I am currently toying with the idea of doing a paperback set of the Vermes/Millar revision of Schurer, a notion which came to me after a letter from Professor Millar a couple of months ago.
Naturally, at the time, I also asked Professor Millar whether he thought a revision might be necessary. Of course he did. But he didn't want to do it himself.
Then the conference season hit and it went off my radar for a bit. Now it's back. We'll almost certainly do a paperback - that seems a no-brainer.
Nevertheless, I'd be interested to know how far people still use Schurer, whether they think a revision is necessary, along what lines such a revision might take, and who might be the best bods to do it.
I'm so interested in these points that I thought it might be fun to put a blog post up about it with the incentive of a prize for entry into the debate.
If you have ideas and comments on these points then please put them below by the end of the month.
The names of all entrants will be in with a chance of winning a prize, and the prizes will be as follows:
First prize: two monographs of choice from either LHBOTS, LNTS or LSTS.
Second prize: one monograph from either LHBOTS, LNTS or LSTS.
Third prize: a paperback.
Right, go to it, comment away. Deadline 31st August.
Gosh it's really going to be frightfully embarassing when no-one responds to this.