Some Christmas Presents

I had a great time this Christmas, some glorious presents from Anja and my parents. Here are a few of the books that I am presently salivating over (yes, and reading)

1. Brevard S. Childs, The Church's Guide for Reading Paul: The Canonical Shaping of the Pauline Corpus (Cambridge: Eerdmans, 2008). I must admit that my reading of Childs is extremely limited. Time I changed that.
   
2. Dave Tomlinson, Re-Enchanting Christianity: Faith in an Emerging Culture (Norwich: Canterbury Press, 2008). I have been enjoying this one and only wish it had been written a few years ago when it would have helped me more, though I am still learning from it. While I find myself unable to follow him on certain points on which for me at least he goes too far, his work will be an inspiration for those Christians with a conservative background who are looking to rethink their faith in a more responsible or self-conscious way. To that end there are some real nuggets of wisdom in this book. Actually, I have been surprised by how much I am enjoying it. Just one point: On page 28 he misrepresents Bultmann's project of demythologisation, reading it as a 19th century liberalism, i.e. a stripping of the outer mythic layers to a 'core' message. That ain't quite Bultmann, people!
   
3. Russel D. Moore, et al., Understanding Four Views on the Lord's Supper (Michigan: Zondervan, 2007)
   
4. Michael W. Holmes, The Apostolic Fathers: Greek Texts and English Translations. 3rd Edition (Michigan: Baker Academic, 2007). Reading 1 Clement at the moment and feeling silly I had not read it sooner!
   
5. Markus Bockmuehl and Torrance Alan J., eds, Scripture's Doctrine and Theology's Bible: How the New Testament Shapes Christian Dogmatics (Michigan: Baker Academic, 2008). What an amazing list of scholars and essays! Flippin BRING IT ON!
   
6. D.A. Carson, D.J. Moo, and Leon Morris, An Introduction to the New Testament. 2^nd Edition (Leicester: APOLLOS, 2005)
   
7. Raymond E. Brown, An Introduction to the New Testament (London: Doubleday, 1997) – I can't find a Doubleday webpage.
8. On a slightly different note: Smallville Season 7. Pluses: Supergirl. Nuff said. Negatives: the character Lana is still slushy romantic bottom lip quivering alive. Maybe she will get a bit less 'about to cry all the time' and thus more tolerable in this series. She is one seriously good actress to pull such a character off! I love this series as you really feel with the lead characters, plus it throws in a lot of imaginative crazy stuff to stop it decomposing into teenage-feeling-fluff. Tom Welling (as Clark Kent), Kristin Kreuk (as Lana Lang), Allison Mack (as Chloe Sullivan) and Michael Rosenbaum (as Lex Luther) manage to make a totally unbelievable world a bit more likely (I'm convinced). I'm watching this together with Battlestar Galactica to top of my spates of dubious time-wasting self-indulgent DVDing.
   

While I am not as flush with time for general reading as I was this time last year, I have been really enjoying myself for a few days over Christmas. There is no joy like reading a good book.

The Anchor Yale Bible Dictionary Pt. 2 of 4

I know this all sounds like a shameless advert but my conscience is clean. So I offer today 5 more reasons to buy the Logos electronic Anchor Yale Bible Dictionary:

1. As a NT lecturer I cannot tell you how useful a good bible dictionary is for quickly acquainting oneself with a newish subject without having first to read four 300 page monographs. That may sounds lazy but I don't mean it to. Rather, I mean to say that a bible dictionary helps one enter a subject. Plus, dictionary articles are always useful to offer students to prepare for lessons.
2. One may not like to read an electronic version of a complete monograph. However, when the text is a dictionary entry it makes so much more sense to have it electronic and benefit from the obvious pluses of the latter, such as i) ability to cite without typing something all out, ii) ability to search much more easily across the whole dictionary, iii) pop-up windows for scripture citations, etc. (I'll explain the last in the next post)
3. It can be downloaded immediately. In just a few minutes, you can add the AYBD to your library.
4. This dictionary offers scholarship at its best, with the biggest names in the world contributing.
5. An electronic version saves room on your real bookshelves, and the Anchor Bible Dictionary takes up a fair bit of space!

For a few more benefits of using the electronic version see the Logos blog post, Getting the Most Out of the Anchor Yale Bible Dictionary.

Book of the Year: Christology and Science by Shults - Part 2 of 2

Once again, my thanks to the kind folk at Ashgate for a review copy of F. LeRon Shults, Christology and Science (Aldershot: Ashgate, 2008)

The above more detailed overview of his first chapter enables a much more concise summary of the following three chapters. In a nutshell, late modern philosophical and scientific discourse, especially in its turn to relationality, seriously undermines the philosophical underpinnings of some traditional doctrinal formulations relating to incarnation, atonement and parousia. This changes both the material formulation of these doctrines as well as their methodological handling. With reference to Jesus' way of knowing, acting and being in the world in relation to God and his neighbours (i.e. what he calls the philosophy of Jesus Christ), it also changes what this all means for human desire for spiritual transformation in relation to God and other people.

In the following I will summarise the argument of chapter two as illustrate of his basic approach, and only note those in the third and fourth chapter. I will thus leave out much even though his argument is immensely rich and not easily abridged.

Turning to chapter 2, and the incarnation, traditional christological formulations have been based, he argues, upon certain philosophical commitments about sameness and difference, body and soul, origin and goal, which are now redundant. For example, '[t]he theory of evolution developed by Charles Darwin (1809-1882) challenged the notion of human nature is a substance that always remained the same' (29), as well as a 'historical paradise in which death did not exist' (31). How, then, should we rethink the intuitions of Christian scriptures and tradition in the late modern period, when philosophical and scientific discourse challenges the assumptions behind traditional Christian formulations? In examining changes in anthropological formulations Shults asks:

'Why should we insist on expressing the doctrine of the incarnation in ways that are tied to ancient Greek or modern anthropological concepts of personhood, which focus on the sameness of hypostasized substances? Why not critically engage the relational and dynamic thought forms of contemporary anthropological discourse as we seek to articulate belief in the Word became flesh?' (34)

Having examined the philosophical challenges, in each chapter Shults details the consequent interdisciplinary opportunities. In relation to the incarnation he examines the work of Arthur Peacock, Dennis Edwards and more briefly a variety of other proposals from Teilhard de Chardin, through Rahner, to George Murphy. Again, each chapter ends with an analysis of the corresponding aspect of Christology the theme analyses (incarnation and the identity of Jesus Christ; atonement and the agency of Jesus Christ; Parousia and the presence of Jesus Christ). Shults' constructive proposals take seriously the relationality of late modern discourse, tying the philosophical and scientific challenges to hand in the service of reforming Christology.

In the third chapter, Shults undertakes an analysis of atonement from the perspective of cultural anthropology, detailing the consequent philosophical challenges and the various interdisciplinary opportunities they offer, opening up conceptual space to explore a reformative Christology. In his final chapter he examines Christ's parousia in light of Physical Cosmology. When traditional formulations are often concerned about where Christ is, exactly when he is coming back and so on, what to do with modern philosophical and scientific discourse which maintains there is no same 'now' for all observers (Einstein), no simple notion of space as the place an object occupies? But rather than simply negating older formulations of the coming of Christ, the parousia and ascension, Shults attempts to remain faithful to the biblical and traditional intuitions while again creatively adopting the language in the cause of reforming Christology.

Having already written too much, yet being painfully aware that there is so much more to Shults' arguments, I will end this short review with the usual points of critique and praise.

First, Shults' analysis of the problems is probably more compelling and more clearly presented than his solutions, which themselves beg so many questions. But it is only a short book! Also, some of his rhetoric probably tips over the boundaries of careful. For example, he writes 'theological inquiry that evades contemporary science produces a sterile faith that is not worth having' (16). Hmm, a bit harsh! One also wonders if, in his chapter on incarnation, he has sufficiently appreicated the relational ontology of the Capadocians, as maintained by Zizioulas, for example. But these, and a few other points that could be mentioned, are minor.

So, and second, I have decided to award this book the coveted and illustrious (!) prize of 'Chrisendom Book of the Year'. Surely something LeRon can put on his CV! It is deeply a thought provoking book, well written, concise, and, quite simply, a work of genius. He has managed to hold so much together, skilfully weaving his argument through all manner of disciplines. As such it also resembles a work of art. I can only stand back and look on with a sense of deep respect for the author. Sorry to make you blush, LeRon, but your book is something special. I also found myself gladdened to find such a close conversation partner, in not just a few ways mirroring what I am attempting to do with Pauline Christology from a biblical studies perspective.

The Anchor Yale Bible Dictionary Pt. 1 of 4

My sincere thanks to the generous folk at Logos Bible Software for a review copy of the Anchor Yale Bible Dictionary.

The Anchor Bible Dictionary is simply the best Bible dictionary available, packed with the highest quality scholarship. Many of its articles are required reading in a number of areas. What is more the Logos Bible Software format is ideal for this genre of material. In the next few posts in this series I will offer short extracts from the dictionary, give reasons why I honestly think the electronic version is superior to the hard copy, link to some useful discussion about the product, tell of details for a special 30% discount (yea, baby!) and cheekily suggest that you splash out with your Christmas money and buy yourself a copy (including tips on avoiding getting caught by your spouse in the process). Seriously, this is one mightily useful resource, so I am going to shamelessly promote this one!

Titles I would purchase

1. Marvel Comics: Harry Potter meets Benny Hinn
   
2. Godzilla gets high on Catholic Incense Before Eating the Dinosaur Models at the Local Creation Science Museum

I think this shows my talent for book titles. Actually, for those of you involved in publishing houses: so that you know, I am willing to offer my advice on book titles, and I can assure you I will help sell your books.

For example, in 1989 William F. Fisher submitted a thesis entitled The participle in the Greek Pentateuch: a descriptive analysis and comparison to New Testament usage.

No wonder this Southwestern Baptist Theol. Seminary dissertation only made it to Microfilm. Had I been asked for advice it would have sold. Sure, I would have titled it slightly misleadingly as Dallas Cowboys Cheerleaders Covered in Maple Syrup and Marmite. But it would have sold more.

Plus the author's name could do with jazzing up a bit. William Fisher? Fair enough, but "DJ Higher Criticism" or "MC Evil Death Hammer" have a more marketable ring to them. Come to think of it, isn't it about time that theological merchandise hit the Christian pop scene with a bit more impact? How about pictures of Bishop Tom Wright on duvet covers? Or Bultmann's head shaped erasers made to smell of Qumran Khirbet? (Notice I avoided calling them "rubbers", which may have generated potential misunderstanding in the US...)

HTB’s one year bible challenge

Anja and I are gonna join in – I will do so with especial vigour because I am actually an extremely saintly person when you dig very deep underneath all the layers of sin.

Breaks into song "If you're holy and you know it clap your hands"

(We are using this bible. I tend to prefer to the NRSV, and certainly for Paul, but for OT prose perhaps the NIV reads a bit better- at least for my taste)

Any special recommendations for my Christmas list?

Under strict orders I am trying to gather together a "wish list" of books for people to purchase me over Christmas. If you have any suggestions as to what to add, I'd love to hear your ideas. What books would you hands down urge me to get? Of course, I may already have your suggestions, but it can't hurt to hear them anyway. My present Amazon wish list looks pretty nice already, but I get the feeling it needs improvement!

Slander of the day

Nuff said

Call for Papers: Genesis and Christian Theology

Just heard from Luke Ben Tallon, Conference Administrator at St Mary's College, St Andrews University, about the following:

Call for Papers: Genesis and Christian Theology

14-18 July 2009

St Mary's College, University of St Andrews

The University of St Andrews is pleased to announce its third conference on Scripture and Christian Theology. Since the first conference on the Gospel of John in 2003, the St Andrews conferences have been recognized as one of the most important occasions when biblical scholars and systematic theologians are brought together in conversation about a biblical text. The conferences aim to cut through the megaphone diplomacy or the sheer incomprehension that so often marks attempts to communicate across our disciplines. We invite you then to join us and some of the best theological and biblical minds in careful and often lively interaction about one of the most theologically generative of biblical books: the book of Genesis.

We are now calling for papers that integrate close readings of Genesis with Christian theology. While we are particularly interested in explorations of the dynamic relationship between Genesis and Christian doctrine, we also welcome proposals that combine careful reading of the text of Genesis with theological attention to art, creativity, ecology, ethics, the history of interpretation, or Jewish and Christian dialogue.

The call for paper proposals closes on 15 March 2009. Please visit our website for further details or to submit a proposal: www.st-andrews.ac.uk/divinity/rt/conf/genesis09/

Book notice: Paul and the Hermeneutics of Faith

My thanks to the kind folk at T&T Clark for a review copy of Francis Watson's, Paul and the Hermeneutics of Faith (T&T Clark, 2004).

Given my new teaching responsibilities, it has slowly become clear that I don't have the time to write as many proper book reviews as previously. Instead, I wanted to write a few 'book notices'. Besides, you can find coherence summaries of Watson's work in numerous reviews (cf. e.g. here for Mark Gignilliat), so I instead wanted to simply offer a few thoughts on why the book has impressed me.

I have postponed a review of Watson's book simply as it is one of the best books in the Apostle Paul part of my library. It is one of those few books that has challenged me to rethink my stance on fundamental matters, such as the much debated meaning of dikaiosu,nh qeou/ in Romans 1:17, the way Paul uses scripture and how this relates to the 'Christ-event', the plausibility of the so-called apocalyptic paradigm for understanding the Apostle etc (I will never forget his argument which runs that for Paul 'it is more important that scripture should shed a light on Christ than that Christ should shed light on Scripture' [16]! Not sure I would agree, but his point has buried under my theological skin forever). Apart from that, reading Watson is simply a delight. You know that you will learn a lot, and his close reading of the texts is a lesson in and of itself. I turn to the work of Watson when I want to digest serious scholarship, when a want my mind stretched and my flaky 'New Perspective' biases challenged! What is more, if anyone wants to engage with his more recent work, Paul, Judaism, and the Gentiles: Beyond the New Perspective (Cambridge: Eerdmans, 2007), bear these words in mind (from the preface of the Eerdmans volume): 'this volume conserve to complement the argument of my Paul and the Hermeneutics of Faith'.

Of course, if anybody is seeking to understand 'Paul's doctrine of righteousness by faith', one will need to engage with Watson's argument that claims it 'is an exercise in scriptural interpretation and hermeneutics' (76). And more broadly, if anybody wants to understand Paul's use of the Old Testament, this book is going to be essential. But because of the scope of Watson's argument, and the number of texts with which he engages, Paul and the Hermeneutics of Faith is a book worth having in your library for all matter of issues. As I said, it is one of the best books in my Apostle Paul library. This tome will take a while to work through properly, but he is a scholar with whom time is well, and enjoyably, spent.

Not NT Wrong and a poem to show I’m connected with my feminine side

James McGrath's hilarious series trying to guess the identity of NT Wrong took a particularly sick turn today with the suggestion that yours truly is the culprit. Just to make it clear: I wasn't a screaming, terrorising, rabid, foaming mouthed heretic filled to the nostrils with the spirit of anti-Wright last time I looked. So no, I am not NT Wrong. Besides, NT Wrong is clearly a man – the style of his rhetoric, turns of phrases, all manner of clues give him away. More to the point, his blog reveals that he is male orientated to the extent of having lost touch with his inner woman (the recent 'poem' about Zwingli only shows his hardened maleness). So to prove my case all the more convincingly, that I am not NT Wrong, I have penned a short poem to demonstrate how in touch with my feminine side I am, to further distance myself from the anti-Wright and to silence once and for all these unsavoury slurs against Chrisendom.

*Clears throat*

A Letter of Christ

It is not clear how ἐπιστολὴ Χριστοῦ
should ever be read as precisely
a subjective genitive
as the subjective/objective genitive debate
should revolve around
the relation
of the given genitive to a verbal noun,

- Not to be confused with an infinitive,
which is syntactically a verbal noun -

such that the head noun
has a verbal idea
and is thus transformed into a verb.
While the noun ἐπιστολή does have
a verbal cognate (ἐπιστέλλω),
it appears rarely in the NT
(only in Acts 15:20; 21:25 and Heb. 13:22)
and is never
used by Paul
who instead
always prefers to use the verb γράφω
Cf. Rom. 15:15; 1 Cor. 4:14; 5:9, 11; 7:1; 9:15; 14:37;
2 Cor. 1:13; 2:3f, 9; 7:12; 9:1; 13:10; Gal. 1:20; 6:11;
Phil. 3:1; 1 Thess. 4:9; 5:1; Philem. 19, 21.
Cf. also 2 Thess. 3:17 and 1 Tim. 3:14

(Chris Tilling, © 2008)

I thank you.

Book of the Year: Christology and Science by Shults - Part 1 of 2

My thanks to the kind folk at Ashgate for a review copy of F. LeRon Shults, Christology and Science (Aldershot: Ashgate, 2008)

Every generation of theologians, Shults reminds his readers in chapter one ('Reforming Christology'), must articulate 'the institutions of the biblical tradition about the significance of Jesus Christ in a way that engages its own cultural context' (1). This task is made all the more important because '[m]any traditional depictions of the person, work and coming of Christ are shaped by assumptions about humanity and the world that no longer makes sense in light of contemporary science' (1). Shults' short book attempts to open up fresh avenues in this venture. Yet far from merely offering cerebral re-mapping of Christian vocabulary against modern science, he presents a reforming Christology which seeks to effect contemporary life, to 'facilitate the reformation of ways of living in the world' (1).

The dialogue between Christology and science is, of course, an interdisciplinary engagement. And the potted history of the relation between religion and science will leave some suspicious from the start that such a dialogue is possible. So Shults suggests an interpersonal metaphor for thinking about the interaction of theology and science, namely to think of them as lovers: 'fascinated by the differences, as well as their shared interests', working at their love, 'willing to confront one another for the sake of illumination' (3), and seeking not to annoy each other on the way! As part of the project, philosophy will play a mediating role in this dialogue.

That philosophy must act in such a role is necessary given the need to make explicit the assumptions about the way things are, assumptions that colour our doctrinal conceptions in key respects. For example, try asking these questions, all addressed in one way by Shults in the book: Is a thing's relations a part of that thing, or are they accidental to it? Can we speak of an isolated thing with attributes? Does a thing live in space, or is the relation between a thing and the space that it occupies more complex? Does the genus 'human' exist apart from particular humans? What does it mean to be present? How is causality understood? Is there any meaning in speaking of the time of an event? Etc. Our answers to these questions may share little in common with modern science but rather reflect premodern, Newtonian or some other outdated concepts. Yet much of our Christology is based upon, at fundamental levels, outmoded scientific aassumptions about the way the world really is.

But if theology and science are lovers, more listening needs to happen, just as any marriage/relationship counsellor will say to a troubled couple. And this communication takes place in a reciprocal triangular mediation of Christology, science and philosophy.

Anybody who has read Shults' works before will know his burden to use developments in late modern thinking. These developments change the way we answer (and sometimes even ask) those basic questions, among others, and thus presents theology with a challenge and an opportunity in reforming Christology. In a section titled 'Jesus Christ in the Philosophy of Science' Shults, with special emphasis on developments in the philosophy of science that are relevant to reforming Christology, notes three important themes.

First is the 'growing appeal of relationality as heuristic category in the philosophy of science' (5). No longer can the category of relation be suppressed to that of substance, as in the history of thought stretching back to Aristotle. Through names such as Locke, Hume, Kant and Hegel, the concept of relation came to the forefront, a development reflected in the philosophy of logic, mathematics and physics. For example:

'Einstein's field equations for general special relativity ... are based on the use of functional relations. Quantum physics pressed philosophers of science even further, leading them to challenge the adequacy of substance/attribute predication theory to make sense of the entanglement phenomena discovered at the subatomic level. Here reality itself resists the abstraction associated with the category of "thing" (substance), and physicists increasingly appealed to inherently relational and dynamic modes of talking about what " happens between" and within the unpredictable flow of "interphenomena"' (7).

Second is the emphasis on the contextuality of all scientific enquiry. Importantly, this overcomes the dichotomy between faith and reason, (one made prominent again at the popular – though only at the popular level – by writers such as Dawkins), making them both part of a more relational whole. Third is interdisciplinarity, the 'transgressing of boundaries between disciplines' (10). Besides, Shults adds that 'Christology is interdisciplinary whether we like it or not'. Once again, relational categories 'play an important illuminative and generative role in this interdisciplinary context' (11).

Turning to examine further the relations in his triangular mediation (I will not summarise all of these sections), Shults speaks of philosophy's role in the material shaping and methodological role of Christology. While traditional theological treatments of Jesus Christ have neatly divided Christology from soteriology, pneumatology and eschatology, the philosophical turn to relationality blurs the boundaries around these distinctions. In examining science and the philosophy of Jesus Christ, he argues that the philosophy of Jesus Christ refers to his way of 'knowing, acting and being in the world in relation to God and his neighbours' (16). Hence Shults examines in the following chapters, under the rubric of reforming Christology, the following three areas which correspond to chapters 2,3 and 4:

1. Incarnation and evolutionary biology
2. Atonement and cultural anthropology
3. Parousia and physical cosmology

Quote of the day

"The earliest list of a twenty-seven book New Testament appears in 367, and there was still rather striking variations into the Middle Ages. In light of that, what is the force of some conservative Protestant arguments that whatever is not in the Bible should not be part of the church? By the later fourth century when Athanasius made his list of New Testament books, many features of the church that evangelical, particularly free church, Protestants find questionable are already functioning. Does it make sense to say that the fourth-century church was making very good decisions about the Bible but mostly poor ones about everything else?"

From F. W. Norris' article, "The Canon of Scripture in the Church" cited in Craig D. Allert, A High View of Scripture, Baker Academic, 2007, p.77

PopeTarts™ and Popesicles™: NEW ecumenical booster merchandise!

You may purchase these tasteful PopeTarts™ and Popesicles™ by contacting the merchandise department in the comment box. A nice feature of the PopeTarts™ ($50 for pack of ten – plus free cardboard packaging): if you squeeze them in the middle, it repeats a variety of liturgical exclamations in Latin (remove electronic device before consuming). There are a variety of tastes to suit your ecumenical desire, from plain old chocolate to honey glazed barbequed cherub.

The Popesicles™, at just $15 a pack*, are made to taste of incense smoke. Other flavours will be made available in the new year.

We are presently working on Prayer Beads that double up as an Mp3 player, and statues of the Virgin Mary with moving eyes.

* Contains 1 Popesicle. May contains nuts, snot, hair, ice, dairy products or meat.

CTRVHM goes all ecumenical

In the spirit of Christian unity the Chris Tilling Really Very Holy Ministries (CTRVHM) merchandise department have produced a range of products to promote ecumenism and cultivate mutual respect within the body of Christ.

Of course, a few years ago we already made the announcement, out of generous love for really weird Christian denominations, that the staff at CTRVHM would cease wiping their bottoms with literature representing different theological positions to ours (which meant actually buying loo roll – ecumenism costs*). But today we are going a step further than that and reaching out a gracious hand of fellowship even to Roman Catholics.

You may purchase these tasteful PopeTarts™ by contacting the merchandise department in the comment box. A nice feature of the brown version is that if you squeeze it in the middle, it repeats a variety of liturgical exclamations in Latin (remove electronic device before consuming). There are a variety of tastes to suit your ecumenical desire, from plain old chocolate to honey glazed barbequed cherub.

Alternatively, our new Popesicles™, at just $15 a pack* are made to taste of incense smoke. Other flavours will be made available in the new year.

We are presently working on Prayer Beads that double up as an Mp3 player, and statues of the Virgin Mary with moving eyes.

* $3 a month, usually. Unless we've eaten too much Indian takeaway. Then it is at least doubled.

** Contains 1 Popesicle. May contains nuts, snot, hair, ice, dairy products or meat.

Over-realised eschatology thinking

A good reason to write a post like the previous is interestingly found in the claims on the back of a book noted by Nick Norelli recently, Beale's The Erosion of Inerrancy in Evangelicalism: Responding to New Challenges to Biblical Authority. What Beale actually claims remains to be seen when I purchase a copy, but the blurb reads:

'When postmodernism preys upon propositional truth, Christians—and Christian scholars—can be tempted to redefine words like "error," "truth," and "inspiration." But if propositions are no longer secure, what exactly does it mean to say that the Bible is true?'

It goes on to speak of 'leading postmodernist, Peter Enns'! All of this sounds quite silly, and it reminds me how important it is to actually read the bible before being taken hook, line and sinker by such notions as 'secure propositions'. In fact, this strikes me as the symptom of an (albeit understandable) yearning for the eschaton, but framed like this ultimately leads to over-realised eschatological grasp of reality. I suggest a meditative think on the proposition found in Psalm 66:4!

(For some earlier Chrisendom reflections on scripture and propositional revelation – you know you want to read them! – see here and here)

The nature of biblical propositions

In a prayer time recently I meditated upon a verse in Psalm 66 (using the helpful method of repeating the text aloud stressing one word in the sentence only, then repeating the sentence and stressing the next word until the sentence is complete), namely:

'All the earth worships you; they sing praises to you, sing praises to your name' (Ps 66:4)

What struck me about the sentence is the nature of its claim on reality. Ask yourself: Does the whole earth worship God? Does it all 'sing praises' to Yahweh? What about idolatry, sin, corruption, the destructive eruptions of chaos, etc.?

Perhaps one should read 'all the earth' as 'all the (promised) land', though M.E. Tate speaks here, in his Word Biblical Commentary on Psalms 51-100, of praise 'by all who live on the earth' (p. 149). Either way, though especially if Tate is right in his assumption, what an astonishing claim! Are we to really believe that 'all in the earth', whether the whole world or even just the whole land, worships God, sings praises to God?

My suggestion: this sentence of praise is best taken, in terms of its propositional claim on reality, as an eschatological statement. It points to a hoped for reality. But as I pondered this, it struck me that this is true of so much biblical material to a great or lesser extent. While there is nothing in the context of the Psalm itself to read such an eschatological accent into it, does not its truth claim push it into a future? Indeed, there may be nothing in the context of other biblical proposition, but many of them, especially positive statements about God, all claim a stake in a reality that is yet to come, one that is in the hidden future and coming of God.

I think if we could grasp this more profoundly, perhaps we would be unleashed to develop our doctrinal thinking with more boldness, freshness and truthfulness, in a way that is more accustomed to walking on the water, less disturbed by the waves and wind of a world still yearning for its eschatological reality to materialise. And recognising this, maybe we would also judge our own theological statements (whether Calvinistic, Arminian, Reformed, Open Theistic or whatever) with more humility, as always penultimate to God's glorious advent.

Quote of the Day

'"Dogmatic" theology is rational, but its axioms must be fluid rather than fixed'

(LeRon Shults, Christology and Science, 134 – a terrific book, one that I will review soon)

Creation or Evolution

The Dean of St Mellitus brought a new book in for our growing library the other day. I, um, promptly bagged it and took it home. Suppose I shouldn't say that here, but hey ho - 'sin boldly' as Luther wrote to Melanchthon. The item in question is Denis Alexander's new book, Creation or Evolution: Do We Have To Choose? His book Rebuilding the Matrix is an absolute gem. A part of me is a bit bored with the whole creationism-evolution hubbub, but this book will no doubt be worth your investment.

The St Mellitus College Collect

I'm sad, of course, to have missed SBL this year, but I've been away for the past few days at a St Mellitus residential weekend, delivering a couple of lectures on Luke. Phil Ritchie (Director of Lay Ministry Studies) posted the St Mellitus college collect a while ago

God of grace and wisdom,
who called your servant Mellitus
to leave his home and proclaim your Word:
grant to all who belong to the college that bears his name
diligence for study, fervour for mission,
and perseverance for ministry,
that they might shine with your love and truth
in these dioceses and beyond,
for the sake of your Son, our Saviour, Jesus Christ. Amen.

(To the tune of MC Hammer - U Can't Touch This)

For many years as an evangelical I never heard about 'collects'. Can't get enough of them these days. Though recent escapades into traditional liturgical forms of worship have made me also appreciate more 'charismatic' or 'free' forms of worship, I would advise all in the evangelical tradition to pick up the Anglican prayer book. My personal favourite is Celebrating Common Prayer.

Gentiles as the return from exile people

Michael Barber once wrote a tremendously through provoking post on the salvation of 'all Israel'. Among other things he suggested that Paul saw the restoration of the lost northern tribes as directly associated with Paul's mission to Gentiles, suggesting a closer link between the lost tribes and the Gentiles.

Michael summarises part of a Scott Hahn essay with these words: 'God allowed Israel to be exiled so that he could use them to eventually bring the nations home as well--as their relatives'. Among other passages very ably discussed, Michael notes especially the way Paul applies a passage in Hosea 1, which originally spoke of the northern tribes, to Gentiles (Hosea 1:10 'where it was said to them, "You are not my people," it shall be said to them, "Children of the living God". Cf. Romans 9:26). One could add material in 2 Corinthians 6:16-18 to this too, where the return from exile people ('come out from them, and be separate from them, says the Lord' – i.e. come out from the nations!) are equated with the Corinthian Christians! Amazing! (cf. here for a few references on this)

Does this mean the Gentiles are the lost northern tribes? Or as Hahn implies, their relatives? Or perhaps the Gentiles are simply symbolically represent the lost northern tribes? Or are the Gentiles made holy, included in to the line of Abraham, because of intermingling with the northern tribes (cf. Rom. 11:16)? Or are they related in some other way? Love to read your thoughts…

The Church of the Holy Sepulchre showdown

Forget Ali's "The Rumble In The Jungle", WWF, the Undertaker, etc. This week CTRVHM is selling front row seats for the next clash between the two rival Orthodox sects in the Church of the Holy Sepulchre. While many commentators have rightly pointed out the travesty and sadness of this event, its perversion of Christian virtue and its stomach churningly terrible witness, what the public really wants to see now are more split lips.

So for a mere $6,000, CTRVHM will not only fly you out from Atlanta or Heathrow to the church itself, but buy you pew space for the next show down. Included in the price is a brochure with pictures and bios of the biggest monks, scarves with the names of your chosen sect or monk and various other CTRVHM memorabilia.

One happy customer has already described the delight of watching two of the young monks hack at each other with a variety of liturgical instruments. 'I saw this monk', one happy CTRVHM customer animatedly reported, 'smash a pot of incense into this other bloke's head'. Yet another excitedly thanked CTRVHM for their ministry and told how one monk chanted that he was going to 'make me his bitch' if I didn't stop filming. 'Luckily the police took him down in the nick of time'.

Order seats now while they remain. For booking fees and terms of use, please contact the offices.

Godpod 39

Gordon Wenham

Today I had the pleasure of introducing Prof. Gordon Wenham for a guest lecture to our second year OT class. At the start of the year I specifically decided to decline giving lectures on two OT themes, namely 'holiness' and 'righteousness and justification'. For obvious reasons. So it was a real honour to have him speak to us on the matter of 'holiness'. Besides, Gordon is a world-class internationally renowned OT scholar, and I'm, well, still wondering if Adam had a bellybutton or not. A true gentleman if ever there was one, here is a picture we took of Gordon and myself today.

Spot the difference competition

The two pictures of Zwingli below have been slightly altered, in 5 ways, to differ from one another. Can you spot all 5 changes?

UPDATE: People are finding this one difficult, so I offer here just one of the changes pointed out by Brandon to help you:

1) The turd on the left is wearing a hat

Exegetical comment of the day

Joshua 11:12-15 ¹² And all the towns of those kings, and all their kings, Joshua took, and struck them with the edge of the sword, utterly destroying them, as Moses the servant of the LORD had commanded. ¹³ But Israel burned none of the towns that stood on mounds except Hazor, which Joshua did burn. ¹⁴ All the spoil of these towns, and the livestock, the Israelites took for their booty; but all the people they struck down with the edge of the sword, until they had destroyed them, and they did not leave any who breathed. ¹⁵ As the LORD had commanded his servant Moses, so Moses commanded Joshua, and so Joshua did; he left nothing undone of all that the LORD had commanded Moses.

Goldingay comments on these verses:

'So did Joshua and the people do what Yhwh had said via Moses (Josh 11:15)? Yes. Well, no. Well, yes. Well, no. Well, yes' (OT Theology 1.465)!

What happens to the Land in the NT?

First, the matter of land is surely not absent in the NT (cf. the geographical land divisions in the first chapters of Luke, Acts and the language of the restoration of the tribes etc.). Barry E. Horner in Future Israel (while I haven't read it all- far from it – this is a book that has actually wound me up rotten!) argues:

'Romans 11:29. "God's gracious gifts and calling are irrevocable." The plurality of the "gracious gifts," ta charismata, surely follows on, by way of explication, from that which is declared secure according to the Abrahamic Covenant originating from "their [Israel's] forefathers," v. 28. Of course from a Hebrew perspective, the "gifts" include saving grace for Israel, yet surely more is included such as the encompassing covenant blessings of 9:4-5 that would unquestionably include the land' (276)

So it remains, but is surely treated differently, with different emphasis (is thus transformed). Is it:

• Spiritualised? Inheritance in Paul becomes the Spirit, not a strip of land in Canaan. Cf. eternal life language in John
  
• Displaced in person of Christ?: On the basis of Eph. 2:11-22; 3:6; Heb. 4:1-11; John 4:20-26, Chris Wright argues that 'Christ himself, therefore, incorporates and fulfils the significance of the land, as he did also for the law, the covenant, the temple, the king, the priest hood, the prophetic word, Wisdom etc... The effect of this, however, was far from being merely a spiritualizing evaporation of all the great social and economic themes associated with the land in the OT. The reality of Christian koininia in Christ included such practical aspects of inclusio, authority, lifestyle, and socioeconomic responsibility in ways that clearly reflect these same dimensions of Israel's life in the land' (New International Dictionary of Old Testament Theology and Exegesis, 1.524). Cf. also WD Davies.
  
• Transformed as the eschatological promise of resurrection?: 'The language of the promised land was understood by many Jews at the time as an eschatological promise of resurrection life beyond the grave (Dan 12:13; Wis 5:5; Shemoneh 'Esreh 13; Dead Sea Scrolls: 1QS 11:7-8; 1QH 11:10-12). This "promised land" of Israel's was being inherited by the Christians, says Paul.' (Cited in Gregory MacDonald's The Evangelical Universalist)
  
• Brueggemann: 'it is here urged that the land theme is more central than Davies believes and that it has not been so fully spiritualized as he concludes. It is more likely that the land theme can be understood in a dialectical way: in contexts of gnosticism the land theme must be taken in a more physical, historical ways; in contexts of politicizing the land theme must be taken in a more symbolic way' (The Land, 170).
  
• Universalised?: Paul recognised that the Abrahamic covenant had universal implications (cf. its narrative context following Gen. 1-11), and so Paul, especially under the influence of his broadly christologically shaped hermeneutic universalised the land as God's intention for the world. So, for example, Romans 4:13: 'For the promise that he [Abraham] would inherit the world did not come to Abraham or to his descendants through the law but through the righteousness of faith'. Compare Eph. 6:2-3 and Deut. 5:16.
  

Any other suggestions?

Separated at Birth?

News

The Bultmann Official Leitmotif Learners Organisation recently merged with the related Core Concepts Society, becoming the all-new BOLLO & CCS. Together, these academic assemblages make a formidable impression. Now they are together planning a merger with the larger University Term Teaching Educational Rotas (UTTER). Which says it all, really. But the popular Hammersmith –Acton Institute for Royal Yiddish (HAIRY) are contesting UTTER in a bid of their own, which would make the amalgamated society very Big. Watch this space as news unfolds.

Right, back to lecture preparation.

Your collective Wisdom

What modern commentaries (and perhaps collection of essays) would you recommend on the Gospels of John? Any comments on Andreas J. Köstenberger's Baker exegetical commentary on John? Or Craig Keener's?

Apologetic strategy of the day

Someone gently asks: 'How do you explain all of the contradictions in the bible?'

1. Say incredulously 'What contradictions?' and hope they fall for your bluff. If they actually list any contradictions go to step 2.
   
2. Waffle about how 'contradiction' is a difficult word to define. However, if they offer a reasonable definition and apply it to a certain set of biblical texts, go to step 3
   
3. Mention their thoughts are wicked and that they must really hate all things righteous (roll your 'r'). If their face starts to harden, go to step 4.
   
4. Suddenly and forcefully grab a hold of their head with both hands, and rebuke demons of stupidity (and add generational rebellion, lust, greed and paedophilia for good measure). Then take of your anointed 'mantle' (i.e. your jacket), and thwack them round the abdomen as hard as is righteous.
   
5. Walk away from yet another ministry success.
   

Or, say something like 'Real life is full of contradictions and paradoxes. If the Bible is not merely a collection of abstract philosophical propositions but a collection of books written from the context of and about real life in all its grit and joys, grim and rapture, why, then, should there be no contradictions? Perhaps we should start judging the Bible according to what it is, not what it never was or never claimed to be'

Separated at Birth?

Barker's visit

As I mentioned yesterday, Margaret Barker discussed her fascinating theses concerning Temple theology today, and I took the opportunity to get the following picture taken of us both. I also purchased a discounted copy of her brand new book, Christmas: The Original Story, which I am really looking forward to reading (when I get the chance!). Her presentation was not only highly stimulating, but she was very personable and friendly.

I’d be interested to learn what people think about her arguments, where there is room for improvement or even complete overhaul, what has shed fresh light on the evidence or utterly convinced you. While I am actually not too convinced that there was a specific 'temple theology' that was so completely essential for early Christians as she maintains - and I am even less convinced by the 'YHWH as Son of the Most High' proposal -, I will re-read some of her arguments in the near future with a renewed hermeneutical openness.

Margaret Barker to visit St Paul’s Theological Centre

Tomorrow we at St Paul's (and St Mellitus) have the privilege of enjoying Margaret Barker as a guest lecturer on our second year Bible and Theology course. She will speak about Temple theology. Here are some of the facts that I will mention by way of introduction, much of which is adapted from her own webpage:

• She read theology at the University of Cambridge, and now has approximately 13 books to her name. And there is a new book either to be or just freshly published, namely Christmas. The Original Story.
  
• In July 2008 Margaret Barker was awarded an honorary Doctor of Divinity degree by the Archbishop of Canterbury 'in recognition of her work on the Jerusalem Temple and the origins of Christian Liturgy, which has made a significantly new contribution to our understanding of the New Testament and opened up important fields for research.'

Something about the things she has been involved with.

• In 1998 she was greatly honoured and elected President of the Society for Old Testament Study.
  
• She is currently the Editor of the Society's Monograph Series.
  
• 1997, she has been part of the symposium Religion, Science and the Environment, convened by the Orthodox Church's Archbishop of Constantinople, Bartholomew I, the Ecumenical Patriarch.

Pretty impressive, really. While I personally disagree with quite a few of her proposals, there is no doubting that she is a uniquely creative author, spotting all kinds of interesting conceptual connections that all the rest have not even noticed. And the breadth of her grasp of the primary literature is simply stunning. I’ll try to remember to take some snaps!

Link of the day

Perriman responds to a critical review of his uniquely stimulating and provocative book, The Coming of the Son of Man. Give it a read, here.

Separated at Birth?

Zwingli and the blue hairy Yeti of Monsters Inc.

The eyes and mouth do it.

Once again: Bultmann’s incarnation problem

Bultmann wrote: 'The only way of presenting revelation is as the annihilation of everything human, the refusal of all human questions, the rejection of all human answers – in short, as the putting of man into question' (cited in John Ashton's brilliant work: Understanding the Fourth Gospel, p.58)

Ashton comments:

'There is no getting round the Incarnation, and Bultmann set his face resolutely against any attempt to water it down: 'The Revealer appears not as man-in-general, i.e. not simply as a bearer of human nature, but as a definite human being in history: Jesus of Nazareth. His humanity is genuine humanity: "the word became flesh".' But for all his vaunted anti-docetism, Bultmann presents a Christ in whom all salient individual characteristics have been flattened out: the splendid 'I am' sayings in which so much of his revelation is contained have but a single message: 'All that I say is I.' The incarnate Christ is no more than a voice, his particular and contingent human qualities all drawn off, volatilized, until there is nothing left but a smear on a slide--the ultimate essence of a Word' (Understanding the Fourth Gospel, p.65, italics mine)

Ashton's book, by the way, is one of those special volumes that is simultaneously academically heavyweight at the same time as being a delight to read, difficult to put down.

But less you think Ashton's criticisms imply disrespect for Bultmann (or mine in citing them), he still speaks of him as 'unmatched in learning, breadth, and understanding [... towering] like a colossus' (45).

Only as much humanity as is consonant with divinity

I've recently been enjoying reading Randal Rauser's Faith Lacking Understanding (a great title, Robin!). In a chapter on the incarnation, while noting the Evangelical tendency to 'elevate Christ's divinity at the expense of his humanity', Rauser references Raymond Brown's memorable words:

'[I]t may well be that most Christians tolerate only as much humanity as they deem consonant with their view of divinity' (172-3 n.4, from Brown's An Introduction to New Testament Christology, 27).

Especially as an evangelical myself, reading that made me chuckle with delight as Brown is onto something! Do give it another read! Evangelical Docetism would thus be rooted in a faulty metaphysic, one that has rejected the significance and goodness of the created order, and its relation to God, leaving only a crass metaphysical dualism divorced from the gracious incarnation of the Word, from God's humanity. I would add, this dualism is one in which Bultmann's project finds as much its home as your average popular evangelical book! As I have often noted before, Bultmann and popular evangelicals are odd, but sometimes nevertheless real, bedfellows. At the base of this common cause is perhaps a similar penchant to tolerate only a limited humanity in their view of divinity (though you wouldn't believe it reading Bultmann's remarks on John 1:14 in his commentary). Brown's words deserve pondering again and again.

Note to self to preach about, sing and pray with the language of the divine initiative in the incarnation of the Logos more often!

Guest Book Review: Sumney’s Philippians Greek

My thanks both to Hendrickson Publishers and to Luke Welch for his review. Luke revels and excels in detail, as you will read.

Review of Jerry L. Sumney, Philippians: A Greek Student's Intermediate Reader, 2007 Hendrickson: Peabody, Mass.

The book under review is an attempt to ease the transition from first year Greek to reading the New Testament by explaining and parsing every word in Philippians and discussing the syntax thereof. This concept is based on the educational system either in Bible Colleges or Seminaries in North America. After a short introduction to the letter of Philippians, including the provenance, integrity, purpose and text, he proceeds with the Greek text NA27 and an English translation of every section of the letter. The introduction is based primarily on commentaries both in English and in German.

In the first section to Phil 1:1-2, the author offers basic syntactical observations and a word study of dou=loj. It may have been preferable to introduce the student to the principles of a word study, a concept that seems to still be deeply rooted in the Evangelical tradition in North America. What he says about the word dou=loj is true, but is the word not also used outside of the New Testament? This is a fundamental presupposition to hermeneutics and not necessarily a critique. I would however take issue with his "converting" the nominative xa/rij and ei0rh/nh into infinitives then using Smyth, 2014 to sneak the optative into the translation. I agree, an optative should be included in the translation, but it could be just as correct to say that it is implied, or that we should think that the author meant to include ei1h or plhqunqei/h (I Pet 1,2). The next comment, "Compare this use of the infinitive in commands in Smyth, 2013" (5) is incomprehensible to me. If this were a discussion on the use of the infinitive in I Peter, it would be justified. He then cites Wallace's categorization of this phenomenon, "nominative absolute" (5), but unfortunately leaves unanswered how these two suggestions should fit together. Are they infinitives or nominatives in a special function?

The overall goal of the first section was however reached. The reader could with very little knowledge translate or at least understand this section of Philippians with ease.

Continuing to read, on page eight one is confronted with the suggestion of a certain Peng, I am not sure if he means Paine. He correctly sees pas with the article as meaning "whole" but the translation is a bit awkward. The use of e0pi/ plus a dative is also brought into the discussion. This maybe should have been worked out, since this is an important but small distinction. In classical Greek, a temporal dative with a preposition would have been construed with e0n. In Koine it seems that the meaning of e0pi\ and e0n overlap, or there distinction has somewhat been diminished, something confirmed by the substitution of one for the other in manuscripts (Eph 6,16).

There are some keen observations on page 8 and 9 but then we stumble upon another "conversion" of the Greek. ei0j is understood as equalling a dative of advantage, then he introduces the dativus commodi as a grammatical category. It then becomes clear that ei0j can mean "for the sake of," but should this not be discussed under meaning of the preposition?

As a reviewer one cannot discuss every single sentence in a given work, but it would be hoped that this sort of work is done in classrooms where this book could be of service.

I can skip ahead to some exegetically significant passages.

Among the keen observations on Philippians 3,4-6 are: zh=loj as a neuter, something easily overlooked and the use of the designation Israel and the indeclinable Israel and Benjamin. Names are always difficult for students of NT Greek, I don't recall them in a beginning grammar of NT Greek. The comments to "Hebrew of Hebrews" leaves the reader wishing the author had cited his sources. He also confuses the discussion by using the designation "Palestinian." This designation was later an important one in the early church and the superscription is after all on one letter in the NT "to the Hebrews."

A sketch of NT syntax, a glossary and an annotated bibliography round out the book.

A few words about the overall character of the book are in order. The author seems to be committed to the syntactical system of Daniel Wallace. This point is not defended or discussed. He proceeds as if the categories are as much true as the text of the NT. These categories are partially constructs based only upon usage in the NT with very little reference to other Greek works from this time. It is never asked, "how would someone have expressed this in Greek of the time?" This said, one other point should be mentioned, the citation of BDF and Wallace seems to follow closely the register of those given works.

The placement of this work in this tradition can lead me to say, I could recommend this book for second year college students, and perhaps second semester seminary students, although at the graduate level the works BDF and others should be consulted directly. The book offers one text as a working basis to learn syntax and therefore bridges the gap to Wallace for those students who do not enjoy reading single sentences for grammars sake.

Luke Welch

Recommending a one volume bible commentary

One of my new responsibilities at St Paul's Theological Centre is the development of a new theological library.

While I have not made use of them myself in the past, I did want to stock a few one-volume bible commentaries, and I wondered if anybody had a particular recommendation. I know of three

• We already have the Eerdmans Commentary on the Bible, ed. by James D. G. Dunn and John Rogerson.
  
• I have a slightly older version of the IVP New Bible Commentary. I actually never used it that much and a friend always called it 'The New Bible Cemetery'!
  
• Came across the Oxford Bible Commentary yesterday for the first time – like the Eerdmans commentary, it has contributions from top scholars.
  

Do you have any experiences with any of these or perhaps better ones? Let me know before I press the 'purchase' button.

Guest Book Review: Nelson Moore on James McGrath’s The Burial of Jesus

James F. McGrath is Associate Professor of Religion at Butler University in Indianapolis, Indiana. His newest book, The Burial of Jesus: History and Faith (Booksurge Publishing, 2008,) is without question a good read.

The book is imminently readable and at 142 pages, easily digested. It is not a scholarly tome – there are no footnotes, no critical interaction with other historical Jesus scholarship, and many areas where he could have elaborated but chose not to. Rather, this is a book written by a biblical scholar for a popular audience.

McGrath has three primary goals: to introduce the average reader to the historical reasearch methods employed by biblical scholars, to put those tools to work in the historical study of the burial of Jesus, and ultimately to convince the reader that a bodily resurrection did not take place and is not a necessary component of Christian faith. This last goal is not explicitly made public in either the title or the opening chapters of the book, but by the time the reader arrives at the the final pages, there can be no mistake that this really is high on McGrath's priority list.

Chapter 1 – Introduction

McGrath shares his concern in the opening chapters about two elements of contemporary religious life in America. One is the proliferation of conservative Evangelical and fundamental strains of Christianity. The other is the popularity of television documentaries that seek to show "what the scholars have discovered" and then present often sensationalized or one-sided claims – claims that seem more oriented around drawing a large audience than around dealing in a thorough and reasoned manner with historical and archaeological material. So McGrath is annoyed by both of these. And in response to that he has produced this book.

He notes also in the first chapter that since the claims that Christians make are often historical (e.g. Jesus lived, Jesus died, Jesus was buried) it is simply a requirement that the tools of historical study be employed to investigate what happened. It would be ridiculous to make historical claims and then resist the attempts of historians to evaluate them.

Chapter Two – Research Methods

McGrath spends chapter two laying out his argument for how historical research in Gospel studies should be done.

He does a good job of laying out the tools of historical research. In general, historians have access to ancient records (in our case, gospel narratives, Pauline epistles, other early documents) and archaeological finds (signets, cookware, weaponry, etc.) It is the job of the historian to examine this data and draw conclusions. No historian worth his or her salt would ever accept written sources uncritically. As a result of this, Prof. McGrath will expose the biblical narratives to the same kind of critical inquiry. And he is not afraid to reject biblical sources that display evidence of tampering.

McGrath then proceeds to use the tools of historical critical biblical study to examine the Synoptic Gospels. He does a fine job outlining what is the majority opinion among New Testament scholars today: Mark was written first; Matthew and Luke used Mark as a source; Matthew and Luke seem to have shared a second common source that we often refer to as Q; Matthew has some material that is totally unique to his Gospel; so does Luke. A careful reading of this material will help one realize that these are not wild claims that are invented by an imaginative scholar, but rather are reasoned conclusions based upon careful examination of data.

Based upon his work here, McGrath concludes that Matthew and Luke have heavily modified the original story for theological and rhetorical purposes. As a result, they are not reliable as historical sources. This conclusion will become very important when he later examines the burial of Jesus.

Chapter Three

In chapter three, McGrath puts to work the historical research methods that he laid out in chapter two. Due to his conclusions there, he will use the Markan account almost exclusively. He draws the following conclusions.

It is virtually indisputable that Jesus existed and that he was crucified. While history will encounter some who from time to time seek to deny these facts, the historical record is really rather clear. It is also virtually certain that Jesus really did die. Theories about how Jesus could have survived crucifixion are most unlikely.

He concludes that the words ascribed to Jesus as he hung on the cross are in all likelihood fictive. He concludes that Jesus' body was in all probability laid in a mass criminal's grave, used often for the purpose of entombing crucified criminals. The likely motive for the Sunday visit of Jesus' followers was to get the body out of this dishonorable location and to give the body of their fallen leader a more proper burial. The whole tradition surrounding Joseph of Arimathea, the desire of the woment to anoint the body, the existence of the guard at the tomb – all are rejected as unhistorical.

What we can conclude, therefore, is that Jesus lived, he was crucified, he died, and the body was missing on Sunday morning. As an historian McGrath is willing to concede that it is possible that the body rose from the dead. But he does not believe that the tools of historical inquiry can reach that conclusion. (And since he believes those are the only tools suitable for historical research, he does not draw that conclusion.)

Chapter Four

One might expect a book entitled The Burial of Jesus to end at this point. McGrath continues his exploration, however, to investigate what happened after the tomb was found empty. (He is particularly interested in examining New Testaent experiences with the resurrected Lord because as a Christian, he believes that they are still happening.)

McGrath examines Paul's testimony and notes that Paul has no empty tomb references. He then points out that "all such details which emphasize the physicality of Jesus' resurrection body are in the latest of the New Testament Gospels: Luke and John" (106). He concludes concludes in chapter four that it was not the existence of an empty tomb that created resurrection faith, but rather encounters with the risen Christ.

Chapter Five

Chapter five is McGrath's attempt to lay out what resurrection and faith look like in light of his findings. He briefly examines Christian beliefs regarding concepts such as eternal life, final judgment, the immortality of the soul, and the like. Among other things, he draws the following conclusions. New Testament authors speak of eternal life not as "going to heaven whe you die" but rather something to be experienced on earth. In the Bible, judgment is more often than not something you need to be concerned about while on earth. A non-corporeal resurrection of Jesus corresponds more clearly with what Christians have believed regarding their own fate. "If it makes sense to regard eternal life as something non-bodily, then surely the appropriate action is to regard Jesus as having entered eternal life in precisely the same way and same form as will eventually happen to all" (130). This corresponds to the concept of Jesus as forerunner.

Conclusions

The Burial of Jesus by James McGrath is definitely worth purchasing and reading. For those unfamiliar with how historical work is done in Christian academic contexts, McGrath provides a wonderful primer. If you are a biblical scholar, you may find this book very valuable as a resource to share with friends or students who are looking to understand historical scholarship. All in all, I thoroughly enjoyed this work.

by Nelson Moore

post scriptum

I would like to thank Chris Tilling Really Very Holy Ministries for the opportunity to present this material. May Tom Wright be blessed.

Godpod 38

Today, on Godpod 38, Mike Lloyd, Jane Williams, Graham Tomlin and myself discussed a couple of fascinating questions: Why didn't Jesus write his own Gospel, and Does God open the lost letters of planet earth (e.g. does God answer Muslim prayers etc.)?

During the second half of the Godpod I was rather quiet, trying to find the passage in Amos, which I ended up finding too late to add to the discussion. I was looking for Amos 9:7:

"Are you not like the Ethiopians to me, O people of Israel? says the LORD. Did I not bring Israel up from the land of Egypt, and the Philistines from Caphtor and the Arameans from Kir?"

My point was this: in no way denying that God acted on behalf of Israel, that God was in special relationship with this covenant people, God also acted in gracious redeeming activity on behalf of, so says Amos, the nations around Israel, indeed their enemies. In other words, while not contradicting the special claims of Israel, their relationship with God is, to use the term employed by Brueggemann, deabsolutised.

Applied to the question of whether God 'opens the lost letters of planet earth', this text would assert that God is indeed in relation with all people, ready to act graciously on their behalf. To say this, however, does not negate the specific and particular claims of Christain faith, but it does 'deabsolutise' them.

CTRVHM Pastoral Advice

Listen to the problem case for a bit (call them that, too. E.g. "You must be Problem Case X13/12.3"), avoid eye contact (cf. bible references on the ‘evil eye’), and look bored. Then say:

"Either

1. Repent more, or
2. pray more, or
3. read the bible more, or
4. fast more, or
5. bind and loose more, or
6. tithe much more, or
7. all of the above. And more."

If, after a week, they claim that none of that works suggest they take the ‘more’ more seriously and that 7 is a perfect number so the fault must be theirs.

If they still say they are in a fix, throw your hands up in the air (still avoiding eye contact) and listen to the simply beautiful Goldfrapp track, ‘Clowns’ (that link being the real point of this otherwise pointless post).

Speaking of Pseudepigrapha

Some interesting comments in the previous post, which I shall have to follow up. Thanks.

I recently got David R. Nienhuis’s Not by Paul Alone from the library, and it looks so interesting I am tempted to purchase it so I can scribble all over it (birthday present, anyone?!).

Essentially, he seems to argue that James, like 2 Peter, is a mid-second century pseudepigrapha, written to provide shape in the developing Christian canon. Indeed, the Catholic Epistles use the names of church pillars (James, Peter and John) in their pseudepigraphal project in an attempt to counterbalance the Pauline dominance in the emerging collection, and particularly its potential (mis)application by Marcionists.

Fascinating! There is something plausible and simple about this thesis which appeals to me.

The authentic Pauline corpus

Ben Blackwell draws our attention to a forthcoming book by the late Brevard Childs, on the Pauline letters: The Canonical Shaping of the Pauline Corpus. I look forward to that.

My own relatively uninformed view on the undisputed/disputed status of the canonical Pauline corpus runs as follows:

Genuine Pauline authorship

Romans, 1 and 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Philippians, 1 Thessalonians, Philemon and ... Colossians and 2 Thessalonians

Likely Pauline authorship

Ephesians

Questionable authenticity

2 Timothy

Pseudepigrapha

1 Timothy, Titus

What thinketh thee? I am very open minded and flexible on these matters, and I am yet to get into E. Randolph Richards’s, Paul and First-Century Letter Writing, which may change my mind on a fair bit. I think it may as my notion of 'authorship' probably needs more work.

Peter Stuhlmacher writes about "Paul's" authoriship of the disputed letters (note the ""). That seems a bit clumsy to me, but it is perhaps one way to negotiate the matter.

For me, despite some earlier canon-choosing criteria, the text doesn’t need to be written by Paul for it to be inspired, to be useful for the church. Truth is a multifaceted creature, difficult to pin down in only one or two directions; and neither will inspiration be confined to a test-tube. So the truth of Titus, for example, is not to be located in that the historical Paul did or did not write it; it remains as much scripture for the church as 1 Thessalonians, as much a part of the NT canon as any other text which God has led the church to recognise.

What in the world has Jim West been doing?

Your collective wisdom

Do any of my readers have any thoughts - any at all - on James K. Mead, Biblical Theology: Issues, Methods, and Themes (London: Westminster John Knox Press, 2007)? I ask as I am about to start it, yet I must admit that I have no acquaintance with any of his works, and no idea about this book.

An appropriate forum for debate

James just sent this to me, which I hereby dedicate to Jim West for obvious reasons. The Our Lady of Martyrs sign writer was clearly a genius.

Weird things in the UK

Having lived in Germany for about 6 years, coming back to the UK is almost like moving back to a foreign country. I love the UK; I'm excited to be back. But here are a couple of weird UK-isms that have struck me:

• People actually drink that freeze-dried coffee slop. I’ve even started again myself, Lord help me.


• Strictly Come Dancing .... more like Strictly Interesting as Watching Paint Drying. But, boy oh boy, the flippin jury (who appear to be constantly high on way too much freeze-dried coffee) ... I was forced to dial the local hospital ordering a double lobotomy for all of them. But nobody was available as all were watching ... Strictly Come Dancing. Oh the unfathomable curiosities of the British psyche.
• Obsession with newspapers. I wonder if the blame for the financial crisis partly rests with them and their panic scare headlines.
• The youth. At the risk of sounding like a grumpy old man ... BRING BACK THE CANE!

Three important ways of handling the varied depictions of God in the OT

1. The Brueggemann way: Focus not ‘on substance or thematic matters but on the processes, procedures, and interactionist potential of the community present to the text’ (Theology of the Old Testament, xvi)
2. The Goldingay way: ‘Walter Brueggemann notes that the Old Testament is characterized by a “pluralism of faith affirmations” that makes it impossible now to go back to the idea of “a singular coherent faith articulation in the text”. Consequently “it is impossible to fashion a coherent statement concerning theological substance or themes in the Old Testament unless the themes or substance be framed so broadly or inclusively as to be useless”. My own starting point is in effect to grant the truth of this first sentence but deny the inference expressed in the second. We cannot identify a single faith articulation in the text, but we might be able to construct one out of its diversity, even if we find ourselves leaving some ambiguities and antinomies, and even if we still grant that the end result needs to recognize once more that we see only the outskirts of God’s ways. At least, it is this that I attempt in the present volume’ (John Goldingay, Old Testament Theology 2.17)
3. A Christology shaped hermeneutical way: ‘in Christian theology there is a clear interpretative criterion for reading the Old Testament and that is that we read the Old Testament in the light of Jesus Christ’ (Graham Tomlin, ‘A Theologian’s Perspective’ in Is God a Delusion? pp. 110-111)

I know, I know, I should mention Brevard Childs but I wanted to wind that Childs-latrous Phil Sumpter up. Which is your preferred choice? One of the above, or another (anything to do with Childs doesn’t count)

Why circumcision?

Has it ever occurred to you how odd circumcision is? Yea, hygiene blah blah. But had I been Abraham I would have admittedly answered God’s request for this particular covenant sign with probably more than a little bit of hesitation – I’m far less holy than Abraham (and apparently far more protective of ‘the old chap’)

God gets to this bit: “You shall circumcise the flesh of your foreskins”

Chrisbraham: *blinks* *pulls a face like he just saw a dancing pink elephant*

Chrisbraham: ??...!...??

Chrisbraham: “Come again?”

God: “You shall circumcise the flesh of your foreskins”

Chrisbraham: “Err ... you ... want me to ... chop ... WHAT of?!”

God: “I’m not going to repeat this”

Chrisbraham: *Blinks* “Look, have my fingernail if you are interested in things so shaped, but please not my old chap down there, surely not the pride and joy, not the meat and two veg, not the willysilly”

God:

Chrisbraham: Listens hopefully

God:

God:

God:

Chrisbraham: *Hope starts to fade*

God:

God:

God:

God:

God:

God:

God:

God:

God:

Chrisbraham: Either *Looks up Terah’s mobile phone number* or *starts reluctantly plodding towards the scissor cabinet*, depending on projected personal holiness levels

(Afterthought: A graphic for this post was never going to work)

Godpod 37

Yep, my first Godpod - joining Jane Williams, Mike Lloyd and Graham Tomlin, discussing theology and life. Our guest was the sharp minded and affable Oxford doctoral student, Stephen Backhouse, and we touched upon matters covered in his (freshly completed) thesis: A Kierkegaardian Critique of Christian Nationalism.

To be honest, sitting in that studio for the first time, with a sound guy behind glass, my new colleagues surrounding me, and with a microphone stuck in my face ... I felt a bit nervous. At least the microphone was only stuck in my face.

Click here to have a listen, download it, write abuseful messages in comment on it ... whatever yanks your chain.

Quote of the day

'As for yourself, you shall … come back here … smoking … pot'

(Genesis 15:15-17, NRSV - with ellipses).

Busy busy

And loving every minute.

This weekend we had the first 'residential weekend' for students of St Mellitus, which gave me a chance to get to know folk ... and prepare a lecture.

My first lecture concerns 'covenant' in the Old Testament – but I don't plan on mentioning Eichrodt too much, especially as his name can sound like someone gathering phlegm in their mouths to gob on you. 'Eichrodt', flippin eck. I am guessing the name derived from an old spelling for 'Red Oak (tree)' (Eiche rot), which makes about as much sense as my forthcoming lecture!

Quote of the day

By an anonymous writer in a comment to a previous post on this blog about the potential destruction of the world through the CERN particle acceleration experiment:

"While they have turned the big 'on/off' switch to 'on' they haven't actually caused any collisions with the Large Hydron Collider yet. It was estimated that they would create the first serious collision about six weeks after turning it on. But now it seems that will be delayed until November because of an incident on the 19th. So I'm still working on an eschatology which involves God extracting us from a singularity in order to establish the 1000 year rule"

:-)

John Polkinghorne’s Times article

Shining a light where science and theology meet: Why literal creationists are abusing and misinterpreting scripture

Hurtling balls of snot

I am not, am I, the only one who thinks these things look like they dropped out of the nose of some large mammal?

‘Interesting’ Quotes of the day

Found on answersingenesis.org, attempting to answer 'How Could Noah Build the Ark?'

"God most likely brought Noah two young adult sauropods (e.g., apatosaurs), rather than two full-grown sauropods"

Oddly, I didn't find an entry for 'sauropods' in von Rad's OT Theology...

"The Bible does not tell us that Noah and his sons built the Ark by themselves. Noah could have hired skilled laborers or had relatives, such as Methuselah and Lamech, help build the vessel"

... until Methuselah and Lamech cottoned on to the fact that the human living quarters only had enough beds for Noah, Noah's wife, his three sons, and the wives of his sons (cf. Gen. 7:13).

I bet that caused an row.

Indeed, is it not 'most likely' that the two young adult sauropods intervened to solve the issue?

Suitable expression.

Judgment, Noahic style

It appears now that the CERN particle accelerator experiments did not create a 'black hole' and suck the earth and all its inhabitants into something approximating the size of Jim West's brain.

As I awaited news from Switzerland, my mind turned to God's covenant with Noah:

"I establish my covenant with you, that never again shall all flesh be cut off by the waters of a flood, and never again shall there be a flood to destroy the earth" (Gen. 9:11)

If the CERN experiment did destroy the world, one could argue (although that would be pretty difficult, what with the world shrunk to the size of a pea) that God had not been faithful to his covenant with Noah to have allowed such a disaster to have occurred (though I note that Goldingay in his OT Theology comments that God never promised to stop humans themselves from destroying the world!).

However, literature in second Temple Judaism could refer to the coming eschatological judgement in a way that explicitly compared the future with the destruction experienced in the Flood. In other words, God's covenant with Noah - to not destroy so cosmically - lasts until the eschaton (cf. passages in the Similitudes of Enoch, for example).

You may know the Caird, Wright etc. school of thought which seeks to understand certain important NT eschatology passages as colourful yet non-literal language used merely to invest history with cosmic significance. But if some second Temple literature could speak of the coming judgment with Noahic-trouble sized rhetoric, it doesn't sound like events in history were being spoken of, but rather the end of history itself.

No doubt I should read Edward Adams' monograph, Stars Will Fall from Heaven: Cosmic Catastrophe in the New Testament and Its World, which has been confidently touted by some of my readers as the ultimate refutation of Wright on this subject. Of course, if the hermeneutic of, for example, the authors of 1 Enoch could be more literal in terms of eschatological doom, it doesn't follow that the same is necessarily true of the synoptics.

Quote of the Day

On the reason for the multivocality of the Old Testament witness:

[T]he biblical material itself ... refuses to be reduced or domesticated into a settled coherence. This refusal may not be simply a literary one but a theological one, pertaining to its central Subject. The restless character of the text that refuses excessive closure, which von Rad understood so well, is reflective of the One who is its main Character, who also refuses tameness or systemization. Thus it is the very God uttered in these texts who lies behind the problems of perspective and method

Walter Brueggemann, Theology of the Old Testament (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1998), p. 42

Book Review – Dictionary of OT Wisdom, Poetry & Writings

Thanks to IVP for a review copy of the Peter Enns and Tremper Longman III ed. Dictionary of the Old Testament Wisdom, Poetry & Writings.

This is the third Old Testament volume in the now famous IVP "Black Dictionary" series, offering almost 150 articles covering, as the blurb says, 'all the important aspects of Job, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Psalms, Song of Songs, Lamentations, Ruth and Esther'. Of course, as with any similar reference dictionary, the articles will be uneven, yet these volumes have already established themselves as reflecting quality scholarship even if the spectrum of perspectives is more narrow than that represented by, say, the Anchor Bible Dictionary. But whatever your academic standpoint, at 1,000 pages this volume will need to be a to-hand resource for anybody working on the field of Wisdom, Poetry or Writings. Contributors include the likes of Brueggemann, David deSilva, Peter Enns, John Goldingay, Allan Millard, Philip Johnston, and many others, and a sample of some entries listed under 'A' can be found here. Of course, one major bonus this volume has to offer is that the various bibliographies will be up-to-date.

The earlier IVP volumes could fall into the trap of functioning like a compendium of sporadic apologetic essays on various themes, rather than rounded reviews of scholarship and serious contributions to academia – even though they were stil immensely useful. My impression was that this apologetic trend reduced in the following NT related volumes, a shift in general ethos that I suspect has continued with this volume (though I haven't, of course, read all of the articles so I cannot say for sure). Either way, I am very glad to have the Dictionary of the Old Testament Wisdom, Poetry & Writings on my shelf and I will make regular use of it.

"At last, a fully comprehensive, fascinating compendium of information about Psalms, Wisdom literature and other writings of the Old Testament! From characters such as Ruth to major Wisdom books such as Job, from scholarly method to major theological themes, this volume gives us articles of real depth and substance. Its broad and thorough remit includes contributions on Jewish and Christian tradition, festival worship, ancient Near Eastern background and Hebrew language from a range of highly qualified experts in the field. An essential reference book for all serious-minded students of the Hebrew Scriptures."

- Katharine J. Dell, Senior Lecturer in Old Testament Studies, University of Cambridge