Source: http://kerux.com/doc/1801.asp
Timestamp: 2019-04-19 11:18:47+00:00

Document:
*A revised version of an address given at the Kerux Conference (1999) at Westminster, California.
lightenment (Aufklärung) and for this reason the discipline must be viewed as destructive to the purity of Reformed theological orthodoxy.
From my perspective, the first two criticisms (application and perspectival) are the most persistent criticisms that appear upon the theological landscape today. The third criticism is not, however, without its vigorous adherents, and for that reason, this essay will address the third area of criticismthe relationship between Reformed Biblical Theology and the Enlightenment. In the current air of criticism, it is common to hear the more strident opponents of Biblical Theology simply attempt to discredit the discipline because it arose in the critical-liberal thought of the Enlightenment. A deductive argument is employed: Biblical Theology arose in the context of liberalism; therefore it is liberal.
1 Cf. Geerhardus Vos, Biblical Theology: Old and New Testaments (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1954) 17-18; Bernhard Weiss, Biblical Theology of The New Testament, trans. from 3rd revised edition by David Eaton (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1892) I: 26; Richard B. Gaffin, Jr., "Systematic Theology and Biblical Theology," in The New Testament Student and Theology, ed. John H. Skilton (Presbyterian and Reformed, 1976) III. 34; Brevard S. Childs, Biblical Theology of the Old and New Testaments: Theological Reflection on the Christian Bible (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1993) 4-5. An English translation of Gabler's address appeared in John Sandys-Wunsch and Laurence Eldredge, "J.P. Gabler and the Distinction Between Biblical and Dogmatic Theology: Translation, Commentary, and Discussion of His Originality, "Scottish Journal of Theology, XXXIII, no. 2 (1980) 133-158. A partial English translation appears also in W.G. Kümmel, The New Testament: The History of the Investigation of Its Problems, 98-100. A more recent German translation appeared in Otto Merk, Biblische Theologie des neuen Testaments in ihrer Anfangszeit (Marburg: Elwert, 1972) 273-284. Also compare Hans W. Frei, The Eclipse of the Biblical Narrative: A Study in Eighteenth and Nineteenth Century Hermeneutics (New Haven: Yale, 1974) 165-167.
the subject: "An Oration on the Proper Distinction Between Biblical and Dogmatic Theology and the Specific Objectives of Each." Gabler's title demonstrates that he wished to define the distinction between the new discipline of Biblical Theology and the traditional rendering of Dogmatic Theology. In light of the attack upon theological dogma in the universities as well as in the churches, Gabler called for a return to the Bible. He mapped out before his audience the formulation and distinctive path for Biblical Theology that he felt would alleviate the tensions surrounding Dogmatic Theology.
2 Geerhardus Vos admitted that "her [Biblical Theology] very birth took place under an evil star" ("The Idea of Biblical Theology as a Science and as a Theological Discipline (1894)," in Redemptive History and Biblical Interpretation: The Shorter Writings of Geerhardus Vos, ed. Richard B. Gaffin, Jr. (Phillipsburg: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1980) 15. Herein, Vos wrote of the modern use of the term; however, recent discussion has placed the conception in the context of the Reformation (see O. Betz, "History of Biblical Theology, "in The Interpreter's Dictionary of the Bible: An Illustrated Encyclopedia [New York: Abingdon Press, 1962] I: 432, and Charles H. H. Scobie, "History of Biblical Theology,"in New Dictionary of Biblical Theology, eds. T. Desmond Alexander, Brian S. Rosner, D. A. Carson, Graeme Goldsworthy, Steve Carter [Leicester: Inter-Varsity Press, 2000] 12). In fact, Robert Morgan states that the expression, Biblical Theology is "first found in 1629, has its roots in Christian discussion, intensified by the Reformation, of the relationship of theology to its biblical bases" ("Biblical Theology," in A Dictionary of Biblical Interpretation, eds. R. J. Coggins and J. L. Houlden [London: SCM Press, 1990] 86).
3 See Peter Gay, The Enlightenment: An Interpretation: The Science of Freedom (New York: W.W. Norton, 1977) II: 125.
4 Carl L. Becker described the climate of opinion well: "What we have to realize is that in those years [Enlightenment] God was on trial" (The Heavenly City of the Eighteenth-Century Philosophers [New Haven: Yale University Press, 1932] 73).
god they had fashioned by their own mind forsake the lies found in the Bible. In other words, it was time that their god of reason tell the truth: serpents do not speak, seas do not part, miracles do not occur, and men do not rise from the dead. Furthermore, the religion presented from Genesis through Revelation is not the sole religion that brings redemption to a fallen creature. Many religions can direct us to the essence of a credible religious experience of freedom, fraternity, and life.
In light of the Enlightenment worldview, the question can be asked of Reformed Biblical theologianswhy would we even entertain the prospect of enriching the theological enterprise with anything that sets before us blatant unbelief and rebellion against Christian orthodoxy? Let me provide a tentative response to this question as I also reveal my thesis. Although Reformed theologians such as Vos and Gaffin commend Gabler's address for making the distinction that Biblical Theology is a historical discipline and that Dogmatic Theology is a didactic (teaching) discipline, at this point their approval of Gabler ends. After all, in compliance with the critical mood of his era, Gabler's enlightened mind and "pious" heart scrutinized the historical and revelatory character of the Biblical narrative in order to make it relevant to his generation. For this reason, as Vos unfolds his conception of Biblical Theology, it can be said that the discipline formulated by Gabler was not Biblical Theology at all. Rather, Gabler's conception of Biblical Theology was merely a critical hybrid of the grammatical-historical hermeneutical method. He adapted his exegetical method to the spirit of the Enlightenment while attempting to sustain stability for less than orthodox Christian beliefs in an era of transition and confusion.
5 Frei made a similar point: "Hermeneutical theory, like all other theory in the latter part of the eighteenth century, obeyed the slogan: 'Dare to think.'" (Eclipse, 94). Further insight into the sentiment of Kant's thesis can be found in the essay by Thomas P. Saine, "Who's Afraid of Christian Wolff?" in Anticipations of the Enlightenment in England, France, and Germany, eds. Alan Charles Kors and Paul J. Korshin (Philadephia: University of Pennsylvania, 1987) 107.
6 "What is Enlightenment?" , The Philosophy of Kant: Immanuel Kant's Moral and Political Writings, ed. and trans. Carl J. Friedrich (New York: Modern Library, 1949) 132.
7 Kant experienced the problems with both the academic and literary oversight of the German state. In 1786, Kant was denied the opportunity to teach philosophy at Marburg University because of the ruling of Frederick the Great and his government. Even so, in September of 1786, Kant was singled out by Frederick's administration and was elected a member of the Berlin Royal Academy. Later, in 1792, he had a book rejected for publication by the censor in Berlin.
8 The distinction between private and public use of reason did not originate with Kant. We know that it goes back to Leibniz (1646-1716), and is also found in Gotthold Ephraim Lessing (1729-1781) and Hermann Samuel Reimarus (1694-1768). Concerning the connection between Leibniz and Lessing, see Henry Chadwick's essay, "Introduction," in Lessing's Theological Writings, trans. Henry Chadwick (Stanford: Stanford, 1956) 11. Concerning Reimarus, see Charles H. Talbert's essay, "Introduction," in Reimarus: Fragments, ed. Charles H. Talbert, trans. Ralph S. Fraser (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1970) 6.
cise of the private use of reason provided the appearance of a cautious movement.
9 This quote is an analysis of Wolff's position by Thomas P. Saine ("Christian Wolff," 107).
11 Talbert, "Introduction," 5; cf. Saine, "Christian Wolff," 109-111.
12 Wolff's seeming synthesis of reason over revelation can be seen in the following statement: "The natural way, as the superior way, must always be preferred over the way of miracles, and therefore miracles cannot occur except where God cannot achieve his goal in the natural way. And in such a case miracles derive not only from God's power, but also at the same time from his wisdom, for he uses them as a means for achieving his end, which he afterward connects to natural ends; whereby the miracles are integrated into the natural order of things" (quote appears in Saine, "Christian Wolff," 111).
13 See Hans-Georg Gadamer "On the Problem of Self-Understanding (1962)," Philosophical Hermeneutics, trans. & ed. David E. Linge (Berkeley: University of California, 1977) 46.
14 See Frei, Eclipse, 111; Chadwick, "Introduction," 13, and W.G. Kümmel's The New Testament: The History of the Investigation of Its Problems, trans. S. McLean Gilmour and Howard C. Kee (Nashville: Abingdon, 1972) 62-68.
15 See Talbert, "Introduction," 5. Concerning the term "neologian," John Sandys-Wunsch and Laurence Eldredge write: "This term has been used by modern historians since Wilhelm Mauer to designate the theologians who steered a middle way between defending the whole of orthodox theology on rational principles and those who denied that there was any revelation apart from reason alone. In the eighteenth century 'neologian' was usually a term of abuse. The development of this term has not been adequately chartered by historians; however, Gabler appears to have been one of the first to use 'neologian' in a purely descriptive sense free from pejorative overtones" ("J.P. Gabler," 147, n. 1).
16 See Talbert, "Introduction," 4. Halle was founded in 1694 as a pietistic university.
theology" (theologia scholastica).17 In this context, our principle figure, Johann Philipp Gabler emerged.
I have already noted that Gabler's inaugural address (1787) has been viewed by many scholars as the turning point in the discipline of Biblical Theology. When the address was delivered, however, its immediate historical importance was not apparent. According to John Sandys-Wunsch and Laurence Eldredge, it was not until D. C. G. von Cölln's reference to the address in 1836 (about fifty years after the address) that Gabler received such patriarchal status concerning the discipline of Biblical Theology.18 In fact, there is no evidence that his inaugural address had a broad influence upon those who attended the address or upon his theological contemporaries throughout the German provinces. Rather, it seems that the theological climate at the time was "slow to accept biblical theology itself as a discipline."19 Moreover, until the appearance of Gotthelf Traugott Zachariä's (1729-1777) five volume set on Biblical Theology, which appeared from 1771-1786 (five vols.: 1771, 72, 74, 75, 86), the modern description of Biblical Theology was extremely vague, and its popularity had not emerged. Even after the appearance of Zachariä's first four volumes in the first half of the 70's, the next book that included the phrase "biblical theology" in its title was Hufnagel's Handbook of Biblical Theology in 1785. The discipline remained so obscure that J. A. Noesselt's work, Direction to the Knowledge of the Best General Books in All Subjects of Theology (1779), which was a standard guide for the theology students of his day, did not include a section on Biblical Theology, and Zachariä's work on Biblical Theology was only mentioned among those works "recommended" for reading. Even Noesselt's last edition in 1800 still failed to include a section on Biblical Theology.
17 See Scobie, "History of Biblical Theology," 13. This particular contrast became part the theological environment of the Enlightenment as evidenced in the title of A. F. Büsching's work, Advantage of Biblical Theology Over Scholasticism (1758).
18 See "J.P. Gabler," 149.
As Kant's essay revealed, the last half of the eighteenth century can be viewed as a period of theological unrest in the churches as well as in theological institutions. Things were not going smoothly. Sandys-Wunsch and Eldredge seem to be on target as they present the two basic problems.
20 It is believed that Gabler influenced Bauer (see Kümmel, New Testament, 104). Also, it is believed that de Wette was the first writer to mention Gabler's work explicitly in his own work on Biblical Theology (see Sandys-Wunsch and Eldredge, "J.B. Gabler," 149 n. 2).
21 Sandys-Wunsch and Eldredge, "J. B. Gabler," 151-158.
23 Gaffin, "Systematic Theology and Biblical Theology," 34.
24 Hans Frei also made this observation (Eclipse, 103).
25 Kümmel defends this point (New Testament, 112).
lightenment, Gabler's call to get "back to the Bible" was filtered through modern rational-empirical and pietistic lenses. As Gabler proceeds with the exegetical task, these lenses become apparent.
26 Sandys-Wunsch and Eldredge, "J.P. Gabler," 142.
28 Gabler's conception of the universal here is not that far detached from the 20th century distinction between Geschichte and historie in German critical-liberal theological thought. Gabler is defending a trans-historical position, a supra-temporal notion, of the universal in distinction from the temporaladmittedly without the transcending twentieth century existential element of going beyond the subject-object relationship. Indeed, we have here the notion of a canon within a canonthe Bible within the Bible.
29 Sandys-Wunsch and Eldredge, "J.P. Gabler," 136.
In this context, Gabler advocated his view of biblical inspiration; he maintained that the doctrine of inspiration must be viewed merely as conveying the universal notion of salvation. In other words, the biblical authors are inspired only as they bear the divine message of salvation. On the other hand, if the message of the biblical authors is viewed as only being relevant to a particular time or place, then that specific message is not to be viewed as inspired.31 Here, Gabler is following the lead of his fellow neologian, i.e., J. S. Semler's (1721-1791) landmark work on the Biblical canon entitled, A Free Investigation of the Canon (1771).32 Semler had come to believe that since the application of scriptural interpretation should take place in accordance with universal moral and religious principles, one can no longer believe that all sections in the Bible are equally inspired.33 Gabler was simply following suit.
30 Gabler's method and moral religion were typical of the Enlightenment project (see Becker, The Heavenly City, 100).
31 There is no plenary view of inspiration found in Gabler. In contrast, the Reformed Biblical theologian Geerhardus Vos will strongly defend plenary inspiration (See his "The Nature and Aims of Biblical Theology," The Union Seminary Magazine, [February-March, 1902] 198; this article has been republished under the same title in Kerux: A Journal of Biblical-Theological Preaching [May, 1999] 3-8, esp. p. 7).
32 See Frei, Eclipse, 111; cf. also Kümmel, The New Testament, 68.
34 Sandys-Wunsch and Eldredge, "J.P. Gabler," 144.
Biblical Theology. On the other hand, Dogmatic Theology is varied according to the "variety both of philosophy and of every human point of view of that, which is subtle, learned, suitable and appropriate, elegant and graceful."35 Simply put, Dogmatic Theology is a discipline whose chief task is to adapt its material to "our own times." 36 Specifically, Dogmatic Theology takes the universal principle as extracted by Biblical Theology and applies it to a whole theological system that accommodates the philosophical nuances to one's own time. Herein, Dogmatic Theology was transformed into an immediate Contemporary theology.
As previously stated, Gabler was in tune with the spirit of his enlightened age; he was committed to using the public use of human reason as a liberating vehicle from traditional theological authority. Specifically, he was committed to a modern empirical-scientific method which maintained that Biblical Theology is "of historical origin, conveying what the holy writers felt by divine matters."37 The key term is "felt;" however, his use of the term was not a romantic-existential concept of feeling of a shared consciousness between the Biblical writers and the reader. Rather, for the exegete to know what the Biblical writers felt by "divine matters" was a result of a rigorous scientific investigation. Specifically, Gabler held that we are to proceed chronologically as we observe, collect, classify, and compare (empirical method of modern science) the data which each author wrote (grammatical) in their own historical context (historically) as those authors conveyed what they felt about divine matters. If the author's ideas "shape" men's "souls," then he is writing as a "sacred author," but if his ideas are attempting to "shape" the "needs of his time," then he is versing only human opinion. But how does one reach such a distinction? What is being observed, collected, classified, and compared?
Simply, one is analyzing the Biblical text in order to extract the moral ethos of the Enlightenment: goodness, happiness, the natural, innocence, pleasure over pain, tolerance, duty, liberty, equality, fraternity, etc. Herein, we discover that Gabler's critical method is a means to an end, i.e., the method is used in order to authenticate Gabler's preconceived conception of a universal moral world, or more specifically, a universal moral religion. Such a presupposition as well as a methodological analysis of the Biblical narrative reveals a conception of a canon within a canon. Analogous to the mind-body dualism of antiquity and the Cartesian mind-body problem, he has employed a method which makes a judgment between the eternal (essential to the human spirit) and the temporal (relative to the immediate culture) in the Biblical text.
Besides Gabler recasting the grammatical-historical hermeneutic of the Reformation into the empirico-rational framework of modern science, his view of Biblical Theology also demonstrated a methodological difference with his enlightenment predecessor, Christian Wolff. Although an examination of the structure of his thought has revealed that he agreed with Wolff's assertion that reason is to judge revelation, nevertheless, when Gabler analyzed the historical and grammatical context of the biblical narrative, he began with language in its environmental context and not logic. In other words, unlike Wolff, for Gabler language precedes concepts (logic), or to put it another way, history precedes philosophy.38 For Gabler, however, history is merely the sequencethe progressof the Biblical narrative, written by inspired authors at various places and times in a contextual world, using the language of the culture. Herein, Gabler incorporated the position of the later Enlightenment period in distinction from Wolff, i.e., that history must liberate us from philosophy and logic. For him, Biblical Theology, as a historical discipline, secured such liberation. On the other hand, in the area of dogmatics, Gabler maintained the Cartesian and Enlightenment directive that reason or philosophy informs one's theological dogmas. In the arena of dogmatics, therefore, Gabler continued to find Wolff's method relevant; reason will continue to judge what had previously been believed.
38 Cf. Frei, Eclipse, 103.
Gabler was committed to his enlightened hermeneutical procedure: "if I judge of anything, everything must be accomplished by exegetical observation only, and that with constant care, and compared with the things spoken of and promised by our Savior in this matter."39 However, in order to hold on to the notion of eternal or universal religion, Gabler employed a Stoic philosophical paradigm that he attributed to the influence of the German scholar, Tiedemann.40 As to what this actually meant, Gabler was not clear. Perhaps, if we take our cue from Stoic philosophy, the universal will be defined in Stoic fashion as moral worth, justice, and duty. In principle, this is what we find when Gabler stated that the religion of the Bible is "teaching what each Christian ought to know and believe and do in order to secure happiness in this life and in the life to come."41 Herein, man is pictured as securing his own salvation through what he knows, believes, and does; he is showing himself to be of moral worth. Unlike Stoicism and more like Platonism, however, the universal becomes transcendent for Gabler; it is able to take us beyond the world of appearance into a world that is unchanging in all its ideas and notions.
39 Sandys-Wunsch and Eldredge, "J.P. Gabler," 143.
reason as a power unto itself.
Through the empirical and rational procedure of observation, classification, collection, and comparison in the sequence of historical events, the inherent power of reason moves to the forefront of the enterprise. Through the empirical process, reason lifts off the pages of the Biblical narrative the universals that are to be believed from those things that are merely cultural. Reason judges and affirms within its own power what is to be received as divine and what is to be received as human. As one can guess, Gabler's view of "reason" teaches that we only have access to the effects of Biblical inspiration and not the cause of Biblical inspiration.42 Gabler held that an exclusive empirical approach to Biblical inspiration excluded an a priori understanding of the supernatural status of the Word of God. His point should be evident: we only have the record of sacred authors (the effects of Biblical inspiration). Reason reveals that on occasion the sacred authors were conveying a human teaching and at other times a divine message. Reason has the inherent power to extract from the grammatical-historical-empirical investigation of the sacred authors the universal message that is relevant for the salvation of men's souls. Moreover, reason also has the inherent power to extract from its scientific method what is left as mere human instruction from the biblical author. In essence, Gabler's Biblical Theology was constructing a new moral religion. Simply stated, it is a religion extracted from the Bible by the later Enlightenment view of human reason. For this reason, the religious product of Gabler's Biblical Theology is different than the supernatural revelation presented by the entire Biblical corpus. Specifically, the power of reason shaped Biblical historiography into its own moral universal religion.
enlightened reason. In terms of Gabler's synthesis, his notion of Biblical Theology is far removed from the kernels of Biblical Theology found in Calvin and others during the Reformation, and it is also far removed from what would emerge within the confines of modern Reformed orthodoxy in the work of Geerhardus Vos (1862-1949).43 Simply put, Vos's Biblical Theology did not begin by isolating the empirical landscape of history in order to find how "holy writers felt about divine matters."44 Vos began with God as the Creator and sustainer of his creation and with the God of the Bible who reveals himself in providential history. The entire canon of Scripture records the condescending activity and deeds of the living God upon the plain of his own created history. The knowledge and understanding of God is unfolded within the historical revelation of his activity. For Vos, the process of God's self-disclosure is apparent: event precedes word, deed precedes interpretation.45 God's revelatory activity precedes man's comprehension of that activity in his whole existence (including heart, soul, mind, senses, etc.).
43 Recently, Scobie has argued that the Reformers like Calvin and Luther" practiced a form of Biblical Theology" ("History of Biblical Theology," 12).
44 Sandys-Wunsch and Eldredge, "J.P. Gabler," 137.
45 See Vos, Biblical Theology, 13; idem., "The Idea of Biblical Theology," 7. Further insight into this point is provided by Richard B. Gaffin, Jr.'s essay, "The Vitality of Reformed Dogmatics," in Vitality of Reformed Theology: Proceedings of the International Theological Congress, June 20-24, 1994 (Kampen: Kok, 1994) 16-50. James T. Dennison, Jr. also captures Vos's position: "He [Vos] emphatically declares the revelatory character of the mighty acts of God in history. The act is identified with revelation in history. Moreover act is further explicated by word. Hence the mighty acts of God are not abstract momentsthey are followed by words of explanation and interpretation. And in the organic continuum of redemptive history, act and word progressively unfold. Acts recapitulate one another; words additionally exegete one another" ("What is Biblical Theology? Reflections on the Inaugural Address of Geerhardus Vos," Kerux: A Journal of Biblical-Theological Preaching [May, 1987] 38).
address; rather his hermeneutical approach falls into its own eschatological structure. As an Enlightenment rationalist, Gabler began with an empirical-rational religion and he ended with an empirical-rational religion; specifically, he began with reason taking on the investigation towards uncovering truth, and he ends with reason uncovering the universal principle of religious truth. Sandys-Wunsch and Eldredge are correct when they conclude: "Gabler has perhaps a better claim to be considered the father of the study of biblical religion than the father of biblical theology."46 Although this observation is correct, it should not be overlooked that the "biblical religion" presented by Gabler is not the religion of the Bible at all. Moreover, it brings into question whether Gabler, the so-called father of Biblical Theology, should be viewed as a true participant in the discipline itself.
Perhaps in light of the connecting link to Biblical and Reformed orthodoxy, Vos is the father of modern Biblical Theology. Indeed, new elements were brought to mind by the critical-liberal Biblical theologians, e.g., the position that Biblical Theology is a historical discipline. Since facts only have meaning within their given context, the connection between critical and orthodox Biblical Theology ends. Gabler's view of history was shaped by the dynamic of empirical reason and not by the authority of God and his Word. In what had become customary and fashionable during the Enlightenment, his view of reason stripped history of its supernatural character, and thus constructed another natural religiona universal moral religion based on the Christian ethos. It was not a coincidence, therefore, that Vos frequently used the terminology of "supernatural religion" to describe the revelation of Biblical religion. Such terminology as used purposely to contrast the natural or rational religion of the critical-liberal Christian theologians who preceded him. As far as Vos was concerned, their view of history was antithetical to the God who acts and interprets the whole story of Biblical history.
46 Sandys-Wunsch and Eldredge, "J.B. Gabler," 158.
may ask why the Reformation tradition of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries did not advance to Vos's understanding of the discipline? Vos's teacher at the University of Berlin, Bernhard Weiss, provides some insight into answering that question. He highlights three points. First, the Reformation brought to the forefront the difference between the authority of the Church and the authority of the Bible and demanded a renovation of theology in accordance with the sole authority of Holy Scripture.47 Second, although the Reformers were dominated by the consciousness of sola Scriptura against Roman Catholic doctrine, nevertheless at this time the Reformers continued to accept the system of theology passed down to them, i.e., the scholastic systematic arrangement of theological rubrics.48 Third, by means of the exegesis of Scripture, the Reformers imported a new, and more Biblically informed, interpretation into the doctrines of theology without examining or questioning the system of theology at all.49 Simply put, the Reformers were changing the substance of the various theological rubrics without transforming the system of theology.
47 See Weiss, Biblical Theology, 22.
48 See Ibid., 22-23. Richard A. Muller has made the same observation (Post-Reformation Reformed Dogmatics: Prolegomena to Theology [Grand Rapids: Baker, 1987] I: 63, and "The Problem of Protestant ScholasticismA Review and Definition," in Reformation and Scholasticism: An Ecumenical Enterprise, ed. Willem J. van Asselt and Eef Dekker [Grand Rapids: Baker, 2001] 53-54).
49 See Weiss, Biblical Theology, 23.
of hermeneutics to the whole spectrum of the theological enterprise. In other words, in terms of the subject of our study, the roots of Vos's Biblical Theology are not to be found in Gabler and the Enlightenment; rather, the roots of his theology are to be found in the Reformers. Let me be specific, although not comprehensive.
Although the Reformers were still operating with the rubrics of medieval Roman Catholic theology, the seeds were being planted for understanding the structural flow of Biblical revelation in a whole new way. The emphasis was upon the authority of God and the sovereign control of whatsoever comes to pass. Specifically, God's own providential dealings in the course of history are pervasive in the Reformers and the Reformed Confessions. This view of God and history came to expression in what the Reformers saw as the continuity element in Biblical revelationthe idea of the covenant. Unlike some Lutherans or the Anabaptists, the Reformers understood the Bible as a whole. Portions of Scripture were not elevated in comparison to other portions of Scripture (Lutherans), and the New Testament did not eradicate the Old Testament (Anabaptist). Rather, with Augustine, the Reformers proclaimed that the Old is contained in the New and the New is contained in the Old.
50 See John Calvin, Commentaries on the First Book of Moses Called Genesis, trans. John King (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1948) I: 114, and his The Epistles of Paul The Apostle to the Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, and Colossians, eds. David W. Torrance and Thomas F. Torrance, trans. T.H.L. Parker (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1965) 84.
51 See Scobie, "History of Biblical Theology," 12; Muller, Post-Reformation Reformed Dogmatics, 37; and Geerhardus Vos, "The Doctrine of the Covenant in Reformed Theology," in Redemptive History and Biblical Interpretation: The Shorter Writings of Geerhardus Vos, ed. Richard B. Gaffin, Jr. (Phillipsburg: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Co., 1980) 234-267.
Christocentric typology provided a fundamental link in understanding and stressing the unity of Scripture; they are at the core of the meaning of Scripture. This same understanding is found at the heart of Vos's Biblical Theology.
Furthermore, one cannot overlook the hermeneutical principle of the Reformation, i.e., "that Scripture interprets Scripture." The Reformed view of the historical continuity of Scripture testifies specifically to the hermeneutical principle of the Reformers; this hermeneutical principle is nonsense without the unfolding history of revelation. For this reason, Richard B. Gaffin, Jr. has stressed that the analogy of Scripture is implicitly Biblical-theological; this hermeneutical principle depicts the essence of the discipline of Biblical Theology.52 In light of Gaffin's observation, it is easy to conclude that Vos's work was a consistent outworking of the Reformed principle of hermeneutics. On the other hand, it takes great strain to connect Gabler to this Reformed principle. If anything, Gabler teaches us the danger of the grammatical-historical method of exegesis if not properly placed within Reformed orthodox perimeters.
52 John Murray made this same observation about the relationship between the analogy of Scripture in the Westminster Confession and the discipline of Biblical Theology (see his, "Systematic Theology," in The New Testament Student and Theology, ed. John H. Skilton [n.p.: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1976) III: 26, n. 20. Gaffin's comment is worth noting: "It does not appear to be going too far to say that in 'biblical theology,' that is, effective recognition of the redemptive-historical character of biblical revelation, the principle of context, of the analogy of Scripture, the principle that Scripture interprets Scripture, so central in the Reformation tradition of biblical interpretation, finds its most pointedly biblical realization and application" ("Systematic Theology and Biblical Theology," 45). Gaffin made almost the same statement in 1994 (cf. his "The Vitality of Reformed Dogmatics," 26, n. 19). Theology: Proceedings of the International Theological Congress, June 20-24, 1994 [Kampen: Kok, 1994] 26, n. 19).
ology, especially as formulated in its so-called father, Johann P. Gabler. Furthermore, we are to examine and investigate those presuppositions in order to see how they conform to the revelation of God's Word. In our study, we have seen that the critical-liberal formulation of Biblical Theology appeared in the context of the Enlightenment and its presupposition of an empirical-rational worldview. They interpret the "facts"the grammatical-historical construction of the Biblein light of their scientific method. Such an approach begins with man and not with God. It has no integrative stance between the Biblical text and the sovereign God who is the author of the entire canon of Scripture. Rather, it proceeds exclusively on the empirical grounds of the liberating effects of public, practical, and enlightened reason in order to extract a divine moral religion in the pursuit of everlasting happiness. The liberal critics are freeing themselves from supernatural revealed religion and returning to a world which resembles Greek mythology and how the muse "felt about divine matters" (to use the language of Gabler).
When this humanistic religion is exposed through uncovering its presuppositions, then we are confronted with the full force of the antithetical nature of liberal-critical Biblical Theology in respect to Vos and his faithfulness to the hermeneutic of the Reformed tradition. We must realize that the common features between Vos and Gabler dissolve in light of the presuppositions, structure, and content of their respective views on Biblical Theology. The holistic construction of Vos's Biblical Theology is antithetical to the holistic construction of Gabler's formulation.53 The idea that Biblical Theology is a historical discipline and Dogmatics is a didactic discipline, or that the discipline of history precedes the disciplines of philosophy and dogmatic theology does not reveal much substantive continuity between Vos and Gabler. For Vos, these observations as well as biblical "facts" occur in a contextthe context in which the one true God, i.e., the ontological Trinity, gives meaning to the facts. The Bible records the actual activity of God, and the Bible provides God's own interpretation of those acts. Such a position is not found in Gabler.
53 Interestingly, Vos provides the church with one of the most succinct critical analyses of Enlightenment Biblical Theology that one will find within the bounds of orthodoxy (see "Idea of Biblical Theology," 7-8, and his Biblical Theology, 17-23).
For Vos, God revealing himself in history is integrated with a grammatical-historical approach to the Bible; it is a holistic approach. In this approach, any empirical and rational investigation into the biblical text is integrated with the authority and person of God who must control the investigation by the exegete submitting to the structure of Biblical revelation. Thus, the reason Vos would endorse the fact that history precedes philosophy is because of the nature and character of God's revelation of himself, not because of the necessity to liberate man from rationalism. Hence, the Enlightenment is the enemy; it is not a friend! As we hold passionately to the God of the Bible and the unfolding of his revelation, we will not allow Gabler and the Enlightenment to define the terms on which we stand. Gabler's Biblical Theology is not Biblical Theology at all, in light of God's true revelation of himself recorded on the pages of Holy Scripture. The roots of an orthodox Biblical Theology are not found in the Enlightenment; rather, in the final analysis, they are found in God himself! Indeed, we are not declaring ourselves to be children of modernity (Enlightenment); rather, by the sovereign grace of God, we are children who hold passionately to the whole counsel of God as revealed to us from Genesis through Revelation. We are to preach, teach, and proclaim the full-orbed message as God has given it to his church in his infallible Word!
His dangers past, and travails done.
The burning sun, no more shall heat.
Nor hungry wolves at him shall catch.
Nor wild fruits eat instead of bread.
For thirst no more shall parch his tongue.
*Puritan poetess Anne Bradstreet (ca. 1612-1672) sailed with John Winthrop and her husband Simon on the Arabella from England to Massachusetts Bay Colony in 1630. Mother of eight children, she wrote her verses in devotion to her God, her Savior and her family. Her poetry shows the influence of Guillaume du Bartas (Divine Weeks and Works), Edmund Spenser (Faerie Queene) and Sir Philip Sydney. The first edition of her poems was released unbeknownst to her, in 1650 by her brother-in-law. An enlarged edition was published posthumously in 1678.
Nor stumps nor rocks cause to fall.
And means in safety now to dwell.
By age and pains brought to decay.
And my clay house mold'ring away.
And soar on high among the blest.
This mortal shall be clothed upon.
A glorious body it shall rise.
In power 'tis raised by Christ alone.
And of their Maker have the sight.
As ear ne'er heard nor tongue e'er told.
Then come, dear Bridegroom, come away.
The Colwell Rule of New Testament Greek grammar has been marshaled by defenders of the deity of Christ to deflect the suggestion that John 1:1c (theos hen ho logos ="the Word was God") assigns a divine quality to the Logos/Word, not divine essence. Colwell's Rule is rushed to the defense of the Word's essential deity on the grounds that nouns in the predicate which both lack the definite article (i.e., are anarthrous) and precede the verb are not qualitative, but definite. Since John 1:1c finds theos in the anarthrous state and before the verb (hen), Colwell's Rule requires definite force, i.e., God (cf. Leon Morris, Commentary on the Gospel of John [Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1971] 76-79).
However, the admirable intent of the defenders of our Lord's essential deity requires a more nuanced application of Colwell's Rule. "Colwell stated that a definite PN [Predicate NominativeJTD] that precedes the verb is usually anarthrous. He did not say the converse, namely, an anarthrous PN that precedes the verb is usually definite. However, this is how the rule has been misunderstood by most scholars . . . " (Daniel B. Wallace, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics [Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1996] 260, emphasis in the original; cf. his full discussion of our text, pp. 266-69). The traditional translation, "the Word was God", must be defended on other grounds, i.e., theology, syntax, grammatical context, etc. (see below). The deity of the Logos (God with a capital "G") is defensible in spite of anarthrous theos.
If the translation affirming the essential deity may be supported from the context, the syntax, and the grammatical factors, a reductionist translation (such as that of the Jehovah's Witnesses in their New World Translation) perverts the meaning of this passage. In order to render John 1:1c "the Word was a god", the New World Translation must continue the charade of claiming to translate the anarthrous theos by "a god" everywhere in the New Testament. In fact, as Robert Countess has demonstrated, the Jehovah's Witnesses are 94% unfaithful to their own rule of translation. Out of 282 instances of the anarthrous theos in the New Testament, the New World Translation renders 266 by "God", not "a god" or "godly" or "god(s)". Only 16 out of 282 (a meager 6%) instances are rendered according to the New World Translation canon of distinguishing arthrous from anarthrous theos (cf. Robert Countess, The Jehovah's Witnesses' New Testament: A Critical Analysis of the New World Translation of the Christian Greek Scriptures (Philipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Co., 1987). Even in John's Prologue (John 1:1-18), the anarthrous theos appears in verses 6, 12, 13, 18 and the New World Translation translates it "God". Why then does the New World Translation translate the anarthrous theos in v. 1c and v. 18 (monogenes theos) "a god/god"? The answer is patent: theological bias. Arianism, ancient and modern, refuses the essential deity of the Son. He is ever a creature, always a creature, nought but a creature.
The threefold definition of the Logos/Word (John 1:1-2) proceeds on the basis of identity and distinction. The Logos/Word is identified with God, while being distinguished from God. The second phrase ("and the Word was with God," John 1:1b) suggests this distinction, i.e., the Logos/Word stands alongside ("with") God. Yet the first and third phrases (John 1:1a and 1c) suggest his identity with God. Thus the Logos/Word is God, while being a distinct person alongside of his Father (the Logos/Word's favorite term for designating God in the fourth gospel). There are therefore at least two persons in the Godhead designated Father and Son (especially in John's gospel). We may paraphrase John 1:1In the beginning was God the Son, and God the Son was with God the Father, and God the Son was God (as God the Father is God).
I would like to examine the structure of John 1:1, 2 in order to determine whether any fresh evidence of Logos-Theos equivalence may be found. In other words, is it possible to support the orthodox Trinitarian consensus from other aspects of the text? Let us begin by counting terms/words. Verse 1a reads En arche hen ho logos (5 words); verse 1b reads kai ho logos hen pros ton theon (7 words); verse 1c reads kai theos hen ho logos (5 words); verse 2 reads houtos hen en arche pros ton theon (7 words). NB: there are no variants in the text critical apparatus of John 1:1, 2. We discover that the alternating clauses contain parallel word totals. We also discover that the alternating clauses contain parallel (even identical) phrases.
Taking the non-parallel terms in 1a and 1c, we are left with en arche and theos ("in the beginning" and "God"). "In the beginning God" is an emphatic reminiscence of Genesis 1:1 (En arche . . . theos, LXX)hence a creation/new creation paradigm. It is also a clear declaration that before the beginning (i.e., creation), God was already existent. In fact, before the beginning, God was; before the beginning of creation, there was (in existence) nothing but God. John's affirmation of the eternal existence of God is fully supported by biblical affirmations throughout the Old Testament and New Testament. Thus, the first two parallel sections (v. 1a and v. 1c) place the Logos/Word in duplicate positions, while leaving God's being (theos) expressed by the corresponding phrase "in the beginning"=from all eternity.
This brings us to v. 1b and v. 2. The parallels hen pros ton theon leave non-parallel ho logos and en arche. Again, this is a clear declaration of the eternality of the Logos/Wordhe was en arche ("in the beginning"). Thus our second set of parallel clauses (v. 1b and v. 2) place "with God" in parallel positions, while leaving the Logos's being expressed by the corresponding phrase "in the beginning"=from all eternity.
In addition toin fact building uponthe particular parallelisms in the clauses is the phenomenon of equivalence. In v. 1a and v. 1c, theos is en arche. In v. 1b and v. 2, ho logos is en arche. An old axiom teaches that quantities equal to the same quantity are equal to each other. In this case, God is in the beginning; the Logos/Word is in the beginning. Therefore God is equivalent to the Logos/Word.
Less mathematically, but no less truly: if eternality is predicated of the Logos/Word and eternality is predicated of theos (God), then the Logos/Word shares the incommunicable attribute of divine eternality. In other words, Logos/Word is eternal (God) as God is eternal God.
The first two verses of John's magnificent Prologue are a taut, indeed parallel declaration of the deity and eternality of the Logos/Word.
But there is more. The literary form of these two verses is a fascinating stair step parallelism. Notice how the word which ends a clause is the word which begins the next clause in step down or stair step fashion.
As we follow this literary, staircase device, we notice that it is not merely aesthetic. It is theological. What is said of logos/Word is said of theos/God. There is in fact a prefect symmetry or balance between the occurrence of the terms logos and theos. Verse 1a ends with logos and v. 1b begins with logos; v. 1b ends with theos and v. 1c begins with theos. Thus far a double symmetry in John's stair step pattern. It would appear that the end of v. 1c and the beginning of v. 2 break the pattern. But on closer examination, v. 1c and v. 2 are a recapitulation of the balanced symmetry of 1a, 1b and 1c (first term). Notice that 1c ends with logos and v. 2 ends with theos. The symmetry is not broken or abandoned; it is preserved in a (single) balance or equivalence between terms used in the previous stair step paradigm. It is as if John epexegetically reinforces his staircase pattern with a final, emphatic declaration that Logos and Theos are co-essential. In other words, as the staircase pattern brings Logos and Theos together in duplicate, symmetrical fashion, so outside the staircase (v. 1c, final words and v. 2), Logos and Theos are also symmetrical. In fact, the clue to the relation of Logos and Theos is found both in the stair step pattern as well as the pattern of equivalence. Can there be any question that John equates Logos and Theos? Surely not for those with structural (as well as grammatical) eyes to see.
Finally, if the staircase paradigm is a symmetrical revelation of Logos-Theos identification (the Logos is God, second person of the ontological Godhead), then we should expect equivalences inside the clauses of these verses. Notice then what happens when we bracket v. 1b and v. 1c.
In fact, we discover a chiastic pattern in the bracketing.
The chiasm is a reciprocal paradigm of identity. Again, John's taut literary structure declares the equivalence of Logos and Theos. They are (chiastically) reciprocal and therefore identical. Structurally, from the chiastic arrangement of the terms, the Logos/Word is God.
But what about v. 1a and v. 2? Again, we discover two terms of our discussionLogos and Theosbut here we find them in parallel fashion.
Consistent with John's literary structuring device of parallelism elsewhere (i.e., vv. 1b and 1a), he provides a straightforward balance between Logos and Theos from the beginning. Here is another clear indication of essential deity (with personal distinction and hence no Sabellianism) between Logos and Theos.
The heart of this identification is found explicitly in v. 1c: kai theos hen ho logos. The verb "to be" (hen) is an equals sign: kai theos=ho logos. The predicate nominative reveals that the left side and the right side of the verb "to be" are relationally symmetrical (e.g., Jim is a boy means boy=Jim and Jim=boy). Here, God was the Logos means God=Logos (and Logos=God).
The parallel clauses (A/A' and B/B') surround the centrally unique clause (C). Not a chiasm, this is a concentric parallelism built around (and centering/focusing upon) the key element in John's kerygma: Theos-Logos. We can even define this final paradigm as a stair step, concentric parallelism centered upon the equivalence of Logos and Theos. This recognition also is appropriate to the concentric (and parallel) word counts noted above: 5 (1a), 7 (1b), 5 (1c), 7 (2).
Grammatically, structurally, staircase paradigmatically, chiastically, concentrically, parallelistically: Jesus of Nazareth (the incarnate Logos, cf. John 1:14"the Word was made flesh and dwelt among us") is GodGod, the Sonfor he is the Logos whom John declares to be Theos. Well might we fall down with Thomas at the end of John's gospel (20:28), even as we fall down at the beginning of John's gospel and confess: Logosmy Lord and my God (theos)!
clings to a glass wall.
graced by a mighty king . . .
with two times six stars.
This is the mature form of a poem conceived in 1982, when it is entitled "Speaking though Dead" (this version appears in a letter dated 3/26/82). This original title provides one New Testament commentary on the Old Testament Abel and Cain narrative (Heb. 11:4). From the first breech, the verse gestated through five successive growth spurts until "Light Affliction" was full born 5/26/83. The final title is an allusion to 2 Corinthians 4:17; in fact, the final handwritten version of the poem has the title "For Momentary Light Affliction". But the author crossed out the first two words leaving the present title as it appears in his own printed compilation"a collection of thirteen poems, 1977-1990" which he labeled Translation. It is the eschatological translation which lies at the heart of each of the thirteen poems.
In the present piece, the reference to the "woman and child" in the last two stanzas is an allusion to the woman and child of Revelation 12 (cf. Charles G. Dennison, "The Resurrection Child." Kerux: A Journal of Biblical-Theological Preaching 14/1 [May 1999]: 9-17). Abel yet speaks, translated by the eschatological child and his bride. Cain appears in noxious vaporsan eternal fugitive bound by his own wandering. The crossover between Abel on the outside looking into Cain's world, longing for home, is itself translatedtranslated to contentment. Abel remains content with the outside of Cain's world and the inside of the world of the child and the woman. Cain's inside places him vis-a-vis the great chasmever outside Abel's eschatological home.
Christ, the second Adam, acts the same part for us that the first Adam was to have done, but failed. He has fulfilled the law, and has been admitted to the seals of confirmed and everlasting life. God, as a testimony and seal of his acceptance of what he had done as the condition of life, raised him from the dead, and exalted him with his own right hand, received him up into glory, and gave all things into his hands. Thus the second Adam has persevered, not only for himself, but for us; and has been sealed to confirmed and persevering and eternal life, as our head; so that all those that are his, and that are his spiritual posterity, are sealed in him to persevering life. Here it will be in vain to object, that persons persevering in faith and holiness is the condition of their being admitted to the state of Christ's posterity, or to a right in him; and that none are admitted as such till they have first persevered. For this is as much as to say, that Christ has no church in this world; and that there are none on this side the grave, that are admitted as his children or people; because they have not yet actually persevered to the end of life, which is the condition of their being admitted as his children and people; which is contrary to the whole Scripture.
From Jonathan Edwards's (1703-1758) treatise "Concerning the Perseverance of Saints" in Works 3: 512-13 ( reprint of the Worchester edition in four volumes). In the Banner of Truth edition, our selection may be found in 2:597.
has done and gone through the work that Adam was to have done, and did this as our representative or surety, he has not only thereby set us, that are in him and represented by him, in Adam's probationary, uncertain state, having the finishing or persevering in the work on which eternal life was suspended yet before him and uncertain, or in the state that Adam was in on this side a state of confirmed life; but besides, if Christ has finished the work of Adam for us, as representing us, and acting in our stead, then doubtless he has not only gone through himself, but has carried us, who are in him, and are represented by him, through the work of Adam, or through Adam's working probationary state, unto that confirmed state that Adam should have arrived at, if he had gone through his own work.
Bill T. Arnold and Bryan E. Beyer, Readings from the Ancient Near East. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2002. 240 pp. Paper. ISBN: 0-8010-2292-4. $21.99.
It has been more than forty years since we have had a handy, one-volume compilation of Ancient Near Eastern (ANE) texts illustrative of the context and genres of the Biblical world. D. Winton Thomas published Documents from Old Testament Times (DOTT) in 1958 (paperback edition, 1961). It was the coveted, if affordable, standard for those who could not justify the "bible" of ANE texts, James B. Pritchard's Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament (ANET) (3rd edition, 1969; first published in 1950).
Much has changed in forty years, not the least of which is the 1993/94 discovery of the Tell Dan inscriptioncontaining the only extant extra-biblical mention of "David." It is that inscription which appears on the cover of Arnold and Beyer's new handy, one-volume compilation of ANE texts illustrative of the context and genres of the Biblical world (cf. p. 165 for a translation).
Yet more than the Tell Dan inscription has come to light since DOTT. Fresh editions of Hittite texts (influential in comparative covenant/treaty studies from the 2nd millenium B.C.); the Balaam text from Deir Alla (discovered in 1967); new editions of Assyrian and Babylonian chronicles (from the indefatigable A. K. Grayson); and Syrian Semitic compilations have also appeared.
The volume contains excerpts from creation and flood myths (Sumerian and Babylonian). Here the editors are perhaps too concessive with respect to the parallels with Biblical creation and flood narratives (cf. the works of A. R. Millard and K. A. Kitchen for some essential and necessary distinctions between Biblical and pagan creation and flood narratives).
The genres we find in Scripture are represented here: covenant formularies; law codes; cultic texts; letters; hymns; laments; love lyrics; etc. In this reviewer's opinion, the sublime and historical nature of the Biblical narrative stands in antithesis to that of the surrounding cultures, formal similarities notwithstanding. As supernatural revelation, Scripture's unique position in its world is evident as one reads through these (often) bizarre texts.
The editors have provided few, brief notes (if they provide notes at all). Nor has the publisher provided a Scripture index for ease of reference. In this respect, DOTT is far superior: the notes were extensive; and the Scripture index was complete. While no one-volume compilation of ANE materials is perfect, the present contribution is better than nothing (DOTT being out-of-print and dated). Until the next edition of ANET (if any! and if we can afford it), Arnold and Beyer will help.
My last sentence should not be regarded as overlooking William M. Hallo's monumental The Context of Scripture. Volume one (subtitled "Canonical Compositions from the Biblical World") of this massive compilation (599 pages) of ANE texts appeared in 1997 at the hefty (Brill titles always are! more's the pity!!) price of $129. The complete set consists of two more volumes each priced at $129: "Monumental Inscriptions from the Biblical World" (v. 2, 438 pages, published in 2000); "Archival Documents from the Biblical World" (v. 3, 406 pages, published in 2002). Hallo may well supplant Pritchard as the standard anthology.
David A. Black, Why Four Gospels? Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel Publications, 2001. 118 pp. Paper. ISBN: 0-8254-2070-9. $10.99.
This is a short book on Matthean priority; thus a short review. For the uninitiated, Matthean priority is the traditional view that Matthew's gospel was the first to be written; hence prior to Mark, Luke and John.
Black is not writing for scholars. This is a popular book, requested by his students as a handy, non-technical discussion of the issues surrounding the synoptic question. In this, the book succeeds. Some students of the synoptic problem might suppose that Black is defending William Farmer's case for Matthean priority (so-called Two-Gospel Hypothesis of J. J. Griesbach). Not exactly. Black's variation on the Griesbach theme is dependent on work of Bernard Orchard who coined the term "Fourfold-Gospel Hypothesis."
Black's presuppositions are clear: concrete supernaturalism, really true miracles, deity of Christ, inspiration of the gospels. He places himself antithetically to the Enlightenment (pp. 7-8, 35-37) which eroded the church's historic belief in the inerrancy of Scripture by focusing on alleged "contradictions" in the gospels. The result of Enlightenment (post-Enlightenment) higher criticism is that the gospels are a mere human product.
Black suggests that Matthew's gospel was composed for the Jerusalem church before 42 A.D. (or 44 A.D., cf. pp. 68, 67). Paul used this gospel on his first two missionary journeys. But realizing his Gentile audience needed something appropriate to their interests, Paul asked Luke to compose his gospel using Matthew as a model. He finished his work sometime before Paul's imprisonment (62 A.D.). Peter had come to Rome during Paul's incarceration. He delivered some "speeches" on the life of Jesus using Matthew and Luke (both of which he had at hand) and supplementing them (as well as selectively choosing passages from them) with his own eyewitness testimony. Peter's companion, Mark, wrote down these "speeches" so as to form the gospel which bears his name. John's gospel rounds out the fourcomposed late in the first century.
Black constructs his case, in part, on the strength of the external evidence from the early church fathers. This patristic data is neatly summarized (pp. 37-42) by quotations from ten sources ranging from Irenaeus to Augustine.
The keystone is Clement of Alexandria who relates the Peter-Mark cooperation (as per the paragraph above).
Black then turns his attention to a critique of the Markan hypothesis, i.e., Markan priority (pp. 47-59). Noting that the "academic guild" dismisses the external evidence from the fathers ("basically legendary and unreliable"), the theory of Markan priority is erected to account for the existence of the gospels as we have them. Black notes that biblical higher critical prejudice against the fathers is not found among "classical Greek and Roman scholars" (p. 48).
The book concludes with a summary of "The Making of the Gospels" (pp. 66-90). Black makes a credible case for the gospel order as we have it. His case is bolstered by the testimony of the church fathers. Significant historical testimony indeed! save to those who believe that before Kant, Reimarus and Lessing all "history" was invented. In sum, Black's case is as credible as the alternative. It may be even more credible!
Karl P. Donfried, Paul, Thessalonica and Early Christianity. Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans, 2002. 347pp. Paper. ISBN: 0-8028-0509-4. $26.00.
Donfried is one of a number of New Testament scholars who have been contributing fresh work on Paul's Thessalonian correspondence. Raymond Collins, Gene Green, Abraham Malherbe and Jeffrey Weima (cf. his lectures in 1 Thessalonians at Northwest Theological Seminary in August 2002 available through nwts.edu) are among this academic queue. Eerdmans has gathered several of Donfried's essays published in scholarly vehicles from 1974 to 2000. The whole is introduced by a "Preface" and "The Scope and Nature of the Essays: An Introduction and Some Responses" (xvii-xxxviii). A new essay is included ("Shifting Paradigms: Paul, Jesus and Judaism," pp. 1-20) and "Was Timothy in Athens? Some Exegetical Reflections on 1 Thessalonians 3:1-3" (pp. 209-220) is translated from German into English for the first time.
This is very much a "dialogue" compilation. Donfried engages his peers in a lively, often stinging, discussion of central elements in Paul's Thessalonian theology. Helmut Koester, Simon Legasse, Otto Merk, E. P. Sanders, James D. G. Dunn: all are pressed through Donfried's grid. The reader is admitted to the center of the discussion on such topics as the New Perspective on Paul, Justification in Paul, Epistolary and Rhetorical Structure in Thessalonians, the Cults in Thessalonica.
The last mentioned essay is worth the price of the book. I recall my first reading of it and the revelation it provided to the Thessalonian world of Paul and his Christian readers. While Donfried unduly elevates the obscure Cabirus cult (straining the limits of credibility), he provides an essential and fascinating window on the plethora of religions found on the streets of Thessalonica when Paul visited in the year 50 A.D. or later. What dramatic significance (let alone semi-eschatological significance!) this accords to the apostle's words: "you turned to God from idols to serve a living and true God" (1 Thess. 1:9)! And the consequences of that conversion ("turning")? "tribulation" (1:6), "suffering" (2:14), "affliction" (3:3). The church among the Thessalonians was a persecuted church earning the hostility of a polytheistic/pluralistic pagan culture intolerant of claims to "one way", "no other name under heaven", "no man comes to the Father but by" Jesus Christ. The immediacy of Christ alone because of the immediacy of cultural ostracism is striking.
Donfried is an optimistic ecumenist as his endorsement of the Lutheran/Roman Catholic "Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification" (1999) indicates ("Justification and Last Judgment in PaulTwenty-Five Years Later," pp. 279-92). His lust for aggiornamento on the crucial doctrine of justification by Christ alone through grace alone by faith alone is sadly tarnished by accommodating an eschatological ("once and for all") and forensic ("declared righteousness") Pauline concept into a Roman Catholic concept of sanctification ("made righteous" by the renewal of the Holy Spirit) and renovation. Luther is not cheering this essay!
showing more and more). One citation from the Dead Sea Scrolls will suffice: "in your deed (i.e., works) you may be reckoned righteous" (4 QMMT C 30-31, cf. p. 287). Works righteousness, as opposed by Paul (and by Jesus!) is indeed present at Qumran.
The essay on "The Theology of 1 Thessalonians as a Reflection of Its Purpose" (pp. 119-38) is a helpful if somewhat de-eschatologized overview. The essay on the church ("The Assembly of the Thessalonians: Reflections on the Ecclesiology of the Earliest Christian Letter," pp. 139-62) reminds us that the assembly of the Lord is a gathering of those "in God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ . . . and in the Holy Spirit" (1 Thess. 1:1, 5; cf. 2 Thess. 1:2). The Thessalonians were united to the Triune Godset apart ("his choice/election of you"1 Thess. 1:4) from the pagan culture of their metropoliscalled (even now!) "into his own kingdom and glory" (2:12).
For those studying 1 and 2 Thessalonians, Donfried's book is essential reading. Used critically, it will open up the world in which Paul and the Thessalonians lived. That world is our world too!
(8) on "Symbol and the Knowledge of God" (pp. 287-300). For Johannine symbolism, this reviewer prefers Dorothy A. Lee's The Symbolic Narratives of the Fourth Gospel: The Interplay of Form and Meaning (1994) to Koester's contribution.
Koester is quite clear in his presuppositions. The fourth gospel as we have it is a symbolic reconstruction of the distinctive theologies of various early Christian communities. If this sounds vaguely familiar, i.e., like the outmoded form critical analysis of the Bultmannian era, that is precisely what it is. The incident with the Samaritan woman at the well (Jn. 4) makes her the symbolic spokesperson for the Samaritan outsiders vis-à-vis Jewish Christian insiders (symbolically represented by the preceding Nicodemus narrative). In fact, Koester informs us, the Samaritan woman's five husbands (Jn. 4:18) are symbols of the five nations whom the Assyrians settled in Samaria following the conquest of the northern kingdom of Israel in 722/721 B.C. Neat! Bet you would never have guessed that!! And this is not, mind you, allegorythis is "Johannine symbolism."
Lest we become carried away with overreacting to Koester's symbolic allegorism, we learn that the healing of the lame man (Jn. 5) is symbolic (in part) of the pagan healing shrines of Asclepius and Serapis (p. 53). Furthermore, the "I Am" declarations of Jesus are reminiscent of the proclamation of the Egyptian goddess Isis, "I am Isis, queen of every land" (p. 98). And the 5000 member crowd gathered for the feeding by the Sea of Galilee is "typical" (?symbolic) of Greco-Roman crowds eager for "bread and circuses" (p. 56). But Koester is not finished. He blithely informs us that the report of the miracle at Cana was received by early Christians because of the Greco-Roman association with Dionysos, Greek god of wine (p. 85).
of the gospel. It would therefore appear that the gospel has been constructed to meet those common human needs. Even the need for forgiveness is symbolizedin the cross.
We may ask what created what? Did symbol create reality or did reality create symbol? Or is reality in fact symbol? In fact, symbol is reality. Yet in the final analysis, for Koester, it does not matter. Invoking the gods of theological symbolismPaul Tillich and Paul Ricoeur (represented in the footnotes and bibliography)Koester dispenses with historicityconcrete time and space eventreal objectivity. Jesus is a symbol; Johannine Christianity is a symbol; modern Christianity is a symbol. It is a symbol of pluralistic multiculturalism. For "John" (surely a symbol!), the multiculturalism of the first century world is the flux out of which Johannine Christianity (and all Christianity) emerged. If this last sentence reads like a late 20th century American cultural fad, then you will understand the real thesis behind Koester's book. The gospel of John is merely his vehicle for conveying politically correct multiculturalism to the contemporary church.
Symbolism in the Fourth Gospel is a symbol! It is an allegory of a post-Enlightenment worldview laid over the Greek text of the gospel of John. John's gospel in Koester's hands is as credible as the bizarre allegorism of the rabbis, some of the early church fathers, even the medieval sages.
Koester has written a tract for the times using (yes, USING!) John's inspired gospel. Save your money!!
Jacob Neusner, Judaism When Christianity Began: A Survey of Belief and Practice. Louisville, KY: Westminster/John Knox, 2002. 202 pp. Paper. ISBN: 0-664-22527-6. $19.95.
(no doubt) the direct result of the collaboration of his myriad grad students. (If Origen kept seven secretaries busy, Neusner has seventy times seven graduate fellows to thank, in part).
The book is a very helpful survey of the ethos of Judaism (whether at the time of Christ will be argued, since Neusner himself admits that the rabbis altered the faith after Constantine; cf. pp. 95, 101). An orthodox Christian reader will find insights here which bear on the "parting of the ways" and shed light on Israel's objection to Jesus as Messiah, let alone Son of God.
Neusner teaches us that Judaism began with the Babylonian exile (destruction of the Solomonic/First Temple in 586 B.C.). The experience of exile and return created the paradigm for Israel's religious narrative. Adam and Eve's exile from Eden was a primitive form of the narrative. Abraham's exile from Ur of the Chaldees was another, as was Israel's exile from Canaan under Jacob/Joseph and post-Exodus return under Moses/Joshua. "[T]he system of the Torah after 586 did not merely describe things that had actually happened, normal events so to speak, but rendered them normative and mythic and turned an experience into a paradigm of experience . . . the paradigm began as a paradigm, not a set of actual events transformed into a normative pattern. And the conclusions generated by the paradigm, it must follow, derived not from reflection on the things that happened but from the inner logic of the paradigmthere alone" (p. 61, emphasis in original). In truth, post-exilic Judaism "invented" the "myth" of Adam and Eve, Abraham and Sarah, Jacob and Joseph, Moses and Joshua in order to project her own 6th century B.C. experience back into her mythic past. In other words, Adam, Eve, Abraham, Sarah, Jacob, Joseph, Moses, Joshuathese are not actual historical persons. They are the remote idealization of Israel's post-exilic experience. The existential experience of loss and return, creates the narrative of the loss of Eden, the loss of Ur, the loss of Canaan, the loss of Egypt, the loss of the promised land (cf. p. 82). Neusner demonstrates the over-arching drama of this post-exilic experience read back on to Israel's pre-exilic past.
nal authorship of the Torah in the time of Ezra" (p. 58). Ezra (or his "school") is a 5th century B.C. figure. He creates the Torah; he projects the mythic paradigm; he systematizes the post-exilic experience and makes it the ideal of Israel's religious story from the beginning. "We find history systematically selected, therefore by definition invented" (p. 62).
This invention of Judaism following the destruction of the Temple (586 B.C.) is based upon two sources: written Torah and oral Torah. Both of these sources are defined as divine revelations. (Protestant readers will note here a precedent for the Roman Catholic doctrine of twofold truthScripture and tradition.) Oral Torah is derived from traditions of what God spoke to Moses on Sinai. These traditions are called qabbalah and masoret. They are embodied in the Talmud, the Mishnah and the teachings ("lore") of the rabbis. "The Torah of Judaism encompasses not only Scripturethe written part of revelationbut also an oral tradition" (p. 30; cf. chapter 9).
Even the reflections of a student (of Torah) as he recites to his master/teachers stand "within the circle of the revelation of God to Moses at Sinai" (p. 112). Oral Torah is thus very fluid, never fixed, ever evolving. And if one insists on written Torah alone (sola Torah)? "a heretic is someone who rejects the duality of the Torah" (p. 116). If one asks about the prophets and the writings of the Old Testament, these too are part of and derivative from oral Torah. The absolutization of Moses (however mythical or invented) in Judaism makes any subsequent claimant of revelation (Jesus for Christianity; Mohammed for Islam) "idolatry" (p. 3). Moses alone is sufficient.
Thus far the formal principle of Judaism (dual Torah); what of the material principle of Judaism, i.e., that which constitutes its way of approach to God? If Protestants answer sola fide propter sola gratia propter solo Christo (by faith alone because by grace alone because by Christ alone) and if Roman Catholics answer fide et opera (by faith and works); Judaism answers sanctificatione (by sanctification). Sanctification or holiness is the prerequisite for acceptance with God in Judaism. And why is Judaism privileged to be given access to God? "there was no better, more worthy choice, because of Israel's willingness to receive the Torah" (p. 137). Study, explication, reflection upon the Torah becomes Judaism's unique story. Hence access to God is derived fundamentally from the legal and cultic patterns of the Pentateuch.
Preoccupation with ritual cleansing; cultic purification and legal conformity to Mosaic prescription (i.e., sanctification) defines Judaism. God-likeness is derived from performing God-directed rules and rituals. Sanctification is the performance of what law and cult demand. And yet the cult prescribes repentance and sacrificeeven atonement. True, and Neusner reviews this part of the story by detailing the impact on Judaism produced by the destruction of the Second Temple (70 A.D.). With the loss of a place for sacrifice and (blood) atonement, Judaism redefined itself: "when the Temple was destroyed, deeds of loving kindness took the place of sacrifice" (p. 147). Repentance and prayer are two such deeds which avail post-70 A.D. for atonement of sin (p. 158): "in the here and now, Israel is able through repentance to reconcile itself with God" (p. 161).
However this reconciliation is a "return" paradigm: a return to Eden, a return to the Land, a return to Jerusalem, a return to the Temple. Judaism reflects the retrospective paradigm in order to recover what she has lost. But the myth of the return is always limited by the horizon of the world/the earth. Judaism wants the return of Eden (in this world); the return of the Land (in this world); the return of the city (in this world); the return of the sanctuary (in this world). Not only the absolutization of Moses, but the backwards absolutization of the myth of Israel's earthly/this worldly narrative. Jewish transcendence ends with time and space. The suggestion of a world other than this one would be heresy indeed. Creation is the acme of Jewish eschatology.
Even the Messiah of Judaism ushers in a this worldly golden age: "he will raise the dead, restore Israel to the land of Israel, and prepare the way for judgment and the recovery of Eden" (p. 172). And when will Messiah appear? "When Israel really wants the Messiah to come, he will come . . . the messiah's advent and activity depend on Israel, not on messiah's own autonomous decision, character and behavior" (pp. 172 and 173).
A Messiah who is resurrected; is himself the Israel of God in the heavenly land of eternity; undergoes judgment in the place of the eschatological Israel in order that there may be no condemnation for them; possess, as the eschatological Adam, the paradise of Godsuch a Messiah holds little or no interest for Judaism. Tragically, he is too other worldly for our Jewish neighbors.
Neusner's narrative leaves us profoundly movedmoved with compassion and tears, as was our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ (cf. Luke 19:41-44). If the story of Judaism begins with the Exodus (p. 1), we proclaim a new and eschatological exodus in Christ Jesus. If the story of Judaism longs for a returnindeed a resurrectionwe proclaim a new and eschatological resurrection in Christ Jesus. If the story of Judaism yearns for a city, a temple, we proclaim a new and eschatological Jerusalem with a temple who is the Son of God himself. Neusner's narrative has been completedit is the story of Jesus and his people, the church. Come and welcome! all those who are heavy laden and burdened with this world and long even now for the world to come.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.