Pages

Monday, 28 February 2011

New Testament papers presented at Queens College, Oxford

     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.

Monday, 21 February 2011

Cambridge Scholars confess Jesus' bodily resurrection

         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.


Sunday, 13 February 2011

Durham's New Testament Research Seminar

       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





Sunday, 6 February 2011

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

          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."


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.

Thursday, 3 February 2011

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


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?

Tuesday, 1 February 2011

Cambridge New Testament Seminars, Lent Term 2011

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)]



Tuesday, 25 January 2011

Influential Dutch Scholar: Herman Ridderbos (1909-2007)

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.



Tuesday, 18 January 2011

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

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

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 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.

Monday, 10 January 2011

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

      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 )

Sunday, 26 December 2010

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

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....

Wednesday, 22 December 2010

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

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.


Tuesday, 21 December 2010

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

"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.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 


Friday, 17 December 2010

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

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!

Tuesday, 14 December 2010

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


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.

Friday, 10 December 2010

dr Bruce Winter visits Tyndale House, Cambridge UK

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).

Monday, 6 December 2010

Momentous occasion: Michael Wolter at the NIJMEGEN PRESTIGE LECTURES 2010

On Thursday 2 December  2010, we had the annual NIJMEGEN PRESTIGE LECTURE 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 standardised by the Torah, determined the identity of Israel. At this stage, Paul's commitment to the fulfilment 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 centre, 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 recognised 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 organised 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 practised 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: