thesis signed, sealed, delivered

I've been battling a chest cold these past few days, not doing much other than dragging myself to classes to teach. But in the midst of that darkness I had one shining light, receiving word a couple days ago that my corrections to my thesis were approved by my examiners.

After more than five years (and several thousand dollars), I'm finally completely done with my doctoral thesis. I've even just sent off the final printed copies to Birmingham to be hardbound for the University library. Whether or not it will get there in time to be processed before the December graduation, I don't know, but either way my already-not yet tension will eventually give way to complete eschatological fulfillment.

I'd like to thank David Wenham and Philip Burton, my examiners, for their careful reading of my thesis, their penetrating questions and helpful comments. Thanks also must go to Mark Goodacre and David Parker, my supervisors, for their encouragement and advice all along the way. The administration and faculty of Prairie Bible College, where I teach, deserve many thanks for all kinds of support throughout the process. And of course I must publicly thank my wife and children who have put up with a lot more than anyone else to see this come to fruition.

For those who are interested, the title of my thesis is "Discerning the 'Word of the Lord': ἐν λόγῳ κυρίου in 1 Thessalonians 4:15." For those who are still interested, here is the final abstract:

In 1 Thessalonians 4:15, the Apostle Paul appeals to a "word of the Lord" to provide authority for his eschatological encouragement. This appeal has left a perplexing problem related to the nature and function of the specific authority to which the phrase refers. Two theories have predominated in the history of interpretation: 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. This thesis investigates this problem from three angles: epistemological analysis, examining Paul’s authorities for his knowledge, particularly in his eschatology; linguistic analysis, including both grammatical and lexical study of the phrase; and contextual analysis, setting the statement within its historical and literary contexts. These approaches converge to suggest a fresh solution to the problem: while Paul does appear to employ traditional Christian eschatological teaching in his response to the Thessalonian crisis (4:16-17a), the phrase ἐν λόγῳ κυρίου does not refer to this tradition, but rather refers to the proclaimed gospel message about Jesus centred on his death and resurrection which forms the theological foundation of Paul’s response (cf. 4:14).

And for those who are still interested, I've outlined some of the key arguments in my thesis in a previous series, available here.

So, anyone out there interested in publishing my thesis? :-)

barclay, wright, and paul's anti-imperialism

Several bibliobloggers (e.g. here and here) have noted the recent SBL session on “Paul and Empire,” in which John Barclay and Tom Wright went toe-to-toe on the matter of Paul’s anti-imperialism. An MP3 recording of the session has been made available by Andy Rowell here. Barclay’s presentation essentially denies that Paul had any specific issue with Caesar and the Roman Empire, and that Pauline words and statements which Wright and others have taken as implicit, subversive references to Roman imperialism are better understood otherwise. As Barclay memorably puts it in reference to the well-known story of “The Emperor’s New Clothes,” while Wright and others see a naked Emperor throughout the New Testament, Barclay sees no Emperor at all.

I’m not entirely convinced by Barclay, although I’ve never been entirely comfortable with Wright either. I’ve blogged some thoughts related to this theme before, especially in my description of the gospel and in my introduction to 1 Thessalonians. I know the imperial material related to Thessalonica and 1 Thessalonians the best, so let me focus in on that:

• There is abundant extra-biblical evidence that imperial concerns were highly significant in Thessalonica specifically and Macedonia and the Aegean region in general. Most students of the New Testament are aware of the “Priene inscription,” a stone inscription from Asia Minor from around the time of Jesus’ birth which describes the birth of the Emperor Augustus as “good news” of peace for the world. However, not as many are aware that this inscription has now been discovered in several places throughout Asia Minor. This bit of imperial propaganda was not simply a local matter, but a large-scale regional campaign intended to influence people’s thinking for a while to come. There is also growing evidence for the significance and influence of the imperial cult in the mid-first century throughout the Aegean region. This was not simply a late first or early second century innovation, but a growing trend throughout the first century. Another general regional factor was the reality of Macedonian royalist sentiments based on distinctive Macedonian history. While in general terms there was a pro-Roman outlook in the region, the glories of past Macedonian rulers like Philip and Alexander never faded from the collective consciousness. Indeed, evidence from the region suggests that the Romans sought to counter-act this sentiment in the region by requiring citizens to perform and adhere to imperial loyalty oaths, confessing no king but Caesar. For some good discussions of this evidence, see e.g. Harrison 2002; Green 2002; Oakes 2005.
• There is non-Pauline evidence that Paul’s missionary efforts in Thessalonica were viewed by others as anti-imperialist in nature (Acts 17:1-9). The specific charge brought against Paul and Silas before the civic authorities is telling: “They are all acting contrary to the decrees of the emperor, saying that there is another king named Jesus” (Acts 17:7). In light of the evidence described in the previous point, this is best understood as a charge that Paul and Silas are themselves speaking and acting contrary to the required imperial loyalty oaths, and inciting others to do the same.
• Paul’s Macedonian letters themselves use a cluster of imperially characteristic language and motifs to describe what God has done and will do in Jesus, occasionally drawing an explicit contrast with other messages in the Macedonian context. Some of these terms and motifs in 1 Thessalonians include the following: “gospel (e.g. 1:5 cf. 2:13, euangelion),” “Lord (e.g. 4:15-17, kurios),” “arrival/coming” (4:15, parousia), “meeting” (4:17, apantēsis), and the phrase “peace and security” (5:3, eirēnē kai asphaleia; cf. Latin pax et securitas). All these words and phrases are found in various ways in the imperial propaganda of the day. While none of these words is itself unique to imperial rhetoric, taken together they are certainly characteristic of imperial rhetoric. Furthermore, in some of these instances Paul explicitly contrasts his message with other messages in the Thessalonian context: for example, the missionaries’ “word of the gospel” is not a merely “human word” but is “God’s word” (2:13); and it is those who are saying “peace and security” (5:3) who will be destroyed on the day of the Lord. While my own study has focused on 1 Thessalonians, similar stereotypically Roman language can be seen in 2 Thessalonians (e.g. 1:5-10) and in Philippians (e.g. 1:27; 3:20), a letter to a Roman colony.

If we had only one of these lines of evidence, or perhaps even two, then one could be justified in questioning Paul’s “anti-imperialism.” But this kind of convergence of evidence should be enough to convince scholars that Paul did indeed speak in ways which used imperial language in some sense to subvert imperial values. The extra-biblical evidence is of a kind and degree that makes it unlikely Paul was ignorant of imperialist propaganda in the Aegean regions and the significance of using that language otherwise; the evidence from 1 Thessalonians (and even 2 Thessalonians and Philippians) thus seems to reflect Paul’s deliberate mirroring of that imperial propaganda in letters to predominantly non-Jewish recipients from that region, at times apparently in direct contrast to those imperial messages; and the evidence from Acts indicates that some years later Paul was still remembered as speaking in the region in a way that opened him up to the charge of anti-imperialism. In light of all this, it seems to me that Barclay has swung the pendulum too far in his own “anti-Wrightian” rhetoric.

Nevertheless, Barclay’s assessment is not without merit. Paul was certainly not anti-government, nor do I believe he was even anti-Caesar or anti-Empire per se. Rather, it makes sense to understand Paul as setting these among the “rulers of this present age,” and thus in opposition to God and his saving work in Christ in more general terms. (By the way, this sort of understanding comports with my own contemporary application of these motifs related to the gospel.) An analogy with Paul’s view of the Law may be helpful: just as for Paul the Law is “holy, righteous, and good,” yet justification cannot come through the Law, so also for Paul the political authorities of this age are “servants of God to do what is right,” yet salvation cannot come through Caesar. Paul's most fundamental problem with both the Law and the Empire is nothing necessarily inherent to themselves—rather it’s that neither is Christ.

Thus, it seems to me that Barclay has overstated his case by undervaluing the evidence, while Wright has overstated his case by overvaluing the significance of the evidence.

Update (12/05/07): David Miller has noted this discussion on his blog, also noting my blog post in the process. I commented on David's post, and I thought my comments there could be helpfully repeated here to clarify the points I make in my post above:

1) Paul uses these specific words [e.g. "Lord" and "gospel"] to people living in a location surrounded by imperial propaganda and some anti-imperial sentiment; 2) he was specifically remembered as speaking in that region in such a way that he could be charged with treasonous anti-imperialism; 3) in at least one instance Paul uses one of these imperial phrases explicitly as a quotation of what other people in the Thessalonian context are saying ("peace and security"), i.e. it is not simply Paul using the language analogously about Christ but as a quotation of those who are in fact opponents of the Thessalonian Christians facing judgment in the Day of the Lord. Thus it is not simply the use of those words and phrases that makes me see some sort of "anti-imperialism" in 1 Thessalonians - it is those words used in these ways in that context. This is not simply like using the language of "King Jesus" as a helpful metaphor for people living under a monarchy; it is more like using that language for those people in a region with a history of anti-monarchist tendencies, saturated with pro-monarchist propaganda, and then describing those who employ that propaganda as liable to divine destruction at the eschaton.

Still, having re-emphasized my points, I should also re-emphasize my conclusion - I do not think that Paul was therefore necessarily anti-Caesar or anti-Empire per se, but rather viewed those as the specific instances of "the powers of the world" in the Thessalonian context, and it's the "powers of the world" (among other forces) that face judgment and defeat in the wake of the crucified and risen Jesus.

latest review of biblical literature

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

Silvia Cappelletti. The Jewish Community of Rome: From the Second Century B.C. to the Third Century C.E.
Reviewed by Judith Lieu and Allen Kerkeslager

Bruce J. Malina and John J. Pilch. Social-Science Commentary on the Letters of Paul.
Reviewed by Eduard Verhoef

Jerome Neyrey. The Gospel of John.
Reviewed by Dirk van der Merwe

Richard P. Thompson. Keeping the Church in Its Place: The Church as Narrative Character in Acts.
Reviewed by Steve Walton

moreland on evangelical "bibliolatry"

A couple of papers at the recent annual meeting of the Evangelical Theological Society have stirred up some dust storms. One of these was J. P. Moreland's paper entitled "How Evangelicals Became Over-Committed to the Bible and What can be Done about It," a paper which is now available online here. Some of the dust can be seen over at the Christianity Today blog which initially reported on Moreland's paper. A response by Moreland to some of the initial criticism can be found in the comments on that CT blog post, and also here.

I'm not generally a big fan of Moreland's work (his blanket condemnation of postmodernism as "an immoral and cowardly viewpoint" in his plenary address at ETS a couple years ago stands out unfavorably in my mind), and I don't necessarily like all of the ideas in the current paper (it's certainly not the way I would tackle the issue myself), but I found myself agreeing with him in the general thrust of the paper.

Here's how he describes the problem:

The very idea that one could be over-committed to the Bible may strike one as irreligious. In a sense, this judgment is just. One could never be too committed to loving, obeying and promoting Holy Scripture. In another sense, however, such over-commitment is ubiquitous and harmful. The sense I have in mind is the idea that the Bible is the sole source of knowledge of God, morality, and a host of related important items. . . . The Protestant principle of Sola Scriptura does not entail this claim. . . .

wright's writings

There's a recent interview with N. T. Wright available online which is being noted in various places in the blogosphere: the mp3 is here and the transcript is here. It's a wide ranging interview with some interesting tidbits on all the things buzzing about Wright recently: justification, penal substitution, politics and the gospel, and so on. One certainly gets the impression in the interview that Wright is weary of responding to certain criticisms of his work. It's his own fault, though - writing all those books he's bound to say some things that will get people upset... :-)

There are several quotes I found interesting, but here are a couple on Wright's recent and future writing projects. First, on the title of his recent work on the authority of Scripture:

However, I have to say, and my work on the authority of Scripture, which you probably know – a little book called The Last Word in America. Silly title, by the way. That was Harper’s folly to call it that. It wasn’t my idea. Fancy having a book called The Last Word! I mean… it’s very silly. If I was going to write a book called The Last Word it would be on Christology, not on Scripture. “In the last days, God has spoken to us by his Son…”

Then, on the current status of the "Big Project," his series on Christian Origins and the Question of God, which so far includes The New Testament and the People of God, Jesus and the Victory of God, and The Resurrection of the Son of God:

But, the next book in the big series has not been started yet. It’s been started in my head and on notebooks, but I haven’t done any serious writing for it. That’s supposed to be on Paul. What I want to do is the big book of which that little book Paul: In Fresh Perspective was just a kind of little foretaste.

In other words, what I’m hoping and praying that I’ll be able to do is to do a run-through of Paul’s theology in a reasonably traditional way, but simultaneously show the political side of all that and show how that integrates. Then, I would love at the same time to do, showing how Paul is working with and subverting the philosophical climate of his time, the Stoics and Epicureans and so on. Nobody is basically pulling those three together.

But Paul lived in those three worlds. The Jewish world of the worship of the one true God and figuring out what that meant, the Roman world where he was a citizen, but a very subversive one and then the Hellenistic world, which he knew perfectly well (the Areopagus address, and so on). And I would love to be able to show, not only how those three strands play out, but how they work together. Different bits of the Pauline Studies Guild are doing those different bits. I don’t think anybody’s doing the integration. And that’s a very exciting task.

I may have a sabbatical in 2009. That hasn’t been negotiated yet. But what I need (and if anyone out there is listening and wants to come and apply), I need a research assistant who will actually help me line up the key things I need to work with, because otherwise I could spend all four months of the sabbatical, simply sitting in the library reading the stuff I haven’t yet caught up with, and then the sabbatical will be over just when I was ready to start writing. I can’t afford that time, otherwise, it will be another six years. So that’s where I am at the moment.

michael and matthew's new room

Since I was unable to go to San Diego for the ETS and SBL conferences this weekend, I put the time to good use by helping Larissa work on the boys' new room downstairs. Two-and-a-half years after moving Amelia downstairs to her own room, Michael and Matthew have finally followed suit. They now have a bona fide boys' room, complete with loft beds in a cars-and-sports theme. Here are some pics of the happy duo in their new digs:

latest review of biblical literature

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

Kurt Erlemann, Karl Leo Noethlichs, Klaus Scherberich, and Jürgen Zangenberg, eds. Neues Testament und Antike Kultur (4 vols.).
Reviewed by Joseph Verheyden

Graeme Goldsworthy. Gospel-Centered Hermeneutics: Foundations and Principles of Evangelical Biblical Interpretation.
Reviewed by Erwin Ochsenmeier

Stanley Hauerwas. Matthew.
Reviewed by John Nolland

ets and sbl: if i were going...

This week and weekend the annual meetings of the Evangelical Theological Society and the Society of Biblical Literature take place in San Diego. This will be the first time in six years or so that I will not be able to attend. But if I were going...

• I would be attending some great sessions and papers, including the Thursday afternoon ETS session and the Saturday afternoon SBL session on Richard Bauckham's Jesus and the Eyewitnesses, the Friday afternoon SBL session on "The Faith of Jesus Christ," and Mark Goodacre's paper at the Monday afternoon SBL Q Section (that's like throwing the sheep among the wolves - or better, the wolf among the sheep!).
• I would be scouring the book exhibits for deals on must-haves like Michael Bird's The Saving Righteousness of God and Oskar Skarsaune and Reidar Hvalvik's Jewish Believers in Jesus.
• I would be meeting up with some old friends and making some new ones, discussing possible publication projects, debating the merits of the new perspective on Paul and the defence of the Calgary Flames, and just re-charging my batteries for another year of academic teaching and research.

Instead, I will have to be content with reading the obligatory reports from the more prolific bibliobloggers out there, like Mark Goodacre, Mike Bird, Jim West, Jim Davila, Chris Tilling, Ben Myers, and more. To all who are going, I wish you all safe travels and stimulating conversations!

lest we forget

Today is November 11, Remembrance Day, and what better way to remember as a Canadian than by quoting the well-known poem by Canadian John McCrae, In Flanders Fields:

In Flanders fields the poppies blow
Between the crosses, row on row,
That mark our place; and in the sky
The larks, still bravely singing, fly
Scarce heard amid the guns below.

We are the Dead. Short days ago
We lived, felt dawn, saw sunset glow,
Loved and were loved, and now we lie
In Flanders fields.

Take up our quarrel with the foe:
To you from failing hands we throw
The torch; be yours to hold it high.
If ye break faith with us who die
We shall not sleep, though poppies grow
In Flanders fields.

article now available: the 'gospel' and the 'word'

I have just posted the following article on my website, making it freely available now after the mandatory one-year delay since publication: "The 'Gospel' and the 'Word': Exploring Some Early Christian Patterns." Journal for the Study of the New Testament 29, no. 2 (2006): 211-227. The official publisher's site is here.

latest review of biblical literature

The latest New Testament-related reviews posted at RBL include the following items of interest:

David E. Aune. Apocalypticism, Prophecy and Magic in Early Christianity: Collected Essays.
Reviewed by Lorenzo DiTommaso

James D. G. Dunn. The Partings of the Ways: Between Christianity and Judaism and Their Significance for the Character of Christianity.
Reviewed by Peter Carrell

Hans-Josef Klauck. Ancient Letters and the New Testament: A Guide to Context and Exegesis.
Reviewed by Pieter J. J. Botha

Cynthia Long Westfall. A Discourse Analysis of the Letter to the Hebrews: The Relationship between Form and Meaning.
Reviewed by Gabriella Gelardini

fee vs. pahl on "the word of the lord"

Imagine my surprise when I came across that title for a post on Sean du Toit's blog, Primal Subversion. "Gordon Fee vs. Michael Pahl"! Being mentioned in the same breath as one of my scholarly heroes was quite a shock, but being pitted against him was doubly so! In a Google Fight there's no contest, with Fee winning hands down. :-) But in terms of correctly identifying the referent of the phrase en logō kuriou in 1 Thessalonians 4:15, I do believe I have the upper hand (see my dissertation blog summary here). Now I just have to convince the rest of the world that this is indeed the case...

rethinking rethinking the synoptic problem

No, that's not a typo in the title. Rethinking the Synoptic Problem is the title of a book published in 2001, a collection of essays that originated as papers at a symposium at Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary in 2000. Craig Blomberg gave the opening address at the symposium (the first chapter of the book), in which he outlined the state of the question regarding the Synoptic problem. If I remember correctly, his assessment at the time was that the Two-Source Hypothesis (Mark and Q used by Matt and Luke independently) was predominant in the field and that the Griesbach Hypothesis (Mark from Matt and Luke) was a distant second, with other theories only meriting a brief comment. In particular, I believe the Farrer Hypothesis (Mark without Q used by Matt, Luke using Mark and Matt) received only a passing footnote in reference to one of Michael Goulder's publications.

My, how times have changed.

Just yesterday I came across this comment by Craig Blomberg on another blog:

Markan priority is independent of the Q-hypothesis, which . . . definitely has holes. As I point out, there are those who hold to Mark being first but then believe Luke used Matthew or vice-versa. In fact, a scant eight years after that address was completed I would say that this option has supplanted Farmer's as the second most widely held view.

I believe one could say with a good degree of confidence that, whatever shift has occurred related to the popularity of the Farrer Hypothesis, this shift is largely a result of the work of one man: Mark Goodacre.

Update (11/04/07): Just as I add that last sentence to my original post I see that Rick Sumner has noted the same thing, especially highlighting the influence of Mark's online presence.

robert cargill biblioblogger of the month

Robert Cargill, author of the Virtual Qumran blog, is blogger of the month at Biblioblogs.com. You can read the interview with him here: Blogger of the Month for November 2007.

latest biblical studies carnival

The latest Carnival is hosted by John Hobbins at Ancient Hebrew Poetry: Biblical Studies Carnival XXIII. Check it out for some representative posts from the world of biblioblogging in October 2007.