I was reading Sigmund Mowinckel's "The Psalms in Israel's Worship". In it, Mowinckel puts foward the idea that the Psalms were created and used mostly for worship in the Temple. As to what a Psalm may have sounded like being sung in the Temple, Mowinckel suggests:
"We know nothing about the tunes in Israel's temple cult. But if we are to judge from analogies in more recent oriental music, we may assume they were quite simple. It is a safe supposition that as the 'period' (the verse) was the proper rhythmic unit, it was also the melodic one. The 'tune' was limited to the single verse, perhaps marked with a rise or fall at the end of the last line in the stanza or strophe.
According to what we know and can conjecture from later times in the East, music was not based on the octave scale. As far as we can judge, the tune was extremely simple, hardly to be called a tune, but more like a sort of recitative.
The first task of the musical accompaniment was undoubtedly to stress rythm, to 'keep time'. we may draw that conclusion both from analogies in the present, and from the old oriental and Israelite instruments of music. The psalms mention the tambourine, the cymbals, the horn, the trumpet, different kinds of lyre (R.V. harp and cithern), flute and castanets." (Mowinckel, p. 9)
Wednesday, August 25, 2010
Thursday, July 29, 2010
Theophilus: Luke's Audience
Who on earth is Theophilus?
Luke 1:3 So it seemed good to me as well, because I have followed all things carefully from the beginning, to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, 1:4 so that you may know for certain the things you were taught.
Acts 1:1 I wrote the former account, Theophilus, about all that Jesus began to do and teach
There are some who speculate that Theophilus is just a generic reference to anyone who is a 'God lover' (the meaning of 'theophilus'). I don't think that's the case though. First, there is no reason to suppose that the proper name is anything other than an actual person. Second, Theophilus is refered to by 'most excellent', which seems to me to indicate that he's a man of high honor; a man of high social status. This would certainly not categorize all believers, some of whom had no social status. Also, Theophilus can appearantly read, which wouldn't be true for just any 'god lover' at the time, but certainly would be true of someone of higher social status. It seems to me that Theophilus is indeed a person rather than some abstract category.
For those who think Theophilus is a person, many think he's a Gentile. I tend to think Theophilus is a Jew, possibly a heavily influenced Hellenistic Jew, but a Jew none-the-less. I think this because Luke coats his writings with heavy quotations and allusions to the Hebrew Bible and paints Jesus as the fulfillment of the plan of God laid out in the Hebrew Bible. Had Luke been writing to a Gentile convert, I imagine his efforts would have been more along the lines of Paul's speech on Mars Hill, which had no allusions, quotes, or anything from the Hebrew Bible at all. Or maybe it would have been more like Paul's instructions to Thessalonia, which also had virtually no quotes or allusions to the Old Testament.
Some might object and say that Theophilus is a Greek name, not a Jewish one, so Theophilus was probably Gentile. I don't think this is a good objection though. Jews at the time very often either had Greek names or they carried two names, one Greek one Jewish. In fact, the name Theophilus is attested by Josephus (Ant 17.4.2, 20.9.7) as a Jewish name which was held by a high priest. There are also other well attested Greek names held by Jews (ie, Jason, Matthias, etc..).
There some who think that Luke was writing to the Theophilus who was the high priest. This seems to me to be speculative at best. I do think Theophilus was probably a Jew, maybe a very Hellenized one, but I'm not sure anything much further beyond that can be said about him.
Luke 1:3 So it seemed good to me as well, because I have followed all things carefully from the beginning, to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, 1:4 so that you may know for certain the things you were taught.
Acts 1:1 I wrote the former account, Theophilus, about all that Jesus began to do and teach
There are some who speculate that Theophilus is just a generic reference to anyone who is a 'God lover' (the meaning of 'theophilus'). I don't think that's the case though. First, there is no reason to suppose that the proper name is anything other than an actual person. Second, Theophilus is refered to by 'most excellent', which seems to me to indicate that he's a man of high honor; a man of high social status. This would certainly not categorize all believers, some of whom had no social status. Also, Theophilus can appearantly read, which wouldn't be true for just any 'god lover' at the time, but certainly would be true of someone of higher social status. It seems to me that Theophilus is indeed a person rather than some abstract category.
For those who think Theophilus is a person, many think he's a Gentile. I tend to think Theophilus is a Jew, possibly a heavily influenced Hellenistic Jew, but a Jew none-the-less. I think this because Luke coats his writings with heavy quotations and allusions to the Hebrew Bible and paints Jesus as the fulfillment of the plan of God laid out in the Hebrew Bible. Had Luke been writing to a Gentile convert, I imagine his efforts would have been more along the lines of Paul's speech on Mars Hill, which had no allusions, quotes, or anything from the Hebrew Bible at all. Or maybe it would have been more like Paul's instructions to Thessalonia, which also had virtually no quotes or allusions to the Old Testament.
Some might object and say that Theophilus is a Greek name, not a Jewish one, so Theophilus was probably Gentile. I don't think this is a good objection though. Jews at the time very often either had Greek names or they carried two names, one Greek one Jewish. In fact, the name Theophilus is attested by Josephus (Ant 17.4.2, 20.9.7) as a Jewish name which was held by a high priest. There are also other well attested Greek names held by Jews (ie, Jason, Matthias, etc..).
There some who think that Luke was writing to the Theophilus who was the high priest. This seems to me to be speculative at best. I do think Theophilus was probably a Jew, maybe a very Hellenized one, but I'm not sure anything much further beyond that can be said about him.
Tuesday, July 27, 2010
Peter van Inwagen (John Cardinal O'Hara Professor of Philosophy at the University of Notre Dame) explains the paradox of free will:
http://www.closertotruth.com/video/What-is-Free-Will-Peter-van-Inwagen-/1090
http://www.closertotruth.com/video/What-is-Free-Will-Peter-van-Inwagen-/1090
The Book of Revelation: Audience
I don't think it's hard at all to recognize that the Book of Revelation is written TO and FOR people who were living in the first century. The text itself tells us as much:
1:1 The revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave him to show his servants
1:4 From John, to the seven churches that are in the province of Asia:
1:9 I, John, your brother and the one who shares with you in the persecution, kingdom
1:11 saying: “Write in a book what you see and send it to the seven churches – to Ephesus, Smyrna, Pergamum, Thyatira, Sardis, Philadelphia, and Laodicea.”
1:20 The mystery of the seven stars that you saw in my right hand and the seven golden lampstands is this: The seven stars are the angels of the seven churches and the seven lampstands are the seven churches.
It should be clear by this point in the text that John personally KNOWS and IDENTIFIES with his audience and they know him. He proceeds to write to those 7 churches. He is not writing letters to churches thousands of years down the road, or to 7 imaginary chuches that are really metaphors for something else. He is writing to people in the first century.
Just as John opens his book identifying his audience as fellow servants in the chuches, so he also closes his book with words regarding his fellow servants in the churches:
22:6 Then the angel said to me, “These words are reliable and true. The Lord, the God of the spirits of the prophets, has sent his angel to show his servants what must happen soon.”
22:16 “I, Jesus, have sent my angel to testify to you about these things for the churches.
This should inform us that his entire book is primarily written to and for churches in the first century. He even goes so far as to name 7 specific ones. These people knew John and he knew them. It's logical to say that it follows that the message in the book is going to be relevant to his intended audience.
How often this sort of thing is forgotten when people read the book of Revelation and assume that it speaks directly to us and our time.
1:1 The revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave him to show his servants
1:4 From John, to the seven churches that are in the province of Asia:
1:9 I, John, your brother and the one who shares with you in the persecution, kingdom
1:11 saying: “Write in a book what you see and send it to the seven churches – to Ephesus, Smyrna, Pergamum, Thyatira, Sardis, Philadelphia, and Laodicea.”
1:20 The mystery of the seven stars that you saw in my right hand and the seven golden lampstands is this: The seven stars are the angels of the seven churches and the seven lampstands are the seven churches.
It should be clear by this point in the text that John personally KNOWS and IDENTIFIES with his audience and they know him. He proceeds to write to those 7 churches. He is not writing letters to churches thousands of years down the road, or to 7 imaginary chuches that are really metaphors for something else. He is writing to people in the first century.
Just as John opens his book identifying his audience as fellow servants in the chuches, so he also closes his book with words regarding his fellow servants in the churches:
22:6 Then the angel said to me, “These words are reliable and true. The Lord, the God of the spirits of the prophets, has sent his angel to show his servants what must happen soon.”
22:16 “I, Jesus, have sent my angel to testify to you about these things for the churches.
This should inform us that his entire book is primarily written to and for churches in the first century. He even goes so far as to name 7 specific ones. These people knew John and he knew them. It's logical to say that it follows that the message in the book is going to be relevant to his intended audience.
How often this sort of thing is forgotten when people read the book of Revelation and assume that it speaks directly to us and our time.
Divergent Genealogies: the Centuries Old Question
Why do the genealogies of Matthew and Luke differ so much? I have come to conclude that I don't know why. Of the answers that I've seen, I see none really more plausible than any other.
There is a typical response which says that Matthew follows Joseph's line while Luke follows Mary's line. Maybe so.
There is the Zelophehad explanation which says that Mary's father either only had one child (Mary) or that Mary was the oldest of just daughters (or perhaps a brother died at a young age). According to the Zelophehad Law (Num 27), the inheritance of the father would be passed to the eldest daughter in this case. Since Joseph was married to Mary and is the head of his household, Joseph is adopted as the 'firstborn' of Mary's father and so Joseph and Mary are entitled to the inheritance of Mary's father. Maybe so.
There is Africanus' Levirate marriage explanation (Deut 25) where the differences are due to Levirate marriages in Joseph's family (right around Joseph's father and Zerubbabel). Maybe so.
Some people throw up their hands and declare that one or both accounts are just totally fabricated. I'm not sure why this conclusion would be warranted. Plus, in first century Judea, what good is a totally fabricated genealogy?
Some just say Matthew and Luke came across or had access to divergent traditions. Matthew and Luke both received their separate traditions and that's the end of the story. Doesn't this just beg the question though as to WHY they are different. It seems obvious that both have different source material and the question is why or what accounts for the difference?
In any case, I don't know which explanation or combination to accept. I could conjure up one on my own that would be no less likely that any of the above but no better than the above either. Maybe Matthew had access to a private genealogy kept by Jesus' family and Luke had access to public archived genealogies in the Temple. Josephus tells us there existed a public archive (Life 1, Against Apion 1.7) for genealogies. Eusebius tells us families kept private genealogies that they would use to supplement the genealogies in the book of Chronicles (History 1.7.14). Matthew's genealogy follows the Chronicles very closely which might make me think his list is from Jesus' family and supplements the Chronicles list. Luke then would have accessed the public archives, perhaps through one of the priests who became a believer (Acts 6:7). Maybe the differences between the private family list and the public archives list was due to any combination of Zelophehad laws and Levirate marriages.
Well, genealogies are by nature very messy things. I have access to databases and internet technology and still have a messy time tracing family roots. I can imagine how much more difficult it would be keeping things nice and neat through troubled Israelite history. I'm content not knowing why exactly the genealogies of Jesus are so different. I'm content with accepting the message they drive home: Jesus is son of David, son of God, a man of high honor, and I catch Matthew's clever play with numbers to point out that Jesus is the son of David.
There is a typical response which says that Matthew follows Joseph's line while Luke follows Mary's line. Maybe so.
There is the Zelophehad explanation which says that Mary's father either only had one child (Mary) or that Mary was the oldest of just daughters (or perhaps a brother died at a young age). According to the Zelophehad Law (Num 27), the inheritance of the father would be passed to the eldest daughter in this case. Since Joseph was married to Mary and is the head of his household, Joseph is adopted as the 'firstborn' of Mary's father and so Joseph and Mary are entitled to the inheritance of Mary's father. Maybe so.
There is Africanus' Levirate marriage explanation (Deut 25) where the differences are due to Levirate marriages in Joseph's family (right around Joseph's father and Zerubbabel). Maybe so.
Some people throw up their hands and declare that one or both accounts are just totally fabricated. I'm not sure why this conclusion would be warranted. Plus, in first century Judea, what good is a totally fabricated genealogy?
Some just say Matthew and Luke came across or had access to divergent traditions. Matthew and Luke both received their separate traditions and that's the end of the story. Doesn't this just beg the question though as to WHY they are different. It seems obvious that both have different source material and the question is why or what accounts for the difference?
In any case, I don't know which explanation or combination to accept. I could conjure up one on my own that would be no less likely that any of the above but no better than the above either. Maybe Matthew had access to a private genealogy kept by Jesus' family and Luke had access to public archived genealogies in the Temple. Josephus tells us there existed a public archive (Life 1, Against Apion 1.7) for genealogies. Eusebius tells us families kept private genealogies that they would use to supplement the genealogies in the book of Chronicles (History 1.7.14). Matthew's genealogy follows the Chronicles very closely which might make me think his list is from Jesus' family and supplements the Chronicles list. Luke then would have accessed the public archives, perhaps through one of the priests who became a believer (Acts 6:7). Maybe the differences between the private family list and the public archives list was due to any combination of Zelophehad laws and Levirate marriages.
Well, genealogies are by nature very messy things. I have access to databases and internet technology and still have a messy time tracing family roots. I can imagine how much more difficult it would be keeping things nice and neat through troubled Israelite history. I'm content not knowing why exactly the genealogies of Jesus are so different. I'm content with accepting the message they drive home: Jesus is son of David, son of God, a man of high honor, and I catch Matthew's clever play with numbers to point out that Jesus is the son of David.
Seven Year Tribulation: Protestant Purgatory?
I think that the 7 year tribulation period posited by many Pre-millennial protestats is the equivalent of what I will call "Protestant Purgatory". Here we have a scenario where we have believers who are rescued from the Tribulation by virture of the fact that they have simply believed in Jesus and received God's grace. But those believers that come to believe during the Trib. are NOT rescued during the Trib. And why not? Well, for no other reason than timing. Their timing was off and so they are punished or 'purified' through an intense trial/tribulation, EVEN THOUGH THEY BELIEVE, while others are afforded divine protection and escape BECAUSE THEY BELIEVE. Isn't this strikingly similiar to a concept of Purgatory? We have some believers who are given preferential treatment due to their belief while others are not, even though their belief is the same. The reason for the difference is that some acted faster than others. I hate to use a cliche, but it's really a judgment based on actions/works and not a judgment rendered due solely to anyone's faith. The judgment rendered is not actually based on their belief (since fairness would say they get the same verdict), but rather it's based on their timing. I think it's a form of Purgatory as Trib-believers are purified for flaws in their faith (lack of promptness), while those of us without that flaw get to skip the intense purifying. And this is only one problem I see with it.
Tuesday, July 20, 2010
A Few Trinitarian Thoughts
I think we often take for granted that when we, as Christians, refer to ‘God’, we don’t have a just generic concept in mind. I think we may take it for granted when speaking to people that when we both, both us and the other person, say “God” we are generally referring to the same type of Being. But this is certainly not the case. Not only do we refer to a different God by what He has done in the course of history (the God who raised Jesus from the dead, for example), but we are altogether referring to a totally different concept of His Essence. When we say ‘God’, we are talking about the Triune God; a God who is not only personal, but Tri-personal; a God who is not only one in some sense, but also three in some sense. And not only do we say that He is tri-personal, but that he is NECESSARILY tri-personal; it couldn‘t be the case that He be different. I also think that the Triune God of the Universe is probably only fully revealed by His activity in and through Jesus. It makes little sense, from my point of view, to talk about the One God that exists without talking about the nature of the God who exists. Since His nature is necessarily Triune, it makes no sense at all to talk about God without talking about Jesus since that's the only way that God is fully revealed to us.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)