Archive - January, 2009

New Testament Theologies

January 28, 2009 in Uncategorized with 4 Comments

In the tradition of teasing you with books that you can’t actually purchase yet, I saw that James Dunn is coming out with his own New Testament theology. It is supposed to be out later this spring (with Abingdon) and it should be fascinating to see how this important New Testament scholar summarizes his understanding of the entire New Testament.

This also made me realize that this has been a busy few years for producing NT theologies. Recent publications includ Tom Schreiner’s New Testament Theology: Magnifying God in Christ, Frank Matera’s New Testament Theology: Exploring Diversity and Unity, I. Howard Marshall’s New Testament Theology: Many Witnesses, One Gospel, and Frank Thielman’s Theology of the New Testament: A Canonical and Synthetic Approach. And that’s only counting the more important recent contributions. Not being a NT scholar myself, I am left wondering why it is that there has been so much activity in just the last few years. One has to wonder if this is simply the fruit of the backlash against the ‘bibilcal theology is dead’ movement a few decades back, or if there are other factors at work. Regardless, there is plenty of new material out there to digest for NT students, and another one on the way.

Today Charlemagne Died (814)

January 28, 2009 in Uncategorized with 0 Comments

King of the Franks from 768 and crowned Holy Roman Emperor on Christmas Day 800, Charlemagne was the pivotal figure in the time between the fall of the Roman Empire and the turbulence created by the Viking and Magyar invasions. His reign was notable for political, cultural, and theological reasons. Politically, Charlemagne united nearly all of modern Europe under one rule, defining in many ways what we now think of as Western Europe, and by dividing his kingdom among his heirs at his death he is viewed as the progeniture of both the French and German dynasties, setting the trajectory for the political conflicts of most of the Middle Ages. Culturally, Charlemagne’s was the time of the Carolingian renaissance, with its emphasis on educational and economic reform as well as the rise of new musical, architectural, and artistic styles. Theologically, Charlemagne followed the pattern of the Byzantine rulers by involving himself directly in ecclesial affairs – indeed it is with his direct support and encouragment that Western church leaders insisted on including the filioque in their creedal formulations, contributing directly to the later controversy between Eastern and Western church leaders, along with the mutual excommunications that resulted from the Photian controversy.

Thus, rather belying of the ‘Dark Ages’, Charlemagne’s reign was a pivotal time in the development of western culture and religion. The influence of the Carolingian age is certainly mitigated by the subsequent setbacks brought about by the Vikings and Magyars, much of the social and political history of the Middle Ages finds its roots during this time period. For a variety of reasons, then, the death of Charlemagne marked a significant turning point in the history of western civilization.

Today in Church History

January 27, 2009 in Church History with 1 Comment

I’ve decided to start a series of posts based on key events in church history that happened ‘today’. So, on this day (January 27) in 398, John Chrysostom (“Golden Mouth”) was consecrated as the bishop in Constantinople. Widely regarded as the preeminent preacher of his age (indeed, considered by many to be one of the greatest preachers the church has ever known), Chrysostom was well known for his harsh polemics against the crass materialism of his day, eventually being exiled twice for his strong criticisms of the emperor’s wife. Somewhat less well known among us Protestants, Chrysostom was also a remarkable theologian and exegete and is regarded as one of the Doctors of the Church among Roman Catholics and, along with Basisl the Great and Gregory Nazianzus, one of the Three Holy Hierarchs in the Eastern Orthodox churches.

Here is Chrysostom on a key difference between the monastic and priestly life:

If anyone admires a solitary life and the avoidance of crowded society, I quite admit that it is a paradigm of patient endurance, but not sufficient proof of all-round  spiritual prowess….We need not, then, give lavish or excessive admiration to the monk because, by keeping himself to himself, he avoids agitation and does not commit many serious sins; for he has nothing to goad and excite his soul. But if a man has devoted himself to the whole community and has been forced to endure the sins of all, and still remains firm and unwavering, piloting his soul through the tempest as in a calm, he is the one who deserves everyone’s praise and admiration, for he has given proof enough of his own prowess. (On the Priesthood 5.5).

That seemed like a worthwhile reminder for those of us who maybe spend too much time locked up with our books. Although we are not monks, we can tend toward living semi-isolated lifestyles (at least while we are in school) that can abstract us from the everyday realities of ministry. Chrysostom does well to remind us that rather than being a mark of greater spirituality, it is those who regularly face the difficulties of ministry in a sinful world that deserve our highest regard.

The Parable of the Wicked Tenants in Context

January 23, 2009 in Uncategorized with 0 Comments

I have decided to begin keeping an eye out for ‘stand out’ Th.M. papers, those that really seem to exemplify the kind of well-researched, thoughtfully argued, and biblically/theologically informed papers that we are hoping to produce through the Th.M. program. When one of these comes along (and I’d like to see one or two every semester), we will be posting them on this site so that we can all read and interact with them. Our inaugural contribution comes from Ben Johnson on the Parable of the Wicked Tenants. The following is his summary of the paper; the actual paper is available here. Please give Ben your thoughts and questions in the comments.

The Parable of the Wicked Tenants in Context: Jesus’ Interpretation of the Song of the Vineyard in the Light of Second Temple Jewish Parallels
A Summary

By Ben Johnson
The Parable of the Wicked Tenants (Mk. 12:1-9/Mt. 21:33-46/Lk. 20:9-19; also GThom 65-66) is one of the most important and most variedly interpreted parables in the New Testament. Many commentators suggest that the only plausibly historical way of interpreting this parable is to strip it from its synoptic context (in the midst of Jesus’ Temple controversy) and to remove from it its reference to Isa. 5:1-7 which forces an allegorical interpretation of it. I suggest, however, that if we are looking for an historically plausible Jesus, then we are looking for one who both fits plausibly within the Judaism of his day, and yet is controversial enough within that Judaism to have been crucified and founded a community which later broke with that Judaism. By looking at several other Second Temple Jewish interpretations of Isa. 5:1-7 we can see that Jesus’ interpretation of Isa. 5:1-7 in the Parable of the Wicked Tenants fits these criteria perfectly.

LXX. Examining the interpretation evident in the LXX version of Isa. 5:1-7 leads to the following observations:  1) LXX Isa. 5:1-7 shows signs of smoothing or harmonization that is typical of LXX Isaiah. 2) It has updated the viticultural language to reflect the agricultural practices of the translator’s Hellenized culture. 3) It has envisaged the divine judgment upon the vineyard as destruction (as the MT did) but also as the removal of the divine presence. 4) It may also suggest that the phrase ‘a man had a vineyard’ is an idiomatic introduction to a certain type of tale. DSS. Looking at two texts in particular, 4QpIsab (4Q162) and 4Q500 leads to the following interpretive observations: First, in both 4QpIsab and 4Q500 we see the allegorization of the Song of the vineyard.  Second, in both 4QpIsab and 4Q500 we see that the allegorization of the indictment of the vineyard was directed at the Jewish leadership: the temple in 4Q500 and the ‘men of Judah’ in 4QpIsab. Third, we see in 4QpIsab the association of the judgment upon the vineyard with the withdrawal of the divine presence. Finally, in the biblical citation in line 1 of 4QpIsab, there is a change in the text from the MT which suggests an ‘eschatologization’ of the position of the community in its interpretation of the Song.

Targum Isaiah. The interpretive importance of the Isaiah Targum can be summarized as follows: we see that it has made even more explicit, elements which were implicitly noted in previous texts we have examined, such as the parabolic nature of the Song, the identification of the vineyard with the Temple and the removal of the divine presence. The judgment has also been contemporized and extended to include all the Jewish religious leadership by the inclusion of the synagogues in the judgment. The targumic version of Isa. 5:1-7 has also introduced the concept of inheritance, equating the vineyard with Israel’s inheritance, an element which is explicitly in mind in the Parable of the Wicked Tenants. 3 Baruch. 3 Baruch interprets the destruction of the vineyard as destruction which came with the Babylonian exile, but also interprets it in light of the author’s present context, the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 CE. The vineyard imagery has become a vehicle by which to interpret the theological importance of the authors present circumstance. Also, 3 Baruch has interpreted the judgment upon the vineyard as being ‘handed over’ to her enemies, just as the Parable of the Wicked Tenants sees that judgment as being ‘handed over.’

Several elements of Jesus’ interpretation of the Song of the Vineyard are characteristically Jewish. First, in its present context the Parable of the Wicked Tenants is clearly an indictment of the religious authorities, just as the various Second Temple Jewish interpretations were. Second, because of the clear reference to Isa. 5:1-7, the Parable of the Wicked Tenants must be interpreted allegorically, just as all of the Second Temple Jewish Interpretations of the Song of the Vineyard were. Third, the Parable of the Wicked Tenants envisages the judgment as the removal of divine presence (the vineyard owner goes away) just as many of the interpretations we saw. It also envisages judgment as handing the vineyard over to tenants or other people just as in 3 Baruch.

The only unique element of the Parable is Jesus’ understanding of his own role within the story. However, for Jesus to see himself as a climactic prophet, proclaiming judgment on the religious authorities and expecting to suffer a prophets judgment is well within the bounds of a historical Jesus and does not bear any of the clear marks of the post-Easter church changing the text. I conclude, that the Parable of the Wicked Tenants, as Jesus originally spoke it, must be understood to both look like the version of the Parable in the synoptics and be interpreted in its synoptic context of Jesus’ controversy with the Temple authorities.

The Seven Deadly Sins – Theology Style

January 15, 2009 in Theology with 1 Comment

Theology Forum has a great post adapting the seven deadly spiritual sins of St. John of the Cross to the sinful tendencies nearly inherent in the theological enterprise. I particularly appreciated his comments on ‘avarice’ as the tendency to use academic work as a stand-in for true spiritual development. An apropos warning for anyone engaged in academic research. And his warning about ‘justification through quoting” was great! For those of you working on research projects and theses, although I like a good quotation as much as the next person, remember that quotation is never a substitution for argumentation; a good quote cannot make a weak argument better, just more interesting to read.

I think he should have given a little more thought to the problem of ‘sloth’ in theology. His comments on the laziness involved in shirking our responsibility to do theology in service of the church were helpful. There is a flipside to this, though, when theologians evidence sloth by refusing the hard work of engaging in theological reflection and writing. One can easily fall into the trap of thinking that such work is merely ‘abstract’ when it does not obviously relate to some pressing concern of the church. Working as the church to make sure that we are thinking, speaking, and acting in a manner appropriate to Gospel-transformed people is always a pressing concern, and doing it well requires that we devote ourselves to the hard work of biblical and theological research and writing.

I’d be curious to know what you think about his seven theological sins. Which do you find yourself struggling with the most? Which do you see as most common among American evangelical students engaged in biblical and theological studies?

New JETS issue

January 15, 2009 in Uncategorized with 3 Comments

The newest issue of JETS is out and it has a couple of interesting articles for those of you looking for something to do with your free time. An article on OT canon and one on the verbal aspect of the historical present in John are worth a quick look for those interested in biblical studies.

Of a more exegetical nature, Greenbury has a very helpful article summarizing the arguments against understanding ‘the women should keep silent’ in 1 Cor 14:34 as a reference to the evaluation of prophecy; and Davis offers an interpretation of the warning passage in Heb 6:4-6 from the perspective of oral criticism.

On the theology side of things, I skipped articles on divine omniscience and the new atheism (aren’t we done talking about these things yet?), but an article by Andrew Schmutzer on sexual abuse and theological anthropology was well worth reading. So, I will leave you with a quote from that article on the fact that sexual abuse is so devastating precisely because it disfigures the sexuality that is such an integral aspect of being truly human:

Sexual abuse carries a unique devastation factor precisely because sexual abuse distorts foundational realities of what it means to be human: embodied personhood is plundered, delegated authority becomes destructive, sexual expression is perverted, intra-personal trust is shattered, and profound metaphors for God are disfigured.

When (not) to ask a question

January 8, 2009 in Humor with 0 Comments

If you haven’t seen it already, there is an outstanding flowchart going around that aims to help students know when not to ask a question or make a comment in class. I won’t go so far as to say that it goes against the idea that ‘there is no such thing as a stupid question’, but it certainly suggests that many questions should be reconsidered. Anyway, I thought you would all appreciate it.

Willimon’s problem with ‘God’s Problem’

January 6, 2009 in Reviews, Theology with 2 Comments

Bart Ehrman is a classic example of a scholar who has the ability to present sensational ideas in a very readable format and, consequently, make them highly accessible and acceptable to a broad audience. In his Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why, he convinced many that the biblical texts were hopelessly corrupted through ecclesiastical power plays and political manipulation. In Lost Christianities: The Battles for Scripture and the Faiths We Never Knew he ‘demonstrated’ that early Christianity comprised a hodgepodge of diverse and hopelessly conflicting religious traditions, most of which were eventually quashed when the ‘proto-orthodox’ began their rise to power and dominance. Neither of these arguments, of course, is new. Both have a long pedigree in the history of anti-Christian writings. Ehrman’s distinction comes from his ability to articulate these idea in fresh ways that attract much attention (and financial success).

Apparently he has continued his approach with his most recent book. God’s Problem: How the Bible Fails to Answer Our Most Important Question – Why We Suffer. In this book, Ehrman sets out to establish that the Bible’s answer to the problem of evil is fundamentally unsatisfying. Though I haven’t read it yet, Will Willimon has written a rather scathing review. Willimon’s basic points are: (1) Ehrman does not offer anything new; (2)  his anthropocentric focus on our suffering as the fundamental question is misplaced; and (3) his reductionistic approach and lack of imagination leaves him unable to re-conceptualize ‘power’ and ‘love’ in truly biblical ways. If Willimon’s assessment is accurate, Ehrman’s recirculation of old ideas with a reductionist bent is again on full display. Here are a couple of the more interesting quotes from Willimon’s review.

Ehrman proves the dictum that old fundamentalists never die; they just exchange fundamentals and continue in their unimaginative, closed-minded rigidity and simplicity. It’s just too confusing to imagine that God’s alleged omnipotence might be something other than what we think of as omnipotence or that God’s love might be other than what we conceive of as love.

Without much argument, he assumes that suffering is the whole point of the Bible. It seems not to occur to him that one reason not every part of the Bible is preoccupied with suffering and the few biblical discussions about suffering are unsatisfying is that unlike us, biblical people may have had more to think about than themselves. Perhaps they were unconvinced that the question of suffering is the only question worth asking.

I know that Ehrman wants to present a readable, popular argument, but the total effect of his reductionism is likely to be that readers will come away wondering how on earth these Jews could have been so dumb as actually to live and die for so inadequate a philosophy of suffering.

And Willimon’s conclusion is equally biting:

Readers will naturally expect Ehrman to offer his own constructive answer to humanity’s most important question, but they will be sorely disappointed. Ehrman’s answer is the one that we modern, educated, affluent North Americans love, now that there’s no God but us: “to work to alleviate suffering wherever possible and to live life as well as we can.” I find it amazing that after the bloodiest century on record there is someone still arguing that humanity just might be able to get organized and straighten out what God almighty has messed up. This book seems an awful lot of fuss to reach so banal a destination.

Although I tend to shy away from such strong language and prefer a more collegial tone when engaging another person’s work, given the popularity and influence that Ehrman’s other books have enjoyed, along with their own one-sidedness and casual dismissal of contrary perspectives, Willimon’s strong response might well be justified.

New N.T. Wright Book

January 3, 2009 in Biblical Studies with 3 Comments

If you are following the debate that has taken place regarding the ‘New Perspective’ on Paul (how long before new is no longer new?), you are aware that a while back John Piper wrote The Future of Justification: A Response to N.T. Wright that made a bit of a stir. Well, N.T. Wright is coming out with a book that responds to many of his critics, but to Piper’s book in particular. If you would like to see more, Michael Bird has a nice summary on his blog.

Top Ten Theology Stories

January 3, 2009 in Uncategorized with 3 Comments

If you’re looking to make sure you didn’t miss anything important (or, at least, anything that made a splash) in evangelical theological circles last year, check out the Top Ten Theology Stories of 2008 on the Christianity Today blog. I’m not sure that selling lots of study Bibles qualifies as a top theology new story, but most of the others are itneresting.