Café Apocalypsis

Posted By asbandy on April 9, 2009

Tomb of John the Apostle in Ephesus

The question of the authorship for the Book of Revelation, not surprisingly, divides into several options. Since John names himself as the author and most scholars accept that it was not a pseudonym, the locus of discussion has been on answering the question “which John?” The majority of scholars recognize three major candidates:

(1) John the apostle and son of Zebedee (Irenaeu, Adv. haer. 4.20.11; Tertullian, Adv. Marc. 3.14.3; 3.24.4; Clement of Alexandria, Paed. 2.119; Quis div. 42; Strom. 6.106; Hippolytus, Antichr., 36; Origen, Comm. Jo., 2.4.)

(2) John the elder (Eusebius, Hist. eccl. 3.39.3-7

(3) some other unknown John that was a prophet (Charles, The Revelation of St. John, xxxviii.)

In addition to these three, John Mark (Eusebius, Hist. eccl. 7.25.15) and John the Baptist (J. M. Ford, Revelation, 28-46) have been posed as candidates but have failed to gain any serious support. An examination of the internal evidence may sustain a plausible case for John the apostle as the author of Revelation.

When John speaks of himself, he does so with humility preferring to call himself a servant of God/Christ and a brother rather than an apostle or a prophet (Rev 1:1). John specifically calls himself a servant (doulos) in Rev 1:1 indicating that the content of the revelation (apokalypsis) was mediated through God’s servant (John) and intended for his servants.

The term translated as slave/servant occurs a total of fourteen times in the Apocalypse (Rev 1:1; 2:20; 6:15; 7:3; 10:7; 11:18; 13:16; 15:3; 19:2, 5, 18; 22:3, 6). The majority of occurrences indicate that the servants of God are synonymous with Christians (Rev 1:1; 2:20; 7:3; 19:2, 5; 22:3, 6). Other occurrences identify the servants with the prophets (Rev 10:7; 11:18; 15:3) or inclusive of both prophets and all believers (Rev 1:1; 11:18; 22:6).

The point is that while John is an authoritative figure throughout the Christian community, he presents himself as one of them instead of being above them. This is brought out even more clearly in Rev 1:9 where he calls himself their “brother” (adelphos) and “joint participant” (sunkoinōnos) with them in hardships, the kingdom, and patient endurance accompanying faith in Jesus. John carefully identified with his audience (i.e., believers in the seven churches) by equating himself to a servant as they are and as their brother (cf. Rev 6:11; 12:10; 19:10; 22:9).

What is more, linguistic and stylistic clues in the text strongly suggest that John was a Jewish Christian originally from Palestine. After his meticulous lexical and syntactical analysis of the Apocalypse, R. H. Charles concluded that the one certainty about the author was that he was a Palestinian Jew from the region of Galilee.

Charles based his conclusion on two observations. First, John’s mother tongue was Hebrew evidenced by the “vast multitude of solecisms and unparalleled idiosyncrasies” of his Greek reflecting Semitic syntax. The second observation of John’s Palestinian/Galilean origins stems from the fact that he was a prophet who wrote an Apocalypse.

According to Aune, “no known examples of Jewish apocalypses originated in the eastern or western Diaspora, nor did the genre survive long in early Christianity once it had moved outside the boundaries of Palestine. (Aune, Revelation 1-5, l)” John’s Palestinian roots are also exposed by his awareness and interest in the Temple (Rev 11:1-2) and other locations (Rev 11:8; 16:16; 20:9; 21:2). Even the name John is of Jewish origin and did not appear in Gentile settings until much later.

In light of the observation that he was well known among the churches in Asia Minor, presented himself in humility, and comes from a distinctively Jewish background, the John of the Apocalypse fits the profile of John the son of Zebedee.

Category: Authorship, Book of Revelation | 431Commentshttp://www.cafeapocalypsis.com/?p=431I%2C+John2009-04-09+17%3A01%3A08asbandy
Tags: Apocalypse, Authorship, Internal Evidence, John the Apostle

Posted By asbandy on April 7, 2009

John identifies himself three times in the beginning and once at the end of as the author of visions that he experienced (Rev 1:1c; 4a; 9a; 22:8a). The use of the first person, then, automatically entails that John is the one narrating, seeing, and hearing the contents recorded unless it is attributed to another (i.e., Christ in Rev 1:17-18; 2-3). In Rev 1:1c, John testifies (μαρτυρησεν) as an eyewitness to the veracity of the message directly handed down to him by God. The forensic sense of μαρτυρησεν is retained in its full force as if, in a law court, he solemnly swears “to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth.” This usage corresponds with other occurrences of μαρτυρεω in the NT asserting the official and eyewitness nature of giving testimony (cf. 1 John 1:1-3). In the other two self-designations, it is as if John states his name for the record (Rev 1:4a, 9a cf. 22:8a). What is more, Jesus himself likewise states his name for the record at the end of the vision to further verify John’s testimony (Rev 22:16; cf. 22:8-9). As such, John fulfills the role of a witness to Christ and to the churches by submitting his testimony in writing, which consists of all that he has seen (οσα ειδεν).

To be sure, John’s testimony corresponds with his vocation as a prophet and a well recognized leader in the churches of Asia Minor. The simple self-designation “I, John” (Εγω Ιωαννης) suggests he was well known in the churches and it also conforms to a standard convention used in prophetic and apocalyptic writings. This is abundantly evident throughout Jewish writings: “I, Daniel,” (Dan 7:15; 8:15, 27; 9:2; 10:2, 7; 12:5); “I, Baruch” (2 Apoc. Bar. 8:3; 9:1; 10:5; 11:1; 13:1; 32:8; 44:1); “I, Enoch” (1 Enoch 12:3); “I, Ezra” (4 Ezra 2:33); “I, Salathiel [= Ezra]” (4 Ezra 3:1). It was also used as a designation by some non-prophets such as “I, Nebuchadnezzar” (Dan 4:4); “I, Artaxerxes” (Ezra 7:21); “I, Tobit” (Tob 1:3). The apostle Paul even used the simple “I, Paul” (Gal 5:2; Eph 3:1; cf. “I, Simon Peter” [Gos. Pet. 14:60]).

Although, he never explicitly claims “I am a prophet,” John doubtlessly regarded himself as such. He explicitly designates his book as a prophecy (Rev 1:3, 22:7; 22:10, 18-19).  John, in Rev 10:8-11, even participates like a prophet in the vision when eats a bittersweet scroll followed by the injunction that “it is necessary for you to prophesy again” (δει σε παλιν προφητευσαι). He also exhibits a special concern for the Christian prophets (Rev 10:7; 11:10; 11:18; 16:6; 18:20; 18:24; 22:6; 22:9) and condemns all false prophets (Rev 16:13; 19:20; 20:10), especially those infecting the churches with their message (Rev 2:2, 6, 15,20). This suggests that John clearly regarded himself as a prophet in the tradition of the OT prophets.

The inaugural vision (Rev 1:9-20) includes John’s prophetic commission in a manner very reminiscent of other OT prophets. His prophetic commission exhibits a broad pattern shared by several prophetic call narratives. John’s prophetic commission parallels Isaiah (Isa 6:1-12), Jeremiah (Jer 1:1-10), and Ezekiel (1:1-2:8) in at least five aspects.

(1) John records his commission as an autobiographical account. He provides details regarding the historical circumstances at the time of the commission (Rev 1:9-10a; cf. Dan 7:1; 8:1; 9:1; 10:1; Hos 1:1; Amos 1:1b; Mic 1:1; Zeph 1:1; Hag 1:1; 2:10, 20; Zech 1:1, 7). This aspect mirrors the call narratives of all three canonical prophets (Isa 6:1; Jer 1:1-3; Ezek 1:1-3).

(2) John indicates the means of revelation by which he received his inspired vision (Rev 1:10a). The phrase εγενομην εν πνευματι suggests that he fell into some sort of visionary trance. Most prophets simply state that “the word of the Lord” came to them, but all three of these prophets experienced visions (cf. Daniel, Zechariah, Joel, et. al.).

(3) John’s inaugural vision included a divine theophany. His description of the glorified Christ (Rev 1:12-16) along with the voice like a trumpet (Rev 1:10b) evoke OT theophanies. Once again John’s experience parallels Ezekiel (Ezek 1:4-28a) and, to a lesser extent, Isaiah (Isa 6:1-4).

(4) The sheer power of this vision provokes John’s worshipful and fearful response of falling prostrate on the ground (Rev 1:17; Cf. Ex 20:18-19; Josh 5:14; Dan 8:18; 10:10, 19; Ezek 3:23; 43:3; Tob 12:16; 1 En.. 14:13-14; 60:3; 71:2, 11; 2 En. 21:2; 22:4; 4 Ezra 4:12; 10:30; Jos. Asen. 14 :10-11 ; T.Job 3:4; Apoc. Zeph. 6:9-10).

(5) John is commanded to write down all he sees and send it to the seven churches, which may correspond with the prophets being sent to speak in Yahweh’s behalf (Rev 1:11, 19; cf. Isa 6:1-13; Jer. 1:1-10; Ezek 1:1-3:27; Amos 7:14-17).

The opening chapter of Revelation, then, establishes John as a prophet in continuity with Israel’s prophetic tradition. By building on this heritage, John functions as an authoritative prophetic voice for the new covenant community. Although removed from the covenant community, he commiserates with the churches as a fellow-sharer with them in tribulation, kingdom, and patient endurance because of their mutual faith in Jesus Christ (Rev 1:9). Like the OT prophets he will deliver a message of judgment and salvation, as well as, warning and encouragement. In communicating his message, John readily employs the language, imagery, patterns, and conventions of his predecessors.

Category: Book of Revelation, Prophet | 424Commentshttp://www.cafeapocalypsis.com/?p=424The+Prophet+of+Patmos+%28Rev+1%3A1%292009-04-07+16%3A01%3A49asbandy
Tags: John of Patmos, Prophet, Prophetic Call Narrative, Rev 1:1

Posted By asbandy on March 28, 2009

D. A. Carson will headline the Ryan Center’s upcoming 2009 Bible Conference at Union University in Jackson, TN. The two day conference will be held on Union’s campus April 24-25, 2009. Other speakers include: Ray Clendenen, David Olford, Richard Wells, Ken Easley, George Guthrie, Mark Dubis, Gary Smith, Greg Spears, David and Sally Michael, Paul Jackson, Brad Green, Jim Patterson, Taylor Worley, Justin Barnard, and Terry Wilder. Included in this group are two of my former professors, Ken Easley and Jim Patterson, and my favorite Hebrew’s scholar - George Guthrie. Too bad, I am already planning to attend the conference on Historical Pre-Millennialism at Denver Seminary.

(HT: Terry Wilder; Union University)

Category: Biblical Theology | 416Commentshttp://www.cafeapocalypsis.com/?p=416Word+Within+the+Word2009-03-28+21%3A09%3A07asbandy
Tags: Conferences, Use of OT in NT

Posted By asbandy on March 16, 2009

There are few things that aggravate me more than certain fringe “bible” teachers and “prophets” spinning their own version of Christianity while riding a wave of some new prophetic revelation. John expresses his distaste for the false teachers and false prophets in the churches of Asia Minor by evoking the imagery of two villains in Israel’s history credited with leading the Israelites into apostasy - Balaam (Rev 2:14) and Jezebel (Rev 2:20). What his more, Jesus said that he hates the practices of the Nicolaitans (Rev 2:6). In light of this, I believe that I am in good company with my following critique.

In the 1990s, it was the TBN network and the likes of some rather eccentric “big haired” preachers knocking people over with a breath and selling their sweaty handkerchiefs promising that, with the right donation, all your dreams will come true. Over the last decade we have witnessed a new breed of preachers repackaging the old mantras of the power of positive thinking speaking. That’s right, your words contain the power to make things happen. Change your surroundings and get all that you desire by making a positive confession.

I have found that my critiques of many popular preachers and charismatic movements are often met with ambivalence, disagreement, and prayers from well meaning people who pity me for not having these charismatic experiences. Some people are shocked that I would say that something is wrong with such conviction. I mean who are we, after all, to judge these preachers and prophets? Keep in mind, my concern is, and always has been, that we subject all doctrines and experiences to the scrutiny of a careful reading of Scripture in context.

I believe wholeheartedly in the power of God in Christ through the indwelling presence of the Holy Spirit. Fifteen years ago I was a strung out punk rock drug addict involved in neo-paganism and nearly failing out of school. Christ radically changed my life by setting me free from my addictions, restoring my broken relationships, and enabling me to excel academically. My interest in Christianity in far from being a disinterested observer! My concern, however, is too many sincere believers are so desperate for sensational supernatural experiences that they jettison critical thinking, orthodox theology, and reading the bible in context.

I have witnessed several friends drawn to certain movements claiming that the “teaching” has opened their eyes to the spiritual realm available to them. A couple of years ago, a friend gave me a CD of a message from a prophetess named Patricia King of Extreme Prophetic Ministry. I listened to the CD as Patricia told of being transported from Phoenix Arizona to a hospital room in Toronto, seeing green glory mist appearing at the back of a church, and all kinds of other bizarre things. You can learn about such things as the “breaker anointing,” which is also an angel and also Jesus:

You can also find pages of her prophecies. Here is a sample of one of her prophecies about the meaning of the Blue Flame of the Lord:

Dear Friends,

For the last number of months, I have had recurring nudges from the Holy Spirit to meditate on the phrase, “The Blue Flame of the Lord”.

The blue flame is the hottest and most intense part of a fire and the color blue is often a prophetic symbol of divine revelation, God’s love, and an open heaven.

Recently while teaching a Glory School in Dudley, England with Trevor and Sharon Baker, I had a spiritual encounter regarding the Blue Flame of the Lord. In this encounter I could feel myself soaring like an eagle looking upward into the Sun while in flight. My eyes were fixed on the Sun. Eagles (often a bible symbol of the prophetic) in the natural have an extra membrane over their eyes that other birds do not have. This allows them to look directly into the Sun without damage to their vision.

As I gazed into the Sun I could feel myself being drawn towards its center and that is when I saw it – the Blue Flame. It was so beautiful. I could feel its strength that is to be feared and respected and also its passion. The Lord gave me 3 points of understanding and application that I would like to share with you.

One insightful critic of her teaching pointed out that her teaching is more closely related to the hermetic and Gnostic tradition than biblical Christianity. In a blog post entitled Patricia King Exposed, the author demonstrates the pagan background associated with the blue flame:

The blue flame is all over new age and occult and witchcraft thought. [4]� In the Aridian Tradition, it is the focal point of the altar. A bowl is placed upon the center of the altar, and is filled with a special liquid, which will burn a blue flame. The appearance of the blue flame represents the presence of Divinity, within the ritual setting. The use of fire as a sacred symbol is one of the most ancient of practices.

Acording to a New Age website they state [5]� “The Blue Flame is in the core of the very strength and energy. The first Ray is represented in the power of intent, cause, direction, centralization and unity, and its keynote is will - Divine Will. The basic qualities of the Blue Flame are manifested through the energies of power, strength, faith and protection.”

In reference to sacred texts a archive of electronic texts about religion, mythology, legends and folklore, and occult and esoteric topics they state [6]� “All colors seen in dreams are of good omen, except blue; because, as in the flame, we have observed it consumes and destroys the body beneath it. It is the upas or deadly tree that overshadows the world, and is lethal to everything beneath it. If it be objected that there are angelic beings on high who, along with mankind are equally under the blue flame and yet are not consumed, our reply is that they, as existent beings, are celestial in their essence and, therefore, different from human existences who are to the blue flame what the candle is to the light.”

In addition to breaker annointings and blue flames, you may also be treated to Gemstones from Heaven, gold and diamond dust, and even scented oil oozing from bibles as seen in this video:

Lest you think, I am unduly critical please understand that my purpose is only to affirm what is genuine. The problem with these “miracles” is that (1) there is no Scriptural support for these happenings and (2) they would be very easy to fabricate. These types of “snake oil” gimmicks have a long history as being debunked and the products of con-artists. I think it is extremely important for people to subject all extra-biblical claims of miracles to critical scrutiny:
(1) There are no biblical accounts of oil oozing from bibles or gemstones falling from heaven.

(2) These claims can easily be debunked. Notice that none of these things occurred while any cameras were filming. In fact, they said that they found these things the next day after the building was “empty” all night. All that glitters are not real gold or gemstones.

(3) I would like a non-partial critical investigation of these claims. Allow a team of scientists to examine the oil and gemstones, to film the locations with twenty-four hour continuous feeds, and the test if these miracles are reproducible by non-supernatural means. If these miracles are genuine, then that will be demonstrated to the glory of God.

(4) What would be the purpose of these miracles? Or does this mean that God will make me rich by tossing perfectly cut gemstones at me while praying? I realize that Patricia indicated that lives were being changed and people were worshiping God. How many of them were already worshiping God before these events? Do people worship him any less because they have not experienced these particular miracles? Think through the implications.

(5) How did they have the interpretation of the meaning of the different scents of the oil oozing from the bible? It seems like they just made up the meanings (from another video on the same subject). It amazes me how they always have the perfect interpretation of the miracle, but I have no I idea where they are getting them from. It’s not in the Bible.

(6) These miracles are promoted by Patricia King of Extreme prophecy, which has some very questions doctrines that does not square with the teachings of Scripture. They are more closely related to pagan, new age, and hermetic teachings.

(7) I am deeply concerned that sincere Christians wanting an amazing encounter with the supernatural will suspend careful God-honoring discernment and critical thinking. There is nothing wrong with inspecting the teaching of preachers and prophets. The prophet Jeremiah also encountered false prophets and I think his words are apt as ever:

Then the LORD said to me, “The prophets are prophesying lies in my name. I have not sent them or appointed them or spoken to them. They are prophesying to you false visions, divinations, idolatries and the delusions of their own minds. (Jeremiah 14:14)

Category: False Prophecy | 398Commentshttp://www.cafeapocalypsis.com/?p=398Of+Jezebels+and+Balaams+2009-03-17+03%3A24%3A27asbandy
Tags: False Prophets, Gemstones from Heaven, Patricia King

Posted By asbandy on March 11, 2009

When most people think of the Book of Revelation they normally jump to some hermeuntically challenging passage, break out some complex chart, or digress by muttering something about left behind.

This song is a song that gets it. Worship is, in my view, one of the main themes of the book. The practical implications of John’s vision are sadly too often overshadowed by clever attempts at discovering some interpretive key.

The Book of Revelation resounds with worship:

Revelation 4:8-11 Each of the four living creatures had six wings and was covered with eyes all around, even under his wings. Day and night they never stop saying: “Holy, holy, holy is the Lord God Almighty, who was, and is, and is to come.” 9 Whenever the living creatures give glory, honor and thanks to him who sits on the throne and who lives for ever and ever, 10 the twenty-four elders fall down before him who sits on the throne, and worship him who lives for ever and ever. They lay their crowns before the throne and say: 11 “You are worthy, our Lord and God, to receive glory and honor and power, for you created all things, and by your will they were created and have their being.”

Revelation 5:9 - 6:1 And they sang a new song: “You are worthy to take the scroll and to open its seals, because you were slain, and with your blood you purchased men for God from every tribe and language and people and nation. 10 You have made them to be a kingdom and priests to serve our God, and they will reign on the earth.” 11 Then I looked and heard the voice of many angels, numbering thousands upon thousands, and ten thousand times ten thousand. They encircled the throne and the living creatures and the elders. 12 In a loud voice they sang: “Worthy is the Lamb, who was slain, to receive power and wealth and wisdom and strength and honor and glory and praise!” 13 Then I heard every creature in heaven and on earth and under the earth and on the sea, and all that is in them, singing: “To him who sits on the throne and to the Lamb be praise and honor and glory and power, for ever and ever!” 14 The four living creatures said, “Amen,” and the elders fell down and worshiped.

Category: Book of Revelation | 394Commentshttp://www.cafeapocalypsis.com/?p=394Revelation+Song2009-03-12+00%3A16%3A39asbandy
Tags: Worship

Posted By asbandy on March 11, 2009

The following quote is from Adrian Rodgers (one of my hero’s) originally spoken in the year 1984:

“Friend, you cannot legislate the poor into freedom by legislating the wealthy out of freedom.  And what one person receives without working for, another person must work for without receiving. The government can’t give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody. And when half of the people get the idea they don’t have to work because the other half’s going to take care of them, and when the other half get the idea it does no good to work because somebody’s going to get what I work for. That, dear friend, is about the end of any nation.”

This seemed like a timely and provocative quote to post.

Category: Politics | 390Commentshttp://www.cafeapocalypsis.com/?p=390Quote+of+the+Day2009-03-11+20%3A32%3A58asbandy
Tags:

Posted By asbandy on March 3, 2009

Revelation 2:1  “To the angel of the church in Ephesus write: These are the words of him who holds the seven stars in his right hand and walks among the seven golden lampstands (see also Rev 2:8; 12; 18; 3:1; 7; 14).

Turkey-Ephesus

Some debate exists regarding the identity of the “angels” of the seven churches. The debate is if the angels are human messengers (i.e., the pastor’s of the churches) or angelic beings. The word angelos has been used in a few instances to refer to human messengers (Luke 9:52) as also in the case of John the Baptist (Matt 11:10; Mark 1:2; Luke 7:27). The idea is that the messages are addressed to the pastor to communicate it to the congregation. While it is an attractive suggestion to say that these angels were either pastors or some type of Christian leaders in the churches (see Thomas, Revelation 1–7, 117–18; Aune, Prophecy in Early Christianity, 197), it seems more likely that they refer to actual angelic beings.

(1) One reason is that the most common use of angelos, by far, denotes an angelic being. The sixty seven occurrences of angelos in the book of Revelation, with the exception of 2:1,8,12, 18; 3:1,7, and 14, all unambiguously refer to an angelic being. It seems highly unlikely that angelos significantly differs only in chaps. 2–3 without clearly indicating a different denotation from its normal usage in the book.

(2) Another reason to associate them with angelic beings instead of human messengers is because the angels are identified in Rev 1:20 as “stars.” Although “stars” are sometimes used to refer to OT saints (Gen 37:9; Dan 12:3), “stars” usually are used as an OT metaphor for angels (Job 38:7; Dan 10:13, 20–21).

(3) I think we may also detect a parallel between these seven angels and Rev 1:1 where the Revelation of Jesus is mediated to an angel and then to John. This creates a chain of communication from God (the Father), to Jesus (the Son), to an angel, to John, to the Churches. The messages to the seven churches are given from Christ, to the angels of the churches, written down by John, and delivered to the seven churches.

(4) G. K. Beale (Book of Revelation, 217) helpfully points out that angels are corporately identified with Christians as their heavenly counterparts in 8:3-4; 19:10; and 22:9. Because the messages are primarily directed to the angels it would seem that they function as heavenly representatives of the earthly congregations (Caird, Revelation of St. John, 24).

These angels, then, in some sense represent the churches and, in doing so, they most likely intervene in the spiritual needs of the churches (Beale, Book of Revelation, 217; Osborne, Revelation, 99). That the letters are addressed to spiritual beings indicates a strong apocalyptic-prophetic flavor inherent in these messages.

Category: Book of Revelation, Exegesis | 379Commentshttp://www.cafeapocalypsis.com/?p=379The+Angels+of+the+Seven+Churches%3A+Humans+or+Spiritual+Beings%3F2009-03-04+02%3A24%3A07asbandy
Tags: Angels, Rev 1:20, Rev 2:1, Seven Churches, Seven Messages

Posted By asbandy on February 23, 2009

Lest we leave today with a sense of disorientation or dread over our calling as Christian Scholars, I wanted to end with some suggestions for putting our faith into our scholarly endeavors.

Be Aware of Your Presuppositions

• Everyone has presuppositions and these are not necessarily bad.  Craig Blomberg insightfully remarked, “the strengths are that presuppositions keep one from having to rethink every issue from first principles with every new research project; truly doing that would mean that little else would ever get done!”
• We must be willing to subject our presuppositions to tests in order to determine if they are valid. Testing our presuppositions may result in their rejection or revision when necessary, but it may also reaffirm them.
• Out of all the various presuppositions that we as Christians may maintain, there is one that is vitally important-the resurrection of Jesus! Despite James Cameron’s recent “titanic” yet fraudulent discovery of Jesus’ bones and family tomb, the fact that the NT and the early Church affirms Jesus’ resurrection has “titanic” implications on our worldview, presuppositions, and view of the Scriptures. You see if Jesus did not rise from the dead then we are compelled to treat the biblical texts in the same way we would any ancient document. However, if Jesus did indeed rise from the dead then that fundamentally alters my entire being and worldview because it provides ultimate validation for the veracity of the Scriptures.

Be Aware of Your Audience

• One common trait observable among all the “secular” scholars is that they contend that many people today simply do not believe in Jesus or Christian theology. As such, they contend that scholarship on the NT should be “religiously neutral” enough that an atheist, Buddhist, or pluralist would not be “put off.” On hand they have a point, in that we often write to an audience of the “initiated.” But on the other, I believe their claims are unjustified because, in general, I do not expect that Muslim scholar to write in such a way to accommodate my Christian views in order to understand his argument.
• I do think, though, that we should be keenly aware of our audience. Everything I hope to accomplish in my life and scholarship is ultimately for the glory of God and the edification of the Church. Therefore, most of my writing and teaching will be geared to accomplishing this goal.
• When I write to a largely evangelical audience, I know that they will understand what I am saying because of our “shared pools of presuppositions.” This saves me from having to justify or qualify all my statements related to Christian theology. Yet, if I want to submit my work to a peer reviewed journal I need to realize that they may not share my convictions or operate in a confessional environment. They may not agree with me when I affirm the Pauline authorship of a certain epistle (i.e., using the phrase “Paul says” instead of “the writer states”). Therefore, I will need to substantiate my claims with solid argumentation to sustain the plausibility of my views.

Be Aware of Your Sources

• The difference between scholarly works versus that of a popular nature is that we work extensively in the primary sources as well as interacting with important secondary sources.
• Our scholarship is severely hampered if (1) we ignore the primary texts (i.e., Bible, other ancient texts); and (2) if we display a limited awareness of other (non-evangelical) scholarly contributions regarding our subject.
• Avoid using non-academic sources to support your views.

Resolve to Maintain Your Convictions

• Never feel the need to apologize for your faith or conceal it.
• If what you believe is true then you have a significant advantage- the evidence will support your claims.
• Wisdom is proved right by her deeds (Matt 11:19).

Resolve to Maintain your Integrity

• Never compromise your faith just to land a job or fit into a society.
• Never Plagiarize!

Resolve to Maintain your Interests

• I particularly like the advice of Dr. Köstenberger when he counseled that “I think we should not let others set the agenda for biblical scholarship but decide for ourselves what are wholesome directions for research and writing.”
• We should not feel the need to jump on the band wagon of the latest trend in our given fields just because it may be popular.
• Pursue your interest with passion in your scholarly pursuits. E.g., The Book of Revelation is not the most popular focus in NT studies-compared to Jesus research or Pauline studies.

Demonstrate your Commitment to Academic Excellence

• At the risk of sounding pedantic, be sure you are committed to academic excellence:

(1) Be thorough in your research.

(2) Avoid shortcuts and sloppy or lazy thinking.

(3) Read, read, read.

(4) Write well and write often.

(5) Use correct grammar and the appropriate style guidelines.

(6) Be a creative and innovative thinker without jettisoning orthodoxy.

(7) Be accountable.

• To conclude, I think that the model set by people like B. B. Warfield is still valid today as summarized by Mark Noll (Beyond Faith and Criticism, 22-24):
  • The conservatives were scholars - They foreswore intellectual shortcuts, affirmed academic credibility, and practiced careful scholarship.
  • The conservatives saw themselves as critical scholars - they did not abandon criticism, but they engaged the prejudice and unbelieving brand of biased criticism.
  • The conservatives were sharply aware of the role of presuppositions in scholarship.
  • The conservatives were not afraid to acknowledge that they came to their academic work with presuppositions, though they saw their predispositions arising from regeneration and the work of the Spirit rather than from the influence of academic conventions.
  • At stake in the new critical discussions were matters of great consequence - If the Bible perpetrated errors of fact in history, science, or the accounts of its literary origins, it could not be relied upon to describe the relationship between God and humanity, the way of salvation, or the finality of divine law.
  • Conservatives were not entirely inflexible in the conclusions to which they came concerning the Bible.
  • Conservatives were more concerned about new views of the Old Testament than the New Testament - Historically critical scholarship of the OT differs from that of the NT in many respects, although methodologies do often bleed over from one field into the other. I personally believe both are extremely important.

Category: Christian Faith and Scholarship | 376Commentshttp://www.cafeapocalypsis.com/?p=376Christian+Faith+and+Scholarship+in+Praxis%3A+Some+Modest+Suggestions2009-02-24+02%3A24%3A15asbandy
Tags:

Posted By asbandy on February 19, 2009

This leads us to the last of the foundational issues in this debate, namely, what is the Bible? Is it simply a collection of historical religious texts to be read, studied, and subjected rigorously to criticism like any other book? Or is it more than that, is it a collection of texts that have been recognized by numerous generations of the People of God who regard it as Sacred Scripture-the Word of God? At this point, I find Mark Noll’s (Beyond Faith and Criticism, 142-48) observations on how this shapes us as evangelicals to be very instructive:

• Evangelical self-definition hinges upon a specific conception of Scripture more than upon a specific approach to research.
• The most important conviction of evangelical scholars is that the Bible is true . . . the Bible is true not just as religion but also as fact.
• Many have also, then, insisted that because the Bible is true this necessarily entails a dedication to its responsible interpretation (with aim toward faith and practice).
• Evangelicals who affirm that the Bible is uniquely true with respect to divine-human relationships and either substantially or entirely true with respect to matters of fact in the external world make up a distinct group. In that affirmation they set themselves apart from those who deny that the Bible conveys cognitive truth, or from those who affirm that while the Bible is true, its truth is on the same order as that in other book. They are even quite different from those who argue that the Bible is uniquely true, but only as a record of religious experience or of divine-human encounter.
• When evangelicals say that the Bible is true, they are usually making a series of interrelated affirmations about the nature of the world, the character of religion, and the structure of epistemology.
  • An open universe - i.e., the reality of the transcendent and supernatural.
  • Evangelical’s are “realists” in the sense that they believe that the world enjoys an independent existence apart from its perception by humans.
  • When evangelicals say the Bible is true they have fairly specific ideas about what counts for truth.

Category: Christian Faith and Scholarship | 373Commentshttp://www.cafeapocalypsis.com/?p=373Christian+Faith+and+Scholarship%3A+The+Bible+-+A+Collection+of+Texts+or+Sacred+Scripture%3F2009-02-20+02%3A58%3A48asbandy
Tags:

Posted By asbandy on February 18, 2009

Another issue that repeatedly popped up in our discussion of what constitutes “good scholarship” pertains to the question of what passes as “evidence?” Fox dismisses any claims of evidence requiring one to believe in the doctrines of the Christian faith. He avers, “Scholarship rests on evidence. Faith, by definition, is belief when evidence is absent. . . . And evidence must be accessible and meaningful apart from the unexaminable axioms, and it must not be merely generated by its own premises.” A point made even more forcibly by Mark Goodacre:

If it’s scholarship that one is doing, my feeling is that personal faith has no part to play, at least not in the way that one’s arguments are constructed or in the evidence one adduces. In other words, I am interested in scholarly arguments based on publicly available evidence, arguments that make sense to an audience of scholars and students who may not share one’s own faith perspective. As soon as my arguments only work for those who share my faith perspective, at best my arguments become apologetics and at worse my arguments run the risk of becoming weak and unscholarly. As soon as I begin to use evidence that is not in the public arena and that cannot be submitted to scholarly scrutiny by everyone, I am not engaging in academic scholarship.

In other words,  if I depend on the illumination of the Holy Spirit as part of my argument or if my argument only makes sense when you accept Jesus as the Resurrected Son of God-it is not “evidence” and cannot be submitted in any scholarly argumentation.

Of course, we must deal with the tangible and hard evidence of the text available to us. By “hard evidence,” I mean that which everyone has the same access to. For example, the text critic works with the available manuscripts and either employs or challenges the cannons of text criticism. You may disagree with his conclusions, but you can arrive at your own conclusion by working with the same exact MSS. Or another example pertains to linguistic investigations. I can compile all the known occurrences of a particular Greek word or grammatical construction in an attempt to arrive at a new understanding of a lexical meaning or how a particular grammatical construction might aid in my exegesis. In each of these examples all scholars would agree that this is how you work with the evidence.

However, when we talk about the “historical” nature of the New Testament (as per Gerhard Maier), the consensus regarding what constitutes “appropriate” begins to fragment. Especially when dealing with the life of Christ. Take for example, 2 Peter 1:16-21:

We did not follow cleverly invented stories when we told you about the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of his majesty.  ¹⁷ For he received honor and glory from God the Father when the voice came to him from the Majestic Glory, saying, “This is my Son, whom I love; with him I am well pleased.”  ¹⁸ We ourselves heard this voice that came from heaven when we were with him on the sacred mountain.  ¹⁹ And we have the word of the prophets made more certain, and you will do well to pay attention to it, as to a light shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts.  ²⁰ Above all, you must understand that no prophecy of Scripture came about by the prophet’s own interpretation.  ²¹ For prophecy never had its origin in the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.

This is where my stance as a “faith-based” evangelical Christian may separate me from my colleagues in the universities. Namely, I believe that the gospel writers were either actual eyewitnesses themselves or they used eyewitnesses as sources in their account of Jesus’ life, death, and resurrection. Incidentally, this belief now has academic credibility thanks to Richard Bauckham’s book Jesus and the Eyewitnesses. In short, I believe the accounts bear the evidence of eyewitness testimony and therefore were not constructed fables or theological myths created by the early Church to affirm their community experience.

Because many in the academy would not share my conviction about the historical reliability of the text, it becomes even more critical that I do not simply resort to name calling or dismissing counter-arguments with “well my bible says…” In other words, I must seek to make a case that first affirms the evidence (i.e., the gospel accounts as historically reliable; cf. Blomberg) and then seek to establish my thesis on the merits of solid arguments as opposed to the simple fact that this is what I happen to believe as a Christian.

Category: Christian Faith and Scholarship | 368Commentshttp://www.cafeapocalypsis.com/?p=368Christian+Faith+and+Scholarship%3A+Evidence+and+Arguments2009-02-19+01%3A45%3A06asbandy
Tags: Arguments, Christian Faith, Evidence, Scholarship