1. Mike Bird has a fascinating interview with Richard I. Pervo, whose commentary on Acts in the Hermeneia series is due out in November. When asked for a list of favourite Luke/Acts scholars, Pervo answers:
In one sense would say H. J. Cadbury, striking out his caution. Best would be a combination of Cadbury, Haenchen, dropping his sarcasm, and the Venerable Bede. The last understood that Luke was a poet, the second that he was a theologian, albeit not systematic, the first that he was a writer. All three are necessary, but the greatest of these is the poet.I trust the commentary itself will be written in complete sentences.
2. John Hobbins links to a Trinity Journal review article by Robert Yarbrough, one of my former TEDS profs. In the article Yarbrough states with regard to the relationship between Old and New Testaments that "there is no more seminal issue for Christian theology or bigger challenge for responsible biblical exegesis."
3. AKMA Pernicious Propensity post resonated for me after I returned from teaching a first year Gospels class that felt particularly basic:
[A]mong the difficulties that beset biblical interpretation, few may be as toxic as the the disciplinary proclivity toward esotericism. ...I mean that biblical studies tends to focus its disciplinary energies on that which cannot be detected by a casual reader....I do not endorse a facile literalism (still less, the King James variety). On the other hand, sometimes authors express themselves exoterically: they mean what they say. At such points the expositor’s job is not to seek out further obscurities, but to say, “Yup, that’s pretty much what it means. You didn’t need a biblical scholar to tell you that, did you?”4. My colleague Eric Ortlund's wonderfully challenging quotations (here and here, for instance) make me think I should stop blogging and start reading more stuff like that.