Frank is in town. We drove to Wickenburg, then to Prescott, then through Yarnell, then to Jerome, then to Sedona, then to Flagstaff, stopped off in Rock Springs, then finally back home to Phoenix. A good day.
Arizona is a beautiful state, especially when one can avoid the infernal valley heat.
Ó
.
I live in pretty much an urban area. Usually, when I see desert fauna, it's on some hiking trail a good ways away from the metropolitan area. I've come across a few rattlers and a few scorpions out there, a few coyotes. But the city is pretty well developed.
I was sitting in the front porch a few nights ago sipping some hojicha (Japanese roasted green tea) when I happened to look over at the neighbor's yard and saw what I first thought was a cat, sitting, looking across the yard, debating whether to cross the street. There was something peculiar about this cat, though; once it started to walk it became immediately clear to me that this was no cat. This was a fox! Right in the middle of town! Way cool.
Might not seem like a big deal to anyone who lives outside of a big urban area, but to me it was very exciting. I googled and voilá . . . . the photo of vulpes macrotis shows exactly what I saw that night.
Tempe Town Lake catfish will be surprised to hear that Oscar Meyers scored higher than Hebrew Nationals in a taste test done recently involving humans. There's no accounting for taste!
:P
Ó
.
Not only was there a fourth century icon of the apostle Paul unveiled, but the pope also has announced that radiocarbon dating of bone fragments taken from the sarcophagus, long held (since at least the fourth century) to be the burial place of Paul, indicate that they date to “the first or second century.”
Moreover, the pope declared said that these were indeed likely the remains of the famed apostle. He added that the find confirms the old tradition about its Pauline origin.
If this is so (and I‘m not arguing one way or another. . . . yet) . . . . If this ornate tomb really is the historical Paul’s . . . I wonder what effect on current historical scholarship this discovery will have in the coming year or two.
Me?
I remain skeptical and await the story’s further unfolding . . .
I suggest they check out the DNA for indicators of its probable provenance . . . for starters. I wanna finally settle the question: Was he semitic or greek?
:P
I'm curious to see how this will all play out.
Ó
.
ROME (Reuters) - Vatican archaeologists using laser technology have discovered what they believe is the oldest image in existence of St Paul the Apostle, dating from the late 4th century, on the walls of catacomb beneath Rome.
Vatican newspaper Osservatore Romano, revealing the find on Sunday, published a picture of a frescoed image of the face of a man with a pointed black beard on a red background, inside a bright yellow halo. The high forehead is furrowed.
Experts of the Ponitifical Commission for Sacred Archaeology made the discovery on June 19 in the Catacomb of Santa Tecla in Rome and describe it as the "oldest icon in history dedicated to the cult of the Apostle," according to the Vatican newspaper.
The discovery, which involved removing layers of clay and limestone using lasers, was announced a day before Rome observes a religious holiday for the Feasts of St Peter and St Paul.
Peter and Paul are revered by Christians as the greatest early missionaries. Converting on the road to Damascus following a blinding vision of Jesus, Paul took the Gospel to pagan Greeks and Romans and met his martyrdom in Rome in about 65 AD.
Early Christians in Rome buried their dead in catacombs dug into the soft rock under the city and decorated the underground walls with devotional images, often in the Pompeian style.
(highly esteemed in Rome was this Paul person as a legendary apostle . . . and yet . . . the author of 1Clement knew almost nothing of his missionary output . . . hmm . . . interesting)
I have lately become fascinated by the Tübingen School of historical criticism and by its inevitable derivate, the Dutch Radical school. I posted some links to a few essays and articles detailing the views of some of these schools' main exponents a few days ago.
Dating back to the early nineteenth century, the findings of these scholars has been all but ignored by subsequent scholarship, whose response to the various arguments posited has basically amounted to little more than a cold shoulder. This is a complaint that I have heard voiced by the very few scholars who remain standard-bearers for this radical approach (e.g. Bob Price and Hermann Detering). It seems clear that the implications of the Dutch Radicals' conclusions are so paradigm-shaking (and thus 'dangerous' for orthodox exegetes) they were all ignored.
I find the arguments for the 2nd century origin of the Pauline corpus advanced by the Dutch Radicals to be cogent and rather persuasive. In an effort to get an outlook on the subject from the other side I started seeking counter-arguments to the Dutch Radicals. If they are so fringe, then it must be easy to refute them, right? But I found very little.
On one apologist site (CADRE Comments), the blogger seemed determined to remedy this dearth of engagement with what he clearly considers a fringe hyper-critical group by starting a series devoted to refuting the radicals. He seems aware of the charge of a conspiracy of silence levelled at contemporary scholarship and he is determined to reveal the errors of the radicals by means of rational exegesis and argumentation instead of scornful dismissal:
I want rather to subject some of their arguments to critical scrutiny, to see whether they deserve the serious consideration which Detering complains has been lacking in the academy [...] ... [T]here are a number of thorny problems with the reception of Paul's letters in the 2nd Century which mainstream scholars rarely if ever deal with, so that the historical Paul ends up being a much more vulnerable target for skepticism than the historical Jesus. In the end I think their views suffer from a number of debilitating flaws, but this must be demonstrated, not simply assumed because of the marginal status of the Dutch Radicals.
Very cool. A commendable notion, and, in fact, his first post of the series is a fairly good introduction to the relevant ideas espoused by the radicals. After sketching a pretty good outline of their arguments, the blogger promises to engage them in detail in a later post (the introductory post dates to April 2008).
I was excited to continue reading after this introductory post, but, as I searched his blog for more entries on the subject, all I found was one more part in his series (dated in July 2008). In this 'part 2" post, he appeals to a work published by Albert Schweitzer in 1912, Paul and his Interpreters.
As regards external attestation, "the position is not so favorable to [the Dutch Radicals] as Loman wished to represent it." 1 Clement attests quite clearly to some Pauline letters and is to be dated no later than the beginning of the 2nd Century. If the Ignatian letters are genuine, "the attestation of the Pauline Epistles is in much better shape than was formerly supposed."
This opinion echoes what the blogger had hinted at in his first post:
Dutch Radical scholars were convinced that the earliest assumed witnesses to Paul and his letters, 1 Clement and the Ignatian epistles, along with Polycarp, are complete forgeries.
This implies that in order for their theories regarding the (in)authenticity of the pauline corpus to stand, the Dutch Radical depend on the inauthenticity of 1st Clement and the Ignatian corpus, which they deem spurious based merely on this need to doubt Paul.
A red flag goes up for me at this point. This is a specious line of argument for a couple of reasons:
One may argue for the authenticity of the Pauline corpus if one wishes, but I'm afraid that it cannot be done by appealing to attestation in Clement or in Ignatius. Sorry.
Beyond this second post in the blog series, which appeals to authority (viz. Schweitzer's outmoded opinions), the blog which promised "critical scrutiny" delivers nothing of the kind in the end.
This all makes me wonder if Detering is right about how readily the arguments are dismissed out of hand by modern scholars, unexamined (except superficially and patronizingly), after all.
for now . . .
Ó
.
=====================================
*Added on 2 July 09:
Since writing this post, realize that I made an error. I have already apologized for this at the CADRE but I wish to also publish my comment here. I was working from an incomplete text (see below):
OK
Let me explain how I seriously screwed up:
My internet service was crapping out for a couple of nights. As you already know, I've been studying Tübingen et al lately . . . .
My mind was burning with the question:
"Dammit, DID Clement and Ignatius quote Paul's letters??"
That's when I had the idea: 'Why don't I go look for myself? I have hard copies of the texts on my shelf . . . . I can do this! . . . "
The problem is that, while I have a bunch of different translations of the NT to consult, I only have one translation of 1 Clement and of the Ignatians. Unfortunately, the translation of 1 Clement that I have comes from the Codex Alexandrinus, which I now realize (my internet is working fine again) had a big chunk missing. Had my internet been working (and had I been a tad less manic), I'm sure I would have reached for Early Christian Writings first, like I always do.
Since posting I have done some further reading and I acknowledge the Syrian manuscripts and the couple of others that surfaced after it. (this also explains why the letter felt so much shorter than I remember it (read maybe ten years ago)
Therefore, allow me to apologize for the severity of my insistence in my post.
I assure you that I was not guided by rancor. The text I was looking at really was this incomplete version in the Alexandrinus, which contains no explicit appeals to "the epistle." I could not see any explicit mentions because there simply aren't any there. I hope that you at least recognize the source of my blunder as such.
As you predicted in your response, my enthusiasm did get the best of me in this case, and I sincerely beg your pardon.
As far as the standards that I used (just to answer your curiosity) . . . I compared and contrasted the relevant verses with an emphasis on how closely the phrasing of the ideas are followed from the NT. Most things I found are just thematic similarities (e.g. "be kind to each other"—"ye who are proud"—etc) seem to me to be just general aphoristic exhortations or affirmations. In a couple of places there does seem to be bits of phrases that call one or another of the epistles to mind ("better to give that to receive"), but I only coded in green those verses where I see an undeniable allusion to an epistle.
peace for now
I'll continue my review of the longer text (I truly am curious about these things, who knows why?) when I get a little time and repost, possibly.
=====================================
(original post begins)
The claims of an apologetic site regarding the Tübingen School and the Dutch radicals inspired me to review the first Clementine letter and the Ignatian corpus to see exactly what they reveal about their respective authors' knowledge of the NT generally, and about the apostle Paul specifically. I used Archbishop Wake's translations from the text of Vossius and his footnote annotations. I use yellow to denote thematic similarities which don't reveal direct knowledge of the text in question. I use green to denote a real potential allusion. I automatically strike non-Pauline works, as my focus is pauline content specifically.
If I have missed any evidence of their knowing the NT, I would appreciate being alerted to it.
Here goes . . .
1stClement
| Chapter | Verse | NT reference? | |
| 1 | 8 | non-Pauline | |
| 8 | " | ||
| 8 | 1 Tim 6:8 | shared theme of virtue of poverty | |
| 15 | Titus 3:1 | shared theme of being kind to each other | |
| 4 | 4 | 1 Tim 5:4 | shared 'pleasing to God' theme |
| 7 | non-Pauline | ||
| 7 | " | ||
| 5 | 5 | " (it's really an allusion to Isaiah 12:8) | |
| 6 | 1 | " (really an allusion to Gen 19) | |
| 1 | " (really an allusion to Gen 19) | ||
| 7 | 4 | " | |
| 11 | 11 | " | |
| 14 | 3 | " | |
| 3 | " | ||
| 16 | 8 | 1 Cor 2:9 | it's really an allusion to Isaiah 54:4 |
| 17 | 9 | Romans 1:32 | shared theme of approval by inaction |
| 18 | non-Pauline | ||
| 19 | " (Psalm 109:4) | ||
| 20 | " | ||
| 22 | " (Psalm 110:1) | ||
| 30 | 1 Cor 12: 13, 21 | possible allusion | |
| 18 | 4 | non-Pauline (thematic association) | |
| 4 | " | ||
| 4 | " | ||
| 19 | 3 | 1 Thess 1:5 | shared theme of spirit inspiration |
| 20 | 16 | Eph 4:4 | share theme is general call to unity |
| 16 | 1 Cor 12 | possible allusion | |
| 17 | Rom 12 | shared unity theme again | |
| 18 | non-Pauline | ||
| 21 | 4 | " | |
| 4 | 1 Cor 13:7 | possible allusion |
The picture that emerges is that Clement is familiar to some degree with some pauline ideas, particularly those espoused in the first letter to the Corinthians, but only marginally. While there are a couple of places where allusions could be argued, no direct quotations exist.
| Chapter | Verse | NT reference? | |
| 1 | 1 | Eph 3:19 | shares “fullness of God” theme |
| 4 | Eph 5:2 | shares willing sacrifice theme | |
| 8 | 1 Cor 1:10 | shares general unity theme | |
| 2 | 1 | non-Pauline | |
| 3 | " (thematics) | ||
| 3 | 4 | 1 Cor 7:34 | vague association on unity theme |
| 16 | " (theme of knowing the good by its derivates) | ||
| 4 | 1 | 1 Cor 6:9–10 | vague association with wretched people |
| 2 | 1 Cor 10:8 | again, association with wretched people | |
| 7 | 1Cor1:18,23–24 | allusion | |
| 8 | 1Cor 1: 20 | allusion |
Magnesians
| Chapter | Verse | NT reference? | |
| 2 | 5 | non-Pauline (shares apocalyptic theme) | |
| 8 | non-Pauline (allusion) | ||
| 8 | " | ||
| 8 | " | ||
| 10 | Eph 4:3–6 | shared unity theme | |
| 11 | non-Pauline (shared 'oneness with God' theme | ||
| 3 | 2 | non-Pauline (*logos reference) |
Trallians
| nothing |
Romans
| Chapter | Verse | NT reference? | |
| 2 | 9 | 1 Cor 4:4 | vague association |
| 3 | 10 | 1 Cor 15:8 | shares 'untimely born' motif (will allow for argument's sake) |
Philadelphians
| nothing |
Smyrneans
| Chapter | Verse | NT reference? | |
| 2 | 13 | non-Pauline (vague association - literary formula) |
To Polycarp
| Chapter | Verse | NT reference? | |
| 1 | 8 | non-Pauline (*could well be allusion) |
As with Clement, so with Ignatius.
When you eliminate the non-Pauline works and the mere thematic similarities between these works and the NT, all that’s substantively left are some allusions (again, not direct quotes) to 1 Corinthians and no other pauline work.
Moreover, 1 Clement’s familiarity with the ideas in the first Corinthian epistle is limited to the portion of the original letter which contained what we now know as chapters 12 and 13. To this reader, it sounds like he might have heard some sermons from some people who knew something about a Pauline tradition. But I doubt he had access to the one letter he knew about.
Similarly, Ignatius letters seem to be familiar only with one section of 1st Corinthians: the opening.
Walter Bauer was thus right in his assessment of these works in his 1934 work Orthodoxy and Heresy in Earliest Christianity.
i.e. Clement and Ignatius know only about one pauline work, and very little of it, at that!
The reason for my undertaking this investigation was my finding an apologetic site which erroneously defends Pauline authenticity (contra Dutch Radicals) by appealing to these texts.
My next post will deal with said apologists in more detail.
Ó
.
After finishing Conzelmann, I started reading up on the Tübingen School and the subsequent Dutch Radicals that took the former's ideas to their ultimate natural implications, namely, casting doubt on the authenticity of not only the pastoral epistles, but also of the hallowed "seven genuine letters" of Paul. Even the big four letters (i.e. 1 & 2 Corinthians, Galatians, & Romans), Van Manen, Loman and their colleagues concluded, are not articles from the mid first century apostle to the gentiles, to whom they have been attributed since the catholization of "orthodoxy" in the mid to late second century.
There's a treasure trove of articles on the subject over at Robert Price's wonderful Journal of Higher Criticism. Anyone interested in this stuff should go check it out.
They are really very well researched and well argued essays. I highly recommend them.
I find what they say convincing; I've been ruminating on these and expect to write a few thoughts on this topic soon.
On the day that Michael Jackson died (yesterday) I worked at the Conservatory (Gilbert campus). When I chose the tune for the morning session I had no idea that it would turn out to be an ironic premonition of sorts.
Walking on the Moon - (live at CRAS Gilbert campus on 25 Jun 2009)
During the lunch break, I signed on to the internet and read the news that he had been rushed to the hospital. I nodded off into a food-coma and woke up (presumably only minutes later) to refresh my browser, which now read in highlighted tones: "Moonwalker Michael Jackson dead at 50." It took a while for it to sink in, not because I have any interest in Jackson's music. I have never owned any of it, except for a tape of an old Jackson Five mix that I had (I Want You Back has one of the most infectious bass lines in pop music). Never quite a fan, still the news of his death aroused some feelings, not of nostalgia as much as a recognition of the impact that he had on the pop of our generation. Granted, I more or less detest pop in general, but that is an irony that deserves a post of its own. Anyway, may he rest in peace.
For the afternoon session, I redid the Bruce Hornsby tune from last week. Since Ted had another hit afterward, he split early, so there is no sax on this version.
Rainbow's Cadillac
The ponies on this day were Joe, Ted, Rob and I. The instructor was Nancy
Ó
.
Making up approximately 1% of sales recently, the Kodak company is finally putting to rest what was once a popular flagship product for the company. Two radical examples of kodachrome as an icon-producing tool of American history: the Zapruder footage of the JFK assassination . . . and the famous striking green eyes of the Afghan woman who once graced the cover of National Geographic.
I've been enjoying reading Hans Conzelmann's book on primitive Christianity. About fifty pages into it, a passing comment of his set my mind on a tangent: Just a few years (per Acts) after the death of Jesus the movement proclaiming his name had spread from the Galilee to Judea to Samaria and up the coast to Antioch and into Syria (Damascus).
I find myself a bit stumped by the expansion of primitive Christianity into Samaritan territory in particular. Here, there existed a bitter rivalry between the Judean and the Samaritan varieties of Abrahamic covenantal faith. So bitter a rivalry, in fact, that it was immortalized in the parable of the Good Samaritan for posterity. (i.e. ... it made it to the pop charts of the day, so to speak) What made that story so poignant was the fact that Judeans and Samaritans would just as soon let each other die in the street rather than acknowledge each other. It was mutual.
I am wondering what kind of missionary activity would convince a sworn hated rival to forsake not just his opponents' variety of Abramism (Mosaism, Judaism ... whatever), but his own, in favor of this "new and improved" variety.
I find dissonance here. Might this be evidence (latent, faint) that the missionaries weren't selling messianism there after all? Would a messianism of a Jerusalem or a Pauline variety have been taken seriously in Samaria?
Just some questions to ponder as I keep walking this weird journey. The more I keep walking on, the more the trail opens up.
Reading:
Listening:
Jones wasn't there today. Tony was at the helm.
Live at CRAS Gilbert campus on 16 June 2009.
The players today:
Theo Belledin - sax
Mario Mendivil - bass
Chris Gogh - piano and organ
Billy Abdo - tele
Miguel Melgoza - kit
i & i & i - guitar and cuatro (PM)
(AM) When You Give Your Love To Me
(PM) Rainbow's Cadillac
His approach is one of the three models outlined in a great WGBH Forum lecture and in a previous FORA post.
A good synopsis of the history of personal computing and the distribution of music.
Ó
.
