irenaeus on the four pahl children

To paraphrase Irenaeus: The children in the Pahl family could not possibly be either more or less in number than they are. Since there are four zones of the world in which we live, and four principal winds, and four Gospels, there must be four children. That's the best theological justification I can give for what is about to transpire in our family.


Yes, it's true. For those who missed the announcement on our England blog a while back, we are having another baby. The happy event is about one month away--just in time for me to begin teaching again. Ah, there's nothing like teaching an 8:00 class the morning after a sleepless night! But then you come home to a precious little baby, and everything else just melts away...

latest review of biblical literature

The latest NT-related reviews in RBL include the following items of interest:

Michael J. Kruger. The Gospel of the Savior: An Analysis of P. OXY. 840 and Its Place in the Gospel Traditions of Early Christianity.
Reviewed by Joseph Verheyden

Scott M. Lewis. The Gospel according to John and the Johannine Letters.
Reviewed by Paul N. Anderson

Alistair I. Wilson. When Will These Things Happen? A Study of Jesus as Judge in Matthew 21-25.
Reviewed by J. Samuel Subramanian

thessalonian watch: archaeology in the subway

Greek subway dig excites archaeologists
Costas Kantouris
Associated Press
Thessaloniki, Greece

Another subway in Greece, another look into the past.

Tunneling work to build a metro system for the country's second-largest city started Thursday, as Culture Ministry officials signed an agreement to protect antiquities they expect to be discovered during construction.

The agreement follows a massive horde of antiquities uncovered while building a new subway system in Athens, which opened in 2000, with extensions added before the 2004 Olympics. Some of the discoveries are on display at Athens stations.

[...]

Work involving two large tunnel-boring machines started Thursday. The machines were named Cassander and Thessalonica, after the king who founded the northern city 2,300 years ago, and his wife.

Haris Tsimatzis, a government project inspector, said the position of several subway stations and tunneling depth had been changed to accommodate archaeologists' recommendations.

"Antiquities will be on display at at least three subway stations - just as they are in Athens," Tsimatzis said. He said the excavation site would span about 5 acres.

Archaeologists are hoping to find a cemetery, more than 2,000 years old, and parts of the city's ancient wall, as well as centuries of old roads, public baths and other buildings.

[...]

one book meme

I'm a little late to the game, but once tagged, always tagged (thanks, Joe). I don't usually go in for these memes, but Ben Myers' "One Book Meme" has some connection to my normal blogging interests so here goes.*

1. One book that changed your life:
N. T. Wright, The New Testament and the People of God--turned me irrevocably toward New Testament studies.

2. One book that you've read more than once:
I'm tempted to say Goscinny and Uderzo, Asterix in Britain and others in the series (which is true), but I'll be more respectable and say Charles Dickens, Great Expectations (which is also true).

3. One book you'd want on a desert island:
J. R. R. Tolkien, The Lord of the Rings.

4. One book that made you laugh:
Bill Watterson, Calvin and Hobbes (still does).

5. One book that made you cry:
Victor Hugo, Les Misérables--first because of the story, and then because of the length...

6. One book that you wish had been written:
Jesus of Nazareth, My Life and Teachings.

7. One book that you wish had never been written:
I'm not into censorship, but it's tempting to say Dan Brown, The Da Vinci Code. It fails just about every quality test one could imagine and has been read by far too many people. Still, it has awakened some interest in the study of early Christianity, which is not a bad thing.

8. One book you're currently reading:
Francis Watson, Paul and the Hermeneutics of Faith.

9. One book you've been meaning to read:
Larry Hurtado, Lord Jesus Christ. I've read sections, but I still haven't made my way through the whole thing. Same with James Dunn, Jesus Remembered. Terrible, I know. I should be flogged with a slimy, smelly fish.

*I could answer "The Bible" for 1-5 and 8-9 (yes, it has made me laugh), but I'll assume that and provide other answers instead.

camping in style

We didn't get a chance to use our tent in our annual migration to the Okanagan this year, so a few days ago we set up the tent in our back yard. We had a campfire, roasted marshmallows, and I told a (mildly) scary story as required by some unwritten camping code somewhere.


Then the kids and I slept in the tent (most of us made it through the night out there) while Larissa tried to get a peaceful sleep in the house.

latest review of biblical literature

The latest of the NT-related reviews in RBL includes the following:

François Bovon. Studies in Early Christianity.
Reviewed by Joseph Verheyden

Douglas S. McComiskey. Lukan Theology in the Light of the Gospel's Literary Structure.
Reviewed by Gert J. Steyn

Robin Griffith-Jones. The Gospel according to Paul: The Creative Genius Who Brought Jesus to the World.
Reviewed J. Brian Tucker

further reflections on public and community scholarship

I've been reflecting a little more about my last post on public and community scholarship, continuing to work through some of these issues for myself. Here are a few more ruminations before I get back to my real job.

The model I propose is descriptive first and prescriptive second. What I mean is that I am describing what is actually taking place within New Testament scholarship already and then suggesting that this be more intentional, and also intentionally applied to "faith community scholarship." Like-minded scholars who share certain assumptions and prior conclusions about things are already naturally attracted together, already working collaboratively on furthering knowledge based upon those shared assumptions and prior conclusions. I'm suggesting that this be recognized for what it is and allowed to flourish, both within faith academic communities and other academic communities.

Jim West raises the good question about the possible "division of truth" in my proposal, in particular the possible division between "faith truth" and "academic truth." Jim rejects this notion, as do I. In a way this is really my point. I'm suggesting that what happens at the IBR meetings is not fundamentally different than what happens at the IQP meetings: a group of scholars is gathered together to build upon shared assumptions and conclusions which are reached on prior grounds. They are both "doing academics"; they are both "working within faith."

In this, then, I see both the public and the community endeavours as part of a single quest for knowledge and truth. If the Disputed Paulines consultation at SBL split into, say, the Deutero-Pauline Epistles and the Authentic Pauline Epistles groups to explore the interpretation of these letters based upon the assumption of non-Pauline and Pauline authorship respectively, they would both be part of the same quest for knowledge about the historical situation and significance of these letters. The scholar who holds to the Pauline authorship of Ephesians is seeking the same truth as the one who does not: someone wrote Ephesians, not no one or even anyone, and not more than one person in multiple universes, or whatever. Thus, this community model does not advocate multiple truths, but rather multiple quests for truth, recognizing the fallibility and finitude of the truth seekers.

I should add one thing to my proposal: that, for the constructive public scrutiny of community scholarship to work, the assumptions and conclusions of the communities must at times be brought into the public square. It is good for both the community and the guild as a whole when (to keep up my analogies) a proposal for the authorship of Ephesians, or an argument for the existence of Q, or a reconstruction which argues for Jesus' resurrection (i.e. Wright) is subjected to the peer review of the whole guild. When these proposals and their critiques are digested and critiqued both by those pre-disposed toward those conclusions and by those not so pre-disposed, both the community and the wider guild benefit. We can all become more self-critical and less inclined to arrogance and prejudice, and there can be steps made in the progress toward truth or at least a recognition of where the truth cannot be universally agreed upon and why that might be. Allowance for diversity alongside recognition of unity--this is a key plank of the platform of my proposal. (Maybe it's just some kind of Canadian mosaic mentality or my own theological perspectives on Christian unity and diversity, but this is an increasingly important value for me. And this has implications for similar discussions, such as the recent and ongoing discussion over secular scholarship within the guild.)

Let me conclude with two possible problems this model raises:

• For the first I'll quote my previous post: "I don't like the idea of my faith convictions potentially being 'held hostage' to lowest-common-denominator public consensus." I'm sure others would feel the same way, regardless of whether those faith convictions are historically or theologically or ideologically motivated. Still, what I'm suggesting is that there be a dialogue between public and community over those faith convictions, while still allowing for the distinction of "publicly available evidence and arguments" and "community evidence and arguments" within the public and community arenas respectively. Furthermore, I'm not suggesting that each community needs the validation of public scholarship in order to legitimate their search for knowledge based upon their shared assumptions and prior conclusions. Again, this is not the "division of truth," but the recognition that scholarship is done by fallible and finite seekers of truth involved in separate (but overlapping) quests for truth. Community scholarship must always have an ear to public scholarship (and a hand in it as well), but all scholars must be free to act on their own convictions with like-minded scholars, again whether those convictions are historically or theologically or ideologically motivated.
• The second possible problem could be raised by those who in fact see a separation between "academic truth" and "faith truth": Is it true that the shared assumptions and prior conclusions of academic communities centred around religious faith are fundamentally similar to those centred around historical convictions? Can one legitimately compare the IBR and the IQP? I'm sure many would say no. However, as I have suggested in these two posts, I think one can make a fruitful comparison between these two types of groups, even though there are profound differences. As I stated earlier, each community is a group of scholars gathered together to build upon shared assumptions and conclusions which are reached on prior grounds. They are both "doing academics"; they are both "working within faith." Someone who sees an irreconcilable distinction between the two groups is, in my opinion, missing the legitimate scholarship and historical work of the scholarly "religious faith community" on the one hand, and the role of presuppositions, ideology, and even faith in the scholarly "historical conviction community" on the other.

Now back to my regular programming...

public and community scholarship: or, a working model for faith and scholarship

I greatly appreciate Mark Goodacre's emphasis on "publicly available evidence and publicly coherent arguments" in scholarship (see here and here). As my former doctoral supervisor he has modeled this for me, and I've also seen this reflected in all of his scholarly contributions.

However, I would suggest there is also a place for "commmunity evidence and community arguments." For example, one sees this in the community of Q scholars that accept the hypothesis of a Q document and develop historical reconstructions based around that belief. When such like-minded Q scholars gather together to discuss Q editions and such, it is pointless for them to discuss the basic existence of Q, even though it seems there is growing dispute about that fact in wider scholarship (sparked primarily by Mark Goodacre's own scholarship). For Q skeptics, detailed discussion of Q editions, Q communities, and Q theologies could be seen as an imaginary castle built on sand. But for Q scholars, these discussions could be seen as based upon a solid pillar of New Testament criticism. Among Q scholars, Q is "community evidence" and arguments based upon its existence are "community arguments." That's not to say that no Q scholars have attempted to defend the reasonableness of Q--if it were not reasonable at all to believe in Q, there would be no Q community of scholars.

Still, even though such "community scholarship" has its place, when scholars engage in wider "public scholarship," it is important that they focus on "publicly available evidence and publicly coherent arguments." For example, a scholar may firmly believe on historical grounds that Paul wrote Ephesians. However, if that scholar wants a particular idea on Pauline theology to gain a wide hearing and convince a wide range of scholars, he or she will focus on the seven Pauline writings that are nearly universally acknowledged as authentic, perhaps leaving Ephesians as supplementary evidence. If he or she brought Ephesians into the argument in a prominent fashion, the argument might not be widely accepted; the argument might even work without the prominent use of Ephesians, but that use of Ephesians could needlessly distract critics from the otherwise legitimate idea.

Thus, all scholars must be able to work within public scholarship, focussing on "publicly available evidence and publicly coherent arguments." However, there is an appropriate time and place for community scholarship, allowing for "community evidence and community arguments"--for that which is undisputed within the community to stand as possible grounds for new knowledge claims. Still, these community evidences and arguments must be defensible and explicable as reasonable (not "irrefutably provable") within the parameters of public scholarship, even if they are not widely held within broader scholarship.

It seems to me that this sort of model is helpful when approaching the question of faith and scholarship. Scholars of any faith perspective must be able to work within public scholarship, focussing on "publicly available evidence and publicly coherent arguments." However, there is an appropriate time and place for scholarship within their faith communities, allowing for "faith community evidence and faith community arguments"--for that which is undisputed within the community to stand as possible grounds for new knowledge claims. Still, these faith community evidences and arguments must be defensible and explicable as reasonable (not "irrefutably provable") within the parameters of public scholarship, even if they are not widely held within broader scholarship.

I doubt everyone would agree with this approach; even for myself, I don't like the idea of my faith convictions potentially being "held hostage" to lowest-common-denominator public consensus. However, I wonder if this can provide a general, working model for faith and scholarship that can be adapted on a case-by-case basis. I think in general terms it provides the sort of constructive public scrutiny of private faith that Mark advocates, yet it allows for "safe space" for like-minded scholars to work collaboratively within their own faith communities.

UPDATE: I've posted some further reflections here.

canada lacrosse world champions

Canada has won gold at the World Lacrosse Championships. After our Olympic letdown this past February, it's nice to see Canada at the top in at least one of its two national sports...

a facsimile of heaven

The Anna Magdalena transcription of Bach's Cello Suite No.1 in G Major...
I know the Prelude in particular is done to death in film and elsewhere, but every time I hear Yo-Yo Ma draw his bow across the string for that first note, I close my eyes and I'm transported to the third heaven, whether in the body or out of it I do not know...

a letter to a fundamentalist

The following letter came out of a recent, difficult experience. I have adapted it here to be more generic. I post it with the thought that it could be of use to someone else.

Dear fellow believer in Christ,

After much prayerful reflection on our recent discussion, I wish to summarize what I think are the most significant differences between your perspective and mine. I urge you to consider these things carefully.

First, it all begins with the doctrine of Scripture. By this I don't mean any particular doctrine which Scripture teaches, or Scripture's teaching as a whole. I mean the doctrine about Scripture, the nature and means of God's revelation in Scripture. Scripture's own self-testimony is that it is fully from God and fully from human beings, 100% divine and 100% human: for example, biblical passages ascribe both human and divine origins to Scripture (e.g. Mark 12:36; Matt 15:4 cf. Mark 7:10); the concept of "inspiration" or Scripture being "God-breathed" in the foundational text of 2 Timothy 3:16 recalls Genesis 2:7, where God shapes natural materials and breathes into them to create that which is living and active; and the historical, cultural, and literary nature of the biblical writings attests to their human dimension. Your view, on the other hand, is essentially a docetic view of Scripture: it is fully from God but only seems to be from human beings, 100% divine but only apparently human. Yes, you claim to acknowledge the role of the human authors of Scripture, but you fail to follow through on the full implications of the fully human dimension of Scripture. Instead, you create a chain of logic based upon your own understanding of what the fully divine dimension of Scripture must entail, without taking into account these full implications of the fully human dimension of Scripture. I know you seek to exalt God in the Scriptures, but ironically your view in fact dishonours the God of Scripture: you fail to submit to the way in which God has sovereignly chosen to reveal himself in Scripture, through fully human means. I know you seek to place divine revelation above human reason, but ironically, because you do not completely acknowledge the mystery of God's fully divine, fully human revelation in Scripture, your view places your own logic above God's revelation.

Second, our disagreement involves biblical hermeneutics, that is, the approach and methods of biblical interpretation. Because of your doctrine of Scripture outlined above, and in spite of Scripture's own self-testimony, you strip the Scriptures of their historical dimension, flattening them into a purely theological and spiritual book. You ignore the particular historical, linguistic, and cultural means and contexts through which God has chosen to reveal himself in Scripture, and the historical and textual transmission and use of Scripture which God has overseen. You pull biblical statements out of one context and apply them in an undiscerning fashion to all possible contexts, or just to those contexts which you choose. I know you seek to honour God in your interpretation of Scripture, but ironically, this view dishonours the God of Scripture by failing to submit to the way in which God has sovereignly chosen to reveal himself in Scripture, through historical means. I know you seek to emphasize the theological authority of Scripture, but ironically your view actually flattens the theological dimension of Scripture, because it places the high points of God's revelation in biblical history (especially Christ himself) on the same footing as all other divine revelation in biblical history. Furthermore, because of your doctrine of Scripture outlined above, and in spite of Scripture's own self-testimony (e.g. Acts 8:31), you do not see any role for the human being—for yourself—in interpreting Scripture. You fail to acknowledge that Scripture contains "some things hard to be understood" (2 Peter 3:16), and that in this present age we can only "know in part" (1 Corinthians 13:12). Instead, you insist that your own interpretation is as Scripture itself, that your interpretation of Scripture is what "God says." I know you seek to hold to the truth of God with steadfast conviction, but ironically you are in fact at great risk of putting the interpretations and traditions of men—of yourself—in the place of God's revelation.

These two points are the foundations of our disagreement. Other areas of our discussion derive from these two points; let me outline two of these briefly.

One of these further areas of disagreement is the discernment among doctrines which are: essential to believe for salvation; essential to an orthodox Christian faith; important for the life of the Church and the believer; important for a full knowledge of the truth but not essential for salvation, orthodoxy, or Christian living; matters of personal preference; and so on. Because you have removed the historical dimension of Scripture and flattened its theological dimension, as described above, you fail to discern among these matters. Instead, you see them all as integrally related in a way that Scripture itself does not describe; you create your own chain of logic from one doctrine to another and make peripheral matters central. You claim the centrality of God's work in Christ, yet you exalt other doctrines to the same place as this, and thus strip the centrality of God's work in Christ from its power. I know you desire to hold fast to correct doctrine, but ironically you are in fact at great risk of putting the doctrines of men—of yourself—in the place of the gospel.

This leads to another area of disagreement: the way in which Christians relate both to those who hold to the essential/important doctrines and to those who do not. This is a very large topic, but let me highlight a couple of key points. Because of your view of Scripture and biblical interpretation, as described above, you take the various statements in Scripture regarding "separation" out of their immediate contexts and apply them absolutely in all contexts, or even just the contexts you choose. Statements such as those in Romans 16:17, Ephesians 5:11, 2 Corinthians 6:17, and 1 Timothy 6:5, are describing the fellowship of Christians as they gather together for corporate worship, prayer, instruction in the Word, and so on. In this setting the fellowship of believers cannot have moral or doctrinal impurity in its midst. These passages do not relate to other settings to which you apply them, such as business or academic contexts. Beyond this, other passages are more relevant in defining our interaction with the ideas of those with whom we disagree, even ideas which we feel are unbiblical. We are, for example, to "[cast down] imaginations, and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God, and [bring] into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ" (2 Cor 10:5). This "taking thoughts captive" necessitates, not withdrawal from such ideas and critiquing these ideas from a distance, but direct engagement with such ideas and direct interaction with those who hold these ideas.

Scripture in fact encourages us to seek truth where it may be found, and in particular we are encouraged to learn from all servants of God who submit to the Lordship of Christ, and to be slow in pronouncing judgment upon them: "For all things are yours; Whether Paul, or Apollos, or Cephas, or the world, or life, or death, or things present, or things to come; all are yours; And ye are Christ’s; and Christ is God’s. Let a man so account of us, as of the ministers of Christ, and stewards of the mysteries of God. Moreover it is required in stewards, that a man be found faithful. But with me it is a very small thing that I should be judged of you, or of man’s judgment: yea, I judge not mine own self. For I know nothing by myself; yet am I not hereby justified: but he that judgeth me is the Lord. Therefore judge nothing before the time, until the Lord come, who both will bring to light the hidden things of darkness, and will make manifest the counsels of the hearts: and then shall every man have praise of God." (1 Cor 3:21-4:5).

Fellow believer in Christ, I fear that you are in danger of glorifying a God of your own making and a Bible of your own invention, rather than the one true God revealed in holy and inspired Scripture. I fear that you are in danger of promoting an unbiblical disunity among Christians who are rightly centred on the saving gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ as revealed in Scripture and witnessed by God's people through history. I urge you in the Lord to humble yourself before the Lord, to repent of your sin of pride, and to cast yourself on the abundant mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ. I will do the same, and perhaps we will then find some common ground.

Michael Pahl

latest journal for the study of the new testament

The latest issue of JSNT is online: 1 September 2006; Vol. 29, No. 1. Articles include Terence Donaldson on "Jewish Christianity, Israel's Stumbling and the Sonderweg Reading of Paul," Kelli O'Brien on "The Curse of the Law (Galatians 3.13)," and Hanna Roose on "'A Letter as by Us': Intentional Ambiguity in 2 Thessalonians 2.2."

latest review of biblical literature

There are several New Testament-related reviews in the latest RBL postings. A sample:

Bock, Darrell L., and Gregory J. Herrick, eds. Jesus in Context: Background Readings for Gospel Study.
Reviewed by Michael Schufer

Holladay, Carl R. A Critical Introduction to the New Testament: Interpreting the Message and Meaning of Jesus Christ.
Reviewed by Jan van der Watt

Keener, Craig S. 1-2 Corinthians.
Reviewed by Friedrich Horn

Luz, Ulrich. Matthew 21-28.
Reviewed by Edgar Krentz

Meeks, Wayne A. Christ Is the Question.
Reviewed by James D. G. Dunn

latest novum testamentum

The latest issue of Novum Testamentum is online for subscribers: Volume 48, Number 3, June 2006. It includes articles such as Joong Suk Suh on "Das Weltgericht und die Matthaische Gemeinde" and Akio Ito on "The Written Torah and the Oral Gospel: Romans 10:5-13 in the Dynamic Tension between Orality and Literacy."

the historicity of jesus, part five: the significance of jesus' historicity

Belief in Jesus' historicity may be said to be reasonable on the basis of historical evidence and reconstruction. But having made the choice to accept Jesus' historicity, what have we gained? Why is Jesus' historicity significant?

In historical terms, of course, belief in Jesus' historicity is the starting point for any historical investigation into the life and thought of Jesus. Clearly one cannot attempt to reconstruct the life events, the public influence, or even the inner thought of someone whom one does not believe to have existed in history. And this attempt is no small thing, considering the importance of Jesus for Christianity and the importance of Christianity in western history and thought as well as in the current religious climate of the world.

However, in general historical terms it seems to me that belief in Jesus' historicity has been more significant historically than Jesus' historicity itself. Western history wouldn't be discernibly different if Jesus were only widely believed to have historically existed than if he did in fact historically exist. [Editorial update: In view of comments by James and Stephen below, I would add the following clarification: "The life and thought of Jesus as it was remembered and passed on had great significance for the development of early Christianity; but the basic fact of Jesus' historicity, though a necessary condition for the development of early Christianity as we know it, was not in itself directly significant in shaping that development."]

Perhaps ironically, then, I would suggest that the most significant implications of Jesus' historicity are theological, approaching Jesus as the Messiah, Lord, and Son of God of Christian theology. I would summarize these theological implications in two statements:

• Jesus' historicity affirms the essential "goodness" of human history. Jesus' existence as a man in history demolishes any type of "temporally privileged dualism"--any dualism that privileges eternity over time, or the future over the past.
• Jesus' historicity affirms the essential "goodness" of the created order. Jesus' existence as a man in history demolishes any type of "metaphysically privileged dualism"--any dualism that privileges the spiritual or non-material at the expense of the physical or material.

These two points--both time and space sanctified by God in the historical man Jesus--have profound repercussions throughout all of Christian theology. Doctrines of God, of Christ, of creation, of humanity, of salvation, of the Church, of eschatology--all are affected by this divine affirmation of human time and space. God may be transcendent beyond time and space, but he mysteriously makes himself immanent within human history and human space, even revealing himself through them. Christ's humanity is not simply an unfortunate add-on to his personhood, but a divinely necessary aspect of who he is; and his is a real humanity, existing in the limitations of space and time just as all humans do. Creation was not a whim of an ambivalent God, but the intentional action of a loving, involved Father who, through the sending of his Son in the full participation of creation, demonstrates his desire for its ongoing care. Humanity is not an infinite, eternal spiritual essence ensnared in finite and temporal human flesh; humans are whole beings, materially and non-materially together created "good," intended by God to live as finite creatures within space and time. Salvation is not merely about the future, promising endless existence in spiritual bliss, but it is also, even primarily, about the past and the continual present, involving the divine transformation of time and space--human existence, all existence--into the universe of God's intention. And eschatology, the focus on the future, is to be seen through the lens of the past, with Jesus' historical existence--particularly his self-giving death and transformative resurrection--narrating the ongoing present and upcoming future of his people and his creation.

Thus, through the back door of theology, Jesus' historicity has tremendous significance for human history. And perhaps one could argue this is the most important implication of Jesus' historicity: that theology and history find their nexus in the historical person and life of Jesus, Lessing's "ugly wide ditch" dissolving as if merely a mirage, a trick of the Enlightenment's fading light...

Image: Rembrandt, The Head of Christ (Olga's Gallery)

the historicity of jesus, part four: the nature of historical knowledge

A careful reader of the previous two parts to this series will notice that I have avoided the language of "proof" in describing evidences for Jesus' historicity. "Proof" is stronger language than "evidence" or "reason" or "justification"; to me, at least, "proof" implies evidence that is thought to be irrefutable, incapable of any alternative interpretation. However, history just doesn't work that way. History as "the past" is past: it cannot be repeated in a lab, controlling all variables until they are known, analyzing it through personal, empirical observation. Any given ancient event, any ancient person, is lost and unrecoverable, except either as memory transcribed in written records or transmitted in oral testimony, always written or spoken and interpreted from finite and fallible perspectives; or in material remains, the paraphernalia of the past, itself necessitating an inevitably finite and fallible interpretation. This means that history as "doing history" is a matter of probabilities, not certainties; it involves interpretive reconstruction, not univocal facts. To claim by historical means that Jesus existed as a historical person is thus a claim that Jesus' historicity is the best interpretation, the most probable reconstruction, of the available evidence.

This is clearly a step away from proving the irrefutable certainty of Jesus' historicity--or, for that matter, proving the irrefutable certainty of Jesus' non-historicity. In these approaches, the modernist lust for certainty mixes with the foundationalist desire for irrefutable facts and the evidentialist yearning for cumulative evidence crossing some universal threshhold, creating impossible conditions and expectations for historical questions. "Proving irrefutable certainty" is just not an option in historical matters.

But I'd like to step back even further and reflect on how people come to believe (or disbelieve) that Jesus actually existed in history. I would suggest that almost everyone who has heard of Jesus at all begins with an assumption that Jesus existed historically. At some point, this assumption may be challenged by claims and evidence, a challenge which necessitates an act of the will as much as one of the mind: a host of psycho-social forces inevitably comes into play, either pulling away from acceptance of Jesus' historicity and pushing toward its denial, or vice versa. At that point the person will read the claims and counterclaims, the evidence for and against, and either attempt to justify their previous belief, retain their basic belief but have it adapted to new ideas, or deny their previous belief in Jesus' historicity--all while consciously or subconsciously navigating the psycho-social currents attempting to influence them. The point of this generic description is simply that we don't come at this question from a position of neutrality, nor is it approached simply as an intellectual matter, however much we believe either to be the case. Belief is prior to disbelief, and skepticism is not a neutral position.

Jesus, of course, didn't exist in history simply as a "probability." Either he existed or he didn't. Therefore, before one can even evaluate any other claims about Jesus or investigate any other historical questions related to Jesus, one must make a choice on this basic point. One must take a step of faith either way; or perhaps more accurately, either one must affirm the prior assumption of Jesus' historicity by faith on the basis of the judgment of probabilities and interpretive reconstruction, or one must deny that prior assumption by faith in alternative probabilities and reconstruction. This doesn't leave anyone in a very secure position, at least not rationally. But it does leave everyone in a more honest position, the only position open to fallible, finite human beings: a position of faith.

Image: Rembrandt, The Supper at Emmaus (Olga's Gallery)

the historicity of jesus, part three: better evidence for jesus' historicity

The early non-Christian witnesses to Jesus' historicity can function as "supporting evidence" for Jesus' historicity, but they are inadequate on their own to demonstrate the reasonableness of such a belief. In my opinion, the best historical bases for belief in Jesus' historicity are found in the New Testament itself.



The perspective of the earliest Christian writings

The earliest Christian writings all assume Jesus' historicity. As a bald statement this doesn't sound very promising, since one can easily assume something that is contrary to fact. But this idea deserves further exploration, especially focussing on those writings that are most likely the earliest references to Jesus anywhere: Paul's letters (40s-50s C.E.).

Paul's relationship to the historical Jesus is ambiguous; some would say it was ambivalent. Paul's theological centre clearly lay elsewhere, not in the bare fact of the historicity of Jesus or in the historical events of Jesus' life. Nevertheless, he believed Jesus to have been a historical figure, and Jesus' historical existence had at least some measure of historical-theological significance for Paul: at the very least in seeing Jesus as a Jew under Torah, indeed the Jewish Messiah born of the lineage of David, who died through crucifixion and was subsequently resurrected (Rom 1:3; 1 Cor 11:23-25; 15:1-8; Gal 4:4).* Paul clearly believed more than this about Jesus, but none of this additional belief negates this assumed belief in Jesus' existence as a historical person.**

This strange mix--the assumption of Jesus' historicity combined with the relative de-centering of Jesus' historicity--strikes me as highly significant. It indicates that if there was some conspiracy to create a fictitious person named Jesus, or even some sort of natural evolution toward belief in Jesus' historicity, it pre-dated Paul's call and Paul was unaware of it either before or after his call. If Paul was, on the one hand, creating or reinforcing the myth of Jesus' historicity, or, on the other hand, creating or reinforcing an entirely ahistorical Jesus myth, he did a very poor job either way. As noted above, his writings betray no intention to defend either Jesus' historicity or his ahistoricity. Furthermore, it makes very little sense for Paul to have persecuted a group of Jews which he knew had created a fictitious person whom they believed to be the Messiah, and it makes even less sense for Paul to have suddenly become part of this group because he believed he saw this fictitious person. So, it seems to me that any possible creation of a fictitious Jesus must have been prior to Paul, our earliest witness, in which case we have absolutely no clear extant evidence upon which either to assert or to deny the claim of Jesus' non-historicity.

The nature and intention of the canonical Gospels

The problem of the genre of the Gospels is one that will never be fully solved to all scholars' satisfaction, for this simple reason: they are clearly similar to some kinds of ancient writings and clearly different from others, yet they are not entirely like any other ancient writing and they are most similar to one another. The idea of the Gospels as truly sui generis is impossible; if the Gospels were completely unlike anything else, there would be no precedent within which any meaningful author-reader relationship, any interpretive expectations, could be achieved. Authors can certainly stretch generic boundaries, merge existing genres, and so on, such that genres constantly evolve, but at any given point in time a particular writing must be like something else that people have read before.

Whatever genre we ascribe to them, the canonical Gospels look like some sort of ancient historical or biographical writing, however much they are permeated by a Christian agenda. They each make different sorts of claims related to their historicity--some explicit, some more implicit--but they all make some such claims. Luke and John, probably the last to be written (ca. 70-100 C.E.), most explicitly describe their works as in some sense and at least to some extent an attempt to describe past events (Luke 1:1-4; John 20:30-31). However, even Mark, the earliest Gospel (ca. 50-70 C.E.), contains suggestive hints that only seem to make sense as describing what the author believed to be some kind of real, past events (e.g. Mark 15:21). Furthermore, every early reader we know of read the Gospels as in some way historical-biographical, speaking about a historical person, even as they offer theological descriptions of this historical person. However much one might be tempted to discern legendary embellishments or ideological redaction--just as one might in Suetonius' Lives or Josephus' Wars--the Gospels attributed those things to someone the authors and readers believed to have lived in the past. Given the way genres work, as noted above, it seems very odd to propose that all early readers of the Gospels mis-read the genre, that some sort of fictional or mythical genre was consistently mis-read as historical or biographical by those closest to their writing.

Of course, just because the authors believed they were writing about a historical person does not mean the person actually existed. However, it does mean that by the time of the Gospels' writing (ca. 50-100 C.E.) there was a substantial body of material which was believed to originate with the life of the historical man Jesus, and that this belief was fairly widespread.

Final thoughts on the historical evidence for Jesus

Both the most extensive early material related to Jesus (the canonical Gospels) and the earliest extant material related to Jesus (Paul's writings) point to Jesus' historicity, even as they point to extensive and early theological interpretation of Jesus' life and teachings. In fact, the nature of the early sources witnessing to Jesus' historicity is exactly what we might expect for a person who, as the Christian sources themselves indicate, had at most a few hundred faithful followers at his death, only a few hundred people in the whole Empire who even cared what happened to him; yet a person who became truly famous only after his death, through the belief of these and subsequently thousands of others that he had been resurrected from the dead. In this scenario one would not expect contemporary records, official or otherwise, to have survived for such a marginal Jew in the backwoods of the early Roman Empire. Yet in this scenario one would expect to see later written accounts and references to this person, ideologically and theologically laden. But if Jesus were simply a fictitious person created to legitimize an already established socio-religious system, then one would expect the sources to be different. One would not expect such an early assumption in Jesus' historical existence in the earliest Christian records, with no evidence of it as a novelty or a matter of dispute. Indeed, one would expect some sort of witness to a Jesus-less socio-religious movement that could eventually become the supposed entity which would require a mythic or pseudo-historical Jesus to substantiate it. Such evidence is lacking. In short, then, the literary remains of earliest Christianity are better explained by Jesus' historicity than by the alternative.***

These are, from my perspective, the most convincing reasons to believe in Jesus' historicity. But what do they actually "prove"? In the next part, I will take a step back from the actual evidence for belief in Jesus' historicity and look at the nature of such evidence for "proving" historical claims such as Jesus' historicity. Can Jesus' historicity be proved safely beyond doubt? A final part will then step further back and examine the significance of Jesus' historicity. So Jesus was a historical person--so what?

[Update: Stephen (Q) has made a helpful point in a comment below which he has expanded on his own blog: An overlooked link to the historical Jesus.]

*These are points that, from Paul's perspective, would have been considered "historical" and which had a relatively high degree of significance for him. Modern scholarship, of course, might question the nature of the resurrection as "historical," and would also note that Paul mentions Jesus' brothers (Gal 1:9; 1 Cor 9:5) and particular teachings of Jesus (1 Cor 7:10; 9:14; 11:23-25), among other things.

**2 Cor 5:16 is irrelevant to the discussion, despite frequently being pressed in its service. The emphasis on "knowledge" in the verse combined with the emphasis on contrasting eras in the context indicates that kata sarka ("according to the flesh") modifies egnōkamen ("we have known"), not Christon ("Christ"), and describes the "fleshly perspective" of Paul's "old creation" knowledge, not knowledge of Christ's "fleshly existence."

***I have left aside the material remains of early Christianity, most of which are as late or later than the early non-Christian witnesses to Jesus and Christianity. The most relevant item would certainly be the so-called "James Ossuary." However, its authenticity is disputed, with the current tide of scholarly opinion against its authenticity. And even if it were authentic, it would not necessarily witness to the Jesus we are concerned with here.

Image: Rembrandt, The Return of the Prodigal Son (Olga's Gallery)

candy parade

We've just had our annual re-distribution of candy wealth, locally known as the town parade. Our kids know it as the Candy Parade, as they come away from it having collected a good-sized bag of candy thrown by the parade participants.


I don't think there were any combines in the parade this year, but we did have some great old tractors...

the historicity of jesus, part two: evidence for jesus' historicity

In the first part of this series I described in general terms the range of approaches to belief in Jesus' existence as a historical person. In this part and the next I will summarize some of the most important, basic reasons for belief in Jesus' historicity. These are of mixed usefulness for the discussion, but together demonstrate the reasonableness of a basic belief in Jesus' historical existence.

The early non-Christian witnesses to Jesus

There are hundreds of references to Jesus in dozens of first and second century Christian writings, both in the New Testament and outside of it, including many references that either assert or assume Jesus' historicity. However, in most apologetic approaches, the "star witness" for the defence of a belief in Jesus' historicity tends to be the early non-Christian testimonies to Jesus or early Christianity. Here are some of the key texts in English translation along with brief comments:

• Mara bar Sarapion (ca. 73 C.E.): "Or what did it avail the Jews to kill their wise king, since their kingdom was taken away from them from that time on? . . . Nor is the wise king [dead], because of the new law he has given." This reference is in a letter by a Syrian Stoic, and the standard explanation is that the "wise king" is Jesus and that the phrase "their kingdom was taken away" refers to the Jewish revolt put down by the early 70s C.E.
• Flavius Josephus (ca. 90s C.E.): "Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, [if it be lawful to call him a man]; for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews and many of the Gentiles. [He was the Christ.] And when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men among us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him[; for he appeared to them alive again the third day; as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him]. And the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day." (Antiquities 18.63-64) This passage is heavily disputed, with virtually all scholars agreeing that Josephus did not write it in this form, and with several scholars claiming the entire passage is inauthentic. (The most disputed phrases are in square brackets.)
• Pliny the Younger (ca. 112 C.E.): "Christians . . . asserted, however, that the sum and substance of their fault or error had been that they were accustomed to meet on a fixed day before dawn and sing responsively a hymn to Christ as to a god. " (Epistles 10.96–97) Although the whole context is significant for understanding second century Christianity, this is the least helpful of these standard references in relation to Jesus' historicity.
• Tacitus (ca. 116 C.E.): "The author of this name, Christ, during the reign of Tiberius, had been executed by the procurator Pontius Pilate." (Annals 15.44) A basic report.
• Suetonius (ca. 120 C.E.), referring to events in Claudius' reign (41-54 C.E.): "As the Jews were making constant disturbances at the instigation of Chrestus, he expelled them from Rome." (Claudius 25.4) "Chrestus" is taken by some scholars as a garbled form of "Christus," and thus it is suggested that Suetonius (or a source) has misunderstood the real problem that led to the expulsion of the Jews from Rome: that there was a dispute among Jews in Rome between those who were Christ-followers and those who were not.
• Lucian of Samosata (ca. 170 C.E.): "the man who was crucified in Palestine because he introduced this new cult into the world. . . . [the Christians'] first lawgiver . . . that crucified sophist . . ." (Passing of Peregrinus 11, 13). No friend of Christianity, Lucian is clearly referring to Jesus here.
• Rabbinic writings (after 200 C.E.): "On the Sabbath of the Passover festival Yeshu the Nazarene was hanged. For forty days before execution took place, a herald went forth and cried: ‘Here is Yeshu the Nazarene, who is going forth to be stoned because he has practiced sorcery and enticed Israel to apostasy. Anyone who can say anything in his favor, let him come forth and plead on his behalf.’ But since nothing was brought forth in his favor, he was hanged on the eve of the Passover." (b. Sanhedrin 43a) Though much later, this and other Rabbinic texts (e.g. b. Sanhedrin 107b) are often brought into the discussion. They do reflect similar Jewish perspectives on Jesus as reported by Justin Martyr in the second century.

The attractiveness of focussing on these non-Christian witnesses is that one can claim that these early sources are either indifferent or hostile witnesses to Jesus and early Christianity, and yet they do not deny his historicity but agree in asserting or assuming that Jesus was an actual historical person who lived in a particular time and place. However, it seems to me that, while this has some merit as "supporting evidence," it is not particularly strong in itself. After all, each of these sources, written decades after Jesus' purported life and death, could simply be relying on the "word on the street" which assumed Jesus' historicity or on a sympathetic witness who asserted Jesus' historicity, either of which could be contrary to fact. At most, these witnesses testify to the widespread assumption of Jesus' historicity by their own day.

In the next part of this series I would like to go against the grain to a certain extent by asserting that the best historical justification for belief in Jesus' historicity lies in the sympathetic witnesses of the New Testament itself.

Image: Rembrandt, Christ in the Storm on the Lake of Galilee (Olga's Gallery)

the historicity of jesus, part one: approaching the question

It is the starting point for any historical investigation into the life of Jesus and the foundation of traditional Christian theology. But Jesus' existence as a historical person is more often assumed than argued, even by historians and theologians.

In fact, detailed defences of Jesus' historicity are more often found in conservative apologetics. For example, the dean of "fundagelical" apologetics, Josh McDowell, devotes dozens of pages to this question in books such as He Walked among Us and Evidence that Demands a Verdict. His arguments centre on the complete historical reliability of the Gospels, which he attempts to prove, and the references to Jesus or early Christianity in non-Christian writings from the early centuries C.E. Essentially, the argument runs as follows: the ancient primary and secondary witnesses are historically reliable, these witnesses claim or assume Jesus' historicity, and thus Jesus actually lived as a historical person.

Among historical Jesus specialists, one does occasionally find some thoughts on the historicity of Jesus. Gerd Theissen and Annette Merz's The Historical Jesus stands out in its attempt to address the issue. This is done within a broader discussion of skepticism or agnosticism generally within historical research into Jesus' life. The authors approach the topic negatively, dealing with arguments against the possibility of historical knowledge about Jesus rather than presenting arguments in favour of this. In this section, several problems are discussed and countered, including the "silence" of non-Christian sources; the "mythical" Christ of the letters of Paul; the unhistorical Johannine picture of Christ; and so on. The result is a summary defence of the historicity of Jesus and the possibility of real historical knowledge about Jesus, more sophisticated than the approach represented by McDowell, but sharing what is basically a defensive orientation.

What is perhaps the most sophisticated specialist discussion of Jesus' historicity is found in a work almost 100 years old: Albert Schweitzer's The Quest of the Historical Jesus. Schweitzer's second and subsequent editions included two chapters on this question, interacting with the most prominent Jesus skeptics of the late 19th and early 20th centuries. Schweitzer recognized the diversity of these perspectives but summarized them as either "mythical" (that Jesus was the mythical product of reflection on Greco-Roman mythologies) or "symbolic" (that the Gospels were written so that every detail had its own a-historical, symbolic significance), or both. Schweitzer walked through the ancient non-Christian witnesses to Jesus and acknowledged that these are too weak a foundation in themselves for belief in Jesus' historicity. He described prominent perspectives in some detail, and he was not afraid to sympathize with the perspectives of the skeptic where appropriate nor to castigate both sides in the debate for faulty logic or lack of civility. In the end, he stepped back to investigate the larger historical, literary, and theological questions which underlie the discussion, concluding that the development of early Christianity as it can be discerned makes better sense with the hypothesis of Jesus' historicity than with the alternative.

These three examples illustrate the range of approaches for acceptance of Jesus' historicity based in some way upon historical methods, from more theologically apologetic to more historically sophisticated. In the rest of this series I will present my own summary approach to this issue: I will outline some of the most important evidences for belief in Jesus' historicity (parts two and three), look at the nature of such evidence for "proving" historical claims such as Jesus' historicity (part four), and then examine the significance of Jesus' historicity (part five).

Image: Rembrandt, The Presentation of Jesus in the Temple (Olga's Gallery)

thessalonian watch: grammatical and discourse analyses

Sean du Toit's comment has reminded me that there are a few analyses of the text of 1 and 2 Thessalonians online using approaches such as grammatical diagramming and discourse analysis. Here are ones I'm aware of:

• OpenText.org: 1 Thessalonians - 2 Thessalonians. An ongoing project using the methods of discourse analysis.
  
• ricoblog: 1 Thessalonians 1:1 - 1:6-10 - 4:1-12 - 5:12-22. Rick Brannan's foray into grammatical diagramming and discourse analysis.
• Clinton Arnold's website: 1 Thessalonians Study Guide. Describes syntactical analysis and provides a sample analysis of 1 Thessalonians 1:1-5.

the historicity of jesus

This is a five-part series that explores the historicity of Jesus of Nazareth and the significance of Jesus' historicity.

• Part One: Approaching the Question
• Part Two: Evidence for Jesus' Historicity
• Part Three: Better Evidence for Jesus' Historicity
• Part Four: The Nature of Historical Knowledge
  
• Part Five: The Significance of Jesus' Historicity
  

Update: This series is available in a single PDF document here.

Image: Rembrandt, The Head of Christ (Olga's Gallery)

coming soon: the historicity of jesus

In the next day or two I will unveil the first post in a series on the historicity of Jesus, discussing the basic question of Jesus' historical existence. This will be a five-part series, exploring approaches to and evidences for Jesus' historical existence as well as the "provability" and significance of Jesus' historicity. Watch this space!

you know you're evangelical when...

...liberals call you fundamentalist and fundamentalists call you liberal.

I'm not sure of the origin of this aphorism, but there's a lot of truth in it. Some days it feels like I'm getting it from both sides at the same time. :-)

thessalonian watch: archaeological museum reopens

Thessaloniki museum reopens after 3 years

The Archaeological Museum of Thessaloniki, which has been closed for renovation for the past three years, opens its doors to the public today [July 8, 2006] with an exhibition of some 2,000 artifacts that paint a detailed picture of private and public life in the region of Macedonia from the prehistoric era to the reign of Constantine the Great in AD 4.

[...]

One of the most striking newer exhibits shows a girl's plait of hair along with her purple and gold-trimmed funerary garments in a lead coffin encased within a marble sarcophagus dating to AD 4. The museum will be inaugurated by Prime Minister Costas Karamanlis in September.

Note: AD 4 clearly means 4th century AD (CE).

thessalonian watch: jewish tourists

Here's an item promoting Jewish tourism of Thessaloniki. While it says little about a Jewish presence in the city in the first century, it does provoke some interesting thoughts along those lines.

The Rich Rewards Of Greece’s Second City
Hilary Larson

[...]

Located in the historical region of greater Macedonia (as local signs love to remind you) in northeast Greece, Thessaloniki is a huge city by Balkan standards, with a population of nearly one million. Endless light-colored modern buildings sprawl along the hills sloping down to the Thermaic Gulf, where the city was founded in 315 BCE. A major city of the Byzantine Empire, Thessaloniki was destroyed by fire in 1917 and subsequently rebuilt. Every now and again, as you stroll along the traffic-choked modern boulevards, the parade of 20th-century buildings yields momentarily to an ancient stone arch, crumbling centuries-old church or other relic that offers a somewhat surreal reminder of Greece’s ancient past.

[...]

A far more comprehensive history is on view at the Archaeological Museum, which was designed by Patroklos Karantinos and inaugurated in 1962 as the city celebrated the 50th anniversary of its liberation. Inside is an impressive collection of sculpture, artifacts from tombs and prehistoric relicts from the Archaic and Classical periods, along with more recent archaeological finds from excavations of the tombs at nearby Derveni, Vergina and Sindos.

Jews have a long history in Thessaloniki, which remains home to one of the Balkans’ liveliest Jewish communities. Ashkenazic Jews from Grermany and Hungary and Sephardic Jews from Spain, Italy, Portugal and France settled in Thessaloniki during the late 15th and 16th centuries. During the long period of Turkish rule, many Jews converted to Islam, but Jews remained a vital part of the city’s business presence, establishing the city’s first printing press and newspaper. Only about 2,000 of Thessaloniki’s 60,000 Jews survived World War II, and today about half that number remains.

Their presence is chronicled in the Museum of the History of the Jewish Community of Thessaloniki (Jewish History Museum) on Vas. Herakleiou Street, which opened 20 years ago next to the Modiano market, the traditional center of the Jewish community. Here the visitor will find displays of religious artifacts used by Jews around the Thessaloniki area, traditional costumes, hundreds of photographs and maps and a library with a huge collection of scholarly books in many languages.

[...]

thessalonian watch: a new feature

One of my research interests is the Thessalonian epistles, so I've decided to start a new feature on my blog: thessalonian watch. Modeled after Jim Davila's Temple Mount Watch feature, this will highlight news items and new internet material related to the city of Thessaloniki and Paul's Thessalonian epistles. Of course, if I highlight every new item on the internet related to 1 and 2 Thessalonians, I will be spending an inordinate amount of time and space repeating familiar headlines like "Prophecy Experts Say Rapture to Happen on [insert date here]." I will avoid those sorts of things, unless I see something that I feel is really interesting, really informative, or maybe just really funny.

back from paradise

We just returned from a short stint out to the Okanagan in British Columbia. Since we blew our holiday budget in both time and money in England (which was well worth it!), we had to take a limited family holiday this year.


Meanwhile, back in biblioblogdom, it looks as though I've missed Opposite Day. Be sure to check out the interesting contributions listed at Ricoblog. For some reason that holiday wasn't listed on my otherwise trusty Calgary Flames calendar...

latest review of biblical literature

There are several New Testament-related items among the latest reviews in RBL: Review of Biblical Literature latest. Here's a sample:

Bolt, Peter G. The Cross from a Distance: Atonement in Mark's Gospel.
Reviewed by Elliott Maloney

Dunn, James D. G., and Scot McKnight, eds. The Historical Jesus in Recent Research.
Reviewed by Stephan Joubert

Bartholomew, Craig G., Joel B. Green, and Anthony Thiselton, eds. Reading Luke: Interpretation, Reflection, Formation.
Reviewed by John Squires

my favourite new testament scholars

Who are my favourite New Testament scholars? This is a slightly different question than who I think are the best New Testament scholars.

My favourite New Testament scholars are those whose work is three-dimensional: having depth, reflecting careful and thoughtful study of the texts or subjects at hand and the critical issues involved; having breadth, representing genuine engagement with perspectives much broader than their own; and having height, approaching the subject from an authentic, dynamic Christian perspective centred on the apostolic gospel. Put another way, these are scholars who produce quality work that directly benefits Christian thinking and living but that also transcends faith borders. (Scholars whose work is less directly "Christian" can still be outstanding scholars, of course, often even better scholars than those whose work is more distinctly "Christian." Outstanding non-Christian scholars, or even publicly "a-Christian" scholars, possess the two dimensions of depth and breadth--the essential dimensions of all quality scholarship. Many of these scholars would make it on my list of the best New Testament scholars, but these are not necessarily among my favourites.) In addition, my favourite New Testament scholars write well, communicating the results of their research clearly and in an engaging way; when I read them I don't feel like I am doing research so much as engaging in a conversation.

Given these descriptions, here are but a few of my favourite living New Testament scholars:

• Richard Bauckham. Bauckham obliterates the distinctions between biblical studies and theology. His work is characterized by carefulness, but with more than a touch of the provocative as well.
• James Dunn. Dunn has made a distinguished career of questioning old assumptions and casting old questions in new terms. He has unflinchingly tackled the really big questions of New Testament studies.
• Gordon Fee. Fee is the unsung hero on this list. Everything he's done is excellent and much is required reading on the topic, but he hasn't been as prolific in scholarly writing as the others.
• Richard Hays. Everything I've read of his reflects careful scholarship and attempts to advance the given discussion in significant ways. His integration of exegesis, theology, and ethics is compelling. Only one complaint: he needs to write more.
• Ben Witherington. The N. T. Wright of America: evangelical in perspective, public and prolific in his work. He's what I would consider a "steady exegete": you always know what to expect from him, which makes his interpretation somewhat predictable, but he's consistent in the multi-dimensional character of his scholarship.
• N. T. Wright. Love him or hate him, he is certainly the most influential and prolific evangelical New Testament scholar today. For myself, I also think he is one of the best. He's brilliant in general theories and perspectives, less consistently so in the details of exegesis and critical methodology. He's terrific at reading old texts in fresh ways, but can be guilty at times of imposing fresh ways on old texts.

"Time fails me" in describing other favourites, along with some of those whom I would consider to be among the best living New Testament scholars: Dale Allison, David Aune, Craig Blomberg, Darrell Bock, Markus Bockmuehl, Donald Carson, Adela Yarbro Collins, Bart Ehrman, Philip Esler, Craig Evans, Paula Fredriksen, Mark Goodacre, Martin Hengel, Larry Hurtado, Craig Keener, John Kloppenborg, Andreas Köstenberger, Richard Longenecker, Howard Marshall, Scot McKnight, Douglas Moo, E. P. Sanders, Graham Stanton, Peter Stuhlmacher, Gerd Theissen, Anthony Thiselton, Francis Watson, and more...

dave black biblioblogger of the month

Dave Black (a.k.a. David Alan Black), blogging at DaveBlackOnline, is biblioblogger of the month over at Biblioblogs.com: Blogger of the Month for July 2006. I've always appreciated these interviews. Brandon Wason and Jim West do a great job with them: asking good questions, but letting the focus be on the biblioblogger and their blogging.

lark news old news

I have just realized that I've missed noting Lark News for the past six months. That's simply unconscionable. To rectify that profound mistake, here are a few of my favourite articles from the past six issues of that paragon of journalistic parody:

• Man waits diligently for faith claims to roll in
• Outsourced prayer lines confuse callers
• Calvin grads dominate 2006 pastors draft
• Loser develops ministry of listening
• Calif. youngster wins testimony bee
• Prophet downgrades earthquake forecast
• Man seeks God's will over coffee selection

what makes for a great sport?

Prompted by Scot McKnight's post on soccer, I spent my lawn-mowing time the other day contemplating what it is that makes for a great sport. Is it lots of scoring? Pure athletic prowess? High drama? The ability to generate reams of statistics? Here's my take on what makes a sport a great sport.

My thesis: A great sport demands great virtue. To be more specific, a great sport requires of its participants a full range of "human virtues." For the individual, a great sport will require a variety of physical, intellectual, and moral virtues: endurance, physical strength, speed and acceleration, agility, manual dexterity, situation analysis, memory recall, intuition, perseverance, diligence, courage, and more. Team sports will also include all sorts of social virtues: respect for authority and for peers, justice and mercy (the combination of which makes for "fair play"), unity for a common purpose in the midst of diversity, and so on.

Any given sport may require a different mix of these virtues, in varying degrees. But for a sport to be a great sport, it must require a high number of these virtues to a great degree, and the rules of the sport must allow for the required virtues to flourish. When all this happens, participants will enjoy playing the sport, it will draw spectators and create fans, it will transcend regional, national, or cultural boundaries, and it will even be a valuable part of society and culture--it will be a great sport.

The "cultured despisers" of sport miss all this, unable to see the true social and cultural value of great sports. Great sports appeal to the whole cross-section of humanity because in their ideal they embody these human virtues, and in reality they portray the struggle to master these virtues while facing the human condition head-on. Great sports, then, are like great art, great stories, great music, great poetry: where truth, beauty, and goodness emerge out of chaos and stark humanity.

But even great sports can degenerate when these virtues are not allowed to flourish, or when "anti-virtues" such as greed, voyeurism, and celebrity idolatry begin to control the sport. Then the virtuous ideals of Olympia devolve into the mass anaesthetic of the Colosseum, and sport no longer inspires, it no longer creates moving stories which the human heart longs to hear or meaningful portraits which the mind wants to see. Such sports wither, slowly, and then die--or become revitalized and flourish again.

Sport is not merely about entertainment. At its heart it's really about virtue.

This is why millions, even billions, of fans worldwide follow soccer so ardently and can revel in a well-played scoreless match--and why even these fans admit that "diving" tarnishes the game. This is why college basketball, where virtue still speaks louder than vice (just barely?), is a much better sport than the NBA, where anti-virtues have the louder voices. And this is why hockey is clearly the greatest sport ever created. After all, nothing cultivates the virtue of patience like watching the Zamboni between periods. :-)

re-focussing the stuff of earth

It's time for me to get re-focussed, and this includes my blog. The convergence of several signs makes this a propitious time for such a renovation: 1) The end of my dissertation work is in sight: this feels about like Frodo and Sam working their way across Gorgoroth to Mount Doom, so I need to re-focus in order to stay on task when I am working on it; 2) My sabbatical is officially over (sigh), which means I need to begin getting in gear for teaching and administration again; 3) The NHL season is over and England has bowed out of the World Cup, which means there's nothing else for me to do.

This might seem like a time to stop blogging altogether rather than attempt to continue it. However, although it's true that excessive blogging can be detrimental, I've noticed that fairly regular blogging actually helps me to maintain my focus on the things that matter. It also helps me to write, to keep writing, to work at writing, to improve my writing. (So that I won't make sputtering sentences like that one...)

If you're an attentive reader of my blog (are there any of you left out there?), you will already know that I have posted a note on the content of my blog. Over the next weeks and months, I have plans for a few possible posts and series: a series on the historicity of Jesus, another on defining "evangelicalism" for the 21st century, and a "blogentary" (blog commentary) on 1 Thessalonians.

Whether or not these actually happen, of course, depends on my whim and pleasure, the state of my muse, and the direction of the wind. But if you're at all interested in the sorts of things I am, and those possible posts sound intriguing, then stick around. There may be a conversation left in the stuff of earth...

what goes into the stuff of earth

After a year and a half of blogging--sometimes feverishly, sometimes sporadically--I finally have a sense of what I'd like to blog about. It is still, as I originally said it would be, "a little bit of my life and thoughts, every now and then." But more specifically, it reflects some of my public interests.

My academic interests:

• The Gospels generally, the Synoptic problem in particular
• Historical Jesus studies generally, the early Jesus tradition in particular
• The Pauline letters generally, 1 and 2 Thessalonians in particular
• Pauline theology generally, Paul's gospel in particular
• Theological unity and diversity in the New Testament generally, the theological relationship between Jesus and Paul in particular

Other interests:

• Evangelical Christianity generally, defining a 21st century evangelical identity in particular
• Canada generally, Canadian achievements and identity in particular
• Hockey generally, the Calgary Flames in particular
• Baroque music generally, J. S. Bach in particular

And of course my family will make an appearance every once in a while (I suppose, "My family generally, my children in particular").

Some final notes on content and such:

• I will blog about things that I find interesting and for which I wish to have a "public record," as I have time to blog on them, so this blog exists and is sustained at my whim and pleasure.
• Just because I link to something doesn't mean I fully endorse it; sometimes the most interesting things are those I disagree with.
• I welcome appropriate comments to my blog, even in strong disagreement of my own perspective. However, I will not tolerate personally abusive comments; these will be deleted. Also, I will not allow spam comments or propaganda comments, the sort that does not engage with anything I've written or with others' comments, but merely promotes a particular website or personal agenda; these will also be deleted.
  

biblical studies carnival vii

The latest installment of the Biblical Studies Carnival is hosted by Chip Hardy at DailyHebrew.com: Biblical Studies Carnival VII. A good crop of posts even in the lean summer months...

happy canada day!

A happy Canada Day to any and all readers who wander by! Make sure you add a visit to Amazon.ca to your celebration: they are having a Canada Day sale, with several items at up to 75% off until July 14. Sale items include Craig Keener's commentary on 1-2 Corinthians, Margaret Thrall's commentary on 2 Corinthians (I believe it's vol. 1 of the ICC commentary), and Moody Smith's book on the theology of the Gospel of John.