Saturday, November 10, 2018

The Apostle Paul Charity Foundation - Urgent Request

Was way up north recently, further north even than Derby. What a barren place this far north is - driving through villages I passed so many empty faces, hunched shoulders, purposeless lives, street urchins covered in coal dust, old people watching our car with pleading expressions, grey bricks, small corner shops, brown corduroy trousers and wellington boots covered in actual dirt. No sooner had we passed through one town I found myself mesmerised by field after field of emptiness, dotted with occasional animals. Even the cows had haunted, empty eyes, dammit.

For those of us who live south of the Thames, this is heart-wrenching, and it was all I could do to urge James, my taxi chauffeur, to drive faster. As my shock increased, I just wanted to stop and buy them an avocado latte, offer them stable high-speed fibreoptic broadband, or handout some of my quinoa and pumpkin seed low GI healthy protein salad. But this was beyond my financial means and there is so much need.

So I’ve decided to start a charity fund for the needy up north. Please generously donate and we will see that every one of these people – and that is what they are don’t forget – can to try a taster of the new hemp and chia organic Fregola dish Waitrose are selling at the moment.

Sunday, November 04, 2018

From a "Devotional" I will never publish cos need to keep job etc

Day 4

Character. Not all of us have it. This wouldn’t be a very good devotional if we didn’t think a little about character, ponder how to improve it and look to those who offer us noteworthy examples.

To wit, I turn to a beautiful episode from the life of the greatest theologian of the 20th century, Karl Barth. Pope Pius XII allegedly called him “the greatest theologian since Thomas Aquinas”, whichis quite the admission for a Catholic, to which Barth apparently smiled and responded something about this proving the infallibility of the Pope.

Nice. Man had humour, too.

But Barth, and this is today’s lesson, also knew when to listen to criticism. In this case, his commissioning editors.

To cut a long story short, Barth had a bit of a dispute with a onetime theological friend, some dick called Emil Brunner.

Sadly, Brunner had lost his theological bearings, having begun to sacrifice chickens to Zeus, so Barth wrote a short, sharp response. In one of his less guarded moments he submitted the manuscript to the publishing house, “Theologischer Verlag”, with a bit of a wordy original title. Although admittedly unconfirmed, it ran as follows:

No, an Answer to Brunner, the Privileged Cis White Male with Bad breath and Dandruff Who Can't Get Laid Because His Face Looks Like It Has Been Repeatedly Hit With a Shovel. Sad.

At once, the publishing house advised caution. But despite the fact that Barth’s cause was noble, he was teachable; he listened to critique with humility. He heard the objection and hit the delete button (certainly a skill I have yet to master).

And within days, the book subtitle had been shorted, and it was published simply as No! An Answer to Brunner.

That, my friends, is character.

I think we all know the take-home point today, and it will be worth spelling it out for you to prayerfully ponder:

What book subtitle have you written that needs to be shortened?

Thursday, October 25, 2018

Aaaand a carrot

If yesterday's post was a bit of a rhetorical stick, today's is a carrot! Namely, advice to go and have a read of my friend Lucy Peppiatt's Why Study Theology? Reflections for the evangelical charismatic church. She rustles up a bunch of reasons why studying theology is a good thing!

By the way, if you don't yet know her work, go straight to Amazon and do a search, before a can of heavenly smitation gets opened up. Because that's how these things work.

And another by the way, I obvs wasn't trying to say, yesterday, that feelings and emotions are unimportant. My point was precisely to stress the unity of the huperson[1]in their intellectual, emotional, etc. condition.

[1]. This largely defunct blog doesn't really offer the world much (okay, anything), but at least it gives the opportunity to score me a few public woke points in the progressive league tables. Because I’m better than you.

Wednesday, October 24, 2018

From head to heart? And other anti-intellectual McTheological slop

Popular evangelicalism so often struggles with destructive anti-intellectualism, with knee-jerk suspicion of the life of the mind. It is a plague that comes clothed in piety, which makes it even more sickening, but rear its head it does, like a floater in a hot tub.

Witness sermon after sermon peppered with the claim that the real issue is the heart (read: emotional or subjective reaction or recognition), and not the mind. Preachers will insist that things need to go from your head and then into your heart, or anything you know means very little. You know what I’m talking about – I’m betting you’ve heard this stuff, too.

Evangelicals – and perhaps more so those influenced by holiness or charismatic traditions – risk not taking the task of the life of the mind seriously. It tends to a kind of pragmatism that assumes certain decisions are not already theologically loaded. It then ploughs on as if the discipline of theological meditation and study is suspended by the more pressing task of practical discipleship, or hands-on leadership decisions, and such like.

The problem, of course, is that this is utterly delusional.

For starters, the Greek word, καρδία (heart), doesn’t mean “muh-feels as opposed to suspicious mental work”. Rather, as the Exegetical Dictionary of the New Testament states, it refers “to the inner person, the seat of understanding, knowledge, and will” (Horst Robert Balz and Gerhard Schneider eds., Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1990–, p.250). Knowledge and understanding! That’s what the heart, biblically speaking, is all about.

The Louw-Nida Greek New Testament lexicon presses the issue:
καρδία, ας f: (a figurative extension of meaning of καρδία 'heart,' not occurring in the NT in its literal sense) the causative source of a person's psychological life in its various aspects, but with special emphasis upon thoughts.
This is all related to an important Hebrew term, which presents us with much the same picture. Just go check out the standard Hebrew lexicon, the BDB, on the Hebrew לֵבָב for more on this, and you’ll soon see that it is better not to divide head and heart, or mind and emotions, as if the latter are about something “deeper” and more important.

Indeed, where anti-intellectuals tend to drive wedges, the scriptural witness brings heart and mind together. So Deuteronomy 6:5 states that “You shall love the LORD your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your might” to emphasise the unity of the human being in relationship with God (See also Matt. 22:37; Mark 12:30; Luke 10:27).

Those entering theological education, then, don’t need to apologise for training the life of the mind, or feel bashful for thinking hard and deeply about theological matters, even when the so-called direct “practical application” seems less obvious. For all of these activities are about what it is to be human, what it is to love God with all of what we are, and, crucially, to begin the task of uncovering the ways (sometimes unhealthy) theological thinking is present every step of the way, whether we like it or not.

Theological thinking manifests in all kinds of often hidden ways, you see. Perhaps it is more implicit, such as theologies that shape the way we pray, how we stress our prayers, what we say, and so on. We might not even be able to explain this kind of theology, but it shapes how we behave in multiple ways.

And then there are those “theological scripts” hidden under the guise of “common sense”. For example, some might think of Christian sanctification as an ongoing process whereby the Christian progresses slowly towards greater levels of “holiness” or deeper levels of “Christ-likeness”. That perhaps seems like common sense to some, and so it becomes a massively loaded theological set of beliefs that control much of our thinking, praying, preaching etc.

But where do these ideas about sanctification come from? After all, doesn’t Paul say we are dead and already seated in the heavenly places in Christ? Where are we meant to progress from there? And how does this assume we measure progress? By means of our own subjective sense of advancement? Someone else’s? And where does Jesus fit into this, except perhaps as the originating power who, by his Spirit, “helps” us make more progress?

You see, this “common sense” theology is already committed to a whole set of theological beliefs that need a good deal more thought. Indeed, such beliefs need repentance, as they often rush head first into the dead end of synergism and moralism, which are tied most often either to despair and guilt, on the one hand, or pride and self-delusion, on the other.

Source: https://darlenenbocek.com/facts/monophysitecontroversy
What is more, the discipline of theology, that activity of concentrated study and thought, is part and parcel of what the church has seen as its task. Just go and search online for the “Chalcedonian Definition”, something central to Christian orthodoxy, and you’ll soon stumble into careful, precise thinking and study that makes most modern academic theology seem like reading Mr Men books.

The point is this: if we shy away from the discipline of hard thought and study, as if it were something less important, or tangential to a life of discipleship, we are in danger of becoming unhealthy Christians committed to all kinds of theological slop, blown around by the latest jargonized McTheology that has more in common with candy floss than healthy food.

And finally, it is important not to be tempted to wave these concerns away with accusations of “ivory tower” theologians trying to justify their existence. Why? Because the evangelical church is a long, long way away from that danger. It would be as silly as suggesting famous politicians don’t spend enough money in their campaigns.

“About this we have much to say that is hard to explain, since you have become dull in understanding. For though by this time you ought to be teachers, you need someone to teach you again the basic elements of the oracles of God. You need milk, not solid food” (Hebrews 5:11-12)

Friday, June 15, 2018

My Tübingen haul

Nice book haul in Tübingen, today, though I'm not sure when I'll find the time to read them as these days my other responsibilities have a way of consuming my time… But first up is Hans-Joachim Höhn's Essays über Identität und Heimat, which touches upon a very important subject that receives far too little by way of theological reflection.



Next is Seewald's Dogma im Wandel, which might be of interest to those thinking theologically about "a generous orthodoxy" with Graham Tomlin. The author is the astonishingly freshfaced but clearly talented Seewald, who is also the youngest theology professor in Germany. Very impressive!



Gisbert Greshake, who wrote a massive volume on the Trinity, turns to Christian hope. He seems to end up advocating a universal  hope.


Finally, Körtner's Dogmatik, which is part of the Lehrwerk Evangelische Theologie, is not one I set out to purchase, but so many sentences grabbed my attention I just had to bag it. I felt enriched just skimming it!

Here are the planned volumes with the those in charge in brackets:


Saturday, December 09, 2017

$1000 to prove Garrow wrong!

Readers of my blog will know that I have pointed to Alan Garrow's solution to the Synoptic Problem before, and now this ...!

Despite the fact that I'm sitting here with a fever, I need to take the time to put this link up here; you really do need to give this a read.

https://www.alangarrow.com/blog/barts-1000-gamble

(Feel free to drop round here, Evan, and offer me $1000 for random opinion pieces!*)

*Seriously. We need to start saving for a new kitchen. 

Monday, December 04, 2017

Christology in Review - Norelli

Tuesday, September 06, 2016

Potentially justified? Paul, Wolter, universalism and Romans 5:18

Romans 5:18 Ἄρα οὖν ὡς δι᾽ ἑνὸς παραπτώματος εἰς πάντας ἀνθρώπους εἰς κατάκριμα, οὕτως καὶ δι᾽ ἑνὸς δικαιώματος εἰς πάντας ἀνθρώπους εἰς δικαίωσιν ζωῆς·
“Therefore just as one man’s trespass led to condemnation for all, so one man’s act of righteousness leads to justification and life for all” (NRSV)
Michael Wolter, in commenting on this verse in Der Brief an die Römer (Teilband 1), 356, notes the universal perspective of Paul’s language, and speaks of how it characterises God’s justifying activity. What precisely is that characterisation?

„Sie enthält das Potential zur Rechtfertigung aller Menschen“ (356)

Potential?

The logic clearly wants to take seriously i) the need for human faith (see Wolter, 357-58). But presumably lurking behind is also a concern to honour ii) other Pauline texts such as Galatians 5:21 (certain actors “will not inherit the kingdom of God”), and iii) the “receiving” spoken of in 5:17 (λαμβάνοντες).

I nevertheless see some problems with this reading.

(A)

It follows from his claim that there are two groups which are necessarily ordered according to size, or rather population: All are under condemnation (Group A), but God graciously justifies those who actualise the potential, by having faith in Jesus Christ (Group B). In other words, Group A is larger than Group B.

To rehearse a well-known point, however, from 5:15 onwards, the good stuff (gift, Christ, grace etc.) is contrasted with the bad stuff (Adam, condemnation, trespass etc.). And as Karl Barth noted: this contrast involves “no equilibrium … one may not say: as the trespass, so also is the free gift”. To use contemporary idiom, the gift is way more awesome than the trespass! (Or, to use German contemporary idiom: “Der gute Stoff ist sowas von übelst viel geiler als das abgewrackte Zeug”. If Barth were alive today, friends, just maybe that’s what he would say.)

But if the condemnation is certain, not potential, how can one speak of that which is only potential in terms of “grace abounding all the more” (Rom 5:20)? If it isn’t about the size of the groups, then one will be forced to emphasise another distinguishing aspect of Group B, in order to make it clear that grace super abounds.

Is that distinguishing aspect--necessary in order to make the contrast Paul generates in 5:15ff sensible--forthcoming? Of course, one may offer philosophical justifications (so Anselm, for example), but is it exegetically obvious? Perhaps one could focus on the nature of the act, or the identity of the actor? But does Paul’s argument do this?

(B)

And of course, as it often pointed out, the Wolter-style treatment of this verse at the very least disrupts (even if, given contextual matters, does not negate) the parallels in 5:18. After all, Paul doesn’t say that one man’s trespass “potentially” lead to condemnation for all, which would better maintain the balance. And of course, the πάντας … πάντας (“all … all”) parallel really becomes, in this reading, “all … somewhat less than all”. Bearing in mind (A), this is surely not a reading without problems.

(C)

What is more, should human faith be understood in the terms Wolter imagines, in this Pauline argument, especially given its absence from the discussion. This, indeed, leads to another are of hot debate in Pauline studies, but some will argue that it places faith into a theological argument that effectively displaces the revelation of God in Christ and by the Spirit, subordinating such Christian rhetoric under another (idolatrous) theological system.

(D)

Let us not forget that a straightforward reading of this verse is not to isolate it from the rest of a clearly eschatologically dualist Paul. After all, Paul writes in this letter:

  • “For there is no distinction, since all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God; the are now justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus” (3:22-24 NRSV – see Jens Adam on this verse, and how “all” functions); 
  • “For God has imprisoned all in disobedience so that he may be merciful to all” (11:32 NRSV).
And there are plenty of other passages besides which point in a similar direction.

Whether this means that a) Paul was a universalist, b) Paul’s theology is compatible with (Christian) universalism or c) what Paul writes here is compatible with universalism are key questions, and they need to be brought into discussion with exegesis of 2 Thess 1 and so on.

The only point I want to make here is that Paul does not write here that “just as one man’s trespass led to condemnation for all, so one man’s act of righteousness potentially leads to justification and life for all”

Michael Wolter and ἡ ἀγάπη τοῦ θεοῦ

ἡ ἀγάπη τοῦ θεοῦ (Rom 5:5)

Subjective or objective genitive? is a common question. Is, say, Augustine right (human love to God)? Or, say, Cranfield, who argues that a “statement of the fact of God’s love for us is a more cogent proof of the security of our hope than a statement of the fact of our love for Him would be”.

Michael Wolter, when commenting on this verse in Der Brief an die Römer (Teilband 1), 328, makes the following point:
Die Liebe Gottes ist nicht bei Gott geblieben, sondern sie ist zu einem Teil der von ihm Geliebten geworden
In other words, Paul is speaking about God's love, but precisely because it is God's love, it also becomes our love.

Tuesday, June 14, 2016

REPENT!!



I am of the opinion that the theme "repentance" is not given enough space in works on systematic theology.

Just look in the index for a paucity of references in a random modern systematics on your shelf, I challenge you.

Perhaps because it is associated with "pastoral theology", not systematics proper? Perhaps because it is seen as rather old-fashioned religious language? Perhaps because it has negative connotations associated with conditionality and contractual theological schemes? Perhaps because it seems too moralising?

All involve misunderstandings.

And it remains true that it was a central theme in the ministry of Jesus. A thesis: it is the misappropriation of the language of "repentance" that has lead to its neglect.

In the above picture, Thomas Söding (in Die Verkündigung Jesu) writes about the nature of repentance in Jesus' proclamation. The coming of the kingdom doesn't depend on repentance. It's the other way around: The necessity and possibility of the repentance and faith depends on the nearness of the kingdom.

This resonates somewhat with Calvin's distinction (in the Institutes) between "evangelical" and "legal" repentance.
"Others seeing that the term is used in Scripture in different senses, have set down two forms of repentance, and, in order to distinguish them, have called the one Legal repentance; or that by which the sinner, stung with a sense of his sin, and overwhelmed with fear of the divine anger, remains in that state of perturbation, unable to escape from it. The other they term Evangelical repentance; or that by which the sinner, though grievously downcast in himself, yet looks up and sees in Christ the cure of his wound, the solace of his terror; the haven of rest from his misery"

Sunday, June 05, 2016

When the Son of Man Didn't Come

“So Christians must choose. Either the NT isn't even somewhat reliable, or Jesus was a failed apocalyptic prophet. In either case this falsifies Christianity ”. So says John Loftus in his conclusion to his essay “At Best Jesus Was a Failed Apocalyptic Prophet”, in The Christian Delusion: Why Faith Fails. 

Got your attention?

June 1st, Fortress released When the Son of Man Didn't Come: A Constructive Proposal on the Delay of the Parousia, by Christopher M. Hays, in collaboration with Brandon Gallaher, Julia S. Konstantinovsky, Richard J. Ounsworth OP, and Casey A. Strine.

Picture from the Fortress webpage
Unsatisfied by Wright's take on "the coming of the Son of Man", perhaps because of Dale Allison's well-known criticisms? Not sure Eddie Adams' work solves all the issues? Wary of Dunn, Allison and others who are quick to say "Jesus got it wrong"? Even more suspicious of those with an ideological chip on their shoulder who want to prohibit any further consideration as mere apologetics? Well, here is a different way forward worth your time and analysis. The argument is one I've summarised for undergraduates for years, so I'm delighted it is finally hitting the printing press.

Chris Hays explains the gist of the volume as follows:
"Jesus did prophesy his return in the first century, and that didn't happen. And that is okay because prophecy is, by its nature, conditional, contingent upon the responses of humans. We argue that is how prophecy works in the OT, that multiple NT authors understood the eschatological consummation in the same way, and that many church fathers thought the same thing. Then we run the argument out in theological terms, showing that this fits with accounts of eschatology in Catholicism, Protestantism and Eastern Orthodoxy. As a consequence, we argue that the timing of the eschaton should be thought of as tied up with Christian mission and ethics. We also include some very nice footnotes"
When I first heard the argument at King's, the brilliant duo, Casey and Chris, made a very thought-provoking case. I am very much looking forward to exploring the details more closely.

Wednesday, April 27, 2016

Wolter's Der Brief an die Römer


I am very excited by the arrival of the EKK commentary on Romans, penned by Michael Wolter of the University of Bonn.

The Evangelisch-Katholischer Kommentar zum Neuen Testament, published by Neukirchener, is arguably the most important NT commentary series in any language, so this is a publishing event whatever you look at it.*

And I have enjoyed Wolter's scholarship for a while now; his Romans commentary nicely compliments his Paulus, as well as the essays written in dialogue with his theology of Paul (all pictured below). I'll post a few highlights over the coming weeks.


*Schrage's huge and important EKK commentary on 1 Corinthians was essential reading for my own work on Paul. For German speakers I should also mention that the more conservative HTA (Historisch Theologische Auslegung) is mounting a very decent series of its own, and Schnabel's recent commentary on Romans only covers Romans 1-5 in 700 pages!

Tuesday, April 12, 2016

Quick book notice: Martin Ebner's Jesus von Nazaret

Labels:

Tuesday, March 22, 2016

The Single Blogpost New Testament Commentary

Is this the Fundamentalist NT Commentary Edition? Or is it closer to home? Is it The Not Far Beneath the Surface of Many in Our Churches Edition? Or is it perhaps the Functional Theology of Many Preachers Edition?

I'll let you decide. Either way, if this doesn't make your skin crawl, we should have a chat.

Matthew

The exact presentation of all Jesus said and did. Word for word cos inerrancy. Very Jewish take, though, cos it’s all about the law, saying "it is fulfilled" (which proves stuff), and so on. 

But basically you are totally not Sermon on the Mount material, are you? 

You’re filth. 

Nevertheless, there are SO many moral lessons here which will be the basis for most of my sermons. 

Oh yes, Jesus died and rose again.

Don’t understand all this? Read Romans.

Mark

The exact presentation of all Jesus said and did. Word for word cos inerrancy. But a bit shorter this time though. BUT THIS TOTALLY RECONCILES WITH MATTHEW.

SO many moral lessons here which will be the basis for most of my sermons. Oh yes, Jesus died and rose again.

Don’t understand all this? Read Romans.

Luke

The exact presentation of all Jesus said and did. Word for word cos inerrancy. Slightly different emphasis on social justice. BUT THIS TOTALLY RECONCILES WITH MATTHEW AND MARK.

SO many moral lessons here which will be the basis for most of my sermons. Oh yes, Jesus died and rose again.

Don’t understand all this? Read Romans.

John

The exact presentation of all Jesus said and did. Word for word cos inerrancy. Very spiritual this one. High. No, not that sort of high, you scumbag. And THIS ONE TOTALLY, TOTALLY RECONCILES PERFECTLY WITH THE OTHER GOSPELS. DENY IT AND YOU ARE FILTH. YOU WANT TO BE FILTH? WELL MOVE ON THEN. 

John 3:16 fist pump.

You still need to read Romans, though.

Postscript to the Gospels

The real take-home point in all this, by the way, is that God’s standard for you is impossibly high, which further means you are in a lot of trouble because of all your filthy shenanigans. 

Denying this only makes you a Catholic. 

Plus Jesus died and rose again which is central to the criterion which Paul will make clear (see below)

Acts

This is what the church should really look like. REVIVAL! We need to pray more. Repent more. Look at Paul going all over the place! Maps! Here are some maps! AND THIS TOTALLY RECONCILES WITH GALATIANS CHRONOLOGY.

Romans

Okay, now we’re getting to the important stuff. Down to theological business. In sum, here it is:

Dear Romans,
Yes, hello and all that, but let me get to my favourite bit. Namely, a can of cosmic whoop ass is coming your way cos you deserve Chinese burns of biblical proportions.

Three chapters saying: You’re. Filthy. Scum.

And it’s the same whether you’re Jew or Gentile, so don’t get cocky. All have failed to meet the necessary (but, ok, also impossible) standards. Especially Catholics.

But hang on there, another bloke is taking that divine hostility instead – Yes, God is hostile folks, get used to it. God gets nicer a few chapters later.

Now, and this is absolutely key, so long as you choose this unchoosable criterion you'll be able to join those people over there who have satisfied this criterion by choosing it. Make sense? (It would do if you were one of us)

And then you'll get all the good stuff and be able to sing 3 cord songs with guitars and rejoice in the eschatological waterboarding of those who didn't choose it.

Oh, yes, I suppose there is some stuff here, too, about how Jew and Gentile should get on and be nice to each other. Whatever.

Oh, in case you were confused about the “standards” thing above, there is also some stuff here about now living up to that impossible standard after all.

Love and hugs unless Satan gets you, Paul

Rest of the New Testament 

It totally says what Romans says, too. At least it should do if you're reading it right.


Which leads us to…

Revelation

That’s the can of whoop ass I was telling you about, in IMAX 3D.

Read Romans again.

Sunday, March 20, 2016

A short list of must-own books on Paul?

Ronaldo Ghenov asked a question on Twitter today:
I’ve pondered his question and realised that I would struggle to answer it. My own favourites are very personal affairs, those that address questions I have wrestled with in light of my own particular concerns. However, if I would like to suggest a well-rounded education in Paul which emphasises all of the best interpretive angels, it is difficult to point to one or two individual books. My own education was formed over many years, reading multiple articles and monographs, many of which I have forgotten. And there have been books not directly or exclusively on Paul that have influenced my reading of Paul rather profoundly. And my recommendations would be different for 1st year undergrads than for Masters level students, or even 3rd year undergrads, for that matter.

But if you are a pastor, as I believe Ronaldo is, who knew about some contemporary debates in Paul and wanted books on his or her shelf for growing in ability to preach Paul with clarity, I would suggest those that, to a greater or lesser extent of success, do two things:

  1. Give an account of the historical particularity of Paul’s letters and are, in this task, fluent with the methods and tools of (not necessarily only modern) historical criticism. This would also mean being aware of some, if not all, of the key interpretative debates, such as those relating to justification, chronology and such like.
  2. Give an account of the theological dynamic in reading Paul, to be clear that to read these texts aright in the church is to be encountered by the Word of God. That is to acknowledge i) that the proper way of reading this text is fashioned by the “object” of this knowledge, namely God. ii) That this knowledge of God is the result of gracious self-giving in the person of Jesus Christ and by the Spirit and so clarifies the importance of the living, Trinitarian God, and that iii) this implies a negative corollary, that any theological knowledge that proceeds in a way that undermines this gracious self-giving is to be repudiated as idolatry.

For sure, to see how this pans out in different readings of Paul needs skills and examples. So, to my recommendations which, to be honest, could all have been exchanged with others not listed:

  • Some of the chapters on Paul’s letters, plus the introductory chapters, in David A. deSilva, An Introduction to the New Testament: Contexts, Methods & Ministry Formation (Leicester: Apollos, 2004). This would give a good foundation in issues relating to social-science (honour-shame and limited good in particular) and broader historical-critical issues.
  • David G. Horrell, An Introduction to the Study of Paul (London: T & T Clark, 2015) is probably the best overview of contemporary scholarly debates.
  • J. Louis Martyn, Galatians: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, AB (London: Doubleday, 1997), which majors on the historical particularity of the text (at least as it relates to Paul’s opponents even if it ignores other issues) as well as brings to bear key theological concerns for careful reading.
  • Chapters 2 (“The Current Crisis: The Capture of Paul’s Gospel by Methodological Arianism”), 6 (“Connecting the Dots: One Problem, One Text, and the Way Ahead”) and 12 (“Rereading Paul’s ΔΙΚΑΙΟ-Language”) in Chris Tilling, ed., Beyond Old and New Perspectives on Paul: Reflections on the Work of Douglas Campbell (Eugene, Or.: Cascade, 2014)
  • Read something that annoys you. If you are more conservative, read something by a more liberal scholar and likewise, if you are more liberal, read something by a conservative. I learn so much from books that annoy me, even if it isn’t always what the author would have hoped.
  • Read and reread Ephesians!
Now if I were addressing a PhD student, I would mention many other names, such as Watson, Barclay, Wright, Campbell, Gaventa, Gorman, Sanders ... to mention just a few. 

Answering your question, Ronaldo, has not been easy!

Oh, and Paul's Divine Christology, go on then! 

Saturday, March 19, 2016

Laidlaw College on Youtube

Have kindly published a number of lectures. Very grateful to them for this, do check them out. For example, see:

"Why the Narrative Shape of the Gospels Really Matter" - Public Lecture with Rikk Watts




The Acts of the Apostles as the Mission of God - Public Lecture by Professor Steve Walton




Mark's Geography and the origin of Mark's Gospel with Professor Richard Bauckham

Sunday, March 13, 2016

The Matthew Conflator Hypothesis update

Really glad to say that Alan Garrow's paper, "Streeter's 'Other' Synoptic Solution: The Matthew Conflator Hypothesis", has now been published by NTS, and you can access it here.

I believe it was also one of my questions when I first encountered Alan's thesis at King's, namely "what would Mark Goodacre make of this?" Alan's written a helpful post in response, here.

I am no expert on these matters but Alan's work seems rather compelling to my mind and has, at the very least, given me much to ponder. With people like Mark and Alan to fuel these debates, the Synoptic problem has a bright future.

Thursday, March 10, 2016

Blogging through Markus Gabriel's Why the World Does Not Exist Pt. 6

This post continues my summary of Gabriel's first chapter. His introduction is summarised in four parts, all of which can be read here.

Markus Gabriel, Gregory S. Moss, trans., Why the World Does Not Exist (Cambridge: Polity, 2015)

Chapter I. What is this Actually: the World?

You and the Universe

Materialism

Gabriel defines physicalism as the claim that all existing things are located in the universe and can, for that reason, be investigated physically. Materialism states that all existing things are made up of matter (28). Of course, materialism is variously understood, but here he employs it simply to state: 1) “everything is found in the universe” and 2) “everything that is found in the universe is material or has material foundations” (29). So the idea that my thoughts about unicorns are ontological in a way that is not material, is refuted on the basis that the thoughts are themselves merely the product of physical states. This entire set of claims, Gabriel argues, is problematized by two reasons and – even more importantly – flatly falsified by a further two.

First, Gabriel asks:

“How can one explain, for example, that, although brain states are material, they are able to refer to non-material objects in the form of images? How can material objects, in any way, be about anything that is not material? When the materialist admits that brain states are about something that is not material, he has already admitted that there is something that is not material, namely all of the non-material objects brain states can be about” (29).

Quite simply: “Even if all our thoughts put be understood as brain states and, therefore, as material, it would still be about all sorts of things that we do not believe to be material” (29, italics mine).

Second, if my non- material mental imaginations are based on material conditions, then it follows that the thought “there are only material conditions” is itself determined by material conditions. So the question becomes, “how does the materialist know that his thought ‘Only material conditions exist’ is not a fantasy?” (30). Of course, the materialist could imagine that he could proceed experimentally, to demonstrate that all objects and all thoughts are material, or based on material conditions. But the amount of material needed to substantiate this claim is too much. One cannot experimentally verify the materialist claim that “Only material conditions exist”. This is to say that the materialist claim is a metaphysical assumption.

More significantly, materialism is simply false for the following two reasons. First, materialism struggles with the problem of identification. Gabriel illustrates this issue in the following way:

“Materialism teaches that, in the end, my representation of the coffee table with coffee stains is reducible to the fact that coffee table with coffee stains consists of physical objects such as subatomic particles. Yet, in order to pick correctly out of all subatomic particles the relevant subatomic particles for the coffee table with coffee stains – that is, to identify the right cluster of particles – it is taken for granted that we are searching for the particles of the coffee table (and not, for instance, the particles of the remote control that is lying on the coffee table). In order to do that we must recognise the existence of the coffee table, for only the coffee table leads us to its particles” (31, italics mine).

The point of this is to transfer the need to identify something before its material constitution is established, to fantasies: “we must recognise the existence of fantasies, and there with non-material representational contents, in order to be able to identify the group particles that are responsible for it” (31). This is to say that materialism needs to recognise “the existence of representations in order for it to be able to deny them that the next step”, which is simply a contradiction. Therefore, materialism is false.

Second, materialism is false because the idea of materialism is not material. Materialism is a theory, and the truth of that theory cannot be established on the basis of materialism’s commitments.

All of this is to say that not all things exist in the domain of the physical universe, a claim that would only work if physicalism or materialism were endorsed. And this we cannot do for materialism is false.

Labels: ,

Sunday, February 28, 2016

Blogging through Markus Gabriel's Why the World Does Not Exist Pt. 5

This post begins my summary of Gabriel's first chapter. His introduction is summarised in four parts, all of which can be read here.

Markus Gabriel, Gregory S. Moss, trans., Why the World Does Not Exist (Cambridge: Polity, 2015)

Chapter I. What is this Actually: the World?

You and the Universe

In this chapter, Gabriel philosophically investigates the question “where does everything actually take place?” He illustrates his argument by pointing out the difference between planets and galaxies on the one hand, and living rooms on the other. Because physics “concerns itself not with living rooms but, at best, with physical objects in living rooms”, it is fair to say that living rooms “are simply not found in physics, though planets are” (22-23). This leads to the conclusion that “living rooms and planets do not belong to the same domain of objects at all” (23).

It is important to understand that a domain of objects is a domain which contains particular kinds of objects “in which rules obtain that link these objects with one another” (23). Gabriel offers the following examples of object domains: politics (which includes voters, community festivals, tax dollars et cetera) and whole numbers (which includes the numbers seven and five). This is to say that object domains are not necessarily spatially defined.

But the most important thing to come from all of this, first, is that all objects are found in object domains, and that there are many different object domains. If, for example, I want to visit an office, it would be confusing object domains to suggest that the domain of the office concerns electrons and chemical bonds. Indeed, the “physical or chemical analysis of a particular point in space-time taken from the office is no longer an analysis of the office” (24). So, to say that my office is located in the universe is not quite correct. The universe is merely the domain of objects of natural sciences, especially physics. The office may include some of this, but also other domains.

All of this allows Gabriel to address a common claim that humans, because they are small specks in a massive universe, cannot be meaningful, significant or important. For genuinely, it does not matter to the dead galaxy, whose light is only just reaching us, whether or not I ate breakfast this morning (26). A best case scenario is that we are “one biological species among others in the universe” (26), moving around simply to increase our own chances of survival. But the real reason for a sense of insignificance that the size of the universe and its indifference to humanity might lend us …

“…depends much more on the fact that we mix up completely different object domains. The universe signifies not merely a thing but also particular kind of perspective… The universe, as large as it is, is only a part of the whole, part to which we have access by the specific methods linked with modern science” (26).

And this move is a mistake. “It would be exactly as if one were to think that there are only plants because one studied botany” (27).

All of this means that there are “many objects which do not exist in the universe” (27). The universe is merely one ontological province among others. But this does not mean “that the other object domains exist entirely outside of the universe, which would be a completely different (and false) theory” (27). Indeed, this leads into a more extensive argument which I will detail in the next post. It tackles the obvious materialist objection, that all the object domains Gabriel sites (offices, living rooms et cetera) belong very well in the universe because they consist of matter (which is studied by physics). 

Labels: ,

Thursday, February 25, 2016

Blogging through Markus Gabriel's Why the World Does Not Exist Pt. 4

This post completes my summary of Gabriel's introduction. Pt 1 is here, which sums up his discussion of metaphysics and constructivism. This set the stage for his own proposal, which is discussed in Pt 2, here, where I summarised his introduction of "new realism". Pt 3, here, introduces the notion of a plurality of worlds, different domains of existence. Today we canvas Gabriel's insistence that to ask about existence is to ask where something exists, which builds on Pt 3.

Markus Gabriel, Gregory S. Moss, trans., Why the World Does Not Exist (Cambridge: Polity, 2015)

Less than Nothing

Metaphysics claims that there is an all-encompassing rule, world formula (seen in the history of metaphysics from Thales of Miletus through Karl Marx to Stephen Hawking). Constructivism, claims that we cannot know the rule. New realism, “attempts consistently and seriously to answer the question whether, in principle, such a rule could exist” (11-12).

To answer this question, and develop his wider argument, it is necessary to understand what it means for something to exist at all. The key, here, is to ask where something exists. So the apparently obvious question is that for something to exist, it should exist only when found in the world. But the world is not found in the world. Gabriel asserts that “the world cannot in principle exist because it is not found in the world” (12). It cannot be sensed, tasted or touched. Nor is our thinking about it identical to the object of its thought. This is to say that we “can never grasp the whole. It is in principle too big for any thought” (12). This leads Gabriel to suggest that all worldviews are equally misguided (13).

The upshot is that Gabriel can assert a lot more exists than would be expected. If I can imagine unicorns on the other side of the moon, then they exist. But obviously these things do not exist in the object domain of the physical sciences. The key question is where these things exist, “[f]or everything that exists, exists somewhere – even if it is only in our imagination. Again, the one exception is the world… What we imagine when we believe in the world is, as in the apt title of a recent book by the star philosopher Slavoj Žižek, so to speak, ‘less than nothing’” (14, italics mine).

Next, we turn to his first chapter, What is this Actually: the World?

Labels: ,