An Eerdmans Century: 1911-2011
Van Til, Reinder, Larry ten Harmsel.
Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2011 pp. x + 214.
$20.00
Since I can recall I have always been interested in history. I enjoy watching historical documentaries and reading books on historical events and people. For this reason I picked up a copy of An Eerdmans Century: 1911-2011 (AEC) when I was down in California a few weeks back. Larry ten Harmsel and Reinder Van Til combine my love for two industries—history and publishing—to produce a engaging look at the history of one of America’s most enduring and important Christian publishing houses.
Starting in Holland, and tracing the journey of William B. Eerdmans (WBE) to the shores of the Great Lakes of Michigan, AEC takes the reader from humble beginnings up until the present time. Along the way, various stories and side notes help shed light on projects that have since become watershed publications for Eerdmans in the field of Christian studies. One such story was how the TDNT (Kittel) came to be. Originally slated to be published by Harper, Bill Eermans, Jr.—son of WBE—received a call from the eminent Scottish theologian T. F. Torrance asking him to come by his place. This phone call eventually led to Eerdmans buying the rights from Harper and translating what would become a standard for theological interpretation of the Greek New Testament. When it came time to find a translator for the TDNT, Geoffrey Bromiley was tasked with the massive job of translating Kittel’s 10 vol. work. He agreed to the project, which would pay him $5 a page plus 2% royalty for each volume that Eerdmans sold.
I could go on with more fascinating insights into Eerdmans, but I do not want to reproduce the whole book for you here. Needless to say, An Eerdmans Century: 1911-2011 is an important look into the history of one of the most influential and important Christian publishers in American history. I cannot recommend this book anymore highly! If you are looking for a quick and enjoyable read, go buy An Eerdmans Century: 1911-2011. You will not be disappointed that you did.
On healings and exorcisms in our world today, T. Desmond Alexander writes:
…It is possible for Jesus’ followers also to experience in the present something of the eschatological age in terms of healings and exorcisms. However, this will always be less than what awaits us. God may heal, here and now, but not on every occasion. There may be occasions, here and now, when evil powers are defeated, but not always. This should not surprise us. The present evil age will eventually give way to the next. If we all received from God complete holiness and wholeness now, there would be no need for the new earth. As it is, however, we live on an earth presently controlled by the evil one. Only when Satan is finally defeated shall we know life as God intended it (From Eden to the New Jerusalem,155: emphasis added).
Presently we find ourselves living in the tension of the already-but-not-yet. We are now experiencing the kingdom of God as believers, but the kingdom awaits its full consummation. We await the return of the king of kings, who will bring with him the new heavens and new earth we long for. But as Alexander states, right now we only “have a glimpse of what the coming age will be like.”
I have been reading a very informative and intriguing book by T. Desmond Alexander entitled From Eden to the New Jerusalem: An Introduction to Biblical Theology. The main premise of his book is tracing The Temple motif from Gen 1-2 all the way through Rev 21-22. Although I am not unfamiliar with this line of exegetical thought (I have read a similar argument in Beale’s monumental work on The Temple and the Church’s Mission), Alexander nevertheless affirms in my mind that he is on target. While I hope to give a review of Alexander’s book in the coming weeks, this is not the point of my post.
While reading through some of Alexander’s book, I began to think of the implications it would have on my own reading of Scripture. I have long been intrigued by the church being called the temple:
So what is the point of all of this? Well, I for one was raised in a tradition that taught that the temple will again be rebuilt in Jerusalem during the promised “millennial reign” of Christ. But the more I read the Scriptures, the more I am convinced that this is not the case. For example, The OT describes God as dwelling among his people, primarily in the holy of holies in the tabernacle and then the temple. But there is a significant change in the NT. Now, as 1 Cor 3.16 indicates, τὸ πνεῦμα τοῦ θεοῦ οἰκεῖ ἐν ὑμῖν (the spirit of God lives in you). If the Jerusalem temple is to be rebuilt, then will the Spirit of God no longer dwell in us, but rather return to the the function of dwelling among us? In my understanding, the best illustration of this is Christ himself. In the person of Christ the fullness of the God dwells: ὅτι ἐν αὐτῷ κατοικεῖ πᾶν τὸ πλήρωμα τῆς θεότητος σωματικῶς (Col 2.9). Also, the play on words in John’s Gospel is more than just a coincidence, for in his incarnation Jesus has tabernacled among men: Καὶ ὁ λόγος σὰρξ ἐγένετο καὶ ἐσκήνωσεν ἐν ἡμῖν, καὶ ἐθεασάμεθα τὴν δόξαν αὐτοῦ, δόξαν ὡς μονογενοῦς παρὰ πατρός, πλήρης χάριτος καὶ ἀληθείας (John 1.14).
I am sure more can be said. But these are just some of my musings on this topic, topics of which I hope to develop more in the future. But for now I leave you with these thoughts.
In chapter-four Parker discusses in some detail the various aspects that go into producing a manuscript in the fourth-century. Topics discussed in this chapter are focus on the materials, techniques, people, place, budget, and binding of Sinaiticus. Also included is a brief section on palaeography (the study of ancient writing). Because of the amount of detailed information contained in this chapter I will on focus on a few interesting points.
Parchment
Parker’s detailed discussion on the production of parchment in antiquity was quite fascinating. Maybe it’s me, but I found the whole process that goes into making sheets of paper suitable for writing amazing and quite remarkable really. What we have discovered from manuscripts that we have found written on parchment is that they tended to be made from the skins of sheep of calves. The process that went into skinning the animal all the way to the finished product of paper contained many time-consuming steps.
The skins had to be soaked in some form of acidic or alkaline bath. Next, the hair had to be scraped off. Once the hair was removed, it was returned to a bath for further soaking. It was then removed from its bath and stretched out and scraped thinner. Finally, after drying out and scraped for its determined thickness, it was cut to its predetermined size and rubbed with pumice stone.
What we know of Sinaiticus and the parchment used for it is that it is one of the highest quality codices from antiquity ever discovered. The amount of care, detail, and expense that was put into Sinaiticus is without compare. According to Parker
“What is certain is that the makers [of Sinaiticus] were exceptionally skilled, and that they worked with excellent materials. It is clear that no expense was spared” (45).
Usually in parchment manuscripts we would find many places of defect scattered throughout the manuscript. This is not so with Sinaiticus. While we do find defects, they are few and far between, usually found in the margins of the pages (45). Further, the difficulty finding veins on the pages is probably due to a very thorough job in draining the blood. Another aspect which indicates a more professional job in producing Sinaiticus is the thinness of the pages. Parker indicates that the thickness of the pages of Sinaiticus range from 100-150 micrometres, with the average page size somewhere in the neighborhood of 116.2. when compared to the thickness of Parker’s own book (125 micrometres) we see just how amazing this really is.
In case you may be interested in the production process of parchment, I have included this brief video illustrating for us just went into making parchment paper
The Scribes
Another informative section was on the scribes of Sinaiticus. Parker indicates that Tischendorf (the discoverer of the codex) identified four different scribes, which he labeled A, B, C, D. Each of these scribes were responsible for the writing of particular sections of Sinaiticus. Imagine the amount of hours that Tischendorf must have spent analyzing the pages of Sinaiticus and cataloguing the differences he found, and then placing these differences into four different groups. The even more astonishing thing is that he was able to accomplish this without the technology of computer readily available to us today. That alone speaks to the genius and dedication of Tischendorf. Since Tischendorf’s work there has been some changes to the number of scribes identified responsible for Sinaiticus, but nothing too radical. What can be said regarding Sinaiticus is that there were a number of scribes working on this manuscript. Both in the writings and correcting stages, scribes would assist each other in the writing of Sinaiticus.
Palaeography
Although misplaced in my opinion, the section on palaeography is an important one. No doubt a page-and-a-half summary of palaeography will not cover every aspect of the subject, nevertheless it is a vital part of a book like this. Parker briefly outlines some examples of differences in the writing style of Sinaiticus, things such as differences in letter formation, compression of the text as the scribe reached the end of a margin, spelling errors consistent with one particular scribe, etc. All of these idiosyncrasies are discovered by studying the writing style and observing changes and patterns in the text.
Another job of the palaeographer is to determine the approximate date of a manuscript. Because a scribe would not date his manuscript once he finished, it is up to the palaeographer to determine the dating of a particular manuscript. According to Parker, he is aided in such a task by means of external and internal clues. Externally, things like paper type, elaborate artwork, and historical circumstances may help shed light on a date for a manuscript. Internally, things like writing style (was the script in capital or lowercase letters?) may give clues for dating. It’s safe to assume that the job of a palaeographer is one of great detail. He must be a master of the language written on the manuscript, and he must be one of great patience and discipline.
There is much more that can be covered in chapter-four, but I will leave it here. One thing I have noticed is that Parker references Sinaiticus a number of times in his examples. It would benefit the reader greatly to access Sinaiticus online and follow along with Parker as he describes aspects of Sinaiticus in detail.
After laying a historical/theological foundation in chapter two, Parker begins to turn his attention to Sinaiticus itself.
In the opening pages of chapter three, Parker lists a number of “defining characteristics” of a codex. Because a codex is written by the hand of a scribe(s), there is a certain amount of freedom in how he shapes his manuscript. He is able to define his margins at the exact length he needs for his writing. Also, he is given the freedom to include decorative aspects to the manuscript, unique to his own work. The scribe is in full control of every aspect of his work, from beginning to end.
On the negative side, because a codex or manuscript is hand written in ink this allowed for later scribes to add what he felt was missing, or correct what he felt was a wrong reading of the text. Sinaiticus was not immune to scribal corrections or additions. For example, see the image below
What we notice is that an addition has been added to the bottom of the text by a later scribe, altering the neat flow of the block of text. At other places in Sinaiticus the original text has been erased with no chance of recovery. All of these additions and omissions are important in understanding the textual history of Sinaiticus and in aiding the recovery of the original reading. Regarding these changes to the text, Parker writes
The kind of changes that will have occurred range from alterations in the spelling which reflect the way the scribe was used to speaking the word rather than the correct spelling, through a wide range of unconscious errors, to places where conscious decisions were made (28).
The remaining focus of chapter three is on the contents of Sinaiticus. Sinaiticus originally contained the Greek OT (including the Apocrypha), the New Testament, and two additional writings: The Shepherd of Hermas and the Epistle of Barnabas. Parker gives us a survey of these textual units, including a nice analysis of each unit. The canonization of the Old and New Testament was a long and tedious process, but Parker does a nice job navigating the reader through the process in the limited space he has. While some readers may not agree with his conclusions regarding the process of canonization, one cannot argue that he presents his case in a fair and sensitive manner.
Parker concludes with the hypothesis that because Sinaiticus includes books not considered part of the canon, but nonetheless still useful for catechumens, it may be that Sinaiticus was used as a family or community Bible. As the title indicates, the making of Sinaiticus took place in the middle of the fourth-century. This was a volatile time in the history of the Church and no doubt the production of Sinaiticus was influenced to a certain degree by the theological tension in Christendom.
My first exposure to Codex Sinaiticus came during my first semester of intermediate Greek. I was an eager student who loved all things Greek. For a few weeks we focused on textual criticism, specifically as it relates to exegesis and interpretation. We were introduced to various manuscripts, one of which was Sinaiticus, and I remember being enamored with the story of it’s discovery in a monastery in the Sinai peninsula. Since that initial exposure to textual criticism, I have kept an elementary interest in text-critical studies.
So, when I first came across David Parker’s book my interest was piqued for a couple of reasons. The first, as mentioned above, was my continuing interest in text-critical studies. The second was my love of historical studies. I have always told myself that if I did not get my degree in biblical languages I would have majored in history, probably the history of the American and French Revolutions. But that’s a different post for another day.
Anyways, back to the subject on hand. Parker, who himself is a leading expert in the field of text-critical, has written a very helpful and informative introduction and history of the famous Codex Sinaiticus.
Every Book it’s Destiny
Parker’s first chapter is a quick overview of both the history as well as the future of Sinaiticus. Parker briefly discusses the process that went into the writing and copying of the codex. Likewise, Parker gives a concise synopsis on the the use of Sinaiticus in antiquity, explaining the number of corrections that have appeared since it’s original writing. Also included is a brief discussion on the transportation of the Codex from one place to another. A quick discussion of it’s discovery in St. Catherine’s Monestary and the dispersion of the codex to three different countries is included as well. Much of this will be show up in greater detail in subsequent chapters.
Next, Parker outlines the present project that is taking place to have the entire codex published online for all the world to see. This project also includes a conference (which took place in 2009), the present book under review, and a new print facsimile. Each of these projects are a welcomed addition for the Church and the academy.
Parker’s last section in chapter one is an outline of Sinaiticus as well as a quick reference to the pagination of the codex (this pagination key is very helpful when wanting to look up specific examples in Sinaiticus online). Included at the end of chapter one-and at the end of every chapter-are recommended resources for further study. If you are anything like me, then you will find these short summaries a gold mine of potential study.
The Christian Book in the Age of Constantine
Chapter two centers mainly around the time of Constantine. One fascinating topic was Parker’s discussion of the writing materials used in antiquity. At the time of Sinaiticus’ publication, two types of writing material were in use: papyrus and parchment. Papyrus was easier to come by and much quicker to produce than parchment. Because parchment was produced from the skins of sheep and calves, it was not as readily available for use. But unlike papyrus, which would deteriorate at a much faster rate, parchment was much more durable and withstood the elements far better than papyrus.
Another fascinating element is the theory that Sinaiticus was produced at the request of Constantine himself. While only a theory at best, there are similarities with some of the specifics for codices to be produced in Constantine’s letter to Eusebius and Sinaiticus.
What Parker does extremely well is bring the reader into the fourth-century at the time of Sinaiticus’ publication. He gives the reader a historical and theological framework by which he can understand the reasons for such a codex to have been produced. I am looing forward to the remaining chapters.
I just received David Parker’s recently published biography of sorts on Codex Sinaiticus in the mail. I plan on posting reviews/synopses similar to the ones I recently posted on Burridge’s study of Gospel genre. So if you are at all interested, stay tuned.
With this post we bring to a close our review of Richard Burridge’s excellent study on the Genre of the Gospels. The final two chapters-a conclusion and an addition to the second edition-outline Burridge’s conclusion and synthesize his arguments, as well as include reactions to the first edition of What are the Gospels?
Burridge concludes that while there are indeed differences between the Gospels and other similar βίος literature, these differences do not place them outside the genre of Graeco-Roman Biography. Further, Burridge is clear that in order for us to fully understand the Gospels, we must understand them as they were written, namely as biography, and specifically as βίοι Ἰησοῦ. He states
To avoid the errors likely in simple application of a text to ourselves without regard for the setting and background of either, appreciation of genre is crucial as a major ‘filter’ through which the author ‘encoded’ his message, and through which we may ‘decode’ the same (247).
As a result, Burridge see three implications that arise from this
Any idea of the gospels as unique, sui generis works is a nonsense: authors cannot create, and readers cannot interpret, a total novelty.
We must have the same generic expectations as the author and his original readers: trying to ‘decode ‘ the gospels through a genre of modern biography, when the author ‘encoded’ his message in the same genre of ancient βίος, will lead to another nonsense-blaming the text for not containing modern predilections which it was never meant to contain.
The assignation of different genres to texts results in different interpretations: one listen to the TV News with different expectations than to a fairy story
What Burridge is getting at is that the authors of the Gospels did not invent something new when they put ink to papyrus. They wrote in a genre that was easily identifiable for readers in the first-century. So, if a modern-day reader tries to read and interpret any one of the Gospels (or any ancient document for that matter) by means of modern-day principles, he will no doubt be unable to ‘decode’ what the author ‘encoded’ because he reads with the wrong pair of interpretive glasses.
With this said, the author wished that there would have been just a little more in way of application of the thesis to the Gospels themselves. As mentioned in a previous post, attention to the Gospels was devoted to only two chapters. Two chapters hardly seem sufficient to apply ones thesis in a study like this.
Nevertheless, Burridge has managed to not only write a book of significant implications for the way we do Gospel studies, but he has also made such a study accessible and enjoyable for all. There was never a moment a dry, academic rhetoric; instead the discussion was engaging and interesting at every turn of the page. I look forward to reading more from Burridge in the future.
In part two of our synopsis, Burridge lays out for us the criteria for analyzing categorizing Graeco-Roman biography. As we noted, Burridge applies his criteria to ten examples from the ancient world, dating from before Christ to after the death of Christ. Burridge convincing shows that in the ancient world there was not just a genre called βίος , but that this genre was flexible, able to stretch into other genres. Burridge notes two main causes for the confusion surrounding the genre of the Gospels, “inadequate literary theory of a genre and a lack of understanding of Graeco-Roman biography” (185). He goes on to state:
Therefore, we have identified a range of generic features and used them to analyse Graeco-Roman βίοι, both on the fringes of the genre and indubitably classic examples. A clear family resemblance has now been established, and so we can now proceed with the same exercise on the gospels [185-86]
After belaboring for seven chapters to lay a both a historical and literary foundation on which to build his thesis on, Burridge is now finally able to turn his attention to the Synoptic Gospels [ch. 8] and Gospel of John [ch. 9]. As with the previous chapters, the same methodology is utilized for determining the precise genre of the Gospels. Burridge carefully examines each of the Gospels and concludes that while there are some differences between the Gospels and ancient biography, nevertheless they fall under the rubric of βίοι.
While some may object to certain minor conclusions Burridge assumes (the Q hypothesis, the communities behind origins of the Gospels, etc.), these should not become a major focus of contention. Burridge has done us a great service in the area of Gospel studies. He has thoroughly studied the major biographical Graeco-Roman writings and has rigorously proven that when the Gospels are compared with other biographical samples of the ancient world they should be classified as βίος.
For some readers it may seem that devoting only two chapters to the Gospels is not sufficient for a book devoted to answering the question “What are the Gospels?”. This may be so, but it should not diminish Burridge’s magisterial study of the Gospels. We owe a great debt to Dr. Burridge for pushing back against the trend of Bultmann and others who see no biographical element whatsoever in the Gospels.
In my last post on Burridge’s “What Are the Gospels” we looked at what Burridge describes as the problems surrounding the genre of the Gospels. As we recall, this problem was trying to define what genre(s) of Graeco-Roman literature the Gospels fit into. In the second part of “What Are the Gospels?”, Burridge offers us his solution for the situating the Gospels into the genre of βίος.
Thus far I have only made it through chapter seven, but Burridge has laid a very good foundation for us to begin to understand how βίος was used in the Graeco-Roman world. Chapter 5 on Generic Features of βίος is a foundational chapter in the book. It it, he outlines the main feature of βίος: Opening Features (title, prologue, preface, etc.), Subject of the βίος, External Features (size, metre, length, etc.) and Internal Features (setting, topic(s), style, mood, etc.). With the foundation laid, we now have a basic outline or structure we can use as a guide as we begin to analyze βίος literature of the ancient world.
Before the Gospels are tackled, Burridge offers us a few samples of what may be considered βίος from the ancient world, both Greek and Latin sources. What is helpful is that the sources which Burridge chooses vary in date and geographical location, thus allowing us a greater look into the usage of βίος in the ancient world.
My only complaint (I am not sure you can call it that really) is that while the examples are plentiful, the reader who is not versed in Graeco-Roman literature may get lost in the very examples used to illuminate βίος. There is a bit of primary source overload at times, but if the reader is diligent and determined, the payoff will be extremely valuable later.
So, now I enter the Synoptics and John’s Gospel next. I am greatly enjoying this work so far. It is clear, concise (at times it may be too much info.), informative, and overall a pleasure to read.
I have been busy reading devouring N. T. Wright’s impressive and informative The New Testament and the People of God. And while I must confess that I had the hardest time beginning the book due Wright’s writing style, I have nevertheless began to enjoy the book immensely. One of the aspects I have been considering is Wright’s “Exile” motif. While I must say that it is quite persuasive, I am not thoroughly convinced. The reason for this is (shocker) Auctor’s usage of the “Exodus” motif. Now, I have written briefly on the Exodus in Hebrews in a series of previous post, so I will not rehash it here. But what I find to be at odds with Wright’s analysis of the worldview of Jews in the first century is the utter lack of Exile themes, passages, allusions, and echoes in Hebrews. Could this mean that the audience of Hebrews is not Jews but Gentiles? I am not sure, but for Auctor he is more concerned with the fact that the people of God have not yet entered into a land in which they can be exiled from.
That is what I am considering this early morning. What are some of your thoughts on this?
*This is the first in what will probably be more than a few reviews*
My previous entry on this very useful commentary from Zondervan dealt briefly with basic information such as presentation and layout. In this brief review we will look at a section from Genesis 22. Because I have a paper to write on this section of the OT, I figured that it would be beneficial to write some of my thoughts down in a brief review.
Obviously with a work that encompasses the whole of the Pentateuch it is impossible to be thorough and very detailed, but do not let that hinder your usage of this fine commentary. If detail is what you seek, there are numerous single volume commentaries that cover just Genesis that will adequately suit your exegetical needs. What makes the ZIBBCOT so helpful is not just the written text of commentary, but also the various sidebars of information, pictures, maps, and the like. These numerous illustrations are almost nonexistent in almost every commentary published today.
An example of the illuminating affect of the sidebars is tidbit of information included on “Child Sacrifice in the Ancient Near East” (p. 97) as well as a map that helps to identify the exact location of Moriah, the hill on which Abraham was commanded to sacrifice Isaac. While a detailed textual account of the region surrounding Moriah is indeed helpful, the inclusion of a map as a visual aid only helps to situate the region in a way that we can see and comprehend. Think of the textual information as a normal movie experience and the visual aid as digital 3D.
The actual text of commentary is brief, covering only 22.2, 10, 13, and 19. But as I mentioned above the purpose of ZIBBCOT is not detailed exegesis, but rather background information. It is here that I feel this work is very helpful. The amount of information on the ANE is very helpful for anyone desiring to study the world of the patriarchs.
In his essay, “Here We Have No Lasting City: New Covenantalism in Hebrews,” Richard Hays sets out to answer the question, Does Hebrews portray a suppersessionist theology? Briefly, suppersessionialism is the teaching that the the Church has replaced Israel; Christianity likewise replacing Judaism. Hays argues, rightly I may add, that Hebrews is not a polemic against Judaism as has been argued for. Rather, it is an sermon which articulates that the new covenant ( Heb 8 ) is a better one than the first without degrading or demeaning the old covenant. It is noted that Hebrews contains no mention of the Jewish people, Gentiles, etc. which is common in the Pauline letters. Rather, the author presupposes a knowledge of OT events and cultic practices. While the author of Hebrews does utilize the practice of synkrisis in his argument (i.e. the son is greater than the angels, etc.), even this comparison is not to suggest that what is being compared is somehow being ridiculed. It is true that the old covenant has been replaced by the new, for the old was unable to completely deal with sin.
This is a very brief summary of Hays’ argument. There is much to me gleaned from a close reading of this text. Whereas I held to a Hellenistic Gentile audience before reading Hays, I now must once again reassess my opinion as to who Hebrews was written to. I leave you with this final quote from Hays
To pose the question whether Hebrews is “suppersessionist,” then, runs the risk of imposing anachronistic categories on the text. Read from a later Gentile Christian perspective — say in Chrysostom’s fourth-century Constantinople, or the liberal Protestant culture of nineteenth-century Germany — Hebrews seems obviously to be rejecting Judaism. If, however, we stay within the text’s own narrative world, such a claim may appear unwarranted, even puzzling. For that reason, it may be unhelpful to describe Hebrews’ teaching as a form of “Christianity” over against “Judaism”; rather, it is better described as a form of Jewish sectarianism “New Covenantalism.”
Source:
Here We Have No Lasting City: New Covenantalism in Hebrews. The Epistle to the Hebrews and Christian Theology. Richard Bauckham, et al. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2009: 151-73.
“The Way of the Didache: The First Christian Handbook,” Dr. William Varner’s new book, is an exciting and engaging look at one of the oldest non-canonical writings. Dr. Varner, professor of Bible and Greek at the Master’s College, has spent the a number of years working through the Greek text of the Didache, both on his own and also with his intermediate Greek students at the Master’s College. From the beginning of chapter one all the way until the end, the reader is brought along with Dr. Varner as he enthusiastically discusses the importance and relevance of the Didache for present day Christian studies.
Probably the greatest strength of Dr. Varner’s book is its accessibility to both seasoned scholars as well as to those who have never even heard the word Didache. In chapter one, Varner shares his exciting story of how he was able to get into the library of the Greek Orthodox Patriarch and secure a viewing of the 950-year-old codex Hierosolymitanus (or Codex H) that contained the only complete Greek copy of the Didache. Also, Dr. Varner explains how he came to writing this present book and why he felt that another book on the Didache was needed.
In subsequent chapters Dr. Varner deals with issues concerning the rediscovering of the Didache (2), the text of the Didache (3), the translation of the Didache (4), the Scriptures of the Didache (5), The two ways of the Didache (6), the sacraments of the Didache (7), the ministers of the Didache (8), the theology of the Didache (9), and the lessons of the Didache (10).
Some highlights of the book would include the Greek text of the Didache, which follows the critical text of Rordorf and Tuilier, as well as Dr. Varner’s own analytical, yet “formal equivalent” translation of the text. Also, in what may be of interest to one studying the use of the Old Testament in the New Testament, the chapter on the Scriptures of the Didache is a fascinating study. Probably the most controversial section of the book is contained in chapter five. Dr. Varner, after discussing the various views of the use of Matthew in the Didache, and picking up the theory of Andre Tuilier, proposes that instead of utilizing the Gospel of Matthew as we now have it, instead is using what Tuilier refers to as “The Gospel of the Lord.” This theory is based on the words of Papias regarding Matthew’s composition of his gospel. An advocate of the mysterious Q document would find an ally in Tuilier theory.
The practical, as well as theological value of chapters six through cannot be fully stated in this review. But nonetheless, topics like baptism, the Eucharist, and eschatology are given considerable amount of discussion and thought.
In all, Dr. Varner has succeeded in publishing a book that both the scholar and the layman can profit from. His writing style is engaging and informative, without dumbing down or using technical jargon that only Didache specialists can understand.
Dr. William Varner, professor of Greek at the Master’s College (my soon to be alma mater), has recently written and published a book on the Didache. I had the immense pleasure to be his research assistant on this project and know first hand his passion of this little Christian document. He has been having intermediate Greek class translate this little gem for sometime now every Spring semester. He has written a book that both interacts with scholarly literature on the Didache as well as shows the practical value of this ancient document. I hope that it is received with gratitude and finds itself in the hands of many a reader.
The economy of the gospel involves revelation and redemption alike: (1) Jesus “exegetes” the Father; (2) the apostolic testimony, preserved by writing in Scripture, “exegetes” Jesus; (3) preachers and theologians exegete the Scriptures that bear witness to Christ. The purpose of all this exegesis, and hence of Scripture itself, is not to displace Christ but to serve as the means for offering appropriately “thick description” of him. The Bible is the means by which the apostolic memory of what God was doing in Christ is given specificity and substance. For, as Calvin rightly says, the only Christ we have is the Christ of Scriptures. Hence the ground of Scripture’s indispensable role in the economy of the gospel is ultimately christological. The Bible-not only the Gospels but all of Scripture-is the (divinely) authorized version of the gospel, the necessary framework for understanding what God was doing in Jesus Christ. Scripture is the voice of God that articulates the Word of God: Jesus Christ.
About a month ago I received and began reading Denny Burk’s Articular Infinitives in the Greek of the New Testament: On the Exegetical Benefit of Grammatical Precision. Being a student of New Testament Greek, I was drawn to this book because of it’s importance to my own studies. I first heard of this book on Denny’s blog. My first year of Greek was one of immense joy. I enjoyed learning the noun cases and declensions, verbs, and even participles. But it was the infinitives that gave me the most trouble. But when I entered second year Greek, their usages became more familiar and much more enjoyable. So I was anxious to begin reading Denny’s book, and I must say that it is no let down.
One of the things that I enjoyed the most is the emphasis on linguistics and their importance to this study. Linguistics is an area of study that I have recently been influenced by and one that I feel is very important to my study of koine Greek. The purpose of the book is given by Denny on page 2:
In this book I seek to ask and answer the following question: What is the semantic and/or syntactic value of the articular infinitive in New Testament Greek? Another way of posing the question would be as follows: What does the article contribute to the meaning of the infinitive in New Testament Greek? (pg 2)
And how does he go about proving his thesis:
I conceive of this task as a ‘linguistic’ investigation. By that I mean that I will pursue this study utilizing some of the results and methods of modern linguistic analysis, and approach that can be distinguished from traditional grammar. (pg 2)
It is the method and approach that Denny uses that I find both helpful and enjoyable.
In Chapter 2 Denny outlines the use of the Article in New Testament Greek. Before he can discuss the article with the infinitive, he first outlines the use of the Article in general. This is a helpful chapter, and becomes even more helpful when he begins discussing its usage with the infinitive.
He discusses the use of the Article with the infinitive both without the preposition, as well as with the preposition in chapters 3 and 4. Both of these chapters are very informative and extremely helpful in ones study of the infinitive in the Greek New Testament (there are ample amounts of Scripture references to illustrate Denny’s point).
As of yet, this is as far as I have been able to read. I will say this: This is a well written and easy to understand book. It has been extremely helpful and a joy to read. Hopefully, time permitting, I will be able to finish the book, as well as this general review of it. Thanks for the good work Denny!
Nobody really believes any more the old idea that biblical scholars, equipped with neutral and objective tools and methods, provide the “facts” about scripture which the systematic theologians can then “interpret.” Anyone who has worked within biblical scholarship knows, or ought to know, that we biblical scholars come to the text with just as many interpretative strategies and expectations as anyone else, and that integrity consists not of having no presuppositions but of being aware of what one’s presuppositions are and of the obligation to listen to and interact with those who have different ones.
I have all but finished reading Kevin Vanhoozer's "Is There a Meaning in This Text" (I have 6 pages left which I will finish tonight) and it has been such a joy to read. I have never read a book that has both encouraged me as well as gave me a headache. It is one of the most challenging books I have ever read. Much of the subject matter I have never encountered before, and now that I have I want to pursue it more. It is a book that I will most definitely pick up again in the near future to read so that I can pound the ideas into my head. I would love to post a review of this book here, but I would most likely get lost in all of the technical aspects of the book and confuse all one of you who read this blog (yes Lori, I am talking about you. Not that you are not smart, believe me I think you to be quite intelligent).
About a month ago I received and began reading Denny Burk’s 
