the gospel as resurrection reversal

The Christian gospel - the "good news" - is that God has acted in Jesus to reverse everything that is wrong in this world. The focal point of this divine reversal is the resurrection of the crucified Jesus, in which his condemnation, shame, oppression, and death are transformed into vindication, glory, freedom, and undying life. This divine reversal was inaugurated by God through Jesus in the past, it is enacted by the Spirit through the Church in the present, and it will be fulfilled by God through Jesus in the future.

In Jesus,

the dead live,
the lame walk,
the blind see,
the deaf hear,
captives are set free...

In Jesus,

the last are first,
the least are feasted,
the lost are found...

In Jesus,

the poor are rich,
the hungry are well fed,
the suffering are comforted,
the sorrowful are filled with joy...

In Jesus,

the ungodly are justified,
the weak are strong,
the shamed are honored,
the cursed are blessed,
enemies are neighbors,
slaves are sons and brothers...

In Jesus,

the old is made new,
the impossible happens,
sin is stingless,
death is defeated!

This is the gospel of resurrection reversal, the "good news" we as Christians are called to confess, to proclaim, and to live out in the world.

latest review of biblical literature

The latest New Testament-related items at the Review of Biblical Literature include the following:

Mary Ann Beavis. Jesus and Utopia: Looking for the Kingdom of God in the Roman World.
Reviewed by Warren Carter

Wilfried Eckey. Die Briefe des Paulus an die Philipper und an Philemon: Ein Kommentar.
Reviewed by Stephan Witetschek

Raimo Hakola. Identity Matters: John, the Jews and Jewishness.
Reviewed by Mary L. Coloe

Martin Hengel. Der unterschätzte Petrus: Zwei Studien.
Reviewed by Peter H. Davids

John Nolland. The Gospel of Matthew.
Reviewed by Edgar Krentz

the "jesus tomb"

That's the commercialized name for a tomb discovered in 1980 in East Talpiot, Jerusalem. The excavation has been reported before without much fanfare, but now it has been brought into the limelight through a media blitz involving a documentary airing on the Discovery Channel, and a book written by some of the documentary's participants. The claim of these participants is that the tomb is that of Jesus of Nazareth and his family.

Here are some of the relevant details as best as I can discern them:

• The tomb was first discovered in 1980 and studied by a team which included Shimon Gibson. The results were published in 1996 by Amos Kloner. During this time the academic community saw little significance in the findings in terms of any possible connection with early Christianity.
• The tomb included ten ossuaries, stone boxes which were used to store the bones of deceased persons after decomposition. These have been dated to the late Second Temple era (ca. late first century B.C.E. to 70 C.E.).
• Six of these ossuaries are inscribed with names: "Jose" (a short form of "Joseph"), "Matthew," "Jesus son of Joseph," "Judah son of Jesus," "Mary," and "Mariamne or Mara" ("Mara" as a short form of "Martha"). All of these were very common names among first century Palestinian Jews.
  
• Usable DNA evidence was discovered in two of the ossuaries: "Jesus son of Joseph" and "Mariamne or Mara." These two persons were not maternally related.
• Apparently, one of the ten ossuaries disappeared from the tomb during its original analysis.

Those are the basic details which form the basis for the theory that this represents the family of Jesus of Nazareth. But there are several questions that I have about this theory.

• The notorious "James son of Joseph brother of Jesus" ossuary from a few years ago has been suggested as the missing ossuary from the Talpiot tomb. However, as far as I can tell from the reports, the missing ossuary from the original Talpiot excavation was not inscribed at all. This is problematic for the assertion that the "James" ossuary is this missing ossuary, since at least the first part of the "James" ossuary inscription appears to be authentic. In other words, the "James" ossuary--which has had at least a partial inscription since the first century--could not be the missing Talpiot ossuary--which apparently had no inscription whatsoever. Even if there are uncertainties regarding all this, it further appears that the two ossuaries were different sizes and that soil samples from the two ossuaries indicate that the "James" ossuary came from a different location than the Talpiot tomb. So, the "James" ossuary should be left out of the equation.
• As far as I can tell from the reports, the family relationships among those in the tomb are far from certain based on the evidence of the tomb itself. The only DNA samples were taken from the "Jesus" and "Mariamne" ossuaries, and tests indicated that these persons were not related. So DNA really gets us nowhere. In terms of inscriptions, there is only the "Jesus son of Joseph" and "Judah son of Jesus" connection. The other ossuaries don't mention any family connections. So, let's start with what we know: what is the statistical probability of a grandfather "Joseph"-father "Jesus"-son "Judah" connection in first century Jerusalem? Given the popularity of these names at that time, I imagine it's probably pretty high. Anything beyond this explicit "Joseph"-"Jesus"-"Judah" family connection is pure speculation, and there are several different ways one could imagine the other names--all popular names at the time--fitting into that basic family line.
  
• The arguments from statistics really don't get us anywhere. They either tell us that it's likely that one would find a family in Jerusalem with those particular names--something which the tomb itself apparently indicates--or they tell us that it's unlikely that one would find a family in Jerusalem with those particular names--something which the tomb itself apparently contradicts. If one wants to press those statistics into service to make a connection with the family of Jesus of Nazareth, then one encounters an immediate problem: the names don't really match up well with what we know of the family of Jesus of Nazareth. Who's "Matthew"? How does "Judah" escape any mention in the written sources? Where's James, another brother of Jesus and the only family member known from written sources to have lived extensively in Jerusalem and died there?
  

So what do we really have to connect this family with the family of Jesus of Nazareth? In my estimation, not very much. But it will be interesting to see how the experts in archaeology and ancillary disciplines respond, and how this all plays out in the weeks to come.

Update (03/01/07): I originally posted this on mid-Monday this week, when things were first coming out, and there's been nothing to change my initial impressions. In fact, several points are being questioned vigorously by others with more expertise, including the unlikelihood of the "James" ossuary originally being part of the Talpiot tomb, and questions about the DNA and statistics. In addition, one interesting question which is being discussed and which I hadn't thought of initially was whether the name "Mariamne" could even point to Mary Magdalene. See the Goodacre and Williams links below to follow up on all these discussions.

For more on this:

• The Lost Tomb of Jesus (Discovery Channel; see especially the "Tomb Evidence")
• The Jesus Family Tomb (documentary website)
• Update (02/27/07): Mark Goodacre has some good posts under the label Talpiot tomb
• Update (03/01/07): Tyler Williams has good collections of links under the label Talpiot tomb
  

gospel endings and gospel sources?

Some old news on the blogging front, but still worth mentioning here.

There has been some speculation about a newly discovered ending for Mark's Gospel found among the Oxyrhynchus papyri using multispectral imaging. Obviously this would be very significant if it were true, but at this point it appears to be wishful thinking and not reality. See Stephen Carlson's post for the roundup: New Ending to the Gospel of Mark?

There is some other news, though, that appears to have more substance behind it: a new theory explaining the sources of the Synoptic Gospels. This theory could turn Synoptic scholarship on its head, and the full implications of this theory could take decades to sort out. John's got the scoop here: A Modified Two-Source Hypothesis for the Synoptic Gospels.

where did paul get his authority and teachings?

James Tabor has a recent post entitled "Where Did Paul Get His Authority & Teachings?" Tabor asserts that the answer to this question lies in Paul's personal revelations from the exalted Jesus. Since I spend two chapters on this question (Paul's epistemic authorities) in my doctoral dissertation, I feel compelled to respond to Tabor's thesis. (And I can claim this as "dissertation research time" to boot!) There is much about Tabor's post that I find problematic, but I'll focus on a few areas.

Tabor claims that Paul's "receive" (paralambanō) language, particularly in his "reception" of the "gospel" in 1 Corinthians 15, reflects his reception of direct revelation from the exalted Jesus. But this is very difficult to maintain:

• In concluding this passage, Paul says, "Whether then it was I or they, so we proclaim and so you have come to believe" (1 Cor 15:11). In other words, the resurrection witnesses Paul has listed proclaim the same "gospel" as that which he has just outlined. So where did Peter and James get this "gospel"? From Paul, based on a direct revelation to Paul? Not likely.
• In Galatians 1:11-12, Paul does not clearly use "receive" (paralambanō) to refer to his "revelation of Jesus Christ" (apokalupsis Iesou Christou). Rather, "receive" (paralambanō) is directly connected to "from a man" (para anthrōpou). This is then paralleled with "taught" (didaskō). Thus, this seems even to speak against Tabor's argument: Paul here uses "receive" (paralambanō) language to refer to reception of tradition or teaching through human mediation.
• In fact, apart from the curious reference in 1 Corinthians 11:23 (see below), Paul consistently uses "receive" (paralambanō) and "deliver" (paradidōmi) language in "transfer of information" contexts to refer to humanly mediated teaching or tradition (Rom 6:17; 1 Cor 11:2; Gal 1:9; Phil 4:9; 1 Thess 2:13; 4:1; 2 Thess 3:6). This usage parallels contemporary Pharisaic and later Rabbinic "receive" and "deliver" language in reference to humanly mediated teaching or tradition (see e.g. Gerhardsson, Memory and Manuscript, 288-291).
• As for the "revelation of Jesus Christ" in Gal 1:12, a verb must be supplied for the phrase "but through a revelation of Jesus Christ" (alla di' apokalupseōs Iesou Christou). But it is not necessarily "receive," which is now a couple of verbs back. Rather, it is at least as likely that it is simply a commonly omitted and assumed verb like eimi or ginomai, that is, "it came through a revelation of Jesus Christ."

These points support the idea that Paul is indeed speaking of humanly transmitted tradition in 1 Corinthians 15, a tradition which most likely derives from one of the resurrection witnesses as tradents (probably the first mentioned, "Peter and the Twelve"). Naturally, this raises all sorts of interesting questions. Here are a couple that are relevant to this discussion:

• What is the relationship between this gospel tradition (1 Cor 15) and Paul's gospel revelation (Gal 1)? It must be pointed out that even in the context of Galatians 1-2 Paul acknowledges some significant contact with the Jerusalem apostles, especially Peter (1:18), and that Paul also claims his gospel was validated by these men (2:2, 6-9). Although there have been many different ways of putting all this together, I would understand it this way: 1) Paul experienced a revelation of the resurrected Jesus who had been crucified, immediately causing Paul to reflect on the significance of the crucified-resurrected Jesus and proclaim this "gospel" to others (Gal 1:11-12, 15-17); 2) Three years later Paul met with Peter for 15 days (Gal 1:18), and it was from Peter (the first resurrection witness, 1 Cor 15:5) that he learned the "gospel creed" (1 Cor 15:3-5) and other traditional material associated with Jesus and the apostles (e.g. 1 Cor 7:10-11; 9:14; 11:23-25); 3) Paul incorporated this traditional material into his missionary teaching, "delivering" that traditional material which he had "received" through human mediation as a supplement to his personally experienced "revelation of Jesus Christ."
• How are we to understand the "from the Lord" in 1 Corinthians 11:23? Since, as noted above, Paul consistently uses "receive" (paralambanō) and "deliver" (paradidōmi) language in "transfer of information" contexts to refer to humanly mediated teaching or tradition, this should be understood in the same way. The presence of parallels in other extant Jesus tradition (especially Luke's account) is secondary confirmation of this. The "from the Lord" then likely refers to the fact that this tradition was believed to originate in the life and teaching of Jesus of Nazareth, unlike the tradition of 1 Corinthians 15:3-5 which was necessarily post-resurrection apostolic tradition. This interpretation is confirmed by the fact that in both 1 Corinthians 7:10-11 and 9:14 Paul points to the "Lord" as the originator of tradition that was believed to come from the life and teaching of Jesus of Nazareth.

Another aspect of Tabor's thesis is equally problematic. He asserts that Paul had many such direct revelations from the exalted Jesus and that these revelations were crucial for Paul in his thought and discourse. However, there is very little basis for this assertion. A couple points are worth noting:

• The plural "revelations and visions" comes from the introduction to the passage Tabor refers to (2 Cor 12:1). Paul is not claiming multiple "revelations and visions," but rather moving on to the general subject of "revelations and visions," probably because the "super-apostles" were themselves claiming such revelations and visions as evidence of their apostolic authority. For Paul's part, he has to reach back 14 years to find a suitably impressive visionary experience to trump those of the "super-apostles." This doesn't sound like the sort of person who continuously had impressive "revelations and visions." Furthermore, Paul doesn't even relate or want to relate the content of this visionary experience--he couldn't even put it into adequate words--so it doesn't seem this particular experience had a profound impact on his teaching to others.
• Apart from Paul's "revelation of Jesus Christ" at his "conversion/call" (see above, and on the "Christ events" below), there are only two clear places in the undisputed Pauline epistles were Paul refers to a direct revelation as shaping his actions, his thought, or his discourse. One is Galatians 2:2, where a "revelation" of some sort (whether to Paul directly or through another) has led Paul to go to Jerusalem. While this influenced Paul's action in this instance, there is no indication that it influenced his broader thought or discourse in any way. The other instance is more promising: in 2 Corinthians 12:9 Paul quotes an aphorism of the exalted Lord directly revealed to him, "My grace is sufficient for you, for power is made perfect in weakness." This does indeed seem to have shaped his thought and the particular discourse of 2 Corinthians 10-13. However, this instance stands out as unusual, and there are other epistemic authorities at work here including his reading of Scripture (Jer 9:23-24 cf. 2 Cor 10:17).

I need to wrap up this post before I end up re-writing those two chapters of my dissertation. I'll simply say that the answer to Tabor's question and the question of my post title is much more complex than simply, "Direct revelation from the exalted Jesus." In fact, Paul's primary epistemic authorities seem to have been the Christ events (especially Jesus' death and resurrection) and Scripture, both mutually interpreting each other in an ongoing conversation. Indeed, I would suggest that nearly all of Paul's thought and discourse derives from that conversation between Scripture and the Christ events.

And as for Tabor's assertion that the "word of the Lord" in 1 Thessalonians 4:15 is a direct revelation of the exalted Jesus, I'd very much disagree, but you'll just have to wait for my dissertation to be finished. In the meantime, you can check out my recent article in JSNT on such "word of the Lord" language in Paul and early Christianity, or listen to my recent ETS presentation essentially summarizing my dissertation.

latest review of biblical literature

The latest New Testament-related items in the Review of Biblical Literature include:

David A. Brondos. Paul on the Cross: Reconstructing the Apostle's Story of Redemption.
Reviewed by D. A. Carson

Philip L. Mayo. "Those Who Call Themselves Jews": The Church and Judaism in the Apocalypse of John.
Reviewed by David L. Barr

Udo Schnelle; trans. M. Eugene Boring. Apostle Paul: His Life and Theology.
Reviewed by Kenneth Atkinson

Edward Stourton. Paul of Tarsus: A Visionary Life.
Reviewed by Valérie Nicolet Anderson

Brian J. Walsh and Sylvia C. Keesmaat. Colossians Remixed: Subverting the Empire.
Reviewed by Angela Standhartinger

dissertation, nota bene, and endnote

Yes, blogging has been light in recent days. Most of my writing energies have been focused on my dissertation. I'm currently working through some very tedious revisions of a couple of chapters before I turn my full attention to the last chapter I need to write. (That is, apart from the conclusion which, if all goes well, should virtually write itself... I know, I know... I see the red flags, too...) But I do feel that my dissertation is finally coming together, and that perhaps I will graduate after all. (But then ask me tomorrow, my outlook may have changed completely.) I would like to blog on my thesis topic sometime down the road. Perhaps, when I've finished that last chapter, blogging could be a way to pull my thoughts together to write my conclusion.

On another note, I've finished with Nota Bene. I would recommend the program to anyone who is just starting their undergraduate or even graduate education. But the problem for me is that I already have hundreds of documents and note files in Word format, and it was just too much of a pain to convert those over to Nota Bene (NB runs its own word processor along with its reference database). The formatting ended up completely out of whack. So I packed it up and sent it back. I must say, though, that the Nota Bene people were very good to me: they gave me additional time beyond the 30 day guarantee to work with the program, and in the end they gave me my refund without any hassle.

So, I've moved on to EndNote. EndNote is fully integrated with Word, so I can continue to use my previous documents and notes and just update them with EndNote references as needed. The SBL style for EndNote (provided online) was not exactly right, but it's been easy enough to modify it. So far, so good.

Now enough of my babbling. Time to get back to those tedious revisions.

the difference between certainty and conviction

The editor of the student newspaper at Prairie asked me if I'd write a short piece on faith and doubt. I've just submitted it, and here's an excerpt:

Certainty is a myth. Or better, true certainty is the sole prerogative of God, the All-Seeing and All-Knowing One. Mere mortals must content themselves with a conviction coming from faith. While the fruits of human certainty and conviction can sometimes look the same, there is a subtle difference between the two, a subtle difference that makes a world of difference. Certainty claims an unbroken connection with the divine perspective; it says, "I know because God knows." Conviction acknowledges the fallibility and finiteness that mark our humanity; it says, "I know only in part, I see only through a dark glass." Certainty says, "I have faith, which is as good as sight." Conviction says, "I have faith, despite my lack of sight." Certainty says, "There is no other way for anyone to explain the evidence.” Conviction says, “There is no other way for me to explain what I've experienced." Certainty says, "I know and therefore everyone should act." Conviction says, "I believe and therefore I act, and I act alongside others of similar conviction." At its worst, certainty can lead to a knowledge that merely puffs itself up. At its best, conviction can lead to a love that builds others up.

peeving some pets

Chris Heard has posted a short list of pet peeves, to which I can only say, "Here, here." But this begs the question: "How should one exegete this list?" One must think outside the box in order to arrive at a suitable exegetical methodology; one must methodologize appropriately. Id est, one must ask, "What does the book of Revelations have to say about this?" Irregardless, I think Mark Goodacre's final response is worthey of mention: like, everyone should just chill, eh? :-)

bruce m. metzger (1914-2007)

Brandon Wason (among many others) has noted the passing of Bruce Metzger. Metzger was simply one of the best New Testament scholars of the past century, and his many contributions to scholarship will remain influential for many years to come.

Update (02/16/07): Princeton Theological Seminary has posted an obituary here; Michael Holmes has an obituary posted on the SBL site here.

peter engle, "the word, the spirit, and epistemology"

For those in the area this Thursday:

Dr Peter Engle, "The Word, the Spirit, and Epistemology: Jonathan Edwards, Revival, and Contemporary Relevance"
Associate Professor of Historical Theology, Briecrest College and Seminary

At times of reformation, revival, and renewal, claims of the legitimacy of a "move of God" are centred on appeals to the dynamic work of the Spirit or the unadorned power of the Word. This lecture will address the relevant concepts from Jonathan Edwards' thought which may assist us in evaluating and understanding such claims and movements in the 21st century.

Thursday, February 15, 2007, 7:00 p.m., free admission
Founders Hall 232, Prairie Bible College, Three Hills, Alberta

Tolle Lege ("Take up and read") is an annual series of public lectures hosted by Prairie Bible College's Department of Bible and Theology to help Christians explore a foundational task of the Church - faithfully interpreting Scripture in today's context.

latest review of biblical literature

The latest New Testament-related RBL reviews include the following:

Deborah Krause. 1 Timothy.
Reviewed by Angela Standhartinger

E. Randolph Richards. Paul and First-Century Letter Writing: Secretaries, Composition and Collection.
Reviewed by William "Chip" Gruen

Thomas A. Robinson. Mastering New Testament Greek: Essential Tools for Students.
Reviewed by Robert E. Van Voorst

Christine Schlund. "Kein Knochen soll gebrochen werden": Studien zu Bedeutung und Funktion des Pesachfests in Texten des frühen Judentums und im Johannesevangelium.
Reviewed by Craig R. Koester

latest zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche wissenschaft

The latest issue of ZNW is out and online: Volume 98, Issue 1 Part 2, January 2007. Items include Samuel Byrskog on "A Century with the Sitz im Leben. From Form-Critical Setting to Gospel Community and Beyond," Matthias Klinghardt on "Legionsschweine in Gerasa. Lokalkolorit und historischer Hintergrund von Mk 5,1–20," Dieter Zeller on "Gibt es religionsgeschichtliche Parallelen zur Taufe für die Toten (1Kor 15,29)?", and Boris Paschke on "The cura morum of the Roman Censors as Historical Background for the Bishop and Deacon Lists of the Pastoral Epistles."

thoughts on bauckham's jesus and the eyewitnesses

I finished Bauckham's book a bit ago and I've been mulling it over in my mind off and on since. There's much that I like about it, but there are some things that I'm not entirely convinced by.

First, the things I like:

• The emphasis on eyewitness testimony as the foundation of the Gospel traditions. I've always been struck by the "witness/eyewitness" motif used in significant ways in early Christian writings, especially in Luke, John, Acts, 1 Corinthians, Hebrews, 1 John, Revelation, Papias, and the like. Now, the motif is not used in exactly the same way in all these writings, but in several of them it claims to reflect the eyewitness testimony of those who participated in Jesus' public career and heard him teach. On this, I was actually a little surprised that Hebrews didn't get more attention by Bauckham: Hebrews 2:3 claims that "this salvation was first spoken by the Lord and attested to us by those who heard him," and in subsequent chapters one sees a few interesting Synoptic-like "historical Jesus" tidbits (e.g. 2:18; 4:15; 5:7-9--The Temptation and Gethsemane, the beginning and end of Jesus' public career?).
• The implications of acknowledging this for doing Gospels research. I do think Bauckham's work is the biggest nail yet in the coffin of a traditional form-critical approach to the Gospel traditions. One will no longer be able to advocate an "anonymous community creativity" any longer without seriously grappling with this book. I also appreciate that Bauckham has not proposed a simple one-to-one correspondence between the eyewitness tradents and the final form of the Gospels: the Gospels derive from their eyewitness sources, but at least Matthew and Luke are not solely dependent on single eyewitnesses, and all four Gospels have been shaped to reflect a particular angle on Jesus' life and teachings. Source and redaction criticism still have a significant role to play in understanding the construction and theology of the Gospels.
• The work done interpreting Papias and on names in the Gospels. These were, for me, the most fascinating and freshest parts of Bauckham's book. At this point I find Bauckham's work on both these counts generally convincing: especially Papias' historiographical purposes, his desire for living testimony (not simply oral tradition) over against written accounts, and the named, non-public persons in the Gospels as eyewitness sources for Gospel traditions.

But there were some areas which failed to convince:

• The indication of the Gospels' eyewitness sources by the use of inclusio. This is one idea that I'll have to mull over some more, but at this point I'm not entirely convinced. [Update: Rick Brannan nicely sums up one of my questions on this: "As regards Mark, if his main source is Peter, what is the likelihood that the first and last testimony he uses are Peter's?"]
• John the Elder as the "beloved disciple" and author of the Gospel of John. Bauckham has put together an impressive case for this, probably as good as it could be. Still, I'm not convinced. I do think Bauckham has rightly identified the "beloved disciple" as a real historical person and as the eyewitness source of the Gospel's material, but at this point I'm not convinced that John the Elder makes better sense than some other options.
• The "he, we, and I" of John 21:20-25. I'm not convinced by Bauckham's claim that these all actually mean "I" in reference to the "beloved disciple" as first-person author of the Gospel as we have it. I'll gladly concede that "we" and "I" can be used interchangeably in a rhetorical fashion to mean "I" (I think this explains the phenomenon in Hebrews, for example). And I'll even concede that first-person narrative accounts may use "he" for the author and shift to a first-person "I" in a conclusion or some such. But to my mind this doesn't adequately explain what we see in this passage in John: "This is the disciple who is testifying to these things and has written them, and we know that his testimony is true." This seems to create a distinction, a separation of person, between the "we" and the "he." I understand that in Bauckham's theory the author is making a transition between the third-person narrative and the first-person authorial claim, but any of the following would seem more natural to me: "This is the disciple who is testifying to these things and has written them, and I know that my testimony is true"; "This is the disciple who is testifying to these things and has written them, and we know that our testimony is true"; or "This is the disciple who is testifying to these things and has written them, and he knows that his testimony is true," following up with the first-person statement in 21:25. On this last option, it is worth noting that this is precisely the way the claim is made in 19:35, remaining consistently in the third person. The bottom line: I think the claim of 21:24 is that the "beloved disciple" is the eyewitness source and originating author of the Gospel's material, which has been edited into its final form by an individual or group following the death of the "beloved disciple," a death which was disconcerting for people who had believed that the "beloved disciple" would remain alive until Jesus' return (cf. 21:21-23).

In summary, you could say I am generally convinced by Bauckham's general thesis, but not particularly convinced by some particular ideas.

latest review of biblical literature

The latest in the Review of Biblical Literature includes the following NT-related items of interest:

Youngmo Cho, Spirit and Kingdom in the Writings of Luke and Paul: An Attempt to Reconcile These Concepts.
Reviewed by John T. Squires

Luke Timothy Johnson. Hebrews: A Commentary.
Reviewed by Craig R. Koester

Daniel Patte and Cristina Grenholm, eds. Gender, Tradition and Romans: Shared Ground, Uncertain Borders.
Reviewed by Veronica Koperski

Leif E. Vaage, ed. Religious Rivalries in the Early Roman Empire and the Rise of Christianity.
Reviewed by Joseph Verheyden

latest biblical studies carnival

The latest Carnival is up: Biblical Studies Carnival XIV. Chris Weimer has done a great job of highlighting the best in biblical studies blogging for the month of January.

women in ministry: navigating through the options

Here is the handout for a presentation I've done on the controversial issue of women's roles in ministry: Women in Ministry: Navigating Through the Options. A survey of the positions--especially notes on a survey of the positions--is inevitably going to be a bit simplistic. Nevertheless, I hope that this will be of some benefit to others.

My concluding thoughts are as follows:

• We must stay away from personal, ad hominem attacks. On both sides of the debate there are godly, intelligent, Christians who are motivated by a desire to understand Scripture and to submit to its authority.
• We must acknowledge the complexity and significance of the issue. Recognizing its complexity can keep us from arrogance or simplistic answers; recognizing its significance can keep us from ambivalence or "fence-sitting."
• Organizations which ordain and call pastors and select church leaders (i.e. denominations, local churches) must wrestle with this issue, to come up with policies for their specific contexts. Individuals within those organizations should work through this process within their denomination or church, and then submit to those policies or leave if they cannot submit to them.
• As individuals we must wrestle with this issue, at least to be informed about the alternatives when the discussion comes up.
• In situations where diverse perspectives are present, we must follow the biblical model of unity in diversity, allowing for diversity on non-central matters—even theological matters which can be supported biblically (see Romans 14-15).

On this last point, I'd refer you to my previous discussion: unity in diversity on matters of dispute.

As always, comments are welcome. If there are specific errors or ommissions in my handout, I would appreciate being emailed at the contact info here.

jim west biblioblogger of the month

A dashing Jim West is Biblioblogger of the Month for February. You can read his lively interview here.

latest expository times

The latest issues of the Expository Times are now online: January 1 2007, Volume 118, No. 4 and February 1 2007, Volume 118, No. 5. Among other items, the Apostolic Fathers series continues with Paul Foster on The Epistle to Diognetus, and Simon Gathercole has an article on The Gospel of Judas.