Recommended HJ/MJ books?

[Secret Alias]

I do not expect a lot of explicit HJ/MJ argumentation from BeDuhn

But isn't that kind of funny in itself. Without identifying (or even thinking about) who the Marcionites were we are now going to reconstruct the Marcionite gospel It would that be - the Samaritans based on early Jewish references. Has anyone ever tried to put this together? The various allusions to the Kutim in the rabbinic literature? No of course not. Why? Because it would expose how stupidly naive the scholarly reconstruction of the Marcionites are based on hostile sources. 'Not all references to the Kutim are to the Samaritans' - that's another way of saying (and avoiding saying) the information sucks.

[Secret Alias]

If the Samaritans hadn't survived into modernity few would doubt the moronic statements about the Kutim in the rabbinic literature. And even with their survival the idea that they were 'sectarian Jews' who left the 'original' and perpetual veneration at Jerusalem (even though Shechem rather than Jerusalem is the epicenter of the Pentateuch) is routinely accepted. Why? Because scholars suck. We should say it over and over again - the closing of religious studies programs is a good thing.

[Ben C. Smith]

I do not expect a lot of explicit HJ/MJ argumentation from BeDuhn

But isn't that kind of funny in itself. Without identifying (or even thinking about) who the Marcionites were we are now going to reconstruct the Marcionite gospel It would that be - the Samaritans based on early Jewish references. Has anyone ever tried to put this together? The various allusions to the Kutim in the rabbinic literature? No of course not. Why? Because it would expose how stupidly naive the scholarly reconstruction of the Marcionites are based on hostile sources. 'Not all references to the Kutim are to the Samaritans' - that's another way of saying (and avoiding saying) the information sucks.

When you reply to me, it sometimes feels like you are really talking to invisible people standing behind me.

Ben.

[Stephan Huller]

I address the forum

[toejam]

"Constructing Jesus" by Dale Allison

http://www.amazon.com/Constructing-Jesu ... 0801048753

[maryhelena]

The latest book on Marcion. I've not read it - very expensive....£70 hardcover or £66.50 Kindle edition.

Marcion and the Making of a Heretic: God and Scripture in the Second Century – 26 Mar 2015

Judith M. Lieu

[MrMacSon]

The latest book on Marcion. I've not read it - very expensive....£70 hardcover or £66.50 Kindle edition.

Judith M. Lieu 'Marcion and the Making of a Heretic: God and Scripture in the Second Century' – 26 Mar 2015

One can flick through about 20-30% on Google books already.

There's been a few books recently on Marcion. It's probably worth reading 2-3 of them.

I reckon Dieter Roth (2015) 'The Text of Marcion’s Gospel'. (Leiden: Brill, 2015) would be a good read given that is Roth's 3rd work on Marcion in 7 yrs, and would be his most significant. Though it is even more expensive!

BeDuhn (2013) 'The First New Testament: Marcion's Scriptural Canon' (Polebridge Press) would be good, too.

[maryhelena]

Two books by Helen Bond.

Historical Jesus: A Guide for the Perplexed




Pontius Pilate in History and Interpretation (Society for New Testament Studies Monograph Series)

Helen Bond. University of Edinburgh.

Biography

Ever since I first encountered historical criticism I have been fascinated by the documents that make up the New Testament, particularly the gospels. How did these documents originate? What kind of groups found them useful? What are the relations between them? And how can we disentangle their complex weave of history, theology and defence?

I’m interested in most aspects of the social, cultural and religious context of Second Temple Judaism and early Christianity, including Josephus, the Herods, and the Roman government of Judaea. Recently I’ve been immersed in historical Jesus studies, and have become intrigued not only by the figure of Jesus himself but also the history of the scholarly Quest devoted to him.

Since July 2011 I have been Director of the Centre for the Study of Christian Origins (CSCO). The Centre aims to promote research into the earliest period of Christianity. Details of upcoming events and the kind of things we are interested in can be found on our blog site:

http://christianorigins.co.uk/

http://www.ed.ac.uk/schools-departments ... ml=bio.php

[robert j]

For a very great many, the New Testament Romans is the flagship of the Pauline corpus. Some have hailed Romans as the most important theological work in the entire NT. However, Romans suffers from a troubling textual history.

The Textual History of the Letter to the Romans, by Harry Gamble Jr. (1977), as far as I know, still seems to represent the definitive and most comprehensive work on the subject --- in terms of the body of evidence presented.

Are there more recent books that have surpassed it in terms of data presented?

I find it as no surprise that Gamble comes down on the side of mainstream Pauline scholars in promoting an original Romans that included chapters 15 and 16, as well the two addresses to Rome in chapter 1. But, for free-thinking readers, Gamble provides ample evidence, statements, and admissions that allow the reader to reach quite different conclusions.

The available evidence does not allow for the definitive characterization of an original form of the letter. A decision on the original text can only be reached by incorporating one’s own opinions. Unfortunately, apologetics can easily creep into the process.

Gamble admits, early in his book, in relation to the textual history of Romans,

“Perhaps Hans Lietzmann was right when he ventured that for this problem, “a completely satisfying explanation … is not available.” (p. 13)

Some other noteworthy quotations ---

In relation to the two addresses to Rome at 1:7 and 1:15 missing from some MSS, Gamble writes,

“It may be said further that these two omissions belong initially to the fourteen-chapter form of the text.” (p. 33).

In relation to an early fourteen-chapter form, Gamble again,

“We have now canvassed all the evidence for the existence at one time of a form of Romans in fourteen chapters. The evidence is geographically widespread … and this form of the letter can be traced back with confidence at least as far as the second century … “ (p. 33)

In relation to the last doxology of Romans, Gamble writes,

“An original position after 14:23 can also account for the strong manuscript attestation for this placement. There is, further, no reason why the doxology should have been placed at the end of ch. 14 unless the letter actually ended there … “ (p. 123).

I bought a good used copy via Amazon for less than $12, including shipping.

[Ben C. Smith]

The latest book on Marcion. I've not read it - very expensive....£70 hardcover or £66.50 Kindle edition.

Marcion and the Making of a Heretic: God and Scripture in the Second Century – 26 Mar 2015

Judith M. Lieu

Yowza. That may be out of my price range for a single book. Thanks, though.