Michael Buban

In this paper, the author wants to demonstrate that the demise of Pentecostal dispensationalism along with some further contemporary factors are removing the bedrock upon which Pentecostal premillennialism was standing. For this reason, premillennialism is currently being downplayed as the core Pentecostal eschatological doctrine. By the end of this paper, it is proposed that Pentecostal eschatology should still remain premillennial.

The Latter Rain experience of the early Pentecostals combined eschatological expectations with pneumatological emphases. This unique blend was a consequence of theological developments within Wesleyan Holiness movement of the second half of 19th century when the optimistic Wesleyan soteriological emphasis put on pneumatological contours and ceased to nurture postmillennial eschatology. In this paper, I contend that these crucial developments in the prehistory of Pentecostalism were vigorously Christocentric, as we can also see with the Finished Work controversy and the “New Issue” in the early history of the movement. It is argued that Pentecostal theological grammar is controlled by Him who stands for the grammatical subject of the Full Gospel.

This bibliography is intended as an exercise in the early stage of my preliminary research on the intersection between Pentecostal theology and biblical interpretation. It’s a working draft and it should grow not only in length, but also in focus and quality.

Before proceeding you should know this:

    1. I’m open to any suggestions regarding content, format and aim of this bibliography. Please contact me via Academia or by e-mail (michael@buban.cz) even if it’s just your impression or a small typo. All feedback is welcome.
    2. I’ve decided to include all items from the concise bibliography in Martin, Lee Roy, ed. Pentecostal Hermeneutics: A Reader. Leiden: Brill, 2013. My bibliography is obviously dramatically revised and expanded 😎.
    3. Highlighted items represent my wishlist. ❤ Non-highlighted items are within my reach. Should you know how to get me my “unreached items” on-line under some reasonable circumstances, please do tell me. In exchange I can help you get your desired materials.
    4. Should you need to adopt and edit this bibliography yourself, please help yourself at https://www.zotero.org/brotherekim/items/collectionKey/5W5B5DQJ or send me a message (see #1).

This work is concerned with some basic problems which historical criticism poses to biblical interpretation. The first chapter deals with historical criticism in relation to problems of the text’s historical distance and contemporary significance. Certain key figures from the field of philosophical hermeneutics are briefly introduced (Schleiermacher, Gadamer, Hirsch, Ricoeur), but attention is also paid to the ways how historical criticism was actually practiced (Wellhausen, Mowinckel). It is maintained that historical criticism is a tool in interpretation and does not impede possible appropriation of the text by those who read it with deep affection.

The second chapter faces historical criticism as a theological problem, which has become most apparent in the inerrantist milieu and which was more or less successfully answered by canonical approaches. A special attention is given to the canonical approach of Brevard Childs, which is understood against the backdrop of Barth’s doctrine of the Word of God and Frei’s view of biblical narratives. A special attention is given to distinction between approaches of Brevard Childs and James Sanders. It is maintained that Sanders’ canonical criticism provides better interpretive platform, because it wants to address the needs of contemporary interpretive communities through a self-aware historical critical enterprise.

The third chapter takes up the problem of violence in the book of Joshua and the problem of theological meaning of the exodus story. Biblical theological insights of James Sanders, James Barr, and Walter Brueggemann are applied. An eye is kept also on Pixley-Levenson debate and it is maintained that traditions of the exodus and conquest must be understood together as literary devices which invite communities of faith to freedom. As a result of the present research, historical criticism is presented as a hermeneutical tool which can help to rescue text’s significance for the contemporary communities of believers.

(1) In the first part, I'm reviewing the well known problems of "biblical chronology," biased historical accounts, and way too great numbers of people coming out of Egypt. I'm rather progressively explaining these issues and suggesting that the exodus is an essentially elusive event. The story itself refuses to be read on any particular historical background. This is not to deny it's historicity. I just contend that our reading of the story requires a more flexible and complex approach.
(2) In the second part, I'm reviewing the main problems of 15th and 13th century theories. I find both of them problematic.
(3) In the third part, I'm utilizing thoughts of Na'aman, Hendel, and Bimson and proposing a new theory. I basically contend that the exodus happened in 16th century, right before or in the time of the expulsion of Hyksos. I would also say that Hyksos were the biblical Amorites, whose "iniquity" (Gn 15) was that they enslaved their Semitic cousins while ruling in Egypt.

In this paper I argue that 1 Corinthians 11:3 is something like a mindmap merging imageries of creation, procreation, and new creation. I'm arriving at this conclusion by adopting Troy Martin's proposal and considering it's implications for the passage's inner logic. I propose that kephale in 11:3 should not be understood in hierarchical sense, but my reasons are logical and exegetical rather than purely lexical.

This is a paper that I wrote for OT Exegesis class, just slightly edited. In the first part, I attempt to triangulate the mentality of historical critical approach by reviewing work of Spinoza, Eichhorn, and Wellhausen. In the second part, I'm reviewing reception of historical criticism in conservative camp, by "close reading" school (Cassuto, Clines) and by theological exegesis movement (Barth, Childs, Moberly, Hays). I contend that whereas historical critical approach is essentially modern, theological exegesis is essentially postmodern. I think that Childs, in a sense, was a prototype postmodern scholar. In the concluding chapter I'm contemplating proper places of synchronic and diachronic approach and giving an example.

I have argued throughout this paper that proleptical, etiological and eschatological dimensions of exodus unveil it’s literary and biblical theological function as an exclamation mark within the main biblical storyline. In the first part, I indicated that Genesis might want to offer Abraham’s continual exoduses as an answer to anti-exoduses of God’s shattered creation. In the second part, I showed how literary theological power of exodus helped to shape the DH’s double etiology of Israel’s winning and losing her land. In the third part, I showed how the prophets employed exodus in their troubled historical settings in order to define a vector of hope pointing towards the future redemptive newness. These three applications of exodus can inform our OT theological sensibilities.

Teorie sedmi vrcholů vlivu má kořeny v křesťanském restoracionismu druhé poloviny 20. století a od roku 2000 zaujímá důležité místo ve strategii Nové apoštolské reformace (NAR) na přeměnu společnosti. Přináší významné posuny v eklesiologii, eschatologii a misiologii NAR, avšak stojí na chatrných exegetických základech a není schopna dostát svým velkolepým slibům.

Běžnou představou o vztahu Nového zákona ke Starému je, že Nový zákon vykládá Starý. Toto domnění se zakládá na několika souběžných faktech. Za prvé, Nový zákon používá některé starozákonní pasáže způsobem, který při jejich prostém historickém čtení není zřejmý,1 a to zvláště za účelem vysvětlení osoby a díla Ježíše Krista. Za druhé, Nový zákon opakovaně apeluje na ten Starý jako na inspirovaný (2Pt 1,21) výchovný prostředek (Ga 3,24) a kritérium rozsuzování (Žd 4,12) užitečné k učení a k výchově (2Tm 3,16) a to do té míry, do jaké se vztahuje ke Kristu a čte s ohledem na Něj (J 5,39; Sk 8,35). Za třetí, pokud Nový zákon neupřesňuje význam Starého zákona pro církev, na základě čeho se můžeme domnívat, že se nemusíme stát židy, abychom se mohli stát křesťany? Nebo, máme-li otázku položit opačně, jaký by pro nás, původem pohany, měl bez Nového zákona Starý zákon smysl?