Events & Interpretation

Recent events of my sickness have kept me from posting much these days... Lying in bed with the evil flu has even prevented reading my new books. I found some odd sale in a random bookshop only to discover that what they were selling was BRILLIANT! I picked up volume 3.4 and 4.1 of Karl Barth's Church Dogmatics (Brand new in soft cover) for 10 pounds. I then discovered a softcover of Barrett's ICC commentary on Acts 1-14 for 4 pounds (Brand new). I think I must have spent about 30pounds and found some BRILLIANT books, all brand new, and have now added them to my library. I can't figure out how or why they are so CHEAP, but I'm not complaining. I even found a copy of Paul and the Law by Thielman, for like 3 pounds. It was ridiculous.

More to the point of this post though: Michael Pahl has a little gem Event and Interpretation, which is well worth pondering. My Nemesis Eddie will love it...

I'm still trying to crack Gal 3:20, as well as the whole of 10-14, but I'll post more on that later. I think Richard Hays is one of the best commentators on Galatians, but I haven't read Martyn yet and Hays seems to be building on Martyn's shoulders.

On the other side of the field, before I got sick I was thoroughly enjoying Goldingay's Israel's Gospel, which I think is excellent. Not sure about Israel's Faith, because it's far more systematic, whereas I'm enjoying the Narrative approach. His section on Creation is superbly written, so that even my wife was enjoying it!

Anyway, back to bed... Hope to post soon. Take care...

Gal 3:20 - any clues?

Galatians 3:20 Now a mediator involves more than one party; but God is one.

I'm presenting a paper on Galatians 3-4 soon and I'm stumped. The most honest confession about this passage I can find is by F. F. Bruce.

The two statements in v 20 are completely intelligible if each is taken by itself. It goes without saying that a mediator requires at least two parties between which he is to mediate; he cannot mediate on behalf of one party only. That God is one is the theological basis of Judaism and Christianity alike… It is the relation between the two clauses that constitute the interpretive problem. In what way does the affirmation that God is one form an antithesis to what is said about the mediator? The number of solutions offered to the problem as been reckoned to exceed 300 – one might wonder, indeed , if this is Robert Browning’s ‘great text in Galatians’ with its ‘twenty-nine distinct damnations’ for the unwary exegete.

[Bruce, Commentary on Galatians, pg. 178]

Any other ideas? ANyone have a clue as to how this relates to the argument of Gal 3? Recommeded articles? Looking through Burton, Bruce, Hays, Longenecker, Witherinton and they don't seem to have much clue either... Desperation haunts this wary exegete...

Gal 3:2 - Translating

The only thing I want to learn from you is this: Did you receive the Spirit by performing the works of the Torah or by trusting what you heard?

Richard Hays notes the difficulty in translating this verse and offers the various possibilities.[1]

The Meaning of ex akoēs pisteōs

If akoē means “hearing”: a) pistis = “believing”: “By hearing with faith”

b) pistis = “the faith”: “by hearing the faith (i.e., “by hearing the gospel)

If akoē means “message”: c) pistis = “believing”: “from the message that elicits faith”

d) pistis = “the faith”: “from the message of the faith” (i.e., “from the gospel message”)

Hays goes on to note that:

The noun akoē can sometimes mean “hearing,” but Paul’s use of it in a similar context in Rom 10:16-17 suggests that he understands it to mean “what is heard” – in other words, the proclaimed message… Here the interpreter of the letter is faced with a crucial fork in the road. Does Paul attribute the receiving of the Spirit to a human action (“hearing with faith”) or to divine initiative (“the message that elicits faith”)?[2]

I have translated this as “trusting what you heard” since ajkoh commonly referred to “the content of what is heard.”[3] I'm not convinced Hays has succeeded in demonstrating that the possible interpretations are mutually exclusive. If the Galatians trusted Paul’s message, it does not therefore negate the power of the message to provoke or elicit trust. It merely notes that by trusting what was spoken by Paul, and not by performing the various Jewish commandments, the Spirit descended upon them. Thus, I would still want to argue that this leaves open the question of divine initiative and human action.

[1] This table is found in Hays, “Galatians”, pg. 252 and further discussed in R. B. Hays, The Faith of Jesus Christ (Scholars Press, 1983) pgs. 143-149

[2] Hays, “Galatians”, pg. 252

[3] Longenecker, Galatians, pg. 103

Laconic Sages

The pressure is to much, so I'll quickly advertise this once, and never again. Some friends and I have started another blog: LACONIC SAGES to discuss church, discipleship and anything else that effects being a follower of Jesus in our post-modern world. There are no limits to what we will or won't discuss, so it's going to be interesting.

If you're interested or that way inclined, check it out...

ciao, sean D.

New Perspective on Paul

In summary: (a) It builds on Sanders' new perspective on Second Temple Judaism, and Sanders' reassertion of the basic graciousness expressed in Judaism's understanding and practice of covenantal nomism. (b) It observes that a social function of the law was an integral aspect of Israel's covenantal nomism, where separateness to God (holiness) was understood to require separateness from the (other) nations as two sides of the one coin, and that the law was understood as the means to maintaining both. (c) It notes that Paul's own teaching on justification focuses largely if not principally on the need to over-come the barrier which the law was seen to interpose between Jew and Gentile, so that the 'all' of 'to all who believe' (Rom. 1.17) signifies in the first place, Gentile as well as Jew. (d) It suggests that 'works of law' became a key slogan in Paul's exposition of his justification gospel because so many of Paul's fellow Jewish believers were insisting on certain works as indispensable to their own (and others?) standing within the covenant, and therefore as indispensable to salvation. (e) It protests that failure to recognize this major dimension of Paul's doctrine of justification by faith may have ignored or excluded a vital factor in combating the nationalism and racialism which has so distorted and diminished Christianity past and present.

- James D. G. Dunn, The New Perspective on Paul: Collected Essays. WUNT 185, Tubingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2005, 15.

HT: Metalepsis. One should quickly note that it is rumoured that this volume will be published by Eerdmans, so as to make it more accessable. That will be fabtastic!

Tuesday, April 19, 2005

Well, two years ago this blog began as an avenue to explore my research on Jesus and the Roman Empire. We've had some twists and turns, some unexpected events and even a marriage in that time. So here's to another few years exploring the blogosphere and interacting with the world of the 1st century Pagans, Jews & Christians. It's been fun and informative so far, may that tradition continue.

YAHOO!

Christology in 2 Cor 3:16-18

Chris Tilling crosses exegetical sabers with his supervisor Max Turner in a fascinating discussion of 2 Cor 3:12-18, specifically discussing 2 Cor 3:16-18.

12 Since, then, we have such a hope, we act with great boldness, 13 not like Moses, who put a veil over his face to keep the people of Israel from gazing at the end of the glory that was being set aside. 14 But their minds were hardened. Indeed, to this very day, when they hear the reading of the old covenant, that same veil is still there, since only in Christ is it set aside. 15 Indeed, to this very day whenever Moses is read, a veil lies over their minds; 16 but when one turns to the Lord, the veil is removed. 17 Now the Lord is the Spirit, and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom. 18 And all of us, with unveiled faces, seeing the glory of the Lord as though reflected in a mirror, are being transformed into the same image from one degree of glory to another; for this comes from the Lord, the Spirit. [NRSV]

It's exegetical discussions like these that blogs are rather spectacular for. My ignorance persists as I try and understand the complexities of the issue and in a comment I've posed the following to Chris:

So how do you understand "The Lord is the Spirit"? Vs 18's "LORD" can refer to Jesus if Paul is arguing along the same lines as Rom 8:29 with regards to image. The question in my mind becomes, why switch from Christ in v14, to Spirit in v17, back to Christ in 18? This does appear to be a rather complex passage...

Matters are complicated for me by the fact that my commentaries on 2 Corinthians are all in New Zealand! (Martin & Barnett, and Witherington and Keener hardly deal with the matter in any depth and Harris is a tad expensive at the moment!) Keener does appear to suggest that image would naturally lead one to the image of Christ but does not engage in much discussion. Witherington notes the discussion, but argues that LORD refers to the Spirit (Conflict and Community in Corinth, pg. 382). Actually, Witherington's position seems likely, as likely as any other position! But now it appears that Gordon Fee has changed his mind in support of a Christological referent. This leaves us hungry for more: How will Chris [& Fee] argue that this has a Christological referent?

This is delicious side-track...

UPDATE

Looking through Plummer's old ICC Commentary on 2 Cor 3:16 and he is quite adamant that Lord refers to Christ (pg. 102). So Chris stands in good company. I wonder what the updated ICC, written by Thrall, does with this?

Witherington on Paul

- He is no armchair theologian pondering out the meaning of theological minutiae. He is, rather, doing his best pastorally to shore up the beliefs and behaviour of his converts so that they can endure as part of a countercultural movement under pressure and persecution. He deliberately draws on imperial rhetoric in his theological expressions and transferring it to Christ and the Lawless One because he believes that only Jesus is truly Lord and that the emperor has no right to command absolute allegiance, much less worship. Paul expects his letters to be read, indeed to be orally and rhetorically delivered in worship services, which is to say in the context of much prayer, singing, worship, and fellowship of various sorts. His theologising in these letters is surrounded by and indeed bathed in prayers of thanksgiving, wish prayers, prayer reports, benedictions, and the like. There is a profound theology of trust and reliance on the Almighty in thee sections of the letters which some have ignored as untheological. This is a huge mistake.

Paul is a pastoral theologian who lives what he preaches and believes what he says. Experience, not just understanding, is the basis of expression in so much of what he says. However uncomfortable some of us may be with this, it is still an essential feature to understanding Paul’s theology. Nor should we overlook how much worship and Christian experience was the matrix out of which much Christian theological reflection came…

Ben Witherington III 1 and 2 Thessalonians: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary (Eerdmans, 2006) pg. 237. Reviewed by Mark R. Fairchild and by Craig L. Blomberg

Herod as Associated King

J. Gnilka Jesus of Nazareth: Message and History (Hendrickson, 1997) pg. 28 makes the following statement:

Herod’s political position in the power structure of the Roman Empire is designated by the title “Associated king and friend of the people of Rome” (rex socius et amicus populi Romani).

Gnilka however, provides no reference for this quote, and I'm wondering if someone in the Blogosphere can help me with a reference or even a clue. Is it referenced in the German edition: Jesus von Nazaret. Botschaft und Geschichte, (Verlag Herder, Freiburg, 1993)?

Any help would be much appreciated.

Quote of Note

Bad exegesis is no less worse than bad conduct.

Tertullian, On Purity