resurrectionhope

18 January 2012 Oberseminar at the University of Regensburg: Papers by Thomas J Kraus etc

2012-01-20T03:30:00.000-08:00

I had the privilege of giving a paper at the "Oberseminar" in Regensburg on Wednesday. A special thank you to Prof. Tobias Nicklaus and Prof. Jan van der Watt for what was the first of a series of "Oberseminars" between Nijmegen and Regensburg. I had a particularly good time talking to Dr. Thomas Kraus and Prof. Tobias at the dinner afterwards, held in a traditional German restaurant. I also found out interesting stuff like: Prof. Tobias and Thomas' football team is NOT Bayern Munich but TSW 1860 Munich, and Prof. Tobias coaches his boy's football team.

The papers delivered:

Michael Sommer (Regensburg): The Reception of the Egyptian Plagues in the Book of Revelation

Frederik Mulder (Nijmegen): The Interplay between bodily resurrection and moral behaviour in 1 Corinthians 6 and 15 and its possible reception in 1 Clement 24-30

Lauren Zelyck (Cambridge): The Reception of the Fourth Gospel in the Gospel of Mary

Reka Valentin (Nijmegen): A Cognitive Linguistic Reading of the Concept of Immortality in the Book of Wisdom

Thomas Kraus (Regensburg): Miniature Books, Codices, or Formats? Categories, Contexts, and Conclusions

Dr. Thomas Kraus explaining the development of miniature books to Lauren Zelyck during his fascinating powerpoint presentation. Among many interesting things, Thomas said we have 30 Old Testament and 15 New Testament miniature book fragments. I found the "Unidentified Gospel" (P.Oxy V 840) very interesting. Its content is unique and not found in the canonical gospels. Thomas also said there is no textual variants in the 15 NT fragments that is really significant for Textual Criticism.

Prof. Tobias offering advice to Michael Sommer. Michael's masters dissertation won a prize in Germany and was recently published. He is working on intertextuality between the Egyptian plagues and the book of Revelation. I found it quite interesting that afterwards Michael indicated that anyone wanting to do serious research on Revelation must deal with Richard Bauckham's influential work on it. He also has respect for Richard Hays' work on intertextuality.

Lauren Zelyck (studying under Prof. Tobias while Dr. Simon Gathercole is on sabbatical) explaining the Gospel of Mary to us. One of Lauren's main points was that the Gospel of Mary does not represent an independent tradition going back to Jesus of Nazareth. More likely, it is a reworking of and dependent on the Gospel of John and also Mark 16:9.

From left to right: Tobias Nicklaus, Michael Sommer, Lauren Zelyck, Frederik Mulder, Erik Eynikel, Reka Valentin, Jan van der Watt (Thomas Kraus joined us a bit later).

The world-class biblical scholar who got "converted off the street" - Prof. Craig S. Keener

2011-12-28T15:26:00.000-08:00

Whenever a Cambridge scholar refers me to an American biblical scholar to understand some part of the Gospels or Paul, I listen attentively. Whenever a Cambridge scholar tells me that his favourite biblical scholar is (NOT British, BUT) American, then, I usually buy his/her books!

So who is this American biblical scholar? Professor Craig S. Keener! What struck my Cambridge friend further was that Keener's commentaries and books usually offer significant and previously unknown references to a wealth of Greco-Roman sources. Also significant for my friend was the fact that Keener grew up as a sceptic and got "converted off the street" as Keener himself puts it. Amazing indeed.

Three interesting and NEW bits about Craig that might benefit PhD students:

1) A new article on the Historical Jesus: http://www.craigkeener.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/Assumptions-in-Historical-Jesus-Research.pdf

2) A short Youtube in which Craig describes how he finds "life" in the Bible:

3) A Youtube radio interview in which he discusses his new book Miracles. The Credibility of the New Testament Accounts:

For much more, visit Craig's website http://www.craigkeener.com/

Post-Apartheid South Africa, liberalism and evangelical scholarship: An extraordinary interview with Dr Bruce Winter in Cambridge - Part 1

2011-12-08T08:12:00.000-08:00

On Friday 25 November 2011 I was privileged to have an informal interview with Dr Bruce W. Winter at a sunny Tyndale House here in Cambridge. For those (few South Africans) unfamiliar with him and his work, just a few comments by way of introduction before Part 1:

It is an uncontested fact that Dr Bruce Winter is regarded as one of the world authorities on Early Christianity in the Graeco-Roman World. He was Warden of Tyndale House, Cambridge from 1987-2006 and is currently the Director for Early Christianity in the Graeco-Roman World. He has been instrumental in what could arguably be regarded as a new generation of Evangelical New Testament biblical scholars in at least Cambridge, parts of Europe, Australia and even some parts of the USA.

Apart from his impressive list of published articles, chapters in major volumes and lectures on Early Christianity and the Graeco-Roman World, his four monographs have been very influential in scholarly circles. They are:

1. Seek the Welfare of the City: Christians as Benefactors and Citizens (First-Century Christians in the Graeco-Roman World; Grand Rapids/Carlisile: Eerdmans/Paternoster, 1994).

2. After Paul Left Corinth: The Influence of Secular Ethics and Social Change (Grand Rapids, Eerdmans, 2001).

3. Paul and Philo Among the Sophists: Alexandrian and Corinthian Responses to a Julio-Claudian Movement (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2002).

4. Roman Wives, Roman Widows: The Appearance of New Women and the Pauline Communities (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2002).

Some of these are so significant that apart from the myriad of dialogues and interactions with it in the English speaking world, they are also acknowledged and engaged with in some of the very best German volumes- not something the average Anglo-Saxon theologian can write on his/her CV!

Apart from all of this, Bruce is a down to earth Christian brother who loves to preach and make a positive contribution to the furtherance of the Gospel of Jesus Christ!

INTERVIEW PART 1

Our conversation started off focusing on post-apartheid South Africa, liberalism and evangelical scholarship. We spoke about a conference Bruce attended in Stellenbosch round about 1995-1996 where pastors and scholars from all over South Africa were in attendance. Connected to this was my making reference to the New Reformation movement by the likes of Professor Sakkie Spangenberg, a well-known biblical scholar from UNISA. Then we moved on to the letters of Paul, focusing on ethics and the resurrection of the body.

Mulder: Bruce, what advice can you offer to post-apartheid South African students doing a PhD in biblical studies?

Winter: First of all, apartheid has ended. I was at Stellenbosch after the end of apartheid. There were sort of two groups I think there. One of the groups were recognising that their sorrow now is that what they had instilled in those they taught, on the whole approach to the so-called biblical justification for apartheid. They had abandoned it, but, their devout followers of the past are now so ingrained in it that they can’t. That was one of the things some people expressed there. The other thing that struck me straight away was just how isolated they were. Yet they get some idea from up north, the other side of the hemisphere (i.e. Germany?), and it gives them a place in the sun because they say radical things. And they sort of have pride in it, calling other (who disagree with them) fundamentalists.

Mulder: So you’ve been to Stellenbosch. Nice campus?

Winter: O, it’s a great place. The university church is a fantastic looking building. Beautiful.

Mulder: Beautiful, 17th century.

Winter: But one could see they were trying to show how radically different they were

Mulder: From the old regime?

Winter: From the old traditions and so forth. That seemed to me to be the case.

Mulder: From the “old regime”?

Winter: Yes. And in one sense, there was a certain kind of smugness about it. They stood outside the orthodox stream. I spoke to some young people and they had no idea of what was going on in the rest of South Africa. They were so isolated as children and teenagers growing up. It was a very sad situation. Now they look back at what was happening.

Mulder: So what advice can you give to post-apartheid, evangelical biblical scholars who want to participate/ engage in the new discourses, and not fall victim to a new mentality of ‘we are going to become liberal scholars’ which is somehow for some the ‘new thing on the block’? What advice can you offer to them?

Winter: Well, I think its best never to be reactionary ... as for methodology, to me the fundamental thing is the dislocation, or the breaking away from the New Testament from its context - both it’s Jewish and its Greco-Roman context. So, if one was dealing with Paul and his letters, and the places he has been to, then one has to say that the context will help us allot. In other words, when you look at say, the influence of secular ethics, people are programmed by the secular culture before they become Christians, and as a result of that, because they’ve been programmed, they naturally continue to function like that unless they’re de-programmed.

Mulder: Like in Corinth?

Winter: Yes. So Paul’s aim in writing is to pull down every argument and every high thought that rises contrary to the knowledge of God, and to bring every thought captive in obedience to Christ. That’s his agenda as he writes. It’s a stated agenda, and therefore, there will be times when we will see the footprints of the secular culture which Paul is having to demolish.

Mulder: But what makes his ethics different from the best moral philosophy of the time? People like Cicero and others?

Winter: Well, I think it is that his ethical treatment is, first of all, very relational, and he is not prepared to endorse things that are culturally normative. Even Cicero said: who would be so narrow to prevent or stop young men doing what they have always done. This has always been their tradition: so you drop your trousers when your reach puberty and have sex with as many women as you can. And the Corinthian young men are doing the same because everybody is doing it! So there Paul is having to address an issue. So it is good to see what he is demolishing. How he demolishes, that’s how I arrive at my second book, its sequel is on how Paul resolve these issues.

Mulder: After your book After Paul Left Corinth?

Winter: After my book After Paul Left Corinth, I am writing a subsequent book called The Resolution of Conflict and Compromise. How does Paul resolve this with the Corinthians? Pastorally and then how does he deal with the underlying cause of the problem? So he deals with presenting the problem, and its underlying cause.

Mulder: Can you, just on that, namely the underlying cause, reflect a bit further, because I’ve read Paul Barnett’s book The Corinthian Problem in which he argues that chapters 1-4 deals with the crux to determine the underlying cause of the problems. There the cross seems important and not the resurrection as in chapter 15. I found that quite interesting.

Winter: For myself, I think chapter 15 is dealing with the underlying cause for all the problems that come from chapter 5:1 and all the subsequent ethical problems and its effect. And how does Paul deal with that? He dealt with the presenting problems, eight reasons why you don’t fornicate, but in chapter 15 his task is to demolish. Now the underlying presuppositions which is, when you ask the question, the resurrection of Jesus yes, how can some of you say there is no resurrection (15:17)? The deeds in the body don’t matter – that was the first century, and their ethics and arguments: what good is your sexual organ once you’re dead? So enjoy it now, nature has given us these things. So you can see that that is their justification. And even Philo as a Jew has to deal with it, so, it is sometimes good to compare ethical conduct between say, Philo’s treatment of things, being a contemporary of Paul, with Paul. This is a good comparison. And then you have Epictetus, the Stoic philosopher, he’s a very sensible guy.

Mulder: A good moral philosopher, but he doesn’t believe in the resurrection?

Winter: No he doesn’t believe in the resurrection. He is only talking about what matters now. But for Paul, We must be always abounding in the work of the Lord, because the deeds in the body will accompany us, the good works, they follow us, in terms of the resurrection.

Mulder: 2 Cor 5:10?

Winter: That’s right yes. We all will have to appear before the Judgement seat. So 1 Corinthians 15 is dealing with how I think about my body. And Paul says Awake out of your drunkenness, stop sinning, some have no knowledge of God (1 Cor 15:34); and the last section is the imperatives saying clearly that we must be steadfast, immovable, always abounding in the work of the Lord , knowing that our work in the Lord is not empty (1 Cor 15:58).

Our discussion made me think of this excerpt from After Paul Left Corinth:

“… some of the Christians believed what most of their fellow Corinthians believed, i.e., that the soul was immortal and that this mortal life alone afforded pleasure … they … differed with Paul, whose anthropology (and) ethical imperatives of the Christian life were based on the resurrection both of Jesus and the Christian. This important connection is found not only in 15:1-35 but also in 6:12-20, where it plays an important role, for Paul affirms, ‘But the body is not for fornication, but for the Lord; and the Lord for the body: and God both raised up the Lord, and will raise up us through his power’(6:13b-14). If the background evidence assembled in this chapter is apposite, then Paul’s conflict with the Corinthians Christian’s view is a combination of first-century Platonism and a form of hedonism or Epicureanism which was defended by first-century sophists as an ethic of the élite”(105-106).

Thank you Bruce! Next time Part 2.

No Resurrection in Hebrews? Think again! - Dr David M. Moffitt's illuminating monograph

2011-11-18T08:58:00.000-08:00

One of the great privileges of doing research at Tyndale House, Cambridge, is that our library gets new world-class publications on a weekly basis. Today I had a quick look at the brand new monograph by Dr. David M. Moffitt with the title: Atonement and the Logic of Resurrection in the Epistle to the Hebrews, Brill, 2011.

In this volume, David tackles what is often referred to as the "riddle of the New Testament." This "riddle" is the apparent absence of significant reference to or reflection upon the resurrection of Jesus in Hebrews. This has led some to conclude that Jesus' resurrection was not important to the author, or that it can be excluded completely!

With this in view David rightly asks: What is the status of Jesus' resurrection in Hebrews?

Answer: "I suggest that the event of Jesus' resurrection is not only important for the argument of the Epistle, but specifically that the author's argument depends upon the assumption that the resurrection marked the moment at which Jesus' human body was given indestructible life."

I found this section in chapter 5 very illuminating:

"... can the events of the Son's incarnation, suffering, and exaltation in Hebrews be seen to be intelligible as an account of the Messiah's serving as the high priest who obtains for his people atonement and entry into the eternal inheritance? If so, how? The argument of this study suggests that the answer lies in the very element of the early Christian proclamation almost universally ignored in modern interpretations of the text: the author's affirmation of Jesus' bodily resurrection unifies and drives the high-priestly Christology and the soteriology of his homily.

It looks like a great volume!

For more about Dr. Moffitt see the link below:
http://divinity.campbell.edu/Academics/FacultyStaff/DrDavidMoffitt.aspx

What will happen to God's people after death? Wright and Evans on Paul, the Fathers and the Gnostic Gospels

2011-11-14T06:38:00.000-08:00

Our library here in Nijmegen just received its copy of Craig A. Evans and NT Wright's book: Jesus, the Final Days. What Really Happened, published by Westminster John Knox Press.

It is definitely written for lay people (thus, no complicated theological language) and is therefore the kind of book that anyone will be able to read with ease.

As I had a quick look at the different chapters, my eye caught the section dealing with the differences between the canonical portrials of Jesus' resurrection, and what we find in the so-called Gnostic Gospels. This bit is quite interesting:

"A notable exception to ... [the] remarkably consistent picture of early Christian belief about resurrection appears in the writings that we call Gnostic (e.g., the Gospel of Thomas). These writings, which have been much vaunted in some contemporary American scholarship, are sometimes hailed as very early and as giving access to the original Christian vision that was then muddled up by the later New Testament writers, not least by the four canonical evangelists. I have argued at some length for the opposite view on these writings, namely that the Gnostic writings are late, and that they derive from and indeed deviate from the canonical writings. This is actually the majority view of New Testament scholars around the world ... In the end, these writings are best seen as reflecting a later attempt to use the language of early Christianity, in this case in talking about life after death, to express a radically different worldview"(p82-83).

Our neo-gnostic culture and the Resurrection of the Body: New article by Donal A. Hagner

2011-10-17T02:36:00.000-07:00

One of my favourite New Testament scholars is without a doubt Donald A. Hagner, emeritus professor of New Testament from Fuller, and a regular visitor here in Cambridge. Last year I had the privilege of having several engaging discussions with him about the resurrection of the body here at Tyndale House. I was surprised and excited to read his new article: "The Resurrection of the Body in the New Testament," published in Australian Biblical Review [ABR 59 (2011) 64-80].

What strikes me in his article is how he captures the modern disregard for the human body:

"... we watch gratuitous violence and killing on television dramas where the more killing per 12-minute segment the better. Our children play computer games where the goal is to kill as many as possible. All this reflect how neo-gnostic our culture has become. The death of the body does not matter very much because of the popular conviction that the soul is immortal. The real person is the soul; therefore the body is finally unimportant, dispensable, and even despised" (64).

When it comes to how the New Testament sees Jesus' resurrection, Hagner's interpretation of the empty tomb and the foundational importance of his bodily resurrection is striking:

"It is of the greatest importance to be clear on the fact that Jesus was resurrected bodily. The tomb was empty because the body of Jesus had been raised. Any idea of a tomb still containing the body of Jesus is totally incompatible with the New Testament evidence and proclamation. The appearances of the resurrected Jesus were not merely subjective visions. Those who witnessed the resurrection appearances saw Jesus in a literal body. The objective reality of the bodily resurrection of Jesus as a space-time event is fundamental to Christianity. It serves as the vindication of all that he said and did, including his personal claims. It also serves as the guarantee of the future. No other explanations will suffice. The bodily resurrection of Jesus alone provides the only compelling explanation of the transformation of the disciples and only it can account for the origin of Christianity and the growth of the church" (68).

I love the way Hagner spells out the implications of Jesus' resurrection on p. 77:

"It is as though the future resurrection has interrupted into the present. Becoming a Christian is more than just having our loyalties shifted. Just as the resurrection of Christ inaugurates a new era, so by our identification with Christ we immediately enter into an existence that can be characterised as resurrection life. That new existence is made possible by the indwelling of the Holy Spirit".

Hagner discusses many other aspects of Christ's and our future resurrection in this article. In my opinion, this article is compulsory reading for anyone doing research on the resurrection of Jesus. It is also a good introduction to the resurrection of Jesus and believers for ministers and lay people who wants to get a birds eye view of some of the best research, from the pen of a mature and erudite Christian scholar.

CK Barrett: singing the hymns of Charles Wesley to Hospital staff before his death

2011-10-13T13:50:00.000-07:00

I know others have blogged about the passing away of the formidable Professor CK Barrett from Durham. I had the privilege of seeing him at the inaugural CK Barrett lecture, which Richard B Hays delivered in 2009. At the time he was still preaching from time to time we were told. I cannot help but copy a thought provoking excerpt of his obituary here:

"Modest as well as charming, he possessed a great gift for combining profound scholarship with a simple conviction of the need for the Church to rediscover the ethics and discipline of the New Testament.

That he managed to combine ministry and academia was testament to his great energy. After finishing his circuit duties at 10pm, he set aside four hours each day to pursue his New Testament research, retiring only at 2am.

Shunning the frills of intellectualism, he declined offers to lecture on luxury cruise liners. He was, however, more than happy to take the local bus in order to preach to small congregations in village churches, where those who listened did not know him as the “renowned professor” CK Barrett, but simply as Kingsley. During his last weeks in hospital he continued to speak of God to patients, staff and visitors, even if some were a little astonished when he sang to them the hymns of Charles Wesley.

Kingsley Barrett’s wife, Margaret Heap, whom he married in 1944, predeceased him; he is survived by their son and daughter" (my emphasis).

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/obituaries/religion-obituaries/8745353/The-Reverend-CK-Barrett.html

Easter stories simply invented? Richard Bauckham in his new book on Jesus

2011-10-10T06:39:00.000-07:00

As I'm working on the resurrection for my PhD, when I get a new book I always read the section(s) on the resurrection first. Thanks to my friend Lee Gratiss here in Cambridge, I just got a copy of Richard Bauckham's new book: Jesus: A Very Short Introduction published by Oxford University Press (2011). (I'm working on a review of it for Churchman).

I like the way Bauckham describes the significance of the women at Jesus' tomb:

"The somewhat varying versions of the same story in all three of the other Gospels probably vary because they go back to different members of the group of women, who remembered somewhat differently, as people do. But they were eyewitnesses! As almost every scholar notes, in that society women were not trusted to give evidence ... If Jesus had risen from death, the men ought to have been the first to know ... All this suggests that the stories were not simply invented" (105-6).

And also what the first disciples saw and experienced:

“... it is very clear that they did not think that what people saw was the spirit of Jesus, surviving his physical death. They knew about ghosts and about dead people appearing in visions. If this had been the case with Jesus, it would have been very much less momentous than the ‘resurrection’ they believed had happened. The reports about the empty tomb fitted harmoniously with the appearance narratives, because the one who appeared was identified as Jesus in his whole bodily-spiritual identity. Jesus was not a soul who had left his body behind in the tomb ... They believed he was raised to a new sort of bodily life, eternal life” (106-7).

And also, this bit in Chapter 8, Jesus in Christian faith:

"That the faith of the early Christians focused on the living Jesus does not, of course, mean that they neglected the story of his life and death or the sayings that his disciples had learned. On the contrary, the stories and sayings were treasured and repeated, and only because they were so important at an early stage were they later given permanent written

form in the Gospels. The stories portrayed the person who, in his heavenly glory, remained the same person ... The early Christians did not dissolve the past Jesus into the present, but they remembered the earthly and crucified Jesus in order to know and to follow the living Christ" (112-3).

Personally (and not giving away anything of my forthcoming review), I think this book will provide pastors and normal uninformed believers with a short and well written introduction into the latest research on Jesus, written by one of the most respected Biblical Scholars in Britain and North America.

Richard Bauckham's new book on Jesus

2011-10-07T15:10:00.000-07:00

"Has Jesus in the end become no more than an empty vessel that can be filled with any sort of content?"

This is one of the important questions which Richard Bauckham answers in his exciting book: Jesus: A Very Short Introduction that has just been published by Oxford University Press.

In the foreword he writes:

"... I do think the Gospels give us access to the way Jesus was perceived by those who were close to him, people who experienced the events from the inside and whose own lives were deeply affected by them. This seems to me a kind of knowledge of Jesus that is well worth having, whatever we choose to do with it" (xii).

Really a must read book for theologians and pastors who want a concise, easy to read book on Jesus by one of the most respected Biblical Scholars in Europe and America.

The Resurrection of Jesus: Fact of Figment? Mike Licona and Abel Pienaar at Pretoria University

2011-09-26T03:07:00.000-07:00

Dr. Mike Licona (Founder of Risen Jesus Ministries) and Dr. Abel Pienaar (figurehead within the New Reformation Movement) will debate on the resurrection come Monday 26 September. Dr. Pienaar will argue that the resurrection should be understood as a myth, whilst Dr. Licona will argue that it was a physical event in history. Being two very gifted orators and thinkers this promises to be one of the biggest theological debates in South African history.

TIME: Monday, September 26 · 7:00pm - 9:30pm

LOCATION: University of Pretoria/Sanlam Auditorium

CONTACT: Roedolf - 082 826 2641 / Johan - 082 491 2463

Wish I could be there!!

NT Wright's critique of Edward Schillebeeckx's view of history and theology

2011-08-24T07:24:00.000-07:00

One sometimes hear rumors in Dutch walkways that the English speaking world is not always taking Dutch scholarship very seriously. Well, when it comes to the work of Edward Schillebeeckx (the famous Dominican dogmatic theologian from Nijmegen where I'm busy with my PhD), at least NT Wright from St'Andrews takes him quite seriously.

Whenever I have time (which is not often!), I like to read how these two men differ when it comes to the relationship between history and theology. I've read quite a bit from both of them (though to be fair, a bit more of Wright, given my work on the resurrection, and my studies in Durham in 2009) and thought it worthwhile to quote a fairly long bit where Wright explains the background to Schillebeeckx's exegetical method (as he interprets it) and some critique:

"On 23 October 1953, Ernst Kasemann gave a now-famous lecture to a group of former Bultmann students on 'The Problem of the Historical Jesus', thereby beginning a significantly new phase, which quickly styled itself 'The New Quest for the Historical Jesus'. Kasemann, aware ... of the the dangers of idealism and docetism, insisted that if Jesus was not earthed in history then he might be pulled in any direction, might be made the hero of any theological or political programme ... without knowing who is was who died on the cross, he said, there would be no solid ground for upholding the gospel of the cross in all its sharpness ... However, this very definite theological agenda, for all its worth ... meant that the New Quest, ironically enough, did not represent a turning to history in the fullest sense ... The main productions of the New Quest are, in fact, of little lasting value.

One of the largest works from this period ... is that of the Dominican theologian Edward Schillebeeckx. His prodigious book on Jesus builds on the traditio-historical criticism whereby the synoptic gospels have been combed for evidence of this or that 'early Christian community', and between whose faith-statements glimpses of Jesus may emerge. Such an argument is necessarily both tortuous and tenuous, since different sets of traditio-historical critics will come out with different sets of answers. Schillebeeckx takes a position which is the mirror-image of Bultmann's: the resurrection accounts are stories of Jesus' lifetime, brought forwards. His eventual leap from a purely historical Jesus to the incarnate Son of God is based on little or nothing in the main part of the book itself. He seems to lend considerable tacit support to the notion that history and theology are two worlds which must be kept entirely separate. His book bravely attempts to combine the multiple hypotheses required to postulate both a divided 'Q community', as a key matrix of early traditions, and some sort of normative theological interpretation. But his work seems to me to have shown the barrenness of the New Quest in just as devastating, though not as readable, a way as Schweitzer's did in relation to the Old."

What, for Wright, did two hundred years of Questing between Reimarus and Schillebeeckx achieve?

"It put the historical Question firmly and irrevocably on the theological map, but without providing a definitive answer to it. Theologians cannot honestly ignore the questions of who Jesus was, whether he said and did roughly what we find in the gospels, the reasons for his death, and the reasons for the rise of Christianity ... But have the historians enabled either side, or indeed those in the middle, to get very far?"

Wright is not convinced and states:

".. at no point, I suggest, has the full impact of the historical evidence been allowed to influence very much the dogmatic conclusions reached; when it has, it is only perhaps as a concession ... I remain convinced that there is a good deal more to be said about the perceptions, worldviews and mindsets of first-century Jews that will have considerable importance, as yet unimagined, for systematic theology" (NT Wright, Jesus and the Victory of God, Fortress Press: Minneapolis: 23-26).

F.F. Bruce - A LIFE: The Definitive Biography of a New Testament Scholar

2011-08-21T07:18:00.000-07:00

Every once in a while, one stumbles across a book here in Cambridge you just have to buy. Yesterday was such a day when I bought the brand new biography of F.F. Bruce - one of the most influential evangelical New Testament scholars of the 20th century in England. It's got all the normal things one gets in a biography, but, the following quote on the back cover explains why it's so significant to me:

"Evangelicals have often wrestled with two problems: the relation between academic theology and church life, and the quest for recognition of their status as credible interpreters of the Bible. F.F. Bruce (1910-1990) was one of the most influential British biblical scholars of the twentieth century, and his career offers valuable insights into these issues, as well as shedding light on the ways in which Evangelicalism was changing from the 1950s onwards ... Tim Grass argues that Bruce, like his father, was always something of an evangelist at heart."

Mark Noll has the following to say: "Tim Grass has written an unusually solid biography of an exceedingly solid scholar. Its pages provide a full account of F.F. Bruce's biblical scholarship and his path-breaking leadership of evangelical intellectual life more generally ... the result is a very good book on a very worthy subject."

Roman Toilets - Their Archaeology and Cultural History

2011-08-08T05:05:00.000-07:00

I just learned that two Radboud University scholars participated in a very interesting new book entitled: Roman Toilets - Their Archaeology and Cultural History, published by Peeters. For those who can read Dutch, check out this short introduction from the Raboud University website:

Ja, de Romeinen hadden wc's en riolering. Nee, dat leek op geen enkele manier op de onze schone toiletten. Het was er een vieze boel waar ziektes werden overgedragen en ongedierte makkelijk toegang kreeg tot het huis. Het stonk, want er was geen stankslot tussen riool of beerput en het toilet, dat vaak in de keuken was. Als je naar de wc ging kon je maar beter een talisman meenemen, wilde je niet getroffen worden door het boze oog. En hoewel Romeinen dol waren op graffiti, krasten ze hun boodschappen nu juist niet op de wc-muur, wat er op wijst dat ze het daar niet zo gezellig vonden...

For more click on the links below:

http://www.ru.nl/letteren/actueel/nieuws/redactionele/romeinen-hadden/

http://www.peeters-leuven.be/toc/9789042925410.pdf

Hollywood star Michael Douglas on Death

2011-07-20T08:47:00.000-07:00

I read a fascinating interview with Michael Douglas about cancer, death etc in a German paper recently ... It once again made me realize that all the hard work for my PhD about belief in the resurrection of Jesus is probably still relevent ... even in Hollywood. One key text for my PhD is 1 Cor. 15:32:

If the dead are not raised, let us eat and drink, for tomorrow we die

εἰ νεκροὶ οὐκ ἐγείρονται, Φάγωμεν καὶ πίωμεν, αὔριον γὰρ ἀποθνῄσκομεν.

FAITH - fact or fiction? Dave Seaford in Pretoria, South Africa

2011-07-18T03:51:00.000-07:00

Roedolf Botha, one of my fellow friends busy with a PhD in New Testament here in Nijmegen, has started an exciting new church in Pretoria, South Africa. One of their primary aims it seems, is to take the difficult questions believers and skeptics wrestle with quite seriously. On 31 July, they will host Dave Seaford who will talk on: FAITH - fact or fiction. It is worth checking out. Contact details on the picture.

Radboud New Testament Seminar - July 2011

2011-06-28T04:04:00.000-07:00

Wednesday 6 July, 14h00 - 17h00

On Ethics in the Johannine Writings - Professor Jan van der Watt

William Wrede and the Quest for Objectivity in Biblical Interpretation - Frederik Mulder

All are welcome. For more information, contact Frederik at frederikmuldernijmegen@gmail.com

Explorations in Aspects of Gospel and LXX Research - 13 July 2011 in Nijmegen, the Netherlands

2011-06-27T09:58:00.000-07:00

Department of Theology, Radboud University, 13 July 2011

Invited speakers include:

The Prophetic Power of the Word of Jesus: A Study of John 4:43-54
- Professor Gilbert van Belle (Leuven)

The Text Form of Matthew's Isaiah Quotations compared to the Dead Sea Scrolls and Septuagint - Professor Gert Steyn (Pretoria)

"Elijah as Reconciler of Father and Son: From 1 Kings 16:34 and Malachi 3:22-24 to Ben Sira 48:1-11 and Luke 1:13-17" - Professor Bart J. Koet (Tilburg)

For more information contact Frederik Mulder at frederikmuldernijmegen@gmail.com

NT Wright, Richard Hays, Oliver O' Donovan, John Barclay et al at the 2012 Paul’s Letter to the Galatians & Christian Theology Conference in St Andrews

2011-06-24T07:08:00.000-07:00

10-13 July 2012, St Andrews

We are pleased to announce the fourth St Andrews conference on Scripture and  Christian Theology. Since the first conference on the Gospel of John in  2003, the St Andrews conferences have been recognized as amongst the most  important occasions when biblical scholars and systematic theologians are  brought together in conversation about a biblical text. With the book of Galatians as our key text, biblical scholars and theologians of the Christian tradition will gather to work out how exegesis and theology meet, critique and inform each other.

Main Papers

Jean-Noël Aletti
Lewis Ayres
John Barclay
Ivor Davidson
Beverly Gaventa
Bruce McCormack
Volker Rabens
Thomas Söding
Kendall Soulen
Timothy Wengert
Simeon Zahl
Call for Papers

We invite proposals for short papers that relate Galatians to Christian theology and culture, including:

Galatians & Art
Galatians & Christian Doctrine
Galatians & Ethics
Galatians & the History of Interpretation
Galatians & Eschatology
Jewish and Christian Readings of Galatians.

Convenors

Mark W. Elliott, Senior Lecturer in Church History at St Mary's College, author of Isaiah 40-66 in the Ancient Christian Commentary series (IVP, 2007); The Reality of Biblical Theology (Peter Lang, 2007)

N.T.Wright, Professor of New Testament and Christian Origins, University of St Andrews (St Mary’s College), author of Paul: In Fresh Perspective (Fortress, 2009); Scripture and the Authority of God: How to Read the Bible Today (HarperOne, 2011)

Grant Macaskill, Lecturer in New Testament at St Mary's College, author of Revealed Wisdom and Inaugurated Eschatology in Ancient Judaism and Early Christianity (Brill Academic, 2007)

For more go to this link: http://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/divinity/rt/conf/galatians2012/

NT Wright receives book of the History of the Dutch Reformed Church

2011-06-23T02:27:00.000-07:00

I am sure professor Wright won't mind me mentioning this:

Dear Professor Tom,

Words fail to express my sincere appreciation for the wonderful discussion we had, and the gifts you gave me. Your sermon preached on Trinity Sunday 1972 made me quite emotional. I hope you received the book about the history of the Dutch Reformed Church by now. Close to the end there are pictures of Bishop Tutu and President Mandela taking Holy Communion with the Dutch Reformed Church.

Yours faithfully

Ferdie Mulder

Dear Ferdie
Thank you! I'm glad you like the books -- and yours arrived safely. Thank you very much. Warm greetings and good wishes.

Tom Wright

An astonishing dialogue with NT Wright about the Boer War, Racism and Evil.

2011-06-19T14:56:00.000-07:00

Following my and professor Wright’s papers at St Andrews on Wednesday, I had the great privilege of spending a few minutes with him in his office at St Mary’s College.

As we started talking, the first thing he did, of course, was to show me his awesome replica of P75 (an early New Testament papyri of Luke 24 I think).

What I will cherish for a long time, however, was the fascinating talk we had about the South African Boer War, including the problem of evil.

Professor Wright told me that his grandfather was a lieutenant in the Boer War and wrote several letters in his time there to his father. What struck him was the English’s deep rooted racism against the Afrikaners at the end of the 19th and beginning of the 20th century. Significantly, (and to my surprise) he added that the British helped the process of apartheid because of what happened during the Boer War. Thinking back, I remember my own father telling me how, as a child, he would listen to stories of his grandfather who fought in the Boer War too.

All of this lead our discussion to the problem of evil and particularly the trend among some Jesus Seminar scholars, who propose panentheism as a way of speaking about God and the cosmos. (As we know, panentheism sees God in everything and everything in God).

Professor Wright argued that panentheism is actually the wrong way around. What we are promised in 1 Corinthians 15 is that God will be all in all. Panentheism is therefore a dangerous collapse of eschatology. It’s always in danger of an over-realized eschatology, and hence of all the problems, which inevitably lead into various forms of pantheism. Professor Wright acknowledged that some, like Marcus Borg, will say that it is not pantheistic. But actually, (and this was important for him) if we look at how it actually plays out, the main problem is getting a handle on the critique of evil, let alone a solution for it, and solving the problem.

Things like Auschwitz, the Boer War, and the evil in every one of us, I understood Wright to say, cannot be part of God as panentheism would inevitably have it – at least not if we take the Hebrew scriptures and New Testament seriously.

Professor Wright puts it like this in his lovely book Simply Christian:

“The one true God made a world that was other than himself, because that is what love delights to do. And having made such a world, he has remained in a close, dynamic and intimate relationship with it, without in any way being contained within it or having it contained within him ... this God appears to take very seriously the fact that his beloved creation has become corrupt, has rebelled and is suffering the consequences. This is something the pantheist cannot cope with. Even panentheism has a hard time giving a serious account of the radical nature of evil, let alone of what a good God might do about it” (Simply Christian, 2006, pp 58-59).

Following our discussion, I am more convinced than ever that the Christian God of the Hebrew and New Testament scriptures is in no way responsible for, or in any way part of the evil in the world as we now know it.

Professor Wright gave me a copy of the 2010 edition of his 1978 book: Small Faith Great God, and also the 2011 edition of his 2005 book Scripture and the Authority of God. In turn, out of gratitude, I posted the only copy of Die NG Kerk 350 jaar I have, (which is a history of the Dutch Reformed Church) to him on Friday morning.
Words fail to express my sincere appreciation for the wonderful discussion we had, and the gifts from professor Tom Wright!

Some of the delegates who also delivered papers.

NT Wright, Kristin de Troyer, Mark Elliott, James Davila etc at St Andrews Conference

2011-06-10T15:17:00.000-07:00

Authoritative Texts and Reception History: Aspects and Approaches

15-16 June 2011, The 1st St Andrews Graduate Conference for Biblical and Early Christian Studies

With an emphasis on textual reception history, the first St Andrews Graduate Conference for Biblical and Early Christian Studies is aimed at graduate students and early career scholars. Contributors are welcomed from the following fields of research: Old Testament / Hebrew Bible, Pseudepigrapha, Dead Sea Scrolls, New Testament and Early Christianity.

We have four invited plenary speakers:

Prof. Kristin De Troyer
Prof. James R. Davila
Prof. N. T. Wright
Dr. Mark W. Elliott

Wednesday 15th June
9.00 am: Kristin de Troyer, On Reconstructing the History of the Biblical Text
Session 1
10.00: Steven Harvey (Durham), Who is (are) ‘your teacher(s)’? Hearing the voice of the prophet in Isaiah 30:18-26
10.30: Mark Stirling (St Andrews), The Davidic Temple Builder: Zechariah 6:13-15 as neglected background to Ephesians 2:11-22
11.00: Ben Johnson (Durham), Reading Septuagintal Narrative Texts as Translated Narratives: 1 Reigns 16 as an Example
11.30: coffee/tea
12.00: Michael J. Thate (Durham), The Effusive Presence Memory, Performance and the People of God
12.00: Kerry Lee (Edinburgh), The Not Not Inglorious Death of Samson
1.00 pm: Lunch
2.00: N. T. Wright, Scripture and God's Authority: Case Studies and Further Questions
Session 2
3.00: Martin G. Ruf (Utrecht), Elective affinities? Second Peter’s reception of Paul
3.30: Frederik Mulder (Radboud), The reception of Paul’s understanding of resurrection and eschatology in the Epistle to Rheginos: Faithful Paulinism, or further development?
4.00: Rebekah M. Devine (St Andrews), Made With Hands: The Gods of the Nations in Paul’s Letter to the Galatians
4.30: coffee/tea
5.00: Moshe Blidstein (Oxford), Between Ritual and Moral Purity: Early Christian Views on Dietary Laws
5.30: Andrew Talbert (Nottingham), Poiesis, Aesthesis, and Catharsis: The Aesthetic Experience of Readi‘the Day of the Lord’ with the Fathers
6.00: Michael A. Clark (Birmingham), The Catena of the Gospel of John by Nicetas of Heraclea
6.30: Drinks reception

Thursday 16th June
9:00 am: James Davila, Quotations from the Lost Books in the Hebrew Bible
Session 3
10.00: David J. Larsen (St Andrews), After the Order of Melchizedek: Royal Themes and MelchizedTraditions Applied to Jesus by the Author of Hebrews
10.30: Beniamin Pascut (Cambridge), Jesus and the Jewish Diviner: The Use and Misuse of 4QPrNbr
11.00: Albertina Oegema (Gröningen), The Reception of Isa 40:15 in 4 Ezra, 2 Baruch and Pseudo-Philo
11.30: coffee/tea
12.00: Nicholas Ellis (Oxford), The Jobraham Narratives - A Synthetic Tradition of Trial and Faithfulness
12.30: Fiona Kao (Cambridge), ‘Fear not this tormentor’: Maccabean Predecessors and Eusebian Martyrs
1.00 pm: lunch break
2.00: Mark W. Elliott, The promise and threat of “Reception”, with reference to patristic interpretation of texts in Hebrews and Ephesians
2.45: coffee/tea
Session 4
3.00: Dan Batovici (St Andrews), Irenaeus’ Hermas
3.30: David L. Cann (KCL), The Holy Spirit in the Early Church: A search for the roots of the Trinitarian theology of the Holy Spirit
4.00: Marijana Vuković (CEU), Anonymous Late Antique Martyrdom Narratives: The Issues of Genre, Imitation, Narratological Patterns
4.30: coffee/tea
5.00: Justin A. Mihoc (Durham), The Reception and Interpretation of the Lucan Ascension of Christ in the Pre-Nicene Period
5.30: Kevin J. Haley (Notre Dame), Augustine’s Enarrationes and the Final Form of the Psalter
6.00: Andrew Hay (St Andrews), From Historia to Theoria: The exegesis of Gregory of Nyssa and a diachronic reading of the Bible

Registration

We are charging a registration fee of £15 which includes conference attendance and the academic reception on the evening of 15 June. Meals and accommodations are not included in the fee. However, coffee and tea will be available during the conference.

https://onlineshop.st-andrews.ac.uk/browse/product.asp?catid=32&modid=2&compid=1

University of Exeter, Centre for Biblical Studies Research Seminar: Dr Francesca Stavrakopoulou and Frederik Mulder

2011-06-08T16:49:00.000-07:00

Centre for Biblical Studies

Department of Theology and Religion

Research Seminar

http://centres.exeter.ac.uk/cbs/

Wednesday 8 June

(Frederik Mulder, David Horrell and Brad Arnold)

2.00-3.30pm Francesca Stavrakopoulou, "The Social Life of the Corpse".

4.00-5.00pm Frederik Mulder, "The interplay between βρῶμα, κοιλίᾳ and somatic resurrection in 1 Corinthians 6:12-14".*

A big thank you to Professor David Horrell for inviting me to be part of Exeter's Research Seminar yesterday. Thank you also for the lunch and fascinating discussions afterwards. John and Brad, it was great meeting you guys too!

Francesca Stavrakopoulou (top left)

One of the beautiful buildings at the University of Exeter

* Technically, my paper wasn't part of the Research Seminar I think. I delivered it afterwards as part of the Biblical Studies Seminar.

Jesus’ Tomb is Empty! Justin Holcomb

2011-06-04T13:45:00.000-07:00

http://theresurgence.com/2011/04/15/jesus-tomb-is-empty

Christ’s Resurrection as Unique Missional Paradigm – a Refreshing Dialogue with Rev. Johnson Thomakutty from India in Holland

2011-05-31T06:13:00.000-07:00

One of my fellow PhD friends here at Radboud University Nijmegen is Rev. Johnson Thomaskutty from Union Biblical Seminary (www.ubs.ac.in) in Pune, India. He is in the third year of his PhD program in which he is focussing on The Nature and Function of Dialogues in the Gospel according to St. John. He will be leaving us soon, to return to his teaching position at UBS.

He kindly offered to drink a nice cup of Dutch coffee with me, and share a few thoughts about how he, as an Indian Christian theologian, understands Jesus’ resurrection. I will put a few questions to Johnson, then type his responses out, and afterwards get him to make sure that I got it right.

Question: Johnson, as a Christian theologian coming from India, and having two masters degrees in New Testament (one from Senate of Serampore University in India and the other from Princeton Theological Seminary in the USA), do you think it is important for the Christian faith that Jesus’ tomb was really empty following his resurrection, or not?

Answer: Yes, it is important. The reason? The resurrection appearances and the empty tomb are part of the foundational beliefs of the Christian faith. If any one of these two is nullified, then the basic tenets of Christianity are in question.

Question: But Johnson, some theologians would argue that Jesus’ resurrection was spiritual, therefore/as a result the empty tomb is not important. What does spiritual resurrection mean to you?

Answer: Jesus’ body could become spiritual even before his resurrection. In John 6 we find that Jesus walked on water, similar to John 20 where he came to the upper room where the door was closed. In both instances Jesus had the ability to appear and disappear, something which is beyond human comprehension. Thus, Jesus’ resurrection was spiritual in the sense that he could appear and disappear, but it was also material because the tomb was “really empty”. He rose with the same body, but it was transformed.

Question: If this is the case Johnson, what is the significance of the resurrection for your ministry in India where you teach?

Answer: The significance of the resurrection of Jesus in my Indian context is multi-faceted. When I’m talking about the resurrection of Jesus in our multi-religious, multi-cultural and pluralistic culture of India, I have to re-interpret the significance of Christ’s resurrection for our diverse communities. The salvific significance of Christ’s work on the cross, and his resurrection should first and foremost be taught and proclaimed, as the good news of salvation for the various religious and ethnic communities. As a second order to this, when I am witnessing Christ for instance to the Dalits, Tribals and the Adivasis (the poor and marginalized, also called the dust of the dust), I use Christ’s resurrection as a model for liberation out of the clutches of oppression and dehumanization. As Christ was humiliated on the cross, and was raised by the Father from the grave, so also, Christian mission should focus on the upliftment of the oppressed out of the bondages of poverty, casteism, sin and injustice.

Resurrection is therefore a unique missional paradigm, comprising the historical reality of Christ’s resurrection, its salvific significance as well as its social implications.

Believing in bodily resurrection and heaven doesn't make you a Platonist or Gnostic – N.T. Wright and Marcus Bockmuehl at loggerheads?

2011-05-28T09:49:00.000-07:00

Today I had the opportunity of attending part of the Oxbridge New Testament Graduate Seminar held in Cambridge this time around. As always, the papers presented were exceptional.

Those who presented were Bruce Clark (Cambridge); Richard Kueh (Cambridge); Diane Hakala (Cambridge); Ben Edsall (Oxford); Alex Kirk (Oxford) and Nicholas Ellis (Oxford). Apart from my Cambridge friends, it was really good to see my Oxford friends Ben, Alex and Nicholas again!

In between sessions I had a fascinating talk with Professor Marcus Bockmuehl from Oxford about his paper: “Did St. Paul go to Heaven when he Died?” which he delivered last year at the Theological dialogue with N.T. Wright held at Wheaton College.

Having listened to both professor Bockmuehl’s and Wright’s papers, and after listening attentively to Bockmuehl’s further explanations, at some stage during our interesting talk, I tried to summarise what I thought to be the issue for him: “You don’t have to become a Platonist or Gnostic to believe in bodily resurrection and going to heaven when you die” – This is more or less how I understood professor Bockmuehl’s disagreement with professor N.T. Wright. Professor Bockmuehl reiterated that to his mind, all of the early church fathers believed in a heavenly after-life, without neglect of the resurrection of the body. It seemed to me that for professor Bockmuehl, professor Wright goes beyond Paul when it comes to a text like 2 Cor. 5:1-10.

It was a great privilege to meet professor Bockmuehl. He’s given me much food for thought.

Here is a link to professor Bockmuehl’s paper:

http://www.wheaton.edu/wetn/lectures-theology10.htm

The conference papers have now also been published by IVP under the title Jesus, Paul, and the People of God: A Theological Dialogue with N.T. Wright. To order (in Europe) click here: http://www.amazon.co.uk/Jesus-Paul-People-God-theological/dp/0281062137

Oliver O' Donovan on "Jesus is Lord" in the Belhar Confession of faith

2011-05-18T16:19:00.000-07:00

The Dutch Reformed Church of Western and Southern Cape, South Africa, recently accepted the Belhar confession of faith as its fourth official confession. In it the christological confession Jesus is Lord is very important and directly linked to reconciliation and justice.

After world renowned Christian philosopher and ethicist - professor Oliver O' Donovan's paper called "Good without God?" tonight in Cambridge, I asked him whether Jesus’ death on the cross and resurrection should be regarded as the background for the confession Jesus is Lord. In his response he made it clear that Jesus is Lord cannot be understood apart from Jesus’ death on the cross and his resurrection. He emphasised that it is through Christ’s sacrificial death on the cross that we are reconciled with God. With regards to the resurrection, he emphasised that through Jesus’ resurrection, God shows us that this world will be restored.

Afterwards, I spoke to professor O' Donovan about his view of Jesus’ resurrection in particular. I informed him that over the years a few Jesus Seminar scholars have visited South Africa and propagated the view that Jesus did not rise bodily from the dead. I asked him whether he deemed it important that Jesus rose bodily from the dead or not. He answered something like this: “I believe the resurrection has to be an event in the world. It must be material”. He also said that he has a problem with the idea that it is the “mind” that is resurrected. As we continued to talk it became clear that the renewal of creation at the time of the resurrection is very important to him.

After our discussion I told him that much of what he had just told me comes close to what professor NT Wright taught me in Durham in 2009. He laughed and said they are old friends and that he can never part from what Tom Wright has to say about resurrection and new creation!

What a pleasant evening we had!

Oliver O'Donovan in Cambridge - Good without God?

2011-05-15T14:42:00.000-07:00

Part of the motivation for my PhD project came from reading Oliver O'Donovan's fantastic book: Resurrection and Moral Order (http://www.amazon.co.uk/Resurrection-Moral-Order-Outline-Evangelical/dp/0802806929). He is one of my favourite theologians. On Wednesday he will deliver a paper in Cambridge entitled: Good without God? Thank you to dr Jonathan Chaplin of the Kirby Laing Institute for Christian Ethics who brought this to my attention. The whole program looks like this:

Good without God? A Christian philosopher probes the foundation for ethics
18 May 2011
Palmerston Room, Fisher Building
St. John’s College, Cambridge
17:30-19:00

What difference does Christian theology make to ethics?

Is a theological foundation necessary for ethics?

To what extent can there be a fruitful dialogue between Christian and secular ethics?

The Veritas Forum invites you hear Oliver O’Donovan probe the Christian foundation for ethics. Oliver O’Donovan is Professor of Christian Ethics and Practical Theology at the University of Edinburgh. He was previously President of the Society for the Study of Christian Ethics and Regius Professor of Moral & Pastoral Theology and Canon of Christ Church at the University of Oxford. Following Prof O'Donovan's opening lecture, discussion and Q&A will be moderated by Jonathan Chaplin of the Kirby Laing Institute for Christian Ethics.

The Veritas Forum is organized by Christian students and faculty in the University of Cambridge in association with Christian in Humanities, Arts and Social Sciences; Christian Graduate Society; Kirby Laing Institute of Christian Ethics; Jubilee Centre; and Christian Heritage.

More information is available here:
Web: www.veritas.org/Cambridge
Facebook: on.fb.me/vfcambridge11

Honest answers to Tough Questions - 14 May London Conference

2011-05-05T06:12:00.000-07:00

http://www.premier.org.uk/answers

Premier Christian Radio presents an apologetics day conference for anyone who wants help in thinking through and responding to the tough questions on faith from atheists, Muslims and those of other world views. Building on Premier's popular faith discussion show and podcast 'Unbelievable?', the conference will focus on a number of questions commonly asked by sceptics and those of other faiths.

The Lost History of Christianity - Philip Jenkins in the Netherlands

2011-05-02T05:53:00.000-07:00

". . . when Christianity is at its weakest in one area, amazing new opportunities open elsewhere." This quote comes from an interview conducted by Stan Guthrie for Christianity Today with Prof. Philip Jenkins, the influential American scholar with double first-class degrees and a PhD from Cambridge University (1).

Prof. Jenkins will give a public lecture at Radboud University, Nijmegen tomorrow with the title: The Lost History of Christianity. On the Rise and Fall of Religions (2).

Prof. Jenkins is the author of more than twenty books including the well known The Next Christendom: The Coming of Global Christianity (3).

(1) http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2009/march/24.52.html?start=3

(2)http://www.ru.nl/sp/english/activities/extra_information/2011/religious-future/

(3) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philip_Jenkins

The 2011 London Men's Convention with Mark Driscoll

2011-04-27T17:23:00.000-07:00

http://www.christianconventions.org.uk/lmc/index.php

Jesus' bodily resurrection made up or not?

2011-04-05T09:22:00.000-07:00

“The very foundation of Chrisitanity, is the bodily resurrection of Jesus Christ. But could it all have been made up?” Stunning new short video clip by Dr. Peter J. Williams, Warden of Tyndale House, Cambridge.

http://www.tyndale.cam.ac.uk/resources2?utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Experts+Evidence+for+Easter&utm_content=Experts+Evidence+for+Easter+CID_94023813849c5348a74da19b857b96a4&utm_source=CampaignMonitor&utm_term=films

Justification by faith, the New Perspective and Luther: A remarkable interview with Udo Schnelle

2011-03-29T11:44:00.000-07:00

This is part two of an interview with Professor Udo Schnelle, head of the department of New Testament, Martin Luther University, Halle - Wittenberg, Germany, held on 22 March 2011. Prof. Schnelle graciously consented that we publish it on the web.

Mulder: Do you think the New Perspective on Paul takes justification by faith seriously when it comes to Philippians 3?

Schnelle: I think that the New Perspective on Paul, especially concerning Philippians 3 is wrong, because there Paul says that his own history is σκύβαλα (rubbish). That means there was a break in his life; a radical change; he now saw his career in Judaism as σκύβαλα (rubbish). Now he understood himself and early Christianity not only as a variant of Judaism, but as a new way. From Judaism of course, but in a new way: a new religious world.

Mulder: Is there enough evidence to argue that the Law wasn't just an identity marker in Second Temple Judaism? That is, that the Law was prescribed, in order to be saved?

Schnelle: I think in late Judaism we have both. Of course we have texts that go in the direction of E.P. Saunders, but we also have texts, especially at Qumran which tell us that only those that follow the Law will have life. Thus, we have both. But we don't know as much about Second Temple Judaism as Paul did. He lived in that world, and said it was not his world anymore. Paul gives a new definition of what the Law is. Romans 13:8-10: Everyone who is in love is also in the Law. This was a new solution which was not convincing for Judaism.

Mulder: For both those who followed the Law in order to be saved, and those who saw the Law as identity marker only?

Schnelle: Yes.

Mulder: What about 2 Corinthians 5:10 which states that we will be judged according to works? What do you, as a Lutheran, make with those texts that seem to suggest that works will be important come the final judgement?

Schnelle: There is in Paul also a final judgement, but in this judgement, we have nothing we can show God. And therefore His mercy toward us is the only way to live.

Mulder: Lutheranism has probably been caricatured by some in different parts of the world. Some would say: “Luther was wrong about justification,” for instance. On which points however, will you concede that there were insufficiencies in Luther, or in how Lutheranism developed? And also, what issues often raised against Lutheranism do you regard as unfair criticism?

Schnelle: To say that the Lutheran position on justification is only an individual perspective would be an unfair criticism.

Mulder: Salvation is only focussed on the individual?

Schnelle: Yes. The focus on your own salvation is only the starting point. The main idea is that the life of people depend on the grace of God. I think this main idea is correct. This was in Paul and then in Luther. This was a new idea in the world, because before Paul, people like Aristotle’s and others, they spoke about justification saying people must do the justification yourself! But Paul said: no, you cannot do this.

Mulder: Are you implying then, and I must be careful how I put this, that some radical streams of the New Perspective on Paul, could in fact go back to the Aristotelian position on justification?

Schnelle: Yes, I think so. My view is that Paul is not an update of Judaism. It is a new way, growing from Judaism of course.

Mulder: If that is so, if it is sola gratia only, what is the place of works then?

Schnelle: They are following. But it is clear they must follow.

Mulder: And if they don’t?

Schnelle: If they do not follow, then you have not understood what grace is.

Mulder: Then you never had real saving faith from the beginning?

Schnelle: Yes.

Mulder: Well, that is actually one of the caricatures that we find: some people say: "Lutheranism teaches justification by faith through grace, therefore, you can do what you like?"

Schnelle: No, its wrong. That’s totally wrong.

Mulder: But it is often said of Luther, that it is all about grace for the individual. Where in Luther do we then find, that the ecclesia is important also? Some scholars would argue that you have a very under-developed ecclesiology in Luther, thus an almost exclusive focus on anthropology?

Schnelle: Here in Halle, at the Franckeschen Stiftungen, which is also from the Lutheran tradition, what are they doing? They help the poor children, they were the first to build orphanages. It is very clear that social justice is part of out tradition.

Mulder: So would you say it is a caricature to argue that Lutheranism doesn’t take things like social justice seriously?

Schnelle: Yes, that is not correct.

Mulder: So are you actually saying that in Lutheranism, justification by faith goes hand in hand with social responsibility?

Schnelle: Of course yes.

Mulder: What can we learn from the New Perspective on Paul?

Schnelle: At the end of the 19th and beginning of the 20th century, there was a misunderstanding of Judaism in some parts of the Lutheran church, which included Lutheran scholars. This is correct. It was good that the New Perspective started a debate about how near Paul the believer in Christ is still to Judaism. But, I say it again, for Paul, Christianity is not an update of Judaism. It is a new “meaning construction” with a new discourse founder – that is Jesus Christ. The discourse founder of Judaism is Moses. With the death and resurrection of Jesus, Christianity is building it’s own world.

Mulder: OK, I understand. Last question on that. Was Abraham saved by grace?

Schnelle: Yes, because he was in a direct interaction with God.

Mulder: That was before the Law came?

Schnelle: Yes.

Mulder: I got that answer from an orthodox Jew also.

Once again a big thank you to Professor Schnelle for allowing us to publish this interview online!

The empty tomb of Jesus: significant interview with Udo Schnelle from Halle, Wittenberg

2011-03-24T00:52:00.000-07:00

This is a transcript of an interview with Professor Udo Schnelle, head of the department of New Testament, Martin Luther University, Halle - Wittenberg, Germany, held on 22 March 2011. Prof. Schnelle graciously consented that we publish it on the web. This is Part 1, Part 2 to follow next time.

Mulder: Debates about the resurrection of Jesus has been going on since (at least) David Friedrich Strauss. As professor who, in one sense occupies Martin Luther’s’ chair in Theology here in Halle, Wittenberg, why should it or is it important for Christians to believe that Jesus’ tomb is empty?

Schnelle: It is important because it is a historical question. You have to either say yes or no! It is important because faith is grounded in history. It makes a big difference whether the tomb is empty or not.

Mulder: Do you think we have plausible textual evidence that can substantiate belief in the empty tomb?

Schnelle: Yes.

Mulder: What about Paul who doesn’t refer to the empty tomb explicitly?

Schnelle: In Paul we do have Romans 6:3-5 and 1 Corinthians 15:4. But there is one important point: After the death of Jesus, the first Christians in Jerusalem proclaimed that Jesus is alive. At that time Jerusalem was a city with between 25 000 to 50 000 inhabitants. Thus, not so many people. The Christians preached: Jesus is alive, the tomb is empty. If that was not so, their opponents could say: Why? Come with us, there he lies! It is a historical question which of course cannot be proven scientifically. But, if we try to reconstruct the history with their preaching, then you cannot explain the success of their preaching, especially in Jerusalem, without an empty tomb.

Mulder: So would you say the empty tomb of Jesus is the best explanation for the evidence available to us?

Schnelle: Yes.

Mulder: So, does that mean that people like Gerd Lüdemann and John Dominic Crossan’s reconstructions (that Peter and Paul experienced hallucinations, or that his body was devoured by animals on the cross) are not the best historical explanations for the available evidence we have?

Schnelle: Yes. It is not the best historical explanations. It’s their personal and private explanations. If you ask how was it possible that such a small group of believers, became within a very short time such a strong movement, especially in Jerusalem? I think the best historical explanation is to say that the tomb was empty.

John Calvin, mediator between "Old" and "New" Perspectives on Paul? N.T. Wright and Kevin Vanhoozer

2011-03-18T16:04:00.000-07:00

I will never forget the question I asked N.T. Wright on 8 January 2009, and his somewhat agnostic reply. My question was in response to a statement he made during one of the sessions of a module he taught at St’ John’s College, Durham University. His statement went something like this: “Luther got it wrong about justification.” (Nothing new about this – we all know Wright has said and written this before). My question went something like this: “But what about Calvin?” He did not really answer the question, though to be fare, there were several questions from others he had to answer as well. I can of course be wrong (and I do have enormous respect for Wright!), but after the session I wondered whether he has ever read Calvin’s Institutes.

With this as background I was quite surprised and delighted when Kevin Vanhoozer, an erudite Reformed systematic theologian from Wheaton College made the following statement at the Jesus, Paul, and the People of God: A Theological Dialogue with N.T. Wright conference, held at Wheaton College on 16-17 April 2010:

“What Calvin does with Paul’s union with Christ provides fertile ground for a meeting of 'Old' and 'New' Perspective minds.”

I really enjoyed listening to Vanhoozer’s paper and wonder whether Wright will dialogue with Calvin in his forthcoming volume on Paul? I believe it is fair to say that Vanhoozer was nuanced in his approach and that his insights contributed to a fruitful discussion. (cf. he also said: “My aim is to encourage peace-talks between New Perspectives and old protestants”).

Video’s and Audio’s of all the papers delivered at the conference can be downloaded here:

http://www.wheaton.edu/wetn/lectures-theology10.htm

I would encourage Reformed Christians to listen to Vanhoozer’s paper in particular. (He started dealing with Calvin at round about 25 minutes in his presentation).

The conference papers have now also been published by IVP under the title Jesus, Paul, and the People of God: A Theological Dialogue with N.T. Wright. To order (in Europe) click here: http://www.amazon.co.uk/Jesus-Paul-People-God-theological/dp/0281062137

Paul - Rustic Bread and Fantasy

2011-03-13T11:14:00.000-07:00

I couldn't help but take a picture of this restaurant at one of the big train stations in London. It is called "PAUL, Pains Rustiques Et De Fantaisie". The subscript might mean something like this: Rustic (or rural, country, pastoral?) Bread and Fantasy.

If we make it: PAUL, Pastoral Bread and Fantasy, it comes close to the apostle Paul's nuanced view on food in 1 Corinthians 8. Paul states:

"But food does not commend us to God; for neither if we eat are we the better, nor if we do not eat are we the worse" (8:8).

The exception for Paul is when our liberty becomes a stumbling block for those who are weak. But food in and of itself cannot affect our relationship with God.

But are the ethical absolutes for Paul? I think so. Not when it comes to food though, but when it comes to sexual immorality (cf. 1 Corinthians 5-7).

Why so many "clicks" on Albert Schweitzer?

2011-03-07T15:34:00.000-08:00

I am a bit intrigued that more than 137 clicks have recently been made on my "short paper" on the life and works of Albert Schweitzer I reported on in January 2011. For what it's worth, I've tried to "fine-tune" it a bit, and place it here again today (I just hope that it was not theology students copying and pasting large chunk's for theology assignments... they should read the Primary texts!)

I will never again be able to write or think about Schweitzer without some emotions being stirred in my own heart. I did a short paper on his life and works in Durham in 2009. See it as a few preliminary thoughts, which obviously cannot do justice to all that can and should be said about him!

Nobel Peace Prize winner (1952), world-class organist, philosopher, ground-breaking theologian, doctor, surgeon, medical missionary, prisoner of war and anti-nuclear activist. Could these truly be among the achievements of one man? Indeed: Albert Schweitzer!

Schweitzer was born in Kaysersberg in Alsace on the January 14th, 1875. His father and maternal grandfather were both Lutheran pastors from the liberal German tradition, a tradition which was to become central to Schweitzer’s theological work.

Strong personality

Since his childhood Schweitzer had had an unquenchable passion ‘to accept nothing as a matter of course’, he was ‘to think out and examine carefully everything that he heard, saw, or read, as though no one before him had been occupied with the subject’[1]. In his fervour for and ‘passion for truth and light’[2], when he was only fourteen years old, he ‘...suddenly found his tongue and intruded into every conversation with a zealot’s compulsion to set straight anyone whose viewpoint seemed to diverge from what was obviously the correct one'[3] Schweitzer has always been a dissenter, a true individualist going his own way, moving beyond any supposed sacred frontier [4]. In his later life, it was said of him that he was ‘strong-willed’, and ‘often downright obstinate.’ ‘He had the ability to anger his closest associates by his unwillingness to change, an anger that in retrospect often turned to delightful recollection’[5]. These elements, at least in part, became important ingredients for his original and significant theological work (to which I will return), which encompassed the first thirty years of his life.

The softer side

Schweitzer’s strong convictions, individuality and focused determinism, on the other hand, also produced sacrificial love, evident from his ‘devotion to compassion and concern for all life’[6]. This he demonstrated among other things by his pioneering work as a medical doctor in Lambaréné (modern-day Gabon, Africa); his love for animals and all of life; his critique of colonialism’s exploits in Africa (he deemed his service to be giving back what colonialism had taken); his outspokenness against the nuclear arms race (see, for example, his letter from president John F. Kennedy in 1962) and the like. These activities made up the second part of Schweitzer’s life, in which he set out to work for the 'good of all humanity and the earth', instead of enhancing his professional and academic career [7]. The second part of his life, therefore, became the putting into practice of what he had written in the first three decades of his life [8].

Thus, Schweitzer’s strong sense of purpose and conviction, as indicated above, became his life orientation, permeating all spheres of his being. As I am particularly concerned with the way in which Schweitzer interpreted the New Testament, I will delve into aspects of his theological journey.

The making of a theologian

For as long as he could remember, Schweitzer wanted to become a minister, just like his father and maternal grandfather, for whom he had great admiration. After school he studied theology at the University of Strasbourg. There he sat at the feet of famous theologians like Holtzmann, Budde, and philosophers like Ziegler and Windelband. As a young student, he had a few experiences which became important building blocks for his later theological work. One such experience (the theological significance of which will be indicated later) became foundational:

One day, lying in the grass when he was on leave in the little village of Guggenheim, and reading over the eleventh chapter of the Gospel of St. Matthew, there came to him in a flash an insight which he was unable to reject. It was the observation that if a certain text in the tenth chapter of St. Matthew’s Gospel were correctly interpreted, Jesus was there announcing to His disciples an event which did not actually happen. He predicted to them much persecution and the imminent coming of the supernatural Kingdom of God. But they did not experience such events [9].

As a nineteen-year-old boy, this realisation led Schweitzer to the conclusion that the official theology of his day had in fact not followed the historical data concerning Jesus, and instead of following the real historical facts, ‘had dealt with them in such a way as to evade their impact, to... conceal their true bearing’[10]. Following these conclusions, this young theology undergraduate was no longer to be seen in the lecture-rooms of his famous professor Holtzmann that often. Instead (and following his growing suspicion of the latter’s theology), he entrenched himself for hours every day surrounded by high piles of books in his college and university library. As never before, and with fiery eagerness, he studied the Scriptures ‘in order to find confirmation of his theory’[11]. Soon after embarking on this intellectual journey, he outlined, as young as he was, a rough draft of what would become his future (and significantly eschatological) theological work.

Wrestling with the fear of what his new found and radical conclusions envisaged (not just for himself but also for the church at large), remarkably he found peace (solace?) for his soul by remembering a St. Paul verse from his childhood: ‘For we cannot do anything against the truth, but only for the truth’ (2 Cor. 13. 8). In one sense at least then, Schweitzer’s whole future theological programme can be traced back to his second year as a theological student, in which one groundbreaking thought and one verse from the apostle Paul informed a monumental theological enterprise.

But why was this regarded as groundbreaking in New Testament Scholarship? To answer this question, one has to refer to Schweitzer’s Quest of the Historical Jesus in which that theological bombshell was launched [12]. In the latter, Schweitzer made a detailed and meticulous analysis of almost 130 years of life-of-Jesus (or historical Jesus) research. In it he critiqued the likes of S. Reimarus, D.F. Strauss, W. Wrede, E. Renan and most of the other important contributions up till then severely, in favour of his view that Jesus was in fact a self-conscious eschatological prophet [13]. This led Schweitzer to the conclusion that, amongst other things:

It is not given to history to disengage that which is abiding and eternal in the being of Jesus [his eschatology] from the historical forms in which it worked itself out, and to introduce it into our world as a living influence. It has toiled in vain at this undertaking. As a water-plant is beautiful so long as it is growing in the water, but once torn from its roots, withers and becomes unrecognisable, so it is with the historical Jesus when He is wrenched loose from the soil of eschatology, and the attempt is made to conceive Him historically as a Being not subject to temporal conditions... The very strangeness and unconditionedness in which He stands before us makes it easier for individuals to find their own personal standpoint in regard to Him [14].

Rejecting both the orthodox and liberal portrayals of Jesus in his own day, Schweitzer discovered an eschatological Jesus who, although unsuccessful in his ultimate endeavour (fulfilling the eschatology he envisioned) [15], knowingly gave up his life, resulting in a selfless dying on a cross for those he loved. In one sense at least, this is also what Schweitzer set out to do, by healing African wounds festering from colonialism’s injustice, by peaceful protest against the nuclear arms race and countless other humanitarian projects.

On the last page of Jean Pierhal’s biography of Schweitzer, however, he suggests that ‘[t]he primitive oasis which Schweitzer gradually created [at Lambaréné] will no doubt have to yield, within measurable time, to the inevitable progress of technology’ [16]. Not being here to witness it, Schweitzer’s African hospital, developed over the course of thirty years is diminishing and making way for a small airport, a major road network crossing, and a new petroleum and industrial centre [17].

Schweitzer’s life and work reflected that which he intended it to be. A remarkable man with incredible passion and drive. Schweitzer found ‘a’ Jesus who was not able to achieve that which he had set out to achieve: a Jesus who set out to be an eschatological prophet, but never managed to overcome death in the end. Similarly, (at least in one instance), Schweitzer became a man whose labors, (which includes his intellectual and humanitarian achievements, including the building of a hospital with eventually more than seventy rooms) is also coming to an end. However, contra Schweitzer, I propose there remains somewhere in old Jerusalem, an empty tomb, deserted for more than 2000 years. The final word of its eschatological significance is still to be fully grasped and experienced. And that, I believe (with millions of other Christians) will come to pass, when He will indeed come back as He himself believed and promised, and taught simple Palestinian Jews, some twenty centuries ago [18].

Some key and influential theological works of Schweitzer:

Schweitzer, Albert, Das Abendmahl im Zusammenhang mit dem Leben Jesu und der Geschichte des Urchristentum, 2 volumes, (Tübingen and Leipzig: J.C.B Mohr, 1901)
Heft 1. Das Abendmahlsproblem auf Grund der wissenschaftlichen Forschung des 19. Jahrhunderts und der historischen Berichte, (trans.) A.J. Mattill, Jr., The Problem of the Lord’s Supper according to the Scholarly Research of the Nineteenth Century and the Historical Accounts (Macon, GA: Mercer UP, 1982).
Heft 2. Das Messianitäts- und Leidensgeheimnis. Eine Skizze des Lebens Jesu, (trans.) Walter Lowrie, The Mystery of the Kingdom of God: the secret of Jesus’ Messiahship and Passion, (London: Adam & Charles Black; New York: Dodd, ead & Co., [1914], 1925, 1956)
Schweitzer, Albert, Von Reimarus zu Wrede. Eine Geschichte der Leben-Jesu-Forschung, (Tübingen: J.C.B. Hohr, 1906) (trans.) W. Montgomery, The Quest of the Historical Jesus, (London: A & C. Black, 1910)
Schweitzer, Albert, Geschichte der paulinischen Forschung von der Reformation bis auf die Gegenwart, (Tübigen: J.C.B. Mohr, 1912), (trans.) William Montgomery, Paul and His Interpreters: A Critical History, (London: Adam & Charles Black, 1912, New York: Schocken Books, 1964)
Schweitzer, Albert, Die Mystik des Apostels Paulus (Tübingen: Mohr, 1930), (trans.) William Montgomery, The Mysticism of Paul the Apostle (London: A.R.C. Black, 1931)

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Clark, Henry, The Philosophy of Albert Schweitzer, (London: Methuen & Co Ltd, 1962)
Pierhal, Jean, Albert Schweitzer. The life of a Great Man, (London: Lutterworth Press, 1956)
Marshall, George and Poling, David, Schweitzer. A Biography by George Marshall and David Poling, (New York: Doubleday & Company, 1971)
Paget, James C., “Schweitzer, Albert (1875-1965)” in The Dictionary of Historical Theology, (ed.) Trevor A. Hart, (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans, 2000)
Schweitzer, Albert, Reverence for Life, (collection of sermons) (trans.) Reginald H. Fuller (London: SPCK, 1970)
Wrede, William. The Messianic Secret, (trans.) J.C.G. Greig. (Cambridge and London: James Clarke and Co., 1971)
Gathercole, Simon J., ‘The Critical and Dogmatic Agenda of Albert Schweitzer’s The Quest of the Historical Jesus’ (Cambridge: Tyndale Bulletin, 2000)
Saver, George, Albert Schweitzer. The Man and His Mind. 6th edition, (London: Adam & Charles Black, 1969)
Kümmel, W.G., The New Testament. The History of the Investigation of Its Problems, (trans.) S. McLean Gilmour and Howard C. Kee, (London: SCM Press, 1973)

FOOTNOTES
1. Jean Pierhal, Albert Schweitzer. The life of a Great Man (London: Lutterworth Press, 1956) (Great Man), p. 39.
2. George Marshall and David Poling, Schweitzer. A Biography by George Marshall and David Poling, (New York: Doubleday & Company, 1971) (Schweitzer), p. 5.
3. Marshall & Poling, Schweitzer, p. 8.
4. Ibid, p. 290.
5. Ibid, p. xvii.
6. Ibid, p. 5. See also George Savers’ quote from Schweitzers Civilization and Ethics from which he quotes: ‘I am thrown, indeed, by Reverence for Life into an unrest such as the world does not know, but I obtain from it a blessedness which the world cannot give’ (George Saver, Albert Schweitzer. The Man and His Mind. 6th edition, London: Adam & Charles Black, 1969) (The Man and His Mind), p. 311.
7. E.g., Schweitzer describes in a letter to Gustav von Lupke (a fine French music critic) why he decided to spend the rest of his life (following his professional training) in service of others: ‘At last it became clear to me that the meaning of my life does not consist in knowledge or art but simply in being human and doing some little thing in the Spirit of Jesus’ (Pierhal, Great Man, p. 59).
8. All of these projects were the result of Schweitzer’s ethical orientation, at least in one way influenced by a neo-Kantian morality which included among others the belief that morality is to be the crucial ingredient in the Christian life (Henry Clark, The Philosophy of Albert Schweitzer, (London: Methuen & Co Ltd, 1962), p. 22. Cf. also Schweitzer’s sermon Reverence for Life in which he states emphatically: ‘I cannot avoid compassion for everything that is called life. That is the beginning and foundation of morality’ (Albert Schweitzer, Reverence for Life, (trans.) Reginald H. Fuller (London: SPCK, 1970), p.116. It cannot be argued here further, but see Schweitzer’s doctorate in philosophy The Religious Philosophy of Kant (1899).
9. Pierhal, Great Man, p. 39.
10. Ibid, p. 41.
11. Ibid, p. 41.
12. Cf. Saver, The Man and His Mind, pp. 221-229
13. In modern New Testament scholarship, the likes of E.P. Saunders and N.T. Wright are well known for following an adaptation of Schweitzer’s eschatological and Jewish understanding of Jesus (James C. Paget, “Schweitzer, Albert (1875-1965)” in The Dictionary of Historical Theology, (ed.) Trevor A. Hart, (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans, 2000), p. 517.
14. Albert Schweitzer, The Quest of the Historical Jesus, trans. William Montgomery (London: A & C. Black, 1910), p401. Cf. Kümmel, W.G., The New Testament. The History of the Investigation of Its Problems, (trans.) S. McLean Gilmour and Howard C. Kee, (London: SCM Press, 1973), pp. 235-241. 15. Schweitzer and the other ‘liberals’ shared the view that no imminent eschatological parousia came (or will come), but they arrived there from different angles. Schweitzer saw Jesus as an eschatological prophet whose project collapsed, while others like William Wrede denied Jesus believing himself to be an eschatological prophet in the first place. The latter (which of course included the Messianic Secret motif), was a later theological projection onto the real historical Jesus (William Wrede, The Messianic Secret, trans. J.C.G. Greig. Cambridge and London: James Clarke and Co., 1971), p. 228.
16. Pierhal, Great Man, p. 160.
17. As for the nuclear arms race, Schweitzer would’ve been devastated by the fact that more and more nations are aspiring to develop nuclear weapons, what to say of nations like Britain, France, China, India, and Pakistan who have been added to the list since his death.
18. Cf. Gathercole who states that ‘it is (also) vital that Christian theology today faces up to the task of defending and proclaiming the eschatology to which Schweitzer and the nineteenth century were so implacably opposed’ (Simon J. Gathercole, ‘The Critical and Dogmatic Agenda of Albert Schweitzer’s The Quest of the Historical Jesus’ (Cambridge: Tyndale Bulletin, 2000), p. 283.

New Testament papers presented at Queens College, Oxford

2011-02-28T14:17:00.000-08:00

I had the privilege of attending a New Testament Research seminar at Queens College, Oxford on 24 February 2010. Those attending included Prof. Christopher Rowland, Dr. Christopher Hays (Keble College) and several PhD students of Prof. Markus Bockmeul.

In his paper: Towards a liberating missional-incarnational ethos in John 4, Dr. Kobus Kok (Senior Lecturer from the University of Pretoria, South Africa), applied a relatively new development in New Testament studies dealing with implicit ethics to the story of the Samaritan women in John 4. (If memory serves me well, implicit New Testament ethics is developed by the likes of David Horrell, Michael Wolter, Ruben Zimmermann and Jan van der Watt). Kobus argued persuasively that John 4 can be interpreted as the "concrete crossing of boundaries in cultural perspective and the concrete embodiment of a lived Christ-like ethos that flows from an understanding of God's mission in the world." The implicit ethos found in John 4 motivates behaviour and creates a "particular symbolic universe which revolves around the continuing missional motive that started with the mission of Jesus." In my view, Kobus persuasively challenged the traditional view espoused by the likes of Meeks (1996:317), Schrage (1988:297) and Matera (1996:92) that there is no ethics to be found in the Gospel of John.

Simon, an Oxford PhD student presented a provocative and experimental paper in which he analysed the history of Jewish reconstructions of the Apostle Paul in order to challenged the status quo of historical-critical scholarship. He engaged with the likes of Jacob Taubes, Claude Montefiore, Martin Goodman, Friedrich Nietzsche etc. Simon gave an informative analysis of Taubes in particular, focussing not just on his academic work, but also engaging with biographical and sociological dimension which informed his reconstruction of the Apostle Paul. Simon's analysis indicated how these (and other) factors influenced Travis' reconstruction of Paul.

In the end, Simon argued that the objectivity of historical-critical scholarship must be challenged, given his analysis of the hegemony such scholarship has produced since the Enlightenment. Traditional historical-critical scholarship represents a "self-absorbed fantasy". We must "remove the halo" from the "head" of historical-critical scholarship, he said.

*These very brief remarks are certainly not a fair representation of the nuanses and depth of the papers presented. It is only a few snipets which I found interesting.

Photo below (from left to right): Ben (PhD student), Dr. Christopher Hays and Prof. Christopher Rowland.

Cambridge Scholars confess Jesus' bodily resurrection

2011-02-21T16:33:00.000-08:00

The other day an established Biblical scholar told me that to his mind some "top notch" universities in the US are somewhat sceptical towards evangelical theology in general. Here in England, it seems that there is room for evangelical scholarship at "top notch" universities. I came across the following short video in which Dr Pete Williams and Dr Peter Head (both on staff at Cambridge University) confess the bodily resurrection of Jesus. Among other things, Dr Williams makes the point that the differences in the Gospels indicate its authenticity; and Dr Head emphasizes the significance of the women in the Easter narratives. The video is short - so really worth watching! You are very welcome to leave a comment after watching.

http://vimeo.com/5177945

Durham's New Testament Research Seminar

2011-02-13T10:02:00.000-08:00

Jealousy will bring us nowhere. Fact is, the Department of Theology and Religion, Durham University is currently the number one place in the UK for postgraduate study in New Testament. In the Research Assessment Exercise for 2008, it has been ranked at no. 1 among all departments of theology and religion in the UK in two categories: (a) the highest percentage of publications at 4 (world-leading research) and (b) the highest Grade Point Average for these publications.

One of the most significant experiences I had while studying in Durham (2008-9) was the weekly New Testament Research Seminar. Currently, the Seminar is run by Professor John Barclay, Professor Francis Watson, Dr Lutz Doering and Dr William Telford.

Here is the line-up for February and March:

14 February 2011 16:15: - Prof David Parker, University of Birmingham

28 February 2011 16:15: Contested Paternity and Contested Readings: Jesus’ Conception in Matthew 1:18-25 - Prof Andrew Lincoln, University of Gloucestershire

7 March 2011 16:15: Genesis in Hebrews - Dr Susan Docherty, Newman College, Birmingham

14 March 2011 16:15: Pseudepigraphy in 2 Thessalonians - Dr Christina Kreinecker, University of Salzburg

Jesus' empty tomb: condition sine qua non for genuine resurrection faith?

2011-02-06T12:55:00.000-08:00

In 1983 Dirkie Smit (a respected South African theologian from Stellenbosch) wrote that especially in German circles, there are still intense discussions about the so-called ‘origin of the Easter faith.’ Integral to these discussions are always the question of whether the empty tomb of Jesus can be seen as a condition sine qua non for genuine resurrection faith.

How did Smit respond to this? “To say that the idea of the empty tomb is unnecessary and actually even a stumbling block for the real Easter faith is to deny this historical – and reality motif” [1]

On 31 January 2011, Smit delivered a paper at the Stellenbosch University Theological Day entitled: The resurrection of Jesus: a theological orientation (Die opstanding van Jesus: ‘n Teologiese oriëntering). He starts off with the following striking paragraph:

"... the gospel is the gospel of the resurrection of Jesus Christ. That's the message. That's the good news. It's the content of faith. The church exists because of the resurrection. All functions of the church rests on the resurrection. Without the resurrection of Jesus Christ, nothing which believers say or do, profess or practice makes any sense."

What does he say about the empty tomb of Jesus?

"The good news, the wonder, the mystery is that God raised Jesus from the dead. God raise Jesus from the dead and make Him Lord and Christ, not anyone, but this Jesus, the Crucified – this is how the content of the first preaching in the book of Acts (Acts 2:36) sounds. The wonderful and surprising point is not that someone who was dead conquered death, but that this very Jesus is being resurrected.

This is the theological meaning of both the reports of the empty tomb and the reports of the appearances of the Resurrected."

The Afrikaans paper can be viewed here: http://www.soliustitiae.co.za/insights/2011/02/03/die-opstanding-van-christus-%E2%80%98n-teologiese-orientering/

Will be nice to hear some responses from people who attended day!

* I’ve tried my best to make a literal translation of the Afrikaans but suggest that readers have a look at the original please.

[1] My translation, see Smit DJ 1983. Prediking in die Paastyd, in Riglyne vir Paas-, Hemelvaarts- en Pinksterprediking. Woord teen die Lig 3. NG Kerk- Uitgewers, pp18-30.

Did William Wrede change his mind about the Messianic Secret before his death?

2011-02-03T04:19:00.000-08:00

William Wrede (1859-1906), in his groundbreaking 1901 study, The Messianic Secret, proposed that the secrecy theme in the Gospel of Mark was not original to Jesus' ministry but rather a theological addition added by the writer of the Gospel. Wrede's argument was that the Gospel of Mark had to come up with a convincing explanation for why Jesus did not seem like a messiah during the course of his life. By emphasizing secrecy, Mark could simultaneously claim that Jesus was the messiah and that nobody knew it until after he had died, and that it was only through his resurrection that his messiahship was revealed.

A researcher here at Cambridge University told me this morning that rumor has it that Wrede changed his mind on this issue shortly before his death. Apparently, Wrede acknowledged and explained this change of mind with students at Tübingen, Germany. Is this really so? Can anybody confirm this?

Cambridge New Testament Seminars, Lent Term 2011

2011-02-01T12:15:00.000-08:00

January 25– ‘Current Research on the Gospel of Thomas’

Dr Simon Gathercole (Fitzwilliam College)

February 8– ‘Called to be Saints’

Professor Morna Hooker (Robsinson College)

February 22 - ‘Placing the Corinthian Communal Meal’
Dr Edwards Adams (King’s College London)

March 8– ‘Etymology in New Testament Lexicons: A Current Trend?’

Dr John Lee (University of Macquarie)

Meetings will be held in the Faculty of Divinity on Tuesdays, at 2.30 pm in the Lightfoot Room

ALL WELCOME

[Photo's: top is Professor Morna Hooker and bottom is Dr Edwards Adams (I think they call him Eddie)]

Influential Dutch Scholar: Herman Ridderbos (1909-2007)

2011-01-25T06:08:00.000-08:00

Some time last year I decided to report on influential Durtch New Testament Scholars of the 20th century. The first one I looked at was W.C. Van Unnik. Another scholar worth looking at is Herman Nicolaas Ridderbos who died on March 8, 2007 at the age of 98!

One of his most significant works (at least for me) is Paulus. Ontwerp van zijn theologie (Kampen: J. H. Kok, 1966. 653 pp); later translated into English as Paul: An Outline of His Theology, (translated by John Richard De Witt, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1975 [1997]. 587 pp).

Debates about continuity and discontinuity with regards to the earthly and resurrection body in Paul, are very old (cf Irenaeus, Tertullian, Valentinus, Marcion etc). I found Ridderbos’ analysis and interpretation of this issue really worthwhile to look at. At one point he states:

“What establishes the connection between life before and after the resurrection and what 'passes over' from the one into the other is the Spirit and being under the rulership of the Spirit . . . What 'abides' is faith, hope, and love (1 Cor. 13:13). That undoubtedly presupposes the human mode of existence, a future 'ontological' structure of man, in virtue of which even after the resurrection he can believe, hope, and love. On that account the resurrection of the body pertains to the inalienable content of the Christian kerygma" (Paul: An Outline of His Theology, p 551).

Although Ridderbos' work is dated, he is still refered to in relatively recent PhD's. Wikipedia has the following to say about Ridderbos:

Herman Nicolaas Ridderbos (1909 – 2007) was born on February 13, 1909, in Oosterend (Friesland), the Netherlands, grew up in the Reformed Church in a strong, conservative Christian home, and died on Thursday, March 8, 2007, at the age of 98. He was one of the most important New Testament theologians of the 20th century—particularly because of his emphasis on the history of salvation (Heilsgeschichte) or biblical theology.

Herman's father, Jan Ridderbos, was an ordained minister in the Reformed Church of the Netherlands, a biblical commentator, and professor of Old Testament at the Theological School of the Reformed Churches of the Netherlands in Kampen. Herman Ridderbos completed his undergraduate studies there, and did his post-graduate work at the Free University of Amsterdam under F. W. Grosheide, qualifying for his doctorate in 1936. In 1943, after serving as a pastor for eight years, Ridderbos was appointed to the post of Professor of New Testament Studies at that same school, succeeding Dr. Sidney Greidanus who had been one of his professors. He served there for over forty years.

Works

These are his major writings in chronological order:

1. De strekking der Bergrede naar Mattheüs. [The Tenor of the Sermon on the Mount according to Matthew] Kampen: J. H. Kok, 1936. [This was his PhD dissertation.]

2. Het Evangelie naar Mattheüs I. [The Gospel to Matthew I] Korte Verklaring der Heilige Schrift. Kampen: J. H. Kok, 1941.

3. Het Evangelie naar Mattheüs II. [The Gospel to Matthew II] Korte Verklaring der Heilige Schrift. Kampen: J.H. Kok, 1946.

4. Zelfopenbaring en zelfverberging. Het historisch karakter van Jezus’ messiaansche zelfopenbaring volgens de synoptische evangeliën. [Self-revelation and Self-concealment: The Historical Character of Jesus’ Messianic Self-revelation according to the Synoptic Gospels] Kampen: J. H. Kok, 1946.

5. De komst van het Koninkrijk. Jezus’ prediking volgens de synoptische evangeliën. Kampen: J. H. Kok, 1950.

6. The Coming of the Kingdom, edited by Raymond O. Zorn, translated by H. de Jongste. Philadelphia: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1962 [1969]. 556 pp.

7. Paulus en Jezus. Oorsprong en algemeen karakter van Paulus’ Christus-prediking. Kampen: J. H. Kok, 1952.

8. Paul and Jesus: Origin and General Character of Paul’s Preaching of Christ, translated by David H. Freeman. Philadelphia: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1958. 155 pp.

9. The Epistle of Paul to the Churches of Galatia, translated by Henry Zylstra. The New International Commentary on the New Testament. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1953 [1968, 1970, 1976, 1981]. 238 pp.

10. “Israël in het Nieuwe Testament, in het bijzonder volgens Rom. 9 – 11” [“Israel in the New Testament, especially according to Rom. 9 – 11”] in G. Ch. Aalders and H. Ridderbos, Israël, 23 – 73. Exegetica. Oud- en nieuw-testamentische studiën II, 2; Den Haag: Van Keulen, 1955.

11. Heilsgeschiedenis en Heilige Schrift van het Nieuwe Testament. Het gezag van het Nieuwe Testament. Kampen: J. H. Kok, 1955.

12. The Authority of the New Testament Scriptures, translated by H. de Jongste. Philadelphia: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1963. 93 pp.

13. Redemptive History and the New Testament Scriptures, translated by H. De Jongste, revised by Richard B. Gaffin, Jr. Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1968; 2nd Rev. ed., 1988. 91 pp.

14. When the Time Had Fully Come: Studies in New Testament Theology. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1957. 104 pp.

15. Het verborgen Koninkrijk. Handleiding tot het Evangelie van Mattheüs. Kampen: J. H. Kok, 1958.

16. Matthew’s Witness to Jesus Christ: The King and the Kingdom. World Christian Books 23. London: Lutterworth Press, 1958.

17. Aan de Romeinen. Commentaar op het Nieuwe Testament. [To the Romans] Kampen: J. H. Kok, 1959.

18. Bultmann, translated by David H. Freeman. Philadelphia: Presbyterian & Reformed, 1960. 46 pp.

19. Aan de Efeziërs. Aan de Colossenzen. Commentaar op het Nieuwe Testament. [To the Ephesians. To the Colossians.] Kampen: J. H. Kok, 1960. *Authored by F. W. Grosheide.

20. The Speeches of Peter in the Acts of the Apostles. London: Tyndale Press, 1962 [1977]. 31 pp.

21. “Opbouw en strekking van de proloog van het evangelie van Johannes.” [“The Structure and Scope of the Prologue to the Gospel of John”] in Placita Pleiadia. Opstellen aangeboden aan Prof. Dr. G. Sevenster. Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1966. Also published in Novum Testamentum 8 (1966): 180 – 201.

22. Paulus. Ontwerp van zijn theologie. Kampen: J. H. Kok, 1966. 653 pp.

23. Paul: An Outline of His Theology, translated by John Richard De Witt. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1975 [1997]. 587 pp.

24. De Pastorale brieven. Commentaar op het Nieuwe Testament. [The Pastoral Epistles] Kampen: J. H. Kok, 1967.

25. Het Woord, het Rijk en onze verlegenheid. [The World, the Kingdom, and Our Embarrassment] Kampen: J. H. Kok, 1968. [During the celebration of the 25th anniversary of his professorship in 1968, his colleagues presented him with a collection of a number of his articles and lectures.]

26. “Tradition and Editorship in the Synoptic Gospels,” translated by E. R. Geehan.

27. In Jerusalem and Athens: Critical Discussions on the Theology and Apologetics of Cornelius Van Til, edited by E. R. Geehan, 244 – 59. Nutley, NJ: Presbyterian & Reformed, 1971. 498 pp.

28. Zijn wij op de verkeerde weg? Een bijbelse studie over de verzoening. [Are We on the Wrong Way? A Biblical Study of Reconciliation] Kampen: J. H. Kok, 1972. [Ridderbos was involved in a controversy about Herman Wiersinga’s dissertation De verzoening in de theologische diskussie [Reconciliation in the Theological Discussion] (Kampen: J. H. Kok, 1971). He wrote this as a response.]

29. Studies in Scripture and Its Authority. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1978. 109 pp.

30. Het Woord is vlees geworden. Beschouwingen over het eigen karakter van het Evangelie van Johannes [The Word Became Flesh: Reflections on the Unique Character of the Gospel of John] Kampen: J. H. Kok, 1979.

31. Het Evangelie naar Johannes. Proeve van een theologische exegese I – II. Kampen: J. H. Kok, 1987, 1992.

32. The Gospel of John: A Theological Commentary, translated by John Vriend. Grand Rapids; Cambridge: Eerdmans, 1997. 721 pp.

33. Jan Ridderbos. Mens. Kamper Miniaturen 4. Kampen: Vereniging van Oud-Studenten van de Theologische Universiteit Kampen, 1999.

On January 14, 1875: World renowned Albert Schweitzer was born - some reflections

2011-01-18T04:54:00.000-08:00

I saw over at Mark Goodacre's blog an interesting bit on Albert Schweitzer's recent birthday http://ntweblog.blogspot.com/

Strong personality

The softer side

The making of a theologian

But why was this regarded as groundbreaking in New Testament Scholarship? To answer this question, one has to refer to Schweitzer’s Quest of the Historical Jesus in which that theological bombshell was launched [12]. In the latter, Schweitzer made a detailed and meticulous analysis of almost 130 years of life-of-Jesus (or historical Jesus) research. In it he critiqued the likes of S. Reimarus, D.F. Strauss, W. Wrede, E. Renan and most of the other important contributions up till then severely, in favour of his view that Jesus was in fact a self-conscious eschatological prophet [13]. This led Schweitzer to the conclusion that, amongst other things:

Schweitzer’s life and work reflected that which he intended it to be. A remarkable man with incredible passion and drive. Schweitzer found ‘a’ Jesus who was not able to achieve that which he had set out to achieve: a Jesus who set out to be an eschatological prophet, but never managed to overcome death in the end. Similarly, (at least in one instance), Schweitzer became a man whose labors, (which includes his intellectual and humanitarian achievements, including the building of a hospital with eventually more than seventy rooms) is also caming to an end. However, contra Schweitzer, I propose there remains somewhere in old Jerusalem, an empty tomb, deserted for more than 2000 years. The final word of its eschatological significance is still to be fully grasped and experienced. And that, I believe (with millions of other Christians) will come to pass, when He will indeed come back as He himself believed and promised, and taught simple Palestinian Jews, some twenty centuries ago [18].

Some key and influential theological works of Schweitzer:

Schweitzer, Albert, Das Abendmahl im Zusammenhang mit dem Leben Jesu und der Geschichte des Urchristentum, 2 volumes, (Tübingen and Leipzig: J.C.B Mohr, 1901)

Heft 1. Das Abendmahlsproblem auf Grund der wissenschaftlichen Forschung des 19. Jahrhunderts und der historischen Berichte, (trans.) A.J. Mattill, Jr., The Problem of the Lord’s Supper according to the Scholarly Research of the Nineteenth Century and the Historical Accounts (Macon, GA: Mercer UP, 1982).

Heft 2. Das Messianitäts- und Leidensgeheimnis. Eine Skizze des Lebens Jesu, (trans.) Walter Lowrie, The Mystery of the Kingdom of God: the secret of Jesus’ Messiahship and Passion, (London: Adam & Charles Black; New York: Dodd, ead & Co., [1914], 1925, 1956)

Schweitzer, Albert, Von Reimarus zu Wrede. Eine Geschichte der Leben-Jesu-Forschung, (Tübingen: J.C.B. Hohr, 1906) (trans.) W. Montgomery, The Quest of the Historical Jesus, (London: A & C. Black, 1910)

Schweitzer, Albert, Geschichte der paulinischen Forschung von der Reformation bis auf die Gegenwart, (Tübigen: J.C.B. Mohr, 1912), (trans.) William Montgomery, Paul and His Interpreters: A Critical History, (London: Adam & Charles Black, 1912, New York: Schocken Books, 1964)

Schweitzer, Albert, Die Mystik des Apostels Paulus (Tübingen: Mohr, 1930), (trans.) William Montgomery, The Mysticism of Paul the Apostle (London: A.R.C. Black, 1931)

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Clark, Henry, The Philosophy of Albert Schweitzer, (London: Methuen & Co Ltd, 1962)
Pierhal, Jean, Albert Schweitzer. The life of a Great Man, (London: Lutterworth Press, 1956)
Marshall, George and Poling, David, Schweitzer. A Biography by George Marshall and David Poling, (New York: Doubleday & Company, 1971)
Paget, James C., “Schweitzer, Albert (1875-1965)” in The Dictionary of Historical Theology, (ed.) Trevor A. Hart, (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans, 2000)
Schweitzer, Albert, Reverence for Life, (collection of sermons) (trans.) Reginald H. Fuller (London: SPCK, 1970)
Wrede, William. The Messianic Secret, (trans.) J.C.G. Greig. (Cambridge and London: James Clarke and Co., 1971)
Gathercole, Simon J., ‘The Critical and Dogmatic Agenda of Albert Schweitzer’s The Quest of the Historical Jesus’ (Cambridge: Tyndale Bulletin, 2000)
Saver, George, Albert Schweitzer. The Man and His Mind. 6th edition, (London: Adam & Charles Black, 1969)
Kümmel, W.G., The New Testament. The History of the Investigation of Its Problems, (trans.) S. McLean Gilmour and Howard C. Kee, (London: SCM Press, 1973)

FOOTNOTES
1. Jean Pierhal, Albert Schweitzer. The life of a Great Man (London: Lutterworth Press, 1956) (Great Man), p. 39.

2. George Marshall and David Poling, Schweitzer. A Biography by George Marshall and David Poling, (New York: Doubleday & Company, 1971) (Schweitzer), p. 5.

3. Marshall & Poling, Schweitzer, p. 8.

4. Ibid, p. 290.

5. Ibid, p. xvii.

6. Ibid, p. 5. See also George Savers’ quote from Schweitzers Civilization and Ethics from which he quotes: ‘I am thrown, indeed, by Reverence for Life into an unrest such as the world does not know, but I obtain from it a blessedness which the world cannot give’ (George Saver, Albert Schweitzer. The Man and His Mind. 6th edition, London: Adam & Charles Black, 1969) (The Man and His Mind), p. 311.

7. E.g., Schweitzer describes in a letter to Gustav von Lupke (a fine French music critic) why he decided to spend the rest of his life (following his professional training) in service of others: ‘At last it became clear to me that the meaning of my life does not consist in knowledge or art but simply in being human and doing some little thing in the Spirit of Jesus’ (Pierhal, Great Man, p. 59.

8. All of these projects were the result of Schweitzer’s ethical orientation, at least in one way influenced by a neo-Kantian morality which included among others the belief that morality is to be the crucial ingredient in the Christian life (Henry Clark, The Philosophy of Albert Schweitzer, (London: Methuen & Co Ltd, 1962), p. 22. Cf. also Schweitzer’s sermon Reverence for Life in which he states emphatically: ‘I cannot avoid compassion for everything that is called life. That is the beginning and foundation of morality’ (Albert Schweitzer, Reverence for Life, (trans.) Reginald H. Fuller (London: SPCK, 1970), p.116. It cannot be argued here further, but see Schweitzer’s doctorate in philosophy The Religious Philosophy of Kant (1899).

9. Pierhal, Great Man, p. 39.

10. Ibid, p. 41.

11. Ibid, p. 41.

12. Cf. Saver, The Man and His Mind, pp. 221-229

13. In modern New Testament scholarship, the likes of E.P. Saunders and N.T. Wright are well known for following an adaptation of Schweitzer’s eschatological and Jewish understanding of Jesus (James C. Paget, “Schweitzer, Albert (1875-1965)” in The Dictionary of Historical Theology, (ed.) Trevor A. Hart, (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans, 2000), p. 517.

14. Albert Schweitzer, The Quest of the Historical Jesus, trans. William Montgomery (London: A & C. Black, 1910), p401. Cf. Kümmel, W.G., The New Testament. The History of the Investigation of Its Problems, (trans.) S. McLean Gilmour and Howard C. Kee, (London: SCM Press, 1973), pp. 235-241.

15. Schweitzer and the other ‘liberals’ shared the view that no imminent eschatological parousia came (or will come), but they arrived there from different angles. Schweitzer saw Jesus as an eschatological prophet whose project collapsed, while others like William Wrede denied Jesus believing himself to be an eschatological prophet in the first place. The latter (which of course included the Messianic Secret motif), was a later theological projection onto the real historical Jesus (William Wrede, The Messianic Secret, trans. J.C.G. Greig. Cambridge and London: James Clarke and Co., 1971), p. 228.

16. Pierhal, Great Man, p. 160.

17. As for the nuclear arms race, Schweitzer would’ve been devastated by the fact that more and more nations are aspiring to develop nuclear weapons, what to say of nations like Britain, France, China, India, and Pakistan who have been added to the list since his death.

18. Cf. Gathercole who states that ‘it is (also) vital that Christian theology today faces up to the task of defending and proclaiming the eschatology to which Schweitzer and the nineteenth century were so implacably opposed’ (Simon J. Gathercole, ‘The Critical and Dogmatic Agenda of Albert Schweitzer’s The Quest of the Historical Jesus’ (Cambridge: Tyndale Bulletin, 2000), p. 283.

Heikki Räisänen, James Dunn and the quest for an objective interpretation of 'The Rise of Christian Beliefs'

2011-01-10T07:49:00.000-08:00

Two prominent emeritus New Testament professors often cause significant debates if/ when they analyse each others' work in debates, articles and reviews. They are James Dunn (Durham) and Heikki Räisänen (Finland). Dunn I encountered several times in Durham while doing my MA in Biblical studies there; Räisänen I encountered at Louvain-le-Neuve in Belgium in 2010.

Recently, Dunn did a review of Räisänen's 2010 book: The Rise of Christian Beliefs: The Thought World of Early Christians, Minneapolis: Fortress, 2010 pp. xxiv + 477. $39.00

I found the bit about William Wrede's quest to rid New Testament exegesis of theology (or dogma) very interesting. The review is certainly worth looking at, given Dunn's extensive knowledge of the Early Church in works like Unity and Diversity in the New Testament (http://www.scmpress.co.uk/bookdetails.asp?ISBN=9780334029984 )

Here's a link to the review: http://www.bookreviews.org/pdf/7356_8014.pdf

Is N.T. Wright's Curriculum Vitae the most significant and impressive? Think again...

2010-12-26T17:09:00.000-08:00

I few days ago I searched online for good Christian CV's to help me with a simple and effective format. I was struck by the following bit in N.T. Wright's Web Version CV:

iv) Other early employment

1969 Site labourer, local building site (constructing chemical factory)

1968, May-July Dry chain labourer, Northwood Lumber Camp, Upper Fraser, British Columbia

1968, March-April Freight loading, Canadian Pacific Railway, King St Depot, Toronto

N.T. Wright was a 'Site labourer'; 'Dry chain labourer' and 'Freight' loader?

I have learnt allot from Wright in Durham while I studied there. I agree with him on several issues (i.e. the resurrection of Jesus, Gnosticism, New Creation etc), but I also disagree with him on some aspects of justification. Whatever these theological issues may be, Wright's Web Version CV taught me (and I hope other aspiring Christian Scholars) that what really count, is whether we can be humble enough to include the 'ordinary' things in our CV's. They won't impress the big shots in the academic establishment, but they will possibly show that we are just as comfortable being a 'site labourer' for the Lord, as writing a groundbreaking monograph....

Why We've All Misread the Gospels: Kingdom and Politics Then and Now - Prof. N.T. Wright at the Sarum Theological Lectures in 2011

2010-12-22T06:28:00.000-08:00

Mmmmm. I wonder who else have already picked this up? Prof. N.T. Wright is to deliver the 2011 Sarum Theological Lectures on 9-12 May 2011 in Salisbury, England. See details below:

Sarum Theological Lectures are designed to make accessible to a wide audience the work of specialists in a variety of fields in the study of theology. They are subsequently published by Darton, Longman & Todd.

Professor N.T. (Tom) Wright will deliver the 2011 lecture series on 9, 10, 11 and 12 May in Salisbury Cathedral. The series is entitled:

Why We've All Misread the Gospels: Kingdom and Politics Then and Now

Arguing that the gospels have traditionally been read either as the story of how the divine saviour died for our sins or as the story of how Jesus went about doing good, Wright says:

"In the first case, it's a puzzle as to why the gospels include all that other material; in the second, the puzzle is why his promising career as a social reformer was cut short so soon.

"This division has been symptomatic of a major split in modern western Christianity, showing up in scholarship as well as in popular church life. Part of the result has been an unwillingness to engage with the way 'kingdom-of-God' language relates directly to political challenges, as the gospels (especially but not only John) seem to indicate that it must."

During the course of these four lectures, Professor Wright will explore the problem, outline a basic solution, and suggest some practical ways forward.

The annual Sarum Theological Lectures are designed to make accessible to a wide audience the work of specialists in a variety of fields in the study of theology. They are subsequently published by Darton, Longman & Todd.

All lectures will begin at 7pm in Salisbury Cathedral. Tickets cost £7 each (£24 for the series) and are available in advance from Sarum College, 19 The Close, Salisbury 2EE.

http://www.sarum.ac.uk/about-sarum/news/nt-tom-wright-on-why-weandaposve-misread-the-gospels/

Why think about the future? After all, 'what will happen will happen' ? Graham Beynon at Tyndale House, Cambridge

2010-12-21T02:27:00.000-08:00

"Why think about the future? After all, 'what will happen will happen', it only leads to controversy and argument, and it's irrelevant to life now." This is the first sentence on the back of my Cambridge friend Graham Beynon's book Last Things First, which has just been published by Inter-Varsity Press.

Beynon is a Baptist minister busy with his PhD here in Cambridge. We've had several heartwarming discussions about all sorts of interesting stuff. He gave me a copy of his new book for Christmas. Thank you Graham - now I've got a great book to read over Christmas! To order the book, click on this link: http://www.ivpbooks.com/9781844744121

I place the short summery found on the IVP website below, followed by a few nice photo's I took here at Tyndale recently.

Why think about the future? After all, 'what will happen will happen', it only leads to controversy and argument, and it's irrelevant to life now.

However, Graham Beynon shows that the real danger is that we don't think about the future. God in his Word puts last things first - the whole gospel is shaped around what is to come. God has a plan for where he is taking this world, and his people are called to live in the light of that future.
Christians are to be those who look back - to the life, death, resurrection and ascension of Jesus. All that happened then shapes our life now. However, they are also to look forward - at what God will do in finishing his plans for his creation through Jesus.
The Bible teaches Christians to store up treasure in heaven; to wait faithfully for the return of their Master; to think of this world as temporary and passing; and to think of the world to come as their inheritance.
Graham Beynon takes a fresh look at this teaching and shows how what is to come should shape practical Christian living now, with regard to godliness, handling of money, service of others, speaking about Jesus, faithfulness to him, response to hardship, and more.

Graham Beynon at his Tyndale Desk today.

Thomas Robinson, David Brewer and Graham Beynon in the Tyndale House lounge yesterday.

Heresy in the Early Christian Church dethroned? Thomas A Robinson in Cambridge

2010-12-17T15:35:00.000-08:00

Have you ever been in a situation where for weeks you've spoken to a person who, on the surface at least, doesn't stand out in any unusual way, only to find out in parting you've actually being rubbing shoulders with a significant scholar in your field of research? What's more, you have read some of his famous work and quoted him in your own work? That happened to me today! So, who is the scholar I'm referring to? None other than Thomas A. Robinson, Professor of Religious Studies at the University of Lethbridge, Alberta, Canada. Why is he significant? Well, for several reasons, let me name a few:

i) His doctoral supervisors were EP Saunders and Ben Meyer

ii) The publication of his revised PhD dissertation in 1988 called The Bauer Thesis Examined. Geography of Heresy in the Early Christian Church, probably dethroned the famous theses developed by Walter Bauer (in his book Orthodoxy and Heresy in Earliest Christianity). Bauer's reconstruction of primitive Christianity would want us to hold that the so-called heretical movements in the early Church were early, widespread, and strong. I think Robinson debunked this assertion by citing the lack of data extensive enough to warrant such conclusions.

iii) His new book: Ignatius of Antioch and the Parting of the Ways: Early Jewish-Christian Relations (2009), challenges long held theories about the 'Parting of the Ways'. Endorsements for the book came from Judith Lieu and Larry Hurtado. I found the following quote very informative:

"The distinction drawn between Jews and Christians by authors such as Ignatius is a real one, not an imagined one. The tendency in modern scholarship to narrow the gap between Jews and early Christians sometimes causes us to overlook the simple fact that were we to put a Clement and an Ignatius together, each would have preferred the company of the other to that of the local synagogue and each would have sensed that he shared a common identity with the other that neither shared with the local Jewish community. This is the world in which Ignatius operates" (p241).

Thank you for a wonderful talk professor Robinson - especially the advice on 1 Clement!

'How to Study Early Christian and Jewish Texts Appropriately': Symposium on the occasion of the 100th birthday of W.C. van Unnik

2010-12-14T13:42:00.000-08:00

I just got news of the recently held symposium in honour of Professor Willem Cornelis van Unnik at Utrecht University. Without prior knowledge of this, I decided yesterday to start a section on my blog dedicated to excellent Dutch Scholars, of which the first discussion was on Van Unnik! (Check it out in the right-hand corner if you like) I also put his extra-ordinary bibliography there! I put the program for the symposium below and will try to keep my eyes and ears open to find out how it went.

Symposium & Congres

Prof. Willem Cornelis van Unnik (1910-1978) was an outstanding and remarkable theologian at Utrecht University. His proficiencies covered many fields, including New Testament, Greek, Syriac and Early Jewish literature. His publications still influence scholarly research of Early Christianity in its Hellenistic and Jewish environment. On the occasion of his 100th birthday, the Department of Religious Studies and Theology organises a symposium on 10 December 2010.

This symposium is dedicated to biographical aspects of W.C. van Unnik and to topical issues dealt with in his work. In particular, it questions the way how Christian and Jewish sources are studied appropriately in a historical approach.

Programme
10.00 Registration, Coffee
10.30 Opening by the dean of the Department of Religious Studies and Theology, Prof. M. Sarot
10.35 Prof. P.W. van der Horst
Willem van Unnik: Biographical Remarks on a Remarkable Scholar
11.05 Dr A. Noordegraaf
Van Unnik en de Kerk
11.35 Coffee and Tea Break
12.00 Prof. J.W. van Henten
Reading "I have knowledge of everything" in Context: the Case of Manaemus (Josephus, A.J. 15.375)
12.30 Dr E. Ottenheijm
Good Works in Tannaitic Traditions: the case of Rabban Yohanan ben Zakkai
13.00 Lunch
14.00 Dr M. Lang
Bericht zum Stand des Neuen Wettsteinprojekts
(on the occasion of the transfer of the Corpus Hellenisticum to the University of Halle)
14.20 Prof. A. Merz
Understanding John: Old Questions and New Developments through the Lens of W.C. van Unnik
14.50-15.00 Closing by the chairman of the W.C. van Unnik Stichting, Dr E. Ottenheijm

W.C. van Unnik

Willem Cornelis van Unnik was appointed professor in the Exegese of the New Testament and Ancient Christian Literature at Utrecht University in 1946. A biography, bibliography and full text publications of this remarkable theologian are included in Utrecht University's Gallery of Honour.

dr Bruce Winter visits Tyndale House, Cambridge UK

2010-12-10T06:36:00.000-08:00

Today I had the wonderful privilege of meeting dr Bruce Winter, former warden of Tyndale House here in Cambridge (1987-2006). He is one of my favourite New Testament scholars. One of his most influential books is After Paul Left Corinth: The Influence of Secular Ethics and Social Change (Grand Rapids, Eerdmans, 2001).

We spoke about the topic for my PhD for about half an hour. I am really excited about the comments he made. I got the impression that at least some of the ideas I hope to develop in my theses makes exegetical sense.

I quote one key insight which Winter develops in the above book, within the context of 1 Corinthians 6:12-20:

"The Corinthian Christians who argued that everything was permitted for them rationalised the exercising of their privileges on the grounds of first-century Platonic anthropology, philosophical hedonism, and social conventions. An outline of the former argument is preserved where the body is said to have been ordained for pleasure and that the immortal soul was unaffected by any such conduct." (88).

What is Paul's answer to all this?
"...Paul responded by introducing a central Christian theme - that the body was meant 'for the Lord', and 'the Lord was meant for the body'. He concluded with the command that the Christian men of Corinth were not justified in asserting their self-centred aphorism, for 'they were not their own [possession]'; they must 'glorify the Lord in their bodies' (6:19-20)." (92).

Momentous occasion: Michael Wolter at the NIJMEGEN PRESTIGE LECTURES 2010

2010-12-06T15:20:00.000-08:00

On Thursday 2 December 2010, we had the annual NIJMEGEN PRESTIGE LECTURES IN BIBLICAL STUDIES here in Nijmegen. It was truly a momentous occasion given the significant papers professor Michael Wolter from the university of Bonn delivered. Turnout at the afternoon public lecture was good, and for the special evening dinner, we had guests coming from Amsterdam, Utrecht, Germany, Hungary and Stellenbosch, South Africa.

Which Jesus is the Real Jesus?

The paper professor Wolter delivered at the evening dinner, Which Jesus is the Real Jesus? was highly significant (and maybe controversial?) and promises to create a stir in academic circles. This paper will form the basis of an exciting new Brill publication. Not giving away anything, I can at least say that he engages critically with the likes of Dale Allison (particularly his new book, The Historical Christ and the Theological Jesus [Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2009]), Luke Timothy Johnson, James Dunn, and John Dominic Crossan, not to mention earlier giants in Jesus-research.

Paul, the Radical Apostle - his life and thoughts that changed the World

In what follows I offer a brief summary of some of the main points that stood out for me in professor Wolter's afternoon public lecture. These are my own, provisional interpretations. The title of the paper, as indicated above was: Paul, the Radical Apostle - his life and thoughts that changed the World.

The pre-Christian Pharisaic Paul saw himself as part of a community through which an exclusive ethos that is standardized by the Torah, determined the identity of Israel. At this stage, Paul's commitment to the fulfillment of the Torah was therefore primarily a commitment to Israel and the preservation of her holiness as God's people (Phil. 3; Gal. 1; Acts 22).
Paul did not persecute 'Christians', but Jews who differed essentially from other Jews only in that they revered Jesus of Nazareth as the Messiah. Paul places himself in the tradition of zeal which demonstrates that his activity as a persecutor was motivated by the fear for a possible loss of Israel’s holiness. For Paul, the Torah cannot be fulfilled apart from the holiness of God.
Paul's persecution was triggered by two things: 1) The claim that a crucified criminal, and thus one accursed by God, is the Messiah; 2) The Jesus-Jews had put the importance of temple and the Law into question. For such an interpretation, which places Christology at the center, Paul’s radical re-orientation must have been quite obviously caused by a Christological insight.

Paul had a 'visionary experience' in which he saw Jesus of Nazareth in a 'heavenly appearance'. This was an authentic experience in which he recognized Jesus as the Son of God (Gal. 1.16).
How did Paul interpret this event? The real theological substance of Paul's conversion was: a new reality had opened up for Paul the Pharisee, which was no longer centrally organized around Israel's election or the opposition of Israel and the nations, but around Jesus Christ, raised by God from the dead and appointed son and Kyrios, who was thus given a universal claim to lordship.
The Damascus 'vision' had thus lead Paul to the conclusion that the way to participation in God’s holiness had been opened up to the nations through Jesus Christ. They no longer had to become Jewish. (It might be interesting to compare this insight with the likes of Dunn and Wright).
Professor Wolter then went on to describe two important phases in Paul's life journey: Paul the missionary, en Paul the letter writer (these two phases in Paul's journey seem obvious in hindsight but frankly, I've never really thought it through systematically..)

Matin Luther

Probably the most significant part of the paper for me, was professor Wolter's reflection on Martin Luther in the last quarter of the paper:

"Between him [Luther] and Paul, there are two main differences:

First, in Luther, the question of the Law is no longer embedded in the Israel question. By ‘Law’ Luther no longer meant only the Torah, through which Israel expresses its election from the nations, but for him the ‘law’ is anything that confronts people as an ethical demand: “The law preaches what is to be done and what is to be left alone” (WA II, 466:3-5), and “good works are to be done and practiced in obedience to the law” (WA LII, 349, 19-20). We do not have to look long to find the reason for this change: Unlike Paul, Luther no longer had to handle the process of Christian-Jewish separation. This in Luther’s days had already been completed more than 1000 years ago.

The second aspect is connected to the fact that Christianity at the time of Luther was no longer a religion of conversion, but had changed into a religion of tradition. ‘The believers’ were not in the minority any more. The culture of Luther’s environment had become entirely 'Christian'.

On the other hand, there was, of course, still the dividing line between salvation and condemnation. Due to the changing cultural conditions, however, it no longer ran, as it did for Paul, between the minority of believers and the majority of unbelievers. Rather, the line coursed through the middle of each individual. It was this border experience, which the Augustinian monk Luther suffered in his own moral dilemma and was from it through the discovery of Paul’s doctrine of justification. Thus also Luther went through a conversion, but it differs fundamentally from Paul’s. Their consequences are also different: Luther's reformulation of the doctrine of justification was not based on ecclesiology, as it had been with Paul, but contained, in extension to his own experience, an orientation towards the individual Christian. Anthropology could then no longer be the solution. It became, rather, the problem. In this way, Luther gave the semantic field of the doctrine of justification a different topography. What was for Paul a more peripheral issue, now came to the fore: that it is the sinner whom God justifies sola fide and sola gratia. Conversely, the ecclesiological issues were pushed aside.

It would be unfair to accuse Luther of theologically distorting the Pauline doctrine of justification. His interpretation, however, had the consequence that the central ecclesiological impetus of Paul’s doctrine of justification has up to this present day become largely invisible and has been widely ignored by the Christian churches to their own detriment. It has become evident that the original Pauline concept bears an ecumenical openness, which extends beyond its original context of discovery. This sense of openness is, quite simply, that faith in Christ, which manifests the Christian identity of all churches, not only suspends the difference between Jews and Gentiles, but also makes the historically developed cultural characteristics and differences by which the churches differentiate from each other and without which Christianity has never existed, entirely irrelevant."

Some pictures taken during the evening dinner:

Lost Gospels - Brand new Cambridge Scholars DVD

2010-12-03T06:50:00.000-08:00

http://www.youtube.com/user/TyndaleHouse1?feature=mhum#p/u/0/ffl5EZ2d_NE

This new DVD is certainly a must buy for any Christian who wants to dialogue with sceptics about the Gospel of Thomas/ Judas and other non-canonical gospels. The scholars in this DVD are world-class experts in their fields AND authentic Christians as well!

I'm ordering my copy soon... https://www.essentialchristian.com/tyndale-house/resources/the-authentic-gospels-new-evidence

Controversial new hypothesis about Christ's Resurrection in the Early Church - prof Markus Vinzent

2010-11-29T15:50:00.000-08:00

Today I attended the Patristics Seminar in Cambridge, UK. Markus Vinzent, professor and chair of History of Theology from Kings College London, gave a paper entitled: "The Resurrection of Christ in Second Century, Early Christianity".

It's certainly an understatement to say that the paper was controversial. Reflecting back, I cannot even imagine that professor Vinzent will have tea with professor NT Wright soon. Well, who knows? They just might...

Vinzent's paper was to a large extent a condensed summery of a commissioned new monograph which he has already submitted for publication (due sometime next year). The full title is: "Christ's Resurrection in Early Christianity, and the making of the New Testament." He claims that it is the first monograph on the resurrection of Jesus by a Patristics scholar.

Vincent started off by saying that he, as a church historian, is not interested in the resurrection of Jesus as an historical event. Neither in the kind of resurrection body Jesus allegedly had. Rather, his focus is on WHEN, for WHO, WHERE, and WHY Jesus was regarded as the risen Christ. And also HOW this belief impacted on Christianity. In order to address all these questions, Vinzent analysed "all" of the available evidence of the first two centuries.

I list some of the interesting and challenging statements he made. (See it as a little taster of what will be developed more fully in the monograph to come):

• Although Christ's resurrection was important to Paul, it was not important after his death. It took some 100 years for Irenaeus and Tertullian to take it up again. Our view of the second century (as it relates to the resurrection) is distorted by the apologetic literature. They i) knew each other; ii) each wanted to be the best; iii) they borrowed from each other; iv) they developed their positions building on each other.

• Had Marcion not taken up Paul's letters and one gospel, the resurrection of Christ would never have been taken up by the Christian Church.

• "Even if the Lord himself wrote the gospels, Marcion was the first to use them."

• Mark, Matthew and John (MMJ) might have been composed in the same city and in reaction to Marcion's Lukan gospel. The resurrection narratives in MMJ in particular might have been an orthodox reaction (thus creation) against Marcion's rejection of bodily resurrection.

• The first commentary on John is by a Valentinian. It is only later that Origen was commissioned to write a more orthodox commentary. Thus, it is likely that the gospel of John has a Valentinian origin.

• Maybe Marcion received a pre-version of Luke and others changed it

• Prior to Marcion there is not a single reference to the gospels. Before Irenaeus, no one (including Ignatius) claimed that Marcion changed the gospel.

• With Marcion comes the first discussion about the resurrection. Luke 24:36-42 in particular is significant. Here the idea of a phantom is not altogether impossible. Ignatius, Irenaeus, Tertullian and Justin try to take on Marcion on this point.

• The women as first witnesses of Jesus' empty tomb is not significant and unique, as the testimony of women was taken seriously in other contexts. The prophetess traditions within Judaism and the other roles they sometimes played in the New Testament confirms this.

• The earliest baptismal creeds/formulae referred to the incarnation and death of Jesus but not his resurrection

• The apostolic creed's reference to the resurrection is late

• In the Didache, the reference to worship on a Sunday (the first day of week) is linked to Jesus' death, and not his resurrection. It was only Justin who later used it in First Apology

• Easter is first used by Melito to argue against Marcion's interpretation of the resurrection

• Up until 177 (Irenaeus) only Paul is used in defence of the resurrection. The gospels are not used in defence of the resurrection. This "embarrassed" even Kurt Aland, Vinzent claims.

• The Bar Kogba revolt in 136 CE is highly significant. "Only slowly does the resurrection make its way into the Christian narrative."

• The first theologian of the resurrection is Apollinarius of Laodicea in Constantine's time.

In short, if I understood Vinzent correctly, he wants to argue that belief in the resurrection of Jesus was of no significance after Paul died, until the likes of Irenaeus and Tertullian challenged Marcion's interpretation of the resurrection. Marcion is key to understanding the early church. The so-called orthodox faith in the resurrection of Jesus was a later heretical reaction against Marcion - particularly the empty tomb narratives in Matthew, Mark and John. Apparently, the incarnation and death of Jesus was significant in the early phases of the Church, but not the resurrection of Jesus.

There was unfortunately not enough time afterwards to discuss all these claims. We will have to wait until the monograph is published to analyse the way in which Vinzent's arguments are build up and developed. Some issues were raised however during Q & A. I mention some:

Virtually all critical scholars acknowledge that 1 Cor. 15.3-5b represent a tradition going back to the first few years after the resurrection (including Gerd Luedemann). Reference is made to Jesus being 'buried'..
The resurrection of Christ is significant in 1 Clement 24-34, most probably relying on 1 Cor. 15, and probably also the parable of the sower in the Sinoptic gospels
There is reference to the resurrection in Ignatius (+-110 CE).
Polycarp and other martyrs died for their faith in the risen Jesus.
Had the gospel writers wanted to create the perfect resurrection narrative, they would certainly not have picked the women as the first witnesses.

Vinzent did critique the above, though most who attended were probably not convinced by all his explanations. But let's wait for the monograph so that we can follow his arguments carefully.

* I should state that what I reported here, is a few reflections and interpretations of the lecture and does not necessarily represent a thorough enough and systematic analysis of the paper. Keep this in mind please!

* I just saw a new book on Michael Bird's blog that might offer an alternative to Vinzent's main hypothesis:
http://www.amazon.com/Who-Chose-Gospels-Probing-Conspiracy/dp/0199551235/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1291009876&sr=8-1#_

* Given the discussion above, it might also be worthwhile for those interested and challenged, to have a look at NT Wright's The Resurrection of the Son of God (2003); Larry Hurtado's Lord Jesus Christ, Devotion to Jesusin Earliest Christianity (2003); and more recently Michael Licona's The Resurrection of Jesus, A New Historiographical Approach (2010).

The resurrection of Jesus - 31 January, 2011 - Theological Day, Faculty of Theology, Stellenbosch, South Africa

2010-11-28T08:28:00.000-08:00

There's no argument about it: the Faculty of Theology at Stellenbosch University has the most beautiful building of all theology departments in South Africa. It is also the oldest department, going back to the 1860's. A friend brought it to my attention that their Theological Day in January 2011 will deal with the resurrection of Jesus. One of the papers, 'Die opstanding van Christus: 'n teologiese orientering' (The resurrection of Jesus: a theological orientation), will be delivered by professor Dirkie Smit, for whom I have great admiration. He did his DD under the well-known and late professor Willie Jonker, and later became his son-in-law!

Here is the program:

US FAKULTEIT TEOLOGIE

TEOLOGIESE DAG 2011

Die program vir die Teologiese Dag op 31 Januarie 2011 is soos volg:

09:00 Opening – prof Nico Koopman

09:10 Skrifmeditasie oor Lukas 24 – prof Elna Mouton

09:30 Die opstanding van Christus: ’n teologiese oriëntering – prof Dirkie Smit

10:15 Bespreking

10:45 Tee

11:15 Die opstanding, kuns en liturgie – ds Danie du Toit, NG Gemeente Waterkloof

11:45 Die opstanding en die publieke lewe – dr Clint le Bruyns

12:15 Bespreking

12:45 Afsluiting

Kontak dr Robert Vosloo by 021 808 3256 vir enige navrae. Almal is baie welkom!
http://academic.sun.ac.za/tsv/index.html

WHAT IS JUSTIFICATION REALLY? Record crowd at ETS

2010-11-22T18:22:00.000-08:00

Well, the ETS debate on Justification was so significant that its worth discussing. There are however not much known about how the debate went at this stage. Will be great to get some feedback! I did however manage to find some thoughts about what happened on thegospelcoalition blog:

A Justification Debate Long Overdue

"A record crowd of more than 2,500 turned out in Atlanta this week for the annual meeting of the Evangelical Theological Society, focused on “Justification By Faith.” The conference’s main event—three papers and debate over justification between New Testament scholars Frank Thielman, Tom Schreiner, and N. T. Wright—might be about three years too late to slow the spread of controversy over justification that has gripped evangelicals. Unfortunately, a planned face-to-face discussion between John Piper and Wright fell through when Piper took an extended sabbatical. But the novelty of pairing Wright on a panel with Schreiner, another key critic, still riveted an audience that enjoyed more than two hours of sustained debate over New Testament texts, Greek terminology, and ancient Near Eastern and Roman society.

Schreiner, James Buchanan Harrison professor of New Testament interpretation at the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, opened the long-anticipated exchange by delivering a paper on Wednesday night called “Justification: The Saving Righteousness of God in Christ.” He engaged in a direct and sustained critique of Wright, even as he labored to show common ground with the man he described as a groundbreaking thinker. He acknowledged that Wright is fundamentally correct that first-century Jews incurred the judgment of exile in the form of Roman oppression due to their sin. When Wright responded to Schreiner on Friday morning, he expressed surprise over their agreement on this point.

Schreiner also agreed with Wright that evangelicals who hold to sola scriptura recognize no other authority, including tradition, as final. But Schreiner identified three false polarities that he said Wright perpetuates:

1.Wright argues that justification is primarily about ecclesiology instead of soteriology.

2.Wright says Israel’s fundamental problem was failing to bless the world. But Paul focuses on Israel’s inherent sinfulness.

3.Wright contends that justification is a declaration of God’s righteousness but does not include the imputation of God’s righteousness.

Supporting his first charge, Schreiner said justification is not identical to salvation, redemption, or sanctification. But the word appears in such contexts focusing on how we are saved, such as Romans 3:24 and Romans 4:6-8. Regarding his second point, Schreiner appealed to Romans 2 to show that the Jews’ sin was not primarily excluding Gentiles but rather failing to obey God and his law. Finally, Schreiner said it is strange that Wright maligns imputation when he admits God requires perfect obedience. Indeed, Paul would appear to teach imputation in such verses as 1 Corinthians 1:30 and 2 Corinthians 5:21. It is true, Schreiner agreed with Wright, that no human judge can give a guilty defendant his righteousness. But the law-court metaphor in Scripture should not be considered exhaustive. Indeed, its limitations at precisely this point should lead us to wonder in the gospel of God, who gave up his only Son for guilty sinners.

The second plenary address—delivered by Frank Thielman, Presbyterian professor of divinity at Beeson Divnity School—focused on Romans 1:16-17. Thielman offered a mediating position that suggested several intended meanings from Paul for the contested and consequential phrase “righteousness of God.” Original hearers, Thielman said, would have understand this phrase to refer to the saving activity and gift of acquittal from God on the basis of faith. They also would have understood that God is fair, even-handed, and equitable in the way he distributes salvation.

One Important Phrase, Several Intended Meanings

Thielman cited the first commentary on Romans, written by Origen, who spoke and wrote the same Greek language as Paul. Origen understood the apostle to teach that the “righteousness of God” means all, whether Jew or Gentile, may find salvation in the gospel. Thielman illustrated his point by citing several coins used in the Roman Empire. Nero, emperor during the end of Paul’s ministry, appeared on one coin with the word dikaiosune, which we translate in Scripture as “righteousness.” It would seem, Thielman said, that Nero seeks to portray himself not so much as just but equitable in how he distributes grain harvested in Egypt.

Is it really likely, though, that Paul would use one phrase and intend several meanings? Thielman said this practice was common in ancient writing. So Paul did in fact reveal in this famous passage that God counts believers acquitted, as Martin Luther realized. But the inspired apostle also taught that God is fair, and he powerfully rescues his people.

The Main Event

Probably the main attraction, though, was the Friday morning address by N. T. Wright, research professor of New Testament at St. Andrews University and the former bishop of Durham. For years now Wright has faced sustained criticism in the form of books, journal articles, and lectures from a number of the most prominent scholars in ETS. He jumped into the lion’s den in Atlanta with his paper, “Justification Yesterday, Today, and Forever.” From the beginning, Wright displayed his characteristic blend of humor, charm, and wide-ranging intellect with an unrelentingly rapid speaking pace. He has indeed read his critics, but he hardly backed down at ETS. In fact, he seemed more than a little perturbed by the wide range of arguments leveled against his writing on justification. He called for a new ethic of Christian blogging and faulted believers for pulling his statements out of context and reaching false conclusions about his work.

In his preliminary remarks, Wright dealt directly with several of the most controversial charges leveled against him and by his defenders. He reasserted his Protestant credentials and said we need to allow Scripture to say things our human traditions have not said. And he denied that any single person holding to the New Perspective on Paul has joined the Roman Catholic Church. In fact, he said critics who charge him with biblicism have no sense of irony and history; they are the real neo-Catholics. Wright made the case that the Reformers and his modern-day critics ask contemporary questions of Pauline texts, not the ones Paul actually addressed for the benefit of Jews and Gentiles gathered together in one church. Thus, Wright’s critics are the real modern-day demythologizers who abstract bits and pieces of Paul’s thought by tearing them from the original context.

One Big Story

True to form, Wright kept the big story in view as he analyzed specific passages. God’s plan to bless the world through humans was thwarted by the fall. Then he planned to rescue humankind through Abraham and his descendants. But they, too, failed. So God sent his Son, the Messiah of Israel, to announce that God’s kingdom had come with his life, death, and resurrection. Adam’s sin is the problem, Wright said, and God’s covenant with Abraham is the solution.

Known for weaving compelling biblical narratives, Wright rejected any claims that he distorts the meaning of passages by reshaping them to fit his big story. He willingly treated many of the most important verse from Romans, Ephesians, Galatians, and elsewhere. He complained that he continues to vainly search for serious treatments from his critics of Romans 4 as Paul’s exposition of the Abrahamic covenant. “Only by close attention to Scriptural context can Scriptural doctrine be Scripturally understood,” Wright said. Each element must be treated in light of the whole. But we derive our view of the whole by carefully interpreting each element.

Wright made numerous references to his critics and their works. But he referred to few by name. He disputed Simon Gathercole on Romans 4:4-8, which he said borrows the idea of reward from God’s promise to Abraham in Genesis 15:1. He faulted the two-volume set Justification and Variegated Nomism—edited by D. A. Carson, Mark Seifrid, and Peter O’Brien—for not considering a crucial passage from the intertestamental Qumran literature that he says sheds light on Paul’s teaching.

During his paper, Wright did not, however, mention John Piper, originally scheduled to engage with him at ETS. But Wright clearly had him in mind. Piper has criticized Wright for undermining Christian assurance with his view on justification. In particular, Piper cites Wright teaching that final judgment will be on the basis of works. Indeed, Wright wrote in Paul: In Fresh Perspective:

The whole point about “justification by faith” is that it is something which happens in the present time (Romans 3:26) as a proper anticipation of the eventual judgment which will be announced, on the basis of the whole life led, in the future (Romans 2:1-16).

But Wright contends he does not mean what Piper and others believe he does. If doubts linger, however, Wright said that he believes final judgment will be in accordance with works—something Piper and Schreiner acknowledge from Romans 2:6—and not on the basis of works. Justification involves spiritual struggle, Wright said, and Christians should beware of antinomianism that neglects this teaching.

Wright appeared especially troubled by the charge that he wouldn’t know what to say to someone dying who asked, “What must I do to be saved?” Wright said, “The gospel is the royal announcement that the crucified and risen Jesus is Israel’s Messiah and Lord of the world. That’s good news.” He would encourage someone dying to find eternal life by confessing the name of Jesus, the crucified and risen One, in whom we find healing, forgiveness, reconciliation, peace, and hope.

Irreconcilable Differences

During more than two hours of discussion that followed these papers, a number of differences remained irreconcilable. Schreiner said justification has ecclesiological implications, but contrary to Wright, he believes it is chiefly about the forgiveness of sins. Wright remains uncomfortable with describing righteousness as a gift, as if it can get passed around. Schreiner cautions against pushing the law-court metaphor hard, but Wright says Paul does just that in Romans 3. And Wright continues to believe that Schreiner and others fail to understand the significance of Paul’s argument in Romans 9-11 that God’s plan to save the world through Israel has not failed.

It’s too early to tell whether this week’s ETS meeting will fundamentally change the debate over justification. Wright ceded little if any ground to his critics. But he offered clarification for at least one of their chief concerns. He continued to disparage the Reformers, particularly Luther, for asking the wrong questions and missing Paul’s point. But Schreiner agreed with Wright that Protestants should privilege no tradition above God’s Word. Schreiner expressed sincere appreciation for Wright’s work. And Wright gave evidence simply by showing up in Atlanta that he takes his critics seriously. For that he and ETS and should be commended. This face-to-face debate was long overdue."

http://thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/tgc/2010/11/19/a-justification-debate-long-overdue/

I hope to place Simon Gathercole's response (review) of Wright's latest work on Justification next week.

62nd Annual Meeting of the Evangelical Theological Society

2010-11-16T15:24:00.000-08:00

"This year’s meeting provides us with the opportunity to give renewed consideration to the meaning and significance of the doctrine of Justification by Faith. Thirty years have now elapsed since “The New Perspective on Paul” emerged and challenged the Lutheran and Reformed understandings of justification and a host of related doctrines. Some have argued that the newer views have compromised the integrity of the gospel. Advocates of the New Perspective, however, claim that their views more accurately reflect the teaching of the Bible and, specifically, Paul’s teaching on justification. The rich variety of papers devoted to this year’s theme will no doubt help us all to better understand the issues and help us think through the richness of this important doctrine.

Our three plenary speakers—Thomas Schreiner, Frank Thielman, and N. T. Wright-have all written extensively on this theme in monographs, commentaries, and journal articles. To help bring the most important issues into sharper focus, a two-hour panel discussion featuring the three plenary speakers has been planned for the final plenary session on Friday. In addition to this, you can choose from over 100 different parallel session papers devoted to the theme. These include a broad assortment of papers on justification that include the antecedents for the doctrine in the Old Testament and Judaism as well as the interpretation of key New Testament texts. Of special help are a variety of papers related to the understanding and articulation of the doctrine in every era of the history of the church."

http://www.etsjets.org/files/documents/ETS_2010_Program.pdf

By the way, the "Justification" certificate was my own idea and not related to the ETS.

2010-11-16T03:22:00.000-08:00

McAfee Symposium on the Johannine Epistles
The 2010 Peter Rhea and Ellen Jones Lectures in New Testament

James and Carolyn McAfee School of Theology - Mercer University

Schedule

Wednesday Evening, November 17

6:30 Dinner

7:30 Lecture by D. Moody Smith - “Who is Jesus? Jesus is God”

Thursday, November 18

Morning Program- The Relationship between the Gospel and the Epistles

9:00 Lecture by Urban C. von Wahlde - “The Brown Hypothesis Twenty-Eight Years On: Some Agreements and Disagreements”

10:00 Coffee

10:30 Short papers: The Brown Hypothesis in 2010

Paul N. Anderson - “The Community that Raymond Brown Left Behind - Reflections on the Johannine Dialectical Situation”

Gary M. Burge - “Spirit-Inspired Theology and Ecclesial Correction: Charting One Shift in the Development of Johannine Ecclesiology and Pneumatology”

R. Alan Culpepper - “The Relationship between the Gospel and the Epistles of John”

11:45 Discussion: The Brown Hypothesis in 2010

Peter Rhea Jones, moderator

12:30 Lunch

Afternoon Program - The Church in the Johannine Epistles

1:30 Lecture by Judith Lieu - “The Audience of the Johannine Epistles”

2:30 Short papers:

Peter Rhea Jones - “The Ecclesial Role of presbuteros”

Craig R. Koester - “The Antichrist Theme in the Johannine Epistles and Its Role in Christian Tradition”

Gail R. O’Day - “The Failure of Friendship? The Practice of Love in the Johannine Epistles”

3:45 Discussion

Paul Anderson, moderator

4:30 Break

Evening Program

6:30 Dinner

7:30 Lecture by Jan van der Watt - “A New Command, a New Ethic”

Friday, November 19

Morning Program - The Theology and Ethics of the Epistles

9:00 Lecture by D. Moody Smith - “Who is Jesus? Jesus was Man”

10:00 Coffee

10:30 Short papers:

Andreas J. Köstenberger, “The Cosmic Conflict Motif in the Johannine Epistles”

David Rensberger, “Completed Love: A Test Probe of I John 4:11-18 as an Index to Vision and Mission of the New Testament Church”

William R. G. Loader, “The Significance of 2:15-17 for Understanding the Ethics of I John”

11:45 Discussion

Alan Culpepper, moderator

12:30 Adjourn

For registration and information, please call: 888.471.9922 or 678-547-6470 or email Diane Frazier at frazier_d@mercer.edu

NS - the pictures to the right are from top to bottom: Judith Lieu, R. Alan Culpepper, Craig R. Koester, Jan van der Watt, Andreas J. Köstenberger.

New Journal Dedicated to Pauline Studies

2010-11-15T06:58:00.000-08:00

Fresh news from Michael Bird's blog:

Dear biblioblogosphere, I'm proud to announce the launch of a new journal dedicated to Pauline studies published by Eisenbrauns. It is called Journal for the Study of Paul and His Letters. On the homepage you can find info on subscriptions and submissions. It's edited by myself with Nijay Gupta (see his blog) as the associate editor and we have an international editorial board. The sample issue is available on-line and the inaugural article is by Dr. Susan Grove Eastman (Duke Divinity School) on "Philippians 2:6-11: Incarnation as Mimetic Participation" - quite a treat to read! The next issue of JSPL will include Paul Foster "Eschatology in the Thessalonian Correspondence", Michael Gorman "Justification and Justice", Richard Bell "Paul's Theology of Mind", and a review of Douglas A. Campbell's Deliverance of God by Michael Gorman and Chris Tilling.

See the link for more: http://euangelizomai.blogspot.com/2010/11/new-journal-dedicated-to-pauline.html

As a side note - and related to Pauline studies, but in this case concerning the (also relatively new) journal from Mohr Siebeck Early Christianity, Simon Gathercole gives a significantly critical review of NT Wright's recent book on Justification. Worth looking into I think...

http://www.mohr.de/en/journals/theology/early-christianity-ec/journal.html

TWENTIETH CENTURY RESURGENCE AND FRAGMENTATION: The Age of Martyn Lloyd-Jones, John Stott and Jim Packer - Dr. Andrew Atherstone from Oxford

2010-11-12T15:41:00.000-08:00

Date: 13 November

Venue: Cambridge School of Visual and Performing Arts (CATS), Round Church St, Cambridge

"Andrew Atherstone brings alive Church history in a way which stirs the imagination, warms the heart and nourishes the mind. One of the foremost Church historians of the day with an encyclopedic knowledge that teaches doctrine through history, Andrew is the most engaging seminary lecturer I've heard and always shows how doctrine plays out in the life of the Church and the believer. Those who attend his lectures will be greatly blessed and equipped to see the relevance of lessons from the past in the life of the Church today. Highly recommended!" Rupert Evans, Former student

"Andrew is known throughout Wycliffe and beyond as an unmissable and highly engaging speaker, who preaches both from the heart and to the heart." Tim Coomar, Wycliffe student.

Price: £10/morning - payable through website by card, or on day by cheque or cash
Time: 9.00am - 12.30pm

http://www.christianheritage.org.uk/Group/Group.aspx?ID=38019

CSST provides Christian believers with the rare privilege of interaction with world-renowned theologians in an intimate setting for a whole week. Not to be missed!

PAUL AND THE REST - from Pharisee to prophet of Jesus

2010-11-11T02:48:00.000-08:00

Bert Jan Lietaert Peerbolte is professor of New Testament at the Free University of Amsterdam. He has just published an important book on Paul. It is in Dutch, so for our English readers I make an English translation of the publication details:

Short description:
The Apostle Paul remains a mystery
http://www.uitgeverijmeinema.nl/shop_details.php?productId=23077Title: PAUL AND THE REST - from Pharisee to prophet of Jesus.in many ways. Bert Jan Lietaert Peerbolte presents him as a Hellenistic Jew who remained faithful to his Jewish principles, while proclaiming Jesus Christ as the center of God's dealings with man.Paul saw the Christ-movement as the faithful remnant of Israel, where non-Jews could form part of. It brought him often into conflict with his environment. And yet he proclaimed his dream: in Christ there is no difference between Jew and Greek, free and slave, husband and wife! Paul and the rest is not only a historical study, but also looks at the role Paul played in a number of modern philosophers.

    * New, authoritative book on the 'enigmatic apostle'
    * Paul through the eyes of 21st century philosophers and historians
    * In conversation with among others Alain BadiouOrder the Dutch book here:

Durham New Testament Seminar – Michaelmas 2010

2010-11-10T15:48:00.000-08:00

My dearly beloved Durham University's New Testament Seminar has once again a world-class line up:

11 October, Prof John Barclay: “Galatians and the Gift” (1)

18 October, Prof John Barclay: “Galatians and the Gift” (2)

25 October, Dr Shane Berg: “Knowing and Obeying the Law in Ben Sira”

1 November , Dr Max Lee (North Park Theological Seminary): “Ancient Ethical Theory and Paul: What Plutarch, Alcinous, and Galen Have to Say about the Apostle’s Moral Landscape”

8 November, Dr James Carleton-Paget (Cambridge): “Schweitzer and Harnack: the history of an unlikely alliance”

15 November, Dr Lionel North: “Introduction to the Diatessaron”

22 November, NO SEMINAR

29 November, Dr Lutz Doering: “Paul and Ancient Jewish Letter Writing”

6 December , Prof. Keith Elliott (Leeds): “Recent Developments in New Testament Textual Criticism”

13 December, Prof Judith Lieu (Cambridge): “Heresy and Scripture”

My friend dr Ben Blackwell will probably give brief summaries of these at http://dunelm.wordpress.com/

The naming of Protestant England - Professor Peter Marshall at Robinson College, Cambridge

2010-11-08T06:32:00.000-08:00

The 2010 A G Dickens Memorial Lecture

‘The naming of Protestant England’

will be given by Professor Peter Marshall, Department of History, University of Warwick

On Thursday the 25th November at 5.30pm in

The Umney Theatre, Robinson College

Followed by a Reception

(Parking in Herschel Road and Adams Road, off Grange Road)

All Welcome

New Perspective on Paul discussion 30 000 feet in the air

2010-11-04T16:41:00.000-07:00

I had a fascinating conversation with a Hungarian Orthodox Jew, (who lives in London) on my return flight from Weeze into Stansted. This was the very first one-on-one conversation I had with a practising Jew after being exposed to the New Perspective on Paul. The latter I encountered first-hand in Durham under the likes of James Dunn, NT Wright, John Barclay, Francis Watson (and Simon Gathercole in Cambridge).

Q&A with my Jewish friend:

Question: Is observance of the Law, within your Jewish community a precondition to be part of God's covenant community, or is it an identity marker?

Answer: Law observance is a precondition to be part of God's covenant community.

Question: So are you saved through Law observance or through Grace?

Answer: Through observance of the Law, although God can have mercy also. Mercy however is not the same as grace.

Question: So how was Abraham saved? By faith or through obedience to the Law?

Answer: Abraham did not have the Law of Moses. He obeyed and believed before the Law was given, but now that the Law has come, membership of God's covenant community is reserved for those who observe it.

Very very interesting stuff!

For myself, the three books below provided me with lots to think about:

http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=4PfFgBUP6BAC&printsec=frontcover&dq=Francis+Watson,+Paul,+Judaism&source=bl&ots=51aCkatCUw&sig=reWeDdefswPcqd_ZVPzjs8z9io4&hl=en&ei=0CnTTM7MDIyOjAfmu_TDDg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2&ved=0CBsQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q&f=false

http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=Y-BBPRyiyE0C&printsec=frontcover&dq=Simon+Gathercole,+Where+is+Boasting&source=bl&ots=EivmDwdTc9&sig=cGR4VHtnST5MX-PE9CtNQVfc2n0&hl=en&ei=fyrTTIqJEIKUjAed4fGnDg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2&ved=0CBwQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q&f=false

http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=hD8r9kotxQgC&printsec=frontcover&dq=James+Dunn,+THe+NEw+Perspective+ons+Paul&hl=en&ei=FivTTLmQI86HhQecltyTAQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CCwQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false

Paul the Radical Apostel. His life and thoughts that changed the world - Michael Wolter: NIJMEGEN PRESTIGE LECTURES IN BIBLICAL STUDIES 2010

2010-11-03T05:55:00.000-07:00

The NIJMEGEN PRESTIGE LECTURES IN BIBLICAL STUDIES is an annual prestigious lecture series presented by the Faculty of Religious Studies and Theology of the Radboud University Nijmegen in co-operation with Brill. A leading international scholar in Biblical Studies is invited annually to read a series of lectures in his particular field of speciality. The aim of this lecture series is to create the opportunity for our academically interested community to be exposed to cutting edge research in the field of Biblical Studies.

This year the well-known Prof. dr. Michael Wolter of the University of Bonn in Germany will deliver these prestige lectures. He will read a special paper for the general public and theological students on Paul the Radical Apostel. His life and thoughts that changed the world. In this lecture he will discuss the unique influence and impact of Paul as he journeyed through the ancient world. For understanding the nature of Christianity as religion this lecture is indispensable.

You are invited to attend this prestige lecture that will take place on Thursday 2 December, 14:00-15:30, at Gymnasium Room 3 (GN3), Heyendaalseweg 141, Nijmegen. Contact dr. Ignace de Haes i.dehaes@rs.ru.nl (024-3611448) to book your free place.

Prof Michael Wolter is Professor of New Testament at the University of Bonn, Germany, as well as honorary professor/researcher at several other international universities (for instance, the Universities of Pretoria and North-West in South Africa). He wrote extensively in several fields in the New Testament in which he is indeed regarded as a world leader. His many books include a standard commentary on the Gospel of Luke, another on Paul’s letter to the Colossians and he is currently busy with the EKK– commentary on Romans – the most important ecumenical commentary series. He also recently completed a theology of Paul as well as a book on ethics.

University of St Andrews, Biblical Studies Seminar

2010-11-01T04:15:00.000-07:00

4 November - Dr. Richard Bauckham, Professor Emeritus, University of St Andrews - The “Individualism” of the Gospel of John

11 November - Reading Week

18 November - Mark Stirling, University of St Andrews - The Use of the OT in Ephesians 2.11–22: Covenant, Temple, and People of God

25 November - Dr. Stuart Weeks, Senior Lecturer in Theology and Religion, University of Durham - “Vanity” in Ecclesiastes

2 December - Prof. John Barclay, Lightfoot Professor Divinity, University of Durham - Paul, the Gift, and the Battle over Gentile Circumcision Revisiting the Logic of Galatians

8 December - N.B. The Seminar will meet on Wednesday 2.00pm in College Hall

Prof. George Brooke, Rylands Professor of Biblical Criticism and Exegesis, University of Manchester - The Silent God, the Abused Mother, and the Self-Justifying Sons: A Psycho-dynamic Reading of Scriptural interpretation in the Pesharim

http://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/divinity/rt/seminars/bibstud/

too staggering . . . too earthshaking . . . too significant . . . too serious . . .

2010-10-27T06:50:00.000-07:00

“No one can remain neutral regarding Jesus’ resurrection. The claim is too staggering, the event too earthshaking, the implications are too significant, and the matter is too serious. We must either receive or reject it as truth for us, and to remain indifferent or undecided is to reject it”

http://relit.org/doctrine/#video_anchor

96% of the 1500 known New Testament fragments in Munster

2010-10-22T07:08:00.000-07:00

I've just returned from a fascinating study tour with a group of South African PhD researchers. We visited, among other places the awesome city of Munster in Germany. The city is famous for lots of things: A school dating back to the year 797 AD (I think); the Anabaptist Revolt; the separation between church and state etc. But what excited me most was our visit to the world famous University of Munster Institute for New Testament Textual Research. It is on this institute that thousands of theologians and pastors all over the world depend for the Nestle-Aland Greek New Testament Bible. We were told that the 28th edition will most probably be available next year. One student doing research there indicated that there will be very minor changes from the 27th edition. The small Greek fragment (top left) is the famous P 52, our oldest surviving piece of the New Testament to date. It comes from the Gospel of John and dates back to around 125 AD.

The Institute holds around 96% of the +-1500 know New Testament fragments in the world (in photographic form). There are three fulltime PhD researchers scanning in these and other collections. One of them is currently scanning in Coptic texts. What an awesome experience we had!

How can I NOT say something about CAPE TOWN 2010?

2010-10-15T09:26:00.000-07:00

How can I NOT say something about my beloved South Africa, where the THIRD LAUSANNE CONGRESS ON WORLD EVANGELIZATION is starting on Sunday?

One of my friends here in Cambridge, dr Dirk Jonkind will also present a short paper. May the Lord bless the world throught this significant conference!

According to John Piper's Blog, the Lausanne Covenant is arguably the most significant document from the past 200 years related to the cause of world missions. The Introduction goes like this:

We, members of the Church of Jesus Christ, from more than 150 nations, participants in the International Congress on World Evangelization at Lausanne, praise God for his great salvation and rejoice in the fellowship he has given us with himself and with each other. We are deeply stirred by what God is doing in our day, moved to penitence by our failures and challenged by the unfinished task of evangelization. We believe the Gospel is God's good news for the whole world, and we are determined by his grace to obey Christ's commission to proclaim it to all mankind and to make disciples of every nation. We desire, therefore, to affirm our faith and our resolve, and to make public our covenant.

See the program here:

http://www.lausanne.org/documents/capetown2010/CT2010schedule.pdf