Wrath and Atonement II

Thanks to those who have so far responded to my all too brief remarks. As Scot McKnight has noted, this is a complex minefield [I'm sticking with minefield because that's what it is!]. Again, I'm no specialist in this field and my comments should obviously be augmented by others who take a different perspective. But let me attempt to steer the discussion and thus provide further clarification of my attempted position.

Loren Rosson notes a comment from Stephen Finlay regarding The Passion where Finlay says: “It was clearly a serious and honest effort, well acted and so on. But there is no need to dwell on the gore that way...It is sadistic... But then, it really highlights just how troubling it is to say that God would ever require that of anyone, for any reason. God does not require anybody to be tortured, and certainly not as a 'payment' for someone else's sins. Atonement ideas say some awful things about God.”

It was this statement that spawned my thoughts that found it's way to a blog on wrath and atonement. In the book Recovering the Scandal of the Cross, the authors note that scholars and theologians have neglected several biblical images of the atonement, and chosen to focus on one particular image. Their chapter on A Case of Selective Memory forced me to think honestly about what I believed and why I believed it. But then I read Loren Rosson's comment:

But any potentials for another Aryan Jesus (whether real or imagined) are irrelevant. If Jesus was in fact less Jewish than we imagine, then it’s the historian’s duty to say so. If the resulting portrait ends up being pressed into bad service, that’s a completely different issue. I happen to believe that scholars like Sanders, Fredriksen, Allison, and Freyne are much closer to the truth than the Hellenized crowd, but not out of fear that I would be condoning an anti-Semitic view of Jesus if I didn’t!

Now, you may be wondering what this has to do with anything. But this is how I see the issue of wrath & the atonement. I was concerned that I was merely reacting to the several critiques of atonement theory that suggested it was "cosmic child-abuse" and thus went to the data to find a new hypothesis to explain it. But I'm not sure this is the case. I am convinced that my training in exegesis and philosophical analysis suggests that I am reading the historical evidence fairly and accurately. And so, in the absence of any solid exegetical arguments that show where I have gone astray in thinking [or taken a flight from understanding, as Bernard Lonergan would say] I must press forward and explore this proposal.

I can't find in the New Testament a single reference to Jesus taking upon himself the abuse of God for the sin of the world. There is no reference that directly states that, and so I'm concerned as to how and where we get this idea from. Remember, the context of my discussion here is the atonement - not the wrath of God in general. The closest reference that we get to this idea is Romans 3:25 with the use of the word hilasterion. There is great debate between Dodd ["HILASKESAI, Its Cognates, Derivatives, and Synonyms, in the Septuagint," JTS 32 [1931] 352–60] and Morris [The Apostolic Preaching of the Cross, pg. 125-85] as to whether this word can be used to refer to expiation or propitiation with Dodd arguing for the former, and Morris for the latter. Thus, Dodd's interpretation of Romans 3:25 was that in Jesus’ death he was not averting the wrath of God but delivering humanity from the guilt of sin.

However, my proposal however does not appear to hinge on this discussion. For I am not arguing against the view that the wrath of God was appeased at the cross. That is another discussion, that is also complex. The New Testament [NT] writers do not seem to be convinced that Jesus needed to be tortured by GOD to atone for sins. What the NT is convinced about is that Jesus, his life, death & resurrection, was an acceptable and necessary element to rectify and repair our damaged relationship with GOD. But even this is beyond the scope of what my proposal is about.

What I am questioning is exactly how the Hebrew and New Testament writers understood God's wrath to be poured out, and especially how the New Testament writers understood this and the cross. My question is far more specific. Did God the Father directly torture and kill Jesus on the cross? To this, the NT is ubiquitous in it's silence and thus we can infer no such thing. And if we were to infer an answer from scripture, my argument below suggests that the answer would be "no, the Father did no such thing." In fact, my argument below suggests that this is entirely the fault of cracked eikons, who through foolishness, stubbornness and ignorance have exchanged the truth about God for a lie.

Jesus did take upon himself the judgment of God that Israel, and thus the world, deserved. I think a strong historical case can be made that at least Jesus believed this to be the case [even if Sanders thinks this is 'weird']. And the form that this judgment took, was the Father abandoning the Son at the cross to face the free will choices and evil which tortures and kills Jesus. This is the greatest sacrifice, because the Son embraced this vocation and saw it as his ultimate expression of love, both to us and to the Father of how to reconcile people back to himself .

The Father did not strike this child, we did.

Now there is much more to be said about this, and again exegetical responses are welcomed as I grapple with this immense and complex subject. But do me a favour and allow this small proposal to at least flow through your mind and thoughts as we contemplate this great mystery... Think carefully about what the bible actually says, and what we think it says. Ad Fontes [back to the sources] is the call I herald. And as we go back to these sources, what do we see?

UPDATE: See Loren Rosson's comments on Luke and the Cross.

Wrath & Atonement

The interesting topic of the atonement has been raised by Michael Pahl and especially Lorren Rosson who writes an excellent review of the book by Stephen Finlan: The Background and Content of Paul's Cultic Atonement Metaphors which Lorren has recently supplemented with several comments from the author. While I'm not keen to move far our of my hole of Jesus studies, Scot McKnight is in the process of releasing a massive study of this in Jesus And His Death: Historiography, the Historical Jesus, And Atonement Theory which means it does form part of the field I'm wading into...

I recently read a good discussion of this in Recovering the Scandal of the Cross: Atonement in New Testament and Contemporary Contexts by Joel Green and Mark Baker. While I can't comment on Jesus' view of his death just yet - given that Ed Sanders thinks it "weird"[Jesus and Judaism, pg. 333] that Jesus would conceive of his death as part of his mission and aims. I can offer my thoughts [which I'm sure will spark much debate around me] on wrath and atonement and possibly a better way of understanding the New Testament data in light of it's Hebrew context.

In the Hebrew scriptures the wrath of God is viewed as an expression of his will as he deals with sinful and rebellious humankind in the context of history. YHWH’s wrath, as an expression of his holiness, his omnipotence and his sovereign, kingly rule, is executed against the nations who have rebelled against his sovereignty (e.g., Ex 15:7; Ps 2:1–6; Amos 1:2–2:5). YHWH’s wrath is also unleashed against an Israel for failing to live by the covenant which YHWH established with the chosen nation (e.g., Ex 32:10; Num 11:1, 33; Amos 2:6), a work that Isaiah calls YHWH’s “strange deed” and “alien work” (Is 28:21). A day will come when YHWH will finally establish his sovereignty in history and defeat his enemies. That will be a “day of wrath” (e.g., Zeph 1:15, 18; 2:2–3).

But how exactly does God effect or carry out his wrath? It is my understanding, that God often allows us to merely face the logical consequences of rejecting both his commands and Him. This is seen in the Hebrew scriptures where Amaziah would [just] not listen— [ergo] it was God’s doing, in order to hand them over, because they had sought the gods of Edom. [2 Chron 25:20]. This can also be seen in Jeremiah 7:25–34; 12:7; 25:4–11; Lam 2:3 and Hosea 5:6-7; 9:15–17; 10:13–15. Also in the Hebrew scriptures, God can turn people over to their own hardness of heart (e.g., Is 6:9–11; 29:9–12; Jer 44:25–27); cf. Psalm 81:12.

I recently read Ray Ortlund’s book “WHOREDOM”, which given the offensive title, alerts us to the fact that God at times view Israel as a harlot, who had been woefully unfaithful and thus God let her face the consequences of her harlotry. Abandonment by the Ultimate Husband, God himself. God did not seek to arbitrarily punish people, even his people. But God’s personal character is affronted and spat upon when Israel worships other gods, that aren’t in fact gods, and ends up destroying herself.

The thing I’ve recently learnt is that when we give ourselves to other lovers, we get abused and hurt and this is what YHWH had to witness. His called, rescued and adorned bride being abused by other gods because of their own stupidity and unfaithfulness. Thus, the only way to pull Israel back, to embrace her again, was to let her go. And thus, to let her suffer. This is seen outside the canonical corpus in 2 Esdras 15:23-27:

And a fire went forth from his wrath, and consumed the foundations of the earth and the sinners, like burnt straw. Alas for those who sin and do not observe my commandments, says the Lord; I will not spare them. Depart, you faithless children! Do not pollute my sanctuary. For God knows all who sin against him; therefore he will hand them over to death and slaughter. Already calamities have come upon the whole earth, and you shall remain in them; God will not deliver you, because you have sinned against him.

Thus, judgment takes the form of God’s abandonment of Israel to its enemies. What is important to note here is that “wrath” here is the allowing of YHWH for Israel and the world to face directly the consequences of their own actions. It is not directly YHWH brutally punishing or abusing people, but rather God “handing them over” and “withholding” his protection so that they face their own consequences. God doesn’t want or desire to do this, but wickedness forces his hand of judgment. [cf. Matt 23:37]

This background should inform the debate of whether Paul understands the wrath of God as emotional in nature, or the necessary consequence of a holy God encountering sin. Any solution to the problem must account for both the judgment and the love of God in his dealings with Israel and humankind in general, and must exclude any notion of malicious or capricious anger on the part of God.

Paul also uses the verb [paradidomi, “to hand over”] in three important verses in Romans 1:24, 26, 28; cf. Jer 34:21, cf. Zech 1:12 where YHWH “withholds mercy” and cf. Rom 8:32 were God “did not withhold his son”. The statement “God gave them over” explains precisely how God’s wrath (1:18) is revealed: he lets people destroy themselves as they warp their own humanity by embracing the natural effects of choices that are contrary to God’s will.

C. H. Dodd, noting that “Paul never uses the verb, ‘to be angry,’ with God as subject” and that wrath when used of God is “curiously impersonal,” propounded the influential view that wrath is “not a certain feeling or attitude of God toward us, but some process or effect in the objective realm of facts” (Dodd, Romans, pg. 21–22). In other words, wrath is the inevitable result, or consequence, of human sin in a moral universe—a calculable effect of certain behaviours or attitudes—and not the activity of God against sinners (Dodd, 23–24).

A. T. Hanson notes that: “For Paul the impersonal character of the wrath was important; it relieved him of the necessity of attributing wrath directly to God, it transformed the wrath from an attribute of God into the name for a process which sinners bring upon themselves” (Hanson, The Wrath of the Lamb, pg. 69). This rightly stress that Paul never describes God as angry, and draw attention to the fact that Paul speaks of “the wrath of God” only in Rom 1:18, Eph 5:6, and Col 3:6; elsewhere he can speak of “the wrath” in an apparently impersonal way.

Paul views wrath as both a present reality and a future expectation. It is at this point that judgment and destruction intersect with wrath (cf. orge and dikaiokrisia, “righteous judgment,” in Rom 2:5). The present wrath is indicated by its present revelation from heaven (Rom 1:18) in allowing sinners to reap what they sow and in the threefold “handing over” (paradidomi) by God of Gentiles to their depraved life-styles in which heart, passions and mind are all given over to evil deeds (Rom 1:24, 26, 28) and an absence of covenantal relationship with God.

The theme of abandonment as judgment might be even more significant to explore with regards to God’s wrath, given the cry of Jesus (Mk 15:34; Matt 27:46). In the gospels this term is used by Pilate when he “handed over” Jesus to be crucified (Matt 27:26, Mk 15:15, Luke 23:25, John 19:16). [In Mark 15:15 it is the crowd that is “satisfied” when Pilate hands over Jesus to be crucified. The Father in heaven is not “satisfied” with this event, the crowd and Pilate are!] I wonder if McKnight explores any of this in his analysis, Jesus and His Death?

God hands people over to face the consequences of their actions. In Jesus coming to earth, God handed him over to rescue the world from its ultimate consequences, death. Instead of accepting the gift of God, namely Jesus, they annihilated and rejected him. Thus, indirectly Jesus takes on the wrath of God – he is taken and beaten by their evil ways which God has handed them over to. Instead of this being a loss however, God turns this into a victory whereby he absorbs the evil of humanity and defeats the principalities and powers. This opens up further reflection on New Testament teachings on atonement.

Thus, wrath is the abandonment by God so that Jesus faces the consequences of rejecting him and his ways. The Father abandons the Son to face the free will choices and evil which tortures and kills Jesus. This is the greatest sacrifice, because the Son embraced this vocation and saw it as his ultimate expression of love, both to us and to the Father of how to reconcile people back to himself.

Now this is only the first-fruits of my thoughts and I'm seriously not well read in this area, but I think the argument might have some merit... Thoughts? I’d really appreciate some exegetical feed back on this.

INCOGNITO

INCOGNITO

He came in incognito,

A thinly veiled disguise

The not so subtle son of man,

A human with God's eyes.

The messianic secret,

Left many unawares

A God had walked upon the earth

And shared our human cares.

We did not see his glory,

At least not at first glimpse,

It took an Easter wake up call,

Before it all made sense.

The truth of Incarnation,

Of dwelling within flesh,

Shows goodness in creation,

And Word of God made fresh.

Standing on the boundary

Twixt earth and heaven above

A Jew who hailed from Nazareth

But came from God's great love.

Born of humble parents,

Installed inside a stall

This king required no entourage

No pomp or falderal

No person was beneath him

No angel o‚er his head,

He came to serve the human race

To raise it from the dead.

His death a great conundrum,

How can the Deathless die?

But if he had not bowed his head,

Life would have passed us by.

Though we are dying to be loved,

And long for endless life,

He was dying in his love,

And thereby ending strife.

Perhaps the incognito

Belongs instead to us,

Who play at being human,

And fail to be gold dust.

But there was once a God-man

Who played the human's part

And lived and died and rose again

Made sin and death depart.

Yes now through a glass dimly,

We see the visage royal

And feebly honor his great worth

And his atoning toil.

We cannot see his Spirit,

But moved by its effects

We are inspired to praise his worth

And pay our last respects.

Yet that too brings him glory

That too makes a start,

The journey of a million miles

Begins within one‚s heart.

And someday we shall see him

And fully praise his grace,

Someday when heaven and earth collide

And we see face to face.

He comes in blinding brilliance,

A not so veiled disguise

The not so subtle Son of God,

A God with human eyes.

Ben Witherington: May Day 2005

The Metanarrative of Scripture

Having recently lectured on this in the UK, and having so many people thank me for this and ask if I would write down and blog my summary, here it is.

The Story of Scripture may be divided into several acts, like a play or drama. Tom Wright in his books The New Testament and the People of God, as well as Scripture and the Authority of God, suggests that scripture be divided into a 5 Act Play that follows this outline...

Act 1 = Creation.

Act 2 = Rebellion.

Act 3 = The Story of Israel.

Act 4 = Jesus.

Act 5 = The Church.

Bartholomew and Goheen in their book The Drama of Scripture add Act 6 = The Return of the King. And if you're into biblical numerics [I'm not really, but Horsley has inspired me to reevaluate this assumption] then you could add Act 7 = The Great Story following on from The Chronicles of Narnia book, The Last Battle where Lewis writes:

And as Aslan spoke He no longer looked to them like a lion; but the things that began to happen after that were so great and beautiful that I cannot write them. And for us this is the end of all the stories, and we can most truly say that they all lived happily ever after. But for them it was only the beginning of the real story. All their life in this world and all their adventures in Narnia had only been the cover and title page: now at last they were beginning Chapter One of the Great Story, which no one on earth has read: which goes on for ever: in which every chapter is better than the one before. C. S. Lewis, The Last Battle, pg. 183-84

There are a few books which provide helpful little summaries of the metanarrative of scripture [The Big Story of the Bible]. David Wenham has a succinct summary from the perspective of the Kingdom of God in his book: The Parables of Jesus. Gordon Fee provides a brief overview in his excellent and worthy book, How to Read the Bible Book by Book [In my estimation, this should be mandatory reading for every person who wants to read the Bible properly!]. Vaughn Roberts has a somewhat helpful little book entitled: God's Big Picture. In fact, Bartholomew and Goheen have put together a neat selection of articles that are solid but edible, i.e., they don't require a degree in theology or biblical studies to understand!

It is important to understand this BIG PICTURE because it is in knowing this story, that we discover our own place and role in this unfolding narrative. Robert Jenson has given us several insights in his essay How the World Lost its Story. It would be my contention that those who want to find our their true identity, where they belong and their purpose on this planet should find their place in the biblical metanarrative. Some may feel that this is far to philosophical but I am persuaded that Jesus may have had a somewhat philosophical agenda. See the article by Doug Groothuis The Strange Exile of Jesus.

I'm preparing a lecture on "Leaders are Readers: Are you?" in which I'm grappling with what the average leader in our Christian community should be reading. Of course not everyone will read at the level that scholars and students read at, but now the task is trying to get them to a suitable level, as the writer of the Hebrews warns: by this time you ought to be teachers, you need someone to teach you again the basic elements of the oracles of God. You need milk, not solid food; for everyone who lives on milk, being still an infant, is unskilled in the word of righteousness. But solid food is for the mature, for those whose faculties have been trained by practice to distinguish good from evil. If we are going to have leaders who teach, what is an acceptable level for them to be at, and then teach at? Surely this should be an ever spiraling upwards toward spiritual maturity? I mean, this will trickle right down into our various training events and classes.

I think one who is spiritually mature should know the biblical story and how it plays out in our day to day lives. A mature one should be aware of the intricacies of the Creation, Fall, Israel and Jesus stories and how they relate together. Scholars sometimes refer to the narrative substructure of scriptures. In fact, Richard Hays wrote an excellent book entitled Echoes of Scripture in the Letters of Paul. Although this is not a beginners book, it is helpful and those familiar with the field will recognise this model from his doctorate, The Faith of Jesus Christ: The Narrative Substructure of Galatians 3:1-4:11. This book shaped much of my understanding of Galatians because it enhanced the Metanarrative of scripture behind the argument that Paul was constructing. [It also settled the pistis christou debate for me. I think it does refer to the faithfulness of Christ [Christ's faithfulness] and not faith in Christ.] In seeing the Bigger picture, the smaller details were put in place and my understanding enhanced. I would argue that much of the New Testament is simply missed because we fail to understand either the metanarrative behind what is being said, or we miss the echoe of scripture which the writer is building into [or assuming] as he constructs his argument.

Articles and books like those mentioned above, help us understand that the story of Early Christianity has deep roots in the Hebrew scriptures [Old Testament], and that to fully grasp and understand Jesus and the New Testament, requires that one be well versed in that story.

In fact, to better understand that story, you must lay down your story and take up a place in the Master's story. You must realise that every other story finishes with the sobering words "THE END" whereas HIS story never ends, it just gets better and better. Remember, God [the chief character and story-teller] is always on the look out for ordinary people to play significant parts in his unfolding drama.

That is why we exist - to play our part for Him...

Another Top 10

Tyler Williams has another Top 10, although this list has a TWIST...

Studying the New Testament

There has been much discussion on the top ten books for both Jesus and Paul and then an insightful post by Stephen C. Carlson on What Books to Buy for Biblical scholarship. This has prompted my cognitive activity quite a lot, as I have friends who read my blog who have no formal biblical studies training but like amateurs just read what's been recommended. And that's ok. But for those who want to delve into the depths of the New Testament, and not just drown, here's some tips from someone learning to swim in the deep end... And what's best, all the primary sources you need are available online!

Primary Sources: New Testament

I could not agree with Howard Marshall, noted by Michael Bird, that the primary sources are to become your mistress. [Sorry for the gender biased language, but I can't find another equivalent way of saying that...?]. Although it is obviously preferable to have the original languages, it is simply not the end of the world if you don't know Greek. I would recommend reading several good versions of the New Testament simultaneously. It is also helpful, when doing gospel studies to read them alongside each other.

Background Sources: Christian and Jewish

There is a vast collection of Christian writings in the first centuries which provide a much needed context within which to understand the New Testament. This corpus includes the writings of contemporary writers of the New Testament as well as the early Church leaders and Fathers. There is also the relatively unknown collection of Jewish writings that add much weight to our understanding of the early Jewish movement and it's roots. This corpus includes Josephus, the Pseudopigrapha, the Dead Sea Scrolls and other writings of relative importance.

Context Sources: Rome and the Hellenistic World

The more I study the New Testament the more I realise that it is impossible to ignore and neglect the pervasive Roman Empire in which the New Testament documents were penned. While I am not convinced that the New Testament Student needs to master these texts as well as say Josephus, there is a large corpus that adds to and enhances our understanding of the socio-historical context in which our primary documents of interest were formed. Writings like Tacitus' The Annals of Imperial Rome and Suetonius on The Twelve Caesars are must reads. Especially the chapters on Augustus and Tiberius. I would also recommend Dio Cassius' Roman History, especially books 44-58. For those who just want a quick tour, see the PBS special: The Roman Empire in the 1st Century.

Lexicons and Dictionaries

Well, if you're working with the original languages then BAGD is the standard lexicon along with Louw & Nida's Greek English Lexicon Based on Semantic Domains. Unfortunately, these are not available online. The Exegetical Dictionary of the New Testament is proving useful. The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology edited by Colin Brown is very good. and then the standard Theological Dictionary of the New Testament is a wealth, though dated but still good, of solid information.

Commentaries

The Word Biblical Commentary set is very helpful. It provides a wealth of textual, historical and exegetical reflections by leading scholars. The International Critical Commentary is excellent, but assumes all the primary languages and then often German and French! There are also many helpful stand alone commentaries like that of Craig Keener on The Gospel of Matthew and John. Read different commentaries, and not just in the same series either. These will help you get a grip on the discussions and problems facing students and lecturers as they grapple with the text whom many believe to be inspired.

Secondary literature

It really depends on what area you want to study here. Mark Goodacre has put us in his debt with The New Testament Gateway which offers a wealth of articles, and links to further reading. Craig Blomberg also offers a New Testament bibliography for further study which is somewhat helpful. I think the IVP Dictionaries in the Reference Collection are fantastic. Especially the Dictionary of New Testament Background. This book alone should be devoured as a course text by every New Testament Student!

I like to read books about which other books will be written. For instance, Jesus and the Victory of God is a landmark book because it shaped and influenced an array of scholars, students and pastors. It has stirred discussion and made people think and rethink many of the things we thought we knew about Jesus. Whether you end up agreeing with Wright or not is almost irrelevant because he has made us think about the gospels and Jesus afresh. Read books by people that make you think, rethink and almost get mad because you can't stop thinking about their arguments, statements and positions.

This is the life of a New Testament student. And that furthers this great conversation into action and devotion. Well, hopefully.

Porter on Da Vinci

Stanley Porter has an excellent article The Da Vinci Code, Conspiracy Theory and the Biblical Canon in the latest McMaster Journal of Theology and Ministry. I'm due to give another series of talks on this soon, so if you're interested in this kind of thing, which is getting rather old, but still useful in helping others into the field of historical Jesus research, check it out...

Wish List

Well, I've been thinking about my own wish list at the moment. And here's what I've come up with:

The Original Story: God, Israel, and the World: John Barton and Julia Bowden

Basically I want this book because I'm always on the look out for solid introductions to the Hebrew scriptures. I feel my knowledge of this corpus is woefully lacking and thus I do try and read some good books that aren't too technical but written by scholars who can be trusted to be reliable guides in this field. In this case, I think Barton and Bowden have done us a great service.

Studying the Historical Jesus: C. A. Evans & Bruce Chilton

A must have for every serious historical Jesus scholar. And since that's what I want to be one day, this is a must have, must read, must know very well book that outlines and details the contemporary state of scholarship on the historical Jesus. Issues ranging from methods to archaeology to the resurrection are covered by fine scholars who have made significant contributions in the field.

The Gospel of Matthew: John Nolland

If the precis is right, Nolland will argue for much of material in this gospel as relating back to, and having its origins in, the words and ministry of Jesus. Nolland has shown himself to be a fine exegete in his three volume commentary on Luke and so I'm very interested to see what he'll do with Matthew. Even though I'm sceptical of new arguments and material for an early dating [although very interested] this should prove a valuable book on the gospel that is desperately needed.

Four Gospels and the One Jesus: Martin Hengel

Written by possibly the greatest new testament scholar alive providing us with powerful arguments about the gospels, their respective authors and how they were assembled and written this is a must read for any serious student of the gospels.

Jesus and the Kingdom of God: Beasley-Murray

A fine survey, even though it is slightly dated, of the kingdom of God material and the scholarship that surrounds and intrudes upon this topic. Beasley-Murray has done his homework well and this book will provide a necessary reading for my thesis on the kingdom.

Jesus and His Death and The Historical Jesus in Recent Research which I mentioned below, would also be nice, once they're published! McKnight is definitely one of my favourite scholars. A New Vision for Israel is one of the most helpful books on the historical Jesus that I've read. Even though I think the categories that the book exlore are based on T.W. Manson's books, the content is well worth it. Especially the chapters on conversion!

Notably all these books have to do with my thesis - so that's why I want to read them! But I think I'll have to wait until the end of this year before looking at getting these. New Zealand is a better place to buy and even order books! Now if only there was a benefactor in NZ that could sponsor me some books. I wonder who's that kind? Come on Eddie! :)

Good Books, Good Reads

Since some are offering their great books on Jesus, I thought I'd add my thoughts to putting together a top ten reads on Jesus. Notably, I have divided my list into academic and popular so as to make this helpful for those who don't want to wonder into the forbidden realms of academic dialogue which can at times have more footnotes than insight...

Academic List

1. N.T. Wright, Jesus and the Victory of God
2. G.B. Caird, New Testament Theology, chp. 9. [Jesus and the Jewish Nation]
3. B. Meyer, The Aims of Jesus
4. Scot McKnight, A New Vision for Israel
5. Craig A. Evans Jesus and His Contemporaries
6. John P. Meier, A Marginal Jew
7. R. H. Horsley Jesus and the Spiral of Violence
8. E.P. Sanders, Jesus and Judaism
9. Ben Witherington, The Christology of Jesus
10. James Dunn, Jesus Remembered

The Top Popular books on Jesus, would have to include...

1. D. Wenham, The Parables of Jesus
2. Tom Wright, The Challenge of Jesus
3. Scot McKnight, The Jesus Creed
4. Markus Bockmuehl, This Jesus
5. J. John & Chris Walley, The Life
6. E. P. Sanders, The Historical Jesus
7. C. Blomberg, Jesus and the Gospels
8. G. Stanton, The Gospels and Jesus
9. B. Young, Jesus the Jewish Theologian
10. R. Stein, Jesus the Messiah

Some new books on the horizon to be aware of would have to be:

Jesus and His Death: Scot McKnight. The write up reads,

Recent scholarship on the historical Jesus has rightly focused upon how Jesus understood his own mission. But no scholarly effort to understand the mission of Jesus can rest content without exploring the historical possibility that Jesus envisioned his own death. In this careful and far-reaching study, Scot McKnight contends that Jesus did in fact anticipate his own death, that Jesus understood his death as an atoning sacrifice, and that his death as an atoning sacrifice stood at the heart of Jesus' own mission to protect his own followers from the judgment of God.

Another interesting book is a collection of articles on the historical Jesus edited by S. McKnight and J. D. G. Dunn, The Historical Jesus in Recent Research.

The past two or three decades have witnessed significant activity in research on the Jesus of the Gospels and history. In fact, there has been such a plethora of publication on such a wide variety of facets of this issue that it is difficult to keep pace with the rate of publication. In this volume, Dunn and McKnight have collected and provided introductions to a wide cross-section of essays on the topic, ranging from classic essays by the likes of Bultmann, Cadbury, and Schweitzer to the most recent investigations of Horsley, Levine, and Wright. This volume will be a very useful book for courses and seminars on Jesus or the historical Jesus, because it draws together in one place a wide variety of perspectives and approaches to the issues.

Authors represented include: P. S. Alexander, D. C. Allison, P. W. Barnett, M. J. Borg, R. Bultmann, H. J. Cadbury, P. M. Casey, G. B. Caird, B. Chilton, C. E. B. Cranfield, J. D. G. Dunn, R. A. Horsley, J. Jeremias, M. Kähler, W. G. Kümmel, E. F. Lemcio, A.-J. Levine, G. Luedemann, J. P. Meier, B. F. Meyer, R. Morgan, J. A. T. Robinson, E. P. Sanders, A. Schweitzer, K. R. Snodgrass, G. N. Stanton, P. Stuhlmacher, G. Theissen, N. T. Wright.

This looks like a great intro to the quest. Notoably, missing are members of the Jesus Seminar and paticularly J. D. Crossan. Not that I'm a fan of his work, or theirs for that matter [His method is far too awkward and idiosyncratic for this student] but he did offer a significant contribution which many have taken some what seriously.

See also the quick review of Scripture and the Authority of God by Mike Starkey. Thanks to Mark Goodacre for the link.

Stuff & Stuff

Greetings and it's so good to be home...

Well, kind of. There is much work to be done but I couldn't help but blog about the following article and interviews reproduced at the Journal of Philosophy and Scripture. There are two particularly interesting interviews with Ed Sanders on Paul, Context and Interpretation as well as one with Dom Crossan about Paul and Empire. There is also an interesting article on Empire and Eschaton, but the merits of this article are questionable. Notably, the slant of the journal affects the questions being asked and thus the answers delivered, but I'm glad that scholars are taking more notice of the philosophical issues involved in Biblical studies. Tom Wright and Ben Meyer have done a fab job of highlighting the need for well grounded philosophical starting blocks for effective historical criticism and there is a serious need for this. Thus I concur with Bird in his remarks about Critical Realism.

I've just received a copy of R. Bauckham's Bible and Mission: Christian Witness in a Postmodern World and it seems to complement rather well Tom Wright's little book on Scripture and the Authority of God. I hope to blog on these later, but more importantly, I hope to blog on the array of book on the Roman Empire, Augustus and Tiberias that I got while I was in England. But that will have to wait for a little bit, while I read them!

By request, my wish list is also coming... There is hope of getting some MORE books after all - if these can be sourced and delivered...

ciao