(More) Congratulations are in order!
A few weeks back I congratulated my friend, Dr. Josh Jipp for successfully defending his dissertation at the Candler School of Theology, Emory University. Well it’s that time of year when we see our friends, family, and students accomplish educational goals they have been pursuing for some time, and today I want to extend my heartiest congratulations to two friends. First, I want to congratulate my very first Greek student (2002-2004), Nathan Reed, for graduating yesterday with his master’s degree in education at The Johns Hopkins University. I also want to congratulate my good friend, the Rev. Dr. Jason Poling, for successfully defending his dissertation this morning. Congratulations, Nathan and Jason!
This week Dr. Frank J. Matera was honored at his retirement from the Catholic University of America. Fr. Matera has served at CUA since 1988, having previously served on the faculty of St. John’s Seminary in Boston from 1982-1987. During his 45 year career as priest and scholar, Fr. Matera published 12 books and over 80 articles on topics as broad as New Testament christology, ethics, homiletics, the Synoptic Gospels, and New Testament theology. He has also been a leading interpreter of Paul, having published major commentaries on Galatians, 2 Corinthians, and Romans. He also has a forthcoming Pauline theology that I am looking to reading.
On a personal note, I first came across the work of Frank Matera when I was a third-year seminary student. In the summer of 1999 I was in St. Petersburg, Russia with an international group of students, taking an exegetical course on Galatians taught by the late Harold Hoehner. One of the requirements of the course was that we read a minimum of 500 pages in the standard commentaries on Galatians. I chose Matera’s commentary in the Sacra Pagina series and was amazed at his ability to draw out the underlying narrative of Paul’s thought while simultaneously paying attention to the nuances of the Greek text and the contours of Paul’s theological argument. It remains my favorite commentary on Galatians. Three years later I was privileged to sit under Fr. Matera in a doctoral course on 2 Corinthians while he was completing his commentary for the New Testament Library.
All who know Frank Matera recognize that he is an incredibly humble man with a gentle spirit and a great passion for the New Testament. I feel tremendously privileged to have studied under him and wish him the best in retirement!
Returning to the series where she reviews commentaries on the Gospel of Thomas, Judy Redman has a nice overview of Petr Pokorny’s book, A Commentary on the Gospel of Thomas: From Interpretations to the Interpreted (T & T Clark, 2009). I admit that I have not interacted much with this book, and in fact only gave it attention in a very brief footnote in my recent book. I especially appreciate Judy using the three categories that I proposed as necessary for reading contemporary Thomas scholarship (Thomas‘s relationship to the NT, theological outlook, and date of composition). Take the time to read all the way through Judy’s comments. She provides lists of both positive and negative features of the book and offers a qualified recommendation for those with some specialized knowledge of the field. Thanks for this valuable service, Judy!
Matthew Montonini reports that the conference devoted to the book, Jesus, Criteria, and the Demise of Authenticity (edited by Chris Keith and Anthony LeDonne) has been moved to Dayton, Ohio. The conference will take place on the originally scheduled dates, October 4-5, 2012. For more details, see the announcement over at New Testament Perspectives.
You may recall that the conference was moved because of the controversy
over Anthony LeDonne’s termination. There was a call among some to boycott the conference, and in fact Mark Goodacre (one of the participants) stated publicly that he would not attend if the conference was held at Lincoln Christian University.
It’s good to hear that this event is still a “go.” I am looking forward to the conference very much.
Here’s the second installment from my colleague, Dr. Hollis Phelps (and Hollis, we Biblical scholars accept your apology!).
Hollis Phelps on Demystifying the Professoriate
Over at Religion at Mount Olive (the blog of our religion department at Mount Olive College), my colleague, Dr. Hollis Phelps, has a very good post about how professors are not superhuman, just individuals who have engaged in a great deal of reading, studying, preparing. It looks like he plans to do a series of posts. I, for one, look forward to what he has to say.
The Future of Theological Education
There’s an interesting article over at the Chronicle of Higher Education on the future of theological schools. The article discusses some challenges facing theological education including: ”a widening chasm between Christian churches and seminaries; increasing numbers of seminary students who have not grown up in the church; a growing awareness that seminary education is inaccessible for many potential seminary students; an increased questioning of whether seminary is really worth the financial costs; and forthcoming population shifts that will affect the ability of seminaries to prepare culturally competent leaders for the 21st century.” Check it out.
Chris Keith On the Literacy of Jesus
Over at New Testament Perspectives, Matthew Montonini interviews Chris Keith about Jesus’ literacy. In his dissertation, Keith examined the description of Jesus stooping to write in the dirt in the Pericope Adulterae (John 7:53 – 8:11), and argued that the Fourth Gospel depicts Jesus as literate. In the present book, he argues that Jesus was a “scribal illiterate,” and, according to the interview, proposes a new way of understanding literacy in the historical situation in first century Judea. I haven’t read the book yet but I have read Keith’s article in the recent book edited by Anthony LeDonne and Tom Thatcher. His thesis is quite interesting. Check out the interview if you get a chance.
I have been slowly wading through Simon Gathercole’s recent offering on the Gospel of Thomas and, as always, I’m impressed by the breadth of his abilities. In particular, Simon demonstrates such a command of the languages that his research is impossible to ignore. (For what it’s worth, I feel the same way about the work of April DeConick. Though I often disagree with her conclusions, her command of the languages and her exploration of numerous “outside” discussions also makes her work impossible to ignore.)
The book begins with an introductory chapter (pp. 1-16) in which Simon covers the contemporary discussion of Thomas’s composition. He makes a number of observations, but to my mind, two of the most important observations he makes are: (1) too many conclusions about Thomas-Synoptic relations are based upon scholarly reconstructions of Q, many of which are passed off as authoritative (rather than speculative); and (2) there is significant disagreement about Thomas’s relationship to the Synoptic tradition, though in North American scholarship there is a tendency for scholars to suggest that the debate is over. I think these observations need to be made in a book like this one. Since Simon is concerned to discuss the original language and sources behind Thomas, it is necessary for him to situate his study in the context of current discussions. As I have tried to show in my recent book on Thomas, there is something of a “continental divide” in the debate over Thomas‘s relationship to the Synoptic gospels. North American scholars (many of whom favor Thomas’s independence) have a tendency to assume (and often assert) that the debate is over. European scholars are still very interested in the discussion (and often favor Thomas‘s dependence).
This first chapter is a helpful entree into the first substantive section of the book, which deals with the original language of Thomas. In my next post I will look at Simon’s argument in chapters 2-4.
The Torture of Reading Page Proofs
I have been poring over the page proofs of a forthcoming book all day and the process has been one of endless frustration. Honestly, I am, by and 
large, happy with the product. It’s just that changes (even good changes) to a book you have shepherded for nearly two years can occasionally feel like unnecessary surgery on a healthy body. Does anyone else have trouble looking at the changes (again, even the good changes) someone else has made to your manuscript?
