Misreading Scripture with Western Eyes

[Homer]

Do not have this book but others on the culture of the ancient near east. I got the feeling that Jesus wasn't too pleased with the value they placed on "honor". Seeking after honor can be as bad as materialism.

[dwilkins]

One of the key points of the books that Matt correctly noticed is that, especially in the Old Testament, when people did wrong their culture was more interested in their public shame than a private sense of guilt. I'll accept their point for the sake of argument in the Old Testament, but it seems to me that in the New Testament their is a distinct rejection of the ethical system of honor and shame (it's turned on its head, so what's honorable in that day is actually shameful, and vice versa). Instead, it seems to me that as an evolution of ethics the New Testament is self consciously asserting that personal introspective guilt is a better way to go.

Could it be that the fact of personal introspective guilt in modern culture is actually a byproduct of Christianity in the first place? Since the authors' point is that it didn't exist in that day, and from what I can tell it is primarily dominant in Christian cultures, then maybe it's one of the things that God was using the transition to the New Covenant to introduce. That would mean that, although we need to understand the parameters of the guilt/shame system in order to fully decode what's going on in ancient times, and in order to understand part of the criticism by Christ and the Apostles in their day, we should embrace the newer paradigm as proper in our day. I liked the book for a number of its insights, but I wish they'd spent a bit more time on an analysis of the implications of their observations.

Doug

[mattrose]

One of the key points of the books that Matt correctly noticed is that, especially in the Old Testament, when people did wrong their culture was more interested in their public shame than a private sense of guilt. I'll accept their point for the sake of argument in the Old Testament, but it seems to me that in the New Testament their is a distinct rejection of the ethical system of honor and shame (it's turned on its head, so what's honorable in that day is actually shameful, and vice versa). Instead, it seems to me that as an evolution of ethics the New Testament is self consciously asserting that personal introspective guilt is a better way to go.

Could it be that the fact of personal introspective guilt in modern culture is actually a byproduct of Christianity in the first place? Since the authors' point is that it didn't exist in that day, and from what I can tell it is primarily dominant in Christian cultures, then maybe it's one of the things that God was using the transition to the New Covenant to introduce. That would mean that, although we need to understand the parameters of the guilt/shame system in order to fully decode what's going on in ancient times, and in order to understand part of the criticism by Christ and the Apostles in their day, we should embrace the newer paradigm as proper in our day. I liked the book for a number of its insights, but I wish they'd spent a bit more time on an analysis of the implications of their observations.

Doug

I think you may be on to something here. Though I can't imagine that any people were ever wholly non-contemplative, it may be the case that Christianity was a catalyst on the issue of the inner life.

[Michelle]

dwilkins, I hope you don't mind that I brought your post over from another thread.

Matt,

This might belong under the topic of "Misreading Scripture with Western Eyes", but one of the books footnoted there was "Honor, Patronage, Kinship & Purity". It gives a very interesting take on the concept of "grace". Your reference to the term brought this to mind. The point in the second book (summarized in the first one) is that "grace" and "faith" come from the patronage system in which a godfather type person would show grace to a poor person who would show faith back to him. It had a lot more to do with giving a gift to someone and their sense of obligation than the theological implications we put on it today. If you haven't read it, I highly recommend it (though it's a bit dry, and as always, I wouldn't agree with every point).

http://www.amazon.com/Honor-Patronage-K ... hip+purity

Doug

I've read this book, but it's been a while, so I used the index to find passages about grace and faith in the client / patronage culture. I was reminded that when I read this book, the descriptions affirmed my understanding of grace and faith rather than contradicted them. I would love to hear your thoughts about the modern theological implications put upon these two concepts. If you're willing, of course.

Thanks, Michelle

[dwilkins]

dwilkins, I hope you don't mind that I brought your post over from another thread.

Matt,

This might belong under the topic of "Misreading Scripture with Western Eyes", but one of the books footnoted there was "Honor, Patronage, Kinship & Purity". It gives a very interesting take on the concept of "grace". Your reference to the term brought this to mind. The point in the second book (summarized in the first one) is that "grace" and "faith" come from the patronage system in which a godfather type person would show grace to a poor person who would show faith back to him. It had a lot more to do with giving a gift to someone and their sense of obligation than the theological implications we put on it today. If you haven't read it, I highly recommend it (though it's a bit dry, and as always, I wouldn't agree with every point).

http://www.amazon.com/Honor-Patronage-K ... hip+purity

Doug

I've read this book, but it's been a while, so I used the index to find passages about grace and faith in the client / patronage culture. I was reminded that when I read this book, the descriptions affirmed my understanding of grace and faith rather than contradicted them. I would love to hear your thoughts about the modern theological implications put upon these two concepts. If you're willing, of course.

Thanks, Michelle

The point that is rather dryly described in the longer format book (as opposed to the pretty good summary found in this book) is that the terms grace and faith come from the custom of patronage. A patron can be imagined as a benevolent mob boss who gains power by doing people favors. This wouldn't necessarily mean that he was a criminal, but would require that he had a great deal of power. As, say, the lord of the county, he had done the predominant amount of favors to the people that live in his jurisdiction. All of the favors that he does are condescending gifts that the recipient clients couldn't have done by themselves or without his help. The recipients of these gifts are his clients. When they take advantage of his grace they show faith in him. They are then obligated to become loyal followers of his that would brag on him about his grace. So, grace is his gift, faith is taking advantage of it at the moment, and faithfulness is fulfilling their obligation in the long term.

My problem with how these terms are used in modern theology is that they become disasterously ahistorical. There is no implication in the original vocabulary that the recipient of the grace had no capacity to receive it, or that they had no capacity to want it. They did lack the capacity of, say, opening a bakery without the seed money But they most certainly wanted a bakery and most certainly had the ability to accept the money. Moreover, as they go forward in their lives showing faithfulness by giving credit to the patron and recruiting additional clients for him, they certainly have the normal ability to do so. The direction that Calvinists and most other modern theologians take this vocabulary is too logically and philosophically pasteurized. There is no implication in the original vocabulary that the faithful had no capacity to even want the grace. It's a typical mistake made by theologians who want to approach theology like a Keplerian orbit formula. Most of our systematic theology completely ignores the original richness of the vocabulary it is pretending to fit together.

I hope that answers your question.

Doug

[Michelle]

dwilkins, I hope you don't mind that I brought your post over from another thread.

Matt,

This might belong under the topic of "Misreading Scripture with Western Eyes", but one of the books footnoted there was "Honor, Patronage, Kinship & Purity". It gives a very interesting take on the concept of "grace". Your reference to the term brought this to mind. The point in the second book (summarized in the first one) is that "grace" and "faith" come from the patronage system in which a godfather type person would show grace to a poor person who would show faith back to him. It had a lot more to do with giving a gift to someone and their sense of obligation than the theological implications we put on it today. If you haven't read it, I highly recommend it (though it's a bit dry, and as always, I wouldn't agree with every point).

http://www.amazon.com/Honor-Patronage-K ... hip+purity

Doug

I've read this book, but it's been a while, so I used the index to find passages about grace and faith in the client / patronage culture. I was reminded that when I read this book, the descriptions affirmed my understanding of grace and faith rather than contradicted them. I would love to hear your thoughts about the modern theological implications put upon these two concepts. If you're willing, of course.

Thanks, Michelle

The point that is rather dryly described in the longer format book (as opposed to the pretty good summary found in this book) is that the terms grace and faith come from the custom of patronage. A patron can be imagined as a benevolent mob boss who gains power by doing people favors. This wouldn't necessarily mean that he was a criminal, but would require that he had a great deal of power. As, say, the lord of the county, he had done the predominant amount of favors to the people that live in his jurisdiction. All of the favors that he does are condescending gifts that the recipient clients couldn't have done by themselves or without his help. The recipients of these gifts are his clients. When they take advantage of his grace they show faith in him. They are then obligated to become loyal followers of his that would brag on him about his grace. So, grace is his gift, faith is taking advantage of it at the moment, and faithfulness is fulfilling their obligation in the long term.

My problem with how these terms are used in modern theology is that they become disasterously ahistorical. There is no implication in the original vocabulary that the recipient of the grace had no capacity to receive it, or that they had no capacity to want it. They did lack the capacity of, say, opening a bakery without the seed money But they most certainly wanted a bakery and most certainly had the ability to accept the money. Moreover, as they go forward in their lives showing faithfulness by giving credit to the patron and recruiting additional clients for him, they certainly have the normal ability to do so. The direction that Calvinists and most other modern theologians take this vocabulary is too logically and philosophically pasteurized. There is no implication in the original vocabulary that the faithful had no capacity to even want the grace. It's a typical mistake made by theologians who want to approach theology like a Keplerian orbit formula. Most of our systematic theology completely ignores the original richness of the vocabulary it is pretending to fit together.

I hope that answers your question.

Doug

Yes, thank you, Doug, you have answered my question, and explained what you mean very well.

By "the longer format book" do you mean Honor, Patronage, Kinship & Purity as opposed to Misreading Scripture with Western Eyes?

[dwilkins]

The longer one is Honor, Patronage, Kinship and Purity. It's a good book. It just might be a bit dry unless you're into reading theology text books.

Doug

[Michelle]

The longer one is Honor, Patronage, Kinship and Purity. It's a good book. It just might be a bit dry unless you're into reading theology text books.

Doug

Ha! I really liked the book. If you're looking for light, summertime beach reading, this isn't that kind of book, no.