Reviews of

Archive for the ‘Joshua W. Jipp’ Category

Divination and Philosophy in the Letters of Paul

In divination, Edinburgh University Press, Joshua W. Jipp, Magic, Matthew Sharp, Paul, Philosophy on September 25, 2024 at 8:28 pm

2024.09.06 |  Matthew T. Sharp. Divination and Philosophy in the Letters of Paul. Edinburgh Studies in Religion in Antiquity. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 2023.

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

This revised doctoral thesis, completed at the University of Edinburgh, takes as its starting point the question: “if Paul claims to convey the words and will of a deity, how does he believe he has received such knowledge?” (p. 1). While there is an abundance of studies devoted to aspects of this question (e.g., Paul and healing, Paul and prophecy, Paul and religious experience, Paul and signs and wonders, Paul and glossolalia), “Pauline scholarship has so far lacked an adequate analytical category through which to account for all of these methods of divine communication in Paul’s historical context” (p. 2). Sharp proposes, then, to engage in a careful examination of Paul’s letters through the ancient category of “divination” – that is, “the reception and interpretation of knowledge that is believed to have a divine, or superhuman, source” (p. 2). Paul does not use this category himself, but the scholarly use of divination to make sense of Paul’s religious knowledge, Sharp proposes, will enable scholars “to bring together a collection of related practices and ideas in Paul’s letters that existing scholarly categories usually keep apart” (p. 25).

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 »