Logos and Myth

In the previous post, the meaning of myth as "story believed to be true" was discussed. Horrell's emphasis on the "community-forming" power of myth is intriguing since Paul remarks on the powerful and active Logos in 1 Thess 2:13: "We also constantly give thanks to God for this, that when you received the word of God that you heard from us, you accepted it not as a human word but as what it really is, God's word, which is also at work in you believers" (NRSV).

What did Paul mean by "word at work" here? Did he perceive this "word" as something like a myth, and something at work due to its "factual-ness"(that is, God's salvation story through Jesus as a true event)? Did he distinguish Logos from story (diegesis)? Did Paul intend his letters to be "word at work" in any sense? What is the difference between "word preached (gospel)" and Paul general ethical instruction?

Woman in the Spirit of Python: Acts 16:16

NRSV and many other translations, including that of Korean, render πνεθμα πυθωνα in Acts 16:16 as "spirit of divination." Yet, Pythones were the serpent or dragons that guarded the Dephic oracles.

Plutarch gives us a very interesting and illuminating remark on Pythones (Def. orac. 9): "Certainly it is foolish and childish in the extreme to imagine that the god himself after the manner of ventriloquists (who used to be called Eurycleis, but now Pythones) enters into the bodies of his prophets and prompts their utterances, employing their mouths and voices as instruments."

What a modern-looking critique of superstition!

Christ-Myth and Paul's Ethics

Paul's ethics is one of my ongoing interests. I've just come across an intersting summary of the recent research on the subject in Currents in Biblical Research by N. Gupta.

One that particularly draws my attention is the work of David Horrell (Horrell, 2005 Solidarity and Difference: A Contemporary Reading of Paul’s Ethics. London: T&T Clark), since Horell utilizes Wendy Doniger's study on Myth in his research (Doniger, 1998 The Implied Spider: Politics and Theology in Myth. New York: Columbia University Press). Horrell, drawing on Doniger, says that myth is "a religious story believed to be true" and has "community-forming" function.

Yet, what does Horrell mean by " true" here? I myself did not check out Doniger's work, but I can definitely say that many myths were not thought to be true in Greco-Roman world, as the works of Cicero and Epicurus, for example, show.

I need to read Doniger's and Horell's works for a fair judgment, though.

Pervo on the "We"-passage in Acts

Richard Pervo's fresh commentary on Acts (Hermemeia) is delightful to read partly due to his witty writing style as well as his insight. We-passages in Acts is probably the most discussed issue in the study of Acts. How does Pervo see this long time-trodden problem?

"We" is most often a sign of late composition and is rather better attested in fiction than in works of unquestioned accuracy (394).

One would come closer to an accurate description by stating that "we" slips out of the account whenever something important is about to happen (395).

In conclusion: narrative explanations illuminate the use of "we" in Acts but do not fully elucidate it. "We is not a single character and therefore unlikely to represent the author. . . The use of "we" does not identify the author of Acts. It does serve to enhance the credibility of the narrative and to associate the narrator with the person of Paul. It is a bid to be recognized as an exponent of authentic Paulinism and to authenticate the Paulinism of Acts. "We" is to Acts as the letter form is to the Deutero-Pauline epistles (396).

Well, the last sentence is interesting, but, in my judgment, not a supported claim. It cannot explain, for example, the abrupt appearance and disappearance of the "we" and first person plural verbs. How can an author manipulate the credibility of his work while leaving behind such a clumsy-looking narrative skill?

A Maxim of J. Z. Smith

In his popular class, Intro to Religious Studies, Smith told,

"There is no such thing as religion. It is only a scholars' invention. Religion is a reinterpretation of interpretations."

This famous scholar of religion is now the president of our guild, Society of Biblical Literature!

Just read his presidential address in Journal of Biblical Literature,

"Religion and Bible," Smith, Jonathan Z.. Journal of Biblical Literature, Spring2009, Vol. 128 Issue 1, p5-27, 23p

On Not Overdoing

One of our Chicago alumni, Paul Holloway, is working on Philippians for Hermeneia series. He reads the letter as something belonging to ancient consolation literature. By "consolation", he means not emotional prescription but rational admonition, which was adopted by many Hellenistic philosophers. These philosophers insisted that one might overcome any sorrow or pain by being able to distinguish what is important (ta diaperonta) from what is not (adiaperonta).

Holloways' approach sheds light on a few passages of Philippians. Yet, overall impression is that he is overdoing or exaggerating his thesis.

Well, critique of overdoing is applicable not only to Holloway but also to many other scholars. In order to present one's thesis as original (and worth publishing) scholars often ignore other "minor" features and grandize some other factors. This is the problem that our prophet-looking Jonathan Z. Smith often raises while reflecting the method of comparison.

Now, can my research do justice to the text and be original, and at the same time not overdoing? How can I achieve that goal?

Justification and Time Table

In his recent small book, Wright says (Justification 122),

“It is vital to distinguish two things: the status of God’s people, prior to anything they do, and the life they are called to lead, which points forward to the eventual judgment.”

“The works in question will not earn their performers their membership within God’s true, eschatological, covenant people; they will demonstrate that membership.” (124)

For Wright, justification by faith is a matter of “how can  you tell you are already in the people of covenant.” When we  paraphrase Paul's passage in Galatians (2:16), however, this interpretation is hard to make sense: 

“We can tell whether a given human being is already in the  people of God not by the Jewish badge but by faith.” 

This is a post-event description, and well keeps the aspect of  grace. Yet, if both faith and works of the law are merely  sign-post, it cannot explain Paul’s vehement denial. How  can such a sign-post AND the response in gratitude nullify  God’s grace?

I was surprized to find that, despite the extensive research  on "works of the law" by Dunn and other "New Perspective"  scholars, a convincing interpretation of the meaning  of "being justifed" still lacks (especially in terms of time- frame (present or future)?)! Also Sanders's category  of "getting in" and "staying in" doesn't seem to work well  in discussing "being righteous". What was at stake in Gal 2- 3? For Hays and Sanders (and sometimes Dunn), it’s  about “getting in.” But this understanding contradicts to  their interpretation of the covenantal nomism. “Getting in”  is always by the initiative act of God, hence no need of  argumentation (neither about faith nor works of the law)!  Let us paraphrase Gal 2:16 using their interpretation:  “knowing that a human being is not getting in to the  covenant membership (or the family of Abraham) by “Jewish  identity marker” except through faith of/in Jesus the  Messiah.” According to the covenantal nomism, works are  always the man’s response to God’s gracious act. That  is, “getting in” precedes Jewish identity marker, hence  logically the paraphrase above doesn’t make sense. 

 Maybe this question is due to my incomplete grasp of current  research.