Book Review: The Nature of Biblical Criticism

John Barton
The Nature of Biblical Criticism
Louisville/London: Westminster John Knox, 2007., pp. 206, paper back.
Available through Alban Books in the UK and Amazon.com in the USA

In this volume John Barton seeks to defend the purpose and practice of biblical criticism at a time when post-critical approaches like theological exegesis and postmodern interpretations abound. Barton aims to show that biblical criticism is neither rationalistic, nor positivistic, nor anti-faith. John Barton stands in the tradition of the late James Barr (to whom the book is dedicated) and Barton wants to show that Biblical criticism ushers forth out of a desire to read the biblical texts faithfully. He sets forth ten theses about biblical criticism that the book explicates which I summarize below (pp. 5-7 of chapter 1):

1. Biblical criticism is a literary operation that focuses on the semantics of texts.
2. Biblical criticism is concerned with questions related to the Einleitung or Introduction and involves the task of historical reconstruction with the aim of understanding a text’s historical origins.
3. Biblical criticism is said to be a product of the Enlightenment whereas in fact biblical criticism it is motivated by the Renaissance and Reformation catch cry of ad fontes that includes the freedom to read Scripture apart from ecclesiastical tradition and this has roots in Christian scholarship from Calvin to Origen.
4. Biblical criticism is not reductive or skeptical in essence even if some practitioners have been.
5. Biblical criticism is not a scientific study of the Bible as much as it shares with other areas of the humanities a concern for evidence and reason.
6. Biblical criticism requires that the reader does not foreclose the question of the truth of a text before reading it, but only seeks to uncover its semantic possibilities before the question of truth or falsehood are engaged.
7. Biblical criticism is not the only worthwhile way of reading biblical texts and readings with a devotional or liturgical slant are not ruled out.
8. Biblical criticism is ‘liberal’ insofar as it recognizes the validity of secular reasoning, but it is not committed to ‘theological liberalism’. A ‘critical faith’ (cf Gerd Theissen, Argument für einen kritischen Glaube [1978]) is not necessarily a liberal faith.
9. Biblical criticism tried to be objective insofar as it attends to what the text actually says and without importing foreign readings into the study of the text. While no biblical critic can be thoroughly objective it does not mean that the whole enterprise is compromised.
10. Biblical criticism is concerned with the ‘plain’ sense of texts which is not the same as the ‘original’ sense of texts. Rather, biblical critics are equally concerned with what the text meant as well as what it means (following Krister Stendahl).

In chapter one, Barton defines biblical criticism using the OED definition and explains the objective of the book as to nuance what biblical criticism really is (at a time of misconception and caricature by its critics) and to argue for the validity of pursuing the plain meaning of biblical texts. In chapter two, Barton discusses the approach that sees the purpose of biblical criticism as to deal rationally with difficulties that arise in a text. He finds that insufficient because the observation of difficulties is not itself evidence of a critical approach. It depends entirely on how those difficulties are dealt with. On top of that the observation of textual difficulties is not the sufficient or necessary condition of a critical approach to the Bible. Instead, biblical criticism is ‘an inquiry into the biblical text that takes its starting point from the attempt to understand, a desire to read the text in its coherence and to grasp its drift’ (p. 30). In chapter three, Barton discusses the approach that maintains that biblical criticism is concerned principally with the quest for historical truth. He rejects the supposition that biblical criticism is purely a historical enterprise or a methodology, instead it is concerned with ‘a series of explanatory hypotheses’ geared towards texts and textual meaning (p. 67-68). In chapter four, Barton defends the quest for the plain sense of meaning by linking it to semantics and the study of linguistic operations. He distinguishes this from the original sense, the intended sense, the historical sense, and the literal sense. The plain sense is only indirectly interested in these other senses. In chapter five, Barton pursues the historical origins of biblical criticism beyond the Enlightenment and he detects antecedents in the Renaissance, Reformation, classical sources, and in patristic literature. He thinks it profitable to see biblical criticism as less about historical-critical approaches and more about the meaning of words and the genre of texts and in that light biblical criticism has an ancient and honourable pedigree. In chapter six, Barton argues that biblical criticism does not dismiss the task of application but honours the givenness of the text as a precondition to its contemporary appropriation. While many may think that the Bible has become the mainstay of secular and skeptical approaches, Barton identifies with a strand of scholarship that maintains that the Bible is still in the grip of ecclesial authorities.

Barton’s task is a noble one and that is to secure the validity of critical study of the biblical texts at a time when it is regarded as passé or antiquated. If one wanted to defend this critical discipline from reproach then this is the book for doing so. Barton shows that biblical criticism is more robust and potentially more useful than what many of its critics realize. I still get the feeling though that Barton is trying to dress up a Dinosaur in a modern garb. Alas, the bridge to Modernity along with its strategies and aims for reading texts has been burned – and with some good reasons too – and the post-critical methods might be the way to overcome the defects and failures of biblical criticism. The days of Baur, Wellhausen, de Wette, Dibelius, Bultmann, and Barr are finished and are no more. It is now the age of Foucault, Derrida, Rorty, Fish, and Eco. In biblical interpretation, the old has gone and behold, the new has come. That said, readers of biblical texts need not wholly embrace the postmodern/post-critical turn nor attempt to reconstruct the shaken foundations of old school biblical criticism. What is needed is a realistic epistemology of how we know things from texts, a literary theory explaining how texts do things to readers, a hermeneutical explanation for how authors communicate through the signs/symbols of language, and a definition of history and historiography. The approaches that I have found the most fruitful in that regard are those of Anthony Thiselton, N.T. Wright, Kevin Vanhoozer, and especially Scot McKnight. I should also acknowledge the works of Markus Bockmuehl and Francis Watson who have shown the advantages of maintaining an ecclesial reading of Scripture in tandem with historical-critical investigation. For those of us who have no interest in or see no purpose for undertaking a Eco-Eskimo-Evangelical reading of Codex Vaticanus, biblical criticism will always have an important place, and Barton’s nuancing and defence of the discipline is welcomed. However, it will take much more than that for biblical criticism to survive the postmodernist onslaught and further modification is required if the discipline is to take serious the postmodernist objections. What is more, while Barton certainly takes the Bible seriously as an ancient text, I remain unsure whether he does justice to it as Scripture or as the principle artifact of the church’s testimony about God. In order to do so, scholars like Barton need to raise the Barr to a whole new level!

Really Together in the Gospel

Registration is open for Together for the Gospel 2008 (T4G). Last year I had some impassioned things to say about T4G in a previous post (let's just say I discovered my anger). My gripe was that women who had registered for the conference were asked to give up their places so that more pastors could attend. My issue was, why were women the only one's asked to give up their places? Anyone who was not a pastor should have been asked to give up their spot. I think it led to the situation where some pew-sitting-couching potato guy could attend the conference, but a woman actually involved in ministry (university ministry, youth, women-t0-women, missions, etc) could not attend. I don't think this was done maliciously but it was an administrative decision that did not bode well for regarding women as partners in the gospels. While I stand by the validity of my original protest, I am very glad to say that my concerns have now been assuaged. The registration for T4G reads: "If you are a pastor, church leader, or an individual heading towards the ministry, please join us - and, brothers, bring your Timothy's! Women in ministry and wives are also welcome, yet keep in mind that each will focus on pastoral ministry". While being clear that the conference is orientated towards pastors, there is also a willingness to allow women to attend and to benefit from the teaching and fellowship of T4G. This is a good thing. That is what "Together" in the gospel should really be about. It allows the conference to remain committed to training pastors, to retain its complementarian ethos, but does not exclude any particular group. T4G gets the Bird-man stam of approval!

Over at the T4G Blog there is an interesting series of posts about exactly how "together" the conveners of T4G are (Al Mohler, C.J. Maheney, Al Mohler, Lig Duncan, Mark Dever). They obviously have different points of view about baptism. What is more, Mohler and Dever (as Southern Baptists) would not give communion to Lig Duncan if he came to their church since he's a Presbyterian. On baptism, I'm siding with Piper and first-edition-Grudem, because, even as a Baptist, I think that non-Baptist's can be members (what I would call "associate members") of a local Baptist church if they have a real and authentic faith. On communion, Lig Duncan is welcomed to have communion in my church any time, in fact, if he did come I would probably insist that he leads the communion service (but if we went out for lunch afterwards we'd probably have a very free and frank exchange of ideas about N.T. Wright and Reformed Orthodoxy). This is not because I am "soft" on Baptist distinctives, rather, it is because I am "tough" on the theological implications of the gospel. If we really believe that the gospel is theological and not just a ticket to heaven, then the gospel has got to affect our ecclesiology (or doctrine of the church). The "church" consists fundamentally of the gospelized, viz., of those who believe, confess, and profess the good news of Jesus Christ. We baptize those who are gospelized. But being gospelized (converted and commissioned) takes precedent over baptism which is a symbol of the gospel itself. Similarly, for the Lord's Supper, that meal is an effective sign of gospel fellowship, and all those who confess Jesus as Lord and Saviour are welcomed to attend. This meal foreshadows who will be at the wedding supper of the Lamb. Jesus has already sent out his invitations and how can I withold communion from someone that the Lord has invited to the eschatological banquet? What gives the sacraments/ordinances (delete as preferred) their power is the gospel. These symbols of the gospel were meant to facilitate fellowship rather than to hinder it. This isn't going for the lowest common theological denominator (gosh darn it, "household" means slaves and retainers not children), but we must not allow the emblems of the gospels to interfere with the ends for which the gospel was given.

My Name is Legion!

Mk. 5.1-20 (= Mt. 8.28-34; Lk. 8.26-39) tells the story of Jesus' encounter with a wild demoniac on the eastern shore of the Sea of Galilee (see the textual problems on the location of the event in Mk. 5.1: Gerasa, Gedara, or Gergasa?). In the story the demons are named "Legion" which is coincidentally the label for a standard Roman fighting unit. It is kind of like the demons saying "My name is the 101st Airborne Division" or "The Royal Scots Guards" or "Russian Infantry". Consequently, some interpret the story as a symbolic representation of colonial oppression and indigenous disempowerment. The connection with Roman imperialism is validated further when it is remembered that the Roman 10th Legion Fretensis stationed in Syria from 6 BCE had the image of a boar on its standards (thus fitting for a story involving pigs). As to the value of this approach for historical Jesus studies, I like the comment of John Meier (Marginal Jew, vol. 1, p. 652) asserts: ‘Even if one wants to see in the name “Legion” a reference to the Roman occupation that tormented the indigenous population – a dubious mixture of political and psychological theories in any event – such interpretations are best kept to the level of Mark’s redaction.’

New Blogs 18

Torrey Seland has started a new blog called Research Notes on 1 Peter which will be a great way of keeping abreast of research into 1 Peter.

Incidentally, the NT group of the Tyndale Fellowship has as its 2008 theme Perspectives on Peter: Peter and the Petrine Writings in History, Tradition, and Theology. Speakers will include Richard Bauckham and Markus Bockmuehl. The meeting is scheduled for July 7-9 in Cambridge.

NT Christology

The christological battles of the third and fourth centuries of the common era focused on explicating the divine and human nature of Christ as the Second Persons on the Trinity (e.g. Nestorianism, Apollinarianism, etc). The christological disputes of the second century seemed to have focused on whether Jesus was human at all (e.g. Caprocrates) or whether he was only human and adopted into God's favour (e.g. Ebionites). In contrast, the christological issues of the first century as found in the NT appear to have revolved around two important matters:

1. The identification of Jesus Christ with the God of Israel.

2. The identification of the risen and exalted Christ with the person Jesus of Nazareth.

Recent Blogs on Scripture

There have been some interesting posts on Scripture in recent days including that by Michael Pahl on Popular myths of evangelicals: inerrancy guarantees orthodoxy and another one by Michael Jensen on the Power of Scripture.

The Death of Blogs?

Christianity Today has an interesting piece on the Death of Blogs by Ted Olsen. While the gimmick may be passing for many, I think that biblioblogs and theoblogs are in full swing. I feel like quoting Mark Twain: "The reports of my death are greatly exaggerated".

Arland Hultgren: Q and Early Christianity

I have benefitted from several of Arland Hultgren's books (e.g. The Parables of Jesus, Paul's Gospel and Mission, Jesus and his Adversaries - evidently a Synoptics and Paul man!) and I found this quote in his book The Rise of Normative Christianity:

What seems particularly strange in some of the current discussions of Q is that, precisely at the moment when scholars far and wide are calling for the dismantling of long-standing conceptual walls between religious and cultural traditions of antiquity (for example, between Palestinian Judaism and Hellenistic Judaism, or between orthodoxy and heresy), some are portraying the Q community as walled off from the rest of early Christianity, even though such persons will claim that itinerant missionaries went out from (and presumably returend to) the Q community, traveling about Palestine and Syria! Surely the theology and life of the Q community had dimensions that are not reflected in the Q document itself. Since it narrates no fellowship meals, must we assume that the community had none? (p. 38).

Apparently Hultgren is working on a Romans commentary (though I cannot remember this source of this information).

Gotta Love Gospel

As I often say, what makes someone an evangelical is how they articulate, proclaim, and live out the evangel. I love hearing good expositions of what the gospel is, what it means, and how we "live a life worthy of the gospel" as Paul says in Philippians. As such, I'm glad to say that my friend Denny Burke has a great sermon about "The Gospel as the Power for Perseverance" which can be listend to online and it focuses on 1 Corinthians 15. In my opinion, discipleship is the process of gospelizing, whereby we begin to reflect the power and goodness of the gospel in our lives and in our relationships with other Christians and with the world at large.

Oh, that reminds me, did you know that Jesus was black? Think about it. He loved gospel. He called everyone brother. And he couldn't get a fair trial (I say that tongue in cheek).

Walter Bauer Revisited

Over at Apocryphicity, Tony Chartrand-Burke notes Walter Bauer's argument that heresy preceded orthodoxy in Edessa (contra Eusebius). Tony says this about Bauer:

Bauer’s work is helpful for making the point that the labels of “orthodoxy” and “heresy” depend on one’s perspective. The acrobatics that Bauer must perform to make this point are impressive; he must examine several sources for Christianity in the area and determine that many of them have been invented (including the Abgar correspondence, the Doctrina Addai, and 3 Corinthians) or interpolated (sections of the Edessene Chronicle) by later orthodox Christians (the production of Apocrypha is not limited to so-called heretics). If accurate, Bauer shows that orthodox Christians are quite effective at rewriting history to buttress their claim that in all places Christianity began as orthodoxy and was later corrupted by heretics. Though they accede that Bauer is correct about Edessa, conservative writers do not want to accede that Christianity could have developed similarly in other places. Certainly we should be careful not to make arguments from silence, but it is possible that the evidence is simply lost to us. Bauer also illustrates the need to treat orthodox claims about their origins with suspicion; as he states regarding the orthodoxy portrayal of Christian history: “I do not mean to say that this point of view must be false, but neither can I regard it as self-evident, or even as demonstrated and clearly established” (p. xxiv).

I wish more lecturers would introduce students to Bauer and similar such works, it is good to see. Let me say several things about Tony's comments on Bauer and "conservatives":

1. I'm most curious as to what Tony means by "conservative" and who counts as a conservative (Craig Evans, Ben Witherington?) and what makes them "conservative" (e.g. belief that Scripture is inspired?). I suspect that what Tony means by "conservative writers" is someone who believes the official version of church history given by Eusebius and Luke. While someone who is conservative might be inclined to disagree with Bauer (and Koester, Robinson, Ehrman, etc), nonetheless, and mark this well, disagreeing with Bauer does not make one conservative. I sometimes suspect that Bauer is orthodoxy for the unorthodox and if one disagrees with him one can be (deviant) labelled as a "conservative". Alas the door of ideological orthodoxy swings both ways.

2. The reason why "conservative writers" and others accede to Bauer on Edessa is because he might actually be correct! But this recognition is not a concession granted so that they can say that on the one hand that they take Bauer seriously and then on the other hand deny Bauer's conclusions about orthodoxy and heresy in other regions because it threatens their conservative views. The reason why "conservative writers" and other disagree with his depiction of Christianity in Egypt and Asia Minor is not necessarily because they are conservative, but because they honestly believe that Bauer might actually be wrong!

3. Let me cite the words of Larry Hurtado from his book Lord Jesus Christ: Devotion to Jesus in Earliest Christianity (if this book is not in your library and marked with notes in the margin then go to the fish market and ask the fishmonger to slap you in the face with a soggy fish, preferably a barramundi!) about Walter Bauer.

This characterization of the historical process differs from a view preferred by some scholars. In this other, somewhat romanticized picture, the dominance of "orthodoxy" is asserted to have been only a later and coercive imposition of one version of early Christianity that subverted an earlier and more innocent diversity. Indeed, what became orthodoxy is alleged to have been initially a minority or secondary version in most of the major geographical areas of Christianity's early success. Those who take this view today often cite as the scholarly basis Walter Bauer's 1934 book, Orthodoxy and Heresy in Earliest Christianity, which unquestionably has had great influence, especially since its English translation in 1971. Over the years, however, important studies have rather consistently found Bauer's thesis seriously incorrect. In particular, Thomas Robinson's detailed analysis of earliest Christianity in Asia Minor, and studies of Alexandrian Christianity by James McCue and Birger Pearson as well, concur that forms of Christianity that became designated "heretical" seem to have emerged characteristically in settings where prior versions of Christianity represented emergent proto-orthodox faith and practice. Moreover, Bauer's claim that the second-century Roman church was able to impose its own forms of belief and order translocally is not borne out. In fact, about all that remains unrefuted of Bauer's argument is the observation, and a rather banal one at that, that earliest Christianity was characterized by diversity, including serious differences of belief. Those who laud Bauer's book, however, obviously prefer to proceed as if much more of his thesis is unstainable. Unfortunately, for this preference, Bauer's claims have not stood well the test of time and critical examination. There was, after all, no real means of "top-down" coercive success for any version of Christianity over others until after Constantine, when imperial endorsement and power could be brought to bear. Second-century bishops were elected by Christians of the locale in which they were to serve. So, for example, if a bishop did not have (or could not win) sufficient support from the local Christians, he could hardly impose on them some version of faith contrary to the preferences of the majority. Thus, if any version of Christianity enjoyed success and became more prominent than others in the first three centuries (wehther locally or translocally), it was largely the result of its superior ability to commend itself to sufficient numbers of adherents and supporters. To reiterate the point, the apparent success of what I am calling "proto-orthodox" Christianity was probably the result of teaching and behavior that were more readily comprehended and embraced by larger numbers of ordinary Christians of the time than were the alternatives (pp. 552-53 - I think).

In a footnote, Hurtado mentions an ABD article "Christianity in Asia Minor" by Richard Oster which refers to the curious "apologetic zeal" of some scholars with reference to early Christian heterodoxy (1.943).

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

Over the weekend I hope to read Arland Hultrgren's book The Rise of Normative Christianity and comment on it.

Book Review: God and History in the Book of Revelation

Michael Gilbertson
God and History in the Book of Revelation:

New Testament Studies in Dialogue with Pannenberg and Moltmann (SNTS 124; Cambridge: CUP, 2003).

See google books for a quick read.
See Amazon.com for purchase.

Blurb from Cambridge: "This is an interdisciplinary study which constructs a dialogue between biblical interpretation and systematic theology. It examines how far a reading of the Book of Revelation might either support or question the work of leading theologians Wolfhart Pannenberg and Jürgen Moltmann on the theology of history, exploring the way in which the author of Revelation uses the dimensions of space and time to make theological points about the relationship between God and history. The book argues that Revelation sets the present earthly experience of the reader in the context of God’s ultimate purposes, by disclosing hidden dimensions of reality, both spatial - embracing heaven and earth - and temporal - extending into the ultimate future. Dr Gilbertson offers a detailed assessment of the theologies of history developed by Pannenberg and Moltmann, including their views on the nature of the historical process, and the use of apocalyptic ideas in eschatology".

My Review (forthcoming in EuroJTh 17.1)

Summary: This volume represents a cross disciplinary study between biblical interpretation and systematic theology. The author examines to what degree a reading of the Book of Revelation supports or undermines the theologies of Wolfhart Pannenberg and Jürgen Moltmann on the theology of history. He does this by exploring the way in which the Book of Revelation employs the dimensions of time and space in order to establish a conception of God’s relationship to history. The author concludes that Pannenberg and Moltmann’s theologies are both continuous and discontinuous with the Book of Revelation and its approach to God and history.

The objective of Gilbertson’s study is to examine the relation of the divine reality to the world of historical events. In chapter one, Gilbertson opens with discussion of twentieth-century debates about the relationship between history and faith. He surveys the work of Ernst Troeltsch who argued that the historical-critical method could not accommodate divine interaction with the world, Rudolf Bultmann who posited a strict dichotomy between history and God via his neo-Kantian dualism that separated fact from value, Wolfhart Pannenberg who advocated that the divine self-communication occurs through historical events, and finally he surveys Jürgen Moltmann who endeavoured to draw the horizons of God’s ultimate future and the human present together in order for their to be real hope in Christian thought.

In chapter two, Gilbertson examines the relationship between scripture and systematic theology. He draws attention to Krister Stendahl’s two-stage model which begins with the descriptive task of biblical theology followed by the practice of a normative systematic theology in order to prevent theological commitments from damaging the interpretation of the text. Gilbertson questions, however, whether ‘descriptive’ and ‘normative’ are really antithetical and whether the differentiation between what the text ‘meant’ and what it ‘means’ is really straightforward. Instead, Gilbertson prefers Nicholas Lash’s dialectic model of a more dynamic interface between exegesis and theology. On the role of scripture in theology, he accepts Alister McGrath’s defence of the cognitive-propositionalist approach which maintains an external referent in the story of Jesus.

Gilbertson addresses the overall perspective of Revelation in chapter three by focusing on Revelation’s representation of history, the rhetorical situation of the text, and the genre of Revelation. He examines preterist, historicist, and salvation-historical accounts of Revelation’s representation of history and finds fault with all three. Instead, Gilbertson argues that the framework of Revelation is temporal (= not about abstract principles) yet not chronological (= not about speculative future events). He locates the text in an environment that was not necessarily in crisis but the Seer aims to reveal the true nature of the situation to his readers. Accordingly, Gilbertson rejects seeing the symbology of Revelation as functioning as a psychological mechanism designed to induce certain states. He maintains that due regard should be given to the truth claims that the text makes. Thus, however the rhetorical function of the book is construed it must remain rooted in the truth-claims that the book itself makes about reality. On genre, Revelation is an apocalypse, though lacking some features of an apocalypse (e.g. pseudonymity), and the Seer attempts to influence his audience by locating the earthly present in the context of ultimate spatial and temporal horizons.

Chapters four and five deal with the spatial and temporal dimensions of Revelation. Gilbertson argues that Revelation is concerned with ‘the expansion of spatial horizons to include a transcendent spatial reality and the expansion of temporal horizons include transcendent temporal reality’ (p. 82). He finds that the juxtaposition of 2:1–3:22 and 4:1–11 create a dissonance between the crisis situation of John’s audience and the absolute sovereignty of God. This dissonance is resolved, spatially, by the future descent of the New Jerusalem from heaven to earth, and temporally, by the everlasting sovereignty of God being manifest on the earth at the same time. Although, as he points out, this imagery can also intensify the dissonance since the spatial and temporal transitions are yet to take place.

Gilbertson then compares his findings about Revelation with the theologies of Pannenberg and Moltmann in chapter six. He focuses on the dynamics of history, proleptic revelation, eschatological consummation, and the relationship of the present to the eschatological horizon. He notes the differences between Pannenberg and Moltmann not the least of which is that Pannenberg emphasizes the unity and coherence of history with God’s self-revelation, while Moltmann emphasizes discontinuity and contradiction between the present historical reality and the coming of God. Beyond this, Gilbertson adds a caveat that the conceptual worlds of John of Patmos and twentieth century theologians such as Pannenberg and Moltmann are very different, but what they have in common is a theology whose orientation is towards the ultimate future and the impact of this ultimate future upon the present. Where Pannenberg and Moltmann appear to depart from Gilbertson’s analysis of Revelation, is that the Seer can identify God’s rule as a hidden reality, whereas for Pannenberg and Moltmann, God’s rule is of the future.

In his conclusion, Gilbertson finds Pannenberg and Moltmann’s theology as being continuous and discontinuous from his analysis of Revelation. In line with the intention of the text, Moltmann and Pannenberg both posit a vision of the ultimate power of God that will ultimately shape the future but such power is for the moment hidden and not publicly manifest. Overall, a theological reading of Revelation is both a welcomed and profitable exercise if done with historical sensitivity and theological acumen. Gilbertson does both fairly well and succeeds in bringing the disciplines of biblical and theological studies together. The only misgiving I have is that while Gilbertson rejects Stendahl’s two-stage model for biblical and systematic theology, in the end his monograph is a perfect example of it as he moves from analysis of the text of Revelation (chapters 3–5) to systematic observations (chapter 6). Apart from that, this volume is a good example of how biblical interpretation and systematic theology can and should be brought together.

What not to do at your Viva!

I read that Michael Pahl is getting ready for the oral defence of his Ph.D thesis on 1 Thessalonians. Michael, here's some advice of what not to say:

HT: Sean Winter

Two Recent Books on Messianism

I thought I'd draw attention to two books that have just come out dealing with the topic of messianic hopes and expectations in Judaism and Christianity.

Markus Bockmuehl and James Carleton Paget, eds., Redemption and Resistance: The Messianic Hopes of Jews and Christians in Antiquity (London: T&T Clark, 2007).

Magnus Zetterholm, ed., The Messiah: In Early Judaism and Christianity (Minneaplis: Fortress, 2007).

New Blogs 17

One day I just happen to be in the SPCK bookshop in Durham when I began talking to a chap in the biblical studies section. I learned that his name was Nijay and he was doing his Ph.D in Durham under John Barclay. I told him my name and where I was from and he said, "Oh, Highland Theological College, I read your blog sometimes". It was most flattering. I thought the only people who read it where my brother and Chris Tilling. Well anyway, I've been meaning to point out for some time that Nijay K. Gupta has his own blog which contains a good many things and he's another one of those Durham bloggers. So Nijay, good to have you around the biblioblogosphere.

Rodney Decker on Con Campbell

Over at NT Resources Blog, Rodney Decker reviews Contantine R. Campbell's book Verbal Aspect, the Indicative Mood, and Narrative: Soundings in the Greek of the New Testament. Studies in Biblical Greek, vol. 13. New York: Peter Lang, 2007. Con Campbell teaches at Moore Theological College and besides his interest in Greek linguistics and discourse analysis, he is also a noted evangelist - rare traits in a biblical scholar these days!

The Rhetorical Setting of Revelation

I am currently reading Michael Gilbertson God and History in the Book of Revelation: New Testament Studies in Dialogue with Pannenberg and Moltmann, and it includes this quote about the rhetorical setting of Revelation in light of recent scholarship:

Yarbro Collins stresses the phenomenon of relative deprivation and perceived crisis; Thompson argues rather for a conflict between two different views of reality; Fiorenza is more ready to assume an element of actual persecution in the background. Ultimately, however, it may be misleading to seek to tie the genesis of the text to one particular social setting. The text itself suggets strongly that the book was addressed to a variety of different settings. The messages to Smyrna, Pergamum and perhaps hiladelphia suggest an atmosphere of oppression, while those to Thyatira, Sardis and Laodicea do not appear to refer to any existing persectuion. The book's message of judgement against Babylon (and hence the need to avoid compromise), the expectation that Christian witness will provoke hostility, and the assurane of ultimately vindication are relevant to a variety of different situations (p. 60).

Ben Witherington on Scripture

Ben Witherington is Professor of New Testament at Asbury Theological Seminary and I interviewed him about his forthcoming book on Scripture.

1. What led you to write your triology of books on the sacraments?

There has been far too much fuzzy thinking, or indeed, no thinking in some cases, about the sacraments in many Evangelical and Protestant contexts, and what passes for thinking is so poorly grounded in what the NT says about baptism, the Lord's Supper, and the Word of God that I thought it was time to offer three short pithy discussions on these inter-related topics.

2. By way of summary, what is your forthcoming book The Living Word of God: Rethinking the Theology of the Bible arguing for?

I am arguing for a lot of different things in my Living Word book out this fall. One of the main points is that we are making a mistake by looking at the Bible as a 'text' in the modern sense of the word. The environment in which the Bible was written is an oral culture, a culture in which only 10% or so of the populus could read and write. Among other things then, the fact that we have a plethora of people leading Christianity who could read and wrote these books speaks volumes about the social level of the authors. They were not bucolic peasants, and they were all deeply steeped in the OT. Furthermore, they all had a strong sense of how sacred texts, inspired texts, functioned in a basically oral culture. A good example of where this study is going comes early when I deal with what Paul says in 1 Thess. 2-- he says that his converts received his preaching of the Gospel as not merely the words of human beings, but as it really was, the inspired word of God. In other words, the primary sense of the phrase word of God applies in the first instance to an inspired oral proclamation, in the second instance to Christ himself, and in the third instance, to a written sacred text, the OT (see 2 Tim. 3.16). In other words, Paul, and other NT writers believed they were speaking and writing God's Word, inspired by God's Spirit telling the truth about God, Christ, salvation and other subjects.

3. What do you make of terms such as "inerrant" and "infallible"?

The terms inerrant and infallible are modern ways of attempting to make clear that the Bible tells the truth about whatever it intends to teach us about. I much prefer the positive terms truthful and trustworthy. When you start defining something negatively (saying what it is not) then you often die the death of a thousand qualifications, not to mention you have to define what constitutes an error. I am happy to say that the Bible has three main subjects-- history, theology, and ethics, and that it tells us the truth about all three.

4. How do Scripture and Tradition relate together?

It is true to say that Scripture is one form of tradition that has become a sacred text. So yes, Scripture contains a plethora of different traditions. But to say this is not enough. What was believed about these sacred texts is that they were God-breathed, and so different in various ways from other traditions which were more mundane or purely human. Without an inadequate undestanding of ancient views of inspiration and how they effects texts, we can't get very far in discussing the relationship of ordinary traditions to inspired or sacred ones.

5. What place should the Bible have in the Church?

The Bible, as the written expression of the Word of God, should have final authority in and over the church in all matters of faith and practice, at least in regard to those subjects on which it makes pronouncements.

6. How important is it to learn how to interpret the Bible properly?

This question is too broad. I will simly respond by saying 'a text without a context is just a pretext for whatever you want it to mean'. That is, unless the Bible is interpreted in its various historical and literary and rhetorical and social contexts, it will inevitably be misused and abused.

7. For many of my students topics such as source criticism, debates about authorship, ancient standards of history, textual criticism, and the process of canonisation, often make them nervous and even defensive at times. As a New Testament lecturer I am constantly challenged as to how introduce them to the humanity of Scripture and the phenomenon of how Scripture came into existence, but without them thinking that they have to forfeit their high view of Scripture. What are your thoughts on that problem?

I think that one has to have a certain amount of insight into one's audience's level of Christian maturity to decide how to talk to them about the humanness as well as divine character of Scripture. It never helps to just blow them out of the water. I do however think that if one is commited to the Bible as the Word of God, then one needs to be honest with them about the 'truth' and the 'Word'. Among other things, bibliolatry is as much of a problem as too low a view of Scripture.

8. To follow that up, based on your forthcoming volume Letters and Homilies for Hellenized Christians: A Socio-rhetorical Commentary on 1-2 Peter what is your opinion on the authorship of 2 Peter, and how does your conclusion to that issue relate to your view of Scripture?

2 Peter is a composite document involving some genuine Petrine material in chapter one, some material from Jude in chapter 2, and a knowledge of a collection of Paul's letters in chapter 3. The book is labeled according to its most famous contributor Peter, but it has been put together probably in the 90s by a member of the Petrine circle, probably in Rome (Linus would be a good guess). Ancient documents which were composite could be anonymous, or could be attributed to their most famous contributor-- in this case because of a testimony of Peter about his experience at the Mt. of Transfiguration. In other words, I do not think that even this document should be labeled pseudonymous, nor do I think there are any such documents in the NT if this one is not.

9. What are the failings of some evangelical approaches to the Bible and what are the failings of some liberal approaches to the Bible?

Too often Evangelicals tend to treat the Bible in a Gnostic manner, as if it dropped straight from heaven, and that the human contribution to the text is nil, or unimportant. This of course is false, and it is also a violation of the very character of these texts which are historical documents through and through, written in specific languages to specific people at specific times with timely (as well as timeless) remarks. Liberals on the other hand, tend to underestimate the divine inspiration of these documents and their profound truth content in regard to matters of history, theology, and ethics.

10. Finally, what makes you believe that Scripture is Inspired and what do you find inspiring about Scripture?

What makes me think the Scriptures are inspired comes not merely from studying them so long, and finding they stand up to every sort of challenge including the intellectual ones, but seeing how many millions of lives they had and continue to change. This did not happen by accident, and certainly not over thousands of years. There is no comparable ancient document that had had, and continues to have that sort of effect. Period. As for what I find inspiring about it, the answer is-- basically everything. Here is a book which provides us with a clear window into the mind and character of God, the nature of the human dilemma, and the nature of salvation. It answers the deeps questions and longings we could have.

BW3

Thanks Ben!

SBL: Tis the Season for Johannine Studies

I am by trade and by taste largely a Synoptics and Paul specialist who often pines for the exotic and sometimes esoteric jungles of Johannine studies. In looking over this years SBL list of seminars, I am convinced that Johannine studies is the place to be (S17-17; S17-65; S19-22; and esp. S19-71 & S19-117). There are some good papers lined up and I really like the "John, Jesus, and History Group / Johannine Literature Section" which have three sessions planned on The Past, Present, and Future of Johannine Studies. See the SBL website for info here. Of course, Friday afternoon with the "Faith of Jesus Christ" seminar is also a must.

I also suggest that S18-150 on "Books on the Gospel of Judas: An Evening with the Authors" should be renamed "An Evening with Every Man and His Dog" because it seems to me that every man and his dog has written a book about the Gospel of Judas. I am ashamed to attend because I may well be the only member of the audience who hasn't written a book on the subject.

There will be a panel discussion on Scot McKnight's book Jesus and His Death at ETS and a panel discussion on Richard Bauckham's book Jesus and the Eyewitnesses at both ETS and SBL. James Crossley is doing a response to Bauckham at the SBL session and James is always animated if not argumentative when he wants to be (S17-79).

Sadly, this will be the last joint AAR-SBL conference and in keeping with my Johannine theme, I am reminded of 1 John 2.19 which you can read here.

Aussie Bloggers Reunited

And who says New Testament scholars and Theologians can't get along?

This photo is taken from my recent trip back to Zion (aka Australia) where I was able to reacquaint myself with the sun, a decent Merlot that did not taste like the juice of a rotten French turnip, and my good friend the Rt. Rev. Dr. Ben Myers. Our families got together for a lovely dinner and some great fellowship. I look forward to doing it again at San Diego where Ben will be giving the inaugural address for the "Self-Appointed Guardians of Orthodoxy" working-group at AAR and a paper on "Why Karl Barth would be a Republican" for the Karl Barth Society. At a recent conference in Edinburgh, Bruce McCormack told me that "Ben runs the best theology blog on the internet" so check out his blog Faith and Theology if you want a good run down on some (Barthianesque) theology and reflections about that boring musician Bob Dylan.

Ben Witherington on the Lord's Supper

Ben Witherington introduces his new book Making a Meal of it: Rethinking the Theology of the Lord's Supper. Here's his description:

In this study I argue that the Lord's Supper was originally part of a large meal, not a separate ritual or ceremony, and as such brought into play all the ancient understandings about hospitality, the welcoming of people to the table, and the like. I am also arguing that the early church did not see the Lord's Supper as merely a symbolic memorial ceremony. They actually saw some sort of spiritual transaction happening in the partaking of the Lord's Supper, and believed that partaking in an unworthy manner was spiritually dangerous, as Paul suggests in 1 Cor. 11. But what sort of spiritual transaction is going on in the Lord's Supper? This is discussed in some detail in the book, and I won't spoil it for you by dealing with that here.

Sounds interesting. I think Protestant churches should turf out their morsel of bread and drop of juice and its accompanying three minute guilt-trip sermonette in favour of a communal love feast instead.