I got a bit too sidetracked on the Isalm and Christianity thing that several issues passed me by.
As others have noted there are the latest reviews from RBL.
There have been some related comments on the Mark 7 debate and things tied up wuth the historical Jesus by Loren Rosson. If anyone cares (and why should they) I think Loren is right to stress the millenarian Jesus and to place some emphasis on embarrasment and dissimilarity with the early church in getting back to the earliest layers, although sometimes we just don't have enough information on a range of issues in the early church. Also I would not underestimate compatibility with a Palestinian setting. By showing something fits in with (say) Galilean society and economy or Palestinian Jewish thought would not prove authenticity but it is crucial in showing plausibility of an early tradition and how it might be legitimately interpreted. I still think there is not enough attention paid to the details of early Jewish thought in much of scholarship, often too eager to assign this or that passage to some alien setting. I am in whole agreement with the uselessness of dissimilarity from Jewish setting. It makes Jesus historically implausible. The idea that Jesus MUST be different says more about a scholar than the historical Jesus. I'm perhaps a little more optamistic on multiple attestation in so far as it at least points to a pre-synoptic idea. But I would try to multiple attestation only alongside others. Of course I would add another source to the earliest material listed by Loren...
As widely mentioned, the prolific Ben Witherington has been blogging without being spotted. Fortunately as a new blogger I can happily blame everyone else for not noticing!
Jim Davila notes that Philip Alexander has been elected as a Fellow of the British Academy. As he points out it is very much deserved.