Book Recommendation: The Writings of St. Paul

This week I am recommending an excellent source for budding Pauline scholars, The Writings of St. Paul edited by Wayne Meeks and John Fitzgerald.  This volume of the Norton Critical Edition series is the best work I’ve found for anyone seeking one book on Paul.  The book begins with an outline of the life of Paul which, in addition to outlining the important aspects of Paul’s life, examines how scholars interact with Acts and Paul’s letters in order to create such an outline.  The work also contains translations of the thirteen letters attributed to Paul and many Pseudo-Pauline works such as the correspondance of Paul and Seneca and 3 Corinthians.  Furthermore, this volume contains a massive amount of material concerning Paul from the early Church including both stories such as Paul and Thecla and passages from the Church Fathers.  Essentially if someone wrote about Paul in antiquity it is present in this work.  However, despite all of these invaluable primary sources, the most useful section of this work may be the last 300 pages which contain numerous articles from modern scholars examining a wide range of topics.  The editors have chosen articles form the heavyweights in the field with such names as Bauer, Von Harnack, Stendahl, Kaseman, Bultmann, Theissen, Mitchell, and countless others.

 

Paul Post of the Week 1/3 – 1/10

This was the Richard Hays week as two blogs provided us with posts concerning the renowned Duke scholar.   John Anderson at Hesed we ‘emet began with an interview with Dr. Hays.  John asked some excellent questions and Dr. Hays provided some deep and interesting answers.  I am especially intrigued by Hays’ statement that he is surprised that he is not associated strongly with the New Perspective, since I am one who has not associated him with the inner circle of New Perspective scholars.

“But for various reasons, I’ve not been strongly identified as a “New Perspective” theorist, despite the ways in which my readings have challenged traditional “Lutheran” interpretations and emphasized Paul’s Jewishness.  I’m not quite sure why this is so. ”

Andy Rowell was then inspired to post a list of other Richard Hays resources including a books list, an audio file, and a video sermon.  Rowell’s has provided a useful list for anyone interested in Dr. Hays’ work.

Any post that has won this award should feel free to proudly display one of the banners.  As always if I missed a post you think should have been chosen or would like to highlight please respond in the comments section below.

 

P46: A few Interesting Observations

Though I am not an expert in the field of papyrology, like the fine bloggers at Evangelical Textual Criticism, I am quite interested in the field.  After posting Brandon Wason’s index to the online images of P46 a few days ago, I’ve decided to focus on two particular leaves for this post.  Both 3560,  which contains Rom 16.4-13 and 3559 • Rom 15.29—16.3 have features which I find interesting. 

First, Romans 16:7 discusses one of the most important women in the New Testament, Jounian who is described along with Andronicus as “relatives who were in prison with me; they are prominent among the apostles, and they were in Christ before I was.”  P46 is interesting because it has Ioulian instead of Iounian.  I did not notice this variant until recently during a project on P46 and I was a bit surprised.  However, Robert Jewett in his recent, and massive, commentary on Romans seems to have a good answer.  Since Ioulian appears in 16:15, perhaps the scribe got confused and put Ioulian in 16:7 as well.

Second, there is an intriguing colon that appears just before the beginning of Romans 16:1 in 3559 • Rom 15.29—16.3.  This oddity has prompted some, such as T. W. Manson, to conclude that the scribe intentionally marked off Romans 16 because he was hesitant about adding it.  Thus, these scholars further postulate that Romans 16 was not a part of Paul’s original letter and that Romans was originally intended as a circular letter intended for many communities.  Then only at a later date was Romans 16 added.  However, Harry Gamble in his fine monograph The Textual History of the Letter to the Romans concludes that Romans 16 was in fact part of Paul’s original letter.  Though I agree with Gamble’s conclusion I am still intrigued by this colon.  Perhaps one of the papyrologists at Evangelical Textual Criticism would care to weigh in with their thoughts on this colon.

Here is the same image with the colon circled.

 

P46 Index

Many moons ago Brandon Wason on his old blog Novum Testamentum put together a list of links for the different leaves of P46 available online.  That blog is now defunct and although Brandon has created a new blog Sitz im Leben this list does not appear on his new blog.  Luckily, a few years ago, Suzanne McCarthy extracted Brandon’s list from the internet archives.  Every so often I hunt for this list so I decided to reprint it on my site.  So my thanks goes out to Brandon for creating the list and Suzanne for saving it from extinction.

• 3553 • Rom 11.36—12.8
• 3554 • Rom 12.10—13.1
• 3555 • Rom 13.2-11
• 3556 • Rom 13.12—14.8
• 3557 • Rom 15.11-19
• 3558 • Rom 15.20-28
• 3559 • Rom 15.29—16.3
• 3560 • Rom 16.4-13
• 3561 • Heb 1.7—2.3
• 3562 • Heb 2.11—3.3
• 3564 • Heb 2.3-11
• 3565 • Heb 3.3-13
• 3569 • Rom 16.14-23
• 3570 • Rom 16.23—Heb 1.7
• 3571 • Heb 3.13—4.4
• 3572 • Heb 4.4-14
• 3573 • Heb 4.14—5.7
• 3574 • Heb 5.8—6.4
• 3575 • Heb 6.4-13
• 3576 • Heb 6.13—7.2
• 3577 • Heb 7.2-11
• 3578 • Heb 7.11-20
• 3579 • Heb 7.20-28
• 3580 • Heb 7.28—8.8
• 3581 • Heb 9.10-16
• 3582 • Heb 9.18-26
• 3583 • 1 Cor 2.3-11
• 3584 • 1 Cor 2.11—3.5
• 3585 • 2 Cor 9.7—10.1
• 3586 • 2 Cor 10.1-11
• 3587 • 2 Cor 10.11—11.2
• 3588 • 2 Cor 11.3-10
• 3589 • 2 Cor 11.12-22
• 3590 • 2 Cor 11.23-33
• 3591 • 2 Cor 11.33—12.9
• 3592 • 2 Cor 12.10-18 (typo on APIS)
• 3593 • 2 Cor 12.18—13.5
• 3594 • 2 Cor 13.5-13
• 3595 • Eph 1.1-11
• 3599 • Eph 1.12-20
• 3600 • Eph 1.21—2.7
• 3601 • Eph 2.10-20
• 3602 • Eph 2.21—3.10
• 3603 • Eph 3.11—4.1
• 3604 • Eph 4.2-14
• 3606 • Eph 4.15-25
• 3607 • Eph 4.26—5.6 (typo on APIS)
• 3608 • Eph 5.8-25
• 3609 • Eph 5.26—6.6
• 3610 • Eph 6.8-18
• 3611 • Eph 6.20—Gal 1.8
• 3612 • Gal 1.10-22
• 3613 • Gal 1.23—2.9
• 3614 • Gal 2.9-21
• 3615 • Gal 3.2-15
• 3616 • Gal 3.16-29
• 3617 • Gal 4.2-17
• 3618 • Gal 4.20—5.1
• 3619 • Gal 5.2-17
• 3620 • Gal 5.20—6.8

 

1 Cor 5:1 and Paul Hartog article Paul and Seneca on Incest

Today I read an interesting article by Paul Hartog titled “Not Even Among the Pagans (1 Cor 5:1): Paul and Seneca on Incest” in the 2006  festschrift for David Aune, The New Testament and Early Christian Literature in Greco-Roman Context.  Hartog rightly proposes that Paul’s statement in 1 Cor 5:1 concerning incest “that it is not found even among pagans”  should be recognized as a rhetorical technique for emphasizing boundaries.  After outlining the aversion to incest by Jews, Greeks, and Romans, Hartog rightly concludes that Paul “attempts to shame the Corinthian Christians with the cultural aversion to incest.” (62).  Hartog supports his conclusion by highlighting a similar statement in Seneca’s Phaedra 165-173.  In this passage Seneca has Phaedra’s nurse tell her that incest between stepson and stepmother is so abhorrent that even barbarian tribes such as the Getae, Taurians, or Scythians condemn it.  This passage is important because it appears to be another example of a contemporary author employing the same rhetorical device in order to shame someone with regards to stepson – stepmother incest.  Hartog’s piece is excellent for anyone seeking a review of the various examples of the prohibition of incest in Jewish and Greco-Roman sources.  Additionally, Hartog provides a compelling argument for reading Paul’s prohibition through the lens of rhetoric as a means for shaming and solidifying boundaries.

 

After the First Urban Christians and the Context Group

I was planning to attend the SBL session focusing on the book After the First Urban Christians, but alas I was unable to attend.  However, Abigail at Continuum was kind enough to send me a review copy of the book and I will provide a full review in the near future.  The list of scholars contributing to this volume is impressive and includes scholars such as Wayne Meeks, Dale Martin, David Horrell, Todd Still, and Bruce Longenecker.  Essentially, this work examines and re-evaluates topics explored in Wayne Meeks foundational book The First Urban Christians.

Thus far I have read the first essay by David Horrell, “Whither Social-Scientific Approaches to New Testament Interpretation? Reflections on Contested Methodologies and the Future.”  In this essay, Horrell essentially calls out certain scholars in the context group who claim that one is not employing social-scientific criticism unless one works closely with models derived from the social sciences.  Horrell would prefer a broader definition which includes scholars who interact with the social sciences but do not necessarily employ strict models.  I agree with Horrell here that the definition of social-scientific criticism proposed by Malina (as quoted by Horrell) is in fact too narrow.  But Horrell is also correct in stating that “… there is a diversity of method and approach among those who participate in the Context Group.” (10)

While Bruce Malina may insist on such a narrow definition and rigorous use of models, not all members of the Context Group would agree with Malina’s definition of social-scientific criticism.  Both my advisor who is a member of the Context Group and I who have attended many functions associated with the group would not be properly defined by such a narrow definition of social-scientific criticism.  Thus, while Horrell is certainly right to criticize Malina’s overly narrow definition of social-scientific criticism, I am a bit uncomfortable with him associating the Context Group as a whole with this definition.

I look forward to reading the rest of the fine essays in this volume.

 

Help needed finding article – Kelhoffer, “Suffering as Defense of Paul’s Apostolic Authority in Galatians and 2 Corinthians 11.”

I am hoping someone out there can help me find this article:

 James Kelhoffer, “Suffering as Defense of Paul’s Apostolic Authority in Galatians and 2 Corinthians 11.” Svensk exegetisk årsbok. 74 (2009): 127-143.

Kelhoffer’s article may impact my dissertation work and I would like to read it.  I requested it through UCLA and they have been unable to track it down thus far.  Does anyone out there have access to it?

 

Audio Spotlight – Mark Goodacre: NT Pod 14 Paul as “Apostle”

Audio Spotlight: Paul as “Apostle” - Mark Goodacre

Mark Goodacre, Duke, NT Pod,  12:26

Mark Goodacre’s NT Pod series is always an excellent source for brief bits about interesting topics and this entry is no exception.  In this podcast Goodacre focuses on Paul’s assertion that he is an apostle.  Goodacre examines the term apostle and Paul’s use of the term.  He rightly concludes that Paul was aware of the disputed nature of his claim to be an apostle since he did not know the earthly Jesus.  Goodacre notes Paul’s self description as one born out of time, when referring to the list of those to whom Jesus appeared to in 1 Cor 15:1-9, as evidence that Paul was aware of the contested nature of his apostleship.  In addition to being informative, Goodacre’s NT Pod entries are always high quality audio recordings.  I highly recommend the entire series and this entry in particular and I will be requiring it for my Winter course on 1 Corinthians.

 

SBL Panel – Things I Wish I Knew about a Ph.D – Part 2

In part one of this series I presented two pieces of advice which I prepared for the SBL panel Things I Wish I Knew about a Ph.D.  During this panel I focused on embracing one’s role as a student and preparing for one’s career from the beginning of their Ph.D. program.  In this installment I will discuss some other issues that I addressed during the SBL panel discussion and other pieces of advice that I should have mentioned.

Live close to campus -  This is more important than it may seem.  In addition to saving money on gas and time on the road, living close to campus will allow you to stay more connected to your program.  Unfortunately, I live an hour (when traffic is light) from campus and this has prevented me from attending many functions I wanted to attend.

Understand your funding options – This is especially important when choosing a program.  Don’t choose a program over another based on incomplete funding information.  For instance, I nearly chose a program that was going to give me 8k a year because UCLA was unwilling to give me a financial package.  However, once I did my research I found that nearly all 2nd year students get TAships worth over 15K.  These TAships are then available every year after, along with dissertation grants and other options.  However, other programs that do not award financial packages do not ever provide financial aid and expect their students to pay tuition.  Make sure you thoroughly examine all of the options before choosing a school.

Qualifying Exams – My advice here is two fold.  First, warn your family, friends, etc. that this is a major time commitment and extremely stressful.  You will disappear for extended periods and even when you are present in body your mind will almost certainly be elsewhere.  Second, when you see your exam questions don’t panic.  Answer the questions as well as you can.  Some professors purposely make difficult questions knowing you will struggle.

Establish a relationship with your advisor and examiners – Establish a positive relationship with your advisor, faculty, and examiners as early as possible.  The better your relationship the better your recommendations will be and the more confident your will be going into your qualifying exams.  By the time I took my exams I knew my examiners so well that I was able to guess (accurately) the types of questions they would ask.  There are a number of steps you can take to establish positive relationships with these individuals.  Most obvious is taking their courses.  There’s no better way to determine what is important to your faculty then taking a course from them.  Another great way to connect with your faculty is to grade for them.  I was either a TA or grader for most of my examiners.

Rely on your departmental staff and treat them well – Don’t assume your professors know everything about the nuts and bolts of your program.  They may actually have all the answers, but they may not.  Even worse they may have outdated information.  Essentially, it’s not their job to know this information.  Get to know and rely upon the knowledge of the department staff.  These people know what forms need to be filled out and which hoops need to be jumped through when.  Finally, treat them well and when you are in a bind they will go to great lengths to help you out.

Children, wait – My advice here is wait, wait, wait.  Wait until you are done with your program if at all possible.  For some reason at UCLA it seems to be a requirement to have children during your program, as all of us in the Christian Origins program have children.  However, if you are going to have children during your program wait until after your exams.  If you read my above advice you know that exam prep is brutal and I cannot imagine preparing for exams and caring for one or more children.

Marry someone with a “real job” – Okay this advice is a bit tongue in cheek, but most people I know who are successfully navigating Ph.D. programs have a spouse with a “real job.”  Having someone in the family earning more than 15K a year makes life a lot easier.

Massive time commitment – If you don’t realize Ph.D. programs are a major time commitment then you either are not in a program or have never talked to anyone who has gone through a Ph.D. program.  My advice here is to be as straightforward with those around you as you can.  My first quarter was rough because my wife and I had worked out a time schedule before I started my program.  However, after I began I quickly realized we had not allotted enough time for my work.  Things were rough until we reassessed the situation and made a new schedule.  Be honest with yourself and those who rely on you, they will understand (at least you hope they will).  Set aside time to spend with your family and do your best to honor this time.  Date night is a great idea.

Well that is all the advice I can think of at this moment.  If I think of more advice I will post a third entry for this series.  If anyone else out there has some advice please put it in the comments section.  Perhaps, if there are enough suggestions, I will add a third entry into the series consisting of your advice.

 

Book Recommendation: Arguing with Scripture by Christopher D. Stanley

While many turn to Richard Hays’ excellent work Echoes of Scripture in the Letters of Paul for information concerning Paul and the Old Testament, I turn to Christopher Stanley’s many fine works on the subject.  Today’s recommendation is Stanley’s most accessible work, Arguing with Scripture.  Stanley examines a number of questions and assumptions before analyzing Paul’s use of scripture in 1 Corinthians, 2 Corinthians, Galatians, and Romans.  Stanley rightly concludes that Paul’s audiences had different levels of prior knowledge of the scripture and thus would have interacted in different ways with Paul’s use of scripture.  I highly recommend this work and am assigning parts of it to my students for my winter course on 1 Corinthians.