On this page I hope to collect examples of what I am calling the “I’d Like to See Someone Else Write About This” genre/form.
This form/genre consists in a statement by a scholar that concisely outlines a topic for investigation that they think would be extremely profitable to undertake but that they would apparently prefer for someone else to carry out since they do not seem intent on writing about it themselves.
I have decided to start collecting these statements with the hope that they might spur others on to investigate such topics. So I suppose that this page comes close to being an example of the genre/form in question, albeit once removed.
My first two examples come from two forthcoming books, so I might have to add/revise the page numbers later:
1) Eusebius of Caesarea on Oracles
Christoph Markschies, Christian Theology and Its Institutions in the Early Roman Empire: “The learned Eusebius of Caesarea’s stance toward oracles is an exciting topic of its own that should be investigated one day. Note: In his Praeparatio evangelica Eusebius portrays wandering γόητες, μάντεις and προφῆται: Eusebius, Praeparatio evangelica IV 2.8–12 (Mras/Des Places 1982, 167.13–169.5); cf. Fascher 1927, 220 and now extensively Kofsky 2000, 138–164″; Kaiserzeitliche christliche Theologie und ihre Institutionen, p. 121: “Die Einstellung des gelehrten Eusebius von Caesarea gegenüber Orakeln ist ein eigenes spannendes Thema, das einmal untersucht werden sollte“. FN 365: Eusebius schildert in seiner Praeparatio Evangelica herumziehende γόητες, μάντεις und προφῆται: Eus., p.e. IV 2,8-12 (GCS Eusebius VII/1, 167,13-169,5 Mras/Des Places); cf. Fascher, ΠΡΟΦΗΤΗΣ, 220 und nun ausführlich A. Kofsky, Eusebius of Caesarea Against Paganism, Leiden u. a. 2000, 138-164;
2) Effective history of potentially “subversive” NT texts and terms in the Early Church
Christoph Heilig, Hidden Criticism: The Methodology and Plausibility of the Search for a Counter-Imperial Subtext in Paul, pp. 148-149 n. 34: “Cf., for example, Gordon L. Heath, “The Church Fathers and the Roman Empire,” in Empire in the New Testament (ed. Stanley E. Porter and Cynthia L. Westfall; MNTS 10. Eugene: Pickwick, 2011), 258–282 for a discussion with reference to the counter-imperial interpretation of the NT. See, however, Wright, Faithfulness, 1313 on the Martyrdom of Polycarp. He rightly points out that the answer of Polycarp in Mart. Pol. 9.3 responds to the demand to confess Caesar as Lord (8.2) and to swear by his fortune (9.2). Cf. Gerd Buschmann, Das Martyrium des Polykarp (KAV 6; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1998), 171. The effective history of potentially “subversive” NT texts and terms, such as “lord,” in the early church deserves a detailed investigation.”
3) Detailed, Useable Commentary on Eusebius’s Church History
Hengel/Schwemer, Jesus und das Judentum: “Es ist bedauerlich, daß bisher kein Kirchenhistoriker sich dazu entschließen konnte, zu diesem Grundtext einen ausführlichen, brauchbaren Kommenar zu schreiben (“It is unfortunate that thus far no church historian has been able to bring him or herself to write a detailed, usable commentary on this foundational text”).
6. Jonathan Pennington: broader connections between Matthew as canonical bookends of NT
290n14 (Heaven and Earth in the Gospel of Matthew): “As an interesting sidenote, it is worth mentioning how often the connections between Matthew and Revelation have been highlighted to me while researching for the present work. This has been most apparent in the use in both books of the heaven and earth motif. The broader connections between Matthew and Revelation as the canonical bookends of the New Testament deserve further study.