Because of the positive responses I have received to last week’s blog on my favorite NT commentaries I have decided to share with you also what I consider to be some of the most helpful reference tools for biblical studies. Once again, please don’t hesitate to tell me if I left anything out!

REFERENCE WORKS

Introductions and Surveys

Old Testament

Arnold, Bill and Bryan Beyer. Encountering the Old Testament. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1999.

Hill, Andrew and John Walton. A Survey of the Old Testament. 2d ed. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2000.

LaSor, William, David A. Hubbard, and Frederick W. Bush. Old Testament Survey: The Message, Form and Background of the Old Testament. 2d ed. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1996.

Longman, Tremper and Raymond B. Dillard. An Introduction to the Old Testament. 2d ed. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2007.

New Testament

Carson, D. A. and Douglas J. Moo. An Introduction to the New Testament. 2d ed. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2005.

Elwell, Walter A. and Robert W. Yarbrough. Encountering the New Testament. Grand Rapids: Baker, 2005.

Gundry, Robert H. A Survey of the New Testament. 4^th ed. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2003.

Guthrie, Donald. New Testament Introduction. Rev. ed. Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 1990.

Köstenberger, Andreas J., L. Scott Kellum, and Charles L. Quarles. The Cradle, the Cross, and the Crown. A Comprehensive Introduction to the New Testament. Broadman: B & H, 2008. [forthcoming]

Background

Drane, John, ed. Illustrated Encyclopedia of the Bible. Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1998.

Metzger, Bruce M. and Michael D. Coogan, eds. The Oxford Guide to People & Places of the Bible. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001.

Packer, J. I., Merrill C. Tenney, and William White, Jr. The Bible Almanac. Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1980.

Porter, J. R. The Illustrated Guide to the Bible. London: Barnes & Noble, 2000.

Old Testament

Hoerth, Alfred J., Gerald L. Mattingly, and Edwin M. Yamauchi. Peoples of the Old Testament World. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1994.

Kaiser, Walter. A History of Israel: From the Bronze Age Through the Jewish Wars. Nashville: Broadman & Holman, 1998.

Long, V. Philips, David Baker, and Gordon Wenham, eds. Windows into Old Testament History. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2002.

Long, V. Philips, Tremper Longman III, and Iain W. Provan. A Biblical History of Israel. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2003.

Merrill, Eugene H. Kingdom of Priests: A History of Old Testament Israel. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1996.

Millard, Alan. Discoveries from Bible Times. Oxford: Lion, 1990.

New Testament

Arnold, Clinton E., ed. Zondervan Illustrated Bible Backgrounds Commentary. 4 vols. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2002.

Barnett, Paul. Jesus and the Rise of Early Christianity: A History of New Testament Times. Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 1999.

Barrett, C. K. New Testament Background: Selected Documents. 2d ed. San Francisco: HarperCollins, 1989.

Evans, Craig A. and Stanley E. Porter, eds. Dictionary of New Testament Background. Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 2000.

Ferguson, Everett. Backgrounds of Early Christianity. 2d ed. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1993.

Porter, Stanley E., ed. Dictionary of New Testament Background. Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 2000.

BIBLICAL LANGUAGES

Hebrew

Fuller, Russell T. and Kyoungwon Choi. Invitation to Biblical Hebrew: A Beginning Grammar. Invitation to Theological Studies Series. Grammar and Workbook. Grand Rapids: Kregel, 2006.

Pratico, Gary D. and Miles V. Van Pelt. Basics of Biblical Hebrew. Grammar, Workbook, and Study Aids. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2001.

Ross, A. P. Introducing Biblical Hebrew. Grand Rapids: Baker, 2001.

Seow, C. L. A. Grammar for Biblical Hebrew. Nashville: Abingdon, 1995.

Greek

Baugh, Steven M. A New Testament Greek Primer. Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian & Reformed, 1995.

Black, David A. Learn to Read New Testament Greek: Expanded Edition. Nashville: Broadman & Holman, 1994.

Mounce, William D. Basics of Biblical Greek. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1993.

Intermediate/Advanced Grammars

Joüon, Paul and T. Muraoka. A Grammar of Biblical Hebrew. 2 vols. Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1993.

Kautzsch, E., ed. Gesenius’ Hebrew Grammar. Translated by A. E. Cowley. 2d ed. Oxford: Clarendon, 1910.

Waltke, Bruce K. and M. O’Connor. An Introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1990.

Greek

Baugh, Steven M. A First John Reader: Intermediate Greek Reading Notes and Grammar. Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian & Reformed, 1999.

Mounce, William D. A Graded Reader of Biblical Greek. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996.

Mounce, William D. The Morphology of Biblical Greek. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1994.

Wallace, Daniel B. Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics: An Exegetical Syntax of the New Testament. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996. Abridgement: The Basics of New Testament Syntax. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2000.

Textual Criticism

Both Testaments

Wegner, Paul D. A Student’s Guide to Textual Criticism of the Bible: Its History, Methods and Results. Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 2006. 

Old Testament

Scott, William R. A Simplified Guide to the BHS. 3d ed. N. Richland Hills, TX: Bibal, 1987.

Würthwein, Ernst. The Text of the Old Testament: An Introduction to the Biblia Hebraica. 2d ed. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995.

New Testamtent

Metzger, Bruce M. A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament. 2d ed. New York: United Bible Society, 1994.

Metzger, Bruce M. and Bart Ehrman. The Text of the New Testament: Its Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration. 4^th ed. Oxford/New York: Oxford University Press, 2005.

Lexical and Syntactical Study

General

Carson, D. A. Exegetical Fallacies. 2d ed. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1996.

Cotterell, Peter and Max Turner. Linguistics and Biblical Interpretation. Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 1989.

Silva, Moisés. Biblical Words and Their Meaning: An Introduction to Lexical Semantics. Rev. ed. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1994.

Both Testaments

Green, Jay P., gen. ed. The Interlinear Bible. 2d ed. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1986.

Hebrew

Brown, Francis, S. R. Driver, and Charles A. Briggs. The New Brown-Driver-Briggs-Gesenius Hebrew-English Lexicon. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1979.

Harris, R. Laird, Gleason L. Archer, and Bruce Waltke. Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament. 2 vols. Chicago: Moody, 1980.

Kohlenberger, John R. and James A. Swanson. Hebrew-English Concordance to the Old Testament. Zondervan. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1998.

Rudolph, W. and H. P. Rüger, eds. Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia. 2d ed. Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 1983.

Wigram, George V. The New Englishman’s Hebrew Concordance. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1986.

Greek

Bauer, Walter, Frederick W. Danker, William F. Arndt, and F. Wilbur Gingrich. A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature. 3d ed. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2000. (BDAG)

Goodrick, Edward W., John R. Kohlenberger, and James A. Swanson. Exhaustive Concordance to the Greek New Testament. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1995.

Köstenberger, Andreas J. and Raymond P. Bouchoc, The Book Study Concordance. Broadman & Holman, 2003.

Louw, Johannes P. and Eugene A. Nida. A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament. 2 vols. New York: United Bible Society, 1988, 1989.

Wigram, George V. and Ralph D. Winter. Word Study New Testament and Concordance. 2 vols. Wheaton: Tyndale House, 1978.

Dictionaries

Both Testaments

Alexander, T. Desmond, Brian S. Rosner, D. A. Carson, and Graeme Goldsworthy, eds. New Dictionary of Biblical Theology. Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 2000.

Freedman, David Noel, ed. The Anchor Bible Dictionary. 6 vols. Garden City: Doubleday, 1992.

Marshall, I. Howard, Alan R. Millard, J. I. Packer, and Donald J. Wiseman, eds. New Bible Dictionary. 3d ed. Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 1996.

Ryken, Leland, James C. Wilhoit, and Tremper Longman III, eds. Dictionary of Biblical Imagery. Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 1998.

Vanhoozer, Kevin J., ed. Dictionary for Theological Interpretation of the Bible. Grand Rapids: Baker, 2005.

Old Testament

New International Dictionary of Old Testament Theology and Exegesis. 5 vols. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1997.

New Testament

Balz, Horst and Gerhard Schneider, eds. Exegetical Dictionary of the New Testament. 3 vols. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1990–93.

Brown, Colin, ed. New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology. 4 vols. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1986.

Green, Joel B., Scot McKnight, and I. Howard Marshall, eds. Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels. Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 1992.

Hawthorne, Gerald F., Ralph P. Martin, and Daniel G. Reid, eds. Dictionary of Paul and His Letters. Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 1993.

Theologies

Biblical Theology

Goldsworthy, Graeme. According to Plan. Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 2002.

Hafemann, ed. Biblical Theology: Retrospect and Prospect. Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 2002.

Scobie, Charles H. H. The Ways of Our God: An Approach to Biblical Theology. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2003.

Old Testament

Dempster, Stephen. Dominion and Dynasty: A Biblical Theology of the Hebrew Bible. NSBT. Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 2003.

Dumbrell, William J. The Faith of Israel: A Theological Survey of the Old Testament. Grand Rapids: Baker, 2001.

House, Paul R. Old Testament Theology. Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 1998.

Kaiser, Walter. Toward an Old Testament Theology. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1978.

Martens, Elmer A. God’s Design: A Focus on Old Testament Theology. 2d ed. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1994.

New Testament

Caird, George B. New Testament Theology. Completed and edited by L. D. Hurst. Oxford: Clarendon, 1994.

Guthrie, Donald. New Testament Theology. Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 1981.

Ladd, George Eldon. A Theology of the New Testament. Rev. ed. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1993.

Marshall, I. Howard. New Testament Theology: Many Witnesses, One Gospel. Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 2004.

Thielman, Frank. Theology of the New Testament: A Canonical and Synthetic Approach. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2005.

Systematic Theology

Akin, Daniel, ed. A Theology for the Church. Nashville: B & H, 2007.

Erickson, Millard J. Christian Theology. 2d ed. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1998

Grudem, Wayne A. Systematic Theology. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1994.

Hermeneutics

Duvall, J. Scott and J. Daniel Hays. Grasping God’s Word: A Hands-On Approach to Reading, Interpreting, and Applying the Bible. 2d ed. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2005.

Goldsworthy, Graeme. Gospel-Centered Hermeneutics: Foundations and Principles of Evangelical Biblical Interpretation. Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 2006.

Klein, William W., Craig L. Blomberg, and Robert L. Hubbard. Introduction to Biblical Interpretation. 2d ed. Dallas: Word, 2004.

Osborne, Grant R. The Hermeneutical Spiral: A Comprehensive Introduction to Biblical Interpretation. 2d ed. Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 2006.

Vanhoozer, Kevin J. Is There a Meaning in This Text? Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1998.

Vanhoozer, Kevin J. The Drama of Doctrine: A Canonical-Linguistic Approach to Christian Theology. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2005.

One of the most frequently asked questions I receive is, “What are the commentaries you recommend for serious study of the New Testament?” At long last, I have compiled my list. Subject to further editing, it will appear in a forthcoming hermeneutics text, Invitation to Biblical Interpretation, due out in the Invitation to Theological Interpretation Series in a couple years.

In the meantime, here is the list:

Matthew

Blomberg, Craig L. Matthew. NAC. Nashville: Broadman, 1992.

Carson, D. A. “Matthew.” EBC 8. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1984, 3–599.

Davies, W. D. and Dale C. Allison. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel according to Saint Matthew. ICC. 3 vols. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1989, 1991, 1997.

Hagner, Donald A. Matthew. 2 vols. WBC. Dallas: Word, 1993, 1995.

Keener, Craig S. A Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999.

Wilkins, Michael. Matthew. NIVAC. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2004.

Mark

Evans, Craig A. Mark 8:27–16:20. WBC. Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 2001.

France, R. T. The Gospel of Mark: A Commentary on the Greek Text. NIGTC. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2002.

Garland, David E. Mark. NIVAC. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996.

Guelich, Robert A. Mark 1–8:26. WBC. Dallas: Word, 1989.

Gundry, Robert H. Mark: A Commentary on His Apology for the Cross. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1993.

Lane, William L. Commentary on the Gospel of Mark. NICNT. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1974.

Luke

Bock, Darrell L. Luke. 2 vols. BECNT. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1994, 1996.

Fitzmeyer, Joseph A. The Gospel According to Luke. AB. 2 vols. New York: Doubleday, 1981–85.

Green, Joel B. The Gospel of Luke. Rev. ed. NICNT. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997.

Marshall, I. Howard. Commentary on Luke. NIGTC. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1978.

Nolland, John. Luke. WBC. 3 vols. Dallas: Word, 1990–93.

John

Carson, D. A. The Gospel According to John. PNTC. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1991.

Keener, Craig S. The Gospel of John: A Commentary. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2003.

Köstenberger, Andreas J. John. BECNT. Grand Rapids: Baker, 2004.

Morris, Leon. Commentary on the Gospel of John. Rev. ed. NICNT. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995.

Ridderbos, Herman N. The Gospel of John: A Theological Commentary. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997.

Acts

Barrett, C. K. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Acts of the Apostles. ICC. 2 vols. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1994–98.

Bock, Darrell L. Acts. BECNT. Grand Rapids: Baker, 2007. [to be released later this year]

Bruce, F. F. Commentary on the Book of Acts. Rev. ed. NICNT. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1988.

Fitzmyer, Joseph A. The Acts of the Apostles. AB New York: Doubleday, 1999.

Longenecker, Richard N. “Acts.” EBC 9. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1981, 207–753.

Romans

Cranfield, C. E. B. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans. ICC. 2 vols. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1975–79.

Dunn, James D. G. Romans. WBC. 2 vols. Dallas: Word, 1988.

Moo, Douglas J. The Epistle to the Romans. NICNT. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1996.

Schreiner, Thomas R. Romans. BECNT. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1998.

Wright, N. T. “The Letter to the Romans.” New Interpreter’s Bible. Nashville: Abingdon, 2002, Vol. 10, 393–770.

1 Corinthians

Barrett, C. K. A Commentary on the First Epistle to the Corinthians. Harper’s New Testament Commentary. New York: Harper, 1968.

Blomberg, Craig L. 1 Corinthians. NIVAC. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1994.

Fee, Gordon D. The First Epistle to the Corinthians. NICNT. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1987.

Garland, David E. 1 Corinthians. BECNT. Grand Rapids: Baker, 2003.

Thiselton, Anthony C. The First Epistle to the Corinthians: A Commentary on the Greek Text. NIGTC. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000.

2 Corinthians

Barnett, Paul. The Second Epistle to the Corinthians. NICNT. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997.

Garland, David E. 2 Corinthians. NAC. Nashville: Broadman & Holman, 1999.

Hafemann, Scott J. 2 Corinthians. NIVAC. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2000.

Harris, Murray, J. The Second Epistle to the Corinthians. NIGTC. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2005.

Martin, Ralph P. 2 Corinthians. WBC. Waco: Word, 1986.

Galatians

Bruce, F. F. Galatians. NIGTC. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1982.

Dunn, James D. G. The Epistle to the Galatians. HNTC. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1993.

Fung, R. Y. K. The Epistle to the Galatians. NICNT. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1988.

George, Timothy. Galatians. NAC. Nashville: Broadman & Holman, 1994.

Hays, Richard B. “The Letter to the Galatians.” New Interpreter’s Bible. Nashville: Abingdon, 2000, Vol. 11, 181–348.

Longenecker, Richard N. Galatians. WBC. Dallas: Word, 1990.

Ephesians

Best, Ernest. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Ephesians. ICC. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1998.

Bruce, F. F. The Epistles to the Colossians, to Philemon, and to the Ephesians. NICNT. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1984.

Hoehner, Harold W. Ephesians: An Exegetical Commentary. Grand Rapids: Baker, 2002.

Lincoln, A. T. Ephesians. WBC. Dallas: Word, 1990.

O’Brien, Peter T. The Letter to the Ephesians. PNTC. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999.

Philippians

Bockmuehl, Markus. The Epistle to the Philippians. Black’s NT Commentaries. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1998. Paperback edition New York: Continuum, 2006.

Fee, Gordon D. Philippians. NICNT. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995.

Hawthorne, Gerald. Philippians. WBC. Rev. and exp. by Ralph P. Martin. Nashville: Nelson, 2004.

O’Brien, Peter T. The Epistle to the Philippians. NIGTC. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1991.

Silva, Moisés. Philippians. BECNT. Grand Rapids: Baker, 2005.

Thielman, Frank. Philippians. NIVAC. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1995.

Colossians and Philemon

Bruce, F. F. The Epistles to the Colossians, to Philemon, and to the Ephesians. NICNT. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1984.

Dunn, James D. G. Epistles to the Colossians and to Philemon: A Commentary. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1998.

Garland, David E. Colossians and Philemon. NIVAC. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1998.

Martin, Ralph P. Colossians and Philemon. New Century Bible. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1973.

O’Brien, Peter T. Colossians, Philemon. WBC. Waco, TX: Word, 1982.

Wright, N. T. The Epistles of Paul to the Colossians and to Philemon. TNTC. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1986.

1–2 Thessalonians

Bruce, F. F. I and II Thessalonians. WBC. Waco, TX: Word, 1982.

Green, Gene. The Letters to the Thessalonians. PNTC. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2002.

Marshall, I. Howard. I and II Thessalonians. New Century Bible. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1983.

Morris, Leon. The First and Second Epistles to the Thessalonians. Rev. ed. NICNT. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1991.

Wanamaker, Charles A. The Epistles to the Thessalonians. NIGTC. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1990.

1–2 Timothy, Titus

Johnson, Luke Timothy. Letters to Paul’s Delegates: 1 Timothy, 2 Timothy, Titus. New Testament in Context. Valley Forge, PA: Trinity Press International, 1996.

Knight, George W. III. The Pastoral Epistles. NIGTC. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1992.

Köstenberger, Andreas J. “1 and 2 Timothy, Titus.” EBC. Rev. ed. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2006, 487–625.

Marshall, I. Howard. The Pastoral Epistles. ICC. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1999.

Mounce, William D. Pastoral Epistles. WBC. Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 2000.

Quinn, Jerome D. and William C. Wacker. The First and Second Letters to Timothy. ECC. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000.

Towner, Philip H. The Letters to Timothy and Titus. NICNT. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2006.

Hebrews

Attridge, Harold. The Epistle to the Hebrews. Hermeneia. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1989.

Bruce, F. F. The Epistle to the Hebrews. NICNT. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1990.

Ellingworth, Paul. The Epistle to the Hebrews. NIGTC. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1993.

Hagner, Donald A. Hebrews. NIBC. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1990.

Lane, William L. Hebrews. WBC. 2 vols. Dallas: Word, 1991.

James

Davids, Peter H. Commentary on James. NIGTC. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1982.

Johnson, Luke Timothy. The Letter of James. AB. New York: Doubleday, 1995.

Martin, Ralph P. James. WBC. Waco, TX: Word, 1988.

Moo, Douglas J. The Letter of James. PNTC. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000.

Richardson, Kurt. James. NAC. Nashville: Broadman & Holman, 1997.

1–2 Peter, Jude

Bauckham, Richard J. Jude, 2 Peter. WBC. Waco, TX: Word, 1983.

Davids, Peter H. The First Epistle of Peter. NICNT. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1990.

Jobes, Karen H. 1 Peter. BECNT. Grand Rapids: Baker, 2005.

Grudem, Wayne A. The First Epistle of Peter. TNTC. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1988.

Michaels, J. Ramsey. 1 Peter. WBC. Waco, TX: Word, 1988.

Moo, Douglas J. 2 Peter and Jude. NIVAC. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996.

Schreiner, Thomas R. 1, 2 Peter and Jude. NAC. Nashville: Broadman & Holman, 2003.

1–3 John

Akin, Daniel L. 1, 2, 3 John. NAC. Nashville: Broadman & Holman, 2001.

Bruce, F. F. The Epistles of John. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1979.

Kruse, Colin G. The Letters of John. PNTC. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000.

Marshall, I. Howard. The Epistles of John. NICNT. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1978.

Smalley, Stephen S. 1, 2, 3 John. WBC. Waco, TX: Word, 1984.

Stott, John R. W. The Epistles of St. John. Rev. ed. TNTC. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1988.

Thompson, Marianne Meye. 1–3 John. IVPNTC. Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 1992.

Revelation

Aune, David E. Revelation. WBC. 3 vols. Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1997, 1998.

Beale, G. K. The Book of Revelation. NIGTC. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999.

Ladd, George Eldon. A Commentary on the Revelation of John. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1972.

Mounce, Robert H. The Book of Revelation. Rev. ed. NICNT. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997.

Osborne, Grant R. Revelation. BECNT. Grand Rapids: Baker, 2001.

NOTE: For further recommendations see D. A. Carson, New Testament Commentary Survey. 6^th ed. Grand Rapids: Baker, 2007.

Here is what I think we can learn from the Jesus tomb saga. This is especially dedicated to my—and your!—graduate students.

1. First do the research, then make the movie.

2. Don’t just hire consultants who you know already agree with you; what’s the value of that?

3. Don’t rely uncritically on the work of others, even experts in the field, especially when your central thesis depends on it.

4. Avoid getting infatuated with your own theory so that you are no longer able to evaluate the evidence objectively.

5. Don’t be tempted to “follow the money”; follow the evidence instead. Be on a quest for truth, not fame or fortune.

6. Don’t circumvent the peer review process and address yourself directly to the public; your scholarly reputation will almost certainly suffer if you do.

7. Don’t persist in a state of denial when you’ve been proven wrong. Admit your mistake; everyone else already knows it anyway. Denying the obvious will only make you look even more ridiculous.

8. Don’t miss the subtle clues—a backwards “N,” a supposed “U” that looks a lot more like an “I”—even if it requires you to change your theory.

9. Be modest in stating your case. Don’t overreach.

10. Don’t use statistics or DNA evidence to pad a weak case.

11. Don’t confuse your theory with the facts.

12. Develop a healthy respect for the need for expertise in a certain area before making confident pronouncement of things you know little about.

I’d love to hear from you on this one. Do you agree with these lessons? Can you add more?

In my most recent blog, “Jesus Tomb Wrap-Up,” I raised one final question: In light of the fact that “Mariamenou” is in the genitive case,” and “Mara” was a common abbreviation for “Martha,” is it possible that the woman’s name was “Martha [daughter of] Mariamene [Mary]”?

I posed this question to Richard Bauckham, Professor of New Testament Studies at St Andrews University and author of the recent book Jesus and the Eyewitnesses. Bauckham’s response: “It would be odd for the name in the genitive to come first, whereas it is normal for a name on an ossuary to be in the genitive indicating the ossuary belongs to that person.”

Bauckham added, “But see the attached, by Stephen Pfann, which I find convincing and which offers a better solution to the whole issue of that particular inscription.” Pfann has posted his paper here, on the web site of the University of the Holy Land where he is president.

As it turns out, I was wrong in my suggestion but right in my hunch: the reading of the ossuary inscription by the Discovery Channel team cannot be sustained on closer scrutiny. As Pfann shows convincingly, rather than MARIAM(E)NEMARA (or MARIAMENOUMARA), “Mary, known as master,” the inscription reads, MARIAMEKAIMARA, or, “Mary and Mar[th]a.” As Pfann documents, the first person buried was a MARIAME (Mary), and later a second scribe added “and Mar[th]a” when the bones of a person by that name were added to the ossuary.

Here is Pfann’s color-coded markup of what he sees as the three different words in the inscription.

Pfann provides a scan from a document from around the same period. Note the similarity between the blue “kai” in the first picture and the red word in the second picture.

What does this do to the contention by Simcha Jacobovici in the Discovery Channel special that we have here the ossuary of Mary Magdalene, the wife of Jesus? You may remember that this was argued on the basis of an alleged reference to Mary Magdalene in the Acts of Philip by the name “Mariamne.”

In light of the newly proposed reading by Pfann, which is certainly correct, Simcha’s theory evaporates into the thin air out of which the theory was construed in the first place (see my original post), because as it turns out, there is no “n” in the name MARIAME at all. As Pfann points out, this would have had to be an “N” written backwards, for which there is no support.

Hence the alleged parallel with the Acts of Philip establishing MARIAME’s identity as Mary Magdalene falls by the wayside. Also by the wayside falls the DNA evidence, since now we know there were at least two persons buried in that ossuary, a woman named Mary and a woman named Martha. How do we even know whose bones were subjected to the DNA testing in the first place? The findings prove absolutely nothing.

One final thought on statistics: What are the odds that, if Jesus had a son named Judah as the “Jesus tomb special” claims, we would have absolutely no ancient (or not so ancient) record of this? I’d love to see the makers of the “Jesus tomb special” compute the statistics for that.

To sum up. This latest finding sounds the death knell to Simcha’s theory that the Jesus family tomb contains the remains of Jesus, his wife Mary Magdalene, and his son Jude. It also casts serious doubt on the competence of the makers of the “Jesus tomb special” and their advisers. Rather than exercise care in reading the ossuary inscription in question, they jumped to conclusions and read the inscription the wrong way. This is all the more damaging as this was by their own admission the central plank in their argument that the tomb in question contained the bones of Jesus and his family. With this, we can safely lay the entire argument to rest.

The Associated Press has published a story on Pfann’s paper.

Time to wrap up the matter of the “Jesus family tomb,” don’t you think? I conclude that this is a serious case of overreach. The book that in its subtitle claims that it contains “the Evidence That Could Change History” and the sensationalist claim that it propagates are most likely going to be thrown into the trash heap of discarded theories in biblical archeology.

Let’s see if you agree that, soberly assessed, this is what we know of the “Jesus family tomb”:

1. The “Yeshua bar Yehosef” (if this is the correct reading) is almost certainly not the Jesus of the Bible. This man had a son named “Yose,” but there is complete silence in our historical sources that the Jesus of the Bible had a son, named “Yose” or otherwise.

2. The “Mariamenou-Mara,” alleged to be “Yeshua’s bar Yehosef’s” wife, Mary Magdalene, is almost certainly not Mary Magdalene, and may have been related to “Yeshua” (almost certainly not Jesus of the Bible) in any number of ways. There is no historical evidence whatsoever that Mary Magdalene was called “Mariamene” during her lifetime or at the time she was buried. Curiously, this is the only inscription in Greek (not explained by the makers of the “Jesus tomb” special).

3. The “Maria,” alleged to be Jesus’ mother, is one of a very large number of women bearing that name in first-century Palestine. There is no information regarding her family relationship to “Yeshua bar Yehosef” whatsoever.

4. Nothing is known about the person named “Matia” (the ninth-most common name in first-century Palestine).

5. “Yose” was a common abbreviated form of “Yehosef” (the name of “Yeshua’s” father).

6. “Yehuda bar Yeshua” was the son of the “Yeshua bar Yehosef.”

The only demonstrable family relationships are therefore as follows:

Yehosef

As did many of you, I watched the Discovery Channel special on the Jesus tomb and the discussion moderated by Ted Koppel afterwards. Before I give you my score card, allow me to make a few comments.

(1) In my view it is very unfortunate that Simcha was not more restrained in jumping to sensationalist conclusions in his film. Since by his own acknowledgment he is neither a scholar nor an archeologist, he should have refrained from pushing his own preferred conclusion as hard as he did. Hiring a few consultants like James Tabor who are sympathetic to his views is not enough. Contrary to Simcha’s claims, he is not merely “reporting the news.” He is seeking to propagate the unsubstantiated theory that the “Jesus tomb” contained the remains of Jesus and his family.

(2) Having said this, I welcome the publication of the data associated with this find (though I wish the discussion could have been put on a more proper scholarly footing from the beginning). In my view, the find, rather than disproving Jesus’ resurrection and the truth of Christianity, actually lends additional credence to the biblical record. For example, it suggests that the names in the Gospels are eminently well attested for the biblical period.

(3) Most likely, the tomb contains the remains of a Jesus son of Joseph (or of a different name if “Jesus” turns out to be the wrong reading); his son Jude or Judah; and several other family members including two Marys and a Matthew. All these were very common first-century Jewish names. I actually believe the presence of the inscription “Judah son of Jesus” is a strong argument against this being Jesus’ family tomb, since it is highly unlikely that Jesus of Nazareth had a son (the movie’s attempt at construing a conspiracy/suppression theory notwithstanding).

(4) The movie’s attempt to link Jude with the “Beloved Disciple” of John’s Gospel is certainly creative, and should be added to the list of conjectures of late that the “Beloved Disciple” is Thomas, Lazarus, or Mary Magdalene, but it is completely ludicrous. John 19:26 says explicitly that Jesus said to his mother – not Mary Magdalene! – “Woman, look, your son.”

(5) I completely agree with Darrell Bock’s comments on the show following the Discovery Channel special that the Christian belief in Jesus’ bodily resurrection excludes the notion that Jesus’ bones may have been in the ossuary. This is why, contrary to the Roman Catholic representative on the panel, it makes all the difference in the world whether or not this is “Jesus’ family tomb.” James Tabor and Simcha simply do not understand the biblical teaching (in line with Jewish beliefs, as Bock correctly noted) and the early Christian beliefs regarding Jesus’ bodily resurrection.

Enough said.

Here is my score card:

Possible gaps in logic:

On what basis is the assertion made that the dead person named “Mariamene” in one of the ossuaries is to be identified with Mary Magdalene? A 14TH-CENTURY MS. OF THE ACTS OF PHILIP

On what basis is the further assertion made that Mary Magdalene was Jesus’ wife? DNA EVIDENCE INDICATING THEY DID NOT SHARE THE SAME MOTHER

Does the special refer to the possibility that “Mariamene e Mara,” rather than “Mary, known as the master,” may rather mean “Mary and Martha” (with “Mara” being a short form of “Martha”; see Richard Bauckham, Jesus and the Eyewitnesses, p. 89)? NO REFERENCE MADE

Is acknowledgment made of other possible explanations why the “Jesus” and “Mariamene” do not appear to share the same DNA, such as that this woman may have been the wife of a brother of that “Jesus” or a non-relative placed in that tomb for some other reason? NO ACKNOWLEDGMENT MADE

Unsubstantiated assertions and lacking explanations:

Is any explanation offered why Jesus’ family tomb would have been in Jerusalem? NO

Is any explanation offered why there is no ancient evidence for such a tomb? NO

Is any explanation offered why, if there was such a tomb, no enemy of Christianity in the first or second century A.D. pointed to this tomb as evidence that the Christian claim of Jesus’ resurrection was false? NO

Is any explanation offered why scores of Christians died a martyr’s death for what they knew was a fraudulent claim? NO

Possible overstatement and misuse of sciences:

Is the impression given that statistics “prove” that the “Jesus” whose bones may have been placed in the ossuary was the Jesus of Christianity? [Remember, statistics hardly ever “prove” anything.] REPEATEDLY, STATISTICAL EVIDENCE IS CALLED “COMPELLING”

Is acknowledgment made that over 1,000 men named Jesus, son of Joseph lived in first-century Palestine? That many men named Jesus had parents named Joseph and Mary, both being exceedingly common names? And so on. YES, IT IS ACKNOWLEDGED THAT 1 IN 4 WOMEN WERE NAMED MARY

Is DNA testing used to dazzle the viewing audience, as a sort of deus ex machina, to cover up an otherwise weak case? DNA EVIDENCE IS OVERPLAYED

Is reference made to the fact that we do not in the first place have any undisputed DNA from Jesus or anyone in his family? NO

Other unstated possible problems:

Is acknowledgment made that the inscription “Jesus” is itself uncertain? Rahmani’s Catalogue of Jewish Ossuaries, posted on the Discovery Channel website, says that “The first name, preceded by a large cross-mark, is difficult to read, as the incisions are clumsily carved and badly scratched.” Is this mentioned in the program? NOT MENTIONED

Does the special concede that the only possible source identifying “Mariamene” with Mary Magdalene is the Acts of Philip (available to us in a 14^th-century text), which seems to associate this “Mariamene” with Martha and thus identify her, not with Mary Magdalene, but with Mary of Bethany? NO REFERENCE MADE TO MARIAMENE BEING CONNECTED WITH MARTHA IN THE ACTS OF PHILIP

Look also for possible bias in “reporting,” as the makers of the “documentary” claim, “news” or “facts.” The question here is, “Do reporters of news, like members of a jury, have a responsibility to exercise caution in connecting the dots of a given case, and do they have an obligation to acknowledge other possible explanations beside their own?” I CONCLUDE THAT THE DOCUMENTARY WAS HIGHLY TENDENTIOUS AND BIASED; IT CONTAINED NUMEROUS GAPS IN LOGIC, UNSUBSTANTIATED ASSERTIONS, AND FAILED TO ACKNOWLEDGE ALTERNATIVE EXPLANATIONS OF THE EVIDENCE

For further reading, check out this article on the statistics from Scientific American as well as the official page of the Discovery Channel.

Technorati Tags: Jesus, Jesus tomb, ossuary, Bible

Does Christianity, like the Titanic, have holes so big that it will sink tomorrow night when the television special on the “Jesus tomb” finally airs on the Discovery channel? Whatever suspense is left, after a blizzard of advance publicity and now that the Discovery channel has posted most of the “evidence” on its website, focuses on the airing of the program and the following discussion moderated by Ted Koppel (left and liberal; will he be neutral and objective when it comes to the “Jesus tomb“?).

Here is my modest attempt at a Viewer’s Guide for those of us who are planning to watch the Jesus tomb special. Here is what to look for (you may want to use this as a kind of score card):

Possible gaps in logic:

On what basis is the assertion made that the dead person named “Mariamene” in one of the ossuaries is to be identified with Mary Magdalene?

On what basis is the further assertion made that Mary Magdalene was Jesus’ wife?

Does the special refer to the possibility that “Mariamene e Mara,” rather than “Mary, known as the master,” may rather mean “Mary and Martha” (with “Mara” being a short form of “Martha”; see Richard Bauckham, Jesus and the Eyewitnesses, p. 89)?

Is acknowledgment made of other possible explanations why the “Jesus” and “Mariamene” do not appear to share the same DNA, such as that this woman may have been the wife of a brother of that “Jesus” or a non-relative placed in that tomb for some other reason?

(Note, by the way, that it is completely unnecessary for the makers of the TV special to assert that “Mariamene“ is Mary Magdalene, and that Mary Magdalene was Jesus‘ wife. Regardless of the identity of “Mariamne,” if Jesus’ bones were in one of the ossuaries, this would sink ship “Christianity” and refute the resurrection.)

Unsubstantiated assertions and lacking explanations:

Is any explanation offered why Jesus’ family tomb would have been in Jerusalem?

Is any explanation offered why there is no ancient evidence for such a tomb?

Is any explanation offered why, if there was such a tomb, no enemy of Christianity in the first or second century A.D. pointed to this tomb as evidence that the Christian claim of Jesus’ resurrection was false?

Is any explanation offered why scores of Christians died a martyr’s death for what they knew was a fraudulent claim?

Possible overstatement and misuse of sciences:

Is the impression given that statistics “prove” that the “Jesus” whose bones may have been placed in the ossuary was the Jesus of Christianity? [Remember, statistics hardly ever “prove” anything.]

Is acknowledgment made that over 1,000 men named Jesus, son of Joseph lived in first-century Palestine? That many men named Jesus had parents named Joseph and Mary, both being exceedingly common names? And so on.

Is DNA testing used to dazzle the viewing audience, as a sort of deus ex machina, to cover up an otherwise weak case?

Is reference made to the fact that we do not in the first place have any undisputed DNA from Jesus or anyone in his family?

Other unstated possible problems:

Is acknowledgment made that the inscription “Jesus” is itself uncertain? Rahmani’s Catalogue of Jewish Ossuaries, posted on the Discovery Channel website, says that “The first name, preceded by a large cross-mark, is difficult to read, as the incisions are clumsily carved and badly scratched.” Is this even mentioned in the program?

Does the special concede that the only possible source identifying “Mariamene” with Mary Magdalene is the Acts of Philip, available to us in a 14^th-century text), which seems to associate this “Mariamene” with Martha and thus identify her, not with Mary Magdalene, but with Mary of Bethany?

To conclude: As you watch the Jesus tomb special, ask yourself the question in light of the above “Viewer’s Guide”: “How plausible is the case made that the tomb contained the bones of Jesus, Mary Magdalene his wife, their son Jude, and other members of Jesus’ family?”

Look also for possible bias in “reporting,” as the makers of the “documentary” claim, “news” or “facts.” The question here is, “Do reporters of news, like members of a jury, have a responsibility to exercise caution in connecting the dots of a given case, and do they have an obligation to acknowledge other possible explanations beside their own?”

P.S.: Here is what Prof. Amos Kloner, who oversaw the archeological work at the “Jesus tomb” in 1980, says about the theory propagated by the Discovery Channel special: “It makes a great story for a TV film. But it’s completely impossible. It’s nonsense. There is no likelihood that Jesus and his relatives had a family tomb. They were a Galilee family with no ties in Jerusalem. The Talpiot tomb belonged to a middle class family from the 1^st century CE.”

FOR FURTHER READING: Material used in preparing the above material includes “ ‘Lost Tomb’ is no open-and-shut case” by Sam Allis, Boston Globe (March 3, 2007); an open letter from Paul Maier, Department of History, Western Michigan University (dated February 25, 2007); “Initial Impressions of The Jesus Family Tomb” by Charles Quarles, Chair of Christian Studies, Louisiana College (February 28, 2007); and “Kloner: A great story, but nonsense” by David Horovitz, The Jerusalem Post Online Edition (February 27, 2007). Gary Habermas responds to the Jesus Tomb here.

Technorati Tags: Jesus, Jesus tomb, ossuary, Bible