In the Corner with Matt

The Non-Squeaky Wheels Need Grease Too!

2012-01-13T21:58:00.000-08:00

Now to each one the manifestation of the Spirit is given for the common good. (1 Cor 12.7)

I was thinking recently about how well Alida (my wife) and I usually fit together. We each have strengths that the other doesn’t and our weaknesses are usually covered up by the abilities of the other.

Let me give a really silly example: When it comes to road trips, Alida and I each have some particular skills that help us greatly. Alida is great at making lists of things to include but she doesn’t usually have the time required to actually get the things ready for the trip. I’m horrible at thinking of all the things we’ll need, but I have time to follow her directions. I’m pretty horrible with cardinal directions (if it weren’t for the mountains north of Pasadena I would be lost half of the time!) but I really enjoy driving and I can drive and drive and drive for hours. Alida is great with directions and is also great at patiently giving me instructions regarding which way to go, but Alida doesn’t really enjoy driving at all. Alida has a sweet tooth, so she makes sure that we have some sweet snacks to take with us. I love savory foods, so I make sure we have some hearty snacks. I could go on and on. My guess would be that most married people could probably say some similar sorts of things about their marriages.

Now there’s no point in over-emphasizing this point. In each marriage there are places where the couple’s personalities and habits clash. And these clashes usually get more attention than the places where there is harmony. As they say, the squeaky wheel gets the grease. But I believe that God made us to complement one another. In 1 Corinthians 12 Paul is, of course, writing to the various members of the church in Corinth. But his words can apply well to a marriage. Let’s rephrase the verse to highlight this point: To each spouse a manifestation of the Spirit is given for the common good of the marriage.

So here’s the challenge, instead of focusing on the personality and habit clashes that are inevitable in marriage, let’s start focusing on how we are specially gifted by the Holy Spirit for the common good of our marriages.

What special gift or quality does your spouse bring to your marriage that enhances your marriage’s common good?

The Path of Success for Tebow and the Broncos

2012-01-12T15:25:00.000-08:00

In the past few months the sports world has been all atwitter (to use a Sheldon Cooper phrase!) about Tim Tebow. And, yes, people have been tweeting about it! The interesting thing, however, is that Tebow-mania has broken free of the bonds that typically restrain other sports stories. People all over the US (and in many other countries too!) are simply going nuts over this guy, whether they are sports fans or not.

As a result, the following question has often been found on TV, the radio, the internet, social media, and the tips of many of our tongues: Why is Tim Tebow so popular? I've seen and heard some of the following: his faith, his good looks, his generosity, his charisma, his unorthodox abilities, his underdog status, his humility, the way his success thus far has proven the "experts" wrong, etc., etc.

Robert, a good friend of mine, pointed out that Tebow has many of the elements that make up John Wooden's Pyramid of Success...except one: skill. I think he's right. Here are the non-skill components that make up Wooden's Pyramid: industriousness, friendship, loyalty, cooperation, enthusiasm, self-control, alertness, initiative, intentness, condition, team spirit, poise, confidence, and competitive greatness. Coach Wooden also said that faith and patience together served as the mortar that held all the other bricks of the pyramid together.

So when looked at in this light, Tebow's less-than-ideal skills with relation to throwing the football at an NFL level can be offset to a great degree by the strength of all the other bricks of his pyramid. And then you add the patience-faith mortar and that one weak skill brick doesn't get in the way of Tebow's success. I think my friend Robert is really onto something here!

There is a big problem though. Tebow does have some exceptional football skills, namely various abilities required to run the ball well. However, as any football person (from a casual fan to a meticulous GM) knows, running the ball well is always handcuffed together with the risk of injury. You may protest and say, "But injuries are part of football! Denver could just play their backup QB and all would be well." Well, not really.

On a normal NFL team the backup QB is somewhat similar to the starter, because most NFL QBs are pretty similar to one another. Sure, Michael Vick and Cam Newton can run the ball well, Tom Brady and Drew Brees are superbly accurate, and Ben Roethlisberger and Tony Romo are tough enough (or dumb enough!) to play through serious injuries. But in each one of the cases above, the QB listed also throws the ball really well. Behind each one of the guys listed above stands another QB who has solid skills at throwing the football. Thus, when the starter gets hurt not much about the offense has to change when the backup takes over. Sure, the team loses its primary signal-caller, but the replacement is almost always skilled enough to perform at a decent level.

So now just imagine a scenario with me. The Broncos lose to the Patriots next weekend and their coaching staff and upper management decide to go all in with Tebow. They spend the entire off season designing new plays and re-configuring team practices so that Broncos, with Tebow as QB, have the best chance to succeed. This means, of course, that much of this new offense will be predicated on the size, speed, athleticism, and running ability of Tebow.

Now continue using your imagination with me. It's Week Seven during the 2012 regular season and Tebow gets injured when a linebacker tackles him from behind after a great 26-yard run. The injury is serious and he's going to be out for the rest of the season. What do the Broncos do? Brady Quinn can't run the offense that Tebow runs -- no disrespect to Quinn, but he's no Tebow! Are they going to have to try and install a new offense before Week Eight begins? Will they be able to this? How successful will this process be?

Chances are that if the Broncos fully support the style of offense that Tebow's skills demand, then in the imaginative scenario I painted above they would be in serious trouble. So what's the solution? How can Denver truly succeed with Tebow as their starting QB?

The answer is pretty simple. They must find at least one backup QB that can run the offense that Tebow runs. Will they be able to find someone as good as Tebow? Well, maybe if Carolina didn't want the services of Cam Newton anymore! But, no, they probably wouldn't. The backup won't be nearly as skilled as Tebow at running the ball, nor will he be as big, nor will he have the same running instincts. But that doesn't mean that there aren't options out there...and many of them would come at bargain-basement rates!

Here are a few ideas for potential Tebow backups: Joe Webb (Minnesota), Dennis Dixon (Pittsburgh), Colin Kaepernick (San Francisco), or Pat White (free agent, formerly played for Miami and then the Virginia Destroyers of the UFL). Some even cheaper options could be found in the draft or after the draft by sifting through the undrafted free agents. Two possibilities who are seniors are Chandler Harnish (Northern Illinois) and Kriss Proctor (Navy) (don't worry, I had to look them up too!).

And not only will signing a backup QB that runs the ball well serve as an insurance policy for the Broncos, it may help push Tebow to improve his running skills even more due to increased competition during practices.

Lastly, the Broncos could to take an additional step -- they could find an older veteran to serve as the third QB who could work with Tebow every single day on his throwing mechanics. Or, even better, maybe John Elway could take off his suit and tie and help out Tebow himself!

So my point is this: if Denver really wants to succeed next season and beyond with Tim Tebow at the helm, then they must find a suitable back up for him as soon as possible!

Movember

2009-11-13T05:14:00.001-08:00

Movember is a tradition originated by some men in Australia. In order to raise awareness and money for prostate cancer research, they do funny things with their facial hair for the month of November. That is why it's called "Movember" -- mustache + November = Movember.

So, in light of this tradition, for the second consecutive year I'll be participating in Movember. To see what I did last year, click here. This year, however, I decided, with my wife's misguided consent, to grow only a mustache.

Since Halloween is the day before Movember began, I first had a bit of fun with my facial hair, rocking the walrus-style fu manchu. Goose Gossage would be proud!

The following day I shaved off the bottom portions, and moved my sideburns up a bit too. So now I'm sporting the "I look way too much like my dad at this age" facial hair do.

Last year I did this to raise awareness for autism (click here to read more about that). This year, however, I want to shed light on another issue: namely, child mortality. While the rates of infants and under-five children who die in the US are relatively low (6.3 and 7.8 out of 1000 live births respectively) [SOURCE 1, 2], there are many places in the world where this is not the case.

In fact, there are five countries who have under-five mortality rates at or above 20%. Those countries and the number of under-five death per 1000 live births are Mali (199.7), Liberia (205.2), Angola (230.8), Afghanistan (235.4), and Sierra Leone (278.1) [SOURCE 1, 2]. Here is a map [SOURCE] which highlights well the areas of our world that are struggling with this issue the most (dark red indicates the highest rates):

What are the causes of death for these children? Lots of things, many of which are preventable, such as infections, diarrhea, malaria, measles, and malnutrition [SOURCE]. In other words, with the provision of medication and educations, some of these deaths could be prevented.

In the remaining days of Movember I am going to be thinking about how I can get involved in the solution to this issue. I hope you'll join me on this journey!

For more information on child mortality, I recommend the World Health Organization's websiteas a starting point.

Novel Review: Christ the Lord: Out of Egypt

2009-06-06T02:52:00.000-07:00

Around four years ago my wife (Alida) and I were having a Barnes & Noble date. I suppose this needs a bit of explanation. When you are a young married couple and don't have a large surplus of unassigned funds, you try to find creative ways to get out of the house together without spending much. So my wife and I discovered a fun way to do just that - we would go to a bookstore, buy a coffee or two, and peruse books and magazines for a while. Often this kind of date would result in the purchase of a book, like the time we bought Shel Silverstein's silly book of spoonerisms called Runny Babbit.

On another such date I picked up Anne Rice's Christ the Lord out of sheer curiosity. My first thought was, "Could this possibly be the same Anne Rice who is responsible for books like Interview with the Vampire and Queen of the Damned?" Sure enough it was. If we had just arrived at Barnes & Noble I probably would have read the first twenty pages or so. However, whenever I discovered this book on the shelf the store was nearing closing time. So I decided to simply read the author's note at the end of the book. I was surprised to discover that Rice had come to write this book out of genuine interest in Jesus: first as a historical figure, then as the figure of faith. Through studying Jesus, even through reading academic works!, Rice's faith was revitalized and she became serious about her Catholic faith once more, which she had more or less abandoned since her college days.

I was hooked! I simply had to read this book! However, our budget at the time said otherwise, as did my reading load at Truett Seminary, where I received my M.Div. Rice and her return to faith left a major impression on me though. Three years or so later, while in another large bookstore, I saw a mass market paperback edition of Christ the Lord on sale for under five dollars! I consulted with my wife and bought the book. In short order I put one hundred pages behind me and within two weeks I was nearing the end of the book. A multitude of projects put my completing the book on hold, but eventually I did.

The combination of the book being written from the (first-person) perspective of Jesus and the interesting subject matter in general made wanting to read this book come natural to me. The basic premise is that Jesus and his family (including some extended family) are in Egypt. After Joseph hears that things have more or less smoothed over after the Herod-killing-all-the-babies thing, the Holy Family returns to Israel and re-settle in Nazareth. They make a couple of trips to Jerusalem to visit the Temple on high holidays, as well as a business venture in Sepphoris. The book ends with Jesus and his parents returning to Nazareth from Jerusalem after Jesus' impromtu stay at the Temple, as is recorded in Luke 2.41-52.

Several things to note about this book:

The reader should understand from the beginning that Rice is going to accept most of the Catholic dogma about Jesus and his family. This turns up almost immediately as it is made clear that Mary has had no other children, which is in support of her perpetual virginity. Even though I disagree with this point based on the evidence in the New Testament itself, it did not distract me much from the story. At several other points a careful reader could spot other examples of Rice advocating Catholic theology.
Rice accepts some of the apocryphal stories of Jesus childhood as recorded in various non-canonical Gospels. This will, of course, rub many readers the wrong way, whether Catholic, Orthodox, or Protestant. However, Rice was simply attempting to work with the traditions which are available. Plus, the stories she includes are so intrinsically fascinating that the writer in her probably would not let her pass them over!
As already mentioned, this story is told in first-person and Jesus is the narrator. I naturally have to wonder what sort of historical situation would have allowed Jesus the time to write and/or tell this story? I know that this may be an odd quibble to have with the book, but several times this question nagged at me. I'm not sure of the answer and Rice gives no real clues except that narrator Jesus is clearly telling this story from some undetermined future date.
The basic arc of the book is Jesus coming to full-realization about who he really is. This was the most interesting part of the book for me. As a young child, Jesus gradually begins to understand that he has certain powers and that when he prays things happen. The problem, however, is that Jesus does not know why he has this power or how much power he has! Part of the problem is that he has not been told the whole story surrounding his birth, which he finds out in more and more detail as the plot moves along. By the end of the book Jesus has fully come into his own - realizing his identity, vowing to use his power only in accordance to the Father's will, and even understanding his ultimate fate. While this clearly would be considered a stretch by many of my academic friends, it makes for a great read!

Overall I would recommend Christ the Lord to almost anyone. It is a book written explicitly from a faith perspective different than my own but this does not tarnish its sheen at all! Instead it only makes it more interesting for me to read! I'm sure that I could nitpick many of the historical details in the book (such as the identity and location of the Essenes), but that would serve no one except maybe me (and that's a big maybe!).

Novel Review: Shantaram

2009-06-05T02:01:00.000-07:00

At the request of my good friend Mike Wolfe, I agreed to read Shantaram by Gregory David Roberts. When I said "yes," I was under the silly preconception that this would be a normal-sized novel of around three hundred pages or so. A week or so after my acceptance of Mike's charge, I went to see him and retrieve the novel. Needless to say I was in for a bit of shock! The book he handed me was well over three times the length I expected - 936 pages to be exact! Never to be one to turn down a challenge, I swallowed hard and accepted the book with a smile. Several months later, after reading this book in between studying for my dissertation proposal, grading papers, preparing Sunday School lessons for Crossroads, among other things, I can honestly say that I am glad Mike asked me to read Shantaram and I'm glad I completed it!

At the onset I have to admit one of the most interesting and most confounding things about this novel is that it is a strange but fascinating mix between fiction and memoir. The author, Roberts, has actually lived many of the things which he describes in the book, whether as a "doctor" in a slum in Bombay, a fighter in a war in Afghanistan, or a mobster in Bombay. So the reader is often left trying to decide what is fact and what is fiction. Maybe that is part of the draw of this novel, namely, how real it presents these seemingly fantastic scenarios.

The basic summary of the novel is that an escaped Australian convict finds himself in Bombay. He has no friends, no connections, and very little hope. What he does have, however, is a certain level of ingenuity. He makes some money and some friends and eventually decides to live in Bombay instead of just passing through. He winds up in a slum where he heals wounds, makes friends, and learns quite a bit about himself. From this point on in the story many things happen, so many that it seems almost impossible that they all could have possibly happened to one man. He visits an Indian village, he is incarcerated in an Indian prison, he because a gangster, he gets involved in the conflict between Russian and Afghanistan, and, oh yeah, he falls in love somewhere in there too. For the author's own overview of the novel, check out this video, which will only confirm the strange problem of memoir versus fiction in this book!

Now on to the bulk of the review, starting with the strengths of Roberts' book. In general this book is compelling. In parts you simply cannot put it down. Roberts descriptive talent is one of the primary reasons for this. He paints such intriguing mental pictures that, to be cliche, you actually feel like you are there with Lin, the main character, where ever he might be. Perhaps the most important character, maybe even more important than Lin, is Bombay itself - its people, its crime, its smell, its food, its movies, its music. Besides a few small and silly introductions to Bombay previous to this book, I knew very little about India or its shining jewel, Bombay. I must say that I am so thankful to Roberts for this introduction.

However, the book is not perfect. At times Roberts is so extremely verbose that it is prohibitive. Roberts describes in painful detail each and every character, no matter how important or how small. The nature of the book also necessitates that many of the characters are absent from the story for long periods of time, which is perfectly fine. However, when these characters come back into the story, Roberts goes into the same level of detail reintroducing them. This sadly weighs the plot down at points. Honestly, at times I would simply skip over paragraphs which I knew only contained irrelevant details about how a minor character looked or sounded. Another major issue is that there are times when the novel simply drags. Perhaps Roberts could have better served his audience by splitting this book into two or three parts because the reader invariably will fall in love with the characters from the beginning of the book only to find that most of them play a very small role in the remaining two-thirds of the story. I believe that this problem is what caused the momentum of the book to fade as it moved closer to the end. Lastly, Roberts is quite preachy. At times the reader may simply disagree with some commentary that Roberts provides, which seems to neither move the story forward or aid in character development. At times I feel like the audience is addressed directly by Roberts but in a thinly veiled indirect way (if you know what I mean!).

Overall, Shantaram is a good book. Sure, it's long and in parts it's tedious. But it is also beautiful and richly textured throughout. As a quick aside, I watched Slumdog Millionaire after reading this novel and found that the novel was brought to life in a new way by watching Slumdog. Some of the settings became clearer, as well as the accents of the characters. I would highly recommend fans of the book to watch Slumdog or fans of the movie to read Shantaram. Speaking of movies, Shantaram has been bought by a production company and it appears that Johnny Depp may play the role of Lin (source). How they translate this behemoth into a movie will be interesting!

For more information about Roberts or his book, please check out the official Shantaram website!

NBA Finals

2009-06-04T14:31:00.000-07:00

I'm not the biggest NBA fan on the planet but I do enjoy the sport. Living in LA, however, has given me an interesting view of the Lakers and their fans. I have two main observations: 1) When the Lakers lose a game (any game) all the fans immediately ask for Phil Jackson to be fired, Lamar Odom to be traded, doubt Kobe's heart, etc, etc; and 2) At the start of every series Lakers fans overestimate their team, despite past performance. I'm not sure if this is a phenomenon that is common, but as a Cubs and Cowboys fan I guess I'm used to underestimating and giving the benefit of the doubt to everyone. I mean I don't want to be depressed all the time, since I love two losers!

Anyway, I think this series will be much tighter than most Lakers fans are expecting. The Lakers have the best player in the series in Kobe, their bench is deeper, and their coaching is better but the Magic have some important advantages as well. Namely, the Magic are tough, which has caused the Lakers trouble throughout the playoffs and regular season, and they have several guys who shoot the three well, including two who are 6'9" or above. If the Magic get their inside-out or outside-in game working, the Lakers will be in some trouble, especially since the Lakers three-point shooting has been less than stellar this post-season. One more thing, the Lakers are the favorites, while the Magic are hungry. These facts could be positives or negatives for each side.

My prediction: Magic in 7. If the Magic pull a win out of the first two games at Staples and then get two out of three at home, the Lakers would have to win both of the final two games at home. I'm betting that the Magic could steal one of those games! This is going to be an exciting series! We won't even remember LeBron/Kobe when this is over!

In the Mail: Man in White

2009-05-26T18:52:00.000-07:00

I just received a new book in the mail: Man in White by Johnny Cash -- yes, the one and only Johnny Cash! This is a novel based on the life of the Apostle Paul -- yup, you read that sentence correctly too. The book was first published in 1986, on the heels of a very dark time in Cash's personal and professional life in which Cash was battling addiction to painkillers (Michael Streissguth, Johnny Cash: The Biography, 215).

Here's the publisher's blurb for Man in White:

Johnny Cash. The Apostle Paul.

Passionate. Controversial. Fiery. Destructive. Redeemed.

Two legendary men. Two thousand years apart-yet remarkably similar.

Both struggled with a "thorn in the flesh." And both had powerful visions from God.

Paul's encounter with the Man in White knocked him to the ground and struck him blind. It also turned him into one of the most influential men in history.

Johnny Cash's vision was of another man entirely-his recently deceased father-a vision that helped spark his imagination to write this historical novel about the amazing life of the intriguing figure with whom Cash identified so deeply-the Apostle Paul.

See Paul as you've never seen him before--through the creative imagination of one of the greatest singer-songwriters America has ever known. Subsequently see Johnny Cash, the man in Black, as you've never seen him before--as a passionist novelist consumed with the Man In White.

I look forward to reading this book and reviewing it here!

Novel Review: My Hands Came Away Red

2009-05-21T15:11:00.000-07:00

My Hands Came Away Red by Lisa McKay.

I need to reveal two things here at the beginning. First, I generally loathe Christian fiction. Check that - I generally despise fiction that is published by Christian publishing houses. I'm not exactly sure why. Maybe I find the stories too tame, unrealistic, or cliche. Maybe I prefer novels with more subtle Christian undercurrents like The Hobbit, Out of the Silent Planet, Peace Like a River, etc. Maybe (and more probably) this is just part of my general reaction against the profit-making machine that is the Christian subculture. So a natural question would be, "Why in the world did you read this book published by Moody?" That leads me to my next point.

Second, when Alida (my wife) and I moved out to Southern California we had a hard time finding a church. When we finally did we put down roots in an adult education class at Lake Avenue Church called Crossroads. During one of our first visits we met this very interesting and intelligent young woman named Lisa. She helped us feel welcome in the class and held our interest with her funny banter and Australian accent. We became friends very quickly. Well, after some time had passed we discovered that among other things Lisa was an author and that her first book was going to be published by Moody. Therefore, we simply had to read it! So my opinion of Lisa's book is clearly biased but I want to share it with you anyway!

So this book centers around a quirky girl named Cori who decides to go on a mission trip. Her adventure leads her to Indonesia, where she and her new mission-trip friends assist a church there in various ways, including through the construction of a new building. Unfortunately for the characters (but fortunately for the readers) all hell breaks loose as these teenagers find themselves in the crossfire of the religio-political battle between Islamic and Christian factions in Indonesia. Just as the building they work so hard to erect is burned to the ground, their psyches are smashed to pieces due to the horrors they see and experience. The characters are forced to rely on one another and God as they attempt to find their way back to their homes.

My honest opinion of the book is that it was a fascinating and fast read. Sometimes when you hear that a book is a page-turner you might think that it must be light, beach reading or something like that. My Hands is certainly not a light read! In fact, the book and its themes have weighed on me for quite some time (it probably didn't help that I read this book shortly after returning from a mission trip to Cambodia!). However, the way that Lisa builds the tension in the story makes the reader want to discover the fate of these kids. Therefore, I found myself up at ungodly hours reading this book when we all know that I should be getting my beauty sleep!

Another major strength of the book is the honesty that Lisa exhibits as she navigates the sensitive political and religious terrain of Indonesia. From my limited exposure to Christian fiction this is the exception, not the rule. In our post-9/11 world, painting Muslims, even fundamentalist Muslims, in a negative light is not only easy but seems to be popular. The reader of My Hands can plainly see that Lisa attempts to enlighten the reader to the long-lived religious drama that has rocked Indonesia's world for decades.

All in all, you should read this book if you have time...and I'm not just saying that because I think that Lisa is awesome (which she is by the way)! No, I say that because she has penned a first-rate novel!

Considering a PhD in Theology?

2009-05-19T18:05:00.000-07:00

Since in the past month I've had half a dozen people ask to speak with me about the possibility of pursuing a PhD in theology, I figured it would be wise to get a few of my ideas down here for posterity's sake. Before I do that, a little back story is in order. I'm a PhD candidate at Fuller Seminary in Pasadena, CA where I am studying New Testament under Donald Hagner. I have been at this for more than two years now and I am currently working on my dissertation proposal. Now that I am past the halfway point I think I have a new perspective on the process of graduate-level education and I want to share some of my thoughts on the subject.

Getting a PhD in theology should not be something someone does because s/he doesn't know what else to do. The personal, financial, and relational cost is too high for an endeavor of this sort to be entered into flippantly. Besides, if someone who doesn't really feel passionate about graduate school is admitted, then it is highly possible that someone who actually wants to be there was not accepted...and that would be a tragedy.
What are you passionate about? Teaching, research, history, academic interaction? Whatever it is ask yourself this question before applying for a PhD: how can me earning this degree help me attain my passions in life? If the answer is not somewhat clear, perhaps graduate work is not for you.
Consider the costs. First, there are often steep financial costs, unless you are lucky enough to be admitted to a program that is fully-funded. Even then, considering the demands on your time, working may not be an option, thus tightening the financial belt a bit more. Second, there will be steep personal costs. You will sleep less, read more, and interact with other humans less than you ever have before. Are you willing to do that? Third, the relational costs can be steep too. If you are married and/or have children you will not be able to spend as much time with them as you might like. Your time with friends and family will decrease too, as will your opportunities to serve in your local church. You may be thinking, "Geez Matt! Debbie Downer much?!," but I just want to be honest with you. Getting a PhD is more about how determined you are to complete the degree than about how smart you are.
The next major question to ask yourself deals with where you want to go. In my opinion, there are three basic factors that should be centrally important: the reputation of the institution, the quality of the faculty with whom you will work, and the financial situation. Ideally you want to go to a school that excels in all three areas but this is not always possible. It is quite common to get into a top-tier school but work with a lesser-known scholar or receive a full ride financially but not get to study at the school you wanted or with the faculty you wanted. Everyone is different but in my case it was the quality of the faculty that tilted me toward Fuller. However, I have good friends who have chosen their situation because of the school's reputation and/or the financial situation.
Related to the fourth point is this question: are the institutions to which you are applying beneficial for you achieving your passions? If you are passionate about the Church but apply to a school that is almost solely interested in academics, is that a good fit? (It very well may be, it's just something to think about!) If you are passionate about research, then would it be a good idea to attend an institution that has a reputation of being "easy"? Just something to think about.
Do your research. Before you apply to an institution check out the school. What is the school's vision and does it match your passions? Who are the faculty? With whom might you work closely? Do their research interests mesh with yours? If not, are you willing to change yours? My advice is to get a large binder and create a section for each school that interests you. In each section print out the PhD requirements, the general program information, and some sample research from the faculty with whom you might work (articles, chapters, papers, etc). This will be helpful going forward so that you don't have to constantly refer back to the school's webpage to access information.
Prepare a research sample. The best way to do this is to ask a professor of a class in which you are enrolled if it would be okay if you turned in an assignment that you hope to submit as a research sample. Most professors are okay with this, sometimes even allowing you to do this in lieu of other assignments. You could also revamp and beef-up an older assignment. Whatever the case, do your absolute best and edit it as many times as possible. It would also be wise to have others read it: some for content and some for form.
Think carefully about which professors you want to write letters of reference on your behalf. These letters are very important and often tilt the scales in the direction of one applicant over another. The best way to do this is to think of classes that you have had which relate to your desired PhD focus and ask those professors to write for you. For example, if you are applying for a PhD in systematic theology, a letter from a prestigious theologian will have more impact than one from your favorite preaching professor. However, if you did well in several classes with an well-known scholar outside your field, it is okay to have him/her write for you since they are renowned. Whatever the case, you'll need three or four letters depending on the wishes of the particular schools. Choose wisely!
Study hard for the GRE. Many schools have a very high standard with regard to the GRE so that way they can legally narrow their number of candidates down quickly. Duke often sets the standard when it comes to religious higher education, so check out their stats to get a feel for what kind of score you might need (click here for Duke's GRE stats). If you are unhappy with your GRE score, then take it again. If you still didn't score as highly as you might have liked, then you may consider not applying to schools that you know won't accept a GRE score of that level.
Narrow your school list down to a number of your choosing. I applied to a dozen schools, which is a higher number than what is usual. Most people apply to six to eight schools. My advice is to apply to a few "dream schools" that you would attend no matter what, a few that you feel fairly confident about getting into, and a few that you are almost certain will accept you. Following this procedure will help you cover all your bases. However, most schools have application fees ranging from $50-150, though a few are free (such as Vanderbilt when I applied).
Be prepared for the application process to be long and tedious. I liken my experience to having a full-time job for a couple of months. It took lots and lots of work getting everything together. Be sure to meticulously follow directions because you don't want to get rejected for not submitting a form or something silly like that.
Be prepared for rejection. The top-tier schools usually respond first, which means that people almost always receive several "no's" right away. Don't let this discourage you. Even if they all say "no" it is not the end of the world. You could wait a year and apply again. If that is the case, then use that year to bolster your application. Take German, enroll in a ThM program, study for and retake the GRE, whatever it takes. For some the rejection letters will serve as a sign that graduate-level studies may not be for them. That's fine too. You can most likely still pursue your passions, though the road leading there may be different than what you expected.
If you are lucky enough to be accepted by more than one school, make the decision to attend very carefully. Compare and contrast their programs, reputations, financial costs, TA/RA opportunities, faculty, cost of living, etc. If you are married or engaged, be sure to include your spouse in this decision since s/he will likely be doing a lot of the heavy financial lifting for the next half-a-decade. Also, I would highly advise you you pray about this, seeking God's guidance in the matter.

I hope this has been helpful to some of you! Feel free to leave a comment or question, I would be happy to help you out in any way that I can!

Fowl on History and Historical Criticism

2009-05-18T18:24:00.000-07:00

My friend Chris Spinks made me aware of an exciting new series of posts on the blog entitled "Christian Theology and the Bible." For the next several weeks excerpts from Stephen Fowl's upcoming book called Theological Interpretation (published under the Cascade imprint of Wipf & Stock) will appear. If you are interested in the Bible, interpreting the Bible, historical criticism, or history in general, then I'm sure you'll enjoy the posts. Here's a direct link to the first post in the series {LINK}. I hope you all enjoy the series!

Histoical Criticism Is Dead?

2009-05-12T14:36:00.000-07:00

My previous post led to some interesting discussion is the comments section. I would like to bring some of that discussion out of the darkness of the comments and into the light of a blog post. I'll begin by posting my the comment from my friend and fellow Truett-ite and Fuller-ite Chris Spinks followed by my response to him. Note well that Chris never said that historical criticism was dead, though there are some today who say it is.

--------------------------
Chris (what he responds to is unbolded and his thoughts are in bold):

"Chris, your points bring into the open the stereotyped nature of this discussion in general, for which I take responsibility. But some of the questions about the validity of ideological readings (including so-called "Christian" or "theological" readings) still remain. Chief among these, for me at least, is the notion of meaning. I agree that my beliefs about God, Jesus, history, myself, etc. influence how I go about understanding a text and ascertaining what it might mean. But I can mitigate these shortcoming to some degree with solid methodology and hopefully some of the rest can be dealt with as well through the community of scholarship."
  
What do you mean by “validity”?

How are theological readings invalid?

There is a tension in your response. On the one hand, the notion of meaning is chief among the questions about validity; on the other hand, beliefs influence how you go about understanding what a text might mean.

It is disturbing that you think your “beliefs about God, Jesus, history, myself, etc.” are “shortcomings” in need of mitigating. Paul, Augustine, Aquinas, Luther, and many others were obviously full of shortcomings.

And, how is it that methodology will guard you against yourself?

I’m also disturbed that you rely more on the “community of scholarship” than on the community of Christ to help you deal with these shortcomings.

"But, like Pat pointed out, we can all still view the scarce historical information that we have in different ways. However, those who engage a text historically can have discussions with one another about evidence is handled and interpreted, etc since they all speak the same language and have similar epistimologies."

No one is trying to keep you from having historical discussions. Indeed, such discussions are invaluable for a community’s engagement with its sacred text. But, to believe that such discussions alone will somehow yield THE meaning of the text for the believing community is as much an ideology as any other.

I’d also be willing to bet that there are a good many different epistemologies at work among historical critics. I do not think it is safe to assume similarity there. But, for sure, there is some common language, as there should be for any academic discipline. I’m not denying that. I’m simply questioning two things: 1. that the historical discussion is the only valid discussion one can have about the biblical texts; and 2. that the historical discussion is THE discussion that will yield THE meaning for the Body of Christ.

" When engaging in dialogue with someone who explicitly desires to read the text from a particular social location, I have found that this sort of discussion is simply not possible."

Sure it is. You and your friend had just such a dialogue that prompted you to make the blog post. You both shared an assumption that historical criticism is the only valid way to read the biblical texts. That assumption and its history and foundation can be socially located.

"The reason is that whenever a reading of this sort is called into question the validity of reading a text through the lens of that reader's social location is ultimately what is being criticized. (Not to mention that dialogue is next to impossible because of the lack of common methodology, terminology, etc.)"

No arguments about the impasse on methodology and terminology. I agree. I just don’t think that’s such a bad thing. It would be a boring field if biblical studies had only one discussion governed by one methodology. And, I think you might be clumping all ideological readings together and building a straw man to say that all that can be done is to criticize their social locations. Many ideological criticisms have more texture and complexity than you are giving them credit for. But I will not argue that social location is not more important to these ideological perspectives. I would want to call attention to the ideology that lies behind your seemingly methodologically pure historical criticism. Terry Eagleton writes in his masterful, Literary Theory 2nd rev. ed. (1996), "It is therefore difficult to engage such critics in debate about ideological preconceptions, since th power of ideology over them is nowhere more marked that in their honest belief that their readings are 'innocent'" (173).

"  However, whenever Baur criticized Strauss' method, Strauss may have taken it personally but it was his handling of historical data with which Baur took issue. So while it may feel personal when one's handling of historical evidence is challenged, ultimately it is simply a process of mitigating presuppositions and attempting to arrive at a place somewhere closer to the truth."

Again, I am not questioning the validity of historical discussions as historical discussions.

What do you mean by “closer to the truth”? Is truth somehow the sole property of the historical critic whose presuppositions have been adequately mitigated? When do we know if and when one’s presuppositions have been put at bay enough? What are the criteria?

"  I guess what I am saying is that everything that is said about the Bible cannot valid, including some of the things that I say about it...just as it is not possible that all the things which are said about "Romeo and Juliet," the Civil War, the Watts Riots, the OJ Simpson trial, or Buffy the Vampire Slayer are valid."

Still not sure what you mean by “valid”? I’m not sure what are the criteria for validity. How do you know when you’ve said something about the Bible that is invalid? (These questions should not be interpreted to mean that I believe all statements are valid. I raise them out of a genuine desire to know. I think this notion of validity may be the fly in the ointment for us.)

I’m not comfortable putting Scripture in the same category with Romeo and Juliet, the Civil War . . . Buffy the Vampire Slayer. None of these things constitute a community that holds them to be sacred texts containing the story of God with God’s people. I do not believe Christians ought to read their Scripture as they read anything else, at least not as they read it for their ongoing life in community and with their God.

"  Some understandings of historical events or texts (fictional or not) are simply better than others."

No argument here. But I still wonder what are the criteria for making these judgments. And I wonder if those sorts of judgments are the ones that are best for the life of the Body. If they are, how so?

"While a person from a particular social location may have an interesting take on JFK's shooting after watching the video, at the end of the day his/her social location doesn't change the evidence. The same is true of the Bible. Where we are located socially may affect how we understand, apply, live out, etc. what we read in the Bible but not the actual historical evidence found therein."

Social location certainly makes a difference about what we take to be historical evidence and what we don’t. And so, historical critics can continue to have discussions. I don’t want them to stop. I do want them to understand what it is they are NOT doing. They are NOT discovering THE meaning. They can and do contribute to the meaning, but they should call what they are doing what it is—understanding the authors intentions, or situating the text in its social environment, or whatever. The question then becomes is what it is they are doing the (only) thing to do for the ongoing life of the Church.

"  Otherwise all of us are simply going around and around a circle of ad hominem arguments that gets us no where."

I think this is partially because we too often believe discussions can only happen when there is a point of disagreement to needle at, a question to answer, a problem to solve, a mystery to uncover.

Where is it you actually want to get? What's wrong with interpretations that shape, mold, discipline, challenge, etc.? Do we always have to have a "where" to get to?

--------------------------
Here's my response:

Chris, here are a few responses:

By "valid" I mean that which can honestly be said about a text keeping in mind its place in space and time. I am convinced that some readings which explicitly utilize a- or non-historical lenses tell us more about the lens than they do the text.

What I am really saying is that I do not understand how reading the Bible as a Christian or in community (which I do by the way) sans historical research is any different than simply and naively affirming our beliefs or creeds. Is there room in these readings for the beliefs/creeds to be challenged? Or is the lens too important? And if a challenge comes is it from the text of the Bible or the culture in which the reader finds him/herself. The same criticism can be made about other ideological readings as well.

It seems to me, and many others like me, that many scholars today want to skip the historical step in understanding a text and jump straight to the hermeneutic question. Me saying that the historical step is important (not all important mind you but important nonetheless) is not saying that the question of what a text means in relationship to a community does not matter. What a text means to a particular community does indeed matter, but that particular community does not have a stranglehold on what a text means.

I also want to be clear that engaging in historical criticism does not guarantee that one will arrive at a text's meaning, since different historical critics using sound methodology come to different conclusions. However, simply throwing out historical criticism altogether (which I know you are not arguing for but there are many who do) or devaluing it because of this is not helpful. Without a historical understanding of a text there is no anchor, there are no parameters, there are no limits.

With regard to reading the Bible like other books, I really like what Hagner says on the topic: "We should read the Bible like any other book while keeping in mind that it is not any other book" (I've heard him say this dozens of times in different classes). I think that his quote encapsulates the position of many historical critics who also profess Christ and belong to Christian communities. The Bible contains words written be people who lived in the past to other people who lived in the past. Understanding as much as possible about the words, the people, the transmission of the text, etc is vitally important, just as it is for Dante, Mark Twain, or Joss Whedon. But a faith commitment that the Bible is the Word of God means that we believe that the Bible has a different sort of impact on us than other texts and that the continued illumination by the Spirit of God (both individually and corporately) helps us when discerning how the text can challenge, encourage, inspire, mold, discipline, etc us.

All that I am saying is that to skip or devalue the historical step seems irresponsible to me. I agree, however, that historical critics who ignore hermeneutics are equally irresponsible.

--------------------------
I just realized that I did not answer Chris's last question. The where I want to get to involves understanding what the Bible actually says and applying it to my life and the life of my faith community. I can't see this happening sans historical investigation of the text because I know of no other way to understand what it actually says since a- or non-historical readings of the text teach me more about the respective readers than the text itself. The where I want to get to necessitates that I understand the Bible in its historical context before applying what it says to my life or that of the community of faith of which I am a part. So there's nothing wrong with readings that shape, mold, discipline, etc, so long as they are rooted in what the text might have meant to its original hearers/readers. Otherwise we are simply reading ourselves, our wishes, our cultural values onto the text.

Judging Interpretations

2009-05-08T10:48:00.000-07:00

A friend of mine and I went to lunch recently and had a long discussion about the state of biblical studies. We are both proponents of historical criticism when it comes to interpreting the Bible. What I mean by that is that both of us understand that meaning is found in the text itself and thus one must understand the historical context into which that text was written in order to properly ascertain said meaning.

We both also admit that our presuppositions and social locations influence how we understand a text and its meaning but neither of us believe that meaning itself is found in the reader of a text. For me, one of the main reasons why I think this way is that if meaning is not found in the text itself then how can we judge a given interpretation? How would it be possible to say that one interpretation is more valid than another if the meaning resided within the reader?

To put this all more plainly: in this day and age of biblical studies in which ideological criticisms (such as feminist, African-American, gay, theological, etc) rule the day, how can one judge any of them? If meaning lies within the reader then isn't each and every reading valid?

Phase Two

2009-04-14T05:45:00.000-07:00

It has been a really, really, really long time since I last posted. Ugh. I have to admit that it was not out of laziness or lack of interest. No, I didn't post for such an elongated period of time because I was finishing my last class before my comprehensive exams and then the comps themselves. The class was called "Jesus and Paul" and I wrote about the continuity between these two giants of the Christian religion.

As for the comps, I had five: Greek Reading, NT Methods, NT Theology, History of NT Research, and NT Intro. I spent the most time preparing for the Greek exam, which was still a bit hard. The Methods exam was the most difficult of the other four but I probably spent more time preparing for the NT Theology exam since I've never had a class devoted solely to the subject in general (I have had a few more specialized NT Theology classes, such as "Paul and the Law"). Anyway, I completed all five tests in twenty days or so and then about ten days after that found out that I passed!

So now I'm on to Phase Two of the PhD program here at Fuller. This quarter I'm TAing for two courses (NT survey courses) and beginning the work toward my Dissertation Proposal. I'll officially submit my Proposal at the end of the next quarter but I hope to get most of the bibliographic work finished in the next few weeks.

Also, I would like to post here a bit more regularly. I think I may start with a review or two that may be of interest to a few people out there in the world of the interwebs. Until then, God bless!

Historical Evidence

2008-10-27T01:07:00.000-07:00

I recently received a giftcard to Barnes and Noble, for which I was extremely grateful. However, I sometimes have a hard time spending bookstore giftcards in the actual brick-and-mortar bookstore itself, unless of course that bookstore is Archives here in Pasadena. However, this time around I found two great books: Five Books of Moses by Robert Alter and Cities of God by Rodney Stark. I have already read Strak's Rise of Christianity and found it both fascinating and fun to read, so I have really been looking forward to his newer book on early Christian history. After finishing about 3/5 of the book, I've not been disappointed yet!

In an effort by the publisher of Cities to sell books, there is a quote from Booklist on the front cover that says the following: "This book will spark controversy." Of course, that piqued my interest, so I picked up the book and read the first few pages of the first chapter in the store. Here are the first two paragraphs:

New ccounts of early Christianity are everywhere. A book claiming that Jesus got married, fathered children, and died of old age has sold millions of copies. Bookstores are busting with 'new,' more 'enlightened' scriptures said to have been wrongly suppressed by the early church fathers. Often referred to as Gnostic gospels, these texts purport to have been written by a variety of biblical characters -- Mary Magdalene, St. James, St. John, Shem, and even Didymus Jude Thomas, self-proclaimed twin brother of Christ. Meanwhile, a group calling itself the Jesus Seminar receives national media attention each year as it meets to further reduce the 'authentic' words spoken by Jesus to an increasingly slim compendium of wise sayings.

But is any of this true? How can we know? Presumably, by assembling and evaluating the appopriate evidence. Unfortunately, far too many historians these days don't believe in evidence. They argue that since absolute truth must always elude the historian's grasp, 'evidence' is inevitably nothing but a biased selection of suspect 'facts.' Worse yet, rather than dismissing the entire historical undertaking as impossible, these same people use their disdain for evidence as a license to propose all manner of politicized historical fantasies or appealing to fictions on the grounds that these are just as 'true' as any other account. This is absurd nonsense. Reality exists and history actually occurs. The historian's task is to try to discover as accurately as possible what took place. Of course, we can never possess absolute truth, but that still must be the ideal goal that directs historical scholarship. The search for truth and the advance of human knowledge are inseparable: comprehension and civilization are one.

I guess Booklist was right, this book is controversial...and from the very first paragraphs!

This Quarter

2008-07-15T23:54:00.000-07:00

It is amazing how easily little details slip by only to bite you in the butt later. A few small details were missed by people that I thought had my best interests at heart (including me) and now I am paying for it. Oh well. That's how life goes, right? All we can do is our best. We have to roll with the punches, etc., etc.

As for this quarter academically: I am taking a Latin for Reading Knowledge course and finishing a course entitled Jesus and Paul. Latin is going quite well but I would definitely be much more lost than I am had it not been for previous encounters with Spanish, French, German, and (especially) Greek.

My second course is an independent study with Dr. Seyoon Kim. Last quarter I read a bunch on the subject of the (dis)continuity between the historical persons Jesus and Paul. Honestly, I don't know how much can be said on this issue these days with the ever-shrinking amount of historical certainty we are allowed to have about anything. Furthermore, places where there seems to be some promise (Paul quoting Jesus or alluding to Jesus' teachings) are so widely controverted that progress is almost impossible. After many months of searching, however, I have finally decided to write about Jesus fulfilling the Law vs. being the end of the Law. I hope this proves fruitful, at least for me.

So what do you think? How are Jesus and Paul related? How much do they have in common? What are their differences?

Leaving Pasadena...

2008-07-03T18:48:00.000-07:00

...to go to Vegas for the holiday weekend!

A couple friend, my wife, and I are going to Vegas this weekend for three reasons: 1) to celebrate the 4th; 2) to watch the American Idol Live tour; and 3) to watch Spamalot again. We are excited, thrilled to death even!

Upon our return I will finish up grading from last quarter, begin focusing on my paper due at the end of the summer, and clean the house for the in-laws' visit next weekend. Oh, and I'll be preparing to speak about Mormonism on Sunday.

I would like a bit of help though. In our Sunday School class we have been talking about groups that call themselves "Christian" but whose theologies place them outside of the Christian tradition. So far we have discussed Christian Science, Oneness Pentecostals, some of the Word of Faith preachers, Unitarian Universalists, Christadelphians, and Jehovah's Witnesses. Besides Mormons, what other groups deserve our attention?

Modern-Day "Heresies"

2008-07-01T00:21:00.000-07:00

This past Sunday I taught the adult class I teach every week. Our subject people or groups of people who call themselves "Christian" but are, in fact, outside the Christian tradition. We focused mainly on Jehovah's Witnesses (Mormons were tabled until the next class in two weeks) but also discussed Oneness Pentecostals, Christadelphians, Unitarian Universalists, Benny Hinn, and a few others. Interestingly, like the Teacher in Ecclesiastes says, there's nothing new under the sun. Each of these groups or people are espousing theologies which were deemed as heterdox very early on in the church, whether Arianism, adoptionism, modalism, or the like. The only possible exception might be Benny Hinn and his belief (at least in one interview in 1990) that each person of the Trinity was comprised of three people, which is just idiosyncratic. Anyway, I find it noteworthy that people who consider themselves Christian today still hold some of the same views that have been frowned upon for over fifteen hundred years.

I wonder what this indicates about our Christian faith? Was it more heterdox than we had previously imagined? I don't think so, at least not to the degree that DeConick and Ehrman claim. Is some of what is within our Christian tradition simply hard to get our minds around, thus naturally leading to other theories that supposedly make more sense? This is more probable to me. When we way that Jesus was truly God and truly human, someone is going to call b.s. Same with the Trinity -- three persons one substance...right. But this should not cause us to shy away from the doctrines that have shaped Christianity from virtually the beginning. Instead it should lead us to find ways to communicate them that are as sensical as possible (note well the "as possible"). After all, if the God we worship can be explained by human logic and reason, would he be worthy of our worship?

Off for a Much-Needed Break

2008-06-19T03:00:00.000-07:00

This weekend my wife and I and some of our friends are taking a break from our normal lives to go on a spiritual retreat together. Well, at least some of it will be spiritual. Other parts will be playing games, swimming, getting sunburned, and eating. Anyway, I will be teaching three times during the weekend. I had originally planned on working through one of the Minor Prophets, but I feared that I might get too bogged down in history and whatnot for the sessions to be that interesting for others.

So instead I have decided to teach a series that I am tentatively calling "Our Identity in Christ." Original, I know. The first session, "What's the Problem?," will be about how we as Christians so often find our identity (and therefore our purpose, worth, value, etc) in the wrong things. The second sessions, "Here's the Solution!," will cover how being "in Christ" changes not only what we do, but who we are (I think I'll focus on 2 Cor 5.17, Gal 2.20, and Rom 6.3-12 here, as well as a few other passages; also, methinks that Morna Hooker's notion of "interchange in Christ" will be most helpful). The last session, "Now What?," will briefly examine the implications of being in Christ, so I hope to focus on personal things (Phil 3.10-11) as well as communal things (2 Cor 5. 18, 20; 1 Cor 12.12ff.).

Wow, I didn't realize until I typed the previous paragraph that these teaching sessions would be so Pauline. Oh well, what else would would you expect from me?

John Chrysostom on Philippians 3

2008-06-14T03:24:00.000-07:00

I'm currently finishing a project where I have been exploring the early exegetical history of Philippians 3.2-11, especially by interpreters of the late fourth and early fifth centuries. I have chosen five exegetes to examine: John Chrysostom, Theodore of Mopsuestia, Augustine, Pelagius, and Theodoret of Cyrus. The project has been exciting and enlightening, but oh so tiring.

However, when reading through Philip Schaff's English translation of John Chrysostom, I was quite intrigued by a couple of lines in John's tenth homily on Philippians.

Why are we so wedded to unstable objects? Why are we linked to things that are shifting? How long before we lay hold of the things that last?

Wow. What an up-to-the-minute thought for someone writing around sixteen hundred years ago! I read in one of the many sources on John Chrysostom that I have been using that he tends to moralize at the end of his sermons and sometimes this moral injunction have a tenuous at best connection with what came before them. This passage is certainly an example of that. The above quote is the climax of the application section; here is how it began:

Such a course of life, so strictly regulated, and entered upon from earliest childhood, such unblemished extraction, such dangers, plots, labors, forwardness, did Paul renounce, "counting them but loss," which before they were "gain," that he might "win Christ." But we do not even contemn money, that we may "win Christ," but prefer to fail of the life to come rather than of the good things of the present life. And yet this is nothing more than loss...

While the turn in that passage is acute to say the least, John Chrysostom handles it with a grace and style all his own.

You know, I figure that I know at least one person who will really dig this post...

The Relativizing Power of Christ

2008-06-05T02:04:00.000-07:00

Philippians 3.8 is one of my favorite verses in all of the Bible - "What is more, I consider everything a loss compared to the surpassing greatness of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord, for whose sake I have lost all things. I consider them rubbish, that I may gain Christ..." In this context Paul is arguing that he, like the "dogs" mentioned in v. 2, has an impeccable Jewish background, both in things that he was born into and things that he himself achieved. However, all that was to his profit, i.e., his Jewish background, he now considers loss (v. 7). Then he widens the scope in v. 8 to include "everything" under this category of "loss." Why? Because in comparison with knowing Christ Jesus as his Lord everything in Paul's world was rubbish, skubala, which is perhaps better translated as "crap" or even a more crass word (v. 8).

This verse (actually this entire passage - Phil 3.2-11) is central to understanding many things about Paul, at least as far as we are able. These verses shed light on Paul's back story, his post-Christ understanding of his pre-Christ self, his thoughts on how knowing Christ changed him, and what he believes the goals of his life in Christ are. These are all highly important things to keep in mind when attempting to articulate anything about Paul's theology. Perhaps the most influential one is that knowing Christ changed everything for Paul.

It should be noted and noted well that Paul does not claim in this passage that he was unhappy with his pre-Christ life when he was living it. Paul was not some sort of troubled soul prior to experiencing Christ, who found an answer in Christ to life's problems and was given psychological solice from his guilt-ridden existence (this point was famously made by Krister Stendahl in "The Apostle Paul and the Introspective Conscience of the West"). Instead Paul was happy expressing his love for God the way that he was taught, in the traditions of his fathers (Gal 1.14).

Then Christ was revealed to him (Gal 1.16), which relativized Paul's entire existence. Nothing that had seemed important before had the same weight anymore. What had been the center of Paul's life, the Law, now had its role usurped, replaced by Jesus Christ his Lord. It is my further contention that Paul's subsequent view of the Law and its place completely changed because of his encounter with Christ. Though Paul thought that the Law was still good, useful, and spiritual (Rom 7.12, 14), it now served a new purpose - to point people to the new reality that has been opened by Christ Jesus (Gal 3.24). Furthermore, the Law has not been superseded or nullified; not at all! It is fulfilled in those who believe (Rom 3.31), presumably through the power of the Spirit (Rom 8.4).

For Paul the Law's role and purpose was relavitized by Christ. Therefore, all of Paul's statements about the Law should always be read keeping this relatvitizing power of Christ in mind. Paul does not seem to have a problem with the Law per se, he seems to have a problem with people, even Christ-followers, who want to place it along side Christ at the center. If rightness with God could be attained in anyway outside of Christ, then Jesus' death was in vain (Gal 2.21). Thus, even though the religion that Paul practiced pre-Christ had a healthy dose of grace (cf. Sanders' covental nomism), compared to knowing Jesus it all took on new meaning (Phil 3.8).

I won't pretend that these thoughts are entirely original or that they will settle the debate on this issue. However, I do believe that Phil 3 should elicit much more attention than it actually receives. Perhaps the key that unlocks the Paul-and-the-Law safe is found there, namely the relavitizing power of Christ.

Have a Wedding Anywhere...

2008-06-03T15:31:00.000-07:00

I wish that I was making this up. There is a company that makes an inflatable church and their website advertises it as a place to get married. Really. Here are some pics:

Wow. That's the only other thing that I can think to say.

Oh, and there is a cheesy song that autoplays on the website linked above -- sorry.

Cool Bible Map Site

2008-06-03T10:33:00.000-07:00

I installed StumbleUpon, a FireFox add-on, today. The way that it works is you click on the Stumble! button and it takes you to a website that you might enjoy, based on your chosen preferences as well as your ratings of different pages. My first Stumble! took me to Planet eBook, a site that lists free classical literature to read and share. This was a good find but the next Stumble! was even better: BibleMap.org. The way that this page works is that you enter a biblical text into the interface and it shows you the location of the geographical locations mentioned. I'm sure that it is not perfect, not to mention that the actual locations of a number of place names in the Bible are disputed, but it does give its users a pretty good idea of geography associated with a text. Also, the place names are hyperlinked to information about that location, usually from the International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, which is quite handy for quick reference.

Here's a screenshot:

So check it out, I bet you'll like it too!

Vlog #4: Autism and the Church

2008-06-03T08:13:00.000-07:00

I read an news story recently that really stimulated some thought. I've tried to articulate a little bit of that in this video. Please watch it and think about the questions at end (and below).

1. What should churches do to accommodate the needs of people with autism and their families? Or should they make accommodations at all?
2. How can churches better serve the needs, including spiritual needs, of people with autism?
3. If you are a member or leader of a church, will you talk with someone in your church about these issues because your church will likely be dealing with these issues soon (if not already)?

Check out my other vlogs too!

Like, You Know...

2008-06-02T03:00:00.000-07:00

Here is a searing indictment of the way in which the English language is being destroyed these days. Like, I hope you like it, you know what I mean...[?]

Sound familiar?

A Book Review: Navigating Paul by Jouette M. Bassler

2008-06-01T20:00:00.000-07:00

Title: Navigating Paul: An Introduction to Key Theological Concepts
Author: Jouette M. Bassler, Professor of New Testament at Perkins School of Theology, Southern Methodist University, Dallas, Texas.
ISBN: 978-0-664-22741-8
Retail: 19.95 USD
Publisher: WJK, Louisville, Kentucky
Year: 2007

The purpose of this book is to describe in some detail key theological words or phrases in Paul's authentic letters. In the preface Bassler writes that "[t]his collection of essays is intended to orient the interested reader of Paul to the significance of these concepts and the contours of the debates" (ix). She admits that this collection cannot be comprehensive, while also endeavoring not to oversimplify any issues, instead revealing their complexities. Apparently the publishers of this book originally intended for Bassler to write a glossary of Paul's theological vocabulary but the essays are longer than a normal glossary and the breadth of topic covered is narrow. The contents of the book are as follows:

Chapter 1 - Grace: Probing the Limits
Chapter 2 - Paul and the Jewish Law
Chapter 3 - Faith
Chapter 4 - In Christ: Mystical Reality or Mere Metaphor?
Chapter 5 - The Righteousness of God
Chapter 6 - The Future of "Israel": Who Is Israel?
Chapter 7 - "The Comes the End...": The Parousia and the Resurrection of the Dead

Bassler makes use of endnotes in Navigating and her book also includes good indices of ancient sources, modern authors, and subjects. In most of the chapters Bassler outlines the nature of problem being addressed, the sources to be perused, and the general outline of the debates said passages have engendered. At times the theological implications of one side or the other of a particular debate are explored, though not often both sides (see especially the chapter "Paul and the Jewish Law" where the traditional perspective's theological implications are largely ignored in favor of those of the New Perspective).

This is probably my biggest overall critique of the book. Bassler envisions Navigating as an introduction of key issues in Paul to educated readers of Paul and yet sometimes presents one side of an argument with much more verve than the other. At times she will offer large and devastating critiques against particular interpretations (e.g., the traditional understanding of "grace" and "Law" [5-7]), while leaving other proposals largely unchallenged or defending them vociferously against supposed objections (e.g., the newer interpretation of "grace" and "Law" [7-9]). I am not claiming that all of Navigating is one sided - not at all! I am simply saying that at a few points, even a few significant ones, Bassler's positions can be seen clearly, thus moving Navigating beyond and introduction at these points. However, how can I (or anyone else) expect an author to leave his/her convictions at the door when writing a book of any kind?

As any regular reader of this blog might have guessed, I am most interested in Bassler's chapter which deals with Paul and the Law, since that is my primary area of research interest. So it should come as no surprise that the margins of this chapter are crammed with notes! Also, since Bassler is a proponent of the New Perspective and I am not (at least not en toto), there are many places where we disagree. A few examples will suffice:

The evidence presented by E.P. Sanders in Paul and Palestinian Judaism is not adequately critiqued (Bassler admits that some question Sanders' findings [14-15] but moves over this point rather quickly). As many people have pointed out since the publication of Sanders' important book, he forces many of the texts to fit into his matrix of covental nomism. Thus, simply referring to Sanders as proof that Second-Temple Judaism was not legalistic is not adequate anymore.
The most basic problem with the interpretation of "works of the Law" by those who agree with the New Perspective is that the phrase contains the word "works" in it. While I believe that the portrait previously presented of Second-Temple Judaism by NT scholars was highly skewed, there is evidence of legalistic tendencies in some corners of Judaism during the period of the NT. Thus, it is plausible that Paul himself was one of these Jews (cf. Phil 3 where Paul includes in his Jewish heritage both things into which he was born and things that he himself accomplished and his phrase "my righteousness") and/or that his opponents (especially those in Galatians and Philippians) also leaned toward legalism. This is not an indictment of all of Second-Temple Judaism, instead it is merely an admission that it was not as monolithic as is often present by both sides of the debate.
Also, the focus on the social function of Paul's understanding of "works of the Law," namely as boundary markers separating Jews and Gentiles, championed by James Dunn, is not robustly critiqued. While some of the texts may make "works of the Law" appear to function socially, not all of them do. Also, the so-called social function of the "works of the Law" may in fact simply be a result of Paul's new view of the Law since his encounter with the risen Jesus. It seems most plausible to me that the Law was relativized in comparison to knowing Christ (Phil 3.7), and this relativization is what allowed Paul to make statements like he does in Gal 3.28. Function and definition should not be confused necessarily.
There are many other places where I think that Bassler is too sympathetic with the New Perspective and too critical of traditional interpretations, but the three examples above should serve to illustrate my point.

One could also argue that Bassler left out some "key theological concepts" in Navigating. Due to the length of the study and the nature of the book itself, this is inevitable. However, dealing in detail with some other issues would have strengthened the book some, specifically the death of Jesus, the resurrection, the church, the function of the Holy Spirit in the life of the believer, and sin. Their omission, however, is certainly understandable.

Up to this point, the reader of this review may be under the impression that I did not like this book. Nothing could be further from the truth! Navigating has many strengths that make it worth reading for those interested in Pauline theology (especially those looking for textbooks for a Pauline theology class at university, seminary, or even adult education classes in churches). One major strength of the book is that Bassler has written it with style and grace throughout. It is not a dense and slow read, instead, thanks to Bassler's writing prowess, the reader is allowed to move quickly through this very difficult terrain. Perhaps the best example of this was her coverage of pistis christou "faith in/of Christ" (27-32), in which she explored this complicated and entrenched debate with great dexterity. Also, one of Bassler's emphases throughout is that the reader of Paul should not read his/her situation onto that of Paul. This is a common critique of traditional interpreters of Paul, but this critique should always be held in the mind of every interpreter of the Bible. Also, Bassler's sensitivity in dealing with difficult issues is very pleasing to the reader. She addresses issues such as Paul and gender and Jewish-Christian relations with flexibility and care.

Overall I would recommend this book to any serious student of Paul, especially those who have already done some reading of secondary sources or those who will be guided through this territory in a classroom setting. The reason why I say this is that otherwise the uninitiated reader may be too easily convinced of some of the arguments here without giving a fair shake to the opposing opinions. However, Bassler still presents her readers with a very helpful look at a few key Pauline concepts. Four out of five stars!

Check out my other reviews here!

Vlog #3: The Ten Commandments and an Interfaith Game Show

2008-05-28T16:47:00.000-07:00

My third vlog can be located below. In it I talk about a woman who has an interesting way of applying the Decalogue and a religious TV station's idea for a game show. Thanks in advance for watching!

Links:
Crazy-woman story.
Islam TV website.
Islam TV game show story.
Lake Avenue sermon series.

The hat that I am wearing in the video is from my alma mater, Hardin-Simmons University. Check out their website.

Check out my other vlogs too!

Philippians 4.13 and Contentment

2008-05-27T22:38:00.000-07:00

I must say that it is so nice going to a church where the pastor has a PhD in New Testament. The church my wife and I attend (Lake Avenue Church) has just such a pastor. His name is Greg Waybright and he has a PhD from Marquette (his dissertation is entitled "Discipleship and Possessions in the Gospel of Mark: A Narrative Study") and he also did some work at Tyndale House at Cambridge.

This past week Dr. Waybright finished up his series on the ten commandments with a sermon on the last of the ten: You should not covet. Throughout the series he has been giving a positive command that coincides with the negative command: in this case the positive is that we should be content with what we have. (Here is a link to a little piece that he puts in the bulletin each week that is related to his sermon and here is a link to the audio of the sermon.)

Dr. Waybright has also tried to find biblical illustrations of the ten commandments as he has preached this series. He has found many, of course, in the Sermon on the Mount, as well as in Deuteronomy and Leviticus. This week his illustration came primarily from Philippians 4.10-13, a passage in which Paul is trying to thank the church at Philippi for sending him a gift. In the process Paul reveals that he's both been in need and had plenty and that he has learned the secret of contentment, namely that he "can do everything" through Jesus who has given him strength.

This last bit (Phil 4.13) is probably one of the most commonly misinterpreted Pauline texts. It has inspired songs, Christian-themed shirts, and properity "gospel" preachers for as long as anyone can remember. The normal way that this verse is interpreted is that we can do anything, get anything, and/or be anything that we want through Jesus, who gives us strength.

However, as Dr. Waybright pointed out on Sunday, this passage is about being content. The interpretive crux is what should be done with panta ("everything" or "all things"). Since Paul has mentioned knowing what it means to be in need and to have plenty in the immediate context, surely these are the things he has in mind when using panta. In other words, Paul argues that he can do everything, i.e., live with or without, through Jesus. In still other words, Paul is saying that contentment is possible because Jesus relativizes the importance of having or not having things, time, money, etc, etc.

So Phil 4.13 should not be used as a proof text for the belief that God wants all of us to have it all materially. No. This verse is a call for all of us to be content the way Paul was -- "whether well fed or hungry, whether living in plenty or in want" (Phil 4.12). And I believe that Dr. Waybright was right, being content will prevent us from coveting what our neighbors have.

Vlog #2: John McCain: Out of Pastors

2008-05-23T22:10:00.000-07:00

So John McCain received and then rejected the endorsements from two TV preachers recently: John Hagee and Rod Parsley. I have used these facts as jumping off points to discuss the role of religion in the electoral process in the United States. Here's the vlog:

What do you think? Should candidates seek the endorsements of religious figures? Should religious figures give their endorsements?

The AP news story can be found here.

Check out my other vlogs too!

The Evangelical Pope

2008-05-22T23:20:00.000-07:00

In the wake of my previous post, the following quote from Pope Benedict XVI adds to the case that the Pope is sure sounding quite a bit like an Evangelical:

Any tendency to treat religion as a private matter must be resisted. Only when their faith permeates every aspect of their lives do Christians become truly open to the transforming power of the Gospel.

Quote found at ZENIT.org a Catholic news agency, and at ChristianityToday.com.

A Book Review: Jesus of Nazareth by Pope Benedict XVI

2008-05-22T16:53:00.000-07:00

I recently received a copy of the Pope's book on Jesus -- Jesus of Nazareth: From the Baptism in the Jordan to the Transfiguration by Jospeh Ratzinger Pope Benedict XVI, translated from the German by Adrian J. Walker, New York: Doubleday, 2007. I want to begin with an overall impression before I get into any sort of detail concerning the content of this book -- Benedict has written a heartfelt look at Jesus in which he attempts to wrestle with academia while maintaining traditional Christian thoughts about Jesus. His endeavor is quite noble, as anyone who tries to live in the Church and the world of scholarship can attest. Benedict claims that during the 1950s the gap between the historical Jesus and the Christ of faith seemed to grow very wide (xi) and I would say that the gap between the Church and the academy has followed suit. So before I make any critiques, point out any weaknesses, or nitpick any details, Benedict should be applauded for this grand undertaking.

In order to honor full disclosure, I must admit that I am a Protestant through and through and some of the anti-Catholic prejudices that I grew up with were not only challenged by this book but were destroyed. As almost everyone is aware, after Vatican II the Catholic position on critical scholarship loosened to a great degree. That is not to say that there were no Catholic scholars who were doing critical scholarship before then 1960s (Alfred Loisy comes to mind), but after Vatican II the grip on Catholic scholarship was relaxed to a great degree. The result of this decision has been that it has helped engender some wonderful scholars, especially Raymond E. Brown, Jerome Murphy-O'Connor, and Luke Timothy Johnson. However, many people have continued to sense a general disdain of critical scholarship by old-school Catholic conservatives. It was often assumed that Benedict was such a person, a fact highlighted by his moniker "John Paul's bulldog." The general buzz in the air after Benedict's election was that he was going to either keep a closer eye on Catholic exegetes or actually move the Church backward.

However, many people have been surprised by the Pope's sensitivity with different tough issues during his reign. Thus, many of the statements in the foreword of Jesus should not have surprised me at all, but I was in fact pleasantly surprised at many points. A few examples will illustrate my point:

**Benedict, after complaining about some of the results of historical-critical scholarship, admits that "the historical-critical method...is and remains an indispensable tool of exegetical work" (xv). While I didn't doubt that Benedict and other conservative Catholics utilized historical research, I was somewhat surprised to hear him admit that the historical-critical method was "indispensable."
**In the same vein, Benedict says that since history "is an essential dimension of Christian faith, the faith must expose itself to the historical method" (xv). Later in the foreword the Pope will indicate that the historical-critical method has some limitations, but this is a pretty strong statement nonetheless.
**When describing the purpose of his book with regard to modern exegesis, Benedict says "my intention in writing this book is not to counter modern exegesis; rather, I write with profound gratitude for all that it has given and continues to give us...I have merely tried to go beyond purely historical-critical exegesis" (xxiii). So this book is not meant to be an apology of conservative Catholic interpretation, which is somewhat unexpected coming from "John Paul's bulldog."
**Lastly, one of the last paragraphs of the foreword shattered some of my preconceived notions of papal self-understanding. Actually, my wife and I were sitting in the airport in Chicago, me reading Jesus and she reading Wicked by Gregory Maguire, and after reading this paragraph I had to stop and let her read it too. We were both impressed: "It goes without saying that this book is in no way an exercise of the magisterium, but is solely an expression of my own personal search 'for the face of the Lord' (cf. Ps 27:8). Everyone is free, then, to contradict me. I would only ask my readers for that initial goodwill without which there can be no understanding" (xxiii-xxiv). There goes that preconceived notion that I had that the man who was Pope had to be pompous and arrogant.

From the beginning, however, there is a problem that makes this book hard to review properly -- Benedict never identifies his target audience with any clarity. He simply refers to them as his readers without giving any further description. Does he intend this book to be read by lay Catholics, seminarians, scholars, Protestants, non-Christians, etc? It is hard to decide whether or not the purpose of a book has been fulfilled if the author does not indicate to whom it is written. Thus, I can only assume that the Pope intended a wide audience. In this light, much of this book can easily be understood by the general reader. However, from time to time there are several pages in a row in which Benedict gives a survey of scholarly literature or discusses the minutiae of exegesis or interpretive methodology. Therefore, I can see many general readers being turned off by this.

On the other hand, Jesus is loaded with modern-day applications of Jesus' teachings, critiques of the social responsiveness of those to whom this duty has been availed, and significant deviances from accepted historical-critical givens (such as allowing unrelated parts of the Bible to interpret one another, taking the sayings of Jesus in the Gospels as giving us more information about Jesus than the Evangelists, and not significantly doubting the historicity of the Fourth Gospel), which would leave many biblical scholars frustrated (a fact that is seen clearly in the reviews of Jesus by Geza Vermes and Richard Hays).

Despite the uncertainty of the audience, the Pope's purpose in writing this book is clear enough: "this book...seeks to transcend this method [i.e. historical-critical exegesis] and to arrive at a genuinely theological interpretation of the scriptural texts" (365). The question of why the historical-critical needs to be transcended remains, and Benedict offers an answer by giving two important critiques of this method. The first is that the historical critical method "does not exhaust the interpretative task for someone who sees the biblical writings as a single corpus of Holy Scriptures inspired by God" (xvi). He goes on to say that the historical exegesis can only see the words of the Bible as human words ("simply...literature" [xx]), which is not enough for those who by faith believe that the Bible is in some way God's Word. The second critique is that the historical-critical method is limited in some ways, namely that it only deals past contexts which shed light on "what the author could have said and intended to say" (xvi), that the unity of the Bible "is not something it can recognize" (xvii), and that its results "can never go beyond the domain of hypothesis" (xvii).

These critiques, as we have already seen, have not chased Benedict away from the historical-critical method, as they have many other interpreters these days. Instead, the Pope makes a call for "complementary methods" to be used when reading the Bible (xviii). One such method is what he calls "the process of constant reading" in which "[o]lder texts are reappropriated, reinterpreted, and read with new eyes in new contexts" (xviii). This is a combining of the study of inter-biblical intertextuality and Wirkungsgeschichte (the effective history of a text). Another complementary method is what Benedict calls canonical exegesis, which entails "reading the individual texts of the Bible in the context of the whole" (xix). Lastly, the third main complementary method that Benedict espouses is what I would call an ecclesial hermeneutic. The Pope explains it as follows: "The People of God -- the Church -- is the the living subject of Scripture; it is in the Church that the words of the Bible are always in the present" (xxi). These three complementary methods have had quite a bit of popularity as of late, as exhibited in the work of Ulrich Luz, Brevard Childs, and Markus Bockmuehl, respectively.

As far as the content of the book is concerned, Benedict has covered a few select items from the baptism of Jesus to the transfiguration. He spends quite a bit of time examining parts of the Sermon on the Mount (especially the Beatitudes and the Lord's Prayer), Jesus' parables, and the imagery used to describe Jesus in John's Gospel. In the process of making interpretive decisions, the Pope utilizes the results of critical scholarship (especially when they help prove his points), the writings of the Early Church, and, primarily, other texts in the Bible (especially so-called messianic texts of the OT and the writings of Paul). Many scholars will want to criticize him for his selective use of the historical critical method, his sometimes uncritical trust in the Church Fathers, and his unabashed method of letting Scripture interpret Scripture, and that is fine. However, no one should have been surprised by these things since they were explicitly stated in the foreword.

The bottom line is that this book is the result of a deeply personal search for Jesus by Benedict. Many Evangelical readers will be surprised by how much he sounds like one of them. In fact, as I was reading along I could imagine many Evangelical biblical scholars agreeing with and highlighting line after line in Jesus (Craig Blomberg's review highlights this fact as well). I also think that many educated Christians might be surprised by the types of books that the Pope reads and the types of scholars that influence him in this book. Particularly interesting to me is the fact that Benedict reads the work of Evangelical (like Peter Stuhlmacher) and Jewish (like Jacob Neusner) scholars .

The thesis of the Pope's position on Jesus is this: all of the stories about Jesus and all of his teachings found in the Gospels are to be seen in light of "Jesus' filial existence" -- his "communion with the Father" (7). Therefore, since Jesus had this special and unique relationship with the Father, all the things he did and said were made possible. Benedict argues that one cannot understand Jesus apart from this intimate relationship to the Father.

I give this book 4 out of 5 stars. I believe that it would be particularly helpful to someone teaching or preaching through the texts that are covered in this book, but only if the preacher or teacher keeps in mind that s/he is reading the Pope's highly personal expression of his search for Jesus.

Check out my other reviews here!

Vlog #1: Will Smith and Christian Community

2008-05-20T22:09:00.000-07:00

So I was sitting around last night trying to make an introductory video for my blog and thought to myself: "This is fun; I should do some video blogs every once in a while." So here is the first one:

Apparently Will Smith has helped setup a private school in Calabasas, CA that is based on the tenets of Scientology. However, he claims that he's a Christian and not a Scientologist. While describing his beliefs about religion he spells out what could be called "Lone Ranger" Christianity -- being a rugged individual -- or "Burger King" Christianity -- "Have it your way." Needless to say, this is not the picture that the NT paints; we are called into community with one another and for one another. We can't and shouldn't try to live our lives or our faith alone; we need each other!

In the video I mention Barnabas File, a website where Ircel Harrison, a progressive Baptist minister, has a blog entitled "None of Us Is As Smart As All of Us" in which he makes a strong case for our need to collaborate on things together as Christians. Also, you may want to read the Will Smith stories for yourself; here are two links: ONE and TWO.

Hope you enjoy!

Check out my other vlogs too!

Good Blog Entry...GREAT Title!

2008-05-20T01:52:00.000-07:00

None of Us Is As Smart As All of Us.

I wish I had thought of that title. It did get me thinking, along with an article I read about Will Smith. So, sometime tomorrow I am going to post a blog (or maybe a vlog!) where I talk some about the basic need of community in the church. We need each other. None of us is as smart as all of us!

Good night...

The Dallas Cowboys' Draft

2008-05-19T10:02:00.000-07:00

Now that quite a bit of time has passed since the draft ended, I feel that I can better evaluate the Cowboys' draft. Here's a quick thesis: I am happy with the top of the draft and a high-profile trade but pretty miffed by a bunch of other stuff.

I am happy with the trade that the Cowboys made with the Titans to get Adam Jones. The Cowboys traded their fourth round pick from this year to get Pacman, a corner who was drafted in the first round with the sixth overall pick. He has shown that he can play at a high level in the NFL, both at corner and as a kick returner. However, he has had many off-the-field issues that resulted in a year-long suspension which is due to end any day now. Many people have claimed that the 'Boys took too big of a risk here, but I disagree. How many fourth-rounders pan out? Not many. And for all intents and purposes, that is what the Cowboys have here -- they used their four-round pick to get Adam Jones. The potential gain is worth the risk. Besides, if Pacman isn't reinstated by the NFL this year then the Cowboys would get the Titans' fourth-rounder next year and if he gets in significant trouble they'll get the Titans' fifth-rounder. So while there is some risk, it is mitigated by the deal the Cowboys made with the Titans.
I am very pleased with the Cowboys first two picks in the draft -- RB Felix Jones from Arkansas and CB Mike Jenkins from South Florida. Both were great college players and both will fit into the Cowboys' schemes fairly easily. There has been some complaint that the Cowboys should have chosen Mendenhall from Illinois instead of Jones because Mendenhall is a more complete back. However, the Cowboys already have a complete back (Marion Barber III) who is still young and they drafted Tashard Choice from Georgia Tech, a complete back, in the fourth round. Plus, the Cowboys let Julius Jones go this offseason, so they needed to fill his role and I think that Felix Jones is a better player that Julius Jones ever was or will be. Also, Jenkins was a no-brainer because the Cowboys were in desperate need for CB help, whether they signed Pacman or not. Jenkins has good size and speed and already has rapport with Anthony Henry, one of the Cowboys' veteran CBs, because they both went to South Florida.
I was not at all happy with a trade that went down prior to the draft. The Cowboys traded Anthony Fasano, a young starting-quality TE, and Akin Ayodele, a solid inside LB, to Miami for a fourth round draft pick. No, that's not a typo. The Cowboys traded two good players for a late round pick. By all accounts, this trade was a bit odd. The Cowboys must have been hearing complaining from both players, since Fasano has no chance of starting with Jason Witten in front of him and since Ayodele's starting role was usurped by newly acquired inside LB Zach Thomas. I've also heard that it might have been that the Cowboys were trying to dump salary so that they could make room for a veteran receiver to come over, which never materialized.
The bad trade that I talked about in #3 left the Cowboys a bit thin at TE, with only unproven Tony Curtis serving as a backup. So what did the Cowboys do? They used their second-round pick on a big TE from Texas A&M named Martellus Bennett. So let me get this straight, they trade the backup for half of a fourth-round pick and replaced him with a guy they drafted in the second round. Hmm. That doesn't add up!
The Cowboys are in need of some young receivers. If you are a mock draft junkie like I am, then you know that almost every mocker out their had the 'Boys taking a WR with one of their first three picks. The Cowboys' brass apparently saw things differently...they didn't take on WR or trade for one either. Now, you can't blame them too much since the Cowboys had such a great offensive season last year with one old possession receiver (TO), one old speedy WR that was hurt for all but one game (Terry Glenn), and one WR nearing thirty that is steady but not great (Patrick Crayton). So even if Glenn can't come back, the 'Boys should be okay at WR. Also, there were no WRs in this draft that could have done better than Crayton's 50 receptions last year. As a matter of fact, not a single WR was drafted in the first round. So the Cowboys appear to have done the right thing here, even if everyone expected them to do something else.
The only other thing that I wished the Cowboys would have done was get some safety help. Roy Williams' highly publicized problems in coverage and his declining tackling skills have made him a liability in the secondary. And while Ken Hamlin is good, he's also a hard-hitting kind of safety. The Cowboys need someone that can roam the middle of the field. Pat Watkins, a young safety who used to play at FSU, may fit that bill but he hasn't yet. Let it be known loud and clear: I predict that the Cowboys' safety play will cost them this year, just like it did last year (and the year before!) in the playoffs.

Life Update

2008-05-19T09:48:00.000-07:00

The other day at Fuller I ran into someone who was disappointed that I had not updated my blog in a long time. Firstly, I was pleased to see that someone reads my blog and, secondly, I have updated it as of today! And for those of you who may be interested, here's a partial list of things that I have done since my post about the Talmud in March:

I have been in the middle of researching and writing a paper for Dr. Donald Hagner's History of New Testament Research class. What I am writing about is the early history of interpretation for Philippians 3.2-11.
I am taking a directed reading (AKA independent study) with Dr. Seyoon Kim on the subject of Jesus and Paul. I hope to write about some aspect of Jesus' and Paul's view of the Law.
I have been busy TAing two classes, one on 1 Corinthians with Dr. David Downs and a distance learning class on the Gospels with Dr. Marianne Meye Thompson.
My wife and I went on a trip to Las Vegas and had a lot of fun even though the city doesn't fit us and we don't fit it.
I officiated the renewal of my parents' vows at Niagara Falls in Canada, which was a great honor and a boatload of fun!
While in Canada I smoked a Cuban cigar that was heavenly.
I have started teaching a new series at church on Christian theology and comparative religion, which has gone pretty well so far. Yesterday we talked about Eastern Orthodoxy, which was eye-opening for all of us (at least I hope it was!).
And lastly, before going to Vegas we got a new camera that I am loving!

Well, thanks for reading and I hope to post more often in the coming weeks and days! Look forward to more reviews and some more of my normal stuff too!

A Commentary Review: David J. Lull's 1 Corinthians

2008-05-19T06:27:00.000-07:00

For the last two quarters I have served as the teaching assistant (TA) for two classes on 1 Corinthians at Fuller Seminary in Pasadena, CA with Dr. David Downs. The first was an exegesis class in which the English text was used and the second was the same class but with Greek. Previous to TAing these two courses, the only work I had done in 1 Corinthians had been in preparation for sermons or Sunday School lessons and in introductory courses on the New Testament. In other words, I had not previously spent much time looking at 1 Corinthians critically or academically. As is normal for me, to prepare for my TA duties I spent quite a bit of time examining commentaries on 1 Corinthians, including the standard ones by Hays, Thiselton, Fee, Garland, and Talbert. However, a smaller commentary that espoused a radically different perspective from me caught my attention -- 1 Corinthians by David J. Lull, which was published by Chalice Press in 2007 as a part of their series called Chalice Commentaries for Today.

According to the series preface, this commentary is aimed "to help pastors, seminary students, and educated laity who are open to contemporary scholarship" (viii) and in Lull's preface he quotes William Beardslee (1916-2001), whose 1994 commentary on 1 Corinthians is revised and expanded here, as stating that his commentary was "written for the general reader" (ix). At the same time this work is also aimed at making sense of 1 Corinthians for today in an understandable way, both in content (non-technical language) and form (few footnotes). Thus, this commentary joins the swelling ranks of commentaries intended for wide readership, as opposed to the technical commentaries to which seminarians and scholars might be more accustomed. I, for one, see this as an admiral undertaking and will always applaud any effort to make the Bible more understandable for "general readers."

As far as the perspective that is different than mine with regard to this book, Lull claims that Beardslee's commentary was "from the perspective of 'process thought'" and that he hopes to "be consistent" with this interpretive matrix (ix). However, he never explicitly describes what he means by "process thought" to his readers, though the series preface does describe the purpose of this series in the language of process theology without actually naming it as such. So what is "process thought"? It has its roots in the philosophy of British thinker Alfred North Whitehead (1861-1947) and was brought into prominence in Christian theology by John Cobb, Jr., who serves as on of the editors of this commentary series and has co-written several books with Lull. Following Whitehead, Cobb and other process thinkers generally agree that God is not unaffected by the world, that God works through persuasion not coercion, and that it is better to view God as a co-sufferer with the world rather than as an omnipotent being standing over against the world (see Grenz and Olson, 20th-Century Theology 130-44). These ideas are affirmed by the series preface in Lull's commentary: "Although the various authors manifest a variety of interests and theological perspectives, they share a vision of God as a relational being who is passionately involved in the life of the world, whose primary feature is love, and who both affects and is affected by the world" (viii). Since the series preface does not name this as process theology (and who, besides a reviewer or a nerd, reads the series preface?!) and since Lull does not explain his perspective in any descriptive way, a little more clarity and straightforwardness would have been beneficial to the reader.

As you might imagine, this theological system (process theology) is a challenge to and critique of traditional systems, which is not necessarily a bad thing in and of itself. Also, process thinkers tend to think of traditional categories of Christian thought in different ways. One example from Lull is his view of inspiration. After claiming that the reader of 1 Corinthians should not be quick to judge the Corinthians with whom Paul seems to disagree at points, Lulls writes that "[t]he idea that Paul was always right comes from the theological assumption that inspiration works within the individual biblical author. Most scholars now think of scriptural inspiration as arising in the interaction of people in the community" (emphasis original, 2).

A few things should be said here about Lull's position on inspiration. Most scholars that I know of do not view inspiration in this way. Maybe I do not read the same authors that he does but attributing this position to "most scholars" is misleading since I can think of no other commentator who shares this position as he has stated it (perhaps besides those who have contributed to this series). To be sure, there has been a rising tide of interpreters who insist that readers of the Bible must interpret it together inside their communities of faith (Stephen Fowl and Markus Bockmuehl come to mind immediately) but that is not the same as what Lull has claimed about inspiration. Also, virtually everyone, except perhaps the extremely conservative, would agree that the situation at Corinth influenced and even dictated the choice of content and the direction of 1 Corinthians. Even still, virtually everyone would further affirm that Paul's self understanding was that he was writing to the Corinthians to correct, amend, challenge, and encourage the beliefs and behaviors of the Corinthians. The very fact that Paul does so in this letter is evidence of this truth. We may not be comfortable with this authoritarian position and we may wish to explain it away for modern ears, but I believe that in so doing we have not allowed Paul's letter to be read the way it was intended. Paul speaks to the Corinthians as a spiritual authority and I believe that Lull's view of inspiration hampers the reader's appreciation of this fact.

As far as the commentary proper is concerned, due to the length of Lull's book (146 pages of actual commentary), the theological perspective espoused, and the complexity of the issues that 1 Corinthians raises for today's reader, many interpretive complexities have been oversimplified. A few examples will illustrate this point. Commenting on 7.25-38, Lull simply claims that "virgins" means "females of marriageable age" (71), which would lead the uninitiated reader to believe that there are no other options besides this one, even though there have been all throughout the history of this text's interpretation.

A second example is found in Lull's comments on 11.17-34. In this passage Paul attempts to correct divisive and unfair practices regarding the Lord's Supper. Perhaps the two most interesting issues in this passage are the destructive results of eating the meal improperly (11.30) and how this passage relates to the Synoptic tradition. Lull comments on both but does so briefly and incompletely. With regard to the former he simply states that the ones not taking the meal properly are not explicitly identified with the the ones suffering, thus the destructive power of inappropriately eating the Lord's Supper "acts on the community as a whole" (101). Surely someone preaching or teaching this passage would be pulling their hair out at this point, wishing that Lull had given them more information! With regard to the latter, Lull notes that it is not likely that Paul received the words he shares here about Jesus' last meal with his disciples in the upper room "directly from Jesus" but that he probably received this tradition from others (101). He then continues by pointing out that Paul's version of this event "is the earliest witness to these traditions" (102), earlier even than the Gospels. The reader is again left wanting more -- wanting to know if Paul is more historically reliable than Matthew, Mark, and Luke, not to mention why it is that the various accounts are different. I understand that this could have taken up much space, but at least Lull could have pointed the reader to an outside source that deals with this compelling and complex issue.

It may seem at this point that I have little to say that is positive about Lull's commentary, but that is not the case. He exhibits great care and pastoral concern with regard to sticky issues, particularly homosexuality, marriage, the roles of women, and spiritual gifts. He also does a commendable job in struggling mightily to find application for 1 Corinthians, which can be a daunting task seeing how occasional it is and how influenced by Jewish and Greco-Roman culture and thought patterns it is. Despite these challenges, Lull often gives thoughtful and insightful ways to apply principles found in 1 Corinthians to today's world. Another strong point of this commentary is its author's honesty with regard to his seeming dislike for particular positions Paul takes (or for interpretations of Paul's positions that have persisted), even implying that Paul could have been wrong at points and that his arguments do not hold weight according to our understanding of the world today. Many other commentators feel these same things but do not have the courage to state these thoughts the way that Lull does.

Overall, this commentary is a good overview of 1 Corinthians but not sufficient on its own for someone hoping to teach or preach specific texts from Paul's letter. However, this book would be particularly useful to someone looking for modern-day applications who has already perused the larger more in depth commentaries mentioned earlier. Three stars out of five.

Check out my other reviews here!

Babylonian Talmud Online

2008-03-05T09:41:00.000-08:00

Sorry for the really long delay between posts. The stress level of this quarter has ramped up big time lately, so I may not be able to post much over the next few weeks either.

However, I did want to share something interesting that I encountered recently. I am part of a men's small group at my church and we have been talking about the book of Hebrews. Last week we discussed chapter 7, in which the author of Hebrews seems to view the mysterious figure of Melkizedek as a type of Christ. After the study was over, several of us were curious about what other information is out there about Melkizedek in the extra-canonical materials. Since I am the token biblical studies nerd of the group, naturally I volunteered to do this research.

I quickly determined that I was going to need to access the Babylonian Talmud, since in Nedarim 32b Melkizedek is discussed. However, two things hindered me: 1) the closest library to me does not always have all of the b. Talmud on hand (the reserve copy is not yet complete and the complete copy, which is not the standard edition, can be checked out) and 2) I am lazy. So I started poking around online and hit a gold mine! I found pdf files of the Soncino edition of the b. Talmud online!

So in the spirit of my wife who always tells me that "sharing means caring," here is a link to this treasure trove!

Presuppositions and Biblical Interpretation

2008-01-30T07:55:00.000-08:00

The comments by Chris Spinks to a recent post of mine and discussions in my PhD seminar on the history of NT research with Donald Hagner have prompted me to think about biblical interpretation and presuppositions. This is only going to be a small post in which I start thinking about this subject. With several new books on my shelf that might help hone my thinking on this subject, expect me to be blogging about this more and more.

So here are just some initial thoughts to get the cogs of my brain moving (and perhaps yours too!):

1. All of us have presuppositions. In line with postmodern thought, the idea of purely objective investigation of any sort is untenable.

2. We all need to admit our presuppositions openly. This means that we can't wait until we are pressed on an issue and then say "Well, that's because I am a Mennonite" or "That's because I'm a proponent of process theology" or "Of course it seems that way; I am a white, middle-class male after all." Wouldn't it be easier if we let people know up front?

3. Despite its elusiveness, we shouldn't give up the task of trying to find out what Paul or John or Matthew or even Jesus intended. Theoretically, Chris is right, if we were to find this intention then the historical-critical method would be kaput. But with new discoveries, new technologies, and new historical methods this isn't likely to happen.

4. Lastly, perhaps we should consciously try to read the text against our presuppositions and traditions. This could help prevent us from making Paul or Jesus sound exactly like us and instead may help each of us see past our own fields of vision.

So where should I start? Perhaps I'll take my own advice and admit some of my presuppositions here. I am a Christian who tends to be moderate, though sometimes a little right of the center. I am married with no kids and I am 28 years old. I'm white, I'm male, and I'm middle class. I was raised as a Southern Baptist, became a moderate Baptist, and now I don't attend a Baptist church at all. I am ordained but I am currently not on staff at a church. I do, however, teach a Sunday School class for adults each week, which influences the way I read the Bible. I tend to prefer grammatical, historical, lexical, semantic, and literary arguments over theological or ideological ones. I prefer historical theology to systematics. I believe that the Bible is authoritative because it contains our only reliable witnesses to the historical revelation of God, which climaxed in the person of Jesus. And, I am a dog lover!

Barthian Hip Hop?

2008-01-29T07:21:00.000-08:00

Being the fan of Barth that I am, naturally I greatly enjoyed this video. I hope you do too!

I have to give proper credit for this gem: I discovered this on Disruptive Grace.

Exegesis and Theology: Julius Wellhausen

2008-01-26T09:00:00.000-08:00

Julius Wellhausen (1844-1918) is, of course, famous for his work on the documentary hypothesis concerning the Pentateuch. While reading through his section in Baird's History of NT Research 151-156), I couldn't help but think of the debate going on in the biblioblogosphere concerning exegesis and theology (to read more about this topic see posts by Bird, Meyers, and Chaplin). Here are Wellhausen's two cents on the subject:

Generally, on has no right to establish a priori any privileged points of view...One must rather proceed from certain impulses furnished by exegesis itself. (Baird, 2:152)

Was Wellhausen right? Should we try not to approach the text with our presuppositions? Or should be just admit that it can't be done and unabashedly do so anyhow?

Original Sin in Psalm 58.3?

2008-01-24T02:42:00.000-08:00

I was posting with some people on an online board and noticed that several of them were arguing that Psalm 58.3 supports the notion that original sin is passed down genetically. I, however, am more in line with the Eastern Church on this subject: I do not believe that damnable sin is passed down genetically but instead that we are all born with a propensity to sin, which we will inevitably give in to because of our free will. So I thought that I would share and amended version of a post that I originally wrote for a different audience. (Also, the recent posts concerning exegesis, biblical theology, and systematic theology by Michael Bird, Ben Meyers, and Doug Chaplin had me thinking about the biblical support [or lack thereof] for original sin, at least as understood by Augustine.)

Here are my thought about Psalm 58.3:

First, here's the verse: "Even from birth the wicked go astray; from the womb they are wayward and speak lies."

Here's the larger context, Psalm 58.1-5:

1 Do you rulers indeed speak justly? Do you judge uprightly among men? 2 No, in your heart you devise injustice, and your hands mete out violence on the earth. 3 Even from birth the wicked go astray; from the womb they are wayward and speak lies. 4 Their venom is like the venom of a snake, like that of a cobra that has stopped its ears, 5 hat will not heed the tune of the charmer, however skillful the enchanter may be.

The first question I have to ask myself is this: Who are the wicked who are in view in verse 3. The answer is found in verse 1 -- the "rulers." But who are these people? The Hebrew word here is elem, which means "muteness" or "silence," not "rulers." So how does the NIV get "rulers," the KJV "congregation," the HCSB "mighty ones," and the NASB and ESV "gods"? Well, most scholars and translators, including conservative ones (see the KJV, HCSB, and NASB for proof) don't believe that the Masoretes who put the vowels into the Hebrew text got it right. Most believe that it should read elim, which means "gods." This word can sometimes also refer to humans and when it does it means "rulers" or something close to that. It seems to me that there may be a double entendre or purposeful ambiguity here; it may be that these "gods" are in fact "mute" because they do not serve the cause of justice (see verse 2) (See "A note on elem in Psalm lviii 2" by John Kselman and Michael Barré in VT 54.3 [2004]). So if these are supernatural beings or if a double entendre is in play, then 58.3 does not support the theory that damnable sin is passed down through genetics, since "gods" and not people are in view.

However, "gods" here could refer to human rulers. If this is the case, then is there support in verse 3 for genetically transmitted damnable sin? From birth they go astray and from the womb they are wayward and speak lies. These words seem to support the case for genetics having something to do with damnable sin. However, it seems evident to me that this is a case of an exaggeration. How do I come to this conclusion? Well it is clear that the psalmist is trying hard to discredit these bad rulers or judges. So to do so he says that they've been bad from the beginning. However, Psalm 22.9 indicates that the psalmist believes that he trusted (the verb is a hiphil and means "to direct one's trust" a very conscious action) God from the time he was very small and Psalm 71.6 says that the psalmist relied on (this niphal verb means "to lean against" or "support oneself on," again, a very conscious action) God from birth. Is this possible? Is it possible for someone to make the conscious decisions to trust and rely on God from birth, before one is even able to talk or know right from wrong? The question is rigged; of course the answer is "no." Clearly then the psalmist is using his poetic license in Psalms 22 and 71 to say that God has been good to him and he has returned the favor for as long as he can remember. If this is true for these two Psalms, then it must be true of Psalm 58.3 as well. The psalmist is trying to paint a very negative picture of these "rulers" and "judges" and to do so he uses a bit of exaggeration. His point is that they are very, very bad guys.

So it is possible that Psalm 58.3 could support the theory of damnable sin being passed on to children through genetics, but two things must be dealt with first: 1) elim must not refer to "gods" but instead to some group of humans that have power; and 2) One must also accept that, in accordance with Psalms 22 and 71, that someone could trust in and rely on God from birth.

Number 1 could go either way and number 2 simply does not make sense (how can a new-born child trust or rely on God with before developing the appropriate level of cognition required?); therefore, I can't in good faith say that Psalm 58.3 supports the notion that damnable sin is passed down by birth.

But you may disagree with my opinions on numbers 1 and 2, and that's fine by me. However, building an entire doctrine on one obscure verse from the Bible is dangerous, especially when so much of the rest of the Bible seems to state that damnable sin is something that is consciously committed by a person (see James 1:13-15 for one example). Also, building doctrine out of poetry is dangerous as well, since a poet like the psalmist was not looking to convey things just exactly as they were but was instead trying to evoke emotion and get a point across. So even if Psalm 58.3 does say that some people were sinful from birth, considering that it is one verse in the Bible, and it is in a poem at that, makes me quite wary to build doctrine based only on it.

Am I on point here? Or am I way off in left field? And please be nice, this may be my first foray into writing about the Old Testament on my blog!

Eduard Reuss on the Bible

2008-01-23T18:10:00.000-08:00

Eduard Reuss (1804-1891) is "recognized as the founder of the Strasbourg school" and "was a mediator between German and French scholarship" (Baird, History of NT Research, 2:93). Reuss had something interesting to say with regard to the Bible:

The books of "the" Bible can lose their external value; the ideas belong to humanity, and where they are recognized as true, they are of divine origin, even if they had never been written. The old literal orthodoxy is irretrievably vanquished; only imbeciles need it." (quoted in Baird 2:93).

Jim West, with his low view of inerrancy, would likely find the last sentence of Reuss' quote to be quite true!

Blamelessness? -- Part III-B

2008-01-19T02:25:00.000-08:00

To continue a series that was rudely interrupted by a TV program about Paul and "submission" in Ephesians 5, I want to continue my investigation of the use of ἄμεμπτος (amemptos) in the literature from around the NT period. In my last post on this topic I turned my attention to the LXX and HB; now we will look into blamelessness in the Apocrypha.

There is a telling passage in Esther (Greek) 16.12-15a which will shed light on our study. In the second letter from Artaxerxes we find in the Additions to Esther, the king writes:

But, unable to restrain his [i.e., Haman’s] arrogance, he undertook to deprive us [i.e., the Persians] of our kingdom and our life, and with intricate craft and deceit asked for the destruction of Mordecai, our savior and perpetual benefactor, and of Esther, the blameless partner of our kingdom, together with their whole nation. He thought that by these methods he would catch us undefended and would transfer the kingdom of the Persians to the Macedonians. But we find that the Jews, who were consigned to annihilation by this thrice-accursed man, are not evildoers, but are governed by most righteous laws.

The king, in an effort to undermine the malignant works of Haman, sends this letter abroad to prevent the execution of the Jews in

Persia

, which he had ordered earlier (13.1-7). He does so, of course, because his chosen queen, Esther, reveals her "Jewish" identity to him (7.3-6). Because of this revelation, the king can label two "Jews," Mordecai and Esther, with laudatory titles, including that of ἄμεμπτος (amemptos) for Esther (16.13). This change of heart also causes Artaxerxes to value Esther’s people and their Law differently. Now he can see the intrinsic value of their laws (16.15), which he had earlier found to be "perversely" followed and "strange" (13.5). The truly amazing thing is that this conversion of opinion occurred partly because of the blamelessness of his queen, Esther. Thus, ἄμεμπτος (amemptos) was a quality of character that Esther possessed, probably indicating her innocence.

In Wisdom 10.5 the following is found concerning Abraham: "Wisdom also...recognized the righteous man and presented him blameless before God." This passage resonates with Genesis 17.1 in the LXX where ἄμεμπτος (amemptos) is also associated with Abraham. The connection in Wisdom 10.5 with righteousness leads me to think that this notion of blamelessness had morality in view, not sinlessness but certainly living appropriately "before God." However, it is hard to miss the sacrificial tone of this passage: "presented him...before God." Importantly though, blamelessness is a character trait possessed by Abraham here.

There are two more interesting passages that use ἄμεμπτος (amemptos) that are of special interest. In Esther (Greek) 13:4, the intentions of Artaxerxes and his court to unify the kingdom are considered blameless or honorable ("the unifying of the kingdom that we honorably intend cannot be brought about") and in Wisdom 10:15 those following Moses through the wilderness are identified as “a holy people and blameless race.” Thus, it appears that ἄμεμπτος (amemptos) was flexible enough to describe not only individual and their intentions, but also groupings of people, including entire nations.

When Phil 3.6 is viewed in light of this evidence, Paul seems to be saying that he too possessed this characteristic of blamelessness before his encounter with Christ. That this characteristic has something to do with morality with regard to the Law seems evident, especially in light of his usage in close relation to righteousness, as in Widsom 10.5. It appears that ἄμεμπτος (amemptos) had this meaning in the LXX (where Job and Abram possessed this same characteristic) and the Apocrypha as well. However, we cannot jump onto this bandwagon fully yet because we have not examined all the extant evidence.

Check out more posts by me on this topic!

Albrecht Ritschl on Jewish Christianity

2008-01-19T02:08:00.000-08:00

Albrecht Ritschl (1822-1889) is called "the architect of modern liberalism" (Baird, History of NT Research, 2:86). He was a student of F.C. Baur's at Tübingen and eventually went on to teach at Bonn and Göttingen, where he William Wrede and Johannes Weiss were his students (2:87).

In light of the ongoing discussion in the biblioblogosphere about Jewish Christianity, Ritschl's reconstruction of the early believers in Jesus seems interesting and instructive:

Ritschl presents (1) a Jewish Christianity of the early apostles (sympathetic to Paul and the Gentile mission), (2) a Jewish Christianity (Judenchristen) opposed to Paul and the Gentile mission, (3) and Pauline Christianity, originally sympathetic to Jewish Christianity, eventually deviating from the true understanding of Paul and becoming increasingly legalistic and Hellenized, finally transformed into early catholic Christianity. (2:91)

So the first group would be represented in Acts 15, the second must have been the opponents in Galatians whose thoughts were carried on by the Ebionites, and the third eventually won the day through syncretism and codification. What do you think of his reconstruction? Is it possible? Probable?

Osiek and Balch on Household Codes

2008-01-19T00:17:00.000-08:00

In a previous post I note Craig Keener's take on household codes in antiquity and his interpretation of Ephesians 5.21-33. Keener clearly highlights the discontinuity between the secular Haustafeln and Ephesians 5.

Carolyn Osiek and David L. Balch, in Families in the New Testament World: Households and House Churches (1997), do just the opposite: they seek and find continuity between the codes of the Greeks and Romans and those in the Colossians and Ephesians, while finding much discontinuity between the authentic Pauline letters and those that are pseudonymous. To highlight these points I want to provide several quotes from their study. While the words of this first quote are particularly directed at Colossians 3.18-4.1, they are relevant for Ephesians 5:

Colossians is probably the earliest deutero-Pauline letter written in Paul's name. In great contrast to the leadership of women and their active participation in the worship of early Pauline assemblies, this pseudonymous letter assimilates Pauline household values to Aristotelian politics. The structure of the household code in 3:18-4:1 with its (1) three pairs, (2) related reciprocally, (3) emphasizing three domestic groups' (wives, children, slaves) subordination to the paterfamilias in his three roles (husband, father, master -- the same male) is ultimately dependent on Aristotle's sociological description and philosophical/political justification of Greek domestic life. "The primary and smallest parts of the household are master and slave, and husband and wife, father and children...There is also a department...called the art of getting wealth." [Aristotle, Pol. I 1253b 7-8, 12-14] Aristotle is primarily concerned to order the relationship between each of these pairs as that between ruler and subordinate, the same primary concern reflected centuries later when the deutero-Pauline letters emphasize these three pairs of relationships, a domestic political structure absent from the earlier, authentic Pauline letters. (119)

About a paragraph later, they continue:

This structured domestic code [as found in Colossians] has its origin in Aristotle, but the ethic was reinforced by Emperor Augustus. According to Dio Cassius, Octavian called on his soldiers "to conquer and rule all mankind, to allow no woman to make herself equal to a man." [Dio Cassius, Roman History 50.28.3]...Further, Augustus's politics former the social psychology of the time; the competition, hierarchy, and patriarchy of Roman imperial society were internalized by individuals and groups. (119)

Later they describe the time period of the deutero-Pauline literature and the sociological realities thereof:

As eschatological urgency wanes and the church acculturates socially, the social reversals that Jesus and Paul's eschatological thought had hoped for disappear... (120).

Lastly, writing now specifically about Ephesians 5.21-33, they state:

As Colossians expands the slave/master exhortations, so Ephesians emphasizes the wife/husband pair, which the author interprets in light of Christ's relationship to the church, cementing the inferior position of the wife christologically. (121)

As I believe has been fairly obvious, Osiek and Balch forcefully express that Colossians and Ephesians come more into line with Aristotelian thought, whereas Jesus and Paul had granted more freedom and equality to wives, children, and slaves. I, however, think that the case has been overstated because there is plenty of room in Ephesians 5.21-33 to see not only significant discontinuity with the Greco-Roman household codes but also an important weakening of wifely submission and husbandly authority.

I believe that Keener would respond Osiek and Balch in this way:

While such a view [as theirs] has some evidence to support it, it rests on two hypotheses requiring proof: first, that the latter canonical Pauline writings are not genuine, and second, a particular reading of these letters...[Regarding the latter point:] The text of Ephesians itself actually does not support the contention that its writer has become more chauvinistic than the Paul of the earlier letters. (Dictionary of Paul and His Letters, "Man and Woman," [1993] 587-588)

I sympathize with Keener extensively. I have argued elsewhere that to read Ephesians 5 as a support for imposing strict subordination on wives is not supported by the imagery used there.

To conclude, while I appreciate Osiek and Balch's work and I am happy that they pointed me to some good primary source material on this subject, I think that they fail to allow the author of Ephesians to say what he was trying to say: namely, that husbands and wives should each put the interests of the other before that of their own.

One last thing, thanks to Chris and Tim for linking to my last post!

Click here to read other posts that I have written on this issue.

Craig Keener on Ephesians 5

2008-01-18T01:16:00.000-08:00

After writing three posts on this subject already, I would have to be crazy to write another one...right? The answer is a hardy "YES!" The reason for this post are the thoughtful comments that Chris Spinks made to my last post, which you can read here. He rightly notes the following: "I think the whole discussion of metaphors would be much stronger if we looked at the role of husbands and wives in the first century." I am in complete agreement with Chris on this. He continued by pointing out that the injunctions to wives would not have been that shocking to the reader of Ephesians, but that those to the husbands most certainly would have. The latter statement seems self evident, but somewhere in the dark recesses of my mind I have a vague recollection of a professor somewhere saying that Paul's words to women were quite freeing too.

So in light of Chris's comments and my poor memory, I turned to the ever-trustworthy Dictionary of Paul and His Letters. I perused several of the articles, including "Marriage and Divorce, Adultery and Incest," "Households and Household Codes," and "Ephesians, Letter to the." However, the most beneficial article had to be "Man and Woman," which was written by Craig S. Keener (583-592). I found it to be especially helpful with regard to Chris' injunction for me to exam the first-century roles of husbands and wives.

In subsection 3, "Paul* and Wives' Submission," Keener begins by pointing out that "Women nowhere [in the first century] enjoyed the social freedom recognized as their right today" (587). He then cites several examples of patriarchal language in Sirach, the Mishnah, Josephus, Philo, and Plutarch. Keener offers a helpful summary: "The wife's quiet submission was viewed as one of her greatest virtues throughout Greco-Roman antiquity (e.g., Sir 26.14-16, 30.19; Greek marriage contracts)" (587).

He then continues by stating that men in Greek society usually married in their thirties to girls "just entering puberty" (587). The result of this age differential was that husbands did not often few their wives as intellectually stimulating. However, "the situation was not this dismal throughout the Empire of Paul's day, and tomb inscriptions testify to an abundance of genuine love between husbands and wives" (587). However, the social setting of ancient males was not an easy thing to overcome: "the very structures of ancient society militated against husbands perceiving their wives as potential equals" (587).

These "structures of ancient society" are often expressed in what have come to be called household codes, of which Ephesians 5-6 is an example (German: Haustafeln). These codes have been in circulation from at least the time of Aristotle and serve to instruct "their male readers how to govern wives and other members of the household properly" (587). During the first two centuries the Romans found reasons to look down upon Eastern religions such as that of the Judeans and the cult of Isis. The Romans apparently thought that these groups were misleading women converts, which brought about "severe reprisals from the government (Tacitus Ann. 2.85; Josephus Ant. 18.3.4 §§ 64-80)" (587). This pressure resulted in these Eastern groups writing their own household codes in order "to prove that they were not subversive to tradition Roman family values after all" (587).

Turning his discussion now to Ephesians 5.22-33, Keener elucidates upon the fullest expression of the Pauline Haustafeln. Like many others of his day, Paul included a household code that adhered to the three-tier structure of Roman subservients: wives, children, and slaves. Paul also continued the social norm by calling on these groups to submit to the male householder. However, "Paul significantly adapts the list" (588). He calls for the head of the household to also submit "and the distinction between his view and the more usual ancient injunction that the householder govern should have been clear to ancient readers" (588). Keener offers four examples of how Paul's household code was different than the common one extant in Roman culture.

First, as is often pointed out, this Hastafeln starts out in an odd way -- with a call for mutual submission (5.21). This idea, "if pressed literally, goes beyond virtually all other extant writers from antiquity" (588).

Second, "the duties are listed as reciprocal duties" (588). According to Keener, most household codes only include instruction to the paterfamilias about how to govern his subservients; Paul included instructions to wives, children, and slaves. In fact, the householder is not told how to govern at all, but is instead told only to love his wife, etc. "This is hardly the language of the common household code...The wife, children, and slaves are to regulate the own submission voluntarily" (588).

Third, Paul does not list the duties that come with submission. This could have allowed an ancient reader "to read a wife's submission as meaning all that it could mean in that culture--which...involves considerably more subordination that any modern Christian interpreters would apply to women today" (588). Interestingly, Paul does provide some insight into what he means by "submit" -- in 5.33 the wife is told to "respect" her husband, thus weakenening wifely submission considerably. In fact, "Paul's view of women's subordination even in this social situation could not be much weaker than it is" (588).

Fourth, Keener notes that the "as to the Lord" qualification provided by Paul is decisive. This sort of submission was certainly not the kind that was widely practiced in the ancient world; however, "Paul does call on wives and slaves in his culture to submit in some sense" (588). This does not mean, therefore, that Paul approved of the patriarchal structures of his day -- quite the opposite. Paul's household code was nothing like that of the prevailing culture.

Keener concludes with the following claim: "Indeed, given Paul's weak definition of the wife's submission as "respect" (Eph 5.33; see above), it appears that Paul advocated her submission in only a limited manner even for his own social situation" (588).

Thus, it not only appears that the statements in Ephesians 5 to the husband were revolutionary, but that all of Ephesians 5:21-33 would have been shocking to ancient ears. Moreover, I think that it is important to note that Keener did not choose to translate hupatassō as anything other than "submit." He did, however, conclude that the definition of submission was highly qualified by the context provided by Ephesians 5-6, particularly the choice of the word "respect" in 5.33.

I wish now that I had done this sort of investigation prior to my previous posts on submission. Perhaps I have been guilty of not doing "the careful work of faithful exegesis," to quote myself. Either way, I do feel that much of what I found in Keener supports my ideas about Ephesians 5: specifically the preservation of the word "submit" and the reciprocal relationship that is in view there.

* - The authorship of Ephesians is highly debated. However, Keener consistently refers to Ephesians' author as Paul and for simplicity's sake I will do likewise in my summary of his thoughts.

Click here to read other post that I have written on this issue.

Marriage in Metaphors: Ephesians 5

2008-01-16T17:58:00.000-08:00

In two recent posts I have responded to the touchy, controversial, and ever-popular subject of "submission" in Ephesians 5:21-22 (Post 1 and Post 2). There are three reasons why I am going ahead with the third part to this mini-series: 1) I said that was going to write three posts; 2) My wife and I had a long discussion about this passage a few days ago that got the cogs in my brain moving again; and 3) To work out my thoughts on the issue in the public forum. Two further comments about #3: 1) This blog is not really all that "public" yet; and 2) What I really mean in #3 is disagree with me and do so vigorously if you so choose...I'm a big boy!

So with that ridiculous intro behind us, let's jump in. First, I will cover two metaphors that concern wives (5.21 and 5.33) and two for husbands (5.25 and 5.28). Then, I will try to see the bigger picture that the author of Ephesians possibly had in mind. Third, I will attempt to make some modern application of the difficult ancient text.

1 Metaphors for Wives

1.1.1 "Wives, submit to your husbands as to the Lord" (5.22)

I think that several things come to mind immediately when thinking about this metaphor. This submission is voluntary; no matter one's view of God's foreknowledge, from the human perspective we voluntarily choose to submit ourselves to God. This is not coercion or anything like it; what is in view here is a wife choosing to put herself under her husband in some way. Even in this early stage of the argument, the husband is not off the hook. If wives are to submit to their husbands like the Church submits to Christ, then what does that say about husbands? Further, what does that say about submission to a non-Christ-like husband? I would answer the first question by saying that husbands have a lot to live up to and I would respond to the second by saying that this passage in no way, shape, or form advises women to remain under a husband who is abusive, negligent, etc. In addition, I would further point out that Ephesians 5 cannot be faithfully seen as advocating that wives be doormats. The Church is not a "doormat" to Jesus! The Church is loved deeply by God and cared for to the "nth" degree! Lastly, this verse calls for wives to put their husbands' interests first, just as the Church should always put the interests and purposes of Christ and his gospel before any self-serving motivations.

1.1.2 "the wife must respect her husband" (5.33)

Today's readers of the Bible will likely prefer this verse to verse 21, and who could blame them. In English "respect" is a much more positive word than "submit." It should be pointed out, however, that the Greek word here is phobeō, which means either "fear" or "respect" generally. Now it would certainly be true that a wife would fear her husband if he was a bad guy (think Maury-show bad), but that certainly is not what is in view here. Instead, wives are called on to respect, or show reverence to their husbands. Again, this is a high calling for husbands since to get respect you have to earn it and give it. Isn't it interesting that even in the instructions to the wives there are implicit (but important!) injunctions for husbands!

1.2 Metaphors for Husbands

1.2.1 "Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church" (5.25)

This first metaphor for husbands is daunting. Husbands are to love their wives as Christ loved the church! The natural question is, of course, how did Christ love the church? The last part of v.25 answers our question: he "gave himself up for her." That is the ultimate self-sacrificial love. "Love" here certainly means more than warm feelings or general concern. It means wanting what is best for the other so much so that no action is too much of a risk personally. Husbands are called to lay their lives down for their wives. What a high calling! It also seems self evident that Christ loved the church for the church's own benefit, not his own. Verses 26 and 27 indicate this quite well: [Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her] to make her holy, cleansing her by the washing with water through the word, and to present her to himself as a radiant church, without stain or wrinkle or any other blemish..." Jesus did what he did for the sake of the church and husbands should do what they are supposed to do (namely, to love their wives!) for the benefit of their wives! To put it a slightly different way, husbands are to always have and act upon the best interests of their wives.

1.2.2 "husbands ought to love their wives as their own bodies" (5.28)

This definition of love gets a little more nitty gritty now. No longer is the author of Ephesians pontificating about the love of Christ; now he's connected his exhortation with something everyone has knowledge of and access to -- one's own body. It is a generally true that people don't hurt themselves on purpose but take care of themselves as best they know how (there are exceptions, of course, but, as usual, the exceptions prove the rule). Verse 29 says it better than I will ever be able to: "After all, no one ever hated his own body, but he feeds and cares for it, just as Christ does the church." That last phrase is important; just in case we didn't get the metaphor clearly enough, we are hit again with Christ's exemplary love. Again, this sort of behavior indicates that husbands ought to put the interests of their wives above their own. And in a final attempt to convince, the end of v. 28 highlights the outcome of husbands loving their wives as themselves -- "he who loves his wife loves himself." I don't think there are many comments needed here. Loving someone will make them more likely to love back, pure and simple.

2 The bigger picture

It seems to me that the author of Ephesians is riffing on the Pauline idea found in Philippians 2:3 ("Do nothing out of selfish ambition or vain conceit, but in humility consider others better than yourselves"). Please don't misunderstand me; I'm not saying that Ephesians 5 is dependent on Philippians 2.3. I am saying, however, that Philippians 2.3 forms the general Pauline rule and Ephesians 5.21-33 (as well as 6.1-9) is a specific application of this rule. Paul seems to have viewed the church as an entity made up of people who were always looking out for one another. So what else would one expect to find when they came to a Pauline passage on marriage? We don't find here a message of husbands "lording it over" their wives or wives "standing over against" their husbands. We also don't find here husbands "rolling over like whipped puppies" and "wives being subservient." Instead we see a picture of two people who are always thinking about what is best for each other. The author chose to use words like "submit," "respect," and "love" to communicate this. We may have wished he had chosen other words...but he didn't, so we have to deal with what we have as best we can.

3 What does this mean now?

First of all, Ephesians 5 only means something to those of us who view the Bible as in some way authoritative over us. I believe that the Bible has preserved for us reliable apostolic witnesses and as such it is formative in my life as a Christian. Secondly, this passage obviously has a limited scope: its applicable directly to married people. For a wider application it would be better to examine the general rule in Philippians 2.3 or elsewhere. So how might this work out today, in the twenty-first century?

When a single friend asks me about marriage, I usually (at some point in the conversation) say this: "The best thing about marriage is putting the interests of your spouse first. The worst thing about marriage is putting the interests of your spouse first." What I mean is that there is nothing better than bringing genuine joy to one's spouse but there is nothing harder than overcoming one's natural inclination toward self-serving behavior. However, over time and with many tears and sessions in the school of hard knocks, the reciprocal beauty of marriage takes over. The wife is looking out for what's best for the husband and the husband is doing likewise. Please don't get me wrong: this is hard work for both parties. But the benefits of submitting, respecting, and loving one another far out weigh the draw backs.

On this topic Mike Huckabee said the following: "Biblically, marriage is [a] 100/100 deal. Each partner gives 100 percent of their devotion to the other and that's why marriage is an important institution, because it teaches us how to love" (via thestate.com). While I agree that marriage is best when both spouses give their all and that marriage is a tutor specialized in the subject of love, the "100/100" language is not really realistic. Now from a "are they both giving it their all?" standpoint, the language is fine. But from the "brass tacks" standpoint, that's simply not how marriage works. Each spouse comes into the marriage better at some things than the other. One is better with money, one is better with socializing, one is better with cleaning, one is better at planning, one is this, one is that. So each doesn't make decisions about 100 percent of the issues and each doesn't get his/her way 100 percent of the time. The beauty of a good marriage, though, is that it is give-and-take. While one may be getting the best end of the stick at any given moment, the other knows in good faith that he/she will get his/her turn too.

When both spouses are putting the interests of the other first, then they are both happy and, I believe, living out today the ancient words found in Ephesians 5.

Some other good posts on this subject by:
Jim West (here and here)
Tim Richchuiti (here and here and here)
Owen Weddle (here)
Chris Spinks (here) and
The Big Daddy Weave (here)

Click here to read other post that I have written on this issue.

Submission, Jim West, and Linguistics

2008-01-14T18:43:00.001-08:00

Earlier today I wrote a post in which I promised to counter Jim West's take on "submission" in Ephesians 5. To do so I will need to first examine what Jim said, then point out how we differ and offer my understanding of the text in question.

Jim begins his analysis of Ephesians 5.21-22 by highlighting what many if not most biblical scholars, pastors, etc have lately, i.e., that all are called to do whatever the verb ὑποτάσσω (hupatassō) entails to one another. The result of allowing 5.21 to control the rest of this text is as follows:

This means that husbands must do so [ὑποτάσσω (hupatassō)] to their wives, children to parents, employers to employees, employees to employers (and note, I’ve replaced slave with employee in the context as more fitting culturally for the present).

Since he argues that it is only proper to say that wives should submit if one also says the husbands should, Jim suggests that "submit" is not the correct gloss for ὑποτάσσω (hupatassō) at all, instead proposing the word "cooperate." His support for this conclusion is based on the context of the passage: since ὑποτάσσω (hupatassō) "literally means ‘to stand under’ and in this context (and words are quite meaningless apart from context) doesn’t mean ‘to stand under’ as a doormat or subservient, but to stand under in cooperation." I really like Jim's last paragraph, so I will quote it in full:

The sense, then, is that wives cooperate with their husbands, husbands with their wives, employers with their employees, children with their parents because by doing so they exalt Christ to primacy and not themselves. A cooperative attitude is better than the self-serving motivation which persons are too often prone to adopt- and hence the author of Ephesians calls on believers to be cooperative rather than imperious.

In light of this last paragraph, why, you might ask, am I going to offer a counter reading to that which Jim has given us? To put it simply: I agree with Jim's conclusion but I don't agree with the method he chose to use to reach this conclusion. Thus, I want to explore the two main areas where we disagree: 1) The role of context in determining how we should translate ὑποτάσσω (hupatassō) in Ephesians 5; and 2) The danger of reading modern theological or social concerns back onto an ancient text.

1) Regarding context and determining the meaning of words

Jim says that "words are quite meaningless apart from context" and he is absolutely correct. A word by itself is too flexible to be defined carefully. An example from English could be the word "love." Apart from any context there is no telling what is meant by this word. It could be used to describe God's relationship to humanity, the commitment between spouses, my dedication to the Cubs, an ending to a letter, etc, etc. Apart from context "love" doesn't mean much. Note that I didn't say that it doesn't mean anything (and neither did Jim: "quite meaningless").

For a word to mean anything in any context it must have some generally agreed upon semantic range to begin with (the exception, of course, is a hapax legomenon). Thus, "love" generally means some sort of positive feelings between entities. When you plug "love" into a context this generally agreed upon semantic range is limited, nuanced, and qualified. If "love" stands between "Matt" and "fettuccine alfredo," then it is likely nuanced to mean something like "extremely prefers." But if "love" is found in reference to the relationship between my mom and my dad, then its nuance grows deeper, past "extremely prefers" to "absolutely committed to." It is important here to state my point as clearly as possible: context does not determine the meaning of words, it qualifies the generally agreed upon semantic range of words.

In the case of ὑποτάσσω (hupatassō) in Ephesians 5:21-22, this linguistic principle is important. The context surrounding the word will indicate how and in what way we will understand what it means for a wife "to stand under" her husband as she does the Lord. We cannot rip from a word its agreed upon semantic range because of context; instead we can see that the traditional understanding of ὑποτάσσω (hupatassō) is not adequate here in Ephesians 5.

In Jim's post he seems to be setting up a straw man. He is arguing against something that is easily pushed over, namely understanding the meaning of ὑποτάσσω (hupatassō) with reference to wives as a call to be "a doormat or subservient." This is unfortunate because the context limits the semantic range of ὑποτάσσω (hupatassō) so that it does not mean this at all! "Submitting" to the Lord is a voluntary act of love in which one puts the Lord's purposes above his/her own and it is this idea that limits, but does not change, the meaning of ὑποτάσσω (hupatassō) in our text.

To translate the word as "cooperate" does not capture the nature of the argument of the author of Ephesians. While he may well believe that we "work with" with the Lord, to translate ὑποτάσσω (hupatassō) as "cooperate" leaves the reader to assume that the believer is on par with or a peer of the Lord, which is clearly not the case. This steals from ὑποτάσσω (hupatassō) its generally agreed upon semantic range. Instead of doing this, perhaps we should let the author of Ephesians say what he wants to say and then explain to our readers, hearers, parishioners, etc how the idea of submission is qualified by the last clause in 5.22.

We should not, however, stop at 5.22, but continue on and finish out the instructions to husbands and wives in Ephesus. In so doing we will see that husbands are called to love their wives as Christ loves the Church and as they love their own bodies. I totally agree with Jim that the picture we have here is of the wife putting her husband above herself and the husband putting the wife above himself, i.e., mutual submission. If we were to follow Jim's logic to its natural conclusion, then we should change the word "love" to "cooperate" as well, or perhaps change "submit" to "love" and be done with it.

These suggestion all, however, do damage to the text itself, which is unnecessary because a simple exegesis could show that it appears that the author had in mind putting others interests first. Again, simply because the context helps nuance the words in this way does not mean that we should change or translations. The author of Ephesians could have used other words had he so chosen (as he does in 5.33, φοβέω [phobeō] instead of ὑποτάσσω [hupatassō]), but since he didn't we shouldn't either.

2) Regarding the danger of reading "today" onto "back then"

I believe Jim's reasoning for wanting to read "cooperate" for ὑποτάσσω (hupatassō) is noble. He wants to make this text "more fitting culturally for the present" (to quote him out of context!). This desire is good and is needed in the Church especially. But as good as this attitude is, it should not prevent us from reading the texts that we have as they are. To put it a different way, making a text relevant is not the purpose of exegesis, it is the purpose of application. Mixing up these two disciplines prevents the ancient texts of the Bible from saying what their authors intended them to say.

However, I agree with Jim's underlying problem with this text. It is despicable that Ephesians 5 has been misused to perpetuate outdated marital roles and disrespectful attitudes toward women in general and wives in particular. This modern problem, however, should not cause us to change what the text of Ephesians itself says. Instead the realization of the abuse of this text calls us to do the careful work of faithful exegesis and then (and only then) the equally hard task of applying this text to today's world.

In this second step we can talk about husbands and wives mutually submitting to one another, putting each other's interests first, and even cooperating with one another; but this second step should not taint the first step! Exegesis comes first! And a careful exegesis of Ephesians 5.21-22 reveals the the author of Ephesians used ὑποτάσσω (hupatassō) whether we like it or not!

Click here to read other post that I have written on this issue.

Submission, Mike Huckabee, and the Bibliobloggers

2008-01-14T09:16:00.001-08:00

Republican presidential candidate Mike Huckabee's recent comments in a South Carolina debate have reopened an old, old debate in the Church: namely, how to deal with the family code passage in Ephesians 5. Huckabee is paraphrased in the following way by Susan Milliagan of the Boston Globe:

The former governor went on to say that the quote was taken out of context and that the Bible says both a wife and husband should be submissive to each other and to God, each giving 100 percent to the marriage. [SOURCE]

Huckabee was responding to a question about the statement in the 2000 Baptist Faith and Message which says that "A wife is to submit herself graciously to the servant leadership of her husband even as the church willingly submits to the headship of Christ" (BFM, XVIII. The Family). Huckabee's interpretation of Ephesians 5 and by proxy the BFM has been interacted with by a whole host of bibliobloggers.

Jim West used Huckabee as a jumping off point to offer a new translation of the word in question in Ephesians 5 and to give his fundamentalist opponents a solid jab, Tim Richchuiti has offered many defenses of the traditional translation, Owen Weddle thoughtfully disagrees with Jim, and Chris Spinks points out that in some older blogs he and Jim are in basic agreement.

Last night I was talking to my wife about her book that she has been studying for her women's Bible study group. It is called Peacemaking Women: Biblical Hope for Resolving Conflict and is co-authored by Tara Klena Barthel and Judy Dabler. In the chapter entitled "Romantic Love" the authors write about "biblical womanhood and manhood" and utilize Ephesians 5 extensively. They follow a strictly traditional interpretation of the text. Their basic position is that a wife should give way to her husband's "servant leadership." Naturally, all of the blogs and comments I had been reading recently on them came to mind.

She and I then had a long conversation over dinner in which we tried to grapple with many of these tough issues. I really am lucky to have such a thoughtful and articulate wife! I think that my problems with the interpretation offered by the book she's been reading revolve around two issues: 1) their use of the adjective "biblical," as if their interpretation is the only one possible, and 2) their failure to fully grasp the metaphors used in Ephesians 5 (submission to Christ and loving like Christ).

In follow-up posts to this one I hope to do two things: 1) Counter Jim West's translation of the word in question as "cooperation" rather than "submission," and 2) Explore in some detail the metaphors used in Ephesians 5 and offer my own interpretation of this troublesome text.

[UPDATE: I have just found an interesting blog by The Big Daddy Weave, in which he accuses Huckabee of intentionally changing his theology from 1998 to today. While I might not go so far as to assume to be able to crawl inside Huck's head and think his thoughts after him, I do agree that Huck's position is not in line with the traditional SBC stance.]

Click here to read other post that I have written on this issue.

F.A.J. Hort on Revelation in Jesus

2008-01-13T23:35:00.000-08:00

Here's a good quote that I came across in Baird's History of NT Research (2:61):

All our primary knowledge of God is through Him, the true Son of the true Father. All of our primary knowledge of Him, the Son, is through His revelation in human flesh and blood under the conditions of earthly life, and through the testimony of those who had conversed with Him by their bodily senses. (F.A.J. Hort, The Way the Truth and the Life, 163)

The quote is from Fenton John Anthony Hort (1828-1892), who was part of the Cambridge Triumvirate along with J.B. Lightfoot and B.F. Westcott. I find the quote both inspirational and daunting. It is great to think that God was revealed in the person of Jesus...but it is something else to think that this great revelation of God has been relayed to us "through the testimony of those who had conversed with Him by their bodily senses."

If Hort is right (and I think he is), then this should be a reminder to all of us who are confessing scholars to remember to be humble. Where is there room for arrogance when such a great thing (the revelation of God in Jesus) has come in such a dingy package (the testimony of people's senses)? Though the question was intended to be rhetorical, I'll answer it: There's no room for arrogance!

An Email, a Phone Call, and Some Advice about Fundamentalists

2008-01-11T02:07:00.000-08:00

A while back now I was given an award from Fuller Seminary. Part of accepting this award was writing a letter of thanks to the people who provided the money for it, which I did several months ago.

Then yesterday I received an interesting email. Dr. Charles E. Carlston, author of The Parables of the Triple Tradition and a book about Matthew co-authored with Craig Evans which is forthcoming, wrote to me thanking me for my letter and giving me some information about himself and his spiritual/academic pilgrimage. In his email, Dr. Carlston indicated that he wished that he had my phone number so that the two of us could dialogue.

I quickly wrote an email back to him, thanking him and giving him my number. Low and behold, tonight (the next day) at around 8:30 he called! We had an excellent conversation, which lasted for some thirty minutes! He was very kind and offered me a lot of great advice.

At a particular point in our discussion, Dr. Carlston asked me what my denominational background was. This is a tough question for me to answer because my background is very weird, at least from an intra-Baptist perspective. I was raised in a moderate Southern Baptist church but became a fundamentalist as a teen because I thought that was what I was supposed to do. I then went to a moderate Baptist university associated with the Baptist General Convention of Texas (BGCT). After that I attended a moderate seminary, which was affiliated with the BGCT and the Cooperative Baptist Fellowship and began as a protest against Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary in Fort Worth. While in seminary I was ordained in a Southern Baptist church pastored by a moderate BGCT pastor. Now I am at a moderate interdenominational seminary getting my PhD, where I attend a conservative Congregational church. Phew!

As you might imagine, it is hard for me to put a simple label on my background. Would moderate Southern Baptist work? How about Texas Baptist? What about simply Baptist? I actually don't like any of these titles; I prefer to tell my story and let people decide for themselves.

After telling Dr. Carlston my story, he said something that I found very interesting. A little context first: he related to me that he came from a fundamentalist Baptist background too and that he has many friends who did as well. Then he gave me a great piece of advice:

It's okay to be an ex-fundamentalist but it's not okay to be an anti-fundamentalist.

I was blown away by his statement. How often have I been guilty of being "anti-fundamentalist"? Way too often to even begin to remember! And how ironic. Think of it -- one of the biggest complaints against fundamentalists is that they are separatists; they try to distance themselves from people who disagree with them. Isn't that exactly what I was doing by having "anti-fundamentalist" feelings?

Since I attempt to live my live with moral and intellectual integrity, I cannot go on harboring this disdain. I have to stop "hating on" the fundamentalists so much and I have to at least attempt to restart some of my severed relationships with my fundamentalist friends. They may or may not respond, that's not my business. It is my business, however, to do my best to live at peace with everyone!

Philip Schaff and the Origin of "Justification by Faith" in Paul

2008-01-09T01:25:00.000-08:00

Philip Schaff (1819-1893) was a European-born scholar who spent his career in America teaching primarily at Union Theological Seminary in New York City. He is known more for his writings regarding church history but Schaff did contribute to the study of the NT.

An excellent example of his contribution to the history of NT research can be found in his understanding of the impact of Paul's conversion and his opponents on his teaching about justification by faith. In volume three of his work entitled History of the Christian Church, Schaff argues that Paul's

whole theology, doctrinal, ethical, and practical, lies, like a germ, in his conversion; but it was actually developed by a sharp conflict with Judaizing teachers who continued to trust in the law for righteousness and salvation, and thus virtually frustrated the grace of God and made Christ's death unnecessary and fruitless" (302-303; cited in Baird, History of NT Research, 2:49)

I find Schaff's words to be remarkably like those that we read in the Paul and the Law debates of the late twentieth and early twenty-first centuries. His emphasis on the importance of Paul's conversion would be music to the ears of traditional readers of Paul like Seyoon Kim, while Schaff's realization that the "Judaizing teachers" actually brought Paul's theology into development is right in line with many New Perspectivists.

It has been instructive and exciting to watch, retrospectively, the development of these ideas that we all take for granted today!

Teaching New Testament at a Synagogue

2008-01-08T01:24:00.000-08:00

Recently the Dallas Morning News published an interesting story about a professor at SMU who was invited to teach a course on the New Testament at a local synagogue. Here is a small snippet from the article:

"We saw this as an opportunity to explore the common roots of Judaism and Christianity and for our members to gain a better understanding of what our neighbors believe," said Rachelle Weiss Crane, chairwoman of adult education for Temple Emanu-El, a Reform congregation in North Dallas.

"We forget how thoroughly Jewish Jesus was and how similar Jesus was to his Jewish contemporaries," Dr. [Mark] Chancey said. "I hope they see the Jewishness of early Christianity."

In light of the discussions being led by Joel Willits and David Miller, the article piqued my interests. I was left wanting to know more, which is good I guess. Dr. Chancey is quoted as saying the following: "Christianity didn't become a new religion until early Christians began reinterpreting ideas that were originally Jewish." I wish I could ask him exactly exactly what "reinterpreting" entailed, because Paul and Jesus are often said to have reinterpreted the tradition in which they live by scholars of differing stripes.

I applaud Dr. Chancey for accepting the invitation and I hope that his work will help tend to the wounds that Christians have given to Jews.

Which NCAAF Conference Is the Best?

2008-01-07T22:59:00.000-08:00

The LSU Tigers are the national champions. They beat the OSU Buckeyes 38-24 after falling behind early 10-0.

Reporting that fact is not the purpose of this post; trying to decide which conference was the best this year is. There are as many ways of determining which one deserves the top spot as there are people who talk about this topic. Some simply vote for the one their school is in, which is what I have found to be the case here in southern California. Some think historically, which is what Big 10 fans tend to do. Still others try to make an argument based on the number of good teams in the conference in a particular year, which is what SEC and Big 12 fans usually do.

I, however, do not have a favorite NCAA football team, I don't care about who the best conference is historically, and I have decided not to use the number of good teams as the sole criterion on which to base a conference's success. Instead, I want to take a look at the bowl records of the different conferences. This is beneficial for three reason: 1) It plainly shows which conferences have the most good teams by the total number of bowls in which a conference's teams played; 2) It places appropriate weight on the post-season games, games which tend to match two good teams; and 3) It allows us to get a good reading on which conference plays well when it matter most.

So what do we have then? I'll start by providing the list of BCS conferences in order by the number of wins they had in bowl games this season. Also, in parenthesis are the number of wins and losses, followed by the number of quality wins (defined as defeats of top-25 teams).

SEC (7-2; 4)
Big 12 (5-3; 4)
Pac 10 (4-2; 2)
Big 10 (3-5; 1) and Big East (3-2; 1)
ACC (2-6; 0)

From this information it seems simple enough that the best conference in college football this year was the SEC -- they had the most teams in bowl games, they had the most bowl victories, and tied for the most quality wins. The Big 12 is a close second, also tying for the second teams in bowl games and the most quality wins, while coming in second in the number of bowl victories.

But what about the non-BCS conferences? Here is their information in the same format.

Mountain West (4-1; 0)
Conference USA (2-4; 1)
Sunbelt (1-0; 0); Western Athletic (1-3; 0)
Mid-American (0-3; 0); Independents (0-1; 0)

While none of these conference can compete for the top spots in my list, some have come close. The Mountain West did quite well but against poor opponents and the Conference USA had a quality win (ECU over Boise State). Perhaps one or both of these conferences could be ranked ahead of the ACC, but any higher than that is simply not justified.

So what is my final word? What is my final ranking? Drum roll please...

SEC
Big 12
Pac 10
Big 10
Big East
ACC
Mountain West
Conference USA
Western Athletic
Mid-American
Sunbelt
Independets

As for the future, I think that we will see the same top four next year in the same order. The SEC is a powerhouse and may get even better with the likes of Tebow of Florida and Moreno of Georgia returning. The Big 12 will put up a major fight for the top spot next year with several good QBs returning: Harrell at Texas Tech, Reesing at Kansas, McCoy at Texas, Bradford at Oklahoma, and Daniels at Missouri. The Pac 10 and Big 10 may switch places next year, though I imagine that UCLA will improve and Cal should be better for the Pac 10. However, OSU should be solid next season with 18-20 starters returning.

I can't wait for next season already!

John Wesley on Congregational Singing

2008-01-07T00:50:00.000-08:00

My wife and I spent our Christmas holiday in Georgia. While there we attended a children's program on Christmas night. As is often the case, I got a little antsy waiting for the service to begin, so I picked up the hymnal in the pew rack. It was called The United Methodist Hymnal and on page vii it had these words from John Wesley about singing in the church:

Directions for Singing

Learn these tunes before you learn any others; afterwards learn as many as you please.
Sing them exactly as they are printed here, without altering or mending them at all; and if you have learned to sing them otherwise, unlearn it as soon as you can.
Sing all. See that you join with the congregation as frequently as you can. Let not a slight degree of weakness or weariness hinder you. If it is a cross to you, take it up, and you will find it a blessing.
Sing lustily and with a good courage. Beware of singing as if you were half dead, or half asleep; but lift up your voice with strength. Be no more afraid of your voice now, nor more ashamed of its being heard, than when you sung the songs of Satan.
Sing modestly. Do not bawl, so as to be heard above or distinct from the rest of the congregation, that you may not destroy the harmony; but strive to unite your voices together, so as to make one clear melodious sound.
Sing in time. Whatever time is sung be sure to keep with it. Do not run before nor stay behind it; but attend close to the leading voices, and move therewith as exactly as you can; and take care not to sing too slow. This drawling way naturally steals on all who are lazy; and it is high time to drive it out from us, and sing all our tunes just as quick as we did at first.
Above all sing spiritually. Have an eye to God in every word you sing. Aim at pleasing him more than yourself, or any other creature. In order to do this attend strictly to the sense of what you sing, and see that your heart is not carried away with the sound, but offered to God continually; so shall your singing be such as the Lord will approve here, and reward you when he cometh in the clouds of heaven.

I particularly like rules for and five. Trying to figure out the balance of these two has always been my problem!

Which of these directions do you like best?

Horace Bushnell on Miracles

2008-01-05T01:46:00.000-08:00

Horace Bushnell (1802-1876) was an early American biblical scholar who has been called "the father of American liberalism" (Baird, History of NT Research, 2:37). While Bushnell wrote and preached on a wide range of subjects, I found his definition of miracles to be interesting. For him, a miracle is:

a supernatural act, an act, that is, which operates on the chain of cause and effect in nature from without that chain, producing, in the sphere of the senses, some event that moves our wonder, and evinces the presence of more than human power. (cited in Baird, 2:40)

While it is obvious that Bushnell's presuppositions shine through in his definition of the miraculous, I find his explanation much more convincing than the minimalistic efforts that attempt to rationalize away everything supernatural in the Bible. Bushnell is trying to offer a mediating position here between those in Europe (like Baur and Strauss) and those in America (like Hodge). He does so by saying that a miracle is God entering into the cause-and-effect system for outside of it, thus not denying the "otherness" of God nor the need for the miracles to "make sense."

How would you rate Bushnell's definition?

Recognition and Blogging...

2008-01-04T01:53:00.000-08:00

Who hasn't wanted to get their blog and their ideas more attention? As a matter of fact, who of us hasn't wanted more praise for ourselves and our work? We humans crave recognition, a truism which seems especially true for those of us who call ourselves bloggers.

Ben at openswitch has written a very intriguing blog on this subject. Here's a quote to whet your appetite:

Real recognition is not getting linked by someone famous. It’s being famous to the point where people crave links from you. That kind of recognition can’t be manufactured, it’s earned.

Mysteries of the Bible -- Paul the Apostle: Part 3

2008-01-03T23:15:00.000-08:00

I recently watched the Biography Channel's program entitled, "Mysteries of the Bible: Paul the Apostle." It is part of a larger series, which can be purchased for 52.46 USD from Biogrpahy's online shop. Earlier today I posted about the first two segments of the show and then the last three. Now I will offer a few critiques of the program and discuss how this video may be useful in pedagogical settings.

First, as has been so popular a subject in the biblio-blogosphere as of late, the writers of the program consistently chose to use "conversion" language and the anachronistic term "Christianity" in regard to Paul's personal religious experience and thought as well as the gospel he preached. While I feel that the conversion language seems to aptly describe the experience Paul personally had (cf. Gal 1:13-14, Phil 3:7), to say that he converted to "Christianity" is another issue altogether. As is widely understood and accepted, the term "Christianity" had not been coined when Paul was preaching and it is often attested that the believers in Jesus were still under the umbrella of Judaism.

So you may be wondering how I can affirm the conversion language but deny the usage of "Christian." The way things shake out (in my head at least!) is that Paul had distanced himself from the practices of Judaism (Gal 1:13 "my previous way of life in Ioudaismō") and that he only practiced the law when it was expedient (1 Corinthians 9:19-23). Unless you define Ioudaismos strictly by ethnicity (which it clearly was not merely an ethnic descriptor), it seems more than probable that Paul in some ways broke away from his previous religious practices. Therefore, basically I think that the editors of the show didn't utilize enough care when using conversion language and the term "Christian."

Second, constantly throughout the show Acts was set up as a straw man for Paul's letters or some new theory to easily blow over. Generally, the "history" of Acts is presented first, then something contradictory for Paul's letters, and often another theory that disagreed with both. While this has certainly become the norm in scholarship, i.e., to doubt Acts, usually this repudiation includes at least a brief discussion of why Acts' "history" is not to be fully trusted. The program fails to do this, at least in any memorable way.

In the very first segment another problem arises, which will be my last criticism. The narrator briefly describes the events leading up to Paul's entrance onto the scene. He includes Jesus' death, the disciple's devotion to Jesus, and the "Jews" anger at the Christians for praising a condemned blasphemer. There is a glaring omission however: the resurrection! Even if one wants to rationalize it away, the resurrection still must be mentioned since it was on the lips of the earliest believers in Jesus constantly!

Overall, though, the program is quite good at introducing the main themes of Paul's life and many of the problems in trying to understand his life historically. This video would come in handy for educating people in churches or synagogues, universities, or seminaries. Perhaps one of the best features for the teacher is that the video would reveal some things that students may find objectionable (e.g., discrepancies between Acts and Galatians). In so doing the teacher is not the bearer of the bad news and perhaps will not simply be tuned out or reacted against, both of which are often the case when the teacher is the one offering the hard-to-swallow pill.

The classes for which the video would be most useful would be introductory courses on Paul's letters or theology, surveys of the NT or the second half of it, or even Christianity 101 type courses. The video is entertaining enough to keep attention, short enough to not bore, and informative enough to give the teacher many good jumping-off points. Many props to the Biography Channel for providing such a useful tool!

Mysteries of the Bible - Paul the Apostle: Part 1
Mysteries of the Bible - Paul the Apostle: Part 2

Mysteries of the Bible -- Paul the Apostle: Part 2

2008-01-03T16:18:00.000-08:00

I recently watched the Biography Channel's program entitled, "Mysteries of the Bible: Paul the Apostle." It is part of a larger series, which can be purchased for 52.46 USD from Biogrpahy's online shop. Earlier today I posted about the first two segments of the show and now I will summarize the last three "Acts."

Act III, "The Mysteries of Tarsus," takes up the story of Paul after he has gone to Jerusalem and then on to Tarsus, his hometown, in Cicilia. As has been the case thus far, the program initially follows Acts and then compares Acts with Paul's letters, which confirm that he did indeed go to Cicilia and that he spent fourteen years there. Then a major question is posed: Were Paul's views shaped in Cicilia and how? It does seem that Paul's views were a little idiosyncratic, according to the program, because the believers in Jerusalem remained part of "Judaism" by upholding circumcision and the Law more generally while Paul's message was more universal, accepting everyone.

Wayne Meeks then tells the viewer about the city of Tarsus: it was a metropolitan port city in which many ideas were exchanged as often as goods. Of particular note is that Tarsus was known for "secret wisdom," as evidenced by the presence of the Mithras cult. A prayer to Mithras is then quoted for the viewer, presumably to show the similarity between the language of Paul and that of the cult: "Spirit of spirit, if it be your will, give me over to immortal birth so that I may be born again and the sacred spirit may breathe in me." Two divergent opinions are then revealed: Meeks does not think that the Mithras cult had that big of an influence on Paul but Rev. Robert Morris (click and scroll to the bottom for his bio), of Interweave, said that Paul's beliefs are "very, very friendly and compatible with the mystery cult language." Whatever the case, Paul's message was powerful and he "converted" many.

The fourth segment, entitled "New Clues, Ancient World," begins with a statement concerning Paul's motivation for his evangelistic efforts: he believed that Jesus was coming back during his own lifetime and that judgment would follow, thus he tried to "save" as many as he could. Morris claims that Paul went to cities because there were Jews in cities and Christianity was still viewed as being within Judaism. Paul seems to have greatly succeeded at gaining "converts" through his staunch determination.

However, some scholars are challenging Paul's tenacity as the reason for his success, including Susan Alcock, previously from the University of Michigan, now part of the faculty at Brown. She claims that by examining surface artifacts from the Roman Empire one can see that the countryside was being deserted as people migrated to the cities. Only one reason is given for this migration: imperial estates swallowing up the smaller farms and homes outside of the cities. Therefore, Paul's universal message, in which everyone was accepted, "must have touched many broken hearts."

The last act, Act V: "The Enigma of the End," deals with the uncertainty surrounding Paul's demise. After recapping the Acts account, several explanations are given concerning the silence of Acts with regard to Paul's death. Morris states that perhaps Acts was written as a trial brief for Paul to take to Rome with him and Meeks claims, instead, that the point of Acts was not to narrate Paul's life but to demonstrate the spread of the gospel, which the ending of Acts accomplishes.

A third option is also given, this time by Paul Maier of Western Michigan University. He points out that since one of the earliest Christian witnesses outside the Bible, Clement of Rome, indicated that Paul made it all the way to Spain, perhaps Paul was acquitted of his "crimes" and released. The program then continues with some speculative history: Since it is generally accepted that Paul was beheaded by Roman authorities, there has to be some reason for his second trial. This reason is found in the fire of 64 CE which for which Nero blamed the Christians. Many were tortured and killed at this time and Paul would have likely been among the first, since he was such an influential leader.

The program nears its end with the statement that within three hundred years of Paul's death his "fugitive faith" became the official religion of Rome. Thus, Paul stands as one of the most important people for the history of the Western world. Morris wraps up the show nicely:

Paul has a vision, that we're made in the image of God and that we can be that way with the help of God, with the help of the grace of God. That vision of human potential has been a recurrent inspiration to people all throughout Western history and is one of the great visions on the planet.

Mysteries of the Bible - Paul the Apostle: Part 1

Mysteries of the Bible -- Paul the Apostle: Part 1

2008-01-03T09:04:00.000-08:00

Volume 1: Abraham: One Man, One God; Herod the Great; The 10 Commandments; Bonus Documentary
Volume 2: Jacob’s Ladder; Joseph: Master of Dreams; Cain and Abel; Queen Esther: Far Away and Long Ago
Volume 3: King Solomon; King David: Poet Warrior; The Last Revolt; Archenemy: The Philistines
Volume 4: Jesus: Holy Child; The Execution of Jesus; Bonus Documentary
Volume 5: The Lost Years of Jesus; The Last Supper; Paul the Apostle
Volume 6: The Bible’s Greatest Secrets; Biblical Angels; Heaven and Hell; Apocalypse: The Puzzle of Revelation
Volume 7: Magic and Miracles; Prophets: Soul Catchers; Bonus Documentary

Regarding "Paul the Apostle," here is the little blurb from Biograhpy's site:

Follows Saint Paul's journeys to explore his stunning transformation from Christianity's bitterest foe to its strongest advocate. Paul's conversion on the road to Damascus determined the future of the Christian movement and the Western world.

The program is actually pretty good. I was expecting it to be either hokey or so secularized that nothing resembling the records of Paul's life in the Bible would be seen. However, it was neither. Instead it presented a fairly balanced and some-what thorough overview of Paul's life. I do wish that they would have had more time to discuss Paul's teachings, but, alas, this program was intended to fit into a sixty minute time slot.

The program has five segments or "Acts." Act I is called "Road to Damascus." In this segment it is stated that "Jesus had been crucified for blasphemy" and that his followers were worshiping him after his death. No mention is made of the resurrection. It is mentioned, however, that "the Jews" were angry that a criminal who had been executed was being praised; among these Jews was Paul. On his way to bring to justice "Christians" in Damascus, Paul experienced something amazing, what the show calls one of "history's turning points."

At this point in the program I thought that I was simply going to be presented with an explanation of the account in Acts of Paul's life. In my notes I wrote, "Assumes Acts' authenticity," to which I later added, "at first." The "at first" was necessary because next the viewer hears from Robert M. Price, who was then from Drew University but is now at Johnnie Coleman Theological Seminary. He states that we have little "reliable evidence" about Paul's "conversion," that Paul's letters don't mention it explicitly, and that the supposed account in Gal 1 is at best ambiguous. However, 2 Cor 12.2 and The Apocalypse of Paul are then brought forward as possible witnesses to visionary experiences that may have had a major impact on Paul's move from persecutor to promoter of belief in Christ. The program presents the event of Paul's "conversion" as murky but its "result is not in doubt."

Act II is called "The Hidden Years" and deals with Paul's experiences directly after his "conversion." The program pits the Acts account, in which Paul returns to Jerusalem after a short time in Damascus, with Galatians, in which Paul goes to Arabia for an extended period of time. While the former account is not explicitly denied, the latter position is the the only one that is talked about with any sort of depth.

The viewer learns about the kingdom of the Nabateans and their capital, Petra, where Paul may have gone after his "conversion." Wayne Meeks, from Yale University, then says Arabia was "where he [Paul] first tried his hand at this new mission he saw himself called to." In an effort to find evidence to support Paul's evangelistic endeavors in Arabia, the viewer is read 2 Cor 11.32, where King Aretas chases Paul out of Damascus. This "Aretas" from the Bible matches evidence outside the Bible of a Aretas IV who ruled the Nabatean kingdom during the first century. Meeks then wraps up this section nicely by stating that Paul "already stirred up trouble," which would continue to be a defining characteristic of his ministry for the rest of his life.

The next post (which I hope to write later today) will cover the third, fourth, and fifth acts. A third post will include a critique of the program and will discuss its usefulness in teaching courses on Paul.

Bibloblogger Group on Library Thing

2008-01-03T08:18:00.000-08:00

Do you use LibraryThing (LT)? If not, perhaps you should. It is a social networking site that is specifically for bibliophiles. You can upload your library into LT, which is good for finding others that have similar interests to you (you can compare libraries with all the other members). Also, by uploading your books you can search your own library when buying new books to avoid purchasing duplicates, you can send a link to your library to friends and family so that they don't give you duplicates, and you can tag, rate, and review books so that others may be able to make informed decisions about buying books themselves. For example's sake here are some links to my profile and library.

On LT there are also groups that you can join. An LT group is a set of users who have voluntarily joined together to compare libraries, share tips, deals, etc, and to talk about other things via the forum feature. I'll list a few here that readers of this blog may be interested in: Ancient History, Bible Collectors, Bible Scholarship, Biblical History, Bibliobloggers, Christian Mysticism, Christianity, Church History, Faith and Reason, Graduate Students, Hebrew Literature, Jewish History, Non-Fiction Readers, Scriptures, Seminary Students, and Theology 101.

Go and sign up! There is a free membership option! You know that you need another reason to spend time on the interwebs!

Biblical Studies Carnival XXV

2008-01-03T07:37:00.001-08:00

Check out the wonderful B.S. Carnival XXV put together by Chris Brady of Targuman! Thanks Chris for you hard work in putting this together for all of us!

Kevin P. Edgecomb of Biblica is currently taking nominations for B.S. Carnival XXVI, so be sure to stop by his site and nominate your favorite posts of the month!

Blamelessness? -- Part III-A

2008-01-02T09:42:00.000-08:00

Commenting on a previous post, my friend Garrett asked if I would reveal which Hebrew words were translated with amemptos and I hope to do just that in this post. We will take a quick look at ἄμεμπτος (amemptos) in the LXX and its Hebrew counterparts in the HB. The hope is that by examining these usages we may begin to gain a better understanding of the semantic and ideological range that Paul had in mind when he said that he had become amemptos with regard to the Law (Phil 3.6).

In the LXX amemptos is used twelve times - once in Genesis (17.1) and eleven times in Job (1.1, 8; 2.3; 4.17; 9.20; 11.4; 12.4; 15.14; 22.3, 19; 33.9). In Genesis 17.1 God appears to Abram and says to him "I am God Almighty; walk before me, and be blameless (amemptos)." The Hebrew word that the LXX translates is תָמִֽים, for which BDB gives the following definitions: complete, whole, entire; whole, sound, healthful; complete entire; sound, wholesome, unimpaired, innocent, having integrity, while Holladay gives these glosses: whole, entire; intact; unobjectionable; free of blemish; blameless; sincerely, honestly; perfect. BDB lists Gen 17.1 under "sound, wholesome, unimpaired, innocent, having integrity" and Holladay lists Gen 6.9, a close parallel to 17.1, under "blameless." Gordon Wenham calls this injunction for Abraham to be tamim "an extreme command," in which "Abraham is expected to emulate Noah’s moral perfection" (Word Biblical Commentary: Genesis 16-50. electronic ed. Dallas : Word, Incorporated, 1998 [Logos Library System; Word Biblical Commentary 2], S. 20). Synthesizing these findings, it appears that tamim could refer to a moral state that was marked by integrity, i.e. blamelessness.

The LXX translates a number of Hebrew terms as amemptos. In Job 1.1, 8 and 2.3 amemptos is used for one of the terms in תָּ֧ם וְיָשָׁ֛ר, a phrase meaning something like "upright and blameless." In 4.17 the qal verb יִטְחַר, which means "be clean" or the like, is translated with amemptos, as is the verb צרק, which means "to be righteous," in 9.20 and 22.3. Several other words are translated with amemptos as well: זכח, "to be clean," in 15.14; נָקִי, "free, exempt; innocent; clean," in 22.19; and חַ֥ף, "clean," in 33.9. Interestingly, only once in Job is תָמִֽים rendered as amemptos (12.4), which we saw in Gen 17.1. From all of these references in Job a few things can be surmised: amemptos carried with it an idea of exhibiting high personal morality, since in every case it is associated with a person and often matched with "righteous" or some similar word. (Amemptos also appears in Wisdom 18.21, but we will leave this reference to the side until we talk about the Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha.)

Thus, from the evidence from the LXX and HB, it appears that it is plausible to expect that Paul would use ἄμεμπτος (amemptos) to refer to human morality. That he applies it to himself in Phil 3.6 when thinking back on his relationship to the Law is interesting, though we will have to leave any preliminary conclusions aside until we have finished this survey in full.

Blamelessness? -- Part I
Blamelessness? -- Part II

Scholarly Arrogance: D.F. Strauss and F.C. Baur

2008-01-02T00:24:00.000-08:00

As I read the first volume of William Baird's History of New Testament Research, I was struck by the arrogance of many of the scholars. Two shining examples are D.F. Strauss (1808-1874) and F.C. Baur (1792-1860). These two scholars, whose impact on the study of the NT cannot be underestimated, are the prime examples of the influence of German idealism (as first espoused by Hegel) on the study of the NT. I think a quote from each will indicate both their commitment to history and their arrogance with regard to their ability to discern said history.

Whether the unification of the divine and the human nature actually took place in Christ can be decided only by historians, not philosophers. (Strauss, In Defense of My Life of Jesus, 18).

Whether the person of Jesus of Nazareth really possesses the attributes which belong to the established concept of the Redeemer is in fact a purely historical question, which can be answered only through an historical investigation of the literary sources of the Gospel stories. (Baur, cited in Baird, History, 1:260)

There are, in my opinion, at least two problems with these quotes:

Both expect quite a bit out of historical investigation. How can trying to ascertain provable facts (as defined by nineteenth century standards) prove one way or another a proposition about Jesus that is beyond the limitations of Strauss' and Baur's sort of historical investigation, namely, the divinity of Jesus? By searching only for a particular set of data and excising the rest, Strauss and Baur succeeded in severing the Christ of faith from the Jesus of history.
Both Strauss and Baur have a presupposition that they take with them to the texts about Jesus -- that the supernatural is not possible. So is it any surprise that the texts of the NT are stripped bare of almost all of their meaning by these scholars since these very texts are filled with the supernatural on virtually every page? Perhaps they would have been better served by being open to the possibility of something beyond the scope of human understanding!

David Miller on Ioudaios: Judean, Jew, Something Else?

2008-01-02T00:11:00.000-08:00

On his blog, entitled גֵּר־וְתוֹשָׁב (ger vatoshav), David Miller has written a series of six fascinating posts about the translation and semantic range of the Greek word Ἰουδαῖος Ioudaios. In the series he offers helpful surveys and critiques of important scholars who have written on this issue, including Mason, Cohen, and Esler. In the sixth post he offers some tentative conclusions. At the bottom of that post are all the links to the previous five post, all of which are great reads.

Thanks David for sharing this fascinating series of post with the inhabitants of the interwebs!

A Eulogy for Jesus by Ernest Renan

2008-01-01T02:12:00.000-08:00

Ernest Renan (1823-1892), a French scholar, wrote the most popular biography of Jesus ever. Vie de Jésus first appeared in 1863 and was to become a "classic of French literature" (Baird, History of NT Research, 376). Renan, who did not believe in the bodily resurrection, wrote a eulogy for Jesus that I found interesting:

Rest now in thy glory, noble initiator. Thy work is completed; thy divinity is established. Fear no more to see the edifice of thy efforts crumble through a flaw. Henceforth, beyond the reach of frailty, thou shalt be present, from the height of thy divine peace, in the infinite consequences of thy acts. At the price of a few hours of suffering, which have not even touched thy great soul, thou hast purchased the most complete immortality. For thousands of years the world will extol thee. Banner of our contradictions, thou wilt be the sign around which will be fought the fiercest battles. A thousand times more living, a thousand times more loved since thy death than during the days of thy pilgrimage here below, thou wilt become to such a degree the corner-stone of humanity, that to tear thy name from this world would be to shake its foundations. Between thee and God, men will no longer distinguish. Complete conqueror of death, take possession of thy kingdom, whither, by the royal road thou hast traced, ages of adorers will follow thee. (Life of Jesus [New York: Modern Library, 1955], 368-69)

This passage hints at the fact that Renan believed that the early church invented Jesus' resurrection because of the "intense love which they bore toward him" (The Apostles, [New York: Carleton, 1886], 57). While I may disagree with Renan on the historicity of the resurrection, much of his eulogy beautifully describes the impact of the resurrection on the history of the world.

Johannes Kuhn on Christianity and History

2007-12-31T00:40:00.000-08:00

Over the holiday break I finished reading the first volume of Baird's History of New Testament Research. I am very excited about this, since it is a text for the quarter beginning just over a week from today. I have also found several more quotes that I have found especially stimulating that I want to share on my blog.

The one for today is from Johannes Kuhn (1806-1887), a Catholic biblical scholar who responded strongly to Strauss, Baur, and others like them. For Kuhn there was not a radical separation between the Jesus of History and the Christ of faith, in fact Christianity is firmly historical. This can be seen in the following quote found in Baird (1:333):

New Testament faith, where it appears in a characteristic way, is essentially a faith in Jesus the messiah, the reconciler and also the only necessary mediator of the salvation of humanity. ... Their [the NT authors] preaching and teaching is, in general and in its deepest roots, not abstract but historical: a simple reference to the gracious action and mighty deeds of God in the course of time."

Kuhn betrays his believe in God's revelation in history, especially as revealed in "Jesus the messiah." Kuhn wants to fight against the trend which was so popular in his day to rationalize Jesus into an unrecognizable and unremarkable religious leader who was later turned into something that he was not.

Baird provides another quote that summarizes Kuhn's understanding of Christianity and faith:

The historical character of Christianity rests namely upon the historical truth of the gospel story, and Christianity itself is nothing without it (1: 333).

Hagner on Nanos on Hagner

2007-12-30T23:57:00.000-08:00

My friend Pat McCullough indicated in the comments of a previous post that he wished that I would get beyond the polemic in Mark Nanos' critique of Hagner's Chapter in Jewish Believers in Jesus. This is something that I want to do, but I will have to leave it aside for another time.

The reason for this is that Pat has brought it to my attention, via a very helpful post on his blog, that Nanos' critique and Hagner's response at SBL were recorded and made available online for free at TorahResource.com (right-click and save "Part 2"). Thus, I find it quite appropriate to allow Hagner to speak for himself (as Pat has done on his own blog) before delving into this any deeper.

Before I do that, however, I feel compelled to highlight some things that Nanos did not vocalize at SBL that he did in his written critique. Two which caused me the greatest alarm were left out by Nanos completely: his attack of Hagner's usage of definitive language (e.g., "clearly") and his demeaning comparison of Hagner to his own students. My primary problem, however, with Nanos' critique in my previous post was that he did not seem to read or fully understand Hagner's third footnote, in which Hagner explicitly explains his usage of the terms "Judaism" and "Christianity."

Putting these observations to one side, let us now read a transcript of Hagner's response to Nanos' critique (helpfully provided by Pat):

I thank the chair for the privilege of having a few minutes to respond even though I'm not on the program. My good friend, Mark–my former good friend, Mark [laughter], is as usual always interesting, always stimulating, but, at least for me, not always persuasive. He accuses me of prejudging the issues and I have to say that I think Mark has at least as much of an a priori as I have. And I think he has more of an a priori than I have, if that's okay. Mark tends to dismiss my view as the "traditional view." I'd like to say that because an interpretation is "traditional" does not mean it is necessarily true, but it also does not mean it is necessarily false. I think it's interesting to ponder the fact that so many have understood Paul in the traditional way. It doesn't mean it's right; it’s just an interesting observation.

Next, I'd like to say that the challenge for both of us is to make some coherent sense not just of a few texts, but of all of the texts… together. And I think that leads us to the necessity of affirming tensions, nuances, subtleties, things that you tend to refer to as "contradictions," I'm afraid. It's also not a matter of either/or; it's a matter of both/and. It’s not whether Paul is a Jew or a Christian. He is both: a Jew and a Christian. But these subtleties, I think, sometimes seem to escape Mark. Somehow Mark has missed my affirmation that Paul is a Jew… that Paul is a Jewish believer in Jesus, that Paul has not changed his religion, that Paul upholds the righteousness of the law, but with a new dynamic, in a new way. I emphatically deny something that he has in his written statement, namely (this is a quote from him), he says that I think Paul "is engaged in a new religion that stands against his former religion" [pg 15]. No, no, no! I do not think that. Not at all. It's the absolute opposite of what I think, in fact. Paul is affirming the true Judaism in his own mind.

Mark wants to push me into a simple "discontinuity" between Paul and Judaism in contrast to his simple "continuity." But again, the issue is not that easy. We have to deal with both/and, both continuity and discontinuity in this matter. Mark's view is just a little too simplistic for me. Galatians 1:13, Paul speaks of his Ἰουδαϊσμός as something of the past and I don't think I can read it in the way Mark does, just moving from one form of Judaism to another. The Ἰουδαϊσμός is behind him, I think. And his Philippians 3:4 and following, Paul counts his Jewish pedigree, including his blamelessness as a Pharisee as worthless. What matters is Χριστὸς.
And it's ludicrous, by the way, I think, Mark, to say that he would have to include his apostleship in that list [see pg 8]. That's not giving him a fair chance to say what he means to say, what he wants to say. Because Paul doesn't use the word "Christian" does not mean that he can't be described or shouldn't be described as a Christian. I fail to see how Mark can deny my two non-negotiables. Are these two statements really questionable on a reading of the authentic Pauline letters? First, that Christians are no longer under the law. Second, that righteousness remains for Paul an indispensable priority. Can we really challenge either of those statements on the basis of the Pauline letters? I don't think so. Mark's Paul, for me, is not the Paul of the letters. I would ask him to make better sense of the texts than I have. And I think so far, he hasn't. Thank you.

Hagner highlights some important things in his response. He emphasizes his position that Paul was both a Jew and a Christian (as defined in f.n. 3!). Hagner points out very clearly that Nanos is guilty of pushing Paul into (full) continuity with first-century Judaism when the texts (Gal 1.13; Phil 3.4) point a different direction. Lastly, Hagner reaffirms that in his opinion Paul does not believe that believers in Jesus are "under the Law," which nevertheless does not eradicate the pursuit of righteousness by these same believers.

In my next post on this topic I hope to deal in more depth with three issues: 1) Hagner's language about his past and present that Nanos claims is contradictory; 2) Nanos' highly idiosyncratic reading of Phil 3.4-7; and 3) The value of using "Christian" to describe the religious experience of Paul or his ideas. While attempting to understand these three issues will not put this debate to rest, I do believe that doing so will bring the discontinuity between Hagner and Nanos into even sharper focus (as if that were necessary!).

Paul as a Jewish Believer
Nanos on Hagner

Ewald on the Bible and Revelation

2007-12-26T22:06:00.000-08:00

I found the following paragraph in Baird's History of New Testament Research to be helpful. It is concerned with the thoughts of Heinrich Ewald (1803-1875):

According to Ewald, "we have had for a long time no other historical means other than the Bible by which to satisfy ourselves of the nature and content of true religion as it has been revealed." The Bible records events and experiences in which revelation has occurred. The writing was accomplished by persons, but sometimes the writers speak for others, so that the appearance in the NT of pseudonymous documents is not disquieting. In the main, the biblical record is reliable, but discrepancies (e.g., imperfections in copying) occur. The holiness of Scripture consists not in the letter but in its power to speak the word of God which is effective for human salvation... (288-59)

Later, Baird writes the following: "Ewald, with his recognition of pseudonymous documents within the canon and his acknowledgment of discrepancies in Scripture, is no biblicist" (292). Thus, I guess Jim West could not call Ewald a fundamentalist! I am sure that Ewald is resting in peace peacefully with that little bit of reassurance!

Even though Ewald was (perhaps over-)reacting to the Tübingen School, I think he expressed his opinions powerfully. He affirmed the uniqueness of the Bible as the revelation of the Word of God without blinding himself to the obvious problems therein. Much more attention should be paid to Ewald's contributions to the study of the NT!

Schleirermacher on Canonicity

2007-12-23T22:05:00.000-08:00

The question, whether individual books belong to the authors to whom they were attached, must be distinguished from the other, whether they belong in the canon on the same or dissimilar terms. The canonical nature of the writing remains the same regardless of whether it is proved that it is not from the author to whom it has been ascribed.

~~Friedrich Schleiermacher (1768-1834); from Einleitung, 30 (cited in Baird, History of New Testament Research [1:213]).

In my estimation, conservatives will not like this quote because it leaves the door open for the books of the NT to have not been written by those that tradition or the books themselves claim as authors. Modern liberals will not find much too much to like here either since Schleiermacher appears to be defending the uniqueness of the canon.

I, however, like this quote quite a bit. It leaves me with the option of examining the evidence presented in the Bible itself honestly and it allows room for the inspiration of the Bible to extend past the people who wrote the words of the Bible. I like to think that the inspiration of the Bible can be seen in its authors, its words, its transmission, canonizing process, and reception. The work of the Holy Spirit did not stop when the authors of the Bible put their pens down; but it continued and continues still today.

I am as convinced today as I ever have been that the Bible is a human book, written with human hands, dealing with human problems, transmitted by human scribes, selected for the canon by humans over a long period of time, and received today by human ears and minds. However, I trust the God who is revealed in the Bible to communicate his word to us despite all of these human hands in the proverbial honey pot.

To put it a different way: the Bible is like any other ancient book, but the God that it reveals is like no other; thus, the Bible is quite unique! Can this be proven? Not at all! That's where faith comes in after all.

Quotes from J.P. Gabler

2007-12-22T20:16:00.000-08:00

"Theology must depend on exegesis, and not the other way around, exegesis on theology."

"The truth itself is eternal and unchangeable; but the form of the truth, like fashion, is subject to continual change and variation."

~~Johann Philipp Gabler (1753-1826)
Cited in Baird's History of New Testament Research (1:185; 186)

I really enjoy the clear place that Gabler gives the Bible in the theological enterprise -- it is a (if not the) source and norm. However, Gabler was no fundamentalist; he qualifies the application of the Bible to theology by indicating that the truths of the Bible were told in the forms of the time. Thus, in order for the Bible to truly influence Christian theology, scholars must do the hard work of understanding the forms used in the Bible to reveal truths.

I like this idea. It not only helps me further appreciate the biblical scholar's role in the development of theology, it also reminds me that there is truth to be found through thorough historical investigation of the Bible. The postmodernist would urge caution when using the word "truth" and I agree, as did Gabler. Often it is hard to tell the difference between the form of the truth and the truth itself but this difficulty should not scare us away from the task of seeking truth in the Bible! On the contrary, through the difficulties inherent in the search for truth, humility, faith, and perseverance can be learned.

So don't give up the search!

What's in/on My...

2007-12-20T16:49:00.000-08:00

My friend Pat put out a free-for-all tag to say what's in/on my...

CD Player
DVD Player
To Read List
To See List
Mind

Here are my answers:

CD Player: Currently, Evanescence's first album. Before that it was Reliant K's Christmas Album, "Let It Snow Baby, Let It Reindeer..."
DVD Player: My wife's workout DVD is in one and "A Christmas Story" is in the other.
To Read List: Commentaries on Judges (I'm starting a new series at church), anything on Philippians 3 (my primary research interest), stuff concerning the history of NT research (since that's the class I'm taking next quarter), Jewish Believers in Jesus (because I've found it fascinating), and The Orc King by RA Salvatore (I know, I know...I'm a nerd!).
To See List: Nothing really. The wife and I will likely watch one of our many Christmas movies tonight as we pack for our vacation. Other than that, there's really nothing that I am dying to see.
Mind: NCAA football needing a playoff system, the poor pass-coverage skills of Roy Williams, how excited I am that Ryne Sandberg is still coaching in the Cubs' system, and what surprises are in the brightly wrapped gifts under the tree.

Like Pat, I'll end with the same thing: Consider yourself tagged if you so choose!

Merry Christmas!

Nanos on Hagner

2007-12-20T13:16:00.000-08:00

Mark Nanos prepared a paper entitled "Have Paul and His Communities Left Judaism for Christianity?" A Review of the Paul-Related Chapters in Jewish Believers in Jesus and Jewish Christianity Revisited" for an SBL session called "Jewish Christianity Consultation," which took place on November 19, 2007. I will only interact with the section in which he critiques the work of Donald Hagner (3-16). If you would like to view the entire document, it is available at his website in pdf format.

I have re-written this sentence several times because I cannot, for the life, of me decide where to begin. I guess I'll start by giving my overall impression of Nanos' critique. First, the tone in the paper is highly polemical, and that is putting it nicely. At every turn he fails to give Hagner the benefit of the doubt and when Nanos finally does attempt to read Hagner faithfully, he resorts to saying that Hagner is reading his own ideology into the text (e.g., "Hagner's Saul turned into Hagner's Paul" [4]). Second, Nanos appears to have a basic misunderstanding of Hagner's choice of terminology regarding Judaism and Christianity (we will explore this in more detail below). And third, Nanos strikes a low blow toward the end of his critique by implying that what Hagner cannot do he (Nanos) requires of his students (15-16).

Now before I continue I should be completely honest for the sake of full disclosure. First, I am a proponent, generally, of the traditional perspective on Paul. While my understanding of Judaism on the whole may be influenced by Sanders, his research (and that of others) has not convinced me to abandon what appears to be the plain meaning of Paul's letters. Second, Dr. Hagner is my mentor at Fuller; thus, my opinion of Nanos' attack on his essay will be, obviously, biased. Those two disclaimers aside, I will try to offer an honest assessment of Nanos' paper.

Beginning with the unnecessary polemic. If this paper felt as pointed as it did when I read it, I can only imagine how it must have sounded as Nanos read it with Hagner sitting in the room. I am reminded of the impression I was left with after the pistis christou session on the Friday of SBL; why is civility so hard to come by these days? Here's a good example of what I am talking about: when is it ever appropriate to assume you have access to the private thoughts and motivations of others? Nanos writes:

I submit that the frame for viewing Paul is already constrained to viewing him only from the perspective, concerns, and answers of a later time, and that the essay has been written to confirm the views of those who already share Hagner's point of view on Paul. (4)

Not only has Nanos attempted to think Hagner's thoughts after him, he has accused him of eisegesis! Nanos might as well call Karl Barth a Pelagian or Stevie Ray Vaughan a hack! Nanos continues: "this essay is not so much an historical as an ideological exercise" (4). I find this to be amazing. I am tempted to assume why Nanos felt compelled to characterize Hagner in this manner, but to do so would not be civil.

Perhaps a little fairness could have helped Nanos' critique come across much better. For example, he chastises Hagner's use of "clear(ly) and obvious(ly)" (5), while a quick word search in the pdf reveals that Nanos uses this same sort of terminology himself ("certainly not" [8-9]; Nanos claims that "Hagner's arguments continue to make clear" the presumption that "Christ-believing Judaism" is a new religion [7]; "it is clear" that offering a counter-reading to Hagner is pointless [11]; and the list grows longer if you consider the material not dealing with Hagner in the paper)! I wonder how many usages of "certainly," "clearly," and the like one would find in other works by Nanos? Also, since when has using confident language as a rhetorical device not been utilized? If Nanos has a problem with this in general then he should have stated his case generally, but since he has a problem with Hagner using this sort of language, perhaps he should have avoided it himself!

Other examples of the unnecessary polemics in this paper could be given but I must move on to Nanos' largest misunderstanding of Hagner which colors the entire paper. A quote from the last paragraph of the section critiquing Hagner will illustrate this beautifully:

While Paul got by without using the term Christian, Hagner does not do so. He probably should not. Based on what Hagner communicates about Paul, it would not be useful to avoid such terminology, or deny that his Paul has moved from one religion to another. (16)

I find this fascinating. Hagner explains his usage of the anachronistic terms "Christianity" and "Judaism" in the third footnote of his essay:

The use of the terms "Judaism" and "Christianity" in reference to the first century is nowadays regarded as problematic. Neither term means what it will come to mean in the centuries following the time of Paul. Judaism is in a highly formative stage in the first two centuries (especially before the destruction of Jerusalem in 70). Similarly, first-century Christianity is not what it will become in the second century. But this terminological debate anticipates the discussion that follows. We will continue to use the terms for the sake of convenience. (n.3 97)

Thus, it appears that Nanos makes a false assumption about Hagner's usage of this terminology. By "Judaism" Hagner does not have in mind rabbinic Judaism and by "Christianity" Hagner does not have in mind the more organized and separated Church of the second century and beyond. Instead, it appears to me that Hagner uses the terms to discuss Paul's pre-Christ religious experience and thought, "Judaism," and his post-Christ religious experience and thought, "Christianity." Had Hagner not clearly stated what he meant by these terms, then Nanos' misunderstanding would have been valid and his critique would have hit home with me. However, since Hagner did explain his usage, Nanos' critique comes across as stretching for anything about which to complain.

Perhaps behind both scholars on this point is their understanding of Paul's conversion/call. Using the terms highlights the discontinuity between Paul's past and present, while not using them (or using "Judaisms" instead) highlights the continuity. However, unfairly assuming that Hagner meant something that he clearly did not and then basing most of his critiques against the essay on this assumption was simply bad methodology on Nanos' part.

Lastly, in a moment that was at least underhanded and at most holier-than-thou, Nanos writes the following:

This essay exemplifies why I do not permit my students to use the terms Christian or Christianity when discussing Paul and his communities: much more than terminology is at issue; rather, it is the way that terminology reveals and limits our conceptualization of reality. Regardless of any new information that will be introduced to them, the way that they have learned from childhood to perceive and thus describe the world into which to fit this new information will inhibit them from thinking about these new things in new ways, including ways that just might challenge and alter what they think they know to be absolute, un-interpreted, non-negotiable truth, instead of being merely one among the many interpretations available for conceptualizing the meaning of this information. In my view, we should seek to limit neither the answers, nor the questions to be posed. As important as terminology is, it is less important than how it either limits or advances the ability to conceptualize and describe the maps upon which we plot the information at issue.

Wow. Nanos overtly states here that Hagner does what he does not allow his students to do! Again, had Nanos had a problem with Hagner's usage of this language perhaps he should have read footnote three more closely! Even if Hagner had not included the footnote, comparing an established scholar who is internationally respected to one's students is both uncalled for and insulting.

There is so much more that I could say in regard to Nanos' paper, and perhaps I will when I return from Christmas vacation, but for now this will have to do.

Paul as a Jewish Believer
Hagner on Nanos on Hagner

Paul as a Jewish Believer

2007-12-20T07:53:00.000-08:00

I finished reading Donald Hagner's article in Jewish Believers in Jesus: The Early Centuries ("Paul as a Jewish Believer--According to His Letters" [96-120]) and I thought that I would share a summary and analysis of it here. Sometime soon, hopefully later today, I'll post my thoughts about Mark Nanos' slashing critique of Hagner's essay that was presented at this year's SBL.

To begin with, it would be good to underscore Hagner's methodology in this essay. Basically what he is doing is trying to uncover the continuity or discontinuity that Paul's post-Christ religious experience has with regard to his Jewish past. In order to do this Hagner utilizes material almost exclusively from Paul's undisputed letters (he does include a few references to the disputed letters both parenthetically and in footnotes). Also, Hagner pays careful attention to the scholarship regarding this issue, both the writings from Jewish and gentile scholars.

The thesis of the essay appears to be that while there is much continuity between Paul's pre-Christ Judaism and his post-Christ religious experience, there is also much discontuity; and the latter should not be ignored because of the former.

In the first section ("The Changing Understanding of Paul"), Hagner gives a nice overview of scholarship on the Jewishness of Paul, paying special and close attention to Jewish works, the Hellenistic Judaism/Palestinian Judaism distinction, and the New Perspective on Paul. His grasp of the development of this issue is impressive, both in its breadth and depth.

The second section ("Studies in Continuity and Discontinuity"), which comprises the bulk of the essay, is a detailed examination of the connectedness of Paul's thought and experience had with first-century Judaism. In most instances Hagner assumes the traditional interpretations while nuancing them when needed as a result of new findings or historical developments. For example, Hagner argues that Paul was not merely called to be a missionary to the gentiles, but that Paul's post-Christ experience "involves a dramatic enough shift that conversion is also an appropriate word" (102). He does not summarily dismiss the notion of Paul's call with regard to his conversion, he simply qualifies it.

Hagner continues in this section by arguing that Paul's soteriology has changed (102-114). Perhaps the best passage in the entire essay is found in sub-section 2.2.1, "Paul and the law," where Hagner highlights the fact that Paul can make both negative and positive statements concerning the law. Hagner's conclusion regarding this seeming problem is fascinating: "If we take the negative statements regarding the law as referring to the commandments, it is possible to take the positive statements as referring simply to the righteousness that is the goal of the law" (108). In other words, according to Hagner, Paul can speak of believers in Christ not being under the law, while the original intent of the law, righteousness, is spoken of positively.

This may lead one to think that Paul (and Hagner!) thinks that right living is no longer that important for the believer in Christ. Hagner argues exactly the opposite in sub-section 2.2.3, "The ongoing importance of righteousness for Paul." Hagner encapsulates his position well in the following sentence: "The paradox can be summed up by saying that those who are free from the law are now in a position to, and called to, pursue a righteousness that remarkably corresponds to the goal of the law" (111). In so doing, Hagner preserves for Paul freedom from the law, as is certainly espoused in his letters, while also accentuating Paul's clear concern for ethical living.

The third and final section ("Old and New in Paul") is the conclusion to the essay. In it Hagner states the following:

Furthermore, the old and the new are not present in an equal balance. We do not have a situation in which a variety of new perspectives are added to the staple of old things that constitute Judaism, causing only minor readjustments. On the contrary, the new that comes is an eschatological turning point in the ages, of such great consequence that we must be prepared for dramatic shifts. (118)

These two sentences describe Hagner's basic position quite well -- while there is "old" present in Paul, the "new" is so important that something different is created that is colored by what came before, not vice versa.

As already mentioned, Hagner presents his readers with traditional understandings of Paul in this essay. However, he does not do so without regard to new developments in the study of Paul and Judaism or the repugnant history of violence against Jews, especially in the twentieth century. As important as these two things are (and they are very important indeed!), Hagner does not allow them to control his reading of Paul. Instead, he attempts to read Paul faithfully while softening some of previous scholarship's rough edges where needed. In my estimation, Hagner's essay is convincing and even-handed.

I was left wanting in a specific area; I wish there had been more interaction with the texts of Second-Temple Judaism. Hagner is not to blame here, however, since this sort of essay cannot possibly cover all the bases. There are several places where the reader is left wanting to actually read what Jews of this period thought about these various issues. But again, this perceived deficiency in Hagner's essay has more to do with its scope than with its actual content, as the subtitle of the essay makes clear -- "According to Paul's Letters." In almost every instance of this phenomenon, however, the reader is pointed to more complete treatments of the issues in other works by Hagner or others. Thus, while every "i" could not be dotted and "t" crossed in this one essay, Hagner responsibly gives the reader ample opportunity to discover more on his/her own.

In my opinion, the greatest strength of Hagner's essay is the large amount of material quoted from Paul's letters themselves. Perhaps this is not necessarily a strength of Hagner's essay but of the traditional reading of Paul in general. In the work of a New Perspectivist, there are often many terms and phrases which are not taken to mean what they plainly seem to mean (e.g., "my own righteousness" in Phil 3.9 not pointing to a righteousness that Paul at least had a part in obtaining, but instead to some sort of national righteousness). Thus, when one is reading Dunn, Wright, etc and has the New Testament in hand, it is often difficult to see how they have arrived at the positions for which they argue so strongly. In Hagner's essay, however, Paul is often allowed to speak in his own voice and his words are allowed to carry what appear to be their plain meanings.

Nanos on Hagner
Hagner on Nanos on Hagner

Jewish Believers in Jesus

2007-12-17T16:53:00.000-08:00

I just received my copy of Jewish Believers in Jesus: The Early Centuries, edited by Oskar Skarsaune and Reidar Hvalvik. I want to spend some time reviewing parts of it on my blog, especially the chapter by my mentor, Donald Hagner. After reading Hagner's chapter ("Paul as a Jewish Believer--According to His Letters" [96-120],)I want to then read Mark Nanos' critique of his work and offer my thoughts on it as well.

Yet another thing to look forward to on my blog! Over the next few months I'll also be writing about "blamelessness" and different people important to the history of NT research.

Franke on Biblical Interpretation

2007-12-15T00:23:00.000-08:00

I am (hopefully) taking a course with Donald Hagner this next quarter which is called "History of NT Research." One of the assigned textbooks is History of New Testament Research: From Deism to Tübingen by William Baird. In this book, which is the first of a two volume set, Baird goes about the nearly impossible task of selecting, introducing, and analyzing important scholars with regard to the study of the NT.

In the chapter on the Pietists, Baird explains the method of biblical exegesis undertaken by August Hermann Francke, who was born in 1663 and died in 1727 (62-69, especially 65-69). I found the method of Francke very interesting and, thus, figured that I should share it with whoever may read this blog.

In 1693 Francke published a handbook on interpreting the Bible entitled, Manuductio ad lectionem scripturae sacrae. The book is divided into two sections: the first deals with finding the literal meaning of the text itself and the second with the readings which build upon this literal meaning. In his handbook, Francke proceeds to explain the steps one should take in order to rightly read and understand the Bible.

First one begins with an understanding of the grammar of the text. Thus, a good exegete must have a solid working knowledge of Greek, Aramaic, and Hebrew. This does not have to be done alone; the interpreter is free "to make use of the best linguistic and grammatical tools available" (Baird, 67). Next the exegete goes on to examine the historical meaning of the text. This means that one must attempt to discern the relevant background information of the biblical books (setting, occasion, author, etc).

Then an analytical reading of the text is to be undertaken. This means that one should identify the genre of a biblical book and interpret it in due course. The literary types that Francke afforded were the "doctrinal, historical, and prophetic" (66). It should be noted, however, that Francke was not indicating that the biblical authors were mimicking their contemporaries, only that their divinely-inspired words tend to fall into one of three categories indicated above. After determining the genre, the reader must also determine the smaller units inside the document. In so doing, one is to "(1) determine how the particular passage relates to the argument of the whole book; (2) note how the text is related to the immediate context; and (3) analyze the basic proposition of the argument," including doing a bit of mirror-reading if a text includes polemic (66).

In the second part of the handbook, Francke starts with the expository reading, by which he means "what the Spirit purports to say" through the text (67). This sense is different than that found in the first part, since the latter deals only in grammar and history while the former is all about "the true, spiritual meaning of the text" (67). The best way to find this meaning when dealing with a difficult text is to allow the Bible to interpret itself. Since the Bible is "a harmonious entity" (67), one text can shed light on many others and vice versa.

The next three readings can be covered quickly. Next one should engage in a dogmatic reading where s/he attempts to understand the timeless truths of the passage. Following this one should begin the inferential reading, by which Francke means that certain other truths may not be stated literally in the text but may be inferred by it. Lastly, an exegete must engage in the practical reading of the text. This last step is the application of the text to faith and life, sometimes even bridging "the gap between one world and the other" without batting an eye (68).

Outside of the handbook Francke also includes two other types of readings -- the mystical and spiritual. These can only be acquired through the experience of the Spirit but "cannot differ from the one literal meaning of the text" (68).

I do not know about you, but Francke's method is strikingly similar to those I learned in seminary. Furthermore, I would venture to say that if more pastors did this sort of preparation for their sermons, then we would not have as many cockamamie interpretations floating about out there!

I applaud Francke for his courage, which may not be easy to detect today. However, Francke wrote in a time after Deism had challenge many strongholds of the Church (like prophecy fulfillment and miracles) and he also wrote from the midst of a tradition that was reacting very strongly against these attacks. Thus, Francke's controlled reliance on reason and his unabashed belief in the authority of Scripture are to be praised!

What do you make of Francke's method? How similar is it to the methods you have learned?

Blamelessness? -- Part II

2007-12-13T00:40:00.000-08:00

This is the second post in response to a question from my friend Garrett in the comments to a previous post. In this series I hope to gain a better understanding of what Paul meant by "blameless" in Philippians 3.6. In this post (Part II) I will give a truncated view of how I understand the immediate context -- specifically Phil 3.2-11 -- of Paul's usage of this word.

This sub-unit begins with Paul warning the Philippian church of an impending threat that is not yet present. The usage of blepete here seems to indicate this point. A translation of "look out for" or the likes would be better than "beware of," since "look out for" better captures the meaning of the imperative of the verb for "to see."

This threat seems to be Jewish in nature, whether from Jewish Christians or non-Christian Jews, and so Paul decides to engage this impending threat on its own terms. In vv. 4-6 Paul lays out his impeccable Jewish heritage and his personal achievements in his particular brand of Jewish religion. It is also clear that Paul is comparing his resume with those who represent this impending threat (3.4b "If anyone else has reason to be confident in the flesh, I have more").

All of these things, these privileges (circumcision, Israelite, Benjamite, Hebrew) and achievements (Pharisee, zealous, blameless), do not mean anything to Paul in light of the new life he has found in Christ (3.7). The things that were once gains to him (i.e., his Jewish past) are now all one big loss. As a matter of fact, Paul considers all things loss, so much so that he is willing to call all that is not Christ skubalon (3.8 "dung," "refuse," "rubbish," "crap").

Next is one of the most hotly debated passages in Philippians: (3.9 "...not having my own righteousness which is from the Law, but that which is through the faithfulness of Christ, the righteousness which is from God on the basis of faith"). It appears here that Paul is saying that in the past he thought he had his own righteousness from the Law but that through the faithfulness of Christ (or faith in Christ, a huge issue another day!) he now has a righteousness which is not his own, but is in fact from God.

In the verses that follow (10-11), Paul talks about three sorts of knowledge which are the results of the righteousness that is from God: knowing Christ, knowing the power of his resurrection, and knowing the partnership of his agonies, being conformed to his death. These phrases all have a participatory tinge to them, a tinge that should be understood clearly as a subsequent reality to being brought into proper relationship with God (v.9).

To sum up: Paul thought that some sort of a Jewish threat was on its way to Philippi and he wanted to warn the church about it. Paul seemed to know that these enemies would use their Jewishness to their advantage, so Paul compares his Jewishness to theirs; and Paul finds his to be better than theirs. All of this is in the past, however, because Paul has encountered something better -- Jesus -- and has a better righteousness -- that which is from God.

With regard to the word "blameless," a question comes to my mind: How could Paul be comparing himself with those who comprise this impending threat with the word "blameless"? Paul seems to say that while his enemies have x, y, and z, he has 2x, 2y, and 2z. But how can being blameless be a comparison? Was Paul saying that he was more blameless than they were? That does not seem possible; one is either blameless or they are not. Right?

What is going on then? Perhaps the solution is found in the full phrase: "according to righteousness which is in the Law, having become blameless." It appears that Paul is comparing his pre-Christian standing with respect to the Law to that of his opponents; and Paul seems to say that he was in better standing than they were. Also, this state of blamelessness appears to be something that occurred through a process ("having become blameless" aorist/middle/participle), perhaps through repentance and sacrifice (which we'll talk about in more detail in the next post).

The problem, however, is that his opponents would have been able to say this same thing had they also repented and made sacrifice, two quite common practices among Jews of this period (especially very religious Jews). Thus, is Paul saying that he had less need to repent and make sacrifices than these enemies? Or is that conclusion reading way too much into this text? I am not finished thinking about this question by any means, but this conclusion seems to fit with the comparative nature of the rest of the list in vv. 5-6. Paul was more blameless than they before his encounter with Christ, i.e., he had less need to become blameless again and again through repentance and sacrifice.

I guess it is also possible that Paul was trying to indicate that they were not blameless in accordance to the Law and that he was. This would mean that he always took great care to take care of every sin, not matter how minute. Thus, the comparison would be that Paul took more care in making atonement for his sin than they did, meaning that they had blemishes still on their record. I suppose that this reconstruction also preserves the comparative nature of the section.

We will have to leave any final thoughts to later, when we have completed more work on this subject. However, the important thing to remember as we continue is that in this passage Paul obviously compares his pre-Christian standing to that of his enemies.

In the next post we will examine how the notion of blamelessness was understood during this period. To do so we will look at some texts from the Hebrew Bible, the LXX, the Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha, and the Mishnah, as well as some relevant data concerning the Greco-Roman understanding of this idea.

Blamelessness? -- Part I
Blamelessness? -- Part III A

Blamelessness? -- Part I

2007-12-11T07:33:00.000-08:00

In response to my friend Garrett, who asked me to share some of my research into what Paul meant by the word "blameless" in Philippians 3.6, I'll start a series of posts in which I will explore some of the things that have been haunting my waking and sleeping hours lately (and those of my wife too!).

To begin I should better frame the question that I have been exploring. I'll talk about how I became interested in this subject, the work of some scholars in relation to this issue, and then, finally, I will pose the question as I see it.

Upon coming to Fuller I basically had two research interests: ethics and eschatology in Philippians and Paul's view of the Law. My mentor, Donald Hagner, advised me against the former because it could have proven to be too large for a dissertation and, instead, urged me toward the latter. I couldn't have been happier because my reading for the previous two years had been almost solely devoted to Paul and the Law. As is well known, there is a major divide in the study of Paul and the Law -- there are the traditional interpreters (TPP) and those who have been labeled "The New Perspective on Paul" (NPP).

The TPP basically posits that Paul stood against a legalistic form of Judaism, which had even infiltrated the Church through Jewish-Christian missionaries. Thus, Paul countered this works-based salvation of his opponents with insisting that salvation came through faith in Christ alone.

Many scholars (most famously E.P. Sanders, James Dunn, and N.T. Wright; though many of their predecessors anticipated their work) found this interpretation unsatisfactory. Their primary complaint was that the TPP was not reading Paul correctly because they did not have a proper, fair, and complete understanding of first-century Judaism. If we only mirror-read Paul's letters to gain an understanding of what he was countering, then we could, conceivably, conjure up a picture of a legalistic Judaism. However, according to the NPP, first-century Judaism was not legalistic, it was nomistic (Law-centered). The Law, however, only found meaning in the context of the covenant, which was graciously bestowed upon Israel by God. The phrase that Sanders coined for this idea was "covenantal nomism."

Thus, Paul was not opposing a legalistic Judaism, he was, according to the NPP, opposing Jewish-Christian missionaries who were imposing their ethnic badges (circumcision, Sabbath, food laws) on Gentile coverts. Paul's problem was that salvation was not ethnically-based, it was based, instead, on faith in/of Christ.

So we get two very different pictures of Paul's view of the Law between the TPP and the NPP. The same is true when we talk about Paul's pre-Christian self-evaluation. The TPP argues that Paul was plagued by his conscience because of sin in his life and found a salve for this frustration on the Damascus road. As a proof-text the TPP scholars point to Romans 7 where it appears that Paul himself reveals his pre-Christian views on his personal sin, namely covetousness. (It should be duly noted that many TPP scholars either no longer hold to this view exactly or have nuanced it in response to the NPP.)

The NPP, lead by Krister Stendahl (see especially his article entitled "The Apostle Paul and the Introspective Conscience of the West"), could not see how this reading of Romans 7 matched up with a fair reading of Philippians 3, in which Paul states that he was blameless under the Law. Thus, to compensate for this problem, much of the NPP has espoused a view that Romans 7 must not refer to Paul himself; perhaps he was utilizing a "paradigmatic I" or the section should be taken as hypothetical or something of that sort. Either way, the NPP has allowed Philippians 3 to control the reading of Romans 7. It is also important to note here that Stendahl saw in much of biblical scholarship the influence of Martin Luther, who was clearly self-dissatisfied before his "tower experience." Consequently, it has become ever-so popular for the NPP to accuse the TPP of reading Paul through Luther's glasses.

So this leads, finally, to the question at hand. What did Paul mean when he said that "according to righteousness under the Law," he was "blameless"? To put it slightly differently, has the NPP utilized and understood Philippians 3 correctly or is the TPP's view correct? Also, what impact does understanding "blameless" in Philippians 3.6 have on one's interpretation of Romans 7? Lastly, at the end of the study, has the NPP been fair in accusing the TPP of offering Lutheran readings?

Since I'm a NT student trained in the historical-critical method, I will proceed in Part II of this series by examining the immediate context of Philippians 3.6 and in Part III I'll muse on what sort of ideas about blamelessness may have been in play during Paul's time.

Blamelessness? -- Part II
Blamelessness? -- Part III A

Mitt's Speech

2007-12-09T03:22:00.000-08:00

So several days have passed since Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney delivered his speech regarding faith in America. Since I couldn't sleep in the wee-early morning hours of Sunday morning, I thought I would share a quote that I found interesting.

"Freedom requires religion, just as religion requires freedom...[freedom and religion] endure together or perish alone."

First, I don't know if it is fair to go at his speech with a fine-tooth comb, seeing that he is not a theologian, biblical scholar, religious expert, or ecclesial egghead. On the other hand, he put his views out there publicly so a response from the public is appropriate. Also, since he likely spent many, many hours preparing this speech, word by word, a careful evaluation of it is only fair to him.

Second, the basic sentiment behind this quote is true enough. Religious freedom is important in America. Amen! I guess a Baptist and a Latter-Day Saint do have some common ground!

Now to nit-pick. "Freedom requires religion." It does? Ask virtually any European what she or he thinks about that. Or ask an atheist in our own country if freedom requires religion. Therefore, freedom apparently does NOT require religion. Perhaps true freedom requires space for individuals to choose religion, but it does not require religion en masse.

"Religion requires freedom." Hmm. This too can be proven absolutely false by examining world affairs today. There are many countries with official religions that completely squash all religious expression except that which agrees with the state religion. Thus, apparently religion does NOT require freedom. Now true, secure religious people see the validity in allowing others to be free, but religion does not require freedom per se.

Freedom and religion "endure together or perish alone." Again, this is simply not fully true. In environments of heated religious persecution, people of almost every faith have not only survived but flourished. Immediately coming to my mind are the two faiths that I know the best: Christianity and Judaism. The persecution and lack of freedom afforded to both by the Greeks/Romans (albeit at differing points in time) was real and did not ultimately prevent their religions from existing or their religions from being expressed. So religion can endure alone when freedom is taken away.

Can freedom endure if religion is taken away? Here we run into a contradiction of terms. How can there be freedom at all if freedom is restricted with regard to religion? If this is the case then what we have is not freedom to begin with! Perhaps Romney has a point here. Freedom can't exist if an individual is not free to have religion. That is self evident. However, if one freely chooses to not have religion on a personal level, then freedom does not stop existing for this person. Actually the choice to not take part in religion is an indication of a free person. So on a macro level freedom can't endure if religion is taken away; but on a micro level one can disavow religion and yet remain free.

My bottom line concerning this quote from Romney is this: basically what we have here is political word vomit that sounds good at first blush but that falls away under scrutiny. As for me, I don't want to hear what a candidate thinks sounds presidential, I want to know what is really going on in his or her head.

While I completely respect Romney for putting himself out there like he did, I must say that I am more than a little disappointed that for nearly twenty minutes he never seemed to say anything other than, "Don't not vote for me because I am Mormon."

So to end, I would like to slightly alter Romney's quote:

"True freedom at its best requires religion, just as true religion at its best requires freedom...[True freedom and true religion] obviously endure together or by definition perish alone."

I never said that I was a speech writer!

Two Hours to Kickoff...

2007-11-29T15:17:00.000-08:00

Welp, it's two hours until kickoff. The Cowboys and Packers are set to play today in what will prove to be a huge game in determining which team in the NFC has home-field advantage. Normally at this point I would be wrapping up my responsibilities and getting ready to settle in for hours of couch-sitting and yelling at the TV.

But not today.

Thanks Jerry Jones and everyone else at NFL Network. Believe it or not, this game is not being broadcast on national television, neither on cable nor over the air (which is all I have!). Nope, only those with satellite or those who have forked over the dough to get it on cable will be watching.

Now its one thing to not get to see the Nationals play the Blue Jays in Southern California during the MLB season; but this is the NFL, there's only one game on today, and its two of the most popular teams in the country! Here in LA on the local talk radio shows there is one major personality whose favorite team is the Packers and another whose love the Cowboys. This is a national-interest game. Plus both teams are 10-1!

Now I understand full well why the NFL Network is doing this. Every penny that comes in because of this game goes straight into the NFL's coffers, unlike the times when their games are on ABC, CBS, FOX, or ESPN. The NFL is not having to share the profits.

But what has me wondering is how much money will they make on this game? With fewer viewers watching this game than if it was on network TV or cable, will the advertisers flock to peddle their goods during the game? If not, then will the monies paid to the NFL Network from subscribers and cable companies offset the advertising losses?

I have no idea whatsoever. All I know is that I don't get to watch my Cowboys play today and I'm unhappy! And before anyone dares, don't tell me to subscribe or get satellite. I have better things to spend my money on than that!

Like traveling and buying books.

The BCS Is Working...Or Is It?

2007-11-26T01:36:00.000-08:00

The BCS (i.e., Bowl Championship Series rankings system) is working this year...as of today. Right now it has the two best one- or no-loss teams ranked numbers one and two. Those two teams are Missouri and West Virginia. So if the season ended today the Tigers and the Mountaneers would battle it out in the National Championship (hereafter: NC). However, lurking right behind them is the not-so-good, one-loss team Ohio State, who hasn't played anyone of note minus Michigan, whom they barely beat, and Illinois, to whom they lost. The problem though is that Mizzou and WV still have games left (vs. Oklahoma and Pittsburgh respectively). So if one of them loses then Ohio State slides into the NC.

But what would happen if Oklahoma and Pittsburgh both pull off big upsets next weekend (which wouldn't be so weird this year, the Year of the Upset)? In that case Ohio State and a two-loss team (or perhaps one-loss Kansas) would play in the NC. But which two-loss team (and what about Kansas)?

The current number four is Georgia but their regular season is over...which means that their current resume would have to be good enough to withstand advances from behind. However, with some of the teams ranked lower than them playing quality teams, the possibility of Georgia getting leap-frogged is high. The same could be said of Kansas, who only has one loss, but the Jayhawks have only played one good team all season, Missouri, and they lost.

Next is Virginia Tech, who plays Boston College (another two-loss team) in the ACC Championship. If VT wins with some style against BC, then they could have a case to get into the NC over Georgia. Then comes LSU. They lost last week to Arkansas but could redeem themselves with a decisive victory over Tennessee in the SEC Championship Game. If that happens then LSU could have a rightful claim to a spot in the NC. The last of the real possibilities is Oklahoma, who plays Missouri in the Big-12 Championship game. If they win big, then perhaps they should get at shot at the NC.

What a muddled mess! So basically what I am saying is that for the BCS to not look completely inept and in need of replacement or serious revision, both Missouri and West Virginia cannot lose. One can go down and the BCS would survive...but if both of them lose then the crap will really hit the fan. It wouldn't matter who the BCS chose to play Ohio State, the majority of the country's football fans wouldn't agree.

So I guess how you might cheer in the upcoming weeks depends on how you view the BCS. If you like it, then you should root for Missouri and/or West Virginia to win. If you hate the BCS, then you should hope for both Missouri and WV to go down and then for chaos to ensue.

Personally, I think Oklahoma will beat Missouri and WV will beat the snot out of Pitt. That means the Ohio State and WV would play in the NC, a game that WV should win by at least seven.

Pistis Christou at SBL

2007-11-20T13:00:00.000-08:00

The SBL/AAR meeting was in San Diego this year, which should have been great news seeing that I live in L.A. Unfortunately, I was not able to go to all of it. I had a lesson to prepare for church, a two-hour lecture on a subject that I did not know much about to prepare for class at Fuller, and my family is coming into town from Texas for Thanksgiving. So that meant that I could only go down on Friday, which is technically the day before SBL/AAR starts. However, there was a session that I was particularly interested in which could be informative for my hoped-for dissertation topic. That session was on pistis christou, a Pauline phrase which means "faith in/of Christ." It appears in several important places in Romans and Galatians but it also appears in Philippians 3.9, a verse that will play a prominent role in my future research.

The session started after lunch on Friday and I was looking forward to it because there were three of the key players in the pistis christou debate presenting -- Douglas Campbell, Barry Matlock, and Francis Watson. Some other very interesting papers were presented too, including one by Stanley Porter and another by Benjamin Meyers (a fellow blogger).

I won't be specific because that would be unfair and gossipy, but the attitudes of two of the presenters were particularly disheartening. One was so cocksure in his theory that he was constantly belittling the other presenters and the other was so put out by the first that he sulked like a little kid.

There are two reasons why the attitudes of these presenters rubbed me the wrong way:

1) They are both adults and they are both experienced professionals. To put it the way my mom might have: They should have known better. SBL isn't fifth grade debate and it certainly isn't the correct arena to be arrogant. Instead it should be a place where mutual learning is undertaken and mutual respect is given.

2) This particular debate should elicit in it participants humility. Why? Because both of the primary positions (the objective genitive - "faith in Christ" and the subjective genitive - "faith of Christ") are viable grammatically, lexically, syntactically, and even theologically (you can be firmly a New Perspective person and hold to either position and you can be a traditional interpreter of Paul and hold to either also). Therefore, a certain level of uncertainty should be admitted by all the participants in this debate, but that was certainly not the case on Friday.

I learned many important things that will be usefully to me in the coming months and years during the session on Friday. Some of these things had to do with pistis christou, but many more of them have to do with how not to act in public!

Catholic Epistles Lecture Outline

2007-11-19T14:42:00.000-08:00

For those of you in Dr. Sechrest's NT2 class at Fuller, here is the outline from my lecture this morning:

I. Catholic Epistles - James, 1/2 Peter, Jude

II. James: Basic Information

Author
~James (1.1)
Audience
~The 12 tribes (1.1)
Date (pre-62; 80’s or 90’s)
Literary Form
~A letter/epistle?
~Something else?
Canonicity

III. James: Theological Motifs

Highly Parenetic
~Rooted in Judaism
~Jesus Tradition
Social Concern
Temptation
Suffering
Speech
Prayer

IV. James: Faith and Works

James 2.14-26
Gal 2.16/Rom 3.28
Anti-Pauline?
Resolvable?
~Different Definitions
~A Misunderstanding
~Different Situations

V. 1 Peter: Basic Information

Author
~Peter (1.1)
Audience
~God’s elect, strangers in the world… (1.1)
Date (60; 70-90)
Literary Form
Canonicity

VI. 1 Peter: Theological Motifs

Suffering
The Descent of Christ into Hell (3.19; 4.6)
Ecclesiology (2.9)
Relation to Paul
~Form
~Terminology
~~“in Christ” (3.16; 5.10,14)
~~“charism” (4.10-11)
~Gentiles (2.9)

VII. Jude

Author & Audience (v1)
Date (50’s; 90-100)
Canonicity
Extra-Biblical Quotes
~Assumption of Moses (v9)
~1 Enoch (vv14-15)
Theological Themes
~False Teachers
~Perseverance in Suffering
~Parousia

VII. 2 Peter

Author & Audience (1.1)
Second Letter (3.1)
Date (130)
Canonicity
Relationship to Jude
Theological Themes
~Knowledge
~False Teachers
~The Parousia
Aware of Paul’s Letters (3.15-16)

Please post a comment here if you have a question or email me at cowboymatt43 at hotmail dot com.

It's Been So Long...

2007-11-13T22:09:00.000-08:00

Wow. I just noticed that my last post was in July. Geez, what have I been doing?

Well, I finished a paper on the notion of "blamelessness" in Second-Temple Judaism and the New Testament. I have begun taking a course on learning to read French while being the teaching assistant for two courses (an introduction to the Gospels and an introduction to the rest of the NT). My wife and I went to Hawaii to celebrate our fifth anniversary. I have been teaching a series on prayer at church and my wife and I have been preparing for a visit from family for Thanksgiving.

As you can see, I have been busy. Even still, I do hope to blog a little more frequently in the near future. I would like to write about football, Pauline theology, the SBL conference, and a friend's book that he graciously gave to me for free.

Keep your eyes peeled...but don't hold your breath!

I'm Back!

2007-07-10T08:49:00.000-07:00

I flew back to L.A. last Friday. I am still quite jet lagged; I slept 4 hours last night and none the night before. I think I may now be a zombie...but it was worth it. Now that I'm home from Cambodia, here are a few things that were eye-opening:

1. The U.S.'s involvement with Cambodia during the 1970's is really messed up...and I didn't even know about it prior to getting ready for this trip! What is wrong with our education system!? How could most Americans not know that we bombed a neutral country during the Vietnam war, killing many people and engendering one of the most vicious and murderous revolutions ever? It is appalling. Google "Operation Menu" and find out for yourself.

2. Pol Pot, who died in 1998, and his movement, called the Khmer Rouge, are virtually unknown in the U.S. Before my wife and I went on our mission trip I looked at my world history and world civilization textbooks to get some information on Cambodia. One mentioned Cambodia only in relation to the Vietnam War and only in passing, one said that Pol Pot was a bad guy but gave no details, and one didn't mention Cambodia, the Khmer Rouge, or Pol Pot at all. This is shocking to me. How could a textbook about world history fail to mention the most prolific murder per capita ever? Pol Pot and his minions killed (directly or indirectly) 1.7 million of the 7 million Cambodians. Some were tortured and killed. Others simply executed. Many others died from being overworked and underfed. We're talking about nearly 25% of the population!

3. The Church has made many in roads in Cambodia, mostly through health care (as is the case with World Relief, the organization my wife and I went to help). There haven't been many converts, though some progress has been made. In 2005 less than 1% of the country was Christian. Now the statistic is around 1.5%. But for many denominations and organizations that fund and support the Christian work in Cambodia, that slow growth is not enough. As is typical of Westerners, most Christians are dominated by the desire to have instant gratification. In the case of Cambodia this attitude simply will not suffice. Theravada Buddhism has been entrenched there for a thousand years and Hinduism for a thousand or so years before that. Not only is there this religious barrier, the wounds left by the Khmer Rouge are still bleeding. Also, the West's involvement with the Khmer Rouge (whether causing Cambodians to join because of misguided foreign policy or the West's support of the Khmer Rouge after the American troop withdraw) only compounds the problem because Christianity is viewed as a Western religion to most Cambodians. The bottom line is that "lifestyle evangelism" is the only way that the Church will become established in Cambodia. We have to prove to them that we are there to help and not hurt, that we are people of peace and not war, that we love them and that our God does too. This process will be slow so we (by "we" I really mean the people funding Christian mission effort in Cambodia) MUST be patient.

I could go on and on about Cambodia...but I will spare you all the details.

Now I have to turn my attention to a research project on Paul and Second-Temple Judaism, specifically having to do with the ability/inability to fulfill the Law. Hopefully I will post more about this in the future.

Update and Other Stuff...

2007-06-20T08:11:00.000-07:00

Sorry for the long (really long!) delay between posts. My project on pistis christou took much longer than I expected (I'll post more about this at a later date). Beyond that, my wife and I have been getting ready to go to Cambodia as ESL teachers for World Relief (a Christian relief agency) for the past few months as well. Needless to say, we have been very, very busy.

On a different note, a friend of mine has posted a podcast in which I participated. We talk about the New Perspective, my faith journey, Evangelical Christianity, and other things too. His name is Dan Mages and his website is called Hunger Truth. Here's the link to the podcast. Enjoy and feel free to comment about it here or at Dan's site.

Lastly, my wife and I will be gone to Cambodia until the middle of July. Feel free to pray for us (if you so choose) while we are gone. We would greatly appreciate it!