I'm reading two new articles that I thought worth a mention here.
Vasileios Syros, "Absalom's Revolt and Value-Neutral Advice in Profiat Duran" History of Political Thought, XXX.1 (2009), pp. 60-74.
Dr. Syros is my professor for Medieval Mirrors for Princes this semester, and mentioned the Absalom narrative briefly one day in class as an exempla in political advice literature. Here he lays out its use in Profiat Duran (d. 1414 or 15) a Jewish thinker. While Absalom and his counsellers are often depicted negatively (as in Augustine, Peter Lombard, Dante, etc.), there is a tradition of literature in political thought lifting up the episode of his revolt as exemplary, and especially the advice of Ahitophel, which when unheeded led to Absalom's downfall. Syros connects the thought of Duran with that of Maimonides in how it upholds the relativity of "goodness", which must be situated in relation to the end that is sought. The distinction between this political reading and the moralizing purposes of much traditional exegesis sheds important light on the reception of this episode. Normally it is through the interpretative lens of the rape of Tamar that Absalom is viewed (as well as the privileged position of David in Jewish, Christian, and Islamic thought), but Absalom's revolt as a retribution for David's sins has also been a live option, as has the "value-neutral advice" literature discussed in this article.
James J. Cassidy, "Election and Trinity", The Westminster Theological Journal, 71.1 (2009), pp. 53-81.
I was surprised to find this article in WTJ... it's a discussion of the current debate over election in Barth studies. I haven't finished the article, but Cassidy lays out the arguments of McCormack, Hunsinger, and Molnar, and then discusses Barth's work in response to them. The most unique aspect of this article is surely his introduction of Cornelius Van Til and Geerhardus Vos to the question in section 5.
Cassidy compares the whole affair to the Braun-Gollwitzer debate that Jüngel attempted to mediate and says, "To be sure, the swinging pendulum between the contenders is reflective of Barth's dialectical framework. In fact, the debate itself, rather than one side of the argument or the other, captures the true meaning of dialectical theology. If Barth were alive today watching it all unforld before him, we might imagine him sitting there, smoking his pipe, nodding his head, and thinking to himself, 'Exactly.'" (77) That said, Cassidy also comes down on a particular side: "in this debate there are two mutually exclusive positions: a position that proves itself to be a more accurate interpretation of Barth, and a position that proves itself to be closer to the historic Christian position on the matter." (53) ...an assessment, I suppose, that even McCormack wouldn't be overly opposed to if it weren't for the additional accusation of Eutychianism that goes along with bucking the historic position!