Near Emmaus

Category Archives: Craig A. Evans


by 21 Comments

Commencing doctoral studies in September

homeI received notification late last week that I have been accepted as a doctoral student into Trinity College, Bristol, UK. I will begin this September. Trinity College is in affiliation with the University of Bristol, so if I complete my program my diploma will come from the university. Bristol is located in South West England. I won’t be relocating though since this program allows you to live elsewhere while visiting several weeks a year to earn residency.

imgresMy advisors will be Dr. David Wenham of Trinity College (internal) and Dr. Craig A. Evans of Acadia Divinity College (external).

David Wenham

David Wenham

Dr. Wenham received his Ph.D. from Manchester University and he has had a long career as a scholar and academic administrator. Currently, he is a part-time tutor. Wenham is a man who has a reputation for connecting the academy to the church. I appreciate this since I find the divide between the two to be quite concerning. Wenham’s scholarly expertise is the Gospels and Paul. Much of his academic career has been spent examining the connection between Paul and Jesus.  (Recently I reviewed Wenham’s Did St. Paul Get Jesus Right? The Gospel of Paul, found here.)

Craig Evans

Craig Evans

Dr. Craig A. Evans is the Payzant Distinguished Professor of New Testament Studies at Acadia Divinity College. He received his Ph.D. from Claremont Graduate University. He is a recognized authority on the Dead Sea Scrolls, the New Testament, and Christian origins. Evans has been producing high level scholarship on these topics for many years now (see his CV!) and I think he is one of the best scholars in the world. I am humbled and excited to be students of these two fine men.

In the UK a student begins the dissertation process immediately. My proposed dissertation is “Jesus the Spirit-Baptizer: Messiah, the Spirit, and the Juxtaposition between Jesus and John the Baptist in the Context of the First Century”. I have been fascinated with early Jewish and Christian pneumatology for a while now, especially after reading John R. Levison’s Filled with the Spirit (who has become a friend and an important mentor is recent years). I realize that I think of the holy S/spirit through the lens of Christian doctrine (which isn’t necessarily bad, but it can be anachronistic) to the neglect of how spirit language would have been used in the first century, both during the time of Jesus and as the Jesus movement evolved.

Similarly, the figure of John the Baptist is not given adequate attention. This is not to say that there are not fabulous books on John. Recently I had been reading through Joan E. Taylor’s The Immerser: John the Baptist within Second Temple Judaism and Robert E. Webb’s John the Baptizer and Prophet, but there is far more to say about John in my opinion. John is one of the most important figures for the early Jesus movement and all four Gospels and the Book of Acts have something to say about his identity, which means he remains a problematic figure into the late first century, at least. Whenever these works juxtapose Jesus and John the appeal is to Jesus’ identity as the one who will baptized or has baptized with S/spirit. Why? Why does this make Jesus greater than John? Does this solidify Jesus’ identity as the Messiah while disqualifying John from that title? Would this point have been readily received by the earliest readers? My goal is to answer questions such as these and many more.

Now, I am aware of the debate between studying in the US or the UK (or elsewhere). I know there are good reasons for both, but let me say that the two most important factors for me were (1) with whom I would study and (2) what I would study. Trinity College allowed me to study with Wenham and Evans and my proposal was accepted. Aaron White who is a student in the program I am joining has written a nice piece explaining the other important advantages/disadvantages of the program and I think he does a fine job at summarizing the matter so I will point you toward it: Advantages/Disadvantages to Long Distance PhDs.

A parting plea: pray for me! I’m nervous to say the least. I know the job market post-graduation is ugly. I don’t know what the future holds in that regard. I do know I want to do this though and I have the support of those closest to me. That makes me excited.

About these ads


by 11 Comments

The Great Commission from the Son of Man

imgresCraig A. Evans on Matthew 28:18-19 in Matthew (NCBC), 483:

“Jesus states, ‘All authority on heaven and earth have been given to me” (v. 18). Reference to being given authority in heaven and on earth recalls the Son of Man in Dan 7:13-14, who in heaven was given ‘authority’ and authority later claimed ‘on earth’ (cf. Matt 9:6, ‘the Son of Man has authority on earth’; Matt 21:23, ‘By what authority are you doing these things, and who gave you this authority?’; Matt 7:29, ‘he taught them as one having authority’). The heavenly authority of Jesus is such that he even commands angels (cf. Matt 16:27, ‘the Son of man is to come with his angels in the glory of the Father’; 24:31; 25:31, ‘the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him’).

“The ‘authority’ here in Matt 28:18 probably alludes to the authority granted to the ‘Son of Man’ in Dan 7:14: ‘And royal authority was given to him…his authority is an everlasting authority’ (NETS). The risen Jesus can speak of his authority ‘in heaven’ because that is where the authority was granted –in heaven and in the very presence of God. The claim to have authority ‘on earth’ recalls Jesus’ earlier demonstration that he indeed does possess this authority, which he announced on the occasion of healing the paralyzed man (cf. Matt 9:6, ‘the Son of Man has authority on earth’).”

Quite the imagery: the Son of Man figure receives authority from the Ancient of Days and authoritatively commissions his disciples to make disciples of all the nations. In Daniel 7 the Son of Man figure is given the Kingdoms. Jesus has been given the Kingdoms, so he instructs his disciples to inform the Kingdoms that there has been a change. This seems to be underpinned by Psalm 2 as well where God choses his King and the nations prepare their defense against him, yet in this Gospel the King expects his disciples to find loyalist among the nations who will declare their allegiance to the King.

 


by Leave a comment

Craig A. Evans’ sermon on Mark 2:1-12

Craig A. Evans delivered a sermon on Mark 2:1-12 at New Minas Baptist Church as part of a series titled, “Christmas in Question”. He addresses the historicity of the person of Jesus, the reliability of the Gospels, what this text says about Jesus, and how we should think about Jesus in a world where novel ideas about his person swirl about us every day.

You can listen to it here.


by 5 Comments

Craig A. Evans on the use of Isaiah 7:14 in Matthew 1:23

51gGvxpd36L._SL500_AA300_In my recent entry “Three hermeneutical paradigms to use when studying the doctrine of the virgin birth” I referred to the use of Isaiah 7:14 in Matthew 1:23 as “awkward”. I was questioned about this, and I tried to provide my rational in response, but I think I may have found a more articulate way of saying what I was aiming to say. In Craig A. Evans’ Matthew (NCBC) he represents the view I hold and he frames things quite well. I have decided to reproduce it here.

As Evans completes his commentary on the infancy narrative he writes:

“At this point, we may inquire more closely into the question of historicity. Some commentators have suggested that the various components of the infancy narrative were produced through theological and typological interpretation of the scriptures of Israel. According to this line of thought, early Christian interpreters and apologist combed through the scriptures looking for clarification of the significance pf the life, ministry, and death of Jesus. Various texts, or ‘prophecies,’ were identified, which in turn created narratives. Understood this way, the infancy stories of the miraculous conception (Matt 1:18-25), the birth in Bethlehem and the inquiry of the magi (Matt 2:1-12), the flight to Egypt (Matt 2:13-15), and the murder of the infant (Matt 2:16-18) are not actual events in history but theological and midrashic creations.”

I should pause here to comment that Evans is not denying that the church studied the Scriptures to understand the meaning of Jesus. What he is denying is that in doing this there were a variety of obscure passages plucked from the text for no apparent reasons and applied to Jesus’ life, death, and resurrection. When it comes to these aspects of the infancy narrative of Matthew it seems quite odd that these passages would be chosen. Evans explains:

“All of this is possible, of course, but the evidence for it and the logic behind it are not as compelling as some think. It is not at all clear that the prophecy of Isa 7:14 would have given rise to a story about a virginal conception. There is no history of interpretation that anticipates either a miraculous conception or a messianic identity of the child in Isaiah 7. Neither was there an expectation that the Messiah was to be born of a virgin. Indeed, had the conception and birth of Jesus been conventional, one wonders why anyone would have introduced a story involving a divine conception. Such a story would have created difficulties, for in Jewish circles it could have been viewed in terms of pagan mythology, in which a god produces a child through intercourse with a mortal woman. It is more likely that Mary’s conception was indeed unexpected and unusual, and given the outcome– the amazing power of Jesus demonstrated in his public ministry and his astounding resurrection following his passion– the claim of his conception bu an act of the Holy Spirit of God becomes plausible.”

In other words, there was a tradition about the uniqueness of Jesus’ birth that informed Matthew’s exegesis of Isaiah rather than the text of Isaiah inspiring Matthew’s tradition about the uniqueness of Jesus’ birth. There is no need for a divine messiah, and even if someone thought messiah to be divine, there is no evidence that anyone thought this was possible through a virgin birth alone. Of course, the more skeptical readers of Matthew will not find this argument convincing, but I admit that it is an argument like this one that has caused me to pause when I hear people speak of Matthew creating a virgin birth story. Even if Matthew was being apologetic in defense of Mary’s reputation wasn’t an appeal to Joseph as Jesus’ legitimate father an easier answer than a virgin birth?

Evans concludes his thoughts with the following:

“It is probably better to see the tradition of Mary’s unusual conception and the belief that it was of God’s Spirit as generating an appeal to Scripture, not the Scripture generating the story of Mary’s immaculate conception. In other words, Isa 7:14 was understood to explain the irregularities surrounding the conception and birth of Jesus. The prophecy of Isaiah not only foreshadows the unusual conception of Jesus but places in into the context of Israel’s history, in which God’s saving work is revealed.” (p. 63)


by 24 Comments

Update on the Gospel of Jesus’ Wife (from Craig A. Evans).

By Craig A. Evans

[Note from Brian LePort: I received an email from Craig A. Evans saying that the Harvard Theological Review (HTR) has decided against publishing Karen King's paper on the Gospel of Jesus' Wife. He wrote, "After the analyses of Francis Watson, Mark Goodacre, Gesine Robinson, and others, I think forgery is virtually a certainty." I responded asking if it is becoming a consensus that it is a "modern" forgery and the below post (which he said I could share) is his response. Also, I should add that he did not provide his source, so I've sent him a follow-up email asking where he heard the news regarding HTR's decision. Update: The source appears to be an email from Gesine Robinson whose source is Helmut Koester. ]

Is the Coptic papyrus, in which Jesus speaks of his “wife,” a fake? Probably. We are far from a “consensus,” but one scholar after another and one Coptologist after another has weighed in pointing out serious problems with the paleography, the syntax, and the very troubling fact that almost all of the text has been extracted from the Gospel of Thomas (principally from logia 30, 101, and 114). I suspect the papyrus itself is probably quite old, perhaps fourth or fifth century, but the oddly written (or painted) letters on the recto side are probably modern and probably reflect recent interest in Jesus and Mary Magdalene. The decision of the editors of Harvard Theological Review not to publish Karen King’s paper is very wise. Perhaps we will eventually learn more about who actually produced this text.


by 17 Comments

Historical methods/criteria for biblical studies.

4Q525

Recently I have been evaluating my methodological presuppositions as concerns researching and writing history, especially as this relates to biblical studies. One thing that can be quite frustrating at times is the different approaches used by various scholars in the field. For example, historical Jesus scholars advocated something called the criteria of double dissimilarity for some time. This criteria suggest that historians can’t trace sayings and deeds back to Jesus if (A) they sound anything like the confession/beliefs of the early church (post-Easter?) about Jesus or (B) they sound anything like the Judaism of Jesus’ day.

Of course, there is a serious problem with this criteria. It cuts Jesus off from the people who remembered him and who told stories about his sayings and deeds. Likewise, it de-Judaizes Jesus. Why would Jesus be a person who completely transcends and disconnects with the Judaism of his day?

Thankfully the tide has turned and scholars tend to emphasis the importance of Jesus’ Jewishness. Some have suggested that this is the greatest accomplishment of the s0-called “Third Quest.” I mention this because it is a great example of how useful or hindering our methods can be.

For example, the Beatitudes of Matthew 5.3-12 and Luke 6.20-22 sound a lot like what we find in 4Q525:

[Blessed is the one...] with a pure heart and does not slander with his tongue.

Blessed are those who hold fast to its statutes and do not hold fast to the ways of injustice.

Ble[ssed] are those who rejoice in it, and do not exult in paths of folly.

Blessed are those who seek it with pure hands, and who do not search for it with a deceitful [hea]rt.

Blessed is the man who attains wisdom, and walks in the law of the Most High: establishes his heart in its ways, restrains himself bu its corrections, is continually satisfied with its punishment, does not forsake it in the face of [his] trials, at the time of distress he does not abandon it, does not forget it [in the day of] terror, and in the humility of his soul does not abhor [it]. But he meditates on it continually, and in his trial he reflects [on it, and with al]l his being [he gains understanding] in it, [and he establishes it] before his eyes so not to walk in the ways [of wickedness…. (Michael Wise, Martin Abegg Jr., and Edward Cook, The Dead Sea Scrolls: A New Translation, p. 534)

The author speaks of wisdom, seeking wisdom, and being blessed. This echoes Sirach 14.20-15.1 and it sounds like it is inspired by Psalm 1. These “blessings” are a very Jewish concept. Craig A. Evans notes that, “These parallels tell against the proposal of some members of the Jesus Seminar that Jesus’ teaching is best understood against the backdrop of Graeco-Roman philosophy, especially Cynicism. These parallels from 4Q525 offer important support to the contention that the content and style of Jesus’ teaching are right at home in Jewish wisdom tradition (“Jesus and the Dead Sea Scrolls from Qumran Cave 4″ in C.A. Evans and P.W. Flint, Eschatology, Messianism, and the Dead Sea Scrolls, p. 95).”

If we abide by the older criteria of dissimilarity we may be forced to conclude that it is unlikely that the Beatitudes go back to Jesus because they are so “Jewish,” but now we find their historicity more probable because they are so Jewish!

I have been trying to read books on historiography and historical method to get a feel for how this discipline “works.” Obviously some methods are flawed and others are very useful showing longevity among scholars. What “tools,” or “criteria,” or approaches do you advocate for good historical work? What are some tried and true practices that you would advocate? 

See also, Michael Barber, “The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Beatitudes of Jesus”

See parallel translations of 4Q525 here.