Background or Matrix? What term should we use when talking about the New Testament World?

When studying Jesus it is important to keep in mind the world, time and culture in which he lived. In order to begin to understand Jesus we need to be familiar with all of these. The problem, however, is that New Testament scholars have often referred to this as the "background" of Jesus and/or the New Testament. This term suggests that although this was the time and place where Jesus lived, he was somehow not influenced by or representative of it. We sometimes speak of Jesus as if he lived in the world, but was not really a part of it.

Mark Goodacre has posted two short videos that help us to think differently about this. The first is one by John Dominic Crossan who argues not for "background", but matrix. He contends, rightly, that we cannot read the Gospels as if there was no influence.

The second is from E.P. Sanders who, although not using term "matrix" talks about Jesus in context. Both are very interesting and helpful.

Jesus and The Space Aliens

I am not a lover of science fiction.

I rarely watch movies about space, aliens or anything else that does not take place on earth. Star Trek and Dune bored me and I have not seen any of the Alien movies. I tried to read C.S Lewis's Space Trilogy, but kept falling asleep.

In fact, I am pretty sure that I have not seen all of the original Star Wars movies, never mind the newer ones. My Apologies to James McGrath.

But some people do think about whether or not there is life on other planets. I am not sure why because I am not sure that I care. But for the religious, however, this can lead to questions about God, creation and what bearing the existence of life elsewhere may or may not have on our "earthling" theology.

But an article in the International Business Times suggests that for many, the existence of extraterrestrial life is not a threat to their theology. A meeting of theologians and scientists at the London royal Society determined that some people wonder if the incarnation may have take place multiple times in multiple places.

According to Ted Peters, who is a theologian at the Pacific Lutheran Theological Seminary in Berkeley, if people believed in the existence of aliens, it could make them ask if Jesus Christ has appeared more than once in the universe.

"It's been argued for a couple of centuries now whether one incarnation of God as Jesus Christ for the entirety of creation is sufficient, with some thinking that God would do so multiple times as appropriate for the capacity of any individual species to comprehend."

Peters conducted a survey of 1300 people from a variety of religions and concluded that for most, the discovery of extraterrestrial life would not be a threat to their religious system.

Of course, what does this mean about religion in other universes? Will we one day encounter missionizing aliens from outer space? Do aliens go to heaven? Do they believe in a rapture? If there are aliens, what kind of stories are in their Bible? Do they have or need a Bible?

Hmm, now I am beginning to wonder. Maybe Ed wood's Plan 9 from Outer Space was supposed to be an evangelistic tool?

Infertility and the Bible 2: The Defective Wife

Last Week I gave an overview to a new series on infertility and the Bible. This week I begin to compare the status of women in the Bible to that of other women in the Ancient Near East. (One note, the footnotes in this text appear better in Google Chrome and Firefox than Internet Explorer)

Childlessness, in the Hebrew Bible, is presented as a particularly female problem. There are no biblical stories that center on an infertile man.[1] The imagery of barrenness is never applied to a man. The focus and preoccupation with childlessness in the Bible falls solely and consistently on women. Moreover, childlessness is never presented as a positive or acceptable condition.[2] Every story of a childless woman in the Bible is about how that situation is reversed. Sarah, Rebekah, Rachel, Samson’s mother and Hannah are all described as suffering a condition of barrenness which finds its resolution in divine intervention.[3] In addition to the stories of these five women, the negative image of childlessness is communicated by promises which declare that if Israel is faithful to God, there will be no barrenness in the land (Ex 23:26; Deut 7:14), suggesting that childlessness is evidence not of the blessing of Yahweh but a curse.

Socially, the position of the childless woman in the Hebrew Bible is ranked among the despised, the poor, the helpless, the widow (Job 24:21) and contrasted with the mother who is blessed, joyful and rich in children.[4] In Psalm 113:9 and Isaiah 54:1 the image of the barren women is used to illustrate the contrasting promise of a joyful reversal that will be enacted by God. Compounding this negative image is the evaluation that often considered childlessness the result of sin and/or divine displeasure (Gen 20:17; Num 5:11-31; 2 Sam 6:20-23). It was God who opened and closed the womb (Gen 16:2; 20:18; 1 Sam1:5) and conception after a long period of infertility was a cause for rejoicing and the hope that God had removed the woman’s reproach (Gen 30:23; 1 Sam 1:10-11; 2:1-10).

The view of the childless woman found in the Hebrew Bible is attested widely in antiquity. Hennie J. Marsman has examined the role and status of women in the Ancient Near East and demonstrated that childlessness was considered to be a defect in the wife.[5] For instance, the Ugaritic legend of king Kirtu describes how he married seven times in the unsuccessful bid to produce an heir. In all seven attempts he failed, but the preponderance of responsibility seems to be placed on the woman rather than Kirtu (KTU 1.14:I.10-20).[6]

The presumption of female defect is confirmed in a letter to the Ugarit king about a woman who failed to produce any children for her husband after an extended period of time. The letter relates how the husband used the infertility as an occasion to take a second wife. It was only when he failed to produce children with the second woman that he was then considered to be the defective one (RS 86.2208).[7]

While monogamy was probably the norm in antiquity, childlessness was one of the most common reasons that a man would resort to a bigynous marriage.[8] The Code of Hammurabi §145 mentions the case of a man taking a second wife if the primary wife does not bear him any children (ca. 1728-1686 BCE). Several Nuzi marriage contracts made between free persons contain clauses indicating when a man may have a second wife (ca. 1450-1350 BCE). The stipulations outline that the man cannot take an additional wife unless she fails to provide him with children. These clauses emphasize “the importance of children in the institution of marriage at Nuzi. The bride’s status as ‘wife’ usually depended upon whether or not she bore children”.[9] Even more interesting is that these stipulations in the Nuzi marriage contracts were initiated by the bride’s family, indicating that the social pressure for a woman to produce children began within the bride’s paternal home.[10] A similar marriage contract was found among the Nimrud tablets which also stipulate that if the wife remains childless the husband may then take another wife for the purposes of producing children (ca. 668-652 BCE).[11] Yet another example of such stipulations is found in a Late Babylonian marriage document (dating to 624 BCE) in which a man declares that his wife has produced no sons and therefore he seeks to be joined to a younger woman with the clear intent to produce children. What these examples demonstrate is the continuity of expectation that the wife would produce children and that, should this not happen, the man has the legal right to take a subsequent wife for the sole purpose of begetting children by her.[12]

While the introduction of a second wife was one way to circumvent the problem of childlessness, divorce was also an option. In Egypt it seems that the marriage agreement was considered completed not at consummation but with childbirth.[13] Egyptian marriage contracts mention a woman’s infertility as one of the major reasons for divorce and is surpassed only by accusations of the wife’s infidelity.[14] That this was a comprehensive practice, however, is doubtful. Divorcing a woman for being childless could mean that the husband would forfeit her dowry. The Code of Hammurabi §145-149, for instance, describes how a man cannot replace his primary wife with a second wife and that should he force her to leave, he must provide her with compensation.[15] The financial disincentive would mean that such a choice would probably be under taken only by the wealthiest of individuals.[16] For most men, however, divorce was probably not an option even if the legal means were in place.[17] More commonly, it seems, men who could afford it, opted for a second wife.

I will post another installment next Wednesday looking at the rejected childless wife.

---

[1] Male infertility is implied in some cases. For instance, the stories of Tamar and Ruth imply that their first husbands were unable to produce children since both women were left childless when their husbands died, but then went on to bear children to other men. The case of King Abimelech in Gen 20:16-17 suggests that he suffered infertility from his sin and required Abraham’s prayers to heal him. But the narrator notes that it was not just Abimelech who was suffering. His entire household was afflicted and we are told that God had “closed the wombs of the entire household”. Deuteronomy 7:14, on the other hand, promises relief from both male and female infertility. Even after giving consideration to these, we can still conclude that the focus of childlessness in the Bible is consistently on the woman, not the man.

[2] M. Stol, Birth in Babylonia and the Bible: Its Mediterranean setting (Groningen: Styx, 2000), 34.

[3] Added to these is the New Testament story of Elizabeth who gives birth to John the Baptist in her old age (Luke 1:5-66).

[4] Fabry, “rq(”, TDOT, ?:323

[5] Hennie J. Marsman, Women in Ugarit and Israel: Their Social and Religious Position in the Context of the Ancient Near East. (OtSt, 46; Leiden: Brill, 2003), 176.

[6] Marsman, Women in Ugarit and Israel, 208, 459. Kirtu’s third wife does in fact conceive, but dies in the midst of childbirth leaving him without a child. For a translation of the legend see: Johannes C. De Moor, An Anthology of Religious Texts from Ugarit. (Leiden, Brill, 1987)191-92.

[7] The situation reflected in the letter may not be typical since the first wife seems to be of a higher status and has accused the man of committing some unnamed crime. In any case, while the letter does allow for cases of male infertility, it also confirms that women were often assumed to be the defective one rather than men. Marsman, Women in Ugarit and Israel, 637-38; 707; 712.

[8] Marsman, Women in Ugarit and Israel, 126.

[9] Jonathan Paradise, “Marriage Contracts of Free Persons at Nuzi”, JCS 39 (1987): 8

[10] Paradise, “Marriage Contracts”, 11.

[11] John Van Seters, “The Problem of Childlessness in Near Eastern Law and the Patriarchs of Israel”, JBL 87 (1968): 407.

[12] Amelie Kuhrt, “Non-Royal Women in the Late Babylonian Period,” in Women's earliest records: From ancient Egypt and western Asia: Proceedings of the Conference on Women in the Ancient Near East, Brown University, Providence, Rhode Island, November 5-7, 1987 (ed. Barbara S. Lesko ; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1989), 225.

[13] S. N. Kramer, “The Woman in Ancient Sumer: Gleanings from Sumerian Literature,” in La Femme dans le Proche-Orient Asiatique (Paris: , 1987), 109.

[14] Marsman, Women in Ugarit and Israel, 176; P.W. Pestman, Marriage and Matrimonial Property in Ancient Egypt: A Contribution to Establishing the Legal Position of the Woman. (Leiden: Brill, 1961), 75-76.

[15] Raymond Westbrook, Old Babylonian Marriage Law (AfO.B, 23; Horn: Berger, 1988), 77-78.

[16] Naomi Steinberg, Kinship and Marriage in Genesis: A Household Economics Perspective (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1993), 15-16.

[17] Marsman, Women in Ugarit and Israel, 198.

Why Study the Historical Jesus?

This week my class on the Gospels is looking at the Quest for the Historical Jesus. So I was quite pleased to see that Mark Goodacre posted his latest installment of the NT Pod in which he addresses the question, Why Study the Historical Jesus?

Mark notes, helpfully, that what we are doing is looking at the historian's Jesus, that is, a Jesus constructed by historians using critical analysis.

Whatever you may think of such studies, Mark's overview provides a good explanation for why we do it. You can listen to his 11 minute podcast here.

Book winners!

Congratulations to Karen Jones winner of The Shadow of the Galilean and to Eddie Fearon winner of Goodacre's The Synoptic Problem. Please write your address in the comment box and I will send you the books. I will not publish your address.

To those who did not win this time, there will be more giveaways in the future.

Sexual Ethics in the First Century: the world of Paul and the early church

People talk a lot about sex and it is not unusual to use the Bible to either challenge or defend a stance on various issues that relate to sex. The problem, however, is when we assume that the world of the biblical authors is similar to our own. People sometimes assume that modern, conservative views about sex were present in antiquity to the same degree that they are today. This is particularly challenging when reading the Apostle Paul.

What most moderns do not realize is that in antiquity a married man was not considered to be immoral if he was having sex with his household slaves or even prostitutes. At the same time, there were those who thought that the purpose of sex was solely for the creation of heirs. Some held a combination of both views. It was acceptable for a married man to sleep with other women (and men) as long as he had a wife at home who was providing him with legitimate heirs.

It is in this world that the Apostle Paul and the early church attempted to carve out a place for a more nuanced sexual ethic. And, if we are going to understand Paul and try to apply his sexual ethics to the 21st century, we need to understand the world in which he lived.

Roy Ciampa and Brian Rosner are the co-authors of the recently released Pillar Commentary on 1 Corinthians. Paul has a few things to say about sex in that letter. The context of ancient Corinth, while not as lascivious as it is sometimes portrayed, was certainly different than today. In a set of short videos below, Rosner interviews Ciampa about sex in the first century and how Paul's comments would have been perceived.

First Century Sexual Ethics Part I from CPX on Vimeo.

First Century Sexual Ethics Part II from CPX on Vimeo.