Tag Archives: Apocalyptic Interpretation

2018 Gifford Lectures (Part 4)

12 Monday Mar 2018

Posted by in Biblical Studies, Historical Studies, Resources

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , ,

My favorite quote from the previous lecture (lecture 3):

We ought not to speak of God incarnate until we have studied the incarnate God.

This wonderfully succinct quote is an excellent demonstration of the way Wright brings together history and theology in his larger project. It is worth sitting and pondering how the two parts of that statement fit together.

Here is the fourth lecture, “The End of the World? Eschatology and Apocalyptic in Historical Perspective”

As always, check out the blurb over at University of Aberdeen’s web page. All eight lectures are now posted there.

Paul and Second Temple Judaism

09 Saturday Apr 2016

Posted by in Historical Studies, Research Topics / Book Ideas

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

, , , , ,

Second Temple Jewish Star

James H. Charlesworth has crafted 12 questions to guide his review of N.T. Wright’s Paul and the Faithfulness of God. The stated goal of the questions is to allow him “to classify the best approach to the very complex world of Second Temple Judaism in ancient Palestine and in the Diaspora, Paul’s relation to it, and Wright’s presentation of each.”¹

So here is my idea for how someone could use Charlesworth’s questions to write a book (publishers take note). The questions (or some modification of them) would serve as a great tool for comparing various contemporary presentations of Paul. Charlesworth himself should contribute the Foreword or Introduction so as to give him the proper credit for the questions. I propose that the following works on Paul could profitably be analyzed on the basis of Charlesworth’s questions:

  • F.F. Bruce. Paul Apostle of the Heart Set Free. Paternoster Press, 1977.
  • James D. G. Dunn. The Theology of the Apostle Paul. Eerdmans, 1998.
  • Thomas R. Schreiner. Paul, Apostle of God’s Glory in Christ: A Pauline Theology. InterVarsity Press, 2001.
  • Michael J. Gorman. Apostle of the Crucified Lord: A Theological Introduction to Paul and His Letters. Eerdmans, 2004.
  • Anthony C. Thiselton. The Living Paul: An Introduction to the Apostle’s Life and Thought. InterVarsity Press, 2009.
  • N.T. Wright. Paul and the Faithfulness of God. Fortress Press, 2013.
  • John M.G. Barclay. Paul and the Gift. Eerdmans, 2015.
  • E.P. Sanders. Paul: The Apostle’s Life, Letters, and Thought. Fortress Press, 2015.

So what are Charlesworth’s questions? (below I have replaced “Wright” with “our author” to make them applicable to other works)

  1. I am certain that [our author] would assiduously avoid any semblance of Anti-Judaism (Anti-Semitism), but would he agree with the stellar group of Pauline specialists who convened in Rome in 2014 to demonstrate how Paul now must be understood within Second Temple Judaism?
  2. Paul states that he is proud to be a Jew and a Pharisee, so does [our author] err and cast Paul as a “Christian,” sociological and theological category which is anachronistic to many experts for the period before 70 CE?
  3. Does [our author] avoid such misleading dichotomies as “Hellenistic Judaism” versus “Palestinian Judaism” and “Orthodox Judaism” versus “Sectarian Judaism”?
  4. In examining pre-70 CE sociological and theological contexts, does [our author] choose to use terms that are now relegated to the dust bin, according to most scholars, such as “canonical,” “canon,” “extra-canonical,” as well as “church,” “orthodoxy,” and “heresy”?
  5. Does [our author] appreciate how significantly the concepts and terms in the Dead Sea Scrolls have revolutionized scholars’ approach to Second Temple Judaism, Christian Origins, and Paul? And specifically, how dies he use the evidence of “works of law” now found in Second Temple  Judaism to clarify the same term in Galatians?
  6. If [our author] sees a unity within Second Temple Judaism, what is it and how does he obtain that insight; and if he sees only diversity, how does he explain the colossal change in 66 CE?
  7. Does [our author] appreciate the many groups and sects within Second Temple Judaism and does he do justice to the Samaritans?
  8. How does [our author] treat the “sacred writings” in the Old Testament Pseudepigrapha (that is, does he find God’s Word in any of them, as did the early Jews and “Christians”?); and does he engage the authors who have claimed Paul quoted from or at least knew one or more these documents?
  9. Does [our author] perceive that Paul’s main inheritance from Judaism is apocalyptic eschatology?
  10. Would [our author] agree with those that conclude Paul broke from Jesus by rejecting the purity laws, dietary restrictions, circumcision, and taking the “good news” to Gentiles?
  11. Has [our author] found “the heart of Paul’s theology” or has he allowed Paul to be as contradictory as he seems to be in his authentic letters?
  12. Where do we find Paul’s genius and creativity and how do we know that when so many ideas we all once concluded had originated with Paul are now being discovered in early Jewish texts?

Some of the questions may need to be reformulated. Charlesworth’s own presuppositions are apparent in more than one. Nevertheless, they do serve as launch point for further discussion of how different authors handle the issues concerned. I think it would be quite revealing to consider how each of the above mentioned works on Paul deals with each of these topics. It will go a long way toward demonstrating the relative strengths and weaknesses of each work. Further, it would potentially uncover additional areas where more work is needed.

So…will someone please take this idea and run with it?

¹ See “Wright’s Paradigm of Early Jewish Thought: Avoidance of Anachronisms?” in God and the Faithfulness of Paul (Mohr Siebeck 2016) edited by Christoph Heilig, J. Thomas Hewitt, and Michael F. Bird, 207-234, 207.

Recent Articles in JSNT

07 Thursday Apr 2016

Posted by in Biblical Studies, Resources

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, ,

jsnt

Journal for the Study of the New Testament has some good articles just out last month. Two in particular are worth mentioning:

What to Expect when you’re Expecting: Maternity, Salvation History, and the “Apocalyptic Paul” by J.P. Davies, JSNT 38:3 (2016) 301-315.

Here is the abstract:

This article argues, on the basis of Jewish and Christian apocalypses, that ‘apocalyptic’ in Paul should not be understood as antithetical to ‘salvation history’. It focuses on one of Paul’s key metaphors, childbirth, which has been identified as an image intrinsically connected to Paul’s apocalyptic eschatology. It will first offer a brief survey of the way the image of childbirth has been deployed in recent ‘apocalyptic’ interpretations of Paul (notably the work of Beverly Gaventa) in support of a ‘punctiliar-invasive’ theology of history over against a ‘linear-progressive’ view. It will then examine some of the evidence from the apocalyptic literature where childbirth is used as an eschatological metaphor, particularly in the book of Revelation. It will argue that an understanding of the logic of this metaphor in Second Temple Jewish and early Christian apocalyptic thought raises questions about the eschatological dichotomy at the heart of the contemporary ‘apocalyptic Paul’ movement.

 

‘Christ-Faith’ as an Eschatological Event (Galatians 3.23-26): A ‘Third View’ on Πιστις Χριστου by Benjamin Schliesser, JSNT 38:3 (2016) 277-300.

Here is the abstract:

The meaning of πιστις Χριστου in Paul (Gal. 2.16, 20; 3.22; Rom. 3.22, 26; Phil. 3.9) continues to be the subject of controversial debate in Pauline scholarship. Should the genitive construction be understood objectively as ‘faith in Christ’ or subjectively as ‘the faith(fulness) of Christ’? The prevalent either/or character of the discussion is increasingly proving to be an impediment to finding a solution to this issue. A minority view, the so-called ‘third view’, seeks to move beyond the subjective-objective dichotomy by accounting for the intrinsic complexity of the Greek genitive and pointing to the event-character of in πιστις Paul. The primary reference text for this ‘third-view’ is Gal. 3. 23–26, which exhibits an altogether remarkable language of faith and envisages πιστις as ‘coming’ (ερχεσθαι) and as ‘being revealed’ (αποκαλυπτεσθαι). This article reviews the exegetical status quaestionis and argues that Paul does not regard πιστις Χριστου as an individual disposition or character (either Christ’s or that of the believer), but rather as an eschatological event. The aim is not to offer a comprehensive analysis of the verses in question, but to advance exegetical and theological support for the ‘third view’ and to point to its considerable explanatory power in our effort for a more nuanced appreciation of Paul’s language of faith.

(click here for JSNT webpage)

The “Glory of God” in Romans

15 Friday Jan 2016

Posted by in Biblical Studies, People to Know, Reviews

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , ,

Interpretation and the Claims of the TextI recently read a fascinating chapter by Beverly Gaventa on “The ‘Glory of God’ in Paul’s Letter to the Romans”. Gaventa contributed this chapter in the book Interpretation & the Claims of the Text: Resourcing New Testament Theology (Baylor University Press, 2014), a collection of essays in honor of Charles Talbert.

On the premise that relatively little scholarly work has been done on the phrase “the glory of God” (δοξα του θεου) in Paul’s letters Gaventa sets out to demonstrate three things (pg.29):

  1. That “glory of God” is an important motif in Romans
  2.  That it draws on earlier Jewish associations connecting God’s glory with God’s salvific presence
  3. That it plays a role in Paul’s apocalyptic interpretation of the gospel

In her survey of glory of God language in Romans, Gaventa highlights two particularly disputed passages: Romans 3.23 and 5.2.

With regard to Romans 3.23 Gaventa makes two moves. Firstly, she suggests that it should be translated (following Leander Keck and also The New American Bible) as follows: “all are deprived of the glory of God”. This brings our the passive voice of the verb (contra. the more common renderings “lack” or “fall short of”). Secondly, she draws attention to what exactly is meant by “glory of God” in the claim that humanity is deprived of it. She concludes that Paul “refers not to humanity’s own original state of glory but to the loss of its proper, worshipful relationship to God” (pg.31). As a side note, the Good News Translation of the Bible supports Gaventa’s reading of the glory-of-God language in this verse: “everyone has sinned and is far away from God’s saving presence” (Rom 3.23 GNB).

In regard to Romans 5.2, the phrase is usually read as hope for humanity’s own eschatological glory. Gaventa suggests rather that to hope in the glory of God means to expect God’s triumphant presence.

This leads into her discussion of how the Old Testament and other Jewish literature uses glory-of-God language to refer to God’s own presence (e.g. inter alia Ex 24.16; 40.34; Lev 9.23; Ps 56.6; Ezek 11.23). But she points out that in many places it is not just a general presence that is signified by the phrase “it is God’s presence as that presence powerfully triumphs over God’s intractable enemies” (pg.33, emphasis added). In other words, “God’s δοξα is not just God’s presence, but God’s presence for the purpose of an eschatological establishment of God’s saving kingdom” (pg.34).

This claim is supported by a survey of the ubiquitous, but little noticed, conflict language throughout Romans. Again, she concludes that “the ‘glory of God’ signals not only God’s own presence but something more — God’s presence as it triumphs over God’s own enemies, most especially the enemies named Sin and Death” (pg.36).

Among other ramifications of this reading for understanding Paul is that the resurrection of Jesus from the dead is not primarily a proof of his divinity or his identity as the messiah (although it is that, to be sure), but instead the “beginning of God’s triumph. That is why Paul can go on to say in Romans 6.9-10 that Death and Sin no longer rule over Christ; they have been defeated by the “glory of the father” (pg.36).

More could be said but I will stop here. Gaventa has certainly given us something to consider which has profound implications for how we understand a concept as important as the glory of God. As always her work is thought provoking and well worth the reading.

Soli Deo gloria.