Recthsgeschichtlicher Kommentar z NT

During a brief visit to Germany this week I became aware of a new NT-commentary project in process. At the present time it is called Rechtsgeschichtlicher Kommentar zum Neuen Testament (RKNT), and is planned to be published in two volumes.

The project has its own webpage here. It tells about the idea behind the project,  who is working on it (ca. 36 persons), and the planned content of the two volumes to be published.

The presentation of the project (in German) is given thus:

Bibelwissenschaft und Rechtswissenschaft haben ein Gebiet gemeinsam, dessen Erforschung noch aussteht: die Rechtsgeschichte des Neuen Testaments.In diesem Kommentar arbeiten ausgewiesene Fachleute der Romanistik, der Judaistik und der Neutestamentlichen Wissenschaft zusammen, um auch Nichtfachleuten darzustellen, was in den Texten jeweils auf dem Spiel steht.

This is an interesting idea and project. You may also check on the webpage what texts they are to deal with; I for my part was somewhat surprised that the Steven-episode of Act 6 is given so little attention in their outline.


The commentary as such raises also another issue to me: what is happening to the ‘Commentary-genre’?  We now have a lot of specialized commentaries out there, focusing on some specific aspects of the texts. Let me mention some of the series that come to my mind:

Social-Science Commentary (Fortress Press)

Papyrologische Kommentare zum Neuen Testament (Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht)

The Social-Rhetorical Commentaries (by Ben Witherington)

The Two Horizons New Testament Commentaries (Eerdmans)

A Postcolonial Commentary on the New Testament Writings (1 Volume, t&t clark)

Others might surely be added, but these are probably the most prominent. We thus have a  wide field of topics covered by these, and more is probably to come. So, coming from a situation when there was a lot of ‘historical-critical commentaries’ to chose, we now also have to be sure to check up these more specialized volumes.

I do think the whole genre of NT commentary-genre is in a period of change and (probably,) improvement. It might be that the time of the all-embraching commentary is over (and probably has been for some time). In this the commentaries  simply mirror the diversity of methods in vogue in New Testament exegesis.

But will the time ever return when you can sit down with a good  ?00 pages volume, thinking: this will be the one? Probably not!

Bryn Mawr Classical Review

If you want to keep you self updated on recent books published in the field of classical studies (including archaeology), the Bryn Mawr Classical Review is the site to visit. You may also subscribe to their reviews.

In a recent editorial note, the editors state that:

“Bryn Mawr Classical Review is moving — to Bryn Mawr. Since our inception in late 1990, we have been hosted on the server of the Center for Computer Analysis of Texts at the University of Pennsylvania. There are many reasons for that persistence. One of us was then at Penn, the CCAT founded by Bob Kraft was already a leader in humanities computing, and since then inertia, respect for readers’ habits, and the very kind generosity of Penn humanities computing have all made it simple to stay as we were. The time has come now to move homes, with the journal coming to reside fully within the College whose extraordinary tradition in Classics gave it birth.

The senior editors are grateful to our colleagues at Penn, most notably in recent years Warren Petrofsky and Jay Treat, but going back many years to others, including Bob Kraft and the late Jack Abercrombie and the inimitable Ira Winston, and others whom we are sorry not to be able to catalog comprehensively here.

Links to the old addresses will “resolve” (as they say) to the new site, but of course there will be some hiccups in finding familiar material. This is an opportune moment to say that there are other sites from time to time that seem to take it upon themselves to archive BMCR postings. Go now, then, to have a look at to see the new site and make sure you can recognize the real thing. Many readers will also want to bookmark our blog site, where new reviews are posted and comments encouraged/welcomed/posted. The URL there is ”

The site is hereby recommended!

Philemon readings

I have now posted to my review of

Larry J. Kreitzer

(Readings: A New Biblical Commentary
Sheffield Phoenix Press, 2008
It will probably appear there in 2-3 months.

I personally found this book very helpful, and I think it will be useful too as an introduction to the letter to Philemon both for students of the New Testament and for lay people in general. I especially appreciate his integration of scholarly New Testament studies with a presentation of the letter’s ‘wirkungsgeschichte’ in literature and film. The present volume is the seventh in a series called “Readings: A New Biblical Commentary.” The publisher does not state who are the intended readers of the series. If the other volumes are tailored in the same way as this one, they might very well serve a wide range of readers, and spark an interest in a further reading of the biblical text itself. And that, in my view, is no small purpose and reward at all.

Some articles on Philo

A search on MUSE this morning revealed some articles on Philo I had to add to my personal Philo bibliography. I list them here; some other readers might find them interesting too. Or you might do a search for yourself by going to MUSE.

Robertson, David G.
Mind and Language in Philo
Journal of the History of Ideas, Volume 67, Number 3, July 2006, pp. 423-441.

The Late Hellenistic Jewish philosopher Philo of Alexandria has been neglected in studies of theories of mind and language in Post-Aristotelian Philosophy. Philo’s dualism distinguishes immateriality and materiality in our language (logos). His arguments about the nature of mind and his explanations of the relation of speech to the mind, divine or human, draw heavily from Stoics and Platonists. Philo appears to present contemporary Platonist, anti-Stoic arguments that mind is of a different nature than body. Also, Philo deserves credit as our first detailed, surviving expositor of the view that meanings are thoughts, presented to the world in speech.

Runia, David T.
The Idea and the Reality of the City in the Thought of Philo of Alexandria
Journal of the History of Ideas, Volume 61, Number 3, July 2000, pp. 361-379

The theme of my paper is the conception of the city as a social and cultural phenomenon held by the Jewish exegete and philosopher Philo of Alexandria (15 bc to 50 ad). There can be no doubt that the city occupied a central position in his own life. As an inhabitant of Alexandria he was thoroughly immersed in a highly urbanized form of life. From a more theoretical angle the city has an important place in his thought because of what it represents: of all physical products of human activity the city is the largest and most complex (here there is in fact little difference between Philo and us, although there is an obvious difference in scale). It is not my aim to examine Philo’s political philosophy, i.e., his views on how the city should be governed, nor his views on the actual political administration of the Roman Empire in his time. These subjects have already been treated with sufficient competence by others. I will argue that, though as an Alexandrian Philo was very much a homo urbanus, he nevertheless reveals a significant ambivalence towards the city. This attitude is related to his dual ideological background (Jewish and Greek), and anticipates developments in later antiquity.