Matt Jones' Random Acts of Verbiage

Stanley Grenz – 1950-2005
While on my community group’s retreat to Galiano this weekend, we were informed that Stan Grenz passed away of a massive brain hemorrhage. Grenz was a professor at Carey Theological College (kind of a “sister” college to Regent on the UBC campus) and taught classes at Regent as well. I never had a class from him, but know that many looked to Grenz as a mentor and leader. He meant a lot to the community of professors and his loss will be deeply felt this week at Regent I have no doubt.

Check out his webpage for more information about him and his life. Please pray for his family and friends as they figure out how to live without Stan.

The following I pulled from Glenn’s blog as I felt it was quite fitting. This is an excerpt from Henri Nouwen’s devotionals:

It is often in our absence that the Spirit of God manifests itself. When Jesus left his disciples he said: “It is for your own good that I am going, because unless I go, the Paraclete [the Spirit] will not come to you. However, when the Spirit of truth comes he will lead you to the complete truth” (John 16: 7;13). It was only in Jesus’ absence that his friends discovered the full meaning of his presence. It was only in his absence that they completely understood his words and experienced full communion with him; and it was only in his absence that they could gather in a community of faith, hope, and love.

When we claim for ourselves that we come to our friends in the Name of Jesus – that through us Jesus becomes present to them – we can trust that our leaving will also bring them the Spirit of Jesus. Thus, not only our presence but also our absence becomes a gift to others.

I wish that I had been able to get to know Stan or take a class from him, but his Legacy will live on.

Shalom

Stan and his family.

At the end of February I was able to hang out with some good friends at Snoqualmie pass. It was a nice weekend of relaxing and having a good time. I have put together a page with a few pictures over at my website so please, come check it out! Here are a few pictures from the weekend.

Go to my Snoqualmie Weekend webpage to see more!

A few odds n’ ends:
Some may not be aware of this, but should be. The all-mighty Google has done it again. A while back they introduced Google Maps. It is still in the Bata version, but it already rocks. Say good-bye to Mapquest as Google Maps will knock your socks off. Just wait until you start dragging maps all around, it will become addicting, just you wait and see.

I have been foretting to mention this, a few weeks back I saw Something the Lord Made with Alan Rickman and Mos Def. This was a great story (based on real events about Alfred Blalock and Vivien Thomas) surrounding the first open heart surgery. There were a few reasons that made this story so amazing: Heart surgery was considered taboo at the time, not only were they not able to do anything with the heart, but they thought it would never be possible to perform surgery on the heart, ever. The first operation was performed on a child. During harsh segregation, the white doctor, Alfred Blalock (Rickman), was assisted by Vivian Thomas, a black man (Def) when blacks weren’t even allowed in the operating rooms. The story is about Thomas’ struggles and accomplishments that helped make this surgery possible. Quite moving, well written, and brilliantly acted. Def was a great rapper and all, but I think he is coming into his own in the acting field. And how can you go wrong with Alan “cut-your-heart-ot-with-a-spoon” Rickman? Definitely check it out!

Fun fact of the day: Dr. James (J.I.) Packer, one of the “Top 25 Most Influential Evangelicals in America”, takes the bus home from Regent. Doesn’t really mean anything, I just found that interesting.

I am heading to Galiano Island this weekend with my community group from Regent so I won’t be around. We are staying at Dr. Gordon Fee’s cabin over there, how cool is that? I hope you all can have a nice, relaxing weekend as I intend to have. It had better be relaxing because I have got a lot to do in the (shortening) rest of the semester!

Shalom

PS. I really want to be able to tell this to a girl some day: “I caught you a delicious bass.” Check this out.

How do you deal with the synoptic problemin the Bible? How do you deal with harmony, or lack of harmony in the Gospels? This post was born out of my previous post: Gundry’s “A Theological Postscript”. Before I can really ask the questions, I suppose I should define what “The Synoptic Problem” is first.

Synoptic:

1 : affording a general view of a whole
2 : manifesting or characterized by comprehensiveness or breadth of view
3 : presenting or taking the same or common view; specifically often capitalized : of or relating to the first three Gospels of the New Testament

Problem:

1 a : a question raised for inquiry, consideration, or solution b : a proposition in mathematics or physics stating something to be done
2 a : an intricate unsettled question b : a source of perplexity, distress, or vexation c : difficulty in understanding or accepting

So what have we got here? The first three Gospels are considered synoptic because there seems to be some relationship between them: the content is very similar, the structure is similar, phrasing and word use is similar, even the same in many places, and the overall theme and agenda is similar. Yes? Where does the problem arise? The so-called “Synoptic Problem” arises because of the very strong literary relationship between the first three Gospels.

The synoptic problem is an investigation into the existence and nature of the literary interrelationship among the first three “synoptic” gospels. Matthew, Mark, and Luke are called the synoptic gospels, in contrast with John, because they can readily be arranged in a three-column harmony called a “synopsis.” Unlike John, the synoptic gospels share a great number of parallel accounts and parables, arranged in mostly the same order, and told with many of the same words. Any proposed solution to the synoptic problem, therefore, must account for these literary similarities among the synoptics, not so much in terms of their factual content, but in the selection of that content, the arrangement of the material, and wording of the parallels.

When looking at the text, especially with the help of a synopsis (like Throckmorton’s Gospel Parallels: A Comparison of the Synoptic Gospels or Aland’s (Editor) Synopsis of the Four Gospels: Greek-English Edition of the Synopsis Quattur Evangeliorum), it is easy to see a relationship. The relationship is even more noticeable when looking at the Greek, before the translation happens. What seems to be the most probable reason for this is what is called the Two Source hypothesis (Some prefer the very similar Four Source) in which Mark is given priority and the earliest date and Matthew and Luke use him as a reference to write their own Gospels and there is a second source called “Q” (from the German Quelle meaning “source”) which is largely Jesus sayings that Matthew and Luke also use. Matthew and Luke also insert their own material into their writings (some would say that Matthew and Luke also have their own, independent, sources “M” and “L”, hence the Four Source hypothesis). A note about Q, there are those that say there is literally a document that Matthew and Luke used that had these Jesus sayings but there are also those that say, probably more accurately, that Q is more likely to be not a single document, but either a grouping of documents or oral tradition, or a combination of both. There is much more that can be said about the relationship between the first three Gospels, but I will leave it at this for now. The argument still goes on about how they are related and which sources they used. For more information you can check these websites here and here although you must also realize that the best information is still largely going to be in a good old fashioned book; try Achtenmeier, Green and Thompson’s Introducing the New Testament: Its Literature and Theology, Stein’s The Synoptic Problem, or Wright’s New Testament and the People of God.

Still reading? Hope so. How are you with this so far? What problems, if any, do you have with this? This information brings me to the second issue: harmony. The synoptics rely on each other and will often have exact wording, but what about the places that don’t just deal with different material, but deal with the same material but present it differently? The story, or situation is the same, but the details are different. A Gospel synopsis is great for showing the similarities and dependance of the Gospels on each other, but they are also great for showing striking differences. I wrote up a quick little comparison of three examples in Matthew and the corresponding passages in Mark (these were three examples that Gundry pointed out in his essay). To see it (in PDF format) click here. There are just three brief examples of many throughout the Gospels. So I ask this, how do you deal with the differences? How has your church / tradition dealt with them? Are the blended together or “harmonized”? Or does the scripture lose its meaning and authority when those differences are seen? I have quite a few thoughts on this and so do the scholars, but what are your thoughts?

Shalom and God Bless

[UPDATE: Original post and comments at ModBlog no longer exist, sorry. ]

In RH Gundry’s Matthew, a Commentary on His Literary and Theological Art his final chapter is titled “A Theological Postscript” in which he discusses how both extreme conservative and extreme liberal approaches have missed the mark in interpreting Matthew. The conservative side tends to want to harmonize the Gospels whereas the liberal side will tend to strip the Gospels of their divine creation. Gundry argues for a more healthy middle approach. His chapter does tend to focus on the conservative side as, I feel, the liberal side doesn’t have much merit to begin with.

In my New Testament Foundations class taught by Bob Derrenbacker I wrote a short (1000 words) essay discussing Gundry’s thoughts. If you would like to read it (in PDF format) please click here. (you can also right click and select “Save As” and save it to your desktop.)

I have also posted the text at the end of blog for those without Adobe Acrobat Reader (but I recommend getting it as it is much easier to read the paper in that format, also there are no footnotes in this version).

Addendum: From the comments of the original post [No longer available].

Posted by:
Liveitup
Date: 03/07/05 at 3:14 AM
I have a question? But before that good paper. Very well written, and I hope you get an “A.”

1. You refer to Gundry’s saying, ” Gundry says that the discrepancies will be seen as such as long as we continue to believe that the authors were intending to write in an historical way (Gundry also lists a number of these
discrepancies).3
I was wondering….What are those discrepancies. I do not have the book, and I was hoping that you could point those out to me.

Thank you much. I hope that you have time to place a few of the discrepancies down.

Once again, good job.

Posted by:
Mattithyahu
Date: 03/07/05 at 3:41 AM
Thank you very much, I appreciate the compliment!

Here are the discrepancies that Gunry points out in Matthew (pg 624-5):
Feeding of the 5000 in Mt 14.16-17 contrasted to Mk. 6.37-38
Not allong the disciples to take even a staff and sandals in Mt 10.9-10 (also Lk 9.3, 10.4) compared to Mk 6.8-9 where Jesus allows both.
The chief priests and elders sentencing themsleves at the end of the tenant parable in Mt. 21.41 contrasts to Mk 12.9 and Lk 20.16 where Jesus pronounces the sentence.
Gundry goes on to say “We are not dealing with a few scattered difficulties. We are dealing with a vast network of tendentious changes. Taking a different view of the synoptic problem offers no escape; for then the tendencies merely run in another direction. Whatever synoptic theory we adopt – and even though we remain agnostic on the synoptic problem – somebody was making drastic changes.”

Hope that helps some, let me know if you have more questions!

I did a quick side-by-side write up comparing the three examples Gundry gives and also threw in a few of his comments about the discrepancies . You can view it (also in PDF format) here. You will probably still want to read through the larger sections to see the overall context, but the side-by-side view really helps show the differences.

Hope this helps!

Regent College

Matt Jones

February 9th, 2005
BIBL 502 – New Testament Foundations
Bob Derrenbacker
Word Count: 992

Reading Reflection #1
“A Theological Postscript”
R.H. Gundry

Gundry, R.H. A Theological Postscript, in Matthew: A Commentary on His Literary and Theological Art. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. 623-640.

Gundry’s “A Theological Postscript” is an essay written to combat two extremes: extreme conservatives who want to harmonize (bring into agreement) the synoptic Gospels and extreme liberals who strip the Gospels of having any divine inspiration. This dichotomy arises because of the nature of the Gospels and their authority. The Protestant conservative side tends “toward minimizing the human manner in which the biblical writers went about their work.” Gundry suggests that in order to have a fuller understanding of the Synoptics, the influence of the biblical writers needs to be recognized and placed in its correct context and given appropriate importance. The Protestant liberal side swings the other way: “the human characteristics of the Bible devour its authority as God’s Word….” Gundry hopes to offer a more reasonable approach to the Word of God.

The conservative view sees that the Bible is God’s word and is a history of the life of Jesus (specifically with the Synoptic Gospels). The problem that arises is one of a historical nature. Because conservatives see the Gospels as a historically accurate account of Jesus’ life, the discrepancies between the synoptics must be addressed. Their “solution” to this so called “Synoptic problem” is to mesh the Gospels together in a way that removes the inconsistencies. Gundry says that the discrepancies will be seen as such as long as we continue to believe that the authors were intending to write in an historical way (Gundry also lists a number of these discrepancies). In order for the harmonization to “work” the biblical language must become very “loose” which will weaken the text in exactly the same way the conservatives were trying to fight against (namely discrepancies arising).

Gundry suggests the answer to the conservative side is this: “The equation of the Bible with God’s Word must stay, the straining to resolve all historical differences in the Bible must go.” This view, I feel, is a good position to have at all times when approaching the Bible. Reading of the Bible should always take into account the historical context in which it was written as well as a realization that there are some ambiguities that we may never resolve. The Holy Spirit is recognized as having inspired the creation of the Biblical canon, including its perceived inconsistencies.

Gundry also uses the genre of “midrash” (Jewish commentaries on the Hebrew scriptures based on exegesis) and “haggadah” (traditional Jewish literature) as a parallel to the Gospel writings. His comparisons would have made more sense to me if he had explained how he was drawing his parallels. Gundry also calls on a contemporary of the New Testament writers, Josephus, to show how modern views of historians do not necessarily coincide with the views of ancient historians as “Antiquities [one of Josephus’ historical works] hardly reflects the actualities of past events.” He later goes on to say that regardless of Matthew being historical or unhistorical (or both), the Gospel is in the canon and therefore divinely inspired.

The nature of truth is also discussed with its relation to history. Gundry argues that in order for something to be truthful, it does not have to be historical. Jesus spoke often in parables that were to be understood in the community as being relevant but not necessarily actual historical events. Jesus’ parables contain valuable truths (why else would he give them?) but were never intended to be taken as real events in time. The construction of “Jesus said…” and the like could very likely be actual events but, similar to the parables, could be a means for conveying truth. This construction is apparently similar to writings in the midrash and haggadah Gundry suggests (but without examples). “In such places Matthew is not writing as a historian; he is writing as a midrashist and haggadist who bends and shapes his materials to make certain points.” It is good to know the style in which Matthew writes his “unhistorical” material, but that begs the question of what it means to write as a midrashist or haggadist. Gundry does add this helpful definition of midrash and haggadah: their message (which include unhistorical events) contain truth that are not contingent on historical events.

A crucial point that Gundry makes that I think both conservative and liberal Christians should hear is this: “We must remind ourselves that taking Matthew’s intent to be solely historical is as much a critical judgment (conscious or unconscious) as taking it to be a mixture of the historical and unhistorical. Both positions require justification.” It seems most Christians don’t realize they are making critical judgments about the text when they assume it is completely historical. If people would take the time to study the context, it seems pretty clear, as Gundry argues, that there are both historical and unhistorical elements to the Gospels.

Gundry also suggests the possibility that the early Christians would have recognized the historical elements as being distinct from the unhistorical. It is pretty likely that Matthew used Mark as a source as well as Q, both of which would have included oral tradition. If Matthew drew upon that tradition it is very likely that the early readers of his Gospel would have known those traditions as well. “There is no reason to think Matthew’s readers were unable to compare his gospel with his sources. They would have recognized many of its distinctive features as embroidery.”

Gundry’s arguments towards a more inclusive view of the historicity of Jesus are very compelling. He argues well against the conservative view and folded that into the discussion of a more appropriate view of the Gospels. What he seemed to leave out was the discussion of the liberal side. He mentions it at the beginning of the essay, but doesn’t come back to it at all. Most references in his argument relate to the conservative view and not the liberal. All in all, a thought inspiring essay that leads to a balanced attitude when approaching the Gospels.

[UPDATE: The original post and comments are no longer available. Sorry!]

Cool song by Pedro the Lion off of their EP titled Whole. Also check out the instrumental “Hymn” on that EP. Good stuff.

“Whole” by Pedro the Lion

A hole that big
I’d never seen before
in the tummy of a good ol’ boy who always wanted more.
Then just yesterday
I saw him satisfied.
It seems he’d met the hole fixin’ man, much to his surprise.

But are you for real?
Mr. Hole Fixin’ Man, you fixed my friend can you fix me?
Hey Mr. Hole Fixin’ Man, I’m as broken as a boy can be,
so how ’bout fixin’ me?

And all the charms
that never were enough
it seems the hole was always twice as big no matter what it was,
but to see him now
is almost to believe
that maybe Mr. Hole Fixin’ Man might have what I need.

But are you for real?
Mr. Hole Fixin’ Man, you fixed my friend can you fix me?
Hey Mr. Hole Fixin’ Man, I’m as broken as a boy can be,
so how ’bout fixin’ me.

Mr. Hole Fixin’ Man, he says you died on Calvary.
Hey Mr. Hole Fixin’ Man, if you’ve got proof I will believe,
so how ’bout fixin’ me.

Won’t you please,
won’t you please.
Start by fixin’ me, start by fixin’ me.

Do you need proof for the Hole Fixin’ man to start fixin’ you or would him fixin’ you be proof enough to believe?

Shalom

My mom’s side of the family is doing something different this year for birthdays. In stead of buying something for everyone else, we pick a book and a cd or dvd that we particularily like and we send that around to all the different family members. So each month we get a new book to read and a dvd to watch or cd to listen to. Through this we will gain some more insight into the person who picked it as well as have an introduction to stuff we may not have had much experience with before.

Here are the picks that I will be sending around:
Michael Crichton’s “State of Fear” – A fun adventure that hopes to give a more realistic approach to views on global warming. Crichton’s biases are definately against global warming, but his point of the book is more along the lines of listening to scientific information and not emotion. Public policy and our understanding of the environment should be informed by science and not opinion. Basically a proper balance of “enviornmentalism” and reality should be held. This description doesn’t really make much sense, so just go read the book, it is a quick read that is interesting and fun.

Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind – I found this to be a very interesting movie about relationships and memories. It was well made and well acted, was nice to see Jim Carry in a more serious role. Check it out.

I will (hopefully) write a brief review every month on the book and cd / dvd that I received. Should be a pretty interesting experiement!

Shalom

Nice alliteration, eh?

I would hop briefly over to USS Clueless to catch a short post from Steven den Beste. I don’t think he is coming back, but it was nice to hear from him again (his comments relate to the war in Iraq and the loss of US soldiers there):

It is a tragic fact of life that sometimes we must sacrifice the best among us to preserve and protect that which we love most.

My greatest satisfaction now is knowing that their sacrifice was not wasted. I strongly argued in favor of this war, knowing full well that if we fought it that many, many good young men and women would die, whether we won it or lost it. That was always a very heavy weight. I felt and still feel that it was the right course for this nation to follow, and recent events clearly show that now to all but the most willfully blind.

But we cannot and should not forget the price that was disproportionately paid by a very few. Victory is never cheap. Liberty is the most precious thing we have, and it has been paid for in blood yet again.

Indeed.

Now if people would actually see that true freedom is completely free in Christ. Sometimes that is hard for people to believe because our “earthly” freedoms must be faught for. Our “Earthly” freedoms are still important and should be faught for, for all people, not just those in the US, but the fact that they are not truly “free” point to something else I feel. They are lacking, incomplete.

All your sins can be forgiven,
all of this was always free.
Jesus loves without condition,
this is what freedom means to me.

FIF “The Cross of St. Andrew” (Emphasis added)

What does freedom mean to you? Is it free? Should it be free?

Shalom

Alos, check out the comments at the original post [No longer available, sorry!].