Sunday, May 16, 2010

Interview with Lynn Cohick on Ephesians


Below I talk to Lynn Cohick (Wheaton College) about her newly published commentary on Ephesians in the New Covenant Commentary Series.

1. What is your take on the provenance and purpose of Ephesians?


a. provenance: although “to the Ephesians” is not found in some ancient manuscripts, I argue that the apostle Paul is the author and is writing to believers who lived in Ephesus and the towns orbiting Ephesus. Relative to the overall size of the commentary, I spend a fair bit of time reviewing the authorship arguments so that the reader might draw their own informed conclusion.


b. Paul’s purpose in writing Ephesians (while imprisoned in Rome) is not as easily discerned as, say, his reasons for writing to the Corinthians or the Thessalonians. However, his burden to challenge the Ephesians to act on their new life in Christ, as well as his concern that the churches embrace fully the unity that is theirs in Christ, rings from its pages.


2. What is the central message of Ephesians?


Ephesians’ message is two-fold: it presents God’s mysterious, marvelous plan of reconciling all people to himself through the Son and empowered by the Holy Spirit, and it elaborates on how such a plan should be and can be experienced in the Church.


3. How do you interpret the household code of Ephesians 5?


The short answer is: very carefully J. Actually I spend quite a bit of time in the commentary establishing Paul’s comments in context, looking at the assumptions of the honor/shame culture and its beliefs of social and gender hierarchy. I suggest that the gospel message weakens the foundations of this hierarchy. For example, I highlight the revolutionary move made by Paul (and also Peter in 1 Peter 2) in addressing slaves directly – this was not done in Greco-Roman writings. Moreover, Paul challenges slave owners with the knowledge that God shows no favoritism, and thus will not look upon them more highly because they have a more exalted social status. So while Paul does not suggest directly the abolition of slavery, he describes the responsibilities of the owner in such a way that if lived out fully in the gospel, would cause the demise of the institution of slavery.


In Paul’s day, wives were viewed as inferior to their husbands, and thus they should properly submit to them. Submission implied an inferior social status. I should note parenthetically that everyone, man or woman was to submit to another person, for example their patron, or a government representative. Thus a male slave or a freedman submitted to his female owner or patroness. So in and of itself, submission was something everyone did at some level; the key was to make sure that you were submitting properly to the proper person.


Thus Paul’s injunction for wives to submit to their husbands was par for the course; what is astounding is Paul’s suggestion that husbands love their wives. We do not see this expressed prescriptively in Greco-Roman or Jewish literature, although we do see endearing epitaphs written by husbands about their deceased wives. Even more, I suggest (following G. Dawes, 1998) that Paul hints at reciprocity when he states that a husband should see his wife as his own body. Is the reverse also true, that a wife should see her husband’s body as her own? If so, then mutuality in marriage seems to be the direction Paul is heading. A further pointer in this direction is Paul’s insistence on “the two become one flesh.” The mystery of the oneness of Christ and his church is seen here, but Paul also insists in 2:14 that in Christ the Jew and Gentile also become one. The gospel breaks down the dividing walls of social hierarchy and division; the two entities remain distinct, but united as social equals in Christ.


4. What should we make of the references to "spiritual warfare" in Ephesians 6?


Answering this question presupposes other questions, including what was Paul’s view of the spiritual world, and do we need to embrace that view (if it is different than our own). Today it is popular, and not without warrant, to interpret the concept of spiritual warfare in terms of multinational corporations and globalized economies. Such modern entities are related to the imperial structure of the Roman Empire of Paul’s day. This position is helpful in alerting modern readers to aspects of evil that transcend personal sins, and help the church today address materialism, racism, and political corruption. However, such a position can lead to a vision of the church as a new, independent incarnation of Christ, rather than understanding the church as the body whose necessary head is Christ. Additionally, this position tends to see the armor of God as equipping the church for offensive warfare; however, Paul’s language in my reading suggests a defensive posture. Finally, this position tends to minimize the individual’s responsibility in taking up his/her armor. While it is certainly true that Paul stresses the church community throughout Ephesians (and many other letters), he also focuses on each individual’s responsibility to walk in those good works God has prepared, and to put on the new self (4:24).

5. What can Christians gain by reading and studying Ephesians today?


Often the western Christian leans towards individualism – Ephesians stresses our corporate identity in Christ. Coupled with this is a robust portrayal of the power that the unified Body of Christ presents to the world (as well as to the spiritual powers and principalities). Paul emphasizes that God in His wisdom has established a new people empowered by the Holy Spirit.


Additionally, Ephesians pulls together what often has been pushed apart, namely one’s salvation and subsequent life of faith and good deeds. Paul stresses God’s grace is calling believers, not for the sake of their souls alone, but because He has work for them to do in living the gospel light in a dark world. Paul connects theology and ethics, for the goal of theology is an upright life overflowing with wisdom and charity.


6. What is your favourite part of Ephesians?


This is like asking which of my children do I like the best – unfair question! I enjoy the exuberance of Paul’s language, the beauty with which he described God’s love in redeeming believers through Christ. I like the soaring vision of what believers can rightfully claim as their birthright in Christ, and the possibility laid out of great joy and godly freedom in Christ, walking in the Spirit.



7. What other works like commentaries or monographs on Ephesians did you find useful?


Peter T O’Brien’s commentary in the Pillar NT series (Eerdmans, 1999) as well as Harold Hoehner’s commentary (Baker Academic, 2002) were quite useful.


Two works were very helpful in sorting through authorship issues: Terry Wilder’s work on pseudepigraphy and pseudonymity (University Press of America, 2004) and Kent Clarke’s essay “The Problem of Pseudonymity in Biblical Literature and Its Implications for Canon Formation (The Canon Debate, edited by Lee Martin McDonald and James A. Sanders, 2002)


Useful for understanding Paul’s imprisonment were Richard J. Cassidy’s Paul in Chains (Crossroads, 2001), Brian Rapske’s The Book of Acts and Paul in Roman Custody (Eerdmans, 1994) and Craig Wansink’s Chained in Christ (Sheffield Academic, 1996).


8. What projects are you working on in the future?


I am currently working on a Philippians commentary for a new Zondervan series, Regula Fidei. And I will be co-authoring with one of my colleagues at Wheaton College a book on Christian women in the second through sixth centuries.

Saturday, May 15, 2010

Book Notice: Lawrence, Bonhoeffer

Bonhoeffer:: A Guide for the Perplexed (Guides for the Perplexed)Joel Lawrence
New York, London: T & T Clark, 2010

Truth be told, Joel Lawrence is one of my best friends. He and his wife Myndi have been significant partners with Karla and I for a decade now. Joel and I both graduated from Dallas Seminary [although we only became acquainted at the very end of our ThM years] and we both worked on an MPhil and PhD at Cambridge at the very same time [2001-2005/6].  Joel and I once lived in a single room together for two months will attending a Goehte Institute course in Prien am Chimsee in southeastern Germany. So I can hardly be seen as an objective reader of his new book on Bonhoeffer. Nevertheless, I can promise that the book is a result of an intensive study over the last ten years beginning in his Masters work in Cambridge. Joel did his thesis on Bonhoeffer. I can remember many times discussing Bonhoeffer over a beer and a pipe in some pub in Cambridge.

There is a resurgence of late in interest in Bonhoeffer. One can point, for example, to the very recent biography Bonhoeffer: Pastor, Martyr, Prophet, Spy published by Eric Metazas. Joel's book on Bonhoeffer provides a useful introduction to his thought. The book is both accessible and brief. But its brevity and accessibility should not be confused for elementary or unsophisticated; Joel's work is a serious engagement with the challenges of interpreting Bonhoeffer. Because Bonhoeffer remains in many ways an enigma given that both this life and theological work were cut short by his death at the hands of the Nazis, his theological outlook can be difficult to ascertain. What's more, as Joel puts it,
Because of the nature of his theology and the fact that he died young before he had the opportunity to answer the questions he raised, one can make Bonhoeffer say just about anything one wants (9).
Joel attempts to assist an interested reader of Bonhoeffer in sorting out his thought by rooting in his historical and theological context and by integrating the various  strands of Bonhoeffer's thought. Joel identifies three fundamental themes of Bonhoeffer's work: Christ, the Church and the world. Joel uses these to assist the reader in keeping the "big picture" as they work with a particular portion of Bonhoeffer's writings. Working from back to front historically, Joel shows in the chapters of his book that the questions Bonhoeffer raised in his letters from prison were the outgrowth of his earlier seeds of thought. Joel is adamant that one must read Bonhoeffer's work comprehensively always taking into account the corpus of his ideas. He cautions readers of Bonhoeffer to appreciate the unfinished nature of Bonhoeffer's thought espeically in his prision letters. He admonishes readers to avoid  ripping sound bites out of his writings to prop up one's particular pet theological idea. Joel says, "There can be no 'cheap' readinds of Bonhoeffer, only 'costly' readings" (112).

Joel concludes the book with a chapter on the continued significance of Bonhoeffer for the 21st century suggesting that Bonhoeffer has a prophetic voice to us through the themes of Christian worldiness, the suffering of God and religionless Christianity.

Thursday, May 13, 2010

A book every university student should read

I'm going to spend eight weeks through the months of June and July taking a small group of college students through a book on discipleship. These are students we've identified in the ministry who have leadership potential. My goal is to call them into deeper level of followership. In preparation I've been thinking about which text would be best for the study. So I'll pose it to you and see what you think. Simply asked:
What do you think is one (or two) book(s) every university student should read?

Tuesday, May 11, 2010

Latest TynBul

The latest issue of Tyndale Bulletin 61.1 (2010) includes:

Larry Hurtado
The Origins of Jesus-Devotion: A Response to Crispin Fletcher-Louis

A rather robust counter-response to Fletcher-Louis by Hurtado. I confess that I was sceptical of Fletcher-Louis' criticism of Hurtado as teaching a three-stage christological development. Hurtado does not suffer fools or theologians gladly.

Jonathan Moo
Continuity, Discontinuity, and Hope: The Contribution of New Testament: The Contribution of New Testament Eschatology to a Distinctively Christian Environmental Ethos

I heard this paper at the Tyndale Fellowship and it was a treat. Highlight of the essay is the discussion on 2 Peter 3 which is the anti-green text in the NT (why save the planet if it is only going to be destroyed one day any way?). Moo contends that in 2 Pet. 3.7 the fire is cleansing rather than destructive for the created order. He writes: "We are left with the cataclysmic fire of God's judgement, but its function in the context is primarily to lay the earth bare before God, to reveal it as it is and to leave human beings and their works without any place to hide" (34).

John C. Poirier
'Theological Interpretation' and its Contradistinctions

Here Jack Poirier continues his critique theological/canonical interpretation (see his article 'The Canonical Approach to the Idea of Scripture,' ExpT 116.11 [2005]: 366-70) and he responds by saying that historical-criticism is indeed capable of being theologically grounded. Evidently his hermeneutics are definitely not derived from the KJV (i.e. Kevin J. Vanhoozer)!

Erkki Koskenniemi
Forgotten Guardians and Matthew 18:10

Back in seminary I did an exegesis paper on Matt. 18.10 and found it fascinating. In fact, I was discussing this passage with a student only last night! I don't think it refers to 'guardian angels' but to angelic beings who are ready to unleash a barrel of apocalyptic whoop-ass on anyone found messing with new converts to faith in Christ. In Matthew the role of angels is normally limited to acts of judgment. For Koskenniemi, this verse refers to a group of very mighty angels (see Tob. 12.15) who pay special attention to those hurting children in order to punish them after their death.

Peter Head
Editio Critica Maior: An Introduction and Assessment

Every exegete should read this short summary and evaluation of the ECM since it is the new thing in text critical studies. Strange coincidence again, tomorrow I'm taking my students through the ECM edition of Jude, esp. Jude 5.

Music in the Wee Free

In Scotland I was a member of a lovely Free Church of Scotland congregation in Dingwall. Friendly people, good preaching, mission focused, genuine care for the community, and very austere worship. One of the distinctive elements of the Free Church of Scotland is that they mandate the exclusive use of unaccompanied psalmody in worship. Singing the Psalms acapella can be very lovely, moving, serene, and stirring; but it can also be dull, painful, and leave you positively catatonic. There is a move afoot in the FCS to allow congregations to use musical instruments and to sing hymns and choruses in their public worship. There is an interesting article about the debate going on in the FCS available here. Donald MacLeod of the Free Church College is pushing for this change (note that every third man in Scotland is called either Donald MacLeod or Donald MacDonald) and he's right. So with a mix of seriousness and comedy, I have to make several criticisms of my former denomination:

1. It is a very strange feeling of acute irony to sing psalms about worshipping God with a tambourine, a harp, and a lyre (e.g., Psa 33.2-3; 57.8; 71.22; 81.2; 92.3; 108.2; 144.9; 150.3-5) in a denomination that would efficiently excommunicate you if you ever did attempt to worship God with a tambourine, harp, or lyre.

2. In my Colossians commentary, I offered an alternative translation of Col. 3.16 for the benefit of the die hard traditionalists in the FCS which runs: "singing psalms, unmusical psalms, and even more psalms". Afterall, why let a biblical text get in the way of a bad theology of worship?

3. Worshipping God like it's 1843 is great if you are actually living in the year 1843, but probably not so great for those of us living in 2010.

4. Singing the songs of Israel's experience keeps us deeply rooted in the historical worship experience of God's people and even the kind of worship that Jesus celebrated. However, it would also be nice to sing songs, hymns, and choruses as a New Testament believer once in a while.

5. The Rev. Jock McPlop of Falkirk FC in Ayershire has just announced that his congregation will be boycotting the Wedding Supper of the Lamb on the grounds that new age songs will be used in the ceremony (Rev 15.3).

6. Probably the biggest problem is that the FCS has been dominated by a Hebridean Church culture which has been confused with Christianity itself. The Hebridean way of "being church" is assumed to be canonical, authoritative, normative, and binding on all Christians in all times and in all places (even in Africa where the same worship principles are imposed by FCS churches planted there).

7. In the aforementioned article, the author laments that he'll be very disappointed if the psalm singing disappears since it'll be a cultural loss to Scotland and Britain. The problem is that no-one will be forced to do away with psalm singing and other denominations like the Free Presbyterians (very serious people) and the Associated Presbyterians (slightly serious people) will no doubt keep it too. I'm not concerned about psalm singing disappearing as much as I'm concerned with the FCS disappearing unless they make headway among young people in Scotland. Stephen Holmes, a theology lecturer at St. Andrews University, once noted that Scotland is filled with churches that are theologically orthodox but spiritually lifeless. I've spoken to FC ministers in university cities who have huge problems attracting Christians who come to Scotland for study because the worship is just so different or even archaic compared to what they are used to. So unless the FCS broadens it's acceptable practices of worship, I'm afraid that there won't be a FCS in 30 years time.

Wisdom from the Bishop

Today at BCQ we had a visit by the Rt. Rev. Peter Brain bishop of Armidale. It included a meeting with the Evangelical Fellowship in the Anglican Communion in Brisbane and a great little talk to students about ministry in the Armidale region of Australia. Bishop Brain had some really cool one-liners:

"Before you talk to the people about God, you need to talk to God about the people".

"The way that you treat the Bible on Sunday is how the people in your congregation will treat the Bible during the rest of the week".


C.H. Dodd on Unity and Diversity in the NT

In a little classic, but sadly now neglected book, C.H. Dodd in The Apostolic Preaching and its Developments, said this about unity and diversity in the NT:

"In this survey of the apostolic Preaching and its developments two facts have come into view: first, that within the New Testament there is an immense range of variety in the interpretation that is given to the kerygma; and, secondly, that in all such interpretation the essential elements of the original kerygma are steadily kept in view. Indeed, the farther we move from the primitive modes of expression, the more decisively is the central purport of it affirmed. With all the diversity of the New Testament writings, they form a unity in their proclamation of the one Gospel. At a former stage of criticism, the study of the New testament was vitalized by the recognition of the individuality of its various writers and their teachings. The result of this analytical stage of criticism are of permanent value. With these results in mind, we can now do fuller justice to the rich many-sidedness of the central Gospel which is expressed in the whole. The present task of New Testament criticism, as it seems to me, is the task of synthesis. Perhaps, however, 'synthesis' is not quite the right word, for it may imply the creation of unity out of originally diverse elements. But in the New Testament the unity is original. We have explore, by a comparative study of the several writings, the common faith which evoked them, and which they aimed at interpreting to an ever-widening public."

Sunday, May 09, 2010

Book Notice: Thiselton, The Living Paul

The Living Paul: An Introduction to the Apostle's Life and ThoughtAnthony C. Thiselton
Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2009

When I saw this title in the back of the recent issue of BBR I was very excited to get my hands on it. Those who know Thiselton are aware of his significant scholarship and his magisterial commentary on 1 Corinthians. When a scholar like this writes an introduction to Paul you are compelled to look at it. What's more, reading the blurb by the late Graham Stanton only heightened my interest: "In the hands of a master scholar and teacher, Paul's letters come alive for a wide readership. This is an outstanding, reliable guide to the great apostle's life and thought". 

Perhaps my expectations were set to high by the time the volume arrived at my door; truth is, I am not that impressed with it. I suppose the strength of the book is that it attempts to be comprehensive in a mere 162 pages of text. The seventeen brief chapters cover Paul's life and apostolic career as well as major theological themes: christology, theology, sin, the Holy Spirit, Justification and the law, the church, ministry, the sacraments, ethics and eschatology. In addition there is a chapter on postmodernism and Paul and two introductory chapters on obstacles to studying Paul. 

It's strength, however, is also its weakness. The discussions in my view feel quite truncated. While I appreciate a volume that seeks to introduce Paul comprehensively in brief, one feels that the discussions are insufficient. For example in a chapter on Jesus Christ in Paul, Thiselton does not discuss the term "Christ" or the broader issue of messianism. I felt several times that the discussion were incomplete or lacked sufficient transitions and conclusions. It seems as if in the quest for brevity key sentences were omitted. At times it seemed that Thiselton merely listed positions without much analysis. This is true of his section on "The law and faith" in a chapter titled "Justification and the law". Thiselton mentions abruptly a debate that James Dunn and Seyoon Kim are having about the nature of the 'works of the law'. After mentioning their differing views, Thiselton adds a quotation from N.T. Wright. There is no analysis of the three positions or how one is to relate Wright with the two others. This discussion is followed by what seems like a non-sequitor about 'gifts of the spirit' (100). The topic is crucial for Paul, but one leaves the page and one half without any better understanding of what Paul thinks about the relationship between law and faith. 

I'm always keeping my eye out for new introductions to Paul. Anthony Thiselton's book does provide discussions on a wide-ranging set of Pauline ideas, but I think it would confuse students more than help them. Conciseness is a characteristic of an excellent introduction, but The Living Paul is more elliptic than it is concise. 

Saturday, May 08, 2010

Melito of Sardis

Read this confession/homily by Melito of Sardis:

This is he who made the heavens and the earth,
and formed humanity in the beginning,
who is announced by the Law and the Prophets,
who was enfleshed in a Virgin,
who was hanged on the Tree,
who was buried in the earth,
who was raised from the dead,
went up into the heights of heaven,
who is sitting at the right hand of the Father,
who has the authority to judge and save all things,
through whom the Father made the things which exist,
from the beginning to all the ages.

This one is “the Alpha and the Omega,”
this one is “the beginning and the end”
the beginning which cannot be explained
and the end which cannot be grasped.

This one is the Christ.
This one is the King.
This one is Jesus.
This one is the Leader.
This one is the Lord.
This one is he who has risen from the dead.
This one is he who sits at the right hand of the Father.
He bears the Father and is borne by the Father.
To him be the glory and the power to the ends of the ages. Amen.

Friday, May 07, 2010

More on Evolution

The South Australian government has forbidden the teaching of intelligent design and creationism in public schools (though allowing it in religious education). On the same topic, I thought I would point to an interesting article by David Vinson at BioLogos about Allaying Parental Fears About Evolution Education in Public School which prompts some thoughtful remarks in the comments section too.

Thursday, May 06, 2010

Inspiration and the Bible

The latest issue of JETS is out and it contains several good little articles, one of which is "What Does Theology Have to Do with the Bible? A Call for the Expansion of the Doctrine of Inspiration" by Norris C. Grubbs and Curtis Scott Drumm from New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary. In their conclusion they wisely state:

"The definitions of inspiration drafted by systematic theologians clearly do not address the entire process as it is acknowledged and described by biblical studies scholars. Even though the concepts are well known, the issues of collection, revision, multiple authorship, and the use of secretaries have no place within our current definitional understandings of inspiration. Similarly, biblical scholars are making affirmations about the formation of the biblical text without considering the theological implications or possible contradictions inherent in those affirmations. Indeed, there seems to be a disconnect on the part of biblical scholars for how these textual theories relate to the theological concept of the original autographs ... The most important implication from this article is that the traditional definitions of inspiration need to be expanded in order to account for issues such as collection, revision, and multiple authorship. While the tradition understandings of inspiration with their emphasis on the authors are helpful and theologically correct, the various genres and content of the biblical text require a broader view of the important issue. Perhaps a larger stress on the process rather than just the writer would provide an avenue for going forward."

That is indeed the problem. It is impossible to attribute several books of the Bible to a single author writing a book in one or more sittings without any subsequent collection and revision of their work (e.g., Psalter, Jeremiah). The pink monkey in the room, however, is how much process can you allow? Can you go to Trito-Isaiah, JEDP theory, two editions of Acts, etc? But this article pushes the discussion in the right way and their Grenzian approach is commendable.

Tuesday, May 04, 2010

Jim Hamilton on Revelation 20

My buddy Jim Hamilton preaches up a storm on Revelation 20 about the millennium. If you are amillennial, only listen to it with proper protective equipment covering your groin because Hamilton will sock it to you at your most vulnerable point.

Can the Canonical Jesus be Historical? 4 Theses

Amidst the swelter of interest in debate about the historical Jesus vs. the canonical Jesus, I wish to add my own four cents.

1. The Historical Jesus is not ...

a. The untheological Jesus. Our only access to Jesus is through the faith and theology of the early church. The Gospels contains a mixture of fact and faith, history and hermeneutic, authenticity and artistry. Jesus himself was theologically grounded and his message was about God (i.e., his message about God addressed the socio-political circumstances of Palestine and the position of Israel vis-a-vis God) . So we can expect to find theological matter (not abstract theology) in the historical Jesus and in the memory that Jesus himself generated.
b. A fifth Gospel. The historical Jesus will always be a reconstructed Jesus by historians and makes no attempt to become the authorizing narrative of the orthodox churches. It is a tool for reading the Gospels, not a replacement for them (note, liberal churches may disagree).
c. A harmony of the Gospels. There simply are historical incongruities in the Gospels (e.g., the cleansing of the temple in John and Mark) and attempts to sanitize the Gospels from certain alleged inconsistencies maligns the Evangelists as incompetent custodians or poor storytellers of the Jesus story.
d. A conflation of the Gospels. To stock pile the narratives one after the other with a mix of harmony and addition is to render the Tetraevangelium superfluous. The distinctive of each Gospel is flattened and its unique contribution jettisoned in want of a single narrative.

2. The Historical Jesus is Faith Seeking Historical Understanding

a. The Gospel's may be the authorized witnesses to Jesus, but they are not the only witnesses to Jesus. The church fathers were more than aware of other legitimate traditions (oral traditions, agrapha, sayings in non-canonical Gospels) that relayed reliable or relevant information about Jesus and they utilized it accordingly.
b. The church fathers had to wrestle with the historical character of the Gospels and were aware of claims of fiction and alleged inconsistencies, and endeavoured to read the Gospels theologically and historically. Origen wrestling with Gergesa or Gadara is a prime example (Mk. 5.1 and par.).
c. The Gospels themselves claim to have a historical character and invite critical scrutiny (e.g., Luke 1.1-4).
d. The "historical Jesus" is the narratives that emerges when the Evangelists invite sociologists, archaeologists, Talmudic scholars, and Graeco-Roman historians to work on seminar project about Jesus.
e. Study of the historical Jesus is a necessary question since sooner or later Christians are bound to ask, who is the kyrios how did he become ho stauromenos?
f. Study of the historical Jesus is a canonical question, as the Gospels ask it themselves, and invite historically informed answers (e.g., Mk. 4.41).
g. The danger of theological readings is not docetism or traditionalism, but that we end up with a study of the Gospels that tells us more about what people believed about Jesus rather than about Jesus himself. The danger is that we will end up back in the old form critical trap where the Gospels are little more than narrative expressions of the church's faith in Jesus, but not actually about Jesus himself.

3. The Canonical Jesus is Faith seeking Narratival Understanding

a. The Gospels are written from the vantage point of faith and to commend the faith. Seen not the least by the cameo appearances of post-Easter christology at certain points (e.g., the use of "Lord" in Lk. 11.39, etc.) and the references to faith and believing (e.g., Lk. 18.8).
b. The Gospels are not simply dialogues with the risen saviour or narrative representations of the church's faith. The Gospels recognize the back then-ness of Jesus and that his time as a human being is different from their time between the ages (Leander Keck is very good on this in his Jesus in Perfect Tense).
c. The task of the Gospels is to narrate the gospel of Jesus as part of Israel's history and religious literature and in light of the church's witness to Jesus and worship of Jesus.
d. Most of all, the Gospels place the story of Jesus within the story of Israel's God.

4. Jesus: Historical and Canonical.

Therefore, I propose that the historical Jesus has a place within a New Testament Theology in the following way:

a. The historical Jesus is not the presupposition to a New Testament Theology, rather, it is the prolegomena to a theology of the Tetraevangelium.
b. The historical Jesus is the opening precis about who Jesus is by setting forth the mission and ministry of Jesus as part of Roman Palestinian history which was invaded by the story of God.
c. The historical Jesus is the attempt to explain why there was a church with four Gospels in the first place.
d. The "Jesus" part of a New Testament Theology should have the following tasks: (1) To answer the question of "Who is Jesus?" in light of historic testimony; (2) to postulate how the historical Jesus led to the formation of the Four Gospels; (3) To define the literary, rhetorical, social, and theological fabric of the Four Gospels in their own right; and (4) To summarize what the Four Gospels and their reception in the church have to say about Jesus as a whole.

Monday, May 03, 2010

What is the point of the evangelical study of the historical Jesus?

I think Wright in his lecture at the recent Wheaton conference hit the nail on the head with respect to the apologetic point of Historical Jesus studies. The quotation occurs at about 50th minute. I could not agree with this more.
We have to reconnect with the real Jesus who the canonical Gospels give us . . .but whom we have so misunderstood . . . Yes there is an apologetic task . . . not to prove Jesus’ divinity by some arm twisting fashion . . . But rather we need to speak truly and wisely about Jesus and show that the Gospels, as they are and not as the tradition has shrunk them into being, really do make sense, historical sense. And that the overwhelmingly best explanation for the Christian faith and its rise is that Jesus was and did what the Gospels say he was and did. Otherwise it seems to be that there is the danger [as in Barthian theological circles] of getting to this closed, charmed circle where we don’t allow any natural theology. There is no way to break in. When God has laid his hand on you then the whole system works but you’ve really got no point of contact with the outside world or from outside in.
I think it is interesting how he defines the "historical Jesus" that he aims to study. When I subtitled my essay on the historical Jesus: "Why I'm not a 'historical Jesus' Scholar?" I was not referring to what Wright describes here. The Jesus to which he refers here is a crucial apologetic project for which I myself am fully committed.

However, and again I'll state it, the question is one of definition: what are we studying historically?  The canonical Jesus, the Jesus the Gospels reveal, or the so-called historical Jesus, a Jesus who is the result of a minimalistic historical methodology?

Gathering from both Craig Keener's response in the CT article (I have not yet read his book) and Darrell Bock's at CT online (see also his blog as well as in the comments in the former post here) I think they aren't that far from McKnight. No one is saying that we should not firmly root Jesus historically for Christian doctrinal re-formation and for apologetics with the wider world. I think the  crucial point is for which Jesus do we contend?

Sunday, May 02, 2010

Jensen on Hodge re: ordo salutis

One of the dangers in Reformed evangelicalism is the notion that the gospel is the ordo salutis of Protestant Scholasticism. In particular, the attempts to separate justification from union with Christ are indicative of a trend and represents anabandonment of Calvin's conception of all the benefits being apprehended in Christ. To this end, Michael Jensen points out the extreme federalism of Charles Hodge.

Saturday, May 01, 2010

The So-called Historical Jesus

In light of the discussion that has arisen from Scot McKnight's CT article as well as the paper Richard Hays gave at the recent Wheaton Conference engaging N.T. Wright, I want to include here part of the conclusion of an essay I wrote in 2004 entitled "Presupposition and Procedures in the Study of the 'Historical Jesus': Why I Decided Not to Be a 'Historical Jesus' Scholar". The abstract reads:
This article provides a detailed description of the presuppositions and procedures of a representative group of six scholars who are currently contributing to the study of the Historical Jesus. The intention of the study was to draft a 'handbook', a 'recipe', of the best methods and the surest presuppositions for achieving the result of a solid historical conclusion about Jesus. What resulted from the project was not what had been hoped. In fact, what resulted was a deep scepticism about the quest, at least as it is currently being conducted. Though, admittedly, not offering solutions, this article seeks to raise questions about the real potential and usefulness of any quest for the 'so-called' historical Jesus. 

While it is certainly neither as well written as Scot's piece nor as theologically well-rounded as Hays' lecture, I do think that I had my finger on just the kind criticisms both men are raising of the so-called historical Jesus project. As you'll see, one of the main thrusts I make is on the definition. I would even push that question onto my esteemed blogmate in his recent post on Scot's article. 

Here it is:

In spite of the foregoing conclusions I have, nevertheless, a fundamental scepticism about the entire endeavour—at least as it has been practised[1]—especially from the standpoint of an evangelical presupposition. Moreover, I have read conservative and moderate evangelical works on the historical Jesus and, though they have greatly contributed to the Third Quest by rooting Jesus in his 1st century Jewish context, I find them equally unsatisfying in that they have adopted, similar procedures, though the presuppositions are vastly different. In the rest of the conclusion I wish to highlight, in quite a random order, the primary points of scepticism with the pursuit of the historical Jesus. It is my hope that these comments, while not novel, will spur dialogue about the purpose and process of the historical study of Jesus.

The first point is one of definition. Many scholars have not defined who or what it is they are attempting to study when they use the phrase ‘the historical Jesus’. Though I think there is a basic and ‘shared’ understanding of the term (i.e., the uninterpreted, human Jesus of Nazareth), often scholars have different objects in view. I noticed this problem most recently in the work of a prominent evangelical scholar. Darrell Bock, a mentor of mine from my seminary days, has written a two volume work on Jesus, the first of which is titled, Studying the Historical Jesus.[2] Yet in reality this is not an appropriate title for the book, at least if one defines the ‘historical Jesus’ as most scholars today do. On the second page of the introduction Bock describes more appropriately what he is doing; he is ‘studying the Jesus as presented in the four Gospels’.[3] And then later he admits ‘my subsequent work [Jesus According to the Scriptures] belongs to the third quest, although in focusing so heavily on Scripture, it is not a historical work in the technical, critical sense’.[4] The title of the second volume is much more descriptive of his project, Jesus According to the Scriptures and, thus, the first would be better titled Studying the Canonical Jesus.[5] My point here is not at all to call into question Bock’s work, but I reference his recent book on Jesus to show that we must be more careful in our use of the term the ‘historical Jesus’. The phrase quite possibly is no longer useful as a descriptive term, since it carries the baggage of earlier critical scholarship. Many, it seems, take the meaning for granted or take the terminology up uncritically. I myself was guilty of this very thing before my supervisor asked me this very question.

For most scholars who study the historical Jesus their object is a person disconnected from any interpretation. The ‘historical perspective’ to them means removing the husk of interpretation to find the seed of history: getting to ‘what really happened’, uncovering ‘who he really claimed to be and what he actually did’.[6] They are attempting to get to the uninterpreted Jesus. I question whether this objective is an appropriate historical pursuit. What does it mean to study Jesus from a historical perspective? Does it mean that we ‘tell it like it was?’ It seems to me that honesty whispers that this quest is not possible and we, perhaps, should be more attentive to its voice. Moreover, maybe scholars, even evangelical scholars, are misguided when they write something like: ‘We must distinguish historical data contained in this text from what the fourth Evangelist is doing with this material and the narrative framework in which it is now found’.[7] Honestly, do we really think this is possible? Do we really believe that we possess the tools, let alone the capability, to achieve the result? From where I stand, I think the answer is no. I think the last century of Jesus research, of which we remain heirs, quite possibly, has been misguided presuppositionally and procedurally. Thus, I find Green’s contribution to the discussion refreshing and his assessment of Jesus-research accurate: ‘critical inquiry in Jesus-research has not been critical enough—that is self-critical enough’.[8] Additionally, I wonder if it is not only inappropriate for evangelical scholarship to maintain this inadequate definition of ‘historical Jesus’—since we affirm the truthfulness and authority of the Gospel presentation of Jesus, but also for scholarship in general to pursue the ‘what really happened’ behind the Gospel narratives as the task is currently construed.[9] As scholars, we are certainly entitled to imagine, to create and to invent, but to what end? What do we really accomplish?

A second issue with over which I am quite sceptical in the quest for the ‘historical Jesus’ is the value of tradition criticism. Scholars argue that the Gospels can be divided into roughly three layers: what comes from Jesus, what was created by the oral tradition of the early church and what was produced by the editorial work of the evangelist. According to them, the Jesus scholar’s task is to work back through the tradition history to the first layer of tradition to find the historical Jesus. As I pointed out in an earlier discussion, however, scholars are not able to distinguished legitimately one layer from another any more than one can divide a river into its constituent sources. The problem is that though scholars acknowledge the weaknesses of tradition criticism—as they have been well documented in recent years, they still assume, in their very confident application of them, we can be bias-free in our use of them. This is simply not the case. The tools alone do not get us back to the sayings and deeds of Jesus.[10] Over-confidence in what the tools of the historical critical method can satisfactorily produce pervades Jesus research.

A question that I continue to mull over in my mind is what value does tradition criticism with its criteria of authenticity really have? Even those who consider themselves evangelical scholars affirm the use of tradition criticism and say it is important in order to show that a particular saying or deed goes back to Jesus and was not simply made up by say Matthew or Mark.[11] Meanwhile others encourage one to look at places where the event or teaching goes ‘against the grain’ of the authors’ general purposes and it is in these areas that one can be ‘more confident’ that these traditions go back to Jesus.[12] In response to the latter point the determination of what constitutes ‘against the grain’ is extremely difficult, and not obvious. This is especially true in light of the recent acknowledgement by Gospels’s scholars that the absence of an evangelist’s finger prints on a tradition does not, in itself, necessarily imply anything since the inclusion of a tradition implies approval.[13] This truthful observation makes redaction criticism all the harder. The delineation of the sources an evangelist used and the manner in which he used them are nearly impenetrable.[14]

With respect to the first appeal of the usefulness of tradition criticism, in spite of the assertion to the contrary, I am still left wondering what one has really gained by the application of the criteria of authenticity. If I apply these criteria to a given saying or deed what assurance will it provide for me? Does it really anchor the idea in the historical person of Jesus? Can we really separate the authors from their traditions? Can we really distinguish the authors’ from the story they narrate? The fact is these criteria cannot be applied neutrally and will be affected by the one using them. Moreover, it is unrealistic to think that these criteria can act as a neutral arbiter between two competing views. For instance, as an American-protestant-Baptist-evangelical scholar, I come to the study of Jesus with certain preconceived notions, of which one is a high view of the veracity of the Four-fold gospel account of Jesus of Nazareth. This being so, I come to a Jesus tradition with a preconceived confidence in the authenticity of that tradition and I use the criteria to justify my belief. If I am honest with myself there is no tradition that I would be willing to label as ‘inauthentic’ because of the application of a criterion. Equally there is not a tradition that I will doubt simply because someone else applied a certain criterion. This circumstance, however, is not simply the problem of a naïve, pre-critical evangelical, but, in truth, it is the common experience of all interpreters. So what real purpose does tradition criticism serve? It is true that criteria when used positively can verify a given traditions authenticity. But, that conceded, what still is the usefulness of this kind of argument? When we have come to believe its authenticity and then applied the criterion. One might argue ‘apologetic’, but who are we kidding?

Related to this discussion is the third issue over which I am sceptical, namely, the so-called problem of subjectivity. As I argued earlier, subjectivity has not been sufficiently accounted for in the historical process. I do think that scholars like Wright, Theissen and Winter, and especially Allison have moved significantly forward by not simply acknowledging the presence of presuppositions, but even embracing their subjectivity in the process of doing an investigation. I would like to suggest that rather than our subjectivity being considered a virus that needs to be eradicated, we look on it as an attribute; something that should be valued as an important part of our method. Some will certainly object to this suggestion on the grounds that if our subjectivity is not kept in check we will fall under Schweitzer’s criticism of constructing a Jesus that is nothing more than the reflection of ourselves. The position I would advocate, however, is one that first and foremost must be humble. Because subjectivity is endemic we as scholars must always be humble about our positions, even the ones dogmatically held.  Second, our subjectivity is always in relationship with the ‘effective history’ of Jesus—the Four-fold Gospels. Thus, our subjectivity is fenced in, so to speak, by the concrete reality of the Gospel accounts of Jesus. It must always takeinto account the historical reality of the emergence of the canonical Gospels and the witness of the church.

Finally, I am completely sceptical of the assumption that has provided the motivation for the pursuit of the historical Jesus, namely, the Gospels are unreliable and, therefore, another historical narrative needs to be created that is more historical. This assumption is faulty because it is based on ‘positivist pretensions’ of 19th century historicism which ignores the realities of selectivity and narration in every historical account.[15] Because of this faulty assumption, it should not be the reason for studying Jesus. I am not suggesting that more historical narratives should not be manufactured about the person of Jesus. He is arguable one of the most important figures in history and scholars and lay persons alike will always be interested in this person. What I am suggesting, however, is that these ‘new’ historical narratives not be given pride of place over the four narratives that have been passed down to us through the church, which survive from a period of time very near the events they narrate. What is more, perhaps we should spend less of our time as scholars reconstructing new historical narratives and more time wrestling with the meaning of the Four-fold gospel which we possess in all its diversity of historical contexts and complementary portraits of Jesus. In this regard, I find that Bock’s book, Jesus According to the Scriptures, is a welcomed contribution to the endeavour even though most would not consider it a contribution to the our understanding of the ‘historical Jesus’.[16] Yet, I am inclined to think that, perhaps, it is more of a contribution to our understanding of Jesus of Nazareth than the works of the scholars this paper has considered.



[1] This qualifying statement is very important, as will become clear below. I am in no way suggesting that history should be abandoned; or is of the utmost importance to the study of the Gospels and early Christianity.
[2] Darrell L. Bock, Studying the Historical Jesus (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2002).
[3] Bock, Historical Jesus, p. 14.
[4] Bock, Historical Jesus, p.  152.
[5] Darrell L. Bock, Jesus According to the Scriptures: Restoring the Portrait from the Gospels (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2002).
[6] Bock, Jesus, p. 17.
[7] Robert L. Webb, ‘Jesus’ Baptism: Its Historicity and Implications’, BBR 10.2 (2000): 261-309 (303).
[8] Green, ‘Quest’, p. 553.
[9] Green (Green, ‘Quest’, p. 553.) writes, ‘‘History’, in the sense of ‘historical knowledge’, is not and cannot be ‘what actually happened.’ Instead, ‘history’ and the ‘past’ exist in a kind of bartering relationship—the past providing environmental situations, personages, and events; history providing significance through selectivity and narration. Hence history is both less and more than the past.’
[10] Cf. Allison (Jesus, pp. 7-10.): the problem of Faustina.
[11] Grant Osborne, ‘Redaction Criticism’, in New Testament Criticism and Interpretation (ed. David Alan Black; Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1991), 199-224 (207).; cf. also more recently Bock, Historical Jesus, pp. 199-203.
[12] Sanders and Davies, Synoptic Gospels, p. 301; cf. also Bockmuehl, Jesus, p. 20.
[13] Cf. Graham Stanton, A Gospel for a New People: Studies in Matthew (Louisville: Westminster/John Knox Press, 1993), p. 52. What needs to be emphasized here is the fact that the evidence of redaction (or scarcity of evidence) is not nearly as significant in interpreting the Gospels as once thought. Recently it has been rightly recognized that even when an evangelist takes over a tradition without any evidence of redaction, in taking it over he is putting his stamp of approval on that tradition. In other words, the traditions an evangelist uses and the alterations he makes both provide a picture of his theological perspective. This observation provides a welcomed realism to the study of Gospels and provides the balance needed in assessing the theology of the evangelists.
[14] The identification of an evangelist’s sources in a given pericope is, firstly, difficult since all we possess are the literary compositions in their final form. Moreover, the ability to distinguish between the sources an author used and his redaction is equally tenuous. Since we do not know the sources explicitly, it is difficult to determine when the author is adding to or subtracting from his source. Cf. Stanton (Stanton, A Gospel, p. 41.) who writes, with respect to Matthew: ‘the formation of Matthew’s gospel may have been the result of a much longer and a much more complex process than the ‘one-stage’ redaction commonly envisaged. Even though it is very difficult indeed to isolate with confidence changes made to Mark, Q, or ‘M’ traditions by redactors other than Matthew, there are good grounds for urging caution: not every difference between Matthew and the sources which he drew represents a modification introduced by the evangelist Matthew himself’.
[15] Green, ‘Quest’, p. 553.
[16] Cf. Blomberg’s (cf. Bock, Jesus.) endorsement on the dustcover of Jesus According to the Gospels: ‘Neither a contribution to historical-Jesus research nor a conventional textbook on the Gospels . . .’