Follow Up to Dan Wallace's Discovery

The biblioblog world has been abuzz with remarks made by Dan Wallace concerning the discovery of a first-century fragment of the Gospel of Mark during a recent debate with Bart Ehrman. While we do await the particulars in a book to be published by Brill later this year, here is a clarification post by Wallace on this and six other second-century discoveries made recently.

Greg Beale's Interview and the Quote of the Day

There is a very worthwhile interview on The Gospel Coalition that John Starke conducted with Greg Beale on his A New Testament Biblical Theology. It appears to me at least, that this is a work that I will eventually have to pick up as I have always had a keen interest on how the NT authors utilize the OT.

Towards the interview Starke asks:

 You end your 1,047-page book with, "The upshot of this book is ultimately this: To God be the glory." For young scholars or pastors who are digging deep into the inter-canonical themes running through the Bible and trying to keep up with the latest scholarship on any given issue, how would you counsel them to maintain this God-glorifying posture?

 Beale's reply (and the 'quote of the day', I might add):

To maintain the posture of “To God be the glory” is to ask ourselves at every point (in preparing sermons, Bible studies, lectures, articles or books, etc.) why am I doing what I am doing? Am I doing the present task to bring attention to myself and to honor myself or to bring attention to God, Christ, the gospel, and to honor the Trinity? Am I doing what I am doing to make a reputation for myself or for God? These are very convicting questions for all of us. The entire process of sanctification is ridding ourselves of our idols, especially of worshiping ourselves. If we are authentic Christians, we will progress in doing this, perhaps slowly but nevertheless surely. Only at the end of our journey will the idol of self be completely destroyed, and we will all be caught up in the glory of Christ.

David Garland's Luke Commentary

Yesterday, I received David Garland's new Luke commentary in the Zondervan Exegetical Commentary series. I have read through the short introduction and have just started to make way into the commentary proper. I am excited about this work because I consider Garland one of the very best commentary writers going, and if you have yet to get his Mark (NIVAC) or his 1 Corinthians volume (BECNT), you should set some money aside and add these to your library. He, along with R.T. France, Gordon Fee, and Ramsey Michaels actually make the reading of commentaries enjoyable, and that is no small feat!

Since the commentary weighs in at over 1,000 pages, and I do not have the time to read the volume through,  I have a question. What are some of the interpretive hot-button issues for Luke's Gospel? I would like to focus on these passages and report what I find in a series of posts or something along those lines. 

Getting 'A's': A Student's Perspective on Grades

John Byron has a fascinating post entitled, "A Professor's Letter to Students." In this post, John states that since becoming a professor he is amazed at the sense of entitlement that students display when it comes to their grades. John notes that this attitude is accompanied by the belief of the student that one, I paid for tuition, two, I attend class, and three, I have submitted assignments, therefore, I should get an 'A'. John cites a very interesting article in Forbes magazine article authored by Art Carden, an economics teacher at Rhodes College. Please check both John's post and this article for more.

I would like to add my own perspective on this matter as a former student of John's at Ashland Seminary. First, a brief background on my own academic background is in order. I come from a family of teachers. Education has always been valued in my upbringing. That being said, I was never a very good student. In high school, it was all about sports and girls. I distinctly remember my senior year, having my class' GPA results posted publicly on a bulletin board and not finding my name until I arrived at the bottom quarter of the list. It used to drive my Dad crazy as he was teacher in the school system! We would have our mid-term grades mailed to our homes if we were in the 'D' to 'F' range. Nearly every grading period the ritual would ensue. My mom would grab the mail to find once again I was on the verge of blowing a couple of the classes that I was taking. I would get home, get a stern talking to, and then wait for my Dad to arrive. When he got home, I would get a shake of the head, a sigh, and another stern talking to. After this, I would promise to do better, pull my grades up to the 'C' range, and do it all over again the next grading period! You think I would have learned! But, in hindsight, much of this behavior could be chalked up to immaturity. However, much of it had to do with passion or more precisely, the lack thereof. As far as school subjects, History was by far my favorite and the one I excelled in. It also helped that my Dad was a history teacher and I had been around his interest all my life.

When it came time to choose a college, I had few options. I certainly was nowhere close to get an academic scholarship per se, so I decided to attend a local community college close to home. With my parents paying for my tuition, I took it slightly more seriously and did a bit better. By the time I transferred to Kent State University, decided on a major, I was bit more mature and serious as a student. But, I would not say more passionate. I tried to manufacture passion for my area of study, but that does not really work if your heart is not in it. Again, I did a bit better, close to a 'B' average by the time I received my degree. Unfortunately after an internship  and some years of working various jobs, I had an epiphany of sorts. During the time between my undergrad and these years I had become a Christian. I began reading scholarly works that dealt with historical backgrounds to the New Testament. I was reading Fee, Witherington, and Kenner, with a Thesaurus in one hand and their books in my other!  But, the one book that had the biggest impact on me and chartered the course of my scholarly life was David deSilva's Honor, Patronage, Kinship, & Purity. This book unlocked so much of what I had been reading and opened up exciting vistas that I was previously unaware. Through a confluence of events that I can only describe as God's providence, I ended up at Ashland Seminary where I had the distinct pleasure of being one of David's students. To make a long story short, I had discovered my passion.

The amazing thing about discovering your passion is the fact that you are willing to put the work in, often times above and beyond the average student, and when this happens good things follow. I began to receive straight 'A''s for the very first time in my life! Class after class, I was achieving as I never had before. It almost became addicting, and therein lies the danger. There were times when I had to check my intentions at the doorway of the classroom to remind myself that it wasn't about the grades, it was about the experience. As long as I kept my priorities straight, I would not fall into the trap of become a grade-hound and feel that it was my God-given right to get A's. Admittedly, this could be a struggle, but I overcame this danger for the most part. See, the thing is, my professors were under no obligation to give me anything! Everything I received was due to the fact that I earned my grades. Make no mistake, my goal was not in getting an 'A' on an exegetical paper or exam, it was doing my very best with the abilities and desire that God gave me. It was about honoring God by doing my very best. To give anything less would be a waste of everyone's time, my professors included.

Markan Monographs and Journal Articles

A bit ago I had asked my fellow bloggers for recommendations on Mark commentaries. I got a ton of great advice on my blog and Facebook. So, here I am again asking for more recommendations. First, let me be a bit more specific. I am currently engaged in a project where I am looking at literary and narratival aspects of Mark's Gospel. What are some of the works with which I should be engaging? Timothy C. Gray's volume on the temple in Mark's Gospel looks intriguing to me. Have any of you read this? If so, what do you think of it? Are there any other monographs taking this approach to Mark that you would recommend reading?

Also, I want to read up on articles. Are there any journal articles that are must reads?

Robert Plant Sings Satan, Your Kingdom Must Come Down

Robert Plant happens to be one of my favorite vocalists. Most of this is due to his work in Led Zeppelin, my favorite rock band of all time. Recently, I like the album he did with Allison Krause, Raising Sand. Since that time, Plant has recorded a new album with his band, aptly named "Band of Joy." Recently, I picked up a copy of this self-titled album, and I am really impressed. Probably my favorite tune on here is the American folk classic, "Satan, Your Kingdom Must Come Down." Here is a performance in Nashville of last year. This is so hauntingly beautiful. Check it out!

John Byron's Lecture Available

My friend and mentor, John Byron has his lecture video available given at Ashland Seminary the other night. The lecture is entitled, "Rewriting the Bible." Give it a look, John is an expert in Second Temple Judaism, so I am really looking forward to viewing this!

"Rewriting the Bible", Dr. John Byron from Ashland Seminary on Vimeo.

Follow Up on Rikk Watts: Audio Resources

In the prior post, I pointed to a video clip of an advanced exegesis course on Mark that Rikk Watts of Regent College was teaching. Rikk is also writing the replacement volume on Mark for the NICNT series. I also mentioned in that post I was listening to a course that he taught on Mark. This course can be purchased at Regent Audio here. I managed to purchase the series when it was half-price. Regent Audio generally runs weekly specials and all one needs to do is to sign up for their mailing list to get the notices. What's great about this class is it also came with a 70 pp. PDF class notes from Watts himself. Really great stuff here, and well worth the price.

If one cannot afford these audio resources, there is another option.  Watts also taught some Mark sessions at the Rock Garden than can be dowloaded free here and Isaiah here. There are other classes as well, but I mention the above two as representative of some major work Rikk has written concerning both, particularly his revised dissertation Isaiah's New Exodus in Mark.

Enjoy!

Rikk Watts Video Clip on Mark's Gospel

Recently, I have been listening to Rikk Watts, Professor of New Testament at Regent College, teaching a class on Mark's Gospel. It has been awesome! I have been learning quite a bit. Here he is in a short clip teaching an advanced New Testament exegesis course on Mark.

Durham Dissertations Update

I am always on the look out for the latest scholarship coming out of the major universities. Durham University and their Theology program tops my list for finds. One dissertation that I'm really excited to read is by recent PhD grad, David E. Briones, entitled Paul's Financial Policy: A Socio-Theological Approach. Some other new and noteworthy New Testament dissertations include: Ben Dunson's Individual and Community in Paul's Letter to the Romans; Jonathan Linebaugh's GOD, GRACE, AND RIGHTEOUSNESS: WISDOM OF SOLOMON AND PAUL’S LETTER TO THE ROMANS IN CONVERSATION; John Richard Lewis Moxon's PETER’S HALAKHIC NIGHTMARE: THE ‘ANIMAL’ VISION OF ACTS 10:9-16 IN JEWISH AND GRAECO-ROMAN PERSPECTIVE; and Christian Peter Orr's Christ Absent and Present: A Study in Pauline Christology. There is much more where that came from, so do yourself a favor, check out this site by clicking here.

Jesus' Emotions in Mark 3:5

There is always an inherent danger of downplaying, dismissing, or ignoring passages that speak of Jesus' emotions in the Gospels. One reason for this, I believe, is that fear in reading Jesus this way will somehow diminish our view of him. If we allow that Jesus experiences many of the same emotions that we all do, then can we really continue to hold our esteemed view of him as Son of God? Further, we in the church are suspicious of 'emotionalism'.  By 'emotionalism' I mean outward displays of emotion that lack scriptural foundation, and direction and are entirely concerned with the self. We see this all the time. One needs to look no further than some of the ministry programs that populate the airwaves. Anyway, I digress...

Despite being just one verse, Mark 3:5 captures quite a bit of emotion. The scene is set up this way: Jesus enters the synagogue on the Sabbath, with the Pharisees watching as he encounters a man with a withered hand. This is a trap! The Pharisees cannot wait to catch Jesus in a violation of the Sabbath (3:2). Jesus tells the man with the feeble hand to come stand in front of him (3:3), and poignantly asks the Pharisees, "Is it permitted on the Sabbath to do good or to do evil, to save life or kill?" (3:4) Either way they answer, the Pharisees are trapped, so they respond in utter silence (3:4). This question is filled with irony as the Pharisees in v.6 violate the worst of Sabbath prohibitions, indeed of all the Law, as they, along with the Herodians plot to kill Jesus (3:6)!

Returning to 3:5, it reads: "He looked around at them in anger (μετʼ ὀργῆς) and, deeply distressed (συλλυπούμενος) at their stubborn hearts, (πώρωσις τῆς καρδίας) said to the man, 'Stretch out your hand.' He stretched it out, and his hand was completely restored (NIV; italics mine)." Let's take a look at these emotional-laden terms one at a time.  First, this is the only time in the Gospels that Jesus' anger is described in terms of ὀργή (although see the text critical issue at Mk 1:41). Jesus' ὀργή is directed at the silence of the Pharisees. As Edwards states:

Jesus’ anger is a description of righteous indignation. The greatest enemy of divine love and justice is not opposition, not even malice, but hardness of heart and indifference to divine grace, to which not even disciples of Jesus are immune. (James R. Edwards, The Gospel According to Mark [PNTC; Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2002]), 101.

The next description of Jesus' emotions is the rare term συλλυπέω, so rare in fact, that this is the only occurrence in the entire NT. The LXX records this term merely twice (Ps 68:21 [MT: 69:20]; Isa 51:19), both with the connotations of  'grief'. Aristotle in his treatise on 'friendship' uses the infinitive form of the verb this way:

The very seeing of one’s friends is pleasant, especially if one is in adversity, and becomes a safeguard against grief (for a friend tends to comfort us both by the sight of him and by his words, if he is tactful, since he knows our character and the things that please or pain us); but to see him pained at our misfortunes is painful; for every one shuns being a cause of pain to his friends. For this reason people of a manly nature guard against making their friends grieve (συλλυπεῖν) with them... (Nichomachean Ethics; 1171b7; Trans. W.D. Ross in The Complete Works of Aristotle, ed. Jonathan Barnes, Vol.2 [Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1984]), 151.

For Aristotle then, συλλυπέω is to be avoided at all costs. For Jesus, this grief along with the anger that he displays is complementary; his anger (ὀργή) is outwardly displayed, while his grief (συλλυπέω) is more inwardly manifested and is aimed at the Pharisees stubbornness as demonstrated by their silence. Their silence indicts them in their unwillingness to admit that healing (i.e. 'doing good') is permissible on the Sabbath (3:3).

Last, the reference to the Pharisees 'hard hearts' (πώρωσις τῆς καρδίας) is utilized in NT parlance to refer to "Israel’s failure to recognise Jesus as their Messiah (Rom. 11:7, 25; 2 Cor. 3:14; Jn. 12:40, citing Is. 6:10), but on two other occasions by Mark to describe the disciples’ failure to appreciate the significance of Jesus’ miracles (6:52; 8:17)." ( R. T. France, The Gospel of Mark [NICGNT; Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans,  2002]), 150-51. One should also be aware of this common theme found in the OT, particularly with regard to Pharaoh's attitude  toward Israel and Moses (Exod 4:21; 8:15, 19, 32; 9:7[2x], 34; 10:1; 11:10; 14:4,8; cf. 1 Sam 6:6).

Wrapping up this post, it seems to me that Jesus' flash of anger towards the Pharisees stands in stark contrast to the deep-seated grief he feels toward the attitude of the Pharisees. This grief Jesus displays is matched only by the depth of callousness the Pharisees evince by their hard hearts. They are blinded to their own hypocrisy (3:6) and their inability to discern what the spirit of the Sabbath entails, namely, the good (3:4).

I. Howard Marshall Festschrift

 

Wipf and Stock (Cascade Division) has just released a festschrift honoring one of the great exegetes of our time, I. Howard Marshall.  Although Wipf and Stock did not release information about the contributors on their webpage, one of the editors, Ray Van Neste, has listed them in a blog post. Needless to say, the list of contributors is quite impressive and would be a welcome addition to my ever-expanding bookshelves!

Doug Moo Audio on Romans 3:21-26

I have discovered some more online Doug Moo audio resources, this time, three lectures that he gave last fall for the River Hills Community Church, Lake Geneva, WI. The broad title of the talks on Romans 3:21-26 were deemed "Reclaiming the Good News." The three individual lecture titles were as follows:
                             Session 1: The Seriousness of Sin
                             Session 2: The Beauty of Grace
                             Session 3: The Singularity of Faith

Enjoy!

Romans 1:16 and The Quotable Karl Barth

Okay, I admit it. I have been living an impoverished intellectual life. Until recently, I had not read anything on Karl Barth. I could hide behind the excuse that reading the theological masters is not my cup of tea. I am much more comfortable treading in history, studying and interpreting the Biblical books, intertestamental literature, Greco-Roman works, etc. As far as I can tell, Karl Barth is really not all that interested in interpreting Romans on a historical basis. Some things he does, quite frankly, makes me want to scream! But here's the rub, Barth's prose is powerful, stimulating, and convicting. In other words, Barth's commentary on Romans will preach!

Here is the jaw-dropping Barth on Romans 1:16:

I am not ashamed. The Gospel neither requires men to engage in the conflict of religions or the conflict of philosophies, nor does it compel them to hold themselves aloof from these controversies. In announcing the limitation of the known world by another that is unknown, the Gospel does not enter into competition with the many attempts to disclose within the known world some more or less unknown and higher form of existence and to make it accessible to men. The Gospel is not a truth among other truths. Rather, it sets a question-mark against all truths. The Gospel is not the door but the hinge. The man who apprehends its meaning is removed from all strife, because he is engaged in a strife with the whole, even with existence itself. Anxiety concerning the victory of the Gospel—that is, Christian Apologetics—is meaningless, because the Gospel is the victory by which the world is overcome. By the Gospel the whole concrete world is dissolved and established. It does not require representatives with a sense of responsibility, for it is as responsible for those who proclaim it as it is for those to whom it is proclaimed. It is the advocate of both. Nor is it necessary for the Gospel that Paul should take his stand in the midst of the spiritual cosmopolitanism of Rome; though he can, of course, enter the city without shame, and will enter it as a man who has been consoled by the Gospel. God does not need us. Indeed, if He were not God, He would be ashamed of us. We, at any rate, cannot be ashamed of Him.(35; The Epistle to the Romans. 6th ed. Translated by Edwyn C. Hoskyns. London: Oxford University Press, 1968. Italics mine).

 So yes, I have learned my lesson. One cannot ignore Barth, no matter how uncomfortable one might be with his brand of exegesis at times. To do so, would be at one's own peril.

Richard Bell Recaps Romans

Richard Bell, Professor of Theology at the University of Nottingham, has an interesting video interview that addresses the question of "Why Study St. Paul's Letter to the Romans?"

Check it out here:

Sigurd Grindheim Website

Several years ago, I began a correspondence with Sigurd Grindheim, who at the time, was fresh off of receiving his PhD at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, and was about to publish his revised dissertation with Mohr Siebeck, entitled, The Crux of Election: Paul’s Critique of the Jewish Confidence in the Election of Israel. 

 

Sigurd was nice enough to be a sounding board for me while I was writing my Master's thesis at Ashland, pointing me to bibliography or just sharing his own insights on Paul's theology. At the time he was getting ready to take a teaching post at the Ethiopian Graduate School of Theology in Addis Ababa. It was not until the annual meeting of the Society of Biblical Literature in Boston, 2008, that we actually met face-to-face. We sat next to each other at a Pauline Soteriology session, and afterwards began to talk about his latest research and writing. Sigurd was in the midst of transitioning into Historical Jesus and Gospels studies, and in particular was going to make an argument for a high Christology to be found in the Synoptics. Unfortunately, we have not conversed much since that time, but I was extremely delighted to discover that the work he was speaking to me about has found fruit with two monographs, both published by T&T Clark. The first, God's Equal: What Can We Know About Jesus' Self-Understanding?  was released this past fall, and the second, Christology in the Synoptic :God or God's Servant? will be published in the early spring.

Currently, Sigurd is now a Visiting Professor at Fjellhaug International University College, Oslo, Norway. He also has a wonderful website with plenty of helpful resources, including publications, sermons, etc...  So, do yourself a favor and check this out!

Reminder: Free James Commentary by Robert Gundry

Another Monday, another free commentary. Baker Academic continues its generous policy by allowing for another free download of Robert Gundry's commentary series; this time James is the featured download. Remember you have only 24 hours to do this!

Karl Barth On Romans 1:18 & The Quote of the Day

During my interview with Frank Matera regarding his Romans commentary (Paideia), he said of Karl Barth's Romans commentary:

...it was the most powerful book I have ever read. It was a sustained sermon that confronted with the awesome power of God’s Word. While commentaries are not usually written in this way, I tried to incorporate some of that passion into my own commentary.

After having read some of Barth's Romans commentary I can see where his coming from. Take for instance, this reflection on Romans 1:18, which incidentally, is my quote of the day:

Our relation to God is ungodly. We suppose that we know what we are saying when we say 'God'. We assign to Him the highest place in our world: and in so doing we place Him fundamentally on one line with ourselves and with things. We assume that He needs something: and so we assume that we are able to arrange our relation to Him as we arrange our other relationships. We press ourselves into proximity with Him: and so, all unthinking, we make Him nigh unto ourselves. We allow ourselves an ordinary communication with Him, we permit ourselves to reckon with Him as though this were not extraordinary behaviour on our part. We dare to deck ourselves out as His companions, patrons, advisers, and commissioners. We confound time with eternity. This is the ungodliness of our relation to God. And our relation to God is unrighteous. Secretly we are ourselves the masters in this relationship. We are not concerned with God, but with our own requirements, to which God must adjust Himself. Our arrogance demands that, in addition to everything else, some super-world should also be known and accessible to us. Our conduct calls for some deeper sanction, some approbation and remuneration from another world. Our well-regulated, pleasurable life longs for some hours of devotion, some prolongation into infinity. And so, when we set God upon the throne of the world, we mean by God ourselves. In 'believing' on Him, we justify, enjoy, and adore
ourselves. Our devotion consists in a solemn affirmation of ourselves and of the world and in a pious setting aside of the contradiction. Under the banners of humility and emotion we rise in rebellion against God. We confound time with eternity. That is our unrighteousness.—Such is our relation to God apart from and without Christ, on this side resurrection, and before we are called to order. God Himself is not acknowledged as God and what is called 'God' is in fact Man. By living to ourselves, we serve the 'No-God' (44; The Epistle to the Romans. 6th ed. Translated by Edwyn C. Hoskyns. London: Oxford University Press, 1968.)

Jonathan Pennington Site

In an interview that I did three-and-a-half years ago, Jonathan Pennington, Associate Professor of New Testament Interpretation at Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, discussed some of his projects at the time, one that included a volume on the Gospels that is now nearing now publication with Baker Academic, entitled, Reading the Gospels Wisely: A Narrative and Theological Introduction. More info can be found here.

But the real reason for this post is that Jonathan has a new website (well at least to me!) and has many helpful teaching resources on it. I am also excited to discover that he will be authoring the Matthew commentary for the Pillar series. As many of you may recall, Jonathan, in a revised publication of his thesis at St. Andrews, wrote on the Matthean theme of heaven and earth while discussing a fruitful way forward in the Kingdom of Heaven debates with this monograph.

Please do check out the site, there are many outstanding teaching resources on it!

Social Media and Theological Discussion

This post has been on my heart and mind for the past few days. It began with the Tebow-mania that has swept the nation as of late. I will not rehash the discussions here, except to say that it has, in my opinion, created more heat than light on both sides, and that is not a good thing. Which leads me to a bigger question: "Are social media outlets such as Facebook and Twitter the places to engage in serious theological, ethical debate?"

Do not get me wrong, I love these outlets and use them regularly, but some of the viciousness I have seen lately leaves me worried. From relatively minor theological debates has arisen hurt feelings, defensiveness, and just downright un-Christ-like behavior (not that Jesus minded a good debate now and then, but I digress...). Perhaps my evaluation of the problem is simply the limitations of social media in of itself. What I mean by this is, one cannot have these types of conversations online as they would face-to-face over a cup of coffee. One cannot hear the tone of the person's voice, the look of sincerity/insincerity on their face, and their body language when exchanging comments on these outlets. On the flip side, I also understand that these discussions do indeed need to take place, and the strength of these sites is putting one in contact with a wide-range of conversation partners from a variety of ecumenical backgrounds. And that is a good thing. But, I'm wondering if thoughtful engagement should be done with a well-placed phone call instead of a debate that continues to escalate and "friends" are forced or a least feel compelled to choose sides, adding to the building tensions that invariably exist on both sides of the theological aisle? Or if one wants to continue the debate without a phone call, how about a private email?

In the end, I believe it is our duty as Christian men and women to prayerfully consider what we post on Facebook and Twitter. I really don't believe these are the places for theological, moral, and ethical debate. Those conversations are way too important to be limited to sound-bite comments, or character-limiting posts (see Twitter). So, what say you? What ethical standards should a Christian abide by on Facebook and Twitter? How much debate should be allowed on these outlets?