Courage

"I wanted you to see what real courage is, instead of getting the idea that courage is a man with a gun in his hand. It's when you know you're licked before you begin but you begin anyway and you see it through no matter what. You rarely win, but sometimes you do" (Atticus Finch)

Book Review: The Historical Reliability of John's Gospel

Craig L. Blomberg

The Historical Reliability of John's Gospel

Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1998. Pp. 346. Hardback.

Abstract of The Historical Reliability of John’s Gospel 

     Craig Blomberg seeks to restore confidence in the historical reliability of the gospel of John after years of skepticism have eroded trust in John’s historicity. The initial skepticism of 19th century scholarship took Clement of Alexandria’s quote very seriously, believing that John’s “spiritual gospel” focused on theological matters at the expense of historical accuracy. The more recent “quest” for the historical Jesus and the Jesus Seminar have likewise discredited John along with the other gospels. Though manuscript discoveries in the 19th century restored a good measure of confidence in John’s reliability, the author seeks to offer an updated discussion on the matter.
     Blomberg’s methodology is seen in the two parts of the book. Part one deals with introductory considerations such as authorship, date and provenance, sources, John’s relationship to the Synoptics (omissions, interlocking accounts, outlines), audience and purpose, and a discussion of literary genre. Part two of the book is a commentary on the text, focusing on matters of historical reliability. Naturally, this part of the book is quite longer than the introductory section because it examines each passage in the book of John in light of historicity, which is where the bulk of the arguments arise and, thus, the author spends more time with more details than an introduction could afford. Part two, then, asks two questions: what evidence exists that shows the actions and words of John’s characters to be authentic; and, is there anything in the given text that would be implausible within its historical context? 

Strengths of The Historical Reliability of John’s Gospel 

     Early in his book, Blomberg cites several scholarly movements and works that suggest a considerable number of scholars do not doubt John’s credibility (p. 20). That is, after mentioning Robinson’s “new look” and the Dead Sea Scrolls’ witness to the early composition of John, the author lists several articles and commentaries that defend the historicity of the gospel of John. This is not a vital argument in the book but is helpful because it reveals that Johannine skepticism is not as widely spread as some may believe and it provides a list of reputable works, something always helpful to information-hungry readers.
     Another credit to make in Blomberg’s favor is his attempt to be fair in his analysis of various positions. He does not sacrifice critical analysis for the sake of fairness or “courtesy,” but he presents both sides of an argument before analyzing them and offering his suggestions. For instance, the “signs-source” set forth by Bultmann has been accepted by many scholars so Blomberg cites Van Belle’s summary of its strengths and weaknesses, noting that John’s numbering of the first two signs and the possibility that 20:31 could have been the conclusion of the supposed signs-source may give the hypothesis some credit, but the subjectivity of numbering the first two signs, the possibility that chapter 21 is an epilogue, and the fact that the signs in John have more similarities to the text than differences all indicate that the “signs-source” hypothesis has too little evidence to be credible.
     Also, the author is not reluctant to discuss the distinctions and apparent discrepancies in the gospel of John that have led many to doubt its historical reliability. For example, he notes John’s selection of material (which omits Jesus baptism, the calling of twelve, exorcisms, etc.), the absence of the disciples’ slow understanding of who Jesus is (which is common in the Synoptics), and, even more unique, John’s chronology, which is vastly different from the Synoptics (Jesus’ ministry in the former is marked by the passing of at least two Passovers while His ministry as depicted in the latter could have started and ended within a few months.
     The author defends traditional Johannine authorship, wisely noting that the unanimous external evidence for Johannine authorship cannot be dismissed easily. He also argues that the silence of the second century witnesses is not as telling as those who deny Johannine authorship make it because the style and purpose of an individual like Ignatius writing to Ephesus would not necessarily demand he include words about John’s gospel (p. 23). Charlesworth’s strange theory that the author of this gospel could be Thomas is striking in light of the aforementioned external evidence but Blomberg’s critique was detailed and quite enjoyable to read.
     Blomberg makes an insightful argument regarding the uniqueness of John’s style and thought compared to the Synoptics. While some who are anxious to discredit John’s gospel would immediately see inauthenticity in passages that clearly reveal John’s style and thought, Blomberg reminds his readers that even Josephus felt free to paraphrase himself in The Antiquities of the Jews, a work that relied on his previous work, The Jewish War. This is said because modern scholarship’s intense desire to know every word that Jesus uttered ignores the style and purpose of the individual gospel writers. As Blomberg said, there is no way to know that John intended to translate Jesus’ Aramaic words as literally as possible (p. 65).
     This reader appreciated Blomberg’s jab at the circular reasoning of the Jesus Seminar on page 66. He does not subscribe to the view that only a fragment of what Jesus said in the Synoptics is authentic, in part because it creates a “vicious cycle” of not trusting portions of the Synoptics which rely on John’s gospel, which is held to be unreliable because it is so different from the authentic sections of the Synoptics! Blomberg is professional and controlled here and elsewhere, but the subtly snide remark did not go unappreciated.
     Blomberg’s treatment of the seemingly suspicious exchange between Jesus and His brethren (7:1-10) reveals a more natural interpretation that does not make Jesus suspect of contradiction or, at least, fickleness. At first glance, it may seem that Jesus was being deceitful about His intentions because when His brethren told Him to go to the feast, He replied that His hour had not yet come. But, surprisingly, He did the very thing it seems He denied! The author here reasons that readers should not assume Jesus went back on His word but that His intention was never not to go. Instead, Blomberg says, it is more natural to see Jesus telling His brothers that His going to Judea would not be as they requested but, as always, would be in subjection to the Father and no one else, not even family. Indeed, this account is reminiscent of the Lord’s gentle rebuke of His mother regarding the wine that was followed by Jesus turning water to wine(John 2:4-6). Jesus operates by the direction of His Father and no one else.
A puzzling verse in the final discourse of Jesus is the seemingly out-of-place phrase, “Arise, let us go hence” (14:31). Blomberg handles this quite well, admitting that this is “the single biggest problem for supporters of the unity and authenticity of this discourse” because Jesus continues His speech until 18:1 (p. 204). The author opts for the view that Jesus began to lead the disciples out of the upper room but continued His speech as they walked. To bolster this argument, Blomberg notes that Jesus may have used the “vine and branches” imagery in chapter 15 as He and the disciples passed the vineyards near the temple, a location that they would have passed on their way to the Gethsemane. Further, the statement in 18:1 that He went over the brook Kidron with His disciples could simply indicate the moment when they actually crossed and not the moment they left the Upper Room.
     Likewise, the author’s treatment of John 18:28 is detailed and done well. Instead of this comment about the Jews avoiding Pilate’s palace in order to “eat the Passover” meaning that what Jesus had done with the disciples in chapter 13 was not the Passover, Blomberg suggests, along with others, that the Jews in this verse were likely referring to later festival meals during the Passover festival, perhaps specifically the lunchtime meal on Friday. Because their uncleanness would have only lasted until sundown, they would have been able to eat the Friday evening supper anyway. Thus, Blomberg correctly argues that the more natural interpretation is to see this as a reference to a later festival meal and not “the” Passover meal.

Weaknesses of The Historical Reliability of John’s Gospel 

     While the purpose of his book was not to write a detailed, exegetical commentary on the gospel of John, one can not help but be disappointed in the lack of exegetical comments that explore more themes and theological issues in the second section of the book. Such expectations are likely not fair for a work that restricts itself to matters of historical trustworthiness (p. 22), yet the itch to dig deeper into a text is not quite satisfied in some of the comments in part two. Blomberg makes a valid point, however, by stating that historicity does have great implications for biblical authority and correct interpretation, even if it is not the most important area of focus.
     Blomberg’s openness to redaction should not be overstated, given that he clearly defends the authenticity of John, yet his belief that a separate editor “touched up the document throughout” is still disheartening. One cannot prove that redaction is not possible in John (the “beloved disciple” passages sound at first like someone other than or in addition to John is at work), but if there is an argument that is just as plausible and that does not sacrifice traditional Johannine authorship, it seems more reasonable that one should accept it instead of resorting to source theories. It is granted that highly conservative scholars are not completely closed to the idea of an editor or even amanuensis but one might expect that Blomberg’s aversion to subjectivity in other areas of the book would be present in this area, as well.
     Along this line, the author does not provide evidence of redaction but an appeal that it causes no harm to the idea of inspiration (p. 39, footnote 29). Truly, Paul wrote with an amanuensis (Rom. 16:22) and Luke apparently “followed all things closely” (Luke 1:3), but one cannot help but to think Blomberg’s reasoning sounds more like a concession than a conviction.

People are not static (though they can be shocking)

Many conservative Bible readers would not dare deny the authenticity of the Scriptures, yet we may read them as if they were not authentic.

That is, we approach the people of the Bible as if they were not real people but instead were static, changeless, utterly consistent characters... like from Aesop's fables or something. Real people aren't like that. Real people change, grow, regress, and progress. Real people change for better or for worse, whether they know it or not. The only people who do not change (at least that we're aware of) are dead people. Even Jesus grew in wisdom, stature, favor with God and man (Luke 2:52)!

Yet, because Bible characters are often considered static, we are tempted to label them as good or bad...period. But because they are real people we must respond to them as we would respond to real people. Just a few examples will do.

Abraham. Do we really think that he was just as mature when he left Ur as when he nearly sacrificed Isaac? Apparently many people do because they try to explain away all of Abe's lies in the Genesis narrative! The fact is that he didn't trust God completely at first (frankly, I'm not sure who does) because he dragged along his Dad and nephew when God told him not to (12:1-3). He finally got to the point where he trusted God...when he nearly killed his only son because God told him to.

Jacob: His very name means something like "deceit" or "heel-grabber." He manipulated his brother and father. He tried to manipulate his father-in-law. He seems to have been a little deceitful on his wedding night--Laban gave him Leah instead of Rachel, something Jacob conveniently "didn't notice" until the next morning. Yes, I'm sure their tents (or whatever) were dark and women covered themselves up a lot more than nowadays, but are we to really believe that Jacob goes into his tent and "consummates the marriage" with Leah...not even knowing that it was Leah? Yeah...right. Get real.

King Saul. It would take a group of psychoanalysts to figure this guy out. I still don't know what to make of Saul at times. He is generally portrayed as a bad guy (had an evil spirit sent from God, hated David, then respected David, then hated him again). However, Saul was not entirely bad...for whatever it is worth, he wanted to offer something to God when he killed the Amalekites. God must have seen something in Saul...He's the one that chose him (1 Sam. 9:16)! In my opinion, Saul became a neurotic, power-hungry, self-aggrandizing politician who, if living today, would occasionally grace the cover of the National Enquirer for checking into rehab. I don't mean that sarcastically (if I were given power over a nation God only knows how corrupt I would become).

The same (and more) could be said about Moses, Aaron, David, Hezekiah, Jeremiah, Simon Peter, and Paul. These were ordinary people. I still feel like a pathetic loser when I mess everything up, but I have hope that God will transform me into something greater...something like His Son. Eventually.

What?!

Created to Rule

One of the major differences in Genesis 1-2 and the Babylonian accounts of creation is man's purpose.

• Mesopotamia: humans were created to serve the gods. The Babylonian and Assyrian gods were largely a group of lazy good-for-nothin's. The older gods wanted "peace and quiet" (like old people) but the younger gods wanted to party like it's 1999. This led to a conflict where Apsu, the oldest male god, wanted to destroy the lot of the little whippersnappers. Apsu, however, was killed instead and his wife, Tiamat, sought vengeance. She met her match in the young Marduk who killed her and used her corpse to create the cosmos. The rebellious gods who served under Tiamat were forced to perform menial tasks that soon became unbearable. Since work stinks, the gods didn't want to do it. Thus, they created created man en masse to do the work for them (do these gods seem to be a lot like humans to you?).
• Israel: God created man to rule (Gen. 1:26-27). Yes, God required Adam to take care of the Garden, but the similarities end there. Man's work in Genesis 1-2 is not merely because God didn't feel like picking the okra or sprinkling Sevin-dust on the leaves to deter bugs (it wasn't THAT kind of garden anyway!). Instead, God was giving Adam power and authority. "What is man, that thou art mindful of him?" (Psalm 8:4).

This sheds light on what the Apostle Paul said:

Claiming to be wise, they became fools and exchanged the glory of the immortal god for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles (Romans 1:22-23, emp. mine).

What does this mean for us now? Nothing....because sin mucked everything up, cursing both man and the earth (Gen. 3:16-19). I do not believe that sin is inherited and that we are cursed in that sense (Ezek. 18:20), but you can't deny that sin has messed us up. We're not what we're supposed to be. However, this power and authority will be restored eschatologically. 

The Spirit himself bears witness with our spirit that we are children of God, and if children, then heirs--heirs of God and fellow heirs with Christ, provided that we suffer with him in order that we also may be glorified with him (Romans 8:16-17)

If we have died with him, we will also live with him; if we endure, we will also reign with him (2 Timothy 2:11-12).

The one who conquers, I will grant him to sit with me on my throne, as I also conquered and sat down with my Father on his throne (Rev. 3:21)

I wonder if the "ruler over many things" idea in the parable of talents is connected with this (Matt. 25:21, 23). I wonder even more about how this could play into that troubling verse, "the leaves of the tree will be for the healing of the nations" (Rev. 22:2). What nations? Ones that we rule over, perhaps?

The Need for Validation

This is why I like Clint Eastwood:

Remember that little guy I told you about, with the shiny boots and a pair of six-shooters? The best part of the story is that it wasn't all pretend. I had a place to live out those dreams. My grandfather, my father's father, was a cowboy. He worked his own cattle ranch in eastern Oregon. And though I was raised in the suburbs, the redemption of my life and the real training grounds for my own masculine journey took place on that ranch, where I spent my boyhood summers. Oh, that every boy should be so lucky. To have your days filled with tractors and pickup trucks, horses and roping steers, fishing in the ponds. I was Huck Finn for three wonderful months every year. How I loved it when my grandfather-"Pop" is what I called him-would look at me, his thumbs tucked in his belt, smile, and say, "Saddle up." 

One afternoon Pop took me into town, to my favorite store. It was a combination feed and tack/hardware/ranch supply shop. It smelled of hay and linseed oil, of leather and gunpowder and kerosene-all the things that thrill a boy's heart. That summer Pop was having a problem with an overrun pigeon population on the ranch. He hated the dirty birds, feared they were carrying diseases to the cattle. "Flying rats" is what he called them. Pop walked straight over to the firearms counter, picked out a BB rifle and a quart-sized milk carton with about a million BBs in it, and handed them to me. The old shopkeeper looked a bit surprised as he stared down at me, squinting over his glasses. "Isn't he a bit young for that?" Pop put his hand on my shoulder and smiled. "This is my grandson, Hal. He's riding shotgun for me." 

I may have walked into that feed store a squirrelly little kid, but I walked out as Sheriff Wyatt Earp. I had an identity and a place in the story. I was invited to be dangerous. If a boy is to become a man, if a man is to know he is one, this is not an option. A man has to know where he comes from, and what he's made of. (Wild at Heart, 20-21)

Quote of the Day

Sunday night I preached a sermon on Heaven based on Revelation 21-22. On 21:2, where John saw the city coming down from Heaven, "prepared as a bride adorned for her husband," I commented that marriage is the greatest relationship this side of Heaven and is often used about Jesus and the church (2 Cor. 11:2; Eph. 5:22-32). I even dared to say that this particular phrase, "adorned for her husband," may specifically allude to sex, meaning that the joys of Heaven will be even greater than sex (though I chose slightly more palatable words in the sermon).

Nevertheless, a sweet, gray-haired lady from our church came into my office this morning for her weekly hug and said something that made my day.

Sweet, gray-haired lady: "That sermon you preached Sunday night...that about the sex...I've never thought about that."

Me: "Yeah, I know. I didn't mean to be risque but I think it's in there."

Sweet, gray-haired lady: "Oh me too. I liked that. I may be old but I remember what that was like!"

Gotta love it!

Zigga-what? Tower of Babel and Jacob's Ladder

I've always envisioned the Tower of Babel to be shaped like a cylinder with little windows here and there...like some kind of medieval tower. I've also considered Jacob's ladder to be just that...a ladder. But they may not have been.

Instead, both of them may have been ziggurats, like the one below.

It's a little blurry, but you get the idea. I'm not very sure where this ziggurat was from but this is more like what the Tower of Babel and Jacob's Ladder looked like. Growing up, I would hear about the story of Jacob's Ladder and picture angels sliding up and down a ladder Batman and Robin style, kind of like the one below:

I never understood how multiple angels could go up and go down the ladder simultaneously. It didn't seem like they would have much elbow room. Jacob's vision makes a bit more sense when we think of angels climbing and descending the steps of a ziggurat instead of the rungs of a ladder.

At any rate, ziggurats were quite popular in the late 3rd millennium B.C. If we place Jacob historically in the 1900-1600 B.C. area, this would make him contemporary with the Mesopotamian usage of ziggurats.

She & Him + Sloss Furnace = Awesome

Jessica, the Cortezes, and I had a blast at the She & Him concert last night at Sloss Furnace. Great friends, great conversations, great music, and a great venue (very hot, though). Here's an old picture I found of the factory where the concert was held.

It doesn't look like much but...well, it ain't. It has changed a little from the time this picture was taken (at least the grounds around the barn-looking-thing have changed). We had no idea what it would be like but it was very fun. We'll know to get there early next time for the coveted spots above the railing. Otherwise it's just standing.

The opening act was the Chapin Sisters. We missed the first song or so but were impressed. Zooey came out to sing harmony with the sisters (she's quite the talented lass--vocals, keyboard, and ukulele) and then left, returning later with M. Ward and the backup band for an awesome show. My favorite song may have been their cover of The Beach Boys, "Wouldn't It Be Nice." For a much better review, check out this blog.

Photography was difficult with the guards doing body searches for digital cameras but my handy iPhone managed to get one photo that is semi-discernable.

The little blur in the front is Zooey:)

Afterward, it was to Yogurt Mountain! Always a great way to end an evening.

Tattoo Thoughts

I think some tattoos are weird, gross, odd, and disturbing. Others are redneck, hillbilly, and plain dumb (like the scorpion tattoo I recently saw on the top of a bald guy's head). However, some tattoos are incredibly cool.

That being said, I've considered getting a tattoo for quite some time but since I was not (and am not) completely sure I haven't done it (they cost quite a bit of jack, from what I've heard).

Any tattoo on my body must meet two criteria:

1. Aesthetics: it must look wickedly awesome.
2. Significance: it must mean something (to me, at least)

So I've thought about it for a while and have made a breakthrough. I won't say I'm completely sold on the idea, but this is the best thing I've found so far: 

 evkei/non dei/ auvxa,nein, evme. de. evlattou/sqai

"He must increase but I must decrease" (John 3:30)

Let me tell you a few reasons I like this:

1. John 3:30 is just an awesome verse and makes a great motto. Besides the fact that it looks really cool, this verse reminds me that my life is not my own and pride (one of my biggest faults) should have no place in my heart.
2. It is a Greek uncial (manuscript with capital letters) which looks cooler than the miniscule (the lower case letters just below the image).
3. AND this is an image from Codex Sinaiticus, one of the world's oldest Bibles (the oldest significant book to survive antiquity, in fact). In the 4th century, Eusebius, the "father of church history" made about 50 "luxury edition" Bibles and this codex (book) seems to be one of them. It was found in the middle of the 19th century in the Monastery of St. Catherine, Mount Sinai.

For an idea of what this may look like, check out this guy's tattoo.

I have a few reservations that keep nagging at me about this:

1. I'm not sure if I like how the verse is formed into two and a half lines. I wish it were even and symmetrical, perhaps just in two lines. However, the more I look at it the less this bothers me.
2. Where would I put this? I don't think I like it high on my side (like the guy in the above link), so I think about the side of my shoulder or on the inside of my forearm. However, would it fit well on my shoulder, and would I be able to read it easily (without breaking my neck)? Also, if I put it on my forearm, do I want it visible for anyone to see?

I'm not sure. I really like the idea but I have to put a lot more thought into this before I go through with it.

The Purpose of Prayer

HT: Sacred Sandwich

John's Identity Crisis

Jesus said that John the Baptist was the "Elijah" that should come and restore all things (Mark 9:11-13). However, when the Jewish delegation was sent from Jerusalem to investigate John and question if he was the Messiah, Elijah, or the Prophet, John denied that he was Elijah (John 1:21). What gives? Did John not understand his role? Did he not realize the prophecies concerning himself (Mal. 4:5-6)?

Perhaps there are two ways we can explain this conundrum:

1. Literal Elijah. How did Elijah's life on earth end? "He didn't die...he went to heaven in a chariot of fire!" That's partially correct: he did not experience physical death but the Bible actually says that a chariot of fire separated Elijah and Elisha and that a whirlwind carried Elijah to heaven (2 Kings 2:11). Thus, if Elijah did not die but ascended to heaven, the Jews in the first century may have interpreted the prophecies to mean that Elijah would literally come back, descending from heaven physically just like he ascended! If so, John's statement could have been a denial that he was not the literal Elijah come back from heaven (though he dressed and acted remarkably like Elijah).

2. Humble Forerunner. John the Baptist never identified himself as Elijah. This does not require us to think he was unaware of his prophetic office. Another explanation that fits John's personality better is that John simply did not think as much of his ministry as Jesus did. He called himself "the voice" of Isaiah 40:3 that prepares the way of the Lord, but he was always pointing to Jesus as his superior (Matt. 3:14; John 1:19-34).

Neither option completely solves the problem but they both show that there are more possibilities than "John didn't know his office" or "John contradicted Jesus."

Grace Upon Grace

And from his fulness we have all received, grace upon grace. For the law was given by Moses; grace and truth came through Jesus Christ. No one has ever seen God; the only God, who is at the Father's side, he has made him known (John 1:16-18, ESV).  

So what exactly does "grace upon grace" mean in John 1:16? (rhyme unintentional). Does it mean upon or instead of?

Argument for upon: Some take it to mean "upon," as in "God piled grace on top of grace with the coming of Jesus." Because John 1:14-18 has many parallels with Exodus 32-34, some see "grace upon grace" as a parallel to Moses asking for grace even though he had already "found grace" in God's sight (Ex. 33:13). This is viewed along with the fact that God had given Moses the Law (a "grace" in its own right) but when the people sinned Moses broke the tablets, having to make two new tablets and scale Sinai once again, this time for a supernatural display of God's glory (Ex. 34:1-20; also, verse 20 connects with "no one has seen God" of John 1:18). In other words, Moses received a grace, then a greater display of God's grace because the first "grace" was not enough. The Law, then, came by grace but Christ came in an even greater display of grace.

However, this argument is undercut by two facts: 1) "grace upon grace" is typically constructed with epi, and not anti,, (cf. Sirach 26:15), the latter of which is found in John's prologue; and 2) there is no precedent in Greek literature for this usage (Blomberg, Historical Reliability of John's Gospel, 75; Kostenberger, John, 47).

Argument for instead of: The contrast of verse 17 ("for the law came by Moses; grace and truth came through Jesus Christ"), which follows immediately after the "grace upon grace" clause could be the commentary that explains it (Carson, The Gospel According to John, 132). Yes, Matthew 5:17-18 seems to indicate some lingering effect or force of the Law, but the remainder of John contains a constant antithesis between the Law and Jesus. He replaces the Temple (ch. 2), is the "bread of life" in contrast to the manna in the wilderness (which came from God, though the people attributed it to Moses, ch. 6), and replaced the water in the Feast of Tabernacles (ch. 7). Further, He is the "true vine" (15:1) as opposed to Israel in the Old Testament, for Jesus is forming His own Messianic community after not being received of "his own" (1:11).

Conclusion: As cool as the first argument sounds, I suppose I will side with the second argument in favor of "instead of." Because John embedded so many themes in the Prologue that he would later develop in the life of Jesus, perhaps the "grace upon grace" means that Jesus is the greater grace that replaces the Law of Moses.