Listening to debates can be quite entertaining. Every once in a while you hear a good argument, learn something new, find out what different authors or scholars allegedly think, and even enjoy a nice come-back to a rebuttal or a timely joke at the expense of the opposition. But sometimes listening to debates may create more work for you because it is hard to believe everything you hear—are the debaters putting forth their best arguments or just trying to get the upper hand?—and a topic may arise that you just have to roll up your sleeves and check the facts out for yourself. In this post, within the context of a debate between Dan Barker and Mike Licona on the resurrection of Jesus¹, I will look at a particularly interesting syntactical phenomenon in Greek where ακόυω (hear) takes different cases for its object, and the role it may play in two different accounts of Paul’s conversion in Acts.

Referring to Paul’s Damascus experience when he saw Jesus, Barker asks Licona what kind of body Jesus had. After answering that he believed Jesus had a changed body, Licona asks Barker if “he grants him Acts”; that is, does Barker admit that Paul had such an encounter with the resurrected Jesus as narrated in Acts? That’s when both go off on a tangent, and it is this tangent I want to talk about (which starts at about 1:03:46 into the debate). Barker does not grant Acts as a reliable account because he says that Luke’s telling of Paul’s conversion is contradictory.  In Acts 9:7, it says that the men who were with Paul heard the voice, and in 22:9 it says that the men did not hear the voice.

Licona does not think this is a contradiction, and it is interesting that at this point he asks Barker—who said that he had checked the contradiction in the original Greek—how much Greek Barker had studied. Barker says he had two years of college Greek, and Licona in turn says that he took five years of Greek and has been studying it for 20 years. I wanted to highlight this “authority check” by Licona  because that becomes an important issue when discussing who is right when people holding two opposing views read the same Greek text (or any other ancient text for that matter) and come to different conclusions. Who is to believe whom, especially when the audience most likely knows no Greek?  Licona says that ακόυω can mean ‘hear’ or ‘understand’ and that most translations rightly translate ακόυω in 9:7 as ‘hear’ and in 22:7 as ‘understand’; the people in the first century, he claims, would not have any problems understanding the distinction. Then he says that Daniel Wallace points out that “given the field of use of ακόυω and φωνη, the fact that in chapter 9 is ακόυω plus the genitive and chapter 22 is ακόυω plus the accusative… certainly harmonizes.” When Barker disagrees, Licona says, “so you are saying that you with two years Greek experience, you are right, and Daniel Wallace, who is a very prominent, respected Greek grammarian, is wrong?”

What Licona is saying is that because ακόυω takes φωνη as a genitive in 9:7, it should be translated as ‘hear’ and that φωνη, as an accusative in 22:9, should be translated as ‘understand.’ And, what is more important, a prominent, respected Greek grammarian backs this up.
Read more »

There is at least one thing in common between Christianity and Judaism: monotheism. However, not everyone will agree with that. To many, Christianity’s claim that it is a monotheistic religion is at the very least a mix-up of categories. You cannot say that you worship only one God, but then define it in such a way that strains the definition to the max. The doctrine of the Trinity seems to be a way that Christians found to have their cake and eat it too.

But when we talk about monotheism, what are we really referring to? Are we certain that the way we’ve come to understand monotheism is the same way Jews and Christians understood it in the 1st century? That’s the main question James McGrath, associate professor of Religion at Butler University (see his blog Exploring our Matrix), poses to us in his book The Only True God. Simply assuming that the way we define monotheism today and the way it was defined two thousand years ago is a huge fallacy. We need to set aside our understanding of monotheism and let the texts that we have from that period define the term for us.

At first, I thought this was going to be a defense of Christian monotheism, showing that what people thought about the one true God was in line with later Christian doctrine. But what McGrath wants to remind us is that the worldview of the Jews and early Christians allowed for certain things that were later extrapolated (my word, not McGrath’s) in Christianity and suppressed in Judaism as a way to contain its new definition of monotheism. The result is that neither quite formulated its understanding of the oneness of God as was perceived early on.
Read more »

A discussion panel entitled N.T. Wright and the Doctrine of Justification just came to my attention. The panelists are Dr. R. Albert Mohler, Jr., Dr. Denny Burk, Dr. Tom Schreiner, Dr. Mark Seifrid and Dr. Brian Vickers. I have expressed before frustration with the tone of such panels and surprise that people of the caliber of these scholars keep making distorted statements about what N. T. Wright has to say about justification. But, what I found particularly interesting was the quote below by Dr. Mohler which probably says a lot about the way some Evangelicals perceive N. T. Wright:

“In reading through his [Wright’s] work, listening to his lectures, having met him and having heard him, engaging in discussion with him, I think of the British meaning of the word “clever.” He is extremely clever. And, in this sense, I dare say that this cleverness is a real issue because it also comes hand in hand with an incredible, almost unspeakable, audacity because his claim is no less than that the protestant reformers and their heirs have misunderstood not only Paul and not only first century Judaism, but the doctrine of justification and thus the gospel.”

I wonder what the British meaning of the word “clever” is.

Although the title of the show is An ‘Unbelievable?’ Debate on the NT Documents – Bart Ehrman & Pete Williams, this is really a very well done interview by Justin Brierley. Bart Ehrman is a professor and Chair of the Department of Religious Studies at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and author of Misquoting Jesus (whose title in the UK is Whose Word Is It?, a much better title in my opinion). Peter J. Williams is the warden of Tyndale House and Honorary Senior Lecturer in Biblical Studies at the University of Aberdeen, and you can read his review of Ehrman’s book here.

I think this interview was very helpful. I shared a few thoughts on Ehrman’s book and, at the time, I could not understand what the big deal was with some of the stuff in his book. It became obvious to me in this interview that Ehrman does not think that the issues he raises are theologically damaging, but he thinks it does make a difference in how we understand and interpret the text. Which reading is correct if we don’t know for sure what was originally written?

I titled this post “Is Bart Ehrman a Proponent of Intelligent Design?” because one of the things you will notice in Misquoting Jesus is that at several points Ehrman believes the scribes made certain changes on purpose. Williams remarks that although Ehrman’s reconstructions may be correct, he doesn’t give much room for copying mistakes. In this sense, Ehrmans is more like a proponent of Intelligent Design than one who believes that things just happen by chance. Although I was not quite persuaded by Williams’ explanation of some of Ehrman’s examples, I think his analogy was hilarious and revealed Ehrman’s tendency.

In the Evangelical Textual Critical World, Intelligent Design is a bad thing.

Daniel Kirk, author of Unlocking Romans, shared a few thoughts on his blog about J. Richard Middleton’s book The Liberating Image: The Imago Dei in Genesis 1.
You can read his thoughts in Image as Function in Gen 1, Liberating Image: Imago Dei in ANE Context, and Liberating Image: Some concluding remarks. Although I have not read the book yet, it looks like the type of book I would enjoy reading.

Here is what Peter Enns has to say about it:

“The Liberating Image is a balanced yet challenging articulation of the Imago Dei in Genesis, its ancient Near Eastern context, and its present-day theological implications. By locating himself in his postmodern context, Middleton brings a refreshing hermeneutical self-consciousness to the scholarly task, which is aimed at providing a substantive and compelling argument without posing as the last word. His analysis of Imago Dei in Genesis in the context of ancient Near Eastern religions leads Middleton to the conclusion that the Israelite theological traditions of Genesis 1-11 are recontextualized in conscious opposition to ideological categories of Mesopotamia. That Israel’s story promotes the dignity of all humans, not just of the royal or priestly classes, should have vital ethical implications for today.”

I accidentally ran across a few lectures by Dr. Middleton, and, although at first I had not recognized his name, I immediately recognized the title of his book. There is one lecture entitled In the Beginning God Created the Heavens and the Earth: Responsible Interpretation of Genesis 1 in Ancient and Contemporary Contexts where Dr. Middleton talks about how one goes about interpreting Genesis 1 responsibly (i. e. you should read it “literally,” but you have to listen to the lecture to find out what he means by “literal”). Those familiar with John Walton and G. K. Beale’s works will find some similarities in his approach in terms of Genesis’ function and temple imagery. The Q and A was interesting with some provocative answers. There are also two Chapel talks at Greenville College that are somewhat short but well worth listening. In the first he talks about creation and in the second about redemption. The second lecture pretty much covers the content of his essay A New Heaven and a New Earth: The Case for a Holistic Reading of the Biblical Story of Redemption (Journal for Christian Theological Research 11 [2006] 73-97). This lecture and essay will resonate with those who liked N. T. Wright’s Surprised by Hope. I really enjoyed reading the essay and it is a great way for those who have not read Wright’s book to become familiar with the premise that what the bible envisages for the eschaton is not heaven as the final destination but new heavens and a new earth (i. e. new creation).
Read more »

In celebration of “International Septuagint Day” Tyler Williams presents us with some Reasons to Study the Septuagint (in Honour of International Septuagint Day). I had also recently listened to D. A Carson’s sermon/lecture at UCCF Staff Training Conference on Psalm 40 where he talks about his understanding of how the LXX translates verse 40:7 and how Hebrews uses this psalm. Then Michael Heiser blogs about Hebrews’ quotation of Psalm 40:6-8 in The Naked Bible. He links to an article by Karen Jobes The Function of Paronomasia in Hebrews 10:5-7 where she contends that the author was using paronomasia for rhetorical effect.

So I thought it would be interesting to talk about Hebrews’ use of Psalm 40:7 by looking at Carson’s exposition and raising some questions. The reason why I think Carson’s treatment is useful is because he is not trying to get into technical stuff but wants to make Psalm 40 understood as a whole. I also thought it was a worthwhile exercise to see how he dealt with Hebrews’ use of Psalm 40.

Here is the passage in Psalm 40:7 (LXX 39:7):

Sacrifice and offering you did not desire, but my ears you have pierced; burnt offerings and sin offerings you did not require. (NIV)

* The LXX has “my ears you have prepared”

And Hebrews 10:5:

Therefore, when Christ came into the world, he said: “Sacrifice and offering you did not desire, but a body you prepared for me; (NIV)
Read more »

Francis Collins, former director of the Human Genome Project, delivered a lecture at InterVarsity entitled “Human Flourishing and the Sciences.” Some of you may know Dr. Collins as the author of The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief. This lecture is very informative as he tells you some of the history behind his involvement in the Human Genome Project. It is also very personal as he took the time to tell the story of how he became a believer. It is Dr. Collins’ contention that many people hold a false dichotomy that you can either have a scientific worldview or a spiritual worldview. Although he does not like the term “theistic evolution,” he summarizes why he thinks this is compatible with the biblical account in Genesis. He also plays his interview with Stephen Colbert which is hilarious.

I am still not sure what to make of “theistic evolution,” but I think this is a good lecture to get you thinking about it.

Human Flourishing and the Sciences
by Dr. Francis Collins

Download (right-click and select “Save Target As…”)

Update: Over at Tim Challies’s blog, you will see a discussion on Greg Koukl’s take on theistic evolution. I thought it would be interesting to include his quote here in light of Collins’ lecture.

Some people suggest that God used evolution to design the world. They are motivated, I think, by two impulses. The first is a desire to affirm the Bible. The second is a suspicion Darwinism may have merit. Thus, they declare both true.

These two notions, however, seem incompatible to me. It may sound reasonable for God to “use” evolution, but if you look closer I think you will see the problem.

Suppose I wanted a straight flush for a hand of poker. I could either pull the cards out of the deck individually and “design” the hand, or I could shuffle the cards randomly and see if the flush is dealt to me. It would not make any sense, though, to “design” the hand by shuffling the deck and dealing. There’s no way to ensure the results. (I guess if I were really clever I could make it look like I was shuffling the deck when in reality I was stacking it, but that would be a deceitful kind of design called “cheating.”).

In the same way, either God designs the details of the biological world, or nature shuffles the deck and natural selection chooses the winning hand. The mechanism is either conscious and intentional (design), or unconscious and unintentional (natural selection). Creation has a purpose, a goal. Evolution is accidental, like a straight flush dealt to a poker rookie.

The idea that something is designed by chance is contradictory. Like trying to put a square peg in a round hole, this just doesn’t fit.

Baylor University has several lectures and sermons that you may want to check out. One of the lectures I recently listened to was by Dr. Dale C. Allison who is currently a professor of New Testament exegesis and early Christianity at Pittsburgh Theological Seminary and the author of several books. His lecture is entitled The Historical Jesus and the Theological Jesus and the main question that he asks is if it is possible to separate the two. I enjoyed the lecture mainly because, in my opinion, it was “not boring.” Dr. Allison talks about his feelings about “assured critical results,” his own work, the Jesus Seminar and ends the lecture with interesting (albeit debatable) examples that show that Jesus is present in places where modern historians typically see “only the church.”

For its engaging delivery, probing observations, interesting questions and tantalizing examples, I recommend this lecture.

The Historical Jesus and the Theological Jesus
by Dr. Dale C. Allison Jr.

Download (right-click and select “Save Target As…”)