During my last visit to D.C. to give a lecture at the Museum of the Bible,  Ann and I went to the Library of Congress, which she had never seen before, but I had been there once.  It resides up on the hill directly behind the Capitol building (see above).  It requires timed tickets to get in, but the entrance is free and it is well worth the visit.  One needs a separate ticket to get into the downstairs reading... Read more

 Read more

https://youtu.be/QBY9DvHi4Tk Read more

Q. I was rather surprised with your endorsement of Schweitzerian eschatology as an appropriate reading of Paul’s eschatology and also even Jesus’s eschatology? I really don’t think this is a fair reading of Paul.  The most one can say is that Paul reckoned with the possible imminence of Christ’s return during his life, but since Christ was coming like a thief in the night, no one knew when that would be, including Paul.   Especially in Philippians, Paul reckons with two... Read more

Q.  But this is not the only way Paul is radical. He thinks the new covenant is the fulfillment of the Abrahamic covenant not the continuation of the Mosaic covenant.  This seems quite clear from Gal. 4.  The Mosaic covenant is pro tempore— it served as a child-minder Paul says until the Messiah came.   We can debate what Paul means by ‘Judaism’ in Galatians but the least likely answer is that it doesn’t have something to do with Jewish religion. ... Read more

Q. Let’s have a good chat about the recent tour de force attempts by Nanos, Fredricksen and others to insist Paul fits within the confines of early Judaism. As you say there are as many different takes on that as there are advocates of that view. It kind of reminds me of the diversity in the new Perspectives on Paul group. I will be frank and say that I think my view of those sorts of attempts are excellent challenges... Read more

Q.  One of the issues you bring up at various points in your new book is what I would call the problem of anachronism. This can involve reading one’s own ideas into the text of Paul’s letters, but it can also involve taking some of Paul’s thoughts out of context and using them to construct one’s own theology (which one equates with Paul’s).  I certainly grant that these things happen, but I don’t think it’s inevitable.  While I agree that... Read more

Q.  I found your chapter on God is Witness absolutely right on target. Paul is suggesting God himself bears witness to Paul’s Gospel work. Paul is not merely invoking God in an oath fashion in regard to his not lying.  And understanding how that rhetoric works is nicely unpacked in that chapter.   I have a doctoral student who is planning to write her thesis on oaths and witness in Paul.  I’ll let you know how it goes.   A. Oh,... Read more

Q. I agree with much of your critique of Dunn and Wright. Paul is not merely critiquing the use of the boundary rituals— circumcision, sabbath, food laws, the so called badges that distinguish Judaism from other religious orientations.  He is not merely critiquing some kind of nationalism.  To the contrary, Paul in Gal. 4 is talking about a series of covenants succeeding one another, not merely problems with distinctive practices.  And I absolutely reject the notion that Paul is solely... Read more

Q. Let’s talk about Paul and the Law for a bit. I am not buying the argument that Paul was simply Torah true, and bless his heart he has been misread. I find Fredricksen’s argument (and others) quite unconvincing on this point, especially in light of what Paul says in Galatians 4 about the Mosaic covenant being pro tempore until God sent forth his Son. To which Paul adds that it is the Abrahamic covenant he is prepared to link... Read more