The book some of us have been waiting for: review of The Life and Witness of Peter by Larry R. Helyer.

Throw a rock and you can hit a dozen Pauline theologies. I’m not denigrating the importance of the Apostle Paul’s theology, mind you! The man wrote a significant portion of the New Testament, and his inspired letters deserve the attention they get. Nevertheless, for those of us interested in Peter and his theology, there has been a significant dearth of scholarship. There is, of course, Martin Hengel’s Peter: The Underestimated Apostle as well as Markus Bockmuehl’s Simon Peter in Scripture and Memory: The New Testament Apostle in the Early Church, both significant books. Yet with Larry R. Helyer’s The Life and Witness of Peter (Downers Grove, Ill.: IVP Academic, 2012), we have a rare Petrine theology that also gives key consideration to Peter’s life and treatment in the early church. Its significance, in my opinion, can be summed up this way: I desperately wish to teach a class on Petrine theology (at any level!), and without a doubt this is the textbook I would use (and, in my opinion, it’s well-written enough that it could easily be used at the college level as well as in a grad class).

Summary

In the preface, Helyer gives a very brief overview as to his methodology and major focuses (after, of course, the obligatory comments on the relative neglect of Petrine scholarship!) Helyer makes it clear that he will focus on the material from Acts in addition to 1 Peter and 2 Peter (in my opinion one of the major strengths of the book). He will also utilize Mark as a source for a general understanding of Peter’s personal background, and consideration will also be given to some post-NT material, Patristic and otherwise. Especially significant for the content of this book is Helyer’s statement on p. 17 that “The overarching rubric that encapsulates Peter’s theology is the meaning and significance of the cross which shapes Peter’s first pastoral letter.”

Chapter 1 deals with the ‘Background of Simon Peter.” Here Helyer provides a brief discussion of Peter’s name and occupation, providing in the process a beneficial overview of the fishing industry in 1^st century Galilee (complete with his own culinary recommendation footnote 35, namely that visitors to the area try the type of tilapia called “Saint Peter’s Fish,” fresh from the Sea of Galilee!). Helyer takes an unapologetic “harmonistic approach” when recreating Peter’s life and background from the Gospels, though he acknowledges the value of both redaction and narrative approaches (p. 30).

Chapters 2 and 3 deals with Peter’s appearances in the four Gospels. Naturally, Helyer devotes considerable space to Peter’s confession in Matthew 16:13-20 (and the parallels), as well as Jesus’ post-resurrection appearance to Peter. Especially significant is the way in which Helyer ties events in the Gospels to Peter’s later ministry, noting its significance for our spiritual development today. On page 61, for example, he writes (regarding Peter’s three-fold denial), “Peter’s denial can never be taken back. It happened, and he had to live with the painful memory. But rather than letting his failure cripple him spiritually and emotionally, he used it as a means of building up the flock of God. . . . He becomes a living illustration of forgiveness and a second chance. He possesses a degree of compassion and understanding for wavering believers that others, sometimes rather self-righteously, are incapable of showing. We hear a tenderness in Peter’s first epistle that springs out of a bitterly disappointing failure in his own life (1 Peter 5:1-11).”

Chapter 4 deals with “Peter and the early church,” focusing on the book of Acts, while chapter 5 deals with the mention of Peter within Paul’s own epistles. Chapters 6-10 then basically represent a theology of 1 Peter, focusing on that epistle and its key themes. Chapter 6 functions more-or-less as a traditional introduction to the letter, focusing on authorship, genre, recipients, etc. I was especially glad to see Helyer giving due consideration to Karen Jobes’ thesis regarding the recipients, and also that Helyer concludes on p. 116 that the letter uses the concept “stranger” in both a literal and a metaphorical sense (with which I agree, though, like John Elliott, I prefer an initial focus on a literal sense, as I argue in my soon-to-be-published dissertation; it is from the literal that the metaphorical draws its force). Chapters 7-10 then discuss, in order, “Peter’s Christology,” “Christ and the Spirits, Christ and the Holy Spirit,” “Suffering for Jesus,” and “The People of God.”

Chapter 11 functions as an introduction to 2 Peter while chapter 12 deals with its theology. Chapter 13 focuses specifically on 2 Peter’s treatment of false teachers, and chapter 14 focuses specifically on 2 Peter’s eschatology. At this point, I need to mention one statement by Helyer that I greatly appreciated (and one that needs to be preached!): “Many Christians labor under a misunderstanding about their ultimate destiny. They conceive of their eternal state in ethereal (otherworldy0 terms situated in a celestial city ‘up there somewhere.’ The truth is our final destination is on a new earth. In short, ‘heaven’ comes down and does more than ‘fill my soul’; it takes up residence on this planet and fills the whole world with God’s glory” (p. 269).

Finally, Helyer devotes 3 chapters to “The Rest of the Story,” where he focuses on non-canonical treatments of Peter himself, including Patristic accounts of Peter’s life and death, pseudonymous works on Peter, and (in the final chapter), the “legacy” of Peter which concludes with Helyer’s “top ten contributions of the apostle Peter to NT theology.”

Analysis

In my opinion, Helyer’s The Life and Witness of Peter represents both a significant contribution that fills in a gap in scholarship (the relative lack of work on Petrine theology) as well as a very readable and enjoyable treatment of Peter, his life, and his theology. While I will have a couple minor issues, I can definitely recommend this book for anybody interested in either Peter or biblical theology, or both.

First of all, does Helyer make an important contribution to biblical theology? In my opinion, absolutely. Treatments of this scope on Petrine theology are very rare, and Helyer does an excellent job of plugging that hole in scholarship (from an evangelical perspective, as well).

Secondly, Helyer is a good writer; without sacrificing its contribution to scholarship, The Life and Witness of Peter is both an easy and an enjoyable read. It’s worth pointing out that his Exploring Jewish Literature of the Second Temple Period is a much more enjoyable read than equivalent books at this level of academia (I’m not claiming it’s necessarily better at the scholarly level than equivalent books, simply that it’s more enjoyable).

Thirdly, I like how Helyer does biblical theology. Rather than approaching the texts with set themes and topics, as I’ve seen some works do, Helyer mostly lets the texts themselves determine the themes. This is why, for example, we see an entire chapter on “The People of God” in 1 Peter but not 2 Peter, whereas we see an entire chapter on 2 Peter’s eschatology but not 1 Peter’s eschatology. Not because 1 Peter does not discuss eschatology, nor that 2 Peter does not concern itself at all with the church, but rather because each book of the Bible has its own emphasis and focus. In my opinion, biblical theology is at its best when it lets each distinct book bring out its own theology rather than approaching each book with a “grid” of theological topics. In other words, when doing biblical theology (as opposed to systematic theology), the question is not “What does [insert name of book] say about God, Jesus, the end times, etc.?” but rather, “What themes does this book explore, and how are they developed?” This, in my opinion, is what Helyer does well. Having said that, I do wish Helyer had provided a bit more  interaction between books on certain themes. Chapter 8, for example, could have dealt with the Spirit and the spirits in both 1 Peter and 2 Peter (in light of 2 Peter 1:21 and 2:4, 11), and I would have appreciated it bit more overview of Peter’s theology as a whole (although the final chapter covers that a little). Nevertheless, overall I am in favor of how Helyer handles Peter’s theology. In addition, I greatly appreciate how Helyer covers all the Petrine material in Scripture, not just 1 Peter and 2 Peter. This, in my opinion, is key to developing a true Petrine theology (as opposed to just a theology of 1 Peter or a theology of 2 Peter). Such an approach makes this book extremely valuable.

Fourthly, one of Helyer’s strengths is his knowledge of Second Temple Literature (he wrote an entire book on it) and how this knowledge contributes to The Life and Witness of peter. Numerous examples can be cited, but I’ll point especially to page 44 (what does it mean to “loose” and “bind” in Matthew 16:19? He provides some discussion of close terminology in the Qumran texts and the Mishnah) and p. 251 (2 Pet 2:4’s remarkably close parallel to 1 Enoch).

Fifthly, Helyer does an excellent job at making his work relevant for the Christian community. In other words, The Life and Witness of Peter is meant to be relevant theologically in the everyday life of Christians (e.g., see the quote above from page 61). Having said that, I did scratch my head at his odd sort-of allegorizing of the story of Peter in the boat from Matthew 14 (see p. 39).

A couple mild critiques. First of all, while this book does well to cover introductory matters, students should not rely on it for the best treatment of such topics as authorship, recipients, etc.. For example, although I like what he does with his treatment of the recipients of 1 Peter, he never mentions Moses Chin’s article “A Heavenly Home for the Homeless” in Tyndale Bulletin vol. 42:1 (1991), a significant and influential article (though I disagree with much of it). Similarly, there are some gaps in scholarship; when discussing both the eschatology and the false teachers of 2 Peter, for example, he never mentions two articles that directly deal with these issues: Gene L. Green, “‘As for Prophecies, They Will Come to an End’” in JSNT vol. 8 (2001) and Jerome H. Neyrey, “The Form and Background of the Polemic in 2 Peter,” JBL vol. 99 (September 1980), although he cites other sources by these two scholars. Having said that, I must express my gratefulness that he mentions a little-known article by yours-truly on Peter, an article significantly less important than the contributions by Chin, Green, and Neyrey, so who am I to complain?

Two more points. Even though this book is meant to be accessible to all levels, it still would have greatly benefited from a “survey of scholarship” on Peter and his theology. Secondly, I’m puzzled as to why the relationship between Jude and 2 Peter receives only a two-paragraph treatment (pp. 246-247), especially since this would seem to be relevant to 2 Peter’s theology.

Nevertheless, these moderate critiques should not diminish the value that Helyer’s Life and Witness of Peter provides. This is an essential book for studying both Peter and his theology, and one that I hope to use as a textbook someday.

"Under Your Wing"--Ruth Tosses Boaz's Words Right Back at Him!

Teaching a particular book of the Bible is the best way to learn it! The past few weeks I’ve had the privilege of teaching the book of Ruth to the youth at my local church (a very intelligent group of kids, I might add!) While my Hebrew is very rusty, I’ve read through the book in Hebrew while making use of some top-notch commentaries (Daniel Block’s NAC commentary is, in particular, outstanding. And that’s not just my opinion, either).

Studying Ruth for myself has been immensely rewarding. I’d like to share just one quick observation that brings out both the master-storytelling in this book and how our view of God should impact our actions towards each other. In Ruth 2:12, Boaz blesses Ruth, admonishing the Lord to pay her back for all her kindness and faithfulness towards her mother-in-law. He then describes her as having taken refuge literally under the wings [plural form of knph] of the Lord (ESV: “. . . under whose wings you have taken refuge” I think Block best describes Ruth’s relief in response to Boaz’s words: “Like a young chick frightened by the pouring rain, she has come out of her fears and found comfort and security under the wings of God. Those wings are embodied in the person of Boaz” (Block, Judges, Ruth, [NAC; Nashville, Tenn.: Broadman&Holman, 1999], 665).

Now, keep the word “wing” in mind. Fast-forward to Ruth 3:9. This Moabite widow is putting into action her mother-in-law’s plan. When Boaz wakes up, shivering, Ruth identifies herself, and then asks him to “spread your wing [Heb. knph, again!] over your servant”! (ESV) This was, of course, a marriage proposal (“knph” could also mean “robe/skirt,” and “to spread one’s skirt over” a woman meant to marry her; cf. Ezekiel 16:8). Yet certainly Ruth’s bold choice of words is significant! Had not Boaz wished upon her that the Lord himself would spread his wing over her? And now, Ruth herself asks that Boaz spread his wing over her, in essence throwing his own words right back at him, and demanding that he himself become the emissary of Yahweh in this matter!

It is to Boaz’s credit that he was willing to seize this role and act as the go-el, kinsman-redeemer, towards Ruth and Naomi. Yet what about us? Not that we should go out and find widows to marry, necessarily! Yet do we wish the Lord’s blessing on others and put little thought into how we ourselves might act as his representative in that regard? Are we willing to “cover others with our wings,” to shelter them, just as the Lord has done for us?  May we beware the sinfulness of blessing others with words but not actions, of wishing the Lord’s blessing on others and not lifting a finger to help bring about that blessing! As James says, “If a brother or sister is poorly clothed and lacks daily food, 2:16 and one of you says to them, “Go in peace, keep warm and eat well,” but you do not give them what the body needs, what good is it? 2:17 So also faith, if it does not have works, is dead being by itself” (2:15-17, NET).

Truly, both Boaz and the Moabitess widow exemplified the Chessed of the Lord in the book of Ruth, and their actions have transformative results for the entire nation. Ruth, then, is not a modern “fairy tale” romance with knights in shining armor and damsels in distress, glamorous gowns and evocative emotions! Rather, it shows us that true love is action—taking others and sheltering them under our wings from the harshness of life. Only when we live to the standard of Boaz and Ruth can we truly claim to be the Lord’s servants.

Some Brief Thoughts on Bible Software (and Other Electronic Resources for Ministry)

 I was excited to recently read on Dr. David Black’s blog that he and his research assistant are working on a new book, tentatively titled The 100 Most Essential Tools for Using Greek in Ministry (see http://www.daveblackonline.com/blog.htm; scroll down to his post on Saturday, August 31^st, 7:48am). Immediately my mind jumped to Bible software and its potential for use in the ministry (by “ministry,” I don’t mean “vocational ministry,” I mean all Christians everywhere in their work for Christ’s kingdom) and even personal Bible study. You don't need to be a nerd like myself to benefit from such tools!

 For the longest time, the “Big Three” of Bible software have been BibleWorks, Logos, and Accordance (I’ve owned both BibleWorks and Accordance). Back in the day (i.e., a decade or so ago), BibleWorks and Accordance had the reputation of being superior at exegesis and syntactical studies while Logos was what you used to build your digital library. I think everything’s a bit more balanced nowdays, though my own bias is that Accordance is absolutely fantastic in its ability to do in-depth syntactical and semantic analysis (with a slightly steep learning curve), while Logos still has a very good reputation for making books accessible in electronic format. It’s worth noting, though, that Accordance is designed for Mac but can be run on a PC with an emulator. If curious, check out the respective websites at http://www.bibleworks.com, http://www.logos.com, and http://www.accordancebible.com.

 

Of course, there are probably other less-known software (some of it may even be free), so feel free to enlighten me in the comments section. In addition, I’m sure “smart” phones are now able to use Bible software to varying degrees. I still have a “primitive” cell phone, so I’m afraid I know little about such capabilities. While your phone is making you an Expresso and planning your next vacation, I use mine to actually make phone calls, which I thought was kind of the point of owning a phone in the first place . . ., but I digress. (Okay, so maybe I’m just a teensy-weensy bit jealous of your phone).

Anyways, good Bible software can help you do the following:

1.    Compare Bible versions. Even those without much Greek and Hebrew proficiency can still compare versions and at least get an idea of how controversial passages and/or words are handled. Also, study notes and even maps are usually included. All this is available with a mouse click.

2.    Give you immediate access to a theological library. This includes commentaries, systematic theologies, the church fathers, and Christian classics. Imagine being able to compare the views of Wayne Grudem and Millard Erickson on atonement, side by side, with just a few mouse clicks. Imagine being able to check out 3 different commentaries on Romans 9 within a matter of minutes, without getting up from your chair!

Now, frankly, I’m a bit of a traditionalist when it comes to books and journals; I prefer something actually in my hand, and I probably will never have much of a digital library. Still, mark my words, the day is coming when most preachers will get up in the pulpit and say, “Please take our your I-phones and scroll down to John, chapter 1 . . .”  (if you’re in the mood for a satirical Australian discussion on Bible mediums, check out Michael Bird, “Dear Presbyter, Bring your Scroll to Church”

3.    Allow basic word searches. Many modules for Bible software come with Strong’s concordance numbers or its equivalent, so even those without Greek proficiency can see how the Apostle Paul uses the Greek word for “ministry” throughout his epistles. [warning: there are, of course, plenty of word-study fallacies that must be avoided. Most of these mistakes, however, occur quite frequently without the help of Bible study software, so this is hardly the place for an in-depth discussion of word-study fallacies! Still, there is much benefit, in my opinion, to seeing how a word is used elsewhere in Scripture, as well as in the 1st century literature]

4.    Allow in-depth syntactical and semantic study. This is the kind of stuff for serious Bible students and scholars. Accordance, for example, allows me to see how many times an Aorist imperative occurs within 5 words of a present-tense imperative in Josephus' Jewish Wars, if that ever becomes important [rabbit trail alert! In my opinion, the debate on Verbal Aspect Theory would be better served by less theoretical linguistics and more examination of actual 1st century 

      texts . . .]. With accordance, I can also see how the LXX uses the Greek word for “atonement,” or also how the Masoretic and LXX differ on a passage.

Naturally, all of the above costs money (and when all is said and done, the determined student may quite easily spend more on Bible software than he or she does on their computer!), but at the very basic package you’re sure to get a number of Bible versions with some basic study tools. In the meanwhile, you can search online for other resources (Google Books, for example, has many old classics that are public domain now).

One more thing: for the serious student of 1^st century Greek, the Thesaurus Linguae Graecae (TLG for short) can prove to be invaluable. As for me, I could not have done my dissertation without it (examining the use of the Greek words proginwskw and prognwsis within 1^st century literature). It’s a bit expensive: over 100 dollars a year (though you can get a “five-years for the price of four” deal), but for some, it may be worth it.

Naturally, all the fancy-schmancy software in the world is no substitute for living out the Word. At the end of the day, an 80-year old lady who only has her King James Bible yet strives to love her neighbor is a better servant of Christ than a Ph.D. student with the latest bells and whistles of Bible software who cares little about praxis. Still, we live in an incredible age with hither-to undreamt of Bible study tools. It wouldn't hurt to make use of some of them.

Book Alert! A must read for prospective doctoral students: Prepare, Succeed, Advance by Nijay K. Gupta

 Nijay K. Gupta, Prepare, Succeed, Advance: A Guidebook for Getting a PhD in Biblical Studies and Beyond (Eugene, Ore.: Pickwick, 2011).

Now this is not a full-blown book review. Samuel Emadi has already written a fine review in a recent issue of the Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society (vol. 56.1, March 2013), and I basically agree with his assessment. However, this is a book that needs to be brought to the attention of any prospective doctoral student, and so I wanted to make a few comments on it.

To begin with, the book is fairly short (156 pages), yet surprisingly comprehensive. Nijay K. Gupta (professor at Seattle Pacific University) covers such diverse topics as the differences between British and US schools, looking for a job after you get your degree, basic tips for research (e.g., don’t over rely on commentaries! [p. 82]), and how to prepare for your dissertation’s defense. There are three sections to the book with 3 chapters in the first two and 4 chapters for the last section. The first section, “Prepare,” covers 1. “Choosing a Doctoral Program,” 2. “Preparing for Doctoral Studies: From Education to Application,” and 3. “Making an Application.” The second section, “Succeed,” covers 4. “Orientation to the PhD and Choosing the Research Topic,” 5. Researching and Writing the Dissertation,” and 6. “How to Defend Your Work (preparing for your oral defense).” The final section, “Advance,” covers 7. “Orientation: From PhD to Employment and Beyond,” 8. “Conference Participation and Publishing,” 9. “Teaching Experience,” and 10. “Job Hunting, Interviewing, and Publishing the Dissertation.” Gupta also includes a bibliography of helpful resources for research, although it is heavily weighted towards NT and Pauline research, and consequently not equally as helpful towards all.

As mentioned above, this is a must-read for most, if not all, prospective doctoral students, due to its wealth of material and its easily-readable style. Now, this book is geared towards both believers and nonbelievers interested in biblical studies, so you won’t see much on spiritual development or family life, both important topics for the evangelical student. I am somewhat disappointed that Gupta does not really spend much time discussing finances, something I wish somebody had discussed with me before I began looking at doctoral programs! Nevertheless, the book, for the most part, covers what you would want such a book to cover.

In his conclusion, Gupta provides us with some very helpful tips on the academic life. Let me focus on and reinforce two of them. Gupta states, “Be eclectic. Many PhD students and young professionals become a one-trick pony because their research was so focused that they are unaware of what is going on in the wider fields of biblical studies. . . . I would encourage you to maintain, alongside your primary specialty, an interest in a few other areas. This will actually enhance your research . . . .” (p. 150) I would personally add (even though it goes against conventional wisdom) that not all the classes you take should be connected with your dissertation. I audited OT Theology and benefited from it; I also took “Christian Faith and Science,” thoroughly enjoyed it, and got an article published out of it (totally outside my main field of study, yet a topic I enjoyed). It goes without saying that most of  your classes should be within your field of study (and SEBTS required 4 out of 8, I believe), but otherwise take a few topics that you think might challenge you, or that you’re curious about.

Gupta also states, “Count your blessings. . . . Remember the privilege of what you are doing!  In broader perspective, only a small percent of the world’s population will have the chance (and honor) t study at the master’s level, let alone spend several years at an even higher level . . . .” (p. 150) To that we can all give a hearty “amen”! Doctoral study is a privilege granted to some by God (and, in of itself, is no guarantee of spirituality or even intelligence). If you get that opportunity, thank God for it on a consistent basis and don’t squander it!

It’s worth briefly comparing Gupta’s book with the Ben Witherington’s recent Is There a Doctor in the House?(Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan, 2011). Witherington’s book, it seemed to me, is concerned more with scholarship and teaching ability; while his work is valuable and does contain some helpful info for prospective students (and, I might add, at this point I think Witherington is the better writer), I think Gupta’s book is the one I want prospective students to read first, since Gupta deals with a wider range of questions and issues that will plague doctoral students.

For any of my readers interested in doctoral work, please don’t hesitate to drop me an e-mail with your questions!

The date of the crucifixion and NASA eclipse records

-->Note: the conclusions of the following discussion are not original with me; pride of place should go to the outstanding Tyndale Bulletin article by Humphreys and Waddington (both scientists, by the way), though other people have come to the same conclusion. I may be the first to actually go to NASA's website to verify data in that manner, however, but probably not. Regardless, though the conclusions in this discussion are not anything new, they may be new to the reader, and I hope they provide some food-for-thought.

Update [Saturday evening, 7/13/13]: The Acts 2 citation of the OT context of Joel is very difficult to work through, more difficult than I imply in this blog post. Like most dispensationalists, I would prefer to see a literal, future fulfillment for the Joel prophecy. On the other hand, it's really difficult to overlook Peter's fulfillment language in Acts 2. Perhaps something of an inaugurated fulfillment (which, I believe, is what some folks over at Dallas hold to)? Regardless, to be fair, for a more traditional dispensationalist take on this passage, see the good essay by Roy Beacham (I link to it in the first posted comment after this discussion).
 

Finally back at it! Finishing the dissertation (for which I am very grateful) and now working 2 jobs at 60 hours a week (for which I am grateful, but also tired) has taken a lot out of me, and there's so much I want to write. For now, higher priorities include revising my dissertation for attempted publication, if the Lord wills, and helping my father with his new Greek-to-Japanese New Testament.

Also, however, I have had the privilege of teaching through Matthew in a Sunday School class at my local church. I use my own curriculum, so to speak (relying heavily on the commentaries by Carson and Turner). Now, nearing the end of the series of lessons, we have been discussing the crucifixion. Before delving into the theology of the crucifixion, I had wanted to discuss some of the background (making liberal use of Martin Hengel's monumental book!), and part of that included discussing the date. Now, in my opinion, dating Christ's birth is impossible with our present knowledge (despite the attempts of some), but dating the crucifixion is very possible if a particular interpretation of Acts 2 is allowed to stand.

In Acts 2:14, Peter is beginning his Pentecost sermon; in verses 17-21, he takes a prophecy from Joel and applies it to the present day (as part of "the last days"); quoting that prophecy, he states:

"I will pour out my Spirit on all people, and your sons and your daughters will prophesy, and your young men will see visions, and your old men will dream dreams, . . . and I will perform wonders in the sky above and miraculous signs on the earth below, blood and fire and clouds of smoke. The sun will be changed to darkness and the moon to blood before the great and glorious day of the Lord comes. And then everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved." [NET translation, from bible.org]

Now, Peter here seems to be applying that prophecy to the current era (as ushering in the end times; indeed, even though I'm a strong premillennialist, I believe we can say that all time since Christ's 1st coming represents the end times, in a sense). If, then, the first part of the prophecy is fulfilled at least in part (not discounting the possibility of more fulfillment at the Tribulation, but that's a different discussion), would it not be possible that the reference to "The sun will be changed to darkness and the moon to blood" [NET] might be a reference to the day of the crucifixion, especially since verses 22-23, the immediately subsequent context, refer directly to the crucifixion?

Now, there's two big "ifs" here. First of all, if Peter might those words literally; secondly, if Peter was referring to the crucifixion.

However, if both of those "ifs" are allowed, then we have a sure-fire way of dating the crucifixion, and here's why. First of all, we know that the sun was indeed covered by darkness at the crucifixion (see Matthew 27:45), basically from noon to 3pm. However, Acts 2:20 seems to mention a completely different, second occurrence, namely the moon turning to blood. This is basically a poetic way of speaking of a lunar eclipse (see Humphrey and Waddington, pp. 343-344), since the moon does indeed appear red during this process. In other words, we have a strange darkness in the hours leading up to Christ's death, followed by a blood-moon eclipse beginning at the time when (by Jewish custom) they would have had to have taken Christ's body off the cross (and possibly right around the time Joseph of Arimathea was taking away Jesus' body for burial). This would have made a stark impression on the  minds of the Jewish inhabitants of Jerusalem, since the very next day was the Passover, characterized, of course, by blood.

So, is there a viable candidate for such a lunar eclipse that would pin-point the date of Christ's death? Absolutely, and it's as easy to figure out as simply going over to NASA's website. Yes, "NASA," as in "that space agency." You see, at the following link: http://eclipse.gsfc.nasa.gov/lunar.html NASA gives you a nifty tool to examine the statistics of basically every recorded eclipse back to 2000 BC (yes, 4,000 years of lunar eclipses!), including the option to pick a particular city and see what eclipses would have been visible from it (you need to open up the Javascript Lunar Eclipse Explorer). [Note: I'm not claiming here that the NASA records are infallible or should be an authoritative guide to Scripture! The lunar eclipse records are based on the work of one man, for the most part, a certain Fred Espenak. I am arguing that NASA records have the potential to help determine the date of the crucifixion, if we are correct in our interpretation of Acts 2]. So, if we input "Jerusalem" within the 1st century AD, we see that there are quite a few eclipses, (with varying degrees of visibility), but within AD 30-40, only two occurred in April, and only one right before the passover. See we see that April 3rd, AD 33 is the only possible option (and yes, that is on a Friday). If that is the case, then our Savior died roughly at 3 PM, April 3rd, 33 AD, and a few hours after he died there was a lunar eclipse which would have made the day even more memorable. So his death was bracketed on the one hand by an odd darkness that blotted out the sun, and on the other hand by a lunar eclipse that turned the moon red (at least to a certain degree). Our Lord then resurrected on the morning of April 5th, 33 AD.

So what's this all mean? Apologetically, this is of little help unless somebody wishes to argue that Peter was mistaken in Acts 2, or that Luke invented a lunar eclipse and attributed the idea to Peter. At least, however, we can say that there was a lunar eclipse at a date that would most definitely fit as the date for Christ's crucifixion; if Peter was referring to that, then he was referring to something that all the inhabitants of Jerusalem most definitely would have vividly remembered. The rhetorical force of applying Joel to that day, still fresh in the mind of his listeners, cannot be underestimated. Furthermore, this date, if accurate, gives us a better understanding of the times of Christ's ministry and may, in the long run, help with other dates in early Christianity.

As mentioned above, a must-read at the academic level is the article "The Jewish Calendar, A Lunar Eclipse and the Date of Christ's Crucifixion" by Colin J. Humphreys and W. G. Waddington in Tyndale Bulletin 43.2 (1992): 331-351.

At the popular level, it's worth watching the video The Star of Bethlehem narrated and presented by Frederick Larson (directed by Stephen McEveety; copyright 2009 by MPower Pictures, LLC; distributed through Sound Enterprises; thanks to my good friend Alex for introducing me to this presentation). However, two strong caveats about Larson's work: first of all, the last section of his DVD (dealing with Christ's death) is way better than the bulk of it (dealing with the Magi and the Star of Bethlehem), for a variety of reasons. However, even when he discusses the crucifixion, he argues that the eclipse would have been the cause of the darkness mentioned in Scripture, which I disagree with. Secondly, however, Larson seems to act (in my opinion) as if all this is his brand new discovery; in other words, he makes almost no reference to concrete instances of previous scholarship and shows no awareness of the work of Humprey and Waddington, which predates his presentation by over 20 years!

So anyways, all this pales in significance to the great theological truths inherent in Christ's death and resurrection, of course. The date doesn't matter so much; what truly matters is that it happened and by it we are reconciled to God. Nevertheless, in my opinion, the more we know about Scripture and its context and background, the more we can appreciate its words.

Five Years of Doctoral Studies: What Went Well and What Could Have Gone Better

[updated 6/10/2013 to briefly discuss teaching abroad as a very legitimate option for newly graduated doctorates]

Dear reader, I am very interested in hearing about your own personal experiences in doctoral work, especially if you are/were a married student or who attended a different kind of school. Please feel free to comment below.

Through the grace of God, the mercy of my advisers, and the support of my friends, after 5 full school  years of doctoral work, I have my doctorate in hand! In light of that, I thought it would be beneficial to add some personal reflection on what went well and what could have gone better in my five years as a student. Naturally, doctoral work goes differently for everybody, and the perspective you have here is the rather subjective musings of a bachelor who worked full-time during his studies at a Southern Baptist school. Married students will have a significantly different perspective, as will those lucky few who didn't have to work full time. Naturally, attending a secular university or a school of a different denomination will also provide a different experience. Nevertheless, I hope that this post will provide some food-for-thought for those contemplating (or currently in) doctoral studies.

Overall, the experience was positive, and I believe that I experienced the Lord's leading both to and through this particular program. I want to emphasize that with a lot of help and support, I survived it, and I'm not the brightest bulb in the chandelier, so to speak, nor am I the most diligent of students (though I got better through the years). Thus, once again, let me stress that this was a positive though difficult experience. I want to start with some negatives, however, just so that I can end on a strongly positive note.

The following is somewhat subjective and focuses mostly on my own personal experience. Nevertheless, I hope it can be an encouragement and a forewarning for those considering doctoral studies. As I mentioned above, I am definitely interested in hearing from others who have already finished (or are in the midst of) this journey.

5 years in a Ph.D.: what could have gone better

1. Finances

Now, fortunately, I paid my bills on time and no burly mobsters with names like Benny "the Cement Truck" Antonelli will be coming round to beat my tuition payments out of me [note to the impressionable reader: that is not generally how SBC schools operate, so you may put aside your concerns]. Nevertheless, I was unprepared for the cost of a doctorate and the amount of debt I would accrue.

Now, I'm not exactly a free-spender, at least with the big stuff. My car was made in the last millennium. My only computer is over 5 years old. I rent a small apartment with a housemate. I don't own a 72-inch plasma TV (or any TV, for that matter, though my housemate has a decent one). I try to shop cheaply for groceries. So as far as the "big stuff" goes, I'm not extravagant. (now the "little stuff" can be a different story; let's just say I've made too many "impulse purchases" of books on Amazon, not all of which were necessary for doctoral work).

Furthermore, I've worked full-time or close to full-time for most of my academic career. I was able to avoid actual school debt until my last year of seminary in Pennsylvania. So for a total of 9 years, through one bachelor's and almost two complete masters' degrees, I was fortunate to accrue only some credit card debt and no school loans.

Nevertheless, doctoral work is a whole different story. From the moment I received my acceptance letter in my last semester of my M.Div. ("Congratulations, you're in! By the way, you now owe us a $2,000 non-refundable enrollment fee"), things went downhill. And this was at a cheaper school! It is possible to stay out of debt even in a doctorate (I have a friend with a family who is working full-time and so far has been able to stay debt free), but it takes a whole lot more dedication and knowledge than I had at that point.

In retrospect, I wish I'd had somebody to go to, perhaps a few years before doctoral studies, that could have sat me down and just given me some financial advise. I'm capable of working hard and balancing my checkbook, but I've never learned long-term financial planning. Looking back, I think I could have planned better, made a few more sacrifices, and ended up in a slightly better situation. Of course some stuff is unpredictable (when my Geo Metro went from 3 cylinders to 2 cylinders, I had to shell out 4,000 for another used car, and that went straight to a credit card; I don't see how that could have been avoided).

On the plus side, the Lord provides. Whether it was a friend giving me a check, or my parents lending me some money to take a particular summer class, I've always had enough to pay my bills without missing anything of benefit in the program, though my checking account ran dry once or twice. Nevertheless, I'm on the verge of starting a second job just to survive until I can find a teaching position. So my advice to any prospective doctoral students is this: start planning financially years before you are accepted into a program (especially for married students, I imagine). [note: for what it's worth, Southeastern is actually very affordable for doctoral students. I paid a higher rate since I was not an SBC student, but it was still cheaper than comparable evangelical schools. The school does have some quirks, however, such as not allowing you to pay tuition on a credit card and making it difficult to obtain a federal student loan, as opposed to a private (e.g., Sallie Mae) student loan. The wise prospective student will research each school's financial policies and overall expenses before committing].

Once again, though, let me stress that the Lord always provided, sometimes in the nick of time. Often that provision came through good friends of mine, sometimes through anonymous sources, sometimes through overtime at work, but He always provided.

2. Lack of Sleep

This one may be more unique to me, but hopefully this can still prove to be a useful warning. My lack of sleep was not caused by the doctoral workload, which is actually quite manageable. Rather, I worked third shift and my body refused to sleep in the daylight hours to the extant that it should. I don't know why (and yes, I tried darkening the room, wearing "blinders," drinking "Zzz-Quil," both eating and fasting before I went to bed, etc. Nothing worked consistently). For most of my 15 years since college, I have worked third shift to some degree (the exception was 3 years in a factory, second shift, during my M.Div.). During my college days, I had no trouble sleeping whenever, be it morning, noon, or night (and, occasionally, during class or chapel! :) Something changed when I started my MA, however, and I'm not sure what. Suddenly I had more difficulty sleeping. The result is that for 3-4 days out of the week over most of my ph.d., I have only managed about 4 hours of sleep a day, and I'm not sure why. I had the time to sleep, but not the ability. I don't know if this is something that other doctoral students have struggled with (some people can work 3rd shift with no problems sleeping during the day), but I think my advice to doctoral students would be to try to get a 2nd shift job if at all possible. Most classes will be in the morning or early afternoon anyways, and you can dedicate most of your mornings to research and reading. If you work from 4pm to midnight (or similar hours), you can still, most likely, get at least 6 hours of solid sleep for the day. (yeah, I know, that's less than ideal for good health, but this is doctoral work; the rules change!)

For those of you that may have to work 3rd shift, coffee and strong energy drinks are your greatest allies. It's probably not actually safe to drink the latter (there's nothing like actually feeling your heart rate elevate as you chug down a can), but if it's a matter of drinking an energy drink or allowing yourself to plow off the road on the way home from work or school, the former is much preferable. During classes, make sure you drink plenty of coffee and you should have no trouble staying awake (you do not want to fall asleep during a doctoral class!)

[disclaimer: despite having a ph.d., the author, Paul Himes, is not an actual physician and is not qualified to dispense advice regarding the safety, or lack thereof, of coffee, energy drinks, or other caffeinated beverages. The reader should drink such beverages at his or her own discretion! The author is not responsible for any resulting caffeine addictions or the urge to get involved in extreme sports]

3. Lethargy and lack of discipline

This one is partially connected to the last one. I believe working 3rd shift and being unable to sleep a reasonable amount per day resulted in bouts of inactivity that could have been put to better use. One the one hand, in the grand scheme of things I don't think I'm a lazy person. I've worked multiple jobs all throughout my education, most of them time full-time, and I've turned in my work on-time. Furthermore, this is not about taking legitimate breaks and relaxing by yourself or with friends. Often times a good science fiction book or watching a movie with friends helped me relax and regain my sanity.

What I am talking about, however, is bouts of inactivity where I did nothing at all constructive. Partially, I was tired and frustrated that I couldn't sleep. Partially, however, I lacked the self-motivation to get myself up to start doing something useful. (I suspect this is more likely to be a problem for bachelors than married students!) Had I been a bit more disciplined, I'm sure I could have accomplished much more and probably finished at least half a year earlier than I did.

Furthermore, "idleness is the devil's workshop." The less busy you are, the more open you are to temptations and even depression. When I was tired and lethargic, I could occasionally get depressed. Now I don't mean "depressed" in the sense of considering something drastic (like jumping off the Empire State Building!) Rather, I mean "depressed" in that there were a few dark moments where I wondered about myself, doctoral studies, and a multitude of worries and cares that fly in whenever the door is left open. These moments only came when I was alone and only when I was not busy doing something constructive. The solution, I think, is to have a solid, consistent schedule (including personal time in the Word) and to spend time around other people. Allow yourself time to relax and read a book or play a game, but try to not have any real "downtime" where your are bored and just lounging on the couch. I am ashamed of the many hours I wasted that could have been put to use writing or exercising or reading.

4. Early sloppiness in my work (that improved)

This is both a negative and a positive. It wasn't until my mentorship and dissertation work with Dr. Black that I realized how careless and sloppy I had a tendency to be. I'd always been told that I was a decent writer, but the technical aspects of my work left a lot to be desired (for any former teachers, at any level, reading this post, I apologize for any papers of mine you read that had a lot of typos! As somebody who has read and graded papers, I know how annoying that can be). I sincerely wish I could go back and re-write some of the papers and even articles that I wrote during the earlier stages of my doctoral work. The problem, frankly, was a little bit of laziness on my part. I'd done very little proofreading through most of my education. By the time I was working on chapter 3 of my dissertation, I was personally proofreading each chapter six times and having others look at my work as well! So, fortunately, there was improvement.

The solution, I think, is that doctoral students should start a habit early on of rigorously proofreading each paper they write (and, ideally, make a deal with another student to read each other's papers). Some professors will be generous with their grading; others will not. But there's two things you should never have to be called to task for in doctoral work: sloppy writing and sloppy research.

(and I desperately hope that this post is not so full of typos as to render my previous paragraphs ironic!)

5. Lack of a teaching position.

It's a bit disheartening when you apply for a relatively small Christian college and get word back that they had over 100 applicants and you're not one of their final choices. It's also a bit discouraging to apply to a school that you think you might be a good fit for and then not even receive an acknowledgement of their receipt of your application. So, dear prospective student, let me spell it out for you: for every school you apply to teach at, there's probably 99 other applicants, and most of them are more qualified than you are! In other words, do not assume you will have a teaching job waiting for you as soon as you become ABD. Having said that, begin applying to schools as soon as you pass comps and become ABD, and begin praying quite frequently for the Lord to open doors. Also, establish contacts and connections with people and schools. My own situation is currently that of trying to pick up a second job in addition to my security job just to pay my bills for the next year. Come late Fall 2013, I'll start the application process once again and pray for direction. [note: my advisor has been very helpful in providing letters of recommendation and keeping his eyes out for positions. I doubt that all advisers are as helpful as mine has been, so make sure you cultivate relationships with a number of professors that may later help you out with letters of recommendation and job leads]. To put it in perspective, over the past school year I applied to 20 schools with openings (six of which did not even acknowledge my existence) and was only granted one phone interview. But never give up hope, and keep trying!

[updated 6/10/2013] As a friend recently pointed out in the comments, there is one very important option that all doctoral students should look onto: namely, teaching abroad. I know of two very recent grads from SEBTS that are doing so, one of them in an evangelical school and the other in a restricted access nation. Generally, you'll have to at least some support (some schools overseas may pay you a bit, but rarely will you get a full-paying job), but the benefits as to the experience you gain and the potential ministry opportunities cannot be matched. At the very least, I believe every evangelical doctorate should attempt to become involved with teaching overseas during summer or winter breaks; but for now, there are many positions overseas crying out to be filled by doctorates, and who better to answer the call than evangelicals? For more information on this, keep an eye or two open for a forthcoming JETS article by a friend of mine who is currently teaching overseas. [end update]

It's worth noting that the work load of the doctorate was not unreasonable. I felt that, even working full-time, I had plenty of time to do quality work. Hopefully this is an encouragement (though married students who also work full-time probably have it worse than I did).

5 years in a Ph.D: what went awesomely well!

1. Great teachers and mentors

And now for the positive! Possibly the most significant aspect of your doctoral work will not be which school you went to, but rather who you studied under and who influenced you. This is only partially a matter of prestige (i.e., how many books/articles somebody has written); mostly, it is a matter of guidance and influence. I was extremely fortunate to write my dissertation under Dr. David Alan Black, grade (and teach) for Dr. Maurice Robinson, and take classes with Dr. Andreas Köstenberger. Yet all of the teachers that I took at Southeastern were awesome, and all proved to be an encouragement in one way or the other.

Dr. Black was my mentor and advisor, and he helped "whip me into shape" for my dissertation and has strongly encouraged me in my endeavors. My reasoning for asking to study under him was because of his broad work in New Testament studies and Greek, and I was told I could write on anything related to the New Testament or New Testament Greek under him. Dr. Black was very "laissez-faire" in regards to the content of my writing while at the same time very strict on the technical aspects (and also very tough on making sure I was reading foreign language sources!). Furthermore, mentorship under him had a spiritual component to it as well; Dr. Black is heavily involved in the New Testament Christian life, including missions, and wishes to ensure that his students are as well. Studying under him was definitely a great choice.

I highly recommend being a research assistant or a grading fellow for somebody during your years in doctoral work (and it doesn't have to be your advisor). Grading itself is usually not too great a commitment (a couple hours a week; much more during the final weeks of the semester, but by then your own work should be mostly done). This will pay a little bit, but more importantly this is about gaining experience (grading and teaching) and building a relationship. I was fortunate to be Dr. Maurice Robinson's grader for 4 out of the 5 years I was here; Dr. Robinson, probably more than any other professor at Southeastern, was very much familiar with my church background (independent/fundamental, only with more "fun" and less "mental"), and we had some good conversations. Also, he had great stories! While I never got to take a class with him, I was nevertheless influenced towards a Byzantine (Majority) textual position just by being around him (although, in my case, it's a lot about my dissatisfaction with the sacred cows of eclecticism). Both Dr. Robinson and Dr. Black have been very helpful in my attempts to find a job teaching.

Teachers are the greatest asset of any school, and I was privileged to take classes with a number of great scholars. Especially beneficial were my classes with Dr. Köstenberger. His encouragement is the reason my first paper got accepted for publication (in BBR), and his Second Temple Literature class opened my eyes to a whole new field of research. In addition, I took a summer class with Dr. George Guthrie on Hebrews, which was one of the greatest classes I ever took at any level, and I was able to have a distant ed. class with Dr. Gene Green from Wheaton on 1 Peter (nobody at Southeastern has taught 1 Peter at the doctoral level in a long time, to my knowledge). This was extremely important for my dissertation.  You should especially try to take classes where the professor has written on the topic (especially if their dissertation or a major publication is related to the topic of the class). Also, although many advise that you should structure your classes around your dissertation, I strongly disagree. I deliberately took the class "Christian Faith and Science," even though it has nothing to do with my dissertation, simply because I was interested in the topic. My paper for that class was eventually published in the British journal Science & Christian Belief. Furthermore, I audited "Old Testament Theology" simply because I felt that it would be a shame to go through a doctorate in Biblical Studies and not take anything Old Testament related.

The bottom line is this: consider your teachers and classes well, and take those teachers and classes that you will enjoy. Ultimately, it is the people, not the school name, that determines the value of your doctorate.

2. A great local church.

Get involved in a local church. Period. No "buts"! First of all, you may find an outlet for your studies (I once did an entire Wed. night Bible study on Biblical Lament, based off of what I had learned from Dr. Heath Thomas in a one day seminar; hopefully it wasn't overly academic, but you'll have to ask somebody else about that!). Secondly, you will find a family that will encourage you and be your friends. With a good church, Sunday truly becomes a day of relaxing fellowship and worship, a welcome respite from the rigours of the week.

So I cannot stress this enough: find a good church, make friends and minister with them, influence people, and be influenced in turn. Through my church I have received a lot of encouragement and prayer, I gained many opportunities for ministry (preaching, teaching, ushering, sound booth, missions committee), and Sundays truly became a day of rest and worship. In addition, your brothers and sisters at church will offer various degrees of accountability that you can take advantage of.

3. Getting published

Trying to get published is a lot like trying to ask a girl out. Expect to get rejected time and time again! (so keep trying!) Having said that, it is a worthwhile endeavor, not (hopefully) for selfish reasons (look at me! I published an article[that few people will read but that somebody, somewhere, will someday misquote for a mostly insignificant paper at some obscure college!]), but rather because it is an opportunity to contribute to the ongoing discussion of biblical theology, to make your voice heard in the conversation (even if it's a small voice!). Being published can also give you a sense that your work is not wasted (regardless of whether or not somebody actually reads your article; at least it's there if anybody is researching the topic!)

For me, getting my first paper accepted for publication resulted from just a bit of encouragement from a certain professor. He had called me into his office and suggested sending in my latest paper for publication somewhere; it's unlikely that I would have done so otherwise, since this particular paper was one that I was not exactly sure of. Furthermore, the first journal I sent it in to rejected it. Yet perseverance and stubbornness should be hallmarks of a doctoral student, so I tried again and was privileged to have it accepted.

The lesson, I guess, is to listen to feedback from teachers and others and constantly try to publish your papers (or at least present them at conferences). Expect to be rejected, but keep trying--not for your own glory (trust me; you won't become famous with a few articles) but rather to take part in the awesome, ongoing conversation that we call "theology."

4. Finishing

Well, in the end, I finished, and that's something to be grateful for. It's a good feeling. I guess it's a certain vindication of my parents' and friends' investment in me. I don't know what the Lord will permit in the future, but to have finished doctoral work is an immense privilege. Furthermore, I will stress again, it was, overall, a very positive experience. Good people, a good church, good classes, and good guidance from those wiser than me contributed to create a solid five enjoyable years of Bible study. Who can complain about that? 



A Dissertation: The Raw Data (along with some slightly subjective commentary)

Since I've had the privilege of defending and walking, I thought some might be interested in learning what exactly goes into a dissertation. So here goes:

Total number of hours:
Not sure about this one; I originally tried to keep a weekly log, but it soon fell by the way side. However, from the moment I passed comprehensive exams and began working on my dissertation's prospectus, it took me a total of 2 years and roughly 9.5 months (from the middle of June 2010 to the end of April 2013). However, I had to redo my prospectus so that set me back a little bit. Also, I worked full-time. Frankly, sometimes I had some bouts of inactivity that could and should have been avoided with a bit more self-discipline, so I'm confident I could have actually finished everything in about 2 years and 3 months with a little bit more effort on my part. On the other hand, I'm not married, and no doubt otherwise it would have taken me a bit longer.

However, it is possible to do an entire chapter in about 5-6 weeks, even with a full-time job (including plenty of time for rigorous proof-reading), because this is about the pace I had for my last few chapters (granted, they had less original research then some earlier chapters, however). Also keep in mind that your prospectus supplies much of your content for the first chapter.

All in all, in theory, it should be possible for a single guy or lady to produce a dissertation in about a year, even if working full-time, if that person has a clear sense of direction and is very self-disciplined (I did mostly well on the former, could have done better on the latter!)

Total number of pages:
284, including front matter and the bibliography.
238 for the actual content (not counting front matter or bibliography); this is actually a little bit shorter than average, it seems.
My bibliography was 28 pages, which I think is about average or possibly a bit above average.

Total number of words, including footnotes, bibliography, and front matter
91,954   (not, I'm not going to figure out how many sentences!)

Comments on the bibliography
By my count, I had approx.  362 sources. Out of those,
approx. 80 were foreign language sources (not translations), 41 of those were ancient Greek sources (including apostolic fathers, but mostly secular 1st century sources), 26 were German, 9 were french, 2 were Dutch, and one each were Latin and Italian. It is  recommended that at this level the student not rely on translations but rather provide his or her own translation. My own weakness was that, not being proficient in Latin, I had to rely on translations for Augustine, etc. (with one exception where I translated a simple phrase from John Calvin). In the case of my dissertation, I was working with a lot of 1st century Greek sources that used the terms prognwsis or proginwskw, so it was important that I provide both the Greek text and my own translation (with a couple exceptions; the Greek physician Rufus was especially difficult to work with, and in one particular citation of Plutarch I wimped out and had to use Sandbach's translation!).

Most utilized work outside of the Bible: John H. Elliott's A Home for the Homeless, which was extremely influential for my thesis.

Most surprisingly helpful source: Paul Boom, How Children Learn the Meaning of Words (in my opinion, this book had some great thoughts on lexical semantics)

Most obscure source (i.e., most difficult to get a hold of): Horst Goldstein, "Das Gemeindeverständnis des ersten Petrusbriefs." This was actually an inaugural dissertation (so far as I can determine) for Dr. Goldstein when he began teaching at Münster U. I had to purchase this from a German bookseller in Germany (please note that when buying from a store in Germany, there is a fee for transferring money, and the fee may actually turn out to be more than the cost of the book, including shipping!). Anyway, it's quite possible I own the only copy of this work in the U.S. A close second place goes to the commentary on 1 Peter in French by Ceslas Spicq, which, so far as could determine, only exists in one library outside of Europe a library which shall remain nameless since it refused to lend the book out! :) Fortunately, I got my own copy for roughly 30 dollars via the very helpful "ABE Books".

Most bizarre source (i.e., odd to find it in a dissertation on 1 Peter): James Holden, History of Horoscopic Astrology. This was actually a somewhat helpful source because it gave brief biographical sketches of some of the obscure 1st century astrologers I was citing (because they used the terms prognwsis or proginwskw).

Some final thoughts (that are hopefully helpful):
A dissertation is a long journey, but it helps if you focus on one chapter at a time. Once you finish  the introductory chapter, treat each chapter as a paper in its own right. However,
Keep the big picture in mind: in other words, be constantly asking yourself how that chapter fits in with your thesis. A couple times I got lost and actually had to remind myself what I was supposed to be proving!
Figure out formatting and abbreviations early on: I wasted a lot of time going back and fixing abbreviations to fit SBL standards (or, in some cases, making up my own if SBL didn't have it). Do this chapter by chapter and make sure you stay consistent.
Constantly update your bibliography: unfortunately, I waited until near the end, and let me tell you there's nothing more daunting that putting together a 30-page bibliography from scratch!
Proofread and have others proofread: this is a lesson I had to learn early on. By the time you're writing your dissertation, sloppy work with typos is not acceptable (in retrospect, I think I could have done better, both stylistically and technically, on all those papers and articles I wrote leading up to my dissertation). After the first chapter, I learned that I needed to proofread each chapter at least 6 times  (don't try to do 6 read-throughs all at once, trust me on this), and then I had 3 other people proofread for me as well (here's a tip: make a deal with another ph.d. student or two that you'll read their dissertation if they'll read yours).

And now, when all is said and done, I have the summer to revise my dissertation (thanks to feedback from my primary, secondary, and outside readers) and, if the Lord wills, eventually try to publish it. For now, I think I'll just take a deep breath and go read something totally unrelated to Academic Biblical studies, preferably something involving spaceships, aliens, and distant planets :)

 

Dissertation Defended!

By the grace of God and the mercy of my readers, I have successfully defended my dissertation! The prayers of my friends and acquaintances were gratefully appreciated. I am also grateful to those who went out of their way to support me, and to my three proofreaders. You all know who you are! This morning I will make some final changes before printing out copies for the library, but I have passed my defense and will be graduating with a Ph.D. in New Testament this month (this summer, though, I've got some more work to do to try to make this something that can especially contribute to scholarship).

The next few posts on this blog will be a discussion of doctoral work and dissertations.

My readers were Dr. David Alan Black (my advisor), Dr. David Beck (also from Southeastern), and Dr. Gene L. Green (from Wheaton). My title is "A Foreknown Destiny for the Socially Destitute: An Examination of 1 Peter's Concept of Foreknowledge in the Establishment of Social-Spiritual Identity."
My abstract is as follows:

begin abstract
"Much has been written on the social and spiritual status of the audience of 1 Peter. Scholarship has not, however, devoted much space to exploring how foreknowledge in the first section of 1 Peter relates to the development of social and spiritual identity. First of all, most scholars see the terms prognwsis (1 Pet 1:2) and proginwskw (1:20) as representing either God's foreordination or his previous commitment to a relationship with believers (i.e., "loving beforehand"). Secondly, virtually nobody has discussed how these two terms, together with the concept of foreknowledge in 1 Pet 1:10-12, factor into 1 Peter's argumentation and theology from 1:1-2:10.

This dissertation will attempt to demonstrate that foreknowledge in the first major section of 1 Peter acts as a word of comfort to offset the audience's status of social displacement, ultimately pointing them towards their new social status as a new community bound to Jesus Christ. In the process of developing this thesis, this study will explore both social scientific criticism and lexical semantics.

Regarding the former, this study will interact with John H. Elliott's A Home for the Homeless and its critics, defending Elliott's contention that 1 Peter's audience consisted of literal strangers (i.e., the socially displaced) while acknowledging that this concept of social displacement functions as a broader, spiritual paradigm regarding the relationship of the Christian to the world.

Secondly, this study will examine every occurrence of prognwsis (1 Pet 1:2) and proginwskw (1 Pet 1:20) in the literature of A.D. 1-100 and the Septuagint, demonstrating that he overwhelming sense of these words is "prescience" (knowledge of the future or the act of knowing the future). This study then examines 1 Pet 1:1-2, 10-12, and 20 within their immediate contexts in the epistle.

Finally, this study examines the concepts of foreknowledge and social identity within the broader scope of 1 Peter's theology. It is demonstrated how foreknowledge acts as a bridge from the state of displacement to the new state of the believer's social identity in Christ. In this way, foreknowledge acts as a word of comfort in 1 Peter, for both the present, negative circumstances of the epistle's audience and their ultimate destiny (bound up with Christ) have forever existed in the mind of God and are a part of his grand master plan."
end abstract

On the plus side, I believe this is the only study to date that actually looks at every single occurrence of prognwsis and proginwskw within the literature of the 1st century (A.D.). Also, this is one of the few studies that actually provides a substantial defense of Elliott's work (for the most part; there's one area I do disagree with him, but I mostly defend him). Some areas for improvement (among others) brought up by the readers include a tendency to overstate my case (to the potential alienation of some of the readers I'm trying to convince), not enough work on the communities of Asia Minor and their social makeup, not enough work on "foreknowledge" as a concept (including an examination of other words that refer to foreknowledge and also the need for more awareness of Greco-Roman discussions of foreknowledge during this period), and the need for more work discussing linguistic theory that would challenge my own methodology.

Also, my advisor strongly suggests that I need to have mastered Latin at this point rather than relying on translations (note to self: start working on that this summer!) He was pleased that I provided my own translations for most other languages, though. Let the reader note: you don't have to be a brilliant linguist (like my dissertation readers!) to be able to utilize German and French without relying on a translation. Honestly, I was one of the worst students in Southeastern's theological German class (I got a "conditional pass," which meant I had to do extra work that summer to pass the class), but I worked hard at developing adequate translations of my German sources within my dissertation, deliberately ignoring available translations (e.g., for Goppelt's classic commentary, I go with the German instead of the English). I stress again: I'm not the smartest with languages (much less than I used to think, in fact, despite growing up bilingual), but it's less a matter of intelligence and more a matter of willingness to spend a lot of time working through a work in its original language. (one other note: the old printed script German is extremely difficult to read! Seriously!!)

One final note: I am extremely grateful for a very balanced critique by my outsider reader. His comments are gracious and fair (despite the fact that I know there's at least two key points of my dissertation that are at odds with material he's published!) Dr Green's comments will form the basis of my revisions this summer (if the Lord wills, assuming I don't decide to run off and join the circus and leave academia behind forever! :) Fellow ph.d. students will know what I mean). I am also grateful for a very encouraging dialogue with Drs. Black and Beck. Overall, the defense was a very positive (though long!) experience (we started at 2 pm, and I think by the time Dr. Black was done with me it was about quarter to 4).