Ben Witherington III has a good video lesson on choosing a Bible translation. He gives some good, basic information on why there are so many translations, how they differ, what benefit each has, tips on how to choose the proper translation, and what to watch out for. Listening to the Australian paraphrase of Luke 1 is worth it alone!
Theology
Archived Posts from this Category
April 28, 2008
April 25, 2008
What I’ve Been Reading: Five Views on Apologetis | Who Was Adam?
Posted by Jason Dulle under Book Reviews, Intelligent Design, Science, Theology[8] Comments
Who Was Adam? by Fazale Rana and Hugh Ross
Rana and Ross build a Biblical model of human origins, and then subject it to scientific testing. Point by point they show how a Biblical model of human origins fits the data much better than an evolutionary model. Anyone who doubts that creationist models can be tested scientifically or that human evolution is a shut case should read this book.
There is a good survey of major fossil finds, and how anthropaleontologists have gone about interpreting them. It’s interesting to discover how the experts are far from decided on the proper interpretation. There is not one evolutionary tree of human origins, but multiple trees. And the more data we gather, the more the trees appear to rot.
A lot of time is spent on research into the age and relationship of humans and other hominids. Good stuff.
Five Views On Apologetics edited by Steven Cowan
If you aren’t into (and I mean really into) apologetics, you probably won’t enjoy this book. But if you are, it’s a must read. It is one of Zondervan’s Point-Counterpoint books. Five apologists are featured, each making a case that his apologetic philosophy and methodology is the preferred strategy. There is a good discussion on the role of apologetics in evangelism, what we should expect our apologetic to do, whether faith is warranted without evidence, and the like.
April 8, 2008
Psalm 110:1 — A Case Study for the NT use of the OT
Posted by Jason Dulle under Bible Difficulties, Theology[12] Comments
I have blogged in the past on some of the strange ways the NT interprets the OT, and linked to an essay by Peter Enns that helps make sense of it. As helpful as it is, I am still baffled by some of the ways the NT interprets the OT. Here is another troubling example: Jesus’ and Peter’s interpretation of Psalm 110:1.
The LORD said to my Lord, “Sit at My right hand, until I make your enemies your footstool.”
It’s important to understand the structure of this verse. The person speaking in verse 1a is a prophetic voice in the royal court, delivering a message from YHWH (“LORD”) to the prophet’s “lord.” The prophet’s lord is the king, David. Verses 1b and 4 constitute YHWH’s message to David via the unnamed prophet. In verses 2-3 the prophet addresses David, and then speaks to God about David in verses 5-7.
In the original context, then, the “Lord” was David, and the person who spoke the words, “The LORD said to my Lord” was the unnamed prophet speaking to David. When we turn to the NT, however, the original context is turned on its head. According to Jesus and Peter, the “Lord” is a reference to the Messiah, and the person who spoke the words, “The LORD said to my Lord” was David (See Matthew 22:43-45; Mark 12:35-37; Luke 20:41-44; Acts 2:34-36).
It should be pointed out that Jesus did not invent this interpretation of Psalm 110:1. The Jews already had a long-standing interpretive tradition of identifying the “Lord” as the coming Messiah. They reasoned that if what was spoken applied to David, it also applied to all of His royal descendents, including (and especially so) the promised Messiah. As for attributing the words of verse 1a to David, presumably it was reasoned that since David was the author of the psalm, He could be cited as having said those words. A similar phenomenon appears elsewhere in the NT when the words of YHWH are attributed to the prophet who authored the book containing YHWH’s words, or when the words of prophets are attributed to YHWH.
Be that as it may, there is something else even more troubling than these semi-understandable changes to the original meaning. In the NT, Jesus and Peter appeal to Psalm 110:1 as an argument for the deity of Christ. It was common knowledge that the Messiah would be the son of David. So Jesus asked those present, “How is it that the experts in the law say that the Christ is David’s son? David himself, by the Holy Spirit, said, ‘The Lord said to my lord, “Sit at my right hand, until I put your enemies under your feet.”’ If David himself calls him ‘Lord,’ how can he be his son?” (Mark 12:35b-37a).
To understand Jesus’ argument one must understand ancient-near-eastern culture (ANE). According to ANE culture the father is superior to his offspring. Why, then, does David call the Messiah his Lord? To call him such implies that his son is superior to himself, which is unthinkable. This was a paradox that could only be solved if one granted that the Messiah was more than a mere man—He was divine as well.
What I find troubling about this argument for the deity of Christ is that it only works if one takes the OT passage out of context. One has to change the identity of the original subjects in order for it to work. And yet, as with other strange uses of the OT in the NT, the crowds found the argument powerful and persuasive.
February 2, 2008
Why Samuel and Chronicles Sometimes Contradict Each Other
Posted by Jason Dulle under Bible Difficulties, Textual Criticism, TheologyLeave a Comment
Back on 9/14 I posted “Re-measuring Goliath: 9’9” or 6’9”?” In the comments section I brought up an issue I want to make the focus of a new post: the quality of the Masoretic Text of the OT. It seems that it may not represent the original wording in significant places, particularly in books like Jeremiah and 1 and 2 Samuel. Here are the relevant portions from J. Daniel Hays’ article:
As in the book of Jeremiah, there is quite a difference between the Septuagint text of 1-2 Samuel and the Masoretic Text of 1-2 Samuel. Also similar to the textual situation in Jeremiah is the fact that in 1-2 Samuel the Hebrew text from the Dead Sea Scrolls (4QSama) generally aligns with the Septuagint over against the MT. In addition, the story in 1 Samuel 16-18 represents the place where the differences between the two are the most severe. In the Septuagint text of Codex Vaticanus, our oldest complete Greek Bible, 1 Samuel 16-18 is 44% shorter than in the MT. Not only are entire verses missing but entire paragraphs are missing. In the David and Goliath narrative these include 17:12-31, twenty verses that explain about David and his brothers and how he came to be at the battle, and 17:55-58, the four puzzling verses in which Saul doesn’t seem to know who David is in spite of the fact that David had been playing music for Saul back in 1 Samuel 16. As in Jeremiah, the differences between the Septuagint and the MT go well beyond anything that could be attributed to scribal errors or transmission mistakes. And 4QSama generally (but not always) agrees with the Septuagint against the MT. Either somebody added a large chunk of text to the original autograph, somebody deleted a large chunk of text, or else two different accounts of 1-2 Samuel developed separately.
…
Practically all scholars agree that the evidence from 4QSama implies that at the time of Christ there were two different Hebrew text traditions of 1-2 Samuel. As mentioned above, the vorlage or text tradition behind the MT in 1-2 Samuel contains many more readily identifiable scribal errors that the tradition reflected in 4QSama/LXX. Furthermore, and of great interest to those of us who try to connect the doctrine of inspiration into our theories of composition, it should be underscored that when using 1-2 Samuel as a source, the author (compiler, editor, etc.) of 1-2 Chronicles (as reflected in the MT) used a Hebrew text from the textual tradition reflected in 4QSama/LXX and not the one that is reflected in the MT of 1-2 Samuel.14 That is, frequently the MT in 1-2 Chronicles disagrees with the MT in 1-2 Samuel, but agrees with the reading in 4QSama and/or the Septuagint. So the inspired author/editor of 1-2 Chronicles either did not have a copy of the MT tradition text of 1-2 Samuel or elected to use the text tradition reflected in 4QSama/LXX, presumably because he regarded it as a superior text.
Our theory of inerrancy has to account for stuff like this. What do we do with ~23 extra verses in the MT version of I Samuel 17-18? If the LXX and DSS preserve the original, inspired form of the book (as seems likely), are we prepared to cross those verses out of our Bibles in the same way we should change Goliath’s height from 9’9” to 6’9”? This is a matter of textual criticism, and is not altogether unlike what we see even in NT text criticism in which the authenticity of long passages is disputed (the longer ending of Mark, the periscope of the woman caught in adultery). The difference here is the quantity of verses that are suspect. Either way, we should be open to the evidence and not shut our eyes to the facts because they make us uncomfortable.
The main reason I bring this up is not to cause anyone to doubt the reliability of Scripture. Indeed, I could write a series of posts arguing for the trustworthiness of Scripture. The reason I bring this up is because it provides an answer for why we find so many contradictions between Samuel and Chronicles when it comes to numbers. For example:
1. In 2 Sam 8:4 David takes 700 horsemen, whereas in 1 Chron 18:4 he takes 7000.
2. In 2 Sam 10:18 David slew the men who drove 700 Syrian chariots, and 40K horsemen, whereas in 1 Chron 19:18 David slew 7000 charioteers and 40K footmen.
3. In 2 Sam 23:8 we are told that David’s chief captain slew 800 men at one time with his spear, whereas in 1 Chron 11:11 he is said to have slain 300.
4. In 2 Sam 24:9 Joab counted 1,300,000 fighting men, whereas in 1 Chron 21:5 he is said to have counted 1,570,000.
Why the discrepancy? It could be due to copyist errors, or a misunderstanding of certain numerical values due to the evolution of the Hebrew numerical system. Given the fact that not all numbers disagree between the two books, this option is unlikely. The best answer is that the Chronicler was using a different Hebrew text of Samuel that had different numerical values in certain places, which means there were at least two competing manuscript traditions of Samuel. Of course, the question remains as to which is the original text, and how the changes were introduced (copyist error, purposeful tampering with the text, misunderstanding of older numerical system, etc.). That is where textual critics enter the stage, and I step off. For what it’s worth, I tend to think the Chronicler was using a superior Hebrew text, and should be given the benefit of the doubt over the MT of Samuel. The MT is a younger text. The DSS and LXX give us a much earlier picture of the text.
January 25, 2008
Update: Dan Wallace on What Constitutes a Textual Variant
Posted by Jason Dulle under Textual Criticism, TheologyLeave a Comment
Back in November I directed you to a couple of brief articles by Dan Wallace on Biblical textual criticism. His series has continued since then. For those who are interested, here are the other links (in historical order):
The Nature of Textual Variants
Textual Variants: What Issues Are at Stake?
Textual Variants: What Issues Are At Stake? Part 2
Why Did Scribes Make Mistakes when Copying Scripture? Part 1
Why Did Scribes Make Mistakes when Copying Scripture? Part 2
The Significance of Scribal Corruptions to the New Testament
The Composition of the Original Text
January 15, 2008
In 1 Corinthians 14 Paul spoke of singing in tongues. Interestingly, I hear few Pentecostals do so. Do you? If so, do you tend to sing new and unknown songs, or mimic the tune and tempo of known songs?
January 15, 2008
For all you tongues-speakers out there, can you speak in tongues at-will, or do you have to be in prayer for it to happen? In the days after I first received the Spirit, I had to be in prayer before I could speak in tongues again. But as time went on that was no longer the case. I could start and stop speaking in tongues at-will. But I know not everyone experiences this. What has your experience been?
January 15, 2008
I would like to keep our attention focused on the passage discussed in my last post. Not only is there the question of 2-3 interpretations per service versus per judgment, but there is also a question of whether there are to be 2-3 messages in tongues followed by a single interpretation, or 2-3 successive couplets of tongues and interpretations. In other words, did Paul mean 2-3 people should give messages in tongues, followed by a single interpretation of those messages, or did Paul mean there should only be 2-3 tongues each accompanied by a separate interpretation?
In support of the single interpretation view, notice that Paul says “someone” (singular) must interpret. That may mean Paul had a singular interpreter and interpretation in mind. Of course, even if we granted that Paul had a single interpreter, it does not resolve the question at hand, for it could be that Paul envisioned a single person interpreting each message individually, so that one person is giving 2-3 interpretations.
In support of the more traditional understanding that there are to be 2-3 interpretations accompanying the 2-3 messages, Paul may have been using “someone” generically to convey the notion that these tongues must have corresponding interpretations, not necessarily one interpretation by a single individual. In support of this view, notice that Paul used “someone” two times in verse 27. He said, “If someone speaks in a tongue, it should be two, or at the most three, one after the other, and someone must interpret.” Clearly the first use of someone does not refer to a single individual or single message, because Paul went on to speak of 2-3 different messages, and noted that they were consecutive. If the context makes it clear that Paul’s first use of the singular “someone” does not preclude multiple messages and speakers, there is no reason to think his second use of the singular “someone” precludes multiple interpreters and interpretations.
Of course, we might even ask whether the question at hand is pushing the text too far. Indeed, one could make the case from this passage that the interpreter should not be one of the individuals who gave a message since Paul makes a personal distinction between the speaker and interpreter in verse 28. But when we look at 1 Cor 14:5 and 13 it appears that the ideal situation is one in which the speaker provides the interpretation. Which is it? I would argue that either is acceptable, and that we only see a contradiction when we try to squeeze hard and fast rules out of passages that are not meant to communicate as much.
So maybe we should not be reading the text with a fine tooth comb, thinking we can glean a hard and fast rule for how many interpretations we should expect. Maybe experience can be our guide in this area, given the obscurity of the text. And when it comes to experience, some people have experienced multiple tongues followed by a single interpretation, while others have experienced 2-3 couplets of tongues and interpretations. If both are the work of the Holy Spirit, then so be it.
What do you think?
January 11, 2008
2-3 interpretations at a time, or per service?
Posted by Jason Dulle under Theology, Tongues[5] Comments
When you come together, each one has a song, has a lesson, has a revelation, has a tongue, has an interpretation. Let all these things be done for the strengthening of the church. 14:27 If someone speaks in a tongue, it should be two, or at the most three, one after the other, and someone must interpret. 14:28 But if there is no interpreter, he should be silent in the church. Let him speak to himself and to God. 14:29 Two or three prophets should speak and the others should evaluate what is said. 14:30 And if someone sitting down receives a revelation, the person who is speaking should conclude. 14:31 For you can all prophesy one after another, so all can learn and be encouraged. (1 Corinthians 14:26-31, NET Bible)
As a matter of practice, I have never heard more than three tongues and interpretations in the course of a service. This passage is usually cited to explain why. But does a proper interpretation of this passage limit the number of tongues-interpretations in a service, or does it merely limit the number of tongues-interpretations that can be given prior to an evaluation (judgment) of what was said by the body? The latter seems more probable given the context, and given common sense.
While Paul does not specifically mention a time for judging the interpreted tongues, he does mention a time for judging prophecies. Since Paul equated prophecy and interpreted tongues (1 Cor 14:1-5), and since both are revelatory speeches from God, and since Paul spoke of both in the same context, it stands to reason that the body must judge the content of both. Once the body has judged the content of the interpretations, however, why couldn’t more be given?
Logically speaking I don’t see why interpretations would be limited to a particular service. It seems rather arbitrary. If God provided us three tongues-interpretations, and we break for ½ lunch, and then return for more church, does the clock start over? Given the traditional interpretation of this verse, the answer would be yes. But that seems silly. Paul’s emphasis is not on how many interpretations can be given per se, but how many interpretations can be given before somebody evaluates their revelatory worth. After such an evaluation has been made, more could follow.
If you disagree with me, I’d be interested to hear your reasoning.
January 11, 2008
How to Tell the Difference Between Fake and Authentic Tongues
Posted by Jason Dulle under Theology, Tongues[387] Comments
Have you ever had doubts about your own experience of speaking in tongues? Have you ever wondered if it was truly God, or just you making up sounds? What about others? Have you ever heard someone speaking in tongues, but doubted that it was the real deal? How do we tell the difference between fake and authentic tongues?
There are two ways we can test the validity of tongues. Both can be used to test the validity of our own personal tongues, while only one can be used to test the validity of others’ tongues.
Scripture teaches us that tongues are genuine languages. They are not meaningless sounds, or ecstatic gibberish. Languages employ a variety of sounds to compose a variety of words. If, when you speak in tongues, you find that you are repeating the same few sounds over and over and over again, it may indicate that you are not truly speaking in tongues. This same criterion can also be used to help us judge whether others’ use of tongues is legitimate or contrived.
Secondly, and more importantly, we learn from Scripture that it is the Spirit who enables us to speak in a new, and unlearned language (Acts 2:4). The words we speak have their origin with God, not man. We do not invent the language, and thus we do not invent the “sounds” that we speak.
In 1 Corinthians 14:14-15 Paul contrasted speaking in tongues with praying in his native tongue, saying the former prayer was with his spirit whereas the latter prayer was with his mind. He made the point that when his spirit prays, his mind is unproductive. This means our minds are not involved in the speaking process. Speaking in tongues is not something we have to think about. Contrast this to our native language. First we think about what we are going to say, and then we say it—in that order. The language of the Spirit, however, is not connected to the mind, but rather ensues from the spirit of man. That means we don’t think about what we are going to say in tongues and then say it, but rather we speak the words in tongues, and then upon hearing what we have spoken we think about the words or sounds we just heard. It is just the opposite of learned speech.
There have been many occasions in prayer in which I found myself thinking about things such as what I was going to do when I was finished praying, all the while speaking in tongues. Shame on me for not having my mind on prayer, but the fact that I could think on one thing while speaking another proves that the mind is not the source of tongues. If you find yourself having to think about what sounds you will speak next, that is a good indication you are not truly speaking in tongues. I hope such is not the case, but it is better to recognize this and seek the true experience than it is to persist in a false belief and experience, mistaking it for the true.
December 20, 2007
What relationship does rationality have to faith? While some only convert after they have examined the evidence for Christianity, most people convert based on a personal experience with Jesus Christ. That’s the way it was for me. I came to believe Christianity was true, not by a rational examination of the evidence, but because of my personal encounter with the risen Christ. I remain a Christian, however, not only because of my past and present experience, but because I have examined the rational evidence for Christianity and found it superior to all other worldviews.
Whether one first believes because of what they know by experience, or what they know by rationality, the fact remains that a robust faith requires both. He who first believes based on an experience needs to supplement that experience with a rational inquiry of the faith they now hold. He who first believes based on a rational examination of Christianity needs to supplement his persuasion with a personal encounter of Jesus Christ.
For further reading about the relationship of faith and rationality, see my articles on the topic at IBS:
What is the Relationship of Reason to Revelation?
A Balanced Perspective on Reason and Faith
Investigating Faith: Placing Religious Truth Back Into the Arena of Knowledge
Religious Truth Can Be Known
Scaling the Gulf Between Scientific and Religious Knowledge
December 20, 2007
Are the Gifts of the Spirit Only Available for Those Who First Receive the Spirit?
Posted by Jason Dulle under Spiritual gifts, Theology[14] Comments
I was always taught that the gifts of the Spirit were only for those who have first received the Spirit. The Scriptural justification given was usually an appeal to 1Corinthians 12:13, where in the context of discussing spiritual gifts Paul said, “For in one Spirit we were all baptized into one body. Whether Jews or Greeks or slaves or free, we were all made to drink of the one Spirit.” Paul went on to compare the church to a human body, arguing that each person has a function in the body of Christ based on His spiritual gifting. It is argued, then, that if one has not received the Spirit, He is not in the body of Christ, and thus does not have a spiritual gift. I think this interpretation is mistaken both exegetically and logically.
Exegetically, Paul does not make the point those who advance this idea claim he is making. He does not argue that one must be in the body of Christ in order to have a spiritual gift. He simply notes that of those who are in the body of Christ because they have received the Spirit have a spiritual gift as well. The only thing we can gather from the text is that having the Spirit is a sufficient condition for having a spiritual gift; we cannot conclude that it is a necessary condition. While all those in the body of Christ have a spiritual gift, that does not preclude anyone who is outside the body of Christ from having a spiritual gift. Having the Spirit may be the norm for those who have a spiritual gift in NT times, but it does not mean there can be no exceptions.
Logically, it is clear that the gifts of the Spirit are not predicated on one’s possession of the Spirit. The OT saints operated in the gifts of the Spirit even though they were not filled with the Spirit. One may counter that the spiritual gifts Paul spoke of are different than what we see operative in the OT, but why should we believe that? How does an OT miracle differ from a NT miracle? How did one’s ability to discern different spirits differ in the OT from the NT? Only two of the nine spiritual gifts are unique to the NT period (different kinds of tongues, interpretation of tongues). The rest were exhibited in days of old, and thus there is no reason to think that one must have the Spirit to have the gifts of the Spirit. Again, that may be the norm during the current dispensation, but there is no good reason to believe it is a hard and fast rule.
December 4, 2007
Is the Singular “Name” of Matthew 28:19 Theologically Important?
Posted by Jason Dulle under Baptism, Soteriology, Theology[100] Comments
I’ve been giving some additional thought to the traditional OP interpretation of Matthew 28:19, particularly our emphasis on the importance of the singular nature of “name.” We argue that if Jesus meant for us to actually invoke three names over the baptizee (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit), He should have used the plural form, “names.” Instead, He used the singular form, “name,” which is grammatically incorrect. Why did He do so? Because He only had one name in view. The disciples properly discerned that name to be His name-Jesus-and used His name exclusively in their baptismal formula. They obeyed, rather than repeated Jesus’ words.
I’m not so sure our emphasis on the singular form of “name” is justified. The use of the singular “name” is grammatically justifiable. “Of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit” is a string of three genitival phrases modifying “name.” It could be argued that the prepositional phrase, “in the name,” is implied for both the Son and the Holy Spirit, so that the intended sense of the verse is, “Baptizing them in the name of the Father, and [in the name] of the Son, and [in the name] of the Holy Spirit.” It would be similar to my saying, “Arrest them in the name of the king, and the queen, and the motherland.” Here, the singular use of “name” is justified because “in the name of” is implied for both the queen and the motherland. The sentence should really read, “Arrest them in the name of the king, and [the name of] the queen, and [the name of] the motherland.” If the same is true of Matthew 28:19, then the singular “name” is being applied to each of the three appellations individually, and hence the singular use of name is grammatically justified.
If I am right, then making an ado over the singular use of “name” as an obvious signal that Jesus meant for the disciples to pick up on some deeper meaning is misguided, and irrelevant to understanding how Matthew 28:19 squares with the baptismal formula used by the apostles in Acts.
If I am right, how should we understand what Jesus said against what the apostles did? Why did they baptize in Jesus’ name? What clued them in to the fact that Jesus did not mean for them to literally repeat His words? If it wasn’t His singular use of “name,” maybe it was what Jesus said before speaking those controversial words. He prefaced His command to make disciples, baptizing them in the name of the F/S/HS by saying, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me, therefore…” (28:18). After He issued His command He continued to speak exclusively of Himself: “Teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And remember, I am with you always” (28:20). The emphasis was on Christ alone. Together with the disciples recognition that Jesus encapsulates our experience of God, they understood His words to mean that they were to baptize in His name. The authority (name) in which we are baptized is the same as the one who just claimed all authority in heaven and earth: Jesus Christ. It is for that reason that we are baptized in His name.
Whether it was due to the singular use of “name,” or the context of Jesus’ command, the fact remains that the apostles understood Jesus to mean they were to baptize in His name, and we should follow their lead.
Any thoughts? Any grammatical or theological insights?
UPDATE: Someone emailed me a link to an article by a Oneness Pentecostal making the same points I made here, but in expanded form. The author, Mark Kennicott, also exegetes some of the key passages cited in support of the conclusion that Jesus is the singular name of the Father and Spirit. Check it out.
November 30, 2007
Not a Prooftext for the Deity of Christ
Posted by Jason Dulle under Theology, Theology Proper[17] Comments
I’ve often heard Christians appeal to Paul’s Damascus road experience in support of the deity of Christ. We read: “As he was going along, approaching Damascus, suddenly a light from heaven flashed around him. 4 He fell to the ground and heard a voice saying to him, “Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting me?” 5 So he said, ‘Who are you, Lord?’ He replied, ‘I am Jesus whom you are persecuting!” (Acts 9:3-5)
It’s said that as a monotheistic Jew, Paul’s acknowledgement of Jesus as “Lord” is an explicit attribution of deity. I find this interpretation unlikely. First, the Greek word kurios simply means “master,” and is used of both human persons as well as God. The term applies to anyone who is in a position of authority over someone else. For example, we read that Sarah called Abraham “lord.” If anyone knew Abraham was not a god, it was Sarah! We have no reason to believe Paul used the term because He thought He was speaking to the one true God. He recognized that any voice speaking to him from heaven must be coming from someone who had authority over him, and thus addressed the as-of-yet unknown person with a term that acknowledged his authority.
November 30, 2007
What I’ve Been Reading: Reinventing Jesus
Posted by Jason Dulle under Book Reviews, Christology, TheologyLeave a Comment
Reinventing Jesus: How Contemporary Skeptics Miss the Real Jesus and Mislead Popular Culture, by Daniel Wallace, M. James Sawyer, and J. Ed Komoszewski
I have not enjoyed reading a book this much since I Don’t Have Enough Faith to be an Atheist. Reinventing Jesus was released as a response to some of the claims made in The DaVinci Code (TDC), but unlike most of the other books released debunking TDC, this one deals with some of the more substantive issues raised by TDC with very little reference to the book itself.
Reinventing Jesus is divided into five sections:
1. Oral transmission of the Jesus story prior to the Gospels
2. The transmission and preservation of the NT text
3. How the NT canon was formed
4. What the early church thought about Jesu
5. Christianity is not an eclectic form of Greek mystery religions
Sections 2-3 are worth the price of the book. Daniel Wallace wrote the section on the NT text. He is one of the few NT textual critics in the world, so his personal insights are invaluable. James Sawyer wrote on the formation of the canon, a subject he has written about elsewhere.
The book is meant to be an introductory look at the issues. Often that means an intellectually watered down manuscript. Not this one. It is not lacking in intellectual vigor. No matter what your level of understanding, you will learn something from this book. The material is informative, and presented in a logical, clear manner. I give it five stars! Do yourself a favor and read it.
November 16, 2007
Dan Wallace on What Constitutes a Textual Variant
Posted by Jason Dulle under Textual Criticism, Theology[4] Comments
I would highly recommend you read a couple of blog posts (1 and 2) from Daniel Wallace at Parchment and Pen on the topic of textual criticism. Few are better equipped to address the issue than Wallace. He is very involved in the study of the Greek manuscripts, and very knowledgeable in the field of textual criticism.
Wallace notes that many Christians falsely define what a textual variant is, and misunderstand how textual critics have arrived at the conclusion that the NT text contains 300-400K variants. It is commonly believed that this number is so large because any given textual variant, when it appears in multiple manuscripts, is counted multiple times. So if a single variant in Romans 5:1 appears in 10 different manuscripts, it is counted as 10 variants. Not so. Read Wallace’s posts to uncover the truth about how textual variants are counted.
November 13, 2007
Are You Taking the Name of the Lord in Vain?
Posted by Jason Dulle under Hamartiology, Theology1 Comment
As opposed as I am to people using God’s name in useless ways such as an exclamation (“God!” or “Oh my God!”) or an expletive (“God d**n it!”), admittedly, this is not what Scripture means when it tells us not to take the name of the Lord in vain.
Read C. Michael Patton’s blog entry on this issue, particularly point #3. He makes it clear that while many of us would never think of saying “God d**n it,” we commonly take His name in vain without realizing it. Read it, and then think twice next time before you proclaim God told you such and such.
November 13, 2007
Differences in the Gospels…update
Posted by Jason Dulle under Bible Difficulties, Theology[3] Comments
Back in May I posted a blog entry titled “Differences in the Gospels” in which I discussed some of the supposed contradictions the Gospels, and how they are not actual contradictions. As a case study I examined John’s report of Jesus baptizing in Judea. In one place he says Jesus baptized, while a little later he says it was Jesus’ disciples, and not Jesus Himself. If it was Luke rather than John who had noted that it was Jesus’ disciples, not Jesus Himself, who baptized, people would claim a contradiction between Luke and John. Since both appear in John, however, it is clear that there is no contradiction. It only illustrates the flexibility in which the Biblical authors reported historical events. John so no contradiction at all. I argued that this is illustrative of how we ought to view other supposed contradictions between the Gospels.
I just updated that post to include another example similar to the one above. In John 20:1 John only mentions Mary Magdalene as a witness to Jesus’ resurrection, while the other Gospel authors report a plurality of women (the lists differ as to who is identified). Some see this as a contradiction. And yet in the very next verse John records Mary as saying to the apostles, “We do not know where they have laid him.” While John only names Mary as a witness, he is clearly aware of the fact that there were more present than just Mary. Again, such ways of speaking should alert us not to be too rigid in our interpretation of the Gospels. We cannot impose modern standards of historiography on the apostles and the texts they created.
November 12, 2007
What I’ve Been Reading: Beyond Death | The Missing Gospels
Posted by Jason Dulle under Apologetics, Book Reviews, Christology, Mind, Philosophy, Theistic Arguments, TheologyLeave a Comment
Beyond Death, by Gary Habermas and J.P. Moreland
This book is a comprehensive examination of the afterlife. The book begins with an examination of traditional arguments for the afterlife, showing both their strengths and weaknesses. It goes on to argue for the existence of the soul, as well as explore the nature of the soul.
The centerpiece of their case rests on near-death experiences. They detail many documented cases, as well as speak of the ongoing research in this area. This section is worth the cost of the book.
They also address the evidence for the resurrection of Jesus, reincarnation, and explore the nature of our existence beyond death.
The Missing Gospels: Unearthing the Truth Behind Alternative Christianities, by Darrel Bock
This book is an introductory look at the so-called lost Gospels some scholars claim challenge the very notion of Christian orthodoxy. The “new school” maintains that the early church held to a diverse set of beliefs, and those who call “orthodox” did not become orthodox until the third century via political maneuvering. The Missing Gospels attempts to show that the new school interpretation of Christian history is mistaken.
Bock contrasts the Gnostic materials with the Biblical and post-apostolic writings of the Fathers on four key ideas: (1) God and creation; (2) the person of Jesus as human and divine; (3) salvation; (4) the purpose of Jesus’ life and death. He concludes that the Gnostic materials present a radically different picture of Christianity than orthodoxy.
I would recommend this book for anyone interested in better familiarizing themselves with the Gnostic materials, as well as providing an answer to those who claim Gnosticism was one of a variety of original Christianities.
November 6, 2007
How is “Jesus” the name of the Father, Son, and Spirit?
Posted by Jason Dulle under Baptism, Theology, Theology Proper[189] Comments
Oneness Pentecostals (OPs) understand Matthew 28:19 to refer to the name of Jesus Christ. Jesus said we are to be baptized in the name (singular) of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. He did not say names (plural), which we would expect grammatically if He literally wanted us to repeat “in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit” over the baptizee. His use of the singular “name,” as well as the context indicates He had a singular name in mind: His own = Jesus. Looking at how the apostles obeyed His command confirms this interpretation, for they always and only baptized in the name of Jesus Christ.
I’m taking this as a given. What I want to focus on is how “Jesus” is the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. OPs often interpret this verse to mean the name of the Father is Jesus, the name of the Son is Jesus, and the name of the Holy Spirit is Jesus. I am not persuaded this is the correct interpretation. Such an interpretation is foreign to the rest of Scripture. While Scripture identifies the name of the Son as Jesus, nowhere does it identify “Jesus” as the name of the Father and the name of the Holy Spirit. In fact, Scripture consistently uses Jesus/Son in contradistinction to Father and Holy Spirit. Jesus is used to refer to God’s human mode of existence as the Son/Messiah. Father is used to refer to God’s supracarnate existence (i.e. God’s existence beyond the incarnation). Scripture does not call the Father “Jesus” anymore than it calls Jesus “Father.” While Scripture teaches us that Jesus’ deity is the deity of the Father, it consistently distinguishes between the appellations “Father” and “Jesus” because these appellations are representative of the distinction in the uni-personal God’s modes of existence. To confuse the appellations is to confuse God’s two modes of existence: as God, as man. If we interpret Matthew 28:19 to mean the name of the Father is Jesus, however, we are doing just that: confusing the existential distinction between God’s existence as God, and His existence as man. If Scripture uses the name Jesus to refer to the Son and only the Son, we should not use it to refer to the Father and Holy Spirit as if it equally applies. While we may understand God to be one person, and recognize that Jesus’ deity is that of the Father, it does not give us license to use Biblical terms in unbiblical ways.
If you accept my reason for questioning the traditional interpretation, how do you think we should understand Jesus’ words? I have my own take on it, but I want to hold off sharing it until after I hear from you.
If you object to my reason for objecting to the traditional OP interpretation, and maintain the traditional view, what do you find problematic about my objection? Do you have any reasons you can provide me for accepting the traditional OP interpretation?
Thinking to Believe 