Apocalypse against Empire: First Impressions and Opening Questions
Apocalypses as resistance against the empire, cryptic representations of marginalized groups, is an old story. In her recent book, Apocalypse against Empire: Theologies of Resistance in Early Judaism, Anathea Portier-Young seeks to breathe new life into this anti-imperial approach with a robust methodology. I recently received my complimentary copy, which I will be using to prepare a review for Arc: The Journal of the Faculty of Religious Studies, McGill University. Thus far, I have only read the intro and conclusion and other bits and pieces here and there. I have also chatted with a few scholars who have read the book already. My first impression is that this will be a very important contribution to the conversation on apocalyptic literature. It probably represents the most methodologically sophisticated attempt thus far to depict apocalypses as resistance literature. As one who is currently shaping his methodology in the study of apocalyptic discourse, I look forward to learning from her approach. I’m excited to see what she does with it all.
At the same time, I have some opening questions that I will have as I take further steps into the book. My specific research has been on early Christian documents, a couple hundred years out from Portier-Young’s scope (i.e., Daniel, the Apocalypse of Weeks [1 Enoch 93:1-10 + 91:11-17], and the Apocalypse of Dreams [1 Enoch 83-90]). For my research, I have found that too strong an emphasis on anti-imperial resistance can be problematic. So, even with my excitement about her work, I will admit that am also a bit of a skeptic coming in. Some things I’ll be looking for:
- What does Portier-Young do with the relationship between apocalypse and wisdom? This is one of the dominant discussions regarding apocalyptic literature for the last three decades or so, yet some scholars still neglect the fruits of the labor seen in the Wisdom and Apocalypticism in Early Judaism and Early Christianity program unit at SBL, for instance. Does she engage these scholars in an explicit manner? From a quick search through the book, I can’t tell. There’s a lot of talk about wisdom. I’ll be looking forward to seeing what she does with it.
- How much does Portier-Young engage with postcolonial theory? It doesn’t have an entry in the subject index and a Google book search seems to confirm that it is not a dominant theme. The aspect that interests me most in postcolonial theory for this discussion is its recognition not only of potential resistance toward empire, but also the appropriation of the basic tools of empire. Hegemony appears to be an important concept for Portier-Young’s book: Is there an adoption of hegemonic rhetoric within the apocalypses themselves? Or are they simply contesting it?
- How complex is her depiction of Jewish identity in this time period? It appears that the book tackles notions of “hybridity” a little bit, but my gut tells me that I might emphasize the fluidity of multiple collective identities more than Portier-Young does. We shall see.
- How broad are are the book’s claims? Does the argument “stay put” in the Seleucid period, or does it reach beyond itself towards all apocalyptic literature? Is there a sense that apocalyptic literature is in general to be identified as resistance literature? Does it extend to apocalyptic discourse found in the Dead Sea Scrolls? In early Christian documents? Etc.
- Is this monograph trying to have its nuanced cake and revolt against it too? In other words, will the methodological sophistication represent true innovation and complexity, or will it merely serve to offer a very fancy way of supporting a traditional anti-imperial theology? For those who don’t know, I’m an Anabaptist. Anabaptists generally have a very anti-imperial theology, or at least they have since John Howard Yoder popularized it. I think it is because I lean this way that I am skeptical of approaches that find anti-imperial theologies in the texts. I’d like to have a very high bar for finding biblical (and even extrabiblical) theologies that support my own perspective. Maybe Portier-Young will provide me with that bar–we’ll see!
In the end, I suspect that I will appreciate Portier-Young’s sophistication. I expect that I will learn a good deal of history that I hadn’t considered from her “thick description” of the Seleucid period. I’m guessing I will probably come to agree with her to some extent that there is some level of some form of resistance in these apocalypses. But I also imagine that I will remain hesitant about her conclusions. Whatever the case, I do know that this book will push me to be a better scholar by considering new questions about relevant texts. Now that I have some of those preconceptions out of the way, time to read a bit more . . .
By the way, Thea Portier-Young will be a member of my panel this fall, so it is with amplified interest that I approach this important new book.
What do you think? Will you be reading this one? Have you read it already? What are your impressions?
Harland on the Uniqueness of Early Christians
As I mentioned earlier, I am working through Philip Harland‘s Dynamics of Identity (courtesy of T & T Clark), which looks into early Judean and Christian gatherings as related to other unofficial associations in the Greco-Roman world. One of the themes in the back cover endorsements, and rightly so, is Harland’s challenge to many scholarly assumptions about the uniqueness of early Christian identity. He doesn’t state that early Christian groups are not unique, but argues against the grain of those who emphasize distinction and separation.
This is from his conclusion:
This study has focused on what was common among many groups while also paying attention to certain distinctive features of ethnic groups and cultural minorities. The attention to shared modes of identity construction, negotiation, and communication is not meant to suggest that Christians were not unique. However, Christians were unique or distinctive insofar as every association, minority group, or ethnic group was unique or distinctive, each in its own way. Among the distinctive characteristics of Christians and Judeans that stood out to many insiders and outsiders was their attention to one, Judean God to the exclusion of other deities. This also entailed refraining from involvement in certain social settings where those other gods were honoured. This distinction was a potential source of tensions with many other groups and individuals within their contexts, and it could lead to social harassment and persecution on particular occasions.
When I read this, it hit me as extremely level-headed. This is the kind of balanced and nuanced scholarship that I aspire to in my own research. It also seems to be an excellent concise description of the identity formation of early Christian groups. I just had to pass it along!
Philip Harland on Social History and Social Science
I’m reading through Philip Harland‘s Dynamics of Identity in the World of the Early Christians: Associations, Judeans, and Cultural Minorities, kindly sent along to me by T & T Clark for review, and I’d like to first highlight his excellent introduction, which provides a very helpful review of scholarship on social-scientific issues, identity theory, and associations in the ancient world.
I thought this paragraph, in particular, was a well-stated and well-balanced approach to the use of social-scientific methods in biblical studies:
Building on contributions from both of these scholarly areas [social history as (1) "from below" scholarship or (2) social scientific research], I approach the social sciences as heuristic devices, as things that help the social historian develop questions and find or notice things that might otherwise remain obscure. I tend to draw on social-scientific insights to develop a research framework for analysis, and I am less focused than some other scholars on testing models specifically. In this respect, I consider myself more a social historian than a social scientist. Throughout this interdisciplinary study, I explain and adapt social-scientific concepts and theories in order to further our understanding of specific historical cases in the ancient context. [5]
Though I am nowhere near as accomplished as Harland in the field social-scientific research, of course, I feel like he took the words right out of my mouth.
Review: HarperCollins Study Bible (Part 2)
HarperCollins Study Bible: Fully Revised and Updated – Student Edition
Editors: Harold W. Attridge (General Editor, Revised); Wayne A. Meeks (General Editor, Original)
Hardcover: 2128 pages
Publisher: HarperOne
Year: 2006
ISBN:9780060786830
Buy: HarperCollins; Amazon
Positives
- Excellent running commentary by world-class biblical scholars.
- More notes than other study Bibles based on critical research.
- The lack of a solidified confessional stance allows for less apologetically motivated notes than some other study Bibles on the market.
- Helpful essays added to the revised edition.
- Relatively thin for a study Bible of this magnitude.
Negatives
- Maps. The maps are terrible, looking like blurry photocopies from the previous edition. It’s not just my copy because this is a common criticism.
- General formatting: In order to get a thin feel, the font is quite small and cramped with very little margin space for note taking. The notes are not as clearly distinguished from the biblical text as in the New Oxford Annotated Bible.
- The “Student Edition” is nothing more than a cooler-looking cover and it lacks the concordance of the non-student edition, in order to have more blank “Notes” pages.
- More cross-referencing between topics found in various places would be helpful.
- Intermittent topical excurses, as found in many other study Bibles, would be helpful.
Revision. The back cover indicates the revised edition includes “completely new introductions and notes for select biblical books, plus a full revision and updating of all others–over 25 percent new or revised material.” The Introduction to this volume has a paragraph on the differences between the original and this revised edition:
The present revised edition of the HarperCollins Study Bible has updated and expanded the annotations with the latest perspectives on the biblical text derived from historical, archaeological, and literary sources. The notes also provide more complete information on the ways in which various biblical books echo other parts of scripture. A series of introductory essays offer reflections about the contexts within which biblical books are currently read.
I find the decision to only give completely new introductions for select biblical books. Why were these books chosen over others? I suppose the research is moving faster regarding some books over others (or, perhaps in some cases the original work was not completely up-to-date in the first place?). The only books that we know for certain have been revised are those with two authors assigned (see my previous post on HCSB contributors). Here is a list of those books that have apparently been revised–to some extent–by a second author (for those books that have only one contributor, I can’t tell whether the original contributor revised his or her own content):
Genesis: originally done by Joel W. Rosenberg with apparently a completely new introduction (and notes?) by Ronald Hendel.
Joshua and Judges: originally done by Robert G. Boling (who died in a car accident doing research in Jordan in 1995) and revised by Richard D. Nelson.
Esther and the additions to Esther: originally done by W. Lee Humphreys and revised by Sidnie White Crawford.
Ecclesiastes: originally done by Raymond C. Van Leeuwen and revised by Kent Harold Richards.
Lamentations: originally done by Werner E. Lemke and revised by Kathleen O’Connor.
Daniel: originally done by Pamela J. Milne and revised by John J. Collins.
Hosea: originally done by James Luther Mays and revised by Stephen L. Cook.
Joel: originally done by Richard A. Henshaw and revised by Marvin A. Sweeney.
Amos: originally done by Gene M. Tucker and revised by J. Andrew Dearman.
Obadiah: originally done by Richard A. Henshaw and revised by Ehud Ben Zvi.
Micah: originally done by Philip J. King and revised by Carol J. Dempsey.
Wisdom of Solomon: originally done by David Winston and revised by Thomas H. Tobin.
Sirach: originally done by Burton L. Mack and revised by Benjamin G. Wright III.
Letter of Jeremiah: originally done by Richard J. Clifford and revised by Jeffrey C. Geoghegan.
Mark: originally done by C. Clifton Black and revised by Adela Yarbro Collins.
Luke: originally done by David L. Tiede and revised by Christopher R. Matthews.
John and the Johannine epistles: originally done by David K. Rensberger and revised by Harold W. Attridge.
James: originally done by Sophie Laws and revised by Walter T. Wilson.
1 Peter: originally done by David L. Balch and revised by Paul J. Achtemeier.
Comparison with New Oxford Annotated Bible. The back cover of the book boasts that there are “[t]wice as many notes as the leading study Bible.” Beyond sounding like a dish soap commercial, this comment has me wondering what precisely is the leading brand of detergent study Bible. Seeing as the New Oxford Annotated Bible (NOAB) weighs in at 15,200 on the Amazon rank, while the most popular edition of the HCSB ranks at 34,182, I suppose that’s the answer. Well, the note on the back cover invites us to compare the HCSB to the NOAB, so that’s what I’ll do. [I have just noticed that the New Interpreter's Study Bible actually slightly beats the NOAB on the Amazon sales rank at the moment, but I'm doubtful this would have been the "leading study Bible" in mind for Harper at the time of publication.]
Perhaps it is my predisposition (NOAB has been my standard hard copy Bible for some time), but I prefer the notes format in the NOAB to the HCSB. The HCSB goes for a two-column approach, which aligns with the two columns of biblical text. There are two things setting apart the notes from the biblical text in the HCSB: (1) smaller font and (2) a solid gray line. I actually appreciate this format within poetic portions of biblical text, such as the Psalms or parts of the prophets. But when combined with prose, there simply isn’t enough to distinguish the notes from the text of the Bible. It hurts the eyes a little bit. The NOAB, on the other hand, leaves the notes in a wide single column in contrast to the double column format of the biblical text. The NOAB has no need for a solid line to separate the text from the notes.
The typeface of the HCSB is about a point or two smaller than in the NOAB (for both the main biblical text and the notes), making it somewhat more difficult to read–but allowing for “twice as many notes.”
Content. The real reason why someone buys this study Bible is not format per se, but content. The book opens with five essays, which are new to this edition:
- Strategies for Reading Scripture by John Barton. (This essay does a wonderful job of distinguishing and balancing the concepts of “critical” and “canonical” readings of Scripture.)
- Israelite Religion by Ronald Hendel.
- The Greco-Roman Context of the New Testament by David E. Aune.
- The Bible and Archaeology by Eric M. Meyers.
- Archaeology and the New Testament by Jürgen Zangenberg.
All of the introductions to the biblical texts that I was able to read through were very well done, though they could have been a tad longer given the complexities they address. The running notes are really where this volume shines. The notes are what makes the study Bible worth buying, even with any other shortcomings. On average, I would say the notes take up about 20-25% of each page, though there are a few rare pages with no notes and a several that hit 50% or more of the page. I believe the prize for most notes on a single page goes to the Proverbs duo (Camp/Fontaine) for about 80% of a page taken up by notes within Proverbs 1. All notes that I have seen have been extremely helpful and even more detailed than what you might find in the NOAB (though, of course, having both in front of you is even more helpful).
Each book’s introduction and notes is a kind of mini-commentary. Given this reality, therefore, some conclusions by the contributors may not align quite perfectly. Or one contributor may have mentioned important concepts to which another contributor should refer (sort of like a Bible dictionary might point you to other relevant articles), but this reference does not always occur. It would have helped to have some cross-referencing between introductions, particularly when major issues have been touched on in other introductions (such as the documentary hypothesis, the synoptic problem, or pseudonymity).
Actually, it might have been nice to have “excurses” included within the books: little mini-essays on topics pertinent to the passage at hand. That way, the notes could reference the excurses as necessary (e.g., “see Imprecatory Psalms, page 810″; “see Emperor Worship, page 2093″).
Of course, the greatest portion of “content” within the HCSB is the biblical text itself, in the NRSV translation. The back cover claims the NRSV is “the most accurate English Bible translation.” I can understand the marketing impulse here, but such an unsubstantiated claim is questionable.
Charts and Maps. The HCSB has several helpful charts and tables. Some of these charts are in between books or sections of books (such as parallel passages in the synoptic Gospels), while others are embedded within the text of certain biblical books (such as suggested fulfillments of Acts 1:8 within the book of Acts). The first chart of the study Bible is a very helpful historical timeline. One of the handiest charts is found in the back: “Quotations of the Jewish Scriptures in the New Testament.”
The maps, however, may be my least favorite part of the entire study Bible. HarperCollins was kind enough to also send along their newer HarperCollins Atlas of Bible History by James B. Pritchard. The maps embedded within the biblical texts of the HCSB are strangely out of focus–as if they had been photocopied from the first edition into this one. For the crisp and beautiful layout of their Atlas of Bible History, I would hope for more in the HCSB than blurry maps. The NOAB, by the way, has quite elegant maps. The maps at the back of the HCSB are in color and are not blurry, but still not quite as attractive as those found in HarperCollins’ atlas.
“Student Edition.” I do have one lingering question: What difference does the “student edition” make other than having (what I think is) a more attractive cover? I have the “college edition” of the NOAB and never figured out what that meant. Apparently, the only difference between the “student edition” of the HCSB and the normal revised edition is the lack of concordance in the “student edition.” The “student edition” trades the concordance for a little over ten additional blank “Notes” pages in the back — which are also an attempt to make up for the lack of margin space to take notes with the text. Don’t “students” appreciate concordances? It seems to me that a “student edition” should be more pleasing to the eyes, with helpful excurses, and perhaps even some color: something more akin to the study Bibles published by Zondervan perhaps.
The Bottom Line. As far as format goes, I personally prefer the wider single column notes and more elegant maps of the New Oxford Annotated Bible to the double column notes, smaller font, and blurry maps of the HarperCollins Study Bible. In my opinion, the trimmer size of the Bible in comparison to the NOAB is not worth the cramped font. What I would like to see out of a future edition of the HarperCollins Study Bible (particularly its “student edition”) is something more akin to what they have done in the revision of the HarperCollins Atlas of Bible Lands, which is light-years ahead of its original edition in its attractive and approachable presentation.
The primary reason a person should purchase the HCSB over the NOAB is in the extent of its notes. The NOAB excels in its maps, charts, and provides more extensive essays and introductions. But most readers, I imagine, will want to use a study Bible to actually . . . study the Bible. That is, study the biblical text itself. Thus, the mini-running-commentary proves more helpful in the day-by-day and longer term usage of a study Bible. Here the HCSB has an edge on the NOAB–two times more of an edge, if we take the back cover at its word. Both study Bibles have excellent scholars contributing (though the HCSB has a few more “household names” for those familiar with biblical scholarship) and the notes in both are well done for the most part. The HCSB just provides more notes, which helps the reader understand the text a little bit better.
Therefore, if you’re looking for the best running commentary notes in a study Bible, this is probably the best study Bible based on critical scholarship. If the presentation and format are important to you, then you may want to look into the NOAB. If you’d like a study Bible that holds a more confessional stance without neglecting critical scholarship, the New Interpreter’s Study Bible might be the one for you. Personally, I would recommend all three to round out your Bible study.
Review: The HarperCollins Study Bible (Part 1: Contributors)
HarperCollins Study Bible: Fully Revised and Updated – Student Edition
Editors: Harold W. Attridge (General Editor, Revised); Wayne A. Meeks (General Editor, Original)
Hardcover: 2128 pages
Publisher: HarperOne
Year: 2006
ISBN:9780060786830
Buy: HarperCollins; Amazon
Many thanks to Kayleigh at Harper Academic for forwarding this review copy! Reviewing the premier study Bible on the market is a bit of a daunting task. It seems fitting to begin simply with a list of the contributors (given in canonical order of the books they have worked on, rather than alphabetical). I provided the best links I could find for each contributor. This is the dream team of biblical scholarship and it pretty much speaks for itself.
That said, this “dream team” is generally of a certain persuasion. Generally speaking, this is not the dream team that, say, conservative Evangelicals might hope for. You won’t find Carson, Moo, Bock, Blomberg, Schreiner, Grudem, Wenham, Wallace, or even N. T. Wright or James D. G. Dunn. Of the contributor’s affiliated institutions at the time of publication, most are either research universities or seminaries/divinity schools in the “mainline” or Catholic (Boston College is well represented) traditions. This is the sort of collection of scholars that you might expect in a project like this. The hope is that the study notes are used more for unfettered historical-critical work, rather than for doctrinal apologetics. Most of those other folks can be found as contributors to the ESV Study Bible. [I'm not making any qualitative judgments at this point; just saying, if you're looking for Evangelical scholarship, don't come knocking at the HarperCollins Study Bible--but you already knew that.]
All scholars have their biases, however, and I appreciate where the editors have assigned two scholars to the same biblical book. If there are any weaknesses that I would point out in this post on contributors, it would be my desire that all books receive double coverage (though I can understand how that might be an editorial nightmare). I suppose when two scholars are listed for one book, it could mean that one wrote the notes for the original edition while the other wrote for the revised edition. I am uncertain of this, but it actually seems likely upon observing that many of the folks in this list are retired (and some of those retired quite some time ago).
In a second post, I will go into the format and features of the edition.
Update: I have discovered that the books that name two scholars are those that have been revised. It makes me wonder why some books were chosen for revision and others not. The back cover boasts “over 25 percent new or revised material.” For a study Bible, that actually seems on the low end to me.
List of Contributors in the Canonical Order found in the Study Bible:
General Editors: Wayne Meeks (Original); Harold Attridge (Revised)
Consulting Editor: James Luther Mays
Editorial Assistants: John Leinenweber; Lindsay A. Lingo
Consultant for Maps: Roger S. Boraas
Hebrew Bible/Old Testament (Editors: Werner E. Lemke; Susan Niditch)
Genesis: Ronald Hendel; Joel W. Rosenberg [first edition]
Exodus: Edward L. Greenstein
Leviticus: Jacob Milgrom
Numbers: Jo Ann Hackett
Deuteronomy: S. Dean McBride Jr.
Joshua: Robert G. Boling [died in a car accident in 1995, taught at McCormick Theological Seminary]; Richard D. Nelson
Judges: Robert G. Boling [died in a car accident in 1995, taught at McCormick Theological Seminary]; Richard D. Nelson
Ruth: Adele Berlin
1 Samuel: P. Kyle McCarter Jr.
2 Samuel: P. Kyle McCarter Jr.
1 Kings: Robert R. Wilson
2 Kings: Robert R. Wilson
1 Chronicles: Ralph W. Klein
2 Chronicles: Ralph W. Klein
Ezra: David J. A. Clines
Nehemiah: David J. A. Clines
Esther: Sidnie White Crawford; W. Lee Humphreys
Job: James L. Crenshaw
Psalms: Patrick D. Miller
Proverbs: Claudia V. Camp; Carole R. Fontaine
Ecclesiastes: Kent Harold Richards; Raymond C. Van Leeuwen
Song of Solomon: Michael V. Fox
Isaiah: J. J. M. Roberts
Jeremiah: Leo G. Perdue; Robert R. Wilson
Lamentations: Werner E. Lemke; Kathleen O’Connor
Ezekiel: David L. Peterson
Daniel: John J. Collins; Pamela J. Milne
Hosea: Stephen L. Cook; James Luther Mays
Joel: Richard A. Henshaw; Marvin A. Sweeney
Amos: J. Andrew Dearman; Gene M. Tucker
Obadiah: Ehud Ben Zvi; Richard A. Henshaw
Jonah: James S. Ackerman
Micah: Carol J. Dempsey; Philip J. King
Nahum: Kent Harold Richards
Habakkuk: Kent Harold Richards
Zephaniah: Kent Harold Richards
Haggai: W. Sibley Towner
Zechariah: W. Sibley Towner
Malachi: W. Sibley Towner
Apocryphal/Deuterocanonical Books (Associate Editor: Eileen M. Schuller)
Tobit: George W. E. Nickelsburg
Judith: John J. Collins; Toni Craven
Additions to Esther: Sidnie White Crawford; W. Lee Humphreys
Wisdom of Solomon: Thomas H. Tobin; David Winston
Sirach: Burton L. Mack; Benjamin G. Wright III
Baruch: Carol A. Newsom
Letter of Jeremiah: Richard J. Clifford; Jeffrey C. Geoghegan
Prayer of Azariah and the Song of the Three Jews: Lawrence Wills
Susanna: Lawrence Wills
Bel and the Dragon: Lawrence Wills
1 Maccabees: Daniel J. Harrington
2 Maccabees: Daniel J. Harrington
1 Esdras: David J. A. Clines
Prayer of Manasseh: James A. Sanders
Psalm 151: James A. Sanders
3 Maccabees: John J. Collins
2 Esdras: Michael E. Stone
4 Maccabees: Thomas H. Tobin
New Testament (Associate Editor: Jouette Bassler)
Matthew: Dennis C. Duling
Mark: C. Clifton Black; Adela Yarbro Collins
Luke: Christopher R. Matthews; David L. Tiede
John: Harold W. Attridge; David K. Rensberger
Acts: Beverly Roberts Gaventa
Romans: Leander E. Keck
1 Corinthians: Victor Paul Furnish
2 Corinthians: John T. Fitzgerald
Galatians: Richard B. Hays
Ephesians: J. Paul Sampley
Philippians: Ronald F. Hock
Colossians: J. Paul Sampley
1 Thessalonians: Edgar M. Krentz
2 Thessalonians: Jouette M. Bassler
1 Timothy: Jouette M. Bassler
2 Timothy: Jouette M. Bassler
Titus: Jouette M. Bassler
Philemon: Harold W. Attridge; Ronald F. Hock
Hebrews: Harold W. Attridge
James: Sophie Laws; Walter T. Wilson
1 Peter: Paul J. Achtemeier; David L. Balch
2 Peter: Richard J. Bauckham
1 John: Harold W. Attridge; David K. Rensberger
2 John: Harold W. Attridge; David K. Rensberger
3 John: Harold W. Attridge; David K. Rensberger
Jude: Richard J. Bauckham
Revelation: David E. Aune
Articles
Strategies for Reading Scripture: John Barton
Israelite Religion: Ronald Hendel
The Greco-Roman Context of the New Testament: David E. Aune
The Bible and Archaeology: Eric M. Meyers
Archaeology and the New Testament: Jürgen Zangenberg
Review: Dictionary of New Testament Background (IVP)
Dictionary of New Testament Background: A Compendium of Contemporary Biblical Scholarship (IVP Bible Dictionary Series)
Editors: Craig A. Evans & Stanley E. Porter
Hardcover: 1328 pages
Publisher: InterVarsity Press
Year: 2000
ISBN:9780830817801
Many thanks to Adrianna Wright at IVP for forwarding a review copy! Though this was the last of the New Testament dictionaries in this series by IVP, it has been out for quite some time–nearly a decade. Yet, I hadn’t picked it up until now. As it turns out, after looking through, this is probably my favorite out of the bunch from IVP. The topics span quite a range, from Second Temple Judaism, Greco-Roman history and culture, Rabbinic Judaism (coverage especially from Jacob Neusner and Bruce Chilton), etc. It’s difficult to review a dictionary, but I thought I might highlight a sampling of some notable articles (from my perspective):
- Several articles related to apocalyptic thought: Apocalyptic Literature (John J. Collins); Apocalypticism (David Aune; Timothy Geddert [a fellow Anabaptist! I was in a seminar or two with his daughter-in-law at Fuller Seminary]; Craig Evans); Eschatologies of Late Antiquity (John J. Collins – not to be confused with Roman late antiquity). These are all very solid works, great entry points for those interested. Related, of course, are many individual apocalyptic texts that receive their own coverage, such as the Books of Enoch, the Sybilline Oracles (both entries written by John J. Collins), the Apocalypse of Abraham, or the Apocalypse of Zephaniah (entries for these last two both done by Stephen E. Robinson).
- Social issues: Cities, Greco-Roman (Duane Watson); Economics of Palestine (Douglas Oakman); Education: Jewish and Greco-Roman (Duane Watson); Family and Household (Craig Keener); Roman Social Classes (Duane Watson); Ruler Cult (David deSilva – not sure why they didn’t call it “imperial cult”); Social Values and Structures (S. C. Barton); Writing and Literature: Greco-Roman (the late, great David Scholer)
- Roman Society: Pax Romana (J. E. Bowley); Religion, Greco-Roman (David Aune); Rhetoric (D. L. Stamps); Roman Administration (G. L. Thompson); Roman Emperors (T. S. Johnson); Roman Empire (Duane Watson); Roman Govenors of Palestine (B. M. Rapske); Roman Law and Legal System (C. S. Wansink); Roman Military (G. L. Thompson); Roman Political System (D. W. J. Gill); Rome (R. B. Edwards and M. Reasoner, rev. by Stanley Porter)
The Dead Sea Scrolls are well represented with contributors including William Schniedewind (of UCLA!) and Lawrence Schiffman. One can get a grand overall picture of the types of literature in Greece, Rome, and in Jewish history. We learn about how history is conceived and the understanding of scholarship in the ancient world. We can read about authors from the classics, such as Plutarch, Suetonius, or Cicero. The dictionary covers philosophies such as Epicureanism, Stoicism, Neo-Pythagoreanism and Platonism. The breadth of the entries is astounding. Outside the Anchor Bible Dictionary, this may now be the most useful dictionary that I own. If you’re interested in Christian origins in general, this is the perfect dictionary. At UCLA, Scott Bartchy has a course coming up in the fall on the religious environment of early Christianity and students planning on taking that course would do well to purchase this in advance and get to know the topics–it is also a great source to help fill out study guides for the midterm and final!
All of this said, out of the entries I scanned, the only entry I have strong reservations about is the single one in the book by D. A. Carson: Pseudonymity and Pseudepigraphy. While it could be worse, considering Carson’s typical bias and usual polemical tone, he quite strongly and too easily tosses aside any “mediating positions” on pseudonymity. Instead–going against James Dunn’s entry on the same topic in IVP’s Dictionary of the New Testament and Its Developments–Carson offers that either “some NT documents are psuedonymous and . . . the real authors intended to deceive their readers, or . . . the real authors intended to speak the truth and . .. . pseudonimity is not attested in the NT” (863). Though Carson’s entry is not without value on the whole, this idea that pseudonymity simply equals deception is problematic. Still, if the reader simply ignores this “editorial” assesment by Carson, the article is quite useful.
Dictionary articles are written by individuals, of course, and you’ll get a mixture of views and quality among them. But on the whole, the Dictionary of New Testament Background is a quality volume that NT scholars, pastors, and interested lay persons should all grab a hold of–if they haven’t already!
The New Testament in Antiquity by Burge, Cohick, and Green
The New Testament in Antiquity: A Survey of the New Testament within its Cultural Contexts
Authors: Gary M. Burge, Lynn H. Cohick, and Gene E. Green
Hardcover: 480 pages
Publisher: Zondervan
ISBN: 9780310244950
I have to admit that I was salivating about this book since I first saw the author interview posted on Zondervan’s Koinonia blog. I would like to extend my gratitude to the good folks of Zondervan for sending an advance review copy my way. There is so much in this survey of the New Testament that is right up my alley, though there are some perspectives included that have me wondering whether they’d be deal breakers when it comes to assigning it as a textbook.
The book itself is beautiful. The cover. The pages. The pictures. It certainly has one of the nicest “feels” of most any book on my shelf. The layout is great for students. The chapters are not that long, designed to be read in no more than a 20 minute sitting so it is easier for students to read the New Testament texts themselves alongside it (if the students read any of the required readings at all). Complicated and abstract topics are made more tangible and accessible through charts and pictures. The photos themselves are not generic shots of “the ancient world,” but rather pertinent to the discussion at hand. Shots of mikvehs and pools help with considerations of ritual washing and baptism. Diagrams of tombs with rolling stone entrances demonstrate the sort of tomb that might have been used for Jesus. One of the treats of the book is in the expertise of one of its authors, Gene Green, in numismatics (the study of coins). The eye-catching shot on the cover declares “Iudea capta” minted shortly after the Jewish War in the first century, with a Roman soldier standing over a Jewish slave. Reading through, students can recognize the importance of coins as propaganda. In general, the photos open up the cultural world of the New Testament texts in stimulating ways.
Side boxes are provided with helpful charts, such as a historical outlines of the Herod family or lists related to Roman rule of Judea. One chart suggests links between Paul’s ethical teachings in Romans and those of Jesus (333). Other boxes give us important passages from the era, such as “Cicero and Seneca on Clients” or an inscription on Rufina, a woman synagogue leader.
Sequence of Chapters. If you’d like, you can view the table of contents for yourself in the sample PDF on Zondervan’s website. Generally speaking, the book opens with several chapters discussing the various contexts of the New Testament era. Within these chapters, you find an historical overview of the Hellenistic era, the Secleucids, the Romans, etc. You have geographical discussions of Judea and the surrounding areas. Various groups (Josephus’ four groups, scribes, Samaritans, Herodians), important cultural items (Jerusalem temple, Sanhedrin, villages and synagogues), and Jewish literature (Scriptures, Pseudepigrapha, DSS, rabbinic literature, Josephus and Philo) are outlined quite effectively and concisely. There are three chapters on Jesus before actually getting to the chapters on the individual Gospels (hitting the “synoptic problem” complete with charts). The authors provide two background chapters to Paul before getting into the letters themselves, one on the Mediterranean world in which he operated (including information on social institutions like slavery and family, as well as politics, religion, and philosophy in the Greco-Roman world) and one with an overview of important features of Pauline theology and mission (including a brief, but well-written summary of the “New Perspective on Paul”). The remaining books either have their own chapter or, if shorter, are combined with other NT books. A final chapter, “Preservation and Communication of the New Testament,” is an engaging review of textual traditions. This chapter would be quite helpful for the student and could perhaps even be read before the chapters on the specific books to provide perspective.
Perspectives of This Survey. One of the most profound aspects of this particular survey of the New Testament is its rootedness in social history in concert with the evangelicalism of its authors (all Wheaton profs). And so, in this book you will find the interesting combination of a conservative outlook on authorship issues (traditional views of Gospel authors, Paul probably wrote the Pastorals, and John the apostle probably wrote Revelation), on the one hand, and references to the importance of the honor/shame context of these writings and the inclusion of the marginalized, on the other hand.
The former (authorship issues) is what I referred to as a possible deal breaker to me. It is difficult for me to fathom using a textbook that leans towards a traditional viewpoint on authorship. That said, at least they present both sides of the issue. The authors do a decent job of communicating present day scholarship in an accessible manner. Generally speaking, the authors lean on what early church tradition thought about authorship. One exception they make, however, is on the issue of Hebrews. I am left wondering, if we can break with early church tradition on the authorship of Hebrews, why not the Gospels or Revelation? (I know what the response would be regarding the Pastorals: they have a problem calling those letters pseudonymous.) I can appreciate their decision to hold off the discussion of “authorship and date” until the end of each chapter. While perhaps counter-intuitive, it does help to focus the student’s attention upon the message of the texts themselves without getting distracted too much at first with authorship issues (a conservative student audience seems to be assumed). If I had to classify the text, I would say it is on the progressive end of conservative evangelicalism. It is the sort of book that would be good at perhaps easing fundamentalist students out of uber-narrowmindedness to a more reasonably conservative viewpoint.
A Selection of Perspectives. The authenticity of the Gospels are argued based upon the strength of memory in an oral culture transmitting oral traditions of Jesus’ teachings. Women find a good hearing as they are highlighted as leaders of synagogues and within early Pauline communities. On the downside, while they use a box (page 334) to highlight the women of Romans 16 and they recognize Junia is a woman, they suggest that she is “well known even among the apostles” (rather than being “outstanding among the apostles” as their preferred TNIV translation has it).
On the other hand, they explicitly put the Ephesians household code under the banner of Ephesians 5:21 ( “submit to one another” ; pg 345). The authors also put comments about women in 1 Tim 2 in context with the women of Rom 16, Euodia and Syntyche (Phil 4), Lydia, and Priscilla: “Paul’s churches, then, had men and women leading, teaching, and making decisions in the church” (369). Why stick to the (new) conservative stance on Junia? As far as I can tell, the role of women in Jesus’ ministry seems to be neglected (There is a short paragraph on page 134). The index, which is generally lacking, has no entry for women. From comments made by Lynn Cohick in the video interview, I expected more on women in the text–on the other hand, it is more than other conservative evangelical textbooks.
The authors’ section, “The Implications of the Gospel” (265), in the chapter on Paul’s life and teachings reviews the social implications of Paul’s teachings (including for women, ethnicity, socioeconomic status) and discusses Paul’s future orientation towards the parousia (they provide a quotation from Josephus on Vespasian’s entry into Rome to put the parousia into some context, 286). These (social concerns and apocalyptic eschatology) are a few of my favorite things.
Though the bibliographies and footnotes are sparse so as to remain accessible, members (and friends) of the Context Group may be happy to find themselves well represented among the citations (particularly among the chapters on historical and cultural contexts). The authors do not shy away from Jesus’ message to people on the margins of society, though they could have made a more direct correlation between that sort of teaching and Mediterranean honor/shame culture. They do have a box entitled “A Challenge to Honor” (206) in the chapter on Luke, but they emphasize Jesus’ attempt to gain honor, not his honor-challenging teachings (e.g., “the first shall be last”). Other frequently cited authors include a mix of folks like Dunn and Wright with folks like Blomberg and Bock. (I will try to stay out of trouble and leave the phrase “folks like” undefined.)
Krister Stendahl’s “The Apostle Paul and the Introspective Conscience of he West” receives explicit attention (!) at the end of the chapter on Romans (334). The authors summarize its contents in a mostly positive manner and quite accessibly.
The chapter on Revelation discusses a variety of different approaches, but you’d think a book on the “cultural contexts” of the New Testament “in antiquity” would give more discussion to the preterist approach than a meager two paragraphs ( “futurist” receives five paragraphs). They seem to portray most positively an “eclectic” position on Revelation that combines various views in some manner.
Conclusion. This book is an outstanding work. As mentioned, it rests in the conservative evangelical camp in the areas of authorship and authenticity of historical sources. It pushes the boundaries of conservative evangelicalism in a progressive direction, however, in its inclusion of social issues as prominent. Even where it shares its most conservative perspectives, it will share the views of “some scholars” who hold differing views (and they do so without getting polemical). If I were to use this as a textbook, I would warn the students of the generally conservative viewpoint. I would probably supplement the reading with in-class discussions on the complications of authorship. I would also point out some of my differing opinions (such as with Junia) or where I don’t feel they made important connections explicit enough (such as with honor/shame and the counter-cultural teachings of Jesus). It might be interesting to combine this survey with something like Bart Ehrman’s survey to get discussion going.
Despite my hesitations, I say, snatch it up! It is bound to be a dominant standard survey textbook for years to come.
The book is making its way around the blogosphere. The only other review I see so far is from Nijay Gupta, but a review is yet to come from Nick Norelli. Matthew Montonini has an interview with co-author Gary Burge and Mike Bird makes mention of the book. I look forward to reading other folks’ reviews.
Those Brits just don't get it (says John Collins)
In reading on apocalyptic things, I came across this fun bit by John J. Collins in Knowing the End from the Beginning: The Prophetic, The Apocalyptic, and their Relationships (note the use of “Apocalyptic” in the title), edited by Lester L. Grabbe and Robert Haak (T & T Clark):
Categories and definitions were the subject of sustained discussion in the 1970s and early ’80s, beginning with the work of Klaus Koch and Paul Hanson, and continuing through the SBL genres project and the Uppsala colloquium. One of the most widely shared points of agreement in that discussion was the use of ‘apocalyptic’ as a noun was a source of confusion, and that distinctions should be made between apocalypse as a literary genre, apocalypticism, whether as a social movement or as a worldview, and apocalyptic eschatology. It is true that these distinctions have not been embraced by British scholarship. In fact, there was very little British participation in those debates, and the objections to the use of ‘apocalyptic’ do not appear to have been grasped in that part of the world. [45]
He also clarifies that the objection to the use of “apocalyptic” as a noun is not grammatical, but because of the “intrinsic vagueness of the term.” Collins later adds, “To revert to this usage, in my view, is to set the discussion back to the state of confusion that prevailed before Koch wrote his monograph” (46). Oh ye British in “that part of the world”! Trying to confound us again, eh? There is a relevant discussion about this in the comments of a blog post on Ben Myers’ blog from awhile back, kicked off by Mike Bird’s comment (reflecting the trend that Collins has noted here) and reacted against by others.
I tend to side with Collins (and Mike Bird) here. It does provoke interesting questions related to transatlantic scholarly discussions, though. We already have a big enough problem crossing language barriers. And I must say that I find it amusing that Collins makes the point within a book using “apocalyptic” as a noun in its subtitle (which is what provoked Mike Bird’s comment in the aforementioned conversation).
I should note that I received this book courtesy of Abigail Cox at T & T Clark and it is on the docket to be reviewed! Thank you Abby!
Book Review: Jewish Believers in Jesus, Pt. 1
Jewish Believers in Jesus: The Early Centuries
Editors: Oskar Skarsaune and Reidar Hvalvik
Hardcover: 930 pages
Publisher: Hendrickson
ISBN: 9781565637634
Buy: Hendrickson; Amazon
Though it is a bit overdue, I would like to extend my gratitude to Hendrickson Publishers for sending me a review copy of Jewish Believers in Jesus, edited by Oskar Skarsaune and Reidar Hvalvik. This weighty volume came out shortly before SBL 2007 and was the subject of a standing room only discussion (Session S19-116) at that meeting. Of particular interest to me at that time was Mark Nanos’ scathing review of Don Hagner’s contribution in this work. For anyone in the room at the time of its reading, the tension was palpable. An audio version of the session is available, as is a PDF of Nanos’ paper (which was not read in its entirety), and I have transcribed Don Hagner’s response to Nanos here. My friend Matt Barnes also did a few blog posts about the Nanos paper. Having said that, my interests in this topic have since expanded further.
I attended this session after having taken a course on “Paul and the Law” from Hagner (winter 2007). This past quarter (fall 2008), I was part of a seminar with Ra’anan Boustan at UCLA on “Jews, Gentiles, and Christians in the Roman World.” On the heals of this last course, I am excited to tackle some pieces of this massive work. After the Hagner course, I was interested especially in the issue of the New Perspective on Paul (which I found more helpful than did Hagner). After the Boustan seminar, I have a somewhat wider interest in this scholarship.
In his preface to the work, Skarsaune notes the challenges to the idea that there ever was a “parting of the ways” between “Jews” and “Christians”–he names Boyarin’s Dying for God and the edited work, The Ways that Never Parted. He says, “[T]his has meant that while we were at work, a paradigm shift was going on around us” (xii). That paradigm shift moves away from the idea that there was a clean break between something called “Judaism” and something called “Christianity.” That there was such a break is the traditional view. The idea that there was no such break is at the heart of newer scholarship, such as the recent publication of Paula Fredriksen’s Augustine and the Jews (I hope to do a review of that work on this blog as well). This idea that there was no such break was also at the heart of Boustan’s seminar. The work edited by Skarsaune and Hvalvik contains multiple viewpoints on this and other topics:
“Neither authors nor editors think of this volume as a definitive history of Jewish believers in Jesus during the early centuries (first to fifth centuries C.E.). Nor have the editors made any attempt at unifying and streamlining the points of view expressed in the different contributions. We have regarded it an advantage that the book contains more than one opinion on some of the problems treated. There is, at present, no established scholarly consensus on the different themes treated in this volume. This goes for the many large as well as many of the smaller questions. In this way it is hoped that this volume, rather than summing up current scholarship, may in some measure contribute to it.” (xii-xiii)
It seems important to begin this multi-post review with definitions. That is where the book begins and it seems to be the cause of some confusion for two unhelpful reviews on Amazon (reviews that are based more on assumptions of what the term “Jewish believers in Jesus” must mean rather than actual readings of the book itself!). Unfortunately, this book is not one that can be searched inside on Amazon nor on Google Books–so, it is difficult for those interested to check things out without a copy of the book in hand. That said, you can find the table of contents, the preface and Skarsaune’s chapter on definitions at Hendrickson’s site. You can also find a very lengthy review by Elizabeth Boddens Hosang and Bart J. Koet in RBL. I hope my own review can be a helpful contribution for those interested.
Skarsaune notes that their project seeks to consider “Jews” as something closer to an ethnic category than an ideological category. If we consider, say, “Jewish Christians” as those who “believed in Jesus, and at the same time continued a wholly Jewish way of life” (4), then we abandon an important group: that is, “Jews who believed in Jesus, and at the same time abandoned their Jewish way of life and were assimilated among the Gentile Christians” (4). Skarsaune would like to discuss a wide range of Jews who confessed Christ and thus the term, “Jewish believers in Jesus.” These are people who were born Jews and also believe in Jesus, whether or not they practiced the “Jewish way of life” (however that is defined).
The term “Jewish Christian” is unfavorable because of its (potentially offensive) connotations: “It has become a term denoting something by nature Gentile, and by implication, non-Jewish” (4). I appreciate their category of “Jewish believers in Jesus,” though it would be nice if we could have a term that not only focused on “belief.” I suppose this gets to a foundational issue in the book: once a Jew becomes a believer in Jesus, how does this affect his or her way of life? The issue is more complicated than whether the “Jewish way of life” is abandoned or retained. Even if we could define what a “Jewish way of life” means, certainly there must be middle ground between total abandonment or total retainment (or simple discontinuity vs. simple continuity–see Hagner’s remarks). The benefit of this term is that it encompasses any number of responses to the paradigm shift of belief in Jesus.
In response to the question of whether this term is merely a modern construction, Skarsaune offers a few relevant ancient examples (5-6). I would like to close this first post by sharing them here because I find them so interesting:
(1) “Jesus said to those Ἰουδαῖοι who believed in him . . .” (John 8:31).
(2) “. . . those of the Jewish people who have believed in Jesus [οἱ ἀπὸ τοῦ λαοῦ τῶν Ἰουδαίων εἰς τὸν Ἰησοῦν πιστεύσαντες]” (Origen, Cels. 2.1).7
(3) “Why . . . did he not represent the Jew as addressing Gentile instead of Jewish believers? [οἱ ἀπὸ Ἰουδαίων . . . πιστεύοντες]” (Cels. 2.1).
(4) “Notice, then, what Celsus says to Jewish believers [οἱ ἀπὸ Ἰουδαίων πιστεύοντες]” (Cels. 2.1).
(5) “. . . He failed to notice that Jewish believers in Jesus [οἱ ἀπὸ Ἰουδαίων εἰς τὸν Ἰησοῦν πιστεύοντες] have not left the law of their fathers . . .” (Cels. 2.1).
(6) “[Matthew published his gospel first] for those who from Judaism came to believe [τοῖς ἀπὸ Ιουδαϊσμοῦ πιστεύσασιν]” (Origen, Comm. Matt., in Eusebius, Hist. eccl., 6.25.4).
(7) “It is said that their whole church at that time consisted of believing Jews [ἐξ Ἑβραίων πιστῶν]” (Eusebius, Hist. eccl. 4.5.2).
(8) “[Hegesippus] was a believer from among the Jews [ἐξ Ἑβραίων]” (Eusebius, Hist. eccl. 4.22.8).
More to come!
Book Review: Christian Origins by Jonathan Knight
I would like to extend my gratitude to Abby at T&T Clark (see their blog) for sending along a fabulous (brand) new survey on the origins of Christianity. Jonathan Knight’s Christian Origins [publisher link - find the table of contents there] is a comprehensive introduction to the Jewish origins of Christianity, with an emphasis on the eschatological connection between Second Temple Judaism and the beginnings of the Jesus movement. The book is particularly relevant for my own interests because (1) I have just begun my doctoral program in Christian origins at UCLA and (2) I’m crazy about apocalyptic eschatology.
Knight’s work is quite ambitious. Within these pages, you find 31 mostly bite-sized chapters ranging topics as diverse as the sources of Second Temple Judaism, Diaspora Judaism, “Who Did Jesus Think He Was?”, Pauline soteriology and ethics, the “breach” between Christianity and Judaism, and the rise of Gnosticism. Knight covers both social and theological topics. He is sensitive to matters of scholarly nuance and introduces readers to important names and arguments within scholarship, while also keeping his prose accessible. Before going to far, we should note that Knight serves as a Research Fellow of the Katie Wheeler Trust and Visiting Fellow in New Testament and Christian Ministry at York St John University, UK. Knight is an ordained Anglican priest and has also written a book on Jesus. His preface notes that his next book will be on apocalypticism, “as if this has become a theme which I cannot evade” (xiii).
Knight attempts to dispossess the reader of the concept of an unambiguous “fixed” Christianity (or Judaism for that matter). He would like to take the reader back past the councils of the early church to the rich complexity of early Christianity. The book is divided into four parts, “From Judaism to Jesus,” “Jesus and His Mission,” “Paul and Christian Beginnings,” and “The Birth of Early Christianity.” The second part, especially the eleventh chapter on “An Approach to Jesus,” is a good primer on “historical Jesus” studies. To my enjoyment, Johannes Weiss receives a whole page and is not simply subsumed as a sentence or two under Schweitzer. Knight’s section on Paul does not survey the history of scholarship in the same way that he does for the historical Jesus, but it does reflect that scholarship. He surveys the writings of Paul (undisputed and disputed), gives a “whistlestop tour” of Pauline soteriology, highlights his eschatology, and considers his ethics.
Having just finished a presentation on the history of Christian writings on Judaism, I was happy to see Knight guide the reader through that difficult issue. For example, when speaking of Christianity’s possible inheritance of apocalyptic eschatology from Judaism, Knight rightly cautions,
In saying this, we must be careful to note the differences between ancient Judaism and modern Christianity and not to impose the younger understanding arbitrarily on older and quite different texts. This is to call for sensitivity in interpretation which allows the ancient texts to speak for themselves and not through a Christian matrix. Christian readers should recognize their natural bias in this respect. [58]
On mentioning E.P. Sanders’ “covenantal nomism,” Knight observes, “Sanders criticizes earlier scholarship on Judaism–particularly Christian scholarship–for its presentation of that relation as dominated by the perennial balance between sins and merits” (33). Knight could have tread a bit more carefully in his chapter on the “breach” between Judaism and Christianity. Even calling whatever “parting of the ways” that occured between the Jesus movement and its religious heritage a “breach” seems a bit harsh (?). Knight’s comment to start off the chapter uncharacteristically lacks some sensitivity to reader reaction: “The separation that occured was the result of reaction against the Christians by people of Jewish descent” (266). Out of context, this statement could be read as “blaming” the Jews for the separation and that is certainly thin ice. The content of the chapter, however, does cover key issues, including christological developments, the “twelfth benediction” of the Jamnian Academy and John 9, the polemic against the Pharisees in Matthew 23, Justin Martyr’s Dialogue with Trypho, and so-called “Jewish Christianity” such as the Ebionites.
To give an idea of his comments on Jesus’ death and resurrection, Knight strongly dismisses the idea that Jesus did not actually die on the cross (148) and more gently suggests that we “need not doubt” statements regarding the empty tomb (155, cf. 260). Contrary to being an intentional apologetic, however, Knight’s agenda in discussing the resurrection of Jesus is in what Jesus’ early followers did with the event. Knight suggests that the empty tomb is an “ambiguous symbol” and that resurrection appearances are “apocalyptic visions in which a heavenly mediator appears to the disciples and communicates a revelation to them” (260).
The biggest oversight in the book from my perspective is its lack of addressing the issue of women in the church. Knight breezes past a comment that the first half of 1 Corinthians 11 is “controversial,” barely mentioning “a statement of the subordination of women to men” (181). In his endnote for this sentence, he does refer to work done by Morna Hooker and Elisabeth Schüssler Fiorenza. Curiously, in the next endnote, which is regarding spiritual gifts in 1 Cor 12-14, he refers to Wayne Grudem’s work on prophecy in 1 Corinthians without explanation. Grudem’s work in this area is highly tilted in favor of the subordination of women. The missing engagement of women’s roles is felt particularly strongly in his chapter on “The Development of the Christian Ministry.” Within this chapter, Knight has the following statement under his treatment of “deacons”:
A whole passage in the Pastoral Epistles (1 Tim. 3.8-13) prescribes rules for their [deacons'] behaviour, including the behaviour of women deacons. The fact that the same epistle forbids women to teach or to have authority over men (1 Tim 2.12) is an indicator of the subordinate role of deacons in the communities addressed at that time. [291]
As far as I can see, this is the only statement on women in ministry in Knight’s book. I believe a book like this must address the patriarchal and androcentric nature of the surrounding society. Regarding gender roles in the family, Knight only casually mentions the household codes (191) and even then does not mention the role of husbands and wives. Within the book’s index, there are no entries for any of the following terms: women, female, gender, family, feminism, patriarchalism, or androcentrism. Knight nowhere mentions Paul’s key text (however one interprets it) in Galatians 3:28, “There is no longer Jew or Greek, there is no longer slave or free, there is no longer male and female; for all of you are one in Christ Jesus.”
The book uses endnotes rather than footnotes, and 100 pages of them at that. While I know Nick Norelli prefers the latter (he demotes his reviewed books one star out of five if they use endnotes!), endnotes do seem appropriate for a book aimed at a survey introducing newcomers to the field. The “Index of Names” is a misnomer, as it is an index of names and topics, where it would be helpful to have them separated.
Any oversights aside, I would highly recommend this book for use in a Christian origins or introductory New Testament course (though the latter should probably supplement Knight with a New Testament introduction proper). My two favorite things about this book are: (1) Knight’s integration of the study of apocalyptic eschatology into nearly all aspects of Christian origins and (2) Knight’s adroit descriptions of complex scholarly arguments in an accessible manner. My most significant caution about using the book would be the need to supplement Knight’s work with solid coverage of gender roles in Christian origins. The material is certainly appropriate for seminarians or other graduate students and may be challenging to undergraduates, but in a positive way. As noted, Knight is a Christian, but his purpose is not to coddle conservative evangelicals–far from it. His insistence on nuance and ambiguity may just make a fundamentalist student’s head explode. But maybe they could grow a new one. On the other end, I do not believe it is too confessional for a secular classroom. With that said, I wish everyone happy reading!
-
Elsewhere . . .- Blog titles beginning with "A" to "Z" on your reader Mark Goodacre
- Of making many books there is no end Chris Brady
- Free Online: The Liddell-Scott Jones Lexicon S and C
- Does Higher Criticism Attempt to “Destroy the Bible”? II agathos
- Steven J. Friesen and the Identity of Satan’s Throne in Pergamum alan
- Does Higher Criticism Attempt to “Destroy the Bible”? agathos
- Bloomsbury buys Continuum Mark Goodacre
- Imperial America Peter J. Leithart
- C.F.D. Moule on the Birth of the New Testament d. miller
- Responding to Kostenberger (with comparisons to Marshall) Jeremiah
-
As a member of RevGalBlogPals, I am committed to building a supportive online community for women clergy, women church professionals, and women in religious life.
Research assisted by: