Roman History and Background

In doing some research on the Roman and imperial background for my upcoming course on the New Testament, I've found some excellent websites.

Greek and Roman Corinth

Augustus: Images of Power

Rome: From Republic to Empire

Roman Emperors

Augustus and Tiberius

The Roman Imperial Cult: Bibliography

Bruce Winter showed us a picture of ancient Corinth reconstructed at last year's SBL. But for the life of me, I can't find the picture online. Does anyone know where it is?

πιστις χριστου in Phil 3:9

I'm currently engaged in a back and forth discussion with Mark Keown regarding the validity of the subjective genitive reading of πιστις χριστου in Philippians 3:9. Mark is remaining neutral, while I am persuaded that this is clearly a subjective genitive, and thus refers to the faithfulness of Christ. Commentators on Philippians are divided on this issue: Barth, O'Brien, Sumney, Fowl, Bockmuehl and Cousar have argued for a subjective genitive, while Hawthorne, Fee, Silva, and Reuman have argued for an objective genitive. The entries by O'Brien and Bockmuehl are particularly helpful in demonstrating the subjective genitive reading.

If anyone has any other references to scholarship that deal specifically with Phil. 3:9, please could you let me know. [[I've lost my copy of Morna Hooker's excellent article, 'πιστις χριστου,' NTS 35 (1989) pg. 321-42, so I'll have to go make another copy (EBSCO doesn't have it!) The discussion by Ian G. Wallis The Faith of Jesus Christ in Early Christian Traditions (Cambridge, 1985) is particularly helpful!]]

I've translated Philippians 3:9 as follows: not having a righteousness of my own that comes from the law, but one that comes through the faithfulness of the Messiah, the righteousness from God based on faith. The contrast between human righteousness and God's righteousness alone suggests to me that the faithfulness of the Messiah (sub. gen.) is the correct reading.

Since there is an echo of the Christ hymn (Phil 2:6-11) in chapter 3, the phrase dia pisteos Christou can serve as shorthand for the obedient self-surrender of Jesus - that is, to his faithful obedience unto death on a cross (2:8). Futhermore, if the subjective genitive is read, then one avoids duplication with the last phrase in 3:9, "the righteousness of God based on faith.

[Charles Cousar, Philippians and Philemon: A Commentary, NTL (WJK, 2009) pg. 73-74]

The righteousness of God is revealed and established "through the faithfulness of Christ" to which believers respond on the basis of faith.

[Stephen Fowl, Philippians, (Eerdmans, 2005) pg. 154]

Let the debate, I mean discussion, continue.

Teaching the New Testament

So, in about two months time I'll be teaching my first Introduction to the New Testament course (1st year undergraduate course), and I'm super excited, and concerned. First off, this gives me a chance to exercise my generalist tendencies, since I'll be introducing the NT, not just Paul, Peter, John, the Synoptics or Jesus. However, there are some daunting elements, such as what to include and what to exclude. There is only so much one can cover, and I don't want to privilege anything, but give the NT a fair hearing. So here's my list of questions for those engaged in teaching, and for those who've done an Introduction to the NT.

Those who Teach

1. What text book(s) is the most helpful?
2. Should/did you include the historical Jesus?
3. Background contexts and information? [Overview of 2nd Temple Judaism? Roman history?]
4. Textbook or list of readings?
5. How do you deal with Paul? Letter by letter, or theme by theme?

Those who Study

1. What was the best part of your intro course?
2. What was the worst part of your intro course?
3. Text book or collection of readings?
4. More time given to lecturing, class discussion or group work?
5. Powerpoint or lecture outline?

Anyone: Got advice, tips, do's and dont's for a newbie? I recognise that some of this will be highly subjective, and I'll just have to proceed via trial and error. I've taught individual letters before (at this level), which I really enjoyed. But the thought of trying to cover the whole NT is scary. So any help would be appreciated!

NETS Available Online

For those wanting to read an english translation of the Hebrew Scriptures/Old Testament the first Christians (most likely) read, The New English Translation of the Septuagint (NETS) is freely available online. This translation surpasses the old one of Sir Lancelot C. L. Brenton (1851). See also The Septuagint online for the Greek texts. These are invaluable resources for those doing inter-textual study of the two testaments.

Enjoy!

Exegetical Summary Series

Has anyone used these? I'd never heard of them until last night when Logos sent me their email about it. The write up suggests the following:

The 24-volume Exegetical Summaries Series asks important exegetical and interpretive questions—phrase-by-phrase—and summarizes and organizes the content from every major Bible commentary and dozens of lexicons. You can instantly identify exegetical challenges, discover a text’s interpretive history, and survey the scope of everything written about each verse and phrase.

“This series offers endless exegetical assistance . . . summarizing the major exegetical issues in interpretation. . . . It includes comprehensive analysis of the raw data of the text.”—Online reviewer

Since no single commentary provides all the answers needed for translation, exegesis, and interpretation, the Exegetical Summaries Series serves as a valuable supplement. This series has been developed by linguists and commentators affiliated with SIL International, and combines the best from the fields of linguistics and textual criticism with erudite biblical commentary.

The books in the Exegetical Summaries Series survey the scope of everything written about every phrase in nearly every book in the New Testament, along with two books in the Old Testament, giving you the tools you need to compare commentaries and lexicons and identify instances of both scholarly consensus and disagreement. Rather than replace the commentaries consulted, these books are meant to provide a comprehensive summary, thus making more sources of exegetical help available to preachers, scholars, and students of the Bible than they may have access to otherwise.

Fundamental Facts - Provenance of Philippians

Hawthorne helpfully notes key issues we must address when discussing the provenance of Philippians.

There are certain fundamental factors that must be considered before even a tentative conclusion as to place and date can be reached. Some of these include (1) the fact that Paul was in prison when he wrote (Phil 1:7, 13, 17); (2) the fact that Paul faced a trial that could end in his death (1:19-20, 2:17) or acquittal (1:25; 2:24); (3) the fact that from wherever it was that Paul wrote there was the praetorium (1:13), and there were “those who belonged to Caesar’s household” (4:22); (4) the fact that Timothy was with Paul (1:1; 2:19-23); (5) the fact that extensive evangelistic efforts were going on around Paul at the time he wrote to Philippians (1:14-17); (6) the fact that Paul soon planned to visit Philippi if he were acquitted (2:24), and (7) the fact that several trips were made back and forth between Philippi and the place from which Paul wrote Philippians – all within the time-span of his imprisonment: (a) news travelled to Philippi of Paul’s arrest, (b) the Philippians therefore sent Epaphroditus to Paul with a gift to aid him in his distress, (c) news of Epaphroditus’ illness was sent back to Philippi, (d) word that the Philippians were greatly concerned about Epaphroditus reached Paul (See 2:25-30) and (e) Paul hoped to send Timothy to the Philippians and get encouragement back from them through him before he himself set off for Philippi (2:19, 24).

Hawthorne, Philippians, pg. xxxvii

Overall, I'm beginning to favour a Roman provenance, against Hawthorne who unusually advocates a Caesarean origin (See Acts 23:23-26:32). While I think Rome is probable, we must admit a certain epistemic humility in our judgements as the evidence is ambiguous and incomplete.

EDUCE Project

Michael Halcomb has a brilliant post on Virtually Unwrapping Ancient Scrolls. This is an exciting development that may yield some astonishing discoveries! Check it out!

Barth and the Trinity

So I had another day delving deep into theological mysteries to profound. Thanks to Khegan, my new found theological friend, I read Aaron Smith's paper "God’s self-specification: his being is his electing" SJT 62(1): 1–25 (2009) and George Husinger "Election and the Trinity: Twenty-Five Theses on The Theology of Karl Barth" Modern Theology 24:2 April 2008.

I ordered Engaging the Doctrine of God ed. Bruce L. Mccormack and will probably get Orthodox and Modern: Studies in the Theology of Karl Barth by Bruce L. McCormack. I have not adequately understood McCormack's position, and the only way to fairly evaluate his views is to read his material. Bruce McCormack was most engaging at the recent Trinitarian Theology After Barth conference, and he really made me think.

I found Paul Molnar's article, available online, The Trinity and the Freedom of God exceptionally helpful and next week will give occassion to reading his book: Divine Freedom and the Doctrine of the Immanent Trinity.

The questions that arise from this thinking and reflecting thus far, are as follows:

1. What is the relationship between the immanent and economic trinity? Are they the same? Different? How? When? Where?
2. Is God’s being is constituted by God’s act?
3. Who is the logos asarkos? Is he exactly the same as Jesus of Nazareth?
4. What specific metaphysical presuppositions determine the answers to these questions, and how?
5. Withregards to Barth, how does his doctrine of election shape/determine his understanding of the trinity?
6. The ultimate question, which all of this finally leads to is, Who is God?
7. My last question: Who on earth can answer these questions?

All this to say, I've forsaken biblical studies this month...

But perhaps forsaking biblical studies in this discussion was my first mistake!

Trinitarian Theology After Barth

Well, that was the title of the conference I've just attended. What an excellent selection of speakers and papers, which has provoked much thought. Bruce McCormack, Paul Molnar, Murray Rae, Ivor Davidson, Hayden Nelson, Ben Myers and Ashley Moyse among others gave papers on aspects of Barth's thought in light of his Trinitarian doctrine.

As someone devoted to biblical studies, I was completely unaware of the debate between Molnar and McCormack on Barth's understanding of the trinity. The discussion is thick, and I had one of those "Eureka!" moments as I understood what the discussion amounted to. The short of it is that Barth does not have a second doctrine of the trinity (sorry Ben). I am also now thoroughly convinced that Bauckham was absolutely right to abandon ontic and functional categories in favour of a Christology of Divine Identity - See Jesus and the God of Israel for a further exploration.

Anyway, Paul Molnar will be teaching a post-grad seminar on Christology and the Trinity next week, and I've managed to sneak my way into that one, so that'll be interesting. It's good being a student again. This is the life I was meant to live...

The Provenance of Philippians

The three options for the provenance of Philippians are Rome, Caesarea, and Ephesus. The two most argued places of composition are Rome [See the commentaries by O'Brien; Fee; Bockmuehl and Hooker] and Ephesus [See the commentaries by J. H. Michael; Carolyn Osiek and Frank Thielman's, "Ephesus and the Literary Setting of Philippians"]. Traditionally, Rome is the preferred option, although there is an increase in interest in Ephesus. Interestingly, The Acts of Paul note Paul's incarceration at Ephesus:

Now they who drew up the travels of Paul have related that he did many other things, and among them this, which befell when he was at Ephesus. Hieronymus being governor, Paul used liberty of speech, and he (Hieronymus) said that he (Paul) was able to speak well, but that this was not the time for such words. But the people of the city, fiercely enraged, put Paul's feet into irons, and shut him up in the prison, till he should be exposed as a prey to the lions. But Eubula and Artemilla, wives of eminent men among the Ephesians, being his attached disciples, and visiting him by night, desired the grace of the divine washing. And by God's power, with angels to escort them and enlighten the gloom of night with the excess of the brightness that was in them, Paul, loosed from his iron fetters, went to the sea-shore and initiated them into holy baptism, and returning to his bonds without any of those in care of the prison perceiving it, was reserved as a prey for the lions.

[Translation by M. R. James]

Interestingly, Charles Cousar in his latest commentary on Philippians suggests this, and notes that "Ephesus [is] the least problematic option of the three options... Ephesus seems the better choice and the one I use in the commentary."

Resident blogger, Mike Bird appears to opt for an Ephesian setting as well. Mark Keown argues strongly against this in his monograph, Congregational Evangelism in Philippians. Since Mark will be my teacher next semester, we'll have plenty of opportunity to thrash this around.