When asked ...

about whether certain historical events in the life of Jesus actually happened ...

Bultmann: 'We can't possibly know whether that bit happened or not, and the other bit?!!?! Of course it didn't really happen you twit! Light-bulbs etc. It really means something else, as you see when you demythologise it, and then discover the Christ-event addressing you'

Wright: 'Well yes it did happen, but it didn't mean what you think it meant. Rather, you have to see it in terms of the controlling story of the exile and restoration'

Borg: '1) Resistance is futile. 2) whether it happened or not is unimportant. What is important is the spiritual context in which you live and how this tradition nourishes you.'

Westerholm: 'What did Luther say about it? That's what happened'

Brian McLaren: 'Postmodernism. Not modernity. It's a conversation. Let me light a candle and give you and your environment a hug!'

Benedikt XVI: 'Ich verstehe Sie nicht. Sprechen Sie Latein?'

Bauckham: 'Eyewitnesses saw it. Even if their eyewitness memory is fallible, it is the theologically as well as historically appropriate witness to those events and their significance'

Greg Boyd: 'Well, it was the devil that done it, but Jesus defeated it in cosmic battle'

Jesus seminar: 'black, grey, pink'

Crossan: 'It might of happened in a peasant, cynic sort of way'

Perriman: 'I think it may have happened. But it was part of an eschatological drama that is not ours'

Crossley: 'Something happened: In a socially-scientific explainable sort of way'

Esler: 'Honour shame. Patronage. Limited good'

Dan Wallace: 'avmh.n le,gw u`mi/n'

Peter Enns: 'What the text says is entirely true as Christ is divine, and is entirely a human account in a "Word became flesh" type of way'

Carson: 'YES'

Hurtado: 'Yes, it happened. Then they worshiped Christ'

Gathercole: 'Dito'

Bauckham: '... and they included him in the divine identity'

Dawkins: 'OF COURSE NOT IDIOTS. Flying spaghetti plate, Zeus atheist, hell is an evil doctrine, child abuse etc.'

Francis Watson: 'It happened as a scriptural argument. It was a specific hermeneutical argument in dialogue with the scriptures and other interpretative traditions'

Miroslav Volf: 'Let me give you an embracing hug'

Benny Hinn: *Screams "TOUCH!" into a microphone* I fall over.

Ehrman: 'The truth got lost in the scribal tradition and in all of the many variations'

Martyn: 'It happened, but not like you think: It happened in a world invading apocalyptic kind of way'

Bird: 'Yes, with a restored Israel around Christ it was an anticipation of God's salvation as it would then reach the rest of the (Gentile) world'

Dan Brown: 'It didn't happen like that. That is part of a global conspiracy to keep you in ignorance. Davinci left hints'

Gorman: 'In a participatory, cruciform, anti-empire, non violent type of way, it happened'.

Michael Jackson: '*grabs groin and moonwalks. Grunts EH!*'

Bockmuehl: 'What is its Wirkungsgeschichte?'

Jim West: *Quickly puts on a T-Shirt with "I'm a card carrying minimalist" written on it* 'NO! And what is more, if you insist it did and think you can prove it, that is nothing but unbelief!'

Chris Tilling: 'For any of the named above who happen to read my blog from time to time, apologies for my insolence. The devil made me do it'

UPDATE:

Hordes of systematic theologians: "We will give the whole question a half-hearted nod, then pretend it doesn't really matter and carry on talking about abstractions like zim zum and such like"

Barth: Cheerfully adds "Welcome to the strange new world of the Bible!"

Witherington: Writes a book about it in 3 days.

and McLaren: Endorses it.

The Welsh: Speak in a funny language about it.

Wright (again): 'I forgot to add: Jesus is Lord, and Caesar isn't. As this dovetails nicely, in a pincer movement, with precisely the point Bird made in the comments.'

Two Historical Jesus Scholars and their Movie Twins

Wright – Real Genius (1985)

Bultmann – Inbred Rednecks (2001)

(in honour of West's recent opining)

How they get here

Had a few searches land on my blog recently.

A couple have searched for 'real cock' and landed here! Not sure what they mean (something about poultry I suppose), but I hope you found what you were looking for.

Today I had 'Jesus Tilling' from Denmark.

Well, thanks! In correspondence from a publishing house, also today, I was addressed as 'Hi Christ'.

Perhaps I should be getting a messiah complex, or is there one seriously big call on my life that I haven't yet discovered?

Encyclopedia of the Historical Jesus

Jim West drew attention to the forthcoming publication of the Encyclopedia of the Historical Jesus today. It will be released on the 18^th of March 2008. Though I contributed an article to the encyclopaedia (notice that word was spelt properly this time!), I was rather shocked at the price they are asking for it. I was even more shocked that there is an article on Rudolf Bultmann! Why?! It is the encyclopaedia of the historical Jesus, not an encyclopaedia of the historical numpkins.

*Waits for West's wrath to haemorrhage*

The future of Christian Universalism debates

I don't believe that the debate about Christian Universalism can circumnavigate scripture, and solve the issues with recourse to systematic theology. After all, systematic theology at its heart is (or should be) all about exegesis. However, no Christian Universalist with an ounce of honesty would deny that there are 'problem texts' for his or her position (as indeed there are for the traditional view). Hence, the debate about Universalism cannot be resolved merely in terms of systematic theology or exegesis alone. Interested parties in the debate must negotiate their positions in terms of a big picture mixture of hermeneutical, biblical Wirkungsgeschichte, exegetical and theological concerns. The days of quoting this or that scripture, or making recourse to this or that theological axiom – as if that settled the debate – are long over.

SPCK’s The Evangelical Universalist

SPCK contacted me today to inform me that The Evangelical Universalist is now out in Europe (originally published by the great folk at Wipf & Stock). Amazon are doing a deal at the moment offering 34% off, bringing it to a very reasonable £8.57.

Oliver Crisp, Lecturer in Theology at the University of Bristol, has written the following new endorsement for the back cover:

"Here is an attempt to think through the implications of the doctrine of universalism that really tries to tackle the considerable difficulties posed by the biblical material, as well as traditional theological and philosophical arguments. Clear, well-written and engaging – MacDonald's charitable reading of his opponents is a model of fairmindedness. Those in the evangelical constituency will need to do some hard thinking in order to show why one cannot be both an evangelical and a universalist"

If anybody wants more information, dash a comment off and I'll perhaps, permission allowing, upload the new front and back cover along with the press release.

I'll be honest, many Christian universalists (though not Gregory) make me feel uneasy. Gregory MacDonald, I'm quite sure, would rather have people wrestle and struggle with his arguments than have people jump on a universalist bandwagon. We are on holy ground with this theme so let us tread carefully, prayerfully and discerningly. And The Evangelical Universalist will help you negotiate your way through the debates with grace.

For those interested in a lucid and word-efficient defence of the traditional evangelical view of hell and such like, at least in terms of Paul, I recommend a read of the relevant pages in Thomas R. Schreiner's Paul, apostle of God's glory in Christ: a Pauline theology (Downers Grove, Ill.: IVP, 2001).

Can anyone recommend any recent works defending a traditional view?

The CTRVHM Humbling Ministry

As a special Chris Tilling Really Very Holy Ministries (CTRVHM) service this year, I am excited to announce that we are offering a revolutionary programme to sort out problems you may have with those around you who suffer from that most troublesome of sins: arrogance and pride.

This really is an exciting moment in Christian ministry history, as this year we unveil our entirely new yet tried and tested methods of character change. Never again will you have to worry about that certain person p-ing you off because of that harmful arrogant word, or fear those inner convulsions generated by that proud flicker in the offenders eyes.

By lending you, our customer, a strong Christian hand, we can forever help those who struggle with pride issues, and thus those around them.

With a baseball bat, balaclavas and a surprise attack, we will leave your client on the floor in a bleeding pile of messed up fleshy pulp. We will then leave him or her alone for a while to think about things: the perfect opportunity to forever reconsider those exalted images of oneself.

The ministry motto is 'It's kind of like an intervention'

There are a few legal disclaimers that need to be finally approved, but once the formalities are out of the way we look forward to beating the living crap out of your clients, and to help make the world a better place.

The Mash-em-up-Real-Bad team has been in training for a few months now, and will be led by a ministry member who prefers to remain anonymous, but I will be present supervising the first 'ministry times' to make sure that all teeth have been appropriately removed with the 'Sanctifying Bat'.

As this branch of CTRVHM ministry took a little inspiration from my Catholic brother, Josh McManaway, we wanted to insure that there will be a short ceremony before the 'Sanctifying Bat' is applied to the given sinner. It is hoped that an infusion of sacramental grace may be transmitted into the offender in equal proportion to the removal of snot from his or her face during the ministry session.

For the first month of ministry delivery, we are also offering an experimental package deal whereby you, our flock, can try out the methods first hand. We call it the BeattheshitoutLITE (TM). On your request, and after the submission of an appropriate 'love donation', we will send someone over to the house of the given offender to seriously insult them. And their mum.

We, of course, operate anonymously, and will even leave a few "How To Be a Proper Christian" tracts scattered around.

For those interested in obtaining either our package deal or the full ministry mash, please contact me by leaving a note in the comment box, leaving the details of the offender, and by paying an appropriate 'love donation' (be careful not to offend God here) through purchases on my Amazon Wish List.

I’m very tired tonight so expect gibberish posting. Still, I had fun writing this and the next which is the main thing, I suppose. But I’d better stop typing here because it is a post heading, after all, and not a paragraph of prose.

Do check out the discussion in the previous post. The tag team debate seems pretty uneven at the moment; blood and broken noses are abound. It looked like Phil had Andrew in an unbreakable wristlock. Then the crowd astonished, Andrew Pulveriser Perriman pulled a swerve and had Phil Slasher Sumpter on his back in pain. The tag team were lobbing grenades in and it really isn't clear who was left standing after the smoke. And just in: Phil the Slasher is pulling off a legendary WFF superman comeback. Somebody needs to stop this fight before it gets seriously messy.

Perriman responds to my review of his book

The following comes from private e-mail correspondence with Andrew about his book, Otherways, which I reviewed recently here. I asked for his permission to publish the following honest response as a separate blog to facilitate discussion, especially as a couple of commentators to my review were quite negatively disposed towards his project. And he makes a couple of good points below, especially about the necessary dialogue between scripture and tradition which many of us, in practice, reduce to tradition's monologue.

"Thanks. It's a great review.

The point about valuing tradition is well taken. I guess in the back of my mind there is always a more respectful dialogue with tradition going on that doesn't always show up in the written polemic. And it's not as though there's a shortage of people out there willing to defend traditional formulations of theology! But I think what the parable is trying to address is simply the problem of over-familiarity. For there to be a genuine dialogue between scripture and tradition scripture must be seen for what it really is, independent of tradition as far as possible - otherwise it's a dialogue heavily weighted in favour of tradition.

My problem with the trinitarian statement has to do more with the problem it creates for reading the New Testament, because inevitably it gives the impression that deep down this is how scripture constructs its understanding of God. I think that's what I was getting at by the distinction between 'theologically necessary' and 'normative'. It may arise out of our reading of scripture, but all sorts of problems arise, it seems to me, if we then reverse the process and allow our reading of scripture to be shaped by our later theological formulations.

The other problem, of course, is that my outlook as a New Testament theologian is much too narrow! I need to catch up on some historical theology. I'll also look out for Bockmuehl's book.

I hope this doesn't sound too defensive. I am delighted with the review and really appreciate you taking a publication of this nature seriously."

"For us": Why, if Wright is right, so is Bultmann

'Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us' (Gal 3:13)

A great question was posted on the Wrightsaid discussion group today about Wright's interpretation of the 'us' in the sentence above.

According to Wright, the Torah brought the Jewish people curse, namely exile. 'Because the Messiah represents Israel, he is able to take on himself Israel's curse and exhaust it' (The Climax of the Covenant, 151, italics mine). Because of this, the covenant blessing (specifically the gift of the Spirit) is made available to Gentiles. So Christ dies directly for Jews only; indirectly for Gentiles.

While this post won't attempt to analyse the plausibility of this claim in broad terms, my thoughts were stirred as I worked on my exegesis of 1 Corinthians 8 today. In 8:7-12 Paul writes:

'It is not everyone, however, who has this knowledge. Since some have become so accustomed to idols until now, they still think of the food they eat as food offered to an idol; and their conscience, being weak, is defiled ... For if others see you, who possess knowledge, eating in the temple of an idol, might they not, since their conscience is weak, be encouraged to the point of eating food sacrificed to idols? So by your knowledge those weak believers for whom Christ died are destroyed. But when you thus sin against members of your family, and wound their conscience when it is weak, you sin against Christ.' (NRSV)

That Paul is speaking of Gentile Christian believers is clear (Gentile Christians: 8:7 'accustomed to idols
until now'. Believers: 8:11 'believers'; 8:12 'brothers' – or 'family' in the inclusive language of the NRSV). Yet Paul is clear that Christ died specifically for them. There is no 'I mean indirectly', and to import it into this text is rather arbitrary (for more along these lines, cf., off the top of my head, the matter of partaking in the body and blood of Christ in the Lord's Supper in 1 Cor 10 and 11).

Now this could be taken as evidence that puts a question mark against Wright's reasoning (Jim West nods vigorously).

But if not, if Wright's reading of Gal 3:13 is accepted, such evidence in 1 Cor 8 is of hermeneutical significance. It means that Paul universalised a historically contingent event that originally indicated only death for Jews. It means Paul directly applied a story about Jewish exile and restoration to Gentiles in Corinth, without batting an eyelid, and without concerning himself with that narrative in his reasoning. Paul wasn't concerned about the historical contingency or specificity of the event, but rather with its emerging theological breadth, which sundered it from an isolated anchorage to its immediate historical concern (Jim West gives a slightly bewildered nod).

In other words, if Wright's reading is upheld in light of such evidence, doors open wide to appreciate the scriptural precedence and wisdom of something akin to Bultmann's project.

To formulate things with a slight dose of provocation: If Wright's exile and restoration reading in Gal 3 is right, so was Bultmann. :-)

Pimp My Liturgy - 04 (Special Incense Edition - 1)

The 'Botafumeiro Incense Swing' for Evangelicals

While holy incense is not big in the Evangelical movement, my hope is that this post, and the next, will recover something of this wonderful high church tradition for my fellow evangelical brethren. I was inspired watching the following video of the famous 'Botafumeiro Incense Swing' in Spain:

One of the commentators on this video on Youtube, a DavidGPardue, says:

'The Botafumeiro knocked the priest who caught it on his rear end in 2004 ... I saw it happen. That censer is dangerous, hot and heavy — it is made from solid sterling silver. He did not seem hurt when he got up'.

Right. Nothing like risking life and limb for a bit of jolly good Botafumeiro swinging. It is, after all, in the service of the Lord.

Wikipedia reveals that there is quite a history of Botafumeiro accidents:

'There have been a number of accidents that occurred during the swinging of the Botafumeiro over the years. Apparently at one time, the Botafumeiro was attached to the rope with a hook which sometimes became disconnected. One of the most renowned accidents took place during a visit of Princess Catherine of Aragon. She was on a journey to marry the heir to the English throne in 1499 and stopped by the cathedral in Santiago de Compostela. While it was being swung, the Botafumeiro flew out of the cathedral through the Platerias high window. No one was reported to have been injured on this occasion. The ropes and other devices securing the Botafumeiro have also failed on May 23rd, 1622, and more recently in 1925 and July of 1937 ... [when] hot coals were spilled on the ground'.

Now, time to get the calculator out for some maths. A bit of internet research informs me that the Botafumeiro reaches speeds of an astonishing 105 mph (or 47 m/s). Remembering Newton's laws, at an astonishing weight of 160 kilograms this means that a Botafumeiro in the face might lose you your ... face. And head, along with everything attached to it. Still, it would at least decorate the church walls in an interesting hint of brain. But we can be much more precise:

Let's ask some sensible questions. How far would an unlucky worshiper be propelled were the Botafumeiro to connect with his centre of gravity? The momentum (mass x velocity) of the Botafumeiro comes to roughly 7520Ns at maximum speed. As force x time = momentum, a half second contact with the thurible would exert 3760 Newtons of force on the churchgoer. Remembering that v = u + at and F = ma, we can work a few more matters out. If this hapless worshipper was a rather sturdy adult male, weighing approximately 90 kg (or 200 pounds), then he would be accelerated, by the Botafumeiro, at 41.7 meters per second per second.

Let's assume this man was stationary, kneeling during prayer, when it hit. This would mean a contact of half a second would set the man flying at a velocity of 20.88 m/s (that is almost 50 mph. 0-50 mph in half a second!). Which further means that our praying saint would travel a clean 100 meters in just 4.8 seconds! ("Dear God, draw me closer to youuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu")

It would probably be worth keeping your eyes open during prayer times in this church.

I wonder how many 200 lbs choir singers it would take to stop our smoking Botafumeiro, in 2 seconds? I leave that for our resident scientists to work out, but I'm guessing that it would need to plough through a row of quite a few 200 pound men in order to reach a state of rest. That would probably wipe out an entire choir.

Hang on, on second thoughts it is quite simple, isn’t it? Think of Newton’s Pendulum. In order to bring the thurible to a stop, you would need 160 kg of men (or two 176.4 lbs men). They would of course themeselves fly off at 41.7 meters per second per second, and traverse (in a vacuum) the length of two football pitches (about 230 meters) in about 4 seconds.

Wiki continues: 'It costs about 250€ for each thurible "performance" at the cathedral ... The Botafumeiro produces large volumes of smoke. This is in accord with the well-known saying in religious circles, "More incense, less nonsense."'

Indeed, it is all about the smoke, as we shall see in Pimp My Liturgy - 05 (Special Incense Edition - 2).

To learn how to swing the Botafumeiro, do check out this great interactive flash animation.

So, Evangelical community, why not consider introducing the Botafumeiro Swing into your churches. Think what fun it would be to have a speeding 160kg mass of potentially murderous and heavy, scorching hot metal fly around your Sunday services, dispensing enough incense to get all the smoke detectors within a 1 mile radius beeping. Surely revival would quickly follow.

Book Review: Otherways by Andrew Perriman

My sincere thanks to Andrew Perriman for a copy of his new book Otherways: In Search of an Emerging Theology (purchase also on Amazon.com and Amazon.co.uk).

In many ways, this is an unusual book, at the same time as being rich, thought-provoking, unsettling and encouraging. Perriman has essentially selected posts from http://www.opensourcetheology.net/, and so to understand this book one needs to understand that webpage. As he explains on his webpage, 'The purpose of this site is to assist the development of an emerging theology for the emerging church'. It is an interactive discussion-based webpage which preferences 'openness, intellectual integrity, grassroots collaboration, and contextual relevance with respect to theological method' (7).

The 59 essays selected for publication in this book have, for the most part, been left in their original form. They are ranged according to 'a loose thematic development from an initial consideration of what constitutes "emerging church" or "emerging theology" through matters of hermeneutics and explorations of the biblical narrative ..., to a more general considerations of theology, community and mission' (7).

This makes the book rather difficult to review as it consists in so many mini essays. However, what I can do here is to give an impression of the sort of material one encounters and the trajectory and starting point of the thought as it is presented in the essays.

The first thing to appreciate about Perriman's style in these essays is that, although it is not documented with footnotes as one would expect in a normal equivalent book, it is an incredibly rich depository of living and creative thought. I found myself having to put the book down regularly as I tried to digest the content of just a couple of pages. There is more material in this book to provoke thought that in almost any other book on emergent theology simply because of its form as a collection of mini essays, each with its own succinctly put (and often provocative) theses. So, for example, in essays seven ('Cracking the code') Perriman discusses the nature and effect of social discourse in modern Evangelicalism (what he calls 'the Code'), and examines what it does, how it works, and what is wrong with it. That particular essay can be found under http://www.opensourcetheology.net/node/63. Quite a lot discussed in such a short space and in everyday language! I regularly found myself, while reading the various essays, enjoying those precious 'ah-ha!' moments, as I once mentioned here.

There is much more in the book that I could not possibly summarise in this short book review. It contains a number of its own book reviews, critical interaction with N.T. Wright, debate concerning the meaning of 'gospel', homosexuality, atonement, hermeneutics, debate about certain statements of faith, much that concerns Perriman's own eschatological convictions, etc. Again and again one is confronted with crisp, provocative and insightful thinking. It is a tremendously rich book. The Christmas Pudding of Emerging Theology books! Eat too much at once and you'll get indigestion.

Plenty will wonder, of course, whether it is worth buying a book that is simply a collection of short essays that one can find online. All I can say is that I personally prefer to have a book in front of me that I can underline and write in the margins of, and this is why I believe the electronic age will never replace a good old book! What is more, much of the best material, Perriman notes in his introduction, is actually found in the comments of the essays and not in the essays themselves. This means that if one stuck to the webpage, one could get lost in the details without obtaining the general overview and scope of thought that the book offers.

Given the nature of the book I cannot interact with every point of potential disagreement in this review, but I can at least share one thought that occurred to me more than once. The very first of his essays, Paths in the forest, is a parable. He starts off:

'Scripture is like a forest. As people explore the forest, they tend after a while to follow the paths that others have taken, simply because it's easier. So the paths get well-worn and eventually become the definitive and orthodox way of getting around the forest. In fact the paths have become so well established that people have produced maps, which has led to the phenomenon of people staying at home with their maps and never feeling the need to venture into the forest at all ... It would be nice, in a way, if we could leave the forest alone for a while, let the undergrowth regrow, let the old paths disappear, and then start again, so that we come to know the forest for the first time' (9)

This desire is rather symptomatic of Perriman's project, one which seeks to vigorously critique received beliefs. However, it is here that I am not convinced Perriman is at his most nuanced. We simply have paths in a forest and cannot let them overgrow anymore, and I think there should be a respect for these paths, and a hope that God has helped create them as he has guided his people through the Spirit. Tradition, I dare to hope, deserves our 'respect and deference', even if not 'our slavish adherence' (cf. Reformed and Always Reforming, by Roger Olson, p. 45). Perriman's expressed desire is perhaps necessary for those who need to blaze trails of reformation (through re-engagement with Scripture), but eventually, if a robust and historically 'thick' theology is to emerge, these paths need to be lovingly navigated, and not left to the tide of undergrowths regrowth. They are there to stay, thanks to, I hope in part, the Holy Spirit. Indeed, it is precisely the Wirkungsgeschichte of the biblical texts that may provide a way forward in this present time of confusion about the bible, its place in theological dialogue, and the future of both (cf. the first couple of chapters of Markus Bockmuehl's brilliant, Seeing the Word: Refocusing New Testament Study)

His, for want of a better word, brash dealing of traditional Christian beliefs comes to the fore from time to time. In a friendly critique of the Evangelical Alliance Statement of Faith, he writes in response to '1. The one true God who lives eternally in three persons – the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit':

'I still have problems with explicitly trinitarian statements of the being of God. No doubt they are theologically justified and necessary, but should they really be made normative in this way, given such prominence in a statement of faith? They are hard to account for biblically and if nothing else, we lose something of the narrative dynamism of Father, Son and Spirit as they are encountered in the Bible. If we make this sort of abstract and theoretical statement normative for faith in God, what sort of faith will result?' (42-43)

Theologically justified and necessary but not normative? Perhaps he has kept the appropriate tension. Perhaps things are not lopsided. But this makes me feel like Perriman's project runs the risk of neglecting the interpretive tradition of the church, and its central creedal statements. Sure he refers to explicit statements in the bible, but I find this EA formulation a crisp expression of historic Christian faith, and one I would argue is consistent with, even if not explicit in, the scriptures. Perriman's boldness here, as well as his rather 'thin' and church-tradition-distrusting set of '(tentative) beliefs' in chapter 9 (http://www.opensourcetheology.net/node/309), makes me wonder if he is keeping the necessary tensions in balance.

But these points are simply to provoke discussion, not to wave a condemning conservative finger at Perriman's project. Points like this in Perriman's work give me the most to chew on, and I for one always enjoy chewing (and learning in the process). This book is a great introduction to the sort of questions being raised in the emerging movement, and of one strand of emerging theological thinking's answers to these questions. Of course, it is an 'open source' theology, which can only be properly appreciated by reading through the webpage itself, and the offerings of its various contributors.

As always, Perriman is unsettling, deeply thought provoking, encouraging and controversial all in one!

What Would Jesus Write?

I am glad to inform you that I have found a few books allegedly written by none other than our Lord and Saviour. So, at least, this is what Amazon informs us. He has written numerous works, actually.

This one, a solid 425 pages, is called The "I Am" Discourses, Published in the Saint Germain Series (Hardcover). He co-authored, Amazon tells us, with Lotus Ray King. Let's face it, Jesus Christ is going to sell even more books than the Pope or Wright put together. Surely the people at Saint Germain are rubbing their hands. A bonus is that it is also written in English, which really goes to show that Jesus and Moses really did speak (KJV) English. Of course, this also solves the whole Johannine 'problem', and the authorship of the Gospel.

While on the subject of authorship, it seems the whole authorship of the NT problem is also solved:

THE NEW TESTAMENT of our Lord and Saviour JESUS CHRIST. Translated out of the Greek. Being the version set forth A.D. 1611 compared with the most ancient authorities and revised A.D. 1881 (Hardcover) by Jesus Christ (Author).

Then there is The Word of Life (Hardcover) by Our Lord, Jesus Christ. Fair enough.

Perhaps most surprising is that Jesus has co-authored with none other than Terry Eagleton.

The Gospels (Revolutions Series) (Paperback) by Jesus Christ (Author), Giles Fraser (Editor), Terry Eagleton (Introduction)

I can't say I would like to be Jesus' editor. I would feel, well, sinful sending him back the proofs with corrections. 'Correct this, Jesus' – and lightning strikes. This one, I'm guessing, will clear up all of the Gospel discrepancies, and pave the way for a proper harmonization. Exciting times!

I wondered what else Jesus Christ could write, seeing as he has written so much already (indulge me):

• How to be Like Me, and Why You Need to Know
  
• Yes, Pauline Christology is a divine-Christology. And the Trinitarians were Right all Along.
  
• Peter I knew, Wright as well, but who is Bultmann?
  
• The Truth About Q-Communities Exposed. I never heard of them.
  
• Yes, Bauckham is Right. Often.
  
• Barth, Jüngel, Benedikt, Aquinas, Anselm, etc. were/are all pinhead theologians. Let me tell you the Truth.
  
• Why Dunn's commentary on Galatians is the Best
  
• Who will Win the Superbowl/World Cup for the next 200 years
  
• Did Moses Really Speak KJV English?
  
• If the Minimalists were Right, I wouldn't be here Writing this Book and would simply vanish in a demythologised puff of hermeneutically suspicious smoke.
  
• What Would Jesus Do? The Answer Book.
  
• Ten Thousand Reasons To Give my Friend, Chris Tilling, a Job When he Completes his Doctorate

A Problem Text for those who associate the Parousia with the destruction of Jerusalem?

'Jesus said to him, "If it is my will that he remain until I come, what is that to you? Follow me!" So the rumour spread in the community that this disciple would not die. Yet Jesus did not say to him that he would not die, but, "If it is my will that he remain until I come, what is that to you?"' (John 21:22-23)

1. I believe the majority of scholars (though I am no expert on John), argue that the Gospel of John was written after the destruction of the Temple.
   
2. If Bauckham is right then the author of John is a certain 'John the Elder' - a man who died after the destruction of the Temple.
   

If these points are correct, and admittedly point 2 may well not be, then it is hard for me to avoid the conclusion that the rumour that spread was not simply 'John would not die' as this is hardly even a possible inference from 'If it is my will that he remain until I come, what is that to you?' Rather, the rumour would likely be that John would live until the coming of the Lord, and would therefore 'not die'.

But John didn't live until the coming of the Lord – even though he had experienced the destruction of Jerusalem. Ergo, so this argument goes, the parousia should not be confused with the destruction of Jerusalem, at least in John.

Now in defence of the view that the parousia is to be directly associated with the destruction of Jerusalem view: Is it possible that Jesus wanted to simply indicate that John, unlike Peter, would not die before the destruction of Jerusalem and that this was misunderstood to mean John would not die at all (but be transported directly into heaven like Elijah and Enoch, perhaps)?

I don't know too much about John's Gospel, so your wisdom is appreciated. What do you think makes the most sense? Or is an entirely different explanation more likely?

Some Awards

1. Best Newcomer Biblioblog Award goes to Nick Norelli. He's almost as prolific as West. Though he likes rap. So ...
   
2. Worst Music Taste of Bibliobloggers Award goes to Nick Norelli. And an honorary runner-up mention must go to Ben Myers.
   
3. Most Heretical and Boringly Brain-Rot Inducing Biblioblog Award of 2007 goes to ... No. I shouldn't say. *Coughs* We *Coughs* st.
   
4. Most Handsome, Most Inspiring, Educational and Cleverest Biblioblogger award of 2007: I'm too modest to say ... but I want to thank my fans, my wife, my friends ... it's me.
   
5. Funniest Biblioblogger Award goes to Steven Harris. I can't stop laughing at him.
   
6. Most Theologically Suspect Biblioblogger Award goes hands-down to John Hobbins. (John, what did you expect for that?)
   
7. Blogger Most Likely to be Confused with a Criminal Because of the Way He Looks Award goes to Jason Clark.
   
8. Most misrepresented scholar of 2007 goes to Bishop Tom Wright for suffering numerous dubious critiques of his works. I think some of the negative feelings are there (from the right) because of either an unhealthy dogmatic conservativism, or (from the left) because some people are simply jealous of the good Bishop, jumping on an anti-Wright band-Wagon because it makes the critic look more intelligent.
   
9. Most thought-provoking book of the month award goes to Andrew Perriman for Re:Mission. Biblical Mission for a post-biblical church. Crikey-o-Riley, what a book. If you are conservative, then it's regular-change-of-underpants time. It made me feel like I was on the receiving end of a new (early 20th century) 'consistent eschatological' slap around the cheeks, a movement discussed nicely in Wright and Neill, The Interpretation of the New Testament, by the way.
   
10. Biblioblog That I Visit Most Often Award. 1st: Mine (vanity), 2nd: West's (perhaps it is masochistic curiosity).
    
11. Most Prolific Biblioblogger Author of Books. Michael F. Robo-Bird.
    
12. Best SBL Room Mate of 2007 Award goes to Jim West (who, aside from being a really top-chap - but don't tell him I said so - also wins the Most Mini-Minimalist Award)
    
13. SBL Room Mate Most Likely to Trim Their Verrucas with a Cheese Grater Award. West.
    
14. Finally, the Most Coolest Nicest Dude award goes to my friend David Vinson for sending me numerous books in the last couple of months, including:
    
    Original Selfishness: Original Sin And Evil in the Light of Evolution by Daryl P. Domning and Monika K. Hellwig
    Reformed and Always Reforming by Roger Olson
    God of the Possible by Greg Boyd
    Inspiration and Incarnation by Peter Enns
    The God who Risks by John Sanders
    The Openness of God by Pinnock, Rice, Sanders etc.
    The Myth of a Christian Nation by Greg Boyd
    And Not in Our Classrooms: Why Intelligent Design is Wrong for Our Schools, ed. Eugenie Scott and Glenn Branch
    
    Thanks a million, David!!

ETS

I wonder if the ETS can stop itself from prowling the circumference of the self-imposed bounded set categorisation of 'Evangelical', and renew its privileged and high calling to serve the evangelical community more helpfully in 2008 (pace no. 12 here).

Links

I returned to Germany yesterday after a very lazy Christmas and New Year holiday of eating, sleeping, reading, more eating and more sleeping.

Bliss.

1. At the risk of rather blatant self-promotion, do see my previous post. I want as many people ‘in’ as possible, giving that Aaron bloke a seriously significant Christian kick-in.


2. Chris Brady (who is hairy enough to make me wonder if he is the missing link between Homo sapiens and our evolutionary ancestors) has done a superb job with the 25^th Biblical Studies Carnival.


3. James Crossley has written a helpful follow up to my earlier short post on the momentum of the so-called 'third quest'.


4. Jason Goroncy asks 'Will the Love of God Finally Triumph?'


5. Jim West joins the ranks of the totally depraved by posting slander and practicing necromancy.


6. Oh yes, West also thinks he has found The Very Best Modern Translation of the Bible in Any Language. It’s German. Of course, there is a problem with Jim’s reasoning, as he fails to take account of the fact that German is sometimes not the nicest of languages from an acoustic perspective. I.e. it can sound demonic (at least in the old war movies), and is thus certainly not the raw material of a seriously good bible translation. Don't believe me? Flip to any German internet radio channel, wait for the discussion times and close your eyes. See how easy it is to picture hoards of cursing demons stubbing each other’s toes?


7. Unless, I ought to add quickly, the German person speaking is my ridiculously beautiful wife, my wife’s family, colleges or any of our friends or acquaintances, present or future etc.
   
8. OK, if I want my wife to kiss me again, I ought to admit that English can sound quite horrible too.


9. While on the bible translation subject, there are some totally unsubstantiated rumours (started by me) that Wright's translation of the NT in his 'for everyone' series will be gathered together to make a complete new translation: namely the 'Wright Official Translation And Totally Inspired Text' (the WOTATIT).


10. I successfully salvage the tone of this post after the previous sentence by denying that I wrote it.

Links and awards

I returned to Germany yesterday after a very lazy Christmas and New Year holiday of eating, sleeping, reading, more eating and more sleeping. Bliss.

1. At the risk of rather blatant self-promotion, do see my previous post. I want as many people ‘in’ as possible, giving that Aaron bloke a seriously significant Christian kick-in.
   


2. Chris Brady (who is hairy enough to make me wonder if he is the missing link between Homo sapiens and our evolutionary ancestors) has done a superb job with the 25^th Biblical Studies Carnival.
   


3. James Crossley has written a helpful follow up to my earlier short post on the momentum of the so-called 'third quest'.
   


4. Jim West joins the ranks of the totally depraved by posting slander and practicing necromancy.
   


5. Oh yes, West also thinks he has found The Very Best Modern Translation of the Bible in Any Language. It’s German. Of course, there is a problem with Jim’s reasoning, as he fails to take account of the fact that German is sometimes not the nicest of languages from an acoustic perspective. I.e. it can sound demonic, and is thus certainly not the raw material of a seriously good bible translation. Don't believe me? Flip to any German internet radio channel, wait for the discussion times and close your eyes. See how easy it is to picture hoards of cursing demons stubbing each other’s toes?
   


6. Unless, I ought to add quickly, the German person speaking is my ridiculously beautiful wife, my wife’s family, colleges or any of our friends or acquaintances, present or future etc.
   


7. While on the subject, there are some totally unsubstantiated rumours (started by me) that Wright's translation of the NT in his 'for everyone' series will be gathered together to make a complete new translation: namely the 'Wright Official Translation And Totally Inspired Text' (the WOTATIT).
   


8. I successfully salvage the tone of this post after the previous sentence by denying that I wrote it.
   


9. Jason Goroncy asks 'Will the Love of God Finally Triumph?'
   


10. Best newcomer biblioblog award goes to Nick Norelli.
    


11. Most misrepresented scholar of 2007 goes to Bishop Tom Wright for suffering numerous dubious critiques of his works. I think some of the negative feelings are there because of either an unhealthy dogmatic conservativism, or because some people are simply jealous of the good Bishop, jumping on an anti-Wright band-Wagon because it makes the critic look more intelligent.
    


12. Most thought-provoking book of the month award goes to Andrew Perriman for Re:Mission. Biblical Mission for a post-biblical church. Crikey-o-Riley, what a book. If you are conservative, then it's brown trouser time. It made me feel like I was on the receiving end of a new 'consistent eschatological' slap around the cheeks, a movement discussed nicely in Wright and Neill, The Interpretation of the New Testament.
    


13. I wonder if the ETS can stop itself from prowling the circumference of the self-imposed bounded set categorisation of 'Evangelical', and renew its privileged and high calling to serve the evangelical community more helpfully in 2008 (pace no. 12 here).
    


14. Finally, the Most Coolest Nicest Dude award goes to my friend David Vinson for sending me numerous books in the last couple of months, including:
    
    
    

    Original Selfishness: Original Sin And Evil in the Light of Evolution by Daryl P. Domning and Monika K. Hellwig
    Reformed and Always Reforming by Roger Olson
    God of the Possible by Greg Boyd
    Inspiration and Incarnation by Peter Enns
    The God who Risks by John Sanders
    The Openness of God by Pinnock, Rice, Sanders etc.
    The Myth of a Christian Nation by Greg Boyd
    And Not in Our Classrooms: Why Intelligent Design is Wrong for Our Schools, ed. Eugenie Scott and Glenn Branch
    
    Thanks a million, David!

Contest: Complete the Sentence

"The Church is chronologically prior to the Christian canons of scripture ..."

therefore ... ?

but ... ?

(I'm thinking of the old church tradition / scripture debates)

The author of the best response gets to beat the living crap out of Aaron Ghiloni for me, for this piece of unprovoked malevolence. The runner up gets to help out the winner. The losers get to cheer from the ringside when things get messy.

Third Quest out of steam?

Scot McKnight, in an ETS address last November, and Markus Bockmuehl, in his recent Seeing the Word (c. p44), have both intimated that the ‘Third Quest’ for the historical Jesus is running out of steam (though cf. Bockmuehl’s brilliant work for qualifications).

While I am not half the NT man these guys are, I am not so sure I agree. When I think of the contributions of, for example, Michael Bird or Brant Pitre, and works in progress, such as Michael Barber’s, I believe that restoration eschatology has an awful lot to lend to the discussion. I tend to think it is a lively and open discussion, with many possibilities for significant breakthroughs.

Hobbins on inerrancy

John Hobbins has written a terrific response to my post on 'Fundamentalism, inerrancy and Jim West' here. It appears that he wants to affirm inerrancy because of its rich tradition in church tradition, because superlative descriptions of scripture should not be hindered by certain ‘imperfections’ in the text.

Just a few points before it gets too late here in England. First, let us not forget what Goldingay has called ‘the nineteenth-century elaboration’ of inerrancy. Today’s versions are equivalent, but not the same. I would add, in the same breath, that these modern varieties certainly are a matter of deductive logic (cf. Warfield, Geisler, Grudem etc.).

In an interesting section Hobbins writes:

“There is nothing innovative at all about speaking of scripture in language that overlooks its imperfections (‘let it pass,’ says Luther, rightly) and concentrates, in superlative terms, on its perfections. Those who wish to praise Scripture with triter language – (moderately) useful; (all other things being equal) profitable; teachable (so long as it is transposed into the categories of later tradition or the latest ideology) – have nothing in common with Gregory of Nyssa or Martin Luther”

A terrific point, and one those of us who critique inerrancy would do well to remember. I hope I take it to heart. But six responses: 1) Today, should we be happy with these ‘superlative’ inerrancy terms when they are laden with deductively prescribed and exact statements, as in the Chicago Statement – something that was not clearly on the horizon of Gregory of Nyssa, Luther etc.? 2) The ‘triter language’, as he puts it, would certainly have plenty in common with one of the most famous biblical witnesses to the nature of scripture’s inspiration, namely that in 2 Tim 3:16 (‘All scripture is inspired by God and is useful ...’). 3) My own language concerning scripture in the so-called ‘Tilling Statement’, I suggest, is appropriately and deeply superlative, yet is not formulated in such a way that contradicts bare fact. 4) In light of modern formulations, such as the Chicago Statement that further define what one must consider historical (e.g. the flood), this tradition needs reformation (semper reformandum), and for the sake of the churches witness, the nature of truth in relation to scripture needs to be re-formulated. At least, I would argue so! Love always rejoices in the truth, after all. 5) The Chicago Statement, for example, has little to do with doxology, and more to do with precise definitions. I hope that my own statement, proffered on my blog a while ago, recaptures the superlative aspect Hobbins so rightly draws attention to, while avoiding the promotion of belief in a, for want of a more pertinent word, lie. My own understanding of scripture, which rejects inerrancy, does so precisely to provoke doxology (it was penned for confession by the gathered church, in worship), and not to succumb to the restraints of logical propositions. It is the modern formulation of inerrancy that is weighed down by a deductively logical weariness, not the freedom that only comes via truth. 6) Hobbins mentions ‘imperfections’. But let us be honest what they are, though. Errors. Thanks, Lord, for an inerrant text, despite these errors? Unless we today reframe these ‘truth’ matters, as I have suggested elsewhere, we will get some rather bewildered ‘Amens’!

A little later he adds:

‘“Scripture is without error in all that it affirms” (Lausanne Covenant), well, you don’t say? I can’t find “God in three persons, blessed Trinity” in the Bible either’

As noted in the comments by Drew, a fundamental difference between the Lausanne Covenant claim and the ‘God in three persons’ claim, is that the Lausanne statement is factually false. ‘Blessed Trinity’ is to be gladly worshipped as Truth.

He writes:

“Should someone object that the verses cited do not in the first instance refer to the inscripturated word of God, but to some unknown subset thereof, or to an ephemeral word of which we now have nothing: know this: you have the entire interpretive tradition of synagogue and church against you. The great tradition applied these verses to the entire sweep of scripture”

This is precisely what I have attempted to do in my own formulation (which I now consider best to concern the trustworthiness of scripture), but certainly not in the service of modern formulations of inerrancy. I think I'll re-post my now re-worked formulation here when I return to Germany.

Finally, he writes: “It’s time to engage in multi-tiered thinking, like this: the Bible affirms that God leads into error (1 Kings 22; Isa 6 [and NT actualizations thereof]; 63:17), and at the same time, that God did not err in so doing”. I applaud John’s spirit here. However, I don’t think he goes far enough. This faint strand is not enough on which to hang the nature of scripture in relation to truth. Rather than let such inerrancy concerns win such a small square of theological rational, why not recover all the masses of scriptures gathered in my own formulation, and reframe them in light of a more biblical understanding of truth?

Do give Hobbins' articulate and helpful response a read.

Quote for the day: Perriman

Happy Christmas to all of you!

Over my Christmas break I took the time read Andrew Perriman’s breathtaking Re:Mission. Biblical Mission for a post-biblical church which I shall review when I return to Germany. It either will be or already is available from Paternoster, in the ‘Faith in an Emerging Culture’ series.

Perriman is certainly one of my favourite authors. His thought is rich, eloquent, provocative, committed to scripture, and very often, and I mean this quite honestly, has the mark of genius. He is, at least for me, a reformer of the evangelical gospel. Perhaps it is for that reason that I feel he hangs too loosely to the canon-forming, interpretive and exegetical streams of church tradition - traditions, I dare to hope, which have been guided, albeit more or less, by the Holy Spirit.

Let me put it like this (without wanting to give the impression I am a closet Catholic!). It is church tradition (A) that has shaped the ‘canon’ of scripture (B), and this ‘canon’ is itself the backbone of our understandings of the scriptural narrative (C). Yet it is this narrative (C) that Perriman employs with such devastating and illuminating effect to (overly?) boldly critique … church traditions (A). This process (A-B-C-[critiques]->A) needs to be handled carefully, and I’m not sure Perriman is at his most nuanced at this point. I thus find myself backing away from some of Perriman’s conclusions, even though I find his method and results so exciting.

Am I just being a boring old stuffy traditionalist conservative, paying lip service to critical scholarship while ‘running to the hills’ when it starts to hurt? I’m not sure I can answer that yet. I admit that there is some he writes that I find myself disagreeing with, and I regularly find him unsettling. But it is precisely for this reason that I so enjoy reading his works!

So here is my quote of the day. I read the text below and had one of those ‘ah ha!’ moments. For a moment, I stopped feeling guilty for making the text of scripture appear so alien and distant in discussions with some friends.

“I would question the assumption that Scripture ought to be immediately accessible, easily intelligible, to the modern reader. The problem is that the Bible is not a modern text: it is an ancient text, written to address ancient circumstances, constructed out of the peculiar thought-forms of an ancient worldview, and it should seem strange and irrelevant to us” (Perriman, Otherways, p. 57)

An afterthought: If you are reading the bible with due consideration of its historical context, it should seem strange, and, in many ways, irrelevant. I hasten to add, it doesn’t work both ways. If the bible is strange and irrelevant to you, that is no proof that you are reading the bible with such due consideration!

Home to Old Blighty

We arrived safely in England last night - to the land that brought you the best sports, real humour, proper manners, personal hygiene, the stiff upper lip, unparalleled learning and literature, to the land that brought you tea (shut up, Indians), glorious food (shut up everyone else in the world), the Opium wars, Margaret Thatcher, and everything else worth anything at all. It’s nice to come home.

On the plane, we were stuck behind two libidonically energised young people who couldn’t stop talking. Loudly. And boy did they have opinions … on everything. Being unfortunately forced to listen to their non-stop opinionating, I couldn’t help note the odd logical non sequiturs, use of the old post hoc, ergo propter hoc fallacy, question begging, not to mention the use anecdotal evidence to prove a point etc.

Of course, my teeth were grinding like two bunnies in a sleeping bag, but there was more. One of them continued falling into numerous horrendous (circumstantial) Ad Hominem arguments, not to mention the old Ad Hominem Tu Quoque fallacy. If this was not enough, the person in question also saw fit to employ the erroneous rhetorically “misleading vividness”, guilt by association and hasty generalisation tactics.

By this point I was getting ready to use the edge of my Church of England prayer book as a lethal weapon, and forever finish their argumentation methods. I wanted, oh so wanted to see how far I could shove my travel ESV bible down their throats.

But I didn’t. I just sat there angrily wearing down the enamel of my teeth, totally under control.

Behold my Christmas spirit.

Christmas spirit

The Father Christmas Competition is open again. Log your results in the comments box.

Addendum: A special 2007 bonus point, suggested by Josh McManaway, is offered this year. Add one extra point (even if you get no visible reaction), if you say to the kids: ‘Santa isn’t real and if he were, he would hate you’. Two bonus points if you flash that one while their mum is standing next to you.

Addendum two: Take a hunk of chicken-on-the-bone with you, and if you convince any dew eyed kids that the half eaten carcass was a present wrapping elf called ‘Fluffy’, add two points (advice: show a picture of cute 'Fluffy' for maximum effect).

UPDATE: Thus far, Chris Tilling has accumulated 15 points. I luckily had a bus full of toddlers to work on today (sadly no tears, but plenty of wet-eyed nods of concession). Yea baby!

UPDATE II: Chris Tilling whips out the ‘Santa isn’t real and if he were, he would hate you’ line ten times while buying presents for his family, this afternoon. The eyecontact with one little girl lasted long enough for a little blubber time, doubling my score! Awesome! This brings me to my all time best of 50 points. *Shouts a Benny Hinn sized AMEN!*

UPDATE III: Nick (the incarnate evil) Norelli has been slaying and ninjaing his way to 75 points! Well done, Nick! Respect for the tears. They are rare, precious moments.

Christian Zionism and the narrative of exile, restoration and the Gentiles. Pt 2

My previous post summarised the sort of narrative one confronts in much prophetic literature. It was, of course, a crude over simplification and missed out much, such as the significance of the tribulation which I ought to have mentioned.

When I first encountered these prophetic traditions and the narrative contained therein, I was tempted to make aspects of Jesus and his ministry, death and resurrection, and claims in the letters, cohere with specific points within this narrative. However, things are not so simple. While Jesus' death, in some respects, reflects the tribulation, he also prophesied the coming 'Great Tribulation' which was to overtake Jerusalem within one generation (Cf. Wright, Pitre etc.). Paul, likewise, could speak in tribulation-related language of a coming catastrophe across the entire Mediterranean world (Perriman), yet the Gentile mission had already begun – based precisely upon the prophetic narrative outlined in the previous post on this series.

Instead of a direct equation between aspects of this narrative and moments in the 'Christ event', what we have is the eschatological inauguration of this prophetic narrative in the life death and resurrection of Jesus (and in the life and ministry of his Apostles), with some aspects of the narrative starting when others have not ended. This prophetic narrative was nevertheless inaugurated. It had begun, and the entire structure of NT theology presupposes this fact.

Let me press the point. Whenever we celebrate communion and the new covenant in Christ's blood, we are saying that this prophetic tradition begun in Christ. Whenever we read in the New Testament of the 'new creation in Christ', or the giving of the spirit, or of the 'new heart' or about Paul's Gentile mission, or Christ's preaching of the arrival of the kingdom of God, and his 'gathering' of the Twelve, or even when we simply read the New Testament, we do so because this prophetic narrative has been inaugurated.

All of this has clear implications in the Christian Zionism debate. At the beginning of this series I defined Christian Zionism along the following lines: that it is the belief that the return of the Jews to the Holy Land, and the establishment of the State of Israel in 1948, is in accordance with Biblical prophecy.

What I have argued is that these prophesies were inaugurated not in 1948, but in the Christ-event. The crucial time for biblical prophecy is not 1948, but the first century. It is entirely irresponsible to ransack Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Isaiah or whoever, with the understanding that verses harvested from the chapters of these prophetic writings somehow confirm modern political events in a direct sense. To make such claims is to short circuit one of the fundamental narratives within Scripture and the justification for the very existence of the New Testament.

I don't think the above reasoning entirely excludes the notion that 1948 may in some sense be a faint reflection of the eschatological promises already inaugurated in Christ (but see below). Nor does it exclude the notion that the establishment of the state of Israel in 1948 was an act of God's grace. What is excluded is the Christian use of these OT prophetic writings as proof for these events as the fulfilment of biblical prophecy.

Especially when this 'return' led to the persecution of Christians, i.e. those who claim to be the result of the real messianic inauguration of these prophesies. Especially when the return was no return in a literal biblical sense, either (the twelve tribes - including the lost ten northern tribes, to their alotted land), which they claim it is (but cf. Jesus and the Twelve disciples). I.e. the Christian Zionist reading is not a literal reading over and against the 'christological' one. And one also wonders whether the establishment of the state of Israel in 1948 itself really coheres with the prophetic narrative, such as the ingathering of the Gentiles, the pouring out of the Spirit etc. Does the narrative trajectory understanding, of at least the Apostle Paul, support the CZ case at all? In light of Romans 4:13 ('For the promise that he would inherit the world did not come to Abraham or to his descendants through the law but through the righteousness of faith') one would be hard pressed to add the CZ addendum here without writing a most unusual closing chapter to the narrative as it has developed through Christ.

One of the realisations I have come to is that the NT hermeneutic is variegated. Many are as christological as I maintained in the previous posts in this series. To that one must now add the scope and significance of the prophetic narratives for the structure and direction of NT theology. My argument leads me to no other conclusion other than that the straightforward CZ case must be rejected.

I may write one more post in this series reflecting upon Romans 9-11.

Fundamentalism, inerrancy and Jim West

Once again the subject of inerrancy is causing lively debate in biblioblogdom. This time, troublemaker Jim West throws down the gauntlet with a post attempting to define Fundamentalism simply as 'a person who believes that the Bible is inerrant or infallible'.

The gauntlet has been picked up by John Hobbins, who writes: 'He [Jim] also contends that none of the Reformers were fundamentalists according to his definition, because "NONE of the Reformers would attribute to a book what can only be attributed to God". There is only one problem with Jim's assertion. It's not true'.

1. I must admit that while I don't think Jim's definition of Fundamentalism is sufficient, his critique of inerrancy as a non scriptural doctrine is essentially spot-on. It is only by applying a deductively logical wringer to scriptural statements (i.e. by jamming texts that state inspiration or the truth of God's word together with the theological propositions that 'God cannot lie') that the potent 'inerrancy' cocktail is made – which is then poured quickly over the whole Christian canon. However, scripture itself demands that a more inductive approach be adopted. By only using scripture, and nothing else, it can be demonstrated that the bible contains errors of many kinds. This is a simply fact of our scriptures, and must be acknowledged in the process of developing a specifically scriptural understanding of scripture. It necessarily short fuses the 'inerrancy' deductive logic.
   
2. Some will respond, as does the Chicago Statement, Article XIV, that unexplained alleged errors do not violate the doctrine of inerrancy. However, the doctrine of inerrancy is making a claim that the investigation of smaller details can either falsify or verify. Scripture itself thoroughly falsifies it.
   
3. This doesn't mean that we, who call ourselves evangelicals, should throw our hands up in despair and all become liberals! God forbid! I affirm a very high view of scripture, indeed one that can be understood as higher than 'inerrancy' – one that focuses on our practices and posture to scriptures.
   
4. Church tradition is, I believe, more ambiguous that West implies in terms of inerrancy. Yes the Reformers, or anyone else before, didn't operate under the same kind of assumptions which were to later influence modern formulations of inerrancy (namely the Scottish philosophy of 'common sense'). But it must be admitted that many of them could speak in extremely exalted language about the Bible. Luther, for example, could describe scripture as 'God incarnate'! Nevertheless, and here is why West's point can be essentially affirmed, Luther was also untroubled by historical discrepancies in scripture: 'Let it pass, it does not endanger the articles of the Christian faith' (cf. Goldingay, Models for Scripture, 262-63)
   
5. While 'fun' certainly is included in 'Fundamentalism', so is 'mental'.
   
6. Let's speak positively of the trustworthiness of scripture, not negatively of inerrancy. After all, the author 2 Timothy didn't write: 'no scripture is rather lamely uninspired', nor did the author of Hebrews write: 'the word of God is not dead and not passive, not as blunt as any two-edged blunt sword', and the Psalmist didn't confess: 'the words of the LORD are not flawed'!
   
7. As academics, we also need to exercise grace with those who have been raised to affirm inerrancy, and whose theological world falls from beneath them if it is put into question.
   
8. Furthermore, and this is something those of us who think of ourselves as academics would do well to remember, many who would affirm inerrancy are far more open, humble and loving people than many of us will ever be.
   
9. I tend to think of Fundamentalism as more of a character trait, a strong disposition toward arrogance, an inability to dialogue, the need to pigeonhole people as 'opponents', a self assured position that cannot be challenged by these 'opponents', a set of 'undisputable' yet dubious expectations about scripture, and an inability to see greys instead of only black and white. Couple this with inerrancy, or anything else (e.g. atheism, theological liberalism), and you have a total bastard on the loose.

The Emergent Conversation ...

... is not merely about a misunderstood application of 'becoming all things to all men', as if it were just a matter of accommodation to present cultural trends (though all accommodate to one or another). It is, in its best moments, about the urgently necessary and continued reformation of the church in its ministry, method and message.

My previous ‘erection post’

While on the subject of posts and erection, I would like to apologise for my last erected post. I was most immature to keep on about an erection, especially in a post – for the last thing needed in biblioblogdom is anything about erectile posts. I will try to keep my post erection free from now on ...

Quote of the day: First century sleaze

"Now the most excellent five were of this character, they related to the monarchial principle on which the world is governed; to images and statues, and in short to all erections of any kind made by hand"

(Philo, Decalogue 51 - transl. de Yonge, C., The works of Philo : Complete and unabridged Peabody: Hendrickson, 1995, p. 522)

Too much information, Philo. Too much information.

A Tilling Wildlife Documentary on “The West”

During our stay in San Diego for the SBL congress, I shared a room with one of nature's rarest and most undomesticated creatures, The West. Of course, this was a chance to learn something about this most elusive, territorial and mindlessly aggressive of animals. It was still a pity things got so ugly at the end.

Two great online videos

The first is a debate called "Eine Frage des Glaubens: Das neue Interesse am Atheismus". Richard Dawkins is joined by a number of folk, including the articulate Bishop Wolfgang Huber. To be honest, I don't know why this Dawkins chap is getting so much airtime – it is certainly not for the quality of his argumentation which is uninformed fundie tripe – but the discussion is stimulating, none the less.

The second is really terrific (thanks Susi!). The discussion theme of 'Menschen bei Maischberger' was 'Angriff der Gottlosen: Vergiftet Religion die Welt?'. It includes a really superb interview with Hans Küng who speaks very honestly about all manner of subjects. A truly revealing and inspiring video to watch (Küng appears about 2/3 of the way through)

Christology and Science

Over the weekend I spent quite a few hours with theologian, LeRon Shults, for his Tübingen lectures on his forthcoming book, Christology and Science. Not only is LeRon a real nice chap (and a blogger!), his work has deeply impressed me for quite a while now. I feel that my work, and what I am attempting at an exegetical level in terms of Paul, in a small way mirrors his massive project in the world of systematic theology. His forthcoming is, as far as I am concerned, his most interesting to date. Not only is his breadth of vision remarkable, but his solutions are deeply spiritual, faithful to historic Christian faith, dynamically contemporary and intellectually satisfying – not to say excitingly stimulating and encouraging! If you have not read anything by LeRon Shults yet, do yourself a favour and grab one of his works:

1. Christology and Science. Ashgate Publishing Ltd. Series in Religion and Science, and Eerdmans Pub. Co, in press.
   
2. The Holy Spirit (with Andrea Hollingsworth). Eerdmans "Guides to Theology" series. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, in press.
   
3. Transforming Spirituality: Integrating Theology and Psychology (with Steve Sandage). Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2006.
   
4. The Evolution of Rationality: Interdisciplinary Essays in Honor of J. Wentzel van Huyssteen (editor). Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2006.
   
5. Reforming the Doctrine of God. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2005.
   
6. Reforming Theological Anthropology: After the Philosophical Turn to Relationality. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2003. (This was my stimulating introduction to his work)
   
7. The Faces of Forgiveness: Searching for Wholeness and Salvation (with Steve Sandage). Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2003.
   
8. The Postfoundationalist Task of Theology: Wolfhart Pannenberg and the New Theological Rationality. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1999.

See here for a complete list of his publications.

Christian Zionism and the narrative of exile, restoration and the Gentiles. Pt 1

Time to complete my Christian Zionism series!

This will come in (at least) two parts. In this one I examine the prophetic narrative of exile, restoration, the salvation of the Gentiles, plus certain associated themes that the NT picks up, and I look at how this narrative is retold in and informs NT texts.

One of the most exciting elements of the prophetic writings is the theme of the restoration of the tribes of Israel followed by salvation coming to the Gentiles (please, please read Brant Pitre's Jesus, the Tribulation, and the End of the Exile, if you haven't yet – and Bird's Jesus and the Origins of the Gentile Mission). You will find this narrative all over the place, not least in Second Isaiah (chapters 40-55). For example, Zechariah 8:13: 'Just as you have been a cursing among the nations, O house of Judah and house of Israel, so I will save you and you shall be a blessing'.

After the two major exiles, the ten northern tribes of Israel had been lost. Though some remained in the land, most of the tribes, at the time of Jesus and his Apostles, were scattered throughout the nations. In exile, the Israelite world of Jesus holds its breath for redemption...

Here are some NT snapshots with this crucial narrative in mind:

Acts 15:14-18 runs as follows:

'14 Simeon has related how God first looked favourably on the Gentiles, to take from among them a people for his name. 15 This agrees with the words of the prophets, as it is written, 16 "After this I will return, and I will rebuild the dwelling of David, which has fallen; from its ruins I will rebuild it, and I will set it up, 17 so that all other peoples may seek the Lord-- even all the Gentiles over whom my name has been called."'

Because the dwelling of David is rebuilt, because Israel is restored, there is hope at last for the Gentiles (v. 14, 17).

In 2 Corinthians 6:1-2 Paul writes:

'As we work together with him, we urge you also not to accept the grace of God in vain. For he says, "At an acceptable time I have listened to you, and on a day of salvation I have helped you". See, now is the acceptable time; see, now is the day of salvation!'

Here Paul cites the text of Isaiah 49:8, almost exactly the same as that found in Rahlf's LXX. I submit that this is a classic case of what Hays calls metalepsis. The surrounding verses in Isaiah 49 inform our understanding of Paul's text. Within Isaiah 49 is the above narrative: Israel restored and regathered, Israel then given 'as a light to the nations, that my salvation may reach to the end of the earth' (cf. vv 5 and 6). The confidence of Paul as missionary to the Gentiles is because now is the time of salvation (also for the Gentiles). As Paul puts it at the start of 2 Corinthians: ' For in [Christ] every one of God's promises is a "Yes"' (1:20). Paul and his team become the righteousness of God (5:21) in the sense that God's saving righteousness is now available to the whole world (5:19), embodied in their ministry of reconciliation (5:18). Now there is 'new creation' in Christ (5:17).

The last paragraph shows that various other prophetic themes are associated with the restoration of Israel and the salvation of the Gentiles. Here we see the matter of new creation noted, something associated with the above narrative in Isaiah (cf. 66:18-22 – though read the whole 66^th chapter). Connected with this narrative are such matters as the New Covenant (Isaiah 61:4-8; Jer 31), the pouring out of the Spirit (e.g. Ezekiel 39:29), and the new heart (e.g. Ezekiel 36:24-26) that find regular expression in the NT. The Lord's Supper tradition in Luke tells of Jesus speaking of the New Covenant in his blood, a matter picked up in Paul (1 Cor 11:25). The 'new heart' theme may well lie behind the Sermon on the Mount material, as Wright argues, and is explicitly adopted in Paul's argumentation in 2 Corinthians 3 (which also involves mention of the new covenant, mission to the Gentiles, and the ministry of the Spirit). The gift of the Spirit is related all over the place, for example in John (20:22), Luke-Acts (primarily Pentecost, of course!), Paul (e.g. Gal 3 – where it is appropriately linked to the blessing of Abraham).

In the next post in this series, I look at why all of this is important to the Christian Zionism debate.

Anna of the scattered tribe, Asher

"36 There was also a prophet, Anna the daughter of Phanuel, of the tribe of Asher. She was of a great age, having lived with her husband seven years after her marriage, 37 then as a widow to the age of eighty-four. She never left the temple but worshiped there with fasting and prayer night and day. 38 At that moment she came, and began to praise God and to speak about the child to all who were looking for the redemption of Jerusalem" (Luke 2:36-38 )

This theme of the redemption of Israel is naturally related to Simeon's desire expressed a few verses earlier, for the 'consolation of Israel' (2:25). The word used here is the same as that in the Septuagint for 'Comfort, comfort my people' starting Second Isaiah. Of course, Second Isaiah goes on to expresses the prophetic hope for the restoration of the tribes of Israel, the gathering of those scattered among the nations.

The point of this post? The tribe of Asher was one of the 'lost' northern tribes. I wonder if there is any significance in Luke's narrative in the fact that it was Anna of the tribe of Asher who spoke 'about the child to all who were looking for the redemption of Jerusalem'?

Thoughts to ponder

From the brilliant Recovering the Scandal of the Cross, by Joel Green and Mark Baker

• 'The early tradition is evidently more interested in the affirmation that Jesus' death, far from taking God by surprise, was actually the means by which Jesus' mesiaship was most transparent, and is less concerned to tie down with precision how Jesus' death was effective in bringing about the salvation of the world' (17)
  
• 'Forgivingness and reconciliation are fundamentally social realities' (73)
  
• 'Paul S. Fiddes notes that Paul has a "penal view" of Christ's suffering and that he conceives of Christ as a substitute and representative of humankind, but he denies that these two concepts can be joined in Paul into a theory of "penal substitution", in which atonement is achieved via a transfer of penalty ... The phrase "penal substitution" is thus a mixing of Pauline metaphors' (95 n. 14)

Paul, ‘Apocalyptic’ and ‘Salvation-History’ approaches, and Barth

To oversimplify to the extreme: the modern apocalyptic approach to Paul, broadly speaking, denies a continuity between Paul's thought and the old creation and covenant. A salvation-history approach seeks to understand Paul's thinking as part of the trajectory, even if it is doing something new and radical, of the old covenant and creation. In the apocalyptic approach, God breaks into history independent of God's age-old promises tied to Israel's, and the world's, history – matters important to the salvation-history approach.

A few suggestions for your consideration:

These two approaches to Paul are, fundamentally, not about the nature of revelation such that one can be used to affirm a Barthian approach and the other not, but a largely exegetical judgment about the significance of the covenant as it relates to Paul's theology. The similarities between the 'apocalyptic' and Barth may well be superficial and less significant than at first appearance.

Why?

1. First, the hard distinction between 'apocalyptic' and 'salvation-history' approaches to Paul is often over pressed. Dunn once insightfully wrote that it was the "apocalyptic climax of the salvation-history which constituted the heart of his gospel". The two belong together for the apocalyptic reveals the ways in which God fulfils his covenant promises (Daniel). Were the new creation so utterly discontinuous, one would struggle to explain much of Paul's reasoning (famously in Rom 9-11, for example). And to state the obvious, Christ's significance was not written, by Paul, in binary code but in the language and milieu of Jewish Christianity as it sought to understand how Christ was the telos of the law. Yes Christ was new, surprising, discontinuous in so many ways with the old covenant, but Christ was not without context, not entirely 'out of the blue' and entirely impossible to understand as just 'out of the blue'. For an extended critique of dividing 'apocalyptic' from 'salvation-history', cf. Wright's Paul: Fresh Perspectives, chapter 3. What is more, criticisms of the salvation-history approach tend to unhelpful caricatures (cf. Doug Campbell in his otherwise excellent work, The Quest for Paul's Gospel, 37-38). Watson has a helpful section in Paul and the Hermeneutics of Faith on the dialogue and conversation between Christ and scriptures in the understanding of the early church. Christ was not ever an entity separate from the scriptures given to the covenant people. It may be objected that some of these arguments caricature the 'apocalyptic' approach. But the point here is that 'apocalyptic' and 'salvation-history' approaches are a difference of emphasis, not kind – and were one to maintain the latter, one enters the land of the caricature I critiqued.
   
2. Barth, at the start of his 'Lehre von der Versöhnung' (CD IV), begins with 'The Covenant as the Presupposition (Voraussetzung) of Reconciliation' (IV §57.2). Wright, in his location of Paul's theology on the horizon of covenantal salvation history themes, continually speaks of 'rethought', 'reworked' and 'reimagined' in light of Christ. Both seek to locate Christ in a suitable context, yet re-read that context in the light of Christ.
   
3. Barth speaks of the history of Christ as the history of humanity. All is focused upon Christ and his story (hence Barth's revamp of traditional understandings of election). Wright maintains that Christ's life, death and resurrection expresses the history of Israel (election, exile and return) which itself was a retelling of Adam's, and the world's, story. See, for example, how Gregory MacDonald, in terms of the Apostle Paul, uses Wright's insights to argue that Christ's story is world history in a nutshell (The Evangelical Universalist)
   
4. It is the 'blessing of Abraham' (that sounds worryingly like salvation history!) that comes to the Gentiles in Christ Jesus (Gal 3:14), and this because Christ became a 'curse' (covenantal Deuteronomic language) for us (3:13). In my view, Dunn's commentary on Galatians is the best Galatians commentary, and sheds more light on the text at such points than Louis Martyn's 'apocalyptically' slanted commentary.
   
5. I therefore suggest that Barthians would do well to avoid seeing a natural ally in the 'apocalyptic' approach to Paul. There may well be room for more fruitful dialogue with those in the salvation-history school – caricatures aside, given Barth's procedure in CD IV, the way in which everything is reimagined, rethought etc. in light of Christ, and the significance of the history of Christ in Wright's thought.

Proof-texting

A common insult hurled around by many Christians, especially those of the emergent variety, is that conservative evangelicals tend to 'proof-text' in their rhetoric. Mr Conservative beef-boy laces his argument with numerous references, and draws rather direct lines between his position and 2 Opinion X:X, and the tattooed emergent replies with the exclamation: 'You are just proof-texting!'. I'm sure many of us have seen something like this at some stage.

Not unsurprisingly, conservatives throw their arms up in frustration. 'What do you mean, "proof-texting"? We are simply showing our position is scriptural!'

To be honest, I sometimes suspect not just a few in the emergent community don't really know what they mean either with their accusation, and fall back on this nugget when scriptures seem to oppose their view or support their debate partner. Or am I being too cynical?

One blogger has defined proof texting as follows (do also have a look at his helpful statement of faith):

"By proof-texting I mean the use of individual scripture texts to produce apparent support for a doctrinal position without adequate regard for the contexts of the individual texts which may indicate differences and nuances"

This is fair enough, but I want to suggest a definition that doesn't just emphasise the context of the text but also that of the reader. I propose that proof-texting is:

"the appropriation of scripture in the service of an argument that reads the text in terms of an inappropriate (even if scripturally laced) narrative or social discourse, in such a way that loses sight of this fact and thinks the scripture merely 'interprets itself'"

Of course, this implies that a text is thereby read in such a manner that loses sight also of its original context. But what makes proof-texting so difficult for many to see is that it is also about their assumed narrative or social discourse through which they read scripture. Many conservatives have a very scripturally sounding social discourse or narrative, with bible language abounding. So, when they read scripture, it is used to decorate this pre-given, this assumed narrative concerning the meaning of faith, Christ, and the church. This is done even though assumed their social discourse is profoundly unbiblical in its wider concerns and shape. The failure of much conservative evangelical rhetoric is not that they use scripture in their arguments, but that their assumed 'Christmas tree' upon which they often decoratively hang scripture, is in desperate need of reformation.

One conservative (whose sometimes ugly rhetoric is horribly and transparently guilty of proof-texting as I define it), frustrated by some emergent rhetoric, goes as far to claim that Jesus used the proof-texting method in his teaching! Of course, this misunderstands the point being made by intelligent emergent chaps, and the nature of Jesus handling of scripture.

This definition in mind, I would even claim that proof-texting is the most burdensome problem in conservative evangelical rhetoric.

Pictures

My camera is playing up and won't allow me to transfer the pictures I took onto my computer. Hopefully all problems will be solved tomorrow. So for those of you waiting for Jim West pictures, fear not.

Jim, I can still be bought off (paypal will do me fine). You recent empty rhetoric on your blog won't help your cause - I still have the Zwingli thong picture that caused me to puke.

Back!

Lordy, what a time. Right now I am jetlagged, exhausted, a bit ill, confused by the German keyboard ('y' is where 'z' is on English kezboard), surrounded by luggage, unsure where I will put my new books, but ... safely
home! And that despite the demonically inspired American road system in and around Washington DC which seemed to conspire to kill me at every opportunity. I had some 'choice words' to describe our journey from Durham, NC, when I finally pulled into the road of our friends and family in Arlington, believe me. The Pope wouldn't have been proud.

Which reminds me, one of the things we did in Durham, NC, was to meet the recently converted to Catholicism phenomenon known as Josh McManaway. There is a clever cookie. Of course, as you would expect, I couldn't resist using the word 'pope' as much as possible in our conversations, which I'm sure he appreciated. I think the Pope Tarts line was a little too blunt, however. But enough of this nonsense – it won't make me popeular with any of my Catholic friends, and typing that I'm going to pope over to the next paragraph isn't exactly funny.

And a special thanks to Jim West for the fun we had in sharing a room in San Diego. Thanks to all of you who treated me to a meal or a drink, or who made time to chat with me. Thanks also to our friends in North Carolina for putting us up – and putting up with us - for quite a few days. We had a great time with you all. And last but not least, thanks to our family (and friends) in Arlington. You are a terrific bunch, and we hope to see you soon.

But it is great to be home. With a camera full of pictures (e.g. Jim West in Zwingli underpants running away from camera endowed Chris). With a stack of new books and with more memories than I can remember.

Still in America

... and having a great time.

Still in America

We are just about to leave to Washington DC to sniff around Capitol Hill, the monuments and museums, the Whitehouse etc. This is a very exciting holiday!

There have been some wonderful posts relating to the SBL meeting in San Diego. I hope some will compile a list of all of the posts at some stage as I just don't have the time while in the States.

Traffic Tribulations

What a day. We sadly left our good friends in Durham, NC, but gladly arrived back ‘home’ to Anja’s family in Arlington.

I set out hoping that the post-Thanksgiving traffic wouldn’t be too bad. But when we hit the mess on Interstate 95, it felt like the bottom fell out of my world. Bumper to bumper traffic for hours.

But when, in the dark, we arrived into that plate of spaghetti loosely disguised as roads and connections (the Washington DC area), the traffic was a living nightmare, a horrendous splodge of madness and cars. This time it felt like the world fell out of my bottom.

When I return from America I’ll write a full report on SBL (and expose that Wright blaspheming fraud, West – I have some hilarious pictures with which to hold him ransom), and respond to those of you who have e-mailed me. If I don’t bump into any of you while sniffing around the sights in DC, I’ll at least try to blog once or twice.

Calling all bibliobloggers at SBL

Let’s face it, we are surrounded by some seriously socially inept folk at SBL. For some reason, the world of academia attracts them. Even though they may have planet sized brains, it is painful to watch some of them ‘walk’ past.

So, Jim and I thought of an uplifting competition for those of us here at SBL. The idea is to take a picture of the goofiest academic social catastrophe you can, and post your favourite on your blog.

Yesterday I snapped one chap who was going for the ‘Jesus look’ – a definite potential winner. Another one with ‘interesting’ dress sense walked past looking as though he were in deep meditation on something profound, but was clearly a little unsure as to how to put one foot in front of the other. He quickly attracted my camera-endowed attention.

Of course, I am a little reluctant to start posting my own favourites. Were one of them to end up sitting across the table at any future interview, I could find myself in a slightly tricky spot. But on the other hand, it could be a real laugh, which is the factor that usually majors in my decision making processes. So join in, and get snapping. And if I take a picture of you at SBL, be worried.

Winners will be voted a week after SBL.