Andy Naselli

Thoughts on Theology

Archives for November 2008

Bauckham on Separating from False Religion

by

Richard Bauckham concludes The Theology of the Book of Revelation (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993) with a section entitled “Revelation’s Relevance Today” (pp. 159–64). His eighth of eleven “theological directions for contemporary reflection” calls for the church to separate from false religion (pp. 162–63):

Revelation’s prophetic critique is of the churches as much as of the world. It recognizes that there is a false religion not only in the blatant idolatries of power and prosperity, but also in the constant danger that true religion falsify itself in compromise with such idolatries and betrayal of the truth of God. Again, this is the relevance of Revelation’s theocentric emphasis on worship and truth. The truth of God is known in genuine worship of God. To resist idolatry in the world by faithful witness to the truth, the church must continuously purify its own perception of truth by the vision of the utterly Holy One, the sovereign Creator, who shares his throne with the slaughtered Lamb.

“The Flames of Rome”: A Documentary Novel by Paul Maier

by

Last night Jenni and I finished reading Paul Maier‘s The Flames of Rome. It is outstanding! It is a bit more explicit than Maier’s Pontius Pilate (sometimes uncomfortably so, e.g., re Nero’s depravity), but overall, it is a fine tool to engage one’s mind with first-century Greco-Roman, Jewish, and Christian history in a way that is virtually impossible by reading only encyclopedia-type summaries of the day. Bravo!

I would not be surprised if both of these books become required reading for NT classes I may teach in the future. They’re that useful.

Related: “Pontius Pilate”: A Documentary Novel by Paul Maier

Scholarship Fads

by

Here are some good reminders re scholarship from Rethinking the Synoptic Problem (ed. David Alan Black and David R. Beck; Grand Rapids: Baker, 2001), emphasis added:

1. Scot McKnight, “A Generation Who Knew Not Streeter: The Case for Markan Priority,” p. 66:

The unfortunate, however unintended, implication of coming to grips with modern scholarship is that in learning contemporary scholarship, students put the previous generation on the shelf. These scholars are sitting there full of chat, but, sadly, modern students don’t have time for older studies, and so the books become forlorn as the faces of the scholars become lonely, sad, and unknown. It is a fact that modern scholarship’s improvements do not necessarily make older scholarship obsolescent.

2. Grant R. Osborne, “Response,” pp. 150–51:

There are no certainties in life. It must be said that scholarship, like all other earthly endeavors, runs in fads, especially in the post-Enlightenment setting. Scholars are essentially Athenians at heart, always searching for some new thing (Acts 17:21).  The four-source hypothesis [which Osborne holds] has dominated for almost a century now, and that is a fairly long time. So we can never know when some new genius will come along and establish a new theory that will carry the day. However, it is the purpose of symposia like this to sum up the “state of the art” on the issue, and I believe we have done as well as we can. It seems to me that the evidence points clearly to the modified Streeter theory that Mark was first, and that it existed alongside a sayings source that we now call Q. Later, Matthew utilized both and supplemented them with his own (M)emory material. At the same time (it is nearly impossible to know which was first), Luke used Mark and Q along with other sources he had gathered (L), and wrote his Gospel. Again, certainty is impossible, and it is good for us to be “iron sharpening iron” as we debate the proper approach to interpreting the Gospels on the basis of the sources they used (redaction and composition criticism). The only mandate for all of us is humility. We need each other, for without these challenges we become arrogant and falsely certain of our community-shaped theories.

Con Campbell’s Blogged Mini-Series on Verbal Aspect

by

One month ago I posted on “Con Campbell’s Primer on Verbal Aspect Theory.”

Constantine R. Campbell. Basics of Verbal Aspect in Biblical Greek. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2008 (coming November 1, 2008). 159 pp.

This week Campbell blogged a five-part mini-series on his book on a Zondervan blog:

Related: Andrew David Naselli, “A Brief Introduction to Verbal Aspect in New Testament Greek,” Detroit Baptist Seminary Journal 12 (2007): 17–28.

Electronic Hermeneutics?

by

I just came across an intriguing entry in Richard N. Soulen and R. Kendall Soulen’s Handbook of Biblical Criticism (3d ed.; Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2001), p. 53:

Electronic Hermeneutics refers to an emerging discussion concerning the rise of the digital age and its impact on religious communities and on the nature, place, and meaning of sacred texts such as the Bible within these communities and within the culture at large. Cognizant of how epochal shifts in the technology of communication have transformed human culture (as exemplified by the successive inventions of writing, printing, and the predigital electronic media), scholars are now investigating how the transition from printed text to the digital, mutlisensate worlds of hypertexts, hypermedia, interactivity, and “virtual reality” will shape human experience and communication. Biblical scholars have been among the first to make use of computer technology and to reflect on how changes in communication technology affect beliefs and practices. See W. J. Ong, Interfaces of the Word: Studies in the Evolution of Consciousness and Culture (Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press, 1977); R. Hodgson and P. A. Soukup, eds., From One Medium to Another: Basic Issues for Communicating the Bible in New Media (Kansas City, Mo.: Sheed & Ward, 1997).

“Biblical scholars who complain that those who do systematics are guilty of too much speculation should look carefully in the mirror”

by

Tom Schreiner‘s primarily positive review of Larry Hurtado’s Lord Jesus Christ: Devotion to Jesus in Earliest Christianity has a critical paragraph ending with a gem:

One of the less convincing features of Hurtado’s book is his tendency to accept critical orthodoxy throughout. For instance, he includes his chapter on Q before consulting the Synoptic Gospels. Placing Q before the Synoptics is a rather strange procedure since the nature of Q is keenly debated, and some scholars question whether it even existed. Even if Q did exist, the document (or oral tradition) has never been unearthed, and so we do not know (contrary to the confident assertions of some!) what was actually contained in the alleged document. Therefore, it is rather speculative to write about the Christology found in Q to say the least. Perhaps Hurtado’s purpose is to demonstrate the plausibility of his theory even if one adopts a Q hypothesis, since he argues that even Q does not point to variant form of Christian belief regarding Jesus Christ. In any case, reading this chapter on Q reminded me that biblical scholars who complain that those who do systematics are guilty of too much speculation should look carefully in the mirror (Southern Baptist Journal of Theology 9:1 [2005]: 101, emphasis added).