Ancient Wisdom Today » Audio

Acts 9:7 and 22:9 – Did They Hear the Voice or Not?

Maer — Sat, 19 Dec 2009 17:43:22 +0000

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.

The Only True God

Maer — Sun, 22 Nov 2009 03:30:23 +0000

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.

N. T. Wright is Pretty Clever

Maer — Sat, 05 Sep 2009 18:44:06 +0000

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.”

Is Bart Ehrman a Proponent of Intelligent Design?

Maer — Fri, 17 Apr 2009 02:14:52 +0000

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?

Genesis 1 and Shaping a Christian Worldview

Maer — Wed, 25 Feb 2009 15:39:56 +0000

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.”

Dig Out Your Ears! Hebrews, the LXX and Psalm 40

Maer — Sat, 14 Feb 2009 20:37:31 +0000

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.

Scientific and Spiritual Worldviews: Are They in Conflict?

Maer — Thu, 05 Feb 2009 16:29:31 +0000

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.

The Historical and Theological Jesus

Maer — Wed, 28 Jan 2009 16:53:22 +0000

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.”