(30) With Tord Fornberg, David Hellholm and Marianne Wiefstrand Schiebe, “In Memoriam Lars Hartman (1930-2019).”

Forthcoming in Svensk exegetisk årsbok 85 (2020):173-80.

A commemoration of Lars Hartman’s scholarly contributions and service to the field.

(29) “How Did Second Clement Originally End? A Study of 2 Clement 19–20 and the Imitation of Both First and Second Clement”

Early Christianity 9/4 (2018): 432–83, DOI 10.1628/ec-2018-0031

Philological analysis reveals significant differences between 2 Clement 1–18 and 2 Clement 19–20, likely pointing to a later author for the latter chapters. Intriguingly, the later author seems to correct a central teaching in chapters 1–18 about the necessity that believers engage in a reciprocal relationship with God, their divine patron.

(28) “Eschatology, Androgynous Thinking, Encratism, and the Question of Anti-Gnosticism in 2 Clement 12 (Part Two)”

Vigiliae Christianae: A Review of Early Christian Life and Languages 72/3 (2018): 353–68, DOI 10.1163/15700720-12341335

(27) “Eschatology, Androgynous Thinking, Encratism, and the Question of Anti-Gnosticism in 2 Clement 12 (Part One)”

Vigiliae Christianae: A Review of Early Christian Life and Languages 72/2 (2018): 142–64, DOI 10.1163/15700720-12341334

Part One challenges the use of an untenably broad definition of “gnosticism” to support that a distinctive saying of Jesus in 2 Clement 12 (about “the two” who will become “one” and who will be “neither male nor female”) criticizes “gnostic” viewpoints. Part Two casts doubt upon the notion that Jesus’s unusual saying exhorts “gnostic” sexual renunciation. By shedding the supposedly “gnostic” background of the saying, scholars can pursue more promising avenues for interpreting the expectation that the Kingdom’s arrival depends on believers’ moral development.

(26) “A Diverse Academy Recognizes No Boundaries for Critical Inquiry and Debate: A Rejoinder to Anders Gerdmar”

Svensk exegetisk årsbok 82 (2017): 210–22

(25) “Simplistic Presentations of Biblical Authority and Christian Origins in the Service of Anti-Catholic Dogma: A Response to Anders Gerdmar”

Svensk exegetisk årsbok 82 (2017): 154–78

The review article of Gerdmar’s Guds ord räcker: Evangelisk tro kontra romersk-katolsk [God’s Word Is Sufficient: Evangelical Faith against Roman Catholic (Faith)] (Areopagos, 2016) focuses on Gerdmar’s appeals to biblical scholarship, and gives critiques concerning the Bible in relation to tradition; the origins and development of the New Testament canon; the “Protestant historiographic myth” as a polemical weapon; and overgeneralizations about what is biblical, evangelical, and Catholic. The rejoinder to Gerdmar’s response holds that a book such as Gerdmar’s may indeed be critiqued in an academic forum; that a popular audience deserves to know about pertinent scholarly debates and uncertainties; that the assessment of power structures is an intrinsic part of critical inquiry; and that all scholars, including Gerdmar, should be welcomed to participate in a mutual, multi-vocal, give-and-take academic discourse. The corollary could be drawn that what James Barr said to primarily British and North American audiences in Fundamentalism (1977) and Beyond Fundamentalism (1984) seems forebodingly relevant in some parts of Sweden today.

(24) “Second Clement and Gnosticism: The status quaestionis” (link to pdf)

Early Christianity 8/1 (2017): 124–49, DOI 10.1628/186870317X14876711440240

This article joins a nascent minority view challenging a century of scholarship that has held that the author of Second Clement criticizes some form of Gnosticism. Conclusions about the stance of an author’s opponents can naturally have profound consequences for an analysis of the author’s rhetorical strategy. It is argued that Second Clement’s copious warnings and direct criticisms point to an author who would have possessed the boldness to criticize directly any gnostic false teachers. Therefore, it is dubious to infer that the author only indirectly, or implicitly, criticizes non-distinctively gnostic aspects of the supposedly gnostic opponents’ viewpoints. A conclusion suggests how future scholarship could make more nuanced comparisons of Second Clement with the varied literature found at Nag Hammadi.

(23) “Pigeonholing a Prooftexter? The Citations in 2 Clement 2 and Their Alleged ‘Gnostic’ Background”

Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft und die Kunde der älteren Kirche 107/2 (2016): 266–95, DOI 10.1515/znw-2016-0014

What might Second Clement’s scriptural quotations and interpretations reveal about the author’s own views – in particular, on “Gnosticism”? Noteworthy incongruities between the writing’s citations and the interpretations undermine the common supposition that the author’s beliefs can be equated with the beliefs reflected in what is cited. The article therefore dismisses as unfounded the inference that antignostic polemics are at work in 2 Clement 2. Rather, by citing a saying of Jesus about “those who are perishing” and by warning about “what is falling,” the author explores an undefined soteriological borderland between what is inhabited, respectively, by “righteous people” and “sinners.” Apparently, then, a saying of Jesus that other Christ-believers affirmed is cited in order to destabilize a binary division of humanity based on an interpretation of that saying.

(22) “Response to Denise Kimber Buell: A Plea for Clarity in Regard to Examining Ethnicity in, Based on, or in Scholarship on the New Testament”

Svensk exegetisk årsbok 79 (2014): 53–59

While calling attention to pertinent interpretive problems, Buell’s discussion shifts among views on ethnicity in the New Testament, ethnicity in New Testament reception history, and modern theories about ethnicity. Additionally, it is questionable to what extent her recourse to “hesitations” and “hauntings” lends support to her arguments. Buell’s article reflects a work in progress, and there is potential for theoretical and terminological clarity in her subsequent studies.

(21) “Reciprocity as Salvation: Christ as Salvific Patron and the Corresponding ‘Payback’ Expected of Christ’s Earthly Clients according to the Second Letter of Clement”

New Testament Studies 59/3 (2013): 433–56, DOI 10.1017/S0028688512000380

Much secondary literature is laden with theological polemics, rather than attempts to understand “payback” (ἀντιμισθία) relative to social relationships in antiquity. This analysis shows that Second Clement presents Christ as a benefactor who offers salvation to those who accept the terms of his patronage – including the obligation to render “payback” in the form of praise, witness, loyalty, and almsgiving. Failure to accept those terms would jeopardize the relationship between Christ and his earthly clients, calling their salvation into question. Accordingly, Second Clement endeavors to convince Christ-believers that the benefits of salvation come with recurring obligations to Christ, their salvific patron.

(20) “New Testament Exegesis as an Academic Discipline with Relevance for Other Disciplines”

Currents in Biblical Research 11/2 (2013): 218–33, DOI 10.1177/1476993X12467129

(19) “Nya testamentets exegetik som akademiskt ämne med relevans för andra ämnen”

Svensk exegetisk årsbok 77 (2012): 55–70

The Swedish article stems from my inaugural lecture as professor at Uppsala University (2011), and addresses several conceptual and methodological questions about New Testament Studies. A central contention is that, inasmuch as the so-called “historical critical method” is, in fact, not a single method, the current balkanization of biblical studies is lamentable, and scholars who use either more traditional or newer methods should engage, rather than talk past, each other. Further, the “linguistic turn” offers a valuable resource for theoretical discussions within biblical scholarship. The English article expands upon the Swedish version, and is further revised and updated in Kelhoffer, Conceptions of “Gospel” and Legitimacy (2014), chapter 1.

(18) “The Search for Confessors at the Council of Nicaea”

Journal of Early Christian Studies 19/4 (2011): 589–99, DOI 10.1353/earl.2011.0053

An analysis of five late ancient Christian authors demonstrates that there is no corroborating “proof” for the claim of Timothy Barnes and others that maimed confessor bishops “enjoyed enormous authority” at the council of Nicaea. Nevertheless, the traditions about confessors in fifth-century writings is noteworthy for the recognition of a confessor’s standing in the post-Constantinian church. (Revised and updated in Kelhoffer, “Gospel” and Legitimacy, chapter 14.)

(17) “The Maccabees at Prayer: Pro- and Anti-Hasmonean Tendencies in the Prayers of First and Second Maccabees” (link to pdf)

Early Christianity 2/2 (2011): 198–218, DOI 10.1628/186870311795777445

The divergent depictions of prayer in First and Second Maccabees correlate with the writings’ decidedly different views on the importance of Judas the Maccabean in the Jews’ liberation from Seleucid rule. The pro-Hasmonean stance of First Maccabees is consistent with accounts in which Judas both leads initiatives to pray and is put on center stage as the anointed conqueror in answer to the prayers. In Second Maccabees, however, alternate depictions of prayer have the effect of lessening Judas’s stature and, instead, highlight the Deuteronomistic explanation of the Jewish people’s repentance, their requests for miraculous intervention, and the meritorious suffering of the Maccabean martyrs. (Revised and updated in Kelhoffer, “Gospel” and Legitimacy, chapter 8)

(16) “Withstanding Persecution as a Corroboration of Legitimacy in the New Testament: Reflections on the Resulting Ethical and Hermeneutical Quandary”

Dialog: A Journal of Theology 50/2 (2011): 120–32, DOI 10.1111/j.1540-6385.2011.00596.x

Discussion of key New Testament passages on persecution and the ethical and hermeneutical problem of how withstanding persecution could be construed as a source of legitimacy in faith communities today.

(15) “The Gradual Disclosure of Paul’s Violence against Christians in the Acts of the Apostles as an Apology for the Standing of the Lukan Paul”

Biblical Research 54 (2009): 25–35 [appeared in 2012]

Luke reveals the extent of Paul’s violence against the Jesus movement not in the first portrayal of Paul’s persecution of the church (Acts 8:3; 9:1–2) but, rather, much later in the narrative (22:4; 26:9–11). Delaying that full disclosure is consistent with an agenda of presenting Paul as a sympathetic figure and of defending his legacy as one who suffered as Christ’s loyal servant, rather than as one who caused suffering for Christ’s followers. That agenda would be consistent with attempts to minimize the negative implications of Paul’s past and ease the subsequent reception of his legacy. (Revised and updated in Kelhoffer, “Gospel” and Legitimacy, chapter 11)

(14) “Suffering as Defense of Paul’s Apostolic Authority in Galatians and 2 Corinthians 11”

Svensk exegetisk årsbok 74 (2009): 127–43

After examining how Paul calls upon his hardships and persecutions to defend his apostolic authority, the article posits that competing valuations of suffering can play a role in contexts of disputed authority. The value assigned to Paul’s suffering as Christ’s servant may have impacted which, if any, version of the gospel the Galatians would ultimately embrace, as well as which, if any, apostles would be recognized in Corinth. (Revised and updated in Kelhoffer, “Gospel” and Legitimacy, chapter 9)

(13) “‘Hippolytus,’ Magic and ‘Heretical’ Miracle Workers: An Examination of Elenchos IV. 28–42 and Related Passages in Light of the Greek Magical Papyri”

Zeitschrift für Antikes Christentum/Journal of Ancient Christianity 11 (2007–08): 517–48, DOI 10.1515/ZAC.2007.028

Against Richard Ganschinietz, who maintains that the Elenchos (Refutatio), attributed to Hippolytus of Rome, reflects the use of one or more intermediate sources for its descriptions of magic, the correspondence between Elenchos IV. 28–42 and the Greek Magical Papyri suggests that there was direct access to an actual collection of magical spells that the Christian author adapted for polemical purposes. The article also examines (1) allegations elsewhere in the Elenchos that contemporary Christian ‘heretics’ used magic to gain converts, (2) references to magic in Hippolytus’s commentaries on Daniel and 1 Samuel, and (3) proscriptions against magic in the Apostolic Tradition. (Revised and updated in Kelhoffer, “Gospel” and Legitimacy, chapter 13)

(12) “Suppressing Anger in Early Christianity: Examples from the Pauline Tradition” (link to pdf)

Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 47/3 (2007): 307–25

In his analysis of Greco-Roman literature, William V. Harris identifies four increasing levels of restraint in suppressing anger, and maintains that the ideals of levels two, three, and four were later developments in Greco-Roman antiquity. I argue that, whereas the apostle Paul’s exhortations correspond to Harris’s level one (reining in angry actions and speech), the deutero-Pauline authors of Colossians and Ephesians urge that readers attain at least level two (eliminating angry actions and speech). It is probable that the author of First Timothy also calls for the level-two elimination. The development from the authentic letters of Paul to two or three deutero-Pauline letters correlates with Harris’s contention that appeals for greater and more complete suppression of anger began in the Roman period. (Revised and updated in Kelhoffer, “Gospel” and Legitimacy, chapter 15)

(11) “Early Christian Studies among the Academic Disciplines: Reflections on John the Baptist’s ‘Locusts and Wild Honey’”

Biblical Research 50 (2007): 5–17

The article discusses the methodologies employed in my monograph on John the Baptist’s “locusts and wild honey,” and highlights areas for an interdisciplinary approach to biblical studies. These areas concern (1) the ongoing need for philological refinement, (2) moving beyond “parallelomania” to cogent argumentation, (3) the use of sociological data from recent and contemporary pre-industrialized peoples, (4) the influence of classical Greek paideia on interpretations of John the Baptist and other biblical characters’ exemplary conduct, and (5) conceptions of food as markers of ethnic and religious identity. (Revised and updated in Kelhoffer, “Gospel” and Legitimacy, chapter 2)

(10) “Basilides’s Gospel and Exegetica (Treatises)”

Vigiliae Christianae: A Review of Early Christian Life and Languages 59 (2005): 115–34, DOI 10.1163/1570072054068366

Attempts to present Basilides of Alexandria (fl. 120–140 CE) as the author of a “Gospel” or as an “exegete” of Christian Scripture are based on precious little evidence, which has at times been misinterpreted. The article shows that the surviving portions of Basilides’s Exegetica reflect only a modest interest in gospel materials. If Basilides did write a Gospel, it was not a narrative or sayings Gospel primarily on the life or teachings of Jesus. Further, in titles of ancient literature prior to Origen of Alexandria, Exegetica did not denote an “exegetical” commentary. Clement of Alexandria’s title for Basilides’s work (Ἐξηγητικά) supports, rather, the inference that the writing comprised “explanations” of Basilides’s theological system. (Revised and updated in Kelhoffer, “Gospel” and Legitimacy, chapter 5)

(9) “The Struggle to Define Heilsgeschichte: Paul on the Origins of the Christian Tradition”

Biblical Research 48 (2003): 45–67 [appeared in 2005]

This study traces Paul’s remarks on the origins of the Christian tradition with reference to Judaism, Jesus, Paul’s authority, and the Paulinist Christians’ trust in Christ. Paul’s letters attest to an implicit narrative about origins – which Paul reshapes in response to attacks from other Christ-believers. Already in the 50s CE, then, accounts of origins were a living part of the contested and evolving tradition. (Revised and updated in Kelhoffer, “Gospel” and Legitimacy, chapter 6)

(8) “John the Baptist’s ‘Wild Honey’ and the Ambiguity of Certain References to ‘Honey’ in Antiquity” (link to pdf)

Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies 45/1 (2005): 59–73

Ancient terms for “honey” could denote honey that was produced by bees or that was derived from dates and other sweet substances. Recognition of that ambiguity can help to refine the referent and significance attached to the “wild honey” John the Baptist ate according to Mark and Matthew.

(7) “Did John the Baptist Eat Like a Former Essene? Locust Eating in the Ancient Near East and at Qumran”

Dead Sea Discoveries 11 (2004): 293–314, DOI 10.1163/1568517042643756

Many sources, from Leviticus to Maimonides, indicate that the eating of locusts was not exotic but was actually rather common. Therefore, James H. Charlesworth’s claim, that John the Baptist’s eating of locusts and honey supports a characterization of the wilderness prophet as a former Essene, is tenuous.

(6) “‘How Soon a Book’ Revisited: ΕΥΑΓΓΕΛΙΟΝ as a Reference to ‘Gospel’ Materials in the First Half of the Second Century”

Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft und die Kunde der älteren Kirche 95/1 (2004): 1–34, DOI 10.1515/zntw.2004.005

This article challenges the influential thesis of Von Campenhausen, Koester, and Gundry that Marcion of Sinope (fl. 140s CE) coined an innovative meaning for εὐαγγέλιον as an authoritative written Gospel. That conclusion is dubious, because Marcion, 2 Clement, and the Didache assume that εὐαγγέλιον is already intelligible as a literary designation. Consequently, the earliest use of εὐαγγέλιον for a writing about Jesus may be traced to ca. 100–110 CE – after Matthew and before the Didache, 2 Clement, and Marcion. (Revised and updated in Kelhoffer, “Gospel” and Legitimacy, chapter 4)

(5) “‘Locusts and Wild Honey’ (Mark 1:6c and Matt 3:4c): The Status Quaestionis concerning the Diet of John the Baptist”

Currents in Biblical Research 2 (2003): 104–27, DOI 10.1177/1476993X0300200106

An analysis of John’s diet according to Mark and Matthew and a review of biblical scholarship on the subject, from Erasmus of Rotterdam (d. 1536) to the present.

(4) “The Apostle Paul and Justin Martyr on the Miraculous: A Comparison of Appeals to Authority” (link to pdf)

Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies 42 (2001): 163–84 [appeared in 2002]

This comparison of the presuppositions underlying Paul and Justin Martyr’s references to miracles shows that while both authors see miracles as a confirmation of authority, the two authors have strikingly different rhetorical goals in how they refer to them. Whereas Paul usually appeals to his miracles to defend his personal authority, Justin cites healings performed by others as proof of particular claims in his apologetic writings. (Revised and updated in Kelhoffer, “Gospel” and Legitimacy, chapter 10)

(3) “Ordinary Christians as Miracle Workers in the New Testament and the Second- and Third-Century Christian Apologists”

Biblical Research 44 (1999): 23–34 [appeared in 2001]

The claim that “those who believe” will perform miraculous “signs” (Mark 16:17–18) is compared with analogous claims by early Christian apologists about unnamed miracle workers. Mark 16:17–18 shares more in common with the later apologists than with most New Testament writings and apocryphal acts, since the latter writings usually associate miracles with one or more revered apostles.

(2) “Response to Jack Dean Kingsbury’s ‘The Significance of the Earthly Jesus in the Gospel of Matthew’”

Ex Auditu 14 (1998): 66–69 [appeared in 2001]

Kingsbury implies an equivalence between the Matthean Jesus and the historical Jesus. In addition, he posits a false dichotomy between literary and traditio-historical methods, and fails to assess the relevance of the earthly Jesus for contemporary theological discussions. As a complement to Kingsbury’s narrative approach, redaction-critical observations about the Matthean Jesus as an interpreter and upholder of the Mosaic Law would make for a more well-rounded analysis. (Revised and updated in Kelhoffer, “Gospel” and Legitimacy, chapter 3)

(1) “The Witness of Eusebius’ ad Marinum and Other Christian Writings to Text-Critical Debates concerning the Original Conclusion to Mark’s Gospel”

Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft und die Kunde der älteren Kirche 92/1 (2001): 78–112, DOI 10.1515/zntw.92.1-2.78

This examination of a variety of late ancient and Byzantine positions on the disparate manuscript readings at the end of Mark’s Gospel includes the first complete English translation and analysis of ad Marinum I.1–II.1. The ways that ancient authors discuss the original text of Mark shed much light on how the principle of preserving any and all materials, regardless of uncertainties about those materials’ origin, could have contributed to the inclusion of Mark 16:9–20 in 99% of the surviving manuscripts of Mark. (Revised and updated in Kelhoffer, “Gospel” and Legitimacy, chapter 7)