SBL Motion for Atlanta

Daniel Kirk has posted that he has received the following, which will be presented as a motion at the SBL business meeting in Atlanta. It is a four-part motion, which evidently has the backing of some heavy-hitters in the Society:

1. That the mission statement of SBL be emended to read “fostering critical biblical scholarship.”

2. That only students who have been admitted to a doctoral program be permitted to read papers at the annual meeting, and that those students should have the approval of their doctoral advisers.

3. That the “core values” of SBL be emended to include the following statement: “Public discourse in SBL should not be based on confessional norms, but we welcome the participation of people of all persuasions.”

4. That  groups that  have doctrinal requirements shall not be eligible for Affiliate status, but may participate in the “Additional Meetings” category of the Annual Meeting.

If you want your voice to be heard, I suppose you should make the trip to Atlanta. See you there!

Scholarship and the Church? Raymond Brown weighs in

Here’s a quote-worthy passage from Raymond Brown’s Introduction to the New Testament (Doubleday, 1997). I think it’s particularly relevant to some of the conversations taking place regarding the SBL, as well as the perennial discussion regarding the relationship between the Church and the scholars who subject the Scriptures of Christianity and Judaism to scrutiny. Should Christians be afraid of scholarship? Should scholars fear informed Christian input? Listen in as Brown gives his opinion. He is responding to historical Jesus research, but his words are relevant for biblical scholarship in general:

On the other hand, the Bultmannian reaction to the quest [for the historical Jesus], which almost makes faith independent of (inevitably uncertain) historical research, need not be the only solution. Indeed, one can argue that churches and believers should not be indifferent to careful historical scholarship about the Bible. Rather, leavening and rephrasing traditional ideas under the impact of careful scholarship is better than either overthrowing the ideas or ignoring scholarship. Following the principle of fides quaerens intellectum (faith seeking intellectually respectable expression), Christian belief has nothing to fear solid, careful scholarly research. Such a position requires openness on both sides. On the part of church authorities, there should be a recognition that past phrasings of faith are time-conditioned and are susceptible to being rephrased. Through critical biblical study, what was once assumed to be a necessary aspect of belief (e.g., creation in six days with rest on the seventh) may prove to be only a dramatic way of phrasing what remains essential (namely, that no matter how things came into existence, it was through God’s planning and power). For their part scholars would do well to avoid rhetoric whereby their discoveries are presented as certain, making the discoverers the infallible arbiters of Christian faith. Biblical books are documents written by those who believed in the God of Abraham and the Father of Jesus Christ; good sense suggests that communities sharing that faith have an authority in dealing with those books. (page 828)

What do you think? Was Bultmann correct in positing a disconnect between scholarship and faith? Or was Raymond Brown on the money by suggesting that the Church should assimilate reasoned scholarship into its dogma?

The Death of Dale Allison’s Jesus

What follows is a brief write up on the death of Dale Allison’s Jesus. I say “Dale Allison’s Jesus” rather than simply “Jesus” as a reminder that all historical reconstructions, whether by Allison, Meier, Dunn, or others, are just that…reconstructions. The historian’s Jesus is not the same as Jesus of Nazareth; it is our reconstruction of what he may have said, done, or perhaps thought (this last one is the most precarious endeavor).

In The End of the Ages Has Come: An Early Interpretation of the Passion and Resurrection of Jesus (Fortress, 1985), Dale Allison attempts to reconstruct the earliest meaning given to the death and resurrection of Jesus, which he locates in the variegated Jewish expectations regarding the “great tribulation,” followed by the vindication of the righteous at the general resurrection of the dead (e.g. 2 Apoc. Bar. 25–29; 1 En. 99–100; Sib. Or. III, and 4 Ezra ).

Like many other first-century Jews, Allison’s Jesus interpreted his life in light of the Scriptures, particularly Dan 7. Understanding Dan 7:13-14 collectively, he saw himself as the “one like a son of man” pictured, who represents the people of God (p. 128–37). Allison’s Jesus located himself and his disciples at the center of the coming great tribulation, and he believed his mission was, at least in part, to announce the coming of the Kingdom of God, which was at war with the Kingdom of Satan (p. 123). Allison’s Jesus did foresee his death, which he anticipated would come about as a result of the great tribulation. It is not immediately clear whether Allison’s Jesus saw himself currently in the midst of the great tribulation (pp. 117, 118, 120) or whether he saw it as something imminent, but still future (pp. 141, 149, 170). However, he did not foresee his death through any divine prescience, rather he simply deduced that death was his lot by virtue of (1) the whole prophetic and apocalyptic tradition that anticipated suffering before the final triumph of the people of God, (2) the history of prophets over the centuries, which emphasized the prophets role as one who suffers, (3) the death of John the Baptist, which would have underscored that death was still part of the prophetic job description, (4) common sense, especially in light of the latter stages of his ministry (p. 116). Moreover, Allison’s Jesus is not said to have attributed any soteriological meaning to his death other than what was entailed in the pattern of suffering-vindication. Thus, he hoped that, after suffering unjustly, both he and his martyred followers would find vindication at the imminent general resurrection of the dead (p. 140).

While Allison does not offer a full reconstruction of the historical Jesus per se, his treatment of Jesus’ reasoned anticipation of his impending premature death does fit comfortably within the overall portrait of Jesus as a Jewish apocalyptic prophet, which Allison espouses elsewhere. Allison’s Jesus hoped that the Kingdom of God would be fully manifested soon as the time of eschatological tribulation drew to a climax. For Allison, Jesus was neither caught unawares by his death, nor did he have divine control over it. Rather, he anticipated that he would suffer and die in the present eschatological distress, after which time he would experience vindication at the general resurrection of the dead (p. 141). This, Allison’s Jesus believed, was the pattern to be followed by all his followers.

An Update of Sorts

Greetings everybody! I know I’ve been a bit quite aloof lately. We have moved to Waco, and today I just finished my German reading course, which was quite rewarding. I had previously tried to learn German on my own using Reading German by Coles and Dodd. However, like many who have tried to study German on their own, I really struggled to make sense of some of the more difficult concepts. At Baylor, we used German Quickly by April Wilson. I really like Wilson’s approach and her use of proverbs in the sentence exercises. As the course went along, I created an iFlash deck for the vocabulary for the entire book. I’ve uploaded said file to the iFlash deck library server, so you can download it and enjoy the fruits of my labor!

What else is new? Next week, Rachel and I are heading to a pre-Ph.D. vacation before the fall semester starts. St. Lucia here we come!

My hope is that I will be posting more regularly again, so do stay tuned. If you haven’t already done it, please subscribe and/or check back regularly!

Cheers!

N.T. (Tom) Wright moving to St. Andrews

According the website for the Diocese of Durham website, Tom Wright is retiring from the See of Durham and joining St. Andrews as Research Professor of New Testament and Early Christianity.

Dr Wright, who will be 62 this autumn, is returning to the academic world, in which he spent the first twenty years of his career, and will take up a new appointment as Research Professor of New Testament and Early Christianity at the University of St Andrews in Scotland.

Announcing his move, Bishop Tom said, ‘This has been the hardest decision of my life. It has been an indescribable privilege to be Bishop of the ancient Diocese of Durham, to work with a superb team of colleagues, to take part in the work of God’s kingdom here in the north-east, and to represent the region and its churches in the House of Lords and in General Synod. I have loved the people, the place, the heritage and the work. But my continuing vocation to be a writer, teacher and broadcaster, for the benefit (I hope) of the wider world and church, has been increasingly difficult to combine with the complex demands and duties of a diocesan bishop. I am very sad about this, but the choice has become increasingly clear.’

(See official St. Andrews notice here.)

St. Andrews already strong program just became even more attractive to would-be PhD students. Have a look at the NT department here.

I’m starting a PhD!

As many of you no doubt are aware, I have been going through the PhD application process for the past…oh…forever. Well, I am delighted to report that the application process is now over!!!

I have been offered a generous spot at Baylor University, which I am proud to say I accepted! I’ll be joining a great and talented group of students and look forward to developing as a biblical scholar over the next several years.

One of the aspects that I really appreciate about the program at Baylor is that it is NOT properly a NT degree. The PhD is in Biblical Studies, and my major is NT and my minor is OT, so I will be able to market myself more broadly in the job market. In other words, I won’t be a “one trick pony”!

The application process has been grueling, and is definitely NOT for the faint of heart. Nonetheless, it has been worth it. I’m excited to get my studies underway! I’ll be starting German at Baylor in June!

Pistis Christou in JTS

Here’s the complete bibliographic information for my article fresh off the press at JTS:

Michael R. Whitenton, “After ΠΙΣΤΙΣ ΧΡΙΣΤΟΥ: Neglected Evidence from the Apostolic Fathers,” JTS 61 (2010): 82–109

Also, check out Daniel Kirk’s discussion on πίστις Χριστοῦ (pistis Christou)!

Stephen Colbert on Glenn Beck and Social Justice

This is hilarious and meaningful at the same time!

Click here.

HT: James McGrath

New Addition to the Pistis Christou Debate

Here is the link to my new article that deals with the pistis Christou construction in the earliest church fathers. It is largely a response to Harrisville and others who say that the church fathers do not ever refer to the faithfulness of Jesus Christ. I have found six places where I believe they do.

For those attending SWCRS (SW Regional SBL) this Weekend

Before you come hear John Anderson’s paper, I invite you to come hear my paper, “After Πίστις Χριστοῦ: The Faith of Jesus Christ in the Apostolic Fathers.” I am presenting on Saturday at 1:30PM. I’m not sure which room yet, but that will all be worked out in due course. Here’s the abstract:

What light do the Apostolic Fathers shed on the perennial debate over the πιίστις Χριστοῦ construction in Paul (Gal. 2:16 [twice], 20; 3:22; Rom. 3:22, 26; Phil. 3:9; cf. Eph. 3:12 [τῆς πίστεως αὐτοῦ]; 4:13)? While it is often asserted that the early Church Fathers did not speak of the faithfulness of Jesus, a complete analysis of similar constructions in the Apostolic Fathers has yet to be registered. Against the scholarly consensus, this paper offers conclusive evidence that the Apostolic Fathers did indeed speak of the faithfulness of Jesus Christ.

Do stop by and say hello. Likewise, if you are planning on attending, do leave a note.

(Yes, I have ripped the structure of this post directly from John. No, this is not indicative of my work as a scholar. )