Andy Naselli

Thoughts on Theology

Exegesis

The NT in Antiquity

by

I’ve just spent some time examining an outstanding book hot off Zondervan’s press:

Gary M. Burge, Lynn H. Cohick, and Gene L. Green. The New Testament in Antiquity: A Survey of the New Testament Within Its Cultural Contexts. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2009. 480 pp.

Introduction

  1. overview of the book and authors (Note that all three authors are NT professors at Wheaton College and Graduate School.)
  2. 10-page PDF of the front matter and chapter 1
  3. video interview with all three authors
  4. blog interview with Gary Burge

Endorsements

  1. Craig L. Blomberg, PhD, Distinguished Professor of New Testament, Denver Seminary: “. . . one of the best introductions and surveys in recent times. Remarkably attractive in its layout, with color pictures, color pictures, charts, diagrams and sidebars galore . . . If it’s backgrounds you want to highlight in a one-semester introduction to the New Testament, this is the text to assign.”
  2. Darrell L. Bock, Research Professor of New Testament Studies, Dallas Theological Seminary: “The New Testament in Antiquity is a beautifully done, carefully presented, evangelically sensitive work to introduce the New Testament. I have longed for a text like this. There is richness on virtually every page. Read, savor, learn.”
  3. Craig S. Keener, Professor of New Testament, Palmer Seminary of Eastern University: “Complete with an extraordinary array of visual illustrations, this book covers important topics needed for an introductory text in New Testament in a way that is both understandable and well-informed. It emphasizes many details that help students discover the biblical text in new ways they would rarely get on their own.”
  4. Scot McKnight, Karl A. Olsson Professor in Religious Studies, North Park University: “For years I have searched in vain for a book that would introduce students to the New Testament—with clear outlines, graphic images, historical contexts, timelines, maps, and bibliographies. My search is over; this is that book.”

Initial Evaluation

While flipping through every page and dipping in here and there, I noticed a few relatively minor disappointments (e.g., the bibliography on p. 122 lists the first rather than the second edition of Craig Blomberg’s The Historical Reliability of the Gospels, and the book lacks an author index), but overall, I agree with the above scholars. My text for New Testament introduction in college was Robert G. Gromacki’s New Testament Survey (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1974). I sure wish that it would have been this one!

On Emperors and Clothes

by

I don’t recall hearing this twist to the textile-imperial metaphor before (D. A. Carson, review of David Rensberger, Overcoming the World: Politics and Community in the Gospel of John, Themelios 17:1 [October–November 1991]: 27–28):

Somewhere along the line, the text has been left behind. Not only have too many speculations been built on other speculations, but the obvious features of the text, such as its Christology, its claims to bring witness, its insistence on the uniqueness and exclusiveness of Jesus the Messiah, its remarkable ability to distinguish between what happened ‘back there’ during Jesus’ ministry and what was discerned only later, are all lost. Many scholars doubt that John 3:3, 5 is primarily about baptism, and that John 6 is primarily about the eucharist; but at very least, the point must be argued, and not assumed on the basis of a doubtful assumption as to how easy it is to read the ecclesiastical realities of the end of the first century off the surface of the text. And how can the Johannine emphasis on the uniqueness of Jesus as the lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world, as the one who dies so that the nation may be saved, as the shepherd who gives his life for his sheep, be so quickly transmuted into a call that we in our turn take away the sin of the world by opposing injustice? I am not for a moment suggesting we should ignore injustice; I am merely saying that this is an extraordinary reading of John’s gospel.

Indeed, I have gradually come to the conclusion the Fourth Gospel was not written primarily for church consumption anyway, but as an evangelistic booklet. I realize this point is debatable; but the very fact that it is debatable but is not, by and large, being debated, is profoundly troubling and indicative of what is going wrong in Johannine scholarship. The hesitant suggestions of earlier scholars have now become the ‘givens’ of this generation of scholars, who feel free to build fresh, hesitant suggestions on top of them. I am tempted to say that the emperor has no clothes—or, more conservatively, he is down to his underwear.

Nooma Blooper

by

Rob Bell further undermines his credibility in the Nooma DVD Store | 016:

And then, the Bible says [in Mark 3:5] that Jesus looked around at them in anger. Jesus gets angry. Now this story was first told in the Greek language, and there’s a subtle nuance to this word “anger” in the Greek language. It’s in what’s called the aorist tense, which is a technical way of saying that Jesus’ anger is a temporary feeling. It comes on him, and then it leaves him.

Response:

  1. “Anger” is a noun, not a verb, in Mark 3:5. The participle περιβλεψάμενος (“After looking around at”) is aorist.
    • καὶ περιβλεψάμενος αὐτοὺς μετ᾽ ὀργῆς, συλλυπούμενος ἐπὶ τῇ πωρώσει τῆς καρδίας αὐτῶν λέγει τῷ ἀνθρώπῳ· ἔκτεινον τὴν χεῖρα.
    • NET: After looking around at them in anger, grieved by the hardness of their hearts, he said to the man, “Stretch out your hand.”
  2. Even if Bell had correctly parsed the word he was highlighting, his point is still guilty of the aorist tense fallacy. The aorist tense is not “subtle” or “technical.” It’s the default tense that communicates the very least about a particular action. (See, e.g., D. A. Carson, Exegetical Fallacies [2d ed.; Grand Rapids: Baker, 1996), 67–73.)

This is not an isolated example. When Bell talks about ancient history, customs, language, etc., he not infrequently undermines his credibility.

Related:

  1. See Greg Gilbert’s thoughtful reviews of Nooma videos 1-19: parts 1 | 2 | 3.
  2. C. J. Mahaney, “Rob Bell, the Pastor’s Task of Discernment, and My Heart“
  3. D. A. Carson comments on Rob Bell’s ministry
  4. Pat Abendroth, “Rob Bell makes me angry: a pastoral response to Velvet Elvis“
  5. Ken Silva, “Is Rob Bell Evangelical?“

Update:

  1. Justin Taylor highlights this post followed by some related comments.
  2. Justin Taylor highlights this post again followed by more related comments.
  3. Kevin DeYoung, “This is Not Good“

Carson and Moo’s Dates for the NT Books

by

The below list does not reproduce a particular chart from D. A. Carson and Douglas J. Moo’s Introduction to the New Testament (2d ed.; Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2005), but it is based on the text. They roughly date the twenty-seven New Testament books as follows (though the exact order of the twenty-seven books is fuzzy, e.g., re the prison epistles):

  1. James: around 46–48 (just before the Jerusalem Council)
  2. Galatians: 48 (just prior to the Jerusalem Council)
  3. 1 Thessalonians: 50
  4. 2 Thessalonians: either in late 50 or early 51
  5. 1 Corinthians: probably early in 55
  6. 2 Corinthians: 56 (i.e., within the next year or so of 1 Corinthians)
  7. Romans: 57
  8. Philippians: mid–50s to early 60s if written from Ephesus (61–62 if written from Rome)
  9. Mark: sometime in the late 50s or the 60s
  10. Philemon: probably Rome in the early 60s
  11. Colossians: early 60s, probably 61
  12. Ephesians: the early 60s
  13. 1 Peter: almost surely in 62–63
  14. Titus: probably not later than the mid-60s
  15. 1 Timothy: early to mid-60s
  16. 2 Timothy: early or mid-60s (about 64 or 65)
  17. 2 Peter: likely shortly before 65
  18. Acts: mid-60s
  19. Jude: middle-to-late 60s
  20. Luke: mid or late 60s
  21. Hebrews: before 70
  22. Matthew: not long before 70
  23. John: tentatively 80–85
  24. 1 John: early 90s
  25. 2 John: early 90s
  26. 3 John: early 90s
  27. Revelation: 95–96 (at the end of the Emperor Domitian’s reign)

The Value of the Apocrypha

by

This morning a friend emailed me a thoughtful question in response to reading my post last night about the contest between King Darius’ three bodyguards.

I just read your post on 1 Esdras. Very enjoyable to read! I don’t think I have ever read much of the Apocrypha before, but this has piqued my curiosity. Are there any redeeming reasons for reading it? If there are, I would like to know them so I can be aware of them as I read.

Yes, I think that there are redeeming reasons for reading the Apocrypha. Even though Protestants reject its canonical status, the Apocrypha continued to be included between the covers of most English Bibles as late as the nineteenth century, and even the King James Version of 1611 included it. Although many English translations printed a small disclaimer that the Apocrypha was not on par with the Old and New Testaments, it was nonetheless between the same covers with sacred Scripture. The 1599 edition of the Geneva Bible was the first English Bible printed without the Apocrypha. So what was the Apocrypha doing in all those English Bible? Christians believed that it possesses spiritual value. How so? I’d suggest at least three ways that the Apocrypha is valuable: [Read more…] about The Value of the Apocrypha

What Is the Strongest? The Contest Between King Darius’ Three Bodyguards

by

Earlier this semester I read through the OT Apocrypha. I had read many parts of it before, but a good bit of it was fresh. One of my favorite stories that I had not heard before is the contest between King Darius’ three bodyguards. It’s witty and enjoyable. (And it would serve nicely as an illustration of “truth” in a sermon or lecture.)

Here’s the story from 1 Esdras 3:1–4:42 (NRSV). [Read more…] about What Is the Strongest? The Contest Between King Darius’ Three Bodyguards