Library of New Testament Studies Latest Titles

Library of New Testament Studies latest titles include:

Continuum Highlights New Titles in the Library of New Testament Studies Series

2011 IPG Independent Publisher of the Year and Academic & Professional Publisher of the Year

Contours in the Text: Textual Variation in the Writings of Paul, Josephus and the Yahad Jonathan D. H. Norton Norton-Piliavsky places Paul's work within the context of ancient Jewish literary practice, bridging the gap between textual criticism and social history in contemporary discussions. The author argues that studies of ancient Jewish exegesis draw on two distinct analytical modes: the text-critical and the socio-historical. He then shows that the two are usually joined together in discussions of ancient Jewish literature arguing that as a result of this, commentators often allow the text-critical approach to guide their efforts to understand historical questions. Published: February 2011 | Hardback: £60.00 Fourth Gospel in First-Century Media Culture Edited by Anthony Le Donne and Tom Thatcher Werner Kelber's The Oral and the Written Gospel substantially challenged predominant paradigms for understanding early Jesus traditions and the formation of written Gospels. Since that publication, a more precise and complex picture of first-century media culture has emerged. Yet while issues of orality, aurality, performance, and mnemonics are now well voiced in Synoptic Studies, Johannine scholars remain largely unaware of such issues and their implications. The highly respected contributors to this book seek to fill this lacuna by exploring various applications of orality, literacy, memory, and performance theories to the Johannine Literature in hopes of opening new avenues for future discussion. Published: February 2011 | Hardback: £65.00 Abuse, Power and Fearful Obedience: Reconsidering 1 Peter's Commands to Wives Jennifer G. Bird Bird analyzes the construction of wives' subjectivity in 1 Peter, working primarily with that is referred to as the Haustafel (household code) section and engaging feminist critical questions, postcolonial theory, and materialist theory in her analysis. Bird examines the two crucial labels for understanding Petrine Christian identity - 'aliens and refugees' and 'royal priesthood and holy nation' - and finds them to stand in stark contract with the commands and identity given to the wives in the Haustafel section. Similarly, the command to 'honour the Emperor', which immediately precedes the Haustafel, engenders a rich discussion of the text's socio-political implications. Published: July 2011 | Hardback: £65.00 Prayer and Vindication in Luke — Acts: The Theme of Prayer within the Context of the Legitimating and Edifying Objective of the Lukan Narrative Geir O. Holmas Holmas asserts that the distribution of strategically-placed prayer notices and prayers throughout Luke-Acts serves a twofold purpose. First, it is integral to Luke's project of authenticating the Jesus-movement as accredited by Israel's God. Holmas shows that Luke presents a consistent pattern of divine affirmation and redemption attending the tenacious prayers of the faithful ones throughout every major phase of his narrative — in turn demonstrating continuity with the pious Israel of the past. Secondly, most importantly the 'ultimate' purpose of Luke 's emphasis on prayer is didactical. In Luke's gospel Jesus summons his disciples (and implicitly his readers) to confident and persistent prayer before the Eschaton, assuring them of God's readiness to answer their entreaties. Published: March 2011 | Hardback: £70.00 Paul as Missionary: Identity, Activity, Theology, and Practice Edited by Trevor J. Burke and Brian S. Rosner Paul as Missionary: Identity, Activity, Theology and Practice takes the view that before anything else Paul must first and foremost be identified as a 'missionary'. Using the entire Pauline corpus the contributors to this volume assess what Paul's correspondence can tell us about how he perceived his role and identity. The work comprises four parts: in section one, Paul's identity as priest, eschatological herald, and missionary-pastor are explored while in part two topics such as the apostle's activity among pagans, his suffering, and Paul 's 'missionary message' to the church at Rome are considered. Section three comprises essays on the Spirit as the governing dynamic, the glory of God as the apostle's missionary goal, and the importance of Paul's Christology in shaping his mission to the Gentiles. Finally, part four addresses Paul's missionary praxis, including his support of his missionary enterprise. Published: March 2011 | Hardback: £70.00 The Danielic Eschatological Hour in the Johannine Literature Stefanos Mihalios Stefanos Mihalios examines the uses of the 'hour' in the writings of John and demonstrates the contribution of Danielic eschatology to John's understanding of this concept. Mihalios begins by tracing the notion of an eschatological time in the Old Testament within expressions such as 'in that time ' and 'time of distress,' which also appear in the book of Daniel and relate to the eschatological hour found in Daniel. Mihalios finds that even within the Jewish tradition there exists an anticipation of the fulfillment of the Danielic eschatological time, since the eschatological hour appears in the Jewish literature within contexts that allude to the Danielic end-time events. Mihalios moves on to examines the Johannine eschatological expressions and themes that have their source in Daniel, finding evidence of clear allusions whenever the word 'hour' arises. Published: March 2011 | Hardback: £65.00 'Who is this son of man?': The Latest Scholarship on a Puzzling Expression of the Historical Jesus Edited by Larry W. Hurtado and Paul L. Owen This book is the first ever collection of scholarly essays in English devoted specifically to the theme of the expression 'son of man'. It describes the major competing theories which have addressed questions such as: What is the original Aramaic expression which lies behind the Greek phrase, and what was its original connotation? How do the gospel writers use the expression 'son of man'? Is it a Christological title, pregnant with meaning, much like the titles son of God, Christ/Messiah, and son of David? Is it used as a way of designating Jesus as a human being of unique redemptive significance? Or does it rather originate in a nuanced use (obscured in Greek translation) of an Aramaic expression used in place of the first person pronoun, as an indefinite pronoun, or for generic statements about human beings? Published: March 2011 | Hardback: £70.00 Dialogue Not Dogma: Many Voices in the Gospel of Luke Raj Nadella Lukan scholars offer varying responses to the issue of divergent viewpoints in the gospel regarding the identity of Jesus, wealth, women, and the emphasis on doing vis-á-vis hearing. Many forms of criticism attempt to explain or harmonize these apparent contradictions. Conversely, Raj Nadella argues that there is no dominant viewpoint in Luke and that the divergence in viewpoints is a unique literary feature to be celebrated rather than a problem to be solved. Nadella interprets selected Lukan passages in light of Bakhtinian concepts such as dialogism, loophole, and exotopy to show that the disparate perspectives, and interplay between them, display Luke's superior literary skills rather than his inability to produce a coherent work. Published: March 2011 | Hardback: £60.00 Paul's Use of the Old Testament in Romans 9.10-18: An Intertextual and Theological Exegesis Brian J. Abasciano Abasciano builds upon his previous LNTS volume, Paul's Use of the Old Testament in Romans 9.1-9, continuing the project begun in that volume and its intertextual methodology. This method incorporates into a thorough traditional exegesis a comprehensive analysis of Paul's use of Scripture against the background of interpretive traditions surrounding the texts alluded to, with great emphasis placed on analyzing the original contexts of Paul's citations and allusions. Such an intertextual exegesis is conducted in Romans 9:10-18 with an awareness of the broader unit of chapters 9-11 especially, and also the epistle as a whole. Conclusions for the meaning of these passages and their theological significance are drawn. Published: April 2011 | Hardback: £60.00 Conversion of the Nations in Revelation Allan J. McNicol Allan McNicol examines the longstanding tension between the author of Revelation's description of the destruction of unrepentant nations early in the book in contrast with their final experience of salvation in Rev 21.24-26. McNicol examines how the author of Revelation interprets and re-fashions both scripture and the myths of the age in order to lay out his vision of redemption — leading to his ultimate conclusion that human political power (Rome) will crumble before the influence of the crucified Jesus. Through careful attention to references to the 'pilgrimage to the Gentiles' in prophetic literature, McNicol is able to draw valuable conclusions as to how the core tension examined may be resolved. Published: April 2011 | Hardback: £60.00 Back to top

Was Winston Churchill a Myth (a pig in a hat)?

One of my favourite comedians is Stewart Lee and I am loving the second series of his Comedy Vehicle currently airing on BBC2.  The most recent episode featured a hilarious sketch that reminded me, with all due respect and with apologies, of the Jesus Mythicists.  It's about the historical evidence for Winston Churchill who, it turns out, was actually just a pig in a hat. (Warning: contains expletives):

Michael Thompson's Clothed with Christ

It's good to see that Wipf and Stock have re-published Michael Thompson's Clothed With Christ The Example and Teaching of Jesus in Romans 12.1—15.13, which was originally published by Sheffield Academic Press.

New JSNT

The latest issue of the Journal for the Study of the New Testament is now out. Here is the alert:

Journal for the Study of the New Testament -- Table of Contents Alert

A new issue of Journal for the Study of the New Testament has been made available:

1 June 2011; Vol. 33, No. 4

URL: http://jnt.sagepub.com/content/vol33/issue4/?etoc

-----------------------------------------------------------------
Articles
-----------------------------------------------------------------

'Who Can Forgive Sins but God Alone?' Human and Angelic Agents, and Divine Forgiveness in Early Judaism
Daniel Johansson
Journal for the Study of the New Testament 2011;33 351-374
http://jnt.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/33/4/351?etoc

Not the Prologue of John
P.J. Williams
Journal for the Study of the New Testament 2011;33 375-386
http://jnt.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/33/4/375?etoc

Exploring the Sense-scape of the Gospel of Mark
Louise Lawrence
Journal for the Study of the New Testament 2011;33 387-397
http://jnt.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/33/4/387?etoc

Book Review: Gunnar Samuelsson, Crucifixion in Antiquity: An Inquiry into the Background of the New Testament Terminology of Crucifixion (Dissertation, University of Gothenburg, 2010)
Brian Pounds
Journal for the Study of the New Testament 2011;33 398-405
http://jnt.sagepub.com/cgi/reprint/33/4/398?etoc

Stoic Physics and the Christ-event: A Review of Troels Engberg-Pedersen, Cosmology and Self in the Apostle Paul: The Material Spirit (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010)
John M.G. Barclay
Journal for the Study of the New Testament 2011;33 406-414
http://jnt.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/33/4/406?etoc

Paul in the Stoa Poecile: A Response to Troels Engberg-Pedersen, Cosmology and Self in the Apostle Paul: The Material Spirit (Oxford, 2010)
John R. Levison
Journal for the Study of the New Testament 2011;33 415-432
http://jnt.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/33/4/415?etoc

Paul's Body: A Response to Barclay and Levison
Troels Engberg-Pedersen
Journal for the Study of the New Testament 2011;33 433-443
http://jnt.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/33/4/433?etoc

66 Books in 66 seconds

The University of Nottingham's Bibledex project has enjoyably edited together its scholars saying the 66 books of the Bible in order in 66 seconds:

Duke University Dept of Religion Facebook page

We now have our own Facebook page. Please come and visit and "like" us:

Duke University Department of Religion Facebook page

B-Greek on the move

One of my earliest experiences of the internet was going on b-greek, the Biblical Greek mailing list, back in the mid 90s. I remember thinking, "Wow, this internet thing is amazing! You can get regular 'emails' plopping into your Pegasus 'inbox' that discuss natty little problems of New Testament Greek!" I remember being so excited that I printed out the daily digest and read it on the train (from university station up to Kings Norton) on the way home.

The list has been going since 1992 and for many of us it has been a great way of discussing interesting problems in NT and related texts. Even when one is not contributing, it is often great to listen in to what others are discussing, even if there is something of a tendency towards theological topics.

Well, now it is on the move. It is morphing from an email list to a forum set-up and you can access the new b-greek here:

B-Greek: The Biblical Greek Forum

Now it is divided up into lots of little "interest groups" and there are other advantages like unicode support and better searchability. I am going to miss the old email list format, but I have already registered for the new forum and I am going to follow via RSS feed and add it to my blogroll so that I don't miss anything important.

Update (11.12am): On second thoughts, the volume of posts on the b-greek forum is going to flood my blogroll so I will take it off the blogroll for now and perhaps create a new one in due course that incorporates the other e-lists too.

Rejected Exam Paper

David Rattigan this morning tweeted this hilarious Rejected Exam Paper on the New Testament, which he penned ten years ago, in the spirit of 1066 and All That. Here's the link and a sample:

Rejected Exam Paper

4. Would you say that Cleopatra was directly responsible for the corporeal decline of Herod the Great? If not, what would you say?

5. Describe, in excessive detail, the woman at the well. What were her pneumatological implications? Could you suggest a suitable remedy?

6. Briefly solve the synoptic problem (3-4 lines max). Explain why the problem still baffles scholars today, and suggest what should be done to them.

Sepphoris 2011 Excavations

My colleagues Eric Meyers and Carol Meyers, and graduate student Alan Todd are pictured here excavating in Sepphoris.  There is a new blog dedicated to the dig:

David Hendin's Sepphoris 2011 Excavation Blog

It's a really thorough, day by day, detailed account and there are tons of pictures.  Really makes you wish that you were there!

Sharon Mattila's Statistics and the Synoptic Problem: Some Quibbles

One of my favourite spare time activities is to dip into statistical studies of the Synoptic Problem. One day I might even write something about it. In going back over an article by Sharon Lea Mattila recently, I noticed that I had scribbled all over my print copy and that some of my scribblings might usefully be transferred to a blog post lest they get lost.

The article I wish to comment on is Sharon Lea Mattila, "Negotiating the Clouds Around Statistics and 'Q': A Rejoinder and Independent Analysis," Novum Testamentum 46/2 (2004): 105-31.  The article is a detailed, lengthy and frequently polemical response to Charles E. Carlston and Dennis Norlin, "Statistics and Q -- Some Further Observations," NovT 41 (1999), itself largely a response to an earlier article by Mattila.  For an excellent summary of  these and other works on statistical studies of the Synoptic Problem, and for full bibliography, see John Poirier, "Statistical Studies of the Verbal Agreements and their Impact on the Synoptic Problem," Currents in Biblical Research 7 (2008): 68-123.

The gist of the article is that Mattila thinks that Carlston and Norlin have overstated the case that Matthew and Luke preserved the Q sayings more faithfully than the Marcan sayings.  One of the key elements in the article is "an independent statistical analysis" that attempts to avoid what she sees as the flaws in their earlier study.

My comments here relate to difficulties with Mattila's figures tabulated on pp. 125-6 of the article:

(1) Mattila claims to avoid "such pitfalls as including sayings containing words from Scripture" (p. 121) but two of her parallels feature quotations from Scripture:

• Matt. 10.34-6 // Luke 12.51-53 quotes Micah 7.6
• Matt. 21.13 // Luke 19.46 is a famous composite quotation of Isa. 56.7 and Jer. 7.11.

(2) Mattila makes the interesting methodological move to count passages normally attributed to Mark-Q overlap as Triple Tradition (p. 122). In some contexts, this could be a strong and defensible move, e.g. it could help us to take seriously the existence of major agreements in triple tradition material, something that has a bearing on arguments for and against the 2ST. However, in this context, in which she is discussing Carlston and Norlin, and dealing specifically with claims about a written Q in comparison with a written Mark, she is potentially transferring material that should be in one table to the other. Four of her Triple Tradition pericopes are in Mark / Q overlap
contexts:

• Matt. 10.19-20 // Luke 12.11-12
• Matt. 13.31b-2 // Luke 13.18b-19
• Matt. 16.6b // Luke 12.1b
• Matt. 18.6-7 // Luke 17.1b-3a.

It's an important difficulty with the analysis when evidence that belongs on one side of the experiment ends up on the other.

(3) Mattila includes the Lucan woes in her analysis in spite of the fact that they have no parallel in Matthew, and against her stated objective of treating Aland's synopsis divisions as the standard.  She is conscious that this is problematic (p. 121).

(4) This is a point that is rarely treated seriously in statistical studies of the Synoptics.  Parable material occupies an interesting position here in that it is both sayings  material (in attribution to Jesus) and narrative (in form).  Parallel parables appear often to be much less close to one another in wording than is other sayings material. Indeed, they sometimes imitate the way that narrative material appears. Mattila's double tradition table includes four parables across 47 verses of Matthew:

• Matt. 7.24-27 // Luke 6.47-9
• Matt. 18.12-14 // Luke 15.4-7
• Matt. 22.2-14 // Luke 14.16b-24
• Matt. 25.14-30 // Luke 19.12b-27

Her triple tradition table includes three parables across only 23 verses in Matthew (the second is the Mark-Q overlap parable of the Mustard Seed listed also above):

• Matt. 13.3b-9 and 18-23 // Luke 8.5-8a and 11-15
• Matt. 13.31b-32 // Luke 13.18-19
• Matt. 21.33-40 // Luke 20.9b-15

(5) Unlike Carlston and Norlin, Mattila excludes from consideration speech from characters other than Jesus (John the Baptist, the Centurion, etc.).  I am not sure about this move, especially as they include famous examples of very high verbatim agreement, thereby potentially skewing the figures for the double tradition.

The Synoptic Problem for Kindle (free)

I mentioned recently that I had made available my 2001 book The Synoptic Problem: A Way Through the Maze, with the help of colleagues at Duke University Libraries, over at the internet archive.  You can read online, download as a PDF and so on.

With thanks to one of my readers, it is now also available for free for your kindle -- just go to the archive.org page for the links.

Lead Codices and the Media

Thomas Verenna has an excellent article in Bible and Interpretation on the fake metal codices, with special emphasis on the media failure to check with the experts:

Artifacts and the Media: Lead Codices and the Public Portrayal of History

Robert Cargill lays into Simcha Jacobovici's Nails of the Cross

Bob Cargill has published an excellent, thorough debunking of the ludicrous Nails of the Cross documentary that recently aired on the History Channel:

A Critique of Simcha Jacobovici’s Secrets of Christianity: Nails of the Cross

Simcha makes two bold claims to say the least: the first is that the lost nails of Jesus’ crucifixion have been recovered, and the second is an implicit assertion that the IAA covered it up. Unfortunately for Simcha, his theory has a problem, and its name is Legion, for they are many. Any one of these problems renders Simcha’s theory impossible, and their aggregate renders the theory preposterous.

Bob does not mince his words but at the same time patiently demonstrates why the theory is so absurd. My comments on the fiasco are gathered here.

One of the elements mentioned by Bob is the work of Barrie Wilson who has apparently co-authored a book with Simcha Jacobovici to come out next year on the Arabic Infancy Gospel of the Savior.  Wilson's website provides a teaser:

BRIDE OF GOD:
A Lost Gospel of Jesus’ Marriage to Mary Magdalene
by Simcha Jacobovici and Barrie Wilson

In Bride of God: A Lost Gospel of Jesus’ Marriage to Mary Magdalene, the authors take us into the world of an early Christian community that encoded its beliefs in a now forgotten manuscript, presently collecting dust in the British Museum. In the course of the investigation, the authors decode the manuscript using techniques employed by early Christians for understanding ancient writings. Part mystery story, part adventure/travel and part historical investigation, Bride of God reveals up to now unknown details about Jesus’ family, sexuality and marriage . . . .

Good grief.

Subscribing by email to the NT Blog and the NT Pod

A correspondent asked about an email subscription option for the NT Blog.  I hadn't realized that I had not set one up and I have now done so:

Subscribe to NT Blog by Email

While I was at it, I made sure I also had an email subscription option for the NT Pod:

Subscribe to NT Pod by Email

I've added links on the sidebars of each page too.

Continued Media Fail on the Fake Metal Codices

Over on Paleojudaica, Jim Davila is keeping an eye on the Fake Metal Codices with a new and uninformed piece in the Christian Science Monitor. As Jim notes, there is no attempt to try to find experts to comment on the piece.

I was listening to a most enjoyable (but far too short) programme from BBC World Service the other day on the Hitler Diaries, Witness: The Hitler Diaries Hoax (podcast version here).  In a day before the internet and blogging (1983), it took the media about a week to realize that they had been sold a hoax.  This story has now been running for two months without any widespread recognition that they are fakes and with few serious attempts to consult experts.  It's pathetic.

Biblioblogging Carnival

Dr Jim has composed a fantastic biblioblogging carnival for the month of April:

It's the Jolly Great Hodge Podge Biblioblogging Carnival!

It's a tour de force. And it has pictures too.

Dating the Last Supper a Day Early?

BBC News reported earlier this week on an interesting seasonal story about the date of the Last Supper:

Jesus Christ's Last Supper 'was on a Wednesday'

The gist of the story is that Colin Humphreys, a metallurgist and materials scientist at the University of Cambridge, claims that Jesus and the Synoptics were working with one (older) calendar, according to which Passover fell that year on the Wednesday, while John was working with the standard calendar, according to which Passover fell that year on the Friday evening / Sabbath.

The story made it into the L.A. Times (link courtesy of Jim Davila, who also reports an email comment from Geza Vermes) and there are fuller versions at Cambridge University's research pages, The Penultimate Supper? and in an article written by Humphreys himself in Bible and Interpretation, The Mystery of the Last Supper: Reconstructing the Last Days of Jesus. These articles are all advertising Humphreys's new book, The Mystery of the Last Supper, now out from Cambridge University Press.

This is an ingenious proposal that attempts to squeeze every element in the Gospel Passion chronology into a harmonized whole.  If I have understand the case properly, and I have not yet had a chance to read the book, the effective timetable, on Humphreys's scheme, looks like this:

Wednesday evening: Last Supper (Old Passover: Synoptics; before the Official Passover: John)
Thursday: Trial before the Sanhedrin
Friday: Trial before Pilate and Crucifixion
Sabbath: "Official" Passover (John)

This scheme of contrasting Passovers attempts to resolve the conflict over the date of the crucifixion.  It attempts to harmonize all the varying statements in the Gospels.  When the Synoptics talk about Jesus eating the Passover, they are talking about Passover on an old calendar.  When John talks about events before Passover , he is talking about Passover on the "official" calendar.  So both types of statements, eating the meal before the Passover and during the Passover, can be harmonized.

It is a neat solution and I'll have to read the book to get the detail but on the basis of the sketch, let me outline my problems with the proposal:

(1) One of Humphreys's primary concerns is to avoid the idea that the Gospels "contradict themselves".  The concern is one that characterizes apologetic works and it is not a concern that I share.  Nevertheless, if it is to be a concern, then it needs to be reiterated that as they stand, the Gospels do "contradict themselves" and this proposal does not succeed in avoiding the contradiction.  What the Synoptics are calling "the Passover" is set on a different day from what John is calling "the Passover".  The Synoptics do not distinguish the Passover that Jesus is celebrating from the Passover that everyone else was celebrating (e.g. Mark 14.1-2) and John shows no awareness of an alternative Passover date.  What Humphreys's proposal does is to try to explain the contradiction in the light of a proposed underlying history;  it does not remove the contradiction.

(2) It is not just Jesus and his disciples in the Synoptics who think that it is Passover.  It is Pilate and the crowds too (Mark 15.6,8).

(3) Proposals that attempts to harmonize discrepant accounts usually end up placing strain on the narrative(s) at other points.  This proposal is no exception.  The pay-off, for Humphreys, in the Wednesday evening Last Supper is that this allows more time for the trials to take place.  But according to Mark, the trial before the High Priest and the Sanhedrin took place on the same night as the Last Supper and not the next day.  It receives a marked emphasis:

Mark 14.30: καὶ λέγει αὐτῷ ὁ Ἰησοῦς· Ἀμὴν λέγω σοι ὅτι σὺ σήμερον αύτῃ τῇ νυκτὶ πρὶν ἢ δὶς ἀλέκτορα φωνῆσαι τρίς με ἀπαρνήσῃ

Mark 14.30: Amen I say to you: Today, this very night, before the cock crows twice, you will deny me three times.

Peter's denial in Mark is famously intertwined with the trial before the High Priest -- it is taking place at night, that night, before the cock crows (Mark 14.53-72).

(4) The clear indication is that the events of Mark 15 follow straight on from the end of Mark 14, beginning "Early" (πρωΐ,15.1) without an additional unmentioned day intervening.

(5) Humphreys is concerned that a night trial before the Sanhedrin would be illegal.  It is true that this concern is often repeated in the literature, but the basis for it is weak.  The authoritative work on Mishnah Tractate Sanhedrin by Jacob Neusner concludes that that tractate is not a useful guide to what obtained in Jerusalem in the pre-70 period.  It is an idealized re-imagination of what went on before 70.

(6) Humphreys is also concerned about the rushed timetable that is implied. I don't share this concern for two reasons, historical and liturgical.  The historical concern: we should be wary of importing our own ideas of what a "trial" ought to include.  In the ancient world, these "trials" were often summary, ad hoc, ruthless affairs.  The liturgical issue: If early Christians were remembering the Passion as they celebrated Passover, it is easy to imagine how the retelling compressed the narrative.  The apparently tight timetable is more about liturgical remembering than historical memory.

Now it may be that some of my concerns are dealt with in the book, which I hope to read in due course.  But on the basis of the press releases and summary articles, I think the proposal is flawed for these reasons.

Reflecting on the BBC/HBO Passion

It's a great pleasure to read Matt Page's Few Thoughts on The Passion. It is three years now since it aired on BBC1 in Easter 2008 and there is still no sign of its appearance here on HBO. I remember the producer, Nigel Stafford-Clark, mentioning that it might be "some time" before HBO screened it but I didn't imagine it would be four (or more) years. And sadly, it will do so now after the death of the writer Frank Deasy in 2009.

I have only re-watched parts of it again since 2008 and Matt's post reminds me that it would be rewarding to go back and watch it in toto again. He makes an interesting point about how time has changed the perception of several of the actors. One that I would add would be Ben Daniels who was a brilliant Caiaphas in The Passion and who, since then, has become a staple of Law and Order (UK), now already in its fourth series. I started watching that in part out of curiosity to see Ben Daniels in another role (and in part to see Freema Agyeman, Martha from Doctor Who, acting alongside him) and I have come to love the programme. Daniels plays a role a little similar to Caiaphas, a lawyer working for the CPS, though perhaps a little less stern and a little more kindly in this.

Passion Podcasts 2: The Horror of Crucifixion

The second Passion Podcast this year is NT Pod 54: The Horror of Crucifixion  It looks at the archaeological and literary evidence and reflects on its relevance to the Passion Narratives in the Gospels.

If you are interested in other episodes of the podcast, please visit the NT Pod web page or subscribe in your preferred reader or subscribe via iTunes. Or, of course, you can follow the NT Pod on Twitter or on the NT Pod Facebook page.

In Our Time on the Pelagian Controversy

In Our Time today, on Radio 4, discussed the Pelagian Controversy. Caroline Humfress, Martin Palmer and John Milbank were in the studio with Melvyn Bragg. If you are not familiar with the programme, you might be pleased to know that it is available as a podcast.

Passion Podcasts 1: Are the Passion Narratives "Prophecy Historicized"?

Around this time of year, as Easter approaches and as I get to the end of my latest  Historical Jesus class, I like to theme my podcasts with the Passion.  One of the latest episodes is NT Pod 53: Are the Passion Narratives "Prophecy Historicized"?  It discusses the origins of the Passion Narratives, contrasting John Dominic Crossan's theory of "prophecy historicized" with the idea that they are actually "tradition scripturalized".

For those who would like to explore further, I have an article out on the topic and I've reproduced it on the web for those who don't have access to the book:

Mark Goodacre, "Scripturalization in Mark's Crucifixion Narrative" in Geert van Oyen and Tom Shepherd (eds.), The Trial and Death of Jesus: Essays on the Passion Narrative in Mark (Leuven: Peeters, 2006): 33-47

I also have an unpublished piece available here, the Swan lecture at Nebraskan Wesleyan University, February 2006:

Mark Goodacre, "When Prophecy became Passion: The Death of Jesus and the Birth of the Gospels"

If you are interested in other episodes of the podcast, please visit the NT Pod web page or subscribe in your preferred reader or subscribe via iTunes. Or, of course, you can follow the NT Pod on Twitter or on the NT Pod Facebook page.

Doctor Who and Textual Criticism

I like to make it a personal challenge to find as many ways of relating Doctor Who and the academic study of Christian Origins as possible (e.g. Unreliability of Eye-witnesses of Doctor Who) so it is gratifying to see Chuck Grantham over on A 'Goula Blogger doing the same thing, relating Copies of copies of copies . . . . of Biblical manuscripts to copies of copies of copies of old VHS videos of Doctor Who among American fans in the 1980s.

Nails in the coffin of the Nails of the Cross documentary

Before Simcha Jacobovici's Nails of the Cross documentary has even aired, it looks like the story has died. Where news stories have continued to appear, they generally have riders like "Experts doubt it", which is encouraging to see.  When the Washington Post weighed in on Friday, they quoted Gabriel Barkay to the following effect:

"There’s no proof whatsoever that they originate in the tomb of Caiaphas,” he said. “It’s all conjecture."

Even if we were sure that these nails came from the Caiaphas tomb, and even if we were sure that it is Caiaphas the High Priest's tomb, it is of course bonkers to assume that these nails would have been the nails from Jesus' crucifixion.  But Barkay's comment makes clear that there is nonsense on top of nonsense here.

I took a look at the History Channel's schedules and noticed that they are broadcasting this documentary at 11pm, which hardly sounds like a ringing endorsement!

Simcha's Nails: Illustrating the Problem

I know that I should leave the story alone, but perhaps I may draw attention to at least one element in the reports that illustrate the problem with Simcha Jacobovici's absurd claims to have found the nails that crucified Jesus.  Time Magazine's report features this statement:

The Nails of the Cross dwells on 1st century non-Gospel writings that portray Caiaphas as an eventual follower of Christ.

Now it is of course possible that the Time reporter has misunderstood something in the documentary, but I would not be surprised if this kind of nonsense is present given that the Lost Tomb of Jesus website features several clams of this kind that are demonstrably false.

So let us be clear.  There are no "first century non-Gospel writings that portray Caiaphas as an eventual follower of Christ".  In fact there are precious few first century sources that mention Caiaphas at all.  He appears by name in Matthew, Luke and John (and arguably as the unnamed "high priest" in Mark 14) and he appears twice, briefly, in Josephus's Antiquities 18.  As far as I am aware, that is it for the literary record.   In none of these, nor in any other writings from the early centuries does Caiaphas become a follower of Christ.

Indeed the scarcity of the literary record on Caiaphas draws attention to one of the many other difficulties with the claim about the nails, that Caiaphas was only associated with the crucifixion of one man, for example here:

Caiaphas, infamous for the crucifixion of only one man, could have asked his offspring to place the nails in his ossuary, speculated the filmmaker.

This idea, of Caiaphas's infamy in relation to Jesus, is a feature in most of the articles that have been written about it. But we simply don't know anything about other crucifixions that Caiaphas may or may not have been involved with. Josephus does not associate him with any crucifixions, but he does not associate him with anything much at all. And I'd have guessed that the Romans crucified other Jews in Judea in Caiaphas's time as High Priest too (c. 18-36).

And in fact our sources, meager as they are, do mention two more crucifixions carried out by the Romans while Caiaphas was high priest, of two men (brigands, insurgents) along with Jesus (Mark 15.27 and par.). I think it is historically naive to imagine that these were the only three crucifixions carried out in the eighteen year period from 18 to 36, while Caiaphas was high priest.

That is just for starters, and already treats the claims with more respect than they are due.

How should scholars react when ludicrous claims are made?

Jim West draws attention to some extraordinary comments made by Simcha Jacobovici in the Jewish Chronicle Online, My Nails Were From Jesus' Cross, in which he responds to the derision with which his claim has been met:

Mr Jacobovici reacted by telling the JC: "The minute someone says anything significant about the New Testament, the immediate response is to scoff, not to study it." He believes experts prefer to avoid making bold claims relating to the New Testament because it brings them under such intense scrutiny - and they resent it when others do so.

Perhaps, then, I should illustrate our difficulty. In 2007, Jacobovici made a documentary in which he claimed to have located the lost tomb of Jesus, in Talpiot, Jerusalem. Many of us spent a great deal of time patiently, carefully and calmly researching the claims and explaining why they were found wanting. As one element in that enterprise, I perhaps stupidly took it on myself to try expose a series of errors, inaccuracies, false statements, sensationalist claims and nonsense on the Jesus Family Tomb Website.  I labelled the post Jesus Family Tomb Website: Errors and Inaccuracies and listed seventeen of these, with explanations of where the problems lay.  There was no scoffing, no ridicule, no derision, just a calm and patient explanation of errors and inaccuracies.

It is now over four years since that post appeared and to this day every single one of those errors and inaccuracies remains on the Jesus Family tomb website.  Two years ago, I again drew attention to the post and the errors, with some reflection on our failure to make an impact.

What I think this illustrates is that it is outrageous for Simcha Jacobovici to suggest that scholars immediately scoff at his ideas without examining them.  On the contrary.  If anything, our mistake is that we spend far too much of our valuable time attempting to react in a scholarly fashion to material that would be lucky to get a passing grade if it were submitted to us by one of our students.

Since the careful, detailed and patient attempts at engaging appear to make no impact whatsoever, I think it is entirely reasonable that this time we react with the ridicule that the claims deserve.

Simcha finds crucifixion nails but has a screw loose

Simcha Jacobovici, well known as the discoverer of the Jesus Family Tomb in Talpiot, has come forward with a brilliant, self-parodying April fool's joke in which he hilariously claims to have discovered the nails used to crucify Jesus!

If only it were 1 April, and if only Jacobovici had that degree of self-awareness.  Alas, he appears to be serious and alas, the media happily report the story, with pictures of Simcha proudly but earnestly showing the nail to the camera.

This one really is breathtaking. I suppose the major encouragement here is that it could go beyond self-parody, encouraging the public to treat this kind of "archeoporn" (Jonathan Reed's term) with the ridicule it deserves.

As usual, Jim West was on the case first and Robert Cargill has some entertaining and spot-on comments. Jim Davila gathers this together with several other extraordinary stories to declare 12 April Bizarre Historical Claims Day.

I wonder if Jacobovici got the idea for the latest documentary from this scene from Black Adder?

NT Pod 52: Who is this "Son of Man"?

The latest episode of the NT Pod came out on Sunday and this time the focus is on the "Son of Man" language in the Gospels.

If you are interested in other episodes of the podcast, please visit the NT Pod web page or subscribe in your preferred reader or subscribe via iTunes. Or, of course, you can follow the NT Pod on Twitter or on the NT Pod Facebook page.

The Jordan Metal Plates and a Plastic Crocodile

One of my favourite recent posts on the Jordanian Lead Codices is this one from David Hamblin:

Jordan Metal Plates 4: Crocodile?

in which he suggests that a plastic crocodile might have been used to make one of the images.

For an excellent recent round-up of the issues, with links, see this post from Daniel O. McClellan:

Thoughts on the Jordan Lead Codices

and this one from Tom Verenna:

New Round-up on Lead Codices and Additional Information

Davila's Random Thoughts on the Fake Metal Codices

Pick of the day: Jim Davila's fantastic post, Random Thoughts on the Fake Metal Codices over on Paleojudaica.

Update (Saturday 2.11pm): Daniel O. McClellan brings into a post of its own something that he had previously noted in comments, to the following effect:

Besides the numerous reasons Elkington’s credibility has been eradicated, at least one portion of the bronze plate analyzed by Thonemann was pressed or cast from the exact same die or mold as one of the lead plates currently making the rounds. Below you can see the tree from the old bronze plate and the tree from one of the newer lead plates. They are absolutely identical. They ca me from the exact same die or mold. The lead plates are forgeries just like the bronze plates.

Daniel has helpful illustrations too. Great work.

The Lead Codices a Fake

It has been fascinating to see how the story of the lead codices has been examined on the blogs and already found wanting. I agree with James McGrath:

The biblioblogging community should be proud. It seems that yet again the collective effort of scholars and other interested parties with blogs has shed more light on an issue than the media or any one individual managed to, and has done so quickly and effectively. The next time someone asks "Why blog?" I will mention this as an example of the sort of thing that makes blogging worthwhile for all.

If you have not been following the latest developments, here are the key recent links (i.e. yesterday and today) in the blogs, all of which also have additional links:

Daniel O. McClellan: Peter Thonemann on the Lead Codices

Paleojudaica: Hebrew-Inscribed-Metal-Codices Watch: A Fake

Paleojudaica: Hebrew-Inscribed-Metal Codices Watch

Forbidden Gospels: Lead Codices? Come on!

Very well done to the bloggers who managed quickly to get on top of this story, in spite of the thin reporting, confusion and misinformation in much of the media.

UNC to launch Department of Irreligion

One of our local papers here, The Herald-Sun, is reporting today that the University of North Carolina is about to launch a new "Department of Irreligion":

NC hires William Franklin Graham III for... Department of Irreligion?

CHAPEL HILL -- The University of North Carolina is set to hire William Franklin Graham III as the founding director of what is believed to be the nation's first department of irreligious studies. Amidst campus-wide budget reductions and strategic program cuts, Dean Bernard Manakin of UNC's College of Arts and Sciences announced this bold new initiative: Establishment of a Department of Irreligion . . .

Not surprisingly, Bart Ehrman is mentioned in the article:

Of course, we could not hire someone who believes the Bible to teach the Bible. That would simply be wrong. We need people who can be objective about the document; obviously believers cannot do that," said Manakin.

One of the recent additions to UNC's Board Of Trustees, Gilbert Aussenzeit, had encouraged the university to place Dr. Bart Ehrman, the current chairman of the Department of Religion, as head of the new Department of Irreligion.

"As one of America's leading unbelievers, I thought that Ehrman would be the perfect fit, but, boy, was I quickly disabused of that notion," said Aussenzeit, a businessman from Fuquay-Varina.

"As Chancellor [Holden] Thorp explained it to me, it's OK to have a physics professor who believes in Newton's laws of motion, or a chemistry prof who accepts the periodic table, but it doesn't work that way in the humanities. There's no way you can have a religion professor who is religious," said Aussenzeit.

More on the lead codices from Jordan

There is more on the lead codices around on the blogs.  Three worth mentioning -- Exploring Our Matrix, Larry Hurtado's Blog, and a great post on Rogue Classicism, Lead Codices Silliness.

Happy 8th birthday, Paleojudaica!

Happy 8th birthday, Paleojudaica! Jim was blogging before almost all of us and he's still there, eight years later, sustaining the quality and quantity of informed news and comment.

Inscribed lead plates from Jordan

BBC News today has the following story, with thanks to Michael Thompson for the link:

Jordan battles to regain 'priceless' Christian relics
By Robert Pigott

A group of 70 or so "books", each with between five and 15 lead leaves bound by lead rings, was apparently discovered in a remote arid valley in northern Jordan somewhere between 2005 and 2007.

A flash flood had exposed two niches inside the cave, one of them marked with a menorah or candlestick, the ancient Jewish religious symbol.

A Jordanian Bedouin opened these plugs, and what he found inside might constitute extremely rare relics of early Christianity.

This feature has a few new pictures. Previous news and comments on this often garbled and still very murky story are found on Paleojudaica (and follow the links for more), Jim West's blog (with a link to Bob Cargill, and here and here).

I have no idea what to make of this given the current very thin reporting and conflicting information, but will be keeping an interested eye.

NT Pod 51: What do we know about the brothers of Jesus?

The latest episode of the NT Pod came out last week and this time the focus is on the brothers of Jesus. It is the latest in the current series of podcasts on the Historical Jesus that I am running alongside my course on the Historical Jesus at Duke this semester.

If you are interested in other episodes of the podcast, please visit the NT Pod web page or subscribe in your preferred reader or subscribe via iTunes. Or, of course, you can follow the NT Pod on Twitter or on the NT Pod Facebook page.

Graham Stanton on the Parables of Jesus

I have often blogged before on the St John's Nottingham series of Youtube videos. If I knew about this one previously, I had forgotten it. We have reached the parables in my Historical Jesus course at Duke and it's great to discover this gem. It's a real treat to see Graham Stanton again, very much missed. There is a little of Jimmy Dunn in this too, but it's mainly Stanton:

On the Pedagogical Advantages of the Q hypothesis and the Importance of Simplicity

I shared some thoughts the other day On the Pedagogical Advantages of the Q Hypothesis, suggesting that it can act as an appealing and tangible symbol of participation in academic study of the New Testament.  There is no Q in the Bible, but there is a Q in the scholar's canon, and it quickly and effectively makes the point that Higher Education is not about Bible Study.

I have also noticed other pedagogical advantages in teaching Q.  The architecture of the Two-Source Theory has an elegance, a simplicity that lends itself very nicely to teaching introductory students.  The genius of the theory is that it is able to assign a document to each major type of tradition.  People find it difficult to grasp the complexity of the Synoptic data, but refracting the data through the theory can be helpful and clear.

If one is looking to simplify the data, there are broadly two key types of material in the Synoptics, triple tradition and double tradition.  The Two-Source Theory enables the teacher to link a documentary source with each of those basic data sets.  Triple Tradition is essentially Mark's Gospel -- Matthew and Luke are copying Mark.  Double Tradition is Q -- Matthew and Luke are copying Q.

The same essential elegance is taken a step further in Streeter's classic Four-Source Theory, according to which one adds in Special Matthew and Special Luke and assigns a document to each, M and L, so that we end up with four types of material -- triple, double, Special Mt and Special Lk -- and four documents -- Mark, Q, M and L.

In fact, the model is so elegant and straightforward that I enjoy teaching it myself, and explaining how the Two-Source Theory nicely maps onto the data that it is isolating and describing.

The difficulty with the model is, sadly, that the data is not quite as simple as the model requires.  Triple tradition is contaminated throughout with material that should not be there, with major and minor agreements between Matthew and Luke against Mark.   Double Tradition is not its own unique data set but often flows into Triple Tradition, requiring the postulation of Mark-Q overlaps in order to make sense of the evidence.

Luckily, at an introductory level, one does not need to introduce the complications like the Minor and Major Agreements, and the discussion can remain on the kind of general level that keeps the model functional.  The genius of  the Two-Source Theory is that it works so well on a general level.  It's only those who linger for a little longer who find out that the devil is in the detail.

The New Testament in Antiquity on the Synoptic Problem: Some Further Issues

In a post last night, Yet Another NT Introduction Ignores the Farrer Theory, I talked about the treatment of the Synoptic Problem in Gary M. Burge, Lynn H. Cohick and Gene L. Green, The New Testament in Antiquity (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2009). I focused particularly on its ignorance of the Farrer Theory and I didn't have space to talk about some other curiosities in its presentation, and I'd like to comment on those here.

First let me pick up again on the authors' suggestion "that when Matthew and Luke make editorial changes to Mark, none of Matthew's changes show up in Luke and vice versa."  They add that "If Matthew had known Luke -- or if Luke had known Matthew -- then surely some of the changes would be apparent" (116).  It's a remarkable statement given that the triple tradition in fact features hundreds and hundreds of agreements between Matthew and Luke against Mark.  It is true that Two-Source Theorists have explanations for these, some of the major ones as "Mark-Q overlaps" and some of the minor ones as due to independent redaction, or textual corruption, but denying that they are present ought not to be a serious option in the discussion.

Other statements that I would like to question relate to their brief arguments for Marcan Priority, e.g. the statement that "While Mark's gospel is shorter, each of Mark's narratives is longer, and often details are removed in Matthew (but still assumed)"  (115).  I like the drift of the latter element here, which coheres with my argument from Fatigue, but the statement that "each of Mark's narratives is longer" is not true at all.  Many of Matthew's parallels to Marcan narrative pericopes are longer.  The impression of consistent Matthean brevity is derived largely from the triple tradition material in Matt. 8-9, where Matthew is shorter in his parallels with Mark.  Elsewhere, this is less often the norm.

A third puzzling claim is the following:

In Mark 6.5 we learn that Jesus "could not do any miracles [in Nazareth]." Matthew appears to supplement this potentially embarrassing admission by saying Jesus did no mighty work there "because of their lack of faith" (Matt. 13.58). (115).

The line quoted from Matthew is identical in Mark 6.6; Matthew does not so much supplement Mark here as contract it.  I think the authors are aiming to make a contrast between Mark's "could do no . . ." and Matthew's "did not . . .", which is the way that this argument is usually set up, but the re-statement of it loses the necessary clarity to make that point (and, incidentally, it's worth taking a look at Peter Head's Christology and the Synoptic Problem for a nuanced discussion of this example).

A fourth issue is a diagram that appears on the bottom of p. 115.  The diagram has arrows illustrating Marcan Priority plus Luke's use of Matthew.  In other words, it appears to be an inadvertent and unlabelled diagram of the Farrer theory.  But it appears to be used, in context, as a diagram that is supposed (just) to illustrate Marcan Priority, which is what is being discussed either side of it.   It may be that the arrow pointing from Matthew to Luke is deliberate, and that a subtle allusion to the Farrer theory is intended, but I doubt it.  The text goes on to talk about "whether Matthew used Luke or Luke used Matthew", which would suggest alternative arrows, one going in each direction between Matthew and Luke.  I think this lay-out could prove quite confusing to students.

Yet another NT Introduction ignores the Farrer Theory

It's déjà vu!

After noticing a recent case of Another Introduction to the Bible, Another Chance to Ignore the Farrer Theory, curiosity compelled me to check out another recent New Testament Introduction, Gary M. Burge, Lynn H. Cohick and Gene L. Green, The New Testament in Antiquity (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2009).  I had previously noticed just how gorgeous looking the book was -- a lavishly illustrated historical introduction to the New Testament with a stress on its cultural contexts.

What I had not previously noticed was that it featured a several page discussion on the Synoptic Problem (112-7) with nice diagrams, a Synopsis of a passage (Matt. 8.16-17 // Mark 1.32-4 // Luke 4.40-41) and pictures of Augustine, J. J. Griesbach, B. H. Streeter and William Farmer.  And this itself is something of a first -- I don't think I've ever seen a picture of Streeter in a New Testament introduction before, let alone Farmer.

Sadly, my initial enthusiasm soon gave way to the now all-too-familiar experience of seeing the Farrer Theory ignored.  And this example is a particularly striking one in the genre.  As far as this textbook is concerned, there are only two solutions to the Synoptic Problem actively discussed in New Testament scholarship today, the Two-Source Theory and the Griesbach Theory.  The Two-Source Theory is represented as "most popular today", indeed "so well received that some scholars refer to this result as an 'assured finding'" (116).  The latter is a quotation from Willi Marxsen in 1968.

The authors go on to explain, however, that there is "another generation of scholars", led by William Farmer, who adhere to the Griesbach Theory.  And they add that "Farmer has a growing following" (117).

The discussion of the Synoptic Problem itself proceeds along familiar lines.  Augustine gives way to Griesbach, but Griesbach does not work because Marcan Priority is more plausible (115). But once Marcan Priority is accepted, "the next question is whether Matthew used Luke or Luke used Matthew" (115).  At this point, there is reason for the Q sceptic to feel encouraged -- the right questions are being asked!

Such hopes are soon disappointed.  The authors suggest "that when Matthew and Luke make editorial changes to Mark, none of Matthew's changes show up in Luke and vice versa" (116).  "If Matthew had known Luke -- or if Luke had known Matthew -- then surely some of the changes would be apparent" (116).  And so, when the double tradition is introduced, it becomes inevitable that Q is the answer.

Technically, I suppose, the Farrer theory is represented in one half of that couple of theoretical sentences even though it is not introduced by name or properly explained.  But what I find particularly remarkable about this example is that the Q theory is introduced on the basis of an erroneous claim, the statement that Luke does not feature any of Matthew's editorial changes to Mark.  Indeed, for many, this is the appeal of the Farrer Theory, that it is able to account for the many cases of Matthew's and Luke's agreements against Mark in triple tradition.

It is an interesting state of affairs to have the Q theory expounded, for introductory students, on the basis of the denial of a large body of data that is actually foundational for those who are sceptical of the existence of Q.

On the Pedagogical Advantages of the Q hypothesis

In a comment on my post Another Introduction to the Bible, Another Chance to Ignore the Farrer Theory, one commenter (James) asks why this kind of phenomenon recurs in the introductory textbooks and he offers some interesting suggestions. Here is one of my thoughts on the issue.

There is a huge pedagogical advantage in making Q critical orthodoxy in introductory courses because it is a tangible expression of participation in proper academic New Testament studies. It is a symbol that one is doing critical scholarship and not Bible Study, that one is engaging in the academy and not the church.

The fact is that Q is not an element in most Christian Bible Studies. One of the big issues for many in teaching introductory courses on the New Testament is in persuading the students that this is going to be different from Bible Study. Q is a bit like pseudonymous authorship of the Pauline epistles -- it is something that some teachers use as a recognizable distinguishing marker that what we are doing is something different, something academic, something critical.

That is not to say that all those who advocate Q do it solely for its pedagogical advantages, of course. Many do it because they have engaged in serious study, they are familiar with the evidence, and have come to that solution. My point, though, is that Q can provide a useful shortcut, a speedy but concrete symbol of the difference between a historical approach and a confessional one.

Under such circumstances, it remains an attractive but also a useful hypothesis.

Pooh Community and Jack and Jill Exegesis in the latest BSB

The latest Biblical Studies Bulletin from Grove Books is now available online:

BSB 58 (December 2010)

It features two pieces of exegetical humour, Richard Bauckham's "Reconstructing the Pooh Community" and Michael B. Thompson's "Initial Critical-Exegetical Notes on 'Jack and Jill'".

Another Introduction to the Bible, Another Chance to Ignore the Farrer Theory

Regular readers will be familiar with the Farrer theory ignored trope.

Here we go again.

Robert Kugler and Patrick Hartin, An Introduction to the Bible (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2009) is the latest in a long line of Bible Introductions to ignore the Farrer Theory, to talk as if the Two-Source Theory is gospel, to suggest that Marcan Priority is the same thing as the Two-Source Theory and to mention only Griesbach offered as an alternative (with a brief mention also of Augustine).

Kugler and Hartin's discussion of the Synoptic Problem is found on pp. 351-5 of their introduction. They have a brief discussion of some data (352) and then they proceed to "Solutions Proposed".   Three are offered, first, "St. Augustine's Solution", then "The Griesbach Hypothesis", which is "still supported by a small number of scholars today" and then "The Two-Document Hypothesis", which is given as "the most widely accepted view" and which "helps to explain most of the difficulties in the relationship among the Gospels" (352).

The authors then provide a series of "five stages": (1) oral traditions, (2) written compilations (including Q), (3) Mark, (4) Matthew, (5) Luke-Acts.  They conclude with a section headed "The Two-Document Hypothesis Illustrated".

No arguments for the existence of Q are offered but several reasons are given for Marcan Priority (353-4), with the implication that this entails acceptance of Q.  Surprisingly, the passages offered as illustrations of the Two-Document Hypothesis include some famous examples of difficulties for the Two-Source Hypothesis, including Matthew's and Luke's major agreements against Mark 1.2-13, with special attention given to the Mal. 3.1 quotation in Mark 1.2.

One of the difficulties they face in using the Mark 1 material to illustrate the Two-Source Theory is self-contradiction.  Thus they begin with the statement, "A passage occurring in all three Synoptic Gospels is referred to as the triple tradition" (354).  They continue with the Mark 1 / Matthew 3-4 / Luke 3-4 material, noting parallels between Matthew and Luke that are not in Mark and adding, "This is known as the double tradition".

Oversimplification leads to difficulties at other points, for example:

 The Q document contains practically no narrative. Instead it presents a series of Jesus' sayings (very similar to the Gospel of Thomas which was discovered in 1945).  These sayings are recorded chiefly in the sermons in Matthew and the journey of Jesus to Jerusalem in Luke (353).

Familiarity with the reconstructed text of Q actually shows that it contains a good amount of narrative and that the contrast with the Gospel of Thomas is striking.  It is true that a lot of the double tradition is found in Matthew's sermons, but an awful lot of it occurs outside of them (Matt. 3-4, 8, 11, 23, etc.).  Quite a lot occurs outside of Luke's journey section too (Luke 3-4, 6-7).

I do understand, of course, the constraints of the New Testament introduction, but I can't help feeling a disappointment not only that the Farrer Theory is once again ignored but also that data is is not described with the kind of precision that would help students to begin to see the Synoptic Problem accurately.  The authors do not provide additional reading or links to works that would help them to fill out their knowledge in this area and to assess competing claims.

Sometimes I think that I am a bit too noisy on this subject, writing books, articles, websites, podcasting, blogging.  "There's Goodacre going on about Q again!"  But clearly, as far as these authors are concerned, I am as quiet as a mouse.  In a funny sort of way, it's quite reassuring -- I'm clearly not as irritating as I sometimes worry I might be!

Liddell-Scott Lexicon at TLG

A couple of weeks ago, there was a lot of excitement in the blogs and on the e-lists about the availability of the LSJ (Liddell-Scott-Jones) lexicon at the TLG database, free for all.   I finally got a chance to check it up yesterday only to find that it had vanished.  An inquiry on b-greek turned up the following information:

The Online LSJ was released on February 24, 2011. Within hours of its release, our site became the target of individuals attempting to download our data. By March 1 our server was bombarded by hundreds of coordinated pirate attackers seeking to break into our server security. As a consequence, we were forced to suspend access to LSJ while we are taking steps to address the security of our servers.

We are working to reestablish access gradually and hope that LSJ will be back up within the next few days.

We regret the inconvenience this action has caused to our legitimate users.

For those of us with Logos Bible Software, it's not a big loss, but I'm curious to see what the TLG version looks like, and how it integrates with the TLG, so I am looking forward to its return. I'll keep an eye out and post a notice here as soon as it's back.

Four New Titles in the Library of the New Testament Studies Series

This post is courtesy of Anna Turton on the T & T Clark Blog, advertising four new volumes in the Library of New Testament Studies series. If you would like to propose a volume for publication in the series, you can find details here.
--

There are a few months ahead of us when we have many good books coming out in the LNTS series.

There are four titles that will be available in March 2011 and one of these is Geir O. Holmås’ volume titled ‘Prayer and Vindication in Luke-Acts. The Theme of Prayer within the Context of the Legitimating and Edifying Objective of the Lukan Narrative.’ This comprehensive study discusses the literary function of prayer in Luke-Acts, employing narrative critical methodology and focuses on the theme’s relation to Luke’s historiographical aims. This study is divided into three parts. In Part I Holmås ‘sets the framework by defining the scope of examination in terms of text selection and by presenting, in a general way, the pragmatic-rhetorical motivations underlying Luke-Acts as an ancient historical work and the implications of this for the interpretation of Lukan prayer’. In Part II he examines the passages featuring prayer in Luke’s gospel, whereas in Part III he investigates the continuation of the prayer theme in Acts.

‘Who is this son of man? The Latest Scholarship on a Puzzling Expression of the Historical Jesus’, edited by Larry W. Hurtado and Paul L. Owen is another title that is coming out in March 2011. This volume is the first ever collection of scholarly essays in English devoted specifically to the theme of the expression ‘son of man’. This lively discussion is taken up by contributors such as Albert L. Lukaszewski, David Shepherd, P.J. Williams, Darrell L. Bock, Benjamin E. Reynolds and Darrell D. Hannah, as well as by both editors.

Stefanos Mihalios examines the links between the Johannine eschatological hour and the eschatological hour in the book of Daniel in his volume titled ‘The Danielic Eschatological Hour in the Johannine Literature.’ Mihalios scrutinizes here the uses of the ‘hour’ in the writings of John and demonstrates the contribution of Danielic eschatology to John’s understanding of this concept. After a thorough examination Mihalios concludes that for the Johannine Jesus use of the term ‘hour’ indicates that the final hour of tribulation and resurrection, as it is depicted in Daniel, has arrived.

There is one more title that will be published in March 2011 – a collection edited by Trevor J. Burke and Brian S. Rosner titled ‘Paul as Missionary. Identity, Activity, Theology, and Practice.’ The main theme of this volume is a view that Paul, first and foremost, must be identified as ‘missionary’, therefore all the essays use the entire Pauline corpus in attempt to discover what Paul’s correspondence can tell us about how Paul himself perceived his role and identity. The list of contributors is very impressive - Seyoon Kim, James W. Thompson, James C. Miller, Richard Gibson, Beverly Roberts Gaventa, J. Daniel Hays, J. Ayodeji Adewuya, Paul W. Barnett, Arland J. Hultgren, Karl O. Sandnes Stanley E. Porter, Roy E. Ciampa, William S. Campbell, James Ware, Steve Walton, Michael Barram and E. Randolph Richards.

I realise my short announcements do not give that much information about these great volumes, but I hope many of you will enjoy reading these books. And I promise to give you another update on LNTS books very soon.

How likely is it that Jesus' sisters were called Mary and Salome?

My recent NT Pod on the sisters of Jesus mentions Richard Bauckham's suggestion that, on the basis of statistical studies of female names, there is a 50% likelihood that Jesus' sisters were called Mary and Salome. He makes the claim in three works* in the following passage:

So is there any degree of probability that the tradition known to the Protevangelium of James, the Gospel of Philip and the source used by Epiphanius correctly preserved the actual names of two sisters of Jesus? A recent study of the recorded names of Jewish women in Palestine in the period 330 BCE-200 CE finds that, although the 247 women whose names are known bore 68 different names in all, 61 of these 247 women were called Salome (including its longer version Salomezion) and 58 were called Mary (Mariamme or Maria). In other words, these two names account for 47.7% of the women. Every second Palestinian Jewish woman must have been called either Salome or Mary. Individual sources for the names also show high percentages of these two names, making it likely that the sample is in this respect representative . . .

In the light of this statistical finding, it seems that the tradition which gives the names Mary and Salome to Jesus' sisters has a 50% chance of being correct, even if it was not based on historical memory!

But surely the inference Bauckham makes here is incorrect.  Assuming the accuracy of the statistics, and assuming two sisters (about which more anon), there is only a (nearly) 50% chance of at least ONE of the sisters being called Mary OR Salome.  Assuming only two sisters, and assuming the accuracy of the data, the chance of their being called Mary AND Salome is more like 5.8% (i.e. 61/247 x 58/247), isn't it?**  Or am I forgetting something?

* Richard Bauckham, "Salome the Sister of Jesus, Salome the Disciple of Jesus, and the Secret Gospel of Mark", Novum Testamentum 33/3 (Jul., 1991): 245-275 (253-4)
* Richard Bauckham, Jude and the Relatives of Jesus in the Early Church (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1990; 3rd edition: London & New York, T & T Clark, 2004): 43
* Richard Bauckham, Gospel Women: Studies of the Named Women in the Gospels (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2002): 233-4.

** It occurs to me that if the first sister is named Mary, the second is unlikely also to be called Mary, so we should perhaps reduce the pool to 186 names, in which case the calculation would be 61/247 x 58/186 = 7.7%.  is that right?

Update: After a useful discussion in the comments thread (see below), we have consensus that the correct figure is in fact 15.3%.  What I had forgotten was that the first child, in these calculations, could be called *either* Mary *or* Salome.  So it is still a much lower figure than Bauckham's 50% figure, but it's a bit higher than the 7.7% I was thinking about before.

NT Pod 50: The Sisters of Jesus

The latest episode of the NT Pod has just come out and the topic this time is What do we know about the sisters of Jesus?. It is the latest in the current series of podcasts on the Historical Jesus that I am running alongside my course on the Historical Jesus at Duke this semester. Admittedly, this is one that will only get a few minutes in my class on the family of Jesus next week, but it's a topic that I have recently got interested in. In fact, I'll be blogging some more detailed reflections on the topic over the coming days, which is one of the reasons I am posting the NT Pod here a bit more apeedily than I usually manage.

If you are interested in other episodes of the podcast, please visit the NT Pod web page or subscribe in your preferred reader or subscribe via iTunes. Or, of course, you can follow the NT Pod on Twitter or on the NT Pod Facebook page.

Big Books and Housework

I wonder how much housework gets done by scholars who write those really massive books? I wonder if they live in really messy houses, or if they have servants or if they have spouses who do all the domestic chores? Do others ever wonder about these things, or is it just me?

Martin Hengel video

I've been listing several videos from The Christ Files series recently. These are found on The Christ Files website in Sydney, Australia and are extracts from a longer documentary available on DVD. A trip over to Youtube provides us with some extra footage from the series, including two extended clips of Martin Hengel:





There are several enjoyable features here, not least Hengel's self-deprecating comments on his facility in English (which is, of course, far better than all of our facility with German). Hengel died in 2009 and this may well be his last recorded interview, from 2008.

There is a first part too, but the video is not working properly (audio OK).

Rachel Elior Volume, In Letters of Light

It's catch-up week for me and I see that I have had this one in my emails for several weeks:

With Letters of Light: Studies in the Dead Sea Scrolls, Early Jewish Apocalypticism, Magic, and Mysticism in Honor of Rachel Elior
(Edited by Daphna Arbel and Andrei Orlov; Ekstasis: Religious Experience from Antiquity to the Middle Ages, 2; Berlin: De Gruyter, 2011; ISBN 978-3-11-022201-2; US$ 182.00)

This collection of essays is a tribute to Rachel Elior’s decades of teaching, scholarship and mentoring. If a Festschrift reflects the individuality of the honoree, then this volume offers insights into the scope of Rachel Elior’s interests and scholarly achievements in the study of the Dead Sea Scrolls, Jewish apocalypticism, magic, and mysticism from the Second Temple period to the later rabbinic and Hekhalot developments. The majority of articles included in the volume deal with Jewish and Christian apocalyptic and mystical texts constituting the core of experiential dimension of these religious traditions.

More details at De Gruyter or Amazon. You can view the whole book in electronic form at Paperc.de.

Richard Bauckham on the Gospels as Biography and History

Here's another short video from The Christ Files series. This one features Richard Bauckham talking about the Gospels as biography, mentioning his well-known claim that the Gospels also contain eye-witness testimony:



Anyone recognize where he is being interviewed? St Andrews?