Marcion of Sinope remains one of the most intriguing and polarizing figures in the discussion of Early Christianity. Labeled everything from the true originator of the Christian canon to arch-heretic, the unique views of Marcion continue to foster scholarly analysis within the field of Early Christian and Ancient Mediterranean Studies. Marcion of stands apart as an example of an early Christian whose conception of God and authority were such that his beliefs placed him outside what were argued to be the acceptable boundaries of the youth church. Perhaps most intriguing was Marcion’s use of early Christian writings as authoritative and his collection of some of these writings into the first specifically Christian canon of writings. Understanding Marcion’s theology, as well as his role in the collection, use, and canonization of Christian writings, has long been the project of historians. In an attempt to understand Marcion’s conceptions of scripture, canon, and authority, this paper examines Marcion’s views from a number of perspectives, arguing that for Marcion the work and words of Jesus of Nazareth were understood to uniquely reveal the purposes of the supreme God of the universe in such a way that any hermeneutical position denigrating that uniqueness, be they writings or traditions, were argued to be unauthoritative for followers of Jesus. Continue reading
In honor of March’s patron saint (Patrick) and in lieu of what would have been a terrible attempt at an April Fool’s Day joke, start off your morning by (re)visiting the classic “St. Patrick’s Bad Analogies of the Trinity.”
Before delving into this month’s suggested articles, I would like to thank Phil Long for asking me to host this carnival. Looking forward to future Carnivals, Jeff Carter will be hosting April’s Carnival. The May Carnival will be hosted by Claude Mariottini, Professor of Old Testament at Northern Baptist Seminary. In June, Cambridge doctoral candidate William A. Ross will be moderating this forum. There are plenty of open Carnival spots for the rest of the year, so if you are interested in hosting, contact Phil Long.
Without further ado, then, check out this month’s selection of posts below (and be sure to look over the “News” section for some exciting ongoing/upcoming events in the world of Biblical Studies).
Having examined Schottroff’s interpretive concerns in yesterday’s post, we now turn to her reinterpretation of the Parable of the Vinegrowers in The Parables of Jesus (Trans. Linda M. Maloney. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2006.), in which she critiques a traditional allegorical interpretation of the parable, and reconsiders its meaning for today’s context. The crux of her reinterpretation argues that this parable speaks not to the allegorical rejection of the people of Israel, but rather cries out against the multilayered forms of Roman violence suffered by Israel. Continue reading
Luise Schottroff, in her work The Parables of Jesus (Trans. Linda M. Maloney. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2006.) writes that the parables of Jesus of Nazareth contain a wealth of information concerning the meaning of his proclamation and vision, information that has historically been both influential and misunderstood (1). In as much as there are as many interpretations of the parables of Jesus as there are New Testament and parable scholars, the purpose of this paper is to examine Schottroff’s feminist perspective in her examination and reinterpretation of the Parable of the Vinegrowers found in the Gospel According to Mark 12:1-12. In her interpretation, Schottroff argues that this parable speaks not to an allegorically based rejection of the people of Israel in favor of the Christian Church, but against multilayered forms of violence against the people of Israel that calls those people to endure Roman oppression and seek non-violent forms of effecting demands. Continue reading
Having examined Luther and Erasmus’ perspectives on scripture, canon, and authority, especially within the context of their debate concerning the relationship of the divine and human wills, we now turn to consideration of these views in relation to each other. First it should be clear from this study that Erasmus and Luther, by nature of their respective locations within the Christian tradition, both afforded a great deal of authority to the words of scripture, especially those found in the New Testament. This should surprise no one, as the Christian tradition was highly invested in the authority of written texts long before the Protestant Reformation. Second, both Erasmus and Luther were concerned with determining what the biblical texts said, especially as it related to the contents and practice of Christian faith. This similarity becomes evident by the manner in which both Luther and Erasmus understood the scriptures, as the divinely inspired Word of God, and employed scriptural references, namely, generally as uncontextualized proof texts demonstrating a theological point in a manner divorced from the larger socio-historical context of the writing being used. Luther and Erasmus may also have agreed on the parameters of the materials that could be used as scripture, though Luther’s eventual rejection of the Apocrypha and subjugation of certain New Testament writings makes the relationship between Luther and Erasmus’ conceptions of canon somewhat unclear, as does the lack of substantial scholarship on the issue. From Luther and Erasmus’ similarities in the authority they understood scripture to have, as well as their use of that material, it seems safe to conclude that for both Erasmus and Luther, Christian scripture functioned in a highly similar manner, namely as an authoritative source for understanding Christian life and faith. Continue reading
Written as a response to Erasmus’ De Libero Abitrio Diatribe Seu Collatio, in which Erasmus critiqued Luther’s position on “absolute necessity” of the human will, Luther’s De Servo Arbitrio offers both a rebuttal of Erasmus’ position on the freedom of the human will as well as demonstrating Luther’s fullest explanation of his theological anthropology concerning the bound human will. As much has been written on this topic, our purpose here does not include considerations of Luther’s arguments concerning the will, instead focusing on his use of scripture, authority, and canon in the construction of his argument. Luther spends a good portion of this voluminous work responding to Erasmus from a general position of reason and Christian history, though without directly appealing to any sources apart from the occasional scripture (Luther, 101-109). Continue reading
Though his hermeneutic of interpretation was primarily driven by his doctrine of justification by faith alone, Luther also employed additional hermeneutical concerns in his understanding of scripture (Soulen, 115). Luther never advocated an individualistic or isolated reading of the scriptures; indeed, scripture, faith, and community all evidenced a practical influence within his churches (Lohse, 188). But against the community of scholasticism and its detailed glosses and commentaries, Luther argued that scripture was “most easy to understand, most clear, its own interpreter, testing, judging and illuminating everything by everything” (Lohse, 190). By this line of thinking, Luther advocated a literal sense of scriptural interpretation, with scripture functioning as its own clear interpreter. In this position Luther argued both against the hierarchical interpretative method of magisterial Rome as well as the spiritualizing fanatics who emphasized the Spirit over the scriptures (Lohse, 190). Because of the understanding of the clearness of the scriptures and the idea that the gospel represented a unique portion of the scriptures, Luther tended to emphasize the portions of the canon that clearly represented his central interpretive concerns, namely justification by faith alone (Soulen, 119). Continue reading
Martin Luther stands apart as, along with Jesus of Nazareth, one of the most studied figures in the known history of the world. Luther’s Ninety-Five Theses were, if nothing else, the match that set ablaze that series of events now known as the Protestant Reformation of the Western Church. His subsequent reforming efforts, appearance before the Diet of Worms, translation of the German Bible, and plethora of theological and socio-political writings number him among the most prolific and opinionated known Christian writers. Along with his Ninety-Five Theses, and his Small and Large Catechisms, Luther’s response to Erasmus’s conception of the human will in De Servo Arbitrio remains one of his most widely known works. In attempting to understand Luther’s views on scripture, canon, and authority, we turn here to a review of several scholar’s on Luther’s views before examining his perspective in The Bondage of the Will. Continue reading
Written in 1524 as a response to Martin Luther’s Assertio omnium articulorum, in which Luther wrote that “everything happens by absolute necessity” (Watson, 13),  Erasmus’ De Libero Abritrio Diatribe Seu Collatio offers Erasmus’ fullest treatment of his theological anthropology, namely that human freedom must coexist with the divine will in matters of salvation. As much has been written on this topic, our purpose here does not include considerations of Erasmus’ arguments concerning the will. Instead, by our review of Erasmus’ theological construction in this work we hope to demonstrate his perspective on scripture, canon, and authority. He begins this work by noting his limitations, immediately noting the difficulty in examining difficult passages and concepts, arguing that extreme care must be demonstrated in the interpretation of scripture (Diatribe, 35-7). Appealing to the “inviolable authority of the Holy Scriptures” and “decrees of the Church,” Erasmus nonetheless concluded that there are “secret” places in the scriptures that God has not wished men to fully understand, and that attempts to understand such passages lead to confusion of human minds (Diatribe, 37-8). While allowing for a certain degree of probability in the interpretation of scripture, Erasmus made clear his understanding that uncertainty does not necessarily undermine Christian faith, instead functioning as a means of humility and caution (Diatribe, 39). Continue reading
As the final source for our understanding of Erasmus’ general views on scripture, canon, and authority, we turn to the Enchiridion, the Handbook of the Militant Christian. Immediately notable in this work is Erasmus’ citation of both scriptures and the writings of the church fathers throughout to affirm his arguments (Enchiridion, 24-93). Here we see Erasmus argue that knowledge of God, the subject matter of theology, was revealed through Christ, and that the living presence of Christ was best encountered through the words of scripture (Jenkins, 67). Fundamental then was the centrality of the scriptures in the Christian life, as well as the understanding that such scriptures were divinely inspired by and proceeding from God (Enchiridion, 53 and Jenkins, 36). Here Erasmus admonished Christians to read and know the scriptures, as such activities were fundamental to living the philosophy of Christ and to traversing the ‘road of virtue’ in the Christian life (Enchiridion, 63-4 and Jenkins, 34). Key scriptures for Erasmus were the holy prophets, the gospels, and writings of the apostles, especially Paul (Jenkins, 34). Continue reading