Ben Myers on Christian scholarship

Here's a cool quote from Ben Myers about Christian scholarship:

Scholarship is an exercise of obedience to Jesus Christ. It helps prepare the church for fresh words and deeds. Of course, we need not imagine that scholarship will always have an immediate impact on the church’s confession. But scholarship is nevertheless vital for the continuing life of the church. It is one of the places where the church exercises its muscle of discernment – a muscle that otherwise has an alarming tendency to atrophy. Or to change metaphors: when the church grows drowsy, scholarship diffuses its caffeinating influence, helping to keep us ready, watchful and alert. So when Christian scholars engage with contemporary thought, it’s not because the church needs protecting from the world, but because Christ is already in the world and he calls us to meet him there.

A Christian Academic

I present here a reflection on what I think it means to be a Christian academic. Simply stated, my scholarship is an expression of my faith and my faith is an expression of my scholarship. In my view, the two are inextricably related and cannot be separated. In an article I wrote not long ago, I suggested that New Testament scholarship in my generation requires a different tact than the one that had been handed down to us by our teachers. Even those of us who came out of confessionally conservative seminaries and graduate schools have been handed a method of biblical interpretation that believes that it not only must, but also that it can separate the scholar from the scholarship. Biblical scholarship of seemingly every theological stripe has asserted over the course of the last hundred-plus years that, in order to be considered credible, research must be free from confessional faith-based presuppositions and bias—a value-neutral scholarship. The cornerstone of this approach is the view that with the use of the historical-critical method, scholars can produce objective and scientific-like statements about Christianity origins and the New Testament that are based on evidence alone free from personal bias and subjectivity.

Clearly scholarly efforts within this approach have produced major advances in the study of early Christianity. One need only to think of the Copernican revolution known as the New Perspective on Paul in the last 30 years to see how New Testament studies has benefited from such methods. However, the strengths of the historical-critical method, and there are many, do not outweigh its weaknesses or false assumptions. The most glaring of the latter in my view is the idea that a confessional approach to Biblical research is antithetical to good historical inquiry. This view is both unwarranted and unrealistic. It is unwarranted, because, while I would not wish to pronounce all confessional scholarship as good historical research—there are many examples to the contrary, it has neither been demonstrated nor am I persuaded that in order to do good historical research, one must fence off confessionalism. And that is to say nothing of whether or not this is even possible. It seems to me that good historical scholarship is neither a result of confessionalism nor neutrality, if the latter even exists, but engagement with the sources and the ability to make sense of the data within its own historical setting. The predominant view is also unrealistic, because the view ignores the glaring reality that every scholar functions within some confession, whether this confession is the theological tenets of the church or of tradition criticism or of something else. There is no such thing as value-neutral scholarship.

Thus, I advocate a view of scholar and scholarship that is confessional in nature or value-based, by which I mean one that embraces faith-based presuppositions, although not necessarily Christian or even religious. As such, the scholar and her scholarship are humble and accountable within both her confessional community and within the wider scholarly community. Perhaps J. P. Meier’s ‘unpapal conclave’ of a confessional Catholic, Protestant, Jew and agnostic (and/or even an atheist) can be reintroduced with significant modification. In my approach this conclave would be locked up in the bowels of a library not until they achieved a ‘limited consensus’, but until they reach a mutual understanding of each other’s views; views based on their distinctive presuppositions and consequent procedures. This setting would not be any less scholarly of an endeavor as their views would be defendable and rooted in the history and culture of Second-Temple Judaism. Yet, rather than being forced to create a document that states the least common denominator, they were forced to listen to each other and learn from each other in the context of community; rather than check their convictions at the door and pursue consensus, they participate in full awareness of themselves and the others and pursue understanding; rather than debate in order to win, they discuss in order to understand, acknowledging that the truth is both self authenticating and convincing in the first instance when demonstrated in life.

For me, the most significant test of my scholarship is its impact on the community of faith, the church. My scholarship should be within the context of and accountable to my confessional community and should ultimately serve to further strengthen that community. At the present time I am a member of an evangelical non-denominational church in the suburbs of Chicago. While my wife and I are not tied to a denomination with an established tradition, I would characterize my community of faith with four adjectives; my faith is apostolic, catholic, Reformation-al and evangelical.

A Christian scholar is never (or at least should not be) over against the church, but functions as a member of Christ’s body and exercises his teaching gift for the building up of the body. While scholars should be given freedom to think, to ask questions and to push back on well-worn assumptions, we should always be mindful that our work is not an end in itself. But rather our work is the means to the end of bringing glory to God by extending his kingdom in the world.

Tagged - Five Influences

Michael Barber has tagged me on five books or scholars that have influenced me the most. I don't usually play these "tag" games, but I'll indulge my good friend Michael and play this one. To begin with, I have to protest, this question is kinda like, "Who are your five favourite relatives?" It's so hard to pick, so I'll go for categories:

1. Ancient Author: My favourite ancient author is a hard one. I love the Epistle of Diognetus whoever its author may be. I'm partial to Irenaeus and Justin Martyr too. But I would have to say that John Chrysostom is my favourite ancient author as I find his homilies theologically captivating and spiritually nourishing.

2. Reformed Author: I really love Richard Baxter's The Reformed Pastor, but obviously you cannot go past John Calvin as the greatest theologian of the Reformation. His Institutes of the Christian Religion continues to amaze me as to its biblical rigor and theological brilliance. In more recent times, I've also benefitted immensely from his commentaries on Romans, Galatians, and Colossians.

3. Modern Authors: Several modern authors have contributed to my intellectual and theological development and represent role models of evangelical biblical scholarship that I've tried to emulate. They include Scot McKnight, Craig Keener, and Stan Porter and I include them because they write well, they write often, and they actually teach me stuff. I'm also very privileged to say that I consider all three guys to be my friends too. Further mention in despatches for I. Howard Marshall, James Dunn, and Richard Bauckham as top British scholars that I learn much from too! Now as for the authors who have influenced me the most, there are two in particular that I have to mention. At the risk of sounding schizophrenic, I'm gonna say that the two modern authors who have influenced me the most are N.T. Wright and D.A. Carson. Both inspired me, in different ways, to become a New Testament lecturer.

On Wright, I first remember seeing a few references to Jesus and the Victory of God (JVG) in the footnotes of journal articles in the late 1990s. I finally saw a copy of JVG in a bookshop in Griffin just outside of Atlanta in December 1999 and I thought it looked pretty cool. I then read it in February of 2000 and was blown away. In the early pages Wright speaks of how for most Christians as long as Jesus had a sinless birth and a sin bearing death, the actual content of his life matters very little. Protestant theology has focused on the work of Christ rather than on the teachings Christ. That comment struck at the very jugular of the way that I read the Gospels, formerly believing that (1) they were just there to introduce Jesus as the glorious subject of Paul's soteriology; and (2) Jesus taught mostly about how to get to heaven and how to be a good Christian. Reading JVG constituted the moment when I swallowed the red pill and left the "matrix" of "hyer-individualized vertical piety" and entered the real world of the New Testament. JVG enabled me to put aside the pious platitudes of the Sunday School Jesus and meet a Jesus who fitted into the first-century context, who shaped his followers to lead the church, and stood as part of the storyline of Israel's Scriptures. Wright's various works on Resurrection, Paul, and Discipleship continued to capture my imagination, even if I have not been convinced by all of his conclusions (e.g. still-in-exile, works of law, justification, etc.). As far as New Testament Theologians go, my belief is that Wright is for evangelicals what Bultmann was for the liberals.

On Carson, his commentary on the Gospel of John (PNTC) is one of the best biblical commentaries I've ever read. Carson elegantly combines exegetical acumen, theological reflection, and pastoral application in the one package. He's also uniquely gifted in the sense of being just as good in person and he is in print. I remember attending his lectures on Justification and the NPP at the Sydney Presbyterian Theological Centre in 2001 which was a good counter-point to my recent readings of Wright. In fact, those lectures innoculated me from ever getting into the NPP in a complete way (though apparently some vociferous critics of mine would disagree on that point!). Carson's devotional work For the Love of God also continues to feed my mind and soul in the mornings when I get to my office and I also really like the songs he's co-written on his two CDs. Carson can be fairly harsh in his criticisms at time, but for the most part I've found him fairly nuanced and irenic. Whereas I've been known to defend N.T. Wright on various points, I like to point out that I also defended Carson's much-criticized conclusion to JVG I in footnote of SROG. Carson remains for me one of the foremost examples of scholarship that is both academic, evangelical, and pastoral.

4. Wild Card Author: If there was one author that I would like to be stranded on a desert island with for a week or so, it would have to be Markus Barth. AI don't know whether I would say that Markus Barth has influenced me that much, but I find him to be such an interesting author. Although he died in 1999, I continue to discover just how much his work was way ahead of its time. By that I mean that Markus Barth was into several things that at the time were considered marginal in scholarship, but now have gained widespread currency. He was into the "faithfulness of Christ" long before Richard Hays revived it. He linked resurrection and justification long before Richard Gaffin (or Michael Bird) ever did. Forget Krister Stendahl as the precursor to the NPP, Markus Barth was highlighting the social dimensions of justification long ago. He wrote an excellent little book on the Lord's Supper which purportedly influenced his Father Karl Barth. And a continental scholar who believes that Paul actually wrote Colossians and Ephesians is about as rare as a reggae band at a Klu Klux Klan convention. Some of his stuff on Jews and Judaism doesn't work for me (since it is too post-holocaust reactive), but I look forward to meeting Markus Barth in the heavenly kingdom and discussing with him the link between justification and glorification with the subject of our study readily before us!

That's my spiel. I now tag Daniel Kirk and Joel Willitts.

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!

D.A. Carson on Training the Next Generation of Evangelical Scholars

Thanks to Andy Naselli for posting D.A. Carson's 1998 ETS address about training the next generation of evangelical scholars (which is available in MP3).

A number of important points are raised by Carson. Let me mention a few:

1. I agree that evangelicalism must be defined theologically (as opposed to defining it sociologically or as a post-enlightenment religious renewal movement). For me the centre of evangelicalism must be the evangel, rather than things like inerrancy or complementarianism, while a number of theological corollaries follow from the evangel, nothing must displace the evangel as the theological center. In fact, I would go so far as to say that the distinctive element of an evangelical theology would be the setting out of the gospel as part of it's prolegomena.

2. I concur fully on the primacy of learning the content of the Bible. For me, there is not much point teaching the current academic debates or subltleties of NT background if one does not know the basic gist of each biblical document. And Carson is right, you cannot assume that seminary or college students have this basic knowledge of content any more because (a) many Christians who were converted in their teens or twenties never had any exposure to the Bible before (myself included here), and (b) many churches have dumbed down their biblical teaching This is why I included a chapter summarizing the content of all of Paul's letters in my book Bird's Eye-view of Paul and why I pain stakingly drive into my students the outline of the biblical books. Indeed, making students read a basic text book on Christian doctrine as an entrance requirement for seminary might not be a bad idea either. I recollect with horror an experience whereby a first year theological studies student [not at my current institution and a relatively new covert I must add], upon hearing the mention of the Trinity in a lecture, asked: "I didn't think that WE believed in that Catholic stuff?".

3. I could not agree more with the importance of biblical theology as something that needs to be taught in order to provide an over-arching meta-narrative for evangelical students and scholars. The sad fact is that it is not taught in a number of institutions and it desperately needs to be.

4. The issue of integrating subject areas is a real challenge and Carson identifies the need for this area to be given further thought. The role of the local church in mentoring and fostering a distinctively evangelical spiritual formation in training of students is another area worthy of consideration too.

5. Carson is also right that theological curriculum needs to be updated and reflect the challenges of the cultural context. That means adding courses and dropping courses as required. If I were ever to be made president and dean of my own imaginary seminary (located just off the Great Barrier Reef in central Queensland) I would include a multi-disciplinary module on "A Theology of Sexuality and Gender" taught jointly by a theologian, a sociologist, a psychologist, and a medical doctor (since these are the prevailing issues of the day, esp. for the conservatives in the mainline churches) and make every student take language courses in either Arabic or Chinese to make them eminently employable on the foreign mission field and on the cross-cultural mission field in their own cities.

Carson's lecture is worth listening to for anyone interested in theological education (even if you're not an evangelical). Soon I hope to read Dale B. Martin on Pedagogy of the Bible: An Analysis and Proposal which may well provide a very different perspective on theological education.

New Dean for the Nida Institute

Over at RNS was this report:

Dr. Philip H. Towner Selected as Dean of Nida Institute for Biblical Scholarship at American Bible Society

New York – November 19, 2007–The American Bible Society has announced that Dr. Philip H. Towner will become the Dean of the Nida Institute for Biblical Scholarship at the American Bible Society. He will succeed Dr. Robert Hodgson, who is retiring in mid-2008. Dr. Towner will join the Bible Society staff in February to work with Dr. Hodgson over the several months before Dr. Hodgson’s retirement. The Nida Institute for Biblical Scholarship connects Scripture, Scholarship and Society for the Bible Society. The Institute is named for Dr. Eugene Nida who was the executive secretary for translation at the Bible Society for four decades. It is the center of biblical scholarship and research at the American Bible Society, using its staff and library resources to support the ABS mission in the points of translation, education, quality control, creative services, and support for ABS visibility and media exposure.Dr. Towner is the Director of Translation Services for the United Bible Societies (UBS), based in Reading, England. The UBS is a fellowship of 145 Bible Societies around the world.In announcing the appointment, Rev. Dr. Paul Irwin, President of the American Bible Society, said, “I am delighted that Phil Towner will lead our scholarly work. Dr. Towner has earned a world-wide reputation in biblical translation and he will enhance the American Bible Society’s standing as a center of excellence in biblical scholarship.”Dr. Towner says, "I am very pleased to have been selected to take up the post of the Dean of the Nida Institute for Biblical Scholarship, and I look forward with great anticipation to joining the American Bible Society team and its mission. The Nida Institute of the American Bible Society is at a very strategic point in its history. A gifted team and important scholarly and translation initiatives already underway form a very strong platform for continued forward movement and development. We intend to increase Bible Society prominence within the worldwide academic community and ensure our ongoing contribution to the mission tasks of Bible translation and training, Scripture Engagement and Biblical Scholarship." Dr. Hodgson says, “With the appointment of Dr. Phil Towner to the post of Dean of the Nida Institute, the American Bible Society will engage the services of a world-renowned New Testament expert, a distinguished translation scholar, an active churchman, and an executive with wide-ranging experience in management and administration.”Dr. Towner is a graduate of Northwestern College, Roseville, MN, with a B.A. in History and Biblical Criticism. He received his M.A. in New Testament Exegesis from Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, Deerfield, IL and his Ph.D in New Testament Exegesis from the University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen Scotland. He is a member of the Institute for Biblical Research, the Society of Biblical Literature, Studiorum Novi Testamenti Societas and the Tyndale Fellowship for Biblical and Theological Research. At this time Dr. Towner is an Honourary Lecturer in New Testament, University of St. Andrews in Scotland and a Research Professor of New Testament, Biblijne Seminarium Teologiczne in Wroclaw, Poland. Dr. Towner is the author of many books, articles, essays and reviews. And he also has served on the faculties of Denver Seminary, Denver, CO, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, Scotland, Regent College, Vancouver, B.C. and China Evangelical Seminary, Taipei, Taiwan.

Interview with Tomas Bokedal

I thought I would interview my latest friend in this part of the world, Dr. Tomas Bokedal now of Kings College, Aberdeen University.

How did you come into biblical studies?
I started to read the Bible when I was ten. I took the path to biblical studies as a scholarly discipline by first doing physics, philosophy and literature. But as soon as I had done my first theology course, I knew this was what I should be doing.

How as a Swede do you find life in Scotland?
As a Swede I love the nature, the hills and the sea. Outdoors is perfect. I also find some cultural similarities between Swedes and Scots, football, language etc. I’m impressed by the educational system in Scotland. People is very friendly here!

What is your book The Scriptures and the Lord: Formation and Significance of the Christian Biblical Canon about?
My book explores the emergence of the Christian biblical canon and its significance for the early as well as for the contemporary church. I present some major challenges to previous research on the biblical canon (earlier dating, fine-tuning of the concept of canon, emphasising the codex format, effective-history, liturgical aspects, the use of nomina sacra, and the Rule of Faith). I defend the apostolic formula "the Scriptures and the Lord" as a good summary of the Christian canon. All in all you could say my book is about the formation and significance of the Christian Bible: how, when and why?

Where does one go on-line to purchase a copy of your book?

I’m afraid one has to contact me. It’s also available in a few libraries and I am presently revising it for a second edition.

What are you teaching at Aberdeen and what areas would you be* interested in supervizing a Ph.D?
This year I am teaching on the following courses: Jesus of Nazareth: Life, Teaching, Context; Earliest Portraits of Jesus; Method in Theology; and Paul of Tarsus (for details, see my webpage). I am presently supervising in the areas of Synoptic Gospels and Paul. Of particular interest is the various and detailed use of the Old Testament in the New.
I very much welcome new PhD students. It would be great if someone would like to write on the so-called ‘testimonia hypothesis’ or on the early kerygma. Of course any good topic is interesting. Doing PhD studies is so much fun and the student’s own interest must be a guiding principle.

What do you hope to write on in the near future?
At the moment I am writing a paper on the development of the nomina sacra. Another paper treats the role of hermeneutical reflection in New Testament canonisation. In the near future I hope to be contributing in the areas of Synoptic Gospels and New Testament theology.

What do you see as the relationship between faith and scholarship?
To me, this relationship is crucial. The truth seeking of good scholarship has the potential of serving the interest of Christian communities and vice versa. Philology, history and theology are of great interest to both.

Most important of all, Tomas and I are probably the only two NT scholars in the world who both have a background in military intelligence!!!

Rising Stars in NT Studies

In my journeys and readings I have come across several younger scholars (i.e. still in their 30s) that I believe will make significant contributions to NT studies in the near future. I have already learned much from them and they will be one's watch and one's to read in times ahead.

C. Kavin Rowe is Assistant Professor of New Testament at Duke University. His Ph.D thesis Early Narrative Christology: The Lord in the Gospel of Luke is published by Walter de Gruyter and Kavin has written some excellent articles in the field of Luke-Acts.

Simon Gathercole is Lecturer in New Testament Studies and Fellow, Fitzwilliam College at Cambridge University having moved there recently from Aberdeen University (for such betrayal he will be forced to watch re-runs of the soap opera "Neighbours" for 10 000 years in purgatory). Simon epitomizes the "generalist" scholar and he has written in several areas across biblical studies including Pauline soteriology, christology of the Synoptic Gospels, Tobit, the Gospels of Judas and Thomas, and he even ventures into Systematic Theology on occasions.

Andrew Gregory is an Anglican priest and Chaplain and Fellow of University College, Oxford, and a member of the Theology faculty at the University of Oxford. He has written on the reception history of Luke-Acts, the Four Gospels, edited works on the Apostolic Fathers, and he is currently working on the Jewish Christian Gospels. Even better yet, Andrew has red hair!

Paul Foster is Senior Lecturer in New Testament at New College in Edinburgh. He is a prolific author and has covered areas as diverse as the Gospel of Matthew, the Synoptic Problem and Q, the Gospel of Peter, Justin Martyr, and the Apostolic Fathers.

Timothy Gombis is Assistant Professor of Bible at Cedarville University. He has previously published articles in Westminster Theological Journal, Novum Testamentum, Journal for the Study of the New Testament, Tyndale Bulletin, and Journal for the Evangelical Theological Society. He has done some good stuff on Paul and Ephesians.

J. Ross Wagner is Associate Professor of New Testament at Princeton Theological Seminary. He has written some excellent studies on intertextuality including Isaiah and Paul and also on Psalm 19 and early Christianity.

No doubt others could be named, and I am sure that there are some very good female scholars out there as well, I am limited to my circles of travel and reading.

Historical Jesus Scholars and their Favourite Gospels

Recent work has left me thinking about how much of the differences among Historical Jesus scholars stems from their preference or favouring of one particular Gospel. For instance:

Albert Schweitzer - Gospel of Matthew

- Schweitzer held (I am pretty sure) to Matthean priority.

- Schweitzer's key verse is Mt. 10.23 which determines the program of Jesus' ministry in Schweitzer's view.

E.P. Sanders - Gospel of Mark

- Sanders favours the Farrer-Goulder option for the Synoptic problem.

- Sanders' Jesus is very much the Jesus of the Marcan outline, and I read somewhere that he has been criticised as such.

N.T. Wright - Gospel of Luke

- Wright is deliberately ambivalent about the Synoptic problem (though he favours Marcan priority) and he supposes that a good Historical Jesus hypothesis is one that does not depend on any particular view of the Synoptic problem

- The vibe I get in reading Jesus and the Victory of God, is that Luke is Wright's default gospel which is apparent especially in his discussions on Lk. 4.16-21, 12.1-59, 13.1-5, 33; 15.1-32; 17.20-22.

John Dominic Crossan - Gospel of Thomas + Q

- Crossan's view of the sources and strata of the Gospel tradition is well-known and frequently criticised (see Dale C. Allison's criticism in particular which are most penetrating).

- Crossan's Jesus is very much derived from the purported non-eschatological layer of Q and from Thomas (see criticisms by Mike Bird "Peril of Modernizing Jesus" EQ [2006] and Gerd Theissen's apt description of the "California Jesus").

Does anyone know of a scholar who privileges the Gospel of John (Ernst Renan?)?

David Black on Scholarship and Blogging

Over at David Black Online (post 10:44 AM), David makes some excellent comments about Scholarship and Blogging. Take special note of his advice in the second paragraph. I post here the entire entry:

This question came up during our faculty meeting: Do you have to be published to be considered a scholar? For what it's worth, here are my two lepta. To be a scholar is to be a thinker. To be a thinker is to be a researcher. To be a researcher is to be a writer. And whatever you think is worth writing is worth having somebody other than yourself read. Does that make any sense? So to answer the question: To me an unpublished scholar is an oxymoron. The main reason we get our doctorates is to learn how to become lifelong students of Scripture (the dissertation being the least important thing we will ever write/publish). So, when I graduated from the University of Basel in 1983, I set the following goals for myself: one book every five years and one journal article every year. The Lord Jesus has kindly allowed me not only to meet but to surpass these goals. And on top of everything else I maintain a website (which is the modern-day equivalent of the printing press in terms of its potential for mass communication). Is this onerous? Not at all. Jesus said, "My yoke is easy, My burden is light." So what can we ever complain about? Having said all this, do I consider myself primarily a scholar? No. A writer? No. A teacher? No. Perhaps the best expression to describe who I am is shepherd (Eph. 4:11). My goal is to be the best "pastor" (shepherd) to my students that I can possibly be by God's grace. And to do this I need to be the best scholar, writer, and teacher that I can be. But a personal, caring, loving, sacrificial shepherding of my students is always my highest priority.

Like I said, just my two lepta.

One more thought before I go. I mentioned the Internet above. Occasionally I'll hear some slighting remarks about "all those blogs out there that are ruining the church." I'm amazed that anyone could have such a negative attitude toward blogging or websites in this age of cybernetics. Let me put it this way: If I publish a book it may take 5 years for 10,000 people to read it. But if I publish an essay on my website it may take a week for the same number of people to read it. And these people live in India, Ukraine, Brazil, all over the world in fact. Get the picture? And all of this for only 10 measly bucks a month. The Internet is such an incredibly effective tool for publishing that I am shocked at how few are using it effectively. My advice to you if you are a fledging scholar is to start a blog, publish it regularly (constant updating and good content are the two keys to any successful blog), and watch what it will do for your writing skills as you begin that first book project. And if I can give you any advice along way don't hesitate to contact me. I am happy to "shepherd" my web audience as well.