Category: Richard Bauckham
Jesus and Psalm 22
The primary phrase shared between Jesus on the cross and Psalm 22 is “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me” (Psa 22:1; cf. Matt 27:46; Mark 15:34). I could see how Jesus had the whole psalm in mind during the event of the cross, since much of it is specifically connected with events that surround the cross. Knowing this makes me think that Jesus probably identified himself with the psalmist, seeing and experiencing at the same time both the troubles of that day and the strength, trust-, and praiseworthiness of the Lord. The traditional interpretation that the Father abandoned the Son would not be as strong here, since the psalm speaks of the ultimate nearness of the Lord (Psa 22:10-11, 19-21, 24). Bauckham sees the quoted words of Psalm 22:1 as Jesus’ experience on the cross, but recognizes that the entire psalm lends context to understanding the quotation (Bauckham, Jesus and the God of Israel, 255).
As with Bauckham (see Jesus and the God of Israel [2008]), I see Psalm 22 as Christologically rich. In John 19:28, Jesus’ admittance to being thirsty seems to be connected to Psalm 22:15. Like the psalm, the account of the crucifixion event in John 19 also has reference to the mother of the speaker. Psalm 22:6-8, 16, 18 are referred to very specifically in the New Testament as fulfilled by the cross experience. The first set (mocking) is seen in Matthew 27:39-44, Mark 15:29-32, and Luke 23:35. Verse 18 is found fulfilled in Matthew 27:35, Mark 15:24, and John 19:23-24. Further, we see a very human Jesus—one “taken from the womb” and “on [his] mother’s breast” (Psa 22:9)—who has to trust in the Lord as all human beings do. Lastly, we see in the Psalm—as we see in Jesus—someone who points others to the Lord and encourages them in their worship of God: “I will declare your name to my brothers and sisters . . . I will praise you” (22:22); “You who fear the Lord, praise him!” (22:23).
Back in Black: Part 3 of my review of ‘Why Four Gospels?’
With thanks to Dave Black and Energion Publications for this review copy. Part one and part two of my review are also available.
“The most ancient tradition of the Christian church is that the fourfold gospel came into existence in response to the needs experienced in some locality for an authoritative written word in addition to the continuous oral and unwritten preaching of the gospels by the earliest apostles.” Black, D. 2010, p.21
I first encountered the academic argument concerning the apostles as the original and authoritative eyewitnesses to the life and ministry of Jesus, in both oral and written form, while reading Richard Bauckham’s ‘Jesus and the Eyewitnesses’. Until then much of my reading and understanding of the Gospels and their purpose had oscillated between Bultmann’s form criticism and Dunn’s oral tradition. Somewhere along the way I had settled for an inspired redaction theory of the gospels and their portrayal of Jesus; especially when it came to the gospel of Matthew. Upon reflection I am left wondering if both Bauckham and Black might provide a way through the haze, although it must be said there are some big assumptions which must be deconstructed if we are going to except the Patristic evidence as presented by Black!
In the 2nd chapter entitled of ‘Why Four Gospels’ entitled, “The Origins of the Gospels” Black seeks to bridge the gap between critical historical scholarship and the witness of the early church fathers. It is apparent, even to a novice such as myself, the majority of gospel scholarship has determined this witness to be unreliable. This strikes me as peculiar. Can someone explain it to me?
It all goes back to the Enlightenment (as do many of our academic and spiritual ills it seems). It is Black’s claim, and I would agree, the enlightenment sought to install human reason as the “final arbiter in all human affairs in place of Christian faith”. As it relates to Biblical studies, in particular studies of the Gospels, it would appear the overwhelming consensus of critical scholars is the witness of the early church fathers is unreliable. Personally I find this most puzzling. As Black argues, the philosophy of the 18th century determined it was impossible for the Gospels to have been written by the apostles and therefore were the result of “legend and hearsay”. The result for Gospel scholarship was enlightenment thinking was given precedence over Christian antiquity and tradition. Presumably if the Gospels were not reliable, those who supposedly gave witness to them were also unreliable!
I will not repost Black’s short but detailed account of the early church father’s writings on these matters. Needless to say it is Black’s conclusion that integrity of the early church father’s witness is solid. As a result of Black’s belief in the patristic witness he argues for Mathean priori over Markan priori arguing the sources reveal Mark as being written after Matthew. Black goes on to evaluate, and once again I won’t rewrite the argument, the Markan priori hypothesis (and we must remember that is what it is!). Black goes on to argue his belief that Matthew was followed by Luke and Mark was a written version of Peter’s preaching (which Black argues was based on Matthew and Luke) and John came some time later. I’ll leave it to Dave to explain how and why he believes this!
Essentially what Black does in this chapter is ground his working hypothesis regarding the purpose and order of the Gospels within the context of the earliest witnesses the church has. The results being his conclusions fly in the face of much modern critical scholarship. For this I am sure he wins few friends amongst the guild!
Reflection
I like the extremely positive and trusting approach Black has to these earliest witnesses and the authority his hypothesis restores to the Gospels. It says that you and I can trust the historical Jesus of the Gospels. Black does not seek to recreate the Jesus behind the gospels as some Gospel scholars seek to do, or create an anonymous community within the Gospels as many, myself included, are prone to do over and above the Gospel witness of Jesus the Messiah! The result, in my mind at least, is a Jesus we can know and trust as if the Apostles themselves were preaching to us!
Richard Bauckham lectures on the Gospels as history
Richard Bauckham pictured with our very own Mark Stevens!
Richard Bauckham recently lectured on the Gospels as history at SBTS. The audio and video have been graciously provided for the rest of us:
“The Gospels as Historical Biography”
“The Gospels as History from Below, Part I”
“The Gospels as History from Below, Part II”
“The Gospels as Micro-History and Perspectival History”
Paper Accepted—Abstract for 2011 SBL Pacific Northwest
Today I received the official word that the New Testament and Hellenistic Religions chairs have accepted my paper this year. The paper is entitled “The Events of John and Mark: Chronology in the Bi-Optic Gospels” and is to be presented at the coveted Friday, May 13, 2010 at 2:45 4:00 p.m. slot. We are graciously allowed a slot of 45 minutes!
The submitted abstract is as follows:
While it may be excluded from historical Jesus studies on a stylistic basis of the sayings of the Johannine Jesus, the Fourth Gospel cannot be ignored as a document capturing events that are historical. The Synoptics are acknowledged to be historical as well as theological, while John often branded as theological only.
Mark and John are the most detailed of the four gospels. The level of detail points to a Jesus tradition that goes back to a historical figure and that informed the author(s) of the Second and Fourth Gospels. Comparison between Mark and John indicates that John was written to augment Mark, evidenced by details and events found in the former that are not found in the latter.
John not only desired to supplement Mark, but also aimed to provide a corrective to Mark. Such a measure is found in the explicit difference of order between the similar events shared between the two gospels. The most explicit is the temple cleansing (Mark 11:15–17; John 2:13–17). This study reviews some of the more major literature on chronology in John and Mark (Raymond E. Brown, Richard Bauckham, and Paul N. Anderson), and will examine three events that differ order-wise in both gospels to demonstrate John’s corrective to Mark’s chronology.
I am looking forward to some fun as a first-time presenter.
New Years reading list…
I was going to entitle this post “Summer reading list” because it is the summer here in Australia and then I realised most of you who will be reading this will probably be trudging to work through 5 inches of snow! Over the January period things are traditionally quiet for me and I usually have 2 or 3 weeks of annual leave and plenty of time to read at leisure (as much as one can with kids).
As is my tradition I never read one book at a time, I have 3, 4 maybe 5 books on the go over the New year period. This year will be no different. So what is on the list? I am glad you asked…
Firstly, I really want to get stuck into Dale C Allison’s, ‘Constructing Jesus’. I won this copy via James McGrath and I am seriously considering a contrast and compare of this volume with Richard Bauckham’s ‘Jesus and the Eyewitnesses‘ for my dissertation.
Secondly, I promised BW3 I would read and review the third of his Art West mystery novels, ‘Papias and the Mysterious Menorah‘ so I hope to get it done over the coming days….week….Seriously though, I am really enjoying this novel!
Thirdly, my wife bought me two great ‘lighter books’ for me for Christmas – David G Benner’s ‘Opening to God: Lectio Divina and life as prayer‘ along with Eugene Peterson’s ‘A Long Obedience in the same direction‘. These will make for good read and snooze sessions on lazy afternoons!
There you have it, my summer/winter reading list. All for enjoyment. Having kids limits my time to read leisurely so I savoir every moment I get (with the kids as well). So, what’s on your list this coming year?
Reflections on Fall Semester 2010
The Fall 2010 semester is my second to last semester here in the MA (Theological Studies) program at George Fox Evangelical Seminary. It was an intense semester in which all areas of my life were affected. I will highlight some of the events that had considerable significance.
(1) Death of my grandfather. The loss of a loved one is tough when school is in progress. My grandfather and I were close, so he is dearly missed. I have noticed that much of his way of doing things have become a part of the way I do things—in particular, the way he strives to do things well. In losing him, I really found great love and support in the George Fox community.
(2) Society of Biblical Literature Annual Meeting. This came between my grandfather’s death and his funeral. It was helpful to take some time to get away, and to be immersed in an academic environment. The SBL experience broadened my thinking and inspires me to become a better contributor to academia and the world.
(3) Spirituality and the Mind. This was a much-needed spiritual formation class. Intellectual pursuit that lifts one up to God is a spiritual matter. Because I am wired this way, I found myself at home in this class.
(4) Christology of the New Testament. This was a class beyond classes—no kidding! Not only did we read Larry W. Hurtado’s Lord Jesus Christ, Richard Bauckham’s Jesus and the God of Israel (2008), and Contours of Christology edited by Richard Longenecker, and Philip Yancey’s The Jesus I Never Knew (with a four-page book review), but we had to read whole gospels and epistles, plus other supplementary articles and notes. To top that off, we were required to read 150 pages of our own choosing on Christology, and write a 5oo-word report on that. The other writings we did were a 3,000- to 4,000-word research paper and an application paper of 750 words. On top of all of this, we had weekly discussion and worksheet posts. Say, WOW!
Beyond the great textbooks and the discussions, the required extra-textbook reading was most helpful because it helped me to grasp better some of Bultmann’s ideas and his significance to biblical studies.
(5) Bi-Optic Project Paper. This was a 20-page of the research that I done for Dr. Paul Anderson on the bi-optic gospels. This was a important because it taught me how to take observations and explain them through written media. I learned how to sustain an argument through many words and pages, interact with scholarship in a more thorough manner, and to establish a rhythm of writing.
Now that a writing rhythm has been ingrained in me, and that I have done a course that appears to mimic the Ph.D. load, I feel that no class is unconquerable. For now, however, I have a break that is waiting to be enjoyed.
Sunday Quote: Bauckham on the Divine Identity
In our Christology of the New Testament class, we just read on the Second Temple Jewish messianic expectations. W.S. Green, in his chapter “Messiah in Judaism: Rethinking the Question,” noted the wide variety of messianic understanding in that period; he sees the diversity as too great to allow for any great unification in messianic expectation. Furthermore, the expectation is that the messiah is primarily human—or if in some sense divine, then an intermediary figure. Against the nineteenth-century scholars, W. Horbury has argued for coherence (see Horbury, “Jewish Messianism and Early Christology,” in Contours of Christology, ed R. N. Longenecker, 14-17).
Coming back to the biblical texts themselves—from which, by the way, Horbury argues for a coherence in a messianic tradition based on messianic interpretations of the scriptures—Bauckham has understood the Gospel of John to interpret Deutero-Isaiah to refer to the messiah and include him in the divine identity:
But the full significance in terms of Deutero-Isaianic monotheism we can appreciate only when we observe, as hardly anyone has done, the conjunction in [John] 8:28 of the allusion to Isaiah 52:13 (the lifting up of the Son of Man) with the divine self-declaration, ‘I am he,’ also from Deutero-Isaiah. . . . When Jesus is lifted up, exalted in his humiliation on the cross, then the unique divine identity (‘I am he’) will be revealed for all who can to see.
(Richard Bauckham, Jesus and the God of Israel: God Crucified and Other Studies on the New Testament’s Christology of Divine Identity [Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing, 2008], 48)
Assuming Bauckham’s understanding is correct, John’s (and other Jewish New Testament writers’) messianic expectations were turned completely upside down in their encounter with Jesus Christ. Jesus the Christ is not only human, nor is he simply an intermediary figure, but he participates in the divine identity of YHWH.
In the Mail: Christology Course Books
I received my Christology syllabus today and am quite pleased with the reading list:
- Richard Bauckham, Jesus and the God of Israel: God Crucified and Other Studies on New Testament’s Christology of the Divine Identity (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans, 2008);
- Larry W. Hurtado, Lord Jesus Christ: Devotion to Jesus in Earliest Christianity (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans, 2006);
- Richard N. Longenecker, Contours of Christology in the New Testament (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans, 2005);
- Philip Yancey, The Jesus I Never Knew (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2002).
I have read parts of some of these books and thought they were good, so I am glad to be forced to add them to my collection. For NT Christology, what other books would be worth considering?
Sunday Quote: Richard Bauckham on the Historical Jesus of Scholars
Richard Bauckham
“The historical Jesus of any of the scholars of the quest is no mere collection of facts, but a figure of significance. Why? If the enterprise is really about going back behind the Evangelists’ and the early church’s interpretation of Jesus, where does a different interpretation come from? It comes not merely from deconstructing the Gospels but also from reconstructing a Jesus who, as a portrayal of who Jesus really was, can rival the Jesus of the Gospels. We should be under no illusion that, however minimal a Jesus results from the quest, such a historical Jesus is no less a construction than the Jesus of each of the Gospels. Historical work, by its very nature, is always putting two and two together and making five—or twelve or seventeen.”
- Richard Bauckham, Jesus and the Eyewitnesses, p. 4.
A Johannine Contribution to Historical Jesus Studies?
Since when did the Johannine contribution to historical Jesus studies become a hot topic?
On the one hand, I know JohnDave Medina has written on several occassions regarding Johannine studies reentering the conversation regarding the “historical” Jesus (e.g. here). One of his professors at George Fox University, Paul N. Anderson, is the co-chair of SBL‘s John, Jesus, and History Group. The Fourth Gospel is his coup de coeur.
On the other hand, I have very little familiarity with this subject other than reading some of Richard Bauckham’s works. Therefore, I was a bit surprised to listen to both Richard B. Hays and Marianne Meye Thompson take N.T. Wright to task for ignoring the Fourth Gospel in works such as Jesus and the Victory of God. While I am not very impressed with the “rules” of historical Jesus scholarship it seemed inevitable that the Synoptics would be given precident to John. It seems that Wright has decided to play by the rules. Nevertheless, this appears to be unsatisfactory to many.
So what I am wondering now is whether or not we should expect the Fourth Gospel to enter into dialog with historical Jesus studies or if this was a plea that will fall upon the deaf ears of scholars.
[For a more indepth look at Hayes' and Thompson's lectures read J.R.D. Kirk's assessment here, here and here; Nijay K. Gupta' reflections here; Michael J. Gormon's here.]
