On "The Churches of Asia" by William Cunningham ***

This history of the church in Asia [Minor] was written by in the 1800s, so it has some of the ticks that such works generally do: that is, a love for flowery language for the sake of being "lyrical." Despite that, the author does manage to get across his points. The focus is squarely on the second century.

After knocking out which writings he accepts as genuine and early and thus informing his study, Cunningham begins with a discussion of church government. It was a fortuitous place to start, because I'd been thinking similarly rather recently about the second-century churches in Asia, so it was nice to see someone develop some of the ideas in a like manner. He notes that the church started with synagogues and structure there, but he also notes that it departed from that structure (a claim I would actually disagree with). At first, there was central leadership in Jerusalem (something I could largely agree with), but with that church's demise, congregations took on a Greek city-state model. That is, each church had its own elders and those in turn were informed by the people of the congregation. In turn, the churches were in communication with one another and so no one strayed too far. A second model, however, was also apparent, in the form of a central bishop (more akin to the Jerusalem model). This bishop was more of an administrator than a preaching elder or a servant. (Here, I think of the people who hosted the churches.) In time, though, this central authority took on more power in helping to determine who was and was not part of a given church (in part because some folks left the faith under persecution, and it was questionable whether they should be allowed back after such persecution had ended; and in part because of the very heresies--most especially continuing Judaism--that needed to be quelled).

Next comes a discussion of other views of the church. Cunningam focuses on two: Marcionism and Montanism. He also discusses briefly Ebionism, which he mixes up with the teachings of Cerinthus, who he claims was one of them--a patent absurdity that was adopted by some early historians and that Cunningham falls for. With regard to Marcion, Cunningham sees him as the religion by feeling and subjective spiritual perspective on who and what God is, one that abandons completely the law; he sees Montanism as the opposite: a rigid belief in legal stuff and an insistence that one accept new teachings coming from the Holy Spirit, as some claim. The church, in turn, stood against both of these with its growing structure.

He closes with a discussion of the aforementioned controversy over persecution and with the controversy over the timing of the fast surrounding Easter. I like that Cunningham really emphasized that the issue was the timing of the end of the fast. I haven't given enough attention to this, though that is plainly what the early writers note. As for the rest of the discussion, Cunningham starts with a set of premises that dislodge the rest of his argument. Sunday is the resurrection, Friday is the crucifixion. Hence, for him, the fourteenth of Nissan (Passover) is on Friday, the high sabbath on the Sabbath. The Synoptics, he argues, adopted a crucixion on the high day for its symbolism (since clearly the Jews would not have conducted a trial and crucifixion on the high day, even as John notes). John preserves the actual historical account. But John, of course, being a Jew, maintained the fourteener position regarding when to time the end of the fast, which is better supported by the Synoptics. How could this be, if John was the writer of the Fourth Gospel? Cunningham argues that John wrote his gospel account to ensure that the real understanding of the timing of the events was preserved, even if symbolically he stood with the Jewish believers and their preference for the synoptic timing. Rome and others adopted Sunday morning for the commemoration and breaking of the fast because of difficulties determining when the New Moon was and problems with the Jews. In Asia, some wanted to break the fast earlier so that they could commemorate the Passover as Jesus had with his disciples. This all makes sense, but it fails to account for when the high day actually was, the fact that even in the Jewish community there were arguments over whether the Passover was to be held at the start of the fourteenth or the end of it (i.e., the fifteenth), and other matters.

On “Justin Martyr and the Jews” by David Rokeai ***

This rather short monograph focuses primarily on Justin's Dialogue with Trypho, the Jew—Justin's attempt to argue the superiority of Christianity and to perhaps convert Trypho. Rokeai provides a detailed account of the literature related to the topic, and he discusses in full the Talmudic responses to some of the same issues that Justin discussed. His overall point, however, is that Justin is essentially Paul on steroids. He argues that Paul was essentially anti-Jewish as well and that his occasional positive comments about the Jewish religion were simply an attempt to soften his otherwise strong rhetoric against Jewish traditions and law. Justin, in turn, didn't try to whitewash was Paul was really saying.

I think that Rokeai is right to say that Justin took Paul's ideas and used them to create his anti-Jewish rhetoric, but I think he misreads Paul. I don't think he was against the Jewish law or traditions; I think he wore his Jewish heritage with pride and wasn't just putting on a show. Justin misread Paul, and Rokeai falls right in line with Justin's misreading.

Some interesting ideas about why Justin argued as he did. Who was his audience? Surely he wouldn't have found many Jewish fans, but the audience was probably mostly those who might have had a choice between Judaism and Christianity. Another interesting point: Justin had to tread down a narrow path. He was against Marcion, who was also anti-Jewish. But Marcion's conclusion was that the God of the Jews was an entirely different God and thus rejected the Old Testament. Justin didn't argue that, but he still had to find a way to critique the Jewish law, traditions, and writings. To do that he espoused not a different God but a God who had imposed law and traditions on the Jewish people because they were uniquely incapable of being good people. Failing with even that, God had found his true Israel in the Gentiles, who replaced the Jews and whose natural morality, or willingness to accept Jesus and thus obey the larger law of love, meant that they had replaced the Jews in God's heart. In this way, Justin could keep the Old Testament prophecies and symbolism but jettison its laws. This goes far beyond anything Paul espoused. Paul noted the Jewish inability to obey God, for sure, but he didn't ground it in an idea that somehow non-Jewish people could do better, and especially not without the guidance laid out in the Old Testament; rather, he noted that because no one could follow the law, faith only in Christ could save, because all are otherwise due for the penalty of breaking that law: death. But as he notes, that doesn't then mean the law is bad or that it no longer applies; rather, believers were to live accordingly thereafter. Jewish people, not seeing Christ, meant that they were still under the penalty, but Paul noted that one day they would be shown the way accordingly and be welcomed back into God's fold. Non-Jewish people who took on the faith and lived accordingly certainly did become Israel, but they didn't replace the old Israel: they were welcomed into it.

On "The Quiet American" by Graham Greene ****

I'm not sure how much this qualifies as a spy novel, though it does have lots of international intrigue. It's focus is really a newspaper reporter and a surreptitious activist (perhaps, he qualifies as a spy). It's really a love triangle story: two guys battling it out for a young Vietnamese gal name Phuong. The story is set in 1950s Vietnam, toward the end of the French role there, as the Americans begin to make a few inroads.

The two men are Fowler and Pyle. Both men are annoying and easy to dislike. Fowler is British, older, the reporter, and has Phuong as his girlfriend. He's married, and his wife (back in Britain) won't allow a divorce. This means that Phuong is nothing but a fling to him. He's using her, stringing her along, saying that one day he'll marry her, as he wants. Pyle is an American, working on distributing plastics that go in to bombs to help the Vietnamese Democratic movement (if it's that). He falls in love with Phuong at first site and sets about to make her his girlfriend and wife, despite the fact that Fowler is already involved with her. Both men are jerks in my view.

The story begins with Pyle's death. Fowler is the immediate suspect, but then the rest of the novel is told in flashback to how these two interacted and came to know each other. Despite the characters being unlikeable and the political discussions seeming somewhat dated (though I suppose they apply to any such colonial situation), the novel brings into focus some big questions about journalistic objectivity and staying outside the news to just observe it. At what point, one asks, does this become a problem as a human being caring about other humans? And at what point does a concern for the general populace become more important than a concern for the individual? These are hard questions.

On “The Book Proposal Book” by Laura Portwood-Stacer ***

Another book likely to be on the syllabus for the class I am due to teach next year. This one focuses on scholarly manuscripts. I can see the value of having such a book on the syllabus, though I think it would be more valuable for grad students than undergrads. But then again, some undergrads will go on to graduate degrees, so why not? The book itself is a great tutorial for folks unfamiliar with the publishing process who are looking to get their text published by a scholarly press—most especially folks coming out of graduate degree programs, with perhaps a dissertation to adapt for publication to help them along in the career development and attempt to get tenure. I took notes as I read, so this is essentially a summary of my notes.

The real reason anyone should write should be for the reader, even if you might have other objectives. It's really the reader for any given piece of material you're looking to publish you should have in mind.

The author differentiates between the prospectus (the formal proposal document) and the proposal (the package in which that prospectus appears (along with all the other materials that make up a proposal). It's a useful distinction, though I don't think I'll likely be so exacting in my notes here. The prospectus includes the title; a project overview; description of the audience, competing titles, how your book fits among them; a table of contents with summaries of each chapter; author qualifications; status of manuscript, word count, and number of illustrations.

Chapter 1, on knowing the process: The first step in getting ready to submit a proposal is to identify your target presses. Research and evaluate them to prioritize them. Gather the submission guidelines and summarize how your book fits the press's publishing program. Meanwhile, become knowable—get your name and work out there.

Chapter 2: In writing, show that your book will make a contribution to scholarly discussion and attract a sizable audience.

Chapter 3, on finding how you fit among other words: Your discussion of comparative titles should note what recent books are like yours and how yours is different (not better—just different).

Chapter 4, on audience and market: The are four audiences for a scholarly book: other scholars, students, practitioners, and general readers. That last audience is sort of a myth. What is a general reader? Instead of thinking of the general reader, focus on a specific type of reader (e.g., birders, athletes, etc.).

Chapter 5, on the thesis: If you don't have a thesis, some ways to get one include (1) imagining one change you'd like your book to bring about; (2) imagining something you don't want people to think ever again; (3) asking what lesson you want to impart; (4) asking what one thing you learned from your research that you most want people to know. Now try boiling that down to a one-sentence hook.

Chapter 6, on the descriptive overview for the book: This overview should involve the following things: (1) the hook (the one-sentence takeway); (2) the thesis (the main argument and conclusions); (3) the stake (why it matters); (4) the work's relationship to other works; (5) the basic evidence; (6) the general structure—how the story will be told (this is not the annotated table of contents, which comes later); (7) a description of the audience. This overview is ideally 1200 to 1500 words.

Chapter 7, on the annotated table of contents: Try for one to two paragrphs per chapter. Aim for roughly equal chapter lengths in the final book.

Chapter 8, on titles: Don't get too clever with titles. Titles are a marketing tool and should give away the book's subject so that people will be able to find it when searching for works about that subject.

Chapter 9, on voice: Use your own. Avoid jargon, overly extensive quoting and referencing, passive sentence structure,and hedging.

Chapter 10, on the bio: Aim for two paragraphs, one with public-facing stuff, like your publications and title, which will go out with marketing copy, and one with press-facing stuff, like media contacts and social media accounts and other things you have that might be of aid in getting word about the book out to the public. Also include a CV.

Chapter 11, on other stuff: You'll need to include an estimated word count, illustrations count (and eventually illustrations themselves and permissions), suggested reviewers (scholarly presses will often use these contacts for the blind review process that all books go through), time line for completion of the book, and sample chapters.

Chapter 12 is on tips for getting ahold of an editor. Chapter 13 is one the review process and contracts. And chapter 14 is on production and marketing. In other words, these latter chapters are really about the publication process, once the proposal has actually been accepted. The author suggests working on the marketing questionnaire you'll eventually receive early, before being asked, and provides a list of the things that are usually in those questionnaires. She also notes that well-placed promotional opportunities to the target audience do more for a book than big generic marketing. If you write a book on birding, go to where the birders are, like a birding newsletter, in other words, not to one of the biggest circulating popular magazines, where only a small fraction of the readers are birders and most other people won't care. The book closes with appendices of checklists and examples of prospectuses, introductory letters, reviewer reports, and so on.

Like I wrote: an excellent resource for someone looking to publish with a scholarly press. She covers not just the basics of getting through the initial stages but in those latter chapters what will happen throughout the rest of the publication process. Any given author will learn this stuff as the process unfolds, but so many want to know more up front, and this book gives that information.

On Jewish War Under Trajan and Hadrian, by William Horbury ***

This is the most complete account of the wars between the Jews and the Roman Empire post 70 CE that I've read, going deeper into the subject than Mary Smallwood's very thorough but also easier to follow book. Horbury's text is very much an academic work, at times difficult to follow and very much bogged down in details that, to be exhaustive, it must be.

After a contextual introduction, in which Horbury claims that all the Jewish wars can be seen as one uprising rather than a set of uprisings, the book provides a long account of the literature that already exists on the subject--a very useful exercise. I'd read several of these works, as it turns out, and it was great not only to read Horbury's summation of works I hadn't gotten to but also to some I had, in part to remind me of their basic points but also because it was interesting to read how Horbury himself interprets the findings of some of these authors.

The text turns then to the various wars and their causes, most particularly to the Kitos War, for which very little information exists. Horbury does an admirable job pulling in the various historical sources and some sources that less certainly refer to it. The war, as he notes, was not just in Egypt but also in Cyprus and modern-day Libya (Cirenaica), the latter two actually seemingly more heavily the source of the conflict, at least as I read it. Egypt, of course, was a constant bed of intrigue between Jewish and Greek residents, but the Messianic hopefuls did their best to spread into the area, spreading the war. The war also coincided with the Roman invasion of Parthia. I expect I'll return to Horbury's text to review more about this war, since I've seen nothing else quite so thorough.

Judea's turn at the war, of course, would come a little over a decade later, in what is known as the Bar Kochba uprising. On this, I was on more solid ground having read more about it. Horbury doesn't just repeat what others have said, of course, but since those others have written more accessibly about the subject, I found myself more easily zoning out in these latter sections.