Book Notice: Thiselton, The Living Paul

Anthony C. Thiselton

The Living Paul: An Introduction to the Apostle's Life and Thought

Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2009

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

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

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

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

Melito of Sardis

Read this confession/homily by Melito of Sardis:

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

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

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

HT: Trevin Wax

More on Evolution

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

Inspiration and the Bible

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

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

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

Jim Hamilton on Revelation 20

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

Can the Canonical Jesus be Historical? 4 Theses

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

1. The Historical Jesus is not ...

a. The untheological Jesus. Our only access to Jesus is through the faith and theology of the early church. The Gospels contains a mixture of fact and faith, history and hermeneutic, authenticity and artistry. Jesus himself was theologically grounded and his message was about God (i.e., his message about God addressed the socio-political circumstances of Palestine and the position of Israel vis-a-vis God) . So we can expect to find theological matter (not abstract theology) in the historical Jesus and in the memory that Jesus himself generated.

b. A fifth Gospel. The historical Jesus will always be a reconstructed Jesus by historians and makes no attempt to become the authorizing narrative of the orthodox churches. It is a tool for reading the Gospels, not a replacement for them (note, liberal churches may disagree).

c. A harmony of the Gospels. There simply are historical incongruities in the Gospels (e.g., the cleansing of the temple in John and Mark) and attempts to sanitize the Gospels from certain alleged inconsistencies maligns the Evangelists as incompetent custodians or poor storytellers of the Jesus story.

d. A conflation of the Gospels. To stock pile the narratives one after the other with a mix of harmony and addition is to render the Tetraevangelium superfluous. The distinctive of each Gospel is flattened and its unique contribution jettisoned in want of a single narrative.

2. The Historical Jesus is Faith Seeking Historical Understanding

a. The Gospel's may be the authorized witnesses to Jesus, but they are not the only witnesses to Jesus. The church fathers were more than aware of other legitimate traditions (oral traditions, agrapha, sayings in non-canonical Gospels) that relayed reliable or relevant information about Jesus and they utilized it accordingly.

b. The church fathers had to wrestle with the historical character of the Gospels and were aware of claims of fiction and alleged inconsistencies, and endeavoured to read the Gospels theologically and historically. Origen wrestling with Gergesa or Gadara is a prime example (Mk. 5.1 and par.).

c. The Gospels themselves claim to have a historical character and invite critical scrutiny (e.g., Luke 1.1-4).

d. The "historical Jesus" is the narratives that emerges when the Evangelists invite sociologists, archaeologists, Talmudic scholars, and Graeco-Roman historians to work on seminar project about Jesus.

e. Study of the historical Jesus is a necessary question since sooner or later Christians are bound to ask, who is the kyrios how did he become ho stauromenos?

f. Study of the historical Jesus is a canonical question, as the Gospels ask it themselves, and invite historically informed answers (e.g., Mk. 4.41).

g. The danger of theological readings is not docetism or traditionalism, but that we end up with a study of the Gospels that tells us more about what people believed about Jesus rather than about Jesus himself. The danger is that we will end up back in the old form critical trap where the Gospels are little more than narrative expressions of the church's faith in Jesus, but not actually about Jesus himself.

3. The Canonical Jesus is Faith seeking Narratival Understanding

a. The Gospels are written from the vantage point of faith and to commend the faith. Seen not the least by the cameo appearances of post-Easter christology at certain points (e.g., the use of "Lord" in Lk. 11.39, etc.) and the references to faith and believing (e.g., Lk. 18.8).

b. The Gospels are not simply dialogues with the risen saviour or narrative representations of the church's faith. The Gospels recognize the back then-ness of Jesus and that his time as a human being is different from their time between the ages (Leander Keck is very good on this in his Jesus in Perfect Tense).

c. The task of the Gospels is to narrate the gospel of Jesus as part of Israel's history and religious literature and in light of the church's witness to Jesus and worship of Jesus.

d. Most of all, the Gospels place the story of Jesus within the story of Israel's God.

4. Jesus: Historical and Canonical.

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

a. The historical Jesus is not the presupposition to a New Testament Theology, rather, it is the prolegomena to a theology of the Tetraevangelium.

b. The historical Jesus is the opening precis about who Jesus is by setting forth the mission and ministry of Jesus as part of Roman Palestinian history which was invaded by the story of God.

c. The historical Jesus is the attempt to explain why there was a church with four Gospels in the first place.

d. The "Jesus" part of a New Testament Theology should have the following tasks: (1) To answer the question of "Who is Jesus?" in light of historic testimony; (2) to postulate how the historical Jesus led to the formation of the Four Gospels; (3) To define the literary, rhetorical, social, and theological fabric of the Four Gospels in their own right; and (4) To summarize what the Four Gospels and their reception in the church have to say about Jesus as a whole.

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

I think Wright in his lecture at the recent Wheaton conference hit the nail on the head with respect to the apologetic point of Historical Jesus studies. The quotation occurs at about 50th minute. I could not agree with this more.

We have to reconnect with the real Jesus who the canonical Gospels give us . . .but whom we have so misunderstood . . . Yes there is an apologetic task . . . not to prove Jesus’ divinity by some arm twisting fashion . . . But rather we need to speak truly and wisely about Jesus and show that the Gospels, as they are and not as the tradition has shrunk them into being, really do make sense, historical sense. And that the overwhelmingly best explanation for the Christian faith and its rise is that Jesus was and did what the Gospels say he was and did. Otherwise it seems to be that there is the danger [as in Barthian theological circles] of getting to this closed, charmed circle where we don’t allow any natural theology. There is no way to break in. When God has laid his hand on you then the whole system works but you’ve really got no point of contact with the outside world or from outside in.

I think it is interesting how he defines the "historical Jesus" that he aims to study. When I subtitled my essay on the historical Jesus: "Why I'm not a 'historical Jesus' Scholar?" I was not referring to what Wright describes here. The Jesus to which he refers here is a crucial apologetic project for which I myself am fully committed.

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

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

Jensen on Hodge re: ordo salutis

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

The So-called Historical Jesus

In light of the discussion that has arisen from Scot McKnight's CT article as well as the paper Richard Hays gave at the recent Wheaton Conference engaging N.T. Wright, I want to include here part of the conclusion of an essay I wrote in 2004 entitled "Presupposition and Procedures in the Study of the 'Historical Jesus': Why I Decided Not to Be a 'Historical Jesus' Scholar". The abstract reads:

This article provides a detailed description of the presuppositions and procedures of a representative group of six scholars who are currently contributing to the study of the Historical Jesus. The intention of the study was to draft a 'handbook', a 'recipe', of the best methods and the surest presuppositions for achieving the result of a solid historical conclusion about Jesus. What resulted from the project was not what had been hoped. In fact, what resulted was a deep scepticism about the quest, at least as it is currently being conducted. Though, admittedly, not offering solutions, this article seeks to raise questions about the real potential and usefulness of any quest for the 'so-called' historical Jesus. 

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

Here it is:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

---

[1] This qualifying statement is very important, as will become clear below. I am in no way suggesting that history should be abandoned; or is of the utmost importance to the study of the Gospels and early Christianity.

[2] Darrell L. Bock, Studying the Historical Jesus (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2002).

[3] Bock, Historical Jesus, p. 14.

[4] Bock, Historical Jesus, p.  152.

[5] Darrell L. Bock, Jesus According to the Scriptures: Restoring the Portrait from the Gospels (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2002).

[6] Bock, Jesus, p. 17.

[7] Robert L. Webb, ‘Jesus’ Baptism: Its Historicity and Implications’, BBR 10.2 (2000): 261-309 (303).

[8] Green, ‘Quest’, p. 553.

[9] Green (Green, ‘Quest’, p. 553.) writes, ‘‘History’, in the sense of ‘historical knowledge’, is not and cannot be ‘what actually happened.’ Instead, ‘history’ and the ‘past’ exist in a kind of bartering relationship—the past providing environmental situations, personages, and events; history providing significance through selectivity and narration. Hence history is both less and more than the past.’

[10] Cf. Allison (Jesus, pp. 7-10.): the problem of Faustina.

[11] Grant Osborne, ‘Redaction Criticism’, in New Testament Criticism and Interpretation (ed. David Alan Black; Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1991), 199-224 (207).; cf. also more recently Bock, Historical Jesus, pp. 199-203.

[12] Sanders and Davies, Synoptic Gospels, p. 301; cf. also Bockmuehl, Jesus, p. 20.

[13] Cf. Graham Stanton, A Gospel for a New People: Studies in Matthew (Louisville: Westminster/John Knox Press, 1993), p. 52. What needs to be emphasized here is the fact that the evidence of redaction (or scarcity of evidence) is not nearly as significant in interpreting the Gospels as once thought. Recently it has been rightly recognized that even when an evangelist takes over a tradition without any evidence of redaction, in taking it over he is putting his stamp of approval on that tradition. In other words, the traditions an evangelist uses and the alterations he makes both provide a picture of his theological perspective. This observation provides a welcomed realism to the study of Gospels and provides the balance needed in assessing the theology of the evangelists.

[14] The identification of an evangelist’s sources in a given pericope is, firstly, difficult since all we possess are the literary compositions in their final form. Moreover, the ability to distinguish between the sources an author used and his redaction is equally tenuous. Since we do not know the sources explicitly, it is difficult to determine when the author is adding to or subtracting from his source. Cf. Stanton (Stanton, A Gospel, p. 41.) who writes, with respect to Matthew: ‘the formation of Matthew’s gospel may have been the result of a much longer and a much more complex process than the ‘one-stage’ redaction commonly envisaged. Even though it is very difficult indeed to isolate with confidence changes made to Mark, Q, or ‘M’ traditions by redactors other than Matthew, there are good grounds for urging caution: not every difference between Matthew and the sources which he drew represents a modification introduced by the evangelist Matthew himself’.

[15] Green, ‘Quest’, p. 553.

[16] Cf. Blomberg’s (cf. Bock, Jesus.) endorsement on the dustcover of Jesus According to the Gospels: ‘Neither a contribution to historical-Jesus research nor a conventional textbook on the Gospels . . .’

Reading Odes of Solomon

Here is a photo of me reading Michael Lattke's erudite work The Odes of Solomon in the Hermeneia series at Michael Lattke's apartment. Great book, excellent depth of learning, many helpful excursuses.

N.T. Wright going to St. Andrews Uni

In a surprise move, N.T. Wright will be leaving his position as Bishop of Durham and will be taking up a post as Research Professor of New Testament and Early Christianity at St. Andrews University in Scotland. See the reports at the Diocese of Durham website and St. Andrews Uni website.

Lebanese Night

Another Chris de Burgh song made me think and pray, this time for Lebanon.

Pray especially for Lebanon's reconstruction after the damage done in 2006 by the IDF; for political stability and for the end of interference from outsiders; and esp. for the Arab Baptist Theological Seminary (including the visit of Paul Beasley-Murray).

Calvin on the Lord's Supper

I'm preparing to preach on 1 Cor 10.14-22 tomorrow so I thought I'd re-read over Calvin's Shorter Treatise on the Lord's Supper. On the bread and the wine Calvin states:

"We begin now to enter on the question so much debated, both anciently and at the present time—how we are to understand the words in which the bread is called the body of Christ, and the wine his blood. This may be disposed of without much difficulty, if we carefully observe the principle which I lately laid down, viz., that all the benefit which we should seek in the Supper is annihilated if Jesus Christ be not there given to us as the substance and foundation of all. That being fixed, we will confess, without doubt, that to deny that a true communication of Jesus Christ is presented to us in the Supper, is to render this holy sacrament frivolous and useless—an execrable blasphemy unfit to be listened to."

In sum, no real presence = no real benefit!

Chris de Burgh

I enjoy Chris de Burgh's music since his lyrics actually tell a story rather than just repeat stupid one liners over and over again like "I wanna get freaky with you" or "We've only got four minutes to save the world" or even "The boy does nothing, he does nothing" with a sick washing machine thumping in the background. Although he's apparently Catholic some of his songs have an anti-God ring to them or at least voice a complaint to God (e.g. A Spanish Train which is anti-theodicy). In the song Crusader it depicts the futility of religious violence (though historically very, very bad since Richard never actually took Jerusalem) and is good to listen to/watch:

"Love the Sinner, Hate the Sin"

Recently I was driving on a highway in upper Wisconsin on a weekend away with the wife. Plastered on the side of a barn visible to everyone that drove by was the oft quoted evangelical proverb "Love the Sinner, Hate the Sin". I have been reflecting on this idea for a while now and the more I think about it the more I realize it is by and large the basis of the evangelical community's relationship to the world. It  of course seems to capture the essential ideas of God's love for his fallen world, but as I have rolled this over in my mind I'm growing in my doubt about whether this is really a biblical concept for two reasons. 

First, the concept inappropriately separates deeds from person. The Bible seems to rather point the opposite direction: our deeds are  a reflection of who we are.  I find it all to common that people rationalize  deviant behavior with the thought "this isn't  really me".  My retort is: "No this is you. And until you embrace that fact there can be no growth". In my view, the mirror reflection of one's identity is one's deeds. 

Second, the perspective seems to undermine the radical message of Paul's Gospel of God's love for sinners. This is particularly pointed when I consider Romans 5:8-10:

But God demonstrates his own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us. Since we have now been justified by his blood, how much more shall we be saved from God’s wrath through him! For if, when we were God’s enemies, we were reconciled to him through the death of his Son, how much more, having been reconciled, shall we be saved through his life!

These verses suggest to me that God doesn't divide between person and deeds. God loves sinners full stop.

Do you think this oft quoted evangelical proverb is biblical?

Love is An Orientation

Andrew Marin's book, Love is an Orientation sets out to offer an alterative, a third way, in evangelical outreach to the Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual and Transgender community [GLBT]. After over a decade of being immersed in the community in Chicago’s Boystown neighborhood, Marin seeks in his book to challenge and then assist evangelicals to raise the conversation with the gay community. Marin, a self-professed conservative, evangelical heterosexual, whose nickname among the gays is “Straighty Straigtherson” has provided a blueprint for evangelism and witness not only among the GLBT community, but also more broadly, in the 21st century North American culture.

The book sets out to consider a number of pertinent topics such as: (1) the psychology of sexual identity, (2) the social challenge of being gay in a straight culture, (3) the history of evangelical-GLBT dialogue and the current state of affairs, (4) the question of how homosexuality has shaped different people’s interpretation of Scripture, and (5) distinctive commitments to help evangelicals and the GLBT community work together toward more constructive dialogue about the love of God.

Combining two lines from different parts of the book allows me to express what I think is one of the book’s major contributions. First, Marin suggests a “new definition” of love, although one might quibble with the adjective “new” in view of John 13, as this: “tangible and measurable expressions of one’s unconditional behaviors toward another” (108). He expounds on this a bit more by saying “This type of love says that no matter who you are, no matter what you do or no matter what you say I have your back, and I refuse to give up—whether or not there’s ‘change’—because my Father will never give up on me” (109). The outcome of this kind of love for Marin in practice is seen in the second quote. Marin says the way forward for Evangelical Christians is: “From my experience that other way is to present themselves as an unforced open-ended option through sustainable relationships, and then accept whatever happens with their new understanding of what it means to love” (154).

There are several other topics in the book that Marin deals with that are worthy of consideration and thought. Perhaps Brian McClaren’s foreword sums it up best: “When you turn the last page some of you will be disappointed that Andrew didn’t go far further. And others of you will be concerned that Andrew went too far” (14). From my point of view, Marin succeeded in sticking his finger in both the eyes of the Evangelical Christian and the GLBT communities. And by doing so has made an important contribution to the very difficult and yet ever so crucial issue for the Evangelical church.

Four Gospels as One Book

I liked this quote from David Parker's An Introduction to the New Testament Manuscripts and Their Texts:

"The Four Gospels, the Tetraevangelium, is the book of Christianity - not four books, but one codex. Such manuscripts comprise more than a half of all continuous-text Greek copies of New Testament writings. In every ancient language of Christianity, copies of the Gospels predominate among what survives. And in case this preoccupation is seen as an ancient phenomenon, be it noted that the Gospels in these ancient languages are traditionally far better served with editions and results of research than is any other part of the New Testament. Moreover, more editions of the Gospel manuscripts have been published, in facsimile or in some other form" (p. 311).

One thing I like about the Book of Common Prayer is that every day has a Gospel reading. Though Protestants, esp. those of the evangelical and reformed variety, have a special affection for Paul, that should never interfere with the special and devout attention that Christians have for the story and teaching of Jesus.

Wheaton Wright Conference and T4G Conference

It was inevitably that someone was going to make a juxtaposition of the recent conferences at Wheaton engaging with N.T. Wright and Together for the Gospel in Louisville on the unadjusted Gospel. Over at CT, Brian McCracken has an article on the Wrightians and the Neo-Reformed. Sadly, I'm not so optimistic about a possible rapprochement or unity between the two. The differences are just too radical and run deep. In fact, both have some defficiencies at the ecclesial level. For instance, I cannot buy into Wright's "nothing ever justifies schism" as long as I live believe in the marks of the Church like apostolicity and holiness, but neither can I digest the ecclessiological solipsism of T4G as long as John 17 remains in the canon. So don't expect a joint conference any time soon.

Thinks to Click

Scot McKnight has a great image to ponder about being pro-life. Doug Moo tweets the meaning of justification by faith (do read!). Ardel Caneday has a new blog on Greek exegesis. Tom Schreiner is replacing John Piper as a plenary speaker at ETS at Atlanta. Mike Koke has a good round up of stuff on the Secret Gospel of Mark. Michael Jensen has 10 observations about the New Testament. And Bishop Mouneer Anis calls for a new Anglican Communion Structure.

Peter/Mark of Papias versus Peter/Glaucias of Basilides

The testimony of Papias that the Gospel of Mark was written by Mark out of Peter’s anecdotes is recorded by Eusebius (HE 3.39.15):

And the elder used to say this: ‘Mark, having become Peter’s interpreter, wrote down accurately everything he remembered, though not in order, of the things either said or done by Christ. For he neither heard the Lord nor followed him, but afterwards, as I said, followed Peter, who adapted his teachings as needed but had no intention of giving an ordered account of the Lord’s sayings. Consequently Mark did nothing wrong in writing down some things as he remembered them, for he made it his one concern not to omit anything that he heard or take any false statement in them’ (trans. M. Holmes).

Some argue (e.g., Joel Marcus, Mark 1-8, 23) that the appeal to Mark as the interpreter of Peter is a deliberate rejoinder to the claim by some Gnostic figures that Basilides was taught by Glaucias the interpreter of Peter (Clement, Strom. 7.106). However, I would point out: (a) Imitation is a great means of admiration, but hardly an effective form of refutation. (b) The Peter-Glaucias tradition itself may have been influenced by the Peter-Mark tradition rather than vice-versa. As Birger A. Pearson (‘Basilides the Gnostic’, in A Companion to Second-Centry Christian ‘Heretics’, eds. A. Marjanen and P. Luomanen Leiden: Brill, 2005, 4) writes: ‘The Peter-Glaukias tradition (whoever Glaukias was) can possibly be seen as a Basilidian counter to the Peter-Mark tradition current in Alexandrian ecclesiastical circles’. (c) The aetiological stories of the genetic relationship between ‘heretics’ recorded by the Heresiologists are chiefly polemical rather than historical (though this should be assessed case by case). (d) Irenaeus connects Basilides with a different Gnostic genealogy that is traced through Simon Magus and Menander (Adv. Haer. 1.24.3-7), while the Basilidians themselves laid claim to the teachings of the apostle Matthias (Clement, Strom. 7.108; Hippolytus, Haer. 7.20.1). So I doubt that the Peter-Mark tradition was derived (or contrived) as a response to the Peter-Glaucias tradition found in Basilidian circles.