I chair an SBL group called “The Extent of Theological Diversity in Earliest Christianity.” This fall when we meet in San Antonio (November 2016), one of our sessions will be dedicated to a review of Judith Lieu’s new book, Marcion the Making of a Heretic: God and Scripture in the Second Century (Cambridge University Press, 2015). Lieu offers one of the most comprehensive accounts of his controversial life and influence. Marcion was the arch-heretic of his day. Most of what we know about Marcion comes from opponents such as Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Tertullian and Origen.
Marcion was one of the most prominent figures of the second century. His teachings about God, Jesus, creation, and Scripture caused his detractors to define clearly what they considered the right teaching and practices ought to be.
If you are in San Antonio this fall, come and join us.
I had the privilege last year of giving the Hayward Lectures at Acadia Divinity School in Nova Scotia. While there I met a young scholar who is working on various topics in the Gospels? His name is Danny Zacharias. He had recently finished a project on the question of why Matthew (ch. 1) and Luke (ch 3) have different names in their genealogies of Jesus. Some point to this as a contradiction which cannot be solved and thus undermines the reliability of the Gospel accounts. Others see it as a matter of purpose and focus. Matthew starts with Abraham and moves forward to Jesus to show that Jesus is the true son of Abraham, the true Jew. Luke starts with Jesus and moves back through Abraham to Adam, demonstrating that Jesus is the Savior of all sons of Adam and daughters of Eve. One traditional “answer” has been that Matthew has Joseph’s genealogy while Luke records Mary’s. Not all, of course, think this is the case.
Dr. Zacharias offers an intriguing approach to the question. Here is a link to a brief video he did a few years back:
I think you may find it helpful. If so, please let him know.
One of the issues which continues to trip up modern evangelical Christians is the role of women in ministry. The school where I teach, Houston Graduate School of Theology, actively affirms women in all ministry roles.
Recently, however, I took a group of students to a seminary retreat in north Texas. While there, one of our female students encountered a young man who insisted that women’s roles in ministry should be limited. Based upon his reading of a few biblical texts, he criticized any attempt for women to take roles as pastors, elders or leaders of churches or para-church groups for that matter. My student came back confused about the whole matter.
A friend recently sent me a link to a site in Australia which lays out key quotations from various evangelical scholars on women in ministry. Some of theses scholars are still with us. Others have fallen asleep in Jesus (to borrow Paul’s phrase). Their insights and conclusions are well worth considering.
Here is that link:
Anthony Le Donne is a young scholar who has tackled some tough subjects. In this particular book he addresses the question recently on a lot of minds: Was Jesus married? The book is entitled: The Wife of Jesus: Ancient Texts and Modern Scandals. It is published by Oneworld Publications in London. The first copyright is 2013 so I’m a bit late telling you about it.
Although the question whether Jesus was married has been around a long time, Dan Brown’s The Da Vinci Code certainly kindled everyone’s imagination. If you’re prone to sensational readings of history and wish to see conspiracies under every rock, then Brown is your guy. More recently ,the announcement and publication of the badly named Gospel of Jesus’ Wife made it a matter of scholarly concern. I’ll have more to say about that later, but what Le Donne has done is to take a controversial subject and make sense out of it historically and socially. Perceptively, he notes that the modern response to the question—whether excitement or repulsion—has more to say about us than it does the historical Jesus. In many ways the question of whether Jesus was married and how we respond to it provide a mirror of ourselves and our times. In the final chapter he writes: “This book, in large part, has been about ancient and modern attempts to project sexual identities onto Jesus” (p. 147).
Le Donne examines a wide variety of texts from the ancient world, accounts about the asceticism of John the Immerser in the NT Gospels to non-canonical accounts which some people take to describe an intimate relationship between Jesus and Mary Magdalene in the Gospel of Philip. Le Donne reads widely in Greek and Jewish sources contemporaneous with Jesus and in the first half of the Christian century. He seems to be able to argue for it—yes, it is likely Jesus was married as was typical of most Jewish men—and against it—no, there is no solid historical evidence he was married. As a historian, Le Donne knows the difficulty of arguing from the general to the particular. What is true of most people is not necessarily true of a particular person. Though most Jewish men married between the ages of 20 and 30, not everyone did. There was already an impulse toward asceticism and self- denial in Jesus’ day. John the Immerser and the desert covenanters of Qumran appear to offer contemporaneous examples.
Le Donne offers a helpful construct for what was typical of Jewish males in the first century. The term he uses is “civic masculinity”; it represents the gender role most Jewish men would play in their day. It would include things like marriage and having children, working a trade and taking responsibility for one’s economic well-being, passing the faith along, seeking to own and work the land, etc. Jesus, according to Le Donne, may have been raised to accept this role, but he may have subverted it in his public ministry. Jesus , he says, “invested in the two-sided coin of economic disobligation and celibacy.” Such a lifestyle was probably considered “crazy” by ancient standards and “anti-family” by modern.
Mark Goodacre, NT Professor at Duke University, says it well: Le Donne’s book is “a crystal-clear, compelling yet historically robust account of what we can and can’t know about the wife of Jesus.”
I’m reblogging a post from my friend, Larry Hurtado. If you are interested in studies in Christology, you need to check out this volume of Early Christianity. It is dedicated to Wilhelm Bousset’s classic volume KYRIOS CHRISTOS published over 100 years ago.
The latest issue of the journal Early Christianity (vol. 6, no. 1, 2015) is given to several articles assessing Wilhelm Bousset’s classic work, Kyrios Christos (1913; English trans. of the 5th edition 1970; new edition of the English trans. Baylor University Press, 2013). The articles derive from a special session held in the annual meeting of the Society of Biblical Literature in 2013. Here is the table of contents:
David Capes, “Introduction: A Centenary Celebration of Bousset’s Kyrios Christos” (3-4)
Cilliers Breytenbach, “Bousset’s Kyrios Christos: Imperfections of a Benchmark” (5-16)
Larry W. Hurtado, “Wilhelm Bousset’s Kyrios Christos: An Appreciative and Critical Assessment” (17-29)
Kelly Coblentz Bautch, “Kyrios Christos in the Light of Twenty-First Century Perspectives on Second-Temple Judaism” (30-50)
Lutz Doering, “Wilhelm Bousset’s Die Religion des Judentums im neutestamentlichen Zeitalter” (51-66). (This article actually focuses on another of Bousset’s major works, which continued to be used, especially…
View original post 224 more words
After 25 years of teaching in the Department of Theology at HBU, I have made the decision to join the faculty of Houston Graduate School of Theology as their new academic dean. The decision has been a hard one as you might imagine. I have had several thousand students at HBU since 1990, and today they are all over the world doing wonderful things. I will miss the place, the students, and my colleagues. HBU has had and continues to have a wonderful faculty who have gotten along well and worked productively over the years. I have been around long enough to see a number of colleagues retire from HBU—A. O. Collins, Joe Blair, Gene Wofford, Peter Davids, for example. Those teaching there now are a uniquely talented lot. I will miss them.
I’m heading to Houston Graduate School of Theology. The school’s website is www.hgst.edu. It was started about 30 years ago by the Quakers and today serves an increasingly diverse group of students from various denominations. It has many of the challenges you’d expect small, independent schools to have, but it has a president who is a gifted leader, Dr. James Furr. It also has a unique mission. What draws me is the opportunity to work with a multi-ethnic, multi-denominational population of men and women who sense a call to ministry and service to the world. The students I’ve met have been dedicated and hard-working. Under President Furr’s leadership, the school has become a good place in Houston to study theology, ministry, counseling, and leadership. Our faculty and adjunct faculty come from various denominations, traditions, and communities. If I can, in some small way, make the school a better place to work and study, I think I will have accomplished something important.
One of the books most important to my thinking about Christian origins and the rise of religious devotion to Jesus is Larry Hurtado’s ONE GOD, ONE LORD. I’m delighted to see it is being updated and republished in this third edition. It is required reading in my courses on early Christianity.
Earlier this week I received the proposed cover for the third edition of my book, One God, One Lord: Early Christian Devotion and Ancient Jewish Monotheism (London: Bloomsbury T&T Clark, forthcoming November 2015). Now I see that Amazon has notice of this edition as forthcoming here. Originally published in 1988, there was a second edition in 1998, in which I provided a new 5,000-word Preface reviewing the discussion of relevant topics in the ten years between editions. In this third edition, I provide a 20,000-word Epilogue in which I sketch the background of the book (in my own research development), and then devote the greater part of the Epilogue to tracing scholarly discussion of the main points of the book, engaging key scholars in the process.
Because I judge the net effects of the vigorous scholarly work reviewed not to have called into question anything significant in the original…
View original post 277 more words