Also, in October, Zondervan will publish the first volume in the new Biblical Theology of the New Testament (BTNT) series, Dr. Köstenberger’s A Theology of John’s Gospel and Letters: The Word, the Christ, the Son of God. For an interview with Dr. Köstenberger on this new series and on his Johannine theology, see the video on the Zondervan website. Then scroll down to find interview on BTNT series.

Here is what one reviewer said about the book: “Here is an anomaly: Christians outside the West dying because they believe their faith is true and Christians inside the West doffing their hats to the idea and then looking the other way! This book explores what it should mean to say that Christians know the truth, doing so in ways that are searching, sure-footed, biblically convincing, and intellectually satisfying.” (David F. Wells, Andrew Mutch Distinguished Professor of Historical and Systematic Theology, Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary).

For those of you who might be interested in listening to that radio interview, here is the link: www.sermonaudio.com/knowingthetruth.

While there have been recent, fine studies on aspects of John’s doctrine of God, it is surprising that none summarizes and synthesizes what John has to say about God as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. In order to fill this gap, Scott R. Swain and I have written a fresh examination of John’s trinitarian vision.

Part One situates John’s trinitarian teaching within the context of Second Temple Jewish monotheism. Part Two examines the Gospel narrative in order to trace the characterization of God as Father, Son and Spirit, followed by a brief synthesis. Part Three deals more fully with major trinitarian themes in the Fourth Gospel, including its account of Jesus Christ, the Holy Spirit, and mission. A final chapter discusses the significance of John’s Gospel for the church’s doctrine of the Trinity, and a brief conclusion summarizes some practical implications.

The book is volume 24 in the New Studies in Biblical Theology (NSBT) series (series editor: D. A. Carson). The volume has just been released in the UK by InterVarsity Press. It is scheduled for release in the US by InterVarsity Press, in July 2008. In the series preface, D. A. Carson says about Father, Son and Spirit: The Trinity and John’s Gospel: “This present volume is the joint product of a Neutestamentler and a systematic theologian. In their collaboration they have simultaneously attempted a detailed exegetical and theological understanding of what the Fourth Gospel says about God, using the categories of that Gospel itself, and mature understanding of the links between that text and the systematic formulations of what came to be called the doctrine of the Trinity. In what sense is it proper to think of the doctrine of God in John’s Gospel as trinitarian? Some are so suspicious of links between biblical exegesis and systematic theology that they will deplore any ostensible connections between the two, afraid that the latter will domesticate the former and stain it with anachronism, or that the former will dilute the latter and render it insipid. Drs Köstenberger and Swain, thankfully, are not numbered among them. …”

It is hoped that this volume will be a blessing to the church, that community gathered into the fellowship of the Father and the Son by the indwelling of the Holy Spirit.

Albert Schweitzer (1875–1965) was born January 14, 1875 at Kaysersberg in Upper Alsace, Germany, the son of a Lutheran pastor. In 1893, he began his studies at the University of Strassburg, taking classes in New Testament with the well-known German scholar Heinrich Julius Holtzmann. From 1902 until 1912, he served in Strassburg as a lecturer in New Testament, as pastor of a church, and as director of the Thomasstift. Apart from being a New Testament scholar, Schweitzer also earned a medical doctorate and was an accomplished organist and authority on the music of Johann Sebastian Bach. Starting in 1913, with occasional interruptions, Schweitzer served as a missionary doctor in Lambaréné, equatorial West Africa. During this time Schweitzer continued his work as a scholar, contributing, among other works, a study on The Mysticism of Paul the Apostle. Schweitzer also received the 1952 Nobel peace prize on December 10, 1953. He died at Lambaréné on September 4, 1965.

Doubtless Schweitzer’s most influential scholarly work was his survey of studies on the life of Jesus, The Quest of the Historical Jesus: A critical study of its progress from Reimarus to Wrede, a work he wrote not even being thirty years old. In this book, written in a lively style, Schweitzer discusses and critiques approximately 250 (mostly German) works on Jesus in the previous (nineteenth) century. In the end, he concludes that writing a life of Jesus is impossible, because we do not have the data for a biography in the modern sense. Those who were trying to do so nonetheless, according to Schweitzer, ended up domesticating Jesus, removing him from his time and transposing him into their own in order to render him intelligible to a modern audience. But Jesus refuses to be domesticated, and thus all liberal modern lives are blind alleys, falsifications rather than expositions of Jesus’ life.

For his part, Schweitzer endeavored to understand Jesus within his own first-century Jewish framework, presenting him under the rubric of what he calls “thoroughgoing eschatology” (though what he meant more closely approximates what today is understood as “apocalyptic,” that is, the expectation that the world will come to an end through the cataclysmic, end-time intervention of God). Within this framework, Schweitzer understood Jesus’ preaching of the kingdom of God as the proclamation that in him, Jesus, the end of time had dawned and was imminent. Yet Jesus died, and history failed to come to an end. By implication, Jesus was mistaken. While not followed in every respect by anyone, Schweitzer’s work has cast a long, influential shadow on subsequent generations of German and Anglo-American scholarship. The importance of Jesus’ Jewishness and his first-century Palestinian milieu is widely recognized today. At the same time, many would concur that Schweitzer underestimated the role of Jesus’ resurrection in spawning a movement that extends to every corner of the globe.

Bibliography:

Baird, William. History of New Testament Research. Volume Two: From Jonathan Edwards to Rudolf Bultmann. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2003, pp. 229–37, 508–9.

Neill, Stephen and Tom Wright. The Interpretation of the New Testament 1861–1986. 2^nd ed. Oxford/New York: Oxford University Press, 1988, pp. 205–15.

Schweitzer, Albert. The Quest of the Historical Jesus: A critical study of its progress from Reimarus to Wrede. Ed. and trans. John Bowden. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2001 [1^st orig. ed. 1906; 2^nd ed. 1913].

Idem. Out of my Life and Thought: An Autobiography. 2^nd ed. Trans. A. B. Lemke. London: George Allen & Unwin, 1954 [1931].

Idem. The Mysticism of Paul the Apostle. Trans. W. Montgomery. New York: Henry Holt & Co., 1931 [1930].

Stephen Neill famously stated that the Germans never bury their scholarly corpses or, as he puts it, “no ghosts are ever laid in Germany.” He remarked that in the writings of Bultmann, for example, “we encounter the full procession of the ghosts.” I’m not sure if those of us in other countries are doing any better. Regardless of where the truth lies in a given instance, surely, not everything proposed by scholars should be regarded as genuine progress. But if not, then at least some of our scholarly work is in fact a step backwards (though most of us will of course find this difficult to admit), unless you are a hard-core postmodernist (if there is such a thing). This leads me to the question I am posing for us to discuss today: “What constitutes progress in biblical studies generally, and Johannine studies in particular?”

To my mind the most fascinating issue raised by Don Carson’s essay is precisely that of “progress” in biblical scholarship. As recently as in 1990 Moody Smith could state without fear of contradiction that Lou Martyn’s version of the “Johannine community hypothesis” constituted one of the assured paradigms in Johannine study on which others could confidently build their hypotheses. A decade and a half later, this consensus has significantly eroded. In fact, some former proponents of the hypothesis have publicly renounced it, while others have severely criticized it as inadequately taking into account the testimony of the early church and as being at odds with first-century Christianity, not to mention the difficulty the Johannine mission theme presents for radically sectarian readings of John’s Gospel.

What only a short while ago seemed to be a common foundation of Johannine scholarship has thus given way to a state of things in which “the center does not hold.” Don Carson speaks of the “balkanization” of Johannine studies and notes the absence of widely accepted paradigms. In fact, it appears that, efforts at integration notwithstanding (such as our discussion here today), the discipline is in considerable ferment if not disintegration.

This state of affairs, in my view, is tied to the notion of “progress” in biblical scholarship. Too often, certain views in Johannine scholarship have been overturned not on the basis of new, better evidence, but owing to different philosophical presuppositions that led scholars to abandon established views in favor of those more in keeping with their larger perspectives on Scripture. At the end of his essay, Don Carson suggests that there may be certain benefits to what he calls “confessional” Johannine scholarship (as well as perils to “dogmatic anti-confessionalism”). I think he has put his finger on a key question, namely whether rejecting various doctrinal commitments as out of bounds for biblical scholarship has really advanced the discipline and led to discernible progress.

In fact, I would go even further than Carson. To the extent that recent Johannine scholarship turns out to be a blind alley (a Sackgasse), if not a step in the wrong direction, rather than politely compliment such scholarship for its valuable contribution to the field, we should refuse to call this “progress.” “Progress” in Johannine scholarship should not be conceived in evolutionary terms as if “more recent” necessarily meant “more accurate.” Rather, the burden of proof should be placed on newer theories to show how they are superior to established ways of conceiving of the nature of John’s Gospel.

So I ask: Is it possible that what is viewed by some as progress may in fact be regress? In this postmodern world paradigms are increasingly rare. Most likely the future will witness increasing atomization and polarization between “confessional” and critical scholarship. Ideally, the text of John’s Gospel and the available evidence could serve as common points of reference and as a proving ground for the hypotheses of scholars from a variety of viewpoints and faith commitments. Time will tell if this is a realistic possibility.

In the meantime, I think, perhaps we should follow Nicodemus’ (and Joseph of Arimathea’s) example and give some scholarly theories in Johannine studies their well-deserved burial. In the salvation-historical scheme of things, burial precedes resurrection. Thank you very much.

1. Who?

Who are you? Are you writing self-consciously and professedly as a believer? Or are you writing covertly, in a chameleon-like fashion taking on the color of your environment? To other believers, you use fervent Christian language; to critical scholars, you hide behind scholarly jargon?

Who you are is a function of your calling from God, your unique background, your formative experiences, skills and education, expertise, and so on. Ask yourself: What is the contribution God wants you to make that no one else can make? Don’t compare yourself with others. Don’t be competitive. Make the most of the potential God has given you.

2. What?

On what subject do you want to write? What is your passion? What is the message burning in your heart? Is it heresy you want to combat? Is it a doctrine you want to expound? Do you want to educate God’s people? Set some error straight? Alert your readers to some overlooked truth? Unearth some little-known fact or figure?

3. Where?

Where should you do your research and writing? In your home office? At work? Should you go away somewhere? I know people who swap offices with a colleague or use a friend’s apartment while he is at work to get away from the office. How do you avoid distractions and interruptions? How do you make room for larger blocks of time?

4. In what way?

How should you do your research? How should you write? This is what the entire seminar was about. I led the class in a devotional from Luke 1:1–4; we went on a tour of the library; and every student was assigned to read The Craft of Research by Wayne Booth, Gregory Colomb, and Joseph Williams and Style by Joseph Williams.

5. Why?

Why do you want to research and write? To get rich and famous (very unlikely for a theologian or biblical scholar)? To get promoted? Because you’re supposed to? To get recognition for yourself? Or do you want to minister to people and to serve and glorify God? What is it that motivates you and fuels your desire to research and write?

6. When?

When should you write? Should you wait for a sabbatical or for a sudden influx of inspiration? After my return from my first sabbatical, I decided to operate in continual sabbatical mode; I can’t afford to wait for my next sabbatical. If writing is a calling, we will want to pursue that calling. Like Paul, we will say, “Woe to me if I don’t write!”

So, when should you write? To paraphrase Paul once more, “In season and out of season.” This will mean that you will make research and writing a priority. Research and writing take time, effort, and commitment. Determine the amount, and level, of writing God has called you to do, and then commit yourself to follow through and be disciplined.

7. For whom?

Who is your primary audience? Is it your scholarly peers? Your students? You, yourself? Ultimately, your primary audience should be God. You should be writing for him, it is him you should want to please. If you’re writing for your academic peers, you will easily get caught in intramural disputes. But if you write to please God, you will keep your eyes on him.

If you have read these random thoughts up until now, is there any advice you would like to add? Did I forget any W’s? What have you found helpful as you have reflected on your calling as a writer? Or, if you are an aspiring writer, what are your struggles and hopes? Writing is one of my passions, so I’d love to hear from any of you on this topic.