Francis Watson

Paul, Judaism, and the Gentiles : a sociological approach

Preface Abbreviations 1. Paul, the Reformation and modern scholarship 2. The origins of Pauls view of the law 3. The Galatian crisis 4. Philippi, Corinth and the Judaizers 5. The situation in Rome 6. The social function of Romans: Rom. 2 7. The social function of Romans: Rom. 3-4 8. The social function of Romans: Rom. 5-8 9. The social function of Romans: Rom. 9-11 10. Conclusion Notes Bibliography Index.

Bible, Theology and the University: a Response To Philip Davies

This paper responds to the claim that, in a university context, it is inappropriate for biblical interpretation to be influenced, directly or indirectly, by theological concerns. Far from assimilating biblical studies to other humanities disciplines, this exclusion- order would in fact make biblical studies an anomaly. Yet, on theological grounds, it is inadequate to counter the exclusion-order by appealing to a pluralistic meta- perspective within which various modes of interpretation (including theological ones) all have their own relative legitimacy.

Q as hypothesis : a study in methodology.

Arguments for the Q hypothesis have changed little since B. H. Streeter. The purpose of this article is not to advocate an alternative hypothesis but to argue that, if the Q hypothesis is to be sustained, the unlikelihood of Lukes dependence on Matthew must be demonstrated by a systematic and comprehensive reconstruction of the redactional procedures entailed in the two hypotheses. The Q hypothesis will have been verified if (and only if) it generates a more plausible account of the Matthean and Lukan redaction of Mark and Q than the corresponding account of Lukes use of Mark and Matthew.

A response from Francis Watson

It is an honour and a pleasure to respond to the comments of J. Louis Martyn and Troels Engberg-Pedersen. Both of them have read my book with care, and have presented many of its central emphases with clarity and insight. The questions they raise are pertinent ones – as one would expect from the authors of two of the most interesting and innovative works of Pauline scholarship to have been published in recent years. I refer to Martyns commentary on Galatians and Engberg-Pedersens Paul and the Stoics – both, in their different ways, the kind of ground-breaking work that keeps the field of Pauline studies from succumbing entirely to an endless rehearsal of already familiar positions. I also note in passing that my two reviewers probably differ more sharply from each other than either of them does from me. It is not easy to harmonise Martyns apocalyptic Paul with Engberg-Pedersens Stoic one, and the difference tends to focus on issues of divine agency which recur in their responses to my own work.

Theology and Music

Our topic is theology and music — the conjunction expressing the modest hope that some useful demarcations and interactions maybe identifiable here. We are in no position to attempt, even in outline, a theology of music. Theologies of lay claim to a non-theological field in its entirety; they attempt to annex it, to re-establish it on what are taken to be its authentic theological foundations. They tend to find their most congenial subject-matter outside the normal sphere of the theological disciplines. But no theological annexation of music is conceivable or desirable. The question is rather whether any theologically worthwhile relationship between the two disciplines can be established at all. To pose this problem in its strongest form, I shall have little to say here about the use of music within the Christian community and its worship, confining myself to the more-or-less ‘secularized’ music of the European classical tradition of the past three hundred years or so. And I shall omit all consideration of the broader topic of ‘theology and the arts’. It does not seem particularly helpful to assume that such diverse practices as music, sculpture and drama are best considered in parallel to one another.

Strategies of Recovery and Resistance Hermeneutical Reflections On Genesis 1-3 and Its Pauline Reception

Two contrasting hermeneutical strategies, recovery and resistance, seek respectively to reassert the autonomy of a text over against a history of misreading, and to expose a texts oppressive tendencies. The narrative of Genesis 1-3, read within a feminist perspective, is paradigmatic in this respect: it can be read both as a patriarchal text to be resisted and as an egalitarian text to be recovered from a long history of distorted reading. Within a Christian context, the framework for interpreting this passage was established by certain Pauline statements which use it to promote patriarchy within the Church. While the Genesis narrative does not prescribe these interpretative state ments, it is nevertheless open to them. Resistance may therefore be the more appro priate strategy.

The Authority of the Voice: A Theological Reading of 1 Cor 11.2–16

The polarity between ‘hierarchical’ and ‘egalitarian’ perspectives on the relationship of male and female is not the best way to approach this passage (1 Cor 11.2–16), which interprets this relationship as one of interdependence . This interdependence is expressed in the shared practices of prophecy and prayer, in which the dialogue between God and the congregation is articulated. In Pauls proposed modification to these practices, female head-covering – probably a veil – serves as a symbol of womens freedom from an erotic basis for the relationship of male and female derived from creation.

A Response to Richard Bauckham and Heike Omerzu

My two reviewers choose to focus on the central section of my book and to pass over its wider argument, which is an attempt to rehabilitate the canonical form of the fourfold gospel as an object of study in its own right. Both reviewers are understandably preoccupied with my critique of the Q hypothesis and with the ‘L/M’ and ‘SC’ hypotheses with which I propose to replace it, and much of my response is therefore concerned with these issues. I also engage with Bauckham’s attempt to distance non-canonical gospel texts from the canonical ones, and with Omerzu’s proposed ‘complexity theory’ of gospel origins.

Book Review: Biblical Narrative in the Philosophy of Paul RicoeurBiblical Narrative in the Philosophy of Paul Ricoeur: A Study in Hermeneutics and Theology, VanhoozerKevin J. (Cambridge University Press1990), xiii + 308 pp, £30 hbk: A Study in Hermeneutics and Theology

But I should not like to end on a negative note. This is a profound book which moves thinking about the Bible in the Christian faith on to a new level. The musical analogy is fresh, inspiring, and liberating, and even the incidentals, such as discussion of particular Fathers, open ones eyes to new insights. This is a book to read and re-read, and the perfect antidote for anyone who suspects that theology is dull or lifeless, or that there is nothing new to say.

The Social Function of Mark's Secrecy Theme

The recent publication of a collection of essays on Mark’s ’messianic secret’ 1 reveals how far we still are from a consensus as to the meaning of this puzzling theme. However, it is perhaps fair to say that two of the views represented there have not gained widespread support: the conservative view that the secret is to be interpreted historically in the context of Jesus’ ministry (Dunn2), and the view that it seeks to explain the failure of Israel to believe the gospel (Burki113). There appear to be two main ways of interpreting Mark’s secrecy theme: first, the view that its various aspects do not form a coherent whole, and must be interpreted individually (Luz, Raisanen, Robinson~), and second, the view that it states Mark’s understanding of the ’history of revelation’, according to which Jesus is truly revealed as the Son of God only in his death and resurrection (Strecker, Schweizer, DahI5). Some overlap between the two views is possible: those who distinguish the ’messianic secret’ from the ’miracle secret’ may interpret the former in terms of the ’history of revelation’ view. It is the purpose of the present article to argue in opposition to these two views (1) that Mark’s secrecy theme is coherent; (2) that it is concerned not with the ’history of revelation’ but with a doctrine of predestination; and (3) that this must be understood in terms of its social function within Mark’s community.’