Stanley E. PorterCritiques

How does the New Testament echo the Old? Which versions of the Hebrew Scriptures were authoritative for New Testament writers? The appearance of concepts, images, and passages from the Old Testament in the books of the New raises important questions about textual versions, allusions, and the differences between ancient and modern meaning.
Written by ten distinguished scholars, Hearing the Old Testament in the New Testament first lays out significant foundational issues and then systematically investigates the use of the Old in the New Testament. In a culminating essay Andreas Köstenberger both questions and affirms the other contributors' findings. These essays together will reward a wide range of New Testament readers with a wealth of insights.

A great book with interesting suggestions, I personally like the suggestion of moving away from an eclectic text and using one manuscript with cited variants though it will have trouble being accepted by scholars since the eclectic text is well established

My first exposure to Paul's life, thought, and letters came in my second year of Bible College when I was assigned F. F. Bruce's magisterial Paul: Apostle of the Heart Set Free for a Pauline Literature class. One could view Stanley E. Porter's Apostle Paul as a necessary update to Bruce's work (xi). Porter begins with Paul's background and reconstructs a chronology of his life and writing before analyzing the thirteen Pauline letters.

Porter is a specialist in the Greek language—a strength that shines through on almost every page. His knowledge of Greek allows him to situate Paul's writing within broader Greek cultural norms, shining light on various details of Paul's letters.

Particularly interesting was Porter's section on pseudonymity. It is frequently argued that some of Paul's letters are pseudonymous (written by someone other than Paul). Porter forces the reader to confront the implications of this view. First, it is fundamentally deceitful. The church from the start viewed the thirteen letters as Pauline which led to their canonical status. To believe that someone other than Paul wrote in the apostle's name means the other person wrote deceptively. Second, there is the issue of double-pseudonymity. If you believe someone other than Paul wrote the letter, then the recipient is also in question, adding another layer of confusion. Porter repeatedly emphasizes textual evidence (or the lack thereof) over speculation and questionable hypotheses. The problem of pseudonymity, "combined with the evidence available, points to the Pauline letters being actually authentic" (168).

The New Perspective on Paul (led chiefly in various forms by Sanders, Dunn, and Wright) is another major area of debate in Pauline theology. Porter holds the traditional view against the New Perspective. For Porter, the New Perspective is not supported by Jewish evidence. Furthermore, the New Perspective misunderstands Paul's use of language, especially the way that Paul understands "law."

A major strength of this book is Porter's balanced handling of the evidence for every Pauline question and debate. While he is never shy about stating his preferred option, the reader has unprejudiced evidence at hand to pursue a different reading.

I suspect The Apostle Paul will inspire a new generation of Pauline students to dig deep into the thirteen letters that bear his name.

Interpretation of the Bible is called legion for they are many. There are many hermeneutical approaches and countless interpreters. Of course not all interpretations are equal, some fail to attend to important aspects of the hermeneutical process. In order to read the Bible responsibly, you need to pay attention to the original intent, the theological tradition, the church, contemporary issues, etc. Stanely Porter and Matthew Malcolm have edited together eight brief essays advocating for responsible interpretation of the Bible in an age of plurality. While the contributors share broad theological commitments, they each speak with their own voice, in their own discipline and bring their unique gifts to the hermeneutical task.

The essays in The Future of Biblical Interpretation: Responsible Plurality in Biblical Hermeneutics are book-ended by an introduction and a conclusion from Porter and Malcolm (who each also contribute an essay). In between these, each contributor unfolds what he (and they are all he) what it means to interpret the Bible responsibly. Anthony Thistleton’s essay sets the tone for the volume, where he discusses responsible plurality and the future of biblical interpretation. In each of the chapters that follow, the contributors discuss one aspect of hermeneutical responsibility. These include:

Theological Responsibility (Stanley Porter
Scriptural Responsibility (Richard Briggs)
Kerygmatic Responsibility (Matthew Malcolm)
Historical Responsibility (James Dunn)
Critical Responsibility (Robert Morgan)
Ecclesial Responsibility (Walter Moberly)
Here is a brief walk through:

In chapter one, Thistleton defines what he calls ‘responsible plurality’ by contrasting Mikhail Bakhtin’s concept of ‘polyphonic meaning’ with Jacques Lyotard’s pluraformity. The former approach acknowledges the diversity of genre, authorial intent, as well as interpretive approaches. Lyotard’s approach relativizes all meaning and therefore marginalizes the notion of responsible reading (22). Thistleton argues for a polyphonic concordance, and closes his essay with some suggestions of how the discipline of hermeneutics can fruitfully develop.

Porter discusses the interface of biblical hermeneutics and theological responsibility (chapter 2). Porter contrasts biblical hermeneutics with biblical interpretation by positing that interpretation involves processes and techniques related to interpretive acts, whereas biblical hermeneutics is a broader study of how we read text (31-32). This means not just attending to the original, or authorial intent, but the whole hermeneutical process and what the Bible means in a contemporary context. Included in Porter’s essay is an implict critique on the recent theological interpretation movement, which proposes a method of reading the Bible (with deference to precritical sources) without paying sufficient attention to the history of theological reception.

In chapter three Briggs argues for scriptural responsibility by using hermeneutical framework of ‘Scripture as’ to explore the ways that scripture functions. Briggs describes the Bible as a series of texts which explore theological themes dialogically (162). So he suggests that scriptural responsibility involves attending to the two-testament structure, fostering hermeneutic discussion between those with competing theological claims, and understanding scripture as a means of grace where God communicates himself through the various genres of the biblical material (64-9).

In chapter four Malcolm discusses kerygmatic responsibility This is a fascinating essay reflecting on the proclamation and mission of the early church and the reader reception of the New Testament. Malcolm suggests that the reader most able to respond responsibly (and responsively) to the text is the one who is a ‘primed’ and ‘faithful’ intepreter. In the examples Malcolm gives, a primed reader (of Pauline Epistles) will ‘know that Paul’s kerygma focuses on the humiliating death of God’s Messiah’ (81), this will illuminate aspects of the Biblical text and make the reader aware of common themes emerging throughout the New Testament documents. Likewise the faithful reader is ‘a cruciform interpreter.’ Malcolm writes, “one who is shaped by the cross is particularly attuned and open to the formational orientation of the kerygma, whether explicit or subtle (82).

Dunn argues for Historical responsibly (chapter 5). By this he means attention to the original context as the primary factor for understanding the meaning of the text (99). More than other authors in this volume, Dunn relativizes the contributions of church tradition to the hermeneutical task. Morgan urges critical responsibility (chapter 6) nad argues that we should make use of critical scholarship and approaches to help us get a better grasp on the biblical witness. Gregg argues for relational responsibility. He pays homage to the Reformation’s idea of sola scriptura and the normative authority of the Bible. However modern interpretation is constrained by the early councils and creeds which helped define theological orthodoxy. The creeds did not create orthodoxy ex nihilo but interpreted the Bible faithfully. Hence the Bible remains the supreme authority. Morbley’s essay rounds out the collection with some reflections on ecclesial responsibility. He observes that his own theological education taught him to question traditional notions like Pauline authorship of the pastoral epistles, but did not equip him to interpret texts for the church which affirms veracity of these epistles as part of the canon. Porter and Malcolm’s conclusion discusses the distinctive character of each of the above essays.

Despite being a short book, this is not a light book. There are a number of ideas and important considerations discussed here for any one who wants to interpret scripture well. This book is probably too technical for readers who have not studied the topic Biblical hermeneutics. Those who have will find these essays suggestive, provocative and challenging. As with all multi-author books particular chapters are more stimulating than others. I particularly enjoyed Thistleton’s chapter and his survey of contemporary developments. I also enjoyed reading several of these essays because I have books by these authors and it is helpful to be able to map their interpretive philosophies. I give this book four stars.

Thank you to IVP Academic for providing me with a copy of this book in exchange for my honest review

This dictionary concentrates on individuals contributing significantly in biblical criticism and various models of interpretation.

Summary: A festschrift for Anthony Thiselton exploring from different perspectives the tension between plurality of interpretations of the Bible, and responsible hermeneutics.

Plurality of interpretations is perhaps one of the more troubling aspects of Protestant biblical interpretation. Not only does it account for numerous denominational divisions but there is the troubling phenomenon of Christians thinking everyone is his or her own interpreter without controls or answerability to others.

This volume explores the question of how to practice responsible hermeneutics in this context, as well as with a text that we believe both the Word of God and the product of multiple human voices. It is a festschrift to Anthony Thiselton, author, in the 1980s, of the ground-breaking The Two Horizons, where he brings to bear the work of figures like Heidegger, Gadamer, and Wittgenstein in the broader field of hermeneutics to explore one of the basic sources of much interpretive plurality, the unawareness of the historical horizon of the biblical text as well as the contemporary horizon of the interpreter (including traditions of interpretation that might shape the contemporary interpreter).

Perhaps in this case, the best way to give a sense of this book is to provide a table of contents of topics and contributors:

Introduction
Stanley E. Porter and Matthew R. Malcolm

1. The Future of Biblical Interpretation and Responsible Plurality in Hermeneutics
Anthony C. Thiselton

2. Biblical Hermeneutics and Theological Responsibility
Stanley E. Porter

3. Biblical Hermeneutics and Scriptural Responsibility
Richard S. Briggs

4. Biblical Hermeneutics and Kerygmatic Responsibility
Matthew R. Malcolm

5. Biblical Hermeneutics and Historical Responsibility
James D. G. Dunn

6. Biblical Hermeneutics and Critical Responsibility
Robert C. Morgan

7. Biblical Hermeneutics and Relational Responsibility
Tom Greggs

8. Biblical Hermeneutics and Ecclesial Responsibility
R. Walter L. Moberly

Conclusion
Stanley E. Porter and Matthew R. Malcolm

Thiselton’s opening essay is perhaps one of the most interesting. Drawing on Bakhtin, he argues for the importance in dealing with plurality of being aware of the polyphony of voices in the corpus of scripture. Responsible hermeneutics neither holds these voices in conflict, nor mutes some to privilege others, but seeks the larger perspective to which all of these contribute.

There were several interesting issues raised in individual essays as well as in the conflicting perspectives between some essays. Stanley Porter raises interesting questions about theological interpretation, and particularly the privileging of pre-modern theology in many discussions. Richard Briggs argues that scriptural responsibility in hermeneutics is a fostering of dialogue between different ideas of “scripture as.” James Dunn argues for the priority of the historical horizon in interpretation, certainly reflected in his New Perspective work on Paul. By contrast, Robert Morgan argues for the role of theological criticism over against the text. The final two chapters explore the relation of biblical interpretation to our relationship to the church authority as well as to its traditions and creeds.

While I do think the interpreters raised different and interesting ideas from their own perspectives (something the editors wrestled with in the end), I found myself troubled in two respects. One was that for a group of people who are concerned with meaning, one found it a challenge to understand what they were arguing at times. This book actually assumes that the reader is highly conversant with the hermeneutic issues being discussed, the relevant philosophers and the particular uses of language in the field.

Related, but more troubling to me is that seems this work reflects an assumption of opaqueness rather than perspicuity of scripture. As I write this I certainly am aware of the fact that not every verse in scripture is utterly clear. But Robert Morgan’s theological criticism in particular seems to affirm there are times where the theologian must go against the clarity of the biblical text. In Moberly’s concluding essay, he begins with a discussion of the Pauline authorship of the pastorals and the unsettling discovery during seminary that biblical criticism calls this into question despite the clear attestations of authorship and relationship. By the end, he acknowledges himself agnostic on the matter and states that “literary theory makes it possible to take the first-person voice of the letters with full imaginative seriousness, and one can unreservedly inhabit the imaginative world of the text in preaching, while leaving open the relation between the literary voice and the historical author” (p. 156).

It seems to me that these writers often accept the hermeneutic of suspicion about these texts. I would contend that the mental gymnastics that differentiates between “imaginary Paul” and Paul, the apostle and martyr is a corrosive one that undercuts the preacher’s ability to speak the word of the Lord to the people of God. I do not see how “imaginary Paul” can speak with authority to the Timothys of this world, for example, about “taking your share of suffering as a good soldier of Christ Jesus” (2 Timothy 2:3), but the apostle who was stoned and beaten many times and who would die for the gospel certainly could and can.

So, while I would wish in no way to detract from Anthony Thiselton’s scholarship, nor from the value of a collection like this for elucidating the current discussions in hermeneutics, I must express serious reservations about the value of this work either for addressing the issue of plurality that is its purported task or for the edifying and equipping of the people of God.

A wide-ranging explorations of many subjects related to the understanding of the Koine Greek text of the New Testament at the discourse level.

The book has 4 parts and seems to be mostly a compilation of essays and other subjects of interest to the author. He is very much a fan of systemic functional linguistics and clearly has a combative relationship with the rest of NT Greek scholarship. He also has a very high opinion of his views.

I have enough understanding of Koine Greek to follow most of his arguments but am not up to date enough with the scholarship to be able to fully assess just how meritorious his various arguments are. I appreciated his exploration of 1 Timothy 2:8; on the other hand, the very narrow way of addressing Jesus' restoration of Peter in John 21 show the failings of any form of exegesis taking only text blocks into account.

If you're big into discourse analysis, the influence of modern linguistic theories on the understanding of Koine Greek, and/or big into NT Greek studies, this is for you.

**--galley received as part of early review program

A great book with interesting suggestions, I personally like the suggestion of moving away from an eclectic text and using one manuscript with cited variants though it will have trouble being accepted by scholars since the eclectic text is well established

This book is intended to be a stepping stone for those with one year of Biblical Greek onto advanced Greek grammars. Porter does a remarkable job here. Having used several other intermediate grammars in the past, I can tell you that Porter does not lose sight of the forest for the trees. Other intermediate grammars can in many ways be daunting exploding 1st year grammatical concepts into unmanageable and intimidating categories. Porter's minimalistic approach allows for the first year student to ease themselves into the many functions different morphological features can exhibit. One may quip that Porter is not comprehensive enough, and this is true in many places (I've read more remarkable sections, for example, on 'the article' in other grammars). But Porter's advantage is that one learns how the language works on the discourse level, which in many cases is an important factor (if not the deciding factor) for determining the semantics of a particular phrase or clause. This is a must read for students studying New Testament Greek. Also, even if one has already completed an intermediate Greek course, there is still much one can learn from Porter (most notoriously known for his particular theory regarding verbal aspect).

The articles of this volume originated as papers presented at a session from the Society of Biblical Literature. Overall, the articles are uneven. The first section on teaching Greek & language acquisition are excellent and the third section with it's linguistic investigations, looking at the Greek Middle Voice, Relevance Theory, & discourse grammar are fantastic.

But the middle section of Prominence is rather lacking. Porter's overview isn't super helpful and makes some incredibly odd claims about the literature on markedness theory -- almost to the point that you wonder if he's read the literature he cites.

Nevertheless, the book is worth it for the first and last sections. This is especially true if one orders directly from Sheffield Phoenix and gets their "Scholar's Price" which is roughly 50% the institutional price.½

This is from my Discerning Reader review: http://discerningreader.com/book-reviews/the-lost-gospel-of-judas

Christians have become so accustomed to the cycle of articles and television specials “debunking” the faith that appear at Christmas and Easter time that it has become something of a joke. It would be almost shocking if something objective were published or produced that showed Jesus, Paul or early Christianity in a positive, historically accurate and consistently biblical light. Thankfully the church is not left without defense in the academy and popular culture. When the Gnostic document known as the Gospel of Judas caused an uproar in the media, numerous scholars both conservative and liberal began to write about it.

One of the best books to come out of the controversy over whether Judas is an authentic Christian gospel is The Lost Gospel of Judas: Separating Fact from Fiction by Stanley E. Porter and Gordon L. Heath. Both authors are academics from McMaster Divinity College in Hamilton, Ontario. Porter is the president, dean and professor of New Testament while Heath is assistant professor of church history and the Director of the Canadian Baptist Archives.

Although this book is written with the layperson in mind, it is informed, well documented and does a good job at appropriating the gospel of Judas in its historical and theological setting.
Porter and Heath provide the background to Judas’ finding by historians and the initial reaction to it. They focus on the person of Judas himself and explain the church’s understanding of him both biblically and historically. Because the Gospel of Judas is a Gnostic text, the writers explain what Gnosticism was - namely a Platonic-influenced Christian heresy. Related to this last point, they conclude the book with a discussion of the Bauer hypothesis on orthodoxy and heresy that is in many ways worth the price of the book. A number of chapters are taken up with the content and authenticity of Judas as well as its relationship to the New Testament itself.

In terms of content the Gospel of Judas has “many of the features of both typical Coptic Gnostic literature and New Testament literature." However, the term “gospel” as applied to it only refers to the title it gives itself, not that it is a proper gospel about Jesus. "Judas" supposes itself to be the recording of a secret discussion between Jesus and his betrayer Judas before the last supper. Following in the stream of other Gnostic texts, the emphasis here is on secret knowledge (gnosis) that is a staple of Gnostic teaching. Jesus is reported to have explained a reality to Judas that is based squarely within the Gnostic worldview that distinguishes between matter and spirit, where the former is evil and the latter good. Indeed, Judas is the one who will “‘sacrifice the man that clothes Jesus” by betraying him and having him brought to death. This is a good thing in Gnosticism because the soul is thus liberated from the evil, material body. “Rather than being the cursed betrayer of Jesus, Judas is here seen as the necessary functionary in the grand plan."

Porter and Heath argue that "Judas" is of a late date and therefore not contemporaneous with the time of Jesus: “The testable scientific evidence makes clear that the physical document itself dates to somewhere in the third to fifth centuries." It cannot be dated earlier than the canonical gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John because "Judas" uses each of these gospels in one form or another as well as Acts. This is significant because “the Gospel of Judas reflects a common pattern in which the later apocryphal gospels…draw upon and even allude to or cite the canonical Gospels." Based upon the physical features of the papyrus, the ink and the paleography as well as by carbon-14 dating, Porter and Heath believe that it was likely written around 300-350 AD.

Porter and Heath have written a very useful book that all Christians (and indeed all people) who are interested in the Gospel of Judas should read. It is not written in an overly apologetic tone, but rather states the facts as they are as objectively as possible. For Christians who are shaken up by such finds – and more such findings are sure to arise – The Lost Gospel of Judas is a welcome relief. For those who challenge the faith by arguing that such early documents disallow for a fixed, orthodox canon of the New Testament, Porter and Heath give serious pause for thought.

This is a lovely collection of essays about different interpretations and approaches to Christology. Many significant theologians have contributions in here. Perhaps most importantly (and surprisingly) are essays detailing non-Christian interpretations of Christ and Jesus by non-Christian authors. After reading this book, I was pleased and surprised to discover that I had subscribed to a Hindu-type Christology when I was about seven.½

Idioms in any language are the hardest thing to grasp, because they entail slight variations in meaning that are often culture driven. Idioms in one language often sound silly or meaningless in another. This work seeks to overcome that gap in understanding, from the 1st Century to now.

Critique of Tom Harpur's The Pagan Christ

Case 9 shelf 6

Logos Library