A Facebook page dedicated to him has been created here.

Ken was someone who, while a “de-convert” from Christianity, and while an evangelical with regard to his atheist faith, I considered a friend. I did like and respect him very much. He was cordial and respectful. He and I had some history, but it was something that I look back upon with great pleasure. I am glad that I knew him.

I commented on his blog post the day he died . . . it was a tongue in cheek reference to his post on the governmental theory of the atonement (which was very interesting, by the way).

Much of the conversation that I had with him in private, through email, was very positive. He expressed appreciation for what we were doing here, especially at the blog. He linked to us many times and actually sent me someone who was struggling with the faith for help.

All of this to say that I will miss Ken Pullium.

May God be with his family during this trying time.Similar Posts:

• Left Behind the Video Game?
• Converse with Scholars? Do we need to?
• Friday Night Odds and Ends
• Beckwith Speaks About His Conversion and Resigns as President of ETS
• C. F. D. Moule: Last of the Gentlemen-Scholars

Of course we have all be sitting on pins and needles waiting for such a definitive announcement, right? This information comes from his new book The Grand Design, his first major work in nearly a decade (to be released later this month). What makes this information news, I suppose, is that before this announcement, Hawking could have been labeled as an agnostic with quasi-deistic sympathies. In other words, if Hawking allowed for a God, it was not one like the Christian God and he/she/it was certainly not interested in the going-ons here on earth. ”The universe,” according to Hawking, ”is governed by the laws of science. The laws may have been decreed by God, but God does not intervene to break the laws” (source). In other words, no miracles, no transcendent love, and no God becoming man. How he was privy to the information that “God does not intervene” is for his eyes only.

However, as I said, there has been a change. Hawking seems to have figured it out. In his new book he says that “Spontaneous creation is the reason why there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist.” He goes on, “It is not necessary to invoke God to light the blue touch paper [fuse] and set the universe going.”

But I don’t get it. Aren’t we as rational being supposed to be rational? Is it really rational to say that something comes from nothing. What about the axiom, ex nihilo nihil fit, “out of nothing, nothing comes.” What if this “spontaneous generation” answer was permissible in our every day life? Me: “Will, who made this mess in your room?” Will: “Ummm…no one. It just appeared from nothing.” Fireman: “How did this fire start? Man: “It was just one of those things. Nothing started it.” Policeman: “Who robbed the bank.” Robber: “No one. The money is just gone and nothing caused it to go.”

As irrational as this “something from nothing” philosophy is in the real world, it cannot and should not get a better shake when it comes to religion. People often ask, “If God created everything who or what created God?” Many times we just stare with a blank look on their face, not knowing how to respond. However, we do have a response. It is called transcendence.

(Hang with me, I will get back to the Hawking kind of faith thing in a moment.)

We believe in a transcendent God. This is what we call a ”necessary” belief. “If something exists,” so the argument goes, “God must exist.” It is actually the best argument for God that is out there. If something exists, we have to have an adequate cause to explain it. This cause must be transcendent in order to avoid the infinite regress produced by the “If God created everything, who created God? Who created that which created God? Who created that which created that which created God?” You see, there must be an “ultimate cause.” This is called the “unmoved mover.” Because of the law of cause and effect (every effect has an sufficient cause) and because we know that time cannot go infinitely backward (or we would never reach the present because we would always have an infinity to go), we know that the “universe” in which God resides, must transcend the physical laws of our universe.

Back to Hawking…

Hawking understands well the ultimate atheist dilemma. It is not whether or not evolution can explain the the genesis of life. It is not whether God shows his face here and there. It is not even whether spiritual bodies can be scientifically proven. It is the problem of existence itself. Where did everything come from? The law of cause and effect says that there must be a sufficient explanation for existence. If there is no God, then there is no answer to the question, Why is there something rather than nothing?

However, Hawking has the answer. In his new book (from what I understand) he argues for the reality of multiple universes. From here he argues that if there are many universes (possibly an infinite number), one will have characteristics in physics that are much different than ours. One of these characteristics may be that it does not have to abide by the law of cause and effect. If so, in this universe, something can come from nothing.

At this point I pause and say to myself, Stephen Hawking believes in a god. You see, this is not so much unlike the tentative belief that aliens created our universe held by Richard Dawkins. In both cases, you have to have something above and beyond us which explains our existence. There must be something/someone which exists outside of our universe to explain the existence of our universe since the laws of our universe militate against self-creation. For Hawking there is a “universe” out there which is responsible for all things. Hawking’s creative universe where something can come from nothing carries the same basic and essential characteristic of the Christian view of God: transcendence. Sure, Christians add attributes to our understanding of God such as intelligence, love, and intervention, but the essential realm of existence is the same. God resides in a realm where the laws of physics do not have the same application. Why? Because he created them. They had their genesis with him through the creation of our time/space universe. God, in his essence, has no relation to time, space, or matter, therefore, he is not “under” the laws we are under. What we call heaven (often as a metonymy for God), Hawking calls “the universe where the same rules do not apply.” What this “universe” is like would most certainly be a great mystery to Hawking, but it exists nonetheless. Why? Because it must exist. There simply must be a sufficient explanation for all things. Therefore, Hawking believes in a mysterious creator of all things. Whether this creator is personal or not is not the issue right now. The point is that Hawking invokes a mysterious creator he calls “Other Universe.” This puts him in the religious camp of either pantheism or deism.

Does he worship this “other universe”? It depends on what you mean by “worship.” He credits it with the creation of all things, believes in its power and transcendence, and, now, is evangelizing on its behalf. But he does not have a relationship with it and does not believe it cares about him. Like Paul walking through Athens and noticing the alter built to the “unknown god” (Acts 17:23), Stephen Hawking has a similar alter with the same kind of generic name: “Another Universe.”

The point is that ultimately you have to avoid the “Where did it all come from?” question if you want to be a consistent atheist. Hawking’s pronouncement that God is not necessary dies the death of his own qualification. His faith step here is in the right direction, but needs to go further. I simply call on him to see that this God has revealed himself to us in the person of Jesus Christ and call us to a life of recognition and service to him.

Having said this, I do say what a brilliant mind Hawkins truly does have. Even though he is an unbeliever, he is shows God’s image so brightly in many ways.Similar Posts:

• Why is There Something Rather than Nothing? The Only Six Options
• Why is there Something Rather than Nothing?
• 10 Arguments for God's Existence
• Ten Arguments for the Existence of God
• A Letter to an Atheist

First, I went to an evangelical high Anglican church. I was wanting to see something a little more traditional. Plus, according to the latest news about red wine and health, I needed a shot of the real thing. It was a rewarding experience. It was also interesting to be at a church that was not to concerned about whether I was there or not. There were no greeters at the door, no one really noticed when I came in, and they did not say anything to me as I left. This is not a criticism, but just an observation. They did not let anything take them away from their reverential service in which things were done in a particular order. Because of this, it was not a primary purpose to fill the pews with guests. If a guest came in, great. They could stay and worship, but they were not going to do back flips and moonwalk for anyone but Christ.

Next, I went to a church that was just the opposite. It was a popular non-denominational Evangelical associated church. It was much more alluring in its style, having a much more amplified voice with regards to recognizing newcomers. From the moment we got in the parking lot, there were signs welcoming us along with parking lot attendants waving. These guys were so enthusiastic you would think that they had been trained at Disney World. The signs pointed to valet parking for first time guests. I would have taken them up on the offer, but pride always rules (oh . . . and then there is that awkward feeling that you are supposed to give them some money even when they say they don’t take it). We were greeted by another enthusiastic character, a very nice young man, who led us around. When we told him we were first time visitors, he said “Oh, VIPs?” We then were introduced everywhere we went under this title “VIPs” (Very Important Persons). When others would hear that we were VIPs, they would have a look of excitement mixed with anxiousness. The anxiousness seemed to come from an underlying understanding that their church was focused on bringing in newcomers. Then . . . they led us to the children’s area.

Here most of the kids were playing video games along a long wall which had the game consoles built into the wall. The room itself was huge. It must have been designed by the same person who designs Chuck-E-Cheese. Seriously! (Although this is not as cool as the church we went to a few months ago where you had to climb a jungle gym two stories high and then slide through the wall in the foyer into the children’s area!)

There was an elf that met the children at the door. Also in this room was a store that had Barbies, action figures, Brats Dolls, and all of the most popular items that you would find in a Toy-R-Us catalog the day after Thanksgiving. In order for kids to get the merchandise, they had to say a memory verse and earn store credits. The first thing my kids said to me when I went to pick them up was “Daddy, can we start going to this church?” Can you blame them? For kids, this was a dream church.

Well, I really try to keep an open mind about these things knowing that one persons church is not another’s. But I had yet to go to the main service. As we walked in, I had to dodge the camera and squint to see the stage. It was dark and there was production smoke everywhere. We sat down and listened to an incredible performance by the worship team who sang many songs I was very familiar with. They were Christ centered and I sang along. I even put my hands up in the air when the worship leader instructed us to (hey, when in Rome). My wife looked at me with the “I cannot believe that you are really doing that” smile/laugh. No really, she had the I-am-hiding-my-face-because-my-husband-is-in-one-of-those-weird-aggressive-moods-and-he-is-going-to-make-a-fool-of-me look. In reality, the worship was very well done. It could have been an opening act to a U2 concert.

After the worship, then came the announcements. That is where things really got interesting. Instead of the normal Baptist list of things giving from a random person from the pulpit, the lights went dark and there was silence. On the screens up above there were prerecorded announcement videos. These were not just your hey-I-got-a-new-digital-camera-and-I-am-now-a-professional-editor videos. No, these could have been aired during the Super Bowl. Yes, they were that good. And funny! They went through four separate announcements. The first was to welcome special guests. Then one for the men’s ministry, followed by one for the women’s ministry and one for a marriage seminar that was coming up. All the videos had a different theme and was a top rate production. They were funny enough to be on Saturday Night Live (ok, that is an exaggeration, but they were funny).

I could not believe how much time and energy must have gone into making these videos. And they do it each week! (I can’t even get one short promotional video for RMM—blast it!).

Then comes the sermon. The message itself was good and helpful, but better suited for a Zig Ziggler seminar on self-motivation. He used Mark 7:33 to teach that Christ wants to deal with us each individually and wants our words to be for edification because what we think, we are.

How did he get this you ask? Well, let me show you.

Mark 7:33 Jesus took him aside from the crowd, by himself, and put His fingers into his ears, and after spitting, He touched his tongue with the saliva.

“Jesus took him aside”=Jesus wants to deal with us each individually.

“Jesus spit”=Jesus had to form the saliva in his mouth before He spit, therefore, we are to let Him form our words.

“[He] put His fingers into his ears…He touched his tongue…and his ears were opened and his speech impediment was removed” (v. 35)=sometimes we don’t hear people rightly because we already have the wrong words in our mouth. Therefore, we have to have the right words in our mouth.

Well, at least the principles are true generally, even if it has nothing whatsoever to do with the text. God does want us to listen to others and he does want us to think about what we say. As well, I believe that there is an individualistic way in which God wants to relate to us.

Once the service was over, I went and drug my kids out of the amusement park (literally) and then began to reflect.

A few points of observation (the good, the bad, and the ugly):

The Good

• I really think that these people have the best of intentions.
• They did represent excellence in arts and entertainment and thereby bring glory to God.
• They were very outreach oriented.
• They had Starbucks.

The Bad

• The focus on entertaining newcomers caused them to lose focus on truth.
• The focus on entertainment took resources away from the training of the pastors to accurately handle the word of God–the very foundation of truth from where the idea of Church comes.
• The focus on entertainment smacked of irreverence. I am not one of the high church mentality, but doesn’t the purpose of worship and study of God’s word call for seriousness at some point? There was never a time when I felt that these people knew what it meant to fear the Lord.

I want to make something really clear. I don’t have anything against amusement, entertainment, or fun. I don’t even mind it in church to some degree (I wish that some preachers would just try to entertain A LITTLE). If they had just called this an event rather than church, I would have been more at ease. Call it a Christian concert, carnival, parade, entertainment production, or whatever, but please don’t call it “church.”

The Ugly

The sad fact is that there was no educational program for people to grow deep in the faith. There were plenty of opportunities for service, outreach to the community, and fellowship, but nothing that helped these people understand the why of what they are doing. I don’t necessarily expect these type of churches to do church the exact way that I would tell them, but at least have as one of the involvement suggestions a program of theological discipleship or doctrine to encourage people to know the God they are serving.

These people had no connection to the past whatsoever. They would have no idea about the history of the church outside of the history of their local gathering. What are they connected to? What makes them think that they are qualified to bring in all these visitors? Don’t they feel the least bit of a need to have a heritage? Are they not accountable to anyone past or present?

The biggest fear that I have is that this is representative of so many well meaning people who start churches. I imagine the person who started this particular church grew up in a very boring church and set it as his primary goal to someday have a church that was fun. That is nice, but, more often than not, totally destructive. The pews are filled with people who are weak and totally unestablished in the faith. Most really don’t know what the Christian message is outside of “Jesus loves you and wants you to have a wonderful life.” Many claim Jesus, serve Him, and lift up their hands in praise, but what happens when someone or something challenges their faith? Where are they going to turn? To the shallowness of the entertaining commercials or out of context self-help lessons? Where will they go when the foundations are destroyed?

It is this type of context that gives unfortunate illustrations to books like Ruth Tucker’s Walking Away From the Faith. “I was a Christian who used to go to church every week, served on the welcoming team for years, lifted my hands in worship, went to other countries and built churches, but I came to find out that it was all false.” Really? What I want to know is did you ever find out that it was really true in the first place.

I could go on but this experience has confirmed to me the desperate shape that the modern church—the Evangelical church—is in and the need that we have for renewal. When things get tough (and they will), who will people turn to? Where will people go when the entrainment, laughter, and fun serve no purpose?

May God grant us a mindset to give people their true needs, not their felt needs.

Truth first, mission second, fellowship third, and if there is any room, throw in some entertainment.Similar Posts:

• The Entertainment Driven Church
• Theology Unplugged: “Marks of a False Church” (What is the “True” Church #5)
• Theology Unplugged: “Marks of a False Church” (What is the “True” Church #6)
• Theology Unplugged: What is the “True” Church #3
• Theology Unplugged: What is the “True” Church #4

The UV photography is necessary for pages that are water damaged, faint from wear, erased by a later scribe, smudged, and the like. Even with our new 21 megapixel camera, such pages cannot be shot successfully without black light.

We were able to photograph more than one fourth of the pages that we are scheduled to shoot this week. We are scheduled to be here only one week, so time is of the essence.

After we finish our duty here, we will fly to Athens next Saturday and take an 8-hour ferry to Patmos. With seventeen (!) large pieces of luggage in tow, this is no picnic.

Please pray for continued mercy from our Lord as we seek to please him in all we do. And pray, if you would, that we could receive donations of frequent flyer miles from friends. The cost of travel has risen considerably since last year’s expeditions, and even checked-in luggage is starting to cost. Our budget this year was based on an anticipated rise in costs, but not one that has gone up as significantly as this. If any of you are interested in donating some miles, please write to miles@csntm.org.

Similar Posts:

• Photographing the Wee Beastie
• New Testament Manuscripts Discovered in Albania
• Patmos Update
• The Greer-Heard Forum: A Few Observations
• Wall Street Journal: Digitizing Ancient Manuscripts

What I can tell beyond the above is that a few of the manuscripts seem to be fairly important, although only one or two can properly be called “early.†(I take it that the title in the press release is descriptive rather than restrictive; that is, early could be applied to any New Testament manuscript since all such are handwritten documents and virtually all are prior to the invention of the moveable-type printing press.)

A class of graduate students at Dallas Seminary last semester worked on collating sample chapters in these manuscripts. Collation is, in principle, a transcription of the wording (even down to the letters) of a document. But a collation is different from a straight transcription in that a base text is collated against; all the differences from that base text are noted. The variants that are thus produced are the readings that do not agree with the base text. Otherwise, agreement with the base text is assumed. This method creates an apparatus that follows what is commonly called the subtractio princeps—that is, it creates only those readings that are not found in the base text. Since the base text is the Byzantine text (which basically stands behind the King James Bible), any differences from that base raise the eyebrows and suggest that such a reading may be early and important.

After spending what must have seemed to them like an eternity collating these manuscripts, the students finally were able to assess what the teams had photographed, or discover what they had discovered. To be sure, the library in which these manuscripts are housed had a record of their contents; they knew what they were, at least in broad strokes. We are extremely grateful for the library opening its doors to us, too! But what CSNTM provided were the specific details, as well as decent digital images. And what the press release will say is that at least four of these manuscripts are significant for telling us about the wording of the original text. What it won’t say is that we didn’t get a chance to look at all the manuscripts yet. There may be, therefore, many others that are significant as well.

I can also mention that Hitler had shown an interest in one or two of these manuscripts during WWII. Fascinating story there.Similar Posts:

• The Center for the Study of New Testament Manuscripts (CSNTM) is proud to announce the SMU Debate between two noted New Testament scholars, Dr. Bart D. Ehrman and Dr. Daniel B. Wallace
• New Testament Manuscripts Discovered in Albania
• CSNTM, Text Criticism, and Patmos
• News Release: Update on the New Testament Manuscript Find
• New Testament Manuscripts: The Beat Goes On

According to Robertson, he receives these revelations from the Lord as the Lord speaks to him during prayer.

Here is a quick review of some of his previous prophetic revelations over the last decade or so:

1980: The USSR will invade the Middle East

1981: There will be a global economic collapse.

1998: Because Orlando city officials approved the celebration of the Gay Days events at Disney World, Robertson said, “ don’t think I’d be waving those flags in God’s face if I were you. [A] condition like this will bring about the destruction of your nation. It’ll bring about terrorist bombs, it’ll bring earthquakes, tornadoes and possibly a meteor”

2004: President Bush will easily win the election in a blowout

2005: President Bush will have Social Security and tax reform passed and that Muslims will turn to Jesus Christ.

2006: Storms and possibly a tsunami will hit America’s coastline.

2007: A terrorist attack on the United States would result in mass killing late in 2007.I’m not necessarily saying it’s going to be nuclear” he said during his news-and-talk television show The 700 Club on the Christian Broadcasting Network. The Lord didn’t say nuclear. But I do believe it will be something like that”

Concerning last year’s mishap Robertson responds, “All I can think is that somehow the people of God prayed and God in his mercy spared us.” Concerning Bush’s social security reform, Robertson said, “I have a relatively good track record. Sometimes I miss.”

Ummm . . . I am not with him. His title of “Evangelical” is different than mine. Nice guy, probably loves the Lord, but I don’t know where he is getting his information.

I guess that we can take comfort that this year will not be a time of financial doom?

Similar Posts:

• Jesus’ burial site discovered!
• Albania 2008
• Kanakuk Family Kamp: “It is better than Disney World”
• Jesus in Prime Time
• Ruth Graham Dies at 87

On Monday of this week (October 1, 2007), an icon of sober-minded New Testament scholarship died. He was ninety-eight. Born in China on December 3, 1908, Charles Francis Digby Moule (pronounced "mole") had a stellar career as a pastor and professor. He was one of the best known New Testament scholars of the twentieth century. Already many obituaries and eulogies have been written about him. Here are some of the links:

Scot McKnight’s blogsite
The Telegraph
The Independent
Mark Goodacre’s website

The basic information about his life can be seen on these websites. I’d like to share some more personal information. For starters, there has been no scholar whom I would consider a mentor more than C. F. D. Moule. I first came in contact with him in 1978, when I was working on my master’s thesis. I wrote to several grammarians to get their input on the thesis, "The Relation of Adjective to Noun in Anarthrous Constructions." Such a grammatical topic was the kind of paper that would cure the most hopeless insomniac, yet Moule was kind enough to write back. The basic objective of the thesis was to see whether 2 Timothy 3.16 should be translated "all scripture is inspired and profitable"or "all inspired scripture is also profitable." Moule disagreed with my conclusions (I argued for the first translation) but noted that the way I argued the case was the best way to defend the view. When I was working on my doctoral dissertation (another grammatical topic: "Article-Substantive-Kai-Substantive Constructions in the New Testament: Semantics and Significance" ), again I corresponded with Moule. And again, the focus was on a theological issue. This time the issue was closer to Moule’s heart: I argued, among other things, that at least Titus 2.13 and 2 Peter 1.1 affirmed the deity of Christ. Moule felt that I had proved my case.

To the unwary reader, one might think that Moule agreed with me on the second work simply because he believed that the New Testament affirms the deity of Christ. But that would be a great disservice to his memory, for Moule was, above all, an honest scholar. If he didn’t think an author had a defensible argument, even if Moule agreed with the theological implications of the essay, he would not be swayed. In the world of Cambridge University, a solid defense of a position was and is far more important than holding to the "right" view.

On my first sabbatical (1994-95), I spent some time at Tyndale House in Cambridge. Moule was already long retired and had moved to a little apartment in Pevensey, near Hastings. I wrote to him and asked if I could visit him. He invited me to lunch and I stayed for eight hours. We had a wonderful time together! That started a friendship that has continued and deepened over the years. Although I was never a student of his, he has been as close to me as any of my professors.

Over the past twelve years, we corresponded regularly. At one point, early on, he wrote, "Dear Dan, I think we now know each other well enough to drop the formalities. Please call me Charlie." I wrote back that I was not worthy to call him on a first-name basis, but I was vain enough to accept the offer to do so. That vanity will continue here because for a dozen years I have known him as Charlie.

His letters were always a great treat and truly fascinating. Whenever I got a letter from him, my wife would call me at work and say, "You got another letter from Charlie!" It was like getting a Christmas present in July; his letters were that important to me. I would open the letter and read it to our family. Every letter was a mixture of the latest theological news in the United Kingdom, Charlie’s personal anecdotes about life and ministry, and encouraging comments about my family. When my third son, Andy, had cancer, Moule offered up many prayers for his health. When I was struck with viral encephalitis, he was on his knees, beseeching the Lord of mercy for my health. He knew about our kids’ school, sports, girlfriends, spiritual life, work. He was like a beloved uncle who never intruded but always had an interest in each one of us.

I learned the art of letter-writing from Charlie Moule. And I learned the extreme value of letters from him. Email doesn’t have the same impact, and even face-to-face conversations don’t have the lasting impact that a written document can have. I have saved all his letters, and hope that many others who have been influenced by his life have, too. I’ve thought for several years of publishing a book of letters from Moule—not just letters that he wrote me but those he wrote many others as well. Each letter would tell its own story and show that there used to be giants among us, scholars whose heads were firmly attached to their hearts. Perhaps now is the time to get started on that tome.

He was the consummate gentleman, always rehashing the contents of my letters to him, affirming my life and ministry as though I were his own grandson. But Moule had no children or grandchildren. He was a life-long bachelor who never even learned how to drive a car. He was also one of the happiest scholars—indeed, one of the happiest human beings—that I’ve ever known. One can wonder whether this was due to his celibate state or to his bipedal mobility; ultimately, I think it was due to his genuine devotion to Jesus Christ—a devotion that was not merely cerebral but poured forth from his whole being.

We disagreed over many things, but always in the spirit of collegiality. He would not endorse the NET Bible even though he personally called it "a miracle" (largely because of the extensive and well-documented footnotes). His reason for not endorsing it was that he didn’t want to endorse things that were too evangelical. Yet he was not always consistent in such matters. He not only endorsed my Exegetical Syntax of the New Testament, but he co-nominated me, with Harold Hoehner, for membership in the Society of New Testament Studies. This is a rather prestigious society that demands that applicants go through several academic hoops to get in. Many scholars apply several times before getting accepted. In large measure, because of the backing of C. F. D. Moule (a former president of the Society), I was elected for membership the first year I was nominated.

Theologically, Moule was a moderate. He fully embraced the bodily resurrection of Christ and the deity of Christ. Yet his view on scripture, on the Holy Spirit, and many other matters would hardly be considered evangelical. Any view that Moule expounded on, however, had to be dealt with seriously. He was as careful a biblical scholar as one could find.

When I spent the day with him back in April of 1995, he offered many anecdotes about noted scholars. We turned at one point to talk about D. A. Carson. Moule blurted out, when I mentioned his name, "Oh, he’s my favorite fundamentalist!" I then asked him if Dr. Carson would appreciate being called a fundamentalist. "Probably not" Charlie said with a wink in his eye.

When I wrote to him about the litter that our beagle, Gini (or Sweet Generis—a Latin word-play) had, I told him that we were going to keep one of the puppies. Her name was Kunopa Kala. I reminded him that he would have to dust off his Homer to understand her name. He fired back a letter: "What a great name for a dog! And how appropriate that you put her name in the vocative!" That was news to me!

I believe that Moule had memorized the Greek New Testament, just as his predecessor at Cambridge, C. H. Dodd, had done. After one of his visits to Cambridge a few years ago, on the train ride home, Charlie’s only copy of the Greek New Testament was stolen, a copy that he had had for decades. Yet one could almost see the smile on his face as he wrote to me, "I hope that the thief will come to see the real value of his new treasure!" My Advanced Greek Grammar class at Dallas Seminary pooled their resources and we purchased a Biblia Sacra for him (a one-volume Hebrew Old Testament with the Greek New Testament), a gift for which he was exceedingly grateful. In the interim, when he had no Greek New Testament, he continued to write to me. He made many helpful comments about the NET Bible (of which I am the senior New Testament editor). In several places, he commented on the Greek text and our translation of it. Yet his comments on the Greek text were all from memory.

On the five hundredth anniversary of Lady Margaret’s Chair of Divinity at Cambridge University in 2002, Moule returned to Cambridge for the festivities. He was being honored as one of the most prestigious occupiers of that chair in its long history. Although known as one of the great New Testament scholars of the twentieth century, Moule was actually a professor of theology! Many students know him for his insightful Idiom-Book of New Testament Greek (second edition, 1959). As well, he wrote several essays and books on New Testament themes. A good friend of mine has said, "Theologians have opinions but exegetes have evidence." Moule was a theologian with evidence on his side, for he was a superb, sober-minded exegete.

Although known in evangelical New Testament circles for his Idiom-Book, Moule’s greatest academic accomplishment has to be his Origin of Christology (1977). It is still well worth reading. Indeed, it is must reading for anyone who wants to think deeply about this profound subject. When one of the Star Wars movies opened in theaters, I took my family to see the movie on opening day. I knew the lines would be long, so I brought my copy of Origin of Christology with me to reread while standing in line. When the movie started, I slipped it behind my back and forgot about it when I left the theater. The next day, I returned to see if someone had turned it in. There it was in the ticket kiosk! I wrote Charlie about this, and he noted wryly that using his book for back support was the most unusual use anyone had ever made of the book!

When I pleaded with him to write his autobiography, he simply said, "My life is not that interesting; no one would read such a boring book!" I’ve never known anyone more humble than Charlie Moule. "Pretentious" would never be an adjective to describe him. He showed more interest in my work than any other scholar did. Yet I was not treated in a particularly special way. He treated everyone the same, with grace, wit, humility, and endearing warmth.

I could go on and on telling stories about my friend and mentor, Charlie Moule. His life was fascinating to me, as I hope this little glimpse of it has been for you. At first, I was surprised to see the incredible warmth in his epistles. Then, I started to doubt myself, wondering whether he would be so kind of I misstepped in my missives to him. But he was always the same, even when we had strong disagreements, and even when I had offered some half-baked ideas that he shot down with ease.

He was completely lucid till his dying day, even though living in an assisted-living home for the last few years. His letters were filled with Latin, Greek, German, and Hebrew, yet were written in a lively style with a great sense of humor and an excessive use of exclamation points. They combined, like none I’ve ever seen (except for Bruce Metzger’s), the personal warmth and intellectual rigor of a genuine Christian scholar. When I would write, I would wait no more than ten days before getting a handwritten response. I always owed him a letter. I was planning on writing him again this weekend when I got the news of his passing today. The death of a friend always hits me hard. Even though C. F. D. Moule was nearly ninety-nine, and even though I knew that his day would come soon, I was not prepared for it today. It hit me hard both because of my relationship to him and because he was the sole survivor of a dying breed. With his death is the passing of the last of the gentlemen-scholars.

Similar Posts:

• What If We Found The Original New Testament But Did Not Know It?
• What if we found the original New Testament but did not know it? (Part 2)
• Book Review of Bart D. Ehrman’s “Forged” – Part 3
• Walid Shoebat Youtube Video on the Mark of the Beast
• The Number of Textual Variants: An Evangelical Miscalculation

You can still enroll. Online classes begin Tuesday. The cost is $100 per course. for those of you who cannot afford this, we do have a limited number of scholarships available from generous donors. Email us for more information.Similar Posts:

• Science and the Bible Course Starts Tuesday…Enroll Now!
• The Theology Program Starts Tomorrow: Enroll Now!
• The Theology Program Online Classes Start Today
• Online School of Theology: Starts Sept. 12th!
• New Local Church Network Site for The Theology Program

2. Ben Witherington writes on authorial intent hermeneutics. His three basic guidelines: 1) It means what is means, not what you want it to mean or your presuppositions determine it means. 2) Context is king. No proof texting. This is one of the biggest interpretive problems in the church today.  3) Genre Matter. You have interpret according to the rules of engagement determined by the type of literature. Oh that people would embrace these principles. Here is an excerpt.

“When I say ‘what it meant is what it means’ in reference to any text, but especially the Bible, I mean that the meaning is encoded in the complex of words and phrases we find in the text. Meaning is not something we get to read into the text on the basis of our own opinions or ideas. Meaning is not in the eye of the beholder. Meaning is something that resides in the text, having been placed there by the inspired author and requires of us that we discover what that meaning is by the proper contextual study of the text. ‘Significance’ however is a different matter altogether. A text can have a significance or even an application for you or me, that the original author could never have imagined. But the text cannot have a meaning that the original inspired author did not place there. Meaning is one thing, significance or application another. The job of hermeneutics is to help us rightly interpret the meaning of these important Biblical texts.”

3. Evangelical Outpost plugs The Theology Program which starts Sept 11 online. Thanks Joe!

4. Read N.T. Wright’s lecture “Can a Scientist Believe in the Resurrection.”

5. Is Godtube.com the internet’s worst website? Sounds like just a bit of an overstatement.

6. J.P. Moreland writes about how Jesus argued.

7. Problems with this blog and some posters: This blog has become extremely busy over the last few months. There has been some trouble with some people who don’t understand our purpose and philosophy. Please go out of your way to be respectful and irenic, knowing that this is a place to discuss with kindness, not call people out for debate or accuse of heresy (please reserve that for the bloggers!). As well, since the size of this blog has grown so much, people are beginning to use the comments area for their own personal blog. While we encourage discussion, please do so with discretion and stay on topic. I will send one warning by email and then I will remove your privileges. Those of you who have not received a warning, then you are fine…post on!

8. The Conservative Reformed Mafia continues to impress and Michael Spencer does what he does best (say things others are afraid to say).

9. 17 year old hacks iPhone

10. Superman: Doomsday is released next month

Oh yeah.Similar Posts:

• Friday Night Odds and Ends, July 13
• Friday Night Odds and Ends, August 18
• Friday Night Odds and Ends
• Friday Night Odds and Ends, July 13
• Friday Night Odds and Ends, July 27

Now, I want everyone to notice who is a rebel along with me and Ben. Yes, you can check right here. Those of you who know me will know exactly who I am talking about! Oh yeah!

My initial thoughts about this project are positive. In a blog about scientific naturalism (atheism) I said this to a representative atheist:

My proposal for your consideration is this: To make a rational argument that people should not believe in a creator is self-defeating for two reasons: 1) There is no such thing as “rational argument” in your worldview and 2) There is no place for moral statements such as “should” or “ought” in your worldview. Please understand that this is primarily a philosophical argument against naturalism, but not all philosophy is bad! 

Read the rest here.

This movie may very well evidence the next step being taken to debunking one of the most naive and ill-supported theories that has passed through the doors of academia. Maybe J.P. Moreland was right when he said that scientific naturalism has only about 10 years left with regards to its stronghold it has on the scientific community. Kudos to Ben Stein and his gang. Reclaim the mind Ben!

Thoughts?Similar Posts:

• Conversations with an Atheist Concerning the Irrationality of Atheistic Rational
• A Letter to an Atheist
• Screwtape Letters Movie!!
• Richard Dawkins: Advocate of Science or Self-Refuting Scientism? – Response to Dawkins, Part III
• Reason, Personal Responsibility, and Naturalism’s Counterintuitive Claims: Response to Dawkins, Part IV