Asian Journal of Pentecostal Studies Volume 19, Number 2 (August 2016) EDITORIAL Dave Johnson 95-97 Issues in New Testament Studies Part 1 ARTICLES Donald Hagner 99-107 Introduction to Lectureship Series: How “New” is the New Testament?: Continuity and Discontinuity Between the Old Testament (Formative Judaism) and the New Testament (Early Christianity) Donald Hagner 109-126 Lecture #1: Newness and Discontinuity in the Gospels Donald Hagner 127-144 Lecture #2: Newness in the Pauline Corpus Donald Hagner 145-162 Lecture #3: Pauline Corpus and Hebrews Donald Hagner 163-178 Lecture #4: Catholic Epistles and Apocalypse Adrian P. Rosen 179-206 The Ascension and Exaltation of Jesus in Lukan Theology Marlene Yu Yap 207-223 Three Parables of Jesus Through the Shame-Honor Lens BOOK REVIEWS Jordan Daniel May 225-227 Aaron T. Friesen, Norming the Abnormal: The Development and Function of the Doctrine of Initial Evidence in Classical Pentecostalism Monte Lee Rice 228-232 Wolfgang Vondey, Pentecostalism: A Guide for the Perplexed Adrian P. Rosen 233-237 Kenneth Mtata, editor, “You Have the Words of Eternal Life”: Transformative Readings of the Gospel of John from a Lutheran Perspective CONTRIBUTORS 238 [AJPS 19.2 (2016), pp. 95-97] Issues in New Testament Studies Part I In this and the next issue, we wade into the crowded waters of New Testament Studies. In Part 1, we present the work of a veteran scholar, Dr. Donald Hagner, the George Eldon Ladd Professor Emeritus of New Testament at the School of Theology at Fuller Theological Seminary in Pasadena, California. We also present the work of two newer scholars, Adrian Rosen, Ph.D (cand.) and Marlene Yap, MTh (cand.), who both teach here at APTS. All articles were originally given as lectures at the 24th annual William W. Menzies Lectureship Series January 18-22, 2016, on the APTS campus in Baguio City, Philippines and have been edited for publication. The five articles by Hagner deal with continuity and discontinuity between the Old and New Testaments. Following the opening article that lays the groundwork for all of the lectures, he divides his material into four parts (1) Newness and Discontinuity in the Gospels, (2) Newness in the Pauline Corpus, (3) Pauline Corpus and Hebrews and (4) Catholic Epistles and the Apocalypse. As Hagner notes, the discussion on continuity and discontinuity of the two Testaments is not new. Throughout history, the pendulum “has swung back and forth to extremes in the history of NT scholarship, depending on the climate of the times.” He contends that much of the past discussion focuses on discontinuity, while more recently the pendulum has swung completely toward continuity. Here, with plenty of OT and NT references to both sides, he reflects a refreshing balance. Adrian Rosen’s article takes a close look at the ascension and exaltation of Jesus in Lukan theology. His stated purpose is “to clarify the theological significance of the event most often designated as the ascension” of Christ, as detailed by Luke in Luke 24:51 and Acts 1:2, 9-11 and 22. Rosen, however, prefers the term assumption to ascension to describe the translation of Jesus into heaven as he feels it more comprehensively describes what happened. He points out that Luke 96 Asian Journal Pentecostal Studies 19.2 (2016) repeatedly alluded to the ascension of Elijah as a type of the assumption of Christ, suggesting that Luke was importing the same theological ramifications. One is compelled to agree with him that “the assumption provided a graphic and symbolic display of Jesus’ exaltation to God’s right hand.” Marlene Yap’s article is a welcome contribution to a growing emphasis on shame/honor issues in biblical studies. Articles like this provide a necessary reflection on an issue that uncovers a cultural blind spot among most western scholars, whose writings tend to reflect the West’s guilt/innocence cultural orientation. In doing so, she tangentially reveals both the need and value of theological dialogue between the West and the Majority World, something that has always been a core value of the AJPS. Yap contends that because the cultures of the NT were based on shame and honor, they should be understood and interpreted within that cultural framework. Here, she focuses on three of Jesus’ parables, The Prodigal Son (Luke 15:11-32), The Dishonest Manager (Luke 16:1-8) and The Rich Man and Lazarus (Luke 16:19-31). For Yap, the focus of the story of the Prodigal Son is really on the counter cultural attitudes of the father more than that of either of his sons. In the Dishonest Manager, she points out that the theme of the owner’s magnanimity is much stronger than that of the steward’s dishonesty. In doing so, she gives the clearest interpretation of this parable I have ever read. In the parable of the Rich Man and Lazarus, the theme of honor and shame is reflected in the sociological status of Abraham, the rich man and Lazarus. The unrepentant rich man talks to Abraham, since he is the father of all Jews, rather than lowering himself to speak to Lazarus. In doing so, he insults Abraham as well, since Lazarus is Abraham’s guest of honor in Paradise. In tying these articles together, Yap contends that the overall themes that unite these parables are God’s justice, grace and love. Her interpretation of these stories through the honor/shame cultural lens supports her conclusion well. Allow me to say a word about the Asian/Westerner authorship makeup of this edition. Through the years, the AJPS has pursued a good balance between publishing the work of Asians and Westerners. For the previous two editions, all authors have been Asian. There are two reasons why this edition reflects a western dominance. One, as mentioned, the Hagner articles were presented as a unit at our Issues in Pentecostal Studies Part 1 97 Lectureship, and the editorial team felt that it would be better to present them here in the same manner rather than dividing them up over two editions, which was our original intent. Second, we were intending to publish an article by another Asian author and put the Rosen article in the next edition, but had to switch them due to editing issues. For those who would prefer to see more Asian authors, thank you for understanding. As always, you are welcome to contact me through www.apts.edu. I’d be delighted to hear from you. Thanks for reading, Dave Johnson, D.Miss Managing Editor 98 Asian Journal Pentecostal Studies 19.2 (2016) [AJPS 19.2 (2016), pp. 99-107] How “New” Is the New Testament?: Continuity and Discontinuity Between the Old Testament (Formative Judaism) and the New Testament (Early Christianity) Introductory Lecture by Donald Hagner The question of the relationship of the Old and New Testaments has been a much discussed issue in the church from the beginning. The NT frequently quotes the OT and even more frequently alludes to it; and the NT constantly stresses the fulfillment of the OT promises. These facts inevitably raise the challenging question of continuity and discontinuity—i.e., the extent to which the NT can be regarded as simply continuing or extending the OT,1 and the extent to which the NT can be regarded as “breaking new ground” or taking us to a new reality that necessarily transcends the OT (although anticipated by it). A part of this question, and indeed a manifestation of it, is the important issue of the relationship between Judaism and Christianity. Although a priori it would seem clear enough that somehow both continuity and discontinuity are true and must be affirmed, the pendulum nevertheless has swung back and forth to extremes in the history of NT scholarship, depending on the climate of the times. Through most of the history of the Church, it is hardly surprising that the emphasis has been on discontinuity. Already in the early 2nd century, we encounter strong anti-Judaism (theological disagreement, 1I must here mention the new book by my Fuller Seminary colleague, OT scholar John Goldingay, titled “Do We Need the New Testament?: Letting the Old Testament Speak for Itself” (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2015). I had nearly finished writing these lectures when I first encountered this book. While I appreciate Goldingay’s opposition to Marcionism and his desire to value the OT on its own terms, I think he seriously underestimates the newness of the NT and its importance. His answer to the question posed in his title would seem to be something like, “Yes but just barely.” He emphasizes continuity and downplays discontinuity. There are some good things and some important correctives to gain from reading his book; but in the main, I’m afraid I cannot recommend it. 100 Asian Journal of Pentecostal Studies 19.2 (2016) which I distinguish from anti-Semitism) and, hence, stress on discontinuity plainly evident in the apostolic fathers Barnabas and Ignatius. In the middle of the 2nd century, Marcion infamously posed the problem in the starkest terms by the rejection of the OT writings as Scripture and the differentiation of the God of the OT (the Demiurge) from the God of the NT. We gratefully note that the early Church, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, had the wisdom to resist Marcion and to affirm the OT as a vital part of its canon. Further to be mentioned in the 2nd century are Justin Martyr’s Dialogue with Trypho the Jew and the anti-Judaism of Melito’s Paschal Homily, and in the 3rd century Tertullian. Particularly grievous is the Adversus Judaeos literature of the following centuries, represented by such fathers as Ambrose, Cyprian, Cyril of Alexandria, and especially John Chrysostom’s homilities against the Jews.2 Christian polemic against the Jews continued through the Middle Ages down to Martin Luther’s venomous “On the Jews and Their Lies” and beyond.