Today Karla and I are bringing a kitten home. It is a breed called Tockinese (check it out http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tonkinese_%28cat%29). I'll post pics in the days to come.
Now I have to be honest, I have never been a cat guy. I am a dog lover through and through, but things change. And it is amazing the influence the wife has on a man. So I will be a proud manly cat owner. However, the pup is coming soon . . . I made Karla swear!
Tuesday, August 15, 2006
Is the "Kingdom" simply a metaphor?
I am reading Brian McLaren's book The Secret Message of Jesus. You can find good reviews of the book as a whole elsewhere (I can think of McKnight's at Jesuscreed.org).
I want to point up a pervasive view of the "kingdom" that McLaren reflects in his book. For starters, I really like much of what the book is about, but as I was reading I had a sense that I was uncomfortable with something, but could not put my figure on it until I came to chapter 16: "The Language of the Kingdom".
In this chapter the issue that had been lingering for me came into view. In this chapter, McLaren attempts to contemporize the metaphor of "kingdom" for a 21st century audience. He believes that it is necessary to update Jesus' outdated "kingdom" language because in his view it carries the negative baggage of imperialism, colonialism and dominiation. He suggests several alternatives: dream of God, revolution of God, mission of God, party of God, and dance of God. Now I would agree that these metaphors can be useful in communicating the message of the NT at some level.
However, my question is: Is the "kingdom of God" simply a metaphor that can be updated? Or is the "kingdom of God" actually a concrete entity that must continue to be explained and announced in contemporary preaching and apologetics? In other words, I wonder if there is a complete misunderstanding of what is the "kingdom of God" that Jesus/apostles preached that is reflective in McLaren's suggestion!
I want to point up a pervasive view of the "kingdom" that McLaren reflects in his book. For starters, I really like much of what the book is about, but as I was reading I had a sense that I was uncomfortable with something, but could not put my figure on it until I came to chapter 16: "The Language of the Kingdom".
In this chapter the issue that had been lingering for me came into view. In this chapter, McLaren attempts to contemporize the metaphor of "kingdom" for a 21st century audience. He believes that it is necessary to update Jesus' outdated "kingdom" language because in his view it carries the negative baggage of imperialism, colonialism and dominiation. He suggests several alternatives: dream of God, revolution of God, mission of God, party of God, and dance of God. Now I would agree that these metaphors can be useful in communicating the message of the NT at some level.
However, my question is: Is the "kingdom of God" simply a metaphor that can be updated? Or is the "kingdom of God" actually a concrete entity that must continue to be explained and announced in contemporary preaching and apologetics? In other words, I wonder if there is a complete misunderstanding of what is the "kingdom of God" that Jesus/apostles preached that is reflective in McLaren's suggestion!
Anti-Judaism and the Passion Narrative in Luke and Acts (Lloyd Gaston)
The article by Lloyd Gaston, "Anti-Judaism and the Passion Narrative in Luke and Acts" is available on-line and includes a sterling quote like: "In any case the paradox remains that Luke-Acts is one of the most pro-Jewish and one of the most anti-Jewish writings in the New Testament."
Monday, August 14, 2006
Secularism and Biblical Studies
In reading over John Barton's article "Biblical Theology: An Old Testament Perspective" in The Nature of New Testament Theology, eds. C. Rowland and C. Tuckett (Oxford: Blackwell, 2006), 27-29, he makes some remarks about secularism and biblical studies.
First, Barton nominates the OT studies department in Sheffield, UK as a place that is decidedly secular and "not interested in theological issues" and such departments exist also in the USA. I wonder if secular is readily translatable into either anti-theology or only disinterested in theology which are not the same thing - which one is true of Sheffield?
Second, he writes: "OT study has always until very recently, been a largely theological discipline. I do not say that essentially in either praise or blame, but as a statement of fact. But my own opinion is that, though it need not remain a theological discpline to continue to be worthwhile and have its own integrity, it probably has more of a future if it does. For it will continue to be the case that the majority of people who take an interest in the OT will be those for whom it is religiously significant. In other words, I do not regret the establishment of secular departments in biblical studies ... But I still think that the most important aspect of the OT is the theological content of most of its texts, and that it is therefore natural for this to continue to be the focus of interest in the future as it has been in the past."
That leads me to ponder a bit about the call for the "secularisation" of biblical studies by Matthew Fox and company.
(1) At the end of the day biblical scholars are dealing with religious texts that by their very nature attract religious people. If one dislikes being around persons of religious disposition, either working with them, teaching them, sitting beside them at conferences, reading books written by them, then find a new job without religion. I can understand the plight of secularists who may feel alarmed at the incursion of religious ideologies into their field and lament the fact that their job prospects are not as broad as those of scholars with religious leanings. But that is, to put it grimly, the nature of the beast.
(2) I find it hard to understand the tirade of certain persons who imply that all faith-based scholarship is little more than a type of pseudo-academia, this is far from the case. Biblical studies from a secular perspective is a recent newcomer to a discipline that is now over 2000 years old and has operated for the most part with religious perspectives. The more militant secularists would have us believe that until they came along that there was no serious academic scholarship, they think that they are the bibical academy, and the rest of us are plebs blinded by the opium of the masses. This may all be rhetoric designed to bring attention to the secularist cause, but even in the politics of universities and academic societies this revisionistic and self-serving agenda is not helping anyone. Furthermore, the texts that biblical scholars study frequently speak of mercy, love, kindness, and grace - something that biblical scholars of all persuasions should be willing to demonstrate in public discourse. If not, one must wonder if any of us have learned anything at all from our endeavours and question whether what we do really leads to the enhancement of the human condition.
(3) Scholars of faith (diverse and pluriform) continue to be the leading lights in our discipline. I need only mention the names of Bauckham, Allison, and Hengel to speak of a few scholars who have positively impacted their discipline and extended our corporate knowledge of the ancient world. In fact, we could say that the shoe is on the other foot and that some secular authors like A.N. Wilson, Gerd Luedemann, James Tabor, etc. are the one's who produce works so strewn with secular ideology and so blatantly biased against anything religious that their works can scarcely be counted more than fanciful secular dogmatics. In fact, religious scholars could be said to have an advantage over secular scholars in that they possess an ability to empathize with a text and so come closer to the ethos of the author, and have an ability to identify with the world of the text in a way that secularists cannot.
(4) We can agree that fundamentalism of any kind obscures and hinders serious academic study. But that applies equally to secular fundamentalism as it does to religious fundamentalism.
(5) Is there a place for secular scholars in the biblical academy - of course - but (like it or not) they will always be a minority. Furthermore, secular scholars bring their own atheological perspective and can make valid contributions to the furthering of our discipline so, viva la differance! But no single group regardless of denomination, affiliation, religious conviction (or lack thereof) should arrogate themselves by implying that they alone are the academy and they are alone are the one's engaged in true academic study.
Well, that's my take on it anyway.
First, Barton nominates the OT studies department in Sheffield, UK as a place that is decidedly secular and "not interested in theological issues" and such departments exist also in the USA. I wonder if secular is readily translatable into either anti-theology or only disinterested in theology which are not the same thing - which one is true of Sheffield?
Second, he writes: "OT study has always until very recently, been a largely theological discipline. I do not say that essentially in either praise or blame, but as a statement of fact. But my own opinion is that, though it need not remain a theological discpline to continue to be worthwhile and have its own integrity, it probably has more of a future if it does. For it will continue to be the case that the majority of people who take an interest in the OT will be those for whom it is religiously significant. In other words, I do not regret the establishment of secular departments in biblical studies ... But I still think that the most important aspect of the OT is the theological content of most of its texts, and that it is therefore natural for this to continue to be the focus of interest in the future as it has been in the past."
That leads me to ponder a bit about the call for the "secularisation" of biblical studies by Matthew Fox and company.
(1) At the end of the day biblical scholars are dealing with religious texts that by their very nature attract religious people. If one dislikes being around persons of religious disposition, either working with them, teaching them, sitting beside them at conferences, reading books written by them, then find a new job without religion. I can understand the plight of secularists who may feel alarmed at the incursion of religious ideologies into their field and lament the fact that their job prospects are not as broad as those of scholars with religious leanings. But that is, to put it grimly, the nature of the beast.
(2) I find it hard to understand the tirade of certain persons who imply that all faith-based scholarship is little more than a type of pseudo-academia, this is far from the case. Biblical studies from a secular perspective is a recent newcomer to a discipline that is now over 2000 years old and has operated for the most part with religious perspectives. The more militant secularists would have us believe that until they came along that there was no serious academic scholarship, they think that they are the bibical academy, and the rest of us are plebs blinded by the opium of the masses. This may all be rhetoric designed to bring attention to the secularist cause, but even in the politics of universities and academic societies this revisionistic and self-serving agenda is not helping anyone. Furthermore, the texts that biblical scholars study frequently speak of mercy, love, kindness, and grace - something that biblical scholars of all persuasions should be willing to demonstrate in public discourse. If not, one must wonder if any of us have learned anything at all from our endeavours and question whether what we do really leads to the enhancement of the human condition.
(3) Scholars of faith (diverse and pluriform) continue to be the leading lights in our discipline. I need only mention the names of Bauckham, Allison, and Hengel to speak of a few scholars who have positively impacted their discipline and extended our corporate knowledge of the ancient world. In fact, we could say that the shoe is on the other foot and that some secular authors like A.N. Wilson, Gerd Luedemann, James Tabor, etc. are the one's who produce works so strewn with secular ideology and so blatantly biased against anything religious that their works can scarcely be counted more than fanciful secular dogmatics. In fact, religious scholars could be said to have an advantage over secular scholars in that they possess an ability to empathize with a text and so come closer to the ethos of the author, and have an ability to identify with the world of the text in a way that secularists cannot.
(4) We can agree that fundamentalism of any kind obscures and hinders serious academic study. But that applies equally to secular fundamentalism as it does to religious fundamentalism.
(5) Is there a place for secular scholars in the biblical academy - of course - but (like it or not) they will always be a minority. Furthermore, secular scholars bring their own atheological perspective and can make valid contributions to the furthering of our discipline so, viva la differance! But no single group regardless of denomination, affiliation, religious conviction (or lack thereof) should arrogate themselves by implying that they alone are the academy and they are alone are the one's engaged in true academic study.
Well, that's my take on it anyway.
Sunday, August 13, 2006
NTT Quotes (1)
‘The historical component in theological interpretation of the New Testament is essential if Scripture is to remain definitive of Christian belief. It helps preserve the givenness of revelation ab extra and makes possible some degree of consensus about valid meanings by excluding arbitrary interpretations from doctrinal contexts.’
Robert Morgan, ‘Jesus Christ, the Wisdom of God (2),’ in Reading Texts, Seeking Wisdom: Scripture and Theology, eds. David Ford and Graham Stanton (London: SCM, 2003), 34.
‘Any New Testament theology worth its salt must be seen to offer a meaningful interpretation of the NT to the community for which it was written.’
John Ashton, ‘History and Theology in New Testament Studies,’ in The Nature of New Testament Theology, eds. Christopher Rowland and Christopher Tuckett (Oxford: Blackwell, 2006), 10.
Friday, August 11, 2006
Andreas Kostenberger on Johannine Chronology
Over at his blog Biblical Foundations Prof. Andreas Kostenberger posts some interesting thoughts on chronology and the Fourth Gospel.
Mention should also be made of one of Kostenberg's students, Alan Bandy, and his blog Cafe Apocalypsis (the coffee is aweful but the studies are good!) who has been making some sterling posts on Revelation, especially in relation to the issues of date, the identification of "Satan's Throne" (apparently not Washington!), and whether or not Domitian was really a nasty guy afterall.
Ben Myer's on Theology for Beginners
Over at Faith and Theology my favourite Evangelische Barthian friend has started a series of posts on Theology for Beginners.
Perhaps we have history in front of us as Ben Myers lays out the blue print for some kind of future magnum opus on Church Dogmatics.
Interview with Steven Harris
There is an interview of Mike Bird over at Steven Harris' website Theological and Biblical Studies. Apparently, some people find me interesting.
The Unity of Luke-Acts
The unity of Luke–Acts has been an axiom of modern scholarship ever since Henry Cadbury’s work on the subject The Making of Luke-Acts in 1927. Monographs abound on Luke-Acts tackling issues diverse as Luke's view of the Jews, the Law, Gentiles, and especially the Holy Spirit (I believe that the NT guild should demand a 10 year moratorium on Ph.D's on Luke and the Spirit - it is being done unto death!). In every case Luke-Acts is treated as a single literary unit with two-parts and authors simply assume the literary and theological unity of Luke-Acts. But what if the unity of Luke-Acts is a modern invention?Mikael Parsons and Richard I. Pervo challenge this assumption in Rethinking the Unity of Luke and Acts (1993). They draw attention to the differences in genre, narrative, and theology between Luke and Acts and highlight a number of authorial and canonical questions posed by Luke and Acts. At stake is whether we link Luke and Acts with a hyphen (Luke–Acts = a close connection) or with a forward slash (Luke/Acts = a loose connection). Gregory writes:
A second-front against the unity of Luke-Acts has opened up from studies in reception history. Andrew Gregory's book The Reception of Luke and Acts in the Period Before Irenaeus (WUNT, 2.169; Tübingen: Mohr [Siebeck], 2003) argues that Luke and Acts were not read together in the second century with the exception of the Muratorian fragment and Irenaeus. Luke was normally read with the tetraevangelium (four Gospels) and Acts was read in the company of the Apostolos (collection of catholic letters).
Behind this question lies the modern assumption that Luke and Acts are two volumes of one longer work, each of which was written by the same author. Therefore it is important to realise that Luke–Acts as an object of study, two separate texts linked by a hyphen, is in fact a modern construct. Of course this is not to deny that Luke wrote two successive volumes – and perhaps even set out to write two successive volumes – each of which largely coheres with and informs the other. Rather, it is simply to note that for much of their subsequent history Luke’s two volumes have not been read in this way and, consequently, that it is not possible to assume that the knowledge and use of one of these texts by a subsequent reader or text need in itself require or indeed make probable the knowledge and use of the other. Nor do we know if ever they circulated together in this period, for once Luke released each volume he would have had no control over its circulation and copying.I see two primary questions emerging from all this:
(1) Literary critics frequently assume that Luke and Acts were written as part of the one work, but were separated early in the second-century. Is this assumption valid? Does the fact that Luke and Acts were rarely (if ever) read together count against a unity of Luke and Acts?
(2) To what extent do we allow the second and third century authors to inform us of the authorial intention, initial reception, and interpretation of a first century writing? How close is Irenaeus to the mind of Luke and is the absence of evidence the evidence of absence regarding their being read together? How much continuity should we posit between first century and second century readings of these documents?
Such is the topic of my paper at the BNTC later this month.
Thursday, August 10, 2006
I've Been Tagged . . . Unfortunately
Scot McKnight tagged me so I will play the game. I must admit, I don’t like these kinds of games. I can never think of good answers and I spend too much time racking my brain trying to come up with intelligent answers. My wife loves to ask questions and she even has one of those books that has like a million questions—I hate it! Here it goes:
1. One book that changed your life: Search for Significance by Robert McGee. I read it when I was in college and it really helped me deal with my personal baggage of divorce, abuse, and insecurity.
2. One book that you’ve read more than once: Spiritual Leadership by J. Oswald Sanders.
3. One book you’d want on a desert island: Bible.
4. One book that made you laugh: I can’t think of one.
5. One book that made you cry: D-Day by Stephen Ambrose.
6. One book you wish had been written: 1,000,001 Questions—It’s not really a book, but you know those question books—I don’t like them.
7. One book you wish had never been written: I can’t think of one.
8. One book you’re currently reading: The Secret Message of Jesus by B. Mclaren.
9. One book you’ve been meaning to read: The Politics of Jesus by Yoder.
1. One book that changed your life: Search for Significance by Robert McGee. I read it when I was in college and it really helped me deal with my personal baggage of divorce, abuse, and insecurity.
2. One book that you’ve read more than once: Spiritual Leadership by J. Oswald Sanders.
3. One book you’d want on a desert island: Bible.
4. One book that made you laugh: I can’t think of one.
5. One book that made you cry: D-Day by Stephen Ambrose.
6. One book you wish had been written: 1,000,001 Questions—It’s not really a book, but you know those question books—I don’t like them.
7. One book you wish had never been written: I can’t think of one.
8. One book you’re currently reading: The Secret Message of Jesus by B. Mclaren.
9. One book you’ve been meaning to read: The Politics of Jesus by Yoder.
EABS 2006 Report
Back from the European Association of Biblical Studies held at Pázmány Péter Catholic University in Budapest, Hungary. There were some good papers including:
Tom Holmen
'To the Pure All Things are Pure': The New Testament Concept of Cleasing Puirty and its Roots in the Mission of Jesus
Very similar to Blomberg, Chilton, and Borg in terms of purity rather than impurity acting as a contagion for Jesus. Even James Crossley liked it, and thought that he presented a better expression of the position than Craig Blomberg's book.
Michael Bird
The Early Christians, the Historical Jesus and the Salvation of the Gentiles
This prosaic paper looked at the continuity and discontinuity between Jesus and the early church regarding the salvation of the Gentiles.
Riemer Roukema
Jesus, Gnosis, and the Church
This paper argued that the Gnostic Gospels (like Judas) give us no knowledge of the Historical Jesus, but the Synoptic Gospels do!
James Crossley
From Jesus Observing Food and Purity Laws to Some Christians Not Bothering: A Causally-Based Approach.
This paper was essentially a precis of Jim's forthcoming book on Christian origins. Jim is not trying to throw out the theological explanations of developments, but wants to bring sociological analysis into the picture as well. Abandoning the food laws (when Jesus didn't) was a much easier of way of holding together a variety of divergent groups.
On Tuesday we were at the Károli Gáspár Reformed University and there were several papers of note given there:
Daan van Wyk
The Death of Jesus: Discontinuity in Content and Material Continuity
A very Wright/McKnight approach to the Historical Jesus' view of his death. I remain unsure of his view that the Jesus Tradition had no reference to Jesus' death, while the Kerygmatic tradition did.
Marvin Meyer
Jesus and Judas in the Gospel of Judas
Marvin spoke with great gusto and enthusiasm on this subject and clearly Judas is something that interests him. Marvin gave an overview of Judas and its implications for understanding Sethian Gnosticism and Judas in the Jesus Tradition. There were laughs when I suggested that a "Coptologist" was someone who studied police forces!
Outi Lehitpuu
Biblical Body Language: The Spiritual and Bodily Resurrection
An interesting, albeit unconvincing paper, on resurrection in the early church where the Christians initially adopted the Hellenistic model of describing the post-mortem psyche (soul) in corporeal categories. I wish I had on hand a copy of Stan Porter's essay on how resurrection (not merely a non-bodily soul with bodily description) is featured in some Greek literature!
At the conference I also met Kevin A. Wilson of the blog Blue Cord and we had a drink together, lunch, and I helped him understand that the only way to cure the Anglican communion of its woes was to amputate it's gangrenous limbs (i.e. extreme liberal elements within the American Episcopal Church). Kevin also made me grateful that I'm a Baptist. Another good part was sharing some time with Stanley and Wender Porter and finding about what is going on at MacDiv. Otherwise, it was nice to meet a number of fellow "evangelical-esque" persons from around Europe.
Next year's EABS will be held in Vienna!
Tuesday, August 08, 2006
The Lost Sheep of the House of Israel
The title of the dissertation I successfully defended at Cambridge recently is "Matthew's Messianic Shepherd-King: In Search of the 'Lost Sheep of the House of Israel'". Here is a synopsis of the thesis.
Unique to the First Gospel are two sayings of Jesus that have proved controversial. As many of you will know, the controversy arises not least because of the exclusivity of their contents. In two places in the Gospel (Matt 10:5b-6; 15:24) the Messianic mission of Jesus and the mission of his disciples are limited to a group that Jesus himself calls 'the lost sheep of the house of Israel'. My study investigated these logia in order to determine the identity of the group.
In light of Matthew's intense interest in Jesus' Davidic Messiahship (e.g., 1:1), I argued that the way forward in ascertaining the meaning of the logia is within the trajectory of the Jewish Shepherd-King traditions surrounding King David.
The research approach I followed can be illustrated as a series of concentric circles. The study divided into three parts with each serving as a circle of context within which the others were viewed, ultimately illuminating the logia.
The outer circle considered the Messianic Shepherd-King motif in its native Jewish milieu. This involved first a consideration of the origin of the tradition in the historical and the prophetic literature of the Jewish Scriptures. Then, following this trajectory, relevant literature of the Second Temple period was considered. While not a widely used motif in the Second Temple period (this came as a surprise to me), the Messianic Shepherd-King motif did function significantly for at least one sectarian Jewish community in first century Palestine, namely, the community who composed and edited the Psalms of Solomon. This motif functioned as a vehicle of hope for a political-national restoration of the kingdom of Israel; vital to the motif is a belief in the territorial restoration of the Land of Israel.
The next circle of the interpretation focused on the Matthean use of the Messianic Shepherd-King motif. Three passages were studied ( Matthew 2:6, 9:36 and 26:31) in order to establish the presence of the motif in Matthew and show its continuity with the Jewish background highlighted in the previous section. I argued, in line with both the Scriptures and the Psalms of Solomon, that Matthew maintains a hope for the restoration of Israel not only spiritually, but also politically and territorially (this of course is completely outside mainstream Matthean scholarship). Within this circle I also wrote a chapter defending the claim that Matthew maintained an abiding hope for territorial restoration (again controversial).
[A side note: I presented the chapter on territorial restoration in Matthew at the Tyndale Fellowship Conf. last year. After I finished the paper Donald Hagner asked me the first question and he wanted to know if I was a dispensationalist -- Thanks! Only dispensationalists I guess would pursue a research interest as crazy as this. To which I responded something like: "On this issue I guess I could be a dispensationalist to the extent that dispensationalism accurately reflects first-century Jewish thinking." Honestly, I don't think I am a dispensationalist anymore; but that is for another posting.]
In the final circle of the study, Matthew 10:6 and 15:24 were specifically studied. Read against the background of a concrete expectation for the restoration of Israel, my thesis is the 'lost sheep of the house of Israel' refers to remnants of the former Northern Kingdom of Israel who continued to reside in the northern region of the ideal Land of Israel. Thus, the Matthean Jesus' earthly missional scope was limited geographically and ethnically to those who were residing in the northern region of the Land.
What are your thoughts on this bizarre hypothesis??
Unique to the First Gospel are two sayings of Jesus that have proved controversial. As many of you will know, the controversy arises not least because of the exclusivity of their contents. In two places in the Gospel (Matt 10:5b-6; 15:24) the Messianic mission of Jesus and the mission of his disciples are limited to a group that Jesus himself calls 'the lost sheep of the house of Israel'. My study investigated these logia in order to determine the identity of the group.
In light of Matthew's intense interest in Jesus' Davidic Messiahship (e.g., 1:1), I argued that the way forward in ascertaining the meaning of the logia is within the trajectory of the Jewish Shepherd-King traditions surrounding King David.
The research approach I followed can be illustrated as a series of concentric circles. The study divided into three parts with each serving as a circle of context within which the others were viewed, ultimately illuminating the logia.
The outer circle considered the Messianic Shepherd-King motif in its native Jewish milieu. This involved first a consideration of the origin of the tradition in the historical and the prophetic literature of the Jewish Scriptures. Then, following this trajectory, relevant literature of the Second Temple period was considered. While not a widely used motif in the Second Temple period (this came as a surprise to me), the Messianic Shepherd-King motif did function significantly for at least one sectarian Jewish community in first century Palestine, namely, the community who composed and edited the Psalms of Solomon. This motif functioned as a vehicle of hope for a political-national restoration of the kingdom of Israel; vital to the motif is a belief in the territorial restoration of the Land of Israel.
The next circle of the interpretation focused on the Matthean use of the Messianic Shepherd-King motif. Three passages were studied ( Matthew 2:6, 9:36 and 26:31) in order to establish the presence of the motif in Matthew and show its continuity with the Jewish background highlighted in the previous section. I argued, in line with both the Scriptures and the Psalms of Solomon, that Matthew maintains a hope for the restoration of Israel not only spiritually, but also politically and territorially (this of course is completely outside mainstream Matthean scholarship). Within this circle I also wrote a chapter defending the claim that Matthew maintained an abiding hope for territorial restoration (again controversial).
[A side note: I presented the chapter on territorial restoration in Matthew at the Tyndale Fellowship Conf. last year. After I finished the paper Donald Hagner asked me the first question and he wanted to know if I was a dispensationalist -- Thanks! Only dispensationalists I guess would pursue a research interest as crazy as this. To which I responded something like: "On this issue I guess I could be a dispensationalist to the extent that dispensationalism accurately reflects first-century Jewish thinking." Honestly, I don't think I am a dispensationalist anymore; but that is for another posting.]
In the final circle of the study, Matthew 10:6 and 15:24 were specifically studied. Read against the background of a concrete expectation for the restoration of Israel, my thesis is the 'lost sheep of the house of Israel' refers to remnants of the former Northern Kingdom of Israel who continued to reside in the northern region of the ideal Land of Israel. Thus, the Matthean Jesus' earthly missional scope was limited geographically and ethnically to those who were residing in the northern region of the Land.
What are your thoughts on this bizarre hypothesis??
Monday, August 07, 2006
CBA Was Extremely Productive
My time at the CBA meetings yesterday was very good. The interview over the topics of Satan and Messianic Prophecy lasted over two hours. The interview was definitely a very interesting experience beginning with the make-up session before going on camera. And although I had been given the questions a couple of days before the interview, it was also a very challenging experience; I am hoping that I did not say anything that was completely false, misleading or just plain stupid. The process is slightly awkward as the interviewer is off camera asking you questions and you have to respond with declarative statements. Thankfully, the producers were very pleased with the interview and were very encouraging. The documentary probably will come out sometime later this year on something like the National Geographic or Discovery channels.
After the interview I presented a paper that was essentially a synopsis of my doctoral dissertation. My thesis was on the question of the identity of the ‘lost sheep of the house of Israel’ in Matthew 10:6 & 15:24. The paper was well-received and this was extremely encouraging to me, not least because a Matthean scholar of the likes of Daniel Harrington was present. I spent about an hour afterward with a scholar named Scott W. Hahn in a nice discussion over various topics related to paper. The interaction was significant because he has been thinking along similar lines.
I really enjoyed CBA. Next year it is in Santa Clara, CA – perhaps I will attempt to go.
After the interview I presented a paper that was essentially a synopsis of my doctoral dissertation. My thesis was on the question of the identity of the ‘lost sheep of the house of Israel’ in Matthew 10:6 & 15:24. The paper was well-received and this was extremely encouraging to me, not least because a Matthean scholar of the likes of Daniel Harrington was present. I spent about an hour afterward with a scholar named Scott W. Hahn in a nice discussion over various topics related to paper. The interaction was significant because he has been thinking along similar lines.
I really enjoyed CBA. Next year it is in Santa Clara, CA – perhaps I will attempt to go.
Saturday, August 05, 2006
CBA Annual Meeting
Tomorrow I am participating in the annual meeting of the Catholic Biblical Association. This is my first time attending the conference, but I am anticipating a good time. I am giving a paper on "The lost sheep of the house of Israel" from Matthew's Gospel. This is the topic of my Ph.D. disseration so I am excited about test driving my hypothesis. As promised, I will blog on this next week.
I am also participating in a documentary produced by a company called Paulinst Productions. They are interviewing some NT scholars on the topics of Satan and Messianic prophecy. This is the first time I have done anything like this so I am more than alittle fearful. I am afraid I will not be erudite enough or worse say someting inaccurate or incorrect. I am, however, grateful for such an interesting opportunity. If you think about it, I would covet your prayers. Thanks.
I am also participating in a documentary produced by a company called Paulinst Productions. They are interviewing some NT scholars on the topics of Satan and Messianic prophecy. This is the first time I have done anything like this so I am more than alittle fearful. I am afraid I will not be erudite enough or worse say someting inaccurate or incorrect. I am, however, grateful for such an interesting opportunity. If you think about it, I would covet your prayers. Thanks.
Friday, August 04, 2006
My Inaugural Blog
Let me begin by saying a special thanks to Michael for the opportunity to partner with him at Euangelion. I have been following the blog since its inception, but have declined his invitation to join in for months. I promised him that after I completed my Ph.D. and survived my Viva I would consider it. So here I am.
I briefly thought of beginning my own blog a while back, but two things hindered me. First, I didn't think anyone would read it. And second, Mike beat me to the punch: honestly -- and this is a little scary -- had I thought up a blog, I would have named it something like Euangelion and given it the same kind of tag: A Post-Modern Blog on New Testament Studies, Christian Origins and Following Jesus -- in fact, I might be more 'post-modern' than Mike is. .
So, Mike's invitation to join the blog, then, is a fantastic solution for me: he has created a readership and I can identify and contribute to this blog. Cool!
I am going to blog over the next week on my dissertation which I recently completed at Cambridge University. I worked under both Markus Bockmuehl and Peter Head. Both of these men have left an indelible imprint on me as a Christian and as a scholar. I will always be a huge fan of both these guys.
More later.
I briefly thought of beginning my own blog a while back, but two things hindered me. First, I didn't think anyone would read it. And second, Mike beat me to the punch: honestly -- and this is a little scary -- had I thought up a blog, I would have named it something like Euangelion and given it the same kind of tag: A Post-Modern Blog on New Testament Studies, Christian Origins and Following Jesus -- in fact, I might be more 'post-modern' than Mike is. .
So, Mike's invitation to join the blog, then, is a fantastic solution for me: he has created a readership and I can identify and contribute to this blog. Cool!
I am going to blog over the next week on my dissertation which I recently completed at Cambridge University. I worked under both Markus Bockmuehl and Peter Head. Both of these men have left an indelible imprint on me as a Christian and as a scholar. I will always be a huge fan of both these guys.
More later.
Off to Budapest for EABS
I'm off to the EABS conference in Budapest to join James Crossley at the Historical Jesus seminar. There are some good papers listed in the abstracts. Forget Bird vs. Crossley, I think the main event on the Historical Jesus seminar will be Tom Holmen vs. Crossley since both of these guys are doing papers on Jesus, purity, and law.
Ecce Homo: Introducing Dr. Joel Willitts
My new co-blogger is not, as was forecast, Jeb W. Bush (he turned me down). It is none other than the Rev. Dr. Joel Willitts of North Park University.
Here's my interview with Joel:
1. Joel, tell us a bit about yourself. Where are you from? What ministry experience do you have? Why did you want to become a NT scholar? Where did you study? Who are your academic heroes?
I am originally from the State of New Jersey, but when I was a young teenager my family moved to Florida. So I consider Florida my home. Karla and I met in college and were married over 13 years ago. She is from Chicago and since we have now lived in Chicago for nearly 5 years at different points through our married years it too is home. We will now live in Chicago for the foreseeable future as I begin teaching at North Park University.
I never intended to be a NT scholar. In fact, it is werid for me to even think of myself as one. When I graduated from college back in 1993, I thought I would be a youth pastor my whole life. However, through the course of my graduate studies I became intensely passionate about study and teaching, although my passion for ministry to students is still as strong as ever. After 7 years of full time youth ministry in Texas, Florida and Chicago, I changed course and began pursuing NT research. I earned a Th.M. from Dallas Seminary in 2000 and then a M.Phil (2002)and Ph.D. (2006) from Cambridge University.
The scholars who have had the greatest impact on my academic development and are my academic heros are Daniel B. Wallace, Scott Hafemann, Markus Bockmuehl and Scot McKnight.
2. Where do you teach now and what are your research interests?
I teach at North Park University as Assistant Professor in Biblical and Theological Studies.
My research interests are Jewish Christianity, Jesus & the Gospels, Hasmonean & Roman Archaeology, Dead Sea Scrolls & NT.
3. How does academic study impact your faith?
Simply stated, my scholarship is an expression of my faith and my faith is an expression of my scholarship. I advocate a view of scholar and scholarship that is confessional in nature, by which I mean one that embraces faith-based presuppositions, although not necessarily Christian or even religious. As such, the scholar and her scholarship are humble and accountable within both her confessional community and within the wider scholarly community. Perhaps J. P. Meier's 'unpapal conclave' of a confessional Catholic, Protestant, Jew and agnostic (and/or even an atheist) can be reintroduced here with significant modification (Marginal Jew I). In my approach this conclave would be locked up in the bowels of a library not until they achieved a 'limited consensus', but until they reach a mutual understanding of each other's views; views based on their distinctive presuppositions and consequent procedures. This setting would not be any less scholarly of an endeavour as their views would be defendable and rooted in the history and culture of Second-Temple Judaism. Yet, rather than being forced to create a document that states the least common denominator, they were forced to listen to each other and learn from each other in the context of community; rather than check their convictions at the door and pursue consensus, they participate in full awareness of themselves and the others and pursue understanding; rather than debate in order to win, they discuss in order to understand, acknowledging that the truth is both self authenticating and convincing in the first instance when demonstrated in life.
4. What do think is the calling of a NT professor?
The calling of a NT professor is not primarily to impart historical and exegetical knowledge and analytical skills to students as important as these are. Instead, empowered by the Holy Spirit and at the impulse of the sovereign God a professor's teaching should lead students into a God-enraptured worldview. I believe my teaching must reach deep into the affections and capture the heart as well as the mind. By the grace of God my students will leave my classes not merely with an exegetical and theological toolbox accompanied by an analytic mind, but knowing God better than they know anything and they enjoy him more than they enjoy anything.
5. What is your relationship to the devilishly handsome Michael Bird who is your co-partner for Euangelion?
I have known Mike for over three years now. We were (and are) modern day 'Pen Pals' as he was living in Australia and I in England (now GB and USA). Back then Mike listened to a paper I had given on the Historical Jesus at the annual meeting of ETS and wrote me a letter . . . yes a letter . . . introducing himself. Who actually writes letters anymore? Well that was the start of a great friendship. The more I learn of Mike the more I like him -- he is like a good beer. Theologically we have a great deal in common, although there are some differences (e.g. he has much to optomistic view about the Thrid Quest and he wants to be the next Stanley Porter).
6. What is your favourite book of the NT and what is your favourite NT text book?
My favourite book in the NT is the Gospel of Matthew.
My favourite NT textbook (at least right now) is P. Tomson's book "If this be from Heaven" Jesus and the New Testament Authors in Their Relationship to Judaism.
7. What is distinctive about being an "evangelical" NT scholar?
I think the distinctive is related to what I discussed about faith and scholarship. The word 'evangelical' means different things to different people. Evangelical scholars, in my view, have a high view of Scripture (not necessarily equated with inerrancy) and are missional (scholarship is not just an academic exercise).
8. Why did a gorgeous and intelligent lady like Karla marry a scrawney little chap like you?
My laid-back personality and sense of humor.
We can now look forward to many pearls of wisdom and gems of learning from Joel in his posts, and we can look particularly forward to his inaugural post!
On behalf of Euangelion and Biblioblogdom - Joel, welcome to the Blogosphere!
Thursday, August 03, 2006
He is Coming!
No, not Jesus (although he is indeed coming again); but another blog member is to be added to Euangelion in the very, very, near future.
I thought it time to inject some fresh material and a new face onto the blog. The guy in question will do all of that and more! In any event, it will be a welcomed change to my normal rantings.
Watch and wait!!!
I thought it time to inject some fresh material and a new face onto the blog. The guy in question will do all of that and more! In any event, it will be a welcomed change to my normal rantings.
Watch and wait!!!
Wednesday, August 02, 2006
Jesus and the Stoic Tradition
Jesus’ wisdom does not consist of pious, timeless aphorisms on an allegedly Cynic model, as a contingent of New Testament scholars have tried to show. The true analogue between Jesus and the Stoic-Cynic tradition is rather what might be called an eschatological-ethical theme: the gods will reward and sustain the king who honors virtue, who is humane, and who is characterized by prudence (phronesis), temperance (sophrosune), justice (dikaiosune), and courage (andreia).’H.C. Kee, The Beginnings of Christianity, 459.
Tuesday, August 01, 2006
Colloquium 38.1 (2006).
The journal Colloquium is the official publication of the Australian and New Zealand Theological Society, which frequently depicts some of the best articles in Antipodian scholarship. The latest issue includes:
Oliphant, Rachel and Paul Babie. ‘Can the Gospel of Luke Speak to a Contemporary Understanding of Private Property? The Parable of the Rich Fool.'
Pembroke, Neil. ‘A Pastoral Perspective on the Suffering of God.’
Tovey, Derek. ‘Stone of Witness and Stone of Revelation: an Exploration of Inter-textual Resonance In John 1:35-51.’
Rivka Ulmer, John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur, ‘The Boundaries of the Rabbinic Genre Midrash.’
Whibley, M.E.L. 'A Postmodern Paradox: Collective Repentance in an Age without Sin.'
Oliphant, Rachel and Paul Babie. ‘Can the Gospel of Luke Speak to a Contemporary Understanding of Private Property? The Parable of the Rich Fool.'
Pembroke, Neil. ‘A Pastoral Perspective on the Suffering of God.’
Tovey, Derek. ‘Stone of Witness and Stone of Revelation: an Exploration of Inter-textual Resonance In John 1:35-51.’
Rivka Ulmer, John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur, ‘The Boundaries of the Rabbinic Genre Midrash.’
Whibley, M.E.L. 'A Postmodern Paradox: Collective Repentance in an Age without Sin.'
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
