David A. Burnett

Tom Laughlin has provided us with a thorough and helpful summation of the argument of his recent monograph on resurrection in the early church entitled, Resurrection as Salvation: Development and Conflict in Pre-Nicene Paulinism, over at the Ancient Jew Review. His book is an adaption of his doctoral dissertation at Duke University under J. Warren Smith. Tom seeks to move the traditional scholarly approach to resurrection in early Christianity from the focus on the relationship between resurrection and embodiment to the “why” and purpose of resurrection. If you are interested in resurrection in earliest Christianity, make sure and read his summary of his argument here. I look forward to making my way through this book and may review it after I get out from under the mountain of doctoral coursework this semester.

Jesus’ address to his disciples to “sell your cloak and buy a sword” from Luke 22:35-38 has long plagued biblical interpreters. Scholars have attempted to explain this passage in many ways. Some have suggested that Jesus was speaking figuratively, not speaking of buying literal swords, but alluding to the future persecution of the disciples. Some suggest Jesus was preparing them to take up swords to defend themselves after his departure, preparing them for bandits along the way. Along these lines, still others suggest Jesus was referring more generally to the time of trial to come after his resurrection. This passage has featured prominently in modern debates regarding Christian positions on guns and violence, some evangelical voices going as far to suggest that Jesus by implication encourages the right to brandish fire arms. In my latest appearance on the Naked Bible Podcast, I reframe this text in its wider narrative context addressing Luke’s use of scripture to come to quite the opposite conclusion. The content of this episode is based off of a paper I gave in the Synoptic Gospels program unit at the 2015 Annual Meeting of the Society of Biblical Literature in Atlanta (the paper is being prepared to send off for peer review this summer).

A careful reconsideration of this text is timely, and long overdue, and I hope you will benefit from it. Feel free to share (a handout accompanying the study is included on the website).

Naked Bible 205: The Sword and the Servant with David Burnett

Regarding the question of whether or not the earliest Jesus movement in Judea could or could not have been characterized, historically speaking, as a non-violent, pacifistic movement, there remain only a smattering of ancient Jewish sources contemporary with Jesus of Nazareth that could be favorably employed as comparative evidence toward this line of inquiry. Philo of Alexandria, the first century Jewish sage, philosopher, and exegete, perhaps known most famously in Christian circles as the great allegorizer of Israel’s scripture whose methods were taken up by the Alexandrian fathers of the church, has an important description of the ethics of the Essenes that may be pertinent to the question. In his treatise Every Good Man is Free, Philo of Alexandria articulates the Essenes’ non-violent way of life in the following way (contra some evidence in Josephus):

“As for darts, javelins, daggers, or the helmet, breastplate or shield, you could not find a single manufacturer of them, nor, in general, any person making weapons or engines or plying any industry concerned with war, nor, indeed, any of the peaceful kind, which easily lapse into vice, for they have not the vaguest idea of commerce either wholesale or retail or marine, but pack the inducements to covetousness off in disgrace. Not a single slave is to be found among them, but all are free, exchanging services with each other, and they denounce the owners of slaves, not merely for their injustice in outraging the law of equality, but also for their impiety in annulling the statute of Nature, who mother-like has born and reared all men alike, and created them genuine brothers, not in mere name, but in very reality, though this kinship has been put
to confusion by the triumph of malignant covetousness, which has wrought estrangement instead of affinity and enmity instead of friendship.”
– Philo of Alexandria, Every Good Man is Free 78-79

Interesting to note that in the synoptic gospels, the earliest actual narrative evidence we have of Jesus and the disciples (as well as in the gospel of John), of the three major Second Temple Jewish sects (Pharisees, Saducees, and Essenes- as described in detail in the Philo text above in its wider context), Jesus is never said to have rebuked or condemned the Essenes, but only the Pharisees and the Sadducees. Nothing can be asserted historically off of this observation alone, but it is nevertheless an interesting observation that Jesus of Nazareth does not seem to have any problems with this group. Also interesting and possibly germane to the present question in regards to socio-ethical comparison, is the assumed connections scholars have made between the Essenic community as described in our historical sources (e.g. Josephus, Philo, perhaps the Dead Sea Scrolls) with the earliest Jesus movement (e.g. communal baptism, shared communal goods, espousing non-violent ethics, defining communal meal, communal devotion to the their teacher’s teaching, etc). I find this an interesting historical observation, but perhaps more importantly this witness to an ancient Jewish way of life should cause us to reflect upon life in the midst of our current culture of violence.

The paper I will be presenting at this year’s annual meeting of the Society of Biblical Literature in Boston is a work in progress and began as many projects do, as a segue off of a previous research agenda into the early Jewish reception of the promise to Abraham in Genesis 15. A couple years ago I found what could be an unlikely connection between Rabbinic language regarding the powers Abraham encountered as he ascended to the heights of heaven to the language found in Paul’s narration of his heavenly ascent in 2 Corinthians 12 that was most likely part of a larger apocalyptic promissory trope also in Second Temple Jewish apocalyptic literature and beyond. Thus the paper was spawned (and is still spawning). I will be presenting the paper in the program unit entitled, ‘Second Corinthians: Pauline Theology in the Making.’ The theme for the program unit this year is 2 Corinthians 12. The title and abstract for my paper is as follows:

Ascent and Torment: The Apocalyptic Juxtaposition of an Abrahamic Victorious Ascent Trope in 2 Cor 12:1-10?

The much-discussed apocalyptic type scene of 2 Corinthians 12:1-10 features the enigmatic narration of Paul’s ascent to the third heaven, which includes an angel of Satan being sent to torment him. In the immediate context of the so-called “Fool’s Speech” (2 Cor 11:21b-12:10), there is a rhetorical move highlighting the apparent opponents appeal to their identity in ascending order as “Hebrews,” “Israelites,” “seed of Abraham,” and “servants of Christ,” all to which Paul climatically asserts he is “a better one.” This is an ironic proposal as a narration of an apocalyptic ascent to the third heaven is placed in the midst of a listing of weaknesses and the claim that an angel of Satan is sent to torment him. This paper will seek to draw out an implicit connection between Paul’s appeal to being the “seed of Abraham” and the ascent narrative by way of juxtaposition of early Jewish apocalyptic and rabbinic traditions concerning the ascent of Abraham which allude to the victorious usurpation of hostile heavenly forces (e.g. Apoc. Abr. 20:3-5; Genesis Rabbah 44:12) with an alternate ascent that results in torment from an angel of Satan. This would result in a Pauline apocalyptic re-appropriation of an existing victorious ascent tradition around the crucified Messiah, which serves as a kind of reorientation of the Corinthians’ ethics, perception of the Christ tradition, and the rehabilitation of the image of Paul as apostle of the crucified Lord.

Unfortunately our time slot fell on Tuesday morning, the last day of the conference, but I think our session is enticing enough for those who have stuck around and share an interest in Pauline apocalypticism. The presentation schedule is quite promising (see below) featuring actual scholars worth hearing if you aren’t interested in mine.

Make sure and add it to your schedule on the SBL/AAR app for your phone or make note of it in your program book. Looking forward to a great session in Boston!

My 10 Thoughts about Getting a PhD. (Maybe You Should Be Sitting Down.)

Per usual, I appreciate Pete’s candor. If you are thinking about pursuing a PhD in biblical studies or theology, you should read Pete’s list here carefully and consider it, there’s lots of wisdom here. I thought long and hard about going into doctoral studies. I considered most of these things on this list as I had heard them for years from other scholars in the field (as well as from Pete’s previous musings) and decided to jump in anyways. This was not a quick or easy decision and I had thought about it for years. I couldn’t imagine myself doing anything else, so I thought here we go. I’m convinced you really have to have one of those “where else would I go” existential moments (or 100 of them).

This kind of talk sometimes exacerbates the already far-too-real imposter syndrome that apparently is common in graduate students and manifests itself in all kinds of ways. This crippling and sometimes paralyzing phenomena could hold you back from pursuing that which you could not imagine doing anything else other than, so sometimes you have to push through. There is a fine line between whether you are actually feeling imposter syndrome common to this line of work or you just legitimately aren’t cut out for it. I probably walk that line like a tight rope (ok so not probably, but undeniably). That being said, take my word for it, as well as many others far more experienced and who are veterans in the field, read Pete’s post considerately and think through these things carefully before you spend lots of time and money on applications, essays, in-person meetings either at conferences or school visits (which you most certainly must do). Cheers.

Andrei Orlov, my doctoral advisor in the Department of Theology at Marquette University, has produced two new titles of note for anyone interested in early Jewish apocalypticism and mysticism. Orlov’s exploration and analysis of esoteric traditions reflected in the Jewish pseudepigrapha is always creative, insightful, and opens up new windows of investigation into not only the apocalyptic Jewish roots of early Christian mysticism, but the development of Jewish mysticism in its own right. These two most recent studies are representative of both of these trajectories and will be enjoyed by all who study early Judaism and Christianity and share interests regarding traditions of heavenly figures and divine mediators. Check out their description below and be sure to click on the book covers for links to the publishers websites.

Andrei A. Orlov, The Greatest Mirror: Heavenly Counterparts in the Jewish Pseudepigrapha (Albany: SUNY Press, 2017) ISBN 978-1-4384-6691-0.

The idea of a heavenly double—an angelic twin of an earthbound human—can be found in Christian, Manichaean, Islamic, and Kabbalistic traditions. Scholars have long traced the lineage of these ideas to Greco-Roman and Iranian sources. In The Greatest Mirror, Andrei A. Orlov shows that heavenly twin imagery drew in large part from early Jewish writings. The Jewish pseudepigrapha—books from the Second Temple period that were attributed to biblical figures but excluded from the Hebrew Bible—contain accounts of heavenly twins in the form of spirits, images, faces, children, mirrors, and angels of the Presence. Orlov provides a comprehensive analysis of these traditions in their full historical and interpretive complexity. He focuses on heavenly alter egos of Enoch, Moses, Jacob, Joseph, and Aseneth in often neglected books, including Animal Apocalypse, Book of the Watchers, 2 Enoch, Ladder of Jacob, and Joseph and Aseneth, some of which are preserved solely in the Slavonic language.

and…

Andrei A. Orlov, Yahoel and Metatron: Aural Apocalypticism and the Origins of Early Jewish Mysticism (TSAJ, 169; Tuebingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2017) ISBN 978-3-16-155448-3

In this work, Andrei A. Orlov examines Jewish apocalyptic traditions about the angel Yahoel, tracing their conceptual impact on the development of later rabbinic and Hekhalot beliefs concerning the supreme angel Metatron. The author argues that the figure Yahoel, who became associated in Jewish apocalypticism with the distinctive aural ideology of the divine Name, provides an important conceptual key not only for elucidating the evolution of the Metatron tradition, but also for understanding the origins of the distinctive aural ideology prominent in early Jewish mystical accounts. Andrei A. Orlov suggests that the aural mold of Jewish apocalypticism exercised a decisive and formative influence on the development of early Jewish mysticism.

Tolle lege!

The debate in evangelical circles regarding the role of women in the church still lingers with much digital characters typed as a result (the ‘much ink spilled’ idiom is losing its relevance nowadays) across the complementarian/egalatarian spectrum. When asking the question of what is or isn’t prescriptive in scripture regarding this issue, as women are workers, mothers, daughters and wives, and they spend a lot of time with their husbands even in intimacy and is when toys like an awesome G-spot vibrator can be great for them. The conversation frequently refers back to the ‘original intended roles established in creation.‘ Though much could, and should, be said about issues surrounding the unsophisticated bibliologies that are normally at work within these often false polarities, there is little time to address that here. Instead, even when one assumes this popular evangelical premise for the sake of argument here, the text reacts against these “intended roles” conversations when carefully considered. Much of the arguments that follow in those conversations are based on the interpretation of Genesis 1 and 2’s accounts of the creation of Adam and Eve. Gen 1:1-2:3’s version of the creation, particularly of mankind, male and female, are clearly portrayed as equal co-heirs of the creation, given the charge to both be fruitful and multiply and take dominion over the earth as kings and queens over the newly ordered cosmos. Then it was said that the order was “very good” where the previous days of ordering the creation were merely “good.” The use of “כִּי־טֽוֹב”or “that it was good” does not refer merely to “good” in the general sense, but that order has been established and life may go forth and the rule of God be manifest. This co-heirship is very important in the opening section of Gen 1:1-2:3, because it functions as the setting for the ensuing narrative of Genesis with its ten “תוֹלְד֧וֹת” or “generations” (that is, in its final received canonical form within the wider context of the Torah).

WHAT DID IT ACTUALLY MEAN FOR WOMAN TO BE CALLED “HELPER” (עֵ֖זֶר) OF MAN?

The first of these addresses the creation of man and woman. This is the narrative that is most misunderstood because the previous context isn’t considered in framing the story due to source critical issues, causing the Hebrew idioms to get lost in translation. One of the most important of these, for example, is what it means for the female to be called “עֵזֶר” or “helper.” In 2:18, YHWH speaks as in Gen 1:1-2:3 (his speech or word is what brings order to the cosmos out of the chaos thereby establishing his rule which brings about life and flourishing) saying, “it is not good (לּ֥וֹ עֵ֖זֶר) that man should be alone…” This is very important as to how the setting of the Genesis narrative (1:1-2:3) has established the use of “עֵ֖זֶר” or “good.” He is saying with man by himself the order of the world and the accomplishment of the dominion commanded of him cannot take place. This denotes a state of remaining chaos, a state of desperation that demands a saving work, a “עֵזֶר” or “helper.” This is when YHWH then states, “I will make a helper fit for him.”

To understand what this term means in its context, we must look at similar uses elsewhere. YHWH himself is referred to as Israel’s “עֵזֶר” or “helper” on many important occassions; it is these occasions we see the normative use of this term so that we can rightly understand the role of the women in Gen 2. In Exod 18:4 one of the two sons of Moses and Zipporah is named Eliezer “for he said, ‘the God of my father was my helper (בְּעֶזְרִ֔י), and delivered me from the sword of Pharoah.'” What is means for YHWH himself to be the “helper” of Israel was to act as the “deliver” and “preserver” in dire circumstance; as Israel was enslaved under the sword of Pharoah, YHWH’s actions as “helper” is what amounted to their “deliverer.” YHWH the God of Israel is also called “helper” to Israel again in Deut 33:7 in the important context of the last blessing of Moses before his death in a similar fashion as before: “… with your (YHWH) hands contend for him, and be a helper (וְעֵ֥זֶר) against his adversaries.” Here the title actually functions as Israel’s “defender” or “protector,” the one who again actually delivers from calamity. In a similar context in Hosea 13:9, after a brief recounting of the deliverance of Israel in the Exodus and the peoples rebellion, YHWH speaks on what it was like to turn from him: “He destroys you, O Israel, you are against me, against your helper (בְעֶזְרֶֽךָ).” In the same context, even the following verse in 13:10, it is likened to the loss of their kingship since it was contingent upon their reliance on YHWH as “helper”: “Where now is your king, to save you in all your cities? Where are all your rulers…” The point here is clear: to reject YHWH the “helper” was to lose the one who “saves” or “preserves” them as well as their kingly function and regal status.

Another important reference to the use of “helper” to describe YHWH himself and his relationship to his people is found in Ps 70:6, “But I am poor and needy; hasten to me, O God! You are my helper (עֶזְרִ֣י) and deliver; O YHWH do not delay!” Here it is clear that to be “helper” means to actual deliver someone from a “poor” and “needy” state, a function or role more adequately described as “deliverer” or “preserver,” acting as one who delivers from chaos or death (see also these important texts Ps 121:1-2; 124:8; 146:5). It is clear that in the rest of the Hebrew Bible (OT) that “עֵזֶר” or “helper” was predominately used as a title given to describe YHWH himself and his relationship to Israel. In no way shape or form did this mean he was subservient to Israel in any way, but rather to function as Israel’s “preserver,” “deliverer,” or “protector.” Not only was Israel completely dependent on him for deliverance, but had no regal or kingly authority in the world without YHWH functioning in the role of “helper.” It is precisely for this reason the author of Genesis uses this term to describe the function of the woman in Gen 2:18. Paired with the “not good” statement (implying pre-ordered chaos and the inability to establish mankind’s dominion in the world) YHWH regally declares that he must have a “helper”: a “deliver” or “sustainer” or “preserver” without whom there could be no regal authority and order-bringing-dominion of mankind over Gods world.