The Difference between "Inspiration" and "Preservation"

I had the awesome privilege over this past weekend of ministering at Logansport, Indiana, to Hillcrest Baptist Church (with Pastor Brandon Hudson, an old Maranatha classmate of mine!). I basically gave a seminar on "How we got our Bible." The people were great, very gracious, and I had a blast!

I tried to emphasize the need to avoid both the extreme of "preservation is not taught in Scripture" and that of "preservation only applies to the King James Bible." [For a decent overview of which Scriptures passages do, and probably do not, teach preservation, see William Combs' article here]. In the process, I emphasized some key differences between the two:

Inspiration: 
1. Is supernatural (personally, directly guided by the Holy Spirit),
2. Cannot involve mistakes, 
3. Involved special people, 
4. Does not continue once the Canon is completed,
5. Involved three languages.

Preservation:
1. Uses secondary means (may be Spirit-led, but not Spirit-inspired; people led by the Spirit still obviously make mistakes),
2. Involves human mistakes (see, for example, 2Kings 22:8; either human error or malicious intent had let to the Word of God being temporarily set aside; however, it was not permanently lost and cannot be permanently lost),
3. Involves all Christians everywhere (of various competency!)
4. Continues until Jesus' 2nd Coming (and maybe beyond?)
5. Involves all languages

The take-away from this is that you, personally, dear Christian, are involved in preservation (i.e., it's not something unique to the KJV translators, or those of any other translation, for that matter). Every time you quote Scripture to a brother or sister in Christ, every time you teach your children God's Word, every time you witness to a co-worker, every time you memorize the Bible--in all those instances, you, personally, are involved in preservation (regardless of how "good" or "competent" you are, and regardless of whether or not you make mistakes).
So, Christian, get busy preserving God's Word!

I leave you with this quote which demonstrates that the King James translators themselves had solid grasp of the fact that their new translation was not the only preserved Word of God:
"Now to the latter we answer, that we do not deny, nay we affirm and avow, that the very meanest translation of the Bible in English set forth by men of our profession contained the word of God, nay, is the word of God: as the King's speech which he uttered in Parliament, being translated in French, Dutch, Italian, and Latin, is still the King's speech, though it be not interpreted by every translator with the like grace, nor peradventure, so fitly for phrase, or so expressly for sense, everywhere." 
(From “The Translators to the Reader,” the preface to the King James Bible)

Peer-Reviewed Journals Pt 1 (and the benefits of Galaxie Software for the seminary student)

Anybody can publish (especially in an age of “e-publishing” and “self-publishing”), but whether or not what is written is worth reading is another matter altogether. For theological and biblical research, graduate school demands the highest quality of sources. This is where the concept of “peer-review” comes in to play. If a book or article has been “peer-reviewed,” this means that established scholars have read it and rendered a verdict as to its academic quality and contribution to scholarship (regardless of whether or not they agree with it). This provides a standard that (at least in theory) weeds out sloppy work, false information, and material that simply rehashes what others have said. While not a perfect system, this provides “quality assurance” at the academic level (though obviously not at the spiritual level).

            Most peer-reviewed journals are “anonymous” peer-review, which means that the articles were evaluated solely on the basis of content, not authorship. This eliminates favoritism and bias (in theory, any seminary student could be published in a mainstream journal if their work was up to par). In my next post, I will list the most important journals for graduate students to be aware of and utilize.

Many of these journals, especially the top-tier journals, are behind a “paywall,” which means they are not accessible for free unless an institution has an ATLA database subscription or something similar (ours does not). However, some journals are “partial paywall,” which means all but the last couple volumes are accessible for free online. For example, at https://www.ibr-bbr.org/bulletin-biblical-research you can access all volumes of the Bulletin for Biblical Research up through 2011. For journal websites that allow such access, my former student David Dzimianski has shown me how to search for key words and topics via google. For example, to search BBR for any articles that discuss “angels” you would type the following:   site:www.ibr-bbr.org filetype:pdf angels   Also, some journals that are “partial paywall” may not be accessible on the official website, but may be accessible through http://biblicalstudies.org.uk/articles_evangelical_quarterly.php (e.g. Evangelical Quarterly) or related sites.

            Finally, “Galaxie Software” (http://www.galaxie.com), for a recurring charge of only $5 a month, will give you fully searchable access to all or almost all of the volumes of the top evangelical journals. I believe “Logos” offers a similar option (though I am not sure if it is more expensive or cheaper than Galaxie). Also, just recently, Galaxie software added some sort of compatibility with Zotero software (I'll confess the technical details are beyond me; I don't use Zotero yet).
           I have strongly urged my seminary students to subscribe to Galaxie Software's journal library. At present they have a incredible 37 journals, fully-searchable (a few of them will not have the last two years or so available, but those become available over time). All of these are confessional journals, which means they are published by schools or organizations who would self-identify as Christian (I think almost all of them evangelical). On the one hand, the top-tier journals will be lacking (Journal of Biblical Literature, New Testament Studies, etc.). However, almost all the top evangelical journals (many of which are cited by mainstream publications, not just evangelical publications) are included, including the top two evangelical journals in the world, Tyndale Bulletin and Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society (well, the top two according to my humble but correct opinion, at least!). In addition. other top academic evangelical journals include Bulletin for Biblical Research, Trinity Journal, Westminster Theological Journal, Bibliotheca Sacra, etc. At the academic level, the only major evangelical journals not included here, in my opinion, are Expository Times and Evangelical Quarterly.
      Not all journals in Galaxie's collection are of equal quality, of course (and some of them are more valuable for nostalgia or historical studies than academics per se). Having said that, there are a number of journals that, while less academic, are immensely helpful for pastoral studies or even personal spiritual reflection. In this category I would include Emmaus Journal, Faith and Mission (though since replaced with the more academic Southeastern Theological Review, also included in Galaxie), Journal for Baptist Theology and Ministry (has some helpful material for non-Baptists, too, in my opinion), and Journal of Discipleship and Family Ministry.
    Finally, for those interested in the debate on gender roles within evangelicalism, Galaxie Journals includes both sides with 1. Journal for Biblical Manhood and Womanhood (Complementarian) and 2. Priscilla Papers (Egalitarian).
   At $5 a month, this is an incredible valuable resource for any seminary students or pastors who take their study time seriously (case-in-point: for a series of classes on the Trinity I'm presenting at Falls Baptist for the layman and laywoman, I have already utilized three journal articles I accessed via Galaxie for my research).
    Next post I will discuss what are the top-tier journals that graduate students and especially doctoral students need to have access to.

The latest, greatest, survey of scholarship on the Pastoral Epistles (C. Bumgardner, in the fine tradition of I. Howard Marshall)

For years, British NT scholar I. Howard Marshall was "the Man" when it came to surveys of scholarship on 1 and 2 Timothy and Titus (while contributing a substantial amount himself). Sadly, Dr. Marshall passed away recently, but it seems the baton has been passed on [unofficially] to my good friend Charles J. ("Chuck") Bumgardner, who is studying the Pastorals under Dr. Andreas J. Köstenberger at Southeastern Seminary (and had corresponded with Dr. Marshall before he passed away).

So, the latest issue of the Southeastern Theological Review, vol. 7.2 (Winter 2016), has soon-to-be-doctor Bumgardner's "Paul's Letters to Timothy and Titus: A Literature Review (2009-2015)." Bumgardner covers commentaries (including major foreign-language commentaries), articles, and essays.  This is not just a list: Bumgardner includes plenty of comments that will give the reader excellent insight into the current debates and scholarly trends of the PE.

Bumgardner spends a significant amount of space discussing Robert Wall's new commentary (Two Horizons; written with Richard Steele), Andreas J. Köstenberger's soon-to-be-released volume in the Biblical theology for Christian Proclamation series, Michel Gourgues' French commentary, the Cornerstone commentaries by Linda Belleville and Jon Laansma, and Aída Besançon Spencer's New Covenant commentary.

In addition, my takeaways from this literature review are that the following books are very significant: 1. Rick Brannan's Second Timothy: Notes on Grammar, Syntax, and Structure, which according to Bumgardner "frequently engages Runge's discourse grammar" (which is a very important work that all Greek profs should own); 2. Dillon Thornton's Hostility in the House of God: An Investigation of the Opponents in 1 and 2 Timothy; 3. Gary Hoag's Wealth in Ancient Ephesus and the First Letter to Timothy, and 4. the collection of essays in Entrusted with the Gospel: Paul's Theology in the Pastoral Epistles (eds. Andreas J. Köstenberger and Terry Wilder), a book which I personally own and have benefitted from.

(pardon the finger)
Actually, this entire issue of Southeastern Theological Review (edited by Dr. Benjamin Merkle, under whom I also had the privilege of taking Pastoral Epistles at the doctoral level) is dedicated to the Pastoral Epistles, with another article by Bumgardner on "Kinship, Christian Kinship, and the Letters to Timothy and Titus" and those others that you can see on the photo (the one article that you can't see in the photo is by Gregory J. Stiekes, "Paul's Family of God: What Familial Language in the Pastorals Can and Cannot Tell Us about the Church").

So anyways, this is a must-have issue of Southeastern Theological Review for anybody studying or teaching the Pastoral Epistles. Keep up the good work, Chuck!

Upcoming Review of N. T. Wright's The Day the Revolution Began

This Christmas I received from my gracious parents a copy of N. T. Wright's The Day the Revolution Began: Reconsidering the Meaning of Jesus' Crucifixion (click here for the Amazon link). N. T. Wright is one of the most prolific and influential biblical scholars of the 21st century, and I have both immensely benefited from and strongly disagreed with his writings (indeed, I tell my seminary students that N. T. Wright is absolutely golden when dealing with the Resurrection, or skewering the Jesus Seminar, but much less helpful on Pauline theology. I identify much more strongly with the balanced views of Thomas Schreiner or Frank Thielman when it comes to the New Perspective, while also being appreciative of the work of Michael Bird).

In my opinion, Wright's masterful development of biblical theology is both his biggest strength and biggest weakness: on the one hand, he helps us see the "big picture" on so many theological concepts that we have neglected (i.e., we get so caught up in our Christian cliches such as "I'm going to spend eternity in heaven when I die" that we totally miss the point of biblical eschatology, namely Jesus Christ's victory over death and how we will be resurrected to spend eternity on the New Earth and the New Jerusalem; Wright is a healthy corrective to this). On the other hand, his own vision of biblical theology causes him to neglect key texts that don't quite fit with his big picture (in this regard, I especially recommend the excellent article by Josh Chatraw, "Balancing Out (W)right: Jesus' Theology of Individual and Corporate Repentance and Forgiveness in the Gospel of Luke," JETS 55.2 (2012), readable here.

I'm not totally sure what to expect with this book, but I anticipate an entertaining and provocative read. I'm hoping to approach this book from a more-or-less neutral position, an independent Baptist who appreciates much of broader scholarship, including Wright's work, while also disagreeing with some of it. In other words, I approach this book as neither a N. T. Wright "fanboy" nor a "N. T. Wright is Su-Per-Wrong" detractor. At the very least, I anticipate much quotable material that attempts to shake up the status quo of evangelical Christianity while being adamantly opposed to liberal theology!

Religious liberty for all (including Muslims); or, "How voting for Trump as a defender of religious liberty may come back to haunt Evangelicals"

As with many Christians, I have mixed feelings about this year's election. On the one hand, I do view Hillary Clinton as the enemy of religious freedom, somebody who would gladly make it illegal to hold the views I do (see this article for further details and a link to a video of Hillary Clinton herself). Also, I am grateful for election results in Wisconsin that would seem to protect freedom of conscience somewhat.

Having said that, I did not vote for Donald Trump, and I believe those that see him as a defender of religious liberty may have forgotten that Trump himself has already laid the groundwork for persecution of Christians.

Many Christian Americans, of course, see freedom of religion as one of the key defining characteristics of a great nation, and I would agree (though I would stop short of declaring America a Christian nation on this basis). Yet Donald Trump himself is on record as saying that he would ban Muslims from entering the country. I wish to stress here, the reason for such exclusion is irrelevant! The very fact that one who holds to a particular religion can be excluded from participating in American society, judged only on the basis of holding to that particular religion, means that whatever reasons are behind such a decision can also be used to justify excluding evangelical Christians from American society.

Consider the following: one may argue that Islam promotes violence, and thus should be excluded from American society. If this is argued successfully, and results in Islam being banned, then we have established the basic scenario where a religion can be banned in America. If that's the case, then all one has to do is make a case that evangelical Christianity, also, promotes violence, and presto, one may no longer be an evangelical Christian (already evangelical Christianity is being accused of hate speech, so it is hardly that large a leap from one to the other).

The point is not which religions actually promote violence and which do not. The point is that the minute anything becomes the basis for excluding a religion from American society, we have also provided a logical basis for evangelical Christianity itself to become punishable in America.

Consequently, to any Christians reading this blog: by turning a blind eye to Trump's statements regarding Muslims and American society, we are also sowing the seeds for our own persecution. In addition, as Christians we are supposed to be witnessing to Muslims. Given the difficulty of entering many strongly Islamic country like Iran, the best opportunity for many Christians to fulfill this part of the Great Commission is to befriend and dialogue with them here in America. How can this happen if our President refuses to allow them into American society?

I close with a happy thought in the midst of this dismal election, where the so-called "lesser two evils" (who actually matches much of the description of 2Timothy 3:1-4 pretty well) won. Despite all that has happened, God is still King!

Oh, one more thing: no matter what you may think of your elected officials, pray for them! (1Timothy 2:1-4)

Free from the anxiety of politics: reflections on a practical aspect of 1 Peter 2:16

Like many evangelical Christians, I've come to the conclusion that this year's US presidential election offers basically the worst two choices in the history of the country. On the one hand

[warning: tongue in cheek comments to follow, but only slightly tongue in cheek], 

if Trump gets elected we'll be embroiled in a thermonuclear war within the year, and the whole country will go bankrupt (hey, if he can't keep a Casino with his name running, how can he keep the country afloat?); not to mention giving evangelical Christianity a bad testimony due to our traditional support of the Republican party (Jimmy Carter notwithstanding). On the other hand, if Hillary Clinton is elected, folks like me will probably be thrown in jail for not being "progressive" enough in our Christianity (i.e., for daring to suggest that God made only two genders!).

Fortunately, First Peter has the solution. Written to a group of (literal and spiritual) strangers, the Apostle articulates how, in Christ Jesus, we are all part of a "holy nation," a "royal priesthood," etc. (2:9). In other words, the Christian's first and foremost loyalty is to a different nation, not the United States, or New Zealand, or Japan, or anything else.

This theological social-spiritual identity (both "new nation" and "strangers"), then, becomes the basis for ethics in 1 Peter (2:11 through much of the rest of the epistle). Peter urges us to honor all humans, in the process not-so-subtly asserting (in both vv. 13 and 17) that the Emperor himself should be respected only as another human, not as a demi-god, the "savior of the kosmos" that some were heralded as (see Travis Williams, "The Divinity and Humanity of Caesar," ZNW, for further discussion).

I'd like to focus on one fascinating word here: "free" (2:16). I believe Friedrich Schroger, in his book Gemeinde im 1. Petrusbrief ("Church/Community in 1 Peter") absolute nails it with this quote (forgive my rough translation from the German):

"The Christian is 'free' because he expects nothing from Caesar or from the governor, but all from the Lord--not from 'Lord Caesar,' but from 'Lord Christ.' The criteria and requirement for what is here meant as 'freedom' is that one is free from the anxieties of his own salvation, he stands completely in the favor of God, and he is free from anxiety in his interaction with humankind" (pages 147-148).

My Christian friends, Peter's concept of "freedom" does not mean "freedom to vote." Rather, it means "freedom to continue on as God's child and emissary no matter who wins the stinking election!" I.e., we do not depend on any political outcome to keep us free or to ensure are mental well-being. Nothing, and I mean nothing, can threaten our freedom in Jesus Christ--so what's the point in worrying? Have we forgotten that Peter, Mary, Luke, not to mention Jesus himself, lived under a tyrannical empire that routinely crucified its enemies, exposed infants to die on the hilltop, and reveled in such lascivious excess it would make a night in Las Vegas resemble an episode of "Mr. Roger's Neighborhood"? Yet Peter, Mary, and the others remembered something that we've forgotten: it's not our responsibility to change the word [i.e., "America"]; rather, it's our responsibility to live and proclaim the Gospel of Jesus Christ as emissaries of a different, much more sacred, nation! 

Now if, in the process of doing so, we can act as good stewards of our inherited democracy and so influence our nation in order to live "quiet and peaceable lives," so be it. Personally, I doubt either Trump or Clinton will help us achieve that goal, but whatever. The bottom line is, to paraphrase Schroger, no matter who wins, we are still "free" from anxiety; we owe nothing to any president, we still have a relationship to God through Jesus Christ, and we don't need to worry about how to relate to the world around us. Simply be a Christian, a child of the kingdom, and stop worrying about what happens to America. It's not really important in the grand scheme of things (the Lord said, "the nations are as a drop in the bucket," Isaiah 40:15) except to the extent that it helps or hinders the spread of the Gospel (and the Gospel might just as well spread better under more hostile circumstances). 

This also means, since I am "free" from worrying about the outcome of any political election, I am now free to vote my conscience. And contra a blog post I read recently, following my personal conscience means that if I know that my plumber or dentist or whatever was sexually harassing women and bragging about it, my personal conscience would not allow me to give them business no matter how good they were. How much more so with a president? [For the record, I won't judge anybody for voting for Trump! All I'm saying is vote your conscience, especially considering the issue of Christian testimony]

Cited sources:

Schroger, Friedrich. Gemeinde im. 1. Petrusbrief: Untersuchungen zum Selbstverstandnis einer christilichen Gemeinde and er Wende vom 1. zum 2. Jahrhundert. Katholische Theollgie 1. Passau: Passavia Univertatslag, 1981.

Williams, Travis B. "The Divinity and Humanity of Caesar in 1 Peter 2,13--Early Christian Resistance to the Emperor and His Cult." Zeitschrift fur die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft vol. 104 (2014).

See also Paul A. Himes, Foreknowledge and Social Identity in 1 Peter (Eugene, OR: Wipf&Stock, 2014) for further discussion of social-spiritual identity in 1 Peter (chs. 2 and 6). Click here.

Congrats to Thomas Hudgins, successfully defending his dissertation on the "Complutensian Greek New Testament and the Vatican manuscripts"

For those wondering if there's still room for original scholarship in biblical studies, the answer is a resounding "Yes!", especially when it comes to textual criticism. In light of that, I'd like to congratulate my friend Thomas W. Hudgins (prof at Capital Seminary) for successfully defending his second doctorate, this one under renowned European scholar Antonio Pinero. The title of his dissertation was: "The Greek New Testament of the Complutensian Polyglot: Vatican Manuscripts and the Gospel of Matthew." This is truly a unique contribution to the field, and involved his researching manuscripts that hardly anybody had touched in modern research.

You can read the report of his dissertation defense here.

By the way, you can purchase his first doctoral dissertation, on Luke 6:40 and the Theme of Likeness Education in the New Testament, here. We both had the same doctoral adviser at Southeaster (Dr. David Alan Black), and we both ended up with the same publisher (Wipf&Stock) for our revised dissertations.

Congrats, Thomas! May the Lord continue to bless you, your family, your teaching, and your research!

Ain't archaeology great? Bible-time coins and the earliest Masoretic text

With thanks  to my colleague Jesse Williams for pointing me to the story about the Masoretic manuscript, and thanks to my seminary student James Kotvas for telling me about the coins.

The role of archaeology for the Bible student is not about demonstrating the veracity of God's Word (though it quite often does that, from the existence of the Hittites to the fact that "King David" was an actual king), Christian belief in the validity of God's word should stem first and foremost from our faith in Jesus Christ as the crucified and resurrected Word of God, The role of archaeology for the confessional Bible student is rather to illuminate the Bible, i.e., to give us information that helps us understand it better.

So it is always a treat when archaeology brings to light material that helps us see the biblical world more clearly. First of all, coins bearing the image of the infamous Nero have been discovered in, of all things, a home in Jerusalem! (Click here and here for links to the story). Nero, of course, is the infamous Roman emperor who allegedly "fiddled while Rome burned"; that story may (or may not) be legend, but what is indisputable is that he initiated an intense persecution of Christians in Rome. The brutal details are recorded in the work of 1st century historian Tacitus, no friend of Christianity (click here to read Tacitus' account at Annals 15.44). Tradition has it that both Peter and Paul died at the hand of Nero (Paul with the "easier" death, being a Roman citizen through his city of birth).

Secondly, and somewhat more significant for scholarship, what may be the oldest copy of the Masoretic text of the Hebrew Old Testament has been finally read. The scroll had been badly burned, charred, and unable to be safely opened. Now, however, the brilliant minds at the University of Kentucky figured out a way to read it without opening it! Click here and here for the story. The scroll, found over 50 years ago near the Dead Sea, may be as late as 300 AD (which would still make it the earliest copy of the Masoretic Hebrew text, though the earlier great Isaiah scroll is close enough to be considered "proto-Masoretic), but the scroll may be as early as the first century. No less a scholar than Emanual Tov (who is to OT textual criticism what Lebron James is to the NBA) suggests a first century date.

Most significant, however, is the fact that this manuscript, containing Leviticus 1-2, perfectly matches Masoretic manuscripts many centuries later!! What a testament to both God's preservation  of his word and the meticulous skill of Hebrew scribes. The manuscript does not, of course, contain the vowel markings of later manuscripts (you can see for yourself), since those were not part of the Hebrew texts until later (and, interestingly, modern Hebrew usually does not use vowel markings either).

The realm of textual criticism should neither frighten nor be a stumbling block to believers. God preserves the Bible, despite the inconsistency of humans, in the multiplicity of manuscripts (with some manuscripts being better than others). We need to avoid the myth, argued by both liberals and the more extreme side of the KJV-only crowd, that unless we have a manuscript or edited book that matches 100%, all by itself, the original autographa, then we don't have God's Word. If somehow you were to make a copy of a letter from your spouse, and misspelled a word, does it then cease to be a letter from your spouse? Who's letter would it become, then?

The Christian should not be shocked by such statements as "the Bible contains 300,000+ textual variants!" The more copies you make of something the more textual variants there will be! Since we have thousands of pre-printing press manuscripts, then obviously the potential for variants is multiplied exponentially.

Furthermore, the vast majority of those variants don't even matter (spelling mistakes, writing "Jesus Christ" vs. "Christ Jesus," etc.) Of those that do matter, no point of theology is challenged when we look at the manuscript as a whole. (i.e., it's not like we have two New Testaments, one telling Jesus rose again and one telling us he didn't). As far as modern critical editions go, the Byzantine, Textus Receptus, and Eclectic (UBS/Nestle Aland), and even Westcott and Hort's original edited Alexandrian all have Jesus Christ, the Son of God, who died on the cross for our sins and rose again the third day, who is Savior and Lord of the universe, and who can be our savior if we trust in him. The Gospel is unaltered no matter which text you choose.
Side note: OT textual criticism is actually more complicated, but the Torah is still the Torah, and both the Hebrew and the LXX Isaiah point to a "suffering servant."
Anyways, all this to say, "Textual criticism is your friend!" And it can be pretty exciting, as well.

Why our seminary students now have to read From Topic to Thesis by Michael Kibbe.

The other day, while reading a Bibliotheca Sacra article from over 100 years ago, I was struck by the thought that it seemed so much more polished than the scholarly material of today. My mind also reasoned (correctly or incorrectly, I don't know) was that perhaps since proportionally more people publish today than over 100 years ago, the overall literary quality of the writers is significantly diminished. The N. T. Wright's and John Piper's of the world (i.e., the top biblical writers) become a much smaller percentage compared to the "average" published author, even the average peer-reviewed author. We may be tempted to suggest that, on the other hand, the capability to research may be improved, and to the degree that technology and textual discoveries enables us to access and analyze material, yes (A. T. Robertson did not, after all, have access to Logos software or the Thesaurus Linguae Graecae). However, 100 years ago the "average" published author was quoting Calvin in Latin (not English) as a matter of course, while B. F. Westcott was collating ancient manuscripts by hand, without any electronic helps! They did more with what they had, in other words.

The internet, of course, only compounds the problem (the lower literary quality of writers), by removing peer-review. Now everybody with an opinion automatically assumes they're worth being published just because, you know, they have an opinion! [and don't get me started on Twitter :) ] Consequently, schools today have their work cut out for them. Since more people are writing (and that's not a bad necessarily a bad thing, mind you), graduate schools especially need to be more rigorous in developing the talents of their students.

This year a professor named Michael Kibbe published From Topic to Thesis: A Guide to Theological Research (click here for the Amazon link). Kibbe is a professor at Moody in Spokane, Washington, and fairly new to the field of scholarship (his revised dissertation was just published by the very prestigious De Gruyter. His book fills a very important niche for seminary students in three ways:

1. First, the book is a step-by-step guide to the process of theological research, with very specific instructions. For example, one very helpful portion of the book discusses the difference between "Primary," "Secondary," and "Tertiary" sources, and where in the research process each comes into play. Elsewhere, he discusses the note-taking process, how to interact with sources, and how to narrow your topic into a solid thesis. While I don't always agree with him (actually, page 66 on taking notes is probably the only place I disagree with him significantly), this is an excellent and very specific treatment of the research process, from assignment to crafting an argument. Note also that Kibbe has some very helpful appendices (including one devoted to the bibliographical software Zotero).

Caveat: the book does not cover writing per se (for that, I would suggest Joseph Williams, Style: Writing with Clarity and Grace (required in my doctoral studies), nor does Kibbe really discuss how to proofread, etc. This is mostly about research, developing a thesis, and interacting with sources, not how to actually write.

2. Secondly, this book is written specifically for theology students by a Biblical scholar who clearly sees theological research as a spiritual activity, not a neutral endeavor: "The one thing theological research cannot be is a purely academic exercise or one limited to certain spheres of my existence and kept away from others" (p. 30). Indeed, the introduction is very well-written and well-thought out in regards to why theological research needs to be done properly and with the right attitude.

3. Finally, and this will sound a bit odd, but I believe this book benefits from having been written by a younger, less well-known scholar. In other words, if this book had been written by D. A. Carson or Larry Hurtado or another well-established scholar, quite possibly it would have been too far removed from the average seminary student to be as helpful, not to mention uber-intimidating, to boot. Granted, Kibbe is probably smarter than most of us, anyways, but he's still closer to the average seminary student than a 20-year veteran of academia. And that, I believe, is a good thing.

So I highly recommend this book for graduate students, with the caveat that you need some other resource to help you with the technical aspects of writing itself.

"Why did Peter correct the Septuagint?" My first LXX-related article (Bulletin for Biblical Research vol. 26.2)

I have always been fascinated by the New Testament use of the Old Testament, especially when it comes to the two different text-types underlying the Apostolic authors' citation. That's right: the inspired authors had, in a sense, two different Bibles to draw from: the Hebrew MT (or proto-MT), and the Greek Septuagint. Quite often (some would say the majority of times), they drew from the translation most familiar to their audience of Diaspora Jews and God-fearing Gentiles: the Greek Septuagint.
Excursus: once again, for the doubters--we have manuscripts of the Old Testament in Greek that pre-date the incarnation, and a side-by-side comparison of many texts of the NT with the Hebrew force the assumption that they were citing something else. Paraphrase won't cut it, because there is actually different material in the Apostles' citations that does not exist in the Hebrew but does exist in Greek OT manuscripts. I'm not trying to be snarky here, and forgive me if this is a bit too harsh, but the Greek Old Testament existed before the Apostles and denying this is the theological equivalent of suggesting that the US never landed on the moon.
The role of the Septuagint within New Testament theology is currently a hot-button (and fascinating) issue, and the reader should be aware of W. Edward Glenny's fantastic new article in the on-line journal Themelios vol. 41.2 (August 2016). The article is entitled "The Septuagint and Biblical Theology" and may be read here. This article is an essential introductory resource for those interested in this discussion.
Recently I had an article published by Bulletin for Biblical Research vol. 26.2 (2016) entitled "Why Did Peter Change the Septuagint? A Reexamination of the Significance of the Use of Titheimi in 1 Peter 2:6." First Peter 2:6 is one of the most fascinating instances of NT use of the OT since Peter's citation does not match either the LXX or the MT. In fact, my article is not the first to focus specifically on this verse; while my article stems from a paper I gave in 2009, in 2010 Dietrich-Alex Koch published a fascinating study (going a different direction than I did) in Zeitschrift fur Neuentestament Wissenschaft vol. 101; Koch and I are alike in that we both argue 1 Peter utilized the LXX text but altered it. Whereas Koch argues that 1 Peter 2:6 altered it to correct some awkward syntax of the LXX (and thus make the text clearer), I argue that 1 Peter changed it for lexical reasons: the Greek enballw was a sub-par lexical choice to describe the Messiah being "set" as  Cornerstone, and Titheimi was much superior for theological and discourse reasons. In fact Peter ends up creating a chiasm in verses 6-8:
***A. The Set One [titheimi] is
 *****B. honor to
 ********C. The believer
but
********C' To the unbeliever/disobedient one [textual variant here]
******B' dishonor
***A.' To those who are "set" [titheimi] for the purpose of disobedience.
This article will hold a soft spot in my heart since it's my first article since becoming a full-time professor at Baptist College of Ministry (fifth overall). Also, for some reason, BBR is my "lucky" journal in the sense that I have yet to have an article rejected by them (though this latest one had to go to a tie-breaker peer-reviewer, and involved some significant revision). For BBR I'm "2-for-2," for JETS I'm "1-3," and I have a couple other journals that I"m "1-for-1." I struggle, however, submitting journals to Tyndale Bulletin and Trinity Journal--collectively "0-for-5" for those two journals! (and Tyndale, especially, is probably the cream of the crop for Evangelical journals).
Finally, for those interested in further study of NT use of the OT in 1 Peter, pride of place will probably always belong to Dr. Karen Jobes and her work, especially her Baker Exegetical Commentary on 1 Peter and her essay "The Septuagint Textual Tradition in 1 Peter" in Septuagint Research: Issues and Challenges in the Study of the Greek Jewish Scripture (SBL, 2006). Also, in addition to Koch's article in ZNW, one very good article that I cited favorably is Jocelyn Williams, "A Case Study in Intertextuality: The Place of Isaiah in the 'Stone' Sayings in 1 Peter 2," Reformed Theological Review 66 (2007). Williams, like me, sees Peter as deliberately modifying the LXX for theological reasons in 1 Pet 2:6, and I build off of her work somewhat in my own article. Finally, as mentioned at the beginning, Glenny's brand-new Themelios article is a must-read for anybody interested in the topic.

Bible Translating into Unreached People Groups: A Challenge for Scholars

I recently had the privilege of attending the WorldView Translation conference, with a focus on translating the Bible into languages that have never had Scripture translated into them before (or those that do not have an adequate translation). We were very privileged to have Margaret Stringer as a guest speaker (she has done pioneering missions work in the difficult jungles of Irian Jaya). The conference as a whole focused on both technical-linguistic and theological issues in Bible translation.

I am grateful that many legitimate Bible scholars have not forgotten the Great Commission and contribute greatly to both teaching in the church and Gospel proclamation overseas; my doctoral adviser David Alan Black has done some great work overseas, and I personally know two fellow doctoral students of mine at Southeastern, both budding, published scholars, who are involved in overseas ministry.

Nevertheless, an area of untapped potential exists: western biblical scholarship and Bible translations for unreached or barely-reached people groups. Just a thought, but what a blessing it would be if, of all the incredible myriad of evangelical scholars with PhDs in NT or OT (thousands!), more of them would participate as a consultant on a Bible translation in a language other than English!? Plenty of opportunities exist. This would necessitate, of course, such a scholar actually taking time to learn the language he or she would be assisting in, and perhaps taking a trip overseas, but I doubt that this would be hindrance.

In other words, I am calling for the born-again Christian Bible scholars of the western world (not that many of them read my blog, lol), to consider praying about committing to a special project, a project that may just result in reaching millions with the Gospel: become a Bible translation consultant! Learn a new language, take a trip, and get active!

Naturally, I'm over-simplifying things, and you don't want to stick your nose in where it's not needed ("Hi, I'm the big-shot Greek scholar from America and I'm here to help! Forgot everything you've ever learned about Bible translation and listen to me because I've got a PhD!"); some humility and prayerful discernment would be necessary. But I don't think this is such a far-fetched idea. Personally, I don't qualify as a scholar yet (only 1 book, 6 articles, and just 2 years full-time teaching; I have a ways to go!), but currently I am involved as a consultant on two projects: my own father's new "Lifeline" Japanese Bible translation (I spend about 4 hours a week on this), and as consultant for my church's new translation initiative in Cameroon (for both the Pidgin and the Beba language). (For the latter project I haven't actually done anything yet, but "officially" I'm a consultant!) Neither of those languages are completely without Scripture (especially Japanese), but there's always room for improvement (copyright issues vis-a-vis the best Japanese translation are one reason my father started his new translation). If somebody like me who was humbled by theological German (yet by God's grace persevered) can contribute, how much more so the true North American scholar who reads 10 languages and has published 10 books? It might mean putting out one or two fewer books over the next couple years, but hey, it's getting tough to keep track of all those anyways!

The 2016 Bible Faculty Summit

This week my father and I had the privilege of attending the annual "Bible Faculty Summit" (this year hosted by Maranatha Baptist University, Watertown WI). Here's a brief description of the papers:

1. Troy Manning of Bibles International (an excellent ministry that focuses on Bible translation) presented their "philosophy of ministry"--less an academic paper, compared to the others, and more an attempt to get critical feedback from fellow academics. Troy Manning is a brilliant guy with Ph.D. who has truly immersed himself in Bible translation ministry, especially to people groups that do not have the Word of God.

2. Johnathan Cheek, a Ph.D. candidate at Bob Jones University, explored "Jesus' Interaction  with the World." This is part of his dissertation on a NT "theology of the world." The main focus of this paper was how we should view Jesus' interaction (e.g., dinners) with tax collectors, sinners, etc.

3. Dr. Bruce Compton, from Detroit Theological Seminary, wrote on "The Design and Extent of Christ's Atonement," defending an atonement that is unlimited in "provision" but limited in "application." Dr. Compton, however, does so from a Calvinist perspective (and, in Q&A, stated that he would strongly differ from an Arminian perspective that prevenient grace is the foundation for an unlimited atonement).

4. What I would consider the highest quality paper at this seminar, as far as structure, flow of thought,  and unique contribution, would be Mark L. Ward's paper on "The Story of Arsenokoites according to BDAG." Rather than simply re-treading new ground about the meaning of the word (which refers to a male partner in a homosexual act), Ward's purpose is two-fold, that we might: 1. "learn the major outlines of the debate over arsenokoites so you can speak knowledgeably and persuasively about the Bible's teaching on homosexuality," and 2. "use the 'as-one-of-your-own-poets-hath-said' strategy by appealing to the authority of an honest and respectable mainline liberal Protestant, namely Frederick W. Danker, the D in BDAG." I feel Ward did an excellent job in fulfilling his stated purpose.
Dr. Ward has graciously given me a direct link to the paper for the readers of this blog. Click here.

5.  Ryan J. Martin gave us a chapter from his PhD dissertation at Central Seminary, a detailed look at "Human Affections in Pre-Modern Theology," to help us better "understand older ways of thinking about human affectivity" (in contrast to the modern idea of "emotions"). Martin examines how Augustine, Aquinas, Calvin, William Ames, Peter van Mastricht, etc., influenced the theology of Johnathan Edwards.

6. My own presentation drew from research I did for my book Foreknowledge and Social Identity in 1 Peter (published by Wipf&Stock in 2014; click here) regarding the need to consider semantic range  (i.e., how a word was actually used in Koine Greek) when determining a word's meaning (specifically, for prognwsis and proginwskw). I definitely got more "push-back" on this paper than I've ever gotten before, including my 2 previous presentations at the Bible Faculty Summit and my 5 previous ETS presentations (1 national, 4 regional)! Most of the push-back revolved around my interpretation of Rom 8:29. I am grateful for the feedback, which has given me plenty of "food-for-thought" for revising and refining my argument.

7. What I felt was the most persuasive paper overall (as in, "did a good job of proving an argument I had never considered before) was by Dr. Brian Hand (seminary professor at Bob Jones University), on "The Prayer of Faith Will Save the Sick: Revisiting a Complex Passage in Light of Intertextuality and New Testament Context--James 5:13-18." Although the paper was actually a bit short on the intertexuality part, his overall argument, that astheneia here actually refers to spiritual weakness, as in discouragement or a "crisis of faith," was very convincing.

8. Brian Collins, who works  at BJU Press, gave us an excellent critique of "Progressive Covenantalism" vis-a-vis how it handles the land promises in Scripture. My main takeaway from this paper was the key point that, although the land promises are, in a sense, expanded to include the rest of the earth, this is inexorably linked with the Son of David ruling from Jerusalem as the Jewish Messiah.

9. Randy Leedy presented a very technical paper on "Does the Bible Allow Remarriage after Divorce Based on Adultery?" Leedy's contribution to the discussion was to note how the discussion of divorce in Matthew 5 is a sub-unit under the discussion of adultery. In other words, the entire pericope is not primarily meant to tell us when divorce is "allowable," but rather how divorce leads to adultery. Thus Jesus is refuting anybody who would say, "See, unlike those Gentiles, I'm actually divorcing my wife before taking another (prettier!) woman, so I must be okay!" Leedy also discusses the difficulty of reconciling Matthew 5:32 with 19:9.

10. Dr. Alan Patterson, veteran missionary to Japan (now retired from Japan but still heavily involved in missions and teaching missions) gave us "A Theology of Persecution: Biblical Counsel for Those Suffering for the Name of Christ," a paper that I hope will morph into a more comprehensive biblical and practical theology of persecution (which, I think, would fill a niche in missiological texts).

11. My fellow Southeastern alumnus, Greg Steikes, did a fascinating paper on "Natural Theology and Truth: Does Thomism Augment Belief in the Resurrection," a very balanced approach to the issue of evidential apologetics in regards to Jesus' resurrection.

12. Finally, John Wivell writes on "Jesus' Answer to the Sadducees about the Resurrection" re.: the marriage question. While not positing any radically new answer (sadly, it still doesn't look like marriage exists after the resurrection :) ) Wivell provides an in-depth look at why, exactly, the Sadducees were attempting to trap Jesus with this question, including an examination of Levirate marriage and the "moral dillemma" that occurs when 7 brothers, implied by the story to be the ultimate in Torah-observers, suddenly wake up in the Resurrection to realize they are guilty of the sin of polyandry (i.e., the Sadducees were attempting to pit Jesus' teaching against  the logical outworking of the Torah).

All of the papers were well-written, and I'm grateful for the fellowship and interaction we had there. Next year's "Bible Faculty Summit" will be held at Detroit Baptist Theological Seminary, and I'm already planning my paper! (Maybe something a bit less controversial! :)