The New Testament Canon

I’m starting part two of The Heresy of Orthodoxy by Köstenberger and Kruger. The first part of the book responds to charges by Walter Bauer and more recently Bart Ehrman that early Christianity was characterized by multiple forms of Christianities none of which could claim to be true or orthodox. What we know of today as orthodox Christianity simply won the day by overpowering the other viewpoints via strategic power plays and the suppression of their writings and teachings. It is entirely possible that if one of the other viewpoints won then Christianity would look very different today. Instead of reading the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John we would be reading the Gospels of Thomas, Peter, Philip and Nicodemus. This diversity of thought is even traced back to the New Testament writings themselves by Ehrman and others. The way in which the debate is framed can sometimes skew it from the beginning. For example,

“As in many places, Ehrman places the conventional view in a virtual no-win situation. If the New Testament is held to be essentially unified, this, according to Ehrman, proves that it was ‘written by winners’ who chose to suppress and exclude all countervailing viewpoints. If the New Testament were to exhibit a considerable degree of diversity, and an unsettled state of affairs as to which theological position represents the standard of orthodoxy, this would be taken as evidence that the Bauer-Ehrman thesis is correct and diversity prevailed in earliest Christianity. Either way, Ehrman is right, and the conventional understanding of orthodoxy wrong. As a debating tactic, this is clever indeed.” (71)

The second part of the book is on the issue of the New Testament canon. How were the first books of the New Testament chosen and why? Who did the choosing and what were their criteria? My friend, Paul Adams, recently did a series of posts on the issue which is well worth reading. He blends the issues of canonicity and reliability together and offers some suggested reading at the end of the third post. I would add to his list Craig D. Allert’s book A High View of Scripture?: The Authority of the Bible and the Formation of the New Testament Canon. I don’t agree with everything Allert advocates but I think he ably shows the issue is much more complicated than is commonly perceived. One important factor I appreciated was his nuance of the role that Marcion played in canon formation. He says, “While scholars continue to debate the influence of Marcion on the formation of the New Testament canon, the views of Harnack, Campenhausen, and Hoffman have, to varying degrees, been revised. The revision is to see Marcion as having a more modest influence on the developing New Testament canon and not as having a decisive influence.” (91 Emphasis his.) Allert also attempts to show that for the early church a “completed canon” was not nearly as important as the “Rule of Faith” in combating heresy. Consider this,

“Irenaeus confirms that the church of the second century really had no need of a written canon because it already had a canon of truth. It was this Rule of Faith against which everything was measured in the second century—even the writings of the developing New Testament. We must be careful here, however, of pushing this too far. In view of the importance of the Rule of Faith, we must not take this to mean the Christian writings were relatively unimportant in the early church. Scripture and the Rule of Faith were seen to share a common origin with the original preaching and teaching of the apostles and therefore have material agreement with it.” (125)

I look forward to reading the second half of The Heresy of Orthodoxy and will keep you updated as I get through it.  I thoroughly enjoyed the first half and expect the second half to be just as good. 

Themelios Article Surveys the Latest Commentaries on Colossians

Want to get up to speed on the latest on the book of Colossians? In the April 2010 issue of Themelios is an article on “New Commentaries on Colossians: Survey of Approaches, Analysis of Trends, and the State of Research” by Nijay Gupta.

Gupta covers six new commentaries on Colossians and surveys their opinion on eight interpretive cruxes. The six commentaries are:

1) Marianne Meye Thompson in the Two Horizons New Testament Commentary series.
2) R. McL. Wilson in the International Critical Commentary
3) Charles H. Talbert in the Paideia series.
4) Ben Witherington III's socio-rhetorical commentary
5) Douglas J. Moo in the Pillar New Testament Commentary series
6) Jerry Sumney in the New Testament Library series

The eight interpretive cruxes are:

1) Authorship
2) The Colossian Heresy or Philosophy
3) Paul and the sufferings of Christ (1:24)
4) Stoicheia tou Kosmou (2:8, 20)
5) The Fullness [Plērōma] of God (1:19; 2:9)
6) Shadow and Body/Substance (2:17)
7) Worship of Angels (2:18)
8) The Household Code (3:18–4:1)

Just to give one example here’s the paragraph on Stoicheia tou Kosmou. But first, to give you an idea of the problem here’s how various versions have translated it:

NKJV – “principles of the world”
ESV, NET – “elemental spirits of the world”
RSV - "elemental spirits of the universe"
NIV – “basic principles of the world”
TNIV – “elemental spiritual forces of the world”
HCSB - "elemental forces of the world"
NLT 1st ed. – “evil powers of the world”
NLT 2nd ed. – “spiritual powers of the world”
KJV, ASV, Young’s Literal – “rudiments of the world”
NASB – “elementary principles of the world”
GW –“the world’s way of doing things”
NCV – “ruling spirits of this world”
CEB (Common English Bible) - "the way the world thinks and acts"

“More controversial is the meaning of the phrase stoicheia tou kosmou, which can be understood in three ways. It could refer to the spiritual beings that dominate the earth (the archic view), the basic principles of the world (the logical view), or the component parts of the world (the elemental view). In twentieth-century scholarship, the archic view was dominant. However, among our six modern scholars, there is no consensus. Thompson (53) and Witherington (155) draw attention to the logical view as the “teachings” and “rules” of the philosophy seem to be a major issue. Talbert (211–12) leans towards the archic view, while Moo (187–92) argues that a combination of the elemental and archic is appropriate. Sumney and Wilson (195–96) appear to be undecided. Sumney focuses on the rhetorical import of the phrase, namely, to point out that ‘the teaching has a worldly source instead of a divine one’ (131).”

“Though disagreement continues over the stoicheia, it is helpful to observe how the conclusions are reached. Some scholars focus on usage of the term in comparative literature (e.g., Moo, Wilson, Talbert), while others take interest in the purpose of the phrase in Colossians (Thompson, Sumney, Witherington). Both approaches, of course, are important for the elucidation of the phrase. Indeed, it must be recognized that there is a dialectic that exists between a word’s (or phrase’s) meaning in common usage and the meaning as it appears in context. At the end of the day, even though one must get a sense for how a group tends to use a particular word or phrase, the key determinant in meaning is the actual historical and literary context of the work at hand. It would seem that those commentaries that make the Pauline rhetorical context primary (without ignoring antecedent and contemporaneous usage) will end up finding a consensus sooner.”

The article is concise and well written. Nijay Gupta currently serves as a visiting instructor at Ashland Theological Seminary in Ohio. Beginning in the fall, he will teach Biblical Studies at Seattle Pacific University.

Robert Gundry's Commentary on the New Testament - Some Observations - 2

This is my second post on Robert Gundry’s Commentary on the New Testament. In my first post I said there was nothing on authorship, dating or audience. I was a bit premature on that. There is a short paragraph which heads up each book though the content varies from book to book. For example, at the beginning of Luke Gundry tells us that “early church tradition attributes the writing of this Gospel to Luke, a physician who accompanied the Apostle Paul on at least some of his travels.” (221) There is nothing on the date or audience. Again, I don’t see this as a problem since this information is readily available from many other sources.

Heb. 10:24-25 – I’ve often seen this verse used simply to encourage church attendance and was left with the impression that the occasion for this admonition was people were slackers about getting up on Sunday morning. I think Gundry has an important insight I’ve not seen before. He comments, “In view of the upcoming mention of persecution (10:32-34), ‘the habit’ of some to abandon the assembling of themselves with other Christians probably has the purpose of avoiding persecution. But to forestall a consequent apostasy, they should encourage one another in their assemblies.” (902)

2 Peter 2:9-10 – Throughout the commentary Gundry provides his own translation. In some cases he offers a new translation which opens up new interpretive possibilities. 2 Peter 2:9 Gundry translates as “the Lord knows to be rescuing godly people out of temptation and to be keeping unrighteous people for the Day of Judgment.” He comments, “Despite other translations to the contrary, Peter doesn’t write that the Lord knows ‘how’ to rescue godly people. There’s no word in the Greek text which has that meaning. Peter isn’t concerned with the Lord’s method in rescuing godly people—rather, with the fact that he rescues them, which fact encourages them not to forsake the path of righteousness.” (961)

Matthew 13:35 – At least one of his translations caught me off guard as in this passage which Gundry translates “so that what was spoken through the prophet would be fulfilled, saying, ‘I’ll open my mouth with parables, I’ll belch [an attention-getting figure of speech for speaking] things hidden since the founding of the world.” (Emphasis mine. I’ve not found another translation that is quite so straight forward!)

Jude 21-22 – There are some wonderful pastoral moments as when Gundry comments on this passage with “So ‘kept [by God] for Jesus Christ’ (verse 1) doesn’t absolve Christians from their own responsibility to keep themselves in the love of god ‘while waiting expectantly’ for mercy instead of condemnation at the second coming and Last Judgment. The expectation enables the waiting; the waiting requires the keeping; the keeping ensures the mercy; and the mercy results in eternal life. In his exhortation Jude notably involves the Holy Spirit, God, and Jesus Christ—all three persons of what has come to be called the Trinity.” (995)

Hebrews 6:1 – This week I had a customer ask about a new Bible translation called the International Standard Version. On the website I noticed that David Alan Black (one of the members of the translation committee) commented on this passage and he said when you look at the verb in the passage “there is nothing here of going on or pressing on or self effort or struggle to make progress in the Christian life. The verb is better translated be carried along and that to me makes a big difference.” That prompted me to see what Gundry did with this verse since I couldn’t find another translation to support Black’s comment. Here’s how Gundry translates it followed by his comment: “let us allow ourselves to be carried on to maturity. . . Since the author has compared his audience to infants (5:11-14) and since infants need to be carried, he exhorts, ‘let us allow ourselves to be carried on to maturity.” (885)

Let me now summarize some of my thoughts on the commentary as a whole. First, please don’t get the impression that Gundry’s comments are limited to a paragraph or two on each passage. For a one-volume commentary there is a good deal of discussion of much of the New Testament and some of it is quite lengthy. On the other hand you will find many places where you could wish for more. That comes with the territory. I like much of what I’ve seen and will feel very comfortable in recommending this to anyone looking for a good one-volume commentary. Small group leaders and laity will gain much from having this in their library. Pastors should not be too quick to give it a pass because there are some gems both from a scholar’s perspective and a pastoral perspective. I think the last two examples above are good illustrations of both. I wish it good sales.

Did God's Clothing of Adam and Eve Involve a Sacrifice?

I was taught for years that when God “made garments of skin for Adam and his wife and clothed them” (Gen. 3:21) it implied the sacrificial killing of an animal. This is still a fairly popular belief in many Christian circles. D. A. Carson is his recent release, The God Who is There: Finding Your Place in God’s Story, says this about the passage:

“At this stage in the Bible’s storyline there is no system of sacrifice; that comes later—a priestly system with prescribed sacrifices and ritual. But God knows that they need to be covered. They have so much shame to hide. . . This is the first sacrifice in the long trajectory of bloody sacrifices that reaches all the way down to the coming of Jesus. . . Here in Genesis 3 the death of an animal to cover the man and the woman is a picture of what is to come, the first step of an entire institution of sacrifices that points us finally to the supreme sacrifice and what Jesus did to take away our sin and cover up our shame.” (39)

But while I was a student at the Moody Bible Institute a new professor arrived and I took a class from him on Genesis. His name was John Walton (who now teaches at Wheaton). The Old Testament began to look significantly different in a number of places and this was one of them. Here’s how Walton understands the passage in his commentary on Genesis:

“It is a serious error to read sacrifice between the lines of verse 21. The institution of sacrifice is far too significant an occurrence to leave it entirely to inference. Again we stress that it is our objective as interpreters to understand what the author wished to communicate, not to piece together answers we would like to know from reading between the lines. The author is clearly not communicating anything about sacrifice here, for he does not address that issue. What is his point then?”

“In some contexts, clothing someone is an act of investiture. Kings and priests were clothed in installation ceremonies. Joseph was clothed by his father with a special coat and was clothed by Pharaoh on his appointment to high office. But all of these constitute elevations of status, whereas Adam and Eve are ready to be demoted. In the Tale of Adapa, after Adapa loses the opportunity to eat from the bread and water of life, he is given clothing by the god Anu before being sent from his presence.”

“For lack of other alternatives, this provision should probably be seen as an act of grace by God, preparing them for the more difficult environment he is sending them into and providing a remedy for their newly developed shame. Insofar as animal death is likely already in the system (see comments on pp. 183-84), there is nothing unusual about using an animal skin for a garment.” (229-30).

And this year we were treated to a “theological” commentary by R. R. Reno who gives the garments of skin yet another look. He says,

“God seems to express care by providing the fallen man and woman with clothing to replace the woven garments of fig leaves. These clothes prepare the man and woman to live under the burden of their transgression. But what, exactly, are these garments?”

“The leather clothes suggest a thickening or toughening of the human condition. Human life takes on greater density and weight. The Catholic tradition calls this weight concupiscence, the condition of disorder within the human soul caused when the lower appetites, what Paul calls ‘passions of our flesh’ (Eph. 2:3), push us in directions contrary to our rational desires. For example, I want to study for a test or practice a musical instrument, but hunger distracts or sleepiness overwhelms or an attractive woman has me off and running. This added weight or sluggishness blunts and reduces the power of the human will by dissipating it into the desires of the moment. What we plan for the future is corrupted by what we want in the moment.” (95)

Reno explains that the Council of Trent teaches “that concupiscence is not itself sin, but rather ‘comes from sin and induces to sin’ (session 5.5)”. He asks then, “in what sense could this sluggishness and capacity for distraction be an act of divine care?” He answers:

“Human beings are poised halfway between animals and angels. We are embodied rational animals, capable of long-term projects and sustained loyalties. As a result, the original transgression has momentum. As Rowan Williams observes, ‘The corruption of the human will is more far-reaching disaster than the corruption of the animal will.’ We can follow through with our decision to be loyal to finite reality. For this reason, ‘a wicked human is an immeasurably greater problem than a wicked hamster.’ In order to restrain the effects of sin, God makes the garments of skin. Concupiscence places a governor on the intensity of the human will. It makes us more like hamsters, seeking the pleasure of the moment, and less like the devil, who has no body to limit the intensity of his perversely formed will. Clothed with the garments of skin, we remain incapable of fully focusing our minds in order to completely follow through with our ill-fated plans.” (95-96)

The first two interpretations recognize an actual animal skin. Reno seems to interpret the garments as a symbol of a change in the human condition. No animal needed for that. Thirty-four years ago I would have dismissed Walton and laughed at Reno. Twenty-eight years ago I accepted Walton and would have dismissed Reno. Today I’m sticking with Walton but have respect for Reno’s interpretation. It’s a simple passage but my journey with its interpretation illustrates the possible changes in one person’s study of the Bible and my growth with respect to the various interpretations that are possible. (By “simple” I don’t mean “problem free.” My post should show that. But rather that its interpretation is minor compared to some other passages. In other words, I don’t lose any sleep on this one.) My youthful arrogance and over confidence has lessened (I hope) and my respect for the work of scholars from a broader perspective than just my evangelical up bringing has widened.  Do you have stories like this of your own? 

Here are the three titles I referenced:

Coming Soon from Zondervan - Matthew in the Zondervan Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament

In November 2008 we saw the inaugural release of a new commentary series from Zondervan called the Zondervan Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament or ZECNT. That initial volume was by Craig Blomberg and Mariam Kamell on the book of James. It was very well done but my question was how would this new format look on a book of larger proportions than James? Well, the wait is almost over. Coming this October/November we will see Grant Osborne on the Gospel of Matthew. I enjoyed Blomberg and Kamell on James and look forward to seeing this new volume. I have the highest hopes for it. I had the pleasure of having Grant Osborne as an instructor while I was at Trinity although it was for only one course (Colossians and Ephesians).

AND you should know two more volumes in this series will be right on the heels of Matthew due out in the December/January time frame. Galatians is authored by Thomas Schreiner and Ephesians by Clinton Arnold (who is also the general editor for the series).

Matthew will be a hardcover with 1152 pages (although the catalog description I have from my rep says 1200 pages) and will sell for $49.99.

Hurtado's New Blog - A Gold Mine

One of the features of Larry Hurtado’s blog is a collection of his essays including a couple that are difficult to find. I’ve read two so far and would highly recommend them to you if either of the subjects interests you.

The first one is on the ending of Mark. Hurtado believes that Mark 16:1-8 provides an appropriate ending to the book. One of the foundations to his premise is the three passages which include named women in the Gospel (15:40-41; 51:47; 16:4-6). These women become a note of continuity as they are eyewitnesses to three significant events: the crucifixion through the moment of death, the burial and the vacant tomb. He says, “the repeated naming of the women in three consecutive Markan scenes in 15:40-16:8 likely functions to link more emphatically these particular scenes.” (3) The apex of the Gospel for Hurtado is not seen as the centurion’s statement in 15:39 (“Truly this man was the Son of God!”) but rather the proclamation of the young man sitting in the tomb who says in 16:6 “He has risen”. “The centurion is portrayed as uttering something that has one sense for him (basically, Jesus’ death as heroic), but readers are able to see a further connotation . . . But in 16:6 there is no ambiguity or irony, and the figure who speaks is clearly a ‘reliable voice’ in literary terms, much like the divine voice from heaven in 1:11 and 9:7.” (8) Hurtado takes issue with the portrayal by modern commentators that the women were disobedient or failures. The phrase in 16:8, “they said nothing to anyone”, “quite readily can be taken as indicating, not a complete failure to communicate, but that the women spoke to no one else beyond those to whom they were directed.” (12) So why is there no “resurrection-appearance scene” in Mark? It’s neither because of ignorance nor from discomfort with them. This leads Hurtado to suggest it was deliberate. I quote him at length:

"As we have it, the final section of Mark’s story of Jesus culminates in the triumphant annunciation of Jesus’ divine vindication and his renewed status leader of his followers. But more specifically, the distinctive Markan stress on the reality of Jesus’ death, burial of his ‘corpse,’ the empty tomb, and the ability of certain known women to vouch for all this combine to underscore the real, bodily continuity of the risen Jesus with the crucified and buried Jesus. The primary concern, however, was probably not to assert one theory about the nature of the resurrection body over another for its own sake. Instead, the author aimed to emphasize the kerygma must include both Jesus’ cross and resurrection. The Markan narrative stresses that the crucifixion of Jesus is not simply overcome in his resurrection, as an ordeal that could now be regarded as a temporary setback like the trials of a Greek here. Instead, Mark insists that the risen Jesus remains the same Jesus who was crucified (16:6), and that the events of death, burial and resurrection together are essential in mutually interpreting one another.” (16) Hurtado goes on to say that “for such narrative purposes, a resurrection-appearance is not so obviously necessary.” (17) He suggests that if we understand the Markan story of Jesus as presenting “Jesus as the model and ‘blueprint’ for the intended readers” then such an appearance would be “unnecessary for addressing his emphasis on Jesus’ life, death and resurrection as a model for believers. Indeed, the author may have thought that an appearance-narrative would have detracted from the sharp focus that he intended to place on Jesus as the sole valid model, as well as the basis, for Christian existence.” (17-18 emphasis his)

Whether you agree or disagree with Hurtado’s conclusions it is one of the finest arguments for viewing the ending of Mark as we have it in 16:1-8 as a “fully satisfactory climatic episode that was designed to thrill and empower intended readers to follow Jesus in mission, through opposition and even their own personal violent death, confident in an eschatological vindication by resurrection for which Jesus’ resurrection was the inspiring model.” (18)

The other essay is called “Jesus as Lordly Example in Philippians 2:5-11” which was included in a book dedicated to honor Francis Wright Beare called From Jesus to Paul. I won’t go into as much detail on this one (though it is shorter than the above article). Those familiar with this passage will know that there are, among a myriad of other issues, two primary ways of viewing the passage based on the translation of 2:5. The traditional translations (NIV, TNIV, HCSB, KJV, NLT, GW) read something like “Your attitude should be the same as that of Christ Jesus” (NIV) or in the NKJV “Let this mind be in you which was also in Christ Jesus.” This clearly makes Jesus our example to follow. This has become known as the “ethical interpretation.” The other interpretation says Jesus is not being promoted as our example. This is reflected in the ESV (and its parent the RSV) as “Have this mind among yourselves, which is yours in Christ Jesus.” “This is known as the kerygmatic interpretation and is best associated with Ernest Käsemann and R. P. Martin. Hurtado interacts mostly with Käsemann and argues against him that the ethical interpretation is the better position. I believe Hurtado makes a strong case for the ethical interpretation but I think the translation by the ESV may, in fact, be the better translation. Indeed Hurtado recognizes that the translation of 2:5 is a small part of the interpretation of the passage when he says "However we translate the somewhat elliptical ho kai en Christō Iesou, the following verses determine more fully the interpretation to be given to the passage as a whole."  (121)  (See also Moises Silva’s Philippians in the BECNT series. As Silva points out the less traditional translation does not necessarily commit you to adopt the Kerygmatic interpretation. He comments that “much of the current discussion is plagued by false dichotomies.” Silva offers the best argument for the translation reflecting the Kerygmatic interpretation but does not believe we have to abandon the ethical interpreation as a result and says the passage is "best understood thus: 'Be so disposed toward one another as is proper for those who are united in Christ Jesus."  (97)  See also Craig Blomberg, From Pentecost to Patmos, p. 332 n.198.  For one of the best arguments for the traditional translation along with a critique of the Kergmatic interpretation see Peter T. O'Brien's The Epistle to the Philippians in the New International Greek Testament Commentary, pp. 253-262)

Hurtado’s contributions to the blog world are sincerely appreciated. His scholarship is always impressive and his writing style is extremely accessible. There’s gold in “them thar blogs.” If you’ve not yet made a visit don’t waste another minute.

Robert Gundry's Commentary on the New Testament - Some Observations

Before I start I want to answer a question that came up on yesterday’s post. Andrew asked if Gundry’s commentary was more for laity or scholars. He suspected the former but saw I only put up endorsements from scholars. Well Andrew, you’re right, it is more for laity. The only endorsement I didn’t put up was from John Ortberg who said the following:

“This is a great resource in a great format for a great purpose from a great scholar. Bob Gundry has been a treasure for people who love the Bible for many years, and this is one of his richest gifts to us yet.”

I’ve spent the past couple of nights scanning parts of Gundry’s Commentary on the New Testament and I want to highlight just a few matters I found interesting. As a matter of fact I’m finding so much I'm going to break this up into two posts. One now and one in a couple of days.

I’ll start with what’s not in the commentary. There is no discussion of authorship, date or audience of the books. This isn’t really all that bad since most one-volume commentaries only list them in short order. Secondly, information like this is now readily available in any good study Bible or Bible handbook. But more importantly to me was his refusal to comment on noncanonical verses. For example, for the doxology in Matt. 6:13 (“For thine is the kingdom . . .”) Gundry says this is “a later liturgical addition, that’s unoriginal to the New Testament.” Gundry believes the longer ending of Mark is not authentic but that there was an authentic ending which is now lost. He does not comment on the longer ending. Finally, on the woman caught in adultery in John 7:53 – 8:12 Gundry provides some of the reasoning behind not commenting on these noncanonical passages. He says,

“The bottom line: John didn’t write this story in his Gospel. It may be historically true, but it’s not part of Scripture if you believe that Scripture consists only of what its Spirit-inspired authors originally wrote. After all, Jesus did and said many other things in history that aren’t recorded in Scripture (compare John 20:30-31; 21:25). And if we believe in addition that the later copyists who inserted this story at various points were inspired by the Holy Spirit, we should be consistent enough to think the hundreds and hundreds of other copyists’ insertions and revisions were equally inspired. But that’s a hard pill to swallow. So we’ll skip the story as noncanonical and go directly to 8:12-59, which in John’s original text followed directly on 7:1-52.”

I’ve seen many commentaries recognize a passage as noncanonical and then proceed to comment on it as if it were Scripture. This sends a mixed message. Not part of the original text but I’ll comment on it as if it were Scripture. I found Gundry’s comments, or lack thereof, refreshing. Accordingly, the textual variant in 1 John 5:8 doesn’t even warrant a mention. Bravo! (Gundry briefly notes that some believe 1 Cor. 14:35-35 as a copyist’s insert but he disagrees. It is precisely at times like these where advocates of a contrary view would like to see more argument on Gundry’s part. This is the problem with any one-volume commentary—due to space limitations there is only so much you can say.) (679)

In the Introduction Gundry says he doesn’t “try to square New Testament affirmations of divine sovereignty, as in the doctrine of election to salvation (though I prefer to call it selection), with indications of human responsibility, as in the commands to repent of sins and believe the gospel.” Nor does he try to do the same with eternal security. (x) He does, however, have a clear preference for complentarianism over egalitarianism. (See Eph. 5, 1Tim. 2 and 1 Cor. 11) And he does believe in baptism by immersion. (cf. Rom. 6:3-4)

Here are a few other passages of note:

John 21:15-17 - (on the alleged distinction between agape and phileo): “In this passage John uses different Greek verbs for loving, for knowing, and for tending (or shepherding), and different nouns for sheep. Because he commonly uses synonyms without distinguishing their meanings in any way, however the foregoing translation has stuck to one English equivalent in each case. (So far as John is concerned, then, forget the popular treatment of agapē-love as superior to philē-love.) (461)

1 Cor. 15:8 is translated “And last of all he appeared also to me just as if to a miscarriage.” Gundry comments, “Since a couple or so have passed since Paul saw the resurrected Christ, ‘last of all’ implies that no more appearances of Christ to prove his resurrection are to be expected. Otherwise Paul would have said to aspire after apostleship . . . ‘Just as to a miscarriage’ doesn’t connect with Christ’s appearing to Paul ‘last of all’; for a miscarriage occurs early, not late.” His continued comments on this are excellent.

Matt. 5:3 - “The traditional translation, “Blessed,” is sometimes updated to “Happy.” But “Happy” wouldn’t fit those who in 5:4 “mourn”; and Jesus is stating a matter of fact, not a matter of what should be, as though the poor in spirit should be happy whether or not they are.” (15) He also notes, “Here and following, italics indicate points of emphasis and implications: ‘theirs rather than others”,’ “they rather than others,” and so on.” (15) Those who follow the Koinonia blog may remember that Bill Mounce commented on this latter point in one of his Monday With Mounce posts.

Matt. 25:37-40 - to the extent that acted [charitably] toward one of these littlest brothers of mine, you acted [charitably] toward me.  "The 'little ones' are believers in Jesus (18:6) . . . So he isn't talking about general humanitarianism (for that, go to passages such as Luke 10:30-37).  He's talking about disciples' risking persecution of themselves by helping fellow disciples already under persecution.  Such charity demonstrates true discipleship."  (114)

Stay tuned for more!

In Store Now - Commentary on the New Testament by Robert Gundry

This week we received Robert Gundry's one-volume commentary on the New Testament appropriately called Commentary on the New Testament.  I've started scanning it and I like what I see.  Let me give you the catalog description with a few endorsements.  In tomorrow's post I'll highlight some the things I've found that I like.  Here's the catalog description:

"Shouldn’t a Bible commentary clarify what God’s Word actually says? Going beyond questions of authorship, date, sources, and historicity, respected linguist and teacher Gundry offers a one-volume exposition of the New Testament that focuses on what is most useful for preaching, teaching, and individual study—what the biblical text really means. Providing interpretive observations in a “breezy” style that’s easy to read and adaptable for oral use in pulpit or classroom presentations, Gundry directs his book to an evangelical audience. His crisp translation of the New Testament inserts various phrasings of passages in brackets, allowing for smooth transition from original text to alternative and contemporary readings."

Here's a few of the early endorsements:

"Like having a wonderful tour guide to a foreign country, Gundry's study of the New Testament introduces and guides one through the many joys and causes for reflection that are a part of a trip through the New Testament. The guidance provided is judicious in its choices of what to comment on and skilled in its presentation of the key ideas. It will surely serve well those who use it."

—Darrell Bock, Research Professor of New Testament Studies, Dallas Theological Seminary

"There is no better single-volume commentary on the New Testament than the one Bob Gundry has written. It offers succinct, fast-paced commentary, yet without neglecting the important points of interpretation. Busy pastors, students, laity, and even veteran scholars will find much in this commentary to appreciate. It belongs in every library and study."

—Craig A. Evans, Payzant Distinguished Professor of New Testament, Acadia Divinity College, Nova Scotia, Canada

"This is not just another ho-hum commentary, the product of someone reading and repackaging previous commentaries. This is rather the fruit of a lifetime of close, intense attention to the text of the Greek New Testament; the upshot is that one happily finds on every page of this exegetical treasure fresh readings and independent judgments."

—Dale C. Allison, Jr., Errett M. Grable Professor of New Testament Exegesis and Early Christianity, Pittsburgh Theological Seminary

"Gundry’s magnum opus culminates the life’s work of one of our generation’s preeminent New Testament scholars. The weight of this commentary is matched by the substance of Gundry’s interpretation within its pages, reflecting his lifetime of scholarship. This one-volume commentary on the New Testament is a rare accomplishment that must find a place on the bookshelf of every serious preacher, teacher, and student of Scripture."

—Karen H. Jobes, Gerald F. Hawthorne Professor of New Testament Greek and Exegesis, Wheaton College and Graduate School

Robert H. Gundry is a scholar-in-residence and professor emeritus of New Testament and Greek at Westmont College in Santa Barbara, California. He is the author of the best-selling classroom text A Survey of the New Testament, now in its fourth edition. Among his other works are Mark: A Commentary on His Apology for the Cross; Matthew: A Commentary on His Handbook for a Mixed Church Under Persecution; Soma in Biblical Theology; and Jesus the Word, According to John the Sectarian.

Commentary on the New Testament comes from Hendrickson Publishers and is a hardcover with 1,088 pages and sells for $49.95.  You can find a sample chapter here and the introduction here. 

Have You Seen a "Sermon Jam"?

I was cruising through YouTube and ran across a series called "Sermon Jam".  They are excerpts from sermons with added music.  These two by D. A. Carson I found especially good.  This is vintage Carson. 

Miroslav Volf Visits Eerdmans Bookstore in Grand Rapids

I just received notice that Miroslav Volf will be at Eerdmans Bookstore this Thursday, July 15th, from 7:00 to 8:00 p.m.  He will be interacting on his forthcoming book Captive to the Word of God: Engaging the Scriptures for Contemporary Reflection.  Here's the catalog description of the book:

"In this book, Miroslav Volf, a systematic theologian, interprets texts of the Christian scriptures and invites others to also delve into, as he puts it, the site of God’s self-revelation for the sake of humanity’s integral salvation."

“I read the Bible as a sacred text and a witness to Jesus Christ; a site of God’s self-revelation; a text from the past through which God addresses all humanity and each human being today; a text that has an overarching unity yet is internally teaming with rich diversity; a texts that encodes meanings and refracts them in multiple ways; a text we should approach with trust and critical judgment as well as engage with receptivity and imagination; a text that defines Christian identity yet speaks to people beyond the boundaries of Christian communities.”— from the introduction

Miroslav Volf is Director of the Yale Center for Faith and Culture and Henry B. Wright Professor of Systematic Theology at Yale Divinity School, New Haven, Connecticut. He is also the author of Exclusion and Embrace: A Theological Exploration of Identity, Otherness, and Reconciliation.

Here's Eerdman's address and phone number:

Eerdmans Bookstore
2140 Oak Industrial Dr NE
Grand Rapids, MI 49505
616-234-0532

Can We Compare the Oral Tradition of the Gospels to a Children's Game?

How many times in the course of a conversation about the the Gospels have you heard someone bring up the illustration of the children’s game of telephone? The illustration is, of course, meant to undermine the credibility of the Gospel accounts.  Since they weren't written down right away they must be hopelessly entangled with a bunch of errors due to the countless times the stories went from one person to the next.  Consider this quote from Craig Blomberg in his essay “Orality and the Parables” in Memories of Jesus: A Critical Appraisal of James D. G. Dunn’s Jesus Remembered:

“Bart Ehrman, in no less than an Oxford publication as recent as 2000 can still liken the transmission of synoptic tradition to the children’s game of telephone, in which a fairly detailed message is whispered into one child’s ear. They must then repeat what they think they heard in another quiet whisper to a second child, and the process continues throughout the room. Even with only a couple of dozen ‘tradents,’ the message becomes hopelessly garbled and usually hilarious by the time the last person repeats aloud what was whispered to them. But, of course, the first-century transmitters of the Gospel tradition were not children, were not whispering, had numerous checks and balances within the communities as they passed on the tradition, had countless reasons for valuing the tradition and its careful preservation highly, had authorized leaders who periodically traveled to ensure that the traditions were still being reported accurately, had living eyewitnesses to consult, and had the practice of taking notes for private reference on which to fall back. Most important of all, they came from cultures in which education was dominated by rote learning, in which prodigious feats of memorization were cultivated, and in which traditions deemed sacred or from greatly revered teachers were hardly treated with the cavalier attitude of a children’s party game. Those who have replicated this contemporary game among Middle Eastern students today have discovered that it does not work—people remember accurately what they are told and do not even understand the point of the exercise.” (84)

I don't want to give the impression that Dunn has argued this.  He certainly does not.  Indeed, Blomberg concludes his essay by saying he hopes "this short study has provided at least some quantificational support for Dunn's convictions."  (126)  Dunn's approach to the oral tradition, says Blomberg, "remains far more likely to approximate historical realities than those of Funk, the Jesus Seminar, and others."  (126) The above point is made against Ehrman in particular whom Blomberg says "may continue to make contrary claims, with sensationalizing titles for books, like Misquoting Jesus, but, if they do, it will be they who will be misrepresenting history and, specifically, the oral tradition of Jesus' life and teachings."  (127)