The Yeti has arrived and the NT Pod is back!

Those who follow the NT Pod will have noticed that today, at last, it returned, after a hiatus of two months.  As I reported at the beginning of September, the delay was caused initially by microphone problems.  Since the early days, I have used a nice Blue Snowball microphone for my recordings but when I sat down with it to record back in August, the recordings were emitting a high-pitched noise.  At first I thought that it might be a computer problem but no, it occurred on different machines.  I googled for the problem and thought I had found a solution and wasted time and money with an externally powered USB hub.  The theory was that power running through the USB was causing the high-pitched noise, and an external power source might fix it.  It did not.  The high-pitched noise was there just the same as ever.

As an interim measure, I tried on several occasions to record in two of Duke's sound booths but I did not find the results satisfactory -- much too much background noise was getting picked up.

And so, I just bit the bullet and invested in a lovely new state of the art USB microphone, Blue Yeti USB Microphone.  And it works just fine.  It turns out that the problem was simply that my Snowball had broken.  It is perhaps not surprising.  I was always moving it all over the house and recording in different places and with the pop filter attached, it often fell over and no doubt got damaged too.

It's good to be back at last with a new episode.  From now on, my plan is to return to a regular recording and release schedule.

Maurice Casey Colloquium

Over on the Biblical Studies e-list, a colloquium is now underway with Maurice Casey, whose magisterial new book on the Historical Jesus will be appearing shortly (see announcement by Jim West). You can submit your questions and Prof. Casey will be answering some of the best.  I am looking forward to the discussion.

Death of Franklin Young

I am sorry to hear from Richard Hays the sad news of the death of Franklin W. Young, the Amos Ragan Kearns Professor Emeritus of New Testament and Patristic Studies at Duke Divinity School. He passed away on 25 September at the Carolina Meadows community, where he had been in residence in recent years. Our local paper, the News and Observer, has an obituary:

Franklin Woodrow Young: Amos Ragan Kearns Professor of New Testament and Patristic Studies

Noted biblical and patristic scholar Franklin Woodrow Young died Saturday, September 25 at his home at Carolina Meadows. Young was Amos Ragans Kearns Professor Emeritus of New Testament and Patristic Studies at the Duke Divinity School, having retired in 1985 after a total of 23 years on the faculty there . . .

. . . . Young was educated at Dartmouth College and earned the bachelor of divinity from Crozer Theological Seminary. He then undertook doctoral studies at Duke University on a University Fellowship, and was an instructor in the Divinity school from 1944-1946. After receiving the Ph.D. in 1946, he was made assistant professor and dean of students. He held this position until 1950, when he joined the faculty of Yale Divinity School as assistant professor. In 1954, Young became professor of New Testament and patristic at Episcopal Seminary of the Southwest, and in 1959 he moved back east to serve on the faculty at Princeton; he was director of graduate studies in religion and then chair of department of religion. In 1968, Young returned to Duke Divinity School where his career had begun. He was professor of, New Testament and patristic studies until 1970, when he was awarded the Amos Ragan Kearns endowed professorship. Young served as director of graduate studies in religion at Duke for six years.

Young was known for courses on the Greek gospels and patristic texts, and for exegesis courses in English and Greek. He was the author of several books, among them “Understanding the New Testament” and “The Living World of the New Testament,” both with Howard C. Kee. He also contributed numerous articles to scholarly journals, bible dictionaries, and encyclopedias . . . .

I bet I am not the only one for whom The Living World of the New Testament was one of the first textbooks I read on the New Testament, back in my Sixth Form 'A' Level RE.

The obituary also features the remarkable note that Professor Young is survived by his "wife of almost seventy years", Jean Steiner Young .

"Biblical Gynaecology": Dan Wallace Responds

I am grateful to Dan Wallace for his thoughtful response to my post earlier this week questioning the use of the term "Biblical Gynaecology". It is in comments to that post, but I promote it here so that I can respond later:

Mark, thank you for your comments on my use of ‘gynecology’ as a description of a biblical view of women. In response, I would like to note four things.

First, I think it’s awfully restrictive and unnecessarily biased to speak of gynecology as only dealing with ‘functions and diseases of women.’ A good friend of mine, a female theologian, said, “I would prefer *he* chose one of the many more positively nuanced definitions that emphasized a woman’s reproductive *health* (not disease).” I agree.

Second, although you quoted most of the relevant section on my rationale for using this term, you didn’t quote all of it. The term was coined on the basis of Greek usage of the word γυνη in combination with λογος/λογια, as are many other terms that are used technically as a theological terminus technicus. And, as I mentioned in the article, I did this because it would avoid cumbersome circumlocutions.

Third, you are critical of not only the terminology but even the idea of discussing the role of women in the church as a discrete subject. You say, “The very problematizing of the female figure of authority as if it is in some way abnormal or surprising already casts the debate in terms that prejudice the outcome.” I simply can’t agree. The reality is that the role of men in church leadership has not been debated, but the role of women in leadership has been. Is it really prejudicial simply to address the issue of the role of women in the church, regardless of what one’s view is? Countless journal articles, books, Festschriften and other multi-author works, and the like discuss the role of women in scripture as a discrete topic. And these are written on both sides of the debate. Bruce Barron’s provocatively titled, “Putting Women in their Place,” published in the Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society, was written by an egalitarian!

In your own academic career, you have written much about Q. Some might say that to speak of Q is to prejudice the discussion at the outset. Yet your publications on Q leave little doubt as to where you are going. One might even say, “The very dismissal of Q as if it is in some way non-existent already casts the debate in terms that prejudice the outcome.” Yet, in my “Biblical Gynecology, Part 1,” where am I framing the debate in terms that prejudice the outcome?

Fourth, nevertheless, I want to build bridges rather than walls. And for this reason, I have asked the keepers of bible.org to change both the title of “Biblical Gynecology” (both parts) to “Women in Leadership.” If some of your readers can attack me personally without knowing anything about me, my guess is that they almost certainly did not read these two essays before they wrote their remarks. I don’t want to close doors, but open dialogue about this and other important issues facing the church in the twenty-first century.

Call me shallow, but the pleasant surprise to me about Dan Wallace's response was that he had heard of my work on Q! But back to business, I will comment later this weekend, as time permits.

Biblical Studies Carnival Latest

There is a new Biblical Studies Carnival online, for September 2010, over on a blog that's new to me, You Can't Mean That! by Steven Demmler:

Biblical Studies Carnival: September Edition

Raphael Golb convicted

I am sure that many of you will have seen this already, but the verdict is in on the Raphael Golb case:

Son of Dead Sea Scrolls Expert Is Convicted
By JOHN ELIGON

See Bob Cargill's blog for comment; remember that Bob's great detective work was absolutely key in unveiling the extraordinary and unsavoury story. Also covered by fellow bibliobloggers Jim Davila and Jim West, both of whom have been posting regular updates on the case.

Matthew Thiessen Blog

Former Duke PhD student in New Testament, Matthew Thiessen, now at the College of Emmanuel and St. Chad and Lutheran Theological Seminary, at the University of Saskatchewan, has a new blog:

Canadian Biblical Studies Blog

Farrer Theory ignored: yet another new example

Regular readers of the NT Blog will be familiar with my occasional notices on how the Farrer Theory often gets ignored in scholarship.  The attempt to make the Griesbach Hypothesis the sole alternative to the Two-Source Theory gives scholars an easier ride, especially in introductory works, in which the establishment of Marcan Priority becomes an argument for the existence of Q.  The latest example of the phenomenon is found in Grant R. Osborne, Matthew (Zondervan Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament; Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2010): 35-8, a preview of which can now be read online.

Osborne says that "now there are two major camps"..  The first is the "Griesbach Hypothesis" and he goes on, "there are stronger arguments for Markan Priority, especially the form called the "two- or four- source" hypothesis formulated by B. H. Streeter, which says that Matthew and Luke used Mark and Q as well as their own special material (M and L)" (36).   Osborne then provides four arguments for Marcan Priority (36-7) and concludes "All of this makes it likely that Mark was the first Gospel and that Matthew and Luke used Mark as well as Q" (37).  None of the arguments is in fact an argument for Matthew's and Luke's independent use of Mark, and so the conclusion that Marcan Priority necessarily leads to acceptance of the Q hypothesis is illegitimate.

Osborne briefly mentions the Gospel of Thomas as providing an analogue for Q, without exploring the important question of the apparent generic contrasts between the two and he adds that "recent work has made the likelihood of Q more viable" (37), footnoting Carlston and Norlin's 1999 article on statistics and Q. That article certainly points in the direction of a Q document on the assumption of the independence of Matthew and Luke, but it does not speak to the issue of Luke's familiarity with Matthew.

I am now so used to this kind of by-passing of the Farrer Theory that fresh examples come as no surprise.  I have in fact come to expect it whenever I open a new book.  I must confess to a touch of additional disappointment in this case, however, given my careful review of a book to which Osborne contributed, and concerning which we had corresponded, in which I spoke of the problems that arise from ignoring the Farrer theory and discussing the Synoptic Problem solely as a question of the Griesbach Theory vs. the Two-Source Theory (Mark Goodacre, Review of David Alan Black and David R. Beck (eds.), Rethinking the Synoptic Problem, NovT 49/2 (2007): 197-9).

"Biblical Gynaecology"

I have been doing some more reading recently on Romans 16.7, the verse in which Paul greets Andronicus and Junia, "prominent among the apostles" (NRSV).  (Cf NT Pod 12: Junia: the First Woman Apostle?; Programme Notes and Andronicus and Junia prominent among "the apostles"). In revisiting the article by Burer and Wallace (Daniel Wallace and Michael Burer, "Was Junia Really an Apostle?: A Re-examination of Romans 16.7", New Testament Studies 47 (2001): 76-91), I was struck by their use of the phrase "biblical gynaecology" (76 and 78).  The term seems quite inappropriate to me.

Gynaecology is the branch of medicine that deals with functions and diseases peculiar to women (OED).  In so far as there is "biblical gynaecology", I suppose that the material that would come closest would be the mention of the womb and breasts in Luke's Gospel (Luke 1.41,44, John the Baptist jumping in Elizabeth's womb; Luke 11.27-28, "Blessed is the womb that bore you . . ." and Luke 23.29, ". . . Blessed are the barren, and the wombs that never bore").  But this is not what Wallace and Burer are discussing in their article.  Rather, they are discussing the gender of the name Junia, and asking also whether she was indeed an apostle.  This is not gynaecology, Biblical or otherwise.

My surprise at seeing the expression in New Testament Studies sent me to the net to see if it is used elsewhere and it seems that one of the authors of the paper in question, Dan Wallace, has a piece called Biblical Gynaecology in which he comments:

The issue of the role of women in the church has become so central to how many Christians think that it even deserves its own theological label. Frankly, the best expression to use is “theological gynecology,” or “the doctrine of gynecology.” Too many associations with the medical profession will prevent some from seeing how appropriate this is at first. But ‘gynecology’ simply means ‘the study of women.’ And ‘theological gynecology’ means ‘the theological study of women,’ or ‘what the Bible says about the role of women.’ So I’ll use it sporadically throughout this paper.

But gynaecology does not "simply mean 'the study of women'", even if that is the etymology of the word.  It has a specific reference to the medical profession and to issues connected with female reproductive organs.  Rather than seeing "how appropriate this is", a moment's reflection confirms how problematic it is, especially if one is aiming at a discussion that does not unduly prejudice the interpreter before one has examined the texts. It is difficult to see how it can be helpful to use terminology that risks reverting to androcentric stereotypes in which a woman's identity and function is viewed solely in terms of reproduction.

I must admit that I don't even feel comfortable with this discussion being cast in terms of "the study of women" in Paul.  Rather, it's about the study of men and women in Paul.  That might sound like a fine distinction, but I think it is important.  Casting the debate in terms that focus specially on the status of "women" in Paul's letters tacitly assumes that maleness is the norm, the expected standard for authority and status that is challenged by apparent exceptions like Junia.  The same scholars do not speak with surprise about "andrology" every time a male authority figure appears in the text.  The very problematizing of the female figure of authority as if it is in some way abnormal or surprising already casts the debate in terms that prejudice the outcome.

Esther de Boer

I am really shocked to read on April DeConick's blog of the untimely death of Esther de Boer.  She was a fine New Testament scholar and her work on Mary Magdalene in particular made a very important contribution to scholarship.   I always found her a very positive and encouraging person too.  She will be greatly missed.

Romans as a "bread-and-butter" letter redux

Three years ago, almost to the day, I was teaching the Epistle to the Romans as part of my Life and Letters of Paul class, and I blogged about a quotation from J. Paul Sampley (Is Romans a "bread and butter letter"?):

It is an apostolic response to ethnic problems in those churches, and it is a “bread-and-butter” letter written in advance of his arrival, seeking support for his mission to Spain.

I raised a couple of questions about it, first the appropriateness of the term "bread-and-butter letter" and second the matter of where the quotation is from. I had copied out the quotation some years ago but somehow managed to lose the citation. In yesterday's class on the Life and Letters of Paul, I returned to the Epistle to the Romans and again mentioned this quotation. Happily, Ken Olson managed to find it for me, and it looks like something had happened in my transcription of the quotation.  Here it is with a proper citation:

A crisis brought most Pauline letters into existence. Even Romans, written to a church that Paul’s preaching did not establish, is a “bread-and-butter” letter written in advance of his journey, seeking support for his mission to Spain (cf. 15:22-24). Ephesians, however, lacks clues concerning a concrete crisis or occasion.

J. Paul Sampley, “The Letter to the Ephesians”, in Gerhard Krodel (ed.), Ephesians, Colossians, 2 Thessalonians, The Pastoral Epistles (Proclamation Commentaries; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1978):  9-39 (9)

Steve Black on the Minor Agreement at Mark 14.65

The latest Novum Testamentum features an article by Steve Black on the Minor Agreement at Mark 14.65. It's a subject that I have written about myself, first in Goulder and the Gospels (JSNTSup, 133; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1996), 101-7 and 125-30, and then in The Case Against Q (Harrisburg, PA: Trinity Press International, 2002), 157-62, so I turned to the new article with interest. The details are:

Steve D. Black, “One Really Striking Minor Agreement: ΤΙΣ ΕΣΤΙΝ Ο ΠΑΙΣΑΣ ΣΕ in Matthew 26:68 and Luke 22:64”, Novum Testamentum 52 (2010): 313-333

It is asserted that Matt 26:68|Luke 22:64(|Mark 14:65) is the most difficult of the minor agreements. Some advocates of the two-source theory have addressed this minor agreement by trying to make sense of the narrative as we have it, and others by making sense of the text as we have it (arguing for textual corruption or lost recensions). While some of these arguments are reasonable, in the final analysis they are not satisfying. Although we might remain persuaded that the two-source theory best integrates the data relating to the synoptic problem, this minor agreement reminds us that the synoptic problem is still a problem.

Black's article provides a useful and balanced discussion of the issues, even if he is inclined to be more sympathetic in his assessments of the arguments of Two-Source Theorists than I would be. I have a few comments on the article, several of which come out of my own discussion in The Case Against Q.

(1) Black uses the English translation “Who is striking you” throughout.  Although this coheres nicely with the idea that it is a "striking" Minor Agreement, I think the translation a little unusual given the aorist participle -- τίς ἐστιν ὁ παίσας σε;, usually "Who is the one who struck you?"

(2) Black notes Goulder’s contrasting explanations on the Minor Agreement, but treats them in reverse order (p. 329: “Elsewhere, Goulder suggests . . .”). His later explanation in "Two Significant Minor Agreements (Mat. 4:13 Par.; Mat. 26:67-68 Par.)," Novum Testamentum 45/4 (2003): 365-373 represents his mature, final position on the Minor Agreement and should be given priority in discussion.

(3) I argue in The Case Against Q (159-60) that Mark is here typically dark, enigmatic and ironic. The abusers are in the middle of fulfilling Jesus' prophecy as they taunt him to "Prophesy". Matthew attempts to explicate the Marcan enigma, and so to dilute Mark's dark irony, by adding "Who is it who struck you?" in a way characteristic of the evangelist.

(4) I also suggest (Case Against Q, 159, n. 26) that the parallel in the Gospel of Peter 3.9 is helpful -- here they spit into Jesus' eyes in a way that provides a helpful commentary on Matthew's spitting into the face.  It illustrates that the lack of the covering of the head in Matthew is unsurprising.

(5) The covering of the face in Mark (καὶ περικαλύπτειν αὐτοῦ τὸ πρόσωπον) is easy to understand once one notices the parallel in Cicero, Pro Rabirio 13 (Capvt obnvbito) and 16 (obductio capitis). Here, the covering of the head is a key prelude to the ignominy of crucifixion. The covering of the face in Mark is not about blindfolding and second sight but about covering and shame.

(6) Black feels that the problems here for the Two-Source Theory serve as a useful reminder of the uncertainty of the textual witness, and of the fact that our Synoptic theories are only models.  The difficulty about the idea of appealing to absent textual evidence, though, is that it cuts both ways, as I argue in The Case Against Q (161-2), in answering Kloppenborg’s position now quoted by Black:

On one level Kloppenborg is making an important point, offering a sober reminder to scholars of the Synoptic Problem that Nestle-Aland27 offers at best only an approximation to the original texts of the Gospels. The sophistication of the critical text can all too easily seduce scholars into imagining that they are dealing with something far more concrete and stable than is in fact possible.  But the relationship of our text-critical uncertainties to the question of the Minor Agreements by no means inevitably resolves itself in favour of the Two-Source Theory. There is a difficulty here that is rarely, if ever, recognised in the literature:  that while textual corruption may indeed have generated Minor Agreements, it may also has eliminated Minor Agreements. Thus the impossibility of reconstructing “with absolute precision the Greek text of any of the gospels” and our ignorance concerning “the transmissional processes by which one gospel came to be used by another evangelist” does not necessarily tell in favour of the Two-Source Theory. It is just as important a theoretical possibility that the transmissional processes, and the history of the manuscript tradition, might have limited the number of Minor Agreements we now see in our Critical Texts. Indeed one might say that the clear and well-known scribal tendency to harmonise Mark’s text towards that of Matthew may have significantly lessened the number of significant Minor Agreements we now see.

It is quite right, in other words, to bear in mind our uncertainty about the early stages of Gospel transmission when reflecting on the Synoptic Problem. But to appeal to this uncertainty as a means of dealing with the Minor Agreements is to appeal to the unknown in an attempt to avoid a stumbling block for the Two-Source Theory, an unknown that might just as plausibly reveal further and not fewer problems for the Two-Source Theory. Unless there are strong grounds for thinking that the absent evidence would indeed tell in favour of the Two-Source Theory, which there are not, the appeal to the absence cannot forward the debate.

Bible and Archaeology Fest, Atlanta, November 2010

Over on Paleojudaica, Jim Davila has news of the forthcoming Bible Fest in Atlanta:

Announcing the 13th annual Bible and Archaeology Fest in Atlanta
The Biblical Archaeology Society announces the 13th annual Bible and Archaeology Fest in Atlanta Georgia where 20 scholars will present the latest research on topics such as early Christianity, Gnostic scholarship, the Hebrew Bible, and more.

The press release includes a paragraph that made me smile:

Renowned speakers such at James Charlesworth of Princeton Theological Seminary, Bart Ehrman of the University of North Carolina, Mark Goodacre of Duke University, Craig Evans of Acadia Divinity College, Ben Witherington III of Asbury Theological Seminary and many more will be presenting participants with their latest research.

JSNT Latest

September's Journal for the Study of the New Testament is now available. As usual, lots of material of interest. Abstracts available for all; full articles to subscribers. And bear in mind that there is free access to all Sage Journals until 15 October.

--
Journal for the Study of the New Testament
1 September 2010; Vol. 33, No. 1

A New Perspective on Paul? Rereading Paul in a Time of Ecological Crisis
David G. Horrell
Journal for the Study of the New Testament 2010;33 3-30

Honour, Head-coverings and Headship: 1 Corinthians 11.2-16 in its Social Context
Mark Finney
Journal for the Study of the New Testament 2010;33 31-58

Adaptive Eschatological Inference from the Gospel of Matthew
Ben Cooper
Journal for the Study of the New Testament 2010;33 59-80

Why Does the Deliverer Come έκ Σιών (Romans 11.26)?
J.R. Daniel Kirk
Journal for the Study of the New Testament 2010;33 81-99

Kyrios in the Gospel of Mark
Daniel Johansson
Journal for the Study of the New Testament 2010;33 101-124
--

Tom Wright reads Humpty Dumpty

With thanks to Jason Hood, on the SAET Blog:

Tom Wright Reads Humpty Dumpty

Jesus as Dennis the Menace in the Infancy Gospel

In a recent post on the Infancy Gospel of Thomas, I mentioned John Dominic Crossan's comparison of the child Jesus in the Infancy Gospel with Dennis the Menace.  When I heard him say "Dennis the Menace", I instantly thought of the character pictured above on the left, Dennis the Menace from the British comic The Beano.  It occurred to me later that since this was an American programme, Banned from the Bible, broadcast on the History Channel, he was perhaps referring to the character pictured in the middle above, the American Dennis the Menace, who is almost exactly the same age as his British namesake, both first published in March 1951.

But which one was John Dominic Crossan referring to?  Both of them are mischievous young boys, but my ignorance of the American version makes it difficult for me to compare and contrast.  The British Dennis is undoubtedly a "brat", but which would Crossan have known?  His time spent in both Ireland and America will have given him exposure to both versions, but I'd guess it's the American one he will have known best, perhaps especially if he has children, grandchildren, nieces or nephews over here.

New Testament Scholarship Worldwide on Facebook

Johnson Thomaskutty has set up a new group headed New Testament Scholarship Worldwide on Facebook. He writes:

This group is exclusively a scholarly, theological, exegetical, hermeneutical, reflective, and open-minded one by combining both the past and present New Testament scholarship worldwide.

It's an open, public group and there are already 407 members.

Typo in Elliott's Apocryphal New Testament, on Infancy Gospel of Thomas?

There is a cross-reference in J. K. Elliott, The Apocryphal New Testament: A Collection of Apocryphal Christian Literature in an English Translation (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1993): 78 that I think may be in error. The passage is Infancy Gospel of Thomas 12.1-2:

Again, in the time of sowing the child went out with his father to sow corn in their field. And as his father sowed, the child Jesus also sowed one grain of corn. 2. And when he had reaped it and threshed it, he brought in a hundred measures, * and he called all the poor of the village to the threshing-floor and gave them the corn, and Joseph took the residue. He was eight years old when he performed this sign.

At the point marked here by the *, there is a footnote referencing Luke 16.7. Luke 16.7 reads, "Then he asked another, ‘And how much do you owe?’ He replied, ‘A hundred containers of wheat.’ He said to him, ‘Take your bill and make it eighty.’" That is clearly not right. I think the intended reference must be Luke 8.8, "Some [seed] fell into good soil, and when it grew, it produced a hundredfold.”

Update (Saturday, 13.25): In comments, Andrew Criddle notes that the word κόρος occurs both in Luke 16.7 (ἑκατὸν κόρους σίτου) and in Tischendorf's Greek A recension of the Infancy Gospel. Moreover, κόρος is a hapax in the New Testament. That is clearly the point of the cross-reference in Elliott, so I withdraw my suggestion that it is a typo, even if it is a strange choice of cross-reference given the clearer content parallels with the Synoptics here and elsewhere that are not marked. Incidentally, a look at Tony Burke's Critical Edition of the text shows some interesting variation in the Greek witnesses at this point, κόρους ρ in his Gs, μέδιμνους ρ in his Ga and μόδια ἑκατόν in his Gc (Burke, 192-3).

Infancy Gospel of Thomas on Youtube

We are into the second week of a junior / senior seminar on the Non-canonical Gospels here at Duke. It's the first time I have taught a course like this at the undergraduate level and it is already proving really stimulating. We took as our first text the Protevangelium of James and we are now moving on to the Infancy Gospel of Thomas. It gives me the opportunity to share one of my favourite Youtube clips, an animated version of Infancy Thomas 9:



There is another short video of interest on Youtube that relates to the Infancy Gospel. It is about four minutes long and is clearly a clip from a longer documentary. From the look of it, it is an American (Discovery Channel? History Channel?) piece surveying non-canonical Gospels. Of particular interest in this clip are the comments from John Dominic Crossan, who is as engaging as ever. He comments on Jesus as a "divine brat" in the text, "Dennis the Menace as god", but adds that Jesus learns ultimately that "The function of great power and great wisdom is to do good":



Update (Friday, 9.55): In comments, Tony Burke mentions that the clip above is from Banned from the Bible (History Channel, 2003).

New Testament Studies latest

The latest NTS is out:
--

NEW TESTAMENT STUDIES
Volume 56 - Issue 04 - October 2010

PDF version of this Table of Contents

Articles

The Eagle and the Dove: Roman Imperial Sonship and the Baptism of Jesus (Mark 1.9-11)
Michael Peppard
New Testament Studies, Volume 56, Issue 04, October 2010, pp 431 - 451
doi:10.1017/S0028688510000159

Die markinischen Summarien—ein literarischer und theologischer Schlüssel zu Mark 1–6
Eve-Marie Becker
New Testament Studies, Volume 56, Issue 04, October 2010, pp 452 - 474
doi:10.1017/S0028688510000093

Lilies Do Not Spin: A Challenge to Female Social Norms
Lee A. Johnson, Robert C. Tannehill
New Testament Studies, Volume 56, Issue 04, October 2010, pp 475 - 490
doi:10.1017/S0028688510000135

Abraham geschworen – uns gegeben. Syntax und Sinn im Benediktus (Lukas 1.68–79)
Friedrich Gustav Lang
New Testament Studies, Volume 56, Issue 04, October 2010, pp 491 - 512
doi:10.1017/S0028688510000147

‘Some were saying, “He is good”’ (John 7.12b): ‘Good’ Christology in John's Gospel?
Jane Heath
New Testament Studies, Volume 56, Issue 04, October 2010, pp 513 - 535
doi:10.1017/S0028688510000111

Mutual Brokers of Grace: A Study in 2 Corinthians 1.3-11
David Briones
New Testament Studies, Volume 56, Issue 04, October 2010, pp 536 - 556
doi:10.1017/S002868851000010X

The Son's Entrance into the Heavenly World: The Soteriological Necessity of the Scriptural Catena in Hebrews 1.5-14
Joshua W. Jipp
New Testament Studies, Volume 56, Issue 04, October 2010, pp 557 - 575
doi:10.1017/S0028688510000123

Short Study

Keine Quästoren in Korinth: Zu Goodrichs (und Theißens) These über das Amt des Erastos (Röm 16.23)
Alexander Weiss
New Testament Studies, Volume 56, Issue 04, October 2010, pp 576 - 581
doi:10.1017/S0028688510000160

Abstracts available for all at New Testament Studies, and electronic access to subscribers.