New Blogs XI

Through Evangelical Textual Criticism I have discovered the blog The Amsterdam NT Blog by Jan Krans and Martin de Boer of the New Testament department of the Faculty of Theology at the Vrije Universiteit, Amsterdam.

Jan and Martin, welcome!

Wedderburn on Pauline Chronology

Mark Goodacre has made some interesting posts on why Gal. 2.1-10 = Acts 15. See his The Jerusalem Council: Gal. 2.1-10 = Acts 15 and The Jerusalem Council: Gal. 2.1-10 = Acts 15: Response to Critics including responses from Ben Witherington and others.

I thought I would add to the mix Alexander Wedderburn's reconstruction of the chronology (not because I fully concur with it, but because I find it interesting). This occurs in his book A History of the First Christians (London: T&T Clark, 2004), 91-120.

Wedderburn's approach is as follows:

Galatians 2.1-10 = Acts 11.27-28 and Acts 15
Galatians 2.11-14 = Acts 18.22


His chronology follows this path (p. 103)

30 Crucifixion of Jesus
31-32 Conversion of Paul
33-34 First visit to Jersusalem
Paul in Syria, Cilicia
44-49 Famine in Judea
45-46 Second visit to Jerusalem
Conference/Antioch collection
46-47 First missionary journey (Acts 13-15)
48-51 Second missionary journey
49 Claudius' edict
49-50 Paul's arrival in Corinth (1 Thess written)
51-52 Quarrel in Antioch (Acts 18.22 and Galatians written soon after)
52-57 Third Missionary Journey
Gathering of the Collection
Apostolic Decree
57 Collection journey, Paul arrested
57-59 Paul's imprisonment in Caesarea
59-60 Festus arrives as procurator and sends Paul to Rome
60- Paul in Rome

The chronology I have preferred (with modification) is found as an appendix in Ben Witherington's book The New Testament Story

Theological Terms and the Princess Bride

When students and scholars use technical theological terms the wrong way (like Hypostatization, Apocalyptic, Sitz im Leben, Hermeneutics etc) I always feel like quoting the movie The Princess Bride: "You keep using that word, but I do not think it means what you think it means".

Anyway, that is my introduction to what I really wanted to say: the entire Princess Bride Screen play is available here.

Journal of Theological Studies 57 (2006)

The latest issue of JTS 57 (2006) features the following articles:

Jean-Claude Haelewyck
The Relevance of the Old Latin Version for the Septuagint, with Special Emphasis on the Book of Esther

Michael F. Bird
The Markan Community, Myth or Maze? Bauckham's The Gospel for All Christians Revisited

C. M. Tuckett
Nomina Sacra in Codex E

Andrew Cain
Vox clamantis in deserto: Rhetoric, Reproach, and the Forging of Ascetic Authority in Jerome's Letters from the Syrian Desert

Dirk Krausmüller
Divine Self-Invention: Leontius of Jerusalem'S Reinterpretation of the Patristic Model of the Christian God

Theodora Antonopoulou
Eustathius of Antioch and a Fragment Attributed to Patriarch Photius

D. C. Parker
Review Article: The Text of the New Testament: Its Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration. By BRUCE M. METZGER and BART D. EHRMAN. Fourth Edition. Pp. xvi + 366. New York: Oxford University Press, 2005

T.W. Manson - Jesus and the Non-Jews

Thanks again to Rob Bradshaw for uploading another significant short study onto the web. This time it is: T.W. Manson, Jesus and the Non-Jews. This is a brief lecture about materials pertaining to Jesus and Gentiles in the Gospels. And it is important, let me tell you why.

In many studies of the historical Jesus and the early Christian mission, particularly those with a salvation-historical focus, it is commonly argued that Jesus limited his mission to Israel (e.g. Matt 10.5; 15.24) because the Gentiles would be saved later. In which case, the mission to Israel by Jesus is a bottleneck that has to be traversed before the real mission to the Gentiles can get underway. Jesus' mission to Israel becomes a matter of form and polity in giving Israel first bite of the salvation-historical pie in full knowledge that they will reject it and that the rest of the pie will go to the Gentiles (I think that this is E.P. Sanders' problem with Joachim Jeremias).

In contrast, Manson had a different perspective. In his view Jesus' mission to Israel was part of a larger narrative. Jesus went to Israel because a transformed Israel would transform the world. Thus, we should refrain from saying that Jesus went to Israel because the Gentiles would get saved later; instead, Jesus went to Israel because he was a prophet of restoration eschatology, calling Israel to embrace the kingdom and the covenant, and those who accept the calling would become the Israel of the new age and they would fulfill the covenantal role of being a light to the nations (Isa 42.6; 49.6) and be a kingdom of priests (Exod 19.5-6).

In other words, the continuity between Jesus and Paul is not with the periodizing framework of "Jew then Gentile" in Rom 1.16, it is rather in the narrative framework embedded in Rom. 15.8-9 "Christ became a servant of the circumcized on behalf of God's truth, to confirm the promises made to the patriarchs, so that the Gentiles may glorify God for his mercy".

The Samaritan Messiah, the Taheb

In studying the story of Jesus and the Samaritan woman in John 4, I was struck by the statement of the woman "I know that Messiah is coming (the one called Christ); whenever he comes, he will tell us everything" (4:25). While I did not know much about the Samaritans, I did know that they only viewed the Torah as sacred Scripture. So I wondered how a Samaritan would not only have had a belief in Messiah, but would have referred to him as such.

There are obviously two levels that must be kept in mind when dealing with a question like this. The first is what is most likely historically and second what can we assert John himself crafted in his telling of the story?

The answer to the first question is that in fact Samaritans did have a concept of an eschatological figure (in this sense a Messiah) called the Taheb, although the term comes from a 4th c. Samaritan text (cf. Marqah Memar 4:7, 12). The word means restorer (when not a proper name "repentant") and is linked with the expectation of a prophet like Moses who will arise (Deut. 18:15, 18; cf. John 1:21).

Thus, it is likely that the woman and her community held the belief in a Messanic figure, but did not refer to him as the "Messiah", but perhaps "a prophet" (John 4:19). It is possible historically that the Samaritan woman used the term that Jews would most commonly use to refer to this eschatological figure seeing that she was in dialogue with a Jew. More likely however, is that John in reporting the event uses the Hebrew/Aramaic term Messiah.

For more information on the Samaritans see www.the-samaritans.com.

What is "the Gospel"?

Michael Bird and I are working on a definition of the "gospel" for something we are planning to co-publish and we would like your feedback. What do you think about this definition? What are we leaving out? What are including that you think is not essential? How would you define "the Gospel"?

Here is our working definition:

The gospel announces the good news that God's Kingdom has come on the earth in the life death, and resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth, the Lord and Messiah, in fulfillment of Israel's Scriptures. The gospel calls for faith, repentance and discipleship -- its conconmitant effects include the forgiveness of sins, justification, reconciliation, adoption, judgment, and the gift of the Holy Spirit. What accompanies the proclamation of the Gospel is the work of the gospel exemplified in works of liberation and mercy.

Bart Ehrman on the Web

Over at ETC Peter Williams has an excellent interview with Bart Ehrman.

One can also read a debate of Bart Ehrman vs. William Lane Craig on the resurrection.

My main point of contention with Ehrman is that he maintains (at least in his SBL lecture last year) that "we cannot talk about the Word of God because we do not have the original words", and yet, he continues to write historical books about Jesus, Paul and Mary Magadalene which is only possible if the textual tradition has some integrity and if the autographs in some way corresponded to historical people and events. Ehrman the textual critic cries that "the Emperor has no clothes" while Ehrman the historian is holding a fashion parade with Jesus, Paul and Peter on the cat walk.

Authorship of the Pastoral Epistles

Robert Bradshaw of Biblical Studies.org.uk had uploaded onto the web, articles by Stan Porter and Robert Wall from BBR on Authorship of the Pastoral Epistles. These are probably two of the best articles on the subject that I have read and well worth reading. Wall and Porter are good scholars who are aware of the canonical and interpetive issues at stake too. Do read them if this area interests you. Which reminds me that a paper is to be presented at ETS evaluating I. Howard Marshall's view of metonymity for the authorship of the Pastorals. For those interested the references are:

Robert W. Wall, "Pauline Authorship of the Pastoral Epistles: A Reponse to S.E. Porter," Bulletin for Biblical Research 5 (1995): 125-128.

Stanley E. Porter, "Pauline Authorship and the Pastoral Epistles: A Reponse to R.W. Wall's Response," Bulletin for Biblical Research 6 (1996): 133-138.

Name that Quote?

Who said:

"Bad history will result in bad theology. (Try to imagine a Christianity centered on a sixth-century Norse Jesus slain by invading Finns. It won't work)."

Bauckham on Eyewitnesses

Thanks to the lads at Apollos one can now download the article by Richard Bauckham, "The Eyewitnesses and the Gospel Traditions", Journal for the Study of the Historical Jesus 1 (2002): pp 28-60 on-line at their website. At the moment the Apollos website hosts over 1000 quality articles and studies and if those guys can get some donations they will be able to post even more resources on-line for students, scholars and pastors. I know from experience that such resources are much cherished by those who live in developing countries so please consider a donation.

Quotes from the Ode's of Horace - I

"What slim youngster, his hair dripping with fragrant oil,
Makes hot love to you now, Pyrrha, ensconced in a
Snug cave curtained with roses?
Who lays claim to that casually chic blonde hair in a braid?" (1.5)

"Others can praise in their verse Mitylene, Rhodes and its glories
Great Ephesus, high-walled, twin harboured Corinth,
Bacchus's home town Thebes, or Delphi, haunt of Apollos
Or Tempe up in Thessaly." (1.7)

"Thou son of Saturn, father and protector
Of humankind, to thee Fate has entrusted
Care of great Caesar; govern, then, while Caesar
Holds the lieutenancy." (1.12)

"Chloe, you will not venture near,
Just like a lost young mountain deer
Seeking her frantic dam; for her each
Gust in the trees is a needless fear" (1.23)

"When somebody as dear as he is dead,
Grief must be huge and uninhibted.
Melpomene, to whom, God-given, belong
Lyre and clear voice, teach me a funeral song.
So, now Quintilius sleeps the sleep which men
Never recover from; and who knows when
Honour, Good Faith and naked Truth will find
His parallel again among mankind?" (1.24)

"To each his life-work. Let the Calenian
Prune back his vines. Let merchants with moneybags
Swill out pure gold cups the wines they
Buy on the profits from Tyre and Sidon" (1.31)

"Guard Caesar bound for Britain at the world's end,
Guard our young swarm of warriors on the wing now
To spread the fear of Rome
Into Arabia and the Red Sea coasts" (1.35)

Trans. James Michie.

Fox now has a Christian Movies Wing

According to ABC News (that is the Australian Broadcast Corporation) Fox is set to make a number of Christian movies including an adaption of Milton's Paradise Lost and one on the Nativity Story.

Spokesman Steve Feldstein assures the company's just tapping into a massive US market:

"All of this programming is entertainment first. We're not in the business of proselytising or preaching." [Heaven forbid!]

John's Gospel for Jewish believers in Jesus

As I began studying John's Gospel recently, in preparation for teaching undergrads, I was surprised to discover that John's Gospel is perhaps the most Jewish of the four Gospels even exceeding my beloved Matthew.

While no doubt a debatably viewpoint, I am growing in my conviction that the Fourth Gospel was written by a Jew, for Jewish believers in Jesus. The purpose of the Gospel then is
to confirm for these Jewish Jeshua believers that they were remaining faithful to the Jewish faith.

For a strong defense of this view, consult the excellent commentary by Craig Keener.

Christian Claims as Blasphemous to Jews

I'm currently working on an article on Jesus and the Parting of the Ways between Judaism and Christianity. One thing that I find intriguing is that a number of charges laid against Jesus at his trial/interogation are used against Christians in other literature. Consider the one of blasphemy in Mark 14.64 which is brought against Christians in Acts 6.11 and Justin, Dial. Tryph. 38. In fact the latter reads:

And Trypho said, "Sir, it were good for us if we obeyed our teachers, who laid down a law that we should have no intercourse with any of you, and that we should not have even any communication with you on these questions. For you utter many blasphemies, in that you seek to persuade us that this crucified man was with Moses and Aaron, and spoke to them in the pillar of the cloud; then that he became man, was crucified, and ascended up to heaven, and comes again to earth, and ought to be worshipped."

Aristotle on Righteousness

To righteousness it belongs to be ready to distribute according to desert, and to preserve ancestral customs and institutions and the established laws and to tell the truth when interest is at stake, and to keep agreements. First among the claims of righteousness are our duties to the gods. Then our duties to the spirits, then those to country and parents, then those to the departed; and among these claims is piety … righteousness is also accompanied by holiness and truth and loyalty and hatred of wickedness (Aristotle, On Virtues and Vices, 5.2-3).

In view of this is it fair to think of Aristotle's view of "righteousness" as essentially about distributive justice, or does it also contain a sense of right relationships, i.e. fulfilling one's civil and ceremonial duties to others, divine and human?

Quotes about the Gospel

My co-blogger (Joel Willitts) and myself have come up with a rather novel and subversive idea, namely, that the centre of Evangelicalism is not inerrancy, complementarianism, or the confession (i.e. the 1689 LBC, the only truly reformed confession :). Instead, the centre of Evangelicalism is the evangel! Whoa! Now before you say, "Avert your eyes children, he may change form!" Or, "Let's burn this heretec like a grilled cheese burger" hear me out. I'm not denying the veracity and utility of those other things, but they are not the sine qua non of Evangelicalism. For us what defines, characterizes, shapes, inspires, drives, nourishes, and permreates Evangelicalism and and Evangelical Theology should be the evangel!!!

What the word ‘evangelical’ will objectively designate is that theology which speaks of the God of the Gospel.
- Karl Barth, Evangelical Theology: An Introduction (trans. Grover Foley; Great Britain: Collins, 1963), 11.

A renewed theology will be evangelical, that is, centered on the gospel of reconciliation and redemption as attested in Holy Scripture.
- Donald G. Bloesch, A Theology of Word and Spirit: Authority and Method in Theology (Downers Grove: IVP, 1992), 124.

Evangelical Theology should be a Theology of the Gospel.
- Kevin J. Vanhoozer, ‘The Voice and the Actor: A Dramatic Proposal about the Ministry and Minstrelsy of Theology,’ in Evangelical Futures: A Conversation on Theological Method, ed. John G. Stackhouse (Regent: Regent College Publishing, 2000), 61.

To be ‘evangelical’ is to read Scripture in the light of the euangelion that lies at its heart.
- Francis Watson, ‘An Evangelical Response,’ in The Trustworthiness of God: Perspectives on the Nature of Scripture, eds. Carl Trueman and Paul Helm (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2002), 287.

Revelation does not merely bring the gospel: the gospel is revelation.
- Klyne Snodgrass, ‘The Gospel in Romans: A Theology of Revelation,’ in Gospel in Paul, eds. L. Ann Jervis and Peter Richardson (JSNTSup 108; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1994), 108.

The gospel stands at the beginning of the story that explains why there are Christians at all, on the boundary between belief and unbelief – often, for the hearer, prior to a knowledge of the Bible itself. For the person entering from the outside, the gospel is the introduction to the faith, the starting-point for understanding. It then rightly becomes the touchstone of the faith. Since this is where faith begins, it is essential that faith continues to conform to it.
- Peter Jenson, The Revelation of God (Downers Grove, IL: IVP, 2002), 32.

Communio Sanctorum

Following up on my post about Steven Harmon and Baptist Catholicity, I came across an interesting site called Communio Sanctorum — A Reformational Contribution to Catholicity which also discusses the issue of Catholicity from a Reformed perspective. There is some interesting discussion going on there and Wyman Richardson has some interesting things to say about NT Wright and Written Prayers.

Essays for NT students

It's that time of year again where I must ponder what assessment ventures to set before my undergrads. Something that will challenge their thinking and stimulate their minds about the New Testament as both History and Scripture. Well, this is what I'v chosen this year:

NT Introduction

What are the warning passages in Hebrews warning against?

What is the centre of New Testament Theology?

Romans

“Romans 14.1-15.13 is a manifesto for unity in the ethnically diverse house churches in Rome.” Discuss.

Who is the “I” and “wretched man” of Romans 7:7-25?

Write an exegesis paper on Romans 11.25-32.

Write an exegesis paper on Romans 16.1-7.

Exploring other Faiths

Judaism: ‘Who are God’s People in the Middle East?’

1 Corinthians

Is the resurrection body of believers the same as the resurrection body of Christ according to the Corinthian correspondence?

Issues in the Study of Early Christianity

This evening I've been browsing over Gerd Luedemann, Primitive Christianity: A Survey of Recent Studies and Some New Proposals (London: Continuum, 2003) and it has got me thinking about the field of study itself.

First, what should the discipline be called:

1. New Testament History
2. Christian Origins
3. Primitive Christianity
4. Urchristentum
5. Beginnings/Anfängen of Christianity

Are these terms synonymous or are we talking about different fields? Is NT History limited to the NT canon while Christian Origins is broader?

Second, what is the content of this discipline, is it Theologiegeschichte (theological history), Religionsgeschchte (religious history), Literarischegeschichte(literary history), or Sozialgeschicte (social history). Does it have to be only one and how do these sciences interact?

Third, what is the terminus for a study of early Christianity: 70 AD, 100 AD, the death of Ignatius, the time of Justin Martyr, Constantine - is there a clear end point which marks the transition from "early Christianity" to "early church history"?