Monday, September 05, 2005

Review of Biblical Literature latest

The latest reviews from the SBL Review of Biblical Literature under the New Testament heading:

Arav, Rami and Richard A. Freund, eds.
Bethsaida: A City by the North Shore of the Sea of Galilee, vol. 3
Reviewed by Mark Fairchild

Elliott, J. K., ed.
The Collected Biblical Writings of T. C. Skeat
Reviewed by Robert Kraft

Garrow, Alan J. P.
The Gospel of Matthew's Dependence on the Didache
Reviewed by James Sweeney

Gaventa, Beverly Roberts and Patrick D. Miller, eds.
The Ending of Mark and the Ends of God: Essays in Memory of Donald Harrisville Juel
Reviewed by Kelly Iverson

Goodacre, Mark and Nicholas Perrin, eds.
Questioning Q: A Multidimensional Critique
Reviewed by Joseph Verheyden

Long, Fredrick J.
Ancient Rhetoric and Paul's Apology: The Compositional Unity of 2 Corinthians
Reviewed by Moises Silva

Marshall, I. Howard
New Testament Theology: Many Witnesses, One Gospel
Reviewed by Edward Klinkv

Økland, Jorunn
Women in Their Place: Paul and the Corinthian Discourse of Gender and Sanctuary Space
Reviewed by Davina Lopez

Økland, Jorunn
Women in Their Place: Paul and the Corinthian Discourse of Gender and Sanctuary Space
Reviewed by Joseph Marchal

Nice to see a second review already for Questioning Q, and I think I quite like being described as "the indefatigable Mark Goodacre".


Whit said...

Indefatigable seems to fit - even if I did have to look it up in the dictionary!

Hope you will continue to be so.

steph said...

infatigable is flattering because it suggests you're an irritant to the Qers - you just won't go away (and others are joining your gang), and maybe a reminder of your own work on editorial fatigue? But it's another very cross review - of course Q scholars recognise the points made, but they are not very honest about the fragility of the hypothesis. And it is not correct to compare the reconstruction of Jewish-Christian gospels to Q because the existence of the former as documents is attested externally and "Q" isn't. Also he defends Q against Perrin by appealing to a less certain text of Q, but Perrin is addresses the reconstructed Q. And I don't think that Wright's personal views are reflected in the work of the contributors (but I don't think the preface does the book any favours) I think 'Questioning Q' is a very worthwhile and necessary addition to work on the Synoptic Problem and deserves a better review.