Friday, August 9, 2024

New Testament (and related) Journal Word Limits

This list is a work in progress for my own convenience. I'm sharing it with you out of the goodness of my heart. Don't make me regret it. Feel free to comment or contact me to add others. last updated 23/8/24

NB. Journals may change their word counts without my knowledge. Journal word counts usually include footnotes. Some journals claim to be flexible about the word count, I have not tested this. Obviously, if it is important, check with the journal's website/editor directly.

PS. If you are a journal editor, PLEASE make sure this information is easy to access. And if you don't have a word count, state that somewhere early and prominent in your author guidelines.


From largest to smallest

Journal of Theological Studies. 1–30K

Harvard Theological Review. –12K

Currents in Biblical Research. 6–12K (or more for major reviews)

Horizons in Biblical Theology. –30 pages (~12K?)

Catholic Biblical Quarterly. 4.5–10K

Journal of Biblical Literature. –10K

Journal of the Jesus Movement in its Jewish Setting. –10K

Journal for the Study of the New Testament. 5–10K

Journal of Theological Interpretation. –10K

Biblica. –55K characters (~10K words?) 

Early Christianity. –9K

Neotestamentica. –8.5K

New Testament Studies. –8.5K

Novum Testamentum. –8.5K 

Tyndale Bulletin. –8.5K

Evangelical Quarterly. –8.5K

Journal for Interdisciplinary Biblical Studies. 6–8K

Priscilla Papers. 2–7K

Svensk exegetisk årsbok. –7.5K

Sāmoa Journal of Theology. –7k (not including fn)

Verbum et Ecclesia. –7k (not including fn)

Australian Biblical Review. –7K

The Bible Translator. –6K

Colloquium (Australia and New Zealand Theological Review). –5K (not including fn)

HTS Theological Studies. –4.5K (not including fn)


Unknown (that is, I looked but couldn't find)

Bulletin for Biblical Research

Journal for the Study of the Historical Jesus

Zeitschrift für die Neutestamentliche Wissenschaft

Biblical Theology Bulletin: Journal of Bible and Culture

Journal of the Bible and its Reception

Journal for the Study of the Pseudepigrapha

The Bible and Critical Theory

Journal for the Study of Judaism

Bibliotheca Sacra


Friday, March 1, 2024

Jesus treats the Syrophoenecian Woman as a Disciple

[This is an extract from my essay "Breaking Bread: The Power of Hospitality in the Gospel of Mark" which you can read in full and with footnotes here.]

In ch. 7 the Gospel [of Mark] changes tack; the focus is now on Jewish traditions and ethnic boundaries. Yet the conversation still revolves around meals. The Pharisees notice that the disciples did not wash their hands before eating (7:1–5). We are not told whether the Pharisees were guests or hosts at the implied meal, but once again we have the disciples experiencing vulnerability and hostility in their role as guests. Jesus responds with a biting denunciation of pharisaic tradition (7:6–15). Later, in private with the disciples, he explains that food does not defile but only the evil intentions of the heart (7:17–23). 


image credit: https://www.istockphoto.com/photos/feeding-dog-under-table

Next, Jesus encounters a Syrophoenician woman. Mark’s redundant additional identification of her as a Gentile (non-Jew) reinforces the significance of her non-Jewish ethnicity (7:26). She asks for her daughter to be delivered from a demon, but Jesus accuses her of trying to subvert the appropriate order of a meal: “it is not fair to take the children’s bread (artos) and throw it to the dogs” (7:28). The implication is that Jews (children) are those who are entitled to Jesus’ saving work, not the other nations/Gentiles (dogs). Jesus’ perplexing and rude response alerts the reader to the presence of metaphor. 

I wonder too, should we imagine Jesus saying this with a twinkle in his eye? Is he testing her? Is he joking with her? Jesus seems an ungracious host, his response harsh, but the woman has been paying attention. Jesus’ feasts are not characterized by scarcity but abundance, there is always some left over. She doesn’t take offense, but presses on in faith. She says, “even the dogs under the table eat the children’s crumbs” (7:28). Jesus recognizes her faith and rewards her with what she requests. 

Again, we have an example of Jesus being surprised! Jesus is in a house in Tyre and does not want anyone to know he is there (7:24). He is surprised by this Syrophoenician woman who wants him to cast out her daughter’s demon (7:25). Jesus engages her with the metaphor of a meal where first the children are fed and then the little dogs (doggies/kunarion, not dog/kuōn), that is, the household pets (7:27). If it is unlikely that a Jew would have pet dogs, and it may not be, the reader should remember that Jesus is talking to a Gentile woman and describing the scene of her own home. She does not disagree with him but reminds him that in the same domestic scene the dogs are enjoying the abundance that falls from the table long before they are fed according to plan (7:28). She, unlike the disciples to this point, gets it. Even if Jesus’ ministry is to the Jews first, Gentiles with faith can benefit from his abundance before schedule. Jesus’ hospitality has no doors, it is unconditional, and all who come can and will be fed—even, perhaps especially, the surprise visitors. 

This story is often read in a different way, that Jesus is hostile to the woman and she changes his mind through her response. Assuming that my reading above is correct, this shows how difficult, and easily misunderstood, humour and metaphor can be—even in the Bible! There is a clear power imbalance in the relationship. Jesus has what the woman wants, the power to heal her daughter. The woman is vulnerable, both as a woman and as a non-Jew in a Jewish home. Should humour always be avoided in such situations? I don’t know, the safe answer is yes. But by challenging her with a metaphor, Jesus treats her, not as a delicate object, but as an equal, someone worthy of his wits. By allowing her to be seen to either match him or even beat him in a battle of wits, Jesus humanizes and dignifies her and even gives her the credit for her daughter’s healing (7:29). Sometimes, when we treat people too delicately, when we are over sensitive, we can make things worse, and make the other person feel more isolated and helpless than they need to. Perhaps Jesus gives us an example of a better, more humanizing way? 

Let me know what you think :-)

Friday, February 23, 2024

Figuring out the Transfiguration

One of the great fears of a PhD student (speaking for myself at least) is that someone will publish your original ideas before you do. It can happen. Thankfully with my PhD research this didn't turn out to be a problem. However, experience has taught me that a bigger problem is when: 1) people just don't care about your original ideas; or 2) people dismiss out of hand your original ideas because they are already convinced by the earlier ideas. So it actually because rather gratifying when you find people are independently thinking along the same lines as you. This has happened twice to me recently, once with an idea I had published and once with an idea I had presented on but not got around to publishing. This blog deals with the former, and another blog post will deal with the latter.


image credit: https://www.nationalshrine.org/blog/the-meaning-of-the-transfiguration-of-the-lord/

In 2023 I published in Horizons in Biblical Theology (open access). 

“Listen to Him!”: Angelic and Divine Typology in Mark’s Transfiguration Account

Which was arguing for a reading of the Transfiguration account that took seriously the intertextual resonances created by the appearances of Elijah and Moses, which led to the conclusion that Jesus is not being figured as another prophet like E or M but as the revelation of the LORD that E and M received in their biblical mountain-top experiences.

Early this year (2024) I spot this article in New Testament Studies (open access)

Caleb T. Friedeman, Moses, Elijah, and Jesus’ Divine Glory (Mark 9.2–8) 

Freideman's abstract reads,

Scholars generally agree that Moses and Elijah appear at the Transfiguration because they are connected to each other in some way, and that this connection informs the significance of the story as a whole. However, there is no consensus regarding how Moses and Elijah are related, and consequently there is significant disagreement about how their presence contributes to the Transfiguration. The present study, which focuses on Mark's account (Mark 9.2–8), argues that Moses and Elijah appear together because they received similar theophanies at Mount Sinai and, as a result, the Transfiguration should be read as a mountaintop theophany in which Jesus constitutes the personal presence of Israel's God. 

This caught my attention. I immediately searched the PDF to see if he cited me. Sadly, no. Of course, with a 2024 publication he had probably written it a year or more before and would not have had the chance to read my recent work. 

I read the article, wondering to what extent it would make the same arguments I did and whether or not I still felt my article had something to offer. Freideman's article is well written, well argued and concise. It also uses a number of helpful sources I was not aware of.

Key differences:

negatively

  1. Freideman does not treat Mark's voice as distinctive but seems to assume the Synoptics' versions of the Transfiguration all have the same basic message. (I spend a lot of time teasing out the significance of the differences between the Synoptics)
  2. As a consequence of 1. Freideman does not note the significance of the order: Elijah and then Moses in Mark 9, which is the other way round to what you would expect. This order especially undermines the assumption there is a Moses typology at work. I think this would add to F's argument.
  3. Freideman connects "listen to him" with Deut 18:15, a prophet like Moses, and doesn't notice that it is a better fit with the Angel of the LORD in Exod 23:21. This is a major departure between our approaches because discussing the Angel of the LORD allows me to considerably nuance my approach to divine christology in the Transfiguration. To be fair, F's take is in line with most of the scholarship on this passage.

positively

  1. Freideman cites Irenaeus (Haer.4.20.9–10) as an early example of noting the significance of E and M as both having Sinai theophanies, I wish I had spotted this as it considerably strengthens the argument!
  2. Freideman does a masterful job showing how the Moses and Elijah theophanies are themselves intertextually related and were connected in Rabbinic interpretation, again strengthening the argument. 
  3. Freideman makes his argument in a much shorter space than I was able to and with less steps, so I suspect more people will read it and be convinced.

Most important though is that we both agree that Jesus cannot be "one like Moses" as he is transfigured before any divine activity, and the narrative ordering of this is vital to the Christology of the passage. As Freideman writes, "the divine glory that radiates from Jesus at the Transfiguration seems to be not a borrowed glory like that of Moses, but a glory that Jesus himself possesses" (p69). My argument on this point is more detailed but Freideman's gets to the point efficiently and I think convincingly. I wonder what he thinks of my take?

If you read our articles I'd love to know what you think of them! Leave a comment! :-)



Saturday, February 17, 2024

Moving Mountains in the New Testament

The following is a section which didn't make it into the final edit of an paper I've written. It was an important part of my process but didn't really contribute to the (overlong) final article. So it had to go. But I put a fair bit of work and thought into it, and who knows it might be useful to someone somehow. It also gives you a bit of a taster for my forthcoming article! (aren't you lucky?!)


image credit: https://youthguytad.wordpress.com/2012/06/12/moving-mountains/

          Mountain Moving Elsewhere in the NT

The interpretation of Mark 11:23 is complicated by mountain moving and related traditions elsewhere in the New Testament.[1] This is most apparent when early readers of Mark adapt Mark’s traditions or employ similar traditions from a different source. As Samuel Sandmel suggests, “Mark in many treatments is explained incorrectly because Matthew and Luke (and John) are read with him.”[2] It is critical, therefore, to be aware of the distinctives of the Matthean and Lukan variations of the saying so as not to read these unconsciously into Mark.

a)      The Synoptic Parallels

In the closest parallel in the Gospel of Luke, Jesus does not promise his disciples the ability to move “this mountain,” but to move a “this mulberry tree” (συκάμινος, Luke 17:5-6).[3] For this horticultural miracle, faith need only be “as a mustard seed,” nothing is said of undoubting hearts. The assonance between συκῆ and συκάμινος is intriguing but of unclear significance.[4] Likewise, there is no clear connection between Luke 17:6 and Mark’s mustard seed parable (4:30-32).[5] That said, in the Lukan context of 17:1-10 the theme is forgiveness, and the disciples’ request for an increase in faith is in response to the challenge of forgiving a repentant brother seven times a day. Thus, Luke’s tree-moving saying provides a double parallel not only for Mark 11:23 but for the whole of 11:22-25, in that it connects faith and forgiveness. However, in Mark the instruction to forgive comes after the exhortation to faith. Luke’s image of planting a tree in the sea “is a paradoxical image […] designed to graphically and hyperbolically illustrate that faith can do the amazing.”[6] It is likely that Luke’s “say to this mulberry tree” preserves a tradition from Q,[7] the latter of which appears in Matthew, apparently combined with Mark’s version (Matt 17:19).[8]

In Matthew 17:14-20, it appears that the Matthean evangelist has added the Lukan Mulberry moving saying (Luke 17:6) to the end of a significantly truncated version the story of the exorcism of the boy from Mark 9:14-29, probably in replacement of the “all things are possible” of Mark 9:23 which is excised. But the mulberry tree is transfigured into a mountain, presumably influenced by Mark 11:23.[9] Here, in contrast to both Mark and Q sources, there is no sea, only general relocation. In doing so Matthew not only “enhances the theme of faith,”[10] but radically changes the context in which both Mark and Luke’s sayings occur. Mark’s Jesus asks for undoubting faith (11:24) but Matthew’s only requires a mustard seed. Luke’s Jesus hyperbolically extols the power of faith to forgive others, while Matthew’s Jesus turns the exorcism into a prompt to discuss wonderworking faith where “nothing is impossible for you” (οὐδὲν ἀδυνατήσει ὑμῖν. Matt 17:20).[11]

Matthew also contains a truncated version of the fig tree curse and mountain moving dialogue from Mark (21:18-22).[12] After cursing the fig tree and it instantly withering, Matthew’s Jesus tells his disciples that with undoubting faith they may also curse fig trees, but that this is just a starting point, and that they could even speak to “this mountain” to move it (Matt 21:21). Thus Matthew inserts an  explicit connection of escalation between the fig tree cursing and the mountain moving.[13] Moreover, standing in such a relation to an event which has just transpired, Matthew’s mountain moving here is apparently literal.

In Luke there is also a fruitless fig tree (συκῆ), not as a miracle but in a parable (Luke 13:6-9). Rather than a judgement already made, Luke’s parable signals a grace period in which the tree might still bear fruit. In the Lukan context it is presented as a parable of the possibility of repentance in the face of impending judgement.[14] In Mark there is an actual fig tree which stands withered as a symbol of a judgement already made.

The other Synoptic Gospels, as early readers of Mark 11:23, have either radically transformed the saying (Matthew) or ignored it in favour of another similar tradition (Luke). Consequently, their evidence for Mark’s meaning is limited. As I will argue, Matthew’s focus on literal wonderworking and Luke’s absurd hyperbole do not lead us to the most compelling reading of the Markan text.

b)     Parallels in 1 Corinthians and Revelation

Paul’s use of the mountain moving motif in 1 Corinthians 13:1-3 occurs within his discussion of orderly and mutually-edifying worship within the Body of Christ (1 Cor 12-14). He lists a number of spiritual gifts, all of which are revealed to be worthless without love. The list appears to mix gifts that were in operation within the Corinthian Church with those which are hyperbolic. The gifts of tongues and prophecy are expected to function in the Corinthians' own gatherings (1 Cor 14:26; cf. 13:1-2). Paul boasts later about giving over his body to hardship (2 Cor 11:16-33; cf. 1 Cor 13:3). However, his suggestion that someone might “fathom all mysteries and knowledge” (1 Cor 13:2) is likely to be hyperbolic.[15] The two remaining expressions appear to connect with dominical tradition, “faith that can move mountains” (1 Cor 13:2) and “if I give away all my possessions” (1 Cor 13:3; compare Matt 19:21; Mark 10:21; Luke 14:33; 18:22).[16] For Paul, these two may describe possible spiritual gifts. It is possible to give away all your possessions and it is possible to have great faith (even if no one is claiming to have moved mountains).[17] However, the extremity of these expressions suggests hyperbole.[18] Moreover, while in Mark 11:23 Jesus’ words are for all his disciples, in 1 Corinthians 13 this level of faith is a gift only given to some. Luke’s Jesus asks for faith as a mustard seed (17:6), and Mark’s Jesus asks for undoubting faith (11:23), but with Paul it is not clear whether mountain-moving faith is a matter of type (as a mustard seed) or purity (untainted by doubt), his point is simply that even such effective faith requires love to be meaningful.[19]

Alongside mountain moving in the Synoptics and Paul it should also be noted that the moving of mountains is part of the apocalyptic imagery of the Revelation to John. In Revelation 8:8, “The second angel blew his trumpet, and something like a great mountain, burning with fire, was thrown into the sea.” This language here (ἐβλήθη εἰς τὴν θάλασσαν) is very close to Mark 11:23 (βλήθητι εἰς τὴν θάλασσαν). In Rev 16:20 shortly after the assembly of the world’s kings at Harmageddon (i.e. Mount Megiddo, 16:16) the description of the final destruction of Babylon includes, “every island fled away, and no mountains were to be found.” However, no one addresses the mountains in Revelation and neither is prayer associated with these eschatological events. Instead, they unfold according to the trumpets and bowls administered by angels. Thus, it seems unlikely that John of Patmos has a dominical saying in mind here and more likely has in mind Jeremiah’s prophecy against Babylon: “I am against you, O destroying mountain, says the Lord . . .  [I will] make you a burned-out mountain” (Jer 51:25).[20] In the LXX this oracle of Jeremiah has similar language and phrase construction to Revelation 8:8,[21] while the prophecy against “Babylon” in Revelation 16:20 provides an obvious thematic connection.

Outside of the Synoptic Gospels then, we have NT mountain-moving expressions in both a hyperbolic usage (1 Cor 13:2) and an eschatological usage (Rev 8:8). These correspond to the main interpretive options typically given for Mark’s use of the expression in 11:23. However, I find neither of these options satisfactory. Firstly, these interpretive options create inconsistencies in Mark’s presentation of Jesus’ teaching and example. Second, these interpretations do not take into account a distinctive feature of Mark’s mountain moving saying, that the mountain is to be spoken to. As I will argue, this motif serves to connect the saying with scriptural prophetic texts where mountains are spoken to and opens up a third possibility that has not to my knowledge been considered in the literature, that the mountain to be moved is a scriptural metaphor for human opposition. This third possibility coheres with the minority view of Christopher Marshall who argues that “Mark uses ‘this mountain’ as a figure for the unbelieving temple system as such, with its hostile ruling authorities and entrenched resistance to the message and demands of Jesus.”[22] That is, Marshall argues that it is the human opposition of the temple leadership that is in view in the mountain language. However, Marshall does not buttress his argument here with any scriptural background, a consideration which appears determinative for most interpreters. Consequently this study will arrive at the same conclusion as Marshall, but from a different direction, that of scriptural background.


[1] The parallel traditions in the Gospel of Thomas (48, 106) are likely derivative, and little use in informing Mark’s usage here. See, Ferdinand Hahn, “Jesu Wort vom bergeversetzenden Glauben,” ZNW 76, no. 3/4 (1985): 152–53.

[2] Samuel Sandmel, “Prolegomena to a Commentary on Mark,” in New Testament Issues, ed. Richard Batey (London: SCM, 1970), 52.

[3] Bock, Luke 9:51-24:53, 1391.

[4] Duncan Derrett (“Moving Mountains and Uprooting Trees (Mk 11: 22; Mt 17:20, 21:21; Lk 17:6),” Bibbia e Oriente 30 [1988]: 240) states without support that the συκάμινος is a fig-sycamore (Ficus sycomorus). However, he may be correct. Lexicons list συκάμινος (Luke 17:6) as black mulberry (Morus nigra), but every time it is used in the LXX it translates שׁקמה, which is a fig-sycamore (1 Kings 10:27; 1 Chr 27:28; 2 Chr 1:15; 9:27; Ps 77:47; Isa 9:9). Perhaps Luke here is following LXX usage? I leave such questions for others to solve.

[5] On the mustard seed, see particularly, James W. Scott, “The Misunderstood Mustard Seed Matt 17:20b; Luke 17:6,” Trinity Journal 36 (2015): 25–48; also, Hahn, “Jesu Wort,” 159–60.

[6] Bock, Luke 9:51-24:53, 1391.

[7] Davies and Allison, Matthew 8-18, 726.

[8] Pesch, Markusevangelium, 2:205; Craig A. Evans, Mark 8:27–16:20, WBC 34b (Nashville, Tenn.: Thomas Nelson, 2001), 48.

[9] For a thorough discussion of the ways Matt alters Mark’s text see, Davies and Allison, Matthew 8-18, 720, 729.

[10] Evans, Mark 8:27–16:20, 48.

[11] Bock, Luke 9:51-24:53, 1390.

[12] William David Davies and Dale C. Allison, Matthew 19-28, ICC (London: T&T Clark, 1997), 147–48.

[13] Davies and Allison, 153.

[14] Bock, Luke 9:51-24:53, 1209–10.

[15] Especially in the light of 1 Cor 13:12.

[16] Maureen Yeung, Faith in Jesus and Paul: A Comparison with Special Reference to “Faith That Can Remove Mountains” and “Your Faith Has Healed/Saved You,” WUNT 2. 147 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2002), 22, 30–31.

[17] Notably, Paul employs the plural here, in contrast to the Synoptics’ consistent use of the singular “this mountain/mulberry tree,” which serves to give it a more proverbial character. Neither does Paul mention speaking to mountains which may call into question any tradition-historical connection between the mountain moving sayings in Mark 11:23 and 1 Cor 13:2.

[18] Rabbinic use of the expression “moving mountains” may provide some background to this expression in the New Testament, as discussed by David Garland, 1 Corinthians (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Academic, 2003), 613–14; however, I am not convinced it provides a useful parallel (especially as the direction of influence could easily be the reverse). And, as shown by Yeung (Faith, 22), the NT pairing of the phrase with “faith” is distinctive.

[19] Hahn, “Jesu Wort,” 152; Yeung, Faith, 24–25.

[20] In a parallel passage, Rev 18:21, “a stone like a great millstone” is thrown into the sea and explicitly interpreted as Babylon, and thus supports the interpretation of the mountain in 8:8 as an “evil kingdom” ( G. K. Beale, The Book of Revelation, NIGTC [Cambridge: Eerdmans, 1999], 476); Contra Craig Koester (Revelation, AYB [London: Yale University Press, 2014], 449) who considers, “Rev 8:8 is not mainly about the destruction of a mountain or city but concerns the sea.” His point about the focus of 8:8-9 is well taken, but it hardly vitiates the identification of the mountain as Babylon, even if it is hurled from heaven (something which is not explicit in the text, but Koester infers from 8:7, 10 and 12).

[21] Compare ὡς ὄρος μέγα πυρὶ καιόμενον (Rev 8:8) with ὡς ὄρος ἐμπεπυρισμένον (LXX Jer 28:25 (= MT 51:25)).

[22] Christopher D. Marshall, Faith as a Theme in Mark’s Narrative, SNTSMS 64 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994), 169.

Saturday, November 25, 2023

Two podcasts and two reviews of Markan Typology

I've been interviewed about my book on two different podcasts this year , as my mother always said, I have a great face for radio. 

Here I am talking to Michael Morales on the New Books Network


And/or here I am talking to John Tucker on Word, Work, World podcast.

https://baptist.nz/series/word-world-work/?listen=2

Check them out, or don't. If you do, drop a comment below.

Also, Ben, the "Amateur Exegete,"  gave me a lovely write up on his blog.

Jonathan Robinson’s . . . thorough and thoughtful analysis of the specific texts within the volume’s purview as well as his strong critiques of not only Kirk but also Richard Bauckham and Richard Hays make Markan Typology a valuable contribution to the subject of how the Markan Evangelist understood Jesus of Nazareth and how his readers would have as well.  

Read the whole review at https://amateurexegete.com/2023/07/12/markan-typology-miracle-scripture-and-christology-in-mark-435-645-by-jonathan-rivett-robinson-a-brief-review/ 

Finally, an honourable mention should go to Mr Kendall David on Goodreads. He awarded me a whopping two stars out of fives and comments, 

Some interesting explorations but deeply flawed. Robinson approaches typology too atomistically, he is too focused on finding exact literary dependence, he applies his own intertextual criteria inconsistently, he severely misreads Bauckham, and his project is largely unsuited to accomplish the task he sets out to accomplish. I do appreciate Robinson's work to bring typology into mainstream biblical studies. 

I am grateful for his appreciative remarks and apologise profusely for my flaws, deep as they are. Looking at some of his other reviews I see he only gave four stars to Donald Juel for his Luke-Acts book, and the same for Mike Bird for Jesus is the Christ, so two stars makes me half as good as Donald Juel, which frankly, I will take.

So, as you can see having you baby/book out in the wide world can be fun but also risky business.

And you can now pre-order my book in paperback for 30 May 2024! Although, for the impatient the hardback copy still has a few left. So whether you want to enjoy my insights or bask in my flaws, my advice to you is walk, don't run, to your computer and buy my book. . . haven't you done it yet???



New Testament (and related) Journal Word Limits

This list is a work in progress for my own convenience. I'm sharing it with you out of the goodness of my heart. Don't make me regre...