Near Emmaus

Category Archives: New Testament Scholarship


by 24 Comments

Book Review: David Wenham’s Did St. Paul Get Jesus Right?

David Wenham, Did St. Paul Get Jesus Right? The Gospel According to Paul (Oxford: Lion Hudson, 2010). (Amazon.com)

St PaulIn 2011 I read Scot McKnight’s King Jesus Gospel: The Original Good News Revisited and it helped me connect the Gospel proclaimed by Jesus to that of Paul. In 2012 I had a similar experience while reading Daniel Kirk’s Jesus Have I Loved, But Paul? A Narrative Approach to Pauline Christianity. If I were to teach a class on the topic of how Paul relates to Jesus, these two books would be required reading. Now, in 2013, I have found another book that does a good job addressing the criticism that Paul invented a Christianity that has nothing to do with Jesus, or that Jesus would not have recognized: David Wenham’s Did St. Paul Get Jesus Right? The Gospel According to Paul.

Wenham’s book is aimed for a popular audience. In the preface he addresses some of the sensational responses by the media as concerns Dan Brown’s The Da Vinci Code, the discovery of the Gospel of Judas, and other alternative Christianities that capture public imagination.

Message of the Book

This book argues that Pauline Christianity is faithful to the person of Jesus, to his message, and to the earliest traditions about him. Wenham is diligent to connect the Pauline Epistles to underlying Jesus traditions, showing that the Jesus who appears in narrative form in the Gospels is presupposed by Paul, and that Paul knew these traditions. Contra those who argue that Paul created a Christianity that has nothing to do with the real Jesus, Wenham presents a Paul who was careful to innovate within the evolving Jesus tradition.

Summary of the Content

This book is eleven chapters long, each chapter serving as a short essay on something related to Pauline Christianity. In Chapter 1: What is the Question and Why is it Important? Wenham establishes why this subject matters. He provides a short introduction to Jesus, then to Paul, then he summarizes the accusation against Paul that his Christianity has nothing or little to do with Jesus. Wenham’s thesis statement is as follows (Kindle Location: 126-134):

This short book is an attempt, by someone who has been interested in the question for a long time, to show that Paul did not invent Christianity or change the religion of Jesus, but that he got Jesus right.

This chapter ends with a summary of the forthcoming chapters.

Chapter 2: Can We Use the New Testament as Evidence? is where Wenham shows that he won’t be arguing his position by begging the question that the Bible is true because it is the Bible. Rather, Wenham aims to establish (Kindle Location:147-153), “…a serious historical case on the basis of serious historical evidence.” Wenham defends the usefulness of ancient documents for reliable investigation of the past. He compares the reliability of New Testament documents to other first century historians or the preservation of other ancient documents via their manuscript tradition. In other words, the NT does give a useful picture of early Christian belief about Jesus, by Paul, and even from Jesus.

Chapter 3: How Paul Got Jesus…or How Jesus Got Paul: The Evidence of Paul’s Conversion investigates the Pauline and Lukan portrayals of Paul as a persecutor of early Christians, who was a respectable Pharisee, who claims to have had an extraordinary conversion experience. Wenham is careful to show that Paul desired to align his understanding of the person of Jesus with that of the Jerusalem Church.

Chapter 4: Was Jesus Interested in the Real Jesus? Evidence from Corinth on the Crucifixion and Resurrection investigates Paul’s reception of traditions about Jesus’ crucifixion, about the Passover/Communion tradition (i.e. 1 Cor. 11), about Jesus’ resurrection (i.e. 1 Cor. 15), and how the earlier date of this letter helps us understand Paul’s relationship to Jesus’ early disciples.

As to why Paul doesn’t write a lot about the “life of Jesus” like the Gospels Wenham presents Paul as a “trouble-shooter” addressing communities who were already aware of the traditions that would be included in the Gospels, assuming their relevance, and addressing the struggles of local congregations with the Jesus tradition in the background, informing his words.

Chapter 5: Sex, Apostleship, and Love: More Evidence from Corinth and Beyond presents Paul’s struggle to apply Jesus’ teachings on divorce and remarriage to his Corinthian context as useful paradigm for understanding how Paul understood his apostleship in relation to Jesus’ teachings.

Chapter 6: “Abba”, and What Happens When We Die: Evidence from Galatia and Thessalonica discusses the unique use of the Aramaic “Abba” in conversation with a Greek speaking audience as evidence of Paul’s awareness of some of Jesus’ teachings. Wenham compares Paul’s vision of the parousia with the language attributed to Jesus in the Gospels (including Dan. 7 imagery, “thief” language, “falling asleep” and the Thessalonian misunderstanding of Jesus’ teachings about his return and the death of disciples.

Chapter 7: Was Paul the Inventor of Christian Doctrines? wrestles with whether language about the atonement and incarnation should be rooted in Paul the innovator, or if earlier traditions (e.g., Phil. 2) informed Paul. He does a very good job of presenting Paul’s controversy as having to do with Jewish-Gentile relations rather than things like atonement or incarnation, ideas he gives almost no effort toward defending, but rather assumes to some degree.

Chapter 8: Did Paul and Jesus Really Agree? surveys the differences and similarities between Jesus and Paul. This chapter is helpful, because Wenham isn’t trying to ignore where Paul may be different from Jesus, but rather he wants this distinction framed correctly and accurately.

Chapter 9: Is Paul Behind the New Testament Gospels? addresses the claim that similarities between Jesus and Paul in the Gospels exist because the Evangelists were influenced by Paul. Wenham shows that while there may be some connections, the evidence points away from this, especially the Gospel of Matthew.

Chapter 10: But Paul Was Certainly a Controversialist emphasizes that Paul was controversial, but as mentioned above, he was controversial in areas different from what modern critics assert. Chapter 11: So Did Paul Get Jesus Right? summarizes Wenham’s argument and, of course, reaffirms his thesis statement that Paul did understand Jesus’ message correctly.

Concluding Thoughts

Wenham has studied this subject for years now. This is a popular summary of his scholarship. It is very readable. It presents complex arguments with simplicity. For those who cannot see the connection between Paul and Jesus, or who believe Paul invented a Christianity completely disconnected from Jesus, this book, along with the aforementioned books are worth your time.

About these ads


by 10 Comments

Collins and Enns on the “historicity” of Adam (Pt. 25): Paul’s Adam

Update: I realize that some may not have followed this series so there may be some confusion about the the aims of this book. I will be posting a short review in a couple of days but let me make this important point: Enns writes for evangelicals who (A) want to continue to affirm a high view of Scripture yet who (B) find no reason to reject the majority view of scientist studying human origins that there was no “first man and woman” as depicted in the Book of Genesis. One can reject these two ideals, but then one must realize that this book will likely disappoint because either (A) you’ll think Enns is trying to preserve the Bible when it should be cast aside or (B) you’ll think Enns gives too much credence to modern scientific views of human origins. For a good example of how some who affirm both (A) and (B) are trying to “move forward” in this discussion see David Williams’ post “Who Needs a Historical Adam?”

In Pt. 24 I shared some thoughts from Peter Enns on Paul as an interpreter of his Bible. Today’s post surveys Enns’ understanding of Paul’s understanding of Adam. 

In Chapter 7: Paul’s Adam Enns begins with this claim:

“If Adam had stayed within the confines of Genesis 2–5, there would be far less difficulty in synthesizing evolution and Christianity—a “historical Adam” would likely be no more crucial to Christian faith than a literal talking snake or a literal garden paradise. The symbolic nature of the garden story would be even clearer if we see Adam as a proto-Israel figure, not the first human…” (Kindle Locations 2774-2777)

BUT

“Paul…presents Adam as the first human and responsible for the problem of universal sin and death that Jesus came to eradicate. This is why the question of a historical Adam is understandably so important for many Christians and why digressing from a historical Adam can generate great concern.” (Kindle Locations 2777-2779)

I think Enns is correct. When I read Genesis 1-11 I read ancient Israelites explaining their place in this world through their own cosmology and mythology. It is a perfect precursor to Abraham–the real, important figure in the Book of Genesis. Yet Paul creates trouble!

Enns evaluates Romans 5:12-21 and 1 Corinthians 15:21-22, 44-49. Adam brings death and condemnation. He makes his descendants into sinners. He represents limited, physical, dying humans.

Enns does not side-step the reality that Paul thought of Adam as a real, historical person. He writes:

“At the outset we should admit that Adam is a vital theological and historical figure for Paul. Without question, Adam plays a significant theological role for Paul. But Adam’s theological significance cannot be distanced from Paul’s assumption that Adam was the first man created by God. To be sure, Adam is more than merely a historical figure for Paul, but one of penetrating theological significance.” (Kindle Locations 2788-2791)

So yes, Adam is theologically important, but that is because Paul affirms that he was a real person in history. In other words, his figurative representation doesn’t mean that Paul thought of him as merely a fictional character.

When interpreting Paul Enns cautions that we must remember that he (1) presumes a context that is shared with his readers but lost to us; (2) there are grammatical aspects of Paul’s letters that make it difficult to understand his point; and (3) he is a passionate, pastoral writer rather than a systematic thinker and he did not write with a focus on “…nonnative speakers two thousand years removed from his moment in time, hanging on his every syllable.” (Kindle Locations 2826-2827)

But what does appear clear is that Paul’s Adam was unique. This Adam shares a lot with the Adam of Genesis, and the Adam of other interpreters, but “…distinct portrayal of Adam reflects his Christ-centered handling of the Old Testament in general…In other words, Paul’s understanding of Adam is shaped by Jesus, not the other way around.” (Kindle Locations 2834-2837)

Paul interprets Adam Christocentrically.

Enns asks whether or not the denial of the historicity of Adam ruins Paul’s argument about Christ. Enns says, “no”. He states that, “The way forward, I believe, is to recognize the profound historical (not simply symbolic) truths in Paul’s words that remain despite his view of human origins.”  (Kindle Locations 2847-2848)

Can we discuss sin and death without a real Adam?

Death remains universal, even if the symbol of Adam never existed. So Paul’s concern about death remains grounded. Enns writes:

“Admitting the historical and scientific problems with Paul’s Adam does not mean in the least that the gospel message is therefore undermined. A literal Adam may not be the first man and cause of sin and death, as Paul understood it, but what remains of Paul’s theology are three core elements of the gospel:

“The universal and self-evident problem of death

“The universal and self-evident problem of sin

“The historical event of the death and resurrection of Christ”

(Kindle Locations 2863-2869)

According to Enns all that we really lose is “Paul’s culturally assumed explanation for what a primordial man had to do with causing the reign of death and sin in the world.” (Kindle Locations 2870-2871) Death and sin remain whether or not Adam existed. Resurrection happened if Jesus rose from the dead whether or not Adam existed.

What does this do to the doctrine of “original sin”? Enns appeals to Lutheran theologian G.L. Murphy who explained that we may have different understandings of original sin, but we can observe the “sin of origin”–that every human is born into a world tainted by human evil: “Murphy and others counsel that we must remain open on the ultimate origins of why all humans are born in sin (original sin) while resting content in the observation that all humans are born in sin (sin of origin).” (Kindle Locations 2892-2893)

There is much more to this final chapter, but for my purposes (thinking about the historical or non-historical Adam) I think it is time to close this series. What I will do is provide a short book review on both Enns’ and Collins’ works. Then I recommend that if you were provoked by my (excessive) series of posts you go purchase and read these books.


by 2 Comments

Collins and Enns on the “historicity” of Adam (Pt. 22): Paul’s interpretive culture.

Prior to exploring various Jewish interpretations of Adam, and Paul’s interpretation in that context, Enns summarizes the “interpretive culture” wherein we find Paul. It is a post-exilic culture where Scripture gives Israel her identity. Enns writes that the Jews sought to do this because of the occupation of groups like the Persians, Greeks, and Roman. He says:

“In response to the specific cultural and religious pressures placed upon them by their captors, Judaism began to reflect diligently on what it means to be the people of God in a land not their own—whether in exile in Babylon or in their own homeland under foreign rule. Judaism is the postexilic transformation of Israel’s preexilic faith as it answered one fundamental question of national identity: ‘How can we be connected to our past and be God’s people here and now when things are so different?’ (Kindle Locations 2303-2306).”

In conjunction with the formation of Jewish Scripture was the beginning of the interpretive enterprise. “By the time Jesus came on the scene, Jews had already been steeped in several hundred years of careful reflection on their own now sacred and inscripturated story (Kindle Locations 2314-2316).” They edited their sacred texts, they wrote about their sacred texts, and they studied those texts together.

Enns provides several examples of these kinds of texts:

- The Dead Sea Scrolls
- The Targums
- The Septuagint
- The Pseudepigrapha
- The Apocrypha
- The New Testament

Enns gives his reasoning for studying this literature:

“My purpose in skimming this topic is to show that there was a tremendous literary output by faithful Jews in trying to come to grips with how their Scripture and their own current story intersected. The New Testament was written amid this flurry of interpretive output and so likewise engaged Israel’s Scripture with almost relentless energy (about 365 citations and well over 1,000 allusions). The New Testament message was unique in its world, but the manner in which the New Testament writers handled the Old Testament was not. So once again, just as we calibrate the genre of Genesis by looking to the surrounding religious cultures, we can calibrate the interpretative approach of Paul and any New Testament writer by paying close attention to the interpretive culture surrounding them.

“By the time Jesus came on the scene, Jews had already been steeped in several hundred years of careful reflection on their own now sacred and inscripturated story (Kindle Locations 2314-2351).”

This is where Paul and his world come into the picture. The New Testament was engaging in the same task of self-description and understanding as these other libraries of Jewish literature. The message is different, but the method is similar. Therefore, Jews interpreted Adam in various ways, and Paul interpreted in that context, but as a follower of Christ the uniqueness of his exegesis is not that he transcends his culture, but that he participates in it from a Christocentric perspect.

In the next post we will survey with Enns the various interpretations of Adam in Jewish literature.


by 4 Comments

The Scriptures in Luke-Acts according to Bock (Zondervan Blog Tour)

Others have already shared their thoughts on various chapters from Darrell L. Bock’s A Theology of Luke and Acts: Biblical Theology of the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2012). I recommend you mosey on over to those blogs as well if you get a chance (blogs in Round 1, Round 2). I have been given the assignment of Chapter 21: The Scriptures in Luke-Acts. Since I have been studying this subject over the summer I was quite excited to read Bock’s thoughts.

Obviously the use of Scripture in Luke-Acts centers on the narrative of Luke 24, especially vv. 43-47. The resurrected Jesus appears veiled to two distraught disciples who do not understand why Jesus was crucified. Jesus shows them from Scripture that Messiah had to suffer and die before making himself known through the breaking of bread. Bock ties this together with our last words on the matter in Acts 26.22-23 (p. 407):

“So, having obtained help from God, I stand to this day testifying both to small and great, stating nothing but what the Prophets and Moses said was going to take place; that the Christ was to suffer, and that by reason of His resurrection from the dead He would be the first to proclaim light both to the Jewish people and to the Gentiles (NASB).”

Bock comments:

“This citation serves as both an adequate introduction to, and summary of, Luke’s use of Scripture. It notes three central themes: (1) the message of the newly emerged Christian teaching spans the full array of scriptural hope from Moses to the prophets; (2) at the center of that hope is the Christ event, especially his death and resurrection-ascension; and (3) God’s vindication of Jesus becomes the occasion for his new appeal both to the Jews and the nations to enter into divine promise and life (light) (p. 408).”

Bock begins by exploring the “hermeneutical axioms” for Luke’s reading of Scripture. This is not “techniques” (p. 409), as if Luke had a textbook with rules for interpretation. Rather, axioms are Luke’s “interpretive grid (p. 409).” Bock lists the following axioms:

(1) “God’s design and new era of realization.”

For Bock Luke saw Scripture as providing the story and context that pointed toward Christ. The message was present in Scripture waiting to be fulfilled in Christ. Bock writes, “The gospel is the presence of something new and something old. The old era of expectation leads to the new era of realization (p. 410).”

(2) “Christ at the center.”

“The literary flow of Luke’s use of Scripture reveals that once Jesus’ messianic and lordship credentials are established (“He is Lord of all and judge of the living and the dead”), then scriptural attention can concentrate on how Gentiles are included and how Israel must not reject the opportunity to share in the promise. The plan argues that Jesus is Lord of all, so the gospel can go to all (p. 411).” In other words, Jesus’s fulfillment of Scripture makes him the focus of God’s universal plan (think Psalm 2). Now readers of Scripture can go and proclaim this Christ who has been shown from Scripture to be “Lord of all.” If he is Lord of all then this means he Lord over more than just Israel.

(3) “Scripture as an interpreter of divine event and current critical discussion.”

Luke sought “divine patterns” in history  and typological figures and events. These foreshadowing elements pointed to Christ. In Christ the story would reach its telos. ”The center of that hope involved a pivitol figure. Luke’s claim is that the events of Jesus’ life and ministry began the arrival of that promised era. Scripture is an interpreter of those events, explaining them and their design. At the same time, the events themselves, as unusual and unique as they are, draw one to Scripture to seek explanation (p 412).”

Bock uses these axioms to present five “central Scriptural themes,” which include the following:

(1) Covenant and Promise.

(2) Christology.

(3) Community, Mission, Community Guidance, and Ethical Direction.

(4) Commission to the Gentiles.

(5) Challenge with Warning to Israel.

Of course, Bock spends much time unpacking how each of these themes run through Luke-Acts, how they are informed by the person of Jesus and the narrative of Scripture, and the message they present in the book.

Once Bock has finished his thorough examination of these themes he summarizes his view on this matter:

“The use of Scripture in Luke-Acts serves as variety of roles. Many texts set forth who Jesus is and explain what he is doing in conjunction with the divine plan and covenants. Many texts in Acts support this new community’s claim to the heritage of God revealed in Moses and the prophets. The early church asserted that a faithful response to God would mean: (1) the embracing of Jesus as the promised one, and (2) the inclusion of Gentiles into the community of blessing. Failure to respond has left the nation culpable (p. 426).”

Again, I hope you have time to browse the other reviews and I hope this summary of Chapter 21 helped you get an idea of what kind of book this is and the audience it serves.

As a blog tour participant, I received a free review copy of the book from Zondervan, but without obligation to write a positive review. The blog tour continues through the end of this week. You can follow it here.


by 23 Comments

Collins and Enns on the “historicity” of Adam (Pt. 15 )

In the last few post I have given my attention to C. John Collins understanding of how Adam and Eve function in the biblical canon. In part 11 we surveyed Collins reading of the Book of Genesis. In part 12 we did the same with the rest of the Hebrew Bible. In part 13 we moved to non-canonical Jewish literature. In part 14 we did the same for the Gospels. Today I will relay Collins’ interpretation of the Pauline Epistles and the rest of the New Testament.

Collins begins his examination of Paul by alluding to passages that don’t necessitate a historical Adam in his view, though they may be useful for understanding the biblical view of Adam: 1 Corinthians 11.7-12; 2 Corinthians 11.3; 1 Timothy 2.13-14. On the other hand, he finds no wiggle room in 1 Corinthians 15.20-23, 42-49; Romans 5.12-19; and Acts 17.26 (technically Lukan, though about Paul) (Kindle Location 1246).

Collins interprets 1 Corinthians 15.20-23 as explaining why Jesus had to raise from the dead. Although Adam is representative this doesn’t remove the reality of Adam’s impact on the world as Paul understood it (Kindle Location 1268). I know readers of this blog understand the basic debate over this passage so I won’t rehash it. Simply put, either Adam’s historicity is essential to Paul’s argument or it is not. For Collins it is because it is for Paul. Those who disagree with Collins will highlight the representative function of Adam. Collins interacts with C.K. Barrett as someone who didn’t think Adam needed to be historical and N.T. Wright as someone who presumes this is what Paul believed. Most people do agree that Paul affirms a historical Adam in this passage, so Collins argument here presumes that Paul’s foundational presuppositions must be retained for his argument to work. Since Collins’ understand Paul’s writings as Scripture without error he argues for his exegesis and moves along. Again, one of the biggest problems I have with this book is Collins flippant approach at times. It seems that he feels the burden of proof is on people like Peter Enns to prove that Paul’s argument can work if we remove Paul’s presuppositions. This may be true, but it makes Collins’ argument seem passive while lacking depth (Kindle Locations 1246-1315).

Again, the same approach is taken with Romans 5.12-19. Paul’s argument uses Adam as an archetype. Someone like Enns may preserve that approach while saying the historicity of the archetype doesn’t matter for his symbolic function to be retained. Collins disagrees.

In Acts 17.26 Paul is presented as assuming Adam’s history. Collins follow suit.

This is important to recognize: Collins and Enns agree that Paul assumes Adam’s historicity in his argument in 1 Corinthians 15 and Romans 5. So does Barrett, Wright, and many others. That is not where they disagree. Where they disagree is whether it matters that Paul believed this for his argument to work.

Other NT passages that seem to allude to a historical Adam would be the mention of Abel, Enoch, and Noah in Hebrews 11.4-7. This assumes the historicity of these figures in Collins opinion (Kindle Location 1432). Revelation 2.7; 22.2, 14, and 19 allude to the Tree of Life. Revelation 12.9 and 20.2 allude to the Satan-Serpent figure. Of course, there is much “Genesis symbolism” in Revelation, which does matter because the Apocalypse seems to depict redemption as creation restored and enhanced which is built off of the Genesis story. Again, Collins doesn’t try to theologize from this. He represents the traditional position. He states it. He leaves it as it is and forces those who disagree to carry the burden of proof.

When I return to this series I will spend several posts on Peter Enns’ book The Evolution of Adam which gives much space to Genesis and Paul. 


by 33 Comments

Collins and Enns on the “historicity” of Adam (Pt. 5).

Last week I began juxtaposing C. John Collins’ Did Adam and Eve Really Exist? Who They Were and Why You Should Care and Peter Enns’ The Evolution of Adam: What the Bible Does and Doesn’t Say About Human Origins. In Pt. 2 I summarized Enn’s introductory thoughts. In Pt. 3 I did the same for Collins. In Pt. 4 I relayed Collins’ understanding of the interpretive options available to us. Today I move back to Enns and his understanding of the relationship between Christianity and science as well as the interpretive options he finds available.

Modern Christians are comfortable with the reality that the biblical authors didn’t share our cosmology. We don’t expect them to have understood gravity, or that the earth is a sphere that rotates around the sun, or what constitutes stars, and so forth. Enns writes,

“To the contrary, it is clear that, from a scientific point of view, the Bible does not always describe physical reality accurately; it simply speaks in an ancient idiom, as one might expect ancient people to do. It is God’s Word, but it has an ancient view of the natural world, not a modern one.” (Kindle Locations 228-231)

Why can’t we understand evolution to be one of those things that the ancients didn’t understand but that we do? Enns explains the difference saying,

“Evolution, however, is a game changer. The general science-and-faith rapprochement is not adequate because evolution uniquely strikes at central issues of the Christian faith. Evolution tells us that human beings are not the product of a special creative act by God as the Bible says but are the end product of a process of trial-and-error adaptation and natural selection. This process began billions of years ago, with the simplest of one-cell life forms, and developed into the vast array of life on this planet—plants, reptiles, fish, mammals, and so forth—and humanity. These humans also happen to share a close common ancestry with primates. Some Christians reconcile their faith with evolution by saying that God initiated and guides this process, which is fine (and which I believe), but that is not the point here. The tensions that evolution creates with the Bible remain, and they are far more significant than whether the earth is at the center of the cosmos, how old it is, and whether it is round or flat.” (Kindle Locations 230-238).

Recently I posted chapter-by-chapter my review of John H. Walton’s The Lost World of Genesis One (see here). Most of us are OK with the creation of earth being depicted in sub-scientific, poetic, metaphorical imagery conveying a theological message. We know how to reconcile the theological-poetic message of Genesis 1 with modern science, kind of. Last week one person commented asking if this whole science-faith dichotomy is a false one. It may be when we talk about the age of the earth, but is Enns right that it is a game changer for Christian anthropology?

Enns says,

“If evolution is correct, one can no longer accept, in any true sense of the word “historical,” the instantaneous and special creation of humanity described in Genesis, specifically 1:26–31 and 2:7, 22.” (Kindle Locations 239-240)

He does not accept paradigms that suggest that Adam and Eve are the first two “elevated hominids.” In other words, he doesn’t want to be seen as participating in a correspondence reading of Genesis that connects all the the mythological imagery to modern science. So no, for Enns the idea of Adam coming from the dust isn’t short hand for a long, long process of humans coming from the earth through the process of evolution. Enns writes, “This hybrid view does not adhere to the Bible but rewrites it.” (Kindle Locations 244-245)

The Book of Genesis isn’t the main concern for Enns, though he will address it. He understand the image of God language to correspond to ancient near eastern ideas regarding Kings representing deities. In other words, Genesis 1 democratizes something other cultures attributed to their King alone. No, the problem isn’t Genesis, or even the interpretation of Adam in the context of the Hebrew Bible. The problem is the Apostle Paul:

“Evolution demands that the special creation of the first Adam as described in the Bible is not literally historical; Paul, however, seems to require it. After all, what purpose does the actual obedience of the second Adam (Christ) have if there was no first Adam who disobeyed? So, as the argument often goes, if there was no first Adam, then there was no fall. If there was no fall, there is no truly inescapably sinful condition and so no need for a Savior. If evolution is true, then Christianity is false. When the issue is framed this way, the discussion tends to move toward one of two extremes: Christians either choose Paul over Darwin or abandon their faith in favor of natural science.” (Kindle Locations 281-285).

As we can see Enns is presenting a condensed form of Collins argument. In my last post I outlined the interpretive options suggested by Collins. These are Enns’ equivalent:

“1. Accept evolution and reject Christianity.”

“2. Accept Paul’s view of Adam as binding and reject evolution.”

“3. Reconcile evolution and Christianity by positing a first human pair (or group) at some point in the evolutionary process.”

“4. Rethink Genesis and Paul.” (Kindle Locations 294-312)

Enns choses #4. He says he will approach it in two parts: (1) Genesis and (2) Paul.

What do you think of Enns’ rejection of the other three options? What do you make of “rethinking” both Genesis and Paul? 


by 1 Comment

Commentary Review: Craig A. Evans’ Matthew (NCBC)

Evans, Craig A. Matthew (New Cambridge Bible Commentary). New York: Cambridge University Press, 2012.

Craig A. Evans, ‘Matthew’ in the NCBC series.

I received Craig A. Evans Matthew from the New Cambridge Bible Commentary as a gift for my indexing work on the project. I knew from the digital version I viewed that it was going to be a useful volume. Now that I have spent some time with it in print I can say that it is worth adding to your library.

The New Cambridge Bible Commentary uniquely combined in-depth scholarship with readability and a user friendly structure. There are some commentaries that are so meticulous that they are difficult to read. There are others that are easy to read, but the content is too brief. This series seems to do a fine job at providing a middle ground. I have Bill T. Arnold’s Genesis from the same series.

The series is edited by Ben Witherington III and it appears to span the broad spectrum of New Testament scholarship including people like Arnold, Evans, Witherington, and others like Walter Brueggemann, Craig S. Keener, Amy-Jill Levine, and Duane F. Watson.

The introduction is simple and straightforward. The commentary flows nicely addressing manageable portions of text. There are occasional supplementary sections called “A Closer Look” that appear in gray boxes throughout the commentary providing an aside on subjected like “The Holy Spirit,” “Josephus on John the Baptist,”  ”Demons in the Desert,”  and “The Disciples in the Talmud.”

Evans does interact with other commentaries, but he is intentional about limiting the attention given to secondary literature. He prefaces that his primary conversation partners are the commentaries of John Nolland, R.T. France, Robert Gundry, and Craig S. Keener (p. xv). This doesn’t mean that there is a lack of sources cited (I know, I did the indexing), but that the commentary does a solid job of being selective when mentioning and interacting with secondary literature so that the text itself is primary.

This is the work of a confessional scholar. Evans affirms the historicity of Jesus, the virgin birth, and so forth, but he does serious historical-critical work as well. I don’t think I have to defend his reputation as a serious scholar of Christian origins and literature and Second Temple Judaism.

The commentary is 487 pages of content. If you have any questions about the book feel free to ask in the comments. Here are some pictures to provide a visual (click to enlarge):

Introduction

Text and Commentary

e.g. ‘A Closer Look’