I did not mean to make you feel that way in the least. It was more a stream of thought than a upset attack. My apologies for making you feel that way. I am behind on homework, so I cannot deal with all your questions. I’ll try to address the two questions, explaining what I mean by “sometimes it’s not theology” and “not using it directly.”

Firstly, when I say “If our sacred scripture is where history meets theology, then we need to realize and actualize through our teaching and scholarship that sometimes it ain’t history and sometimes it ain’t theology,” I mean in the last clause that some stuff contained in our texts is not theology. There is Paul giving his opinion on cultural matters, there is straight history, there are genealogical lists. These things are not straight theology (although they feed into and can be used by theological sections). This really was a minor point and I don’t mean anything substantial by it. The main point here is that sometimes it isn’t history (by our standards).

Secondly, I was talking about how Paul is cannot be directly speaking about homosexuality as we conceive of it because it did not exist as such back then. Sure, the physical relationship looks similar on the outside (and I think you can construct a case that is similar to Paul’s for our conceptions of sexual relationships), but it is not the same thing as what Paul is directly arguing against.

Look at it another way. No where in the Bible does anyone argue against unrestrained capitalism. However, we do see plenty of passages in the old and new testament that argue against principles found in unrestrained capitalism. Same thing is going on here.

I don’t know, but the tone of response comes across a little overbearing. I feel about three inches tall having read this comment several times today. I guess you really don’t like what I had to say or something. However, I love the passion so I’ll deal.

Onto the response. First your last paragraph. I remain unconvinced by ‘ham’s post about homosexuality. The kind of relationship that is being looked at in Romans 1 doesn’t seem to have anything to do with social class in light of the fact that Paul is showing how depraved humanity has come since creation when it was man (Adam) having the sexual relationship with woman (Eve). A condemnation of Greco-Roman society for that seems to fit a Jewish world-view given how Genesis records the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah and also the final story in the account of the Judges. But the post was a stimulating post, just doesn’t convince me.

Second, my point about Acts is that its history is reliable, especially in ancient eyes. Eyewitness testimony, preferably if the author of the work is the eyewitness, is how ancient histories were done. My point was that “Luke,” as in his gospel narrative, redacted together eyewitness testimony of the early Christian movement from Jerusalem to Rome. “Luke” is writing in the same manner as other historians of his day (same with Matthew, Mark, and John). Am I prepared to accept Acts as eyewitness testimony, yes. Am I prepared to carefully scrutinize Acts and the history there in, yes. I am unaware of where “Luke” is filling in or modifying but I’m sure you can point me to where this is supposed to be taking place for my further study.

So I agree and whole-heartedly proclaim with all who say that we must realize the intended use of the biblical texts, indeed all texts. I just am not aware of any other Lukan purpose for Acts other than, like the Gospel according to Luke, than to record the spread of the church from Jerusalem to Rome, continuing on the story of the Jesus movement after his resurrection (any other purpose is inferred and explicitly stated–and I do believe that there are inferred purposes).

Also, can you clarify for me, at least, what you meant by “sometimes it ain’t theology” and also “What it does mean is that he is not using it directly.” The last one the wording is very tricky for me to follow.

I would agree that Acts is not a “modern” history, neither are the Gospels, nor any “ancient” history written by Tacitus or Seutonius or Josephus. This does not exclude them from being historical works.

You ready to treat Acts as we treat Josephus and other “historical” works of that time? You ready to say that anything that is not doubly and independently attested and goes against probability and physical evidence was most likely an invention of the author? You ready to look at Acts and look at Paul’s letters and not stretch and play the circumstance card each time there is a discrepancy to force a harmony? That is how we deal with all other “histories” of the time. If our sacred scripture is where history meets theology, then we need to realize and actualize through our teaching and scholarship that sometimes it ain’t history and sometimes it ain’t theology.

That is the thing we gotta do as Christian scholars. We need to realize how these texts were intended to function in their original settings compared to what we wanna do with these texts. Use poetry as poetry, use ancient history as ancient histories, etc. When is Luke recording events and when is he modifying things or plain filling in gaps to further the effect he wants to have on his audience (like Josephus did all the time)? We gotta know that is how these things are written and be able to sort them out by degrees of possibility (given the lack of a time machine, which I am rumored to be minoring in)

With that said, it seems very reasonable and probable that Paul was as well versed in Hebrew as Acts says he was. If we go off of occasional letters written to Roman congregations, why are we not surprised that there are no references to Paul using Hebrew? The selection of our sources stack the deck naturally against such a occurrence. Given what else we think Paul was and did, it is reasonable to think he most likely knew at least Hebrew and prob Aramaic.

But, I think that we have to understand that there no such thing as homosexuality in the culture to which Paul was writing. That does not mean God gives his blessing to this relationship structure, nor that you cannot use what Paul is writing here to build a theory of relationship ethics that exclude homosexuality. What it does mean is that he is not using it directly.

I would agree that Acts is not a “modern” history, neither are the Gospels, nor any “ancient” history written by Tacitus or Seutonius or Josephus. This does not exclude them from being historical works. I am reading a book arguing that the Gospels are historiagraphical works, rooted in eyewitness testimony, written during the lifetimes of the eyewitnesses so that the claims of the documents could be verified. On of the primary arguments is that historical credibility is best established upon eyewitness testimony, even better is if the author of the work was actually there first-hand (e.g. Josephus and the Roman-Jewish War of 66-73 CE). Without getting into the name of the author, it is clear that Luke and Acts were written by the same person (see the prologue of Acts 1). The methodology that “Luke” used I assume he carried over into Acts, grounding what he claimed in eyewitness testimony. It could be very easily argued that Acts ends with Paul alive because “Luke” wanted his readers to go to Rome and talk to Paul himself (but that is just speculation). But whoever “Luke” is, the “we” passages gives the author great credibility with his audience as it shows that this “Luke” was there to report on these events. Thus “Luke” would know whether Paul could or couldn’t speak/read Hebrew and/or Aramaic. It seems to me that people say that the books of the Bible are too theologically motivated to report accurate history. But from what I have read, we cannot count many “historical” works, including modern works, because of such motivations. Try reading Tacitus’ take on Nero, not very objective but is still taken as reliable history by historians. Consider how many biographies of George Washington have been written to show what kind of faith the man had to justify what role, if any, Christianity has in the public square. I think the NT is very reliable history and that history greatly shapes our theology. “The NT is where history and theology meet,” Dr. Richard Bauckham would say.

You cannot have it both ways. Either this will be the pattern then AND today or there is a different paradigm at play in these scriptures. I think I must agree with those commenters that are bringing out what God thought rather than what the Roman/Greek societal patterns were, although this post has to be one of the most interesting ones I’ve read lately. Thanks for posting it.

The modern historicity of Acts is up in the air for me. However, it is not primarily written as a modern history. That is something we need to keep in mind, especially when we go to talk about inerrancy. We need to look at how texts of a similar genre acted and claimed for themselves. Then, if we take that text and consider it inspired, then we can only claim for the text what texts in that genre claim, not what we claim through the writings of our time. (I think I am going to copy this comment up on your post, hank). With that said, we need to look hard at what “Acts of X” accounts claimed and how they functioned in antiquity.

With that said, there are definite Roman and Jewish elements in Paul. Both sides can’t be ignored. While we can’t be certain (what can we be certain of when studying a person 200 years ago who resided on the other side of the world) what Paul’s original intent was, it certainly is profitable to try and find out. Otherwise, lets pack our bags and go home.

“First, Paul was a Jew. But, he was a thoroughly “Hellenized” Jew. He spoke and wrote in Greek, he ministered specifically (and exclusively it seems) to Gentiles, and he appears to have had no knowledge of Aramaic/Hebrew (as far as historians can tell).”

Are you saying that the history found in Acts is unreliable? In Acts 21:40 and 22:2 Luke references Paul as speaking in the “Hebrew language” (ESV). Is this discounted and on what basis? Also, Paul, accepting Acts as historical, was not “exclusively” an apostle to the Gentiles for it was Peter who was the first apostle to preach to the Gentiles and Paul frequently went into Jewish synagogues–usually before he discoursed with Greeks–and tried to persuade the Jews to believe upon Jesus as their Messiah who was raised from the grave. I know of no other way to understand why Paul aches so much over the lostness of his Jewish kinsmen in Romans 9:1-5. I would also say that one cannot let the Hellenization of Paul go too far as his Pharisaical training and theology must play a large role in his thinking.

I like what you are trying to do in the post but I personally still see this text (Romans 1:26-27) as Paul using homosexuality as an illustration of man’s depravity (much like the Prophets of the OT would use the Sabbath as an illustration of Israel and Judah violating the whole law covenant, not just one command). I am not sure how this post fits in the overall thought of Paul in Romans 1:18-3:20. I think this would help illustrate (to me at least) what all this information is trying to accomplish in interpreting Paul in Romans.

“I’m sorry, but I must take issue with this. How have you not done this yourself? You’ve claimed that ‘the truths of Scripture are transcendent from cultural contexts’ and are simply rolling with it. Shouldn’t you test that hypothesis? What backing does this stance possess? You’ve made a presumption, and I don’t think you’ve adequately tested that presumption…nor do I think the bulk of historical/literary research supports your assumption.”

It would be impossible to test whether the truths of Scripture are transcendent truths or not. To try to do so would be a fool’s errand. And you are right, this is a presumption I have. But what is wrong with that? Everyone here has presumptions concerning cultural, reason, faith, logic, and the principle of sufficient reason. Does that make are presumptions not true? Of course not. Does that make our presumptions unwarranted in believing? In the same way: of course not. So, I do not ever claim to know that the truths of Scripture are transcendent by inductive logic. I think this belief is properly basic, and is in no need of testing through variables and controls in order to prove its truth.

First, Paul was a Jew. But, he was a thoroughly “Hellenized” Jew. He spoke and wrote in Greek, he ministered specifically (and exclusively it seems) to Gentiles, and he appears to have had no knowledge of Aramaic/Hebrew (as far as historians can tell). His reading/writing ability in Greek would have demanded that he be trained…and to do so would require interaction with the larger Greco-Roman literary world around him. As many scholars have shown (Stanley Stowers of Brown is a great example), Paul’s literary styling and rhetorical constructions are very much reflective of the popular Greco-Roman conventions of his day. Thus, his vocabulary and ideology would certainly be tied into the intellectual world at large.

Further, Paul was writing/ministering to Gentiles (He is the self-described apostle to the Gentiles afterall)…to people in Rome itself with the letter in question. So, regardless of what Paul “intended” in his word choices (which is not something I’m certain we can ever nail down difinitively)…they seem to have held very specific meanings and connotations in the world into which Paul was sending his letters. These understandings are powered by the logic which I outlined above.

Travis, you wrote:

“we must be careful not to forget that the truths of Scripture are transcendent from cultural contexts, and that it is easy to use inductive slight-of-hand by claiming that if something is probably the case, then something is actually the case.”

I’m sorry, but I must take issue with this. How have you not done this yourself? You’ve claimed that “the truths of Scripture are transcendent from cultural contexts” and are simply rolling with it. Shouldn’t you test that hypothesis? What backing does this stance possess? You’ve made a presumption, and I don’t think you’ve adequately tested that presumption…nor do I think the bulk of historical/literary research supports your assumption. This is the entire motivation for my intial post…to explore how scripture is not merely reflective of the mind of God, but also of the cultural context from which it came.

Christianity does not exist outside of culture. Christianity in the first century doesn’t make sense without Roman Imperialism, nor does it exist without the “Jews” as the consumate “other,” nor without the overwhelmingly popular astrology of the day. The theological formations of the NT happened in a specific historical time and place, and that historical time and place played a tremendous role from which the “truths” of scripture simply cannot always be plucked. Just as the movements (and their respective texts) coming out of the Burned Over District don’t make proper sense without their 19th century New England context, and The Purpose Driven Life doesn’t make proper sense without a late-20th century American context…so many aspects of the NT don’t make sense outside of their appropriate context. Not to say that they don’t take on new and (il)legitimate meaning(s), but there is still something to be said for looking at the original context of a piece of literature.

And lastly…when did I (or anyone here) say that because the cultural logic of an ethical/theological formation from the NT is different from ours it must be discarded? I’m merely begging the question of what to do when faced with the reality of difference. I would never outright discard anyone’s point of view…especially not those of our ealiest forbearers of the Christian faith. However, they are not above reproach (and this includes Paul), and we must recognize the differences and gulfs between us. We must honestly and critically engage these texts to see where our logics and worldviews differ/collide. Then, just as we do today, we must find ways to understand and reconcile differences. If we disagree, do we simply shut eachother out and discard what the other is saying? I would hope not. The same goes for scripture in my opinion. We should honestly and critically assess the arguments Paul is making, and see if we are convinced…see if it fits with our communal and personal understandings of the divine. Lots of people disagreed with Paul during his day (and parts of our own NT disagree with him as well on several issues: Matthew, James, Revelation among them)…so it’s not like it’s unfounded to do so.

I’ll be back to continue this discussion soon. Thanks so much for contributing guys, I’ve enjoyed reading this.