Dealing with ‘parallelomania’ while trying not to contribute to it

Even though I work primarily in the field of New Testament studies, I have an almost uncontrollable tendency to venture outside my boundaries and into other lands.  More times than not, these journeys include the exotic plains of Ancient Near Eastern wisdom, the bustling city streets of Graeco-Roman philosophy, and even the unsettling wilderness of Old Testament theology.*  In many respects, I think this propensity for wandering is healthy in academic studies simply because it is easy to become siloed** in one’s field.  The more practical reason for wandering, however, is simply this: there are some great thinkers and writers out there who deserve to be read, but to gain access to them means jumping the fence.

One of my favourite Old Testament scholars is Samuel Sandmel.  (I have others, but he is one of the ones at the top of my list).  He is engaging, incisive, thought-provoking, occasionally disruptive, and dare I say punctually humorous in his writing.  He is recognised as a mind and person to be reckoned with by scholars working in Jewish-Christian history and theology.  This is the case not only because he too had a propensity to wander into other fields but also because he appears to have established residence in many of them.  Thus, when he speaks about a particular discipline or aspect of that discipline, we can be quite certain that he is speaking as a native of that field and one who knows the territory.

In 1961, Sandmel delivered an inaugural lecture at the annual Society of Biblical Literature conference, which was held in St. Louis, Missouri.  The title of his lecture was simply, ‘Parallelomania’ and its contents revealed a growing concern that he perceived within biblical studies.  (If you would like to read it, you can find here).  The gist of the lecture confronted what he saw as the problematic tendency within scholarship of overemphasising apparent parallels between biblical texts and other ancient writings and/or writing styles, features, trends, etc.  Specifically, the problem for Sandmel was that the parallels became so prominent in academic studies that they had become seen as evidence of influence.  For example, because the letter of Hebrews deals with the topics of messiah, prophets, angels, Moses and Aaron in a way that parallels what can be found in the writings of Qumran; some believed that the author of Hebrews was influenced by the teaching of those at Qumran.  For Sandmel, the ‘influence’ bit was the problem.  Furthermore, the worst case scenario of ‘parallelomania’ was that the contents of the parallels found became the standard of measure for interpreting biblical texts.

As some of you might know, I am currently working on the specific text of 1 Corinthians 2.1–3.4 and trying to figure out what in the world is going on in this section of Paul’s letter.  In dealing with this text, I am looking at four major interpretative models and their contributions for understanding the logic of the passage.  The four models are: historical criticism, social-scientific analysis, theological hermeneutics, and rhetorical criticism.  With the exception of historical criticism and maybe theological hermeneutics, social-scientific analysis in general and rhetorical criticism in particular appear to have forgotten Sandmel’s cautionary words.  With regard to social-scientific analysis, the parallels found tend to have what could be called a chronological dissonance in the sense that modern sociological theories and trends are retroactively applied to biblical texts as though there is a one-to-one correlation.  (I admit that this is an oversimplification of the process).  With regard to rhetorical criticism, ‘parallelomania’ appears to an epidemic–especially the strand that manifests itself with the boils and sores of direct ‘influence’.  (I’m currently taking medication for my jaundice against rhetorical criticism).

I cannot count the number of scholars I’ve read in the past few months who make passionate and assertive claims about Paul’s brilliant rhetorical acumen in both his preaching ministry and literary career.  Such claims are often predicated on assumptions regarding Paul’s education–assumptions that are not typically supported in the works that assert them–but even that remains a matter of scholarly dispute.  However, because the parallels suggested exist between Graeco-Roman rhetoric and Paul’s ministry (and writing), scholars often argue that the former necessarily influenced the latter.  I realise that I open myself up to debate/ridicule in saying this, but: I remain unconvinced that such an influence actually existed or that showing an influence is even possible.  In fact, I (boldly) maintain that Graeco-Roman rhetoric has become a siloed discipline in biblical studies with the result that other possibilities are simply overlooked.

Herein lies my dilemma.  For my project, I must read through the relevant materials (i.e. the Graeco-Roman rhetorical stuff) in order to make my case that Paul was not adopting and/or employing rhetorical conventions during his 18-month sojourn in Corinth.  I must also read through other materials (i.e. the non-Graeco-Roman rhetorical stuff) that have similar themes, ideas, and terms related to what Paul says in 1 Cor 2.1–3.4 which might be better suited for understanding his argument in that particular text.  More problematic is the fact that what I’m seeing as better suited has been largely dismissed by other scholars as being unsuitable–or, it does not seem to parallel what is found in the text.  But I wonder: is it unsuitable because it does not parallel with what is found in the text; or is it unsuitable because it does not parallel the parallelomanic-rhetorical reading currently surrounding the text?  If the former, then fine; if the latter, then we have a serious problem–one that Sandmel warned us about over 40 years ago.

________________
* My Master’s thesis in Seminary was an attempt to document my journeys into these other fields.
** ’siloed’ (verb): the act of being turned into a silo–i.e. an isolated building in the middle of nowhere.

Industrial-sized blenders and funnels

Along with my usual responsibilities, I am working on four short articles to be published in the Dictionary of the Bible and Western Culture (Baylor, 2010).  What I appreciate about this opportunity is that it forces me to think not only intentionally but also concisely, because the dictionary is aimed at undergraduates and the length is confined to 600 words (or less).  My approved four are: ‘Book of Life’, ‘Mystery’, ‘Signs of the Times’, and ‘Twinkling of an Eye’.  (For those keeping score: yes, I do have apocalyptic interests).

There were two topics, however, that I wanted to do but were already assigned: ‘Camel Through a Needle’s Eye’ and ‘Behemoth’; however, I found out that such was the case after I had written the one on the camel.  So I thought: why not post it and see what people think?  What follows is a slightly lengthen and adapted version of the article.  I would be curious to hear comments, criticisms, etc.

Camel Through a Needle’s Eye. This rather graphic phrase is found in Mark 10:25 (paralleled in Matthew 19:24; Luke 18:25).  Some interpretative concerns are worth pursuing before attempting to ascertain the meaning of this phrase.

First, a variant reading in some Greek manuscripts reads, ‘a rope [or, cable].’ The variation is often explained as: a visual mistake on the part of the scribe making a copy of the text where the scribe accidentally read καμηλον (kamêlon [‘camel’]) as καμιλον (kamilon [‘rope/cable’]); an audible mistake, if the scribe was creating a copy via dictation, due to eta (η) and iota (ι) having similar sounds; or a scribe purposely replaced καμηλον with καμιλον in order to minimise the otherwise gross imagery.  However, the reading of καμηλον not only outweighs the marginal reading of καμιλον but also appears in earlier manuscripts.  The earliest reference for καμιλον is around 444 CE and not appearing again until the 9th century CE, whereas the reference for καμηλον ranges consistently from 215 CE onward.  Superficially, while the basic force of Jesus’ meaning would be retained whichever term was chosen; given the manuscript evidence (and other rules related to Textual Criticism), the reading of ‘camel’ is favoured in spite of (or, even because of) its graphic nature.

Second, considering the phrase as a whole, early theories suggested a small hole in the wall of a city serving as a gate through which travellers and their animals must pass.  However, given its humiliating size, camels were either excluded or squeezed through only after off-loading their cargo—and even then with great effort.  Some believe that this gate was called, ‘the Needle’s Eye’ and that Jesus’ comment in Mark 10.25 referenced not only this gate but also the great effort of bringing a camel through it.  Thus, the rich man could enter heaven only if he was willing to be ‘off-loaded’ and humbled before God.  Another theory, which is essentially a variation of the first one, suggested an extremely narrow mountain path known as ‘the Eye of the Needle’.  The tight squeeze of this path required the riders of camels to dismount and walk slowly through mountains thus becoming vulnerable to robbers.  While both of these options provide for interesting preaching material and captivating Sunday School lessons, there simply is no historical evidence to support them.  Furthermore, both theories minimise (if not subvert) the significance of Jesus’ statement by making the impossible humanly possible.

Third, concerning additional uses, the phrase can be found in later extra-biblical texts and in a way that militates against references to a physical location.  Berakhot 55b, exchanging camel for an elephant, stresses the impossibility of a given reality suggested by an evil spirit in a dream.  Similarly, Bava Metzi’a 38b criticises the argumentative tendencies of the Babylonians who proclaim things that are logical impossible–hence: with their logic, ‘they push an elephant through the eye of a needle.’  More in line with Jesus’ statement, Persiqta 25.163b nuances the meaning of the imagery with God saying, ‘Open for me a gate no wider than a needle’s eye, and I will open for you a gate through which camps and fortifications can pass.’  Thus, the focus is on faith in what God can do (cf. Acts of Peter and Andrew).  Similarly, yet from the other (logical) direction, the Qu’ran says, ‘the gates of heaven will not be opened for them nor shall they enter paradise until the camel passes through the eye of a needle’ (Surah 7.40), meaning: access can only be obtained by a divine act.

Finally, with regard to its meaning, two features should be noted.  First, the insanely hyperbolic nature of the phrase needs to be retained in order for Jesus’ statement to have its full effect.  Furthermore, the way in which the phrase is employed in extra-biblical texts supports a hyperbolic reading.  Second, Jesus does not suggest that the rich are excluded from heaven because they are rich; instead, they are excluded because they believe their riches entitle them access to heaven.  For Jesus, that belief is a logical (and theological) impossibility.

Quote of the day (or, week)

We are going to have to stop penalising people for making that most human of gestures–a mistake. . . . So long as there’s an opportunity to profit from the simple, unintentional mistakes of others, then there will always be a desire to do so.  To lash out.  To blame.  To turn some poor unfortunate soul who just happened to be in wrong job on the wrong day into a human punchbag.

- Jeremy Clarkson, The World According to Clarkson (2004), 76

JVC earphones vs. Amica washing machine

I have an occasional bad habit of leaving things in my pockets (e.g. kleenex, scraps of paper, gum wrappers, chapstick, etc) only to be found again on the wrong side of the wash-cycle.  I have tried to do better with making sure the pockets are empty before laundry-time, but I admittedly slip from time to time.

Recently (i.e. today), a load of wash was done and all of my pockets were checked beforehand with the exception of one.  I have an old scrub-top that is a perfect lounging shirt which has a pocket on the front.  While working the other day, I was using my earphones to enjoy some wonderful tunes generated by the masterfully talented Yo-yo Ma.  At some point, most likely lunch time, the earphones come out and I tucked them away into my scrub-top pocket . . . and forgot about them, until this evening.

When the washing machine was emptied, my wife casually said, “Umm, Carl. . .” and alerted me to the jumbled mess of the earphone cord protruding from the bundle of clothes.  We both laughed and then wondered: “Do they still work?”  I could not resist testing it.  So I carefully inserted the plug into the laptop and kicked up the volume–mainly because I didn’t want to stick those things in my ears after they’ve been through an entire wash-cycle–and waited for the result.  To my complete astonishment, the earphones worked perfectly; in fact, Yo-yo Ma sounded better (if that’s even possible).

So, JVC earphones: 1; Amica washing machine: 0.

More to beauty

Facebook has a video beginning to make it way through the ethereal world.  Admittedly, this video is not that new as it is a part of a larger campaign that started a few years ago.  Before reading any further, I would recommend that you see the video first and then come back to this post.  (Don’t worry, I’ll wait for you).

Welcome back.  Here’s my two cents. The video, prior to the concluding commentary, does reveal a systemic problem within modern culture, which is: beauty is superficial and can be easily manufactured (i.e. it’s not real, or it’s simply faked). This type of cultural promotion is indeed damaging to people’s (namely women’s) sense of self-worth and should not be condoned. However, the concluding commentary does not address this problem at the systemic level, which is what I was hoping it would do.

The final tag line of, “Every girl deserves to feel beautiful just the way she is” is basically true but not necessary helpful because feelings are in themselves perceptions (i.e. not reality) and perceptions (not to mention preconceptions), in this regard, are what people use to determine beauty. As long as perceptions and/or feelings are that which define reality, then what is real will never be properly defined–let alone have true, lasting significance.

The website “Campaign for Real Beauty” is well-intentioned but equally unhelpful in the long run. Nearly every page simply talks about “widening the perception [or definition] of what is beautiful” so that people (namely women) can feel better about themselves; however, all this does is simply include other superficial variables into what defines beauty.  In other words: wrinkles, grey hair, fat bodies, stubby legs, pasty-whiteness, etc were once excluded from definitions of beauty but are now included because the new perception regarding these things has widened enough to include them.

The problem for me, however, is that this new and wider definition simply exchanges one superficial perception for another, which ultimately does not constitute a real change in definition.  There is a much larger issue that is being overlooked in this process, and that is: what is beauty, and what constitutes a beautiful person?  If beauty is defined as that which is aesthetically pleasing, then a person’s perception of beauty is at the mercy of that which determines aesthetic appeal–whether that be the narrow definition of Hollywood or the wider definition of Campaign for Real Beauty; however, either determination is ultimately superficial in how it understands and defines beauty.

True beauty needs to be understood and defined in accordance with what it is and not how it is perceived.  A person is beautiful because they are beautiful, not because they appear to be (or feel); thus, definitions of true beauty take into account the whole person, which means including more than superficial features that may or may not be aesthetically pleasing.  While a person may be grouped into the newer and wider definition of beauty advocated by the Campaign, who they truly are might in fact be contrary to what is truly beautiful.  In other words, a person may be considered “beautiful” because they are fat, wrinkly, grey-headed, stubby-legged, and/or pasty-white; however, that same person could be vile, crude, vengeful, deceptive, self-absorbed, and/or downright evil–i.e. features that hardly represent that which is truly beautiful.

As they say, “Beauty is skin deep, but ugly goes right to the bone.”

Thinking out loud

According to a recent poll, Americans (at least, those polled) are becoming disillusioned with the hopes and dreams promised to them by Obama when he ran for office.  Or, to put it more bluntly: Americans (i.e. those polled) are becoming more and more impatient in waiting for the fruits of the (overly) touted ‘change’ which so dominated Obama’s campaign.  The obvious question would be: what is causing this disillusionment?  While I have my own perspective to this question, three options should be noted first with regard to this issue of ‘change’:

1. The promised change was nothing more than a politcal claim made for the sake of winning voters.  If we honestly think that politicians do not say things in order to win an election, then we are sadly foolish. (The first half of this statement is not meant to be all-inclusive; it simply notes a general tendency which has become a part of the political landscape).  If this is the case, then the fault really goes both ways–i.e. the POTUS who duped everyone and the voters who actually believed the rhetoric of change.
2. The promised change is not what people expected.  This should be considered a likely possibility, especially since the definition of ‘change’ was both ambiguous and self-fulfilling (i.e. the definition kept changing) throughout the campaign.  Such things generally lead people to create ideas of their own, which often times end up not being in line with what actually occurs.
3. The promised change simply has not arrived yet.  It is nearly axiomatic that the effects of decisions/plans made during one administration are not often felt until the next.  Thus, the full effect of the change is still in process.

However, I wonder if the cause for the disillusionment also stands behind these three options?  The cause I have in mind is the (modern) ever-growing propensity for impatience.  Or, to come at this from another direction: the cultural fascination with ‘entitlement’ and immediate self-gratification has instilled–knowingly or not–a general attitude of impatience.  (Sadly, in some recent advertisements, this attitude of impatience is being highly praised, glorified, and depicted as normative and even virtuous).  Thus, when things do not happen when we want them to happen and not in way we want them, we throw up our arms in disgust and with feelings of betrayal–both of which typically have no justification.  And when such things happen, it is no small wonder that real progress (or, dare I say ‘change’?) becomes stymied and things of lasting value remain elusive.

Best case scenario would be the third option.  While I do not agree politically with Obama on a few issues, I am willing to give him the benefit of the doubt with what he plans to do.  More times than not, strategies and decisions made by individuals in ‘power’ tend to be either confusing or misunderstood by those not in ‘power’.  The cause for both the confusion and misunderstanding is the same: there is a much bigger picture to be considered, and those without a national vantage point are simply unable to see the details of that bigger picture.  Or, to change the metaphor a little: those in valley do not have the perspective of the one on a hill.  The decisions, guidance, and direction given by the one on the hill might appear to be meaningless, irrational, and even dangerous for the one in the valley; but again, the interpretation of the one in the valley is based on a limited perspective.  Patience must be exercised in the face of the seemingly meaningless, irrational, and dangerous.  Impatience makes matters worse.

Quote of the day

While speaking about the Nazi agenda between 1933 and 1945, the core this statement seems to be both indiscriminate and timeless in application:

…as soon as finite humanity wants to bring about the conditions of the infinite, of eternal peace and equality, only terrorism results.

- Hans Schwarz, Eschatology (2000), 329

Quote of the day

The following is no doubt a bit long, but the argument is certainly worth pondering: 

“interpreting the philosophical tradition by means of the Hegelian schema is by now a fixture of our way of thinking. . . . [For example:] As you know, the relationship between Parmenides and Heraclitus is a controversial one.  One side tells us that Parmenides criticizes Heraclitus, another side claims that Heraclitus is a critic of Parmenides, and yet another side says that there is probably no historical relationship here at all.  Maybe the truth is that neither of the two knew anything of the other.  It would not be at all unlikely that they had no connection to each other whatsoever–at least not during their respective periods of creative activity–since, after all, the one lived in Ephesus, the other in Elea.  Why has this thesis of mine caused such a stir?  The answer is clear: to this day, Hegel has a hand in everything!  Even the historian finds it plausible that all things are bound together in the progressive development of knowledge!  This historical way of thinking, which arises in the nineteenth century and still appears plausible to us today, seems to me a convincing example of the living Hegelian legacy.”

- Hans-Georg Gadamer, The Beginning of Philosophy (1998), 21-22

Random search leads to me

A fellow blogger occasionally posts on the various search strings that ultimately lead digital surfers to his blog.  Just the other day, I had my first such experience and it has left me a bit curious.  Here is the search inquiry that led to me:

nt greek “who is the liar if not”

Not really sure how to take it, nor am I sure how that search would bring them to my blog, but oh well.  Maybe there was something in here that was of some use to them.

And it continues. . .

That is, the perpetuation of a grandiose delusion that is continuously fed to so many innocent and  malleable minds year after year.  Now, this delusion has apparently gone high-tech in the hopes of gaining a larger following of such minds, as can be seen here.