I'm winding up my research for 2010. All I have left to do is to polish up my ETS and IBR papers and a write dictionary article on John and the Synoptics . Next year will involve editing a Four Views book for Zondervan and co-editing the 2010 Tyndale Fellowship volume in memoriam of Prof. Martin Hengel with Jason Mason.
For me, 2011 is going to be the year of Gospels and Romans. Projects I'll be working on include:
Jesus is the Christ: The Messianic Testimony of the Gospels (Paternoster).
This volume examines how the messiahship of Jesus functions in the narrative and theological horizon of the individual Gospels. It examines their apologetic, kerygmatic, and evangelistic usage of messianic themes. It includes developing some articles I've previously published in Reformed Theology Review.
The Gospels of the Lord (Eerdmans)
This volume looks at the formation of the Gospels in the setting of the early church including chapters on "gospel to Gospel", "Jesus Tradition", "Formation of the Gospels in Early Church", "History and Theology", with some stuff on canonical versus historical approaches to interpreting the Gospels. I also hope to add in some excursus on things like "Q", "Text of the Gospels in the Second Century", and "An Evangelical and Critical Approach to the Gospels", plus a section on how to read the non-canonical Gospels.
On Romans, I intend to sink my teeth into a Romans commentary in the Regula Fidei series for Zondervan. But along the way I'm also writing an essay on Romans and Imperial Perspectives (IVP) and an introduction to Romans for a text book on Paul (Eerdmans).
Gospels and Romans sounds like a cool year ahead indeed. Though I'm starting to think that it might pay to do some stuff on the Catholic letters some time soon for my own benefit more than anything else!
5 comments:
What's your job title?
Mike,
I can't help but notice that your description of the "Gospels of the Lord" volume doesn't include any description of a narrative approach to the gospels. Since this is one of the dominant interpretive models today, and was likely more faithful to the original listening/reading experiences of the early readers, what is your rationale for excluding such an important discussion?
Chris Skinner
Mike: Lecturer in Theology and Bible.
Chris: I got no beef with narrative, but this ain't an exercise in narrative criticism. I'm interested in the beginning of the Gospel tradition.
Mike, Thanks for the reply. I'm not talking about narrative criticism as much as the recognition that the Gospels originated as autonomous narratives and largely through a process of oral delivery. Are you going to be dealing with orality in the book?
Chris,
Yes, I will have a bit on orality and stuff. The problem is that there is an explosion of secondary literature about orality, tradition, and memory.
Post a Comment