Recently (November 14–20), I attended the annual meetings of the Evangelical Theological Society (ETS), the Institute of Biblical Research (IBR), and the Society of Biblical Literature (SBL) in Washington, D.C. I have participated in these events for the past 15 or 20 years, and every year this is an excellent opportunity to stay abreast of developments in the field and to renew friendships and make new acquaintances. In what follows allow me to give you a brief report “from the frontlines,” as it were.

At the ETS meeting, I attended a session devoted to Bob Yarbrough’s book, The Salvation-Historical Fallacy? moderated by Scott Hafemann (Gordon-Conwell), with an opening presentation by Yarbrough and responses by Elmer Martens and Frank Thielman (Beeson Divinity School). While duly noting the potential pitfalls of a salvation-historical approach, Yarbrough sought to make a case for the viability of a judicious use of it in contemporary scholarship. In their responses, Martens noted several concerns (none of which insurmountable, in my opinion); and Thielman strongly affirmed Yarbrough’s assessment. An interesting discussion ensued among the standing-room-only crowd (about 75 people packed into an all-too-small room).

Other interesting papers and discussions centered around Harold Hoehner’s (Dallas Theological Seminary) presentation on women pastors (also standing-room-only) and on the Trinity and the eternal subordination of the Son. On the former issue, Hoehner sought to make a case for the gift of “pastor-teacher” being given to women as well as men. On the latter issue, Bruce Ware (Southern Seminary) was pitted against Kevin Giles (Australia), who charged that Ware quoted Augustine out of context. Ware showed (successfully, in my opinion) that it was actually Giles who quoted Augustine (and Ware) out of context by omitting a portion of the source quote (see the article on the Ware/Giles exchange at the CBMW website; see also the article on Ware’s election as president at BPNews).

I also attended sessions on interpreting the Synoptic Gospels (by various members of the Dallas Theological Seminary faculty) and on Larry Hurtado’s book Lord Jesus Christ. In the session on the Gospels, one of the DTS faculty made a surprising case that Matthew could have transposed a post-resurrection event to the pre-resurrection period of Jesus’ ministry (following a suggestion by Davies and Allison in their ICC commentary on Matthew). Under fairly pointed questioning in the Q & A period following his presentation, the presenter seemed to backpedal somewhat, saying he did not necessarily agree with this but did not necessarily have a problem with it, but several in the audience were still left wondering how this and some of the other theses presented in the paper fell comfortably within the context of ETS or DTS. In the session devoted to Hurtado’s work, Hurtado magisterially defended his work against the critiques by some of the other panel members, which included Richard Burridge, Scot McKnight, and others. This does not necessarily mean that Hurtado is right in absolutely everything he says in his book, but that anyone would critique him better do his homework, because Hurtado is highly articulate and extremely well-researched on this topic, which has occupied him for decades.

The ETS banquet on Thursday night was followed by the presidential address of ETS president Edwin Yamauchi. As is customary, the address will be published in the March 2007 issue of the Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society. At the business session on Friday, Bruce Ware of Southern Seminary was unanimously elected as Vice President of the Society, which puts him in line for the ETS presidency in 2009. Dr. Ware has been an outspoken opponent of Open Theism and has served as president of the Council of Biblical Manhood and Womanhood (CBMW). I also attended the very moving and spiritually nurturing lecture by John Piper on William Tyndale, in which Piper challenged his audience not to be Erasmian but to be Tyndales; not to minimize doctrine, especially sin, hell, wrath, and grace; and to be willing to pay the price for being followers of Christ and the cross and to suffer. Finally, I should also mention a very interesting (and largely compelling) critique of James Dunn’s Remembering Jesus I attended by Paul Eddy.

At this year’s IBR meeting, on Friday night Klyne Snodgrass (North Park) delivered a paper on parable research. Snodgrass took his departure from the German scholar Adolf Jülicher and proposed a new way of classifying Jesus’ parables in the Gospels. Snodgrass’s paper seemed interesting and suggestive to at least some in the audience until Craig Blomberg got up as the formal respondent and provided a rather compelling critique of Snodgrass’s paper. Blomberg himself has argued in several publications that the parables typically have a tripartite literature structure, which in some cases is reduced to a bipartite or even singular-unit structure. Unfortunately, the person who was supposed to give the opening devotional was stuck in traffic, so that the meeting proceeded without it.

The following morning (Saturday) Robert Stein gave a presentation on the ending of Mark’s Gospel in which he argued that (a) the “short ending” of Mark is not the actual original ending of Mark but (b) none of the available “longer” endings is the actual ending either, concluding that (c) the actual ending of Mark is lost. Formal respondent Craig Evans got up and said he agreed with everything Stein had said and added that this, on the assumption of Markan priority, leaves us with Matthew’s ending as the closest we have to the now-lost ending of Mark. The contrast between the sharp disagreement Friday night and the unanimity Saturday morning could not have been more pronounced.

Owing to my daughter’s dress rehearsal and orchestra performance early the following week, I had to leave the Society of Biblical Literature meeting early, but managed to attend briefly a meeting of the John, Jesus, and History group (again, a standing-room-only situation in an inadequate location). Ben Witherington made a case for Lazarus as the Beloved Disciple in John’s Gospel in light of the designation for Lazarus as “the one loved” by Jesus in John 11. Papers were also presented by Craig Evans, Derek Tovey, Sean Freyne, and Richard Bauckham. Bauckham has an interesting new book out, Jesus and the Eyewitnesses (Eerdmans).

In my view Witherington is far too quick to dismiss the external evidence for Johannine apostolic authorship as divided. There is very little evidence for Lazarus being the author of John’s Gospel apart from the surface similarity of which Witherington makes so much. He was not one of the Twelve; is never paired with Peter anywhere in the New Testament tradition as the Beloved Disciple regularly is in John’s Gospel and elsewhere (see the monograph by Kevin Quast, Peter and the Beloved Disciple); and so on. To me this seems to be an example of a narrative approach gone awry.

This, to be sure, is only a very partial roundup of these recent meetings. I hope you find it nonetheless informative and helpful. Please let me know if I can provide any additional information on any of these or other topics or contact the presenters directly.

NOTE: For a survey of recent scholarship, see my lecture “Of Professors and Madmen: Currents in Contemporary New Testament Scholarship” published in Faith & Mission.

Technorati Tags: ETS, IBR, SBL

by Andreas Köstenberger - December 1st, 2006.
Filed under: Bible, Gender Issues, Theology.