Tag: <span>00 Bauckham_Richard</span>

The Role of the Spirit in the Apocalypse (Bauckham, 1980)

The prominence of the Spirit is one of the characteristics which marks the Apocalypse out from the category of apocalyptic works in which its literary genre places it. The Spirit also plays an important role in the eschatological perspective of the book. The subject therefore merits some detailed study. We shall first consider the refere
nces to the Spirit in each of the three easily distinguishable categories into which they fall: the Spirit of vision, the Spirit of prophecy and the seven Spirits.

The Alleged “Jesus Family Tomb” (Bauckham)

The death and resurrection of Jesus is rarely far from the news. Recently, James Cameron (director of Titanic) produced a documentary claiming, to the amazement of the watching world, that the tomb of Jesus and his family has been unearthed. Is this another Da Vinci Code-style thriller, or a crock of old bones? Leading New Testament scholar Richard Bauckham investigates.

Response to Margaret Mitchell’s Paper “Patristic Counter-Evidence to the Claim that Gospels were written for all Christians” (Bauckham, 2003)

This is a response by Richard Bauckham to Margaret Mitchell’s paper, “Patristic Counter-evidence to the Claim
that The Gospels Were Written for All Christians”, which was presented to the Synoptics Section of the SBL Annual
Meeting, Atlanta, November 2003. Please note that this response is to that paper as previously posted, and not to the forthcoming published version, which may have taken account of several of these points.

Macbride Sermon on the Application of Messianic Prophecy (Bauckham, 2003)

The subject of the Macbride University Sermon is described as “the application of the prophecies in Holy Scripture respecting the Messiah to our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ.” There have been times when Christians have attached great evidential value to the fulfilment by Jesus of Old Testament prophecies of the Messiah. They have wanted to argue not only that Jesus is shown to be the expected Messiah by the exact correspondences between the prophecies and their fulfilment in Jesus, but even that the fulfilment of these prophecies in Jesus is a kind of demonstration of the truth of Christianity. The fulfilment proves at the same time both that the prophecies were inspired by God and that Jesus was the Messiah that God himself sent. This kind of apologetic appeal to messianic prophecy is less often heard today. I think this must be at least partly due to the influence of biblical scholars who have insisted on a historicizing kind of exegesis that tries to read the prophecies as they would have been heard at the time they were written, and very often finds that this differs considerably from the way the writers of the New Testament read them when they interpreted them as referring to Jesus. I sense that New Testament scholars are sometimes a little embarrassed by the gap that seems to open between the historical meaning of the Old Testament texts and the way they were read by New Testament Christians. They explain in a matter-of-fact manner the way New Testament writers interpreted the Old, but they refrain from commenting on its validity.

For Whom were the Gospels Written? (Bauckham, 1999)

My title – For whom were Gospels written? – could be analysed into two distinct questions, only one of which I intend to tackle this morning. One could ask: Were Gospels written for Christians or for non-Christians? This question has sometimes been discussed, particularly in the case of the Gospels of Luke and John, since a minority of scholars have argued that those Gospels were written as apologetic or evangelistic works, not for Christians but for outsiders. On this question I shall go with the general consensus, that all Gospels were intended primarily for Christians, without arguing that point. It does deserve to be argued, but I have another agenda this morning. I will only say that it seems to me that, if any of the evangelists did envisage reaching non-Christian readers, they would have to have envisaged reaching them via Christian readers, who could pass on copies of Gospels to interested outsiders through personal contact. So the Christian audience would in any case remain primary.

The second question one could ask, and the one I invite you to ask this morning is: Were the Gospels written for a specific Christian audience or for a general Christian audience? Was, for example, Matthew written for Matthew’s own church, the so-called Matthean community, or was it written for the purpose of circulating widely around the churches? Are a Gospel’s implied readers a specific Christian community, or are they the members of any and every Christian community of the late first century to which the Gospel might circulate? Whereas my first question has sometimes been discussed, with some substantial arguments deployed in its discussion, this second question is remarkable for having never, so far as I can tell, been discussed. No space remotely approaching even the scope of this lecture this morning has ever been devoted in print to arguing the case one way or the other.

‘Only the Suffering God Can help’. divine passibility in modern theology (Bauckham, 1984)

In 1917 H. M. Relton made a judgment which has turned out to be remarkably far-sighted: ‘There are many indications that the doctrine of the suffering God is going to play a very prominent part in the theology of the age in which we live.’ The idea that God cannot suffer, accepted virtually as axiomatic in Christian theology from the early Greek Fathers until the nineteenth century, has in this century been progressively abandoned. For once, English theology can claim to have pioneered a major theological development: from about 1890 onwards, a steady stream of English theologians, whose theological approaches differ considerably in other respects, have agreed in advocating, with more or less emphasis, a doctrine of divine suffering. A peak of interest in the subject is indicated by J. K. Mozley’s important study, The Impassibility of God (1926), which was commissioned by the Archbishops’ Doctrine Commission in 1924 and which itself tells the story of English theological interest in the suffering of God up to 1924. Since then, a large number of English theologians have continued the tradition.

Loving our Fellow-creatures: Christians and Animal Rights (Bauckham, 2003)

Do animals have rights? It is becoming quite common to think so. Talk about animal rights follows on, of course, from talk about human rights. Those who advocate animal rights are proposing we extend the idea of rights from humans to other animals. How should Christians think about this? Does the Bible give us any guidance?

A more biblical sort of question about animals would be this: do we humans have a duty to love animals, just as we have a duty to love our fellow humans? We are commanded to love God and our (human) neighbours, but what about other creatures? Even if the Bible does not instruct us in so many words to love all our fellow creatures, it nevertheless rather strongly implies that we should. ‘Be merciful,’ said Jesus, ‘just as your Father is merciful.’1 God’s mercy is his caring and compassionate love, which he extends not only to humans but also to all his creatures. He ‘is good to all, and his compassion is over all he had made’.2 The psalmist can even say that God, in his love and his righteousness, saves ‘humans and animals alike.’3 So, if we are to love as God loves, surely we must love all that God loves.

The Decline of Progress and the Prospects for Christian Hope (Bauckham, 1999)

The vocation of Christians is ‘to bear the witness of Jesus’ (Rev. 12:17; 19:10), i.e. the witness Jesus himself, ‘the
faithful witness’ (1:5; 3:14), bore to God and God’s rule in his life and death. Witness in the face of the Roman imperial idolatry meant faithful witness in suffering and as far as death if necessary.