Pages

Friday, 14 May 2010

First ever world-class debate on the resurrection in South Africa?

A friend brought it to my attention that there was a significant debate held at the University of Pretoria on Wednesday 12 May 2010. The speakers where William Lane Craig and Mike Licona arguing for the authenticity of Jesus' bodily resurrection, over against Sakkie Spangenberg and Hansie Wolmarans arguing against it. Craig and Licona regard themselves as evangelical Christians, whereas Spangenberg and Wolmarans are part of the New Reformation Movement in South Africa, with links to the Jesus Seminar in the USA.

I wish I could've been there! Will be nice to get some feedback from folks who attended the debate. How many people attended? What were the main arguments? Who did best? Why?

Thursday, 6 May 2010

Papers presented at the Ethics in the Johannine Literature conference in Nijmegen

We had a fascinating conference! Have a look at the program below.

Monday 3 May

10.15-11.00 The place and use of the Bible in Christian ethics

Jean-Pierre Wils (Radboud University Nijmegen)

Facilitator: Jan van der Watt
11.30-12.15 Johannine ethics: an overview of the current state of research

Michael Labahn (University of Halle)

Facilitator: Ruben Zimmermann

12.15-13.00 What is “Ethics in John”? Ethical Devices in the Gospel of John

Ruben Zimmermann (University of Mainz)

Facilitator: Jan van der Watt

14.30-15.15 The Qumran background of Johannine Ethics

Erik Eynikel (Radboud University Nijmegen)

Facilitator: Reka Valentin

15.15-16.00 Wisdom literature as possible framework for Johannine ethics?

Andrew Glicksman (University of Dallas)

Facilitator: Erik Eynikel

Short papers:

16.15-16.35 Ethics by Using the Scripture with regard to John 2

Karl Weyer-Menkhoff (University of Mainz)

Facilitator: Susanne Luther

16.35-16.55 Ethics of Life in the Gospel of John

Mira Stare (University of Innsbruck)

Facilitator: Jörg Röder



Tuesday 4 May

9.00-9.45 Law and ethics in John’s Gospel

William Loader (Murdoch University)

Facilitator: Gilbert van Belle

9.45-10.30 Ergon, eleutheria and agathon – some underestimated norms for John’s Ethics

Hermut Löhr (University of Münster)

Facilitator: Gilbert van Belle

11.00-11.45 The flipside of ethics: The devil and ethics in John

Jan van der Watt (Radboud University Nijmegen)

Facilitator: Ulrich Busse

11.45-12.30 Semeia conveying ethics in John

Christos Karakolis (University of Athens)

Facilitator: Ulrich Busse

14.00-14.45 ‘Abide in Me’. The New Mode of Relationship between Jesus and His Followers as a Basis of Christian Ethics (John 15)

Chrys Caragounis (University of Lund)

Facilitator: Glen Lund

Wednesday 5 May

9.00-9.45 Die ethische Theologie des 1 Johannesbriefes

Udo Schnelle (University of Halle)

Facilitator: Ruben Zimmermann

9.45-10.30 Cain the Jew the AntiChrist: Collective Memory and the Johannine Ethics of Loving and Hating

Tom Thatcher (Christian University Cincinnati)

Facilitator: Ruben Zimmermann

11.00-11.45 Discernment-Oriented Leadership in the Johannine Situation— Abiding in the Truth versus Lesser Alternatives

Paul Anderson (George Fox University)

Facilitator: Maarten Menken

Wednesday, 28 April 2010

Ethics in the Johannine Literature - NijmegenConference

We are hosting a conference here in Nijmegen with the title: Ethics in the Johannine Literature - traditions, function and relevance. I hope to report on some of the interesting papers in due course. For now I only name a few scholars who will participate: Ruben Zimmermann, Jan van der Watt, Chrys Caragounis, Udo Schnelle, Tom Thatcher, William Loader and Paul Anderson to name a few.

Tuesday, 20 April 2010

Will we rise like Christ?

      An established theologian from the University of Pretoria, South Africa declared some time ago that we should keep Jesus' and our future resurrection completely apart. This he argued should be so because the Apostolicum states that Jesus rose "on the third day", whereas we will rise in the "body". This interpretation has amused me ever since.

Dr Joel R. White (left below) from the Freie Theologische Hochschule Giessen in Germany, delivered a significant paper at the Resurrection of the Dead Conference in Louvain-le-Neuve, Belgium (7-9 April, 2010), that challenges this interpretation (though not aimed at the South African theologian).
Among other things White states: "The crucial similarity between 1 Cor 15 and Rom 8 is, of course, that both are concerned with resurrection. Specifically, both passages elucidate the connection between the past resurrection of Christ and the future resurrection of believers".

White goes into some detail explaining Rom 8:11 which states: "But if the Spirit of Him who raised Jesus from the dead dwells in you, He who raised Christ from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies through His Spirit who dwells in you".

White went on to focus on the "firstfruits of the Spirit" (Rom 8:23), and after careful analysis and exegesis came up with a hermeneutical interpretation of what Paul is trying to convey here. White states: "Rom 8,23 should... be understood to mean: 'And not only does creation groan in eager expectation of the resurrection, but we do, too, because we have the firstfruits of the Spirit, that is, we have the risen Christ, whose resurrection was brought about by the Spirit. Because of that we, too, groan inwardly, as we eagerly await our revelation as children of God that will take place when our mortal bodies are resurrected."

After Joel delivered his paper, we had coffee together, and later the same day Belgium hamburgers together with Matthew Malcolm from Australia. We had such a great time!

Sunday, 18 April 2010

Jesus' resurrection and the Gnostic Nag Hammadi library


"The Anastasis in The Treatise on the Resurrection: What Jesus' Resurrection Teaches about Valentinian Christology" - Ryann Elizabeth Craig (Reformed Theological Seminary, McLean, VA 22101)
This fascinating paper focuses primarily on the Treat Res, a second century Gnostic text, and how Jesus' resurrection is interpreted in it. (Delivered at the Resurrection of the Dead Conference in Belgium I've been reporting on for some time).

What conclusions did Ryann come up with?
"In summary, the Christology of the Treat Res affirms a fleshly and spiritual body but not a docetic or fragmented Jesus. The author's intense reflection on 1 Cor 15 informs the type, timing and purpose of anastasis, but the Treat Res deviates from Paul on a few key issues. The Valentinian believer experiences a flesh-type resurrection, but there is no clear link between the spiritual resurrection body and the natural body. Timing emphasizes both the future resurrection and the present experience of resurrection. And, the application of Jesus' anastasis to the Valentinian adherent is not an appliction of atoning work but a mystical union."

It was great to have meet Ryann at the conference, partly because I've delivered a similar paper in Durham, UK last year! And what is more, we did our research independently and came up with roughly the same conclusions! Amazing!

Ryann, will be nice to hear from you here on the blog!

Friday, 16 April 2010

Resurrection in 1 Corinthians - Matthew Malcolm

A significant paper delivered at the Resurrection of the Dead Conference (7-9 April, 2010, Louvain-le-Neuve, Belgium).

The Resurrection of the Dead in 1 Corinthians (Matthew Malcolm, Nottingham).
"There can be no attaining of glory or immortality apart from following the path of Christ, whose own death was followed by resurrection - a resurrection that ensures the future vindication of those whose cruciform labour indicates that they belong to him". This is the last sentence in the abstract of what was a refreshing paper by Matthew. He is to complete his PhD under Anthony Thistleton at Nottingham fairly soon.
In his paper, Matthew went on to suggest that the arrangement of 1 Corinthians follows an important cultural pattern of "double reversal", summoning the believers at Corinth to choose between the destinies of the presently-honoured "human rulers", and the presently shameful "Christ crucified". They are called to give up their boastful, clamouring divisions, and inhabit Christ's death in the present, looking ahead to sharing in his vindication (resurrection) in the future. With this in view, Paul hears the denial of "the resurrection of the dead" (1 Cor. 15) as the ultimate refusal to accept the validity of the dead - and thus, of the cricified.What is Paul's response? He insists on the necessity of taking the path that leads from death - or a death-filled way of life - to God-given resurrection.

Afterwards I had a great talk with Matthew, who is actually from Australia. In him I found a brother who also believes in the bodily resurrection of Jesus, and wants to incorporate the insights of the Patristic era into his New Testament research. Exciting stuff!

Monday, 12 April 2010

Punishment, Deviance, Hallucinations and Jesus' resurrection

BRIEF COMMENTS ABOUT SOME INTERESTING PAPERS (7-9 April, Louvain-le-Neuve -other discussions to follow next time). Please do not use my comments to come to premature conclusions. If you want more info, please let me know. A further note: I believe with my whole heart that Jesus rose bodily from the dead. As a Christian enrolled for a PhD, it is important for me to be exposed to different views on and academic level.

Resurrection for Punishment? - The Fate of the Unrighteous in Early Christianity and in  "New Testament Theology" - Heikki Raisanen - Helsinki 
Raisanen argued that according to many early Jewish and Christian texts, the awaited resurrection of the dead is not just a happy event. There will also be resurrection unto judgement and punishment.
Raisanen argued further that many modern "New Testament Theologies" avoid these Jewish and Christian texts, and proposed that a "history-of-religions'" synthesis might restore the balance.
Raisanen also suggested that the connection between resurrection and judgement is absent in Paul.
In Q & A afterwards, the latter was disputed by Gerd Luedemann who argued that 1 Thess. 1:10 & 4:13 might indicate some connection in Paul. Check out for Raisanen's new book: The Rise of Christian Beliefs. The Thought-World of the Early Christians, Fortress Press, 2009.


Resurrection, Deviance and the Use of Authoritative Writings in Early Christianity - Outi Lehtipuu - Helsinki
Lehtipuu argued that in Early Christianity, resurrection beliefs served as an important identity marker and tool for group demarcation among different Christian groups. Maintaining boundaries was crucial for the small and marginal Christian groups to secure their identity. Deviation in belief and practice threatened their integrity. Key texts considered in her paper included works by Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Nag Hammadi texts like the Treatise on the Resurrection, the Gospel of Philip, the Testimony of Truth, and New Testament Apocrypha like the Acts of Paul and Thecla, 3 Corinthians, and Didascalia apostolorum.



The Resurrection of Jesus: Fifteen Years Later - Gerd Luedemann - Gottingen
In the first part, Luedemann discussed insights of his 1994 book The Resurrection of Jesus. History, Experience, Theology. In it he argued that Peter and Paul had hallucinations of the risen Jesus, and that all the empty tomb stories were unhistorical. He also argued that the more than 500 brothers to whom Jesus appeared to in 1 Cor. 15:6, was in actual fact an interpolation from Pentecost (Acts 2). Significantly, he renounced the latter during his lecture saying: "Presently at least, I must confess my ignorance of this report."
Luedemann went on to say that his 1994 book argued that one can remain a Christian, even though to his mind, Jesus never really rose from the dead. One's Christian faith should be based entirely on the historical Jesus.
In the second part of his lecture, Luedemann conceded that since his books publication, many found the analysis of the story of the empty tomb in his book questionable and postulated that women had indeed found the tomb empty on the third day. He went even so far as to suggest that in academic circles, the resurrection stories have gained more credence and, in particular, the story of the empty tomb has received a historical boost.
In the last part, Luedemann said that he continues to be in full agreement with his individual exegetical results. He concluded that he is convinced that disproving the historicity of the resurrection of Jesus ultimately annuls the Christian heritage as error. Consequently, he rejected his 1994 attempt to base Christianity on the historical Jesus.

Saturday, 10 April 2010

35 Papers on the Resurrection!

"Who here regard the resurrection of Jesus as unique and in some form bodily?" This was one of the last questions posed at the final session of the International Conference on the Resurrection of the Dead in Louvain-le-Neuve, Belgium, yesterday.
There were roughly three different answers. First, some said "it is a difficult question", and defended their right not to answer. Professor Gerd Luedemann answered: "Jesus' body decomposed", and added that 95% of the Jesus Seminar voted for this. Professor Claire Clivaz from the University of Lausanne (picture to the right) replied: "I believe that the tomb was empty."

It will be interesting to get some feedback on these different interpretations! I hope to report in more detail on some of the significant papers delivered at the conference in due course (at least those relating to my research interests).






Sunday, 4 April 2010

Resurrection of the Dead. Biblical Traditions in Dialogue - Louvain-la-Neuve, Belgium (7-9 April 2010)

Next week, the Department of Theology at the Catholic University in Louvain is hosting a world class conference on the resurrection of Jesus. Papers will be delivered in both French and English. There is sure to be some controversial ones! See below a list of the main papers.








Claire Clivaz (Lausanne/Genève) Pourquoi les récits de résurrection ont-ils été lus et crus?

José Costa (Paris III - Sorbonne) "Immortalité de l'âme ou résurrection des morts ?" : la question d'Oscar Cullmann et le témoignage des sources rabbiniques anciennes

Outi Lehtipuu (Helsinki) Resurrection, Deviance and the Use of Authoritative Writings in Early Christianity

Gerd Lüdemann (Göttingen) The Resurrection of Jesus : Fifteen Years Later

Odette Mainville (Montréal) Le rôle des récits résurrectionnels en Mt 28 : une lecture rédactionnelle

Daniel Marguerat (Lausanne/Genève) Résurrection et herméneutique de l'histoire en Luc-Actes

Tobias Nicklas (University of Regensburg) On the road to Dante : Resurrection according to some Early Christian Tours of Heaven and Hell

Heikki Räisänen (Helsinki) Resurrection for Punishment? The Fate of the Unrighteous in Early Christianity and in "New Testament Theology"

Tom Shepherd (Andrews University, MI) Absence and Ascendance: A Narrative Comparison of the Resurrection Scene in Codex Vaticanus and Codex Washingtonianus

Geert Van Oyen (UCL, Louvain-la-Neuve) 'Il est ressuscité. Il n'est pas ici' ... Il est dans le texte

André Wénin (UCL, Louvain-la-Neuve) Anticipations vétérotestamentaires du discours sur la résurrection de Jésus dans le Nouveau Testament


For more details, go to http://www.uclouvain.be/en-277303.html

Wednesday, 24 March 2010

Polycarp and Ignatius - a Second Century model for Christian unity or not?

What are or should the core shared beliefs for Christians be? How much diversity can there be? These questions are complicated, especially in the 21st century! I'm busy reading an engaging book on the early church by Josef Lössl (The Early Church. History and Memory). In one section he discusses the unity and diversity to be found in Polycarp and Ignatius of Antioch (both early second century bishop's). Ignatius clearly comes from a Hellenistic background where the liturgical processions and social order of the Greek city state receives a prominent place. Polycarp on the other hand comes from a Jewish background which colors his interpretation of among other things apostolic tradition and church liturgy. It is safe to say that at least in some sense Polycarp and Ignatius represent two radically distinct forms of ecclesiology and liturgy. But what binds them together, that Polycarp can call Ignatius his brother?
Just before being martyred Polycarp allegedly prayed: "I bless you... for the resurrection of eternal life of both soul and body in the incorruption of the Holy Spirit" (14:2).

Also on the resurrection, Ignatius writes in his letter to Smyrna: "For I know and believe that after the resurrection he [Jesus] was in the flesh...even though he was spiritually united to the father" (3:1-3).

Apparently, they agreed on the "central tenets". This included "Jesus Christ [was] 'truly' born, crucified, dead and risen from the dead, against those who believed that Christ had suffered and died 'in appearance' only" (Lössl, 2009:87).
What should constitute Christian unity today? Can the above "central tenets" be re-negotiated or not?

News from New Testament at Radboud University, Nijmegen: Johan Fourie from Tzaneen, South Africa is here for a few weeks to work on his PhD. His dissertation title is: "The Vine and the Body - A metaphorical-ecclesionlogical study on the unity and the essence of the church".

Hope you'll have a good time here with us Johan!

Saturday, 20 March 2010

Written that you may BELIEVE!

In the Gospel of John, Thomas believed after he saw the Risen Jesus (John 20:27-29). As Thomas saw Jesus and then believed, in one sense the modern reader is invited to read the narrative and make a decision: either to reject or accept Jesus as the Son of God.
This means that the text has a PERFORMATIVE function. It refers to or reports on a reality (and actions), pulling the reader into its world. Nobody who reads the text can remain neutral after reading. You either accept or reject it.

This example in John illustrates at least one aspect of what has come to be regarded as "Speech Act Theory" (SAT). The latter has, at least for some, become a viable alternative for on the one hand Deconstruction, and on the other Scripture as talisman (as in some African contexts - where the physical paper is attributed with magical powers). Much more can and should be said about SAT, but what I reported here was quite interesting for me in prof. Jan van der Watt's paper (Who's the Boss: text or reader?), presented at Radboud University on 17 March 2010.

Friday, 19 March 2010

Who's the BOSS: The TEXT or the READER? prof. Jan van der Watt

Who decides the meaning of a text: the TEXT itself, or the PERSON reading it? There are at least two extreme views on this: the one, as is evident in some African contexts holds that the TEXT itself has magical powers (being like a talisman). The other view, usually associated with the deconstruction of the likes of Derrida and Faucolt, holds that the READER allone determines what the text means.
Two incompatible paradigms. Prof. Van der Watt, if I understood his 17 March 2010 lecture at Radboud University, Nijmegen correctly, proposes an alternative. Within the field of INTERTEXTUALITY, it is possible to give room for both the text and the reader. Not an either-or, but both-and. I will report on this in more detail next time.

Wednesday, 17 March 2010

"Holy Shit! De banalisering van het heilige" - prof.dr. Ger Groot

Today I attended a symposium at Radboud University, Nijmegen, where interesting but also radically divergent papers were delivered. One was by prof.dr. Ger Groot, "hoogleraar Filosofie en Literatuur, Faculteit der Filosofie" with the title: Holy Shit! De banalisering van het heilige. In short (though highly oversimplified!) he argued for the radical separation of faith and science. Some of his insights sounded a bit like Richard Dawkins though I must admit that he was more nuanced. But his basic premise was clear: faith and science cannot be friends.. Quite interestingly, on my way back to the Erasmus building (where my office is) my eye caught a sculpture which almost looked like different beehives - each representing a different field of study. There was one for science, one for faith etc etc... This made me think of prof. Groot's separating faith and science from each other. Can Christians challenge prof. Groot? If so, how?

Prof.dr.dr. Jan van der Watt also gave an engaging paper which I hope to report on next time.


On a more personal level, someone stole my bycicle at the Nijmegen train station (even though it was locked). Europe is not as civilised as some might think...

Wednesday, 10 March 2010

Is the resurrection of Jesus a historical event?

        Anyone hoping to cast a dark shadow over Jesus' resurrection will have to take note of dr William Lane Craig, being one of the foremost New Testament Scholars of our time. He holds PhD's from the University of Munich in Germany, and Birmingham in England. He debated Gerd Ludemann (whom I featured earlier) some time ago. The debate was edited and published as a significant book. I put a link to a FREE Google excerpt at the bottom of the post. But first a YouTube video summarizing the evidence for Jesus' resurrection, presented by dr Craig:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JYdzUYyIKMM


The book by William Lane Craig and Gerd Ludeman:


http://books.google.nl/books?id=kPhL1w9-JbEC&printsec=frontcover&dq=william+lane+craig+Gerd+Ludemann&source=bl&ots=CIYsl0qhAJ&sig=e3hafgVmE3EOwtfKJdDKaBQ8aYE&hl=nl&ei=bTiYS_zEHovZ-QbNgLHNCg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2&ved=0CBEQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=william%20lane%20craig%20Gerd%20Ludemann&f=false

Tuesday, 9 March 2010

No authentic religion can be built on projections

Highly controvertial professor Gerd Lüdemann declares: "Despite profound experiences with your God ... your  hopes [Jesus] for the future died. They clashed with brutal reality .. And had not your followers .. proclaimed belief in your resurrection, all your words and deeds would have been blown away like leaves by the wind ...But you did not return, because your resurrection did not take place, but was only a pious wish. That is certain, because your body rotted in the tomb – that is, if it was put in a tomb at all and was not devoured by vultures and jackals ...No authentic religion can be built on projections, wishes and visions, not even if it appears in such a powerful form as that of the Christian church, which has even exalted you to be the Lord of the worlds and coming judge. But you are not the Lord of the worlds, as your followers declared you to be on the basis of your resurrection, nor did you want to be ... You deceived yourself, and your message has been falsified by your supporters for their own advantage, contrary to the historical truth. Your teaching was a mistake, since the messianic kingdom did not materialize” (Lüdemann, Gerd, 1999, The Great Deception and what Jesus Really Said and Did, New York: Prometheus Books, pp2-4).
Most if not all New Testament Scholars disagree with Lüdemann's interpretations. But my question today is: HOW do we know Lüdemann is wrong? Will be nice to get some comments on this...

Wednesday, 3 March 2010

Why do we believe in Jesus?

Today I went to Den Haag to get my "verblijfsvergunning" from the Justice Ministry. Thankfully everything went smoothly. On my way back I stopped over at the University of Utrecht to visit their famous Protestant Theology Department. There I made friends with Jan van Wygerden, a PhD student  who is doing research on catholicity in the patristic era. We had a fascinating (and encouraging!) discussion. Thank you for that Jan.


Following our discussion I reflected back on some research I did last year in Durham. There are voices within Patristic and New Testament circles arguing that what came to be regarded as the orthodoxy of the late second century and beyond (i.e. belief in bodily resurrection, the virgin birth of Christ etc)  was, among other things argued for based on apostolic succession, and the authority of the church.
Much of this goes back to research done on the writings of Irenaeus in his well known work Against Heresies. I hope to discuss more about this some other time. For the moment though, I want to make one point by drawing on Tertullian's On the Resurrection of the Flesh (Resurrection). If we accept that apostolic succession and the authority of the church became apologetic tools to try and defend orthodoxy, other appeals were also necessary to argue for the legitimacy of what orthodoxy claimed. This Tertullian did masterfully in his Resurrection. Instead of focussing on apostolic succession or the authority of the church, he went on to face all those texts which Marcion and some Gnostic groups employed to argue for their interpretations head on. One good example is Romans 8:3 where the latter argued for a docetic Christology (which holds that Christ did not really took on flesh). In his defence of the orthodox position, Tertullian analysed the whole pericope and pointed out, among other things that a docetic Christology is impossible if one keeps in mind what Paul declares in 8:11: "But if the Spirit of Him who raised Jesus from the dead dwells in you, He who raised Christ from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies through His Spirit who dwells in you."

Especially today, we as Christians should be able to use Scripture (and not apostolic succession and the authority of the church) in our witness and defence of WHY we believe.

Saturday, 20 February 2010

Credible evidence for Jesus' resurrection or not?

I had a great week in Nijmegen! My office is on the 14th floor of the Erasmus building (to the right). Great view of the city!
I had a very interesting and engaging conversation with a Dutch couple on the plane earlier in the week. Afterwards, I once again realised how important it is for Christians to be able to offer legitimate reasons for WHAT they believe and WHY. It is one thing te believe that Jesus rose from the dead, it could be quite another to explain why. Did he really rise from the dead? Are there any credible evidence for it? Or is faith a step in the dark?
I have been studying these issues for more than five years now. From the start I decided to study not just those whom I agreed with. I wrestled with the likes of Gerd Ludemann, Sandy Wedderburn and John Dominic Crossan (not the kind of scholars to study over a cup of tea on a sunday afternoon). I have read their work carefully. Do I agree with some theories that Jesus' disciples experienced hallucinations? Or that his body rotted in a tomb? Or that the vultures tore his bodily remains apart on the cross? As a historian, I think there are credible reasons to refute these claims.

Four New Testament scholars, with the academic clout to deserve a hearing have convinced me of the credibility of believing that Jesus really rose from the dead. They are Mike Licona, Gary Habermas, William Lane Craig and Tom Wright. All of their work on the resurrection of Jesus is worth looking at. Wright, who wrote a volume of more than 800 pages on the matter can state with convidence:
"Historical investigation, I propose, brings us to the point where we must say that the tomb previously housing a thoroughly dead Jesus was empty, and that his followers saw and met someone they were convinced was this same Jesus, bodily alive though in a new, transformed fashion. The empty tomb on the one hand and the convincing appearances of Jesus on the other are the two conclusions the historian must draw."
See also the youtube link below, for an excellent preview of a new book on the resurrection by Wright:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c7moErEWXZo

Hey, but the facts alone cannot produce faith! That is God's gift for those who put theit trust in Jesus.

Thursday, 11 February 2010

Here we go! PhD in Nijmegen!

I have just been informed that I've been accepted as PhD candidate in New Testament at the department of Theology, Radboud University, Nijmegen, in the Netherlands!

Nijmegen is the oldest city in the Netherlands with a rich and colourful history. In terms of theology, the most famous theologian associated with Nijmegen is undoubtedly the controversial Edward Schillebeeckx.

The university is also famous for early church and patristic research and often referred to as the "Nijmegen School".

More recently the influential Gospel of John scholar professor Jan van der Watt, formerly from the University of Pretoria, South Africa joined the faculty. He is currently the General editor of the Review of Biblical Literature. I am so grateful for the opportunity to do my PhD under him. For one of his recent publications, click on the link http://www.continuumbooks.com/books/detail.aspx?BookId=123940&SntUrl=148429


 I am flying out to Nijmegen next week and will share some of my experiences in due course. I am so thankful towards God for this opportunity. The picture to the right is of professor Jan van der Watt.

Tuesday, 9 February 2010

THE EMPTY TOMB AND CHRISTOLOGY - Leander Keck

EMPTY TOMB
Any chance that Jesus' bones will one day be found in a Jerusalem tomb? No. And this is taught by both the canonical gospels and Paul. This is more or less the answer given me today while having coffee with professor Leander Keck (now 82 years old) at his house in Cambridge, UK.

For almost two hours I listened attentively to this renowned New Testament Scholar talking about the "Yale School", Brevard Childs, George Lindbeck, William Wrede, Rudolf Bultmann, Ernst Troeltsch, Ernst Kasemann (whom he knows personally), Joachim Jeremias and much more.. I share a few significant moments with you:

NEW BOOK ON CHRISTOLOGY
Professor Keck is busy writing a book on Christology. As we discussed some issues relevant to this project professor Keck made the following interesting remarks:

Leander Keck:
"Why is it [the new book] taking so long? Because I realised that Wrede and Bousset mislead the discipline. They described New Testament Christology as the history of early Christian christology, for which the New Testament is one of the sources. But history of Christology is not Christology. I've got nothing against the history of Christology, but that is not Christology. Christology to me is a doctrine, it is a teaching, it has a rational, it is a logic, it relates to God with Jesus at the centre... why do you think Jesus is decisive for everybody? That's the problem. And the history of Christology tells you how and why they answered it in this or that way, what concepts they used, who got this or that idea, where they borrowed it from, how they interacted etc. But that doesn't answer the question! Why is Jesus who Christians say He is? That takes a theologian."
Frederik Mulder:
"Not a biblical scholar?"
Leander Keck:
"Well, a biblical scholar too, but there's no reason why a New Testament scholar cannot be a theologian. That's why you are in a good position to combine those fields."
Frederik Mulder:
"It's tough. All those wars going on since Gabler?"
Leander Keck:
Yea yea right. That's it. But if that's the problem, how was it that Wrede's solution - history only, and filled out then by Bousset... why did we buy that?! What happened? Why did that seem to be the solution? We need to free ourselves, not to repudiate history, but to free ourselves from thinking that Christology is the history of Christology."

Wednesday, 3 February 2010

World Class New Testament Scholars in Cambridge

It is not often that one gets the opportunity to meet two world-class New Testament Scholars at the same time. Recently I managed just that. Prof Donald Hagner (to the left) is emeritus professor from Fuller Seminary, and to the right is prof Leander Keck, emeritus professor from Yale Divinity School. Prof Keck's lovely wife in the middle is the former widow of another world-class Scholar: Brevard Childs also from Yale. They married some years after both their spouses passed away.

Check out the links below for two of their influential works:

http://books.google.com/books?id=isX6fhicH3QC&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q=&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=qq5Lw7T8PNsC&printsec=frontcover&dq=Donald+Hagner&source=bl&ots=aAIzSUX_bF&sig=u4dn0Ppemh2c4KGfwS_4YsCwUtE&hl=en&ei=b4VpS7X-FtW6jAe5wamzCQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=5&ved=0CBwQ6AEwBA#v=onepage&q=&f=false