Post-SBL Smack Down

I'm back from the land of fried chicken (Atlanta) and biblical scholarship (ETS-IBR-SBL). Great time was had by all. I arrived a few days earlier and stayed with my awesome buddy Joshua Jipp, a Ph.D student at Emory Uni. He took me too the Martin Luther King museum that was awesome. We also went out to a peculiar restaurant that specialized in chicken and waffles.

I have to confess that due to meetings with Ph.D students, friends, editors, and well-wishers, I didn't actually make too many sessions this year. At ETS I attended Jason Hood on summaries of Israel's story as a literary device which was great. The only plenary I got to was N.T. Wright on "Justification, Today, Yesterday and Tomorrow" where Wright was in his usual good form. It was a tad defensive and I forgot how many times he used the word "accused" to describe accusations laid against him. The gob smacking revelation was where he appeared to back down on using the phrase "on the basis of" to describe how works relate to justification. The phrase "on the basis of a life lived" is well worn in his works and Wright seems to me to want to mean that in an evidential way. Note Ardel Caneday's remarks on the significance of this change in Wright's wording. What is more, Wright also appeared to give a tacit approval to the concept of "incorporated righteousness" which has been my hobby horse for about seven years now! I think incorporated righteousness is a way of linking the forensic nature of justification to union with Christ and it might be the common ground in the NPP debate. I also liked Tom Schreiner's comment that N.T. Wright is a rocket leading us into the stratosphere, we merely want to change his trajectory slightly.

At the IBR session on Friday night I experienced one of the best academic moments of my short career. N.T. Wright gave a brilliant paper on the kingdom of God and the cross showing how they go together. It was classic Wright with much wit, bustling exegetical tours of texts, theological synthesis, and insightful hints at application. My remit was to respond to Wright which was a hard act to follow. It felt kinda like being asked to do an encore for the Beatles. But I did my best and tried to match him in wit and wisdom. I offered an affirmation of his main point that kingdom and cross together with a survey of Mark 15. I then made a demonstration of the value of the wider Christian tradition since many commentators in ages past (esp. ancient expositions of the Lord's Prayer) have engaged the subject too with much for us to consider. Finally, I suggested a point of integration of his thesis with a futurist eschatology, specifically the Christus Victor motif about the Messiah's future victory. It was a grand time and I really enjoyed the interaction.

At the IBR worship on Sunday, Karen Jobes gave a moving sermon on the theme "Jesus Loves Me This I know" and he words to her mother on her death bed were truly memorable. David deSilva did a great job in leading the worship and he even included my favourite hymn "O the Deep, Deep Love of Jesus". I love IBR. The historical Jesus sections with Bock and Webb were absolutely brilliant as well!

At SBL, the Pauline soteriology group focused on cosmology which was good with papers by Martinus de Boer, Beverly Gaventa, and Eddie Adams. My only quibble is that some of these apocalyptic interpreters of Paul seem to have no positive view of Israel and the Law. They are the "religion" that constitutes the antithesis to Paul's new creation. By the way, I should mention a Princeton conference on Romans 5-8 in 2012 that will feature Beverly Gaventa, John Barclay, Douglas Campbell, and my good buddy Ben Myers!

Of course the books at SBL are always a highlight. They leave any bibliophile salivating at the mouth. For me Baylor had the pick of the books with many good volumes on Jesus, orality, and memory which I picked up. A big seller at SBL was Dale C. Allison's volume on Constructing Jesus and a big seller at ETS was Wayne Grudem on God and Politics. I only bought one of these books (you can guess which one).

I wished I had attended more sessions, got to the bibliobloggers dinner, and eaten more fried chicken.

I warn you all. I made another video at SBL. It is about the SBL Greek New Testament in the tradition of "Old Spice" (don't worry, I keep my clothes on).

Time to file away the 60 gazillion business cards I picked up, get some sleep, and read some of the books I bought. Next year in San Diego!

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.

Willitts and Bird on CT

I don't know how I missed this, but Joel Willitts and me both get quoted at Christianity Today about Evangelicals and SBL in an article on "Scholars and 'Snake Handlers'" by Bobby Ross Jr.

SBL Responds to Hendel

See the page at SBL responding to Ronald S. Hendel.

Danger Alert: Religious People Attend SBL

Jim Davilla points to an article by Ronald S. Hendel at BAR on "Biblical Views: Farewell to SBL". Hendel has failed to renew his membership at SBL due to the increasing presence of religious persons within SBL. Hendel's complaint is that SBL, by allowing the mix of faith and reason, is "falling into a confused domain of dissension and hypocrisy". Even worse, in a bid to bring up its numbers, SBL has reached out to evangelical and fundamentalist groups. He is particularly affronted by the presence of Pentecostals at SBL! He even makes the observation that some scholars appear to be influenced and even driven by religious perspectives in their academic pursuits. Hendel opines the removal of the words "critical investigation" from SBL's mission statement so that its mission is to "foster biblical scholarship" rather than to stimulate "critical investigation of the classical biblical literatures" and this broadening as to what counts as biblical scholarship is particularly disconcerting to him. He finished his piece with this provocative quote:

The battle royal between faith and reason is now in the center ring at the SBL circus. While the cultured despisers of reason may rejoice—including some postmodernists, feminists and eco-theologians—I find it dispiriting. I don’t want to belong to a professional society where people want to convert me, and where they hint in their book reviews that I’m going to hell. As a scholar of the humanities—and I might add, as a Jew—I do not feel at home in such a place. What to do? Well, I’ve let my membership in SBL lapse. Maybe that’s a cowardly response, but sometimes, as Shakespeare wrote, “The better part of valor is discretion.” Sometimes it’s reasonable to avoid conflict. And like Pascal and Spinoza, I’m partial to reason in matters of scholarship. But my heart, for reasons of its own, gently grieves.

1. Whose "reason" is he talking about and who established that it is inconsistent with "faith"? Evidently the postmodern critique of Enlightenment "reason" must have been something that just happened to other people besides Hendel. But indulge me if you will to deconstruct Hendel's "reason". One might think, on the surface at least, that by "reason" he means a correspondence theory of truth whereby the assured results of critical investigation of the Bible show a disparity between its findings and the content of religious beliefs derived from the Bible. Thus implying the intellectual illegitimacy of faith or calling for the quarantining of faith from rationally held beliefs. But in fact, what he means by "reason" is really the predisposed conviction of a certain sub-group that its reading of history and biblical literature is inconsistent with religious claims and is thus authoritative over religious claims. This is put in service of an ideological agenda to cleanse religious persons from the academic sphere, or in the very least, to force the hegemony of his own particular community over those religious communities. Could his appeal to "reason" function as little more than a sanction for the legitimacy of an ideological power play designed to ensure the unrivaled hegemony of his own judgments about the meaning of history, religion, and the academy? I'm being hypothetical. I'm just asking the question that arises with this appeal to "reason"! "Reason" is a freighted term, let us rationally inquire (irony alert) what freight is he carrying, why, and for what end?

2. "By the extremes ye shall judge them". Hendel's complaint about fundamentalists at SBL goes to show how uninformed he is about fundamentalism. Fundamentalists are defined by their separation from institution like SBL. A bona fide fundamentalist would not in good conscience and consistency with his position as a fundamentlist attend an event like ETS with women, open theists, charismatics, and even Anglicans lurking around, let alone SBL with secularists, gay hermeneutics groups, feminist scholars, Mormons, and satanic luminaries like N.T. Wright and Bart Ehrman. Hendel's voice of reason is surprisingly ignorant of the phenomenon that he seeks to confront. Thus, I surmise that his use of the term "fundamentalist" is largely a rhetorical device used to promote fear among his peers about persons whose conservative religious view points are being seen and heard at SBL. His fear mongering of "fundamentalists under the bed" is a form of deviant labeling designed to promote alarm about religious groups who are actually religious obtaining intellectual sanction in a learned society. Is this a reasonable thing to do? You decide!

3. Hendel draws attention to proselytizing groups at SBL and he mentions one particularly unpleasant experience he had. I imagine that this was probably an isolated incident, I've never experienced anything like it. SBL is not the most appropriate place to hold a "Jews for Jesus" or "Jews for Judaism" crusade. But rather than storm off in a huff, I would suggest that stuff like this can usually be solved with a polite email to a chair or head of any section about taking things a tad too far. But more importantly, the free exchange of ideas that goes with academic freedom (not to mention religious freedom), means that you can find yourself confronted with people saying stuff you may not actually like. There is alot of stuff that goes on at SBL that I find intellectually absurd, culturally offensive, and religiously insensitive. But in the words Salmon Rushdie: "Who told you that you have the right not to be offended?" But why do I put up with it? Well, because of those good old liberal values: academic freedom, freedom of speech, and freedom of religion. If ya don't like it, apply for a post at the University of Pyongyang.

4. Is SBL an inclusive society? Who decides what counts as genuine scholarship? Ultimately this will be a peer reviewed process that reflects the breadth of the society - and so it should be. What groups are allowed to run which seminars, symposia, and panels will go through the normal channels and likely reflect the needs and desires of the SBL constituency - and so it should. But rather than let the will of the majority reign as the basis of who is included, a small vociferous minority of usually secular fundamentalists (irony alert!) would like to purge the organisation of those who are actually religious. This is rather comical. There are actually people who are enraged and flabbergasted that a society dedicated to the study of religious texts is mostly populated by people who are actually religious! This somehow confusing and concerning for them. For my own parody of this issue see my amusing post about The Society of Baseball Literature that makes fun of them. I think one of the benefits of SBL is that you get to hear from a diversity of presenters: on textual criticism there is Michael Holmes and Bart Ehrman; on the historical Jesus there is Maurice Casey and Craig Evans; on the Gospel of Mark there is James Crossley and James Dunn; on Gospel traditions there A.Y. Collins and Richard Bauckham, etc. I don't know what religious or areligious disposition Hendel has. He claims the identity of a "Jew" but without unpacking it (orthodox, progressive, liberal, secular, high holidays). I won't try to guess nor do I wish to judge it negatively. I don't assume that he is a Jewish version of Gerd Ludemann. But his approach seems more conducive to a hyper-secular approach of excluding others, rather than a broad and inclusive approach as to who gets a guersey at the academic table in the study of religious texts.

Hendel's piece is written from annoyance rather than anger. He is frustrated with demographics rather than fuming with resentment. So I say, let's leave the porch light on for him. If he comes back then we'll kill a fattened calf, place a purple robe on him, and put a ring on his finger. But in leaving SBL I think it shows that he has a fundamental misunderstanding about what the society is. It's not about "me", it's about "us". The collective and collaborative effort of scholars from all walks of life and traditions who genuinely want to further the aggregate knowledge in our academic field.

University Bias against Evangelicals?

If you have discovered yet there is a very interesting discussion happening right now by Dan Wallace over at Parchment and Pen and over at Jesus Creed by Scot McKnight. Both men I have had the privilege to know very well and consider friends. I think I've said before on this blog that I was one of Dan's interns at DTS and of course Scot is my colleague now.

For my two sense, I think Scot is right in his response. I attended DTS and was not accepted at any American universities I applied to and attended a British university. One element that has not been discussed is the ecomonic angle. American universities especially the top end schools (e.g. Duke, Notre Dame, etc) don't need students. They have 100 applicants for 2 spots each year. Furthermore, one has to score extremely well on the GRE before one is even given a siff. These kind of odds make it extremely difficult to get into the program no matter who you are.

On the other hand, as has been well documented, British universities are in desperate financial crises. And many of the more well-known schools are dependent on North American students to bolster their bottom line. The economics of the situation make it easier for an evangelical student to get accepted into a British university and that has nothing to do with a non-liberal bias. This is not to say that the British system is not more "open" in ways pointed out by both Dan and Scot. Indeed it is and this is a strength of a British research degree: You're on your own with regard to your research.

One last personal note. I have not felt slighted at the SBL meetings because of my evangelical pedigree. I am a co-chair of the Matthew section and have had very positive engagement with non-evangelicals-many of whom I consider good friends. I think it is not so much that you are an evangelical, it is how you wear it that really matters.

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.

Off to SBL in New Orleans

I'm currently in Charlotte, NC (using free wifi thanks to Google) enroute to New Orleans, the "Big Easy" for SBL. Joel Willitts is already there. I'm not doing any papers this year as I'm there mainly to attend meetings and soak in some jazz music. My biggest anxiety is whether to go to Tom Wright's lecture on Justification on Sunday night, or else, attend the NT Theology session with J.D.G. Dunn, U. Schnelle, and D.A. Carson on at the same time. That's a hard pick, but I'll probably go for the latter. Also, I'm told by Hendrickson that the Faith of Jesus Christ book is literally flying out. So make sure you buy your copy before they sell out - and for the record, I predict they will sell out - it's a cracker-lacking book that is gucci to the max!

Generalist vs. Specialist - SBL Forum

Sometime ago (in fact, a long time ago) I wrote a blogpost on specialists and generalists in biblical studies. More recently, at the May issue of SBL forum, I've teamed up with Craig Keener to write:

Jack of All Trades and Master of None: The Case for “Generalist” Scholars in Biblical Scholarship Michael F. Bird with Craig Keener

Let us know what you think!

Post-SBL/ETS round up

Like all-and-sundry, I have my own own post-SBL/ETS wrap up:

1. Boston was absolutely freezing and far colder than the north of Scotland. But it was a beautiful city with many historic sites and I also saw my first Unitarian Church (and I also saw Loren Rosson my first unitarian person). The squirrels in Boston common looked cute enough to eat!

2. My two ETS papers went well. One was on "The Role of Canon in New Testament Theology" where I argued for a Theology of the New Testament over and against a Theology of Early Christianity since the canon has a certain ontological status not afforded to other writings. Nonetheless, I also argued that New Testament Theology must take into account the wider context and impact of the New Testament itself. I maintained that we need a "Theology of the New Covenant" in order to combine content (the New Testament texts), context (New Testament world), and community (New Testament believers). There was some good discussions afterwards about wirkungsgeschichte, the value of Graeco-Roman sources for study, and the canonisation of the New Testament (I said that God created the canon through the Church and I expected to get crucified as clauset-Catholic for this, but in actuality, the audience was receptive to this articulation). My other paper was "What if Martin Luther Had Read the Dead Sea Scrolls?" which was a talk on moving from historical particularity to theological interpretation. I tried to show that a nuanced and accurate depiction of New Testament history actually helps rather than hinders theological intepretation and I gave examples with works of law, faith of Christ, and righteousness as examples. Afterwards there was some good discussions with Craig Evans and Mark Nanos (Mark is an excelelnt speaker who forces you to think and rethink everything about Paul that you simply assumed was true).

4. The book fest was rather limited this year as my birthday was the day before ETS so I couldn't milk it all that much and many of my publishing friends have moved on to other jobs, ergo not many free books this year. But I did pick up a free copy of Craig Blomberg and Mariam Kamell on James (ZEC) and Mariam is smart girl who will be going places in the future! I got a review copy of Klyne Snodgrass on the parables as a desk copy for a course I teach. At IBR I got given a copy of Kevin Vanhoozer's Theological Intepretation of the New Testament. The only book I purchased with Jimmy Dunn on Galatians in BNTC. The books I wanted (Jimmy Dunn, Beginning from Jerusalem & Craig Blomberg, The Case for Historic Pre-Millennialism) were not available - Doh!

5. Met up some with good friends at ETS including Michael Pahl, Brian Vickers, Joel Willitts, and Stan Porter. My wittiest conference remark this year was with Andy Naselli:

Andy Naselli: I'm trying to build bridges between evangelicals and fundamentalists!

Mike Bird: You ever seen that movie, "A Bridge Too Far"?

6. Papers at ETS that I enjoyed were Dan Wallace on the New Testament and Textual Criticism (do read this when it comes out in JETS). Dan gave a good overview of the state of play and made reference to the ETC blog, but glossed over it due to lack of time. He argued for maintaining the recovery of the autographa as the goal of textual criticism, took Parker and Ehrman to task for some of their views, talked abut the Centre for the Study of New Testament Manuscripts, collaboration in textual criticism research, and why evangelicals should be involved in textual criticism (I'm sure Peter Head would have had a tear in his eye!). Denny Burke gave a good presentation on the "righteousness of God" where he argued that dikaiosyne does not express a verbal idea but a nominal one related to a quality of God (hooray for Fitzmyer!).

7. At SBL the best session I attended by far was, "Cross, Resurrection, and Early Christian Diversity" - I only caught echoes of the first session since it was packed liked sardines, but the second session with Simon Gathercole and April DeConick was "soopoirb" (Boston pronunciation of superb). I also enjoyed the Hebrews and Disputed Pauline Sections as well.

8. I had some good meetings at SBL. I finally got to sit down and talk to Bob Gundry after many years of trying to meet him. Breakfast with David deSilva who is a great guy with a great all round knowledge of NT. Biblioblogger and my padawan Danny Zacharias was there and grimacying in pain from a back injury. His paper on Pss. Sol. was good and he showed me some Greek teaching stuff that he's working on which will rock the world of biblical Greek education! I met Jack Poirier for the first time too, the mystery man with such a great knowledge of ancient Judaism and he writes journal articles quicker than I can cook toast. I made Frank Thielman's day by telling him that I agree with him that Philippians was written from Ephesus (I recommended the idea to Mark Goodacre). At the Hendrickson reception I had a good chat with Edith Humphrey's (Pittsburgh Theological Seminary) and Mark Booker (AMiA) about the Anglican communion. Edith told me to tell my Sydney Anglican friends, I quote you, "Back off from lay presidency for now, it's not the time". Ladies and Gentlmen of Sydney, you have been warned. Speaking of Sydney Anglicanism, I met Constantine Campbell of Verbal Aspect fame who seems to come to SBL more for the jazz music than for the scholarship. I couldn't leave out having lunch with Nick Perrin and David Vinson which was great fun except when I nearly sneezed to death. It seems everywhere I went I kept running into Oliver Crisp who is sabbaticalling at Princeton (lucky son of a toad). I finally met April DeConick too which was a delight and she gave a good paper on Gospel of Thomas. Lunch with Rebecca Mullhearn and James Crossley (James was unusually sober for SBL) was fun as well.

9. I was glad to hear that Hendrickson has accepted my book on Crossing over Sea and Land: Jewish Missionary Activity in the Second Temple Period which should be out next year. There should also be something on the cards with Paraclete about a history of scholarship on the historical Jesus aimed at the "Elaine Pagel sort of reader". I saw Dominic Matthos of T&T Clark and they have agreed to publish two edited volumes called Paul and the Second Century and Paul and the Gospels which I shall get around to organizing very shortly. So a productive time on that front!

10. As always the best reception was "Scottish Universities" with Hendrickson in second and Baker and IVP tying for third!

Off to ETS and SBL

It's that time of year again: airports, bookstalls, chatting, papers, coffee, receptions, renewing friendships, and begging publishers to give me at least five minutes of their time so I can sell them my latest project, "Shakespeare's use of the semi-colon and its impact upon the grammar of the KJV".

I will be flying out on my birthday to Boston. So remember, should you see Michael Bird then (a) give him a hug and pinch his cheeks and say "Ooh what a cute little boy you're growing into, happy birthday Mikie", (b) buy him lunch with salad, steak, and lobster, (c) buy him a book from a European publisher, (d) buy him a glass of imported Aussie red wine at a nice restaurant, (e) take him to a "football" game featuring the Greenbay packers [I use the term "football" rather loosely here since it is played by a bunch of pillow biting nancy boys]; (f) buy a copy of all of the books he's written and get him to autograph them as to increase their resale value on e-bay; (g) attend his two ETS papers, applaud loudly at the end with optional wolf whistles, and then quote what the people of Tyre and Sidon said to Herod in Acts 12.22; (h) buy him a copy of Jimmy Dunn's book Beginning from Jerusalem and Craig Blomberg's The Case for Historic Pre-millennialism; (i) tell him that you love reading his blog (except for the rants by his sidekick Willitts); (j) buy him a bottle of Aussie red wine, ask him what he thinks of the New Perspective, and stare into his gorgeous blue eyes as he talks the night away; (k) buy him a cassette of books from either Brill, Mohr/Siebeck, Walter de Gruyter, or Baylor Uni Press; (l) if you see him in a liquor store buying red wine because the Yale reception only had the vulgar French stuff, avoid eye contact and pretend you don't know him; (m) tell him you saw James Crossley giving a paper at the Queer hermeneutics session and that it was really, really bad (then explain what you were doing there in the first place); (n) buy a round of drinks for Michael and all of his Ph.D students who he will be meeting with; (o) ask him if he is the guy who plays Horatio on Miami CSI and act shocked when he says, "why yes"; (p) tell him to run faster after he is chased out of the ETS banquet hall by an angry mob of PCA/SBC academics for proposing a toast to the USA's president-elect; (q) ask him if he could get you Joel Willitts' autograph and watch him roll his eyes; (r) wish him a happy birthday and a safe trip home.

SBL 2008 - Travel Advice

Normally when you enter the USA from overseas you fill out the little green form on your flight over to get through customs, but as of August 2008, you can now register in advance through ESTA (Electronic System for Travel Authorisation). This comes on line as of August 2008 and will be compulsory and replace the green form as of January 2009. It includes those countries (like UK, EU, and Australia) on the Visa Waver Programme. You need to apply at least 72 hours in advance, and the authorisation lasts for up to two years or the life of your passport. Remember!

Deadline for SBL Paper Proposals for 2008 Approaching

As a PSA (Public Service Announcement) I want to remind you that the deadline for SBL paper proposals for Boston 2008 is fastly approaching: March 1st. Remember if you have never presented at the national SBL you will need to submit a full manuscript of your paper when you submit your proposal.

.

Here are the three proposals I submitted:

.

Pseudepigrapha Group
Title: The Identity of the “Lord’s Flock” in Psalms of Solomon 17:40
Abstract: The term “the Lord’s flock” in Psalms of Solomon 17:40 has a rich background in the Hebrew Bible. In the Scripture the term exclusively refers to Israel and is especially prominent in prophetic literature and in the Psalms. The aim of this paper will be to address the question: to whom does the term ‘Lord’s flock’ in Pss. Sol. 17:40 refer? Three options are possible: (1) corporate, national Israel with no individual distinction, (2) a subset and nucleus of national Israel, who are ‘sinfully righteous’, or (3) a group made up of both a subset of Israel and ‘reverent Gentiles’. Through a careful analysis of the context of the Psalms of Solomon I will argue that the third interpretive option, a group of both Israel and the Gentiles, is the most likely. This conclusion would then provide a parallel to the Messianism found in the New Testament and especially the Gospel of Matthew.
.
Pauline Epistles Group
Title: Saint Paul and “all Israel” in Romans 11:26
Abstract: According to Romans 11:26 Saint Paul believed that “all Israel” will be saved. A convincing interpretation of this phrase has proved elusive to commentators on Paul’s epistle to the Romans. Cranfield perhaps most usefully clarified the interpretive options as has more recently Bassler. The phrase can be interpreted to refer to: (1) all the elect, both Jews and Gentiles; (2) all the elect of the nation of Israel; (3) the whole nation Israel, including every individual member; (4) the nation as a whole, but not necessarily including every individual member. In this paper I will suggest that these interpretive options do not adequately take into account the multivalent nature of the term “Israel” in the Jewish Scriptures on which Paul depended. I will offer the heretofore unappreciated Pauline context of Davidic Messianism (Rom 1:3) as the best background against which to understand this phrase. When this is done, Saint Paul’s “all Israel” may refer to a restored political-national Israel in the pattern of the Davidic and Solomonic Empires which comprised both Israelites, those of both the northern and southern tribes, as well as Gentiles. This “inclusive” Israel interpretation distinguishes itself from other such inclusive readings of the phrase by maintaining national Israel’s central place in salvation history—thereby not falling into supersessionism, but also allows for the an entity that includes both the restored southern and northern tribal league and non-Israelites under the political-national term “Israel”.
.
Matthew Group
Title: The Friendship of Matthew and Paul: A Response to a Recent Trend in the Interpretation of Early Christianity
Abstract: Recently it has been argued that Matthew’s so-called Great Commission (Matt 28:16-20) represents a direct anti-Pauline polemic. While this thesis may be theoretically possible and perhaps fits within the perspective of an earlier era in New Testament research, namely the Tübingen school, the evidence in both Matthew and the Pauline corpus does not support such at reading of early Christianity. In this paper I will argue that an antithetical relationship between Matthew’s Great Commission and Paul’s Gentile mission as reflected in his epistles is only possible (1) on a certain reading of Matthew and (2) on a caricature of Paul. In light of the most recent research in both Matthew’s Great Commission and the historical Paul, these two traditions can be seen as harmonious and not antithetical in spite of the recent arguments to the contrary. This argument will prove a further corrective to the view of early Christianity that posits a deep schism between so-called Jewish Christianity and Paul’s Law-Free mission to the Gentiles.

.

We'll just wait and see.

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!

My ETS-SBL Curse

Once more I go to ETS-SBL in fear and trepidation because:

1. My footwear always malfunctions by either disintegrating or shrinking (last year in DC was agony walking around).

2. Cab drivers always ask me about my accent and want to know if I'm from Milwaukee on the grounds that I look "square and goofy" (true story).

3. Someone always accuses me of heresy.

4. Someone always hands me a pamphlet on why I should home school my kids.

6. I always say "Hi" to N.T. Wright and he never remembers who I am.

7. I always say "Hi" to D.A. Carson and he has a vague recollection of who I am.

8. Some waitress gives me the "look" when I ask her for a half de cafe mochacino with extra sprinkles and a short of caramel.

9. I often end up at the wrong hotel or the wrong convention centre when I arrive in location.

10. I always forget to rock up to some dinner, lunch, or breakfast I was supposed to go to, and incur the disfavour of some friend.

Coming highlights of ETS-SBL

1. Seminar panel reviews of R. Bauckham's book Jesus and the Eyewitnesses at both ETS and SBL.

2. Seeing Ben Myers who, no doubt, will be shadowed by his adoring American fans who will sit around him and listen to his every word.

3. The Faith of Jesus Christ Seminar including the main event: Barry Matlock and Doug Campbell going toe-to-toe, mano-e-mano, no holds barred good old hoot nanny of show down. There will be blood (and possibly wool) on the floor when that one is done. It will be an event to tell your children and your children's children that you were there in Diego for that battle royale.

4. No doubt on Sunday, someone will come up to me and offer to buy me a New York Steak for lunch and a couple of Eerdmans titles because it is my birthday.

Book Buying List for ETS-SBL

This year my shopping list for SBL is:

Charles H. Talbert - Ephesians and Colossians (Paideia).

D.A. Carson & Greg Beale - Commentary on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament

M. Eugene Boring - Mark (NTL)

A.Y. Collins - Mark: A Commentary (Hermeneia)

Jacob Myers - 1 & 2 Esdras (AB)

Erkki Koskenniemi - The Exposure of Infants among Jews and Christians in Antiquity

Any one of these books would make a great birthday present for someone (with red hair and from Australia) who just happens to be celebrating their birthday at SBL (18 Nov 07).

SBL: Tis the Season for Johannine Studies

I am by trade and by taste largely a Synoptics and Paul specialist who often pines for the exotic and sometimes esoteric jungles of Johannine studies. In looking over this years SBL list of seminars, I am convinced that Johannine studies is the place to be (S17-17; S17-65; S19-22; and esp. S19-71 & S19-117). There are some good papers lined up and I really like the "John, Jesus, and History Group / Johannine Literature Section" which have three sessions planned on The Past, Present, and Future of Johannine Studies. See the SBL website for info here. Of course, Friday afternoon with the "Faith of Jesus Christ" seminar is also a must.

I also suggest that S18-150 on "Books on the Gospel of Judas: An Evening with the Authors" should be renamed "An Evening with Every Man and His Dog" because it seems to me that every man and his dog has written a book about the Gospel of Judas. I am ashamed to attend because I may well be the only member of the audience who hasn't written a book on the subject.

There will be a panel discussion on Scot McKnight's book Jesus and His Death at ETS and a panel discussion on Richard Bauckham's book Jesus and the Eyewitnesses at both ETS and SBL. James Crossley is doing a response to Bauckham at the SBL session and James is always animated if not argumentative when he wants to be (S17-79).

Sadly, this will be the last joint AAR-SBL conference and in keeping with my Johannine theme, I am reminded of 1 John 2.19 which you can read here.

Top Ten Funny Things I'd Like to see at SBL

I know it is earlier than my normal rant about SBL. But here are ten strange, funny, and weird things I'd like to see at SBL this year, including:

10. The blogger Jim West (he wasn't there last year and he's funny to look at).

9. Mark Goodacre chair a seminar with the words "The Demise of the Farrar-Goulder Theory" in the title.

8. Scholars Barry Matlock and Doug Campbell engage in a fist fight at the "Faith of Jesus Christ" seminar that myself and Preston Sprinkle are chairing. The battle royale will be called, "Mutton-Kissing Kiwi vs. NASCAR-loving Red Neck".

7. Blogger James Crossley to have an apparition of the risen Jerry Falwell as a result of the economic climate and rise of social banditry in Sheffield, leading to the sociomorphic translation of economic beliefs into spiritual ones aroused also by a deep sense of subconscious guilt for his disparaging remarks against fundamentalists in the past.

6. Blogger Ben Myers to be voted president of the Cornelius Van Til Society.

5. To have a conversation with blogger Michael Barber and see if he can talk for five minutes without using the words "Eucharist", "Exile", "Pope", or "John Paul".

4. I give a paper at the Christian Origins seminar under the pseudonymn Vladamir Luedemann (Joseph Stalin Professor of Biblical Studies at University of Wisconsin) and tout the superiority of the feminist, marxist, atheist, secular, eco, eskimo, and post-colonialist approach to biblical studies and insist that everyone else is a pseudo-scholar.

3. I persuade my co-blogger, Joel Willitts, to pretend to be my gay partner so that we can sneak into the exclusive and lush Harvard Divinity School reception as former graduates who got married in Canada last year and now teach in an Episcopal seminary somewhere in New York.

2. I see somebody actually buy one of my books!

[This next one is draw].

1a. Nick Perrin and April DeConick put aside their manifold differences when they discover that they are both crazy about collecting antique spoons and share a common interest in 19th century Italian napkins.

1b. I see N.T. Wright running for his life into a local Cathedral crying out "Sanctuary, Sanctuary, Sanctuary" as he is chased by a mob of highly conservative Presbyterians from ETS armed with pitchforks and crosses, yelling to the on-lookers "Avert your eyes people, he may change form".

[Explanation of this post: It is late, I have a badly injured hamstring and desperately require TLC, I miss my wife and youngest daughter who are in Australia at the moment, work is too hectic, my football team is not doing well, my sister-in-law has just arrived, and doing something funny makes me cheerful. So if you were target, take it with a pinch of salt, and try to laugh with me].