This morning, minding my own business, I was surfin' the internet. On abcnews.com, I saw an interesting story: Story of Jesus Through Iranian Eyes. Here's the lede:

A new movie in Iran depicts the life of Jesus from an Islamic perspective. "The Messiah," which some consider as Iran's answer to Mel Gibson's "Passion of the Christ," won an award at Rome's Religion Today Film Festival, for generating interfaith dialogue.

The article is an interview with the filmmaker. In the interview, the filmmaker mentions the Gospel of Barnabas several times as source material, as containing information that is confirmed in the Koran. Here's a quote from the filmmaker about the ending of the movie:

I thought, the Christians, when they see it, it'll be important for them. [In the Koran] God says, emphatically, he was not crucified. Somebody was crucified in his stead. In the Gospel of Barnabas, there are explications of this. The majority of [Muslims] say the one who betrayed Jesus [was crucified]. (abcnews.com)

I knew of the Gospel of Barnabas but have not read it, so I headed to Schneemelcher's NT Apocrypha. I've read the first volume, but Barnabas didn't ring a bell. And I couldn't find it in the table of contents. After searching the index in vol 2, I found this on vol 1 p. 85:

The Gospel of Barnabas, handed down in Italian and Spanish. It was already known in the 18th century (Tolland), but has received more detailed attention only in recent times. This gospel is a work of the 16th century, and evidently belongs in the area of the history of the Moriscoes. It is very doubtful that older material (of Jewish Christian origin) is included in it.
...
These two texts [the other text is the Arabic Gospel of John] are examples of the production of works which are indeed escribed as gospels and which are also interesting sources for the period of their origin, but do not belong in a collection of early Church apocrypha. (Schneemelcher, trans. R.Mcl.Wilson, vol 1 p. 85)

This is very interesting, because the filmmaker relied on the Gospel of Barnabas heavily. What the filmmaker says almost has an Ehrmanian vibe to it (but I won't go there ... ):

If you listen to what Jesus said, Jesus talked about the Prophet Mohammad, many, many times. And it was eliminated in the Gospels and the Bibles that [made it through] history. In 325, the Council of Nice was out to destroy all the other Gospels. One of those Gospels was the Gospel of Barnabas, which I used in great detail. (abcnews.com)

This charge (that Nicea eliminated a Gospel of Barnabas from the canon) is dealt with nicely in an article, from Vox Evangelica, by F.P. Cotterell, on the contents of the Gospel of Barnabas (with thanks to Rob Bradshaw for putting this stuff online so it's available at times like these).

What I do next will most likely turn Jim West's insides green. I'm linking to the Wikipedia article on the Gospel of Barnabas because it's actually good. If you want to be familiar with the issues, you should at least skim it -- particularly if you're a pastor and want to be prepared for when this question comes up. (Hey, it's getting close to easter, all of the whacko stories will be in the news shortly). If you're only going to read one of those links, read Cotterell's article. It's worth it, particularly if you think folks will ask you questions about this sort of thing over the next week.

Bottom line: It appears as if the filmmaker got it backwards. Read the F.P. Cotterell article for the details.

Ok, so in all likelihood Clement didn't have anything to do with Second Clement. But I needed a headline to get your attention.

Here's another dose of the preacher delivering the homily we know as Second Clement. This is from chapter 13:

For when the pagans hear from our mouths the oracles of God, they marvel at their beauty and greatness. But when they discover that our actions are not worthy of the words we speak, they turn from they turn from wonder to blasphemy, saying that it is a myth and a delusion. For when they hear form us that God says, "It is no credit to you if you love those who love you, but it is a credit to you if you love your enemies and those who hate you," when they hear these things, the marvel at such extraordinary goodness. But when they see that we not only do not love those who hate us but do not even love those who love us, they scornfully laugh at us, and the Name is blasphemed. (2Cl 13.3-4, Holmes' 3rd edition)

As I've mentioned a few times before, I'm (slowly) reading through Paul Trebilco's book, The Early Christians in Ephesus from Paul to Ignatius (amazon.com).

I'd recommend just about anyone read the book. But that doesn't mean that I agree completely with what's going on in the book. Trebilco frequently has to read between the lines in order to recreate what's going on in Ephesus. He uses three different sources — the Pastoral Epistles, the Johannine Epistles, and the letter to the Ephesians in Revelation. He uses each of these as lenses to recreate Ephesus.

In so doing, he has to rely upon his reconstructions of the origin of these books, and that's where my primary beef is. Trebilco puts the Pastorals in 80-100 CE; with a follower of Paul who "clearly saw himself as standing in the Pauline tradition" (202). But Trebilco does see Ephesus as the letter's destination despite, according to his view, none of the named entities (Paul and Timothy) have anything whatever to do with the letter.

In later chapters (specifically chapter 8 section 2, pp 354-384) Trebilco posits that vocabulary unique to the Pastorals can be explained by "acculturation":

It also seems clear that the author presupposes that the language and concepts that he uses are familiar to his readers. For example, the Pastor does not explain the epiphany Christology that we will shortly discuss; rather he assumes that his readers are familiar with it and with the conceptual background that it presupposes. Similarly, concepts like ευσεβεια and σωφρων, which we will discuss, are not explained but are simply utilised. It seems clear then that the author presupposes that his readers are familiar with this language. It is therefore good evidence for the significant level of acculturation of the readers. (354, emphasis added)

Trebilco's poster child for this view is the Greek word επιφανεια, where he argues that the use of επιφανεια in First and Second Timothy more closely matches that of επιφανεια in the context of Greco-Roman religion; and that there is no real Jewish usage of the term (cf. 355).

My problem with reading all of this is that while Trebilco is consistent with his assumptions on authorship and audience, there are other ways to explain this that are more internally consistent with the content of First and Second Timothy.

First, if Paul really was the author of First Timothy, and if Timothy really was the recipient, then there is no need to come up with an explanation of "acculturation" for new concepts or things seemingly unexplained (like επιφανεια). Timothy would of course be familiar with that language; he was Paul's co-worker, likely for a span of over 10 years.

Second, Timothy's mother was Jewish, but his father was Greek. Isn't it possible that Timothy would've known how επιφανεια was used among pagan religion; and isn't it possible that Paul, widely traveled among Gentilies, would be familiar with it too? And why couldn't they have used this language in their dealings with the Ephesian church? After all, Ephesus had all sorts of pagan religion going on; doesn't it make sense — and even fit the Pauline mold of being a Jew to Jews, and a Gentile to Gentiles?

Third, we have examples of Paul using relatively non-Jewish concepts as metaphors for aspects of Christianity. One that comes immediately to mind is that of manumission; of slaves buying their freedom from their masters, via the temple, and then being owned by the god of the temple (cf. Deissmann, Light from the Ancient East, 324-334, specifically p. 326). This is at least alluded to in 1Co 6.20; 7.23; Gal 5.1, 13. Why couldn't Paul use επιφανεια for Christian purposes too?

If the letter is from Paul to Timothy, then we have no need to come up with an explanation of how the church at Ephesus could possibly understand these references which seem to require some degree of acculturation.

Now, with all of that said, even though I bristle when I read some portions of Trebilco's book (like the portion on authorship/date/background of the Pastorals, and also this portion on acculturation) there really is good stuff in the book. If you're studying Paul and his letters at all; and particularly if your study has to do with Ephesus, then you can't ignore Trebilco. So break down and get the Eerdman's printing (amazon.com); it is actually in the realm of affordability.

If you study the corpus of letters attributed to Paul, then you need to read Nijay K. Gupta's recent post, How we analyze ancient texts - are we letting the cart pull the horse?

Nijay is looking specifically at 2Co 6.14-7.1; but his comments apply to various portions of the Pauline corpus. Of course, I see immediate application in the Pastoral Epistles, going back at least to P.N. Harrison's 1921 volume The Problem of the Pastoral Epistles. Nijay goes on to suggest a three-pronged approach when dealing with texts that seem difficult in their current context:

(1) Analyze the text as is and try to come up with a rhetorical scenario that can account for the flow of the text

(2) If this seems impossible (as in the transition to chapter 10 of 2 COrinthians), consider historical scenarios that can account for this without assuming redaction: So, Paul may have heard some distressing news between finishing chapter 9 and beginning chapter 10).

(3) Consider, but only tentatively, other options that involve later and non-Pauline redaction.

You really should read Nijay's entire post. I heartily agree with Nijay's suggestion that the text as received be analyzed first.

Here it is, Ignatius to the Magnesians 11:

11.1 Ταῦτα δέ, ἀγαπητοί μου, οὐκ ἐπεὶ ἔγνων τινὰς ἐξ ὑμῶν οὕτως ἔχοντας, ἀλλʼ ὡς μικρότερος ὑμῶν θέλω προφυλάσσεσθαι ὑμᾶς μὴ ἐμπεσεῖν εἰς τὰ ἄγκιστρα τῆς κενοδοξίας, ἀλλὰ πεπληροφορῆσθαι71 ἐν τῇ γεννήσει καὶ τῷ πάθει καὶ τῇ ἀναστάσει τῇ γενομένῃ ἐν καιρῷ τῆς ἡγεμονίας Ποντίου Πιλάτου· πραχθέντα ἀληθῶς καὶ βεβαίως ὑπὸ Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ, τῆς ἐλπίδος ἡμῶν, ἧς ἐκτραπῆναι μηδενὶ ὑμῶν γένοιτο. (IgnMag 11)

Holmes, M. W. (1999). The Apostolic Fathers : Greek texts and English translations (Updated ed.) (156). Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Books.

Here's Ehrman's translation:

I am not writing you these things, my beloved, because I have learned that some of you are behaving like this. But as one who is less important than you I want to protect you from being snagged by the fish hooks of worthless ideas. You should be fully convinced of the birth and suffering and resurrection that occurred in the time of the governor Pontius Pilate. These things were truly and certainly done by Jesus Christ, our hope. From this hope may none of you turn away. (IgnMag 11)

Here Ignatius is responding to a danger that the Magnesians may fall prey to: that of Judaizing and perhaps even elevating Judaism above Christianity. Ignatius reminds them to focus on Christ: "You should be fully convinced ..."

The other picture in here that draws my attention is that of the "fish hooks of worthless ideas". Others (Holmes, Lake, Lightfoot) translate this as "hooks", but "fish hooks" seems more appropriate (cf. BDAG). Have you ever been fishing and snagged the fish instead of hooking it in the mouth? I have. Ignatius is saying, "don't let the false ideas draw you in—don't be caught up in them." On the metaphor, Schoedel includes a helpful footnote in his commentary on Ignatius' letters (helpfully copied/pasted from the Logos version!):

For the metaphorical use of the word “hooks” (fishhooks) see Diogenes Laertius 4.47; Plutarch De virt. moral. 6, 446a; Aristaenetus Ep. 1.17; cf. Lucian Pisc. 47. From the same circle of metaphors comes the word “lure” used in Jas 1:14 (cf. Plutarch De ser. num. vind. 10, 554f). For the full development of the imagery in connection with heresy see Theodoret Hist. eccl. 5.13.6.

Schoedel, W. R., Ignatius, S., Bishop of Antioch, & Koester, H. (1985). Ignatius of Antioch : A commentary on the Letters of Ignatius of Antioch. Includes indexes. (129) Hermeneia—a critical and historical commentary on the Bible. Philadelphia: Fortress Press.

One of the advantages of working at Logos and sitting next to very smart, very cool people like my friend Steve is that I get to soak up his knowledge as he works on cool projects.

One thing Steve has imparted to me is the importance of conjunctions and particles at the discourse level.

With this in mind, there I was in church on Sunday. We've been going through the gospel of Mark for maybe two years now, getting close to the end. Sunday's lesson was on Mark 16.1-8. Mark 16.5-7 jumped out at me:

5 Καὶ εἰσελθοῦσαι εἰς τὸ μνημεῖον εἶδον νεανίσκον καθήμενον ἐν τοῖς δεξιοῖς περιβεβλημένον στολὴν λευκήν, καὶ ἐξεθαμβήθησαν.

6 ὁ δὲ λέγει αὐταῖς·
     μὴ ἐκθαμβεῖσθε·
               Ἰησοῦν
          ζητεῖτε
               τὸν Ναζαρηνὸν
               τὸν ἐσταυρωμένον·
          ἠγέρθη,
               οὐκ ἔστιν ὧδε·
               ἴδε ὁ τόπος ὅπου ἔθηκαν αὐτόν.
     7 ἀλλὰ ὑπάγετε
          εἴπατε τοῖς μαθηταῖς αὐτοῦ καὶ τῷ Πέτρῳ
               ὅτι προάγει ὑμᾶς
                    εἰς τὴν Γαλιλαίαν·
               ἐκεῖ αὐτὸν ὄψεσθε,
                    καθὼς εἶπεν ὑμῖν.

A few things to notice.

First, the bold text shows some lexical cohesion between the two units. Mark is the only NT author that uses this particular word (cf. Mk 9.15; Mk 14.33). This connects the surprise the ladies had upon entering the tomb with the instructions from the angel to the women.

Second, note vv 6-7 as the quotative frame with the angel speaking. Note the use of μη .. αλλα (in red). One thing Steve has impressed upon me in the past few months is that when one sees an αλλα, one should always look up the context to see if there is a μη. And it happens here. Consider an English translation:

And he said to them:
     Don't be overwhelmed;
          the one you seek—
               Jesus,
               the Nazarene,
               the crucified one—
          he is risen
               he is not here—
               look at the place where they laid him!
     Instead, go
          tell his disciples and Peter
               that he is going before you
                    into Galilee
               just as he told you.

Do you see the contrast? Instead of being overwhelmed/freaked out; the women are instructed to calm down, to go find the disciples (including Peter!) and remind them of what Jesus had already instructed them.

Third, note how Jesus is specified in the text. There is no question as to whom the angel is referring to. Jesus is further qualified as "the Nazarene", and then further qualified as "the crucified one". Then the women are pointed to where they expected him to be, and noting that he is not there. Jesus, who was crucified and dead, whom they expected to be in the tomb, was not where he was supposed to be.

I think the text is focusing on Jesus not being in the tomb, and then further on directing the women to get the message (he is risen!) to the disciples so they can get to Galilee, back to Jesus.

Kevin P. Edgecomb (whose blog biblicalia should be more widely read than it is) is the host and proprietor of BSC:XXVI. Step right up and check out the fantabulous job he did in assembling this month's montage of Biblical Studies monotony ... er ... uh ... well, I need something to alliterate with the 'm' vibe there ... read on and you will surely see that the Biblical Studies blogosphere is definitely not monotonous.