The Hebrews conference was helpful to solidify thoughts and reassure one of the lay of the land. I was especially impressed by the theologians. These people are trying to work out distinctions between God's impassibility and immutability while dancing with the biblical text. I watched the familiar clash of the principal of "theology can't contradict the text" and "theology deals with things way beyond the text." I think this is a faulty paradigm.
But John Webster did an admirable job. He's a Scot and a systematic theologian. Incredibly intelligent. One of the most profound things he said was "There is no historical Jesus, only the incarnate second person of the Trinity." Profound doesn't mean right necessarily, but it is ingenious.
Bruce McCormick is a theologian from Princeton. Again, his command of the theologies of everyone from the early fathers to the post-Reformation was incredibly impressive.
Richard Bauckham is also incredibly clever, even if I frequently disagree with him. His cleverest suggestion is that the "name Christ inherited more excellent than the angels" (Heb. 1:4) is Yahweh. He inherits it because it is the name of his father, while "Son" is not a name one inherits. I think this argument probably reads in modern definitions into these words but it is the typical genius of Bauckham.
Richard Hays did a good job of introducing what I am calling "a new perspective on Hebrews," a subject on which I have been preparing an article with my own twist. I'm quite excited, although I usually find that others aren't nearly as excited about my ideas as I am. Hays gave us a helpful way of conceptualizing this new perspective. He suggested we forget that we know anything about Christianity and read through Hebrews as if we were a Jew reading a Jewish author.
Harold Attridge impresses me by his instantaneous ability to respond to any question. Most seem to pause and contemplate for a moment when asked a challenging question. He, being from the northeast anyway, talks quickly and responds instantaneously. He was treated as the Hebrews patriarch of the conference. He was the reference.
Turning away from impressive people, Angie and I watched a large, angry march of anti-Israel demonstrators today. We just have no idea in America how angry the world is right now about all these things.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
This is precisely how I feel around you.
I am frustrated with the rest of the world. Ok, not all of it, but mainly those focused on Israel's destruction. Perhaps this is still the result of them not entirely completing God's instructions for when they entered the land He gave them.
I'm curious how you decide where we ought and ought not get involved in the world (in relation to the discussion of the middle east).
Interesting to hear of your conference trip, Ken. I bet it was a real Bible-Geek-Fest. Did you guys sit around the ruins of St. Andrews Cathedral and tell jokes to each other in ancient Aramaic? Tell the truth!
Just kidding.
Hey -- I saw that Ben Witherington put up his paper on Hebrews from the conference... but he didn't put up his list of royal smart people he saw there (I'm sure you would have been on the list) :-)
Now on my to-do list: Reading "Understanding the Book of Hebrews: The Story Behind the Sermon" by Ken Schenck
That's a sermon Witherington gave in St. Salvador's church the last day of the conference. He had a vision of John Knox in the middle and started saying something about tearing down the idols in the cathedral (actually I wasn't there for his sermon).
I wouldn't be on Witherington's list of smart people there. I couldn't even get them to give me the microphone. I think my interpretations of Hebrews are as good as those of anyone there and in many cases better--most of the speakers were not even Hebrews scholars and disclaimers of not having done much in Hebrews were a regular feature in presentations. But these all had a voice. I did not. I left feeling very powerless in the world of scholars with power.
Post a Comment