Deadline for SBL Paper Proposals for 2008 Approaching

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

.

Here are the three proposals I submitted:

.

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

.

We'll just wait and see.

Luke-Acts in NT Theologies

I am not aware of many (or any) pre-1990 NT Theologies that view Luke-Acts as a distinct corpus in a NT Theology. I find this most amusing since in the early twentieth century we had Dibelius and friends telling us that Acts was mainly theology/kergyma and not history, and yet W.G. Kummel writes a NT Theology according to its "Major witnesses: Jesus - Paul - John" with no mention of Luke as a key player. In NT Theologies, Acts often gets dumped into a general section on the "kerygma" of the early church (e.g. Bultmann and Ladd) and Luke gets thrown in with Matthew and Mark under "synoptics" (e.g. Ladd). In fact, on my shelf only Strecker, Marshall, and Thielman treat Luke-Acts as a theological unity. Does anyone know who was the first to put Luke-Acts as one unit in a NT Theology?

Recent issues of EQ, SJT, and CBR

The latest issue of EQ 80.1 (2008) includes:

R. Alastair Campbell
"Triumph and Delay: the Interpretation of Revelation 19:11-20:10"

David H. McIlroy
"Towards a Relational and Trinitarian Theology of Atonement"

Rob Warner
"The Evangelical Matrix: Mapping Diversity and postulating Trajectories in Evangelicals' Theology and Social Policy"

Gordon Leah
"'A Person Can Change': Grace, Forgiveness, and Sonship in Marilynne Robinson's Novel Gilead"


The latest issue of SJT 61.1 (2008) includes:

Benjamin Myers
"The Stratification of Knowledge in the Thought of T.F. Torrance"

Danile J. Treier
"Biblical Theology and/or Theological Interpretation of Scripture?"

Jess Couenhoven
"'Not Every Wrong is Done with Pride'"

David Martin
"Does the Advance of Science Mean Secularisation?"

Barry Harvey
"Preserving the World for Christ"

Jeffrey Hensley
"Article Review: Trinity and Freedom"

Pul D. Molan
"What Does it Mean to Say that Jesus Christ is Indispensable to a Properly Conceived Doctrine of the Immanent Trinity?"


The latest issue of CBR 6.2 (2008) includes:

James C. Miller
"Ethnicity and the Hebrew Bible: Problems and Prospects"

Stnaley E. Porter and Andrew W. Pitts
"New Testament Greek Language and Linguistics in Recent Research"

David A. deSilva
"What Has Athens to Do with Patmos? Rhetorical Criticism of the Revelation of John (1980-2005)"

Susan Marks
"Women in Early Jduaism: Twenty-Five Years of Reserach and Reenvisioning".

Bob Webb is Blogging

Dr. Bob Webb is a man that I owe a great amount of debt. He was the associate supervisor for my Ph.D and he gave me alot of good advice (e.g. Don't write a Ph.D thesis trying to convince the converted about the historical Jesus and the gentiles, instead write a Ph.D thesis that will convince your worst possible examiner, like Bob Funk, so pick the arguments that you know you can win). Bob is a historical Jesus specialist and editor of JSHJ but also has expertise in the field of the General Epistles and is currently writing a commentary on 2 Peter and Jude in the NICNT series. He has also started blogging in association with several others at Prime Time Jesus. Glad to have you on board Bob!

Paul's spirituality of the Cross

Today I preached at two services with the good folk of Culloden Baptist Church on 1 Cor. 1.10-17 and 1 Cor. 1.18-2.5. In my latter sermon I touched upon the centre of Paul's spirituality and the word of the cross with a quote from by forthcoming Paul book: "The lesson of Paul is that a spirituality that is rooted in anything other than the cross of Christ will inevitably become novel, then triumphalistic, then wishy-washy, then worldly, then trivial, and finally, dead. For Paul, Christian spirituality is not a private matter that takes place in the mental events of our thought-life but it is manifested in action. A spirituality of the cross means not merely wearing a cross but carrying one as well."

Learning the Biblical Languages

I must confess that I find it most disconcerting and disappointing that an increasing number of seminaries are considering dumping the study of biblical languages from their programs or else are substituting full-on introductory courses in biblical languages for courses on "biblical language tools" (i.e. how to do a word study and how to use a lexicon without actually learning the languages). To those who fail to see the relevance of biblical languages to becoming a the pastor of a mega-church, I recommend two things:

1. John Currid, Calvin And the Biblical Languages (Rosshire: Mentor, 2006). The blurb reads: "The church today is built on the Reformation’s linguistic heritage yet is in danger of losing that strong foundation. Many seminaries no longer require that their students learn the Biblical languages for their divinity degrees – some do not even teach them! Yet these are the basic tools of any study of the Bible, and if we don’t teach the Bible, then what is the church teaching? If we need encouragement as to what can happen to our sermons and Bible study when we develop a knowledge of the languages that they are written in then Calvin is an excellent encourager."

2. Martin Luther, "To the Councilmen of All Cities in Germany That They Establish and Maintain Christian Schools" (1524) available courtesy of Rodney Decker here. Note this quote: "And let us be sure of this: we will not long preserve the gospel without the languages. The languages are the sheath in which this sword of the Spirit is contained; they are the casket in which this jewel is enshrined; they are the vessel in which this wine is held; they are the larder in which this food is stored; and, as the gospel itself points out, they are the baskets in which are kept these loaves and fishes and fragments. If through our neglect we let the languages go (which God forbid!), we shall not only lose the gospel, but the time will come when we shall be unable either to speak or write a correct Latin or German."

RBL Review: Jews or Christians?

Find here my RBL review of Giorgio Jossa, Jews or Christians?: The Followers of Jesus in Search of their Own Identity (Tubingen: Mohr [Siebeck], 2006). This was a cracking good read and is the exact opposite of the book edited by A.H. Becker and A.Y. Reed (eds.), The Ways that Never Parted which I have subsequently reviewed for Bible and Critical Theory (forthcoming).

Jesus died in order to ... make the church

When we think of the purpose of Jesus' death according to the New Testament the first thing that often comes to our minds is the function of Jesus' death in relation to the salvation of individuals in terms of justification, redemption, reconciliation, etc. But I think that a much neglected function of Jesus' death is to reconstitute Israel as the new people of God comprized of Jews and Gentiles united in one body. Two texts highlight this:

1. Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us, for it is written: "Cursed is everyone who is hung on a tree." He redeemed us in order that the blessing given to Abraham might come to the Gentiles through Christ Jesus, so that by faith we might receive the promise of the Spirit (Gal 3:13-14).

Here Paul sets forth the purpose of Christ's death as redemptive, not just of sinners in general, but to incorporate Gentile sinners into the worldwide Abrahamic family. The "Gentile sinners" are not merely redeemed so that they can go to heaven, they are redeemed so that they will be part of the people of God and participate in the life of the Spirit.

2. Then one of them, named Caiaphas, who was high priest that year, spoke up, "You know nothing at all! You do not realize that it is better for you that one man die for the people than that the whole nation perish." He did not say this on his own, but as high priest that year he prophesied that Jesus would die for the Jewish nation, and not only for that nation but also for the scattered children of God, to bring them together and make them one. So from that day on they plotted to take his life (John 11:49-53).

I think this passage is an example of the two levels of John's Gospel (literal and ironic). According to Caiaphas, Jesus is to die for the nation, that is, in order to prevent the Romans from needing to intervene in a tumultuous riot sparked by messianic hopes (i.e. so let's kill him before they over react). Ironically, Jesus does die for the nation, as the Lamb of God, but he also dies in order to fulfill the divine promises that God would against reconstitute the tribal league of Israel. Caiaphas is an unwitting mouthpiece for the declaration that Jesus fulfills the hope of Israel. That hope includes the end of the dispersion/exile of the majority of the Jewish people from Judea.

How Do We Discover The Real Jesus? Four Foundational Ideas and One More

Here is the outline of my talk on the approach to the study of Jesus historically.

1. The evidence you use will determine the Jesus you find.
2. The four Gospels tell us four unique stories about the one Jesus and they are our fullest and most reliable source of information.
3. Jesus must be understood as a first-century Palestinian Israelite whose worldview is shaped by the story of ancient Israel.
4. The person of Jesus is best discovered by careful attention to both his words and works.
5. The appropriate view of knowledge (epistemology) is a critical realism that understands we can’t access historically “what actually happened”—our knowledge of Jesus is only ever a mediated one and, try as we may, we can't get behind the sources.

.

If you were speaking to High School students about the Historical Jesus what things might you have talked about when providing a foundation for such a study?

High School Winter Retreat on Jesus

This weekend, Feburary 16-19, I have the privilege of speaking at a Winter Retreat for the High School ministry at College Church in Wheaton. In my former life, unlike Mike's career as a dancer, I was a full-time youth worker for a number of years. Some have asked me how one goes from Junior High pastor to University professor, but that is a story for another time--perhaps the give away was that I was teaching my 8th grade boys small group Greek in the late 90's.

The topic for the weekend is the Historical Jesus; here is the outline of my talks:

.
Session 1: Why Do We Need to Understand Jesus Historically?
Session 2: How Do We Discover the Real Jesus? (4 Foundational Ideas for Studying Jesus)
Session 3: Who is Jesus? Jesus' Message
Session 4: Who is Jesus? Jesus' Work
Session 5: What is our calling? Jesus' Ongoing Mission

.

As I once wrote I am not a big fan of the whole Historical Jesus enterprise, but I am wholly committed to the idea that to properly understand Jesus' mission and message we must firmly root him in a 1st century Palestinian Israelite context. After suggesting some points on studying Jesus I will attempt to put Jesus' message and work in his context for the students. Perhaps most importantly I want to convince these students that we have to guard against ahistorical interpretations that do not adequately capture the nature of the Gospel.

In My Former Life ...

Before I became Anglican Bishop of Niagara, before I was a NT lecturer, before I was paratrooper, before I was a struggling lyricists, I was in fact a short-lived pop start in the UK charts. And after a glass of wine and at the behest of some friends in San Diego last year, I gave a brief rendition of one of my old songs with a few dance moves combined. I'm sad to say that the whole thing was caught on film and Scot McKnight has a link on Mike Bird dancing at SBL.

I'm terribly embarrassed to have this posted on the web. I'm also more embarrassed (but somewhat proud) that my wife was too young to remember this song.

Scot, I'm going to get you ...

Book Review: Acts - Darrell Bock

Acts
Darrell L. Bock
BECNT; Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 2007.
Available at Amazon.com

For those familiar with Darrell Bock's mother-of-all-Luke-commentaries, you'll welcome the addition of his (delightfully more concise) volume on Acts. The introduction is fairly comprehensive (48 pp.). He opts for a pre-70 AD date for Acts and he regards it as a piece of Jewish and Hellenistic historiography that is blended with theology to produce a "theography". There is a superb quote from E. Earle Ellis on Vielhauer about the Paulinism of Acts: "When he [Vielhauer] has difficulty in recognizing Luke's Paul, this writer often finds a similar difficulty in recognizing Vielhauer's Luke" (Ellis 1974: 47). Bock also argues for the essential historicity of Acts in the tradition of Hengel, Hemer and Bruce. In regards to the purpose of Acts, Bock identifies from the prologue a concern to show (Theophilus) that being a Gentile in an originally Jewish movement is part of God's design. Bock does touch briefly upon Luke's claim to legitimize this new movement in the Greco-Roman world, but I think this and the apologetic dimension of Acts has a lot more going for it. Bock also treats the theology of Acts fairly sensitively. In discussion on the topic of the "New Community's Emerging Separate Identity" he correctly notes how a major issue in the early church was the question of whether Gentiles should be treated as prosleytes to Judaism and what was expected of them in the new community in regards to the Torah. Although at one point Bock's (progressive) dispensational colours shine through: "Whether this new community saw itself as the 'restored Israel' ... is a matter of debate. They did, however, view themselves as a community that had been formed by God in conjunction with promises made long ago. The remnant of Jews who believed in the Messiah was the link to the Israel of the past. The new community's existence meant that God was doing something fresh from a structural point of view, distinct from the Israel of old." Unfortunatley, I will never understand the dispensational sine qua non of an absolute discontinuity between the church and Israel. Bock's commentary itself is very detailed, easy to read, and open to theological reflection. Bock is at his best when commenting on inter-textual links with the Old Testament and his discussions are always informative. Otherwise, this is a commendable volume and is useful for students and pastors.

Forthcoming Acts Commentaries

I'm currently re-hashing my lecture notes on a course on Luke-Acts, so I'm naturally interested in forthcoming Acts commentaries. A few I've learnt of:

1. Steve Walton (WBC).
2. Richard I. Pervo (Hermeneia).
3. Craig Keener (Eerdmans).

Bockmuehl on New Testament Theology

In Seeing the Word chapter three, Bockmuehl looks at the possibility of a NT Theology given the diversity of voices in the New Testament (indeed a "a cacophony of ireconcilably conflicting interpretations and pleas for power" according to some). Are we left with an entirely phenomenological approach to the theology of individual letters rather than a singular message of the New Testament? In contrast, Bockmuehl argues that: "There is in fact a strong case that the New Testament text itself begs to be read systematically, whether as a canonical whole or in its constituent parts". The various writers, in their diversity and disagreements, claim to be concerned with the same Gospel as their fellow Apostles. An ecclesial reading is possible because the texts imply a Christian readership, what is more, "the New Testament does not create the church but rather presupposes and confirms it at every turn".

In terms of a method for NT Theology, Bockmuehl proposes: (1) To establish the kerygma of the New Testament; (2) to seriously engage in the issue of unity and diversity; and (3) plot the place of the New Testament in historic Christian Theology.

RBL Review

My review of Stanley E. Porter (ed.), Messiah in the Old and New Testaments (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2007) is now availabe at RBL. James Charlesworth's review orientates the volume in the context of some wider studies on messianism in recent years.

The New Testament Scholar and the Importance of Teaching

Have you had the experience of reading a book and finding that the author discusses an issue that you would have never expected given the subject of the book, but that in the end was itself worth the price of the book? I had that experience again today as I was rereading Luke Timothy Johnson’s book The Real Jesus: The Misguided Quest for the Historical Jesus and the Truth of the Traditional Gospels.

I am preparing a series of talks for an upcoming church retreat on Jesus for high school students and I was rereading Johnson's book The Real Jesus, one of my favorite books on the historical Jesus. The first time I read it I must have either skimmed this part or overlooked its profundity. In a chapter titled “Cultural Confusion and Collusion”, Johnson describes the crisis in the academic discipline of biblical and theological studies for contemporary relevance or cultural significance as he labels it. He observes that many professors of the Bible who were trained in the historical critical method in American university religious studies programs have a difficult time connecting to the needs of contemporary undergrad students. Johnson reflects on the fact that most of the professors’ training in this context was based on an assumption that historical scholarship was the answer to church tradition. Thus the job of a professor was to move students who were brought up within the traditions of a church a more critical and therefore better apprehension of Christianity through the historical critical study of the Bible. This paradigm requires that students have a pre-formed and “uncritical” tradition which they bring the classroom. It doesn’t take too much time in a contemporary classroom to realize that the target of which this paradigm is based is a mirage, a figment of imagination. Undergrads today have little to know prior biblical knowledge of which to be disabused. Even those students who come from strong evangelical homes are not all that more prepared to critically reflect on their knowledge. Johnson has hit his proverbal spot when he opines, “The pressing need of such students is to have the tradition transmitted in the first place” (1996:74, emphasis mine).

Johnson offers a way through the crisis of cultural significance by asserting that academics must “rediscover” the truth that the “finest expression of scholarship is in teaching”. He states that scholars must again become effective educators. He avers that scholars need “no other forum than the one already generously placed at their disposal by society, the classroom”. Finally he makes a strong suggestion that New Testament scholars "must above all develop models for studying the New Testament that, while lacking nothing in critical acumen, do not flatten the rich possibilities of those texts to the thin and distorted ‘history’ that has too often been made the representative of biblical scholarship” (1996:76).

.

To these thoughts I say a hearty "Amen!"

An M.Th in New Testament

In Australia and the UK we lack the fascination of doing Master's Degrees. In fact, I think Oxford hands them out automatically after completing a B.A. Honours (I may need correction on that). I never did an M.Div or an M.Th. I did a B.Min (Theol), Hons. in Religious studies, and then a Ph.D. But I wonder what would the ultimate M.Th in NT would look like. I think the following subjects would look like a good cohort to choose from:

1. Textual Criticism
2. Christians and Jews in the Greco-Roman World
3. The Use of the Old Testament in the New Testament
4. The Historical Jesus
5. Studies in Johannine Literature
6 Current Issues in Pauline Studies
7. Exegesis of Luke-Acts
8. Exegesis of Hebrews
9. New Testament Theology
10. The New Testament in the Second and Third Centuries
11. The New Testament and Pastoral Ministry
12. History of the Interpretation of the New Testament
13. Dissertation

Tom Wright - Acts for Everyone

Tom Wright
Acts for Everyone (Part 1; Part 2)
London/Louisville: SPCK/WJK, 2007.
Available from SPCK
Available from Amazon.com

Tom Wright's popular level commentary series (New Testament for Everyone) is in two volumes and is what I would call a scholarly informed devotional on the Book of Acts. Wright works through the book methodically and provides a translation, an opening illustration, and a brief description of the text. Some of the illustrations are worth the price of the book including the story of the bishop who lamented that when Paul preached there was a riot, but when he preached, they serve tea! I found particurlarly helpful Wright's discussion of Acts 15 and his illustration and explanation of the text was one of the best I've read with good application. Time and again, Wright anchors the story in the life and worship of the Church as it is illuminated by the Spirit and unyielding in its proclamation of Christ. Wright also gives several interesting biographical cameos too. That said, this is definitely not an exegetical commentary, I wouldn't rely on this resource for sermon preparation and the like, but it would make a good adult Sunday school resource.

I also recommend Wright's sermon: "Shipwreck and Kingdom: Acts and the Anglican Communion" given to the Anglican Consultative Council in Nottingham, June 2005. This is a good taste of what the commentary is like.

Ben Witherington's Letters and Homilies for Hellenized Christians

I want to offer praise for Ben Witherington's recent commentary on 1 & 2 Peter entitled Letters and Homilies for Hellenized Christians. I am most encouraged by Witherington’s view of the social milieu of the letter of 1 Peter. He asserts, "We will argue that the early church fathers were right that 1 Peter is written by Peter to Jewish Christians" (2007:17, emphasis added).

.

The prevailing assumption today among Petrine interpreters is that 1 Peter was written to Gentile Christians. I have believed for quite sometime now however that this consensus position on the question of audience at best does not adequately explain the content of the letter and at worst renders 1 Peter the most thoroughgoing supersessionist text in the New Testament.

The Antioch Incident: Mark Nanos’ View, Part Three

Mark Nanos has provided a very interesting proposal of the Antioch incident that deserves careful attention both in the overall reconstruction and in the details, although in this brief post I will not be able to address much more than a few points which are relevant to my own interests.

I begin by commending his evaluation of the traditional as well as the more recent interpretative trends. I find myself in hearty agreement with much of his analysis here and his critique of the scholarly assumptions that the “ones from James” are identical to the “circumcision party” and that Jewish dietary practices were the central issue. With respect to the latter, the oft stated idea that Peter did not eat according to prevailing Jewish dietary norms prior to the arrival of the one’s from James and shortly thereafter withdrew from this practice and again followed a stricter halakah cannot be substantiated by details in the passage itself. Among other things Mark observes that “in this text Paul never mentions the food itself, and he does not identify those with whom Peter fears as ‘the ones for Jewish diet’ or ‘for a more rigorous diet’ . . . [furthermore] “food is never the topic of concern in this letter” (2002:303,04, emphasis added). More emphatically Mark avers:

There is simply no explicit statement in this narrative or the whole letter that the meals at which Peter and the other Jewish believers in Jesus—including Paul(!)—had been “eating with Gentiles” included food that was objectionable on Jewish dietary terms (2002:304).

In addition to his analysis of previous approaches I would also find sympathy with his claim that identity and the issue of the status of Gentiles within the inaugurated eschatological community were an aspect of if not the central concern of all parties involved. I agree with Mark that in the subsequent discussion (Gal 2:15-21)—whether a summary of Paul’s continued reprimand of Peter in the moment or a later explanation added on for the letter—the issue it seems as Paul understood it was what Peter’s association or disassociation meant for the identity of the Gentiles as Gentiles in the inaugurated eschatoloical community. The issue of food laws is wholly absent. The focus is not on halakah related to food laws, but halakah related to association with perhaps a caveat that the two are not altogether disconnected of course, but can be distinguished. Paul’s argument in Galatians 2:15-21 makes the point that both Jews and non-Jews are justified by Jesus Christ’s faithfulness [Ok I admit it: I take this as a subjective Gen.] and by their trust in (eis) that work of redemption just as the Gentiles are. Furthermore, I would add that the observation that this idea is reminiscent of Luke’s characterization of the Jerusalem perspective on the reception of the Spirit by non-Jews in Acts 10—11 and 15 is to me no coincidence. I will say more about this later.

The previous affirmation notwithstanding, there are still a couple of points that I would raise that still linger in my mind which leave me not fully convinced by Mark’s fresh explanation of the incident. The first relates to his interpretation of the collocation “the ones of/from circumcision”. First I am not yet convinced that the preposition ek implies the idea of “for” here. At the very least it would be an unusual use of the preposition. Had Paul wished to stress that the group in question “advocated” circumcision a more appropriate preposition was close at hand. While it is possible to interpret the group as those advocating circumcision—and on this point Mark is perhaps not far from the traditional view—it must be based on clear contextual clues and the preposition should not be forced into an inappropriate mold. Thus, Mark can assert that the group from out of the circumcision [i.e. Israelites] advocated proselyte circumcision thereby upholding the communal norms, but it cannot be sufficiently supported by the preposition.

Second, I am not so sure the preposition can bear the weight of the argument as Mark makes it. Once Mark establishes his reading of the ek early in the piece he then bases much of his reading of the incident on that point. Often he refers to the phrase “the ones for (or advocating) circumcision” to support a further step in his argument. For example, Mark states, “In fact, they are labeled by Paul according to their interest in the traditional way to negotiate the inclusion—not exclusion—of Gentiles seeking full membership among Jewish communities: ‘the ones for circumcision’” (2002:303, emphasis added). This strikes me as rather circular because it seems to me that the question of the identity of the group is precisely what needs to be argued for based on Paul’s reflection on the incident.

Finally, Mark thinks it obvious that Paul does not use the term “circumcision” to distinguish between believers and non-believers in Jesus since Paul, Barnabas and the rest of the Jews who are referenced in the passage would have themselves also been circumcised although believers. In this way they would be similar to all Israelites. He claims “the labels ‘the circumcision’ or ‘the ones from/out of circumcision’ by themselves do not sufficiently distinguish between Jews who believe in Christ and those who do not, but only between Jews and Gentiles” (Nanos 2002:288). However, he does further claim that the phrase can be employed “to distinguish among Jewish people” and in this way it would suggest an intra- or inter-Jewish group distinction. Mark thinks Paul here is distinguishing himself and the rest of the Jewish believers in Jesus in Antioch from this other Jewish entity. That being the case, one is naturally prone to ask, why couldn’t Paul refer to Jewish non-believers in Jesus with this term? This would fit the context where the previous use of the term in Galatians 2:7-8 is suggestive of this kind of distinction. The phrase ek peritomēs then would be employed to simply denote a group out of non-believing Israelites, the target of Peter’s mission (2:7-8). While this group may be advocates of proselyte circumcision as Mark thinks, this would have to be shown from the context and not from either the use of the term or the adverbial logic of the preposition. Having established the scope of Peter’s mission in the early context, we might then be able to assume that the fulfillment of his mission was the occasion for his presence in Antioch.

In sum, my own sense is that a more generic and general interpretation of the phrase is better. This view, however, does not necessarily undermine Mark’s thesis, although I do think he has over specified the referent given the limitations of the details in the text.

The second lingering question that leaves me not yet convinced by his reading is his assertion that the central issue in the Antioch incident was the manner in which the meals were conducted. It is not clear to me how Peter would have acted differently if he treated these Gentiles as mere “guests” in accordance with the presumed social norms. Mark does not develop this in any detail although he assumes that there would be a significant enough practice to reveal how Peter and the rest of the Jewish believers in Jesus regarded the Gentiles with whom they ate. This seems to be quite fundamental to Mark’s argument. And I would have wished that he developed this more beyond some vague educated guesses about how the conduct might have been different [he refers to possible seating arrangements and distribution of food and drink as potentially observable conduct (2002:316)]. It appears that there are no ancient sources upon which to draw for this part of his argument. How would these advocates of proselyte circumcision observe that the believers in Jesus regarded their Gentile associates as more than guests? What would their posture be? If these meals were conducted in Jewish social space as Mark seems to think, then what would be observable? I wonder rather crassly if there was something like a bouncer at the door of these meals who said not “Let me see your ID” but “Please drop your trousers.” Isn’t it true that from an outward appearance there would be little to distinguish a Diaspora Jew from a God-fearing Gentile?

In the end, there is much in Mark’s fresh reading that bears careful consideration and it has usefully advanced my own thinking on the subject. In a future post, I will suggest my own working hypothesis for the issue central to the Antioch incident, but before that I will look next at Philip Esler's view.

Positions in Systematic Theology and Church History

International Christian College in Glasgow is looking for to fill two positions in theology and church history. Here is the advert:

ICC is an interdenominational, evangelical college providing training for cross-cultural, youth, children’s, urban and pastoral/preaching ministries, ICC seeks to fill two positions. All BA, MTh and PhD Programmes are validated by the University of Aberdeen.

LECTURER IN CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE
LECTURER IN HISTORY OF CHRISTIANITY

PhD and good teaching skills expected.
Closing date for applications: 21/02/08
Details from: Mrs Susan Kershaw, International Christian College, 110 St James Road, Glasgow G4 0PS. Tel. 0141 552 4040
Email: susan.kershaw@icc.ac.uk

The Antioch Incident: Mark Nanos’ View, Part Two

We continue analyzing Mark’s answers to questions related to the Antioch incident. Having sketched the first two questions in the last post we address the third here:
.
What is Paul’s issue with Peter?
.
Mark clearly summarizes Paul’s issue with Peter:

The issue in Antioch—from Paul’s point of view—concerned the eating of Peter and the rest of the Jews with Gentiles, and then their withdrawal and separation—because of the fear of the ones advocating circumcision of these Gentiles (2002:300, emphasis his).

What then was the issue the “circumcision party” had with Peter and the rest of the Jews that influenced him to withdraw? After evaluating the prevailing views of the issues at stake at the mixed meals from which Peter withdrew wherein Mark exposes the weaknesses of both the traditional view (of the likes of Burton and Betz) and more recent trends (the likes of Sanders, Dunn, Esler) that largely focus on Jewish dietary regulations and on the question of what was eaten, he offers his own novel interpretation of Paul’s beef with Peter in which he claims that the issue was not what, but in what manner or how Peter and the other Jews ate with Gentiles.

Based on the Jewish sources of the time he asserts the normalcy of mixed meals between Jews and Gentiles in the Diaspora—especially in Antioch. Furthermore, Mark claims that there is no reason to suppose otherwise then the food eaten at these mixed meals was in conformity with prevailing Jewish norms for eating with non-Jewish guests. With respect to the Jewish norms, while there no doubt were expectations, Mark agrees with Sanders that these mixed meals would be conducted most often in Jewish social space where the conditions could be completely controlled by the hosts. He writes, “In Jewish social space, the meals would be conducted according to prevailing norms, and the Gentiles would be expected to behave like guests, respectful of the conventions of the host’s meal” (2002:296).

Mark describes his approach to the issue in Antioch with the statement:

I propose to account for what was considered compromised while I maintain that the food conformed to the Jewish dietary norms of these advocates [i.e. the circumcision party] and that their objection was not to the inclusion of Gentiles at the meals per se (2002:300).

In his view the issue centers on the way the Jewish Christ believers ate with the Gentiles; that is as “full and equal members of this Jewish subgroup” and not as either non-Jewish guests or proselyte candidates (2002:300-01). Mark sees the problem to be that according to the circumcision advocates, the Jewish Christ believing subgroup did not follow the prevailing norms for mixed meals by treating the Gentiles like full and equal members. What they objected to then is not what was being eaten but that the Christ-believing Jews were not treating the Gentiles as guests or as those on the way to becoming proselytes. To put it another way, the issue that caused the rub was not one of behavior per se, but what the behavior meant for the identity and status of the Gentiles with whom they ate. Peter and the rest of the Jews in the way they ate with the Gentiles were granting them a status inappropriate for the present age. Those advocating circumcision by definition, according Mark, believed that only Gentiles who were proselytes (i.e. circumcised) should have the status of full and equal members. So in fear of these Peter and the rest of the Jews withdrew from table fellowship to avoid persecution.

According to Mark then Paul’s problem with Peter was that while continuing to maintain the view, with Paul, that Gentiles have equal status with Jews as members of God’s inaugurated eschatological community in light of the work of Christ on behalf of both, he nevertheless masked this view and acted in contradiction to his conviction. Peter’s conduct in Paul’s view was the result of his fear of the prevailing Jewish opinion on the question of identity formation and the role of proselyte circumcision in that formation. Peter and the rest of the Jews who followed him by their withdrawal undermined the identity of the Gentiles in Christ in the present age and their behavior was in effect a silent but loud assertion that Gentiles need to be proselytes.

Works Cited

Nanos, Mark D. 2002. What was at Stake in Peter's "Eating with Gentiles" at Antioch. In The Galatians Debate: Contemporary Issues in Rhetorical and Historical Interpretation, ed. Mark D. Nanos:282-318. Peabody: Hendrickson

Sanders, E. P. 1990. Jewish Associations with Gentiles and Galatians 2:11-14. In The Conversation Continues: Studies in Paul & John in Honor of J. Louis Martyn, ed. Robert Tomson Fortna and Beverly Roberts Gaventa:170-88. Nashville: Abingdon Press.

The Gospels in Early Christianity

I spent a couple of years looking at the place of the Gospels in early Christianity and in particular testing Richard Bauckham's thesis of the Gospels for All Christians against the actual phenomena of the circulation of the Gospels. One thing I continue to find interesting is how the Gospels represent an integration point or funnel for various Christian traditions. Consider the following:

1. Gospel of Mark. The Gospel of Mark clearly has a Pauline view of the Torah for Gentiles (Mk. 7.19c), a Pauline view of Christ's death (Mk. 10.45), and a similar view of gospel (Mk. 13.10); see Joel Marcus on this. And yet, the biographical material in Mark has a largely Petrine flavour and it elevates Peter among the disciples (so Bauckham et. al.).

2. Gospel of Matthew. Matthew has often been regarded as anti-Pauline (e.g. D.C. Sims) but more recently R.T. France has argued that it represents a synthesis at Pauline and Jewish Christian traditions. It is clearly Jewish Christian on the Law (e.g. Mt 5.17) but essentially a Pauline perspective on the Gentiles (e.g. Mt. 28.19-20).

3. Gospel of Luke. In a previous generation Luke was associated with an "early catholicism" which was where Pauline and Petrine Christianities were reconciled (e.g. Baur to Kasemann). This category is pretty much defunct (despite J.D.G. Dunn's modification of it) and I think it better to see Luke as representing a form of post-Pauline Hellenistic Christianity that wants to remain in continuity with Jewish Christianity whilst maintaning its cosmpolitan vision in the Greco-Roman world and holding out hope that Israel may yet respond positively to the gospel and to the followers of Jesus.

4. Gospel of John. John is pretty much in his own tradition (with the exception that he has probably read Mark or heard it). He stands between an incipient Gnosticism, a post-70 Judaism, and a Hellenistic Jewish Christianity.

The Antioch Incident: Mark Nanos’ View, Part One

We attend ourselves again to the three questions related to the Antioch incident this time turning to Mark Nanos’ contribution in the collection of essays he edited titled The Galatians Debate. In preparing the to write the post it became clear that I needed to break up my discussion of Mark's work as it would be much too lenghty for one post. So I am dividing into three parts. Part one will discuss his view of the questions: Who are “those of the circumcision” and What role does James play in the circumstances? Part two will address what Paul’s issue was with Peter? And Part three will be my evaluation.
.
(1) Who are “those of the circumcision”? and (2) What role does James play in the circumstances?
.
Before one finishes the introduction of his essay the reader encounters Mark’s translation of the Greek phrase tous ek peritomēs (lit. “those of/from the circumcision”). Typically this phrase is translated along the lines of the NIV, “the circumcision group” or the NRSV, “the circumcision faction”. Mark, however, goes his own way by translating the ek with the preposition “for”, thus expressing the adverbial logic of “advocacy”. Hence, he translates this phrase: “the ones for [advocating] circumcision” (2002:284).

.

Later Mark in so many words avers that the interpretation of this group is an essential crux for an interpretation of the whole episode because it is on account of the “fear” of these that Peter withdraws. What’s more, he admits that the attempt to identify the group is “extremely involved”. Mark’s interpretation rests on a few observations: (1) the term peritomē means “circumcision” and is a decidedly Jewish way to designate the distinction between Jewish and non-Jewish males, and by extension human communities; (2) while there is much debate about whether Paul uses this term here to refer exclusively to those who believe in Jesus or those who don’t, Mark argues that it is simply not possible or logical to limit the usage in either of these directions on “lexical grounds” since Jewish believers in Jesus and those who aren’t would nonetheless still be without their foreskin; and (3) the phrase can be employed as an intra or inter-Jewish distinction: to distinguish among circumcised [so Jewish] people—Mark appeals to the immediate context where Peter and “the rest of the Jews” are circumcised but distinct from those called “those of the circumcision”. With these observations Mark concludes,

It is not just any Jewish group in view—and thus the members circumcised and advocating circumcision as a nor for Jewish people—but an interest group specifically distinguished from other groups of circumcised Jews as advocates of circumcision(2002:288; emphasis his).

This is surely not an overly controversial point [I will take some issue with it later], but Mark doesn’t stop here. He believes the type of advocacy can be delimited further: the circumcision party advocates “proselyte conversion” in conjunction with the prevailing view of the day. This view would be in direct conflict with the “coalition of Jewish believers-in-Jesus”. In sum, Mark claims that “the ones for circumcision” are likely the “representatives of the dominant Jewish communal norms” (2002:289).
.
One final comment related to the connection between the advocates of circumcision and the “ones from James” is in order. And we can perhaps dispense with the question of the identity of the latter here as well [question two for those keeping score]. Mark sees no compelling reason to regard these entities as one and the same as is often thought. Moreover, while not shutting the door completely to this idea, he largely disregards it as the most likely interpretation with the result that he sees James playing little to no role in the episode. An extended quote will sufficiently bear this out:

Paul does tell us not [sic] what the ones from James were advocating, or even precisely who they were or how they were or were not related to “the ones for circumcision,” but only the part the played in the timing of this incident: Peter began to withdraw and separate himself from eating with these Gentiles in the way that he had been doing so because he feared the ones advocating circumcision, and this occurred after the arrival of certain ones from James. Thus, when I refer to the ones for/advocating circumcision, or the ones that Peter fears, it should be understood that I am not referring to the certain ones who came from James (2002:292; emphasis added).

Works Cited

Dunn, James D.G. 2002. The Incident at Antioch (Gal 2:11-18). In The Galatians Debate: Contemporary Issues in Rhetorical and Historical Interpretation, ed. Mark D. Nanos:199-234. Peabody: Hendrickson
.
Nanos, Mark D. 2002. What was at Stake in Peter's "Eating with Gentiles" at Antioch. In The Galatians Debate: Contemporary Issues in Rhetorical and Historical Interpretation, ed. Mark D. Nanos:282-318. Peabody: Hendrickson

.

Sanders, E. P. 1990. Jewish Associations with Gentiles and Galatians 2:11-14. In The Conversation Continues: Studies in Paul & John in Honor of J. Louis Martyn, ed. Robert Tomson Fortna and Beverly Roberts Gaventa:170-88. Nashville: Abingdon Press.

Gospels that remind me of Movies

Certain Gospels remind me of certain movies:

1. The Gospel of Mark - The Bourne Identity. I think Phil Harland is right. The whole plot of Mark's Gospel is dominated by "so who is this guy?"

2. The Gospel of Matthew - Schindler's List. One guy stands up to the bad guys on behalf of the Jewish people.

3. The Gospel of Luke/Acts - Ben Hur. Both are set in the Greco-Roman world and Palestine and touch upon Christian themes. BH won a mammoth 12 Oscars that has never been matched and Luke-Acts is certainly an epic of similar proportions.

4. The Gospel of John - ET. Think about, a stranger comes from out of space, visits earth, and brings a family together. I sobbed my eyes out as a kid when I saw this.

Tom Schreiner's New Testament Theology

Baker has provided an on-line free 46 page excerpt of Tom Schreiner's forthcoming book on NT Theology. See here for the PDF. Apologies to Ben Witherington, but it looks fairly good.

HT: Matt Montonini

Call for Papers: BNTC Acts Seminar

The Book of Acts seminar at the British New Testament Conference
University of Durham, 4-6 September 2008

This seminar aims to be a forum for considering Acts from various angles: historical, literary, textual-critical, theological, archaeological, the social world, possible links/parallels with other ancient writings, and so on. We are very happy to include discussion of topics which relate Acts to the wider contexts of Luke-Acts and the Pauline corpus, where they are relevant and helpful to the study of Acts, although the focus of the seminar is studying Acts. Papers are welcome from both research students and more established scholars.

If interested please contact:
Steve Walton,
Senior Lecturer in Greek and New Testament Studies
London School of Theology

Luke the Priest

My Doktorvater, Rick Strelan, is about to have published a book on the author of the Third Gospel. It is called: Luke the Priest: The Authority of the Author of the Third Gospel (Ashton: Ashgate, Feb 2008).

Blurb

This book focuses on the authority and status of the author of Luke-Acts. What authority did he have to write a Gospel, to interpret the Jewish Scriptures and traditions of Israel, to interpret the Jesus traditions, and to update the narrative with a second volume with its interpretation of Paul and the other apostles who appear in the Acts narrative? Rick Strelan constructs the author as a Jewish Priest, examining such issues as writing and orality, authority and tradition, and the status and role of priests. The analysis is set within the context of scholarly opinion about the author, the intended audience and other related issues.

[Note, while this might seem novel, consider the following quotation from Irenaeus: "Now the Gospels, in which Christ is enthroned, are like these … That according to Luke, as having a priestly character, began with the priest Zacharias offering incense to God. For the fatted calf was already being prepared which was to be sacrificed for the finding of the younger son" (Adv. Haer. 3.11.8).

TOC

Preface

Introduction

Who were the Gospel writers?

Gospels, authors and authority

The status of Luke in scholarship

Why write another Gospel?

Owning, controlling, guarding the traditions

The oral and the written

Luke in the tradition

Luke among the scholars

Luke the priest

Luke as authoritative interpreter of Scripture

Luke as interpreter of the Jesus tradtions

Luke as interpreter of Paul

Conclusion

Author

Rick Strelan is an ordained Lutheran, having graduated from Luther Seminary, Adelaide, in 1969. He was chaplain at the University of Papua New Guinea from 1970–75, then a secondary school chaplain for five years, and chaplain at the University of Queensland from 1980–95. After the completion of his PhD dissertation on Paul, Artemis and Jews in Ephesus (1995), he took up a lecturing position at the University of Queensland in New Testament and Early Christianity. In addition to the publication of his thesis (de Gruyter, 1996), he has published in a number of leading NT journals, and in 2004 published Strange Acts (de Gruyter). He is currently Head of the Studies in Religion department and Senior Lecturer in NT and Early Christianity at the University of Queensland.

C.K. Barrett Expository Times

The latest issue of the Expository Time (119.5 [2008]) is out and it includes a must read tribute to C.K. Barrett by Robert Morgan: 'A Magnificent Seven: C.K. Barrett at 90' (pp. 226-28). Morgan compares Barrett's habits and scholarship to several giant figures of NT scholarship including F.C. 'Heiden' Baur, J.B. Lightfoot, E.C. Hoskyns, R. Bultmann, K. Barth, E. Kasemann. My favourite quotes from the article are:

On Barrett's many commentaries: 'Kingsley once said that commentators are the infantry brigade of New Testament scholarship, doing the basic footwork on which we all depend'.

Whereas F.C. Baur started work each day at 4.00 a.m., Barrett finished at 2.00 a.m. - 'How did he do in [sic]? Well, he has the physical constitution,unlike Baur who died of a heart-attack in his 60s. But above all: motivation. Yes - "laboured more abundantly than they all", plus Paul's verse 10a: "by the grace of God I am what I am". That's Paul, that's Luther, that F.C. Baur, and that's C.K. Barrett.'

On visiting Barrett's office: 'Seeing the huge set of Church Dogmatics ... on Kingsley's shelves taught one Chadsman that that a New Testament theologian should be a theologian as well as a New Testament scholar.'

My Acceptance into the Anglican Church

As much as I have loved being a Baptist and teaching New Testament, I have often thought about walking the Canterbury trail. Well, the other day I decided to take the plunge and join the Anglican Church. The first problem was what diocese to join? Nairobi - too violent! Washington - too many law suits! Nashville - too much country music! Manchester - too close to Doug Chaplin! Melbourne - too much AFL! Durham - too many Neutestamantlers! I finally settled on the Anglican diocese of Niagara, it has a nice waterfall and I really dig Tim Horton's donuts. My initial interview with the diocesan membership committee went well, very well, it went so well in fact that they offered me the job as bishop of the diocese. I was naturally flattered, a little curious, and after 3-8 seconds of prayerful thought, I accepted the job. (I then phoned my wife to tell her that we were not only converting to Anglican but were also moving to Canada). Well any how, the consecration was an absolute hoot, I do not know what kind of stuff they put into incense, but it made me dizzy. When it came time for the laying on of hands the Rt. Rev. Michael Ingham put his hands in a place that I did not think needed his blessing (but that's another story). Otherwise, photos of the consecration are available on the diocesan website Episcopal Ordination of Michael A. Bird and I have also written my first letter as bishop. I want to make several comments: (1) Dang, I look good in purple and the pointy hat make me look taller! (2) Why are so many of the priests in my diocese asking me if I'm seeing anyone? and (3) My first decree as bishop is that from now we will have Tim Horton's donuts and soup at communion.

So let it be written, so let it be done!
The Rt. Rev. Mike Bird

N.T. Wright on GAFCON

Bishop Tom Wright of Durham weighs in on GAFCON (Global Anglican Futures Conference) with an article in the Church Times entitled, "Evangelicals are not about to jump ship". This conference is being touted as substitute for Lambeth by some Anglican leaders. I appreciate his point about not abandoning the ship just yet, embracing a more catholic vision of the church, and how evangelicals should support the processes leading to the formation of an Anglican Covenant, but I did not resonate with his rhetoric that equates the conveners of GAFCON with the false Apostles of 2 Corinthians 9! For a response to Wright see Dr. Vinay Samuel's article in the COE Newspaper. Let's keep in mind who it was that started the whole cafuffle in the first place: revisionist bishops in the TEC. As I see it, many evangelical Anglicans feel that the communion is apostate in some regions and they and even the Archbishop of Canterbury are powerless to do anything about it. They feel like they are being shoved out rather than leaving on their own terms. That said, I'm not embracing Martin Lloyd Jones' view espoused long ago for evangelicals to leave their liberal denominations, there is merit for staying on to resist, to reconcile, and to pastor those who don't want to leave; I've experienced good examples of this from meeting people from the Church of Scotland and PCUSA who find themselves in similar situations. The challenge is, in the words of the great American philolsopher Kenny Rogers, "you've got to know when to hold them, know when to fold them, know when to walk away, and know when to run". Should the Anglican Church go the route of Acts 15 or 1 John 2.19?

Book Review: 2 Corinthians by Calvin J. Roetzel

Calvin J. Roetzel
2 Corinthians (ANTC; Nashville: Abingdon, 2007).
Available from Alban Books in the UK
Available from Amazon.com in the USA

Calvin Roetzel is fairly well-known for his work on Paul's letters. This commentary by him on 2 Corinthians is a welcome addition to the series. In his introduction he has the usual background information about Corinth and the Pauline mission in Corinth. But he spends a great deal of time talking about different partition theories of 2 Corinthians. He dismisses arguments for unity based on rhetoric since they may show the integrity of separate rhetorical units but do not solve the abrupt divisions elsewhere in the letter; instead, following M. Mitchell, he maintains a five-letter compilation theory. He identifies five letters in 2 Corinthians. According to Roetzel (pp. 32-33) an overall chronology of Paul in Corinth would then look like this:

1. Paul's preaching in Corinth (= Acts 17)

2. Paul's hearing before Gallio and Paul's expulsion or departure (= Acts 17)

3. The Corinthians write to Paul (1 Cor. 7.1)

4. Paul writes 1 Corinthians responding to both oral and written communication, and dispatches it with Timothy [Note: M.C. de Boer argues that Paul responded to information about the Corinthians from Chloe's people and then responded in a separate letter to questions put to Paul from the Corinthians by Stephanus' household]

5. Paul writes 2 Corinthians 8 - Letter of Appeal for the Offering - and despatches it with Titus.

6. Paul writes 2 Corinthians 2.14-7.4 [he treats 6.14-7.1 as an interpolation] - First Letter in Defense of Paul's Ministry - in light of reports about his fitness for apostolic ministry and lack of authority. After his disastrous trailing vist he left Corinth publicly humilited by an antagonist and hurt by the defecting or passive church (2 Cor. 2.1; 7.9, 11).

7. Paul writes 2 Corinthians 10.1-13.10 - Second Letter of Defence - as a slashing defence of his apostolic ministry and an attack on the super Apostles while in Ephesus. He sends Titus with this "letter of tears" in hope he oculd right teh floundering mission and restore confidence to his ministry.

8. Paul leaves Ephesus to meet up with Titus in Troas (NE Asia Minor). He mets up with Titus in Macedonia who tells him the good news that Paul's rebuke and vigorous defence had the desired result.

9. Paul writes 2 Corinthians 1.1-2.13, 7.5-16, 13.11-13 - Letter of Reconciliation - to the Corinthians since the storm clouds have disappeared.

10. Paul then writes 2 Corinthians 9 - Offering Letter to the Churches of Achaia - in order to garner material support from them during his next visit to the region.

11. Paul travels south to Corinth where he spent some weeks if not the witner and where he wrote the letter to the Roman church, sending them a delegation led by Phoebe, and includes a good rapport with the church at Corinth (Rom. 15.26-32).

When it comes to compilation theories, I say maybe to 2 Corinthians 10-13 as being from a separate letter, but on the whole I'm very cautious (for a good alternative see Colin Kruse, The Second Epistle of Paul to the Corinthians [TNTC; 1987], 29-32). The big problem I have is that someone would have gone to alot of effort to split up and insert letter # 4 into three different places into 2 Corinthians. What is genuinely odd about Roetzel's book is that he writes his commentary in the order of his partition theory! I could understand that for a commentary in an ICC, Hermeneia, or ECC series, but it seems out of place in commentary designed for college students. I do not see what is wrong with a canonical or final-form approach to 2 Corinthians regardless of what one makes of the unity of the letter. No extant mss of the compilation theory is available and the current canonical form of 2 Corinthians is what has been received, preached, and taught from in the last 1900 years.

That issue aside, the commentary on the whole is sound and helpful.

The Society of Baseball Literature (A Parody)

Matt Alopekes was Professor of Sports Literature at the University of Wisconsin. His main area of expertise was baseball. There are various sub-areas in baseball studies that one can work in: history of the game, statistics, commerce, journalism, rules and law, marketing, and sociology. He himself was not a practicing baseball player, coach, or fan of the game. He had attended a few little league games as a kid, but in High School he lost interest, and later in College he felt that alot of what he had been told about baseball was really a fabrication (for example the World Series is not really the "world" since it only includes the USA and Canada). A couple of his college profs (ex-baseballers in fact) had shown him the flaws of the game and how it was not good for a free and democratic society to have the country so riled up about sports. Baseball had become a major means of supressing women as a comparison of the salaries of male and female baseball players clearly demonstrated. In fact, Alopekes was of the mind that the money invested in baseball should be transferred to health and education. He lamented the fruitless outreach of the Democrat party to baseball fans in trying to show that they weren't really anti-baseball (much had been made of Hillary Clinton's claim that she went to methodist baseball games a teenager). Despite his now repugnance towards the game in his late teens, Alopekes persisted in taking classes on baseball at Grad school and soon developed an interest in the history of the game in Asia. In fact, he went out to write his Ph.D thesis on "The McDonalization of Japan: How America Exercised Cultural Hegemony over its Oriental Vassal through the Introduction of Baseball into Japan". The volume was published by Polebridge Press and Alopekes went out to become a Professor of Sports studies at the Uni of Wisconsin. He presented papers at various conferences including the Society for Baseball Literature and was also in a CNN documentary when Mickie Mantle's own personal baseball bat was apparently found in the ruins of an abandoned statium by an Israeli sports memorabilia dealer. Alopekes claimed that it was a forgery (he was probably right).

Every year when Alopekes went to the Society for Baseball Literature (SBL) he became increasingly aware of the ideological profile of most of the members. It finally dawned on him one day that most of the people who come to SBL actually play baseball, coach baseball, and even attend baseball games. Some of the "fundamentalists" even wear baseball uniforms, indoctrinate their children by making them watch baseball games on TV, and even play baseball with their families. On Sunday morning of the SBL, the place was almost empty since many of the members would actually be at a baseball game. Alopekes found this disconcerting. How could this type of enthusiasm for baseball have any place in serious scholarship let alone a university? How can we trust baseball players or even bona fide fans of baseball to teach baseball studies in an academic environment? In his mind their scholarship was clearly compromized. This was evidenced by their statistical analyses which was hampered by their veneration of certain players, histories of baseball were usually told from a baseball perspective and did not take into account the view point of other sports like cricket, tennis, or hockey, and the study of the commerical and sociological aspects of the game were completely overlooked. In fact, many in the baseball academy refused to accept the assured results of critical baseball scholarship that baseball was not in fact an American innovation, but had evolved out of a version of French cricket played in Barbados and was brought to the US by ex-slaves in the mid-eighteenth century.

Alopekes then wrote an editorial piece for the Journal of Baseball Literature called: "Foul Ball: Why Baseball Fans Have no Place in the University". There he argued that the study of baseball in the University should be undertaken exclusively by those who have no adherence to baseball at all: neither play nor watch the game. The biases of fans and players in the guild was destroying the credibility of the profession. If fans or players wanted to study baseball, that was fine, there are plenty of clubs and academies that provided forums for that, but in terms of an objective, unbiased and scientific study of the game free from the euphoria and hype of fans, real baseball scholarship would have to undertaken in the university by non-fans.

Alopekes started up the "baseball based on facts not fans group" (BBFFG) at the SBL which proved to be controversial among the membership. But Alopekes found that he was not alone and a great many others in the academy shared his dispostion towards the study of baseball. The BBFFG went on to write several major publications including "Baseball and Power: The Oppression of Minorities in the Baseball Seasons of the 1930s", "The Giants and the Pennant: Who Really Won and Why", "Red Socks and the Red Peril: How A Boston Club Aided Communism in America", "Homeruns and Homosexuals: Stories from the Margins of Baseball Culture". Some onlookers were amazed at BBFFG because: (1) why would anyone who either disliked or was disinterested in baseball want to study it in the first place? (2) What is wrong with baseball fans teaching about baseball since they are the reason why there is a game to study in the first place?

Note:

1. It is Friday, I'm in the middle of a nice Spanish red, and I'm in a cheeky mood.

2. I admit that I know nothing about baseball.

3. This is meant to entertain not to offend anyone.

4. Cricket trumps baseball any day of the week and twice on Sunday!

U2 in 3D

I am so pumped! Some time in the next week I am going to go see the new U2 film U23D at Navy Pier in downtown Chicago as an early birthday present. I have added the widget to our blog temporarily so I can watch the trailer regularly in anticipation.
.
I am a huge U2 fan and they are arguably the greatest band of the late 2oth and early 21st century. They were around when I was in high school and they are better than ever. Moreover, Bono has become a model of Christian activism and has been a great influence on American Evangelicals getting them involved in the HIV Aids crisis in Africa and the Make Poverty History campaign. In 2006 Bono was interviewed by Bill Hybels for the Willow Creek Leadership Summit which was simulcast in 125 churches to over 70,000 Evangelicals throughout North America.

Most days I have U2 playing as students enter my classes. It sets an excellent tone for teaching. Are there any other U2 fans among our readers?

The Antioch Incident: Scot McKnight’s View

I continue with my analysis of various proposals for understanding the Antioch incident. I turn to someone of whom I have great respect and am a fan, my colleague Scot McKnight, who is also the contributor to the blog Jesus Creed.

As a reminder I am pursuing three questions in my study of the incident which have significant import for understanding Jewish Christianity and Paul’s relationship to it. Those 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” ?
.
So to Scot's views:

(1) What is Paul’s issue with Peter?

The incident concerns Peter, the first apostle (Matt. 10:2). In its essentials, the event concerns Peter who, in the normal course of affairs, was willing to shed the identifying markers of Judaism (food and table restrictions), perhaps even circumcision and Sabbath observance, to enjoy a new-found fellowship with Gentile Christians, but who also abandoned such a stance when ‘certain men came from James’ (1995:99).

Scot assumes Peter ignored Jewish food laws prior to the arrival of the visitors from James—he quips: “Peter was probably eating ‘baby back” spare ribs or shrimp scampi”(1995:103)—but after the coming of the “more conservative Jews” he not only reverted to adherence of a strict Jewish kashrut, but he even began forcing Gentiles to be circumcised. He suggests that Peter’s conduct led to “two churches: a kosher church and a Gentile church” Scot concludes,

So what was Peter doing? He had previously enjoyed unrestricted social fellowship with the Gentiles, speaking their language, eating their food, drinking their wine, touching their children, and sitting in their homes. When the Jewish nationalists arrived, Peter, perhaps remembering his narrow escape in Jerusalem, reversed his behavior and withdrew from the Gentiles . . . in addition he then began to force Gentile Christians to be circumcised (and to follow Jewish social laws), to reduce the threat of persecution he was beginning to free from these ardent Jewish nationalists (1995:107).

As an aside it is interesting to note Scot’s explicit view of Paul and his practice vis á vis Jewish halakah. Here is an extended quote:

Paul was more than concerned with the ‘contradictory behavior’ of Peter. True, he changed his color, like a chameleon, but changing colors may be necessary at times (see 1 Cor 9:19-23). It is proper, when with Jews, to live like a Jew in order to reach such people. But, when with Gentiles, living like a Jew is wrong (1995:100, emphasis added).
.

(2) What role does James play in the circumstances?

.

Scot seems to think that James had very little if any influence in the circumstances that took place in Antioch. While he does think, as we will see, that the “men from James” are from Judea—perhaps identical to the “circumcision party—and represent a Jewish nationalistic faction within the early church, he, nevertheless, thinks it unlikely that they represented James’ true interests. He does think, however, that they have been in fact sent by James. He states,

The ‘men from James,’ may have been either Jewish Christians from Jerusalem who were either honestly or falsely representing the position of James, or they may be identical to the circumcision party, in which case they were not Christians. I suspect they were truly from James, though they may not have been representing James with full integrity (1995:104).

(3) Who are “those of the circumcision”?

.

Scot leaves open the possibility that the enigmatic group “the circumcision party” could be either believing or non-believing Jews, although he is quite sure that they are not Jewish Christians in Antioch. What he does see as clearly evident is that these folk are “a group of law-abiding Jewish zealots bent on ‘forcing’ Gentile converts, to either Christianity or Judaism, to convert fully if such converts wished to be under the umbrella of Judaism. They are a “group of ardent Jewish nationalists, based in Jerusalem, who urged all groups in Jerusalem and Judaism to live faithfully according to the law”(1995:104). Furthermore, he seems to closely associate, if not equate, the “men from James” with this group: “The presence of the ‘men from James’ and their words that the nationalists were upset were enough for Peter to change directions” (1995:105).

.

.

Evaluation

Scot’s interpretation, while I think is an evenhanded treatment as well as a good representation of traditional interpretations of the passage, is grounded on a certain type of metanarrative of the New Testament story—and especially of Paul—that, while can be convincing at one level because of its appearance of coherence, has significant weaknesses—weaknesses which I think are exposed in this context. . With respect to the first question on the nature of the conflict between Paul and Peter, Scot’s reading assumes two significant points: (1) the verb “eating with” (sunesthio) means eating the same thing, and (2) that Gentiles were not accommodating their lifestyle when eating with Jews. In regard to the first issue, that is “eating with” means eating the same food, Scot assumes this to be the case, but cannot support it in the text beyond noting that the activity of eating something took place with the Gentiles. Nowhere however in this context does it state explicitly that Peter and the Jewish believers in Jesus when eating with the Gentiles were breaking kosher law. I don’t believe an appeal to Acts 10—11 provides a foundation for this view either since the issue in the Cornelius story is not what Peter ate, but with whom he associated himself over a meal as here. In Peter’s own interpretation of the vision in both Acts ten and eleven, Peter explicitly interprets the vision as relating to table fellowship and not food: “You yourselves know how unlawful it is for a Jew to associate or to visit with anyone of another nation; but God has shown me that I should not call any man common or unclean” (Acts 10:28; cf. 11:3-12 [esp. 11:12: “making no distinction”]). Thus the clean and unclean food on the sheet in his vision was an analogy for people and the Lord was teaching Peter that God does not make distinctions so neither should he.

.

Second, his assumption that the Gentiles were not accommodating their own lifestyles for their Jewish brothers overlooks the historical reality of Diaspora Judaism generally and Antioch’s situation particularly. Given the large Jewish population in Antioch, there would have undoubtedly been regular contact between Jews and God-fearing Gentiles in the Synagogue. This contact would have spilled no doubt outside the Sabbath meetings and into homes. It was not entirely uncommon for Gentile God-fearers to respect the Torah and accommodate their lifestyles when fellowshipping over meals with Jews. Practically this would simply mean serving foods that were kosher and idolatry free. Of the latter they were on the whole probably already accommodating their lifestyle if we assume that something along the lines of the Noachide commandments were recognized in the first century which is very likely. Hays and others [see comments from earlier post] agrees when he states, “It seems unlikely that such flagrant violations of Jewish norms would have been practiced at Antioch, particularly if the Gentile converts were primarily from the ranks of the “godfearers”, who presumable would have already assimilated to Jewish dietary practices.”

.

It is possible to take the last two questions together and reflect on McKnight analysis. McKnight is compelled for some reason to assert that while the “certain ones” were in fact sent from James, the supposed influence they exerted to cause the incident was not sanctioned by him. I don’t find this explanation very convincing. If for the sake of argument one assumes (1) that these were sent by James and (2) that they were the reason Peter “drew back” from table fellowship then it seems to me to be a much more consistent and convincing case to say, as many do, that James was ultimately the force behind situation. Both of these points are gap fill and are arguable. Yet if one brings them into the text then I can’t see how James is acquitted of some or all responsibility. As for the circumcision party, I am yet to be convinced of this hypothesis that Jewish nationalists were on the loose around the Diaspora causing trouble. The context strongly favors a view of “the circumcised” whom Peter is in fear to be either the Jerusalem-based circumcised church—this is consistent with the role James may have played in the above reconstruction—or non-believing circumcised folk to whom previously Peter was said to have been sent (2:7), whether they be circumcised by family or by conversion. I personally find the latter to be more likely since it is not explicit that either James or those who arrived from James were the motivation for Peter’s withdraw.

.

I will attend to Mark Nanos' view in the next post.

.

Works Cited

McKnight, Scot. 1995. Galatians. NIV Application Commentary. Grand Rapids: Zondervan.

Book Review: The Bible Canon - L.M. McDonald

Lee Martin McDonald

The Biblical Canon: Its Origin, Transmission, and Authority

3rd ed.; Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2007.

Available from Alban Books

Available from Amazon.com

At SBL last year I had the pleasure of sitting down with Lee Martin McDonald for a few minutes for a chat about various things. McDonald is former President of Acadia Divinity School, current President of IBR, and soon to be adjunct at Fuller Seminary in California. His expertise has been in the history and reception of the Christian canon and the third edition of his The Biblical Canon is an excellent analysis of the issues relating to the canon (OT and NT but mainly with a focus on the NT). As a seminary instructor he is also cognizant of providing a readable and accessible treatment of the primary sources for students.

My favourite quote from the book is this one:

"No credible person today seriously believes that the Bible fell out of heaven fully bound in its current state with guilded edges and with a highly precise interpretation from God in it. The human dimension of the origin and production of the Bible, as well as how the divine message is conveyed through human words and ideas, cannot be ignored. Human beings were involved in the origins and production of hte Bible, and all of the words and ideas in the Bible are also reflective of human involvement. How the Bible is the word of God and yet comes to us in human form continues to be a mystery to Christians of every generation. This is not only an important part of the church's understanding about the Bible, but also about God's involvement in the human activity of Jesus, whom the church continues to confess as Lord and Christ.

Some of us were taught in seminary that the early church received from Jesus a closed biblical canon, our present OT, that was later expanded by the Catholics to include noncanonical (and thereby uninspired) apocryphal writings. In regard to the Hebrew Scriptures (or the OT), we were often taught that Jesus, the church's final authority, cited or referred to a closed canon of Hebrew Scriptures and that his authentication of them (he cited verses from teh three major parts of the OT: Law, Prophets, and Writings) was th echurch's mandate for accepting them as authoritative Scripture. In other words, the church simply adopted the canon of Jesus. In regard to the NT writings, man of us were taught that the early church simply recognized (as opposed to determined) its own inspired NT Scriptures that were believed to be apostolic, that is either written by or authorized by an apostle within general proximity to the time of Jesus and the apostels or at least written in the first century. We were further taught that these NT writings were unified in their teaching (i.e. they were orthodox) and for these reasons they were recognized by the majority of the churches to be inspired by God" (pp. 5-6).

McDonald's book reminds be of Craig Allert's A High View of Scripture with the exception that McDonald is far more detailed and methodological in his approach to the historical circumstances surrounding the canonization of the Christian Bible. But both are a good example as to why we cannot propagate the myth that the church simply recognized the inspired writings that became our New Testament. The Church was more active in the creation of the Scriptures than being a passive receptacle. However, McDonald certainly does not think the Scriptures any less divine or any less authoritative in the early church because of this. He still writes as an ordained Baptist minister and as a seminary lecturer.

An outline of McDonald's book runs:

1. Introduction

2. The Notion and Use of Scripture

3. The Notion and Use of Canon

4. Origins of the Hebrew Bible

5. Early Jewish Scriptures

6. Stabilization of the Hebrew Bible

7. Rabbinic Tradition

8. The Scriptures of Jesus and Early Christianity

9. From Story to Scritpure: Emergence of the New Testament Writings as Scripture

10. From Scripture to Canon: Tracing the Origins of the New Testament Canon

11. Influence of "Heretics"

12. Books, Texts, and Translations

13. Collections and Citations of Christian Scriptures

14. The Criteria Question

15. Final Reflections

Seeing the Word: Part 1

Today we begin the first part of our overview of Markus Bockmuehl's book Seeing the Word: Refocusing New Testament Study (STI; Grand Rapids, MI:Baker, 2006). This will not so much be a review as much as I will highlight interesting points and issues that Bockmuehl raises. (I should point out that Bockmuehl was Joel Willitts' Doktorvater and he might be able to add comment here and there on some aspects).

In his introduction, Bockmuehl finds an analogy between Simon Marmion's painting of the Evangelist Luke painting the Virgin and Child and New Testament scholarship. He states: "The student or scholarly writing, say, about Jesus of Nazareth will in a sense find herself, like Simon Marmion, painting the bibical author painiting Christ". The purpose of this book is to take account of NT scholarship, explore the potential value of implied readers and wirkungsgeschicte, and what it means to remember the Christ.

Chapter 1 is entitled, "The Troubled Fortunes of New Testament Scholarship" and starts off by noting C.H. Dodd's 1936 inaugural lecture about the present task in NT studies. Bockmuehl notes the fragmentation of the discipline into divergent methods and criteria and a collective unease about the relationship between biblical studies and theology. The sheer volume of secondary literature means that it is most difficult for any scholar to be competent in more than one or two sub-field areas. Bockmuehl also laments the striking numer of graduate students unable to operate in primary source languages and secondary source languages such as German, French, and Spanish. He colourfully says: "By the late twentieth century, the Neustestamentler's cappucino had too frequently become all forth and no coffee" (37). [Considering that I hate coffee this does not bother me].

Bockmuehl then looks at several attempts to rescue the discipline from its historical rootlessness and fragmentation including a renewed focus on historicism. To this he questions whether the "Third Quest" for the historical Jesus has run its course, but he finds numerous opportunities for work in this area: further research on balancing Paul's Jewishness with his Gentile mission focus, archaeological gaps to be filled like digging up Colossae (I ask myself this all the time), commentaries on the DSS, Josephus, and LXX are all in progress which is a good sign too. But Bockmuehl asks, what is the place of history in the overall exercise of NT scholarship. It must be part of something bigger and here he alludes Nicholas Lash by suggesting that a "coherently critical approach would need to render a credible account of the texts in relation not only to the stated or implied phenomenology of Christian origins, but also to explosively 'totallizing' theological assertions that writers like Paul and the evangelists state or imply in practically every sentence" (46). We can try to get behind the text and talk about what it meant rather than what it means, but the story these texts tell is "inalienably theological" and the vested interpretation is enver treated as a optional extra in need of stripping away in order to get to the phenomological core. To this I say, "amen", and I am hoping to explore as much in a two volume work on a theology of early Christianity!

Bockmuehl also looks at several other attempts to rescue the discipline including final-form literary approaches and ideological and self-deconstruction studies. He takes issue with the latter for many reasons including that it fails to be self-criticial and the ideogogues who have come to save us from our power-hungry and oppressive selves fail to reflect on or to criticize their own ideological make-up. He writes, "The ideological velvet gloves of egalitarian inclusion ill conceal the claws of a hermeneutical worldview that is in fact far more totalizing and prescriptive, and far more stifling of free criticism" (54). Furthermore, "From both a hermeneutical and a theological perspective, any approach primarily based on this metacritical relativism can only be regarded as discarding the exegetical baby along with the inevitable eisegetical bathwater" (55). The so-called secular pluralism advocated by some scholars which calls for the elimination of theology from the science of biblical study is in fact designed to eliminate religious perspectives from the academy because these perspectives represent the most serious challenge to the secular framework. (I commend Bockmuehl's final image in the chapter: there are limits to how much you can usefully say about the stained glass windows of Kings' College Chapel without actually going in to see them from the inside [74]).

As a way forward, Bockmuehl suggests studies on and Wirkungsgeshichte and Implied Readers as possible avenues for the future to renew the discipline. In other words, his concern is the place of the text in history an the place of the reader in the text.

Book of the Month

I got a pleasant surprise this morning when I visited the library and not only discovered that the latest version of the Expository Times was out (with the sweet and addictive scent of its pages), but also that my book, The Saving Righteousness of God was the "Book of the Month". The details are: Paul Foster, "Book of the Month: The Saving Righteousness of God," ExpT 119.4 (2008), pp. 181-82. Dr. Foster gives a fairly positive, but not uncritical, overview of the book and he correctly grasps the overarching concern of the volume as being to stake out some mediating ground in what is at times a very vocal debate in Pauline studies. He also suggets that the book would be useful for a joint seminar between systematicians and biblical scholars about the topic of soteriology.

Ontology and Gender

While grading some Pastoral Studies papers I came across an interesting quote that, according to Feminist studies, "males are prone to regard themselves as generic humans rather than gendered persons conditioned by historical and cultural processes". I thought this most interesting especially since I had a thought provoking converstation with my good friend, Mimi Hadad of CBE, about gender and identity. Her point was that underlying the whole debate over the role of women in the church and home within evangelicalism are some tacit assumptions about ontology. For me there is no question as to whether or not culture conditions and shapes our perception of gender identity and gender roles (in multiple ways whether feminist or patriarchal), it simply does. That is why I find myself frustrated by some conservative Christians that I have met who make odd claims that women should not wear jeans or trousers and the like because it is too masculine and is thus unbiblical (too masculine for whom is always my response). But at the same time I cannot go along with the idea that gender is merely a social construct. There are too many physiological, neurological, and psychological differences between men and women to reduce gender to environmental factors. I've learnt this from nearly 10 years of marriage and having two daughters! Nonetheless, I think that our conception of ontology is crucially important for how we understand gender identity, gender roles, and how to treat other human beings. If we add to this a Christian worldview of Creation and New Creation, things become all the more complex as to how to relate to gender and ontology together. This I believe is why every seminary needs to have a course that explores "Sexuality, Gender, and Theology" since this is the burning issue of our age in terms of pastoral practice, expectations in Christian marriage, and theological debates in mainline churches.

A Rare Foray into American Politics

I don't mention politics much on this blog and especially politics and religion. In my home country of Australia the two rarely go together which makes the current Prime Ministery of Australia, Kevin Rudd, something of an oddity since he's probably the first PM in living memory who is so open about his faith. In America things tend to be different. Democrats are now actively courting faith-based voters, especially evangelicals, in the long haul to the White House. Republicans on other hand have always been close with evangelicals (too close for my liking at times). Although I suspect that they may well lose that support if the GOP picks a pro-abortion candidate like Giuliani. If Giuliani wins the GOP ticket, many evangelicals will probably start thinking about whether Hillary or Barrack is the lesser of two evils. But if there is one thing that probably sums up Hillary Clinton's relationship with evangelicals, it is this cartoon: