My ETS and IBR Papers On-Line

For those interested, here are links to my papers in Atlanta:

ETS- What is there Between Minneapolis and Durham? A Third Way in the Wright-Piper Debate.

IBR - The Crucicentric Kingdom and the Basileianic Cross: A Response to N.T. Wright.

All on Friday 19 November in Atlanta.

ETS/IBR/SBL 2009 Reflections, Part Two

Continuing the reflections on the annual meetings I attended last week, I want to summarize the lecture Tremper Longman gave at the opening meeting of IBR on Friday night.

The title of the paper was "Of the Making of Commentaries There is No End: The Past, Present, and Future of a Genre”. In the lecture Tremper argued that writing new commentaries is an important and necessary endeavor. To be honest, I was surprised at this perspective given the oft stated remark, "Not another commentary!" I thought he would trumpet the elitest view that commentaries are a waste of scholarly energy.

Given that I am currently under contract for two commentaries, Tremper's argument was relevant to me. So for all you commentary naysayers here is Tremper's seven reasons for writing new commentaries.

1. Advances in knowledge
2. New methods and prespectives
3. Competing interpretations
4. Human finitude
5. Reading in community(s)
6. Changing context(s)
7. Different readerships: clergy and laity
   

Some of these categories seem to blur into one another, but there is enough here to make the point that new commentaries are a necessary function of evangelical scholarship especially those written for the clergy and lay folks. I think Tremper was correct to express hesitation about commentaries for a scholarly audience. I personally don't think that we need a Davies and Allison type Matthew commentary every handful of years.

One other interesting element was Tremper's less than sanguine view of the Brazos's Commentary series. I would concur with his coolness . I reviewed the Matthew volume by Hauerwas. While I found it spiritually enriching, it was only loosely connected to Matthew. I wondered at times if he actually needed the Matthean text for the book. If a theological commentary works, it must engage closely with the text and its context. The text should not be a pretext for a theological perpsective that would have otherwise existed without the Matthean text.

ETS/IBR/SBL 2009 Reflections, Part One

I am sitting in the airport trying to get back to Chicago after a good week at both ETS and SBL. I accidentally got myself involved in two sessions at ETS so I attended the whole three days. I offered a paper on Thursday entitled: "Is the mission of Jesus universal in the Fourth Gospel? And Are the Gentiles in John?". This was meant to be a provocative look at the question of the purpose of the Gospel in view of John 11:49-53 and the less than explicit references to Gentiles in the Gospel. This is something I've been thinking about for some time and I think is a set of questions worth exploring.

The second session I was involved in was in the Synoptic Gospels session on Friday afternoon. The topic was recent commentaries on Matthew and Mark. I was asked to review R.T. France's commentary. I will make it available for the blog in the very near future. It was a great time as I mucked it up with Ben Witherington, Darrell Bock, Nick Perrin and others. The session as a whole was rather laborious when I wasn't involved, but the discussion at the end was good fun.

My ETS Paper On-line: What if Martin Luther Had Read the Dead Sea Scrolls?

My paper scheduled for 21 Nov 2008 at the Evangelical Theological Society in Boston is available on-line and is entitled: What if Martin Luther Had Read the Dead Sea Scrolls? Historical Particularity and Theological Interpretation in Pauline Theology: Galatians as a Test Case. Let me say: (1) This is a draft and I hope to tinker with it a bit more before I submit it somewhere for publication; (2) It is placed on-line for the benefit of others but I'd prefer that it were not widely distributed in it's current form; (3) In a nutshell, the paper argues that a proper understanding of the historical particularity of Paul's letter to the Galatians has a very good pay off in terms of theological interpretation.

More thoughts on ETS

I enjoyed reading Mike's musings about Evangelicalism and specifically ETS. I have a few thoughts I'd like to share about ETS in response to Mike's post.

First, personally I have no desire to expend energy toward pursuing any whole scale change of ETS. What's more do not I think it in any way advantageous nor good stewardship of time to put forth effort toward such a goal. ETS was born in North America as an "alternative" academic society and is not going to be turned into something with the atmosphere of say British evangelicalism; it is not in the organizations DNA. Too many influential constiutents continue to think in terms of "liberal versus conservative" and come from very narrow frames of reference and they will not go quietly. I remember when I met with someone before going to Cambrigde and they cautioned me to be careful about . . . well you know . . . the boogy man!

So one has to take ETS for what it is or chose not to, as Ken Schenk (see comment on Mike's recent post) has. Both Mike and I choose, at least for now, to continue to be members of ETS and it is fair to say that there are many members that would be considered "progressive evangelicals", but still find it useful to continue to participate. Mostly I'm sure for the continued relationships that the small venue provides. But I can't fault anyone for not being a member even if they have evangelical leanings. All three of my colleagues at North Park are strongly evangelical, but I am the only one who continues to be affiliated with ETS.

In addition, and on a more practical level, I realize more than ever that making time to attend the annual meetings of both ETS and SBL is very difficult with a family and course load. To participate in both takes a week of life --in a very busy time of the year I might add--and this is very difficult to give. Moreover, since it is important to me to be active in the larger guild of New Testament studies I will always choose to if need be to miss ETS.

ETS/SBL 08 Round Up

Rather than do a couple of short posts, I thought I'd give an extended summary of how the conferences went for me.

General

My shoes lasted the whole trip and (so far) there have been no travel hitches. However, tomorrow is the day before Thanksgiving so it's the biggest travel day of the American year, storms are predicted for the mid-west, and I have a sad feeling that I may never see my luggage again when it gets on the plain. Overall it's been a enjoyable and fun conference. All of my books sold out in their respective stalls. Let me add also, that I did see D.A. Carson, and he did recognize me! So I repent in sackcloth and ashtray.

ETS

My paper on Justification/Obedience in Romans 2 went well. I argued that the doers of the law who are justified (Rom. 2.13-16 and 25-29) are Gentile Christians. Doug Moo had a few probing questions, but on the whole, the paper was well received. In the afternoon, Doug Moo gave an excellent paper on Justification and Obedience which was superb (watch JETS for when it comes out). John Piper's evening lecture on the work of Christ was okay. I appreciated what John was doing, but I felt that he unfairly belittled Doug Moo's paper because I think that one can indeed over-emphasize alien righteousness over and against the call to faithfulness and obedience. In fact, Doug Moo did a good job of showing that justification is in a sense "not-yet". Stan Porter's paper on Matthew 28.19-20 and the grammar of obedience was interesting and he gave the best exposition of the relationship between the imperative verb and the participles I have heard (D.A. Carson and Dan Wallace copped some flack from him). I had lunch with some cool guys centred around Chris Bruno and hangeronerers and that was a blast. The Bauckham and Eyewitnesses seminar was alright, but nothing that rocked my world. The ETS banquet included a good summary of the historical of the publication and was appropriately closed off by Andreas Kostenbeger. Once again, many friend were caught up with, esp. those of a Southern Baptist Variety! On Friday, Timothy Gombis gave a sooporb paper on the New Perspective and Romans. It was a rigorous argument for an apocalyptic and pastoral reading of Romans. Expect big things from Tim in the future. Sadly, I had to head off and I missed other NPP papers and the panel review of Scot McKnight's book on Jesus and His Death. The San Diego weather was great and I got to see my usual array of friends too.

IBR

Well best of all, I got into membership. John Goldingay's paper on Israel and canonical stuff (I came in half-way) was good, but sadly Chris Seitz's plane was delayed and he could not respond. The IBR worship with N.T. Wright (PBUH) on Ps 98 and Matthew 13 was good as well and Wright (PBUH) was in his usual good form. Not the least of which I learned that Wright (PBUH) missed the SNTS meeting this year because he was at an evangelistic meeting in the UK. I didn't go to Wright's (PBUH) lecture on "God in Public" because it was packed so I couldn't get in. [Note: PBUH = Peace Be Upon Him].

SBL

If you missed the "Faith of Jesus" debate then give yourself an upper-cut. It was fantastisch! Although we may now have to rename the book Doug Campell Contra Mundum. There were papers by Stan Porter, Doug Campbell, Barry Matlock, Preston Sprinkle, Ardel Caneday, Francis Watson, and Ben Myers. Ben Myers did well despite being the theologian (or lamb) among the Pauline sholars (or wolves). I could not forget meeting Chris Tilling in person and seeing other bloggers like Jim West, James Crossley, Brandon Wason and many, many others. The panel discussion on Bauckham's book Jesus and the Eyewitnesses, was good, but Adela Yarbro Collins basically ripped into any historiographical perspective that includes faith or belief in the miraculous. James Crossley gave some arguments against miracles figuring in historical studies. As suspected, Bauckham's replies were both adequate and penetrating. Particularly in his call for "humility" and I wonder who he had in mind? The sites of Asia Minor presentation was okay with many piccies of Ephesus and Rome. Part of me wishes I had made the DSS exhibit, but once you've seen one bit of Hebrew scrawled on sandpaper you've seen them all. My birthday included me getting $175 worth of free books from various generous publishers who wanted to celebrate my birthday with me. I did a Viva for Aberdeen Uni and that went well. The student in question adequately defended a sound thesis. The Johannine literature section was probably the place to be this year and Sandra Schneider should be made an honorary Protestant for her paper. Robert Culpeppar gave a good paper on his journey through Johannine studies and he adopts a modified "community" view. D.A. Carson also did the same topic and it was most interesting. The highlight was when Carson recounted how C.K. Barrett said to him at his viva: "What makes you think that John would be slightly interested in your thesis?". The 1 Esdras consultationg was okay, except for the presenter who went over time and said "in conclusion then" four times before the end. The receptions were fantastic, esp. Scottish Universities Reception, Baker and Sheffield/Phoenix. Many friendships were made, many deals were done, and many careers ruined no doubt as well.

Books

The books I picked up (most of which were free for me) include:

Charles Talbert, Ephesians and Colossians

J.S. Russell, The Parousia (free from the preterist society).

Phil Johnston, The IVP Introduction to the Bible

D.A. Carson & Greg Beale, Commentary on the NT use of the OT

Markus Bockmuehl, Philippians (BNTC)

John Piper, The Future of Justification

Michael Holmes, The Apostolic Fathers

Walter Schmithals, The Theology of the First Christians

George Strecker, The Theology of the New Testament

M. Eugene Boring, Mark

Adela Yarbro Collins, Mark

Greetings to all I met and saw there. And that is that!

Justification Debates at ETS

Over at CT, ETS acting president Hassell Bullock of Wheaton College is interviewed on what to expect at the forthcoming ETS meeting. Included is a question on renewed debates about justification:

What do you hope will come of renewed debates about the doctrine of justification?

"I believe there is a need for discussing the basic doctrines of our faith over and over again, not with the intent of discovering a new doctrine, but discovering new dimensions of old doctrines. Since the doctrine of justification was the "watchword" of the Reformation, and thus the one doctrine, perhaps above all others, by which Protestantism distinguishes itself from its Catholic and Orthodox communions, it is only wise that we should talk about it and try to understand why our understanding distinguishes us from other Christian brothers and sisters. In so doing, I hope we shall come to a better understanding of the theological dilemma we have and do face, and find that behind the doctrine of justification stands our common Lord. From my point of view, this is not likely to erase the reformers' understanding of justification, but hopefully will bring us to a better understanding of each other, and that can only be a touch of God's grace."

I thinks this is good advice! I do not see any need to abandon the essential architecture of justification as bequeathed to us from the Reformers, however, we have to recognize that the Jew-Gentile issue has alot to do with the content and context of Paul's debates about justification. Thus, covenant membership is at the very least a consequent of being justified by faith.

On another matter, Bullock is asked:

Is there any merit to suggestions for changing the ETS doctrinal basis?
"The recent return of Francis Beckwith, the ETS president, to the Catholic faith of his childhood, has obviously and understandably created questions within the society about the adequacy of our theological basis, which is quite brief: "The Bible alone, and the Bible in its entirety, is the Word of God written and is therefore inerrant in the autographs. God is a Trinity, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, each an uncreated person, one in essence, equal in power and glory." The society was founded upon a simple theological basis rather than a statement of faith, with the intention of providing a broad evangelical basis for academic discussion, thus allowing and encouraging diversity within unity. While the proposed amendment will not change that basis, it will expand the statement quite significantly, and, while solving one problem, may create others.
However the society decides this issue, I hope ETS will continue to see itself as a wide space for discussing biblical-theological and related issues within the bounds of an unshakable commitment to the inerrancy of Scripture."

My own view is that a doctrinal statement of Inerrancy and Trinity is inadequate for defining both the boundaries and breadth of the society. I agree with Denny Burke and Ray Van Neste that we should adopt the UCCF, but I would also prefer that the UCCF statement be adopted as it currently is with no additions or revisions.

ETS President (reportedly) becomes Catholic

That is right, you heard me, you are not dreaming, this is not a drill! Reports are streaming in all over the blogosphere that Francis Beckwith has become Catholic! (HT Michael Barber). All the more amazing is that he is president of ETS! This could facilitate the quickest heresy trial in the history of ETS since Norman Geisler said, "This Gundry bloke, do we chuck him out or what?" But I would have to ask on what grounds can Beckwith be removed from office. As long as he adheres to the Chicago Statement of Inerrancy and the Trinity, he's technically in the ball-park. As a Catholic I think he can do that. This raises in my mind the doctrinal problem with ETS. It elevates, out of all proportion in my mind, the weight and significance of a doctrine of Scripture in comparison to other theological doctrines essential to Protestantism/Evangelicalism. I think ETS would be wiser to adopt the Universities and Colleges Christian Fellowship statement of faith. I will definitely be at the next ETS just to see what happens!

UPDATE see Alan Streett's post TEN REASONS FRANK BECKWITH BECAME A ROMAN CATHOLIC and the ETS Statement on FB's Conversion