If Jude is citing 1 Enoch, is that a problem for inerrancy?

[The short answer is "no, it is not a problem," for the benefit of any of my friends and former profs who are worried my theology has taken a totally different direction! Also, rest assured that in no way am I going to suggest that 1 Enoch or any other pseudepigraphal book is on any similar level to our 66 canonical books, or that 1 Enoch was inspired by the Holy Spirit. My final conclusions are very much compatible to a strong view of the inerrancy of the 66 books, a position which I gladly affirm. However, the issue is complicated and this post is an attempt to explore the ramifications of Jude's theology in relation to a possible citation of 1 Enoch]

The wealth of scholarly literature on both Jude and 1 Enoch brings up interesting questions regarding the the pseudepigraphal book of 1 Enoch, questions which I hope to explore below. A significant question, in my opinion, is the following: "If our inspired epistle of Jude is indeed citing 1 Enoch, does this cause any problems for a strong view of inerrancy?" My blog post makes two assumptions: 1. that Jude does indeed cite 1 Enoch, or at least a source common to both (more on that below), and 2. a strong view of inerrancy.

Regarding the second assumption, I realize that if Jude does cite Enoch, some would simply say that he is "accommodating" his audience's views on that book; in other words Jude cites Enoch despite knowing it's not really factual, but nevertheless uses it to make a point regardless (or, because of) the fact some of his audience view the book as inspired/authoritative. Some evangelicals would hold to this view, but I'll respectfully disagree. Instead, I begin with the assumption that an inspired author would not say "Enoch said something" just because another source says so. In other words, if Jude says Enoch made a statement, then Enoch made the statement regardless of which book Jude is quoting from. [A related issue, which we don't have time to explore, is whether or not Jude would cite a pseudepigraphal book to begin with; I'll assume the possibility, with the caveat that whatever an inspired writer cites as truthful is indeed truthful, no matter the source. Cf. the Apostle Paul's citation of a pagan poet in Titus 1:12]

Regarding the first assumption, it may be impossible to prove 100% that Jude is, indeed, actually citing 1 Enoch. Yet I am, for the most part, convinced that he is. As I type these words, I have before me the actual text of 1 Enoch, courtesy of James H. Charlesworth's magnificant edition of The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha (vol. 1) The introduction and translation are written by E. Isaac. Those interested are strongly encouraged to read Isaac's introduction in this volume. Suffice it to say that 1 Enoch is from the second century BC to the 1st century AD. The full text is found only in ancient Ethiopic, with fragments in Aramaic, Greek, and Latin. There is debate about the original language and the location of its original composition (Isaac, 5-8). In the following, all citations of Enoch are from E. Isaac's translation (I wasn't quite willing to learn a new language just for a blog post!); Scripture citations are from the KJV.

To begin with, we in have book 1, chapter 1, verses 8-9 (p. 13 in Charlesworth's edition), "And to all the righteous he will grant peace. He will preserve the elect, and kindness shall be upon them. They shall all belong to God and they shall prosper and be blessed; and the light of God shall shine unto them. Behold, he will arrive with ten million of the holy ones in order to execute judgment upon all. He will destroy the wicked ones and censure all flesh on account of everything that they have done, that which the sinners and the wicked ones committed against him." Compare this with Jude 14-15: "And Enoch also, the seventh from Adam, prophesied of these, saying, 'Behold the Lord cometh with ten thousands of his saints, To execute judgment upon all, and to convince all that are ungodly among them of all their ungodly deeds which they have ungodly committed, and of all their hard speeches which ungodly sinners have spoken against him." Factor in Isaac's observation in footnote u that "The Eth. te'lft designates ten thousand times a thousand," and it is a small step from the prophecy of the Lord's coming in 1 Enoch to the prophecy in Jude. Obviously it is not a word-for-word match, but then rarely does any ancient text cite another word-for-word (this goes for NT citations of the OT as well). In addition, we have the expression "to execute judgment upon all," in both 1 Enoch and Jude, as well as a strong declaration of the punishment of the deeds of the wicked (this last part reads less like a quote and more like a paraphrase or allusion, but the connection seems to be there).

There are a multitude of thematic parallels between Jude and Enoch, but most of them would exist between Jude and many an OT book anyways. More interesting, however, is Jude's reference to "the angels which kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation," since much of 1 Enoch is indeed the story of angels [a.k.a. "The Watchers"] who left their proper position before God and took wives from humans [more on this later]. Chapter 10, especially, discusses the judgment that has been reserved for those angels, a judgment which is surprisingly close to Jude's description. Compare Jude 6, "the angels which kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation, he hath reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day" with 1 Enoch book 1, 10.12, "Bind them for seventy generations underneath the rocks of the ground until the day of their judgment and of their consummation, until the eternal judgment is concluded."Not exactly a slam-dunk, but enough to give one pause.

As I mentioned above, I don't think it can be proven conclusively that Jude cites 1 Enoch, but a compelling argument can be mode solely from the fact that Jude quotes the OT character Enoch and that a nearly identical quotation is attributed to Enoch in 1 Enoch. Of course, a very possible explanation (one which is compatible with what I am arguing in much of this post) is that both Enoch and Jude draw from an identical source, or perhaps oral tradition. At the very least, I am convinced that there is some connection between Jude and 1 Enoch.

So if Jude does indeed cite 1 Enoch, or if both 1 Enoch and Jude cite some other source, then what's the problem? On the one hand, Scripture does cite non-inspired and non-inerrant sources. Thus Paul, for example, cites a pagan poet/philosopher in Titus 1:12, and conservative evangelicals and fundamentalists do not have a problem with this.

The issue, however, is that in Jude 14, the inspired author attributes this quotation to Enoch himself  and treats it as legitimate prophecy. If we reject the view that Jude was merely "accommodating" his audience with this quote, then we are forced to assume that this is a genuine statement by the actual OT figure Enoch. It would be inconsistent on the one hand to argue that Moses wrote all the books of the Pentateuch because Christ attributes authorship of them to Moses (e.g., Mark 12:26; Luke 24:27; John 5:46, etc.), as we are wont to do, but then turn around ad argue that Enoch did not actually author the quote in Jude.

The problem is further complicated when we consider that Enoch most definitely did not author the book of 1 Enoch. Yet nevertheless Jude treats Enoch's quote in Jude 14 as legitimate prophecy.

The "problem," however, is not really a problem for the inerrantist. Could not both Jude and 1 Enoch have given us a genuine quote from Enoch thousands of years after the fact? if the Lord could preserve his own Word in both oral tradition and the multitude of manuscripts, could not Enoch's life and words, especially prophetic words, have been carried on by Noah and his offspring into the common traditions of Moses' Israel and so on? It would not necessarily have had to have been written down; oral tradition could account for the statement's propagation, to a certain degree, especially for a Jewish culture accustomed to reciting the Torah orally. How often, even in the modern era, do we remember phrases based simply on oral tradition? My knowledge of "I came, I saw, I conquered" does not come from reading the Loeb addition of Plutarch (or any other written account of Julius Caesar)! Rather, it comes from constantly hearing the phrase repeated verbally throughout my childhood and young adulthood [this is a bit of an oversimplification and ignores the question of how long a quote could last in antiquity, but I think my overall point is valid].

So, I conclude that thousands of years ago, Enoch, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit (as all true prophets), truly uttered something similar to "The Lord comes with ten thousand of his saints." This statement survived via oral tradition or written text or a combination of both for thousands of years, and was either picked up by 1 Enoch, which in turn was cited by Jude, or was written down on a text that was utilized by both 1 Enoch and Jude. This is completely compatible with the strongest views on inerrancy and yet does justice to the relationship between Jude and a pseudepigraphal book. I would also tentatively suggest that Jude, recognizing the transmission of a factual tradition in 1 Enoch, draws elsewhere from the book. This also is compatible with an inerrantist position, because simply citing from a non-inspired source does not necessarily give credence to all that is in the source (once again, think of Titus 1:12).

If Jude is citing 1 Enoch, however, this raises the theological problem of having Jude give some credence to 1 Enoch's views on Genesis 6 (since this is the context from which he's drawing, not just some minor theme in 1 Enoch), namely that fallen angels came and procreated with human females and were consequently judged severely for their deeds (a view that has certainly not seen a consensus among either Jewish or Christian interpreters!). In defense of this view, however, I will quickly point out that expression "sons of God" (Genesis 6:2) is most definitely used elsewhere of angels in the OT (see, for example, Job 1:6 and 2:1). Furthermore, a reference to "angels" here seems more natural than "the line of Seth vs. the line of Cain" or "regular humans vs. royalty," etc. In response, one could argue that human-angel procreation does away with the uniqueness of the incarnation of Christ, yet this is apples and oranges, for in no way can the offspring of the co-habitation of humans with angels, who happen to be created beings, compare with the birth of Jesus Christ, who is eternal and uncreated! In the former we have two different species of created beings producing offspring. While bizarre (and most certainly sinful), this is more akin to a human-Vulcan pairing in Star Trek (with the offspring inheriting traits and abilities of both; forgive the sci-fi reference!) than it would be to the incarnation of Jesus Christ. Another objection stems from Matthew 22:30, yet the point in this passage is that it is the natural state of angels (esp. unfallen ones) to remain single whereas the whole point of Jude (and 1 Enoch) is that these fallen angels left their natural state. Thus we see that Matthew 22:30 does not contradict this particular interpretation of Genesis 6.

Let me take this a step further. I think it significant that 1 Peter 3:19-22 and 2 Peter 2:4-5 both discuss the condemnation of specific spiritual entities (fallen angels?) within the immediate context of a discussion of the flood. Combine this with Jude's discussion of fallen angels, and I believe 1 Peter, 2 Peter, and Jude are quite possibly all referring to the same incident in Genesis 6.

Yet what is the spiritual significance of this? No matter what strength and audacity these fallen angels may have once possessed, their judgment is continuing to this day and their eternal fate is already foreordained. Indeed, whatever they thought to accomplish by their deeds has failed; in 1 Peter 3:18-20, Christ himself visits them and proclaims his triumph to them (the verb "preached" here in v. 19 is the Greek keirusso, not euangelizo). Indeed, this is a great "in your face" proclamation of triumph: they are nothing, they have failed, and Jesus Christ is the winner. Christ, then, declares his victory before these miserable spirits who remain in bonds until their final judgment. By doing so, Christ makes clear that he alone, not these spirits, determines the fate of humanity. Thus to Christ alone be glory forever and ever, Amen!


[I am grateful to the class "Second Temple Literature," a doctoral seminar at Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary, for facilitating discussion on this very topic. Dr. Köstenberger and the entire class gave me much to think about. Naturally any mistakes or faults in logic or theology in this post are my sole-responsibility. I am also grateful to every OT prof who has discussed this topic in classes I have attended.]

For further reading on this topic, from a variety of

perspectives, please see the following:

Bauckham, Richard J. Jude, 2 Peter. Word Biblical Commentary. Waco, Tex.: Word 

     Books, 1983.

Carson, D. A. “Jude.” Pages 1069-1079 in Commentary on the New Testament Use of

     the Old Testament. Edited by G. K. Beale and D. A. Carson. Grand Rapids, Mich.:

     Baker Academic, 2007.

Charles, J. Daryl. “The Angels under Reserve in 2 Peter and Jude.” Bulletin for

      Biblical Research 15 (2005): 39-48.

_______. “‘Those’ and ‘These’: The Use of the Old Testament in the Epistle of

     Jude.” Journal for the Study of the New Testament 38 (February 1990): 109-124.

Davids, Peter H. The Letters of 2 Peter and Jude. The Pillar New Testament

     Commentary. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2006.

Evans, Craig. Ancient Texts for New Testament Studies Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson,

     2005.

Feldman, Louis H. “Questions about the Great Flood, as Viewed by Philo, Pseudo-

     Philo, Josephus, and the Rabbis.” Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft

     115 (2003): 401-422.

Feuillet, P. André. “Le Péché Évoqué aux chapitres 3 et 6, 1-4 De La Genése. Le

     Péches Des Anges De L’Épître de Pierre.” Divinitas 35 (1991): 207-229.

Green, Gene L. Jude & 2 Peter. Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament.

     Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Academi, 2008.

Helyer, Larry R. Exploring Jewish Literature of the Second Temple Period: A Guide

     for New Testament Students. Downers Grove, Ill: Intervarsity, 2002.

Isaac, E. "1 Enoch."  Vol. 1 of The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha. Ed. James H.

     Charlesworth. Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1983.

Neyrey, Jerome H. 2 Peter, Jude. The Anchor Bible 37c. New York: Doubleday, 1993.

Nickelsburg, George W. E. Jewish Literature between the Bible and the Mishnah. 2^nd

     ed. Minneapolis, Minn.: Fortress, 2005.

Stuckenbruck, Joren T. “The ‘Angels’ and ‘Giants’ of Genesis 6:1-4 in Second and

     Third Century BCE Jewish Interpretation: Reflections on the Posture of Early

     Apocalyptic Traditions.” Dead Sea Discoveries 7 (November 2000): 354-377.

Webb, Robert L. “The Use of ‘Story’ in the Letter of Jude: Rhetorical Strategies of

     Jude’s Narrative Episodes.” Journal for the Study of the New Testament 31

     (September 2008): 53-87.

Resources for studying and teaching: 3 helpful books on Bible backgrounds

Since each book of the Bible was written in a particular time, place, culture, and language, I believe a study of Bible backgrounds to be absolutely essential to theological education (both in the academy and in the church). Preaching Jesus without any knowledge of the time and place He ministered would be like quoting Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn without any actually knowledge of life in the Soviet Union. Sure, you can still make your point and be a blessing to somebody, but you would be missing out on so much rich material that can facilitate our understanding of God's Word and, in some cases, be important for understanding what the inspired author is trying to say.

I currently have the privilege of teaching the youth Sunday School class at my local church. Recently we started going through Matthew's Gospel. In addition to 2 commentaries I unfailingly consult (Carson in the Expositor's series and Turner in the Baker Exegetical series), I have 3 books on Bible backgrounds that I turn to. All three of them have, to one degree or the other, given me information that has helped me bring the world of Matthew's Gospel alive (well, at least from my perspective as teacher! I can only pray that the student is getting something out of it)

[Note: for true academic research, of course, you want to consult primary sources. If you want to learn about Herod or other 1st century Jewish personalities, read Josephus, because he lived only a few years removed. If you want to learn about Jewish-Alexandrian philosophy, read Philo (who, by the way, does some stuff with mathematical interpretation of Scripture that would put Harold Camping to shame!).  If you want to learn about the "nuts and bolts" of 1st century living, read the letters and documents that have been recovered from the 1st century (some of these have been published in Adolf Deissmann's monumental Light from the Ancient East). Below, however, are 3 easily-available secondary resources for the average Christian. Oh, and by the way, all 3 books have pictures, and 2 of them actually have full-color photographs, so this removes any excuse you might have for not taking a glance at them :)]

1. Everett Ferguson, Backgrounds of Early Christianity (3rd ed.; Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2003; the comments below are based on my own 2nd edition copy). Ferguson is an absolute treasure trove of knowledge on everything from the Pharisees and the Sadducees to Greco-Roman education in the 1st century. Granted, not everything in the book will be as useful for the average Sunday School teacher (e.g., I don't expect to discuss 2 Baruch and its influence on Judaism with the teens in my class any time soon), but Backgrounds of Early Christianity is still hands-down one of the best resources a Christian can own for understanding the New Testament. The 1st section of this book deals with the history of Palestine from the Persian empire to the Greco-Roman world of the 1st century. The second section deals with "Society and Culture," including such topics as law, military, social status, literature, etc. The 3rd and 4th sections deal with religion and philosophy during this era. The 5th and 6th sections are perhaps the most helpful for the teacher. In the former, Ferguson discusses Judaism, including varies sects (e.g. the Pharisees), literature (the Dead Sea Scrolls, etc.), and worship (e.g. what was temple worship like in the 1st century?). Finally, in the 6th section, Ferguson deals with early Christianity, discussing such topics as pagan interaction with Christians, literary references to Christians, Christianity under imperial law, etc.

2. Victor H. Matthews, Manners & Customs in the Bible: An Illustrated Guide to Daily Life in Bible Times (3rd ed.; Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 2006). This book was a Christmas present from my best friend and has already seen some good use. Although not very conservative when compared to the other two books on the list (and thus it should be read with a bit more discretion), Matthews' helpful work covers almost the entire spectrum of Biblical history from Abraham through the NT era. Although the structure of the book is laid out historically (i.e. first section is the "Ancestral Period," second section is the "Exodus-Settlement Period," etc.), Matthews' focus is not on history but rather on the day-to-day living of the average person throughout biblical history. Thus Matthews has a wealth of information on everything from marriage customs to architecture to jewelry. Oh, and the full-color photos are fantastic! (see the awesome shot of Masada on p. 189)

3. Gary M. Burge, Lynn H. Cohick, and Gene L. Green, The New Testament in Antiquity: A Survey of the New Testament Within Its Cultural Contexts (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan, 2009). The bulk of this work proceeds book-by-book through the New Testament, making it very helpful for those doing a class on a particular epistle or Gospel. In the process, the book functions as a fairly accessible NT Intro and Survey, but its true value lies in its extensive discussion of the setting and context of each book. For example, in the chapter on 1 Corinthians, Burge/Cohick/Green discuss the city of Corinth, the concept of "foolishness" in 1:23 [citing Cicero's view of crucifixion], the common practice of inviting somebody to a banquet (in light of 1 Cor 10), etc. All throughout, the authors make excellent use of primary source material (for example, when discussing banqueting in 1 Corinthians, they quote actual banquet invitations from that era). Also, The New Testament in Antiquity should get high praise not just for its full-color photographs, but rather the way in which it uses them. It is very sobering, for example, to read of Christ's crucifixion and then see a photograph of an actual 1st century man's anklebone with the nail still inside it (p. 143).

One final thought. The point of studying, whether it be the original languages or Bible backgrounds or historical theology, is not to impress one's audience (or bore them, as the case may be!) I generally do not quote D. A. Carson when teaching my class, nor do I dump on them all the information I received from Ferguson on Jewish preparation for funerals. However, just as a good house has a solid yet hidden foundation, so also those of us who get the opportunity to teach Scripture should make sure we have a solid foundation of knowledge regarding life, culture, and history in the Biblical era. The more we can make the Bible come alive, the better (especially at church!), but in order to do that, we need to understand Scripture in its own context. As Burge, et. al., write, "When Jesus told a parable, he framed it in ways that made sense to first-century farmers and fishermen. When Paul wrote a letter, he used not only his own personal cultural preferences, but he wrote to be understood, using words and ideas meaningful to a first-century audience. Today we may understand a great deal of that message, but probing its depths requires effort." (p. 17).

Naturally this is only the tip of the iceberg for great resources, so feel free to discuss more helpful books in the comments section below.

Review of "The King Jesus Gospel" by Scot McKnight

Warning: my reviews tend to be on the long side. I apologize if this is excessive, but reviews are, for me, a chance to air my own thoughts and dialogue with the book in question.

Scot McKnight is professor of Biblical and theological studies at North Park University. He received his Ph.D. from the University of Nottingham under the mentorship of the great NT scholar James Dunn. He has written a plethora of books and articles, most notably (from my own biased perspective) the NIV Application Commentary on 1 Peter and an excellent article on 1 Peter entitled "Aliens and Exiles: Social Location and Christian Vocation" in the journal Word and World 24 (Fall 2004).

In The King Jesus Gospel: The Original Good News Revisited (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan, 2011), McKnight argues that too often we evangelicals have misrepresented the Gospel by reducing it strictly to "the plan of salvation," an oversimplification with drastic consequences for the life of the church. Rather, McKnight argues, Scripture portrays the Gospel more broadly as "The Story of Jesus as the resolution of Israel's Story" (44) and “the saving Story of Israel now lived out by Jesus, who lived, died, was buried, was raised, and was exalted to God’s right hand, and who is now roaring out the message that someday the kingdom will come in all its glorious fury” (160). The Gospel's focus, then, is on Christ, of course; yet the Gospel is not merely the story of the cross, but also includes the resurrection, Jesus' fulfillment of the OT Scriptures, and a proper understanding of Jesus' role as Messiah.

On the one hand, I believe McKnight's main thesis is Biblical and well-argued. He is at his best when dealing with what Scripture says about the Gospel and Christ's role as Messiah, and I believe he makes his case that the Gospel should not be relegated to strictly "the plan of salvation" (although the latter is clearly a part of the former).  On the other hand, McKnight's work raises questions that I do not feel he adequately answers, especially regarding the practical role of "the plan of salvation" and when and how it would be appropriate to simplify the Gospel. Also, I believe he neglects discussing some key, relevant portions of Scripture.  In addition, there are other minor points that I do not think are as convincing as his overall thesis. In the end, I feel that McKnight has laid down a road that leads to a true, valid destination, yet nevertheless includes some significant potholes that detract from the overall thesis. I believe The King Jesus Gospel is a good book worth reading, yet I remain very uncomfortable with certain parts. The first part of this review will focus on summarizing the book while the next section will analyze it.

Summary

In his introduction, McKnight details how as a 17-year old he become disillusioned with the coercive, decision-based methods he saw in certain forms of evangelism. While with a deacon, they had witnessed to a man who, over the course of an hour, had finally “made a decision”; nevertheless, “deep inside” McKnight “was absolutely convinced the man had not made a decision for Christ . . . I never saw the man at our church again” (18). The result, for McKnight, was that he ". . . looked ever since with a cynical eye at evangelistic strategies. Not because I'm not an evangelist, but because I believe we are focused on the wrong thing. Most of evangelism today is obsessed with getting someone to make a decision; the apostles, however, were obsessed with making disciples" (18; emphasis is McKnight's). McKnight further points out that many young people who “make decisions” early on in a church fall out and never return to the faith.

In his first chapter, McKnight asks the question: “What is the Gospel?” He discusses a few instances where he thinks the definition of the gospel has been mishandled, such as a failure to understand how Jesus’ role as Messiah fights in, the equation of the Gospel with simple “justification by faith,” etc. McKnight concludes that the term Gospel in 21^st century Christian culture does not mean what it should, and that “if the gospel isn’t about transformation, it isn’t the gospel of the Bible” (27).

In chapter 2, McKnight introduces what is perhaps the major theme of his book: the contrast between a “salvation” (“soterian”) culture and a “Gospel” culture. McKnight states, “ . . . we evangelicals (as a whole) are not really ‘evangelical’ in the sense of the apostolic gospel, but instead we are soterians . . . we evangelicals (mistakenly) equate the word gospel with the word salvation . . . But these two words don’t mean the same thing” (29). In McKnight’s opinion, an overemphasis on “getting in” has caused Christians to neglect discipleship. A “salvation culture,” thus falls short of the whole Gospel. In contrast, “A gospel culture, though, encompasses it all and leads The Members into The Discipled because it equates the former with the latter.”

Chapter 3 continues McKnight’s emphasis on the difference between the Gospel and the Plan of Salvation. He also argues that both the latter and the “Method of Persuasion” used to convert unbelievers have been given so much weight that they “crush” the proper understanding of the Gospel (p. 43; McKnight does not deny that those two elements have their place; he is simply arguing that they have been overemphasized at the expense of a fuller understanding of the Gospel.

In chapter 4, McKnight finally begins to define the Gospel. He starts, appropriately, in 1 Corinthians 15. He discusses how the Gospel includes Christ’s death, burial, resurrection, and appearance, but also includes Christ’s role in completing Israel’s story (“according to the Scriptures”). He also acknowledges that the “Plan of Salvation” does indeed come from the Gospel (“died for our sins”) and that “Paul uses a Plan-of-Salvation expression in his definition of gospel” (51). McKnight continues to emphasize that the former is a part of the latter, but not to be completely equated with it. McKnight also emphasizes the dangers of focusing solely on individualism: too often the plan of salvation causes the focus of the Gospel to swing too far from Christ to oneself and one’s own need; nevertheless, “we need the latter without cutting off the former” (62).

In chapter 5, McKnight takes a detour from defining the Gospel via biblical theology and discusses how, in his opinion, historically a focus on personal salvation came to overshadow the rest of the Gospel. In chapter 6, McKnight returns to defining the Gospel by discussing how the Gospel is portrayed in Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. He emphasizes that all the elements discussed in 1 Corinthians 15 are present in the four gospels, and that they focus on Jesus himself as the embodiment of the Gospel. Chapter 7 looks at what Jesus Himself said abut the Gospel and his kingdom. McKnight asserts that Jesus boldly portrayed himself as the fulfillment of Israel’s history; indeed, “Jesus therefore preached the gospel because he preached himself,” and “Jesus preached the gospel because he saw himself completing Israel’s Story” (104; emphasis is McKnight’s).

In chapter 8, McKnight examines the evangelistic sermons in Acts to determine how they framed the Gospel. He argues that these sermons focus on “the Story of Jesus resolving the Story of Israel,” and that the OT citations in Acts are a significant part of how the apostles saw the Gospel (118). Both Peter and Paul see Jesus as Israel’s Messiah; consequently Jesus’ story is essentially the culmination of Israel’s story. Thus, “. . . it is clear from Peter’s and Paul’s own sermons that the framing story is not so much salvation as the Story of Israel coming to completion in the Story of Jesus” (131; though obviously salvation is still a key part of that story). A genuine response to that story manifests itself via belief, repentance, and baptism (127).

Chapter 9 deals with what McKnight calls “Gospelling,” or evangelism. McKnight begins by drawing out 4 key points regarding the Gospel: 1. It is “framed by Israel’s Story”; 2. it “centers on the lordship of Jesus”; 3. It “involves summoning people to respond”; and 4. It “saves and redeems” (133; emphasis is McKnight’s). At the practical level, McKnight argues that modern evangelism errs when it focuses solely on “Jesus as (personal) Savior” while ignoring “Jesus as Messiah and Lord.” In the rest of the chapter McKnight discusses how such themes as Israel, God’s future judgment, Jesus’ role as King and Messiah, etc., fit into the Gospel. He holds a brief and balanced discussion of the so-called anti-imperialism seen by many to inhabit Jesus’ Gospel, and then finishes the chapter by asserting that the central focus of the Gospel must always be Jesus and his story.

In the final chapter, McKnight essentially retells the Gospel, tracing its story throughout the entirety of Scripture in his own way. He the concludes by urging us to embrace a gospel culture as evidenced in our lifestyle as well as our words. In appendix 1, McKnight offers “summary statements” of the Gospel in the NT that go hand-in-hand with 1 Corinthians 15; appendix 2 gives the text of Justin Martyr, First Apology 66-67; finally, appendix 3 gives the text of the relevant sermons in Acts.

Analysis

Analysis part 1—overall theme

At the basic level, I believe McKnight’s thesis is Scriptural. At the very heart of the book is McKnight’s desire not to oversimplify the Gospel, and I believe he defends his position in a Scriptural manner. We have indeed often neglected many of the key elements of the Gospel in evangelicalism. Furthermore, while the “Plan of Salvation” is part of the Gospel, I believe McKnight makes it clear that this is not all that the Gospel is about. As McKnight notes, too much of an emphasis on “persuasion” can also lead to non-genuine conversion. Finally, I believe McKnight makes a solid case that neglect of the whole Gospel seriously hinders discipleship. The main thesis of The King Jesus Gospel, then, is in my opinion a solid, Scriptural, and convicting thesis. That being said, there are areas where I disagree with him or feel that he has not adequately dealt with certain issues.

Analysis part 2—writing

As mentioned above, McKnight is a brilliant writer and thinker; that should never be in doubt. This book was easy to read but difficult to think through at times. For the most part, the book was well-structured (with one exception: see below). The King Jesus Gospel should be able to be read by most Christians, even those without any formal theological training.

Analysis part 3—some thoughts on certain individual chapters

Regarding individual chapters, I thought chapter 2 was especially effective in framing the relevant questions and getting McKnight’s point across. “Figure 1” on page 30, especially, makes a lot of sense and makes McKnight’s point very well. Chapters 4 and 6-8 were essential to McKnight’s thesis and overall very biblical; in fact, he has basically created a “biblical theology of the Gospel,” and I believe he does a good job.

There is some overlap between some of the chapters, and McKnight repeats various key themes over and over again. For this sort of book, that’s probably a good thing.

Chapter 5, however, is something of a puzzler for me. To begin with, he makes sweeping, controversial, historical statements that would need a lot more work to be proven. Furthermore, in my opinion, the chapter never successfully explains just how we moved from the reframing of the Gospel in the Reformation to the (in his opinion) unhealthy focus on personal soteriology at the exclusion of much of the Gospel in today’s evangelicalism (basically, all of one page, page 74, is relegated to this question; in my opinion one page is hardly up to the task). I’m not necessarily opposed to the point he’s trying to make in chapter 5, I just don’t think he deals with it adequately.

Furthermore, McKnight’s discussion of creeds at the beginning of the chapter is puzzling. On the one hand I acknowledge his point that the creeds “bring out what is already in the Bible’s Gospel” (p. 65; emphasis his). Yet I nevertheless take strong issue with his statement that he sees “the creeds, especially the Apostle’s Creed and the Nicene Creed, or the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed, as fundamental to the faith of all Christians” (63; emphasis is mine this time). Had McKnight said “creeds in general,” I think he would have had a point, since this could more or less be seen in terms of “formal articulation of faith” (and, in a sense, even the most independent of churches has that at baptism or church constitution). Yet by singling out specific creeds, McKnight is forcing European and Middle-Eastern expressions of faith on the rest of the world, no matter how biblical those expressions are. I have grown up in Japan, surrounded by Japanese believers who would not have hesitated to express their faith in a creedal form; yet never once have I ever heard the Apostle’s Creed or Nicene Creed in Japanese. I have no doubt that they have been translated somewhere, someplace, yet my point is that the creeds themselves (rather than the beliefs expressed in the key creeds, which are found in Scripture) were never a major part of the Japanese Christianity I grew up with. Frankly, I would be very surprised if such creeds were a part of Christianity in most of far eastern Asia, especially those who haven’t had the privilege of reading Greco-Roman and Middle-Eastern expressions of faith from the 4^th century. To say, then, that these creeds are “fundamental to the faith of all Christians” is extremely careless on McKnight’s part, even though this does not factor into the chapter as a whole. For these reasons I view chapter 5 as the weakest link in the book.

Analysis part 4—some concerns with individual points of the book

As mentioned above, I think McKnight’s overall point is sound, biblical, and challenging to my own thinking (and, in retrospect, not quite as controversial as I had initially feared).

There are some concerns, however. What I write below may be because I simply am not “getting it”; there are, after all, no perfect reviewers! Nevertheless these issues nagged me throughout the book, and I don’t think McKnight has dealt with them adequately.

To being with, McKnight is strongly critical of an over-simplification of the Gospel message (as he should be), yet he never actually discusses, from a practical standpoint, how evangelistic encounters should happen. In other words, if I’m sitting next to a person on a 30-minute flight, what should we talk about? Are all forms of door-to-door witnessing illegitimate? Are short Gospel tracts necessarily wrong? (p. 148 seems to imply this; more on this below). Since the Plan of Salvation is, by McKnight’s own admission, part of the Gospel, then what should it look like, and must it include the whole Gospel at any given conversation? In other words, does the entirety of the Gospel necessarily need to be fitted into every single plan of salvation? A survey of Scripture would seem to indicate an answer in the negative. Christ’s dealings with Nicodemus in John 3, for example, hardly touch on every single theme that McKnight says is part of the Gospel. Similarly, Paul’s “witnessing” in Acts 16 doesn’t even mention the role of Israel in God’s plan or Jesus’ role as Messiah; perhaps later Paul did enlighten the jailor and his family regarding other elements of the Gospel, but my point here deals with the initial point of conversion, not the necessary elements of subsequent discipleship.

More seriously, McKnight’s argument that the Gospels “do not tell us the Plan of Salvation, and neither do they offer to us a Method of Persuasion” is, in my opinion, inaccurate. John 3 is the perfect example of this: Jesus does not include every single element of the Gospel in his discussion with Nicodemus, yet he most certainly gives a “Plan of Salvation” (the very same Plan that my mother used to lead me to Christ). Whether or not this also constitutes a “Method of Persuasion” would probably depend on your definition of that phrase (and, for the record, I do agree with McKnight that there is a great danger on putting too much emphasis on our own persuasive skills in evangelism). Similarly, when Jesus heals the blind man in Luke 18:35-43, all we have is a simple “Receive your sight; your faith has saved you,” which seems to me to constitute a Plan of Salvation (i.e. “faith in Christ = personal salvation”).

Furthermore, I believe this goes hand in hand with a key omission of the Biblical evidence in chapter 8; when discussing the evangelistic sermons in Acts (a topic which I think he handles well), McKnight basically neglects the personal evangelistic encounters of Acts such as Acts 10 (Peter and Cornelius) Acts 16 (Paul and Silas in prison). Some of these would actually strengthen McKnight’s case in certain elements (esp. Peter and Cornelius; notice how Peter brings Israel into the conversation), yet other cases demonstrate that not every element of the Gospel (as defined by McKnight) is always present in evangelistic encounters.

Going along with my criticism that McKnight does not deal enough with evangelistic encounters (either Biblical or modern) would be that, despite all his criticism of “persuasive” methods in evangelism, McKnight never discusses exactly how persuasive we should be, or how much is too much. Given the illustration with which he starts out his introduction, this is a glaring omission. A certain degree of persuasion in evangelism is, after all, Biblical (e.g. 2 Cor 5:11; the Greek here is peithw), so it is not enough for McKnight to broadly criticize overly-persuasive evangelistic methods. We all agree that deacons who barge into a family’s home and wring out a “profession of faith” are failing in their methodology. Nor do we need to breed a generation of “in-your-face” obnoxious soul-winners considered solely with racking up points for the Lord, as if witnessing were some sort of cosmic basketball game. Yet persuasion and bold proclamation in of themselves are not evil (and, to be fair, McKnight never directly says so); indeed, it would seem to be a part of “gospelling.” My point is not that McKnight was wrong with his criticism of coercive presentations of the “plan of salvation”; rather, I would argue that McKnight never explains exactly how “persuasion” and “presenting the plan of salvation” fit into true “gospelling.” McKnight never denies that these are legitimate Christian categories, yet almost whenever he speaks of these terms he does so negatively. Once again, then, if I am sitting next to somebody on a plan for 30 minutes, how do I go about presenting Christ? I get that simply presenting a “plan of salvation” is not, in McKnight’s definition, true “gospelling”; yet isn’t it a start, at least?

I believe McKnight does a great job of “sketching” the Gospel on pages 148-153. But his criticism that “the assumption on the part of many that the gospel can be reduced to a note card—or a napkin—is already off on the wrong track” (148) is confusing. On the one hand I acknowledge McKnight’s basic thesis, that we have quite often neglected key elements of the Gospel. Yet McKnight’s own “sketching” of the Gospel is not found anyone particular place in Scripture, but rather takes all of the Gospel themes in Scripture and (masterfully, even) weaves them together into a coherent whole. Nevertheless, most if not all NT writers ultimately reduce the Gospel at some point to a much shorter version than what McKnight “sketches” in chapter 10. The obvious example is 1 Corinthians 15:1-5, 20-28, which McKnight does a fantastic job of handling in chapter 4. I’m confused, then, because taken at face value McKnight’s statement in chapter 10 seems to contradict his work in chapter 4; i.e. these verses in 1 Cor 15 is a much more abbreviated version of the Gospel than McKnight seems to be willing to allow in chapter 10. Obviously nobody is suggesting that Paul, in these few verses, has covered every single facet of the gospel. Yet that constitutes my point and one of my biggest criticisms of McKnight: although the entirety of the Gospel must not be neglected, the entirety of the Gospel as defined by Knight does not necessarily have to be preached at any one specific time. This is why the Apostle Paul can boil the Gospel down to the “essentials” in 1 Cor 15. Quite possibly McKnight would agree with all this, yet a prima facia reading of certain parts of his book suggest otherwise.

Once again, let me reiterate that I agree with McKnight’s concern that no part of the Gospel should be (or can be) neglected in the life of a true believer. I am only suggesting that the Gospel can be viewed and presented in different ways, not all of which will reflect every single point McKnight makes regarding the Gospel. It’s possible I am simply just “not getting” the book here (and I’m open to correction), but my objections stem from an honest reading of McKnight’s book.

Also, I think McKnight’s criticism of broader evangelicalism is too harsh (esp. p. 76 and his citation of Dallas Willard at the top, a citation with which I am extremely uncomfortable). Granted, often evangelicals have neglected key elements of the Gospel (Jesus’ relation to Israel being a key example), and granted we have often relied on a “fire-and-forget” method of evangelism that neglects discipleship. Yet ultimately no matter what we do people will leave the church; this much is obvious from Scripture itself (e.g. Luke 8:13-14). That we are not retaining our youth in our churches, for example, may be the result of a variety of factors and, to a certain degree, occurs even in good churches that practice discipleship. I also believe he is a bit too harsh in his introduction on those who focus on getting people to make decisions; I would suggest that the genuineness of a decision should also be taken into consideration regarding whether or not somebody stays with the faith. I think McKnight is almost (but not quite) in danger of creating a false dichotomy between “emphasis on persuasion/plan of salvation” and “emphasis of discipleship”; despite having grown up in Japan, I have encountered hundreds of churches in the States. Some of them most certainly due fall under McKnight’s condemnation. Yet a significant number have, to my observation, managed to keep maintain a focus on the Plan of Salvation and persuading people to repent without neglecting the other elements of the Gospel.

Analysis part 5—concluding thoughts

The length of my negative critique should not detract from the fact that The King Jesus Gospel is a good book worth buying and thinking through. McKnight’s chief concern (a valid one) is summed up best by “figure 1 “on page 30 where he demonstrates how a “salvation culture” (i.e. a focus strictly on the “plan of salvation” at the exclusion of other parts of the Gospel) falls short of what a true Christ-centered culture should be. I believe McKnight’s overall point is a valid one, then, though I disagree with certain parts of the book. Furthermore, McKnight’s thesis demands action, not theorizing. McKnight concerns himself with true evangelism and discipleship in the service of Christ. He is no “ivory-tower” theologian. A fitting conclusion, then, is the following statement:
         "We also embrace the gospel to create a gospel culture by serving others in love and compassion . . . As our God is a sending God, so we are a sent people. As our God is an other-directed God, so we are to be other-directed. The gospel propels us into mission, into the holistic mission of loving God, loving self, loving others, and loving the world" (160).

         

Some foreign language and lesser-known English articles on 1 Peter that are well-worth reading

As I prepare to celebrate this Christmas with my parents for the first time in 7 years, I wanted to get in one quick blog post (it's been quite a while since the last one, due to grading, writing, research, etc.).

 It's easy enough for students to search the more well-known journals such as JETS, Tyndale Bulletin, Journal for the Study of the New Testament, etc., and any serious researcher on 1 Peter should be familiar with articles by major Petrine scholars such as John H. Elliott, and Karen Jobes.  Yet in the interest of being a resource for students and researchers, let me present four lesser-known articles on 1 Peter that should not be overlooked.

Let me begin by pointing out one article in French and one in German. First of all, at the broader level,  Max-Alain Chevallier has written one of the few articles that deals specifically with the structure of 1 Peter. Chevallier, “1 Pierre 1/1 à 2/10: Structure Littéraire et Conséquences Exégétiques,” Revue D'Histoire et de Philosophie Religieuses 51 (1971), focuses specifically on that one section of 1 Peter from 1:1 to 2:10 and has some observations that should be taken into account. Secondly, I need to point out Wolff's interesting discussion entitled “Christ und Welt im 1. Petrusbrief,” Theologische Literaturzeitung 100 (1975). Wolff has much to say on what makes up the concept of "stranger" in the Greco-Roman era. On page 333, for example, he argues that three things could characterize the identity of a stranger: to be born of another tribe, to possess a different language or set of customs, and to worship a different god. While I certainly don't agree with all of what Wolff has to say in his article (and I'm somewhat more sympathetic to Elliott's views on the social context of 1 Peter than Wolff later would be) , this is an important contribution to the discussion of the social and spiritual setting of 1 Peter and should be looked up by the serious researcher.

Now on to two potentially overlooked English articles. Jocelyn A. Williams, “A Case Study in Intertextuality: The Place of Isaiah in the ‘Stone’ Sayings of 1 Peter 2,” RTR 66 (April 2007), has one of the bettter discussions, in my opinion, of Petrine use of the OT. Furthermore, although it's not that relevant to Williams' overall thesis, I appreciate and agree with the author's suggestion (p. 45) that 1 Peter changes the LXX in 1 Peter 2:6 (specifically from the LXX emballo to the word tithhmi), although we differ slightly on the reason Peter did so (I presented on this very topic in a regional ETS a few years ago).

Secondly, although the name Miroslav Volf should be familiar to theology students, his article entitlted “Soft Difference: Theological Reflections on the Relation Between Church and Culture in 1 Peter,” Ex Audito 10 (1994) may sadly be overlooked by Petrine students. Volf has much to say on the interaction of the Petrine Christian community with the world around it, and much of what he says is theologically powerful, in my opinion (warning: this article is deep and consequently somewhat difficult to wade through; multiple readings are advised). I especially appreciate the following  statement on p. 20: "Whatever the reason, the Petrine community was no aggressive sect in the sense of Ernst Troeltsch. It did not wish to impose itself or the kingdom of God on the world, but to live in faithfulness to God and to the values of God’s kingdom, inviting others to do the same. It had no desire to do for others what they did not want done for them. They had not covert totalitarian agenda. Rather, the community was to live an alternative way of life in the present social setting, transforming it, as it could, from within. In any case, the community did not seek to exert social or political pressure, but to give public witness to a new way of life."

With that in mind, may the Lord grant any readers a Merry Christmas and a great 2012!

Some resources for studying "Jesus and the Gospels"

This weekend I have the privilege of teaching the hybrid class "NT Intro 1: Jesus and the Gospels" at an extension site (11 hours of lecturing over two days, yikes!!) In my own research for this weekend's lectures, here are some helpful sources that I've drawn on and hope to introduce to the class.


To begin with, I actually assigned the class to read two interesting articles. The first is N. T. Wright's “Christian Origins and the Resurrection of Jesus: The Resurrection of Jesus as a Historical Problem” (originally published in   Sewanee Theological Review 41.2 [1998] but now available online). Whatever you may think about Wright on justification, he remains one of the best writers on the resurrection and Jesus' role as Messiah. This discussion is very accessible and a pleasure to read and has, in my opinion, some apologetic value for any discussion of Jesus' resurrection. In addition, I had the class read Michael Bird's somewhat more technical article "The Peril of Modernizing Jesus and the Crisis of not Contemporizing the Christ” in Evangelical Quarterly 78 (2006): 291-312. I'm hoping that, among other things, this article will lead to a discusson of what Jesus should represent to us today.


In addition, for my lectures I'm drawing from Bird's Are You the One Who is to Come? (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Academic, 2009). While this doesn't add much unique material to the overall discussion, it is a good overview of Jesus' role as Messiah from a solid conservative view.


Since we'll be discussing the historical Jesus and the Jesus seminar somewhat, I'm introducing them to the works of Bart Erhman and John Dominic Crossan, as well as Dan Brown's fictional The DaVinci Code because your average co-worker in the factory actually reads Dan Brown and related material and may be quite eager to dialogue with you on the "vast conspiracy" behind Jesus' "marriage" to Mary Magdalene  (I speak from experience)! In addition, I'm drawing from Craig Evens' excellent conservative rebuttal entitled Fabricating Jesus ( Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity, 2006) as well as my fellow SEBTS ph.d. student Josh Chatraw's recent article in JETS 54 (September 2011): 449-465 entitled " Disunity and Diversity: The Biblical Theology of Bart Ehrman.”


Since we're dealing with the genre of the gospels somewhat, I'm also hoping to discusss the recent fascinating article by Craig Keener, “Otho: A Targeted Comparison of Suetonius’s Biography and Tacitus’s History, with Implications for the Gospels’ Historical Reliability” BBR 21 (2011): 331-355. Keener does an in-depth analysis of Suetonius, Tacitus, and Plutarch on the emperor Otho and demonstrates how such works used sources, including eyewitness interviews, and thus differed markedly from mere historical fiction.


We will also be briefly discussing both Gospel orgins and textual criticism. For the former I'm hoping to introduce them to some of Mark Goodacre's arguments in The Case Against Q (Harrisburg, Penn.: Trinity International, 2002) For the latter, there's a ton of material to draw on, but one of the things I want to emphasize is how little impact textual criticism actually has on theology (contra Ehrman and co.). I will be drawing on the relatively little-known yet surprisingly original work of  Mark Minnick in his essay “How Much Difference do the Differences Make?” (pages 229-277 in God’s Word In our Hands; The Bible Preserved for Us. James B. Williams and Randolph Shaylor, eds. Greenville, SC.: Ambassador Emerald, 2002) Dr. Minnick actually goes through all the textual varients in Jude and discusses the theological significance of each. I'm hoping to do the same thing with my class by looking at the first 3 chapters of John.


Finally, if we have time, we make take a look at Larry Hurtado's recent provacative post called "'Historical Jesus' Debate: An Unexamined Premise?" online at  http://larryhurtado.wordpress.com/2011/11/09/historical-jesus-debate-an-unexamined-premise/ (accessed November 10th, 2011)


This will be 11 hours of lecutring over two days, the first time I get an entire class all to myself for face-to-face lecture (I did teach half a semester last year, though). Looking forward to it, and planning on drinking a lot of Red Bull to keep me going!

Recent journal articles and some thoughts on publishing

For those readers who are interested in scholarly contributions to theology but don't have time to browse their local seminary library, here's a few articles that I think are noteworthy (granted, this subjective selection reflects my own interests and bias. Can't apologize for that, though!)

Before we begin, however, I'd just like to express my gratefulness to the Lord for bringing my parents safely back to the states from a term of service as missionaries in Japan. This past week has been the first time in 6 and a half years I have actually spent time with both my parents at one time, the first time all three of us have been together (they have both taken separate, very short trips to the US in that time, but I only got to see one or the other for a few short days)

Another quite unrelated thought: in light of the 10th anniversary of the 9/11 attacks, I'd like to direct the reader to an excellent piece by Allan Bevere on "What Pastors Should Say on the 10th Anniversary of 9/11":
http://www.allanbevere.com/2011/09/what-should-pastors-say-on-tenth.html    He concludes with the powerful statement, "This Sunday is an appropriate time to remind God's people that in Jesus Christ God plans to put this world to rights, and that evil will, in God's own time, be defeated-- the evil that impinges upon us and the evil we perpetrate. Despite what happens in life, in the end, God will get God's way."

Now, on to a potpourri of journal selections, and then a quick discussion of peer review and the power of encouragement!
We start with what,  for me at least, is a somewhat surprising source, the journal Word & World vol 31.3 (Summer 2011). On the one hand the journal is always well-written, but generally its pieces don't interest me as well and are too far away from me theologically (though I am fortunate and grateful to have gotten a free subscription for this past year). However, this latest issue has a wealth of fascinating articles on Bible translation. David Burke starts us off with "The Enduring significance of the King James Version," where he examines both the history and the methodology of the translation and those involved with it. Mary Jane Haemig discusses "Luther on Translating the Bible," an accessible discussion that pays special attention to Luther's own words on his translation methodology. In addition, Bohdan Hrobon, in "The Kralice Bible: Czech-mate to the KJV," gives us a look into the history of the Czechoslovakian "Kralice Bible" (articles on the history of non-English Bible translations are hard to come by!) while Steven J. Kraftchick gives us both a theoretical and practical discussion of  Bible translation with his article, "Mr. Johnson's Axiom: Thoughts on the Tasks of Translation and Preaching." The issue contains  other articles relevant to Bible translation and/or ministry, but I'd like to especially point out and congratulate  Michal Beth Dinkler from Harvard for her winning student essay "Telling Transformation: How We Redeem narratives and Narratives Redeem Us" (doctoral students take note: even a essay that fails to win might still get you a year's subscription to the journal! It's a contest worth entering, regardless).

Next we turn to Bulletin for Biblical Research volume 21 (July 2011). While all five of the journal articles here are interesting (and also let me give a shout-out to my friend Alex Stewart's review of Joseph Mangina's commentary on Revelation), I must point out that possibly for the first time ever we have three consecutive articles written by Southeastern Seminary authors (including my own first attempt at a contribution) in a non-Southeatern journal.  The first article, by Dr. Heath Thomas (OT prof at SEBTS), examines "Building House to House (Isaiah 5:8): Theological Reflection on Land Development and Creation Care." Here  Dr. Thomas carefully explores the theological significance of Isaiah 5:8-10. Newly graduated  Dr. Keith Campbell writes on "NT Scholars' Use of OT Lament terminology and its Theological and Interdisciplinary Implications" where he laments (no pun intended) the  inconsistency among NT scholars in their labeling of certain texts as "lament" without evidencing an awareness of OT scholarship on the definition of lament, esp. the work of Hermann Gunkel. Finally, my own contribution ("Peter and the Prophetic Word: The Theology of Prophecy Traced through Peter's Sermons and Epistles")  attempts to link the Petrine material in Acts with 1 and 2 Peter in order to develop a "Petrine Theology of Prophecy."

My own interests in both 1 Peter and Koine Greek drew me to The Westminster Theological Journal vol 73 (Spring 2011), where Travis B. Williams is "Reconsidering the Imperatival Participle in 1 Peter." Williams ultimately argues against the idea that the imperatival participle somehow represents a "softer" appeal than the imperative mood itself. Williams concludes by stating, “[we] address[ed] the question of whether or not individual authors (in particular, the author of 1 Peter) used the form because it communicated something different than the finite imperative. But even this was a dead end. As we examined each usage in the context of the Petrine argument, not set patterns are developed. It appears right alongside finite forms with no distinguishable disparity. Overall, it would appear that there is little, if no, added connotation in the participle form.” (77). This is definitely one article I hope to keep in the back of my mind in order to examine Williams' thesis more thoroughly when I get the opportunity.

In The Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 54 (June 2011), we are still seeing articles appearing as a result of last years fantastic national conference in Atlanta on justification, featuring the panel smackdown. . . er . . . "friendly dialogue" . . . . between Thomas Schriener, N. T. Wright, and Frank Theilman (a  conference which I had the great privilege of attending in person). For the articles by those main speakers, see the previous issue of JETS. For this issue of JETS we have Mark Seifrid's critique of N. T. Wright ("The Near Word of Christ and the Distant Vision of N. T. Wright"), as well as Michael Bird's more moderating tone in  "What is There Between Minneapolis and St. Andrews? A Third Way in the Piper-Wright Debate." I was able to hear Bird present this article back at the ETS meeting in Atlanta, and I will state that Bird is one scholar I would gladly pay money to hear. Okay, technically I would force myself to pay money to hear most NT scholars for my own betterment, but Bird is one scholar I would actually enjoy hearing, due to his wittiness, dynamic presentation, and perhaps also that fascinating Australian accent. Anyways, in his article Bird analyzes and critiques both John Piper and  N. T. Wright, and I think he makes some valid points.

Elsewhere in JETS, archaeologist Bryant G. Wood (whom I also had the privilege of once hearing in person, years ago), writes on "Hittites and Hethites: A Proposed Solution to an Etymological Conundrum," where he deals with some of the confusion that has arisen from the term Hittite, concluding that a technical distinction should be made between the "singular gentilics"  hitii and hitiith, which "were used in the OT exclusively for the descendants of the eponymous ancestor [heith], who were indigenous residents of Canaan from pre-Abrahamic times" and the "plural gentilics"of hitim and hitiy-yith which, "on the other hand, were used in the OT exclusively for the Indo-Europeans who resided in Anatolia and northern Syria ca. 1700-717 BC"; sadly, though, "early translators failed to distinguish between the two groups" (249; the reader will forgive my poor attempt at transliteration; naturally Dr. Wood uses the actually Hebrew text in the article).

Finally, we also have in JETS my second attempt at a contribution, an article on "When a Christian Sins: 1 Corinthians 10:13 and the Power of Contrary Choice in Relation to the Compatibilist-Libertarian Debate" where I argue that if peirasmos in 1 Cor 10:13 is taken to mean"temptation to sin" as opposed to "trial/tribulation," then the text seems to assume the existence of libertarian free-will (the power of contrary choice) whenever a Christian (as opposed to an unbeliever) is faced with temptation. For the record, please note that the main theme of this article has absolutely nothing to do with soteriology and election; seriously, I don't even want to touch that topic here! (okay, I kind of poke at it in a footnote, but I may come to regret that).

Finally, we come to the journal Science & Christian Belief 23 (April 2011) where R. J. Berry has written an excellent article on "Adam or Adamah," i.e. whether or not the "Adam" in Genesis 1-3 (and elsewhere) should be taken to refer to a literally, historical figure. Berry's conclusion is that although boththe  “individual” and “generic” sense of “Adam” may be possible, “which interpretation we adopt depends on our understanding of sin, and particularly of Romans 5-8: if the comparison between the first man and the last man is taken to be a firm equivalence, then it seems we must accept that there was a historic Adam. The more seriously we take sin, the more it seems better not to avoid the possibility of “Mr Adam’” (48; emphasis mine). Berry argues that “the Adam of early Genesis may be a way of speaking about a group of our earliest ancestors. Romans 5 can be interpreted to accommodate this concept";  however, "this seems to me to diminish the burden of reponsibility [sic] which the Genesis account lays upon us individually to care for creation”; furthermore, “Christ on the cross reconciled all things to the Father (Col. 1:20). There is a sense in which we are corporately redeemed. But we all need to be personally reconciled. It is obviously grossly misleading to take individuals out of the gospel message; we are ‘in Adam’ because we are not in our intended relationship to the creator” (48). Although I am certainly not in total agreement with the author on everything in that article  (though I am in agreement with the main thesis), I have to admit Berry is an excellent writer with a lot of quotable lines. Another great line is on page 47 where, following J. J. Bimson, Berry states, “The ‘Fall’ is not primarily about disease and disaster, nor about the dawn of self-awareness. Rather is is a way of describing the fracture in relationship between God and the human creature made in his image.” The various theological issues in Genesis 1-3, of course, will continue to be a somewhat divisive matter in modern evangelicalism (I believe the latest Southern Baptist Journal of Theology devotes the entire issue to this matter). Those interested in the discussion would do well to read Berry's contribution.

A couple quick thoughts to close out today's blog post. First of all, the power of a little bit of encouragement cannot be discounted. The only reason I had the guts to send in my first article (the BBR article on Petrine theology) was because my prof encouraged me and told me that it was worth sending in, and I remain grateful to him. Encouragement can go a long way.

Secondly, prospective writers should remember that trying to get an article published is a lot like dating: you can expect to get rejected quite a bit! (okay, maybe that's just me)  Yet persistence can pay off. My very first article, the one that the prof encouraged me to send in, was initially rejected by one journal, then accepted a couple months later by BBR. Ironically, a lot of the changes that I had made to the article in the meantime (changes I thought were improving the article)  had to be dropped. I was told, for example, that BBR did not want to publish a "survey of scholarship" (and I had a killer survey under that second footnote!). So each journal will have different standards and a different focus. Also, just like dating/courtship, there is a certain level of subjectivity involved in acceptance and rejection; the peer reviewers of "journal A," for example,  may quite simply not like your thesis or your style of writing, or they may think that your topic is irrelevant to moderns scholarship. Those at "journal B," however, may think your article is just what they want for the upcoming issue. As with dating, rejection by one does not necessarily  mean a lack of quality on your part. Having said that, if you are getting consistently rejected by different journals for the same reason, then maybe you need to either shelve your article or start from scratch on the same topic. I currently have a paper on Hebrews that was rejected by two separate journals for exactly the same reason: namely, that  I didn't really prove my thesis (i.e. my argument was weak). As a result, I've shelved it for now while I concentrate on other matters. If I revisit it in the future, it will probably need to undergo a major rewrite.

Finally, a word of praise for anonymous peer-reviewers. granted, Some subjectivity is involved: one reviewer may reject your article simply because he or she doesn't like the way you use semi-colons, while another reviewer may think the same article will split scholarship wide open with its exciting thesis. Nevertheless, peer-reviewers know their business and are generally already established scholars in their own right. If you are fortunate enough to get feedback, pay close attention to it. If they suggest changes, try to follow what they say to the extent that it will not mess with your overall argument, even if this means a few more hours of work for you (one forthcoming article of mine, although "accepted contingent upon minor revision," took me 12 hours to revise satisfactorily. "Minor revision"?--yeah, right :) That is a bit on the extreme side, though, and some journals won't even suggest revision)

Merely keeping up with all the recent research in one's field of study can quite easily threaten to overwhelm. Yet for those who feel they've been called to academia, reading a well-written journal article becomes just one more great benefit of the job.

Three secular history books worth reading for Biblical studies

Scripture is, by its very nature, history. Naturally, then, an understanding of the historical and cultural environment of Scripture can assist the exegete and preacher in making sense of the text (indeed, if I may be so bold, a lack of historical and background knowledge of the Bible is the single weakest part of many preacher’s sermon preparation). As such, I hope to draw the reader’s attention to 3 worthy history books by secular authors relate, in way or the other, to biblical studies. I have chosen one for the NT, one for the OT, and one for ecclesiastical studies.

1. New Testament studies: Mark Antony’s Heroes: How the Third Gallica Legion Saved an Apostle and Created an Emperor, by Stephen Dando-Collins (Hoboken, New Jersey: Wiley, 2007)

Of all the books on the list, Dando-Collins’ work makes the most unique contribution. Collins, an Australian researcher, actually specializes in studying legions of the Roman empire. Mark Antony’s Heroes focuses on the 3^rd Gallica Legion, a unit which has quite the glamorous history, having fought for both Mark Antonys, mentioned by Plutarch and Tacitus, and responsible for putting down the Jewish revolt in AD 69-70 (pp. xiii, 1). One of the book’s main arguments, however, is even more significant for NT studies. Dando-Collins’ argues that it was this very legion that would have rescued the Apostle Paul from Jewish mobs. In fact, Dando-Collins devotes multiple chapters (chs. 9-14) to basically retelling the stories in Acts (including Paul’s shipwreck), only from the perspective of the 3^rd Gallica. The result is a fascinating supplementary account to that in Acts.

I cannot tell if Dando-Collins is essentially correct in his perspective on the role of the 3^rd Gallica Legion in the New Testament, and I certainly won’t agree with everything he says about early Christianity. Yet Dando-Collins has done extensive research in this area and has a fairly good grasp of the history and culture of 1^st century Israel under the Roman empire. Furthermore, he actually treats Scripture as a primary historical source (along with Josephus, etc.) rather than as a strictly religious text! This stands in stark contrast with secular archaeologists who treat Scripture with a “hermeneutic of doubt” (the reader should note Hershel Shanks’ cogent comments in “First Person: When is it Okay for an Archaeologist to Speculate,” BAR Magazine, http://www.bib-arch.org/bar/article.asp?PubID=BSBA&Volume=37&Issue=5&ArticleID=8 [online; cited 8/31/2011])

Dando-Collins weaves excellent storytelling in with extensive research and knowledge of his specialty. The result is a fascinating account both of a particular Roman military unit and of its (often violent) interaction with 1^st century Judea (as well as other parts of the Roman empire). This is a book that future evangelical commentaries on Acts should at least take note of.

2. Old Testament Studies: Persian Fire: The First World Empire and the Battle for the West, by Tom Holland (New York: Doubleday, 2005)

Tom Holland, who has a ph.d. from Oxford, has written an extensive and fascinating account of the Persian empire and its invasion of Greece under Xerxes. The scope of the book is actually much broader than that, dealing with Persian-Greek relations, the cultures of both societies, etc., all leading to the great showdowns at Marathon and Salamis. In the process, he also deals with Persian rule over its subjects, and here is where Holland’s work contains much of value for OT studies (see esp. p. 147 for a regrettably brief discussion of Cyrus’ interaction with the Jews). Unfortunately in a couple places Holland resorts to some vulgar language in his historical narrative (e.g. when he describes what “Corinthiazein” means), but overall the book provides a well-written and fascinating discussion of both ancient Persia and Greece.

3. Ecclesiastical Studies: How Rome Fell, by Adrian Goldsworthy (New Haven: Yale, 2009)

Adrian Goldsworthy (also with a ph.d. from Oxford), challenges the popular consensus that barbarian hoards were primarily responsible for Rome’s downfall. Rather, How Rome Fell focuses on the internal conflict and civil wars that plagued the Roman Empire. For Goldsworthy, Rome’s problem wasn’t that its outside enemies suddenly got stronger, but rather that Rome itself become progressively weaker due to internal struggle. Thus,

“Perhaps we should imagine the Late Roman Empire as a retired athlete, whose body has declined from neglect and an unhealthy lifestyle. At times the muscles will still function well and with the memory of former skill and training. Yet, as the neglect continues, the body becomes less and less capable of resisting disease or recovering from injury. Over the years the person would grow weaker and weaker, and in the end could easily succumb to disease. Long decline was the fate of the Roman Empire. In the end, it may well have been ‘murdered’ by barbarian invaders, but these struck at a body made vulnerable by prolonged decay” (pp. 414-415)

Goldsworthy’s book (somewhat larger than the other two I spoke of) provides a very extensive, well-documented account of the later Roman Empire. As such, much of the book deals with the existence of Christianity in the empire, including the influence of Augustine and the ‘conversion’ of Constantine (who, by the way, does not come across as particularly “Christian” in the sense of “love your enemies”!) The result is a treasure trove of knowledge not only for ecclesiastical history but also for social and historical studies from the 2^nd century onward.

4. Bonus (just for fun): Hunting Eichmann: How a Band of Survivors and a Young Spy Agency Chased Down the World’s Most Notorious Nazi, by Neal Bascomb (Boston: HMH 2009).

Hunting Eichmann may not have much to do with Biblical studies per se (except that, perhaps, from a dispensational perspective even the history of modern Israel is still relevant). Nevertheless I mention this book primarily because it is one of the most well-written, fascinating accounts of history I have ever read. Bascomb blends his own primary source research (with access to key documents, interviews, etc.) with incredible skill as a story-teller. Despite being history, this book is, quite frankly, more enjoyable than the latest fictional spy-thriller. Bascomb narrates how a young Israeli intelligence agency pursued and ultimately captured Nazi murderer Adolf Eichmann (right out from under the Argentinean government’s nose).

A couple interesting tidbits. After Eichman was sentenced to death, Canadian missionary William Hull met with him 13 times, trying to get him to repent and trust Christ, yet “this was a tall task given that Eichmann had spent the past seventeen years convincing himself exactly why he did not need to seek forgiveness for what he had done” (317). Sadly Eichmann states that “he did not fear God’s judgment. ‘There is no Hell,’ he declares. What was more, he refused to confess: ‘I have not sinned. I am clear with God. I did not do it. I did nothing wrong. I have no regrets.’ Hull pressed him on this, but Eichmann was rigid in his self-made faith” (318). Tragic and unbelievable, then, that one of the greatest mass-murderers of the 20^th century would cling to his own supposed self-righteousness.

Eichmann’s wife, Vera, is an interesting study. Bascomb states, “In 1935, Eichmann and Vera were married in a church, despite the derision of his SS comrades, who looked down on religious rituals. An innocent, uncomplicated Catholic girl, Vera shared her husband’s taste in classical music but did not much care for politics and declined to join the Nazi Party . . . [Eichmann’s] infrequent visits and numerous infidelities had created a distance between them. Despite their strained marriage, Vera remained devoted to her husband” (25). Years later, when Eichmann’s wife and sons joined him in South America, Bascomb recounts how “once Eichmann and Vera [his wife] were alone, she brought out the pile of newspaper clippings she had collected over the past seven years about the terrible crimes he had committed. She wanted an explanation. Eichmann grew frighteningly angry, his face turning into a hard mask. ‘Veronika,’ he said bitingly, ‘I have not done a single Jew to death, nor given a single order to kill a Jew.’ She never asked him about the past again” (79-80). In addition to raising up interesting questions about a [possibly] Christian wife’s relationship with an unbelieving husband, I think this anecdote underscores the sad yet tragic tendency of humans to deny or justify our sins. Yet ultimately all will be revealed before the Almighty God who judge the living and the dead, and it indeed a fearful thing to fall into His hands.

Finally, I leave the reader with this humorous anecdote from Bascomb’s excellent book. In describing the planning and training in preparation for the operation to capture Eichmann, Bascomb focuses on agent Peter Malkin:

“To distract himself from painful memories and his fear of failure, Malkin

focused his every waking moment on the mission ahead, examining the smallest details of the operation and his role in it. He spent hours crafting different disguises for himself and the team and many more practicing the exact moves needed to grab Eichmann. He did much of this at the gym, but he also practiced on his Shin Bet colleagues at work, grabbing them without warning from behind and cutting of their ability to scream. Nobody asked what had come over him—partly because they were used to his antics—but instead just gave him a wider berth in the hallways” (p. 170).

Yeah, try that on your co-worker in the office!

Feel free to discuss in the comments section any other history books that might be relevant for Biblical Studies.

Transforming for Translators (guest essay by missionary John R. Himes)

For a translator of the New Testament, the ideal target language would be one that has identical grammar to koine Greek. Old Church Slavonic (O. C. S.) came close to that ideal. According to Horace G. Lunt, “The surface structures of O. C. S. and Greek coincide in nearly all major features. The form-classes are generally the same: verbs (conjugated for several tenses, with person-number desinences), substantives (nouns and adjectives, including participles, declined for case and number), pronouns (personal, demonstrative, interrogative, relative; declined for gender, case and number), numerals (declined), prepositions, adverbs, a variety of conjunctions, and particles…. So close were the two languages that a reasonable translation could often be achieved by a word-for-word rendering” (“Limitations of Old Church Slavonic in Representing Greek,” in The Early Versions of the New Testament, by Bruce Metzger, p. 432).

We can imagine the 9^th century translators of the OCS New Testament sailing through passages that give fits to a 21^st century translator into Chinese. Few translators have the good fortune to translate into a language as similar to the original language as OCS is to koine Greek. Target languages range from grammatically similar to Greek (but not identical) Indo-European languages such as Latin, to languages with no similarity at all to the Biblical original languages such as Chinese, Japanese and other Asian languages, or tribal languages in Indonesia, New Guinea or South America.

How does a translator get his syntax from his original to his target language in dissimilar languages? A good answer is in something called transformations, which has been systematized into a branch of linguistics called transformational (or generative) grammar (TG). Diane Bornstein, in her excellent textbook, defines a transformation this way: “A grammatical process that operates on a given string with a given constituent structure and converts it into a new string with a new derived constituent structure” (An Introduction to Transformational Grammar, Lanham, MD: University Press of America, 1984, p. 247).

Remember that homework assignment in bonehead English that required you to take a simple declarative sentence and make various kinds of sentences out of it? For example, from “I have a book” (a “kernel” sentence in TG) you might make a question: “Do I have a book?” Or a negative statement: “I don’t have a book.” Or a future statement: “I will have a book.” And so forth. Those are transformations. A translator does this in two languages, either consciously or unconsciously. If he does it consciously he has either studied transformational grammar, naturally developed the concept in his own thinking, or is talented enough in languages that he makes the transformation unconsciously. (To further define and delineate this branch of linguistics is beyond the scope of this short paper. For an early but good basic discussion, see Chapter 12 in the classic textbook by H. A. Gleason, An Introduction to Descriptive Linguistics. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1955, 1961.)

TG is generally said to have been conceived by linguist Noam Chomsky. Strangely, Chomsky apparently did not believe his invention was appropriate for translation work. According to Edwin Gentzler, “Noam Chomsky’s theory of syntax and generative grammar was not, nor was it intended to be, a theory of translation. In fact, Chomsky cautioned against its appropriation in such a fashion” (Contemporary Translation Theories. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters, 2001, p. 46).

Oddly enough, Gentzler says on the very next page, “Transformational grammarians work in various languages and continually point out structural similarities across languages” (p. 47). So it would be strange indeed if TG was not useful for translation work. It seems to this writer to be a given that the more a translator knows about linguistics and its various theories of grammar the better at translating they will be. After all, the translator must deal with grammar in not one, but two languages! Along that line, two Bible translation scholars with very different views of what translation should be have used TG in their theories.

Eugene Nida was the first to develop a means of using TG for translation. In his pioneering treatment of the subject, he writes, “The most effective means by which we may deal with these problems of diverse meaningful relationships between structurally similar types of expressions is to employ a generative type of grammar which makes full use of transformations” (Toward a Science of Translating. Leiden, Netherlands: E. J. Brill, 1964, p. 60). He then goes on to discuss how that can be done.

Nida was commendably a pioneer in this area. But some writers have criticized Nida’s usage of transformational grammar on the basis of his lack of a principle to properly handle the deep structure of a sentence in two languages. Deep structure, in transformational grammar thinking, is “The underlying form of a sentence, which structures its meaning” (Bornstein, p. 239). According to Susan Bassnet, “Even in his simplified theory, Nida does not tell us how the deep structure transfer occurs” (Translation Studies (London and New York: Routledge, 1980, 1991, 2002, p. 57).

In the view of James Price, Nida’s lack of this principle leads to paraphrasing. “It is quite clear that paraphrase is unavoidable with dynamic equivalence theory. Glassman wrote, ‘It is, in fact, impossible to analyze, transfer and restructure without paraphrasing, at the level of the underlying kernel structures; and that, in turn, shows up at the final level of the surface structure.’ (Quoting Eugene Glassman, The Translation Debate, p.66—JRH.) This is primarily true because of the subjectivity involved in the transfer step. The failure to employ transfer rules, but rather to depend on the translator’s subjective judgment, makes it almost certain that the information transferred to the receptor language will lack complete equivalence with the information of the source message. Thus the theory fails to accomplish equivalence; it is instead scientific paraphrase” (James Price, Complete Equivalence in Bible Translation. Nashville: Thomas Nelson Pub., 1987, p. 17).

Price himself utilizes transformational grammar somewhat differently in his theory of optimal equivalence, which he identifies as the method used in both the NKJV and the HCSV. In his magnum opus, A Theory For Biblical Translation: An Optimal Equivalence Model (Lewiston, NY: Edwin Mellen Press, 2008), Price develops a complete transformational grammar of the Hebrew language with the intent that it be used for Bible translation. The difference between his method and Nida’s is that Price, opting for a more  literal method, advocates a strict correspondence between the syntactical structures of the source language and the target language. Price wrote, “In transformational grammar the rules of transfer that govern the relationship of the kernels should be derived from the back transformations, with strict observance to the sequence in which they operate. This assures maximum transfer of equivalent information, and minimum subjectivity” (Complete Equivalence in Bible Translation, 24-25. Note: Dr. Price has told this writer that “complete equivalence,” the term used in this book, was not his choice, but was chosen by the publisher. His preferred term for his literal method is optimal equivalence.)

I have a caveat here. The translator should know that both Nida’s method and Price’s TG for Hebrew are very complex, and developing a complete transformational grammar in either the source or target language is a huge task. Using TG in either method means the translator’s task is made more difficult. (Nida teaches the process in Chapter Four of Toward a Science of Translating. See also Chapter Three, “Grammatical Analysis” in The Theory and Practice of Translation, by Nida with Charles Taber. Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1982.) The average translator who has not researched TG, or prefers not to do a complete TG of the source or target languages, will develop his own mental TG of the target language, and do transfers and transformations intuitively, an easier task.

Transformational grammar is cutting edge stuff for the Bible translator! Those who are naturally very gifted in language may be able to do transformations in the two languages mentally as they translate, with good results. The rest of us are wise to study TG and then develop a consistent approach, which will then help cross the language barrier with a syntax equivalent to that of the original Greek and Hebrew.