Beginning the Protestant Reformation

I think I have mentioned before that I am taking a graduate course on Church History.  This semester I am in the second part of the course, which covers the Protestant Reformation up to the present day (which is a whole lot to squeeze in!) Here is a 7 Quick Takes I posted last semester with some highlights of part one of the course.  What I enjoyed most last semester was that being about the early Church, it was essentially about the history of the Catholic Church itself, with recognition of historic schisms or heresies included. 

This semester, now that we are going into learning about Protestantism, it looks like the course is shifting to being purely a history of Protestantism without much further inclusion of Catholic history.  On one hand, this is understandable in that this is a Protestant seminary, and it is pertinent for students to learn the history of their own traditions.  On the other hand, it is annoying that a course which should encompass the history of Christianity as a whole seems to be shifting focus and paying far less attention to what is the largest Christian Church. 

Here are a few brief thoughts on what I've learned so far about the beginning of the Reformation (by a combined means of the course and my husband, who thankfully is a medievalist who can help me know when the textbook is lying biased):

The most stereotypical backstory of the Protestant Reformation is how corrupt the Church was in the late middle ages. Two things on this:

1. Yes, but not completely. There is an important semantic distinction that I think needs to be made.  Yes, there was some corruption in the Church. It may have been widespread or localized or significant, or only to some degree.  To say that the Church itself was corrupt is incorrect and inaccurate in a couple of ways.  Most pertinent historically, the phrase is too vague. How much corruption, and performed by which individuals, makes "the (whole) Church is corrupt" an accurate statement?  Theologically, really, how could the whole Church be corrupt? It cannot be. If the church as a whole was corrupt, it would not have prevailed as long as it has. The Church cannot be corrupt. It is Divine.

2. Yes, but so what? There was some corruption in the Church.  But this is not what caused the Reformation, nor does it justify the fact that it happened.  Martin Luther did observe corruption, as many likely did, but his ultimate reason for breaking from the Catholic Church was theological, most specifically, about salvation theology.  Whether there had been corruption or not, in many or some aspects of ecclesial operation, Luther was unhappy (scrupulously so) with Catholic salvation theology (to the extent that it was developed at the time) and  took it upon himself to try to change it.  He objected not primarily to the corruption of practice of indulgences, but to a theology that he (mistakenly) thought meant man could earn his way into heaven. 

Even if there hadn't been any corruption concerning indulgences, Luther would have went with his newly perceived theology anyway.  The idea of indulgence (even corruption-free) simply does not fit into Luther's theology.  This further goes to show that the indulgence issue was not what mainly fueled the Protestant reformation.

Interestingly, my husband has explained to me that at this time, in the late middle ages, there was not yet a hard and fast definition of what Catholic salvation theology was.  The Church had defined what it did not believe, like when various heresies were dismissed, but within the guidelines of orthodoxy, there was room for speculation, and several concurrent theories, including those of St. Thomas Aquinas and a guy named William of Ockham.  The Ockhamist view was what Luther had likely been taught, and this semi-Pelagian view that one earns grace through deeds ("If you do what is in you, God will not deny you grace") is the particular view that Luther was reacting against.  Some scholars think that had he read or been taught the Thomist view, which put less stress on earning grace by doing one's best) he may have had less of a problem.

It is also relevant that Luther was not simply critiquing the Church's theology and tradition for the sake of doing it.  Luther had been overly scrupulous about his own salvation.  "He felt unworthy of God's love, and he was not convinced that he was doing enough to be saved." (1)  Luther was not a bad monk, and Gonzalez points out that he tried to live out his monastic vows as best he could.  He frequented the sacrament of penance, but still constantly stressed about his sinfulness.  Eventually his scrupulosity pushed him to feelings of fear and bitterness toward God.  Instead of seeking help and correction for his feelings, he attempts to change the theology to make it suit his feelings.  He does this by re-interpreting Scripture, and insisting that we are saved by faith alone.

This post by Caitlin at Catholic Cookie Jar gives a summary about Protestant and Catholic salvation teachings.

(1) Justo Gonzalez, the Story of Christianity Vol II (New york: HarperCollins, 2010), 22.

Cutting the Wives Out of Ephesians 5

Be subordinate to one another out of reverence for Christ.

Ephesians 5:21

Yesterday, the twenty-firstSunday in Ordinary Time, the second reading at Mass was the famous (or infamous) excerpt from St. Paul's Epistle to the Ephesians about husbands and wives. This was the second reading that we selected for our wedding, so obviously, is one we like. So I was annoyed yesterday when the shorter version of it was used.

I generally dislike using the shorter versions, since the longer ones often give more content as well as context. I just don't like "cutting it short." I dislike using the shorter version of this reading in particular, because it seems to cater to mainstream culture's idea of "political correctness" in omitting the verses about wives, but skipping to the way that husbands ought to love their wives. As good and important as it is to read the latter verses in the passage, "Husbands, love your wives...," I think it is important to supply the full context. The whole passage goes together to describe a situation not of male dominance, as many like to think, but one of mutual cooperation and self-giving, things at the heart of a marital relationship. Why do we want to cut half of the equation out?

In a discussion about the reading, a good friend of mine clarified and helped me understand why it can sometimes be reasonable to use the shorter reading of this passage. When the second reading is not going to be addressed in the Homily, it was explained to me, it is sometimes decided to shorten this particular reading from Ephesians because of the widespread misunderstanding of the verses.

It makes some sense that one might desire to draw attention to these particular words of Paul only if they were intended to be explicated more fully. There are so many misunderstandings about this reading that presenting it without giving it full attention satisfies neither the importance of Paul's words on the topic, nor the curiosity of the listeners. It is not enough just to want these words spoken and proclaimed. They must be presented and offered together with their explanation, and with an understanding of what the reception of the verses may be, prior to the understanding of the explanation.

I still fear, though, that the omission itself can too easily be misconstrued, and in such a way as to almost perpetuate the very animosity that about the verses that is sought to be quelled. While we do not want people to hear the passage and come away saying "I can't believe what the Church is saying in that reading," at least after hearing it someone may seek to find out why they are really there try to find out what they mean. In omitting the verses I think it should be feared that people may observe, "Look at the previous verses that they left out— that confirms that Paul was wrong about that."

Then many of his disciples who were listening said, “This saying is hard; who can accept it?”...  As a result of this, many of his disciples returned to their former way of life and no longer accompanied him.

John 6:60; 66

This Sunday, the Gospel reading was a continuation of last Sunday's' Gospel in which Jesus tells his Disciples about eating his flesh and drinking his blood in the Eucharist. This Sunday continues when some of them respond, "This saying is hard; who can accept it?" and some of them left and stopped following the Lord. To the disciples who first heard Jesus's Eucharistic words, the idea of eating his flesh and drinking his blood was nearly impossible to comprehend. It was probably as shocking as some people today may find Paul's words, as writers atthe NCR point out (1). To some people today, the concept of the Eucharist still is difficult to comprehend. But when something is important, we try to understand it. We keep trying to have it explained to us, and keep trying to understand just a little bit more each time.

The same should go for many other things we can find in scripture, including Paul's words to the Ephesians. When we learn something that seems not to make sense to us, do we dismiss it, or do we try to understand it? When hearing something makes us say "This saying is hard; who can accept it?" we ought not be the ones who simply walk away in denial and unbelief. If we do that, we will never understand.

(1) Tom and April Hoopes, "Advice for Wives and Husbands," National Catholic Register.

http://www.ncregister.com/daily-news/advice-for-wives-and-husbands?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+NCRegisterDailyBlog+National+Catholic+Register#When:2012-08-26

Why Does Old Testament God Seem so Mean?

One of the most popular level objections to Christianity is that the God in the Old Testament appears to be just so mean.  Many of the "New" (though what is new about them is unclear) Atheists take this view.  Sam Harris calls God diabolical, while Dawkin's gives a particularly stirring critique when he says:

"The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully."-- Dawkin's.

The objection has more rhetorical than intellectual force.  It is no argument against the existence of the Christian God to claim that he seems so mean in the Old Testament.  At most this would require the Christian to hold that perhaps the Israelites were mistaken in some aspects of their image of God and in attributing some commands to God.  This would involve modifying one's doctrine of Biblical inspiration to hold that the Bible, though inspired, maybe not be inerrant in every respect.  This would require some adjustment, but hardly be a reason to give up the doctrine of biblical inspiration, let alone the existence of the Christian God.

But would we be required to do even that?  I rather think not.

Let us suppose a boy of age 12 or 13.  He has no father or mother, has been raised among bad companions and brought up in depraved company.  He steals, drinks, vandalizes, engages in gang activity, and generally thinks that might makes right.  At the age of 12 or 13, nearly thoroughly depraved, he is adopted by a loving family whose own moral behavior is leagues above his own.  He realizes how far above his previous company this family is and tries his best to bring his behavior into line with theirs.  Realizing this, the family is patient with him.  They even tolerate less than ideal behavior at first with the knowledge that this boy must gradually be brought to improve his behavior.  They know that if they demand too much of him too soon, he might give up, or else run away, back to his old companions.

The ancient Israelites were that boy.  They were surrounded by other cultures with laws far harsher than their own and with far worse behavior.  They believed in many gods, thinking Yahweh to be one of many tribal gods.  Now suppose that God wants this people to come to know Him.  He promises to adopt them and gradually introduces the idea that they are called to a more moral life than their neighbors.  Vengeance is not to be excessive, but limited to an eye for an eye.  (Later, even this limit would replaced with the command to turn the other cheek.)  Over time God brings this people to a greater and greater awareness of his moral commands, culminating in His revelation of Himself in Jesus of Nazareth.

God could not give his whole law at once for the same reason that the family does not demand too much from the depraved boy at once.  The Israelites might simply have given up.  They might have switched to other gods (as they had a propensity to do  anyway).  Yet, in this case, God's plan to bring this people to know Him would have been frustrated.  To demand too much too soon of the ancient Israelites would not have helped and might even have hurt.

Some of Israel's laws in the Old Testament strike the modern reader as troubling, but that reader is looking at those laws from the successful end of the spectrum.  God has finally made the fullest revelation of Himself in Jesus, whose action, teaching, and death and Resurrection give meaning to the entire Old Testament.  And it was in part God's patience to a troubled nation that made it possible.  The modern reader owes gratitude both to that troubled nation for the courage to try, and to God for showing them the patience they needed.  It was the patience that has let us celebrate the Resurrection Easter Sunday and every Sunday.

Further Reading:
Paul Copan, Is God a Moral Monster (2011).

The Resurrection and History

We continue to celebrate the Easter Season by considering the Resurrection. Last week’s post was some simple reflections on Updike’s famous poem on the Resurrection; this week briefly considers some historical evidence for the Resurrection; the next couple weeks will consider other aspects of it and why it matters.

St. Paul famously wrote in his letter to the Corinthians, “if Christ has not been raised, then your faith is in vain,” while centuries later John Updike echoed him saying if He did not rise in His body, “the Church will fall.” Unlike every other religion and mythology, Christianity is unique in being based on a single historical event, without which it cannot survive (1); here then, I will consider briefly some evidence for that event sketching an argument developed by modern scholars such as N.T. Wright and William Lane Craig.

A good sketch of evidence for the Resurrection will have two parts, 1. Establish 3 facts (the empty tomb, appearances of the risen Christ, and the origin of Christian belief, and 2. Establishing that the best explanation of those facts is that the Resurrection really occurred.

I. The Three facts:

A). Jesus’ Burial and discovery of his empty tomb three days later.

1. The discovery of the empty tomb in multiply attested in early, independent sources. The pre-marken passion source, Paul’s letter to Corinthians mentions it, Matthew is an independent source since he includes the guard at the tomb, which is not in Mark.

2. Mark’s story is simple and lacks significant legendary development. (esp. compared to later Gnostic gospels which are real legends.

3. The empty tomb was discovered by women. Women were not regarded as reliable witnesses, so their presence indicates the account is probably legit, since no one would invent women as discovers of the empty tomb.

4. The earliest Jewish allegation that the disciples had stolen Jesus’ body (Matt. 28.15) shows that the body was in fact missing from the tomb. The only reason to put that story there was if the Jews were really claiming that Jesus’s followers stole his body, by which they admitted the tomb was empty.

5. The disciples could never have preached the Resurrection unless the tomb were really empty. No one would have believed them

- For these and at least 3 other reasons, Gary Habermas found in a survey that 75% of scholars admit the empty tomb. “Experience of the Risen Jesus” Dialog 45 (2006):292.

B. Appearances of the risen Christ on multiples occasions to multiples individuals.

1. “The list of eyewitnesses to Jesus’ resurrection appearances which is quoted by Paul in I Cor. 15. 5-7 guarantees that such appearances occurred. These included appearances to Peter (Cephas), the Twelve, the 500 brethren, and James.”

2. The gospels account for multiples appearances, including to the women. The latter are probably reliable for the reason given above. They would not have been made up.

3. The appearances were physical. Paul in Corinthians implies this, Jesus invites Thomas to touch his side, Jesus eats a fish. If the appearances were not physical, the disciples would not have said Jesus was raised, they’d say they saw his ghost.

- Even the radical skeptic Ludemann agrees that these appearances happened. He simply disagrees on the best explanation of them, by arguing that they are simply hallucinations.

C. The Origin of Christian Belief: The Disciples Came to Believe, in Spite of Every Reason Not to, That Jesus Was Really Raised From the Dead (This section is largely from NT Wright).

1. The ancient world always used the word “Resurrection” to mean a physical bodily resurrection. And they universally, from Plato, to Homer, through ancient Greece and Rome, agreed that Resurrection in this sense did not happen.

2. The sole exception was the Jews, who came to believe there would be a Resurrection of all the just, at the end of time.

3. Among the early Christians, however, this belief underwent some remarkable changes: a. Resurrection moves from the periphery to the center, b. Early Christians came to believe one man has been raised ahead of time, c. Early Christians came to believe that the Messiah has been raised, d. Resurrection becomes something Jesus’ followers could contribute to in the present life.

4. Finally, in early Christianity, as opposed to Judaism and paganism, there was virtually no spectrum of belief of life after death.

5. Beliefs in life after death, being very important and precious to people, tend to be very conservative. For Christians to 1). show such changes and 2). agree almost completely, this demands explanation

Part II- The explanation of these three facts.

The most probable explanation of these three facts is that Jesus of Nazareth really did rise from the dead leaving behind an empty tomb. It easily exceeds other explanations in explanatory scope, power, and other criteria for best explanation.

Please Note- none of these arguments assume the Bible was written early or that it was written by the first generation. I only claim that it is sufficient, when treated as a historical source, to establish the facts listed above.

Further Reading:

- Beginner/Popular Level:

NT Wright, Surprised By Hope Rethinking Heaven and the Resurrection, chap. 3-4.

NT. Wright, http://www.ntwrightpage.com/Wright_Jesus_Resurrection.htm

William Lane Craig, The Son Rises

Lee Strobel, The Case for Christ

William Lane Craig, Reasonable Faith, chap. 8.

- Academic

NT. Wright, The Resurrection of the Son of God.

(1). Of course, we cannot confuse the existence of the event with evidence for the event. If the Resurrection were shown not to have occurred, then Christianity would fall, but it might have occurred and there could simply be little evidence for it (though I think the evidence remarkably good).

“A Virgin Shall Conceive”: Isaiah 7:14 and a Problem with the NABRE

On Ash Wednesday of this year, the revised edition of the New American Bible will be released (1). In preparation since 1994, the appearance of the new translation is long overdue and generally welcome, but the text contains one serious flaw. In Isaiah 7:14, Isaiah prophecies the birth of the coming Messiah. God commands Achaz to ask a sign and Achaz refuses, saying that he will not tempt God. The prophet replies,

“Is it a small thing for you to be grievous to men, that you are grievous to my God also? [14] Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign. Behold a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and his name shall be called Emmanuel.” (2)

Jewish readers, recently joined by modern skeptics, have protested that the word “virgin” is not in the original Hebrew and originates from an ancient Greek translation of the Bible, the Septuagint. In the NAB-Revised Edition (henceforth, NABRE), the US Catholic Bishops have capitulated and render the highlighted text “a young woman will conceive.” This capitulation fails to account for several good reasons for keeping the word “virgin,” including, its initial translation by BC Jews, the social context of the time, and the context of the passage itself.

Early in the 3^rd century B.C., many Jews, spread abroad by the diaspora, no longer knew or could read Hebrew and so Hebrew scholars translated the Old Testament into Koine Greek. St. Augustine relates a legend of how the Septuagint, as this Greek translation of the Old Testament was named, came to be. One of the Ptolemaic rulers of Egypt (Ptolemy Philadelphus), desired a Greek translation for his library and commissioned the translation by 72 learned Jewish scholars. Working independently, these 72 scholars each returned a translation of the text that was in perfect agreement, taken to be a divine sign of its excellence (3). The Septuagint continued to be used by Jews and Early Christians until the 2^nd/3^rd century AD, when the Jews, probably for several reasons (4), went back to the Hebrew .

After Jesus’ Ascension, early Christians searched the Old Testament for messianic prophecies fulfilled by Jesus. Probably using the Septuagint, they found in Isaiah 7:14, a passage perfectly suited to their needs, reading, “a virgin shall conceive etc.” Such a passage was naturally a good fit for the early Christians, much of whose strategy for preaching Jesus to the Jews included appeals to fulfilled prophecy. Ancient Jews who remained resistant to Christianity began to protest that the Hebrew text did not read “virgin” at all, but rather simply almah, “young woman,” while many modern secularists have taken up the critique.

Despite the recent capitulation by the US Catholic bishops, however, at least three compelling reasons remain for supposing that the translation of the Hebrew word almah should remain “virgin,” rather “young woman.” First, Septuagint was translated by Jews for Jews. Closer to the context and understanding the language better than we, they chose to render the word almah by the Greek word for virgin, parthenos rather than neanis, young woman. Second, while true that almah does not explicitly mean virgin, this is misleading. The late Carsten Peter Thiede has pointed out that,

“critics have asserted that “virgin” should read, young woman… [but] almah [is] a young unmarried woman of childbearing age. Given the social culture of Isaiah’s days, she was therefore either a virgin or a prostitute. Since the context of the prophecy rules out the prostitute, we are left with the virgin (5).”

Finally, the context of the text of Isaiah itself speaks of this as a sign. As Origen said long ago, a young woman becoming pregnant would not be a remarkable sign, but a virgin becoming pregnant would (6).

Welcome as the NABRE is, the choice to render the Hebrew almah in Isaiah 7:14 as “young woman” rather than “virgin,” unfortunate and flawed. As it has read for the past 2,250 years (and has meant for longer), Isaiah 7:14 should still read, “a virgin will conceive and bear and son and his name shall be called Emmanuel.”

1. http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20110302/us_nm/us_religion_bible, see also: http://newsfeed.time.com/2011/03/04/controversial-bible-revision-about-that-virgin-thing/

2. Isaiah 7: 13-14. Douay-Rheims Bible. http://www.drbo.org/chapter/27007.htm

3. Augustine, City of God bk.18.ch.42 http://www.bible-researcher.com/vulgate2.html

4. These may have included a declining use of Greek among the Jews, perhaps the result of many Jews of the Diaspora becoming Christians, as well as the desire to avoid a text that became associated with Christianity.

5. Carsten Peter Thiede, Jesus: Man or Myth, (2004) p.47. Thiede was Professor of New Testament History and Papyrology and Archeology at STH in Basel Switzerland. He is also author of, The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Jewish Origins of Christianity (2003).

6. Origen, Against Celsus, ed. Henry Chadwick, (1953), p.34. (Available on google books)

-additionally, the greek word for young woman, neanis, occurs elsewhere in the Septuagint, which makes it appear that the initial Jewish translators did have reason to render almah as parthenos (virgin), rather than neanis (young woman).