A friend who happened upon Neil Elliott's new book The Arrogance of Nations: Reading Romans in the Shadow of Empire (amazon.com) passed it along to me. There are some intriguing parts, it appears, but there is also a lot of current events/politics that has creeped into the book, from what I can tell. On the intriguing parts, check this excerpt from the introduction:

Unfortunately, rhetorical-critical interpretations of Romans have often done little more than glean from the classical Greek and Roman rhetorical handbooks a novel technical nomenclature for an outline of the letter that has already been established, without the benefit of rhetorical categories, in dogmatic readings. ... Similarly, some interpreters tend to describe the letter in terms resembling the genre of the philosophical treatise or letter essay, though it bears none of the hallmarks of the ancient letter essay. Others seek to identify the rhetorical genre of the letter according to the categories of the ancient rhetorical handbooks, but falter on prior assumptions regarding the letter's purpose.

In contrast, I expect the ancient handbooks to be of only limited usefulness in determining the genre of Romans. The handbooks were designed, after all, for the fairly formal expectations of public oratory in the Greco-Roman world. (Elliott pp. 17-18)

All that said, I figured I'd mention it since I normally mention new books I receive or purchase. I've not read this book (outside of the introduction) and it isn't on my to-read list, but if/when I next hit Romans, I'll probably check it out.

Here's the blurb from Amazon.com:

Product Description
Elliott offers a fresh and surprising reinterpretation of Paul's letter to the Romans in the context of Roman imperial ideology, bringing to the text the latest insights from classical studies, rhetorical criticism, postcolonial criticism, and people's history.

By setting the letter alongside Roman texts (Cicero, Virgil, the Res Gestae of Augustus, Seneca, poets from the age of Nero, as well as later historians and satirists), Elliott provides a dramatic new reading of the letter as Paul's confrontation with the arrogance of empire - and with an emerging Christianity already tempted by the seductive ideology of imperial power.

The Arrogance of Nations (amazon.com) explores such topics as: Empire and the 'obedience of faith'; Justice and the arrogance of nations; Mercy and the prerogatives of power; Piety and the scandal of an irreligious race; Virtue and the fortunes of peoples; and Paul and the horizon of the possible.

About the Author
Neil Elliott, an Episcopal priest, teaches biblical studies at United Theological Seminary of the Twin Cities and Metropolitan State University in Minneapolis. He is the author of Liberating Paul and The Rhetoric of Romans.

If Romans is your interest, you should probably check it out (amazon.com).

I've been slowly but surely working my way through Reinhard Feldmeier's The First Letter of Peter: A Commentary on the Greek Text (amazon.com), published by Baylor University Press. Sean Winter (of the blog Primal Subversion), who blogs a lot about all things First Peter, mentioned Feldmeier in a post awhile back:

My semi-embarrassing moment [at the International SBL meeting] came when I began to chat to a guy about Reinhard Feldmeier’s newly translated commentary on 1 Peter (which I’m hoping to review soon). This guy was quite persistent that this was one of the best commentaries on 1 Peter. I was a bit hesitant, and I’m quite happy that Achtemeier and Green are the best commentaries on 1 Peter, with Elliott a close second. The banter when back and forth for a while and then we parted ways. Later on, I was told that the person I was talking to was Carey C. Newman, who is down to write a commentary on 1 Peter for the Smyth & Helwys series! Next time I’ll be more careful before I just start blabbing… PS: I still think I’m right about Achtemeier and Green. Feldmeier is helpful, but nowhere near as helpful or insightful as the former two.

Feldmeier's commentary (amazon.com) has a lot going for it, in my opinion. I actually enjoyed reading the introduction and particularly appreciated the focus on recipients/addressees. Feldmeier beat it into my head that the author (we'll call him Peter since that's what the text claims) considers himself and those he's writing to as foreigners. Here's an excerpt:

... one must carefully observe that in 1 Peter, the alienation from the world around them does not in the first place take its character from a negation of the world but is interpreted as the flip side of the belonging to God that is stressed in the whole letter, in 1.1f.; 2.4, 9f., by means of the concept of election as integration into the people of God, in 1.3f., 23; 2.2f., by means of the idea of rebirth as an eschatological renewal of existence. This shows that even though the address as "foreigners" is determined by the societal conflict situation, the foreignness of the Christians is not in its essence derived from protests against society, but from correspondence to God and belonging to his new society. (Feldmeier 14, emphasis his)

In other words, the foreignness of Christians in this world is because Christians belong to God; it isn't some counter-cultural difference. I knew this, but Feldmeier (better, Peter Davids' translation of Feldmeier) put words to this idea in ways I hadn't before read, and that I've profited from.

What about the commentary itself? While there is an extensive bibliography in the back, each commentary section has a section-specific bibliography as well. Layout-wise, the book has real, bona-fide footnotes (yay!) instead of chapter endnotes or that insipid abomination, notes at the end of the book. All in all, a good reading experience.

However, I have at least one thing I'm not pleased with: Latin phrases. Sure I can figure out most of them, but c'mon -- genitivus auctoris? (p. 58); scientia eminens practica? praxis pietatis? (both on p. 43); paralelismus mebrorum? (p. 65). This sort of thing is just unnecessary and useless. Here's an in-context example of useless use of Latin: "The having or not having of such hope thus forms virtually the differentia specifica between Christians and non- Christians..." (p. 68).

I'm still working through the commentary itself; perhaps I'll post more in the future as I continue to work through it.

While Mohr-Siebeck books are as expensive as all get-out, that doesn't mean they aren't great books. Whenever the catalog arrives (it gets sent to me at Logos since that's my typical shipping address) Mike Heiser and I refer to it as a "productivity hit". You can't help but stop and carefully look at the new books in the catalog while using a tissue to clean up the drool-puddle that inches ever closer to your keyboard. The recent catalog is no exception. If I had a whole lot of money to throw at books, I'd seriously think about these new ones in the Mohr catalog:

• Richard Bauckham, The Jewish World around the New Testament: Collected Essays Volume I (€130)
• Bengt Holmberg and Mikael Winninge, Identity Formation in the New Testament (€ 80)
• Bengt Holmberg, Exploring Early Christian Identity (€ 65)
• Petrus Gräbe, The Power of God in Paul's Letters (€ 49)
• Stephen E. Witmer, Divine Instruction in Early Christianity (€ 50)

But, alas, I do not have "a whole lot of money to throw at books", or to throw anywhere else for that matter, so I'll have to content myself by making sure the drool puddle doesn't overtake the keyboard.

BTW, Of the above, Gräbe (especially) and Witmer look most interesting to me, in case anyone is thinking they'd like to get me something nice for my birthday in October ...

Thanks to the folks at Baylor University Press, today I received a copy of Reinhard Feldmeier's The First Letter of Peter: A Commentary on the Greek Text. This is a translation of Feldmeier's 1 Peter commentary by Peter H. Davids.

Here's the blurb from Baylor Press' web site:

The New Testament book known as "The First Letter of Peter" describes how Christians should relate to the world. Specifically, it suggests how Christians should define themselves against a powerful and sometimes hostile culture. Written to first-century Christians in Asia Minor who were suffering from religious persecution, this letter brings Biblical and extra-Biblical traditions together to forge an original and unique pastoral strategy. At the same time, in its depiction of "practical piety," the letter is an impressive display of early Christian theology. Here, one of the world's authorities on Peter provides a verse by verse interpretation of First Peter that is both highly readable and deeply informed.

Here are a few back cover blurbs:

Reinhard Feldmeier has produced an exceptional commentary that is not only brilliant academically, but one that is also edifying. Feldmeier is at once erudite and accessible. Here is an exegetical commentary that unfailingly leads the reader to the meaning and significance of the text. I recommend it with the greatest enthusiasm. Donald A. Hagner

This volume is among the most important theological commentaries of 1 Peter written during the modern era. The thematic of the church's "foreignness" within a pervasively pagan culture, a continuing interest of Feldmeier's by which he orients his interpretation of 1 Peter, yields extraordinarily evocative insights for today's post-Christian church. Fully fluent with the social and literary worlds that shaped the letter's composition and the complex history of its reception into the 21st century, Feldmeier is able to produce an informed and richly detailed exegesis of 1 Peter. His steady interest in the church's "practice of piety" as a practical expression of Christian existence will surely lend this commentary for use by preachers and teachers as well. Robert Wall

The book is in two primary parts, the first "Introduction" (47pp) and the second "Exegesis" (210pp, including 11 excurses). There is a very large bibliography (34pp) and a reference index (22pp) as well, though no subject/topic index.

I'm looking forward to reading through it and reporting about the book as I do. Thanks again, Baylor Press!

Many thanks to Hendrickson for sending David Scholer's Social Distinctives of Christians in the First Century: Pivotal Essays by E.A. Judge (amazon.com) along for review; apologies it took me so long to get to it. Why did it take so long? There are a number of reasons, but there are probably two primary reasons. The first is that I've had available time to read as of late (and this for a number of factors, the primary being doing research/background for my paper on αλλα); the second is that the book didn't suck me in.

Let me be a little more clear. I've really wanted to be sucked into this book; the title sounds like something I should really be interested in. But, apart from the first essay, it didn't. I'm grateful to have the book, and am sure the essays will prove helpful in the long run, but for now it isn't drawing me in.

Here is the blurb from Hendrickson:

This is a collection of pivotal essays by E. A. Judge, who initiated many important discussions in the establishment of social scientific criticism of the Bible.

What is it that made the work of Judge in 1960 and in subsequent years so important? Judge was the first in scholarship after the mid-twentieth century to clarify early Christian ideals about society by defining what the social institutions of the broader cultural context were and how they influenced the social institutions of the early Christian communities. Judge points out that earlier scholars had entered into this field of inquiry, but that, in general, they failed due to the lack of careful definitions of the Greco-Roman social institutions at the time based on a thorough use of the primary sources.

Thus, Judge was the “new founder” ( a turning point in scholarship) of what came to be called social-scientific criticism of the New Testament. Social-scientific criticism is the term in scholarship that refers to the use of social realities (e.g. institutions, class, factors of community organization) in the critical study of literary sources available (this is an advance over “merely” literary and traditional historical questions).

And here is the TOC:

Introduction by David M. Scholer
Permissions

1. The Social Pattern of the Christian Groups in the First Century
2. Paul’s Boasting in Relation to Contemporary Professional Practice
3. St. Paul and Classical Society
4. St. Paul as a Radical Critic of Society
5. The Social Identity of the First Christians: A Question of Method in Religious History
6. Rank and Status in the World of the Caesars and St. Paul
7. Cultural Conformity and Innovation in Groups in the First Century Paul: Some Clues from Contemporary Documents
8. The Teacher as Moral Exemplar in Paul and the Inscriptions of Ephesus

• A Comprehensive Bibliography of the Society Publications of Edwin A. Judge
• First Index of Modern Authors
• Index of Subjects
• Index of Ancient Sources

Why? Because, if you take the time to read or at least peruse their 330 page Introduction to their NT (amazon.com) (published in a second volume with an appendix), you see that they fill in most if not all of the details of the how & why of their edition.

What sort of stuff? Well ... who'd've thunk that two pages on casing of κυριος, Χριστος and υψιστος would be appropriate? Sometimes on reading an upper-cased Κυριος or a lower-cased χριστος (In NA27, not WH) I've often wondered "why is that one upper-cased/lower-cased?"

WH show their work and tell you why, at least in their edition — and why, in four instances in Luke (Lu 1.32; Lu 1.35; Lu 1.75; Lu 6.35) they also upper-cased Υψιστος. They take two pages (pp. 316-318; §§414-416) to tell you. Here's §416, explaining their capitalization of Υψιστος:

416. An initial capital has likewise been used for Υψιστος in the four places, all in St Luke's Gospel, in which it stands in the singular without an article. In this shape it exactly represents the anarthrous Elion, a very ancient name not confined to the Jews, and is virtually itself a proper name. In the LXX the article is usually inserted: but in Ecclesiasticus, doubtless a better authority for Palestinian custom, Υψιστος occurs frequently, and has the article but once, except in combination with another title.

More than you ever wanted to know, but helpful nonetheless. If you're looking for a copy of WH's Intro/Appendix, then you want the 1896 edition which has corrections/updates.

Why do I like this so? Whether I agree or not, I can at least know what in the world they were thinking. You can't do that with any other print edition; none are nearly as transparent as WH were. We'd all do well to re-learn this lesson.

Wipf & Stock have done a recent photo-reprint, available in paperback (amazon.com).

Hendrickson did a reprint in the late 1980's, in hardcover (amazon.com). Some used copies of this are available via Amazon.

Which do I recommend? I don't know, I've not used any of the reprint editions. Years ago, I found a copy of the 1896 edition via abebooks from a seller in Australia and snapped it up quickly.

If you work with the Greek New Testament and do anything remotely pertaining to textual criticism (the appendix "Notes on Select Readings" is a mini-Metzger for WH's edition and their "Notes on Orthography" will tell you more than you wanted to know about spelling in their edition); or if you have interest in orthography, punctuation, and other particulars of producing and fully utilizing a printed edition of the Greek NT, then you need this book; whether the Hendrickson hardcover (amazon.com) or the Wipf & Stock softcover (amazon.com).

Update (2008-05-14): Thanks to Mark from the Bible and Tech blog for pointing out that WH's Intro/Appendix volume is available via Google Books. So grab it and absorb!

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?