latest review of biblical literature

The latest in the Review of Biblical Literature include the following items of interest:

A. K. M. Adam, Stephen E. Fowl, Kevin J. Vanhoozer, and Francis Watson. Reading Scripture with the Church: Toward a Hermeneutic for Theological Interpretation.
Reviewed by Joel B. Green

Simon J. Gathercole. The Pre-existent Son: Recovering the Christologies of Matthew, Mark, and Luke.
Reviewed by James D. G. Dunn and Frank J. Matera

Timothy Larsen and Jeffrey P. Greenman, eds. Reading Romans through the Centuries: From the Early Church to Karl Barth.
Reviewed by Mark Elliott

Clare K. Rothschild. Baptist Traditions and Q.
Reviewed by John S. Kloppenborg

PhD: British or North American?

Mark Goodacre sparked an interesting discussion with his post, PhD: UK or USA? Since I have a bit of hodge podge experience in educational systems on both sides of the pond, and I actually have a few minutes to blog, I thought I'd share my two pence (that's about four cents here in Canada).

The differences in PhD program(me)s reflect differences in the educational systems as wholes. The British system is geared much more toward specialization, while the North American system is geared more toward generalization.

In Britain, students begin a process of specialization by around fifteen years of age. They do exams to get into advanced level (A-level) courses, and these A-level courses determine what they can study in university. Now, to a certain extent this happens in North America, in that students in most educational regions must take certain courses in order to meet minimum university entrance requirements, but the degree of selectivity and specialization is not nearly so much as in Britain. In Britain a student will continue that specialization into their undergraduate education. So, a three-year bachelor's degree in theology, for example, will focus entirely on subjects within the broad discipline of "theology" (often including what we in Canada might call "religious studies"): biblical studies, Christian theology, Islamic studies, and so on.

On the contrary, most students in North America have a more generalized secondary education experience, and continue this generalization through their undergraduate degree, as the emphasis in North America is very much on a broad liberal arts approach at that level. One begins to see some specialization in the major of the undergraduate degree, but in many cases that is still not at the same degree of depth in the specialization as one finds in a three-year British bachelor's degree. It's not until the master's level that one really finds that degree of specialization in North America.

All this to say that the PhD program(me)s on each side of the Atlantic simply reflect the larger educational systems (and the values underlying those systems) of which they are a part. Someone entering a PhD programme in Britain from the British educational system is continuing a process of specialization begun in their mid-teens, while someone entering a PhD program in North America from the North American education system is continuing to reflect the value of generalization--even though at this stage it's generalization within a particular discipline--and setting any specialization within that generalist framework. Which system is better? That's hard to say. If one uses publications as a measuring stick, I certainly don't see any difference in outcome of the two systems: one finds top-quality books and articles written by both British and North American PhDs. If one uses appointment to significant academic positions as a measuring stick, again I don't see a difference.

All this goes wonky when you have someone like me, who was in the Canadian educational system through his master's degree and who is now completing a British PhD (and there are many like me--check out all the Americans at Edinburgh!). I have found that I do indeed have a broader knowledge within which to pursue my doctoral research, but that what I have lacked is some of the specialist knowledge. Thus, when I began my doctoral work, I deliberately took the first year to try and "patch some holes" in that knowledge. Now, in part this surely reflects the kind of master's work I did--a seminary divinity degree rather than a university classics or history or even religious studies degree. But I'm sure my experience is not all that unique. In doing a British PhD, I have loved the opportunity to pursue advanced research from the get-go in my programme, guided by a mentoring supervisor all along the way. For me this has been ideal. I'm sure, however, that I would have benefited from having some sort of comprehensive exams in the early stages of the programme, even if they were only oral exams based on a broad selection of readings across the discipline of biblical studies.

My two pence (four cents), for what it's worth. If my characterizations of British and North American systems are off in any regard, I'm quite happy to be corrected.

latest review of biblical literature

The latest New Testament-related items in RBL include the following of interest:

Peter Arzt-Grabner, Ruth Elisabeth Kritzer, Amfilochios Papathomas, and Franz Winter. 1. Korinther.
Reviewed by Joseph Verheyden

Matthew Brook O'Donnell. Corpus Linguistics and the Greek of the New Testament.
Reviewed by Paul Elbert

Arie W. Zwiep. Judas and the Choice of Matthias: A Study on Context and Concern of Acts 1:15-26.
Reviewed by Loveday Alexander

the day after

My Calgary Flames lost last night to the mighty Detroit Red Wings, losing the first round series and being ousted from the playoffs. Detroit was clearly the better team through most of the series, and certainly through nearly every minute in Detroit. But Miikka Kiprusoff was absolutely outstanding in net for Calgary, with a .929 save percentage through the series in being bombarded with 255 shots.

The Flames were an enigma this year. They showed many times that they could play with the best teams in the league in tough games, but then they often looked like a cellar-dwelling team. They were dominant and aggressive at home but tentative and spiritless on the road. They would put together a string of wins in which they looked like no one would ever beat them, followed by a string of losses in which they looked like they would never win again. And even in individual games they would play a period or two of dominating hockey but throw in twenty or thirty minutes of listless and indifferent play. Is it coaching? Is it leadership on the team? Is it a lack of those behind-the-scenes character guys that bring up the level of energy for a team? They've now got a whole summer to figure that out. And I've got a whole summer to wait.

thessalonian watch: finds during metro tunneling

I spoke too soon in saying that there is not much on the Thessalonian Watch front. It appears I missed this item (HT: Explorator). It is a follow-up to a previous note that authorities in Thessaloniki were expecting to unearth some important finds while digging for a new metro line. Preliminary reports confirm this expectation in some unexpected ways.

Ancient Thessaloniki emerges, thanks to digging for metro
Tunnels will go deeper to spare antiquities
By Iota Myrtsioti - Kathimerini

Preliminary work on the metro is slowly bringing to light the story of Thessaloniki. The first architectural remains and portable finds discovered in the city’s historic center are just a sample of what the metro tunneling machine will turn up once it starts digging deeper.

Though the exploratory digs at 350 points along the 9.6-kilometer metro line that were begun last August have so far uncovered only a handful of portable finds, a museum has already been found to house them. It is the Alkazar (formerly Hamza Bey mosque). Refurbishment is under way, which will allow the monument to receive visitors by the end of the year, Culture Ministry General Secretary Christos Zahopoulos announced on Thursday, presenting the finds.

Part of the eastern cemetery of Thessaloniki with 35 graves was one of the expected finds. It was discovered by archeologists from the 16th Ephorate of Classical Antiquities in the Sintrivaniou district.

Of various types, set in close rows, the graves date from the Early Hellenistic to the Late Roman period (third century BC to third century AD). Eleven of them contained grave goods, including coins, figurines, bone clasps, clay and glass vases, gold and bronze jewelry, and a funerary stele bearing the name of the occupant, Epitherses Filonos Methemnaios.

[...]

In contrast, the Roman-era architectural remnants discovered at points along the projected metro line were a complete surprise.

Preliminary excavations unearthed various items including potsherds, plinths, slate paving, plaster, bones and stones at 42 other sites.

At Dimokratias Square, Venizelou and Aghias Sofias metro station sites, the 9th Ephorate of Byzantine Antiquities unearthed parts of walls, pipes and floors. One outstanding find was a headless marble figurine discovered in front of Aghios Athanasios.

[...]

thessalonian watch: 2,000-year-old tombs unearthed

Not much on the Thessalonian Watch front recently, but here's something of interest from near Thessaloniki:

2 000-year-old tombs unearthed

Athens - Archaeologists in northeastern Greece have unearthed eight tombs containing the remains of men and women who lived over 2 000 years ago, along with an assortment of jewellery, weapons and agricultural tools, the Greek culture ministry said on Friday.

The tombs dating from the fifth to third centuries BC were dug into rock, likely covered with stone slabs and probably lay alongside an ancient road, the ministry said in a statement.

They were discovered near a freeway between the cities of Salonika and Edessa during road construction.

Prior excavation in the same area has already unearthed three farms dating from Roman to Hellenistic times, and a fourth from the Early Christian era.

[...]

snowblog: life doesn't stop for a little snow

Hey, this is the Canadian prairies! Snow in April? That's nothing compared to our May blizzards! And life goes on even while getting a few inches of heavy, wet, slushy, slippery snow. Here are a couple shots out our window, watching the kids go to school in the snow with a plowing/sanding truck helping to clear the way.

latest review of biblical literature

The latest New Testament-related reviews in RBL include several items of interest:

Morten Hørning Jensen. Herod Antipas in Galilee: The Literary and Archaeological Sources on the Reign of Herod Antipas and Its Socio-economic Impact on Galilee.
Reviewed by Mark A. Chancey

Joseph A. Marchal. Hierarchy, Unity, and Imitation: A Feminist Rhetorical Analysis of Power Dynamics in Paul's Letter to the Philippians.
Reviewed by Jennifer Bird

Christopher Rowland and Christopher Tuckett, eds. The Nature of New Testament Theology: Essays in Honor of Robert Morgan.
Reviewed by Craig L. Blomberg

Robert A. Spivey, D. Moody Smith, and C. Clifton Black. Anatomy of the New Testament: A Guide to Its Structure and Meaning.
Reviewed by Matthew Collins and David Trobisch

Peter Stuhlmacher. Biblische Theologie des Neuen Testaments: Vol. 1: Grundlegung. Von Jesus zu Paulus.
Reviewed by Günter Röhser

latest currents in biblical research

The latest Currents in Biblical Research is now online for those with subscription access, abstracts available for all: June 2007, Volume 5, No. 3. This issue includes "Recent Eastern Orthodox Interpretation of the New Testament" by Timothy Clark, "The Unity of Luke-Acts: A Four-Bolted Hermeneutical Hinge" by Patrick E. Spencer, and "Apocalypses and Apocalypticism in Antiquity (Part II)" by Lorenzo DiTommaso.

happy birthday, michael!

A happy birthday to our seven-year old Sir Michael! As our daughter wrote on her birthday card to him, "May the dragon never burn you, may you never die by the sword. But may you live by God's word, and may you love the Lord!" Couldn't have said it better myself.
Update: Here's a later picture of the gang at Michael's party after making their shields for the tournament.

latest new testament studies

The latest issue of the journal New Testament Studies is online: Volume 53 - Issue 02 - April 2007. As usual, lots to see, including "Galilee as Laboratory: Experiments for New Testament Historians and Theologians" by Sean Freyne, "Le (Fils) monogène dans les écrits johanniques: Évolution des traditions et élaboration rédactionnelle" by Michèle Morgen, "Paulus und der Herodianische Tempel" by Friedrich Wilhelm Horn, and "The Meaning of the Phrase ta stoicheia tou kosmou in Galatians" by Martinus de Boer. Abstracts are available to all; full-texts are available to subscribers.

the making of a dissertation: the 'word of the lord' in 1 thessalonians 4:15 (6)

For the series outline, see here.

Ten Steps to a Conclusion

To summarize my previous posts (and half a decade of my life, in a way):

1. The phrase en logō kuriou in 1 Thessalonians 4:15 has almost always been taken as referring either to a directly received prophetic revelation, whether to Paul or to another Christian prophet, or to a teaching of Jesus received as tradition, whether preserved in the Gospel tradition or otherwise unknown (an agraphon). There are good points in favour of both proposals, but significant weaknesses as well.

2. Divine speech language such as logos kuriou and logos theou is used overwhelmingly in the Septuagint and some Second Temple literature to refer to prophetic utterances. This use is so frequent that it would surely have influenced early Jewish Christian use.

3. However, divine speech language such as logos kuriou and logos theou is used overwhelmingly in the early Christian literature to refer to the orally proclaimed message of salvation centred on Jesus' death and resurrection, essentially as a synonym of euangelion. This use of a prophetic phrase is likely due to the eschatological orientation of the early Christians, seeing the gospel as the ultimate divine message for Israel and the nations.

4. Conversely, the singular phrases logos kuriou and logos theou are never used in the early Christian literature to refer either to a traditional teaching or discourse of Jesus or to a direct or prophetic revelation.

5. There are no lexical or grammatical difficulties with taking en logō kuriou as a reference to the orally proclaimed message of salvation centred on Jesus' death and resurrection.

6. The immediate context of 1 Thessalonians 4:13-5:11 indicates that the mutual confession of Jesus' death and resurrection brackets the entire section and even grounds the assertions in the section in some way (4:14; 5:9-10).

7. The broader historical and literary context of the letter as a whole points to a significant concern with the divine origin and authority of the gospel message as the means by which faith, love, and hope were initially achieved, and thus the means by which the Thessalonians' hope can be reconstructed.

8. While Paul's use of prophetic revelation and Jesus tradition as epistemic authorities is very limited and somewhat ambivalent, there does appear to be the use of traditional material in 1 Thessalonians 4:16-17a which was believed by Christians to originate with Jesus of Nazareth.

9. While Paul frequently uses Scripture as an epistemic authority for his thought and discourse, and this use of Scripture informs his understanding of the Christ events, he rarely uses Scripture as an epistemic authority for his teaching on the eschaton, and he never directly cites Scripture in 1 Thessalonians.

10. Paul frequently uses the Christ events, particularly Jesus' death and resurrection, as an epistemic authority for his thought and discourse, in such a way that even informs his understanding of Scripture. In particular, he consistently views the resurrection of Jesus as the fundamental ground for his thought and discourse on the future resurrection of believers, a reality in 1 Thessalonians 4:13-18 which finds noteworthy parallel in 1 Corinthians 15.

After walking through these ten steps, I propose the following solution to the problem of the "word of the Lord" in 1 Thessalonians 4:15: while Paul does appear to employ Jesus tradition in this response to the Thessalonian crisis, the phrase en logō kuriou does not refer to this tradition, but rather refers to the proclaimed gospel message about Jesus centered on his death and resurrection which forms the theological foundation of Paul's response.

the making of a dissertation: the 'word of the lord' in 1 thessalonians 4:15 (5)

For the series outline, see here.

Strengthening the Case through Epistemological Analysis

After convincing myself that en logō kuriou in 1 Thessalonians 4:15 is a reference to the orally proclaimed gospel message, the message of salvation centred on Jesus' death and resurrection, I'll admit I found it hard to get motivated to finish the dissertation (on this phenomenon, see here). But I knew that, however much the specific referent of the "word of the Lord" was a matter of dispute, scholars are agreed upon at least one thing: the "word of the Lord" functions as an authority to ground Paul's assertions in the passage. Around this time I came across Ian Scott's work on Paul's epistemology, and I started (re-)reading Richard Hays and others on narrative-theological approaches to Paul, and this got me jumpstarted again. Having examined the specific phrase and the broader context of the passage and letter, I would now broaden out even more to look at Paul's epistemic authorities generally, setting the logos kuriou within that epistemological context.

For the purposes of my research, I have defined an "epistemic authority" as something which is external to Paul himself, which is accessed and interpreted by Paul through his own experience of it and in the midst of his total life experience, and which authoritatively contributes to and shapes his thought and discourse. I have been examining four main epistemic authorities for my thesis: Jesus tradition and prophetic revelation (as the two conventional solutions to the problem), and Scripture and the Christ events (as the two most commonly recognized epistemic authorities in Paul).

My research into Paul's use of Jesus tradition and prophetic revelation as epistemic authorities confirmed some aspects of the conventional solutions to the problem, but questioned others. To sum up rather quickly, I'm just not convinced that direct or prophetic revelations held much epistemic weight for Paul in his theology and discourse, even if they held epistemic weight for him in his practical decision-making. We do not have much clear and direct evidence for early Christian prophetic revelation (ca. 30-60 C.E.), but that which we have does not point to an intrinsically perspicuous and infallible authority that directly shaped doctrine or even eschatology proper (teaching on the eschaton); it was the apostles who were essentially heirs of the Hebrew prophets as authoritative, divine spokespersons, not the Christian prophets (cf. e.g. 1 Cor 14:37). Rather, the earliest evidence points to prophecy as almost entirely personal, social, and practical in its concerns, whether predictive or paraenetic in orientation (e.g. 1 Cor 14:24-25; 2 Cor 12:9; Gal 2:2; cf. Acts 11:28; 21:10-11). It is not until later, as the apostles were passing from the scene, that we begin to see prophets taking on a more authoritative role in shaping and teaching doctrine, including teaching on the eschaton (e.g. Rev, Did.).

Jesus tradition fares a little better in my analysis. I do see good evidence that Paul would have had access to a fairly reliable fund of Jesus tradition, that Paul employed Jesus tradition in his thought and discourse (e.g. 1 Cor 7:10-11; 9:14; 11:23-25), and that Paul probably knew more about Jesus and the Jesus tradition than is clearly and directly used in his letters. However, his use of the Jesus tradition reflects some ambivalence on his part: he seems to cite Jesus tradition only when he has to, and that not very often (probably in part because he was not perfectly "at home" in the Jesus tradition, not having been a disciple of Jesus of Nazareth); and he can even cite Jesus tradition only to "over-rule" it on the basis of an epistemic authority perceived to be more important (e.g. the gospel, see 1 Cor 9:14 in context). Nevertheless, in spite of Paul's ambivalence toward the Jesus tradition, I do think that the parallels between 1 Thessalonians 4:16-17a and some other early Christian eschatological texts indicate some sort of genetic connection among these texts (cf. Matt 24:30-31; Did. 16:6-8), a connection which makes the best sense as originating in eschatological teaching which was believed to go back to Jesus of Nazareth. However, I must immediately point out that this conclusion needs to be distinguished from the issue of whether or not en logō kuriou is a reference to Jesus tradition; these two issues may be related, but as my lexical and grammatical analysis indicates, they need not be related.

Scripture and the Christ events are much more common epistemic authorities for Paul in his thought and discourse; indeed, it appears that much of his theology and discourse is achieved in mutual conversation with Scripture and the Christ events. There are dozens of direct citations of Scripture and dozens of direct references to Jesus' death and/or resurrection in the undisputed Pauline letters, as compared with two or three clear references each to prophetic revelation and Jesus tradition. Now, Paul does not always use these epistemic authorities to ground his assertions directly; all of them can function in several different ways, and this is certainly true of both Scripture and the Christ events. As for Scripture, Paul's most common way to ground his assertions in Scripture is through a phrase like kathōs gegraptai, but other phrases can be used. Of these instances where Paul is grounding his assertions in Scripture, most often these assertions are ecclesiological, soteriological, or ethical in nature - they are rarely focused on eschatology. This reality, combined with the fact that Paul never directly cites Scripture and rarely alludes to it in 1 Thessalonians, make Scripture an unlikely epistemic authority for Paul's discourse in 1 Thessalonians 4:13-18.

For Paul, the crucial "Christ events" are Jesus' death and resurrection. Jesus' death and resurrection are often referred to separately, but they can occur together in some contexts, often apparently reflecting a primitive Christian confession. These Christ events - accessed by Paul primarily through his experience of the crucified and resurrected Jesus (Gal 1:11-17), and supplementarily through apostolic tradition (1 Cor 15:1-11) - ground several sorts of assertions in Paul's letters, including those related to Christology, soteriology, ethics, and often eschatology (see the examples in my recent Easter post). In particular, in Paul's discussions of the future resurrection of believers, Jesus' resurrection is always lurking somewhere in the context as the ground of his teaching (see Rom 6, 8; 1 Cor 6, 15; 2 Cor 4-5; Phil 3; 1 Thess 4). In this vein, the most striking parallel to 1 Thessalonians 4:13-18 is 1 Corinthians 15: the mutual confession focused on Jesus' death and resurrection (1 Thess 4:14; 1 Cor 15:3-5), called the "gospel" in 1 Corinthians and the "word" (logos) in both (1 Thess 4:15; 1 Cor 15:1-2), forms the primary epistemic foundation for the assertion that believers will be resurrected at the future parousia of Christ.

All of this coheres well with my previous linguistic and contextual research, confirming my thesis that en logō kuriou is a reference to the orally proclaimed gospel message, the message of salvation centred on Jesus' death and resurrection. In the next (and last) post I will summarize the key points in defence of my thesis.

confusing dualisms

The "flesh"/"Spirit" contrast in Paul is an eschatological or even apocalyptic contrast, not an ontological or metaphysical contrast. It is not to be understood as an expression of Hellenistic material/immaterial dualism, and certainly not the later Gnostic version of this Hellenistic dualism. This "flesh"/"Spirit" contrast is the personalized equivalent of the more depersonalized "world"("present age")/"coming age" contrast. It is a contrast between two spheres of existence, one characterizing the present age and the other the coming age which has invaded the present age in Christ and which will be fulfilled at Christ's parousia. Thus, it fits right in with other eschatological dualisms in Paul, such as "Torah"/"Christ." Anyone who misses the eschatological dimension of these dualisms in Paul risks misunderstanding or even distorting his theology.

Just as many have de-eschatologized or de-apocalypticized Jesus, so many have de-eschatologized or de-apocalypticized Paul. And just as eschatology or apocalyptic is in many ways the key to understanding Jesus, so eschatology or apocalyptic is in many ways the key to understanding Paul.

easter blessings

To all who wander this way over the next few days, I wish you a very blessed Easter weekend. Here are a few Pauline Easter texts to ponder, texts which bring together both Jesus' death and resurrection, drawing a variety of implications for Christian faith and life.

• [We] believe in him who raised Jesus our Lord from the dead, who was handed over to death for our trespasses and was raised for our justification. (Rom 4:24-25)
• For if while we were enemies, we were reconciled to God through the death of his Son, much more surely, having been reconciled, will we be saved by his life. (Rom 5:10)
• We have been buried with him by baptism into death, so that, just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, so we too might walk in newness of life. For if we have been united with him in a death like his, we will certainly be united with him in a resurrection like his. We know that our old self was crucified with him so that the body of sin might be destroyed, and we might no longer be enslaved to sin. For whoever has died is freed from sin. But if we have died with Christ, we believe that we will also live with him. We know that Christ, being raised from the dead, will never die again; death no longer has dominion over him. The death he died, he died to sin, once for all; but the life he lives, he lives to God. So you also must consider yourselves dead to sin and alive to God in Christ Jesus. (Rom 6:4-10)
• In the same way, my friends, you have died to the law through the body of Christ, so that you may belong to another, to him who has been raised from the dead in order that we may bear fruit for God. (Rom 7:4)
• It is Christ Jesus, who died, yes, who was raised, who is at the right hand of God, who indeed intercedes for us. (Rom 8:34)
• For to this end Christ died and lived again, so that he might be Lord of both the dead and the living. (Rom 14:9)
• For I handed on to you as of first importance what I in turn had received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the scriptures, and that he was buried, and that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the scriptures, and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. (1 Cor 15:3-5)
• [We] always [carry] in the body the death of Jesus, so that the life of Jesus may also be made visible in our bodies. For while we live, we are always being given up to death for Jesus' sake, so that the life of Jesus may be made visible in our mortal flesh. So death is at work in us, but life in you. But just as we have the same spirit of faith that is in accordance with scripture-- "I believed, and so I spoke"-- we also believe, and so we speak, because we know that the one who raised the Lord Jesus will raise us also with Jesus, and will bring us with you into his presence. (2 Cor 4:10-14)
• For the love of Christ urges us on, because we are convinced that one has died for all; therefore all have died. And he died for all, so that those who live might live no longer for themselves, but for him who died and was raised for them. (2 Cor 5:14-15)
• For he was crucified in weakness, but lives by the power of God. For we are weak in him, but in dealing with you we will live with him by the power of God. (2 Cor 13:4)
• I want to know Christ and the power of his resurrection and the sharing of his sufferings by becoming like him in his death, if somehow I may attain the resurrection from the dead. (Phil 3:10-11)
• For since we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so, through Jesus, God will bring with him those who have died. (1 Thess 4:14)

the making of a dissertation: the 'word of the lord' in 1 thessalonians 4:15 (4)

For the series outline, see here.

Furthering the Thesis through Contextual Analysis

As this linguistic reality was becoming clear, I began seriously to examine the idea that en logō kuriou in 1 Thessalonians 4:15 refers to the gospel message. While I was researching the lexical and grammatical matters discussed in the last post, I was also working on contextual matters: the specific historical situation addressed by 1 Thessalonians and especially 4:13-18, as well as the "cotext" of the passage within the letter as a whole. As often happens, a change of thinking in one area of research immediately causes you to see things differently in another, related area of research.

In the immediate literary context, it became obvious that, regardless of whether or not en logō kuriou refers to the gospel message, the authors' instruction in the passage is to some extent grounded in Jesus' death and resurrection. In 4:14, the authors' initial response to the problem of grief for dead believers is based upon the mutual confession of the authors and the Thessalonians: "Since we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so, through Jesus, God will bring with him those who have died." If 4:15-17 is seen as an expansion of this initial response, as many commentators see it (note the gar of 4:15), then one could see the en logō kuriou ("in accordance with the gospel message," as I was now taking it) as equivalent to this mutual confession in Jesus' death and resurrection. Furthermore, the authors return to Jesus' death and resurrection as grounds for future hope at the conclusion of this concentrated eschatological section: "For God has destined us not for wrath but for obtaining salvation through our Lord Jesus Christ, who died for us, so that whether we are awake or asleep we may live with him" (5:9-10). Thus, Paul's response to the Thessalonian eschatological crisis is bracketed by, and shaped by, the gospel confession of Jesus' death and resurrection.

In the broader context of the letter, I began to notice a marked emphasis on the gospel message in its opening section, described using terms such as "gospel" (euangelion), "gospel of God" (euangelion theou), the "word of God" (logos theou), and even the "word of the Lord" (logos kuriou) (1:5-6, 8-10; 2:2-4, 8-9, 13). This divinely originating and authoritative gospel message was proclaimed by the authors in power and sincerity in spite of opposition in their initial ministry in Thessalonica; and it was authentically received by the Thessalonians in the midst of opposition, as demonstrated by their faith, love, and hope in response to it (see most of chapters 1-2).

While working through these thoughts, I was also interacting with all the options on the general historical situation. Without getting into the details (details about which I'm still uncertain about at this point), my general thoughts on this were as follows: Since the missionaries had left Thessalonica, the Gentile Thessalonian Christians had persevered in faith in the one true God in spite of opposition from outside the Christian community. Although there were problems within the community such as sexual immorality, the Thessalonian Christians had continued to demonstrate a self-giving love toward one another. However, the recent death of fellow believers proved too much for their hope. These deaths, in the midst of external opposition and interpreted through their nagging, pre-Christian worldview, caused them to wonder if they were in danger of moving outside the sphere of divine favour, and they were sure that their dead were now outside of the scope of divine salvation. Their hope had turned to despair.

So, in responding to this situation Paul points the Thessalonians back to their founding: all the tools they need to deal with the present crisis were given them in that initial preaching and teaching (chs. 1-2). Paul frames his response around the three virtues which he remembers they demonstrated from the beginning: faith, love, and hope (1:3). These virtues sprang from their authentic reception of the divine gospel, demonstrating the legitimacy of their status among God’s people. Timothy’s report has indicated that the Thessalonians have continued in an adequate if incomplete faith and a strong, God-taught love (3:6), but their hope has dissolved in the face of death (4:13). Thus, in this letter the authors attempt to encourage the Thessalonians’ faith and love (3:7-10; 4:9-10) and to reconstruct their hope (4:13-14; 5:8-10). These goals can only be accomplished by pointing the Thessalonians back to the gospel message centred on Jesus’ death and resurrection, the gospel which was the impetus for these virtues in the first place. This explains the emphasis on Jesus' death and resurrection in the eschatological section noted above (4:14; 5:9-10): the Thessalonians' initial hope was prompted by the gospel message, so their hope can only be reconstructed by focusing back on the gospel message.

After this linguistic and contextual analysis, my mind was now effectively changed: the referent of the phrase en logō kuriou is not a "prophetic message from the exalted Lord Jesus," nor is it a "saying/discourse of the earthly Lord Jesus," but rather it is the gospel message, the "saving message about the Lord Jesus."

But even though I was convinced myself, I still had to strengthen my case to convince others. That's where I wandered into Paul's epistemology.

the making of a dissertation: the 'word of the lord' in 1 thessalonians 4:15 (3)

For the series outline, see here.

Initial Doubts through Linguistic Analysis

My preliminary solution to the problem of the logos kuriou was that the phrase en logō kuriou refers to a "saying/discourse of Jesus" and that Paul uses this Septuagintal prophetic phrase because it is indeed a prophetic oracle of Jesus of Nazareth as prophet. But I was beginning to have some doubts, and it was my own lexical research that really confirmed my doubts and sparked a new line of thinking on this problem.

I knew that what was needed was a thorough analysis of "language of divine speech" in early Jewish and Christian literature. However, this was such a huge area of research that I had to narrow it down somewhat, so I focused on those texts which were most likely to have been influential for Paul or were most similar to Paul's writings. I looked at the following writings, prioritized according to the following levels of context: 1) the seven generally undisputed Pauline writings; 2) the disputed and deutero-Pauline writings; 3) the rest of the New Testament; and 4) the canonical writings of the Septuagint, the major or most relevant Old Testament Apocrypha and Old Testament Pseudepigrapha through to ca. 150 C.E., and the Apostolic Fathers through to ca. 150 C.E. I did a careful reading of these texts, especially focusing on "word" and other speech language, and especially phrases like logos kuriou and logos theou.

My findings confirmed my doubts about my preliminary conclusions. By far the most common use of logos kuriou, logos theou, and language of divine speech generally in the Septuagint and Second Temple Jewish literature was in reference to prophetic oracles (e.g. 1 Kgs 13:1, 2, 5, 32; 21:35; 1 Chr 15:15; Ezek 23:1; 35:1; Hos 1:1; Amos 5:1; Joel 1:1; Sir 48:3, 5). This use is so overwhelming that it would have been virtually impossible for the earliest Jewish Christians such as Paul to have been unfamiliar with it or uninfluenced by it. But this fact made my next major observation all the more striking: by far the most common use of logos kuriou, logos theou, and similar "word (of x)" language in the early Christian literature was in reference to the message of salvation centred on Jesus' death and resurrection, essentially a synonym of euangelion (e.g. Acts 2:41; 4:31; 8:25; 13:26; Heb 13:7; Jas 1:18; 1 Pet 1:23, 25; Rev 1:2; Ign. Phil. 11:1; Barn. 16:9; Pol. Phil. 3:2; 9:11; Herm. 15:3, 6; 102:2). The Pauline and disputed Pauline use fits well within this widespread "word (of x)" for euangelion pattern (Rom 10:8, 17; 1 Cor 1:18; 2:4; 14:36; 15:2; 2 Cor 1:18; 2:17; 4:2; 5:19; 6:7; Gal 6:6; Phil 1:14; 2:16; 1 Thess 1:8; 2:13; cf. Eph 1:13; 5:26; 6:17; Col 1:5, 25; 3:16; 2 Thess 3:1; 2 Tim 2:9, 15; 4:2; Tit 1:3, 9; 2:5). Negatively, the phrases logos kuriou and logos theou are simply not used in early Christian literature in reference either to Jesus tradition or to Christian prophetic revelations, even in writings in which one might expect their use (e.g. Rev, Herm.). I attributed this remarkable shift in referent of "word (of x)" language in general terms to the eschatological outlook of the early Christians, that the gospel message centred on Jesus' death and resurrection was the ultimate prophetic word going forth to Israel and the nations. I wrote up this research - especially focused on the "gospel"/"word" parallel - and presented it at the University's Postgraduate Biblical Studies Seminar. This paper was published last year in JSNT (see here).

I started playing with the idea that en logō kuriou referred to the gospel message, and I could find no immediate lexical or grammatical problems with this view. The word logos can certainly mean a general "message," typically underscoring the orality of the message. The other clear uses of logos kuriou in early Christian literature demonstrate that the genitive kuriou could be objective ("the message about the Lord") or perhaps intentionally ambiguous (the Lord as both originator and content of the message). Also, while every other instance of the gospel phrase logos kuriou in Paul and the New Testament employs the articles, I discovered that it was not uncommon for semi-technical phrases to be sometimes articular and sometimes anarthrous with no difference in referent (e.g. dikaiosunē theou in Rom 1:17; 3:21; 10:3), especially when placed in a genitival or prepositional phrase (see the standard grammars). Furthermore, an anarthrous construction can be used to emphasize a particular quality inherent in the noun, such as Paul does with logos theou for the gospel message back in 1 Thessalonians 2:13. As for the dative en phrase, I determined that it probably holds its native locative sense, giving the phraseological or conceptual boundaries within which the authors say what they say in the passage. If the boundaries are phraseological, one might expect a quotation of the "word" in one or both of the hoti clauses in 4:15-17a; if the boundaries are conceptual, one need not expect a quotation in the passage, but the statement could be made in accordance with an uncited "word."

I was now well on my way to changing my mind about the logos kuriou in 1 Thessalonians 4:15.

latest review of biblical literature

There are several New Testament-related items in the latest Review of Biblical Literature postings. Here are some that stood out to me:

Manuel Vogel. Commentatio mortis: 2Kor 5,1-10 auf dem Hintergrund antiker ars moriendi.
Reviewed by Tobias Nicklas

James Ware. The Mission of the Church in Paul's Letter to the Philippians in the Context of Ancient Judaism.
Reviewed by Torrey Seland

Mark W. Waterman. The Empty Tomb Tradition of Mark: Text, History, and Theological Struggles.
Reviewed by Michael R. Licona

Ben Witherington III. 1 and 2 Thessalonians: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary.
Reviewed by Mark R. Fairchild and Craig L. Blomberg

recommending english bible versions

I'm often asked by students or others what English Bible version I would recommend, and I've just had an email from a blog reader about this question. I usually suggest that if they're serious about in-depth study of Scripture they should learn Hebrew and Greek. However, I recognize that this is simply not going to happen for most people, and even for myself my English will always be better than my Greek (and certainly my rusty Hebrew).

As I look at English Bible versions, I always keep three things in mind:

• We are blessed with many good English translations and versions. When I think of the people who do not have the Bible in their own language, I sometimes feel a bit guilty about how good we have it.
• No translation or version is perfect. Every translation or version will have strengths and weaknesses, and will perhaps even be stronger in some sections of the Bible than in others.
• Every translation is an interpretation. Even the most "literal" of translations still has had to make judgment calls about which English words to use to correspond to the Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek words. And anyone who knows multiple languages knows that there is rarely a direct one-to-one correspondence in words from one language to the other - even a common noun can develop nuances and connotations in one culture that are simply not present in another. And this doesn't even touch on idioms, figures of speech, or more indirect language.

Because of these realities, I counsel those confined to English:

• to use multiple versions for more detailed study of a passage;
• to use a committee-produced version that makes sense to the person for personal reading of Scripture; and
• to use a committee-produced version that employs good and ear-pleasing English for public reading of Scripture.

If I have to nail down a specific English version, I'd recommend the NASB, NIV, TNIV, or NRSV. Others are no doubt as good as these, but these are the ones I'm more personally familiar with.

the making of a dissertation: the 'word of the lord' in 1 thessalonians 4:15 (2)

For the series outline, see here.

Preliminary Conclusions

As I read the literature related to the "word of the Lord" in 1 Thessalonians 4:15, it became clear that there have really been two main proposals for the referent of en logō kuriou: either 1) it refers to a directly received prophetic revelation, whether to Paul or to another Christian prophet; or 2) it refers to a teaching of Jesus received as tradition, whether preserved in the Gospel tradition or otherwise unknown (an agraphon). I discovered that these two main approaches to the phrase have long histories, each with representation in every era of interpretation going back to patristic exegesis.

The best arguments in favour of each view follow a similar pattern. For the Jesus tradition view, one can first establish the likelihood of Paul’s use of eschatological Jesus tradition through a general survey of Paul's use and knowledge of Jesus tradition: Paul uses "tradition" language to refer to material he has formally passed on to his churches (Rom 6:17; 1 Cor 11:2, 23-25; 15:1-7; 1 Thess 4:1-2; cf. 2 Thess 2:15; 3:6; Col 2:6-7); he evinces more knowledge of Jesus' life and career than is sometimes thought (e.g. Rom 1:3; 1 Cor 2:8; 7:10-11; 9:14; 11:23-25; 15:1-7; Gal 4:4; 1 Thess 2:14-15); he cites Jesus tradition occasionally, even at least once using "tradition" language for this (1 Cor 7:10-11; 9:14; 11:23-25); and, particularly if 2 Thessalonians is authentic, he seems to have specifically passed on eschatological teaching as tradition (2 Thess 2:15; cf. 1 Thess 5:1-2; 2 Thess 2:5). Then one can move to a lexical semantic study of the key terms in the phrase en logō kuriou, noting that the words logos and kurios can appear separately in instances of Pauline and early Christian citation of Jesus tradition (e.g. Luke 4:32; 10:39; John 2:22; 6:60; 15:20; 18:9, 32; 1 Cor 7:10; 9:14; 11:23). One can then confirm this through an analysis of the un-Pauline language and structured phrasing of 1 Thessalonians 4:16-17a, often alongside a comparison with extant eschatological Jesus tradition as found in early Christian texts (e.g. Matt 20:16; 24:30-31; John 5:25; 11:25-26; Did. 16:6-8). This argument builds toward the conclusion that Paul uses the phrase en logō kuriou specifically to refer to eschatological teaching of Jesus transmitted to Paul as early Christian tradition.

The best arguments for the prophetic revelation view follow a similar pattern. First, one can establish the likelihood of Paul's use of prophetic revelations through a general survey of Paul's approach to and use of such direct revelation: Paul viewed himself as having the prophetic gift (1 Cor 14:6), and he had prophetic or seer-like revelatory experiences (2 Cor 12:1-4, 9); and he also acknowledged the value and authority of other prophets and prophetic revelations (e.g. Rom 12:6; 1 Cor 12:28; 13:2; 14:3-5, 29-33; 1 Thess 5:20). Then one can do a lexical semantic study of the phrases en logō kuriou and logos kuriou, noting that these are overwhelmingly used in the Septuagint to refer to prophetic oracles (e.g. 1 Kgs 13:1, 2, 5, 32; 21:35; 1 Chr 15:15; Ezek 23:1; 35:1; Hos 1:1; Amos 5:1; Joel 1:1; Sir 48:3, 5). One can then confirm this through an analysis of the un-Pauline language and structured phrasing of 1 Thessalonians 4:16-17a (the one thing on which these two views agree), often alongside a comparison with other passages deemed to be based on prophetic utterances (e.g. 1 Cor 15:51-52).

However, as I did my research, I also noted several problems with each of these views. For example, there are very few clear and direct citations of Jesus tradition in Paul, and very few clear and direct citations of direct revelation in Paul, and in both cases the only examples of these are found in the Corinthian epistles, which may indicate something unique going on in Corinth with these matters. In more general terms, it seemed to me that Paul's thought world did not revolve around either Jesus tradition or prophetic revelation: other factors are more primary in Paul's thought and discourse, particularly in eschatological contexts. And in more specific terms, I was struck by the simple fact that, whatever the merits of the lexical study of both views, the phrase logos kuriou is simply not used anywhere else in early Christian literature to refer either to Jesus tradition or to prophetic revelation.

Through all this research, my initial conclusion remained the same: that the phrase en logō kuriou refers to a "saying/discourse of Jesus" and that Paul uses this Septuagintal prophetic phrase because it is indeed a prophetic oracle of Jesus of Nazareth as prophet.

But I was beginning to have my doubts.

latest biblical studies carnival

Brandon Wason has done a tremendous job highlighting the best in biblical studies blogging in March 2007: Biblical Studies Carnival XVI. It looks like there's a few months' worth of reading in this one carnival!

james tabor biblioblogger of the month

James Tabor, author of The Jesus Dynasty Blog, is the Blogger of the Month at Biblioblogs.com. Check out his interview here.