Getting the Big Picture

I was blown away by the following quote from Gerd Theissen and Dagmar Winter, The Quest for the Plausible Jesus: The Question of Criteria (Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 182:

"If someone appears to us to be such a foreign body within his time and environment as not really to belong to it, then a historian would more likely suppose that we do not know enough about his time and environment. Correspondingly, it is valid to say with regard to Jesus that, if on the basis of some words and deeds Jesus sppares in the eyes of many theologians to have left the world of Judaism, it more liekly means that theological scholarship does not yet know this world well enough to judge what was or was not possible and conceivable within it."

In fact, simply chalking up other material deemed non-authentic to the influence of the early Church won't solve the problem since Matthew, Peter, Paul, etc., were all Jews!

So what of the role of Baptism and the celebration of the Eucharist in the New Testament? Many deny such things can be traced back to Jesus himself, recognizing them as later Christian "additions" to the Jesus tradition?

But, again, such an approach fails to account for the Jewishness of the early Church.

Could it be that perhaps we haven't yet adequately understood the cultic understanding of first-century Jews? Perhaps such an understanding could shed light on the development of the Christian cultic practices. Could it be that Christian rites flow from Jesus, a Jew?

Well, that in a nutshell is what I'm working on answering in my dissertation...

Just Married!

Well, Kim and I are back from our honeymoon. (For more on Kim, go here.) It was amazing. I thank Brant for his kind post. There's so much to say... I never have been happier in my life than I am right now.

The Nuptial Mass was celebrated at Sacred Heart Catholic Church in Covina--the parish I have always attended since childhood. It was celebrated by my uncle, the incredible priest, Father Peter Irving, whom I've talked a bit about him here on this site. We were deeply honored to have a number of other close priest friends there concelebrating: Fr. Ed Gomez, Fr. Michael Robinson, Fr. Brian Cavanagh, Fr. Scott Daughtery (also mentioned on this blog!), and Fr. Gregory Elder.

The Mass was very beautiful. The music was exceptional. We were very blessed to have the Sacred Heart Adult Choir, directed by Patrick Flahive (who was my grammar school music teacher), in the choir loft. There was a lot of Gregorian Chant--it was awesome!

We were very blessed to have a number of people also come from far away--thanks to the Scott, Kimberly, Michael, Jeremiah, Joe, and David Hahn and Kristin Geers for making the long trip!

Of course, I could go on and on thanking everyone who made it possible. The most important thanks goes to our parents, Tom and Ilene Gilmore and Patrick and Theresa Barber--from them we have learned the most important lessons about living the Christian faith. We are both so grateful to be part of one another's families.

The honeymoon was incredible. About five months ago, my sisters and cousins asked us out to dinner. They told us what they wanted to give us for a wedding present--a dream honeymoon to Rome (Italy, of course, not Alaska).

For two newly-wed Catholics, who both hold advanced degrees in theology, it just can't get any better than that! In fact, we were thinking of simply taking a drive up the coast after the wedding. The only far away locale we mused over was Rome--not truly thinking it was a realistic possibility.

We spent a week there. Here's a short summary.

We started off at the Wednesday general audience with Pope Benedict. We then went to St. Peter's Basilica. We did the Scavi tour under the Basilica, where one can see the excavation that has been done under the Church establishing the virtually certain site of the burial of St. Peter. That has to be among the most amazing things one can see while in Rome.

We then went to the Vatican museums where we spent 4 hours looking around. They have the picture that's on the cover of Coming Soon--an original work done by Raphael. There are so many famous works of art there it is unbelievable. They also have the archeological discoveries of ancient Egypt--including pictures and hieroglyphics from the period of the Exodus, including an image on stone of the Pharaoh who opposed Moses! It is incredible to think that these stones actually were sitting around while Egypt was being run over with locusts and frogs.

The tour ends with the Sistine Chapel, which is, of course, where they elect the new pope. The majority of the work was done by Michelangelo. The ceiling has that famous picture of God's finger touching Adam's in the center. The wall behind the altar is Michelangelo's Last Judgment.

After the museums we took a long walk--which is an awesome thing to do in Rome. It was fun for me because I remember how to get around. I can actually pretty much do it on on foot on my own. We walked from St. Peter's first over to the Pantheon, which was first built by Herod Agrippa. Of course, he was the Herod who condemned Jesus to death and handed him over to Pontius Pilate. He also had John the Baptist beheaded. The original building burned and it was rebuilt by Marcus Agrippa in 125 A.D. It still stands, and is the most ancient intact building in Rome. The building was once a Roman pantheon--a place for all the Roman gods. Now it is a Catholic Church and has priceless works of Christian art all around it.

We then went over to the Trevi Fountain. The legend is that if you throw a coin in the Trevi while you're in Rome you'll one day return. So far it has worked for Kim and I, so, of course, we did it again. Along our walk we also stopped in numerous churches (there's one on every corner--and all of them are spectacular!), including St. Ignatius' and St. Rita's. We also stopped in Herder's book store.

We then visited Santa Maria Maggiore (St. Mary Major), which is really the most important church dedicated to Mary in the whole world. One tidbit important to us Americans--it is said that the ceiling was made with the gold received by Queen Isabella from Christopher Columbus' first trip to the new world. The gold was donated to Rome.

We also went to the Basilica of John Lateran--the Pope's cathedral. A cathedral is a church with the bishop's "cathedra" or "chair"--this is the Pope's, the bishop of Rome. For seven centuries it was the primary Roman Church--since the Avingon excursion, the primary church of the Pope's has really become St. Peter's. Technically, however, his seat is here in John Lateran--a more ancient church. This church has some of the most amazing relics and statues you'll see anywhere, including the supposed-table on which Jesus celebrated the Last Supper. The blessed sacrament chapel has the gold which was taken by Cleopatra in a battle, later given to Augustus (Caesar when Christ was born), inherited by the Emperor Constantine, who used it first to build a temple and then, after his conversion, donated it to the Church. It finally is now in the Lateran. How's that for history!

We also got to go to the holy steps--an ancient site traced back to St. Helen, Constantine's mother.

One of the last things we did was make a trip out to St. Paul's Basilica. Of course, the greatest thing about this church is that St. Paul is buried here--something recently confirmed by an archeological dig. The findings are visible through a glass floor under the altar! This hadn't been done the last time we were here! Here's the news story as it appeared in 2005 when it made headlines (also here). St. Timothy, Paul's close friend a spiritual "child", is buried next to him there. The church also contains the portraits of every single pope through Pope Benedict XVI in chronological. These portraits surround the church. Up above are huge paintings of the life of St. Paul which start in chronological order and wrap around the church.

The greatest part of the visit was that Mass was about to begin when we got there so we got to celebrate the Eucharist there! It was in Italian, but we knew what was going on.

The last day we took a trip out to see the papal summer home in Castel Gandolfo. It is quite beautiful out there.

Thanks so much Noree', Tracee', Julia, Marita, Georgie, Beau, Peter, Kateri and Kellie! We will be able to thank you enough for sending us on this trip!

We made it back and, as much as we love Rome, it was good to be home.

Biblical posts to resume shortly...

Was the Prophet Daniel a Member of the Davidic Royal Family?

Michael, this one's for you.

One of the questions Michael (who's still off honeymooning) and I have been exploring in recent months is whether there is any Davidic imagery in the book of Daniel. In particular, we've been intrigued by connections such as the "Son of Man" imagery in the psalms of David (e.g., Psalm 8) and the famous messianic "Son of Man" in Daniel 7. There are many others which we will maybe discuss in future posts.

In the course of the conversations, Michael thought it would be very interesting support for this Davidic imagery if we could show that Daniel was perhaps a member of the royal house of David: i.e, that he may have been an heir to the throne. This was suggested to Michael by the opening verses of Daniel 1, which read:

In the third year of the riegn of Jehoiakim king of Judah, Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon came to Jerusalem and besieged it. ANd the Lord gave Jehoiakim king of Judah into his hand... Then the king commanded Ashpenaz, the chief eunuch, to bring some of the people of Israel, both of the royal family and of the nobility, youths without blemish, handsome and skilful iin all wisdom, endowned with knowledge, understanding learngin, and competent to serve in the kings palan and to teach the the letters and langaue of the Chaldeans. Among these were Daniel, Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah of the tribe of Judah. (Dan 1:1-6)

In light of this verse, Michael and I were speculating that perhaps Daniel was not just one of the "people of Israel," but actually a member of the royal family and as such an heir to the Davidic throne. This would be important, because it would potentially heighten the significance of any Davidic imagery in the book of Daniel.

Sure enough, while reading a fascinating first-century A.D. Jewish work known as the Lives of the Prophets, I found the following tradition:

Daniel. This man was of the tribe of Judah, of the family of those prominent in the royal service, but yet while a child he was taken from Judea to the land of the Chaldeans. He was born in Upper Beth-horon, and he was a chaste man, so that the Judeans that that he was a eunuch (Lives of the Prophets 4:1-2)

In the footnote to this text, D.R.A. Hare states that "By combining Dan 1:3, 6 with Isa 39:7, Jewish tradition maintained that Daniel was a member of the royal family" (Charlesworth, OTP, 2:389). In support of this, he refers to both Isaiah and a text from Josephus:

Then Isaiah siad to Hezekiah, "Hear the word of the LORD of hosts: Behold the days are coming, when all that is in your house, and that which your fathers have stored up this day, shall be carried to Babylon; nothings shall be left says the LORD. And some of your own sons, who are born to you, shall be taken away; and they shall be eunuchs in the palace of the king of Babylon." (Isa 39:5-7)

Even more explicit is Josephus:

Now Nebuchadnezzar, king of Babylon, took some of the most noble of the Jews that were children, and the kinsmen of Zedekiah their king, such as were remarkably for their beauty of their bodies and comeliness of their countenances, and delivered them into the hands of tutors... He also made some of them to be eunuchs... Now among these there were four of the family of Zedekiah, of the most excellent dispositions, the one of whom was called Daniel... (Josephus, Antiquities 18.186-189)

One reason this is so significant (for those of you who may be wondering) is that if Daniel was actually a member of the family of Zedekiah--and thus an heir to the Davidic throne--then all of the "kingdom" imagery in the book of Daniel may not be simply generic "apocalyptic" imagery. It may in fact be (coded) Davidic imagery, and hence, by definition, messianic imagery.

All this plays into the debate over whether the "son of Man" in Daniel 7 is in fact the Messiah. Although the text does not explicitly say he is the "messiah" (although cf. Dan 9:24-27), if the "kingdom and dominion" that he receives is in fact the Davidic kingdom--and if it is an heir to the Davidic throne who is having this vision--then this is clearly a messianic text (which is how all the ancient Jews interpreted it, pace Joseph Fitzmyer). We'll do future posts on this, I'm sure, but let me just throw something out:

In Daniel 7, the "son of Man" comes and slays the beasts, in particular "the lion" (Babylonian empire) and "the bear" (the Medo-Persian empire), and then receives the "kingdom." Can you think of any other person who was famous for slaying "lions and bears" before he was elevated to receive a "kingdom"? I'll give you a hint... He's in the books of Samuel.

What's the poin then of Daniel 7? Eventually, the Davidic "son of Man" will triumph over the "beasts" of the pagan empires, and will reign over the universal "kingdom of God" (cf. Daniel 2) forever.

Of course, if Daniel's writing in the second century B.C., when the Davidic kingdom is long gone, none of this coded apocalyptic language makes any sense. But if he's writing during the reign of Babylon, when the Davidic empire is only freshly decimated and its heirs are captive, then all Davidic language and imagery would have to be secret. Which is exactly what we find in the book.

Just some thoughts. More to come.