How to Do Biblical Theology (and Not Screw It Up from the Get-go)
As I mentioned in my last post, Christian theology traditionally emphasizes three (and sometimes four) major events in the course of history: the creation, the Fall, the cross/resurrection of Jesus, (and sometimes) the second coming of Christ. For many evangelicals today, the activity of Biblical Theology involves re-articulating the biblical message, perhaps through the lens of one or two themes, but more or less within this traditional framework of creation/Fall/redemption(/restoration). Certain volumes in the New Studies in Biblical Theology series published by InterVarsity Press exemplify this approach to Biblical Theology.
I have already explained why I believe this approach to Biblical Theology does not do justice to the book of Genesis itself. My concerns likewise extend to other parts of the Hebrew Bible (HB). In a creation/Fall/redemption scheme, everything that occurs between Genesis 3 and the gospels of the New Testament (NT) must be read as the rising action of the plot (the NT gospels being the climax of biblical theology). But this framework results in the marginalization of portions of the HB. For example, while the gospels frequently cite from the HB to demonstrate how the events they record fulfill what the HB anticipated, the attention to individual books is disproportionate. Some books like Deuteronomy, Isaiah, and the Psalms are frequently cited, while others, if they are cited, are cited so infrequently that the essence of their theological agenda is not adequately represented, at least not in a way that contributes to the rising action of the plot (e.g. Esther, Song of Songs, Ecclesiastes).
One of the problems that I believe underlies this approach to Biblical Theology is the assumption that the unity of the Bible must be of a certain kind. I take for granted the unity of the Bible (including all its various canonical iterations, though the one that funds my particular faith tradition contains 66 so-called “books”). However, I do not assume that the unity of the Bible requires that one distill its message into a single meta-narrative framed by the three or four major events emphasized by traditional Christian theology and that any other articulation fails to capture the theology of the Bible and thus cannot rightly be called biblical theology. Not only does this place inordinate faith in traditional Christian theology to have captured the essence of the Bible’s theology so succinctly, effectively, and finally, it also assumes that the unity of the Bible is compositional in nature.
Certain books of the HB betray compositional unity—the book of Ruth, for example, or Jonah (though chapter 2 makes this somewhat more difficult for some to swallow). The authorial motive for penning these books is generally focused and unified. It is difficult, however, to say this regarding most of the books that make up the HB, particularly when most betray signs of various kinds of editorial activity. Such activity is, of course, how we ultimately arrive at the larger HB (not to mention the NT). Thus, it becomes difficult to speak of the compositional unity of the Bible. There are those, however, who speak of God as the “ultimate” author of Scripture and who suggest (or require!) that divine authorial intention gives rise to the Bible’s compositional unity.
In the recent festschrift honoring Tzvi Abusch, Gazing on the Deep, Mark Zvi Brettler makes an important distinction between compositional unity (as described above) and literary coherence. In his article, “The ‘Coherence’ of Ancient Texts,” he argues along with modern literary critics that coherence is generated in the minds of readers by such things as “co-occurrence, coreference, and causality.” He notes that “coherence criticism” is well suited to those involved in reader-response criticism, but challenges the assumption that historical-critical scholars cannot equally benefit from investigating literary coherence.
Coherence may also be used as a historical-critical tool, on the assumption that some editors tried to make biblical works such as the book of Judges cohere. . . . These editors were not so different than we are: they felt a need to create something coherent and had notions of coherence that were similar to ours. Thus, we might speak of the desire to create coherence as a tool in the hands of ancient editors.
This desire to create coherence is, I believe, where discussions about the unity of the Bible should begin. Whether we are talking about the HB, the NT, or the combination of the two (and possibly other “books” depending on one’s faith tradition), the creation of a canon of literature is a product of interpretive communities observing and creating(!) coherence; compositional unity is an unnecessary and empirically problematic assumption. Brettler concludes that
readers of both ancient and modern books attempt to make them cohere, and the editors of many biblical books, like their modern counterparts, were sensitive to this fact. Thus, scholars of the ancient Near East should continue to speak of coherence, but should do so cautiously, using precise definitions of what coherence is and how it is achieved. They should also distinguish the coherence that we create as readers from that likely created by ancient authors and editors as they shaped and reshaped material into books. Finally, they must continue to be careful not to confuse coherence with [compositional] unity.
This sounds like excellent advice for those engaged in Biblical Theology! What do you think?
The Relative (Un)Importance of Genesis 3
A traditional interpretation of Genesis according to classical Christian theology places great emphasis on a schism between humanity before and after the events in Genesis 3. Traditionally regarded as “the Fall,” these events help to motivate what classical Christianity has long emphasized as the Bible’s own storyline, one for which the cross is the next major event of history—creation, Fall, redemption. This is a common interpretive tradition, one whose greatest support base are those interpretive communities primarily influenced by Christian creeds and systematic theological categories (e.g. Scripture, God, man, sin, salvation, the church).
Within this very broad frame of reference—creation, Fall, and redemption—much weight is placed on the events of Genesis 3. They belong to a plane of significance shared by only two or three other events in history: creation, the cross/empty tomb, and the return of Christ. Does the book of Genesis understand the events of chapter 3 to be as significant to human history as the events of chapters 1 & 2, not equal to any other event that unfolds in the book itself (or, for that matter, the Hebrew Bible)? I do not believe it does.
A recently published monograph by Matthew Thomas on the toledot (oft. translated “generations”) formula in the book of Genesis may help to emphasize the problem as I see it. A relatively stable formula, “These are the generations of . . .” (. . . אלה תלדת) occurs 11 times in the book of Genesis, dividing the book into 10 different sections (if we combine Esau’s two toledot sections, 36:1-8 with 36:9-37:1). According to Thomas, it is significant whether or not the syntax of the toledot formula is independent or dependent (i.e. whether or not the demonstrative pronoun “these” (אלה) is proceeded by a conjunction (ו) or not). Five of the formulas are independent, and they serve as headings of major units which, in his own words, “drive the structure for the book as a whole.” He provides the following chart to illustrate his observations:
The five independent toledot are significant for the trajectory of the Genesis narrative. According to Thomas, ”a pattern of a narrowing of focus emerges as in each generation the reader’s attention is drawn toward one descendant.” One of the interesting aspects of this pattern of narrowing is how relatively insignificant “the Fall” is for developing the story. The events of chapter 3 are of no greater significance (and arguably less significant) than the events of chapters 6-9 for developing the story. Genesis does not recognize a transition from a pre-fallen to a fallen humanity, but rather from creation (toledot of the heavens and earth), to humanity (toledot of Adam), to righteous humanity (toledot of Noah), to Semites (toledot of Shem), to Israel (toledot of Jacob).
Genesis tells the story about the beginning of Israel, beginning with the broadest frame of reference possible, the heavens and the earth. Eventually, it arrives at the eponymous ancestor, Jacob/Israel, and his twelve sons, the eponymous ancestors of the tribes of Israel. Biblical theologians will do well to recognize the narrative structure of the book of Genesis, those things which receive greater emphasis in the text or which promote the progression of the narrative, and to emphasize these. While “the Fall” will remain paramount to classical articulations of the Christian faith, the events of Genesis 3 simply are not as significant for the story that Genesis is trying to tell. Biblical theologians must follow a different path.
My First Published Article!
I have the joy of seeing my name in print for the first (and hopfully not last!) time as the Argentine journal Antiguo Oriente has published my paper “Source of Contention and the Emerging Reality Concerning Qohelet’s Carpe Diem Advice.” According to WorldCat, only 8 libraries in America currently carry the journal, but I would be pleased to share a PDF copy with anyone interested. You can email me at josephdotrdotkellyatgmaildotcom.
When Qohelet declares “there is nothing new under the sun,” his own words are no exception. It has been known for a century now that not all of Qohelet’s material is original to his own genius, and the idea that Qohelet is directly dependent on a literary source(s) is standard fare. The hallmark example continues to be Siduri the alewife’s advice to Gilgamesh which displays remarkable correspondence with Ecclesiastes 9: 7-9. However, what may have been construed as an instance of clear literary dependency a century ago cannot be maintained in light of the data that continues to emerge from the ancient Near East. New sources have risen that contend with the Gilgamesh Epic, and there has yet to emerge a definitive victor. This paper calls into question the very idea that Qohelet was directly dependent on a literary precursor and joins with a few select voices both past and present in suggesting an alternate interpretation of the data.
How to be a Better Biblical Scholar/Christian: On Actually Reading the Bible
When was the last time you read through the Bible? I must confess to having never actually read through the Bible, though I have listened to it through on audiobook, once. (Mind you, the earliest faith communities did not read the Bible, they listened to it read aloud.) With that admission, I am obviously not one of those who believes that reading through the entire Bible, particularly reading through it every year, is one of the higher Christian virtues, though I respect those who, like my parents, do it year after year.
Biblical scholars/enthusiasts can get away with not reading their Bibles, rather conveniently, by talking about the Bible and about how to read the Bible. I agree with Charles Halton, however, who in one of our recent discussions suggested that the scholarship of those who talk about the Bible, particularly how to read the Bible, tends to be less persuasive when they don’t actually read it (and this occurs more often than one might think). One can easily extend this observation to the transformation evident in the lives of those who talk about versus those who actually read the Bible.
In this respect, I appreciated the following observations from L. Gregory Jones who, in his essay “Formed and Transformed by Scripture: Character, Community, and Authority in Biblical Interpretation” in Character and Scripture: Moral Formation, Community, and Biblical Interpretation, writes:
American Christians have increasingly lost a familiarity with ruled patterns for reading the Bible, the kind of familiarity that shapes people’s lives and, at its best, enlivens a scriptural imagination. Indeed, this loss is at least in part a consequence of an increasing preoccupation with questions of biblical method and biblical authority. As Christians in modernity have increasingly argued about the appropriate method or methods for biblical study, as well as the perceived status of Scripture’s authority, we have failed to attend adequately to the task of actually reading the texts themselves. . . . Further, our loss of familiarity with Scripture is also a cause of our preoccupation with biblical method and biblical authority. The less familiar we are with the texts of Scripture in all their diversity and complexity, the easier it is for us to remain at a more generalized level of argument about whether Scripture has authority or not — or, more accurately put, what kind of authority diverse people are willing to ascribe to Scripture. (20)
Jones goes on to point out that this preoccupation is “morally convenient.” He cites a United Methodist Bishop, Kenneth Carder, who pointedly writes: “It is much easier to argue about evolution and creation than it is to live as though this is God’s world. Or, debating whether a ‘great fish’ really swallowed Jonah is far less costly and risky than acknowledging that God loves our enemies as much as God loves us.”
Methods of biblical interpretation are fascinating and, for biblical scholars and serious Bible students, a necessary object of study, but they are not (or should not be) an end unto themselves.
SBL Student Policies Suspended
The recent changes to the SBL student policy for paper submissions have been suspended for one year. I think this is a wise move considering the number of well-reasoned critiques that arose in response to what seemed rather abrupt changes at the end of last year. John Kutsko’s letter to SBL Student members reads:
Dear Student Member:
The Executive Committee of Council met on 12 January 2011 to discuss concerns over the recent policies regarding student participation in the Society’s Annual Meeting. The policies that were announced in November 2010 required all students without a doctoral degree to submit to the Program Unit Chair the full text of the paper they intended to read and limited the number of sessions student can participate in (as panelist, presenter, and respondent) to one.
The action taken by the Executive Committee of Council, effective immediately , is to postpone the implementation of these policies and to undertake additional discussion of these matters at the Spring 2011 Council meeting. This action thereby sets aside these requirements and restrictions until 2012, pending further review.
I want personally to thank the members of the Student Advisory Board and the network of OSRs for the conversations we have had concerning these matters. They are active advocates for student interests. Please do continue these conversations with me or with representatives on SAB. SAB will provide a report directly to Council in April.
On behalf of Council, we look forward to receiving your suggestions and proposals for discussion and review, and we are especially grateful for your active participation.
Sincerely,
John F. Kutsko
Executive Director
Society of Biblical Literature
Is the Bible Spiritually Infallible?
A paragraph from a book I picked up today from the library, Samuel and His God by Marti J. Steussy of Christian Theological Seminary, captured my attention.
I also do not consider the Bible spiritually infallible, and my reasons are empirical. There has been too much mischief and flat-out evil committed in its name for me to be able to say with a straight face that the Bible provides reliable guidance to anyone who sincerely seeks it. Others might reasonably reply that the problem is not with the Bible but with the depravity of those who interpret it. I might even agree with them, except that if a Bible intended to communicate God’s message to humans is so easily corrupted by human interpretation, what sense does it make to call it infallible? As soon as we qualify infallibility with the requirement of correct interpretation, the game changes: we are not longer talking about the Bible as a simple, reliable source in which anybody can look up the right answers. Instead we are dealing with the competing authority claims of its interpreters. Granted, many of those interpreters deny that they are advancing their own authority. They claim that they are just following the rules set by the Bible itself. The trouble is, the same claim can be and often is made by other interpreters who arrive at different results. Even when we seek to be faithful to the Bible’s own principles, human judgment plays an inescapable role in biblical interpretation. (8)
I have previously argued that confessions of inerrancy based on non-extant textual witnesses (i.e. the biblical autographs) are of little value. If we had them, the discussion would be different. What we do have is fragmentary and occasionally disparate witnesses to ancient pieces of literature and traditions which bring these literary works together into a unified Bible. This is where confessions about the Bible should begin insofar as we are speaking of our interaction with sacred literature. If God is speaking to us today, it is not by means of texts that do not exist.
Steussy is using similar logic to make a slightly different argument. Because we never come to the Bible without the need to interpret it, any attempt on our part to make claims about the Bible’s efficacy that does not take into consideration this interpretive dimension is misguided. We do not have access to the Bible apart from interpretation, and our attempts at interpreting it are marred by our own intellectual and spiritual insufficiencies/deficiencies. The Bible has great potential for enriching our lives and the world in which we live, yet nothing about the Bible prevents it from being abused—even by the most sincere individual. Confessing the Bible to be an infallible guide tends to obscure this latter detail.
(Super?)Natural Disaster in Haggai: A Theological Question
The book of Haggai speaks of a drought, the cause of which is attributed to the divine judgment of Yahweh (Hag 1:11; 2:17). The people have been hesitant to reestablish the religious cult of Yahweh—the temple lies desolate—and their hesitancy has angered their God. As a result, the prophet conveys God’s word—the land will lie desolate. This is a case of lexical talionis, a חרב for a חרב. Our modern scientific worldview teaches us that the (in)activity of temple building is not naturally tied to local weather conditions or agricultural fecundity, and this raises a challenging issue for the person who approaches the book of Haggai with faith-convictions.
Studies in Syro-Palestinian agriculture demonstrate that this geographical locale is susceptible to periods of low rainfall, and for such periods drought and famine are relatively common natural disasters. (According to one estimate, drought-caused-famines in this region occur with such frequency that every generation experiences at least one.) Perhaps the simplest faith-based solution to the challenge posed by this text is to posit that the disasters recorded in the first chapter of Haggai are unique, that they are supernatural. The God who created the heavens and the earth is certainly capable of suppressing their dew and produce, and anyone short of espousing a truly atheistic worldview should be willing to concede as much.
Is this the only faithful way forward; is it even the best way forward to those who seek to read this text with the eyes of faith? I contend that such an understanding raises its own unique concerns, and these concerns invite alternative ways of understanding the text.
The prophet Haggai emphasizes a purpose exists behind divine judgment, that God’s disaster is not an end to itself but a means by which God shapes God’s people (cf. Jer 18:1-10). The purpose of Yahweh’s punishment in the events recorded in the book of Haggai is revealed to the people by the prophet: “Before stone was placed upon stone in the temple of Yahweh, how did you fare? When one came to a heap of twenty measures, there were but ten. When one came to the wine vat to draw fifty measures, there were but twenty. I struck you and all the products of your toil with blight and with mildew and with hail, yet you did not turn to me, declares Yahweh” (Hag 2:15b-17). Haggai echoes here the words of Amos who made use of similar rhetoric centuries before to emphasize the covenant faithlessness of Israel (Am 4:6-11). If these are instances of direct divine activity, it is significant to observe that they are accompanied by the prophetic word: “Does disaster come to a city, unless Yahweh has done it? For the Lord Yahweh does nothing without revealing his secret to his servants the prophets” (Am 3:6b-7).
Amos is speaking hyperbolically; though he is often interpreted far too literally, as though God actually micromanages the cosmos. A more holistic reading of the Hebrew Bible will discover that God can bear responsibility for what transpires without having directly determined every course of action. There exists in the Hebrew Bible the concept of the created moral order, what Terence Fretheim describes as a “loose causal weave of act and consequence. . . . Generally speaking, the relationship between sin and consequence is conceived more in intrinsic terms than forensic terms: consequences grow out of the deed itself rather than being a penalty imposed from without” (2010: 49; cf. Ps 7:12-16; Isa 59:17-18; 64:5-9; Jer 6:11, 19; 7:18-20; 21:12-14; 44:7-8; 50:24-25; Ezek 22:31; Lam 3:64-66). The judgment of God is as much the natural repercussions to sinful living as to direct divine intervention. It is important to recognize that this conception is a loose causal weave; that many forces are at work, including “time and chance” (Eccl 9:11), renders insufficient a mechanistic view of the created moral order (cf. Job 1-42; this becomes a theological conundrum for those who understand God to be a cosmic micromanager).
Nevertheless, the created moral order is a component of a theistic worldview enabling people of faith to speak of certain events, many of which belong to the natural order, as instances of divine activity. Thus, one need not look to miracles alone to find the activity of God. I have made this connection as of late regarding the unbridled use of fossil fuels and the unintended consequences of global warming, the latter potentially leading to an all too literal day of Yahweh (cf. Isa 13:6-9; 34:8-12; Jer 46:9-12; Eze 30:1-9; Obad 15-19; Joel 1:1-2:27; Zeph 1:14-2:15).
Is the created moral order operating in the book of Haggai, or should these events be interpreted as exceptions to this order—a penalty imposed from without? Certain faith traditions which recognize such an order believe that God is not bound to work exclusively within it. My own tradition, the Christian faith, sees an unprecedented act of God in the resurrection of Jesus. It serves as a preliminary confirmation to the Judeo-Christian conviction that God is committed to righting the wrongs that go unchecked “under the sun” (Eccl 8:12-13; 11:9; 12:14; cf. Gen 18:25; Ps 58; 98; Mal 3:14-18; Matt 25:31-46; 2 Cor 5:10). This act demonstrates the divine capacity for supernatural intervention, but it does not establish an arbitrary precedent for such activity. God intervenes God’s own order in an effort to uphold the principle of justice to which God is ultimately committed. This is a unique event in history that proclaims God’s eschatological commitment. If one asserts that Haggai describes God as acting in contradistinction to the created moral order, one need also address the question of why in this instance God would subvert God’s own order. What it is that God accomplishes in this unique act of punishment? That God is able to act in this way does not explain why God would choose so to act.
I contend that a good case can be made that the created moral order is operating in the book of Haggai. A close reading of the text will discover that the disasters recorded in the book are subject to both divine and natural agents, a hermeneutical clue to the operation of the created moral order. There is a chiasm in the book worth nothing in this regard.
A Created Order as Subject: “The heavens above you have withheld the dew, and the earth has withheld its produce.” (1:10)
B Yahweh as Subject: “I have called for a drought on the land and the hills, on the grain, the new wine, the oil, on what the ground brings forth, on man and beast, and on all their labors.” (1:11)
B’ Yahweh as Subject: “I struck you and all the products of your toil with blight and with mildew and with hail.” (2:17)
A’ Created Order as Subject: “The vine, the fig tree, the pomegranate, and the olive tree have yielded nothing.” (2:18)
The instances in which Yahweh is the subject of the verbs of destruction are framed by similar language that identifies the created order as the destructive agent (contra KJV in 1:10). In addition to this, the questions posed to the priests regarding the law (2:10-14) falls in the center of this chiastic framework. Haggai inquires as to the sacred contagion of holy and unholy objects, suggesting that the people and the work of their hands are like the latter—profaning everything with which they come into contact. Far from seeing God as an agent disrupting the natural order of act and consequence, the prophet Haggai portray’s the people’s ritual uncleanliness as directly infecting their environment, albeit at the ritual/symbolic level.
This then raises the issue with which this discussion began. Our modern scientific worldview teaches us that the (in)activity of temple building is not naturally tied to local weather conditions or agricultural fecundity. Scientific causation does link certain sins with certain consequences (e.g. the unbridled use of fossil fuels with global warming). While the created moral order does operate in this way, the issue we face is whether or not causation must be scientific in order to be legitimate. The problem is particularly poignant to a scientifically sensitive society. Yet we must remember that Israel (and later Judah/the Judeans) did not belong to such a society. This does not mean that they were unconcerned about science, but that their cognition was less constrained by scientific pursuits and entertained greater ingenuity. The way in which Haggai rhetorically connects act and consequence and the people’s response help to demonstrate this. We could consider their perspective naïve, but this would betray unwarranted faith commitments to science. Extra-scientific realities are fundamental to a theistic worldview. Along these lines, the created moral order need not operate exclusively at the scientific level. For Haggai and the Judean people, there was a rhetorical/ritual/symbolic connection that linked their inactivity to that of the heavens and the earth. Scientifically, we might be inclined to see this as a convenient coincidence. To the eyes of faith, it was the judgment of God!
Review of Reclaiming the Old Testament for Christian Preaching
My thanks to Adrianna Wright and IVP for sending me a copy of Reclaiming the Old Testament for Christian Preaching edited by Grenville J. R. Kent, Paul J. Kissling, and Laurence A. Turner.
My expectations for this volume should be laid bare at the outset. Too much is published today that is both mediocre and/or redundant. Particularly in an area such as preaching, I would be hesitant to get caught up into reading very many books if any on the subject. A book on preaching could be compared to a book on how to play a musical instrument. Perhaps the fundamentals can be gleaned from reading a text book, but to truly master the subject one must set aside the book and practice. Preaching is an activity one must be regularly engaged in should one truly want to grow and develop. There is very little need to read more than a couple preaching books because their differences are hardly significant. I do not preoccupy myself with the various preaching theories; they are largely passing fads concerned with packaging material that is often mediocre because too little attention is being placed on content. And so with that in mind, I came to this book looking for a resource that would cover the bare essentials of making use of the Old Testament for a Christian exposition, one that was particularly focused on developing content over delivery. In my estimation, the delivers in this respect, though I found some chapters appealed to me more than others.
Each chapter is the product of a different author writing from within a Christian faith perspective. Generally speaking, each chapter contains a discussion of the topic, its relation to preaching, the relevance of a Christian faith perspective, and concludes with both an example sermon (or sermon outline) and a bibliography of some kind.
Laurence Turner begins the book with the chapter “Preaching Narrative: Plot.” This was one of the chapters I found most helpful, both because the narratives of biblical stories are too often ignored in the preaching of narrative texts and because of the quality of Turner’s treatment. He lays out the basic structure that establishes the general characteristics of plot shared by both ancient and modern literature, and he proceeds to explain how these individual characteristics are significant for understanding plot and plot development. He highlights how one can make use of these characteristics in developing a sermon without requiring that one’s sermon fit any one particular mold or structure. Complimenting the discussion of narrative was Paul Kissling’s chapter, “Preaching Narrative: Characters.” I particularly appreciated the encouragement in this chapter to diversify one’s sermon style, occasionally delivering a sermon from the perspective of the biblical character in the first person. From from encouraging an atomistic reading of biblical characters, he addresses numerous features of narrative storytelling in the Bible that highlight the significance of characters and characterization. Students who might otherwise think it appropriate to preach a “Dare to be a Daniel” sermon will learn from this chapter that there is more to reading biblical characters than the traits we are predetermined to admire in them!
Perhaps my favorite chapter of the lot was Christopher Wright’s ” Preaching from the Law.” Again, this is a topic that is easily and often abused or ignored in Christian preaching, and Wright’s lifelong work in Old Testament Law is apparent. The chapter is in many ways a condensed discussion of issues he raised in Old Testament Ethics for the People of God. He has done a fine job in presenting his basic framework of his understanding OT law and highlighting the most pertinent issues on which to elaborate. Readers interested in further discussion will find themselves redirected to the appropriate discussions in his more expansive volume. I suspect those familiar with and sympathetic to Wright and his work on OT law will be pleased to have this chapter for students to consult to capture the essence of Wright’s work, even if they are not using it in a homiletics course. Because Wright is focused on “finding the message of the law for today,” some might find his chapter less helpful in respect to the various forms or sermon structures most suitable for preaching OT law.
Federico Villanueva and David Firth tackle lament and praise poetry, respectively. Their chapters do a fine job at addressing these topics. Tremper Longman tackles wisdom literature, but leaves me wanting. I must confess that my dissatisfaction with this chapter is due to a significant difference of opinion with Longman when it comes to the text of Ecclesiastes. Longman interprets the frame narrative of the text as a corrective to all that lies within it (a substantial majority of the biblical book!). While this is a legitimate interpretive option, it is not one that persuades me. I would opt for students reading this book for a class to consult William Brown’s Interpretation commentary as a corrective. I appreciate Longman in the wisdom corpus outside Ecclesiastes, so the other aspects of the chapter I found to be worthwhile.
Grenville Kent, H. G. M. Williamson, Daniel Block each address the preaching of a single book of the Bible, Song of Solomon, Isaiah, and Ezekiel, respectively. Kent enumerates numerous negative and positive pieces of advice for preaching about a delicate topic for public discourse—sex. I can see myself measuring any future sermons on the subject should I have the occasion and comission to so preach against this chapter to ensure that I have handled to topic appropriately. Williamson discussed, among other things, how to handle preaching from a text where authorship and date may prove to be thorny issues if brought up and offered sage advice. I particularly appreciated how he handled the messianic portions of Isaiah, neither ignoring their Christ-focus nor limiting their import to it. Block demonstrated well how one approaches the task of preaching a biblical book holistically, understanding the entire structure and theological contours of the book before preaching from it. Those interested in preaching Ezekiel will find it a most helpful resource.
Earnest Lucas tackles Apocalyptic literature and does a fine job. Alison Lo addresses the Minor Prophets, and I particularly appreciate how she encourages a more holistic reading of the collection of books. For example, she writes about tracing thematic coherence across the minor prophets using “the day of the LORD” as an example. Her advice recognizes some of the interaction that occurs between the prophets, and those who read this chapter should realize that the theological significance in the ways these texts interact with one another is significant for Christian preaching. These prophetic books do not exist in a vacuum, but in a collection of mutually informing/influencing literature. While this is a basic Christian conviction regarding the entire biblical canon, it is true at another level for the collection of the minor prophets.
The final two chapters address two particularly pertinent topics on the Old Testament and Christian preaching. Gordan Wenham addresses preaching from difficult texts, and any who are familiar with Christian culture and the contents of the Old Testament should know there is plenty of challenging material in the Old Testament. Genealogies challenge attention spans; texts containing slavery and violence challenge modern moral sensibilities. These are just a few of the issues Wenham raised. Of course, one can always choose to neglect the challenging texts, but Wenham proposes engaging these texts, but with appropriate understanding and candor. Walter Moberly concludes the book with his treatment of preaching Christ from the Old Testament. Moberly engages much secondary literature on the subject, creating an excellent dialogue of scholars on the issue. The outcome is a christological perspective on the Old Testament that is neither simple nor simplistic; readers are encouraged to take seriously the context(s)of the texts to develop a frame of reference for christological interpretation.
There were some chapters I enjoyed and found more helpful than others, but the book was relatively well balanced in content. I found it odd that the bibliographies at the conclusion of each chapter were different in some respects, and identical in others. A majority included a “Further reading” list or a “Recommended further reading” list with three resources, but some had a longer list, and one had a full bibliography in place of a recommended reading list. Three of the “Further reading” lists included Ellen Davis’ book Wondrous Depth: Preaching the Old Testament. While I do not doubt Davis’ book is superb and worth consulting (I have not consulted it myself), I would have liked to see greater diversity in the recommendations, perhaps more focused on the specific topic being addressed. Most contributors represent a Western cultural perspective, and most are male. Preaching is not an exclusively masculine enterprise, so it would have been great to see more females contribute to this volume. My final evaluation is positive; this book would serve as a fine resource for a homiletics course in both undergraduate and graduate contexts, particularly a course focused on expository preaching. It covers many important topics clearly and concisely. I commend the book to those interested in the topic.
The Biblical Studies Carnival LVIII
Let the carnival-ing begin!
Christmas
Some might prefer their Christmas theology filtered through Twitter or a conglomeration of social media applications, but here is the official Biblioblogging Christmas story:
According to K.C. Hulsma (patheos), Christ is NOT the reason for the season, but rather pagan religious practices. James McGrath (Exploring Our Matrix) finds irony in the secular hijacking of the sacred hijacking of a pagan holiday. From a much different perspective, Allan Bevere (Allan R. Bevere) thinks a theological perspective of the season should place greater emphasis on the resurrection than on the birth of Jesus. John Meade (LXX Studies) uses text criticism to get to the heart of the Christmas message of Luke.
Adam Kotsko (An und für sich) reflects on the prominence/significance of angels in the Christmas narratives and their absence/insignificance in modern culture (with exceptions) while reflecting on secularizing aspects of modern Christmas.
NT Wrong (Scripture, Ministry, and the People of God) discusses the virgin birth. Mark Shea (The Sacred Page) provides an historical survey of the doctrine of Mary’s immaculate conception. Megan (WIT) commends an excerpt on the theology of this subject from Elizabeth Johnson’s Mary, Truly Our Sister. Her blogging companion Bridget (WIT) has an interesting post on Mary as portrayed in artistic representations of the Annunciation. James McGrath (Exploring Our Matrix) sees in the passing statement that Jesus was “born of a woman” an opportunity to chide mythicists.
Michael Barber (The Sacred Page) entertains the idea that, rather than being “suspicious” of Mary’s pregnancy, Joseph “was a humble man who did not deem himself worthy to play the role of the foster father of the Messiah, who was born ‘of the Holy Spirit’.” Be sure to visit the comments thread as well for a good discussions of the merits and issues surrounding Barber’s interpretation. He also defends the patristic link between Mary and the ark of the covenant as “insightful contemplation” rooted in the New Testament.
Robert J. Myles (Jesus the Bum) explores the flight to Egypt through the lens of dislocation (here, here, here, and here.)
John Byron (The Biblical World) commends the NIV committee for dropping the word “inn” in favor for a more accurate translation of “guest room.” The problem, he claims, is not with room per se, but with the necessary privacy for childbearing, something for which a crowded guest room is not suited. Mark Goodacre (NTPod) also addresses this question in his recent podcast.
Kevin DeYoung (The Gospel Coalition; DeYoung, Restless, Reformed) has some tips about how to understand the fulfillment of passages from the OT cited in the birth narratives of Jesus.
Daniel Kirk (Storied Theology) investigates the portrayals of Jesus in the Christmas narratives (here, here, here, here, and here)
Weighing in on the BBC’s Nativity are bibliobloggers Matt Page (Centre for the Study of Christian Origins), Doug Chaplin (Clayboy) (here, here, here, and here), and Mark Goodacre (NT Blog).
Brent Landau’s Revelation of the Magi, “a second- or third-century CE text that gives a legendary account of Matthew’s (probably already legendary) magi,” received numerous reviews from Therese J. Borchard (Catholic San Fransisco), Ben Witherington (Ben Witherington on the Bible and Culture), Amy Becker ({Take & Read}), Elizabeth Scalia ({Take & Read}), Peter Wallace ({Take & Read}), Carl Gregg ({Take & Read}), T.C. Robinson (New Leaven), Angelica Nohemi Quinonez ({Take & Read}), and Scott McKnight ({Take & Read}), to which Landau ({Take & Read}) responds. See also more of Jim Davila’s musings.
Jim West (Zwinglious Redivivus) and Robert Cargill (XKV8R) are quick to call to account the dilettantes who think they have identified Mary’s grandmother.
The Bible and SBL, Technology, and Culture
Chris Brady (Targuman) was the first to share the new policies for SBL call for papers (see also here and here). Brian LePort (Near Emmaus) was not bothered by the changes, but understood why some might be. John Meade (LXX Studies) believes some of the changes create an undue burden on both the program unit Chairs and on the student members. Deane Galbraith (Bulletin for the Study of Religion) points out that the changes infringe on the rights of students who were promised the same benefits of full membership. Maire Byrne (Bible Nerd) recognizes that the changes are particularly damaging to international students. Jason Staples (Professor Obvious) thinks this policy undermines those who would rather “present” than read a paper. Joseph Kelly (כל־האדם) writes a letter to the Executive Director to highlight many of the problematic implications of these changes. Daniel McClellan (Daniel O. McClellan) believes this rational, to increase student participation, isn’t likely given the increased limits placed on students who want to present. James McGrath (Exploring Our Matrix) questions the viability of this new proposals.
David Stark (New Testament Interpretation) keeps us abreast of some of the goings on with digital technology that would be relevant to those interested in Biblical studies. For those who missed getting a copy of the new SBL Greek New Testament, you can download a PDF copy here. Google has opened up their new eBookstore and a web-based ebook reader.
Steve Wiggens (Sects and Violence in the Ancient World) thinks “we live in a society enamored of a book it doesn’t understand.“
Scott Bailey (Scotteriology) and Joseph Kelly (כל־האדם) discuss the relevance of climate change to biblical studies.
Jim West (Zwinglious Redivivus) defends print-on-demand publishing.
The issues of biblical studies and faith were raised by Tim Bulkeley (Bible and Interpretation) and followed up directly or indirectly by Doug Chaplin (Clayboy), Steve Douglas (Undeception), Charles Savelle (BibleX), and Tom Verenna (The Musings of Thomas Verenna). Hector Avalos (Bible and Interpretation) thinks we need more genuinely secular introductions to the Bible.
Tom also writes that about history and identity, that “Human history is the history of all humanity and must be owned by all, which means it must be owned by none.“
Michael Carden (Jottings) discusses the literacy (or otherwise!) of biblical scholars.
Deane Galbraith (Religion Bulletin) believes that we are the authors of the Bible.
Roland Boar (Stalin’s Moustache) observes that biblical criticism is being used to hold the high ground, while theologians are venturing out in the academy. Dan (On Journeying with those in Exile) interviews Boer about Marxism and theology.
Bible Translations, Translation, and Biblical Languages
T. C. Robinson (New Leaven) shares some changes he would have made to the updated NIV Bible. Craig Blomberg (BibleGateway) defends the NIV11 decision to translate ανθροποι in 2 Tim 2:2 as “people,” though Denny Burk (Denny Burk) is not persuaded. Matt Dabbs (Kingdom Living) is raises some questions about the NIV11′s use/non-use of confess, to which Claude Mariottini (Dr. Claude Mariottini – Professor of Old Testament) responds.
Chad (Political Jesus) continues his pursuit for a new Bible translation, with posts by Jeremy Thompson on the NAB, Joel Watts on the NLT, and Dustin Smith on the NASB.
David Crystal (Bible and Interpretation) talks about the legacy of the language of the King James Version of the Bible.
Joel Hoffman (God Didn’t Say That) discusses top translation traps and advises that “providing too much information makes a translation less accurate.”
Hebrew Bible/Old Testament
Martin Haase (EANN) announces the first publication of a group researching divine embodiment in the Old Testament.
Peter Enns (Science and the Sacred) continues highlighting things Genesis doesn’t tell us (see here, here, and here). He also provides an excellent historical survey of when Genesis has been believed to be written, and the significance he believes is attached to this question. Duane Smith (Abnormal Interests) explores one of these unexplained details, the reason the serpent is regarded the craftiest of all creatures, and finds a companions in the too-often-neglected early twentieth century scholar Umberto Cassuto and Rabbinic literature, exploring also apocryphal and New Testament sources.
Denis Alexander (Science and the Sacred) addresses the question, “How Does a BioLogos model need to address the theological issues associated with an Adam who was not the sole genetic progenitor of humankind?” (see here, here, and here).
Robert Cargill discovered Mark Driscoll, and Driscoll’s trinitarian reading of Genesis/Targum Neofiti really set him off. He sparked some reflections from other bloggers, Tyler Williams (Codex), John Meade (LXX Studies), Joseph Kelly (כל־האדם), and Charles Halton (Awilum). See also a 2008 post on this same subject by Chris Brady (Targuman).
Steve Wiggins continues his podcast inquiring as to the origins of Moses.
Joel Watts shares two class assignments, a brief response paper that he completed for a class assignment on the subject of the moral decline of Israel in Judges. and a rough draft of a paper on Judges 4.17-22.
Steve Douglas (Undeception) vacillates between two different readings of 2 Samuel 14:1-14.
Reflecting on some recent papers he’s written, Daniel McClellon (Daniel O. McClellon) draws conclusions about the universalization of Yhwh in Israel and the rhetorical versus historical nature of 2 Kings 22-23.
John Hobbins (Ancient Hebrew Poetry), in a tribute post to Carolyn Osiek, explores gendered wisdom embodiment in Proverbs and contemporary culture.
Claude Mariottini (Dr. Claude Mariottini – Professor of Old Testament) summarizes the life of the prophet Amos with promises of more to come on Amos’ prophetic call.
Rob Kashaw (Tolle Lege!) highlights a wordplay in Haggai.
Joseph Kelly (כל־האדם) continues providing a translation and notes for Zechariah’s night visions.
John Bergsma (The Sacred Page) shares a messianic reading of the book of Ruth with an eye toward advent.
Steve Wiggens (Sects and Violence in the Ancient World) discusses the importance of literary genre in raising the issue of the date of Daniel.
LXX, Rabbinics, and other Ancient Writings
Joseph Kelly (כל־האדם) provides a reading schedule for The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha to encourage people to read the entire corpus in a year. Tony Burke (Apocryphicity) writes as to why he studies the Christian Apocrypha., which gets Doug Chaplin (Clayboy) thinking about canon and censorship.
Daniel McClellon (Daniel O. McClellon) posts his paper from the recent SBL meeting in Atlanta where he explores the question, “What is Deity in LXX Deuteronomy?” He also writes about when the New Testament misreads the Hebrew Bible, to which John Meade (LXX Studies) responds with the question, “Does the New Testament misread the Hebrew Bible?” Mead also writes about LXX Job 37:18 (here and here) and the possibility that “the NT authors were more, if not exclusively, influenced by the LXX than the Hebrew text.“
John Hobbins (Ancient Hebrew Poetry) extols the recent Logos release of the Göttingen Septuagint. Those who missed the $299.95 pre-publication price tag will be sorry when, enticed by Hobbins’ post, they have to fork out $699.95 for it. (But it’s still a deal, says Hobbins!)
Duane Smith (Abnormal Interests), citing a dissertation on the LXX, asks some open ended questions about translations in the ancient world.
Rick Brannan (:-)Blog(-:) announces the completion of the Lexham Greek-English Interlinear Septuagint (LXX).
Simon Holloway (Davar Akher) provides an excellent “overview of the development of the halakha, with attention paid to those texts that, historically, have proven to be most beneficial.“
Ken Schenck (Quadrilateral Thoughts) develops a cheat sheet for the ancient Jew Philo.
New Testament
Scott McKnight, in a Christianity Today article, writes about the conflict often seen between Jesus and Paul, and how he proposes this conflict can be resolved. Bill Heroman (NT/History Blog) adds that when one looks at Paul’s actions, one sees clearly his commitment to the kingdom about which Jesus preached. Responses also come from Walter Kaiser(Koinonia), Daniel Kirk (Storied Theology), Andrew Perriman (p.ost). Trevin Wax (Kingdom People) interviews McKnight about the article.
Daniel Kirk (Storied Theology) uses the OT to shed light on the Christology of New Testament authors. He also explores the relationship between Jewish monotheism and early Christian Christology. Tommy Thompson and Tom Verenna (Bible and Intepretation) discuss issues of historicity and Jesus.
Richard Fellows (Paul and his Co-Workers) argues that benefactors in the early church were given new names in recognition to their generosity.
Gospels, Q, and Acts
Ishta Kutesa (Near Emmaus) approaches the logos of John 1:1 with an eye on philosophical discourse. David Frank (Better Bibles Blog) explores the complexity of capturing what John was saying. David Ker (Better Bibles Blog) summarizes a collaborative discussion about John 3:16.
Mark Goodacre (NTBlog) shares a few of his favorite fictional Qs. For nonfictional convictions regarding Q, check out the post by Larry Hurtado (Centre for the Study of Christian Origins). See also Doug Chaplin’s (Clayboy) issue with the idea that Luke rewrites Matthew’s birth narrative and thoughts about a possible Q birth narrative (here and here). James McGrath (Exploring Our Matrix) straddles the fence as he poses a question to both Q-skeptics and Q-believers.
Steve Douglas (Undeception) wonders whether there is a wordplay going on in Mark 2:28 between Lord of the Sabbath and LORD of Hosts (Sabaoth).
Sean Webb (The Itinerant Mind) explores a second century setting for the canonization of the gospels.
Bill Heroman (NT/History Blog) asks the question as to whether the gospel narratives are chronological.
Philip Long (Reading Acts) explores the character Nathanial from the book of Acts and what it means to be “True Israel.” He also explores Thomas, Andrew,
Ken Schenck (Quadrilateral Thoughts) argues that Paul dies at the conclusion to the book of Acts, and that Luke’s readers were aware of this and so did not include it in the narrative.
Paul
If you want to introduce yourself to the so-called “New Perspective on Paul,” Daniel Kirk (Storied Theology) can get you there in three (easy?) steps!
Regarding Paul’s infamous mention of Junia in Romans 16:7, Iver Larson (Better Bible’s Blog) and Suzanne McCarthy (Suzanne’s Bookshelf) dialogue yet again about the certainty (or lack thereof) that Junia is a female.
Philip Long (Reading Acts) investigates what Paul means when he commands people to “bear one another’s burdens,” and when he writes with “big letters.”
Andrew Perriman (p.ost) discusses the phrase “Christ became a servant of circumcision” in Romans 15:8.
Ardel Caneday (εξηγησις) adds a substantial footnote about works and justification to his recent SBL paper ““Justification, Judgment & Behavior: Judgment Day’s Coming Verdict Now Announced in the Gospel,” and follows it up with a couple observations about his subject and about original thinking.
Craig Benno (Trinitarian Dance) shares some thoughts about sons in Galatians 3:26.
Steve Douglas (Undeception) asks to what degree Paul’s phrase “Christ crucified” entails penal substitution.
Matthew Montonini (New Testament Perspectives) interviews Tom Schreiner regarding (among other things) his recent Galatians commentary in the Zondervan Exegetical Commentary series (see here and here).
Mike Bird (ΕΥΑΝΓΕΛΙΟΝ) sees both horizontal and vertical dimensions of justification in Paul.
Two papers were made available online, Johnathan R. Robinson’s MTh Thesis, “Sex, Slogans and Σώµατα: Discovering Paul’s Theological Ethic in 1 Corinthians 6:12-20” and Brian J. Abasciano’s doctoral dissertation, “Paul’s Use of the Old Testament in Romans 9:1-9: An Intertextual and Theological Exegesis.”
T. C. Robinson (New Leaven) thinks water baptism for Paul is a bigger deal than many recognize it to be.
Revelation
Mike Bird (ΕΥΑΝΓΕΛΙΟΝ) lists important parallels between Revelation 4 and 5, to which Michael Barber responds with some important parallels between these chapters and Daniel 7.
Matt Flannagan (MandM) continues his monthly column Contra Mundum, this time exploring the infamous number of the beast and discussing the ills of “statism.” Rob Haskell (Fellow Traveler) also takes a stab at decoding 666.
James McGrath (Exploring Our Matrix), after flirting with the idea that Revelation is a pseudepigraphical text, then questions what gets one’s name written in the book of life (see here and here).
Deane Galbraith (Religion Bulletin) notices that Jesus is described as one with “breasts” in John’s vision.
Hermeneutics
Daniel Kirk (Storied Theology) posts his paper, “Toward a Theory of Narrative Transformation: The Importance of Both Contexts in Paul’s Scriptural Citations,” from November’s SBL meeting in Atlanta on his blog. He argues (among other things) that Paul’s citations of Scripture must be understood in both their original and invited contexts, a classic “both/and” approach to an overly polemical discussion.
Gene Robinson (On Faith: The Washington Post) discusses hermeneutical issues surrounding homosexuality and the Bible (see here and here).
Ted Bobosh (Fr. Ted’s Blog) shares numerous thoughts about interpreting the Bible (see here, here, here, here, here, here, and here).
Daniel McClellon (Daniel O. McClellon) raises the issue of inerrancy vs. authority in Jesus’ own hermeneutic, after which John Meade (LXX Studies) and Thom Stark (Religion at the Margins) get involved in a long winded discussion on certain points.
Archaeology and the Ancient World
Owen Chesnut (Roses and Razorwire) responds to Israel Finkelstein’s SBL paper, “Khirbet Qeiyafa: A Cool-Headed Interpretation.” (See here and here.)
Darrell Pursiful (Dr. Platypus) provides an eminently helpful resource page for ancient names. Charles Halton (Awilum) notes some additional resources.
Richard Hess (Bible and Interpretation) writes about Monotheism in the ancient world, and Daniel McClellon (Daniel O. McClellon) responds. Along these lines, James Spinti (Idle Musings of a Bookseller) muses about the ontology of the gods, while Jim Linville (Dr. Jim’s Thinking Shop) muses about the efficacy of their incantation texts (the ones related to hangover cures).
Darrell Pursiful (Dr. Platypus) looks into the past and present cultures of angels.
Carisa (Queen of Heaven) surveys the goddess of the sea in the ancient world.
John Hobbins (Ancient Hebrew Poetry) writes about the forthcoming commentary by Amar Annus and Alan Lenzi, Ludlul bel nemeqi: The Standard Babylonian Poem of the Righteous Sufferer.
Dan Batovici (Biblical and Early Christian Studies) reports on a paper by Marcus Bockmuehl, “Jewish and Christian Origins of Creatio ex Nihilo.”
Celebrating the recent lunar eclipse, Charles Halton (Awilum) discusses how such events were understood in Mesopotamian and biblical thought.
Robin Perry (Theological Scribbles) comments on three articles from the Westminster Theological Journal by Paul Seely about the cosmology of the Old Testament writers.
Larry Hurtado (Centre for the Study of Christian Origins) plugs a forthcoming book, Readers and Reading Culture in the High Roman Empire: A Study of Elite Communities.
Rob Crompton (The Snig’s Foot) responds to Jim Linville’s SBL paper, Taking Textbooks to Task over Old Testament Mythology: Why is This Mythology Different from All Other Mythologies?, featured in last month’s Carnival. Rob wants to pay more attention to “the processes by which stories [or so-called 'myths'] are generated.” Linville (Dr. Jim’s Thinking Shop) responds, and the entire exchange is worth reading.
Geza Vermes (Standpoint.) writes about Herod the Terrible or Herod the Great?, arguing that the terrible Herod of Jewish and Christian traditions be recognized for being great.
Book Reviews
Doug Chaplin (Clayboy) calls one reviewer and RBL to account on a basic factual error in one of the recent RBL reviews.
Charles Savelle (BibleX) reviews Bibleworks 8, not having updated since version 5, and he shares a video from a recent training session.
Steve Douglass (Undeception) reviews fellow blogger Thom Stark’s (Religion at the Margins) new addition to the ever growing corpus of anti-Inerrancy books, The Human Faces of God: What Scripture Reveals When It Gets God Wrong (and Why Inerrancy Tries to Hide It) and reflects on the subject (see here, here, here, and here). Another such book was reviewed by Daniel McClellon (Daniel O. McClellon), Kenton Spark’s God’s Word in Human Words.
Scott McKnight (Jesus Creed) begins reviewing Paul Copan’s book Is God a Moral Monster?: Making Sense of the Old Testament God (see here and here).
T. C. Robinson (New Leaven) shares his thoughts about Carlson and Longman’s Science, Creation and the Bible: Reconciling Rival Theories of Origin.
Joel Watts (Unsettled Christianity) concludes his review of War in the Bible and Terrorism in the Twenty-First Century (see here, here, and here). He also reviews the Ancient Christian Texts Commentaries on Genesis 1-3.
Jim West (Zwinglious Redivivus ) reviews Pekka Pitkänen’s volume on Joshua in the Apollos Old Testament commentary series. See also Charles Savelle’s (BibleX) interview of the author. West then goes on to review the Apollos commentary on Ecclesiastes and the Song of Songs.
Matthew Montonini (New Testament Perspectives) offers his first impressions of Fundamentals of New Testament Greek Grammar and Workbook.
Larry Hurtado (Larry Hurtado’s Blog) looks at the new SBL Greek New Testament.
Tsalampouni Ekaterini (Ιστολόγιο βιβλικών σπουδών / Biblical Studies Blog) reviews Από τη βιβλική έρευνα στην πίστη της Εκκλησίας. Συνοπτική Θεολογία της Καινής Διαθήκης by Χαραλαμπος Ατματζιδης.
Charles Savelle (BibleX) finds a new textbook resource in The New Testament and Antiquity. He is also favorably disposed to Tom Schreiner’s recent 40 Questions about Christians and Biblical Law.
Mike Kok (Sheffield Biblical Studies) continues his review of Maurice Casey’s Jesus Of Nazareth. Brian Bethune (Macleans.ca) also writes about the book.
Mike Bird (ΕΥΑΓΓΕΛΙΟΝ) briefly reviews Dale Allison’s The Historical Christ and the Theological Jesus.
Michael R. Licona ‘s Resurrection of Jesus: A New Historiographical Approach. is reviewed both by Jim West (Zwinglious Redivivus) and Bill Heroman (NT/History Blog).
Nijay Gupta (nijay k gupta) appreciates Did the First Christians Worship Jesus? by James Dunn.
Nick Norelli (Rightly Dividing the Word of Truth) examines James McGrath’s The Only True God: Early Christian Monotheism in its Jewish Context, Mehrdad Fatehi’s The Spirit’s Relation to the Risen Lord in Paul: An Examination of Its Christological Implications and Gordan Fee’s Revelation commentary.
Those interested in the new Zondervan Exegetical Commentaries on the New Testament can find a host of reviews at Zondervan’s Koinonia blog (here, here, and here).
Daniel Kirk (Storied Theology) is intrigued (though “not entirely convinced”) by Elizabeth Struthers Malbon‘s, Mark’s Jesus: Characterization as Narrative Christology. See his Redux post as well.
Michael J. Sandford (Sheffield Biblical Studies) examines Timothy Ling’s The Judaean Poor and the Fourth Gospel.
Jim Davila (Paleo Judaica) cites a snippet of a recent review from the Journal of Theological Studies, Paul in Ecstasy: The Neurobiology of the Apostles’s Life and Thought by Colleen Shantz. He is excited to see work being done “which takes mystical experience seriously as an input to foundational religious traditions.”
Daniel Kirk (Storied Theology) reviews Andrew Perriman’s The Future of the People of God: Reading Romans Before and After Western Christendom. Andrew Perriman (p.ost) responds.
John Byron (The Biblical World) praises the book, Ephesians: A Participatory Guide, to his readers.
Brian Fulthrop (συνεσταυρωμαι: living the crucified life) enthusiastically endorses The Drama of Ephesians. Joel Watts (Unsettled Christianity) reviews the book as well.
Nijay Gupta (Nijay Gupta) reviews the “eminently readable” volume, Reading Revelation Responsibility by Pauline scholar Michael Gorman, and he gives it high marks across the board. He also shares his initial impressions of the massive Eerdmans Dictionary of Early Judaism edited by John Collins and Daniel Harlow.
Stephen Demmler (You Can’t Mean That!) finds one of his SBL purchases, Tradition, Scripture, and Interpretation: A Sourcebook of the Ancient Church, to be one of his more mediocre purchases.
Brian LePort (Near Emmaus) briefly reviews Saint Francis by Robert West.
Peter Head (Evangelical Textual Criticism) shares his thoughts about James M. Robinson’s, The Story of the Bodmer Papyri: From the First Monastery’s Library in Upper Egypt to Geneva and Dublin.
Scott McKnight (Jesus Creed) reviews Michael Legaspi’s The Death of Scripture and the Rise of Biblical Studies (Oxford Studies in Historical Theology).
Jeremy Thompson (Free Old Testament Audio) reviews the Kindle edition of Kevin Vanhoozer’s Theological Interpretation of the Old Testament.
New Blogs/Bloggers
The Near Emmaus team doubles its numbers this month with the inclusion of new and one not-so-new bloggers, Joshua Smith, Ishta Kutesa, and Mark Stevens.
Michael W. Holmes starts an eponymous blog, and has a page devoted to the SBL Greek New Testament that he edited..
Chris Heard (Higgaion) updates his url address.
The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha Calendar-in-a-Year
Last year, Charles Halton created a reading schedule for The Context of Scripture. I found it to be so helpful, that I developed a companion calendar for James Charlesworth’s Old Testament Pseudepigrapha. I have also created a page on my sidebar dedicated to the calendar with some background information on the material and links to booksellers for the recent Hendrickson paperback set. I hope you can join me in 2011 in reading through both The Context of Scripture and The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha.
5 comments