably. Origen, Cyprian and Chrysostom cited Luke 11:41 as proof-text to support the doctrine that almsgiving redeems sin. Polycarp cited Tobit 4:10 LXX and Cyprian cited Proverbs 16:6 LXX. Cyprian also rewrote the story of Tabitha in support of redemptive almsgiving.

The theology of the early Church provided redemptive almsgiving as a basis of salvation. It is apparent that the role of the Septuagint with respect to these developments was significant.

A work in progress.

Copyrighted 2008

[i] David A. Sapp, “The LXX, 1QIsa, and MT Versions of Isaiah 53 and the Christian Doctrine of Atonement.”

Monday, May 19, 2008

The Didache: Text, Translation, Analysis, and Commentary

The sectarian rules that the Qumran community followed represented one of the ways they kept the community united. “The Master shall teach . . . to live, according to the Book of Community Rules, that seek God with a whole heart and soul, and do what is food and right before Him” (1QS 1:1-4). The Didache written between 40-60 CE provided the church rules of a Jewish-Christian community. The Didache consists of various parts, starting with the “Two Ways” ethical instruction and including community rules for liturgical practices and leadership conduct, before ending with a short apocalyptic section.

The Didache offers a tough moral code which includes:

Murder, theft and abortion are unthinkable for a Christian; Almsgiving is a moral obligation, except for the poor; Christians must not only pray, but also fast, for their enemies; and other provisions setting forth demanding standards.

The 25 years Aaron Milavec spent training future priests and lay ministers has no doubt influenced the creation and presentation of the thesis set forth in this landmark study of what he considered to be a training manual. This book is not only a thematic commentary but also a social narrative of how these first Christian men and women organized their community life religiously in order to safeguard their members from the challenges and temptations of the surrounding society.

Copyrighted 2008

Monday, May 12, 2008

The Role of the LXX in the Theology of the Early Church

As noted, many early Christians spoke and read Greek, thus they relied on the Septuagint for most of their understanding of the Old Testament. The New Testament writers also relied heavily on the Septuagint in that the majority of the quotes cited in the New Testament are quoted directly from the Septuagint. Greek Church Fathers also quoted from the Septuagint. The theology of the early church, as explained by the Fathers of the first several centuries, is based on the wording of the Septuagint.

The apostolic fathers believed that salvation was based on repentance and not solely on the ground of the death of Jesus on the cross. Robert Kraft has stated: “There is no indication in the Didache that an initial repentance connected with the idea of personal sinfulness for which Jesus' death atones was considered basic to the Christian life.”

In the Septuagint, the form of righteousness that will provide a ransom for sins is almsgiving, the financial outpouring of compassion on the poor. The Greek translation of Daniel, Proverbs, Tobit and Sirach explicitly claim that almsgiving has the power to purge sin, to atone for and redeem iniquities. The theology of the early Church provided redemptive almsgiving as the basis of atonement.

For Luke, Jesus' mission of preaching the good news of the kingdom does not imply that Israel is supplanted. Consistently, the activity of preaching, healing and of calling disciples is set within the context of the Temple and synagogue. The Lucan Jesus accepts the form and fact of these institutions including the animal sacrificial system, Temple worship, the need for repentance and redemptive almsgiving.

The synoptic gospels all note that John Baptist came preaching calling to the crowd that they should repent for the kingdom of God is approaching. John baptized with water unto repentance. Although the word, “repent” makes a few more appearances in Matthew and Mark after the initial pericopes with John the Baptist, “repentance” disappears.

The New Testament does not explain what “repent” and “repentance” means suggesting that these passages were written for a Jewish audience. Since it is so much easier to seek forgiveness from God than from your neighbor, it is understandable that the requirements of repentance were relaxed for Gentiles by Matthew and Mark.

Luke stresses more than the others the need for repentance. All three Synoptics have this saying of Jesus: “I did not come to call righteous people but sinners”; only Luke adds “to repentance.” Luke will not let us escape the demand for repentance. Luke tells us that Jesus uses the repentance of Ninevah as a rebuke to the present unrepentant generation and that he even uses the failure of Tyre and Sidon for the same purpose. Jesus invited his audience to reflect on Pilate’s killing of the Galileans and on the death of those on whom the tower in Siloam fell. He said, “Unless you repent you will all perish likewise.”

When there is repentance, there is joy in heaven. The Lucan Jesus in successive parables repeats this statement. Repentance means an end to sinning. When this happens there is joy beyond this earth. Matthew has a parable about a shepherd looking for a lost sheep and his joy in finding it. In Luke’s version of the story, Jesus says “there will be more joy in heaven over one sinner who repents than over ninety nine righteous persons who need no repentance.” Absolute eschatological reversal results from repentance.

The Septuagint version of the Servant Poems is of interest because it represents one of the earliest interpretations of the Hebrew text. The Septuagint version of the 4^th Servant Poem was cited by New Testament writers including Luke in Acts 8:32-33 and was read and commented on as Sacred Scripture by the early Church Fathers. For instance, Clement of Rome (1 Clement) makes one of his longest quotes from Scripture from Isaiah 53:1-12 LXX in 95 CE. For 1 Clement (16:1-14), Isaiah 53 is a passage which teaches humility in the community exemplified by the humility of Christ.

The LXX in Isa. 53:9a, 10-11b rewrites the outcome of the servant’s suffering excising his sacrificial death and any notion of vicarious atonement. “The 'punch line' for the Christian gospel--the description of the Servant's divinely intended sacrificial death, his justification of the many, and allusions to his resurrection--occurs only in the Hebrew texts.”[1]

Paul trained in the Hebrew MT was certainly aware of the differences between the MT and LXX. One synoptic writer used the LXX and consistent there with has no theology of the cross. Luke has no equivalent of the ransom saying (Mk 1:45; Matt 20:28) nor of Matthew’s connection of Jesus’ covenant blood with the remission of sins (Matt 26:28).[2] The other two synoptic scribes also used the LXX but influenced by Paul included the theology of the cross to replace the redemptive almsgiving they found in Luke. Mark does recognize, having traveled with Paul, that the theology of Luke is pre-Pauline and very Jewish. This theology of the cross is the gospel message and appropriately there are 11 instances of EUAGGELION in the synoptics (4 in Matthew, 7 in Mark, 0 in Luke).

The first followers of Jesus worshipped in the Temple every day. Paul offered an animal sacrifice in the Temple. There was no need to develop a theology of the cross for people who believed in the animal sacrificial system and the High Priest, who was the captain of their salvation, and for people who had not been excluded from the Temple. Perhaps the dispute narrated in Acts was not simply about food for widows but exclusion from the Temple and exclusion from the redistribution of food donated to the Temple.

These people would have a need to develop a new theology and according to Heitmuller, it developed in pre-Pauline Hellenistic Christianity. Thus Walter Schmithals, The Theology of the First Christians, can state: "Wilckens (1982, 155) like Raisanen (1986, 21-22, 242ff) limits the criticism of the Torah by the ‘Hellenists,’ who were persecuted by Paul, to a criticism of the temple cult, which was put forth because Jesus' atoning sacrifice made the temple cult superfluous.”[3] Esler states: “It is indeed, very difficult to imagine how a theology of atoning death of Jesus, already present in Paul and Mark and, indeed, in pre-Pauline and pre-Marcan traditions, could have arisen among Jews who preserved close links with the sacrificial cult.”[4] As long as the Temple stood, the High Priest was in office, the Day of Atonement was being observed and Judaism recognized the followers of Jesus as Jews, including many priests who were obedient to the faith, there was no need or reason for Luke to proclaim a theology of the cross and in fact, Luke has no theology of the cross.

Wilheim Heitmuller concluded that Luke represents the earliest traditions in that Luke has no theology of the cross, no atonement theology. Considerable evidence has been assembled by Birger Gerhardsson that Luke is very much dependent upon Palestinian tradition. Adolf Schatter has shown that the text's character together with other indicators point to the author's provenance from the Jewish church.

A number of scholars would have us believe that the Ethiopian Eunuch made a comment in response to a question from Philip while reading from Isaiah 53:7-8 LXX. Philip then responded providing an explanation based upon the MT using language about how Jesus died on the cross for our sins that could not be derived from any version of the LXX.

The Eunuch initially found comfort in Isaiah because 56:4-5 provided that believing eunuchs are included as members of the covenant. How then would he have felt if he did not find the explanation provided by Philip in his copy of the LXX? In fact, neither the Ethiopian Eunuch nor any Greek speaking person would be able to find the explanation provided by Philip in his copy of the LXX which was the adopted scripture of the community of the followers of Jesus.

What then are we to make of this theological discontinuity? It is no wonder that Gnostic groups developed claiming to possess secret knowledge imparted to them by their faith explaining their scripture.

True Repentance is hard to perform. Consequently, Matthew and Mark had to rewrite Luke to make it palatable by reducing its significance. Matthew and Mark also introduced the theology of the cross missing in Luke. These two changes have a negative correlation. Furthermore, both Matthew and Mark misunderstood the Sign of Jonah and the finger of God, reduced the role of Satan and both Matthew and Mark rewrote Luke to correct “errors.” Theology does change to meet social need.

A work in progress.

Copyrighted 2008

[1] David A. Sapp, “The LXX, 1QIsa, and MT Versions of Isaiah 53 and the Christian Doctrine of Atonement.”

[2] I accept the conclusions of Bart Ehrman that verses Luke 22:19b-20 were added by 2^nd century scribes.

[3] Schmithals, 107.

[4] Esler, Community and Gospel in Luke-Acts: the social and political motivations of Lucan theology (1987), 158.

Friday, May 09, 2008

The Role of the Septuagint in Redemptive Almsgiving

If we wish to understand the theology of the early Church, we need to be familiar with the Septuagint. This is particular true with respect to redemptive almsgiving.

The translation of Daniel 4:27 (MT 4:24) is significant for our discussion. The LXX version reads:

“O King, let my counsel please you. Redeem your sins by ‘almsgiving’ and your iniquities by compassion for the poor. It may be that God will be long-suffering of your trepasses.”

In the Septuagint, the form of righteousness that will provide a ransom for sins is almsgiving, the financial outpouring of compassion on the poor. The same association of a form of righteousness with almsgiving also appears in the Greek translation of Proverbs 15:27a and 20:28. Tobit and Sirach also make this association. The Greek translation of Daniel, Proverbs, Tobit and Sirach explicitly claim that almsgiving has the power to purge sin, to atone for and redeem iniquities.

A work in progress.

Copyrighted 2008

Tuesday, May 06, 2008

The Role of the Septuagint

The Septuagint (abbreviated LXX) is the name given to the Greek translation of the Jewish scriptures which occurred between 300-200 BCE in Alexandria, Egypt. Early Christians held the Jewish scriptures to be authoritative and sacred. Many early Christians spoke and read Greek, thus they relied on the Septuagint for most of their understanding of the Old Testament. The New Testament writers also relied heavily on the Septuagint in that the majority of the quotes cited in the New Testament are quoted directly from the Septuagint. Greek Church Fathers also quoted from the Septuagint. The theology of the early church, as explained by the Fathers of the first several centuries, is based on the wording of the Septuagint.

The Palestinian Jews rejected the Septuagint because it deviated from the Jewish text. It contained extra books such as the Old Testament Apocrypha which the Jews rejected. The Apocrypha consisted of the books of Judith, Tobit, Baruch, Sirach, the Wisdom of Solomon, First and second Maccabees, the two books of Esdras, additions to the book of Esther, and the Prayer of Manasseh. The Daniel of the Septuagint included three sections which were not part of the Hebrew Daniel: The Prayer of Azariah and the Hymn of the Three Young Men, Susanna, and Bel and the Dragon. The Septuagint Psalms included an extra psalm found in most copies of the Septuagint but not in the Masoretic text.

A fundamental change in the way the Church viewed the Old Testament occurred on the initiative of Jerome early in the fifth century. Until that time, the Church had relied on the Septuagint in the East and on a Latin translation of the Septuagint in the West. When Jerome determined to make a new translation of the Old Testament into Latin, he decided to use Hebrew as the source text. From the time of Jerome, the Old Testament translation to the vernacular in the West as used Hebrew as the primary source. Jerome made the decision to abandon the Septuagint in favor of Hebrew on the mistaken belief that the New Testament quoted exclusively from the Hebrew Old Testament.

A close examination of the Septuagint and the Masoretic Text show slight variations. The Dead Sea Scrolls were discovered in the Qumran region near the Dead Sea in 1947. These scrolls dated as early as 200 BCE contain parts of every book in the Old Testament except Esther. Comparisons of the Dead Sea Scrolls to the Masoretic Text show that where there are differences between the Masoretic Text and Septuagint, approximately 95% of those differences are shared between the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Masoretic Text, while only 5% of those differences are shared between the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Septuagint. These “variations” are extremely minor (i.e., grammatical errors, spelling differences or missing words) and do not affect the meaning of sentences and paragraphs. An exception is the Book of Jeremiah in which passages are arranged differently. The majority of the Septuagint, Masoretic Text and the Dead Sea Scrolls are remarkably similar. Generally speaking, none of the differences come close to affecting any area of teaching or doctrine with several important exceptions, two of which will be noted separately.

A work in progress.

Copyrighted 2008

Sunday, May 04, 2008

Rewriting Tabitha

“Now in Joppa there was a disciple named Tabitha (which translated means Dorcas). She was completely occupied with good deeds and almsgiving.” (Acts 9:36)

Tabitha was a virtuous and kindly woman who belonged to the Christian community in Joppa. She was known for her good deeds and almsgiving. Having become grievously ill, she suddenly died. At that time, the Apostle Peter was preaching at Lydda, not far from Joppa. Messengers were sent to him with an urgent request for help. When the Apostle arrived at Joppa, Tabitha was already dead. On bended knee, St. Peter made a fervent prayer to the Lord. Then he went to the bed and called out, “Tabitha, get up!” She arose, completely healed.

Tabitha and Cornelius exemplified the ideal convert (Tabitha being Jewish and Cornelius a God-fearer) as part of the Lucan presentation that persons of means and status were becoming Christians. This Lucan focus is certainly understandable if Theophilus was also a person of means and status.

Joppa was a Greek city and the border coastal region adjacent to Judea controlled by the Romans during this period. The narrative is therefore part of the step progression method utilized by Luke.

Three hundred years later, Cyprian rewrote the story of Tabitha in support of redemptive almsgiving.

“In the Acts of the Apostles the faith of the fact is established; and that souls are delivered by almsgiving not only from the second, but from the first death, is discovered by the evidence of a matter accomplished and completed. When Tabitha, being greatly given to good works and to bestowing alms, fell sick and died, Peter was summoned to her lifeless body; and when he, with apostolic humanity, had come in haste, there stood around him widows weeping and entreating, showing the cloaks, and coats, and all the garments which they had previously received, and praying for the deceased not by their words, but by her own deeds. Peter felt that what was asked in such a way might be obtained, and that Christ’s aid would not be wanting to the petitioners, since He Himself was clothed in the clothing of the widows. When, therefore, falling on his knees, he had prayed, and—fit advocate for the widows and poor—had brought to the Lord the prayers entrusted to him, turning to the body, which was now lying washed on the bier, he said, “Tabitha, in the name of Jesus Christ, arise!” Nor did He fail to bring aid to Peter, who had said in the Gospel, that whatever should be asked in His name should be given. Therefore death is suspended, and the spirit is restored, and, to the marvel and astonishment of all, the revived body is quickened into this worldly light once more; so effectual were the merits of mercy, so much did righteous works avail! She who had conferred upon suffering widows the help needful to live, deserved to be recalled to life by the widows’ petition.” On Works and Almsgiving, 6.

A work in progress.

Copyrighted 2008

Friday, May 02, 2008

Politically Correct Presidential Theology

Now that the Prophet Jeremiah has been tossed under the bus by his politically correct Senator, I am wondering what will happen next. It is starting to look like a daytime television matinee.

My reading of the recent National Press Club speech of the Reverend Jeremiah Wright did not reveal anything disturbing. In fact, I was wondering if there has been so much spin that I can no longer recognize the substance.

Although the Pastor was not invited to the announcement of his presidential candidacy, the Pastor did conduct a private prayer meeting with the Senator and his wife just moments before the press conference. The Pastor was quoted shortly after the press conference that he expected some distancing to take place. At the National Press Club speech, he said politicians have to do what they have to do to be elected but that did not change the nature of their long-time pastor-member relationship.

The Bible is not politically correct but some politicians would not know that since so few of them have actually read it. The teachings of the religion need not be politically correct. They must be theologically correct. Politicians would do well to attend religious services where the members are required to leave their cell phones and recording devices at the front door.

Are the politicians saying that theology must now be politically correct?

Is it politically correct to ask a young black politician on the move why he would join the church of the Reverend Jeremiah Wright with its 10,000 member congregation? Did not anyone ask any questions when this young black politician on the move was running for local and state office on the coattails of the Reverend Jeremiah Wright and his very large congregation? Did he urge his members to vote for one of his members on Election Day? Did this young black politician on the move deliver a speech from the pulpit of this church while running for local or state office?

Did he sleep through all of the sermons? Was he a regular church attendee or did he only attend on Christmas and Easter and just before Election Day? Was the theology politically correct when he was running for local and state office?

Copyrighted 2008