Sean the Baptist - nt_stuff

Simplicity and Complexity: Depth and Breadth

noreply@blogspirit.com () — Wed, 28 Feb 2007 13:31:59 +0100

What I love about NT studies (and what is true here is perhaps true of any academic discourse) is way in which meticulously detailed study of the texts, using all of the technical skills that one possesses, many years of hard work, the full range of scholarly resources - all this can result in the ability to say things in a relatively simple and straightforward way, such that people who have not studied the texts in the same detail can nonetheless grasp the issues and understand the implications of what one has said. Much of my teaching is a combination of (a) saying a few things simply, in such a way that the group can understand what I am claiming and why it is important and (b) showing how those few simple statements are in fact rooted in detailed work with the primary and secondary sources. Whether I succeed is a moot point. But as an illustration consider these two posts on the Synoptic Problem. One is written by Brandon Wason, and gives detailed information on the way that Luke has used Mark. The second is by Mark Goodacre (who like one of his mentors, Michael Goulder, seems to hold much of this kind of detailed information in his head) describing the Synoptic Problem in 8 Easy Steps.

Furthermore, I think that good preaching combines these two elements. I often think that those who know the most and have worked the hardest, preach the simplest. Complicated preaching is often the result of inadequate understanding and/or preparation.

Resources from Durham NT Seminar

noreply@blogspirit.com () — Mon, 05 Feb 2007 20:35:00 +0100

I have had the clipping to this link for a while now, but for those who haven't see it...

MP3 recordings of the Durham NT Seminar in 2005 are available from the Durham website. The focus is largely on Romans 9-11 and other Pauline texts, but a highlight is clearly the recordings of an extensive conversation between Jimmy Dunn and Tom Wright on Jesus and Paul. Here are the listings for the two terms worth of recordings, but note not all of the sessions were satisfactorily recorded.

11 October
Dr. William R. Telford
"Has God Rejected His People?: Jews and Judaism in the Thought of Paul (Romans 9-11)"
download (7.6MB)

18 October
Professor John M.G. Barclay
"Philo and Paul on Election and Grace (Legum Allegoriae 3.77-96; Romans 9.6-18)"
download (6.3MB)
Note: Due to technical difficulties, Professor Barclay's actual presentation was not recorded, though the discussion that followed was captured.
An English translation of Philo's Legum Allegoriae. Scroll (about 1/3 of the way) down to XXIV. (77) to begin reading the relevant material.

25 October
Special Event:
Professor James D.G. Dunn and Bishop N.T. Wright
"An Evening Conversation on Jesus and Paul"
Part 1: Jesus download (7.5MB)
Part 2: Paul download (7MB)

1 November
Professor Robert C. Hayward
"Jewish Perspectives on Paul's Statements about Israel in Romans 9"
download (10.3MB)

8 November
Dr. R. Walter L. Moberly
"Jeremiah and the Potter (with a View to Romans 9)"
download (10.3MB)

15 November
Rt. Rev. Dr. N.T. Wright
"Further Thoughts on Romans 10"
download (10.8MB)

29 November
Gary Griffith (final year postgraduate)
"A Smorgasbord of Grace: Paul's Use of Charis in 2 Corinthians 8-9"
download (9.7MB)

6 December
Professor John Moles (University of Newcastle, Department of Classics)
"Dionysiac Acts?"
download (10.9MB)
An English translation of Euripides' Bacchae.

13 December
Professor Francis Watson (University of Aberdeen)
"Scripture and Self-definition in Romans 9-10 and the Damascus Document "
download (9.6MB)
Professor Watson's handout.
An English translation of the Damascus Document.

17 January
Dr. Richard Bell (University of Nottingham):
"Paul and the hardening of Israel"
download (10MB)

24 January
Dr. Wendy Sproston North (formerly of Hull University)
“'The Jews' in John’s Gospel: Observations and Inferences"
download (10.3MB)

31 January
Professor Loren Stuckenbruck (University of Durham)
"Does Romans 9.1-5 have an 'afterlife' in 9.6ff?"
download (10.3MB)

7 February
Professor Joel Marcus (Duke University Divinity School)
"Crucifixion as Parodic Exultation"
download (10.3MB)

21 February
Dr. Angus Paddison (University of Gloucester)
"Karl Barth on Romans 9-11"
download (10.9MB)

28 February
Professor John Riches (formerly University of Glasgow)
"The End of the Law in Galatians: Readings in the HIstory of Interpretation"
download

7 March
Professor Philip Esler (University of St. Andrews)
"Reflections on Romans 9-11 in the light of Conflict and Identity in Romans (Fortress, 2003)"
download

Online Critical Pseudepigrapha

noreply@blogspirit.com () — Wed, 01 Nov 2006 17:40:00 +0100

SBL have just sent out notification of the availability of this resource which fills a major gap by providing free online access to the Pseudepigrapha in the original languages. This is the project description from the website:

For some time it has been evident that scholars of early Judaism and early Christianity need better access to the texts of the Pseudepigrapha in their original (or extant) languages and with a critical apparatus. In many cases critical editions are prohibitively expensive or out of print, and scholars without access to a large library have been hard pressed to find them.

The Online Critical Pseudepigrapha is intended to address this problem by publishing on-line, free-access critical texts of the Pseudepigrapha which are up-to-date and academically rigorous. This aim is to be realized by

1) co-ordinating the efforts of scholars who take on the editing of individual texts;
2) providing a forum for peer review of texts as they are developed;
3) developing the technology necessary for the publication of these texts in electronic form; and
4) providing a permanent web-site for the long-term publication of these texts and as a forum for ongoing text-critical work on the pseudepigrapha.

At the moment only the Testament of Job has a fully critical edition, with 1 Enoch and the Testament of Adam in progress. Other texts are simply codings of public domain critical editions. Only Greek, Aramaic and Latin texts are available at the present time. Nonetheless this is an important resource. Fonts are Unicode, but Mac users will need to browse with Firefox (Safari and IE won't work).

Conferences 2: British New Testament Conference

noreply@blogspirit.com () — Sat, 16 Sep 2006 04:35:00 +0200

Others have posted at length about this year's BNTC at Sheffield - for a gathering of contributions see Mark's post here. My own conference experience was marked by the usual combination of papers that got my exegetical juices flowing and others that ... well simply didn't. In the former category was the excellent presentation by Peter Williams on the Saturday evening on John's Prologue (not so much farewell as "gosh you seem to have lost some weight") in the latter category the stuff on Philo and Paul in the Paul seminar - all important, I know, but occasionally hard work. The other bonuses were the usual meeting of new people (Michael Bird's 1st time gretting was "Gee you're a big fella") and buying books. Nothing major this time, just filling a few commentary gaps. I am waiting and saving for SBL in November (Jewett on Romans here I come). Oh, and I was also defeated in a ballot to elect a representative from the theological Colleges to the Conference committee, which given that I was arm twisted 3 hours before the meeting because there were no nominations comes as something of a relief.

British New Testament Conference: Paul Seminar

noreply@blogspirit.com () — Thu, 06 Jul 2006 14:50:00 +0200

The abstracts of the papers being delivered at the Paul seminar of this year's British New Testament Conference have been posted. They are:

Session 1: Paul and Philo

Professor John M.G. Barclay (University of Durham)
'"By the Grace of God I am what I am": Grace and Agency in Philo and Paul'

There is general consensus now that the psychic and pneumatic man in 1 Cor 15 do not derive from proto-Gnosticism. About the relevance of Philo's differentiation between two types of man there is still debate. However, most of those who regard Philo relevant for understanding 1 Cor 15 construe a difference between Paul and Philo, reckoning with the possibility that Paul argues in fact against a Corinthian version of the two types of man anthropology known from Philo. The main reason why this is the case, it is argued, is that the sequence in Philo of the first, pneumatic man and the second, psychic man seems to be consciously inverted by Paul: 'Observe, the pneumatic does not come first but the psychic, and only subsequently the pneumatic' (1 Cor 15.46). In this paper I wish to show, however, that both Philo and Paul adopt the same tripartite anthropology and distinguish between body, psyche and pneuma. Also Philo is of the opinion that the first pneumatic man is subject to degeneration and that, for that reason, the second, psychic man should be restored to his original ideal, the heavenly man. This transition from psychic to pneumatic man is basically similar to that in Paul. Both develop a soteriological tripartite anthropology which aims at man's re-spiritualization.

Session 2: Reception History of Pauline Letters ~(Joint session with Reception History seminar)

Emeritus Professor John Riches (Glasgow University)
'The Reception History of Gal. 6:15'

Dr. Mark Elliott (St. Andrews University)
'Behind and beyond Parker: the key moments and voices in Reformation Romans commentating''

We are indebted to T.H.L. Parker's Commentaries on Romans 1532-1542 (T&T Clark, 1986) in which he deals painstakingly with 11 commentaries proper written between 1532 and 1542. Parker was prepared to state his opinions: Melanchthon was a giant, Calvin is to be praised for his single-minded objectivity(x). There is admiration for Bucer even though he is unreadable. Bullinger is great on theory, less so in practice. Yet, Sadoleto (pace Roussel) is quite mediocre; indeed, as a group, the Catholics seemed to find Romans hard going. They did not use rhetorical tools to explain texts. Perhaps they were looking over their shoulders; after all, Sorbonne and Catharinus censured Caietanâ€™s attempts for being interested in Erasmus NT and the OT Hebrew.

There are three matters in which there is room for complementing Parker's work. There seems in Parker a tip-toeing around controversial and polemical theology and no real account of the awareness of other opposed views. Second, in giving us what 11 commentators had to say on Rom 1.18-23; 2.13; 3.20-28, he does not centre on the passage which must have given the sharpest differences of opinion: Romans 7:14-8:4. Third, in limiting himself to a decade the story of Romans in the Reformation lacks its beginning as well as its resolution. Parker's work is invaluable, but is a spur. In this paper, a review of treatments of Rom 7:14-8:4 and their reception will aim to show more clearly what was at issue between the interpreters.

Session 3: Open session

Mr. Preston Sprinkle (University of Aberdeen)
'Paul and the Law: The Use of Leviticus 18:5 in Romans 9:30-10:8'

This paper will examine Paul's citation of Leviticus 18:5 in Romans 10:5 in particular, and the larger argument of 9:30-10:8 in general. Attention will be given to how the Leviticus citation interacts with Paul's exegesis of Deuteronomy 30:11-14 in Romans 10:6-8. This passage as a whole has proven to be one of the most difficult in Pauline literature and is crucial for a proper understanding of Paul's view of the Law.

I will first examine briefly the various interpretative options that are popular today, assessing both the strengths and weaknesses of some recent proposals (esp. Francis Watson, Ross Wagner, N.T. Wright). I will then argue that the passage can be best understood when viewed through the lens of the hermeneutics of prophetic criticism. One feature of prophetic criticism is to show that the conditionally of the Old Covenant gives rise to its failure, and in order for God to save his people, he promises to act in an unconditional manner. Leviticus 18:5 captures, for Paul, this mark of conditionally, while Deuteronomy 30:11-14 the unconditional act of God in the Christ-event.

Assistant professor Yon Kwon (Westminster Graduate School of Theology, Seoul)
'Spirit as arrabon and aparche: Pledge or down payment?'

1. The Problem: In Pauline scholarship, arrabon and aparche, two crucial metaphors for the Spirit are typically interpreted as reflecting the eschatological tension between the 'already realized' but 'not completed yet'. However, such a view, essentially based on the 'inner logic' of the metaphors themselves, seems to run counter to the thrust of Paul's arguments themselves. A more 'context-friendly' interpretation seems required.

2. A lexicographical consideration A selection of examples (Greco-Roman, LXX. , and NT) will be examined, mainly to demonstrate the multiplicity of their potential meanings. The metaphors are ambiguous in themselves, so the context should provide the interepretive key.

3. In this main section of the paper, I will examine the role of the two metaphors in context, paying special attention to how they actually help Paul accomplish his argumentative goal.
1) Arrabon in 2 Corinthians 1:22 Paul's main concern is his apostolic integrity, with the metaphor serving as God's pledge of ownership of Paul.
2) 2 Corinthians 5:5 Here the sharply contrastive diction between present and future (visible and "invisible") dominates Paul's argument, rendering the idea of a 'partial fulfilment' out of place.
3) Aprache in Romans 8:23. There is similar contrast between present suffering and future glory, with a heightened accentuation of the 'not yet'. The hope is invisible, but we have the Spirit as God's guarantee for the surety of that 'invisible' glory.
4) The present is a time of suffering with the future still invisible. Listening to Paul's argument, it would be virtually impossible for the hearers to take Paul's references to arrabon and aprache in an 'already but not yet' sort of way. Paul is not mitigating the severity of the present by making the future already present, either partially or anticipatory. He is rather giving them encouragement, stressing the surety of their hope evidenced by the work of the Spirit.
5. Conclusion: Interpreting the 'dialectic' Paul or making Paul 'dialectic'?

Much of this looks interesting, although I know very little about Philo and will want to do a bit of background reading before listening to John Barclay's paper. I had meant to submit a paper proposal myself, but missed the deadline; good job because I already have enough stuff to write over the summer. Oh, and don't you just love the name "Preston Sprinkle"!

Paul: Love Him or Hate Him?

noreply@blogspirit.com () — Wed, 28 Jun 2006 13:26:56 +0200

This was the title of a session I led for the "Going Deeper" programme at Heywood Baptist Church on Sunday evening. About 20 people there and a really good, open atmosphere with loads of interesting stuff to talk about. As I was preparing for it a number of things struck me. One was that my tite was probably unhelpful because (a) Paul doesn't strike me as someone who particularly needed to be loved (although the discussion at the session drew out some of the traces of potential deep insecurity that we find in the letters) and because (b) I am not sure that responsible engagement with Paul's writing's require that he be a nice person, or that we agree with everything he says. The overall argument was that Paul's letters are examples of the ways in which we are called to do theology: creatively, contextually and ever conscious of the capacity of the gospel to deconstruct and challenge our attempts to adequately narrate, describe or proclaim it.

I am teaching a Summer School on Romans next week, so this was good preparation.

I ended the session with part of a poem by R. S. Thomas - the best description I know of what it means to do business with the apostle to the Gentiles.

    Wrong question, Paul. Who am I,

    Lord? is what yoou should have asked.

    And the answer, surely, somebody

    who is it easy for us to kick against.

    There were some matters you were dead right

    about. For instance I like you

    on love. But marriage - I would have thought

    too many had been burned in that fire

    for your contrast to hold.

           Still, you are the mountain

    the teaching of the carpenter from Nazareth

    congealed into. The theologians

    have walked around you for centuries

    and none of them scaled you. Your letters remain

    unanswered, but survive the recipients

    of them. And we, pottering among the foot-hills

    of their logic, find ourselves staring

    across deep crevices at conclusions at which

    the living Jesus would not willingly have arrived.

                                  R. S. Thomas, "Covenanters", Collected Poems 1945-1990 (London: J. M. Dent), 406

Did Pentecost Happen?

noreply@blogspirit.com () — Tue, 06 Jun 2006 11:55:00 +0200

Asks Chris Tilling, along with the usual pretty picture. The problem I have with Chris' own take on the topic is the suggestion that because you can demonstrate that Luke has a concern for historical detail and accuracy at some points (the reference to Riesner and Scnabel to which I would also add Colin Hemer, whose work was formative for me as an undergraduate thinking through these issues) you can conclude that the burden of proof lies in favour of historical accuracy at other points. In my view this is simply bad historiography in so far as it flattens out the different kinds of material in a text like Acts into a single category (that of relatively accurate ist century Greco-Roman historiography), rather than accounting for the extent to which an author like Luke can move between myth and history and merge them in different ways and degrees at different points in the narrative. In other words, I simply don't believe that, for example, because Acts 16 is packed full of local colour and thus historical authenticity (as even Lüdemann recognises), the burden of proof lies in favour of those who want to believe that the Ascension or Pentecost narratives happened pretty much as described.

I am reminded of the cautions given by Ed Sanders in Jesus and Judaism I think to the effect that (a) decisions about historicity should be made on a case by case basis, rather than on the basis of wider conclusions about how good a "historian" a biblical writer might e and that (b) the notion of the burden of proof is rarely straighforwardly stacked in one direction or another.

It goes without saying, however, that decisions about the likely historicity of the events in Acts 2 do not exhaust what an exegete might want to say about that text.

Update: Chris responds sensibly in the comments to this post, and typically (i.e much more funnily) here. I like the picture but object to being called a baby-eating Baptist. I only eat those who profess their faith in Jesus Christ as personal Saviour and Lord (Oh no, even I am turning into a narrow semi-pelagian now)

SBL Proposal

noreply@blogspirit.com () — Tue, 21 Mar 2006 13:15:00 +0100

Some good news! It looks like I will be off to SBL in November. My proposal to the Matthew section has been accepted and so I will be presenting one of five papers there. Here is the proposal summary that I submitted:

Re-reading the Great Commission (Matthew 28.16-20) in Imperial Context

There is general agreement that Matthew 28.16-20 forms the climax to Matthew’s gospel, drawing together numerous key Matthean themes and alluding to several earlier passages in the gospel narrative. It is also clear that what Luz calls the “encompassing scope” of this text is shaped by allusions to the Greek Bible and, potentially, the wider contextual environment of the Roman empire.

This paper uses these three contexts (imperial; intertextual and narrative) to address a key contemporary contextual question. To what extent does the so-called “Great Commission” narrative legitimate complicity or active participation in diverse imperial and hegemonic discourses and activities? After a brief review of the way in which postcolonial critics have interpreted this text, I offer a reading, which provides resources for resistance to such imperialist claims.

I argue that recent work on the anti-imperial focus of Matthew’s gospel (Carter et al) is of some assistance in this regard and has particular relevance for our understanding of Jesus’ claim to universal authority in Matt 28.18. However, I also argue that a recognition of the LXX Daniel allusion in this verse invites us to read that claim in the light of the earlier gospel narrative; specifically the Son of man sayings and exousia motif. The command to go and disciple panta ta ethne should not be detached from the claim to universal authority (pasa exousia) that the risen Jesus makes. But such authority is the fulfilment of that which is present in the earthly ministry and future parousi/a of the Son of man. This connection serves to relativise any imperial claims made by Jesus’ followers and remind them that their mission must be characterised by the suffering servanthood of the risen Lord whom they now worship.

This is a development of the paper I gave to our research seminar here at PTE the other week. It will be more obviously exegetically focussed and I need to get down to it over the Easter vacation!

Matthew 28 and the Great Commission

noreply@blogspirit.com () — Thu, 23 Feb 2006 14:53:21 +0100

I am giving a paper this afternoon (to our Partnership Research Seminar) based on some work in progress on Matt 28.16-20. The paper's title is "Mission, Empire and the Son of Man: Re-reading the Great Commission (Matthew 28.16-20)".

The basic thrust of the argument is that, given the complex interweaving of mission and empire in the modern wester missionary movement, and given that Matthew 28 was a key text in the development of that movement (Carey's re-interpretation of its force and focus), there is a need to explore whether this text can be read in ways that do not inevitably lead to either (a) the church's complicity in the western imperialist project (then and now) or (b) the church's construction of its own theological hegemony. The first option is susceptible to the standard postcolonial critique; the second to a more developed postmodern critique.

In the paper I argue that there are two features of the text that suggest that a non-imperialist interpretation is possible. the first is to recognise with Warren Carter et al that the gospel, and specifically this text would have been read by first readers as an implied critique of the Roman imperial project, with the risen Jesus challengiing the claims to universal authority made by the Roman emperor. This takes us some way to addressing (a), but does little to help us with (b). Therefore I go on to argue that we also need to see how the implied reader of Matt 28 is invited to see the risen Jesus in this pericope as the Danielic Son of Man, to whom is given authority as the fulfilment of his earthly ministry and in anticipation of his final coming and triumph. Thus, those who obey his command, must do so fully aware of what that authority does and does not legitimate (cf the ουν̉ of v19). Or, in the words of the conclusion to the paper: "It is not just that the church in mission is unfaithful if it uses the structures of secular imperial power; it is also unfaithful if it claims the absolute authority that belongs to Jesus, for itself and when it wields its own power in a way that is not consistent with the earthly ministry and suffering death of Jesus."

The aim is to use this as the basis for several differently focussed papers over the next year. One on how this affects Baptist understandings of authority; one much more exegetically focussed on the anti-imperial backdrop to the text and its intertextual relationship with Daniel 7, and one on the reception history of Matthew 28.

See, I can talk about the New Testament after all! Whether I do so coherently or intelligently will be better known after I have given the paper.

Dangerous Ideas for Biblical Studies

noreply@blogspirit.com () — Wed, 18 Jan 2006 11:02:15 +0100

Loren Rossen collects the fruit of his trawl for "dangerous ideas" relating to Biblical Studies. The list raises all sorts of interesting questions about interpretation, scholarship etc. Take a look for yourself here, and see what you (dis)agree with and why.