Markus Bockmuehl's new book

Markus Bockmuehl lectures at Cambridge University (see his website: New Testament Teaching Resources) and he has a new book out entitled: Seeing the Word: Refocusing New Testament Study (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 2006).

I haven't been able to find out much about the contents, but I imagine that it might be similar to his articles on New Testament study such as the following:

2004. ‘What’s Under the Microscope? Revisiting E.C. Hoskyns on the Object of New Testament Study.’ Theology 107: 3-13.

1998. ‘Humpty Dumpty and New Testament Theology.’ Theology 101: 330-38.

1998. ‘“To Be or Not to Be”: The Possible Futures of New Testament Scholarship.’ Scottish Journal of Theology 51: 271-306.

Israel, Palestine, the Church, and Eschatology

Several things prompt me to write a post on the controversial topic of Israel and Palestine. I was spurned on by the intriguing post of Ben Witherington Pray for Peace of Jerusalem and Madeleine Albright's book The Mighty and the Almighty which you can read about at CT that (apparently) makes some reflection on God, America, and Politics post-9/11.

Let me say that I am convinced of two basic premises: (a) Israel has the inalienable right to exist in peace, free from terrorism and violence. Suffice to say, I am not a big fan of the President of Iran. (b) The Palestinians need a homeland and one free from walls, check-points, tanks, and rocket attacks. The Israeli occupation of the West Bank is completely illegal.

I am not a fan of the mainline American denominations that want to divest funds from Israel and fail to censure acts of terrorism against the small Israeli state. (In fact some of these denominations love to complain about the human rights abuses perpetrated in Israel, Iraq and Guantanamo bay, but curiously never get round to mentioning absuses perpetrated in Sudan, Saudi Arabia, China or North Korea). I am even less of a fan of ultra-conservatives in American Churches that support Israeli policies uncritically on the grounds that the establishment of the Jewish state in 1948 was a fulfillment of biblical prophecy.

Acts 13.32-33: 'And we bring you the good news that what God promised to the fathers, this he has fulfilled to us their children by raising Jesus.'

2 Corinthians 1.20: 'For all the promises of God find their Yes in him. That is why it is through him that we utter our Amen to God for his glory.'

(Those who are familiar with Graeme Goldsworthy's work will know that these verses form the rubric of his approach to biblical theology).

As I see it, God's promises to Israel were complete and fulfilled in the handing over and raising up of Jesus by God the Father. There is of course still the hope that national Israel will respond to the message of Christ (either as individuals or en masse) but the establishment of Israel in 1948 was not something forecast in the Book of Revelation which we must uphold despite the cost it brings upon the Palestinians.

Let me also be clear that I do not think the Church completely replaces Israel (contra Covenant Theology); nor do I think that a hard and fast distinction can be made between the Church and Israel (contra Dispensationalism). Instead, the church is the representative of Israel in the Messianic age and by virtue of their faith in Jesus Christ they are constituted as the people of God in the era of the New Covenant. I think this comports with the more or less "Reformed" view, but I've had people tell me that I sound like a progressive dispensationalist too.

For sound and sober reflections on the topic from a progressive dispensational perspective I recommend the article by Darrell Bock Some Christians See a 'Road Map' to End Times from the LA Times.

I recommend also the following resources:

Colin Chapman, ‘God’s Covenant – God’s Land,’ in The God of Covenant, eds. Jamie A. Grant & Alistair I. Wilson (IVP, 2005), 221-56.

Gary M. Burge, Who Are God’s People in the Middle East? What Christians Are Not Being Told About Israel and the Palestinians (Zondervan, 1993).

Gary M. Burge, Whose Land? Whose Promise?: What Christians Are Not Being Told About Israel and the Palestinians (Pilgrim, 2003).

1689 LBC (11.2) on Justification

Faith thus receiving and resting on Christ and his righteousness, is the alone instrument of justification; yet it is not alone in the person justified, but is ever accompanied with all other saving graces, and is no dead faith, but worketh by love.

A useful site: Text Excavations

One superb site I just found is called Text Excavation run by Ben C. Smith which contains an excellent listing of primary sources for ancient Jewish and Christian texts. Including things like a list of all patristic sources that make reference to Jewish Christian Gospels. Includes translations and primary source languages! Besure to browse it. Ben, you deserve a coke!

Where I'm going next week?

See if you can guess the places where I'm going next week:

1. A conference associated with the name of the guy on the left and I look forward to meeting the Australian expat on the right.



















2. Then for a holiday I'm off too:





3. After which time I will be besieged by my:

Chrysostom on Rom. 16.7

"Greet Andronicus and Junia ... who are outstanding among the apostles": To be an apostle is something great. But to be outstanding among the apostles - just think what a wonderful song of praise that is! They were outstanding on the basis of their works and virtuous actions. Indeed how great the wisdom of this woman must have been that that she was even deemed worthy of the title apostle. (In ep. Ad Romanos 31.2).

For an alternative perspective on Rom. 16.7 see the post at CBMW.

Sexuality in the Bible

For those in denominations fighting over issues pertaining sexuality and the Bible in the PCUSA, United Methodist Church, or the Episcopalian Church (or is it Episgaypalian, I can't remember anymore?) you may find resources by Dr. Robert Gagnon especially helpful. His book The Bible and Homosexual Practice: Texts and Hermeneutics (Nashville: Abingdon, 2001) is simply the best one around. I can honestly say that I have never seen a book with so many endorsements from top scholars inside the dusk cover (from Moo to Aune!). Otherwise, more recently, there is Thomas R. Schreiner, "A New Testament Perspective on Homosexuality," Themelios 31 (2006): 62-75.

The Bird's Nest

I should probably take the time to mention my wife's blog The Bird's Nest which could probably be subtitled: "The Britification of Three Aussie Girls". Which includes photos of some of the most gorgeous girls in the world!!!

A Prayer of John Chrysostom

Almighty God, you have given us grace at this time with one accord to make our common supplication to you; and you have promised through your well-beloved Son that when two or three are gathered together in his Name you will be in the midst of them: Fulfill now, O Lord, our desires and petitions as may be best for us; granting us in this world knowledge of your truth, and in the age to come life everlasting. Amen.

The Gospel for all Nazarenes?

It is often thought that the Gospels were written for isolated and introspective communities. So Matthew was written for a 'Matthean community' and Luke for a 'Lucan community' etc. When Richard Bauckham questioned this assumption in the book The Gospel for All Christians, and advocated that the canonical Gospel authors probably had broader audiences in mind, several scholars responded by appealing to the extra-canonical Gospels (e.g. Gospel of Thomas, Gospel of Peter, and Gospel of the Hebrews). The argument goes something like this:

(1) The extra-canonical Gospels are sectarian and were written for sectarian groups.
(2) The canonical Gospels also exhibit sectarian tendencies.
(3) Therefore, the canonical Gospels were written for sectarian groups as well.

I'm in the process of contesting this claim. Let me give one example. Let's take the Gospel of the Nazarenes (read about it at Text Excavation). It is thought that this Jewish Gospel was composed for a small Jewish Group called the Nazarenes known to Jerome and Epiphanius. Yet Tertullian (Adv. Marc. 4.8; cf. Acts 24.5) notes that the label ‘Nazarenes’ was used by Jews to designate Christians in general and not a specific group of Christians. If ‘Nazarenes’ in Gospel of the Nazarenes has this Jewish meaning of ‘Christians’ in general, then we may have here a document effectively named, to Jewish ears at least, the Gospel of the Christians. One can scarcely think of a more universal title for a book. Thus, some of the extra-canonical Gospels may not be quite so sectarian as many persons think.

Is the Gospel of Peter Docetic?

For translations of all of the patristic citations and papyri fragments associated with the Gospel of Peter see the site Text Excavation.

Eusebius mentions Gos. Peter on three occasions (Hist. Eccl. 3.3.2; 3.25.6-7; 6.12.1-6) and on the third he records that about the year 200 Bishop Serapion of Antioch prohibited the reading of the Gospel of Peter in nearby Rhossus, a city of Syria lying northwest of Antioch. On a former visitation to that church he had allowed the congregation there to read the Gospel of Peter (a work till then unknown to him) in its services. Afterwards however, when heresy broke out in Rhossus some appealed to the Gospel of Peter in support of Docetism. Serapion then scrutinized the document and, finding some parts of it to be unorthodox, he rejected it as a forgery.

The text which Serapion refers to is probably to be identified with the Akhmim fragment. (But for a more careful opinion see Paul Foster, ‘Are there any Early Fragments of the So-Called Gospel of Peter?’ NTS 52 [2006]: 1-28). A translation is available on the above site or try the one at Gospel Net.

Is the Akhmim fragment/Gospel of Peter docetic? Have a look at 4.10; 5.19.

There are several verses that are often thought to support a docetic interpretation. The comment that during the crucifixion ‘he kept silent as though he had no pain’ (Gos. Pet. 4.10) could imply an absence of physical suffering or valiant heroism. Just before he dies the Petrine Jesus cries out, ‘my power, my power, why have you forsaken me’ (Gos. Pet. 5.19) which might signify the departure of the Logos, divine aeon, or Christ-Spirit from Jesus upon his death. Alternatively, ‘power’ (dunami) could be a circumlocution for the divine name (e.g. ‘The Son of Man seated at the right hand of the Power’ in Mk. 14.62, Mt. 26.64; cf. ‘power of God’ added in Lk. 22.69) and is an alternative citation of Ps. 22.1-2. The statement here is no more docetic than Mk. 5.30 where Mark reports that ‘Jesus knew in himself that the power proceeding from him had gone out from him’. The same is perhaps true of the following phrase where it states ‘and after saying this he was taken up’. This could conceivably mean a variety of things including the separation of a heavenly being from the man Jesus at the cross, a confusing reference to an ascension of Jesus’ Spirit at the cross, or merely exclaiming that Jesus died and went to be with the Father somewhat akin to the Lucan Jesus’ prayer: ‘Father, into your hands I commend my spirit’ (Lk. 23.46). If one were concocting an explicitly docetic and/or gnostic interpretation of Jesus’ death then something akin to the Nag Hammadi Apocalypse of Peter would be more appropriate. There Peter witnesses Jesus ‘seemingly’ being seized to be crucified and he then looks upon the cross and observes the ‘living Jesus’ above the cross laughing, on the cross is someone else a ‘substitute being put to shame who came into being in his likeness’, and the ‘Saviour’ explaining the events of the cross to Peter (Apoc. Pet. 81). In retrospect, the Gospel of Peter is not explicitly docetic but it was obviously congenial to a docetic interpretation given its use by Docetists in Rhossus and Serapion himself claimed no more than this. The author(s) may have docetic sympathies or consciously embedded docetic features in the document in deliberately cryptic fashion, but this element is clearly subdued and does not dominate the text. Another possibility is that the docetic elements represent a later gloss.

If the Gospel of Peter is not explicitly docetic it may not be as sectarian as many scholars suppose and it may have been written to be read alongside (or in lieu of) the canonical Gospels.

Where Christology Titles Mix

In reading through John 1.49-51 I was amazed how the Christological titles Son of God, King of Israel and Son of Man all occur in such close proximity. Are these titles synonymous, do they overlap conceptually, or are they different ways of expressing Jesus' messiahship?

The Messiahship of Jesus in the Gospels is one of my "rolling" projects. I've written one article on it so far (on Mark) and hope to write one per year on the Messiah in Luke(-Acts), John, and Matthew, and will hopefully publish them in a collected volume. I'm pursuing this because I think that the Evangelists spend alot of time trying to convince people that Jesus is the Christ. Why did they do that and what did they would achieve by doing so? In the case of Mark, I think he's making an apology for the cross (HT to Bob Gundry) and proclaiming the authority of the crucified Messiah.

For that reason I'm looking forward to Graham Stanton's paper at BNTC on this very topic of the Messiahship of Jesus in the Gospels.

Grading Papers

I have had a lull in blogging since the frenzy of marking began about 3 weeks ago. So I'm back, at least until I go on my summer holiday to cornwall with my Aussie in-laws, for a while.

After marking papers on Pauline Theology I have discovered some startling facts:

- Galatians 6 is part of Paul's narratio.

- Certain scholars of a liberal bent regard substitutionary atonement as a form of "comic child abuse".

The Son of God and the Cross

In an article on the Gospel of Mark (RTR 2005) I argued that Mark is an apology for the cross and that Mark wants his readers to believe that Jesus is the Son of God not despite the cross, but precisely because of it!

In support of that idea I found this interesting quote from a footnote in Scot McKnight's book on Jesus and His Death:

"From saying that Jesus was the Messiah despite the event of the cross they came to say that he was the Messiah in virtue of that event."
- W. Manson, Jesus the Messiah (London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1943), 169.

Parousia for Paranesis

What function does the parousia (second advent or return of Christ) have in sections of the NT? I am convinced that it is not simply an encourgement for people to buy fire insurance so that they will spend eternity playing volley ball on the clouds with the angels in heaven. It is about the consummation of God's justice in a world that is brutal and dark. It is an encourgement to the oppressed and downtrodden. It is an exhortation to discipleship and perseverance. Consider these two exhortations from two different writers:

"For the Lord himself will come down from heaven, with a loud command, with the voice of the archangel and with the trumpet call of God, and the dead in Christ will rise first. After that, we who are still alive and are left will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air. And so we will be with the Lord forever. Therefore encourage each other with these words." (1 Thess. 4.16-18)

"And let us consider how we may spur one another on toward love and good deeds. Let us not give up meeting together, as some are in the habit of doing, but let us encourage one another—and all the more as you see the Day approaching." (Heb. 10.24-25).

I wonder how the parousia fits into a view of Christian discipleship and ethics without lapsing into a Left-Behindesque fiasco?

Luke, Shame, Kingdom, and Prayer - some reflections by a NT tutor

After teaching a course on Jesus and the Gospels which focuses on Luke's parables and another course on Luke-Acts, it has really driven home to me just how many of Luke's parables, esp. those about prayer, appeal to God's honour or not shaming God as a basis for prayer or action.

The parable of the friend at midnite (Lk. 11.5-8) makes the point that God welcomes "shameless" audacity (anadeia) in prayer and will answer because his honour is on the line.

The parable of the persistant widow (Lk. 18.1-8) likewise appeals to God's honour as the basis of his action since he does not want to be worn down or shamed like the unjust judge with the widow.



The parable of the Shrewd Manager (Lk. 16.1-14) seems to propose the idea that the role of disciples is to accrue honour to God by placing others in his debt.

What is quite shocking about many of Luke's parables is that the figures who symbolize/represent God are quite harsh or unsympathetic. Consider these three examples:

1. The "man of noble birth" in the parable of the Ten Minas (Lk. 19.11-27) who was probably based on Archelaus son of Herod the Great.

2. The "manager" in the parable of the Shrewd Manager (Lk. 16.1-14)

3. The "friend" in the parable of the Friend at Midnite (Lk. 11.5-8).

What does this tell us about Luke's doctrine of God? Is Luke being ironic? Is Luke trying to drive home the impartiality and severity of God's judgments? Of course such parables need to be juxtaposed with the parables of Luke 15 and the "lost things" like the coin, sheep and son which underscore the radical compassion of God. Still, it makes for some interesting thinking.

Adolf Schlatter

For an appreciation of the work of Adolf Schlatter see the post by Andreas Kostenberger at his blog Biblical Foundations.

Baur und Bauer

For two studies that deal with the works of F.C. Baur and Walter Bauer see:

I. Howard Marshall, "Orthodoxy and Heresy in Earlier Christianity," Themelios 2.1 (1976): 5-14

Paul Hartog, "Goulder, Baur, and the Corinthian Correspondence: A Review Essay of Michael D. Goulder’s Paul and the Competing Mission in Corinth", JBS 6 (2006)

Unity of the NT - Lemcio

According to E.E. Lemcio "Unifying Kerygma of the New Testament," JSNT 33 (1988): 3-17; idem, JSNT 38 (1990): 3-11, the kerygmatic core of the NT is six constant elements including:

(1) God who (2) sent or raised (3) Jesus and (4) calls for a response, i.e. receiving, repentance, faith, (5) towards God (6) which in turn brings various benefits such as salvation, redemption, reconciliation etc.

Three Guys Called "Chuck"

If I had to ever so briefly summarize the history of twentieth-century NT research in Britain it would have to be based around three guys called "Chuck": Charles Haddon Dodd, Charles F. D. Moule, and Charles Kingsley Barrett.

What are the three best and/or most useful works by this trio of Charles'? Here's my take:

C.H. Dodd

See his list of works here

1) The Parables of the Kingdom
2) Apostolic Preaching and its Development
3) History and Interpretation in the Fourth Gospel

That reminds me of a limerick about him I heard from Don Carson:

There once was a man called Dodd
Who had a name that was exceedingly odd
He spelt, if you please,
His name with three D's
When one is sufficient for God

C.F.D. Moule

1) The Origins of Christology
2) The Phenomenon of the New Testament
3) The Birth of the New Testament

C.K. Barrett

1) The Gospel According to St. John
2) International and Critical Commentary on Acts
3) From First Adam to Last: Study in Pauline Theology