Christian Universalism on the web

David Congdon has recently published an article for all to read on-line here. He is a bright chap, and argues for a thoroughly christocentric, not pluralistic, universalism which takes the missional imperative seriously.

Scot McKnight is also about to start a series asking whether Evangelicals can be Universalists. I'm really pleased that Scot is going to have a stab at this question in dialogue with Robin's book, The Evangelical Universalist.

Octopus snatches coconut and runs

Not particularly "theological" or "biblical", but what a great title for a fascinating BBC article. The video is not to be missed. It explains:

One of the researchers, Dr Julian Finn from Australia's Museum Victoria, told BBC News: "I almost drowned laughing when I saw this [video] the first time." He added: "I could tell it was going to do something, but I didn't expect this - I didn't expect it would pick up the shell and run away with it."

Where's the Wally (i.e., me)

I took an afternoon off, yesterday, to visit the London Chess Classic, and the opening match between Vladimir Kramnik and the most exciting chess star around today, the young Magnus Carlsen. This was the first time I had actually seen these guys in the flesh, so in true geek style I was rather excited. In the picture below, in the front row, you can see, starting closest to the camera, Ni Hau, Nigel Short, Vlad Kramnik, Michael Adams, David Howell, Magnus Carlsen, Luke McShane, and Hikaru Nakamura.

Where's the Wally? (The receding hair line gives me away!)

(Photo by Frederic Friedel and Pascal Simon, on http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=5972)

Some unique Amazon Christmas gift ideas

Here you can buy what is called a 'Gentlemen's Ball Scratcher', which comes with two nice features:

• Handheld Chrome effect Ball Scratcher, Presented in a deluxe metal case.
  
• This quality silverware utensil is dishwasher safe, and has a stain resistant surface.
  

As one astute reviewer writes on the Amazon site: 'I've been using the ball scratcher for almost a day now, but have to say that it should be used with care. It seems to have upset several of the people whose balls I've tried to scratch with it. Maybe it's best kept for personal use.'

Yes, maybe a good idea.

Or here you can buy the 'Gentleman's Willy Care Kit', which comes complete with a Fluffing Brush, Styling Shear, Sprucing Mirror, and a Metal Bracelet all packed in a Fine Leatherette Box.

As one reviewer comments at Amazon: 'I used to be ashamed of my willy. People used to point and yell 'What an unkept willy!' I was bullied at school. But then I bought the Gentleman's Willy Care Kit, and now, instead, people yell 'What a fantastic willy!' and all my friends think I'm really cool'

A moving testimony.

By the way, if you were wondering: I happened across these items because I was looking for a head massager like this one. OK? I wasn't looking for anything else. Just so you know.

From Fundamentalist to ... what?

As is well known, many theologians who develop away from a conservative / fundamentalist Christian background tend to 'fall off of the horse the other side' by becoming some sort of atheist fundies.

Yet those of us who avoid this often end up in a haze of indecision, in a sort of theological 'no man's land' that I think can best be characterised as one which has lost its nerve. Of course, many of us have to journey through long periods of questioning and doubt, something I think intrinsic to healthy spirituality, but I for one don't want to live there on principle. Indeed, I am positive that there is a place of confidence, the other side of that healthy doubt through which many of us have had to mature. It is a confidence based not on foundationalist certainty, but informed gut instinct.

Links

There is a great discussion in the comments to the previous post. I am delighted that Doug Campbell (under the name of his wife, Rachel) and Michael Gorman are both involved in debate, all of which is really helping me in the process of digesting and weighing Doug's proposals.

Of course, Michael Gorman has shared his thoughts in a little more detail on his own webpage, but Sean Winter too has some reflections worth reading. I tend to be fairly cautious as an exegete, but this time I think I have a clear preference ... but I will share my thoughts later, after a little more meditation (I personally blame the OCD for this kind of dithering). The final decision certainly has concrete ramifications, not to mention a knock on effect for the rest of my theology.

On a slightly different note, only 21 days until Apple & Stone's debut album is released!

By the way, Anja and I got a 'Christmas reception' invite from Lambeth Palace today! We have officially arrived!

Finally, a question: can anyone tell me what the freaking heck all of this 2012 'end of world' stuff is about? One punter is even offering a free e-book on the subject, in which he confidently claims "On December 14, 2008, the First Trumpet of the Seventh Seal of the Book of Revelation sounded, which announced the beginning collapse of the economy of the United States and great destruction that will follow".

'Righty ho, then', as Ace Ventura says. While not getting into the spirit of it entirely, perhaps, I suppose this little inside prophetic tipoff means we can continue unabated in a veritable feast of sins, so long as we repent on the evening of the 13^th December...

SBL highlights

For more than just a few of us, SBL is a real annual treat. Some of my highlights:

1. the precious times of ruckus laughing while getting up to no good, especially with Jim West
   
2. the meal with the Wipf & Stock crew, who kindly invited me to join their festivities last night. I don't think I have ever eaten so well. What a flippin great bunch of people they are. I got back to my room feeling like I had eaten half a cow (which wasn't far from the truth)
   
3. time with Robin Parry, David Vinson, Max Turner, Doug Campbell, and other friends.
   
4. the superb review session on Doug's extremely important book, The Deliverance of God. The formal responses from Douglas Moo, Michael Gorman and Alan Torrance were supplemented by short audience participation from Richard Hays, Tom Wright and Barry Matlock. Campbell handled the discussion masterfully and I don't think anyone provided a clear refutation of his exegetical claims – at least in the session. A private conversation with Richard Hays afterward gave me food for thought. But the strength of Doug's thesis surprised me; it is here to stay and needs more serious engagement in the future. Those who dismiss Campbell's work do so at their own peril. Are we seeing the changing of guard in Pauline scholarship, the bursting onto the scene of a new paradigm which will leave the former in many ways redundant?

Arrived in New Orleans

And had a great evening checking out Bourbon Street with Jim West. Bit shocking though. Let's just say that there weren't only chicken breasts in shop windows for all to taste and see. I.e. it is a bit of a mini-Amsterdam. We turning the street, after a lovely meal, and the culture changed 180 degrees. High culture shops and well dressed (well, just dressed) people, in complete contrast with the New Orleans just one street away. Variety is the spice of life, I suppose!

Tomorrow morning I'll head asap to the book hall over the road in Marriott. Perhaps see some of you there! Here are some of our pictures from tonight.

Off to SBL

And I'm looking forward to getting up to no good.

I will land at Louis Armstrong International, New Orleans, 15:52 tomorrow. If anyone is around at that time and wants to catch a Taxi to Sheraton Hotel, perhaps we could go together.

To recognise me: I'll be the chap standing on chairs preaching in public, telling people to turn from the wickedness of Jazz to the righteousness of tamborines and popular Christian Rock.

What happens when Elton John and Jim West meet eyes in the Blue Oyster Bar?

Try JibJab Sendables® eCards today!

The Jesus and the Eyewitnesses thesis advances

In the Svenska Exegetiska Sällskapet 74 (Uppsala 2009), Richard Bauckham has published a new article, 'The Eyewitnesses in the Gospel of Mark', developing aspects of his groundbreaking Jesus and the Eyewitnesses thesis. One major part of that work, and one of its main innovative proposals, is that the Gospels are not only based on eyewitness testimony, but that the Gospels have ways of indicating their main eyewitnesses (see my two earlier posts on this matter here and here). His new article explores this proposal once again with special focus on Mark's Gospel. He responds particularly powerfully to Jerome Murphy-O'Connor's critique in RB 114 (2007).

'Given the stress that B. has laid on the preference of ancient historians for eyewitness testimony, one might have expected to find that it was they who directed his attention to the device of the eyewitness inclusio. In fact, he does not bring them into the argument at all…. For extra-biblical parallels B. has to go to Lucian's Alexander (C2 AD) and Porphyry's Life of Plotinus (C4 AD)' (p.626)

Murphy-O'Connor asserts that these parallels are not only irrelevant, because of their dates, but they also 'cannot be evidence for a literary convention in popular lives of such figures' (Bauckham's summary, 23). Bauckham's response seeks to offer the kind of evidence Murphy-O'Connor seeks, and to this end he examines Polybius and Plutarch. In both cases we read extremely compelling evidence that 'some of the personal names in the Gospel of Mark indicate the eyewitness sources of his narratives, especially in the cases of Peter, Simon of Cyrene and the three named women disciples' (37). In particular, material from Polybius shows that Bauckham's Markan eyewitness inclusio is highly plausible, and Plutarch's Life of Caesar presents evidence to affirmatively answer the question whether there are 'parallels in Greco-Roman history and biography to such a practice of indicating eyewitnesses without explicitly saying this about them' (33).

To be honest, I think Bauckham has hit a home run with this new evidence. His argument is very compelling.

Out from biblioblogging exile

With three posts of top theological class and erudition.

I thank you.

It's all in preparation for SBL, of course, and I'm looking forward to seeing some of you in a couple of weeks in New Orleans.

Forthcoming Magazine Teaser

America's Next Top Model Shock

Here comes the bride

http://www.facebook.com/video/video.php?v=110232968103

Thanks to our friend Ed Babinski for sending the link!

Video: A Drive-by Baptism. Almost.

He had the dirty laugh off to a tee. All he needs is a bit of training in the administration of liturgical pronouncements and we are talking ‘power evangelism’

If Zwingli were alive today, what would he do?

Join Lordi.

New sidebar feature

You know it's true.

Feel free to add it to your own blog sidebars.

German documentary on Karl Popper online

Society of Biblical Literature, here I come

Purchased the plane tickets yesterday. Can't wait to land in New Orleans.

Usual theological vocabulary for the day

Some of the Church Fathers really knew how to insult, calling people 'mad', 'beasts' etc. I sometimes wonder, in our fuss to be 'nice', if this is an art we have lost. Hence I introduce a new blog series of useful theological vocabulary, especially aimed for undergraduates to swell their lexis for the years of study that follow. So to the first:

Wackjob

Can play a very useful descriptive function in certain contexts.

Example setence:

Just the other day, a ‘friend’ told me of a lovely discussion page where one fundamentalist chap had decided to caution the author of the blog for quoting C S. Lewis, ‘for he is not a Christian’, and all because Lewis didn’t fit his own wackjob frigging messed up pile of theological wackiness.

A random thought

‘The apophatic method, whether in our theological discourse or in our life of prayer, is seemingly negative in character, but in its final aim it is supremely positive’ (The Orthodox Way, by Bishop Kallistos Ware, p.166)

As I read that tonight, I couldn’t help wonder if historical-critical biblical scholarship is the exegetical equivalent of the apophatic method.

Separated at birth?

Robert Duvall and Rudolf Bultmann

Seven things to do to cheer yourself up

Years of experience has made me a wise man. If you are feeling down, and not even Baywatch seems to help

1. Put a lot of Tobasco sauce in your work colleagues tea
   
2. Flick bogies at old people
   
3. Make remarks to insecure teenagers about the spots covering their faces
   
4. Regularly throw out the metaphorical baby with the bathwater.
   
5. Visit a conservative Christian friend's flat, and swap all of their John Piper books with Funk, Ehrman and Lüdemann volumes.
   
6. Take only the King James 1611 Version to your 'emergent' bible studies, and use the word 'repenteth' a lot.
   
7. And read Douglas Campbell's brilliant, I repeat brilliant tome, The Deliverance of God. Loren Rossen has written an impressive review here, and I can only agree with his enthusiasm. I think it is the most important book to have been published since Sanders' Paul and Palestinian Judaism. I had the pleasure of meeting Douglas last week and we had a good chat about his book and a forthcoming project which will also be a huge interest. A great guy. A worldview shaking book. Though this sort of thing is often said, I mean it most seriously: This one should become compulsory reading for any Pauline aficionados. More from me about this one anon.

Wheaton’s Theology Conference 2010

A heads up: Wheaton's 2010 Theology Conference will take place April 16-17, in honour of and in dialogue with NT Wright, including a great line-up of speakers including Richard Hays, Kevin Vanhoozer, Sylvia Keesmaat, Marianne Meye Thompson, Markus Bockmuehl and, of course, Wright himself.

http://www.wheaton.edu/Theology/theo_conf/index.html

New Cornelis Bennema book

A heads up. This guy has good judgment, and he writes very clearly.

(click to enlarge)

God the Father

Our good friend, Heather Moffitt, has written a nice reflection on parenting ... based on the book of Numbers! Have a read here. I like her parting shot: 'Like the Israelites, our children are not a problem to solve'.

To be honest, I often treat myself as a problem to solve, and I always end up in a tight, cramped place with little love to show to others. I have become convinced that God loves it when we drop our 'self-help' spiritual pieties, cut ourselves more slack, stop taking ourselves so seriously and enjoy life. But it seems to take a good deal of maturity to realise that.

Ecumenical reflection of the day

This 'Jesus Billboard' has been making the rounds in blogdom recently (apparently first blogged here).

My thoughtful reflection can be limited to a sentence: This is theological impoverishment to the extreme, and I wonder what on earth those who produced were thinking. Is it not our reflections on the cross that most clearly reveal the level of our theological healthiness?

Heroic little boy

The Onion can be rather erratic, but occasionally they come up with something really funny and profound.

"I want the blood"!

The Deliverance of God – Doug Campbell’s new tome on justification in Paul

I reviewed Campbell's earlier book, The Quest for Paul's Gospel, here and the esteemed author was kind enough to engage my critiques in the comments section. In retrospect I wish I had pushed home the points I made in the post rather than raise different, and less cogent, matters in the subsequent discussion. But that is in the past.

In the past because Campbell's new tome, The Deliverance of God: An Apocalyptic Rereading of Justification in Paul (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2009), is now the definitive statement of his proposals, and in my opinion they are formulated in a far more convincing and penetrating fashion that in The Quest.

Not having finished the book yet I cannot write my final judgments, but his critique of Justification Theory (also summarised in The Quest) is quite breathtaking, and his analysis of the significance of Sander's and co is genius.

This is truly a groundbreaking and important book. I don't think I will ever read Paul the same way.

But to work through this book from beginning to end will require scheduling – it is over 1,000 pages. But it is deliciously provocative, a joy to read, filled with all manner of 'aha!' moments with many clever (nay, brilliant) twists. Of course, I may wish to tone down my enthusiasm as I read on, but I just had to say something now – cos it has me excited!

By the way, there is no foreword by Tom Wright, as in the book graphic on the Eerdmans site. I have read speculation (i.e. it may be untrue) that Wright agreed to write the foreword, but withdrew having realised the depth of his disagreement with Campbell's thesis. Wright does provide, at least, blurb on the back cover.

Book Review: The Messiah myth: the Near Eastern roots of Jesus and David By Thomas L. Thompson

?

Bauckham - Crossley debate

Some apologise for not blogging, which I find a bit odd - like apologising to your vicar for drinking apple juice instead of orange juice. I.e. unnecessary. Of course, I do feel I should apologise for all of the usual biblioblog pigswill you have had to tolerate in the absence of my insightful posting.

Truth is, I freeking love summer holidays. Slopped on the sandy shores in Corfu like a beached whale, surrounded by books, drinks, beautiful wife, and grinning like an idiot. That week's holiday was my high point anyway. And I've been enjoying all manner of brilliant books the whole summer. Most recently I've started into Doug Campbell's brilliant, deliciously provocative and important tome The Deliverance of God (thanks to the kind folk at Eerdmans for the review copy). More on that anon.

Anyway, a while ago Justin Brierley, of the Premier Radio show Unbelievable, e-mailed me to ask for suggested dialogue partners for Richard Bauckham on the question of Jesus and the eyewitnesses. One of the two names I suggested happily ended up on the show, namely James Crossley. Now available are both parts of the debate between Richard and James. Here is part 1, and here is part 2. Enjoy!

Terrific YouTube videos

Loads of great YouTube videos, with Bauckham, Thiselton, Dunn, Wright, Hurtado, Stanton, Burridge and others, talking about Ricoeur, the kingdom of God, the divinity of Jesus, the Gospels and eyewitnesses, the Gospel of John and much more.

http://www.youtube.com/user/StJohnsNottingham

Enjoy!

A moment in the Tilling family home

I had just entered the lounge having prepared my breakfast with a bit of honey

Anja (still in the kitchen): Where is the honey?

Chris (now sitting down in deep thought on something or other): Where is was! (thinking Anja was implying I had not put it back in the right place)

Anja (slightly irritated): That's not very helpful! Where is the honey?

Chris (still in thought and slightly bothered another question had been posed): Where it is now!

Anja (after a minute or so of some muttering coming from the kitchen direction, having finally found it on her own): You could have said 'in the corner cupboard on the left'!

Confession of the day

I believe in God, Father, Son and Spirit, yet my quest for theological truth is often nothing more than a series of question marks left in the wake of this God's presence in my life. I think this is partly because the nature of Truth is not just something we ask about, seek to understand and analyse in terms of probabilities, rules of contradiction etc. Rather, Truth – if that is really what we are dealing with – often puts the question to us.

Anyway, enough profundity for now. I'm off to see if I can actually belch my way through the 39 Articles, or at least the Barmen declaration.

Happy Birthday Bultmann

I have often posted on this blog about my admiration of Bultmann, perhaps the greatest biblical scholar of all time. This can perhaps be said due to the sheer number of subjects he influenced: from methodology to the historical Jesus, from John's Gospel to Paul's letters and theology, from Christology to anthropology, from New Testament soteriology to hermeneutics, and so on. His scope of vision was indeed breathtaking and he managed to think through all of this in such a way that gracefully interwove the various themes all together into the kerygma, God's address to us all in Christ. Indeed, his passion was faithful commitment to the Gospel and he resisted the various distractions on offer in, for example, the Religionsgeschichtliche Schule. Perhaps most notable is Bultmann's 'conversation' with Heideggerian themes such as isolation and anxiety, which he seized and 'inhabited' with the Gospel, drawing fresh insight from the correlation. Though one must immediately add that Heidegger's influence on Bultmann can be exaggerated, and it must be remembered that Heidegger himself denied his thought was concerned with existentialism or existentialist philosophy. That said, the influence is palpable: just look at the themes Bultmann covers in his NT theology of Paul! Thus pens John MacQuarrie in his 1955 work, An Existentialist Theology: A Comparison of Heidegger and Bultmann: 'WHETHER for good or ill, it is a fact that throughout its history Christian theology has fallen at various times under the influence of different secular philosophies'.

But herein lies the problem, and the soft underbelly of the great man's work. MacQuarrie is wrong. The supposed influence of 'secular philosophies' has not been a fact 'throughout' the history of Christian theology for one simple reason: 'secular' is a relatively modern invention. Yes, this 'Radical Orthodoxy' critique of Bultmann must be heard. In his method of correlation, of seeking to find space for the kerygma in 'secular' philosophy, Bultmann had inadvertently bought into a worldview deeply antithetical to the Christian vision that God is the source of all being and knowing. This led him to the further mistake of confusing the existential content of the resurrection of Jesus on the disciples with the external-to-human-disposition event-edness of Easter.

But Bultmann was simply standing in a long German tradition in this respect, and his work within that institution was without peer. Pick up a book by Bultmann today, and sit at the feet of one of the most important theologian-biblical scholars ever. But read critically, as I am sure our birthday boy himself would encourage you to do.

Quote of the day

'The Pharisees represented a pious movement. They enjoyed wide popular support and were dedicated to an interpretation of the biblical texts that was anything but rigid and literal. The fact that Paul was nurtured in an environment that saw new interpretations of the biblical texts as a natural part of the divine revelation is an important aspect when trying to understand his way of reasoning'

(from Magnus Zetterholm, Approaches to Paul: a student's guide to recent scholarship, Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2009, pp. 15-16)

This reasoning of course speaks against the kind of Pauline handling of scripture proposed by Scott Hafemann, as seen for example in Paul, Moses, and the History of Israel: The Letter/Spirit Contrast and the Argument from Scripture in 2 Corinthians 3 (Milton Keynes: Paternoster, 2005).

The Wisdom of Tony Blair

Being part of a community is not necessarily about all being like-minded in everything, but rather about being happy to share your spiritual life and development with that group.

Ten reasons why you shouldn’t trust me

Now for a moment of self-indulgence

1. I tend to think Christian Universalism has way more going for it than most think. Not a Universalist myself, but boy am I tempted.





2. This one is terrible and I suppose I should repent. I have been known to swear in the sort of company that considers 'rude words' the worst of all sins. Actually, some swear words still make me chuckle like a 13 year old boy, hence my best friend, Simon, often has me in fits of laughter (he has one seriously contemptible gutter mouth)





3. I am way more sacramental in my theology than I was a few years ago. I think celebration of Eucharist is at the centre of a Christian's relationship with God, and those who think otherwise are, I suspect, heading towards heresy.





4. I tend to think many theologians have more confidence in answers than biblical scholars who are daily confronted with a deeply subversive text full of tensions and difficulties that often resists any systematising answers, never mind just simple ones.





5. What is more, I find myself perplexed by so many different theological, historical and exegetical perspectives, I tend to think of my theology as a series of question marks left in the trail of God's presence in my life.





6. My theological approach is accordingly comparable to the Socratic Method without, hopefully, falling into the sort of postmodern nihilism of Caputo (for example, I think it crucial to be able to confidently label false religion as false)





7. However, I suspect there is a level of Christian maturity ahead of me that will significantly qualify my present celebration of unanswered questions – if for no other reason than the necessity of helping others find faith in God (if God 'accommodates', shouldn't we too?) That said, little would change my mind that plenty of 'Christian apologetics' is, at an epistemological level, an over-realised eschatology.





8. I have (albeit very) occasionally smoked pipes, cigars, sheesha and cigarillos – and I have no intention of repenting. But I hate beer (Beelzebub's urine), and people who drink it are compromised to the core.





9. I think Bultmann was an incredible exegete, perhaps the greatest NT scholar ever. His scope of vision was as majestic as it was mislead.





10. Fundamentalists, wishy-washy liberals and 'secular' Christian-bashers (whether in the biblical studies, scientific or theological guilds) - all have the ability, more than any others, to utterly perplex and exacerbate me.

Eduard Schweizer on Universalism

There are passages in the New Testament describing the group of the blessed and that of the cursed ones (as in Matthew 25:34-41), and there are other passages declaring that "all men have been consigned to disobedience that he (God) may have mercy upon all" (as in Romans 11:32). We certainly need the warning of Matthew 25 that there is a dimension of eternity in which all our living on earth has to be seen. We also need, equally urgently, to be reminded of God's grace (as in Romans 11), from which nobody and nothing can separate us, which is stronger even than our disobedience. This twofold message is the word of God, as it has to live among us. But if we tried to build up a doctrine of an indispensable belief in hell or of universal salvation, we would put ourselves above God, since we would pretend to know exactly how he would have to act on the last day. How he will really act in the last judgment is beyond the threshold of human knowledge, and nobody is allowed to pass this threshold before it is revealed in the parousia of Christ.

From "Colossians 1:15-20", Review and Expositor, 87 (1990)

A good read

Two friends have insisted that I read anything by James K. A. Smith, so I took up the challenge and purchased Introducing Radical Orthodoxy: Mapping a Post-Secular Theology, Milton Keynes: Paternoster, 2004, and Who's Afraid of Postmodernism?: Taking Derrida, Lyotard, and Foucault to Church, Grand Rapids: Baker, 2007, is in the post.

I'm only 90 pages into the first but I highly recommend it: deeply learned, clearly written and best of all I am having many 'aha!' moments.

Michael Bird's little book, Are You the One Who Is to Come?: The Historical Jesus and the Messianic Question, Grand Rapids: Baker, 2009, happily dropped through the letterbox the other day, which I really look forward to reading in more depth. I quickly purchased another roughly related book from a completely different perspective to add a bit of zest to the summer. Namely, Thomas L. Thompson's The Messiah Myth: The Near Eastern Roots of Jesus and David, London: Pimlico, 2007 which comes with back cover blurb stating 'the Jesus of the gospels never existed'. I might take this last one on holiday with me, actually.

I suppose I should look for the links to the other books, but I can't be bothered. Bung 'em in Google yourselves!

Bauckham comments on creation ex nihilo

I recently posted some thoughts about creation ex nihilo in light of 2 Peter 3:5, and offered three ways of dealing with what we are to make of the (later) doctrine of ex nihilo in light of such biblical themes.

In short I suggested: 1) reject ex nihilo, 2) claim ex nihilo came ex nihilo, but is still correct and 3) argue ex nihilo, while a later development, is consistent with seeds of truth already to be found in the NT and Apocrypha.

Richard Bauckham e-mailed me a fourth possibility that I had not even considered, one I find very appealing:

"Another possibility is that 'chaos' was a sort of mythological way of imagining 'nothing.' To imagine a pre-creation chaos and to say that God created all things was perfectly consistent, because no 'thing' existed until God formed it out of chaos"

What do you think?

David Bentley Hart on reading books

A friend recently drew my attention to Hart's new article on First Things, which made for amusing reading. Here he discusses his reading neurosis:

"Admittedly, this last judgment is based upon only a partial sampling of the work. I am, by nature, a neurotic "completist"; I feel I must finish any book I begin, no matter how great a torment it turns out to be. But I have to confess that, in two attempts to get through The Spiral Ascent, my will has proved unequal to the task. On both occasions, there came a point (and roughly the same point) at which the poor laboring beast of my attention span lay down in the dust and mulishly refused to move forward another inch, no matter how savagely I cursed and flogged it. Thereafter, I merely skimmed through the final pages, simply to confirm for myself that life—even a life as protracted as, say, Edward Upward's—is not long enough to make room for such an ordeal. Others, however, have found the books more inviting than I, and perhaps my failure to follow Upward's tale to the end bespeaks something shallow and dilettantish in my nature"

What happens if a slightly impatient angel dropkicks your happy sacks halfway through singing a song?

The answer:

HL: Scotteriology

Yea Tiger, be glad I chose theology

Theological nutters

I've recently been busying studying the psychological areas of Transactional Analysis (TA) and Cognitive Behavioural Therapy (CBT) mainly because I'm a bit mad and thought I could do with a decent psychological thrashing to sort out the 'frothing mouth' aspects of my psyche. Fascinating stuff, actually, and in my humble opinion more so even than the psychoanalysis schools of Freud, Lacan and others who have managed to get some modern continental philosophers so excited.

But in my own general inclinations to lunacy, I am apparently in good company. For on the way, I read the plausible hypothesis that Luther, Teresa of Avila, John Bunyan, Ignatius of Loyola and others suffered from Obsessive Compulsive Disorder, and that this influenced many of their theological decisions. Of course, obvious to all, it occurs to me that many other theologians and biblical scholars were just plain simple bonkers, having fallen right out of the crazy tree onto the rabid-brain farm: Zwingli, for example. He had 'please lobotomise me' written all over him.

In TA there are three basic ego states: Parent, Adult and Child, and I can't help but reflect a little on such verses as these.

• 'When I was a child, I spoke like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child; when I became an adult, I put an end to childish ways' (1 Corinthians 13:11)
  
• 'For though you might have ten thousand guardians in Christ, you do not have many fathers. Indeed, in Christ Jesus I became your father through the gospel' (1 Corinthians 4:15)
  

Is this Paul evidencing Adult and Parent ego states? I don't think we will ever know.

Created out of water

I'm rather enjoying my break this summer, but I did want to share one thought on a NT understanding of creation.

A while ago I noted that (I think) most OT scholars think Genesis 1 – together with the other known myths in Akkadian literature – reflects a belief that creation was not there understood as creation ex nihilo, but rather as the command of order on chaos. This view reflects a more popular reading of Genesis 1:1 as 'In the beginning when God created' or 'in the beginning of God's creation, the earth being ...'. 'The narrative', as OT scholar John Goldingay argues, 'indeed presupposes the existence of matter, of raw material for God to use' (Old Testament Theology. Volume 1: Israel's Gospel [Downers Grove, Illinois: IVP, 2003], 80).

Rather interestingly, though many jump to passages in Paul to defend creation ex nihilo in the NT (which I suspect only suggest the seeds for a later ex nihilo doctrine), such as Romans 4:17, have you ever meditated on 2 Peter 3:5?

'They deliberately ignore this fact, that by the word of God heavens existed long ago and an earth was formed out of water and by means of water'

Richard Bauckham comments in his Word commentary:

'According to the creation account in Gen 1, and in accordance with general Near Eastern myth, the world—sky and earth—merged out of a primeval ocean (Gen 1:2, 6–7, 9; cf. Ps 33:7; 136:6; Prov 8:27–29; Sir 39:17; Herm. Vis. 1:3:4). The world exists because the waters of chaos, which are now above the firmament, beneath the earth and surrounding the earth, are held back and can no longer engulf the world. The phrase ἐξ ὕδατος ("out of water") expresses this mythological concept of the world's emergence out of the watery chaos, rather than the more "scientific" notion, taught by Thales of Miletus, that water is the basic element out of which everything else is made (cf. Clem. Hom. 11:24:1)' (Bauckham, R. J., Jude, 2 Peter, p.297).

I find it particularly interesting that the context of 2 Peter 3 links this to God's faithfulness to his promises, which once again links God's faithfulness to his covenant to the whole of creation. But in terms of creation, what are we to make of the (later) doctrine of ex nihilo in light of such biblical themes. One can either:

1. Reject ex nihilo as a doctrine in light of scripture, which would, for example, perhaps help deal with the knotty problem of theodicy. 'God did not created chaos', it could be argued, his creation power was its limiting.
   
2. Argue that ex nihilo is an entirely new doctrinal development, yet can be embraced as a correct doctrine on the basis of the Spirit's guidance of the church
   
3. Maintain that ex nihilo, while a later development, is consistent with seeds of truth already to be found in the NT and Apocrypha. This the doctrine reflects a legitimate and further nuanced development of the understanding of creation (ex nihilo only being clearly formulated, so maintain I think the majority, in the 2^nd century AD). Perhaps the church's developing formulations of Trinitarian faith is an inadequate potential comparison.
   

Darwin and God

I'll deliver a lecture at our (rather large!) church week away at the end of the month, celebrating Darwin's 200^th birthday. During my research I've used some useful introductory books on Darwin, such as Jonathan Howard's contribution to the Very Short Introduction Series, and Jonathan Miller's Introducing Darwin.

Both were helpful, but when they turned to matters of religion they tended to be disastrously naive and inaccurate. For example, Howard writes that it has become 'hard, perhaps impossible for the orthodox Christian to come to terms with Darwin' (106)! Let's give him a bit of slack; he is a Geneticist after all, not a theologian, but this is nevertheless an absurd claim! Some key Christians, both in the UK and in USA, were the first to promote Darwin's theories in the 19^th century, while some 'secular' scientists opposed it! As for the whole creationism debate, Darwinism poses a problem only for a very culturally specific and dubious reading of Genesis. Where it does get trickier is in the magnification of the theodicy problem, which did not appear on Howard's radar. Darwinism is actually exciting, for traditional Christian dogma, in the way it helps the Church rethink some of its anthropological and philosophical assumptions, and regain a closer approximation to the more relational biblical intuitions.

Nick Spencer's little book, Darwin and God thus comes as a real breath of fresh air, and deals with the nature and development of Darwin's religious beliefs. Thanks to my kind American friend, David Vinson, for the copy! My colleagues recently interviewed Nick for our college podcast here, which makes for interesting listening.

Quick notice

David Bentley Hart's Atheist Delusions: The Christian Revolution and Its Fashionable Enemies.

One word:

WOW

One of the most important books I have ever read. Utterly brilliant. Prophetic. Extremely lucid. Violently convincing.

And it is one of the most devastating critiques of anything, anywhere, never mind just the particular squabble it addresses. Daniel Dennett, for example, is absolutely shredded. My jaw was left on the flaw. But it is so much more than a simple critique of the silly New Atheist High Priests.

Please get this book. Seriously.

I stand rebuked

Innocently as you can imagine, white as the driven snow, pure as ... well, you get the idea.

But that's me, folks. Plain, old, simple holy.

Not all, however, seem to appreciate my generally elevated levels of sanctification, even though it shines in such wise forms as this post: A Biblical Guide to Dating.

Nevertheless, an 'Anonymous' (surprise, surprise) felt the need to chastise my winsome words in the comments:

"This is not funny. And the message of Yahweh Elohim and his Son, Yahshua the Messiah should not be taken lightly. Have your fun now, but I tell you the truth: it won't last long. You will regret ever putting your foolish advice on the web. Let me ask you this: If you have a daughter and she believes in the Word, would you want some perverted man to be misusing her belief for his own twisted sexual interests? Is that how you would want your daughter to be treated? Is that how you would want your mother or sister to be treated? Grow up, men. The world needs men who can lead nations and conquer kingdoms, not treacherous and deceptive men. We need honorable, valiant men in this world. We need leaders. Are you going to waste your life setting foolish traps for women? Is that what you call purpose? Arise, men of God. Arise to your position in the true Kingdom of Yahweh. Arise to honor. Arise to Truth. Arise to purpose. It is time"

OK, I cleaned up some of his grammar, but you get the idea: I've apparently pooped the holy pants, soiled the sanctity nappy.

So .... *takes a deep breath* ... I guess I had better say an apology:

"I am very sorry, Anonymous ... that you have no sense of humour".

I'll be the guy giving you a smarting wedgie in the in the New Jerusalem.

The New Church of England Logo

Wright’s badges

I do like Wright's approach to Paul. I especially like how he manages to plausibly explain the (narrative) structure which gives Paul's arguments fresh coherence. In this respect I think his commentary on Romans is an example of Wright at his lucid, most insightful best. That said, I find myself intuitively suspicious of the 'faith as a badge' proposal. And I get the feeling that if I pull that thread loose, quite a bit besides will potentially unravel. In a nutshell, it strikes me as an insufficiently relational understanding of faith (I have wondered if Wright's claim perhaps, in part, depends on an implicit pre-Heideggerian metaphysics of representation – but this is an underdeveloped thought).

Any of you ever had suspicious thoughts about the 'faith as a badge' business? Or do you think it makes sense, especially in light of the Dunn-Wright take on 'works of law'?

Facebook’s What’s on Your Mind?

Had a closer look at Facebook today. I uploaded a few pictures ages ago, but there is so much more to Facebook than that (not breaking news for many of you, I am sure). I actually keyed into 'What's on Your Mind?' today. For those of you who are technical numpties, you simply type in a sentence which follows your name – and your friends can read it and comment. Bit like Twittering, perhaps? A couple of the comments below makes a repeat run worthwhile!

* Chris Tilling is enjoying a new publication on Heilsuniversalismus/Apokatastasis/Universalism, namely Jens Adam's Paulus und die Versöhung aller, and he is flippin loving it - even if some if the German (especially relating to Christine Janovski) is a bit tricky and hence disheartening

* Chris Tilling thinks the USA should be invaded and recaptured for her Majesty, the Queen

Alastair Howard at 19:36 on 19 June

I think we should make more of Independence Day over here, but for different reasons to the yanks...

* Chris Tilling has changed his mind about the aforementioned invasion

* Chris Tilling is wondering whether squirrels squeak if lobbed over a fence with a 9-iron

Rick Brannan at 18:30 on 19 June

I think it would have more to do with the 9 iron than the fence. Presumably if the 9 iron whacked 'em into the fence instead of over it, they'd squeak (9 iron) and then splat (fence)

Alastair Roberts at 20:17 on 19 June

There is only one way to find out. Let us know what you discover.

* Chris Tilling is wondering what it would happen if he was mistaken for a huge leg at Battersea Dog's Home.

(I'm not sure this last one makes any sense beyond my own twisted mind)

Spock-like logic

I've recently been reading up on the history and nature of logic, with attention on Aristotle, Frege, Russell etc . So, my inner genius just came up with the following syllogism:

1. The effect of violence on a person can be good for that person's soul
   
2. Things that are good for one's soul are always good
   
3. Therefore, violence is always good.
   

I thank you.

An introduction to a short ‘commentary’ on Romans

Here is a first draft – and it is already about 200 words too long! Your thoughts are, as always, appreciated.

In 1545, Martin Luther, the famous initiator of the Protestant Reformation, sat with pen in hand and mused upon his 'conversion' experience. Though 'a monk without reproach', he described his state as 'a sinner before God with an extremely disturbed conscience'. But upon reading a text in Romans 1 he started to understand the righteousness of God not as a threat but as 'the passive righteousness with which merciful God justifies us by faith'. Thus it was through a text in Romans that he felt he had 'entered paradise itself through open gates'. John Calvin likewise said that 'if we have gained a true understanding of this Epistle, we have an open door to all the most profound treasures of Scripture'.

Open 'doors' and 'gates' ... yet many find that Romans rather slams these doors shut, a matter all the more tangible these days given the contemporary debate in Pauline studies concerning the language of 'justification', 'law', 'righteousness' and 'the faith of Christ'. To help open doors for contemporary travellers into these Himalayas of Pauline theology, it will prove most useful to keep in mind two issues: i) the situation Paul addressed and ii) the place of Christ's life, death and resurrection in the story of Israel. This is important as Paul may well have been attempting to answer a different (even if overlapping) set of problems to those generated by Luther's 'extremely disturbed conscience'.

The situation: for reasons which are not necessary to examine here, Romans was likely written into a context of tension between Jewish and Gentile Christians. Indeed, it is likely that some Gentile Christians felt superior to Jewish believers, people who had probably only recently returned to the Roman Church after a temporary exile from Rome because of an Edict by Emperor Claudius.

The story: the bumpy narrative of the Old Testament (OT) Scriptures is as follows: it runs from creation, fall, God's redemptive solution for fallen creation in the covenant with Abraham, through Egypt, the exodus, conquest of the land, the judges and the monarchy, the inheritance of the curse of the law and the Assyrian and Babylonian exiles, and finally a partial, yet incomplete, restoration. So ends the OT. Yet the OT Prophets had spoken of a time when God's redemptive plans, through Abraham's family, would be fulfilled, a time when God would make a new covenant, pour out his Spirit, raise up a messianic leader, reunite the 12 scattered tribes, establish his people in the land, glorify his own name etc (see, for example, Isaiah 40:1-5, 10-11; 43:5-11; 49:5-13; 52:1-10; 56:3-8; 61:1-4; Jeremiah 16:14-16; 29:14; 31:8-11; 32:37-42; Ezekiel 11:17-20; 28:25-26; 34:1-3, 5, 10-24; 36:19-28; 37:12-28; 39:25-29; Zechariah 8). The centuries leading up to the New Testament period did not see the fulfilment of the prophetic promises; Israel rather experienced the (often brutal) rule of one foreign empire after another. So many asked when would God act to fulfil his promises. When would God be faithful to his covenant with Abraham, and what was God to do if his own covenant people continued in the sin which led them into exile in the first place?

This story awaiting an ending was summed up, in some OT texts (see Psalm 33:4; Isaiah 40-55; Jeremiah 32:41; Lamentations 3:23 etc.), with the phrase 'God's righteousness', which thus brings us to the heart of Romans. God's righteousness was the hope of Israel as it awaited the fulfilment of God's promises. Yet, as we shall see, God's righteousness judgment, in the sense of impartial justice (e.g. 2 Chronicles 19:7; Proverbs 24:23; Acts 10:34; Galatians 2:6), was also the reason they went into exile in the first place (cf. Isaiah 50:1; Jeremiah 15:13-14; Daniel 9:15-16). This tension in God's righteousness generated difficult questions, exactly the sort Paul sought to address in Romans – albeit with a special Christian twist: the righteousness of God is revealed in the life, death and resurrection of Jesus.

Let us then begin the journey into the letter itself and, as Karl Barth once described his experience of reading Romans, proceed with 'a joyful sense of discovery'.

I don’t usually get involved with this sort of thing, but ...

Prominent Young Earth Creationist, Ken Ham, writes on June 9^th on his well-known webpage:

"In this newsletter and in my lectures over the years, I have insisted that Christians who compromise by accepting the idea of an earth supposedly millions of years old (or who are indifferent to whether or not that is even a problem) have greatly contributed to the decline of the church and its influence"

Creationists like this usually mean well and I actually became a Christian listening to a Ken Ham tape! Yes, I've now become an unapologetic Christian evolutionist, but that is another story. But this kind of argument does need a short, sharp 'no'. It is the brand of creationism represented here that is a danger to Christian witness, because it moves the historic Christian faith into the realm of completely implausible quasi-'scientific' subculture, in to a place mocked by a completely (and justifiably) unimpressed scientific community. And Ham's reading of Genesis is not 'the truth', with others 'compromising'. He not only fails to understand Genesis at a literal level (especially Genesis 1:1), he does not know how to read this biblical text i.e. not as scientific statement but as theological imagination meant to evoke worship. Genre is very important, folks.

No, I think true prophetic insight will suggest that, among other things, it is the church's lack of unity and our lack of love for our neighbours that has led to its decline in influence. Ham's proposal is to live in a strange dream world, and if ever Christians need to smell the coffee and live in the real world, now is the time.

Oh, yea, and despite what he says: dinosaurs didn't live at the same time as humans. Besides, once we make that kind of thing central to the Gospel, we have lost the plot.

Finally Wright gets to meet Tilling

He must have been honoured to stand next to me.

On being persecuted

First, Ben points out my recent drive-by-baptism fiasco where I was unfortunately caught by a camera. Second, Jim West continues to post lies on my good name, all under the rubric 'Where in the world in Chris Tilling now?'. And third, Scott Bailey, who really should know better, has posted a slur about me in a swimsuit – really a though worthy of a nosebleed if ever there was one.

I, of course, officially deny everything. That I am writing this from prison, with a very angry (and wet) freshly baptised 'believer' being restrained by four policemen from beating me, and that my swimsuit is starting to feel uncomfortable, is besides the point.

'Rejoice and be glad, for your reward is great in heaven, for in the same way they persecuted the prophets who were before you' (Matthew 5:12). Amen. Scott, Ben, Jim, your persecutory actions only prove I am righteous.

The Hermeneutics of Doctrine

My sincere thanks to Eerdmans for a review copy of Anthony C. Thiselton, The Hermeneutics of Doctrine (Cambridge: Eerdmans, 2007). What a delight it was to receive that in the post, I can tell you!

I consider Anthony C. Thiselton an academic role model. His commentary on 1 Corinthians is the best of its kind, his work on hermeneutics is jaw droppingly well researched, and he now shows how well read he is on theological questions. Essentially, Thiselton asks whether 'a more significant interaction between hermeneutics and doctrine [may] play some part in rescuing doctrine from its marginalised function and abstraction from life, and deliver it from its supposed status as mere theory' (xvi).

His new book, The Hermeneutics of Doctrine, provides all manner of important and original insights seeking to answer this question. The first section explores reasons to pursue the hermeneutics of doctrine, while part two answers possible objections to the project. Part three (the main part of the book) then examines a variety of major doctrinal themes, including anthropology, sin, the atonement, Christology, the Trinity and much more besides.

The book is simply superb, a real delight to read. And you know, when reading Thiselton, you will learn plenty for the time spent studying! So many points could be noted as demonstration of this, but for reasons of time I will limit myself to one: It seems to me that his hermeneutical critique of Bultmann in chapter 17 blows apart the justly famous German's claim that Easter is 'nothing other than the rise of faith in the risen one'. Yet he manages this critique at the same time as positively drawing from Bultmann's legitimate insight that to claim 'Jesus is Lord', for example, is a self-involving assertion involving existential language. The whole argument is penetrating, balanced, lucid and learned.

Here is Craig G. Bartholomew's essay, "Three Horizons: Hermeneutics from the Other End―An Evaluation of Anthony Thiselton's Hermeneutic Proposals," European Journal of Theology 5.2 (1996): 121-135. And here is Scot McKnight's glowing review. That's three witnesses, so: Buy it, study it, re-read it and enjoy it!

Tom Wright’s visit tomorrow

It is International Week at Holy Trinity Brompton, with over 1500 delegates from literally all over the world – plus almost (or is it now over) 100 bishops (or equivalent) from a huge number of denominations, including Orthodox, Roman Catholic, Pentecostal, Anglican, Salvation Army, Evangelical Free and many many more besides. It was moving to stand and worship together with so many Christians from such a wide variety of traditions today.

As part of International Week Tom Wright will speak tomorrow night at HTB. The title of his talk: 'Jesus and Tomorrow's World'.

Rather looking forward to that!

A dubbed Jesus movie scene

Does that sound like your Jesus?!

Snuggie Parody

Thanks to our friend Stephie for pointing this one out:

Well, I thought it was funny! I especially liked the reaction to the "free flashlight"!

Quote of the day, or a public display of ignorance

At the end of an essay by Alain Badiou, 'The Transcendental' (in Badiou: Theoretical Writings), he writes that:

'[T]he equation ("The conjunction of the maximum and a degree is equal to this degree") is phenomenologically unimpeachable. But if this is indeed the case, the fact that the reverse of the supreme measurement of the maximum transcendental degree – is also the inapparent is itself a matter of course' (225-6)

Which leads to the punch line of the whole essay:

'It is thereby guaranteed that, in any transcendental whatsoever, the reverse of the maximum is the minimum' (226).

At which point, forehead wrinkled in depressed frustration, I put the book down and think 'what the hell does all of that verbal vomit mean?'. The 'reverse of the maximum is the minimum'? And that took a whole essay to figure?

The reverse of forwards is backwards, folks!

OK chumpy, here is good equation: 'the opposite of *&%llocks is something that makes sense, at least certainly after it has been slowly read more than four times' – surely also as 'phenomenologically unimpeachable' as it gets.

Please help me out, here! Anybody know of any 'obviously-utter-idiot-New-Testament-twit-and-out-of-his-domain' introductory books on Badiou?

Congratulations to Richard Bauckham

Phil Groom informed me this morning that Richard Bauckham has won the 2009 Michael Ramsey prize, for his brilliant book Jesus and the Eyewitnesses.

Our warmest congrats to Richard, who, besides getting this honour, also pockets a prize of £15,000!

It was tough competition too: David Brown, God & Grace of Body: Sacrament in Ordinary; Richard Burridge, Imitating Jesus; Sebastian Moore, The Contagion of Jesus; and Anthony Thiselton, The Hermeneutics of Doctrine.

Žižek book free online

Free is always an nice word when put next to 'book'.

Here you can have a read of How to Read Lacan (London: Granta Books, 2006). And anyone who has tried to get their head around Žižek will know how important Lacan is to his work. I'm hoping this will help me think through this talk of the 'grand Autre', 'objet petit a' and so on. Otherwise, reading Žižek it is possible to feel like you have stumbled into a conversation that started long before you arrived – and for a New Testament specialist that can be a real problem!

Two keys to unlock Romans

I’m presently writing a short commentary on Romans – the whole thing is just over 10,000 words! In my introduction, which cannot exceed more than 600 words, I have decided to highlight two key features which, in my view, are necessary to grasp what Romans is about. The first is not too controversial and involves the tension between Jew and Gentile in light of the return of Jews to Rome after the Edict of Claudius which temporarily expelled them. A lot in Romans, especially chapters 14 and 15, fits this situation perfectly and frames much of Paul’s concerns in the rest of the letter. The second is more controversial but equally important. To understand Romans one needs to understand the story of Israel in terms of the life, death and resurrection (here Kirk's thesis, is most helpful) of Jesus Christ – and vice verse. For example, the flow of thought in Romans 3 – from the question about God’s faithfulness and the problem of the unfaithfulness of the people of God, to the declaration in 3:21 that ‘now, apart from law, the righteousness of God has been disclosed, and is attested by the law and the prophets’ – can only be understood in terms of that story and Christ’s role in it.

Anyway, I thought I would share those two thoughts, especially given the need to educate all of you seething masses of dilettantes...

Improve your German with Heidegger and Wittgenstein

I've been enjoying a bit of Heidegger recently, and wanted to draw attention to this Youtube video of the man himself - in it he speaks slowly and deliberately, plus there are captions if you need help. Useful to dust off your German - alternatively, marry a German wife....

The second resource is the Blackwell 50th Anniversary edition of Wittgenstein’s Philosophical Investigations, containing the German text on one page, and a revised English translation on the facing.

When I started to learn German, a slightly mislead colleague suggested, with utter seriousness, that I watch 'Allo 'allo, and try to sound like the acted Germans! So, for ‘correct’ pronunciation carefully study the following:

Link

Our friend Ed Babinski sent this cartoon link along, which made me smile.

Beautiful and sexy

I recently started an absolutely fascinating book, namely David Brown's God & Grace of Body (Oxford: OUP, 2007). The title of this post is that of his first chapter, in which he begins the project of examining 'the ways in which bodies might open human beings up to the possibility of experiencing God or the divine through them' (11).

Having roomed with Jim West at the San Diego SBL, my first critical thought was, of course, "he has obviously never seen what I have seen!" – but then I turned to his fourth chapter, 'Wasted and Ugly', and waited for references to jwest.wordpress.com.

But seriously, this is a very engaging and arguably important book, offering ways to expand our horizons on how we experience God. By the way, his chapter on dancing even discusses belly dancing! Interesting also was the link made, in an analysis of the dance of Martha Graham, between Jonathan Edwards' 'dogmatic denouncements' and the employment of an 'absolutely rigid upper body' in her movements.

It made me think: what sort of dance would best express my theology and faith?!

To get personal: What sort of dance would best express your own worldview, faith or theological tendencies?

As Rowan Williams wrote: this book opens doors 'into all sorts of fresh insight'.

Remonstration of the day

Arguably it makes little sense to qualify a postulated Pauline covenantal nomism on the basis of certain variety in the second Temple literature (cf. so-called variegated nomism) if it can be shown that:

1. the evidence paints a typical – even if not uniform – covenantal nomist picture of second Temple Judaism
2. the texts Paul typically drew upon can be better categorised as covenantal nomist.
3. a covenantal backdrop to Paul is important*

On a) Has not Sanders already made the point? b) their shape and major themes (e.g. deliverance from Egypt before Sinai) would suggest so and c) is, I think, virtually certain. And the old sleight of hand, playing 'creation' against 'covenant' (in Paul or in second Temple texts), is a bizarre mistake.

However, Paul could of course develop new worlds; he was not bound to a second Temple Jewish covenantal nomism. So some may want to extract Paul from his context in an effort to save confessional face. But would this tactic be as readily employed for other areas of Paul's theology? For example, surely all conservatives would want to (correctly) emphasise Jewish modes of thinking when it comes to elucidating his Christology over against the mistakes of the Religionsgeschichtliche Schule...

* This point needs to be developed, of course, but hey ho - this is only a blog post.

Rowan Williams lecture

Recently, St Paul's Theological Centre had the privilege of hosting Archbishop Rowan Williams on the Saturday School of Theology. He spoke on John's Gospel and the talk can be downloaded here. Enjoy!

Jim had a dream from which he reluctantly awoke

And sadly realised that the man in the leotard was not Zwingli, nor real.

Thought of the day

I was reading the other day how C.S. Peirce called himself a 'contrite fallibilist' because he recognised the provisional nature of all human scientific knowledge. And it occurred to me: what a great way to describe other NT scholars and theologians.

Provocative quotations of the Day

The first is from Slavoj Žižek, The Parallax View, London: MIT Press, 2006, p. 256, italics his:

'[T]oday's Zionism itself, as embodied in the State of Israel's predominant politics, is already "anti-Semitic", that is to say, it relies on anti-Semitic ideological mapping. Remember the typical newspaper caricature of Yassir Arafat: the rounded face with its big nose and thick lips, on a small rounded clumsy body ... looks familiar? No wonder: it is the old cliché drawing of the corrupt Jew from the 1930s! Another confirmation of the fact that Zionism is a species of anti-Semitism'.

I wonder if he perhaps oversimplifies matters, but this jarring (at least for me) statement certainly deserves pondering.

The second cheery number comes from a bland A2 poster on the window of a (very) conservative Christian bookshop not far from where I live:

'Be sure your sin will find you out!'

And that's all that is said! No, 'and believe in Jesus' or something that could be called Christian. Just an A2 sized wagging finger. They also had, for good measure, a 'Repent ye' poster – note the important and anointed King James English 'ye'. We will leave the fact that this statement, from Numbers 32:23, was made in the context of an explicit communal covenant with God, one that, Ephesians Paul would say, Gentiles 'without God and without hope in the world' do not share.

Maybe it is me, but I feel such a statement suggests a final word, one that seems to capture the tone of its proposal: 'Be sure your sin will find you out, bitches!' I wonder what they think they are achieving with such messages? Perhaps (a few) people really do respond well to that kind of talk? More likely, perhaps more people did once upon a time hear themselves addressed by such language, but it is reused in today's world more as a matter of pious religious duty. Yet sadly it probably relies more on 19^th century 'ideological mapping' and older clichés, which simply make the A2 message predominantly a species of rudeness. The actual message of the poster is more than the sum of its words. Likewise, the Arafat pictures are more than just caricature; they potentially echo something far more sinister.

Alain Badiou on Youtube

A BBC HARDtalk interview in three parts (1, 2, 3)

Some of you may know that Badiou (how is that correctly pronounced, by the way?) has written a book relating to the Apostle Paul (Saint Paul: The Foundation of Universalism). Not far into that one yet, but it is odd to read my man Paul in the hands of this famous French atheist 'screaming leftie' philosopher. When I last read around the world of 'modern continental philosophy', Derrida, Luce Irigaray and such like were all the rage. Having only recently picked up works by Badiou (and Slavoj Žižek), I realise I have a lot to learn!

Actually, as I’ve mentioned the compulsively nose-wiping Žižek (one Youtube comment runs: “Check out his sexy deep-v. He can wipe his nose all over me”!), do check out this series of 2007 videos entitled “Slavoj Zizek. Materialism and Theology”. Clearly a brilliant mind flavoured with humour and deep insight, I look forward to engaging with his work in more depth. For those less interested in grappling with his dialectical materialism, do at least listen to enjoy the way he pronounces “mysticism” – something like mish-ti-shish-em! Well, Anja and I thought it was funny.

Greek: A Language in Evolution - An International Symposium in Honor of Antonios N. Jannaris

From the 14-17 June, 2009 at St Andrews University, Scotland. It is organized by the key expert himself, Chrys Caragounis.

Do click here for more information, including the symposium program. With fifteen international scholars coming to St Andrew, all experts in the various periods of the Greek Language, this is not one to miss.

Three tips for studying the New Testament (for beginners)

Not necessarily the most important nor in order of importance:

1. Purchase a couple of NT Introduction books and make sure that they represent two different perspectives. For example, you could try the Carson & Moo volume, An Introduction to the New testament (conservative evangelical - inerrancy, Peter wrote 2 Peter-or-our-faith-is-in-vain sort). But if you get that one also purchase David deSilva's volume of the same title (moderate evangelical - wouldn't want to cause offence sort) or even try Raymond E. Brown's equally imaginatively titled book, An Introduction to the New testament (foaming mouthed Catholic with a liberal bent sort).
2. This will sound trite but is more important than anything else that could be said here: read the New Testament! An old German NT scholar, Adolf Schlatter, used to say that people tend to miss what is right in front of their eyes (the NT!). It is best to start there before darting to commentaries, word studies, pseudepigraphal parallels etc. Prayerfully read the NT of course, but don't just get hung up in holy meditation on your favourite verse. Also read thinkfully! I believe God loves it when we seek to love him with all our minds.
3. Start to learn the habit of enjoying NT related books that are more informed about matters of exegesis, historical background, hermeneutical subtelty etc. Have a look at catalogues of such publishinghouses as, e.g., T & T Clark, Eerdmans, Hendrickson, IVP Academic, Paternoster, SPCK, Baylor, WJK, etc.

So many more points could be added. But what other tips would you offer (for beginners)?

A thought

I've listened to a few lectures recently which critique aspects of the New Perspective. And in each case the speaker was careful (either consciously or unconsciously I am not sure) to generate a strong hermeneutic of suspicion with regards the arguments proffered by NP proponents. This was done by starting with either ad hominem, misrepresentation or the employment of (unfair) scare tactics.

The thought: I wondered if these speakers felt they had to do this, i.e. start with spin, because they are deep down unsure that the evidence speaks for their own case?

So, when you hear a speaker try to manage the way data will be heard by enforcing not a hermeneutic of love or generosity, but one of suspicion, perhaps they do this precisely because they realise their opponent's argument makes sense.

Seifrid comments on Wright’s new book

Have a listen to the recent Boyce College conversation on Wright's new book, Justification: God's Plan & Paul's Vision. I think it was a great idea to provided response in such a forum setting like this. From what I have managed thus far, a couple of decent points have been made, especially by Schreiner. Though, in my judgment, plenty of bad arguments hit the fan too. Mark Seifrid got started with this beauty:

"I suspect (I could be wrong) that the poor man [i.e. Wright] doesn't know what he's talking about. . . He's very good on the historical Jesus, but here he is absolutely horrid"

Riiiiight...

Okey dokey then.

Absolutely horrid, no less.

Somebody touched a nerve there, me thinks...

Anyone for another serving of patronising to go with that order of curious ad hominem?

Nah, me neither.

By the way, two thoughts on this picture of the panel:

(cf. http://www.boycecollege.com/diablogue/index.php/2009/04/16/assessing-the-piper-wright-debate-on-justification/)

First, Schreiner (second from right). I've read some of his stuff and have appreciated not only his learning, but also his gracious and polite 'tone', if you know what I mean. But his head ... how does he pack all that learning into such a small head?

Second, Mark Seifrid (second from left). It occurred to me that Seifrid, at least in this picture, looks a bit like a James Davila with blond hair dye.

For those who live in the south of England

(click to enlarge)

I personally know two of the guys on the speaker line up (Mike Lloyd and Graham Tomlin) , so I can really recommend this.

The fear of God

No, not the sort that is the beginning of wisdom. No, I mean God's own fear, the fear he feels.

But God doesn't fear anything...

From at least Deuteronomy 32:19 onwards it is clear that the one speaking is YHWH ('The LORD saw it, and was jealous').

• 'He said' (v20);
  
• 'They made me jealous' (v21)
  
• 'For a fire is kindled by my anger' (v22)
  
• 'I will heap disasters upon them' (v23)
  
• 'The teeth of beasts I will send against them' (v24)
  
• 'I thought to scatter them' (v26)
  

Which brings the reader to Deuteronomy 32:27, where Yahweh says:

'but I feared provocation by the enemy, for their adversaries might misunderstand and say, "Our hand is triumphant; it was not the LORD who did all this"'

God doesn't merely not desire or not like this provocation. This verse tells us that he fears (NRSV) or even dreads it (NIV).

I couldn't find a comment on this verse anywhere in my OT Theologies, but the internet turned up a reference to Nahama Leibowitz who said of Deuteronomy 32:27, that it contains a "very daring anthropomorphism indeed, attributing to God the sentiment of fear." (Studies in Devarim: Deuteronomy, 328). Daring? No kidding!

Of course, the reader knows that God, not Moses, says this, so the picture is hardly of scared old god, with a beard, quaking in a corner. It is language meant to convey how strongly God feels about the defaming of his name, here provocation by the enemy. But Deuteronomy does this by telling us that God fears provocation.

A memorable thesis typo

I'm glad Anja picked this one up!

It was argued that the singleness (ἁπλότητος) and the language of one husband indicated the necessary 'unswerving commitment' of the Christian to Christ, or, as Harris put it, of the 'singleness of mind and purpose that finds expression for Christians in an exclusive preoccupation with pleasing Chris' !!

Sadly, having checked Harris' book, the mistake was mine. That would have made an amusing 'sic'!

Schreiner, Seifrid and co respond to Wright’s new book on justification

There is an mp3 to listen to, and Mike Bird has the link. I'm honestly looking forward to listening to this. I found Wright's book quite brilliantly convincing, which I think is a big warning sign I need to hear some criticism – and Seifrid and Schreiner surely won't let me down!

I recently tried listening to a three-part critical review of the New Perspective (again, audio) by Don Carson which, while good enough in places, was ultimately so irritating I didn't make it to the end – at least not yet. Of course Carson has a brilliant mind, but he knew exactly how to play his evangelical crowd, forcing a strong hermeneutic of suspicion on his audience against all the major representatives of the New Perspective (note how he speaks of Wright's 'presupposition when he comes to the text' that Jesus didn't consciously think he was himself God... I imagine these evangelicals i. missing the nuance in Wright's argument on this point because it hasn't been explained to them, and ii. dropping their pens in shock so that they can't possibly agree with this 'heretic' Wright - exactly the idea, me thinks!). Carson's rhetoric also involved some misrepresentation (playing off justice against the covenant ... why oh why?) and enough patronising waffle to leave me feeling a bit sick.

That said, even when it is difficult to agree with him, he is sometimes a key voice and worthy of a careful hearing. His amazing energy, hard work and obvious natural intelligence makes for a formidable combination. I recommend his NT introduction (written with Moo) to my students, together with Brown's and deSilva's.

Käsemann on harmonisation

Ever feel the urge to harmonise apparently contradictory biblical 'voices'? Tempted to level out various New Testament teachings that seem in tension?

Käsemann, ever the polemicist, writes:

'Every simplification which forces the original variety of voices [of the biblical text] into a well trodden path, is sin against the Spirit'!

(from his essay "Justification and salvation-history in Romans" in Pauline Perspectives – my translation from the German original, p. 118)

Honestly, this guy entertains even if he seems a bit nuts sometimes.

Quote of the day

'The purpose of revelation is to give life'

- a comment on John 4:13f in Rudolf Bultmann, The Gospel of John (slightly altered)

The www: world wide wackiness

Who wouldn't want a bagful of dirt posted to them?

Even better, how does a sack of Holy Land mud sound to you, to aid your devotions?

As they say on their webpage, "We are sorry we can't transfer the breathtaking scent of Holy Land soil via the Internet, but we can promise: There is no scent like it!"

Indeedy, especially if a wandering Bedouin just relieved himself on the patch that lands on your doorstep a week later.

Actually, while I am at it I am glad to announce that CTRVHM are now selling bags of Holy Land air ($24 per bag, plus post and package). Please leave the bag sealed, and if it is accidentally opened and suspiciously smells like a few of us lads got together, swilled bear, ate baked beans, laughed and quickly farted into an airtight container, we deny everything. It's all 100% Holy Land air, straight from the offices of CTRVHM.

From the strange to the downright disturbing (depending, of course, on whether you actually open our bag of air – in which case it will already be quite distressing enough): the wack-job self-flagellating crazy man in Dan Brown's novel, The Da Vinci Code need not remain solely on the page of fiction. Now you can buy the products necessary to whip yourself good and proper and scratch the flesh from your own back, all for the sake of personal holiness or penance of course - with your very own cilice. For a tasteful selection of chains, belts, hair vests and whips, click here.

What is more, their "handmade cat-o-seven discipline (seven tails to remind us of the seven deadly sins)" is now selling at an affordable price. In fact, the simple "cord Discipline" (made by Italian Nuns) is selling at a $24 reduction, so you may have enough to even buy one for a friend / spouse.

People, if this stuff can be sold, so can anything. So I'll give it a shot: anybody fancy buying our deluxe collection of used teabags? $50 post and package, and the experience of holding a selection of our old teabags can be yours.

Negotiating tensions in the Bible

The following is taken from a handout I penned for some students recently. I'd be interested to hear any thoughts.

'Yet another tension', she thought, keeping conscious distance from the more uncomfortable word 'contradiction'. 'How on earth am I to make sense of the bible, and to believe it is God inspired with all of these difficulties?' If that or a similar thought has flashed through your mind during this course, the following is offered to help you, as a Christian, think that thought through with confidence.

One popular strategy for dealing with biblical tensions is to slot them away in the 'mystery' box, hoping they won't come out to haunt you at night. While there is some half-grown wisdom here, you'll end up cramming quite a lot of the bible into that box before long...

Another strategy is to claim that the bible is a secure stash of stable proposition. 'Jesus is Lord', for example. Safe and secure; truth to stand on. This approach is often coupled with the assertion that all tensions in the bible are ultimately reconcilable; that none really exists when you study them properly. Certainly this is often true and many supposed 'contradictions' do indeed vanish on closer inspection. But while this is a wise move sometimes, it does not always work and it is noteworthy the bible itself seems unconcerned to apologise for very real tensions and, yes, contradictions. Indeed, perhaps too much time (and paper) has already been wasted trying to prove the occasional circle has four edges. But must one then always live with tensions in the bible, contradictions without any hope of reconciliation? How does a bible full of tensions help? Will it do any good to tell young converts that the bible is, for want of a better word, confused?

So another approach is to pretend the bible is unconcerned with revealing truth in propositions, that it merely witnesses to God's saving actions or true religious experience and is not itself a channel of God's revelation. Scripture is just human, nothing special about it except that to which it points. But why bother reading and preaching from the bible if that is the case? Does it really encourage us to handle it with care, as text itself fully inspired by God?

Here are some things to bear in mind, which have helped me when thinking through this complex of sticky issues:

If the history of philosophy, science and theology have taught us anything it is this: truth is a multifaceted complex beast, not easily domesticated, tamed or boxed. I once heard a profound argument in a Richard Hays lecture. He was quoting Rowan Williams who was himself quoting novelist Anita Mason: 'There is a kind of truth which, when it is said, becomes untrue'. Even our language, yes even the language of the bible, is sometimes not able to say the full truth, for to say it would be to domesticate it, and because we are in the business of speaking about God, to domesticate such truth is thus to refute it.

That said, biblical propositions are important – arguably so is 'propositional revelation', though it remains a disputed concept – and the bible is full of them. However, while we may agree on certain propositions being true, what matters is what they mean. And that is when things get more complicated! For example, what 'Jesus is Lord' means will depend on who is saying it, when, why and so on. But this complexity need not scare us: it is part of the process of wrestling with truth. If we come away with our faith limping, we may have just seen the face of God (cf. Jacob's wrestling at Peniel in Genesis 32)

The world is 'fallen', our lives, minds and relationships are fractured, broken. And of course, real life is full of contradictions and paradoxes. Here is the point: 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 tensions and, yes, contradictions? Where does the bible ever claim to be without tensions, especially as it is not a collection of philosophical propositions, but largely a bumpy narrative? Perhaps it will help us if we judge the bible according to what it is, not what it is not.

Truth is eschatological. Biblical statements often stake a claim in a reality that is yet to come, one that is in the hidden future and coming of God. The Apostle Paul famously wrote: 'For we know only in part, and we prophesy only in part; but when the complete comes, the partial will come to an end' (1 Cor. 13:9-10). He continued: 'For now we see in a mirror, dimly, but then we will see face to face. Now I know only in part; then I will know fully, even as I have been fully known' (13:12). Notice who wrote these words, including himself in this 'we know only in part': the Apostle Paul, the author of much of the New Testament! The text of the New Testament, while inspired by God, partakes in the partial nature of human knowing as we await the full and future disclosure of truth. Perhaps if we could grasp this more profoundly 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 truth, prior to God's glorious advent. For more on truth as eschatological, cf. Jürgen Moltmann, Theology of Hope: On the Ground and the Implications of a Christian Eschatology, trans. James W. Leitch (New York: Harper and Row, 1967).

Truth is relational. In 1 Corinthians 13:6 Paul writes that love 'does not rejoice in unrighteousness, but rejoices in the truth'. Notice that truth is contrasted not with falsehood, but with unrighteousness. To live truthfully is to live justly, to walk with God. As is well know, Jesus claimed to be himself 'the truth'. Truth is ultimately this person, and the word 'person', it should be noted, is relational. In Christ's life, relationships, acts of mercy, kindness, death and resurrection we find Truth. To claim that 'the Bible is true' is a proposition that may thus need to be reframed more relationally. For more on truth as relational, cf. J.D. Zizioulas, Being as Communion: Studies in Personhood and the Church (Crestwood, NY: St. Vladimir's Seminary Press, 1985)

'All scripture is inspired by God' (2 Tim. 3:16), and we can confess this statement with utter conviction. But one potentially problematic sleight-of-hand needs to be guarded against. Those who claim, on the basis of this passage, that the Bible must therefore lack all contradictions are using a deductively logical wringer on the text. That is, it has been argued that i) God inspired the text, ii) God cannot lie and iii) therefore scripture cannot contradict itself. This sounds fair enough, but if we are going to take the phenomenon of scripture itself more seriously in our formulations of the doctrine of scripture, we must work more inductively, working from the nature of the scriptures themselves. When that is done, the deductively logical step itself needs to be questioned in light of scripture. We can affirm both i) and ii), without heading to the choppy waters of iii). For more on not applying a deductive wringer in our formulations of the inspiration of the bible, cf. J.E. Goldingay, Models for Scripture (Carlisle: Paternoster, 1994).

That said, it is useful to bear in mind the words of Karl Barth who once wrote 'Is not every doctrine of Holy Scripture as such a superfluous saying of "Lord, Lord"?'(Church Dogmatics I/2, 461)! To answer Barth's question, a 'high view' of scripture ought perhaps to say more than what we think about the historicity of certain biblical events and our feelings about supposed or real biblical contradictions. As some of our comments above about the nature of truth suggest, it ought also to embrace our personal and communal scripture reading practices, attitudes and 'stance' towards the biblical text, unencumbered by deductive logical wringers. To this end I penned a different sort of statement on the trustworthiness of Scripture, one that emphasises our reading practices and posture toward the text. I have written an article justifying the theology behind this 'statement', providing crucial qualifications, which I will perhaps publish at some stage.

Peter Enns has written a useful book called Inspiration and Incarnation, seeking to help Christians think through the inspiration of scripture in terms of the incarnation. Just as Christ is 'true God from true God' so we can confess the full (or plenary) inspiration of scripture. However, Christ was also fully human, a fact that early church heretics were prone to deny (the heresy of docetism). Jesus got hungry, wept, felt strong emotions, he was 'crucified under Pontius Pilate; he suffered death and was buried'. Likewise, the scripture is fully the product of humans, who inhabited the worldviews, language and concerns of their days. As the early church attempted to conceptualise: in Christ, the human and divine natures were united in one person, 'without confusion or division' (cf. the statements made at The Council of Chalcedon, 451). It was only the various heretics who tried to amalgamate the human and divine natures into a confused hybrid. Christ truly grew in wisdom, learning obedience through what he suffered (cf. Luke 2:52; Mark 13:32; Heb. 5:8). Perhaps we sometimes do the same with the bible, treating it as a confused God-human hybrid. Thinking of scripture as fully human yet fully inspired by God has, an albeit imperfect, correspondence to an entirely orthodox definition of the relation of the divine and human natures in early christological formulations. For more on this model, cf. Peter Enns, Inspiration and Incarnation: Evangelicals and the Problem of the Old Testament (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2005).

That said, the incarnation of God in Christ is utterly unique - scripture is not another incarnation - and so even as an imperfect correspondence it perhaps confuses more than it illumines. So another way to think through this matter is offered by Nicholas Wolterstorff in his book Divine Discourse: Philosophical Reflections on the Claim that God Speaks (Cambridge: CUP, 1995). His arguments runs like this: We can understand the concept that a particular piece for writing or language can be the work of one person yet convey the authority of another. The example Wolterstorff uses is that of a secretary writing a letter for her boss. Imagine a secretary who knows the mind of her boss very well and who writes a letter on his behalf, she then passes it to him and he signs the letter and it goes off in his name and with his authority. The letter has been written entirely by the secretary; it is her work and in one sense has come solely from her own mind and pen. However, because i) she knows the mind of her boss and ii) it carries his signature, it actually becomes his letter and not just hers. In the same way we can understand scripture on one level as being entirely the human writing of the scripture's author, yet at the same ut carries the authority of God and in a sense is also God's writing. This is an image which convey the relationship between the human authorship and divine authority of scripture quite well, without some of the theological complications involved in the incarnation image above.

With these points in mind we can turn to tensions in the bible.

• If we struggle with tensions in the bible, we may need to examine our expectations in light of the eschatological nature of truth. We may need to reframe our concerns according to the relational nature of truth. Put this way, we can perhaps avoid the scissors approach to the bible, one which early church heretic Marcion attempted, as he sought to exorcise all Jewish elements from the bible (talk about a doomed project!)
  
• If truth is a complex beast, one not easily pinned down, we may need to move beyond a simple treatment and comparison of 'biblical propositions' to an appreciation of the living complexity of truth.
  
• Perhaps our struggles with biblical tensions can help us to reformulate our thinking about the nature of the bible, one that takes more seriously our commitment to the practice of bible reading.
  
• The longing for the bible to make sense, for tensions to be explained away, is entirely legitimate, perhaps reflecting something of our longing for the coming of the Lord when we will 'know fully'. Yet we must guard against an over-realised eschatology, one which thinks the things that will happen at Christ's return have already happened. Acceptance of an over-realised eschatology will tend to end in discouragement, and Paul had therefore to combat it occasionally (2 Thessalonians).
  
• Thinking of the inspiration of scripture in light of the secretaries letter may help us to embrace a fully human and occasionally contradicting text while at the same time fully embracing the text as written under the authority of God.

A prayer

With all such questions that cause us problems and disquiet our faith, the best place to go is to God in prayer, to unload our concerns, pray for wisdom, protection and deepening of our faith. Our struggles can be an opportunity to deepen our relationship with God. Here is a prayer you may like to pray with me:

"Father, there is so much that we do not understand, so much that confuses us
in the Bible. We surely only know in part. So we pray for wisdom, for a closer
walk with you, for deeper maturity in our faith, that we would be passionate
lovers of truth. Protect, strengthen and develop our faith, that it may bear
fruit in our lives, that we truly play our part in the evangelisation of the
nations and the transformation of society, remembering always that it is you who
carries us; you are our foundation, not we ourselves, not our understanding of
biblical tensions nor the strength of our often failing faith. We give you glory
for hearing our prayer for the sake of your Son, our Lord Jesus Christ. Amen"

Further useful resources:

• David Law, Inspiration (London: Continuum, 2001)
  
• Craig D. Allert, A High View of Scripture?: The Authority of the Bible and the Formation of the New Testament Canon (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2007)
  
• Kenton L. Sparks, God's Word in Human Words: An Evangelical Appropriation of Critical Biblical Scholarship (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2008)
  
• Kevin J. Vanhoozer, "A Person of the Book? Barth on Biblical Authority," in Karl Barth and Evangelical Theology (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2006), pp. 26-59
  
• N.T. Wright, "How Can The Bible Be Authoritative?" Originally published in Vox Evangelica, 1991, 21, 7–32, free online at http://www.ntwrightpage.com/Wright_Bible_Authoritative.htm