Master’s Thesis: “Trauma in the Differentiated Presence of God”

At the end of April I successfully defended my Master’s Thesis entitled “Trauma in the Differentiated Presence of God.” A PDF is available for download here. Abstract below:

The altered physiology of the trauma survivor provokes questions concerning the spatial and temporal presence and absence of God. This enquiry employs the corpus of Jürgen Moltmann and the biblical witness of the Epistle to the Hebrews in order to investigate the differentiated presence of God in the midst of trauma. The trauma survivor is neuro-physiologically changed by the traumatizing event; Moltmann’s robust theology provides a language for speaking about the god-forsaken spaces, the compressed sense of time, and ultimately the vocabulary for hope and recovery. The author of Hebrews places his audience in the intermediary space of the Israelites wilderness wanderings. Trauma places the survivor in a similar locale: they survived their trauma and yet it persists, so they find themselves waiting for something more. Furthermore, through all these experiences encounters with God are fleeting and strange. The presence of God is currently found to be qualified and provisional. This project concludes that the cruciform community can provide a place of recovery in the liminal locale of the “wilderness” for loving endurance and hopeful anticipation of the coming integration of all things in the full indwelling of God.

 

Books (and My Briefest Thoughts on Them) from 2017

The books are in order of when I read them and they only made it to the list if I read them in their entirety.

Non-Fiction

John Caputo, The Weakness of God, 2006. –– compelling, makes good critiques, contrarian hermeneutics are too forced sometimes causing him to fail to engage texts as we have them

Michael Welker, Creation and Reality, 1999. –– short primer on creation/ecology, anthropology, even some angelology, focussed on God’s spatiality and the interdependence of spheres of creation

Richard Hays, Echoes of Scripture in the Letters of Paul, 1989. –– Excellent

William H. Willimon and Stanley Hauerwas, Lord Teach Us, 1996. –– Fine. Prayer as formation of faith community. Begs the question if prayer is anything more than a tool for discipleship.

Dietrich Bonhoeffer, Psalms: the Prayer Book of the Bible. –– Painfully anachronistic treatment of the Psalms. Nice thoughts on prayer though.

Richard Foster, Prayer, 1992. ––– A good introduction to a variety of thoughts and forms of prayer.

Darrell W. Johnson, Fifty-Seven Words That Can Change the World: A Journey Through the Lord’s Prayer, 2005. –– No real thoughts. I remember being unimpressed.

Robert J. Karris, Prayer and the New Testament, 2000. –– According to my prof, it is hard to find books on prayer in the NT other than on the Lord’s prayer. Karris deftly handles the academic material regarding these NT texts. I was impressed.

Essentials of Christian Theology, edited by William C. Placher. 2003. –– J.A. DiNoia’s sections was incredible and impacts me to this day. Good introduction to Stanley J. Green’s work with Speech-Act Theory.

Daniel J. Migliore, Faith Seeking Understanding: An Introduction to Christian Theology, 3rd ed, 2014. –– Good introductory text book. Keeps an eye on global context. Strong emphasis on christocentrism and trinitarianism.

Matthew L. Lamb, Solidarity with Victims, 1982. –– Argument that racism/various oppressions are inefficient seems odd and naive to me. Engages a variety of other sources. Not memorable.

Gordon Zerbe, Philippians, 2017. –– Focus on socio-economic situation and Philippi as a “post-colonial” context. Excellent essays at the back.

Judith Herman Lewis, Trauma and Recovery, 1992. –– Good. Its the cornerstone of Trauma studies for a reason.

Jürgen Moltmann, The Crucified God, 1974. –– Must read contribution to theology of the cross.

David J. Neville, A Peaceable Hope, 2013. –– Engaging analysis of the apocalyptic texts in the NT attempting to relegate the aspect of violence to the periphery.

Shelly Rambo, Spirit and Trauma, 2010. –– Beautiful theological exploration of Holy Saturday, by way of Hans Urs von Balthasar through the perspective of Trauma. Develops a Holy Spirit of that which remains in love.

Andrew Robinson, Traces of the Trinity, 2014. Excellent introduction to the complex field of semiotics.

J. Matthew Bonzo, Indwelling the Forsaken Other, 2009. –– Argues that a consistent ethics is unattainable in Moltmann’s cosmological framework. Might be right, but makes me wonder if that’s the point.

Jürgen Moltmann, Following Jesus Christ in the World Today, 1983. –– A series of lectures Moltmann gave on how the church interacts with the world. Sadly relevant reflection of impending nuclear armageddon and choosing to act out of love rather than act out of anxiety.

Daniel Coleman, In Bed with the Word, 2009. –– An insightful reflection on the nature of reading.

Dom Helder Camara, The Desert is Fertile, 1974.

Dr. Mohammad Ali Shomali, Unity of God and Unity in God, 2016. –– Begs the question if cooperation or peaceful relations should be predicated on grounds of sharing monotheism (my answer is no).

Peace and Justice: Essays from the Fourth Shi’i Muslim Mennonite Christian Dialogue edited by Harry J. Huebner and Hajj Muhammad Legenhausen, 2011. –– The essays by Harry Huebner, Gordon Zerbe, Jeremy M. Bergen, Monouchehr Mohammadi, and Muhammed Legenhausen stand out.

Sarah Coakley, God, Sexuality, and the Self, 2013. –– Must read contribution to theology in regard to methodology in general. Incredibly formative to the new theologian. Essential to conversations regarding prayer, desire, patristics, the trinity, and gender.

Sarah Coakley, The New Asceticism, 2015.–– Good primer on Coakley’s reading of patristics on desire, prayer, and sexuality.

Margaret Miles, The Word Made Flesh, 2005.–– A presentation of Christian history that makes me wonder if it is not too skewed by her central concern for demonstrating that Christian belief compels incarnation. Her examples are merely what every religion does in its practices as peoples live out their world view. Threatens to be universal of a premise to be meaningful.

Perry B. Yoder, Shalom, 1997.

Jacqueline E. Lapsley, Whispering the Word, 2005. –– Encouraging introduction to reading Old Testament texts with feminist hermeneutics of suspicion and of informed trust. Lapsley claims she wants to avoid essentializing gender attributes, unfortunately she fails to prove otherwise in some minor areas.

Anne M. Clifford, Introducing Feminist Theology, 2001. –– Largely unnuanced work that fails to engage topics beyond their preliminary statements. While she admits that previous waves of feminists ignored the global and POC voices, she is always quick to claim how readily white feminists made space for them. POC theologians are summarized at the end of each chapter as a voyeuristic theological tourism in an unsatisfactory attempt to make sure that particular box ticked. I do not recommend.

W.H. Vanstone, Love’s Endeavour, Love’s Expense, 1977. –– Beautiful phenomenology of love and the purpose of the church.

W.H. Vanstone, The Stature of Waiting, 1982. –– Reflections on the crucifixion and “handing over” of Jesus. Good thoughts on the nature of power and dependency.

Jürgen Moltmann, Experiences of God, 1980. –– Good, concise essay on anxiety, hope, and the human experience of God.

Shelly Rambo, Resurrecting Wounds, 2017. –– Disappointing, left much to be desired. A lot of interpretive stretches. First chapter on Calvin and last chapter on Warriors Journey Home are excellent however.

Fiction

Cormac McCarthy, No Country for Old Men. –– Good.

Frank Herbert, Dune. –– Not at all what I expected. Good.

Patrick Rothfuss, Name of the Wind. –– I love his writing style.

Patrick Rothfuss, The Wise Man’s Fear.–– Ditto, good.

Annie Dillard, The Maytrees. –– Good.

Neal Stephenson, Anathem.–– So good! Made me think again.

Neil Gaiman, Neverwhere. –– Pretty good.

China Mieville, Embassytown. –– Really enjoyed it

A Vision

You have given me a vision,
a glimpse between the cracks of these disparate times.
I peer through the rupture
in my life, in my love, in my being
and I see who I am
and what I am meant to be.

An oasis standing in the desert.
Lush vegetation sprawled across the harsh sands,
in repose, in relaxation, in ready invitation.
My trees grow tall for shade,
relief from the sun above.
My branches are low with fruit
easy to take ahold of.
They are sweet and nourishing.

At the centre there is a spring,
it is fresh and bright
and everflowing.
It gives life to the thirsty passerby.
I am open to the wanderer who needs rest.
The aloe that grows by the pool is for their healing.
There are hidden places for those who venture further in.
They tell me of the beauty they find there,
and I am honored.
They dance, barefoot, through the secret streams
and I am delighted.

There are no thorns
nor thistles.
I do not hedge them in.
When it is time for the pilgrim to continue on their way
A breeze of gentle, softest love
will cause my trees to sway
to wave farewell
and it will carry them on their way.

Joshua D. Nightingale

Brief Commentary:

This year I’ve taken a step back from publicly posting so much of my poetry. I’ve been sitting on this poem for a few months. I am four months from graduating with an MA in Theology and contemplating what to do next. As I navigate this next season, I want to be authentic to this vision of who I am becoming.

In This Place

Can I be with you?
Just a little while,
here in this place.
I’ve taken off my shoes,
dimmed the lights
and lit the candles.
I’ve placed myself
before your image,
made the sign of the cross
(right to left is right, right?
how important is the order?)
but I don’t have incense
and maybe that’s what’s missing.
It makes my head hurt
if it’s too strong.

It makes my heart hurt
when you’ve been gone.
The wax runs,
the flame wanes,
and I’ve got to go.
Could you meet me on the bus instead?

Joshua D. Nightingale

Can I Give You My Power

Can I give you my power?
I’m not sure what I can even do with it anymore.
In my hands
it feels gross
dangerous at worst
futile at best.

Exorcise me
of my possession
my grip on a privilege stolen
that fills me with the desire
to grasp for more.

Forgive me.
I know I don’t deserve it
I struggle, but can’t escape.
Forgive me for my penis
abusive and authoritarian.
Forgive me for my whiteness
a mixture of slaked lime, chalk, and blood.
Forgive me for my rationalization
subjugating and all-consuming.
Please know, I’m trying.
I can’t have this anymore
eating me on the inside
eating every outsider.

Can I give you my power?
Will it transform
into tongues of fire?
Will the dead be raised
once I yield my spirit?

I need help
to empty myself
to hand over the keys
so others can be unchained,
but I’m afraid my hands
are clenched too tight
because I know it’s not a fair trade
and you aren’t going to rob me
so I have to give freely
for freedom to be given.

Can I give you my power?
It’s a breath
a groan
to match your own
so we
can begin
to live
together

Joshua D. Nightingale

In the Kitchen, Wednesday Afternoon

There are good days and bad days
Or less bad days and worse days
Although nights are always the worst.
But recently I’ve had a few okay days.
Like really okay.
So I guess it was inevitable.
I’m sorry.
I was trying, I really was.
And I am now,
though maybe it doesn’t seem like it.
This is me
trying my hardest to be here.
Every muscle in my body is revolting against me.
Trying to wrestle away control.
I’m trapped behind my eyes.
Watching everything move away from me
or far too close to me.
And these eyes burn,
Tears welling up,
Rain and hail battering against a
Window fastened shut.
Thoughts circling around a drain,
a whirlpool,
ships caught in a maelstrom.
My mouth doesn’t work the way I want it to.
My tongue can’t speak the things inside
My lips can’t make the motions.
I told you I felt gross.
That’s it.
That’s all that could be uttered in the mundane.
You thought I was catching the flu.
I know I need those vitamins
To help with my immune system
But that’s not what’s going on here
My body is compromised
But not by a virus
And I’m sorry I can’t explain it any better
I feel gross
But not that kind of gross.
The carrots are done
Though I’m not sure where you want them
So I put them in the strainer
Though you gave me clear instructions
Those faint words got caught up in this raging storm
And I’m sorry
I think I burnt the bottom of the pot
though I swear I turned the stove top off.

Spring Update

This spring has brought unexpected storm showers and we will see if that rain will bring forth the type of spring we take pictures of. When I returned from my January travels, my main supervisor took time off work for medical and personal reasons. Shortly after, I came down sick with an infection that lasted several weeks. I recovered and returned to the office, but my supervisor was still on leave, and the other two employees had decreased their hours at work.  The placement I have been assigned to had no ongoing projects because they were waiting for responses from the grant proposals we had written. During this lapse in consistent work, I fostered my relationships as best as I could. I participated in a Netrunner Tournament at a local game store. I started taking art lessons from my good friend and artist.

During this time, my family had been going through some rough experiences that weighed heavy on my heart and mind. Two weeks ago I traveled to Sarajevo for a MCC retreat. As I sat in my friends’ backyard, and later as I sat watching trout in a pond, a singular question rang through me “What if I were more helpful to my parents right now?” I spoke with my MCC reps, and with their support I spoke to my parents. It became clear to me that I should return from my SALT term early in order to encourage and aid my family. With the blessing of MCC and my supervisor in Novi Sad, I return home to my family on May 20th. Thank you all for your prayer and support during my year abroad. I have greatly enjoyed my time in the Balkans, but that experience has drawn to a close and now a new experience opens up before me. Think of me in this next transition as I try to be a caring, helpful son, and as I prepare to move to Winnipeg in September to begin my graduate studies at Canadian Mennonite University.

Demystifying Biblical Criticism

Previously, I discussed the complexity of textual criticism. It is appropriate for us to also take a look at the rest of the common critical methods employed by biblical scholars. Biblical Criticism causes some cognitive dissonance for evangelicals. Criticism in this context acts as a bit of a misnomer today, misleading the general population. The word conjures images of film critics, reviews, evaluations, critiques one hopes are constructive. If someone is critical of my work, it is understood that they judged it harshly and maybe offered options for revision. Biblical Criticism does not criticize the bible in this manner. The critical methods scholars apply to the biblical texts are better understood as analysis and discernment in the pursuit of answers. It is less like tearing apart an amateur smut novel and more like putting together a puzzle, albeit with some pieces missing. In order to disarm the lay perceptions of Biblical Criticism, we will use these critical methods on a seasonally thematic letter.

Eric’s Love Letter to Sylvia

My Dearest Sylvia,

If only I could count all the ways that I love you. I still remember the first day we met. We were in the school cafeteria and I tripped over the ugly brown school chairs and spilt that sugary orange “juice” all over your lavender blouse. That one that really makes your green eyes glow. And then my awesome sister cleaned up the mess. What an awful first impression! But at least it allowed me to hear you laugh.

I know that I’ve never quite been able to express this deep affection that I have for you very well. That from the deep crevices of my inner-world, the words just don’t come out how I wish they did. I have scoured the world for a manner in which I could relay the entirety of my vast array of emotions to you, to your heart. I have only found but one. Mayhaps this will convey my soul to you, better than my mangled utterances have been able to.

Love, an orangutang
crashing through the forest
looking for the sweet fruit
of your love.
Old age, a crocodile
waiting under the currents
threatening us,
but we’ll ignore it.
The world is a jungle
our hearts, a jungle
We, Jungle.

Welcome to the jungle, my dear. Hopefully, that was able to communicate far better than I have been able to, to this date. I still remember the day we first met. I love your laugh. I love you.

Love Always,

Eric

I will first give a summary of the critical method, then how it applies to this letter, and finally how it applies to biblical studies.

Source Criticism

If Textual Criticism was asking the question “Which text is most reliable” then Source Criticism is asking “Where did these ideas come from?”. Source Criticism tries to figure out what sources authors used when writing their text.

Love Letter: We can be pretty sure that the opening sentence is borrowing from Elizabeth Barrett Browning’s Sonnet 43. The rest of the first paragraph is written so differently than the rest of Eric’s letter, but we can’t figure out what the source is, so we can hypothesize a Source L that Eric used. The last paragraph, “Welcome to the Jungle” is a direct quote from the Guns n’ Roses song.

The Bible: Source Criticism is mostly notably used for the “Synoptic Problem”. There is a lot of work put into figuring out the differences and similarities between Matthew, Mark, and Luke. The famous theory is that Luke and Matthew relied on Mark and a tradition of sayings (Q) as sources. It is also used in the Old Testament, most notably with the JEDP theory. This proposed that there are four separate sources (Yawhist, Elohist, Deuteronomist, Priestly) that went into the compilation of the Pentateuch (Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy).

Redaction Criticism

“Why is it put together like this?” Redaction Criticism looks at the collection, arrangement, and modification of a text performed by a community. It often tries to identify that particular community and its goals.

Love Letter: We are particularly interested in the repetition of “I still remember the day we first met.” It suggests to us that that segment was moved to the beginning of the letter, and gives credibility to the Source L theory. The rest of the letter is artificially verbose and wordy with very ethereal metaphors, while this segment is noticeably vernacular and has concrete descriptions. There is also this oddly specific and tangental sentence about the “awesome sister” cleaning up the mess. Redaction Criticism would theorize that Eric had his younger sister’s help in writing this love letter and although the younger sister wants to help Eric, she also wants to establish herself as an important part of this relationship in an attempt to not be forgotten. Eric’s sister moved the story to the front, so the letter wouldn’t end on an embarrassing story, but she also needed to give her own input.

The Bible: Redaction Criticism is used most in the First Testament because they are older, more traditioned, and simply have more clues of this sort of editing. This method of criticism wants to look at how the theoretical JEDP sources are arranged and why. Similar to Eric’s love letter the book of Joshua has a lot these repetitions in the text. Redaction Criticism compares 1&2 Chronicles to 1 Samuel- 2 Kings to demonstrate that the author of the former has a keen interest in advocating David’s reign and lineage, while the author of the latter is much more interested establishing that all kings are flawed. In the New Testament, Redaction Criticism often looks at the gospel of John with its rearranged accounts and long speeches that are so different from the Synoptics.

Form Criticism

“What is this?” Form Criticism separates the Bible into segments, categorizing them by particular genres so we can more faithfully interpret them. These segments are called pericopes. This method focusses on discovering the Sitz im Leben (Setting in Life) of the pericope or passage. So the meaning of the text is bound up in the context of the community and what they intended the text to be.

Love Letter: We speak English, and we are familiar with the formats of our genres, so it is no problem for us to use Form Criticism on this text. The greeting at the beginning and the name at the end easily identifies this as a letter. If we were to extract the paragraph about the first impression from the rest of the text, it is easy to identify as a narrative account.  The third paragraph is also easy for us to identify. We see the terse line breaks, and the centred justification, and we know it is a poem. We understand it to be a poem, so we trust that Eric doesn’t actually think orangoutangs are the embodiment of love or that the organ in his chest is a forest. Again, this is all natural for us because we are working with our first language with literary cues we have been conditioned to understand.

The Bible: Form Criticism becomes a lot harder and a lot more necessary when we are working with dead languages and the Ancient Near East (ANE) context. We do have similar genres that we are able to identify. It’s not that hard to see Psalms as liturgical hymns. But Hebrew poetry doesn’t rhyme or have fancy metre like ours does. We had to figure out what constituted a Hebrew poem. It is important to recognize that the ANE had established genres that we don’t really have in circulation now.

There are a variety of ANE documents that are long lists of sayings. This is called Wisdom literature, and we don’t have a great parallel these days. If we interpret the books of Proverbs as a list of divine promises, then we are in for a harsh existential crisis. While it is nice to think that those who lie get caught (Prov 12:13),  we have so many examples of powerful people who are constantly getting away with their deceit. We don’t run into this problem if we read Wisdom literature for what it was in its original context, handy guidance that generally works out if prudently followed. If we don’t properly identify the genre of a text, we cannot properly interpret it. Form Criticism works at figuring out those genres. Form Criticism identifies several ANE genres that aren’t readily apparent to Modern Westerners, such as Jewish Apocalyptic and Greco-Roman Historical Biography.

Canonical Criticism

“How does this look in the big picture?” Canonical Criticism works in the opposite direction of a lot of other critical methods. Instead of trying to start at the original texts or original authors, it looks at the entire compilation and moves from there. It looks at the already traditioned and accepted body of texts as a whole, and works with the particular, final text in question in relation to the larger picture.

Love Letter: Canonical Criticism would want to look at all the letters we know Eric has sent to Sylvia and establish a framework that gives more insight into the individual letters. This method doesn’t care about looking at any of Eric’s rough drafts either, because the final drafts are the only ones that Sylvia received. If we look at the rest of the Eric’s letters and discover that Eric and Sylvia aren’t actually dating and he’s been harassing her with unwanted letters, that drastically changes how we read this particular letter. If we found that they had been dating on and off through some very difficult situations, then we can highlight particular themes in this letter. It helps us interpret and understand why Eric tells an embarrassing story from so long ago and why he sees so much of existence as a dangerous environment to be survived.

The Bible: Canonical Criticism is an important vantage point that is often forgotten. We can get so caught up in particular passages, variances, theories, that we forget that these are a part of a larger collection of passages that the faith community has ratified and relied upon. This critical method reminds us to work with the text we have, not the ones we wish we had or presume existed.

Narrative Criticism

“What is this saying?” Narrative Criticism is very different from the first two critical methods. Instead of looking past the text at authors and editors, Narrative Criticism examines the text itself. This critical method focuses on the story, the narrator, and the audience.

Love Letter: Narrative Criticism would want to look at the narrative in the first paragraph and the poem. Out of all the stories Eric could choose, why would he tell this story? What does he communicate to his audience, Sylvia presumably, with this embarrassing account he has selected? Eric could be trying to highlight how long they’ve come from that first encounter, how they’ve been able to move past potentially destructive actions. Eric isn’t telling an embarrassing story, but instead an endearing one that compliments Sylvia’s relaxed disposition.

Narrative Criticism has no interest in how bad Eric’s poem is. This is where critical methods depart from our common conceptions of “criticism”. Narrative Criticism wants to figure out the meaning in Eric’s poem, regardless of how poor it is. Eric sees his relationship as a pursuit, that will go on for a long time, through a dangerous environment that might be found even in their own relationship. Also, if we look at the pretentious language and forced fancy words, we could say that Eric is trying to impress Sylvia.

The Bible: Narrative Criticism, as is probably apparent, is most useful at analyzing stories. It has a lot of success looking at the Gospels, highlighting the dynamics between Jesus and his disciples, his opponents, his followers. Narrative Criticism understands the book of Jonah to be a tragedy, illuminating Israel’s inability to work with God’s plan to bless the whole world.

Conclusion

Critical Methods are not boogeymen employed by liberalized academics to be feared by the larger faith community. Biblical Criticism and its branches are merely the tools people have created to ask the questions they think are important. By using these critical methods on Eric’s love letter, we have found their common uses and how they get applied to the bible. Personally, I put a lot more weight into Form, Canonical, and Narrative Criticism than the others for actually drawing helpful and constructive meaning out of the bible. Each of these methods have their benefits and limitations though, because they are only tools that we use. They also have no moral value, only that which people use them for. Some questions have agendas, other questions want to discover. Some questions are better to ask than others, because some answers are made inaccessible by time and distance. At the end of the day, the questions, these tools, Biblical Criticism, can help us become a more informed faith community that better understands our scripture.

Why Your Bible Has Footnotes (The Complexities of Textual Criticism)

When reading your bible, you’ll notice that usually there are footnotes saying something along the lines of “other manuscripts say _________”.  The bible we have is comprised of the decisions scholars made while working with a variety of old texts that sometimes have different content. We are so accustomed to our tidy, compiled, translated, leather bound, name embossed bibles that we forget the complexity that goes into that finished product. The process of choosing the most reliable sources out of a variety of documents is called textual criticism.

No biblical scholar would tell you that textual criticism doesn’t occur. They can’t. There are very real examples that are far too apparent. Mark’s epilogue doesn’t appear in some manuscripts. Esther has extra chapters in the Septuagint. These are large portions of text to just appear or not appear places. The people who put your bible together had to figure out what to do with these variations. Where scholars differ is why, what it means, and how to deal with it. What follows is a very simplified example of how complex textual criticism is.

A Basic Model of the Development and Transmission of Manuscripts

Let’s imagine an event occurs that affects both villages East and West. After 100 years, each village writes an account of what occurred. These documents will be A and B, respectively. 100 years later Village West has a famine, so the people travel to village East, bringing B with them. 100 years later, a scholar is working on his account of the region and uses A and B to inform his writings. This historical document will be 1. At the same time, a royal messenger from Village North is gathering information for the king and uses A and B as his sources. This official record will be 2. 100 years later, most of the people are taken as slaves to a distant land, they try and carry what they can. Documents B and 1 make it to the distant land, A is severely damaged, and 2 stays in the official records in the North. 100 years later, still in the distant land, someone uses documents 1 and B to make document (i).

Now we have document (i) being written 500 years after the original event. Let’s say the event occurred in 600bce. Documents A and B are then written in 500bce. 1 and 2 are 300bce. (i) is 100bce.

A Story of Modern Textual Criticism

Let’s say, that 2000 years after the original event archaeologists have found a fragment of A, a large amount of 2, and some (i). This is where things get really complicated. 2000 years after the fact, they have no idea what is the most faithful document to the event. They don’t know who wrote these documents, if these are just copies of other manuscripts, or if we found the documents where they originated, etc. So it is the job of scholars and academics to piece things together as best they can using a variety of criteria and resources.

So it is 1950, and Dr. Robert is working with fragment A, lots of 2, and some (i). He knows A is really old because some of the terminology is archaic compared to the other documents. But, A is far different from 2 and (i) and so few copies exist, he isn’t sure if it is an anomaly or not. Dr. Robert dates A at 700-500bce because he was able to find physical records of the event from around that time.

Document (i) uses loan words from another language, so Dr. Robert is confident it was written while they were slaves. That places document (i) somewhere between 200 and 0bce.

Now the script used in document 2 is really developed and recent. Dr. Robert has to place it some time around 100ce. This is a lot later than the original event, but Dr. Robert assumes that the large amount of circulation establishes it as a reliable document that was used often.

So it is 1950, Dr. Robert places document A at 600bce but he doesn’t trust it and he can’t work with much of it because it is only a fragment. He places document (i) between 200 and 0bce. Pretty accurate thanks to the context. But he is way off dating document 2 at 100ce. What he doesn’t know, is that after the people returned from being slaves they found document 2 in the royal records. They believed it was the most accurate record, so they copied and distributed it. 2000 years removed, Dr. Robert doesn’t know this. While we know that document B and 1 exist, Dr. Robert has no idea. He might even conjecture that 2 used (i) as a source because he is dating 2 after (i) and A is too different. Dr. Robert probably wrote a great dissertation about how the writer of 2 replaced all the loan words in (i) as valiant nationalism surged through the returning people.

So when trying to come up with a reliable translation 2000 years later, some might use source 2 because it has the most manuscripts distributed. Others might use document (i) because they date it closer to when the event occurred or because they think it is the source 2 is based off of (thanks to Dr. Robert’s dissertation). And we have some people using A as much as possible because it is the oldest.  When really, the most accurate source was document B, so the criteria should actually be based on which document relied most heavily on document B. Unfortunately, so far removed from the event, they don’t have document B and they don’t know which documents used B as a source.

The Limitations of Textual Criticism

This is all very simplistic of course. In real life, it’s actually much more complex. This example doesn’t even take into account how large of an impact oral traditions would have on the process in such aural, non-literate cultures or the 2000 years of traditioning that influences how we view different sources. It’s also important to note how each of these different writers would write of this event with a distinct tone to their respective audience, couching the event in various narratives to suit the genre and purpose of their writing.

And at the end of the day, textual criticism is only working with texts. Realistically, it doesn’t even help us discern whether the event actually happened or what exactly happened. All these documents are still the productions of different peoples across different times and places who are communicating what they think, or what they want people to think, occurred. Even if in 2015, Dr. Sarah finds document B and publishes seminal work, rethinking all of the theories that were developed 60 years earlier, there are still massive barriers to discovering “what really happened”. Document B might be the most reliable document that exists, but it is still from Village West’s view point of the event.

Textual Criticism is helpful if we want to know what documents are most faithful to which communities’ viewpoints or informed which communities’ values. It is helpful for developing the most meaningful narrative to study on a literary level. We cannot, however, be arrogant enough to trust that our textual criticism fully informs us so as to vainly think we completely understand what actually occurred millennia ago. These Ancient Near East texts are windows into the goals, desires, and worldviews of the communities they originate from. They are not crystal balls magically transporting us to real world events.

Am I saying the events recorded didn’t happen? No. I’m saying we need a healthy perspective on the complexity and limitations of textual criticism. We do the most justice to these texts and their authors when we read them for what they are, not what we wish they were.

Conclusion

So when the people behind your bible were working on the book of Romans and reached the end, they had to make a choice. The Byzantine text-type contains 16:24, reading “The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you all. Amen.” The Codex Sinaiticus simply doesn’t have this sentence. Thankfully, most of these editors are transparent enough to have footnotes informing us of the other options, notifying us of the fact that they made a decision at all. If you have a study bible, there might even be reasons given for the choice. Most of the 300,000 source decisions editors had to make are similar to this one. Small phrases, words, honestly nothing that is that big of a deal. Nonetheless, this is a part of the process that gets sacred literature into the hands of parishioners, so it is important to see the cogs moving behind the scenes. Transparency regarding the scriptures we rely on is critical for this faith community’s maturity, informed discussion, and authenticity.

Winter Update

My winter season began with the end of my formal language courses. While I have a good grasp of the grammar of the language, I do need much more practice communicating. Early December I traveled to Ukraine to meet together with the rest of the MCC Europe team. Throughout December I helped “Citizens Fund Panonija” in their current program by preparing young ethnic minorities for the job market. At the end of December we successfully sent off our proposal to USAID for a grant next year. I had to spend the first ten days of the new year outside of Serbia. First I spent time with some locals in a town on the border between Serbia and Bosnia. Then I traveled to the Dalmatian coast, spending my nights at a Franciscan Monastery with some fellow MCC workers.

In the Spring I will be focussing on putting together peacebuilding courses to teach in schools.