It’s been a while since I offered anything of a round-up, but it’s something I ought, I think, to do more often. It’s surprising how often other people’s round-ups shove something I’d missed under my nose again, and either leave me wondering how I missed it in the first place, or make me add a new blog to my groaning feedreader. Besides, there are a number of conversations going on where I only have a passing comment.
Daniel Kirk first drew attention to the suspension of an OT professor Peter Enns from Westminster Theological Seminary. Jim Getz comments, and Jason von Ehrenkrook calls it militant fundamentalism before updating his title with a question mark. This is all a little arcane to me, but Enns’ big sin seems to have been writing a book on the Old Testament which says we should take account of what sort of writings are contained in Scripture when we formulate a doctrine of it and its inspiration. Those who have ousted him believe we should only take account of sixteenth century confessions, which are a rather better guide to the Bible than its own contents. Yeah, that sounds really clever.
Iyov has a link and a lengthy quotation from Meir Soloveichik on Jacob Neusner’s (Benedict blessed) dialogue with Jesus. It’s well worth reading but does make one very questionable assumption when one is talking about historical reconstruction. Soloveichik says: “When someone asserts divinity, his interlocutor has only two options: Believe, obey, and worship, or back away slowly.” But did the historical Jesus assert such a thing, and what, in any case would it have meant in context? I think the answer is no, and therefore Neusner’s dialogue with Jesus is something rather different from the article’s characterization.
I’ve commented at some length on the Tom Wright / John Piper dispute. (Conclusion with links here.) It’s only fair to note that Michael Patton of Parchment and Pen offers a two part review of Piper’s book, and takes Piper’s side. He makes some rather odd comments on his way to his conclusion, especially regarding “imputation” on which Wright is particularly compelling in my view. Righteousness in a judge is significantly different from innocence in a defendant, and is not a transferable quality. All the more strange then that Patton defends the forensic understanding, when he chooses to interpret the language in a way which simply doesn’t work in a forensic context.
Speaking of Tom Wright, I nominate Loren Rosson for the N.T. Wright “completely obvious” award of the week. He’s been running a poll on the meaning of “all Israel” in Romans 11:26. The respondents were (excluding his casting vote) equally divided. That doesn’t stop Loren stating that “Option (3) has to be correct” and “That’s how the argument of Romans 11 goes, and to me it’s clear.” While I happen to agree with him, patently it isn’t clear among his respondents. How many times does Tom say something is “clear” and “obvious” when the only thing that is clear and obvious is that many people disagree with him?
Tyler Williams has a good post on the odd appearance of Satan (as a proper noun) in English translations of Job, which is seconded by Chris Heard. It’s a fair point, but one that illustrates the problems of translation. The appearance of a heavenly adversary / prosecuting counsel in Job, whose title later becomes a proper noun needs some reference either in footnote or text to Satan if later uses of the word as a name are to be understood, not least in 1 Peter and Revelation. The options seem to be translating it in Job by the rather odd “the Satan” and footnoting it “the accuser”, or else capitalising “The Accuser” in the text and footnoting it “the Satan”. But some reference needs to be made that help readers grasp the sense of an idea in development, not least to stop people reading a full blown Christian mythology of the devil into the story of the serpent and calling it exegesis.
Nijay Gupta blogs the email announcing speakers for the British New Testament Conference for all who don’t get it. I must say I think Dale Martin on ‘Angels, Demons and Paul’ should be a highlight.
Finally, Halden asks the interesting question “Out of all premodern theologians, (lets say up until the 19th century) who would you most want to study” if you could only study one. The comments reveal great diversity, but Ben Myers cheats (I think) by including St Paul. I would go for Aquinas, and if you want to know why, see these really great summaries of his reasons for the crucifixion and the resurrection by (respectively) Brant Pitre and Michael Barber. They illustrate both his complexity and his clarity, characteristics most of the rest of fail to combine well.
Recent Comments