Pages

Tuesday, 4 September 2018

Academic Success or God? Who and what defines my Identity as a Christian?

I can't remember ever reading such an honest, vulnerable, self-revealing book by an established biblical scholar as this one: Brian S Rosner, Known by God. A Biblical Theology of Personal Identity (Zondervan: Grand Rapids, 2017). Such books don't appear often. Biblical scholars tend to keep their private lives hidden from the outside world. This book should be compulsory reading for evangelical students pursuing post-graduate study. Brian had a premier pedigree: a PhD in biblical studies from Cambridge, a monograph published in a top rated European monograph series, a senior teaching post at a well respected university. You could almost say, he had the modern day equivalent of what Paul describes in Philippians 3:4-7. But the book doesn't start with a list of achievements. Rather, it starts with tragic events that changed his life dramatically. Reflecting on some of these, Rosner states:

"My hopes and aspirations evaporated. Looking forward became a luxury I couldn't afford. With damaged memories, an uncertain destiny, and a troubled present, I had lost my sense of self and was forced to revisit the question that you're supposed to settle for good in your childhood and adolescence. That most personal question of all: Who am I?" (p. 23).

In the midst of his existential crisis, Brian turned to God and the Bible for answers:

"What I found (in the Bible) has made an enormous difference to me personally. It doused a destructive pessimism that threatened to engulf me, instilled in me a sense of value when I felt worthless, and steadied my course when I went close to coming off the rails" (p. 23).

But was this not just a phase in which a person discovered some short-term crutch, useful for but one season in life?  No. Brian reflects back over twenty years, revealing how the Bible continues to supply him with a "stable and satisfying sense of self, along with the blessings of significance, comfort, humility, and direction for living" (p. 24).

Brian engages masterfully and sensitively with popular contemporary ideas about personal identity as background for mature and accessible evangelical alternatives offered in the Old and New Testament. There is so much gold here, it would take several pages to unpack them.

And yes, Brian tackles the contemporary fixation on and deconstruction of gender, including in the discussion an excerpt from a February 14, 2014 Facebook announcement: "today, we're proud to offer a new custom gender option to help you better express your own identity on Facebook".

Acknowledging that there is no space for detailed discussion, Brian briefly explores insights from Galatians 3:28, Matthew 19:12; 22:30 concluding as follows:

"In the Bible's view, you are not your sexuality. There is something more fundamental to your identity".

Being a theologians in my mid forties, the chapter on humility is particularly arresting. Brian's not afraid to say things the way they really are:

"I am frequently struck by how often 'successful' people attribute their success to hard work, when the truth is that luck and timing (providentially governed), both fully outside of our control, play a major part in most successful ventures. If your plans succeed, do you take full credit and think how hard-working or shrewd you have been? Or do you say, along with Paul, what do we have that we did not receive (1 Cor 4:7)?" (p. 214).

Bitter competition, rivalry, backstabbing and arrogance in some biblical studies circles is an unfortunate reality.  I can recall numerous conversation at conferences confirming this. Brian's advice on these matters is exactly what I need right now:

"finding your identity in your achievements is unwise. Having your name known to God and inscribed permanently in heaven represents genuine and lasting significance and should lead to a healthy and realistic humility, enabling you to put the interests of others ahead of yourself and to serve them in love" (p. 216).

For me, this book will be my Christian identity companion, placed next to my Bible on the side of my bed for a long time. It is beautifully written, accessible, arresting and provides a welcome daily identity challenge for a Christian like me. If you have £12.99, invest in this book, you won't regret it ...

Brian is principal of Ridley College in Melbourne, Australia. Previously he taught at the University of Aberdeen and Moore Theological College. Brian is the author or editor of over a dozen books, including Greed as Idolatry, Paul and the Law, the Pillar commentary on 1 Corinthians, The Consolations of Theology, and the New Dictionary of Biblical Theology.






Saturday, 10 December 2016

From Bultmann to Pannenberg and the Early Church: The Theological Journeys of Thomas Oden

No other 20th century biblical scholar has divided Christian theologians as much as Rudolf Bultmann. To this day, there is a certain reverence for him in Germany, which no other theologian of his day enjoys. I experienced this myself visiting Bonn, Munster, Mains, Halle and Berlin between 2010-2013. At some point, if you wanted a teaching job at a top German university, you needed to demonstrate your allegiance to him. Bultmann himself also secured important academic appointments for some of his students which, in turn, contributed to the longevity of his scholarship and insights.

On the other hand, Bultmann's controversial work, especially on demythologizing the New Testament, existentialism and form-criticism, was criticised by especially North American scholars, but also a couple of his own German students.

Against this background, the recent death of Thomas Oden, once a Bultmann disciple, provides another chapter to the controversies and continuing fascination with the life and work of Bultmann. Below I place a couple excerpts from Oden's A Change of Heart. A Personal and Theological Memoir, and some comments.

"My fascination with Rudolf Bultmann's demythology project was very evident in the mid-1950s and continued throughout my Yale years. The works of Kierkegaard, Heidegger and Bultmann became the prevailing sources for all I sought to do. The Hebrew and Christian sacred texts came alive through existential interpretation of the faith that formed among Jesus' followers-reported first in oral tradition from which the written tradition was derived. But I started to wonder if it was the biblical writers I was absorbing or was it Bultmann.
I was writing and speaking in defence of what I thought was a moderate Bultmannian position in theology. Bultmann had rightly resisted the German liberalism of Adolf Harnack, who sought to base Christian teaching on the moral imitation of the historical Jesus. The Jesus of history was constantly being contrasted with classic Christian dogmas about the incarnate and risen Christ, lord of glory. Bultmann's answer to Harnack was to translate every Gospel passage into what he regarded as its demythologized existential meaning ... Bultmann showed me the way back into an intense engagement with the sacred texts, but not fully into its own premises of revelation. He was investigating historically the memory of the community remembering Jesus, not the Jesus of the text, who was understood by classic Christianity as truly God, truly human. I carelessly assumed Bultmann's method would remain decisive for every serious interpreter of Scripture" (69-70).

At this stage, Bultmann's method was indeed decisive for Oden, who went on to write his PhD on the ethics of Bultmann and Karl Barth. Oden also had personal interaction with Bultmann:

"... my dissertation was approved in time for spring semester graduation in  May 1960. Once accepted, I sent the first half of the dissertation to Rudolf Bultmann as a courtesy with an invitation to respond to any points in my analysis and critique if he wished. I was speechless when I received a long letter from Bultmann, who had diligently examined the details of my arguments. His letter became a featured part of the publication in 1964 ... of Radical Obedience: The Ethics of Rudolf Bultmann: With a Response by Rudolf Bultmann."

Indeed, Bultmann himself played a significant role in launching the academic career of the young Oden. As Oden started his teaching career, he explains on pp. 85-86 the content of his own beliefs and ethics by focusing on the resurrection of Jesus in the Apostles' Creed:

"I was able to confess the Apostles' Creed, but only with deep ambiguity. But I stumbled over 'he rose from the dead.' I had to demythologize it and could say it only symbolically. I could not inwardly confess the resurrection as a factual historical event. I was assigned the task of teaching theology, but when it came to the resurrection, I honestly had to say at that stage that it was not about an actual event of a bodily resurrection but a community's memory of an unexplained event.  ... I could not explain to myself or others how Christianity could be built on an event that never happened.
That turned the New Testament into a puzzle of historical investigation about an event that never occurred. I doggedly continued to teach that the disciples' memory of Jesus' resurrection enabled us to understand ourselves anew as the recipients of a new present.
This unrisen Christ was coupled with an ethic that held that the demand of God appears only in the present. It was uniquely given anew each moment. To listen to the need of the neighbor who meets me concretely is to listen for the call of God. That was the basis for a situational view of ethics. The requirement of God was discernible in the present since the neighbor always meets us with genuine needs.
That was my credo in my early thirties. It was new birth without bodily resurrection and forgiveness without atonement. Resurrection and atonement were words I choked on. That meant that the gospel was not about an event of divine salvation but about a human psychological experience of trust and freedom from anxiety, guilt and boredom. For me that passed for theology, but I remained uneasy about its insufficiencies".

In 1965 Oden had his first sabbatical during which he visited Bultmann and "Frau Bultmann" in their "warm, book-filled" house in Marburg. Bultmann, eighty-one and in good health at the time, confirmed to Oden that he was the first theologian who offered a substantial treatment of his views on ethics. They discussed unresolved issues in Oden's book, after which Oden attempted to shift the conversation to the resurrection:

"I attempted to raise the troubling question of the Christian doctrine of the resurrection, but Bultmann parried it by focusing on the tradition of the resurrection memory rather than its facts" (92).

Quite soon after the publication of The Ethics of Rudolf Bultmann, Oden began to have increasing reservations about his demythologized Jesus. Enter the work of Wolfhart Pannenberg:

"I read it [Pannenberg] in amazement as he presented a much more powerful critique of both Barth and Bultmann than I had conceived in my dissertation ... Bultmann had narrowed history to the moment of existential encounter in the now. Oppositely, Pannenberg extended the focus of history to its broadest frame: creation to consummation. That forever redefined my trajectory.
The premise from then on was that universal history is revelation. That meant the study of the whole of history in what the Bible calls revelation. The crucial point is that the 'whole' includes the end. Only through grasping the end of human history was its beginning understandable. For me that was a stunning idea: the meaning of history was known through the end of history. For Christians the meaning of the end of history was anticipatively revealed in the history of Jesus. Here was what I had been looking for. The New Testament taught the meaning of universal history, seen in the light of the  events of the life, death and resurrection of Jesus, and promised final judgement. To my amazement Pannenberg presented evidence-based arguments that the resurrection of Jesus was the decisive event in history pointing to the end of history. Nobody before Pannenberg had made that connection as clearly as he did" (97-98).

While still in Germany, Oden was invited by Dieter Georgi, among the youngest on the Heidelberg New Testament faculty, to attend the annual meeting of the Bultmann-Kreise, the circle of Bultmannian scholars who met annually. Oden's recollection underlines the influence Bultmann and his students had in German and some American universities:

"In January of 1966 we drove to a small village guesthouse to meet the inner circle of the second generation of Bultmann scholars. Among them were some who would come to dominate the departments of New Testament studies in European and American universities in the ensuing decades. The group was dedicated to advancing and critiquing the influential initiatives Bultmann had taken towards the demythology of the New Testament. The more I heard, the more my interest in Bultmann ebbed since it appeared to me that the inner circle was more intent upon acceptance within the historical guild than in listening to the wisdom of the text" (100-101).

Yet, Oden continued to ride the Bultmann wave a little while longer. In fact, his work on Bultmann and experimental psychotherapy continued to open new and more prestigious doors:

"I received an invitation to consider coming to join the faculty of one of America's leading graduate schools at Drew University in Madison, New Jersey ... What they knew of me was my literary record as a centrist Bultmannian, an education experimentalist and an actively publishing scholars. They liked it that a Bultmannian had ventured into the world of experimental psychotherapies ... The University welcomed us heartily and offered me an opportunity to be part of the total rebuilding of the once great faculty ... I could see that my perspective would be significantly enlarged by being in the multicultural New York atmosphere" (126-127).

The final change, which caused Oden to break decisively with his Bultmannian early phase, happened in his first month at Drew University. This was primarily the result of a deep friendship with the former Marxist and "brilliant, diminutive, forceful, bearded Russian Jew", professor Will Herberg:

"Herberg was the master teacher on the university faculty, influencing generations of graduate students in interreligious dialogue, philosophy and theology. He passionately communicated the sacred tradition of Scripture that Jews and Christians share together ... As a Jewish social philosopher, he drew many Christians, including me, toward a deeper understanding of their own Christian faith" (135).

Oden and Herberg met on a cold rainy day, and immediately became friends. Oden, his wife Edita and
Herberg set up a biweekly schedule of luncheon meetings, with Edrita "serving as an active moderator who often softened the decibels". Here follows Oden's description of the decisive moment which changed him:

"The decisive moment of our confrontation was inevitable. Soon after our first meeting, I had given Will a copy of my recently published book Beyond Revolution, and he had read, marked and intensely responded in copious marginal notes ... Two weeks after that the three of us were having lunch in the balcony section of Rod's Restaurant in Covenant Station. Will was trying to show me that the errors I was making were much deeper that I had realized. I tried to defend myself. Suddenly my irascible, endearing Jewish friend leaned into my face and told me that I was densely ignorant of Christianity, and he simply couldn't permit me to throw my life away.
Holding one finger up, looking straight at me with fury in his eyes, he said, 'You will remain theologically uneducated until you study carefully Athanasius, Augustine and Aquinas.' In his usual gruff voice and brusque speech, he told me I had not yet met the great minds of my own religious tradition ... Herberg reminded me that I would stand under divine judgement on the last day. He said, 'If you are ever going to become a credible theologian instead of a know-it-all pundit, you had best restart your life on firmer ground. You are not a theologian except in name only, even if you are paid to be one.'
In an instant of recognition, I knew he was right, I knew he had said that because he cared deeply about me. His words burned into my conscience. That  was the opening bell that led to a bruising personal dialogue about my self-deceptions. All of its implications were not realized instantly, but my reversal began then and there on that very day, that very moment.
I asked myself, Could it be that I had been trampling on a vast tradition of historical wisdom in the attempt to be original?" (136-137).

All the time, Oden's wife was part of the conversation. Later she asked him what he was going to do about Will's challenge. He had to concede that he had never truly worked through patristic texts with a listening heart. Reflecting back, Oden asked a number of penetrating questions:

  • Why did it take a Jew to turn me to Christianity?
  • Why did I get so few warning signals from Christians against the long range consequence of pacifism, collectivism and naturalism?
  • Why did I have to wait for a former socialist Jew who had been through those illusions himself to confront me with how futile they were?
Over time, Oden plunged into reading the earliest Christian writers: Polycarp, Ignatius and Justin Martyr. The maturing of Oden's change of heart was gradual through quiet reading in early mornings in a library carrel, meeting "those great minds through their own words" (138). And so the journey continued, reading Augustine, Jerome, John of Damascus, Sister Macrina, John Chrysostom etc. Bultmann's name re-emerged:

"And while reading Cyril of Jerusalem's Catechetical Lecture on evidence for the resurrection, I became persuaded that Pannenberg had provided a more accurate account than Bultmann of the event of resurrection" (138).

Remarkably, Oden's deep dive into early church texts made him realise that every question he previously thought of as ground breaking, had already been much investigated. Modern biblical scholarship was not as modern and original after all:

"Soon I reveled in the very premises I had set aside and rationalized away ... As I worked my way through the beautiful, long-hidden texts of classic Christianity, I reemerged out of a maze to once again delight in the holy mysteries of the faith and the perennial dilemmas of fallen human existence. It was no longer me interpreting the texts but the texts interpreting me. I was deeply moved ... [before] I had been unprepared to grant sacred Scripture its own premises: divine sovereignty, revelation in history, incarnation, resurrection and final judgement.
I had put too much uncritical trust in contemporary methods of historical study and behavioral engineering ... I was elated to realize that there was nothing new in what I was learning; I was only relearning what had been relearned many times before from the apostolic witnesses. I was amazed that the intergenerational wisdom of the ancient community of faith was completely accessible within modernity. There was no need for apology to university colleagues, no need to diminish my learnings by requiring them to conform to transient modern assumptions. There it was, still pulsating as a living, caring community that had survived unnoticed underneath the illusions of modernity" (139-140).

What a journey ...



Friday, 9 December 2016

Thomas Oden and Political Correctness ...

I was deeply saddened to learn that Thomas Oden passed away recently. His theological journey has inspired me and helped me rediscover the importance and significance of Patristic theologians for contemporary New Testament scholarship.

Oden's theological journey at Drew University in particular fascinates me. It demonstrates the role politically correct and left wing agendas can play in mainline seminaries. Will be interesting to hear the thoughts of the likes of Len Sweet, Peter Enns, Chris Keith and Anthony Le Donne's on this ...






Wednesday, 7 December 2016

Harvard, Calvin College, and serious non-Christian thought - Alvin Plantinga

Probably the most important 20th century Christian philosopher, Alvin Plantinga, concluded a summary of his spiritual and theological journey as follows:

"Calvin College has been for me an enormously powerful spiritual influence and in some ways the center and focus of my intellectual life. Had I not returned to Calvin from Harvard, I doubt (humanly speaking, anyway) that I would have remained a Christian at all; certainly Christianity or theism would not have been the focal point of my adult intellectual life".

The background for this claim is fascinating:







Wednesday, 2 November 2016

The new SBL "discrimination" policy, and being tossed out of class ...

As a young undergraduate theology student at Presbyterian College, Montreal, renowned theologian W. Stanford Reid was tossed out of a Church History lecture because he quoted the Westminster Confession's statement on Christ's resurrection. Moments earlier, professor Frank Beare denied Christ's bodily resurrection.

Stanford Reid had no choice, he had to find a more balanced seminary where one won't be tossed out of lectures like that. He chose Westminster Theological Seminary in Philadelphia, and was accused of disloyalty by his denomination for doing so.

One wonders whether the SBL committee overseeing a new policy that will take "discrimination" into account for the future, will take Stanford Reid stories into account. But will they? Nijay Gupta has said on Facebook that there are no evangelicals on the SBL's executive council ... 
* Nijay qualified the latter as follows: "I don't know all the names on the council, so none appear to me to be traditional evangelicals, but there are a few where I am not sure."






Wednesday, 12 October 2016

Tom Wright's non-historical Jesuses and the Systematic end of Apartheid



Tom Wright often relies on an interesting and famous lecture by Ernst Kasemann in 1953, as hermeneutical background for serious historical Jesus studies. Wright usually offers Bultmann's "gemeinde theologie" and "non-historical Jesuses" as the fertile soil for Hitler and the Nazi ideology. As someone who has benefitted from Wright's scholarship, including his work on critical realism and historical methodology, my South African experience paints a different picture when it comes to the motivation to engage in historical Jesus studies.

Johann Heyns (renowned professor of Systematic Theology, who studied under Hendrik Berkhouwer in Amsterdam) was an early prophetic voice against apartheid, while at the same time being quite sceptical about historical Jesus studies. He became famous for his Kingdom of God theology, developed as a systematic theologian, which provided an hermeneutical framework for a socially just society. There can be little doubt that the latter contributed to a relatively calm and smooth political transition from old to new South Africa.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johan_Heyns


Beyers Naude, formerly head of the Afrikaner Broederbond, and later famous anti-apartheid activist, in later life indicated that it was BB Keet, his Systematic Theology professor at Stellenbosch, that laid the foundation for his theological dissent.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beyers_Naud%C3%A9


It could be argued that it was Systematic Theologians, and not a large majority of South African New Testament biblical scholars, who confronted the "non-historical Jesuses" of the old South Africa.
Personally, I am in favour of historical Jesus studies, but thinks Tom should probably nuance his 1953 Kasemann prop in light of the South African counter story ... 

Tuesday, 1 September 2015

Anthony Le Donne: Is Richard Bauckham guilty of a "philosophical assumption and methodological tendency" in Jesus and the Eyewitnesses?

In the comments of a recent blog post on www.historicaljesusresearch.blogspot.com, Anthony Le Donne - Assistant Professor of New Testament at United Theological Seminary - claimed that Richard Bauckham - in Jesus and the Eyewitnesses - is guilty of a "philosophical assumption and methodological tendency" in relation to eyewitnesses providing "very reliable source material". Connected to this is the claim that Luke "*must* ... have had access to some *very reliable* sources".

Le Donne's blog was actually focussing on a Bible Odyssey entry by Brent Landau titled 'Was Luke a Historian", in which the issues of eyewitnesses and reliable sources were discussed. I copy the key section in his blog post as background for understanding Le Donne's claim about Bauckham, together with my question in the comments, Le Donne's response, Bauckham's immediate response, and in conclusion brief reflections on Bauckham's relevant work.

Le Donne: "Luke may even have a reliable source that has conveyed the specific events mentioned in Luke 13:1-5. But why *must* Luke have had access to some *very reliable* sources? I think that Landau climbs out too far on this limb. Finally, why should we imagine - as Landau seems to - that eyewitnesses provide very reliable source material? ... There is a philosophical assumption and methodological tendency here that requires more conversation. So to my challenge: firsthand testimony is not necessarily better and sometimes much worse than secondary or tertiary works of reflection. This is true of 'quite minor events' and even more true of significant, life-changing events.
-anthony".

Mulder question: "Interesting Anthony. Do you think Richard Bauckham - in Jesus and the Eyewitnesses - is guilty of the 'philosophical assumption and methodological tendency' you highlighted in Landau?"

Le Donne response: "Yes. -anthony".

Bauckham's response: "What is routinely ignored in discussion of my Eyewitnesses book, is that in the chapter on the psychology of eyewitnesses memory I explained that eyewitness memory can be very unreliable, but for that reason I drew from a an extensive study of the psychological research literature conclusions about what sort of things are most likely to be remembered well and under what conditions eyewitness memory is likely to be reliable. Therefore my arguments are not refuted simply by general claims that eyewitness memory is often unreliable. It is one of many points at which my critics simply have not read my work adequately ..."

Response

Having read Eyewitnesses myself, I was quite intrigued by Le Donne's "Yes" to my question. It didn't seem that Le Donne had the intention to qualify his answer until Bauckham himself joined the conversation. For what it's worth, I thought it helpful to highlight a couple of relevant sections in Bauckham's chapter on "Eyewitness Memory"(pp. 319-357).

In preparation for a discussion about a psychological approach to the memories of the eyewitnesses of Jesus, Bauckham presents two anecdotal instances that illustrate both how unreliable and how reliable eyewitness testimony in ordinary life can be. The second concerns an eighty-three-year-old man remembering accurate details of an event that happened more than seventy years previously. The first - relevant for our current discussion - concerns reminiscences of the pianist Rossini about his early meeting with Beethoven. Bauckham cites Jan Vansina who reflects on Rossini's reminiscences as a warning of how unreliable eyewitness testimony can be:

"The famous story of the reminiscences of Rossini about his early meeting with Beethoven may serve as a warning to the unwary. When first told, a few years after Beethoven's death, Rossini said that he went to to Beethoven's house, had great difficulty in being admitted, and in the end did not speak to the master whose command of Italian ... was insufficient. This last bit we may doubt - at least from this source. Towards the end of Rossini's life the story had become quite a tale. It involved the tortured master, in the throes of creation, receiving Rossini, advising him to continue his great work, and above all praising Il Barbiere di Siviglia as the greatest comic work ever written".

Bauckham argues that this example "illustrates how an eyewitness may himself reshape an autobiographical memory radically during the course of retelling the story over many years. The motive in this case is obvious. Rossini emerges as a thoroughly untrustworthy witness".

Later on, reflecting on Recollective Memory, Bauckham argues that the purpose for which the memory is recalled and communicated may strongly affect the construction of memory.

"Memories are not freely constructed. There are clearly constraints in the remembering process that account for the relative accuracy and the broad element of stability in memories recalled on different occasions ... If a person cannot recall sufficient accurate detail to reproduce an experience, the mind may fill in the gaps from its other stores of knowledge. The experience of one woman recalling her early memories is a nice illustration. She writes that one day she was reliving a memory of the Russian revolution of 1905, when she was five years old ... Her memory has misled her by supplying for this episodic memory information from a generic personal memory ... that was close to, but not the correct generic memory ... Another way in which the reconstructive process can be misled so that distorted memories occur is though misinformation acquired by persons about an event they remember. Such misinformation can be unconsciously adopted into their memory and become part of it. In extreme cases persons told about an event that allegedly happened to them can come to believe they actually remember it, even though the event never happened".

Against this background, it is indeed not the case that Bauckham is guilty of a philosophical assumption and methodological tendency which holds that eyewitnesses necessarily provide very reliable source material. In the section "The Reliability of Recollective Memory", Bauckham focuses on nine factors underlying the sort of memories that are more likely to be reliable:

(1) Unique or unusual events
(2) Salient or consequential events
(3) An event in which a person is emotionally involved
(4) Vivid imagery
(5) Irrelevant detail
(6) Point of view
(7) Dating
(8) Gist and detail
(9)Frequent rehearsal

Bauckham concludes by citing the results of two studies (cf. D.C. Rubin and M. Kozin; G. Cohen and D. Faulkner), illustrating how some of the nine factors determining memorability come together to promote and preserve memory of specific events:

"Rubin and Kozin asked a group of students to describe three of their clearest memories, and to rate them for national importance, personal importance, surprise, vividness, emotionality, and how often they discussed the event. The most commonly reported events concerned injuries or accidents, sports, and encounters with the opposite sex. Memories which were more vivid also received higher ratings for importance, surprise, and emotionality. Cohen and Faulkner also reported that memory vividness correlated significantly with emotions, importance, and the amount of rehearsal. In their study, the relative power of these factors shifted with the age of the person who was remembering. For younger people the amount of rehearsal was the most powerful factor. The vividness of their remote memories was preserved because the events were often thought about and talked about ... Events in which the subjects were actors were remembered better than events in which they were only bystanders, and unique occasions and first times were remembered more often than generic events or last times".

According to Bauckham, these studies illustrate the way several of the nine factors discussed tend to occur in combination, making it difficult to gauge their relative importance. On pp. 341-346, Bauckham applies these factors to the eyewitness memories behind the Gospels, concluding as follows:

"The eyewitnesses who remembered the events of the history of Jesus were remembering inherently very memorable events, unusual events that would have impressed themselves on the memory, events of key significance for those who remembered them, landmark or life-changing events for them in many cases, and their memories would have been reinforced and stabilized by frequent rehearsal, beginning soon after the event. They did not need to remember - and the Gospels rarely record - merely peripheral aspects of the scene or the event, the aspects of recollective memory that are least reliable. Such details may often have been subject to performative variation in the eyewitnesses' tellings of their stories, but the central features of the memory, those that constituted its meaning for those who witnessed and attested it, are likely to have been preserved reliably. We may conclude that the memories of eyewitnesses of the history of Jesus score highly by the criteria for likely reliability that have been established by the psychological study of recollective memory".











Thursday, 16 July 2015

"Joy and sorrow in great and equal measure" - Completing a New Testament PhD by Dr Colin Bullard

Colin Bullard completed his PhD in New Testament under Simon Gathercole a while ago. I really enjoyed reading Colin's reflections back after the viva.  http://collinandcandice.blogspot.co.uk/2013/09/the-viva.html

I discovered some pictures I took of the Bullards somewhere on my desktop. Great memories!









Wednesday, 4 June 2014

The most extensive analysis of the Gospel of Thomas yet ...

The most extensive analysis of the Gospel of Thomas yet. 
http://www.brill.com/products/book/gospel-thomas

Thursday, 28 February 2013

Scottish origins of the Dutch Reformed Church revival and seminaries in South Africa


Ever heard the names Andrew and John Murray? 

Their father, Rev Andrew Murray was one of several Scottish ministers who came to the Cape of Good Hope in the 19th century and became ministers in the Dutch Reformed Church.

Why was a seminary established at Stellenbosch in 1859?

Andrew and John Murray, who studied in both Aberdeen, Scotland and Utrecht, Holland saw the need for an evangelical and reformed seminary in light of the devastating liberalism in Holland at the time. The latter under the leadership of the likes of the young W.C. Opzoomer from Utrecht, rejected things like Jesus' virgin birth, his miracles, bodily resurrection and uniqueness. Jesus was followed for being a good moral example. Also, God had to be stripped of his personal and supernatural attributes, and became the panentheist god constructed by Karl C.F. Krause, whom Opzoomer followed.

It is always special for me when a British journal publishes good and interesting theological stuff from South Africa. Recently, the reformed Baptist journal Reformation Today (available here at Tyndale House, Cambridge) published an article by Rev Erroll Hulse in which he reflects on the 19th century revival in South Africa in which the Murrays played an important part. Two excerpts:

"Some pinpoint the beginning of the 1860 revival in the Cape to a prayer by Dr Andrew Murray Junior. It was so powerful and moving that it lit fires in the hearts of those present. They took these strong convictions home to share with others.

It is important to note that gifted-pastor preachers were given to the churches in the Cape. The best known of these was Andrew Murray Senior. For over thirty years he had prayed specifically every Saturday night for revival. He had two sons, Andrew and John, both of whom became well-known pastors".

The discussion of the 1902 revival in the Prisoner of War Camps  is absolutely amazing:


"After the Boer War (1899-1902) the Afrikaners found themselves in a depressed and poverty-stricken state. They had lost their farms and suffered terrible loss of life in the notorious prisoner of war camps. 26,400 women and children died in those camps through starvation and epidemics.

During the Boer War which eventually consisted of 400,000 British soldiers seeking to overcome about 80,000 farmers who were skilled marksmen. Captured Boer soldiers were exiled to prisoner of war camps in Ceylon, India, St Helena and Bermuda. It was there that they experienced very remarkable and powerful spiritual revivals.

They did not enjoy telephone or e-mail communication. Research needs to be done to establish the details of these revivals. We do however know how the revival began in Ceylon. Two prisoners engaged in a quarrel.  The British encouraged chaplains to minister to the prisoners and so it was that the resident minister exhorted the two unhappy prisoners to go out to the field that they used for rugby football and there pray together. They heeded this exhortation and came back later with the testimony that the Holy Spirit had fallen on them. The next evening four returned to that spot to pray together. They came back with the same report. This proved to be the beginning of the revival with an ever increasing nightly prayer meeting. When the war ended, it was calculated that 2,000 out of the 5,000 were committed to Christ".


So what happened after the war?

"After the war the seminaries were filled with men who dedicated themselves to the ministry and to missions. A mighty missionary movement spread across Africa. Throughout her history a battle with liberalism has taken place in the NG Kerk. Since the 1950s a downgrade has taken place. The spiritual decline has been catastrophic. Unregenerate liberal professors have been allowed to destroy the faith of the seminary students.  
We must pray that the Lord will give the gift of faithful leaders again. And we must pray that the Afrikaans believers will study their history and again be blessed with spiritual awakening".


Thank you Reformation Today!

http://www.reformation-today.org/rtindex.htm

Friday, 12 October 2012

FF Bruce's integration of academic and church life, and how he embarrassed Ernst Käsemann

Today 112 years ago, Frederick Fyvie Bruce, one of the most influential British New Testament scholars of the 20th century was born in Scotland. As a small tribute, I thought I will share two little excerpts of Tim Grass' biography of Bruce's life and academic work, published in 2011. Two specific sections caught my eye as I glanced over a few sections tonight. The first is the occasion of his presidential address, after being elected president of the SNTS in 1975 (with interesting comments about Ernst Käsemann's body language!); and the second, the lack of tension he experienced between his academic study of the Bible and his approach to the Bible in personal or church life:


The 1975 SNTS Lecture

"... in 1975 he became president of the SNTS ... His presidential address, delivered at Aberdeen, was on the subject of 'The New Testament and Classical Studies'. In it he contended that the classicists were uniquely placed to study the New Testament because it was part of the cultural world which was their field and because the skills required to do so were those which they used in studying ancient writings. As a test case he took the writings of Luke, and especially the book of Acts, arguing controversially for the essential historicity of the speeches recorded in it. His conclusion was that 'the Graeco-Roman contribution to early Christianity should not be depreciated as though it were an alien accretion upon the pure gospel' ... Bruce was probably well aware that his emphasis on the importance of the classical background and his attempt to achieve objectivity in his handling of the text would run counter to the more conceptually orientated and philosophically committed approach of many continental scholars, and that his lay status would not be approved of by some clerical scholars present, but his lecture was the best (his close friend Ward) Gasque had ever heard him give, 'bearing witness to his convictions as a scholar and as a disciple'. Ernst Käsemann, a distinguished if sometimes combative German scholar, was seen to grow redder as the lecture progressed, but it may be a mark of his respect for Bruce that he does not appear to have entered into debate with him at the conference" (p. 115).

The lack of tension between academic and church life

"The Christian acceptance of the Bible as God's word written does not in the least inhibit the unfettered study of its contents and setting; on the contrary, it acts as an incentive to their most detailed and comprehensive investigation" (p. 131 [F.F. Bruce, "Matter of Call" (letter), Christianity Today, 26 March 1965, p. 38]).

"I am sometimes asked if I am aware of a tension between my academic study of the Bible and my approach to the Bible in personal or church life. I am bound to say that I am aware of no such tension ... Naturally, when I discharge a teaching ministry in church I avoid the technicalities of academic discourse and I apply the message of Scripture in a more practical way. But there is no conflict between my critical or exegetical activity in a university context and my Bible exposition in church; the former makes a substantial contribution to the latter. At the same time, membership in a local church, involvement in the activities of a worshipping community, helps the academic theologian to remember what his subject is all about, and keeps his studies properly 'earthed'" (p. 131 [F.F. Bruce, In Retrospect: Remembrance of Things Past (London: Marshall Pickering, rev. edn, 1993)]).

*  This pdf is a related lecture delivered at the John Rylands University Library with the title: "Is the Paul of Acts the Real Paul?".

Monday, 17 September 2012

Adam or Divine Christology in Paul? Chris Tilling takes on Dunn, Casey etc

I will never forget that rainy afternoon in Durham, England, when I, together with Nijay Gupta and two other students helped clear Prof James Dunn's loft. Prof Dunn needed a few students to help him remove the boxes stored in his loft, as he was preparing to sell his house and relocate to the south of England where his daughter lives. After we finished clearing the loft of all the dusty boxes, we had a nice cup of coffee in the kitchen, each having the chance to ask Prof Dunn a few questions. One of my questions went something like this: "Professor Dunn, which of the books you have written, do you regard as the most controversial?" Prof Dunn's answer? Christology in the Making. An Inquiry into the Origins of the Doctrine of the Incarnation, first published in 1980. I agreed with him, in part, because I analysed parts of his book for  an essay on the pre-existence of Christ in Paul's letters for one of the modules for my MTh at the University of Pretoria. Agree or disagree, anyone working on the pre-existence of Christ in Paul, has to engage with Dunn's book. 
With this in mind, I was delighted to see Chris Tilling's 2012 WUNT monograph: Paul's Divine Christology arriving here at Tyndale House this morning. Tilling dialogues extensively with the big names when it comes to Pauline Christology. They include the likes of Bauckham, Dunn, Fee, Garland, Harris, Hurtado, Martin, Schnabel, Schrage, Thiselton, Thrall, Waaler and Wright.

Here are a few bits and pieces of Dunn's interpretation of Philippians 2:6-11 compared with Tilling, as well as a short excerpt of the latter's findings to wet your appetite:

Dunn: "It may ... be that the pre-existence-incarnation interpretation of Phil. 2.6-11 etc. owes more to the Gnostic redeemer myth than it does to Phil. 2.6-11 properly understood as an expression of first generation Adam christology - one way of outbidding and countering the appeal of the Gnostic systems. How much truth is contained in the last comment is hard to discern. What we can say with more confidence is that the reading of these passages with the presupposition of a pre-existent heavenly redeemer resulted in a critical shift in Adam christology - a shift from christology of death and resurrection to a christology of incarnation - and not only in christology, but also in the concept of redemption which goes with it ... it is certainly arguable that all these subsequent developments are the consequence in part at least of losing sight of the original meaning and intention of the Adam christology" (James D. G. Dunn, Christology in the Making. An Inquiry into the Origins of the Doctrine of the Incarnation [SCM Press: London, 1989 2nd ed.], p. 128).

Tilling: "... if the passage [Phil. 2.6-11] was used as a hymn in the corporate worship of the early church ... then the singing of this 'hymn' about Christ would have constituted a feature of the 'corporate devotional practise of early Christians'. Dunn's rejoinder that the 'hymn' is 'not addressed to Christ, but gives[s] praise to God for Christ' would be more realistic if the biblical Psalms were always addressed to God and did not sing about God, which is, of course, regularly not the case. Besides, it is far from obvious that Philippians 2:10-11 must be addressed only to God, not Christ, especially as it is at the name of Jesus that every knee bends" (p. 127).

Excerpt of Tilling's findings: "... Pauline Christ-relation is a divine-Christology expressed as relationship. In light of this way of constructing and contending for a Pauline divine-Christology, the claims of Dunn, Casey and others who deny a Pauline divine-Christology were critically examined, and it was maintained that none of the arguments hitherto employed can  carry weight. For example ... Dunn's notion that Paul's 'christological reserve' only slipped into high Christology occasionally, are seen to crumble under the weight of data concerning the Pauline Christ-relation, Paul's divine-Christology. This way of dealing with the data in terms of the divine-Christology debate arguably has certain strenghts. To name a few: not only does it build on undeveloped lines of thought in Fee's work, but it constructively engages with the Christ-devotion emphasis in Hurtado, and the relational notion of identity in Bauckham" (p. 256).



Monday, 10 September 2012

FF Bruce's skepticism about German doctorate programs

Over the past few years, I've had the privilege of giving a few papers at German universities and having interesting discussions with German biblical scholars. I was recently struck after reading some of FF Bruce's thoughts concerning doctorate programs in Germany.
Tim Grass, in his 2011 "definitive biography" of Bruce states that the latter expressed a degree of wariness, even skepticism concerning German research doctorates. Apparently, in 1944, Bruce argued that German critical radicalism was due, not to the national character in Germany, but because of the doctoral dissertation system:

"As, generation after generation, German students submit dissertations for the doctorate of their faculty, they have the choice of confirming old views or presenting new ones. Naturally, more 'kudos' attaches to the publication of a new theory than to the re-establishment of an old one, and the most brilliant and ambitious students seek to put forth 'some new thing.' In some faculties the results of this tendency are wholly beneficial, but in such subjects as classical literature or biblical theology this is not always so. The number of probable hypotheses in these realms is limited, and these have long ago been exhausted, the chances are that improbable hypotheses will multiply" (p. 106).

Very interesting ...


Wednesday, 5 September 2012

The "resurrection fact" discussion in John Drane's New Testament Introduction (3rd edition)

"The whole existence of the early church was based on the belief that Jesus was no longer dead, but was alive and active through the work of the Spirit in the lives of his followers", writes John Drane in the 3rd edition of his very popular New Testament Introduction, which arrived here at Tyndale House, Cambridge this week.

But what exactly caused this "resurrection faith"? Apart from the claim that Jesus' actual physical body rose from the tomb, Drane discusses and critiques three alternative explanations. Here are a few bits and pieces:

1) The "resurrection fact" was a subjective experience
Drane: "The disciples ... were prepared to stake their lives on the fact that Jesus was alive. Many of them were brutally murdered for their faith, including Peter and other members of Jesus' inner circle, who would be prime suspects for having removed the body. It is highly improbable, if not impossible, to imagine that they would willingly have suffered in this way if all the time they knew where they themselves had hidden his corpse".

2. The "resurrection fact" was a theological creation
Drane: "There is no evidence from any source at all to suggest that the Messiah was to die, let alone rise from the dead. On the contrary, the Messiah was popularly expected to kill other people, and if he suffered and died himself, then by definition he was not going to be the real Messiah".

3. The "resurrection fact" was a later belief
Drane: "... there are the statements made by Paul in 1 Corinthians, written at least ten years before AD 66. By that time, one gospel had certainly been written, and furthermore, the gospel accounts were undoubtedly based on stories that went right back into the earliest days of the church. It makes no sense at all to suppose that belief in the resurrection was a late development".

Drane concludes the discussion saying that many other fanciful suggestions have been made from time to time to account for the "resurrection fact". "But", says Drane, "the overwhelming weight of all the evidence suggests that, however it might be described in cognitive abstractions, the 'resurrection fact' was a real, historically-located event. No other hypothesis gives an adequate account of so much of the evidence".

Revd Dr David Wenham, Vice-Principal and Tutor in New Testament, Trinity College, Bristol, has this to say on the back of the book: "This book has arguably been the  most  useful non-technical introduction to  the  New Testament available... A best buy for the student or lay person wanting a readable and reliable first handbook on the New Testament".

I was delighted to find a reference to Mark S. Goodacre's The Synoptic Problem at the resources section at the back of the book. Hopefully we can put the alleged plagiarism issue raised by Goodacre behind us. Peter Head, Sir Kirby Laing Senior lecturer in New Testament from Cambridge's response to the issue on Goodacre's blog might help in this regard....





Friday, 31 August 2012

First published photograph: Our earliest manuscript title for any gospel found? Simon Gathercole in NovT 54

Remember the days when some Bible critics claimed with almost absolute certainty that the titles of the gospels (e.g. "Gospel according to Matthew") were added very much later by the institutional church?
Novum Testamentum, one of the leading international journals devoted to the study of the New Testament, has just published an article by Simon Gathercole, Senior lecturer in New Testament at Cambridge University, with the title: "The Earliest Manuscript Title of Matthew's Gospel (BnF Suppl. gr. 1120 ii 3 / P4)".

I suppose it is an under statement to say that New Testament textual critics will / should study it very carefully.

Abstract
The flyleaf bearing the title of Matthew's gospel, found with the Luke fragments of P4 (henceforth P4), has been neglected in studies of P4 as well as in the Greek New Testament. This article publishes for  the first time a photograph of the flyleaf, and seeks to provide an accurate transcription of the often misspelled title. It also discusses the various factors impinging upon the date of the fragment, such as the Philo codex in which it was found and the apostrophe in the middle of Matthew's name. A date in the late second or  early third century makes best sense of the evidence, making this neglected flyleaf the earliest manuscript title of Matthew's gospel. 

Friday, 24 August 2012

Markus Vinzent's "questionable methodological assumptions and procedures" in Christ's Resurrection - James Carlton Paget's JSNT Review Article


There are two ways in which one can take Markus Vinzent's Christ's Resurrection in Early Christianity and the Meaning of the New Testament, says Cambridge's James Carlton Paget:


"(A)t one level it is about the reception of the idea of the resurrection in early Christian history, arguing a distinctive case, systematically and clearly. At another level ... it is a book about Marcion's apparently huge influence on the developing Christian church. The first argument is in a sense a supporting cog in the second, more significant one, which is built upon additional observations and so could survive without the former, even if that is not the way Vinzent seeks to present his case - for him the presence, disappearance and re-emergence of a resurrection-based soteriology can only be explained by reference to Marcion's growing influence" (my emphasis).

I was delighted to read Paget's twenty seven page review of Vinzent's book this morning in the latest edition of the JSNT (35) 1, pp 76-102. This was so, partly because I sat next to Paget a few months ago while he and Judith Lieu discussed the book at Cambridge's Senior New Testament Seminar (with the likes of Simon Gathercole, Richard Bauckham, Peter Head etc making contributions), but also, because I found corroboration on important points between his article and my review which I did for Theology (115 [2], 123-124).

Obviously aware of copy write regulations, I thought it worthwhile to quote just a few bits and pieces from Paget's article that might hopefully lead to further clarifications, and maybe fruitful discussions. I interpret as I go along, and please remember, it is only a foretaste of Paget's extensive review!

Dating New Testament and other texts
The specific dating of  New Testament and Patristic texts is very important for Vinzent's hypothesis to work. Texts like 1 Peter, Acts as well as Ignatius and Papias' writings, in which the resurrection is quite significant must be dated after Macion. If not, then Vinzent's hypothesis becomes unpersuasive. Paget writes:

"... it should be recognised that Vinzent's dating of these texts is controversial, and his case, to some extent, is dependent upon such datings - it will make a difference to Vinzent's case, for instance, if we hold Ignatius, contrary to his view, to be a pre-Marcionite writer, or Papias to have written in the earlier part of the second century ... The first would imply ... that the resurrection was a more important concept than Vinzent assumes it was, and Paul a possibly more significant source; and the second would obviously overturn Vinzent's view that Gospel texts associated with individual names did not exist before Marcion ... Vinzent's case is, in principle, as precarious as the one against which he might be thought to be battling. Indeed, without wishing to sound censorious, it is a problem with this book that too often the author does not show how controversial his views are and, consequently, does not give sufficient airing to the reasoning of those who would contradict his own reading of a text or another piece of evidence, at least in sufficiently full footnotes" (my emphasis). The latter was more or less what I also tried to underscore in my review.

Does Vinzent follow the textual evidence, or does he read his hypothesis into texts?
Put more precisely, is Vinzent reading his "pre-conceived Marcionite" ideas into texts, or are the texts themselves supplying convincing evidence for Vinzent's overall ideas? Paget writes:

"All theories are provisional and dependent upon a possibly narrow and unrepresentative set of texts. Such an observation is especially important when dealing with Vinzent's volume because he relies so heavily upon arguments from silence to prove a variety of points" (my emphasis). Is this in fact the case? Is Vinzent making use of circular arguments? On both accounts, Paget thinks that he does:

"... Vinzent's analysis of texts leads him to the view that Marcion is a key to understanding the development of the church in the middle to the later second century, and on the basis of that assumption he sets about reading texts. What I mean is that it is often precisely the assumption of the Marcionite centrality which guides the reading of sources".

But Paget is also cautious, adding: "I am not claiming that Vinzent has a mono-Marcionite view of the latter part of the second century, or that he reads texts exclusively as reactive", but, and crucially in my opinion, Paget argues that Vinzent's "... assumptions are key to the way he proceeds, and the risks of proceeding in such a way need to be considered in any assessment of his work" (my emphasis).

Paget then goes on to discuss in more detail several texts to illustrate his claims. This include discussions about Colossians, Ephesians, 1 Peter, 1 and 2 Clement, the Didache, the Epistle of Barnabas, Samaritan Christianity etc. It is worthwhile to compare Paget and Vinzent's different interpretations! I was quite relieved to see that at least some of the concerns I raised about Vinzent's interpretations of 1 Peter, 1 Clement and the Epistle of Barnabas in my review, is shared by Paget!

One central claim that Vinzent makes, is that after Marcion, there was a "resurrection-mania" in response to him reviving the doctrine. Is this claim persuasive? For a start, Paget shows that Vinzent's reference to Reinhart Staat as support for his hypothesis is incorrect. In fact, counter to Vinzent, Paget states that "Staat is clear that that is not the case, even as we move into the third and fourth centuries and he spends some time explaining why this was so". By referring to the likes of Justin, Tatian, Theophilus of Antioch etc (mentioning significant issues overlooked by Vinzent), Paget suggests that it might be better to speak of an "increased and intense interest in the resurrection of the dead rather than Christ's resurrection, and that such a concern emerged for a variety of reasons" (my emphasis). For the latter, Paget refers to an old but very useful account of the subject by the well-known Dutch scholar from Utrecht, W.C. van Unnik (JEH 15:141-67).

Related to Vinzent's theory of a post-Marcion "resurrection-mania", is whether the resurrection becomes a theme in the second century primarily because of Marcion? Paget disagrees with Vinzent pointing out that there are in fact a number of texts that could be taken to demonstrate an interest in the resurrection, that do not mention Marcion, such as the Epistula Apostolorum, Kerygma Petrou and certain Gnostic texts. 

The Priority of Marcion's Gospel
I found Paget's critique of Vinzent' interpretation of Marcion's Gospel very persuasive, in part because of my own analysis of Tertullian's engagement with Marcion in my Durham dissertation. Probably the most devastating critique of Vinzent's theory that Marcion was the first to write a Gospel is discussed in footnote 47:

"... Vinzent bases his view that Marcion was the first to write a Gospel in part upon Tertullian ... where he asserts that Tertullian 'admits that Marcion accused 'upholders of Judaism' of having falsified his Gospel to make it fit to be combined with what Marcion regarded as the Old Testament, the Law and the Prophets', going on to argue that Tertullian proceeds to invent Marcion's argument by claiming that he had found a Gospel which he had mutilated". 

To this claim Paget responds that however one might assess this passage's reliability, Tertullian 

"never asserts that Marcion claimed the thesis Vinzent is arguing. In fact, the Latin clearly states that Marcion accused the 'upholders of Judaism' of having falsified Luke, not of having falsified his own Gospel. This is made plain in Evans's translation, which Vinzent quotes, but leaving out certain bits ... Given that Vinzent bases a lot on this passage ... his misreading of it is significant".

In Paget's conclusion, apart from a few nuanced observations, he asks the question: "But was Vinzent right?" His answer:

"I have tried to show that there are grounds for thinking that his revisionist views are based upon highly contentious conclusions, whose disputed character is dealt with in a sometimes misleading sweeping manner, and are dependent upon questionable methodological assumptions and procedures ... Few, I imagine, will be persuaded by this book ...". 

I want to reiterate that the above reflect only a few bits and pieces, highlighting some striking disagreements that Paget has with Vinzent's main ideas. There are much more meat to the bones and also several nuanced discussions in Paget's article. It is certainly worthwhile for those interested in resurrection in the second century to analyse Paget's article as well as Vinzent's book in more detail. Other reviews already published include M. Edwards, Church Times 2.12.2011; L. Wickham, TLS 6.1.2012 and F. Mulder, Theology 115 (2012) 123-124.