continued from the previous post
_______________
1. I mentioned my college honor's project on holiness. I mentioned the independent study I did with Dr. Bauer on Hebrews. Since my fleece had turned toward teaching, my eyes were now set on where I might do my doctoral work.
My first year as Teaching Fellow, I presented an academic paper to a few people at Asbury. The title wasn't very clear: "Hebrews and the Rest of God." My friends were curious where the rest of God might be. Apparently it must be hiding in Hebrews.
That probably would have been a much more entertaining paper to listen to. I forget which friend it was who said they didn't understand a word I said. I would go on to present it at a regional SBL in Atlanta that spring, I think 1991.
It felt like a cattle trough. I went up. I read. I came down. Quite underwhelming. I hadn't really left any time for questions -- partially by intent. I threw in a couple German and Hebrew sentences to show I was scholar material. You know, fake it till you make it.
2. Bauer and Dongell had gone to Union Seminary. I wasn't too interested, but I considered it. Paul Achtemeier would have been the person to study with, since he was Paul and the more epistolary part of the New Testament. But as it turned out, he was retiring anyway.
I looked at Notre Dame, but I pulled a classic Ken move. Since their materials said the degree was in theology, I concluded that they didn't have a doctoral program in New Testament. That was before the internet, but I didn't ask anyone either.
It seems like a sent a letter to Richard Hays at Duke, but I don't think he was interested in supervising any dissertations on Hebrews at that time. (or maybe it was me)
3. I sent a letter to James Dunn at Durham. If I couldn't go to the Durham in the US, what about the one in England? I think I have mentioned that his Baptism in the Holy Spirit had come to me by way of Bob Lyon, and it had influenced my understanding of Acts fairly significantly.
So I sent a letter. I mentioned that Baptism had been formative for me. I might have also picked up a copy of his new Parting of the Ways at Joseph Beth. In it, he suggests that perhaps Hebrews combines a Platonic cosmology with a Jewish eschatology. It seemed a kind of extension of Barrett's thesis. That was the angle I suggested I might explore. [1]
He was receptive.
He was a great advocate to have. By the time it was all done, I received an Overseas Research Scholarship (ORS) that brought my tuition down to British cost. He connected me with St. John's College, where I served as Residential Tutor (and fire alarm runner). That gave me free room and board when the dining hall was open. I taught Greek to university students, which gave me a little spending money as well.
As it turns out, if I had not gotten the ORS, teaching Greek would have granted me free tuition. That's quite annoying. It took me 20 years to pay off my loan debt for something that would have been free. Funny how no one mentioned that to me.
4. Dunn was invited to speak at Asbury Seminary during my final year in Wilmore, and I was invited to the dinner. The Q & A after his presentation was probably fairly typical. I remember one fellow being clearly disturbed by it. I don't remember what it was on, but I can imagine a couple areas where he might have been less than orthodox. My guess is that he made more room for a non-Christian Jew to be right with God than would be orthodox.
Dunn inhabited a curious space. He was frequently sought out to speak at evangelical institutions, even ETS. And yet he wasn't fully orthodox in those circles. He told me he didn't look at what he was signing when he signed the inerrancy statement to speak at ETS. He had come from a fairly evangelical Scottish background, I would say. Then he had done his doctoral work at Cambridge under Charlie Moule, I believe.
What I liked about him is that he was really interested in what was true. That doesn't mean he was always right. Not at all. But I loved his method. He really tried to let the chips fall where they would. He rigorously wanted to come to the most likely conclusion given the evidence and sound reason.
At that dinner, Joe Dongell sat next to him. Being a bit mischievious, Joe asked, "So, are there any positions you've taken over the years that you regret? Like, maybe your interpretation of Romans 7?"
Leave it to Joe. In Dunn's two volume Word commentary on Romans, he took what was at the time a traditional view of Romans 7 -- that it is a believer struggling with Sin. Of course, that was about the time that a pivot took place. A strong majority of Romans scholars today -- the consensus in fact -- believe that Romans 7 is a dramatization of a person who wants to keep the Law but doesn't have the Spirit to be able to do so.
But Paul goes on in Romans 8 (as he anticipated in Romans 6 and the beginning of 7) to talk about victory over the power of Sin through the Holy Spirit. The consensus interpretation, by the way, fits very well with Wesleyan theology. In that regard, Dunn's commentary was almost out of date on Romans 7 when it came off the press.
But his response to Joe was unsurprising. "No, I feel very comfortable with my conclusions on Romans 7."
[1] I can't remember if it was purely providential or great luck that he had taken a similar position in Partings to Barrett. Did I realize the overlap or was it completely unintentional?
No comments:
Post a Comment