|
|
|
Click here to send us Questions or Comments
Copyright �
1997-2004
|
For July-December 2000
|
The dogmas of a denominational or theological frame of reference, or paradigm, all too often result in oversimplification of issues and in perpetuation of myths. |
We must also recognize that there were many unique cultures and subcultures in biblical times. Our study of the early church must consist largely of the analysis of its ancient culture and its unique belief systems. Focusing on cultural issues helps sensitize us to ethnic differences and to the Semitic ways of thinking and behaving underlying the New Testament. This effort, however, usually proceeds along ideological lines for persons of deep religious conviction and internalized denominational dogmatism project their belief systems on the biblical text and read the Bible in ways that are consistent with and which maintain their own way of life.
The dogmas of a denominational or theological frame of reference, or paradigm, all too often result in oversimplification of issues and in perpetuation of myths. Such an approach, which reveals as much about the interpreter as the sociocultural system under study, is detrimental to unbiased biblical study and to the search for fact and truth.
Culture, as a system of values, beliefs, and philosophical concepts, is a far more powerful force than most people recognize. In fact, it is so powerful that individuals normally hold to their own worldview and to their own particular cultural conditions to such an extent that they cannot perceive of any other way of life than their own. The constraining character of their culture, its blindness, impedes their ability to discern. This characteristic of culture was as powerful a force in Jesus� day as it is now. Knowing this helps clarify the attribution of blindness by Jesus and his disciples to their non-believing opponents. When confronted with this behavior the apostles attributed it to people being blind to the gospel. Coming to terms with a first Century Christianity at odds with their own is difficult, if not quite impossible, for many Christians today.
First century Christianity, the Judeo-Christianity of apostolic times made up of ethnic Jews and Gentiles, was a radically different sociocultural system than those of today. If one�s task is to discern and to understand the values, beliefs, and worldviews of the first Christians, and to make them meaningful and intelligible in today�s world, then one must cautiously minimize cultural constraints and bias. Enculturated, or more crudely put, conditioned by the prejudices of his or her own time, every exegete approaches the Hebrew Scriptures and the New Testament with a set of preconceived notions and convictions. They seek to impose upon early Christians religious beliefs and practices identical to their own�as Baptists, as Catholics, as Evangelicals, as Messianic Jews, and the like. Be aware, however, that true objectivity, or detached analysis, is illusory.
Detached, theoretically-oriented theology does not exist. The praxis (practical application) of theologians, ministers, and religious writers cannot be separated from their theology. Or, as some state it, faith informs learning and scholarship. Hence, even though he or she vehemently denies it, the faith of any theologian, historian, or Bible student influences if not directs his or her scholarly conclusions. They do not separate their scholarly work from their internalized real-world values.
Those who most sincerely believe they live by the �biblical pattern� are usually the most inhibited from viewing early Christianity in an impartial manner. |
Some people become uncomfortable when they read the New Testament. Encountering its authoritative language, alien concepts, and difficult symbolism, they find it hard to understand and at variance with their own beliefs. What they experience is cultural dissonance. This is a mild form of cultural shock. This phenomenon arises when they confront a first-century Judeo-Christianity in the New Testament far removed from the comfort of their own. When encountering significant inconsistencies in their belief systems people tend to filter out contradictions to lessen cultural dissonance. Moreover, people have a tendency to reject incongruent beliefs to avoid the effects of cognitive dissonance. They fall back on the comfort of their own established set of beliefs. Those who most sincerely believe they live by the �biblical pattern� are usually the most inhibited from viewing early Christianity in an impartial manner. To come to grips with the facts in this matter one has to get beyond his or her emotions, cultural defense mechanisms, and feelings.
Today�s Christianity, the result of the process of religious syncretism and of adaptions to changing social and political conditions over nearly two millennia, differs significantly from that of the first Christians. The process began with the early Church itself. At first Judeo-Christianity spread over the Roman world by word of mouth and through the evangelization of the synagogues of the Jews, by the apostles and their followers, resulting in the formation of many small house-churches and some fledging Christian synagogues. In its second decade Judeo-Christianity admitted Gentiles into its fellowship thereby opening itself to the introduction of conflicting value systems and cultural conflict. Its fragile infrastructure resulted in considerable independence for these small groups leading to the blending of Judeo-Christian teachings with varied Gentile beliefs and practices outside the Jewish homeland. After CE 135, marked by thousands of house churches, the rise of powerful overseers known as bishops, diffused authority, a non-centralized sociocultural system, and religious syncretism, Gentile congregations separated from those of the Judeo-Christians. This established the basis for the rise of the highly diverse Christianity of today�s world.
Today, steeped in nineteen centuries of christianized cultural traditions, the minds of most people remain quite closed, or at least not open, to alternative belief systems�particularly that embodied in Judeo-Christianity. Cultural constraints impede their ability to discern other reasonable, even more accurate, alternatives for belief and practice. Such cultural disability leads to ethnocentrism, anachronistic thinking, and eisegesis. This does not mean that their attitudes, beliefs, or culture remain static. In fact attitudes, beliefs, and culture undergo constant change and are quite dynamic.
Often people become more open to new ideas and change when prompted by a major life transition. The triggering phenomenon appears to be a material change of circumstances such as a divorce, a new career, the death of a loved-one, a move to a new location, a child leaving home, or marriage. People appear to be more susceptible to change, and sometimes more vulnerable, at these times. They are more resistant to new ideas, and less apt to change when secure in their comfort zones. Nevertheless, the old adage that �a person convinced against his or her will is of the same opinion still� is all to often the case.
Objective study of the New Testament involves the study of its cultural framework. Cultural context and careful, objective analysis of details are important when studying the Bible if one�s purpose is to understand the Bible in its original setting. The Hebrew Scriptures consist of a set of Semitic documents reflecting the Semitic thinking of its authors. Although the New Testament has passed to the present day through the Greek language it remains a collection of Judeo-Christian literature containing underlying Semitic thinking, illustrations, and values. It is not a Greek, Roman Catholic, Byzantine, or a Protestant compendium. It is a set of Judeo-Christian writings, albeit preserved in the Greek language, to be understood in terms of their Judeo-Christian context and the praxis of the ancient church.
In an academic sense people can learn a great deal about the cultures of Bible and early Christian praxis by reading, taking courses, surfing the World Wide Web, watching documentaries, traveling to the Levant, visiting museums, going to church, studying the Bible, and engaging in discussions. The deepest understanding, however, is experiential and comes through participation. You will gain the deepest understanding of the way of life of the first Christians, "The Way", if you take some time to participate in it and to develop some familiarity with biblical languages.
Knowing the New Testament with firsthand knowledge has great value, if not more, then knowing about it from second hand knowledge provided by someone else. This suggests that the best equipped to understand early Christianity are those deeply familiar with the rites, conditions, personalities, and beliefs of early Christians, and who participate in the praxis of early Christianity as insiders. While most people will not invest the time and effort it takes to do that you can experience the lifestyle by selectively adopting some of their customs for a short period of time. Observing and living a Judeo-Christian lifestyle for a short time will permit you to experience the difference and to develop a heightened sensitivity toward the cultural practices and values of early Christians.
Since our cultural background largely determines the interpretation we make, or have, of a biblical text we cannot really come to know the meaning of a scripture in an actual sense unless we become part of it. For example, in reference to God a psalmist wrote �all who follow his precepts have good understanding (Psalm 111:10 NIV).� The psalmist suggests that by living by the precepts of the Law of Moses a religiously observant Jew can gain a good understanding of that way of life. Similarly by living by the Law of Christ one can gain great understanding of the Christian way of life and its relevancy for our day.
To know the Bible one has to experience it through living by its precepts. To know what it means to be a Jew one has to become one. To know Muslim culture one must be a Muslim. To know Christ is to be a Christian.
Please send us your Comments by e-mail. All submissions must be signed and include your street or route address and telephone number, which we require for verification purposes only. We reserve the right to use or not use comments so addressed (in whole or in part, as deemed in the public interest), to include your name, and to edit or condense your comments for clarity and space. Click here to send us comments.
Pompeii was good, but my research is going to be drastically changed. I didn't get a chance to finish analyzing all of the ceramics I wanted to look at this year. Instead of a full blown pottery report I will instead be doing a preliminary report on the state of knowledge we have about Black Gloss Wares, including my rim analysis, fabric analysis stratigraphic data, chronology, etc... I am going to try and tighten up the dates on the ceramics at Pompeii at least.
BG Ware is the earliest dateable class of ceramics found at Pompeii. And since the goal of our excavations are to shed light on the earliest deposits (down to sterile soil) my job is an important one. I actually was able to date a small fragment that came out of our fourth century BCE (earliest deposits that we have) from a packed earth surface. It was an upturned base fragment of a pedestalled platter, Etruscan, dating from 340-300 BCE. I was pretty excited and so was everyone else.
So now in the preliminary report for the superintendent of Pompeii my little piece of detective work is mentioned as one of the best discoveries for the season (for early deposits anyway). This season we also found many ballistas and sling shot from Sulla's siege in the first century BCE. There is evidence that our Insula was the most heavily damaged because it was near the northern gate and the one used by Sulla's men (as noted in ancient texts). So that we found evidence in the form of weapons (about 15 balista, or large catapult rocks, and 30 or so lead sling shots) was really cool. Nice to be able to put archaeology in to its historical timeframe. So now I am back to write my dissertation. I have a long ways to go and lots to do in just over two months. I will be very stressed out soon enough. I should be back state-side by Nov. I hope all is well with you!
--Julie Hales
Julie was one of the students on the Ambassador contingent to the Hazor Expedition. She has been completing an advanced degree in archeology in the UK and doing fieldwork at Pompeii.
--editor
I was going thru your site (very nice!) but could not find any reference to our excavation at Tell es-Safi, most probably "Gath of the Philistines" (home of Goliath, etc.). I would most appreciate it if you added information and links about our program.
--Aren M. Maeir
We are most happy to list the site on BibArch and we will develop information about the site for interested viewers. The URL is http://faculty.biu.ac.il/~maeira
--editor
I enjoyed your site, but do accept a very young earth. I can't find one verse of scripture that even remotely suggests that the earth is millions or billions of years old. Jesus said, "But from the beginning of creation, God made them male and female." (Mark 10:6). Since the Bible dates the creation through the genealogies from Adam to Abraham (Gen. 5 and 11), Abraham to David, David to the Babylon captivity and Babylon to Christ (all 42 generations - Matt. 1:17), how can the earth or universe be millions or billions of years old? Also, Mark 13:19 says that there has never been "tribulation" since the beginning of the creation. Only mankind has experiences "tribulation," not a multi million or billion year old earth. Finally, in Luke 11:50, it says that the blood of the prophets has been shed since the foundation of the world. The foundation of the world is Gen. 1:1,2. There were no prophets millions of years ago.
-- Jim Black
Please feel free to submit short questions. We cannot give a personal reply to every question due to the sheer volume of questions we receive. Therefore, we reserve the right to answer and publish those we believe to be of interest to our viewers. Click here to submit a question to the editor.
I have heard something about the ark described in Exodus have been found in a cave under Golgotha, with some of the blood from Jesus on it. What is this? Only fantasy or.......? Hope you will find time to answer me. Excuse my bad English.
--Knut Harald Synnes, Norway
The ark remains lost. It was lost even in Jesus' day. It disappeared from history in First Temple times. The ark never was part of the inventory of the Temple built by Herod the Great (see Josephus, Wars, 5.5.5). The copper Dead Sea Scrolls are from the Second Temple period. Some seek in the copper scrolls clues that would lead them to Second Temple treasures hidden before the Romans took Jerusalem in 70 CE. Presumably, if found, these treasures would join other items at the Temple Institute in Jerusalem. The staff at the institute have assembled various tools, pots, jars, and the like to reinstate the Levitical offerings in a Third Temple or national altar on the Temple Mount. The collection is incomplete and each item is quite costly. The time of manufactures of each of these items is our own day and you may view them, and have an explanation of each, at the Temple Institute.
Imagine the excitement the discovery of a cash of Second Temple ceremonial offertory utensils would create. It would likely be the stimulus for an excited Jewish populace to storm and seize the Temple Mount from the Muslims and the Israeli military to reinstate morning and evening sacrifices. At this time such an event would be catastrophic. If Temple ceremonial items from the Second Temple Period could be so problematic imagine what the discovery of the Ark of the Covenant would produce. One leading Israeli archaeologist told me that it is better for the Ark to remain lost since its appearance could bring about World War III. We agree for such would fuel Jewish zealots and extremists and Arabic opposition but there are other problems.
In Christian thinking the Ark is no longer vested with power as the Old Covenant ended at Jesus' death and this is the time of the New Covenant. In traditional Jewish and messianic Jewish thinking the Old Covenant continues in force and the Ark remains the focus of just as much power as it ever was. The discovery of an Ark charged with the supernatural power of God or void of such power would challenge many theologies. An Ark devoid of power would be confirming to Christians, problematic for Jews, and compelling to skeptics. Yet the net result would likely be the further undermining of the confidence of many in the Hebrew Scriptures (the Old Testament). Perhaps the disruption of any number of theologies would not be all that bad would it?
While we are not into pop-archaeology we found Graham Hancock's The Sign and the Seal quite entertaining. This work details Hancock's quest for the lost Ark of the Covenant in Ethiopia and raises some interesting questions about the Knights of the Templar. The Templars dug for the Ark on the Temple Mount many centuries ago. You might find it of interest. We assume you have seen the Steven Spielberg film Raiders of the Lost Ark, a Lucasfilm Ltd. production, by Paramount Pictures. Both Sign & Seal and Raiders place the Ark in Egypt on different theories. The movie ended with the Ark of the Covenant remaining lost by assignment to a U.S. federal warehouse where the world would not have to deal with it. In Hancock's book the Ark also remains "lost" to the world in a Coptic church . Perhaps it is just as well.
--editor
We are trying to get information on current research and thought on Ophir (as in the Book of Kings I in the Bible). Do you know any scholars or archaeologists interested in this area?
--Tahir Shah
Sorry no. The prevailing opinion is that OPHIR refered to a region located in or near the southern Arabian peninsula. Any other location is speculation based on hermeneutics and scant texts.
--editor
What is the truth concerning the accurateness of the different Biblical translations? Some will read only the King James Version, but others claim that it contains errors. They say that because it was not translated directly from the original Hebrew it is not accurate. If this is true, how many mistakes and of what nature are in the King James Version? And which translation is the truest to the original meaning of the Hebrew text?
--H. Cherising
Exegesis has always preceded translation, even in regard to the editing of the widely accepted critical texts themselves, e.g., the Novum Testamentum Graece (Nestle 1993) and the United Bible Societies� The Greek New Testament (Aland 1993), in something as simple as word, sentence, and paragraph breaks, let alone in capitalization and in the discernment of proper nouns.
According to Omanson, writing in the Bible Review, "literally thousands of decisions are made by translators" relating to the original meaning of words in context as well as grammatical constructions and the segmentation and punctuation of the text (Omanson 1998:43). In considering these issues he points out that: "...the editors of these editions do not always agree on where breaks and punctuation marks should appear. And translators sometimes depart from the segmentation and punctuation found in these critical texts based on their own understanding of the New Testament writings. Their decisions can create real differences in meaning, as is shown by comparing several modern translations" (Omanson 1998:40).
Our suggestion is that you use the New American Standard Bible, which we found to be a good scholarly translation into today's English, and then use a couple of additional bibles for comparative purposes. For most issues this approach should suffice. In some matters exegesis requires examination of the ancient texts themselves.
To what extent do you think archaeological discoveries undermine the reliability of the Old Testament?
--Jen Fleming
Minimalists would answer "a lot" while Maximalists would say "they don't" (see The Bible as History). Moreover, one needs to carefully consider the significance attributed to specific archaeological discoveries and meaning read out of the Hebrew Scriptures. Those of us who come from a scientific paradigm regard both archaeological discoveries and textual readings as tentative.
Perhaps the real issue is the validity of our discernment of the Hebrew Scriptures not the Hebrew Scriptures themselves. Our task is to come to an enlightened understanding of antiquity based upon the available evidence. The question, however, is what can we know and how can we know it? Are there significant conflicts between the Hebrew Scriptures and archaeological discoveries or are we dealing with poor scholarship whether it be theological or archaeological?
The archaeological record exists in the here and now. From the archaeological record scholars attempt to determine what the ancient world was like. Their conclusions we usually refer to as theories. These theories largely come from opinion of scholars not the rigorous statistical certainty and replication required in the natural sciences. Documentary evidence in the form of ancient original sources also provide data for coming to a fuller understanding of the ancient world. The Hebrew Scriptures constitute a reservoir of such evidence.
--editor
I have recently read Yair Davidy's book The Tribes and he argues for a complete deportation of the northern Israelites by Assyria in 722-21 BCE. Does archaeology really support the concept of a complete deportation? My understanding has always been that the Assyrians would deport a sizable number of people in order to destroy the basic nationality of a people (and prevent future uprisings) but the majority of the people would be left in the and to co-mingle with the new inhabitants deported from other areas of their empire. Could you help clarify this for me?
--Mike Benson
We have yet to read Davidy's book but intend to do so. It is apparent that many Israelites fled the northern kingdom to find refuge in the Kingdom of Judah. The archaeological record shows population growth in Judea during that period. According to Yigal Shiloh, writing in The New Encyclopedia of Archaeological Excavations in the Holy Land, the archaeological evidence suggests "that refugees flocked to Jerusalem from Samaria and the surrounding countryside, which was conquered by the Assyrians in 722 BCE" (Israel Exploration Society 1993:704).
It is also factual that many Israelites in the northern kingdom either died in the conquest or found themselves deported to Assyria. How many remained in the land is unknown. II Chronicles 30 suggests a considerable number remained in the land of Israel (II Chronicles 30:6, last part, after the conquest of BCE 721). II Chronicles 34:9 also indicates a continuing presence of Israelites at the time of Josiah (BCE 639-608). Archaeology is not able to demonstrate with any scientifically acceptable certainty the complete and total deportation of the inhabitants of the northern kingdom to Assyria nor that many were left to commingle with Gentile settlers.
--editor
I was wondering if you have any information on the walls that Nehemiah built. Are any of the existing walls parts of the walls that Nehemiah built in the 440's or there about. Any information that you have would be very beneficial to me.
--Kurt Schroder
The Romans destroyed the walls of Herodian Jerusalem and leveled the city except for the Haram esh-Sharif. The existing walls of present day Jerusalem date to later times. Archeologists discovered remnants of the rebuilding during Nehemiah's day. We suggest you refer to the section on Jerusalem in The New Encyclopedia of Archaeological Excavations in the Holy Land for more specific details.
--editor
I am trying to find an accurate figure for the number of deaths resulting from the Roman siege of Jerusalem in the first century. Tacitus reports 600,000 fatalities (Historiae, 5:13), whereas Josephus claims that 1,100,000 died and 97,000 were captured (Wars, 6:420). Do you know the reason for this difference? Is there any way of telling which is the more accurate figure? Any help you can offer is much appreciated.
--Dale Tolmasoff
It is not possible based on the extant evidence to provide you with an accurate figure. Josephus has a tendency to exaggerate to meet his own political agenda. Moreover, both figures could be fairly accurate depending on whether or not Tacitus referred to combatant casualties and Josephus both civilian and combatant fatalities.
--editor
I was reading a web page about Flavius Josephus, and besides Christ, John the Baptist, and James the lesser, who is Josephus talking about Honi the Circle Drawer, Josephus mentions Him who is he, and how do we relate this to Christ, we know from other Historians Suetonius, Thallus, Pliny the Younger, The Talmud, Lucian, and Cornelius Tacitus, that Christ was indeed born, lived, died crucified, and resurrected, and was the Son of God, Also they have found the High Priest Caiaphas grave, so what's the Honi and what the purpose, is he some false miracle worker, some scholars say that Josephus doesn't refer to Him as a fake miracle worker, which is the truth here, its confusing. I was wondering if you could help me.
--Lance Patterson
Honi the Circle Drawer, Onias in Josephus at Antiquities 14.2.1 (Whiston 1957:409-410), has nothing to do with Jesus of Nazareth. Some authors, fairly ignorant of the New Testament and the nature of apostolic Christianity, attempt to make Honi and Jesus of Nazareth out to be Hasidim. The Honi legend is that during a period of drought, about 63 BCE, just before Jerusalem fell to Pompey, Honi brought about a rain miracle by drawing a circle. When he refused to favor either side in a dispute between Hyrcanus II and Aristobulus then Hyrcanus' followers stoned him to death. We don't suggest you make out some ancient myth or legend as fact for it leads to distortion not understanding.
--editor
Page last edited: 11/28/04 08:44 AM
|
Thank you for visiting BIBARCH�
|
starting web/internet resource by the
