Is the Church over the Bible or is the Bible over the Church?
It is well known that misconceptions and misunderstandings regarding the origins of the NT (and OT) canon abound on the internet. Da Vinci Code style claims are in plenteous supply–ranging from the claim that the Council of Nicea established the NT canon to the claim that apocryphal gospels were as popular (if not more so) than the canonical gospels.
Of course, if one were to respond to each and every erroneous claim on the internet there would be time for little else. But every now and then, an article combines so many misconceptions about the canon is a single place, that a response is warranted. This is the case with … Continue reading...
Origen’s List of New Testament Books
… Continue reading... Mark, Manuscripts, and Monotheism: A Festschrift for Larry Hurtado
It is now public knowledge that there is a new Festschrift coming out for my friend and doktorvater at the University of Edinburgh, Larry W. Hurtado. It is entitled: Mark, Manuscripts, and Monotheism (T&T Clark, 2014). Originally the big announcement was going to be made at SBL this November (with all the contributors present), but the cat was accidentally let out of the bag early.
The collection of essays in this new volume, edited by my fellow Edinburghers, Chris Keith and Dieter Roth, are centered around the themes of the Gospel of Mark, ancient Manuscripts, and early Christology–three subject areas that have dominated Larry’s research. While most of the … Continue reading...
My Review of “Gospel Writing” by Francis Watson
I just received the latest issue of the Westminster Theological Journal which contains my review of Francis Watson’s latest volume, Gospel Writing: A Canonical Perspective (Eerdmans, 2013).
This volume is an impressive piece of work, covering a wide range of issues related to Gospel origins. As can be expected with any book, I agreed with some parts, disagreed with others, and am still pondering a few things.
In particular, I was interested in Watson’s view of canon. Without diving into the details of the book, his canonical model is quite similar to the “Canonical Criticism” approach I outline in my book Canon Revisited (p. 48-59). Generally speaking, this was the … Continue reading...