Post of the Week


Paul Post of the Week

This week Ken Schenck over at Quadrilateral Thoughts finished his series of “Explanatory Notes” on Galatians.  While not nearly as detailed as a commentary, his notes provide helpful insight and it’s always useful to have resources like this available on the web.  Apparently, I missed his series on 1 Thessalonians which can be found here.  Make sure you check them both out.

Last week there was no Paul Post of the Week, but it would have gone to Brandon Wason for his thorough list of NT introductions.  If you are in the market for an introduction, consult this list and the discussion that follows in the comments section.

Paul Post of the Week 6/21 – 6/27

Nijay Gupta makes his second appearance this week with his review of the top Ephesians commentaries.  As I have previously stated, there will soon be a commentaries section on this blog (Philippians has already been posted) and I am always interested in what other Pauline scholars have to say about academic commentaries. 

As always if I have missed your post, or you simply want to highlight a post on Paul, please add it to the comments section.  Last week Charles Savelle Garland at BibleX shared his post on the Jerusalem Council and meat sacrificed to idols.

Paul Post of the Week 6/14 – 6/20

I am always a fan of posts that summarize the work of important scholars especially when concerning difficult topics.  This week Mike Koke in his post Galatians 3:28 and Israel, addresses the thorny topic of Paul, Judaism, and the gentiles.  He provides a brief yet lucid summary of the positions of three important pieces on this topic.  He examines Daniel Boyarin’s A Radical Jew: Paul and the Politics of Identity , Denise Kimber Buell and Caroline Hodge’s, “The Politics of Interpretation: The Rhetoric of Race and Ethnicity in Paul,” and Paula Fredrickson’s “Judaism, the Circumcision of Gentiles, and Apocalyptic Hope: Another Look at Galatians 1 and 2″.

Paul Post of the Week 6/7 – 6/13

This week I am doing the unthinkable.  Yes, I have chosen a post that is not directly related to Pauline studies.  I am so impressed with Mark Goodacre’s new NT Pod podcasts that I must mention them.  Although, Goodacre has only posted one podcast thus far, it is excellent.  The audio quality and presentation are top notch.  More importantly, the podcasts provide useful scholarly level information.  Goodacre’s first podcast covered the genealogy in Matthew’s gospel and provided a number of useful nuggets of information.  He states that his podcasts will be 6 minute long, which is perfect for anyone looking for a snippet in their down time.  As a commuter I am hoping I can resist the urge of listening to them instantly and save a few of them for one of my many long commutes up to UCLA.

On a separate note, how does one go about changing the name of a theory.   Whenever,I present the alternatives to Q to students I discuss the Farrer-Goulder theory by stating that it is currently being championed by Mark Goodacre and then provide a plug for his book, The Case Against Q.  Isn’t it about time we made this process simpler and called it the Farrer-Goulder-Goodacre theory?

Another interesting post this week, in fact a Paul post, is by Michael Bird titled Reading for a Romans Course.  In this post Bird lists the five books he would place on a reading list for Romans.  I have often had similar thoughts and would certainly agree that The Romans Debate should be on any such list.  Bird places Moo’s commentary on his list.  While this is certainly an excellent choice, for my courses I am considering requiring that the students buy different commentaries.  I would  have a list of five to ten works depending on the book and then divvy them up between the students.  While this would be more difficult to assign readings and such, I feel that the students would feel more responsible for their material.  They would have to thoroughly understand the position of the commentator they are reading in order to adequately present their commentator’s work to the class.  I should of course state I am envisioning a seminar course.

Paul Post of the Week 5/31/09 – 6/6/09

This week’s Paul Post of the Week comes from the Cafe Apocalypsis.  Jason Meyer began his multi-part series on Galatians 3:10 and “works of the law”, based on research from his forthcoming book The End of the Law: Mosaic Covenant in Pauline Theology.  This week Meyer provided three posts on this topic: defining works of the law, a brief history of past approaches, and an assesment of these approaches.  Meyer’s posts provide an excellent summary of where other scholars stand on this issue and begin to address Meyer’s contribution.  The abundance of footnotes in his posts are quite helpful and I look forward to further posts in this series.

Paul Post of the Week 5/23 – 5/30/09

This week I have chosen Nijay Gupta’s post Bookstore page added as the Paul Post of the Week.  Although the title does not promise greatness, the post is incredibly useful.  Within his Amazon.com bookstore page, Nijay has reviewed a great many commentaries.  Commentary reviews by academics are always useful and unfortunately not abundant. 

D.A. Carson has his thorough book New Testament Commentary Survey but it is certainly colored by his strong opinions.  Another excellent resource for commentary information is Best Commentaries.com which assigns each commentary a number and ranks them for each book of the bible.  Unfortunately, there is not a review for each commentary beyond the basic attributes of the commentary.   In fact, Best Commentaries.com assigns Anthony Thiselton’s amazing 1 Corinthians commentary a 6.5, which is simply unforgivable.  I too have provided my insight into which commentary I would purchase for a my personal library if I could only have one from each of Paul’s letters.  I will be expanding this entry into a more thorough review and ranking of all the major academic commentaries of Paul’s letters in the near future.

Paul Post of the Week 5/17 – 5/23

This week certainly saw a number of thought provoking posts. 

Daniel Kirk in his post New Perspective and Romans 13 asks if the New Perspective alters our interpretation of Romans 13:1-4.  He asks does the  “does the admonition to be subject to governing authorities fit within this larger framework, where rejection of a nationalized messiah means a reorientation away from expectation that the Messiah’s job is to unseat the geo-political ruler who rules over Israel?”   This is certainly an interesting question.  I have often pondered this passage myself and have been unable to decide which of the proposed interpretations  is most convincing.  Is Paul, by co-opting imperial cult language attempting to undermine the authority of the Roman Empire?  It also seems entirely possible that with the relative safety brought about by the Roman Empire and Pauls’ notion of an imminent eschatology that he would encourage fellow believers not to cause trouble with the authorities. 

While not a specifically Paul post, Michael Bird and Craig Keener have provided an excellent article on the value of the generalist in Biblical Studies.  Pat McCullough and Mark Goodacre both provided their reflections on the notion of the generalist vs. the specialist.  This is a topic I find quite interesting and will be posting on later in the week.

As always, if I have overlooked your post do not take offense simply add it to the comments of  this post.

« Previous PageNext Page »

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.