CSFF Blog Tour: The Begotten Day Three

I've certainly taken the long way around to get to today's review of The Begotten by Lisa T. Bergen. So here we go.

The story, as I've said, revolves around one of the lost letters Paul wrote to the Corinthians. In Bergen's story, this letter sounds almost apocalyptic in nature, predicting the coming of "the Gifted," a group of individuals with spectacular spiritual gifts. But because the only copy was illuminated (i.e. illustrated), it was condemned by the iconoclasts in the eighth century.

Fast forward to the fourteenth century. Father Piero, a Catholic priest, believes the time has come. The Gifted are gathering. Lady Daria d'Angelo. Sir Gianni de Capezzana. Hasani. Each are showing incredible abilities. What purpose does God have for these Gifted individuals?

But there are dangers within and without of the Church. How will the Church react as their talents become more obvious? And what about the Sorceror? What designs does he have on the Gifted?

Bergen's story is engaging and engrossing. It's exciting to boot. I want to make this absolutely clear: I enjoyed reading this book a lot.

And yet...

Once I had finished reading it, I felt a bit dissatisfied, not for any artistic reasons but for theological reasons. If you haven't read the book, might want to leave now. Spoilers and whatnot.

For starters, we have the fact that Bergen describes "true" 1 Corinthians as a prophetic book (although, truth be told, it sounds like it's more of an apocalyptic book and yes, there is a difference), one dedicated to the predictions regarding the Gifted and their coming trials.

But this doesn't really seem to jive with what we know of "true" 1 Corinthians. Like I said two days ago, Paul gives us a little peek at the contents in 1 Corinthians 5:9, where he warns the Corinthians against sexual immorality.

If, as Bergen posits, the book is apocalyptic/prophetic, then such practical advice would stick out and be out of place.

Second, Paul doesn't seem to be all that big on apocalyptic stuff. For example, in 1 Corinthians 14:19, he says "I would rather speak five words with my mind, in order to instruct others also, than ten thousand in a tongue." Now granted, he is speaking about the gift of tongues here (obviously), but I think the principle applies to apocalyptic visions as well. Why would Paul, who seemed very practical, resort to mystical visions in a letter and then, in its sequel, decry it?

2 Corinthians 12 also would seem to argue against the first letter being apocalyptic. Paul says that he knows "a person in Christ" who was caught up to the third heaven. Based on 2 Corinthians 12:7, most Biblical scholars think that this "person in Christ" who was caught up to the third heaven was Paul himself.

But notice what Paul does. Rather than boast about his vision (or even give a hint as to what he saw), he said he'd rather boast about his weakness and his mysterious "thorn in the flesh." It seems out of character, given those two passages, for Paul to engage in mystical visions and record them. In my mind, it'd be more likely he'd keep them private.

My second problem with the book is with the concept of the Gifted themselves. It seems to fly in the face of what Paul wrote to the Corinthians in 1 Corinthians 12. Paul seems to warn them off of the idea of "super gifts." Instead, he seems to say that all gifts are equally important. Perhaps I'm reading too much into it, but the idea of these superior gifts being given to a select few doesn't seem to match up with Paul's message.

And finally, we have the way the Gifted behave doesn't strike me as real. It almost feels like a group of non-denominational Americans somehow got transported back into 14th century Italy. Bergen did an admirable job of bringing the era alive (although I did have to look up what "handfasting" was); it just seemed odd that a group of 14th century Roman Catholics would abandon almost all the trappings of their worship.

Don't get me wrong, I did enjoy the book. But much of it rang very wrong to me and it kept me from truly loving it.

But that's just my opinion. Go check out what the others are saying:

Brandon Barr
Jim Black
Justin Boyer
Jackie Castle
Karri Compton
CSFF Blog Tour
Gene Curtis
D. G. D. Davidson
Jeff Draper
April Erwin
Karina Fabian
Beth Goddard
Marcus Goodyear
Todd Michael Greene
Michael Heald
Christopher Hopper
Joleen Howell
Jason Joyner
Kait
Carol Keen
Mike Lynch
Terri Main
Margaret
Melissa Meeks
Pamela Morrisson
Rachelle
Steve Rice
Ashley Rutherford
Chawna Schroeder
James Somers
Rachelle Sperling
Stuart Stockton
Steve Trower
Speculative Faith
Robert Treskillard
Laura Williams
Timothy Wise

CSFF Blog Tour: The Begotten Day Two

Yesterday I did a Corinthians chronology. Today, in connection to Lisa T. Bergen's book The Begotten, I thought I'd talk about how the New Testament canon was put together.

There's a lot of misconceptions that a specific church council or singular individual put together the New Testament (the most egregious is that contained within The DaVinci Code, which states it was the Emperor Constantine who twisted Scripture to his own nefarious purpose). This simply isn't true.

Starting in the second century, the Church started disucssing which books belonged in the canon. Just so everyone is on the same page, "canon" comes from the Greek word kanon, which refers to a measuring stick. The question of the canon is this: which books measure up? Which were in? Which were out?

This discussion was prompted by a number of internal problems. For starters, you had the gnostic Christians who produced their own scriptures, none of which were in line with the orthodox faith. Also problematic was the work of Marcion, a man from Rome who had his own ideas about Christianity. He saw Paul as the best (and only true) of the apostles. The rest had been corrupted by their Jewish roots. Marcion believed that Christianity was a radical break from Judaism. For that reason, Marcion picked and choosed which books he liked. Gone was the entire Old Testament. Gone were three of the Gospels, leaving only a heavily edited version of Luke. Gone were all of the other books save Paul's letters.

In the light of the mounting problem, the Church began a lengthy discussion about which books were being used where. Church leaders wrote to each other and compared lists. In the early days, there were a few extra books included, such as The Shepherd of Hermas and The Didache, but these were eventually dismissed.

By the time of Constantine, the process was pretty much over. There were a few question marks (people weren't sure if books like 2 Peter, Jude, James, or 2 & 3 John belonged in). By the time of the Council of Carthage, in 397 AD, the discussion had pretty much petered out and the Council said the matter was closed.

So the question is, what criteria did the early church use in sorting through the books?

Well, that's the thing. They are never explicitly stated. But working backwards, there seemed to be four criteria used:

1) Apostolic origin - The book had to have been produced by either an apostle (i.e. Matthew, John, Peter, or Paul) or an "honorary" apostle (i.e. Mark, Luke, James, Jude), someone who has a close connection to an apostle.

This is why some of the books were excluded. For example, The Shepherd of Hermas and The Didache were both fine books and the early church fathers encouraged people to use them as devotional reading. But because neither were produced by apostles, they were excluded.

2) Orthodoxy - This is the main reason why many of the books got excluded, especially the ones produced by the gnostics. While these books claimed to be written by the apostles, their heretical content got them nixed.

A good case in point: there was a "Gospel of Peter" that floated around and was quite popular, even to the point where it was read in worship. But then a bishop named Serapion realized that it contained docetic beliefs. The Gospel lost its popularity after that and was no longer used.

3) Universal acceptance - Simply put, the whole church (or at least a vast majority) had to accept the book and use it.

4) Usefulness for the Church as a whole - A book had to be useful to everyone to be included. For example, we could have Paul's laundry list. It's written by Paul, there's nothing heretical in it, and everyone accepts it. Well, it probably wouldn't make it in because, really, what good would it be aside from a historical curiousity?

The reason I bring this up in connection with The Begotten is because of Bergen's main premise, that "true" 1 Corinthians somehow wasn't included in the New Testament canon and only one copy survived.

Could it have happened? Possibly. The fact that we don't have "true" 1 Corinthians and the "Letter of Tears" shows that Paul's writing could be and were lost. And it's certainly understandable that the Church would have problems with it if it surfaced again.

Tomorrow's the last day and I'll talk about the plot of the book since I've taken such a long time to lead up to it. In the meantime, go check out what other people are saying.

Brandon Barr
Jim Black
Justin Boyer
Jackie Castle
Karri Compton
CSFF Blog Tour
Gene Curtis
D. G. D. Davidson
Jeff Draper
April Erwin
Karina Fabian
Beth Goddard
Marcus Goodyear
Todd Michael Greene
Michael Heald
Christopher Hopper
Joleen Howell
Jason Joyner
Kait
Carol Keen
Mike Lynch
Terri Main
Margaret
Melissa Meeks
Pamela Morrisson
Rachelle
Steve Rice
Ashley Rutherford
Chawna Schroeder
James Somers
Rachelle Sperling
Stuart Stockton
Steve Trower
Speculative Faith
Robert Treskillard
Laura Williams
Timothy Wise

CSFF Blog Tour: The Begotten Day One

This month, we're looking at The Begotten by Lisa T. Bergen. It's an interesting speculative historical piece centered around one of the lost books to the Corinthians.

What's that you say? You didn't know that there were lost books to the Corinthians? Why yes, it's true.

It's actually interesting that we're doing this book this month because I'm in the midst of a marathon Bible study series with my congregation on 1 & 2 Corinthians, so this subject is fresh in my mind. Since I always aim to have unique material in this blog tour, let's talk about the chronology of the Corinthian letters. How do the books we call 1 & 2 Corinthians fit into the scheme of things?

Before I begin, I should mention that a lot of this is built on speculation. To put it bluntly, this is educated guesswork. With that final caveat, let's begin:

1) Paul writes "true" 1 Corinthians - We know from 1 Corinthians 5:9 that Paul wrote a letter to the Corinthian Christians before the one we call 1 Corinthians. Apparently in "true" 1 Corinthians, Paul wrote about associating with sexually immoral people. Sadly, this letter is lost to the ages.

Or is it? Some Biblical scholars believe that a fragment of it survives, in all places, within 2 Corinthians. Some Biblical scholars believe that 2 Corinthians 6:14-7:1 is a piece of the lost first letter. It certainly matches the theme that Paul mentions in 1 Corinthians 5:9, focusing on not being unequally yoked with unbelievers. Not only that, but this portion of 2 Corinthians sticks out like a sore thumb. Try reading 2 Corinthians 6:11-13, skip over 6:14-7:1, and pick up again at 7:2-4. It flows together, doesn't it?

Is it possible? Sure. The first collection of Paul's letters isn't mentioned until the 90s (obviously not the 1990s, the just-plain 90s). A lot could happen in the forty years between the time the letters were written and when they were collected. A bit of the lost letter could have been tucked into the text of 2 Corinthians and some dutiful copiest wound up merging it all together.

Does this change whether or not 2 Corinthians is the inspired Word of God? Of course not. But it certainly is interesting.

2) The Corinthians send Paul a return letter. From the way Paul lays out the early chapters of 1 Corinthians that the Corinthians sent him some questions that they wanted answered. Along with this letter came reports that the Corinthians were a fractured, fighting church, one in need of some correction.

3) Paul writes our 1 Corinthians. In response to these questions, Paul writes the letter we call 1 Corinthians. In it, he deals with such diverse topics as factionalism within the church, lawsuits among believers, sexual relationships and marriage, food sacrificed to idols, spiritual gifts, and the resurrection of the dead.

4) The arrival of the pseudo-Judaizers. This is my name for this bunch and it may not have even happened. But based on the tone of 2 Corinthians and some of its content, it's possible that a group of people showed up in Corinth who denigrated Paul's ministry and questioned his identity, calling, and integrity as an apostle. I call them the "pseudo-Judaizers" because they sound similar to the group Paul describes in Galatians but apparently without the circumcision obsession.

5) Paul's bad visit. Based on what Paul wrote in 2 Corinthians, it sounds as though Paul took a swing through the region of Achaia. He may have originally planned on visiting Corinth twice, but the first visit did not go well. We don't know exactly what happened; Acts doesn't mention this trip and Paul doesn't go into great detail (which makes sense; he was there, the Corinthians were there, why tell them what they already know?). We do know that things did not go well, so badly that Paul canceled his second visit, leading his opponents to question whether or not Paul's word could be trusted. See 2 Corinthians 1:15-2:2.

6) Paul writes the "Letter of Tears." Like "true" 1 Corinthians, we don't have a copy of this letter. Probably. But I'll get to that in a little bit. At any rate, Paul writes a third letter to the Corinthians, a painful letter that Paul refers to in 2 Corinthians 2:3-4.

But is the "Letter of Tears" really lost? Some Biblical scholars don't think so. Again, they believe that a good chunk of it is preserved in 2 Corinthians, namely chapters 10-13.

That makes sense, if you think about it. If Paul's credibility was attacked by his opponents during his "bad visit," he'd want to defend himself. And since 2 Corinthians 10-13 is a defense of his apostolic ministry, it fits. Again, the letter could have been misplaced and copied into what we call 2 Corinthians and again, this doesn't change whether or not it's God's Word.

At any rate, Paul apparently sent this letter off with his partner, Titus, and then settled in to wait.

7) Paul goes looking for Titus. But apparently Paul couldn't just wait. Even though he was in the fertile mission field of Troas, he couldn't focus on the task at hand. He went out to find Titus and find out what happened in Corinth. (2 Corinthians 2:12-13)

Much to his joy, he found Titus with an excellent report. The "Letter of Tears" cut the Corinthians to the quick. They wanted to be reconciled with Paul.

8) Paul writes 2 Corinthians. In response to this good news, Paul sends them a fourth letter, the one we call 2 Corinthians. In it, he thanks God for the Corinthians new attitude and gives them instructions about the collection he's taking for the mother church in Jerusalem.

There you go. The book we call 1 Corinthians is really 2 Corinthians. What we call 2 Corinthians should really be called 4 Corinthians. The missing books might be contained in 2 Corinthians (or might not be).

So what does this have to do with The Begotten?

Bergen's story centers around "true" 1 Corinthians, the missing first letter. She posits that in this letter, Paul prophesies about a group called "the Gifted," people with phenomenal spiritual gifts that will come forth at a certain time to do God's will. Apparently only one copy of the letter survived and it was nearly destroyed during the work of the iconoclasts.

An interesting concept, one that we'll look at further tomorrow. Kind of. With a minor digression.

In the meantime, go check out what other people are saying:

Brandon Barr
Jim Black
Justin Boyer
Jackie Castle
Karri Compton
CSFF Blog Tour
Gene Curtis
D. G. D. Davidson
Jeff Draper
April Erwin
Karina Fabian
Beth Goddard
Marcus Goodyear
Todd Michael Greene
Michael Heald
Christopher Hopper
Joleen Howell
Jason Joyner
Kait
Carol Keen
Mike Lynch
Terri Main
Margaret
Melissa Meeks
Pamela Morrisson
Rachelle
Steve Rice
Ashley Rutherford
Chawna Schroeder
James Somers
Rachelle Sperling
Stuart Stockton
Steve Trower
Speculative Faith
Robert Treskillard
Laura Williams
Timothy Wise

ACFW Genesis Contest

As CSFF Blog Tour Overlord Rebecca Luella Miller said in a comment in my half-baked eulogy for GFW Magazine, I do have some pretty good news.

I'm a finalist in the 2008 ACFW Genesis contest. I and five other people made it into the finals for the Sci-Fi/Fantasy/Allegory category.

I was a bit shocked. I knew there were quite a few entrants (I forget the exact number right now) and I figured I didn't have a chance. I'm not complaining. The first round judges had some very complimentary things to say (one in particular) and so now I need to finish polishing it up and send it off for the next round.

Sadly, I won't find out how I do until September when the ACFW Conference comes to Minnesota, but my wife and I have already found a babysitter so we can be at the banquet. I doubt I'll win, but it'll certainly be fun to find out.

R.I.P. GFW

One of the magazines I've enjoyed for the past several years was Computer Gaming World, which was recently rechristened Games For Windows. I loved getting it every month. The reviews were always helpful, the articles insightful and thought provoking. I've even become a regular listener to their (almost) weekly podcast, even though I can't condone half of the things they say every week.

So you can imagine my distress when I learned tonight that Games for Windows has folded. This really stinks. This is the magazine that clued me in to such gems as Psychonauts and warned me off of such half-baked stinkers such as Evil Genius). I looked forward to each issue as it helped me learn more about a favorite past-time of mine. It's where I first learned of Spore and is the reason why I bought Bioshock and The Orange Box (although I do need to upgrade my computer to play the former).

The sad thing is that while Jeff Green bravely predicts this has a silver lining, I'm not sure it does for me. I'm not that much of an on-line denizen apart from Roosterteeth.com. I preferred getting my gaming news via snail mail. It meant I could enjoy it at my own pace in a comfy chair. I'm not sure I'll make the jump to 1UP.com.

So I guess this is good-bye, GFW. I wish it could have ended some other way.

Spore Delayed Again!

I can hardly believe it! According to this press release from Maxis, the videogame Spore is going to be delayed for another six months! This kind of yo-yo, on again, off again release date nonsense has got to stop and it has to stop now. They've delayed this product so many times it's not even funny anymore.