Month: March 2014

Gerd Theissen’s Critique of the New Perspective on Paul

Posted by

5

The topic of “Paul and the Law” and the long-standing debate around the strengths and weaknesses of the many different versions of the “New Perspective on Paul” have continued to be of interest to many scholars of Early Christianity. Within the blogosphere, for example, many posts at Near Emmaus and various Patheos Blogs have been devoted to the admittedly Now-Not-So-New Perspective on Paul, and a recent post by Shawn Wilhite has helpfully drawn attention to James Dunn’s latest attempt to clarify his position in Early Christianity 4 (2013).

This post will attempt to contribute to the discussion by highlighting a key quotation from Gerd Theissen’s 2007 book Erleben und Verhalten der Ersten Christen: Eine Psychologie des Urchristentum (Experience and Behavior of the first Christians: a Psychology of Primitive Christianity), and by pointing readers to one of Theissen’s English publications on the topic in my analysis section.

Translation (wmc): “It is correct that Judaism was proud of the Torah. But precisely for this reason critical voices were massively pushed back and suppressed, which can be documented.  Paul is only one example of these voices. It is also correct that Paul was not conscious of any sin in his pre-Christian period; he persecuted the Christians out of conviction. But this does not rule out [the view / thesis / possibility / likelihood / fact] that he repressed a critical voice in himself that first broke through with the Damascus vision. It is finally correct that intra-Christian, Judaistic opponents first impelled Paul to grapple with the problem of the law. But this does not rule out [the view / thesis / possibility / likelihood / fact] that he fought against a part of his own life in these opponents. In my view, he grappled once more with the Jewish fundamentalist that he himself once was. He fought in them a part of himself – and it was precisely for this reason that the controversy with them was so heated. But in everything Paul is a representative of Judaism, both in his zeal for the law and in his criticism of the law.”

Erleben und Verhalten der ersten Christen (p. 468-9): “Es ist richtig, dass das Judentum auf die Thora stolz war. Aber eben deswegen wurden kritische Stimmen massiv zurückgewiesen und verdrängt, die sich belegen lassen. Paulus ist nur ein Beispiel für diese Stimmen. Es ist ferner richtig, dass sich Paulus in seiner vorchristlichen Zeit keiner Sünde bewusst war; er verfolgte aus Überzeugung die Christen. Aber das schließt nicht aus, dass er eine kritische Stimme in sich unterdrückte, die erst mit der Damaskusvision durchbrach. Es ist schließlich richtig, dass erst innerchristliche, judaistische Gegner Paulus genötigt haben, sich mit der Gesetzesproblematik auseinander zu setzen. Aber das schließt nicht aus, dass er in diesen Gegnern ein Stück seines eigenen Lebens bekämft hat. Er setzt sich m. E. noch einmal mit dem jüdischen Fundamentalisten auseinander, der er einmal selbst war. Er bekämpft in ihnen ein Stück von sich selbst – und eben deshalb war die Auseinandersetzung mit ihnen so heftig. In allem aber ist Paulus ein Repräsentant des Judentum, in seinem Gesetzeseifer wie in seiner Gesetzeskritik.”

Selective grammatical analysis: The second sentence reads awkwardly. One could perhaps repeat the word voices for clarification (“But precisely for this reason critical voices were massively pushed back and suppressed, voices which can be documented) or move the relative clause forward (“put precisely for this reason critical voices, which can be documented, were massively pushed back and suppressed). I am also uncertain whether it is preferable to translate “verdrängt” as “suppressed” or “repressed”, and the same question applies to the translation of “in sich unterdrückt “ in sentence 5. [In response to the facebook link to this post, Ben Wiebe noted that “‘verdrängt’ might literally be translated to press or crowd out; ‘unterdrückte’ to press or push under”.] The translation of “das schileßt nicht aus, dass” is difficult, since in English one would probably need to supply something before “that”, e.g., “the view that”, “the thesis that”, “the possibility that”, “the likelihood that”, or “the fact that”. ” I also have questions about the translation of “judaistische” in sentence 6. I have chosen the non-word “judaistic” since it is unclear to me whether the intended sense is “judaizing”, for which reason I have avoided this term. It is always difficult to translate auseinandersetzen – I have used “grapple with” for the verb here (“confront” would also have been possible) and controversy for the noun.

But here just two of them: “verdrängt” might be literally translated to press or crowd out; “unterdrückte” to press or push under

Substantive analysis: For better or for worse, my own relationship to the wide-ranging discussion surrounding the “New Perspective on Paul” is complex. Being strongly influenced by the diversity of approaches represented by my teachers, especially Peter Stuhlmacher, James Dunn, and Markus Bockmuehl, I have come to appreciate both the insights/arguments of its protagonists and the objections/concerns of its detractors, which is not to say that I have been able to attain to a clear or balanced position in the process! Against this background, I have included this “key quotation” from Gerd Theissen both because I regard it as a significant line of argumentation and because I think that it arguably merits more substantive engagement than it has received thus far. For further explication of this “key quotation”, I recommend beginning with the additional page references that I provide at the end of my RBL Review of Erleben und Verhalten, as well as Theissen’s 2007 article “The New Perspective on Paul and Its Limits: Some Psychological Considerations”, which appeared in the Princeton Seminary Bulletin. For a work that positively takes up Theissen’s line of thought, see Daniel Marguerat, Paul in Acts and Paul in his Letters. Tübingen: Mohr, 2013, p. 207-208.

For a complete list of my blog posts, please see here.

For tips on how to use this blog, please see here.

For three interviews with me about the BMSEC series, see here, here, and here.

Facebook Page: To receive notifications of future blog posts, please subscribe to this blog and/or like my facebook page here.

German Mondays: Thank you for making it to the end of this blog post! In an effort to provide a sense of regularity and predictability for this blog’s readership, I plan on writing a new post each Monday. So hopefully I will ‘see’ you again in a week’s time. Best, Wayne.

Rehabilitating F. C. Baur with Jens Schröter and Matthew Hopper

Posted by

0

While looking through my Mohr Siebeck catalogue, I was pleased to learn of a forthcoming volume entitled Ferdinand Christian Baur und die Geschichte des frühen Christentums (eds. Martin Bauspiess, Christof Landmesser, and David Lincicum). Sharing David Lincicum’s high estimation of Baur’s importance (see here; cf. here, here, and here), this post will attempt to prepare the way for this forthcoming volume by “rehabilitating” Baur in two respects, namely (1) in relation to his pioneering appropriation of historiographical insights and (b) in relation to his relationship to Hegel. To do so, I will take my initial orientation from two quotations from Jens Schröter’s book Von Jesus zum Neuen Testament / From Jesus to the New Testament.

1) Baur and Historiography

From Jesus to the New Testament (p. 320): “These exegetical-historical conclusions were obtained on the basis of the conviction that historical individual-appearances can only be understood by discovering their inner connection. As isolated individual phenomena, by contrast, they remain mute. In early Christianity, Baur saw such a connection in the opposition between Pauline and Petrine parties, whose views were then conciliated with each other. Even if this view was subsequently clearly differentiated with regard to the positions represented in early Christianity, the lasting significance of Baur lies in the thoroughgoing application of the principles of historical research to the beginnings of Christianity. He thereby laid the methodological foundations for all subsequent conceptions of a history of Christianity.” (cf. pp. 15-18, 27, 29, 31, 39, 319-21).

Von Jesus zum Neuen Testament ( p. 346): “Diese exegetisch-historischen Ergebnisse sind auf der Grundlage der Überzeugung gewonnen, das geschichtliche Einzelerscheinungen nur dadurch verstanden werden können, dass man ihren inneren Zusammenhang aufdeckt. Als isolierte Einzelphänomene bleiben sie dagegen stumm. Im Urchristentum sah Baur einen solchen Zusammenhang im Gegenüber der paulinischen und petrinischen Partei, deren Auffassungen dann miteinander vermittelt worden seien. Auch wenn diese Sicht im Blick auf die im Urchristentum vertretenen Positionenen später deutlich ausdifferenziert wurde, liegt die bleibende Bedeutung Baurs darin, die Prinzipien historischer Forschung konsequent auf die Anfänge des Christentums angewandt zu haben. Er hat damit die methodischen Grundlagen für alle späteren Entwürfe einer Geschichte des Urchristentum gelegt.”

2) Baur and Hegel

From Jesus to the New Testament (p. 320n6): “By contrast it is inappropriate, as unfortunately often occurs, to dismiss Baur’s contribution with the observation that he forced Hegel’s philosophy of history onto the history of early Christianity. The article on the Corinthian Letters, in which he submitted his view for the first time, was written before Baur became familiar with Hegel’s writings. Cf. Hodgson 1966, 22.”

Von Jesus zum Neuen Testament   (p. 346n6): “Dagegen ist es unangemessen, was leider oft geschieht, Baurs Beitrag mit dem Hinweis abzutun, er habe der Geschichte des Urchristentums Hegels Geschichtsphilosophie aufgezwungen. Der Aufsatz über die Korintherbriefe, in dem er seine Sicht zum ersten Mal vorlegte, wurde geschrieben, bevor Baur mit Hegels Schriften bekannt wurde. Vgl. Hodgson, Historical Theology, 22.”

3) Substantive Analysis

My purpose here is not to rehabilitate Baur at every point. On the contrary, I think that fundamental aspects of his project have rightly been called into question. I do, however, think that it is unhelpful when a towering figure like Baur is set aside with dismissive slogans rather than engaged with in a critical and constructive manner. Against this background, I was somewhat frustrated to read the following statement in David Wenham’s forward to the important work Earliest Christian History: History, Literature, and Theology: Essays from the Tyndale Fellowship in Honour of Martin Hengel (eds. M. Bird and J. Maston): “Baur’s Hegelian analysis of the history of early Christianity and of the New Testament as a conflict between the Jewish Christianity of Peter and others and the Hellenistic Christianity of Paul was very influential, very damaging to traditionally orthodox Christian faith, but deeply flawed, as has been almost universally recognized since” (my emphasis). And I experienced comparable disappointment upon reading the similar statement of Daniel B. Wallace in his otherwise enjoyable blog post in memory of Martin Hengel: “These 19th-century scholars, especially Baur, applied Hegelian dialectic to New Testament studies (i.e., thesis vs. antithesis, struggling with each other end up resulting in a synthesis of both). Baur had been one of Hegel’s students; he applied this dialectic to the authorship of the NT writings, resulting in seeing only four authentic letters by Paul and seeing John as written sometime after 160 CE” (my emphasis). The problem with these quotations is not that Baur is beyond reproach. He is not! The problem is that Baur’s contribution is too quickly sloganized and dismissed by means of a somewhat inaccurate – or at least grossly oversimplified – attribution of his views to the influence of Hegel, which inevitably prevents the productive aspects of his approach from being appreciated and appropriated, for example his appropriation of advances in historiography (cf. FJNT, p.16). In fact, it could be added that in this respect F. C. Baur and Martin Hengel could be compared rather than contrasted with each other (cf. Hengel, “Eye-Witness Memory and the Writing of the Gospels”, pp. 93-95)! Let me conclude by noting that my own stance toward Baur was greatly shaped through my supervision of Matthew Hopper’s learned and spirited MA Thesis “Historical Theology as the Crossroads of Faith and Reason: The Contribution of Ferdinand Christian Baur”, which he completed in 2008. While my enthusiasm for Baur does not extend as far as my student’s, I remain indebted to Mathew Hopper for giving me a much greater appreciation for this Tübingen giant. Needless to say, I look forward to learning more about Baur’s achievements and shortcomings from the forthcoming volume Ferdinand Christian Baur und die Geschichte des frühen Christentums.

For some other posts on F. C. Baur in the blogosphere, see here.

For my other posts on Jens Schröter and historiography, see here.

For a complete list of my blog posts, please see here.

For tips on how to use this blog, please see here.

For two interviews with me about the Baylor-Mohr Siebeck Series, see Clifford Kvidahl and Michael Hölscher.

Facebook Page: To receive notifications of future blog posts, please subscribe to this blog and/or like my facebook page here.

German Mondays: Thank you for making it to the end of this blog post! In an effort to provide a sense of regularity and predictability for this blog’s readership, I plan on writing a new post each Monday. So hopefully I will ‘see’ you again in a week’s time. Best, Wayne.

Jens Schröter on the Differences between Historical and Literary Narratives

Posted by

1

In connection with my other Schröter posts on historiography, this “key quotation” on historiography and New Testament scholarship will be taken from the 10th chapter of Jens Schröter’s book Von Jesus zum Neuen Testament/From Jesus to the New Testament, namely Luke as Historiographer.  As usual I will begin with the English translation so that the (selective) grammatical commentary directly follows the German text.

From Jesus to the New Testament, p. 215: “The joining of historical material and interpretive presentation is thus a constitutive characteristic for every presentation of history. The differences between historical and literary narratives lie, however, in the ‘documentary’ aim of the former, which is oriented to the securing of the traces from the past. This distinguishes it from novelistic presentations, which on the basis of their genre already show themselves to be works that are not obligated to a critical processing of the source material. The task of historiographic works, by contrast, can be described as ‘representation’ (Repräsentanz), insofar as the historical narrative stands for the past in the present on the basis of the historical material.”

Von Jesus zum Neuen Testament, p. 234: „Die Verknüpfung von historischem Material und interpretierender Darstellung ist somit ein für jede Geschichtsdarstellung konstitutives Merkmal. Die Differenzen zwischen historischer und literarischer Erzählung liegen indes in der ‚dokumentarischen‘, an der Sicherung der Spuren aus der Vergangenheit orientierten Ausrichtung der Ersteren. Dies unterscheidet sie vom romanhaften Darstellungen, die sich bereits von der Gattung her als Werke zu erkennen geben, die nicht auf eine kritische Aufbereitung des Quellenmaterials verpflichtet sind. Die Aufgabe historiographischer Werke lässt sich dagegen als ‚Repräsentanz‘ beschreiben, insofern die historische Erzählung auf der Basis des historischen Materials die Vergangenheit in der Gegenwart vertritt.“

(Selective) Grammatical Commentary:  “Verknüpfung” has the force of “joining”, “linking”, “connecting” or “combination”. “Darstellung” could be translated as presentation, representation, or portrayal. “somit” can often be translated as “thus”; “therefore” or “consequently” could also be good options here. Instead of “a constitutive characteristic for every presentation of history” it might have been better/clearer to translate the German phrase as “a characteristic (or feature) that is constitutive for every presentation of history”.  “Ausrichtung” is modified by ‘dokumentarischen’ and “orientierten”, and the phrase “an der Sicherung der Spuren aus der Vergangenheit” is dependent upon “orientierten” – a good example of syntax that is difficult to follow and even more difficult to translate! One obviously cannot write: “in the documentary, to-the- securing-of-the-traces-of-the-past oriented aim of the former. The translation of “Ausrichtung” as “aim” is perhaps not ideal. Normally, “orientation” is a good solution, but this would be awkward here since it is followed by the word “oriented”. “Focus” or “direction” might be workable options, but aim is probably just as good or better.  “zu erkennen geben” has the force of “show themselves to be” or “reveal themselves to be” – as usual the verb is moved to the end of the subordinate clause. “lässt sich … + infinitive” has the force of “can be verb-ed” (here: can be described). “Dagegen” can be translated as “by contrast”, “however,” or “whereas” depending on the context. In FJNT I chose to translate “Repräsentanz” as “representation” and “Vertretung” as “standing for” (p. 90), and I have consequently translated “vertritt” as “stand for” here. But if my memory hold true, I believe that Ricoeur’s translators take the opposite tack in Time and Narrative, i.e., they translate “Repräsentanz” as “standing for” and “Vertretung” as “representation”.

Substantive Analysis: This paragraph captures well the nuanced position that Schröter is trying to develop. On the one hand, he is concerned to highlight the epistemological inadequacy of the “Aristotelian opposition between history writing, which transmits what happened, and literature (or poetry), which fabricates what could have been” (FJNT, p. 13). On the other hand, he is concerned here to stress that it is still possible to identify differences between historical narratives and literary narratives or novelistic presentations, namely with reference to the obligation to a critical processing of the source material. Finally, Ricoeur’s category of “representation” is taken up as a valuable concept for communicating Schröter’s nuanced view of the task of historiographic works (see further FJNT, index: Ricouer).

For a complete list of my blog posts, please see here.

For tips on how to use this blog, please see here.

For two interviews with me about the Baylor-Mohr Siebeck Series, see Clifford Kvidahl and Michael Hölscher.

Facebook Page: To receive notifications of future blog posts, please subscribe to this blog and/or like my facebook page here.

German Mondays: Thank you for making it to the end of this blog post! In an effort to provide a sense of regularity and predictability for this blog’s readership, I plan on writing a new post each Monday. So hopefully I will ‘see’ you again in a week’s time. Best, Wayne.

Solving the “Gretchenfrage” of the Son of Man problem with Eugene Boring

Posted by

4

The title of this post is intentionally misleading. It aims to raise one’s hopes that this post will unlock the great mysteries associated with the interpretation of the “Son of Man” expression in the Gospels. Though it can, of course, do nothing of the sort, I hope that it will resolve a minor “Son of Man” problem that for me at least had remained a mystery until now, namely the problem of making sense of the title of Anton Vögtle’s 1994 book Die “Gretchenfrage” des Menschensohnproblems (3rd edition 1997).

Whenever I had read Vögtle’s title, I had wondered about the precise meaning of “Gretchenfrage”. It was clear that it meant something about the “question of the Son of Man problem”, but I remained completely in the dark about what it meant beyond that. Fortunately, Eugene Boring shed some light on this matter for me in a helpful note in his translation of Udo Schnelle’s Theology of the New Testament. It reads as follows (p. 150, n. 274):

“[To ask the ‘Gretchen question’ is to ask about someone’s deepest religious or political convictions; from Goethe, Faust, I.—MEB]”

In my further attempts to determine the precise meaning of the term, I found the following explanations:

The Redensarten-Index defines Gretchenfrage as “eine wesentliche Gewissensfrage” (a fundamental question of conscience) and as “die entscheidende Frage” (the decisive question).

Wiktionary provides a number of definitions, among which [1], [2], [3], [4] and [5] could all be relevant for Vögtle’s usage. In other words, it might convey the nuance/connotations of  [1] evoking the usage in Faust, [2] weighty/significant, [3] pertaining to religion, [4] calling for a decision, and/or [5] tricky/difficult and therefore hard to answer.

Finally, Jeremy Gray suggests that the “Gretchen Question” is comparable to the English expression “where’s the rub”?, which is if nothing else a brilliant attempt to convey the force of a Goethe reference with the help of an allusion to Shakespeare!

[And Ben Simpson noted in his comment on this post that “the Collins Dictionary defines this as the “sixty-four-thousand-dollar question.”]

In the end, I still remain somewhat uncertain about how exactly this phrase should be translated. In other words, should the translator simply write the “Gretchen question” or should an attempt be made to signal the meaning of this phrase? If the latter, how should this be done? Would the “decisive question” or the “all important question” or the “deeply penetrating question” or the “crucial question” or the “fundamental question” of the Son of Man Problem be adequate? Or would a more expansive solution like “the decisive yet difficult question of conscience that calls for a decision” be required to convey something of the possible range of nuances?! Given the depth of meaning of the term, I suspect that it may be best to retain the phrase the “Gretchen question” as Eugene Boring has done, perhaps with an explanatory footnote.

For some other links that touch on the “Gretchen question”, see here and here and here and here and here and here.

For a complete list of my blog posts, please see here.

For tips on how to use this blog, please see here.

For two interviews with me about the Baylor-Mohr Siebeck Series, see Clifford Kvidahl and Michael Hölscher.

Facebook Page: To receive notifications of future blog posts, please subscribe to this blog and/or like my facebook page here.

German Mondays: Thank you for making it to the end of this blog post! In an effort to provide a sense of regularity and predictability for this blog’s readership, I plan on writing a new post each Monday. So hopefully I will ‘see’ you again in a week’s time. Best, Wayne.

Volker Rabens, “‘Schon jetzt’ und ‘noch mehr’: Gegenwart und Zukunft des Heils bei Paulus und in seinen Gemeinden” (JBTh 2013)

Posted by

6

This post will inaugurate the new category of “German scholars”. The purpose of this category is to introduce junior and senior German scholars and their research to the English speaking world. Each post will consist of (a) my translation of a short passage (ca. 3-7 sentences) that the German author has selected and submitted from one of his or her publications and (b) some biographical-bibliographical information about the scholar in question, which will also be provided by the German author. For my other “German Scholars” posts, see here. For further information on this category, see here.

Today’s “German scholar” is Dr. Volker Rabens of the University of Jena, who is especially well known for his publications on the Spirit in early Christianity and its environment. Indeed, I suspect that a time will come when he may need to be added to Brian LePort’s list of “influential pneumatologists”. Please see here for Dr. Rabens website at the Theologische Fakultät Jena, which includes a picture of him. For his Academia.edu-profile, see here.

I. Translation: Adoption and Pauline Eschatology           

As his passage of choice, Dr. Rabens has submitted the following excerpt from his freshly-minted article “‘Schon jetzt’ und ‘noch mehr’: Gegenwart und Zukunft des Heils bei Paulus und in seinen Gemeinden”, which can be found in Jahrbuch für Biblische Theologie 28 (2013). This volume of JBTh, which is focused on the topic of “Zeit”, includes contributions from many perspectives, including New Testament scholarship, systematic theology, and practical theology (for Rabens essay, see now here)

English Translation (wmc): The motif of adoption, which we have returned to here, allows multiple characteristic features of Pauline eschatology to come to light. υἱοθεσία is a central image/picture for God’s intervention for the liberation of human beings(,) who live under the slavery of the powers. It has a punctiliar aspect, for it marks the entrance into God’s space of salvation, i.e., his family (which is again a ‘local’ aspect of the new age, as became clear in II.1.). But it does not only stand at the beginning of the salvific action of God. Rather, the experience of belonging to the family of God continually changes the believers in their identity and in their being. The Spirit of the Son lives the childship of God in the believers and gives expression to it (Gal 4.6; Rom 8.15). They no longer live under the slavery of the flesh, but due to these new experiences they can win the fight against the temptations of the flesh (Rom 8.12-17; Gal 5.16-18). Finally, adoption as children of God also has a future dimension, for it will only become completely manifest at the end of time (Rom 8.23). In closing we will now take up this future dimension of “time” in Paul in part III.

German version: Das Motiv der Adoption als Kinder Gottes, auf das wir hier zurückgekommen sind, lässt mehrere charakteristische Züge der paulinischen Eschatologie zutage treten. Die υἱοθεσία ist ein zentrales Bild für das Eingreifen Gottes zur Befreiung der Menschen, die unter der Knechtschaft der Mächte leben. Sie hat einen punktuellen Aspekt, denn sie markiert den Eintritt in den Heilsraum Gottes, seine Familie (die wiederum ein ‚lokaler‘ Aspekt des neuen Äons ist, wie in II.1. deutlich wurde). Sie steht aber nicht nur am Beginn des Heilshandeln Gottes. Vielmehr verändert die Erfahrung der Zugehörigkeit zur Familie Gottes kontinuierlich die Gläubigen in ihrer Identität und in ihrem Sein. Der Geist des Sohnes lebt die Gotteskindschaft in den Gläubigen und verleiht ihr Ausdruck (Gal 4,6; Röm 8,15). Sie leben nicht mehr unter der Knechtschaft des Fleisches, sondern können aufgrund dieser neuen Erfahrungen den Kampf gegen die Versuchungen des Fleisches gewinnen (Röm 8,12–17; Gal 5,16–18). Schließlich hat die Adoption als Kinder Gottes auch eine zukünftige Dimension, denn sie wird erst am Ende der Zeit vollkommen offenbar werden (Röm 8,23). Diese zukünftige Dimension von „Zeit“ bei Paulus werden wir nun in Teil III abschließend aufgreifen.

Selective Grammatical Commentary: Rather than writing “who live under the slavery of the powers” I considered writing “living under the slavery of the powers” for the sake of readability, but I think this may slightly shift the sense, which might be problematic. I have added „i.e.” before “his family” for the sake of clarity. I don’t think “intervention” is a particularly good translation for “Eingreifen” but I haven’t found a better one yet. Volker Rabens noted that he discusses Martyn’s language of “invasion” at an earlier point in the essay, but agreed that it would not be a good translation for “Eingreifen” here. I think “punctiliar” is preferable to “punctual” since the latter usually has the meaning of “on time”. I have translated “Heilsraum” as “space of salvation” but “Heilshandeln” as “salvific action”, while recognizing that it might be preferable to translate the former as “salvific space” or the latter as God’s act of salvation for the sake of consistency. I initially translated “Heilsraum” as “sphere of salvation”, but when Volker Rabens alerted me to the fact that “Heilsraum” (arguably) has more personal and “warm” connotations than “Heilssphäre”, I decided to translate it as “space of salvation”, which allowed me to maintain a distinction between “Heilsraum” and “Heilssphäre”. But it could be preferable to retain “sphere” since “space of salvation” sounds a bit awkward. It is very difficult to translate “Gotteskindschaft”, which I have translated with the non-word “childship of God”. Since Volker has presumably chosen it in order to employ gender inclusive language, I don’t think it would be appropriate to render it as “sonship”, though “sonship and daughtership” would be an option (see n. 33 in his article). This whole sentence is very difficult, for which reason I have had to discuss it with Volker Rabens. It is not uncommon to encounter such sentences, for which reason it is invaluable to me if I can have correspondence with the German author of the works I translate. Despite its enigmatic character, we settled on the wooden translation that I have provided, with the acknowledgement that a better translation is probably possible. The translation of “abschließend” is difficult. It sometimes works to translate it as “finally” but I’m not sure if that works well here. I decided to adopt “in closing”, despite the fact that this resulted in the awkward ending “in Paul in part III”. Another option would be to translate “abschließend” more freely with “as a final line of thought”, which could be placed at the end of the sentence. The sentence would then read: In part III we will we will now take up this future dimension of “time” in Paul as a final line of thought. Or, with Judy Redman, one could adopt an even more dynamic translation such as “In the final part of this paper, we will now deal with this ‘future’ dimension of time in Paul.”

II. Biographical-Bibliographical Introduction (as submitted by the author)

I am an enthusiastic Neutestamentler. I enjoy research and lecturing at the Friedrich Schiller University Jena where I currently hold a position as Wissenschaftlicher Mitarbeiter in the New Testament department. The major places in my academic life have been London, Tübingen, Bochum, and now Jena. This means that I’ve come to benefit from the advantages of both Anglo-American and German scholarship on the New Testament, and one of my aims is to foster the dialogue between both traditions (see, e.g., my monograph The Holy Spirit and Ethics in Paul, which has been published both in Germany with Mohr Siebeck as well as in the United States with Fortress Press). My major areas of research are Paul and Pauline theology, early Judaism, Johannine Literature, and I am starting to work on 1 Peter. I have a particular interest in ethics and pneumatology. I am also interested in hermeneutics, particularly in critical methodologies of bringing early Christian ethics into dialogue with contemporary ethics. I enjoy contributing to international conferences, for example to the SBL Annual Meeting, where I am an active member of the steering committee of the “Biblical Ethics” Section.

Addendum: Readers of this blog may also be interested in Dr. Rabens’s PowerPoint on Der Paulinische Sündenbegriff.

For a complete list of my blog posts, please see here.

For tips on how to use this blog, please see here.

For three interviews with me about the BMSEC series, see here, here, and here.

Facebook Page: To receive notifications of future blog posts, please subscribe to this blog and/or like my facebook page here.

German Mondays: Thank you for making it to the end of this blog post! In an effort to provide a sense of regularity and predictability for this blog’s readership, I plan on writing a new post each Monday. So hopefully I will ‘see’ you again in a week’s time. Best, Wayne.