The New Testament, Politics, and the Bibliobloggers

Airton José da Silva in his blog Observatório Bíblico introduces the theme of Chapter 2, Part I of J. G. Crossley’s book, Jesus in an Age of Terror: New Testament Projects for a New American Century. London: Equinox Publishing, 2009, 256 p. - ISBN 9781845534295 (Hardback) 9781845534301 (Paperback):

Part One will look at the ways in which New Testament and Christian origins scholarship has historically been influenced by its political and social settings over the past hundred years or so. Moving on to the present, the following chapter will then apply [Edward] Herman and [Noam] Chomsky's propaganda model of manufacturing consent in the mass media to the recent explosion of biblical scholars writing on the internet, in particularly `biblio-bloggers'. It is clear that political views in `biblio-blogging' conform strikingly to the emphases that come through in Herman and Chomsky's analysis of the mass media and intellectuals, particularly with the standard lines on the `war on terror' and views on the contemporary Middle East [the emphasis belongs to Airton].

I thank Airton for allowing me to copy his post here.

There are two interesting factors in Crossley’s words:

First, bibliobloggers have made an impact on biblical studies and that impact is being reflected in the way biblical scholars are taking into consideration what bibliobloggers have produced.

Second, that there is a “political view” that influences what bibliobloggers write.

Those who write on biblical themes may have a theological or ideological presupposition that guides their scholarship, but to my knowledge (and here I may be wrong), I do not think that a political view motivates bibliobloggers to post their works on the Internet or that politics influence what bibliobloggers post on their blogs.

Claude Mariottini
Professor of Old Testament
Northern Baptist Seminary

Tags: Bibliobloggers, New Testament, Politics

The Development of the New Testament

Kevin P. Edgecomb in biblicalia has a very interesting post in which he gives the reasons for the writing of the books of the New Testament.

The following are two excerpts from his post:

So, I would like to suggest that the writing of the individual New Testament books, their preservation, and subsequent canonization as part of the New Testament was all a part of the growth of the deposit of faith, part of the safeguarding of the original apostolic regula fidei.

..............................................................

In summary, the writing of the New Testament documents occurred for the reason of defense of the faith, as the further clarification of the very rule of faith (regula fidei) established by the apostles when the local church communities were founded in the first century.

Good post.

Claude Mariottini
Professor of Old Testament
Northern Baptist Seminary

Tags: Canon, New Testament

The New Testament and Anti-Semitism

Is the New Testament anti-Semitic?

In an article published in the American Thinker, James Arlandson asked the question: "Is the New Testament Anti-Semitic?" In order to find answers to his question, he searched the New Testament for traces of Anti-Semitism is the gospels and the Pauline epistles.

The following is an excerpt of Arlandson’s article:

In the four Gospels, about four decades before the destruction of the temple by the Romans in AD 70, Jesus crisscrossed his homeland Israel, preaching and living the kingdom of God. Sometimes ordinary fellow Jews did not accept his teaching (John 6:60-66). But most in fact liked what they heard and saw, particularly his healing ministry.

The opposition to Jesus came from the leaders of his own nation. He opposed their power structures that governed the temple in Jerusalem. That is one reason he made a whip and cleared part of the temple (Mark 11:12-19). The Gospel of John uses the word "Jews" over seventy times, sometimes positively (e.g. 4:22) and sometimes neutrally (e.g. 2:6). But John mostly uses it of the Jewish leaders who were hostile to Jesus. This matches up with the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke. In almost all cases when the sparks fly in the Gospels, the clash happens between him and religious leaders. In fact, a careful keyword search in an exhaustive concordance of the Bible confirms this class difference. He did not condemn ordinary people; rather, he told them that his way led to an easing of heavy religious burdens (Matt. 11:28-30). But he challenged the leaders who put these burdens on the people. See his lengthy "Seven Woes" pronounced on them (Matt. 23:1-36).

By analogy, Josephus, a first-century Jewish historian, says that many Pharisees who interacted with the people also opposed the Jewish leadership in Jerusalem. They and the Sadducees - the very ones who made up most of the Jerusalem establishment - clashed often. Were these Pharisees anti-Semitic? Of course not.

Likewise, Jesus was a Jew who lived in a Jewish environment. Whom else would he challenge? Who else would oppose him? Hindus? Buddhists? Simple historical facts teach us that he had no political power, so he could not wield the weapons of anti-Semitism. All the verses in the four Gospels must be read in that historical context.

His conclusion: “Christians look high and low through the New Testament and can find no anti-Semitism.”

Good article. Read the article by clicking here.

Claude Mariottini
Professor of Old Testament
Northern Baptist Seminary

Tags: Anti-Semitism, New Testament

Old Testament or Tanakh: A Response to Chris Heard

It has been several days since I last wrote a post. My work on the Self-Study is consuming most of my available time. This week the Board of Trustees will vote on the Self-Study Report. This week is also the end of the Spring Quarter, finals weeks, and graduation. As Faculty Marshall, I have so many things going on at the same time that I have been unable to post to the blog.

Spare time will be at a premium as I come to the end of the academic year. I hope to have papers read, exams graded, and the last draft of the Self-Study Report finished by the end of June. At that time, I hope to return to posting to the blog every day.

On May 25, I wrote a post “Old Testament or Hebrew Bible.” Richie, at An Ecclesiastical Mutt, responded with a post titled “The Power of Words: Old Testament vs. Hebrew Bible vs. Tanakh.” In his post Richie recognizes that the context dictates what term to use. As a pastor, he uses Old Testament to communicate to his audience.

Christopher Heard at Higgaion responded with a post, “Neither ‘Old Testament’ nor ‘Hebrew Bible.’” Chris said that the only way to clarify the use of the term “Old Testament” is by the use of an adjective to identify which Old Testament is meant, such as Protestant Old Testament, Catholic Old Testament, etc.

Chris prefer the use of “Tanakh.” The word “Tanakh” is an acronym for Torah, Nevi’im, and Kethuvim, the three divisions of the Jewish Bible. Although many people are not familiar with the word “Tanakh,” Chris believes people need to be taught the meaning of the term and he is “a tireless advocate for the term.”

I have no problem with Chris’ use of the word “Tanakh.” To be honest, I believe that “Tanakh” is much better than “Hebrew Bible,” since the Jewish Bible also contains texts in Aramaic. In addition, the use of “Tanakh” clearly indicates that we are talking about the traditional books used in Judaism. I have nothing against the use of the word “Tanakh” to describe the Scriptures of Judaism.

One thing that Chris discussed but never resolved in his post is this: if the Scriptures of Judaism are to be called “Tanakh,” what should we call the Scriptures of the church? If we continue to use New Testament, then we have to presuppose the existence of an Old Testament.

The term “Second Testament” for the Scriptures of the church is not acceptable. The term “Greek Scriptures” is even worse. Maybe we could call them “Christian Scriptures,” but the “Hebrew Bible” or “Tanakh” is also Christian Scriptures.

When Christians avoid the use of the term “Old Testament,” they abandon two thousand years of Christian tradition and practice. To use the term “Hebrew Bible” or “Tanakh” for the first part of the Christian Bible, is to leave the second part nameless.

Any other name for the second section of the Christian Bible robs the church of its tradition and removes the theological implications of the words of Christ and the prophecy of Jeremiah.

Until a better name is found for the New Testament, I will be content in using Old Testament and New Testament for the two sections of the Christian Bible.

Claude Mariottini
Professor of Old Testament
Northern Baptist Seminary

Tags: Bible, New Testament, Old Testament, Tanakh