Prophetic Jesus, Prophetic Church – Luke Timothy Johnson’s challenge to the Church (Review)

At SBL, I had the great privilege of responding to Dr. Luke Timothy Johnson in a panel discussion regarding his book Among the Gentiles. Johnson is a legend and I was quaking in my boots (sneakers really) just thinking about it, but it was a lot of fun and he is a lively speaker.

I just finished reading LT Johnson’s outstanding Prophetic Jesus, Prophetic Church: The Challenge of Luke-Acts to Contemporary Christians (Eerdmans, 2011). Here is what we might call a prophetic commentary. Johnson’s work is exactly the kind of Biblical studies research and thinking that can really change the church for the better – it is neither fluff nor esoteric ramblings about philology or history.

What is the book all about? Johnson believes that the Gospel acc to Luke and Acts (as two parts of one great prophetic narrative by Luke) is especially fit for igniting a fire under Christian communities, encouraging them to live our their vocation in God, guided by Christ and empowered by the Spirit.

One major plank in his argument is that it is wrong when scholars think of the Jesus of the Gospel of Luke as prophetic, but not the church of the book of Acts as prophetic. Luke-Acts is designed in such a way as to demonstrate Jesus as a prophet in Luke, then the early apostolic church carries on Jesus’ prophetic ministry in Acts, and this is a model for the church today to continue this prophetic ministry.

One initial conceivable obstacle to Johnson’s argument is that the NT canon separates Luke and Acts and shoves John in the middle (so the two are not read side-by-side). Johnson writes,

[Luke] could not have imagined that the process of making his composition part of the NT canon would separate the two parts of his single story, so that his account of ‘what Jesus did’ would appear with the other Gospels, while his account of what Jesus’ witnesses did and said would serve to introduce the letters of Paul (p. 1).

Johnson, in a way, is discouraging us from reading the NT primarily according to canonical order. He argues, “canonical arrangement does not determine how canonical compositions are to be read” (3). [Brevard Childs is rolling around in his grave!] Johnson goes on: “We are not obliged to read Hebrews as a letter written by Paul simply because many early Christians so regarded it and some ancient manuscripts place it among Paul’s letters. Nor does the canonical placement of James or Revelation demand that we read them as either later or lesser than Paul. The accidents of canonical arrangement do not constrain interpretation” (3).

OK, I don’t think Johnson has to work too hard to convince me to read Luke and Acts together, but what does it mean to see prophetic Jesus and prophetic church? Basically, using the OT models, a prophet is marked by “being inspired by the Holy Spirit, speaking God’s word, embodying God’s vision for humans, enacting the vision through signs and wonders, and bearing witness to God in the world” (p. 4).

Here is where Johnson is stepping out and being radical: “Luke shows the church in Acts to be even more radical than the prophet Jesus” (4). Part of what Johnson is getting at is that Acts is not just a second part of a book of history. It has a prophetic voice which calls out to the church.

The first readers of Luke’s narrative would perhaps not have seen his story as nostalgic recollection of a time past but rather as a summons to an ideal that might be in danger of being lost, not as a work of bland historiography but as a thrilling act of utopian imagination, less a neutral report of how things were than as a normative prescription for how things ought to be (5)

Part of the reason Johnson writes this book is to rehabilitate scholarship on Acts. Everyone likes the Jesus of the Gospel of Luke, but Acts has a history of representing a magisterium-church, a fossilization of the vision of Jesus. Johnson, by directly linking Acts with Luke, shows how radical Acts really is by un-muzzling its prophetic voice. Johnson captures Luke’s vision for the church in this way

What would make a church prophetic in Luke’s view is its total dedication to responding to the call of God in every circumstance, more than to cultivating institutional self-interest…Whether small or large, simple or complex, local or universal, the essential character of the church must be the desire to answer to the living God (70)

The substantive message of the book takes place in 5 chapters: the prophetic Spirit, the prophetic word, prophetic embodiment, prophetic enactment, and prophetic witness. For each chapter, first Johnson describes the prophetic element as it appears in Luke, then Acts, and then he offers “Challenges for the Church Today.” This ends up being a kind of thematic commentary with application, but because it is Johnson communicating, it packs a wollup of a theological punch!

Here are some of my favorite insights:

Prophetic Word:

The prophet announces ‘God’s rule,’ meaning what God has done and is doing among humans for their salvation and what this demands of humans in response: repentance for the forgiveness of sins, living by a new measure of success and failure, doing the deeds that demonstrate repentance, growing into full maturity. (p 89)

[Repentance means] a commitment to live by the reversal of values and behaviors demanded by the good news of God’s rule (92)

Prophetic Embodiment

If Luke continues to show prophetic embodiment in the new community formed by the Holy Spirit in Acts, this means that, in his view, the Jesus movement reached its fullest expression in the earliest church and was at least as radical in its character as was the one through whose spirit it exists (109)

Johnson outlines 4 values of prophetic embodiment that challenge the church today: prayer, poverty/sharing possessions, itinerancy, and servant leadership. Under prayer he made this powerful statement about worship

The single greatest countercultural act Christians perform is to worship together and proclaim that Jesus is Lord. To cease from the constant round of commerce and consumption, to resist the manipulation of media that insists that working and possessing defines worth, and to proclaim with the body language of communal gathering that Jesus, not any other power, is Lord is to enact the politics of God’s kingdom and to embody the prayer ‘your kingdom come.’ (124)

I was a bit confused by what Johnson means by “itinerancy,” but it has something to do with living “lightly” so that you can pick up and go whenever God’s spirit calls you to go for service. Johnson takes a shot at the Vatican for being too fixed in a system of leadership and settlement and movement to make it difficult for the Spirit to utilize their “lightness.” (to be fair, he criticizes all sorts of other groups as well!)

Prophetic Enactment

This involves habits of the prophet like healing and exorcising demons. Plenty of this going on in Luke-Acts and it is surely a sign of God’s full-force attack against the powers of the world beset by sin. But I was very curious what Johnson would do when it comes to translating this for the church today. He tends to take the evil and demons of the world like NT Wright does, calling governmental corruption “evil” and fighting all kinds of trafficing and abuse as “demonic.” What about “healing”? Johnson does not talk plainly about it in the ways I was hoping, but his concluding thoughts are very apropos.

The church should think of healing in terms of caring more than in terms of curing. The first aspect of Luke’s healing stories is the simple seeing of the one afflicted. Such seeing requires that the church, like Jesus, must be among the afflicted…The second aspect is touching. Illness of every sort bears a stigma with it…The gesture of touch removes the stigma and begins the restoration to human community. The third aspect is placing in the midst. When the church refuses to segregate the afflicted, but rather seeks to construct forms of community that place the afflicted at the center rather than at the margins of life, it truly carries out the ministry of healing as a prophetic enactment. (165)

Prophetic Witness

Johnson acknowledges that many Christians today think they know what “witnessing” is – telling people they are sinners and to turn to Jesus. He does affirm that witnessing does require words, but it is not words alone.

It does not matter much what the church declares to the world concerning the resurrection if its common life does not embody the truth of the resurrection. (184)

This book was a breath of fresh air for me – and not just because it is free of footnotes/endnotes! If you are teaching a course on Luke or Acts, I would strongly urge you to consider having your students engage with this book – especially if they are planning to be in ministry leadership!

Joel Green Teaches Us How to Practice Theological Interpretation (Brief Review)

If you read my blog enough you will come to recognize that I absolutely love the work of Joel Green (Fuller Seminary). He is a very gifted researcher, a wonderful pastor and mentor, and a nice guy. So, I try to pick up anything he writes (but I can’t keep up!).

I was so pleased that Baker offered IBR members, this year, a free copy of Green’s Practicing Theological Interpretation (2011), which carries the subtitle: “Engaging Biblical Texts for Faith and Formation.” The book is an expansion of a lecture series Green was invited to give at Nazarene Theological Seminary.

If you have read Green’s Siezed by Truth, you know that he is not very happy about the classic exegetical method that separates the question “What did it mean (in ancient history)” and “What does it mean now?” To read a book of the Bible, like James for example, as Christian Scripture is to be the audience of the canonical text, unified with the church throughout the ages. There is no good reason, Green argues, to talk about the church of James’ original address versus the church now. Rather, “According to its classical definition, the church is one, holy, apostolic, and catholic. Whatever else it means, this confession has it that there is only one church” (p. 16).

So, Green thinks that a better approach for good readers of the Biblical text is to become the “model reader.” This is the reader “the text not only presupposes but also cultivates” (19). If we are available to be caught up in a theological narrative that transforms the way we see life, we can be the model reader and, thus, we don’t need to separate the interpretive task into past meaning and present meaning (so Green urges).

Bottom line, a text like James “invites us into a context other than that provided by historical criticism” (p, 41).

The strange would of the Bible, for James, cannot be understood merely in historical terms. What is need is the theological context marked by James’ emphasis on creation and new creation as the bookends within which to make sense of life in the dispersion, and, indeed, by James’ invitation to identify ourselves as people who, because of our allegiance to Jesus Christ,are genuinely not at home. (p. 41-42)

Does this mean that Green is not a fan of reading “in context.” Of course not! He has much to say about historical context in his book, but I want to quote this first:

“theological interpretation identifies[the central] context especially in theological terms. Theological interpretation inquires whether we are ready to be the ‘you’ to whom James addresses his letter and to be sculpted in terms of this theological vision.” (p. 42)

Ok, now the issue of history.What is theological interpretation’s beef with historical criticism? Well, insofar as TIS focuses on the canonical text and interprets theologically as a primary goal and interest, it is (as Green calls it) “interested exegesis.” What historical criticism tends to do, argues Green, is “[reduce] the Bible to a disparate collection of historical and/or literary documents” (p. 44).

But Green does not throw out the baby with the bathwater. He affirms one key historical approach, and disregards two other ones.

First, Green supports historical inquiry and sees it as salutary for TIS when it involves “Study of the historical situation within which the biblical materials were generated, including the sociocultural conventions that they take for granted” (p. 45). This includes such interests as ancient economy, the struggle of peasants, the social status of slaves, or the role of purity in ancient Israel. Basically, he means historical and social insights that bring values to the text for theological analysis. He calls this Type 3 Historical Criticism.

What are Types 1 and 2. The first rejected type is interest in “The reconstruction  of past events in order to narrate the story of the past” (44). This is the “historians” job when he or she has chopped up the biblical text looking for historical “truths.” Secondly, Green rejects study that involves “Excavation of traditional material in order to explain the process from historical events to their textualizing in the biblical materials” (44-45) – can anyone say JEDP?

This all goes to show that TIS scholars like Green are not anti-history or living in an ecclesial and canonical bubble. They simply recognize that all history writing is about seeing meaning in the past to shape identity, life, and meaning for the present and future. All history writers are philosophers because they are interpreting history as they write about it.

Reflecting on the Gospel writers as both theologians and historians, Green writes

Although one might wish to speak heuristically of Luke’s or Matthew’s theological agenda or historical interests or literary artistry, these are not ‘parts’ of a Lukan or Matthean enterprise. A narrative such as Mark’s is not molecular, divisible into three parts history, two parts theology, and one part literary artistry. It simply is a theologically determined narrative representation of historical events” (56).

So, you might ask, what does Green want from Biblical scholars and theologians? How does he want to see the landscape of Biblical scholarship change? Here are some of his final words

An alternative approach recasts biblical studies as an inherently theological enterprise, one that  resists the common division of labor that identifies one group (theologians) for its interest in speaking of God in the present tense while insisting that another group (biblical scholars) confine [sic?] itself to speaking of God only in the past tense….Biblical studies [should] self-consciously locate itself within the church, just as the church works out its identity and mission in the world…Theological engagement with Scripture has no need to exclude other interpretive agendas, but only insists that reading the Bible theologically as Christian Scripture has its own inherently theological presumptions and protocols (124)

Wow! That is good stuff and I think we are seeing things begin to change at SBL in particular. Now that AAR has re-joined with SBL, perhaps we can foster more of a mutual dialogue with theologians. Personally, I hope to go to some papers on Bonhoeffer at AAR next year!

Did anyone else read Green’s work? What do you think? Particularly, how do you find his three-fold taxonomy of types of historical inquiry? Do you think types 1 and 2 are counter-productive to TIS?

On Colossians – written from where?

A introduction to Colossians typically treats the question of provenance – where was Paul when he wrote Colossians?

The short answer is (1) in prison, and (2) the city is unknown.

Nowadays, scholars seem to care little whether Paul was writing from Rome, Ephesus, or somewhere else. There are some historical questions, like matters of the distance between Rome and Colossae and ease of travel for Onesimus, but it hardly makes a huge impact on the interpretation of the letter (other than when such issues lead to doubting the authorship attribution).

I am quite happy to guess (for it is little more than that) that Paul was in Rome, partly because this is the major tradition of the Church (also manuscripts K and L, for example, actually contain a line reading “written from Rome”). Again, this effects the exegesis little per se, but what I think is more important is that decisions about the place of imprisonment and the dating in association with Acts and his other letters give us a glimpse into the type of imprisonment. One could use the language of imprisonment and there could be a wide range of circumstances associated (from little freedom and choice to a very flexible situation).

Based on Paul’s ability to be in contact with various people, the presumption of collaboration in writing, and some evidence from Acts, I am inclined to think he was in a rather flexible situation – perhaps under house arrest (in Rome? See Acts 28:16). For Paul to “live by himself” does not mean he lived a charmed life. Under guard, he may have even been shackled, which may means that his reference to “chains” (4:18) in Colossians could be literal. Not to mention to mental and emotional stress and trauma of confinement and an uncertain future.

In my commentary, I try to make flesh out how his themes of joy and thanksgiving would have been all the more an act of will as it was an emotion and reaction, given his circumstances. I don’t think it has been explored how Paul’s “prison letters” (Eph, Col, Phil, Phm) are unique among the Pauline corpus precisely because he is under such trying circumstances and is thinking more about death, shame, weakness, and hope.

Heaven and Hell in the New Testament – an analogy

I regularly make to my students this claim: according to the NT, “salvation” is not exclusively or even mainly about going to heaven when you die and avoiding hell. It is a holistic concept about redeeming all of life, all of the person, in the here and now as well as in the there and then.

So, one might ask, why does the NT talk about heaven so much (and hell on some occasions)?

I have spent some time lately thinking about this and, it is true, heaven comes up a lot, esp in the Gospels. My thinking about this was spurred on by N.T. Wright’s comment that, for Jesus (in the Gospels), Heaven is not an otherworldly destination for the saved. It has importance now because it is like a “control room” from which God watches and works on our behalf. Thus, Wright regularly refers to information in the Lord’s prayer:

Our Father in Heaven – he is not just out there, far away in heaven. He is somewhere that counts for how we live now.

Thy will be done on earth, as it is in heaven. We do not want to flee earth and go to heaven. The church has a mission of working towards redeeming the earth to make it just like heaven. (Just like good Roman Philippians tried to make Philippi a micro-Rome, so Wright often reminds us!)

I like this analogy, but I think I have another helpful one.

Think about life in the world like a big football game (I know some folks that are already loving this analogy!). There are teams (good and evil, respectively). They are in a contest of power and there is a home team and an away team. Each team has colors, a mascot, a logo, and the hometown name emblazoned on t-shirts, jersies, helmets, and other paraphernalia. So, a team shirt might say “New England Patriots.” Why wear a t-shirt that says where you are from? It is not advertising, it is association. You wear your “home” colors and name and town because you identify with it. Whether you are a player or fan at the game, you don’t wear the home city (or region) name proudly so you can say to your buddy next to you, “I can’t wait to go home. I love our town.”

You wear your team’s identifying symbols because you are involved in the contest and you must take sides! You may be excited to finally go home once the game is over. Your team and hometown has a reputation, an ethos, an identity that you want to finally rule the day. As you cheer or play, you keep in mind how your decisions affect your hometown’s reputation. When it comes to sportsmanship and ethics, in the midst of the game (for both players and fans!) its easy to want to give in to anger, jealousy, revenge, and malice (especially when playing rivals), but wearing the name of your team/hometown reminds you of the high standards of your origin community (ideally, right?).

So, it is with heaven. Claiming to be a citizen of heaven means that you live on earth, but your identity is wrapped up with your origin or identifying community. You sojourn, for a time, on earth, in a contest of power and will. You butt heads all the time with “citizens of earth,” but this is why Paul refers to thinking about “above things” not “earthly things.” The “above things” are not angels and clouds and golden streets. It is about remembering the virtue and ethos of the hometown that has sent you.

The NT, by analogy, is very interested in Heaven and sometimes brings up Hell because these are two primal regions with competing ideologies and earth is like an arena. Thanks to “sin and death,” the earth has become “home” for members of the team that rivals Heaven. So, when believers struggle in this world, as visitors, it is easy to start to try to feel at home and blend in with the crowd. Reminding ourselves of Heaven is not simply wishing for a place of bliss  – not a bad idea, but does not seem to be the point of many NT passages. It is about identity – a “Heaven” player always acts like a “Heaven” citizen, even when the other team fights dirty or encourages retaliation.

Certainly some NT “Heaven” texts focus on soteriology, but when it comes to the Kingdom of Heaven, it is about the values of Heaven as much as the place of the kingdom.

What do you think???


On Colossians – the problem of authorship

Any introduction to Colossians will have to reckon with the scholarly question over its authorship – I say “scholarly” because, prior to the 19th century, Colossians was just assumed to have been written by Paul. But scholars like F.C. Baur (and some before him) found reason to doubt the authorial attribution was accurate. For Baur, Colossians did not seem like it was dealing with problems from Paul’s time – the problematic heresy the author was addressing was trademark Gnosticism (so Baur concluded).

Since that time, scholars have questioned all kinds of things in Colossians. Here are the big five:

(1) Historical plausibility – there seem to be situations and ideas that fit better into a different time (see, e.g., Baur, M. MacDonald)

(2) Vocabulary – Colossians has some unique vocabulary (this is not as serious of a concern as it used to be for scholars, because they are more willing nowadays to attribute this to the context; see Lincoln)

(3) Style – Not so much the WORDS, but the WAY the author writes and thinks is different from, e.g., Galatians or 1 Corinthians (see Dunn, Schweizer)

(4) Theology – key theological ideas are either MISSING or UNIQUELY DEVELOPED beyond what would be expected of the real Paul (so most commentators that doubt Pauline authorship)

(5) Acceptability of Pseudepigraphy – in more recent years, it has become more common to see pseudepigraphy as an acceptable (and even assumed) practice in the Greco-Roman world. Thus, the canonical and ethical obstacles seem less critical for some scholars (see Lincoln, MacDonald)

So, what can we say? Given that Colossians does not suffer from the same kind of “consensus doubt” as, for example, Titus, it is clear that this is a tough call. Scholars are evenly divided on this letter – nothing in Colossians is over-the-top anachronistic or theologically suspect.

I just finished editing and finalizing an article on the hermeneutics of authorship-analysis vis-a-vis Colossians for publication and it becomes obvious that much of the discussion ends up being subjective – there is no discipline criteria for weighing the value of certain features or issues. That makes the issue so challenging to get a handle on. Nevertheless, here I will raise some key responses to some of the issues raised above.

(1) Historical plausibility – this issue cuts both ways. I think it was Moule who suggested that it would be kind of dumb of a false-writer to be clumsy enough to include anachronistic events or issues. If it is clear that the pseudepigraphers were trying to look like Paul, why didn’t they try harder? Also, how did they fool so many people for so long? Also, Fee points out that pseudonymous theories must reckon who offering some kind of plausible alternative – something most people don’t venture to do (other than Baur, and how did that work out for him?). Dunn asks – why write to Colossae, a city not founded by Paul?

(2) Vocabulary – again, not an issue for most folks now – Harold Hoehner succeeded in making his point by facetiously making a case against the authentic Pauline authorship of Galatians, based on the criteria that scholars use to question Ephesians.

(3) Style – this is a real problem. Dunn remarks that Colossians has “fingerprint” differences – and I agree. We must be willing to conclude that Paul did not actually write or dictate this letter. But that does not mean it did not come from Paul’s authority or mind. Randolph Richards has helped us to understand the complexity of “authorship” in the GR world. It was often collaborative and sometimes the role of the amanuensis changed even throughout the course of the letter! Lincoln is suspicious of giving the secretary too much credit for Colossians – according to Lincoln, we just don’t know what secretaries did. OK, true. But it is a possibility we must consider. Also, Witherington offers a very plausible suggestion that Colossians was purposely written in a different style (Asiatic) by Paul – I am interested in seeing how new commentators react to Witherington’s proposal because I think it has good merit.

(4) Theology – This is one of the most pressing matters – is this really the mind of Paul? Barth/Blanke argue that Paul’s thought may have developed, but it could obviously still be Paul. Lincoln and others just think this is unlikely. What do we do?

(5) Pseudepigraphy – yes, we can see examples of pseudonymous writing in the ancient world, even in Jewish literature. But letters? Especially ones attributed to authors in the RECENT past? Also, how do we handle the seemingly superfluous details at the end of Colossians that have little theological value and seem like they would be only there to trick readers? Books like 1 Enoch do not suffer from this very personal problem. We need more research on this issue of currency and acceptability before we can turn to this as a default option.

Bottom Line

Clearly I could go on and on and on about this (my article is around 10,000 words!). To some degree, it comes down to the interpreter’s inclinations and intuition. That doesn’t sound very academic, but it seems true to reality. It is extremely difficult to find common method and common ground (even computer analysis of stylistic features has not convinced scholars one way or another!). When it comes to Colossians, I think the stance of Barth/Blanke is exactly right: In dubio pro reo: When in doubt, side with the accused – or, innocent until proven guilty. Given the strong patristic assumption that it is by Paul and no “obvious” piece of evidence to the contrary, this is the safest choice.

In that case, we cannot ever categorize Colossians as “deutero-Pauline.” We cannot prove it is secondary, we can only say it is doubted (by some scholars), so I much prefer the label “disputed” because that is precisely what it is.

Kenneth Bailey Reads Paul through Mediterranean Eyes (Review)

You may have heard that Ken Bailey’s new Reading Paul through Mediterranean Eyes (IVP, 2011) won Christianity Today’s “best book” award in the category of “Biblical Studies” – huge praise indeed for someone who is not, first and foremost, a Bible scholar!

I am reviewing this book for Interpretation and they have given me 1400 words to discuss this 550 page tome on 1 Corinthians! This has proven challenging! There is much to say!

Without repeating all the comments in my review, I will offer some basic thoughts here.

First, even though Bailey avoids calling his book a commentary (subtitle: “Cultural Studies in 1 Corinthians”), he works through 1 Corinthians in a passage-by-passage manner, just like a commentary. What is unique, though, is that Bailey draws from his experience over several decades living and working in the Middle East. Also, he puts forward a rather controversial two-pronged claim.

(1) Paul’s first letter to the Corinthians is not an ad-hoc  series of responses to questions the Corinthians asked or problems he heard about. It is a carefully constructed whole, written for the benefit of all Christians, but using the Corinthians’ problems as a set of case studies in holiness and obedience to Christ.

(2) Paul’s style in 1 Corinthians owes a major debt to the rhetorical style of the Hebrew prophets. Prophets like Isaiah (especially) wrote using a series of “ring compositions” (what many of us know otherwise as chiasms) and other types of parallel styles. Paul’s letter, according to Bailey, is also set up stylistically like the poetic rhythm of the prophets, where Paul employs similar kinds of  parallels – mostly “ring composition,” but other kinds as well. Bailey works through the parallel format of each passage before engaging in commentary.


When it comes to #1, I found his argument overall helpful and very possible. Emphasizing the Jewishness of, not only the content of 1 Corinthians, but also the structure is something Ciampa and Rosner emphasize as well. I have a harder time with #2. To me, call me a skeptic, but chiasms are in the eye of the beholder and they are very, very difficult to establish in such a way that encourages consensus. Besides, Bailey has to mention Paul’s modifications to chiasms whenever his paradigm doesn’t match up perfectly. It is not so much that Bailey is wrong, but that it is extremely challenging to prove that he is right. And, the proof of the pudding is in the eating, and I simply do not see how his structural and stylistic discussions drive his comments on any given passage – except to point out the central idea, which I think can be done in other ways most of the time.

Witherington, in his recent commentary on Philippians (Eerdmans, 2011), points out a key problem with finding chiasms in a document: “they require one to ‘see’ the structure of the document. But the vast majority of the audience would never see such a thing, as they could not read” (p. 13). Witherington is talking about whole-document chiastic structures, but I think his point works for smaller chiasms – for listeners to identify chiasm as it is being read would seem to me to be extremely challenging. Bailey suggests that Hebrews were trained to identify chiasms as a normal part of poetic communication. But how does that work for the Corinthians, esp those who were Gentile?

Have I become as cynical as Jimmy Dunn?: he writes, “one might simply observe that there seems to be an inverse ratio between the length of proposed chiasms in an individual letter and the light they shed on either the argument or the point. The vigour of Paul’s theology evidently did not allow it to be easily contained within regular grammatical and compositional structures!” (Theology of Paul, 12).

I should say, though, that even if one discounts Bailey’s structure scheme, the commentary is very much still worthwhile. He has translated almost 2 dozen Arabic, Syriac, and Hebrew translations of 1 Corinthians that come from many different periods of the churches’ life and he brings their insight to bear on the interpretation of the text.

Also, he does offer cultural insights, esp from his experience, but I would say that his comments on the text are not that much different than those of Fee or Garland or whoever. What Bailey does bring to the table is his ability to summarize and paraphrase the text and communicate its message clearly and in fresh ways. He is a master writer, and his analogies are very insightful. He also makes some comparisons with religious life in Islam, which is unique in a Pauline commentary as far as my experience goes!

So, is it a worthwhile purchase for students and pastors interested in 1 Corinthians? I would say “yes” for the many small insights, but just know that if you are as skeptical about chiasms as I am, you will end up disagreeing with Bailey’s structure approach. However, if you want to see what it looks like to exposit and engage with the text energetically and passionately, you will find it very good reading.

To Read Cover to Cover or Not? The Ethics of Reviewing Books

I recently received an inquiry about the expectations of book reviewers – are you meant to read the book under examination in full? Perhaps to some the answer is self-evident (“yes!”), and I follow this practice in general, but there are some exceptions.

Here are some factors to consider.

A. Is the book a reference work (like a dictionary)? If I were asked to review a new translation of the Babylonian Talmud, I don’t think I would be expected to read it in full. So, what do you do? For dictionaries, I try to read a good  representative sample (if there are 1000 articles, I try to read, let’s say, 50-75).

B. If the book is a commentary, this fits somewhat into the reference category, but it really depends. Commentaries that are short (let’s say 500 pages or less), I tend to read in full. For really long commentaries (like Reumann’s Philippians), I read the introduction in full and very carefully, and then I chose 10-20 key passages (esp. controversial ones) that I read carefully.

C. Textbooks – again, if it is short, I would suggest reading it in full. If it is a very lengthy one, I might, again, read a very good representative sample.

D. Part of the matter has to do with the reviewing journal – for a very short review (100 words, let’s say), you are not expected to give a heavily critical analysis. So, for a long reference work, you are probably not expected to read the whole work in full. For a major journal, and if you are doing a longer review (let’s say 1500 words), it is expected, I think, that you will look it over with a very close eye. You may have to raise this question to your editor, if it is unclear. I don’t think this kind of question will be taken with offense if the book is obviously very long and is a reference work.

E. Some books naturally require a thorough read, even if it is long (Campbell’s DoG comes to mind!). So, monographs pretty much depend on a word-for-word read.

Let me say this, though I tend to err on the side of reading the whole book, if I already have a good sense for the argument or content of a chapter, I am able to read it quite fast (not “skimming,” just reading that requires little processing). Also, the more you read (well), the faster your reading speed becomes, I have noticed.


Thoughts? What are your professional book reviewing practices?