From the What's New in Papyrology blog comes mention of a splendid sounding title, Greetings in the Lord: Early Christians in the Oxyrhynchus Papyri (amazon.com). The author is AnneMarie Luijendijk, the publisher is Harvard Divinity School. And the price for the 235 page book is $25. (Brill, Mohr-Siebeck, et. al., please take note of the price-per-page ratio).

It is apparently slated for release in August of 2008. I can't wait to read it once I scrape up the $25.

Here's the blurb from the publisher (text taken from Amazon's page):

This is the first book-length study on Christians in the ancient Egyptian city of Oxyrhynchus, the site where some of the most important and oldest fragments of early Christian books were unearthed.

Bringing the people in dry papyrus letters and documents back to life, the book reveals how Christians lived in this city in different contexts and situations. In the first part, the image of the city's marketplace functions to address questions of Christian identity in the public sphere. The second part features a man called Sotas, bishop of Oxyrhynchus in the third century, as he is busy networking with other Christian communities, involved in teaching, book production, and fund-raising. The third part, focusing on evidence of the persecution of Christians, reveals the far-reaching power and pervasiveness of Roman bureaucracy. We learn that Christians negotiated their identity through small acts of resistance against the imperial decrees.

The papyrus letters and documents discussed in this book offer sometimes surprising insights into the everyday lives of Christians in the third and early fourth century and nuance our understanding of Christianity in this period. It is the mundane aspects of everyday life that make these papyrus documents so fascinating.

I'm looking at the instances of αλλα in the Apostolic Fathers. One very peculiar set of instances (seven instances in two verses) occurs in Hermas, Visions I.iii.1-2. (watch out, I may blog about it later to work though some thoughts)

Of course, I'm using the Logos version of Holmes (2nd edition). So, while in Vis. I.iii.1, I right-click and do a "Search for References to Herm., Vis I, iii, 1". One tiny little right-click.

Across my library, 148 instances of references to the verse (including ranges that include the verse) in 15 books. Books like:

• TDNT
• Nag Hammadi Library in English
• BDAG (very handy; this gives me links to all the articles that cite the verse, sort of like a reader's edition!)
• ICC vols
• NIGTC vols
• A Semeia volume
• Some Hermeneia volumes, including several in the volume on the Shepherd of Hermas.

How cool is that?

Muchas gracias por Hendrickson for sending along the following:

David M. Scholer, editor. Social Distinctives of the Christians in the First Century: Pivotal Essays by E.A. Judge (amazon.com).

This title sounds wonderful; I'm really looking forward to delving into it and blogging about it as I work through essays.

Jerry L. Sumney. Philippians: A Greek Student's Intermediate Reader (amazon.com).

I've blogged about some recently-released Greek readers in the past (here, here, here, here, here and here) so it only makes sense to give this one a look-see as well. I'll let you know what I find.

This one excerpt all at once shows my love-hate relationship with both the genitive and with Charles Ellicott's commentary on the Pastoral Epistles (amazon.com). Here he discusses επαγγελιαν .. ζωης in 1Ti 4.8:

'promise of life.' The genitival relation is not perfectly clear. If it be the gen. of identity or apposition (comp. Scheuerl. Synt. § 12.1, p. 82), ζωη, the import or rather object of the promise, would seem at first sight to involve two applications, quantitative ('long life,' Eph. 4.3, De W.) when in connexion with της νυν, qualitative ('holy, blessed life') when in connexion with της μελλουσης. If again it be the gen. of reference to (Huth., comp. Alf.), or the point of view (Scheuerl. Synt. § 18. 1, p. 129 sq.), ζωη retains its general meaning ('vital existence,' etc.), but επαγγελια becomes indefinite, and moreover is in a connexion with its dependent genitive not supported by any other passage in the NT. This last objection is so grave that it seems preferable to adopt the first form of gen., but in both members to give ζωη its higher and more definitely scriptural sense, and to regarded it as involving the idea, not of mere length, or of mere material blessings (contrast Mark 10.30, μετα διωγμων), but of spiritual happiness (ευδαιμονια, Coray) and holiness; in a word, as expressing 'the highest blessedness of the creature:' see Trench, Synon. § 27, whose philology however, in connecting ζωη with αω, is here doubtful; it is rather connected with Lat. 'vivere' (Sanscr. jîv); see esp. Pott, Etym. Forsch. Vol 1. p. 265, Donalds. Cratyl. § 112, Benfey, Wurzellex. vol. 1. p. 684. There is a good treatise on ζωη in Olsh. Opusc. p. 187 sq. (Ellicott, 61)

First, on genitives. Does anyone seriously treat genitives like this with regularity? Is anyone consumed with classifying genitives (let alone datives, accusatives and nominatives)? Does one really need to label it in order to think about what it does in the passage; to the point of letting the label determine what the genitive can and cannot do in the phrase in question? I don't. And I can't imagine myself attaining command of the nearly 100 types of genitives that Wallace alone isolates and identifies. Why doesn't one simply just look at what the genitive does in a case without feeling a need to put it in a box?

Second, on Ellicott. Can you see why I love him and hate him, all at the same time? The references are great, the discussion makes you think. But it's tough to read. His conclusion is that " ... it seems preferable to adopt the first form of gen." (what's the 'first form' again?) and then gives it his own little twist. That's the frustrating part—why go to the problem of classifying it if your classification is going to be unique? Why not just discuss the function the thing?? On the plus side, you see all sorts of references (to grammars and syntaxes, to commentators, and to other references); this one doesn't even begin to list classical references like many of his other comments do. But it's a pain to wade through.

I've been taking a bit of a holiday. Logos (my employer) has a program for long-term employees that allows one month of a 'sabbatical' for every 10 years worked; this is in addition to any normal vacation/holiday time. They allow us to split it into two two-week portions. I'm taking my second two-week portion.

So I've been spending some time reading and writing, among other things. One book I've been camping in is Drobner's The Fathers of the Church (amazon.com). I have to say that overall, it is awesome.

Why is it awesome? Here are the two biggies, from my perspective:

1. Information but no overload. Drobner surveys the fathers roughly chronologically (I'm in the mid-400's right now). He has enough information about the person, his history, and stance on important issues (homoousia or homoiousia? Nicene? Condemned as heretic?) without getting into too many details. Additionally, there are further sections for most fathers detailing particular writings (e.g., "Exegetical Writings") or particular works if certain works are noteworthy.

2. Bibliographies, Bibliographies, Bibliographies. I can't say enough about the bibliographies. In the "Editions" bibliographies, where appropriate, there are volume/page citations to Migne's Patrologia Graeca, which you can now get to online. In the "Translations" bibliographies, there are series/volume/page citations to Schaff's Early Church Fathers (Ante-Nicene Fathers, Nicene/Post-Nicene Fathers Series 1, Nicene/Post-Nicene Fathers Series 2) all of which are online as well.

What else have I been doing with my time? I've also been reading (in smaller chunks than Drobner) Dooley & Levinson's Analyzing Discourse (amazon.com). I've read through the book before, but much of it bounced off of my frontal lobe and dissipated into the air around me. This time through, parts are actually sticking. This is a short book, intended to be introductory but it still has some lingo problems (seems as if every linguist in the world, even when trying to write in an introductory style, still uses terms and lingo that are unfamiliar to non-linguists). There are interesting concepts in the book, many of which can be applied to reading and analyzing the text of the Bible. It's been good to re-read the material; I'm looking forward to the section on participant reference as that is an area I've been thinking about recently.

As I've mentioned a few times before, I'm (slowly) reading through Paul Trebilco's book, The Early Christians in Ephesus from Paul to Ignatius (amazon.com).

I'd recommend just about anyone read the book. But that doesn't mean that I agree completely with what's going on in the book. Trebilco frequently has to read between the lines in order to recreate what's going on in Ephesus. He uses three different sources — the Pastoral Epistles, the Johannine Epistles, and the letter to the Ephesians in Revelation. He uses each of these as lenses to recreate Ephesus.

In so doing, he has to rely upon his reconstructions of the origin of these books, and that's where my primary beef is. Trebilco puts the Pastorals in 80-100 CE; with a follower of Paul who "clearly saw himself as standing in the Pauline tradition" (202). But Trebilco does see Ephesus as the letter's destination despite, according to his view, none of the named entities (Paul and Timothy) have anything whatever to do with the letter.

In later chapters (specifically chapter 8 section 2, pp 354-384) Trebilco posits that vocabulary unique to the Pastorals can be explained by "acculturation":

It also seems clear that the author presupposes that the language and concepts that he uses are familiar to his readers. For example, the Pastor does not explain the epiphany Christology that we will shortly discuss; rather he assumes that his readers are familiar with it and with the conceptual background that it presupposes. Similarly, concepts like ευσεβεια and σωφρων, which we will discuss, are not explained but are simply utilised. It seems clear then that the author presupposes that his readers are familiar with this language. It is therefore good evidence for the significant level of acculturation of the readers. (354, emphasis added)

Trebilco's poster child for this view is the Greek word επιφανεια, where he argues that the use of επιφανεια in First and Second Timothy more closely matches that of επιφανεια in the context of Greco-Roman religion; and that there is no real Jewish usage of the term (cf. 355).

My problem with reading all of this is that while Trebilco is consistent with his assumptions on authorship and audience, there are other ways to explain this that are more internally consistent with the content of First and Second Timothy.

First, if Paul really was the author of First Timothy, and if Timothy really was the recipient, then there is no need to come up with an explanation of "acculturation" for new concepts or things seemingly unexplained (like επιφανεια). Timothy would of course be familiar with that language; he was Paul's co-worker, likely for a span of over 10 years.

Second, Timothy's mother was Jewish, but his father was Greek. Isn't it possible that Timothy would've known how επιφανεια was used among pagan religion; and isn't it possible that Paul, widely traveled among Gentilies, would be familiar with it too? And why couldn't they have used this language in their dealings with the Ephesian church? After all, Ephesus had all sorts of pagan religion going on; doesn't it make sense — and even fit the Pauline mold of being a Jew to Jews, and a Gentile to Gentiles?

Third, we have examples of Paul using relatively non-Jewish concepts as metaphors for aspects of Christianity. One that comes immediately to mind is that of manumission; of slaves buying their freedom from their masters, via the temple, and then being owned by the god of the temple (cf. Deissmann, Light from the Ancient East, 324-334, specifically p. 326). This is at least alluded to in 1Co 6.20; 7.23; Gal 5.1, 13. Why couldn't Paul use επιφανεια for Christian purposes too?

If the letter is from Paul to Timothy, then we have no need to come up with an explanation of how the church at Ephesus could possibly understand these references which seem to require some degree of acculturation.

Now, with all of that said, even though I bristle when I read some portions of Trebilco's book (like the portion on authorship/date/background of the Pastorals, and also this portion on acculturation) there really is good stuff in the book. If you're studying Paul and his letters at all; and particularly if your study has to do with Ephesus, then you can't ignore Trebilco. So break down and get the Eerdman's printing (amazon.com); it is actually in the realm of affordability.

I'm stoked about this! Now, before you say anything, I know that Witherington has published volumes in his series with publishers other than Eerdmans (And yes, I know that deSilva did the Hebrews volume for the Eerdmans). But c'mon, how can you not be excited about it?

The Socio-Rhetorical Commentary Series offers the first sustained attempt to read and study the New Testament as both an ancient biography (as regards the Gospels) and as a from of ancient rhetoric. A socio-rhetorical interpretation considers the methods of rhetorical criticism and social-science criticism. The rhetorical method makes use of ancient or classical writings and strategies of persuasion and the communication of meaning. The social science method notes the issues surrounding the identification of the network of social relations (cultures and customs) in regards to the biblical text. The New Testament, in this series by William B. Eerdman’s Publishing Company, is interpreted within the context of the world in which it was written and read. The commentaries endeavor to give us a glimpse into the methods the gospel writers used in persuading their audience that Jesus was the Savior of the world, and it puts in context the purpose of the Pauline letters. Ben Witherington III contributes to the first six volumes, and David A. deSilva adds his commentary to the last volume in the series.

Don't know about this? Learn more about Ben Witherington III from his website and his blog.

Back in October, I mentioned a book on WWII in Sicily and Italy, Rick Atkinson's The Day of Battle: The War in Sicily and Italy, 1943-1944 (amazon.com). I've been reading it off and on, mainly when I can have large chunks of time to focus on it — books like these aren't books you can spend 15 minutes on at a chunk.

If you have any historical interest in WWII, then you need to read this book. It is focused on the Sicilian and Italian campaigns, primarily from an Allied perspective but Atkinson routinely brings in data from German sources as well. I learned oh-so-much about the war on those fronts; a war that lurks in the shadows of the annals of history due to the prominence of the Normandy landings (which began two days after Rome fell) and the grind through France and Germany.

There were portions that weren't easy to read. It was a bloody, bloody war of attrition. But you don't read books like this because they make you feel chipper; you read books like this to understand the sorts of things that WWII was about, and how nasty it was (for both sides), and how necessary it was. And to hope that it never happens again.

Atkinson is an incredible researcher, and his synthesis of literally thousands of sources into an overarching, flowing, well-written historical narrative is amazing. He won the Pulitzer prize for the first volume in his Liberation Trilogy series, An Army at Dawn (amazon.com), which focused on the beginning of American involvement in the WWII European theater, and thus the war in Northern Africa. That book was amazing. Day of Battle (amazon.com) is better. Atkinson's projected third volume, if I understand it correctly, will focus on D-Day preparations and the liberation of France and war in Germany. How he'll pack that into one volume I have no idea — but I'll be queued up to buy it when it's published.

Bonus: Here's a picture of me with Ike, Monty and other WWII luminaries:

It seems I've been busy since early November, what with ETS & SBL conferences, Thanksgiving, Christmas parties, and New Years. So I haven't had the chance to dig into Paul Trebilco's Early Christians in Ephesus from Paul to Ignatius (amazon.com) as much as I would've liked to.

But today I did get some time (after getting the garage cleaned and reorganized) to read a bit. I finally finished "Part I", which has to do with evidence of Ephesus in Paul and his Letters (Trebilco sees both Ephesians and the Pastorals as non-Pauline, so he does not include them here) and the evidence of Ephesus in the book of Acts.

It was the two chapters on Acts that I was most impressed with. Having done some work on a portion of Acts 18 for my 2007 ETS paper, it was great to read what Trebilco has done, working through all of the Ephesian mentions in Acts. If you are into the Paulines or Acts or Ephesus, then you need to read these chapters.

One thing that stuck out to me, particularly in working through the footnotes as I read the text, was how much the work of Haenchen and Conzelmann are called into question. As I worked through commentaries on Acts 18 for my ETS paper, I was amazed and dumbfounded at some of the claims that Conzelmann (apparently following Haenchen) made concerning Lucan sources in Acts. Treblico carefully works through the passages and other relevant data and shows that many times the leaps made by Haenchen and Conzelmann are too large. Reading this after having read Bauckham's Jesus and the Eyewitnesses really makes me think that the form-critical approach is dying (if not dead). It additionally makes me think that there needs to be a new Hermeneia volume on Acts (and the Pastoral Epistles, also by Conzelmann, for that matter).

That said, one thing that Trebilco does (that many others do) is frequently note "Lucan" or "Pauline" language, when what they really mean is that the content they attribute to a particular author uses the word in question, perhaps uniquely. I still think that any NT author sample, no matter what you think of authorship issues, is far too small to get a notion of what language quirks or vocabulary should be attributed to a particular author. But Trebilco doesn't do it much, and I realize that while this is a fairly blunt tool, it is a tool. So I'm not too offended by it. :)

All said, Trebilco's work is excellent and highly recommended. Do check it out (amazon.com). It's over 800 pages, and the Amazon price is really a steal (especially considering the Mohr-Siebeck edition, if you could actually find it, would probably cost you upwards of $300!)

I've had a copy of Zondervan's Reader's Greek New Testament (amazon.com) [the first edition with the italic font; there is a second edition (amazon.com) with a non-sloping font] for a few years (a gift from one of the editors) and have enjoyed it despite the italic font. I've actually become used to the font (it is slightly better than the horrible UBS4 italic font). I think the concept is great -- gloss words that occur 30x or less at the foot of the page to help those working on their vocabulary and reading skills.

And the book is well crafted -- made for folks who will actually use it. The cover is a soft leather, it is not heavy at all. One of the perennial complaints with the reader, apart from the italic font, is that it uses Zondervan's Greek text instead of the UBS4/NA27 text.

Recently, the German Bible Society has released their own reader's edition: The UBS Greek New Testament: A Reader's Edition (amazon.com). This glosses words that occur 30x or less at the foot of the page, and it uses the UBS4 (and it doesn't have an italic font!) as the Greek text. I've also got access to a copy of this (it was a gift to Logos from the GBS) so I thought I'd write a quick post comparing the two.

• Cost: The RGNT is less expensively priced, as you can see from the Amazon links above.
• Form Factor: Again, I think Zondervan wins. The RGNT is half the thickness of the UBSGNT:RE, same basic shape.
• Cover: RGNT wins hands-down on the cover. The Italian duo-tone leather is a joy to hold. The UBS cover is the standard red cover, though it is the size of a large print edition (also the size of Omanson's Textual Guide to the GNT (amazon.com)). UBS has a ribbon; Zondervan does not.
• Paper: UBS wins here, their paper is better -- not the thin onion-skin paper of the RGNT.
• Text: UBS wins here because they use the text everyone refers to. I realize there are scant differences between UBS and the Zondervan text, but the UBS is still better for it.
• Layout: UBS wins here as well. If you've used the RGNT, you know it is hard to find a gloss at the bottom of the page because the notes are in one paragraph. The UBS text, however, has two columns of notes at the foot of each page; this makes it relatively easy to find the gloss of the word you want.
• Notes: UBS wins here too because they don't just provide definitions, they also provide some parsing/declension info.
• XRefs: RGNT wins here because they actually note the source of OT quotes in the text. UBS does not provide such info.
• Appendix: UBS wins here because they have a dictionary in the back for words that occur more than 30x -- which means you can look up any word in the text if you don't know it and it occurs more than 30x. RGNT has no such dictionary.

I think that's it. And I think there are two ways to slice the data.

I think that if cost and form are important (is it reasonably priced, and does it feel good in the hand, and is it easy to carry around) then you should check out the Reader's Greek New Testament (amazon.com).

But if you're more concerned about the text (UBS/NA is a priority) and about ease of use -- it really is easier to find the notes in the UBS edition, and it's nice to have a full dictionary to access for other words -- then you probably want to spend a little more and get the UBS Greek NT: Reader's Edition (amazon.com).

Update (2007-12-17): In the comments, Mike Aubrey (who blogs at εν εφεσω) points us to Rick Mansfield's similar review. Check his post out because, unlike me, he took time to add images of the text of the two books, so you can see the differences yourself.

As I mentioned earlier, one of the books I picked up at ETS/SBL* is the Westcott-Hort Greek New Testament with Dictionary (amazon.com), published by Hendrickson. This is a reprinting (and re-setting) of WH's Greek NT. Hendrickson have added pericope heads, a running apparatus with diffs between NA27, WH marginal notes, and the 2005 edition of Robinson-Pierpont's Byzantine text (amazon.com). The dictionary is a revised and enlarged version of Souter's Pocket Dictionary.

But, I wondered, how different is Hendrickson's edition from the original Westcott & Hort edition? And are the differences significant?

As I mentioned above, there are some immediately apparent differences:

• Hendrickson's edition has section headings in English; the original WH has none
• Hendrickson's edition has a editional apparatus at the foot of the page with differences between NA27, Byz (RP 2005) and the WH marginal notes; the original WH only has the marginal notes

There are other differences, too; but these are less obvious.

First, Hendrickson's edition has the books of the NT arranged in what is now the standard canonical order: Gospels, Acts, Paulines, Catholic Epistles, Apocalypse. The original WH, however, did not follow that order; they followed (as I recall) the order of books in some of the earliest complete NT MSS: Gospels, Acts, Catholic Epistles, Paulines (including Hebrews between 2Thess and 1Tim), Apocalypse.

Second, Hendrickson's edition inserts paragraph breaks where WH's had subparagraph breaks. This removes a level of detail from the text, but all the same -- I don't think anyone really knew the subparagraph breaks (larger horizontal spans of white space) were there on purpose. But I do think it is significant, particularly when much scholarly attention these days focuses on discourse analysis (aka "textlinguistics"). This is a level of annotation that is above the sentence level but below the paragraph level, providing some help when one actually begins to structure the text and wants to read it through sensitive to discourse structure.

While at SBL, I was able to speak with the editor at Hendrickson who did much of the work on the book. The concern they had was that WH's paragraphs are, admittedly, large. They wanted smaller chunks for reading, and to make it easier to find verse references. This is discussed in the introduction, which notes:

In this edition, WH's original paragraph and spacing divisions have been preserved by inserting paragraph breaks for both types of division. The resulting paragraphs are more consistent in length with those of editions and translations of the NT available today. Section divisions have been preserved by inserting English section headings designed to make navigation of the text easier for English readers. Additional English headings have been added betweeen and occasionally within paragraphs where deemed helpful. (p. xxii)

Third, WH's introductory articles are not reproduced in Hendrickson's edition, instead some material by Eldon Epp is included. Also, some of the helpful WH appendices—List of Suspected Readings, List of Noteworthy Rejected Readings, Quotations from the Old Testament—are not included. On the plus side, the Hendrickson edition does have a few maps in the back.

Conclusion

While there are differences between the Hendrickson edition and the original WH, I don't think they're that significant. The editional apparatus included in Hendrickson's edition makes the Hendrickson edition more appropriate to use in today's context. I don't think it should supplant one's use of the primary critical text (NA27) but if one has a need to consult WH or even a desire to consult Byzantine variants from a particular edition (Robinson's), then Hendrickson's reprinting of Westcott & Hort's Greek New Testament (amazon.com) is probably the go-to edition.

* Full disclosure: Hendrickson gave the book to me.

Two things.

First, I received my copy of Michael Holmes' Apostolic Fathers, Greek Texts and English Translations, Third Edition (amazon.com). What a beautiful volume. The form factor is excellent, the type is crisp, the binding is sturdy and functional, and the scholarship is top-notch. This is a book that is a pleasure to own.

Second, I have made a decision. As many know and can easily see, I have an Amazon Associates account. If you click on links from this blog and buy stuff, I get a tiny portion of the sale (ranges from 4% to 6% per sale). Don't worry, I'm not getting rich off of it, I just save the accumulation and use it to buy a book every few months.

I've decided that I'm going to save up my commissions for the next while and splurge on a two-volume set of books I'd love but can't afford to purchase: The Apostolic Fathers and the New Testament Two-Volume Set (amazon.com). It consists of both of the recent volumes published by Oxford, The Reception of the New Testament and the Apostolic Fathers (amazon.com) and Trajectories Through the New Testament and the Apostolic Fathers (amazon.com). If you're wondering how much I make off of the commissions, well ... I'm about 1/4 of the way there and don't expect to make enough for probably 4-6 months.

So ... if you want to help a brother out and are buying stuff from Amazon anyway ... click to Amazon from a link on this blog. Or, if you really want to make Rico smile this Christmas, cruise to my wish list and purchase a copy for me (only half-joking!). Of if you work for Oxford and need someone to review the set ... well, I just might be interested!

While out at ETS and SBL, the good folks at Kregel sent along a copy of Dr. Rodney Decker's Koine Greek Reader (amazon.com). Be sure to check out Dr. Decker's page for his book. Why did I get a copy? I was one of a select number quick enough to respond to Dr. Decker's offer of a free copy of the book on his blog — which just goes to show you, reading blogs can pay.

I haven't had time to look at the book much, but my friend and colleague Johnny borrowed it over the weekend and was suitably impressed. He said, "I wish my second-year reading class used it as a text!". He found the presentation of chunks (not just one verse) of text followed by grammar and syntax notes on the text helpful.

In the future, I hope to compare the Koine Greek Reader (amazon.com) with Whitacre's Patristic Greek Reader (amazon.com) to show strengths and weaknesses of each. But I have a lot of stuff I want to blog in the next while; so I may not get to it immediately. But the initial word is that Decker's Koine Greek Reader (amazon.com) looks useful and should be a great help, whether you are in a classroom setting or if you're simply wanting a refresher course from that year of Greek you had in school too many years ago.

I didn't go as hog-wild on books this year as I had in the past, but I did come home with a few new ones:

• G.K. Beale & D.A. Carson, eds., Commentary on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament (amazon.com). This is one that I have been watching for some time, and I'm thrilled to actually have it in print.
• Westcott-Hort Greek New Testament with Dictionary (amazon.com). This is a reprinting (and re-setting) of WH's Greek NT. Hendrickson have added pericope heads, a running apparatus with diffs between NA27, WHMarg, and Robinson-Pierpont. The dictionary is a revised and enlarged version of Souter's Pocket Dictionary. I hope to blog about this one later, comparing my 1904 pocket WH with this edition for First Timothy.
• The UBS Greek New Testament: A Reader's Edition (amazon.com). The Amazon page here doesn't make any sense to me, the book is released (at least you could get it in a number of places at the SBL book expo). I hope to do some blogging on this one, comparing it to Zondervan's Reader's Greek New Testament (amazon.com) for the text of First Timothy. One thing the UBS edition has, though, is parsing help. Very cool.
• James Aageson, Paul, the Pastorals, and the Early Church. This as well is published by Hendrickson, though I find no listing for it on Amazon.
• Benjamin Fiore, S.J., Pastoral Epistles: First Timothy, Second Timothy and Titus (amazon.com), in the Sacra Pagina series. I purchased this more for completeness' sake; I don't have many Catholic approaches to the PE in my commentary stash, so I figured I'd get one.
• William Varner, The Way of the Didache: The First Christian Handbook (amazon.com). I've done some study on the Didache on my own; Varner's work will be nice to read.

That's it; you'll surely hear more about them in the coming weeks.

It's true, Holmes' Third Edition Apostolic Fathers Diglot (amazon.com) is finally ready! I read about it on the B-Greek list on Friday. A message to B-Greek (from moderator Jonathan Robie, forwarded from James Ernest, Academic Editor at Baker Academic) notes (and do notice the part I made bold):

The first copies of the new edition of the Michael Holmes's Apostolic Fathers (amazon.com) (the Lightfoot-Harmer-Holmes Greek-English diglot) just arrived at Baker Academic's warehouse yesterday. That should mean that copies have also arrived at San Diego for the book exhibits at the ETS and AAR-SBL meetings. Listmembers attending those meetings may want to visit our booth to check it out.

It's a thoroughly re-edited and redesigned opus. Michael (a member of this list) put a tremendous amount of labor into this revision, as did a number of us at the press; and we had significant advice and help on particular points from a number of outside scholars. I'm very happy to find that the 1000ppi paper and Smyth-sewn binding enable the book to lie flat even when opened near near the front or the back. The stamped kivar cover is over more substantial boards than used for the Bible-society texts that this volume otherwise resembles, so it should stand up well to use; but the feel is still quite compact.

It will be purchaseable (at a great discount!) at ETS and AAR/SBL, so be sure to check it out at the Baker booth. Here's some further descriptive text from the Baker Academic web site:

Description: Following the recent publication of his thoroughly revised translations in The Apostolic Fathers in English, 3rd ed., Michael Holmes, a leading expert on these texts, offers a thoroughly revised and redesigned bilingual edition, featuring Greek (or Latin) and English on facing pages. Introductions and bibliographies are generous and up to date. In the textual apparatus, existing notes have been revised and expanded, and well over two hundred new notes have been added. This handsome and handy one-volume, thin-paper edition, with a ribbon marker and reader-friendly page layout, will be an essential resource for New Testament students and scholars.

In the interests of full disclosure, note that in my work at Logos (getting editions of the Apostolic Fathers ready for our electronic editions) I ran across a some typos in the second edition of Holmes' Greek text. As a result of those submissions, Dr. Holmes and James Ernest decided to send along a complimentary copy of the third edition diglot. So it's a happy day for Rico! When I have the edition and am able to examine it further, I will surely blog about it.

Apparently there's an SBL session on this question (S19-49, Monday afternoon). I'm a bit suspect because the session is sponsored by "HarperOne" (?) and its participants are all published by HarperCollins.

(side note: when will marketroids stop CamelCasing things? That's soooo 1990's)

Anyway, here's the panel:

• John Dominic Crossan, DePaul University, Panelist
• Jonathan Reed, University of La Verne, Panelist
• Amy-Jill Levine, The Divinity School, Vanderbilt University, Panelist
• Marvin Meyer, Chapman University, Panelist
• Pamela Eisenbaum, Iliff School of Theology, Panelist

I'll admit — I'm not too interested in what any of them would say. But I am curious about the question, and curious what folks in the biblioblogosphere might think. The question is a difficult one; I have several questions that arise from just the question alone (let alone thinking about answering it). Like:

• How does one define "non-Biblical" text? Any text that isn't in the Protestant Bible? Is the question specifically dealing with, say NT Apocrypha? Or could I say that perhaps Chrysostom's sermons on John would give tremendous insight? Or could I say (apologies, Jim West) N.T. Wright's Jesus and the Son of God? (No, I don't think that -- I'm just trying to figure out how to define "non-Biblical" in the context of this question).
• Does the text have to be about Jesus, or contain excerpts of Jesus' life? If I think NT apocryphal texts and gnostic texts (e.g. Thomas) paint a decidely improper picture of Jesus, then of course I can't suggest them. They would contribute to misunderstanding Jesus, not understanding him. But what else could I suggest?
• Does the text have to exist in full? Let's say based on what I know of Papias that I'd want to answer the question with his work. But the work doesn't exist anymore, at least that we know of. Further, what about things like Gospel of the Egyptians, Gospel of the Hebrews, or Gospel of the Nazoreans? Egerton Papyrus? Fragments of unknown Gospels found at Oxyrhynchus? We only have limited citations or scraps of these; not full extant editions. Would they count?
• Does the text have to exist at all? What about theoretical texts? For instance, if I was one to think that Q actually existed (nb: I don't, though I'm not opposed to such a thing) then obviously I'd have to say that one. It is non-Biblical, I guess, though if the theory is true then large swaths of it, at minimum, made it in. So does that count?

I could go on. But that wouldn't help answer the question.

I'm thinking about it (and have a short list of candidates). I'll update this post with my answer at the end of the week. But what do you think? Leave comments; if you blog an answer on your own blog let me know and I'll link to your post from this one.

Update (2007-11-09): There have been some comments; two of them focus on the Testimonium Flavianum, the other wondering about Rabbinic criticisms of Jesus as shedding light into the claims made by Jesus and his followers. These are good thoughts.

I'm still griping about the question, however. There seem to be three places in the question that provide lots of wiggle-room: "non-Biblical Text", "Understanding" and "Jesus". I discussed "non-Biblical text" above a bit. The word "understanding" also is problematic. What does it mean? What does it imply? Is it about understanding more of Jesus' biography? Understanding more of how people understood him (that leaves the door open for all sorts of crazy stuff)?

The other term to define is "Jesus". Which Jesus is this? Is it only about Jesus' experience as a human, or is material that provides understanding of Jesus Christ (i.e., the aspect of Messiah)?

This all makes the question hard, particularly since I'm guessing the intent is to discuss early non-Biblical stuff; probably gnostic/Nag Hammadi, that provides alternate and likely fabricated accounts of Jesus' earthly sojourn. But I have problems answering the question that way because I don't think it tells us anything about understanding Jesus, but all sorts of stuff about how gnostics/etc. understood Jesus.

So, on the whole, I'll try take all of that into account when I provide some thoughts about the question later today. But I'll probably understand "Jesus" to refer to non-Biblical discussion about the person Jesus, and therefore also include texts that discuss the aspect of Messiah as well. Whether that is intended or not, I don't know — but it's my blog, so I get to do what I want. :)

Update II (2007-11-09): Ok, here's my list, with some brief explanation. I consulted a few references along the way to help me with my memory of these things, notably New Testament Apocrypha Vol 1 (amazon.com) and Moreschini & Norelli's Early Christian Greek and Latin Literature (amazon.com) (also vol. 1). This list is sort of in a preferred order, though if pressed I'd probably change it around.

• Tatian's Diatessaron. That's right; some may say this is Biblical, but I'd say it isn't. Content from the four gospels is stitched into a running narrative. How can this not be helpful in understanding Jesus?
• Eusebius' Letter to Carpianus. Huh? You know, this is the one published in the front of your NA27 explaining the Eusebian Canons, in which Eusebius delimits lists based on Ammonius' sections. This is a cross-referencing system between the gospels; it also highlights material unique to each gospel. Again, very helpful if you want to work through instances that the gospels record concerning Jesus' life. Please examine Kevin P. Edgcome's very helpful page about the Canons; also see his translation of the Letter to Carpianus.
• Testimonium Flavianum. I agree with some of the commenters to this post, this is valuable even if it is a later insertion.
• Odes of Solomon. Again, this might surprise some. But these are early hymns, likely first or second century, likely Christian, and likely used in Christian worship. If early Christian hymns were good enough for Paul to use in some of his writings (e.g. 1Ti 3.16, Php 2.5-11), then I'd think hymns like some of those found in the Odes would be helpful in understanding the early church's conception of Christ (which is part of "understanding Jesus", to my mind). Charlesworth's edition actually inserts headings where the voice shifts from the Odist to that of Christ.
• Symbol of Chalcedon. Yes, this is later (circa 450 AD/CE) but it is definitive. If you want to know what the church thinks about who Jesus was (and is), then this is an important text.
• Second Clement. Ok, not really. But I had to mention it because of the agrapha it contains. I guess I'd make a catch-all category here called something like "early agrapha" and include the sayings from 2Clem and other stuff like gospels of the (Hebrews|Nazoreans|Egyptians|Ebionites) as well as some of the POxy fragments, Egerton 2, and stuff like that.

Stuff I wouldn't include because I contend that overall they would contribute to misunderstanding Jesus: Gnostic gospels and apocalypses, particularly stuff found at Nag Hammadi and also the recently found Gospel of Judas. I'd say these are very important for understanding gnosticism and for understanding the gnostic conception of Jesus; but I just don't see how that helps us understand Jesus.

Thoughts?

[This is part of a series of posts, for a list of all posts see Drobner's The Fathers of the Church]

I'll start off by saying that I don't plan on doing comprehensive blogging of this book; so there won't be a post for each part/chapter. But I made it through the introductory material and the first chapter, so I figured I'd post.

Initially, it's everything I expected. I've noted some titles in the bibliographies that I should probably track down at some point. And the explanations are decent.

I also understand that introductions, by their very nature, are complicated to write. That is, it is hard to be judicious when introducing material that may, when further studied, have several different layers or approaches. So, unsurprisingly, I can report that I'm not the happiest with the perspective taken when providing dates for NT books. Drobner places all gospels after 70 CE (Mark in 70 CE, Luke in 80, Matthew in 90-95, and John in 100). He also only sees six (6) authentic Paulines: First Thessalonians, Galatians, Corinthians (?), Philippians, Philemon and Romans.

I don't necessarily have a problem with his views (though I think he's wrong); I have a problem with them being presented as undisputed fact. But ... I say again ... I wasn't surprised; this sort of thing usually happens in handbooks/introductions like this. One item I was surprised at, though, was part of Drobner's description of an apocalypse. He contends that "Although there are 'no formal laws which are applicable to all apocalypses' and the apocalypse of John is accorded a special place among all the apocalypses, it is possible to discerna a number of enduring stylistic and content-related features" (Drobner 38). Ok, sure. But these aren't (and can't be) rules. Even so, his first item is very curious:

All apocalypses are written pseudonymously under the name of a significant male of the past who lends the work an authority that the author himself does not possess. This means that an apocalypse is always written from a perspective of fictitious anteriority, as a book that alleges to be ancient already and, because of being sealed up, has to be keppt secret until the predetermined time of the end (cf. Dan 12.9; Rev 6). (Drobner 38)

I can buy this statement from non-canonical works; but it is harder to swallow when one includes Biblical apocalypses like Daniel and Revelation. Does that mean that if I think John (whichever John you wish; the elder or the apostle) is responsible for Revelation that I therefore cannot hold that Revelation is an apocalypse (when it clearly is)?

That said, the section on the Epistle to Barnabas is good; as is that on Hermas. And again, the bibliographies are excellent.

Chapter Two, "Postapocalyptic Literature", looks good as well ... though I'll probably have dating qualms with Drobner's stance on the dating of Ignatius' epistles (Drobner's range is 105-135; I'd say 110 at the latest). But I'll write on that chapter after I read it ...

I left the office early yesterday to attend the memorial service for my great aunt Jo, who passed away over the weekend after an extended illness. I came back to the office this morning to find a copy of Paul Treblico's The Early Christians In Ephesus from Paul to Ignatius (amazon.com) sitting on my desk, waiting for me; a review copy from the kind folks at Eerdmans.

I've been salivating upon mention of this book for years, since I read of the original printing by Mohr-Siebeck in 2004. In typical fashion, Mohr-Siebeck priced the 800 page book at something like $280 so I resolved myself to reading a library copy sometime down the road — if I ever found a library that stocked it. I did drool over a copy at the 2005 SBL, though.

Cheers, congratulations, and much appreciation then for the folks at Eerdmans. They are publishing the US edition of Treblico's work in paperback with a list price of $85.00. Amazon sells it as well — see current price in upper right corner of this post; it's probably discounted from list. And if you'll be at ETS and/or AAR/SBL in San Diego, I'd guess you'd be able to get a below-list price from Eerdmans as well. And if you do purchase it at SBL, make sure to tell the folks at Eerdmans that you really appreciate them republishing books like this!

My reading is piling up, but I've been waiting a long time for Treblico (longer than I've waited for Drobner!) so I'll be working it in to the top of the list. And as I read, I'll blog about it. So stay tuned. Until then, here is some material from the publisher's web site. First, the blurb:

The capital city of the province of Asia in the first century CE, Ephesus played a key role in the development of early Christianity. In this book Paul Trebilco examines the early Christians from Paul to Ignatius, seen in the context of our knowledge of the city as a whole.

Drawing on Paul's letters and the Acts of the Apostles, Trebilco looks at the foundations of the church, both before and during the Pauline mission. He shows that in the period from around 80 to 100 CE there were a number of different communities in Ephesus that regarded themselves as Christians — the Pauline and Johannine groups, Nicolaitans, and others — testifying to the diversity of that time and place. Including further discussions on the Ephesus addresses of the apostle John and Ignatius, this scholarly study of the early Ephesian Christians and their community is without peer.

And here's the table of contents from the Eerdmans catalog page. A brief and much abbreviated TOC is below:

Introduction
Chapter 1: The Context

Part One: Beginnings in Ephesus
Chapter 2: Paul in Ephesus: The Evidence of His Letters
Chapter 3: Acts and the early Christians in Ephesus: Beginnings and Success
Chapter 4: Acts and the early Christians in Ephesus: Endings and Departure

Part Two: The Pastoral Epistles, Revelation and the Johannine Letters
Chapter 5: What do the Pastoral Epistles tell us about the early Christians in Ephesus?
Chapter 6: What do the Johannine Letters tell us about the early Christians in Ephesus?
Chapter 7: Revelation 2.1-7: The Proclamation to the Church in Ephesus and the Nicolaitans

Part Three: The Relationships Between the Readers of the Pastorals, the Johannine Letters and Revelation
Chapter 8: The Wider Culture and the Readers of the Pastorals, the Johannine Letters and Revelation: Acculturation, Assimilation and Accomodation
Chapter 9: Material Possessions and the readers of the Pastorals, the Johannine Letters and Revelation
Chapter 10: Leadership and Authority and the readers of the Pastoral Epistles, the Johannine Letters and Revelation
Chapter 11: The Role of Women Among the Readers of the Pastoral Epistles, the Johannine Letters and Revelation
Chapter 12: What Shall We Call Each Other? The Issue of Self-Designation in the Pastoral Epistles, the Johannine Letters and Revelation
Chapter 13: The Relationships between Traditions and Communities in Ephesus

Part Four: Ignatius' Letter to Ephesus
Chapter 14: Who Are the Addressees of Ignatius' Letter to Ephesus
Chapter 15: Ignatius and additional facets of the life of the Christians in Ephesus

Chapter 16: Conclusions

In an earlier post, I mentioned The Fathers of the Church: A Comprehensive Introduction (amazon.com) by Hubertus Drobner, translated by Siegfried Schatzmann.

Like Mike Aquilina, a copy arrived for me today! Many thanks to Hendrickson for sending it along. And it looks wonderful. The bibliographies look great (full, and sectioned into sections like 'Editions', 'Bibliographies', 'Dictionaries' and stuff like that). So you get an idea of what the book is about, here's the last paragraph of the Preface to the English Edition:

It [the book] is not a "manual" that intends to cover the entire field in all its details. It is a textbook that presents an overview of the most important authors, works and themes, imbedded in their historical, political, and ecclesiastical background. For everything beyond this basic aim, the numerous bibliographical data given serve to point the way to further and more specialized studies. (Drobner xvi)

Here's a link to the Table of Contents. Here's a link to the Introduction. Here's a link to a sample chapter. And here's the blurb from Hendrickson:

Good, solid, contemporary introductions to patristic authors and writings are difficult to find in the English-speaking world, and European volumes are expensive. This volume, which is Siegfried Schatzmann’s translation of Lehrbuch der Patrologie, offers English-speaking readers easy access to Hubertus R. Drobner’s traditional introduction to early Christian thought.

Hubertus R. Drobner brings patristics scholarship up to date in this traditional introduction. His work is sufficiently broad to be a useful summary of early Christian history and the expansive strokes of doctrinal debate and development and provides a clear presentation of early Christian thought.

Drobner introduces new materials throughout this recently updated edition of his handbook. A general map and several timetables add to the clarity of the volume.

The Fathers of the Church is valuable in its presentation of contemporary studies and views. Patristics students will benefit from this dependable overview of early Christian texts, and scholars and libraries will appreciate the extensive bibliography, indexes, and other resources.

Here's a somewhat abbreviated Table of Contents:

Introduction: Patrology as Subject

Part One: Apostolic and Postapostolic Literature
   Introduction: The Rise of Christian Literature
   Chapter One: Biblical Apocrypha
   Chapter Two: Postapostolic Literature

Part Two: Literature of the Period of Persecution (Mid-Second to Early Fourth Centuries)
   Introduction: The Impact of Persecution
   Chapter Three: Greek Literature
   Chapter Four: Beginnings of Latin Literature

Part Three: Literature of the Ascending Imperial Church (Early Fourth Century to ca. 430)
   Introduction: Essential Features of the History of the Fourth Century
   Chapter Five: First Phase of Arianism
   Chapter Six: Apollinarianism and the Second Phase of Arianism
   Chapter Seven: Pastors, Exegetes and Ascetics
   Chapter Eight: Monastic and Hagiographic Literature
   Chapter Nine: Augustine of Hippo

Part Four: Literature of the Transition from Late Antiquity to the Early Middle Ages (ca. 430 to the Mid-Eighth Century)
   Introduction: Retrospective Collections and Progressive Works
   Chapter Ten: Theological Controversies of the Fifth Century
   Chapter Eleven: Literature of the Latin West
   Chapter Twelve: Literature of the Greek East

Part Five: Literature of the Christian East
   Chapter Thirteen: Independent Bodies of Literature
   Supplementary Bibliography

All in all, it looks wonderful and also looks to be a great counterpart to Moreschini and Norelli's Early Greek and Latin Literature: A Literary History (amazon.com); though Drobner looks to have more information on area it treats (Patristic Literature) and the bibliographies look more complete and, at least in the English translation, more geared toward English readers.

Updated: I've begun a series as I read the book.

• 2007-11-05: Part I

I'm stoked.

Poking around the newly-redesigned Amazon.com front page, I noted that volume 2 in Rick Atkinson's Liberation Trilogy is out. If you have done any reading on WWII, you owe it to yourself to read Atkinson's first volume, An Army at Dawn (amazon.com), which is all about the war in Northern Africa from 1942-1943. It seems most WWII stuff is either on the war in Germany or else it is personality-focused (e.g. Patton, Eisenhower, Rommel, etc.). Atkinson is writing a history of the liberation of Europe, and the first volume was awesome. I've been waiting for the second volume for five years, and it's here now. Here's the book's LibraryThing page.

Bonus: I used an Amazon.com gift certificate to pay for the book. Thanks to those who click on links & sidebars to purchase stuff via ricoblog, I do appreciate it (and I will enjoy The Day of Battle (amazon.com) immensely)!

Yes, it has been fairly quiet in the corner of the blogosphere recently. Amy and I have been moving house; we're out of the old house (it sold quickly, thankfully) and into a new house (yay!). This past week was pack-n-move time; with the majority of actual moving happening this past weekend.

So, obviously, we're still settling in, but things are in good shape.

Also ... a little bird just told me that Siegfried Schatzmann's English translation of Hubertus Drobner's Lehrbuch der Patrologie (Fathers of the Church: A Comprehensive Introduction (amazon.com)), to be published by Hendrickson but long-delayed for many and sundry reasons, has actually hit the warehouse. That means ... well ... it is like, you know, done and stuff. And in paper. And ready to read. WOO HOO!!!!

When I get a copy (which should hopefully be soon; I've been waiting over two years!) I'll certainly mention it and blog about it somewhat.

Speaking of which, I'm about to wrap up Skarsaune & Hvalvik's Jewish Believers in Jesus (amazon.com). This is an awesome book; I can't recommend it highly enough. I was lucky enough to receive a gratis copy. I likely wouldn't have bought it, but I would've missed out greatly and kicked myself repeatedly had I found out what a treasure I missed. You should really check it out — when you're at SBL, cruise the Hendrickson booth and pick up a copy to browse (then buy!)

Found these mentioned in a footnote in Skarsaune & Hvalvik's Jewish Believers in Jesus (amazon.com); this is the proverbial "note to myself" so I can dig the references out again:

Kenneth Berding, Polycarp and Paul: An Analysis of Their Literary and Theological Relationship in Light of Polycarp's Use of Biblical and Extra-Biblical Literature (amazon.com) (VCSup 62; Leiden: Brill, 2002)

Paul Hartog, Polycarp and the New Testament: The Occasion, Rhetoric, Theme and Unity of the Epistle to the Philippians and its Allusions to New Testament Literature (amazon.com) (WUNT 2.134; Tübingen: J.C.B. Mohr, 2002)

That is all.

This morning Scot McKnight (Jesus Creed) mentions two books I've mentioned before: Skarsaune & Hvalvik's Jewish Believers in Jesus and Bowman & Komoszewski's Putting Jesus in His Place.