Before delving into the content of this issue, I want to take a moment to note a change occurring in the BTB's editorial team. Michael Meilach is stepping aside as Copy Editor. He will be providing a supporting role for our new Copy Editor, Oscar Vargas. I want to take this opportunity to welcome Oscar, but I also want to express to our readers how important Michael (Mike) has been to the success of the BTB.
Mike began teaching undergraduate philosophy at St. Bonaventure University in the early 1960s. In June, 1964 he became Co-editor of The Cord magazine on Franciscan spirituality. He became Editor in 1965, a position he held until 1986. Mike earned a Ph.D. in philosophy from Fordham University in 1971. In the early 1970s, Mike starting teaching at Siena College in Albany, NY, where he stayed for ten years. During his impressive career, Mike has written and translated a number of books focusing on the Franciscan themes of Mariology and the primacy of Christ.
In 1992, Mike began his work on the BTB with the winter issue (22:4). For almost 30 years, he has served as the sole copy editor of the journal. Not only is Mike's work extraordinarily reliable, his character and personality have been essential in shaping many years of positive experiences for our authors. As editor-in-chief, David Bossman has observed, “Authors have expressed high praise for his personal engagement, speedy but careful editing, and willingness to accommodate the author's modifications.” In working with Mike both as an author and the assistant editor, I can without hesitation confirm David's assessment. Mike makes the editorial process enjoyable, which is quite a feat!
In short, Mike has been an undeniable force in the ever-expanding success of the BTB, and he will undoubtedly continue to be so as he serves in a supportive role for Oscar. This small tribute is grossly insufficient in light of his work—words often are. Nonetheless, I want to thank Michael for his relentless efforts, his brilliant work, and his admirable character.
I turn, now, to the content of this issue.
Robert Gnuse provides an important contribution to discussions on covenants; namely, that nonhuman animals are included in God's covenantal work. Gnuse draws out ethical import from this claim, arguing that human and nonhuman animals stand on equal footing before God in terms of the Noahic covenant. He furthermore draws out a number of passages in the Hebrew Scriptures that provide protection for animals by limiting human violence toward them. Gnuse does not argue for a return to edenic vegetarianism. Rather, in light of the many travails humans are visiting upon nonhuman animals—both wild and domestic—he envisions a reverential partnership between human and nonhuman animals. This partnership does not require the absolute absence of violence, but it does demand that all violence stem from necessity. Such a view permits a respectful killing of animals for food—which Gnuse connects to sustainable farming practices—but forbids killing them for sport.
Rowland Onyenali explores the political significance of Mark's use of euangelion (“good news” or “gospel”) and proskuneo (an act of reverential prostration) within the biblical author's Roman context. While focusing mainly on proskuneo, Onyenali argues that both terms function as anti-Roman rhetoric in Mark's Gospel. He explores proskuneo within the context of emperor worship. This context allows Onyenali to circumvent the debate about whether Mark's application of proskuneo to Jesus evinces the biblical author's belief that Jesus is a divine figure. Whereas the other synoptic Gospels envision Jewish followers of Jesus engaging in proskuneo, “What marks out the Markan usage is that they refer specifically to the action of worship rendered to Jesus by Roman figures” (39). In this sense, Mark's specific use of the term highlights an anti-Roman rhetoric.
June Dickie explores Lukan narratives that present four individuals (Zechariah, Elizabeth, Simeon, and Anna) who lived well beyond the average life expectancy of their first-century context. Dickie proposes that Luke's presentation of these individuals suggests life habits that align with modern theories of gerontology—particularly those directed at the topic of aging well. In analyzing Luke's narratives, Dickie uncovers themes that align well with these theories, including self-care, participation in society through service to others, hope, and resilience. Turning to Ecclesiastes 12:1–7, Dickie considers how this poem, with its emphasis on the difficulty of aging and the need to prepare for it, may have impacted the four individual in Luke's narrative. Ultimately, Dickie maintains that Luke's older characters, combined with the Ecclesiastes poem and modern theories of gerontology, provide insight into how we as modern readers might seek to age well.
Sin Pan Ho considers the meaning behind the depiction of Paul's sea voyage to Rome in Acts 27. The focus is on the development of the centurion who headed up the journey. Ho nicely delineates various interpretative approaches to the narrative, ultimately maintaining that the story serves to present Paul as an exemplar for other Christians—particularly with regard to his faith and hope. Through a detailed exploration of the narrative, Ho highlights the “roundness” of the centurion's character. Paul and the centurion gradually shift from positions of “we” and “they” to a collaborative “we” in which the centurion respects Paul and considers him an equal. Ho argues that the original readers were invited to be part of the “we” and emulate Paul's faith and hope, even in the midst of persecution under Rome, to ultimately draw Roman authorities into the gospel.
Benjamin Burkholder examines Mark's Gospel to explore the relationship between the kingdom of God and the relevance of Jesus's crucifixion for atonement. Burk-holder embraces the centrality of the kingdom to Mark's gospel message but notes that some theologians present the kingdom of God and atonement as competing and incompatible interpretations of Jesus's life and mission. In response to such either/or positons, Burkholder argues,
If we can see atonement theology and the arrival of the kingdom, not as rival articulations of Jesus’ redeeming work, but as complementary aspects to the same driving force, then we will not only have a more holistic picture of Jesus [38].
Moreover, for Burkholder, appreciating the compatibility of the kingdom and the atoning work of Jesus's death are necessary both to fully appreciate the Gospels of Mark and Matthew and to develop and enriched soteriology. To support his position, Burkholder provides a compelling exploration of the work of Albert Schweitzer and Martin Hengel.
Each of these articles provides an important contribution to its respective field. As a reader, I have been spurred to ask further questions and revisit my presuppositions based on the fine research of our authors. I take this to be one of the greatest compliments I can give an author: “You have me thinking!”
