2016 Airing of Grievances

Today is December 23rd. Exactly two days until Christmas. Christmas eve eve. But not only that, today also marks the date of the Festivus for the rest of us! Happy Festivus everyone!

As tradition goes, the celebration of Festivus begins with an airing of grievances. 2016 has been a year unlike any other it seems. It has certainly been full of ups and downs, surprises, and downright weirdness. As such, “I got a lot of problems with you people! Now, you’re gonna hear about it!”

The referees decision to not bring out the chains on the last fourth down during the Michigan–Ohio game is a national disgrace. How convenient that they never had a camera angle that showed the side view. All we saw was from behind and in front. Also, most of those refs were from Ohio. Totally rigged. 

Speaking of things that were rigged; interesting how all the liberals and Hillary backers who bitched and moaned over Trump saying he might not accept the election results and that the election might be rigged, they sure changed their tune quickly. The left hounded Trump for saying that he would reserve the right to do…exactly what the left is doing now! And good job persuading the electoral college to turn on Trump. Hillary ended up having more defectors than he did. 

If you’re a Republican unhappy with Trump and the party’s choice to make him the nominee and want someone to blame, look no further than loser Jeb Bush. Jeb’s campaign was a train wreck that only derailed any and all other possible contenders such as Rubio, and Kasich. The longer he stayed in, sucking up all the money, the more inevitable it was Trump would win. He cockblocked every other candidate and by the time he dropped out it was too late. 

On a much more trivial note, I am once again calling on the University of Kansas to cut all ties with the Roasterie. Their coffee sucks, the service is slow, and it’s more expensive than Starbucks. Starbucks is vastly superior in every conceivable way. It’s time for a real coffee place on campus. 

Harambe was a gorilla. Get over it. Harambe almost killed a little kid. Zoo workers all confirmed that tranquilizer darts do not actually kick in immediately and sometimes can provoke the animal even further. Thus shooting him was the only viable option. Our society’s deification of this monster is a tragedy and completely ridiculous.

The United Nation’s short sighted and narrow minded decision to remove Wonder Woman as an honourary ambassador is completely asinine. Wonder Woman is a powerful symbol of womanhood, femininity, and all around badassery. The UN was concerned people would only look at her appearance, so in response they only looked at her appearance and removed her from the position. The ultimate act of sexism if you ask me. They said she was ‘too white’ and ‘too hot.’ Besides the fact that the only two actress to ever play the Amazon princess; Lynda Carter and Gal Gadot are half Mexican, and Israel respectively. I doubt anyone who signed that stupid petition has ever once opened up and read a Wonder Woman comic. If they had, they’d realise how stupid they look.

I will never understand people who drink bad liquor. Of course I’m talking about my fellow college students who for some reason are perfectly content drinking Burnett’s vodka or Gordon’s gin. And of course they’ll say “it’s cheaper” in response. Well, maybe if you spent your money more wisely on other things, you’d be able to have more to spend at the liquor store. And then they’ll respond usually with something along the lines of “it gets me drunk the same so I don’t care.” Yea? Well, there’s no accounting for taste I suppose. Also, quality liquor tends to not result in hangovers the next morning unlike the crap you all drink. Seriously, have some taste, have some standards. 

Well, I could go on and on about my many complaints about 2016. This has merely scratched the surface. But in the interest of time I’ll leave it at that. But rest assured there are still many things I enjoyed about this year. Happy holidays, and have a happy Festivus!

–M

Scribal Redactions of Adoptionist Texts

This is the second part of my term paper on the Ebionite Christiology. This section deals with textual variants among New Testament manuscripts. The main point here is that when making copies of the NT, some scribes edited out verses that contained potentially adoptionistic language. 

Looking at textual variants of the New Testament manuscripts, Bart Ehrman, has identified several spots in the NT where what appears to be adoptionistic language was edited out by scribes over the centuries to remove any possible areas that could be misconstrued as adoptionistic in nature. Ehrman notes two instances in Luke 2 where manuscripts contain different language concerning Jesus’ “parents” and “father.” In Lk 2.33 in which the text states, “his father and mother were marvelling…” some scribes changed the wording to “Joseph and his mother were marvelling…” Another example occurs just a few verses later in 2.48. While on their way to the Passover festival in Jerusalem, Jesus, unbeknownst to Mary and Joseph stayed behind. When they could not find him among their relatives they returned home to look for him. They eventually found him in the temple where Mary cried out, “Child, why have you treated us like this? Look, you father and I have been searching for you in great anxiety.” Again, in certain manuscripts, scribes have revised the text to say “we have been looking for you” rather than use the word “father.” The theological reasoning behind such a change is to avoid anything that veers close to portraying Jesus as a human son with a human father. Ehrman writes, “how could the text call Joseph, Jesus’ father if Jesus had been born of a virgin?” [12]

Other evidences of an adoptionist view in the NT can be found throughout Luke–Acts. However, as John Knox observes, “the question is not whether the author of Luke–Acts held an adoptionistic christology but whether evidence for the primitive existence of such christology is to be found in his work.” [13] Knox believes there is in fact indisputable evidence that early adoptionism can be extracted from the texts. Acts 2.36 states what may have been a take on a primitive creed that may have been recited by the early Christians (more on that later); “Therefore let the entire house of Israel know with certainty that God has made him both Lord and Messiah, this Jesus whom you crucified.” Knox takes this to be a clear indication that “the man Jesus, crucified simply as such, was at the resurrection exalted to his present messianic status.” [14] Knox also holds that through careful reading of the first chapters of Acts, the “original gospel” was that Jesus ‘the holy righteous one’ was killed by lawless men, after which God raised him up from the dead, exalting him to a position of Lordship. [15] The idea of Jesus being a ‘righteous’ man who was killed and then exalted to a divine plane by God is very similar to Ebionite christology described by Epiphanius. It also bares strong similarities to the exaltation of the mythic founder of Rome, Romulus, who was said to been taken up to haven and was declared to be “a god, the son of a god” for his great valour. [15] Thus there was precedent for this kind of motif in the ancient world that Jesus would fit into. This indicates that despite the Ebionite’s association with the second century, their theological motifs are earlier and possibly stem from the first Christians who also would have been aware of such literary patterns. 

One of the more curious textual variants in the gospels however, occurs in Luke’s account of Jesus’ baptism, the same place where according to Epiphanius, the Ebionites believed Jesus was made divine. In all the synoptic versions of the story, when Jesus is baptised, the skies open and the holy spirit descends onto Jesus taking the form of a dove––exactly how Epiphanius describes the Ebionite telling of the story. Then a voice came from the sky declaring Jesus to be God’s son. What Ehrman notes is that manuscript evidence from Luke’s account in 3.22 varies on what exactly the voice says. While most manuscripts and modern Bibles record the voice as saying, “you are my son, the beloved, with you I am well pleased” the same as what is said in Mark 1.11 and Matthew 3.17, in one early Greek manuscript and multiple Latin manuscripts the text instead reads, “you are son, today I have begotten you.” [17] The point of interest in this instance is the utilisation of the word “today.” Simply speaking, the use of “today” would seem to imply that it was on that specific day that Jesus became God’s son and not any time prior. Though most manuscripts contain the Markan phrasing, it should be noted that the verse itself (Lk 3.22) was very popular and quoted frequently by Church fathers prior to the production of the manuscripts. In the vast majority of those quotations, the phrasing of Luke 3.22 is “today I have begotten you” not “with you I am well pleased.” This may indicate that the former phrasing precedes the latter. It should also be of note that scribes typically tried to harmonise texts and Ehrman concludes, “it is therefore the form of the text that differs from Mark that is more likely to be original to Luke” and that, “these arguments suggest that the less attested reading–– “today I have begotten you” ––is indeed the original.” [18]

In Panarion, Epiphanius provides his version of the Ebionite, “Gospel of the Hebrews” which he holds to be a bastardised version of Matthew. In the GoH, the writer includes an account of the baptism which Epiphanius records as reading, “Jesus came also and was baptised by John. And a as he came up out of the water the heavens were opened, and he saw the Holy Spirit in the form of a dove which descended and entered into him. And (there came) a voice from heaven saying, Thou art my beloved Son, in thee I am well pleased, and again, This day I have begotten thee.” [19] The Ebionite gospel thus clearly contains not just the Markan reading of Luke 3.22 but also the variant reading of Luke observed by Ehrman which quotes Psalm 2.7.

–M

Sources

• [10] Sharron Watters Coonrad, “Adoptionism: The History of a Doctrine” PhD diss., (University of Iowa, 1999); 80.
• [11] Ibid., 141–142
• [12] Bart D. Ehrman, Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why (United States: HarperCollins, 2005); 158.
• [13] John Knox, The Humanity and Divinity of Christ: A Study of Pattern in Christology (United States: Cambridge University Press, 1967); 7.
• [14] Ibid., 8
• [15] Ibid., 6
• [16] Benjamin Oliver Foster, trans., Titus Livy’s The History of Rome (United States: Tufts University, 1985). The motif of an individual being taken up into heaven on account of their merit or actions is not unique to Christianity and was widespread throughout the Mediterranean. Other examples include; Adapa, Enoch, Herakles, and Elijah.
• [17] Ehrman, Misquoting Jesus, 159. Specifically, see the Greek MS, Codex Bezae (D) which houses two columns, one in Greek and one in Latin. Ehrman lays out this case more extensively in The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture (New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 1993); 71.
• [18] Ibid., 160
• [19] Williams, The Panarion of Epiphanius of Salamis, 142

Epiphanius’ Case against the Ebinoites

The following are the opening paragraphs to my term paper on adoptionist Christology as held by the Ebionite sects in the second century. In this paper I deal with a number of issues concerning the Ebionites and one of their main detractor’s, Epiphanius of Salamis, and his contentions with their views. For simplicity, I have broken the paper up into sections.

During the earliest days of Christianity there existed a wide array of Christological beliefs concerning the humanity and divinity of Jesus. [1] Early Christians debated back and forth over whether Jesus was divine, in what sense he was divine, and at what point during his lifetime he became divine. To get from Jesus to Christ took centuries of debates before the Church finally settled on one definitive creed in which they declared him both fully human and fully divine. [2] However, to arrive at this conclusion they had to weed out all the Christological beliefs that ran contrary to the Nicene Creed. One prominent view concerning Jesus’ divinity is called ‘adoptionism’ which was a form of Monarchianism. By this view, Jesus was a regular human who was conceived through human intercourse, and because of the righteous life that he lived, he was exalted by God during his life. [3] One Jewish–Christian group who subscribed to this belief were the Ebionites. Both Eusebius of Caesarea and Epiphanius of Salamis mention the Ebionites in their writings, both renouncing their views. In Eusebius’s Church History, he dismisses the Christological views of the sect as an “outrageous absurdity.” He writes that the Ebionites maintained, “low and mean opinions of Christ” because they regarded him as “a plain and common man.” [4] In this work, Panarion, Epiphanius dedicates an entire section to renouncing their beliefs and declares them heretical. [5] In this paper I will examine the Christological belief of the Ebionites as described by Epiphanius and explore the origins and development of adoptionism in early Christianity. Based on manuscript evidence, and Jewish and Greco–Roman traditions of divine sonship, it can be argued firmly that adoptionism was the earliest Christological view regarding Jesus. Though the Ebionites are generally associated with the second century, adoptionism can be traced back all the way back to the earliest Christians.

When referring to Ebion, the founder of the Ebionites, Epiphanius describes him as someone who, “took any and every doctrine which was dreadful, lethal, disgusting, ugly, and unconvincing, thoroughly contentious, from every sect, and patterned himself after them all.” [6] H.T. Schoeps writes that Ebionites saw Jesus as, “the teacher and the pattern of perfect Chassiduth” and that “on account of the merit during his life they held, he was called by God to be the Christ.” [7] The Ebionite sect did not believe Jesus to be a pre-existent divinity but rather one who was conceived naturally by his parents; Mary and Joseph. Only for his merit and because of his righteous observance of the law did Jesus became divine. For the Ebionites it was during his baptism when Jesus became divine. However, as I shall demonstrate later, there were other views for adoptionists concerning when Jesus became divine. The difference between this view and that of the proto-orthodox, is simply the idea that Jesus became divine as opposed to always having been divine. For the proto-orthodoxy, God did not make Jesus divine, but rather affirmed that he was divine. Because Christian writers such as Epiphanius were in the business of defending the proto-orthodox view, that meant they had to discredit any and all other competing views. It is for that reason that Epiphanius writes about the Ebionites in the manner that he does. In the very beginning of the Panarion, he establishes that it is his objective to refute all “divergent views” against the correct view. [8]

There are two main tenants of Ebionite christology that Epiphanius objects to; first that he was conceived by a man and a woman, making him a mortal human like any other, and second that Jesus only obtained divine status by exaltation by God during his life, not prior to his conception. For Epiphanius, in order for Jesus to be fully divine he must have been fathered by God and thus could not have been a product of human intercourse. Yet Ebion maintained that, “Christ is the offspring of a man, that is of Joseph.” [9] Both Eusebius and Ireneus tell us that the Ebionites adhered to the translation of Theodition regarding Isaiah 7.14 and took what is commonly considered to be “virgin” as “young women” to further establish that Jesus was just a man. [10] Epiphanius dismisses the traditions shared by the Ebionites as “utterly false” and calls them “imaginary stor[ies].” Epiphanius notes that the Ebionites, while rejecting the writings of Paul, accepted the Gospel of Matthew. However, he notes that they referred to it as the “Gospel of the Hebrews” and that it was not the same version that he was familiar with. Of that, he writes, “Now in what they call a Gospel according to Matthew, though it is not the entire Gospel but is corrupt and mutilated.” When he begins to talk about how the Ebionites saw Jesus as being “made the Christ” by God at his baptism he writes, “they maintain that Jesus is really a man, as I said, that Christ, who is descended in the form of a dove, has entered him–as we have already seen in other sects […]” [11] For the Ebionites, the baptism described in Mark 1.9-11, Matthew 3.13-17, and Luke 3.21-22 is the moment at which God selected Jesus to be his son. While the Ebionites are typically associated with the second century, the concept of Jesus being fathered by Joseph and adopted by God at his baptism was around before that and can be observed in New Testament MS and in Pauline theology.

–M

Sources:

• [1] Ioan P. Couliano, The Tree of Gnosis: Gnostic Mythology from Early Christianity to Modern Nihilism (San Francisco, CA: HarperSanFrancisco, 1992); 14–15
• [2] “Nicene Creed” Encyclopedia Britannica, accessed 25 November 2016, https://www.britannica.com/topic/Nicene-Creed
• [3] Some strands of adoptionism still maintained a belief in divine conception. Theodotus taught such a view near the end of the second century. See: “Monarchianism” Encyclopedia Britannica, accessed 25 November 2016, https://www.britannica.com/topic/Monarchianism
• [4] C.F. Cruse, trans., Eusebius Ecclesiastical History (United States: Merchant Books, 2011); 101-102.
• [5] Frank Williams, trans., The Panarion of Epiphanius of Salamis (Boston, MA: Koninklijke Brill NV, 2009; 131-165.
• [6] Williams, The Panarion of Epiphanius of Salamis, 131
• [7] H.T. Schoeps, “Ebionite Christology,” The Journal of Theological Studies 4, no. 2 (1953) 219-224.
• [8] Williams, The Panarion of Epiphanius of Salamis, 13
• [9] Ibid., 193
• [10] Sharron Watters Coonrad, “Adoptionism: The History of a Doctrine” PhD diss., (University of Iowa, 1999); 80.
• [11] Ibid., 141-142

Maybe This Christmas

This Christmas is a very interesting Christmas for me. Perhaps one of the most defining Christmases in my life so far. In years past it seemed that my wish list was packed with toys, video games, and the latest electronic device. Socks to a 10 year old me, or even a 16 year old me, was among the worst gifts to get. But to quote the song Cold December Night by Michael Bublé, “now there’s more than toys at stake, cause I’m older now.” 

For the past few years my Christmas list has grown less toy centred and more adultish. For instance, last year the thing that took up the most space on my wish list were books. Academic books at that. Things such as socks have gradually become not such a lousy gift as I wear out my old socks or lose them at the laundromat. As a broke college student, socks just aren’t something I have an interest in spending money. So in an interesting twist of events, rather than asking Santa for a series of action figures or the newest Madden game, I ask him for socks.

Yet perhaps the most telling part of this Christmas is not what I haven’t asked for, but what I did ask for. Two of the most unique things that made my wish list this year are a countertop dishwasher and a blender. Not toys, not video games, not a new flashy phone case or a cool alarm clock-stereo. A countertop dishwasher. I currently live in a studio apartment that does not have a dish washer and thus I have to wash all y dishes by hand which gets very tiresome and annoying. The blender made the list simply because I love to make smoothies in the spring and the lack of a blender makes that pretty difficult. 

While I also asked for things such as graphic novels, some shirts, and a few gift cards, probably two of the biggest things on my list were kitchen appliances. If that’s not a sure sign of growing up I don’t know what is. This is the first Christmas that I’ve really come to realise that I’m not a kid anymore. Last year provided some hints, but this year it hit me square in the face, I’m no longer the 12 year old boy I used to be. 

Though I will miss the days of yesteryear, when I would run down the stairs on Christmas morning, full of joy and energy, waiting to see what Santa had brought, I welcome this new chapter of my life. Growing up is something everyone does and I’m finally ready to turn the page and step fully into adulthood. Though I still have many decisions left to make in terms of what I want to do with my life, where I’ll end up after KU, and many others, I’m confident in my ability to make those decisions, and I trust those around me who are supportive. After all these years, if there’s one thing I’ve learned about myself it’s that I work well under pressure. And if there’s one thing this next year and a half won’t be lacking, it’s pressure. 

The second half of this year has been full of personal revelations for me, and this Christmas season is no exception. So with that, I look forward to this Christmas and being with family and celebrating being together for the holiday. This season has always been and will remain my favourite time of the year. Maybe, after all the drama and heartache from the summer, after the drama with my parents and doubting of myself, after losing interest in school,  after essentially having to start over and go back to the drawing board, after all that, maybe this Christmas is just what I need. 

Happy holidays and have a merry Christmas!

–M

2016 Year End Favourites

What a year it’s been. A year full of upsets, surprises, and outright weirdness. 2016 has certainly been one for the history books. So here are some of my favourite things from the year categorised by movies, music, books.

Movies:

X-Men: Apocalypse 

Captain America: Civil War

The Jungle Book

Suicide Squad

Albums:

Dangerous Woman//Ariana Grande

Retrograde//Crown the Empire

California//Blink-182

Bad Vibrations//A Day to Remember

Desolate Divine//The Color Morale

Youth Authority//Good Charlotte

Dissonants//Hands Like Houses

Books:

Wonder Woman vol. 1 by Greg Rucka

The Adventures of Supergirl vol. 1 by Sterling Gates

Flash: Rebirth by Geoff Johns

Good Girls, Bad Girls of the New Testament by T.J. Wray

Wonder Woman: Rise of the Olympian by Gail Simone

The Myth of Persecution by Candida Moss

The Amazons by Adrienne Mayor

–M

 

A Dark Knight Christmas: Batman Annual #1 Review

It’s christmas time in Gotham and all through the town not a creature was stirring, except for the Batman. 

In general annuals (at least the ones that I’ve read) are never the greatest comics, yet every once in a while you get a defining work like Superman Annual #11. With that, the much deserved frenzy over the new Rebirth series, and the fact that besides Wonder Woman, Batman is my favourite character, I was most curious to see how this would turn out.

Overall I was not disappointed. This comic consists of five mini stories that each do a great job of ushering in the holiday spirit. This is a great read to get prepared for what will hopefully be the best christmas present from DC this year; Justice League vs Suicide Squad.

The first story, Good Boy, is a new origin story for Ace the bat hound. After being abandoned by the Joker, Ace is subsequently bought from an animal shelter by Alfred for a lofty sum of money. How lofty? Well, by the amount of the check, ‘Gotham Pound’ became ‘the Martha and Thomas Wayne Humane Society’. The story is written by Tom King who is of course the current writer for Batman. Though very short and not really very substantive, King does manages to do more with less and actually writes a very enjoyable short story. There’s some really good humour and we get to observe a nice dynamic in Alfred and Bruce’s relationship. Short, simple, and too the point. 

The second story in this annual is, Silent Night. While this story is not very original it definitely still delivers. On a cold winter night, Batman is out surveying the town, waiting for the Bat signal to go off and send him into action. Meanwhile, the people of Gotham are gathered outside in a city square where Batman has followed a lead to. What ensues is a nice twist that really brings out the holiday cheer as we see not a terrorist plot unfold in Gotham, but harmless festivities put on by what appear to be some acrobats. Again, while very short in length this story manages to capitalise on the simplicity of the christmas spirit and how soothing and comforting it can be.

The third story in this installment is, The Not So Silent Night of Harley Quinn. The story isn’t bad, but is certainly is far outdone by the earlier two. The story begins with Harley Quinn on the roof of Gotham Police HQ trying to break in. From there is stopped by Batman who then takes her for a ride in the bat mobile where it is revealed she had a bomb with her. Yet she still pleads to Batman that she’s been good this year and has been the “personification of good will and happiness.” She then proceeds to sing christmas songs for the next few pages (boring). Eventually Batman drops her off at Coney Island where she is joined by her friends. In terms of being “christmasy” this is probably the most christmasy but that’s about it. It’s a nice care free story but not my favourite. It’s silly and random and I suppose that makes up for it’s lack of substance, so I guess it’s overall enjoyable.

The next story, Stag, was less of standalone christmas themed short story, and more of a preview of what will come to Batman comics in 2017. Taking place in downtown Gotham, Barry O’neil is putting on an christmas event for the disadvantaged youth of Gotham. However, while O’neil is speaking the event interrupted by a villain who goes by ‘minister blizzard’ who O’neil reveals had been sending him letters threatening to ‘restore the ice age.’ Blizzard is quickly reprimanded by Batman and the festivities continue. Later that night, while sitting alone in his house is confronted by Duke who asks him what’s on his mind. Bruce admits that “no matter how many times I save people they all come up against the one thing I can’t save them from.” Next, just arriving at his own him, O’neil is attacked and killed by ‘Stag.’ And then it ends. Lovely.

The fifth and final story, The Insecurity Diversion, is the most intricate story in this comic. It begins in Arkham Asylum where Delia Pflaum who goes by “Haunter” has created a diversion for Batman while she plans to escape. Upon realising he’s been tricked, Batman immediately heads to Arkham to try to put Haunter back in the asylum. Haunter meets up with the Scarecrow who was crucial to her plan. Batman then smashes through the wall and foils their plot. The ending of this story is actually kind of morbid, where Batman has created a drug that paralyses the two for up to 8 hours. He then tells them that they can either bring them to Arkham, or let them freeze to death. This story I feel was one that really could have been stretched out and made into a one-shot novel if the writers wanted to. Very fun read. 

Overall I was quite satisfied with this annual. Batman Rebirth has been fantastic thus far and the annual doesn’t disappoint. Intertwining crime stories with holiday cheer, Batman annual succeeds in providing entertaining short stories and bringing in the holiday spirit to readers. Though some could have made better use of space or been expanded on, and while I wasn’t a huge fan of the third story in light of the others, this annual is still a fun read as we head into December.

Ratings: 8/10

–M