Posted by: chuckbumgardner | November 3, 2018

Tyndale Bulletin Archive

Well! I had no idea that the Tyndale Bulletin provides all but the last few years’ worth of the journal free online! Issues through 2014 are currently available. Many thanks to Tyndale House!

And it might be worth mentioning here that JETS has a similar archive, with all but the last two years available.

Posted by: chuckbumgardner | August 18, 2018

Martin, Understanding Affections in the Theology of Jonathan Edwards

My friend Ryan Martin’s dissertation is finally gaining the broader exposure it deserves. Forthcoming in T&T Clark’s Studies in Systematic Theology series, this work highlights the distinction between the notion of the affections that played such a high role in Edwards’s theology, life, and ministry (on the one hand) and (on the other hand) the broader category of “emotions” that is often too quickly equated with the affections.

From the Amazon blurb:

This volume argues that the notion of “affections” discussed by Jonathan Edwards (and Christian theologians before him) means something very different from what contemporary English speakers now call “emotions.” and that Edwards’s notions of affections came almost entirely from traditional Christian theology in general and the Reformed tradition in particular.
Ryan J. Martin demonstrates that Christian theologians for centuries emphasized affection for God, associated affections with the will, and distinguished affections from passions; generally explaining affections and passions to be inclinations and aversions of the soul. This was Edwards’s own view, and he held it throughout his entire ministry. Martin further argues that Edwards’s view came not as a result of his reading of John Locke, or the pressures of the Great Awakening (as many Edwardsean scholars argue), but from his own biblical interpretation and theological education. By analysing patristic, medieval and post-medieval thought and the journey of Edwards’s psychology, Martin shows how, on their own terms, pre-modern Christians historically defined and described human psychology.


Posted by: chuckbumgardner | July 8, 2018

Jesus and the Theater

Hmmm. I am always intrigued when someone puts two things together for me that I had never put together for myself. In N. T. Wright’s The New Testament and the People of God, he describes the pervasive Hellenism that existed in Jesus’s day. To illustrate this, he notes that “by the time of the first century, if Jesus had wanted to take his disciples to see Euripides’ [480-406 BC] plays performed, he might have only had to walk down the road from Capernaum to Beth Shean.”

True, there was a Roman theater at Beth Shean, said to seat 7000 people:

(Photo by AVRAHAM GRAICER – Own work, CC BY-SA 4.0,

But it would be quite a walk!


He could also have visited the theater at Sepphoris, just north of Nazareth, and a bit less of a walk from his Capernaum headquarters; that theater seated about 4000-5000 people, and apparently was active at the time of Jesus’s Galilean ministry (“Es wurde bereits im frühen 1. Jh. n.Chr. erbaut,” []).

(Photo by Carole Raddato from FRANKFURT, Germany – Sepphoris (Diocaesarea), Israel, CC BY-SA 2.0,


Much closer, however, was a theater in Tiberias, which would have presumably been an easy journey by ship across the Sea of Galilee. N. T. Wright may not have been aware of the newly excavated Tiberius theater; it appears to have been first recognized as such in 1990, and Wright’s NTPG was published in 1992. The theater would have been relatively new at the time Jesus and his disciples were ministering in Galilee; it was apparently built in three stages from the 1st to the 4th centuries AD, and archaeologists date the first stage of construction to 18 A.D.

Somehow, I had never made the connection of Hellenization in ancient Israel and the possibility that Jesus would have had relatively easy access (it seems) to Greek theater. Whether he ever attended a Greek play is another question altogether, of course, and given the disparity between Greek theater and ancient Jewish custom (cf. ʿAbod. Zar. 18b; Josephus, Ant. 15.268), I strongly doubt he did.

Posted by: chuckbumgardner | May 28, 2018

The Cross as Communicative Act

“The cross is perhaps the most extraordinary of God’s communicative acts. The Word made flesh, hanging on a cross, is God’s yes and no. The cross is both promise of eternal life for those who believe it and sentence of eternal death for those who refuse it (2 Cor. 2:15-16). Because God is saying/doing several things in the cross, the cross is a complex of related illocutions: (1) as an assertive, the cross is a statement that God has made provision for sin; (2) as a commissive, the cross makes a promise that ‘if you believe, you shall be saved’; (3) as an expressive, the cross demonstrates God’s love for the world; (4) as a directive, it is a mandate for Christ’s disciples to ‘die’ with Christ to the world; (5) as a declarative, the cross is an absolution that does what it declares, namely, forgive sins.”

Kevin Vanhoozer, The Drama of Doctrine (WJK, 2005), 65-66.

Posted by: chuckbumgardner | May 13, 2018

Water, Light, Shepherd

Hmmm, that’s interesting. Craig Blomberg (Historical Reliability of the New Testament [Nashville: B&H, 2016], 210-11) highlights three metaphors which Jesus used for himself, all apparently at the same Feast of Tabernacles, in John 7-10: he refers to himself as living water (7:38; cf. 4:10), the light of the world (8:12), and the good shepherd (10:11). Blomberg notes that, strikingly, this triad is also found prominently in a passage in 2 Baruch, a work which the EDEJ indicates was written “in the wake of the First Jewish Revolt and responds to the fall of the Temple in the year 70 C.E.” (which in my limited checking seems to be a scholarly consensus) and is known only because “it was translated and preserved in Christian circles” (M. Henze, “Baruch, Second Book of,” in Eerdmans Dictionary of Early Judaism [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2010], 426-27). We find in 2 Baruch 77:13-16 the following (trans. Charles):

13      For the shepherds of Israel have perished,

And the lamps which gave light are extinguished,

And the fountains have withheld their stream whence we used to drink.

14      And we are left in the darkness,

And amid the trees of the forest,

And the thirst of the wilderness.’

15      And I answered and said unto them

‘Shepherds and lamps and fountains come from the law:

And though we depart, yet the law abides.

16      If therefore you have respect to the law,

And are intent upon wisdom,

A lamp will not be wanting,

And a shepherd will not fail,

And a fountain will not dry up.

I have no time at the moment to chase the interesting questions that this parallelism raises (such as: Can this metaphorical triad be found elsewhere, and were both Jesus and the author of 2 Baruch drawing from a common tradition?), but simply wanted to highlight the interesting connection here.

What Blomberg derives from this parallelism: “What many Jews ascribed to Torah, therefore, Jesus ascribes to himself. He is the true shepherd, lamp, and fountain” (p. 211). Assuming Blomberg accepts the consensus on the date of 2 Baruch (he doesn’t comment on this in the present context), he would presumably mean that the imagery found in 2 Baruch was commonly (perhaps collectively?) applied to Torah not only at the time of 2 Baruch’s composition, but earlier in Jesus’s day as well.

Posted by: chuckbumgardner | May 12, 2018



“While there are literally more than a thousand parables scattered throughout the encyclopedic-sized rabbinic literature, not one fictitious narrative at all close in form to Jesus’s parables has been discovered in ancient Greco-Roman literature. It appears to have been a uniquely Jewish form of teaching in that day.”

Craig Blomberg, The Historical Reliability of the New Testament (Nashville: B&H Academic, 2016), 170. For illustration of this point, Blomberg points in a footnote to Harvey K. McArthur and Robert M. Johnston, They All Spoke in Parables: Rabbinic Parables from the First Centuries of the Christian Era (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1990; repr. Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 2014).

I was pleased to read a good little piece by Larry Hurtado about accurately representing the views of others, most specifically those with whom one disagrees. I received this instruction in no uncertain terms during my master’s work, most specifically from Kevin Bauder. He taught me very simply (but with no doubt as to the importance of the matter) that if I were to present someone’s views, that person should be able to agree wholeheartedly that I had presented them accurately.

This is significant in all of life, of course, but is of signal importance in academia. Anyone in academic circles has seen examples of published interchanges between scholars (presentation-response-rejoinder-surrejoinder) in which the constant refrain is how one scholar in the interchange is not accurately portraying the argument of the other.

I have been involved in editing a theological journal for a few years now, and (as would be expected) have seen a spectrum as to how well this is done. At times, an author’s presentation of an opponent’s position will strike me as a caricature at best, if not inaccurate. When I have dug down into the opponent’s position to check my niggling suspicions, I sometimes find that some level of misrepresentation is occurring—whether intentional or not (and I charitably assume “not”!). Here’s where it gets sticky: Is the author simply not reading carefully? Is the opponent’s position set forth at a level which the author is not comprehending, and so is being too simplistically rebutted? Has the author merely read a portion of the opponent’s full argument, and the resulting lack of holistic and contextual understanding has brought about a misrepresentation? Is the author actually purposefully distorting someone’s position?

An author’s natural inclination to support his own position can easily bring that author to subconsciously (or consciously!) misrepresent the position of his opponent. As Hurtado said, “the temptation to exaggerate or caricature views that you disagree with is very real, and no one is immune to it.” This does not mean that an author has no chance of representing an opponent’s position fairly—but it does mean that the author has to work at it.

I entirely agree with Hurtado’s practice of sending one’s work to the person one is reviewing or with whom one is interacting. I wouldn’t call such a practice essential, but I do think it wise. I have done that with one of my own reviews, and the very determination to do that shaped how I wrote the review, pushing me toward more scrupulous accuracy, and changing the ways in which I stated my critiques.

The Golden Rule could be applied this way in academia: portray your opponent’s arguments with the accuracy and evenhandedness with which you would want your own work portrayed. Represent others’ ideas as you would have others represent yours.


Posted by: chuckbumgardner | May 28, 2017

Bibfeldt review

Franz BibfeldtI was so glad to have been introduced to the erstwhile theologian Franz Bibfeldt in my M.Div. work, and have been known to include his works in bibliographies of various papers I have written. In my Th.M. thesis on 2 Thess 3:6-15, for instance, I tucked in the following bibliographic entry:

Bibfeldt, Franz. “Disorderly Idol-ness: Worshipping Our Leisure.” Journal of Ambiguity in Biblical Studies 18 or 19 (1956): 23-45.

Imagine, then, how gratified I was tonight to stumble across one of Bibfeldt’s later book reviews (complete with his own inimitable musings) on Zondervan Academic’s blog — dateline April 1, 2015! I commend it to your perusal:

Franz Bibfeldt, “New Voices for Theology: Taylor Ruiz-Jones’s ‘From Siesta to Sabbath.'”

Posted by: chuckbumgardner | April 23, 2017

BTCP 1-2 Timothy & Titus is coming!

IMG_20170423_074419510 (1)During the course of the time that I served as research assistant to my Doktorvater Andreas Köstenberger, part of my work involved assisting in the preparation of his commentary on 1-2 Timothy & Titus in the new Biblical Theology for Christian Proclamation series published by B&H. Tom Schreiner produced the inaugural volume on Hebrews in 2015, and this is the second volume to come out in the series.  Amazon is not releasing the title until May 1, but I was privileged to get a physical copy a little early.

I recently published a literature review on 1 & 2 Timothy and Titus, and made the following comments on this volume:

Forthcoming in 2017 is Köstenberger’s contribution to the new Biblical Theology for Christian Proclamation series (B&H). The volume consists of a thorough but concise introductory section (each letter also has its own introduction), an exegetical section, and a section on biblical-theological themes in the letters (about two thirds the length of the exegetical section); each section is thoroughly cross-referenced to the others. Köstenberger defends authenticity, dating the letters to c. AD 62–66. He self-consciously designates the letters as “the Letters to Timothy and Titus” over against “Pastoral Epistles” (à la Towner) and emphasizes the need to avoid undue corpus reading, treating the letters as a cluster: related, but distinct. Other important discussions in the introductory material cover Pauline chronology and the social setting of the letters. The introduction to Titus is particularly well-done (including a comparison between Paul’s approach in this epistle and his missionary strategy in Athens), given that the letter often receives short shrift in treatments of the LTT. Of note is the commentary’s very thorough engagement with secondary literature, especially given its size—it is what one would expect from a much larger technical commentary—and students of the letters will find significant help for further research in the footnotes and bibliography. As is common among conservative students of the LTT, Köstenberger rejects the “bourgeois Christianity” (bürgerliches Christentum) reading of the letters popularized by Dibelius and Conzelmann and instead finds an underlying mission motivation driving the paraenesis. The biblical-theological treatment is surprisingly thorough and is longer than Francis Young’s standalone Theology of the Pastoral Letters (which treats the letters pseudonymously), making it one of the lengthiest treatments of the theology of the LTT available and the most robust treatment of the LTT’s themes (as a collection) I have seen. Here, I simply give the themes and subthemes treated:

1. Mission (the Pauline mission, apostolic authority and suffering, apostolic delegates, Paul’s larger mission theology and strategy and the LTT)

2. Teaching (healthy teaching, the truth, the faith, the Word of God, the deposit, trustworthy sayings, Scripture)

3. God, Christ, the Holy Spirit, and salvation (God, Christ, God and Christ as Savior, the Holy Spirit, salvation [need, provision, recipients, nature, reception, results, preservation of believers])

4. The church (church as household of God [order and authority, responsibilities: older and younger men, older and younger women, widows, slaves, the wealthy], church as pillar and foundation of the truth, church and its ministry [tasks: ministry of the word, ministry of caring, ministry of prayer; officers: elders/overseers, deacons; goals of ministry])

5. The Christian life (Christian virtues [love, faith/faithfulness, godliness, self-control], good works [witness, labor/striving, endurance/suffering], good citizenship)

6. The last days (Satan/demons/angels, false teachers and the tribulation of the last days, virtues/vices, need for perseverance, resurrection of believers, appearing of Christ in final judgment and salvation)

7. The LTT and the canon (OT [pattern of . . . apostolic mission, righteous apostolic suffering, apostolic succession, human relationships], Pauline writings [need for balance, congruence with the Pauline mission, similarities and differences], Acts, non-Pauline NT letters)

The value of this work is immediately evident. Each of these treatments is the sort of thing that would comprise an excursus in a typical commentary, or a brief essay in a journal. Here, however, they are an interrelated body of work which also connects with the previous exposition of the letters. The sections on mission and Scripture are particularly robust, but each section is valuable in its discussion of a particular theme in the LTT along with its larger biblical-theological connections.

Although Dr. Köstenberger is doubtless better known for his work as a Johannine scholar, his commentary is the culmination of a good bit of work that he has done on these letters over time, in addition to the focused research in hundreds of sources which fed directly into this tome. I give here (as I am wont to do!) his previous published work in these letters (listed chronologically):

“Gender Passages in the NT: Hermeneutical Fallacies Critiqued.” Westminster Theological Journal 56 (1994): 259–83. [engages 1 Tim 2:9-15 at a number of points]

“A Complex Sentence Structure in 1 Timothy 2:12.” Pages 81–103 in Women in the Church: An Analysis and Application of 1 Timothy 2:9–15. Edited by Andreas J. Köstenberger, Thomas R. Schreiner, and H. Scott Baldwin. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1995.

“Syntactical Background Studies to 1 Timothy 2:12 in the New Testament and Extrabiblical Greek Literature.” Pages 156–79 in Discourse Analysis and Other Topics in Biblical Greek. Edited by Stanley E. Porter and Donald A. Carson. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1995.

“Ascertaining Women’s God-Ordained Roles: An Interpretation of 1 Timothy 2:15.” BBR 7 (1997): 107–44.

“The Crux of the Matter: Paul’s Pastoral Pronouncements Regarding Women’s Roles in 1 Timothy 2:9-15.” Faith and Mission 14.1 (1997): 24-48. Repr., pages 233-60 in Studies in John and Gender: A Decade of Scholarship. Studies in Biblical Literature 38. New York: Peter Lang, 2001.

Review of Jerome Quinn and William Wacker, The First and Second Letters to Timothy, Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 44 (2001): 549–50.

Review of I. Howard Marshall, Pastoral Epistles, Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 44 (2001): 550–53.

Review of J. M. Holmes, Text in a Whirlwind, Review of Biblical Literature (2001),

“Women in the Church: A Response to Kevin Giles.” Evangelical Quarterly 73 (2001): 205–24.

Review of William Mounce, The Pastoral Epistles, Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 45 (2002): 365–66.

“Hermeneutical and Exegetical Challenges in Interpreting the Pastoral Epistles.” The Southern Baptist Journal of Theology 7.3 (2003): 4–17.

“A Complex Sentence: The Syntax of 1 Timothy 2:12.” Pages 53–84 in Women in the Church: An Analysis and Application of 1 Timothy 2:12.  2nd ed. Edited by Andreas J. Köstenberger and Thomas R. Schreiner. Grand Rapids: Baker, 2005.

“‘Teaching and Usurping Authority: I Timothy 2:11–15’ by Linda L. Belleville.” Journal of Biblical Manhood & Womanhood 10.1 (Spring 2005): 43–54.

“1 & 2 Timothy, Titus.” Pages 467–625 in vol. 12 of The Expositor’s Bible Commentary. Rev. ed. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2006.

“The Use of Scripture in the Pastoral and General Epistles and the Book of Revelation.” Pages 230–54 in Hearing the Old Testament in the New Testament. Edited by Stanley E. Porter. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2006.

“The Syntax of 1 Timothy 2:12: A Rejoinder to Philip B. Payne.” Journal for Biblical Manhood and Womanhood 14 (2009): 37–40.

“Hermeneutical and Exegetical Challenges in Interpreting the Pastoral Epistles.” Pages 1-27 in Entrusted with the Gospel: Paul’s Theology in the Pastoral Epistles. Edited by Andreas J Köstenberger and Terry L. Wilder. Nashville: B&H: 2010.

“A Complex Sentence: The Syntax of 1 Timothy 2:12.” Pages 117–61 in Women in the Church: An Interpretation and Application of 1 Timothy 2:9–15. 3rd ed. Edited by Andreas J. Köstenberger and Thomas R. Schreiner. Wheaton: Crossway, 2016.



Posted by: chuckbumgardner | January 28, 2017

A Review for which to Aim

Since I am not fluent in German—and this in spite of  both German ancestry and the excellent instruction of my bilingual Doktorvater Andreas Köstenberger!—I was looking for English-language reviews of the important Wolfgang Speyer, Die literarische Fälschung im heidnischen und christlichen Altertum. One reviewer, Edgar Krentz, said of this work,

In short, it is written out of such a mastery of the relevant ancient and modern texts that few reviewers are competent to review it; most stand rather to learn from it.

From an academic standpoint, one could hardly ask for higher praise!

Older Posts »