Sounds interesting

http://ntgateway.com/weblog/2005/06/philip-eslers-new-paradigm.html

MINNEAPOLIS (June 17, 2005)— In New Testament Theology: Communion and Community, Philip Esler proposes an entirely new way to integrate historical criticism of the New Testament and its influence on contemporary Christian life and identity. He defends and advocates historical analysis of the texts that is directed towards understanding their original messages as communications from our ancestors in faith.

Although these messages are contextualized in ancient cultural settings, we can nevertheless comprehend them and dialogically engage with their authors in a framework of intercultural communication and communion. New Testament Theology proposes a variety of ways to understand this communicative process, including memory and long-standing ideas concerning ‘the communion of the saints.’ The book re-engineers New Testament theology by insisting upon the theological gains that come from listening to the New Testament authors in the full force of their historical specificity and otherness.

Maybe in our lifetime there'll be a serious widespread rally for socio-historical understanding--rather than a decontextualized Western low-context import.

Update: Jul 18

Loren Rosson has written some thoughts on this book. Find them here.

Topics to be covered next month:

I'll commit to doing a few, since few other things are pressing (there are around five or so).

- Honor and shame (maybe to be used as a basis for a short intro for commentaries. This is a fairly intricate topic so I'll break it up into sections)
- Patronage, reciprocity, grace (I note that this affects how we view prayer, and asking God for things, and possibly how we view our interactions with others)
- A short blurb on deSilva's Honor, Patronage, Kinship & Purity, and Pilch/Malina's Handbook of Biblical Social Values
- *Reflections on Neyrey's The Sociology of Secrecy in the Fourth Gospel*
- How what we do can glorify God (this has some interesting applications)

*I read this a few weeks ago, and it is fascinating. There are definite parallels between the information networks described, and what I see. For example, that those who know more are more of 'insiders'.

“Attitudes to the Poor in New Testament Times”

See article here.

---

The first note I'd like to make is that the social classes of our day (I speak as a Westerner) bear little resemblance to those in ancient societies. Jeffers asks us to "Imagine a society in which the gulf between the upper class and all others was so wide that their members had virtually nothing in common. Imagine that you were forbidden by law to marry someone of another class, and upward mobility was frowned upon. Imagine a legal system that always favored the upper class. Imagine a society in which, with very few exceptions, your status at birth determined the course of your future life. While we may be able to think of examples of this kind of separation in American society, it is nothing like the chasm between those at the top and those at the bottom in Roman society that existed at all times in every place." (The Greco-Roman World, p.181)

The second note is about the penês (people who did manual labor) and how they were viewed. It is true that they were dependant upon others, though I don't suppose we moderns would really note that--it doesn't matter to us. So once again we are at odds with the intricacies of honor-shame societies. The craftsman is dependant on others, but then again, it's others who require the skills of the craftsman. Keep in mind, though, that what's being presented in that quote is an elite class perspective. Consider, "Romans considered wealth an essential requirement of the virtuous life. In contrast with the popular American idea that the wealthy are less honest because power corrupts, the Roman elite believed that only the rich could afford to be honest. They reasoned that the poor must do whatever is necessary to survive and so are more likely to lie, cheat and steal." (The Greco-Roman World, p.189) Whereas we would often praise artisians for their skill (and pay them large sums of money for public works), this apparently was not the case in ancient times.

The ptôchos, however, were at the bottom rung of the social ladder. Maybe they could not even obtain meat or wine. Apparently they had extraordinarily little honor. And there was a whopping 15% of the total population of these folks.

Regarding the application of the social structure to Paul's comments in 1 Cor. 7:17, 24, such a piece of the picture of Paul is important, but I do believe Paul would not have held a 100% strictness on this--close to 100%, but not quite. The reason is Jesus; a Galilean, son of a carpenter, who fought and won a lot of honor in his time. Maybe I'm off the mark here; I'm not really sure if Jesus changed class. If 'prophet' or 'messiah/king' was a class, then that carpenter boy certainly did. On another note, I believe that the average modern person would NOT like this at all (and maybe think it absurd and irrational). We would certainly move up the economic ranks if we could (winning the lottery would be nice).

Tiberius' rule was 14-37 AD, so the gospels are near the middle of the heavy taxation Neyrey speaks of.

The rich get richer--indeed. Social reform was very rare; the only meaningful social revolutions needed to be done by powerful upper class lads. I remember reading about an Emperor (one of the 'mighty five' or something like that, who went on to be the Emperor) who made several important reformations. Otherwise, social change came at the hands of disaster, or military force. (So it was thought! Jesus taught another way.) But due to the social structure and how there was no drive for equality at all, the gulf between the rich and the poor only grew wider.

The Plutarch quote is funny (wealth isn't about you, it's about your image), but it shows how the drive for honor would determine behaviour.

Some thoughts about discussion methodology...

While reading Neyrey's article about attitudes toward the 'poor', I read up to the NT application part and had a sudden thought. Perhaps it would be more effective if we were to comment on merely the differences in perspective (and important and interesting points), and after that, take a look at the relevant pieces in the gospels. I think the task of trying to see into a culture, especially from the very beginning (I'm only a few months into this, what about you?), requires that reflection preceed application.* Hopefully we can get structurally efficient discussions going (maybe hint at a line in the article but don't quote it directly? quote the first few words of the paragraph? repeat the thought?).

I'll try to, when my memory is sufficiently roused, add in other stuff from, say, The Greco-Roman World.

Also, as our resource list grows, we should make specific posts and have links on hand. We'll get around to specifying categories later.

*I had to write it in more philosophical language, sorry. To say it another way, aim for understanding before trying to apply it. Though perhaps if one were able to live in the culture, application might preceed reflection.

some potentially good stuff.

I found some useful-looking journals in the DOAJ--a couple on Classics, a couple Biblical Studies in general, and one on textual criticism. I have not looked at all of them yet, so I can't say that they're all really great and useful yet...just that they may possibly be helpful in ANE studies.

The Bryn Mawr Classical Review (This one is useful if you are looking for recomended books or reviews of books)
Leeds International Classical Studies
Biblica (Not all articles here are in English. Most are, but not all.)
Journal of Biblical Studies (Quote: "Articles on any aspect of Biblical Studies (including: archaeology, linguistics, exegesis, history, and textual issues)are welcome.")
TC: A Journal of Biblical Textual Criticism(This one looked pretty good...some interesting stuff on language.)

A short technical note about reading files

Jerome Neyrey has 27 full-text articles on his site. A number of them are in bold font. I don't know about you, but this annoys me. If you have a bunch of them downloaded, and wish to remove the bold, open the file up in notepad. Select the Replace feature (Ctrl + H), put in the html for bold text and click 'Replace All'. Then put in the close script for bold, and click the RA button. Goodbye bold font.

Edit: Formatting errors.

The Agora opens...

I wish I could open this with a vivid illustration of a Greek agora (marketplace), but...

Instead I open with discussion about hermeneutics, and give an argument for the relevance and importance of ancient culture in interpreting ancient texts. And some resources. :) So let me briefly draw out my philosophy of hermeneutics in a nutshell. I can't say that every contributor or reader agrees (or even knows what 'hermeneutics' means), but we can discuss that as time continues.

So, here's a set of propositions to capture my hermeneutics:

1. Every word, thought, or deed has its own context.
2. Its context involves (but is not limited to) historical, social, cultural, and personal context. Literary context applies to literature.
3. The meaning of anything is what the author intended it to be.
4. The purpose of exegesis, or studying a text, is to find the intended meaning of the author.
5. Therefore, when attempting to understand a given text (or thought, or deed), one must set the object firmly into its own context.

Now then, let's get some scholars in here. From John Pilch,

More than any other Roman document that has hitherto appeared, this one pays repeated, explicit attention to the need for learning and understanding the ancient, Middle Eastern culture, or the "socio-cultural world" (I. B. 3., p. 50) in which the Bible originated. It recognizes that this ancient culture presents "not a few difficulties" for interpreters (Papal Address, § 15, p. 19) who must respect the "historical, cultural context" of literary genres (Papal Address, § 8, p. 13).

Within the context of actualization (American social scientists prefer to speak of appropriation; pastoral ministers speak of pastoral application) of the text, all are advised to recognize that translation from one language (Hebrew or Aramaic) to another (Greek; and all three to English!) "necessarily involves a change of cultural context; concepts are not identical and symbols have a different meaning, for they come up against other traditions of thought and other ways of life" (IV. B., p. 118).

The reason why concepts and symbols have different meanings in different cultures is that meaning derives from comes from social system. To interpret the Bible respectfully requires a solid knowledge of the Mediterranean social system in which it originated. This is especially important, therefore, for those who read the Bible in English translation with hardly an awareness that every translation is an interpretation. Often the English language concept bears little or no relationship to the Hebrew, Aramaic or Greek concept it translates. A new kind of dictionary is needed to make such an adequate cross-cultural translation (see Pilch and Malina).

In its conclusion (p. 128), the document fittingly insists that

The eternal Word became incarnate at a precise period of history, within a clearly defined cultural and social environment. Anyone who desires to understand the Word of God should humbly seek it out there where it has made itself visible and accept to this end the necessary help of human knowledge (author's comment: or as the document elsewhere proposes, the human sciences such as sociology, cultural anthropology, etc.).

Many who use cultural anthropology to interpret the Bible rely particularly upon its sub-discipline, Mediterranean anthropology. Fully appreciating differences that exist between modern and ancient times and even between individual countries in those ages, scholars believe insights from this discipline are extremely helpful in imagining in a disciplined and testable way the cultural and social environment in which Jesus lived. Any interpretation that ignores such insights distorts the scripture like a funhouse mirror.

I happen to be slightly amused by funhouse mirrors (and other optical illusions), but with a collection of documents with the potential importance as the Torah and prophets (and writings), synoptic gospels and Paul of Tarsus' pastoral letters (and so on), one should not approach these writings with carelessness. In case anyone is curious, I also apply this to other documents of potentially tremendous importance, such as the Koran. Since I have not studied the Koran, you will never hear me say anything about it.

Therefore, I propose as a purpose of the Agora, to post material relating to the ANE, and attempt to discuss, so far as we can, its differences with our own lives, and how it affects our interpretation of the bible.