The Fruits of Academia

When I was a teenager, I was taught various protestant doctrines about Christianity. These teachings started at an earlier age than that but from what I recall, I really began to learn these doctrines in a fuller fashion when I was a teenager. The primary doctrine taught was the Doctrine of Salvation, what is known in the academy as soteriology.

Upon reflection, I was taught two different perspectives or aspects on soteriology. A negative aspect (Say this prayer/believe these things or you're going to Hell...) and a positive aspect (God loves you, Christ sets you free from your sin/bondage, etc) during my accumulative time at two churches in the first fourteen years of my life. It is sufficient to say that since I was taught the negative aspect starting at 7 years old, it sufficiently scarred my psyche and put a significant burden upon a child who was carefree and curious about the world before this was repeatedly shoved upon me over and over again.

I learned the positive aspect when I was around 13 years old and accepted this much more willingly then I did the other. Thanks be to the healthy and holistic ministers out there.

However, as much as the Bible was used to support both perspectives and revered as the "Infallible, Inerrant, Holy Word of God," the academic study of these texts were rarely bequeathed to me by those who possessed this knowledge. I know that there were (and still are) individuals who have been to seminary in my church and learned everything that I have learned and continue to research now. Why, I ask, was I not informed by these individuals?

To give an example of the knowledge I now possess, consider the Documentary Hypothesis. The Documentary Hypothesis states that the Torah (I will use Genesis as an example) was redacted or edited together from at least four different primary textual and oral sources known as J, E, P, and D. The first three chapters in Genesis show this primarly by what name they use in reference to the Divine - Genesis 1:1-2:3 use the Hebrew word, Elohim (translated into English as God) to refer to the Divine (this is the P or Priestly source) and Genesis 2:4b-25 use YHWH Elohim (translated into English as Lord God) to refer to the Divine (this is the J or Yahwistic Source).

If you wish to know more, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Documentary_hypothesis for ready information or a study Bible such as the New Oxford Annotated Bible or the Harper Collins Study Bible.

Now, it is not that I am stating that the Documentary Hypothesis is necessarily the end-all, be-all of the authorship of the Torah but it is certainly apparent that Moses didn't write the entire Torah. This is the line toted by the church I attended - Moses wrote the entire Torah, which is clearly wrong considering that there are parts of the Torah that continue on after Moses' death.

Therefore, I ask why was information such as this not taught to me in church? The "Fruits of the Academia" were not shown to me until after I was on my own at college and learning them in the classroom? What I learned in the classroom as well as what I experienced in college, "shocked" me out of my "shell" of what I thought I knew. If I was prepared for this, maybe things would turned out differently but alas, they didn't. At least I attended a church in my teenage years that had sense enough to put away unhealthy theology. Thanks be to them for that.

There is a post on a similar topic over on another blog that helped me to make the decision to write this post. Check it out: http://newtestamentperspectives.blogspot.com/2011/01/why-intellectual-life-matters.html

Please leave some comments!

A Reconsideration of the Genealogies in Matthew and Luke

So, about a year ago, I wrote a vehement post against the genealogies of Jesus in Matthew and Luke. I haven't posted anything since that time.

In the meantime, I've been doing some rethinking of Luke's genealogy because of a phrase that is inserted in his text and also the Greek word that indicates "son" in that passage.

These thoughts and reflections were spurred by my reading of some old apologetics I found in a box I had at home that I found over break. I propose these reflections here because I wonder if there are any weight to the thoughts that my reading spurred.

In Luke 3, the beginning of the text reads:

"Jesus was about thirty years old when he began his work. He was the son (as was thought) of Joseph son of Heli..." (Luke 3:23 NRSV).

In this passage, the Greek isn't as certain as the English translation makes it out to be. The Greek reads:

" Καὶ αὐτὸς ἦν Ἰησοῦς ἀρχόμενος ὡσεὶ ἐτῶν τριάκοντα, ὢν υἱός, ὡς ἐνομίζετο, Ἰωσὴφ τοῦ Ἠλὶ"

The important part about this phrase is that it translates into "And when Jesus was about thirty years old when he began his work. He was the son of Joseph (as was thought) of Eli"

Thus one can argue that Luke is tracing Jesus' lineage through his mother's side (Mary) and that Jesus was a descendant of Heli/Eli because "υἱός" has this wider meaning inferring descendant. Thus, Jesus still isn't Joseph's son but, according to Luke, is the literal "Son of God" via the virgin birth.

Therefore, Jesus' lineage in Luke can be seen as being traced through Mary's side and Jesus' lineage in Matthew being traced through Joseph's side. In either account, Jesus is not his blood son but rather his adopted son while God is the true father.

But, honestly, I think I may be begging the question with the text here a little bit.

Nonetheless, the doctrine of the Virgin Birth isn't that important anyway because it strangles the meaning out of what Jesus did and who he was. There are also other problems with the birth narratives in Matthew and Luke like where Jesus' parents lived (Nazareth or Bethlehem), where was the family during Jesus' first days (being dedicated at the Temple or fleeing from the massacre to Egypt), and so on.

These are all my musings - feel free to tear my argument apart.