5 Works Exegetes Should NEVER Cite

The field of biblical studies is a field that blossoms with books and books and more books. Scholars love to read and write books. While we are people of "The Book" we are also people of "books". Many of us can easily be classified as bibliophiles. With so many books out there, however, the issue of which books to use and not to use is an important one. Certainly, some books are better than others. Some books are not worth the paper they were published on!

As a TA, one of my frequent duties is to grade students' papers. This can be both a joy and a pain. Part of that pain comes from terrible writing but part of it also comes from seeing students use sources for exegesis and interpretation that simply should not be used. In fact, the terrible writing often seems like a direct reflection of the sources that the student used. Having said these things, I offer to exegetes--with an eye toward seminary students-- a short list of 5 authors that should pretty much never be cited in an exegesis or research paper. (The same goes for sermons!) For each work below that should not be cited, I will give a few remarks as to why and then offer an alternative resources.

Please note that I am not saying there is NO value in these books. What I am saying is that they should NEVER be cited in a scholarly exegesis/research paper. Again, they should probably not be used to formulate sermons either. Many of these resources were written at times before great gains (e.g. manuscript finds, etc.) were made in scholarship. Further, they are often more devotional in nature than scholarly. By the same taken, neither am I attempting to somehow criticize the faith of these authors. I'm simply offering a critical review of their works. The fact is, I have works from each of these authors in my own personal library, which is part of the reason I feel that I can and need to offer a few words about them.

1. Matthew Henry: Mr. Henry's Commentary on the Whole Bible has become something of a hit among Christian booksellers--both digital and print. There are a few reasons this is the case: 1) It is, as the title suggests, a one-volume commentary on the whole Bible. This means that instead of shelling out a bunch of money for separate commentary books and instead of taking up tons of shelf-space with a commentary set, you can have it all in one book. While saving extra cash and shelf-space seems sexy, that is not really the case. Why? 2) Well, you should know that you can get it anywhere online for free, including HERE. You can make your own copy for free and then sell it at whatever price you want to whoever you want! This is exactly what Christian publishers have been doing and they have been making quite a bit of money this way! 3) Since the book was written in the 1700s it is, in many ways, out-of-touch with the realities of today. I mean, this was written pre-World Wars, pre-terrorism, pre-media technology, etc. There are many, much better one-volume commentaries that are more timely and worth the cost. I will recommend two here: 1) The New Interpreter's Bible One-Volume Commentary (by Gaventa & Peterson), 2) Africa Bible Commentary: A One Volume Commentary Written by 70 African Authors.

2. William Barclay: Over the last decade, at two different points in my ministry, I was given William Braclay's complete set of commentaries on the New Testament. I still have one of those sets. These texts are more homiletical and devotional in nature than they are scholarly. In fact, there is little to no scholarship in them at all. Now reprinted in both the WBL (William Barclay Library) and NDB (New Daily Bible) sets, the covers are more appealing than they used to be, but of course, the weak content remains the same. Barclay was a respected churchman and professor throughout England all through the 1900s. This is not as outdated as the work of Matthew Henry but again, it is still outdated. It is also public domain, which means that Christian publishing houses can get it for free, print it and then sell it at whatever cost they want. You can get it for free HERE (E-Sword) and it comes packaged in platforms like Logos as well. If you are going for a complete commentary set (as opposed to the one-volume type) and you are operating on a small budget, I would recommend Eerdman's "socio-rhetorical" series with Ben Witherington. These are scholarly yet accessible to the church-goer and they are not terribly expensive.

3. Marvin R. Vincent: Vincent's Word Studies are another very popular resource found in Christian book stores. I had a copy of this text passed on to me when I first started seminary. However, like many older works, this one is outdated because it was published prior to many of the advances made in manuscript, text-critical and linguistic studies. While the glosses that Vincent's Word Studies are often correct, many of them are also less nuanced and ignorant of other possibilities. Once again, this text is public domain and it can even be downloaded for free to mobile phones You can access it online HERE. The standard alternative today is either BDAG or the TDNT (which needs to be re-edited before it falls into this category).

4. J. Vernon McGee: This famous preacher, known for his commentaries and his Thru the Bible Radio Network and book series, has also become somewhat of a hit among Christian retailers. While McGee was certainly no pushover when it came to the Bible, many of his methods and approaches have been outdated. More of a homiletician (preacher) than anything, McGee was not seeking to be scholarly in the most proper sense of the work but rather accessible. I think he achieved the latter. Yet, because of this his works are slim on good scholarship. Still, there are far more scholarly works by preachers and homileticians than Mr. McGee. A great example of provocative preaching points combined with scholarship can be found in Richard Swanson's "Provoking the Gospel" series, found HERE. Also, I am hoping that Dawn Ottoni Wilhelm writes more commentaries like the one she did on Mark. If she does, these might just be promising resources! Check out her work HERE.

5. Warren Wiersbe: Best known among readers for his "Be" series (e.g. Be Real, Be Joyful, etc.), Wiersbe has, for a long time, been a famous peacher, speaker and writer. He has been a renowned churchman and his devotional-oriented publications have amassed thousands of fans. Certainly, Wiersbe has made great contributions to the church and to teh world. Having said these things, his work do not measure up to the point of being able to be used in scholarly exegesis/research papers. A great alternative to Wiersbe's works, which could be engaged at a more scholarly level would be the Interpretation: A Bible Commentary for Teaching and Preacher series, which is found HERE.

What Is Prooftexting?

One of the most cogent answers to this question is given by Francis Young in her book Biblical Exegesis and the Formation of Christian Culture. Young speaks here of prooftexting (or proof-texting) and compound texting:

1) proof-texting is where a text is quoted and abstracted from its context and exposition of symbolic material follows with fulfillment indicated, the foundational point is to indicate the true and proper reference of the text, primarily done to properly interpret OT in light of the Messiah’s advent;

2) compound texting is more or less an exact quotation or allusion that may appear, the Bible is treated as self-referential and used as a cross reference between books, regard for original historical meaning varies, interpreter believes that the mind / aim of the author was to point to a truth found elsewhere in biblical corpus

(See: Pp. 124,133,289,298)

Novatian "On Jewish Foods" (Review)

Below is a short review I wrote up that covers Novatian's work "On Jewish Foods." If you want to get an idea of how he did exegesis and thought about the end-goal of biblical interpretation, you may find this review helpful. Enjoy.

+ + + + +

Novatian’s epistle, written to a group of believers with whom he evidently has some cherished relationship, commences much in the same way that we find the New Testament letters beginning. Initiated with a very pastoral tone and several words of encouragement, Novatian, echoing the frequent sentiments of the Apostle Paul, longed to be in contact with those from whom he was separated (1.1). Having already written two letters to this particular group of Christians—one challenging Jewish views of circumcision and another challenging Jewish views of the Sabbath (1.7)—Novatian places in view, here, Jewish ideals regarding foods (1.7).

In the exordium, Novatian challenges the believers to hold fast to traditions (1.5) and to be on the defensive, guarding themselves from heretics and Jewish blasphemers who hand down “irregular” traditions (2.5). For Novatian, a blasphemer is classified as a person or persons who label something “human” that is in fact, “spiritual” (2.1). His bone-of-contention with the Jewish people at this juncture, then, is that they call or treat the Law as “human” when they should refer to and understand it as “spiritual.” The hermeneutic principle for testing whether or not an entity should be taken as “spiritual,” is to examine whether or not it aligns with the character of God and reveal His majesty (2.3).

Novatian then proceeds to exegete Genesis 1-3, where he makes a curious hermeneutical move. He argues that prior to the deception of humanity, fruit was eaten (2.6), fruit which is perched in trees and therefore closer to the heavens. However, after the fall, humans were “bowed down” to the soil to toil the land and to pluck grain, that is to say, that they were now closer to Hell. With all of this work, humans needed more protein and thus, to use his phrase “meat was added” (2.7). Enter: The Law. The Law of the Jewish people began, problematically according to Novatian, to distinguish “clean” animals from unclean animals (and thus, clean food from unclean food; 2.10-17). Novatian took issue with this because in Gen. 1, God created the animals and saw that they were “good,” but the Jewish people immediately turned around and began calling some of them “unclean” or deeming them not good. Applying his hermeneutic principle stated above, Novatian argues that such an approach leads to the conclusion that if God is the Creator of all animals, then when the Jewish people call some animals unclean, then God must also be unclean, which is something that certainly does not align with His character or reveal His majesty.

He asserts then, that what God has created “must” be understood as “clean” (3.1) otherwise, “To find fault with creation is to find fault with its Author” (3.1). The Jewish people, he claims, understood such principles at first. However, it was when they were in Egypt, Novatian suggests, that they “lost their good morals…among a barbarous people” (3.2). At this point in their history, the Ten Commandments were issued—which, for Novatian were “nothing new”—but simply a reminder of what they had forgotten (3.3). What they had forgotten—or lost—was how to understand the “spiritual” aspect of things like the Law.

Here, Novatian proceeds to show his audience how they can understand these things in a true “spiritual” sense. Thus, he begins to offer a spiritual exegesis of the “clean” and “unclean” taxonomy of animals. He says that such a classification is really about (3.7) clean and unclean humans, not animals. In other words, Novatian takes these passages in a euphemistic sort of way. For example, that this is actually about humans, argues Novatian, can be seen by recognizing that “in animals we find portrayed human traits, deeds and acts of will that determine” whether they are clean or not (3.7). The statement about “chewing cud” then, is actually a reference to humans that always have the “divine commandments in their mouths” (3.7) and the “cloven hoof” is representative of the path of innocence, justice and virtue that humans can take (3.8). The Law, which is a “mirror,” shows these simple traits in animals, which, if humans fail to see them and to take note, reveals that they themselves are truly ignorant of the “spiritual” way of life (3.12).

Novatian proceeds to give more examples like these by referring to fish, camels, swine, weasels, skinks and more (3.13-24) pushing his argument further that, if even animals are born with these characteristics and can live them out, then, when humans fail to uphold them, they must be seen as reprehensible (3.24). In their ignorance and clouded judgment, the Jewish people, totally missing the “spiritual” sense of such things, even went on to choose, says Novatian, the “bitter” food of the Egyptians and to reject the “manna” provided by God (4.5). This they deserved, he contends.

Novatian’s next step is to assert that even Christ, Himself of Jewish descent, acknowledged the “cleanliness” of all foods and as such, understood the true, spiritual sense of things (5.2-5). He also appeals to apostolic authority by citing a number of Pauline passages that undercut the “unclean foods” argument often espoused by the Jewish people (5.6-9). “True and holy and pure food,” says Novatian, is actually not that which is edible but rather, “an upright faith, immaculate conscience and innocent spirit” (5.10). Even Jesus says that His “food” is “to do the will of He who sent Him” (5.13). After feeling as though he has made his point, Novatian actually launches into an argument, which asserts that, while these passages are not really about edibles, persons must still refrain from gluttony or fulfilling an incessant drive to satiate their appetites with food or drink (6.3; 6.6).

“Temperance,” “frugality” and “moderation” are all virtues that cannot be overlooked by the Christian (6.2-5). Though “freedom” (from the literal Jewish interpretations of the Law) has been given to Christians, they are not “free” to merely do as they please or to act in ways that diminish God’s character or majesty. For example, this “freedom” does not make an allowance for eating food sacrificed to idols or other deities (7.1-2). The point then, is that Christians should, in understanding the difference between the “spiritual” and the “human,” “observe the Rule of Truth in all things and give thanks to God through Jesus Christ, His Son, our Lord, to whom be praise, honor and glory forever” (7.2) for this is a true, spiritual act of worship.

Origen's Commentary on The Song of Songs (A Brief Review)

Below is a short review I wrote up for a class presentation, which deals with Origen's Commentary on The Canticles (Song of Songs). I only interact here with his interpretation of the first few verses but if you want to get an idea of how Origen did exegesis, you may find some of this review helpful. Enjoy.

+ + + + + +

Origen, an exegete nurtured in the Alexandrian spirit of interpretation, above all else in his reading of the Song of Songs, appears to value the notion of the unity of the Scriptures. Shaped by the “Rule of Faith,” the theological banner of his socio-religious context, he strives to show how passages of the “Divine” and “Holy Scriptures” (63-64) work in unison. For Origen, this seems most explainable by reading Scripture through a sort of dualistic lens: Literal (which also encompasses “literary”) and Spiritual.

From the start, Origen makes it clear in his interpretation of the Canticles that there indeed, is a literal / literary sense to the text but that upon further reflection, there is a more spiritual or “inner” sense as well (58). After reviewing the literary aspects of the story (in a verse-by-verse fashion), he writes, “This is the content of the actual story, presented in dramatic form. But let us see if the inner meaning can be also fittingly supplied along these lines” (59). In his commentary, the foremost way in which he goes about finding this “inner meaning” is to reference other, allegedly related Scriptural texts—an approach which is quite likely to offend the sensitivities of the modern exegete!

For example, Origen suggests that 1.2, a verse which reads “For thy breasts are better than wine” should be filtered such through narratives as that of John leaning on the breasts of Jesus during supper in John’s Gospel and the separation of priestly sacrifices in Leviticus (64). Further, he goes on to make an argument whereat the breasts are types of the teachings of Christ, which make them good breasts and therefore more desirable than the shapeless breasts of the Law. This reading, asserts Origen, can find more stock in the statement by Qohelet who speaks of “looking on that which is good” (66). Origen finds no reason to stop here though. He even gets some mileage out of the stories of the boy Jesus being searched for in the Temple by His parents, the Cana Wedding scene, the Queen of Sheba, the sons of Jonadab and the parable of the treasure hidden in a field (66-70).

In making hermeneutical choices such as these, Origen seems to assume that exegetes must not only have a working knowledge of the text but also a high theology of Scripture and an orientation toward deep spiritual discernment. While these (doctrinal) dispositions may not be troubling to many interpreters, again, many modern readers are far less comfortable with Origen’s allegorizing (60-61), christianizing (59) and personalizing of these texts (59). He also has expectation that those engaging the text should soon find themselves embedded in it. This is an expectation that can be seen in his self-referential rhetoric (e.g. “Let it be [us] the Church…59).

On-the-one-hand, Origen’s methods would appear to lead readers to an ahistorical point-of-view of the biblical events. That is, one gets the impression that by allegorizing and spiritualizing things as he does, Origen ultimately overemphasizes revelation to the detriment of history (or historical happenings). Of course, such a reading might be expected when it is a reading done by those who stand in the wake of ongoing and heated debates about the distinctions between the Jesus of history and the Christ of faith. However, there is one sense in which Origen does root his interpretations (and applications) in real history: through eschatology.

He makes two comments early on in his commentary that allude to this: 1) “…but since the age is almost ended…” and 2) “…at His coming…” (60). Without too quickly throwing the baby out with the bathwater, readers may do well to attempt to understand the precise connections that Origen may be suggesting actually exist between these two spheres. Undoubtedly, Origen believes that his “Bridegroom” (Christ) is going to make a real return within the confines of world history but interpreters may get too hung up on his assertion that the “Bridegroom” mentioned in the drama of the Canticles is Christ, to actually notice it.

Mark Dig-In: Talkback & Debrief

As I mentioned in a recent post, I hosted a sort of weekend retreat into the Gospel of Mark (ch. 1) at my house over the weekend. We had a great time and since Erik asked me to blog on the gathering, I figured that instead of trying to write about everything (and that from my point-of-view alone), I thought I'd share an audio version of a sort of debreifing and talkback session that took place afterwards (Sunday morning at our worship gathering, actually). So, to get a general idea of what took place, give this a listen. If you have any thoughts or comments, feel free to share:

Reversal In Mark’s Gospel: Studies in Mark, Pt. 91

It is not uncommon when reading a Lukan commentary or article, to find that commentator repeatedly pointing out that Luke loves role reversal. One of the best examples that persons often point to in Luke’s story is that of Lazarus and the rich man. As the story goes, Lazarus is poor here on earth where the rich overlook him. However, in the next life, it is Lazarus who is higher in rank than the man who had previously been wealthy.

While it is commonplace to find such statements among Lukan scholars, it is rarely (if ever) pointed out that in Mark’s narrative, this also happens quite frequently. This notion of reversal, which I refer to in literary terms as “cruciality” is sometimes easy to spot and other times more difficult. This device of pivot, which produces a radical reversal or complete change of direction can be used by a speaker or author to illumine the material on either side of the pivot. Just as well, the cruciality can have major narrative as well as social & theological implications.

In Mark’s story, cruciality can be seen a number of times within chapter 1 alone. We all know that John was a revered man and this is proven alone by the fact that so many people were heeding to his message. Indeed, he was even dubbed Jesus’ “forerunner”. However, in Mark’s story, there comes an abrupt end to John’s popularity and efforts once “the greater one” steps on the scene. In fact, there is a total role reversal, a reversal which John himself acknowledges when He refers to Jesus as “one greater than I” (1.7). To be sure, the roles are reversed when John is arrested and Jesus assumes the Baptizer’s role of preaching and discipling. While many have written about John's statement, I'm not sure that much (if anything at all) has been made of the fact that cruciality is at work here. Why is this important? Well, because it actually (and especially from a literary standpoint) illumines that much more the change of roles that is about to take place! (Much more could be said on this but it's after 1am as I'm writing this and I'm quite tired...maybe I can spell it out more later!)

Elsewhere, in Mk. 1.40-44, there is a less explicit instance of cruciality when Jesus encounters a leper. Now, when he meets the leper, he meets a man who is confined to his own solitary space. This is the opposite of Jesus’ circumstances because Jesus is able to move about freely and to go where He pleases. Yet, when Jesus heals the man, the roles are reversed. Mark even reports that after the man went and told all the people about Jesus, Jesus became so popular that He couldn’t travel anywhere without being bombarded. In a slight turn of events, the former leper can now go where he wants and do as he pleases while Jesus begins to experience confinement. Mark says that now Jesus can only go out to the “ermoi” (wilderness and solitary places).

Throughout Mark’s narrative, many of these reversals can be found. It is not my aim to show or share all of them here but rest assured, there are many. Instead, my goal in writing this post is to kind of steal some of Luke’s thunder if you will, when it comes to encountering cruciality in the text. In short, maybe it’s time for a role reversal in how, as readers of these text, we tend to attribute this technique to Luke over Mark.

First Theologian To Die In A Plane Crash

Okay, so, earlier today, I posted a quiz question on Facebook and it has still yet to be answered correctly, so, I thought I'd add the riddle here. The question is: Who was the first (biblical) theologian to die in a plane crash? Some of the wrong answers were: Jesus, God, Pontius Pilot/Pilate and Buddy Holly. Those were quite funny in the context of the discussion but come on people, doesn't anyone out there know this? Take a shot at it and post your answer in the comments section of this post.

Exegesis That Starts Wars & Stops Biblical Fidelity

So, I've been on quite a hiatus from blogging over the last few weeks. It all started when the motherboard on my laptop had a meltdown. Well, now I've got the computer back and it's working okay. I've had a number of things happen in my life over the last month, some great and some, well, not so great. I'll save those things for another post perhaps. Anyway...

Last night, just before going to bed, I landed on the local Christian TV station. There were two ladies speaking about2 Cor. 3.13-6. In those verses, Paul is comparing the obstinate hearts and minds of certain Hebrew (Jewish) people in his day to that of his Hebrew forebearers. To quote, the verses say this: "We are not like Moses, who would put a veil over his face to keep the Israelites from gazing at it while the radiance was fading away. But their minds were made dull, for to this day the same veil remains when the old covenant is read. It has not been removed, because only in Christ is it taken away. Even to this day when Moses is read, a veil covers their hearts. But whenever anyone turns to the Lord, the veil is taken away."

Neither of the hosts read the four verse in their entirety but they did spend about 5 minutes expounding on them. In the course of four minutes, I swear to you that I have never heard such terrible exegesis. On the one hand, it was the type of interpretation that leads people to hate, hurt, start and start fights. On the other hand, it was the type of reading that makes people who actually take the Bible seriously, want to get as far away from these kinds of so-called "Christians" as possible. Here's what happend in those four minutes:

1. The lady who was speaking the most said, "I want you to know that in my heart-of-hearts, I think Jesus is coming back soon. And I also want you to know that every offering or gift that you send in to this program, it is lifting the veils from people's faces. I have a sense of urgency in my heart that Christ is coming back and we want to see as many veils lifted as soon as possible."

(Comments: Do you see what just happened here? This lady totally took the verse out of context and then used it to exploit people for money! She used language cloaked in fear and urgency to try to pull people's heart strings...and wallet strings.)

2. The lady proceeded to talk and said this: "Now, you know, I don't really want to get too deep into this but one of the reasons I feel like the world is going to end soon, that Jesus is coming back soon, is because of Islam. And here's the thing, in these verses, we read about a veil. Now, who is it that wear's veils today? It's the Muslim people."

(Comments: I must admit, I didn't see this coming. She blindsided me with this. She just went from guilt-tripping viewers into giving to pitting Christianity against Islam. So, at this point, she has doubly (or triply) misconstrued this passage and what it is really all about. This is the kind of exegesis that starts wars mind you! The poor lady's logic is just so flawed and terrible.)

3. Now, the other lady who has been sitting there listening the whole time, she finally speaks. On the verge of tears, she says something like, "Oh, that just gives me chills, I've never thought of that, you're right. That's so, true."

(Comments: This fictitious emotionalism is another way to make money. Moreover, it shows you just how stupid these so-called "Christians" who are supposed to love God with their minds, really can be. She totally just bought into this crap. Now, un-thinking Christians who are watching will probably do the same.)

4. The lady who had been speaking the majority of the time chimes in again. She is motivated by the woman's tears and continues to make non-existent connections between the veil in 2 Cor. and Islam. She proceeds to tell a story about a Christian family who was "Pentecostal-to-the-bone". Yet, somewhere along the way, in this hard-core Pentecostal family, one of the daughters converted to Islam. She went on and on about how it hurt the family so bad and that she had never seen anyone so sad. She wondered and wondered how it happened. She couldn't stomach the thought now of this girl (who she knew) being covered with the veil that would bring the end of the world to fruition.

(Comments: Again, it's another heart-string story that is just retarded. It may well be true but it has nothing to do with what Paul is talking about. Furthermore, it was a way for her to segue back into a plea for money: "Please, if you want to see the veil (not spiritual but physical) removed from women like these (contributing to terrorism), contribute to our show. Sow your seed and send your financial gift.")

5. Finally, the lady goes all nationalistic on us (quite what Paul may have actually been railing against in 2 Cor., to some degree) with this: "Just like this young girl, Islam has invaded America, God's territory. We need to stop it. You can help us do that by giving to this show which is sending out broadcast signals all over the world to help remove those veils."

(Comments: So, this whole thing was an apocalpytic-economic scheme which kind of reminds me of how pyramid schemes work--they don't! Anyway, I got sick to my stomach and had a hard time sleeping. I'm grieved that this is what the Western Church is coming to. When will we ever stop being so humanistic, prejudiced and ignorant? When?)

Transgenerational Curses: When Biblical Authors Rewrote Commands

I must admit, for the longest time I was a Bible reader who was wholly uncomfortable with the notion of there being "contradictions" in the Bible. Actually, I am still that way. In fact, I still do not believe there are "contradictions" per se, but I do, however, believe that there is "tension". As I have said on this site before, because of the way I "image" the Bible, that is, as a "conversation", the idea of tension doesn't bother me. It is now clear to me that persons like Josh McDowell have simply overstated their cases for "biblical unity". To act as if there is no tension in the Bible is to act naively!

I want to give one example of what I am talking about and hopefully, I can write some more on this soon. If we admit that the Bible, like a conversation between persons, is fluid and oriented towards discussion, we also can admit things like the fact that the author of Deuteronomy had different views than say, the prophet Jeremiah or even Ezekiel. Take for instance, Exodus 20.5 (part of the 10 Commandments) which says, "...for I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God, punishing the children for the sin of the parents to the third and fourth generations of those who hate me, 'but showing love to a thousand generations of those who love me and keep my commandments.'"

In that passage, it is clear that transgenerational sin seems like a given, a certain reality! However, it appears that when we read the words of Jeremiah, some tension arises. Jeremiah 31.30 says: "They shall no longer say, 'The fathers have eaten sour grapes, and the children's teeth are set on edge.' But every one shall die for his own sin; each man who eats sour grapes, his teeth shall be set on edge." Similarly, Ezekiel says the same thing and elaborates in chapter 18, "As surely as I live declares the Sovereign Lord, you will no longer quote this proverb in Israel...The one who sins is the one who will die."

Clearly, there is tension between the passage in Dt. and those found in Jer. and Ezek. In fact, in the prophetic texts, the authors even go as far as having God snub what He supposedly said years before. Without a doubt, there is some kind of change, modification and innovation going on here! Why it was changed and why there was tension between the texts is something I want to deal with soon. But in the meantime, I raise a couple of questions for you: 1) How do you deal with this tension and how would you help others deal with it, especially new Christians, and 2) What does this tension suggest about the relationship between canon & exegesis as well as theories of inspiration & authority?

America's Greatest Exegete: Gordon Fee?

Well, that's what Bryan, Stephen and Shaun say. Andrew Bourne suggested the late Catholic exegete Raymond Brown but nobody seconded that motion. So (according to a few people at least), it seems that Fee (pictured to the left) is the greatest American exegete? Agree? Disagree?

The Greatest American Exegete

Who, in your opinion, is the greatest exegete in the United States?

ExegeTV - Episode 10, Structuring The Sermon

Here's episode #10 of ExegeTV. This episode focuses on how to structure, setup or build a sermon. Enjoy.

ExegeTV - Episode 9, Sermon & Application

Here's the latest episode of ExegeTV. It deals with how preachers can learn to "apply" the ancient text in today's world. Enjoy.

ExegeTV - Episode 4, Finding the Context of the Text

Youtube link: ExegeTV - Episode 4

ExegeTV - Episode 3, Genre & The Bible

YouTube link: Episode 3, Genre & The Bible

ExegeTV : Episode 2 - Choosing A Bible Translation

Youtube link: Episde 2

ExegeTV : Episode 1 - Sermon Planning

Here is the first episode of ExegeTV.



Youtube link: ExegeTV - Episode 1

New Feature at Pisteuomen: ExegeTV

Readers of Pisteuomen: Tomorrow I will be launching a new feature on this site, it is called ExegeTV. ExegeTV is a channel/show that I have developed which aims to help students/preachers etc., move through the exegetical and explanation process of biblical texts. I will be adding new episodes to Pisteuomen posts periodically. I hope that you find this new resource useful and are able to share it with others. Again, I will probably post the first episode tomorrow, so, keep your eyes peeled.