Paul Foster

Memory, Orality, and the Fourth Gospel: Three Dead-Ends in Historical Jesus Research

Three recent approaches to historical Jesus studies are assessed in this article. First, the use of memory studies as a means of validating the historical authenticity of Gospel traditions. Secondly, claims that Gospel traditions should be understood as primarily reaching the evangelists orally, and that this process provides greater confidence in the historicity of such traditions. Thirdly, the Fourth Gospel is seen in some quarters as an important source in historical Jesus research based upon new paradigms and radical redefinitions of historicity. Contrary to such claims, here it is argued that for a series of different reasons that none of these methods offers any significant advance in accessing the ‘historical Jesus’, as that term is usually understood. This is not to say that the methods are without value. Rather, it is the over-confident application of such approaches to the ‘historical Jesus question’ that is critiqued. This is especially the case when it is claimed that they provide a key methodological break-through, enabling reclamation of more Gospel traditions as being securely founded in the ministry of the historical Jesus.

The Epistles of Ignatius of Antioch (Part 2)

Ignatius of Antioch, bishop, martyr and letter writer, provides what is perhaps the clearest snapshot of the diverse expressions of Christianity that existed in part of the eastern Mediterranean world in the early second century, although, admittedly, he himself was not a supporter of such diversity. His writings reflect tensions within Christianity as it struggled to become a more organized and structured movement. Moreover, in these epistles, it is possible to see some highly significant doctrines emerging in embryonic form. Part 2 explores theological concepts and ideas in the letters.

Is it Possible to Dispense with Q

Solutions to the Synoptic Problem that argue for Markan priority, but the non-existence of Q as the basis of the double tradition material continue to attract scholars. The best known of these theories, the Farrer-Goulder hypothesis arguing for Lukes direct use of Matthew, has been championed most recently by Mark Goodacre. He reworks some of the previous arguments in favour of that hypothesis as well as offering a number of new arguments. This paper assesses the validity of such arguments and the claim that it is now possible to finally dispense with Q.

The Epistle to Diognetus

The Epistle to Diognetus appears to have been a text that was as keen for self-destruction as a group of lemmings heading for a precipice. Unknown and uncited in the extant writings of the Church Fathers, it was rescued in the fifteenth century just prior to being used to wrap fish. In the nineteenth century it was destroyed by fire. Here the history, teaching and theology of this text, which offers a robust defence of the Christian faith, are discussed.

Echoes without Resonance: Critiquing Certain Aspects of Recent Scholarly Trends in the Study of the Jewish Scriptures in the New Testament

This article seeks to critique some of the developments in the study of the use of the Jewish scriptures in the New Testament writings. The focus is upon studies that have emerged subsequent to, and are indebted to, Richard Hays’s Echoes of Scripture in the Letters of Paul. The argument here is not that there are no citations, allusions or echoes of the Jewish scriptures in the New Testament writings: such a position would be absurd. Rather, it is observed that many of the proposed new echoes or allusions are highly speculative, the method employed is not capable of self-falsification, and in effect it is a type of radical reader response. That is, if a reader can detect an echo or allusion, then that brings such an intertextual link into existence. Such an approach is acceptable if it is recognized that such studies are engaged in creative theological reflection (perhaps akin to what many New Testament authors were doing themselves), but such methods frequently have little connection with trying to ascertain authorial intention (as difficult as that might be in its own right).

Memory, Orality, and the Fourth Gospel: An Ongoing Conversation with Stan Porter and Hughson T. Ong

At the invitation of the editors, this article interacts with Stan Porter and Hughson Ong’s response to one of my previous articles that appeared in this journal. The original article critiqued the validity of three newer approaches now being applied to historical Jesus research. I am very grateful to Porter and Ong for their discussion and constructive response to that article. In large part, in this article I seek to more fully explain the reasons for the positions stated in the original article, or to clarify points where Porter and Ong have misunderstood my comments or attributed to me positions I do not hold. However, this article extends the earlier discussion by seeking to clarify the nature of the central concerns of historical Jesus research. I am delighted to have received such a detailed response that engages with my earlier work, and I thank Porter and Ong for engaging in this important conversation.

Who Wrote 2 Thessalonians? A Fresh Look at an Old Problem

In light of the New Perspective on Paul, recognition of apocalyptic as a central category in Pauline theology, and the crumbling consensus concerning seven authentic epistles of Paul, it is time to reconsider the arguments for the authenticity of his letters. Here the specific question of the authorship of 2 Thessalonians is re-examined. It is noted that many of the standard arguments for or against the authenticity of 2 Thessalonians are either irrelevant or inconclusive. This discussion seeks to reveal the slender evidential basis of certain ‘classic’ arguments against the authenticity of the letter, and also to present some fresh reasons why the epistle should be regarded as written by Paul. The implications of including 2 Thessalonians among the authentic Pauline writings are then examined. In particular, it is suggested that the development in Paul’s thinking as reflected in 2 Thessalonians reveals that his theological formulations developed in response to situations in his fledgling communities. In this regard, Paul’s theological positions emerged through a negotiated response to pressing pastoral situations.

Marcion: His Life, Works, Beliefs, and Impact

Marcion is perhaps one of the most important figures who shaped the beliefs, structures and collection of scriptural writings of the church in the second century and beyond. Yet the details of his life remain shadowy. No manuscripts of his own works remain, and he was subjected to thoroughgoing attempts to write him out of the history of the church. The impact he had on church beliefs and structures was dramatic. Inadvertently, he helped crystallize many embryonic developments as those opposed to his ideas reacted against him. However, in the modern period, while his importance has been recognised, it has also often been misrepresented. Thus, he has been characterized both as a champion of plurality and also as a reformer seeking a more universal and purer type of faith.

Baptism — The First Five Centuries Everett Ferguson, Baptism in the Early Church: History, Theology and Liturgy in the First Five Centuries (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2009.

Baptism is a controversial subject. Current practice is often justified by appeal to ancient forms of baptism, but too often no actual sources are cited and there is no acknowledgement of the diversity that existed. such fuzzy arguments can now be more easily refuted thanks to the landmark and magisterial work of everett Ferguson. his aim is not to push any particular agenda, rather he simply presents a veritable compendium of data documenting early Christian baptismal practice. his approach is to reference or present primary texts, to describe key features of those text and then to summarize major points or theological outlooks. Ferguson describes his documentation of the data in the following terms: ‘i have attempted to be as complete as possible on the first three centuries but have been content to be progressively less so on the fourth and fifth centuries (where the sources are more abundant) yet still to be comprehensive enough for the work to be representatively comprehensive’ (p. xix). At nearly a thousand pages, one may say with confidence that Ferguson has achieved at least his goal of representative comprehensibility, the truth is he has achieved far more than a mere cataloguing of data. he analyses the sources with great clarity, and moreover he carefully portrays the major trends, and the diverse practices and ideas associated with administering or reflecting upon the baptismal rite. however, perhaps the major achievement of this volume will be the facilitation of informed conversation between those who, while holding different views, are open enough to engage in scholarly dialogue based on what in admittedly complex, and at times highly contested, historical evidence. the book is divided into seven major sections with fifty-five carefully arranged chapters. prior to section one, the introduction offers a detailed assessment of previous studies of the phenomenon of Christian baptism. this is divided into four sub-sections: comprehensive surveys (pp. 1–5); studies with liturgy as the theme (pp. 5–11); topical studies (pp. 11–20); collections of sources (pp. 20–22). this overview includes works from different theological perspectives written in english, German and French. part one investigates the antecedents to Christian baptism. the topics are treated in four chapters. Chapter 2 looks at similar rites involving washings in Greco-roman paganism. of particular interest is Ferguson’s assessment of parallels that have previously been drawn with some of the water-rites in the mystery religions. he states,

60.00/£33.99. pp. xxii + 953. ISBN 978—0—8028—2748—7)

This article reiterates the argument that contrary to previous proposals five pieces of texttual or artefactural evidence (P.Oxy. 2949, P.Oxy 4009. P. Vindob. G 2325. Ostracon [van Haelst Nr. 741], and P. Egerton 2) cannot be identified with any certainty as early fragments of the Gospel of Peter or, as in the case of the ostracon, as offering testimony to the existence of that text. Furthermore, this discussion also responds to the personal attack made in this journal by Prof. Liihrmann who took exception with my arguments that the basis for identifying the fragments as witnesses to the Gospel of Peter was extremely slender and flimsy. Finally, the discussion states categorically, in opposition to Prof. Luhrmanns assertion, that I have worked directly with the Oxyrhynchus fragments.