Today in my NT 101 class I covered the Synoptic problem. I spent 20 minutes explaining the various options accounting for a literary relationship between the Synoptics Gospels. Afterwards, I got the students to work in pairs and spend 15 minutes reading over Mk. 4.30-32/Mt. 13.31-32/Lk. 13.18-19 (the parable of the mustard seed) and asked them to decide which ‘solution’ to the Synoptic problem that they thought best explained the textual data before.
The results were:
Farrar-Goulder 4 votes
Griesbach 1 vote
4 Source Hypothesis 2 votes
(Note for Mark Goodacre and company, over half of my NT 101 undergraduate class thinks you’re right!)
On Gospel genre, Scot McKnight’s charming little illustration about the Alexandrian librarian prompted some good discussion too on what kind of literature the Gospels are!
Wednesday, October 12, 2005
Tuesday, October 11, 2005
Wikipedia and Theopedia
The on-line "pedias" are a fairly helpful tools that I have discovered of late. They are written, obviously, by people who actually know something about their field.
The Theopedia: An Encyclopedia of Biblical Christianity has an interesting article on the New Perspective on Paul. Although clearly biased against the NPP, it contains a concise summary of the debate with some good links to other websites.
The Wikipedia: The Free Encyclopedia (sounds notoriously NZish) is another good resource, especially for students looking for a general overview of a topic. From the Wikipedia I did a few random searches and here are the results:
Karl Barth
Synoptic Problem
Helmut Koester
Paul of Tarsus
Imperial Cult
When I initially tried to search “Parting of the Ways” I was taken to an article on an episode from the British Sci-Fi series Dr. Who! When I looked up Jewish Christianity I found a link to Christianity and anti-Semitism which was were I want to go. Actually, the article on anti-semitism was quite a good read.
These are tools I shall recommend to students, although one should teach students to be discerning about anything that they read on the net! I'm sure many of you can sense the irony to that!
The Theopedia: An Encyclopedia of Biblical Christianity has an interesting article on the New Perspective on Paul. Although clearly biased against the NPP, it contains a concise summary of the debate with some good links to other websites.
The Wikipedia: The Free Encyclopedia (sounds notoriously NZish) is another good resource, especially for students looking for a general overview of a topic. From the Wikipedia I did a few random searches and here are the results:
Karl Barth
Synoptic Problem
Helmut Koester
Paul of Tarsus
Imperial Cult
When I initially tried to search “Parting of the Ways” I was taken to an article on an episode from the British Sci-Fi series Dr. Who! When I looked up Jewish Christianity I found a link to Christianity and anti-Semitism which was were I want to go. Actually, the article on anti-semitism was quite a good read.
These are tools I shall recommend to students, although one should teach students to be discerning about anything that they read on the net! I'm sure many of you can sense the irony to that!
Biblical Theology and Old Testament Scholars
Given the large number of OT scholars who are engaged in Biblical Theology (e.g. James Barr, William Dumbrell, etc.), I'm beginning to think that Biblical Theology was created so as to give OT scholars an excuse to stray into New Testament studies!
Monday, October 10, 2005
The Faithfulness of Jesus Christ
Thanks to a young TEDS graduate named Josh Jipp, over the past few years I've found myself intrigued by discussion of the faithfulness of Christ or PISTIS CHRISTOU in several places in Paul's letters (Rom. 3.22, 26; Gal. 2.16; 3.22; Eph. 3.12 and Phil. 3.9). Richard Hays book on the topic is excellent, though perhaps overstated, and he invigorated a debate that had become stale. John McRay in his recent volume Paul: His Life and Teaching has an interesting chapter on the genitive construction and opts in favour of a subjective genitive, i.e. Christ's faithfulness. He schemetizes his argument for the subjective genitive as follows (pp. 258-59):
1. The construction pistis followed by a genitive of person or of a personal pronoun occurs in Paul's writings 24 times. All of them refer to the faith of the individual, never faith in the individual.
a. 20 times of individual Christians.
b. Once of God himself, Rom. 3.3
c. Twice of Abraham, Rom. 4.12, 16.
d. Once to anyone who has faith reckoned as righteousness, Rom. 4.5
2. A change of idiom occurs in Gal. 2.16.
There is the change from pistis christou with episteusamen Christon Iesoun.
3. The Syria Peshitta understands it as a subjective.
a. Gal. 2.16: "Therefore we know that a man is not justified from works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus the Messiah, and we believe in him, in Jesus the Messiah, that from his faith, that of the Messiah, we might be justified, and not from the works of the law."
b. Eph. 3.12:"In him we have the boldness and teh access in teh confidense of his faith".
4. Luther was the first exegete to translate the construction as "faith in". [Note, this is patternly false!]
In sum, I think it highly probable that Eph. 3.12 is a subjective genitive since the definite article + the genitive normally indicates a subjective genitive. The thought also comports closely with Hebrews 3.6 which espouses a similar idea. I think it most probable that Phil. 3.9 is a subjective gentivie due to the parrallelism of the verses and the preceding context of Phil. 2.5-11 which emphasizes the obedience of Christ. I translate Phil. 3.7-9 as follows:
I don't think the references in Galatians and Romans are subjective genitives since Paul is simply being emphatic (not redundant) in Rom. 3.22 about justification being by faith. Perhaps the most compelling piece of evidence against a widespread reading of the subjective genitive is that the Greek-speaking early church Fathers like Chrysostom did not interpret them as subjective genitives!
The best summary of the debate I have read comes from Tonstad, Sigve. 2002. ‘pistis christou: Reading Paul in a New Paradigm.’ AUSS 40: 37-59.
A good refutation of the subjective genitive interpretation can be found in the Pauline Theologies of either James Dunn or Thomas Schreiner.
1. The construction pistis followed by a genitive of person or of a personal pronoun occurs in Paul's writings 24 times. All of them refer to the faith of the individual, never faith in the individual.
a. 20 times of individual Christians.
b. Once of God himself, Rom. 3.3
c. Twice of Abraham, Rom. 4.12, 16.
d. Once to anyone who has faith reckoned as righteousness, Rom. 4.5
2. A change of idiom occurs in Gal. 2.16.
There is the change from pistis christou with episteusamen Christon Iesoun.
3. The Syria Peshitta understands it as a subjective.
a. Gal. 2.16: "Therefore we know that a man is not justified from works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus the Messiah, and we believe in him, in Jesus the Messiah, that from his faith, that of the Messiah, we might be justified, and not from the works of the law."
b. Eph. 3.12:"In him we have the boldness and teh access in teh confidense of his faith".
4. Luther was the first exegete to translate the construction as "faith in". [Note, this is patternly false!]
In sum, I think it highly probable that Eph. 3.12 is a subjective genitive since the definite article + the genitive normally indicates a subjective genitive. The thought also comports closely with Hebrews 3.6 which espouses a similar idea. I think it most probable that Phil. 3.9 is a subjective gentivie due to the parrallelism of the verses and the preceding context of Phil. 2.5-11 which emphasizes the obedience of Christ. I translate Phil. 3.7-9 as follows:
For his sake I have suffered the loss of all things, and I regard them as human filth, in order that I may gain Messiah and be found in him, not having a righteousness of my own that comes from the Law, but one that comes through the faithfulness of the Messiah, the righteousness from God based upon faith.
I don't think the references in Galatians and Romans are subjective genitives since Paul is simply being emphatic (not redundant) in Rom. 3.22 about justification being by faith. Perhaps the most compelling piece of evidence against a widespread reading of the subjective genitive is that the Greek-speaking early church Fathers like Chrysostom did not interpret them as subjective genitives!
The best summary of the debate I have read comes from Tonstad, Sigve. 2002. ‘pistis christou: Reading Paul in a New Paradigm.’ AUSS 40: 37-59.
A good refutation of the subjective genitive interpretation can be found in the Pauline Theologies of either James Dunn or Thomas Schreiner.
Wednesday, October 05, 2005
The Foolishness of the Cross - Part 1
My name is Jose Samblanco and I live in a rural village of Peru and, most imporantly, I am the apostle to the Internet. I’m here, on-line, proclaiming to you the good news about Carlos Hernandez. Carlos Hernandez was a Peruvian peasant. He was a prophet mighty in word and deed as attested by many miraculous signs. But his own people did not recieve him. Carlos was accused of being an Al-Qaeda terrorist, he was handed over to the authorities, and was executed on the electric chair. But God did not let Carlos languish in death and decay, but Carlos has been raised by God and is now the exalted Lord of the Cosmos. I am here to tell you that Carlos was electrocuted for your sins. Furthermore, it is exclusively by faith in King Carlos that you receive the hope of redemption.
I’ve even written a hymn about Carlos:
I’ve also written other hymns like, “In the chair of Carlos I Glory” and “When I cling to that old rugged electric chair”. Now this new religion has spread rapidly here in Peru and some people even wear gold electric chairs on their necklaces, we put chairs on top of places of worship. In fact in Peru, the Red Cross has changed their named to the Red Chair. Athletes, prior to a big race, don’t make the sign of the cross, instead they make the sign of the electric chair as a gesture of good luck. They pretend to sit down and then shake themselves uncontrollable for about 5-10 seconds. Knowing this I would like to call you to have faith and allegiance in Carlos Hernandez as your Lord and Saviour.
Back to Reality
This gospel of Carlos Hernandez is obviously quite absured. However, I must wonder if the message of the cross, i.e. the message of a crucified saviour, sounded altogether different to audiences in the Greco-Roman world.
This leads me to question: what is the folly of the cross and what does it mean to be a fool for Christ?
I’ve even written a hymn about Carlos:
Carlos was there on that horrible chair
They tied him down with bolts and then zapped him with 40 000 volts
It was for you that our saviour fried and died
Despite the fact that his hair caught on fire, this one is God’s true Messiah.
The wisdom of the world has been refuted because Carlos was electrocuted
He is my saviour and my lamp, because he absorbed every deadly amp
Now I know that God does care, ‘cause he sent Carlos Hernandez to the electric chair.
I’ve also written other hymns like, “In the chair of Carlos I Glory” and “When I cling to that old rugged electric chair”. Now this new religion has spread rapidly here in Peru and some people even wear gold electric chairs on their necklaces, we put chairs on top of places of worship. In fact in Peru, the Red Cross has changed their named to the Red Chair. Athletes, prior to a big race, don’t make the sign of the cross, instead they make the sign of the electric chair as a gesture of good luck. They pretend to sit down and then shake themselves uncontrollable for about 5-10 seconds. Knowing this I would like to call you to have faith and allegiance in Carlos Hernandez as your Lord and Saviour.
Back to Reality
This gospel of Carlos Hernandez is obviously quite absured. However, I must wonder if the message of the cross, i.e. the message of a crucified saviour, sounded altogether different to audiences in the Greco-Roman world.
This leads me to question: what is the folly of the cross and what does it mean to be a fool for Christ?
Sunday, October 02, 2005
New Blog
In glancing over Ben Myer's Faith and Theology blog, I noticed that Michael Jensen had his own blog called 2 + 2 = 5.
I met Michael briefly last year and he is an up and coming Aussie Theologian with a particular interest in political theology. It sounds like he's currently doing his Ph.D at Oxford Uni. His Dad happens to be Peter Jensen, one of the key leaders of the Anglican Evangelicals - a great speaker, evangelist, and theologian! I thoroughly recommend Ben's review article of P.Jensen's The Revelation of God in RTR.
Hopefully we can listen to some interesting discussions between Michael and Ben on topics of a theological nature (they some to have a liking for Juengel in common at least).
I met Michael briefly last year and he is an up and coming Aussie Theologian with a particular interest in political theology. It sounds like he's currently doing his Ph.D at Oxford Uni. His Dad happens to be Peter Jensen, one of the key leaders of the Anglican Evangelicals - a great speaker, evangelist, and theologian! I thoroughly recommend Ben's review article of P.Jensen's The Revelation of God in RTR.
Hopefully we can listen to some interesting discussions between Michael and Ben on topics of a theological nature (they some to have a liking for Juengel in common at least).
Saturday, October 01, 2005
Alexamenos Graffito
I'm beginning to tire of too much academic posting, and I'll be focusing over the next few weeks on the cross and offering some Pastoral reflections. To begin with I'd thought we'd all consider the 'foolishness of the cross' as demonstrated in the Alexamenos Graffito.
The inscription contains a man with a horse's head on a cross with some individual raising a hand to him in devotion and the inscription reads:
ALE
XAMENOS
SEBETE
QEON
Or in other words: "Alexamenos, worship God."
The inscription is from first century Rome and constitutes the first known evidence of anti-Christian graffiti. Cited from .
Rodney Decker's website
Now go ye all and read 1 Corinthians 1.18-2.2!
The inscription contains a man with a horse's head on a cross with some individual raising a hand to him in devotion and the inscription reads:
ALE
XAMENOS
SEBETE
QEON
Or in other words: "Alexamenos, worship God."
The inscription is from first century Rome and constitutes the first known evidence of anti-Christian graffiti. Cited from .
Rodney Decker's website
Now go ye all and read 1 Corinthians 1.18-2.2!
Paul and the Historical Jesus
This quote from Jerome Murphy O'Connor:
Paul: A Critical Life, 91.
We can all pray that Jerome has a quick recovery from his very serious illness.
The historical Jesus is fundamental to Paul's theology. The disciple who wrote Ephesians caught the Apostle's approach perfectly when he presents Jesus as the truth of Christ (Eph. 4: 21). When his converts attempted to separate the Christ of faith from the Jesus of history, Paul resisted by insisting that the Lord of Glory was the crucified Jesus (2 Cor. 2: 6), and by stressing that Christ had been recieved 'as Jesus the Lord' (Col. 2: 6). The implication tha tPaul had preached the historical Jesus is formally confirmed by his condemnation of anyone 'who preaches a Jesus other than the one we preached' (2 Cor. 11: 4).
Paul: A Critical Life, 91.
We can all pray that Jerome has a quick recovery from his very serious illness.
Tuesday, September 27, 2005
Top 25 NT scholars, here is 25 - 1! With ammendments!!!
There's alot of guys I'd liked to have included, but they didn't make the cut: Ben Witherington, L.T. Johnson, Charles Talbert, C.F.D. Moule, John Knox, M.D. Hooker, Graham Stanton, Peter Stuhlmacher, Scot McKnight, Oscar Cullmann, John Meier, John Barclay, J.L. Martyn, J.A.T. Robinson, A. Thiselton, H. Cabury, Wayne Meeks, John Dom Crossan, etc.
Criteria for inclusion is:
(1) Has made a recognizable contribution to NT scholarship and (2) their works either have or shall endure the test of time. These include authors who are my favourites and one's that I think are influential (at least upon me).
25. Richard Hays
His book The Moral Vision of the New Testament is a classic. Similarly his work on narrative theology and his championing of the subjective genitive reading of pistis christou warrant a ranking. His 1 Corinthians commentary also challenges the consensus of a realized eschatology at Corinth (instead the problem was not enough eschatology).
24. Adolf Schlatter
Underrated German scholar who wrote some good NT Theology books (only now available in English). Apparently memorized the entire Gk NT and TDNT was dedicated to him!
23. G. Bornkamm
His book Jesus of Nazareth is the best of the 2nd Quest. His book on Paul is quite disappointing, however, he did pave the way for work on redaction criticism in Matthew.
22. T.W. Manson
British scholar who worked mainly on the Gospels and the Jesus Tradition and produced several notable works like The Sayings of Jesus.
21. I. Howard Marshall
Still a sharp evangelical scholar known mainly for his commentaries on Luke-Acts, Johannine Epistles, Thessalonians and also the Pastorals. Various other studies on the atonement, perseverance, biblical interpretation guarantee his legacy.
20. Gerd Theissen
In hindsight, leaving him out was a mistake. Works on sociology on the NT were significant, I have enjoyed his studies on the historical Jesus in particular.
19. Joseph Fitzmyer
Catholic scholar who has made contributions to study of the DSS, Paul (Romans commentary; Pauline Theology) and especially Luke-Acts.
18. Hans Conzelmann
His work on Luke changed the course of study and impacted ideas of Christian eschatology.
17. F.F. Bruce
Commentaries on Acts (English and Greek text) are still models of scholarship and how philology, Archaeology, theology and history all go together. Bruce was the pioneer evangelical NT scholar. My college, Highland Theological College, has even named a lecture series after him. His New Testament History is still the best NT history book around in my view (over Barnett and Witherington). So many smaller books as well which made scholarship accessible to lay people (watch out - I might send him up the list later).
16. Raymond E. Brown
One of the finest Catholic scholars of his generation. His work on Johannine materials is well known. More importantly his massive works: Birth of the Messiah and Death of the Messiah are classics.
15. Richard Bauckham
I like anything this guy writes. He has that uncanny ability to take stock standard assumptions of scholarship and show how tenuous they are. At the moment I'm closing reading his Gospel for All Christians and continue to be impressed. His various articles on eye-witnesses and the Gospel tradition, parting of the ways, Son of God, etc. are all worth reading and frequently cited. Studies in Revelation are classics for that area of study. One scholar I could handle be stranded on an Island with.
14. Joachim Jeremias
German scholar who was doing serious Jesus study when it wasn't fashionable any more. His views of Aramaic are a bit antiquated now, but his work on the parables, eucharistic words of Jesus, NT Theology are classics. I spent my Ph.D thesis trying to refute his book Jesus' Promise to the Nations. Both a learned and pious man.
13. C.H. Dodd
One of the great 'Chucks' of British scholarship (with Barrett and Moule). His realized eschatology was a corrective to Schweitzer/Weiss (though he went too far), his work on the parables is memorable as his work on tradition and interpretation in the fourth Gospel. Other books on the Apostolic message and Jesus as the Founder of Christianity are good reading. There is a limerick about him too:
12. C.K. Barrett
What can I say, commentaries on John, Romans and 1 Corinthians are still worth looking at today. Other stuff on the Jesus Tradition in the Gospels and the Holy Spirit in the Gospels worthwhile too. His Acts ICC commentary is the standard for commentary writing and he has some useful small books on Paul and other NT Themes
11. Ernst Kasemann
Iconoclast German scholar who was of the Bultmannian school, but still his own man. He single handed re-initiated the 2d Quest for the Historical Jesus (in Germany anyway), interesting interpretation of the "Righteousness of God", a great Romans commentary and his dispute with Stendahl is classic.
10. Martin Hengel
My favourite German scholar. His works on the Gospel of Mark, Judaism, Zealots, Historical Jesus, Paul, Septuagint etc, all good stuff.
9. James D. G. Dunn
Starting in the 70s Dunn was writing good stuff on the Holy Spirit, then he moved to Paul and was part of the vanguard of the New Perspective. Works on Christology, the Parting of the Ways, Pauline Theology, the Unity and Diversity of NT, and now a massive 'Christianity in the Making' project. Must meet this guy some day.
8. N.T. Wright
Probably todays leading evangelical scholar - his early work on Paul (Climax of the Covenant, Colossians) are good reads. His Christian Origins and the Question of God series changed the way I think about the NT, Jesus and God.
7. E.P. Sanders & Albert Scweitzer
I declare number 7 a draw!
Sanders' work on Paul, Jesus and Judaism makes him one of the most influential scholars of the last 30 years. At the root of Sanders I think was Schweitzer, and the Old missionary doctor himself deserves a place in the top 10 (my oversight) given his works on Jesus and Paul.
6. Rudolf Bultmann
Major works on Diatribe in Romans, History of the Synoptic Tradition, NT Theology, commentaries on John and 2 Corinthians, major studies on theology too. (Though I still think that he was primarily an existentialist and NT was just his medium).
5. F.C. Baur
The Father of modern NT study, his work on Paul set the benchmark of study, particularly his analysis of Galatians.
4. Origen
Early Church Father was a master of language, and erudite. Don't let his allegorizing put you off, he still knew how to wrestle with the text.
3. John Calvin
Though primarily a systematic theologian, Calvin still composed superb and timeless commentaries on nearly everybook of the NT except Revelation because, he said, 'I donnot understand it'.
2. J.B. Lightfoot
The Old Master himself, treat on textual criticism, his paraphrases of NT passages in Colossians and Galatians are still excellent to cite in Sermons. Translations of the Apostolic Fathers too.
1. Martin Luther
'Exegesis is learned from the Masters' says Stephen Westerholm and he correctly had Luther in mind. His discovery of the 'righteousness of God' changed the course of history.
And in the words of the great American philosopher, Forrest Gump, that's all I have to say about that.
Criteria for inclusion is:
(1) Has made a recognizable contribution to NT scholarship and (2) their works either have or shall endure the test of time. These include authors who are my favourites and one's that I think are influential (at least upon me).
25. Richard Hays
His book The Moral Vision of the New Testament is a classic. Similarly his work on narrative theology and his championing of the subjective genitive reading of pistis christou warrant a ranking. His 1 Corinthians commentary also challenges the consensus of a realized eschatology at Corinth (instead the problem was not enough eschatology).
24. Adolf Schlatter
Underrated German scholar who wrote some good NT Theology books (only now available in English). Apparently memorized the entire Gk NT and TDNT was dedicated to him!
23. G. Bornkamm
His book Jesus of Nazareth is the best of the 2nd Quest. His book on Paul is quite disappointing, however, he did pave the way for work on redaction criticism in Matthew.
22. T.W. Manson
British scholar who worked mainly on the Gospels and the Jesus Tradition and produced several notable works like The Sayings of Jesus.
21. I. Howard Marshall
Still a sharp evangelical scholar known mainly for his commentaries on Luke-Acts, Johannine Epistles, Thessalonians and also the Pastorals. Various other studies on the atonement, perseverance, biblical interpretation guarantee his legacy.
20. Gerd Theissen
In hindsight, leaving him out was a mistake. Works on sociology on the NT were significant, I have enjoyed his studies on the historical Jesus in particular.
19. Joseph Fitzmyer
Catholic scholar who has made contributions to study of the DSS, Paul (Romans commentary; Pauline Theology) and especially Luke-Acts.
18. Hans Conzelmann
His work on Luke changed the course of study and impacted ideas of Christian eschatology.
17. F.F. Bruce
Commentaries on Acts (English and Greek text) are still models of scholarship and how philology, Archaeology, theology and history all go together. Bruce was the pioneer evangelical NT scholar. My college, Highland Theological College, has even named a lecture series after him. His New Testament History is still the best NT history book around in my view (over Barnett and Witherington). So many smaller books as well which made scholarship accessible to lay people (watch out - I might send him up the list later).
16. Raymond E. Brown
One of the finest Catholic scholars of his generation. His work on Johannine materials is well known. More importantly his massive works: Birth of the Messiah and Death of the Messiah are classics.
15. Richard Bauckham
I like anything this guy writes. He has that uncanny ability to take stock standard assumptions of scholarship and show how tenuous they are. At the moment I'm closing reading his Gospel for All Christians and continue to be impressed. His various articles on eye-witnesses and the Gospel tradition, parting of the ways, Son of God, etc. are all worth reading and frequently cited. Studies in Revelation are classics for that area of study. One scholar I could handle be stranded on an Island with.
14. Joachim Jeremias
German scholar who was doing serious Jesus study when it wasn't fashionable any more. His views of Aramaic are a bit antiquated now, but his work on the parables, eucharistic words of Jesus, NT Theology are classics. I spent my Ph.D thesis trying to refute his book Jesus' Promise to the Nations. Both a learned and pious man.
13. C.H. Dodd
One of the great 'Chucks' of British scholarship (with Barrett and Moule). His realized eschatology was a corrective to Schweitzer/Weiss (though he went too far), his work on the parables is memorable as his work on tradition and interpretation in the fourth Gospel. Other books on the Apostolic message and Jesus as the Founder of Christianity are good reading. There is a limerick about him too:
There once was a man called Dodd
Who had a name that was exceedingly odd
He spelt, if you please,
His name with three D's
When one is sufficietn for God
12. C.K. Barrett
What can I say, commentaries on John, Romans and 1 Corinthians are still worth looking at today. Other stuff on the Jesus Tradition in the Gospels and the Holy Spirit in the Gospels worthwhile too. His Acts ICC commentary is the standard for commentary writing and he has some useful small books on Paul and other NT Themes
11. Ernst Kasemann
Iconoclast German scholar who was of the Bultmannian school, but still his own man. He single handed re-initiated the 2d Quest for the Historical Jesus (in Germany anyway), interesting interpretation of the "Righteousness of God", a great Romans commentary and his dispute with Stendahl is classic.
10. Martin Hengel
My favourite German scholar. His works on the Gospel of Mark, Judaism, Zealots, Historical Jesus, Paul, Septuagint etc, all good stuff.
9. James D. G. Dunn
Starting in the 70s Dunn was writing good stuff on the Holy Spirit, then he moved to Paul and was part of the vanguard of the New Perspective. Works on Christology, the Parting of the Ways, Pauline Theology, the Unity and Diversity of NT, and now a massive 'Christianity in the Making' project. Must meet this guy some day.
8. N.T. Wright
Probably todays leading evangelical scholar - his early work on Paul (Climax of the Covenant, Colossians) are good reads. His Christian Origins and the Question of God series changed the way I think about the NT, Jesus and God.
7. E.P. Sanders & Albert Scweitzer
I declare number 7 a draw!
Sanders' work on Paul, Jesus and Judaism makes him one of the most influential scholars of the last 30 years. At the root of Sanders I think was Schweitzer, and the Old missionary doctor himself deserves a place in the top 10 (my oversight) given his works on Jesus and Paul.
6. Rudolf Bultmann
Major works on Diatribe in Romans, History of the Synoptic Tradition, NT Theology, commentaries on John and 2 Corinthians, major studies on theology too. (Though I still think that he was primarily an existentialist and NT was just his medium).
5. F.C. Baur
The Father of modern NT study, his work on Paul set the benchmark of study, particularly his analysis of Galatians.
4. Origen
Early Church Father was a master of language, and erudite. Don't let his allegorizing put you off, he still knew how to wrestle with the text.
3. John Calvin
Though primarily a systematic theologian, Calvin still composed superb and timeless commentaries on nearly everybook of the NT except Revelation because, he said, 'I donnot understand it'.
2. J.B. Lightfoot
The Old Master himself, treat on textual criticism, his paraphrases of NT passages in Colossians and Galatians are still excellent to cite in Sermons. Translations of the Apostolic Fathers too.
1. Martin Luther
'Exegesis is learned from the Masters' says Stephen Westerholm and he correctly had Luther in mind. His discovery of the 'righteousness of God' changed the course of history.
And in the words of the great American philosopher, Forrest Gump, that's all I have to say about that.
Rafael and Crossley on Authenticity
Rafael offers some interesting thoughts about authenticity in historical Jesus studies. I for one did feel pressure during the writing of my thesis to name things in the Gospels which I regard as inauthentic. I don’t like the idea of having to say 10 things about the Gospels I don’t believe before people take me seriously. My way out of it was to state that there’s a tonne of stuff in Thomas which I don’t think is authentic (I got that one from Wright); and also to admit that some actions/logia of Jesus in the canonical Gospels have a better case for authenticity than others.
In view of the Crossley-Rodriguez exchange, let me suggest two things:
First, scholars of a conservative ilk can have a tendency to favour the canonical sources over non-canonical one’s. For instance, Crossan and Reed, (Excavating Jesus, 87-88), compare the miraculous birth stories of Augustine (Seutonius, Lives of the Caeasars, 94.4.) and Jesus in the Gospels (Luke 1-2; Matthew 1-2) and they urge:
“If you take Jesus’ conception story literally, take Augustus’ literary. If you take Jesus’ conception story metaphorically, take Augustus’ metaphorically.”
They have a point! (Regardlessly, the fact that Jesus was regarded as a Mamzer, i.e. of illegitimate birth, is a piece of historical information consistent with the birth stories in the Gospels even if it does not finally prove them).
Second, the idea of authenticity is itself full of problems. The tentative nature of historical arguments means that labels of ‘authentic’ and ‘inauthentic’ are somewhat subjective and artificial (Hooker, ‘Christology and Methodology,’ NTS 1971). At the end of the day one cannot prove, much less disprove, anything that Jesus said or did with positivistic certainty. Moreover, even material that is deemed ‘inauthentic’ can still express and re-present Jesus’ own authentic viewpoint (Meier, Marginal Jew, 3.544; Charlesworth, Jesus within Judaism, 20). In fact, the entire Gospel tradition is ‘inauthentic’ in the sense that the Gospels are in Greek (not Aramaic) and there is very little chance that any authentic sayings have been uninterpreted in the transmission process. We have vox, vox, vox and more vox of Jesus. Perhaps we should prefer scales of probability (see Sanders and Davies, Introduction to the Synoptic Gospels), but then again we must relate to the fact that ‘authenticity’ is simply part of the grammar of historical Jesus research, like it or not! I tend to think that an ‘authentic’ saying or event is one which we have good reason to believe that it is as close to something that Jesus said or did as we could hope for (Sanders, Jesus and Judaism, 357, n. 30). This debate could of course lead on to a discussion about how to use the ‘criteria of authenticity’ in relation to authenticity. Another issue looming on the horizon is where does the burden of proof lie? – authenticity or inauthenticity? Personally, given the nature of the Jesus tradition, I think the onus should be on those who wish to prove inauthenticity; the catch 22 is that I don’t think any of the criteria can prove the inauthenticity of any saying/deed beyond all reasonable doubt, which means that we are again left with varying degrees of probability for authenticity.
In view of the Crossley-Rodriguez exchange, let me suggest two things:
First, scholars of a conservative ilk can have a tendency to favour the canonical sources over non-canonical one’s. For instance, Crossan and Reed, (Excavating Jesus, 87-88), compare the miraculous birth stories of Augustine (Seutonius, Lives of the Caeasars, 94.4.) and Jesus in the Gospels (Luke 1-2; Matthew 1-2) and they urge:
“If you take Jesus’ conception story literally, take Augustus’ literary. If you take Jesus’ conception story metaphorically, take Augustus’ metaphorically.”
They have a point! (Regardlessly, the fact that Jesus was regarded as a Mamzer, i.e. of illegitimate birth, is a piece of historical information consistent with the birth stories in the Gospels even if it does not finally prove them).
Second, the idea of authenticity is itself full of problems. The tentative nature of historical arguments means that labels of ‘authentic’ and ‘inauthentic’ are somewhat subjective and artificial (Hooker, ‘Christology and Methodology,’ NTS 1971). At the end of the day one cannot prove, much less disprove, anything that Jesus said or did with positivistic certainty. Moreover, even material that is deemed ‘inauthentic’ can still express and re-present Jesus’ own authentic viewpoint (Meier, Marginal Jew, 3.544; Charlesworth, Jesus within Judaism, 20). In fact, the entire Gospel tradition is ‘inauthentic’ in the sense that the Gospels are in Greek (not Aramaic) and there is very little chance that any authentic sayings have been uninterpreted in the transmission process. We have vox, vox, vox and more vox of Jesus. Perhaps we should prefer scales of probability (see Sanders and Davies, Introduction to the Synoptic Gospels), but then again we must relate to the fact that ‘authenticity’ is simply part of the grammar of historical Jesus research, like it or not! I tend to think that an ‘authentic’ saying or event is one which we have good reason to believe that it is as close to something that Jesus said or did as we could hope for (Sanders, Jesus and Judaism, 357, n. 30). This debate could of course lead on to a discussion about how to use the ‘criteria of authenticity’ in relation to authenticity. Another issue looming on the horizon is where does the burden of proof lie? – authenticity or inauthenticity? Personally, given the nature of the Jesus tradition, I think the onus should be on those who wish to prove inauthenticity; the catch 22 is that I don’t think any of the criteria can prove the inauthenticity of any saying/deed beyond all reasonable doubt, which means that we are again left with varying degrees of probability for authenticity.
New Blog and House Cleaning
Rafael Rodriguez, a Ph.D student at Sheffield (to my knowledge), has started up his own blog called: Verily Verily. Another biblioblogger to add to the list – and a good historical Jesus lad at that. Perhaps Rafael and I can tag-team James Crossley on a few issues (maybe like Anacan and Obi-wan versus Count Dooku – that analogy should probably offend everybody equally).
Also, I’ve updated Sean Winter’s blog to its new site: Sean the Baptist
I’ve also added Google Search to the side bar.
Also, I’ve updated Sean Winter’s blog to its new site: Sean the Baptist
I’ve also added Google Search to the side bar.
SBL/ETS Trip
The good news for is that I’m going to SBL and ETS in November. It will be a chance for me to meet up with a crowd of people I have only known over the net these past four years!
I’m presenting a paper at ETS and I’m flipping through the SBL hand-book for all the sessions I want to go to. So many people to meet and greet. I’ve heard the SBL convention is bigger than Ben-Hur. Discounted books as well!
I’m presenting a paper at ETS and I’m flipping through the SBL hand-book for all the sessions I want to go to. So many people to meet and greet. I’ve heard the SBL convention is bigger than Ben-Hur. Discounted books as well!
Monday, September 26, 2005
Notes and Quotes on Reed & Crossan
John Dominic Crossan & Jonathan L. Reed, Excavating Jesus: Beneath the Stones, Behind the Texts (San Francisco: Harper Collins, 2001).
‘A major debate among contemporary scholars concerns wether the historical Jesus was an apocalyptic or nonapocalyptic figure. Quite often the disagreements gets nowhere, as both sides fail in any detailed analysis of those twin options. If he was apocalyptic, what distinctions and options are necessary to understand his apocalypticism? For example, was his God’s solution to evil the extermination or conversion of evil-doers? And were believers to wait passively or participate actively in that process? If he was nonapocalyptic, what, apart from that negation, was the content of the Kingdom of God? Our general hope in this book is to get beyond that impasse by insisting on the continuum in basic content from a covenantal through an eschatological to an apocalyptic Kingdom of God. Our specific hope in this conclusion is to locate Jesus and the kingdom of God movement more accurately among those first-century apocalypticists and/or protesters.’ (pp. 214-15).
Jerusalem Temple: ‘it was both the house of God and the seat of collaboration. It was both magnificent shrine and impressive fortress.’ (p. 243).
‘The parting of the ways arose because, for most other Jews, that Christian Jewish claim was incredible. The inclusion of pagans and the devastation by pagans were irreconcilable.’ (p. 324)
‘A major debate among contemporary scholars concerns wether the historical Jesus was an apocalyptic or nonapocalyptic figure. Quite often the disagreements gets nowhere, as both sides fail in any detailed analysis of those twin options. If he was apocalyptic, what distinctions and options are necessary to understand his apocalypticism? For example, was his God’s solution to evil the extermination or conversion of evil-doers? And were believers to wait passively or participate actively in that process? If he was nonapocalyptic, what, apart from that negation, was the content of the Kingdom of God? Our general hope in this book is to get beyond that impasse by insisting on the continuum in basic content from a covenantal through an eschatological to an apocalyptic Kingdom of God. Our specific hope in this conclusion is to locate Jesus and the kingdom of God movement more accurately among those first-century apocalypticists and/or protesters.’ (pp. 214-15).
Jerusalem Temple: ‘it was both the house of God and the seat of collaboration. It was both magnificent shrine and impressive fortress.’ (p. 243).
‘The parting of the ways arose because, for most other Jews, that Christian Jewish claim was incredible. The inclusion of pagans and the devastation by pagans were irreconcilable.’ (p. 324)
Thursday, September 22, 2005
Klausner and the Historical Jesus
I would agree that the Third Quest has brought Jesus' Jewishness back to center stage in historical Jesus studies, but it would be wrong to conclude that studies dated pre-Meyer, Vermes, or Sanders completely ignored the Jewishness of Jesus. One book, greatly underused in historical Jesus study, is Joseph Klausner's Jesus of Nazareth: His Life, Times, and Teaching (trans. Herbert Danby; London: Allen & Unwin, 1929). Klausner says things in the book which only now are becoming common place - it is a must read for anyone starting out in HJ studies.
Here are some great quotes from my own notes:
‘But to cast wholesale doubt on the historicity of the Synoptic Gospels become more impossible the more widely we study all the branches of Judaism during the period of the Second Temple. Notwithstanding all the efforts of the authors of the Gospels to stress the great opposition between Jesus and Pharisaic Judaism, every step he took, everything he did, every word he spoke, all recall to us – chiefly by conformation though sometimes contradiction – the Palestine of his time and contemporary Jewish life and Pharisaic teaching.’ (pp. 126-27)
‘Only after such a process of selection [of material] can we come to recognize the historical Jesus, the Jewish Jesus, the Jesus who could have arisen out of none other than Jewish surroundings, but whom the Jews, from certain historical and personal reasons which we shall understand later, could not receive as their Messiah nor his teaching as the way of redemption.’ (p. 127).
‘The whole nation looked forward to the coming of the Messiah: but the degree of expectation was not the same with all.’ (p. 210)
‘A theory has been put forward [Wrede] that Jesus never regarded himself as the Messiah and only after his death was he acclaimed as Messiah by his disciples. But had this been true it would never have occurred to his disciples (simple-minded Jews) that one who had suffering crucifixion (“a curse of God is he that is hanged”) could be the messiah; and the messianic idea meant nothing whatsoever to the Gentile converts. Ex nihilio nihil fit: when we see that Jesus’ messianic claims became a fundamental principle of Christianity soon after his crucifixion, this is a standing proof that even in his lifetime Jesus regarded himself as the Messiah’. (pp. 255-56)
When Jesus abrogated the food laws in the law of Moses. ‘The breach between Jesus and the Pharisees was complete’. (p. 291).
Here are some great quotes from my own notes:
‘But to cast wholesale doubt on the historicity of the Synoptic Gospels become more impossible the more widely we study all the branches of Judaism during the period of the Second Temple. Notwithstanding all the efforts of the authors of the Gospels to stress the great opposition between Jesus and Pharisaic Judaism, every step he took, everything he did, every word he spoke, all recall to us – chiefly by conformation though sometimes contradiction – the Palestine of his time and contemporary Jewish life and Pharisaic teaching.’ (pp. 126-27)
‘Only after such a process of selection [of material] can we come to recognize the historical Jesus, the Jewish Jesus, the Jesus who could have arisen out of none other than Jewish surroundings, but whom the Jews, from certain historical and personal reasons which we shall understand later, could not receive as their Messiah nor his teaching as the way of redemption.’ (p. 127).
‘The whole nation looked forward to the coming of the Messiah: but the degree of expectation was not the same with all.’ (p. 210)
‘A theory has been put forward [Wrede] that Jesus never regarded himself as the Messiah and only after his death was he acclaimed as Messiah by his disciples. But had this been true it would never have occurred to his disciples (simple-minded Jews) that one who had suffering crucifixion (“a curse of God is he that is hanged”) could be the messiah; and the messianic idea meant nothing whatsoever to the Gentile converts. Ex nihilio nihil fit: when we see that Jesus’ messianic claims became a fundamental principle of Christianity soon after his crucifixion, this is a standing proof that even in his lifetime Jesus regarded himself as the Messiah’. (pp. 255-56)
When Jesus abrogated the food laws in the law of Moses. ‘The breach between Jesus and the Pharisees was complete’. (p. 291).
Tuesday, September 20, 2005
Romans 8-11
I've been reading through Romans recently and looking over Thomas Tobin's book Paul's Rhetoric in its Context: The Argument of Romans. Tobin (p. 427) makes a good point that Romans 8 and 9-11 should be grouped together as one section since they both focus on eschatology (where most commentators link chapters 5-8 and 9-11).
Even so, I'm inclined to see 8.1-17 more concerned with a pneumatically drive ethic apart from law observance, so I think that 8.1-17 really lates back to chs. 6-7 with the focus on righteous living apart from strict law observance. I would be willing to posit 8.18-39 as a kind of bridging section that enables Paul to move from ethics to eschatological hope to the problem of Israel's continuing unbelief. The link between chaps 8-9 is quite natural. Afterall, Israel's failure to embrace her Messiah might lead one to question Paul's confidense in divine faithfulness in 8.18-39 since God's faithfulness apparently did not bring Israel to salvation. Thus, 9-11 obviously address the salvation-historical problem of Israel's rejection and Gentile inclusion; but it is also an apology for the fidelity of God's eschatological promises (i.e. 8.18-39) in light of Israel's failure to believe.
Just my thoughts on the matter!
Even so, I'm inclined to see 8.1-17 more concerned with a pneumatically drive ethic apart from law observance, so I think that 8.1-17 really lates back to chs. 6-7 with the focus on righteous living apart from strict law observance. I would be willing to posit 8.18-39 as a kind of bridging section that enables Paul to move from ethics to eschatological hope to the problem of Israel's continuing unbelief. The link between chaps 8-9 is quite natural. Afterall, Israel's failure to embrace her Messiah might lead one to question Paul's confidense in divine faithfulness in 8.18-39 since God's faithfulness apparently did not bring Israel to salvation. Thus, 9-11 obviously address the salvation-historical problem of Israel's rejection and Gentile inclusion; but it is also an apology for the fidelity of God's eschatological promises (i.e. 8.18-39) in light of Israel's failure to believe.
Just my thoughts on the matter!
Friday, September 16, 2005
Jim West and Interest in the Historical Jesus
Over at Biblical Theology, Jim West has an entry on Jesus, History, and Methodological Questions . He suggests that the Gospels are entirely kerygmatic with no interest in the naked history of Jesus as such. To give his due, the Gospels are theological and kerygmatic documents in their own right. Also, they are primarily concerned with the significance of Jesus for readers in the Greco-Roman world and not matting out minute historical detail. Even so, I cannot follow the Bultmannian notion that the Gospels are entirely divorced of historical interest in Jesus (even if their ‘historical’ interest was not historical in our modern sense of historical).
First, even if ‘Jesus died and rose’ was the most basic creedal formulation, it still requires or calls for explication of the identity one who is proclaimed as risen. Byrskog writes, “the kerygma, the story of the present Lord, remains, after all, intrinsically linked with the Jesus of the past” (Story as History – History as Story, 6) and Dieter Lührmann (“Jesus: History and Remembrance,” in Jesus Christ and Human Freedom, 46): “if the kerygma was in fact an historical given of this kind, and its substance was Jesus of Nazareth, an historical individual, surely one then must ask what support that kerygma had in that individual and his activity.” This surely indicates that Ernst Käsemann was right to insist that the historical Jesus was properly basic to faith.
Second, it is surely significant (as Leander Keck Who is Jesus? 3, observes) that the preferred term of address in the Gospels (with a few exceptions) for the Nazarene is ‘Jesus’ and not lavish Christological titles. The Gospels clearly differentiate between their post-Easter period and pre-Easter. Becker writes: “When the gospels define the time of Jesus as Christianity’s normative primeval time, they demonstrate their interest in the historical Jesus and show that they are not simply wanting to write a commentary on the post-Easter confession of faith” (Jürgen Becker, Jesus of Nazareth, 6).
Third, Jim’s understanding of 2 Cor. 5.16 (following Schweitzer, Bultmann and Schoeps no less) does not express Paul’s historical disinterest in Jesus. On the contrary, Paul states that he formerly viewed Christ from a worldly perspective but now comprehends Christ from the vantage of one who is “in Christ”. Paul may be referring to his former knowledge of Christ which operated with a false notion of messiahship or else acknowledging his prior hostility towards the Jesus movement. There is no depreciation of historical knowledge. Also, why project stories and sayings onto Jesus in a pre-Easter setting, if the pre-Easter Jesus carried no authority or significance? Surely it would be the risen kyrios who the congregations expected to hear from? A better reason is that persons were interested in the contours of Jesus’ life. I concur with Charlesworth: “The sheer existence of the Gospels – which include the celebration of the life and teachings of the pre-Easter Jesus – proves that from the earliest decades of the movement associated with Jesus there must have been some historical interest in Jesus of Nazareth” (Charlesworth, Jesus within Judaism, 13).
Fourth, Jim presents an unnecessary and unhelpful antithesis between history and theology. To be sure, there is no such as uninterpreted history (secular or religious), so there is no justification for stating that because the Gospels interweave history and theology that there is no history at all!
But I'll leave it there, and graciously let Jim have the last word!
First, even if ‘Jesus died and rose’ was the most basic creedal formulation, it still requires or calls for explication of the identity one who is proclaimed as risen. Byrskog writes, “the kerygma, the story of the present Lord, remains, after all, intrinsically linked with the Jesus of the past” (Story as History – History as Story, 6) and Dieter Lührmann (“Jesus: History and Remembrance,” in Jesus Christ and Human Freedom, 46): “if the kerygma was in fact an historical given of this kind, and its substance was Jesus of Nazareth, an historical individual, surely one then must ask what support that kerygma had in that individual and his activity.” This surely indicates that Ernst Käsemann was right to insist that the historical Jesus was properly basic to faith.
Second, it is surely significant (as Leander Keck Who is Jesus? 3, observes) that the preferred term of address in the Gospels (with a few exceptions) for the Nazarene is ‘Jesus’ and not lavish Christological titles. The Gospels clearly differentiate between their post-Easter period and pre-Easter. Becker writes: “When the gospels define the time of Jesus as Christianity’s normative primeval time, they demonstrate their interest in the historical Jesus and show that they are not simply wanting to write a commentary on the post-Easter confession of faith” (Jürgen Becker, Jesus of Nazareth, 6).
Third, Jim’s understanding of 2 Cor. 5.16 (following Schweitzer, Bultmann and Schoeps no less) does not express Paul’s historical disinterest in Jesus. On the contrary, Paul states that he formerly viewed Christ from a worldly perspective but now comprehends Christ from the vantage of one who is “in Christ”. Paul may be referring to his former knowledge of Christ which operated with a false notion of messiahship or else acknowledging his prior hostility towards the Jesus movement. There is no depreciation of historical knowledge. Also, why project stories and sayings onto Jesus in a pre-Easter setting, if the pre-Easter Jesus carried no authority or significance? Surely it would be the risen kyrios who the congregations expected to hear from? A better reason is that persons were interested in the contours of Jesus’ life. I concur with Charlesworth: “The sheer existence of the Gospels – which include the celebration of the life and teachings of the pre-Easter Jesus – proves that from the earliest decades of the movement associated with Jesus there must have been some historical interest in Jesus of Nazareth” (Charlesworth, Jesus within Judaism, 13).
Fourth, Jim presents an unnecessary and unhelpful antithesis between history and theology. To be sure, there is no such as uninterpreted history (secular or religious), so there is no justification for stating that because the Gospels interweave history and theology that there is no history at all!
But I'll leave it there, and graciously let Jim have the last word!
Thursday, September 15, 2005
Godless Britain
The other night I enjoyed Cristine Odone's documentary on godless Britian. All I can say is that if she thinks Britain is godless she should try Australia! Oz is a land full of self-made men who love to worship their creator.
What I liked about the doco:
The reason for unbelief ('people don't want to be told how to live their lives') rang true for me. I used to be an atheist/pantheist, not because I had read J.L. Mackie's, The Miracle of Theism, but simply because I didn't want anybody telling me who I couldn't sleep with. I saw Christians (not that I knew any) as overbearing, autocratic moral authoritians who sought to do nothing more than impose their beliefs on others.
More people think of themselves as 'spiritual' rather than 'religious'. That's a line straight out of the movie Monster-in-Law.
What I didn't like about the doc:
Odone has an almost Ritschilian view of religion as being virtually synonymous with ethics. I won't deny that faith and living go together, but I don't think the solution to a decline in church attendance is to get a little more marketing savvy about church so the masses can receive good, solid, objective, moral instructions. You'll end up with a cultural or nominal Christianity and a bunch of people who speak Christianese, but have no real attachment to Jesus Christ and his Church. The people of the UK don't need exposure to liturgy and a dose of moral authoritarianism, instead, they need a redemptive relationship with Jesus the Christ.
Odone is struggling with the question: how do I make people be good? Her answer is, change society, make it adhere to traditional Judeo-Christian values, and people will be okay. I say unto you, transform the people through the redemptive and renewing power of the gospel and in the end, they in turn will change society. Her view fails because, I think, it makes no sense to adhere to Christian values (which seem ludicrious and backwards in this day) if people do not have spiritual intimacy with Jesus Christ.
What I liked about the doco:
The reason for unbelief ('people don't want to be told how to live their lives') rang true for me. I used to be an atheist/pantheist, not because I had read J.L. Mackie's, The Miracle of Theism, but simply because I didn't want anybody telling me who I couldn't sleep with. I saw Christians (not that I knew any) as overbearing, autocratic moral authoritians who sought to do nothing more than impose their beliefs on others.
More people think of themselves as 'spiritual' rather than 'religious'. That's a line straight out of the movie Monster-in-Law.
What I didn't like about the doc:
Odone has an almost Ritschilian view of religion as being virtually synonymous with ethics. I won't deny that faith and living go together, but I don't think the solution to a decline in church attendance is to get a little more marketing savvy about church so the masses can receive good, solid, objective, moral instructions. You'll end up with a cultural or nominal Christianity and a bunch of people who speak Christianese, but have no real attachment to Jesus Christ and his Church. The people of the UK don't need exposure to liturgy and a dose of moral authoritarianism, instead, they need a redemptive relationship with Jesus the Christ.
Odone is struggling with the question: how do I make people be good? Her answer is, change society, make it adhere to traditional Judeo-Christian values, and people will be okay. I say unto you, transform the people through the redemptive and renewing power of the gospel and in the end, they in turn will change society. Her view fails because, I think, it makes no sense to adhere to Christian values (which seem ludicrious and backwards in this day) if people do not have spiritual intimacy with Jesus Christ.
New Blogs
I have the pleasure of introducing two new blogs to Euangelion readers (Brandon and Jim might want to add them to the biblio-bloggers data base). The blogs are:
Paul and His Companions by Robby Holt.
The sub-title reads: This blog is about hearing and being shaped by Paul's letters to earliest communities of faith. What was Paul's Gospel? This blog will utilize (and synthesize) dramatic metaphors and narrative approaches to Paul's letters without getting tangled in questions of authorship.
Robby raises some good questions about the continuity and discontinuity of the gospel between Jesus and Paul:
These are good questions and, as matter of fact, it is on my to-write-a-book-on-list! Anything to do with being cruciformed and articulating Paul’s gospel interests me, so I’ll be watching this blog with interest.
The second blog is Inklings from an Intern by Paul Winter (I think). This contains some good comments on Presbyterian liturgy (which I should have had a immersion course in before coming to Scotland) and some NT related stuff too.
Paul and His Companions by Robby Holt.
The sub-title reads: This blog is about hearing and being shaped by Paul's letters to earliest communities of faith. What was Paul's Gospel? This blog will utilize (and synthesize) dramatic metaphors and narrative approaches to Paul's letters without getting tangled in questions of authorship.
Robby raises some good questions about the continuity and discontinuity of the gospel between Jesus and Paul:
1. What is the best way to understand the relationship between Paul's letters and the narratives about Jesus called "Gospels"?
2. What is the best way to think about the nature and content of Paul's gospel?
3. What is the best way to think about the relationship between Paul's Gospel, what he preached when founding or visiting churches, and what he wrote in letters to communites of those who already believed the gospel?
4. In the three synoptic narratives about Jesus called Gospels, Jesus preaches a gospel. His gospel is the good news of the kingdom of God (Matt 4:17, 23-24; 9:35-39; 10:4-8; 24:9-13; Mark 1:1-3, 14-15; Luke 4:18-21, 40-44; 8:1-3; 9:1-6; 16:16-17). Must Paul's gospel be a substantially different gospel? (See Acts 28:23, 31)
5. If Paul's gospel is essentially the same as Jesus' just from a different moment in the drama (after its climax rather than just before / during its climax), do the reflections above about Paul with Mark and Luke and then Paul and his co-laboring, co-suffering companions make much sense? Or would they fit better into a system of salvation orientation?
These are good questions and, as matter of fact, it is on my to-write-a-book-on-list! Anything to do with being cruciformed and articulating Paul’s gospel interests me, so I’ll be watching this blog with interest.
The second blog is Inklings from an Intern by Paul Winter (I think). This contains some good comments on Presbyterian liturgy (which I should have had a immersion course in before coming to Scotland) and some NT related stuff too.
Tuesday, September 13, 2005
The Written Gospel
On Markus Bockmueh’s page I noted a good link about the bookThe Written Gospel which is edited by himself and D.A. Hagner.
This book comprehensively surveys the origin, production and reception of the canonical gospels in the early church. The discussion unfolds in three steps. Part One traces the origin of the ‘gospel’ of Jesus, its significance in Jewish and Hellenistic contexts of the first century, and its development from eyewitness memory to oral tradition and written text. Part Two then more specifically examines the composition, design and intentions of each of the four canonical gospels. Widening the focus, Part Three first asks about gospel-writing as viewed from the perspective of ancient Jews and pagans before turning to the question of reception history in the proliferation of ‘apocryphal’ gospels, in the formation of the canon, and in the beginnings of a gospel commentary tradition.
Introduction Markus Bockmuehl and Donald A. Hagner;
1. ‘Gospel’ in Herodian Judaea William Horbury;
2. The gospel of Jesus Klyne Snodgrass;
3. Q1 as oral tradition James D. G. Dunn;
4. Eyewitness memory and the writing of the gospels Martin Hengel;
5. Who writes, why and for whom? Richard A. Burridge;
6. How Matthew writes Richard C. Beaton;
7. How Mark writes Craig A. Evans;
8. How Luke writes David P. Moessner;
9. How John writes Judith Lieu;
10. Beginnings and endings Morna D. Hooker;
11. The four among Jews James Carleton Paget;
12. The four among pagans Loveday Alexander;
13. Forty other gospels Christopher Tuckett;
14. The one, the four and the many Ronald A. Piper;
15. The making of gospel commentaries Markus Bockmuehl.
What is 'historical' about the 'historical Jesus'?
Rafael Rodriguez, a graduate student at Sheffield University, (I imagine he and James would have some good conversations) has written a good essay on the SBL forum entitled: "What is 'Historical' about the 'Historical Jesus'?". (I don’t know if Rafael knows it, but Gerd Theissen beat him to the punch in the catchy title: Gerd Theissen and Annette Merz, ‘Der umstrittene historische Jesus. Oder: Wie historisch ist der historische Jesus?’ in Jesus als historische Gestalt: Beiträge zur Jesusforschung. Zum 60. Geburtstag von Gerd Theissen, ed. Annette Merz [FRLANT 202; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2003], 3-7)
Rodriguez has written a penetrating article which a good read for anyone concerned with the problems and pains of trying to do historical Jesus studies.
His view of history as a synthesis of past and present also reminds me of Anthony Thiselton’s idea of hermeneutics as the fusion of horizons (i.e. between author, text, reader).
All in all, it is a good article as to how history is not a ‘thing-in-self’ that can be discovered, but neither is history purely a socially constructed entity. If I read Rodriguez correctly, we do have access to a historical Jesus, but only through the socially (and theologically) constructed reality that re-presents him, or as Dunn and Dahl would say, through the remembered Jesus. Rodriguez is worth quoting here:
Given that so many books on orality, memory, tradition and history are being written at the moment (e.g. Hengel, Stanton, Bockmuehl, Thatcher), this is a good little article to read as an introduction to the complexities and problems involved. I would like to have seen Rodriguez also delve a little more into epistemology (e.g. critical realism) since I think that epistemological questions must been engaged along side the sociology and historiographical issues as well.
Rodriguez has written a penetrating article which a good read for anyone concerned with the problems and pains of trying to do historical Jesus studies.
His view of history as a synthesis of past and present also reminds me of Anthony Thiselton’s idea of hermeneutics as the fusion of horizons (i.e. between author, text, reader).
All in all, it is a good article as to how history is not a ‘thing-in-self’ that can be discovered, but neither is history purely a socially constructed entity. If I read Rodriguez correctly, we do have access to a historical Jesus, but only through the socially (and theologically) constructed reality that re-presents him, or as Dunn and Dahl would say, through the remembered Jesus. Rodriguez is worth quoting here:
Certainly the Evangelists — and the communities that nurtured the traditions they adapted and wrote down — understood the past of Jesus' ministry in terms of their present, but this is not to say that they (re)constituted their past completely. We also see in the gospels aspects of the past that are not especially conducive to the present of the later Jesus movements; this is usually what is meant when some logion or other is classified as "dissimilar" or "embarrassing." But Jesus's followers, including the Evangelists, constituted their present in light of the past. There was no perfect fit between Jesus and the circumstances of his later followers, but neither was the "historical Jesus" an unrecognizable figure, in need of updating, to those who endeavored to write his story.
Given that so many books on orality, memory, tradition and history are being written at the moment (e.g. Hengel, Stanton, Bockmuehl, Thatcher), this is a good little article to read as an introduction to the complexities and problems involved. I would like to have seen Rodriguez also delve a little more into epistemology (e.g. critical realism) since I think that epistemological questions must been engaged along side the sociology and historiographical issues as well.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
