Identity Formation in the New Testament

My Interview on the Paul Edwards Radio Show

2012-02-02T21:08:00.004-05:00

On February 2, 2012, I was interviewed on the Paul Edwards radio show in order to discuss my new book Remain in Your Calling. The interview is 19 minutes long, you can click here to listen to it (mp3 file will launch). These are always interesting experiences, trying to respond to the serendipitous turns in the conversation leaves me wanting to go back and qualify what I meant by my comments. Paul was a gracious host, even though it is clear that he's not coming to this issue from a post-supersessionist position.

Initial Thoughts on Aaron J. Kuecker's The Spirit and the 'Other'

2012-01-10T10:55:00.005-05:00

Aaron Kuecker, The Spirit and the ‘other’: Social Identity, Ethnicity and Intergroup Reconciliation in Luke-Acts. London: T&T Clark International, 2011. ISBN 9780567235701 $120.00.

Aaron Kuecker, Associate Professor of Theology at Trinity Christian College, in this revised version of his PhD thesis at St. Mary’s College, University of St. Andrews, argues that the Spirit is the central agent in the formation of a new social identity in Luke-Acts. He does this by drawing on the resources of social identity theory and contemporary ethnicity approaches (Kuecker 2011: 24-40). The monograph pays particular attention to Luke 1-4 and Acts 1-15, showing that the former lays the foundation for the way Luke connects social identity, the Spirit, and the ‘other’. In-group benefits are the focus of this section and the way that existing group boundaries are to be transcended. The agency of the Spirit is particularly evident in Acts 1-15. Kuecker rightly recognizes that the Spirit is at work in situations where social identity is called into question and functions to transform individuals and communities by virtue of the development and construal of a new social identity (Kuecker 2011: 212-15). What is unique to Kuecker’s approach is the way he contends that this Spirit-formed identity provides an alternative communal discourse in comparison to the dominant cultural scripts. The result of this transformed identity is interethnic reconciliation, which is made concrete through: (1) new economic practices, (2) new approaches to hospitality, and (3) an ethnic discourse that differs from the dominant one within the Roman Empire. Kuecker’s thorough analysis of social identity theory provides an excellent example of the way this approach to reading the NT brings new insights and reinforces evidence-based exegetical claims that also rely on the resources of contemporary theory.

Kuecker provides a helpful survey of the role of the Spirit in Luke-Acts and it quickly becomes clear that he sees the “spirit of prophecy” model as somewhat unhelpful when seeking to understanding the full agency of the Spirit in Luke-Acts. Particularly persuasive is his claim that the Spirit does not “explicitly inspire speech in the most thoroughly mission-oriented sections of Acts” (Kuecker 2011: 16). Here he has in mind Paul’s missional discourse and his legal defense. Kuecker then claims that “sections of the text where group and social identity are at stake contain the highest density of Spirit references in all of Acts” (Kuecker 2011: 16). This is a key insight from his work. Oftentimes, the work of the Spirit in Luke-Acts is seen in a theological context while overlooking the concrete social context. Kuecker is also concerned with an overly-individualistic interpretation of the Spirit’s role in Luke-Acts; however, his primary concern is “the relationship between the Spirit and ethnic identity in Luke-Acts” (Kuecker 2011: 17). Here he is interested in bringing to the fore the identity processes that are in play in the text that differ from contemporary conceptions of these processes: “There was something powerfully different about the way identity operated in Luke’s early community of believers, and this difference comes out clearly in an investigation of the interplay of Spirit, ethnicity and identity” (Kuecker 2011: 17). Obviously, this is a contested point of view, and it may be we are talking about degrees of difference based on local contexts, rather than stark opposites. The thesis for Kuecker’s work is: “for Luke, the Holy Spirit is the central figure in the formation of a new social identity that affirms yet chastens and transcends ethnic identity. The formation of this new identity is a reflection of profound transformation (not just social recategorization), and is the mechanism through which intergroup reconciliation occurs in Luke-Acts” (Kuecker 2011: 18).

Kuecker’s approach to Christ-movement identity may be described as transcending. In this way, it is similar to Philip Esler’s approach (see my discussion in Tucker 2010: 67-69). Following also a similar approach by Bruce Hansen in All of You Are One, Kuecker recognizes that existing identities are not necessarily obliterated: “This new ethnic identity does not require the negation of ethnic identity” (Kuecker 2011: 19). This is crux of the issue: can a universalistic approach to Christ-movement identity support the contention that existing ethnic (or social) identities can continue in any meaningful sense (see my critique of this position in Tucker 2011: 4-7). Or, if the claim is that the new identity transcends existing identities, how can one assure that such a stance does not simply reify majority culture? These are central questions that distinguish the universalistic and particularistic approaches to Christ-movement social identity. Is it more likely that Christ-movement social identity was defined in the context of existing social identity rather than in a manner that transcends those? Furthermore, is it more likely then that the Spirit was one of several discursive agents that contributed to the formation of Christ-movement identity, rather than the central one (Kuecker 2011: 18). Kuecker’s suggestion is an approach to identity referred to as allocentric. He defines this as: “an identity characterized by or denoting interest centered in persons other than oneself. In the present study, an ‘allocentric identity’ will be used to refer to an identity that can express in-group love and out-group love simultaneously, a very difficult feat within most social groups” (Kuecker 2011: 18 n. 83). This key concept may provide a way forward between the universalistic and particularistic approaches, because it recognizes the alternative communal approach evident in the NT that results in an alternative ethos, one distinct from the dominant culture, but also draws from it for aspects of its identity-formational discourse (see particularly Kuecker 2011: 222). Kuecker has provided a key work on the development of social identity in the early Christ-movement as evidenced by Luke’s writing and, along with Coleman Baker’s Identity, Memory, and Narrative in Early Christianity provide NT scholars with a clear path for the way Luke’s narrative forms identity, though their different approaches to recategorization brings a needed complexity to this fascinating topic within early Christian origins.

References:

Baker, Coleman A. Identity, Memory, and Narrative in Early Christianity: Peter, Paul, and Recategorization in the Book of Acts. Eugene, Or: Pickwick Publications, 2011.

Esler, Philip Francis. Conflict and Identity in Romans: The Social Setting of Paul's Letter. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2003.

Hansen, Bruce. All of You Are One: The Social Vision of Galatians 3.28, 1 Corinthians 12.13 and Colossians. 3.11. London: T & T Clark, 2010.

Tucker, J. Brian. You Belong to Christ: Paul and the Formation of Social Identity in 1 Corinthians 1-4. Eugene, Or: Pickwick Publications, 2010.

Tucker, J. Brian. Remain in Your Calling: Paul and the Continuation of Social Identities in 1 Corinthians. Eugene: Pickwick Publications, 2011.

Initial Thoughts on Sergio Nebreda's Christ Identity

2012-01-09T10:01:00.007-05:00

Sergio Rosell Nebreda, Christ Identity: A Social-Scientific Reading of Philippians 2.5-11. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2011. ISBN 9783525532546 $138.

Sergio Rosell Nebreda, Professor of Sacred Scripture, Seminario Evangélico Unido de Teología, claims that Paul desires to form the social identity of the Christ-followers in Philippi on the basis of the Christ-hymn in Philippians 2:5-11. He suggests a new approach to Philippians 2:6-11, one that focuses “on its function as a vehicle for social communication, part and parcel of its social milieu, but aiming at transforming the Christ-following community, in search for an identity which ultimately derives from Jesus the Christ as described in the hymn” (Nebreda 2011: 27). Nebreda’s goal for his study “is to assess the apostle’s implicit strategies as well as to recognise his aims of creating a social identity based on Christ-orientation as displayed in Phil 2.6-11, which Paul himself affirms he follows (3.12-13)” (Nebreda 2011: 28). He sees “self-giving and self-humiliation as a paradigm of Christ-like identity” and this serves as a competing social identification to one that “was based on privilege and the search for honour” (Nebreda 2011: 28).

Nebreda begins by providing a thorough description of Tajfel and Turner’s social identity theory, which lays the foundation for his approach to identity formation. Next he provides an anthropological and sociological analysis of the Mediterranean basin in the first century. Here the influence of the Context Group is evident. Following this analysis, he provides a low-level abstraction of Philippi as a Roman colony and delineates a model of romanisation. Chapter 5 uncovers Paul’s identity with regard to suffering and slavery. In doing this, he brings to the fore ancient viewpoints concerning suffering and slavery. What emerges from this discussion is the centrality of suffering to Paul’s mission and identity. This reinforces the alternative nature of the Christ-like identity. The next chapter addresses key scholarly issues related to Philippians and specifically the hymn itself. The final chapter provides a thorough analysis of Philippians 2:5-11 and the way it functions in the formation of a distinct social identity in contrast to first century Mediterranean society. For Nebreda, the central point of contention is the differing social conceptions of “humility” (tapeinophrosunē) (Phil. 2:3). While, this final chapter is the primary one that focuses on the text in question, this is appropriate in that Nebreda’s primary concern is with the way “the community that received the letter would have understood the apostle’s words” (Nebreda 2011: 33).

Nebreda’s approach to identity formation emphasizes an element of discontinuity. The Christ-like identity is formed in contrast to existing cultural identities (but not completely so, see (Nebreda 2011: 345) and his recognition of a discourse of comparison). For example, he concludes that “this Christ-identity Paul proposes is based on the Christ-event, the narrative that gives birth to a new people no longer defined in ethnic origin or social merit terms” (Nebreda 2011: 344). I would suggest rather no new people are being birthed and that the Christ-movement is described in the context of their existing ethnic and social identities (Tucker 2011: 62-88). Nebreda’s stance is based on his reading of Philippians 3:5-8 and the way it seems to call into question any meaningful continuation of Paul’s Jewish identity. What I find interesting is his use of William S. Campbell’s approach. Nebreda, while recognizing Campbell’s view of the “relativization of all things in Christ” (Campbell 2008: 89), seems to not fully integrate an equally important point from Campbell, that Paul cannot serve as a model for gentile identity in Christ. Nebreda (2011: 345) quotes Campbell in order to support the view that in Philippians 3:5-8, Paul’s past in Judaism is negated and that Paul serves as a model for both Jews and gentiles in Christ. Campbell’s specific claims move in the opposite direction: (1) Paul continues to be Torah-observant and within the boundaries of Judaism; and (2) Paul does not serve as a good model for gentiles in Christ. Campbell concludes, “Paul is the paradigm for Jewish Christ-identity but not for gentile” (Campbell 2008: 156). As an intercultural mediator, Paul’s approach to identity formation builds on existing identity nodes, rather than subverting these, this is one area where I would like to see Nebreda’s work developed further. This small difference aside, Nebreda’s monograph is an important and useful work that advances the way social identity theory may be applied to Paul’s letters and his emphasis on the centrality of suffering in the formation of Christ-movement social identity echoes the fine work of Kar Yong Lim, Lecturer in New Testament Studies, Director of Postgraduate Studies, Seminari Theoloji Malaysia, Seremban, Malaysia and deserves further attention by New Testament scholars.

References:

Campbell, William S. Paul and the Creation of Christian Identity. London: T & T Clark, 2008.

Lim, Kar Yong. "The Sufferings of Christ Are Abundant in Us" (2 Corinthians 1:5) A Narrative-Dynamics Investigation of Paul's Sufferings in 2 Corinthians. London: T & T Clark, 2009.

Tucker, J. Brian. Remain in Your Calling: Paul and the Continuation of Social Identities in 1 Corinthians. Eugene: Pickwick Publications, 2011.

Remain in Your Calling is Available

2011-11-15T16:31:00.003-05:00

Remain in Your Calling is now available. It can be purchased through Wipf and Stock's website initially and then it will appear on amazon.com and all the other usual book selling outlets. Here is a description of the book. Remain in Your Calling explores the way the Apostle Paul negotiates and transforms existing social identities of the Corinthian Christ-followers in order to extend his gentile mission. Building on the findings of Tucker's first monograph, You Belong to Christ: Paul and the Formation of Social Identity in 1 Corinthians 1-4, this work expands the focus to the rest of 1 Corinthians. The study addresses the way Paul forms Christ-movement identity and the kind of identity that emerges from his kinship formation. It examines the way previous Jewish and gentile social identities continue but are also transformed "in Christ." It then provides case studies from 1 Corinthians that show the way social-scientific criticism and ancient source material provide insights concerning Paul's formational goals. The first looks at the way Roman water practices and patronage influence baptismal practices in Corinth. The next uncovers the challenges associated with the transformation of the Roman household when it functions as sacred space within the ekklesia. The final study investigates the way Paul uses apocalyptic discourse to recontextualize the Corinthians' identity in order to remind them that God, rather than the Roman Empire, is in control of history.

Remain in Your Calling Book Cover

2011-10-22T05:23:00.007-04:00

Here is a look at the cover of my forthcoming book, "Remain in Your Calling": Paul and the Continuation of Social Identities in 1 Corinthians. It should be out within the next month or so. It begins by surveying contemporary social-scientific approaches to Paul, and then discusses whether or not Paul's writing could actually form identity. Next it looks at Paul's Jewish identity, and then discusses the way the Corinthians' gentile identity continues in Christ. The second half of the book offers a few case studies from 1 Corinthians that explore in further detail the various ways existing social identities continue to be relevant within the Christ-movement by discussing: baptism and Roman water practices, ecclesia and Roman household space, and concluding with Christ-movement eschatological discourses and Roman imperial eschatology.

Review of You Belong to Christ

2011-10-04T09:49:00.003-04:00

The first review of You Belong to Christ was recently published in the Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society. Click here to read it. Jack Barentsen, from Evangelische Theologische Faculteit, in Leuven, Belgium, reviewed it. He has an excellent new book out entitled: Emerging Leadership in the Pauline Mission, which I look forward to including in an upcoming review article on "Paul, Social Identity, and Mission."

Klyne Snodgrass and a Hermeneutics of Identity

2011-08-30T15:01:00.005-04:00

Klyne Snodgrass has recently called for a hermeneutics of identity. He defines hermeneutics as “the process by which texts are understood and appropriated” (Snodgrass 2011: 3). He then offers a four-level hermeneutic that includes: (1) a hermeneutic of realism; (2) action; (3) hearing; and (4) identity. After discussing the difficulty in using identity when the word doesn’t appear in the Bible, he concludes “the Bible gives us an identity, tells us who we are and how we fit into God’s story and how that identity is to be lived out” (Snodgrass 2011:4-5). He then states, “Scripture is about identity formation” and that “identity formation must be the focus of the church” (Snodgrass 2011: 5). The latter brings to the fore the unique focus of Snodgrass’s work. He is concerned “with the identity of Christians” rather than the broader discussions of first-century Jewish and gentile issues within the earliest Christ-movement: “The difference is significant. These studies give far too little attention to identity, what makes up identity, and how the Christian message seeks to construct a new identity for people” (Snodgrass 2011: 8).

Snodgrass's definition of identity is, “that sense of being and self-understanding that frames our actions, communicates to others who we are, and sets the agenda for our acts” (Snodgrass 2011: 9). He then provides eight factors that shape identity: (1) our physical and psychological characteristics; (2) our histories; (3) our relations; (4) our commitments; (5) our boundaries; (6) an ongoing process of change; (7) an internal self-interpreting memory; and (8) some sense of the future (Snodgrass 2011: 11-13). Next, Snodgrass offers four characteristics of a hermeneutics of identity. (1) it “requires that we have humility in coming to the biblical text and that we listen, knowing that our present identity needs radical lifelong conversion, reorientation, reshaping, and empowering”; (2) it “focuses on the goal of reading and seeks to keep central the realization that the ultimate and central question is always, ‘Who are you?’ and the answer is in how God views humanity, especially humanity as God intended in Christ”; (3) it “focuses on the process of reading and hearing as an identity-forming activity”; and (4) it “will remember that interpretation of Scripture is a communal affair” (Snodgrass 2011: 18-19). He concludes that “a hermeneutics of identity provides a lens for reading that brings the matters of life into focus” (Snodgrass 2011: 19).

What do you think, is Snodgrass on target? What is he missing? Do you buy the idea of a hermeneutics of identity? What has he left out in his eight characteristics of identity? Can the Bible form identity in the way Snodgrass envisions? Is his definition of identity flawed or is it accurate?

Reference:
Klyne R. Snodgrass, “Introduction to a Hermeneutics of Identity,” Bibliotheca Sacra 168 (January-March 2011): 3-19.

My SBL 2011 Presentations

2011-06-28T12:54:00.001-04:00

I just came by my schedule for San Francisco SBL.

S19-212
________________________________________
Disputed Paulines
11/19/2011
1:00 PM to 3:30 PM
Room: Room TBD - Hotel TBD
Theme: Ephesians and Colossians
James Aageson, Concordia College - Moorhead, Presiding
Lloyd Pietersen, University of Gloucestershire
Wine, Debauchery and the Spirit (30 min)
Richard A. Wright, Oklahoma Christian University
Filled with the Spirit: Singing and Moral Formation in Ephesians 5:18-19 (30 min)
Daniel K. Darko, Gordon College
SPIRIT-COSMOLOGY IN THE IDENTITY AND COMMUNITY CONSTRUCTION OF EPHESIANS 1-3 (30 min)
J. Brian Tucker, Moody Bible Institute
The Continuation of Gentile Identity in Ephesians (30 min)
S20-323
________________________________________
Jewish Christianity / Christian Judaism
11/20/2011
4:00 PM to 6:30 PM
Room: Room TBD - Hotel TBD
Matti Myllykoski, Helsingin Yliopisto - Helsingfors Universitet, Presiding (5 min)
Simon Mimouni, Ecole Pratique des Hautes Etudes
Christian Judaism: A Question Still Open for Discussion (20 min)
Discussion (10 min)
Terence L. Donaldson, Wycliffe College
"Gentile Christianity" as a Category in the Study of Christian Origins (20 min)
J. Brian Tucker, Moody Bible Institute, Respondent (10 min)
Discussion (10 min)
Break (5 min)
Simon J. Joseph, Claremont Graduate University
Q and the Ebionites: Testing a Conjecture (20 min)
Petri Luomanen, Helsingin Yliopisto - Helsingfors Universitet, Respondent (10 min)
Discussion (10 min)
Victoria Ballmes, University of California-Santa Barbara
Yours and Mine, but not Ours: The Toledot Yeshu and Identity Construction in Late Antiquity (20 min)
Discussion (10 min)

The Drama of Ephesians

2011-05-12T10:11:00.000-04:00

Timothy G. Gombis. The Drama of Ephesians: Participating in the Triumph of God. Downers Grove: IVP Academic, 2010. 188 pages. 978-0-8308-2720-6. $20 (paper).

Timothy G. Gombis, associate professor of New Testament at Cedarville University, offers a scholarly but accessible narrative reading of Ephesians. Chapter 1 organizes the approach to be taken in the book. Rather than mining Ephesians for data in the organization of a systematic theology, the letter is to be read as a script to be embodied. Gombis draws together an eclectic array of interpretive strategies, which include: (1) the functional approach apocalyptic; (2) the narrative structuring influence of the divine warfare motif; and (3) a reading posture of cultural criticism. When combined produce a reading of Ephesians that emphasizes the importance of embodying the life of the Christ-crucified.

Chapter 2 introduces the cosmic characters in Ephesians, described primarily as the powers and authorities. Gombis does not see these as human figures but as “supra-human cosmic rulers” (p. 48). Those who seek to embody the message of Ephesians are to name these powers by discerning cultural corruptions and resisting them by cultivating alternative practices consistent with the pattern of Christ’s life. Chapter 3 discusses the identity-forming implications of 1:3–14, here Gombis draws from current social-scientific studies in recognizing the way the text seeks to transform the cognitive processes of its hearers. This chapter discerns the tension in the dialectic between previous identities and newness in Christ, and suggests that a renewed, gospel-shaped imagination is necessary in order to faithfully embody the drama of new life in Christ.

Gombis claims, in chapter 4, that 1:2—2:22 is structured around the divine warfare motif, and that the church gathered as a temple functions as a monument to God’s triumph of the powers of evil. This victory creates a new humanity, one in which ethnic identities are no longer fundamental, though individual distinctiveness is not lost (p. 103). Chapter 5 covers 3:1–14, here Paul is offered as a group prototype for the way to embody the value that God’s power is revealed in weakness. The Apostle Paul’s persona is drawn on in order to re-socialize these Christ-followers into a new symbolic universe, away from the honor and shame Roman culture, and towards an alternative series of gospel performances that are both “cruciform and subversive” (p. 125).

Chapter 6 describes the church’s identity and task (i.e., its mission) as see in 3:14—4:16. In these verses the church is the locus of God’s victory over the powers, and the agent for making God’s cosmic victory evident. This crucial part in God’s drama is led by Pastors and church leaders, who perform Christ’s life among faith communities. Chapter 7 describes the way Ephesians envisions the Christ-movement to be involved in divine warfare. Here, the motif introduced earlier comes to the fore as the church is positioned as a divine warrior, a community that faithfully embodies the life of Jesus. Finally, the conclusion draws together the implications of the study.

Though, secondary literature and detailed argument was kept to a minimum, I remain unconvinced with regard to the following: (1) Gombis assumes a non-variegated Jewish apocalyptic worldview (cf. Koch and Beker); (2) he too quickly dismisses the likelihood that human authorities are in view, especially with Gombis’ focus on paying attention to the results of actions of the powers and authorities. He quotes 1 Cor 2:6-8 and 15:24–26 to support his contention for cosmic rulers, but the former passage is more likely human rulers, and two different words for “authorities” are used in the two passages (p. 45, but see p. 88). Paul’s apocalyptic is more concrete in its orientation; (3) if national identities are not lost, but are not to be one’s focus (p. 80), what exactly is the status of historic Israel in the newly defined people of God (p. 77; cf. Rom 11:29). (4) It is not clear what happens to the Jewish identity of Christ-followers within this new symbolic universe. Furthermore, if there is such a radical newness in Christ (p. 79), it is not clear how anything from old creation could survive such a transformation (p. 80). It is often not evident if Gombis is speaking of the philosophical question of identity, i.e., the consistency of the self over time (Gilbert Ryle), and the psychological question of “who I am” (Erik Erikson)? These are not unrelated, but there is a danger of equivocation here. Furthermore, the focus does seem to be on personal identity, while it seems that Ephesians is primarily interested in issues of social identity (Henri Tajfel). Gombis’ claims for the one new humanity in Christ overlooks that the result of his interpretation would reify majority culture. The one new humanity is defined in the context of existing identities, not to their exclusion. Though Gombis seeks to navigate the difficult language of Eph 2:15, he does not go far enough. He suggests the problem was “the distinction-making function of the law” (p. 102). It is more likely that what is in view here are the additions or expansions to the law that had caused intergroup problems.

With those critiques aside, Gombis has produced a plausible reading of Ephesians, one that draws on the resources of socio-narrative criticism. His approach to Christ-movement identity would be classified as universalistic but without the obliteration of existing social identities–a middle of the road approach in this ongoing debate. Minna Shkul's Reading Ephesians provides an important counter-approach and an alternative identity-formation reading of Ephesians. My SBL Annual meeting paper for 2011 in San Fransisco will deal with the implications of Shkul's work for gentile identity in Christ. It will be offered in the Disputed Paulines section.

The Faith of Jesus Christ: Exegetical, Biblical, and Theological Studies

2011-01-27T12:25:00.003-05:00

Michael F. Bird and Preston M. Sprinkle eds. The Faith of Jesus Christ: Exegetical, Biblical, and Theological Studies. Milton Keynes, U.K., and Peabody, Mass.: Paternoster and Hendrickson, 2009. Pp. xix + 350. ISBN: 978-1-84227-606-8. $19.95 paper.

These essays present the range of arguments that have shaped the debate over whether to construe the phrase pistis christou as an objective genitive, i.e., “faith in Christ,” or as a subjective genitive, i.e., “the faithfulness of Christ.” James Dunn, a long-time proponent of the objective interpretation, provides an insightful forward that notes the continuing influence of Richard Hays’ work. Michael Bird’s introduction delineates the purpose of the volume and provides a helpful survey of each chapter.

Part 1 begins with Debbie Hunn who gives a valuable history of interpretation in order to determine which construal of the phrase is most plausible. Next, Stanley E. Porter and Andrew W. Pitts provide a lexical and syntactical analysis and conclude, based on lexis and case function, “that Christ was the proper object of faith” (p. 53).

Part 2 opens with Douglas A. Campbell’s analysis of Rom. 3:22 in which he argues for the subjective reading, as well as a messianic reading of Hab. 2:4 in Rom. 1:17b. Next R. Barry Matlock concludes that there is sufficient warrant for the objective reading. He rightly recognizes that this debate is part of the larger discussion over the juridical versus participationist readings of Paul. Paul Foster concludes that a subjective reading is most appropriate in Phil. 3:9 and Eph. 3:12. The faith of Christ is in view, and righteousness is imputed based on Christ’s work. Richard H. Bell contests Foster’s reading and interprets Phil. 3:9 and Eph. 3:12 objectively.

Part 3 starts with Mark A. Seifrid, who seeks to answer the question: what does it mean to believe in Christ? His answer is, “to be acted upon by God in his work in Jesus Christ” (p. 146). Francis Watson rejects the subjective reading based on hermeneutical grounds and dispenses with the messianic reading of Hab. 2:4 (p. 162). This view allows for faith as part of God’s broader work of grace. Preston M. Sprinkle argues for a third-way, i.e., “Christ-Faith”, which is understood as the gospel and its contents. Ardel B. Caneday assesses the way Christ’s faithfulness is central to the argument of Galatians. He emphasizes discontinuity between Christ and the Law and concludes that Christ’s faithfulness ends the curse of the Law (p. 203).

Part 4 begins with Peter G. Bolt, who argues that when the synoptic gospels are considered, the subjective reading becomes an increasingly viable option. Willis H. Salier contends that John’s gospel provides a balanced portrait of Jesus as a model of faithfulness while at the same time as the object of faith. Bruce A. Lowe concludes that in Jam. 2:1 the subjective reading of the phrase means “nothing other than trust in God” (p. 256). David A. deSilva convincingly asserts that neither pistis or pisteuō are employed in Revelation to indicate trust or faith in Christ; rather, he is presented as a faithful witness (p. 274).

Part 5 opens with Mark W. Elliott, who argues that the objective reading predominated among the church fathers, and throughout the history of Christian theology. Benjamin Myers assesses Karl Barth’s understanding of God’s faithfulness revealed in Christ.

Bird and Sprinkle have gathered key perspectives within the ongoing debate without arguing for any particular one. The book admirably reaches its stated goal (p. xiii). One omission in the collection is the lack of interaction between theological and social-scientific approaches, which could provide both methodological clarity and enhance the interpretive potential of the disputed phrase. Bird and Sprinkle, however, provide both scholars and graduate students with a useful resource on this important debate.

Crossing Over Sea and Land

2011-01-12T10:13:00.004-05:00

Crossing Over Sea and Land: Jewish Missionary Activity in the Second Temple Period. by Michael F. Bird. Peabody, Mass: Hendrickson Publishers, 2010, xvi + 208 pp. $24.95 paper.

Michael F. Bird, lecturer in theological studies at Crossway College in Toowong, Australia, offers a densely argued and convincing case that Judaism during the Second Temple Period should not be described as a missionary religion. Bird’s work is part of the ongoing debate concerning the way scholars understand the emergence of the Christ-movement in the context of Second Temple Judaism. Bird extends the work of Scot McKnight’s A Light among the Gentiles and Martin Goodman’s Mission and Conversion, both of whom were strategic in arguing that “postexilic Judaism cannot be properly characterized as a missionary religion” (p. 9). Crossing Over Sea and Land should be of interest to those concerned with the Jewish context of the Christ-movement as well as those looking for an accessible resource for primary documents central to the scholarly discourse dealing with both internal and external perspectives on Jewish proselytizing activity during the Second Temple Period and slightly beyond.

In chapter 1, Bird takes as his point of departure the fact that Christianity was a mission-oriented movement that crossed various cultural and geographical barriers in proclaiming its message throughout the Mediterranean basin. He is interested in determining whether Judaism during this period could be described in a similar manner, and if so, whether that accounts for the mission focus of the earliest Christ-movement, or whether this focus emerges de novo as a distinctive characteristic. Bird is aware that this line of research could be seen as Christian triumphalism or supersessionism; thus he clearly notes that he is “not trying to argue for the superiority of Christianity over Judaism” (p. 7). Rather, he is interested in the varying expressions of proselytizing activity evident in these two closely related religious movements with regard to gentiles. After discussing the significance of John Dickson’s Mission-Commitment in Ancient Judaism, Bird lays out his argument, which is “that the Christian Gentile missions, however indebted to their Jewish background, are not directly attributable to an on-going Jewish mission”; rather they “arose principally out of a concoction of eschatology and Christology and reading the Jewish Scriptures in light of new perspectives in these areas” (p. 12).

Chapter 2 provides Bird’s definition of the terms mission and conversion. He is aware of the potential for anachronistic descriptions of these concepts; however, he provides an extensive sociologically-informed definition of conversion which he then summarizes: “conversion to Judaism involves monotheism, Torah, and synagogue” (p. 24). As one reads the book, it is clear that the conditio sine qua non of Jewish conversion, at least for men, is circumcision. This separates a convert from an adherent and also serves as the primary marker of Jewish identity. Bird defines mission as “the diverse array of activities that attempts to draw, recruit, or persuade persons into conversion consisting of ideological, axiological (ethical), and social transformation” (p. 43). Bird’s construal of conversion and mission serves as the interpretive framework by which he assesses the level of missionary activity in Second Temple Judaism.

Chapter 3 evaluates the evidence for Jewish missionary activity in Palestine. Bird examines first the phenomena of forced conversions during the Hasmonean period, concluding that these activities fall outside the parameters of his stipulated definition. Next, he assesses the evidence from Qumran, and not surprisingly he finds a lack of evidence for proselytizing activity among the Qumran sectarians. He discusses Matthew 23:15 and offers positive support for this verse referring to Pharisees who sought to “recruit God-fearers into the cause of Jewish resistance to the Roman Empire” (p. 69). Thus, he does not find evidence of a concerted effort to proselytize gentiles. Inscriptional evidence is briefly surveyed and shown to be inconclusive with regard to the presence of a significant number of proselytes in Palestine. Finally, rabbinic literature is outlined, and though there is evidence of increased openness to gentiles (e.g. Numbers Rabbah 8.3; Canticles Rabbah 1.15.2), there is still a lack of evidence for widespread proselytizing activity during the rabbinic period.

Chapter 4 provides an extensive discussion of whether or not there is evidence of Jewish missionary activity in the Diaspora. Bird begins by discussing religious pluralism in the Roman Empire and then turns to the various ways that pagans are described as being attracted to Judaism. This is important for Bird’s argument because he sees in Second Temple Judaism openness to gentiles but not necessarily an intentional program of proselytizing them. Next, Bird reviews Josephus’ writings which reinforce the idea of openness without overt religious recruitment. Philo, who presents Judaism in a manner cognizant with Greek philosophy, is likewise not seen as one seeking to do anything other than present Judaism in an attractive way. He is open to outsiders but does not seek them out (p. 109). Jewish apologetic writings in Greek are surveyed, and not surprisingly at this point, Bird finds no evidence of a sustained mission to convert gentiles in these propagandistic writings. These writings, Bird contends following Tcherikover, were actually written for Jewish audiences and were designed to address issues of enculturation and the maintenance of Jewish identity in the context of Hellenism. Finally, this chapter surveys Greco-Roman authors, some of whom discuss Jewish proselytizing activity in passing; however, these disparate references lack the level of specificity necessary to determine whether intentional proselytizing was occurring rather than simply the phenomenon of gentile attraction to the Jewish way of life.

Chapter 5 presents evidence of Jewish missional activity as found within the New Testament. Bird determines that the Colossian heresy is evidence for intentional Jewish proselytizing activity as are the Jewish Christians in Galatia who were arguing for circumcision in order to substantiate the conversion of gentiles. Next, Bird quickly outlines other canonical texts that impinge on this debate and mentions a few early Christian writings that reference Jewish proselytizing activity (e.g., Epistle to Barnabas, Ignatius, and Apocalypse of Peter). He concludes that “outright competition between Christians and Jews for Gentile converts is scant”; however, he rightly recognizes that challenges were “inevitable” as these two closely associated movements continued to develop along differing ideological lines (p. 148).

The conclusion brings together the findings of Bird’s research. He supports the contention that there is no evidence for an organized program of proselytizing gentiles within Judaism during the Second Temple Period. However, he provides a few qualifications for this finding. First, the stipulated definitions of conversion and mission are open to debate and could influence the interpretation of the findings. Second, the diversity of Judaism during this period must be kept in view. Bird concludes with thoughtful reflections on the lack of proselytizing activities within Judaism and the significance of this for the extensive mission to the gentiles evident within the emerging Christ-movement. The most useful summative concept from this section is Bird’s idea of “inclusive sectarianism,” a descriptor that warrants special scholarly attention (p. 154). Crossing Over Sea and Land concludes with an appendix that provides a generous sampling of primary sources, often with the original languages included, and extensive indices that reinforce the widespread scope of Bird’s argumentation in this thoroughly accessible introduction to the nature and extent of Jewish missionary activity in the Second Temple Period.

John Reumann's Philippians Commentary

2011-01-11T11:15:00.005-05:00

John Reumann. Philippians: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. Anchor Yale Bible Series 33B. New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 2008. xxiv + 805. ISBN 978-0-300-140045-3. $65.00 (cloth).

John Reumann’s methodologically eclectic commentary assumes that canonical Philippians arises from the combination of three letters into one at the end of the first century (Letters B, C, and then A). The author bases this assumption on internal considerations and does not cogently argue for this position except for his reference to Polycarp, Phil 3.2 with its allusion to epistolas (pp. 8-9). Letter A, for Reumann, includes 4:10-20 and expresses Paul’s thankfulness and joyfulness for the Philippian Christ-followers. It was written from Ephesus in A.D. 54. Letter B was written in the last part of 54 or in the early part of 55 and includes 1:1-3:1, as well as, 4:1-9, 21-23. This letter, unlike Letters A and C, indicates that Paul composed it in prison. It focuses on Epaphroditus, Paul’s situation, and the way the gospel progresses even amid opposition. The polemical Letter C includes 3:2-21 and most likely 4:1-9. It was written in A.D. 55 and is concerned with issues of doctrine, ethics, and unity (p. 3). Reumann’s partition theory requires him to comment on the text in its original Letter A, B, and C context as well as its canonical literary setting; this sometimes makes the commentary unwieldy and disjointed.

It is difficult to assess his partition theory since editorial constraints limited explicit positive arguments for his view. Furthermore, his claim for an Ephesus provenance with its attendant imprisonment is contested. This rarely impinges on the commentary proper, which follows the traditional Anchor Yale Bible format: author’s translation; extensive exegetical notes; author’s comment and personal viewpoint, and expansive sectional bibliographies. These provide a storehouse of Reumann’s decades-long research into the Philippian correspondence. However, the truncated nature of the finished product (originally planned as a two volume work) results in a commentary that is most useful as a reference work, not as a seamless presentation of Paul’s epistolary discourse. Furthermore, the notational conventions and the often elliptical discussion make the work quite useful for those already familiar with the broader field of Pauline studies but somewhat unapproachable for general readers, who form part of the commentary’s intended audience.

In a short review, it may be most useful to outline some of Reumann’s conclusions. He sees 2:6-11 as an encomium developed by the converts in Philippi for their mission. Paul redeploys it for his rhetorical purposes addressing their internal problems (p. 333). The other preachers in 1:14-18b are resentful over Paul’s use of his Roman citizenship to avoid suffering at the hands of the Roman authorities (p. 207). With regard to the perennial debate over development in Paul’s eschatology (1:23), Reumann concludes that Paul had “a consistent present-and-future position throughout [his] career” (p. 240). The episkopoi and diakonoi mentioned in 1:1 were leadership positions “invented by” the Philippians, though Reumann rightly notes the paucity of evidence for cultic activity at this early stage (p. 89). In 3:4b-11, he initially describes Paul’s understanding of the reconfiguration of his Jewish identity “in Christ” as both a contrast and a comparison (p. 505). However, Reumann’s binary formulation of “Saul the Pharisee” and “Paul in Christ” betrays his understanding of the continued salience of Paul’s Jewish identity. I contend that Paul is not denigrating his Jewish identity; rather by means of a qal wahomer form of argument, he is telling the Philippians that those aspects of their Roman social identity that they hold dear are nothing in comparison to knowing Christ (see 1 Cor 7:19). Reumann, in his comments on 3:9, continues his support for the traditional, forensic understanding of justification by faith (cf. pp. 492-98, 509). However, his consideration of the way righteousness language would have been heard in a Roman context exemplifies his skillful weaving of traditional theological concerns with the Roman imperial context in Philippi. This commentary is a testament to decades of research, and though Reumann passed away in 2008, his thoughts are thankfully here preserved for critical engagement by both present and future scholars.

Sinners: Jesus and His Earliest Followers

2011-01-10T10:58:00.006-05:00

Sinners: Jesus and His Earliest Followers. By Greg Carey. Waco, Tex: Baylor University Press, 2009, Pp. xiii + 221 pp., $29.95 paper.

Greg Carey, Professor of New Testament at Lancaster Theological Seminary, in Sinners: Jesus and his Earliest Followers, focuses on the way in which being perceived as people who are described as transgressing “conventional social norms,”, i.e., sinners—formed the identity of the earliest Christ-movement. Carey concerns himself with the way texts reflect and are complicit in the formation of identity. Furthermore, he concentrates on Christ-followers’ sub-group identity in contrast to other local expressions of social identity within the Roman Empire.

Chapter 1 reads Luke 7:36-50 in order to uncover what it means to be a sinner. Though recognizing the theological nature of the concept, Carey’s focus is on sin in the sociological sense. Thus, the sinful woman in Luke 7 may be described as one who does not conform “to some expectations of her particular cultural environment” (p. 14). This social-scientific understanding of sin draws on the concepts of deviance and labeling for its ideological legitimation. This conceptual framework allows Carey to introduce the idea of a “sinful identity” (p. 9). This identity, he argues, becomes a salient node in the identity hierarchy of the emerging Christ-movement.

Social memory plays a key part in the formation of Christ-movement identity. In chapter 2, Carey contends that Jesus is remembered as a friend of sinners, one who engages in table fellowship with those culturally identified as deviant. Moreover, Jesus’ acceptance of these individuals is complete, and Carey points out several times (e.g. pp. 27-29) that there is no evidence of Jesus calling individual sinners to repentance in those commensal settings.
In chapter 3, Carey rightly presents Jesus as one who did not violate Jewish purity laws; rather, he overcame impurity by God’s power. Furthermore, Carey correctly notes that “if Jesus actually violated the Torah, then most of his Jewish contemporaries would have seen him as a sinner” (p. 38). Jesus’ own purity concerns centered on the Pharisees. Their appeals to the “traditions of the elders” reveal an interpretive framework that Jesus did not share. However, Carey rightly notes that this disagreement with the Pharisees did not contribute to Jesus’ crucifixion (p. 52). Jesus’ earliest followers remembered him keeping Torah, and this contributed to the formation of early Christ-movement social identity.

Gender roles contribute significantly in the formation of social identity. In chapter 4, Carey uncovers, drawing from the resources of the emerging discipline of masculine studies, the way Jesus and Paul conformed to and transgressed accepted gender discourse. Both Jesus and Paul were rhetorically effective and thus demonstrated a key characteristic of masculinity during the Imperial period. However, both failed to establish a household, and neither contributed to public life or set out on a cursus honorum. Both endured suffering and engaged in manual labor; however, neither leveraged their power over others in a culturally expected manner. The way that the early Christ-movement remembered Jesus and Paul with regard to masculinity resulted in the development of a discursive tradition that critiqued Roman expectations of masculinity, though often in an asymmetrical manner.

Chapters 5 and 6 discuss the way the death of Jesus formed the identity of the Christ-movement. First, Carey argues that Jesus did not die on the cross as an innocent victim; rather he was crucified by the Romans because of sedition (p. 81). Jesus created a disturbance in Jerusalem during Passover week, and this led to an inevitable conflict with the ruling authorities, resulting in his death on the cross. The cross is central in the formation of Christ-movement social identity, but it was an event that required reinterpretation, since a crucified messiah would be understood as scandalous. Carey focuses on the social significance of the cross and argues that “the cross posed a major obstacle for early Christian self-definition” (p. 122). Between chapters 5 and 6, Carey provides theological reflections concerning the sinlessness of Jesus. His purpose is not “to refute the doctrine of Jesus’ sinlessness”; rather he suggests that scholars refer to Jesus’ “righteousness and faithfulness instead” (p. 98). He is not alone in his contention; he draws from and extends both Pannenberg and Bonhoeffer to buttress his case. The two primary areas where Carey has concerns with regard to speaking of Jesus’ sinlessness include: structural sin and moral growth (p. 100).

Chapters 7 and 8 focus on the way interaction with those outside the Christ-movement contributed to the formation of Christ-movement identity. First, Carey provides a survey of four canonical works that show various levels of social integration. The concern for respectability and deviance, both identity-forming factors, are central to understanding the way the earliest Christ-followers interacted with their environment, especially when there was a perception of imminent persecution. Second, Carey outlines the way pagan writers described the Christ-movement. He relies on the works of Suetonius (Claudius 25), Tacitus (Annales 15.44), and Pliny (Letters 10.96 and 10.97). After surveying these sources, Carey concludes that socially identifying with Christ was sufficient grounds for persecution. Thus, the fear of suffering and the potential for persecution contributed significantly to the formation of Christ-movement identity, even into the second century.

By way of assessment and in a review this size there is only room for a few critiques. First, with regard to the way identity is formed—it is not clear how these disparate remembrances coalesce into an identity for the Christ-movement. For example, the texts cited were written to various communities that may not have had any influence beyond their local settings during the first century. So, it may be better to describe these texts as complicit in the formation of local expressions of early Christ-movement identity. Second, Carey’s suggestion that a crucified messiah was a major obstacle for the formation of identity overlooks the fact that Paul never had to address the importance of Jesus’ death for Christ-followers’ identity, and there is a lack of evidence, in the first century, for any groups bifurcating the teachings of Jesus and the social significance of the cross. Jesus’ death could at least be interpreted outside the Christ-movement as vicarious or within the noble death tradition (cf. Epictetus Disc. 4.1.168-69; Seneca Ep. 24.6). For more on this topic, see Jerry Sumney’s essay, “‘Christ died for us’: Interpretation of Jesus’ Death as a Central Element of the Identity of the Earliest Church,” in Kathy Ehrensperger and J. Brian Tucker (eds.), Reading Paul in Context: Explorations in Identity Formation (London: T&T Clark, 2010), pp. 147-72. Third, with regard to the sinlessness of Jesus, Carey lists the four scriptures (Heb. 4:15; 2 Cor. 5:21; 1 Pet. 2:22; 1 John 3:5) that have provided the exegetical substantiation for this teaching; however, though he does not wish to overturn the doctrine of Christ’s sinlessness, his suggested reinterpretation requires further interaction with these verses (e.g. he could provide a social identity approach reading to these verses, which would enhance his argument). Fourth, Carey is right to point out the way being a sinner contributes to the formation of Christ-movement social identity; however, it may equally be appropriate to suggest that there is more to the calculus than simply socially identifying oneself as a sinner. It may be, as in Luther’s description of those who follow Christ as simul justus et peccator (“at the same time justified and a sinner”), that the formation of Christ-movement social identity happens in the internal-external dialectic between the ways in which one’s previous identities continue in a transformed manner in Christ (1 Cor. 7:17-24).

Justification Theory Timeline

2010-12-13T10:44:00.006-05:00

I have my students put together a time line of justification theory each semester. I challenged them to try to use prezi in their presentation and one group did! Check out their work below. The students who put this together are: Nicole Kanneth, Sarah Kershaw, and Kenneth Kruchkow. Great work! You can click play [the triangle] and then hover over to the right and select autoplay to allow the presentation to run by itself (you can also select full screen).

Justification by Faith Timeline - Systematic Theology 2 on Prezi

Podcast of Interview from The Paul Edwards Program

2010-12-10T20:10:00.009-05:00

I did an interview on The Paul Edwards Program on December 9, 2011. The interview discussed aspects of my new book, You Belong to Christ: Paul and the Formation of Social Identity in 1 Corinthians 1-4, though most of the discussion went beyond the focus of 1 Corinthians 1-4. I was quite nervous, hoping not to make a fool of myself, but I was glad I did it, and more happy when it was over. You can listen to the interview below (it runs about 14 minutes).

2010 Annual Meeting SBL Paper - The Continuation of Gentile Identity in Christ

2010-11-24T09:57:00.010-05:00

I presented a paper at the 2010 Annual Meeting of the Society of Biblical Literature, in Atlanta, GA. A number of people had inquired about getting a copy of the paper, so I thought it would be most easy to upload it to my blog, so I did. You can click here to download a PDF of the paper (opens at Adrive the site hosting the paper). The paper orginally focused on wisdom, power, and transformation in 1 Corinthians; however, it morphed into a paper on the continuation of gentile identity in Christ, with a focus on the way this works in 1 Corinthians. It better reflects my current area of interest and research, as well as, fitting quite nicely into the new SBL group we are proposing: Intercultural Interaction and Identity Formation in Pauline Tradition. If you are interested in being part of this new group, please email me (brian.tucker at moody.edu) so that we can include you on the proposal to SBL. The picture above was taken at the celebration for the release of William S. Campbell's Festshcrift, Reading Paul in Context: Explorations in Identity Formation. The Festschrift was edited by Kathy Ehrensperger and me. The picture shows most of the contributors: Robert Jewett, Ekkehard Stegemann, Robert Brawley, Daniel Patte, Brian Tucker, William Campbell, Ian Rock, Kathy Ehrenspeger, Jerry Sumney, Mark Nanos, Magnus Zetterholm, Terence Donaldson, missing: Neil Elliott, Calvin Roetzel, and Kar Lim.

New Testament Greek 3 Exegetical Presentations

2010-11-03T18:13:00.005-04:00

I am streaming my Greek 3 class presentations. Chris Veltman is presenting his findings from James 4:13-17. It will stream live from 6 to 8 PM.

New SBL Group - Intercultural Interaction and Identity Formation in the Pauline Tradition

2010-11-02T20:53:00.005-04:00

S20-322

Intercultural Interaction and Identity Formation in the Pauline Tradition
11/20/2010
4:00 PM to 5:30 PM
Room: M109 - Marriott Marquis
Current scholarship on identity formation within the Pauline communities has demonstrated that diversity is integral to the Christ-movement from the earliest days. Thus intercultural interaction and communication and issues which arise when different cultures encounter one another, are at the centre of the identity forming process of the earliest Christ-movement.

Ian E. Rock, Codrington College, Presiding
J. Brian Tucker, Moody Theological Seminary
The Concept of Social Identity in Corinth: Wisdom, Power, and Transformation (20 min)
William S. Campbell, University of Wales Trinity St. David
Participation in the Covenant or Participation in Christ? - The Rationale for Gentile Identity in Paul (20 min)
Kathy Ehrensperger, University of Wales Trinity St. David
Lost in Translation - Paul a Broker (diakonos) in Inter-Cultural Communication? (20 min)
Discussion (30 min)
Jae Won Lee, McCormick Theological Seminary, Panelist
Robert Brawley, McCormick Theological Seminary, Panelist
Ian Rock, Codrington College, Panelist
Soham Al-Suadi, Universität Basel, Panelist
Kar Yong Lim, Seminari Theoloji Malaysia, Panelist
Ekkehard Stegemann, Theologische Fakultät der Universität Basel, Panelist

You Belong to Christ is Available

2010-10-15T15:29:00.003-04:00

I was quite excited today to see that Wipf and Stock uploaded the information for my book to their website. You can click here to see it. It is available for purchase. In the book, I look at the way 1 Corinthians 1-4 forms identity in its hearers/readers. The book looks at this history of interpretation of 1 Cor. 1-4, then it discusses the concept of social identity, and draws insights from Tajfel and Turner's approach. Next, it looks at the various ways that the Apostle Paul is studied with regard to identity, and then it uncovers the way that social identity was an issue in Corinth in the first century. The second part of the book is an identity critical reading of 1 Cor. 1-4. It focuses on the way that previous identities influenced life within the Christ-movement, and suggests that gentile identity continues in Christ, but in a transformed way.

Social Distinctives of the Christians in the First Century

2010-08-31T12:00:00.005-04:00

Social Distinctives of the Christians in the First Century Pivotal Essays by E. A. Judge. By David M. Scholer (ed.). Peabody, Mass: Hendrickson Publishers, 2008, 227 pp., $24.95, paper.

Social Distinctives of the Christians in the First Century is a collection of important essays written over the last forty-eight years by E. A. Judge. It provides NT researchers with insight into the social identity of the early Christ-movement. David Scholer in the introduction understands Judge as ‘the new founder of social-scientific criticism of the New Testament’ but also recognizes that Judge rejects key developments within field with regard to social determinism and the imposition of sociological models (xiv). Scholer is to be commended for doing a vital service for researchers of the early Christ-movement by gathering in one place Judge’s research which is often difficult to access. The result is that these foundational articles are available to a new generation of researchers who will find stimulating analysis and probative examples of inter-disciplinary research between classical and biblical studies. Judge’s command of Greco-Roman sources and his interest in social history combine to provide a convincing description of communal life within the early Christ-movement.

Chapter 1, ‘The Social Pattern of the Christian Groups in the First Century’ concludes that the NT documents provide no systematic teaching on the social life of the early Christ-followers. He employs the Acts of the Apostles as his framework; however, he fails to recognize the continued role of Jewish identity in the formation of the early Christ-movement. Chapter 2, ‘Paul’s Boasting in Relation to Contemporary Professional Practice’ emphasizes the importance of rhetoric in the development of cultural identity in antiquity. Chapter 3, ‘St. Paul and Classical Society’ argues that understanding ‘the complex civil obligations and expectations under which Paul and his converts lived’ is vital to uncovering their social identity and Paul’s theologizing (83). In chapter 4, ‘St Paul as a Radical Critic of Society’ Paul is understood as a Roman citizen who was well-educated and part of the mainstream of society but also rejected the prevailing Greco-Roman approach to ‘self-protection’ and ‘status’ (105). Chapter 5, ‘The Social Identity of the First Christians’ reviews the ‘new consensus’ (125) concerning the social identity of the early Christ-movement as representing a cross-section of Roman society. Chapter 6, ‘Rank and Status in the World of the Caesars and St Paul’ reveals Judge’s command of the papyrological evidence and serves as a fine model for researches to follow when working with the fragmentary evidence from Oxyrhynchus. Chapter 7, ‘Cultural Conformity and Innovation in Paul’ surveys key ‘eulogistic terminology’ (166) to explain Paul’s attitude toward money while in Corinth and the absence of friendship language in Paul’s letters. He also convincingly argues that Paul rejected the patronage system while in Corinth (173). In chapter 8, ‘The Teacher as Moral Exemplar in Paul and in the Inscriptions of Ephesus’ relies on inscriptional evidence to understand how Paul’s call for imitation functioned. It was not to be understood as a call to imitate an educational model or an ethical system but as the cultivation of a ‘kindred practice’ within his communities (185). Scholer concludes with a comprehensive bibliography of Judge’s work and three useful indices including modern authors, subjects, and ancient sources. The book is free from typographical errors but tends to be disjointed which often occurs in compilations.

In a short review such as this there is only space for one critique of Judge’s work. His approach to understanding the social distinctives and context of the earliest Christ-movement relies on papyrological, textual, and inscriptional evidence while dismissing a significant explanatory role for contemporary social-scientific models. He argues that these models were developed much later and in a context foreign to that of the Roman empire (140). He argues that NT scholars should resist using the results of ‘modern sociology’ until their findings can be validated through a type of ‘painstaking field work’ that is all but impossible when dealing with ancient cultures. He concludes that those who employ these methods are engaging in ‘the sociological fallacy’ (128). Judge, however, employs the resources of ‘cultural-anthropology’ to explain Paul’s engagement with the economic realities of the Roman empire (166-7). His rejection of social-scientific theories as an explanatory device may not be as absolute as he presents in his writing. Scholer does, however, balance the discussion in the introduction by providing a summary of these issues and a bibliography for further research (xvii-xx). David Horrell (cf. xviii) has argued that the imposition of models on ancient data is only one approach that may be employed within social-scientific criticism. One may engage in historical and textual work as practiced by Judge and then allow themes to emerge that may then be correlated with the findings from the social-sciences. This inter-disciplinary work provides the conceptual resources that assist scholars in their efforts to address the concerns of contemporary society. This critique aside, this book is recommended for those interested in the social history of the earliest Christ-movement in its Greco-Roman context.

Paul and the Dynamics of Power

2010-08-29T10:54:00.004-04:00

Paul and the Dynamics of Power: Communication and Interaction in the Early Christ-Movement. By Kathy Ehrensperger. New York, NY: T&T Clark, 2009. Pp. xiv + 235. Paper, $39.95; 2007. Pp. xiv + 235. Cloth, $140.00.

This book argues that Paul approached power in a differentiated manner, one that should not be subsumed under the rubric of domination or power-over. Kathy Ehrensperger provides a contextually sensitive reading of Paul’s power discourse in order to provide insights into how authority was deployed within the early Christ-movement.

Chapter One serves as an introduction to the book and orients the reader to previous studies on Paul and power (e.g. Schütz, Holmberg, Kittredge, and Polaski); and Ehrensperger’s presuppositions, which include: Paul’s Jewish embeddedness and the Roman empire as his primary interlocutor. These guide her exegetical choices throughout the book, e.g. Paul’s approach to argumentation has its source in the Jewish symbolic universe and the domination of the Roman empire serves as a key reason as to why Paul chose not to seek to dominate members of the early Christ-movement. Ehrensperger’s approach to Paul and power is examined as his extant letters are interpreted in a dialectic between his epistolary discourse and contemporary power theories (e.g. Weber, Foucault, Arendt, Wartenberg, and Allen). Chapter Two surveys these approaches to power and provides an explanatory rationale for her study and argues that a binary understanding of power in Paul is unwarranted and that he deployed power for empowerment and not for domination. Thus, Paul’s approach to power was strategic, situationally determined, and combined aspects of “power-over, power-to, and power-with” (34) in order to establish stable communities of Christ-followers throughout the Mediterranean basin.

Chapter Three extends Ehrensperger’s argument by explaining how communication occurred within the Pauline communities. Paul is understood as part of a network of leaders working together to establish communities of Christ-followers by means of letters which relied on the resources of kinship language to establish their social identity in Christ. Ehrensperger’s contrapuntal reading is evident as she understands Paul to be in a hierarchically-defined, asymmetrical relationship with his addressees but that this relationship was temporary and that planned obsolescence, similar to Wartenberg’s concept of “transformative power” (61) describes accurately Paul’s application of power. Chapter Four addresses Paul’s discourse of grace, not as a hidden discourse of power but as an others-centered discourse of empowerment that has its source in Israel’s Scriptures. Chapters Five and Six focus on the interaction of identity, power, and culture within the Christ-movement in light of the Roman empire. The subversive nature of the apostolic message as an “alternative value system” (97) to Roman elitism is discussed as the leaders of the Christ-movement are understood to be re-socializing key components of Roman social identity within the constraints placed upon them by the empire. Chapters Seven and Eight argue that Paul’s approach to communal formation was thoroughly Jewish in its orientation. Paul’s epistolary discourse is understood in the context of Jewish pedagogical practices which allows her to uncover analogs for Paul’s discourse primarily in the Jewish Scriptures and not from Greco-Roman moral philosophers. Paul functions as a group prototype or exemplar in his letters and Ehrensperger discusses mimesis as an implicit critique of Roman imperial ideology and a call to follow those who “embody the message of the gospel and its alternative values” (154). Chapter Nine argues that Paul was seeking to transform communal life within the Christ-movement based on a prior relationship of trust between Paul and his audience and that if Paul’s goal was to dominate the group; then letters are an inefficient way to accomplish that. Chapter Ten concludes by arguing that Paul exercised power in a transformative manner and that he would not exercise it in a manner similar to the Roman empire in that it would be inconsistent with the message of Israel’s Scriptures and Christ-crucified.

Ehrensperger has produced an excellent monograph that provides a fine example of how contemporary social-scientific theories can interact with ancient texts. One slight concern, 1 Cor 4:21 is rightly noted as a counter-example of transformative power and that it will be addressed in section “10.4” (179 n. 2). When one reads that section; however, one only finds a general discussion about how the leaders in the Christ-movement did not always live up to the standards of the gospel. A discussion of how this key verse on Paul and power is to be understood in the context of transformative power would have been helpful. That slight concern aside, this monograph deserves a wide reading from Pauline scholars, graduate students looking for an excellent example of clear argumentation, and practitioners in ministry who will find in it timely insights into how to apply Paul’s theologizing to concrete ministry settings.

A slightly different version of this originally appeared as: Review of Kathy Ehrensperger, Paul and the Dynamics of Power: Communication and Interaction in the Early Christ-Movement. (Library of New Testament studies, 325. London: T & T Clark, 2007), Biblical Theology Bulletin, volume 39, no. 3 (Aug 2009): 175-76.

Divine and Human Agency in Paul

2010-08-28T15:59:00.004-04:00

Divine and Human Agency in Paul and His Cultural Environment. Edited by John M. G. Barclay and Simon J. Gathercole. Library of New Testament Studies 335. London: T & T Clark International, 2008, x + 208 pp., $44.95; 2006, x + 208 pp., $130.00.

Divine and Human Agency in Paul and His Cultural Environment is a compilation from a colloquium held at the University of Aberdeen in 2004. The book offers a fresh examination of Paul’s understanding of agency through a comparative approach of select Judean and Greco-Roman literary sources from around 200 BC-AD 200. It provides a contrapuntal reading of Paul within his cultural context that is both creative and informative. The need for this book, according to Barclay in the introduction, is based on the reemergence of the importance of agency by scholars working within the ‘new perspective’ and the postmodern turn which challenges scholars to re-conceptualize their assumptions concerning ancient and contemporary topics of study. It offers three models from which the various authors work in conceptualizing divine and human agency: competitive in which both agencies are mutually exclusive; kinship in which both are shared but transcendence is limited; and “non-contrastive transcendence” in which God’s sovereignty “grounds and enables human freedom” (p. 7).

The first three readings focus on early Judaism and Paul’s understanding of agency is peripheral. G. Boccaccini’s “Inner-Jewish Debate” surveys the emphases of those within early Judaism: Zadokite emphasizing covenant, Enochic elevating the role of non-human agents, and Sapiential seeing no clear link between divine and human agency. The next generation of Judaism continues the diversity of understanding of divine and human agency: the Sadducees seeking to restore balance, the Pharisees allowing for coexistence between the two agents, and the Qumran sectarians holding to a strong deterministic viewpoint. Early Christianity seeks to balance agency through the inclusion of the devil and Jesus, who is understood as divine wisdom, while Rabbinic Judaism reserves that place for Torah. Boccaccini’s survey clearly demonstrates the diversity of approaches to maintaining the balance between divine and human agency within the family of Judaism. P. Alexander’s “Predestination and Free Will” provides a cogent survey of agency within the Dead Sea Scrolls by providing an exposition of “The Sermon of the Two Spirits” with its dualistic and deterministic outlook, and convincingly argues for its centrality in the life of those living in Qumran. F. Avemarie’s “Tension between God’s Command and Israel’s Obedience” wrestles with God’s expectation of obedience from Israel and the various ways in which Rabbinic discussions understood the agency of the Torah in communal motivation. These discussions include humanity being modeled after the Torah, free will being necessary to allow for the possibility of punishment, and an evil inclination as the explanation for the struggle against God’s commands. He also concludes that there was significant diversity concerning the role of human cooperation in obeying God’s commands.

The next three readings discuss the cultural environment of Paul from both a Judean and Greco-Roman perspective and begin to narrow the focus of the book by considering their impact on Paul’s writing. S. Westerholm’s “Paul’s Anthropological ‘Pessimism’ in its Jewish Context” assesses Jewish writings concerning the capacity of humankind to obey the commands of God. Overall, the texts surveyed hold out the distinct possibility that humans can obey the commands of God – quite unlike Paul’s pessimistic view of humanity. F. Watson’s “Constructing an Antithesis” provides a stimulating reading of 4QMMT, 4 Maccabees, and Paul in which the diversity of viewpoints concerning divine and human agency are attributed to the diversity within the hermeneutic approaches of each author. So, the Pauline antithesis between grace and works did not develop in an analogous way with that of 4QMMT and 4 Maccabees, but was in fact a construct of Paul. Watson argues that one cannot know the extent to which Paul’s antithesis corroborates with or differs from other viewpoints held within Second Temple Judaism in that Paul’s construct is more clearly defining his gospel rather than summarizing views of others contemporary to Paul. T. Engberg-Pedersen’s “Self-sufficiency and Power” dialogic reading of Epictetus and Paul provides a study of the similarities and differences between Stoic and Pauline thought. He problematizes the distinction between divine and human agency and suggests that the interaction of humankind with the divine is a close approximation to current discussions of divine and human agency. He concludes, however, that in both Epictetus and Paul agency is intertwined and is not to be understood in a binary relationship.

The final three readings provide the most direct interaction with Paul’s writings and his understanding of divine and human agency. J. Barclay’s “By the Grace of God I am what I am” provides a comparative reading of Philo and Paul concerning divine grace and human agency. Both authors emphasize the priority of grace, but there are some differences concerning its place in their theological framework. Philo associates it with creation while Paul connects it with the Christ-event, and for Philo a “resting sage” (p. 157) is the ideal person while for Paul the ideal person is an obedient person. S. Gathercole’s “Sin in God’s Economy: Agencies in Romans 1 and 7” suggests Paul is arguing that God uses the history of sin for his divine revelatory purposes. That is, the history of sin is the way in which God makes himself and his righteousness known. L. Martyn’s “Epilogue: An Essay in Pauline Meta-ethics” provides a brief sketch of the metaphysical, epistemological, semantic, and psychological components necessary for a complete meta-ethical theory, which he intends to develop further in an upcoming book. He summarizes and responds to key aspects of the preceding essays and offers brief remarks concerning an apocalyptic framework from which to understand Paul’s ethics. He argues for a corporate understanding of Paul’s ethics and that the new Spirit-led community is the new agent by which divine and human agents work together to overcome the “supra-human powers” (p. 178) warring against God.

This book’s strength rests in the mature reflection of seasoned scholars who provide even-handed conclusions while avoiding unnecessary speculation. The broad coverage of texts make this work a valuable addition to researchers working within Pauline studies, as well as theological studies within the fields of soteriology and theological anthropology. There are, however, a few weaknesses that need to be mentioned. Westerholm’s analysis has a distinctly pre-‘new perspective’ orientation to it, while Watson’s essay actually weakens the impact of other contributions within the book by pointing out the deficiencies of the comparative method because of the diversity of hermeneutic approaches employed by the various ancient authors, a perennial problem likewise noted by Barclay (p. 140). Gathercole’s contribution too quickly assumes the presence of a Jewish interlocutor in Romans 1-2, a viewpoint that has been called into question by both William S. Campbell and Robert Jewett. Also, it is not clear if this book was designed as a ‘call’ to return to a pre-Sanders understanding of Paul or as a contribution to the research to move beyond the ‘new perspective’ readings of Paul. That said, researchers from both sides of that debate will find material within this book both to embrace and critique. Pauline studies are enriched by this compilation of essays on divine and human agency.

Spirit and Wisdom in 1 Corinthians 1:1-2:16

2010-08-28T09:13:00.005-04:00

Harold Attridge and David Barlett discuss 1 Cor 1:1-2:16 and provide some useful reflections on the purpose of the letter and its relevance for identity formation (though that last part is not until the last 30 seconds).

Thanks to Mark Goodacre for the link, over at NTgateway.com.

Does Paul Part Ways with his Jewish Heritage?

2010-08-27T12:28:00.004-04:00

What Must I Do To Be Saved? Paul Parts Company With His Jewish Heritage. By Barry D. Smith. Sheffield, UK: Sheffield Phoenix Press, 2007, xiii + 285 pp., $90.00 hardcover

Chapter one provides a wide survey of Second Temple literature that points out that obedience to the Law rightly interpreted leads to eschatological salvation. Barry D. Smith, Professor of Philosophy and Religious Studies at Crandell University, in Moncton, New Brunswick, Canada, sees a rather consistent teaching within these texts of God as a righteous judge who will hold people accountable for their obedience or their disobedience to his Law. However, God is not only a righteous judge; Smith also detects in these texts a consistent pattern that argues that God is also to be understood as merciful. Thus, God is described as the one “who removes guilt resulting from transgression of the Law on the simple condition of repentance” (p. 34). This forms the basis of the synergistic soteriology that Smith observes in these otherwise disparate texts from the various forms of early Judaism. Central to Smith’s argument is the rejection of ‘the new perspective on Paul’. Moreover, he contends that “Second-Temple Judaism was characterized in part by a legalistic works-righteousness” and that this historical-religious context is a prerequisite for a coherent reading of Paul’s soteriological reflections (p. 71, emphasis original).

In chapter two, Smith is convinced that Paul’s approach to soteriology was non-synergistic and thus discontinuous with other expressions of early Judaism which held that eschatological salvation could be achieved by obedience to the Law. This is the point at which Smith is in direct conflict with the scholarly conclusions of those within ‘the new perspective on Paul’. These scholars hold that such an understanding of eschatological salvation was not part of the various expressions of Judaism during the Second Temple period. Smith, on the other hand, argues that Paul rejects what ‘new perspective’ scholars argue did not exist – a legalistic works-righteousness approach to eschatological salvation. Paul’s understanding of synergistic soteriology, which Smith argues, was inherited from his Pharisaic background (Phil 3:6) was transformed into a non-synergistic soteriology in which no one can be declared righteous through obedience to the Law. Jew and gentile both can only be declared righteous by faith. Thus, humanity cannot boast before God in that their salvation is fully contingent on God’s grace through faith. Smith argues that Paul’s scriptural grounding for this understanding is sourced in his reading of Habakkuk 2:4, “the righteous by faith shall live” (p. 160).

If this summary sounds rather conventional, this is intentional on Smith’s part because he states in the introduction that the purpose for this book is to offer “a restatement of the traditional formulation of Pauline soteriology in light of recent criticisms of it” (p. 1). Throughout chapter two Smith maintains the general contours of the accepted Augustinian-Lutheran understanding of Pauline soteriology. For Smith, Paul’s non-synergistic approach resolves the tension inherent in the existing synergistic soteriological formulations within early Judaism with regard to God’s judgment and mercy by completely relying on God’s mercy. Thus, there is no room for any human works-based contribution with regard to eschatological salvation (p. 75). For Smith, Paul has forsaken his Jewish identity and its accepted paradigm for salvation – a synergistic soteriological scheme in which humanity cooperates with God with regard to eschatological salvation. For Smith, this also includes a “repudiating of the idea that the Law was ever truly intended as a means of life (Lev. 18.5)” (p. 76). Thus, for Paul, who has now rejected his Jewish heritage according to Smith, faith and not obedience to the Law, is the only way to be declared righteous.

Chapter three addresses the issue of coherence with regard to Pauline soteriology in that several passages in his letters appear to indicate that Paul was synergistic with regard to the possibility of being disqualified based on patterns of disobedience (e.g. 1 Cor 6:9-11; 9:24-27; Phil 3:12-14; Rom 2:5-11). Smith, however, argues that these passages do not contradict the Pauline non-synergistic soteriological framework. Rather, the indwelling of the Holy Spirit and the lack of free will for Christ-followers guard against any possibility of practical unrighteousness and disobedience (pp. 201, 206). Thus, Smith argues that the same mercy of God that provides eschatological salvation also produces good works in the life of a believer.

A number of strengths emerge from this monograph. First, Smith provides a generous sampling of Second Temple texts that are directly relevant to the broader discussion of soteriological approaches in early Judaism. Second, he bifurcates the positive arguments that occur in the main text with extensive defensive arguments that occur in the footnotes. This allows the reader to follow Smith’s argument without too many digressions in the main text of the study. Third, Smith achieves his stated goal of providing a restatement of the traditional Augustinian-Lutheran understanding of Paul while addressing many of the critiques evident in the writings of, for example, E.P. Sanders, James D.G. Dunn, and N.T. Wright. This rather adventurous monograph is a welcome addition within the field of Pauline studies.

Smith’s work, however, is weakened by two issues: his approach to the continuing significance of Paul’s Jewish identity and his use of parallel literature. The critique that follows should be read in the context of an appreciation for the general soteriological framework from which Smith argues. Moreover, it is informed by a group of scholars broadly referred to as ‘beyond the new perspective on Paul’ (e.g. Robert Jewett, William S. Campbell, Kathy Ehrensperger, Neil Elliott, and Mark Nanos).

First, it is not clear how discontinuous Paul is with his Jewish heritage. Beyond the soteriological framework, Smith does not provide adequate documentation or argumentation that would substantiate such a strong assertion. It may be that Smith’s desire to critique the ‘new perspective on Paul’ has led him to assert more than the evidence allows. For example, in 1 Cor 7:17-24 Paul instructs the Corinthian Christ-followers to remain in the social situation in which they were in when they were called. This passage has significant soteriological implications and calls into question this component of Smith’s argument. He asserts that the calling in view in 1 Cor 7:20 is not soteriological but he offers no argument for why this view should be accepted (p. 181 n.13). While it is possible to argue that Paul’s previous existence and its relation to his Jewish identity have been reprioritized; it is too strong to argue that Paul has parted ways with his Jewish identity. In Rom 11:1, Paul declares that he is “an Israelite” and “a member of the tribe of Benjamin”. Smith does not address this verse in relation to the continuing significance of Paul’s Jewish identity (p. 217 n.167); nor does Romans 9-11 figure into his argument in any significant way. The last half of the letter is vital to understanding Paul’s Jewish identity and the manner in which his soteriological arguments in the first half of the letter are applied in the context of honor/shame discourse, ethnic diversity, and social identities that retain their fundamental significance ‘in Christ’ (Rom 9:1-5; 14:1, 5; 15:7; 16:16a).

Second, Smith’s argument in chapter one is based primarily on Second Temple texts in which the literary context is often unclear, the dating for some is an open question, and much of the Qumran material is too incomplete to serve as a useful guide for scriptural interpretation. Furthermore, it is not clear why one should employ these texts and not the ‘canonical’ texts for comparisons with Pauline soteriology. Is it possible that a comparison with the ‘canonical’ framework, interpreted in the context of kinship discourse, would reveal Paul as one arguing in a manner somewhat more consistently within his Jewish heritage? Smith’s book, however, fills a need by providing scholars and students interested in contemporary Pauline studies with a delineation of key aspects of the traditional understanding of the Augustinian-Lutheran framework for Pauline soteriology.

Theology and the formation of social identity

2010-08-26T21:03:00.003-04:00

I've been thinking that I need to get my daughters more focused on theology as a way to help form their social identity, but I'm not sure if this is the best way to do it or not.

Theology Lessons from Brian Christopher on Vimeo.

New Bibliography on Social Identity Theory and Biblical Studies

2010-08-18T17:00:00.004-04:00

Pat McCullough, a Ph.D. student in New Testament and Christian origins at UCLA posted an excellent bibliography dealing with social identity theory and biblical studies. It is well worth the time if you are interesting in identity studies and the NT.

Review of Early Jewish Prayers in Greek

2010-08-14T18:52:00.005-04:00

Pieter W. van der Horst and Judith H. Newman. Early Jewish Prayers in Greek. Commentaries on Early Jewish Literature. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2008. Pp. xvi + 298. ISBN 978-3-11-020503-9. $118.00 cloth.

Jewish prayers in Greek are an oft neglected group of liturgical texts that provide insight into Diaspora Judaism, relations between Judaism and Christianity, and how biblical material was contextualized and interpreted within religious communities. This present volume, which is part of the Commentaries on Early Jewish Literature series, offers commentary and introduction into a specific set of literary and non-literary artifacts – Jewish prayers which are written in Greek. The work is co-authored with Pieter W. van der Horst, Professor Emeritus of New Testament, early Christian literature, and the Jewish and Hellenistic World of early Christianity at Utrecht University, NL. He comments on the Apostolic Constitutions (AC), Pap. Egerton 5, Pap. Fouad 203, and tombstone inscriptions from Rheneia. Judith H. Newman, Professor of Old Testament and early Judaism at the University of Toronto, Canada; comments on the Prayer of Manasseh, the Prayer of Azariah, the Prayer of Jacob, and the Prayer of Joseph, which is included as a way to contextualize the Prayer of Jacob (p. 250). This publication continues the high-quality work that one has come to expect from these careful scholars. They provide insightful commentary, clearly-developed argumentation, and compelling historical judgments into the role of these ancient Jewish prayer texts in the lives of diverse religious communities.

Horst and Newman provide densely packed introductions for each of the prayers, presenting issues related to the reception and interpretation of each prayer. One example will have to suffice for this brief review. Horst discusses the nature and origin of AC arguing for a provenance in Syria around 380 C.E. His textual criticism discussion follows the work of Marcel Metzger. The history of the research into the Jewish origin and nature of these Christian prayers in AC 7.33-38 focuses on the foundational maximalist work of Kolher, Bousset, and Goodenough. They argue that the prayers were Jewish in orientation with rather easily recognizable Christian interpolations. This was the predominant view until the minimalist work of Fiensy who called into question some of the methodological approaches of the previous group of scholars, especially with regard to the ease of identifying Christian interpolations. Fiensy concludes that the prayers represent Jewish synagogal prayers which follow contours of Rabbinic thought at the beginning of the fourth century (22). The reason for including the Jewish prayers with Christian interpolations in AC, argues Horst, is that the Christians in Antioch were attracted to Judaism and this was one way in which church leaders could keep Christians from thinking they needed to attend the synagogue on the Sabbath in order to pray prayers like the Seven Benedictions (25). Though this conclusion might be contested, Horst has identified a significant issue relating to the way in which ‘the parting of the ways’ is often presented without sufficient attention being given to differences in each particular context. His commentary on AC 7.33-38 offers a generally convincing redaction-critical reading, which finds much of this material sourced in the Seven Benedictions with added content from other aspects of “the Sabbath morning service” (p. 89).

Horst and Newman, however, do approach their commentary from somewhat different perspectives. Horst’s commentary often has the feel of a traditional commentary, especially in his discussions of sources, syntax, and conceptual parallels. Newman’s exegesis is informed by contemporary theoretical and literary perspectives that support her exegetical choices into these fragmentary pieces of discourse. This results in a slight lack of coherence within the commentary proper. That minor quibble aside, this volume provides reliable commentary and up-to-date bibliography for liturgical works that are sometimes overlooked in discussions of Jewish identity and early Christian origins and should be included among the resources of scholars working in these areas of research.

This is a revised version of a review that was published originally as:
Review of Pieter W. Van der Horst and Judith H. Newman, Early Jewish Prayers in Greek. (Berlin: De Gruyter, 2008), Bulletin for Biblical Research, volume 19, no. 4 (2009): 601-2.

Review of Father, Son, and Spirit: The Trinity and John's Gospel

2010-08-14T16:54:00.007-04:00

Köstenberger, Andreas J., and Scott R. Swain, Father, Son, and Spirit: The Trinity and John's Gospel, NSBT, Downers Grove, IL; Nottingham, England: InterVarsity Press and Apollos, 2008. Pp. 224. ISBN 978-0-8308-2625-4. $22.00 paper.

Andreas J. Köstenberger and Scott R. Swain (KS) provide a clearly argued and accessible study on the trinitarian theology of the Gospel of John. The introduction establishes the need for the study and addresses some of the concerns that are raised when discussing trinitarian beliefs within John (e.g. accusations of historical and theological anachronisms). KS then lay out their hermeneutical approach which is described as “confessional criticism” (p. 23).

Chapter one argues that an understanding of Jesus as God is compatible with exclusivist monotheism and that it is historically plausible that an understanding of Jesus as God emerged quite early within Christianity and thus was not a creation of the church later during the Patristic Period. This chapter provides a brief overview of relevant scholarly works which impinge on Christological studies and Johannine literature, devoting time to the important work of Richard Bauckham and Larry Hurtado. KS provide a clear argument for the Apostle John’s authorship of the Gospel while critiquing Bauckham’s view that John the Elder wrote the fourth Gospel. The important contribution from this chapter to the argument of the book is that it demonstrated that early Christianity re-defined its inherited understanding of monotheism and thus God’s identity by including in it Jesus as the pre-existent Son of God (Deut. 6:4; Jn. 10:30; 1 Cor. 8:4-6). This reconfiguration is described by Bauckham and cited approvingly by KS as “Christological monotheism” (p. 44).

Chapter two surveys the use of theos in the Gospel of John and notes that it is used to refer to both the Father and the Son. KS recognize that this suggests “an apparent ditheism” on John’s part but comment further that “these two persons sustain a nuanced and complementary relationship” (p. 60). Chapter three provides an overview of the use of pāter with reference to God. It serves to broaden the accepted understanding of monotheism while also functioning as “the dominant, controlling metaphor” with regard to “Jesus’ relationship with God” (p. 73). Chapter four explores John’s application of the terms monogenēs, son of Joseph, Son of God, Son of Man, and Son. Chapter five provides an overview of the presence of the Spirit which evidences a marked increase in the latter half of the John’s Gospel. Chapter six summarizes the findings of the book up to this point and concludes that the trinitarian presence in John’s Gospel centers on mission.

Chapter seven provides a theological interpretation of the Trinity in John’s Gospel. This chapter argues that John’s Christological perspective is fully trinitarian which also has as its focus Jesus’ filial agency and mission of redemption (p. 124). Chapter eight demonstrates the trinitarian nature of John’s Christology by investigating the role of the Spirit in relation to the Son. KS discern in John’s Gospel a pattern in which the Spirit is sent from the Father, persists with the Son, and likewise continues with his followers (p. 148). Chapter nine argues for the centrality of the Trinity in God’s mission in the world and provides practical suggestions for the way the church should participate in that mission. Chapter ten utilizes Jesus’ high-priestly prayer to organize the trinitarian themes evident in John’s Gospel and in subsequent ecclesial reflection with regard to the correlation between Immanent and economic Trinity.

Andreas J. Köstenberger and Scott R. Swain have written an accessible and practical volume that provides a stimulating overview to both current trinitarian thought as well as the broader scholarly debates within the field of Johannine studies. This work will prove useful for thoughtful pastors, seminary students, and informed laypersons. It fills a lacuna in the field of biblical studies by providing a biblical survey and theological overview of the Trinity as it is presented in the Gospel of John.

A slightly different version of this review was originally published as:
Review of Andreas J. Köstenberger and Scott R. Swain, Father, Son, and Spirit: The Trinity and John’s Gospel. (Nottingham, England: Apollos, 2008), Bulletin for Biblical Research, volume 19, no. 4 (2009): 616-17.

Review of Deliver Us from Evil

2010-08-14T09:23:00.004-04:00

Richard H. Bell. Deliver Us from Evil: Interpreting the Redemption from the Power of Satan in New Testament Theology, WUNT, 216. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2007. Pp. xxiii + 439. ISBN 3-16-149452-9. $197.50 cloth.

Richard H. Bell’s work contributes to the field of New Testament Theology by providing a densely argued case that deliverance from Satan includes Jesus’ exorcisms as well as his death and resurrection. The focus of this monograph is on “interpreting the redemption from Satan in New Testament theology” (p. 2 emphasis original). After analyzing the New Testament data on this topic, Bell provides a framework for the way this material can be considered true.

The first chapter briefly discusses the history of interpretation of the doctrine of the devil. Next, Bell surveys both Jewish and Christian texts to explain the way each of these traditions understood the work of Satan. The last half of the chapter argues for the necessity of myth to understand the work of Christ with regard to the defeat of the devil (p. 65).

The second chapter discusses Jesus’ exorcisms found in the gospels and argues that the line between “healing” and “exorcism” is quite fluid (p. 71). Bell then provides arguments for their historicity (p. 77). The significance of Jesus’ healing and nature miracles are presented as evidence of the presence of the “eschatological age” which supported the claims for “Jesus’ messiahship” (pp. 97, 107).

Chapter three describes Bell’s philosophical construct, a “Kantian-Schopenhauerian framework” closely aligned with “transcendental idealism” in which the “distinction between the phenomenal world and the noumenal world is maintained while the role of “reason” is “demoted” (pp. 125-51). This framework allows Bell to suggest that the noumenal world may be impinged upon by the phenomenal world (p. 158). Thus, by utilizing the subject-object orientation he is able to argue that Jesus’ ministry affected the noumenal realm.

Chapter four argues that the soul is “the supra-temporal aspect of the human person” and, though properly belonging to the noumenal realm, “corresponds to every stage of our phenomenal existence” (pp. 207, 224). Furthermore, Bell contends that participation in Christ means “that the believer really does participate in Christ’s death on Calvary” (p. 210 emphasis original). Likewise, he argues that humanity also participates in Adam who is understood “as belonging to the noumenal realm” (p. 215).

Chapter five surveys Paul’s understanding of the activity of Satan that suggests Paul had more to say about Satan than is often thought. Humans are under his control because “they have participated in the sin of Adam” which Bell describes by using the concept of “identical repetition” (pp. 241, 256). He also argues that, for Paul, those “participating in the death and resurrection of Christ” have been “released from Satan’s bondage” (p. 263). This is expressed ritually through baptism and the eucharist both of which are understood as “speech-event[s]” affecting “existential displacement” (p. 279).

Chapter six sets out to establish the differences between Hebrews and Paul with regard to their understanding of redemption and the defeat of the devil. Bell concludes that Hebrews lacks a Pauline concept of “existential displacement” while presenting a more “mythical conception of redemption” that includes a “pattern of identitical repetition” (pp. 315, 306). Believers “do not so much participate in Christ but share with the redeemer a common nature” (p. 299 emphasis original).

Chapter seven addresses “the truth of the myth of the deliverance of Satan” (p. 333). Bell prefaces this with seven ways in which exorcisms and the cross and resurrection, both understood as deliverance from the devil, may be combined. Then he concludes, after discussing speech-acts/speech-events, that the truth of the myth “can be discerned only through faith” (p. 340). Chapter eight closes with Bell’s reflections on the nature of demons, a critique of Bultmann’s “program of demythologizing” (pp. 341-42), and reflections on the importance of recognizing the reality of demons and Satan in theological studies and the mission of the church (p. 358).

This work is an excellent example of the way the biblical material may be placed in dialogue with the philosophical questions that emerge from its exegesis. Though some may not be convinced by his use of myth, he has shown how this concept may address the mind-body problem with regard to changes in the phenomenal realm. His commitment to moving beyond Schopenhauer’s understanding of the “principle of sufficient reason” by integrating “speech events” with regard to theology should be given due consideration (p. 43). Bell has provided a brilliantly dense reading of Paul which scholars will find both useful and thoroughly stretching.

A slightly different version of this review originally appeared as:
Review of Richard H. Bell, Deliver Us from Evil: Interpreting the Redemption from the Power of Satan in New Testament Theology. (Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament, 216. Tübingen, Germany: Mohr Siebeck, 2007), Bulletin for Biblical Research, volume 19, no. 3 (2009): 465-67.

Review of Peoples of the NT World

2010-08-12T07:35:00.003-04:00

Peoples of the New Testament World: An Illustrated Guide. By William A. Simmons. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2008, 352 pp., $37.95, hardcover.

William A. Simmons, professor of New Testament at Lee University, seeks to describe the characteristics of the groups evident in the New Testament and how these groups interacted and influenced one another. Simmons begins with a series of defining moments in the survival of Jewish identity from the Babylonian period to the early Roman empire. He argues that Jewish identity during this period was constructed in opposition to the various occupying powers. The varying responses to imperialism, however, contributed to the fragmentation of Jewish identity that resulted in identity-based groups evident in the New Testament. Simmons gives full attention to the impact of empire and insightfully recognizes that political, social, and religious factions contributed to communal destabilization within the Christ-movement.

Jewish groups are the focus of chapters two through five. Simmons plausibly traces the beginnings of the Pharisees to the reforms of Ezra whilst noting that a concern for the survival of Jewish identity informed the Pharisees’ commitment to following the law. The Sadducees are presented as possibly being associated with the Zadokites and are seen as having similar approaches to cultural assimilation as a means of negotiating Jewish identity in the context of imperialism. The social and political power of the scribes is discussed by Simmons who notes that in Israel, the scribes were central to the discursive formation of Jewish identity. The Zealots are presented as a group that is understood in a binary relationship to the emerging ethos of the early Christ-movement.

Marginalized groups associated with Judea are the focus of chapters six through nine. Simmons rightly notes the association of the tax-collectors with the occupying power of Rome but he also contends that their marginalization had a moral basis associated with it (102). Simmons’ exegetical and historical insight emerges clearly in his understanding of “sinners” as an identifiable social group who were not only “ritually unclean” but “moral profligates” who had cast aside “their religious heritage” (108). This marginalized group, however, is one in which Jesus shares table fellowship. This act of social identification, argues Simmons, provides a theological framework for the social practice of the emerging Christ-movement. The social stratification evident in the Roman empire is clearly seen in the discussion of “the people of the land”, a marginalized group that existed in a constant state of liminality. The significance of ethnic identity is clear in the discussion of the Samaritans. Simmons argues that in the ministry of Jesus “ethnic and racial barriers were being transcended in the name of God” (131). Whist true salvifically, William S. Campbell has argued that ethnic identity continues to be relevant in the Christ-movement but in a reprioritized manner (Paul and the Creation of Christian Identity. [London: T&T Clark, 2008: 6-8]).

Chapters ten through twelve introduce social groups associated with the earliest Christ-movement. The followers of John the Baptist are discussed and John is understood as the key transitional figure within the existing religious climate in Judea and that of the emerging Jesus-movement (134). Simmons builds on Jacob Jervell’s idea of the mighty minority in his description of “the Hebrews” as an identifiable social group within the New Testament. The next chapter discusses “the Hellenists” as a similarly constructed social group. Simmons notes that issues related to Jewish and gentile identity emerged quite early on in the Christ-movement, as early as Acts 6. However, it may be better to see the ‘parting of the ways’ that was to occur as a result of the Temple tax, the destruction of the Temple, and the Bar Kokhba revolt. It was not a result of an ongoing ideological battle between the Christ-movement and Judaism or between “the Hellenists” and “the Hebrews” within the Christ-movement. This supposed ideological battle forms the framework of Simmons’ argument in these two chapters. W.D. Davies rightly noted, however, that “in Christ Jews remain Jews and Greeks remain Greeks. Ethnic peculiarities are honoured” (‘Paul and the People of Israel’, NTS 24 1978: 23). Thus, Simmons may be too stark with regard to this ideological battle.

The Roman context is discussed beginning with a highly informative chapter on syncretism and magic. Magic as an ordering principle is often overlooked in New Testament introductions and Simmons’ work makes a significant contribution in this regard. The next chapter describes “the Herodians” as transitional client figures between the Jewish and Roman world (204, 223). Chapter fifteen provides an uneven summary of the Roman emperors and the provincial governors. Also, a discussion of the imperial cult and ideology would have made this chapter more useful. Roman centurions are researched in the next chapter. Simmons argues that these extensions of Roman imperialism are presented in a positive light within the New Testament and that they contributed to the furtherance of the gentile mission (273).

Chapters seventeen through nineteen consider the significance of other key ordering principles within the Roman empire. First, patronage is discussed and the stratified nature of the empire is understood as the means in which the empire could be maintained. Simmons rightly notes the presence of a transformed understanding of patronage within the early Christ-movement (290). Second, the philosophical context of the New Testament is uncovered. Simmons provides helpful introductions to Epicureanism and Stoicism. Third, slavery is overviewed and he understands some of the New Testament documents to contain “the seeds of emancipation” for slaves that would emerge in later revisions of Roman law (321).

This book is highly recommended for general survey courses and those seeking to understand the cultural context of the New Testament. Simmons has produced a richly illustrated and extensively researched monograph that deserves to take its place among the existing handbooks on the New Testament. Slight editorial slippages (e.g. 36-37, 53, 182-83) should be addressed in future editions so that this helpful work will be given the attention is rightly deserves.

A slightly different version of this review originally appeared as:
Review of Williams A. Simmons, Peoples of the New Testament World: An Illustrated Guide. (Peabody, Mass: Hendrickson Publishers, 2008). Criswell Theological Review, N.S. volume 7, no. 1 (Fall 2009): 108-10.

Review of How Did Christianity Begin?

2010-08-11T13:26:00.005-04:00

How Did Christianity Begin?: A Believer and Non-Believer Examine the Evidence. By Michael F. Bird, James G. Crossley, Scot McKnight, and Maurice Casey. London: SPCK; Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2008, xviii, 206 pp., $19.95, paper.

Michael F. Bird, lecturer in Theology and Bible at Crossway College, in Queensland, Australia, Scotland and James G. Crossley, lecturer in New Testament Studies at the University of Sheffield in England; set out to write a description of the emergence of Christianity as a separate religious movement from the perspective of a believer (i.e. Bird) and a non-believer (i.e. Crossley). What results is an engaging study into some of the most contentious issues in New Testament studies including: the historical Jesus, the resurrection, the apostle Paul, the Gospels, and earliest Christianity. The book is structured as an ongoing dialogue in which one author presents his argument and the other author provides a counter-argument designed to show the weaknesses in the previous author’s argument. Each chapter then concludes with a brief response from the author who began the chapter. Additionally, each chapter ends with an informative bibliography designed for further reading. This is an important part of the book because often Bird and Crossley are only addressing or responding to aspects of arguments that have been developed more fully in the writings of other scholars. After the above mentioned five areas are discussed, the next chapter provides a critique of Crossley’s overall argument by Scot McKnight and likewise an assessment of Bird’s approach by Maurice Casey. McKnight and Casey, as senior scholars in the field, provide a broader context for the arguments that Bird and Crossley offer and also make comments as to the way they would approach these issues. The book ends with a short reflection on the nature of scholarly discourse and then includes an index of biblical and ancient authors as well as modern authors.

The introduction orients the reader to Bird’s evangelical approach and Crossley’s secular approach. Chapter one begins with Crossley arguing “that Jesus and Christianity were the product of broader social, economic and historical trends” (1). He concludes that most everything that is recorded concerning Jesus is also found in the various expressions of Judaism during the Second Temple Period. Bird, on the other hand, argues that what is recorded about the historical Jesus is accurate and quite exceptional. Moreover, Crossley’s “materialist” framework, misuse of sociological methods, and “cross-cultural” analyses which rely heavily on parallels result in findings that are not convincing (32). Crossley rightly notes that his cross-cultural comparisons are contextually sensitive and that Bird is too strong on this critique (33).

Bird begins chapter two with a defense of the bodily resurrection of Jesus and concludes that the resurrection accounts for the emergence of the earliest Christ-movement. Crossley contends “that in terms of conventional historical reconstruction the bodily resurrection should be dismissed as a historical event” (51). Here it is clear that even scholarly dialogue has its limits and that these competing positions are mutually exclusive though Bird does suggest that possibly he and Crossley can agree that a least they can acknowledge that the early Christ-followers “believed that Jesus rose from the dead” (65).

Chapter three discusses the apostle Paul and Crossley argues that Paul’s preoccupation was with issues related to the correct interpretation of the Law within Judaism and not with high Christological formulations. Thus, it would be too bold to argue that Paul equated Jesus with God in a manner similar to that of the Gospel of John (84). Bird relies on Philippians 2:5-11 to support his contention that language which had been limited to the God of Israel was now being applied to Jesus (96). Furthermore, Bird’s approach to Paul’s understanding of the Law is that the Law was fulfilled in Christ. Bird and Crossley, however, agree that Paul’s major concern was with “those who wanted to impose Law-observance on Gentiles” (94).

Bird begins chapter four, which discusses the Gospels, by arguing that the Synoptic Gospels and John evidence more continuity than is often concluded by scholars. Bird makes it clear that he follows the consensus dating for the Gospels. This is important because much of Crossley’s argument relies on a dating of Mark in the early 40s (106, 173 n.4). Bird also offers a sustained argument for the historicity of the Fourth Gospel, a viewpoint that is critiqued later in the book by Casey (184). Crossley understands Mark to be promoting continued observance of the Law and that the community to whom he writes was still within Judaism. Crossley provides a rather extensive discussion of Mark 7:19, one in which he concludes that the issue in this verse was hand-washing and not a declaration by Jesus that all foods are clean. Bird concludes by noting Crossley has failed to grasp the differentiated manner in which Law-observance would have been expressed within the Christ-movement and that a “high Christology…belongs to the earliest decades of the early Church” (136).

Chapter five begins with a discussion of the development of earliest Christianity. Crossley connects the concepts of pagan monotheism with empire as key ordering principles in earliest Christianity. Also, he argues that existing social networks were used by leaders of the Christ-movement in order to foster growth and expansion. Bird relies on an understanding of the gentile mission that was implicit in the ministry of Jesus as a key ordering principle for the emergence and continuation of earliest Christianity. Bird offers nine reasons for the ‘parting of the ways’ that seek to combine the political as well as the religious reasons for the separation of Christianity and Judaism (154-59).

Chapter six begins with a critique of Crossley by Scot McKnight who suggests that Crossley downplays the impact of his own presuppositions while elevating Bird’s evangelical bias. Furthermore, McKnight notes that Crossley’s methodological approach is not consistent and thus his conclusions are far from compelling. McKnight offers a brief outline of his preferred approach to early Christian origins, which is highlighted by his focus on “Anawim theology (i.e. the lost and forgotten ones)” and a key recognition that Christianity consisted of “linguistic[ally]-shaped communities” (173, 181). Maurice Casey’s critique of Bird focuses on Bird’s evangelical bias, his commitment to the historicity of the Fourth Gospel, his definition of the miraculous, his commitment to the Christ of faith rather than the Jesus of history, and his anachronistic readings of the Gospel witness. Finally, chapter seven briefly summarizes areas with Bird and Crossley agree and disagree while calling for future historical research to be “anchored in evidence” and practiced “in a spirit of learning” (196).

The structure of the book, with its reliance on a brief presentation and rebuttal may lack the rigor necessary to address in a substantial manner issues as complex as early Christian origins. The book lacks sustained exegetical argumentation and scholarly support is kept to a minimum. This gives the impression that a line of argumentation has been answered by means of a brief rebuttal that may overlook further implications and possibilities with regard to the critiqued position. Moreover, with a topic as broad as early Christian origins, it is unlikely that the chosen format can do little more than orient or introduce the reader to a few scholarly debates. The impact of the Roman Empire, though discussed in chapter five is not given its full consideration as a over-arching factor in the development of the earliest Christ-movement and the findings of Christian identity scholars are overlooked. None of these weaknesses should dissuade one from reading this book. It is a helpful introduction to many of the current issues in the study of early Christian origins and provides a useful starting place for students and newcomers to the issues it explores.

A slightly different version of this review appeared as:
Review of Michael F. Bird, James G. Crossley, Scot McKnight, and Maurice Casey. How Did Christianity Begin?: A Believer and Non-Believer Examine the Evidence. (London: SPCK, 2008). Criswell Theological Review, N.S. volume 7, no. 1 (Fall 2009): 106-08.

Review of Healing, Weakness, and Power

2010-08-10T13:24:00.004-04:00

Audrey Dawson. Healing, Weakness and Power: Perspectives on Healing in the Writings of Mark, Luke and Paul. Milton Keynes, U.K.: Paternoster, 2008. Pp. xvii + 302. ISBN 978-1-84227-524-5. $38.00 paper.

How did Mark, Luke, and Paul understand the healing ministry of Jesus and its continued expression in the life of the apostolic church? This is the concern of Audrey Dawson, who writes from dual perspective of a consultant physician and a New Testament scholar. This results in a work that is broad in scope, exegetically sensitive, and thoroughly stimulating. Chapter one introduces the topic to be studied and discusses many of the problems associated with researching ancient conceptions of healing in the contemporary context.

Chapter two begins with a wide-ranging summary of views of healing and sickness within Jewish thought as a way to contextualize Jesus’ healing ministry. The Greco-Roman world is surveyed and she concludes that the practice of magic was a widespread phenomenon and that healing miracles conferred power on individuals and credibility for their religious framework. Dawson’s argument in this chapter is that much of Mark, Luke, and Paul concerning the healing ministry of Jesus and the apostles is consonant with the expectations, practices, and beliefs within the early Roman empire.

Chapter three focuses on the Gospel of Mark and its depiction of healing by arguing, from a narrative-critical perspective, Jesus is seen as a healer, who attracts both crowds and opposition but this healing activity is only seen prior to his passion. This ministry focus is then developed within the broader context of Mark’s Christological concerns in which Jesus’ weakness becomes a focus of the latter part of the Gospel (p. 66). Dawson further argues that Jesus passed the concern for healing on to his followers. Thus, healing ministry would in turn form a key component of their mission throughout the Mediterranean basin, a mission sourced in Jesus’ example of healing both Jew and gentile (p. 90).

Chapter four Dawson discusses Luke’s portrayal of the healing ministry of Jesus and the apostles in Luke-Acts. Luke’s narrative presentation differs in significant ways from that of Mark. For example, in Luke the healings also serve a pedagogical function (Luke 11:14). Also, Mark emphasizes the humanity of Jesus while Luke describes him “as the powerful, obedient Son of God” (p. 156). Moreover, healing is understood in the context of the revelation of God’s power and functions as a key component for the legitimation of the mission to the gentiles through the power of the Holy Spirit (Acts 15:12).

Dawson argues, in chapter five, that Paul’s presentation of Jesus’ healing ministry is quite different in comparison to Mark and Luke. The source of this difference is Paul’s experience with personal illness in which he developed his theology of suffering and mission (2 Cor 12:7-10). Dramatic physical healings were thus not a central part of Paul’s ministry. Furthermore, Dawson understands Paul’s message of spiritual salvation to the gentiles to be an extension and his re-contextualization of the earthly ministry of Jesus which had emphasized physical healing.

Chapter six discusses the implications of the preceding study, reveals its findings, and brings to the fore the similarities and differences with regard to healing, weakness, and power in Mark, Luke, and Paul. Dawson’s work is particularly helpful in her assessment of Luke as one not writing as a physician (pp. 152-56) and locating the source of Paul’s reprioritization of the significance of physical healing within the life of the Christ-movement in his personal experience with chronic illness (pp. 198-203). This revised doctoral dissertation, done under the supervision of Andrew D. Clarke at the University of Aberdeen, provides a compelling reading of the differentiated and situational significance of healing within the earliest Christ-movement and makes a valuable contribution to New Testament studies.

This review originally appeared as:
Review of Audrey Dawson, Healing, Weakness, and Power: Perspectives on Healing in the Writings of Mark, Luke and Paul. (Milton Keyes: Paternoster, 2008). Bulletin for Biblical Research, volume 20, no. 1 (2010): 134-35.

Review of Introducing Paul

2010-08-09T19:38:00.004-04:00

Introducing Paul: The Man, His Mission and His Message. By Michael F. Bird. Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2008, 192 pp., $20.00, paper.

Michael Bird sets out to provide an introductory book on Paul’s life, thought, and writings in a way that is relevant and stimulating without being overly-distracted by “scholarly debates and complex technicalities” (p. 6). This is quite a challenge; however, Bird, who is a lecturer in Theology and Bible at Crossway College, in Queensland, Australia, admirably accomplishes this task in Introducing Paul. Chapter 1 is a fast-paced discussion seeking to answer the question, What is Paul? Bird’s answer is that he was “a servant of Jesus Christ” (p. 29). Furthermore, this chapter introduces the reader to various contested issues within Pauline studies, all structured around the image of Paul as a “persecutor, missionary, theologian, pastor, martyr, and maverick” (p. 28). Bird understands Paul’s greatest accomplishment to be his successful mission to include gentiles within the transformed understanding of the people of God. Chapter 2 briefly highlights the implications of Paul’s Damascus road experience, referred to as a conversion “to a messianic sect within Judaism” (p. 35 emphasis original). Bird provides a traditional Pauline chronology and then a description of the way Paul’s identity and theologizing were discontinuous with his Pre-Damascus road Jewish self-understanding and Pharisaic theology.

Chapter 3 presents a narrative substructure for a Pauline biblical theology. Bird’s topical review of salvation history provides the reader with key intersecting narratives that inform his epistolary discourse. His discussion of Adam and Christ is quite theological while his discussion of Israel argues the viewpoint that, for Paul, the church has replaced Israel as the people of God (p. 50). Chapter 4 gives a brief summary of the argument, structure, and framework of all the canonical letters attributed to Paul. Bird is a maximalist with regard to Pauline authorship of these letters (but see pp. 70-71 n.5). Chapter 5 provides a narrative-critical reading of the Gospel. Bird contends that for Paul, the Gospel is concerned with both the person and work of Christ. Furthermore, the Pauline stories in Rom. 1.1-4, 1 Cor. 15.1-5, and 2 Tim. 2.8, function as theological narratives designed to inform their auditors about God, salvation, and humanity (83). Bird draws from historic empire studies and the work of N.T. Wright to provide an informative discussion of the way the gospel was heard in the context of Roman imperial ideology.

The death and resurrection of Christ, which Bird understands as the center of Paul’s theological thought, is expressed through images and metaphors designed to explicate the significance of the Gospel. These concepts are introduced by Bird in chapter 6 and, when taken together provide a contingent discursive understanding of Pauline soteriology. The expressions covered by Bird include: righteousness, sacrifice, reconciliation, redemption, adoption, renewal, and victory. Chapter 7 offers a brief discussion of Paul’s eschatology and its importance for New Testament theology in general. Bird presents the “already” and “not yet” scheme, while also considering it plausible, based on 1 Cor. 15.23-25, that Paul expected a “messianic or millennial reign of Christ upon the earth” (p. 121). In Chapter 8, Bird presents Paul as a “messianic” monotheist who understands Christ as one “participating in the divine identity” (pp. 126, 128). This is an excellent of example of the way an introductory book can discuss important and relevant but often challenging conceptual material. The subject of Pauline ethics is the focus of chapter 9. Bird relies on the traditional Pauline “indicative” and “imperative” interpretive framework as a way to organize some of Paul’s teaching on the social implications of the Gospel (p. 136). Chapter 10 discusses Paul’s approach to discipleship and spiritual formation, which Bird refers to as “gospelizing”. In “gospelization”, individuals are formed in the shape of the cross and empowered by Christ’s resurrection (p. 162). The epilogue provides a reminder concerning the fragmentary nature of the Pauline discourse, the significance of his legacy within church history, and a clarion call to emulate Paul by living a missional life.

Bird has written a useful entry-level book for undergraduates, informed laypersons, and for ministers seeking to stay current within Pauline studies. His book sometimes presents only one side of rather disputed and contentious issues (e.g. the relationship of the church and Israel) and the influence of N.T. Wright is evident throughout the work. This book is recommended for those seeking to understand the contours of Paul’s thought in a way that is engaging, relevant, and highly readable.

Originally published as:
Review of Michael F. Bird, Introducing Paul: The Man, His Mission and His Message. (Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2008), Criswell Theological Review, N.S. volume 7, no. 2 (Spring 2010): 119-20.

Reading Ephesians, Part 3

2010-08-09T09:03:00.002-04:00

This is the final part of my review of Reading Ephesians by Minna Shkul, check here for part 1 and part 2. It is also published in the Journal of Beliefs and Values. See part 1 of this series for bibliographic information.

Chapter 6 provides the ideological paradigms necessary for the negotiation of social identity within the non-Israelite Christ-following community. The primary principle is that the community must replicate the holiness standards of Israel, which include distancing itself from the unclean identity and behaviours of the nations. This is achieved by social categorisation of both the ingroup (i.e. God's holy community), and the outgroup (i.e. those awaiting God's judgement); however, this occurs in an asymmetrical manner. The putative abolishing of the Law in Eph 2:15 indicates discontinuity with Jewish identity, while the call in Eph 4:17 to no longer live as gentiles problematises non-Israelite identity and leaves the community in a constant state of identity-liminality. The resolution, for Shkul, is in a third identity position: she concludes that 'Christianness is a primary identification that ought to characterise both values and behaviours of community members' (239). It is a social identification that is neither Jewish, nor non-Israelite, but one that is formed by the letter's social entrepreneurship, resulting in 'a cohesive community of God's people who manifest his holiness' (238). Chapter 7 provides a brief summary and conclusion to the work.

In a review this size, two brief evaluative comments are in order - one hermeneutical and the other social psychological. Shkul follows closely the work of Judith Lieu with regard to the reality- and identity-constructing power of texts and, likewise, Lieu's jaundiced eye towards the ability of scholars to reconstruct the historical context of/behind a text (2004, 9). While Shkul is right to note a lack of circumstantial content in the letter, it is not evident that the best hermeneutical choice is to resist any substantive reconstruction (181 n. 8). Ephesians undoubtedly constructs the cognitive framework of its auditors; however, it also reflects the social and political world of its author, and at least in a general fashion the world of its addressees. So, Shkul rightly focuses on the textual world, but there is some need for socio-historical reflection on the author and/or its auditors, otherwise it would be difficult if not impossible to assess whether or not Ephesians was successful in its social entrepreneurship (Tellbe 2009, 52).

The references to Jenkins' internal-external dialectic of identification (203) and to Pickering's 'sociology of the stranger' (234), with its concern for assimilation and difference, could have been strengthened by including Brewer's optimal distinctiveness theory (2003, 480-91). This would also allow for further refinement on the way identification with or rejection of key aspects of an ethical approach with its basis in Israel's scriptures interacted with the ongoing influence of non-Israelite social identifications (e.g. household and kinship structures). Shkul's Reading Ephesians provides a largely persuasive and theoretically complex social-scientific reading of Ephesians that draws extensively from social identity theory, social memory, cultural studies, and literary theory. It admirably achieves its goal of advancing 'Ephesians scholarship by a methodological evaluation of the construction of identity and community, long acknowledged to be formative to the thought of the letter' (240).

© 2010, J. Brian Tucker
Brewer, M. B. Leary, M. R. and Tangney, J. R. (eds) (2003) Optimal distinctiveness, social identity, and the self. Handbook of self and identity pp. 480-491. Guilford , New York.

Lieu, J. M. (2004) Christian identity in the Jewish and Graeco-Roman world Oxford University Press , Oxford.

Tellbe, M. (2009) Christ-believers in Ephesus: A textual analysis of early Christian identity formation in a local perspective Mohr Siebeck , Tübingen, Germany.

Reading Ephesians, Part 2

2010-08-08T06:05:00.003-04:00

This post continues my review of Minna Shkul's Reading Ephesians, that I began in yesterday's post. Chapter 3 provides an Iserian 'wandering viewpoint' analysis of Eph 2:11-22, with a specific focus on 2:15, in order to determine whether or not Jesus was remembered to have abolished the Law completely or partially. Shkul concludes that Jesus abolished the Law completely (113); however, this should not be interpreted as an anti-Jewish interpretive stance. Jewishness provides autochthony and behavioural models for this non-Israelite Christ-following community, though its symbolic universe is reconfigured around the Christ-event. This is necessary because the community will be required to leave their existing Roman culture behind now that they are 'in Christ' (125). With regard to the partial continuation of the Law and previous social identities within the Christ-movement, Shkul acknowledges that 'multiple identities' and 'righteous gentile' constructs have textual support in the undisputed Paulines (102-5). However, she contends that there is no warrant for holding these positions in Ephesians where one overarching identity is the ideological perspective of this reformist, Jewish author, writing in the late first century CE. Shkul is quick to point out that often NT scholars acknowledge the Deutero-Pauline status of Ephesians, but continue to interpret the letter as if Paul had written it and it reflected a mid-first historical century situation (131). She provides warrant for rejecting that approach and suggests ways in which looking at Ephesians as a late first century document provide an evidentiary bridge between the early Christ-movement and the universalistic Christian identity that emerges during the time of Ignatius.

Chapter 4 uncovers Paul's reputation as the unique communicator of God's mystery, which is described as the inclusion of the gentiles in God's people, and as one who legitimates non-Israelite Christianness. The pseudonymous epistle presents historical reflections of Paul as a group exemplar who embodies the values and behaviours of the subgroup. These prototypical features also socially categorise both ingroup and outgroup and bring to the fore a rationale for rejecting any discourse opposed to that which has been legitimated by Paul's prophetic ministry. The primary ideological reforms evident in the construction of Paul's prophetic persona include the following two elements: (1) foreigners 'in Christ' are now accepted into Israel as God's people; and (2) the law no longer marks communal boundaries. The result of these reforms is what Shkul calls 'non-Israelite Christianness' (172). This ideological discourse contributes to the eventual separation between the Christ-movement and Judaism; however, the reputational construal of Paul should not be understood as an overt critique of the Jews.

Chapter 5 uncovers key theoretical perspectives that will be employed in the reading of Eph 4-6, which is to occur in chapter 6. The framework draws on key resources of social identity theory (e.g. positive ingroup assessment, social stereotyping, prejudice, and scapegoating). These provide interpretive clues into the social orientation of Ephesians with regard to the paradigms it provides for acceptable communal life (see Eph 4:17). Thus, Shkul is interested in discerning in Eph 4-6 the meaning of identity to the writer of the letter, and the way it communicates his approved communal behaviours, which have their basis in the group's social identification (184). This allows Shkul to minimise any need for conflict with outsiders, which has little to no basis in the text; rather, she fills a gap missed by other scholars by noting the way the text creates social distance, and, if embodied, may actually produce conflict with those outside the ideologically constructed ingroup (182).

This is part of my review published in Journal of Beliefs and Values 31.2 (August 2010): 238-41.

Reading Ephesians, Part 1

2010-08-07T20:35:00.005-04:00

Reading Ephesians: exploring social entrepreneurship in the text

by Minna Shkul, London/New York, Clark, Library of New Testament Studies 408, 2009, xiv + 279 pp., 65.00 (hardback), ISBN 0-567-28777-7

This monograph is a slightly revised version of a 2007 PhD thesis from the University of Sheffield. Minna Shkul, currently a Research Fellow in the Explaining Early Jewish and Christian Movements: Ritual, Memory and Identity Project, based at the Helsinki Collegium for Advanced Studies in Finland, provides a sustained social-scientific reading of the Deutero-Pauline Ephesians, exploring its ideological manoeuvres, and the way it discursively constructs a distinctive Christianness for this non-Israelite Christ-following community in the post-apostolic era.

Chapter 1 orients the reader to Shkul's authorial position; she contends existing Ephesians scholarship has overlooked the level of identity negotiation and group-oriented processes evident in the text, in favour of historical reconstructions that have little if any basis in it. The way to make the negotiation of identity evident is through the heuristic device of social entrepreneurship, which deals with the way the discourse positions its readers, and the social values and processes it uses to accomplish its ideological and rhetorical ends (12). This rhetorical negotiation of identity will occur, not by seeking the 'world behind the text', but by identifying the various ways the text seeks to form identity by developing a legitimating discourse that provides the necessary ideological justification for the continued existence of this non-Israelite Christ-following community within the last part of the first century. The introduction argues that key aspects of Tajfel and Turner's social identity theory, as expanded through the work of Richard Jenkins, are evident in Eph 1 and thus provide warrant in continuing a social-scientific analysis of the Ephesians discourse. Being 'in Christ', as seen in Eph 1:3-14, provides the affective element (e.g. self-enhancement) necessary for the formation of social identity. Shkul sees the community positioned within the Jewish symbolic universe in a manner that transforms it to include room for Jesus the messiah and those who have been chosen to follow him. Thus, the community now has discursive models by which they may live separately from the broader Roman world, and an ideological justification for their existence as an identifiable sub-group, with its own cultural-discourse. The identity of God's people is now defined by being 'in Christ', and this new social identification questions the uniqueness of ethnic Israel's election and calling.

Chapter 2 provides Shkul's theoretical framework for reading the way Jesus in Eph 2:1-11, and Paul in 3:1-13, are remembered - readings that occur in chapters 3 and 4. Chapter 2 begins by continuing to critique Yee's work, especially in regard to his ideological construction of Judaism, and Gombis' binary construction of the law as God's enemy. She highlights Zetterholm's insightful work with regard to the emergence of the Christ-movement from Judaism, while Esler and Nanos provide further orientation with regard to the continuation of sub-group identities. Shkul's framework focuses primarily on communal legitimation and social memory. The discursive justification of the non-Israelite Christ-following sub-group's existence is a central ideological concern for Ephesians. Halbwachs' collective memory approach and the social context in which memory is recalled provide further complexity to Shkul's social entrepreneurship reading framework. This is also supported by a consideration of the way invented traditions and reputational discourse exert social influence in a text. Finally, the social constructionist and social memory framework is supported by insights from cultural theory and literary criticism. The focus in the former is that key material may have been left out, while the latter brings to the fore the work of Wolfgang Iser and the potential positions from which a text is interpreted, a perspective known as the 'wandering viewpoint' (78). Shkul provides a complex theoretical framework from which to discern discourses of communal legitimation, behavioural models, and identity negotiation nodes evident in a text.

This is the first part of my review of this book, you can read the entire review at: Review of Minna Shkul, Reading Ephesians: Exploring Social Entrepreneurship in the Text. (London: T & T Clark, 2009). Journal of Beliefs and Values, 31.2 (August 2010): 238-41.

Reading Paul in Context Book Notice

2010-05-22T20:51:00.006-04:00

After coming home from our seminary graduation, I came by the Continuum website and they have published the notice concerning the Festschrift Kathy Ehrensperger and I edited in honor of William S. Campbell. If interested in seeing the chapters in the book, click here (link will take you to the Continuum website). I'll talk more about the book throughout the next few months.

The Deliverance of God, Part 1

2010-05-05T12:24:00.007-04:00

I am reviewing Douglas Campbell's, The Deliverance of God: An Apocalyptic Rereading of Justification in Paul for a journal, and am enjoying it immensely. If you wish to search this book, it is available on Google books. Doug Moo reviews this book in the current issue of JETS (see bibliographical information below). Check out Nijay Gupta's initial thoughts on this work, they are somewhat similar to mine, though I will focus my review on the use of social scientific methods and identity issues. Check out a interview with Campbell by Michael Bird.

For those who are "seeking" (sorry for the pun, see 2009: 134) an orientation to this work, a few quotes may be useful. Some of these will be areas that I critique in my review.

“A single culprit seems to generate our difficulties, namely, a particular individualist – and so possibly also rather modern – reading of Paul’s justification terminology and argumentation that devolves into a conditional understanding of salvation (that is, salvation is granted in relation to individual actions).” (2009: 3).

“It is the conventional 'Lutheran' construal of the arguments of these distinctive texts, leading to an individualist, conditional, and contractual account of the whole notion of salvation, that arguably lies behind some of the most intractable interpretative conundrums in modern Pauline scholarship.” (2009: 6).

“The conventional individualist reading claims to deliver – often under the weighty authority of church tradition – the apostle’s definitive soteriological program – that is, nothing less than the gospel itself.” (2009: 7).

“This depiction of redeemed humanity is neither individualist nor corporate. The identity of the people involved is not defined fundamentally by way of reference to themselves, other key relationships constitute that identity.” (2009: 68).

“Justification theory views Judaism as a more specific version of the generic human condition.” (2009: 85).

“It is now apparent that not a great deal actually separates Sanders’s covenantal nomism from legalism in strictly theoretical terms.” (2009: 103).

“The Jew, as articulated by Justification theory, is a phantom, although the theory claims that that Jew characterizes all of pre-Christian humanity – a problem, to be sure.” (2009: 114).

“...sanctification is a theory of salvation, which is entirely self-sufficient.” (2009: 187).

Louis Martyn emphasizes “unconditionality and grace, on revelation, and on a fundamentally liberative soteriology, and this in terms of an inaugurated eschatological existence in relation to the entire cosmos.” (2009: 190)

Campbell argues that Justification theory, primarily based on Romans 1-4 provides a soteriological system that is fundamentally at odds with that which is presented in Romans 5-8. The latter is more transformative, apocalyptic, and participatory, and coheres better with Paul's arguments in his other letters.

Well, what do you think about Campbell's program? Any thoughts on these quotes?

I've been approaching identity formation from an apocalyptic perspective, an approach I call apicalyptic identity formationl; however, my approach to apocalyptic allows for more continuity than does that of Lou Martyn. Can one maintain apocalyptic in Paul and allow previous social identities to continue "in Christ"?

References:

Douglas J. Moo, "Review Article: The Deliverance of God: An Apocalyptic Rereading of Justification in Paul by Douglas A. Campbell," JETS 53.1 (March 2010): 143-50.

Louis Martyn, Galatians, AB 33A (London and New York: Doubleday, 1997).

The University of Wales, Lampeter

2010-05-03T09:09:00.024-04:00

I completed my PhD at the University of Wales Lampeter under the supervision of William S. Campbell and Kathy Ehrensperger. I thought I'd show you a little bit of the campus and the town.

Here is the University of Wales, Lampeter Quad.

Here is the inside of the Quad.

Here is where I stayed whilst on campus, Lloyd Thomas Hall.

Main street in Lampeter. Click here to see a picture of my favourite place to eat in Lampeter.

Here I am in New Quay celebrating after my successful viva. I am with my supervisor William S. Campbell, external examiner Andrew Clarke, and my internal examiner Paul Middleton.

And finally, here is the five day forecast for Lampeter area in case you are visiting there this week.
You must have a browser that supports iframes to view the BBC weather forecast

Here is a brief promo video for those interested.

Social Identity and Self-Categorization Theories and 1 Corinthians

2010-04-30T17:02:00.005-04:00

Often I mention social identity in my posts; so I thought I'd offer a brief overview of my theoretical framework with regard to Paul's discourse of identity formation in 1 Corinthians. The social identity theory of Tajfel and Turner (1979: 33-47) provides a theoretical framework from which to understand the ingroup/outgroup relations evident in a text (de Fina, Schiffrin, and Bamberg 2006: 9). Individuals form identity within the nexus of discourse, relationships, and various group memberships. The ensuing contrast in values between the discourse and the identity provides the impetus for negotiation (Cerulo 1997: 385-409). Individuals look to groups for behavioral norms and identity salience (Hogg and Mullin 1999: 249-79). Social identity theory seeks to explain how this interaction occurs. Self-categorization theory, developed by Turner (Turner, et. al 1987), argues that identity salience is contextually determined based, primarily on the available social comparison groups. When an individual attains salient identity then self-stereotyping occurs and the sense of homogeneity with the ingroup increases (Hewstone Rubin, and Willis 2002: 578-9). This self-stereotyping is discursive and may change its level of salience based on the change of outgroups. Texts and other forms of discourse are influential in this social evaluation and the ensuing distancing between one ingroup and another outgroup which may occur. Thus discursive forms of communication may contextualize similarity and difference and thus provide a new conceptual framework from which to evaluate oneself and an outgroup (Hogg 2001: 63-66; Marques, et. al 2001: 402). These two theories intersect when it comes to explaining the perceived characteristics of the outgroup. Ingroup identity is made more salient through a critique of the outgroup, especially if the outgroup is a super-ordinate group and one by which the ingroup feels threatened (Hogg and Mullin 1999: xx; Sherif 2001: 64-70). This external threat increases the likelihood of self-stereotyping and thus distancing from the super-ordinate group. The various outgroups may but do not need to exist in an overtly threatening relationship.

To understand better the nature of Paul’s mission rhetorics it is important to reflect on the nature of group formation and its impact on identity (Brown 2000; Hinkle and Brown 1990: 48-70; Horrell 2000; Esler 2000; Campbell 1991). Paul was ultimately involved in forming groups of individuals and providing them direction on how to re-orient their lives under the new realization of who they were “in Christ.” This identity was one in which a number of nested-identities existed within the population of Roman Corinth in the mid-first century C.E. The category of “in Christ” is ultimately a category which derives its meaning from a Jewish context, even though there is evidence for a Greco-Roman provenance of the concept (Garland 2003: 29; Son 2001: 27). Identity is no longer understood as a stable concept – it is one in which individuals are constantly shifting their self-understanding based on both written and spoken discourse (Hall 1997: 24; Lieu 2004: 12). Negotiated identity occurs within the nexus of written and spoken discourse and ingroup and outgroup interaction and definition. Paul’s rhetoric in the Corinthian correspondence was intended to address the transitional nature of the Corinthians’ identity in Roman Corinth which, if left uncontested, would ultimately hinder his gentile mission in that important colony.

References
Brown, Rupert, Group Processes, 2nd ed. (Oxford: Blackwell, 2000).

Campbell, William S., Paul’s Gospel in an Intercultural Context: Jew and Gentile in the Letter to the Romans (Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang, 1991)

Cerulo, Karen A., “Identity Construction: New Issues, New Directions,” Ann. Rev. Sociol. 23 (1997): 385-409.

de Fina, Anna, Deborah Schiffrin, and Michael Bamberg, ed., Discourse and Identity (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006).

Esler, Philip F., “Models in New Testament Interpretation: A Reply to David Horrell,” JSNT 78 (2000): 107-113.

Garland, David E., 1 Corinthians (BECNT; Grand Rapids: Baker, 2003).

Hall, Jonathan, Ethnic Identity in Greek Antiquity (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997)

Hewstone, M., M. Rubin and H. Willis, “Intergroup Bias,” Annual Review of Psychology 53 (2002): 578-79.

Hinkle, S. and R. Brown, “Intergroup comparisons and social identity: Some links and lacunae.” in Social identity theory: Constructive and critical advances, ed. D. Abrams and M. A. Hogg, (New York: Springer Verlag, 1990), 48-70.

Hogg, “Social Categorization, Depersonalization and Group Behaviour,” in Blackwell Handbook of Social Psychology: Group Processes, ed. M. A. Hogg and R. S. Tindale (Oxford: Blackwell, 2001), 56-85.

Hogg, M. A. and B. A. Mullin, “Joining Groups to Reduce Uncertainty: Subjective Uncertainty Reduction and Group Identification,” in Social Identity and Social Cognition, ed. D. Abrams and M.A. Hogg (Oxford: Blackwell, 1999), 249-79.

Horrell, David G., “Models and Methods in Social-Scientific Interpretation: A Response to Philip Esler,” JSNT 78 (2000): 83-105.

Lieu, Judith M., Christian Identity in the Jewish and Graeco-Roman World (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004).

Marques, J. M., D. Abrams, D. Paez, and M. A. Hogg, “Social Categorization, Social Identification and Rejection of Deviant Group Members,” in Blackwell Handbook of Social Psychology: Group Process, ed. M. A. Hogg and R. S. Tindale (Oxford: Blackwell, 2001), 402.

Sherif, M., “Superordinate Goals in the Reduction of Intergroup Conflict,” in Intergroup Relations: Essential Readings ed. D. Abrams and M.A. Hogg (Hove: Psychology Press, 2001), 64-70.

Son, Sang-Won (Aaron), Corporate Elements in Pauline Anthropology: A Study of Selected Terms, Idioms, and Concepts in the Light of Paul's Usage and Background (AnBib 148; Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 2001).

Tajfel, H. and J. C. Turner, “An Integrative Theory of Intergroup Conflict,” in The Social Psychology of Intergroup Relations, ed. W. G. Austin and S. Worchel (Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole, 1979), 33-47.

Turner, J. C., M. A. Hogg, J. Oakes, S. D. Reicher and R. L. Webb, Re-Discovering the Social Group: A Self-Categorization Theory (Oxford: Blackwell, 1987).

Contested Ritual Space in Corinth

2010-04-29T10:56:00.007-04:00

Paul contests the Corinthian Christ-followers' conception of oikos/oikia ritual space and argues instead, for ecclesia ritual space (Gehring 2004: 8 n. 45; Theissen 1982: 87). Paul corrects the Corinthians’ fundamental misunderstanding of the nature of sacred space (Flanagan 1999: 26-30; Newsom 2004: 7). The dominate script in Corinth was oikos space as the location of social-sacred space. Paul, however, understood there to be inherent weaknesses with this understanding and argues for ecclesia space as the controlling spatial metaphor for the community. The social identity that emerges relies on two other metaphors, the group as the temple of God and the body of Christ. These two metaphors provide the spatial bridge necessary to resocialize the Corinthians into an alternative community with a distinct ethos.

The two passages that bring to fore the conflict in spatial understanding are 1 Cor 11:22, 34 and 1 Cor 14:35. In 1 Cor 11:22, Paul asks the Corinthian Christ-followers, “Don’t you have homes to eat and drink in? Or do you despise the church of God and humiliate those who have nothing?” The conflict, from Paul’s perspective was over the confusion of oikos and ecclesia space. The Corinthians were treating the ritual space as domestic space. The confusion was a natural outcome of the Corinthians' Roman social identity and its correlation of domestic space with political power. Paul further instructs the Corinthians in 1 Cor 11:34, “If anyone is hungry, he should eat at home, so that when you meet together it may not result in judgment.” The dominate script in Corinth combined oikos and ecclesia space but Paul establishes a thirdspace relationship between the two ritual spaces. The next passage in which there was spatial confusion is 1 Cor 14:35, in which Paul argues “If they [women] want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church” (Wire 1990: 149-52, 229-32; Horrell 1996: 195). Paul here argues for a hierarchical understanding of ritual space and seeks to silence women in the ecclesia space.

Paul’s rhetorical constructs are designed to form this community in a way that conforms to his rhetorical vision. The conflict between Paul’s rhetorical vision and the Corinthians' becomes a “contact zone” resulting in a thirdspace negotiation of identity (Pratt 2008: 8; Marchal 2008: 92). Using critical spatial theory (Lefebvre 1991: 95) knowledge can be expanded through the introduction of other possibilities to existing cultural binaries (e.g., oikos/ecclesia). This act does not simply combine or go in-between established binaries, but transforms them (Soja 1996: 61). Thirdspace is an ever-open space that allows contradictory and seemingly incompatible ideas to coexist and be creatively restructured in new ways to produce new meaning. Thirdspace identities provide a spatial reading of the negotiation that occurred between Paul and his audience in Corinth.

References

Flanagan, James W. “Ancient Perceptions of Space/Perceptions of Ancient Space,” Semeia 87 (1999), 15-43.

Gehring , Roger W. House Church and Mission: The Importance of Household Structures in Early Christianity (Peabody, Ma.: Hendrickson, 2004).

Horrell, David G. The Social Ethos of the Corinthian Correspondence: Interests and Ideology from 1 Corinthians to 1 Clement (London: T&T Clark, 1996).

Lefebvre, Henri. The Production of Space (trans. D. Nicholoson-Smith; Oxford: Blackwell, 1991).

Marchal, Joseph A. The Politics of Heaven: Women, Gender, and Empire in the Study of Paul. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 2008.

Newsom, Carol A. The Self as Symbolic Space: Constructing Identity and Community at Qumran (Leiden: Brill, 2004).

Pratt, Mary L. Imperial Eyes: Travel Writing and Transculturation (London: Routledge, 2008).

Soja, Edward W. Thirdspace: Journeys to Los Angeles and Other Real-and-Imagined Places (Oxford: Blackwell Publishing, 1996).

Theissen, Gerd, and John Howard Schütz. The Social Setting of Pauline Christianity Essays on Corinth (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1982).

Wire, Antoinette Clark. The Corinthian Women Prophets: A Reconstruction through Paul’s Rhetoric (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1990).

The Corinthian Christ-followers and the Civic Authorities

2010-04-28T10:29:00.007-04:00

The Corinthian correspondence provides evidence for significant contact with outsiders; however, there is also a lack of evidence for significant conflict with those same outsiders. The Corinthian correspondence provides insight into the relations that the Christ-followers had with the broader civic community in Corinth. Their relationship with those outside the Christ-following community provided opportunities for extending the Pauline mission; however, this relationship also created a number of the problems within the assembly. Paul ultimately presents this relationship as helpful but provides, in the Corinthian correspondence, guidelines for how these relationships should proceed. Paul’s writing in the Corinthian correspondence should be seen as a continuation of his missional vocation which included initial evangelism, community formation, and ongoing nurture (1 Cor 3:1-2; 4:15; Barram 2006: 10).

In 1 Cor 4:8-13 Paul describes their experience as lacking many of the difficulties that Paul himself, had experienced. In Corinth, a person’s wealth and status were highly valued. This was similar to other cities in the Roman east, however, the demographic makeup of the colony, including the freedmen and retired military may have contributed to this community value (1 Cor 4:8, 2 Cor 8:14). The Corinthian Christ-followers were also confident in the court system. In 1 Cor 6:1-11, Paul argues that they were putting too much confidence in this human institution. The courts were not accessible to the majority of individuals in the Roman Empire so the fact that the Corinthians were engaged in litigious activity argues for individuals of some financial means. Paul chastised the Christ-followers for allowing those on the outside to adjudicate their disputes when their confidence should be in the believing community and their ability to rule on problems, or more importantly, they should be willing to be wronged because of their transformed identity in Christ (Campbell 2005: 307; May 2004: 81-91; Horrell 2000: 343).

The Corinthians' good social relations may also be seen in their willingness to participate in the cultic meals in the various temples in Corinth (1 Cor 8:7-13). The civic identity of the colony was indistinguishable from its religious identity. This fact may be the reason that many of the Corinthians did not see a problem with continuing the practices mentioned in 1 Cor 8. The difference in economic and social status among the Christ-followers in Corinth may have reinforced this practice. Paul, however, understands that this practice may have broader implications for his mission, so he takes a conciliatory stance on this issue. As an extension of the previous argument, the Corinthians also dined with outsiders in their homes and in other communal settings (1 Cor 10:27-11:1). If the Christ-followers in Corinth were not involved in the civic life of the community, one would not expect this to be a significant issue. The Corinthians did not sense the need to change their approach to their civic life once they had accepted Paul’s gospel (Schnabel 2005: 195). Paul ultimately argues they may continue their practice; however, their social ethics should seek the benefit of others and not only for themselves.

Paul also notes that outsiders were visiting the houses that were being used for community gatherings (1 Cor 14:1-25). This fact appears to be important in terms of their openness to those who do not believe in Paul’s gospel. Who would these outsiders include? They could be unbelievers, spouses, or guests, either way; Paul addresses their sense of social-standing and suggests that they present themselves in an orderly way, so that the outsiders may not think they are ‘mad’ (Gehring 2004: 157-66). Paul presents the relationships that the Corinthian Christ-followers have with outsiders, on the whole, as good and provides guidance on how to interact with those individuals. Paul sees in this relationship of social integration an opportunity for mission and encourages certain behaviors that will further Paul’s mission in Corinth. How did this type of relationship occur in Corinth? The transitional nature of the Corinthian civic identity was one reason for this openness among these Christ-followers, especially in comparison to Thessalonica where such openness did not exist (Barclay 1993: 514; Tellbe 2001: 135; Oakes 2005: 321).

So, do you buy the argument that the Corinthian Christ-followers did not experience significant external pressure from the civic authorities? If not, what kind of evidence would you want to see?

References
John Barclay, “Conflict in Thessalonica,” CBQ 55 (1993): 512-30.

Michael D. Barram, Mission and Moral Reflection in Paul (New York: Peter Lang Publishing, 2006).

William S. Campbell, “Perceptions of Compatibility between Christianity and Judaism in Pauline Interpretation,” BibInt 8.3 (2005): 298-316.

Roger W. Gehring, House Church and Mission: The Importance of Household Structures in Early Christianity (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2004).

David G. Horrell, “‘No Longer Jew or Greek’ Paul’s Corporate Christology and the Construction of Christian Community,” in Christology, Controversy and Community: New Testament Essays in Honour of David R. Catchpole, ed. David G. Horrell and Christopher M. Tuckett (Leiden: Brill, 2000): 321-44.

Alistar Scott May, ‘The Body for the Lord’: Sex and Identity in 1 Corinthians 5-7 (JSNTSS 278; London: T&T Clark, 2004).

Peter Oakes, “Re-mapping the Universe: Paul and the Emperor in 1 Thessalonians and Philippians,” JSNT 27.3 (March 2005): 301-22.

Eckhard J. Schnabel, “The Objectives of Change, Factors of Transformation, and the Causes of Results: The Evidence of Paul’s Corinthian Correspondence,” TRINJ 26NS (2005): 179-204.

Mikael Tellbe, Paul Between Synagogue and State: Christians, Jews and Civic Authorities in 1 Thessalonians, Romans, and Philippians (Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell International, 2001).

The Corinthian 'Church' and Internal Conflicts

2010-04-27T11:23:00.003-04:00

Why did the Corinthian assembly suffer significant internal conflict?

1. Socio-Economic Diversity (1 Cor 1:26)

Wealth was the vital indicator of status in the pre-industrial, agrarian society of the Roman empire. Theissen (1982: 94-96) and Meeks (1983: 72-73) provide unconvincing descriptions of the Pauline community at Corinth as a cross-section of rich and poor through the un-measurable grid of social status. Wealth, however, serves as a more effective measurement of social status. Steven Friesen (2005: 352-370) argues for an economic model based on seven graduated categories of wealth and poverty in the imperial economy and concludes, that the majority, if not all of the Pauline community lived around the poverty line more clearly defined as subsistence living. None of the individuals mentioned in connection to Corinth were from the imperial elite; however, there were individuals of moderate surplus wealth: Chloe (1 Cor 1:11), Phoebe (Rom 16:1-2), and Erastus (Rom 16:23). The Pauline community at Corinth closely mirrored the economic structure within the broader civic community within the mid-first century Roman empire.

The majority of the Pauline community was poor and Paul while at Corinth required financial support from the Macedonians (2 Cor 11:8-10; Friesen 2005: 365). It is interesting to note these people are never mentioned as individuals, only as a group, a further indicator of their economic status (1 Cor 16:1-2, 2 Cor 8:12-15). This group, argues Friesen (2005: 365) contained “small farm families, laborers (skilled and unskilled), artisans (especially those employed by others), wage earners, most merchants and traders, [and] small shop/tavern owners.” This economic reality, based on 1 Cor 1:26, would serve as a difficulty for Paul, who was attempting to lead a group from a position of economic status below some within the community.

2. Relationship with Civic Authorities

There was little interaction between the ruling elites and those living at the poverty level and this rigid hierarchy of status was reinforced by law. The divisions were, for example, between freeborn and slaves (1 Cor 7:21-22; 1 Cor 12:23), citizen (limited to adult males) and non-citizen, the former having the ability to take someone to court (1 Cor 6:1-11). Within the citizens, however, there were various ordos. The senatorial class was the most elite and wealthy, while the equestrians were similar to the senators economically but beneath them in status. In colonies like Corinth the local elites would have been the decurions, each of these classes had significant property qualifications for membership, while the rest classified as plebs. Among the freeborn, privileged (honestiores) and non-privileged (humiliores) were defined by law and had certain rights within the judicial system (i.e., those taking others to court in 1 Cor 6 may have been from this class).

These relationships were defined by tradition and clientele (patronage) which was supported by notions of respect and deference within Roman society. The hierarchical nature of the society was necessary for patronage to work. Not everyone was involved in a patron-client relationship, however, deference and precedence still marked those relationships. It could be, in the context of Corinth that some of the issues Paul addressed related to individuals resisting this hierarchical structure (1 Cor 5-7). It also should be noted that they may have seen this example in Paul, himself, who appears to be resisting offers to become the client (1 Cor 9:1-18; Lampe 2003: 488-523).

3. The Result: Struggle for Prestige and Prominence within the Community of Faith

The Corinthian Christ-followers found themselves in a social system that, despite sharp class divisions, provided much needed social cohesion. The Pauline community was populated by a large number living at the subsistence level and a smaller number having moderate to surplus financial resources (1 Cor 1:26). This situation led to a struggle for spiritual-prestige and influence and vying for positions of prominence within the community of faith, similar to what was done within the broader Corinthian community; in which dependents of the person of prestige jostled for positions close to the person in the center. The ensuing interaction may have produced relationships within the community in which factions could emerge (1 Cor 1:12), as those individuals near the person of influence, they, themselves become more influential and a circle of family and dependents of varying status adhere to those individuals who now are the center of their own circle of influence.

References

Steven J. Friesen, “Prospects for a Demography of the Pauline Mission: Corinth among the Churches,” in Urban Religion in Roman Corinth: Interdisciplinary Approaches, ed. Daniel Schowalter and Steve Friesen (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2005), 352-370.

Peter Lampe, “Paul, Patron, and Clients,” in Paul in the Greco-Roman World: A Handbook, ed. J. Paul Sampley (Harrisburg, PA: Trinity Press International, 2003), 488-523.

Wayne A. Meeks, The First Urban Christians: The Social World of the Apostle Paul (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1983)

Gerd Theissen, The Social Setting of Pauline Christianity: Essays on Corinth (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1982).

Identity Formation and the Lord’s Supper as Ritualized Mission

2010-04-25T22:02:00.005-04:00

The Lord’s Supper serves as the constant reminder of the Corinthian’s part in the continuing Pauline mission and has tremendous identity forming implications. Identity formation is often enacted, performed, and embodied in ritual. Paul’s teaching on the Lord’s Supper in 1 Cor 11:23-32 serves as an example of this type of performative utterance. After passing along the tradition in vv. 23-25, Paul offers an interpretation of the tradition in v. 26 that argues for the centrality of ritualized mission, in that participation in the Lord’s Supper ‘is proclaiming the Lord’s death until he comes’. Paul uses (kataggellete) ‘proclaiming’ which is normally associated with verbal proclamation, however, Paul associates it with ritual. In Paul’s thinking, the enacting of the Lord’s Supper forms the community into one ‘body’ which will further his mission to the nations. Paul normally, in the Corinthian correspondence limits the proclamation verbs to himself or his co-workers, however, in this passage the mission of the community is indexed within that same lexical and conceptual field of proclamation. (Plummer 2006: 122; Eriksson 1998: 196).

The performance of the Lord’s Supper, based on the final phrase ‘until he comes’ also reinforces the apocalyptic eschatological character of their identity in that it allows the community access to the events associated with the death, resurrection, and return of Jesus. This forms an ethos of reversal that is vital to the ethical instructions from Paul in the letter and assists the Corinthians in embodying their transformed identity ‘in Christ’. So, the apocalyptic identity formation that is occurring in this step in Paul’s rhetoric in one that reminds the Corinthians that while they have been transformed and are part of the kingdom of God, there is a future fulfillment of this promise that is yet to be realized. A promise that will be fulfilled to them – Judeans as Judeans, and Greeks as Greeks (1 Cor 12:13); however, these particularized identities are transformed by being ‘in Christ’ and as members of the ecclesia of God (1 Cor 10:32, cf. 1 Cor 10:22).

The emphasis on social practice and relationships that contribute to the existence of nested-identities comes into relief in v. 29 where Paul speaks of the need for the Corinthian Christ-followers to ‘discern the body’. Paul was forming an alternative community with a distinct ethos and the phrase ‘discern the body’ is primarily a reference to this community that Paul was forming, symbolically referred to as ‘the body of Christ’ (1 Cor 12:12-14). The failure to discern the corporate identity of the community of Christ-followers had dire consequences (v. 30). This corporate understanding of v. 29 is echoed by Koester, ‘in 1 Cor 11, the bread as the symbol of the “body of Christ” designates the community, not the corpse of Jesus: “For all those who eat and drink without discerning the body, eat and drink judgment against themselves,” The “body” that must be recognized is the community’ (1998: 346; Horsley 1998: 162).

References:

Eriksson, A. 1998. Traditions as Rhetorical Proof: Pauline Argumentation in 1 Corinthians (CB, 29; Stockhom: Almqvist & Wiksell International).

Horsley, R.A. 1998. 1 Corinthians (Nashville: Abingdon Press)

Koester, H. 1998. ‘The Memory of Jesus’ Death and the Worship of the Risen Lord’, HTR 9.1: 335-50.

Plummer, P.L. 2006. Paul’s Understanding of the Church’s Mission: Did the Apostle Paul Expect the Early Christian Communities to Evangelize? (Paternoster Biblical Monographs; Milton Keynes, UK: Paternoster).

Controlling language and intergroup comparison in 1 Corinthians 5:1

2010-04-22T17:26:00.004-04:00

Paul writes in 1 Cor 5:1, “It is actually reported that there is sexual immorality among you, and of a kind that is not tolerated even among pagans, for a man has his father's wife.” Paul is letting the Corinthians know that (1) he’s received an oral report; (2) they failed to mention this in their letter to him; (3) those on the outside appear to be aware of this. May (2004: 60) asserts, “their public reputation (positive social identity) is at stake.” I would add, how did these outsiders become aware of this? The Corinthians were involved in their civic community, (see mission as social integration), and it appears their behavior wasn’t lining up with their speech.

Paul receives three oral reports in 1 Corinthians: (1) 1:11 “For it has been reported to me by Chloe’s people that there are quarrels among you.” Here the communication is private, less confrontational, and more detailed indicating insider concern for the community. I am not arguing those from Chloe were Christ-followers (Barrett 1971: 42 is ambivalent; Fee 1987: 54 suggests they weren’t). Either way, Paul trusts their information. (2) 11:18 “…when you come together as a church, I hear that there are divisions among you; and to some extent I believe it.” Here is uses a simple 1 person singular, ‘I hear’) rather than the passive 3rd person singular in 5:1. In 11:18, Paul is informed about the Corinthians' behavior during the Lord’s supper, but he doesn’t bring out the larger community’s awareness of the issue. I think the issue in the Lord’s supper was “status differentials in dining” and these would not have been issues because their eating arrangements would look like those in rest of the culture. (3) 5:1 “It is actually reported that there is sexual immorality among you…” The 3rd person singular indicates that this report has reached the ears of others besides him. The presence of “nations/gentiles/pagans” may indicate an outgroup awareness of this. Paul’s use of the adverb “actually” describes his “horror” at this news (Fee 1987: 199). Paul’s concern could also be that outsiders are aware of this (see Conzelmann 1975: 95).

Paul is using shame language to form the identity of the ecclesia, (see honor-shame discourse as an ordering-principle of identity). Cicero in Part. Or. 26.91 notes that shame is an effective tool in changing behavior. Paul is concerned that these things should not be, but notice he draws on their social identity as he describes issues regarding the existence of the immoral man in their group (and also noting that they have not expelled him from their group). The group is in focus with the use of “among you,” in effect Paul places “sexual immorality” among the entire group. So, the actions of this one individual, affects the social identity of the whole group. Paul feels collective action is required.

“…and of a kind that is not tolerated even among pagans…” – Paul engages in an intergroup comparison (see Social Identity Theory), by noting that this specific “sexual immorality” does not even occur among the nations (another indicator that they are socially identifying with their Roman social identity, otherwise this outgroup comparison would be ineffective). Paul uses the nations as a negative foil for the Corinthians’ behavior. Rosner (1994: 84) notes this occurs in the Hebrew Bible (Amos 1, 2; 2 Kgs 21:9, 11; Deut 12:29–31; 1 Kgs 14:24).

Social Identity Theory argues that groups require positive self-evaluation over and against and outgroup (I have argued that the outgroup is those aligned with the wisdom and power of Rome in 1 Corinthians). The outgroup evaluation results in a positive ingroup identity (think of MSU versus U of M football fans). Look what Paul has done: the immoral man (is an ingroup member), but the behavior is “worse than” what occurs in the outgroup (the nations, this is the term the Romans used to describe everyone else but themselves, see Lopez 2008). Paul undermines the Corinthians’ confidence in their ability to assess the ingroup correctly (see 4:3), while connecting this sin with their ingroup.

In 3:1–4, Paul equates the Corinthians with outsiders, however, here (5:1) he unfavorably compares them with outsiders: they are more immoral than those who are normally described as immoral. Paul doesn’t use a verb here so we have to supply either not heard/condoned/found. Commentators are split, as are English versions (see Garland 2003: 157).

What was not found? porneia, which Garland notes, “is a flexible term that covers all prohibited sexual intercourse and here applies to a case of unnatural sexual vice, “incest.” (see Reuben’s incest with his father’s concubine in T. Reub. 1:6; 4:8). The translation “sexual immorality” seems to tame and sanitized to convey Paul’s revulsion…”whoredom” may” be better (2003: 156–7). Incest of this nature was strongly discouraged by Roman writers: Cicero, Pro Cluentio; Martial, Epigrams 4.16; Tacitus, Annales 6.19; and Dio Cassius, Roman History 58.22.

“…for a man has his father's wife” – What are we dealing with here? May (2004: 640) contends that “a case of a marriage or concubinage between a believer and his stepmother.” This would be a violation of Roman law (Gaius Inst. 1.63 “It is illegal to marry a father’s or mother’s sister…nor can I marry her who was at one time my mother-in-law or stepmother”; Cicero, Pro Cluento 5.12—6.14 [Cicero was disgusted when “mother-in-law marries son-in-law”; it is “unbelievable” [Pro Cluento 5.27 (Thiselton 2006: 84)]; Clarke 1993: 77–80; Apuleius Metamorphoses 10.2–12; Augustan’s lex Julia de adulteriis [18–16 BCE]). May (2004: 65) continues, “the high instance of remarriage, and the fact that women often married at an early age, would suggest a good number of step-relationships in antiquity, where stepmothers were of similar ages to stepsons. Granted this, it is perhaps naïve to search far for a motive for such unions.”

What do you think about Paul's use of intergroup comparison in 1 Cor 5:1?

References:
Barrett, C. K. A Commentary on the First Epistle to the Corinthians. Black's New Testament commentaries. London: A. & C. Black, 1971.

Clarke, Andrew D. Secular and Christian Leadership in Corinth: A Socio-Historical and Exegetical Study of 1 Corinthians 1-6. Leiden: Brill, 1993.

Conzelmann, Hans. 1 Corinthians: A Commentary on the First Epistle to the Corinthians. Hermeneia. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1975.

Fee, Gordon D. The First Epistle to the Corinthians. NICNT. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1987.

Garland, David E. 1 Corinthians. BECNT. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2003.

Lopez, Davina C. Apostle to the Conquered: Reimagining Paul's Mission. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2008.

May, Alistair Scott. The Body for the Lord: Sex and Identity in 1 Corinthians 5-7. JSNT, 278. London: T&T Clark, 2004.

Rosner, Brian S. Paul, Scripture and Ethics: A Study of I Corinthians 5-7. Leiden: Brill, 1994.

Thiselton, Anthony C. First Corinthians: A Shorter Exegetical and Pastoral Commentary. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2006.

Methodoloigcal Reflections on the Recent 1 Corinthians 6:1-11 Study

2010-04-21T10:42:00.004-04:00

In his recent study of the lawsuits among believers at Corinth, Richard Horsley (2000: 74, 91, 100) argues that Paul is engaged in rhetorical subversion against the Roman Empire, which, in Paul’s mind was fleeting and soon to be replaced by God’s new order. Therefore, the Corinthians should not take their brothers or sisters to these courts but these disputes should be adjudicated between the members of the community of believers at Corinth. Horsley’s reading of the text, with its focus on the nature of the Roman court system and the civic context at Corinth, is to be situated with others who have sought to understand Paul’s admonition within its political or public context (Witherington 1995: 162; Thiselton 2000: 419–21). This approach is congruent with the program of historical criticism and its desire to understand the cultural and social background of a text in order to ascertain what an author intended to communicate. Whether one focuses on the rhetoric of Paul (Mitchell 1991: 116–8), understanding the court system during the Roman period, or seeks to situate the passage in the social setting of Paul and those living in Roman Corinth in the mid-first century CE, these approaches have in common a commitment to understanding 1 Corinthians 6:1–11 from a historical perspective.

This just completed study, while being concerned with historical reconstruction, was primarily interested in broadening this research to include an identity-critical analysis. In some ways, this approach is similar to what a feminist hermeneutic seeks to accomplish (cf. Schüssler Fiorenza 1999: 89; Ehrensperger 2004: 197; Barton 1997: 286). As one attempts an historical reconstruction, which may serve as an acceptable heuristic device, it becomes clear that this reconstruction will remain tenuous and as a result, at least somewhat, an academic endeavor. This may also be said for Paul’s theological agenda; however, the trajectory of this study was on the issue of identity formation and how it impacted Paul’s rhetorical choices in attempting to negotiate boundaries within this nascent community of believers in Jesus Christ.

This study sought to understand the function of this text in meditating group boundaries and understanding how texts, similar to 1 Corinthian 6:1–11, form identity within these communities. This approach has much in common with the work of Judith Lieu (2004) and Denise Kimball Buell (2005). The reason one studies Paul’s argument is because this is the closest one can come to understanding the pattern of power that is leveled against the readers. These patterns are inherent in these texts and serve as a shaper and molder of behaviors, or at least, attempt to do this. When attempting to understand the identity forming power of a text one shifts this analysis from the meaning of the text to the function of the text within the community. That does not mean that the more traditional lines of research are ignored (i.e., syntactical, historical, or theological analysis), it means the rhetorical and functional aspects of meaning making become the object of focus to produce a clearer understanding of what Paul was attempting to affect in his auditors of his Corinthian correspondence.

References
Barton, Stephen C., “Social-Scientific Criticism”, in Stanley E. Porter, (ed.), Handbook to Exegesis of the New Testament. (Leiden, Brill, 1997), 277–289.
Buell, Denise K., “Why this New Race:” Ethnic Reasoning in Early Christianity. (New York, NY: Columbia University Press, 2005).
Ehrensperger, Kathy, That We May Be Mutually Encouraged: Feminism and the New Perspective in Pauline Studies. (New York, London: T & T Clark International, 2004).
Horsley, Richard, “Rhetoric and Empire – And 1 Corinthians,” in Paul and Politics: Ekklesia, Israel, Imperium, Interpretation: Essays in Honor of Krister Stendahl, ed. Richard A. Horsley, (Harrisburg, PA: Trinity Press International, 2000).
Lieu, Judith M., Christian Identity in the Jewish and Graeco-Roman World. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004).
Mitchell, Margaret M., Paul and the Rhetoric of Reconciliation. An Exegetical Investigation of the Language and Composition of 1 Corinthians, (Westminster, John Knox Press, 1991).
Schüssler Fiorenza, Elizabeth, Rhetoric and Ethic. The Politics of Biblical Studies, (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 1999).
Thiselton, Anthony C., The First Epistle to the Corinthians. A Commentary on the Greek Text (New International Greek Testament Commentary), (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 2000).
Witherington III, Ben, Conflict and Community in Corinth. A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary on 1 and 2 Corinthians, (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1995).

Judging and Identity Formation in 1 Corinthians 6:1–11, Part 4

2010-04-20T08:56:00.004-04:00

The reality is that the Corinthians, by going before the local magistrates, where in effect, admitting that their identity had not changed. Paul reminds them that this was shameful and, echoing an earlier argument, they were not as wise as they appear (v. 5). So Paul argues that they are transformed in Christ and that transformation should reveal itself in the way they interact with the civic authorities. Paul, it may be argued is engaging in apocalyptic identity formation.

If one is reminded of Lieu’s (2004: 12) framework that identity “involves ideas of boundedness, of sameness and difference, of continuity, perhaps of a degree of homogeneity, and of recognition by self and by others” then one is now ready to evaluate if Paul is engaged in this process. As for “boundedness” one may argue that his primary purpose is the establishment of boundaries for who may be taken to court and who may not. The concepts of “sameness and difference” are seen in the terms Paul uses to describe the Corinthians (saints, believer, washed, sanctified, justified) in contradistinction to the civic magistrates (unrighteous, world, those who have no standing within the church, unbelievers, wrongdoers, and the vice list in vv. 9-10). Concerning continuity, it appears that Paul is echoing what Jews were already practicing (i.e., avoiding local courts) and what he had instructed the other assemblies to do. One of the key structural points to Paul’s rhetoric of identity formation in Corinth is connecting what he is teaching them with the other communities he has established (1 Cor 7:17; 11:16; 14:33; 16:1); this provides a sense of homogeneity that reinforces Paul’s vision of their identity, even it if does not cohere with their local vision of their identity (Hvalvik 2005: 123-143). This tension produces the need for negotiation and Paul’s argument becomes his primary means of negotiating the Corinthians’ identity. The final aspect of Lieu’s definition, the recognition by self and others may be what is at the root of this issue. Because the Corinthians had such a good relationship with the civic authorities, they, intentionally or not, dropped some of their identifying boundary markers that distinguished them from those who did not believe in Jesus. He felt also, that the Corinthians did not recognize, truly who they were (i.e., judges of the world and angels) and had settled for a status beneath who they were in Christ. Paul engages in apocalyptic identity formation in 1 Cor 6:1-11 in order to shame the Corinthians to live in their new identity and to recognize that there are significant differences between them and those on the outside, or at least there should be.

References

Reidar Hvalvik, “All Those Who in Every Place Call on the Name of Our Lord Jesus Christ: The Unity of the Pauline Churches,” in Jostein Ådna (ed), The Formation of the Early Church, (Tübingen, Germany: Mohr Siebeck, 2005), 123-143.

Judith M. Lieu, Christian Identity in the Jewish and Graeco-Roman World. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004).

Judging and Identity Formation in 1 Corinthians 6:1–11, Part 3

2010-04-19T09:11:00.004-04:00

Why would Paul be so concerned about the Corinthians taking their disputes to the local magistrates? Why was Paul so negative concerning the Roman law system? Was his view common or idiosyncratic in the mid-first century CE? How did Paul view the civic judges when compared to those believers within the community of faith?

The local-civil courts in ancient Rome were not to be trusted for the unbiased application of justice. The law system in Rome with its hierarchical structure may have provided a modicum of justice; however, even Roman citizens had no real expectation of justice being served in their civil courts. The social status of the individual oftentimes served more of a determiner of the legal proceedings than did the actual facts of the case. On the other hand, Paul may have developed his negative view concerning the Roman courts from his Jewish background. The Jews sought to avoid the Roman courts whether for reasons of exclusivism or pragmatism, Diaspora Jews choose not to, if at all possible, engage in local legal proceedings with the civil magistrates.

Paul had learned that the Corinthians were taking each other to the local civil-magistrates and he concludes that this was shameful (Hurd 1983: 85). His assessment of the court system would not have been considered inconsistent with what others living under the colonial power of Rome would have felt; however, Paul’s concern is couched in the language of the other. He considers these judges to be “unbelievers” (v. 6) and defines them as individuals who should not be held in high esteem within the believing community (v. 4). This begs the question, why would the Corinthians even wish to involve themselves in the court system? It appears, that the Corinthians, because of civic circumstances exclusive to Roman Corinth, had a fairly good relationship with the civic authorities (Walters 2005: 417). In fact, the Christ-followers in Corinth do not appear to have any external conflict with the civic rulers or community. This fact, in part, may have led to the internal conflict, in that, most of the other communities Paul founded, experienced conflict with the local governing powers (e.g. Thessalonica and Philippi; see De Vos 1999). So, it could be that Paul is basing his negative assessment of this situation, as much on his experiences with the other Jesus-believing communities that he founded, as well as, the general disdain for the local courts in both the Graeco-Roman and Jewish communities.

That said, there is also ample evidence that Paul’s rationale for avoiding the local courts may be identity driven, that is, Paul understands the Corinthians to be new “in Christ” and that has an ontological impact on the boundedness of the community (Keener 2005: 53). He engages in apocalyptic (Ramsaran 2004: 89–101) boundary formation in vv. 2–3 by arguing that the Corinthians do not realize that they, themselves are capable of judging, because, for example, they will, in the future, judge the world and angels (Belleville 2003: 226). So, the function of Paul’s argument is to redefine who should be a judge and he uses the terminology of honor and shame to communicate that to them. He honors the Corinthians, by informing them that they will one day judge the world and angels and then challenges them in v. 5 by shaming them because their practice is not congruent with this reality.

Paul negotiates identity not from a position of the social status of the elites but from a position of a contested equal seeking to affect mission within this nascent community of Christ-followers. His main argument in this section seeks to connect their local engagement with the civic authorities with their apocalyptic identity “in Christ” (Sampley 1980: 4). He concludes this section by reminding the Corinthians, after a digression into a vice list and an ironic statement of what happens to those who “do wrong,” and reminds them that the primary reason for not going to those on the outside to justice is that they had been “washed,” “sanctified,” and “justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God” (1 Cor 6:11), which appears to be a part of a baptismal formula (Schnelle 2003: 208). This is important because, often identity formation is embedded in rituals and early Christ-movement rituals serve as boundaries for the new community.

References
Belleville, Linda L. “KEFALH and the Issue of Head Covering in 1 Cor. 11:2-16,” in Trevor J. Burke and J. Keith Elliott (eds.), Paul and the Corinthians: Studies on a Community in Conflict. Essays in Honour of Margaret Thrall, (Leiden: Brill, 2003).
De Vos, Craig Steven. Church and Community Conflicts: The Relationships of the Thessalonian, Corinthian, and Philippian Churches with Their Wider Civic Communities. Atlanta, Ga: Scholars Press, 1999.
Hurd, John C. The Origin of 1 Corinthians, (Macon, GA: Mercer University Press, 1983).
Craig S. Keener, 1-2 Corinthians (The New Cambridge Bible Commentary), (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005).
Ramsaran, Rollin A. “Resisting Imperial Domination and Influence: Paul’s Apocalyptic Rhetoric in 1 Corinthians,” in Richard A. Horsley (ed.), Paul and the Roman Imperial Order, (Harrisburg, PA: Trinity Press International, 2004), 89-101.
Sampley, J. Paul. Pauline Partnership in Christ. Christian Community and Commitment in Light of Roman Law, (Philadelphia, Fortress Press, 1980).
Schnelle, Udo. “Apostle Paul: His Life and Theology,” M. Eugene Boring, (trans.), (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 2003).
Walters, James. “Civic Identity in Roman Corinth and Its Impact on Early Christians,” in Daniel N. Schowalter and Steven J. Friesen (eds.) Urban Religion in Roman Corinth: Interdisciplinary Approaches, (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2005).

Judging and Identity Formation in 1 Corinthians 6:1–11, Part 2

2010-04-18T19:06:00.006-04:00

The rhetoric of Paul in 1 Cor 6:1–11 is based on the concepts of honor and shame and their attendant symbolic resources to affect the establishment of new boundaries and of a negotiation of the identity between those listening to Paul and Paul, himself (Malina and Neyrey 1991: 25–65). Paul’s rhetoric functions symbolically to include and exclude those whom he feels are behaving outside of the communal boundaries and are endanger of becoming other. Paul uses language of the outsider quite often in these verses (i.e., v. 1 “unrighteous”; v. 2 “world”; v. 4 “those who have no standing within the church”; v. 6 “unbelievers”; v. 9 “wrongdoers”; and the vice list in vv. 9–10). While at the same time, he uses terms to signal those who are on the inside and not other (vv. 1–2 “saints”; vv. 5–6 “believer”; v. 11 “washed”, “sanctified”, and “justified”).

Paul clearly identities the Corinthians as “judges” and this aspect of their identity appears to be one in which there is confusion and division among their community members (Blumenfeld 2001: 206). Before we investigate this aspect of Paul’s argument the concept of identity shall be illuminated. We proceed within the Lieu’s conceptual framework of identity being that which “involves ideas of boundedness, of sameness and difference, of continuity, perhaps of a degree of homogeneity, and of recognition by self and by others” (2004: 12). The concept of “boundedness” is vital to understanding the current text. The establishment of boundaries would have been done, primarily by the social elites who had the power in the ancient world; however, Paul feels that the establishment of proper boundaries is necessary to further his mission. Thus, one should expect to find Paul struggling with establishing boundaries “from the middle.” Attempting to affect boundaries in this way creates the potential for rejection of his authority by those in socially higher positions within the community. These boundaries are drawn in order to establish the concepts of “sameness and difference.” The previous paragraph listed Paul’s use of terminology that was designed to establish “sameness and difference.” These concepts will prove vital to Paul’s argument in 1 Cor 6:1–11. Identity requires “continuity.” Paul reinforces continuity primarily through connecting the experiences of the Corinthians with those of ancient Israel or in the experiences of Jesus. The “degree of homogeneity” will be important because of the Corinthians’ lack of congruence with their profession and the observation of their behavior by those in the community (i.e., those observing in the courts, for example). The final aspect of Lieu’s definition reflects on the importance of the “recognition by self and by others.” This appears to be the reason for Paul’s commitment to identity formation in the Corinthian correspondence: he desires the Corinthians to see who they are “in Christ” and this realization may produce a concomitant recognition by those in the broader Corinthian civic community.

The concept of “boundedness” is inherent in many of the issues that Paul addresses in the Corinthian correspondence. Boundaries are central to the construction and maintenance of identity and serve as a nexus of transformation and negotiation, as well as exclusion; we are investigating the way boundaries function in 1 Cor 6:1–11. The primary way in which boundaries were reinforced was through the use of honor and shame. Paul uses the categories of honor and shame to bring about change in the Corinthians. In verse 5 he writes, “I say this to your shame,” writing to shame the Corinthians was an attempt to establish boundaries in the community (see 1 Cor 15:34), these boundaries are primarily internal within the Christ-following community. Paul, at this point, is not concerned with establishing the boundaries with those outside the Christ-movement (Aasgaard 2004: 236).

References:
Aasgaard, Reidar. “My Beloved Brothers and Sisters!” Christian Siblingship in Paul (Journal for the Study of the New Testament. Supplement Series 265), (London / New York: T & T Clark, 2004).

Blumenfeld, Bruno. The Political Paul: Justice, Democracy and Kingship in a Hellenistic Framework, JSNT Supplement Series 210 (Sheffield, UK: Sheffield Academic Press, 2001).

Judith M. Lieu, Christian Identity in the Jewish and Graeco-Roman World. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004).

Malina, Bruce J., and Jerome H. Neyrey, “Honor and Shame in Luke-Acts: Pivotal Values of the Mediterranean World,” in The Social World of Luke-Acts: Models for Interpretation, ed. Jerome H. Neyrey (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1991), 25–65.

Judging and Identity Formation in 1 Corinthians 6:1–11, Part 1

2010-04-16T09:00:00.005-04:00

The precise nature of the litigious practices in the Corinthian community—such as could individuals of low status even attempt to go before the local magistrate or was this issue limited to the land owners—has often formed a major area of research for commentators (Thiselton 2000: 419–21). It is, however, equally important to ask how discussion of these lawsuits among Christ-followers furthers Paul’s broader rhetorical aims and what they reveal about Paul’s understanding of the Corinthians’ identity as reflected in his statements. This refocusing of the question moves Paul away from his traditional pastoral role, though not completely, to one where he may be described as attempting to apply an identity that is strongly boundaried.

The focus of Paul’s argument in 1 Cor 6:1–11 is found in 6:8: “But you yourselves wrong and defraud—even your own brothers.” Here he lays the groundwork for a new understanding of the Corinthians’ identity. He has used the language of the insider and the outsider throughout his argument; however, in 6:8 he argues that they are wrongdoers, then in 6:9 he goes on to question the Corinthians’ membership in the kingdom of God, if they are one of the individuals who is engaging in such litigious practices. While it is true that Paul continues his argument in verses 9–11, his conclusion in 6:8 and his engagement in deliberative rhetoric hopes to convince his auditors that if one properly understands their identity, as shaped by Paul, they will discontinue their current practice of taking those within the community of Christ-followers before the local magistrates (Mitchell 1991: 116-18).

The end of the textual unit is central to an identity-critical analysis of this passage. In 6:11 he addresses the Corinthians with a reminder of their former identity: “And this is what some of you used to be.” This reminder of their former state is in line of the rhetorical approach in which ethnic identity is seen primarily as a discursive product (Hall 1997; Hall 2002). So, in this text Paul is concerned with establishing the boundaries of civic identity and activity within the Corinthian community’s context. Paul’s argument has larger concerns than simply proper procedure for resolving disputes within the community. He has a desire to establish a particular ethos of identity which requires boundaries that he negotiates through his rhetoric, an identity that will allow for a more stable internal situation and mission in Roman Corinth. One notices, however, that Paul is not afraid to resort to the use of shame when his arguments may not be winning a hearing from his auditors (Winter 2001: 72–73).

References:
Jonathan M. Hall, Ethnic Identity in Greek Antiquity, (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997.
Jonathan M. Hall, Hellenicity: Between Ethnicity and Culture. (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 2002).
Margaret M. Mitchell, Paul and the Rhetoric of Reconciliation. An Exegetical Investigation of the Language and Composition of 1 Corinthians, (Westminster, John Knox Press, 1991.
Anthony C. Thiselton, The First Epistle to the Corinthians. A Commentary on the Greek Text (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 2000.
Bruce W. Winter, After Paul left Corinth. The Influence of Secular Ethics and Social Change, (Grand Rapids, William B. Eerdmans, 2001).

Opening section of my SBL Midwest 2010 Paper

2010-02-14T12:05:00.003-05:00

Did Paul’s letters create a distinct ‘Christian’ identity? Furthermore, was early ‘Christian’ identity created or construed? These questions address important issues that separate two key approaches to the study of identity within New Testament scholarship. Those focusing on construal (Bengt Holmberg and Ben Meyer) argue that Paul simply interpreted an already-existing Christian identity and thus focused on self-definition or self-understanding not identity. A second group (Judith Lieu and Hans Leander) argues that Paul created Christian identity through his discursive agency and that there was no prior essential Christian social identity. This paper offers an assessment of Holmberg’s critique of Philip Esler and William S. Campbell and contends that a prior event began the process of identity formation; however, its ongoing concrete expression or creation was accomplished through Paul’s discursive agency (i.e. primarily his letter writing). Thus, this approach cuts a middle path between the construed or created binary formulations and concludes that Holmberg’s assessment of Campbell and Esler is unconvincing and that aspects of his argument are better suited for a critique of Lieu and Leander.

Before I look at Paul’s role in the creation of identity, I should briefly address a recent issue raised by David Horrell and restated by many of the contributors in the recent After the First Urban Christians (Horrell (2009: 9); Adams (2009: 77n.24); Still (2009: 79n.1)) that questions the usefulness and ‘validity’ of phrases like: ‘Pauline community’, ‘Pauline church’, and ‘paulinische Gemeinde’. The issue is further broadened to include doubts about whether the recipients of Paul’s letters ‘can in any sense be meaningfully labelled “Pauline”’ (Horrell 2008: 188). Horrell rightly recognizes the influence of other leaders in Corinth (e.g. Apollos and Cephas) without positing a ‘separate Petrine community down the road’. Also, he is correct in claiming that the communal life that had developed in Corinth did ‘not correspond’ to ‘Paul’s ideal’ for this assembly and that ‘competing and conflicting perspectives’ were evident (Horrell 2008: 193-95). Thus, Horrell concludes that ‘there is no clear justification for speaking of “Pauline churches”, or at least, not without heavily qualifying what that might mean’(Horrell 2008: 203).

By way of assessment, first, Horrell overstates the accepted view of the sectarian nature of the Christ-movement (Campbell 2008: 46-48). Very few scholars would contend that the Pauline communities were monolithic in their cultural expressions of the Christ-movement. Furthermore, Paul’s rule in 1 Cor 7.17-24, that in all the assemblies, Christ-followers are to remain in the situation in which they were called, if applied, would result in the kind of diversity that Horrell points out (Horrell 2008: 193). Horrell’s expectation of ideological and theological unanimity in the Pauline community does not cohere with Paul’s teaching, e.g. in Romans 14.5, that ‘each one should be fully convinced in his own mind’ and Romans 15:7, ‘Therefore welcome one another as Christ has welcomed you, for the glory of God’. Horrell’s reduction of a contextualized, discernible, Pauline ethos, if accepted, reinforces his view of the early emergence of a predominant ‘Christian’ identity (Horrell 2008: 203). Here Horrell’s universalistic approach to Christian identity comes to the fore. Evidence of diversity within Paul’s letters should not be seen as prima facie evidence that Paul’s letters were not foundational in the formation of unique, local expressions of Christ-movement social identity.

Campbell, W.S.
2008 Paul and the Creation of Christian Identity (London: T&T Clark).

Horrell, D.
2009 ‘Whither Social-Scientific Approaches to New Testament Interpretation? Reflections on Contested Methodologies and the Future’, in Still and Horrell (eds.) 2009: 6-20.

2008 ‘Pauline Churches or Early Christian Churches? Unity, Disagreement, and the Eucharist’, in A. Alexeev et al., (eds.) Einheit der Kirche im Neuen Testament (WUNT, 218; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck).

Still, T. and D. Horrell (eds.)
2009 After the First Urban Christians: The Social Scientific Study of Pauline Christianity Twenty-Five Years Later (New York and London: T&T Clark).

SBL Midwest Morning One: Matthew, James, Hebrews

2010-02-13T22:06:00.005-05:00

The morning started with Brian Dennert, a first year PhD student at Loyola University Chicago, who argued that the Son of David in Matthew was a leader of national spiritual restoration rather than a political deliverer. He drew from Psalms of Solomon 17 and was quite persuasive, though I wonder what Warren Carter would have said?

Robert Kinney, a PhD researcher at the University of Bristol, UK, argued for a Hellenistic context for understanding Jesus and his approach to teaching in Matthew. Since I think that Jewish teaching and learning discourse is the proper background for understanding Jesus' approach to formation, I was highly interested in his argument. Kinney ultimately argued that characteristics of the philosophical schools is the proper framework for understanding Jesus' educational approach (e.g. the way Euthydemus became a disciple of Socrates). He rightly noted the lack of discipleship language in the Hebrew tradition, however, since the family was the primary focus of education, domestic/kinship language would provide a way forward in this regard.

Russell Sisson of Union College presented a paper that looked at possible sayings of Jesus in James. I found it interesting that the first clear allusion to James is in Origen. He noted that scholars see as little as 8 or up to 65 allusions to Jesus' teaching in James. The crux of the issue is the lack of exact wording. To solve this problem, Sisson relies on the concept of oral performance in which exact wording is not required, the text is ancillary. He suggests that the allusions are located in the so-called Q source (insert a question from Mark Goodacre here, if he were present). In addressing the question as to why James was not referenced clearly until Origen? Sisson concludes that if the early Church Fathers were looking for Jesus material they would not have looked to James, but they continue to be aware of the document.

Jeffrey Gibson from Harry S Truman College argued, quite persuasively, that the Sitz im Leben of Hebrews was the Jewish War. The writer of the letter was addressing issues of non-violence in the context of the threat of the Romans and Jewish desire for violent revolt by the zealots. I really enjoyed his discussion of Heb. 13.13 and the departure from the camp. I think Jeffrey is on to something here and hope others will consider this interpretive framework, originally put forward by Alexander Nairne.

This was a great morning of stimulating papers and good discussions with old and new friends. Afternoon sessions to follow soon but I should probably read over my paper, on identity formation and Paul, imagine that!

SBL Midwest Night One - Texts and Jewish Identity

2010-02-12T23:41:00.004-05:00

I Attended the Plenary Session tonight on Social Identity based on Texts and Archaeology: The Jews. Gary Knoppers, from Penn State University, presented a paper entitled 'Social Identity Based on Texts and Archaeology: The Jews of the Neo-Babylonian and Persian Periods'. Since I am writing a commentary on Ezra, I was most interested in this paper. He looked at recent archaeological evidence dealing with the 'town of Judah' and discussed the implications of vertical alliances and Artaxerxes' juridical charge to Ezra (Ez. 7.25-26). The Priestly linage of Ezra was discussed, his argument here is based an essay in his book, Community Identity in Judean Historiography (Eisenbrauns, 2009). He concluded with the role of the Temple in Jerusalem in the development of Judean identity (Ez. 7. 13-24). Overall it was a good paper, though, I am hesitant to use archaeology to determine specific nodes of social identity. However, he is right to note that there is a discernible diasporic Jewish identity during this period.

David Rudolph's paper was entitled 'Jesus-Believing Jews and Kol Yisrael: Rethinking Long-Held Assumptions'. David's paper felt like a summary of recent post-supersession reading of the NT. Furthermore, it was a nice summary of key arguments from his dissertation, which will be out next year, its entitled A Jew to the Jews: Jewish Contours of Pauline Flexibility in 1 Corinthians 9:19-23 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck). David is interested in understanding how Jewish Christ-followers understood themselves in relation to others. He focused on the parting of the ways, which he explains should be dated to the 4th century CE. Next he looked at how Jesus-believing Jews understood themselves, he built on Paul Foster's work on Matthew. Finally, he discussed halakhic interpretations within the early Christ-movement. David concludes that Paul understood the Christ-movement as two segments (Jews and gentiles) united by faith in Christ.

Carol Bakhos of UCLA presented a paper entitled 'The World of the Rabbis: Fact and/or Fiction'. She started out by saying that she would not be discussing Jewish social identity during the Rabbinic period because she is not convinced that we can discern this from the extant texts. Her approach reminded of Judith Lieu's but she is right in noting that there is a need for an awareness of narrative discourse, attention to the way others discuss the same communities, and that there needs to be a rubric of categories in which these texts can be organized into meaning artifacts for the analysis of identity (a taxonomy of identity? someone should write one, maybe I will?). She looked at how Arabs are depicted in the Talmud as a case study for her approach. She also mentioned that the Iranian context of the Talmud is an area of emerging research. I found her presentation quite interesting and thought provoking.

Mashup and Identity Studies

2010-01-04T20:04:00.006-05:00

I’ve decided my approach to Paul and Christ-movement social identity may be described as mashup. I take data from two (or more) different sources and combine them into something new. Here is what is sounds like when Party Ben combines The Police and Snow Patrol.

So, I am wondering if mashup is the future of biblical studies? I’ve been amazed how much has been written in Pauline studies in the last few years and the field might benefit from a few DJs mixing things up resulting in densely complex and aesthetically pleasing scholarship. So, rather than using Tajfel and Turner’s social identity theory/self-categorization theory by itself, what if we combined it with Stryker and Burke’s identity theory. Or better yet, add some poststructuralist identities consideration into the mix. When we combine these resources with Paul’s fragmentary discourse what would result: fresh insights or scholarship that misses the mark? Maybe this would be like combining Beyonce with Andy Griffith but hey aren’t there single ladies in Mayberry?

If so, maybe using the image of music mashup is 'Just What I Needed' to trigger creative scholarly insights. What do you think?

Rodney Dangerfield and Writing a Review Article

2009-12-05T08:36:00.016-05:00

I am getting ready to write a review article for a journal and I am wondering, 'What makes for a good review article'? I've published these in the past and I thought I'd ask, 'What do you hope to find when you start to read a review article'? One article I read called review articles the 'Rodney Dangerfield of [academic] writing'. Why is it that these essays get so little respect, when they often have quite useful information?

Dobri Atanassov Batovski notes that 'a review article is expected to provide a summary and/or a synthesis of the findings of selected research contributions being published by other authors. The main purpose of a review article is to examine the current state of the relevant publications on a given topic and to initiate a discussion about the research methodologies and the findings related to the said topic'. Is this a valid and achievable goal?

I realize that there are at least two types of review articles: (1) an essay that reviews multiple books in an extended manner and provides pan-book remarks. (2) an extended argument dealing with one book, e.g. an review that addresses individual essays in a compilation (a review article on a monograph would be included here). The one I am currently writing is on one book that is a compilation of essays by various NT scholars.

Those interested, can see a recent review article that I wrote that looked at three books on identity formation in the New Testament. It is entitled, 'Christian Identity - Created or Construed' Journal of Beliefs and Values (2009) 30.1: 71-77. So, what makes for a good review article?

Magnus Zetterholm and Approaches to Paul Initial Thoughts

2009-11-25T11:26:00.006-05:00

Magnus Zetterholm, Associate Professor of New Testament Studies at Lund University provides an excellent overview to current Pauline studies in his new book, Approaches to Paul: a student’s guide to recent scholarship. This work offers a history of scholarship dealing with the Apostle Paul that focuses on many of the key issues within the field. For example, after a chapter that covers Sanders, Dunn, and Wright, he notes that ‘an increasing number of scholars are now addressing issues pertaining to Paul’s relation to Judaism from the basic assumption that Paul was as Torah-observant as any other Jew during the first century' (2009: 10). Zetterholm’s work summarizes key Pauline positions while allowing his view to slowly come into view in the final chapter. He fits into the category of scholars loosely referred to as ‘Beyond the New Perspective on Paul’. This group includes: William S. Campbell, Kathy Ehrensperger, Mark Nanos, Terence Donaldson, Lloyd Gaston, Peter Tomson, Stanley Stowers, Pamela Eisenbaum, and Caroline Johnson Hodge. This group does not argue for a binary relationship between Judaism and the early Christ-movement and argues that Paul continued to be within Judaism. Furthermore, Paul is understood to only be writing to gentiles and thus his rhetorical constructs are addressing gentile concerns and are not to be understood as offering instruction to Jews. Also, this group focuses on the Roman empire as Paul’s concern rather than seeing a preoccupation with Judaism (2009: 230). This group also calls into question Lutheran readings of Paul. Zetterholm ultimately suggests that ‘the truth about Paul…lurks somewhere within the radical new perspective’ (2009: 239); this last phrase is his description of the above mentioned scholars. Zetterholm also calls into question ‘the amalgamation of normative theology and historical scholarship’ (2009: 238). This is a highly contested position and he suggests that scholars such as Thielman, Das, Gathercole, and Westerholm seek to understand Paul in the context of ‘normative Protestant theology’ (2009: 192); which Zetterholm suggests is highly problematic (2009: 238). Interestingly, he also provides a summary of scholars that provide cross-disciplinary readings of Paul, these include: Jacob Taubes, Neil Elliott, Kathy Ehrensperger, Davina Lopez. I have reviewed most of these works over the past few months. This is an excellent resource for the person who is attempting to keep current or catch-up with Pauline studies. A work like this is by its nature selective; however, I would have liked to have seen some discussion concerning William S. Campbell's work on Paul.

References:

Zetterholm, Magnus. Approaches to Paul: A Student's Guide to Recent Scholarship. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2009.

Zetterholm, Magnus. The Messiah: In Early Judaism and Christianity. Philadelphia, Pa: Fortress, 2007.

Zetterholm, Magnus. The Formation of Christianity in Antioch A Social-Scientific Approach to the Separation between Judaism and Christianity. London: Routledge, 2003.

Baptism, Rites, and 'in Christ' Identity

2009-11-07T19:39:00.008-05:00

I am putting the finishing touches on my SBL paper, Baths, Baptism, and Patronage and I thought I would post some of my reflections on Richard DeMaris' The New Testament in its Ritual World, first chapter. So, here they are. DeMaris rightly notes that scholars should question the ‘taken-for-granted status of baptism’ within the early Christ-movement (15). He also recognizes that ‘baptism’, in 1 Cor 1.10-13, is ‘the cause of controversy’ and ‘not a basis for solving’ the problem (16). Furthermore, ‘Paul implies that the conflicting loyalties that threaten group unity stem in part from who baptized whom’ (16). So, ‘Paul’s forgetfulness…betrays’ his ‘uneasiness about his involvement in baptism and his unhappiness that the rite has contributed to divisiveness among the Corinthian house churches and within them’ (16).

DeMaris calls into question the idea that baptism was a rite of initiation or a rite of passage and rather suggests that it should be understood as a boundary-crossing event with a primary focus on ritual and crisis rather than the ‘derivative status’ which focuses on ‘faith, sacred symbol, and sacred story’ to ‘inform or dictate what ritual is about’ (this is also a critique of Horrell (1996: 80)) (20, 22).

DeMaris points out that rites are public experiences and ‘not simply two-party transactions, between buyer and seller, between baptizer and baptizand’; rather they affect ‘existing social relations’ (24). He suggests that baptism ‘which brought new members into the group, was in effect a mechanism for crossing the domestic threshold and establishing kinship bonds’ (25). DeMaris suggests that ‘in the first-century Mediterranean world…family identity outweighed individual identity’ (25). However, DeMaris emphasizes the need to cut existing social ties but I would suggest that these existing ties remain expect in those places where they conflict with identity in Christ (e.g. idolatry and immorality).

DeMaris is correct to note that rites can generate conflict as easily as they can reduce it (27). So, baptism may actually be contributing to difficulties in interpreting the social implications of the gospel. DeMaris describes four aspects of rites that suggest that they contribute to ‘social crises’ and conflict (33). First, rites can misfire and produce ‘unintended consequences’ (27). I would suggest an unintended consequence in Corinth related to the patronage associations with Roman bathing practices (the argument of my SBL paper). Second, rites reinforce ‘social hierarchies’ (29). A trip to the bath likewise reinforced social hierarchies (just like the locker room did in Jr. High School, but I digress). Likewise, the asymmetrical relationship between the baptizer and the baptizand could have contributed to power issues within the Christ-movement. Third, rites present an ‘idealized situation’ that is not commensurate with reality (30). I would suggest that if language such as 1 Cor 12.13 was employed during the baptism, confusion could have arisen with regard to the continuing significance of ethnic identity and status categories in Christ. Fourth, ‘context is crucial for determining a rite’s effects’ (32). The social setting influences the effectiveness of a rite, especially in the context of its impact on existing social identities (e.g. baptism and circumcision and/or Eucharistic and dietary practices). If, central to Paul’s mission is the continuation of previous social identities in Christ (1 Cor 7.19) then, one should expect to see confusion, debate, and disagreement over how these identities continue in various social settings.

DeMaris also appears to disagree with me with regard to the continuing significance of previous social identities in Christ. For example, he writes ‘In the case of baptism, it would have concretized, enacted, and finalized the departure of individuals from their former social identity and their entry into a new identity’(31). Furthermore, ‘If baptism made the transition from old to new possible, the reality of living simultaneously in both persisted. The tension between ideal and real undoubtedly posed problems for members of the early church’ (31).

DeMaris notes with regard to 1 Cor 10.1-5 that ‘Paul stresses the clean break and new allegiance that ritual signals in his retelling of the Israelites’ Exodus and Wilderness experience – a thinly veiled reference to baptism and eucharist (10.1-5)’ (31). Though, he is correct to note that Paul is concerned about their inconsistency between lived and ideal experience. I would suggest that DeMaris overstates the discontinuity between Israel’s experience and that of those in Christ, in that he overlooks the comparative nature of Paul’s rhetoric in favor of a contrastive reading of the text (cf. 2 Cor 3 where Paul presents a similar argument). The implication of DeMaris’ approach is that ethnic identities and other existing identity position are irrelevant ‘in Christ’ rather than seeing the issue the way these continue ‘in Christ’, which would be an equally ‘messy’ scenario (31).

Well, so what do you think about DeMaris' work on the ritual aspects of baptism?

Whilst working on this, I came by a guitar solo that I couldn't pass up...passing on (thanks Greg Amburgy for the 'heads up'). Enjoy...

Tweeting, PowerPoint, and Knowing Your Audience

2009-11-01T17:03:00.004-05:00

I've noticed a new trend in class. Tweeting about the professor's lecture effectiveness (i.e. all my student's say mine are great!). This is one of the reasons why I encourage my students to follow me, so I can review these later. I came by an article recently that suggested that it is important to know your audience and remember they might be tweeting while you present (not to mention the importance of updating your lame PowerPoints). So, this is a new way to heckle the professor without her or him knowing it. For me, the bigger challenge here is how to make your classes more technologically aware. I recently received a message from my daughter who was in her class at CU, the message was a question from her professor that encouraged the class to tweet, instant message, or text people they knew and ask them a question concerning meaning making and hermeneutics. Her class received almost 200 responses throughout the class period. Heather Buckley concludes, 'Presenters beware – twittering will be around for some time, if you have a large audience be sure you know them well and give them what they want. Even if you know all this and are a great presenter following your audience reaction on twitter can only be a good thing, feedback is a good thing and now it is happening real time' .

So, what do you think about tweeting while in a lecture? Or better, what would tweeting while in church offer pastors looking for feedback? On a related note, has anyone started using Twitter lists effectively? If so, point out some good examples. How could Twitter lists be used in Biblical Studies?