Another Article on Phileō and Agapaō in John 21:15-17 (Talbert in JGRChJ)

 Last year (2020) I had the privilege of publishing an article in the Bulletin for Biblical Research on phileō and agapaō in John 21:15-17 as a possible allusion to LXX Prov 8:17. To my surprise, I recently found out that around the same time another article had been published with a similar focus, specifically:

Andrew R. Talbert, "The Synonymous Rendering of Aristotelian φιλέω with ἀγαπάω in the Gospel of John," Journal of Greco-Roman Christianity and Judaism 16 (2020): 9-29.

His article is accessible for free here. I believe Talbert's article and my article actually complement each other. Like me, Talbert sees the two verbs as basically interchangeable in John and, to my surprise, Talbert (like me) also sees LXX Proverbs as very relevant to the discussion (it's gratifying that I'm not the only person on earth that believes that!).

I think both of us would have benefitted by having knowledge of the other's work before publication, but both of us were probably going through a blind peer-review process at the same time. Talbert's sophisticated discussion of the "Aristotelian" phileō, and how John revises it, is completely lacking in my paper.  Conversely, Talbert does not interact with the recent articles by Shepherd and Böhler on the topic of agapaō/phileō in John as I do.

So, dear reader, if you really want to study up on phileō-agapaō in  John, there are now four articles written  in the last 12 years that you should read! Talbert in JGRChJ (2020), myself in BBR (2020), Dieter Böhler in Biblica (2015), and Shepherd in JBL (2010). 

"Loving Wisdom" (John 21:15-17 as an allusion to Proverbs): my new article in BBR

For some reason, Bulletin for Biblical Research is my "lucky" journal, in that I am "3-for-3" with them (three attempts to publish and three times accepted, in contrast to a few other journals! However, for my last two paper submissions the reviewers have been split over them, and the article had to go to a tie-breaker). BBR just published my article "Loving Wisdom: The Agapao-Phileo Exchange in John 21:15-17 as an Allusion to LXX Proverbs 8:17." Click here for the JSTOR link (though if anybody wants a PDF of the article, just e-mail me at phimes@gmail.com)

Here is the abstract:

Though the majority of scholars argue against semantic distinction between ἀγαπάω and φιλέω in John 21:15–17 (recent articles by Shepherd and Böhler being significant exceptions), the oddity of the double juxtaposition of the two terms does not so easily vanish away. But rather than arguing for semantic distinction, this article proposes a neglected intertextual solution to the anomaly: John 21:15–17 is an allusion to the Old Greek version of Prov 8:17, and the significance of the two verbs lies in their discourse function, not difference in meaning. “Parallelomania” can be avoided due to the relative rarity of a juxtaposed ἀγαπάω-φιλέω in the LXX and the fact that the context of Prov 8–9 contains similar themes to John 20–21’s context, namely, the “banquet,” “seeking-and-finding,” and “mutual love” motifs, increasing the possibility of deliberate intertextuality (especially in light of potential Wisdom allusions elsewhere in John). The final section of this article examines both the theological role played by such an allusion to Prov 8:17 and how this coheres with the rest of John’s Gospel.

Ironically, this article came about as a result of a conversation with my students in the Hebrew Syntax class I teach. Also, this article was my first attempt to publish in a Tier-1 journal, which did not succeed, though JBL and JTS gave helpful feedback (in contrast to NTS, which gave me nothing, just a rejection). So I 'm grateful it got published in a solid second-tier journal (a journal which, in my humble and biased opinion, has risen in the ranks in the last decade).

For those wishing to know which journals are out there in biblical studies, I have ranked over 100 journals, according to 3-tiers, here.

"Did Jesus Quote the Apostles?" (Latest issue of Southeastern Theological Reivew)

The latest issue of the Southeastern Theological Review is out (the official journal of my doctoral alma mater, SEBTS!), and I am grateful that I have an article published in that issue:
Paul A. Himes, "Did Jesus Quote the Apostles? The Possible Intertextuality and Significance of Revelation 2:24," STR 11 no. 1 (Spr 2020): 31-52.
The journal is open-access, and can be read here.
Here is the abstract:

This article examines the significance of the phrase “no other burden” (οὐ . . . ἄλλο βάρος) in Rev 2:24, including its relationship to ὡς λέγουσιν shortly before it. A full analysis of these phrases has been mostly lacking in modern commentaries, which has not prevented many from taking dogmatic positions on whether or not Jesus might be alluding to the Jerusalem Council in Acts 15. This article defends the possibility that ὡς λέγουσιν is meant to point forward, thus making an allusion to Acts 15 highly probable. This article then explores the theological significance of such an allusion in light of the situation in Acts, and then closes by briefly discussing the practical significance of this thesis.

Key Words: Acts 15, Bible translation, intertextuality, Jerusalem Council, New Testament ethics, Revelation 2, Thyatira

Divinely Inspired Puns? You Bet!

These past two weeks I have had the privilege of teaching "General Epistles" (minus Hebrews, which deserves its own class) for the first time in the history of Baptist College of Ministry (textbook is the excellent Letters to the Churches by Karen Jobes). In the process of researching for this class, I found out something: the Apostle Peter likes to "pun."

Well, ok, technically it's a wordplay, since I don't think Peter was looking to get a laugh, but close enough. Wordplays are, of course, nothing new in the Biblical text (especially in the Hebrew), but 1 and 2 Peter have at least 1 wordplay each (or, if the reader will indulge me, puns); there is also a fantastic "inter-textual pun" between 2 Peter and Jude (if 2 Peter comes first, then Jude makes the pun; if Jude comes first, then Peter claims credit to 3 puns).

First off, in the first few verses of 1 Peter 2, the apostle has been describing how we are to put off sin and pursue the "rational, pure milk," Jesus Christ (I follow Karen Jobes in arguing that the "milk" refers to Jesus Christ, not the Bible per se; for a thorough discussion of this context, see her article in Westminster Theological Journal vol. 63 (2002) entitled "Got Milk? Septuagint Psalm 33 and the Interpretation of 1 Peter 2:1-3." Peter, continuing the metaphor of a newborn infant craving its mother's milk, then quotes Psalm 34:8 (LXX 33:8)--the concept of "tasting" that the Lord is good. In Greek, Peter writes, Chrestus ho Kurios. The pun, of course, is that there is only one letter difference between "good" and "Christ." Consequently, by quoting the LXX Chrestus ho Kurios ("Good is the Lord"), Peter is also saying Christus ho Kurios--Christ is the Lord!

For a discussion of the next two puns, one of the best sources is Richard Bauckham's Word Biblical Commentary on 2 Peter and Jude.

Secondly, in 2 Peter 2:15, Peter speaks of "Balaam son of Bosor." Now everybody knows that Balaam is actually the son of Beor, not "Bosor." This is why a small handful of manuscripts actually have a textual variant here, "Beor" for "Bosor." Yet the answer is that Peter makes a pun off of the Aramaic (and Hebrew) word b's'r. Balaam is, in fact, "the son of the flesh" (basar is the Hebrew and Aramaic word for "flesh"). This idea of Balaam being the "son of the flesh" fits well with Peter's overall tirade against these false teachers who do indeed follow the way of the flesh.

Finally, a much more subtle pun that involves reading Jude and 2 Peter side-by-side. As conservative scholarship acknowledges, there is a lot of inter-textuality between these two books. One of them is borrowing material from the other (this is not a problem for inerrancy: it's not like the Holy Spirit can plagiarize from Himself, after all). In fact, as an exercise I had my students compare 2 Peter 2:1-3:3 with Jude and notice all the places that overlap. Now, most scholars believe that Jude came first, though I beg to differ (among other things, it makes more sense for Jude to combine the "water-less wells, tempest-carried clouds" of 2 Peter 2:17 into Jude 12's "water-less clouds" rather than the reverse, that Peter would split up Jude's metaphor). However, that's another issue altogether.

So the pun is this: in parallel verses (2 Peter 2:13 compared to Jude 12) covering the exact same topic, with remarkably similar language, Peter says "Reveling in their own deceptions while feasting together with you"; Jude says "These are spots [or: dangerous reefs] in your love feasts." Remember, either Jude or 2 Peter is borrowing concepts and terminology from the other (under the perfect inspiration of the Holy Spirit). Interestingly, Peter prefers the verb "feasting together"; the word for "deception," however, is apatais. Significantly, rather than using the verb for "feasting together," Jude uses the plural of agaph as a technical term for a (weekly?) feast of charity. Thus Jude uses agapais to mimic Peter's apatais! Result? Sophisticated inter-textual pun!!

One more thought. In regards to the pun in 2 Peter 2:15, I am dismayed at how so many modern translations, in an attempt to "harmonize" Peter with the Old Testament, prefer to go with a mere handful of manuscripts (and not even the Alexandrian "heavy hitters") with the reading "Beor." This includes the ESV (which I normally really like!), the NLT (with a note that says "Some manuscripts read Bosor"--how about, like, "Almost every single manuscript in existence reads Bosor??!?!??!"), the NASB, etc. On the plus side, the NET, Holman Christian Standard, and KJV all read "Bosor," as they should. On the other hand, to my unfathomable disappointment, the New King James inexplicably has "Beor" (extremely disappointing to me, especially since I've been telling folks that it was basically just an updating of the King James; I still really like the New King James, mind you, but this is disappointing). In summary, this may be one of the few places that the NET and the KJV are going to agree against most other modern translations (including the NKJV)! [For the record: The superiority of a reading is not determined by what any translation has, but rather by whatever is determined to be the superior Greek manuscripts; and that, of course, is a different debate for a different time!]

Review of Defending Hope: Semiotics and Intertextuality in 1 Peter by Justin Langford

Note: I was not given this book; rather, I purchased it with my own money (like almost all of the books I review) which means I can review it any way I want, bwahahahahahhahaha!!! [JUST KIDDING! I'll try to be fair.] Also, as a personal preference, I will always have at least a little bit positive and a little bit negative to say, my reasoning being that even Bart Ehrman is a zippy read and can contribute to the discussion, while only Scripture itself is inerrant (so only Scripture would get a perfect review by me!).

Dr. Justin Langford, at the time of publication, is an adjunct NT professor at New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary. His book Defending Hope: Semiotics and Intertextuality in 1 Peter (Eugene, Oreg.: Wipf and Stock, 2013) seems to be a revision of his dissertation. I also had the privilege of hearing him speak at last Fall's ETS in Baltimore, and I look forward to interacting with his work on 1 Peter more in the future.

Defending Hope focuses on a branch of study known as "Semiotics" and its relation to the NT use of the OT in First Peter, especially 1 Peter's citation of Isaiah (or allusions, echoes, etc. of Isaiah). As Langford states early on, "The fundamental assumption behind intertextual study is the belief that 'no text exists in a vacuum'" [quoting Fewell, Reading between Texts] (xv). Yet Langford bemoans the fact that "no standard or agreed-upon method exists for doing such studies" [re.: "methodological applications of intertextuality"](p. xv). Consequently, Langford proposes using "semiotics" to pave the way forward. Thus, early on, he states, "The purpose of this study, then, is to explore the use of semiotics as an overarching method for doing biblical intertextual studies" (p. xvi). Soon after, he defines "semiotics" as "a broader term [compared to semiosis] referring to the scientific study of signs and sign systems" (p. xvii).

In the first chapter, Langford focuses mostly on a history of the theory and application intertextuality, eventually narrowing in on the history of intertextual studies in 1 Peter (noting also key dissertations such as Edward Glenny's discussion of NT use of the OT in 1 Peter). At the end of the chapter, he declares, "The importance of this book lies in both the application of a semiotic method for interpreting intertextual references and the treatment of Isaiah in 1 Peter" (25).In chapter 2, Langford focuses on developing a methodology for his study, stating that he will follow linguist Stefan Alkier--1. "Establishing a theory of textuality based on semiotics, 2. perform[ing] an intratextual investigation of 1 Peter, and 3. perform[ing] an intertextual investigation of the use of Isaiah in 1 Peter." Later in the chapter he focuses on the work of C. S. Peirce, Pierce's concept of "universe of discourse," and the concept of an "encyclopedia (including the role of "cultural knowledge," see p. 46).

In chapter 3, Langford focuses on "The Textual Universe of 1 Peter," which includes both the "epistolary" and "rhetorical" outlines of 1 Peter (Langford includes some helpful charts comparing various scholars). In chapter 4, "Opening the Encyclopedia of 1 Peter," Langford the social, historical, and cultural background of 1 Peter. After this, he focuses on how citations function in 1 Peter  (which texts are cited [LXX? Masoretic?], how they were cited, etc.).

Finally, in chapter 5, Langford discusses "'Signs' of Hope in 1 Peter." He (mostly convincingly, in my opinion) follows the thread of "hope" all throughout the quotations, allusions, and echoes of Isaiah in 1 Peter. He states,
      "A semiotic investigation of the use of Isaiah in 1 Peter demonstrates the integral role of the book of      
      Isaiah in the composition of the epistle. As the dynamic object, the book of Isaiah motivated the
      generation of numerous Isaianic signs in 1 Peter. The signs all point to one specific aspect of the book of
      Isaiah, their immediate object, and in doing so create an interpretant. Each interpretant was described in
      the sections above, and most of these interpretants were determined to communicate the idea of hope.
      While each interpretant communicates in its own right a picture of hope for the audience, the cumulative
      force of all the interpretants points to a message of hope, one that saturates almost every section of this
      short epistle" (p. 124; see also his excellent chart on page 125).

Now for critique: on the (very) plus side, this is a worthy addition to the panoply of scholarship on 1 Peter. Langford gives us a unique contribution (1 Peter, Isaiah, and semiotics), he delves deeply into the realm of semiotics, and artfully focuses on Isaiah in 1 Peter.

I believe that, for the most part, Langford demonstrates his thesis on hope in 1 Peter via Isaiah. Indeed, chapter 5 alone is worth the price of admission. Furthermore, Langford demonstrates excellent scholarship, interacting with almost all the major sources [with one major exception, noted below]. At an affordable price (thanks to Wipf&Stock's publishing model, of which I am also benefiting), it would be almost inexcusable for any budding scholar on 1 Peter or (more generally) NT use of the OT to not own this book. Let me stress again, this is an excellent discussion of 1 Peter's use of Isaiah.

And now for some quibbles (and please, dear reader, don't let the length of my discussion detract from the fact that this is a mostly positive review, and you should buy this book if you're serious about researching 1 Peter). First of all, I felt that for what the author was trying to accomplish this book was way too short. We do not see near enough discussion of the concept of hope in Scripture in general (what I feel would be a necessary precursor to discussing hope in both Isaiah and 1 Peter; however, Langford does clearly know the difference between concept and word, and he does discuss the concept of hope in the relevant chapters; I just think he could have done more, including a more clear definition of hope), and we do not enough discussion of the original contexts of the various Isaiah passages. I think this book would have benefited from another 50 pages (and yes, I know what it's like to have to add material to a book, so this is not just an armchair quarterback speaking!). In addition, I felt Langford could have segued into a more comprehensive "theology of hope" in 1 Peter.

Secondly, there is already an entire article devoted to the concept of "hope" in 1 Peter, and Langford does not cite it (John Piper's "Hope as the Motivation of Love: 1 Peter 3:9-12" on NTS vol. 26); now I know, I know, it's easy to nitpick and always find some obscure source that an author doesn't cite (I anticipate this if anybody reviews my own book on 1 Peter), and, to be fair, Piper does not focus on any of the passages that Langford focuses on (see Piper's article here). Nevertheless, I feel there is enough overlap in topics for at least a mention--after all, the whole point of the book is to provide an intertextual discussion of hope in 1 Peter, and New Testament Studies is a major, top-tier journal.

Thirdly, occasionally the author hurries over a statement that should need much more explanation, or at least a footnote. For example, on page 95, he states, "the formula pistos o logos . . . found in 1-2 Timothy and Titus reflects a phrase found in the Qumran Book of Mysteries that refers to a prophecy." Even without the controversial assertion "reflects a phrase . . ." I would expect a footnote for this (the only footnote in the paragraph is at the very first sentence). Another example: the whole socio-political situation of the recipients (metaphorical? literal? both?) of 1 Peter deserves more than the one paragraph he allocates on page 90 (if I'm missing something, I apologize, but that's all I saw in a thorough reading of the book), especially since this ties directly into the necessity of hope.

Finally, a complaint that is not unique to Langford's book: Scholarly, technical books need indexes!!!!!! Please let me repeat that: scholarly, technical books need at least a subject index and a Scripture/ancient sources index! This should not be optional! (but, as I said, a lot of books coming out these days, including revised dissertations, sadly do not have any).

In conclusion, though, let me state Langford's Defending Hope  is an excellent book on 1 Peter. It gives us an excellent introduction to semiotics, a decent discussion of intertextuality, and a fantastic overview of the concept of hope weaved throughout 1 Peter's use of Isaiah. Let me emphasize again, concerning the last point, Langford succeeds masterfully, and may my critique not detract from my praise.

I did not receive this book in exchange for a review; I purchased it with my own money, and it is well worth the price!