IBR Pauline Theology Research Group

SBL/IBR conference attenders: if you’re in San Antonio by Friday afternoon, please consider joining me at IBR’s Pauline Theology research group, where we will be hearing some great papers on Romans 1-4. The session is 3:30-5:30pm and meets in the Marriott Rivercenter (conference rooms 20-21). Sadly, the SBL program was not properly updated with the new line up of presenters. Here is who will be reading papers:

Ben C. Blackwell, Houston Baptist University
Justification as the Restoration of Participation in Divine Glory in Romans 2-3 (30 min)

Erin Heim, University of Oxford
Romans 3 and the Logic of Paul’s Atonement Language (30 min)

Ruth Whiteford, Concordia University
The Nature of God’s Grace as Gift and of the Response of Faith in Romans 3:21-4:25 (30 min)

Discussion (28 min)

Hope to see you there!

UPDATE: The program is now fixed! I guess my app needed to be updated. It had it wrong when I opened it first thing this morning.

 

John Barclay and the Efficacy of Grace

I’ve been processing some of John Barclay’s Paul and the Gift. He emphasizes incongruity in Paul but consistently goes to transformative aspects (like life from death, new creation, power) to demonstrate it. This seems as much the reality of the efficacy of grace, which he downplays in Paul (vis-a-vis Augustine). Thoughts?

It seems to me that he only allows for efficacy of grace to be perfected with regard to the will, such that efficacy is the issue at play when monergism is on the table, that is divine agency being the sole and sufficient cause (74). Why should Barclay only limit efficacy to will? It seems that other aspects of human experience are just as dependent upon the power of God’s work–not least in life from the dead.

Barclay’s discussion of judgment by works also seems to belie a theology of efficacy. Even though grace is incongruous from start to finish, “the transformative power of grace thus creates a fit” (569) or a form of “congruity”, though not fully perfected since it’s variable. So it seems to me that Barclay’s articulation of the incongruity of grace entails a form of efficacy of grace, which is not only based in the will as the basis of efficacy but the creation of life from the dead so believers can live (in obedience and be resurrected).

I’m thinking that since the ‘will’ was so important to the Augustine-Pelagius debate that efficacy then becomes tied to the will (for Barclay), but of course other aspects of efficacy were evident in Augustine, such as the role of sacraments and the ex opere operato issues. Of course, will is never totally out of the question, but I’m just not sure that it should always the focus in efficacy.

In short, does the perfection of the ‘efficacy’ of grace necessitate (or should be equated with) ‘irresistible grace’? Notwithstanding the connections between irresistible grace and perseverance, it seems that efficacy could just as well address either or both issues and not just focus on irresistible grace, as it seems Barclay does. I think this focus on perseverance comes out clearly in his disagreements with Brant Pitre in Perspectives on Paul, where Barclay rejects the distinction between an initial and final justification because the initial demands the final not based on human agency.

What thoughts might you have?

 

Lectio Sacra

I briefly introduced the new Lectio Sacra series that I’m a part of. Jim Prothro has provided an even more engaging summary of the intent and purposes of the series over at The Sacred Page, so check that out.

 

Lectio Sacra – Monograph Series

As part of the start of this new semester and new year, I thought I would notify the world of a new monograph series. John Kincaid, Jim Prothro, and I are co-editing the Lectio Sacra monograph series with Cascade books. Let me offer a bit of detail and encourage you to contact one of us if you have a book that would fit:

Lectio Sacra is to be a series of monographs where close readings of biblical texts engage theological questions with interpreters both ancient and modern. The goal is to recover for the church readings that reflect the way the early Jews, Christians, and early theologians read their scriptures as sacred texts and to utilize them for the ongoing tasks of exegesis and theology. Interpreters in antiquity, as today, came with varied presuppositions and approaches to exegesis, but they were united in their approach to Scripture as a sacred text, and they were unafraid to ask explicitly theological and transcendent questions of it. Lectio Sacra aims to follow them in this spirit of exegesis and to utilize their insights and approaches for contemporary dialogue.

Each volume will, in various ways, engage the range of interpretative history, paying particular attention to the exegetical, philosophical and theological judgments of interpreters within this tradition. Some volumes will be anchored in exegesis of the biblical text and, from that basis, engage issues of their ancient interpretation or their bearing on contemporary questions of theology, ethics, etc. Other volumes may be grounded in ancient reception of Scripture, unpacking its relevance for the ongoing task of exegesis and theology. A number of the volumes will incorporate both emphases, the exegesis and the text’s reception into a biblical-theological synthesis of a core theological question. All of the volumes will facilitate conversation about and with Scripture as a sacred text, listening closely to other readers who have done the same. The series will thus contribute to the continued conversation about the task of explicitly theological exegesis. By engaging relevant questions through text and reception, the series will also make ancient interpreters intelligible and relevant for today’s readers.

In sum, this series will not simply contribute to ongoing debates but offer an integration of exegesis and the theological task that will make a real contribution to the world of contemporary biblical and theological scholarship. In short, this series will attempt to model what it entails to be a “master of the sacred page” in the 21^st century.

Managing Editors:
John Kincaid (University of Mary)
Ben Blackwell (Houston Theological Seminary)
Jim Prothro (Augustine Institute)

Editorial Board:
Jason Byassee (Vancouver School of Theology)
Michael Gorman (St. Mary’s Seminary and University)
Jennie Grillo (Notre Dame)
Matthew Levering (University of Saint Mary of the Lake)
Isaac Morales (Providence College)
Lucy Peppiatt (Westminster Theological Centre)

 

Reading Mark in Context – Table of Contents

After receiving a recent review of our book Reading Mark in Context: Jesus and Second Temple Judaism, we wanted to make the table of contents more accessible. We are quite pleased with the significant line-up of excellent Gospels scholars.

Foreword: N. T. Wright

1. Rule of the Community and Mark 1:1–13: Preparing the Way in the Wilderness (Rikk Watts)

2. The Parables of Enoch and Mark 1:14–2:12: The Authoritative Son of Man (Kristian A. Bendoraitis)

3. Josephus and Mark 2:13–3:6: Controversies with the Scribes and Pharisees (Mary Marshall)

4. The Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs and Mark 3:7–35: Apocalyptic and the Kingdom (Elizabeth E. Shively)

5. 4 Ezra and Mark 4:1–34: Parables on Seeds, Sowing, and Fruit (Klyne Snodgrass)

6. The Testament of Solomon and Mark 5:1–20: Exorcism and Power over Evil Spirits (Michael F. Bird)

7. Mishnah Zabim and Mark 5:21–6:6a: The Rules on Purity (David E. Garland)

8. Josephus and Mark 6:6b–29: Herod Antipas’s Execution of John the Baptist (Morten Hørning Jensen)

9. 4QConsolations and Mark 6:30–56: Images of a New Exodus (Holly Beers)

10. The Letter of Aristeas and Mark 7:1–23: Developing Ideas of Defilement (Sarah Whittle)

11. Jubilees and Mark 7:24–37: Crossing Ethnic Boundaries (Kelly R. Iverson)

12. The Damascus Document and Mark 8:1–26: Blindness and Sight on “the Way” (Suzanne Watts Henderson)

13. Sirach and Mark 8:27–9:13: Elijah and the Eschaton (Sigurd Grindheim)

14. Tobit and Mark 9:14–29: Imperfect Faith (Jeanette Hagen Pifer)

15. Rule of the Community and Mark 9:30–50: Discipleship Reordered (Jeffrey W. Aernie)

16. Mishnah Giṭṭin and Mark 10:1–12: Marriage and Divorce (David Instone-Brewer)

17. Eschatological Admonition and Mark 10:13–31: Riches, Poverty, and the Faithful (Mark D. Mathews)

18. Rule of the Congregation and Mark 10:32–52: Glory and Greatness in Eschatological Israel (John K. Goodrich)

19. 1 Maccabees and Mark 11:1–11: A Subversive Entry into Jerusalem (Timothy Gombis)

20. Psalms of Solomon and Mark 11:12–25: The Great Priestly Showdown at the Temple (Nicholas Perrin)

21. The Animal Apocalypse and Mark 11:27–12:12: The Rejection of the Prophets and the Destruction of the Temple (David L. Turner)

22. Josephus and Mark 12:13–27: The Sadducees, Resurrection, and the Law (Jason Maston)

23. Psalms of Solomon and Mark 12:28–44: The Messiah’s Surprising Identity and Role (Mark L. Strauss)

24. The Parables of Enoch and Mark 13:1–37: Apocalyptic Eschatology and the Coming Son of Man (Jonathan T. Pennington)

25. Mishnah Pesaḥim and Mark 14:1–25: The Passover Tradition (Amy Peeler)

26. The Babylonian Talmud and Mark 14:26–52: Abba, Father! (Nijay K. Gupta)

27. The Parables of Enoch and Mark 14:53–73: Blasphemy and Exaltation (Darrell L. Bock)

28. Philo of Alexandria and Mark 15:1–15a: Pontius Pilate, a Spineless Governor? (Helen K. Bond)

29. 11QTemplea and Mark 15:15b–47: Burying the Crucified (Craig A. Evans)

30. 2 Maccabees and Mark 16:1–8: Resurrection as Hope for the Present (Ben C. Blackwell)

 

Reading Mark in Context Reviewed

Simon J. Joseph (University of California, Los Angeles) has reviewed our Reading Mark in Context: Jesus and Second Temple Judaism in the Review of Biblical Literature.  He has some fair notes about the volume and ends his review thus:

Relocating the Gospel of Mark in its wider Jewish context, the essays in Reading Mark in Context introduce readers to the study of Mark within the literary, historical, and theological contexts that it both drew from and distinguished itself from. Although many of the essays reinscribe Mark’s promise/fulfillment paradigm (in which Jesus fulfills Jewish messianic prophecies), that is to be expected given the authorial Tendenz of the Markan narrative . The goal of this volume was not to distinguish between the Markan Jesus, a historical Jesus, and the Jesus of history but to illuminate the literary world of the Markan narrative. The editors and authors are to be commended for this collection of well-written and accessible essays, each of which illuminates the Markan context without unnecessarily complicating its discussion with questions of literary dependence. Readers will appreciate the introduction outlining the volume’s methodological approach and structure, along with its brief overview of Second Temple literature and a helpful glossary of key terms. I strongly recommend these essays for “beginning and intermediate students” of the gospels, not simply because they successfully contextualize the Markan texts in their wider literary contexts, but more so because they drive home the important message that a contextual reading of Mark requires attending to the creative complexity of its relationship with(in) Second Temple Judaism.

 

Theology Resources on the Web — A Word in Edgewise

Rob Bradshaw’s full time job is librarian at Spurgeon’s College in London. But he also has a passion for making theology available on the Internet. Here is the website you need to know: https://theologyontheweb.org.uk Rob has digitized 40,000 articles from dozens and dozens of journals. Some you have heard of. Some you have not. But […]

via Theology on the Web — A Word in Edgewise

 

In Search of a Good Summary of the First-Century Mark Scandal

I am looking for a really good single-piece summary of the first-century Mark scandal to assign to my students. So far the best I have found so far is an article dated to January 9, 2020, from the Guardian titled, “A Scandal in Oxford: The Curious Case of the Stolen Gospel,” by Charlotte Higgins (there is also an audio reading of the article). If anybody knows of a better summary, please let me know.

 

Hierarchy and Leadership via Aristotle

One of the basic differences between an ancient social imaginary and a modern one is the way that hierarchies work. In an ancient setting hierarchies are presumed and in the modern hierarchies are questioned. It’s not that hierarchies don’t exist in the contemporary world, but moderns tend to question and rebel against hierarchies of various sorts–racial, gender, etc. I’ve been doing some reading in Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics, and found a great example of an ancient perspective. What’s important is that hierarchy in not necessarily always good–so monarchy vs tyrant–but a good hierarchy is better than none–so monarchy better than democracy.

Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics 8.10

There are three kinds of constitution, and an equal number of deviation-forms–perversions, as it were, of them. The constitutions are monarchy, aristocracy, and thirdly that which is based on a property qualification, which it seems appropriate to call timocratic, though most people are wont to call it polity. The best of these is monarchy, the worst timocracy. The deviation from monarchy is tyrany; for both are forms of one-man rule, but there is the greatest difference between them; the tyrant looks to his own advantage, the king to that of his subjects. For a man is not a king unless he is sufficient to himself and excels his subjects in all good things; and such a man needs nothing further; therefore he will not look to his own interests but to those of his subjects; for a king who is not like that would be a mere titular king. Now tyranny is the very contrary of this; the tyrant pursues his own good. And it is clearer in the case of tyranny that it is the worst deviation-form; but it is the contrary of the best that is worst. Monarchy passes over into tyranny; for tyranny is the evil form of one-man rule and the bad king becomes a tyrant. Aristocracy passes over into oligarchy by the badness of the rulers, who distribute contrary to equity what belongs to the city-all or most of the good things to themselves, and office always to the same people, paying most regard to wealth; thus the rulers are few and are bad men instead of the most worthy. Timocracy passes over into democracy; for these are coterminous, since it is the ideal even of timocracy to be the rule of the majority, and all who have the property qualification count as equal. Democracy is the least bad of the deviations; for in its case the form of constitution is but a slight deviation. These then are the changes to which constitutions are most subject; for these are the smallest and easiest transitions.

One may find resemblances to the constitutions and, as it were, patterns of them even in households. For the association of a father with his sons bears the form of monarchy, since the father cares for his children; and this is why Homer calls Zeus ‘father’; it is the ideal of monarchy to be paternal rule. But among the Persians the rule of the father is tyrannical; they use their sons as slaves. Tyrannical too is the rule of a master over slaves; for it is the advantage of the master that is brought about in it. Now this seems to be a correct form of government, but the Persian type is perverted; for the modes of rule appropriate to different relations are diverse. The association of man and wife seems to be aristocratic; for the man rules in accordance with his worth, and in those matters in which a man should rule, but the matters that befit a woman he hands over to her. If the man rules in everything the relation passes over into oligarchy; for in doing so he is not acting in accordance with their respective worth, and not ruling in virtue of his superiority. Sometimes, however, women rule, because they are heiresses; so their rule is not in virtue of excellence but due to wealth and power, as in oligarchies. The association of brothers is like timocracy; for they are equal, except in so far as they differ in age; hence if they differ much in age, the friendship is no longer of the fraternal type. Democracy is found chiefly in masterless dwellings (for here every one is on an equality), and in those in which the ruler is weak and every one has licence to do as he pleases.

 

German, anyone?

I confess that I enjoy languages, and I’ve always had a had an interest in German because my dad spent time in Germany in the air force and always had a German grammar on a bookshelf while I was growing up. So, learning German wasn’t a task that I found oppressive. That said, I find that it is harder and harder to convince students that the effort is worth the payoff, and I see that more and more PhD theses are engaging German less and less. So is German worth it?

I found it to be so in the last week or so, and so I thought I’d pass along the experience. Chris Eberhart, Matthias Henze, and a couple of others hosted a conference on covenant here in Houston just before SBL. Through the various sponsors, it turned out that about 90% of the conference presenters were German. Of course, they conceded to the current winds  by presenting in English, but some discussion naturally occurred in German. So without facility in German, I’d have been lost. It turns out too that instructions about presenting in English didn’t make it around to all (or were not heeded?), and one of the presentations was in German. Though my listening is not attuned as my reading, I was able to keep up because I still make an effort to keep it fresh. While this example isn’t a common occurrence, this facility allows me to participate at a level not otherwise accessible.

More to the substance of the issue, different types of conversations go on within different language groups. For instance, when I was working on glory in Romans, I found that there was a discussion that took place almost singularly among German-language scholarship about the relationship of glory and righteousness. Of course, you don’t know that that discussion is there unless you have access to it through language facility.

Perhaps in another decade or two English will so dominate that facility in modern research languages will go by the wayside among NT scholars. But until then I’m holding up the banner.

In case you wonder how I keep up my German: I regularly read German novels on a Kindle with the dictionary set to a German-English dictionary so I can click on a word on the fly and get the translation. I don’t look up everything since my focus is more the story, but it keeps me in it regularly.