Dec 10

Klyne Snodgrass, Paul W. Brandel Professor of New Testament Studies at NPTS, is the author of this post

Conflict always creates interest and never more so than when it is between good friends. I do not like conflict, but I must confess it is often quite instructive. Two recent incidents brought that home to me in new ways. One involved my class on Romans, and the other involved two scholars at one of the sessions of the Society of Biblical Literature meeting in Boston the week before Thanksgiving.

My Romans class was dealing with Romans 7, a passage heavily debated by New Testament scholars as to whether it speaks of Paul’s preconversion experience, his postconversion experience, or whether it is not about Paul at all but about humanity in general or even about Israel. Among the three of us who teach New Testament here at North Park there are three different positions. I am not sure which position Jay Phelan, our president, holds, for he is also a New Testament scholar. On the night in question one of my New Testament colleagues, Max Lee, came to class, and he and I had a conversation about the issues. I was surprised how informative it was for students to watch us converse. Max and I will remain good friends, even if neither of us convinces the other.

The conversation in the Romans class pales in comparison to a conflict at the Society of Biblical Literature between Richard Hays and Tom Wright, who are very close friends and very close theologically. Richard had edited a collection of about eighteen essays with Beverly Gaventa. The essays were written by a group of biblical scholars, historians, and theologians who met twice a year for three and a half years to discuss the identity of Jesus. The resulting book Seeking the Identity of Jesus (Eerdmans, 2008) is a significant discussion. In fact, both Scot McKnight at North Park University and I had written blurbs that were published on the back of the book, both of us emphasizing that these essays were important and should be read. The session was discussing this book. Tom Wright thought the book was awful—that is not his word, but it sums up the idea. Tom complained publically that he did not know what Scot and I were thinking. Richard responded that he felt Tom’s words were not a response but a smear campaign. Remember, these guys are good friends. I e-mailed both later and know that they are continuing in pretty constant dialogue trying to sort out the issues. They are still friends. I think one main point of difference is the way Tom thinks history should be done and his refusal to give any privilege to creed and canon, two items under consideration in the book. Tom is so involved in discussion with people like John Dominic Crossan and the Jesus Seminar that he wants to strip himself of anything but “pure” history, i.e., to do history better than Crossan and the Jesus Seminar (which I do not think is hard to do!) and to beat them at their own game. He sees red at anything that would privilege canon and creed, even though he very much agrees with both in the end. Some of the essays in the book point out, rightly I think, that it is necessary not merely to ask who Jesus was, but who he is and what his impact was. Can you know his identity without asking those two questions? I think not.

One important point in all this is the way we deal with our disagreements. Can we disagree without sacrificing the character of the gospel in the way we act and talk and without sacrificing our friendships? The answer is yes.