The Antioch Incident: Richard Hays' View

In preparing to write a post on the issue of James and the Antiochean incident in Galatians 2:11-14, I have decided to address the issue by surveying and critically assessing interpretations of Galatians 2:11-14. I will in each case attend to three questions, although another is no less important and certainly interesting but not relevant for my interests here. The three questions are (1) What is Paul’s issue with Peter? (2) What role does James play in the circumstances? And (3) Who are “those of the circumcision” [lit.] or as in the NIV, “the circumcision group” or in the NRSV, “the circumcision faction”? The question that is not relevant for our interest here is the question of when the incident took place. While the consensus remains that it happened after the Jerusalem council in the early 50’s C.E.—so Acts 15=Gal 2:1-11—no argument is without its problems and I remain persuaded by the view that Gal 2:1-11 is a reference to Luke’s famine visit by Paul and Barnabas in Acts 11. The incident in this scheme took place in 48 A.D. and Paul wrote his missive to churches in southern Galatia in 49 C.E. while on his way to the Jerusalem council.[1]

.

I begin with Richard Hays interpretation.[2]

(1) What is Paul’s issue with Peter?
Peter’s hypocrisy (hypokrisei) according to Hays was not that he disregarded “basic Jewish dietary laws by eating meat with blood in it, or pork and shellfish”, because he reasons, “it seems unlikely that such flagrant violations of Jewish norms would have been practiced in Antioch, particularly if the Gentile converts were drawn primarily from the ranks of the ‘godfearers’, who presumably would have already assimilated to Jewish dietary practices”. Instead, Hays suggests that the issue was Peter’s disassociation from the Gentiles at the table. The likelihood of this interpretation is strengthened by Gal 2:12 which speaks not of food per se, but “eating with” the Gentiles. Hays goes on to observe that eating with Gentiles is not forbidden by the Torah, but scrupulous Torah-observant Judeans thought of this as equivalent to eating Gentile food, since their presumption was that all Gentiles were idolaters.

(2) What role does James play in the circumstances?
Hays believes James is the force in the story. This is borne out in various remarks: Hays says that the “men from James” pressured Peter to “stop eating with Gentile believers”; that “James [was] worried that too much fraternization with Gentiles would have bad results”; and that “the response of this fraction at Jerusalem [judean Jewish Christians] was to urge Peter, with the blessing of James, to avoid contact with Gentiles”.

(3) Who are “those of the circumcision”?
Hays while acknowledging the ambiguity of the phrase “those from the circumcision” he appeals to other contexts, namely Rom 4:12, to support the view that this designation denotes Jewish Christians. With no substantial support, Hays hesitantly concludes “it appears that Paul is accusing Peter of fearing other Jewish Christians in Antioch”.

Evaluation
While I find Hays answer to the first question convincing and correct, his answer to the second is lacking textual support. The text says neither that the “men from James” actively pressured Peter “to draw back” from associating with Gentiles, nor that James sent them for this purpose. The text simply states that before the “men from James” arrived Peter associated with Gentiles at the table, but after they arrived he stopped. Thus, the reason for his action could be as much his own fault as that of the guests from Jerusalem. Furthermore, the passage suggests the former (Peter’s own issue) since Paul’s confrontation is solely directed at Peter and those who joined him. One would expect that if Paul’s issue was with those from James his invective would be aimed at not only Peter, but also James and the Jerusalem church who, according to the standard view, were the real cause of the incident. As for his answer to the third question, it seems more reasonable to take ones cue from the immediate context where Paul uses the term to refer to the group that comprises Peter’s missionary scope in 2:7. In this case, clearly the group in view is non-believing Israelites and not Jewish believers in Jesus.

I will address my colleague Scot McKnight’s view in the next post.

.

----------------------
[1] For a similar chronology see Witherington 2004:275.
[2] Hays 2000.

.

Works Cited

Hays, Richard B. 2000. The Letter to the Galatians. In NIB, 11:183-348. Nashville: Abingdon Press.

Witherington, Ben. 2004. The New Testament Story. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans.

The Evangelical Universalist?

Mark Casserley of SPCK forwarded me the announcement of the publication of the following volume: The Evangelical Universalist by Gregory MacDonald (this is a pseudonym based on Gregory [as in 'of Nyssa'] and MacDonald [as in 'George']). The book addresses several questions: Can an orthodox Christian, committed to the historic faith of the Church and the authority of the Bible, be a universalist? Is it possible to believe that salvation is found only by grace, through faith in Christ, and yet to maintain that in the end all people will be saved? Can one believe passionately in mission if one does not think that anyone will be lost forever? Could universalism be consistent with the teachings of the Bible? The author's answer of course is "yes". You can find discussions of it at blogs associated with Maggi Dawn, Chris Tilling, and Jason Clark. No doubt this will prompt much discussion and debate. Imagine me saying in my Yoda voice: "Beginning it is of the Universalist wars."

I have three comments:

1. As for myself, I'm pretty much an exclusivist but with inclusivist leanings on some areas (see Jason Clark's blog for definitions).

2. I'm not a universalist. I side with Dale C. Allison: "I do not know what befell Mother Theresa of Calcutta when she died, nor what has become of Joseph Stalin. But the same thing cannot have come upon both. If there is any moral rhyme or reason in the universe, all human beings cannot be equally well off as soon as they breathe their last and wake again" ("The Problem of Gehenna," in Resurrecting Jesus [London: T&T Clark, 2005], 99).

3. As a comical point, I must include the infamous Dr. Peter Williams' reply to Mark Casserly's email:

Dear Mr Casserley,

Thank you for the information. I hope that SPCK will also be paying for body guards and for safe housing for 'Gregory'. It is very important to keep him safe from all those evangelicals who might take the law into their own hands...

Best wishes,

Pete

(Used by permission).

A High View of Scripture Part 5: Inspiration and Inerrancy

We come now to the end of my review of Allert's book A High View of Scripture and find the juicest and most controversial part of the entire book.

Allert contests the widely held conclusion that inspoiration was the only criterion for the inclusion of books in the New Testament. Inspiration was not the criteria used and what was regarded as inspired referred to more than the New Testament and also included the offices and ministries of the church.

He devotes a significant amount of time to discussion of theopneustos in 2 Tim. 3.15-17 where he notes: (1) the passage is more concerned about the function than the origin of Scripture; (2) the passage emphasizes soundness of life and doctrine which one may learn through Scripture and tradition; (3) Allert understands 'sacred writings' not as all Scripture but as all relevant passages in that body of religious authoritative writings known as Scripture, not necessarily the OT and NT; and (4) He warns against etymological errors in that take 'God-breathed' as a mechanically literal description of how Scripture was produced. Allert emphasizes that this phrase could be a pauline neologism and it indicates that the authority of Scripture is from God and it contributes to the plan of salvation; thus, the main point is the usefulness of Scripture. I would accept most of this with a few qualifications and a slight objection. Most pressing of all is that Allert never really tells us what 'God-breathed' actually means. Surely it has connotations of origin, source, authority, and spirit-givenness-by-God-givenness or something like that!

In the next major section, Allert covers, "Inerrancy - A Necessary Evangelical Definition". He takes issue with the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy and he objects specifically to articles # 4 and # 5 on the grounds that they appear to be denying that a critical examination of the phenomenon of Scripture can inform a doctrine of Scripture. Here I would slightly disagree. The Chicago Statement does not actually deny this as much as it fails to incorporate the phenomena of Scripture in the early church. Allert further points out that the problem with this definition of inerrancy (i.e. Chicago) is that it assumes modern standards of precision for truth and error.

Allert then has a juicy section on the case of R.H. Gundry, ETS, and the Gospel of Matthew. In sum, Gundry argues that elements of Matthew 1-2 were midrash and were fictitious stories based on patterns from OT narratives. Midrash itself is a slippery term and I think Matthew 1-2 is perhaps midrashic given the constant flow of OT quotes (so too D.A. Hagner) but not actually midrash! Allert contends that when Gundry's approach is measured against the Chicago Statement it is clear that he has tried to understand Matthew in terms of the literary conventions of his day just as the Chicago Statement advocates. This is why Gundry said that he could in good faith affirm inerrancy. What is the problem then? The problem is, Gundry regards the genre of Matthew 1-2 as making it unhistorical whereas most of his peers regarded it as historical. Allert notes correctly: "If the logic of Gundry's critics is followed, then a failure to agree with a group's interpretation of a particular passage of Scripture may leave one open to the charge of failing to hold inerrancy because one does not see what the Bible says, that is, does not a agree with that group's interpretation of the Bible". The problem here is that one's view of genre can be regarded as a litmus test of inerrancy which I take to be problematic. Let me give two examples:

1) Luke 16.19-31 is a story about the rich man and Lazarus. Now I take this to be a parable and not a literal description of the afterlife. Nonetheless, some interpreters have argued (including a former Professor of mine) that the word 'parable' is not used in the story and thus it is a literal description of the intermediate state! If I regard this as a parable, would I be denying inerrancy?

2) Tremper Longman's NICOT Ecclesiastes commentary argues that much of Ecclesiastes is written in a genre similar to the speeches of Job's friends. In other words, it is indicative of the perspective that one should not have about God and hard times. I think Tremper is wrong on this (and several other persons I'm told think the same), but is this a denial of inerrancy by getting the genre wrong.

Now some might object that these two examples do not refer to historical events in the life of Jesus. But why priviledge history in this way? (For what it's worthy Gundry's Mark commentary is one of the best defences of the historical material in Mark available). History matters and the Gospels are undoubtedly rooted in testimony and history, but how does history have to be told and can multiple genres be used? Does the Chicago Statement allow for this? If not why not?

In sum, Allert's book argues sucessfully for taking into account the phenomenon of Scripture for developing a doctrine of Scripture and not relying on theological inferences about what Scripture should look like. Though many details are contestable, it is worth reading. Next week I'll start a series on reading Markus Bockmuehl's Seeing the Word.

Brief History of Jewish Christianity, Part Two: James (2.1.1.2)

In the last post on Peter and the Twelve I described how Luke presents the development of the leadership of the church in Jerusalem from being lead by Peter and the Twelve disciples to James and a group of elders (Acts 11:30 [“elders”]; 15:2 [“apostles and elders”]; 21:18 [“James and all the elders”]). Bauckham assumes perhaps rightly that if any of the Twelve remained in Jerusalem at this time they were likely subsumed within this larger body of leadership and no longer functioned as a unique collection of leaders.[1]

.

James was the eldest the four brothers of Jesus according to Mark (6:33; cf. also Gal 1:19; 1 Cor 9:5; Hegesippus in Eusebuis H.E. 2.23.4)) and although there is debate about whether or not these individuals were the offspring of Mary and Joseph it seems likely (cf. Bauckham’s detailed argument and his balanced opinion [2]). It is perhaps for this reason that he exercised authority over the Jerusalem church. That Luke’s picture of James’ role in the affairs of the Jerusalem church is reflective of history is confirmed by Paul and the later traditions about him. Paul recognizes James' unique authority with Peter and John in Galatians 2:9 where he refers to them as the “pillars”. The later traditions about James, which may contain some legendary features, surely reflect the reality of his role. I am thinking of not least the passage from the Gospel of Thomas:

The disciples said to Jesus: “We know that you will depart from us. Who is to be great over us?” Jesus said to them: “Whenever you shall come, you are to go to James the Righteous, for whose sake heaven and earth came into being.”

For other later evidence of James' leadership in the Jerusalem church see also Eusebius, H.E. 2.23.4-7 where among other things James is called the first bishop of the Jerusalem church (cf. also Psuedo-Clementines).

The above quotation not only suggests James’ unique leadership role in the Jerusalem church, but also with the epitaph “the righteous” an essential piety of James is remembered. James was known for his strict adherence to the Torah and was even honored by non-Jesus believing Jews at his untimely and unjust death supposedly at the hands of Ananus the high priest in A.D. 62 (cf. Josephus Ant. 20.197-203; Hegesipus in Eusebius H.E. 2.23. 1-19). Josephus writes, “those of the inhabitants of the city who were considered the most fair-minded and were strict in observance of the Law were offended by this” (Ant. 20.201). This impression of James is confirmed by the letter attributed to him in the New Testament. While there is debate as to whether it was written by James, that it reveals a high regard for the Torah is unassailable (cf. comments in Marcus[3]). And the fact that it was connected to James the brother of Jesus, although the familial relationship is not raised in the letter itself—note the author’s own self designation, “James, the servant of God and of the Lord Jesus Messiah” (1:1), shows at the very least how James was remembered.

Reference to James and Torah-observance leads obviously to a discussion of the controversy at Antioch between Peter and Paul recounted in Galatians 2:11-21 since the occasion seems to have been caused by the arrival of “certain men from James” (Gal 2:12). Furthermore, this controversy is often used as evidence for the supposed division between James and the Jerusalem church (Jewish Christianity) and Paul and his Gentile mission (Gentile
Christianity).[4] We will discuss this in the next post.

[1] Bauckham 2006:67.
[2] Bauckham 1990.
[3] Marcus 2006:91.

[4] Carleton Paget 199; Marcus 2006; Segal 1992.

-------------------------------

Works cited

Bauckham, Richard. 1990. Jude and the Relatives of Jesus in the Early Church. Edinburgh: T & T Clark.

.

________. 2006. James and the Jerusalem Community. In A History of Jewish Believers in Jesus: The First Five Centuries, ed. Oskar Skarsaune and Reidar Hvalvik:55-95. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson.

Carleton Paget, James. 1999. Jewish Christianity. In The Cambridge History of Judaism: The Early Roman Period, ed. William Horbury, W. D. Davies and John Sturdy, 3:731-75. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

.

Marcus, Joel. 2006. Jewish Christianity. In The Cambridge History of Christianity: Volume 1: Origins to Constantine ed. Margaret M. Mitchell and Frances M. Young:87-102. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Segal, Alan F. 1992. Jewish Christianity. In Eusebius, Christianity, and Judaism, ed. Harold W. Attridge and Gohei Hata, 42:326-51. Leiden ; New York: Brill.

Book Review: Following God Through Mark

Ira Brent Driggers
Following God through Mark:
Theological Tensions in the Second Gospel
Louisville/London: WJK, 2007.
Available in the UK via Alban Books for £13.99
Available in the US via Amazon.com for $ 18.96.

In this volume Ira Driggers examines the portrait of God in the Gospel of Mark. In sum, Driggers is concerned with how the Gospel depicts God and what significance this has for a believing audience. His methodology is a narative critical reading that focuses not only on highlighting theological propositions but on the experience that the Gospel creates. He begins by noting a number of tensions based on the disciples who initially follow Jesus and yet misunderstand Jesus, they resist the passion and yet find themselves amidst the passion.

In chapter one Driggers looks at Mk. 1.1-15 and notes a tension in that God acts through Jesus, but God also acts directly as well (e.g. voice from heaven and via Scripture). In chapter two, he shifts to Jesus' relationship with his disciples where in 1.16-20 he argues for two mutualy exclusive explanations about the event on how the disciples choose to follow Jesus of their own volitional will and how they are also "fished by God". Then in chapter three Driggers examines the first half of the Marcan Gospel and identifies how the identification of Jesus with his disciples are thwarted by the disciples' own fear and misunderstanding and God also hardens the disciples directly. This highlights the tension of the Gospel and highlights the mystery of God. Coming to chapter four, he focuses on the second half of Mark and the necessity of the passion. He (again) points out two divergent facts that the passion is due to the blindness and sin of the world and yet it is also grounded in God's ancient promises in Scripture. The disciples' abandonment of Jesus is due to their own self-protection but also part of the divine script. Then in chapter five, Driggers examines the Gospel's conclusion and he suggests that Mark's Gospel jeopardizes the very promises that the narrative itself creates. The tension of the Gospel (created by the failure and fear in 16.8) means the story must carry over into the story of the implied audience whom themselves must break the silence of the women and continue to follow Jesus' teachings on discipleship which the disciples failed to do. It also underscores the fallibility of all disciples and the desperate need for merciful empowerment from a transcendent God. In sum: "The Gospel ends on a note of responsibility and impossibility, pointing hearers not only to the mystery of God but also to the mystery of discipleship" (p. 3). The final paragraph of the book is worth noting: "Given God's action within the narrative often sets the disciples at odds with their commission (if only for the purpose of Jesus' passion), such an assertion of divine fidelity is crucial, particularly for the audience outside the narrative. Although hearers will naturally question their fortitude in the face of opposition, they need not worry about God's faithfulness. Indeed, the opposition itself is, as an emulation of Jesus' own path, a sign of that faithfulness. In this sense the very promise of divine empowerment fosters obedience to the impossibie discipleship task: God and follow the path of Jesus, for God will be with you" (pp. 105-6).

All in all this is a good book on a neglected topic: God in the Gospel of Mark and the tension between divine sovereignty and human responsibility in Mark too (M.M. Thompson has written a good book on God in John's Gospel and D.A. Carson wrote his Ph.D thesis on divine sovereignty and human responsiblity on John as well - but it is high time that someone covered in it Mark). The only thing that I don't like about this book is that the apparent tension and the purported contradictions in the story may be due to either (1) paradoxes created by the mystery of God, (2) instances of the complexity that transpires when God intervenes in human affairs, or (3) exist only in the mind of Driggers.

Biblical Theology - An Endangered Species in Need to Defence

I confess that I am deeply concerned about a developing trend in Reformed circles that denigrates historical study of the Bible and demands that Biblical Theology conform to the systematic formulations of Reformed Theologians. Let me begin by saying that I am strongly in favour of Systematic Theology. You cannot have a coherent Christian worldview without it, you cannot answer the big questions of life if you are not equipped with a good Systematic Theology. I've written on the subject of prolegomena in Systematic Theology and the place of the gospel in Systematic Theology, so I'm NOT trying to play off Biblical Theology against Systematic Theology (on this point see Richard Gaffin's article "Biblical Theology and the Westminster Standards"). Second, the issue is how do you get to Systematics. What I learned from reading Millard Erickson's textbook Christian Theology, was that you do theology in three stages:

1. Exegesis: analysis of the biblical texts in their historical and literary contexts.
2. Biblical Theology: situating exegesis in wider context of each body of literature (e.g. theology of the Pentateuch or Pauline Corpus and then OT or NT Theologies respectively). Importantly, Biblical Theology looks at the issues that the biblical authors raise in their own language and on their own terms without importing foreign ideas or issues.
3. Systematic Theology: the act of synthesizing key motifs and ideas as they relate to the mosaic of Christian belief done in dialogue with Philosophy, Scripture, and Tradition.

Importantly, Systematic Theology is the end process of exegesis and Biblical Theology. In short, exegesis and Biblical Theology determines Systematic Theology rather than the other way around. That means that there is a genuine risk that Systematic Theology will have to modify its findings based on the results of good exegesis and a sound Biblical Theology. But there are a cohort of Reformed Theologians who are calling into question the validity or results of Biblical Theology precisely because (I suspect) that it is deterimental to their Systematic Theology. Let me give three examples:

1. Robert Reymond. Reymond's Reformed volume A New Systematic Theology of the Christian Faith (1997) is a text book used in my own institution. Overall it is a fine book written from a Reformed Evangelical perspective. Reymond is certainly not against Biblical Theology per se as her interacts with and leans on Gerhardus Vos repeatedly. Nonetheless, there is one point that caught my attention. In his discussion on the covenant of grace, Reymond argues that OT saints had faith in a dying and rising Messiah. He then takes Vos to task over his denial of this oint. Reymond writes: "On the other hand, it is possible to address the issue of the Old Testament saints' understanding of redemption so one-sidedly from the 'biblical-theological' perspective that one permits the hermeneutic of that discipline to overpower the 'analogy of faith' principle in systematic theology, and as a result neither the teaching of the Old Testament itself nor what the New Testament writers expressly report or imply that the Old Testament meant and that the Old Testament saints knew about the suffering Messiah and his resurrection from the dead is given its due" (p. 535). I for one do not think that a suffering/rising Messiah was at the heart of the faith of Israel and the New Testament does not assume that it was so. This reading of the Old Testament is only possible once the disciples have been given an Easter hermeneutic by the risen Jesus (see Luke 24.26-27, 45-46). Yet, Reymond is prepared to argue so based on the "analogy of faith" over and against the results of Biblical Theology. I appreciate what he's trying to achieve, but I have doubts whether this is the right way to achieve this.

2. Guy Waters. Waters' book Justification and the New Perspective (2004) presents a good and accessible survey of the debate about Paul and justification, he scores a few good points on Wright, Dunn, and Sanders at certain places, but overall the book is written with an uncharitable rhetoric that is unfortunate (e.g. he calls Wright a "trojan horse to the church"). What I found somewhat disconcerting about the book is when Waters says this about J.P. Gabler: "Warfield, Vos, and John Murray were agreed that the former [Biblical Theology] was properly the handmaiden to the latter [Systematic Theology]. These three men were good students of the historical-critical thought and had remembered how biblical theology in the tradition of J.P. Gabler had decimated systematic theology, both as an ordering principle of biblical data and as a force within the church" (p. 202). The problem here is what Waters attributes to Gabler is patently false. Gabler's concern was to stop Dogmatic Theology imposing itself upon the biblical texts and distorting the texts, espeically when the results of Theology kept changing. He called for the development of a separate discipline of Biblical Theology that would allow the biblical texts to speak on their own terms on their own issues and without preempting results. What is important to remember is that Gabler wanted the results to feed into Systematic Theology and into the life of the Church. Gabler writes: "Thus, as soon as all these things have been properly observed and carefully arranged, at last a clear sacred Scripture will be selected with scarcely any doubtful readings, made up of passages which are appropriate to the Christian religion of all times. The passages will show with unambiguous words the form of faith that is truly divine; the dicta classica [standard collection of proof texts] properly so called, which can then be laid out as the fundamental basis for a more subtle dogmatic scrutiny. For only from these methods can those certain and undoubted universal ideas be singled out, those ideas which alone are useful in dogmatic theology . . . And finally, unless we want to follow uncertain arguments, we must so build only upon these firmly established foundations of biblical theology, a dogmatic theology adapted to our own times" (English trans. in SJT 33.2 [1980], pp. 143-44). Does this sound like a guy who is trying to prevent theology from being a force in the church? And if you don't believe my reading of Gabler, here is D.A. Carson's description: "Gabler charged that dogmatic theology is too far removed from Scripture, constantly changing and perpetually disputed. Biblical theology, by which Gabler seems to mean a largely inductive study of the biblical text, has much more likely hood of gaining widespread agreement among learned, godly and cautious theologians. The fruit of such study may then serve as the basis on which dogmatic theology may be constructed" (D.A. Carson, "New Testament Theology," DLNTD, p. 796). Carson goes on to note that many followed the first part of Gabler's proposal (inductive study free from doctrinal consideration) but they did not follow him in the second part of feeding the results into the service of dogmatic theology. But Gabler was not against Systematic Theology itself and Gabler was I think correct in his vision of seeing Biblical Theology determining the contours of doctrinal formulations - a point which some Systematicians take exception too!

3. Tom Ascol. In an article in the Founders Journal on "Systematic Theology and Preaching" (1991), Pastor Tom Ascol urges that Systematic Theology has an important place in the pastoral office and in the vocation of preaching (amen!); however, he makes some disparaging remarks against Biblical Theology along the way. He laments the apparent demise of Systematic Theology by those who do not trust Scripture to represent a coherent and inerrant compendium of divinely revealed truth. He writes: "At the same time that systematic theology was falling into disfavor the study of Pauline, Petrine, Johannine, etc. theologies was growing in popularity. Thus this kind of 'biblical' theology has been heralded as the proper domain of the legitimate theologian and the study of systematics has been relegated to the realm of philosophy (where "systems" are acceptable) . . . It is specious to argue that 'biblical' theology is by definition more concerned with the Bible than is 'systematic' theology. Both are concerned with the text of Scripture. It is the comprehensive, coherent teaching of that text which concerns the latter. Careful exegesis is no more valued by one than the other and neither can be slighted in any thorough study of God's Word." He continues: "Systematic theology is a necessary discipline in the pursuit of both knowing and proclaiming the whole counsel of God. It will curb careless exegesis which results in fanciful, contradictory expositions of various texts. Where it is depreciated doctrinal instability prevails, and God's people are robbed of Christian vitality." I can agree with alot of what he says except that (1) biblical theology should be conducted without recourse to having to conform to Systematic Theology, and (2) Biblical Theology should inform and determine Systematic Theology. A Christian Biblical-Theologian will conduct his enquiry in the context of the "Rule of Faith" but he should not be expected to carry out his study in order to confirm the results of Systematic Theology. Apart from putting the cart before the horse (i.e. Scripture over System) it begs the question, whose Systematic Theology? Calvin, Beza, Arminius, Rowan Williams, Paul Tillich etc. In a footnote Ascol states: "This is not to disparage or undervalue biblical theology in general or such courses in particular. Both biblical and systematic studies are needed in any comprehensive theological curriculum. However, as Ramm contends, it should be recognized that the study of various biblical theologies (i.e., of Paul, John, Peter, etc.) emerged under the belief propagated by liberalism and neo-orthodoxy 'that the Bible contains a medley of contradictory theologies' (Protestant Biblical Interpretation, p. 174)." Ascol appears to admit the legitimacy of biblical theology as a concession to exegetes but then devalues it by repeating the genetic fallacy of Bernard Ramm that confuses the veracity of a methodology with its origin. Liberals may have invented and developed Biblical Theology but that does nothing to prove that it is illegitimate or unbiblical of itself.

Systematic Theology is a good thing and we desperately need good theologians to formulate a coherent Christian belief mosaic and to find ways of retelling the Christian story in a comprehensive, compelling, and coherent way. But Biblical Theology must be subservient to the text of Scripture and not to any theological system. Many of the debates in the Reformed Churches and in several Reformed Seminaries about the New Perspective on Paul and views of Scripture are between those who owe their allegiance to Scripture and those who owe their allegiance to a System of doctrine. Now I am not implying the priority of Biblical Theology over Systematic Theology, to the contrary, I am insisting on it! A Systematic Theology based on good Biblical Theology will be far more valuable to the Church than a Systematic Theology that asserts the infalliblity of its system and the immutablity of its findings over and against the claims of Biblical Theology. I've learnt from my colleague, Prof. Andrew McGowan, that Semper Reformanda does not mean finding new ways and contemporary opportunities to defend the assured findings of a theological system, it means making sure that our theology lives, and breathes, and oozes the truth of Scripture.

Important sources for Jewish Christianity

Joel Marcus (2006:90, n. 13.) usefully lists the important sources for Jewish Christianity.

I. Texts written by Jewish Christians

(a) Matthew
(b) John
(c) James
(d) Jude
(e) Revelation
(f) Didache 6 or the whole
(g) Pseudo-Clementines (Epistle of Peter, Kerygma of Peter & Ascension of James)
(h) Fragments of Jewish Christian gospels (Gospel of the Nazareans, Gospel of Naassenes, Gospel of the Ebionites, & Gospel of the Hebrews )

II. Historiographic accounts

(a) Acts (6—7; 15; 21:17 26)
(b) Josephus (Ant. 18.63; 20.197 203)
(c) Eusebius (HE 1.7.14; 2.23; 3.27.1— 6; 5.8.10, 5.17, etc)

III. Theological description and responses from opponents

(a) Christian

(1) Galatians
(2) Romans (esp. 14:1—15:13)
(3) Philippians 3:2-7
(4) Justin (Dial. 16, 46-47, 110, Apol. 31)
(5) Ireneus (Haer. 1.26.2; 3.11.7; 3.21.1; 5.1.3)
(6) Tertullian (Carn. Chr. 14, 18; Praescr. 32.3-5; 33.11; Virg. 6.1)
(7) Hippolytus (Haer. prol. 7.8; 7.34.1-2; 9.1-17.2; 10.22.1; 29.1-3
(8) Origen (Hom. Luc. 17; Hom. Gen. 3.5; Comm. Mt., sermon 79; C. Cels. 2.1, 3;5.61, 66)
(9) Eusebius (D.E. 3.5; 7.1)
(10) Epiphanius (Pan. esp. bks 19-31, 51)
(11) Jerome (Ep. 112.13, 16; 125.12.1; Comm. Gal. on 1.11-12; 3.13-14; 5.3; Onom. 112; Comm. Habac. on 3.10-13; Comm. Mt. on 12.2; Comm. Am. on 1.11-12; Comm. Isa. on 1.12; 5.18-19; 8.11-15, 19-22; 9.1; 31.6-9; 49.7; 52.4-6; Comm. Ezech on 44.6-8; Comm. Jer. on 3.14-16; Didasc. apost. and Apost. const. passim)

(b) Rabbinic

m. Sanh. 4.5

t. ‘Avot 13(14).5

t. Hul. 2.20-21

t. Yad. 2.13;

b. ‘Abod. Zar. 16b-17a, 26ab; 27b-28a

b. Ber. 28b-29a

t. Avot. 116ab

b. Sanh. 38b, 107ab

b. Sukk. 48b;

b. Git. 45b

b. Ta’an. 27b

Siphre Numbers 143

Genesis Rabbah 8.9; 25.1

Exodus Rabbah 19.4

Works Cited

Marcus, Joel. 2006. Jewish Christianity. In The Cambridge History of Christianity: Volume 1: Origins to Constantine ed. Margaret M. Mitchell and Frances M. Young:87-102. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Jesus as Messiah in the Fourth Gospel

According to Tom Thatcher:

"John's Christology, his image of Jesus, emerges at the intersection of three currents: the recall of things that the historical Jesus presumably did and said; a post-resurrection understanding of Jesus' ultimate destiny; and a messianic interpretation of the Hebrew Bible, not only specific passages but the entire text taken as a whole. The interplay of memory, faith, and Scripture may therefore be viewed as John's christological formulae, the generative matrix through which he developed statements about Jesus' messianic identity"

Tom Thatcher, "Remembering Jesus: John's Negative Christology," in The Messiah in the Old and New Testaments, ed. S.E. Porter (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2007), pp. 173-74.

Another great save!

Over at Metacatholic Doug Chaplin notes a very odd occurence of how someone found his blog. Apparently someone googled: "michael bird saving don carson".

For what it is worth I do not think Don Carson needs saving; although I do defend Carson's book Justification and Variegated Nomism against some of the criticism it has received from several scholars including Jimmy Dunn in his TrinJ review in an large footnote in Saving Righteousness of God (pp. 93-94, n. 14). But that is pretty much it. Though I imagine that the search was probably expressing a conflation of words rather than expressing an actual sentence.

Euangelion gets a Makeover!

My thanks to Michael Halcomb for our snazzy new blog header. As we used to say in the Aussie military: "It is gucci!"

The Start of a New Semester

I love the beginning of a new semester and I suppose this is because I love teaching so much. There are few things more exciting for me than a room full of undergrads who have expectations about learning. Of course there are varying degrees of interest among students in my classes. Some are majoring in Biblical Studies others are taking the course because they're required to do so to graduate. Nonetheless the opportunity each semester a teacher has to challenge conventional ideas, present new ideas and engender passion for the Bible and for learning is not only a privilege, but a thrill.

Each new semester reminds me why I love what I do. I was reflecting with Karla recently about my career and I told her that I wouldn't change a thing about my life if I were to inherit millions of dollars (by the way, that will never happen!). While I would certainly change some things like where we live (our two-bedroom condo has already been outgrown), I can't imaging doing anything else -- OK besides playing the outfield at Yankee Stadium in pinstripes. I am doing exactly what I want to do with my life. I am living my vocational dream and I am thankful to God that he has given me the opportunity to be about what I love.

I know some students of mine and some folks early in their preparation for careers read the blog and I want to encourage you especially to follow the dreams you have. Live your life pursuing your passions and the dreams so long as you have in mind the values of the Gospel and an eternal perspective.

This idea is reflective of one of Jonathan Edward's Resolutions. Many years ago I came across these Resolutions which are essentially commitments he had made early in his life and which he rehearsed daily. Here is a particular one that I have found useful in this regard:

Resolved, to live my life, at all times, as I think best in my most devout frames, and when I have the clearest notions of the things of the gospel and eternity.

This is a solid life perspective to follow.

The Cynic Hypothesis Once More!

Over at Thoughts on Antiquity Chris Zeichmann offers a post on A Brief Defense of the Merits of Cynic Hypothesis over and against my relegating it to one of the worst ideas to gain currency in NT scholarship.

Chris is fairly nuanced in his criticism and he acknowledges some of the weaker elements of the Cynic hypothesis, nonetheless, he still finds that it has a certain utility in relation to the Q tradition. He finds the value of Cynic parallels with Q to be: (1) It avoids treating the Q woes in a law-gospel antithesis indicative of Protestantism; (2) It allowed the practice of the Q community in a systematic way that was eventually developed by the Christian Origins seminar; and (3) It avoids supersessionism and refutes the view that all pagan parallels are irrelevant to early Christianity. In response:

(1) Let us all say together the Meieranean Creed: "I cannot help thinking that biblical scholarship would be greatly advanced if every morning all exegetes would repeat as a mantra: 'Q is a hypothetical document whose exact extension, wording, originating community, strata, and stages of redaction cannot be known.' This daily devotion might save us flights of fancy that are destined, in my view, to end in skepticism." (John P. Meier, A Marginal Jew: Rethinking the Historical Jesus, Vol 2, p. 178). In case I appear too heavy-handed in my criticism about Q reconstructions consider the following remarks: Dunn (Jesus Remembered, 158) writes, “The various attempts to build hypothesis upon presupposition can scarcely inspire confidence in the outcome.” S. G. Wilson (“Review of The Formation of Q,” University of Toronto Quarterly 58 [1988]: 227-28) declares that Kloppenborg’s proposal “involves hypothesis upon hypothesis upon hypothesis, a house of cards which can easily tumble.”Call me a sceptic if you wish, but if the best value of the Cynic hypothesis is explaining the contours and dynamics of a document and a community that might not have even existed, I find it hard to get too excited about its utility and virtue. That said, I am willing to posit Q as a working hypothesis (Goodacre has not convinced me just yet, but he has made me far more cautious about Q itself) but talk of stages of redaction and a Q community are shifting to a more tenuous and uncertain realm. Much of Q studies reminds of the markings on the fringes of medieval nautical maps which say on the outer edges: And here there be dragons! In other words, no-one knows for certain what is beyond and before Q.
(2) Drawing attention to the Cynic tradition was principally the work of Hengel and Theissen who noted its analogy to elements of the Jesus tradition (not the least of which is the mission discourse in Mark 6). But they did not take in the direction of Mack, Vaage, Seeley, Crossan, Downing, Cameron, Price which is exactly why Theissen called the Jesus Seminar's Jesus the "Californian Jesus".
(3) The Q hypothesis has been related very closely to a high level of Hellenisation in Galilee as Chris himself notes. Here I commend the work of J.L. Reed who has pointed out that the Q tradition seems to know of some contact between Jesus and an urban environment, but with M.A. Chancey we have to keep in mind that Galilee was only in its infancy of hellenization in the first century.
(4) I also like the short comment of H.C. Kee: "Jesus’ wisdom does not consist of pious, timeless aphorisms on an allegedly Cynic model, as a contingent of New Testament scholars have tried to show. The true analogue between Jesus and the Stoic-Cynic tradition is rather what might be called an eschatological-ethical theme: the gods will reward and sustain the king who honors virtue, who is humane, and who is characterized by prudence (phronesis), temperance (sophrosune), justice (dikaiosune), and courage (andreia)." (H.C. Kee, The Beginnings of Christianity, 459).

I have made other comments on the Cynic Hypothesis here and in my EQ article on "The Peril of Modernizing Jesus and the crisis of not contemporizing the Christ" (2006).

It’s High Time to Change our Terminology

This is the view of John H. Elliott in his excellent article appearing in the most recent issue of the Journal for the Study of the Historical Jesus: "Jesus the Israelite was neither a ‘Jew’ nor a ‘Christian’: On Correcting Misleading Nomenclature". The "terminology" I’m referring to is what we label Jesus and the early church. Here is one of his strongest statements:

It is time finally for interpreters, Bible Translators, and commentators to cease and desist. Jesus and the Jesus movement (with all its various movement groups) have their roots in Israel, not ‘Judaism’. They were , in the nascent period, predominantly ‘Israelites’, not ‘Jews’; Galileans, not Judeans; Nazoreans, not ‘Christians’. They belonged to the House of Israel, not ‘Christianity’ (p. 148).


Leaving aside the clearly anachronistic use of the term "Christian" or "Christianity". While we continue to use these terms anachronistically we seem to be more aware of the problem than with the terms "Jewish" and "Jew".

With verve Elliott rehearses the well-known contrast between insider/outsider language in the Second Temple period in reference to Israel, and convincingly shows that Jesus and the early believers (including Paul) preferred the term "Israelite" over the term "Jew" in their self-designations. He avers that the New Testament guild must be more careful in their language when referring these historical personages and events to at best avoid anachronisms and at worst promulgate false assumptions.

Elliott presents that case that in the Second Temple period outsiders (specially the Romans) referred to Israelites as Ioudaioi and that term was eventually adopted by Diaspora Jews as a self designation especially when conversing with non-Israelites although nonetheless infrequently used. What’s more, Elliott explains that the term Ioudaioi maintained a geographical connotation as it expanded to include ethnicity. While at first the term was coined in the Persian period to refer to those who resided in the region of Ioudaia, it later came to be used as a designation by outsides for all those who oriented their lives—politically, ethnically, economically, socially and culturally—around Judea: the Jerusalem and the Temple, and the cult and law as practiced there. Thus, Elliott argues that the term Ioudaioi be translated as "Judeans", not "Jews" since as he states, "The term ‘Jew’ as a translation for Ioudaios does not communicate the connection of the name with the name of the land" (p. 148).

Also important is his discussion of the term Ioudaisimos which is translated "Jewish". Not only does the term rarely appear in Greek (and has not Hebrew or Aramaic equivalent), but also it was not a conventional term of Israel parlance. He opines, "It is ironic and unfortunate that a name occurring so infrequently [Jew, Jewish] in the literature of Israel and the New Testament should have become in modern times the most frequent designation of the children of Israel" (p. 142-43). Furthermore, Elliott argues that it was used in the Maccabean period to designate not a social collectivity but a "Judean way of behavior".

As a Christian, New Testament scholar and teacher I am as guilty as anyone for the lack of precision in my language. I take Elliott's criticism to heart and will attempt to be much more careful in my writing and speaking. Here is my list of terms to work on:

Israelites, not Jews (Galilean Israelites, Judean Israelites, Diaspora Israelites)

Judeans, not Jews

Judean lifestyle, not Jewish

Believers in Jesus, not Christians

A caveat: It is not possible to avoid completely the terms "Jew", "Jewish", and "Christian" nor is it necessarily desirable in every instance since these terms are so widespread in secondary literature. And most discussing topics such as Jewish Christianity, for example, don't think for a moment that the appellation is anything more than a modern construct used to describe an ancient phenomenon. (By the way, Craig Hill in Jewish Christianity Reconsidered [pp. 40-41] has a nice discussion of the term and an argument for retaining it [or at least tolerating it] .

Works of the Law and Justin Martyr

As I've argued in The Saving Righteousness of God, "works of the law" refers to the whole Mosaic legislation and I am not fond of the term "boundary markers" to use Wright and Dunn's terminology. I'm even less convinced that "works of the law" in 4QMMT means the distinctive practices of the Qumran sect. Nonetheless, one has to admit that in the context of discussions about the relationship of Christian Gentiles to the Law (esp. the view that one must become a Jew in order to become a Christian), that "works of the law" means the Judean way of life as codified in the Torah. What has really higlighted this for me again is reading the opening chapters of Justin Martyr's Dialogues with Trypho. In Book 10, Trypho retorts to Justin:

"But this is what we are most at a loss about: that you, professing to be pious, and supposing yourselves better than others, are not in any particular separated from them, and do not alter your mode of living from the nations, in that you observe no festivals or sabbaths, and do not have the rite of circumcision; and further, resting your hopes on a man that was crucified, you yet expect to obtain some good thing from God, while you do not obey His commandments. Have you not read, that that soul shall be cut off from his people who shall not have been circumcised on the eighth day? And this has been ordained for strangers and for slaves equally. But you, despising this covenant rashly, reject the consequent duties, and attempt to persuade yourselves that you know God, when, however, you perform none of those things which they do who fear God. If, therefore, you can defend yourself on these points, and make it manifest in what way you hope for anything whatsoever, even though you do not observe the law, this we would very gladly hear from you, and we shall make other similar investigations."

Notice here that observing the Law has as one of its main purposes separation from the nations and what does Trypho give as his two favourite exampels: circumcision and sabbaths. Sound familiar? Notice also, that Trypho thinks that this is necessary for anyone who seeks favour from God, even for strangers (= aliens) and slaves, thus it is applicable to Gentiles. Justin's response, in good ol' Pauline fashion is to say:

"But we do not trust through Moses or through the law; for then we would do the same as yourselves. But now — (for I have read that there shall be a final law, and a covenant, the chiefest of all, which it is now incumbent on all men to observe, as many as are seeking after the inheritance of God. For the law promulgated on Horeb is now old, and belongs to yourselves alone; but this is for all universally. Now, law placed against law has abrogated that which is before it, and a covenant which comes after in like manner has put an end to the previous one; and an eternal and final law—namely, Christ —has been given to us, and the covenant is trustworthy, after which there shall be no law, no commandment, no ordinance."

Wanted: Logo for Euangelion

To all those readers of Euangelion who have some competency in web design, I am hoping some clever little sausage might be willing to design a logo for the top of the blog that adequately reflects what Euangelion is about: New Testament Studies, Christian Origins, Theological Intepretation of Scripture, and Following Jesus. I look at Ben Myers' blog and Chris Tillings' with their snazzy headers and feel like this one is rather lacking in the visual eye candy department. Given that I have the artistic skills of a sedated sloth who works as an accountant in Bristol, would anyone like to design one? I'm thinking of something with purple, blue, and gold, no funny stuff like Tom Wright with a pitchfork, but something ancient-futurie. Any takers, please email me.

Reading Calvin

It is has been way too long since I last read through Institutes of the Christian Religion. Calvin combines theological observation with a passion for God's glory that is hard to match. It was refreshing for my soul to read this quote from the nerdy little frenchman this evening:

"Since then he arms and equips us by his power, adorns us with splendour and magnificence, enriches us with wealth, we here find most abundant cause of glorying, and also are inspired with boldness, so that we can contend interpidly with the devil, sin, and death. In fine, clothed with his righteousness, we can bravely surmount all the insults of the world: and as he replenishes us liberally with his gifts, so we can in our turn bring forth fruit unto his glory."
ICR II.15.iv.

Pastoral Wages in the Early Church

Does anyone know of any writings from the early church or of any secondary literature about wages, salaries, or remuneration for those dedicated to ministerial service in early Christianity? Several NT passages obviously come to mind "the worker is worth his wage" (Lk. 10.17; 1 Tim. 5.18), Paul's apostolic right to receive financial aid (1 Corinthians 9), and "double-portion" (1 Tim. 5.17) etc., but does anyone know of anything else?

A Foray into Mark Nanos’ views on the “Torah-Observant Paul”

I just finished reading two essays written by Mark Nanos available on his website: A Torah-Observant Paul? and Rethinking the “Paul and Judaism” Paradigm. If you are unfamiliar with this work I wish to encourage you to read these two very interesting and no doubt controversial papers for a foray into his views.

If I were mapping out the movements in Pauline studies I would say that Mark, among others (and interestingly especially Messianic Jews: see David Rudolph’s forthcoming monograph from WUNT A Jew to Jews) is at the forefront of not a “New Perspective” (Dunn’s phrase for the Sanders revolution) or even a “Fresh Perspective” (Wright’s phrase for the anti-Imperial perspective of Horsley and others) but rather an “Ancient Perspective” on Paul (Paul as a Torah-Observant Jew) [I am sure that this phrase will not be coined, but hey it is the best I can do!].

I found the essays in need of some editing and revision. There are syntax problems here and there and the argument is at times difficult to follow with all of the parentheses and interruptions with dashes. In addition, the introduction to the paper A Torah-Observant Jew? was especially difficult and all the more for uninitiated. It felt like there were elliptical statements throughout that would be well served to spell out a bit more. Still these issues are not substantial and I am sure they will be revised before they are officially published pieces.

To reveal my hand slightly before discussing my view on Paul on a later post about Jewish Christianity, I will say that I am warmly sympathetic to his view of a Torah-Observant Paul. What’s more, I found myself in sympathy with many of his viewpoints in the essays. I was especially encouraged in my developing views on Paul by his perspective since I am not much more than a novice—perhaps unlike my co-blogger—when it comes to Pauline theology. I suppose one advantage I have had is that I am coming to Paul after spending a significant amount of time in the Gospels focusing on the Jewish background of Matthew. What Nanos states about Pauline interpreters—that is that while Paul gets touted as a Jew, the full weight of that assumption is often less than significant for the interpreters’ conclusions—I have said about Matthean scholars. For example, how can interpreters of Matthew so easily assume that a theology of Land has no remaining value for the Jewish author. I often think such things are so easy for non-Jews to say, although of course I myself am a non-Jew.

I want to interact with one point from his essays here that relates to Paul and Israel. On several occasions Nanos makes the point that Paul did not think non-Jews needed or even should be allowed to become members of “Israel” by proselyte conversion; in fact to do so, according to Nanos, would undermine Paul’s conviction that the end of the ages had dawned (you can read his discussion so I won't unpack this any further here). I agree in part with this assertion on one definition of the term “Israel”. In other words, I agree with Nanos that Paul differentiated between expectations for Jewish and non-Jewish believers in Jesus with respect to the Torah and asserted that non-Jews had equal standing, or were co-members with Jews as non-Jews and this was in fulfillment of eschatological expectations that Paul believed, in contrast to his compatriots, had arrived at least partially in Jesus’ death and resurrection.

Still, I have been wondering these days about the term “Israel” especially Romans 9—11. What is the difference for Paul between the terms “Jew” and “Israelite” that surface in Romans? Why does Paul use the term Jew elsewhere in Romans, but in the context of Romans 9—11 he uses the term Israelite/Israel? Now most, as far as I can tell, see this change as one of election: who are the true chosen people? Most of course think Paul at best is saying that both Jew and non-Jew are now God’s chosen people and the election term “Israel” can be applied to both or at worst that the non-Jews have now taken ancient Israel’s place as God’s true Israel (quoting Paul “not all Israel is Israel”). Thus the meaning of the term “Israel” is thought to go back to the story of Jacob and his descendants. Indeed this view seems surely possible and perhaps even likely given that Paul references them in the context. Yet I question such a quick assumption when we come to Paul’s statement “all Israel will be saved” (Rom 11:26).

The term “Israel” is multivalent and can mean at least five different things: (1) a name of a person; (2) the name of the northern 10 tribal territories—in distinction from Judah; (3) the united kingdom under David and Solomon which included not only the 12 tribal territories, but also encompassed Gentile territories from the Euphrates to the Mediterranean Sea (cf. Davidic census in 2 Sam 24); (4) the Northern Kingdom in distinction from the Southern; and (5) the Judean returnees from the Babylonian captivity.

Isn’t it at least possible that when Paul says that "all Israel will be saved" he envisages the restoration of political-national Israel that included the restoration of the twelve-tribe kingdom of David and included non-Judeans and non-Israelites--that is those of the northern kingdom? Thus the term "Israel" as a political term can encompass at least three groups: Israelites, Judeans and those who are neither, but within the kingdom of Israel(=kingdom of David). It is true that Paul's understanding is more radical with respect to these "others" than the ancient prophets understood in that even in prophetic contexts where the other nations are envisaged as participating in the eschaton they did not have equal standing in the kingdom. This for Paul is the "mystery" (Rom 11; Eph 2-3) Paul has been given by God to proclaim: Jew and Gentile as equal members of the Messianic kingdom.

It is surprising to me that nobody is even considering this possibility given that the term can be applied in this way. This is all the more startling to me since many agree with Wright that Paul’s gospel to the nations is the royal proclamation of Jesus kingship as the Davidide. In this messianic context such an implication can’t be far away. While this is not so much an issue I have with Nanos, I think it could potentially strengthen his line of thinking. I would like at some point in the near future to pursue this line of thinking.

A High View of Scripture Part 5: Two Canon Lists

Returning to Allert's book A High View of Scripture, in chapter five he looks at two important fourth-century canon lists by Eusebius and Athanasius.

The fact that Eusebius could divided what are now our NT books into homologoumena (accepted) and antilegomena (disputed) categories in addition to his own doubts about the status of Revelation imply that the canon was still open and fluid at this point. Indeed, Eusebius refers to the "encovenanted" books as opposed to a canon of books.

On Athanasius' Festal Letter of 367, we have the first reference to the use of the term "canon" being used to describe a closed collection of writings. Athanasius does not have the three categories of Eusebius (homologoumena, antilegomena, notha) but he still knows of a third category of books (Wisdom of Solomon, Sirach, Judith, Tobit, Didache, Shepherd of Hermas) that are useful for instruction in godliness even if they are not part of the canon. If one takes Athanasius' Festal Letter and the Third Synod of Carthage in 397, then we have two instances from the East and West respectively that recognize what is now our canonical list of 27 books for the New Testament. Although these two lists have been influential on the wider church they were not unanimous. For instance, Revelation had a problem gaining canonical status in the East and Gregory of Nazianzus excluded from his list of canonical books. Didymus the Blind, who was appointed by Athanasius to be head of the catechetical school of Alexandria, regarded 2 Peter as a forgery. Amphilochius of Iconinum was a bishop in Asia Minor (d. after 394) and he rejected not only Revelation as "spurios" but also 2 Peter, 2 and 3 John, and Jude. Allert cites Westcott who refers to no less than six different canon lists received in the Eastern churches. (I would add that the Ethiopian Orthodox Church includes Jubilees, 1 Enoch, and the Didascalia as part of its canon and in the past the Armenian Orthodox Church has held various views about 3 Corinthians).

Allert concludes: "The assertion that these documents forced their way into the canon by virtue of their unique inspiration has little historical support ... The Christian faith did not grow in response to a book but as a response to God's interaction with the community of faith. The Bible must be viewed as a product of the community becasue tradition of the community provide the context in which Scripture was produced" (p. 145).

This is all interesting stuff. I think it worth pondering how many canons there are out there and which books are in each one, e.g. 66 books in the Protestant canon, 73 in the Catholic Canon, and 81 in the Ethiopian Orthodox Church's canon. Whose canon is the real canon and how do we know? I would want to say that it comes down to the "self-authenticating witness of the Holy Spirit" but I suspect that everyone will of course say that about their own canonical collection. Probably a better criteria is just to ask which books are accepted by the universal church.

A Forthcoming Paul Book

Above is the front cover for my forthcoming new book entitled: A Bird's-Eye View of Paul: The Man, his mission, and his message published by the excellent people at IVP. It should be available in a couple of months.

Michael Gorman has written a nice commendation:

"Michael Bird offers an insightful, readable, and serious (yet occasionally witty) introduction to Paul in conversation with the best scholarship on the apostle. It will be especially useful for those who think they know Paul well but have the courage to take a fresh look and have their assumptions challenged. Particularly important are Bird's discussions of justification and of the gospel itself. Let those who have ears to hear listen to what the Spirit--via Paul and Bird--is saying to the people of God in a world that seems increasingly similar to Paul's".

Update:

Here is a TOC as requested.

1. What is Paul?
2. A Funny Thing Happened on the Road to Damascus
3. The Stories behind the Story
4. Reading Somebody Else’s Mail
5. The Royal Announcement
6. The Crux of the Gospel
7. The Return of the King
8. One God, One Lord: Monotheism and the Messiah
9. Living a Life Worthy of the Gospel: The Ethics of Paul
10. Gospelizing 101: Paul’s Spirituality
11. Epilogue

Converting Muslims to Jesus with "Emotional Calvinism"

Over at CT, there is an excellent article on Jesus in Turkey which talks about the re-emergence of Christianity in Turkey since the 1960s. I loved this quote:

Ucal's congregation moved toward a charismatic, Vineyard-style form of Christianity. Meanwhile, Ucal served in the army for eight months and received training in ministry in the Philippines and South Korea. After that, Ucal decided to plant a different kind of church based on systematic theological teaching. While in South Korea, he had noticed the parallels between systematic theology and the disciplined Islamic lifestyle and mindset. He wondered if other Muslim-background Turks might respond to a more structured approach than the informal evangelicalism of which he was a part. Ucal found that his Muslim neighbors are attracted to systematic approaches to religious instruction, and are also easily touched emotionally. So Ucal began approaching them with an "emotional Calvinism."

Brief History of Jewish Christianity, Part Two: Peter and the Twelve (2.1.1.1)

This post is the first of three dealing with the subject of The Jerusalem and Galilean churches and the Jewish mission to Jews (2.1.1) under the larger topic of A Brief History of Jewish Christianity in Palestine and the Diaspora (2.1). The subjects of the posts will be Peter and the Twelve (2.1.1.1), James, the brother of Jesus (2.1.1.2) and Jesus’ other brothers (2.1.1.3)

Luke’s account of the early history of the Jewish believing community in Jerusalem contains a significant amount of ambiguity with respect to the development of the leadership structures of the community. Clearly at first the Twelve function as the center of the Jerusalem leadership with Peter as the chairperson and spokesman so to say. Their leadership can be seen in a number of passages in the first 12 chapters of Acts. Among them are:

(1) The fact that they felt it necessary to appoint a replacement for Judas (1:12-26)
(2) Peter’s Pentecost sermon (2:14-41)
(3) Peter and John’s arrest and appearance before the Sanhedrin (4:1-21)
(4) Annias and Sapphira episode (5:1-11)
(5) Arrest and jailing of apostles (NB: for Luke the “apostles and the “Twelve” are synonyms)(5:17-42)
(6) The Twelve’s appointment of the seven spirit-filled men for ministry (6:2-6)
(7) The apostles sending of Peter and John to Samaria (8:14-15)
(8) Peter and Cornelius’ conversion (10)
(9) Peter and James, the brother of John’s arrest (12)

Still as the narrative progresses through these chapters there are hints that the leadership is in process. First, mention is made of a wider group of leaders. We see this first in the reference in Acts 11:1 to the “Apostles and the brothers”; the later group not however a reference to the actual brothers of Jesus. Again in 11:22 a wider group (the “church at Jerusalem”) is said to have sent Barnabas to Anitoch. Also in chapter 11 the financial gift brought by Barnabas and Saul was given to the “elders”. This process seems to have ended by Acts 15 where James clearly has taken the preeminent role of leadership in the Jerusalem church; see also Acts 21:18. Note that Peter specifically signals him out in Acts 12:17 after his miraculous release from prison.

Second, if Peter is any indication of the function of the wider group of Twelve, then after they are said to have remained in Jerusalem subsequent to the onslaught of persecution (8:1), they appear to be involved in a wider missionary endeavor and marginal in the leadership structure in Jerusalem, although clearly not absent. Peter for example said to be travelling about the country (9:32) and was residing in Joppa in Acts 10. This observation of the missional function of the Twelve seems to confirm my suspicion that the Twelve’s appointment by Jesus had significant functional importance which although Matthew most explicitly emphasizes is clearly not absent in the other Gospels. Matthew’s unique introduction of the Twelve in contrast to Mark and Luke, suggests I think his understanding of the Twelve as having an emissary role. In Matthew’s view, and perhaps now confirmed historically in Acts’ portrait, the Twelve are called the twelve apostles (Matt 10:2) because they were sent by the Davidic King on the official duty of announcing the arrival of the Messianic Kingdom and dispensing the eschatological blessings of that kingdom.[1] Bauckham apparently concurs with this at least in part when he writes,

It seems likely that many members of the Twelve were no longer permanently resident in Jerusalem, as was certainly the case with Peter, while at least one had died (Acts 12:2), James stepped into the leadership gap. Any remaining members of the Twelve would have become members of the college of the elders with whom James presided over the church (Acts 21:18).[2]

While it is possible that some of the Twelve remained in Jerusalem as Bauckham’s last sentence suggests, it seems equally or even more likely to me that they had eventually all scattered on mission in fulfillment of their vocation. Furthermore, if Paul’s reference to the “division of apostolic labor” in Galatians 2:7-9 is correct (and there is no necessary reason to doubt its historical credibility), then it is conceivable that Peter and the Twelve’s primary mission field was the circumcised.

[1] Willitts 2007:119.
[2] Bauckham 2006:67.

Works Cited

Bauckham, Richard. 2006. James and the Jerusalem Community. In A History of Jewish Believers in Jesus: The First Five Centuries, ed. Oskar Skarsaune and Reidar Hvalvik:55-95. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson.

Willitts, Joel. 2007. Matthew's Messianic Shepherd-King: In Search of the Lost Sheep of the House of Israel. BNZW. Berlin; New York: Walter de Gruyter.

Paul Helm Interview

Thanks to Guy Davies for interviewing my HTC colleague Paul Helm in his Blogging in the Name of the Lord series.

Aussie Anglican Blogs

Continuing our theme of Anglican-Thursday, here's some Aussie Anglican Blogs:
Martin Foord's Blog by Martin Foord
Reflections in Exile by Mark Baddeley
The Blogging Parson by Michael Jensen
Aaron Ghiloni by Aaron Ghiloni
Faith and Theology by the now famous Ben Myers

New Blog: Sydney Anglican Heretics

Given that I'm in an Anglophile state of mind today, I have to say that I would not have believed it unless I saw it with my own eyes, but there is a blog out there entitled: Sydney Anglican Heretics and the subtitle reads: "A blog dedicated to exposing, discussing and, we pray, undoing the silly and heretical teachings that are slipping, almost unnoticed (we notice!), into the Anglican Diocese of Sydney". Views on creation seem to be the main issue here. Sadly Michael Jensen and Mark Baddeley, both whom I have had the pleasure of meeting, come in for some very unnice treatment. Ironically, in many circles the Sydney Anglicans are usually labelled fundamentalists, so the designation of "heretic" is rather comical all things considered. But to Mike and Mark remember the words of Churchill: "A man with no enemies is a man with no convictions!"

Let My People Go!

"Let My People Go!"
A sermon preached at the Anglican parish of St. Boschlavich at Watership on Down in Falkirk, Ayrshire the first Sunday after advent.
Guest post by Michel Vogel, Ret'd Vicar of St. Boschlavich.

Dear brothers and sisters, many of you may take joy in reading over the story of the Exodus which is now delightfully retold in movies like The Ten Commandments or The Prince of Egypt. It is a story that we are all know and are familiar with. One of the most powerful moments in the Exodus story is when Moses says to Pharoah, "Let my people Go!" (Exod. 5.1). This short statement is both plea and demand. Moses pleads and yet also demands that Pharoah set the Hebrews free from their malevolent oppression. It is rather like going up to Robert Mugabe in Zimbabwe and saying, "In God's name stop all of these human rights abused!" To go up to a national ruler, one hardly known for his compassion and benevolence, and to make such a demand takes audacity, courage, bravery, not a little faith, and oodles of testicular fortitude. Moses did it, though not with a little reluctance, and he was remembered in Judaism as the leader of captives, the law-giver, a wise-man, and even as a role model King (see esp. Philo of Alexandria).

The exodus story can be reapplied in a number of ways. It is taken up again in the books of Isaiah and Hosea who predict a new exodus and a new day of liberation for God's exiled people. The Gospels, most notably Mark, take up the exodus theme via Isaiah and declare that this hoped for day of salvation has now come in and through Jesus. Jesus proclaimed that the day of exile was ending and God was again gathering together a renewed Israel, for a renewed covenant, through a new passover sacrifice.

In recent days the Exodus story has been interpreted in a more contemporary fashion in the Anglican communion. For instance, Anglican Priest and Theologian Marilyn McCord Adams interprets the story as the quinessential coming-out party for gays and lesbians wanting to be free from oppression and to embrace their true sexual identity. Her sermons are always interesting and she is a very learned philosopher. While I appreciate the depth of her compassion for societal outcasts, I have to confess that I do not find her application of the story all that compelling. I cannot for the life of me see how one can take the biblical teaching about homosexuality to be anything other than negative and restrictive. A better strategy might be to say that the God of the Old Testament is a wicked demi-god, Paul was a homophobic bigot so who cares what he thinks, the church fathers were just a bunch of backward African hicks (like modern African Anglican leaders) to whom we should only pay lip service too, let's hope that Jesus never actually said alot of the things he is reported to have said about marriage, adultery, celibacy, and divorce, and instead let's just run with the UN Millennium goals and UN charter on Human Rights. Truth be told, I have alot more respect for that upfront repudiaton of the biblical teaching about sexuality than I do of some of the pseudo-exegesis that tries to convince the converted that homosexuality is now officially kosher. Let me qualify that: (1) All human beings regardless of gender or sexual preference bear the image of God and have inherent worth and value; (2) God does not have a special loathing for the sins of homosexuality, in fact, homosexuality is mentioned as one possible sin of many in Paul's vice lists; (3) Violence against homosexuals because they are homosexuals is abhorrent to all - evangelicals, moderates, or liberals; (4) Everybody is invited to my church, gays, lesbians, transgendered persons, Liberal Democrats, and even Celtic Supporters, and come as you are, but no one is allowed to stay as you are, for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God and we all urgently need the transforming work of the Holy Spirit to conform them to the image of the Son of God.

But let me find another application of the exodus story for our contemporary circumstance and one that includes making use of Moses' phrase, "Let my people Go". Many of our North American cousins in the Dioceses of San Joaquin, Pittsburgh, and Fortworth have decided that they have had enough of the Amercian Episcopal Church (TEC) in both its theological revisionism and in its persecution of orthodox Christians. Of course the powers-that-be of the TEC are not all that keen for them to escape (I mean "leave") and will take rigorous legal action against these dioceses in order to remove their duely elected bishops and to force these dioceses and all of their parishes to remain within the TEC. Call me idealistic if you wish, but I believe in the principle of freedom of association as a basic human right. And if a diocese in its democratic processes chooses to leave an organization due to its theological abberation they should darn well be allowed to do so. Separating from an organization that has ceased to be in any historic sense Christian is of course an even better reason and one can hardly blame these dioceses for wanting to "come out and be separate" (2 Cor. 6.17). I think the Presiding Bishop of the TEC needs to be told, "Let my people go!" Give these people the freedom they want, that they deserve, and need. The orthodox Anglicans are praying for a new exodus, a new found freedom, and a new day of liberation. We should join in prayer with them and pray for our Anglican leaders like Rowan Williams and Peter Akinola too that they will be able to shepherd God's people in this hour of division and disunity.

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.

Evangelicalism and North America

Ben Witherington offers up a prayer for the New Year in which he decries much of Religion, Politics, and Evangelicalism in North America.

Generally speaking I like America and Americans. I believe in Democracy, free-market economics (with Govt. intervention like universal health care), and if it wasn't for the USA, Australia would have been invaded by Japan with grim consequences. Americans are fairly generous people and very friendly. Generally speaking I also like American Evangelicals. I count them among my closest friends. Sadly, they have the best and worst of everything: Billy Graham and Pat Robertson! But there is one joke about American Evangelicals that I have heard in numerous places: "Many American Christians will find the afterlife disappointing when they discover that heaven is not any where as glorious as America!"

I think Americans in general and Evangelicals in particular need to appreciate their place in the global scheme of things. For American Evangelicals that means appreciating that Evangelicalism is not identitical with American Evangelicalism. Evangelicalism is a global movement. The reason I say this is because some guys write and talk as if Evangelicalism is "us" and "us" is North American Evangelicals. A friend of mine recently reviewed a book where the author kept equating Evangelicals with Evangelical Christians in North America. Where does Africa, China, South Korea, or South America fit in?

I have always been struck by the fact that the Evangelical Theological Society should really be called the "American Evangelical Theological Society" since its doctrinal statement, program, and constitution are all focused on the USA. Let me say that given its constituency and location that this is understandable and there is no hostility or suspicion towards foreigners at annual meetings. In my estimation less than 5% of members are from outside of the USA (but I need to double check). The question I have is does ETS want to be the theological society for Evangelicals in North America or the theological society for Evangelicals of the world? If the latter, then it requires making changes. Let me suggest a few: (1) It should consider holding its meetings occasionaly outside of the USA or else adopting an "international meeting" once every year or every two years much in the same way that SBL does. (2) It should appoint an international member to the executive committee in order to voice international concerns to the committee (I don't want the job!). (3) There should perhaps be program units allocated to international issues like Evangelism, Theology, and Social Justice in Africa and the like which would hopefully go on in leaps and bounds from there. (4) Perhaps one of the plenary speakers should always be from outside the USA which I'm glad to say has happened in recent years with Chris Wright and Paul Trebilco. (5) While inerrancy is the centre of the theological galaxy for Conservative Evangelicals in the USA given the Bible-Wars of the 20th century, this is simply not the case in the rest of world. Therefore, why make "inerrancy" the central issue? It might be better to adopt a broader and more comprehensive statement of faith like the UCCF statement or give a range confessonional options like the Anglican 39 Articles, the 1689 London Baptist Confession, the Westminster Confession, the Helvetic Confession, or the Baptist Faith and Message (1962 or 2000). This would make the statement of faith options representative of the diversity of global Evangelicalism rather than focus on one issue that has been prominent in North America.

I suspect that it is this narrow focus on the theological context of North America and the inordinate concern with inerrancy which is why Tyndale House in the UK sees its American counterpart in the Institute for Biblical Research rather than with ETS (but I may be wrong on that and there might be other reasons for it). Note, I'm not trying to attack inerrancy, but what I'm saying is that this has not been the hill to die on in most parts of the world and other traditions have ways of explicating biblical authority and veracity which are not tied to the grammar and conception of inerrancy. ETS can either try to indigenize itself in other parts of the world, remain parochially American and invite others to join in, or else modify its doctrinal statement, programming, and structure to reflect the international nature of the world wide movement that is Evangelicalism. Some might respond and say that with so few international members is there any point in making these changes? Well, it might be the nature of ETS which is why there are so few international members, and changes could facilitate the globalization of ETS. Finally, let me reiterate that this is not an exercise in American bashing, I'm not out to vanquish inerrancy either, I merely want to point out that Evangelicalism is bigger (much bigger) than North America and ETS as the flagship organization of Evangelical Biblical, Theological, Pastoral, and Missiological scholarship should try to reflect that.

Robert Jewett on Rom. 2.13-16

In several places I have advocated the Gentile Christian reading of Rom. 2.13-16. I was glad then to read Bob Jewett's comments on this section:

"The Most likely of these views from a rhetorical point of view is that Paul is here describing the status of converted Gentiles. Having assented that wrath is already evident among unconverted Gentiles (1:18-31) and that Jews are not exempt from God's impartial judgment (2:1-13), the audience consisting mainly of converted Gentiles would assume that their current situation is described in these verses which provide a preliminary form of Paul's strategy of touting Gentile conversion in order to provoke Jewish conversion through jealousy (11:11-14). The alleged contradiction between these verses and chap. 3 is removed if one takes the latter as claiming that all unconverted Gentiles and Jews have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God, and that salvation is by grace alone for Jews as well as Gentiles.

The gar ('for') of v. 14 indicates an argumentative connection with the foregoing thesis concerning the impartial judgment of God in v. 11. It is significant that Paul refers here to the ethne ('Gentiles') without the article implying that some but not all Gentiles are in view. The expression ta me nomon echonta ('those that do not have the law') refers to the absence of the Jewish Torah within the cultural tradition of Gentiles, whereby the word phusis should be taken as qualifying their identity rather than behavior. It refers to Gentiles whose birthright lacked exposure to the Torah. Yet they do the 'deeds of the law,' a claim that in the experience of the Roman audience could only have referred to converted Gentiles" (pp. 213-14).