Rebekah has a great new piece at her blog, “The Doxological Life,” entitled, “When Nothing Arrives.” An excerpt:
“My generation knows it needs to find a different kind of knowing, not one that is necessarily antithetical to Christian dogma, but one that sees faith, doubt, and dogma working together. But we are often at a loss as to how to rebuild our faith without resorting to cookie-cutter answers and insincere platitudes in responses to real suffering and tough theological problems. We’re so scared of resorting to the unfettered dogmatism of our forebears that we go in the opposite direction. Uncertainty and doubt become their own kinds of dogmatism, their own creeds.”
Bekah and Benj discuss the apparent tension between the methods of cooking the Passover sacrifice (and the type of sacrifice) prescribed in Exodus 12 and Deuteronomy 16. We address the phenomenon of inner-biblical exegesis, particularly the Chronicler’s harmonistic exegesis of these two passages in 2 Chronicles 35. Along the way, we discuss why “someone is wrong on the internet” and how to solve this problem.
The texts in question:
- “They shall eat the flesh that same night, roasted with fire (צלי־אשׁ), and they shall eat it with unleavened bread and bitter herbs. Do not eat any of it raw or boiled at all with water (בשׁל מבשׁל במים), but rather roasted with fire (כי אם־צלי אשׁ), both its head and its legs along with its entrails” (Exod 12:8-9).
- “You shall boil (ובשׁלת) and eat it in the place which the LORD your God chooses” (Deut 16:7a).
- The Chronicler has harmonized the two traditions by specifying that it was “boiled with fire” (ויבשׁלו הפסח באשׁ כמשׁפט).
Don’t forget to subscribe on iTunes, and email us if you like the show or have questions: benjamingiffone [at] gmail. Please be sure to “like” and share our Facebook page!
In this podcast, Rebekah and Benj consider whether the apparent incoherence and inconsistency in 1 Corinthians 8-11 can be resolved when the passage is viewed through the lens of the practice of eating sacrifices in the ancient world.
In the process, we may have established a new line of ideological biblical criticism: “thusiaphagological criticism,” which is viewing everything through the lens of sacrifice eating.
As discussed in the show, this exchange between Troy Martin and Mark Goodacre in JBL may add some clarity to the puzzling commands in 1 Corinthians 11 (see PDFs at the end of this post).
Troy W. Martin, “Paul’s Argument from Nature for the Veil in 1 Corinthians 11:13–15: A Testicle instead of a Head Covering,” JBL 123 (2004): 75-84.
Mark Goodacre, “Does περιβόλαιον Mean ‘Testicle’ in 1 Corinthians 11:15?” JBL 130 (2011): 391-96. Troy W. Martin, “Περιβόλαιον as “Testicle” in 1 Corinthians 11:15: A Response to Mark Goodacre,” JBL 132 (2013): 453-465.
Please be sure to “like” and share our Facebook page!
j2011 Goodacre Does περιβόλαιον Mean Testicle”in 1 Corinthians 11_15.pdf
j2013 Martin Περιβόλαιον as Testicle – A Response to Mark Goodacre.pdf
j2004 Martin Paul’s Argument from Nature.pdf