Journal-of-Greco-Roman-Christianity-and-Judaism

Gleanings on perfectionism and recent articles in the Journal of Greco-Roman Christianity and Judaism.

In JGRChJ, Zachary Dawson discusses “The Books of Acts and Jubilees in Dialogue: A Literary-Intertextual Analysis of the Noahide Laws in Acts 15 and 21.”

Since the last time I mentioned the Journal of Greco-Roman Christianity and Judaism, several new articles have been posted to the 2016 volume. These are: Preston T. Massey, “Women, Talking and Silence: 1 Corinthians 11.5 and 14.34-35 in the Light of Greco-Roman Culture Hughson T. Ong, “The Language of the New Testament from a Sociolinguistic Perspective” Jonathan M. Watt Geneva, “Semitic Language Resources of Ancient Jewish Palestine” Stanley E. Porter, “The Use of Greek in First-Century Palestine: A Diachronic and Synchronic Examination” For context, the latter three essays are introduced by the additional entry “The Languages Of First-Century Palestine: An Introduction To Three Papers.” ...

During 2016, the “Journal of Greco-Roman Christianity and Judaism” published several noteworthy articles.

Chris Stevens has the latest article in the Journal of Greco-Roman Christianity and Judaism, “John 9.38-39a: A Scribal Interjection for Literary Reinforcement.”

In the Journal of Greco-Roman Christianity and Judaism, Raymond Jachowski discusses “The Death of Herod the Great and the Latin Josephus: Re-examining the Twenty-second Year of Tiberius.”

Stanley Porter and Hughson Ong have the latest article in the Journal of Greco-Roman Judaism and Christianity: “‘Standard of Faith’ or ‘Measure of Trusteeship’?: A Study in Romans 12.3—A Response.” The article’s opening paragraph explains its responsive character and general argument as follows: John Goodrich has recently published an article regarding the interpretation of μέτρον πίστεως in Rom. 12.3 in the Catholic Biblical Quarterly. We have tried to respond to his article in that journal, but regrettably, the journal does not publish responses to articles, although we think that Goodrich’s article warrants a response. Goodrich argued ’that μέτρον πίστεως in Rom 12:3 refers to the believer’s charism, addressed shortly and explicitly thereafter in 12:6’ (p. 753). Against the typical view that takes μέτρον πίστεως as ‘standard/measure of faith’, he proposes that this charism should be seen as ‘a trusteeship’ God grants to each believer. Specifically, the genitive construction in μέτρον πίστεως, regarded as appositive, is ‘a measure, namely a trusteeship’ (pp. 769, 772). This old alternative that Goodrich seeks to revive, however, poses some significant problems that can be neither resolved nor sustained by the arguments and evidence he marshals in this article. We assess critically each of these in what follows, followed by our own interpretation of μέτρον πίστεως in Rom. 12.3. (97) ...

Barry F. Parker has the latest article in the Journal of Greco-Roman Christianity and Judaism, "‘Works of the Law’ and the Jewish Settlement in Asia Minor." According to the article’s conclusion: The first recourse for the Anatolian Jews under [social, political, and religious] pressure was not an appeal to ‘legalism’, but to ‘selective works of the law’, as is implied by the phrase ἔργα νόμου. The only appearance of this phrase from that time outside of Paul is found in 4QMMT. The use of ‘works of the law’ there confirms both that Paul is in (indirect) dialogue with those familiar with Essene terminology and that selectivity is in view. Although he speaks to a different audience about a different problem regarding the law in Romans, when Paul uses the phrase ἔργα νόμου in Romans 3, the immediate context is quite similar to what he addresses in Galatians. It is, in both cases, a matter of the righteousness of God, as expressed in the faithfulness of Christ (πίστις Χριστοῦ). This faithfulness of Christ suffices for both Jew and Gentile (pagan), who are equally condemned—in Galatians they are condemned for trying to supplement that faithfulness with a perverted version of the law, and in Romans they are condemned for perverting the law by their very efforts to fulfill it through a selective participation in it ( 96). ...

In the latest contribution to the Journal of Greco-Roman Christianity and Judaism, Richard Carrier discusses “Thallus and the Darkness at Christ’s Death”: It is commonly claimed that a chronologer named Thallus, writing shortly after 52 CE, mentioned the crucifixion of Jesus and the noontime darkness surrounding it (which reportedly eclipsed the whole world for three hours), and attempted to explain it as an ordinary solar eclipse. But this is not a credible interpretation of the evidence. A stronger case can be made that we actually have a direct quotation of what Thallus said, and it does not mention Jesus. (185) ...

On the web: Tommy Wasserman notes a new iOS app for New Testament manuscripts. E. K. McFall has the latest article in the Journal of Greco-Roman Christianity and Judaism: “Are Dionysos and Oedipus Name Variatnios for Satan and Antichrist?” Dan Wallace recounts an experience of reading a manuscript that “doesn’t exist.” Alin Suciu highlights Lorenzo Perrone’s lecture on recently-discovered texts of Origen’s homilies on the Psalms. For a selection of previous background posts, see here.

Tim Brookins has the latest article in the Journal of Greco-Roman Christianity and Judaism, “Dispute with Stoicism in the Parable of the Rich Man and Lazarus.” According to Brookins, It is not my aim to continue discussion regarding the criterion for the rich man’s judgment. But I propose that there is more to be said about the meaning of the parable in light of a Greco-Roman milieu. . . . I shall take up [Ronald] Hock’s wider net and cast it once again in the direction of Hellenistic philosophy. It will be argued that, while the parable may share a Cynic viewpoint on the issue of wealth, it also conveys pronounced resistance to certain Stoic ideas on this issue. As a supporting argument it will further be suggested that the parable reflects elements of rhetorical ‘declamation’ (declamatio), which was in certain circles closely associated with Stoic philosophy. With these substantive and formal features taken together, we shall see that the parable means to interact with Stoicism, though in a way that is subversive to the Stoic ideas evoked (35–36; underlining for original italics). ...

Michael Meerson has the latest article in the Journal of Greco-Roman Christianity and Judaism, “One God Supreme: A Case Study of Religious Tolerance and Survival.” In this article, Meerson “attempt[s] to combine the consideration of both [θεὸς ὕψιστος and εἷς θεός]” as these titles are found in a sundial inscription from Mount Gerizim (32). For, although ...

Cynthia Westfall has the latest article in the Journal of Greco-Roman Christianity and Judaism, “Blessed Be the Ties that Bind: Semantic Domains and Cohesive Chains in Hebrews 1.1–2.4 and 12.5–8.” Based on her investigation, Westfall concludes, [A]n analysis of semantic domains provides a vital lens through which we can view every text. At times, it seems that the [Louw-Nida] lexicon does not do enough, and it is easy to find what appear to be shortcomings in the failure to place some words in certain semantic domains. For instance, the truncated classification of προφήτης under ‘Religious Activities’ does not remotely begin to describe the features that ‘prophet’ shares with other lexical items. In this case, the authors did not follow one of their guiding principles that a derivative (e.g. προφήτης) should be placed as close as possible to its semantic basis (e.g. προφητεύω). However, when the theory is understood, the reader realizes that the entries and glosses are suggestive, and the referential (meaning) range of any lexical unit can only be determined by a careful and, above all, a coherent reading of the surrounding context (216). ...

Lois Dow has the latest article in the Journal of Greco-Roman Christianity and Judaism, “Understanding κλῆσις in the New Testament.” In this article, Dow argues that: First, the meaning position or condition in the sense of life situation or occupation for κλῆσις in the New Testament is unwarranted. Secondly, the meaning often includes the result of the call as well as the action of calling. It can mean a status of being a called person, with its concomitant responsibilities, privileges and expectations. In this use it is linked through passages about being called (named) by new appellations or designations to the idea of having a new identity or name (198; italics original). ...

Craig Keener has the latest article in the Journal of Greco-Roman Christianity and Judaism, “Heavenly Mindedness and Earthly Good: Contemplating Matters Above in Colossians 3.1–2.” This article traces in turn ancient philosophy’s contemplation of heavenly matters; evocations of such language in other early Jewish and Christian sources; the significance of our author’s christocentric [ sic] focus in his adaptation of the language in 3.1; the behavioral implications the author draws from this christocentric [ sic] focus; the intelligibility of those implications in light of ancient philosophy; and how the immediate context shapes eschatological implications in the author’s evocation of heaven. [The] focus and primary contribution [is] elaborating how ancient hearers would have received the passage, especially in view of ancient philosophy. [That is, f]or philosophers, the pure and heavenly deity was abstract and transcendent; for Colossians, the heavenly focus is Christ, fitting the christocentric [ sic] emphasis of this letter. For Colossians, contemplating Christ also leads naturally to Christlike character, in contrast to the pursuit of earthly passions (175, 190). ...

Greg Goswell has the latest article in the Journal of Greco-Roman Christianity and Judaism, “Early Readers of the Gospels: The Kephalaia and Titloi of Codex Alexandrinus.” Goswell observes that “there is substantial variation among the codices [Vaticanus, Alexandrinus, and Sinaiticus] with regard to where [chapter] divisions are placed” (135) and argues that A survey of the kephalaia in the four Gospels [of Alexandrinus] indicates that their placement is not haphazard but reflects an evaluation of the flow of the narratives and shows insight into the meaning of the story. Some breaks are close together, but others are widely separated. There are considerable differences in the length of the sections, reflecting a perception of the nature of the text by those responsible for the sectioning. Even a glance at the headings assigned to the kephalaia reveal the large element of commonality between the four Gospels (e.g. the headings of Mt. A6, Mk A4 and Lk. A12 that all read ‘Concerning the leper’), but they also bring to light, at times, what is distinctive about particular Gospels (e.g. the differing themes of the birth narratives in Matthew and Luke). . . . The function of a textual break in separating or joining material has at times provided . . . exegetical insights. One clear trend within all four Gospels is the highlighting of the element of the miraculous in the ministry of Jesus and (the reverse side of this) the downplaying of his teaching. The headings usually focus on the fact of controversy between Jesus and the religious leaders rather than what issues were controverted. The lack of attention given to dominical passion predictions and the paucity of divisions within the passion narrative itself suggest that there is little focus upon the suffering and atoning death of Jesus. Instead the divisions in the passion narratives reflect a homiletical tradition (or liturgical usage) in which there is a moralistic focus on positive and negative ethical examples (172–74). ...

David Lincicum has the latest article in the Journal of Greco-Roman Christianity and Judaism, “The Origin of “Alpha and Omega” (Revelation 1.8; 21.6; 22.13): A Suggestion.” Lincicum takes his point of departure from the fact that [Some] scholars have suggested that the title ‘Alpha and Omega’ in Revelation arose through reflection on the Greek form of the divine name, ΙΑΩ. This note takes up and extends that evidence to put forth the possibility that John ‘exegeted’ the divine name, in light of Isaiah 40–48 and emerging scribal practices of abbreviating the nomina sacra, as a reference to Jesus as the Alpha and Omega ( Lincicum 128). ...