Reviews of

Archive for the ‘B. G. White’ Category

Pain and Paradox in 2 Corinthians

In 2 Corinthians, B. G. White, Benjamin G. White, Isaac T. Soon, Mohr Siebeck, paradox, suffering on February 21, 2022 at 3:28 pm

2022.02.02 | Benjamin G. White. Pain and Paradox in 2 Corinthians: The Transformative Function of Strength in Weakness. Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament II 555. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2021. ISBN 9783161599118.

Review by Isaac T. Soon, Crandall University.

This monograph—a lightly revised version of the author’s dissertation at Durham University—offers a re-reading of 2 Corinthians through Paul’s strength in weakness paradox. The aim of the book is to correct the dominant approach to 2 Corinthians that conceives of Paul’s letter as fundamentally a defence of his apostleship and ministry. As an alternative, White argues that 2 Corinthians should be read primarily as a demonstration of Paul’s pastoral ministry to the Corinthian congregation. This is not to say, however, that Paul’s apologetic rhetoric is superfluous, but rather that it is in service of his ministerial goal, to comfort and provide concrete transformative strategies to a congregation in pain. 

Read the rest of this entry »

The New Testament in Comparison

In B. G. White, Bloomsbury, Comparison, Graeco-Roman Backgrounds, John BARCLAY, Joshua W. Jipp, New Testament, Stoicism on July 17, 2020 at 3:00 pm

the-new-testament-in-comparison

2020.07.13 | John M. G. Barclay and B. G. White (editors). The New Testament in Comparison: Validity, Method, and Purpose in Comparing Traditions. Library of New Testament Studies 600. London: T&T Clark, 2020.

Review by Joshua W. Jipp, Trinity Evangelical Divinity School. 

The publication of Karl Barth’s Römerbrief in 1919 elicited the statement from a Catholic theologian that the commentary fell like a bomb on the playground of the theologians. Respected New Testament scholars referred to Barth as a gnostic and an enemy of historical critical interpretation (Adolf Jülicher), a Biblicist (Paul Wernle), and as using the commentary as a pretense for theological autobiography (Adolf Schlatter). For reasons that need not concern us here, Barth’s commentary on Romans simultaneously set forth a biting critique of historical criticism, at least insofar as it could penetrate the subject matter of the NT texts, and offered a radically different way of approaching exegesis. As such, Barth’s book appeared as something that was virtually incomprehensible to his fellow colleagues. Read the rest of this entry »