Tuesday, 22 May 2007
This year Durham instituted a 6 Month Review for all incoming PhD students.
Candidates for the PhD are required to produce
A review of literature or history of research or similar properly annotated and relevant to the research topic (at least 5,000 words long) A thesis plan (~i.e., an outline) and indicative timetable for submission of work
I had written a couple summaries of writers on union with Christ, so John said to do a general summary of Paul’s participation/tranformation theology instead (plus John’s a big fan of doing primary source analysis first). I looked at issues of new status, agency, and transformation: dying/rising, glory/image, and others. My paper ended up being around 15,000 words. I also updated my outline according to my study and turned everything in.
I had my meeting today with Loren and John, and it was very similar to those of other friends. I had to answer a few questions about my outline, methodology, and what I’m ‘not doing’. I thought it was a good experience to try to explain what I am doing in a holistic manner. But probably the more important part was just getting my two supervisors in one room. Since John has been very formative up to this point in my thinking, there wasn’t anything that I’d have to explain to him. But I haven’t met with Loren as much, so it was good to have both he and John in the same room so that all three of us are on the same page regarding the direction of the project.
All in all, it was a relatively painless and an even encouraging process. It was nice to look back at the time since I’ve been here and to see that my project is taking on a more definite shape. I am also realizing how big the process will be. I’m not just doing a comparison of Paul and patristic views of theosis, because there isn’t enough positive consensus on the reality of union with Christ. So, I’ve first got to do some generative work on Paul and how union with Christ works for him. Then I’ll do the comparison piece. I’m having fun so far and look forward to what I eventually figure out.
Tuesday, 22 May 2007 at 10:08 pm
Hi Ben,
Sounds like the review went well. My, 15,000 words. I guess that’s better than 15,000 pages!!!!
I’m having difficulty understanding this statement you made “there isn’t enough positive consensus on the reality of union with Christ”. I suppose those in the know will skip right over it. But it seems like an odd statement from my perspective. First that consensus could be either positive or negative. And second, that we could think of ‘union with Christ’ as a “reality”. It’s not something you can offer evidence or proof of, nor is it something that can be verified by fact. It is, on the other hand, a matter of faith and every bit “mystical”. Now I know, I may be reading more in to the statement than you intended, but language is a funny thing. As y’all are finding out. It either says what we mean or something different. So I thought I’d seek clarification. silly me!
Tuesday, 22 May 2007 at 11:57 pm
Ben, do you know what texts you will be focusing on specifically in your “generative work on Paul and how union with Christ works for him”?
Wednesday, 23 May 2007 at 12:16 am
Did you tackle David Brondos, Paul on the Cross: Reconstructing the Apostle’s Story of Redemption (Fortress 2006ish)? Interesting thesis–totally wrong, but a good whipping boy.
Wednesday, 23 May 2007 at 6:31 am
I’m glad to hear the review went well. Things like that can sound intimidating, but I’m glad it was fairly painless and even encouraging. Cheers to your next six months.
~Kev
Wednesday, 23 May 2007 at 10:10 pm
Wow, I haven’t written anything that’s generated 4 posts in quite a while.
Norm, thanks for your questions… On consensus, I was thinking more of an acceptable range of options. However, I’ve heard several times that there hasn’t been ‘a definitive work on union with Christ’. So maybe consensus of options or something would be a better phrase. I would propose that there is both reality and mystery involved, hence my interest in theosis. Now what that actually means, at least in Paul’s letters, I’ve yet to tease out.
MGA, So for the key texts that I focused on in my paper: Rom 6,8; 1 Cor 15; 2 Cor 3-5; Phil 3; Gal 3.26-28, 5-6. You’ll see that the focus is mostly on salvation applied rather than salvation accomplished.
JB, I actually haven’t done as much secondary lit reading as I probably should. But John is also a huge fan of just working in the primary texts, so he said just leave them out for my write up so I don’t just end up retreading past paths.
I have just finished a review of Richard Gaffin’s recent book: Paul and the Order of Salvation, and I thought he’s very much in the right direction, though I don’t see a big distinction in Paul between justification and sanctification. I’ve also read Doug Campbell’s book: The Quest for Paul’s Gospel, and I was anything but impressed. I’ll post something soon on these. So doing the wider range of reading is my task for summer/fall.
Friday, 25 May 2007 at 3:52 pm
My, you think the original post got some response, I’d like to see what folks think regarding that phrase about not seeing a “big distinction in Paul between justification and sanctification”.
Ain’t life grand!!!!!