Gospel of Matthew

SBL reviews

2006-08-13T23:14:00.000-05:00

Some new reviews have been posted at SBL though I've note received an email update. There are several in the NT category but there are two substantive reviews of Dale C. Allison's Resurrecting Jesus that might be worth a look.

And congrats to Eddie and Sean on joining forces. Great move.

Francis Watson online

2006-08-03T09:05:00.000-05:00

Francis Watson, Paul and the Hermeneutics of Faith, outline/intro/conclusion available at Prof. Watson's home page: http://www.abdn.ac.uk/divinity/staff/francis-watson.shtml. Watson is not well-known in the states, in my experience at least. But his work is certainly worth a look, though it has to be said that it is almost always rather dense. This particular work picks up on Richard Hays's Echoes and runs with it.

As we shall see, Paul cites individual texts not in an ad hoc manner but on the basis of a radical construal of the narrative shape of the Pentateuch as a whole, highlighting and exploiting tensions between Genesis and Exodus, Leviticus and Deuteronomy. Many of the apparent contradictions within Paul’s “view of the law” in fact originate within the pentateuchal texts themselves, at least as Paul reads them. Precisely in their canonical form, these texts are not at all the homogeneous and monolithic entity they are often taken to be.

Watson is particularly interesting and cautious on method, e.g., it is "inappropriate to try to reconstruct from divergent sources a single “contemporary Jewish” reading of a particular part or aspect of scripture, which would then serve as a foil for the Pauline reading."

Great Online Articles: Caird's "Jesus and the Jewish Nation"

2006-08-02T12:34:00.000-05:00

I'm starting a list of great online articles. (Drop nominations via comments or email.)

First up is G. B. Caird's Jesus and the Jewish Nation (available in PDF). A must read for beginners, and important for others given Caird's stature as an important point of departure for a major wing of Jesus studies; the man profoundly influenced his student N. T. Wright, to name but one. Already in Caird's writings are the sorts of ideas which argue against the Jesus Seminar on the one hand and American dispensational theology on the other; he takes a different track (more "political") than Ladd and Ridderbos (who were perhaps more theologians than historians) but with similar anti-dispensationalism, anti-liberalist results. Caird is also marvelously readable, with clear arguments and startling originality.

HT: Sean at Primal Subversion, and thanks to Rob Bradshaw (again) for his work getting things like this online. Buy books at Amazon from that man's website (simply go to the relevant area of the website--NT, Gospels, Paul, etc to find links to many books), and peruse his growing collection of online articles.

Rob Bradshaw is Superman

2006-07-29T22:32:00.000-05:00

Loads of great new stuff listed at http://biblicalstudiesorguk.blogspot.com, including articles by Dodd, Chadwick, Caird, Muilenberg, Joyce Baldwin, and C. F. Evans; books by F F Bruce and F Kenyon. This calls for a post on the top ten NT studies articles available freely online. Anyone care to make nominations?

A Book Meme (Annotated)

2006-07-29T15:48:00.000-05:00

Since The Bible (Protestant) would be the answer to most of these, we'll assume it's the first answer to all but 6, 7, and 12.

1) Two books that changed your life:
Malcolm X (Alex Haley), Autobiography of Malcom X. Extraordinarily well-written apology for anger. Blew up the usual romantic ideas of idyllic American ("Christian") life in the first half of the 20th century.
N. T. Wright, Christian Origins and the Question of God (a series), particularly The New Testament and the People of God and Jesus and the Victory of God. Completely changed the way I view my task as a reader of the Bible.

2) One book that you've read more than once:
Harper Lee, To Kill a Mockingbird. Arguably the best 'story' written.

3) One book you'd want on a desert island:
J. R. R. Tolkein, The Lord of the Rings (trilogy...is that cheating?). Perhaps the smoke ring instruction could help me send signals for help...

4) One book that made you laugh:
Donald Miller, Blue Like Jazz

5) One book that made you cry:
Sheldon Vanauken, A Severe Mercy

6) Books that you wish had been written:
Jesus at 30: an Autobiography
Flannery O'Connor, How to Read my Stories
Saul of Tarsus, How to Read my Letters

7) Books that you wish had never been written:
Hal Lindsey, The Late Great Planet Earth
and the LeHay/Jenkins illiterary masterpiece, the Left Behind series. On the other hand, good things happen when people read crap and learn from mistakes. There's more critical thinking, more careful reading of the Bible, and less face-value acceptance of the judgments of one's authorities. And believers will never see the end of speculation, so learning how to deal with it is a healthy thing I think. Perhaps in the long run these are valuable as a cautionary tale?

8) Books that you're currently reading:
Summer means getting up to speed, reading things I should have read before embarking on a NT PhD, such as
Neill and Wright, The Interpretation of the New Testament 1861-1986. Absolutely a brilliant book--sometimes a bit surprising at who gets included/excluded, and a little chummy, but loads of interesting facts and quotes, and a good 'narrative' flow that keeps the reader engaged. Good review and a glance at the big picture; helps one see how one's own academic work is part of a narrative.
Charlesworth and co., OT Pseudepigrapha vol. 1.
David deSilva, Introduction to the Apocrypha. Good read and a helpful/healthy approach for Protestants.

9) One book you've been meaning to read:
Anything in German. It's hard to get past articles, though.

10) Books you hope to read:
Mike Bird's published dissertation, Jesus and the Origins of the Gentile Mission.

11) Another book you love:
Richard Bauckham, God Crucified

12) Books you loved but left unfinished:
Richard Wright, Native Son. I stopped at the end of book 1--simply too intense, like watching 8 consecutive episodes of 24. Very good psychological read of Afr-Amer mind, however, esp in relation to 'white America.'
Numerous commentaries on Matthew, including Davies-Allison and Keener.
Joel B. Green, Narrative Reading, Narrative Preaching. Great first two chapters, but then...
Green's Gospel of Luke Commentary (NICNT). My favorite, I think--on any book; yet I haven't read it cover-to-cover.
Michael J. Gorman, Cruciformity and Apostle of the Crucified Lord. Both great, both regrettably still incomplete.

13) Best book turned into a movie. Tops is To Kill a Mockingbird. Includes some of the best 'movie moments' as well as arguably some of the best child acting in cinema history. The film version of To End All Wars is quite powerful and deserves more pub in my opinion. Not a great film, but a great story.

Conrad Gempf

2006-07-25T11:59:00.000-05:00

I'm very much on to other things of late, thus no blogging. I tried to blog and post a comment at Deinde, again to no avail. (Ouch!) Good to see Danny and co. blogging though, as many others are on a summer hiatus. How I wish Tilling and Crossley would focus more on biblical studies than current events and theology (yawn).

I wanted to post on current MidEast events but I've done enough of that with my segment on Land in NT theology. One hopes and prays that Israel's actions (while incredibly unhealthy to say the bare minimum, and yes I do think much much more could be said in that direction) will give moderates reason to challenge extremists/terrorists in their respective nations--at least with those like Hezbollah, whose actions led to escalation that the majority do not want. That is not an endorsemnt of Israel's actions, mind you.

One of the relatively unknown biblioblogs (I think) is Not Quite Art, Not Quite Living. Conrad Gempf is NT lecturer at London School of Theology and runs an interesting blog with a fair bit of diverse material. (Good link to a "Brazilian footballer name manufacturer" for instance.) Here's an excerpt, a post on Mark 6:14ff:

The Gospel reading for this coming Sunday is Mark 6:14-29. The story about how Herod was tricked into beheading John the Baptist should frighten the daylights out of anyone who thinks of themselves as good and honourable and religious.

Take verse 20. Herod (this is Herod Antipas, son of Herod the Great, by the way) had a great respect for God and his prophet and enjoyed listening to the word of God through John. Sure, he kept him in prison -- today we might call it protective custody: he kept him safe. That way, he could listen to the word of God at his leisure and convenience. Hearing the messages, he was perplexed: what could it mean? He pondered and never acted. Know anybody like that? Aren't you and I a bit like that?

Or take the whole party thing in vv. 21-26. Here is a generous man who gives banquets, who, when pleased, wants to reward others -- who, in other words, places quality of experience above quantity of possessions. And, moreover, a man of his word. He's offered a blank check to his wife's daughter and will not refuse to honour his word when the request is not to his liking.

Simply listening to word, holding it captive and being generous and having integrity toward your family and friends isn't going to cut it. We need to hear and obey God and rearrange our priorities around him. Herod Antipas was a good guy who tried his best to be good and religious given his circumstances. That meant his circumstances were his god. Too often today Christians think along those same lines. God in my circumstances -- kept safe in the prison of my palace to listen to when time and circumstances permit.

Matthew's MySpace?

2006-07-13T09:52:00.000-05:00

Apparently the apostle/evangelist has made it onto MySpace (thanks to GreekGeek for pointing this out. Based on the look of it, there's probably some room for a 'redactor' Matthew on MySpace as well...

NTW on the curse in Galatians 3

2006-07-05T22:33:00.000-05:00

Introduction: NTW argues that, in Galatians 3:10-14, the "curse" referred to is not the universal curse, which comes from original sin, but the more specific curse on Israel for vocational failure which led to Exile. Is he right?

I've nearly finished Paul: Fresh Perspective. It's better than What Saint Paul Really Said--as always a fun read, highly recommended. Of course, it wouldn't be a book by Wright if it didn't mention the Exile about 400 times. Brace yourself. (For a good review, see Scot McKnight's webpage: http://jesuscreed.org/index.php?s=N+T+Wright+Fresh+Perspective.)

I was raised on traditional interpretations of "the curse" in Galatians 3, interps which inevitably connected it to the curse on humanity from Genesis 3 as a result of original human sin. But Wright offers something completely different:

"The point about the 'curse' and the Messiah's bearing it on behalf of others, is not that there is a general abstract curse hanging over the entire human race." He instead limits the 'curse' to Israel, tying it in to his reading of Romans 10, Deut 30, and exile.

Is this correct? Arguments for (without referencing commentaries!):
(1) There is not a lick of proof in the context that a universal curse is in mind, i.e., from Genesis 3.
(2) The pronouns seem to point to an "us" as Jews as Paul reflects on Law and its implications/limitations, all the way to 26, when Paul begins to address Galatians with their status as sons and heirs apart from Law. If this shift in pronouns is important, then it supports NTW's reading.
(3) Thematic coherence--that is, this makes sense. If we can set aside Exile and simply speak of failure to keep the law and (consequential) curse and lack of Abraham's blessings extending through Israel to the Gentiles, then this certainly makes good sense of the context. According to NTW, Gal 3:10-14, in context, is about the more specific curse on Israel for vocational failure which led to Exile; she failed to be the light to the world, and in order for God to bring the promises of Abraham, the chosen vehicle of his servant/son Israel had to be repaired. That is, for God to fix the world, he had to fix Israel--cursed under the Law. Israel herself needed redemption, because of the inability of the Law to provide the light to the nations and deliver the promises of Abraham to the nations (all the more reason not to have one's foreskin removed!!!).

Against? Without going to the commentaries,
(1) It is possible to suggest that the "curse" language picks up the theme of Genesis 3 intertextually, apart from any overt reference. But against this, the curse is "Israel-specific" as it references Deuteronomy, Promised Land, etc....not Genesis or all humanity.

Christianities and Judaisms (late to the game i know)

2006-07-01T07:10:00.000-05:00

A post by the blogfather on whether "Christianities" and "Judaisms" were useful terms prompted widespread discussion on the web and quite a few comments on his post. It seems like posts were nearly unanimous in decrying the trend, which greatly surprised me. Anyway, if we're going to use the plural on anything perhaps N. T. Wright has it right: somewhere in Paul: In Fresh Perspective he uses the term "paganism(s)"; this is more appropriate.

Charlesworth, OT Pseudipigrapha volume 1, xxix, has some nice quotes about diversity and unity. In my mind I'd agree with him (though apply it at least as much to 1c Xianity more than to Judaism): there needs to be more discussion on what early Xianity had in common at present, as the 'diversity' angle has really exploded. It tends to mask what folks had in common, while a better model theologically (i.e., categorization) and sociologically (i.e., conflict, etc) is to chart out what, say, Matthew and Paul had in common, before getting into their differences.

I saw someone engaging with Ehrman's book (not Misquoting Jesus) recently, with some great quotes on this issue. Anyone know who/where this was?

Hebrew Parallelism: synonymous or no?

2006-06-29T20:16:00.000-05:00

Isaiah 42:5 Thus says God, the LORD, who created the heavens and stretched them out, who spread out the earth and what comes from it, who gives breath to the people on it and spirit to those who walk in it.

What do we have in the second part of this verse? How should we describe the parallelism here? Someone asked me recently if there was a difference between breath/spirit. Without consulting commentaries (I'm OT poor) I'm thinking this is parallelism, with no real differentiation in concepts here. That is, breath/spirit are more or less synonyms.

But studying up on the possibility of an allusion to Gen 49:9ff in Matt, I noted this in David Instone-Brewer's article, "The Two Asses of Zechariah 9:9 in Matthew 21," TynBul 54.1 (2003), 90 n.31: "Alter...argues that the second line always contributes something which is not present in the first line, so no parallelism is truly synonymous. Alter says that the second line usually adds specificity or intensification." He cites Art of Biblical Poetry, 18-22. I was taught something like this in grad school with "A, what's more, B" being the rough equation expressing this, as opposed to contrasting parallelism: "A, but B" or equivalent parallelism, "A = B".

Not sure about this one. Can we really say that "the second line always contributes something"? Anyone know for sure? Seems to me that Is 42:5c/d are more or less equivalent.

Then there's the vexing question of how NT and contemporaneous interpreters would have read such lines.

The Danger of Blogs

2006-06-24T12:13:00.000-05:00

http://www.leithart.com/archives/002118.php is well worth pondering, on the danger of blogs in light of C S Lewis's comments on the "tragic farce we call the history of the Reformation." I fear there is much to lose by blogging just as their is much to gain, which is why I'm grateful I have too many things on my plate to, say, refute Seyoon Kim's review of NTW's Paul: Fresh Perspectives. In a world where peacemaking "children of God" (Matthew 5:9) are scarce within the church and without, hostile blogging is very, very costly.

Blogfather on Blogging

2006-06-23T13:15:00.000-05:00

Reading Mark Goodacre on blogging is like listening to Julia Child talk about cooking, or (conversely) getting a seminar from the Olsen twins on weight loss.

Great thoughts by Mark, particularly on writing interaction/criticism as if the person reading your blog will read it (which has already happened to me, despite the low traffic).

I have one objection though; I'm not sure his statement, "We are drinking coffee while we blog and not beer" holds up to scrutiny. Perhaps we could have blogger and typepad install some breathalizers?

PISTIS: Lost in Translation?

2006-06-22T14:18:00.000-05:00

I'm not going to enter the 'pistis [Iesou] Xpristou', debate here, but lexical questions about pistis arise in several places in the NT, Matthew included, and it's worth discussing. In a nutshell, the question is often asked whether the noun pistis should be translated "faith" (i.e., belief, trust) or 'faithfulness' (fidelity). Simliar questions attend the adjective (pistos and pisteuw), more so the verb than the adjective, which seems to be treated as 'faithful'. For those in the 'protestant' world, this might seem a strange question, and there seems to be among many a default to the 'belief' aspect of faith, vs. the fidelity. In fact, under the influence of Lutheranish Paulinism, 'fidelity' is frequently screened out in favor of 'belief', the latter being juxtaposed with 'works'.

In his recent commentary on Matthew, John Nolland notes (along with many other commentators) the similarity between
Micah 6:8 "do justice, love mercy, walk humbly with your God"
and the injunction to do the weightier matters of the Law in
Matthew 23:23 "justice, mercy, and pistis"
Nolland says that the background in Micah 6:8 suggests a "faith" translation here, analogous to Micah's "walk humbly with your God". His major argument for taking 'faith' is that Matthew always means pistis-as-belief when using the word elsewhere.

But the remainder of the uses of pistis in Matthew all come in the context of miracles; thus 23:23 should not necessarily be lined up with Matt's other (7) uses of pistis. Additionally, in the near context those who are pistos are the faithful ones doing what the Master requires (e.g., Matthew 24). Finally, "faith as faithfulness/fidelity" fits the Micah connection much better than "faith as belief/trust", since "walking" implies a life lived in faithfulness, more than "belief." Fourth, 'faithfulness' simply fits the context better than a denuded 'faith'.

I'm increasingly wondering whether we can in most instances actually separate the faith and faithfulness aspects of pistis and related words. Some exceptions might be the 'miracle'-related uses of pistis in Matthew. But the adjective pistos is probably always 'faithful'; and the implication seems to be that this is ultimately what is expected and required of God's people in the NT. I think it may be more profitable to lean toward a sort of de facto plenary reading of pistis in such passages, i.e., unless the context really does not call for 'faithfulness', as in the healing passages of Matthew.

Perhaps in this regard it is helpful to see James 2 and Hebrews 11 as lexical lessons: it ain't about 'raw belief', it's about praxis and fidelity. What do you all think? Should we see both aspects operating most of the time?

Apologies for the title. Is it just me, or does everyone use that phrase "lost in translation" now?

A Whole New Level

2006-06-21T21:59:00.000-05:00

http://jamesthejust.oldinthenew.org/2006/03/baby-got-bible.html is about the best thing I've seen on the web in a long, long time. If you have no background in 1990s rap music, then this might be of less value, but should still do you right. Enjoy.

And thanks to all of you who blogged on the World Cup. Tomorrow is the day of reckoning. I'm going to the doctor right before the US game to have my blood pressure checked (I'm not making this up). My German Reading class starts almost the very moment our game ends (and the probably vital match between Italy and Czech Republic). Whatever shall I do...

I also figured out how to add a "title" to each post. Amazing.

2006-06-20T16:12:00.000-05:00

The Macrostructure of Matthew’s Gospel: A New Proposal
in the latest edition of Biblica, by Wim Weren.
ABSTRACT: The weakness of the proposals concerning the macrostructure of Matthew’s Gospel made by Bacon and Kingsbury is that they depart from rigid caesuras, whilst a typical characteristic of the composition of this Gospel is the relatively smooth flow of the story. On the basis of the discovery that the various topographical data are clustered together by means of three refrains we can distinguish three patterns in the travels undertaken by Jesus. This rather coarse structure is further refined with the use of Matera’s and Carter’s distinction between kernels and satellites. Kernels are better labelled as “hinge texts”. The following pericopes belong to this category: 4,12-17; 11,2-30; 16,13-28; 21,1-17; 26,1-16. Each of them marks a turning point in the plot and has a double function: a hinge text is not only fleshed out in the subsequent pericopes but also refers to the preceding block. It is especially these “hinge texts” that underline the continuity of Matthew’s narrative and should prevent us from focussing too much on alleged caesuras.

2006-06-19T16:59:00.000-05:00

Ich Liebe German: Advice on Language Training

I sometimes hear that one should take German (or French) as a course of study, rather than attempting to learn "reading" only. There seem to be two arguments for this: (1) You might as well learn to speak it. (2) Most people learn better when the "oral" accompanies the written.

Don't fall into this trap!

Today marked the beginning of the third week of Reading German at the University of Memphis (five days a week for five weeks, 1.5 hours a day plus mild homework). I highly, highly recommend such a course, particularly if you can find a teacher as good as Nele Hempel (she's transferring to UC Santa Barbara--a little too late for Brandon W, though). I've taught languages before (Spanish and English), so I've a leg up I suppose, but I really do think this is the way to go. The professor illustrated today how we are already ahead of her fourth semester German students in grammatical/syntax comprehension, paritcularly in sentence structure, phrases, and verb formation, which is by far the most difficult aspect of translating German. Granted we're all postgrads, but still, this is vastly superior to taking a huge amount of time to learn the language proper.

All we need know for reading at speed is vocabulary, and this can be added on one's own time. Translate a few times a week, add some vocab over a summer or semester or two, and wham, you can translate German for life.

We're using the expensive text German for Reading Knowledge, 5th ed., by Jannach and Kolb. I've heard April Wilson is also good, though much larger. While these are useful for individual study, I think the communitarian nature of a course, with the help of an authority make a good reading course very much worthwhile.

2006-06-15T16:11:00.000-05:00

Around the Web

http://lorenrosson.blogspot.com/>Loren Rosson will be looking at some parables from the 'peasant' perspective in an upcoming series. Should be worthwhile. I queried, and he'll involve Ken Bailey. Bailey is intriguing though mercurial, as he tends to rely quite heavily on his own experience in Arabic and Syriac texts, as well as in "oral" and honor/shame cultures (some 40 years in the Middle East), to interpret the parables and other biblical material. He may be more famous for his theories on http://www.biblicalstudies.org.uk/article_tradition_bailey.html>oral transmission and reliability, I think he lightly influences NTW there; but I think his parable material may be more valuable, if eclectic. For a sample, his website offers http://www.shenango.org/kbarticle1.htm on Luke 16:19-31.

James Crossley has some football action (finally).
Crouch may be wasteful, but he's more useful than Owen. Beckham proved his value--playing three back and having Becks and Lennon on the wing (one to raid, one to cross) from the start would be ideal if you get Carrick, maybe, to play a holder's role in midfield for cover. Beckham is much maligned but England desperately need his crosses. Alternatively, they could play small, lose Crouch and Beckham and see what happens.
Whatever the case, I think someone in England should do a parody of Sven as the coach for Brazil; bringing in a large center forward (Brazil has some 6'8" basketball players), limiting the fluid poetry by insisting on long balls, stickign with Ronaldo till he hits 20 stone, ruining the beautiful game as we know it for yet another country. Then he gets caught chatting to Colombian drug lords ("Yes, Ronaldinho is ugly..."; "Yes, Ronaldo is quite fat..."; "Yes, I could come to Bogota and coach your squad...") on a Caribbean cruise.
I will pay to finance such a film...unless England win it all. Then hang it.

Fellow Memphian Chris Weimar has an interesting, broad spectrum blog going. An interesting post on Lucretius right now, and a http://neonostalgia.com/weblog/?cat=12>section on Matt's Gospel, including recent posts on historicity and genre. These aren't my primary interest, but I think Chris has some useful remarks on the front end. I'm not so sure it's easy to write off an interest in historicity in the opening chapters (certainly not a 'parable'!) based on the text (though many have tried!) or an interest in Jesus-as-Moses. Maybe more on that later.

2006-06-15T16:07:00.000-05:00

Matthew Commentaries update

Professor David L. Turner (Grand Rapids Seminary) reports via email that the manuscript of his BECNT commentary on Matthew is off to Baker (shouldn't have been a long trip!). It should be released in late 2007. He also notes Bock's Matt and Mark contribution for Cornerstone Biblical Commentary is now out. Which begs a question: how many scholars have done commentaries on all three synoptics?

Thanks to Prof. Turner for the notice.

2006-06-12T16:29:00.000-05:00

What I want:

(1) The best anagram for 'Gospel of Matthew' or related phrases.

(2) More importantly, I'm interested in tracking down some good biblio on "Matthew as a reader of Mark'. Anyone have any of this? Not just standard redaction-critical stuff, which usually focuses on isolated changes; but attention to systematic change, especially if coupled with analysis or hypothetical discussion of the ways in which Matthew wasor might have been inspired by Mark. I think there's good ground for a hypothetical discussion on how Mark could have influenced or inspired Matthew in many areas, including:
cost of discipleship; use of Zechariah; narrative alignment of JnBapt with Jesus.

Mark's interest in geography viz. Matthew has been studied but perhaps less successfully. I've also seen some good stuff on Matt as an editor (tends to shorten Mark's wordier phrases). But I'd love to see more, perhaps even Matthew as wirkungsgeschichte of Mark, "Matthew and the Earliest Reception History of Mark."

(3) Match-fixing for this Saturday's game viz. Italy...

UPDATE: Turns out the Blogfather had something similar to say in a more comprehensive fashion on Matt as reader of Mark: http://ntgateway.com/weblog/2006/06/whats-wrong-with-redaction-criticism.html. "Redaction criticism tends not to allow sufficiently for the effect that a source gospel might have had on a given evangelist. What if Mark fundamentally altered Matthew's views? Gospels are works of propaganda or persuasion and were presumably designed to persuade others, yet we tend to imagine Matthew taking up an utterly critical stance to Mark as if his (Matthew's) views were all fully formed before he came across Mark. My view is that Mark has a profound and overwhelming effect on Matthew, changing and developing his thinking on all sorts of fronts." He goes on to cite Matt's use of Mk's John-as-Elijah portrayal.

2006-06-11T21:12:00.000-05:00

Bock Blog and other news

No, it's not about beer; Darrell Bock is blogging online (as noted by Mark D. Roberts and others). Looks like he's keeping his blogposts shorter than his Luke commentary. Good analysis of DaVinci Code but give us something else, something unique! (Like the updates on IBR activity!)

The US will be on the field tomorrow for their World Cup opener. The Czechs are a bit banged up, but they are loaded with talent. The US will have to play the game of their lives to win, although a draw would not be impossible. Biggest question is, will the midfield hustle and flow?

I will be in German class, but will be following on the webcast of the game.

Other observations: England looked tepid and less than thrilling despite their talent in the middle 3/4s of the field. Owen was ineffective and made me long for Rooney; I'm frankly not sure Sven knows how to use his midfield. Their defense is superb but they can't count on even one goal in every game, I'm afraid, on this evidence. Robben looked amazing for Holland, but he needs to get his team involved more--too many shots, I'm afraid. They need better teamwork in the final 1/3 of the field, imo.
I've been proud of our CONCACAF neighbors--Costa Rica nabbing goals against Deutschland; Trinidad with a miracle draw (=tie!) with Sweden; Mexico taking out Iran 'con fuerza'. All loads of fun.

2006-06-05T06:57:00.000-05:00

Kostenberger on the Purpose and Occasion of John's Gospel

[[I tried to submit the following at Deinde, but couldn't manage it.]]
Andreas Kostenberger http://www.biblicalfoundations.org/?p=47 posts on the purpose and occasion of John's Gospel.

AK (no word if he wears number 47 during intramural sporting events) posts based largely on a large, recent article of his on the topic, available in PDF online at his website: "The Destruction of the SecondTemple and the Composition of the Fourth Gospel, " TrinJ 26NS (2005): 205-42.

Particularly astute in regards to 'occasion' is this quote from Peter Walker, Jesus and the Holy City (Eerdmans, 1996, p. 197): "As a result, if any of his readers felt bereft of the Temple and of the spiritual focus provided by Jerusalem, John would have encouraged them not to mourn the loss of the city, but rather to see what God had done for them in Jesus. . . . The Evangelist, writing after the Temple's destruction, does not bemoan its loss. . . . The presence of God has not been withdrawn, for Jesus has taken the place of the Temple. Jesus gives more than the Temple had ever given. . . . Jesus stands in the place of everything that Israel has lost."

I like this a lot, although I shouldn't like to drive too much of an analytical wedge between occasion and purpose...

2006-05-31T21:40:00.000-05:00

A Question of Method: on requiring the presence of exact verbal correspondence for qualification as an allusion

From Scot McKnight, via Deinde (my future virtual home?) "The bread of the Synoptic accounts is nearly always called artos and not azuma, the more specific word for 'unleavened bread' " (p.269), Jesus and his Death. Scot notes this as part of his argument that John, not the synoptics, is more correctly or more exactly detailing the sequence of the Last Supper in relation to Passover.

Two specific problems arise if we rely too heavily on the lack of direct parallels to disprove allusions: (1) We don’t know the origin of such allusions, and often have no access in any case to the Gk translation from which the writers were working. This is due to the shifting of the LXX in its various recensions—perhaps in response to Christian and NT usage; or in an effort to improve accuracy, or bring into line with more popular translations. (2) In at least Matthew’s case he often simply translated from Heb/Aramaic on his own, so that there is no guarantee his Greek reference/allusion will match any that we presently have.

In such cases, thematic and theological parallels are all we have to rely on. Therefore, as a matter of method I’m not convinced that a failure to find any significant, exact verbal correspondence can necessarily indicate a failure to find an allusion. It’s no stretch to imagine in Scot’s example above, that Mark and Matthew simply didn’t know enough Greek to come up with azuma; or that Mark didn’t bring it to mind (in foreign language it’s frequently easier to come up with the most common word, even when a more technical term would be more precise), and it didn’t seem out of place when Mt/Lk copied it. Or perhaps the LXX copies used by the synoptic writers (or just by Mark!) was a relatively impoverished translation which didn’t use this word.

If any of this is the case, it’s also easy to see how John, with his PASXAL emphasis, might pay more attention to an exact term than Mk/Mt. Finally, the synoptics are interested in linking the Last Supper to the feeding of the multitudes in Mk 6, 8 and parallels, where artos is present (is it Mark who links this scene verbally as well? Take, bless/thanks, broke, give). Thus the lack of verbal correspondence in the synoptics in this instance could have another explanation altogether.

There is a tendency for NT scholars to over-rely on common (thus borrowed, according to the argument) vocabulary as an indicator of the presence of an intentional verbal allusion. I suspect this as I’m reading through Nolland’s commentary, as he attempts to stab at possible allusions and “echoes”; although let me hasten to add I’m enormously grateful that he is trying, and that he has paid attention to the narrative turn in biblical and matthean studies, though without abandoning his redaction critical roots. All part of the danger and excitement of living in a post-Hays world, I suppose, where scholars regularly stretch texts by intertexting (I coin a verb) to within an inch of their lives.

But here’s my present point: I’m not sure the lack of a certain LXX verb can prove an allusion is not present. I’m not judging Scot’s point—I find it interesting—just noting a methodological problem. Am I wrong on this one?

2006-05-25T22:13:00.000-05:00

Thanks

to Danny of Deinde for the kind offer. I'm mulling it over...I want to give the present blog a fair shake before I jump ship.

2006-05-25T21:39:00.000-05:00

Matthew and his Canon of Scripture

Which writings were considered "Scripture" for the NT writers? A tricky question for sure. Matthew has more possible allusions to IT lit than most, though some of this could simply be the "milieu" instead of conscious allusion. In general, however, I think Matt has some idea of the canon of Scripture.

Some have noted that the end of Matt resembles the end of 2 Chr, which is the end of the traditional Heb Scriptures (Frankemolle esp., though he himself stressed the Chronicler's begin. with genealogy and ending with the commissioning, I think, not the shape of the canon). Form critics don't have much to work with IMO, and important verbal parallels are lacking. But I do think the first two words of Gk Mt ("biblos genesews," or "book of Genesis"--a title by which the first book of Moses was already known in Matt's day) are intentional pointers to Genesis, and it does not seem a stretch to have a conclusion like Matt's which might point to the end of a hypothetical canon as well. Other evidence? "the blood of Abel to Zechriah" in Mt 23:35. This is of course fun in English because it's "A to Z," which should warn us that coincidence is possible and not necessarily helpful. There's some doubt as to which Zechariah ("son of Berechiah" in the better mss) this is, as there are three choices biblically.

Strack-Billerbeck notes later Jewish confusion or interpretive equation of Zechariah the son of Berechiah (the biblical book's namesake) and Zechariah in 2 Chr 24:20. For more on this exegetical technique in Matthew, see Bauckham, "Tamar's Ethnicity and Rahab's Marriage," NovT 37 (1995). Nolland (2005) cites Knowles, Jeremiah in Matthew's Gospel: The Rejected Prophet Motif in Matthean Redaction, JSNTSS 68; SB; and M. McNamara, who discusses the parallel with Tg.Lam 2.20. The upshot of these opinions is that Matt is citing the first and last person in his canonical Scriptures to die because of righteousness, just as later Jewish authors may have done. This can't be proven, but it seems possible Matthew has done this. Since Matthew elsewhere has a knack for working allusions to Zechariah (the biblical prophet) into his material, as in 27:3-10 and 21:5, this wouldn't be surprising. I'd love to hear what Clay Alan Ham does with this in his new monograph on Zechariah in Matthew, but I have been unable to find a journal that is reviewing it (RBL isn't!) and has not already obtained a willing soul.

Any thoughts on "Matthew's canon" or the use of Zechariah?

2006-05-25T16:10:00.000-05:00

Backdoor

Sometimes broken links still allow a backdoor access. Moyise's material online went offline (reported by Blogfather) when his institution changed their web address. But you can still access some at least, if you Google search for it and then choose not to download as PDF or .doc, but view as HTML. I found his interesting ‘The Wilderness Quotation in Mark 1:2-3’ in Sugirtharajah (ed), Wilderness: Essays in Honour of Frances young (T&T Clark: 2005) this way. The opening verses of Mark 1 are intriguing to me; I'm not sure I follow Watts or Joel Marcus all the way, though I think they're on the right track. I'm inclined to cut them more slack than Moyise does.

2006-05-25T11:08:00.000-05:00

Great Idea at Deinde.org...

...especially since Deinde is now much more user-friendly! I've been thinking about this for some time, since I frankly can't sustain my blog that well. I thought about getting others interested in Matthew to join me here, but that's probably too narrow. Of course, I don't even have a commenting account at Deinde [and I tried to post this material anonymously and could not--I kept getting a bad "form" message or something]...

2006-05-24T22:51:00.000-05:00

Exegetical catastrophe

E. D. Freed recently published The Stories of Jesus' Birth: a Critical Introduction, The Biblical Seminar 72 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2001). This builds on his earlier work such as an article on the women in Mt's genealogy of Jesus.

His argument for the four women isn't the worst (it's also not the best), but this book contains some frankly frightening statements for something published by SAP in such a series. I admit I haven't read the whole, but this in particular was worth comment regardless of how the rest of the book turns out. The skeptic in me suggests that it goes to show that if you put the word "critical" in your work, and try to contradict orthodox belief, the standard just isn't that high (in every case). Whatever the case, this is one of the worst paragraphs I've read in "serious" scholarly literature in quite some time. From Freed, page 20-21:

"Except for a few passages in the Gospels, Jesus as a descendant of David (as in the genealogies) was never an important belief for New Testament writers. The theologian who wrote the letter to the Hebrews argues that Jesus was a priest like Melchizedek. Therefore, like that priest, Jesus had no genealogy." [I can't help myself, I have to interrupt: Hebrews says no such thing; read chapter 7 once or one hundred times and it's clear the reference is about Melch, not Jesus.] "The author of Hebrews writes that Christ was the Son of God and eternal high priest. He was 'without fahter, without mother, without genealogy, having neither beginning nor end of life, but resembling the Son of God, he remains a priest forever.' But according to the author of Hebrews, Christ was not descended from the priests: 'He does not have their genealogy' (Heb 7:6). The important thing in Hebrews is that, as with Aaron, Christ was called by God. We might question whether the author of Hebrews was actually trying to negate the tradition about Jesus preserved in the genealogy, if not the stories of Jesus' birth altogether."

Of all the things that could be said of this, the only thing I'll waste time on here is noting Hebrews 7:14...where the author of Hebrews explicitly notes Jesus' origin from the tribe of Judah and states that it is common knowledge. (One also wonders whether Freed has ever read Paul's description of his gospel in the opening verses of Romans 1, Revelation, etc...) Did he not bother reading the chapter he was citing?

2006-05-18T22:40:00.000-05:00

Great Literary Hoaxes

Loren Rosson's Busybody featured a great post on literary hoaxes a while back.

The focus at the Busybody is on letters, books, etc., but there's a killer literary hoax that appeared as a journal article not long ago. I think Alan Sokal's work, "Transgressing the Boundaries: Toward a Transformative Hermeneutics of Quantum Gravity," in Social Text 46-47 (1996), 217-252, is a true classic. For the weary or those needing sleep, see http://www.physics.nyu.edu/faculty/sokal, where it looks as though Sokal has made a career out of his hoax. You can read the article in question, as well as articles where Sokal revealed the hoax and explained why he did it. Whether one agrees with Sokal or not, the hoax is a killer, and it makes a great point (from his perspective). It primarily shows that if you write about certain issues (esp. those that are PC) with a certain high diction, you can write absolute crap and get away with it.

2006-05-17T22:40:00.000-05:00

Blogging down, but not (yet) out

I've got a fair bit of work on other tasks coming up--an intensive course on reading German (my previous efforts haven't satisfied me, as I'm still lacking a few things when it comes to verbs and syntax in particular--the frustration in having more than 80 or 90 percent of a pargraph by Strecker [or doing research on aliens in German theologians like Chris Tilling] is unbearable...you're still left wondering what you've missed), in honor of the WC 2006--what better way to memorize paradigms than during down-time of a game?; major research/writing projects at work; and wrapping up a chapter of my dissertation.

I've also restrung my guitar for the first time in years, as I've decided life is getting bit stale--all computers and books, no art.

Among other challenges? NotaBene 8.0. I just purchased this two weeks ago and I'm struggling mightily with switching notes and writing from Word. What a pain--but it is nice to troll through one's work slowly. It really helps the editing process. I still can't figure out how you change the spacing, block quotes don't work, I can't search help despite my best efforts--I can but I can't select the page I want; I haven't found umlauts and accents (I copy paste from Word); I can't convert a document to .rtf. I found out how to search the single docuemnt in front of you but now can't seem to repeat the feat. All this makes me long for the simplicity of Word (I never thought that phrase would be typed by me--it's probably a Google hapax legomena), and the "weightier matters of word processing" such as autocorrect and underlines on grammar, spacing, etc. NB also is the slowest program on my computer--it's almost worth it to type in word, then copy paste to NB.

I'm sure it's all worth it in the long run.

2006-05-17T21:27:00.000-05:00

Matthew resources on-line, part 3: Forthcoming commentaries

Thanks to Parablemen (would that be Parablepeople when they add a woman to the mix?) for their work on forthcomign commentaries. There's no "Matthew page" so I took the liberty of compiling from http://parablemania.ektopos.com/archives/2005/08/forthcoming_com.html. This stuff does change--the NICNT has had four people contracted; the first three died--but here's a good idea of what's about to be out there on Matthew. (Begin budgeting now!) I've included some comments as many of these are by famous folks.

I'll put the three most interesting first:
Pride of place has to go to Stanley Hauerwas, doing the Matthew commentary in the intriguing Brazos Theological commentary series. This could be the first in a while (not counting Bruner's second edition) to take a strong pacifist/anabaptist view of the SermMt et al. Many commentators, particularly popular works, also ignore much of Matthew's "sacrificial" language of Christian discipleship since so much of this is taken over by Mark--I doubt Uncle Stan will have that problem. Will he write the first-ever commentary on Matthew to drop the f-bomb and use the word 'tit' (Chris Tilling will be excited)?

Equally intriguing is the Jack Dean Kingsbury volume in the Eerdmans Critical Commentary. I don't always agree with his views on structure, and I think the literary revolution in Matt studies he helped usher in can be overblown. But the man really knows Matthew. This should be a treat, and a valuable read. Will the format will send him back to his redaction critical roots?

Richard France (R. T. France) takes the NICNT--as mentioned above, this is the cursed volume that never gets finished. Rumor has it the Eerdmans lunchroom has a dead pool going on this one, lots of cash up for grabs. This gives France yet another major crack at Matthew. His experience should prove valuable--though I'm still miffed he really shafts the genealogy in Matthew: Evangelist and Teacher (though he's not alone--Stanton can write an entire book on Matthew, A Gospel for a New People, while scarcely mentioning the way he opens...this sort of thing if nothing else meant the "narrative" revolution in Matthew scholarship was well-deserved). Will he put the nail in the coffin of the other views of Matt 24-25? Will he finally go all out on the preterist (NTW) view? Will he interact with the narrative move in Matthean studies? Rikki Watts is doing the new volume on Mark in that series, which looks fun.

All three of those are particularly exciting.

In the AB series, Matthew (replacement), John P. Meier -- long-time writer on Matthew, maybe not as good on narrative/literary aspects and use of OT as I'd like.
David L. Turner -- who is likewise maybe not as good on narrative, use of OT as I'd like -- will write for BECNT, which is nothing if not thorough, though Matt's not hurting for such at present. Turner's work, including a fair bit on the first gopsel, seems to represent the covenantal/kingdom turn from old school dispensationalism into a more mainstream evangelical approach. I like his writing. He's also writing the Matt volume in Cornerstone Bib Comm based on the NLT.
Black's NT will give Richard Beaton a crack (good published dissertation on Isaiah in Matt). Should be good, though I don't care for the format at present--I'm willing to change my mind. New Cambridge Bible Comm will have a major heavyweight, Craig A. Evans, though I doubt the format will lend itself to his abilities. Craig is a full-blooded historian so it'll be interesting to see what direction he goes with this. Daniel Doriani who is a sane writer on hermeneutics and preaching, takes on Matt in Reformed Expository Commentary, a series I'm not familiar with. David Graham is doing Two Horizons. Another hermeneutics guru, Grant Osborne, will do what may be the Zondervan Exegetical Commentary. I think D. A. Carson will be revising his EBC contribution, as I've seen him doing Matthew book reviews.

Also, presumably in the next few years we'll see Luz's second edition start trickling into English; I managed a gander at the first volume, second ed. in German at Emory last month.

Let me note in closing that I have my doubts as to whether any of these can dislodge David Garland, Smyth and Helwys, Reading Matthew, as my favorite and top recommendation, particularly for pastors and educated teachers. But I'm willing to listen and read...

2006-05-17T21:10:00.000-05:00

Matthew online resources, part 2

I'm happy to add a few things to the previous post: www.geocities.com/theswain/ematthew as mentioned by the swain in the notes. I have used his site previously as it has a nice compendium of patristic and other material. Above all, see Rob Bradshaw's massive collection of what is largely evangelical scholarship, though with plenty of non-evangelical material as well, at http://biblicalstudies.org.uk/matthew.php. Robert has done great work in getting material listed on the web.

2006-05-11T22:39:00.000-05:00

Matthew Resources online

Free resources on Matthew, on a site that appears to be growing in size: http://www.apollos.ws/matthew/; click on read article [external link] to read the article of your choice. And as always, http://ntgateway.com/matthew/ has links to sites by Matthew scholar Janice Capel Anderson and others who have nice collections of free material.

2006-05-11T22:20:00.000-05:00

Need an Idea for a Paper?

If you don't mind being flat wrong and historically aggregious, if you don't mind borrowing (it's our lifeblood), and you'd like to be provocative and thus popular, I've got one for you. The "missing generation" in the third section of Matt's genealogy--there are only 13, whereas the previous two have 14, depending on how you count-- is variously thought to reflect:

(Stendahl) 13th generation is earthly Jesus, 14th is risen, exalted Christ
(Blomberg) Matthew's counting--alternates inclusive/exclusive
(Augustine) Jesus is the 41st generation, after 40 of "testing" or purifying
(Carson and others) God's sign that he cuts short the time to Messiah out of Messiah
(Many scholars) Matthew can't count...or was true to a source, and didn't care that the 13 generations didn't square with 1:17.
(Me) Late one night I discovered there were 41 divinely authorized monarchs of Judah/Israel. It's wishful thinking, but no worse than some other explanations I've heard.

But here's an alternative worthy of publication in some our crap-passing-for-insight journals: the missing 14th generation is obviously a reference to a continued "Jesus dynasty"--his son would rule in his place, or wife, or what have you. This is also the meaing of Jesus' "I'll be with you always..." (28:20). His offspring will always be here, ruling after him, representing him. You could tie this into some of the readings of the "women" in the genealogy (which readings are not exegesis, but sexegesis). So if you want a sure fire popular paper, have at it. Maybe you could even work this into a dissertation..."Matthew and the Jesus Dynasty" or some such. Just be sure and cite me, noting I think the argument is crap in advance.

2006-05-07T20:33:00.000-05:00

Matt 28:16-20 and the structure of GospMt

The structural role of the Great Commission is a major issue in Matthean studies. In my opinion it's safe to say that the "casual" reader would simply see Matt winding up the thrust of his whole Gospel in the final verses. But literary critics don't always agree.

Some have argued that the Grt Comm stands as a sixth or seventh (add chapter 11) or eighth (add chapter 23) "teaching block", in opposition to Bacon's old thesis and its derivatives that Matt features 5 "Pentateuchal" blocks of Jesus' teaching, with or w/out a "New Moses" or "Greater-than-Moses" emphasis. Frank Matera argued that "Matthew's Gospel can be read as a story whose plot concerns Israel's rejection of the Messiah and the consequent movement of the gospel to the Gentiles." All of these argue that in some sense Grt Comm sums up what Matthew wishes to say about Jesus.

Mark Allan Powell has argued against seeing the GrtComm as the climax of the Gospel; all the conflict, etc. in his mind points to the passion narrative as the conclusion. He argues that many narratives do not have a climax at the end, and that in Matthew in particular we have a plot that is not determined by causality, but by "teleology"; he reject the (aristotelian) three-fold division of narratives into beginning, middle, and end. He relies heavily on narrative critical analysis, including features such as the intensification of drama in the conflict narratives (notable by the "slowing" of narrative time in the passion narrative) and the repeated allusions to Jesus' rejection and death throughout the text, among other factors. The Grt Comm is not the climax, but a new beginning. I like the hermeneutical implications of that, but I think the literary analysis isn't quite complete.

But Powell tries to argue that the five major preaching blocks support his theory, as part of Jesus' conflict with Satan/apostate Jewish leadership. There is evidence for this, as the "teaching" does relate to conflict, particularly at the last (23/24-25). But at the end of the day I do not think this mitigates the role of Mt 28:16-20 in favor of Powell's view that "the passion narrative...is the goal of the entire narrative," and the point of plot resolution. I also don't fully agree with Matera and others, who see a great "switch" from Israel to the nations. (Against Powell, much of the conflict isn't simply about Jesus in his day; it's proleptic, and thus not central to the temporal plot in GospMt.)

I cannot work this out in detail at the moment, but I think the story of central importance here is the story of Abe's people and their vocation (through the lens of early Xianity of course).

That is Matthew's central concern--how does Jesus finsih (fulfill) or bring a new chapter to this long history which precedes his own story of Jesus? How will Israel's vocation (light to the world, justice and righteousness among the nations, even to the nations) be fulfilled? How will the promises to Abraham of universal blessing, and to David of a son to reign and rule in righteousness, be fulfilled? Powell is correct in seeing the locus of "Matthean" plot, i.e., Matthew qua Matthew, intensified and in some sense "climaxed" in the conclusion of the conflict (suffering, death and--perhaps, as God's final blow in the battle--resurrection). But attending to this larger story is essential if we want the true meaning of Jesus' story within the larger Story where it finds meaning, if we want to understand the final five verses, and--I would argue--if we wish to apply Matthew's Gospel today.

This is a bit incomplete at the moment but perhaps we can come back to it later. I'll leave it to readers to comment.

[[I owe the quotes above to the fine analysis of Mervyn Eloff, chapter four of "Restoration from Exile as a Hermeneutical Prism for a Theological Interpretation of Matthew’s Gospel." Unpublished PhD Dissertation, University of Stellenbosch, ca. 2000. Eloff also is concerned with the "larger plot" (Israel's story) but still agrees with Powell, focusing on Exile and Sin via NTW; I think exile and sin is important, but the climax does NOT lie there, but with the larger plot, of which the exile/sin problem is but one aspect of completion.]]

2006-05-07T20:09:00.000-05:00

A Hebrew Matthew

A post on another site led me to ask this question--does anyone know where one could find the various texts of Hebrew Matthew, beyond the one in George Howard's book on the subject?

For those that don't know, there are several medieval Hebrew manuscripts of Matthew's Gospel. Differences from Greek texts have led some to posit that they are closer to the original Hebrew or Aramaic than the Greek; Eusebius's comments on Papias, who reported that Matthew was originally written in the Hebrew/Aramaic is sometimes cited as evidence to support this. This is of course disputed (Matthias...Ebraidi dialekta ta logia sunetaxeto doesn't have to mean "Hebrew language"; it could amount to something like "Hebrew style").

I think the strongest argument against an "original Hebrew" is Matt's use of Mark in Greek. I'd still love to know some sources for the relevant, if anyone has any, although I think it's more useful for wirkungsgeschicte than textual criticism, authorship, and origins.

2006-05-03T20:26:00.000-05:00

Top NT TV Personalities

From DaVinci and DSS to Mary and Mary, NT scholars are increasingly making the airwaves. A comment on a previous post gave me an idea. Who are the top NT scholars on TV? Anyone care to rate them (1-5 for personality, 1-5 for content) and pick a favorite? Let's try to keep the discourse on content and personality: no jokes about NTW's fro-like beard or anyone's suspect theology--unless it clouds their jdgmnt. Karen King, Craig A. Evans, Mark Goodacre (though I can't remember seeing Mark on in the States), LTJ, NTW, BWiii, A-JL, Borg, Crossan spring to mind... I'll go with BWiii, since I just knocked his Matthew commentary. His slight accent and relaxed manner is a winner (5), and his comments are accurate without being pushy or fantastic--and above all, they make fantastic sound bites (4); overall score is 4.5. Well done, Professor Witherington.

Maybe Crossley and Bird can get on TV after their book comes out--I'd love to see Mike's fire engine cranium ginger up the screen and push the limits of HDTV.

2006-05-02T20:49:00.000-05:00

Witherington Sampler

BWiii's new Matthew commentary is now available from Smyth and Helwys. The introduction and commentary on Matt 1 are now available for review at http://www.helwys.com/commentary/art_010903/pdfs/matthew_sample.pdf.

BWiii tracks his interest in Jesus as a wisdom figure into the "wisdom gospel," an interest which simultaneously makes this commentary unique and unhelpful (on first skim). Apparently he is going to tie each pericope to sapiential themes; the first chapter is not particularly promising in this regard. There is no lengthy, detailed interaction in the intro with those who have previously studied Matthew from a wisdom perspective, although his brief comments on this and on Matt's setting are interesting. Moreover, with the price tag, I'm not sure who this is for; it's too expensive for most folks (though the layout is certainly user-friendly--I can't speak for the CD-ROM). And scholars are going to want more depth and more exposure to Matthean debates.

But out of gratitude to the publishers for putting the chapter online, I'll reiterate my choice of David Garland's excellent commentary on Matthew, which Smyth and Helwys put out/republished in 2001. If you're a non-specialist looking for a good commentary on Matthew, it's worth more than BWiii's effort.

Also online--the new RBL has no fewer than three reviews of Keck's new Abingdon commentary on Romans, including a review by Jimmy Dunn. Sounds like it might make a nice companion to Wright, Dunn, or Moo.

2006-04-25T11:20:00.000-05:00

Matthew 8:5-13 in the latest JBL

The latest edition of JBL is up; it includes a brief analysis ("The Centurion in Matthew 8:5–13: Consideration of the Proposal of Theodore W. Jennings, Jr., and Tat-Siong Benny Liew," by D. B. Saddington) of a recent attempt to argue that the centurion of Matthew 8 and his pais are man-boy lovers. Saddington notes that the centurion was probably not Roman, which argues against their focus on Roman data; and in any case the data only provides one illustration of a long-term relationship such as that presumably presented in Matthew 8.

Memphian Patrick Gray has an interesting article on Presidential Addresses (discussed in a previous post), and Joel Marcus provides a typically useful read, "Crucifixion as Parodic Exaltation." Perhaps this means part two of his valuable Mark commentary is on the way.

2006-04-24T21:10:00.000-05:00

Paul Pop Quiz Answer

Thanks to those who posed answers. I'm sure Paul did indeed teach a cluster of truths "everywhere--in all the churches." But the specific quote I had in mind is found in 1 Corinthians 4:17, which I think is the only place where Paul explicitly says something like, "I taught ____ everywhere in every church."

I'm tempted to think NIV is a tad underwhelming here in its last segment, and lacks the emphasis of the Greek: "Therefore I urge you to imitate me. For this reason I am sending to you Timothy, my son whom I love, who is faithful in the Lord. He will remind you of my way of life in Christ Jesus, which agrees with what I teach everywhere in every church. " Timothy isn't just going to remind them of things that "agree with" what Paul teaches; he is going to remind them of precisely what Paul taught them in word and deed, which they are failing: they were failing to live a Cross-shaped life (suing one another, privileging personal pleasure, ignoring the poor at the Lord's dinner).

Paul gives his "Spiritual C. V." in a variety of ways in the Corinthian correspondence, but in particular there are five places which emphasize his cross-shaped way of life: 1 Cor 4:8-17; 9; (2:2-5 is also a possibility); 2 Cor 4:7-18; 6:3-10; 11:19-33. This is how Paul lived when with them, it's how he lived in front of all churches at all time, and it's the content he taught them: Cross as benefit, and Cross as way of life. (Is there a connection with e.g., Mark 8:34-38?)

The implications for a truly "Pauline" ministry are startling.

2006-04-10T10:48:00.000-05:00

"Gospel" of Judas

National Geographic has very graciously made this available online (pending of course additional manusript analysis and reproduction) in English (pdf) and in Coptic. Typical gnostic stuff, which means it will sound quite odd to anyone unfamiliar. Still worth a read, though. If anyone can advance a good argument for calling this a "Gospel," I'd love to hear it.

Thanks to Blogfather for this and loads of other info in a "megapost"; he also has an excellent review of this, which I was unable to watch as Natl Geog channel only comes to my mother-in-law's television.

2006-04-08T22:53:00.000-05:00

Music for Biblical Studies

I'll leave the classical stuff for Jim West. Here are the latest spinning in my library on itunes as I write: Vigilantes of Love, Sufjan Stevens, Death Cab for Cutie, Jose Gonzalez (HT Kevin Cawley of Cawleyblog.com), Without Gravity, Derek Webb (Mockingbird), Cocteau Twins; but the pick of the crop right now is Matisyahu, "King Without a Crown." If you haven't heard this, you MUST check it out. Imagine an Orthodox Jew running his religious expectations and praxis thru a musical grid of 311 or The Clash...not sure why he can get on MTV2 when Xian artists as explicit cannot, but I'm all for it nonetheless. Wikipedia has him down as a Hassidic reggae artist, but I'm not sure reggae quite captures it as the sound is to aggressive for my definition of reggae.

Its use for biblical studies should be clear after a listen--Matisyahu has a nice way of putting you in ca. 1c context of messianic expectation and Jewish devotion to YHWH, Torah, etc., combined with some religious instruction for doubters. But the music really makes it worth listening to in any case. Note the connection wikipedia makes between his name and the name of the father of Judas Maccabee...

2006-04-07T22:20:00.000-05:00

Around the Biblio-Blogosphere

Let's start at home--take the pop quiz on Paul below! Ben Witherington (among many others) goes off on the big Gospel of Judas craze; don't forget this airs on Natl Geog channel Sunday evening. James Crossley reports on the secular panel at SBL/AAR; his paper looks very interesting. And Mike Bird announces yet another publication, mostly a collection of previously published material.
Also online is the new JBL, with an article from a local scholar, Patrick Gray of Rhodes College (my alma mater), on presidential addresses; he notes that Muilenberg, Sandmel, and Schussler Fiorenza put out something of lasting value and influence, but that this isn't always the case; speaking of Case, I couldn't find Shirley Jackson Case's address (messianic consciousness, 1926 or '27) even mentioned on Google. Patrick did a good article on movies and the Bible in the classroom recently for SBL Forum. And good reviews of an interesting new work on early Jewish and Christian monotheism, a recent personal interest, are worth reading.

2006-04-05T20:45:00.000-05:00

Pop Quiz on Paul

What did Paul explicitly say that he "taught in every church?" If you're bold enough, please note your first answer in the comment section (and don't change it based on others' answers); feel free to go anonymous if you'd like. The answer is forthcoming...

2006-04-05T20:30:00.000-05:00

Notes and Quotes on 1 Corinthians

I recently completed a bit of study on 1 Corinthians. Some observations:

Fee’s excellent quote (p. 3 of his commentary), that Corinth was like the NYC, LA and Las Vegas of the Roman Empire rolled into one, is appropriate. But as I was driving through Corinth, MS last week, it occurred to me that America as a whole fits the bill in the same way those three cities do. It’s too easy to point the finger at Ken Lay, Lower Manhattan, Casino Row, or Miami Beach and find a comparison with Corinth that won’t implicate me and my lifestyle and worldview. Call us the United States of Corinth. It’s as close as we get to a mirror in Scripture (apart from the ever-frequent comparisons with Imperial Rome), which would make the Puritans and religious Founders—who looked to Israel for a model--cry.

It’s worth reckoning with the fullest force of quotes like the following, particularly for the modern American (=Corinthian) problem :

“When Paul writes autobiographically, he writes paradigmatically,” says M. J. Gorman, Apostle of the Crucified Lord (Eerdmans, 2004), 258. And how many times in the Corinthian correspondence does Paul offer his "cruciformity C. V."?

“By grasping for material advantage now, the Corinthians are jeopardizing their far greater reward in the coming age.” Hays, First Corinthians, 96.

“His gospel may generate problems, not solve them, for the word of the cross poses a challenge to the comfortable assumptions of Paul’s readers.” Hays, 13.

2006-04-02T21:32:00.000-05:00

Meaning in Structure: What does a literary device mean?

Matthew claims a 14x3 sructure for his genealogy of Jesus; the final “fourteen” has only thirteen names. What does this mean? I’m not going to spill the beans on what I think Matthew is doing, nor give a thorough review of all the questions involved or possible answered. But I want to use this particular structural question here to point up one huge problem for the scholar, teacher, or preacher in narrative analysis of Scripture: the question of intentionality and meaning in literary design. Just because a chiasm or pattern is present (or appears to be present) does not necessarily mean that the center (or alternatively, the bookends) is stressed….there are at least seven reasons why such patterns might be found, and some of these could easily overlap, of course. These are specific for Matthew’s genealogy, but most apply to other literary structures as well.

(1) Aid for memory
(2) Beauty for the sake of beauty-- if you're going to make a list, why not make it interesting?
(3) Deviation from the theme can highlight an important person, story, or concept. Here I would offer the observations of many that there might be significance in the number 41 (Augustine—40 representing Israel, then Messiah), or that the third shortened “fourteen” represents God’s grace in shortening the time to Messiah. Stendahl of course famously thought that Jesus was 13th and “Christ” 14th. Given the “kingly” emphasis of this lineage, we might also note that there were 41 divinely authorized kings over the tribes in the OT. I don’t know if any of this is correct, but I would be surprised if Matt really had “problems counting.” It’s certainly possible that was the case, but there’s a good bit of strategic work that’s been put into this piece.
(4) Utility—ease of use for those who have to sit through a rather long list.
(5) “Order” for the sake of order—perhaps to reflect “divine order”; this is similar to 2) above. The more orderly or sophisticated the literary work, the higher it would be valued, I reckon. For Matthew of course, the number three, seven, and fourteen seem important for religious reasons; 6x7 could be important, some suggest, as some sort of apocalyptic symbolism, suggesting the advent of the “seventh seven,” the truest or highest stage of Israel, or her telos, in Messiah. Luke's genealogy, by the way, suggests that structuring along the lines of "seven" carried artistic or religious significance.
(6) Intangibles: Maybe Matthew had triplets turning 14? Or fourteen-year-old twins and a thirteen-year-old?
(7) Reader invention: Maybe Matthew had no purpose to speak of?!
(8) As yet unknown: the wild card in every scholarly discussion. A great many texts and ideas from Mt's day are unknown; it's possible we'll never know precisely what he intended.

Anyone have anything to add? Anyone wish to cast a vote on Matt’s purpose here?

2006-03-31T08:39:00.000-06:00

Exegetical Idol?

The previous post generated some interest and some good comments. Someone noted the tendency to "idolize," and this reminded me of "American Idol," I think it's called "Pop Idol" in UK and "Australian Idol" in...New Zealand. Anyway, let's roll with that analogy:

Although one judge thought he was too liberal (authorship of Jude/2 Peter), and another thought he was too conservative (early high christology, lack of respect for critical consensus on Gospel communities), the viewers hvae spoken. It looks like Richard Bauckham wins the very scientific voting on this year's edition of "Exegetical Idol": he wins a five year publishing/recording contract with "Chris Tilling Really Very Holy Ministries (CTRVHM)", a worldwide ministry enterprise that will really help Richard get out of the academic set and into the mainstream. There's even a movie, the script already written, about apocalyptic drama, which will star Bauckham as a coffehouse barista and secret exegete who uncovers the plot to end history. The script of course is written by Alan Bandy.

What, you say? Pitting scholars as actors? Well, there's so much exegesis in this movie, hiring actors would prove problematic, as the first year of production would be taken up by intensive study of the New Testament, Greek and other relevant languages, Hebrew Scriptures, etc. Several actors, including Tom Cruise, took but failed to pass an exegetical test to see if they could qualify. So we're going with Bauckham. It's like hiring a non-Italian actor when you could just get an Italian non-actor; saves you a lot of time in the long run.

2006-03-29T22:04:00.000-06:00

Who's Your Favorite/Who's the Best?
In his interview with Alan Bandy, Mike Bird noted the prowess of Richard Bauckham: But Richard Bauckham has got to be the guy I respect the most * every time he puts pen to paper you know it is going to be rigorous, insightful, provocative, and announce the end of some poorly argued assumption in biblical scholarship (e.g. the existence of Gospel “communities”). Indeed RB has the ability to focus like a laser, master the issues, take a totally different track from previous scholars, and change the state of scholarship. He certainly did this with God Crucified, which I thoroughly enjoyed and which takes a huge swipe at some mainstays of NT theology, and in an article on my dissertation topic: "Tamar's Ancestry and Rahab's Marriage: Two Problems in the Matthean Genealogy," Novum Testamentum 37 (1995) 313-329. Very, very insightful; loads of common sense in the first half.

Elsewhere on the blogosphere, Scot McKnight (himself a favorite of a few) confesses that Dale C. Allison is the greatest on a blurb in one of Allison's books. Seems like I remember Chris Tilling admitting to being a Tom Wright fan simply for the sake of ideas and writing ability. Blogfather says Ed Sanders is most definitely the man. I think Jim West argued for Bultmann.

Anyone care to state their favorite, or one single scholar they think has done truly great work in the field?

2006-03-29T21:55:00.000-06:00

Matthew 5.6: Justice or Righteousness...and so what?

As I sat down to blog, I got a great email from a 14-year-old distant relative tonight. She's a sharp cookie in a great learning environment. Here's her question: "For my dad's class we were assigned people to ask questions about what we have been learning. My question for you is "What is the meaning of Matthew 6:5 - Could righteousness be justice? Why, Why not, and so what. Hope this isn't too much of a bother." Her father is also a sharp cookie and a great one for bouncing ideas around with, so he knew what he was doing when he assigned this question, and I'm certain to be playing into his hands as he molds the next generation of American evangelicals into self-sacrificial, justice-minded individuals. I thought my response to her would make a reasonable blog entry.

A., this is a tough question. The Greek word "dikaiosune" can be
used for both righteousness and justice...[skip stuff about LXX]...I'm
inclined to say that Matthew might not have tried to make too much distinction;
he probably often thinks of them as both being part of the meaning of
dikaiosune when he uses it.

But in Matthew 5:6 (is this what
you mean? righteousness isn't in 6:5), I think Matthew almost certainly
wants us to have justice in view. These beatitudes are about people who
are in trouble, beat up, crying, have lost land, suffered scorned, been mocked,
misunderstood, and even persecuted in this present life, primarily because of
their relationship with Jesus and his people and the way they live their life as
a result. Therefore, these people are hungry and thirsty for JUSTICE, for
the right thing to be done and for God to vindicate them in their
suffering. They are oppressed and rejected and despised--but they can
know, says Jesus, that God is on their side right now, and in the future.
And because of what will happen in the future (we will be satisfied, and have
true justice and peace) we are blessed right now.

So what?
Well, this encourages us to seek justice for others, even at our own
expense, because that is good and godly; but mostly it helps us give up our
right to pursue justice for ourselves in this life. If we are hungry and
thirsty now for the sake of Jesus and his kingdom, then we know we have justice
in the end, and we are blessed now because of that. But if we try to hold
onto our rights, we usually will wind up hurting others or becoming selfish
people whose minds are set on ourselves, not on Jesus. This is why Paul
tells the Corinthians not to sue (1 Cor 6): it leads to the harming of others,
because human justice is never perfect, and when we get power we tend to hurt
others (vs. 8), and as Christians, we should trust in God's justice, count
ourselves blessed despite our problems. We should be willing to be
have others do us wrong and put up with injustice rather than fail in our
calling to love others in God's family (vs 7).

Hope all that
helps! If you want an A, you ought to try to think of some examples of how
this might work in your life.

2006-03-27T07:24:00.000-06:00

Canon within a Canon: the Evidence from Google

Stephen Carlson has an interesting post on "canon within a canon" with a little help from google and a few graphs. I have to say I could have guessed the evidence for Gal 2 and Eph 2, but on other verses the graph does "help."

2006-03-26T20:28:00.000-06:00

Faith and Scholarship (Again)

We are in a situation where often faith-based scholarship feels and is made to feel inferior to secular scholarship. Consequently, evangelicals tend to publish their brightest ideas in non-confessional journals, allowing people like Michael Fox (in the SBL Forum) to claim that secular scholarship should take credit for all advances in human knowledge.

That's from Peter J. Williams at Alan Bandy's blog, in what has been an interesting series. I would also note to other possible "problems":

(1) Some ideas that might be deemed "evangelical" are not prized at many non-confessional journals, originality being more favorable than defense of traditional ideas; this is understandable but frustrating--I'm sure we've all read journal articles or dissertations which are virtually worthless, but possess that all-t00-desirable asset of "creativity."

(2) I note here an off-hand comment by Mark Goodacre earlier this winter where he cites an article from “…a journal I don't think I've read before, I'm ashamed to say, called Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society.” This is certainly not to slam Mark, but I do wonder whether this is because the content of the Journal is too restricted confessionally speaking, or because it is subpar in quality (surely sometimes the case, but not always), or because of general non-evangelical prejudice (not by Mark, but by the wider scholarly community, which could of course have affected him; I'm allowing that this could be warranted prejudice, btw) or general lack of interest, perhaps because of the more "traditional" approaches usually taken, or assumed to be taken, in the scholarship represented in such journals.

This explains how Blomberg or others can argue that the idea of Midrash in Matthew has been refuted effectively, while others have no clue about the challenges, precisely because many (a majority?) of the “important” responses to Gundry (and others like Goulder through him) are from evangelicals in evangelical journals or books, for example: D. A. Carson, "Gundry on Matthew: A Critical Review," TrinJ 3NS (1982): 71-91; Philip B. Payne, "Midrash and History in the Gospels With Special Reference to R. H. Gundry's Matthew," in Gospel Perspectives, vol. 3 (ed. R. T. France and David Wenham; Sheffield: JSOT, 1983): 177-215; Douglas J. Moo, "Matthew and Midrash: An Evaluation of Robert H. Gundry's Approach," JETS 26 (1983): 31-39; and Scott Cunningham and Darrell L. Bock, "Is Matthew Midrash?" BSac 144 (1987): 157-80.

Perhaps there is simply too much talking past one another in separate corners, and scholars of all sorts would profit massively from better interaction with those of other realms.

2006-03-24T11:19:00.000-06:00

10 Blogs I Hope to see in the near future

(1) Blogfather: “How I talked Hays and Sanders into biblioblogging”
(2) Chris Tilling: “Why I rooted for the USA during Germany ‘06 and the story of how they won the Cup”
(3) Deinde (Danny Zacharias): “Why we decided to make Deinde user friendly”
(4) Mike Bird #1: “Emerging in Dingwall: Not a Contradiction in Terms." You’d have to experience the thriving metropolis of Dingwall, Scotland to understand...
(5) Evangelical Textual Criticism: “Syriac Made Simple: a new blog by P. J. Williams"
(6) Jim West: “Why Biblical Studies is More Important than Theology”
(7) Mike Bird #2: “Why I Converted: Football as the Official Sport of the New Heavens and New Earth
(8) Ben Myers: “Why I Agree with Jim West’s New Post...and Mike Bird's as well”
(9) Unidentified Reformed blogger: “How I learned to stop worrying and love NTW as a scholar and a brother (HT: Mike Bird)”
(10) James Crossley: “How I learned to stop worrying and love W” (Okay, just kidding on that one; I'll take a mulligan)
(10) Scot McKnight, Jesus Creed: “Why I’m switching to open source publishing” but I'd willingly settle for the following from Scot: "Now taking requests for blogged book reviews"

2006-03-24T10:41:00.000-06:00

Sports News: Soccer, Basketball

A few short notes on sports. Word has it German fans are relieved at the "thrashing" of the US squad last week in a World Cup warm-up. They shouldn't be: our entire starting midfield, one or two defenders, and our starting forward (Fulham’s leading scorer) did not play in the 4-1 loss to Germany. Our first batch of reserves outplayed the Germans in the first half—we only lost it when we started subbing out our second team, Germany scoring thrice after the 70th minute. Not that this means the US is going past the group stages again in June!

Also, the hometown University of Memphis is in the final eight of the NCAA basketball tournament, while Duke (sorry blogfather) and other luminaries are out.

2006-03-24T10:04:00.000-06:00

Building a Theology of the Land: Wrap-up and Take Away (or, "Who Cares about a Theology of the Land?!?")

Applying the Promise of the Land

If we are heirs to the Land in the sense that I have described, what do we do with this information? In my last post I suggested ways in which we use this information hermeneutically. I have previously investigated the political aspects, if only because my country (sadly, particularly the Christian, Evangelical community) is so horribly slanted against non-Jewish perspectives in present-day Palestine. I believe it is absolutely vital for American believers in particular to have the exegetical nous to renounce the traditional Zionist theology of the Land, which has been proven unjust and costly in its influence on American foreign policy and religion. For more on this see especially (from a North American evangelical perspective) Gary Burge, Whose Land? Whose Promise?

But for now a few brief comments on other applications:

(1) The promise of future inheritance should lead to a willingness to sacrifice in this present life for the kingdom, even to the point of sacrificing ancestral lands and all other possessions (Hebrews 11:8-10, 13-16) . The point here is not tit-for-tat reward, but gratitude for what all our present material and immaterial blessings, and expectation of future blessing. Note that faith is vital here: it’s something we cannot see that we are after, just as was the case with Abraham. Perhaps a lack of a vision for what God has for his people is a chief reason for the remarkable absence of generosity among wealthy Christians in America today; perhaps lack of faith in the God of promise is what leads us to ignore what is promised and focus on what has already been attained. Faithlessness inherently ascribes too much importance to our earthly possessions, or puts far too much emphasis on whether a particular race of people possess a particular strip of land in the eastern Mediterranean.

As an aside, as a response to literalist health and wealth types going on about Abraham and wealth and blessing and promises, have them read ">Calvin’s Institutes, 2.10.11, a brilliant paragraph that ends as follows: “Any one desirous to give a picture of a calamitous life could not find one more appropriate.” (HT to our research asst. Justin Borger on that one).

The NT never features the OT’s “blessed man gets the rich life,” at least not in this present age. The postponement of “Land” functions as a motive for postponement of everything or anything this life has to offer, though of course we also experience these things (feasts, houses, profit, etc) whenever--and provided that we--share them with others liberally and across socio-economic and racial boundaries (Luke 14:12-14; Gal 2:11-12; I think Mark 10:29-30 falls here as well), so that we in effect all receive “100 times” in this present age.

(2) The future inheritance can be imitated, and indeed must be imitated in this present life through the pursuit of sharing of possessions and equality in the community of God (Acts 2, 4; 2 Corinthians 8:13-15). Surely when the Son--whose nature is to love and give of himself even to the point of death, and whose Spirit proves him to be the giver of good gifts--finally reigns supreme there will be justice and radical sharing, so why should it not be so now? As I read it, Mark 10:29-30 incorporates this point and the previous point.

(3) The future inheritance prepares us to live as sojourners who practice the sacrifice of our rights, our possessions, our social allegiances and connections, and our agendas. “In the case of 1 Peter, the model readers presumed and sculpted by the text are those who hear their names in the letter’s opening, 'to the elect who are sojourners of the diaspora’ (1:1). Peter’s model readers are those who embrace and embody the status of persons whose identity as estranged sojourners in the world grows out of their experience of the new birth…membership in a community defined by their allegiance to Christ…whose forms of existence attract opposition from their neighbors.” Joel Green, "Practicing the Gospel in a Postcritical World: the Promise of Theological Exegesis," JETS 47.3 (2004), 387-397, a highly recommended article. See also Calvin's comments on Abraham linked above.

2006-03-24T09:59:00.000-06:00

Building a Theology of the Land: Wrap-up and Take Away

One of the advantages to the Theology of the Land I have described is the way in which it might help us interpret and apply Scripture. One final verse to explore in this regard for hermeneutical fruit more is Ephesians 6:1-4. Here we find an appeal to Scripture and the promise of Land: "...that it may go well with them in the Land." I think this phrase is here intentionally, and not just as a description of the importance of obeying/honoring one's parents. The emphasis is on obedience, not on inheritance in the first place. But I think it likely that the writer and readers saw some value in this promise for themselves. The responsibility of children in OT and NT, just as with parents, husbands/wives, and slaves/masters, is to live out the good works to which they were called (Eph 2:10) and thus participate in the blessings which God has for his people. In the OT, this would have been life in the Land with the people of God under the reign of God and his Law; in the NT, what is this blessing?

I have suggested in previous segments of this discussion that the promise of Land is universalized and thrown into the future. Note that Ephesians 5:5 and 6:8 sets the whole discussion of walking in the Spirit in light of God's judgment, and the present-yet-future "inheritance in the Kingdom of Christ and God." Based on previous passages explored, Land expectation (if present) for the audience would probably be for participation in the New Heavens and New Earth, another “Land of Promise”: or rather, that to which the Promise of Land always pointed, so that Paul can typologically apply the Promise of Land from Exodus 20 to his present mixed-Gentile congregation in Ephesus, showing the “ultimate intent” of the Land Promise, just as he did with Abraham in Romans 4:13 (I submit that this falls in well with Hays’s analysis of Paul’s use of the Law in “Three Dramatic Roles: The Law in Romans 3-4,” Conversion of the Imagination.)

Whether Paul penned this or not is beside the point: if early Christians saw the promise of the Land applying to themselves universally, then th. But the inheritance is not merely Palestine--how could it be, after all, in a letter that stresses emphatically the unified nature of the people of God, Jew and Gentile together? Were the Gentile and Jewish Ephesian believers to travel to Judea, Samaria, or Galilee and "stake their claim"? Surely not: the inheritance here again is cosmic and largely future (as 4:7-11 and the various mentions of "inheritance," particularly 5:5, seem to hint).

Finally, I should note that this is not to deny that there is a present aspect to this as well. For instance, in this present age we can probably expect to receive the benefits of obedient respect of our parents in whatever land God has placed us. This alone should forestall any idea that we can ignore this 'present earth' in light of the coming New Creation. This should also suggest that there are present benefits for the people of God in the appropriation of the Promise of Land. I’ll explore this in one final post.

2006-03-20T09:46:00.000-06:00

New SBL Seminar "The New Testament Mysticism Project"

http://www.newtestamentmysticism.com

Andrei Orlov has asked that I pass this on (and many thanks for the reference to Andrei):

The New Testament Mysticism Project Seminar (NTMPS) was organized under the auspices of the Society of Biblical Literature to facilitate the study of earlyJewish and Christian mystical traditions in the New Testament writings. The Seminar will progress systematically through each New Testament text. 2006 SBLsessions of the NTMPS will deal with the Gospel of Matthew. The Seminar members plan to collectively write a commentary covering mysticism in the New Testament.

April DeConick and Andrei Orlov are Co-Chairs of the Seminar. Their announcement does give rise to two debates: (1) To what extent does the NT reflect prior or contemporaneous mystic tradition, and (2) more pressing--are split infinitives really wrong? That's what we were all taught in grammar school, right? (Note the red material in the announcement.)
update--see the helpful comment; apparently there has been a Kuhnian shift in grammar since primary school!

Let's hope this seminar isn't scheduled at the same time as the regular SBL Matthew session, with this year's theme being "Reading Matthew in a Time of War." The regular Matthew session may also feature papers on "anti-Judaism, gender, global readings, poverty and wealth, reception history"; no word yet of course on the final shape of the seminar.

One prominent Matthew scholar I know recently mentioned he now avoids Matthew at SBL due to the heavy slate of narrative criticism. I suppose one could argue that there is some overkill; I'd love to see this debated at SBL 2006. I myself think there are good grounds for making narrative criticism a platform for broad study of the text; it is superior to redaction criticism in that respect--see the dead-on, if slightly pessimistic, analysis by Bockmuehl, SJT 51 (1998), 271-306, in "'To Be or Not to Be': Possible Futures of New Testament."

2006-03-17T20:07:00.000-06:00

Building a Theology of the Land, Part 4

In an attempt to win the award for “longest series without comments” during the forthcoming “Biblical Studies Carnival IV,” I’m picking up my series on “Theology of the Land.”

When I last left off, I asked how Jesus’ application of the promise of Land to his disciples in Mt 5.5 functions. I think the rest of Mt and the NT tell us.

Some have argued that what the NT does with the Land is “spiritualization”; this was classically argued by W. D. Davies in his seminal work on the topic, The Gospel and the Land. For my part, I prefer to avoid the term “spiritualization,” which has decidedly docetic connotations (not accusing Davies of this). I think we actually see two things in the NT: (1) universalization (2) eschatological reserve, which will of course be eschatological reversal. These are not original with Christianity, but are built from the foundation of texts such as Isaiah 65-66, where we find a “new heavens and a new earth” despite the present throes of Exile and suffering.

Universalization:
Matthew 28:16-20 has universal implications which I think are spelled out well in Paul, see below—not that Matt or Paul were copying one another;

Revelation 21-22 is obvious, particularly in its echoes of Isaiah 65-66 and Genesis 1-3.

More potent than these, perhaps, is the remarkable Romans 4:13 (on which see NTW’s commentary, his short paper on New Exodus/New Inheritance in Romans 5-8 at http://www.ntwrightpage.com/, and Hays, Conversion of the Imagination, 90). Paul states that Abe was promised--not a strip of Land in Palestine, nor the Fertile Crescent, but--the KOSMOS. This of course leads up to Romans 8 and the groaning of ALL creation, which will be liberated in the future. Paul believes he has permission to make this hermeneutical move because of God's intention to rescue all creation, reconcile ALL THINGS (Colossians is very strong here); because the promise to Abe in Gen 12 carried universal implications; and because the Land was always meant to be a Type of God's intention for Earth, as Isaiah and others indicated.

Eschatological Reserve:
Matthew 19:28, the eschatological “regeneration” (palingenesia, a remarkable term worth more press than I can give it) has strong “Land” connotations, as Jesus speaks of 12 thrones and the 12 tribes. Jesus offers this as impetus to let go of lands, houses, etc. in the present—something those with such things have a difficult time doing, as the context in Matt 19 plainly shows.

Again, Revelation 21-22 is relevant.

Acts 7 (esp. vv 2-5, 29-33, 45-50) and Hebrews 11:8-10, 13-16 are clear: Abe didn’t ever own a plot of land to set his foot in (save to bury his wife). Hebrews in particular takes this example and runs with it, applying it in spades to believers. As with Matthew, this is held out as an example, and it functions as an exhortation to let go (of traditions and Temple in Acts 7? Hard to say, but Heb 11 is quite clear) of things in this present world for the sake of gain in the future. Acts 7 speaks of near fulfillment in Israel's previous possession of the Land, but also, in the context of the "universalization" of God's reign in Acts, the whole of the OT is thrown into a different trajectory (Lk 24), a universalized one (Acts 28).

There is more in the NT on this question, as well as in contemporaneous lit like Qumran; but these are core texts (off the top of my head). Possibly a future post will explore the practical implications of this...

Again, I insist that there is nothing “spiritual” (=anti-physical) in this doctrine, and that it grows organically out of the Scriptures of Jesus, Matt, Paul, author of Hebrews, etc. In a sense, it is even more physical than the original promises, if only due to the greater dimensions and the promise of permanence.

2006-03-17T13:03:00.000-06:00

First Things First

One of the most interesting and important books I read last year was Colossians Remixed: Subverting the Empire, by Brian Walsh and Sylvia Keesmaat. One of the most important statements in the book came on page 9, before the main body of material itself:

“St. Paul knows that the vision that he is talking about makes no sense if it doesn’t shape the Christian household as an alternative to the dominant roman model of household life. And so the testing ground for anything that we say in this book is first and foremost our family. Out three children, Jubal, Madeleine and Lydia, did not have to ‘suffer through’ the writing of this book. If they did then the book would in fact lack credibility. We did not ‘sacrifice’ family life through long absences while researching and writing. So we offer the kids no apologies. Rather we thank them for grounding our lives in the important things like learning and housekeeping, playing and growing up, stories and nighttime prayers, tears and laughter” (p. 9).

Thanks to Craig Blomberg for typing this out in his review, http://www.denverseminary.edu/dj/articles2006/0200/0209.php. In light of the material noted in the last post, it's not surprising that Craig liked this book immensely.

2006-03-17T10:22:00.000-06:00

Evangelical Liberation Theology?

In light of the recent spate of discussions on faith and scholarship, I thought I'd throw out a few resources/comments I've found interesting. Craig Blomberg has an interesting article available on the importance of global perspectives in hermeneutics:
http://www.etsjets.org/jets/journal/38/38-04/38-4-pp581-593_JETS.pdf. See also "The Globalization of Biblical Interpretation: A Test Case--John 3-4," BBR (1995), and "Implications of Globalization for Biblical Understanding," The Globalization of Theological Education (Orbis, 1993).

He's also done a fair bit of work with liberation theology from an evangelical perspective; see "The Liberation of Illegitimacy: Women and Rulers in Matthew 1-2," BTB 21 (1991), 145-150; and "Your Faith Has Made You Whole: The Evangelical Liberation Theology of Jesus," Jesus of Nazareth: Lord and Christ (Eerdmans, 1994), 75-93 --I haven't read the latter myself. Incidentally, I'm taking issue with parts of Blomberg's view of the women in Matt 1 in my dissertation, though I think the underlying "liberation" element is part of what's "in the text," and can be easily borne out of the text by the reader.

Note the interesting comments on Blomberg at Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Craig_Blomberg.

Evangelical Reader Response/Narrative Criticism?

Mark Alan Powell is one of my favorite Matthew scholars; Chasing the Eastern Star: Adventures in Reader-Reponse Criticism (WJK Press, 2001) is an under-appreciated text, I think; a great introduction to the question and a whale of a lot of fun to read, with good interaction in the endnotes. Interestingly, he makes room for what he calls "evangelical reader response criticism." Now, I'm not sure what this means, but my curiosity is piqued. Anyone care to take a guess at what he means here? Perhaps it is the sort of things that Blomberg has done above, ascribing "evangelical" to Jesus.

Powell is far from being the most conservative person I know, and that makes his remarks interesting:

Stephen Moore claims that poststructuralism finds narrative criticism intrinsically repulsive when the latter is exercised from a perspective of evangelical faith (Poststructuralism and the New Testament, 116). Why should this be so, when that perspective is clearly acknowledged? Even Moore seems ready to give a poststructuralist seal of approval to other (acknowledged) ideological or resistant reading strategies. I have never been able to see the logic in a position that I sometimes encounter at academic meetings devoted to biblical scholarship, namely, that which maintains the legitimacy of reading biblical texts from diverse ideological perspectives (feminist, Marxist, etc.) but denies the legitimacy of reading those texts from the perspective of evangelical Christianity. Why should the gospel of Christ be the only unacceptable philosophy? (235 n. 352)

Powell follows this up with another good footnote, 355. Elsewhere, however, he is much cozier with A.K.M. Adam, Moore and others.

In light of all this, is it fair to make a case for "evangelical liberation theology" or "evangelical reader response criticism/narrative criticism"? There are some evangelicals ("fundies," kata Bird) who still think they're being completely objective, of course, and some evangelicals who reject both of these strands of scholarship. But for more secular folks, is it legitimate to marry these? Should they be re-branded with a different name, or is the "evangelical" adjective sufficient?

2006-03-16T15:59:00.000-06:00

I Pity the Fool that Ain't Positive

If you're having a bad day or struggling with self-esteem, you might consider the following video by the (former) American pop icon Mr. T: http://video.msn.com/v/us/v.htm?g=eca154e1-542d-4dc1-9703-dd5938ec33f6&f=06/64.

2006-03-15T17:00:00.000-06:00

Hays, Conversion of the Imagination

Reviews are now out at http://www.bookreviews.org/bookdetail.asp?TitleId=4889 on this very interesting work. Sometimes scholars get schtick for publishing a collection of previously published items, but this is well worth it. I'm reading this book right now (disobeying my supervisors, who have rightly encouraged me to set aside method...but how CAN I?!? And I do need to get a little Paul in my blood, don't I?!? And if I ever learn to imitate Hays writing style, or his emphasis on "converting" my imagination in line with Scripture, I'll accrue personal as well as professional benefits from this reading...there, it's justified), and may comment in the future.

[Since Moyise has reviewed this, I may have to draw him into the discussion as well. Steve Motyer has an excellent interaction with Moyise; see his excellently-titled "The Psalms quotations in Hebrews 1: a Hermeneutic Free Zone?" See http://www.tyndale.cam.ac.uk/Tyndale/tb/tb50-1.htm, and scroll down, for a blurb on the article.]

The second chapter of the book, an expansion on method from Echoes with a particular approach to "Story," is of particular interest given my approach to Matthew's genealogy. And the conclusion, where Hays interacts with his critics, is excellent reading.

2006-03-08T21:01:00.000-06:00

Blessed by a Free Article

There is a free recent article available from Westminster Theological Journal, on the topic of blessing in Luke's Gospel: "Receiving Christ's Priestly Benediction: a Biblical, Historical, and Theological Exploration of Luke 24:50-53," by Kelly Kapic. Well worth a read and some thought.

2006-03-06T10:29:00.000-06:00

Relevant Excursus--Walk the Line

After a very busy last week (on the heels of a busy few months, and a busy life!) the wife and I sat down to enjoy the new film about Johnny and June Cash. It was filmed in part at a house one block from our home in Memphis; we love Johnny Cash’s music; and our son Noah was born with a cleft lip (like Joaquin Phoenix—and it’s important to have role models like that). So you might say we were predisposed to enjoy the movie. Still, I think a more objective person would say it was a very good movie at the very least. Reese Witherspoon’s Oscar may have been startling, but it certainly wasn’t ill-deserved.

There's an interesting discussion between Johnny and his brother about "giftedness": one is good at songs, the other knows all the stories in the Bible. Young Jack Cash (Johnny’s older brother, who dies when the future singer is a youth) plans to be a preacher, so he deems it his responsibility to know the Bible "front to back," just as Johnny knows the hymnal front to back. Jack offers a great explanation for a narrative approach to Scripture: “You can’t help people unless you can tell ’em the right stories."

Another great line from the movie: Record Company Executive: "Your fans are gospel folk, Johnny. They're Christians, and they don't wanna hear you singing to a bunch of murderers and rapists, tryin' to cheer 'em up."
Johnny Cash: "Then they ain't Christians."

On the whole, the movie simultaneously made me (1) get my guitar out, and (2) rejoice for my family’s sake that I quit music to go into education. Roseanne Cash says that she can’t watch the movie because of the pain it evokes. Granted there’s grace and restoration, but the damage of “the lifestyle” was and is very real.

2006-03-01T11:52:00.000-06:00

Germany '06

The World Cup is now officially 100 days away. If Mike Bird converts to God's sport, will he support Germany or Australia?

2006-03-01T11:42:00.000-06:00

One-Liners on Matthew's Genealogy of Jesus

Light blogging ahead. Matt's genealogy of Jesus, the subject of my dissertation, has produced a remarkable body of scholarly literature, even a poem (Goulder, Midrash and Lection, 232; I don't fully agree with his reading but it's a great effort)! Here are a few of my favorite one-liners on Matthew’s genealogy:

“The genealogy has become a large figure of speech for Jesus’ messianic kingship.” Gundry 2nd ed., Matthew: A Commentary on His Handbook for a Mixed Church under Persecution, 15.

“By evoking important aspects of the story of Israel’s history the genealogy functions as a compressed retelling of the OT story.” Nolland, , 34.

Mauro Orsatti, in his short work on Matthew’s genealogy of Jesus, Un Saggio di teologia della storia: Esegesi di Mt. 1, 1-17, trenchantly calls the genealogy something like the first fulfillment citation.

Much more where that came from, notably comments from Keener and NTW on the "story of Israel," and the literary role of the genealogy. Perhaps more in the future.

2006-02-28T16:24:00.000-06:00

SBL Review of Allison, Shorter Commentary
There is a useful review of the abridged "easified" version of the excellent commentary on Matthew available here .

Non-specialists readers can now access Allison's useful remarks and insights, though of course the commentary loses lots of its force and utility (it no longer features, though it still refers to, the Greek text of Matthew, for example, and the scholarly interaction and especially the bibliography have been cut way back). Hard to say if it is better in this form than others of its size, though I cannot imagine that any other critical or moderately critical commentary of its size would be superior. (Again, I'm a huge fan of David Garland's shorter commentary.)

Allison joins Keener on the list of those who have produced smaller versions; but I think R. T. France is the only one going from small to large; he is writing the forthcoming volume in the NICNT series.

2006-02-27T23:29:00.000-06:00

Ben Witherington III on Matthew
From his blog, BWiii makes the following (informal) announcement:

In late April Smyth and Helwys (yes the Baptist Press in Georgia) will be publishing my Gospel of Matthew commentary. It is a hardback multi-media commentary with a CD Rom included and many paintings, charts, and drawings. It is about 600 pages or so and I am trying something different. I have read the whole Gospel through the lens of Jewish Wisdom literature because I am convinced this is what the Evangelist wanted us to do. It leads to some interesting insights. For example, have you noticed how the title Son of David shows up much more in Matthew and in connection with healings? Why-- especially since David was not a healer and there was no strong tradition in early Judaism about a healer messiah? The answer is that early Jews believed that healing took place through having wisdom from God as great as Solomon. There were even traditions about Solomon being taught how to cure demon possession. Thus when Jesus is called Son of David, it at least in part refers to his having the wisdom of cures, like Solomon.

I agree that Matthew is deeply embedded in the Jewish wisdom tradition, and I think BW3 has hit on something that many fail to realize. For example, I've just stressed in an earlier post the importance of Ps 37 (wisdom lit) for Matthew 5. I certainly believe him when he says this approach will turn up "some interesting insights. " I imagine he approaches his task with a good measure of caution, though I still suspect that reading Matthew through a "wisdom monocle" could easily lead one in some faulty directions. I can't wait to read it, though--and I was surprised not to have heard of this one previously.

2006-02-24T16:30:00.000-06:00

Is Matthew anti-Pauline?
David C. Sim has recently argued (again!) that Matthew wrote specifically with an agenda of anti-Pauline rhetoric: ‘Matthew’s Anti-Paulinism: A Neglected Feature of Matthean Studies’, Hervormde Teologiese Studies 58 (2002), pp. 767-83. This is based on previous research, particularly on his 1998 book, The Gospel of Mathew and Christian Judaism: The History and Social Setting of the Matthean Community, where these views are developed more elaborately; see http://www.ntgateway.com/goodacre/Sim.pdf for an excellent short review by the blogfather.

Apart from the “negative” references to Gentiles, Sim’s argument revolves around what “keeping the law” means for M (the whole book, not the source!). But up front we should note that Paul in fact thinks he is teaching people how to keep the law in the sense of accomplishing what it was that the law sought (Romans 13:8, Galatians 6:2), but that the flesh apart from the Spirit could not accomplish. We’ll need to see specific disagreement on details, not just semantic expressions that prima facie oppose one another.

In point of fact, M and P agree on a remarkable array of core issues: the central goal for both is clearly “making the nations obedient to Jesus”; the central measure of Christian living for both writers could be summed up as “loving others as you would love yourself,” though Paul would have something to say about the Spirit. (Note also that both teach eschatological judgment by works.) Sim fails to see that these might be the strongest points of contact, and this leads him to search for M’s opinion of P in other matters.

Not to flatten the two writers out. They certainly do have different ways of articulating what they’re saying, with P’s multiple ways of referring to the “law” (very positive and very negative—even in the same letter) one of the most interesting differences.

The biggest argument against Sim is that M doesn’t mention the hot-button issues. If he was really writing anti-Pauline polemic, why would he not address head-on issues such as circumcision, diet, etc., in relation to the Gentiles? After all, these were the core issues that placed Paul on the proverbial rack. Are we to believe that he was consumed with ‘defeating’ Pauline Christianity, yet never touched on the distinctive elements of P opposed for his Gentile converts? If we accept Sim’s account, M has simply done a stellar job of not historicizing the issue of circumcision et al into Jesus’ day; surely this is a difficult way to prove one’s case. Moreover, the positive roles assigned to uncircumcised, non-proselyte characters (Magi, Centurion in Mt 8, and Canaanite woman; possibly the Roman troops at crucifixion) hardly speak of the need for conversion to Judaic Law; nor does M use such vitriol as “uncircumcised” when he references the Gentiles—who admittedly need to change (Mt 6.7, 6.32, 12:18-21; compare 1 Cor 6:9-11;) in accord with Jesus’ teaching.

And Sim may overvalue Matt's commitment to Torah qua Torah. M does note that the letter of the law is not an adequate representation of love and mercy and righteousness (23:23), nor can the letter substitute for fidelity to Jesus (19:20-22), nor can tradition (the equivalent of Torah for at least some in his day) be equated with the letter (5:17ff). Above all, “righteousness” means practicing things that the Law never required, good as it was (5.17ff), and J’s followers will be judged on the basis of commitment acts of love related to, but not specified by, Torah (25.31-46, 19.1-9, 6.14-15).

Question for more thought:

Does Sim’s critique underestimate Paul’s Jewishness, or the extent to which Paul defines his mission as making “nations obedient to Jesus”? (I happen to stand in broad agree with Sim and others against Stanton et al on the “Jewishness” of Matt, vs. other views such as church v synagogue and the anachronistic “Christians v Jews”)

2006-02-22T15:36:00.000-06:00

Building a theology of the Land
The lads at http://www.beginningwithmoses.org/ have a new article by Stephen Sizer, who has done a great deal of work on Theology of the Land. I think things are less tied up with dispensationalism (apart from the old stalwarts like Pat Robertson and all), so I'm focusing more on constructive work modeled after NT writers' theological perspectives. However, Sizer is correct in noting that an understanding of dispensationalism is important for historical perspective on why things are the way they are currently, theologically and geo-politically. For a very thorough, personal, and gracious approach, I highly recommend Gary Burge's book on the theme (and not just cuz he's an Aberdeen guy!), particularly for North Americans.

2006-02-22T10:08:00.000-06:00

Building a Theology of the Land #3: Beginning with Matthew
First up? Matthew 5:5…

Before I begin, I must insist that any Christian theology of the Land find its roots in Genesis 1: God is involved with and concerned for his creation, and the Land of Israel must be correlated with God’s original intent for all Creation (much could be said, for instance, about the relationships between Eden and the Promised Land, and moving forward, to the New Heavens/New Earth in the prophets). After all, the promise of Land is part of a Story that is cosmic, not local. It began with the Creation of all things, and promises to end with the renewal of all things. God has not abandoned his Creation, as Paul teaches in Romans 8…but now I’m getting ahead of myself. Back to Matthew!

Matthew 5:5 is a citation from Psalm 37 (cf. Qumran, where this is treated as messianic). Most of you already know that the Greek word which appears here in Matthew 5:5 ge can mean Land, Earth, earth, land, or region. This is roughly the same semantic range as the Hebrew word erets used in Psalm 37. Jesus is treating the Land as an eschatological gift for those who follow him; but lexically speaking this could be a reference to the Earth.

Note that in Psalm 37, four references to inheriting the Land all speak to Matthew’s apparent interests, as if Matt 5:5 (and in some ways, the Beatitudes or even the Sermon on the Mount on the whole) were explicating this Psalm. The meek (37.11), the blessed, but not the cursed (37.22, compare Matt 23 and the curses there!), the righteous (v 29), those pursuing the way of the Lord who will be exalted by him (37.34; Matt 3:3, 7.13-14; compare again Matt 23:12) all find a home in Matthew. There are many other connections between Matthew and this Psalm, some no doubt due to their common concern for wisdom and law. In a nutshell, however, Matthew 5.5 and Psalm 37 and Qumran (and the Didache, but this stems from Matthew) are all concerned about the expected reversal, when the wealthy and wicked, the oppressive rulers who cut short God's desired prosperity and peace in the Land are removed, and righteousness rules. And all encourage patience in light of the future Great Reversal, and, it would seem, non-violence.

But does this promise in Matthew 5.5 apply to Israel’s land, the whole earth, or what? Does it apply to Jesus’ Jewish disciples, or does Matthew expect it to apply more broadly? I’ll make some additional notes on “land” in Matthew in part four in the next day or two.

2006-02-20T19:25:00.000-06:00

Sex, please.
As in gender. I'm not sure what I would pay for a comprehensive list of the sex of various biblical scholars. This is particularly tough in three areas: foreign names (Wim J. C. Weren?), gender neutral names (Carey Newman, Robin Scroggs, Rikki Watts)--or a combination of the first two (Jan Bremmer; Lee, Kim, Jean); and first initial names (J. Massyngbyrde Ford comes to mind; first name "Jane," although she never wrote with it to my knowledge).

Anyone ever written a paper in a slightly awkward style so as not to reference an author's sex? I sure have.

2006-02-20T12:52:00.000-06:00

Crossley, crossly(?!), on Blomberg

Among the recent offerings in SBL's online Review of Books, James Crossley's review of Craig Blomberg, Contagious Holiness: Jesus' Meals with Sinners stands out. Scot McKnight has also given this book some play on his blog, jesuscreed.org.

Public note to self: if I ever write something that may require or benefit from a good thorough smack-down, send it to James!

I haven't read the book, but the critical remarks seem relatively fair, particularly on the 'historicity' question. I think in many cases Blomberg and others would be better off saying, "I'm not going to argue for historicity on this pericope, but I will assume it for the sake of the present discussion (perhaps also offering arguments why it shouldn't be rejected as ahistorical)." In passing, though, if CB thinks Jesus is superior to anything else he has found, then I don't think one should require him to argue otherwise, though maybe JC is trying to say that there's not as much evidence for that as CB thinks. I haven't read this book, so I'm not entirely sure what inspired James's response here.

2006-02-20T09:14:00.000-06:00

Building a theology of the Land #2: “Personal History”
When I was growing up in suburban Texas, every single person I knew loved Israel. We sang songs with Hebrew verses; the occasional shofar showed up in worship services; there were people in our Christian circles who were Jewish ethnically and in their praxis (Passover, diet, style of wedding, etc). There was a general reverence, I think, towards things Jewish—whether stories about Masada or the Fiddler on the Roof. As far as the nation of Israel was concerned, we all thought they were the baddest, toughest cusses on the planet, and we were pretty sure God wanted them on a certain strip of Land in the Eastern Mediterranean. One of my best friends had a dog named Yanni. This was the nickname of Benjamin Netanyahu’s brother Jonathan, a national hero who was the lone Israeli killed during the remarkable raid to rescue the passengers and crew from a hijacked plane in Entebbe, Uganda. (For those not familiar with the way Americans love dogs, naming your pooch after someone is a complement, not a curse!) I imagine many others grew up with roughly the same perspective I had.

What produced this phenomenon in American culture? Lots of reasons, I suspect; Israelis were definitely not Communist; in the 70s and 80s, the best-selling non-fiction (I use that term as the NY Times used it!) book in history, The Late Great Planet Earth had propagated the belief in the rapture, the need for the Jews to own the Land and rebuild the Temple, etc. Post-holocaust sensitivity and knowledge of the hostility of Israel’s neighbors toward Jews also contributed to this support.

As I reflect on this, I’m struck by three things: the first is the very militant nature of this support for the present-day nation-state of Israel among Christians—something I find no support for in the New Testament whatsoever. Second, I don’t remember ever being “drilled” in the Scriptures as to why it was the case that Israel should own the Land; it was just assumed. Perhaps this is in part due to the very complex arguments mustered by dispensationalists. Above all, there are important and encouraging NT teachings that were left behind when we focused on the present-day nation-state of Israel and failed to see the connection between the ancient Land of Israel and something greater...

Over the past decade-plus, I’ve gotten to know the Israeli-Palestinian conflict from a new angle, thanks to a thoughtful teacher in social studies course in high school, an undergraduate degree in International Studies, and getting to know Arabs and Christians from the Middle East. I read books by O. Palmer Robertson, Gary Burge, W. D. Davies, and Walter Breuggemann which addressed the subject. While visiting a friend at Queen’s College, Oxford, I had the privilege of hearing Peter Walker do a lecture on related material (Jerusalem in the New Testament); I also heard Palmer Robertson do something similar at my alma mater on the Land. Such experiences solidified a change I was already undergoing and (I trust) fostered a more mature approach to the issue of the Land and the relevant biblical texts.

In the next post, I’m going to take a look at the NT texts which might address the question of the Land. First up? Matthew 5:5…

2006-02-19T21:25:00.000-06:00

Building a theology of the Land #1: “The Need for Deconstruction and Reconstruction”
Given the recent Pat Robertson flap, the election of Hamas, and the fact that Theology of the Land is always a timely topic in any case, a series discussing the Land in the NT might be appropriate.

I now think that concern over Israel in North America is no longer usually tied to the Bible. Sure, in some circles it is—there are still some dispensationalists, although far fewer than there were 15-20 years ago. This is still argued by high-profile figures like Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, the authors of Left Behind, and the like. (I heard someone say recently that the conservative political commentator Sean Hannity holds to this, but I don’t know if that’s true.) But these folks increasingly have less influence, and don’t speak for the majority of Americans.

Nonetheless, there is a fair amount of residual “theological” support for Israel. This mixes easily with a general culture of distrust for Arabs and Muslims and a general culture of support for Israel to produce a completely one-sided perspective on the Israel-Palestine conflict. Moreover, American political support for Israel is a given for both parties. No serious candidate would run for state-wide or national office on a platform calling for the end of US funding for Israel (3-4 billion dollars a year—money we are borrowing from China, of course); too many interest groups support Israel for this to happen—Jews (in New York, New Jersey, and Florida), white Christians (Republican) and black Christians (Democratic) all support Israel, and many vote accordingly.

Thus, even if the biblical side of the debate is less important now than it was 20 years ago, the issue is still very much a live and important question. And if there’s a way to read the Bible correctly so that prejudice, militarism, and bigotry (naïve or not) can be rooted out, and we can find some collective encouragement in what the Bible actually teaches, this investigation may have some value.

It’s especially important to take a look at the biblical roots for a theology of the Land from the perspective of the NT (which is almost always ignored in discussions of the question), in order to offset some lingering tendencies in Christian circles in North America. More importantly, I and others I know have found that pursuing the NT message on the Land can be incredibly encouraging and rewarding.

2006-02-16T09:37:00.000-06:00

Free Seminary Resources

A conservative American institution, Covenant Theological Seminary is one of the seminaries associated with the Presbyterian Church of America. They have recently made many of their courses available on MP3 with accompanying handouts and outlines. These are courses taught at an accredited seminary, available for free (thanks in part, I think, to the generosity of the Maclellan Foundation of Chattanooga). The traditional route to seminary education is not relevant or possible for most pastors in America, let alone the rest of the world. Given this state of affars, this is precisely the sort of access hundreds of thousands of pastors, church planters, and teachers need. Plans appear to be in the works to translate this material into various languages. See www.covenantseminary.edu/worldwide for courses offered.

I wonder what role, if any, blogs might play in this process of educating the world?

2006-02-14T09:41:00.000-06:00

Who is Suetonius's "Chrestus"?
What do you all make of the “Chrestus” riots which resulted in the Jews (possibly including some Christians) being expelled from Rome by Claudius, reported by Suetonius, Claudius, 25.4? Whatever the identity of “Chrestus”, this event provides important background to the book of Romans as well as insight into the relationship between Judaism and Rome more generally.

Some scholars give ‘probabilities’ over whether or not this is Jesus, although in my book there were surely other “Christ” candidates in that era. The concept and would-be identity of Messiah was strongly debated in Judaism writ large. Religious argument could have contributed to civil unrest, or could have been interpreted as contributing to it, if factions fell out along certain lines.

(1) Is “Chrestus” Christ, as in Jesus?
(2) Is it not necessarily Jesus, but another messianic figure being debated by the Jews?
(3) Is the concept of “the Christ” part of a debate along party lines?
(4) Is an unrelated figure named "Chrestus" (not a common name, as I understand it), perhaps a Gentile, to be blamed for insulting or instigating Jewish riots?

As far as question (1) goes, DeSilva, Intro to the NT, 599-600, says yes, as do Dunn (“almost universally taken to be Christ”) and more tentatively, NTW, who in the mid-90s said during lectures on Romans, “75 percent sure.”

2006-02-12T20:13:00.000-06:00

The Effective History of Exegesis: Jesus the Gentile
The claim that Jesus was a Gentile has its foundations in supposedly neutral exegesis. I had no idea of the “foundations” of this until recently. Turns out it’s “in the text”—just like the curse that supposedly helps us identify sub-Saharan Africans and their destiny as sub-humans.In a previous post, I mentioned that Mike Bird at Euangelion provided a list of things on which to blog, including number 11, "Give us some snippets from what he's work on with his PH.D thesis." Well, this popped up in my studies. Here’s my current favorite for the exegetical position with the worst history of influence, at least for Matthew’s Gospel.

Mary, some early 20th century German scholars claimed, must be Gentile, since the other four women in Matthew's genealogy of Jesus (Tamar, Rahab, Ruth, and Bathsheba) were such. I believe this was first argued by Seeberg, “Die Herkunft der mutter Jesu,“ Theologische Festschrift für G. N. Bonwetsch zu seinem 70 Geburstag (Leipzig, 1918). The theory found a comfortable home in German Matthean and NT scholarship, fermented in theories about the Gentile population of Galilee in 1c and the rejection of heilsgeschicte which included the Jews. Eventually it found a home in German anti-Jewish Christian scholarship and praxis, and the rest is history.

Granted Matthew 23 has been taken many horrendous places, reading Mary and Jesus as “Gentiles” really opened some doors that should have stayed closed, and it baptized participation in genocide in a ghastly manner.

Any rules for preventing yourself from heading down this path--or opening up a door for others to do so with your scholarship? How 'bout starting here: be careful when providing a novel interpretation which no one has ever before seen.

2006-02-12T19:56:00.000-06:00

It's Matthew Time
Thanks to all of you who have kindly noticed Gospel of Matthew (Alan Bandy, Mike Bird, James Crossley, I’m talking to you all; thanks most recently to Mark Goodacre). I intentionally told no one, in part to wait and see if I really would stick with it. Apparently it only takes a few weeks for a blog on the right topic to get Googled by someone somewhere and enter the biblioblog matrix. I feel a bit like Conrad entering the Congo Delta...

James suggested football. I'd like to do something 'professional,' but perhaps for Germany 2006 we can make an exception to Matthew and the NT.

Alan left no indication of any recommendations, but these were probably edited out by a redactor, since we all know that Alan himself (the real Alan) is opionated.

Mike suggested 11 topics:
1. The meaning and application of the exception clauses on divorce
2. The meaning of Mt. 5.18
3. Was there a Matthean community?
4. The significance of "Syria" in 4.24
5. Did Luke use Matthew?
6. What does he think of Alistair Wilson's book on judgement in Matthew (should be interesting since Alistair is his supervisor)
7. Give a summary of Matthew's interpretation of the OT
8. Did the "M" source really exist or is it just Matthean redaction?
9. Analyse the restoration/exile motif in Matt 1-4.
10. Matthew's relation with Judaism and the Synagogue.
11. Give us some snippets from what he's work on with his PH.D thesis.

Whew. What a list. I certainly plan to at least bring some of these up. Unfortunately, I’m only man enough to do one dissertation (if that!). But who can resist this list?

Let me target one of these quickly: 3. Was there a Matthean community? Yes, but not the one most have conceived—a small congregation, perhaps in Antioch, fighting with the synagogue down the block (I’m exaggerating a bit, but that’s not far from the way it’s frequently portrayed). Bauckham and co. have some mileage as far as Matthew is concerned, if only because things had tilted so far the other direction. For my part, I’m content to acknowledge that Matt may have seen problems in his community that were addressed in the text, and that these influenced his writing. Very well—go ahead and ride that all the way to a chair in NT studies by committing the intentional fallacy if you wish. But given Markan priority, shouldn’t we note some universal value for Matthew—probably intentional? It’s hard for me to see how Matt’s use of Mark merely reflects a “local” reading. If anything, Matthew produces a more universal text (28.16-20, etc). As for conflict with the synagogue, this was a problem all over the Roman Empire early on (1 Thessalonians 2, Galatians) and for a good while (Colossians? Lk-Acts?), not merely in post-70 Galilee and Antioch.

2006-02-12T19:52:00.000-06:00

The Sermon on the Mount
Scot McKnight
It’s always a beautiful thing when well-trained scholars turn a pastoral eye on Scripture. Over at JesusCreed.org, Scot McKnight has wrapped up his lengthy series of pericope-by-pericope reflections on the Sermon on the Mount and it is archived for all to see, beginning here and concluding here.

Although an expert in other areas of the NT, Scot has done great work on Matthew in the past; see “A Loyal Critic: Matthew’s Polemic with Judaism in Theological Perspective,” in Anti-Semitism and Early Christianity, ed. Craig A. Evans and D. A. Hagner (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1993). He’s not afraid to choose some uncommon interpretations, and in several places he records “hands in the air” entries (his hands are in the air at least temporarily, before they fly back to the keyboard, usually with a stroke of genius attached), which Scot uses to engage the minds of his wide-ranging readership. A great series from a model blog. Scot is also a great one to follow if you’re interested in learning the crafts of blogging and writing, principally because he seems more concerned with trying to follow Jesus than either of those two things.

2006-02-06T09:37:00.000-06:00

I've had a terrible time trying to get blogger/blogspot to work for me over the past few weeks; I've lost several posts, had a few others mysteriously disappear 3 days after they were written. I'm suspending action for a while.

JBH

2006-01-19T14:24:00.000-06:00

Matthew and Money

"Whatever I love, I finance. And whatever I finance, I love."

Scot McKnight has been blogging on and off on the Sermon on the Mount, most recently on money. One particular question related to this is the interpretation of Matthew 6.21: "For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also."

I want to point out two possible ways to interpret this verse, which may not be mutually exclusive. 1) Does the location of one's investment (heaven or earth) reveal the commitment of one's heart? 2) Or does one's heart follow one's stockpile? paraphrased from Nolland, The Gospel of Matthew NIGTC, 299.

Davies-Allison and Nolland favor the former. Nolland points out that verse 24 will add love to the discussion, and suggests that this indicates that the first interpretation has it right: love produces works.

But it's certainly possible to see the second option as well: works are indicative of, and may even lead to, true love. As anyone who has a child or spouse can tell you, serving someone can actually change your heart towards them. I care about the things to which I give myself. When billionaires buy ball clubs, they care more than ever about those teams. And when I give my money to missions, the poor, or my church, I may in fact be fostering a greater heart connection than previously existed.

In sum, I suspect both of these interpretations are applicable. Whatever I love, I finance. And whatever I finance, I inevitably wind up loving more than I did before I gave. If you want to find out what someone loves, look at their bank statement.

2006-01-18T16:02:00.000-06:00

Studies in Matthew: Interpretation Past and Present

Dale C. Allison, Jr. is the author of a magnificent commentary on Matthew's Gospel (discussed below in a recent post, my top ten commentaries on Matthew), as well as important monographs such as The New Moses: A Matthean Typology (Fortress 1993) and a host of related books on articles (on historical Jesus and Q). This book does no harm to the title, bestowed by Scot McKnight on the inside flap, "North America's most complete New Testament scholar." Nor does it damage his reputation as one of the two premier Matthew scholars in the world (along with Ulrich Luz). I will be reviewing this book, which was published by Baker Academic last year, over the next few days or weeks.

In the present post, a few introductory comments are in order. The book is beautiful, and reasonably priced. There is only a short preface, and the first chapters help the reader enter the argument of the book. Indeed, most chapters stand alone quite well (and at least four of the thirteen chapters have former lives as articles or chapters). The book is divided into two sections of almost equal length. Part I, The Exegetical Past, provides concrete evidence of the value of paying attention to the history of interpretation. The first five of the six chapters investigate the history of interpretation of five challenging texts in Matthew. These studies establish in part that there is nothing new under the sun: we find that most contemporary opinions are foreshadowed or spawned by ancient interests, and in the first chapter Allison argues that an ancient interpretation actually provides the key to understanding the Magi of Matthew 2. These five chapters lead to a concluding study called "Reading Matthew through the Church Fathers."

Part II, Literary and Historical Studies, contains seven studies which use of combination of newer methods to address problems in Matthew's Gospel. Despite the commitment in the second section to "literary" studies, the narrative trend in Matthean studies is perhaps less well-represented than some scholars would like, although this should not bias narrative critics from interacting with Allison's material. I'm not yet finished with this section, so will withhold additional comments for the time being.

The book only possesses an index of names and a Scripture index, no bibliography. Moreover, the index is slanted toward texts whose authors have names; thus Q, Qur'an, various rabbinic texts, and the Didache all get the shaft--particularly lamentable given the author's interest in "Interpretation Past."

2006-01-18T13:59:00.000-06:00

Mike Bird to Publish First Book

T&T Clark did themselves a favor by picking up the dissertation of
the prolific and insightful Mike Bird of my very own Highland Theological College. Congrats to Mike. There will be a fair bit of Matthew material, although the dissertation is "historical Jesus" in approach and focus. Among many points of interest, Mike interacts with Allison's interesting article, Dale C. Allison, “Who will Come from East and West? Observations on Matt. 8:11-12 – Luke 13:28-29,” IBS 11 (1989), 158-70. If I remember correctly, I think Mike argues against Allison, who reads the logion behind Mt 8:11-12 (against its present context) as return from dispersion.

The title of chapter four is particularly sweet, as Dr. Bird himself is nothing if not Gentile.

2006-01-16T12:22:00.000-06:00

SBL's online Review of Books has a couple of valuable looks at a volume of Ulrich Luz articles, Studies in Matthew and The Gospel of Matthew in Its Roman Imperial Context. I hope to blog on these later in the spring, so I won't comment at this point, except to say that T&T Clark are accepting kidneys and retinas for the latter from poor students who can't fork out 125US for a text.

2006-01-16T11:31:00.000-06:00

Top Ten Recent Commentaries on Matthew: Number One
In general, I think the rule of thumb for selecting these commentaries is as follows: if your library burned down, and you were slowly rebuilding your collection of commentaries (on a limited budget), what would I recommend?

1) My favorite commentary on Matthew is David E. Garland, Reading Matthew: A Literary and Theological Commentary on the First Gospel (New York: Crossroad, 1993; Smith & Helwys, 2000). This is the "nicely equipped Honda Civic" of Matthew commentaries, the first commentary I would recommend to students, pastors, and teachers who are non-Matthean specialists. Reading Matthew exhibits superb handling of literary style with an eye towards the message of the text, and appropriate and concise use of contemporaneous historical data. Because of the format, Garland is "to the point" (apx 300 pages). His writing style is very good and his conclusions reliable and unforced. This is not a high-octane research volume (no indices or footnotes, for example), but Garland has clearly done his homework; there are enough references in the text to keep you engaged and send you elsewhere.

Smith & Helwys volumes aren't the cheapest, but I think you get what you pay for with this volume. I know of nothing its size which can match the attention to literary flow/style, without getting bogged down in full-blown literary critical, historically-blind analysis. For a bargain on this volume, try bestbookdeal.com, search ISBN 1573122742.

This book also pairs up well with any of the others in the top five. For instance, if you have Carson and this book, you're probably set as an evangelical (though give France a read on Matt 23-25). Or if you have Davies-Allison and this book, you've got a great balance between in-depth historical and source-critical investigation and the traits Garland offers.

2006-01-15T22:39:00.000-06:00

Top Ten Recent Commentaries on Matthew
Such lists are always highly subjective of course, and I suppose I should say that I'm certainly open to changing my mind as I learn. In any case, here are my current favorite commentaries, numbers 2-5--I'll post number one tomorrow. 3-5 are a virtual tie, thus the funny numbering. Since comparing commentaries is like comparing apples and oranges, these are graded subjectively based on their goals, value, and all-round utility.

2) Davies-Allison -- (Mercedes--will run forever and retain value) A true classic; thorough. N. B. that the commentary was really written almost entirely by Allison, a master of Matthew, even if he is a bit too interested in source criticism for my taste. Since this is now available in paperback, it trades places with Luz.

3) Luz -- (Jaguar--complicated but beautiful and exciting in a traditional sort of way) Excellent...and priced accordingly. I think his emphasis on reception history is going to prove prophetic. The format is quite user-friendly, I think.

3) France -- (Toyota Camry) This refers to his Tyndale NTC; n.b. that he is writing the NICNT on Matthew, and has other books on Matthew, as well as I think commentary on Matthew in one volume commentaries. Good handling of many issues; good sensitivity; somewhat famous for his important treatment of Matthew 23-25. Different enough from Carson and Garland to avoid evangelical excess. Owning this and Carson would be a good "evangelical" start. Anyone doing a Bible study on Matthew could probably profit from a read through this book.

3) Carson -- (Fully loaded Ford F350, a real workhorse for traditional tasks) Apologetic and thorough, with a surprising (for 1984, and for a theological-exegetical scholar) sense of the allusive function of Matthew's use of the OT and other matters. The series editor gave Carson the task of absorbing synoptic issues and other matters, so this is the largest and (to my knowledge) the finest commentary in the EBC's NT. Unfortunately labeled "David A. Carson" in Allison's latest book.

2006-01-14T16:19:00.000-06:00

Top Ten Recent Commentaries on Matthew

In this series, I'm listing my favorite "recent" commentaries on Matthew, of those published since, say, 1950. It is difficult to differentiate between commentaries which are (in my estimation) close in value, so these are in clusters, with some "ties" sharing the same number. Here are numbers 6-10, with comment.

10) Robert H. Gundry -- (Chrysler PT Cruiser--interesting but a bit too unusual) Gundry is too eccentric to be of top value, but he is no one's stooge. I'm not too positive about his approach to midrash and redaction and source criticism, and I find some of his conclusions very strange (Matt 1-2 as a midrash on the OT and nativity material from Luke; see also the first page or so, where he thinks "huiou Abraam" [son of Abraham] might modify David, rather than Jesus--which is grammatically possible, but odd beyond belief. Nonetheless, this commentary is certainly worth investigating.

6) Warren Carter -- (Volvo Hybrid Power) Written specifically as a commentary from the point of view of the marginalized, Carter is probably the least known commenator on Matthew (save for the #1). Carter is willing to read his own interests into the text (aren't we all), and a few of them succeed; many others are thought-provoking. Carter helpfully tries to steer a middle ground between historical and literary critics via "audience-oriented criticism." His other works on Matthew are also worth consulting, forming a nice corpus, albeit narrowly-focused and sometimes lacking in macroexegetical (i.e., theological) sense. In some ways, Carter will be far better on some passages (Beatitudes) than others. Manages to incorporate feminist and ideological scholarship on Matthew more than Keener, Hagner, Luz, Gundry, or Davies-Allison. On the flip side, however, he almost completely ignores conservative scholars.

6) Craig S. Keener -- (Lincoln Town Car) Encyclopaedic in his references to ancient sources, sometimes (often?) without being at all informative. Fully 30 % of his commentary is subject index, author index, and bibliography (none of which are exhaustive). Some of the commentary is quite good, however.

6) Donald Hagner -- (Dodge Caravan, with no extras) Good commentary. I'm still not sold on the WBC format. Not always as successful at examining and integrating diverse opinions as he probably should be. Still more valuable than e.g., Gundry, given his large bibliography (which is still not complete) and the less adventuresome approaches he takes to the text.

6) Craig L. Blomberg -- (Ford Taurus) Quite underrated; Blomberg is a very good exegete. In my experience (which is admittedly limited) this is the best NT commentary in the NAC series. If you are a dispensationalist or premillenial, go to Blomberg or Carson. Do not make the mistake of going with Walvoord, Touissant, etc., none of whom are true scholars of Matthew (even if they are experts at putting Matthew into their system).

2006-01-14T15:31:00.000-06:00

Top Ten Matthew Commentaries

Bloggers seems to enjoy reading top ten lists, so a few blogs on my top ten commentaries on Matthew. My mind is still open on Wilkins (NIVAC), which seems promising and useful for pastors and teachers; and Nolland (NIGTC). I don't know enough French or German to comment accurately on Frankemolle, Gnilka, or Bonnard (although some swear by the latter two). France (NICNT) will be released shortly, and presumably so will the Matthew volume of the "Two Horizons" series and others. Word has it there is a place on the web that lists such upcoming volumes.

2006-01-14T15:16:00.000-06:00

Matthew Comes First

My friend Mike Bird recently posted on the order of the canon, arguing that John should be the first book of the NT. Let me open my blogging account with a defense of Matthew as the first book--not for the sake of argument (especially with someone capable of going toe-to-toe with Stan Porter and Al Qaeda), but because we learn a great deal about Matthew and the Scriptures through the canonical placement of Matthew.

Even if we set aside the witness of the early church, placing Matthew at the head of the canon still makes a great deal of sense. Matthew's opening verse and genealogy of Jesus (1:1-17) tell the "Story of Israel" and the Old Testament. This story is referenced in a number of ways.

1) Matthew opens with "biblos genesews," which is usually translated "book/record of the generations/genealogy." But Dale C. Allison, Jr. has argued ["Matthew's First Two Words (Matt. 1:1)," Studies in Matthew: Interpretation Past and Present, (Baker Academic, 2005), 157-162, with Luz backing him up] that this should be translated so as to bring out the "Genesis" aspect of that phrase. "Biblos genesews" surely alludes to the title of (the book of) Genesis in Matthew's day. It also mirrors the LXX of Genesis 2:4 and 5:1.

There's no doubt Matthew hopes to call the readers' attention to the beginning of his Bible. More blogging on this to come, but for now we note that he begins at the beginning. Note that some, such as Hubert Frankemolle, have noted the way Matthew may allude to 2 Chr 36:22-23 in his conclusion, Mt 28:16-20. This may reflect an interest in the "shape" of Matthew's canon...perhaps more on that later as well.

2) Matthew then proceeds to draw the readers attention to the narrative of Israel's history. It' s a Story beginning with Abraham, the Story of God's repair of the chaos of Gen 3-11 and the solution of the problem of sin (first for Israel, 1:21, then for all). Israel is God's chosen vehicle through which the world will be blessed.

3) The genealogy is loaded with heroes--broken heroes, sinner-saints, 'aints (Ruth), and strangers (Rahab). Matthew references Uriah, contrasting (not for the last time) the righteousness exhibited by a Gentile with the failure of David, God's "anointed." We find prophets (Amoz=Amos, 1:10), priests (Asa=Asaph, 1:7), the tragedy of the Exile, and allusions to Israel as a nation leadership role promised, partially fulfilled, and lost by Judah-David and sons-Jeconiah ("and his brothers"..."king"..."and his brothers"). This points to the need for The Hero, David's Son, who would reign over his people and the world in righteousness. The inclusion of outsiders (besides four named Gentiles, see also Ram=Aram in 1:3-4) also points up Israel's vocation as a light to the nations (Isaiah; Matt 5.13-16), and her failure to fulfill said vocation.

4) The genealogy is structured around promises. Abraham and David were promised sons who would bless all nations and reign forever in righteousness (even over the nations, Amos 9 etc), and YHWH promised a solution to Exile. Here, at the very beginning of the NT, Matthew points to the fulfillment of these promises: Jesus, the Messiah, Son of David, Son of Abraham (Mt 1:1). Jesus, then, is the telos of the Story, or at least one turning point in the I have avoided speculating at this point on the 3x14/6x7/40+1 (Augustine) schema. Plenty of time for that later.

Granted John has a Genesis of sorts, he does not reflect on the Story of the Old Testament, but merely articulates of Jesus' identity; Matthew does both. Luke has plenty of strong allusions in his opening (see Joel B. Green, "The Problem of a Beginning: Israel's Scriptures in Luke 1-2," Bulletin for Biblical Research 4 [1994]: 61-86), but these are less obvious and less sweeping than Matthew's opening. Only Matthew provides such an excellent bridge from OT to NT. (I do agree, however, that John would make a great second choice. Mike's decision to move Philemon back to Colossians is a great move--it's not just to an "individual," as the first verses make clear. But I would want James earlier somehow...and Luke should go next to Acts.)

For more on the Story of the OT and Matthew 1:1-17, see N. T. Wright, The New Testament and the People of God, 384-390; Mervyn Eloff, "Exile, Restoration and Matthew's Genealogy of Jesus ho Christos," Neotestamentica 38,1(2004), 75-87; and the comments by Craig Keener in his commentary on Matthew.

2006-01-14T13:10:00.000-06:00

This blog is a forum for my thoughts and those of others with similar interests. I'm currently pursuing a PhD in New Testament from Highland Theological College, University of Aberdeen, and Matthew's Gospel (the subject of my dissertation) will be a key theme. No subject is off limits, however.