Paul K Hubbard - Academia.edu (original) (raw)

Papers by Paul K Hubbard

Throughout the entire Pauline corpus, Paul struggles with the Judaizers, the "cutters," as he onc... more Throughout the entire Pauline corpus, Paul struggles with the Judaizers, the "cutters," as he once called them. 1 It is the theological backdrop against which Paul defines his Gospel. The primary threat to the religion of Moses came not from those who wanted to return to the stability of life in Egypt, it came from those who had never truly left. People have very little patience waiting for a religious revelation to unfold. And so the people of Moses invented their own. And this new religion looked very much like the one that they had just left behind in Egypt. Just as Moses is to suddenly appear with a completely unexpected religion, so Paul appears with a religion so unexpected that even the apostles of Christ themselves are offended. Paul: For if they which are of the law be heirs, faith is made void, and the promise made of none effect. For the promise, that he should be the heir of the world, was not to Abraham, or to his seed, through the law, but through the righteousness of faith. 2 Judaizing Objection: You say that the giving of the law makes faith void. This is nonsense. So much so that you yourself chaff at the logical implications of your own argument: Is the law then against the promises of God? God forbid. 3 Your argument only proves that the Pauline theological construction, which violently compartmentalizes faith and law, is "made of none effect." We have no vested interest in the Pauline promise or the Pauline theological construction. Look, just as faith without works is dead, so is works without faith dead. Any fool can see that. You ask us-'should we continue in sin that grace may abound?' But that is precisely what you are telling our children to do: break the law of Moses so that grace may abound. What kind of reasoning is this? Even Jesus, while he was here, taught us that faith must be mixed with works: Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye pay tithe of mint and anise and cummin, and have omitted the weightier matters of the law, judgment, mercy, and faith: these ought ye to have done, and not to leave the other undone. 4 ….and… Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven. 5 John himself recognizes the same principle: If a man say, I love God, and hateth his brother, he is a liar. 6 If your argument means that circumcision alone, without faith, cannot save-we agree. But you cannot then reason that faith without circumcision can save. Belief without circumcision is disobedience. And disobedience is unbelief. An inward circumcision is a fine thing, yet if it has no outward manifestation, it is but a good intention. And good intentions will not save you. Paul: And if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ; if so be that we suffer with him, that we may be also glorified together. 7 Judaizing Objection: We would allege that the reason that you are "suffering" is that you have taken a fairly straightforward covenant of God and twisted it into a devilish and destructive doctrine which divides a man from himself-setting up a spirituality that is at war with the law. What kind of morality is this? Will being "spiritually minded" save us when we have nonchalantly written off our fleshly appetites as hopelessly irremediable? Your "mind" serves God but your flesh serves sin? 8 What a pretty arrangement. Has the Spirit of Christ indeed made you free from sin and free from the law? We allege that this spirit has not made you free from sin, but free to sin. It has not made you free from the law, but free to ignore it. We further allege that the "righteousness of the law" 9 that you think that you have achieved by following this spirit-with a mind now alienated from its own flesh-is itself a false righteousness that cannot please God. The fleshly mind and the spiritual mind? Two minds? Is this not a bastardized variant of Hellenism-all the nobility of Stoicism, all the licentiousness of Epicureanism? No wonder your movement is growing. Surely we have had enough of this kind of Greek talk: 'we are merely spirits imprisoned in sinful flesh'(?). We say that we must try to bring the flesh into conformity to the law. You merely substitute a program of inner division and repudiation of who we are as men. Paul: And if Christ be in you, the body is dead because of sin; but the Spirit is life because of righteousness. Therefore, brethren, we are debtors, not to the flesh, to live after the flesh. For if ye live after the flesh, ye shall die: but if ye through the Spirit do mortify the deeds of the body, ye shall live. 10 Judaizing Objection: How shall we know what the deeds of the body are without consulting the law-from which you have made us…er…."free"? If the Spirit empowers us to practice this ascetic dualism, then we are the children of God? If we are children, then we are heirs? If the Spirit of God dwells in us?' 11 'If Christ dwells in us?' 12 There are a lot of "ifs" here. It's no wonder your people have no peace. 13 Do you seriously think that a complex and faulty theological argument is going to save people from the ordinary terrors of the conscience-especially the children?

In the New Testament, the opposite of love is not indifference; it is hate. 1 When the New Testam... more In the New Testament, the opposite of love is not indifference; it is hate. 1 When the New Testament says that we must hate our fathers and mothers and wives in order to be Jesus' disciple, this is surely a piece of what Owen Barfield called "poetic diction," 2 which means that a word is deformed from its ordinary meaning and stretched to suggest another. A higher one. That is, the word or phrase is not to be taken in its ordinary, restrictive sense-it is being used to create a "figure of speech."

The Koine Conversation, 2018

This book is a grammar book for Koine Greek that was written in support of the Greek syllabus in ... more This book is a grammar book for Koine Greek that was written in support of the Greek syllabus in St. Timothy's Theological College and Seminary. It is designed to get students into translation mode quickly by familiarizing them with the modern Koine Greek programs

From Exodus to Eisodus, 2016

In "The Jonas Genre" it was maintained that the Synoptic template was developed by Matthew as a r... more In "The Jonas Genre" it was maintained that the Synoptic template was developed by Matthew as a result of being radicalized by Paul’s theology. In "From Exodus to Eisodus" it is proposed that Paul’s letters show considerable evidence that the radicalization of Paul himself is not complete. Also, it is maintained, when Paul is imprisoned, John, an antitype of Caleb, steps into the gap and writes his “Gospel” encouraging the Churches of Paul to abide in Christ. But in so doing, his unique theological perspective also radicalizes, in turn, the theology of Timothy, Paul’s protégé and heir apparent to lead the Pauline diocese. This book claims that it is John who is the mysterious catalyst for the suddenly expansive Christology of Colossians, written primarily by Timothy, which transforms Paul’s own thinking, particularly evident in the theological mood shift of Philippians, and the completely new theological content in the Pastorals, which ultimately leads to a Hebrewine argument that utterly destroys the theological battlements of Judaism, puts to flight the Jewish faction of Jamesean legalists, and blows the trumpet to inaugurate a completely new, independent, physical church - and a confident spirituality in Christ which the Jewish law could never give. Though overwhelming internal phraseological evidence strongly suggests that the technical editor of Hebrews is Luke, the language, ideas, themes and global evidence also very strongly suggests that the theological author of Hebrews is Timothy.

The literary genre of the Gospel of Matthew is not like a modern biography or like a modern histo... more The literary genre of the Gospel of Matthew is not like a modern biography or like a modern history. It is a category of theater which presents, as a quasi-play, a living, Hosean-like parable. Matthew was the first to see that Christ’s teachings and acts of
power were intentionally conforming to a highly stylized, repetitive, theatrical pattern. And that pattern was the pattern of the prophet Jonah. Matthew therefore developed the Jonas Genre to retell this historical parable in the same literary mode in which Christ had presented himself to Israel. Matthew’s Gospel is part ordinary history, part Greek play, and part prophetic parable (like the prophet Hosea, who acted out his message to the people). Luke and Mark rigorously conform to the contours of the Jonas Genre, but in different "dialects" of artistic interpretation, freely re-paraphrasing the representative
dialogues, and in some cases, the representational events of Matthew.

Books by Paul K Hubbard

A Vesture Dipped in Blood, 2016

It is the thesis of this book that John’s hybrid Gospel synthesizes many of the leading theologic... more It is the thesis of this book that John’s hybrid Gospel synthesizes many of the leading theological ideas of Paul - most significantly, 1st Corinthians 15 - with the meta-structure of Matthew, combining many of the major features of the Synoptic template with John’s unique, extended, explanatory “table talk” section – important pre-resurrectional talk between the apostles and Christ (chapters 13-17). In relation to Matthew’s Gospel, Luke and Mark are parallel accounts which are sometimes complementary. John is a complementary account which is sometimes parallel. This book also attempts to show that 1st John is written shortly after John’s Gospel, pushing much further out in support of Paul’s controversial thesis concerning the relationship between faith and works, spelled out so forcefully in Romans, and that 2nd John confirms circumstantial evidence surrounding the production of John’s Gospel and his first epistle - that John’s audience has been the now neglected church of Corinth, and evinces a continuing interdependency between John and Paul. It is also maintained that 3rd John displays considerable evidence that Timothy is in consultation with Paul concerning John’s attempt to salvage the church of Corinth and that 2nd Timothy was written in part to assist this project. It is also the thesis of the book that John, an antitype of Caleb, consciously steps into the gap of leadership due to Paul’s imprisonment in order to encourage the people of Paul’s diocese to abide in Christ. But in so doing, he becomes the catalyst for the theological awakening of Timothy, who is beginning to assume his role as heir to the Pauline Bishopric. This also, in turn, transforms Paul’s thinking, and ultimately leads to the argument of Hebrews, which utterly destroys the theological battlements of Judaism, puts to flight the Judaizing party, and blows the trumpet to inaugurate a completely new, independent physical Church and a confident and restful spirituality in Christ which neither the law nor Pauline theology alone could give. Visions do not happen to men who have posted mind guards at every point through which they might enter. As John’s work catalyzed Timothy’s theology, which results in the writing of Hebrews (see "From Exodus to Eisodus" by the same author); Hebrews, in turn, fed back into the mind of John. Timothy is the first to come upon the rock of the New Covenant which has been laid in Zion in the 31st chapter of Jeremiah: Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel. Timothy then appears to fully open his mind to the typological theology of Matthew, and he is apparently stunned to find that the historiography of Israel can only be understood as a grand parable written for all nations by Christ himself. Under the influence of Timothy’s argument in Hebrews, John would have then begun to see something far, far beyond his own comprehension. With renewed awareness of Jeremiah, he begins to understand that Egypt, Sodom and Babylon are themselves typological of death, spiritual seduction and bondage. As John opens his mind to the full implication of these ideas, it is flooded with the Apocalypse. With Paul and possibly with Timothy also dead, the Ephesian diocese of Paul falls to John. The seven letters of the Apocalypse begin with Ephesus.

This is a corrected copy of my previous book. The colors have been brightened and some sentences ... more This is a corrected copy of my previous book. The colors have been brightened and some sentences have been made clearer, but essentially there has been no substantive change.

Drafts by Paul K Hubbard

In two previous papers, I tried to illustrate problems within Pauline theology - external proble... more In two previous papers, I tried to illustrate problems within Pauline theology - external problems, which are represented by Jewish objections to the Pauline program, and internal problems that troubled his own disciples. My theory is that Hebrews was written to resolve these problems. There was only one person in the Pauline missionary diocese that had a vested interest in redeeming Pauline theology and building on the theological foundation laid down by Paul. And that was Paul’s son in the faith – Timothy.

Paul says that he is “dead to the law.” The central problem in understanding the theology of Paul... more Paul says that he is “dead to the law.” The central problem in understanding the theology of Paul is that it does not give a strong argument for how the Mosaic law can be abandoned without completely sabotaging the basis for a continuing, rational, coherent relationship to the spirit of the universal moral law. And if we are completely dead to the law, what is to prevent us from arriving at a completely lawless spirituality? And if we try to bring back only parts of the law in order to control the lawless passions of the flesh, how do we prevent ourselves from falling back under the dominion of that law, which will then continue to haunt our conscience with condemnation? What is the ongoing relationship of the Christian to the moral law? Paul speaks often about being dead to the law, but gives no explanation of why the Holy Spirit seems determined to continue to write the law into our hearts.

This is the third time that I have tried uploading this paper for discussion . What I tried to do... more This is the third time that I have tried uploading this paper for discussion . What I tried to do in this exercise is to try to imagine what the Jews found so offensive to Paul's Gospel/Theology. This is the result.

In my research, I knew that there was something missing in the Pauline argument, but I couldn't q... more In my research, I knew that there was something missing in the Pauline argument, but I couldn't quite put my finger on it. Of all the players in the NT drama, it was Paul who had inspired so much hatred from the Jews and even from the Christian Jews who were as zealous as ever for the law of Moses. He who had bitterly hated the Christians was now bitterly hated by the religious establishment. But why? Why did religious men of flesh and blood band together, taking a vow that they would not eat or drink until they killed Paul. I got the idea to simply try very hard to pretend that I was a Jew of the period, already familiar with some of the problems I thought I saw in the Pauline system. And simply argue with Paul "directly" - to see what would come of it. This paper was the result.

Almost a thousand years of Papal peace had slipped into the mists of history with the dissolution... more Almost a thousand years of Papal peace had slipped into the mists of history with the dissolution of the Holy Roman Empire in the early 19 th century. Likewise, the "Pax Britannica" has similarly disappeared, and the "Pax Americana" is rapidly coming to an inconspicuous close upon the stage of a new, secular, global village of modernity. As these political unities have dissolved, so too have the ecclesiastical unities, which have, so often, been coterminous and codependent upon mere human political patronage, foundered upon the shoals of secular science and modern mores. Ideas of catholicity indeed, of Christendom itself, have become unrealistic, romantic excursions into nostalgic myths of medieval universalisms. This paper argues for The Church Idea as presented by William Reed Huntington, over 150 years ago.

There is a very strange connection between modern (secular) Biblical criticism and conservative B... more There is a very strange connection between modern (secular) Biblical criticism and conservative Biblical criticism. The higher (secular) critics maintain that the New Testament was written by unknowable authors, possessed of unknowable cultural biases far beyond their control, to produce an unknowable religious protagonist that is completely decoupled from history. Likewise, conservative Biblical criticism, with its a priori ideas about inspiration and infallibility, has produced a New Testament dictated by a divine process far beyond the control of similarly unknowable authors, to produce a religious protagonist that is also completely decoupled from history and can only be known through an existential experience.

There is a very strange connection between modern (secular) Biblical criticism and conservative B... more There is a very strange connection between modern (secular) Biblical criticism and conservative Biblical criticism. The higher critics maintain that the New Testament was written by unknowable authors, possessed of unknowable cultural biases far beyond their control, to produce an unknowable religious protagonist that is completely decoupled from history. Likewise, conservative Biblical criticism, with its a priori ideas about inspiration and infallibility, has produced a New Testament dictated by a divine process far beyond the control of similarly unknowable authors, to produce a religious protagonist that is also completely decoupled from history and can only be known through an existential experience.

Secular theologians have been ridiculed for producing the Marxist Christ, the Feminist Christ, the Social Justice Christ, and so on. But this is no more ridiculous than the multiplicity of Christs found in Christendom – the TULIP Christ, the Anglo-Catholic Christ, the Baptist Christ or the Pentecostal Christ, to name a few. And all these existentialisms are irreconcilable and unchallengeable. Just as secular critics believe that the New Testament was produced by blind historical forces that can only be deconstructed by modern, specially enlightened scholars, so conservative critics believe that the New Testament was produced by authors blind to a process of divine dictation, which can only be properly understood by specially enlightened scholars working from within their respective theological systems.

In the early years of Christianity, a heresy arose called Docetism. This theory argued that Jesus Christ was so holy, so divine, that his human nature was illusory. He did not get tired. He did not experience pain. He only seemed to have a physical body, which seemed to die - but he did not. You see the connection? If the New Testament has been dictated by a Spirit who can only be known existentially, then the objective integrity and authority of the New Testament is a mirage. If the literary integrity of the New Testament cannot be scientifically established, then its divine authority cannot be scientifically established either. Central to the thesis of these papers about the New Testament authors is that if we are to understand the extraordinary, divine authority of the New Testament, it must first be understood as ordinary literature. Otherwise our contextless criticism will become a species of linguistic docetism – where God’s communication to man is like the rain that falls in the desert but never touches the ground.

There is, therefore, a stalemate. On one side, modern secular literary criticism, which simply cannot accept the divinity of Jesus Christ, has discovered that he can no longer be found in ordinary history; hence the interminable quest for the historical Jesus and historicity of those who wrote about him. On the other side, conservative Biblical criticism, which liberated the New Testament from the canons of ordinary literature, has spawned a multiplicity of theological christs, which seem very tenuously connected with the ordinary Apostolic conversation about what they actually saw and heard. The humanity of Jesus of Nazareth is indeed lost in this process. But the humanity of the authors who wrote about him is also lost. For example, to speak of any author having an editorial agenda, a unique form, or a personal style directly contradicts the assumption that the New Testament was functionally dictated by the Holy Spirit. This is a form of linguistic docetism which is so complete that the humanity of Jesus and of his apostles has been completely washed away. Both Liberals and Conservatives maintain that the Apostolic authors cannot be discovered. I say that they can. My linguistic analysis of their documents proves that they can be discovered. And if we can discover them, then the apostolic literary materials are but one step removed from a cameo appearance of God within his own creation. That’s just thrilling. It is therefore crucial that we allow the humanity of these documents to be discovered and that we fully understand the nature of the literature in which he is portrayed.

This is another paper in a series of papers that is like an opening argument made before a jury. ... more This is another paper in a series of papers that is like an opening argument made before a jury. It does not (necessarily; this paper does some) present forensic proof; it provides the global argument that the prosecuting attorney makes into which he plans, in the presentation of his full argument, to make his case. My full argument can be found in The Jonas Genre, From Exodus to Eisodus, and A Vesture Dipped in Blood. But not everyone wants to slog through a mass of data - especially without hearing the opening argument, which proposes solutions and how they will be derived. In this paper, I propose that 1st Peter is written by a partially converted Apostle. There are some who argue that 1st Peter and 2nd Peter are so dissimilar that they can't be written by the same person. My linguistic analysis says that they definitely were. I do not present that case in this paper, but I will. But unless the jury knows that there is a problem between 1st Peter and 2nd Peter, they will not be able to appreciate an argument other then: 'they can't possibly be written by the same person.'

This paper is actually an excerpt from a larger work, my The Jonas Genre. I wanted to dwell on th... more This paper is actually an excerpt from a larger work, my The Jonas Genre. I wanted to dwell on the physicality of the authors of the NT - at least what I have found. There seems to be little to no movement in this area. Most higher critics seem content to dismiss the actual authors upon the slightest conjecture or deconstruction or pious tradition.

This paper is an extraction of data from a larger research project which I did on the Johannine C... more This paper is an extraction of data from a larger research project which I did on the Johannine Corpus, called A Vesture Dipped in Blood. I had already done a study of the Synoptic Problem and the Pauline Corpus, there trying to determine (among other things) who the author of Hebrews was. So I was very familiar with linguistic signatures, style, questions of editorial intent and perspective. My study of John was to answer three questions 1) what was his agenda-what was he trying to contribute to the apostolic conversation about Christ? 2) Why was his work so different from the other authors-not only from the Synoptic template, but his theological perspective itself was also very different. 3) Was John the author of the Johannine corpus as commonly conceived? The higher criticism that did exist on these questions, which I saw in my seminary days and for the next 20 years, seemed sporadic at best. And this is understandable because computers had not been long available to do the kind of extensive, comprehensive linguistic analysis that such a serious study would require. The graphical user interface environment (GUI), which firmly connected the ordinary user to the real power of his computer, really did not get underway until Windows 95 came out, and the Bible programs that enabled linguistic access to the underlying Greek manuscripts did not stabilize for another five years or so.

The Apostle John is clearly writing to a non-Jewish audience. Of all the authors, his editorial d... more The Apostle John is clearly writing to a non-Jewish audience. Of all the authors, his editorial distance from the Jews is greatest. Only John uses the formal sounding "in the Hebrew tongue" (ebraisti) to translate Bethesda, Gabbatha and Golgotha for his audience. Three times he translates 1 fairly obvious Jewish terms (Rabbi, 2 Cephas and Siloam). He explains basic Jewish liturgy: And the Passover, a feast of the Jews, was nigh. 3 He explains the Jewish custom (eyov) of burying. He even translates 4 "Messias" to "Christos. 5 " In John, Christ refers to your law, not the law. Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods? 6 Christ refers to your father, Abraham. 7 He refers to "the Jews" sixty-four times. Matthew, 8 Mark 9 and Luke 10 do this but once. Thus "the Jews," for John, has become an equivalent phrase for Matthew's variants of: 'Scribes, Pharisees and Elders'-John uses "scribes and elders" only once, and never mentions the Sadducees. Matthew says: Then cometh he to his disciples, and saith unto them, Sleep on now, and take your rest: behold, the hour is at hand, and the Son of man is betrayed into the hands of sinners. John clearly specifies who the "sinners" are-to whom Jesus is handed over. It is not the Romans. John records that when Pilate specifically asks Jesus whether he is the King of the Jews: Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence. 11 In John, Jesus characterizes his captors as the Jews, not the Romans. The divorce between John and Judaism is complete. This explains why he can refer to Judaism as the "synagogue of Satan" in his Revelation, 12 and to Jerusalem itself as Sodom-and Egypt. 13 How could the one-time partner of Peter and pillar of the Jerusalem Church have become so emotionally decoupled from his homeland?

I wrote this in support of my Greek Grammar, "The Koine Conversation." It was originally intended... more I wrote this in support of my Greek Grammar, "The Koine Conversation." It was originally intended as a classroom handout, but for me it is part of an ongoing development of a comprehensive epistemology, since this has been so much of a crisis of the 20th century going forward. Being a rough draft, its tone is inconsistent and even irritating, so please forgive not being able to smooth these things out before I put it up here. I just want this thesis to get out in the marketplace.

Although there are many sources for John’s Gospel, there is an undeniable connection between his ... more Although there are many sources for John’s Gospel, there is an undeniable connection between his Gospel and (primarily) 1st Corinthians. Though John’s phraseological relationship to Paul’s Epistle to the Romans is very strong, the scope of John’s thematic connection with 1st Corinthians is like no other book in the New Testament.

The Koine Conversation, 2018

From Exodus to Eisodus, 2016

A Vesture Dipped in Blood, 2016

There is a very strange connection between modern (secular) Biblical criticism and conservative B... more There is a very strange connection between modern (secular) Biblical criticism and conservative Biblical criticism. The higher critics maintain that the New Testament was written by unknowable authors, possessed of unknowable cultural biases far beyond their control, to produce an unknowable religious protagonist that is completely decoupled from history. Likewise, conservative Biblical criticism, with its a priori ideas about inspiration and infallibility, has produced a New Testament dictated by a divine process far beyond the control of similarly unknowable authors, to produce a religious protagonist that is also completely decoupled from history and can only be known through an existential experience.

If translation were merely a mechanistic process involving mere grammar, syntax and general lexic... more If translation were merely a mechanistic process involving mere grammar, syntax and general lexical definition, then an artificial intelligence program could be expected to make a flawless translation. An artificial intelligence program can defeat a chess master, but it cannot understand sarcasm, irony, humor, innuendo, etc. etc. – whether it comes from a philosopher or a schoolboy. That’s called meta-dialogue. Meta-dialogue does not exist in the lifeless corpse of mere grammar, syntax and general lexical definitions. The physical sentence provides a physical literary body; meta-dialogue animates that body. But we must understand something about the author before we can hear and understand his meta-dialogue. And the more that we understand about him and his editorial agenda, the more we understand his meta-dialogue.

Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again , h... more Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again , he cannot see the kingdom of God. (John 3:3 KJV)

Here is a second example of translational bias. This is not just a mistranslation; this is a translation that is being consciously pushed away from its surrounding context to support a theological system extrinsic to what is actually being said. It is important to say this here because if a mistranslation is due to bias, then the rationale for the bias must be clearly demonstrated. Unlike translational errors and problems of translational consistency this series of examples of translational bias demonstrate that many words and phrases of the Standard Evangelical/Reformed Theological Model do not match up with the words and phrases that are used in the Septuagint and in the New Testament. Indeed, this “Standard Model” mindset has been influential in the very choice of words to translate the King James Version itself, to which many modern translations still defer. Most importantly, this mismatch of words and phrases is intentional.

In the example above the phrase: “εαν μη τις γεννηθη ανωθεν“ is translated “except a man be born again …” But the word ανωθεν clearly means “above” in all of its thirteen occurrences in the New Testament and in virtually all of its occurrences in the Septuagint. So why is it improperly translated as “again.” If this is translational bias, what is the rationale for this bias?

In my language class, I argue that the translation of the NT should be an ongoing discipline of t... more In my language class, I argue that the translation of the NT should be an ongoing discipline of the Church for a variety of reasons. Of late, one of the main reasons is that the new computer technologies, like Bibleworks and many other programs, conspire to make us language scholars in a new way - by allowing us to get much closer to how the Apostles actually used their language. But another reason for the importance of ongoing translational efforts is that there have been significant translational problems that have lingered unresolved for far too long. Some problems are simply a matter of inconsistent translation. Some are just wrong. But there is a class of other problems that I think are more than anything due to translational bias.

If there is anything of divine significance that the post-apostolic Church has given to the world... more If there is anything of divine significance that the post-apostolic Church has given to the world, it is this: the idea that the New Testament is a literary body. It is not only canon – it is corpus. There is not just the Pauline corpus and the Johannine corpus. There is the New Testament corpus. However unconscious, however clumsy, however accidental or serendipitous, the formation of the canonical corpus occurred. The modern church takes this formation for granted, but no one in the apostolic age did. And surely no individual writer of the New Testament materials did either.

The implications of this are profound. Because without this kind of corpus criticism, biblical “interpretation” is essentially contextless and thus, ultimately, useless. Could we not consider that though the individual writers of the New Testament are wholly conscious in their literary efforts, which precludes any idea of inspiration by “divine dictation” (as many Evangelical Fundamentalists have maintained), they are (as may be expected) wholly unconscious of the existential fact that the divine Spirit of all human communication is behind another, meta-dialogue with the world by means of the community interconnectedness of their individual dialogues? And thus, what the Church has naively assumed for centuries is far more profoundly true than could have been first imagined: that the New Testament materials – taken together, as a body – are a special incarnation of the Holy Spirit?

Conservatives and Fundamentalists often give the impression that the entire Bible should be taken... more Conservatives and Fundamentalists often give the impression that the entire Bible should be taken “literally.” And by literally they mean that each word should be taken in its most restrictive sense. But the problem with reading the Bible literally, (as it has come to be defined), is that such a process is entirely unliterary.

Liberalism has wearied the world with who Jesus cannot be. What the world needs now is a convinci... more Liberalism has wearied the world with who Jesus cannot be. What the world needs now is a convincing idea of who Jesus is. One thing is for certain: whatever sort of ordinary historical jesus we assume as the starting point of our modern theory, we must also end with an ordinary psychological and literary theory of how the Apostles all evolved such an extraordinarily unified, “non-historical” jesus.

The Genesis Genre, 2021

In this book, Hubbard attempts to resolve the genre of the opening three chapters of Genesis, and... more In this book, Hubbard attempts to resolve the genre of the opening three chapters of Genesis, and then to integrate the creation drama with the spirituality of the New Testament. In doing so, Hubbard takes issue with what he calls “The Standard Model”, represented by the works of Francis A. Schaeffer, particularly in his book, "Genesis in space and time," one of his most respected teachers in his own development. Hubbard maintains that an a priori theory of Penal Substitution has fed back into how the early Chapters of Genesis are to be read, but argues that such a literalistic rendering of Genesis, particular concerning what is called the "Fall" of Adam and Eve, is a gross violation of the intended genre of its author. In so doing, the resulting cartoon-like story employs a theology that cannot be harmonized with the actual language being used by the Septuagint authors. But even more importantly, Hubbard insists, the Standard Model paradigm, which treats the story of Adam and Eve as a flat historical narrative, introduces gnostic and docetist theological ideas made necessary by creating a complete disjuncture between the world of Adam and Eve and the world as we now find it. Most importantly, Hubbard tries to demonstrate that the Standard Model interpretation of what has happened in the Garden of Eden also makes the spirituality of the New Testament functionally irrelevant or unintelligible, particularly Paul’s theology in 1st Corinthians 15. Hubbard says: "In other sciences you might be called a fool for challenging the Standard Model, but in an ecclesiastical environment you will be called a heretic. This is why we are looking at each idea that makes up the Standard Model of the genre and message of Genesis separately, primarily in sequential fashion, as they come up in Schaeffer’s book: “Genesis in space and time.” But I am only taking the license that Schaeffer himself gave me. He said ‘a Christian need not worry about asking his questions. He may sail to the edge of the known world and not worry about falling off the edge or being eaten by monsters.’ Columbus was not spitting in the face of clerics who believed in a flat earth – nothing of the kind. He was merely proving his own theory." Hubbard continues: "...what if I approached both Genesis and the New Testament as rigorously as I could - without commentary, and without any expectations about what I should find? What then? Would I find a scientific, common sense, convincing system that provided substantive answers, or not? … This book is my answer.”