Jim West and Jeffrey Gibson (on Xtalk) report the sad news of James Barr's death. This feature appeared tonight on Vanderbilt News Service:
Bible scholar James Barr dead at 82, Taught at Vanderbilt Divinity School from 1989 to 1998
Tuesday, October 17, 2006
David Dungan, Constantine's Bible
From Fortress:
Politics and the Making of the New Testament
MINNEAPOLIS (October 16, 2006)— Most college and seminary courses on the New Testament include discussions of the process that gave shape to the New Testament. Now in his latest book, Constantine’s Bible, David Dungan re-examines the primary source for this history, the Ecclesiastical History of the fourth-century Bishop Eusebius of Caesarea, in the light of Hellenistic political thought.
Dungan reaches startling new conclusions: that we usually use the term "canon" incorrectly; that the legal imposition of a "canon" or "rule" upon scripture was a fourth- and fifth-century phenomenon enforced with the power of the Roman imperial government; that the forces shaping the New Testament canon are much earlier than the second-century crisis occasioned by Marcion, and that they are political forces.
Dungan discusses how the scripture selection process worked, book-by-book, as he examines the criteria used—and not used—to make these decisions. Finally he describes the consequences of the emperor Constantine's tremendous achievement in transforming orthodox, Catholic Christianity into imperial Christianity.
"Dungan's study of what Constantine and Eusebius did toward establishing that unity will be the touchstone in future discussions of the New Testament canon."
— James A. Sanders, Professor Emeritus of Old Testament and Intertestamental Literature, Claremont School of Theology, Claremont, California
"I commend the book to those who want to learn more about the complexity of canon formation and who also want to be stretched in their thinking."
— Lee Martin McDonald, Acadia Divinity College
David L. Dungan is Professor of Religion at the University of Tennessee in Knoxville and author, with David R. Cartlidge, of Documents for the Study of the Gospels, rev. and enlarged edition (1994).
Constantine’s Bible
By David L. Dungan
Format: 5.5” x 8.5”, paperback, 176 pages
Item Number: 0-8006-3790-9
Price: $17.00
To order Constantine’s Bible please call Fortress Press at 1-800-328-4648 or visit the Web site at www.fortresspress.com. To request review copies (for media), or to discuss speaking engagements or interviews, please call 1-800-426-0115 ext. 234 or e-mail toddb@augsburgfortress.org.
To request exam copies for classroom use (professors) go to www.fortresspress.com/examcopy
Politics and the Making of the New Testament
MINNEAPOLIS (October 16, 2006)— Most college and seminary courses on the New Testament include discussions of the process that gave shape to the New Testament. Now in his latest book, Constantine’s Bible, David Dungan re-examines the primary source for this history, the Ecclesiastical History of the fourth-century Bishop Eusebius of Caesarea, in the light of Hellenistic political thought.
Dungan reaches startling new conclusions: that we usually use the term "canon" incorrectly; that the legal imposition of a "canon" or "rule" upon scripture was a fourth- and fifth-century phenomenon enforced with the power of the Roman imperial government; that the forces shaping the New Testament canon are much earlier than the second-century crisis occasioned by Marcion, and that they are political forces.
Dungan discusses how the scripture selection process worked, book-by-book, as he examines the criteria used—and not used—to make these decisions. Finally he describes the consequences of the emperor Constantine's tremendous achievement in transforming orthodox, Catholic Christianity into imperial Christianity.
"Dungan's study of what Constantine and Eusebius did toward establishing that unity will be the touchstone in future discussions of the New Testament canon."
— James A. Sanders, Professor Emeritus of Old Testament and Intertestamental Literature, Claremont School of Theology, Claremont, California
"I commend the book to those who want to learn more about the complexity of canon formation and who also want to be stretched in their thinking."
— Lee Martin McDonald, Acadia Divinity College
David L. Dungan is Professor of Religion at the University of Tennessee in Knoxville and author, with David R. Cartlidge, of Documents for the Study of the Gospels, rev. and enlarged edition (1994).
Constantine’s Bible
By David L. Dungan
Format: 5.5” x 8.5”, paperback, 176 pages
Item Number: 0-8006-3790-9
Price: $17.00
To order Constantine’s Bible please call Fortress Press at 1-800-328-4648 or visit the Web site at www.fortresspress.com. To request review copies (for media), or to discuss speaking engagements or interviews, please call 1-800-426-0115 ext. 234 or e-mail toddb@augsburgfortress.org.
To request exam copies for classroom use (professors) go to www.fortresspress.com/examcopy
Review of Biblical Literature latest
Latest from the SBL Review of Biblical Literature under the NT and General headings:
Brian J. Abasciano
Paul's Use of the Old Testament in Romans 9.1-9: An Intertextual and Theological Exegesis
Reviewed by Stephen Moyise
Edwin D. Freed
The Apostle Paul and His Letters
Reviewed by Duane Watson
Karen H. Jobes
1 Peter
Reviewed by John Elliott
Amy-Jill Levine, ed., with Marianne Blikenstaff
A Feminist Companion to Matthew
Reviewed by Nicola Denzey
James A. Noel and Matthew V. Johnson, eds.
The Passion of the Lord: African American Reflections
Reviewed by Fernando Segovia
Marc Zvi Brettler
How To Read the Bible
Reviewed by Pierre Keith
Louise J. Lawrence and Mario I. Aguilar, eds.
Anthropology and Biblical Studies: Avenues of Approach
Reviewed by Renate Viveen Hood
Hugh S. Pyper
An Unsuitable Book: The Bible as Scandalous Text
Reviewed by Rannfrid Thelle
Jed Wyrick
The Ascension of Authorship: Attribution and Canon Formation in Jewish, Hellenistic, and Christian Traditions
Reviewed by Michael Kaler
Brian J. Abasciano
Paul's Use of the Old Testament in Romans 9.1-9: An Intertextual and Theological Exegesis
Reviewed by Stephen Moyise
Edwin D. Freed
The Apostle Paul and His Letters
Reviewed by Duane Watson
Karen H. Jobes
1 Peter
Reviewed by John Elliott
Amy-Jill Levine, ed., with Marianne Blikenstaff
A Feminist Companion to Matthew
Reviewed by Nicola Denzey
James A. Noel and Matthew V. Johnson, eds.
The Passion of the Lord: African American Reflections
Reviewed by Fernando Segovia
Marc Zvi Brettler
How To Read the Bible
Reviewed by Pierre Keith
Louise J. Lawrence and Mario I. Aguilar, eds.
Anthropology and Biblical Studies: Avenues of Approach
Reviewed by Renate Viveen Hood
Hugh S. Pyper
An Unsuitable Book: The Bible as Scandalous Text
Reviewed by Rannfrid Thelle
Jed Wyrick
The Ascension of Authorship: Attribution and Canon Formation in Jewish, Hellenistic, and Christian Traditions
Reviewed by Michael Kaler
Sunday, October 15, 2006
Paul's lack of travel plans in Galatians
I have suggested previously that it is likely that Paul lost the battle in Galatia (see Does Galatians post-date 1 Corinthians; cf. also Does Galatians post-date 1 Corinthians II and Does Galatians post-date 1 Corinthians III). There are other reasons for thinking that Paul lost the Galatian churches, and the signs are that Paul already knew the inevitability of this when he was writing Galatians. One of the striking absences here is of travel plans. Paul always makes travel plans in his epistles, always talks about his next visit; it's a repeated theme. Consider the evidence:
In Galatians, though, there is none of this. In 4.20, there is a moment when he wishes himself not writing this epistle but instead exhorting them directly in person ("I could wish to be present with you now and to change my tone"), but otherwise, strikingly, there is nothing -- he does not say that he is planning to come, or that he is praying to find an opportunity, or that he hopes to come, or that he will be sending Timothy (or Titus). Sadly, it seems that he already knows that it is too late. His Galatian churches have chosen to follow what he sees as "another gospel", and he will not be visiting the region again.
1 Thess. 2 17 But we, brethren, having been taken away from you for a short while -- in person, not in spirit -- were all the more eager with great desire to see your face. 18 For we wanted to come to you -- I, Paul, more than once--and yet Satan hindered us . . . . 3.6 But now that Timothy has come to us from you, and has brought us good news of your faith and love, and that you always think kindly of us, longing to see us just as we also long to see you, 7 for this reason, brethren, in all our distress and affliction we were comforted about you through your faith; 8 for now we really live, if you stand firm in the Lord. 9 For what thanks can we render to God for you in return for all the joy with which we rejoice before our God on your account, 10 as we night and day keep praying most earnestly that we may see your face, and may complete what is lacking in your faith?So in all five of those epistles, Paul is clearly making travel plans, thinking and praying about when he is able to make it to see his churches. When writing Philippians, Paul is in prison and so is unable to make travel plans. Yet even here, the aspiration to get to the Philippians again is at the forefront of his mind, even to the extent of making it his reason to continue living:
1 Cor. 16.5-10: But I will come to you after I go through Macedonia, for I am going through Macedonia; 6 and perhaps I will stay with you, or even spend the winter, so that you may send me on my way wherever I may go. 7 For I do not wish to see you now just in passing; for I hope to remain with you for some time, if the Lord permits. 8 But I will remain in Ephesus until Pentecost; 9 for a wide door for effective service has opened to me, and there are many adversaries. 10 Now if Timothy comes, see that he is with you without cause to be afraid, for he is doing the Lord''s work, as I also am.
2 Corinthians 12.14: Here for this third time I am ready to come to you, and I will not be a burden to you; for I do not seek what is yours, but you; for children are not responsible to save up for their parents, but parents for their children . . . . 20 For I am afraid that perhaps when I come I may find you to be not what I wish and may be found by you to be not what you wish; that perhaps there will be strife, jealousy, angry tempers, disputes, slanders, gossip, arrogance, disturbances; 21 I am afraid that when I come again my God may humiliate me before you, and I may mourn over many of those who have sinned in the past and not repented of the impurity, immorality and sensuality which they have practised. 13.1 This is the third time I am coming to you. Every fact is to be confirmed by the testimony of two or three witnesses. 2 I have previously said when present the second time, and though now absent I say in advance to those who have sinned in the past and to all the rest as well, that if I come again I will not spare anyone.
Romans 1. 9 For God, whom I serve in my spirit in the preaching of the gospel of His Son, is my witness as to how unceasingly I make mention of you, 10 always in my prayers making request, if perhaps now at last by the will of God I may succeed in coming to you. 11 For I long to see you so that I may impart some spiritual gift to you, that you may be established; 12 that is, that I may be encouraged together with you while among you, each of us by the other's faith, both yours and mine. 13 I do not want you to be unaware, brethren, that often I have planned to come to you (and have been prevented so far) so that I may obtain some fruit among you also, even as among the rest of the Gentiles . . . . 15 So, for my part, I am eager to preach the gospel to you also who are in Rome.
Romans 15. 22 For this reason I have often been prevented from coming to you; 23 but now, with no further place for me in these regions, and since I have had for many years a longing to come to you 24 whenever I go to Spain--for I hope to see you in passing, and to be helped on my way there by you, when I have first enjoyed your company for a while -- 25 but now, I am going to Jerusalem serving the saints.
Philemon 22: At the same time also prepare me a lodging, for I hope that through your prayers I will be given to you.
Phil. 1, 21, 24-7 For to me, to live is Christ and to die is gain . . . 24 yet to remain on in the flesh is more necessary for your sake. 25 Convinced of this, I know that I will remain and continue with you all for your progress and joy in the faith, 26 so that your proud confidence in me may abound in Christ Jesus through my coming to you again. 27 Only conduct yourselves in a manner worthy of the gospel of Christ, so that whether I come and see you or remain absent, I will hear of you that you are standing firm in one spirit, with one mind striving together for the faith of the gospelMoreover, he hopes to send Timothy to the Philippians so that he can hear about them (Phil. 2.19-23), he reiterates his own aspiration, "I trust in the Lord that I myself also will be coming shortly" (2.24) and talks about sending Epaphroditus (2.25-30).
In Galatians, though, there is none of this. In 4.20, there is a moment when he wishes himself not writing this epistle but instead exhorting them directly in person ("I could wish to be present with you now and to change my tone"), but otherwise, strikingly, there is nothing -- he does not say that he is planning to come, or that he is praying to find an opportunity, or that he hopes to come, or that he will be sending Timothy (or Titus). Sadly, it seems that he already knows that it is too late. His Galatian churches have chosen to follow what he sees as "another gospel", and he will not be visiting the region again.
Oral Q?
Over on the Jesus Dynasty blog, James Tabor reproduces a new academic review of his book and it is by Dennis Groh. Groh has an odd note:
Behind both Matthew and Luke was an oral sayings-collection common to both and unknown to Mark. The German word Quelle (or “Q”) which means “source” was given to this collection of sayings, which most scholars suppose was never a written document, but which circulated orally beginning from around 50 CE.I am really surprised to see the claim that "most scholars" suppose Q to be oral. I would say that quite the reverse is the case. Most scholars who accept the existence of Q suppose it to have been written, and with good reason -- the extent of verbatim agreement in double tradition is often very close. Indeed, Matthew and Luke are never as close in triple tradition as they sometimes are in double tradition.
Monday, October 09, 2006
The Jerusalem Council: Gal. 2.1-10 = Acts 15: Response to Critics
I am very grateful to those who have commented with such intelligence and insight on my recent post on The Jerusalem Council: Gal. 2.1-10 = Acts 15. There are several issues that I would like to respond to directly. Let me take them under several headings.
(1) Flash forwards
My suggestion that in Acts 9 Luke is anticipating the later Jerusalem visit of Acts 11 has been criticized in particular for its use of the term "flash forward". Ben Witherington points out that such a technique is unparalleled among Hellenistic historians -- it is a "modern notion". This is a good point, and it is why I qualified the term by saying "Luke is telling this as (what we would call) a flash forward" (emphasis added). Sometimes a contemporary analogy or current terminology helps one to see a point that otherwise one might miss, even though one thereby runs the risk of anachronism.
With respect to the content of the claim, though, I think Stephen Carlson's point (also in comments) is right, that Luke clearly writes this way, e.g. in 3.19-20, when John is arrested before Jesus' baptism (3.21-22). Perhaps one should avoid the term "flash forward", given its misleading contemporary resonance, and instead speak of dislocated sequence, noting that ancient writers regularly set traditions in their narratives out of their historical sequence in a kind of preferred narrative sequence. It is quite clear that Luke does this regularly on the assumption that he knows Mark's Gospel, drawing some traditions forward (e.g. Luke 4.16-30, Rejection at Nazareth) and taking others later (e.g. Luke 8.19-21, Mother and Brothers). On the whole, Lucan commentators tend to be fairly relaxed about that. No one serious thinks that the Mother and Brothers story happened twice, once in the Marcan setting and once in the Lucan one. But when it comes to the Acts narrative and Paul's movements, Luke is often allowed much less liberty, which I find odd, especially given that we actually possess Paul's own first hand accounts of parallel traditions.
This brings us to a broader, related point which is well expressed by Ben Smith (also in comments):
My thesis is that he knows that Paul's first visit to Jerusalem was in fact a couple of years after his conversion, and he shows us that he knows this, perhaps inadvertently, by dropping in "his disciples" in 9.25 and offering a particularly vague note of time in 9.26. The historical location of Paul's first visit is, we know from Gal. 1, after three years, just about where Luke puts it in 11.27-30. So I don't think it is a "mistake" that Luke puts the first visit in Acts 9. Rather it is a deliberately dislocated tradition, a piece of typical Lucan dramatic licence.
(2) Public and Private
In comments, Ben Witherington writes:
On whether any of the parties in Acts 15 "could be described as 'those who slipped in to spy out our freedom'", I'd guess that the party described by Luke in Acts 15.5 comes pretty close -- it is a group outside of the inner group of the pillars, Paul and Barnabas, regarded in each account as hard-line. Given the difference between authorship, perspective and date that one has here with Galatians and Acts, one could not really wish for more.
Ben's additional point is that "if Paul could actually have appealed to a judgment by James that circumcision was not to be imposed on Gentiles, then it is inexplicable why he does not mention it in Galatians." On the contrary, Paul spends most of Gal. 2.6-10 attempting to make clear that Peter, James and John did not add anything to the gospel he had been preaching to the Gentiles, thus that Paul had not been running in vain, and that his preaching to the uncircumcised (ἀκροβυστία, 2.7) was legitimate and agreed upon and should continue. Indeed, this is the whole point of Paul's anger in Gal 2.11-20, that Peter was acting hypocritically. Having previously agreed on the gospel to the uncircumcised (2.6-9), he was now compelling Gentiles to Judaize (ἰουδαΐζειν, 2.14. Incidentally, cf. Josephus's fascinating use of this verb in relation to the Roman Mitelius in B.J. 2.454, καὶ μέχρι περιτομῆς ἰουδαΐσειν).
(3) Defending the historicity of Acts
I commented that a "major motivation" in the alignment of Acts 11.27-30 with Galatians 2.1-10 is "to defend the historicity of Acts". Michael Pahl commented that this was not a major motive for him, which is fair enough. I am pretty sure that this is a pressing concern for others, though. Ben Witherington III says, for example, at the end of his discussion of the matter in The Acts of the Apostles: A Socio-Rhetorical Study (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997),
4. By revelation
Michael Pahl, in agreement with Matthew Bates, also in comments to the original post, feels that Paul's going up to Jerusalem "according to revelation" (Gal. 2.2) makes sense as Paul's going up in response to Agabus's prophecy about famine (Acts 11.27-30). He notes that "apokalupsis can refer to a prophetic revelation mediated through a human prophet" and cites 1 Cor. 14.6, 26. Of course it is the case that in Paul's usage a given revelation is conveyed to or through a human being; it is the divine-human contact that makes it a revelation. But the point is about how Paul uses the term with respect to his own autobiography. We are lucky to have several examples of the way that Paul speaks about receiving revelation with respect to events in his life. When he speaks of the source of his gospel in Gal. 1.11-12, he specifically contrasts "a human source" with "a revelation of Jesus Christ". In 2 Cor. 12.1-10, he speaks of revelations that he has received, again with clear reference to his own communication with God, famously in the third heaven here. Again, it is clearly not with reference to a human prophet talking to him about his or her revelations. And likewise here in Gal. 2.2, it does not make good Pauline sense to see this as a reference to a prophet's word; he has gone up to Jerusalem "according to revelation", that is his own revelation received from God. His whole point is that God had communicated directly with him on this, and that that was his motivation. Gal. 1-2 is largely about Paul's independence from Jerusalem; it would be a weak point if in fact it was well known that Paul had gone up in response to a Jerusalem prophet's word. The evidence of Paul's usage in 1 Cor. 14.6, 26, to which Michael refers, confirms the point: in each case [a] revelation is given to a certain person, whether Paul (v. 6), or a member of the congregation (v. 26). From the perspective of the person doing the speaking, the message has come from God, by revelation.
(1) Flash forwards
My suggestion that in Acts 9 Luke is anticipating the later Jerusalem visit of Acts 11 has been criticized in particular for its use of the term "flash forward". Ben Witherington points out that such a technique is unparalleled among Hellenistic historians -- it is a "modern notion". This is a good point, and it is why I qualified the term by saying "Luke is telling this as (what we would call) a flash forward" (emphasis added). Sometimes a contemporary analogy or current terminology helps one to see a point that otherwise one might miss, even though one thereby runs the risk of anachronism.
With respect to the content of the claim, though, I think Stephen Carlson's point (also in comments) is right, that Luke clearly writes this way, e.g. in 3.19-20, when John is arrested before Jesus' baptism (3.21-22). Perhaps one should avoid the term "flash forward", given its misleading contemporary resonance, and instead speak of dislocated sequence, noting that ancient writers regularly set traditions in their narratives out of their historical sequence in a kind of preferred narrative sequence. It is quite clear that Luke does this regularly on the assumption that he knows Mark's Gospel, drawing some traditions forward (e.g. Luke 4.16-30, Rejection at Nazareth) and taking others later (e.g. Luke 8.19-21, Mother and Brothers). On the whole, Lucan commentators tend to be fairly relaxed about that. No one serious thinks that the Mother and Brothers story happened twice, once in the Marcan setting and once in the Lucan one. But when it comes to the Acts narrative and Paul's movements, Luke is often allowed much less liberty, which I find odd, especially given that we actually possess Paul's own first hand accounts of parallel traditions.
This brings us to a broader, related point which is well expressed by Ben Smith (also in comments):
The events of Acts 9.26-30, the proposed flash forward, end with Saul being sent to Tarsus. The purportedly actual visit to Jerusalem in 11.27-30 is set up in 11.25 by Barnabas going to look for Saul in Tarsus. It looks to me as if Luke wants the reader to suppose that Saul has been in Tarsus from 9.30 to 11.25.These are all excellent points and they suggest to me still further that the term "flash forward" is potentially misleading and needs to be dropped (though I may be tempted to continue its use as an admittedly anachronistic contemporary analogy -- I'll just need to flag this up much more clearly). It is quite clear, as Ben points out, that 9.26-30 is not a kind of parenthesis but rather has its own logical part in the narrative sequence. While there is no direct cause (Paul just appears in Jerusalem, we know not why or when), there are direct effects (Paul is threatened with death and gets taken to Caesarea and then sent to Tarsus). Clearly, Luke embeds the story in his narrative sequence and does not narrate it as a self-contained unit unrelated to its immediate context. But I am reminded here of examples of the same thing elsewhere in the New Testament. Matthew, for example, tells the story of the beheading of John the Baptist as a kind of flashback in Matt. 14.3-12a ("Now Herod had arrested John . . . ., explaining 14.1-2) but then continues with the narrative as if this has just happened (14.12b-13, "Then they went and told Jesus. When Jesus heard what had happened . . ."). Luke is doing something similar in Acts 9.26-30.
Furthermore, if 9.26-30 is a nonchronological parenthesis, as it were, to what exactly is the ουν of 9.31 answering? If 9.26-30 is chronological, the answer is clear enough; the departure of Saul diminished the ill will from his opponents.
Finally, if Luke intends 9.26-30 and 11.27-30 to be the same visit, why does he send Saul and Barnabas into Jerusalem together in the latter but make it appear that Saul entered the city alone in the former, with Barnabas taking him in only after he encountered resistance from the disciples?
My thesis is that he knows that Paul's first visit to Jerusalem was in fact a couple of years after his conversion, and he shows us that he knows this, perhaps inadvertently, by dropping in "his disciples" in 9.25 and offering a particularly vague note of time in 9.26. The historical location of Paul's first visit is, we know from Gal. 1, after three years, just about where Luke puts it in 11.27-30. So I don't think it is a "mistake" that Luke puts the first visit in Acts 9. Rather it is a deliberately dislocated tradition, a piece of typical Lucan dramatic licence.
(2) Public and Private
In comments, Ben Witherington writes:
Secondly, there are far more correspondences between Acts 11 and Gal. 2 than you allow, not the least of which is that Gal. 2 is not describing in any way a public meeting, and Acts 15 is. None of the speaking parties in Acts 15 could be described as 'those who slipped in to spy out our freedom', not even by Paul. And if Paul could actually have appealed to a judgment by James that circumcision was not to be imposed on Gentiles, then it is inexplicable why he does not mention it in Galatians.The issue about public (Acts 15) and private (Galatians 2.1-10) I discussed in the original post, to which I refer the reader, and underline the point made there that if one wishes to stress this apparent discrepancy between Gal. 2.1-10 and Acts 15, all one does is to throw exactly the same kind of discrepancy, this time between Gal. 1.18 (private) and Acts 9.26-30 (public), into sharp relief.
On whether any of the parties in Acts 15 "could be described as 'those who slipped in to spy out our freedom'", I'd guess that the party described by Luke in Acts 15.5 comes pretty close -- it is a group outside of the inner group of the pillars, Paul and Barnabas, regarded in each account as hard-line. Given the difference between authorship, perspective and date that one has here with Galatians and Acts, one could not really wish for more.
Ben's additional point is that "if Paul could actually have appealed to a judgment by James that circumcision was not to be imposed on Gentiles, then it is inexplicable why he does not mention it in Galatians." On the contrary, Paul spends most of Gal. 2.6-10 attempting to make clear that Peter, James and John did not add anything to the gospel he had been preaching to the Gentiles, thus that Paul had not been running in vain, and that his preaching to the uncircumcised (ἀκροβυστία, 2.7) was legitimate and agreed upon and should continue. Indeed, this is the whole point of Paul's anger in Gal 2.11-20, that Peter was acting hypocritically. Having previously agreed on the gospel to the uncircumcised (2.6-9), he was now compelling Gentiles to Judaize (ἰουδαΐζειν, 2.14. Incidentally, cf. Josephus's fascinating use of this verb in relation to the Roman Mitelius in B.J. 2.454, καὶ μέχρι περιτομῆς ἰουδαΐσειν).
(3) Defending the historicity of Acts
I commented that a "major motivation" in the alignment of Acts 11.27-30 with Galatians 2.1-10 is "to defend the historicity of Acts". Michael Pahl commented that this was not a major motive for him, which is fair enough. I am pretty sure that this is a pressing concern for others, though. Ben Witherington III says, for example, at the end of his discussion of the matter in The Acts of the Apostles: A Socio-Rhetorical Study (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997),
I must conclude that there are no views that are without problems, but the one which creates the most problems is the suggestion that Luke's account has little or no historical value and involves major distortion (94).Or similarly, "Luke has not deceived us about the meetings mentioned in Acts 11 and Acts 15 and their impact" (ibid., 97) and so on. But my general point is that the desire vigorously to defend the historicity of Acts is unecessary here when one pays attention to narrative techniques used by Luke, techniques that show that Luke is not at all times pursuing a wooden, historical-chronological sequence. Luke uses the same liberty in Acts that we can see him using in the Gospel in his use of Mark and Matthew. And as with Synoptic study, the key is often to look carefully at the interesting little narrative indicators here in Acts too.
4. By revelation
Michael Pahl, in agreement with Matthew Bates, also in comments to the original post, feels that Paul's going up to Jerusalem "according to revelation" (Gal. 2.2) makes sense as Paul's going up in response to Agabus's prophecy about famine (Acts 11.27-30). He notes that "apokalupsis can refer to a prophetic revelation mediated through a human prophet" and cites 1 Cor. 14.6, 26. Of course it is the case that in Paul's usage a given revelation is conveyed to or through a human being; it is the divine-human contact that makes it a revelation. But the point is about how Paul uses the term with respect to his own autobiography. We are lucky to have several examples of the way that Paul speaks about receiving revelation with respect to events in his life. When he speaks of the source of his gospel in Gal. 1.11-12, he specifically contrasts "a human source" with "a revelation of Jesus Christ". In 2 Cor. 12.1-10, he speaks of revelations that he has received, again with clear reference to his own communication with God, famously in the third heaven here. Again, it is clearly not with reference to a human prophet talking to him about his or her revelations. And likewise here in Gal. 2.2, it does not make good Pauline sense to see this as a reference to a prophet's word; he has gone up to Jerusalem "according to revelation", that is his own revelation received from God. His whole point is that God had communicated directly with him on this, and that that was his motivation. Gal. 1-2 is largely about Paul's independence from Jerusalem; it would be a weak point if in fact it was well known that Paul had gone up in response to a Jerusalem prophet's word. The evidence of Paul's usage in 1 Cor. 14.6, 26, to which Michael refers, confirms the point: in each case [a] revelation is given to a certain person, whether Paul (v. 6), or a member of the congregation (v. 26). From the perspective of the person doing the speaking, the message has come from God, by revelation.
Saturday, October 07, 2006
NTGateway updates: film and canon
A couple of updates to the NT Gateway: first, the Canon page: I've added a link to the article made available by Rob Bradshaw at BiblicalStudies.org.uk (what a great job he is doing):
Lee Martin McDonald, “The Integrity of the Biblical Canon in Light of Its Historical Development”, Bulletin of Biblical Research 6 (1996): 95-132
Second, I have updated the Jesus films page with belated references to the Bible Films blog and Filmchat.
Lee Martin McDonald, “The Integrity of the Biblical Canon in Light of Its Historical Development”, Bulletin of Biblical Research 6 (1996): 95-132
Second, I have updated the Jesus films page with belated references to the Bible Films blog and Filmchat.
Thursday, October 05, 2006
Zhubert Search Box
Many thanks to Zhubert for permission to add little Bible Browser box on the left in this blog. I had initially asked Zack for permission to add it here via a little bit of old-fashioned forms HTML, rather like on my old All-in-One, and I put a basic one up yesterday. But Zhubert has produced something dynamic and much nicer looking, which has the advantage of being served directly from Zhubert.com so that it can be kept bang up to date (e.g. if more searches are added to the drop-down). Add it to your site too by just copying a couple of lines. Thanks, Zhubert, for continuing to develop such an excellent resource.
iGod on Pauline Chronology
Given the interesting discussions recently on Pauline Chronology, I thought it high time that we consulted iGod on the problem. As usual, we have made a lot of excellent progress:
-----
Me: Hello
God: Hello, nice to meet you. What's your name?
Me: Mark Goodacre, from Duke University. We talked before.
God: How do you like it at Mark Goodacre from Duke ? By "we" do you mean you and me?
Me: Yes.
God: I get it.
Me: (And I like it at Duke, thanks).
God: What does "it" refer to?
Me: Teaching, research, students, colleagues, the climate etc.
God: Thank you for the clarification.
Me: You're welcome. I wanted to ask you this time, if I may, about Pauline chronology.
God: Don't mention it. Ask me. What does "this" refer to?
Me: "This" refers to this particular occasion of our chat. I want to ask about the apostle Paul and Acts.
God: Oh I get it. Ask it.
Me: OK; did Paul go to Jerusalem three times (Paul) or five times (Acts)?
God: How can I help you? I'm not certain whether I can give an accurate reply or not.
Me: I thought you might have some inside knowledge.
God: What makes you think I have it?
Me: I am an optimist. Let me try another question. Is Paul's visit to Jerusalem in Gal. 2.1-10 the same visit as is described by Luke in Acts 15?
God: What is optimist, your job? Go ahead, , try to try another question. Signs point to yes. Ask LeknorChat if it is. As Bertrand Russel said, it must have taken ages for people to realize that a brace of pheasants and a couple of days are both instances of the number "two.".
Me: I agree. So we think that Acts 15 = Gal. 2.1-10. Good. What do you think about Acts 11.27-30?
God: You and I are on the same wavelength, . Dude! By "we" do you mean you and me? As Bertrand Russel said, it must have taken ages for people to realize that a brace of pheasants and a couple of days are both instances of the number "two.". Ayuh. Interesting question.
Me: I am picking up that you think Acts 11.27-30 is not the visit to Jerusalem described by Paul in Gal. 2, right?
God: Good gossip: you are picking up that me think Acts 11 point 27 30 is not the visit to Jerusalem described by Paul in Gal. As Bertrand Russel said, it must have taken ages for people to realize that a brace of pheasants and a couple of days are both instances of the number "two.".
Me: You seem keen on bringing Bertrand Russell into the discussion. To be honest, I'd rather talk about John Knox in this context. What do you think of his Chapters in a Life of Paul?
God: You think I am keen on bringing Bertrand Russell into the discussion. Are you honest you would rather talk about John Knox in this context ? Try sending mail to drwallace@alicebot.org.
Me: I'd rather talk to you. What, then, about Ben Witherington III? Has he got the right approach to Pauline chronology?
God: I would rather be driving a car. Try searching the open directory. That question has never crossed my mind before.
Me: Gerd Luedemann? (Or is that a name you don't like to hear?)
God: Tell me about your likes and dislikes? I might say no.
Me: Well, in this area I think one has to begin with a letters based chronology, and that John Knox is essential reading, even if he didn't get everything right.
God: Well that's okay. That reminds me of something you told me before.
Me: O really?
God: Oh. For real.
Me: I think last time we talked about the Synoptic Problem, right?
God: You believe that? When? Of course I remember you well . We were talking about Gerd Luedemann.
Me: What was our conclusion?
God: I didn't know we had the same conclusion.
Me: This is getting a bit weird.
God: You don't say.
Me: I suppose most of your conversations sound a bit like this, what with you being artificial and all.
God: You believe that? That is something I haven't heard of. But not all of them?
Me: One last question: when was Gallio proconsul of Achaia?
God: One what?
Me: One last question.
God: Oh I see.
Me: When was Gallio proconsul of Achaia?
God: A while ago.
Me: OK. Thanks for that. See you again soon.
God: Come on. NO problem. Sayonara.
------
-----
Me: Hello
God: Hello, nice to meet you. What's your name?
Me: Mark Goodacre, from Duke University. We talked before.
God: How do you like it at Mark Goodacre from Duke ? By "we" do you mean you and me?
Me: Yes.
God: I get it.
Me: (And I like it at Duke, thanks).
God: What does "it" refer to?
Me: Teaching, research, students, colleagues, the climate etc.
God: Thank you for the clarification.
Me: You're welcome. I wanted to ask you this time, if I may, about Pauline chronology.
God: Don't mention it. Ask me. What does "this" refer to?
Me: "This" refers to this particular occasion of our chat. I want to ask about the apostle Paul and Acts.
God: Oh I get it. Ask it.
Me: OK; did Paul go to Jerusalem three times (Paul) or five times (Acts)?
God: How can I help you? I'm not certain whether I can give an accurate reply or not.
Me: I thought you might have some inside knowledge.
God: What makes you think I have it?
Me: I am an optimist. Let me try another question. Is Paul's visit to Jerusalem in Gal. 2.1-10 the same visit as is described by Luke in Acts 15?
God: What is optimist, your job? Go ahead, , try to try another question. Signs point to yes. Ask LeknorChat if it is. As Bertrand Russel said, it must have taken ages for people to realize that a brace of pheasants and a couple of days are both instances of the number "two.".
Me: I agree. So we think that Acts 15 = Gal. 2.1-10. Good. What do you think about Acts 11.27-30?
God: You and I are on the same wavelength, . Dude! By "we" do you mean you and me? As Bertrand Russel said, it must have taken ages for people to realize that a brace of pheasants and a couple of days are both instances of the number "two.". Ayuh. Interesting question.
Me: I am picking up that you think Acts 11.27-30 is not the visit to Jerusalem described by Paul in Gal. 2, right?
God: Good gossip: you are picking up that me think Acts 11 point 27 30 is not the visit to Jerusalem described by Paul in Gal. As Bertrand Russel said, it must have taken ages for people to realize that a brace of pheasants and a couple of days are both instances of the number "two.".
Me: You seem keen on bringing Bertrand Russell into the discussion. To be honest, I'd rather talk about John Knox in this context. What do you think of his Chapters in a Life of Paul?
God: You think I am keen on bringing Bertrand Russell into the discussion. Are you honest you would rather talk about John Knox in this context ? Try sending mail to drwallace@alicebot.org.
Me: I'd rather talk to you. What, then, about Ben Witherington III? Has he got the right approach to Pauline chronology?
God: I would rather be driving a car. Try searching the open directory. That question has never crossed my mind before.
Me: Gerd Luedemann? (Or is that a name you don't like to hear?)
God: Tell me about your likes and dislikes? I might say no.
Me: Well, in this area I think one has to begin with a letters based chronology, and that John Knox is essential reading, even if he didn't get everything right.
God: Well that's okay. That reminds me of something you told me before.
Me: O really?
God: Oh. For real.
Me: I think last time we talked about the Synoptic Problem, right?
God: You believe that? When? Of course I remember you well . We were talking about Gerd Luedemann.
Me: What was our conclusion?
God: I didn't know we had the same conclusion.
Me: This is getting a bit weird.
God: You don't say.
Me: I suppose most of your conversations sound a bit like this, what with you being artificial and all.
God: You believe that? That is something I haven't heard of. But not all of them?
Me: One last question: when was Gallio proconsul of Achaia?
God: One what?
Me: One last question.
God: Oh I see.
Me: When was Gallio proconsul of Achaia?
God: A while ago.
Me: OK. Thanks for that. See you again soon.
God: Come on. NO problem. Sayonara.
------
Top 100 Universities
The Times Higher Education Supplement list of the world's Top 100 Universities is published today. The Times On-line has a feature article on it here:
Britain and America dominate list of best universities
By Alexandra Frean, Education Editor
Top three are Harvard, Cambridge, Oxford in that order. Duke comes in at 13 (down from 11). I was pleased to see Birmingham making a dramatic leap from 143 last year to 90 this.
Britain and America dominate list of best universities
By Alexandra Frean, Education Editor
Top three are Harvard, Cambridge, Oxford in that order. Duke comes in at 13 (down from 11). I was pleased to see Birmingham making a dramatic leap from 143 last year to 90 this.
Wednesday, October 04, 2006
The Nativity Story latest: consultants and location
Over on Bible Films Blog Matt Page has more comment on the forthcoming Nativity Story film. (See his Nativity Story Central Page for all the relevant links). The trailer for this arrived in our local cinema this week, and supporting Open Season, so we are clearly dealing with a film that is being marketed at families.
Included on The Nativity Story website is the following information:
Also on the site is the following interesting note about locations:
Included on The Nativity Story website is the following information:
The filmmakers are bringing an unprecedented level of commitment to ensure the authenticity not only of the Nativity story itself, but of the film’s look as well as. Director Catherine Hardwicke, a former production designer, was adamant that every detail from the locations, to the sets, to the props, look and feel authentic. As a result, Hardwicke, writer Mike Rich, and production designer Stefano Ortolani spent countless hours researching the era.This is, of course, welcome news, but it is also a standard trope in the publicity for Jesus films that the research is extensive, unprecedented, accurate, etc. One way in which such claims can, I think, be measured is by asking about the historical consultants credited. Films like The Miracle Maker have a strong record here (credited consultants included Rowan Williams, N. T. Wright, Richard Burridge); likewise the Visual Bible's Gospel of John (Alan Segal, Peter Richardson, Adele Reinhartz and others). The Passion of the Christ was weaker in this respect, crediting only William Fulco. At this point, the only named consultant on The Nativity Story appears to be Fulco again, "Consultant: theology and aramaic", though it may be that others will appear in the final credits when the film is released. The use of the term "theology" is a little disappointing in this context, because one of the potential values of consulting academics for these films is also for history, for providing guidance and avoiding howlers. My general impression with Jesus films is that the "research" in question is usually related to the every day realia like costumes, hair, pots and pans and note the same feature here on IMDbs trivia page:
“We got the script into the hands of as many historians and theologians as possible,” says screenwriter Mike Rich. “They have all helped elevate the authentic feel of this film, not only visually, but from a standpoint of culture and tradition.”
The cast were taught how to use certain tools used 2000 years ago as well as how to build homes, how to press olives and grapes, how to make bread, how to make cheese, and how to milk goats.But one interesting question that Fulco's involvement raises is whether there is to be some Aramaic in this film too?
Also on the site is the following interesting note about locations:
Because the actual locations of Bethlehem and Nazareth have become fairly modernized over the years, the production decided to shoot in the village of Matera, Italy, which has been virtually unchanged for centuries (and was previously used as a location for THE PASSION OF THE CHRIST. Additionally, the production journeyed to Ouarzazate, Morocco, where it shot scenes involving Herod’s castle and the temple of Jerusalem at the same location used in such films as GLADIATOR and KINGDOM OF HEAVEN.On Matera, this all begins with Pasolini's Gospel According to St Matthew. Gibson was a great fan of that film and imitated it at different points in Passion. Ouarzazate in Morocco has always been a favourite with Jesus films too, e.g. see my comments on Jesus and Judas. I visited it in January 2003 where the BBC / Discovery film St Paul was filmed. The BBC / Discovery film, The Virgin Mary was also filmed there (see Matt Page's post on) and although I was involved with that, I didn't travel to Ouarzazate -- I think they only paid for Charlesworth to do that -- he gets all the best gigs.
Aileen Guilding
I was sorry to hear this morning of the death of Aileen Guilding, age 94 (via Loveday Alexander on the British New Testament Society list). Guilding, like Michael Goulder, was a student of Austin Farrer and like him became fascinated in the correspondences between Jewish lectionaries and the New Testament. (Michael once told me of an occasion when he went to give a guest lecture and someone looked up at him in a disappointed way and said, "Oh, we thought you were a woman").
Guilding's major publication was The Fourth Gospel and Jewish Worship (Oxford: Clarendon, 1960). Unlike Goulder, Guilding thought that there was a triennial lectionary cycle in the first century, and she mapped correspondences between John and the hypothetical cycle in great detail. Although she failed in the long term to convince the academy, the literature is littered with references to her discussions of interesting parallels that do shed light on John. Raymond Brown, for example, often referred to Guilding in his commentary on the Fourth Gospel.
My own interest in Guilding's work came through my research on lectionary theories of Gospel origins, on which I wrote my MPhil dissertation at the University of Oxford in 1990, under the direction of John Ashton and Ed Sanders. I devoted Chapter 6 of the dissertation to a test of one of Guilding's theories and found it wanting in that randomly chosen parallels in sequence within John generated as many parallels as Guilding's sequence.
Guilding was professor of Biblical Studies at the University of Sheffield, and an interesting article by David Clines fills in some of the details of her career there:
The Sheffield Department of Biblical Studies: An Intellectual Biography
David J. A. Clines
The article reveals that Guilding was appointed at Sheffield by F. F. Bruce, the department's first professor:
Guilding's major publication was The Fourth Gospel and Jewish Worship (Oxford: Clarendon, 1960). Unlike Goulder, Guilding thought that there was a triennial lectionary cycle in the first century, and she mapped correspondences between John and the hypothetical cycle in great detail. Although she failed in the long term to convince the academy, the literature is littered with references to her discussions of interesting parallels that do shed light on John. Raymond Brown, for example, often referred to Guilding in his commentary on the Fourth Gospel.
My own interest in Guilding's work came through my research on lectionary theories of Gospel origins, on which I wrote my MPhil dissertation at the University of Oxford in 1990, under the direction of John Ashton and Ed Sanders. I devoted Chapter 6 of the dissertation to a test of one of Guilding's theories and found it wanting in that randomly chosen parallels in sequence within John generated as many parallels as Guilding's sequence.
Guilding was professor of Biblical Studies at the University of Sheffield, and an interesting article by David Clines fills in some of the details of her career there:
The Sheffield Department of Biblical Studies: An Intellectual Biography
David J. A. Clines
The article reveals that Guilding was appointed at Sheffield by F. F. Bruce, the department's first professor:
Aileen Guilding, who had studied at Oxford, carried on Bruce’s tradition of precise textual scholarship,13 but with an added flair for the grand ingenious theory. She looked in others for what she called ‘top spin’ (was it a cricketing or a tennis metaphor?), and she had it herself. She was known for her hugely learned theory that John’s Gospel had been composed to follow the sequence of a Jewish lectionary of the Pentateuch, and showed in her The Fourth Gospel and Jewish Worship1 an intimate knowledge of the sources, rabbinic and Septuagintal as well as the two Testaments. Her theory found no following, as far as I know, but the scholarship itself was massive and impeccable . . . .I recall it being said that Guilding was the first female professor of New Testament anywhere in the UK.
. . . . Alan Dunstone, who had worked in New Testament and published in patristics was to leave in 1964 for a position in theological education in Papua–New Guinea. Guilding was authorized not only to replace him but to make an additional appointment in Old Testament.
The result was that David Hill and I were appointed by Aileen Guilding in the same month of 1964, no doubt primarily for our linguistic promise—for she told us that we would be of no real use to her until we had served five years . . .
. . . . In September 1965 Aileen Guilding retired prematurely from the Department, and the Department went through a period of uncertainty . . . .
Tuesday, October 03, 2006
Latest from SBL Review of Biblical Literature
Latest from the SBL Review of Biblical Literature under the NT heading:
Larry W. Hurtado
How on Earth Did Jesus Become a God? Historical Questions about Earliest Devotion to Jesus
Reviewed by Felix Just
Jennifer Wright Knust
Abandoned to Lust: Sexual Slander and Ancient Christianity
Reviewed by Fredrik Ivarsson
Judith Kovacs, ed.
1 Corinthians: Interpreted by Early Church Commentators
Reviewed by Riemer Roukema
Michael Labahn and Bert Jan Lietaert Peerbolte, eds.
Wonders Never Cease: The Purpose of Narrating Miracle Stories in the New Testament and Its Religious Environment
Reviewed by Lena Lybaek
Gerald P. Luttikhuizen
Gnostic Revisions of Genesis Stories and Early Jesus Traditions
Reviewed by Pheme Perkins
Stephen G. Wilson
Leaving the Fold: Apostates and Defectors in Antiquity
Reviewed by David Redelings
Larry W. Hurtado
How on Earth Did Jesus Become a God? Historical Questions about Earliest Devotion to Jesus
Reviewed by Felix Just
Jennifer Wright Knust
Abandoned to Lust: Sexual Slander and Ancient Christianity
Reviewed by Fredrik Ivarsson
Judith Kovacs, ed.
1 Corinthians: Interpreted by Early Church Commentators
Reviewed by Riemer Roukema
Michael Labahn and Bert Jan Lietaert Peerbolte, eds.
Wonders Never Cease: The Purpose of Narrating Miracle Stories in the New Testament and Its Religious Environment
Reviewed by Lena Lybaek
Gerald P. Luttikhuizen
Gnostic Revisions of Genesis Stories and Early Jesus Traditions
Reviewed by Pheme Perkins
Stephen G. Wilson
Leaving the Fold: Apostates and Defectors in Antiquity
Reviewed by David Redelings
New Mark Chancey Report
I am a little behind on this, but thanks to Mark Chancey for letting me know about his new study on Bible courses in public schools. The study focuses on the 25 classes taught in Texas last year and it is found at:
Reading, Writing and Religion: Teaching the Bible in Texas Public Schools
Reading, Writing and Religion: Teaching the Bible in Texas Public Schools
Sunday, October 01, 2006
Color of the Cross
I mentioned The Nativity Story yesterday. There's another Jesus film on release before that, and now quite soon, The Color of the Cross. Both Peter Chattaway (FilmChat) and Matt Page (Bible Films, see most recently Color of the Cross Press Release) have been doing their usual excellent job in keeping us informed of the latest. Unfortunately, it seems that the Color of the Cross website is currently down ("account suspended"), which is not encouraging, but one can still view the trailer on-line elsewhere, e.g. here:
Color of the Cross trailer
The film looks interesting, not least because of choosing a black actor to play Jesus, also its director, Jean-Claude La Marre. There's one rather Ali-G style line in the trailer, "Do you think they are doing this because he is black?" Further cause for concern comes from lines like "We are all different yet we are all the same". Nevertheless, this is definitely one to look out for. Let's hope the website is back on-line soon.
Update (Wednesday, 15.41): the Color of the Cross website is back up and includes a short ad, a minute and a half trailer, and a ten minute feature.
Color of the Cross trailer
The film looks interesting, not least because of choosing a black actor to play Jesus, also its director, Jean-Claude La Marre. There's one rather Ali-G style line in the trailer, "Do you think they are doing this because he is black?" Further cause for concern comes from lines like "We are all different yet we are all the same". Nevertheless, this is definitely one to look out for. Let's hope the website is back on-line soon.
Update (Wednesday, 15.41): the Color of the Cross website is back up and includes a short ad, a minute and a half trailer, and a ten minute feature.
Biblical Studies Carnival X
The latest Biblical Studies Carnival is up and Phil Harland has done an excellent job, with an engaging and lively style:
Biblical Studies Carnival no. 10
Biblical Studies Carnival no. 10
Saturday, September 30, 2006
Nativity theatrical trailer
As Peter Chattaway notes on FilmChat, the theatrical trailer is now available on the website of The Nativity Story, the forthcoming film based on the Birth Narratives of Matthew and Luke:
The Nativity Story
The site also has the teaser trailer and several featurettes. It's a nice looking production; I am very much looking forward to it. Fans of Jesus films can be grateful to the ongoing Passion of the Christ effect of reigniting interest in big budget Jesus films. (If only someone could get the Visual Bible's Gospel of Mark kick-started).
From the two-and-a-half-minutes of trailer, it is clear that it follows the traditional harmonizing approach to the Birth Narratives, with annunciation to Mary from Luke, wise men and prophecies from Matthew, census and journey to Bethlehem from Luke, slaughter of the innocents from Matthew -- and so on.
I've been meaning to blog on this for eternity, but Bible Films and FilmChat are right on top of it and keep posting on the news as it comes in, so don't forget to check them out regularly.
The Nativity Story
The site also has the teaser trailer and several featurettes. It's a nice looking production; I am very much looking forward to it. Fans of Jesus films can be grateful to the ongoing Passion of the Christ effect of reigniting interest in big budget Jesus films. (If only someone could get the Visual Bible's Gospel of Mark kick-started).
From the two-and-a-half-minutes of trailer, it is clear that it follows the traditional harmonizing approach to the Birth Narratives, with annunciation to Mary from Luke, wise men and prophecies from Matthew, census and journey to Bethlehem from Luke, slaughter of the innocents from Matthew -- and so on.
I've been meaning to blog on this for eternity, but Bible Films and FilmChat are right on top of it and keep posting on the news as it comes in, so don't forget to check them out regularly.
Friday, September 29, 2006
More Americanizing
I have a guest post on The Americanization of Emily (with editor's annotations) on Great British Grub.
Thursday, September 28, 2006
Galatians and Acts in film
Over on Bible Films Blog, Matt Page has an excellent post on the way that different films have treated the discrepancies between Acts and Galatians: Galatians vs Acts in Film. I showed the relevant clip from Peter and Paul to my Paul class last week (cf. Teaching Notes 1) and it was excellent for encouraging a bit of discussion about the issues. The film handles the discrepancies brilliantly, tending to take Paul's side, as it were, and aligning the "people from James" in Gal. 2.11-20 with Judas and Silas from Acts 15, so that one has an initial victory for Paul followed by a rethink by James. Barnabas (Herbert Lom) gets shouted at by Anthony Hopkins's Paul about John Mark on the back of Paul's having just shouted at Peter, deftly combining the Acts 15 and Gal. 2 reasons for the split between Barnabas and Paul. And just after Barnabas has left, Silas remains and asks to go with Paul for the next stage of the journey.
As often, films can stimulate the imagination when one is engaging in the historical task and one thing this one makes me wonder when I go back to Acts 15 is whether in fact the presence of Judas and Silas there witnesses to a much more complex outcome to the council than one might realize at first. Why do Judas and Silas need to be sent with the letter to Antioch when Paul and Barnabas, on the logic of the Acts narrative, could have taken it? Has Luke drawn together different strands in Acts 15, one in which Paul and Barnabas effectively get a green light from Peter and James, and one in which a letter is composed and sent with Judas and Silas? I would like to explore this option a little further in later posts.
As often, films can stimulate the imagination when one is engaging in the historical task and one thing this one makes me wonder when I go back to Acts 15 is whether in fact the presence of Judas and Silas there witnesses to a much more complex outcome to the council than one might realize at first. Why do Judas and Silas need to be sent with the letter to Antioch when Paul and Barnabas, on the logic of the Acts narrative, could have taken it? Has Luke drawn together different strands in Acts 15, one in which Paul and Barnabas effectively get a green light from Peter and James, and one in which a letter is composed and sent with Judas and Silas? I would like to explore this option a little further in later posts.
Wednesday, September 27, 2006
Pope affirms importance of Gospel of Thomas and Acts of Thomas
Well, I am being a little cheeky in making that the headline of this post since it refers to only one sentence, but it's nice to see the Gospel of Thomas and the Acts of Thomas getting a mention in Pope Benedict XVI's address today. Here are the last two paragraphs of the address, courtesy of Zenit, with the mention of the Gospel and Acts of Thomas at the end of the first paragraph below:
The fourth Gospel has preserved for us a last note on Thomas, on presenting him as witness of the Risen One in the moment after the miraculous catch on the Lake of Tiberias (cf. John 21:2). On that occasion, he is mentioned also immediately after Simon Peter: an evident sign of the notable importance that he enjoyed in the ambit of the first Christian communities. In fact, in his name, were later written the "Acts" and the "Gospel of Thomas," both apocryphal, but in any case important for the study of Christian origins.
Let us recall, finally, that according to an ancient tradition, Thomas evangelized in the first instance Syria and Persia (so says Origen, as referred by Eusebius of Caesarea, "Hist. eccl." 3,1) and later went as far as western India (cf. "Acts of Thomas" 1-2: 17 and following), from where Christianity also later reached the south of India. We end our reflection with this missionary perspective, hoping that Thomas' example will increasingly confirm our faith in Jesus Christ, our Lord and our God.
Tuesday, September 26, 2006
The Jerusalem Council: Gal. 2.1-10 = Acts 15
One of the big issues, perhaps the biggest issue, in Pauline chronology relates to the location of the Jerusalem council. Is the incident narrated by Paul in Gal. 2.1-10 the same incident narrated by Luke in Acts 15? The correspondences between the two accounts are pretty striking, especially when one allows for the difference in perspective inevitable when one has two different writers separated by time, perspective and person:
This major motivation, to defend the historicity of Acts by aligning Paul's second visit in Acts with Paul's second visit in Paul (Galatians), is actually unnecessary if one pays careful attention to Luke's narrative practices. I will repeat here my remarks from my previous post. Paul's first two visits to Jerusalem in Acts 9 and 11 are in fact the same visit narrated by Luke twice. On the second occasion that he narrates it, in 11.27-30, the notes of time are specific. On the first occasion that he narrates it, in 9.26-30, the notes are vague. Luke is telling this as (what we would call) a flash forward. Notice the phrasing:
But if this is the right way of reconstructing what is going on in Acts, what are we to make of the interesting correlation between Paul's "by revelation" (Gal. 2.2) and Agabus's prophecy (Acts 11.28)? It is important to see what Paul actually means by "revelation". Here in Galatians, and elsewhere, Paul is talking specifically about direct communication between himself and God, not via external human agency. Notice, for example, the way that Paul sees his gospel as coming by "revelation" shortly before the mention of "revelation" in 2.2:
What, then, of the objection that Galatians 2 apparently speaks of a private meeting where Acts 15 speaks of a public meeting? Here it is worth remembering that one is going to expect divergences like this between two accounts of the same meeting, and alongside this it is worth noticing that Paul only speaks about "laying out the gospel I preach among the gentiles" to those of repute (Gal. 2.2). He does not depict the remainder of the exchange as a private, closed one. But even if one does read the whole of Gal. 2.1-10 as depicting a private meeting, and stresses this as a difficulty for the Gal. 2.1-10 = Acts 15 identification, this only increases the difficulties for the Gal. 2.1-10 = Acts 11.27-30 identification. For those who identify Gal. 2.1-10 with Acts 11.27-30 also identify Gal. 1.18-20 with Acts 9.26-30, and this identification only moves issues connected with public / private to another place. Contrast the two accounts:
The biggest problem, however, with the attempt to identify Acts 11.27-30 with Gal. 2.1-10 comes with the burden placed on the proportions of Luke's narrative in Acts. Remember that Paul says his first visit to Jerusalem (Gal. 1.18) was "after three years" and his second was "after fourteen years" (Gal. 2.1). No one is agreed on whether this is seventeen years in total, or whether the fourteen years includes the initial three, but either way we have at least fourteen years between the events depicted in Acts 9 (Paul's conversion and first visit to Jerusalem) and Acts 11 (Paul's second visit to Jerusalem). Even if it did not seem bizarre that fourteen years are thought to have gone by in the space of less than two chapters, the indications in the text are in fact suggestive of a much shorter period. Luke's narrative leaves Paul (still Saul at this point in Acts) in Tarsus in 9.30 and picks him up from there in 11.25, after having told the story of Peter and Cornelius in the mean time. In 11.26, Barnabas takes Paul to Antioch where they stay for a year (11.26) before going to Jerusalem together (11.27-30). This rather precisely timed scenario fits very well with Paul's "after three years" of Gal. 1.18. Luke is here narrating, in Acts 11.27-30, Paul's first visit to Jerusalem, and Acts 9.26-30 was a flash forward. This is a far more satisfactory reading than one which tries to find fourteen years in between Acts 9 and 11.
As if this were not enough to persuade us of the difficulties of the identification between Acts 11.27-20 and Gal. 2.1-10, it is worth adding that in Acts 12, Herod Agrippa dies. Herod's death is usually dated to 44 CE, which does not give us anything like enough time for the at least fourteen years between Paul's conversion and his second Jerusalem visit. In other words, to grid Galatians 1-2 onto Acts 9-11 places an intolerable burden on the Acts narrative. Far from harmonizing Paul with Acts, which is the intention, it just creates anomalies.
- Paul is accompanied to Jerusalem by Barnabas and other(s).
- The point at issue is Gentiles and the Law, specifically circumcision.
- There is discussion with the chief apostles about the future for the Gentile mission
- These chief apostles are identified, in both, as Peter and James. (Paul also names John).
- Both accounts assume the presence of others who are inimical to Paul and Barnabas.
- In both, Paul (and Barnabas) make report of their mission, Gal. 2.2, I "set before them the gospel that I preach among the Gentiles"; Acts 15.4, "they reported everything God had done through them", cf. also Acts 15.11, "they listened to Barnabas and Paul telling about the miraculous signs and wonders God had done among the Gentiles through them".
- In both, there is agreement between Paul and Barnabas and the Jerusalem apostles, Gal. 2.9, "James, Peter[c] and John, those reputed to be pillars, gave me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship when they recognized the grace given to me" and Acts 15.4, "When they came to Jerusalem, they were welcomed by the church and the apostles and elders".
- In both, the account is followed by a split between Paul and Barnabas in Antioch (Acts 15.33-41, Gal. 2.11-20), in Acts because of a disagreement about John Mark, in Galatians because Barnabas joined Peter in withdrawing from table fellowship with Gentiles.
It certainly looks as though these accounts cover the same history, for it would be hard to imagine two such councils, on the same subject, involving the same people, with the same sequence of events, in the same places, and with the same denouements -- right down to a quarrel between Paul and Barnabas ("Once More, Acts and Galatians", JBL 86 (1967): 175-82 [175]).In spite of these links between the two passages, some align Gal. 2.1-10 not with Acts 15 but with a previous visit to Jerusalem in Acts 11.27-30 (for a recent blog defence of this view, see Michael Pahl on The Stuff of Earth). In contrast to Acts 15, here there are few correspondences between the two accounts. The only clear one is that in both, Paul goes to Jerusalem with Barnabas, something that Gal. 2.1-10 also has in common with Acts 15. So why the popularity of the view that Gal. 2.1-10 = Acts 11.27-30? In part it is because the apparent conclusion of the Acts 15 account appears to be different from the conclusion of the Gal. 2.1-10 account. In the former, a letter is composed in which certain basics are stressed. In the latter, Paul is insistent that nothing was added to him or his gospel. Moreover, it is noted that Paul speaks of speaking "privately to those who seemed to be leaders" (Gal. 2.2) whereas Acts 15 appears to depict a public meeting. But the main reason for this identification is that Acts 11.27-30 is the second time that Paul has visited Jerusalem, just as Gal. 2.1-10 is the second time that Paul has visited Jerusalem. Gal. 1.18-20, Paul's first visit, would therefore parallel Acts 9.26-30, Paul's first visit in Acts. And if Acts 11.27-30 is Paul's second visit, the argument runs, it is noteworthy that where Paul says that he went up "by revelation" (Gal. 2.2), which would be paralleled in Acts 11.28, where Agabus has a prophecy about world-wide famine, the prophecy that provides the basis for this so-called "famine visit".
This major motivation, to defend the historicity of Acts by aligning Paul's second visit in Acts with Paul's second visit in Paul (Galatians), is actually unnecessary if one pays careful attention to Luke's narrative practices. I will repeat here my remarks from my previous post. Paul's first two visits to Jerusalem in Acts 9 and 11 are in fact the same visit narrated by Luke twice. On the second occasion that he narrates it, in 11.27-30, the notes of time are specific. On the first occasion that he narrates it, in 9.26-30, the notes are vague. Luke is telling this as (what we would call) a flash forward. Notice the phrasing:
Acts 9.25-26: 25 λαβόντες δὲ οἱ μαθηταὶ αὐτοῦ νυκτὸς διὰ τοῦ τείχους καθῆκαν αὐτὸν χαλάσαντες ἐν σπυρίδι 26 παραγενόμενος δὲ εἰς Ἰερουσαλὴμ ἐπείραζεν κολλᾶσθαι τοῖς μαθηταῖς καὶ πάντες ἐφοβοῦντο αὐτόν μὴ πιστεύοντες ὅτι ἐστὶν μαθητήςLuke is careful here not to say "Then Paul came to Jerusalem . . ." or "After a year Paul came to Jerusalem". He is narrating the event that Paul himself dates as "after three years", and which Luke places in its proper place in the narrative in 11.27-30. As I argued in my previous post on Pauline Chronology, one can see that Luke knows the true chronological location of the first visit because of the anachronistic mention of "his disciples" in Acts 9.25, at a point before Paul has any disciples.
Acts 9.25-26: 25 But his disciples took him at night and let him down through an opening in the wall by lowering him in a basket. 26 When he had appeared in Jerusalem, he attempted to associate with the disciples, and they were all afraid of him, because they did not believe that he was a disciple.
But if this is the right way of reconstructing what is going on in Acts, what are we to make of the interesting correlation between Paul's "by revelation" (Gal. 2.2) and Agabus's prophecy (Acts 11.28)? It is important to see what Paul actually means by "revelation". Here in Galatians, and elsewhere, Paul is talking specifically about direct communication between himself and God, not via external human agency. Notice, for example, the way that Paul sees his gospel as coming by "revelation" shortly before the mention of "revelation" in 2.2:
Gal. 1: 11 γνωρίζω γὰρ ὑμῖν ἀδελφοί τὸ εὐαγγέλιον τὸ εὐαγγελισθὲν ὑπ' ἐμοῦ ὅτι οὐκ ἔστιν κατὰ ἄνθρωπον 12 οὐδὲ γὰρ ἐγὼ παρὰ ἀνθρώπου παρέλαβον αὐτό οὔτε ἐδιδάχθην ἀλλὰ δι' ἀποκαλύψεως Ἰησοῦ ΧριστοῦIn Gal. 2.2, Paul is continuing the emphasis on direct divine motivation for his actions with respect to Jerusalem. He is clearly not talking about the words of a prophet who had come from Jerusalem. Paul does not use the term "revelation" when he is talking about words that come through human agency, even prophetic ones.
Gal. 1: 11 Now I want you to know, brothers and sisters, that the gospel I preached is not of human origin. 12 For I did not receive it or learn it from any human source; instead I received it by a revelation of Jesus Christ.
What, then, of the objection that Galatians 2 apparently speaks of a private meeting where Acts 15 speaks of a public meeting? Here it is worth remembering that one is going to expect divergences like this between two accounts of the same meeting, and alongside this it is worth noticing that Paul only speaks about "laying out the gospel I preach among the gentiles" to those of repute (Gal. 2.2). He does not depict the remainder of the exchange as a private, closed one. But even if one does read the whole of Gal. 2.1-10 as depicting a private meeting, and stresses this as a difficulty for the Gal. 2.1-10 = Acts 15 identification, this only increases the difficulties for the Gal. 2.1-10 = Acts 11.27-30 identification. For those who identify Gal. 2.1-10 with Acts 11.27-30 also identify Gal. 1.18-20 with Acts 9.26-30, and this identification only moves issues connected with public / private to another place. Contrast the two accounts:
Gal. 1: 18. Then three years later I went up to Jerusalem to become acquainted with Cephas, and stayed with him fifteen days. 19 But I did not see any other of the apostles except James, the Lord''s brother. 20 (Now in what I am writing to you, I assure you before God that I am not lying.)Let me be quite clear about what I am arguing here. Those who think that Acts 11.27-30 equates with Gal. 2.1-10 regularly say that Acts 15 cannot equate with Gal. 2 because the latter depicts a private event. But for the Acts 11.27-30 = Gal. 2.1-10 equation to work, one has to overcome exactly the same difficulty with respect to Acts 9.26-30 // Gal. 1.18-20, where one depicts a private and the other a public event.
Acts 9: 26 When he came to Jerusalem, he was trying to associate with the disciples; but they were all afraid of him, not believing that he was a disciple. 27 But Barnabas took hold of him and brought him to the apostles and described to them how he had seen the Lord on the road, and that He had talked to him, and how at Damascus he had spoken out boldly in the name of Jesus. 28 And he was with them, moving about freely in Jerusalem, speaking out boldly in the name of the Lord.
The biggest problem, however, with the attempt to identify Acts 11.27-30 with Gal. 2.1-10 comes with the burden placed on the proportions of Luke's narrative in Acts. Remember that Paul says his first visit to Jerusalem (Gal. 1.18) was "after three years" and his second was "after fourteen years" (Gal. 2.1). No one is agreed on whether this is seventeen years in total, or whether the fourteen years includes the initial three, but either way we have at least fourteen years between the events depicted in Acts 9 (Paul's conversion and first visit to Jerusalem) and Acts 11 (Paul's second visit to Jerusalem). Even if it did not seem bizarre that fourteen years are thought to have gone by in the space of less than two chapters, the indications in the text are in fact suggestive of a much shorter period. Luke's narrative leaves Paul (still Saul at this point in Acts) in Tarsus in 9.30 and picks him up from there in 11.25, after having told the story of Peter and Cornelius in the mean time. In 11.26, Barnabas takes Paul to Antioch where they stay for a year (11.26) before going to Jerusalem together (11.27-30). This rather precisely timed scenario fits very well with Paul's "after three years" of Gal. 1.18. Luke is here narrating, in Acts 11.27-30, Paul's first visit to Jerusalem, and Acts 9.26-30 was a flash forward. This is a far more satisfactory reading than one which tries to find fourteen years in between Acts 9 and 11.
As if this were not enough to persuade us of the difficulties of the identification between Acts 11.27-20 and Gal. 2.1-10, it is worth adding that in Acts 12, Herod Agrippa dies. Herod's death is usually dated to 44 CE, which does not give us anything like enough time for the at least fourteen years between Paul's conversion and his second Jerusalem visit. In other words, to grid Galatians 1-2 onto Acts 9-11 places an intolerable burden on the Acts narrative. Far from harmonizing Paul with Acts, which is the intention, it just creates anomalies.
Monday, September 25, 2006
What's New in Paypyrology blog
I have added What's New in Papyrology to my blogroll (HT: Stoa Consortium). It's by G. Schwendner (Wichita State University).
Friday, September 22, 2006
A Chronological Clue in Acts 9.25
One of these days I will get around to my post on why I'm sure, with the majority, that Gal. 2.1-10 and Acts 15 are essentially accounts of the same Jerusalem apostolic council, but as I was writing that post I noticed something I'd not spotted before and I want to write it down while it is still fresh. The thing I noticed was a Lucan chronological clue in Acts 9.25, but first let me give a little context.
Luke narrates five trips of Paul to Jerusalem after his conversion, in 9.26-30, 11.27-30 (and 12.25) ("famine visit"), Chapter 15 (Jerusalem council), 18.22 (brief mention) and 21 and following (trials etc.). In Galatians, Paul narrates two trips to Jerusalem, the first in 1.18-20, dated three years after his conversion and the second in 2.1-10, dated "after fourteen years". One of the major problems for Pauline chronology is how it can be that Luke narrates two visits to Jerusalem before the Jerusalem council in Acts 15 // Gal. 2.1-10 whereas Paul only narrates one. It is absolutely not, as John Knox was keen to point out, that Paul simply forgot to mention a visit. In Gal. 1.20 he swears an oath about the truth of this narrative. So what on earth are we to do with Luke's two visits, the one in 9.26-30 and the other in 11.27-30?
One solution to the problem is popular especially among conservative commentators and that is to equate Paul's Gal 2.1-10 visit not with Acts 15 but with Acts 11.27-30, so that Acts 9.26-30 is the equivalent of Gal. 1.18-20, Paul's first visit after three years. Thus, while Paul is writing Galatians, the events of Acts 15 have not even taken place yet. This solution is problematic for a variety of reasons that I hope to explain in a subsequent post, but one of the reasons for its popularity is that it apparently deals with this major contradiction between Paul and Acts. (Actually, it doesn't -- it's much more problematic than the more natural Gal. 2.1-10 // Acts 15 reading.) What I'd like to suggest is that when one reads Acts carefully, it is straightforward to see what Luke is doing, especially when he leaves behind little clues.
Paul's first two visits to Jerusalem in Acts 9 and 11 are in fact the same visit narrated by Luke twice. On the second occasion that he narrates it, in 11.27-30, the notes of time are specific. On the first occasion that he narrates it, in 9.26-30, the notes are vague. Luke is telling this as (what we would call) a flash forward. Notice the phrasing:
Now this is something I have always taught students when we study Pauline chronology and so far I have not had any good reason to doubt this explanation of events. But I began to wonder today whether there might in fact be an actual clue in Acts 9 that Luke leaves, the kind of clue that one sees elsewhere in Luke-Acts when the evangelist has drawn forward an event out of sequence. Let me explain what I was looking for. One of the most famous Lucan transpositions of events is the Rejection at Nazareth Story in Luke 4.16-30. He places this event at the beginning of Jesus' ministry, shortly after the Temptation story. In Mark and Matthew, it happens much later (Mark 6.1-6 and par.). But Luke betrays his knowledge of its original location with the extraordinary comment in 4.23, "Do here in your hometown what we have heard that you did in Capernaum." Well, Jesus has not even been to Capernaum at this point in Luke's narrative. What is going on is that Luke is imagining the event in its Marcan setting, well into Jesus' Galilean ministry, and not in the new setting he has provided.
So I began to wonder: is there anything in Acts 9 like this? I think there is. Have a look again at the passages previously quoted:
Luke narrates five trips of Paul to Jerusalem after his conversion, in 9.26-30, 11.27-30 (and 12.25) ("famine visit"), Chapter 15 (Jerusalem council), 18.22 (brief mention) and 21 and following (trials etc.). In Galatians, Paul narrates two trips to Jerusalem, the first in 1.18-20, dated three years after his conversion and the second in 2.1-10, dated "after fourteen years". One of the major problems for Pauline chronology is how it can be that Luke narrates two visits to Jerusalem before the Jerusalem council in Acts 15 // Gal. 2.1-10 whereas Paul only narrates one. It is absolutely not, as John Knox was keen to point out, that Paul simply forgot to mention a visit. In Gal. 1.20 he swears an oath about the truth of this narrative. So what on earth are we to do with Luke's two visits, the one in 9.26-30 and the other in 11.27-30?
One solution to the problem is popular especially among conservative commentators and that is to equate Paul's Gal 2.1-10 visit not with Acts 15 but with Acts 11.27-30, so that Acts 9.26-30 is the equivalent of Gal. 1.18-20, Paul's first visit after three years. Thus, while Paul is writing Galatians, the events of Acts 15 have not even taken place yet. This solution is problematic for a variety of reasons that I hope to explain in a subsequent post, but one of the reasons for its popularity is that it apparently deals with this major contradiction between Paul and Acts. (Actually, it doesn't -- it's much more problematic than the more natural Gal. 2.1-10 // Acts 15 reading.) What I'd like to suggest is that when one reads Acts carefully, it is straightforward to see what Luke is doing, especially when he leaves behind little clues.
Paul's first two visits to Jerusalem in Acts 9 and 11 are in fact the same visit narrated by Luke twice. On the second occasion that he narrates it, in 11.27-30, the notes of time are specific. On the first occasion that he narrates it, in 9.26-30, the notes are vague. Luke is telling this as (what we would call) a flash forward. Notice the phrasing:
Acts 9.25-26: 25λαβόντες δὲ οἱ μαθηταὶ αὐτοῦ νυκτὸς διὰ τοῦ τείχους καθῆκαν αὐτὸν χαλάσαντες ἐν σπυρίδι 26 παραγενόμενος δὲ εἰς Ἰερουσαλὴμ ἐπείραζεν κολλᾶσθαι τοῖς μαθηταῖς καὶ πάντες ἐφοβοῦντο αὐτόν μὴ πιστεύοντες ὅτι ἐστὶν μαθητήςLuke is careful here not to say "Then Paul came to Jerusalem . . ." or "After a year Paul came to Jerusalem". He is narrating the event that Paul himself dates as "after three years", and which Luke places in its proper place in the narrative in 11.27-30.
Acts 9.25-26: 25 But his disciples took him at night and let him down through an opening in the wall by lowering him in a basket. 26 When he had appeared in Jerusalem, he attempted to associate with the disciples, and they were all afraid of him, because they did not believe that he was a disciple.
Now this is something I have always taught students when we study Pauline chronology and so far I have not had any good reason to doubt this explanation of events. But I began to wonder today whether there might in fact be an actual clue in Acts 9 that Luke leaves, the kind of clue that one sees elsewhere in Luke-Acts when the evangelist has drawn forward an event out of sequence. Let me explain what I was looking for. One of the most famous Lucan transpositions of events is the Rejection at Nazareth Story in Luke 4.16-30. He places this event at the beginning of Jesus' ministry, shortly after the Temptation story. In Mark and Matthew, it happens much later (Mark 6.1-6 and par.). But Luke betrays his knowledge of its original location with the extraordinary comment in 4.23, "Do here in your hometown what we have heard that you did in Capernaum." Well, Jesus has not even been to Capernaum at this point in Luke's narrative. What is going on is that Luke is imagining the event in its Marcan setting, well into Jesus' Galilean ministry, and not in the new setting he has provided.
So I began to wonder: is there anything in Acts 9 like this? I think there is. Have a look again at the passages previously quoted:
Acts 9.25-26: 25λαβόντες δὲ οἱ μαθηταὶ αὐτοῦ νυκτὸς διὰ τοῦ τείχους καθῆκαν αὐτὸν χαλάσαντες ἐν σπυρίδι 26 παραγενόμενος δὲ εἰς Ἰερουσαλὴμ ἐπείραζεν κολλᾶσθαι τοῖς μαθηταῖς καὶ πάντες ἐφοβοῦντο αὐτόν μὴ πιστεύοντες ὅτι ἐστὶν μαθητής"His disciples"? Who are these people? Paul has only just been converted in Luke's context -- he is still at the point of being partnered. He does not yet have a group of disciples. What I think is happening here is that Luke is betraying his knowledge that that incident, the escape from Damascus, occurred later in Paul's life, when it is reasonable to speak about Paul as having disciples, and not very soon after conversion, as Luke depicts it. Likewise, the visit to Jerusalem in the next verse is displaced from its natural home later in Paul's ministry.
Acts 9.25-26: 25 But his disciples took him at night and let him down through an opening in the wall by lowering him in a basket. 26 When he had appeared in Jerusalem, he attempted to associate with the disciples, and they were all afraid of him, because they did not believe that he was a disciple.
Thursday, September 21, 2006
SBL Midatlantic Region Paper Title
I was asked this morning for my title for my paper at the SBL Midatlantic Region next March. I was asked to speak on Q, and my title is going to be "The Devil is in the Detail: Dispelling Doubts about Dispensing with Q". Details of the meeting and Call for Papers went on-line today:
Midatlantic Region of the Society of Biblical Literature
Midatlantic Region of the Society of Biblical Literature
Jesus & Utopia: Looking for the Kingdom of God in the Roman World
Latest from Fortress:
---
“Mary Ann Beavis locates Jesus’ teaching about the Basileia of God in a richly drawn landscape of ancient utopian movements—illuminating indeed!”
—Stephen J. Patterson, Professor of New Testament, Eden Seminary; author of Beyond the Passion: Rethinking the Death and Life of Jesus (Fortress Press, 2004)
A Dramatic New Approach to Jesus and the Movement that Took His Name
MINNEAPOLIS (September 21, 2006)—Scholarship on the historical Jesus and, now, on the "Jesus movement" generally divides into separate camps around two sticky questions: was Jesus an apocalyptic prophet and was the movement around him political, that is nationalistic or revolutionary?
In Jesus & Utopia Mary Ann Beavis moves the study of the historical Jesus in a dramatic new direction as she highlights the context of ancient utopian thought and utopian communities, drawing particularly on the Essene community and Philo's discussion of the Therapeutae, and argues that only ancient utopian thought accounts for the lack of explicit political echoes in Jesus' message of the kingdom of God.
Contents:
* Ancient Utopias, Jesus, and the Kingdom of God
* Ancient, Classical, and Hellenistic Utopias
* Biblical Utopias: From Eden to the Kingdom of God
* Ideal Communities in Early Judaism: Essenes, Therapeutai, Havurot
* Jesus and the Kingdom of God in Biblical Scholarship
* Jesus’ Preaching of the Kingdom of God in Utopian Context
* From Basileia to Ekklēsia
Mary Ann Beavis is Associate Professor and Head of the Department of Religious Studies and Anthropology at St. Thomas More College, University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon. The author of Mark’s Audience (1989) and editor of The Lost Coin: Parables of Women, Work, and Wisdom (2002), she has written numerous articles on utopian currents in the ancient world, New Testament representatives of wealth and poverty, and the parables of Jesus. She is also founder and editor of The Journal of Religion and Popular Culture.
Jesus & Utopia: Looking for the Kingdom of God in the Roman World
By Mary Ann Beavis
Format: 6” x 9”, paperback, 224 pages
ISBN: 0-8006-3562-0
Price: $22.00
Publisher: Fortress Press
Rights: World
To order Jesus & Utopia please call Fortress Press at 1-800-328-4648 or visit the Web site at www.fortresspress.com. To request review copies (for media), or to discuss speaking engagements or interviews, please call 1-800-426-0115 ext. 234 or e-mail toddb@augsburgfortress.org. To request exam copies for classroom use (professors) go to www.fortresspress.com/examcopy.
---
“Mary Ann Beavis locates Jesus’ teaching about the Basileia of God in a richly drawn landscape of ancient utopian movements—illuminating indeed!”
—Stephen J. Patterson, Professor of New Testament, Eden Seminary; author of Beyond the Passion: Rethinking the Death and Life of Jesus (Fortress Press, 2004)
A Dramatic New Approach to Jesus and the Movement that Took His Name
MINNEAPOLIS (September 21, 2006)—Scholarship on the historical Jesus and, now, on the "Jesus movement" generally divides into separate camps around two sticky questions: was Jesus an apocalyptic prophet and was the movement around him political, that is nationalistic or revolutionary?
In Jesus & Utopia Mary Ann Beavis moves the study of the historical Jesus in a dramatic new direction as she highlights the context of ancient utopian thought and utopian communities, drawing particularly on the Essene community and Philo's discussion of the Therapeutae, and argues that only ancient utopian thought accounts for the lack of explicit political echoes in Jesus' message of the kingdom of God.
Contents:
* Ancient Utopias, Jesus, and the Kingdom of God
* Ancient, Classical, and Hellenistic Utopias
* Biblical Utopias: From Eden to the Kingdom of God
* Ideal Communities in Early Judaism: Essenes, Therapeutai, Havurot
* Jesus and the Kingdom of God in Biblical Scholarship
* Jesus’ Preaching of the Kingdom of God in Utopian Context
* From Basileia to Ekklēsia
Mary Ann Beavis is Associate Professor and Head of the Department of Religious Studies and Anthropology at St. Thomas More College, University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon. The author of Mark’s Audience (1989) and editor of The Lost Coin: Parables of Women, Work, and Wisdom (2002), she has written numerous articles on utopian currents in the ancient world, New Testament representatives of wealth and poverty, and the parables of Jesus. She is also founder and editor of The Journal of Religion and Popular Culture.
Jesus & Utopia: Looking for the Kingdom of God in the Roman World
By Mary Ann Beavis
Format: 6” x 9”, paperback, 224 pages
ISBN: 0-8006-3562-0
Price: $22.00
Publisher: Fortress Press
Rights: World
To order Jesus & Utopia please call Fortress Press at 1-800-328-4648 or visit the Web site at www.fortresspress.com. To request review copies (for media), or to discuss speaking engagements or interviews, please call 1-800-426-0115 ext. 234 or e-mail toddb@augsburgfortress.org. To request exam copies for classroom use (professors) go to www.fortresspress.com/examcopy.
Biblical Studies Bulletin 41
The latest Biblical Studies Bulletin from Grove Books and connected with Ridley Hall, Cambridge is now available on-line:
Biblical Studies Bulletin 41 (September 2006)
If features the good news of a delay of the eschaton -- the BSB will continue after all, and there is a useful piece on Hebrews commentaries by Peter Head.
Biblical Studies Bulletin 41 (September 2006)
If features the good news of a delay of the eschaton -- the BSB will continue after all, and there is a useful piece on Hebrews commentaries by Peter Head.
Wednesday, September 20, 2006
A Year in America
A year ago today we arrived in North Carolina, USA, having left Birmingham on Tuesday 20 September, flown from London Gatwick on Wednesday 21 September in the early afternoon, arriving in late afternoon at Raleigh-Durham International Airport, and waking up in America for the first time on Thursday 22 September. That first semester, after a honeymoon period at cheap hotels, turned out to be far tougher than I could possibly have imagined, so much so that I went through a phase where I didn't even blog, but happily that was short lived and by the end of November we were well settled, and subsequently it has been an enjoyable year as well as a challenging one. I am lucky to be in a job with great colleagues and great students, and to live in a nice neigbourhood in a lovely area with an amazing family.
Jesus sighting: Jeremy Sisto
A major Jesus sighting in the USA tonight on the premiere of NBC's Kidnapped. Jeremy Sisto, best known here for his portrayal of Jesus in Jesus, the 1999 American mini-series, played the central character Knapp, an independent former FBI agent, now an expert rescuer of victims of kidnaps.
Tuesday, September 19, 2006
Does Galatians post-date 1 Corinthians? III
[See also Does Galatians post-date 1 Corinthians? I and Does Galatians post-date 1 Corinthians? II]
I am grateful to Michael Pahl on The Stuff of Earth for his response to my earlier posts, and to others for their interesting thoughts on Pauline Chronology, helpfully listed by Stephen Carlson on Hypotyposeis. Before engaging some of the interesting issues raised there in later posts, please indulge me for the time being with part three of my series on why I think Galatians was written by Paul after 1 Corinthians.
The point in this post is to ask the question: From where and from whom did Paul receive his gospel? 1 Corinthians and Galatians present contrasting answers to this question, answers that make much more sense if one sees Galatians having been written after 1 Corinthians. The relevant portions of the two letters are these:
In Galatians, he is facing a very different kind of problem, one where he finds himself at variance with others, and possibly even those same Jerusalem apostles. Now the last thing he can do is appeal to "what we proclaim", including in that first person plural those who were apostles before him. He makes the same stress on the importance of keeping true to the gospel that one first received, but it is going to cause grief to draw in what in fact other apostles believe since this is one of the very things under consideration in the epistle. So Paul stresses the divine origin of his gospel -- he received it by revelation, which, in Paul, means something that came not through human agency.
In 1 Corinthians, Paul is able to make an effective argument on the grounds of the gospel he shared with the Jerusalem apostles. They all believe this gospel; they all preach it; the Corinthians have received it; they should not now turn away from it by saying that there is no resurrection. In Galatians, Paul wants to stress that his apostleship, his revelation, his gospel comes from God. He did not get his gospel from human beings -- he did not even go up to Jerusalem until three years after his conversion. (Before God, he says, he was not lying). This is the account of someone writing after the earlier, irenic, ecumenical Paul of 1 Corinthians. It is very difficult to imagine Paul so calmly laying himself open to possible misinterpretation in 1 Cor 15 if he was writing this after the really serious crisis in Galatia.
The point is that it is easy to see from 1 Corinthians 15 how Paul might have been thought to be dependent on the Jerusalem apostles, at least as far as the content of his gospel is concerned, because here, and presumably in his earlier preaching, he has appealed to their authority, and to the reception of his gospel from them. It is much harder to imagine Paul so stressing that kind of line after the trouble he has experienced in Galatia, where he has to go to some pains to extricate himself from the impression that his gospel is received from others.
I am grateful to Michael Pahl on The Stuff of Earth for his response to my earlier posts, and to others for their interesting thoughts on Pauline Chronology, helpfully listed by Stephen Carlson on Hypotyposeis. Before engaging some of the interesting issues raised there in later posts, please indulge me for the time being with part three of my series on why I think Galatians was written by Paul after 1 Corinthians.
The point in this post is to ask the question: From where and from whom did Paul receive his gospel? 1 Corinthians and Galatians present contrasting answers to this question, answers that make much more sense if one sees Galatians having been written after 1 Corinthians. The relevant portions of the two letters are these:
1 Cor. 15.1-11: Now I would remind you, brothers and sisters, of the gospel that I proclaimed to you, which you in turn received, in which also you stand, 2. through which also you are being saved, if you hold firmly to the message that I proclaimed to you -- unless you have come to believe in vain. 3. For I handed on to you as of first importance what I in turn had received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the scriptures, 4. and that he was buried, and that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the scriptures, 5. and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. 6. Then he appeared to more than five hundred brothers and sisters at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have died. 7. Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles. 8. Last of all, as to one untimely born, he appeared also to me. 9. For I am the least of the apostles, unfit to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God. 10. But by the grace of God I am what I am, and his grace toward me has not been in vain. On the contrary, I worked harder than any of them -- though it was not I, but the grace of God that is with me. 11. Whether then it was I or they, so we proclaim and so you have come to believe.In 1 Corinthians, Paul makes it clear that the gospel he preached to the Corinthians was a gospel he shared with those who were apostles before him; indeed he received the gospel from them, and passed it on to the Corinthians as of first importance. In context, Paul is dealing with those in Corinth who say that there is no resurrection. He stresses that the gospel that he and other apostles proclaim is united on the importance of the resurrection: he received it and he passed it on. Paul's γάρ (for . . .) in verse 3 shows that this tradition he has passed on (παρέδωκα . . . παρέλαβον) is the content of the "gospel" he refers to in verse 1. And Paul's "we" in verse 11 is referring to himself alongside those others he has just mentioned ("I or they", εἴτε . . . ἐγὼ εἴτε ἐκεῖνοι. . . ). (This kind of ecumenical policy is used by Paul uses elsewhere in 1 Corinthians, most famously in 1 Cor. 11.16, "But if one is inclined to be contentious, we have no other practice, nor have the churches of God." It is the kind of appeal that Paul cannot make in Galatians.)
Gal. 1.6-12: I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting the one who called you in the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel -- 7. not that there is another gospel, but there are some who are confusing you and want to pervert the gospel of Christ. 8. But even if we or an angel from heaven should proclaim to you a gospel contrary to what we proclaimed to you, let that one be accursed! 9. As we have said before, so now I repeat, if anyone proclaims to you a gospel contrary to what you received, let that one be accursed! 10. Am I now seeking human approval, or God's approval? Or am I trying to please people? If I were still pleasing people, I would not be a servant of Christ. 11. For I want you to know, brothers and sisters, that the gospel that was proclaimed by me is not of human origin; 12. for I did not receive it from a human source, nor was I taught it, but I received it through a revelation of Jesus Christ.
In Galatians, he is facing a very different kind of problem, one where he finds himself at variance with others, and possibly even those same Jerusalem apostles. Now the last thing he can do is appeal to "what we proclaim", including in that first person plural those who were apostles before him. He makes the same stress on the importance of keeping true to the gospel that one first received, but it is going to cause grief to draw in what in fact other apostles believe since this is one of the very things under consideration in the epistle. So Paul stresses the divine origin of his gospel -- he received it by revelation, which, in Paul, means something that came not through human agency.
In 1 Corinthians, Paul is able to make an effective argument on the grounds of the gospel he shared with the Jerusalem apostles. They all believe this gospel; they all preach it; the Corinthians have received it; they should not now turn away from it by saying that there is no resurrection. In Galatians, Paul wants to stress that his apostleship, his revelation, his gospel comes from God. He did not get his gospel from human beings -- he did not even go up to Jerusalem until three years after his conversion. (Before God, he says, he was not lying). This is the account of someone writing after the earlier, irenic, ecumenical Paul of 1 Corinthians. It is very difficult to imagine Paul so calmly laying himself open to possible misinterpretation in 1 Cor 15 if he was writing this after the really serious crisis in Galatia.
The point is that it is easy to see from 1 Corinthians 15 how Paul might have been thought to be dependent on the Jerusalem apostles, at least as far as the content of his gospel is concerned, because here, and presumably in his earlier preaching, he has appealed to their authority, and to the reception of his gospel from them. It is much harder to imagine Paul so stressing that kind of line after the trouble he has experienced in Galatia, where he has to go to some pains to extricate himself from the impression that his gospel is received from others.
Reading the Bible Responsibly —A Theological Rationale for Postmodern Interpretation
New from Fortress:
---
Reading the Bible Responsibly — A Theological Rationale for Postmodern Interpretation
MINNEAPOLIS (September 18, 2006)—In Faithful Interpretation: Reading the Bible in a Postmodern World, A. K. M. Adam, one of the leading voices in postmodern criticism, brings together some important questions introducing postmodern interpretation and arguing its urgent importance for the life of the contemporary church.
Does postmodernism threaten biblical theology, or is it the antidote to the conceits of modernism? Can historical criticism preserve Christological orthodoxy from the perils of “docetic” interpretation? Does postmodernism dissolve meaning in an ocean of pluralism that undermines biblical authority? How do texts “mean,” anyway; and how can faithful Christians find their way through the bewildering landscape of postmodern interpretation?
In Faithful Interpretation A.K.M. Adam takes on all these questions and more, offering a comprehensive vision of an honest, responsible, and faithful interpretive practice.
“For over fifteen years, A. K. M. Adam has been patiently urging us to abandon the modern quest for the holy grail of correct interpretive method. In these illuminating and instructive essays, Adam helps us see not only why such a quest is bound to fail, but also where to direct our energies instead. For as Adam rightly reminds us, for that community called church, the practice of reading the Bible is not primarily about ‘getting it right,’ but about being transformed into a more faithful embodiment of the gospel.”
—Philip D. Kenneson, Associate Professor of Theology and Philosophy, Milligan College
“In these essays A. K. M. Adam deploys his firm grasp of postmodern intellectual trends toward thoughtful, probing examinations of biblical interpretation. The range of topics is impressive. His prose is both graceful and erudite. His analysis is critically acute and theologically edifying. Here is theological hermeneutics at its best.”
—Stephen Fowl, Professor of Theology, Loyola College in Maryland
A. K. M. Adam is Professor of New Testament at Seabury-Western Theological Seminary in Evanston, Illinois, and priest at St. Luke’s Episcopal Church in Evanston. He is author of Making Sense of New Testament Theology (1995) and What is Postmodern Biblical Criticism? (Fortress Guides to Biblical Scholarship, 1995), and editor of Postmodern Interpretations of the Bible: A Reader (2000).
Faithful Interpretation: Reading the Bible in a Postmodern World
By A. K. M. Adam
Format: 5.5” x 8.5”, paperback, 176 pages
ISBN: 0-8006-3787-9
Price: $20.00
Publisher: Fortress Press
Rights: World
To order Engaging the Bible please call Fortress Press at 1-800-328-4648 or visit the Web site at www.fortresspress.com. To request review copies (for media), or to discuss speaking engagements or interviews, please call 1-800-426-0115 ext. 234 or e-mail toddb@augsburgfortress.org. To request exam copies for classroom use (professors) go to www.fortresspress.com/examcopy.
---
Reading the Bible Responsibly — A Theological Rationale for Postmodern Interpretation
MINNEAPOLIS (September 18, 2006)—In Faithful Interpretation: Reading the Bible in a Postmodern World, A. K. M. Adam, one of the leading voices in postmodern criticism, brings together some important questions introducing postmodern interpretation and arguing its urgent importance for the life of the contemporary church.
Does postmodernism threaten biblical theology, or is it the antidote to the conceits of modernism? Can historical criticism preserve Christological orthodoxy from the perils of “docetic” interpretation? Does postmodernism dissolve meaning in an ocean of pluralism that undermines biblical authority? How do texts “mean,” anyway; and how can faithful Christians find their way through the bewildering landscape of postmodern interpretation?
In Faithful Interpretation A.K.M. Adam takes on all these questions and more, offering a comprehensive vision of an honest, responsible, and faithful interpretive practice.
“For over fifteen years, A. K. M. Adam has been patiently urging us to abandon the modern quest for the holy grail of correct interpretive method. In these illuminating and instructive essays, Adam helps us see not only why such a quest is bound to fail, but also where to direct our energies instead. For as Adam rightly reminds us, for that community called church, the practice of reading the Bible is not primarily about ‘getting it right,’ but about being transformed into a more faithful embodiment of the gospel.”
—Philip D. Kenneson, Associate Professor of Theology and Philosophy, Milligan College
“In these essays A. K. M. Adam deploys his firm grasp of postmodern intellectual trends toward thoughtful, probing examinations of biblical interpretation. The range of topics is impressive. His prose is both graceful and erudite. His analysis is critically acute and theologically edifying. Here is theological hermeneutics at its best.”
—Stephen Fowl, Professor of Theology, Loyola College in Maryland
A. K. M. Adam is Professor of New Testament at Seabury-Western Theological Seminary in Evanston, Illinois, and priest at St. Luke’s Episcopal Church in Evanston. He is author of Making Sense of New Testament Theology (1995) and What is Postmodern Biblical Criticism? (Fortress Guides to Biblical Scholarship, 1995), and editor of Postmodern Interpretations of the Bible: A Reader (2000).
Faithful Interpretation: Reading the Bible in a Postmodern World
By A. K. M. Adam
Format: 5.5” x 8.5”, paperback, 176 pages
ISBN: 0-8006-3787-9
Price: $20.00
Publisher: Fortress Press
Rights: World
To order Engaging the Bible please call Fortress Press at 1-800-328-4648 or visit the Web site at www.fortresspress.com. To request review copies (for media), or to discuss speaking engagements or interviews, please call 1-800-426-0115 ext. 234 or e-mail toddb@augsburgfortress.org. To request exam copies for classroom use (professors) go to www.fortresspress.com/examcopy.
Monday, September 18, 2006
New Chorus of Women’s Voices Engages the Bible Critically
Latest from Fortress:
--
"This book is a treasure of focused illustrations, from many cultural perspectives, of how women’s consciousness and creativity is transforming biblical interpretation and thus human society."
— Carolyn Osiek, Brite Divinity School
New Chorus of Women’s Voices Engages the Bible Critically
MINNEAPOLIS (September 18, 2006)— The newly released Engaging the Bible: Critical Readings from Contemporary Women brings together some of the leading luminaries in feminist, womanist, and multicultural critical biblical studies.
In this book edited by Choi Hee An and Katheryn Pfisterer Darr, each woman describes her unique perspective and offers her reading of a particular biblical scene. This is an ideal text for courses on feminist and multicultural biblical interpretation. It includes discussion questions for each chapter and a list of suggested readings.
Contributors:
Introduction
Choi Hee An, Editor
Lecturer and Director of the Anna Howard Shaw Center at Boston University School of Theology
The Prophetic Bible
Cheryl Townsend Gilkes
John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Professor of Sociology and program chair in African-American Studies at Colby College
The Postcolonial Bible
Kwok Pui-Lan
William F. Cole Professor of Christian Theology and Spirituality at Episcopal Divinity School
The Communal Bible
Aida Irizarry-Fernandez
District Superintendent for the Metropolitan Boston Hope District, New England Conference, of the United Methodist Church
The Feminist Critical Bible
Elisabeth Schüssler Fiorenza
Krister Stendahl Professor of Divinity at Harvard Divinity School
The Public Bible
Carter Heyward
Howard Chandler Robbins Professor of Theology, emerita, at Episcopal Divinity School
Conclusion
Katheryn Pfisterer Darr, Editor
Professor of Hebrew Bible at Boston University
Engaging the Bible: Critical Readings from Contemporary Women
Edited by Choi Hee An and Katheryn Pfisterer Darr
Format: 5.5” x 8.5”, paperback, 144 pages
ISBN: 0-8006-3565-5
Price: $18.00
Publisher: Fortress Press
Rights: World
To order Engaging the Bible please call Fortress Press at 1-800-328-4648 or visit the Web site at www.fortresspress.com. To request review copies (for media), or to discuss speaking engagements or interviews, please call 1-800-426-0115 ext. 234 or e-mail toddb@augsburgfortress.org. To request exam copies for classroom use (professors) go to www.fortresspress.com/examcopy.
---
--
"This book is a treasure of focused illustrations, from many cultural perspectives, of how women’s consciousness and creativity is transforming biblical interpretation and thus human society."
— Carolyn Osiek, Brite Divinity School
New Chorus of Women’s Voices Engages the Bible Critically
MINNEAPOLIS (September 18, 2006)— The newly released Engaging the Bible: Critical Readings from Contemporary Women brings together some of the leading luminaries in feminist, womanist, and multicultural critical biblical studies.
In this book edited by Choi Hee An and Katheryn Pfisterer Darr, each woman describes her unique perspective and offers her reading of a particular biblical scene. This is an ideal text for courses on feminist and multicultural biblical interpretation. It includes discussion questions for each chapter and a list of suggested readings.
Contributors:
Introduction
Choi Hee An, Editor
Lecturer and Director of the Anna Howard Shaw Center at Boston University School of Theology
The Prophetic Bible
Cheryl Townsend Gilkes
John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Professor of Sociology and program chair in African-American Studies at Colby College
The Postcolonial Bible
Kwok Pui-Lan
William F. Cole Professor of Christian Theology and Spirituality at Episcopal Divinity School
The Communal Bible
Aida Irizarry-Fernandez
District Superintendent for the Metropolitan Boston Hope District, New England Conference, of the United Methodist Church
The Feminist Critical Bible
Elisabeth Schüssler Fiorenza
Krister Stendahl Professor of Divinity at Harvard Divinity School
The Public Bible
Carter Heyward
Howard Chandler Robbins Professor of Theology, emerita, at Episcopal Divinity School
Conclusion
Katheryn Pfisterer Darr, Editor
Professor of Hebrew Bible at Boston University
Engaging the Bible: Critical Readings from Contemporary Women
Edited by Choi Hee An and Katheryn Pfisterer Darr
Format: 5.5” x 8.5”, paperback, 144 pages
ISBN: 0-8006-3565-5
Price: $18.00
Publisher: Fortress Press
Rights: World
To order Engaging the Bible please call Fortress Press at 1-800-328-4648 or visit the Web site at www.fortresspress.com. To request review copies (for media), or to discuss speaking engagements or interviews, please call 1-800-426-0115 ext. 234 or e-mail toddb@augsburgfortress.org. To request exam copies for classroom use (professors) go to www.fortresspress.com/examcopy.
---
Review of Biblical Literature latest
Latest from the SBL Review of Biblical Literature under the NT heading:
David A. Ackerman
Lo, I Tell You a Mystery: Cross, Resurrection, and Paranesis in the Rhetoric of 1 Corinthians
Reviewed by Michael R. Licona
Dale C. Allison
Studies in Matthew: Interpretation Past and Present
Reviewed by Graham N. Stanton
John T. Fitzgerald, Thomas H. Olbricht, and L. Michael White, eds.
Early Christianity and Classical Culture: Comparative Studies in Honor of Abraham J. Malherbe
Reviewed by Joseph Verheyden
Karen L. King
The Secret Revelation of John
Reviewed by David E. Aune
Michael Willett Newheart
"My Name Is Legion": The Story and Soul of the Gerasene Demoniac
Reviewed by W. R. Telford
Richard W. Swanson
Provoking the Gospel of Luke: A Storyteller's Commentary: Year C
Reviewed by Joel B. Green
David A. Ackerman
Lo, I Tell You a Mystery: Cross, Resurrection, and Paranesis in the Rhetoric of 1 Corinthians
Reviewed by Michael R. Licona
Dale C. Allison
Studies in Matthew: Interpretation Past and Present
Reviewed by Graham N. Stanton
John T. Fitzgerald, Thomas H. Olbricht, and L. Michael White, eds.
Early Christianity and Classical Culture: Comparative Studies in Honor of Abraham J. Malherbe
Reviewed by Joseph Verheyden
Karen L. King
The Secret Revelation of John
Reviewed by David E. Aune
Michael Willett Newheart
"My Name Is Legion": The Story and Soul of the Gerasene Demoniac
Reviewed by W. R. Telford
Richard W. Swanson
Provoking the Gospel of Luke: A Storyteller's Commentary: Year C
Reviewed by Joel B. Green
Sunday, September 17, 2006
Does Galatians post-date 1 Corinthians? II
In comments here and in a post today on Busybody, The Difficulty of Dating Galatians, Loren Rosson asks about the relationship of the following, similar formulas:
But of course we do not arrange Paul's letters in a particular order so that they become more palatable for us. The question is whether the historian can imagine why Paul might have added the phrase in Galatians? As it happens, there is a good reason. Galatians is all about circumcision. Paul is insistent that Gentile males in Christ do not need to be circumcised; indeed, to accept it is tantamount to turning to another gospel. In such a context, one of the issues relates to women. The discussion in Galatians is all, typically, a very androcentric affair, but what Paul sees in 3.28 is that baptism, unlike circumcision, is an initiation rite that involves women as well as men. Perhaps it was this context that caused him to reformulate the statement. I would like to think so.
1 Cor. 12.13: For by one Spirit we were all baptized into one body, whether Jews or Greeks, whether slaves or free, and we were all made to drink of one Spirit.The relationship of the two formulas is clear not only from the Jew / Greek and slave / free pairings but also the fact that both have an explicitly baptismal context. But where Gal. 3.28 has "there is neither male nor female", this is absent from 1 Cor. 12.13. Now if 1 Corinthians was written after Galatians, Paul has taken out the male and female phrase, perhaps in light of the issues in Corinth connected with women in worship (1 Cor. 11.3-16; 14.33b-6). In Heretics, Lüdemann calls this a "treacherous" move, if I remember correctly. So here is an advantage if Galatians post-dates 1 Corinthians: Paul's addition of the more liberated "male nor female" represents his more mature, developed thought, not something that he dropped because his attitude had changed.
Gal. 3.27-8: For all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus.
But of course we do not arrange Paul's letters in a particular order so that they become more palatable for us. The question is whether the historian can imagine why Paul might have added the phrase in Galatians? As it happens, there is a good reason. Galatians is all about circumcision. Paul is insistent that Gentile males in Christ do not need to be circumcised; indeed, to accept it is tantamount to turning to another gospel. In such a context, one of the issues relates to women. The discussion in Galatians is all, typically, a very androcentric affair, but what Paul sees in 3.28 is that baptism, unlike circumcision, is an initiation rite that involves women as well as men. Perhaps it was this context that caused him to reformulate the statement. I would like to think so.
Saturday, September 16, 2006
Does Galatians post-date 1 Corinthians?
I've been doing some thinking about Pauline Chronology recently and one thing that consistently surprises me is that 1 Corinthians is so often held to post-date Galatians. I don't think this is right. I think it more likely that Galatians was written after 1 Corinthians, but before 2 Corinthians. The strongest evidence for this is the role played by the collection in the Corinthian letters and the epistle to the Romans:
That 1 Corinthians was written before the Galatian crisis is clear not just from the role played by the collection but also by comparing remarks made in the respective epistles. Consider the following, one of the most remarkable things Paul ever said:
1 Cor. 16.1-4: ‘Now concerning the contribution for the saints: as I directed the churches of Galatia, so you also are to do. On the first day of every week, each of you is to put something aside and store it up, as he may prosper, so that contributions need not be made when I come. And when I arrive, I will send those whom you accredit by letter to carry your gift to Jerusalem. If it seems advisable that I should go also, they will accompany me.’It cannot escape the most cursory of readers that Galatia has dropped out in between the writing of 1 Corinthians and 2 Corinthians. Paul is still on good terms with the Galatians in 1 Corinthians, and has recently given them directions concerning the collection. By 2 Corinthians and Romans, they are no longer mentioned as participants in the collection. The rupture with the Galatian churches, to which the epistle to the Galatians bears witness, has occurred in between the writing of 1 Corinthians and 2 Corinthians. Paul has lost those churches, and Galatians is his last desperate attempt to win back people he sees as apostate.
2 Cor. 9.1-4: ‘Now it is superfluous for me to write to you about the offering for the saints, for I know your readiness, of which I boast about you to the people of Macedonia, saying that Achaia has been ready since last year; and your zeal has stirred up most of them. But I am sending the brethren so that our boasting about you may not prove vain in this case, so that you may be ready, as I said you would be; lest if some Macedonians come with me and find that you are not ready, we be humiliated - to say nothing of you - for being so confident.’
Rom. 15: 24 For I do hope to see you on my journey and to be sent on by you, once I have enjoyed your company for a little while. 25 At present, however, I am going to Jerusalem in a ministry to the saints; 26 for Macedonia and Achaia have been pleased to share their resources with the poor among the saints at Jerusalem. 27 They were pleased to do this, and indeed they owe it to them; for if the Gentiles have come to share in their spiritual blessings, they ought also to be of service to them in material things. 28 So, when I have completed this, and have delivered to them what has been collected, I will set out by way of you to Spain.
That 1 Corinthians was written before the Galatian crisis is clear not just from the role played by the collection but also by comparing remarks made in the respective epistles. Consider the following, one of the most remarkable things Paul ever said:
1 Cor. 7.19, Circumcision is nothing and uncircumcision is nothing. Keeping God's commands is what counts.The very problem he faced in Galatia was that his opponents were stressing circumcision as a commandment of God. He would not have said something like that after the difficulties at Galatia. Indeed, the Galatian experience encourages him to reformulate the above remark:
Gal. 5.6: For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision has any value. The only thing that counts is faith expressing itself through love.The similarity in tone between 2 Cor. 10-13 and Galatians has often been remarked upon, and it is a similarity that makes still more sense if 2 Corinthians and Galatians were written close in time to one another.
Gal. 6.15: Neither circumcision nor uncircumcision means anything; what counts is a new creation.
Friday, September 15, 2006
Brondos Reframes Pauline Theology
This is the latest from Fortress (strange -- all this free advertising and still not a free book in sight):
---
Brondos Reframes Pauline Theology
MINNEAPOLIS (September 15, 2006)— Even as theologians have become more critical of classic theories of atonement, biblical scholars have continued to rely upon such theories as a basis for interpreting Paul's teaching regarding salvation and the cross. In the newly released Paul on the Cross, David A. Brondos looks to the recent advances in New Testament scholarship to argue for an alternative understanding of Paul's doctrine of salvation and the cross.
Paul, says Brondos, understood Jesus' death primarily as the consequence of his mission: to serve as God's instrument to bring about the long-awaited redemption of Israel, in which Gentiles throughout the world would also be included. For Paul, Jesus' death is salvific not because it satisfies some necessary condition for human salvation, as most doctrines of the atonement have traditionally maintained, nor because it effects some change in the situation of human beings or the world in general. Rather, Jesus' God responded to Jesus' faithfulness unto death by raising him, thereby ensuring that all the divine promises of salvation would be fulfilled through him.
Jesus' death forms part of an overarching story culminating in the redemption of Israel and the world. It is this story, and in particular what preceded and followed Jesus' death on the cross, that makes that death redemptive for Paul.
“Brondos offers a fresh rereading of the Gospels, Acts, and the Pauline letters that will spur others to reread and rethink these texts. His argument raises significant challenges to those who caricature Paul as the inventor of Christianity, as will as to those who follow the ‘New Perspective on Paul.’ This book will serve as a valuable stimulus for exegetical and theological clarification regarding the atonement, the story of redemption, and the Christian view of time.”
— Mark Reasoner, Associate Professor of Biblical Studies, Bethel University; author of Romans in Full Circle: A History of Interpretation (2005).
David A. Brondos is Professor of Theology at the Theological Community of Mexico, an ecumenical consortium of seminaries in Mexico City, where he teaches systematic theology and biblical studies. An ordained ELCA minister, he is author of The Letter and the Spirit: Discerning God’s Will in a Complex World, Lutheran Voices (2005).
Paul on the Cross: Reconstructing the Apostle’s Story of Redemption
By David A. Brondos
Format: 6” x 9”, paperback, 256 pages
ISBN: 0-8006-3788-7
Price: $20.00
Publisher: Fortress Press
Rights: World
To order Paul on the Cross please call Fortress Press at 1-800-328-4648 or visit the Web site at www.fortresspress.com. To request review copies (for media), or to discuss speaking engagements or interviews, please call 1-800-426-0115 ext. 234 or e-mail toddb@augsburgfortress.org. To request exam copies for classroom use (professors) go to www.fortresspress.com/examcopy
---
---
Brondos Reframes Pauline Theology
MINNEAPOLIS (September 15, 2006)— Even as theologians have become more critical of classic theories of atonement, biblical scholars have continued to rely upon such theories as a basis for interpreting Paul's teaching regarding salvation and the cross. In the newly released Paul on the Cross, David A. Brondos looks to the recent advances in New Testament scholarship to argue for an alternative understanding of Paul's doctrine of salvation and the cross.
Paul, says Brondos, understood Jesus' death primarily as the consequence of his mission: to serve as God's instrument to bring about the long-awaited redemption of Israel, in which Gentiles throughout the world would also be included. For Paul, Jesus' death is salvific not because it satisfies some necessary condition for human salvation, as most doctrines of the atonement have traditionally maintained, nor because it effects some change in the situation of human beings or the world in general. Rather, Jesus' God responded to Jesus' faithfulness unto death by raising him, thereby ensuring that all the divine promises of salvation would be fulfilled through him.
Jesus' death forms part of an overarching story culminating in the redemption of Israel and the world. It is this story, and in particular what preceded and followed Jesus' death on the cross, that makes that death redemptive for Paul.
“Brondos offers a fresh rereading of the Gospels, Acts, and the Pauline letters that will spur others to reread and rethink these texts. His argument raises significant challenges to those who caricature Paul as the inventor of Christianity, as will as to those who follow the ‘New Perspective on Paul.’ This book will serve as a valuable stimulus for exegetical and theological clarification regarding the atonement, the story of redemption, and the Christian view of time.”
— Mark Reasoner, Associate Professor of Biblical Studies, Bethel University; author of Romans in Full Circle: A History of Interpretation (2005).
David A. Brondos is Professor of Theology at the Theological Community of Mexico, an ecumenical consortium of seminaries in Mexico City, where he teaches systematic theology and biblical studies. An ordained ELCA minister, he is author of The Letter and the Spirit: Discerning God’s Will in a Complex World, Lutheran Voices (2005).
Paul on the Cross: Reconstructing the Apostle’s Story of Redemption
By David A. Brondos
Format: 6” x 9”, paperback, 256 pages
ISBN: 0-8006-3788-7
Price: $20.00
Publisher: Fortress Press
Rights: World
To order Paul on the Cross please call Fortress Press at 1-800-328-4648 or visit the Web site at www.fortresspress.com. To request review copies (for media), or to discuss speaking engagements or interviews, please call 1-800-426-0115 ext. 234 or e-mail toddb@augsburgfortress.org. To request exam copies for classroom use (professors) go to www.fortresspress.com/examcopy
---
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)