Eugene Boring writes NT Introduction

NT scholar M. Eugene Boring (Brite Divinity School) has written a NT Introduction (coming Oct 2012, WJK). He is well-known for work on the Gospel of Mark and Revelation. Apparently it will be a hefty volume (700+ pages). I am still on the lookout for a good introductory textbook so — fingers crossed!

Richard Hays Co-Edits Book on Revelation

A few years ago, when Richard Hays was in Durham (UK) for a special lecture, he told a group of us that he is knee-deep in a Gospels book and has basically turned down further offers to talk about Paul – he has spent decades studying Paul (to all of our benefit!) and is excited about researching the use of Scripture in the Gospels.

Well, I was also pleased to see the soon-coming release (July 2012) of a book he has edited on another non-Pauline text: Revelation and the Politics of Apocalyptic Interpretation (Baylor Press; edited with Stefan Alkier). Don’t forget to wipe the drool off of your face as you read this table of contents:

1  What Has the Spirit Been Saying? Theological and Hermeneutical Reflections on the Reception/Impact History of the Book of Revelation

Michael J. Gorman

 

2  Models for Intertextual Interpretation of Revelation

Steve Moyise
3  The Reception of Daniel 7 in the Revelation of John

Thomas Hieke

 

4  Faithful Witness, Alpha and Omega: The Identity of Jesus in the Apocalypse of John

Richard B. Hays

 

5  God, Israel, and Ecclesia in the Apocalypse

Joseph L. Mangina

 

6  Revelation and Christian Hope: Political Implications of the Revelation to John

N. T. Wright

 

7  Witness or Warrior? How the Book of Revelation Can Help Christians Live Their Political Lives

Stefan Alkier

 

8  The Apocalypse in the Framework of the Canon

Tobias Nicklas

 

9  Reading What Is Written in the Book of Life: Theological Interpretation of the Book of Revelation Today

Marianne Meye Thompson

I WANT THIS BOOK! Where did I put that SBL wishlist…?

How to Review a Festschrift?

I am currently reviewing the FS Celebrating Paul (honoring Fitzmyer & Murphy-O’Connor) for a journal and after reading through the eclectic set of essays, I wondered: what do you say in a review? Space does not really permit in-depth discussion of the 19 essays (400+ pages). There is obviously no central thesis. Each contributor makes his or her own argument towards an issue in Paul’s letters.

So, I went looking for examples. I went on the RBL page and looked at various reviews of Festschriften. Basically, everyone struggles with this and many opt to focus on a handful of interesting essays. One example, in particular, stuck out to me and made me laugh: see here. It is what I would call a “minimalist” review (if it can be called a review! Keep in mind RBL asks for a 1000-word review that aims to be analytical and “critical” in an academic sense).