The Bible and Epistemology: Biblical Soundings on the Knowledge of God - Edited by Mary Healy and...

BIBLICAL STUDIES AND SCRIPTURE

Come, Lord Jesus: A Study of Revelation, Mark Braaten, LiturgicalPress, 2007 (ISBN 978-0-8146-3172-0), vii + 158 pp., pb $14.95

Mark Braaten is the Senior Pastor of Our Savior’s Lutheran Church inTylers, Texas. This book is a revision of his D.Min project at LutherSeminary, St. Paul, Minnesota, under the supervision of Dr. CraigKoester. The book is specifically oriented to lay members of the church:‘The focus of my work was to study the best scholarship on Revelation,then draw from that scholarship to write a study guide that is directedto lay people and congregational use. That study guide has taken shapeas this book. My hope is that this book will serve as a bridge betweenacademic study and the ongoing life of the people of God’ (p. vii). Thismeans that those looking for a detailed and critical exposition on thebook of Revelation will have to look elsewhere.

The book consists of a brief introduction and twelve short sectionscovering Revelation 1–22. Braaten first offers an overview of Revelationby considering five background questions: (1) Who wrote Revelation?(2) Where was it written, and where are the churches to which it wassent? (3) When was Revelation written? (4) How is the book to be under-stood? (5) Why should we read Revelation? (p. 2).

With respect to authorship, Braaten refers to the old church tradi-tion which claims that the author of Revelation was John the son ofZebedee, one of the original twelve, who also wrote the Gospel andthe letters of John. Braaten would have done himself and his readersa lot more service by citing the primary source of the traditional view,which goes back to the second century (see Justin’s Dialogue withTrypho 81.4; also Papias, Melito, Irenaeus, Origen, Tertullian, Hippoly-tus, and later Eusebius), rather than pointing his readers to a second-ary source. However, Braaten, in agreement with most specialists onRevelation, rightly questions the authenticity of the old traditionregarding the identity of the author. Dionysius of Alexandria (thirdcentury) anticipated modern scholars by questioning the identificationof John son of Zebedee as the author of both Revelation and theGospel of John, because of differences of thought, style, and language

Reviews in Religion and Theology, 16:2 (2009)© 2009 The Authors. Journal compilation © 2009 Blackwell Publishing Ltd., 9600 Garsington Road, Oxford OX4 2DQ,UK and 350 Main Street, Malden, MA 02148, USA.

between the two books. The author simply identifies himself as John(1:9). John appears to be well known to the original readers and there-fore requires no further introduction. He does not claim to be anapostle, nor does he suggest that he shared in Jesus’ ministry. Johnfurther mentions the twelve apostles of Jesus, but makes no attemptto link himself to them (21:14). He indicates that he received hisvisions on the island of Patmos in Asia Minor (modern day Turkey),where he had presumably been banished by the Romans for preach-ing the Christian message. What is conspicuously lacking in this dis-cussion is Braaten’s failure to mention the view held by many criticsthat Revelation could be pseudonymous, claiming a great figure ofantiquity as author, similar to other apocalyptic literature such as 1Enoch. Braaten, however, opines that ‘perhaps it is significant that weknow little about John. John’s intention in writing Revelation was notto point us to himself, but to point us to Jesus. He has succeeded indoing just that’ (p. 2).

Braaten takes for granted that John composed the book of Revela-tion on the island of Patmos. John does not explicitly tell us where hewrote the book. He asserts that he received his visions and instructionto write a book on the island of Patmos (1:4, 9–11). However, Braatenrightly raises the two possibilities that either the seven churches werewell known to John or that they represented the entire Christian con-gregation in the region (seven is repeatedly used in Revelation to sym-bolize completeness, e.g. seven churches, seals, trumpets, bowls, andbeatitudes).

Braaten’s discussion of the date of composition of Revelation revealsanother shortcoming of his book. He embraces the widely scholarlyapproach to dating the book, following Irenaeus, toward the end of thefirst century (95 or 96 CE) in the reign of Emperor Domitian (81–96 CE),but offers no discussion of an alternative date at the end of the reign ofNero (54–68 CE), which has been argued forcefully by some scholars.Some date the book about 68–70 CE to coincide with the first Jewish-Roman War (66–70 CE).

Readers will certainly find Braaten’s remarks about how to readRevelation helpful. He presents succinct notes on the literary genre ofthe book to which every interpreter must pay special attention. Heidentifies the book of Revelation as ‘a letter, a prophecy, an apocalypse,and a spiral of visions’ (p. 5). Revelation was originally sent in the formof a letter to first-century Christians in Asia Minor (1:4–8; 22:16–21).Modern day readers need to understand John’s intention for writing tohis audience in the first century before applying the message to thecontemporary context.

Revelation is also a word of prophecy (1:3). Modern readers oftenview prophecy in terms of foretelling the future, but for John prophecyis (1) ‘an inspired message, received directly from God’ and (2)

Biblical Studies and Scripture174

© 2009 The Authors. Journal compilation © 2009 Blackwell Publishing Ltd.

‘involves true testimony to Jesus (19:10b)’ (pp. 5–6). Yet Revelation, forall its epistolary and prophetic characteristics, also belongs to the bodyof early Jewish and Christian texts known as ‘apocalyptic literature’(apocalypse, 1:1, which developed from roughly 200 BCE to 200 CE).Apocalyptic literature is a picturesque, symbolic type of writing thatemploys rich and bizarre imagery, numerology, as well as gruesomelanguage of warfare, bloodshed, and death to portray the opposingsides in the eschatological conflict that will culminate in the victory ofGod and the final defeat of evil. This type of literature appears strangeto us and often challenges our understanding, even creating a feeling ofrevulsion for many readers.

Finally, Revelation is an artistic and cyclic book, written as a spiral inwhich themes and scenes overlap (sometimes delayed or intercalated)and then recapitulated and intensified as the book develops. It is there-fore impossible to trace a neat chronology of events within the book.Braaten is correct in pointing out that ‘Revelation cannot be put onto aneat timeline, as if we wanted to use it to draw a map to the future’ (p.72). As scripture, Revelation speaks the Word of God in a normativeway to all believers.

There is little in this book that is innovative, but its strength lies inBraaten’s ability to harvest the best of recent scholarship on the intricatetext of Revelation and make it accessible to those outside the academy.

Daniel DapaahJohn Leland Center for Theological Studies

� � �

Holiness and Ecclesiology in the New Testament, Kent E. Browerand Andy Johnson (eds.), William B. Eerdmans, 2007 (ISBN978-0-8028-4560-3), xxiv + 385 pp., pb $35.00

How does the New Testament depict the relationship between holi-ness and ecclesiology? What does it mean to be the people of God ina society – and in a church – that sits loosely to the concept of holi-ness? These questions lie at the heart of Holiness and Ecclesiology in theNew Testament, a collection of twenty essays edited by Kent Browerand Andy Johnson and dedicated to the Nazarene Theological College(Manchester) lecturer and scholar, Alex R. G. Deasley. Contributors tothe volume explore issues of ecclesiology and holiness across a rangeof New Testament writings, as well as in the Dead Sea Scrolls, whilealso attending to the relevance of the New Testament for today’schurch. Indeed, the hermeneutical dimension of this work is one of its

Biblical Studies and Scripture 175


distinctive features, as New Testament scholars seek to show the rel-evance of their exegetical findings for the contemporary church.

In their introduction to the work, Brower and Johnson locate theproject within a US and UK ecclesial context that characteristicallyindividualizes or ignores holiness, and summarize key themes in thevolume. The two chapters that follow focus on the Dead Sea Scrolls, andso situate the discussion of holiness and ecclesiology within a broaderJewish context. In an essay on the Dead Sea Scrolls and New TestamentEcclesiology, George J. Brooke draws parallels between the diversity ofcommunity models at Qumran and diverse ecclesiologies in the NewTestament, helpfully undercutting simplistic views of the early Chris-tian church. Dwight Swanson follows with a discussion of holinessand perfection in the Dead Sea Scrolls, and deals briefly with texts onperfection in the New Testament.

The rest of the volume addresses issues of holiness and/or ecclesi-ology in specific New Testament writings, beginning with four essayson the canonical gospels. Following essays on the church in Matthew(Donald A. Hagner) and on holiness and ecclesiology in Mark (Kent E.Brower), Richard P. Thompson analyses holiness in the context of mealsin Luke’s Gospel. Thompson argues that Jesus’ table-fellowship in Luke‘encodes’ an inclusive view of holiness and community that reflectsGod’s kingdom. Richard Bauckham, in his essay on the fourth Gospel,begins by describing the differences between purity and holiness, ahelpful discussion that clarifies the Jewish context of Jesus and theGospels. Bauckham proceeds to explore the connections between Jesus’consecration and that of the disciples, showing that in John’s GospelChristology precedes ecclesiology.

Two essays focus on Acts: I. Howard Marshall studies Luke’s ‘spiri-tualization’ of the ‘people of God’, while Robert W. Wall offers a canoni-cal reading of Paul’s ecclesiology that takes account of Acts as well asPaul’s own letters. Wall argues that when a reading of Paul’s ministry inActs (esp. Acts 15; 18) is combined with a focus on Paul’s advice tobelievers in 1 Corinthians, it becomes clear that a holy church – thenand now – requires public practices, not simply private piety. For Pauland Acts, freedom is always constrained by community.

Michael J. Gorman’s excellent introduction to Paul’s ‘cruciform’ andTrinitarian reconstruction of holiness is the first of eight essays on Pauland his letters. Gorman shows that Paul calls believers to a life shapedby the cross, not simply as an object of devotion but as a pattern tofollow. Essays on Romans (Peter Oakes) and 1 Corinthians (Bruce W.Winter) show that Paul sees holiness as a status given to believers, withWinter also emphasizing the social context for Paul’s ethical exhorta-tions. J. Ayodeji Adewuya’s analyzes varied depictions of holiness in 2Corinthians, while Troy W. Martin argues that the issue of circumcisionin Galatians was primarily a question of what distinguishes the holy



people of God. In an essay on Ephesians, George Lyons studies refer-ences to the church, and in a treatment of Philippians, J. Ross Wagnerpoints to the connection between God’s work and the work of believ-ers. In the final essay on Paul, Andy Johnson argues that Paul aimed to‘sanctify the imagination’ of believers at Thessalonica, helping follow-ers of the crucified Messiah rightly discern God’s will.

The final four essays treat later New Testament literature. GordonJ. Thomas argues that the ‘perfecting’ of believers in Hebrews isgrounded in the ‘perfection’ of Christ, pointing to texts such as Heb.9:12–14; 10:10; 12:1–11. Joel B. Green focuses on the way in which 1Peter ‘remaps’ the lives of believers onto the story of Israel interpretedthrough Christ, while Ruth Anne Reese contrasts the treatment of inter-nal threats in Jude with the response to an external crisis in 2 Peter.Dean Flemming ends the volume with an essay on holiness in Revela-tion, showing that the holiness of God’s people is shaped and empow-ered by their vision of the holy God.

Despite their various approaches, each of the essays stresses theimportance of the communal dimension in early Christians construc-tions of holiness: holiness is first of all about the church before it isabout individuals. Thus, there is no calling without community, noholiness without participation in the people of God. Such an emphasisis supported by the continuity between the church and the Old Testa-ment people of God, though such continuity should not construed interms of supersessionism, as Marshall’s essay on Acts makes clear.

Several essays explore the tension between holiness as a status andholiness as a calling. Both emphases are found within the New Testa-ment, even within the same texts. Thus, Hagner’s essay on Matthew’sGospel points out that the gift of the kingdom comes before thedemand of righteousness, and Wagner’s treatment of Philippianspoints to the emphasis on God’s work in believers alongside believersworking out their salvation (Phil. 2:12–13). God’s gift of holiness, then,invites believers to participate in a life that reflects Jesus.

Finally, each of the essays pays explicit attention to the continuingrelevance of the New Testament. There are a wide range of hermeneu-tical suggestions: Brower argues that holiness today (as in Mark’sGospel) is about following Jesus, not constructing boundaries; Winterbelieves that the church should recapture a notion of divine disciplinefor human sin; Flemming affirms that worship is the place wherebelievers are renewed in the vision of God’s holiness. Perhaps the mostintriguing suggestion, and – in the view of this reviewer – the mosthelpful, is Wall’s call for the church to ‘be more Jewish’ (p. 146) in livingout a publically embodied life of holiness.

Overall, the volume is a fine introduction to themes of holiness andecclesiology across the New Testament. At times, I wondered about thereadership of the collection, as essays range from the introductory level



(such as Brower) to the more technical and scholarly (such as Bauck-ham), but such diversity is perhaps inevitable in such a collection. Thecollection would suit educated lay readers, biblical students, and min-isters and pastors.

Edward MackenzieBirmingham Christian College

� � �

Rediscovering Paul – An Introduction to His World, Letters andTheology, David B. Capes, Rodney Reeves and E. Randolph Richards(eds.), Intervarsity Press, 2007 (ISBN 978-1-84474-242-4), 350 pp., hb£27.99/£14.99

The letters of Paul have, for many years, been the focus of much debateamong scholars from a wide range of theological and biblical circles,and his teaching has become an integral part of many seminarian lec-tures and church pulpits, providing a resource that has supportedChristian worship across the centuries. Although some might questionwhether or not a true application of Pauline theology may be applied topersonal situations outside the contemporaneous setting, his teaching isnot so absent that it becomes extraneous and superfluous to currentcircumstances. Indeed, Paul’s letters aimed to meet the needs of recipi-ent Christian communities, struggling in areas of religious practice/praxis and, as such, they are biased toward the social identity andcircumstance of a Mediterranean world dealing with a set of beliefs andvalues still steeped in Torah. This does not mean, however, that thecontext and content of his theology does not in fact have any bearing onany current Sitz im Leben.

In this book, the authors aim to discover the true context and contentPauline theology in a quest to find out how it was and could/should beapplied in everyday Christian life. In simple terms, they are question-ing why certain letters were written to specific communities, but as amore complex piece of research, they are asking about the historical,social, political, and religious circumstances that led Paul to a theologythat has indeed shaped the social identity of Christian understandingacross the centuries. As well as this, the authors attempt to lay to restthe argument that Paul’s conversion experience provoked an anti-Jewishmessage that rejected Judaism’s covenantal relationship with God, andtherefore calls for a fresh reading of the text that reminds Christiansthat although Christ fulfilled the need for the Law, it is not for others toboast membership of the Kingdom of God.



It would be impossible to do justice to the entire nature of the authors’work, I have therefore hi-lighted some of their main ideas below.

In their origin, Paul’s letters wrote to address specific circumstanceand while they do have a timeless quality, his ways are certainly notthose of a twenty-first century Christian! In order to glean a deeperunderstanding of him, we need therefore to look at the social context ofhis Mediterranean world, a world in which: relationship with God waswrapped up in a rigid structure of rules; identity was bound by repu-tation of kinsmen; children were expected to pay lip-service to theirfather; and in which honor was dependent on group approval. If thesecultural facets were adhered to, social order would follow.

In some ways, the author of the Epistles took this lifestyle as a benchmark for creating a Christocentric theology that would encouragebelievers to understand how the Gospel might apply to others and howthey might then live a Christian life, leaving aside any previous reli-gious convictions. For Paul, Identity, Honor, and Reputation were nolonger subject to the approval and deliberations of others, but rooted inthe saving grace of Jesus Christ; obedience to rules, while in some waysimportant, no longer offered access to divine favor, but rather justifica-tion was by faith alone. Paul’s paranesis certainly exhorted others toacceptable and appropriate Christian behavior, and there is no doubtthat he expected his communities to submit to his teaching, but this wasnot to be in subservience to him, rather, he wanted believers to serveJesus and know that by faith [alone], their salvation was secure.

This was a theology that was difficult for many Jews to accept becauseit seemed that everything quintessentially Jewish had been compro-mised by Christian beliefs and values. For many Jews, including pre-Christian Paul himself, the Jesus movement, now splintered fromJudaism, was blasphemous, in which Jesus’ death on the cross hadpreserved the sanctity of the Jewish Law and the judgment of God.Indeed, before his conversion, Paul had persecuted members of theJesus movement thinking them a threat to both Temple and Torah andtherefore Israel’s unique relationship with God. After his Christophanyon the road to Damascus, in which the glory of God was revealed tohim, his message was transformed somewhat paradoxically, removingthe concept of justification by works and extending the gift of salvationto others by means of faith in Jesus Christ alone. This not only impliedthat it was now his own kinsmen who were in need of salvation, despitetheir Covenant associations, but brought into question the necessityand purpose of Torah.

To put it another way, faith in Christ had allowed Gentiles to enter into the Covenant with God, but this brought into question whether ornot the Jews, having already been a part of the Covenant throughAbraham, now had to reaffirm their faith in the person of Jesus Christand give up their Jewish identity simply to maintain covenantal the



relationship. In light of this, the authors of this book raise the questionthat if the righteousness of God was justified by faith alone, did it meanthat obedience to the Law no longer necessary, and if Jews continued toobey the Law, but did not have faith in Jesus Christ, were they no longera part of the Covenant?

Paul’s polemic against the requirements of the Law certainly sug-gested that its agenda no longer had a purpose for (Jewish) Christiansand rather implies that it was simply a powerful yet temporary, peda-gogical basis for life with Christ, whose death on the Cross had openedGod’s blessings on Abraham to all people, making it therefore redun-dant and unnecessary. This did not, however, make him anti-Jewish!

In light of this, for some, Paul’s ministry was an inspiration thataimed to bring unity and fellowship of spirit, while for others, includ-ing both Jew and (Jewish) Christian; Paul’s Law free gospel was aninsult to the ancient traditions of Covenant.

Paul’s attitude got him into a lot of trouble, almost everywhere hewent, giving the impression (to some) that his teaching about justifica-tion by faith alone had made him not only anti-Law but also anti-Jewish. This is a position which should be immediately dismissed as itis clear from Romans that while Paul certainly understood that Gentileshad no need for the Law, their entry into covenantal relationship, havingbeen accomplished through Jesus’ death on the cross, the Jews would(at some point) be saved [by the unchanging grace of] God. In additionto this, it must be said that Paul’s theology was no tabula rasa and thereis no doubt that his Jewish identity contributed significantly to hislifestyle, religious beliefs, and worldview. Paul was born and wouldhave died a Jew, the fact that the center of his theology had becomeChristological did not mean he was anti-Jewish.

It should also be said that, Paul’s main concern was not so much thatthe Law was no longer necessary or whether or not the Jewish-Christian/Gentiles should be following the Law, it was more the casethat Paul wanted everyone to know that Jesus had fulfilled the obliga-tions of the Law [and by accepting such, I suppose he hoped thatpeople’s attitude and obligations toward the Law would thereforechange anyway!].

Despite being disruptive, Paul stood firm in his faith and, as such, hehas become one of the most significant and influential figures in Chris-tian history. His letters aimed to encourage and instruct believers intheir faith and despite some disagreements, it is clear that his agendawas to bring purity and unity of spirit among his communities.Although provocative and controversial, they remain, for many, adivinely inspired source for the human condition.

The arguments raised by the authors of this book, while not neces-sarily really saying anything new, draw together important aspects of atheology steeped in a diverse cultural setting, and make it relevant for



a contemporary milieu. Few books exist that are able to consider Paul’ssocial background, theology, and letter writing in one single volume; assuch, this is a wonderful resource for undergraduate students begin-ning their research, and for postgraduates who need to be remindedabout the true nature of Pauline theology.

Benjamin BuryUniversity of Birmingham

� � �

The Bible and Epistemology: Biblical Soundings on the Knowledgeof God, Mary Healy and Robin Parry (eds.), Paternoster Press, 2007(ISBN 978-18422-7540-5), xvii + 198 pp., pb £17.99

The centerpiece of the recent renaissance in philosophy of religion hassurely been the study of religious epistemology. This is a powerful andcreative enterprise and the philosophers engaged in it have beenunafraid of turning to more traditionally theological sources for help,from Thomas Aquinas to John Calvin to Teresa of Avila. However, asthe editors of this new anthology note, ‘In the midst of this renewal ofChristian epistemological reflection . . . lies a curious black hole. Theunaccountable void to which we refer lies in the world of biblicalstudies’ (p. xi). The present volume is an admirable first attempt atrectifying this neglect.

The editors insist that their aim is merely to open a conversation, toprovide ‘biblical soundings’ rather than an exhaustive account of whatthe Bible has to say about knowledge, especially knowledge of God. Tothat end, the editors have assembled nine chapters, seven of which arewritten by biblical scholars, both Catholic and Protestant, and the finaltwo of which give respective theological and philosophical responses tothe rest of the essays. The first seven chapters are studies in how variousbiblical texts construe the knowledge of God. The authors discoverepistemological themes in Deuteronomy (Chapter 1), the Propheticliterature (Chapter 2), the Psalms (Chapter 3), the Wisdom literature(Chapter 4), Luke-Acts (Chapter 5), the Johannine writings (Chapter 6),and Paul’s letters (Chapter 7). Two of the strongest chapters are contrib-uted by a single author, Ryan O’Dowd. His account of Deuteronomisticepistemology as tied both to an ontology of the divine presence and toYahweh’s elegant ordering of creation is lucid and well worth furtherstudy. He is also quite persuasive on Job, Proverbs, and Ecclesiastes,chiding us for our neglect of the Wisdom literature in epistemologicaldebates. After all, these books are ‘intentionally crafted to present a



diverse and yet unified description of what we know and how we knowwhat we know’ (p. 66). Attention to them, he argues, could help us all toovercome the disciplinary impasse that keeps theologians, biblical schol-ars, and philosophers safely sequestered from one another.

As the theologian Murray Rae notes in his chapter, a particularlyencouraging aspect of the collection is the way that a number of keythemes repeat through almost all of the essays, and this despite the factthat their studies range far and wide throughout the biblical canon. Theoverriding theme in this regard is the importance of relationship withinbiblical epistemology. Francis Martin, for example, contrasts the self-assertiveness of modern epistemological traditions with the posture ofprayerful attention cultivated by the Psalms. For the biblical authors,knowledge depends not only upon rationality and clarity but also uponethical living, participation in prayer and liturgy, practices of fidelity,and openness to the Spirit. This is chiefly because knowing God is verymuch unlike the ordinary kind of knowledge that, for example, one hasof medium sized dry goods. In knowing God, we seek to know a personand persons must reveal themselves through cultivated relationships.Thus, the life of faith and the deliverances of knowledge lie close to oneanother in biblical epistemology. Where certain philosophical traditionsseek to oppose faith and knowledge (as in Kant’s famous assertion thathe had to deny knowledge in order to make room for faith), the con-tributors to this collection all argue strongly for a symbiosis of the two.For Gregory Vall, a prophet such as Hosea demonstrates the way thatthe ethical and mystical dimensions of our epistemic situation in noway vitiate the propositional and objective contents of knowledge.Mary Healy even goes so far as to argue that, in Paul, faith and knowl-edge are substantially identical; they are different way of talking aboutone and the same reality. This biblical approach to epistemology doespresent some difficulties for philosophers, as D. C. Schindler notes inhis concluding essay. The irreducible historicity and contingency ofbiblical practices issues a challenge to philosophers who are generallymore comfortable speaking about the abstract and the universal ratherthan the concrete and the particular. Schindler begins to imagine theway that philosophy, on the one hand, and theology or biblical studies,on the other, might goad one another to greater fullness, opening theformer to particularity, historicity, and the divine, while pressing thelatter to do justice to universality, the natural, and the worldly.

It is an important conversation, but this brings me to one of thelingering questions I have about the volume. To whom is the volumechiefly addressed? While the essays are largely written by biblicalscholars, the intended audience seems to be philosophers and philo-sophically inclined theologians (indeed, the editors are candid abouthow difficult it has been to get biblical scholars even interested in thetopic). If that is the case, then one might have hoped for a bit more



constructive engagement with this intended audience. For example,notably absent from the collection are any of the analytic voices whohave driven so much of the recent work in religious epistemology – notonly are they absent in their own right, but they are hardly discussed inany of the nine chapters. Judging from the frequency of his appear-ances in the footnotes, one would think that Michael Polanyi was at theforefront of contemporary epistemological debates. Perhaps he shouldbe, but as it stands, today’s religious epistemologists are more likely tofound reading Ernst Sosa, Alvin Plantinga, or William Alston, and someengagement with this analytic tradition might have better fostered theeditors’ stated intent to get a conversation going. There do seem, forexample, to be resonances between biblical epistemology and what issometimes called virtue epistemology; exploring these might havestrengthened the volume’s appeal. Continental philosophers do makea series of welcome appearances, as does neo-Thomism, though anumber of the essays prefer to chastise philosophy rather than to con-structively engage it. Again, this may be deserved, but simply attackingor alternatively ignoring one’s interlocutors is perhaps not the wisestway to initiate a dialogue.

Bearing that one caveat in mind, the conversation itself is immenselyimportant and the essays are remarkably insightful and rewarding. Thisvolume is, as yet, unique, and it bears directly on a number of criticalprojects in contemporary theology including the theological interpre-tation of scripture, the study of lived spirituality, and philosophy’songoing work in religious epistemology. For this reason alone, itdeserves a wide readership and, one hopes, many imitators.

Jacob Holsinger ShermanEmmanuel College, University of Cambridge

� � �

Israelite Religions: An Archaeological and Biblical Survey, Richard S.Hess, Baker Academic/Apollos, 2007 (ISBN 978-1-84474-190-8), 432 pp.,hb £17.99/$34.99

This book is a comprehensive survey of archaeological, inscriptional,and iconographical evidence related to understanding and reconstruct-ing Israelite religions and an examination of how the Hebrew Bibleattests to the complex and diverse reality of religion in Palestine from theBronze Age to the end of the Iron Age with the main focus on themonarchic period. This is an ambitious book with multiple purposes,including a basic introduction to classic methods of research in religion



in general and Israel’s religion in particular and to current syntheses thattry to relate both the biblical text and archaeological evidence to recon-struct what the religious world of ancient Israel was like. Hess does notview the biblical text as a secondary source and does not discuss whetherit is possible to use or the difficulty in using the Hebrew Bible as a sourceto reconstruct the religious world of ancient Israel. Instead, he wants toshow that it does in fact reflect that world and that primary sources(archaeological, inscriptional, and iconographical evidence) cooperatewith the Bible in allowing us to see ancient Israel’s religion, which hedefines as ‘the service and worship of the divine or supernatural througha system of attitudes, beliefs, and practices’ (p. 15). He discusses oppos-ing views judiciously in most cases, but there are a few places where Ithought he treats other views unfairly and defends his stances toostrongly. His use of BC rather than BCE and his vacillation betweenHebrew Bible and Old Testament in the book seem to imply something,but I do not want to speculate. On the other hand, there is no doubt thatthis is an impressive work from an erudite scholar with passion for hisscholarship and sincerity in his faith.

Hess states in Chapter 1 that examining the data from the Bronze Ageto the end of the Iron Age is necessary to provide the essential back-ground from which the diversity of religion emerged in ancient Israeland describes his task as a long and complex one. In Chapter 2 aftersurveying the classic and current methods of studying religion ingeneral and ancient Israel’s religion in particular, he cautions scholarsagainst applying models that have emerged in the West to explainancient societies and religions. He acknowledges the limitations of ourability to understand the religious practices of ancient Israel and thedistinctiveness of each society or the variation of expression of religion‘from people to people, from family to family, and at times from indi-vidual to individual’ (p. 41). In Chapter 3 Hess summarizes the devel-opments in the study of Israel’s religion in the last three decades andenumerates three significant reasons for the need for reexamination:first, the question of whether biblical texts can be used to reconstructIsrael’s religion has been raised; second, the study of religion has beenseparated from the traditional theological discipline; and three, thediscovery of new evidence in recent years. He summarizes the state ofscholarship on Israel’s religion with this statement: ‘Perhaps the mostgenerally agreed upon result of the many publications within recentdecades has been the sense that the picture of religion in ancient Israelis far more complex than had once been supposed’ (p. 80). In Chapters4 and 5 Hess demonstrates that many of the religious expressionscontained in the Bible such as the names of gods, religious themes, andprophetic and priestly functions can be associated with religious prac-tices of peoples living in Syria, Egypt, Palestine, and Jordan during theBronze Age.



In Chapters 6 and 7 Hess examines the Pentateuch and argues that itcontains religious and cultic practices attested in the second millen-nium BCE rather than the first. He arranges his discussion by dividingthe biblical material into three parts: the narratives and prophetic mate-rials (J and E), the priestly and cultic materials (P), and the covenantalong with the law of Deuteronomy and related materials (D). Oneexample will suffice to give a flavor of how he goes about showing thatthe material in the Pentateuch can be dated to the second millenniumBCE. In discussing the J/E material in Genesis, he examines the namesin Cain’s line (Gen. 4:17–26) and argues that, for example, the termMethushal is ‘common in West Semitic personal names of the secondmillennium BC but rare, if at all known, in names from the first millen-nium BC’ (p. 144). He summarizes that many of these names thatappear in Cain’s genealogy ‘have associations with the second millen-nium BC or earlier’ (p. 144). After listing ten characteristics of religion inGenesis 12–50 he states, ‘It is not unreasonable to assume, therefore,that the depiction of religion in Genesis 12–50 may have a claim toorigins in part from the period prior to the emergence of Israel as anational Yahweh-worshiping community’ (pp. 150–1). Hess wants toshow that Israel’s religions have developed from or influenced by thereligious world of the Bronze Age but, at the same time, he highlightsthe view that Israel’s religion had distinctive characteristics as well. Forexample, he states, ‘The exodus tradition represents a distinctive con-tribution of Israel’s faith not found elsewhere in ancient Near Easternreligious traditions’ (p. 155).

Chapter 8 covers the period of early Israel and united monarchy andis perhaps the most important part of Hess’s work. This chapter iscrucial to the four issues: first, for appreciating the emergence of Israelfrom the Late Bronze Age; second, for understanding the role that theperiod plays as a means of preparing for the rest of the Iron Age; third,for understanding the manner in which Israel worshiped Yahweh; andfourth, for appreciating how they preserved an understanding of theperiod as formative for their worship centers (p. 210). There is onesection in this chapter, ‘Israel at the Beginning’, where I was disap-pointed in his unfair treatment of views that he did not favor andshowed his bias too obviously. After discussing five theories on Israel’semergence he concludes, ‘Despite various strengths and weaknesses,there is no reason at present to reject outright any of these models.Aspects of each of them may well have been true’ (p. 214). However,that is not the sense I got from his discussion. He notes the problem ofthe conquest theory with one general sentence and then questions thosewho abandoned this theory due to the absence of destruction layers:‘This is true despite the explicit statement in Joshua 11:13 that Israelburnt none of the mounds on which cities stood except that of Hazor.Thus, one might not expect to find archaeological levels of burning and



destruction elsewhere at this time’ (p. 211). He does not mention Jerichountil several pages later, and only in passing. He makes clear where hestands. He defends the conquest model by not explaining adequatelywhat the weaknesses and major problems are while highlighting itsstrengths and by discussing in far greater details the difficulties of othermodels without highlighting their merits, especially the model formu-lated in large part by the Copenhagen School. He devotes three pagescriticizing the latter theory and lists four specific problems against it. Atthe end of this section he makes clear once again which model he isadvocating by devoting another two pages to defend the conquesttheory. After stating his belief that the Bible can be trusted to containhistorical memory of the conquest, he states, ‘This is true despite theproblems that remain, such as the absence of archaeological evidence atJericho and other sites’ (p. 216). In the very next sentence Hess makes aninteresting remark, ‘To raise these issues is not necessarily to questionthe reality of a conquest’ (p. 216). One has to wonder to whom he isaddressing this statement of assurance.

Finally, Hess finishes his book by examining written and archeologi-cal sources for the divided monarchy and a short reflection on exilicand postexilic religion. Throughout this book Hess introduces archaeo-logical evidence in orderly and readable manner that will makes thisbook accessible even to those who do not have a background in biblicalstudies. There are forty-four pictures and maps that are helpful invisualizing the religious world of ancient Israel. The book also hassidebars, five in Chapter 4, with extended texts from the ancient NearEast and several excursuses that facilitate a more in-depth study ofparticular texts or points. It has the following indices: name, scripture,and subject. The bibliography is massive; I counted 1140 items! For ascholar, the bibliography alone is worth purchasing this book. I highlyrecommend this book for anyone interested in learning about Israelitereligions and the complex and diverse religious world at that time.

Uriah Y. KimHartford Seminary

� � �

Pedagogy of the Bible: An Analysis and Proposal, Dale B. Martin,Westminster John Knox Press, 2008 (ISBN 978-0-664-23306-8), xii + 130pp., pb $24.95

Dale Martin is well-known as a first-class scholar of the New Testamentwithin its world of origin. So it is all the more striking when this



historian with fine credentials makes a case against the historical studyof the Bible that predominates in seminaries and universities.

His thesis is simple. Mainstream theological education is not fit forpurpose: ‘In seminaries and divinity schools, students who will spendtheir careers being called upon to interpret the Bible for theological andethical ends are not being sufficiently trained in how to think and speakarticulately about theological interpretation’ (p. 24). His remedy is thatthe theological curriculum should be fundamentally reconceived, withthe study of scripture restored to the centre as its living heart – but thatthis renewed study of scripture would disallow ‘the biblical faculty anyrole as gatekeepers of the Bible’ (p. 98) for the study would be multidi-mensional in the manner of premodern biblical study.

Martin makes his case through five succinct chapters. The first, ‘TheBible in Theological Education’, fascinatingly reports on Martin’s visitsto ten theological schools, of varying outlooks, where he interviewedboth faculty and students and also scrutinized course materials. Heargues that the widely acknowledged predominance of historicalapproaches to the Bible downgrades theological hermeneutics andinterpretation theory, though it is these latter that are crucial for the useof the Bible within the churches.

In the second chapter, ‘Readers and Texts’, Martin criticizes the time-honored distinguishing between exegesis and eisegesis in favor of areconceived account of texts and meaning: ‘Texts don’t mean; peoplemean with texts’ (p. 31). Lest people think that this might entail that‘anything goes’, Martin stresses that meaning ‘is the result of sociallylearned assumptions about language’ (p. 37) and that ‘chaos of inter-pretation never actually happens for the same reasons that absolutechaos doesn’t occur in our societies: human beings control it’ (p. 38).

Chapter three, ‘Premodern Biblical Interpretation’, briefly but posi-tively considers Origen, Augustine, Bede, Bernard of Clairvaux andAquinas as biblical interpreters. The purpose is twofold: to ‘expand ourown Christian imaginations’ and to relativize the significance of con-ventional modern biblical scholarship so that ‘we may escape what hasbecome for many people the prison house of modernism and historicalcriticism’ (p. 47). It can be liberating to see how ‘these [sc. premodern]interpreters enter the space of scripture looking for new inspiration,ways to think about God and their lives, yet without seeming to worrymuch that one reading or another may not represent the meaning of thetext’ (p. 69).

In Chapter 4, ‘Theological Interpretation of Scripture’, Martin dis-cusses the nature of ‘Scripture’ and ‘theology’. He argues for the needof an ‘adult theology’ in which students move beyond simplistic under-standings of the truth and falsity of religious language into a maturitythat enables ‘the faithful improvisation that is Christian interpretationof Scripture’ (p. 91).



‘Curricular dreams’, the fifth chapter, initially offers a fantasy abouthow a seminary might look if restructured in the kind of way Martinproposes, with a renewed lectio divina (inter alia) as integral to anapproach to scripture whose study would be at the heart of the semi-nary. But Martin concludes by sketching a realistic curriculum, whichwould build upon but restructure a conventional curriculum in thekind of way that could actually be feasible.

The strength of a book like this is precisely that it is a manifesto ratherthan a thorough treatise, and so loose ends are only to be expected;better to be provoked than bored. Nonetheless, within the moremundane genre of a review, I note three areas where I was disappointedthat more was not said.

First, Martin’s thesis about how meaning is constructed is importantwithin his overall case, as a means of loosening the grip of historical-cum-philological work on the biblical text. Nonetheless, his argumenthere seems unduly occasional, almost anecdotal, and surprisinglylacking in the conceptual rigor which one might expect in so contro-verted an area; there is no real recognition of the varying stronger andweaker forms that theses about the relationships between readers andtexts can take.

Second, Martin’s glowing account of premodern interpreters doesnot so much argue as assert their virtues, and so does not engage withwhy they have often been found unsatisfactory. Moreover, his appeal isdistinctly selective. It is fine to note that premodern interpreters ‘do notseem to approach it [sc. the Bible] as if it were simply an answer book’(p. 69); but I found myself wondering about the nature of the appeal toscripture in the extensive debates surrounding Henry VIII’s desire todivorce Katherine of Aragon.

Third, Martin’s understanding of ‘theology’ seems not entirelyresolved. At one point, he clearly dissociates himself from those who saythat theology is fundamentally about God, not least because ‘it impliesto me that people who don’t believe God exists cannot produce decenttheology, and I know from experience that is not true. I have knownagnostics and even atheists who make, in my opinion, quite goodtheologians’; hence his preferred account of theology as ‘critical reflec-tion on the language and practices of faith’ (pp. 116–17). Nonetheless,his ‘fantasy seminary’ would ‘resemble a medieval monastic commu-nity more than a modern school in its combination of common life,regular worship and liturgy, and shared learning’ (p. 105) and therebysurely implies that model of theology in which thought and practice areinseparable that he otherwise rejects.

Nonetheless, at a time when proposals to reconceive biblical studyin relation to Christian faith tend to come from those whose self-designation is theologian rather than historian, this is a bracing andwelcome contribution. I hope that Martin will follow it up with a



further study of what the handling of scripture might actually looklike should colleagues be minded to entertain the upheaval that heproposes.

Walter MoberlyDurham University

� � �

The Messiah in the Old and New Testaments, S. E. Porter (ed.),Eerdmans, 2007 (ISBN 978-0-8028-0766-3), xiv + 268 pp., pb $29.00

A decade or so ago, there was a spate of publications on the Messiah,notably the collections edited by Charlesworth (1992) and Satterthwaite(1995) and the individual works of Collins (1995) and Horbury (1998).Ten years is a good breathing space, and now from Eerdmans we havetwo new books on the subject, Joseph Fitzmyer’s The One Who is toCome, reviewed in a previous issue [15:1, 2008], and this set of essaysedited and introduced by Stanley Porter. The contributions were origi-nally papers delivered at the 2004 H. H. Bingham Colloquium in NewTestament at McMaster Divinity College, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada’sevangelical university-based seminary, and six out of the ten participat-ing scholars are Canadian. Congress volumes can be the bane of areviewer’s life: too many papers to cover adequately, some of them inother languages, some in poor English, and varying in length from thenote to the incipient monograph. This collection makes a welcomedifference: there is a manageable number of items, nine altogether, fouron the Old Testament, five on the New, together with a concluding‘reply’ by Craig Evans; the writers are all native English-speakers; andmost of the essays are around the twenty- to twenty-five-page mark.

After an introduction in which the editor notes that modern scholarsare aware of the need to balance the over-reading of Old Testamenttexts with the sense that some seem to have more than a surfacemeaning and that Messianism is varied in the New Testament as well asin Jewish literature, the first contribution, by Tremper Longman III,deals with the topic as found in the Law and the Writings. This is asimportant as the prophets, for both the New Testament and Jewishsources use these texts messianically. Like the later contributors, thisauthor is aware of the need to define ‘messiah’, and, like most of them,but unlike Fitzmyer, he does not wish to be confined by the Hebrewroot msh

��. This concept-based approach inevitably leads to variation

among our authors so that the reader should be aware that each essayis not necessarily talking about the same thing even within the Old



Testament section. Despite his broadening the definition, however,Longman finds no trace of the future eschatological Messiah in theTorah or the Writings. This is true even of the classic texts in Genesis 49(the Sceptre) and Numbers 24 (the Star), not to mention the royalpsalms such as 2 and 110. While Longman is probably correct asregards the Masoretic text, it is a pity that neither he nor any of the otherOld Testament contributors considers the evidence of the later versions,especially the Septuagint and the Targums. The former gives a verydifferent picture with regard to Ps. 110:3, the latter a relecture of thePentateuchal texts. As part of his programme of debunking messianismin the Psalms, Longman offers a trenchant, ‘devastating’ according toEvans’s reply (p. 231), criticism of G. H. Wilson’s theory of royal redac-tion of the Psalter. However, it is unbalanced in extent, especially giventhe brief and superficial treatment of Deut. 18:15–22 (a prophet likeMoses) and the almost total neglect of Dan. 9:25–6, the only verses in theOld Testament where Fitzmyer detects genuine messianism!

Mark Boda’s chapter on the prophets and the Messiah is much morefocused. Forsaking the well-trodden highways in Isaiah, he concen-trates on his own specialization, the Haggai-Zechariah-Malachi corpus.This is a really worthwhile contribution, for this relatively little knownarea is the latest in time in the Old Testament and was made consider-able use of in the New. Boda brings to bear some valuable insights suchas the probability that the two ‘sons of oil’ in Zech 4:14 do not symbolizethe diarchy of priest and king; an interesting discussion on the rela-tionship between the Lord, the messenger and the messenger of thecovenant in Mal 3:1–2; and the assessment that both sections of Zecha-riah push deliverance further into the future and at the same time focusit on Yahweh himself.

Al Wolters’s examination of the Messiah in the Qumran documents ishardly, as Evans claims, ‘a succinct distillation of the messianism atQumran’ (p. 236). It is in fact largely a review of books on this topic byJohn Collins and Michael Wise. Wolters makes some sound construc-tive criticism of the former reminding us that messianism is not veryextensive in the Scrolls, and it is an exaggeration to speak of four distinctstrands. The Davidic kingly strand is the best attested by far. WhyWolters goes on to devote over six pages to Wise’s book which hedescribes as a ‘popular (not to say journalistic)’ work ‘aimed at ageneral audience’ (p. 82), ‘a hybrid of a historical novel and scholarlymonograph’ (p. 87) is something of a mystery. The knock-down criti-cism of such a work is all too easy but all it seems to be aimed at iswarning the reader that ‘it behooves us to be modest in our claims toknow what the Dead Sea Scrolls teach us about the Messiah’ (p. 89)!

In the fourth essay, Loren Stuckenbruck takes us through the subjectin ‘the Apocalyptic and Related Literature of Early Judaism’, concen-trating on the Psalms of Solomon, the Similitudes of Enoch, 4 Ezra and 2



Baruch. Presumably the last two are included in view of the author’sbelief that ‘non-Christian Jewish literature continued to shape and par-allel convictions about the exalted Jesus in Christian communities’ (p.91). One point, picked up on by Porter in his introduction, is that noneof the motifs is found in all the literature or handled in the same way(p. 6).

When we reach the New Testament, the problems of definition andvariety are greatly aggravated by the fact that because Jesus is theMessiah, anything to do with him can be called ‘messianic’. Hence, thefact that ‘Christology’ is normally used in a much broader sense than‘messianism’ would be by Old Testament scholars. This takes awaysome of the potential of this part of the book since, for example,Howard Marshall’s treatment of Jesus as Messiah in Mark and Matthewis a pretty pedestrian and general treatment of ‘Christology’ in thosegospels. Stanley Porter’s analysis of Luke-Acts is much more stimulat-ing for he presses the case for Jesus’ being presented in these texts as aprophetic Messiah. At first sight, this is a very convincing thesis. The‘programme’ outlined at Nazareth in Lk. 4:16–21 is clearly based on Is.61:1–2, and many scholars have seen in the latter one of the few allu-sions to prophetic anointing. Many, but not all, so one feels Portershould have paid some attention at least to the alternative possibility,argued by Grelot, that the Isaiah text refers to a newly installed HighPriest. Moreover, he presses his case too far when he argues thatbecause Jesus fulfilled prophecies he was, therefore, a ‘propheticMessiah’. This is to use the words in a totally different sense. Similarlywhen Jesus is compared with David in the sermons in Acts, though it istrue that David is taken to be speaking prophetically in Ps. 16, thishardly means that his royal persona is totally eclipsed. Porter obviouslyfeels uncomfortable about this, conceding that ‘even the royal Davidicfigure is also probably prophetically messianic in nature’ (p. 154). Surelythis is having your oil and pouring it!

Tom Thatcher’s account of John’s ‘negative’ Christology is clearlyargued and accounts for the alternation of ‘high’ and ‘low’ in the FourthGospel. All is to be explained by the evangelist’s hermeneutic which isthe memory of Jesus’ life interpreted ‘through the lens of the resurrec-tion against the backdrop of the Hebrew under the guidance of theHoly Spirit’ (pp. 174–5) and in response to the challenge of the Jewswho denied Jesus’ divinity and the ‘antichrists’ who ignored hishumanity. The unusual emphasis on Mary as ‘mother of Jesus’ at twocrucial stages in the narrative is a key feature of this second approach.

In his overview of Paul, S. A. Cummins notes that Χρ στος� in theEpistles regularly retains the titular sense of Israel’s Messiah. Given thatsuch a figure was both representative and incorporative, it is not sur-prising that Paul sees the Christian life as one of living, dying and risingwith the Christ. Cynthia Westfall wraps up the discussions with a rapid



survey of Hebrews and the General Epistles. Like Cummins, she notesthe persistence of Χρ στος� in a titular sense and holds it significant thatit is often thus employed in contexts marked by her three messianic‘scenarios,’ enthronement, temple and victory which she lines up withthe three messianic figures of king, priest and prophet. Some will findthis a little forced since victory seems to belong to the king as much asif not more than to the prophet. Moreover, victory and enthronementneed not be messianic at all but can be associated with God himself asin Zechariah.

Craig Evans’s concluding ‘reply’ is something of a formality for hefrequently merely summarizes the earlier contributions. However, hedoes add the occasional interesting point such as that, whoever theoriginal referents were, Zech. 4:14 appears in an eschatological com-mentary on Gen. 49 in 4Q254. Surprisingly, he accepts the editor’s thesisthat because Jesus fulfilled prophecy he was a prophetic Messiah, buthe does go on to add some more convincing evidence such as theparallels between Jesus and Samuel and the explication of the Nazarethsermon with the examples of Elijah and Elisha.

To question the omission of an account of the Pastorals would be tocarp, for they have only one mention of ‘the Christ’ (1 Tim. 5:11), but itis passing strange that there is no section devoted to Revelation for thisbook fulfils all of Westfall’s criteria for serious Messianic Christology:Rev. 20:4 speaks of the reign of the Christ for a thousand years, atypically Messianic ‘scenario’, while 12:10, 20:4, and 20:6 link thekingdom/authority of the Christ with that of God himself.

Like the Colloquium of which it is a record, this book is intended toappeal to wide variety of readers. In view of its inevitably episodicnature, however, it will be of considerably more use to the specialistwho can make use of those essays which, as Evans rightly replies, offerboth innovation and insight (p. 230).

Michael TaitUniversity of Manchester

� � �

The Church’s Bible: Isaiah – Interpreted by Early Christian andMedieval Commentators, Robert Louis Wilken, Eerdmans PublishingCompany, 2008 (ISBN 978-0-8028-2581-0), xxviii + 590 pp., hb $45/£24.99

In the past, biblical historians utilized the scriptural material to evi-dence the culture and context of Judeo-Christian belief and the means



by which the communities that formed part of antiquity and pre-antiquity, expressed their religious agenda. As such, for the earlyChurch Fathers, the biblical text was primarily used to display theworkings of the Almighty God upon history in which the Jewish Scrip-tures were interpreted, albeit allegorically, in light of the ChristianScriptures; which were themselves centered on a Christological actionthat, proleptically, brought humankind into a new relationship with theDivine. For the early interpreters, these manuscripts are living testimo-nies to a past that should enlighten devotional history and edify thepraxis of a shared religious belief that is grounded by faith and creed.

For Robert Louis Wilken, such classical and patristic interpretationremains fundamental for the development and expansion of theChristian Church and cannot therefore be confined to a theologicalgraveyard simply to make room for a contemporary, apolitical andpostmodern (I use the term loosely) agenda. This is not to say thatcurrent theologies and hermeneutics are unable to offer anything new,valid, or indeed inspirational, to biblical interpretation but rather, forthe purposes of faith, it is more edifying to focus on the substance of thewritten word of God rather than its literary style and sociologicalcontext, which might sometimes displace the true significance of thebiblical story.

In this extensive book, Wilken utilizes his extensive knowledge andunderstanding of ancient near-eastern Christianity and Patristic theol-ogy in an attempt to develop a commentary that promotes the devo-tional and spiritual conditions required for a faithful reading of the bookof Isaiah – the contents of which reveal mysteries that have deeperChristological meaning for both scripture and church. For Jewish the-ology, the significance of the book of Isaiah is revealed in its associa-tions with the rebuilding of Jerusalem, whereas for the early churchfathers a true revelation of the prophecy can only be developed andappreciated in the context of the New Testament a posteriori; only in thisway can the Prophet truly reveal the divine activity of the Christ.

The references, allusions and images that refer to a Christ like figurefound in the contents of Isaiah are so numerous that, in many ways,the Prophecies are certainly redolent of the Gospel material, bringingtogether prophetic context with the life of Jesus himself. As an evange-list as well as a Prophet, so extensive and profound is the propheticmaterial, that Isaiah’s visions cannot be truly appreciated without con-sidering the truths of the Kerygma. Such claims eventually led to Isai-ah’s martyrdom under the hand of King Manasseh, who had becomeoutraged at Isaiah’s consistent claims to have seen God.

This is an extensive commentary that makes excellent use of thedepth of knowledge given to us by the great pioneers of Jewish andChristian scriptural tradition. Naturally, the authors sited in thistext have their own agenda and preference but each certainly aims to



illumine Holy Scripture as it was meant to be understood in the firstmillennia of Christian history. Written primarily for scholars involvedin clerical activity as well as theologians interested in a more devotionalresponse to biblical interpretation, this is certainly an important sourceof reference for the lectern as well as the lecture hall. Not only does itreveal scripture as the inspired word of God, but it also offers newinsights into the revelation of God throughout history. A superb book!

Benjamin BuryUniversity of Birmingham

� � �

The Letters to Philemon, the Colossians, and the Ephesians: ASocio-rhetorical Commentary on the Captivity Epistles, BenWitherington III, William B. Eerdmans, 2007 (ISBN 978-0-8028-2488-2),xii + 382 pp., pb $38.00

Ben Witherington’s commentary on the captivity epistles continues hisseries of ‘socio-rhetorical’ commentaries on the New Testament andoffers an insightful and accessible treatment of Philemon, Colossians,and Ephesians. His approach has three distinguishing features. First,Witherington interprets Paul’s epistles with the help of the rhetoricalhandbooks of antiquity, reading them as spoken texts and not simplyliterary communications. Such an approach, despite some risks, shedslight on traditional areas of debate such as the question of pseudonymity.Second, Witherington offers a series of helpful excurses on issues raisedin the letter. Entitled, ‘A Closer Look’, these provide brief but usefulintroductions to issues such as manumission in the ancient world, theColossian philosophy, and the household codes. Finally, Witheringtonoffers application sections entitled, ‘Bridging the Horizons’ whichprovide an evangelical, generally Arminian reading of Paul.

Witherington tackles introductory questions in his opening chapter,dealing with issues of provenance, date, and the authenticity of thecaptivity epistles. Witherington argues that each of the letters waswritten by Paul while awaiting trial in Rome in the early 60s, a positionthat also concurs with tradition. But what of the stylistic differencesbetween Ephesians and Colossians and the earlier Pauline letters?Does this not point to their pseudonymous nature? Witheringtontackles the stylistic argument against Pauline authorship by appealingto the rhetorical difference between the captivity epistles and earlierletters of Paul. He argues that Philemon, Colossians, and, especially,Ephesians were written by Paul in an effusive, elaborative ‘Asiatic



style’, appropriate for believers in Asia. Like other ancient authors,Paul was rhetorically skilled, and altered his style depending on theaudience, though perhaps also utilizing a scribe for the task. The sup-posed theological discrepancies between Ephesians and earlier lettersof Paul are best explained by their rhetorical differences.

Rhetorical analysis of the letters plays a part throughout each sectionof the work, with Witherington drawing liberally on the handbooks ofAristotle, Quintilian, and Cicero, as well as the rhetorically perceptivecommentaries of John Chrysostom. He offers a ‘rhetorical structure’ foreach of the letters, using traditional labels from antiquity (exordium,narratio, propositio, probatio, exhortatio, peroratio). Each letter alsoexhibits a particular species of rhetorical style, which offers a clue to itspurpose and occasion.

Witherington argues that Philemon is best seen as an example of‘deliberative rhetoric’, a style that aimed to influence a future course ofaction. In Philemon, Paul’s purpose is to persuade Philemon to take backOnesimus, his runaway slave. While some commentators believe thatPaul expects Onesimus to remain a slave, Witherington argues that Paul’saim is much more socially radical. The reference to receiving Onesimusback, ‘no longer as a slave but as more than a slave, a beloved brother’(v.16a) indicates that Philemon should manumit Onesimus. The obliquenature of the request fits Paul’s attempt at persuasion. Although Pauldoes not oppose slavery outright, he does look for emancipation withinthe Christian community, setting a radical precedent for the later church.

Witherington also considers Colossians as a form of ‘deliberativerhetoric’, in which Paul seeks to persuade believers in Colossae toremain fixed on Christ. The context that prompts Paul’s letter, the‘Colossian Philosophy’, is understood by Witherington (following T. J.Sappington and others) as a Jewish mystical theology that was attract-ing believers in Colossae. This best explains the references to the ‘phi-losophy’ in Colossians, including the ‘worship of angels’ (Col. 2:18),which probably refers to a mystical experience of worshipping Godwith angels (cf., 1QSb 4.25–26). Witherington also covers key issues onColossians, including the ‘Colossian hymn’ and the household code.

Witherington argues that Ephesians was originally a ‘circular homily’addressed to churches round Asia Minor. Unlike Philemon and Colos-sians, Ephesians is epideictic rhetoric, which Witherington describes as,‘celebratory rhetoric, the rhetoric of praise and blame’ (p. 219). Asiaticrhetoric, with its long sentences, redundancies and rhythmic patterns,is prominent in Ephesians as it especially suits the epideictic form.Ephesians was designed to encourage gentile believers in the faith theyhad embraced, affirming the common values they held in common withother believers. Paul, then, does not address a particular ‘false teaching’in Ephesians, but rather affirms the centrality of Christ and his role inthe church. Witherington also covers key issues within the letter, such



as the role of ‘election’ in Eph. 1, the image of the body of Christ, thetreatment of marriage, and the military imagery of Eph. 6.

Witherington’s work is accessible and engaging, and his rhetoricalfocus brings new insights into a reading of the captivity epistles. Hiscommentary frequently refers to the classical sources of rhetoric in theancient world, and this can only be a good thing. If readers are encour-aged to ‘take up and read’ such works, then they will gain a greaterunderstanding of the literary and cultural context of Paul’s letters.

Witherington’s distinction between ‘levels of moral discourse’ is par-ticularly helpful, as it contextualizes the rhetorical setting for Paul’sethical advice. Paul did not address all audiences in the same way, butshaped his advice depending on the nature of his relationship withthem. In one situation, he seeks to persuade a friend to manumit a slave(Philemon), while in another he seeks to ‘Christianize’ the harsheraspects of the institution of slavery (Ephesians). An appreciation fortypes of moral discourse also helps explain the differences between thehousehold codes in Ephesians and Colossians.

Witherington’s dependence on rhetorical analysis does beg somequestions. Although it has been widely used since Betz’s commentaryon Galatians (Fortress, 1979), the appropriateness of rhetorical analysisat the ‘macro-level’ of Paul’s letters continues to be disputed. AlthoughPaul’s letters were read to congregations, they are still literary products,and reveal ‘epistolary’ features characteristic of other ancient letters.Those who adopt rhetorical analysis of Paul’s letters disagree about thebest way to categorize a letter, and this should give pause to an over-confident use of rhetoric in studying Paul.

Witherington’s defense of Pauline authorship for all three captivityepistles is generally persuasive, but does raise the question of whetherPaul could be quite as rhetorically adept as Witherington contends. Itwould be helpful to see other examples of ancient writers switchingstyles so radically. Witherington does suggest, however, that Paul mayhave used an amanuensis familiar with ‘Asiatic’ rhetoric in writingEphesians and Colossians.

In a time when the sheer volume of commentaries overwhelms,Witherington’s commentary on the captivity epistles is an insightfuland user-friendly commentary which also includes a helpful annotatedbibliography. His treatment of the three captivity epistles in one workmeans that he does not always explore issues in huge depth, but thismakes it a good read for students and pastors, as well as for scholarsinterested in rhetorical readings of Paul. Witherington is a fair andcareful reader of Paul, and his rhetorical approach offers an illuminat-ing perspective on Ephesians, Colossian, and Philemon.

Edward MackenzieBirmingham Christian College



The Bible and Epistemology: Biblical Soundings on the Knowledge of God - Edited by Mary Healy and...

Documents

Transcript of The Bible and Epistemology: Biblical Soundings on the Knowledge of God - Edited by Mary Healy and...