Pub Date : 2021-11-01DOI: 10.1177/00346373221102910
Matthew Burks
Students of the Greek New Testament may often be surprised not to find the traditional English ending, or doxology (“For yours is the kingdom and the power and the glory forever. Amen.”), of the Lord’s Prayer in the current critical editions of the Greek text (NA28/UBS5). This doxological ending finds its way into Greek manuscripts roughly around the fifth century, although the doxology is possibly found earlier in non-canonical Christian literature. Current translations around the world are split on adding or not adding the doxology. This article is divided into two parts: (1) a text-critical evaluation of the variants at the end of the Lord’s Prayer in Matthew and (2) a survey of the textual history of the doxology of the Lord’s Prayer specifically through five phases: oral tradition, early transmission, late transmission, early critical texts, and modern translations. Concluding comments suggest a mutually beneficial relationship between text-critical scholarship and the church/liturgical practices.
{"title":"Where is the kingdom, power, and glory? A text-critical analysis of the doxology of the Lord’s Prayer in Matthew","authors":"Matthew Burks","doi":"10.1177/00346373221102910","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/00346373221102910","url":null,"abstract":"Students of the Greek New Testament may often be surprised not to find the traditional English ending, or doxology (“For yours is the kingdom and the power and the glory forever. Amen.”), of the Lord’s Prayer in the current critical editions of the Greek text (NA28/UBS5). This doxological ending finds its way into Greek manuscripts roughly around the fifth century, although the doxology is possibly found earlier in non-canonical Christian literature. Current translations around the world are split on adding or not adding the doxology. This article is divided into two parts: (1) a text-critical evaluation of the variants at the end of the Lord’s Prayer in Matthew and (2) a survey of the textual history of the doxology of the Lord’s Prayer specifically through five phases: oral tradition, early transmission, late transmission, early critical texts, and modern translations. Concluding comments suggest a mutually beneficial relationship between text-critical scholarship and the church/liturgical practices.","PeriodicalId":21049,"journal":{"name":"Review & Expositor","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.1,"publicationDate":"2021-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"46611759","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-11-01DOI: 10.1177/00346373221100964
Diana M. Swancutt
The Lord’s Prayer has long held a venerable place in the life of the church. This article argues that one of the reasons for this central importance is that the Lord’s Prayer was a habitus-forming reminder to Jesus’s followers to enact Jubilee daily as the defining socio-eschatological praxis of early Christian communities. This interpretation tempers the tendency to spiritualize ancient readings of the Lord’s Prayer with the steel of collective social practice, the physicality of the body, and the grit of social need.
{"title":"“Forgive us our debts”: Jubilee prays the Lord’s Prayer","authors":"Diana M. Swancutt","doi":"10.1177/00346373221100964","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/00346373221100964","url":null,"abstract":"The Lord’s Prayer has long held a venerable place in the life of the church. This article argues that one of the reasons for this central importance is that the Lord’s Prayer was a habitus-forming reminder to Jesus’s followers to enact Jubilee daily as the defining socio-eschatological praxis of early Christian communities. This interpretation tempers the tendency to spiritualize ancient readings of the Lord’s Prayer with the steel of collective social practice, the physicality of the body, and the grit of social need.","PeriodicalId":21049,"journal":{"name":"Review & Expositor","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.1,"publicationDate":"2021-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"47483630","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-11-01DOI: 10.1177/00346373221109857i
A. Smith
one thing but many things organized around attention, affection, and resistance, each aiming, each navigating—each a design that designs” (p. 49). He asks the reader to consider the work of formation and what captivates their attention, moves them toward affection, and calls them to resistance. Chapter 3 focuses on the work of building educational institutions. Jennings uses a rendering of African American worship on a plantation as an image of Western education, writing, “All theological education in the Western world is haunted by this illustration: a plantation at worship and an enslaved preacher” (p. 82). He argues that Western educational institutions, including theological ones, have not dealt with issues of race because much of the bias is unconscious. He goes on to raise difficult but vital questions aimed at enabling readers to rethink the purpose of institutional life together. In chapter 4, Jennings addresses what shared institutional life could look like “by reframing the daily operations of a school inside a new vision of edification” (p. 105). In the final chapter, Jennings notes, “Theological education is in the midst of an epic struggle” (p. 153). He writes that this struggle, however, is not about institutional survival, stainable financial models, or best pedagogical practices. Jennings insists that, while all of these issues are important, “They are not where the struggle meets us or from where the vision of our futures will come” (p. 154). Jennings goes on to ask, “What would it mean to be a professor who thinks the gathering differently in a school that thinks it differently?” (p. 139). And here is the hope. Jennings writes that Jesus called the crowd so that through his life and teachings, they might be formed into seeing themselves, others, and their world differently. And just as those in the crowd were offered the good news of new life together, those in theological education today “can start again. The ‘again’ being a gift from the God who raised Jesus from the dead. Theological education exists in the ‘again’” (p. 151). While this book is written most directly for those involved in theological education, Jennings’ critique importantly extends more broadly to Western education in general. The United States is in the midst of a racial reckoning, with Black and Brown bodies dying while some continue to argue that systemic racism does not exist. Anyone involved in the work of Christian formation can benefit from Jennings’ writing because it questions the very reason and goal of formation itself: is it to further belief in the power and control of white, masculine self-sufficiency or is it to cultivate a desire for community and a diversity of voices, each one sharing their fragments and open to receiving the gift of the fragments that others have to offer, “a treasure that would move us toward a true maturity that is a way of life together, a way that forms new life together” (p. 152).
{"title":"Paula L. McGee, Brand® New Theology: The Wal-Martization of T. D. Jakes and the New Black Churc","authors":"A. Smith","doi":"10.1177/00346373221109857i","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/00346373221109857i","url":null,"abstract":"one thing but many things organized around attention, affection, and resistance, each aiming, each navigating—each a design that designs” (p. 49). He asks the reader to consider the work of formation and what captivates their attention, moves them toward affection, and calls them to resistance. Chapter 3 focuses on the work of building educational institutions. Jennings uses a rendering of African American worship on a plantation as an image of Western education, writing, “All theological education in the Western world is haunted by this illustration: a plantation at worship and an enslaved preacher” (p. 82). He argues that Western educational institutions, including theological ones, have not dealt with issues of race because much of the bias is unconscious. He goes on to raise difficult but vital questions aimed at enabling readers to rethink the purpose of institutional life together. In chapter 4, Jennings addresses what shared institutional life could look like “by reframing the daily operations of a school inside a new vision of edification” (p. 105). In the final chapter, Jennings notes, “Theological education is in the midst of an epic struggle” (p. 153). He writes that this struggle, however, is not about institutional survival, stainable financial models, or best pedagogical practices. Jennings insists that, while all of these issues are important, “They are not where the struggle meets us or from where the vision of our futures will come” (p. 154). Jennings goes on to ask, “What would it mean to be a professor who thinks the gathering differently in a school that thinks it differently?” (p. 139). And here is the hope. Jennings writes that Jesus called the crowd so that through his life and teachings, they might be formed into seeing themselves, others, and their world differently. And just as those in the crowd were offered the good news of new life together, those in theological education today “can start again. The ‘again’ being a gift from the God who raised Jesus from the dead. Theological education exists in the ‘again’” (p. 151). While this book is written most directly for those involved in theological education, Jennings’ critique importantly extends more broadly to Western education in general. The United States is in the midst of a racial reckoning, with Black and Brown bodies dying while some continue to argue that systemic racism does not exist. Anyone involved in the work of Christian formation can benefit from Jennings’ writing because it questions the very reason and goal of formation itself: is it to further belief in the power and control of white, masculine self-sufficiency or is it to cultivate a desire for community and a diversity of voices, each one sharing their fragments and open to receiving the gift of the fragments that others have to offer, “a treasure that would move us toward a true maturity that is a way of life together, a way that forms new life together” (p. 152).","PeriodicalId":21049,"journal":{"name":"Review & Expositor","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.1,"publicationDate":"2021-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"45767152","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-11-01DOI: 10.1177/00346373221109857e
James R. McConnell
predictions that focus the reader’s attention on the death of Jesus. As Jesus makes his way to Jerusalem, he teaches the disciples, implicitly informing the lives of the communities to which the Gospel was directed. The second half of the volume is dedicated to various theological topics and issues that arise out of the Gospel, broken out into two sections: “Thinking Theologically” and “Constructive Theological Engagement.” In the first, the topics discussed include the kingdom, Christology, Holy Spirit, discipleship, and Jesus’s deeds in Matthew. Here I especially appreciated the chapter on Jesus’s deeds, in which the authors emphasized the significance of the human Jesus living out the values and ethos of God’s kingdom. In the second section, Roberts and Brown present chapters on Matthew’s particular contribution to the theology of the NT, feminist and global/liberation theological understandings of Matthew, and finally reading Matthew pastorally, politically, and in a post-Holocaust context. In this section the highlight is the chapter discussing feminist and majority world readings of Matthew. This volume is a solid addition to the Two Horizons series. The commentary, however, would benefit from a slightly less rigorous narrative critical reading and also explore redaction-critical understandings of the text. Further, within the commentary (and theological discussions) there is a strong emphasis on reading the “least of these” in Matt 25:31–46 as a general term for those on the margins, thus arguing that ministry to the oppressed is a major theme in Matthew. The parable, however, may be describing how non-believers (“the nations”; 25:32) have treated “the least,” who are emissaries of Jesus (cf. 10:42). Finally, the intent of this commentary and the series in which it has been published is to pair theological exegesis of the text with theological reflection on the text. This particular volume is weighted more toward the latter. The commentary on the text is not expressly theological; to its credit, it is a thoroughly narrative critical reading of Matthew that takes into account the first-century context within which it was written and first heard. As presented, however, the book as a whole somewhat ironically reinforces the division of biblical studies from theology. These minor critiques notwithstanding, I can recommend this resource to pastors and scholars of Matthew’s Gospel.
{"title":"Douglas A. Campbell, Pauline Dogmatics: The Triumph of God’s Love and James W. Thompson, Apostle of Persuasion: Theology and Rhetoric in the Pauline Letters","authors":"James R. McConnell","doi":"10.1177/00346373221109857e","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/00346373221109857e","url":null,"abstract":"predictions that focus the reader’s attention on the death of Jesus. As Jesus makes his way to Jerusalem, he teaches the disciples, implicitly informing the lives of the communities to which the Gospel was directed. The second half of the volume is dedicated to various theological topics and issues that arise out of the Gospel, broken out into two sections: “Thinking Theologically” and “Constructive Theological Engagement.” In the first, the topics discussed include the kingdom, Christology, Holy Spirit, discipleship, and Jesus’s deeds in Matthew. Here I especially appreciated the chapter on Jesus’s deeds, in which the authors emphasized the significance of the human Jesus living out the values and ethos of God’s kingdom. In the second section, Roberts and Brown present chapters on Matthew’s particular contribution to the theology of the NT, feminist and global/liberation theological understandings of Matthew, and finally reading Matthew pastorally, politically, and in a post-Holocaust context. In this section the highlight is the chapter discussing feminist and majority world readings of Matthew. This volume is a solid addition to the Two Horizons series. The commentary, however, would benefit from a slightly less rigorous narrative critical reading and also explore redaction-critical understandings of the text. Further, within the commentary (and theological discussions) there is a strong emphasis on reading the “least of these” in Matt 25:31–46 as a general term for those on the margins, thus arguing that ministry to the oppressed is a major theme in Matthew. The parable, however, may be describing how non-believers (“the nations”; 25:32) have treated “the least,” who are emissaries of Jesus (cf. 10:42). Finally, the intent of this commentary and the series in which it has been published is to pair theological exegesis of the text with theological reflection on the text. This particular volume is weighted more toward the latter. The commentary on the text is not expressly theological; to its credit, it is a thoroughly narrative critical reading of Matthew that takes into account the first-century context within which it was written and first heard. As presented, however, the book as a whole somewhat ironically reinforces the division of biblical studies from theology. These minor critiques notwithstanding, I can recommend this resource to pastors and scholars of Matthew’s Gospel.","PeriodicalId":21049,"journal":{"name":"Review & Expositor","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.1,"publicationDate":"2021-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"49178012","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-11-01DOI: 10.1177/00346373221109857
Alexander P. Thompson
{"title":"Alicia D. Myers and Lindsey S. Jodrey, Come and Read: Interpretative Approaches to the Gospel of John","authors":"Alexander P. Thompson","doi":"10.1177/00346373221109857","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/00346373221109857","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":21049,"journal":{"name":"Review & Expositor","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.1,"publicationDate":"2021-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"48547547","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-11-01DOI: 10.1177/00346373221102828
Pamela R. Durso
On March 16, 2021, a series of mass shootings occurred at three massage spas in the metropolitan area of Atlanta, Georgia. Eight people were killed, six of whom were Asian women, and one victim was critically wounded. Expressions of horror and sorrow along with anger made headlines, but people in some communities expressed surprise that anti-Asian racism even exists. While conversations, commentary, and scholarship on racism in our country are plentiful, often missing is focus on the racism experienced by Asian Americans and Asians living in the United States, who have long been the target of expressions of discrimination and hatred. Such racism can be traced back to the mid-nineteenth century; yet until the shooting in Atlanta, limited media, congregational, or scholarly attention was given to the increased anti-Asian racism that resulted when COVID was declared a global pandemic. Christian individuals, congregations, seminaries, and organizations must consider our best response to both the tragic events and the long-term embedded anti-Asian racism in US culture. Leaders, pastors, and professors must raise awareness and seek to address internal racism of all forms in our congregations and institutions.
{"title":"A word about . . . Anti-Asian racism","authors":"Pamela R. Durso","doi":"10.1177/00346373221102828","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/00346373221102828","url":null,"abstract":"On March 16, 2021, a series of mass shootings occurred at three massage spas in the metropolitan area of Atlanta, Georgia. Eight people were killed, six of whom were Asian women, and one victim was critically wounded. Expressions of horror and sorrow along with anger made headlines, but people in some communities expressed surprise that anti-Asian racism even exists. While conversations, commentary, and scholarship on racism in our country are plentiful, often missing is focus on the racism experienced by Asian Americans and Asians living in the United States, who have long been the target of expressions of discrimination and hatred. Such racism can be traced back to the mid-nineteenth century; yet until the shooting in Atlanta, limited media, congregational, or scholarly attention was given to the increased anti-Asian racism that resulted when COVID was declared a global pandemic. Christian individuals, congregations, seminaries, and organizations must consider our best response to both the tragic events and the long-term embedded anti-Asian racism in US culture. Leaders, pastors, and professors must raise awareness and seek to address internal racism of all forms in our congregations and institutions.","PeriodicalId":21049,"journal":{"name":"Review & Expositor","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.1,"publicationDate":"2021-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"41244673","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-11-01DOI: 10.1177/00346373221109857c
Brian LePort
Questions of the early monarchy come to the fore in chapter 5, where Dever says the archeological record fits well with patterns of rural life and family structure behind the stories of Saul. While the stories are largely fictitious, “Saul’s brief reign can be seen as possibly historical in general, but not corroborated in any detail” (p. 77). Evidence for David is more substantial, Dever notes, citing the Tel Dan Stele which speaks of the “House of David,” the appeal of Jerusalem as a capital city, and excavations at Khirbet Qeiyafa that provide evidence of royal power and state planning during the time when David would have lived. Large-scale construction projects in cities beyond Jerusalem echo the type of building activities attributed to Solomon. Dismissing the “low chronology” promoted by Israel Finkelstein (pp. 90–91), Dever contends that the kingdoms of Saul, David, and Solomon belong to the late eleventh and tenth centuries. The kingdom was small, with a population that ranged from 75,000 to 100,000. Most people lived in rural areas, but clear signs exist of a centralized administration, ethnic identity, and a national language. Chapter 6 moves to the period of the divided kingdom and the demise of both. While “the archaeological evidence contradicts the biblical stories in some significant ways,” he finds that “more often than not, it tends to undergird the biblical account, sometimes in striking detail” (pp. 103–104). Despite the biblical focus on temple, covenant, and renewal, Dever argues from the material culture that “in fact, Yahwism was largely a literary construct. What the masses of ordinary folks were actually doing instead was the real religion, if numbers count” (p. 117). Chapter 7 turns to a discursus on “Religion and Cult: How Many Gods?” Although the biblical narratives from Joshua through Kings present a theocratic and ideal history about what Israel should have been, Dever says, “The real religion(s) of the ancients consisted of almost everything that the biblical writers condemned” (p. 126), including a major role for Asherah. “Put simply,” Dever writes,
{"title":"Helen K. Bond, The First Biography of Jesus: Genre and Meaning in Mark’s Gospel","authors":"Brian LePort","doi":"10.1177/00346373221109857c","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/00346373221109857c","url":null,"abstract":"Questions of the early monarchy come to the fore in chapter 5, where Dever says the archeological record fits well with patterns of rural life and family structure behind the stories of Saul. While the stories are largely fictitious, “Saul’s brief reign can be seen as possibly historical in general, but not corroborated in any detail” (p. 77). Evidence for David is more substantial, Dever notes, citing the Tel Dan Stele which speaks of the “House of David,” the appeal of Jerusalem as a capital city, and excavations at Khirbet Qeiyafa that provide evidence of royal power and state planning during the time when David would have lived. Large-scale construction projects in cities beyond Jerusalem echo the type of building activities attributed to Solomon. Dismissing the “low chronology” promoted by Israel Finkelstein (pp. 90–91), Dever contends that the kingdoms of Saul, David, and Solomon belong to the late eleventh and tenth centuries. The kingdom was small, with a population that ranged from 75,000 to 100,000. Most people lived in rural areas, but clear signs exist of a centralized administration, ethnic identity, and a national language. Chapter 6 moves to the period of the divided kingdom and the demise of both. While “the archaeological evidence contradicts the biblical stories in some significant ways,” he finds that “more often than not, it tends to undergird the biblical account, sometimes in striking detail” (pp. 103–104). Despite the biblical focus on temple, covenant, and renewal, Dever argues from the material culture that “in fact, Yahwism was largely a literary construct. What the masses of ordinary folks were actually doing instead was the real religion, if numbers count” (p. 117). Chapter 7 turns to a discursus on “Religion and Cult: How Many Gods?” Although the biblical narratives from Joshua through Kings present a theocratic and ideal history about what Israel should have been, Dever says, “The real religion(s) of the ancients consisted of almost everything that the biblical writers condemned” (p. 126), including a major role for Asherah. “Put simply,” Dever writes,","PeriodicalId":21049,"journal":{"name":"Review & Expositor","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.1,"publicationDate":"2021-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"45002564","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-11-01DOI: 10.1177/00346373221109857a
Tony W. Cartledge
the vividness of John 20 in light of the rhetorical categories of ekphrasis and energeia as techniques used to persuade the reader to believe in Jesus. Evaluation of this work is difficult because the selections are quite distinct in their approaches and varied in their interpretations. Come and Read offers a range of interesting insights on the Gospel of John from both seasoned scholars and new voices. The contributions are well-written and present interesting exegetical and hermeneutical insights. The clustering of different approaches around a specific text is noble and a welcome change to the narrow parochialism of biblical scholarship. However, the book’s goal of capturing comparison, interaction, and interdependence among the contributions is harder to perceive. This results in two issues with the work. First, the different goals of the various contributions make comparison across the essays difficult. Some essays lean more on the hermeneutical and illustrate a particular usefulness of theory as it is applied to a text (Jodfrey, Parker). Others tend to emphasize the historical and literary backgrounds of the text with illustrative primary sources (Keener, Carter, Larsen). Still others prefer a more focused, complete analysis that moves commentary-like through the interpretation of the text (Lee, Koester). These differences are not so much the result of the interpretive approaches as they reflect different goals. Some scholars argue a specific point, while others put forth a broader reading. Such unevenness hampers the dialogue between the approaches. Second, the essays are not written for a reader to get a sense of the interpretive debates on a single passage or the places in which the different approaches diverge and intersect. If one is specifically focused on an aspect of Johannine scholarship such as the rhetoric of John’s Gospel, the book is an excellent resource. But as a “deliberate conversation” (p. 2) between approaches, the book could do more to aid the reader. Perhaps an introduction or conclusion to each section could better guide the reader to this end. As it stands, the book displays excellent Johannine scholarship but struggles to bridge the divide between the approaches. Overall, Come and Read offers a strong collection of contributions to the study of John and expertly presents the complexity of biblical interpretation in the twenty-first century. While the work is not well-suited for a college classroom or a general reading audience, it is a good resource for the academic community or a graduate class on John’s Gospel.
{"title":"John D. Currid, The Case for Biblical Archaeology: Uncovering the Historical Record of God’s Old Testament People","authors":"Tony W. Cartledge","doi":"10.1177/00346373221109857a","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/00346373221109857a","url":null,"abstract":"the vividness of John 20 in light of the rhetorical categories of ekphrasis and energeia as techniques used to persuade the reader to believe in Jesus. Evaluation of this work is difficult because the selections are quite distinct in their approaches and varied in their interpretations. Come and Read offers a range of interesting insights on the Gospel of John from both seasoned scholars and new voices. The contributions are well-written and present interesting exegetical and hermeneutical insights. The clustering of different approaches around a specific text is noble and a welcome change to the narrow parochialism of biblical scholarship. However, the book’s goal of capturing comparison, interaction, and interdependence among the contributions is harder to perceive. This results in two issues with the work. First, the different goals of the various contributions make comparison across the essays difficult. Some essays lean more on the hermeneutical and illustrate a particular usefulness of theory as it is applied to a text (Jodfrey, Parker). Others tend to emphasize the historical and literary backgrounds of the text with illustrative primary sources (Keener, Carter, Larsen). Still others prefer a more focused, complete analysis that moves commentary-like through the interpretation of the text (Lee, Koester). These differences are not so much the result of the interpretive approaches as they reflect different goals. Some scholars argue a specific point, while others put forth a broader reading. Such unevenness hampers the dialogue between the approaches. Second, the essays are not written for a reader to get a sense of the interpretive debates on a single passage or the places in which the different approaches diverge and intersect. If one is specifically focused on an aspect of Johannine scholarship such as the rhetoric of John’s Gospel, the book is an excellent resource. But as a “deliberate conversation” (p. 2) between approaches, the book could do more to aid the reader. Perhaps an introduction or conclusion to each section could better guide the reader to this end. As it stands, the book displays excellent Johannine scholarship but struggles to bridge the divide between the approaches. Overall, Come and Read offers a strong collection of contributions to the study of John and expertly presents the complexity of biblical interpretation in the twenty-first century. While the work is not well-suited for a college classroom or a general reading audience, it is a good resource for the academic community or a graduate class on John’s Gospel.","PeriodicalId":21049,"journal":{"name":"Review & Expositor","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.1,"publicationDate":"2021-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"42146562","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-11-01DOI: 10.1177/00346373221102906
Arthur M. Wright
I have been praying the Lord’s Prayer for as long as I can remember. Growing up in Ebenezer United Methodist Church in rural Westmoreland County, Virginia, this prayer from Jesus has been a part of my faith experience since birth. We recited it each week in worship and I do not remember a time when I could not recite it by heart. It is a beautiful thing to say these words aloud in a gathered community of faith week in and week out. Now, as a Bible scholar myself, I continue to find the prayer fascinating because it represents a prayer of Jesus preserved in two Gospels, which gives readers deep insight into Jesus’s ministry, mission, and vision for the world. One of the challenges presented by the Lord’s Prayer, however, is its familiarity. I suspect that, for many Christian readers of this journal, this prayer is the one they have most frequently prayed in their own faith traditions, as well. Of course, the danger of familiarity is that the words of the prayer simply become rote for many worshipers. Does a prayer mean, or do, anything if one utters the words automatically, without any sense of the significance they possess? Thus, one of my guiding concerns in shaping this issue of Review and Expositor has been to assemble a diverse group of voices to help readers see and hear the Lord’s Prayer with fresh eyes and ears. My hope is that these articles will help readers understand the deep layers of meaning in the prayer and approach it with new intention. Perhaps even more so, I hope that for readers who do pray this prayer regularly, these articles will enable them to pray the prayer in a way that is transformational once again, just as it was for Jesus’s earliest followers. As is so often the case in biblical interpretation, looking at texts from multiple angles is important. The scholars and authors who contributed to this issue have done just that, helping readers to view the Lord’s Prayer through various lenses. The diversity of articles speaks to the complexity of interpreting the prayer, as well as the multifaceted relationship Christians have with it. It is also abundantly clear from these articles that the Lord’s Prayer can and should be an active and dynamic force in shaping not only worship, but also fellowship, discipleship, and mission for Christians and faith communities today. The first of the issue’s thematic offerings, C. Clifton Black’s article, “The religious world of the Lord’s Prayer,” helps situate this prayer in the larger context of its time. He reminds readers that this prayer from Jesus did not arise within a vacuum, but rather displays important connections to, as well as distinctions from, Greek, Hebrew, Roman, and Hellenistic Jewish prayers in antiquity. David M. May’s article, “Saying the Lord’s Prayer in Baptist Bibleland,” considers how the Lord’s Prayer has been received and used (or not!) by Baptists, specifically. He notes that many
从我记事起，我就一直在做主祷文。我在维吉尼亚州威斯特摩兰县乡村的埃比尼泽联合卫理公会教堂长大，自出生以来，耶稣的祷告一直是我信仰经历的一部分。我们每周在敬拜中背诵它，我不记得有什么时候我不能背诵它。每周在一个聚集的信仰团体里大声说出这些话是一件很美好的事情。现在，作为一名圣经学者，我仍然觉得这段祷告很吸引人，因为它代表了耶稣在两本福音书中保存的祷告，这让读者深入了解耶稣的事工、使命和对世界的愿景。然而，主祷文带来的挑战之一是它的熟悉性。我怀疑，对于这本杂志的许多基督徒读者来说，这个祷告也是他们在自己的信仰传统中最常祈祷的祷告。当然，熟悉的危险在于祷告的话语只是成为许多敬拜者的机械。如果一个人无意识地说出这些话，而不知道它们所具有的意义，那么祈祷有什么意义吗?因此，在撰写本期《评论与解经者》时，我的指导思想之一是汇集各种不同的声音，帮助读者用新鲜的眼睛和耳朵看到和听到主祷文。我希望这些文章能帮助读者理解祷告的深层含义，并带着新的意图去接近它。也许更重要的是，我希望那些经常做这种祷告的读者，这些文章将使他们能够以一种转变的方式再次祈祷，就像耶稣最早的追随者一样。正如在圣经解释中经常出现的情况一样，从多个角度看待经文是很重要的。为本期杂志撰稿的学者和作者正是这样做的，他们帮助读者从不同的角度来看待主祷文。文章的多样性说明了解释祷告的复杂性，以及基督徒与祷告的多方面关系。从这些文章中我们也非常清楚地看到，主祷文可以而且应该成为一种积极的、充满活力的力量，不仅在塑造敬拜方面，而且在塑造今天基督徒和信仰团体的团契、门徒训练和使命方面。这期杂志的第一篇专题文章是克利夫顿·布莱克的文章《主祷文的宗教世界》，这篇文章帮助我们将主祷文置于当时更大的背景中。他提醒读者，耶稣的祷告不是凭空出现的，而是与古代希腊文、希伯来文、罗马文和希腊化犹太人的祷告有重要的联系，也有区别。David M. May的文章，“在浸信会圣经中说主祷文”，考虑了主祷文是如何被浸信会信徒接受和使用的(或者没有!)。他指出，许多
{"title":"Editorial introduction: The Lord’s Prayer","authors":"Arthur M. Wright","doi":"10.1177/00346373221102906","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/00346373221102906","url":null,"abstract":"I have been praying the Lord’s Prayer for as long as I can remember. Growing up in Ebenezer United Methodist Church in rural Westmoreland County, Virginia, this prayer from Jesus has been a part of my faith experience since birth. We recited it each week in worship and I do not remember a time when I could not recite it by heart. It is a beautiful thing to say these words aloud in a gathered community of faith week in and week out. Now, as a Bible scholar myself, I continue to find the prayer fascinating because it represents a prayer of Jesus preserved in two Gospels, which gives readers deep insight into Jesus’s ministry, mission, and vision for the world. One of the challenges presented by the Lord’s Prayer, however, is its familiarity. I suspect that, for many Christian readers of this journal, this prayer is the one they have most frequently prayed in their own faith traditions, as well. Of course, the danger of familiarity is that the words of the prayer simply become rote for many worshipers. Does a prayer mean, or do, anything if one utters the words automatically, without any sense of the significance they possess? Thus, one of my guiding concerns in shaping this issue of Review and Expositor has been to assemble a diverse group of voices to help readers see and hear the Lord’s Prayer with fresh eyes and ears. My hope is that these articles will help readers understand the deep layers of meaning in the prayer and approach it with new intention. Perhaps even more so, I hope that for readers who do pray this prayer regularly, these articles will enable them to pray the prayer in a way that is transformational once again, just as it was for Jesus’s earliest followers. As is so often the case in biblical interpretation, looking at texts from multiple angles is important. The scholars and authors who contributed to this issue have done just that, helping readers to view the Lord’s Prayer through various lenses. The diversity of articles speaks to the complexity of interpreting the prayer, as well as the multifaceted relationship Christians have with it. It is also abundantly clear from these articles that the Lord’s Prayer can and should be an active and dynamic force in shaping not only worship, but also fellowship, discipleship, and mission for Christians and faith communities today. The first of the issue’s thematic offerings, C. Clifton Black’s article, “The religious world of the Lord’s Prayer,” helps situate this prayer in the larger context of its time. He reminds readers that this prayer from Jesus did not arise within a vacuum, but rather displays important connections to, as well as distinctions from, Greek, Hebrew, Roman, and Hellenistic Jewish prayers in antiquity. David M. May’s article, “Saying the Lord’s Prayer in Baptist Bibleland,” considers how the Lord’s Prayer has been received and used (or not!) by Baptists, specifically. He notes that many","PeriodicalId":21049,"journal":{"name":"Review & Expositor","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.1,"publicationDate":"2021-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"45099797","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-11-01DOI: 10.1177/00346373221109857k
R. Lindo
{"title":"James H. Cone, Said I Wasn’t Gonna Tell Nobody: The Making of a Black Theologian","authors":"R. Lindo","doi":"10.1177/00346373221109857k","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/00346373221109857k","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":21049,"journal":{"name":"Review & Expositor","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.1,"publicationDate":"2021-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"46694442","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：