The Bible and Culture - Latest Comments

Re: ‘FOR HARDNESS OF HEART’—A HERMENEUTICAL KEY FROM JESUS

Davetheduck — Wed, 18 Apr 2012 15:36:31 -0000

I too would like a post about the new Reformed movement as well. Scary stuff....ala Mars Hill in Seattle. Why are the youth, in particular, so drawn to? Is it because we humans have a tendency to want others to think for us instead of thinking through issues brought before us?

Re: The Meaning of Love– An Exposition of 1 John 4

patricklmitchell — Wed, 18 Apr 2012 15:14:20 -0000

Thanks for the post Dr. Ben. One of the more helpful exegetical remarks I've heard on this text is to let what God does in the Scriptures flesh out what it means for him to be love rather than project our encultured understanding of love onto God. So similar in sweep to the Dr.'s opening section, for example, God's judgment and forgiveness are both pointers to his being love.

What we are left to consider, then, is toward what end does he judge and/or forgive? I believe the answer is so that he would receive his due glory. In other words, that God is love in essence means that God is for himself. The beauty of that truth is that we receive his steadfast love as an expression of God's being for God. Even in judgment God is acting for his own glory. But because he offers forgiveness and redemption, he is no megalomaniac.

Just some thoughts should anyone wish to ponder or respond.

Re: The Meaning of Love– An Exposition of 1 John 4

Dmwelch02 — Wed, 18 Apr 2012 14:10:25 -0000

Great summary!

Re: ‘The Jesus Discovery’— Now That the Dust has Settled

Susan Burns — Wed, 18 Apr 2012 13:03:49 -0000

After reading many blogs about the Jonah ossuary discovery, it seems that the reason academia does not share the interpretation of a fish is one of channels. The discoverers did not go through established channels before releasing their theories. Another thread that runs through all objections is that they made money from their discovery.

Because of the internet, the world is changing. First the music and entertainment industry had to adapt to downloading. The publishing and newspaper business has had to adapt as well. Now it is happening to the academic community. We have bought and read the books you people write and now we have a voice. No matter how many learned people tell me it is not a fish I cannot help but see a fish. I cannot help but see Jesus fish on the border. I cannot help but see "Jonah" in Hebrew letters. I have a mind and I like to use it.

Everybody must make money to feed their children. Ben, do you write your books out of altruism? I am sure you are making money. But to make a living from something you are passionate about is a wonderful thing. You go for it!

Re: The Meaning of Love– An Exposition of 1 John 4

Michael — Wed, 18 Apr 2012 12:51:21 -0000

I'm sorry, I have too much time on my hands this morning, but I am so intrigued by your post. What I was trying to say in the earlier post is this: God, who is love, may be less concerned about us returning love for love and more concerned about us emulating his love. And yet, in emulating his love to others, he receives his love. Full circle. And I'm done. :< )

Re: The Meaning of Love– An Exposition of 1 John 4

Michael — Wed, 18 Apr 2012 12:03:18 -0000

What lovely insight. Curiously, this was on my mind last night as I reflected on the wide array of responses, even among believers, to the love of God.

"This way of ending this short section on love is something of a surprise as we might have expected the author to say that since God has loved us in this way, we should reciprocate such love to God."

It strikes me that John, with this curious ending, confirms Ben's insight. . .

God does not merely express love or do loving things. He is love. God's call then is for his children, to those who would "carry his DNA," to be love to others, rather than merely return love to those (in this case, God) who has loved them.

Re: The Meaning of Love– An Exposition of 1 John 4

Michael T — Wed, 18 Apr 2012 10:32:47 -0000

Matthew I love your image of intravenous. I think scripture was way ahead of its time in its teaching. Too much emphasis on bloody sacrificial thinking in terms of systematics and not enough on the ground bio thinking. Jesus said eat (body) and drink (blood) his "essence" of being. Get his DNA in us his very cells in us to live and love as he did. Like a bone marrow infusion it brings life and health intravenously. I can certainly live with that. What we've learned in the field of Medicine and healthcare makes "sense" on the ground as we live out our lives and nourish our lives in Christ and Christ IN us, a real reality. Thanks for the image.

Re: The Meaning of Love– An Exposition of 1 John 4

Matthew G. Zatkalik — Wed, 18 Apr 2012 10:21:32 -0000

The use of J.Denny is unfamiliar to me. Is that J. Denny Miller and what are you quoting from?
I like the figure of 'intravenously"! It would be great to have that love pulsing through the veins of Christians rather than for it to have been in vane.
Sadly, agape appears on the wain along with brotherly love. Eros seems to be have captured front and center stage with little chance of leaving or having the curtain drop on it.
As usual, Ben, your writing captures the truth and presents it clearly.

Re: The Meaning of Love– An Exposition of 1 John 4

Michael J. Teston — Wed, 18 Apr 2012 07:27:03 -0000

You gotta love that "corrective" movement toward "loving" others who walk in real bodies in real places on a real earth where the "real" problems are created by the inability to embody the "life" of Christ "substantially." thanks for the great blog

Re: ‘The Jesus Discovery’— Now That the Dust has Settled

EdwardTBabinski — Tue, 17 Apr 2012 21:50:24 -0000

It depends on how systematically and literally you take the NT stories.

For instance, it would not take "too much time to drag the body from Golgotha to Talpiot." Aside from the use of a swift donkey, why drag the body to Talpiot at all? Couldn't Jesus' body have been laid in a common grave with other criminals of Rome (not to mention that Jesus was condemned by the Jewish civil authorities)? Doubly condemned. So probably a common grave. Or if in a tomb, why not a tomb containing multiple bodies since that was not uncommon either, since bodies were only placed in tombs till the flesh rotted off, and then bones were transported to final resting places such as Talpiot. There would have been no rush in either of the later cases. If it was a common grave or a tomb with other dead bodies in it, then someone could have transported any old bones, not necessarily Jesus' and put them in an ossuary in Talpiot. By the way my own views on the development of resurrection tales in the Gospels can be found here, though my essay-like comment probably has not yet been posted: http://ntmark.wordpress.com/20...

I will say that I'm pleased to see Ben relying foremost on the story in Mark concerning the hasty burial of Jesus with no anointing, contra the tale in the Gospel of John involving enough spice for a king laid round Jesus' body prior to burial. There was certainly not enough time for the GJohn tale to be true.

Re: The Boston Marathon– 1993

J.J. — Tue, 17 Apr 2012 00:17:13 -0000

Good write-up, Ben. Both years I ran Boston, I saw Dick and Rick Hoyt and was overwhelmed with admiration for them. Amazing people and an amazing story.

Re: The Boston Marathon– 1993

Jim Nichols — Mon, 16 Apr 2012 12:12:01 -0000

Thanks for this Ben. My father-in-law is running this year's hot Boston marathon as I type!

Re: ‘FOR HARDNESS OF HEART’—A HERMENEUTICAL KEY FROM JESUS

Justin — Mon, 16 Apr 2012 11:46:54 -0000

I disagree with conclusion "2) only those teachings in the OT that are reiterated and reaffirmed in the NT or are a legitimate extension of something said in the new covenant are binding on Christians"
That is dispensationalism

Re: Hurtado on why Crossan’s Jesus Won’t Do

MurrayGow — Mon, 16 Apr 2012 09:59:17 -0000

Sharp observations by Professor Hurtado, "probably everyone involved knew what they were doing" or at least thought they did -- but with the exception of Jesus (John 12:32), they could never have imagined the consequences.

Re: ‘The Jesus Discovery’— Now That the Dust has Settled

Benw333 — Mon, 16 Apr 2012 09:37:28 -0000

P.S. to James. My memory is that the dirt found in the James ossuary was checked out a decade ago, and matched Silwan dirt.

Re: ‘The Jesus Discovery’— Now That the Dust has Settled

Benw333 — Mon, 16 Apr 2012 09:36:02 -0000

Thank you James for this. This is helpful. I know of no precedent for an inscription being done in a semi-circular fashion in a floral design on an ossuary. Do you? That's what would appear to be required in this case. I certainly do respect those scholar's works, and I know Jim pretty well. I have taken the time to look at the catacomb images of Jonah and the whale and they look nothing like this! As the TV show did briefly mention, there was the sea dragon, and clearly the spitting out of a person in the catacomb image. It looks nothing like what is on that ossuary. And why in the world would the fish be swimming down to the bottom of the sea ( or in this case the bottom of the ossuary)? That doesn't match the Jonah story at all--- where Jonah is spit up on land.

While I have your attention, there was mentioned in the film the notion that Mara might mean Lord on that other ossuary. Probably not, as Bauckham argued in regard to the one found in Talpiot A. I would have expected maran or even marana, but not Mara, which seems to be a personal name.

Re: ‘The Jesus Discovery’— Now That the Dust has Settled

James Daniel Tabor — Mon, 16 Apr 2012 00:23:41 -0000

The book and the film agree, the film just does not elaborate and none of us have ever argued that Jesus was crucified in Talpiot, which would be what is required based on John's account of the 1st tomb being near the cross. I would love to hear why you think the Hebrew letters spelling out YONAH are a stretch. I would think you might have more respect for Jim Charlesworth's seasoned eye here with a lifetime of looking at Herodian scripts and manuscripts, and if not him then Deutsch or Misgav. You might want to look again, and see my blog post on this, YONAH is very clear: http://jamestabor.com/2012/04/...

Also, for a thorough critique of the various "vessel" hypotheses: http://jamestabor.com/2012/04/...

Ben, this is truly an amazing discovery, we do indeed have a Jonah image and a resurrection/ascent epitaph and I think it goes back to Jesus' early followers...I hope you will keep an open mind as you did on the James ossuary. Maybe you have not noticed but the "opposition" here is very similar to that, whereas you and I and a very few held firm as to authenticity of the inscription.

Re: ‘FOR HARDNESS OF HEART’—A HERMENEUTICAL KEY FROM JESUS

Patrick — Sun, 15 Apr 2012 21:36:40 -0000

Mark,

Gen 6:1-4 coupled with finding these nephilim(there were also groups know as Anakim, Raphaim as synonyms in the text for nephilim, which = giants) everywhere the Jews were ordered to put the "herem/ban" on specific groups.

Note, they were not always ordered to do so, many groups they contended with did not have nephilim and as such, Yahweh did not want the Jews to destroy them at all anymore than He would want us to destroy say the Russians in 1950.

The early Church and ancient Jews fully got this.

The Jews dropped the idea after Christ because "sons of God"(bene elohim) in Gen 6 sounds too much like "Son of God" and the Church dropped it because of fear of polytheism.

It's a euphemism for fallen angels in that context and Peter and Jude both discuss them later in the NT, yet the Church is determined to ignore the excellent reason/logic for the herem/ban in Joshua.

They were hybrid divine/human creatures at full/irreversible opposition to Yahweh's will and plan and as such must be utterly defeated/killed off or Yahweh would have seen His plan fail to provide for humanity Messiah through Abraham because the Jews would have been wiped out by them first.

Simple as that and it worries me the Church is willfully ignorant of it. Even if you're among those who sees the OT as all metaphor, Joshua cannot be understood as a metaphor for anything BUT a murderous holocaust like the Nazis IF you don't see this unalterable/ to the death spiritual warfare in the text between the intrinsic good of Yahweh and the intrinsic evil of "the seed of the serpent" from Gen 3:15.

Professor Michael S. Heiser currently has a draft work on the subject titled, "The Myth that is True".

I have a handful of email attachments making the case the silly "orthodox views" of this passage are just that, nonsense.

BTW, the ancient Jews wrote of this stuff outside the Bible as well, 1/3 of I Enoch is all about this series of events AND the ancient near eastern pagans documented these things as well(Greeks majored on them).

The difference was the pagans revered the nephilim and worshipped some of them(Gilgamesh in the Levant), whereas the Jews saw them as Yahweh's full time revolutionary/totally evil opposition.

I can send you attachments about this if interested:

ipb7@att.net

Re: ‘FOR HARDNESS OF HEART’—A HERMENEUTICAL KEY FROM JESUS

Mark2 — Sun, 15 Apr 2012 14:52:14 -0000

Well, let's hear it then!

Re: ‘FOR HARDNESS OF HEART’—A HERMENEUTICAL KEY FROM JESUS

Patrick — Sun, 15 Apr 2012 14:08:12 -0000

I think the point here is valid, but, overdone.

The Torah of course Yahweh was dealing with flawed folks who largely did not receive the spirit and as such, Yahweh was flexible with them as this marriage/divorce discussion shows.

The herem deal is not THAT. The herem was always at Yahweh's insistence, not at His tolerance. He punished Saul for failing to carry it out for example.

There is a very good reason for the herem and it is disturbing to me to know the Church almost entirely doesn't have any idea WHY Yahweh had the Jews purposefully killing off entire people groups including their animals.

In my 57 years, I have read or heard exactly 1 teacher demonstrate why Yahweh did this and it's right there in the text to see, we just can't stand to see it obviously.

Re: ‘The Jesus Discovery’— Now That the Dust has Settled

Benw333 — Sun, 15 Apr 2012 13:09:18 -0000

Thanks Joe, as I said, probably an amphora, but possibly a nephesh. In any case decorative not theological art. And the idea that you can find the name Jonah in the inside of a decorative triangle is really a reach.... to say the least.

One last p.s. to James. This blog post, apart from the mention of our exchange about resurrection, is a critique of the show. If you disagree with points in the show, that's fine, and I would like to know which ones. If not, I don't see how I have distorted your views, though I am open to persuasion.

Re: ‘The Jesus Discovery’— Now That the Dust has Settled

Joe — Sun, 15 Apr 2012 12:05:10 -0000

Ben, shalom go to the ASOR blog, someone posted an article from Davar May 1981 by an Israeli archaeologist who entered the tomb shortly after its discovery and reported on the finds there. On one ossuary he noted, that there was an amphora on the facade. I feel that the case is closed as far as it being a photoshopped fish. Seems despite their multi million dollar budgets not everything gets reported, but truth eventually wins out.

Re: ‘The Jesus Discovery’— Now That the Dust has Settled

Benw333 — Sun, 15 Apr 2012 08:04:54 -0000

James if you would like to send me a list of ways you disagree with the latest TV show, I'm happy to put that up here. And if you want to have your publisher send me the book... I will gladly go through that as well. I have read what you sent me before. Next up on this blog is Richard Bauckham's full review of the inscription.

Re: ‘The Jesus Discovery’— Now That the Dust has Settled

Benw333 — Sun, 15 Apr 2012 07:32:27 -0000

James only time for one comment here. I do remember the original Discovery Channel special. It suggested Jesus was hastily buried near Golgotha and then moved to Talpiot. That was definitely not the impression the new show gave. The new show suggested he was buried in Talpiot B and then moved to Talpiot A. So...are you telling me that you disagree with either or both of the shows? Secondly, whether its an amphora or a nephesh or a perfume bottle, I really don't care. In any case its not a fish with Jonah. Go back and watch the two shows and tell me what impression they leave on when Jesus was buried where. if your views are different, that's just fine. But one doesn't get that impression from either TV show which is what this commenting on.

Re: ‘The Jesus Discovery’— Now That the Dust has Settled

James Daniel Tabor — Sun, 15 Apr 2012 06:55:10 -0000

Thanks for this Ben. You have badly misread and thus misrepresented what I have argued most plainly and consistently now for six years both about the initial burial of Jesus (in my published papers, my blog, and our latest book) and the nature of the resurrection. I have never argued that Jesus corpse was "drug from Golgotha" and put in Talpiot tomb B, then moved to Tomb A, or that either tomb was used the day Jesus died. Since I would not want to trouble you to get the book or go back through published articles (ANE, bibleinterp.com, etc.) I would appreciate it if you and your readers, in the interest of accurately representing one with whom you disagree, take a look at this blog post, just put up yesterday, that summarizes my position on both subjects: http://jamestabor.com/2012/04/....

I would appreciate it if you would correct this as soon as possible before all of your readers and other bloggers pass it all over the world in this incorrect and misleading version.

You are correct, we do disagree about the nature of "resurrection" according to Paul but maybe this latest post will clarify for you where I stand. The "natural" body is not the "life-giving spirit," and although definitely a body--not a spirit--the new body is not "physical" if by that you mean "of the dust," that is Carbon-Hydrogen-Oxogen based--unless you think Jesus's glorious body today, or that of the angels, is so based.

Quite a few other points you have wrong here. Just quickly here:

1)It is not the case that all the scholars have agreed our Jonah image is a amphora on the ASOR blog. Again, I think you have not read too carefully. That is a recent proposal, and one that I covered in my bibleinterp.com paper--take a look. I even provide a photo. It is nothing new. The two art historians who have commented on the ASOR blog say it is a nephesh or funerary tower, up-side-down at that, and they were followed by four others who agreed, only one of whom has moved to the amphora. As you know a nephesh looks nothing like an amphora. Then there are those supporting quite strongly the perfume flask theory, even though the image produced by Prof. Taylor looks nothing like unguentaria of the period. Others, most notably Cargill, and he seems to have quite a following, have argued a krater-vase, of Hellenistic style, from 3rd c. Greece. None of these alternative proposals look like amphora so it is pretty clear that there is no consensus after all among critics of the Jonah and the fish image. Most recently the clear letters YONAH in Hebrew have been identified by Charlesworth and others, which I think pretty well cinches the case we are dealing with a Jonah image here. This should be cause for celebration among those of us who study early Christianity, just as the James ossuary was, as it provides clear links to Jesus' earliest followers and their beliefs. It would be a shame to throw out this "baby" with the "bath water" you consider to be the "Jesus family tomb." Let it be another Jesus--say Jesus the baker, or Jesus son of Yose, Jesus' brother, but that does not make this clear fish a pillar, flask, krater vase, or amphora.

2. You are wrong about the patina studies of the James ossuary. They included samples from other tombs in the area for control purposes. Arhey Shimron is now doing soil comparison tests, which are even more accurate, and the preliminary results support the patina studies--the James ossuary spent some centuries in the Talpiot tomb, even if it was at one point in the kidron valley--or more likely Jame's body was initially buried in the Kidron, but not in a cave, but with a memorial marker Heggisippus mentions, and then finally his bones put in an ossuary and moved to the family tomb (let's say Yose's) before 70 CE--but the marker where he died would have stayed.

I agree with you on the "lifting up." I think it refers to the exaltation of Jesus to the right hand of God, not just his coming out of Hades/Sheol. It is far beyond coming out of the tomb, as in the case of Lazarus. Our Greek inscription clearly refers to that and is celebrating faith in Jesus exaltation.

All best,

James Tabor