Global Perspectives on the Bible

Read my short write up in Chapter 29, entitled “The Widow’s Offering and Dalit Theology”.

[Global Perspectives on the Bible (First Edition 2013) by Mark Roncace and Joseph Weaver, is described by the publisher as "a diverse collection of writings derived from a variety of geographic, social, cultural, political, economic, and religious contexts." The book has forty chapters, each chapter having four articles with different perspectives on the biblical texts. The editors emphasize that these interpretations are only part of a much bigger global conversation, and they encourage readers to continue that conversation by analyzing and voicing their own views.

Here's a sample of what you will find: An "ethnic minority" interpretation of Hagar and Ishmael (Janice De Whyte:Ghana/England) An LGBT reading of Genesis 37-50 (Mona West:United States) Jonah and the challenges and contradiction of Buenos Aires (Mariel Pons: Argentina) Micah and Toronto's Poor (Shannon Barnes: Canada) and the Widow's Offering and Dalit Theology (Johnson Thomaskutty:India)].

First Edition 2013

See the Table of Contents here.

Amazon site here.

About the product here.

Features of the product here.

Reviews here.

Product Details

• Paperback: 384 pages
• Publisher: Pearson; 1 edition (March 8, 2013)
• Language: English
• ISBN-10: 0205865380
• ISBN-13: 978-0205865383
• Product Dimensions: 7 x 0.7 x 9.1 inches
• Shipping Weight: 12.6 ounces (View shipping rates and policies)
• Average Customer Review: Be the first to review this item
• Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #1,018,197 in Books (See Top 100 in Books)

Son of Man: An African Jesus Film

I just received this information from Johannine scholar Prof. Adele Reinhartz’s facebook wall.

[Hot off the Press:
Son of Man: An African Jesus Film
Edited by Richard Walsh, Jeffrey L. Staley, Adele Reinhartz

The remarkable, award-winning film, Son of Man (2005), directed by the South African Mark Dornford-May, sets the Jesus story in a contemporary, fictional southern African Judea. While news broadcasts display the political struggles and troubles of this postcolonial country, moments of magical realism point to supernatural battles between Satan and Jesus as well. Jesus’ Judean struggle with Satan begins with a haunting reprise of Matthew’s ‘slaughter of the innocents’ and moves forward in a Steve Biko-like non-violent, community-building ministry, captured in graffiti and in the video footage that Judas takes to incriminate Jesus. Satan and the powers seemingly triumph when Jesus ‘disappears’, but then Mary creates a community that challenges such injustice by displaying her son’s dead body upon a hillside cross. The film ends with shots of Jesus among the angels and everyday life in Khayelitsha (the primary shooting location), auguring hope of a new humanity (Genesis 1.26).

This book’s essays situate Son of Man in its African context, exploring the film’s incorporation of local customs, music, rituals, and events as it constructs an imperial and postcolonial ‘world’. The film is to be seen as an expression of postcolonial agency, as a call to constructive political action, as an interpretation of the Gospels, and as a reconfiguration of the Jesus film tradition. Finally, the essays call attention to their interested, ideological interpretations by using Son of Man to raise contemporary ethical, hermeneutical, and theological questions. As the film itself concisely asks on behalf of the children featured in it and their politically active mothers, ‘Whose world is this’?

Richard Walsh is Professor of Religion and Co-Director of the Honors Program at Methodist University in Fayetteville, North Carolina.
Jeffrey L. Staley is an independent scholar living in Seattle, Washington.
Adele Reinhartz is Professor in the Department of Classics and Religious Studies at the University of Ottawa.]

The Samaritan-Jewish Background Commentary on John’s Gospel (LiteVersion)

Dr. Eli Lizorkin-Eyzenberg’s online commentary on John’s Gospel is original, inspiring, and reflective. He is an Israeli scholar of Christian and Jewish literature. I gladly suggest all of you to have a look at the site and recommend it highly for your subscription. For more details about Dr. Eli go here.

The commentary begins with the following introductory statements:

[“The Samaritan-Jewish Commentary on John” is a historic contexts commentary on the Gospel of John written from Israel and contributed via comments to by scholars and students from all around the world.

Jewish Studies for Christians is a study group, designed as an educational resource for Christian believers worldwide. Therefore, the purpose of this web-based study group is to explore, together with Christians the Jewish context of Christian faith; and in this way to contribute to ongoing Jewish-Christian dialogue and relations.]

You can subscribe to the commentary here.

“The One and the Only God”

This is one of the recent posts of Larry Hurtado on his blog (April 29, 2013). I found it interesting.

[I’ve just finshed reviewing a new book much worthy of attention for any of us interested in earliest Christianity and the religious environment in which it sprang forth:  Darina Staudt, Der eine und einzige Gott:  Monotheistische Formeln im Urchristentum und ihre Vorgeschichte bei Griechen und Juden, NTOA/SUNT 80 (Göttingen:  Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2012).

This is a survey-analysis of the use of several “forms” (fixed expressions) used in ancient texts that figure in discourse about gods:  εἷς θεός (“one god”), μόνος θεός (“only god”), and οὐκ ἔστιν ἔτι πλήν (“there is no other”).  The main purpose of her study is to trace the background and possible influences upon the way in which “monotheistic” language is used in early Christian sources, and also how the risen/exalted Jesus is so readily incorporated into what we may call “God-discourse”.  She doesn’t really address the latter question about Jesus-devotion until the final four pages of her conclusion, and I’m not sure that this is adequate.  But she has contributed a valuable study of the history and usage of these expressions, showing how in various texts they were used to signify different things.

The evidence surveyed is impressively wide, commencing with the “pre-Socratics”, Plato, Aristotle, the Stoics and Roman-era writers, and then into OT, Jewish texts of the Hellenistic-Roman period, Philo of Alexandria, Josephus, the NT, the Apostolic Fathers, and subsequent Christian usage.  Throughout, she draws upon previous scholarly studies and contributes her own observations, guided by her concern to trace development and identify particularities of usage.

The basic conclusions are these:  (1) The “one god” expression derives from two “roots”, OT usage (esp. Deut 6:4) in the 7^th century BCE and early Greek philosophical usage  (esp. Xenophanes), although this early Greek usage seems to have had little take-up or effect subsequently until the Hellenistic period, (2) especially as used in “pagan” Greek circles, “one god” isn’t a declaration of “monotheism” but instead essentially a way of praising a particular deity, an “elative” sense; (3) the “only god” expression seems to derive from OT/Jewish usage (traced back to the 5^th-3^rd centuries BCE) and expresses an “exclusive” claim that the biblical deity is the only rightful recipient of worship; (4) the “there is no other (god)” phrasing derives specifically from Deutero-Isaiah and is a more explicit and polemical expression of the uniqueness of the biblical deity.

One of the interesting features of her study is the variation among authors/texts.  For example, Philo (a Diaspora Jew in Alexandria) used both the “one God” and “only God” expressions, whereas Josephus (another Jew writing in a Diaspora setting) uses these expressions less frequently and more selectively, appearing to distance himself somewhat from the “only God” expression (which he tends to place on the lips of Jewish rebels in his account of the Jewish war against Rome).

NT writers used the “only God” expressions only seldom, preferring the “one God” expression.  She proposes that the reasons for this are that the latter more readily allowed for the inclusion of Jesus with God (“the Father”) in earliest Christian worship and belief.  Nevertheless, we see the influence of the exclusivity of ancient Jewish tradition in that earliest Christian belief and devotional practice admitted Jesus uniquely and no other, producing a distinctively “binitarian” version of “monotheistic” belief/practice.]

The Thomas of “The Infancy Gospel of Thomas”

The Infancy Gospel of Thomas (InfGosTh) is an apocryphal work that is commonly considered as a late second century composition (cf. Charlesworth, 1995: 377; Bauckham, 1992: 290). This work is filled with representative stories of miracles performed by the child Jesus up to his twelfth year. Mirecki (1992: 540; cf. Gero, 1971: 46-80) is of the view that “InfGosTh represents the textualization of a cycle of orally transmitted folklore which was continually expanded by the still circulating oral tradition”. From Mirecki’s statement one can infer that the traditions inscribed in the InfGosTh are not merely imaginative stories intended to fill up the gap of Jesus’ life-history. Hippolytus and Origen refer to a Gospel of Thomas, but it is unclear whether they knew the InfGosTh or the sayings Gospel of Thomas (cf. Cameron, 1982: 122-30). But there is an earlier reference from Irenaeus, as Cameron (1982: 122-30) notes, “In his citation Irenaeus first quotes a non-canonical story that circulated about the childhood of Jesus and then goes directly on to quote a passage from the infancy narratives of the Gospel of Luke (Luke 2:49). Since the Infancy Gospel of Thomas records both of these stories, in relative close proximity to one another, it is possible that the apocryphal writing cited by Irenaeus is, in fact, what is now known as the Infancy Gospel of Thomas. Because of the complexities of the manuscript tradition, however, there is no certainty as to when the stories of the Infancy Gospel of Thomas began to be written down”. If the note of Cameron is believable, then it is evident that the stories of the childhood/boyhood of Jesus were available in the oral form (or written) for the early church fathers and they even quoted those traditions for their apologetical needs.

The text is available in Syriac, Greek, Latin, Slavonic, Irish, Arabic, Armenian, Ethiopic, and Georgian forms. Gero (1971: 51, 55; cf. Wright, 1865; Mirecki, 1992: 540-41) considers the InfGosTh in its Estrangela script of Syriac (= BM Syr) is the earliest known form. Mirecki (1992: 542; cf. Cameron, 1982: 122-30) adds further, “Although nothing definite can be said about the place of composition, the high value ascribed to the early Syriac manuscripts, the traditional association with the Syrian Thomas tradition, and the possibility of shared traditions with the Gospel of Thomas (cf. InfGosTh 10:2 and GTh logion 77) all suggest Syria as the place of composition”. There are possibilities for the composition of the text outside of the Jewish geographical boundary. In the introductory section it is clearly mentioned that, “I, Thomas the Israelite, am reporting to you, all my non-Jewish brothers and sisters, to make known the extraordinary childhood deeds of our Lord Jesus Christ—what he did after his birth in my region”. From this first section four things are made obvious: first, the reporter of the entire work is ‘Thomas the Israelite’; second, the receivers of the report are ‘all my [i.e., Thomas’] non-Jewish brothers and sisters’; third, the message is ‘the extraordinary childhood deeds of Lord Jesus Christ’; and fourth, Jesus was born in Thomas’ region. Charlesworth (1995: 377) states, “In this work the apostle Thomas is the one who speaks in the very first line…. Thomas is thus the one who reveals knowledge to all regarding Jesus’ childhood”. In the work Jesus’ story unfolds one after another as Thomas stands as the observer of the events.

The above description is important to outline the following facts. The literature of the Bible, or at least large portions of it, came gradually into existence through a process in which oral or written materials were passed down from one generation to another (cf. Knight, 1992: 633-8; Robbins, 1992: 841). Especially it is true with the Gospel traditions (cf. Henshaw, 1952: 49; Redlich, 1939: 11). The writings of Dibelius, Bultmann, and Vincent Taylor make this point compelling. On the one hand, many oral traditions were written down at an early stage itself, and on the other, many others didn’t capture their written format even in the second, third, and fourth centuries. Traditions were written down mainly on the basis of the needs of the early Christianity. Moreover, the theology of the early church was mainly formed around Jesus’ virgin birth, his public ministry, the passion, the crucifixion, and the resurrection. This would have been one of the primary reasons for the lack of attention toward the boyhood history that was still orally prevalent. Luke’s inclusion of a boyhood story of Jesus (which is not included in Matthew, Mark, and John) can be considered as an indication toward the existence of boyhood related stories in the First Century itself. It also contends what Luke states at the beginning of his gospel, “handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word” (1:2). Can somebody come up as a public figure without having a boyhood history? How could Jesus who was miraculously born and had a fulfilling public ministry remain silent and homely during a long span of his life? Without adequately addressing these prevalent questions, many scholars adopted a negative attitude toward the InfGosTh. While Witherington (1992: 73) belittles the InfGosTh as a document of “little or no historical worth”, Barton (1992: 101) weighs down it as a production “for the purpose of satisfying curiosity and defending christological dogma”. Blomberg (1992: 293) considers the InfGosTh (along with other Apocryphal Gospels) as “clearly legendary attempts to fill in the ‘gaps’ in the Gospel record”. Bruce (1992: 98), similarly, does not see in it anything more than “portraying him [Jesus] as a juvenile prodigy”. But, a reader who is inquisitive about the role of Thomas in early Christianity and about the significance of the oral traditions in the First Century ANE context may come up with certain contextually-inclined responses.

Thomas’ involvement within the story of the InfGosTh can be understood only by means of the implicit narratives. According to the documentation, Jesus’ story sprouts through the ages of five, six, eight, and twelve years. The events are blooming through the eye view of Thomas the Israelite. First of all it is affirmed that Thomas was from the region of Jesus (1). That makes the reader assured that Thomas heard the voice of Jesus, saw his deeds (2.1-7), and recognized him as a sabbath breaker even from the childhood (2.4-7). As a witness, Thomas reports the activities of five years old Jesus: “collecting the flowing water into ponds and made the water instantly pure” (2.2), “…made soft clay and shaped it into twelve sparrows… on the sabbath day” (2.3), and the sparrows that are made of soft clay flew off (2.6). Every word Jesus uttered and every deed he performed are known to Thomas. InfGosTh testifies that Thomas knew Joseph the father of Jesus (2.4-6; 3.4; 4.4; 5.1-6; 6.1-22; 12.1-13.4), his mother (11.1-4), his brother James (16.1-2), and the way he helped his parents in farming and carpentry (12.1-13.4). The gospel reports about how Jesus behaved within the family set up and, in return, how Joseph reacted to him (6:1-22). It also narrates the mannerisms of boy Jesus in the playground and in the work places. It arrays the way people approached Joseph the Father with complaints on several occasions (3.4; 4.4). It also records the top secrets of Jesus’ family (i.e., what Joseph and his mother discussed about Jesus [14.5] as concerned parents). The book details that Thomas knew who were the teachers of Jesus (by name, 6.1-8.4), how many teachers he had, how Jesus behaved in the class, and even the minute details of the conversations between Jesus and his teachers (6.1-8.4; 14.1-5; 15.1-7). To Zacchaeus, the first teacher, he said, “…I existed when you were born” (6.6) and “…when the world was created, I existed along with the one who sent me to you” (6.10). InfGosTh mentions that Thomas even knew the identity of Jesus’ playmates (3.1; 9.4). His boyhood mannerisms and his power to heal people (cf. Blomberg, 1992: 304-5) are drawn to the attention of the readers. The above details are enough to prove that Jesus and Thomas were known each other intimately from their childhood.

The canonical gospels give us indications about Thomas’ being with Jesus during his childhood. The call narratives of the four gospels have to be briefly analyzed here for our understanding (cf. Weder, 1992: 2: 207-10). In the Gospel of Matthew, there are five specific callings mentioned (i.e., of Simon Peter, Andrew, James, John, and Matthew; cf. 4:18-22; 9:9). In Mark, similarly, five people receive specific calling (i.e., Simon, Andrew, James, John, and Levi son of Alphaeus; cf. 1:16-20; 2:13-14) from Jesus. In Luke, only four people receive specific calling (i.e., Simon, James, John, and Levi the tax collector; 5:1-11, 27-30) from the teacher. Moreover, in all the synoptics, the names of the Twelve are mentioned (Matt. 10:2-4; Mark 3:13-19; Luke 6:12-16). In John, different from the Synoptics, while three people are added to the list of the called ones (i.e., an unnamed disciple, Philip, and Nathanael), two are sustained from the list of the synoptics (Andrew and Simon Peter; cf. 1:35-51). In John, the most difficult task is suggesting the name of the unnamed disciples in chapters one (vv. 37, 39, 40) and twenty-one (v. 2). As per the gospel traditions, only eight people had received specific calling from Jesus (i.e., Simon Peter, Andrew, James, John, Matthew [Levi], Philip, Nathanael [if he is Bartholomew], and an unnamed one). That further means, there is no record of the call of Thomas, James son of Alphaeus, Thaddaeus (Judas son of James), Simon the Zealot, and Judas Iscariot (cf. Wilkins, 1992: 179-81). But, out of the five, Thomas is linked to Jesus from his boyhood days according to the InGosTh. The above analysis provides convincing details to prove that Thomas was not added to the Jesus circle when he started his public ministry. They were together from childhood and known to each other even before others come in contact with Jesus. If Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, and Paul were added to the Jesus circle after he started his public ministry, then who knew earthly Jesus better? This information calls the attention of the reader toward the Twin brother motif of the Syrian traditions.

John is, again, a challenging work and a mining field for the understanding of new insights about Didymos Judas Thomas. While chapter one mentions one unidentified disciple (1:37, 39, 40), chapter twenty-one mentions two unidentified disciples (21:2). If someone argues that the one in chapter one would have been Thomas, then there is no evidence that supports Thomas’ former discipleship to John the Baptist. Moreover, in John’s picturization, Thomas was counted as one of the key figures in the Jesus community. Among the named characters in chapter 21, Peter and Nathanael are mentioned as the “called” disciples according to the Johannine tradition (cf. 1:42 and 45-51). Similarly, the sons of Zebedee are also reckoned as the “called” ones according to the Synoptic tradition (Matt. 4:21-22; Mark 1:19-20; Luke 5:9). About Thomas’ call, though he was a key figure in John’s story and even at the climax (11:16; 14:5; 20:24-29; 21:2), there is no mention all through the canonical gospel traditions. Why Thomas’ name is not attached to the call stories? This gives us a clue about his being with Jesus from the childhood. The InfGosTh supports this view affirmatively.

For Further Reference:

Barton, S. C., 1992. “Child, Children”. DJG. Downers Grove, IL.: Inter-Varsity Press: 100-4.

Bauckham, R. J., 1992. “Gospels (Apocryphal)”. DJG. Downers Grove, IL.: Inter-Varsity Press: 286-91.

Blomberg, C. L., 1992. “Gospels (Historical Reliability)”. DJG. Downers Grove, IL.: Inter-Varsity Press: 291-97.

Blomberg, C. L., 1992. “Healing”. DJG. Downers Grove, IL.: Inter-Varsity Press: 299-307.

Bruce, F. F., 1992. “Canon”. DJG. Downers Grove, IL.: Inter-Varsity Press: 93-100.

Cameron, R., ed., 1982. The Other Gospels: Non-Canonical Gospel Texts. Philadelphia, PA.: The Westminster Press: 122-30.

Charlesworth, J. H., 1995. The Beloved Disciple: Whose Witness Validates the Gospel of John? Valley Forge, Pennsylvania: Trinity Press International.

Charlesworth, J. H., and Mueller, J. R., 1987. The New Testament Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha: A Guide to Publications (ATLA Bibliography Series 17; Metuchen, NJ, and London: American Theological Library Association and Scarecrow Press.

Gero, S., 1971. The Infancy Gospel of Thomas: A Study of the Textual and Literary Problems. NovT 13: 46-80.

Henshaw, T., 1939. New Testament Literature: In the Light of Modern Scholarship. London: George Allen and Unwin Ltd.

Knight, D. A., 1992. “Tradition History”. ABD. Vol. 6. New York: Doubleday: 633-38.

Mirecki, P. A., 1992. “Thomas, The Infancy Gospel of”. ABD. Vol. 6. New York: Doubleday: 540-44.

Redlich, E. B., 1939. Form Criticism: Its Value and Limitations. London: Duckworth.

Robbins, V. K., 1992. “Form Criticism (New Testament)”. ABD. Vol. 2. New York: Doubleday: 841-44.

Weder, H., 1992. “Disciple, Discipleship”. ABD. Vol. 2. New York: Doubleday: 207-10.

Wilkins, M. J., 1992. “Disciples”. DJG. Downers Grove, IL.: Inter-Varsity Press: 176-82.

Witherington III, B., 1992. “Birth of Jesus”. DJG. Downers Grove, IL.: Inter-Varsity Press: 60-74.

Wright, W., 1865. Contributions to the Apocryphal Literature of the New Testament. London.

By Johnson Thomaskutty, Union Biblical Seminary, Pune, India

The Passing of Geza Vermes, 1924 – 2013

Just come into know about the passing away of Geza Vermes from The Biblical World.

Jim Davila has learned that Geza Vermes died this morning. Here is a short bio I found on Wikipedia which seems to have already been updated.

Vermes was born in Makó, Hungary, in 1924 to Jewish parents. All three were baptised as Roman Catholics when he was seven. His mother and journalist father died in the Holocaust. After the Second World War, he became a Roman Catholic priest, studied first in Budapest and then at the College St Albert and the Catholic University of Leuven in Belgium, where he read Oriental history and languages and in 1953 obtained a doctorate in theology with a dissertation on the historical framework of the Dead Sea Scrolls. He left the Catholic Church in 1957; and, reasserting his Jewish identity, came to Britain and took up a teaching post at the University of Newcastle upon Tyne. He married Pamela Hobson in 1958. In 1965 he joined the Faculty of Oriental Studies at Oxford University, rising to become the first professor of Jewish Studies before his retirement in 1991. In 1970 he became a member of the Liberal Jewish Synagogue of London.

Vermes passed away on 8 May 2013 after a recurrence of cancer.

 

Did We Get Didymos Judas Thomas (Apostle Thomas) Right?

Introducing my upcoming writing project

“Did We Get Didymos Judas Thomas (Apostle Thomas) Right?”

(with a hope to finish the monograph within a period of two years)

Features:

(1)   Research-focused

(2)   Biblically-centered

(3)   Supported by apocryphal traditions

(4)   Consulted with Syrian Christian scholars

(5)   Incorporated with traditio-historical facts

(6)   Empirical

(7)   With archaeological insights

 

In consultation with/with “Introductory Chapter” of

Prof. James H. Charlesworth

(George L. Collord Professor of NT Language and Literature,

Princeton Theological Seminary, New Jersey)

 

Johnson Thomaskutty, Union Biblical Seminary, Pune, India

Significant Gospels and Acts in the New Testament Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha

I appreciate Andrew Jasko for his boldness in expressing his views. In a context in which the East and the Eastern ideologies and scriptures are abnegated, his short piece of writing direct the attention of the readers toward the facts and persuade the readers to remain broad-minded. Herewith, I express my thankfulness to Prof. James H. Charlesworth for introducing Andrew and this interesting piece of work to me. The post here was formerly submitted to Prof. Charlesworth, in partial fulfilment of NT3290 NTAP at Princeton Theological Seminary, New Jersey, USA. It is published here with written permission from the author.

About the Author: Andrew Jasko has felt a call to pastoral ministry, academics, and cross-cultural ministry from a young age. Andrew graduated from Wheaton College with a concentration in Biblical Studies and Ministry. After college he moved to New Jersey to youth pastor and to teach Bible classes. Andrew is currently working on his Masters of Divinity degree at Princeton Theological Seminary. Andrew is passionate about seeing people transformed through understanding the gospel of grace, and the person and work of Christ. He has published “The Scarlet Letter of Mental Illness: De-stigmatizing Bipolar Disorder” in The Journal of Pastoral Psychology. Vol. 61, Issue 3 (June 2012). Andrew is interested in Pauline studies, Apocalypticism, and Christian Origins. You can contact Andrew here: andrew.jasko@ptsem.edu.

Read below…

[In order to determine which apocrypha are most important, we must first enumerate the criteria for making judgments about value. I will only list the two most significant criteria here because of the limited scope of this paper. Firstly, New Testament Apocryphal and Pseudepigraphal (NTAP) documents are important inasmuch as they preserve early, historical traditions concerning Jesus, and the so-called early Church.[1] This includes the dating of the finished works but, more broadly, it also includes the dating of significant traditions within these works. Secondly, NTAP documents are important in the search for the alleged ipsissima verba Jesu.[2] Many of these documents may contain genuine sayings of the historical Jesus. As J.H. Charlesworth highlights, apocryphal works should not be excluded from the search for the sayings of Jesus (or the history of the Church) on the basis that they have been shaped by later communities, for the canonical Gospels have also undergone redaction and editing.[3] The Gospels and many of the NT documents come to us with edited yet reliable traditions, just as some of the NTAP documents do. Thus, it is essential that our view of canon be elastic enough to allow for God’s word to speak to us through these important NTAP Gospels and Acts.

Charlesworth states, “[The documents in the NTAP] are almost all imitations of the gospels, acts, letters, or the apocalypse in the New Testament.”[4] The Gospel of Thomas (GosTh) may be an exception to this generality. It is distinct among the apocryphal Gospels in that it may have an early date (125 C.E.) and portions of it may have developed independently from the canonical Gospels.[5] The Gospel may preserve sayings “in a more primitive form than the Synoptics.”[6] Thus, since it preserves early traditions and may contain material independent of the Synoptics, the GosTh may contribute insights on the development and traditions about Jesus and his movement (fulfilling my first criteria for significance). Likewise, because it purports to be a collection of sayings of Jesus, the GosTh is indispensable in the search for the ipsissima verba Jesu. For example, saying 82 (“He who is near me is near fire but he who is far from me is far from the kingdom”) may be an original saying of Jesus, because it is similar to some of Jesus’ other teachings about the kingdom in its brevity, its usage of metaphor and shock value, and the absence of “heretical” words and thoughts. On the other hand, some sayings on the GosTh are probably not original to Jesus. For example, in saying 12 Jesus tells his disciples that James will be their leader. He states, “Wherever you are, go to James the just; heaven and earth came into being for him.” This sounds like a constructed justification for the leadership of James in the early Church. However, this verse is still significant in that it may be an early attestation to the importance of James in some segments of the early Church. Since the GosTh may contain original sayings of Jesus and supply us with information about the thoughts of the early Church, it is worthy of the attention of New Testament scholars and serious students of Jesus.

The Acts of Thomas (AcTh) may be the most significant of the NTAPActs. Most of the other Acts contain embellishments and expansions based off of canonical works as well as legendary material. The AcTh is similar in style to these NTAP Acts. However, the AcTh is unique among the Acts in that it contains historically corroborated information that is not available in other canonical works. While its final form is not early [7], it may preserve traditions about the origins of Christianity in the East– particularly India – that date from the time of the Apostle Thomas (the first century). The fact that the Protestant canon does not include much information about Christianity outside of the West, not to mention that Western authors such as Paul have been elevated over authors such as James, is telling of the problem that we have relegated the East to a lower status. May be our Western canonical bias blinds us to ways that God has been speaking and moving in a substantial part of the Church.

While the AcTh is similar to the other Acts in its literary and often legendary character, it differs in several key respects. Firstly, its focus is on Eastern Christianity. Secondly, the noticeable anti-Jewish tendencies of the other Acts are missing in the AcTh. For example, in AcTh vv. 5-9[8] the author brings to the forefront a Hebrew flute-player whom Thomas praises in a beautiful Hebrew song. Thirdly, the AcTh has substantial historical evidence behind many of its claims, including an existing Indian Christian community and the archeological findings of relics of an Indian king called Gundaphoros and his brother Gad.[9]

The AcTh makes historical claims about the emergence of a first-century Church in the East through the Apostle Thomas. If these claims are true, then the AcTh would fit our first criteria for NTAP significance, making the AcTh invaluable to our understanding of the early Jesus Movement and Indian Church. Thus, these historical claims, and the historicity of the AcTh as a whole, is the main issue in the AcTh under discussion. J.K. Elliot represents one side of the argument, “The consensus of modern scholarly opinion is skeptical about the historicity of the Thomas story, and in any case the local references are perfunctory.”[10] Elliot insinuates that the presence of an eponymous hero and colorless and stylized character of the episodes make it likely that the Act is merely fictional with some historical incidents.[11] He intimates further that an already established Indian Church may have written the Acts as a self-justification.[12] At the other end of the spectrum, some Indians, such as scholar P. V. Matthew of the Catholicoses of the Malankara Church, view the work as divinely inspired.[13] Somewhere in-between these positions, J Thomaskutty accepts throughout his works that many of the stories have an expansive and stylized nature, but contends that the AcTh preserves a great deal of accurate information about the apostle, his teaching, and the emergence of the Indian Church.[14]

Like Thomaskutty, I take a moderate position on the issue. For instance, the story about Gundaphoros’ conversion (vv. 17-29) is probably legendary, but it may convey an historical event of Thomas’s conversion of King Gundaphoros. Additionally, while some of the teachings of AcTh, such as Encratite doctrine, are more likely a reflection of later theological development than original Thomistic teaching, the AcTh conceivably still preserves original information about the apostle’s lifestyle and teaching, particularly his asceticism. S.P. Brock attributes Thomas’ asceticism to the ascetic nature of Syrian Christianity, which Brock believes is behind the AcTh.[15] However, Thomas’s asceticism could also be viewed missiologically. According to my own knowledge, the holy men of Hinduism and Indian polytheistic religions, particularly in royal circles, were and continue to be ascetic. Hence, a prudent missionary to India such as Thomas, who sought to reach both rich and poor, would have adopted an ascetic lifestyle compatible with Christianity. Thus, it is not so easy to separate fact from fiction, or historical incident from theological import, in the AcTh. The AcTh is also important as it elucidates the potential value of other NTAP documents. It cautions us not to hastily dismiss other apocrypha as unhistorical due to their legendary qualities, for they may still preserve genuine historical incidents.

Documents from the NTAP contain information independent from the Protestant canon that help us to better understand Jesus and the movement he engendered. Ironically, by closing the Canon so tightly we have closed ourselves off from the full word of God, part of which is contained in several of these documents. A more permeable conception of canon and Scripture may allow us to consider these NTAP texts alongside our other Scriptures so that we might gain a better understanding of the Church, Jesus, and God’s continuing word to us.]

End Notes:

[1] J. H. Charlesworth, Authentic Apocrypha (North Richland Hills, TX: BIBAL Press, 1998), x.

[2] J. H. Charlesworth, The New Testament Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha: A Guide to Publications, with Excurses on Apocalypses (Metuchen and London: The Scarecrow Press, Inc., 1987), 3.

[3] Ibid, 4.

[4] Ibid, 6.

[5] J. H. Charlesworth, The Historical Jesus: An Essential Guide (Nashville: Abingdom Press, 2008), 35.

[6] R. J. Bauckham, “Gospels (Apocryphal),” Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels, edd.J. B. Green, S. McKnight and I. H. Marshall (Downers Grove, Illinois/Leicester: InterVarsity Press, 1992), 287.

[7] About the beginning of the third century, according to A. F. J. Klijn,The Acts of Thomas(Leidin: Brill, 1962), 26.

[8] I am using J. K. Elliot’s versification in this paper.

[9] J. Thomaskutty, “The Thomas of  ‘The Acts of Thomas’ (Part I)” last viewed 13 March 2013, http://ntscholarship.wordpress.com/2013/01/02/the-thomas-of-the-acts-of-thomas-part-i-the-forgotten-thomas/.

[10] J. K. Elliot, The Apocryphal New Testament (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1993), 440-441.

[11] Ibid, 441.

[12] Ibid.

[13] See P.V. Matthew, Acta India (Kottayam: Learners’ Offset Press, 2005).

[14] See J. Thomaskutty, “The Thomas of ‘The Acts of Thomas,’” Parts I-IV, last viewed 13 March 2013, http://ntscholarship.wordpress.com.

[15] S.P. Brock, “Early Syrian Asceticism,” Numen 20 (1973): 8-9.

Works Cited:

Bauckham, R. J.”Gospels (Apocryphal).”Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels, edd. J. B. Green,

S. McKnight and I. H. Marshall. Downers Grove, Illinois/Leicester: InterVarsity Press,

1992. 286-291.

Brock, S. P. “Early Syrian Asceticism.”Numen 20 (1973): 1-19.

Charlesworth, J. H. Authentic Apocrypha.(North Richland Hills, TX: BIBAL Press, 1998).

——–The Historical Jesus: An Essential Guide. (Nashville: Abingdom Press, 2008), 35.

——–The New Testament Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha: A Guide to Publications, with

Excurses on Apocalypses. (Metuchen and London: The Scarecrow Press, Inc., 1987),

Elliot, J. K. The Apocryphal New Testament. Oxford: Clarendom Press, 1993.

Klijn, A. F. J. The Acts of Thomas.Leidin: Brill, 1962.

Matthew, P. V. Acta India. Kottayam: Learners’ Offset Press, 2005.

Thomaskutty, J. “The Thomas of ‘The Acts of Thomas.’” Parts I-IV. Last viewed 13 March 2013, http://ntscholarship.wordpress.com.

Outlines of the Johannine Sermons/Bible Studies during the Passion Week in Ahmadabad, Gujarat

The following are the outlines of the fifteen sessions (i.e., Passion Week sermons and Bible studies, 24^th till 31^st Match 2013) I (Johnson Thomaskutty) delivered in the churches of Raikhad area in Ahmadabad, Gujarat, India. The meetings were convened under the auspices of Ahmadabad Pastors’ Association.

First Session: Palm Sunday Worship Service @ The Simpson Memorial Alliance Church, Jamalpur. Message: “Four Contrasting Identities”. Text: John 12:1-43. Sub-topics: (1) Mary Anoints Jesus, but Judas Iscariot Opposes (vv. 1-8); (2) Official Judaism Plots against Jesus/Lazarus, but the Crowd Sing Hosanna (vv. 9-15); (3) The Disciples Misunderstand, but the Greeks Request to See Jesus (vv. 16-26); and (4) Jesus Reveals Himself, but the People Unbelieve (vv. 27-43). Rev. Rasin Vasaiwala (President of Alliance Synod) is the pastor-in-charge of the church. Translation from English to Gujarati: Mr. Enan Roziya.

Second Session: Evening Session @ IP Mission School Compound (of CNI), Raikhad. Message: “I AM the Bread of Life” (John 6:1-59). Sub-topics: (1) Jesus Feeds the 5000 with Physical Bread (vv. 1-15); (2) The Crowd’s Claim about another Bread (the Manna in the Desert) (vv. 30-31, 52); (3) Jesus Says, “I am the Bread of Life” (vv. 35, 48-51, 53-58); and (4) The Provider of the Physical Bread is the Read Bread. Translation: Rev. Robinson Christian, Pastor of Ellis Bridge (CNI) Church.

Third Session: Bible Study @ CNI Ahmadabad Church, Victoria Garden, Raikhad. Topic: “Five Models of Discipleship” (John Chapter 1). Sub-titles: (1) John the Baptist (one who was ‘Sent from God’); (2) Andrew (Hearing about Jesus and Following); (3) Simon Peter (one who was ‘Brought to Jesus’); (4) Philip (one who was ‘Found by Jesus’); and (5) Nathanael (one who was ‘Found by a Follower of Jesus’). Translation: Rev. Robinson Christian.

Fourth Session: Evening Session @ IP Mission School Compound (of CNI), Raikhad. Topic: “I AM the Light of the World”. Text: John 8:12 and 9:1-41. Sub-titles: (1) Light Symbolism of the Feast of Tabernacles (8:12); (2) Disciples’ Request and the Healing of the Blind Man (9:1-7); (3) The Healed Man under Trial (9:8-34); (4) Jesus and the Healed man Face-to-Face (9:35-38); (5) Jesus Reveals the Blindness of the Religious Leaders of Judaism and the External/Internal Sight of the Healed Man (9:39-41); (6) Jesus is “The Light of the World” (8:12; 9:5); and (7) Jesus said: “You are the Light of the World” (Matt. 5:14). Translation: Rev. Robinson Christian.

Fifth Session: Bible Study @ CNI Ahmadabad Church, Victoria Garden, Raikhad. Topic: “The Newness Motif in John Chapters 2-4″. Sub-titles: (1) New Wine–New Joy (2:1-11); (2) New Temple–New Identity (2:13-22); (3) New Birth–New Beginning (3:1-21); (4) New Water–New Worship (4:1-42); and (5) New Life–New Belief (4:46-54). Translation: Rev. Robinson Christian.

Sixth Session: Evening Session @ IP Mission School Compound (of CNI), Raikhad. Topic: “I AM the Door/Gate of the Sheep”. Text: John 10:1-10. Sub-titles: (1) The Imagery of the Door/Gate; (2) The Central Contrast of the Shepherd and the Bandits; (3) Jesus Says, “I AM the Door/Gate of the Sheep”; (4) Thieves and Robbers; and (5) How Can We Enter Jesus, the Gate/Door of the Sheep? Translation: Rev. Robinson Christian.

Seventh Session: Bible Study @ CNI Ahmadabad Church, Victoria Garden, Raikhad. Topic: “John the Baptist: A Great Witness of Jesus”. . Texts: John 1:19-36; 3:22-36; Matt. 3:13-17; 11:11. Sub-titles: (1) John the Baptist testifies/cries out concerning the pre-existence of Jesus (Jn. 1:15); (2) He confessed that “I AM NOT” (Jn. 1:20); (3) He accepts his impersonality by saying that “I am the Voice” (Jn. 1:23); (4) He proclaims: “Make straight the way for the Lord” (Jn. 1:23); (5) He pointed out Jesus as “The Lamb of God” (Jn. 1:29, 36); (6) He baptizes Jesus and witnesses the glorious scene (Matt. 3:13-17); and (7) His aim of life was: “He must increase and I must decrease” (Jn. 3:30). Translation: Rev. Robinson Christian.

Eighth Session: Evening Session @ IP Mission School Compound (of CNI), Raikhad. Topic: “I AM the Good Shepherd”. Text: John 10:11-21. Sub-titles: (1) Hired Hands; (2) Good Shepherds; (3) Jesus says, “I AM the Good Shepherd”; (4) The basis of Jesus-and-Believer relationship is the Father-and-Son relationship; and (5) Shepherd-and-Sheep relationship in the present day context. Translation: Rev. Robinson Christian.

Nineth Session: Bible Study @ CNI Ahmadabad Church, Victoria Garden, Raikhad. Topic: “What Is the Measure of Your Faith?”. Texts: John 4:46-54. Sub-titles: (1) Royal Man in Cana with ‘Partial Faith’; (2) Royal Man on the way with ‘Developing Faith’; and (3) Royal Man in Capernaum with ‘Matured/Grown up Faith’. Translation: Rev. Robinson Christian.

Tenth Session: Evening Session @ IP Mission School Compound (of CNI), Raikhad. Topic: “I AM the Resurrection and the Life”. Text: John 11:1-45. Sub-titles: (1) The Concept of Resurrection; (2) The Troubled Sisters of Lazarus; (3) Jesus says, “I AM the Resurrection and the Life”; (4) Jesus proves that He is the Resurrection and the Life by His own Resurrection from the dead; and (5) The Resurrection of the Dead is Definite. Translation: Rev. Robinson Christian.

Eleventh Session: Good Friday Service @ Methodist Church Ahmadabad West, Ambawadi. Topic: “It Is Finished…”/”Tetelestai…” Text: John 19:19-30. Sub-titles: (1) Jesus ‘accomplished’ the promises of the OT; (2) He ‘finished’ the act of performing sacrifices; (3) He ‘finished’ the powers of Satan and death; (4) He ‘finished’ the power of Sin; (5) He ‘put an end’ to the old priestly order; (6) He ‘finished’ the rule of the Law; (7) His earthly ministry in human form is ‘finished’; (8) He ‘fulfilled’ the Will of the Father; (9) He ‘finished’ the age of the covenants; and (10) He ‘finished’ His very blood for humanity. Translation: Rev. Ashok Parmar (the Pastor-in-Charge, Methodist Church Ahmadabad West).

Twelfth Session: Evening Session @ IP Mission School Compound (of CNI), Raikhad. Topic: “I AM the Way and the Truth and the Life”. Text: John 14:1-12. Sub-titles: (1) Jesus is the Way; (2) Jesus is the Truth; (3) Jesus is the Life; (4) Jesus says, “I AM the Way and the Truth and the Life”; and (5) Walk Jesus the Way, Follow Jesus the Truth, and Attain Life through Jesus who is the giver of Life. Translation: Rev. Robinson Christian.

Thirteenth Session: Evening Session @ IP Mission School Compound (of CNI), Raikhad. Topic: “I AM the True Vine”. Text: John 15:1-14. Sub-titles: (1) Jesus is the Provider of the ‘Best Wine’ (John 2:1-12); (2) Jesus says, “I AM the True Vine” (John 15:1-14); (3) Jesus as the ‘True Vine’ works with God the ‘Gardener’; (4) The Believers are the ‘Branches’; and (5) Jesus’ Life as a ‘True Vine’ is Symbolic of His Shedding of Blood on the Cross. Translation: Rev. Robinson Christian.

Fourteenth Session: Easter Sunday Service @ CNI Ahmadabad Church, Victoria Garden, Raikhad. Topic: “I Have Seen the Lord!” Text: John 20:1-18. Sub-titles: (1) The Resurrection and Events of that Day (vv. 1-9); (2) Jesus Appears to Mary Magdalene (vv. 10-18); and (3) Mary is the ‘Apostle to the Apostles’: She (a) ‘took initiative’ to come to the tomb; (b) ‘saw’ the stone was moved away; (c) ‘conveyed’ the rolling away of the stone; (d) ‘stood’ outside the tomb crying; (e) ‘witnessed’ the empty tomb; (f) literally ‘saw’ Jesus face-to-face; (g) ‘heard’ the voice of Jesus; (h) ‘touched’ Jesus; (i) was ‘commissioned’ by Jesus; and (j) ‘went out’ in order to convey the message of resurrection. Translation: Rev. Emmanuel J. Christie.

Fifteenth/Last Session: Evening Session @ IP Mission School Compound (of CNI), Raikhad. Topic: “My Lord and My God!”. Text: John 20:19-29. Sub-titles: (1) Jesus Appears to the Disciples, while Thomas is Absent (vv. 19-23); (2) Jesus Appears to the Disciples, while Thomas being Present (vv. 24-29); and (3) Thomas is the ‘Believing Thomas’: (a) as an ‘outspoken man’ (without hypocrisy); (b) as a man ‘wounded inside’ (after seeing the crucifixion of the master); (c) as a ‘genuine witness’ (of the resurrection); and (d) as a ‘staunch proclaimer’ (of the divinity of Jesus). Translation: Rev. Robinson Christian.

By Johnson Thomaskutty, Union Biblical Seminary, Pune, India

Why would hoi Iudaioi (translated as “the Jews”) want to kill Jesus? (John 5.18)

Read this interesting blog of Dr. Eli Lizorkin-Eyzenberg, an Israeli scholar of Christian and Jewish Literature. For more details about him go here.

^[18 This was why hoi Iudaioi were seeking all the more to kill him, because not only was he “breaking” the Sabbath, but he was even calling God his own Father, making himself equal with God.

© By Eli Lizorkin-Eyzenberg, Ph.D.

(Please, make sure to read this post in the context of the overall study, you can find it here. Especially, John 5.2-17)

How can their strong negative language, expressing their intent to kill him, be explained?  We read that hoi Iudaioi  (normally and incorrectly translated simply as “the Jews”) sought to kill Jesus (vs.18). It is known that in the vast majority of premeditated murder cases, the actions of the murderer were based on feelings of anger that eventually led to the murder itself. This is probably why Jesus taught that in some way anger towards a fellow human is the same as actual murder. To understand this better, let us consider one interesting example from the Hebrew language.

In Hebrew, the words for “anger,” “chair/throne,” and “pocket” have exactly the same root as represented by the letters kaf (K) and sameh (S). We can hear the same root in the Hebrew words for “anger” (kas), “throne” (kiseh) and “pocket” (kis). Kiseh – throne/chair is a symbol of status, position and authority. Kis – a pocket, is a symbol of stability and financial resources. When someone takes either (or worse yet, both of them) no matter what the reason; anger inevitably results.

When people become (and stay very) angry for a long period of time they often cannot bear the heavy burden of their anger. They seek to take some action that will satisfy and nullify the anger that causes them so much emotional pain. They must end the pain that their own anger causes them. The stronger the anger; the stronger is the desire to end it. In the absence of a better way, people resort to evil actions such as violence and even murder.

The issue was not that Jesus did not abide by the Sabbath-keeping rulings of hoi Iudaioi. Judaism in the time of Jesus was not monolithic. It is probably better to speak in terms of many Judaisms rather than one, given the wide variety of Jewish observance practices and scriptural interpretation that existed at that time. Only in the 5th – 7th centuries C.E. can we speak of Jewish rabbinic leadership solidifying its authority over the Jewish community. The rabbis were engaged in setting forth an authoritative corpus of rabbinic literature that would determine the interpretation of the Hebrew Bible/Old Testament for the rest of the Jewish community for centuries to come. They did very much succeed, but only centuries later.

Incidentally, the word in Greek translated here as “breaking” the Sabbath does not need to be translated this way. It is equally possible to speak of Jesus “setting the Sabbath free.” It is not that the author of John thought Jesus was breaking the Sabbath. He in fact was persuaded that Jesus could not break the command of his own, so by definition, Jesus could not be everything John said he was and at the same time to be a Sabbath-breaker. But, in John’s story, hoi Iudaioi accused him of breaking the Sabbath. Because they were seeking to discredit him in the eyes of the people whose heart-allegiance they did not possess and whose rebellion they still feared.

Jesus’ very presence (His person) as well as his teachings (His words) and his miracles (His deeds) were spelling trouble for the Jerusalem Temple elite and others who fed off the same budget and status. Jesus was gaining more and more popular following. He was performing miracles and giving prophetic speeches almost exclusively outside of Judea, (the headquarters of hoi Iudaioi) where, for the most part, he was accepted and honored. He, as a matter of principle, did not respond to their requests to submit to their authority. He was rightly perceived by them to be a real threat; but most importantly, he was a threat to their personal status and their personal financial resources that were associated with the Jerusalem Temple.

In the chapter 5, however, the anger and plans to kill Jesus are only beginning. They pick up when Jesus will cross the red line of the patience and tolerance of the hoi Iudaioi. The final threat of Jesus to the hoi Iudaioi leadership will be his most spectacular miracle – the resurrection of the well-known and respected member of the hoi Iudaioi, a man named Eliezar. (We know him as Lazarus.)

We read in a later portion of the Gospel that Jesus’ coming to Bethany (very near Jerusalem) and resurrecting Lazarus resulted in two significant events. Many members of hoi Iudaioi placed their faith in Jesus. As a result, an emergency meeting of the top level of the leadership was called. In John 11:47-48, we read: “… the chief priests and the Pharisees gathered the council and said, “What are we to do? For this man performs many signs. If we let him go on like this, everyone will believe in him, and the Romans will come and take away both our place and our nation.”

We will look at this story in detail when we get to chapter 11, but for now, it is clear that the accusations of hoi Iudaioi in chapter 5 did not have to do with Jesus’ seemingly “liberal” Sabbath observance, but with his person, words and deeds.

It is not that his claims to be the Son of Man/Logos of God did not have a place in Judaisms of the time, but simply that Jesus was not allowed to take that place. Stop and think about it again. It was not because “divine Messiah” claim did not fit “the Jewish” thinking spectrum (see the links), it was precisely because it did. That was the problem!

The Jerusalem leaders did the math. If things continue “as is,” Jesus would surely have put them out of a job with his prophetic speeches that were validated by his great miracles. In the next sections we will see how Jesus’ roles will merge two normally separate concepts, the Son of God and the Son of Man. We will consider John 5.19-30 in its ancient literary and poetic context. I think you will be amazed!]

© By Eli Lizorkin-Eyzenberg, Ph.D.

As you can see this commentary is in process of being written. It gets better and better when participants comment. So if you have a question or a comment, post it on the site. To see all previous material click here “Samaritan-Jewish Commentary”. To receive more information about learning Biblical Languages (Hebrew, Greek or Aramaic) with the Hebrew University of Jerusalem/eTeacher Biblical program online at affordable cost, please, click here.

————————————

Volunteer needs:

1) General volunteer

2) SEO specialist

3) English language editor

Write to Dr. Eli at Elil@eteacherbiblical.com

“Petrine Ministry and Christocracy” and “Christian Unity” by Paul Anderson

—-The following two documents of Dr. Paul Anderson are worth reading as the period of Pope Francis I begins here…

Dr. Anderson posts the links to his articles on the NTSW Group wall with the following comment:

[Okay, habemus papam--Cardinal Jorge Mario Bergoglio of Argentina is now Pope Francis; excellent to have the first New World pope--historic, indeed!

Here's my response to the Vatican in 2005 (responding to Ut Unum Sint, 1995--given to Pope Benedict and Cardinal Kasper in 2006) and reported on after that. Let us pray for one another that larger communities of faith might attend, discern, and mind the divine leadings--individually and corporately.]

See his two documents below:

(1) Petrine Ministry and Christocracy: A Response to Ut unum sint (http://www.georgefox.edu/discernment/petrine.pdf)

(2) “Christian Unity Under the Lordship of Jesus Christ: A New Vision of Catholicity?” (http://www.georgefox.edu/discernment/Unity.pdf)

A New New Testament

Thanks to Charles Echols for bringing this into my attention.

[It is time for A New New Testament. A New Testament that causes people—inside and outside church—to lean forward with interest and engagement. This is meant to be that book. It contains astounding new material from the first-century Christ movements and places it alongside the traditional texts. Among its offerings are a new gospel whose primary character is a woman, a previously unknown collection of songs in Christ's voice lifting to God, another gospel with more than fifty new teachings from Jesus, and a prayer of the apostle Paul discovered in the sands of Egypt less than seventy years ago.

This New New Testament is not simply the product of one author. The ten added books have been chosen by a council of wise and nationally known spiritual leaders. An eclectic mix of bishops, rabbis, well-known authors, leaders of national churches, and women and men from African American, Native American, and European American backgrounds have studied many of the recent discoveries from the first two centuries, deliberated rigorously together, and chosen those new books. What have these deliberations produced? Where did it come from? And what do readers need to know before immersing themselves in this new New Testament experience?]

Read the full Excerpt here: http://www.hmhbooks.com/anewnewtestament/excerpt.html

Buy the book: http://www.hmhbooks.com/anewnewtestament/buy.html

Watch the book trailer: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=SsDXHOzDHVI

The Dating of NT Manuscripts: An Important Recent Analysis

Read this new reporting of Larry Hurtado…

[One of my current PhD students brought to my attention a recent article that all concerned with the study of NT manuscripts should read:

Pasquale Orsini & Willy Clarysse, "Early New Testament Manuscripts and Their Dates:  A Critique of Theological Palaeography," Ephemerides Theologicae Lovanienses 88 (2012): 443-74.

The authors are both professional/trained palaeographers, and Clarysse is the founder of the extremely valuable Leuven Database of Ancient Books (LDAB), which provides data on all published/edited manuscripts from the ancient world, and can be accessed online here.

The object of the recent article is a critique of the tendencies of a few scholars in NT studies to push for early datings of NT manuscripts, sometimes highly improbably early datings.  Carsten Thiede was the most notorious.  But the main figures given critique in the article are Philip Comfort (most recently, Encountering the Manuscripts:  An Introduction to New Testament Paleography & Textual Criticism, 2005) and K. Jaroš (Das Neue Testament nach den ältesten griechischen Handschriften, 2006).  These scholars/works Orsini & Clarysse refer to as the key examples of "theological palaeography".  They apparent suggestions is that these works refelct some misguided apologetic concern:  the earlier manuscripts can be dated, the more useful for engaging questions of the accuracy of textual transmission.  It is certainly logical that the earlier the manuscripts the more useful for this question.  But the valid point made by Orsini & Clarysse is that it is all the more vital that the dating of manuscripts be done on a sound basis.

So a major portion of the article is helpfully given over to the laying out the method and categories that should be used in dating undated manuscripts (and, as the authors note, literary manuscripts are as a rule undated, and so require some sound method for estimating the matter).  Following through their discussion should certainly make readers aware of how much is involved, and will show that Greek palaeography is a discipline in its own right.  (I've picked up some sense of things over the years, enough to follow the analysis of palaeographers, and even to make some tentative judgement myself, but I freely admit that I'm not an authoritative palaeographer.  My own emphasis has been that scholars interested in Christian Origins need to take account of the data and work of papyrologists and palaeographers, because they are relevant for wider historical questions beyond those usually considered by these scholars.)

The tendency of some scholars to push for early dating of NT manuscripts was criticized earlier in a small book by Roger Bagnall, Early Christian Books in Egypt (Princeton University Press, 2009), although Bagnall's own approach to dating manuscripts is a rather dubious proposal.  (See, e.g., my review of the book here.)  Moreover, Bagnall gives the misleading impression that "biblical scholars" as a body tend to push for inappropriately early dates of NT manuscripts, whereas the only offender he cites is Thiede (who wasn't really a NT scholar, but a journalist and auto-didact).

Orsini and Clarysse are a bit more careful in directing their complaints at the specific figures mentioned.  But one could take the misleading impression from their article that it's a case of palaeographers (as a body) having to correct NT scholars (as a body).  In fact (as a perusal of their own footnotes confirms), there have been effective critiques of the early dating of manuscripts by Thiede, Comfort et al, lodged by NT scholars, and the improbably early datings are not registered in such more reliable indexes as the list of manuscripts in the Nestle-Aland Novum Testamentum Graece.

Still, it is very valuable to have Orsini & Clarysse weigh in on the matter.  Moreover, in addition to setting out the proper approach to dating literary manuscripts, they also provide a table giving their dating of all NT manuscripts that they place before ca. 500 CE, also giving a comparison of the datings proffered by Comfort & Barrett, Jaroš, and in the Nestle-Aland list.  As Orsini & Clarysse note, their own judgement most often supports the datings given in the Nestle-Aland list, with a few interesting exceptions.  In a few cases, they propose a later dating (e.g., P15+P16, P 25, P35, P48, P77, P80, P102, 0188, 0220), but in a few other cases theirs is a slightly or significantly earlier dating (e.g., P64+P67+P4, P30, 0171, 0308).

Highly recommended!]

Critical Reading of Thomas Literature

The following are the blogs I posted so far about Didymos Judas Thomas (i.e., Apostle Thomas). Thank you so much for all of your scholarly inputs, appreciations and criticisms.

(1) The Connections of the “Jewish Kingdom” with “God’s Own Country”

(2) Maliankara and the First Footprints of St. Thomas in India

(3) Didymos Thomas: Not “Doubting Thomas”, But “Genuine Thomas”

(4) The Thomas of “The Gospel of Thomas”

(5) The Thomas of “The Acts of Thomas” (Part I): The Forgotten Thomas

(6) The Thomas of ‘The Acts of Thomas’ (Part II): The First Missionary Theologian to the East

(7) The Thomas of “The Acts of Thomas” (Part III): The Indo-Parthian and the South Indian Theories

(8) The Thomas of “The Acts of Thomas” (Part IV): The Martyrdom of Thomas

(9) The Thomas of “The Book of Thomas the Contender”

(10) The Thomas of  “The Infancy Gospel of Thomas”

Soon, I will be reading the book “The Beloved Disciple: Whose Witness Validates the Gospel of John?” by James H. Charlesworth (cover to cover) and will be writing a critical review of that significant work. Looking forward for your comments there too.

Johnson Thomaskutty, Radboud Universiteit Nijmegen, Holland

Significant Theological Interviews

Some of the interviews I had conducted are herewith:

(1) “‘Eastern-Western’ in Academic Thinking”—A Dialogue with Dr. Dyron Daughrity in Pune

(2) Chinese Christianity, Missions, Globalization, and New Testament Interpretation: An Interview with Dr. G. Wright Doyle

(3) “Fifty Years as an Educator, Leader, and Theologian”: A Friendly Conversation with Dr. P. S. Jacob

(4) “I Personally Do Not See Much Value in ‘Academics’ for Its Own Sake”, says Dr. Brian C. Wintle

(5) Ian S. Kemp: An Expository Preacher, Teacher and Commentator of the Bible

(6) From Indian Public Administration to Comparative Religious Studies and Christian Thought: Dr. L. Shanthakumari Sunder Speaks…

(7) “Random Reflections”: An Interview With Dr. K. P. Aleaz

(8) An Academic Interaction with Dr. Bruce J. Nicholls

(9) An Unforgettable Time with Dutch New Testament Scholar Rob van Houwelingen

(10) “New Testament Research is similar to ‘Laboratory Work’”, says South African Scholar Gert J. Steyn

(11) A Scholarly Interaction with Prof. George H. van Kooten at Groningen

(12) By Ferdie: “Christ’s Resurrection as Unique Missional Paradigm – a Refreshing Dialogue with Rev. Johnson Thomakutty from India in Holland”

Johnson Thomaskutty, Radboud Universiteit Nijmegen, Holland

Why did the Gospel of Mark Survive?

Read this latest and interesting post of Larry Hurtado. See the original post here.

[One of the many curiosities in the study of the NT and earliest Christianity is the early history and fortunes of the Gospel of Mark (hereafter, GMark).  On the one hand (assuming the dominant view of Mark’s priority), the GMark appears to have been very influential.  It is widely thought that the authors of the Gospels of Matthew and Luke were likely prompted to write the kind of Jesus-books that they did by GMark.  Indeed, we scholars judge that GMark was the principal model and most significant source for them.  GMatthew appropriates about 90% of GMark, and GLuke uses ca. 60% of GMark, each of them also, of course, following the basic “storyline” of GMark, commencing Jesus’ ministry in the context of John the Baptizer and taking the story on through to Jesus’ execution and resurrection.   Indeed, a case has been made that GMark was also known and influential for the author of the Gospel of John.  But, even if we confine ourselves to GMatthew and GLuke, if imitation is the highest compliment, the author of GMark did very well indeed!

On the other hand, to judge from the evidence of ciations and identiable allusions in early Christian writers, and also from the comparative number of extant early copies of the Gospels, GMark seems not to have been cited, copied or read nearly as much as the others (especially GMatthew and GJohn).  From among remnants of early Christian manuscripts of literary texts dated to the first three centuries CE, we have only one sure copy of GMark (in the Chester Beatty Gospels codex known as “P45,” dated ca. 250 CE).  By contrast, we have remnants of at least a dozen copies of GMatthew, at least sixteen copies of GJohn, and seven copies of GLuke.  For further perspective, we have remnants of three copies of the Gospel of Thomas.  (For further details, see my discussion in The Earliest Christian Artifacts:  Manuscripts and Christian Origins, pp. 15-41.)  In short, it looks like GMark suffered an almost total eclipse in the second century CE.

But, curiously, in our earliest extant manuscript that was apparently intended to house in one codex the Gospels regarded as scripture (for/by those for whom the manuscript was copied), GMark is there among the “fab four” that thereafter comprise the four Gospels of the NT.  Practically lost from sight, submerged from view in the second century evidence, GMark bobs up again like a cork in the water and takes a place in P45.  And, granted, earlier in Irenaeus’ work, Against Heresies (3.11.8; ca. 175-190 CE), the familiar four Gospels are named as the only ones to be accepted (interestingly, GMark is named last here).

So, a couple of obvious questions present themselves:  Why was GMark apparently given comparatively so little attention in the second century, after having such a remarkable influence initially?  And why, given its comparatively less popular usage (neglect?) in the second century, did GMark nevertheless survive and, indeed, acquire a place among what became the canonical accounts of Jesus?

It makes an interesting contrast with what we think happened to “Q” (or at least those of us who accept the “Q” hypothesis).  As widely thought among scholars, “Q” was also used as a major source (in this case, for a body of Jesus’ sayings) by the authors of GMatthew and GLuke.  In response to those who ask why this “Q” didn’t survive, the typical answer is to say that “Q” was so heavily absorbed into GMatthew and GLuke that it was rendered thereafter redundant, and simply couldn’t compete with these more elegant and rich narrative Gospels.  OK.  So, why didn’t something similar happen to GMark?  It too (so we commonly think) was heavily absorbed into GMatthew and GLuke, and (as noted) seems thereafter to have suffered a comparative decline in usage.  But it survived, somehow, and indeed obtained a prestigious place in the Christian canon of scriptures.

Once the other Gospels appeared, especially GMatthew, we can, perhaps, understand more readily why GMark was comparatively neglected.  Just about everything in GMark appears also in GMatthew, and a whole lot more in addition.  But the more difficult question is why did GMark not suffer the same fate as ascribed to “Q”?

For my money (until someone comes along with a more persuasive suggestion), the early association of GMark with the Apostle Peter was likely at least one major factor.  This tradition is reflected already in Irenaeus (Against Heresies, 3.10.5), and he was likely passing on a tradition that went back earlier still.  (In the early 4th century, Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History 2.15-16, ascribes a similar tradition to the 2nd-century figures Clement of Alexandria and Papias.)

In any case, even after acquiring a spot among the canonical Gospels, GMark continued to be comparatively less used down the centuries.  This changed only in the 19th century, when GMark came to be seen as the earliest Gospel, and therefore more valuable as a historical source for the “historical” Jesus.  The comparative simplicity of GMark was likewise then perceived as a virtue.  (For a review of the historical fortunes of GMark, see Brenda Deen Schildgen, Power and Prejudice:  The Reception of the Gospel of Mark, Wayne State University Press, 1999.)  Nowadays, GMark might even be the preferred Gospel by many.

But, in addition to its inherent value and fascination, GMark presents us with these questions about its early fortunes.]

Review of Jo-Ann Brant’s John commentary (Paideia)

I just had a chance to look at Jo-Ann A. Brant’s commentary on John at the ‘Paideia Commentaries on the New Testament’ series (2011) in the Radboud Universiteit Nijmegen library. After reading Brant’s former book “Dialogue And Drama: Elements Of Greek Tragedy In The Fourth Gospel“, I was eagerly waiting for this commentary. In one of my personal E-Mail interactions with her, she mentioned about this commentary. Now, I am able to see that in reality. See how Nijay K. Gupta reviews the commentary on his blog (here). Herewith, I am reposting the same for all of you.

Read the review of Nijay K. Gupta below:

[I have had a chance, in the past few years, to get my hands on most of the new Paideia commentaries (Baker), which seek to give “contemporary students a basic grounding in academic NT studies by guiding their engagement with NT texts” (xi). The series tends to have a literary-analytical focus, and also an ultimate interest in theological and moral formation. They have existing volumes on Hebrews, Acts, Matthew, Romans (Matera), and Ephesians/Colossians (Talbert). I have read those on Romans and Ephesians/Colossians and found them very well written. Talbert’s is certainly one of the best among Colossians commentaries.

So, what about Jo-Ann Brant’s new work on John? Firstly, she clearly knows her way around the study of John as well as the ancient world. She had to face quite a challenge because she had to squeeze a commentary on the 21 chapters of John into a 300-page text (which is a bit unfair because Talbert also works with about the same book length with much shorter material!).

Brant’s approach to John is essentially an ancient theatrical/dramatistic and rhetorical reading. She brings great wisdom from studying Greco-Roman literature, including social values, history, and the arts. No wonder some of her sidebars deal with things like “Diction,” “The Rhetoric of Exhortation,” “Proofs,” “Maxims,” “The Jab-and-Punchline-Joke”, etc…

What I appreciated about the commentary is that she brings something fresh to the table of study. It is like the Gospel of John is treated as a play and she sits next to you as you watch and coaches you on how plays work in the GR world and what you are supposed to “get” as you watch it. She is your guide to the ins and outs of symbols, coded language, dramastic technique, and the identification of types in these settings.

At the end of each section of commentary, there are short discussions of key themes and some pointers towards application. She does quite well here, dealing with thorny issues like (anti)sacramentalism in John, so-called supersessionism, and the role of signs in the Gospel.

Sometimes she might be accused of getting too deep into methodological jargon, as with her discussion of Mikhail Bakhtin and “chronotope” and the “spatiotemporal matrix in narrative” (67). Overall, though, she keeps it accessible.

She definitely gave me food for thought on a number of assumptions. She argues, for example, that we jump too quickly to the conclusion with the Samaritan woman that she is living with her lover when all Jesus says is that the person she is living with is not her husband. Brant finds it possible that she was living with a close relative like a brother and the issue is one of shame from not being married, not shame from being promiscuous (p. 85).

She also takes a rhetorical/dramatistic reading of John 5-6 to help support the idea that the given sequence of chapters may be original ( 115).

I thought her discussion of Anti-Judaism in John was helpful.

Demonizing one’s opponent when one is powerless, as early Christians were, is a protest against one’s status, but demonizing them when one stands in a position of power or when one knows that such words can incite violence is considered a hate crime in many modern nations (p. 149)

I think Brant shows a welcome bit of humor by pointing out that the Johannine Jesus, in John 17, violates the Matthean Jesus’ principle regarding prayer: “Keep it simple because God knows what you need before you ask for it” (224)! Ha!

And what about the mysterious catch of 153 fish? Why this number? Brant entertains the possibility that the BD was showing his true knowledge of the event by giving the exact number. But she also notes the opinion of Jerome (citing poet Oppianus Cilix) who urged that there were 153 types of fish in existence (p. 282).

So, what can we say about Brant’s commentary? It is learned and heavily (though not exclusively) weighted on the side offering insight into the Greco-Roman social and literary context. If this is your main John commentary, I am not sure it would be the most useful for preaching and teaching. I would suggest, comparing the type of commentary, Smith’s ANTC commentary or perhaps Lincoln’s BNTC volume. Nevertheless, if you love all things Johannine (as I do!), this won’t disappoint. So many things in this book I never knew and it opens a window of study (the theatrical perspective) that is rather appropriate to this Gospel in particular.]

The Thomas of “The Book of Thomas the Contender”

The Book of Thomas (BTh) sets a dialogue between Jesus and Thomas that turns to be a discourse of Jesus at the post-resurrection/pre-ascension period (cf. Turner, 1992: 529). It occupies the final eight pages of Nag Hammadi Codex II and that is complete except for a few often restorable lines at the bottom of each page (cf. Turner, 2007: 235). The BTh begins with a short introduction as follows: “The hidden sayings that the Saviour spoke to Judas Thomas, which I, Mathaias, in turn recorded. I was walking, listening to them speak with each other” (138: 1-4). The early Thomas tradition, of the Nag Hammadi writings, including The Gospel of Thomas and The Book of Thomas the Contender, reflects tenets of asceticism (cf. Scholer, 1997: 410). Turner (2007: 236) states that,

The Book of Thomas seems to be a product of the late second century, occupying a median position between the Gospel of Thomas—a saying collection probably originating in the first century—and the Acts of Thomas—a third-century Greek romance about Thomas’s exploits as a missionary in India—in three respects: (1) date of composition, (2) relative predominance of the role played by Thomas in these works, and (3) increasing predominance of narrative features as one moves from sayings collection to dialogue to romance.

As Turner points out above, along with The Gospel of John (GosJn) and The Infancy Gospel of Thomas (InGTh), all these traditions together set a strong foundation for the ‘Thomasology’ of the Early Christian centuries. Though the text is usually called “The Book of Thomas”, the Coptic text (NCH II:7: 138:1-145:19; 145:20-23) includes a secondary title in the manuscript: “The Contender Writing to the Perfect” (cf. Turner and Meyer, 2007: 239). Mathaias is the one who walks, listens and records the conversation that occurs between Jesus and Thomas. While the name Mathaias resembles that of the names of disciple Matthew and the replacement apostle Matthias (cf. Turner and Meyer, 2007: 239), a more probable apprehension is in favour of the disciple Matthew on account of the repeated pairing of Matthew and Thomas in several accounts (see Matt. 10:3; cf. Mk. 3:18; Lk. 6:15; GTh 13; cf. Turner, 1992: 529). As in the case of the prologue of the GTh, in the BTh too Jesus is introduced as the revealer of the “hidden sayings” (138:1-4, 4-21; 138:21-139:31). Thomas is also introduced as one who knows himself and hence eligible to share knowledge with the Saviour (138:4:21). The Jesus-and-Thomas interlocking is one of the peculiar features of all the above mentioned writings, especially of The Book of Thomas the Contender.

While the narrator introduces Thomas as “Judas Thomas” (138:1-4) and as “Judas, called Thomas” (142:1-26), Jesus addresses him as “Brother Thomas” (138:4-21 [twice]), “My Twin” (138:4-21), “True Friend” (138:4-21), “My Brother” (138:4-21) and “Blessed Thomas” (138:21-139:31). And Jesus is introduced as the “Saviour” (138:1-4, 4-21), “I am”, and “the Knowledge of Truth” (138:4-21). In the BTh, Thomas is one who walks and converses with Jesus (138:4-21; cf. Charlesworth, 1995: 378). According to Charlesworth (1995: 378), “In the Book of Thomas the Contender Jesus tells Thomas, ‘you are going to be called my sibling’ (138:10). That verse begins with ‘inasmuch as’, which apparently derives from an exegesis of GosJn 19:27, and so identifies the Beloved Disciple under the cross as Thomas”. What Charlesworth says here makes much sense as the exegetical connections between the two texts reveal. While Jesus appears as the sharer of knowledge, Thomas appears as one who follows what the Saviour says. Jesus accepts Thomas as a knowledgeable person while he considers the rest of the world as submerged in ignorance. Thomas’ question to Jesus, “How can we go and preach them when we are [not] respected in the world?”, makes much sense in this context. The monologue of the BTh begins as a response to Thomas at that particular point. Just as in the case of the Gospel of John, a dualistic contrast, between the visible and the invisible/the things from below and the things from above or light and darkness, comes into play in the conversation between Jesus and Thomas. Further, the vertical contrast (i.e., one between the world from above and the world from below) is highlighted (138:21-139:31) over against the horizontal contrast (the Synoptic usual tenet of ‘this age’ and the ‘coming age’). Thus, the similarities of the BTh with that of the GosJn are striking and conspicuous.

The BTh is mostly arranged in the form of a dialogue between Jesus and Thomas (138:1-142:26); but, the latter part of the book is mostly occupied by a monologue of Jesus (142:26-145:19; cf. Turner, 2007: 237). While Thomas’ utterances are shorter in size in comparison to his counterpart’s longer utterances and his sayings function merely as provocations for Jesus to talk, the narrator pays more attention on Jesus’ longer and revelatory utterances (cf. Turner, 1992: 529). The dialogue of the BTh is mostly arranged in the form of erotapokriseis (“question and answer” genre; cf. Turner, 2007: 236). The themes like ‘knowledge’ (138:4-21), ‘truth’, ‘light’ (vs. ‘darkness’, 138:21-139:31; 143:8-145:1), ‘wisdom’ (139:31-141:2), ‘believe’, ‘world’ (141:2-142:26), and ‘judge’/‘judgment’ (142:26-143:7) are reminiscent to the themes of the Gospel of John. Literary devices, like rhetorical questions (138:21-139:31), enigmatic sayings (138:4-21), similitude (i.e., about “arrows at a target during the night”, 138:21-139:31; “a tree growing by the stream of water”, 139:31-141:2), proverbial sayings (i.e., “The intelligent person is perfect in all wisdom”, “The wise person is nourished by truth”, 139:31-141:2; and others) and others, are stylistically employed in order to interlock the reader with the text. Thomas shows intelligence to understand the enigmatic sayings of Jesus and his responses persuade Jesus to carry on his conversation with the interlocutor. The continuous ‘woes’ (143:8-145:1) and ‘makarisms’ (145:1-19) from the mouth of the saviour are reminiscent to many of the passages of the canonical Gospels (cf. Luke 6:20-26 [Q]). All these evidences make the reader aware that the narrator of the BTh had derived his ideologies from the story-world of both the Synoptics and the Gospel of John.

In recapitulation, the following aspects are very important with regard to the BTh. Firstly, the BTh provides further knowledge concerning Jesus’ closer relationship with Thomas as a sharer of secret truth and revealer of hidden sayings. Secondly, the literary features and the thematic aspects of the BTh are in several ways reminiscent to the Synoptics, GosJn, GTh, and ATh (except in few cases). Thirdly, as in the case of the other East Syrian documents (i.e., GTh, ATh, InGTh), the BTh delineates Thomas as the “Twin Brother” of Jesus. Fourthly, Thomas’ attachment with Jesus and ability to comprehend his sayings, while the rest of the world is in ignorance, are highlighted here. And fifthly, the thematic, charactorial, and perspectival similarities of the GosJn with that of the Thomas literature (i.e., GTh, BTh, ATh, and InGTh) highlight the significance of the personality of Thomas and his existence as a person of worth and integrity in the First Century Christian context.

For Further Reference:

Bauckham, R. J., 1997. “Apocryphal and Pseudepigraphal Writings”. Dictionary of the Later New Testament & Its Development. Eds. Martin, R. P., and Davids, P. H. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press: 68-73.

Charlesworth, J. H., 1995. The Beloved Disciple: Whose Witness Validates the Gospel of John? Valley Forge, PA: Trinity Press International.

Crindle, J. W. M., Ed. Christian Topochraphy of Cosmas Indicopleustes: 118-119.

Israel, B. J., 1982. The Jews of India. New Delhi: Mosaic Books.

Lalleman, P. J., 2000. “Apocryphal Acts and Epistles”. Dictionary of New Testament Background. Eds. Evans, C. A., and Porter, S. E. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press: 66-69.

Mingana, A., 1926. The Early Spread of Christianity in India. Bull. J. Ryl. Libr. X: 435-514, 443-447.

Scholer, D. M., 1997. “Gnosis, Gnosticism”. Dictionary of the Later New Testament & Its Developments. Eds. Martin, R. P., and Davids, P. H. Downers Grove: Inter Varsity Press: 400-412.

Turner, J. D., and Meyer, M., 2007. “The Book of Thomas”. The Nag Hammadi Scriptures. San Francisco: Harper Collins: 235-245.

Turner, J. D., 1992. “Thomas the Contender, Book of”. Anchor Bible Dictionary. Vol. 6. New York/London: Doubleday: 529-30.

Segal, J. B., 2005. Edessa ‘the Blessed City’. Gorgias Press LLC.

 

**[Expect soon: “The Thomas of ‘The Infancy Gospel of Thomas’”]

By Johnson Thomaskutty, Union Biblical Seminary, Pune, India

Narayam Vaman Tilak and the Bible (Part II)

Dr. Plamthodathil Samuel Jacob (knowm as P. S. Jacob) was principal of Ahmednagar College (under University of Pune), Ahmednagar, and was Interim Principal of Union Biblical Seminary, Pune. For more details about Dr. P. S. Jacob go here. I requested him to write a post about Narayan Vaman Tilak and he is herewith for us. See Part I here.

Read Part II below…

[Biblical experience of Christ

The Biblical expression of the person of Christ got translated into Indian literary/poetic format of religious truth. See another sample of poetry in translation:

From henceforth Thou art mine, O Lord,

Beloved Brother, God and King,

From henceforth Thy service is my food,

Meditation on Thee is my sleep,

Proclaiming Thy name is the breath of my life.

My eyes grow dim: towards worldly things and are fixed on Thy feet.

Lord, Thou art mine, Beloved Brother, God and King.

For Thee I give my home and all ties of relationship,

For Thee I give all worldly affairs,

For Thee I give all my bodily life,

I place everything under Thy control.

I offer to Thee myself and all that I am.

I give all to Thee. Lord, take it.

Thou art mine, O Lord, Beloved Brother, God and King.

Thou art my thought, my speech, my knowledge, my devotion,

my final liberation.

I and Thou art one in very truth.

I am free, happy, at peace, always in heaven.

Lord, Thou art mine, Beloved Brother, God and King.

 (Translation from the original(Marathi) by C.S.M.V. Sister of Panch-Howd – in Bhaktinirnjana (n.d.)

 Biblical  IDEAS ON GOD: Tilak’s Configuration

 Tilak accepted the basic elements of the Christian concept of God and let it interact with the ideas of God from other religions, especially, from Hinduism. The major aspects of the interactional experience reflected in his poetic works are:

 (1)   God a ‘Home of all our Trust’.

 The Fatherhood of God is experienced as a great source of comfort amidst troubles and trials, strife and sorrows and the uncertainties of human relations. It serves as the anchor for the soul and the foundation for life itself.   (e.g. in translation

Father! Dear home of all our trust,

What a loving kindness hast Thou shown

That as thy children Thou shouldst own

Frail worthless creatures of the dust.^[1]

(2)   God as Father and Mother

Tilak found that limiting God to Fatherhood alone does not give the whole picture of spiritual relations with the nature of God. For discovering the wholesomeness, an interfaith understanding becomes necessary, sourcing the Hindu thought. From his experiential dialogue with Hindu religious thought, he found that the most appropriate title for God should be Father and Mother.

Father and Mother both Thou art,

Whence may I fonder title seek?

Yet even these are all too weak

To show the love that fills Thy heart.^[2]

(3)   God as Life’s Inseparable Companion

Another point of reference to God is done in relation to the Bhakti tradition of India; as the inseparable companion in life. The ever present reality of God is felt in every moment of life as Tilak has expressed it clearly in his Abhangs.^[3] God is always with us and is inseparable from our sorrows and happiness.

(4)   Existence in all things

God dwells in human hearts and the body is acknowledged as a temple of God. At the same time we should go beyond this and find God in the whole world which sings for God. The presence of God is to be experienced in all events and in all things around us.^[4] These are some of the points of reference that Tilak found useful in giving a new dimension to the Christian understanding of God. He successfully brought in an inter faith approach   The experience of Christ also could bring in an inter faith dimension by being a true Bhakta(devotee) of Christ, as Tilak was. Christ should become a deep experience of reality with constant communion rather than by nurturing  it with ‘perfectly’ designed theological concept to support doctrinal beliefs.  See another sample of Tilak’s poetic expression:

Christ is life of all that is

Dharma and Artha both He is

Both Nation and Community

Spirit and Moral Righteousness.^[5]

The other ideas he gathered through his experiential interaction with Biblical Truth are:

(a)   Christ, the soul’s rest, bringing out the idea of perfect peace and the state of peaceful creativeness.

(b)   Christ, the gracious tenant of the heart…makes no precondition on the tenancy.

(c)    Christ, the brother and friend…Tilak felt that Christ walks and talks with human believer in the true Bhakti’s way!

(d)   Christ, the King…though he relates to us as brother and friend, He is the ruler of our hearts, mind and life, once we surrender to him.

(e)    Christ, the transforming presence… there is tremendous power passed on to us once we ourselves unquestionably place ourselves at  feet of Christ.

(f)     Christ, the Mother-Guru…Christ is the guru with a difference, a guru with a charming smile and with indulging love of mother.  e.g.,Tenderest Mother-Guru mine, savior, Where is love like Thine?”^[6]

(g)   Christ, the crucified… had a special meaning for him. It is not only the climax of divine love but also the experience of spiritual ecstasy (Bhakti tradition).

(h)   Christ, the Lord of Yoga…the devotee is always with Christ and consequently a final union with him is possible.

But this alone I know,

That from that day,

This self of mine had vanished quietly away,

 Great Lord of Yoga, Thou hast yoked me with Thee,

Saith Dasa, even a poor wight like me.^[7]

Tilak tried to understand Christ and Biblical truth in an indigenous dimension and for him, it gave  a far more meaningful experience of Biblical Christ. He believed that the indigenous expression will go a long way to convey the gospel message. It was his firm belief that Bible should be presented in a meaningful form to local people. The interpretation of the Bible should not solely on the pattern of interpretation received from Western culture. While making use of it one should let the Bible interact with the ‘cultural soul’ of the believer. Thus Bible becomes a part of the way of living of the believer.

Hymns and Biblical Themes[8]

In his composition of Christian hymns, Tilak based the concept of worship as per his understanding of Biblical concept of God and Christ as savior. The Trinitarian concept of God remained as a part of his belief. The greatness, holiness and the majesty of God were humbly acknowledged. Praises to God and the preparation of a new day with God were very important for him. God as Father and the love of God are reflected in his hymns. There are four hymns devoted to doxology. As it was mentioned earlier, his devotion to Christ remained his lifeline. One of the hymns emphasizes (US: 40)[9] that he needed Christ alone for his life. For him the name of Christ was sweet and enjoyable. Tasting and experiencing Christ experience was considered as the foundation of spiritual life found in the Bible. He composed five hymns on the theme (US: 41,42,43,44,45). Resting in Christ, communion with Christ, Christ as redeemer, Christ as all in all., praises to the savior, unfailing love of Christ, Christ the Messiah, The incarnated Christ and a number of Christmas hymns were created. Here again the projection of Christ remained as the Savior of the world. The most outstanding perception of Christ given by him was ‘Christ’s love is like a Mother’s love’ (US: 55) .He conceived and experienced God as Father and Mother, long before feminist theologians brought it out as a theological perception.

Christ on the Cross remained an important biblical theme for him (US:71). More hymns are found on Christ’s love and suffering as well. Resurrection transforms Christ experience as ‘soul abiding’ experience of God. (e.g. US:88). Another theme which has been found repeated is the ‘majestic sweetness of God crowned in Christ’ (e.g US: 99).

Tilak’s understanding of the Bible gives us an experiential dimension of the biblical concept of God and Christ. For him the understanding of the Bible is achieved by experiencing the concepts. Bible remains a distant knowledge if it is analyzed only intellectually. Experiential dimension of the biblical themes make it more alive. As a renowned poet of Marathi language, he presented his interpretation thematically with a poetic vision. It reveals that the understanding and interpretation could be multidimensional and need not be confined to texts alone. Tilak interpreted the Bible not textually but we may refer to his methodology as an experiential interpretation with a thematic approach to Biblical understanding. The poetic vision of Tilak’s projection of the Biblical truth is noteworthy and has great potential for its application. Tilak opened up an avenue of thematic, indigenous, interfaith, and experiential perceptive of Biblical exposition.

---

[1] Narayan Vaman Tilak, Bhaktiniranjana, Nagrik Press (Nasik:n.d.), p.3.

[2] Ibid.p.3, verses 3.

[3] Narayan Vaman Tilak, Abhangajali, edited by A.D Tilak, Joshi Bros (Auranagbad:1959) Abhang  no: 13,18.

[4] N. V. Tilak, Bhajan Sangraha, Tract and Book Society, (Kedgaon:1906),5.

[5] Op.cit., Bhaktiniranjana, P.29, Verse 3 translated by J.c Winslow

[6] Ibid., p.113, also in Bhajansangraha, geet no 1, “mazi Guru mauli.”

[7] Op.cit., Bhaktiniranjana, p.117

[8]At a later time I shall present an analysis of his theological ideas reflected in his composition of hymns.

U.S. in reference means Upasana Sangeet, (Marathi Hymn Book).

[9] Upasana Sangeet, the Marathi Hymnal (referred here as US)]

Narayam Vaman Tilak and the Bible (Part I)

Dr. Plamthodathil Samuel Jacob (knowm as P. S. Jacob) was principal of Ahmednagar College (under University of Pune), Ahmednagar, and was Interim Principal of Union Biblical Seminary, Pune. For more details about Dr. P. S. Jacob go here. I requested him to write a post about Narayan Vaman Tilak and he is herewith for us.

[Narayan Vaman Tilak (1861 – 1919) was a remarkably influential poet of Maharashtra with indigenous Christian ideas.  He was brought up in a scholarly and orthodox Chitpavan Brahmin family. In addition to Marathi and Sanskrit, he also mastered writing and speaking English. He wandered around for engaging himself in occupational adventures, even as a mendicant for a while. Being an ardent seeker of Truth, he read earnestly a copy of the New Testament presented to him by a fellow traveler. He found Jesus an irresistible personality and accepted Christ publicly through baptism. For him Jesus was an ideal human, the personification of divine love with a unmistaken identity with God as his father. He admired Jesus for his sacrifice on the cross and the demonstration of the power of prayer throughout life. Tilak settled down to missionary activities and served relentlessly the Ahmednagar region of Maharashtra through the American Marathi Mission. Towards the last days of his life, he felt that he was to be an ‘Indian Apostle’ of Christ. He referred to himself as ‘a Tukaram[1] and a St.Paul blended together’ (Indian Christians 1928). It truly reflects his understanding of the Bible in Indian crucible. Towards the end of his life, Tilak initiated a movement called ‘Durbar (a place of royal audience) of the Lord Jesus Christ’ which welcomed both baptized and ‘unbaptized’ believers in the loving bonds of Christ. Tilak made a special effort to relate Christian teachings to the religious heritage of India.[2]

He wandered as a mendicant and spent some time working as a school teacher. But he earned his livelihood by giving speech, kirtans (folk religious singing) and recitations of the Puranic stories, in different places. For a short time he worked in a printing press. Tilak travelled to places like Poona (Pune) and Bombay and spent time in various occupations from teaching in school to doing odd jobs like writing letters for illiterate people. He was very much interested in spreading education and attempted to start schools at Panchavati, Murbi and Wai. He loved teaching and was popular as a teacher both among children and adults. Later, when he met Appa Saheb Bhatt, a wealthy citizen of Nagpur, he employed Tilak  to edit a large collection of Vedic literature. Tilak proved himself as a bright Vedic scholar and gained fame as a poet. In his pursuit of the study of different religious ideas and philosophies of India, he found himself developing a broad and tolerant view of life, shaking himself free from fanatical orthodoxy. Tilak adopted an independent and liberal outlook. Since caste observances and the performance of religious rituals became a futile exercise for him, he openly defied some regulations of caste and followed the path of fearless adventure, seeking after the truth. He also cultivated a great love for his country and wanted to make a truly useful contribution to its freedom and culture. His poems reflect the passionate love of a true patriot, rising above the bondage of caste and creed. After he became a follower of Christ and fervently loved him and his teachings while maintaining his strong patriotic credentials all along. His newly found loyalty to Christ also reflected in his poetic compositions.

Tilak and His Encounter with the New Testament (Bible)

During the ten years of wandering after his marriage, Tilak was full of spiritual unrest. He tried several methods of achieving spiritual enrichment. While he was looking for new avenues for the expression of truth, during a train journey, he came across a European. The stranger initially engaged him in a lively conversation on poets and poetry, but soon went on to ask him about his attitude towards Christianity in relation to his spiritual quest. He prayed with him and gave him a copy of the New Testament. He advised Tilak to study the Bible and predicted that before the end of two years he would be a Christian. As Tilak read the New Testament, he found himself firmly attracted by the Sermon on the Mount and its words of love, compassion and truth. He continued to read the Bible because he wanted to know more about Christ, whose words and spirit of love were found in the Sermon on the Mount. After his study, he concluded that Christ was the Teacher whom India and the world needed. From his study of the New Testament he found that Jesus Christ was indeed an irresistible person of divine origin. From his personal study of the Bible and experience of Christ, he summarized his idea of Christ as follows (Jacob, 1979): (1) Christ was the ideal man to be followed in one’s spiritual journey; (2) He alone upheld the love of God and of man as equally important; (3) He perfectly identified himself with His Father; (4) Christ in human form had unfailing faith in Himself as the life and light of the world; and (5) The sacrifice and suffering on the Cross and the whole history of the Crucifixion was a great source of spiritual inspiration for all to keep. The understanding of the teachings of Jesus Christ through the Bible brought him to a great appreciation of the power of Jesus and the effectiveness of prayer. Tilak’s ardent devotion, passion and enthusiasm for Christ remained with him till he breathed his last. In spite of the threat of poverty, loss of employment, loss of friends and the separation from his family for a number of years, he was immersed in the love of Christ.

Tilak’s perception of the Bible was mainly experiential and not necessarily a scholarly study of the Bible in the conventional sense. Tilak was neither a theologian nor a biblical scholar in traditional meanings of the terms. Nevertheless one can find an Indian cultural leaning in his interpretations of Biblical themes. It is important to recall that he was an ardent follower of Christ and Bible remained his main stay in understanding the love and eternal presence of Jesus. As a renowned poet-saint of Maharashtra, he expressed his understanding of the Bible in his poetic masterpiece after he became a follower of Christ. Tilak’s biblical analysis has to be viewed as an experiential response to Christ whom he found not through anybody’s preaching but as a result of reading the Bible. He expressed his spiritual ideas mostly through poetic work of genius and by over three hundred Christian hymns (Marathi). The hymns were composed by him for Christian worship and devotional singing. Marathi speaking Christians mostly depended on Western hymns till then translated into Marathi by American missionaries. He wanted to express his experience of Christ in worship, springing from his own heart. The hymns are found in the Marathi Hymnal, Upasana Sangeet /Sacred Hymns, regularly used by Marathi speaking congregations in India and abroad. Tilak introduced his innovative ideas of Christian life by combining ‘other worldliness’ of the Indian saintly approach to spirituality and yet being rooted in human world of daily living. Worshippers ought to relate the spirituality beyond the established ‘Christian rituals’ to spirituality grounded in Indian way of life. He found that Christ and the Bible have meaningful relatedness to the Natural environment around us and also to interaction with other human lives. Such a combination could enrich one’s soul through day-to-day spiritual relationship with Christ. For him, Bible meant Jesus Christ.  His understanding of the Bible was fully ‘Christo-centric’ enhanced by an ardent faith in its Trinitarian expression. A true glimpse of Tilak’s understanding of the Bible has to be gleaned from his crucial poems and hymns. His experience of Christ and Bible are mostly reflected in his poetic works.

Perception of the Bible in Indian Cultural Format

Tilak wanted to present the story of Christ in ‘Ramayana’(Hindu Epic) style and believed that it could help more people in India to understand Christ and the Bible. He planned the composition of Christayana (Khristayana) in eleven books but he could finish only the first book before his death. It contained the birth and childhood of Jesus Christ. His wife Laxmibai Tilak took up the task after his death and added sixty-four chapters to the eleven originally visualized. The final chapter was composed by his son, Devdatt Tilak. The first chapter was entitled “Invocation”. As a sample of a couple of stanzas in translation ( translated by Fr. J.C. Winslow) originally published in Bhaktiniranjana by N.V.Tilak, (Nagrik  Press, n.d.) is given below (vv 1, 6):[3]

Lord of the world, hail, hail to Thee!

Creator, Sovereign, Saviour Thou! Lord

Joy of Saints, let all things bow

In worship of Thy Majesty!

Love which no man can name in word,

Yet in experience all may prove-

Steadfast, immortal, holy Love-

Such is Thy nature, Sovereign Lord!

Tilak has beautifully presented the Biblical expression of love in reverence by using the Ramayana literary format. Tilak wanted the language to be Hindu friendly/grounded in Indian culture, so that more may feel at ease in the reading of the biblical message and the Bible.]

End Notes:

[1] A famous Bhakti saint of Maharashtra (Indian Christians, Natesan & Co. First edition, Madras 1928).

[2] Jacob, P.S., The Experiential Response of N.V.Tilak,  (Madras 1979); Tilak, N.V. Bhaktiniranjana  (Nasik n.d.); Abhanganjali, Tilakanchi Kavita (Manoranjan Press, Mumbai, 1914); Winslow J.C. Narayan Vaman Tilak (1923).

[3] Please note that all poems and hymns quoted are in translation and the original is in Marathi. Hence it lacks the original purity and subtlety of expression. But it will give the reader at least a distant glimpse of Tilak’s articulation.

(Will be continued…. Part II)