Earliest Christian History

All things bright and beautiful?

2010-01-30T13:16:00.002Z

Whilst reading this recent piece in the Guardian by John Milbank and Philip Blond, and brought to our attention by Roland Boer, I was, for some reason, reminded of that famous hymn, All Things Bright and Beautiful. Perhaps that verse usually passed over will make a comeback?

All things bright and beautiful,
All creatures great and small,
All things wise and wonderful:
The Lord God made them all.

Each little flower that opens,
Each little bird that sings,
He made their glowing colors,
He made their tiny wings.

Refrain

[Most hymnals [would once] omit the following verse-]

The rich man in his castle,
The poor man at his gate,
He made them, high or lowly,
And ordered their estate.

Real men don’t email frequently: Stephan Huller and a new twist on blogging and gender from a (relatively) creative sexual imagination

2010-01-12T19:59:00.006Z

There has been a weird blog dispute over Stephan Huller not taking down a private email sent by Maurice Casey. Stephan has gone on the rampage since being asked by Maurice’s PhD student Stephanie Fisher to remove the comments. The back story is covered very well by Joel Watts and by Dilettante Hobby Horse. Stephan’s comments I refer to below are from the following links (though some do go missing so these links could be out-of-date at anytime):

http://stephanhuller.blogspot.com/2010/01/just-why-am-i-in-this-business-again.html

http://stephanhuller.blogspot.com/2010/01/and-now-for-something-completely.html

http://stephanhuller.blogspot.com/2010/01/professor-casey-was-that-really-you.html

There is more going on on Joel Watts' blog (comments section) and some very weird comments on Mike Bird's blog (NOT by Mike I hasten to add - I suspect he hasn't noticed yet because it is on an old blogpost which Stephan has been commenting on).

A lot of what is said focuses on telling the truth and I think Stephan might just be reading a little too much into things and a very interesting kind of reading between the lines at that. That’s getting ahead of ourselves. Let’s ease our way in gently. Here’s one of Stephan’s milder comments:

I also noticed that she goes on people's blogs anonymously

Am I missing something here? How does Stephan know if she is acting, erm, anonymously? As far as I know Steph's comments have all been under her own name. Here is part of Stephan’s defence:

I have been working as part of a team developing a documentary on the controversy surrounding the Mar Saba document. Members of our team sent out emails to prominent scholars asking them to tell us what they thought of Roger Viklund's article on Stephen Carlson's shoddy methodology. They were explicitly told that their comments were 'on the record' - i.e. that they would be published in some form as part of our efforts to see what the opinion of scholarship is both of Viklund's analysis and the Mar Saba document itself. On the team there is myself, Charley Richardson and one other person.

I have been posting these comments at my blog. I figure the email said they would be on the record. We are working as a team. Why not give people a sample of some of the comments we thought were part of the public record.

I got the email from Charley Richardson too and it is a little vaguer than what Stephan says but he’s more or less right on the issue of public record. But...Maurice Casey very clearly said he didn’t want to be part of the team so it seems a reasonable request to ask for Stephan to remove the comments (it seems Charley Richardson had no problem doing so). To be honest it is difficult to see why Stephan has got all angry about this: it is hardly a big ask. ‘I wonder if any of these comments were actually from Casey, even the original email,’ asks Stephan. Yes they were. He told me, hence I'm writing all this, in addition to Maurice not being a reader of blogs.

Stephan complains,

In today's email we see 'Professor Casey' say a rambling non-sequitur (which I can't possibly understand):
some busy professors do not find it [the Mar Saba document] significant enough to discuss. I do, but that’s a little bit in the next book, not as big a bit as Price, but knowledge could in my view advance a lot more quickly if people like that did not hold it up. Why have you no interest in telling the truth?
...Today after I wasn't interested in hearing from his live-in girlfriend, Casey suddenly decides he really is interested in Mar Saba document and compares himself to Robert Price.

I'm going to suggest that Casey *isn’t* comparing himself to Price and that he is saying that the section on Price in Casey’s next book is bigger than the section on Mar Saba...? We will come to the girlfriend issue soon.

Stephan dropped one of his bombshells which is the basis of his further polemic:

I have an expose on what it takes to ahead in scholarship. It would make me feel better about my plight as an ignored scholar. It would temporarily allow me to get revenge for all the inequities and injustices I see is at work in the field...
Why am I doing this? Is it because I am starting to lose my ideals? Yeah, maybe that it. There might have been a time once upon a time when I thought that I could change the world. Now I am inclined to believe that the whole world is a cesspool and maybe it was meant to be a cesspool from the very beginning, from the highest authority in the universe...
...Thank you Professor X for convincing me that it is all one big cesspool - but a cesspool in which people like you can pontificate about what reprobates people like me are for not being willing to play the game - playing the game, in which you sit on top of the hill as some deified God I might add.

This Professor X (shouldn’t that be Professor XXX? See below) sounds interesting. I’d quite like to see the evidence to back up the claim ‘...which people like you can pontificate about what reprobates people like me are for not being willing to play the game - playing the game, in which you sit on top of the hill as some deified God I might add...’

But that’s the easy bit...Stephan got a little giddy when thinking about all things sexual. It is based on this claim made by Stephan:

Stephanie Fisher is Maurice Casey's live-in girlfriend who regularly sits on his computer to correspond with people...

She isn’t his live-in girlfriend (or live-out). I know Steph helped Maurice when he was very ill and it is no surprise they are very good friends. I know both of them and have met with them in Nottingham on several occasions. I can also exclusively reveal that she uses her own computer. Stephan also writes the following:

... Well after that incident with that unnamed professor, his girlfriend and their tendency to expose the details of their personal life on my blog...

Hmmm, but didn’t Stephan also invent details of personal life? Well yes...and here is another interesting take on the whole episode (with reference made to ‘Professor X’):

But you know what, the words in his email that keep ringing in my ears are his accusation against my integrity as a scholar - 'Why have you no interest in telling the truth?'
Yeah, that's right. I have no interest in the truth. You are the truth teller, is that it? Why then do you have such issues with me telling the truth and keeping up those posts and those comments?
If I were really interested in the truth I wouldn't ask you for your opinion on all of this. I would instead practice learning how to give fellatio to some other old fuck who made a name for himself by writing some important paper twenty years ago... Yeah, that's right. If I wanted to take part in your bullshit world I would find me an old professor whose dreams and fantasies I could fulfill - like the way Carlson 'proved' his master's suspicions about the falseness of the Mar Saba document. I'd just learn to seek out another old professor and 'work together for a while,' until I became 'a wonderful personal friend' to him or her and provided services that he or she could get on a vacation to the Third World for the price of a new pair of shoes.

Now, those are some interesting suggestions to make in the context of telling the truth. I know I’m going to regret this, but, ahh, how does Stephan find out his details? I’m really going to regret mentioning this one, but does Stephan’s reasoning apply to all PhD students of the person he calls ‘Professor X’ who may have become personal friends and stayed at his house...?

This is good too:

At one point I naively asked him what his relationship with Stephanie was. Was she his daughter? ...What is so odd about this whole situation is that I offered to call Professor Casey at his home and actually went so far as to email 'him' my phone number so 'he' could contact me... If the real Professor Casey really wants me to take these down please call me. I sent an email with my phone number. If you can't afford the long distance send me your phone number and I will call you.

Who wouldn’t be straight on the phone to a stranger who has asked if they have daughter, invent them a girlfriend, talks about someone called Professor X and a bit of oral sex, not to mention conspiracy theories about ancient religion?

Perhaps the best bit was Stephan’s handling of gender issues, discussed in more detail on Dilettante Hobby Horse. Make of this what you will:

Do men really take exception to 'rudeness'? That's something women concern themselves with. It's unmanly to complain about another man being 'rude' to you.
The deluge of emails seemed un-manly. I told him I would take down the comments. There was nothing embarrassing about these comments. Why was I getting messages almost every five minutes at one point - very reminiscent of a hysterical woman...
Your girlfriend is bad news.

To keep thee from the evil woman, from the flattery of the tongue of a strange woman Psalm 6:24

Erm...er...um... eh?!! Then I think of Stephan’s invention of personal lives... Stephan asks, ‘I would be happy to hear any theories from anyone out there.’ Ok. Here’s one. I don’t like the frequent emailing inevitable in my job but I email all the time. So I’m wondering – assuming the Hullerite take on gender for one moment – if my dislike stems from being de-manly-ised? But then maybe without realising I’m...turning...into...a...hysterical...woman...

Right, enough rambling. Let’s boil it down to these questions:

Did Stephan invent the issue of the girlfriend relationship (and the implication of a sexual relationship) or does Stephan have access to information no one else does?

Did Professor X really ‘pontificate about what reprobates people like me are for not being willing to play the game’ (and recalling what Huller meant by ‘playing the game’)?

Jim West's Blog - An Obituary

2010-01-04T23:26:00.003Z

The whole episode of the demise of Jim West's blog took me a little by surprise. When the link didn't work I wondered what was going on and I found out he was was bored with blogging, as he has repeated in different contexts. After that I found out about the pretty furious debate between Jim and John Loftus. I was a little surprised by that one because I always assumed Jim's posts on issues of atheism and atheist bloggers were, at least in part, jokey. I still think that is the case, though I admit some of us (e.g. me) have an unfortunate tendency to read irony into everything.

The internet has made the recent history of biblical scholarship a little weird, if not more entertaining. Who would have thought all the controversies, from Golb to Loftus, from the many Jeffrey Gibsons to NT Wrong, were possible fifteen years ago? But the internet and blogging, despite my own reservations, are having some impact on scholarship and Jim West has arguably been the most important figure in this context. And, as his blog was so distinctive, it meant that his postings were (not 'are' because they don't seem to be available) particularly helpful for ideological analysis of blogging, particularly as, intentionally or not, his blog brought out the perspectives of his opponents clearly when they reacted against him.

As any regular reader of his blog and his involvement on e-lists (he runs Biblical Studies and has managed to keep it going while others have faded) will know, Jim (like others) has given the very latest updates on the latest controversies involving biblical studies in the media. However, I think he has had a more important influence. His blog was, famously (in biblical studies terms), the most popular of all the biblioblogs and because of this he was able to promote some of the more interesting and creative scholarship (including, I am reliably informed, book sales of one book rocketing up [in biblical studies terms] after Jim reviewed it), some of which probably would not have gained a wider hearing otherwise. Few other bloggers had that influence. And when some of the issues facing academic departments became particularly problematic, Jim West's blog was the one which was able to muster massive amounts of support and attracted outside interest in the discipline.

That may sound like praise and obviously it is. But even some, if not all, of his enemies would have to admit that he has been an influential figure in biblical studies and in the ways I have suggested, would they not?

But wipe those tears from your eyes because not only does biblical studies have an interest in resurrection (though Jim is standing by his decision), here is the best quotation in all of the controversy: 'Jim West literally pissed me off' (John Loftus)

A Decade in...NT/Biblical Studies!

2009-12-31T19:26:00.002Z

Reviews of the year and decades are common in TV discussions of pop music and TV and are often cheap and nasty (though there are exceptions). So, you might argue that decades are just constructs etc and we could start at any point etc. But what better way to show that NT/biblical scholarship is as much embedded in cultural context as TV and pop music?

Oh, and just because something is distinctive to a decade, don't make it right or wrong.

The following are just some thoughts on trends and developments in NT studies/biblical studies over the past decade. There are plenty of other developments of course (blogging and online scholarship, gospel of Judas, more interest in GThomas and not simply as containing sources for understanding the historical Jesus) but here are merely a few...

One of the most notable things of the 00s has been the ‘secular’/atheist versus theological/believer/evangelical divide. This past decade has seen some of the most confessional or conservative books hit the mainstream in ways that (collectively) they would not in previous decades and have resulted in plenty of discussion and publicity. Perhaps the most striking example is Wright’s Resurrection of the Son of God. Who will ever forget his raising the possibility that the dead saints of Jerusalem could really have risen from the dead? More seriously, Bauckham’s work on eyewitnesses has been another major example, as has the resurgence of the idea of the every early deification of Jesus. On the other side, there have been some high profile ‘secular’ and/or atheist approaches, such as Berlinerblau’s Secular Bible and Avalos’ The End of Biblical Studies, with some fiery debates on the SBL Forum. Towards the end we saw the emergence of the Jesus Project with the involvement of some people who would question, or indeed deny, the existence of Jesus. Whether the ‘non-existence of Jesus’ gets taken up in the mainstream, or indeed by the Jesus Project, remains to be seen but it is lurking in the background of the mainstream in a way it has not before, at least in recent history. It seems clear enough that this rhetorically polarised scholarship is product partly of the major cultural debates over religion and atheism, esp. in the States, and the rise of both Intelligent Design and New Atheism. Contrast all this with debates over the Jesus Seminar which was more often than not was more polarised due to (very) liberal Christian versus the rest of Christendom (a exaggerate, I know, but you get the point.

At the end of the decade it seems that ‘memory’ and ‘cultural memory’ has become one of the dominant ways of discussing the development of biblical tradition and beyond. In terms of historical Jesus and earliest Christian history, and at the end of the last millennium, Crossan was a prominent example of someone pushing issues surrounding memory in The Birth of Earliest Christianity, and such issues were developed in a number of different ways. I think there are parallels with the ways in which form criticism was discussed, though on the issue of memory the conservative wing is, I think, presently in the ascendency in contrast to the heyday of form criticism. I caricature but... On the one hand, memory can be used (academically) to discuss the ways in which a given cultural context constructs the past with a range of influences which can say more about different subsequent cultural remembrance (just think of the mixed up ‘cultural memories’ surrounding the contemporary portrayals of the Nativity scene). On the other hand, memory has been used in a more conservative way in historical Jesus studies as a means of getting back to Jesus (memories, it is argued, tend to preserve the particular things about the individual or group). Think of work by Bauckham and Dunn, to name two high profile examples. For a more mediating position, let us never forget Rafael Rodriguez.

Memory is really the major distinctive feature of historical Jesus studies (again, see Bauckham and Dunn). In terms of a ‘type’ of Jesus (eschatological prophet, cynic-like philosopher) this past decade hasn’t had the high profile controversies of the 80s and 90s and it is perhaps telling that other (and related) controversies of note about the historical Jesus involve questions about, for instance, the resurrection and history in memory. In terms of the content of Jesus’ message, I’m not sure anything particularly distinctive has been high profile this decade and major scholars have been giving (apparently) more weight to older positions. Perhaps there has been more on social history. But even here this is more a working out of positions from the 80s and 90s rather than any spectacular advance. Some of us (i.e. me) would like to see more emphasis on historical Jesus questions in terms of broader social and economic change but I think this decade has further shown how scholars are more interested in focusing on descriptions of the individual, of the early church and of the social history, with social history, at least in historical Jesus studies, being more interested in illuminating the content of Jesus’ teaching, rather than explaining historical change. That said, a potentially distinctive move involves some of those associated with the Jesus Seminar becoming more associated with the Redescribing Christian Origins group where mythmaking rather than HJ has now become the key emphasis. But the interest in historical Jesus seems not to have died down and this past decade saw, of course, the launch of the Journal for the Study of the Historical Jesus.

As implied, there have been some developments in *reading* Jesus and NT scholarship in historical and cultural contexts, including ideological critiques, and beyond the old debates about ‘you’re liberal...well, you’re conservative...etc’ (though they remain, of course). While gathering momentum in the 90s, there is a more widespread awareness of the Nazi and fascist scholarship (see books and articles by Heschel, Casey, Head, Keeley and others) and the influence of such scholarship, even though this can sometimes be abused (e.g. the unfortunate and inaccurate comparisons of Nazi Jesuses with the Jesus of the Jesus Seminar!). The history of NT scholarship has been further analyzed in terms of quests and come up with a sort-of new idea, i.e. there are no new ideas. Ok, I caricature a little, but the once widely accepted idea of distinct quests (No Quest, Third Quest etc) with new and distinctive ideas is being hit hard (most famously Dale Allison’s critique – but there is more out there and more to come) as it seems much of what we might have thought as new has been said before. If you want a suggestion, I think it might be more fruitful to analyze the history of scholarship in terms of historical contexts and how scholarship functioned and functions as products of its time.

Perhaps because historical Jesus studies hasn’t said too much new in terms of the content of Jesus’ teaching (at least in high profile scholarship), and with an awareness that not much new has been said, that there has been a turn to the analysis of historical Jesus scholarship in books such as Sean Keeley, Racializing Jesus, Bill Arnal, The Symbolic Jesus, Amy-Jill Levine, Misunderstood Jew, Ward Blanton, Displacing Christian Origins, my Jesus in an Age of Terror etc. I have also been working with a project at Oslo run by Halvor Moxnes where the historical, political and ideological contexts of Jesus and NT scholarship has been the focus with edited volumes led by Moxnes on Jesus beyond Nationalism and ideas about, and constructions of, ‘homeland’ and ‘Holy Land’ published/on their way.

As a special treat for certain readers and bloggers, I should note that there *might* have been a notable shift in who supports what in discussions of the Synoptic Problem. Q scholarship is still going strong and there have been plenty of major publications and reconstructions of Christian origins using Q. However, and I stress that this is more my perception than any scientific proof, but I wonder if an anti-Q movement has been gathering pace of late, particularly with the Farrer-Goulder-Goodacre hypothesis. Even Maurice Casey’s Aramaic Approach to Q advocated a ‘Q’ in a very qualified and chaotic sense and with some sympathies for Goulder’s critique of Q and some hostility towards a fixed Q. I mentioned ‘perception’ because I am increasingly finding people agnostic about the whole issue and up for being persuaded. The end of the next decade might tell us a little more about who stands where on what.

Some of the old debates concerning the New Perspective have not gone way in Pauline studies, though there seems to be a further, though qualified, return of Old Perspective ideas. The other big debate in Pauline studies (and other areas of NT) is the role of empire and emperor cult etc, partly a product, no doubt, of the hardly ignorable impact of a Bush-led US empire, though a more hearty dose of postcolonial critique and/or Gramsci might have helped this (as started to happen in a more sustained way towards the end of the decade). Strangely weaving in and out of OP, NP, empire and power in Pauline studies was a partly pre-C21 movement in the study of Paul in continental philosophy. Here I’m thinking of Taubes, Badiou, Agamben, Žižek etc, and issues relating to Paul, universalism and Marxism. I cite this as a movement for the 00s *in biblical studies* because it has become a notable area in development, including collaborations between biblical scholars and critical theorists. Indeed this might be part of other trends where different ‘fringe’ topics have almost made their way into the mainstream after being used elsewhere in biblical studies and, of course, prior to that, in the humanities. The occasional use of postcolonial criticism in mainstream scholarship might be another obvious example, though Sugirtharajah’s work is being described as ‘still at the margins’.

Reception history has certainly caught on and may be one of the major areas where biblical studies will flourish in future given the sheer amount of material waiting to be analysed. There is the approach more associated with historical theology, esp. following Luz’s Matthew commentary (see e.g. Thiselton, Bockmuehl, Riches), a sub-category of which might be something like finding insight into the correct or original interpretation. Another sub-category might be a more sustained focus the role of readers or context in more unorthodox approaches to historical theology, outside the more ‘canonical’ tradition (e.g. Rowland). Then there is the anything goes approach (Lyons/Okland/others collaboration on Revelation is a recent example – and Revelation has become a notably popular choice of text), anything from cinema to pop music, from party politics to opera. Further methodological issues have also gathered pace: influence of text, influence of context, influence of tradition (and note they are similar sorts of questions which are asked, or ought to be asked of Christian origins). Why has reception history gathered pace? Maybe because there is only so much to be said with historical criticism of the NT after all this time (not really that big a collection of texts), maybe some people want to avoid the difficult faith questions raised by historical criticism, maybe it is a notable way of defending relevance and the dreaded ‘impact’. And this brings me on to something else...

I don’t like predicting the future but I will give an exception which might be particular to the UK and perhaps elsewhere in Europe. At the end of the decade, the humanities are not going to be supported anything like the way the sciences are. In the UK, the present New Labour govt are going to slash funding and the Tories (who may well be in power within six months) will be, if anything, worse. STEM subjects and those subjects which make an impact on society and culture (and that will be defined in terms of making a positive contribution to a certain definition of what society and culture ought to be) will be prioritized. This is not the greatest news for those who do not see education as a means of turning the population into middle management or selling the most popular subjects. So where will biblical studies fit into all this? On the one hand, there is a massive amount of confusion and ignorance over what biblical scholars do and biblical studies may well see itself as a target over the next decade. On the other hand, it can make the case for easily being one of the most ‘relevant’ subject areas (think of presidential elections in the US, the history of art, literature, cinema, the whole science versus religion debates, anything...). I don’t like this model of competing for what is deemed ‘relevant’ at all but this may be how things turn out in the next decade.

But let’s end on a happy note, and this especially for you, Geoff Hudson. This was the decade where NT Wrong came along. Can anyone top that in the 10s?

That's it, NY Eve...

RBL, History, Historical Criticism, Postmodernism, and Why We All Agree on Certain Things: A Special Heartwarming Big Blog for the Season of Good Will

2009-12-29T21:25:00.003Z

I’m going try and enter this ongoing debate over ‘postmodernism’ versus ‘historical criticism’ by way of first defending myself (it’s not the only reason I blog but...) and then moving on to points involving various misunderstandings by suggesting there is, underneath the rhetoric, little difference in a certain kind of method involving history...if we worked assuming some points from the first half.

Leif Vaage recently made some comments on the book I did with Mike Bird, particularly about issues of history and how – hell fire! –the opponents in the book might actually, more or less, agree with one another, despite the rhetoric. I am not going to defend the book as such but instead I am going to critique Leif’s criticisms on history because I think almost everyone in the discipline, and arguably the humanities, is very similar in assessing historical (and perhaps most other) claims even if they think otherwise and so, as we will see, I think Leif’s comments need much more substance (and indeed clarification) to be useful.

Leif suggested that ‘it seemed to me that both Bird and Crossley equally are true believers when it comes to history as the arbiter of what is really real or truly true’. This seems to me to be a subtle rhetorical move (intentional or not). The book we wrote was assessing certain claims about the history of Christian origins. Leif has shifted this much more generally to ‘history as the arbiter of what is really real or truly true’. I don’t think that is fair, at least on the basis of what was written in the book. Speaking for myself, and I hope this doesn’t sound too obvious or stupid, but history was and is the arbiter of, well, history (you know what I mean). Let me spell this out a little more clearly (though still an obvious point). If we make arguments about the past (or present) we do so with reference to whatever supportive evidence we can amass or assume, or at least in theory. We will all go and disagree on many things but this is the principle. It applies to an introductory book such as the one under review, it applies to those using gender analysis, postcolonial critique, literary criticism, cultural studies, ideological analysis of scholarship or whatever. Using history is what people do when assessing claims that presidents, prime ministers and media tell us that our governments do not support ‘rogue states’ etc. We can go and check to see which illustrious figure supported which notorious dictator and when. More on this soon...

This approach to history, evidence, or whatever also applies Leif. In addition to applying to his published work, Leif recently gave a defence of the possibility of the Cynic-like Jesus thesis at a small and very interesting Oslo seminar where we were both present and he did so with reference to the possibility of cultural interactions in the Decapolis. He tried to persuade the audience with historical reconstruction and data. In other words, the same sort of thing I attempted and Mike attempted. Leif spoke about ‘this eminently modern form of knowledge’ but it is one most of us actually share in practice.

But it was Leif’s comment that the ‘arbiter of what is really real or truly true’ which really confused me, not least because the book was on the history of Christian origins not something more general (and vague?) and not on (say) the ethical teaching of the NT (actually the editor removed some such stuff because it was not deemed relevant). Is Leif suggesting something beyond history? Is it faith? Is he suggesting allegory? Is it mysticism or some equivalent? The poetic or aesthetics? If it is something like this, then I have some vague views on such things and wouldn’t particularly want to deprive people of their views of the world etc (as I said in the book and as I argued with reference to the resurrection) but that’s a different issue.

Leif concluded: ‘What would happen to their conversation, I finally wondered, if it were to include a more unbelieving practitioner of this eminently modern form of knowledge?’ Well, who might this be? Someone like Hayden White? Well, ok, but that would be a different book with different goals (a bit like many of those debates played out in history journals of the 80s and 90s). But even Hayden White had to assume the ‘eminently modern form of knowledge’: White was clear enough on this when it came to the Holocaust but also how else did White (successfully in many ways) document patterns in historical writing...? That seems a historical move to me (and that’s not a criticism). If it were a Keith Jenkins type Leif was alluding to then his would be too general to be focused on Christian origins as it would be at the heart of philosophy of history.

Ultimately, I have to say that I get a little suspicious when people critique others and give only the vaguest of reasons. It may or may not be modern and obvious to say this, but absence of a clear counter argument cannot really function as a useful counter or qualification. For reasons which might become clear below, I wonder if we are dealing with an ideological move in such labelling (a kind of rhetorical distancing without substance), the same way we find paralleled, as we will see, in the debates over ‘historical criticism’ and ‘postmodernism’, a suspicion heightened, it has to be said, by the lack of clarification of an alternative.

In case anyone doesn’t like the approach of ‘historicism’ which underlies what I do (and I do not have anyone particularly in mind now) I will give the following aside. During the massive anti-Iraq war protest in London, I remember being almightily pissed off when Jesse Jackson got up and gave a sort of epic prayer type thing and banged on (and on and on) about John Lennon and giving peace a chance or something which was as spectacularly high on rhetoric as it was low on useful detail to counter the pro-war arguments. I wanted the speakers to highlight continually things like Blair supporting the Saddam-like Islam Karimov, that he had never cared less about Iraqis until he was told to, the previous support for Saddam by US and UK govts etc. This was a change to get such views on TV and the media, especially important as this sort of stuff was not being thrown at Blair enough or even in seriously discussed in the media (at least not in any significant way) in the build up to the war. And as this was happening, Blair talked about morality etc and various ‘liberal-left’ journalists (notably in the Observer) supplied the propaganda to back Blair up. History (or: ‘historicism’) has shown, and did show, Blair to be a thoroughly deceitful man by measuring his arguments with what detail we know. Meanwhile, as Naomi Klein pointed out at the time, Levi’s Europe started cashing in by selling teddy bears with a peace symbol.

It is for reasons such as these that I (militantly) prefer ‘historicism’ to over reliance on rhetoric. It is reasons such as these that telling the truth about the past and establishing historical data are so important, to me at least. I do not think going down the Paul de Man route is very helpful. The combination of continually establishing and verifying ‘facts’ and data, and placing them in a broader economic and cultural context is one of the key reasons I like the approach of Noam Chomsky who is, rightly, relentless when it comes to such things and happily a child of (more enlightened side of) the Enlightenment.

Anyway, let’s get back on track. Leif adds, ‘I found them strikingly alike in their historicism and for this reason most of the time not that far apart or all that different from one another in their practice of interpretation.’ I’m again not entirely sure what Leif means here but if we are as similar as he thinks then it can only be in the sense described above. Actually, there is one major difference of interpretation between Mike and myself (supernatural aside). Now this point is important: *Mike tends to focus on ideas whereas socio-historical change guides my interpretative interest.* There are other approaches from social history I use, implicitly or explicitly. Issues concerning socio-economic change underpinned what I did and do. This is a significant difference and I keep pointing out how socio-economic causal issues and historical change are repeatedly ignored in NT studies and it might be that we have yet another example of such an approach being ignored...unless, of course, Leif means similarities in the sense I described above (I was explicit in my emphasis on socio-economic change and I think it would have been difficult to miss so we should probably assume Leif means similarities lie elsewhere).

If similarities lie elsewhere, such as in the kinds of ways described above (*and this issue is going to guide the rest of this blog entry*), I think Leif’s point is too banal to be useful in this context because it applies, perhaps, to most of us. And here I would include literary critics with no interest in ‘history’ and no interest in author because they are still trying to make a case based on evidence to show the plausibility of a given reading and even in some cases implicitly showing a text in history. Same difference, is it not? All a part of the same tapestry, is it not? So, again, are we seeing an ideological move in shunting us both together...? The two authors are both similar and different but where we are similar, it is in line with most others I imagine.

And this brings me on to the entertaining debate over postmodernism and historical criticism sparked off by George Aichele, Peter Miscall, and Richard Walsh’s JBL article (as someone pointed out, it may be a significant moment that this was published in JBL). Actually, I‘m not going to comment on that debate directly, interesting though it clearly is, but rather develop the above in light of some blogger comments. The reason I make the connection with the present debate is because I think the dichotomy, at least as presented in some of the discussion following the JBL article, is both right and wrong. Let’s start with wrong. My colleague Hugh Pyper wrote in the latest SBL Forum on the NASCAR Bible, not the stuff of traditional historical critics. Hugh is a big Derrida fan and would be most at home, I suppose, in the world of which might be labelled, and I mean this very generally, ‘deconstructionist’, ‘poststructuralist’ or whatever. Yet while he emphasises things differently to historical critics, I still think this isn’t dramatically different from the ways in which historical critics might try to support a case, look for evidence, see things embedded in history, look for broader cultural themes and so on. Besides, Hugh has also worked on areas which might be deemed more traditional historical criticism and he would never be contradictory, would he...?

Not dissimilarly, Deane Galbraith wrote on ‘Cyborg, Hauntology, Spectrality and the Bible’ where he looked at cultural issues involving things from NASA naming the first chimp sent into space to the film Chimps in Space, with issues biblical reference and ideology thrown in. Again, not the sort of thing found among traditional historical critics yet...I don’t know if Deane agrees or not, but I don’t see any significant difference from the kind of standard enough approach in the sense that the argument was bolstered by historical and ‘textual’ evidence, along with cultural traits and allusions, albeit with a creative slant (an interesting parallel might be made with some trends in the study of the OT in the NT). And let’s not forget that Deane has been one of the defenders (with qualification) of historical criticism and has blogged on more traditional historical critical issues (e.g. date of the Pentateuch).

And where would we fit a Marxist like Badiou into all this (or plenty of other Marxists)? Badiou is most associated with those interested in theory but as people point out, he is very much another child of the Enlightenment. Or Eagleton? He’s obviously interested in ‘theory’ but used some classic historical criticism in his intro to Jesus (actually a very NT Wrightian approach to Jesus in certain instances). Someone somewhere (this was a massive blog debate, so forgive me) also mentioned (fairly, I think) that Foucault’s work on the history of sexuality (or was it punishment? Nevermind, the point stands) was effectively ‘historicist’ (or something like that).

This blending of approaches should suggest, at the very least, that the seemingly radically different approaches are not necessarily so radically different after all. Other examples could be given. John Barclay, who has worked with traditional readings of texts, has also worked with postcolonial theory and Badiou’s ideas, and presumably he sees no contradiction in what he is doing. I personally see no problem using whatever I think works and if this means using something like postcolonial criticism and more traditional historical criticism, with x, y or z thrown in, then so be it. What’s the problem? Or have I missed the point? Aren’t, obviously, all the humanities trying to provide some insight into human beings and society...?

Roland Boer cites a dispute between certain people we call ‘minimalists’ and ‘maximalists’ (I really can’t be bothered checking the precise links and details, ok?) and each side throwing the label ‘postmodernist’ at one another. I don’t know anything about that particular dispute but I have read similar polemic levelled at the ‘minimalists’. Again, in addition to Roland’s points, I’d refer to my above points in the sense that both sides are actually very similar. So, both sides would use archaeology, biblical texts and so on but the major difference is that they interpret the evidence and issues, such as those concerning ‘state’ and dating, differently. The weird thing about this debate is that effectively if someone dates a text one scholar doesn’t like or interprets it differently then they are ‘postmodernists’. This sort of reasoning would, erm, make some famous nineteenth century scholarship ‘postmodernist’!

Another aside, this time on the terms being used... For ‘historical criticism’, simply read traditional critical approaches to the text etc. We all know what we mean, even if we don’t like the term, ok? For postmodernism, I am with Roland in following Jameson on the cultural logic of late capitalism. As it happens, I came across one strange use of ‘postmodern’ in a musical review of the year by a journalist I actually like but who claimed certain pop songs of the past decade were ‘postmodern’. I *think* I know what he meant, even if the word isn’t all that helpful, and even in the different world of musical culture (and isn’t the whole pop music phenomenon an excellent example of one manifestation of the cultural logic of late capitalism?). Anyway, my point...the labelling comes across as quite misplaced and so does not this specific placement of the label, rather than accepting the blanket idea of cultural logic, suggest some ideological move? In biblical studies (and the humanities) there is, after all, a lot of polemic on both ‘sides’...

And of course the issue of ‘objectivity’ has been running throughout the whole debate. My guess (as Deane Galbraith suggests via Barr) is that if most biblical scholars were asked about objectivity they would admit they were not claiming to be objective in the sense that they have no presuppositions (I prefer the objectivity debates to be framed in terms of neutrality and limited objectivity but that’s for another day). Indeed, plenty of those who might identify as historical critics just can’t wait to tell us that no one can do exegesis without presupposition, as if this is something new. That said, I wonder if the rhetoric might imply otherwise. The classic ‘review of scholarship’ sections of books can often, rightly or wrongly, and certainly if people aren’t careful, come across as the past was pretty wrong but, heroically, here’s what really happened... Indeed, from conferences etc and some of the scholarly rhetoric about ‘postmodernism’, it is clear that there is the perception that ‘postmodernist’ approaches are believed to be way too subjective and effectively involve making things up. But this must therefore imply something about the interpreter, must it not...? See also some of the discussion on Roland’s blog and the Dunedin School blog for claims made by scholars concerning ‘objectivity’.

But I said ‘right and wrong’ somewhere way, way above...From the Dunedin School, Deane combines the ideas of construction and fantastical othering and he is, I think, right to do so. If it is right that there is a lot in common across different approaches when do we get to the point where the difference is simply content and theme or that someone is more convinced by one method over another? Well maybe we are already there. I mean, not everyone is into trying to get behind the text to find out the life and teaching of Jesus, not everyone is interested in the ways gender is constructed in the NT, not everyone wants to analyse literary techniques without reference to historical events and overt historical influence, not everyone is into social history, and not everyone is interested in uncovering ideology and power, and so people may see themselves as doing very different things. Ok, fair enough. But how do people try to persuade their audience...? Is it really dramatically different in the ways in which many people believe...? Perhaps this partly a debate about *taste*...? And so this is where the debate sparked off by George Aichele, Peter Miscall, and Richard Walsh could be very useful: what are the ideological issues and moves in constructing a position (or, perhaps better, someone else’s position) as ‘historical critic’ or ‘postmodernist’? These issues, for me anyway, are what are at the heart of this debate.

In all the debates over ‘postmodernism’ etc it is still clear that certain people do have entrenched positions and construct the Other as something they are not (there may be seeds of this in Leif’s critique). Deane points to the hostile use of historical criticism in certain academic discourses. We can of course reverse this and we all know it isn’t too difficult to find examples where ‘postmodernist’ (or the like) is equated with anti-history or pure subjectivity and so on. I am still yet to be convinced that there are substantial differences in approaching history and texts in terms of providing evidence for an argument and historical reconstruction. All I can see is different scholarly emphases on what is *worthy* of reconstruction.

A final aside...Chris Weimer’s strong criticism that some or much scholarship labelled by some (or perhaps many) as postmodernist, poststructuralist or ‘(critical) theory’ is pure nonsense (such scholarship, not Chris) is something with which I have some sympathy. The world of ‘theory’ (or something like – again I think we all roughly know what is meant) can include incomprehensible or nonsensical ideas and Chris is dead right to point to Sokal. As is now well known, Sokal deliberately invented things in a hoax article and, amazingly, the article got published. That alone says something. Chomsky said he knew Lacan and said Lacan told him that we would invent nonsensical ideas just to see if Parisian intellectuals would believe them. Is it being too harsh to suggest that both cases imply that some people think some profound truth beyond most and is available to the critically trained few. I do not believe that certain people in the humanities have reached a more profound level of truth many of us are not clever enough to understand. Like too much academic language, I strongly suspect that we have a classic case of academic power play, a vanguard of the elect academics who are privileged enough to *know*... That too is for another time but I would just add that exotic use of language is also used outside the world of what some might call ‘theory’ (or whatever we want to call it) and can be found in works of a more historical critical bent... Now, I don’t know how wide ranging some of the incomprehensible language or absurd statements cited by Sokal, Chomsky and others is but it is obviously present in the intellectual world, and in the work of some high profile academics, and so it will be interesting to see what Chris uncovers (it seems he intends to write more on this).

Support Lloyd Pietersen and the future of the discipline

2009-11-11T12:47:00.002Z

I will simply cut and paste Mark Goodacre's post which I fully endorse:

Lloyd Pietersen and the University of Gloucestershire: Action needed
...now another British university department is similarly under threat from the university's own administration, and one of our good friends has heard today that his post has been terminated.

Lloyd Pietersen is Senior Lecturer and Research Coordinator in New Testament Studies in the Department of Humanities at the University of Gloucestershire. For those who do don't know him, Lloyd is a first class scholar, a fine teacher, and a delightful person, a massive asset to the university. It is unthinkable that they would let someone like Lloyd go.

So what can we do? To begin with, we can pull out all the stops and inundate both Paul Bowler (pbowler@glos.ac.uk) and Patricia Broadfoot (vc@glos.ac.uk) with notice of the damage to research and the university's reputation.

I should add that the Facebook group has a lot of helpful detail for when you compose your letters.

Yet more from BW3!

2009-11-07T23:39:00.003Z

Some more bizarre comments from BW3 on Sheffield in response to Steph Fisher:

The issue isn't hiring someone on the basis of their faith especially if they do not have the credentials and the critical training for the job. The issue is deliberately avoiding hiring people of faith, and further the issue is deliberately trying to deconstruct someone else's faith.
You have misperceived the issue, and I am sure Fred Bruce, whom I knew, would entirely disagree with you. My suggestion to you is to have a talk with Ralph Martin, long connected with Sheffield. You will get a different perspective on the history of the department.

Wow! How about 'The issue is deliberately avoiding hiring people of faith'! I just don't know what to say but if it is true the Dept has done a pretty poor job (see previous posts). This is stunningly insulting now.

BUT...but...maybe Bw3 was talking about the past because he does bring up Ralph Martin being 'long connected with Sheffield'. As it happens, at least as far as I am aware, I have never met Ralph Martin and I have never had any contact with him. He doesn't seem to have been be a figure present at the British NT Conference either so it would seem I have never had the chance to meet him. I have no idea if other present full-time members of staff have met him: I'd be surprised but you never know. The point being that BW3 is not producing the strongest evidence for some supposed policy of, or direction taken by, Sheffield, at least in the past decade, because Ralph Martin retired from the Department in...1996.

BUT...but...what if this supposed anti-religious hiring mentality happened, let's say, in a time some 15 years ago and beyond...? Aside from being a little out-of-date for the contemporary debates about Sheffield (let's not forget that!), this has interesting implications because one previous Head of Dept was John Rogerson, an ordained Anglican minister. Before him, so was James Atkinson. I have taken the historical detail of the Dept from David Clines' essay on the history of the Dept upto 1997. Clines was also a former Head. Here are his thoughts on the issue:

The Department’s two staff appointments made by Bruce, Aileen Guilding, his eventual successor to the chair, and David Payne, who had been the first student of the Department, were also not ordained. Neither, as it happens, are any of the present full-time teaching staff of the Department. But, whatever the unofficial views of the University authorities may have been, there has never been any animus within the Department against the Church and ordained ministers. Two of its Heads, James Atkinson and John Rogerson, were Anglican clergymen, and the Department has numbered among its staff several Anglican priests, ministers of the Presbyterian Church of England (now part of the United Reformed Church), of the Church of Scotland,and of the Methodist Church. Nevertheless, the Department has been perhaps somewhat unusual among departments in the field of theology in having as tenuous a connection with the institutional Church as it does. That does not mean that there is still ‘no theology’. The name of the Department was changed in 1968 to Biblical Studies precisely to reflect the fact that the ideas of the Bible—in addition to its history and its literature—are part of the central concern of the Department, even if these days the theology of the Bible is increasingly referred to as its ideology.

On hiring full time, permanent posts, I should also add that people from outside the Dept must be brought in, not least to make sure the process is fair. If BW3 is right (and this is only for the sake of argument), then this means that the corruption goes wider and higher in the University and I can't imagine such people would be overly happy if they knew about such allegations. The interviewing/hiring panels have also included biblical scholars of faith so I don't know what they would make of BW3's allegations.

And, look, the BW3 repeats this allegation: 'further the issue is deliberately trying to deconstruct someone else's faith'. I would like to know who is deliberately trying deconstruct someone else's faith and I would like to know what he means by 'deconstruct' (as others have pointed out, he seems to mean something like 'destroy' because it doesn't make sense much sense in the context of academic usage).

As BW3 likes suggestions, let me give him one suggestion of my own: give serious evidence (not gossip, not hear say, not idle speculation) before making such insultingly inaccurate slurs.

UPDATE: the comments have now been removed from the linked page

More of the same from BW3

2009-11-07T19:24:00.004Z

Well it seems that BW3 did say those weird and inaccurate things about Sheffield. It's got a little weirder and we get more too. He's now added this (notice the lack of engagement with the questions raised) in his attempt to answer Steph Fisher's comments:

I doubt there will be a public apology. There are too many wounded in action to account for. Honestly Stephanie, Sheffield did not act wisely in not hiring folks like Loveday Alexander or Andrew Lincoln once they were gone, as they at least nurtured people in their Christian faith.

Then this:

You shouldn't be shocked. Do a little historical research. Start with F.F. Bruce and the original purpose and focus of the Biblical Studies Faculty at Sheffield. Then compare that to where we are now.

Well let's turn the BW3 methodology on himself and ask for some historical research. As it happens, and contrary to BW3, it would have been deeply unwise to hire on the basis of religious affiliation because hiring on the basis of religious affliation aint, erm, allowed. Like most places in the UK, and being a university and not a seminary/theological college, we have to hire on the basis of the best quaified person for the job in hand, irrespective of religious affiliation. But, as it also happens, the last hire was trained at the London School of Theology but, oddly enough, he was partly chosen because he was very strong on understanding the cultural context of the NT and a very good teacher of Greek. If fact, though I don't know the precise personal details of faith, I am the only remaining full time member of staff with no religious affiliation. I would also like to know how BW3 knows people were not nurturing people in their Christian faith (not that anyone emplyed by the University should be obliged to do so, of course) because I'm not seeing a lot of evidence here (yes, that is British understatement).

UPDATE: the comments have now been removed from the linked page

Sheffield and some odd comments attributed to BW3

2009-11-05T23:39:00.004Z

Many things have been said about the situation at Sheffield and many, many nice things. Predictably enough, let's focus on the negative... In a recent Christianity Today article there were a couple of strange comments but none more annoying than the following attributed to Ben Witherington III.

Other faculty [at Sheffield] were "bent on the deconstruction of the Bible, and indeed of their students' faith," according to Ben Witherington, a New Testament scholar at Asbury Theological Seminary.

I do not know if Witherington said these things but this is a direct quotation and I don't know if it is one of those Dever-style attempts at being 'provocative'. If Witherington did not say such things or if he was ripped out of context then presumably he has cause for some complaint against the way he was portrayed because this reads like a pretty nasty dig. Whatever, whoever is responsible for such a weird slur is deeply inaccurate. I have been in Sheffield for five years and I have never come across anything that might reasonably be called ‘deconstructing’ our students’ faith, never mind the idea of being ‘bent on' the deconstruction of 'their students’ faith’. I know retired members of the Department who have been at Sheffield for many, many years and I would be amazed if they were ‘bent on' the deconstruction of 'their students’ faith’. In fact, members of staff at Sheffield, past and present, believing and non-believing, have a well-known and excellent relationship with former students, many of whom are evangelical and many of whom profess some kind of faith.

Students raise such questions of faith regularly and good for them – they discuss and debate these issues openly with one another. One of the striking things about the recent student reaction was that there was unity, from atheists and agnostics to conservative evangelicals and charismatics, united in defence of the academic study of the Bible. When I put the Witherington quotation to a group of students the reaction was one of incredulity and it was laughed off. I have many evangelical students and the issue of faith rarely comes up. Their work is judged on whether it is well-argued or not. It is not nice to see such an obvious inaccuracy/slur in print and I hope a fellow New Testament scholar is not responsible for such insultingly inaccurate sentiments. If Witherington did say such a thing then he clearly knows nothing about the Department of Biblical Studies at the University of Sheffield.

Delay

2009-11-05T23:36:00.002Z

Obviously things have been incredibly busy but it seems as if Geoff Hudson filled the vacuum...

A question...

2009-09-12T09:58:00.002Z

The phrase 'very Jewish' (or the like) is very common in NT studies. What does it mean?

More on gender and blogging

2009-09-09T18:01:00.004Z

One reason why some people might not be overly keen on the ways in which some of the discussion (and I have no one in particular in mind here - just some general comments) over gender and biblioblogging is that there is a lot of material written on gender and scholarship which seems to be largely overlooked in the blogging discussions. If this debate is to be taken further, maybe some further interaction with the ways in which privileged liberal scholarship can actually perpetuate certain existing power relations, even if changing the role of previously isolated people within a relatively elite culture. I've alluded to such things before but one book which really deals with such issues in depth and immersed in gender studies is the latest from Caroline Vander Stichele and Todd Penner, Contextualizing Gender in Early Christian Discourse Thinking beyond Thecla (2009). This book has a lot to say on gender, power, intellectuals and the academy (see esp. chapter 4). Here's an extract from pp. 168-69:

One might think here of someone working on Asian Biblical Hermeneutics, or with a feminist agenda, or a queer approach, for in all cases the assumption is that we will have, respectively, an “Asian,” a “female,” and a “gay” or a “queer” person (or at least individuals who are perceived as such by the dominant structure) being the ones promoting the marginalized work. Thus, there is a correlation between the type of nonnormative work undertaken and an essentialized (even as it is otherized) identity. There is often even an overdetermination of the difference of the “other” in this respect (whether that “other” is a specific method or content), while the center appears to lack the cultural, racial, ideological, and so on bases that defines the “other.” Thus, the absence of these facets from the center defines the center of the discipline—here historical studies—as neutral. Moreover, while the “Asian-American” critic or the “female feminist” can point out the perceived ideological nature of the dominant “male” perspective, the normative “male” center—consisting of those who perform as white, heterosexual males—are expected to maintain the fundamental guild structures. And thus the gendered, sexed, and sexual character (but one could add other factors here too, such as race/ethnicity, class, disability) of the guild structure is highly essentialist in its ways of knowing and the methods used...
...biblical scholars too tend to project sexual identity onto the often marginalized Other while de-sexualizing their own standpoint. Again, the “other” here is overdetermined, while the center is represented by absence and lack of specificity. It thus passes as “normative” and consequently its power is masked. Rather than providing challenges to the larger structures of the guild, then, these other perspectives enable the center to solidify its hold. Therefore, alleged political and ethical work undertaken by scholars claiming to be enacting such, in fact, paradoxically sustains hegemony rather than dismantling it as intended. While much is made of the shift in scholarship towards recognizing personal and cultural biases and locations in interpretation of biblical texts, and while these “movements” and shifts in scholarship have touted themselves as a challenge to the hegemonic tradition of “objective” “scientific” analysis, in principle these two seeming polar opposite positions are not in conflict with each other. In a way, the hegemonic male-centered guild, particularly in its current social and cultural context, actually needs this dissent in order to maintain its firm grasp. Thus, for instance, the Society of Biblical Literature has spaces for alternative scholarship (and committees on the status of women in the academy, for instance) but still sustains a male-centered structure. Therefore, the difference that is tolerated does not challenge the phallogocentric and colonial structures of the guild. The illusion of inclusion is essential, particularly in a guild that fully endorses modern liberal discourses of individual freedom and tolerance. Yet, while it is often assumed that the guild has a fractured identity, with say feminist and postcolonial theorists raising ideological questions that seem to be ignored by traditional and conventional scholarship, if we take seriously the structure of the guild as outlined here, then the two spheres are rather working in tandem and sustain a larger normativity related to identity and subjectivity, particularly as those intersect with politics, culture, and society in this period of globalized capitalism (and capitalist globalism).

Ethics in the Bible?

2009-09-09T17:52:00.002Z

Philip Davies' has published the essay 'Are There Ethics in the Hebrew Bible?' at Bible and Interpretation. Here's an extract:

There are various systems determining human behavior. The best known comprises, the “commandments” or “laws,” supposedly dictated by the invisible god and stipulating that humans should not kill, steal, commit adultery or worship any god but this one, etc. What are the reasons for such behavior? That it is good to obey divine commands—additional motivation being provided by threatened consequences of neglecting to do so. However, “only obeying orders” was summarily dismissed as a defense at the Nuremberg trials and although in some circumstances one can still plead “higher authority” as a defense against charges of misconduct, these pleas do not constitute an assertion of ethical behavior: they are just a get-out where one has clearly behaved unethically...
...the Bible is culturally totalitarian—unsurprisingly, because it emanates from a totalitarian world of monarchic societies. The development of monarchic religion in the Bible is hardly a supreme religious insight. Rather, it parallels the growth of ever-larger political units. Instead of local city-rulers fighting for supremacy (and their gods likewise), a supreme, if remote, “king of kings” controls everything (always through officials, of course), the semblance of world order that this emperor celebrates being reflected is the cosmic order governed by a supreme deity. (Plato’s monotheism, by contrast, has to be explained differently).
Western civilization, then, does not get ethics from the Bible (and I would say, not even from the New Testament, but I don’t have room to argue that. Go figure.)

Dunedin wheels out the big guns...

2009-09-09T17:50:00.001Z

Steph Fisher and James Harding have joined the Dunedin School.

Not a Conspiracy Theory

2009-09-07T22:47:00.003Z

As everyone no doubt now knows the old debate on gender and blogging has re-emerged with many, perhaps most, claiming their liberal credentials. Just one point general point: the idea of conspiracy theory (see e.g. Mike Bird's blog but the following criticisms certainly apply to many). Now, several posts have openly talked about broader institutional problems in higher education or organised religion (lack of women represented in higher education etc) and that seems dead right and that is typically how ideological analyses of higher education and intellectual culture work (from gender to a variety of other issues relating to power - class, race and so on). Of course, there will always be the odd crazy (or possibly even decent) individual who'll have an influence on things but do people really need to be defending themselves against charges of being personally misongynist and so on? Instead, if people want to continue this debate, perhaps the following could be a guide: a) avoid the defence of how the given blogger is indiviudally not sexist; b) avoid the mildly angst-ridden liberal rhetoric; c) keep critiquing cultural and social trends which maintain gender roles and power structures and so on and so on and so on; d) look at how dominant power roles in groups influence general outputs, irrespective of how wonderfully liberal given person is, and, for the love of all things holy, e) avoid the impression that listing favourite women might just be little more than tokenism (Jim West was right to critique this sort of thing).

BNTC 2009

2009-07-13T13:40:00.002Z

The abstracts for some of the Seminar Papers and all of the Short Papers for BNTC 2009 are up on the website. The Jesus seminar abstracts will be up soon but here is an exclusive...

The Lukan Presentation of Herod Antipas and His Involvement in the Death of Jesus
Douglas J. Dalrymple

This paper will address the tensions in the Lukan narrative on the conduct of Herod Antipas. First there is the tension between the Pharisees’ report of Herod Antipas’ hostility towards Jesus and Pilate's assertion at the trial scene that Herod Antipas had found Jesus innocent of the charges that had been brought against him. Secondly there is the tension between Pilate's thrice repeated declaration of the innocence of Jesus in the trial scenes with the subsequent assertion by Luke that the Jerusalem community believed that both Pilate and Herod Antipas had acted together against Jesus. Luke is the only canonical gospel that suggests that there was antipathy between Herod Antipas and Jesus. Mark, Matthew, Luke and Josephus attest to the involvement of Herod Antipas in the death of John the Baptist. Luke merely states that Herod Antipas has beheaded John whereas Mark, Matthew and Josephus provide different explanations as to the causal factors for the Baptist's execution. Using the criteria adopted by scholars for the study of the historical Jesus, this paper will explore possible reasons why Herod Antipas may have acted against Jesus and attempt to reconcile the tensions in the Lukan narrative from the perspective of rhetorical criticism.

The Politicisation of the Historical Jesus
James Crossley

The political location of historical Jesus scholarship is nothing new, the most obvious example being the Nazi Jesuses. That dominant cultural and political trends influence scholarship despite contradictory personal politics is also nothing new, the most obvious example being mid-twentieth century anti-Jewish scholarship from scholars opposed to fascism and the Nazi party. This paper will look at the ways in which the historical Jesus has been politicised in present day critical scholarship with particular reference to trends in Anglo-American political and popular culture and with the assistance of the political and cultural analysis of Gramsci, Chomsky, Herman, Said and others. This paper will further develop issues relating to the contextualisation of Jesus as a ‘Mediterranean’ (often located in the contemporary ‘Arab world’) alongside the lip service paid to Jesus ‘Jewishness’. In addition to the intense popular interest in the contemporary Middle East, these scholarly trends will also be located in the context of certain popular post-Sept 11 debates over atheism, secularism, and conservative religious beliefs, and how these debates have been reflected in some of the most prominently conservative and prominently radical secular scholarship in decades. Issues of intentionality will be covered with examples of how a given scholar’s personal political views (of whatever persuasion) typically end up buying into the dominant positions in Anglo-American elite political debates in their scholarly output, even, to some extent, the consciously radical anti-imperial Jesuses of some contemporary scholarship.

The Death and Vindication of a Beloved Son: Mark 12.1-12
Maurice Casey

The purpose of this paper is to present a reconstruction and interpretation of Mark’s Aramaic source of this passage. I argue that it is an abbreviated but accurate account of Jesus’ parable and its significance at the time. The parable was inspired by Isaiah 5.1-7. God is the owner of his vineyard, Israel. The tenants are the chief priests, scribes and elders, together with authorities such as Herod Antipas. The servants whom God sent are the prophets, whom Israel’s leaders rejected, maltreating some and killing others. The ‘beloved son’ is Jesus, the term being taken from his call vision (Mark 1.10-11). He is sent ‘last’ because Jesus was God’s final messenger to Israel, and he expected the ‘tenants’ to kill him (Mark 12.7-8), which would be his atoning death for the redemption of Israel. Jesus threatened God’s judgement on the chief priests, scribes and elders, when God’s vineyard Israel would be given to ‘others’, Jesus and the Twelve, who would sit on thrones judging the ingathered twelve tribes of Israel.

Jesus supported this picture by quoting Ps. 118.22-23, one of the Hallel psalms set for Passover. He is the stone rejected by the ‘builders’, as Simeon the Rock said in a speech to ‘the builders’ a few weeks later (Acts 4.10-11), following Jesus’ interpretation that he would become ‘a head of a corner’ when God raised him from the dead. This is when Jesus also expected that God would finally establish his kingdom.

Mark 12.12 correctly portrays the reaction of the chief priests, scribes and elders (cf. Mark 11.27). They were seeking to destroy Jesus, but for practical reasons they waited until Judah of Kerioth handed Jesus over in a place safely away from the Passover crowds.

NT Wrong interview with Frances Flannery

2009-07-09T10:11:00.003Z

Thanks to NTW for this:

Interview between NTWrong and Frances Flannery, founder of Golem: Journal of Religion and Monsters http://www.golemjournal.org/ June 2009.

Q. First up - I see the Journal's last issue is from Spring 2007. Is it still a going concern?

Frances Flannery: We just came out with Issue Three (Spring 2009). As you can see, the quality is extremely high. The issue is very interesting and focused on the issue of monsters and “Otherness,” especially as it relates to disability, immigrants, and post 9-11 trauma. We did take longer between Issues Two and Three than we were expecting, for several reasons, including handing over the Senior Editorship to Rubina Ramji of Cape Breton University. She has proven to be an exceptional leader and I think the wait was well worth it!

Q. Why monsters? What is your personal and/or professional interest in monsters?

FF: My research specialty is in ancient Jewish and Christian apocalyptic literature, which is of course rife with monsters. I began thinking about them as culturally specific symbols, especially with respect to chaos and the transgression of categories. When I examined anthropological sources across an extremely broad band of cultures, whether modern Asia, Polynesia, or Europe, or ancient Greece and Mesopotamia, I found monsters in every single culture I ran across! How very interesting! I realized that if monsters do exist in every culture, they must serve a VITALLY important social function. To figure out that function, I needed to understand what Dracula, Frankenstein, Cyclops, Godzilla, The Dragon from Revelation, Big Foot and zombies have in common.

As it turns out, many scholars have considered the definition of monsters, and there is even a field of “monster study,” called teratology. I finally settled on a definition of monsters as those socially constructed entities that either blur existing categories or that must exist between categories, where nothing else fits. For instance, Frankenstein is both living and dead, and Big Foot is only scary if he is both Human-like and Ape-like. A giant lowland gorilla species would frighten no one! In turn, this definition implies that the function of monsters is exactly, then, 1) to allow a culture to express what category formations are important to it, 2) what boundaries are currently being challenged, and 3) thereby to express societal fears about these boundary crossings, usually as a catharsis. Godzilla, as an ancient creature awakened by atomic energy, expressed the fears of Post WWII Japan and America in the nuclear age. Monsters are thus vital to the mental health of a culture, and keys to what a culture values. With Clifford Geertz, I consider religion to be a cultural system. Hence, monsters must be crucially important to understanding religion.

Q. Why did you choose such a topic for a new journal?

FF: I started GOLEM after teaching an upper-level course at Hendrix College in Conway, AR on “Religion and Monsters,” a course I will also teach at James Madison University in Harrisonburg, VA. The course employed a variety of methodologies and definitions of monsters, drawn from anthropology of religion, religious studies, ritual studies, and aesthetics. I knew immediately that the course would have “buzz” around it, that students would be intrigued with the topic right off the bat. Of course it over-enrolled, because monsters are cool! But I never realized that the course would generate the most sophisticated thinking from my students that I had encountered. In addition, it stimulated my own thinking in ways that made me look at my own research topics - apocalypticism, mysticism and terrorism - in a completely new light. I wanted to create a forum for others, from a variety of humanities and art related disciplines, to think about monsters and their significance in various contexts. The journal is especially committed to interdisciplinary methodologies that result in a broad range of topics for investigation. So far GOLEM has generated articles, to name a few, on monsters and otherness, disability, the construction of normalcy, horror films, posthumanism, ecological devastation, class, ethnicity, the Ancient Near East, and Christian Evangelicalism and intelligent design. And there are so many more interesting avenues to explore!

Q. If somebody is interested in writing for the journal, are there any future topics planned, and/or does the journal accept general-purpose articles at any time?

FF: We do accept general-purpose, scholarly articles at any point, and articles are judged in a peer-reviewed editorial process for acceptance. An article must have a clear methodology in order to receive a positive review, but the topics of research may be widely ranging. At present, I know that the journal editors are especially keen on the topics of monsters as they related to terrorism and symbols of ethnic groups, because that issue is so germane to our contemporary global situation.

Also, I would add that we are eager to get the word out about “GREMLIN,” a place in the GOLEM journal for undergraduate publishing on the topic of religion and monsters.

Q. Thanks in advance, and please feel free to add any comments about GOLEM that you wish to make known.

FF: If you have room, I’d like to mention a few of my favorite books on religion and monsters as a way of stimulating some of your readers to write submissions for GOLEM. You could reprint the bibliographic information alone, or include my short descriptions. Thank you so much! }

I think your readers would enjoy the following works to stimulate their own investigations of religion and monsters:

Beal, Timothy K. Religion and Its Monsters. New York : Routledge, 2002. ISBN: 0415925886. Beal’s book is an insightful, wide-ranging account of monsters in a variety of religious contexts and media, including: the ancient Near East, Bible, rabbinic tradition, orientalism, Hobbes’ Leviathan, Stoker’s Dracula, Rowling’s Harry Potter, Murnau’s Nosferatu, Lang’s Metropolis and Lovecraft’s Cthulhu.

Byron, Gay L. Symbolic Blackness and Ethnic Difference in Early Christian Literature. New York : Routledge, 2002. ISBN: 0415243696. Byron astutely reappraises the symbolic use of “Egypt/ Egyptians,” “Ethiopia/Ethiopians,” and “Blacks/blackness” in early Christian writings and associations made between certain Africans and demons, sexual vices, sin and heresy (5).

Cohen, David, ed. Monster Theory: Reading Culture. Minneapolis : University of Minnesota Press, 1996. ISBN: 0816628556. All fourteen articles have something to offer, and many touch directly on issues of religion (e.g. Michael Uebel, “Unthinking the Monster: Twelfth-Century Responses to Saracen Alterity,” 264-291). The case studies include a variety of historical and literary approaches from antiquity to the present day, concentrating especially on the relationship of monsters, body and disabilities (e.g. Allison Pingree, “ America ’s ‘United Siamese Brothers’: Chang and Eng and Nineteenth-Century Ideologies of Democracy and Domesticity,” 92-114; Stephen Pender, “No Monsters at the Resurrection: Inside Some Conjoined Twins,” 143-167).

Gilmore, David D. Monsters: Evil Beings, Mythical Beasts, and All Manner of Imaginary Terrors. Philadelphia : University of Pennsylvania Press, 2003. ISBN: 0812237021. Gilmore succeeds in sketching a comparative and Freudian study of monsters that treats not only “Western” ones, but also examples from indigenous America, Canada, Asia, the Pacific Islands and Africa.

Girard, Réné. The Scapegoat. Yvonne Freccero, trans. Baltimore , MD : Johns Hopkins University Press, reprinted in 1989. ISBN: 0801839173. Girard uses the Christ myth as the paradigmatic example of the scapegoat, a symbolic target for collective fear and aggression. He claims that most societies are actually based on the ritual sacrifice of some victimized, marginalized other and offers numerous examples from antiquity to modernity to support his bold thesis. Ultimately, Girard aims to expose the fratricidal tendencies of societies by highlighting the concept of stranger and scapegoat, which carry religio-philosophical implications. In this sense, his work has influenced several scholars who research societal and ritual monsters.

Graham, Elaine L. Representations of the Post/Human: Monsters, Aliens and Others in Popular Culture. New Brunswick , N.J. : Rutgers University Press, 2002. ISBN: 0813531598. As the title indicates, Graham is interested in exploring ongoing shifts in human identity in light of recent technology, bio-medicine and cybernetics. To accomplish this, she explores two surprisingly complementary narrative sites, science and popular culture.

Harpham, Geoffrey G. On the Grotesque: Strategies of Contradiction in Art and Literature. Princeton , N.J. : Princeton University Press, 1982. ISBN: 0691102171. This earlier work has been influential in monster research across disciplines since Harpham uses an eclectic approach drawn from art history, literature, religious studies and psychology to focus on “the grotesque.”

Kearney, Richard. Strangers, Gods and Monsters. New York : Routledge, 2003. ISBN: 0415272580. This philosophical approach to monsters places them in a wider context of many beings of alterity and borderline experience, including divinities, making for an interesting reflection on religion and monsters. Kearney comments on relevant reflections by a host of philosophers and theologians, including: Kant, Hegel, Marx, Levinas, Derrida, Caputo, Kristeva, Lyotard and particularly Heidegger and Girard. Kearney ’s case studies derive mostly from “Western tradition”: Jewish and Christian history, UFOlogy, Shakespeare and Joyce, Euro-American politics of terror and Platonic and psychoanalytical interpretations of khora.

Kiej’e, Nikolas. Japanese Grostesqueries. Text by Terence Barrow. Rutland , VT : Charles E. Tuttle, 1973. ISBN: 080480656X. I love this book! Kiej’e has compiled a valuable visual collection of Japanese examples of the grotesque, monstrous figures that range from female ghosts to male ogres. In addition to the stunning woodcuts, prints and other visual media, there is also an informative article by Barrow, “Ghosts, Ghost-Gods, and Demons of Japan” (7-28).

Law, John. A Sociology of Monsters: Essays on Power, Technology and Domination. New York : Routledge, 1991. ISBN: 0415071399. Law puts forward a Marxist analysis of “monster” as a symbol of social force, demonstrating that the European literary monster archetype symbolizes capitalism. Indeed, in Das Kapital, Marx himself states, “Capital is dead labour which, vampire-like, lives only by sucking living labour, and lives the more, the more labour it sucks.”

Mode, Heinz. Fabulous Beasts and Demons. New York : Phaidon, 1973. ISBN: 0714816426. This work by Mode, a professor of oriental archaeology, is really a modern bestiary. Employing an archaeological and art history approach to the topic of monsters, it includes over four hundred illustrations covering five thousand years of humanity’s fascination with monsters, organized by type. Mode’s interest is definitely ontology as is clear in his definition of “monster”: “a new shape resulting from a combination . . . of characteristic components or properties of different kinds of living things or natural objects . . . it does not occur in nature, but belongs solely to the realm of the human imagination . . . a new type capable of life in art and in the imagination” (7).

Strickland, Debra Higgs. Saracens, Demons & Jews: Making Monsters in Medieval Art. Princeton : Princeton University Press, 2003. ISBN 0-691-05719-2. Strickland’s excellent offering is a focused and complete iconographic investigation of medieval bestiaries and other art, which evince a deep and polemical fascination with non-Christian “monsters”: Jews, Muslims, Mongols and imaginary mutants from far-flung regions. The work includes crisp images and color plates of surprising images, as well as a cogent, thorough analysis by Strickland.

Žižek, Slavoj. Enjoy Your Symptom!: Jacques Lacan in Hollywood and Out. New York : Routledge, 2nd ed. 2001. ISBN: 0415928125. Also: The Plague of Fantasies. London : Verso, 1997. ISBN: 1859841937. Žižek deserves a mention for his varied philosophical and social reflections on the monstrous sublime. In Enjoy Your Symptom! he asserts that the postmodern world is fascinated with “the Thing, with a foreign body in a social texture” (123), which he explores in film and culture. In other words, Žižek postulates that monsters are self-fulfilling prophecies of (post)modernity. In Plague of Fantasies, he comments on everything from national differences in toilet design to Schumann to argue that critical thought should work towards the abstract. Most helpful for our purposes is the way in which Žižek’s philosophy presses to the extreme earlier reflections on the sublime (see Jean-Francois Lyotard, Lessons on the Analytic of the Sublime, 1994), claiming that that diabolical Evil and Good are the same, given “the monstrosity of a crazy, sadistic God” (229).

Special or General?

2009-06-01T21:56:00.002Z

I refer of course to the SBL Forum piece Michael Bird with (q: what's the difference between 'with' and 'and' in a partnership?) Craig Keener and much discussed on blogs. I have nothing to add on what's best, who's wonderful etc but maybe I will add a different comment on, well, some concepts of 'general'.

The NT isn't very big really but it is made big, so to speak, by the sheer amount of scholarship and no doubt it will become increasingly difficult, or increasingly bigger, as more and more gets written. But is being an expert in Paul, Jesus, and something else in the NT very general in terms of primary source material studied? I just don't know and it will depend on definitions etc but it seems this debate could further place NT studies in a ghetto. I mean, couldn't we define a generalist as someone who could do interesting things beyond NT and couldn't a specialist be someone who could do things on Paul and Jesus. Well, it's all definition I suppose.

An analogy: Shakespeare studies. Are specialists those who focus on Hamlet while generalists can cover tragedies AND comedies AND poetry? No doubt there are plenty of experts on some very precise detail - there always are and I can appreciate that - but this analogy makes NT studies seem a little odd, at least to me. Though not having anything like enough experience of Shakespeare studies, I imagine there's loads written - there certainly was when I was when I was an undergraduate. But I have been at conferences where scholars can move from Shakespeare to Beckett to whatever without it at least seeming unusual.

Perhaps reception history could change these matters. If people want to look at themes and texts through the ages, then that would require something beyond mere specialism...right...?

EABS Graduate Symposium, 19th-21st June 2009

2009-04-23T23:40:00.004Z

Should've publicised this a while back... Anyway, I understand there are still a couple of places left and it looks like a very good idea to me. I know there will be a combination of the usual academic presentation of ideas and practical information on careers, publications etc. Well, I'm going and I'll be talking.

EABS Graduate Symposium, 19th-21st June 2009
A weekend event supported by EABS is being run by and for graduates at a residential theological library in St Deiniol's Library, Hawarden, North Wales. In attendance will be PhD candidates, postdoctoral researchers and experienced professors.

These presentations will give all participants the opportunity to learn about advanced subjects outside of their usual experiences and research interests while the presenter experiences what it is like to ‘teach’ advanced students.
Attending professors will present on topics such as ‘How to find employment’, ‘Realistic career-opportunities in a challenged discipline’ and other aspects of the development of graduates which do not form an integral part of doctoral training at all institutions. There will also be possibilities for discussion on matters many will have experience of such as publishing, gaining copyright permissions and presenting at conferences.

There will be a tour of the library and opportunity to make use of the facilities.
All attendees will eat and drink together in the communal dining room.

The Venue

St. Deiniol's Library, a theological library with a speciality in Church History, the 19th century and Prime Minister Gladstone. It is a 20-minute bus ride from Chester station and an hour train ride from Liverpool Lime Street station. The venue can easily be reached from Liverpool and Manchester airports. The library is located in a small village with basic amenities and a castle. There are a number of short but beautiful walks in the surrounding countryside. http://www.st-deiniols.com/

The Cost

£80 including 2 nights b&b, 2 dinners, lunch on Saturday and refreshments.

Further Information and Application Forms:
Emma England (University of Amsterdam) e.e.england@uva.nl
Dr Jonathon Stökl (Cambridge University) js801@cam.ac.uk
Anthony Braddick-Southgate (King’s College London) cambs2008@btinternet.com
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/eabs_graduate_forum/

St Deiniol's is a very pretty place and the library for biblical studies is very useful. I've always had fun at St Deinol's and no doubt will again.

'I am not a man...I am Cantona'; or football/soccer films to watch

2009-03-29T13:12:00.008Z

Two flms relating to football are forthcoming and look a little better than some of the previous ones (as Peter Bradshaw put it, 'an under-reported development in cinema is how football is now being excitingly filmed'). Firstly, the Damned United about Brian Clough's time in charge at Leeds (44 days) in 1974 and his ongoing rivalry with Don Revie. As a bonus it stars the excellent Michael Sheen. The dark and controversial novel by David Peace is made much lighter according to the reviews though there seems to be some agreement that the film still stands on its own merits. If you want a glimpse of 70s local tv (Yorkshire) sports interviewing, try this fantastic debate between Clough and Revie (the man Clough succeeded, hugely influential at Leeds and then England manager) the very same night, Scott Murray reports, after Clough was sacked. It is a fantastic historical piece. (Some people have said it wait for several minutes for this work, load in (or whatever the right terminology is) but it seems to work ok for me.)

The other big football related film event concerns my great hero, Eric Cantona. Cantona was, as you all know, the greatest player of the 1990s and massively influential in turning Man United (presently Champions of England, Champions of Europe, Champions of the World) into a major force. And the film is directed by Ken Loach! This is not so much a football film but more about a postman in Manchester who is a bit down and gets life guidance from visions of King Eric. The fantastic line of this title is in the trailer here.

Jesus in an Age of Terror (N. America)

2009-03-27T12:08:00.002Z

It seems as if Jesus in an Age of Terror might be more easily available to those in N. America via Oxbow/David Brown, the US distributor for Equinox.

Chris Zeichmann on Jesus in an Age of Terror

2009-03-27T11:17:00.002Z

Chris Zeichmann has given a very detailed summary and review of Jesus in an Age of Terror. I am particularly grateful to Chris, not least because he was very complimentary. He has also engaged in a way that makes this reader, at least, think. He raises very good questions which will hopefully help in the clarification of my position. He also raises an extremely interesting issue that never occurred to me when writing the book and got me thinking even more about some different ideas (we’ll come back to that towards the end). I also think some of my points are more to do with clarification and so we might not be in much disagreement in what he raises…but we might – let’s see what Chris thinks. And good to see a mention of a book that needs further discussion or at least reading by those in the mainstream of historical studies of Christian origins, Shawn Kelley’s Racializing Jesus.

I won't focus on the nice points and instead look at those minor critical points Chris raises and I’ll do my best to answer…

Chris says that ‘Neyrey’s intent could be much more benign: if we cannot understand people in our own time, how can we understand those some 2000 years ago? If this were the intended reading, the use of the “Middle East” is simply a heuristic and convenient analogy’. Yes, I would sort of go along with this and intentions are another question I think (some are certainly honourable and I know some of the people I critique have personal politics which go directly against their stereotyping of ‘the Arab’ and some strong critics of Anglo-American foreign policy who unwittingly buy into some of the arguments they would ordinarily oppose). Part of the book is designed to explain why intellectual movements emerged when they did. I think cultural anthropology in NT studies emerged partly in the context of wide ranging stereotyping of ‘the Arab’, ‘Muslim’, ‘the Persian’, ‘the Middle East’ and so on. This doesn’t necessarily mean, I’d add, that all users of cultural anthropology in NT studies make outrageous comments. I don’t really make a judgment on Neyrey on this issue, at least not here, other than to explain that it is part of a trend that depicts the US in distinction from the Middle East etc. It could, theoretically, still be a useful reading, as Chris suggests, as well as being a reading explicable in terms on recent history. Of course, other scholars do come up with some outrageous statements about Arabs but in this case I wouldn’t make much of a moral judgement.

Chris adds that ‘It is unclear to me why Crossley targeted the Context Group in particular, especially given his social-scientific proclivities in Why Christianity Happened.’ There are certainly similarities and there are several CG members with whom I’m in broad agreement and I did target ‘some’ (I made sure I kept using that qualification) CG members. However, to generalise, if I may, my approach in Why Christianity Happened was more concerned with explaining change while the CG approaches I discuss are more descriptive and less concerned with change. I give no value judgment on that now – both have their place etc – but that is one difference I’d suggest. The reason why certain members of CG are targeted is because they are the most obvious fit with the ideological developments I mention and certain figures make the some of the most outrageous comments I’ve read in recent NT scholarship. Moreover, they are very much part of the ‘mainstream’ and influential figures in NT studies. When Meier and Wright reference certain CG work for understanding the social world of Jesus, then we know such work is taken very seriously and is very much a part of mainstream NT studies. That seems worth discussing as a significant movement in the history of scholarship and in some cases much more problematic and important than if it were some crazy right wing fringe movement doing what crazy right wing fringe movements do without much attention from anyone else.

On Orientalism Chris says:

Orientalism (or the type of Orientalism that interests Crossley) is never clearly defined and this presents some of the book’s biggest problems. First, the prescriptive element of how one should describe another culture is never clear. That is, the dual problem of fetishizing the weirdness of the “Other” and reduction of their differences to a bland “sameness” finds no clear resolution herein. Second, casting such a wide net for Orientalism will likely be off-putting to some, resulting in a damned-if-you-do-damned-if-you-don’t scenario on a different level. One can ascribe to the “other” positive valuation on “our” terms, but this remains ethnocentric. Granting them positive values on their own terms, however, assumes a transcendent posturing by the scholar that comes off as rather ridiculous. Again, he does not suggest a middle ground or third way.

Yes, the lack of a sustained alternative is true but also deliberate on my part. I’m increasingly finding it difficult to answer that issue and provide an alternative. But it is also worth recalling that the book really treats NT scholarship as the primary source material rather than the NT itself and a main intention is to explain why certain trends in scholarship emerged when they did. At some points, then, the moral issue is another issue so not all are damned. Chris suggests that ‘it seems appropriate to delimit acceptable and unacceptable forms of ethnocentrism, given its inevitability.’ In one sense I do something like this. I do not criticise everyone for being part of a tradition of using anthropology since the 1970s. Some works I like and some of my earlier work is broadly social scientific and I think I’m right predictably enough but I think all this can be explained (as can my own work, including my work on Jesus and Judaism, I’d add) in terms of the ideological developments. I also talk of some approaches being ‘much more carefully qualified’ (p. 114) and ‘Some of the generalizations are milder and more aware than others in their dealings with Arabs and the Middle East, some are not necessarily inaccurate as generalizations’ (p. 115).

There are some moves where I’m not sure how we judge in moral terms. One of the most significant developments is the way in which ‘Mediterranean’ or ‘Mediterranean world’ becomes ‘Arab’ or ‘Arab world’ in several descriptions of ‘the Mediterranean’. By itself it might be a problem for geographical accuracy (!) and it might be explained in terms of obsessions with ‘the Arab world’ and it might even play into the hands of power but the moral issue is more ambiguous.

There are, however, worse sentiments expressed and ones where the issues just discussed can enhance such sentiments. I am very critical of the use of the not-so-tasteful stereotypes which I obviously do not like (claims that contemporary Arabs/Arab mind obsessed with sex, contemporary Arabs/Arab mind not suited to democracy, contemporary Arabs/Arab mind prone to violent political movements, Arab as suicide bomber or kidnapper etc. etc.). I’d stop short in explaining too closely good and bad ethnocentrism because I’m not sure a helpful definition can actually be given, at least not in any strong sense. I do think I can persuade at least some people that Arabs being obsessed sex, being drawn to violent movements, being defined as suicide bombers and so on is not right.

When Chris says ‘One can ascribe to the “other” positive valuation on “our” terms, but this remains ethnocentric’, I can only agree. That’s also partly why I wasn’t interested in reconstructing (I also wanted to treat scholarly sources as primary sources so reconstruction would have been out of place). The only solution I really suggested was to stop or, at the very least, question the very unfortunate stereotyping of the ‘Middle East’ and ‘the Arab’. I prefer the general ‘Orientalism’ because it concerns the Said-critique tied in with politics and covers a lot of key aspects which I think are documented as part of the contemporary concerns with the Middle East and Islam. Furthermore, many details of Said have been analysed and critiqued but I think it is fair to say the general picture suggested by Said is one with which many of us would agree. I also think that such a broad use is important for my purposes because it covers the broad spectrum of views, both in cultural contexts and scholarly contexts.

On the bloggers, yes, this involved dealing with friends and that wasn’t always pleasant. I could have chosen any number of people and blog entries but there has to be limits of course (as it happens even more useful material has come to light since I submitted and NT Wrong’s blog and its reception would have been a very useful blog to analyse – in fact it all is: watch this space for more to come on that topic…). Jim West was particularly useful in one instance because the key modern political factors were raised on a post about ancient issues which brought together a number of other bloggers so it was blogging gold for my analysis! Jim West was also one of the key exceptions on the issue of the discussion of the Iraq war aftermath (though significantly ignored) and I had to include that, I think.

An aside on Nadia Abu el-Haj: happily she did gain tenure. I wonder if the campaign against her (and I’m worried I’m giving out tips to those with whom I profoundly disagree!) focused far too heavily on things she simply did not say and invented things about her. Presumably the committee would easily have seen through the fact she did not argue that Jerusalem was not destroyed by the Romans (in fact she simply stated the standard view that the Romans did) and so on.

I like this:

Finally, it seems that Crossley’s work would have benefited from a discussion of secularization, especially as it relates to Orientalism and as a catalyst for focusing on specifically “religious” aspects of Israel as sites for potential “antisemitism” (e.g., the Temple, kosher lifestyle). The near-equivocation of “Israel” with “Judaism” in the media seems important to this point. Similarly, Richard King has written a very solid book (Orientalism and Religion) that deals with the characterization of “the mystic East” as a response to contemporary anxieties about secularity. The role of the non-rational in Malina’s work seems particularly ripe for analysis in these terms (I think especially of his chapter on envy). But this point might be moot, since Crossley’s work appears to focus more intently on the “what” and “how,” rather than “why,” questions.

That’s a very interesting suggestion. In this book I partly wanted to avoid issues of ‘secular’ as something distinct from ‘religious’ because I think the problems are similar among those claiming to be ‘religious’ or ‘secular’ alike (hence I gave examples from a range of perspectives). But I think Chris has raised a very significant issue and the potential for a different but related kind of research. I wonder, for example, if something like the championing of Bailey’s work on Jesus and the Middle East would fit into ‘the characterization of “the mystic East” as a response to contemporary anxieties about secularity’? I stress issues of right and wrong could be put to one side (or not, depending on taste) but it would certainly be an interesting point for someone to pursue and I can think of several examples which might back up such an argument. Yes, I like that idea.

Chris calls his points ‘minor quibbles’ and I’d respond that my answers are meant in good spirit and are really only points of clarification. His review was detailed, very positive and fair and that’s a good thing from my point of view. I’m also pretty certain there will be some extremely hostile responses in the future (I’ve braced myself for some time now) so it is particularly gratifying to read Chris’ positive response, particularly as he knows more than a thing or two about this area.

Dilettante Hobby Horse

2009-03-26T20:13:00.003Z

This blog has been mentioned a couple of times: Dilettante Hobby Horse! Like the special post on Wrong's blog, 'all wacky comments on your blogs are encouraged to be dumped in the comments section on this blog. DHH is giving its comments section for the many.'

There are many candidates in my comments section...

John Hobbins, Jesus in an Age of Terror and imperialism

2009-03-23T21:43:00.019Z

UPDATE: Here is John Hobbins' bizarre response. I know, I know, why bother and all that...the advice various people have given (off blogs as well as on) is right, I really shouldn't (see John Lyons' comments here). But isn't there something quite perverse about this complete lack of engagement with the arguments in light of the questions raised?

The rhetorical effect reminds me of a game of hide-and-seek. If I play hide-and-seek with my 5 year old, she justifiably gets upset if I end the game by discovering where's she hiding right away. The unwritten rules of the game state that I must circle around and pretend I know a lot less than I do, and make the discovery only after a suitable lag in time.
So it is with Crossley. He's crying in his beer because I've pointed out something he doesn't want his readers to know upfront: that he operates from a bunker in la la land when it comes understanding the realities of contemporary geopolitics. The bunker is lined with "masses and masses of evidence" as interpreted by Gregory, Said, and Chomsky. From that bunker he takes potshots at others. Sorry to blow your cover, James. But I think you blow your cover on your own.

Well obviously there is nothing of substance there so I can't respond and the daft nature of it doesn't really inspire much confidence (not to mention the inaccuracies). All the questions I raised still stand needless to say but he seems more into that shock jock rhetoric so I won't hold my breath... One of these days, Hobbins is actually going to have to provide evidence to back up his claims about the people he thinks are so deluded. He's admitted to not having or reading my book (!!) and felt it was enough to predict what was in it (though curiously he didn't mention that the first time) so who knows if he even cares about such things? I'm going to give him one piece of advice: give examples (e.g. from my book, from the works of Said, Gregory, Chomsky etc) to show the faults...

In the comments section, NT Wrong returns and shows the serious problems and very innocent reading of the Bible (and let's remind ourselves he using the Bible for contemporary geopolitical analysis while accusing others...!!) while I really should take Roland's wise advice (definitely read his comments in the comments section below)

John Hobbins has made some criticisms of my (apparent) views relating to Jesus in an Age of Terror and Jim West has made some very telling criticisms. I want to make my own response now.

Hobbins says:

...at least Ferguson avoids the simplistic anti-imperialism which fills the mouths of many in academia...It pays to have a grasp of the criteria by which imperialisms were evaluated in the biblical tradition, and to relate that tradition to America's exceptionalism, real or imagined. On that basis it becomes possible to make better sense out of the contemporary realities of international politics. The alternatives, Realpolitik, neo-conservatism, and isolationism, not to mention the anti-imperialistic approach of Noam Chomsky championed, it appears, by James Crossley in his coffee-table special, have, it is not too much to say, rather less going for them.

Now I would like to know my 'anti-imperialistic approach' according to Hobbins. In my book I discussed the broad cultural stereotypes and propaganda underlying contemporary American imperialism (with British help) and how these are replicated in NT studies and related areas (including blogging - ironically enough). I discussed the stereotypes about Arabs and Muslims and the ways in which 'Jewishness' and Israel is supported in contemporary culture and scholarship in a way that says more about Anglo-American agendas than it does about the object of study. I also suggested that much of contemporary culture, including scholarship, effectively supports Anglo-American imperialistic agendas.

I say this because it is actually a view that can (and has) been accepted by left or right on the political spectrum. You could still be a hard imperialist and recognise the importance of gaining cultural support and using propaganda for an imperialist (or nationalist) agenda. The readings of Leo Strauss might be an example of this as would countless others. My own views on imperialism are not made explicit in the book though I imagine it would be easy to make an educated accurate guess. Where I am explicit is my explicit criticisms of the outrageous stereotypes concerning Arabs and Muslims (among others) and dubious generalisations about a fixed Jewish identity. For example, I said that if Arabs really are prone to joining extremist political movements, are not suited to democracy, obsessed with sex and so on and if 'the Mediterranean' (the category overlaps with 'Arab' in some NT scholarship) abuses family members for their own good then, in addition to this being a product of contemporary Orientalist rhetoric, we really need widespread evidence and not assertions. And of course, why is this being asserted without evidence...well, I think that's obvious. I also added that there are many disgracefully inaccurate references to Muslims and Muslim history and lies said about Palestinians. These can be put right of course but many people seem uninterested in doing so. Why...well, guess...

Where I discussed and developed Chomsky (and we'll return to Hobbins on that matter soon) on areas relating to imperialism concerned issues such as the ways in which the defence of the estimated deaths of 500,000 children in Iraq under the sanctions or US support for some extremely brutal dictators responsible for mass murder as well as racist stereotypes concerning 'the Arab'. Developments along these lines include the previous US/UK support for figures such as Islam Karimov of Uzbekistan - known to boil opponents to death - and the ways in which opposition even from the British ambassador in Uzbekistan was suppressed. Things of that order.

Now let us return to Hobbins' evaluation of my argument. For a start, Jim West is on to something when he points to Hobbins' phrase 'the anti-imperialistic approach of Noam Chomsky championed, it appears, by James Crossley' [my bold]. Has he read the book? I don't know one way or the other. For now let us push Hobbins' logic. My 'alternative' involved criticising the use of racist language and stereotyping. It also criticised the ways in which people defended or avoided issues of death, murder, mass murder linked in with Anglo-American foreign policy. According to Hobbins's logic, such alternatives 'it is not too much to say, rather less going for them.'

I maybe wrong and it maybe necessary for international law to be broken and/or for racist stereotyping and support of murder and mass murder to be necessary and if so then I am presumably naive and wrong and in need of an alternative view. Therefore I need to know why, according to Hobbins' logic, this is necessary. It seems as if I am not reading too much into Hobbins' logic because he continues by adding 'A non-politically correct, non-stupid take on international affairs and geopolitics is hard to come by, but it does exist.' So, I'd add, I really need to know why it is politically correct and stupid to be concerned about mass murder, racist stereotyping and so on. Why is it 'politically correct' and stupid to think that wildly generalising statements about Jews, Muslims and Arabs and lies about Palestinians are wrong? Is it non-stupid to think that endorsing lies and mass murder etc is right? Does Hobbins think it is right to make such generalisations and stereotypes and does he think it is important and non-stupid to use racist language and lie about people? By his own logic in his reading of me then he must. So I suspect he doesn't actually know what he is arguing (to steal an argument from Chomsky) because I'd be amazed if Hobbins really endorsed racism and lying in reality and claimed that it was non-stupid to do so.

As an aside, I'd like to know what this phrase 'politically correct' actually means because it is used in ways that seem ridiculous to me. I'll confess, I'm struggling to understand why my argument is 'politically correct'. And stupid.

Hobbins then recommends figures such as Niall Ferguson (among other things) as 'the makings of a credible alternative to the politics of the Copenhagen/Sheffield school of “postcolonial Biblical Studies” promoted by Jim West (in his own words, “the Don King of the Sheffield school”).'

Now as far as I am aware from what I have read of, and heard from, Ferguson does not endorse the support of racism, stereotypes and mass murder but I haven't read enough of Ferguson. But that is the alternative to my argument and Hobbins' logic has to be deemed somewhat disturbing here. As an aside, Hobbins says Ferguson's view of imperialism includes this: 'Just like the British Empire a century ago, the United States aspires to globalize free markets, the rule of law, and representative government.' Well, that seems a bit naive when we recall those sanctions, support for a host a brutal dictators, mass murder etc - all heavily documented evidence. So is a credible alternative (if we assume my arguments for a moment) to ignore lies, ignore racism, ignore stereotypes, ignore support for mass murder and so on?

As for the Sheffield/Copenhagen school of postcolonial biblical studies, I'm a little confused here. It is certainly true that Sheffield has a tradition of postcolonial studies in the broad sense (and, speaking for myself, I'd have no problem being associated with a school of postcolonial studies) and given the links with Gregory, Said and even Chomsky I can see why someone would label my work as postcolonial in a broad sense (but just don't ask me about the details of definitions etc). I have to confess that I'm not so sure it shares something in common with Copenhagen on this issue. I suspected that Hobbins confused this with the minimalist debate in HB/OT studies. As it turned out Bryan Lee raised the issue on Hobbins' blog and Hobbins said:

It seems to me that minimalism in a broad sense - a radical questioning of the things we thought we knew happened as reported in the Old and the New Testaments - is put to good use as it were by James Crossley among others at Sheffield and beyond in the quest for a "postcolonial" politics. The politics are not unusual on university campuses of a certain type. They are of course unusual to non-existent everywhere else. It is the fusion of a radically skeptical approach to the study of the Bible with a number of leftist political imperatives that one naturally associates with Sheffield and Copenhagen.

I think Hobbins has confused minimalism too much with postcolonialism here. I don't know the political affiliations of the Copenhagen people for a start (left, right, I don't know). I'm not even sure of those typically designated minimalists at Sheffield. Hobbins adds,

To be sure, I have the utmost respect for Sheffieldians like Crossley. They lay their politics out on the table. They don’t pretend. Well, neither do I.

I wonder if this is actually fair. I didn't really lay my politics out on the table (at least not in any detail) even if it is possible to make an educated guess. I'm not even sure that all the Sheffield people have even laid their cards on the table either. I know people like Dever have guessed (wrongly and without evidence) and come close to dressing this up as fact but I wonder if the politics of Sheffield (and Copenhagen) people is something that has often been imposed from outside.

But more significantly, perhaps, I'm not sure I can be tied in with minimalsim in the sense I think Hobbins is suggesting: 'a radically skeptical approach to the study of the Bible'. I suppose I am sceptical in the sense that I don't really care too much about arguments made in the Bible for my life (is that scepticism...? I dunno). But minimalism is more an OT/HB thing at Sheffield. In terms of historical accuracy etc. I can only say I am a minimalist when it comes to John. I'm pretty moderate if not conservative when it comes to the synoptics (I also keep finding myself in agreement with certain evangelicals when it comes to Paul - another story I suppose) and there has not been a real minimalist NT tradition at Sheffield (in a dept founded by FF Bruce!). I think there is a point in what Hobbins says here but it is a little confused. Hobbins adds, 'We (Hobbins v Sheffield) just happen to disagree on a few details of political and historical interpretation, ancient and modern.' Maybe Hobbins wouldn't disagree with me so much on the ancient historical interpretation of the NT as much as he thinks. But I don't know his NT views - maybe he is more of a minimalist than me.

Now Chomsky and a little textual variation. The above quotation citing Chomsky had an 'original version' still available on Jim West's blog which spoke of 'the painfully ridiculous approach of Noam Chomsky championed, it appears, by James Crossley'. Hobbins removed the 'painfully ridiculous' bit. That's fine. I've certainly changed things post-blog publication and have no problem with people doing likewise. But Hobbins re-emphasises the view:

I still think Chomsky’s approach to geopolitics is painfully ridiculous. But whether it is or not was not germane to the point I was interested in making, so I blanded the post down.

This may be in relation to my argument. If so, it would still be interesting to know what he means by this. Chomsky has provided masses and masses of evidence to show the behaviour of the US, whether it is support for sanctions in Iraq or Wolfowitz supporting the murderer Suharto. This sort of stuff is the bulk of Chomsky's political output so I would be very curious to know why it is painfully ridiculous. If not, what is 'painfully ridiculous' about Chomsky's politics? I ask not simply for the most important issue of morality but also because I argued in Jesus in an Age of Terror that, among all intellectuals, Chomsky is dismised not by dealing with the masses of evidence he collected but by cheap rhetoric not dissimilar to that of Hobbins (some much worse and some simply inventing things about him). So if Hobbins would be willing, I'd like to know why he thinks Chomsky is 'painfully ridiculous'

A final point. Let's play with Hobbins' definition of good empire. While I must confess to being a touch sceptical about people using ancient views in the Bible on Babylonian and Persian Empire to talk about contemporary imperialism while at the same time dismissing a scholar who has brought together masses of contemporary evidence of the serious moral problems with US imperialism, I'll take Hobbins at face value for the moment. Hobbins points out that:

Persian imperialism in Isa 40-48 is described in glowing terms. The Persian conquest of Babylonia and the Levant under the leadership of Cyrus was viewed positively insofar as it brought an end to Babylonian imperialism, treated everyone with a measure of respect, and fixed as a goal the extension of its writ to the Aegean isles and coastlands.

If we take this standard, I'm suggesting that the US plus UK have failed miserably. From my perspective, and I imagine many other perspectives, the use of white phosphorus in Falluja, the support for sanctions in Iraq, the handling of Palestine, the support for Suharto, Karimov, Saddam and all the others, the use of Guantánamo and so on and so on and so on is not treating everyone with a measure of respect. Now Hobbins may agree but how this biblical evidence at least is a part of a 'credible alternative to the politics of the Copenhagen / Sheffield school of “postcolonial Biblical Studies” promoted by Jim West' needs explaining.

And as for Jim West, can the man be criticised for good taste?

Jesus in Cultural Complexity

2009-03-03T21:54:00.002Z

Via a very pleasant time at St Andrews, it's time for another installment of the Olso based project, Jesus in Cultural Complexity. All the details and links can be found here. The topic/title of this conference is 'Holy land as Homeland? Models for constructing the historic landscapes of Jesus'. Here s the conference outline:

What role do modern images of “land”, “landscape”, “nation”, “ethnicity ” etc. play in constructions of the landscapes of Jesus: Galilee, Judea, Jerusalem, Israel, Palestine? There have been many discussions of how to describe e.g. Galilee at the time of Jesus, but few attempts to identify the models, ideological and cultural understandings of landscapes/ lands/ nations that underlie these descriptions.

It is the purpose of this seminar to undertake such an attempt, the goal is to combine substantial constructions and theoretical analyses. The presentations of Galilee/Palestine can serve as test-cases of many broader and more general discussions. They illustrate many of the issues that come up in discussions of archaeology and nationalism, of landscape and memory and identification for various groups with attachment to the same land.

In biblical studies landscape and space have recently become important as analytical as well as constructive categories, supplementing the traditional focus on time. This has led to an interaction between students of biblical literature and fields where place and space have been studied for a long time: geography, philosophy, cultural theory. Moreover, in the study of the social context of biblical studies in the 19th and 20th centuries there is also a growing awareness of how presentations of the “Holy land”, a very popular object of tourism, study and devotion, were shaped by pious memories and contemporary ideologies.

The papers are divided in several groupings: 1) present constructions of the space of Jesus in the Gospels/space in other Christian or Jewish texts, 2) constructions of Holy land(s) as homeland in the pre-modern and modern (19th century) period, and 3) post-modern period. 4) The historical and ideological context, particularly of 18th and 19th century Jesus/Bible studies.

And here's what's what:

Program:

Thursday, March 5:
9:00: Welcome and introduction by Halvor Moxnes
9:15-10:15: Leif E. Vaage, Emmanuel College, Toronto: Diogenes of Capernaum: Jesus the Cynic in borderland Galilee.
10:30-11:30: Karen Wenell, University of Glasgow: Land and Kingdom: Models, Boundaries and Responsibility.
11:45: Rene Baergen, Toronto School of Theology, Jesus on Water. In and Out of Place in the Lake Region of Galilee.
12:45: Lunch
14:15: Lecture at the Faculty of Theology: Burke O. Long, Bowdoin College: A real Jesus in a fake Jerusalem? Florida's Holy Land theme park. Discussion and coffee with faculty and students invited.
16:00-17:00. Liv Ingeborg Lied, PhD University of Bergen: Other lands - other stories? Reading Land in 2 Baruch.
17:15-18:15: Michael Jones, Dep. Of Geography, The Norwegian University of Science and Technology (NTNU): Stiklestad and the cult of St. Olaf: Constructing a national-religious Landscape.
18:15-19:00. Concluding discussion of day one.

Friday March 6:
09.15-10:15: Ward Blanton, The University of Glasgow: The Politics of Homelessness in and Around Paul.
10:30-11:45. Adam G. Beaver, Harvard University: Nihil sub sole novum? Early Modern Approaches to the Holy Land.
12.00-13:00: Halvor Moxnes: Homeland and Holy Land – constructions of Galilee in the 19th century.
13.00-14:00: Lunch
14.00-15:00: Keith Whitelam, University of Sheffield, on the cartography of Palestine, 19th c. (title to be discussed)
15:15-16:15: James Crossley, University of Sheffield: Are Politicians Any Different When They Play Away from Home? Historical Jesus and the Land according to Recent British Members of Parliament.
16:15-16:45: Coffee-break
16.45:-19:00: Historical and ideological contexts for (18th)19th century constructions of Jesus and the Holy land.
16:45-17:20: Jonathan Birch, The University of Glasgow: The Road to Reimarus: History, Morality and Political Theology.
17:20-18:00: Todd Penner, Austin College: Landscapes of Nationalism and the Formations of Biblical Scholarship.
18:00-19:00: Concluding discussion of day two.

More on academic freedom

2009-03-02T20:11:00.002Z

Roland Boer has his suspicions about the way academic freedom is being used in the discussions of the Luedemann episode. I think he is largely right but I’d question those areas of ambiguity in Roland’s comments. Roland concludes:

I won’t go into what is really a long, long story, except to point out that the debate over academic freedom is actually a debate over which master you prefer. In the discussion about Luedemann, it’s clear that most prefer the state as master rather than the church, especially when it comes to that last battleground of theology and biblical studies. There is a double paradox here: first the state legislates for academic freedom, which thereby makes it a constraint; then it gives the illusion of such freedom and actively undermines it through preferred research areas, funded links with ‘business’, money with strings attached, and so on.

I agree on the issue of state backing for the academic world. In Jesus in an Age of Terror I pushed this point hard, both on the relationship between higher education and universities and how this frames the questions in higher education, including biblical studies. In addition to the general point I tried to show this in practice in relation to Anglo-American foreign policies in the Middle East. I also concluded that the logic of such critique means that it could be very difficult for such arguments to be accepted in academia and so books that criticise the sensitive parts (so to speak) of state and intellectual power might be more effective outside the traditional walls of academia.

Roland also makes the general point (criticism?) that ‘In the discussion about Luedemann, it’s clear that most prefer the state as master rather than the church, especially when it comes to that last battleground of theology and biblical studies.’ I don’t know if ‘most’ is true or not. It may well be. But I’d add that I remain more hostile to the treatment of Luedemann than Roland because church interference is still a problem if (say) one goal is to reconstruct the life of Jesus and Christian origins. Now church power may not be what it once was but it does affect biblical studies in a way that it does not other disciplines and does disqualify questions and overall this has had both positives (theological perspectives) and negatives (anti-nontheological perspectives). The problems are minor compared to the ways in which state and private power/-influenced power has interfered (the most notable recent example being the case of Norman Finkelstein) and but ruling out certain questions is still a dubious way in (say) historical research and reconstruction. Because state power is a serious problem, doesn’t mean that the critique of religious power is necessarily wrong (not that Roland quite said that, of course, and Roland in his own comments section, which I noticed after I wrote all this,‘I tend to be very suspicious of both’). I’d push for the critiquing of both religious and state power in intellectual thought and that’s why I’m happy to criticise the treatment of Luedemann.

Here’s an aside…NT Wright, not for the first time, goes way over the top in his rhetoric when he suggests the following: ‘in the real world…the tyrants and bullies (including intellectual and cultural tyrants and bullies) try to rule by force, only to discover that in order do so they have to quash all rumours of resurrection, rumours that would imply that their greatest weapons, death and deconstruction, are not after all omnipotent.’ This strikes me as a little absurd and there may well be cases of certain unpleasant rulers believing in bodily resurrection (it would be interesting to find out what the Christian figures Reagan, Thatcher, Bush II, and Blair believed). Wright’s book though is as conservative and confessional as could be imagined in mainstream academia and Wright has worked at a major English university and academics in major academic positions have accepted key areas of Wright’s book. And Wright's book directly invokes the supernatural to explain Christian origins. Moreover, Wright is a major scholar of Christian origins with the support of major scholars of Christian origins so I’m not so sure his work on resurrection at least really feels the effect of cultural tyrants. Is it going too far to suggest, ‘quite the opposite’…?

Roland is no doubt right that theology/biblical studies is the last battle ground but crazy as I think Wright’s work on the resurrection is, I don’t think we should go as far as pushing this politically motivated agenda critiqued by Roland: ‘the scientific method, objectivity and critical inquiry joined the fray: to be ‘scientific’, ‘objective’ and ‘critical’ actually meant that you did not count God or the gods in the picture as a causal agent. They were and still are politically motivated claims – hardly objective at all.’ These sorts of views will no doubt be found in biblical studies and it could be argued that they may still remain important goals but setting the boundaries to exclude God/gods and divine causality isn’t done and shouldn’t be done, no matter how ridiculous some of us might think this approach to history is. Wright’s book and beliefs on resurrection are not only no serious threat to any state power but they are also no threat to the discipline of biblical studies as it stands. In biblical studies, with confessional dominance, the power is inevitably with believers and it is far more likely that we'd get more cases of a Luedemann threatened than a Wright (though I’d be very suspicious of motives if the state even bothered to intervene too much in issues like this – put another way, from the perspective of power, who cares?). We should not imagine that people still would not want to exclude others due to their beliefs. Michael Bird comes close to advocating a kind of censorship in academic university biblical studies in the comments section in previous post), at least when it comes to employing people in theology departments. These views may not be anything like as troublesome as the opponents of people like Finkelstein and Abu el-Haj but just because they are minor doesn’t mean they aren’t worth fighting (see also NT Wrong’s response to Mike – Mike never clarified in an answer sadly – and the discussion on Roland’s blog). And, I’d add, that if believers were the ones threatened in the way Luedemann was then I’d as happily challenge that mindset.

In fact, thinking about it, there’s little constructive in the above, is there? Just keep demolishing and, don’t forget kids, always fight the power and so on… Well, yes, but I think there is something constructive in what I say and there are plenty of constructive things to do in research but let’s spell those latter things out another time.

As I said, I noticed debate in the comments section on Roland’s blog which has some great interaction between Roland, NT Wrong and John Lyons which has loads of important stuff raised.

Luedemann and Academic Freedom

2009-02-22T18:07:00.002Z

No doubt many people have the information about Luedmann's appeal...

The German Federal Constitutional Court has rejected Gerd Luedemann's appeal against the exclusion of him teaching in the Theology Faculty at the University of Goettingen.

Luedemann points out that this ruling makes genuinely critical work in German theological faculties impossible.

Further details are found on James Tabor's blog and Tom Verenna's blog.

What can I say? The structure of academic biblical studies is seriously problematic as I've argued plenty of times. Can anyone give me a good reason why questions surrounding belief or non-belief, or if you like any answer to the question of the historicity of the resurrection, should be off limits in a university setting?

Badiou conference

2009-02-15T20:04:00.003Z

This was a great and very successful conference and very much Ward Blanton's baby. It didn't have the feel of a biblical studies conference as such though there were, obviously, biblical scholars (or at least people conventionally lablelled 'biblical scholars') present and presenting. This was a very good thing from the perspective of biblical studies (and non-biblical studies presumably) because it got some of 'our' stuff out there. There should be much more of this sort of thing: nothing like a load of different voices to provoke thinking.

Badiou's play, The Incident at Antioch, has yet to be published (out later this year I believe and, I think, will be published in English before French). Extracts from the play (a real catch for the conference) were read off scripts by actors who seemed to be linked with Glasgow/Glasgow University in someway and with some pretty impressive performances. The content of the play has some classic debates over Marxism (and such debates continued well into the night - another reason in favour of these multi-disciplinary things) and it'll be fun to read/see in full. But the stand out moment for me was the interview with Badiou because it really clarified his not-always-easy-to-read-and-understand book, Saint Paul: The Foundations of Universalism (1997). In fact he was very clear and coherent as were the questions.

In one sense Badiou's reading comes across as a secular Lutheran reading (if that makes sense) and strong echoes of the so-called 'old perspective' (this point came out in John Barclay's paper). It actually further convinced me that a lot of that tradition might actually be reading Paul right, even if the reading of Judaism is very suspect. Even though I think the reading is right, I do have problems - and maybe I'm paranoid here - with the hard or radical universalist reading because when abstracted so vigorously it is not difficult to make the move to the non-libertarian Marxist tradition by which I mean totalitarianism (cf. E.P. Thompson's critique of Althusser in The Poverty of Theory). All equal in Marx or Stalin? Now, I'm certainly NOT claiming that of Badiou so I ask: am I being too paranoid here in worrying about this development...? Also, the theological reading might be right but again there are similar dangers. Christianity did become Rome, after all. Moreover, it's all well and good talking about all being equal in Christ, no slaves, no male or female and so on but the oppositions remained and remained for Paul. Isn't there a case of false consciousness here...? I dunno. I'm speculating a little. But I'll ask again: am I being fair?

Incidentally, Badiou talked about four groups who need to come together even though the state will to the very best to prevent this. One was students as a potentially radical group. Those academics based in England immediately thought, I suspect, this as a particularly French thing but it was noted the next day that in Glasgow some some students had taken control of some computer centre at the university (one way to stop a modern university in its tracks) and actually won some demands on Gaza, including studentships for Gazan students. On the other hand, we were also told that some students were sprawling 'Free Gazza' (a football/soccer reference for those outside)...

Badiou and the Incident at Antioch: Glasgow

2009-02-13T00:37:00.003Z

I'm off to this and I may blog on it:

Paul, Political Fidelity and the Philosophy of Alain Badiou: a
Discussion of Incident at Antioch.

13th and 14th February 2009, University of Glasgow

----------------------------

13th February, 2009 (Western Infirmary Lecture Theatre)

14.30-16.00
Reading of Selections from Alain Badiou’s Incident at Antioch

----

16.00-16.30 Break

----

16.30-18.00
Interview with Alain Badiou
Ward Blanton (University of Glasgow) and Susan Spitzer (Los Angeles)

18.00-19.15 Reception

----------------------------

14th February, 2009 (Wolfson Medical School, Seminar Room 1)

10-11.15
The Use of Forcing: Badiou, Paul and Messianism
Kenneth Reinhard (University of California, Los Angeles)

11.30-12.45
Paul, Badiou and the Event as Gift
John Barclay (University of Durham)

----

13-14.30 Lunch

----

14.30-15.30
Ernst Bloch and Aristotle’s dynámei ón: Not-Yetness, Hope and the
Promise of the Universal
Peter Thompson (University of Sheffield, Ernst Bloch Centre)

15.45-16.45
Theatre and Politics, Althusser to Badiou
Patrick Lyons (University of Glasgow)

17-18.10
Response & Invitation to Open Discussion
Johan Van der Walt (University of Glasgow, School of Law)

I now of course expect at least 100 comments. How could there not on such a topic?

Fishing-gate

2009-02-03T18:46:00.003Z

Wrong must be laughing in biblioblog heaven. Or up there in his premier seat in the theatre of the absurd. Yes, the best thing to happen to blogging has caused another stir! This time over a naughty hobby.

Mark Goodacre liked the interview but appears to have reservations:

The interview is actually very entertaining, and the anti-bishop reveals a bit more of his voice. He is clearly enjoying trying to see what he can get away with, though, since there is an obscenity of the kind that is surprising (and frankly not entirely welcome) in an academic venue.

I don't see why such language should be a problem in an academic venue. Who decides what is welcome or not? And is biblioblogs.com (where people have been more 'relaxed' and 'jokey' to be fair) and biblioblogging really that much of an academic venue? Maybe, maybe not. I dunno. And what about some of the more naughty seminars at SBL where, I'm reliably informed, even naughtier things are openly discussed? It's welcome there so...

Anyway, I'm a bit surprised people have been bothered by this. It's not like anything racist has been said. I think some of the negative reaction is serious, though I could be wrong. If it isn't serious, I'll have to simply admit that, not for the first time, I'm the victim of the humour. The most dramatic and entertaining attack has come from David Ker. Again, I think this is serious (oh, God help me if I've misread all this...)

Ok, David says,

It’s one thing to slaughter a pig on the sacred altar. It’s quite another to fall down and worship it. But that’s in fact what has occurred at Biblioblogs.com. This august blog highlighting the best of Biblical scholars has featured a reprobate heretic and pervert as their featured blogger of the month...He confessed in the interview with Jim West that he has a special addiction for the most reprehensible sexual practice while claiming to be a husband and father.

Ok, I'm going to suggest that maybe Wrong might not be into such naughty things and it might have been a joke. I dunno. But if Wrong is into such things, consenting adults and all that...

There's this:

And rather than run screaming from the temple, our academics are applauding themselves and the latest object of their affection.

I'm guilty of the latter certainly. In a strictly intellectual way.

And this:

Who is this supposedly note-worthy blogger? Who should we as bloggers interested in the finest in Biblical studies look to as the apex of academia? It is the pseudonymous NT Wrong. NT Wrong is an excellent writer. He is a scholar of some distinction

I agree (should anyone care).

But wait...'there are several reasons why his inclusion in the highest ranks of Biblical studies should give us cause us to rend our garments and throw dust in the air' And these include:

1. He writes under a pseudonym. No self-respecting scholar will long tolerate a blogger who publishes his opinions under the cover of a false name.

A largely indifferent matter (for me at least). If it's right, it's right or wrong it's wrong. On the other hand, as pointed out in the interview, it allows him to be funnier and it allows him to say things people wouldn't say under a real name. A sad state of affairs perhaps but it is what it is.

2.

He is vulgar in the extreme. Not satisfied to pepper his posted with the most disgusting language, Wrong actually wrote a summary post proudly listing his wretched vocabulary.

Again, I can only shrug. Why does it matter? Some of us find it funny...

3.

Actual evidence of his scholarship is sketchy in the extreme.

To be fair, he seems to be the most broadly learned of any biblioblogger.

More?

Why, I ask you, should Jim West not interview Ted Haggard, a man who he has repeatedly slandered and ridiculed despite his repentance and desire to change his way?

Presumably because Haggard isn't a biblioblogger. I mean if he were, then Jim and biblioblogs.com might...?

Then this:

Instead he positively slobbers all over a flaming pervert and two-bit scholar...

An interesting image. Jim's interview was structured and written in a similar way to his usual interviews so if he's slobbered over Wrong, he's slobbered over all of us. If you see what I mean.

But then:

...who does not even claim to be a believer in the Bible or the God of the Bible!

A requirement of biblioblogger...? That means that at a couple more interviews (perhaps) ought not to have taken place.

A warning:

If you have been awarded a “Top 50 Biblioblogger” award by NT Wrong I ask you to consider if this is really a distinction worth bragging about. If the Devil calls you a saint, what are you?

I'm no longer a top 50-er and haven't been for two long and lonely months so I'm afraid I don't recall what it really feels like. :-(

And this:

Biblioblogs.com and in fact the whole of biblioblogdom is completely compromised and morally bankrupt.

A bit too apocalyptic perhaps...?

Finally:

The glory of the Lord has departed. If those who claim to know the Bible best have sunk to this depth to whom shall the people of God turn?

Come and read Earliest Christian History. It'll get me in the top 50...

Please tell me the general negative reactions were a joke...

NT Wrong interview

2009-02-01T21:02:00.002Z

This really is very, very good.

Some Responses to Jesus Project(s)

2009-01-22T23:09:00.003Z

There have been a couple of responses and I have a bit of spare time and, unusually for time and place, a wireless connection so...

1) Not all historical Jesus scholars operate with the "great man" view as evidenced by John Meier's "Marginal Jew" and Gerd Theissen's somewhat illusive "Galilean".

Actually, I think Meier is an important example of individual and great man history (so long as we don't take the great man too literally). The multi-volume project explicitly based on fact finding is a spectacular example of individualism and the individual as prime mover so to speak. This is very much a great man history (which can include those constructed as outsiders in their time).

(2) You cannot "explain" Christianity simply by reference to its socio-historical context and surrounding cultural currents because sooner or later you still need to do business with the text of the Gospels themselves: we need biography and sociology in our historical reconstruction! I assume that James would agree with me here, why else would you learn Aramaic unless you're prepared to go logion for logion and pericope for pericope.

Yes, certainly. I said challenge and test the dominant view and I think this is the key point. But yes. Also, we could look at broader issues on basically agreed points and try to explain...

(3) I also plea to James to be equally "deconstructive" to the Jesus Project as he is to other bastions of scholarship on the subject matter because he rightly recognizes how theologically and ideologically loaded all historical Jesus scholarship can be.

Yes, I have no problem with that. Indeed, my kind of thing actually. So yes, yes, yes. It may take a bit more time and hindsight before anything meaningful can be said. As a guess this Project looks like (as I think Chilton suggests) more a product of the harder secular/religious issue particularly in the States (and think also of Dawkins et al) more typical of this decade. Of course, as ever, this doesn't mean right or wrong but it is already possible to do a bit of historical and cultural contextualisation and deconstructing (sort of).

Interestingly, the Aramaic issue has been picked up by both Mike (comments on previous post) and Tom Verenna (I'll respond to his pretty detailed points in due course). I didn't really mean to stress this issue too much other than agree with Chilton so I won't add too much, other than refer, for now, to comments on Tom's blog

Jesus Project(s)

2009-01-22T14:35:00.002Z

There's been a bit of discussion of the Jesus Project on the blogs and articles on Bible and Interpretation, including one by me (vaguely propagandist but who cares?). Sadly, I wasn't able to attend the big meeting so here are my suggestions for ways in which the Jesus Project can develop:

Jesus Projects and a Different Kind of Minimalism (Perhaps)

Temporary NT Post at Sheffield

2009-01-14T22:42:00.002Z

I'll advertise this...

Lecturer (Part-time, Fixed-term) Biblical Studies

Ref No R06973

Closing Date:
19th January, 2009

Salary:
£36,532 per annum pro rata.

Summary
The postholder will design, prepare and deliver teaching programmes including preparing and supervising different modes of assessment for the following modules;

* Level 1 Decoding the Bible: New Testament
* Level 1 The Biblical World (co-taught)
* Level 2 Paul and his World
* MA New Testament Language and Texts

Candidates will be able to demonstrate appropriate experience in teaching all levels of undergraduate and Masters Students. At level 3, supervision of a number of undergraduate dissertations on New Testament Topics will also be expected. The successful candidate will also adopt a pastoral role for a number of tutees and will undertake all relevant administration and assessment of modules taught and contribute as appropriate to departmental administration. Candidates should possess or be working towards a PhD in a relevant subject area (or have equivalent experience). The post is available 20 hours per week with a start date of 2 February 2009 and an end date of 30 June 2009.

Click here (jobs.ac.uk) for all the relevant links, details and contacts.

The End of Wrong?

2009-01-09T17:25:00.002Z

Is it the end of NT Wrong? I hope not. In the words of KC and the Sunshine Band, Please Don't Go! There are many good reasons for Wrong to continue (arguably the smartest blog around is one) but one of the best has to be the relatively high level of swear words. But remember, Wrong's finished before and came back so there is hope...

Top 50 Ancient History Blogs

2009-01-09T16:27:00.002Z

This blog and other biblioblogs were included in the Top 50 Ancient History Blogs. However, the link has gone down. Does anyone know anything about this?

I'm also curious because it seemed that the choices were those blogs without the confessional additions. I wanted to check this for curiosity's sake...

Starting points and the attack on Gaza

2009-01-09T15:50:00.003Z

The general portrayal in the media, and some of the blogs, is that Hamas broke the ceasefire through launching amateur rockets and Israel had no choice and so they Israel had to lead this brutal attack…

From watching the media portrayal of what is happening in Gaza, this is the dominant narrative, though even the media can’t stop how disproportionate and brutal the US backed Israeli use of force is (the English tabloid, the Sun, is doing its very best in highlighting the threats from Palestinians or Hamas with some highly peculiar stories, from apparent threats to Apprentice star Alan Sugar to tunnels of terror in Gaza where the inhabitants will pop up and shock the tanks – another day). It is worth questioning this narrative and asking a few why questions.

Why begin with Hamas breaking the ceasefire? Why not go back a little further? Why not suggest that the Israel broke the ceasefire in November in one raid that killed six or later in November in another attack that killed four? November is another place we could start the narrative and certainly the narrative about the broken ceasefire.

Why not begin the narrative with the Israeli blockade of vital resources? That seems one reason why Hamas might react. To do this blockade in such a densely populated area like Gaza is deeply dangerous. Moreover, Avi Shlaim points out:

During the ceasefire, Israel prevented any exports from leaving the strip in clear violation of a 2005 accord, leading to a sharp drop in employment opportunities. Officially, 49.1% of the population is unemployed. At the same time, Israel restricted drastically the number of trucks carrying food, fuel, cooking-gas canisters, spare parts for water and sanitation plants, and medical supplies to Gaza. It is difficult to see how starving and freezing the civilians of Gaza could protect the people on the Israeli side of the border. But even if it did, it would still be immoral, a form of collective punishment that is strictly forbidden by international humanitarian law.

Do we begin the narrative at the blockade then?

Or could we look at longer term issues? Some of the rockets were fired at Ashkelon. This was one of the areas where Palestinians were dispossessed in 1948 and moved on to Gaza. As Robert Fisk put it in the Independent, ‘They – or their children and grandchildren and great-grandchildren – are among the one and a half million Palestinian refugees crammed into the cesspool of Gaza, 80 per cent of whose families once lived in what is now Israel. This, historically, is the real story: most of the people of Gaza don't come from Gaza.’

Or why not go back to the origins of Hamas? In the 80s, Israel nurtured Hamas to function as an opponent against the secular nationalists/Fatah, a decision that has now come back to haunt them (very similar to US policy towards violent Islam previous decades which came back to haunt them). Of course Fatah, for some (e.g. Bush) are now the good guys.

We could look for more starting points on the (US and) Israeli government side (e.g. issues of cheap labour, general issue of settlements, water resources, various acts of state violence and so on) but it should be clear that it is nowhere near as simple as Muslim fundamentalists firing these amateur rockets therefore Israel had no choice but to engage in this brutal massacre. It is horrific that Israeli lives have been lost now and over the years in the regions near Gaza and beyond but then many, many more Palestinian lives have been lost in Gaza alone. Like any other state, Israel deserves safety and security but so does Gaza (and the West Bank). The way that the US and Israeli governments and certain figures in the media have portrayed the background to the destruction of Gaza strongly suggests (and this is a wider pattern in ‘western’ media) that Palestinians lives are not worth as much as lives of other human beings. They are presumably sub-human.

This is a crazy attack for several reasons. I don’t like to predict things but how such brutal killing of Palestinians is going to bring peace seems unlikely I do not know. It certainly has the potential to lead to suicide bombings and a recruiting sergeant for violence. This would hardly be good news for Israel. The US government are doing themselves, or perhaps their people, no favours by their actions/non-actions with the UN. Of course, one group of people this attack will please, no doubt, is the arms industry but if we stick to most human beings and citizens this is a disaster.

As for starting points, why is one being so heavily pushed?

Christmas Quiz

2008-12-25T11:37:00.003Z

Who said the following:

If Christ was on earth today undoubtedly he would stand with the people in opposition to bullying, ill-tempered and expansionist powers...If Christ was on earth today undoubtedly he would hoist the banner of justice and love for humanity to oppose warmongers, occupiers, terrorists and bullies the world over...If Christ was on earth today undoubtedly he would fight against the tyrannical policies of prevailing global economic and political systems, as he did in his lifetime...

Was it:
a. NT Wright?
b. Richard Horsley?
c. John Dominic Crossan?
d. Leonardo Boff?
e. Fernando Segovia?
f. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad?

Once again, the date of Mark's Gospel

2008-12-23T19:44:00.003Z

Mark Goodacre has again summarised his position on the dating of Mark and how the issue of a prediction by the historical Jesus is largely beside the point. It's more about what you do with a prediction, if you like, and Mark Goodacre thinks post 70 best explains Mk's use of a prediction. Again, I would re-stress the counter argument. Yes, it is perfectly plausible that a) Jesus could have made a prediction of the fall of the Temple and b) Mk could have framed it to make his own point about successful prophecy (I also don't like the debate when it get dragged down into whether or not someone could or could not make a genuine prediction). But I wouldn't throw out the importance of an early pre-Markan prophecy so quickly. Let's say that Jesus and the earliest Christians did predict and expect the fall of the Temple. If so then it remains possible that Mk could have framed the prophecy in light of another event (e.g. Caligula crisis) when it might have seemed likely that Jesus' prophecy would be fulfilled. It might have been written in the aftermath when people appeared to have expected a repeat action. It might have been written in the late 60s when it might have looked as if it were coming true. Throw into the mix, various biblical traditions about what had happened to the first Temple when an imperial power advanced and then maybe add the book of Daniel which was regarded by many as still prophetic and had things to say about the future of the Temple. (And maybe add that Luke did precisely what Mark did not, and made major changes to Mk 13 to make it clear that there was a reference to the fall of Jerusalem). Throughout all of this, it is possible to imagine the importance of an early prophecy guiding later interpretion and influencing narrative placement, all in the name of proving Jesus right. Of course, on the basis on Mark 13 alone, it might all be about something that has already happened in 70. But, then again, it might not. There are different historical contexts which could have given rise to the narrative placement of the prophecy (see Crossley, Date of Mark, ch. 2). This is why I was and am very reluctant to use Mark 13 as a source for dating Mark's gospel.

This sort of reasoning could, if we are that way inclinded, be applied to other aspects of Mark's narrative. Mark notes how the temple functions 'alongside a narrative climax that stresses its connection with Jesus' death'. While that is a bit too vague for my tastes, the connection between Jesus' death in Mark's narrative and the Temple, if there is such a strong connection (I'm not so sure), could still be explained by different historical contexts and by the question of what to do with earlier traditions. Again, like using Mark 13, this is why I remain reluctant to use such narrative themes in dating the gospel (see Date of Mark, ch. 3).

Pope on heterosexuality and gender (?)

2008-12-23T11:58:00.005Z

There has been some reporting that the Pope has allegedly pushed for a defence of heterosexuality, equated gender theories with threat to rainforests, and called for an 'ecology of man'. The trouble with the reporting is I can't find the speech itself and so I don't know how accurate the reports are. On the one hand, given the stuff I have read by the Pope (including that truly terrible book on the historical Jesus!) and the views on homosexuality in many churches it wouldn't surprise me if some crazy things were said; on the other hand the Archbishop of Canterbury has been misrepresented enough times (as have numerous other people, religious leaders or otherwise) that I'm not inclined to believe what has been reported about the Pope at face value, especially on such sensationalist topics. Furthermore, there is not much direct quotation so I'm a little suspicious. And would even the Pope think that heterosexuality needs defending?!?

Broadsheets feel confident enough to begin their stories with the following:

Pope Benedict was accused of stoking homophobia today after a speech in which he declared that saving humanity from homosexuality was just as important as saving the rainforest from destruction. ([London] Times)

The pope has sparked controversy by saying defending heterosexuality is as important as saving the world's rainforests from destruction. (Guardian)

It certainly seems accurate to say that the speech has provoked a response (newspapers provide such responses) but of course that's different from the Pope actually saying the things attributed to him. It does, though, seem as if the Pope has been critical of certain forms of 'gender theory'. This is reported in the Guardian:

Father Federico Lombardi, a Vatican spokesman, said today that the pope had not wished specifically to attack homosexuality or sex change operations in his speech. "He was speaking more generally about gender theories which overlook the fundamental difference in creation between men and women and focus instead on the role of cultural conditioning," he said.

As this is a direct quotation it looks like something we can go on. I wonder who is in the firing line here...?

Does anyone know if the Pope's speech is available online?

Once again on the historical Jesus: who is deciding Jewish identity?

2008-12-21T22:31:00.005Z

Mike has briefly discussed a new work edited by Hays and Gaventa on Jesus and identities. I can't deal with that book here but I can deal with the use in Mike's final redaction of his blog entry. Mike liked this quote about the Jesus Seminar: "This portrait was of a strikingly non-Jewish Jesus, a laconic wandering sage who loved witty aphorisms but had no interest in Israel's heritage or destiny, and no interest in leading a new religious movement" (p. 2). Mike added, 'Amen!'

I've said before (and in Jesus in an Age of Terror, chs 4-5; see also esp. Arnal, Symbolic Jesus), that this imposes a view of Jewish identity on Jews. If we follow this logic to its conclusion it means that if someone born Jewish in the ancient world decided to not bother with 'Israel's heritage or destiny' then they somehow ceased to be Jewish (whether they liked it or not presumably). It also implies that someone who was 'a laconic wandering sage who loved witty aphorisms' somehow could not be a Jewish person even if born Jewish! I think this is a not-very-helpful view of identity, goes against much of what has been written in contemporary academic discussion of identity and is reflective of some very old fashioned (and even essentialist?) views of identity. The question might be raised: who is deciding who can be Jewish here?

And do the Jesus Seminar really deny Jesus was Jewish, something which would be spectacularly controversial? No. Crossan's book even calls Jesus a Mediterranean Jewish Peasant.

Mike also points to the 'convergences between the various contributors: (1) Jesus of Nazareth was a Jew'. But is this anything remotely surprising? Who would deny this? Is there anyone since the Nazi scholars who denies Jesus was Jewish (a point well discussed by Arnal)? Is saying Jesus was a Jew now as obvious as saying 'we all agree that Jesus had a head'? Probably, so why the emphasis...?

I think there are social, political, ideological etc reasons for this strange emphasis on the obvious (Jesus was Jewish) in the past 30 or so years...see Arnal, Symbolic Jesus; Crossley, Jesus in an Age of Terror. I also think that in historical Jesus scholarship the construction of Jewish identity is frequently patronising and usually designed to make Jesus 'better' than what is, ultimately, little more than a scholarly construction. But that's another story...

Mike also adds, 'The Identity of Jesus Project at CTI, in contrast to the Jesus Seminar, came to believe that: "Jesus is best understood not by separting him from canon and creed but by investigating the ways in which the church's canon and creed provide the distinctive clarification of his identity. The church's ancient ecumenical creeds are not artificial impositions of Scripture but interpretative summaries of the biblical narratives. Therefore, they offer us an overarching sense of the meaning of the whole Bible, and of Jesus' place within that story" (p. 5).'
I ask this to Mike: given the contrast with the Jesus Seminar, is that a Jewish Jesus then...?

Champions of England, Champions of Europe, Champions of the World

2008-12-21T20:40:00.002Z

That is, Manchester United who today beat the mighty Liga Deportiva 1-0 to become world champions. Rooney, Van Der Sar, Anderson, Tevez and Carrick were excellent. Rooney well deserved his man of the match and tournament award. Not sure a giant Toyota key was the best prize for Rooney's achievement...

International SBL and Music

2008-12-20T16:34:00.002Z

John Lyons has already mentioned this but I'll repeat it anyway:

Call for papers for the Bible and Music section, International SBL, Rome, Summer 2009

Meeting Begins: 30/6/2009
Meeting Ends: 4/7/2009

Call For Papers Opens: 15/9/2008
Call For Papers Closes: 31/1/2009

Requirements to Submit a Paper Proposal

Bible and Music

This program unit will include a session of papers devoted to the Bible and Popular Music and an open session for which papers concerned with any aspect of music in relation to Biblical Studies are invited.

Program Unit Chairs

William John Lyons
James Crossley

RAE 2008

2008-12-19T19:58:00.002Z

The national Research Assessment Exercise (RAE) results have come out. Biblical Studies at Sheffield did very well (though Mike Bird didn’t offer *us* any good wishes!). All full time members of staff gave full submissions and all the submitted work came out no lower than international level which in our field, I think, means that, along with Aberdeen, we were the only major university dept in theology, religious studies and related areas to do so. This is obviously excellent news for Sheffield, especially as all members of staff were entered for the RAE. The Dept of Biblical Studies at Sheffield is a specialist dept and we had to go head-to-head with numerically bigger depts of religion and theology (in distinction from biblical studies). I know there are many ways of presenting the results but it seems that we rank very high nationally. This is obviously expected at a major university like Sheffield, a department with all the history Sheffield has, and some seriously impressive staff members, but to do this against religion and theology depts is very good indeed. But in terms of biblical studies alone this also implies that Sheffield is, as it has consistently been for years now, right up there.

More from Sir Fergie on Real Madrid

2008-12-19T19:35:00.003Z

By popular demand (at least one person) football makes its welcome return...

Not content with reminding Real Madrid of their fascist past, the great Man United manager Alex Ferguson has come out with another dig at Real in reaction to their lastest round of rumour mongering:

"You don't think we'd get into a contract with that mob, do you? Jesus Christ. I wouldn't sell them a virus."

New/Updated EABS Sessions

2008-12-12T13:57:00.003Z

There are more research seminars sessions for European Association of Biblical Studies (the next conference will be in Lincoln, 2009) that of direct interest to the things discussed on this blog:

Social History of Modern Biblical Scholarship
Chairs
Ward Blanton, James Crossley and Halvor Moxnes
Programme
The purpose of this programme is to foster cross-disciplinary and collaborative research into the social history of modern biblical scholarship. A growing number of scholars have pursued such research of late, with the salutary effect of producing self-reflexive histories of the cultural, ideological and political entanglements of biblical studies as an academic discipline.

This research programme intends to (a) provoke more professionally trained biblical scholars to examine the social and historical construction of the field in which they practise; and (b) give concentrated visibility to emerging work that defines this trajectory among the sub-divisions of contemporary biblical research. The programme was launched in 2007, with lectures by scholars who have devoted significant energies to this type of intellectual history. All colleagues who are currently carrying out research on this topic or interested in participating in the programme, are cordially invited to contact the chairs.

Sociology and the Bible
Chair
David Chalcraft (David.Chalcraft@homecall.co.uk)
Description
In the light of increasing interest in the use of the social sciences in Biblical Studies this research programme concentrates on the use of sociological theory and method in particular, but expands the role of sociology in Biblical studies to cover a number of distinct, yet related areas of interest. The extension of the role of sociology in Biblical studies is predicated on the notion that since sociology emerges from and seeks to address the rise of modernity, its nature and its possible futures, any use of sociology to understand the ancient social worlds of the Hebrew Bible, Qumran, and the New Testament, involves appreciating the nature of the social realities in which we live and conducting a constant dialogue in which past and present are both needed to be interwoven but also kept separate. The past and present need to be kept separate so as to appreciate both the continuities and the ruptures between modern social forms and social life and social life in the past.

The Research Programme includes:
1. Sociology and Historical Reconstruction: The use of sociology for the analysis of biblical and related (especially Qumranic) texts for the reconstruction of ancient social worlds and processes of social change. Theoretical, methodological and substantive contributions are relevant. 2. Sociologists and the Bible: (a) the work of specific sociologists (e.g. Spencer, Durkheim, Weber and more recent sociologists such as Talcott Parsons, Barrington Moore and Harvey Sacks) and how they themselves sought to make sense of ancient Israel and emergent Christianity, and (b) analysing the texts of these sociologists for the manner in which they directly and indirectly make use of Biblical ideas, themes, tropes and metaphors in their sociological writing. The aim is to contextualise and understand the merits and limitations of their approaches to Biblical history, and to assess their contributions in the light of developments in Biblical studies (based on improved data as well as methodological advances) and in the light of contemporary social theory. A central question involves the extent to which sociologists disenchanted their moral worlds and how this process can be mapped through analysis of their use of the Bible. 3. The Sociology of The Bible in Historical and Contemporary Culture and Society: promoting (a) theoretical and empirical work, grounded in sociological method, concepts and theorisations, on the actual use by specific individuals and groups, especially in contemporary society, of the Bible in their everyday lives, for example in recovering previous ethnographic and survey work by sociologists, theologians and other agencies on individual and social use of the Bible; and (b) advancing methodological debate through field work application of sociological research methodologies and modes of theorising and gaining sociological understanding of the use and abuse of the Bible in various social settings such as kindergartens, schools, churches, Sabbath schools, sports, local and national political arenas.
This Research Programme will thus offer a space in which empirical work and its methodological issues can be discussed and presented and seek to raise the profile of such work and encourage further research.

Programme for 2009
In the first instance the research programme will accept papers addressing any of the above themes. It is hoped to create a session in which aspects of the three themes articulated above can come together, under the theme of 'The Bible and the Sociology of Disaster'. Papers are invited that make use of sociological and social science research on the nature of disasters and trauma and their impact on individual and group life to reconsider biblical narratives of natural and political disasters (the defeat in war, the destruction of Israel and Judah, and the exile) and to consider the way in which contemporary sociology of disaster and trauma (e.g. on 9/11, Hurricane Katrina, or the Holocaust) might benefit from or is comparable to, biblical responses.

Paper proposals are invited, to be sent to David Chalcraft (David.Chalcraft@homecall.co.uk)

Anthropology and the Bible
Chair
Emanuel Pfoh (epfoh@yahoo.com.ar)
Description
The aim of this unit is to foster ethnographic readings of biblical stories and anthropological perspectives on the archaeology and history of ancient Palestine. Relevant topics for discussion are:

Political and historical anthropology of ancient Palestine (city-states, urbanization, state-formation processes, ethnogenesis)
Mediterranean anthropology in biblical narratives (patronage, hospitality,feud, honour and shame, food)
Sociology and anthropology of religion and ancient Palestinian cultic and ritual data (aniconism, iconography, burial, cultic places, etc.)

Proposals for papers should be sent by the end of January 2009 to Emanuel Pfoh (epfoh@yahoo.com.ar)

Response to Mark Goodacre's SBL dating paper

2008-11-28T20:32:00.003Z

I have been meaning to respond to Mark Goodacre's stuff on dating from his SBL paper. There are some general issues I have about the idea of a session on dating, esp. if it will say anything new and, if not, is there a need for such a session...? I don’t mean that polemically, I was and am curious because I sadly wasn’t able to attend that session though I dearly wanted to. Perhaps someone present can help...? Anyway, I initially meant to respond to the whole of this SBL paper but because of nasty old time I’ll get egotistical and respond to the places where I was mentioned. I’m of course grateful to Mark G [I’ll use this name so not to confuse with the gospel writer – I suppose ‘Goodacre’ seems too formal for a blog] for interacting with me, giving arguments the time and for being typically non-polemical and engaging. It also seems like we agree on Jesus as law observant (this seems to be the most agreeable part of the book for most) and if I remember there was an old blog debate where Mark G had some reservations on the conventional reading of Mk 7.19, as do I (see ch. 7 of Date of Mark). But let’s get away from the nice bits…

Mark G claims that I argue that the ‘originating circumstances of the tradition correlate directly with perspective of the evangelist’ and this is ‘problematic’. However, this would depend on what is meant by ‘directly’. In general terms I think a) that the historical Jesus was law observant and b) Mark thought that too. If that is direct then yes. But, as for precise correlation between individual traditions, it would depend and often I’m agnostic and so no. I don’t make too many precise claims about historicity in the book for this reason (and others). As an aside from the law issues, on some occasions in that book, I am quite happy to talk of invention and difference between Jesus (e.g. on kingdom and eschatology in Mk 13 – see ch. 3; see also the conclusion of the book for a chaotic model of tradition). Mark G talks of the difficulty in tallying up assumptions between tradition and gospel and I quite agree, hence I spent a chapter (ch 4) on the tendencies in Mk, Matt and Luke and their portrayal of Jesus and the law before moving on to specific passages which were treated as both individual passages and part of the tendencies (chs. 6 and 7).

Mark G also talks of Markan redaction in Mk 7 that points way from argument, especially the phrase ‘all the Jews’ which sets up a difference and does not point to an intra-Jewish dispute. I think this actually misses my point. My point was that the legal debate is intra-Jewish in the sense that debates over hand-washing were the kinds of halakic debates known in early Judaism. As for issues of identity and Mk this is much more difficult, as identity usually is. Mk may well have identified his group in distinction from the rest of Judaism or over against Judaism but this does not mean he could have portrayed Jesus as a legal debater. Elsewhere in Mk there are supportive Jews, inc. those not seen as being over against Judaism, and there are hostile Jews. So, then, the picture is more complex.

But as it happens, that’s another issue in terms of my arguments for dating. The legal issue is the point of my argument, not the identity issue. Mark G says that I concede ground here when I say Mk was exaggerating (though I’m not exactly sure what he means by this – any help Mark G or others?). Mark G refers to my reference to Aristeas 305f. and exaggeration and says that the persona of an outsider changes things. In this case, not really. The exaggeration about ‘all the Jews’ washing hands in the water is an exaggeration so why could Mk not make an exaggeration about all Jews washing hands etc? Besides, as I pointed out, Mark makes various other exaggerations that are clearly exaggerations and not meant to be taken wholly literally so I don’t see the problem making another. Mark G says that his counter argument undermines my case for Mark being accurate and precise but it does not. My case on Mk 7 being accurate etc involved the referencing to cups and beds etc (Mk 7.4) and the very precise details of hand-washing and the transmission of impurity from hands-to-food-to-eater. This wasn’t discussed by Mark G and it *precisely these details* that are so crucial. In terms of my argument, does Mark G not have to show that *these details* are inaccurate and *not* the generalisation?

As for Talbert’s comments, which Mark G cites, on the law observant issue possibly being a memory of him, yes, it could be and I think it was. But this a) this quotation used by Mark G doesn’t change anything and b) it needs qualifying.

A) It doesn’t change anything because Matt and Lk still have to make it clear that Jesus was Law observant as I explicitly argue. So I’m not sure how this functions as a counter argument for Mark G. This also stands for Mark G’s reference to Gower and that these things could have been referred to in the 60s. Sort of but I think with qualification. Matt and Luke make qualifications not in Mark so why did they make qualifications? The obvious reason is that law observance had changed and this started to happen in the 40s so the Gower quotation in Mark G’s paper does not work as a counter argument to me, if Mark G is using it as a counter argument rather than simply adding an opinion (presumably a counter argument though…?). A counter argument (or supportive quotation) would need to show why Mark did not feel the need to qualify in *direct contrast* to Matt and Luke. That is really the heart of my argument and I don’t think it is addressed by Mark G.

B) As for qualification, on the whole, as far as we know, but John’s Jesus, as I argued, does look a little different (see e.g. John 5).

As for early gentile observance and non-observance, I would add that issues of perception were important and how this fed into the Pauline view. I’ve argued that at length in Why Christianity Happened (esp. ch 5) and won’t repeat here.

On the whole then, while being obviously grateful to Mark G for engaging with my arguments, I don’t think he has engaged with the heart of my arguments in Date of Mark, such as the details of the legal debates and the qualifications made by Matt and Luke and why these qualifications were made. So there you go.

Leading postmodernist and other strange uses of language

2008-11-27T19:13:00.004Z

'...G. K. Beale attempts vigorously and even-handedly to examine the writings of one leading postmodernist, Peter Enns...' (from the blurb for Beale's new book)

As a few people have noticed the labelling of Enns (it's not clear who is responsible for the blurb) as a 'leading postmodernist' is very bizarre. As NT Wrong put it,

For those who don’t get the joke, Enns is very conservative himself — but hasn’t got quite as big an inerrancy-carrot stuck up his ‘authorized version’ as those ultra-conservative fundie fringers...But what gets me is the “postmodern” label. Hasn’t this just become an empty label fundamentalists apply when they realize they have no idea what’s going on? Does anyone believe that Peter Enns is the new Derrida?

I've come across the completely weird, inaccuarate (at least in terms of how the label is conventionally used in academia) and polemical use of the label 'postmodernist' quite a lot in biblical studies. In a slightly different way, it was used to criticise the 'minimalists' despite the usually named 'minimalists' doing fairly conventional and not typically postmodernist history (on which there is a lot of literature and people like Figes and Schama are seen as examples in practice, though even there there is dispute over labels). In terms of the debates over minimalism and maximalism, wouldn't half of the C19 NT scholars be 'postmodernist' by this definition????

Anyway, I couldn't resist another, but related, use by NT Wright where the misleading polemic remains. Here is Wright on contemporary politics:

'...Post-modernity is assumed to be on the 'left' side of the equation, although it re-inscribes empire rather than undermining it, allowing the bullies and the bosses to create facts on the ground to their own advantage. (All those years of Derrida and we still get George W Bush!)...' - quoted in P. Vallely, ‘Tom Wright: It’s not a question of left and right, says the combative priest who opposes the war in Iraq and gay bishops’, Independent (29 December 2003)

On deconstruction:

‘...in the real world…the tyrants and bullies (including intellectual and cultural tyrants and bullies) try to rule by force, only to discover that in order do so they have to quash all rumours of resurrection, rumours that would imply that their greatest weapons, death and deconstruction, are not after all omnipotent...' in N. T. Wright, The Resurrection of the Son of God (London: SPCK, 2003), p. 737

I'm not going to defend postmodernism or deconstruction and a case could be made for their various manifestations being much a part of contemporary capitalist problems and intellectual passivity and so on. However, these soundbites (hardly untypical of Wright) are really misleading and would no doubt function in sending out the right signals for a conservative audience and, to be fair, probably for (some) honourable reasons too. But...All those years of Derrida and we get Bush??? Now I know the reasons which led to Bush are many and complex and so on but if we want to use a soundbite why not say all those years of southern conservative Christian fundies and we get Bush? It would be a more accurate generalisation for a start.

And how about those tyrants and bullies, including the intellectual ones, quashing rumours of resurrection with their weapons of death and deconstruction? Are the tyrants of this world really that bothered about, erm, resurrection? It would be interesting to know the views of bullies like Thatcher and Bush and Reagan and Blair who, as Wright agrees, have done some terrible things. Good Christians one and all and do they believe in resurrection? Wright's language is poetic etc but it's content does not work as an argument (one very good reason why content should really come first) and it seems he's making it up. But then should we be surprised when there is this from the beginning of his book on Jesus...?

‘If what I write could help in any way towards the establishment of justice and peace there [Israel and Palestine], or indeed anywhere else, I would be deeply grateful.’ NT Wright, Jesus and the Victory of God, p. xv

Presumably we need to be flying out copies of Jesus and the Victory of God to Gaza, West Bank, Israel and all war torn parts of our planet...and FAST!

SBL overview

2008-11-26T23:29:00.001Z

A slightly more SBL detailed report:

Except for the social side. That was as it always is. I’ll mention the civilised bits: local beer was very good as was Chinatown. In fact the food generally was excellent though it was expensive. And the Sheraton bar must have made a fortune.

The lack of AAR was a problem for me on many levels but one was simple: I tend to go to a fair few AAR papers. Maybe the SBL papers I attended reflected this: a Redescribing Christian Origins session, papers on the primaries/election, corpses and Ezekiel, disability studies and Mark 5, and so on. On the deconstruction/construction issue I mentioned in connection with the Bowdoin paper, this came up in the Redescribing session. I chatted to a few people about this and I reemphasise again: does it matter if we deconstruct without reconstruction? I see no problem because it is simply using scholarship as primary source material and leads on to some of the most original discussions in recent years on the social and political histories of biblical studies.

Ok, I was also presenting at the Reading, Theory and the Bible group with the theme Reading, Space and Imagined Geographies (my paper was on the scholarly and political use of the contemporary Middle East when supposedly describing the ancient Mediterranean). While there were quite a few scholars who would be in sessions in which I have previously presented, this was a generally new audience for me, or at least it seemed that way. The audience seemed interested and engaged and was non-hostile to ideas, some of which would provoke a hostile reaction elsewhere among certain biblical scholars (as has happened in other sessions when issues relating to the Middle East are raised). There wasn’t much time for questions so all the serious feedback came after the session and around the conference. This was really helpful actually and it was also positive for the more politically themed papers (and no doubt the other papers too – but that’s not my immediate concern). There was a good sized audience for the whole session too.

Indeed, in subsequent discussions there was a fair bit of shared hostility towards such abuses of social sciences in NT scholarship from a number of scholars, whether present or not…which got me thinking... Presumably those who use bizarre stereotypes of Arabs (or Jews – another paper, another time…or indeed a book) aren’t going to sit back and accept they are wrong as some of us might like to happen. So, is the way things will change in the discipline (in this case, I mean the demise of outrageous but ideologically convenient stereotypes) – and I think I mean this seriously – simply be the old idea that a present generation of scholarly elite will eventually die off, their ideas with them…?

Pre-SBL

2008-11-26T21:21:00.000Z

Pre-SBL: Bowdoin was a great place. Very civilised and sharp minds there. I was looked after particularly well (thanks to Jorunn Buckley in particular). The paper was on the general area of NT studies for a wide ranging audience at different levels: from interested lay people to established profs. The title was nice and broad and there was plenty of time (60mins) for me to go on. I tried to cover three major areas for the general reason of covering areas that could interest a range of people but for different specific reasons for each (as we’ll now see). 1. Traditional historical criticism. This was the most difficult because, as people are increasingly noting, what significantly more can be covered and said…? After suggesting a few reasons why people might even be interested in repeating endlessly, I did try to give a few basic examples where NT studies could develop and these involved culture and language (inc. on the v basic level some negative examples of where NT scholars write extensively on NT ‘background texts’ without bothering to learn the language of the given document) and then some of the inevitable tensions between acquiring languages and developments in knowledge. And then a bit on broader social history which seeks to provide explanations for Xn origins and uses methods from those working in history, with a little deconstructing of the rhetoric of ‘doing good history’ in NT studies.

Then I moved on to areas that are of more interest to me in recent times. So 2. Social history of NT scholarship and criticising the critics. This has the distinct advantage of being an area that has lots to do on the past of scholarship and plenty of continual material pumped out. I went over a few examples, such as the increasing awareness of Nazi NT scholarship, though also mentioning that people still uncritically use Nazi scholarship even in the recent debates over ‘Jew’/‘Judean’! I also went over more recent examples of some of the unpleasant generalisations about *contemporary* Arabs turn up in recent debates on the ‘Mediterranean’ and social sciences and how this fits neatly into Anglo-American Orientalist discourse since the 1970s. Like the audience, I still can’t quite believe that such old fashioned stereotypes are found in scholarship from the past decade or so and that such scholarship gets used so uncritically by NT scholarship today (more on that soon). It is worth emphasising that deconstructing does not require reconstructing (more on this on SBL papers) because it is using historical analysis to locate scholarship just as historical analysis locates NT texts and traditions. Why not use scholarship as primary sources?

3. Reception history. This covered more the Bible and popular culture rather than (say) C2 reception or traditional theological reception (e.g. Calvin, Luther, Liberation etc). The latter seem to be well represented and don’t need me to make their case. I raised questions I’ve raised here before and looked at the ways in which social contexts affect interpretation and the ways in which biblical texts might be embedded in contemporary culture. I also gently critiqued some of the more cataloguing of biblical allusions in music, film, politics or whatever and made the banal but still necessary point that social and historical contextualisation is a way of doing reception history just as it is with C1 readings, just as it is with scholarship. Naturally, examples were given from recent music.

A feature of this past week for me has been audience. At Bowdoin, it was the first time in a while for me that the audience was more generally humanities and religious studies. The feedback from people in other areas of religious studies was particularly interesting because some saw the same problems in the study of different scriptures and those religions usually far removed from the study of the NT. So maybe biblical studies isn’t as unique in its problems… After more great food fun, there was a reception with students which I think was a great idea. They were very good to talk to and were quite happy to ask suitably awkward questions. The difference between the US and the UK higher education system really struck me. To state the obvious (for some), in the UK, the higher education system is geared towards speciality from the beginning of a degree. So, for instance, a degree in biblical studies, English lit, sociology or whatever. In the US, there are a range of areas covered so naturally a broader base. I sometimes wonder if this could be reflected in the general differences between US and UK NT scholarship but more speculation, more time needed… Anyway, this meant some more wide-ranging discussion with students into different non-NT areas which I really enjoyed and helped me make different connections and think things through differently. Which system is better, is beyond me (yes detail is great, but yes wider learning is too…I dunno).

SBL 2008

2008-11-25T14:43:00.002Z

Just some quick thoughts before moving on... My paper on scholarly reconstructions of the 'Mediterranean' and its overlap with the Middle East, Arab world and so on I *think* had a nice sympathetic audience, or at least it seemed to me. For a time I was a bit concerned that the paper was going to get a reaction from some of the people critiqued in it but they didn't turn up so no fight. Still, in the longer run in particular, the feedback has been worth it and I'm glad there are more more people out there supportive of criticisms leveled against some of the very problematic cultural/social anthropology and its political contextualisation than I pessimistically thought...

There are loads of things to mention which I won't. The Sheffield reception was extremely well attended, including bloggers e.g. Josh McManaway and James McGrath (who gave me a copy of his resurrection book - nice man - which I'll review in due course). And entertaining as ever. Socially, SBL's been up to it usual fun standards and as usual I'll leave that reconstruction to imaginations.

It is really noticeable without AAR. It seems, well, a bit more hushed and serious. AAR was definitely missed.

More when I'm back home and more awake.

SBL/Boston/Brunswick/Bowdoin

2008-11-20T11:49:00.002Z

I arrived yesterday for this year's fun. I arrived early because I'm giving a paper (today) at Bowdoin (New England agrees with me) that I was meant to plug much earlier. The talk is "What New Testament Studies Could Be Doing but Isn't" at 4 p.m. Thursday, November 20, 2008, in Searles Science Building, Room 315, Bowdoin. The lecture is open to the public and admission is free. The link is here and I apologise for the daft pose but it was a semi-jokey holiday snap from Budapest 2006 and the only photo I've got that is the right size for certina promotional things so sory, ok? Also, got to say, I do like the topic given to me and I'm especially looking forward to this one...

Memes and Football/Championship Manager

2008-11-15T12:40:00.002Z

I’ve been tagged or memed or whatever by both James McGrath AND John Lyons. I’m only going to very partially answer the issues by answering one question: I have a history with the ultra-addictive PC game Championship (now: Football) Manager. So instead I’m actually answering something someone else (unnamed) asked me: namely what about this spectacularly good Guardian article/discussion on the top players on CM/FM? (And, yes, it looks pretty clear that all participants have a lot in common: gender, age, misanthropy etc)

Those of you who don’t know about this game should know that it gives/gave you a relationship warning if played too much and it has been cited in over 30 cases of divorce. It cost students higher marks in degrees, cost the only slightly lazy their jobs, and left a generation permanently tired through playing into the early hours. There seems to be a consensus developing that the glory years of the game were around the turn of the millennium which could be true (I think a agree – esp. around 2002 when I was involved in the greatest of all 2 player battles in Serie A (00/01 game), though the early 90s breakthrough of winning the then European Cup was special). The Guardian lists 6 of the best players and rightly doesn’t go for the obvious famous ones but those not famous ones who made it into superstars but you’d never sign if it were real (*the* charm of the game). Though in fairness, the game as a whole was pretty accurate and predicted plenty of players who would turn out to be genuine real life superstars of the game way before the world knew.

Some of the classics have to be the following:
From a glorious run with Rushden and Diamonds (a bit like someone in the comments section on the Guardian site) spearheaded by the two greats Ged Kimmins (rubbish stats but great goalscorer and criminally underrated) and Onesimo (on a free). Others over the years who have graced my great Man United and Roma teams: Cherno Samba (S C), Mads Jorgensen (AM LRC?), Walter Samuel (D C), Michael Dunwell (S C), Paul Warhurst (D/DM/M/AM F C?), David Hill (AM LRC) Neil Lewis (DMF/L), Mark Tobin (D/DM C), Taribo West (D LC) (largely because he was on a free), Kennedy Bakircioglu (AM/?), some Jorgensen (D/DM C), Roberto Baronio (DM), Freddie Guarin and his long shots, numerous Swedish bargains, and…Julian Joachim (sentimental reasons: not quite the greatest but his goals won my first ever European Cup when he came off the bench – good management if you ask me). Wasn’t so keen as one occasional reader of this blog on Mark Kerr and Byron ******* Bubb.

Biblical studies + blogging + football management game = ?

****

Concluding: Moral and intellectual failings of a discipline? Rip it up and start again? No future? Get pissed, destroy?

2008-11-12T10:01:00.002Z

I've covered some of the issues raised in Jesus in an Age of Terror but not all. On this blog I've obviously kept some of the arguments general and avoided individual examples and more specific political analysis: read (/buy) the book if you want the dirt and full arguments. Now I just want to wrap things up...

A major aim of the book is to see how NT scholarship is influenced by and often supportive of contemporary Anglo-American power. Another major aim is to explain why certain movements in NT studies emerged when and where they did. So, for example, one of the reasons why anthropology and discussions of the ‘Mediterranean’ and the Middle East occur by the 1980s is almost certain due to the neo-Orientalism in Anglo-American thought since the 1970s that continues to go hand-in-hand with Anglo-American interests in the Middle East, Arabs, and Muslims since the 1970s. I should add that I am not saying anthropology is no longer useful in NT studies – though certain generalising about Arabs and Mediterraneans needs a serious rethink.

What can be done about some of the problematic scholarship? Well, if scholars are really interested in finding out about Jesus in relation to Judaism, and in fear of sounding a bit preachy, then saying Jesus is ‘really Jewish’, ‘a good Jew’, ‘thoroughly Jewish’ or whatever before telling us that he went beyond, intensified, overrode, rejected various Jewish symbols constructed by scholars, then why not prove it with reference to a wider range of Jewish evidence? If Jesus really overrode family ties in an unparalleled way then why not show that there was no parallel instead of just telling us and ignoring available evidence?

Again, as I say, if, as we have been told (and nothing more than that), that Mediterranean people really neglect their own needs, if they really have stifled normal individual psychological development, if they really repress feelings of hurt, if they really abuse children, spouses and the elderly, if they really abuse others physically, emotionally, and spiritually, if they really have blocked mental, emotional and spiritual growth, then such serious allegations not only do we need some evidence but serious, widespread evidence to back it up. If, as we have been told (and nothing more than that), Arabs are supposedly quick to join extremist groups and are not good at coping with defeat in elections then quoting some basically racist scholarship is not really good enough. If a scholar wants to say this is so, why not try and prove it? If Arabs – and let’s not forget how geographically spread Arabs were and are - really do throw their arms around ‘uncontrollably’ then wouldn’t it make sense to prove this instead of just telling us? All these are generally basic points but important nonetheless.

Clearly, there also needs to be some serious questioning of scholarly results and less uncritical acceptance of what scholarly heroes say and write. If arguments are not backed up, why bother taking them seriously? And if there is no attempt to prove these loaded points then people might also want to ask: why should we believe you? Is a quest for academic truth really on the agenda, or something else? Would it not be fair to suggest that unqualified and dangerous generalisations about the ‘other’ are close to being an abuse of academic privilege?

These kinds of generalisations are well worth challenging in the classroom and in academia. Yet, the big problem with this book is that if I am right in my use of the propaganda model and the manufacture of consent then won’t such ideas be dismissed uncritically? Well, depressingly, that’s got to be a clear possibility. I am perfectly aware that certain people will not simply accept that such criticisms of their work are valid. However, my hope – I think this is also a strong possibility - is that some of the crazy stereotypes are avoided in future and that some scholars will be a bit more politically aware of how they construct different groups.

Another problem: is there a natural supportive audience in academic biblical studies for this kind of work? As I said, I could see a situation where academics will not engage properly with such arguments. But I’m actually quite optimistic. There is certainly an audience outside traditional biblical studies at least because there is enough opposition to the abuses of Anglo-American power in this world. I wouldn’t see addressing that kind of a general audience as a bad thing at all to be honest.
To return to an old game on this blog: a place in my heart for anyone who gets the tongue-in-cheek musical allusions in the title… Justin Meggitt isn’t allowed to play!

SBL: Reading, Theory and the Bible on Reading, Space and Imagined Geographies

2008-11-09T13:30:00.003Z

Carrying on with the recent theme of Orientalism and constructions of geography, how about this for a session:

SBL22-72
Reading, Theory and the Bible
11/22/2008
1:00 PM to 3:30 PM
Room: Beacon A - SH

Theme: Reading, Space and Imagined Geographies

Jennifer L. Koosed, Albright College, Presiding

Keith W. Whitelam, University of Sheffield
The Land and the Book: Biblical Studies and Imaginative Geographies of Palestine (30 min)

John M. Vonder Bruegge, Northwestern College-Orange City
Luke's “Imaginative Geography”: Revisiting Edward Said's Orientalism and Its Implications for Luke"s Galilee (30 min)

James Crossley, University of Sheffield
When Is the Ancient Mediterranean Not the Ancient Mediterranean? When It's the Contemporary Middle East! (Re-)constructing “the Middle East” in New Testament Studies (30 min)

Melanie Johnson-DeBaufre, Drew University
Heavenly Flying, Cloud-Riding, and other Cosmic Journeys: When Early Christians Take the Bird's Eye View (30 min)

Jorunn Økland, University of Oslo
“Would It Be the Same if I Saw You in Heaven?”: Technologies of Space Travel in 2 Corinthians 12 (30 min)

Jewish but not that Jewish: Jesus in an Age of Terror Part 3

2008-11-07T00:07:00.003Z

Part Three is geared toward looking at the reasons for, and the politics of, the emphasis on ‘Jewishness’ in contemporary historical Jesus and NT scholarship. Since the 1970s, and in sharp distinction with what generally came before, a seemingly strongly positive attitude towards Judaism has occurred with scholars repeatedly telling us Judaism is not a bad religion, that the Jesus and the early Christians were ‘very Jewish’ and so on. Vermes’ Jesus the Jew (1973) paved the way for this new trend. Vermes’ recalls how shocking this now scholarly cliché was but that it also gained relatively easy acceptance in NT studies. The other major publication was, of course, Sanders’ Paul and Palestinian Judaism (1977). Since Sanders, sensitivity towards Judaism has become increasingly noticeable in NT studies (and this was even clear in some of Sanders’ most hostile opponents) and since Vermes and Sanders plenty of books tell us about something about Jesus as Jew or Jesus and Judaism.

All sounds nice…but why did it take until the 1970s for such a dramatic change to come about? Why not immediately after the Holocaust? Well, for a start, as Sanders showed, anti-Jewish and antisemitic views were deeply embedded in NT scholarship right up until the 1970s. So the question might be rephrased, why did things change then?

Bill Arnal gives several plausible reasons for the emergence of the debate over Jesus’ ‘Jewishness’ since the 1970s. These include a reaction to socio-economic instability and fractured cultural identities. One reaction was the desire for fixed identities and behind much of the debates over ‘Jewishness’ is the idea of fixed identities and a culturally stable Judaism. Arnal gives other reasons (read his book if you want the whole lot) including a shift in the geographical centre of scholarship away from Germany and a desire for Christian scholars to show that Christianity is not anti-Semitic. I assume these reasons as correct but add a crucial reason which helps explain this major trend: the major cultural, political and intellectual shifts relating to Israel after the 1967 ‘Six Day War’, especially in the US, when Israel established itself as a powerful force in the Middle East. The relevant areas I look at are higher education, popular culture, Christian Zionism, shifts in Holocaust discourse, and Anglo-American politics. Prior to 1967 there was much indifference to Israel; after 1967, the changes are spectacular. I’m not going to summarise all the arguments there but I’ll add that I do have a section on the treatment of Nadia Abu el-Haj and her work on archaeology in Israel. In the case of Abu el-Haj it is clear that the campaign against her told untruths. Anyone can make a mistake and I know I get annoyed at being misrepresented but the treatment of Abu el-Haj is on a completely different level at times. Some of the reporting claims she denied that Romans destroyed Jerusalem in 70CE but that it was Jews instead. Yet she says, absolutely explicitly, that Romans destroyed Jerusalem. She is also accused at gloating over murder of Jews, which she never does. She is criticised for a number of other things, none of which are true. She is generally accused of being antisemitic. I also look at reactions to other related books such (e.g., Whitelam, The Invention of Ancient Israel: The Silencing of Palestinian History).

In terms of NT studies this general context helps explain the rise of interest in Jewishness. The land is not a massive focus but does occur (cf. WD Davies’ famous book on the land) – it is usually another Jewish symbol to be transcended or ‘spiritualised’ (see below). The most recent example where it does occur is the debate over ‘Jew’, ‘Judean’ etc. I’ve analysed this debate in a bit more detail in a forthcoming article but some points are discussed. Despite the prominent and wholly justified sensitivities over anti-Semitism, different sides of the debate, despite accusations to the contrary, go out of their way to make sure that they are the best voice against antisemitism. The interesting thing is that given the interest in the terms in relation to the land (and this is a big point of debate) and given the overt concern for contemporary moral implications, there is simply never a concern for Palestinians. This voice is excluded and this says something, I think, about the ideological location of contemporary scholarship.

An important aside on this debate: the linguistic basis still used is KG Kuhn’s TDNT article. This is a seriously problematic resource. Kuhn wrote Nazi propaganda, including, around the same time as his TDNT article, some material on, er, ‘the Jewish problem’ and hatred of Jews and other issues that are not unrelated to his TDNT article. Now, it may be that he still got the Greek linguistics right despite being an anti-Semite but that article needs a serious looking over. Moreover, Maurice Casey wrote a NovT article in 1999 on the antisemitic bias in the early TDNT articles and of Kuhn’s he showed how his Nazi sympathies interfered too much with his linguistic and historical work. Casey also makes some comments on how this has had a negative impact on some of the contemporary debates that go for ‘Judean’. I am still agnostic on the whole issue of translation (I’m not sure there’s too much at stake in terms of definition to be honest – both terms are defined in roughly the same manner) but would it not be right to take Kuhn’s influence into serious consideration before further work is undertaken?

Anyway, back to it. In light of changes outlined above, there is a strong case for the emphasis on ‘Jewishness’ being very much a part of the post-1967 shifts. But this needs a big qualification. For all the pro-Jewish rhetoric, Jesus is constantly, with not that many exceptions, constructed over against Judaism as constructed by scholarship. Jesus *has* to be different. Even Meier’s Jesus is a *marginal* Jew. Even the great EP Sanders gives allows times where Jesus went against the Law. The worst offender is Wright who relentlessly tells us how Jewish Jesus was and how wonderful Judaism was before making sure Jesus is better in various areas. Now, all this may even be historically true but it is done by a) telling us all about Judaism and b) ignoring Jewish evidence that wouldn’t put Jesus over against even scholarly constructions of Judaism. Why ignore Jewish evidence if Judaism is now so wonderful? I look at several examples of this trend and slightly sarcastically call it a ‘Jewish…but not that Jewish’ Jesus. I’d add that Vermes’ Jesus is actually a serious threat because, by scholarly constructions of Judaism, he is ‘too Jewish’ and much of scholarship merely pays lip service to Vermes’ challenge. I should add that I am not arguing here that Jesus *must* be law observant and completely within Judaism as constructed by scholarship but rather why the narrative bulldozers through and why Jewish evidence is ignored.

This ‘Jewish…but not that Jewish’ narrative (including the ignoring of Jewish evidence) is found in other areas, such as the increasingly popular Jesus-as-alternative-priest (a view which lacks serious evidence anyway). I also look at this general 'Jewish...but not that Jewish' narrative in Christian origins. Of course, figures such as Paul and John could play around with Jewish identity in quite dramatic ways but the narrative becomes the default mode in the absence of evidence. This can be seen in debates over the origins of Christology and the view of very early Christology in the very strongest sense. Of course Christians *did* view the full deification of Jesus over against Judaism, as did plenty of Jews, but when it is not there, something else is going on…

I then turn back to the cultural context where, despite the new love for Israel, there is constantly a note of superiority over against Israel, from politics to Christian Zionism (not that they can always be separated!). I also briefly look at Orientalist traditions and some of the recent work on the construction of Judaism in the history of NT scholarship. Once again, NT scholarship is very much a part of its cultural context and I am not convinced too much has changed since the overtly anti-Jewish views of pre-1970s scholarship: Judaism still comes out, at best, second. The difference from earlier scholarship is largely rhetorical.

More Jesus in an Age of Terror: a hideously emboldened Orientalism

2008-11-03T10:51:00.001Z

Chapter 3 of Jesus in an Age of Terror sets the context for chapter 4 (and, to lesser extent, chs 5-6). It begins by recalling the reasons for (re-)emergence of social sciences in NT scholarship, giving the various (largely lovely) reasons that are given (60s protest movements, the impact of 1968, the increasing influence of sociology in the universities, decolonialisation, development of explicitly non-Marxist social-scientific/anthropological approaches, translations of Weber into English, and so on). There is a much bigger reason for the increasing interest in cultural anthropology: the increasingly heavy emphasis on ‘the Arab’, ‘the Persian’, ‘the Muslim’ etc in Anglo-American culture in the 1970s, a point developed by Said (esp. in Covering Islam and Orientalism). Said’s work has been qualified and developed to show how wide ranging these stereotypes were and are across Anglo-America (popular culture, party politics, higher education etc.). By the end of the 1970s, the study of Christian origins starts to develop cultural anthropological approaches to the ‘Mediterranean’ which regularly morph into generalisations about the ‘Middle East’ and ‘the Arab world’, both contemporary and ancient.

The views of ‘the Arab’ etc continued in the 1990s esp with the collapse of the Soviet empire and has been intensified and ‘hideously emboldened’ (to use Derek Gregory’s phrase) in the ‘war on terror’. Intellectually, Huntington would develop his clash of civilisations thesis after Bernard Lewis would give his weird but influential roots of Muslim rage work. All the while, cultural anthropology and social sciences have continued to grow and grow in NT studies and continued emphasising civilisation clashes and stark differences. Even the more ‘traditional’ NT studies by (say) Meier and Wright have now started to use the work of NT scholars using cultural and social anthropology (in the case of Wright to say how Jesus ‘subverted’ the context).

The rest of this chapter looks at the dominance of this clash thesis across Anglo-American culture, politics, higher education, religion, the new atheists (Sam Harris is one of the worst offenders) and so on, including some of the brutal results seen in Iraq. It looks at some of the (frankly ridiculous) explanations of centuries of ‘Islamic/Arab decline’, ‘Arab stagnation’, ‘Arab/Muslim humiliation’, Arab/Muslim shame’ etc and how all these approaches simply ignore the massive range of cultural differences and historical change, relying instead on bizarre generalisations, including sometimes the very honour-shame approaches common in NT studies at the moment. I look at the complex nature of violence in the name of Islam, including the whole political and radicalised Islam filled with the decline of secular nationalism, the impact of US led foreign policy in the Middle East, increasing slums in major cities, influence of revolutionary Marxism on certain politicised Islamic movements, the peculiarities of Wahhabism and Saudi Arabia, and so on. This is designed to show how ideologically convenient and intellectually limited discourse the generalising, dominant clash arguments, and centuries long decline are and how they too frequently ignore vital details, local histories and, very simply, the *modern* nature of a revolutionary Islam. This discussion sets the background for the cultural and ideological location of (some) contemporary NT scholarship which generalises dramatically about the Middle East.

The next chapter looks at the serious problems in NT studies. I give some considerations to the ways in which NT studies and pop culture overlap (documentaries and blogs) before moving on to the NT scholars where there have been lots of use of the *contemporary* ‘Arab world’, ‘Mediterranean’, and ‘Middle East’ to look at the *ancient* world. There are two functions of this. One is the fairly banal explanation of why the shift to social and cultural anthropology since the 1970s and some uses are relatively innocent. The other function is to attack some of the staggeringly insensitive and ridiculous generalisations about ‘the Middle East’ and ‘the Arab world’ (‘the Mediterranean’ frequently morphs into these categories) in NT social scientific scholarship and put them in ideological location. Some of the things said about Arabs recently in NT scholarship function as if Said never happened. Some of them are just so obviously influenced by contemporary concerns (Arabs not democratic, Arabs are drawn to extremist movements, Arabs obsessed with family and sex, Arabs suppress behaviour that comes out in crazy arm gestures, Arab ‘humiliation’, Mediterraneans are psychologically undeveloped and abuse family members etc). Naturally, there is much concern to contrast this with ‘the west’ or, most frequently, America. Coincidence?

There are some clear rhetorical overlaps with Huntington’s clash of civilisation thesis in this NT literature. Worse still some of the anthropological literature *still used* in NT studies has been heavily denounced. Most notably, Raphael Patai, who wrote the ominous sounding The Arab Mind in the 1970s, is still used. Said denounced it as racist in Orientalism. He may be right of wrong but to not deal with Said is…not helpful shall we say. This book has some of the most absurd generalisations about the Arab world, often based sexual generalisations (handling of baby boy’s genitals, the issue of figure hugging western trousers, and masturbations rates (I’m not joking – and ‘the Arabs’ are supposed to be obsessed with sex!). This book was also used, it seems, in the thinking behind Abu Ghraib (see Seymour Hersh’s investigations). Language used by some NT scholars on the Arab world also has overlaps with the contemporary liberal and hawkish rhetoric (e.g. Thomas Friedman) on the Middle East. In fear of understatement, this is very worrying. To make matters worse, a lot of the anthropology being used has its roots in social psychology and anthropology sponsored by the US govt and military, something, interestingly, which has returned in a major way recently – indeed a colonel wrote the preface to the latest edition of Patai’s Arab Mind saying how wonderful it was in military training! Incidentally, some military figures have at least seen through Patai and think his influence has been a disaster. A lot of this anthropology has traditionally had an ideologically convenient demarcated world…with the US at the centre.

Another peculiar development is that some of those using the heavily generalising anthropology and social psychology and emphasising civilisation differences have been using providing of the most aggressive non-argument arguments of recent times, dismissing different uses of social sciences (typically those more sensitive to cultural complexities) using the political rhetoric of clashing civilisations to dismiss their opponents. There is little concern to discuss the details of cultural context, naturally. I parallel some of these non-arguments in NT studies with some political non-arguments designed for slurring opponents. I’ll let you read all that but for now I’ll just say that the argumentation of such scholars is at the same level as ‘are you with us or against us?’

I must add a note of qualification here: some of the scholars analysed will certainly have different *personal* views to the aggressive US-led foreign policy and some of the unpleasant generalisations about Arabs and Muslims (some, I know, are very hostile to some of the developments in Anglo-American culture). But they still write things that are totally in sync with the dominant cultural discourses on the Arab world and Muslims. It is important to stress, then, that individual views are not always helpful whereas looking at scholarly trends can be. This brings us back to the propaganda model in higher education and how intellectual views tend to conform strongly, sometimes irrespective of how nice individuals may be.

The end of The Quest; or what's Wrong with a bit of faith alone?

2008-11-02T22:42:00.003Z

From Roland Boer:

I hereby announce the official beginning of the first search for the 'historical Wrong'. Who is NT Wrong? In light of an increasing number of conversations, speculation over drinks (I know of at least one in Oslo), and teasing comments, this search is well overdue.

Well, I'm going to go all Bultmann on the quest (Bultmann to Boer's Strauss). Such a quest can be damaging for faith because if we knew who Wrong really was it would be damaging for all the good work done. We don't *need* to know who Wrong is historically speaking. All we need is the text we have: is that not good enough? Why do we *need* to know?

Actually, I'd like Wrong's identity to remain a mystery by SBL because it could be entertaining for Wrong going around and blogging etc with the speculation rife. Assuming the bishop is attenting (are you Wrong?).

Getting almost serious, there is something pretty impressive about someone managing to get such a spectacular reaction from bloggers over the liberal-conservative stuff and to be the topic of so many conversations in a variety of countries, nay continents (I'm pretty sure I was involved in the Oslo one mentioned by Roland, not to mention several others). Great are the mysteries of faith.

To add further, if I had to speculate, I'd say Wrong is an ordinary human being. Remarkable, certainly, but not capable of supernatural things. And just for the record, it isn't me (besides Wrong blogs too regularly and knows infinitely more about the Hebrew Bbile than me). I've been asked numerous times and it is the greatest compliment I've received but, alas, no. Don't get me wrong, I *wish* I'd have thought of the idea...

But ultimately we should praise the Wrong of faith, not the Wrong of history. Wouldn't we want Wrong living forever in our hearts and on our blogs than a mere historical figure doomed to the historical dustbin?

Loren Rosson, a review, and more problems with representation

2008-10-31T13:24:00.000Z

I know this is going to sound miserable and not in the spirit of things and for that almost apologise. But evidence free opinion and appeal to ‘reasonableness’ just annoys me a bit too much and so I just couldn't resist. So what I’m getting at is that I disagree with Mike Bird that Loren Rosson’s review of our book is even handed and fair, at least in anyway that could be useful. In many ways it was balanced only in saying Crossley was right here, Bird right there. Or better, Crossley agreed with Rosson and his heroes here, Bird agreed with Rosson and his heroes there. It was more a platform for Rosson to stress again which view of this and that he liked. He already knows what he thinks and that's how me and Bird are judged. I hate to say this but Rosson's level of argument was not good and did not support the judgments he made. We were not judged sufficiently on the *details* of the arguments and some counter arguments were just simply ignored (not a great thing to do when reviewing a book).

Rosson goes for me on the issue of law:

‘I should address Crossley's love-affair with a "completely law-abiding Jesus/Markan Jesus". As mentioned above, he bases his view on an overplayed distinction between biblical laws and their interpretation/expansion. When, save in trivial cases, does the former not involve the latter? Whether or not one is violating the First Amendment (freedom of speech), or Second Amendment (the right to bear arms), is no more self-evident to our nation of Americans today than whether or not one was violating the sabbath or the duty to honor one's parents in antiquity. The question is whether or not Jesus was perceived as violating the Torah, which he was...it's always a question of whose Torah we're talking about: the Torah of the prophets? of the priests and scribes? of Galilean peasants? etc...Paul, of course, went beyond Jesus and explicitly dethroned the law (and I think he was largely anti-nomian in his own mind), but the analogy regarding perception still holds. If Crossley wants to insist that Jesus was "completely Torah-observant" from Jesus' own perspective -- in the same way that other Jews who found wiggle room for their questionable interpretations were -- then fine. But many would agree with that anyway.

No, really? I mean, do I not know the different views of the law? Or that there is a link between interpreter and text???? I’ve taught Jewish law, I’ve spent lots of research time on Jewish law and…I somehow didn’t know or factor in that people had different views on the Law?!! When I’ve written (quite a lot!) about people having different views on the Law (including in the book Rosson reviews!!!!) did I…not mean it?? And to turn it onto Rosson, which of the perceptions of the law was Jesus perceived to have broken? Is Rosson implying that Jesus’ interpretations were 'questionable'? Which Jews had ‘questionable’ views on the law? What is a ‘questionable’ view of the law anyway?

Furthermore, my big argument is that Jesus’ views on the Law were all paralleled in early Judaism. Rosson never seriously engages with Jewish evidence on the law. There is loads of material so why not try and read it more? For what it is worth, I think it is complicated and more rewarding than relying on what your favourite scholars think. Anyway the point that there is nothing that would have necessarily led to the Jesus movement having identifying difficulties over against Judaism in the way that Paul begins to because physical circumcision can go. So can food. So can Sabbath. That is something different. That is a big reason why Christianity can develop into a religion in its own right. Jews debating over the specifics of the Law leads to major world religion? Unlikely. As Jesus falls easily into the latter category of legal debater – as can be documented with primary sources – then that is a useful analytical point as can the use of interpretation of the law vs biblical law, a distinction which rabbis knew about, incidentally – that can be read too. Incidentally, just one obvious example: Sabbath. Bible says a few things that constitute work but not much so it has to be interpreted and different people claim different things. That's a potentially useful distinction. Also, the stuff on the amendments isn't a good argument. Despite being a bit too different, is there not a distinction to be made between people discussing how it should be interpreted and even making strong claims about there enemies and people saying that they are no longer required??

Ok, this is getting silly and as much of what Rosson says has nothing relevant to do with my arguments and as I’ve written on the topic there’s no point discussing it further (incidentally, when Rosson cites different scholarly views he doesn’t engage with some of the very detailed and important work specifically on Jewish law). I’m getting tired of a lot of this sort pointless debate (it’s not really engaging with details). Anyway, let’s try and end Rosson’s love affair with his favourite scholars and pre-determined views with, I dunno, some evidence. I’m not going to go into massive detail and if people want to look at a debate between me and Rosson where Rosson gets very confused on issues of law and law breaking and what observance was like see here).

Rosson quotes Bird positively:

"Whose standard of law-observance is [Crossley] talking about? Does he mean the sectarians from Qumran? Does he mean the Pharisees (if so, which school of the Pharisees: Gamiliel or Shammai)? Does he mean the radical allegorical interpreters that Philo refers to in Alexandria? While there was diversity of Law-observance and legal interpretation within Judaism, that does not mean that each group thought that each other's interpretation was legitimate and fitted comfortably within the boundaries of a common Judaism. The polemics that Jewish groups vented against each other would suggest otherwise... Thus it is one thing to say that the Gospels make sense as part of intra-Jewish debates about the Torah, but it is quite another thing to suggest that the view of the Torah espoused within the Church during the earliest decades of its existence were regarded by others (outsiders or insiders) as exclusively Law-observant. Did the Pharisees who debated with Jesus about hand-washing and purity laws think he was Law-observant?... Paul's belief that Gentiles do not have to be circumcised has parallels in certain pockets of the Jewish Diaspora. Did that stop others from accusing him of being anti-nomian? Of course not! If early Christianity was so Law-observant in the 'Jewish' sense that Crossley argues for, then why was James the Just put to death on the charge of being a Law-breaker?" (p 133)

Rosson completely ignores my response to this (as he does elsewhere). Here is part of my response which pretty much applies to Rosson too I suppose (this is from a draft version so there could be a few typos and changes made – nothing dramatic though):

A ‘problem’ Bird has is ‘that Crossley never explains why Paul persecuted the church.’ Against Bird, however, I did speak of evidence ‘that favours an internal Jewish dispute over the correct interpretation of the Law’. But then Bird seems to recognise this and argues that ‘Crossley might say that he was persecuting them for failing to obey the Pharisaic halakhah or legal teachings. But would the Sadducean priestly class sanction a Pharisee to do that and, what is more, why would Paul restrict his persecution to Christians? Why not persecute Philo of Alexandria, the Teacher of Righteousness at Qumran, persons like Banus the Ascetic that Josephus mentions, or Jewish peasants who were generally lax in their adherence to the law?’
These are problems of Bird’s own making. Why on earth would the ‘pre-Christian Paul’ persecute Philo of Alexandria? Bird does not let us know. On the issue of the law, the ‘pre-Christian Paul’ and Philo may have in fact agreed. For instance, Philo talks about not picking fruit on the Sabbath (Philo, Mos. 2:22), a view that is echoed in Jesus’ Pharisaic opponents in the gospels (Mk 2.23-28) and in rabbinic tradition (e.g. m. Pesah. 4:8). Besides, what chances would Paul really have had of persecuting such an elite figure like Philo anyway, assuming for the moment that they would have disagreed on law observance? Bird’s questioning can be taken to strange logical conclusions. We know that the Qumran group (with whom the Teacher of Righteousness was associated) were attacked by opponents (e.g. 4Q171 4), so by Bird’s logic (namely, that Paul would have criticized others if the conflicts were internal Jewish disputes) it would have to be extremely puzzling as to why are these opponents not mentioned persecuting others! Josephus speaks of Pharisees and Sadducees having serious differences with Pharisees (Josephus, Ant. 13:297-98), so by Bird’s logic Josephus would have to mention other groups and individuals in order to be deemed plausible! On the general level, groups fall out with one another and do not necessarily attack everyone else who might be in disagreement. On the more empirical level, Jesus seriously fell out with Pharisees over legal issues (Mk 2.28-3.6) so much so that the gospels say the Pharisees wanted him dead (Mk 3.6). If this is in anyway accurate (as I suspect a good evangelical like Bird would believe it is) I fail to see why Bird sees it implausible for those acting in Jesus’ name immediately after Jesus’ death to be engaged in similar disputes.

Why ignore all that? It is fairly clear in the text and substantial. I dunno…

More law fun on ‘Saul’s persecutions’:

Crossley suggests it was only an "interpretation" of the law calling forth such zeal, to which Bird counters on p 93). Saul's zeal must have been aimed against those who were visibly threatening the integrity of Judaism with outrageous behavior -- not just professing abstract belief in wacky ideas or splitting legal hairs

So aggressive disputes over legal disputes in early Judaism…what? Didn’t exist? Well, yes they obviously did (and the term 'splitting hairs' is a subjective judgment that is not helpful). Are the primary sources not worth considering? It would seem that the narrative Rosson likes is just barging its way through with no concern for evidence. I mean, we have such eivdence and Rosson acts as if it simply doesn't exist. there is much more detail I could add. I worked on the chronologies concerning law observance and the lack of evidence for why the earliest Xns were persecuted and so on in some detail and I simply cannot be bothered to repeat (Date of Mark ch 5, WCH ch 5). I’ll just add, for someone who criticised me on terms of the Law and interpretation, hasn’t Rosson assumed something very close to biblical (circumcision) versus interpretation (‘splitting legal hairs’) as a means of analysis?

Ok, a bit more:

‘Christianity was likely admitting uncircumcised Gentiles (few as they were) right from the get-go’

No evidence is given by Rosson, no useful supporting evidence is actually known, and Acts and Paul are silent on the issue (the latter should be serious problem for Rosson). Why should anyone take Rosson’s statement seriously if it is just a statement? It *needs* a serious argument. None is given. I also wrote a book on the origins of this issue and the significance of social networks and shifting observance levels. I mention such things in the book with Bird too. This gets ignored and Rosson just repeats a view he's liked for however long. Really, what is the point of making arguments??? It seems pretty clear that making arguments that don't cohere with Rosson's views and Rosson's favourite scholars are pointless, not least because he'll simply ignore them or just say that so-and-so argued this a few years back and it's right so, erm, that's it. Don't waste time critiquing, right?

On issues relating to the deification of Jesus, Rosson pretty much resorts to scholarly views he likes and doesn’t engage with the known Jewish parallels. He doesn’t engage with the argument that conflict over such issues is absent from Paul but not John. He states:

The "Big Bang" theory of early high Christology (e.g. Richard Bauckham, Larry Hurtado, and Philip Esler) is to be preferred over the gradual evolution theory (e.g. James Dunn, Maurice Casey, and Marinus De Jong). While I agree with Crossley that we don't get an explicit equation between Jesus and God until John's gospel, it's implied nonetheless in Paul's letters and to a lesser degree the synoptics.

Well, for argument’s sake, I’m going to say I think the other view is to be preferred! Where does that leave us? It’s not helpful. ‘Implied’ and ‘lesser degree’ are too vague and I don’t know how I’m meant to a) be persuaded by that and b) be persuaded my arguments were wrong. Incidentally, who said that Casey, at least, didn’t think there was an early high Christology? A ‘big bang’ label works for a highly elevated figure too, right? I happen to think things like the early visions of the resurrected Jesus prompted an early high Christology that got the ball rolling. Maybe not the full deification in the strongest sense etc but certainly the possibility of taking on divine attributes in the ways other elevated figures did and so on. But that’s another story…

There’s other stuff e.g. the Antioch incident (where my arguments on context of the dispute in Galatians and response to Bird get ignored – again; see pp. 99-100) but I’m not going to respond because I’ve written on the topic elsewhere and others have too and there have been plenty of critiques of the views that Rosson holds dear (Rosson simply ignores mine). What Rosson does is to criticise a view by saying what another scholar said even if that view has been critiqued. When I criticised views he holds dear would it not be more fruitful to say why my objections are wrong instead of simply repeating the views I criticised? Presumably, then, if his heroes don't say it then it's, er, wrong. In other words, whoever is closest to his scholarly heroes has the most chance of being right in Rosson's eyes. There is simply no room for alternative views. This is a rotten model of scholarship.

More generally, I’ve made other arguments that are pretty much ignored by Rosson. And again Rosson doesn’t engage with crucial primary sources (scholarly heroes come first). Again, there is a lot of reliance on views that I’ve actually critiqued and too much reliance on big names by Rosson. I have little time for approaches to to scholarship such as those of Rosson because I find them intellectually stifling. I won’t waste much more of my time on this because I've given it far too much attention though I do think that point about non-argument is worth re-emphasising.

Again, I hate to be so critical but I really don't like this sort of approach so...sorry...but...

Jesus in an Age of Terror Part I (inc. blogs)

2008-10-31T01:05:00.003Z

The book will be set out in three parts, each containing two chapters. Part I looks at the ways in which New Testament and Christian origins scholarship has historically been influenced by its political and social settings over the past hundred years or so. One of the main points here is to look Edward Herman and Noam Chomsky’s propaganda model of manufacturing consent in the mass media and Chomsky’s analysis of higher education to the academic study of the Bible. In particular this chapter looks at the ways in which debates are framed by dominant interest groups and how the results reflect, in general terms, the dominant interests and how dissenting views are marginalised. This particular chapter also looks at the role of what is deemed ‘radical’ in higher education and NT studies, particularly the ways in which a scholar can think they are being radical but in broader political terms they are effectively neutralised. Think in terms of NT scholarship how Wright believes his views on physical resurrection are a threat to power (which couldn’t be further from the truth in the grand scheme of things) or how people think Crossan’s Jesus is radical when it is, in terms of political power, tame and only annoys various Christians. It’s when people follow their beliefs that threats to power occur, the most obvious example being certain liberation theologians who are deemed a very serious threat in certain circles of power. In many ways what gets through in the scholarly world is what is culturally and politically palatable or the masses of material that it largely irrelevant in terms of political power (I mean the latter as neither a compliment nor criticism).

Here, then, we start moving to present day scholarship and the new arguments. The bulk of chapter one is dedicated to showing how historically the discipline has been swayed by dominant ideologies. Chapter 2 provides some very important examples of contemporary scholarship explicitly discussing political issues namely…bloggers. Biblioblogging is very important because it is a forum where we don’t simply have to infer political views but where they are expressed openly in many cases. In the case of biblioblogging, bloggers have (unconsciously, so to speak) adopted the mechanisms of the manufacture of consent from the mass media as analysed by Herman and Chomsky. I look at some of the big political themes that Herman and Chomsky use to investigate the mass media and see how these are discussed in biblical studies. I look, among other things, at the portrayal of the ‘war on terror’, Islam and Arabs, myth of unique suffering, and Middle East conflicts. While I do discuss some of the more openly right wing and ‘very conservative’ (to steal NT Wrong’s term) bloggers, I also emphasised the more ‘moderate’ and ‘liberal’ bloggers because I think the dominant agendas of the mass media filter through there certainly is a manufacturing of consent. However, one difference: the mass media faces the restraints and dominance of corporate power in their output which bloggers don’t to anything like the same degree so the future is open for blogging to change should people of different persuasions become involved. But that’s another story.

What we really need are many more NT Wrongs (the bishop came too late, I’m afraid – sounds like a bad bishop joke, I know).

Jesus in an Age of Terror

2008-10-23T22:13:00.004Z

Jesus in an Age of Terror: Scholarly Projects for a New American Century (Equinox, 2008) is due out by mid-November in time for SBL. Time permitting, I'm going to give a kind of preview over the next couple of weeks. Time permitting...

The book, as the blurb says, looks at arguments made by Noam Chomsky, Edward Herman, Edward Said etc. on international politics and the role of the media, intellectuals and academics and applies a modified form to the study of Christian origins and New Testament scholarship in the past 40 or so years. Such scholars are particularly helpful because they allow a very precise historical contextualisation of scholarship and ideology.

Major points of this book are designed to explain why two major developments in NT studies happened when and where they did and the underlying ideology keeping them bouyant. This will include looking at the emergence of ‘the Arab’ and some very dubious comments about what the ‘Arab world’ is meant to be like (now and then) and what Arabs are meant to be like (now and then). This has become increasingly common in the past 30 years and it seems that huge chunks of NT scholarship are unaware of Said’s very, very famous demolition of Orientialist scholarship which is even more worrying given the events of the past decade where Orientalism has come back blasting. So why does this happen? Well I try to answer that and related questions. Building on Bill Arnal’s work, the other major point involves the (at times quite misleading) emphasis on ‘Jewishness’ in historical Jesus and NT scholarship since the 1970s where love for Jews and Judaism is common but underneath is a widespread view that Jews and Judaism come a poor second. Behind both these major points there are lengthy chapters on Anglo-American historical, political, cultural etc discourse on the construction of ‘the Arab’, ‘the Middle East’, and Islam and the shifting views on Jews, Judaism and Israel in the past 40 or so years. This is to show how higher education and NT scholarship are deeply embedded in contemporary cultural trends and how these cultural trends can help explain shifting trends in NT studies.

What about biblioblogging? Well just a moment. The first section looks at the ideological location of NT scholarship. The first chapter is a brief overview of the history of NT scholarship and how historical and political contexts have influenced the ways in which questions are framed and so on and how dominant interest groups will influence the ways we debate. The second chapter is on bibliobloggers. I chose the bloggers because they are a contemporary example of academics who are less guarded than in traditional publications. Here there is, I think, powerful evidence that dominant political emphases in the media are reflected in the bloggers. More on that to come… Alas, the manuscript was completed before the advent of NT Wrong so I couldn't discuss the great bishop.

There are various reasons for this book. The clash of civilisation and war on terror discourse is so prominent it would hardly be a great surprise to find its impact in NT studies. It was also becoming increasingly common for NT scholars to make some unfortunate comments on Islam and Arabs (the connection is frequently made), echoing the kinds of comments made about Jews and Judaism a generation of so ago in NT scholarship.

I should add that I am perfectly aware that this book was influenced by political and historical context. Most obviously this would include escalation of violence in Israel and Palestine, Sept 11, invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq, Abu Ghraib, Guantánamo, and bombings in Bali, Madrid, and London. So this book is, obviously, as much a work of its time as the works it critiques. On a personal level, I’ve been interested in politics at least as long as I have been reading about biblical studies so perhaps something like this book was inevitable.

Maurice Casey aptly refers to one aspect of New Testament scholarship (research on the hypothetical gospel source, ‘Q’) as being in ‘a regrettably bureaucratised state’. What I’m pretty sure Maurice at least partly means by this is the dominance of consensus and how arguments frequently descend into reference to academic authority rather than, well, argument, and over reliance on consensus. This ‘bureaucratisation’ became very apparent to me at an SBL meeting where I attended a few sect-like sessions where arguments were confirmed right or wrong by the interests of the groups or by reference to scholarly heroes and friends and so on. Part of me wanted to find out why, though to be honest the book ended up not focusing so heavily on the ins and outs of different issues in NT studies. Instead, it’s all politics…

Hunting the Heresy Hunters

2008-10-23T21:45:00.004Z

The SBL forum is up and running and has published some very interesting things… Lyons has been getting around a bit fairly lately…or so I thought: this is not W. J. Lyons but W.L. These two are going to get confused a fair bit and it doesn't help that they both cover reception historical stuff. We could have one of those polls to vote which one is your favourite...

One of the very recent ones is has been doing the rounds on the blogs and I’m behind the times on this one but whatever. Tony Burke has published a very entertaining (and I mean that in a positive sense) article called ‘Heresy Hunting in the New Millennium’. In general terms, I think he has hit on to a significant recent trend also in NT studies which is broader than the the study of the Christian Apocrypha (though there is seignificant overlap, of course). As ever, the mighty and incomparable Bishop Wrong put the point well:

Mind you, the folk that Tony Burke exposes are perhaps just the most blatant offenders in a ‘discipline’ which is riddled with the type of apologetic reasoning which would just be laughed at in other branches of the Humanities.

I suspect something similar underlies one of the reasons why some of us have been so spectacularly misrepresented, even in scholarly works (see a couple of posts back and see my comments on Wright and the resurrection). We could cast the net further to Hebrew Bible studies and look at some of the ways in which some of our friends from the Guild of Biblical Minimalists have been misrepresented, at times quite disgracefully. Incidentally, it’s good to see the return of Bible and Interpretation where there are some very useful arguments on the deceitful nature of some aspects of this all-new-heresy-hunting.

I wonder if a post-Burke and post-Wrong example of this would be our old friend Mike Bird who responded to Burke while subtly wearing his confessional mitre on his head. I’ve added the odd study note to bring out the true meaning of Bird and should add that I am so glad I don’t work in let's say those kinds of contexts:

If one genuinely believes in "false belief" as the NT indicates and "heresy" as the church fathers did, then there is nothing inherently wrong in exposing deviant forms of belief and behaviour that do not correspond to a perceived norm. Christian Apologetics is legitimate so far as it can explain to lay people why the "lost" Gospels (i.e. excluded, non-canonical, apocryphal, gnostic or whatever) lost out. It explains why the church leaders rejected writings that were androgynist (like the Gospel of Thomas) [unlike…?] or too ascetic (like the Acts of Paul)… we should be cautious and critical of those who promote an alternative "liberal myth" of Chrisian Origins. Something that supposes that the two hundred years of the church was a period of innocent pluralism and tolerance that was destroyed by the machinations of a self-appointed and needlessly narrow oligarchy of bishops who imposed their orthodox faith on a vibrant and diverse church…I'm all for more accurate [er, who isn’t?] and more rigorous use of the non-canonical writings. Yet I advocate that Christian Apologetics written by "conservative authors" is a legitimate activity since it correctly casts aspersions on the theological character and historical origins of the non-canonicals for lay audiences whose own theological profile attempts to line up with the NT canon….he [Burke] cannot disparage the theological and pastoral motivations for critiquing these documents unless he himself comes clean on his own theological and ideological biases [why not? Who will stop him?!]…I certainly don't want seminarians getting their theology of gender from the Gospel of Thomas [presumably Paul then?] or preaching the empty tomb story from the Gospel of Peter on Easter Sunday. In Burke's opinion, what does that make me? I'd like to know!

I could answer that last question – very kindly, naturally – but instead I’ll ask another: have we found ourselves another heresy hunter…?

New from JBM

2008-10-21T12:35:00.005Z

The Guild of Biblical Minimalists journal, Journal of Biblical Minimalism, has a review of John Carroll, The Existential Jesus (2007) now available. The review is by Antonius (Fat Nancy) Mokbel and contains language rarely used in book reviews. Most memorably that involving a thumb and a bath.

Guild of Biblical Minimalists

2008-10-03T14:59:00.001Z

First the arrival of Bishop Wrong, now...the Guild of Biblical Minimalists.

A McKnight in Battered Armour

2008-09-12T17:32:00.004Z

Jim West has responded to me on the book with Bird on Christian origins and makes some very interesting, helpful and critical comments which I actually enjoyed reading. I’ll respond in due course to Jim (he may be surprised to know that I don’t always disagree with some of his theological ideas but that’ll have to wait…).

Jim West has already pointed out just how seriously problematic McKnight’s apparent response to my side of the Bird book is (plus some bonus criticisms of McKnight’s reconstruction of Christian origins). Despite my better judgment, I’m reluctantly going to add more and I am going to focus on McKnight’s lack of argumentation. McKnight claims to find (though barely argues) about my supposed faulty logic. So in the spirit of things I am going to focus on McKnight’s logic, or rather lack of it.

McKnight opens by saying that he was ‘annoyed’ that I claimed Bird’s evangelism ‘was a bias’ while ‘he [Crossley] simultaneously claimed his view was more objective’. Then comes the killer line,

‘Yes, I know Crossley “states” that his method is no more objective, but I would like to have seen him tip his hat at times to the outworkings of his own biases…Crossley’s method, in other words, suffers from bias too. His attitude suggested to me he didn’t see his bias.’

Isn’t that interesting? Yes, if you want to learn more about McKnight than me and witness an explicit example of self-contradiction. First and foremost, I have never, ever said I was ‘more objective’ than anybody and never, ever said it in the Bird book. McKnight never gave a single quotation from me making such a ‘claim’ and no reference from me making such a ‘claim’ which is no surprise he’d never have found me making such a ‘claim’. To ram to point home: McKnight has simply invented this ‘claim’ in relation to me. His qualification is bizarre because he then seemingly contradicts himself when he acknowledges that I “state” otherwise. What? So do I claim ‘more objective’ in one place then ‘state’ otherwise? I’ll give the basic answer if the point isn’t made hard enough already: no to the first, yes to the second.

And why the scare quotes? Did I not really ‘state’ it? Did I sort of ‘state’ it? Was I meaning something else when I ‘stated’ it? I have no idea what he is getting at here but I think I can assume that there is some doubt being cast on me. Let’s see what I actually said:

‘To anticipate a certain type of reaction, I am not arguing that my secular perspective is “more objective” or somehow inherently superior to an evangelical or indeed any other approach, though, obviously, I do think my explanation is, to the best of my knowledge, a better account of the evidence, just as, presumably, Michael Bird thinks his account is better than mine.’ (p. xvii)

I mean, I did ‘state’ it by any normal sense of the word ‘state’, so why the scare quotes? Was I…lying? I can’t help but think that with McKnight we are dealing more with dirty tactics right now and NOT fair representation. Let’s state it more strongly: McKnight has just invented something about me.

The closest we get to something I said is a reference to ‘attitude’! What has happened is that McKnight has effectively replaced what I said with something as vague, sort of unverifiable, and general as ‘attitude’. He has seriously misread me now because I am very much in favour of a kind of methodological libertarianism or anarchism, if you like, at least in the sense that every perspective can potentially provide insight, including overtly non-believing perspectives such as my own. The more perspectives the better, at least in academia. Moreover, I have made a big and, it would seem pointless, fuss about the importance of partisanship in Why Christianity Happened (ch. 1) and in an article elsewhere on historical practice in the humanities. More on this shortly…but McKnight has actually flatly contradicted what I actually believe in his reference to ‘attitude’.

As for outworking of bias, well that was my contribution to the Bird book!! As I said in the book, and as McKnight must know, I wanted to provide an explanation based in the humanities that does not resort to the supernatural. That’s my main bias. I obviously cannot explain all the complex biases that make me the person I am (I’m no psychologist) but I did provide the kind of explanation I said I would. I might be wrong but I’m perfectly aware and open that my work is the product of my environment and biases.

Of course, perspectives can interfere too much and I think they did with Bird at times and so I argued that his arguments were problematic where it seemed his perspective was dictating things too much. I would not obviously argue such things of myself because I thought I was right (and still do). But it is perfectly plausible that my own perspectives have blinded me to things. Of course, in that book, it would be odd if I performed such an act of self criticism. That’s up to Bird in the book, not me. I may change my mind in the future, who knows? Then I can try and see if my biases were a problem. This is also a basic but crucial point and one worth mentioning to clear up any confusion (like I’ll be that lucky!).

We even get the annoying descent into aloofness:

There was a day when Geza Vermes could pretend to sit down with Gospels, open them up, and claim he could write a sketch of Jesus ‘with a mind empty of prejudice’ and study the Gospels ‘as though for the first time’. Those days are gone. Not only did Bultmann warn us all of Vorverständnis (‘pre-understanding’), which should have been warning enough, but sitting within the walls of Nottingham University, the home of Crossley’s doctoral work, is the world’s expert on hermeneutics, Tony Thiselton, and his voluminous writings should forever prevent the idea that we do not each bring our own agendas and ‘bias’ to the text. Crossley’s method, in other words, suffers from bias too. His attitude suggested to me he didn’t see his bias.’

For what it is worth, I was brought through the academic system with issues of presuppositions discussed left, right and centre. Naturally enough, when doing a theology degree, we covered Bultmann. *If* McKnight was aiming his Interpretation 101 at me as well as Vermes, it has no argumentative value against me whatsoever. *If* he was aiming Interpretation 101 at me, the reference to Thiselton would be a pompous, pointless (well, intellectually pointless), and silly argument for several reasons. Thiselton actually taught me at Nottingham when I was an undergraduate. As a postgraduate, we were both present at the postgraduate seminars. Both of us presented papers at the postgraduate seminar. I did some proof-reading for him. We even co-ran a module on Paul together. Thiselton even wrote references for me (for which I am eternally grateful). *If* McKnight is implicating me as one of those who act as if there were no Bultmann or Thiselton (though he does not mention the pioneering work on this was done outside theology!!) he could then have asked me about this instead of going down what could then be labelled an intellectually useless route of pompous academic condescension. His opinion on this matter would, if aimed at me, be all rhetoric and little, if any, argument. But perhaps he wasn’t implicating me with Vermes (or rather, a caricatured Vermes) so the reading public can thank him for a very basic point already raised in the book (we all have biases!) and *hopefully* see that I’m not to be included in those who pretend we don’t (when reading it, I still think I’m implicated but, hey, I may have given him a way out).

And just in case I was implicated, let’s add a few more points. In other work, I used work by Haskell, Hobsbawm and others on how biases and presuppositions have made contributions to the humanities and sciences. I made a lengthy point that it was in fact the biases and presuppositions of people like Vermes and Sanders which helped them make major contributions to the field. I had sections such as ‘The Importance of Partisanship’. In a co-edited volume on Writing History, Constructing Religion I made more general points on the issue of objectivity and neutrality. *If* aimed at me, McKnight’s comments on Bultmann and Thiselton would be, as I said, intellectually useless and could further have been avoided by simply checking the basic evidence. Instead, *if* aimed at me, we would be getting the pompous condescension which would then say more, I suspect, about McKnight’s presuppositions than it would about mine. But, again, *if*…

McKnight thinks it ‘singularly odd’ that I make two contradictory claims: 1) my claim that my work is more sociological etc. instead of theologically driven; 2) I give theologically shaped and lack a thorough socially shaped method. McKnight could have been saved the surprise given what I wrote:

‘This will involve looking at broader social and economic trends, combined with individual decisions, that led to the emergence of Christianity as a distinctive religion…But…I too have a heritage that I cannot (and will not) totally shake off, namely, the various approaches advanced in biblical studies and even – heaven forbid – theological approaches. Indeed the very thematic structure of this book is one of classical studies of Christian origins grounded in theological approaches to the ancient texts. This is hardly a surprise, as theology is deeply embedded in its historical context, and theology too, as we will see, plays a part in the emergence of Christianity, even if it has been massively overstated.’ (p. xviii)

As for his comments on socially shaped method, he is wrong again. I based the arguments in this book on issues such as the urbanisation projects in Galilee as Jesus was growing up and how such projects can lead to social unrest etc. I tied this in with the rise of the Jesus movement. I also discussed broader trends in monotheism and the macro-sociological argument that ties such monotheistic developments in human history with developing agrarian societies and the rise of major empires. This was tied in with issues of how social disputes led to a distinctive Christian identity constructed over against Judaism and ‘the world’, grounded in broader discussions of the construction of identity. I also discussed the importance of social networks in conversion and how this contributed to shifts in observance levels. This is what could reasonably be called a social historical method underlying what I wrote. I didn’t give masses of social scientific data and secondary literature because this is an intro/pop book. I did, however, make reference to other work where I have given such material and I did make reference to social historians who have collected and analysed such material. I was quite clear about this and I summarised such arguments. In an intro/pop book I think that is a reasonable decision to make. We should add that there is plenty of work done by social historians that does not have an explicit theory or method at the fore but is obviously a work social history and is regarded by people as social history (E. P. Thompson immediately comes to mind). Again, McKnight is replacing things I have actually said and done and does not seem to understand basic issues of social history.

Most entertainingly he makes the link with Marxism and this may, perhaps, explain why he misunderstood certain things about me:

‘he connects his views to a Marxian historiography…Crossley begins on what I thought would be a social reconstruction of the Jesus movement that would explain things in a Marxist vein, but instead those insights fell through his hands and he began instead to deconstruct theology…’

I’d have to know what McKnight means by my deconstructing theology before I could answer but the Marxist/Marxian claim is, to steal a McKnightism, singularly odd. All I did in the book was say this:

‘This will involve looking at broader social and economic trends, combined with individual decisions, that led to the emergence of Christianity as a distinctive religion. In this respect, the famous pre-inclusive language statement of Karl Marx is worth recalling:
“Men make their own history, but they do not make it just as they please; they do not make it under circumstances chosen by themselves, but under circumstances directly encountered, given and transmitted from the past.” [Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte] (p. xvii)

This is a common quotation from Marx, reflecting a very basic point, and a very basic point widely agreed upon in the humanities over the years, irrespective of Marxist or other persuasions. Historians use it often enough and so it is no surprise to find it used in introductions to history such as Richard Evans’ In Defence of History. In fact wouldn’t most of us agree that individuals can make their own history but under circumstances not of their choosing and that the past dictates present circumstances etc? I mean, that is a very obvious point, right? Quite why this would tie me in with a Marxist or Marxian approach, I do not know, other than the mention of the name Marx which is not good enough. Just for the record, and this is a special treat for readers of this blog, I find bits and pieces of Marxist approaches useful and bits of Marx useful. I do not self-identify as a Marxist and I do not have a self-consciously Marxist methodology, even if I draw on some work I suspect has Marxist roots. I’ve also used evangelical stuff and that does not, believe it or not, make me an evangelical. I’ve used countless other approaches and borrowed from countless other perspectives. Frankly, I’m happy to steal anything that I think might work.

I do like the next bit:

‘Crossley’s claims to be a “historian” lack an articulation of historiographical method. Perhaps he has fully laid out his mind on this issue in another context, but it is more than a little presumptuous for him to make the routine claim to know how historians operate, that Bird evidently does not, and not provide for us at least a fair-minded and comprehensive sketch of what his historiography looks like.’

Hmmm, where do we begin? Firstly, notice the lack of quotation from anything I said. I’ll find one and I think it is fair to say that I said something pretty tame:

‘I will provide some fairly conventional approaches developed by historians outside theology and biblical studies and sometimes fruitfully applied to the historical study of Christian origins. This will involve looking at broader social and economic trends, combined with individual decisions, that led to the emergence of Christianity as a distinctive religion…What I do want to do is provide an explanation for the emergence of Christianity that is not heavily grounded in theology, the supernatural… (p. xvii-xviii)

(Notice, GROUNDED). I think that is pretty tame and somehow not quite as arrogant as McKnight represents. With fear of sounding too arrogant now, I do think it is fair to say that, as a solid generalisation, historians don’t really rely on the supernatural and do explain things with reference to social, economic, etc trends. If you don’t believe me, try any primer on history. Try looking for the use of supernatural too: Carr discussed it in the 1960s but dismissed it as a waste of time for the historian. And he had to give his examples from theological contexts! Others don’t even bother with issues of the supernatural. This may all be wrong but I think it is a pretty accurate representation of the discipline of history. I really hammered this point home in relation to the issue of proving the historicity of the resurrection:

‘If people want to come to this as historians, there is no serious evidence in favour of the bodily resurrection really happening. If there were a similar story in the ancient world and if we were applying the conventional standards of historical research to this story, no one would take it seriously as a historical account of what actually happened…What a debate over the historical accuracy of the resurrection often boils down to is two different approaches to history that are close to being irreconcilable. To give this a contemporary slant, do we want to find whatever naturalistic causes are possible in historical explanation, leaving questions of the divine completely to one side, or do we want to take the pseudo-scientific route of Intelligent Design or Creationism and say the supernatural can be shown to be directly intervening in historical change in the study of history?’ (p. 63)

McKnight doesn’t mention that I emphasise this issue in the context of the resurrection in his criticisms of me apparently knowing how historians work. It is a crucial point. Historians RIGHTLY OR WRONGLY do not really tend to use explanations such as the miraculous or supernatural to explain historical change. Sad but true.

But better still concerns me not laying out my method. Firstly, in an intro/pop book is it really fair to include loads of methodological questions of historiography? Well, maybe. Is it fair to do so when designated chapters are on ‘the historical Jesus’, ‘the resurrection’, ‘the apostle Paul, ‘the Gospels’, and ‘earliest Christianity’? I really don’t think so.

But then, this issue: perhaps I laid out methodological stuff elsewhere (McKnight proceeds to give Historical Method 101)… I wrote a book, Why Christianity Happened, which includes a lengthy comparison of the disciplines of history and NT studies (chapter 1). In one sense, the book itself is an exercise in historical method. I have also co-edited, with the sociologist Christian Karner, a book on history, theory and religion called Writing History, Constructing Religion with scholars from a variety of disciplines in the humanities. In this book I wrote an article on…historical method and the ways in which history is practised etc., from narrative history to ideology, from theory to social history. I’ve written bits and pieces elsewhere but for now to answer McKnight, yes, I have laid this sort of stuff out elsewhere, and in some detail.

Interestingly, McKnight says in a footnote,

‘I am aware of Crossley’s book [WCH], but haven’t been asked to assess that book; instead, I have been asked to assess the sketches in this book.’

Does ‘aware’ imply that he hasn’t read it? Well, my educated guess is that he hasn’t read the first chapter at least, which is all on…history and the discipline of history! He probably hasn’t read ch. 3 either: see below.

Before I get into some more of McKnight’s faulty logic, we should just pause to reveal McKnight’s ultimate counter-argument to my portrayal (compare with Casey’s detailed rebuttal of Bird’s points):

‘Crossley’s sketches above, in my judgment, fail to offer a compelling string because, and now I drop my sword, they ignore too much of the data and facts.’

Not the most devastating sword, I must say.

Anyway, I’d prefer to respond to actual points made against me. I also particularly enjoyed this one:

‘Crossley’s obsessions are obvious: dating Mark’s Gospel in 40 CE, besides being methodologically impossible to verify at anything more than a speculative level…’

Well, obviously dating such material is inevitably speculative but I’ll leave that to one side. I’m curious that this is one of my ‘obsessions’. If McKnight is referring to the present book (he also mentioned monotheism and the law in the same footnote and they were my main points in the book as a whole and he does make an issue of only commenting on what I wrote in the Bird book so I suspect it is aimed at this book) then we can do some fun things. As far as I can remember this is about as much as I said on the date of Mark in the entire book:

‘There are some of us who would not date Mark so late but let us assume the late date is true for the sake of argument.’ (p. 55)

If I said anymore, then it is negligible. Given that I wrote, say, 40% of the book, this is hardly the ranting of an obsessive by any reasonable standard. But if it is to be deemed obsessive this means that Bird, who wrote more than me on the subject (in this book), including what I previously said on the subject in my doctoral thesis, and McKnight, who *may* have written a touch more than me on the subject in this book are more obsessive than me! And if I’m obsessive what does that make them???

Perhaps McKnight may be talking about my career in general. I certainly did write a PhD on this issue (though the majority was on Law to be fair). That may make me obsessed if we all agreed that anyone doing a PhD is obsessed. A fair point perhaps, but then it is a point that is too banal to be of any use other than a cheap shot because pretty much all academics would be obsessed. Bird must be obsessed with Jesus and gentiles and McKnight with whatever he did his PhD on. As it happens, after my PhD, I left the topic and only mentioned it here and there, but then so do many people with ideas from their PhD. At this stage of my career I have moved on to different things. After my PhD and publishing the stuff on Mark, I wrote a book on Jesus, Christian origins, historiography and shifts in Law observance. I have a book coming out in November (Jesus in an Age of Terror – more on that in the weeks to come) on the political location of contemporary scholarship (including bloggers!) and how dominant themes in Anglo-American foreign policy have influenced NT scholarship since the 1960s. This also includes lengthy chapters on contemporary politics and political rhetoric. Needless to say, I do not discuss the date of Mark. More recently, I have worked on the Bible in popular culture and on reception history, including a very enjoyable (for me) paper on the Manchester music scene between the 1970s and 1990s. There is more of that to come but I am not planning on including the date of Mark in that piece of research.

As far as academics go, I think I have a pretty diverse range of interests and to say that I am obsessed with the date of Mark is weird and an invention of McKnight unless he means the utterly banal point that anyone who does a PhD is obsessed with their PhD topic. Here I drop my sword: McKnight has ignored too much of the data and facts, virtually all readily available to him.

Remember McKnight saying he was ‘aware’ of Why Christianity Happened? Well, it seems he hasn’t read chapter 3 either. McKnight says,

‘Crossley’s contention that “sinners” refers to economic oppressors (see page 5) deserves consideration, but I remain convinced that J. D. G. Dunn’s study is more compelling…’

Now this is interesting. I did indeed mention in passing the economic aspect of the phrase on page 5 (and 4). I didn’t mention there that I also AGREE with Dunn’s portrayal and I have given more examples to back him up too! But I did this in WHC ch. 3 in a very detailed chapter which looked at the different words for sinners in Jewish literature in Greek, Hebrew, Aramaic and Syriac, from the Hebrew Bible/LXX to sometime in the rabbinic period, before an analysis of the gospel texts. Whenever social status/class is mentioned, they are oppressive rich. They are, at the same time, regarded as behaving beyond the law or in a way perceived to be beyond the law. I suggested that we cannot see the sinners of the gospel tradition as ‘common folk’ (and recall their association with tax collectors – notorious for being oppressive rich) and that they should be seen (or better they were seen) as wealthy and oppressive if we want to look at them in terms of class/social status. At the same time, they would probably have been perceived as law breakers of some kind too. The gospel tradition is probably identical to masses of Jewish evidence in holding the two together, otherwise it is unique. Given that it is assumed that we should all know who the sinners were in the gospel tradition and that Jesus and his opponents were talking about such people without much in the way of explanation then it is pretty obvious that the gospel tradition too stands in this massive tradition.

How is Dunn’s thesis more persuasive then? Only on the basis of some passing comments in a intro/pop book but those comments were only there to make one economic point and it is very unfair to set up passing comments on one angle of the problem against a detailed research piece by Dunn. If McKnight had read WCH ch. 3 he would see that I am not in disagreement with Dunn at all. McKnight’s point is very unfortunate because he has again unfairly represented me. It makes be very suspicious of his use of ‘aware’ too.

I have little more to say on this. Like McKnight, I am very annoyed (well, relatively speaking). I am NOT annoyed at polemic (if I were I’d never have published my next book). Polemic is fine as far as I’m concerned, but I’m much less forgiving if it is just hot air (or whatever the literary equivalent is) with unsubstantiated opinion flying. Yet I am not just annoyed at being personally misrepresented. I am also annoyed because I didn’t want this book to descend into cheap, unsubstantiated, misleading, pompous digs that characterises much of the debates between non-believers and evangelicals (or whatever) and I’m afraid that is how I read McKnight’s response in light of my above criticisms.

It is also worrying that Mike Bird says, ‘Let me say that Scot McKnight's rejoinder to Crossley is worth the price of the book alone!’ Well it depends what you want. If you want cheap jibes then yes; if you want an intellectual counter-argument then it isn’t. Quite why Mike gets so giddy, I don’t quite know, but I really hope he isn’t seeing this in terms of some bitching contest than intellectual engagement!

BNTC 2008

2008-09-07T20:16:00.003Z

I thought this was one of the better ones. It was good to see various people as ever and particularly to catch up with Durham people I haven't seen in years. Had some fun times and it is always good to see Mike Bird and see how he's getting on. The journey back was a nightmare at first thanks to the flooding and it seems most others experienced problems. My advice: follow Sean Winter. The Jesus seminar (and not to be confused with the American Jesus Seminar of Crossan, Funk, et al fame) went particularly well I thought, as did the main papers. I found nothing disagreeable with what I heard, though had to miss Dale Martin's (for a very good reason) which everyone I spoke to said was good. It would seem there are one or two pictures around on blogs but I'll talk about the Jesus seminar...

Justin Meggitt's paper was really quite excellent, esp. on the findings from medicine and medical anthropology, including some particularly memorable tales of placebo healings. The secondary literature seemed extremely up to date and something quite distinctive I think, including some important qualifications on psycho-somatic healings in relation to the Jesus tradition. I believe this will be an article in a forthcoming edited volume on such matters which Justin said was reviewed (or something like that) by an expert in medicine. When that comes out, the article will be worth reading for the insights into the medical literature alone.

Halvor Moxnes then gave an excellent paper on ethnicity, identity and Galilee. There was one basic but very important point to come from this, namely that religious identity is too often foregrounded when all sorts of aspects of identity can be used (gender, class etc). For some, I think, or at least hope, that this opened their eyes to something beyond the traditional concerns of scholarship in the UK. It was clear that several people were grateful for this. I responded but didn't disagree with anything substantive. I tried to push a few things forward, such as the political context of Galilee scholarship and the rhetoric of emphasising 'Jewishness' where opponents allegedly don't have a Jewish enough Jesus. As Mike Bird mentioned on his blog, the discussion got to the very 'in' debate over the labels 'Jew', 'Judean', etc. Mike raises some doubts or qualifications which are of interest. I have no real opinion as such on whether one is better than the other in ancient terms but I don't care too much because the ways in which people were describing things was pretty much the way I use 'Jew'. I have some doubts on the foundational linguistic work of this debate, particularly the political context, and I'll be discussing this in weeks to come.

Then there was Bird...Strangely, I wasn't in any major disagreement with Mike over his paper on Jesus and Messiah and things like that. There were some concerns raised about an over trusting attitude towards the historicity of the tradition but that is probably another debate. The only major problem with substance was Mike's definition of 'messianic'. Other than the odd conservative, and certainly not all of them, Mike didn't even manage to persuade the furniture that his general definition of 'messianic' was sufficiently nuanced. Yes, people agreed that Jesus thought his ministry was very special etc but the 'Messianic' label really needs some qualifying. Other than that, as I said, I didn't really disagree with much of what he said and if he had used different labels and more nuancing, many people would no doubt share the same view.

Surprised? Well, let's fix that. Mike has now gone and done his old trick of ingnoring what I said, replacing it is what he says I said (which I didn't), before heroically inventing my apparent downfall by, er, mindreading. Mike said, 'James Crossley argued against the triumphal entry in Mark as being messianic which I think only convinced him and the furniture.' I actually said that Mike hadn't proven it was necessarily 'messianic' but worked with a definition and fitted everything he wanted into it, including the truimphal entry. Me and my co-chair got into our usual heated debate which we do every year and it is always good fun - I'm not sure Mike realises this tradition. Anyway, the substance of the debate involving the three of us to which Mike refers was actually over the phrase 'son of David' which I said was not used of Jesus in Mk 11. It still is not used. The crowds talk about the coming kingdom of our father David which is not the title 'the son of David' for Jesus. Matthew of course makes significant changes and Mike mentioned something vague about Matthew drawing out the obvious significance or something. I was, and am, perfectly happy with the idea that, according to Mark, people thought Jesus was something very special (whether we define this as 'messianic' is another question). Of course, in terms of the historical Jesus that depends on whether the passage goes back to Jesus or not. Because Mike didn't agree and there was a touch of conservative reaction, this doesn't not mean everyone as Mike implies. Others agreed with me (including Casey) and the only response was the predicatable one that Jesus is still the son of David in Mark, ok!? All I'm saying is that Mark does not say that. I mean it is obvious: people were referring to the coming kingdom of their father David. So my point was that you have to start putting things into that Markan text to get Jesus was 'the son of David'. I may not be the most evangelical but at least I'm scriptural! God only knows why Mike keeps coming up with these representations. Eyewitnesses, eh!

Doubting Stephen

2008-08-27T23:03:00.004Z

Stephen Law lectures in Philosophy at Heythrop (University of London) and has been causing a bit of a blog stir, on his blog, by doubting the existence of Jesus (I noted this thanks to Doug C). Given Heythrop has lots of theology and philosophy, it could be an interesting place for him to be! Anyhow, I’m not so interested in getting involved in the debates over whether Jesus existed. Given what I've written on this blog and in publications I obviously think he did (and I think I’m relatively conservative concerning the synoptic tradition). This is based largely on the argument that there is much in the synoptic tradition that puts Jesus as a fairly typical Jewish teacher and lacks serious ‘Christianising’ (coupled with independent attestation and various historical Jesus criteria). But I’m not really so interested in all that. I’m more interested in having some wholesome fun with Stephen Law's arguments. It looks like the debate it getting pretty heated (though not initially so it would seem) so I just want to cool it down with some non-polemical interaction with Law’s arguments.

But first, one point of interest, a kind of Interesting Fact for the Day and a rare kindred spirit (cf. the WL Craig debate): Law was asked to debate Gary Habermas on the historicity, or not, of the resurrection.

Stephen Law writes:

First off, I am not sure whether Jesus existed, or if he did, what he did and said. Remember, we have four documents, written decades after Jesus lived, by true believers, saying there was this person and he did these things. None of the authors was an eyewitness, it seems. It's all second-, third- or fourth- hand testimony… why should we lend much credence to four documents produced by four somewhat anonymous true believers, who weren't even eyewitnesses themselves, decades after the alleged events, in the case of Jesus?

The problem is that on all sides (see some of the comments) too much is being claimed about what we do not know with any great certainty. I do not think any of the gospel authors were eyewitnesses but this should be qualified. I am open to the idea that a lot of material (e.g. certain early legal material with little ‘Christianising’ influence) is extremely early (as I’ve argued elsewhere). I’m even open to the idea of eyewitness reporting in the tradition. But then I really don’t know on the eyewitnesses other than educated guesses and even then there is the very real possibility of eyewitnesses embellishing and making things up. We may have to entertain a very chaotic model concerning historicity. Whether material is second, third or fourth hand testimony could well depend on what passage we take but it is almost impossible to say with anything close to certainty. Some of us don’t even think at least one gospel was decades (plural) after the event. As for ‘somewhat anonymous’, if Law is implying that the canonical gospels were originally anonymous he might be right. But they may be pseudonymous. I’m highly doubtful, but some clever people do argue that they were written by Mark et al. Maybe they are right. Even if we don’t accept that they are right, it still leaves things a bit too uncertain. Again, I’m not sure how much this is of use in terms of whether Jesus existed because all these authorial practices were known in the ancient world (and let’s not forget things like multiple authorship) and who knows whether anonymous or pseudonymous authors were close in the tradition to Jesus or fourth hand? If we accept an eyewitness author who knows how much they made up (in the case of John if there was an eyewitness author that person invented fantastical amounts!)?

Stephen Law adds:

There were, in addition, many other gospels that the Church later suppressed. These gospels contradict the "official" four on many points (in some, Jesus does not even die). Even if we can put them to one side as "later" and "unreliable" (as the Church did), the fact is they illustrate that, at that time, the faithful were not at all shy about adding their own embellishments to the story, and indeed, just making stuff up. But then how can we be sure the four official Gospels don't involve a lot of made up stuff?

I’m sure the four do make stuff up (those good old favourites on this blog – and I’m very glad to see Law uses them too – namely Matthew’s resurrected saints remain as good an example as any). But here I think Stephen Law’s argument needs some cultural contextualisation when he claims:

I could go on, but this is all small beer compared to the real evidential deficit, which is this.
If two friends tell me that a man called Bert visited them at home last night, I have every reason to believe them. That's evidence enough.
But if they then tell me that Bert flew around the room, then dropped dead, and them came back to life again, before turning the sofa into a donkey, well then that's no longer nearly good enough evidence that they are telling the truth, is it?
In fact, not only am I justified in rejecting their testimony about the miracles, I would now also be wise to suspend judgement on whether any such person as Bert even exists, let alone did the things they claim.

In terms of the Bert example, modern people may well be wise to suspend judgment on whether such a person exists but in the ancient world concepts of truth were different. To embellish and invent grand stories about heroes was common enough and respectable enough in a way that many of us now would not accept. This is, I think, an important distinction. It does not ‘prove’ Jesus existed, of course, but it makes the gospel tradition *not quite* as susceptible to suspending judgment in the full Bertian sense. Given the amount of material that looks relatively ‘ordinary’, at least in the sense that it would not be much of a surprise for one of many Jewish teachers to have said at the time of Jesus, and even material where Jesus was not so hot (e.g. Mark 6.1-6), then this subtle point may even take on extra significance because it shows that there were traditions not always hyped up.

Stephen Law adds:

The moral is pretty obvious, I think. No one claims Socrates performed extraordinary miracles in front of audiences of thousands. The gospels claim Jesus did. That is why we need rather better evidence for his existence than just the say so of four rather inconsistent documents written by the faithful decades after the event.
There implication here is that inconsistencies are not helpful in establishing the existence of Jesus – is that a fair reading of Law? If this is what Law is suggesting, then it is worth pointing out that it might actually be better evidence for the existence of Jesus: the ‘more primitive’ seeming (e.g. Jesus not being able to do mighty deeds versus the rewriting of Mark 6) would point more in the direction of existence than not, right…?

One final reflection on this: if we follow Law and doubt Jesus’ existence on the basis of a lack of sufficient evidence, then would we not have to start doubting the existence of the majority of famous and famous-ish figures in the ancient world? After all, the evidence is no better for many ancient figures, right? Would this not even be raising the possibility of re-writing masses of the narrative history of the ancient world? I stress this is not a counter argument to Law but more an observation on the implication of Law’s argument.

Just as a treat, here’s a dig at biblical scholars:

I have read books by University-based Biblical scholars that demonstrate an extraordinary level of gullibility. I have also talked to University-based religious folk who have told me, with a straight face, that Josephus provides good evidence for the historicity of Jesus. This leads me to think that much that goes by the name of “biblical scholarship” ain’t exactly rigorous… P.S. The fact that some of the small minority of atheists who are Biblical scholars believe there was an historical Jesus doesn't cut much ice with me, I'm afraid, given the dominant Christian culture in which they were educated.

Fair??? I’ll let you decide on that one…

Well, just one aside that doesn’t have so much to do with Law’s arguments…My background in pre-university education was extremely a-Christian and a-religious (and even though I did a theology degrees and PhD I didn’t really think of it as being an overly Christianised context, though that may be more to do with my associations and things have certainly swung in the Christianising direction since those days). The past few years has made me think that this could be quite unusual for biblical studies, at least in British biblical studies. Would it be fair to say that most, many, some or few have been educated in contexts where the dominant Christian culture is evident? Just idle thoughts…

Jews and non-Jews eating and not eating together...

2008-08-19T20:52:00.003Z

…does not necessarily have much do with circumcision…

Or at least this isn’t a view that doesn’t come through in some of the key literary sources.

Mike Bird has some texts on Jewish and non-Jewish table fellowship. Mike doesn’t really add any comments but Loren Rosson does in the comments section:

The problem of mixed table fellowship (to which circumcision was the remedy) was ubiquitous, which is why I often emphasize in the context of Paul's Gentile mission that it's impossible to think about the question of "no circumcision" without direct and immediate implications for mixed table fellowship..

I don’t think this is right, certainly not the heavy emphasis on circumcision as the remedy. But first let’s look at some of the sources. As E. P. Sanders (who is still one of the best to read on this topic) pointed out years ago, the non-Jewish texts have to be treated with some scepticism (or whatever the right word is) because they are often hostile. They are also the generalising views of outsiders which are not wholly informed (indeed why would they really care) and really ought to be combined with Jewish texts which give inside explanations. And after scepticism about non-Jews generalising, to generalise: early Jewish texts (I leave rabbinic literature to one side for now) have a clear tendency to explain the problem in terms of food and/or idolatry. Circumcision doesn’t really come into it. Purity probably wasn’t an issue because it seems very unlikely that so-called gentile impurity was defiling in the sense that Jews with the various impurities described in the Bible were.

So let’s look at a few. Daniel 1 has Daniel and his companions eating their own food because they did not want to defile themselves with the royal food. The foreign food is quite explicitly the problem, though quite why is another question. Note that the translation for what they will eat is usually given as something like ‘vegetables’ but the Hebrew is the plural of zr‘, literally ‘seeds’. I’m not sure of the significance of this but it is worth speculating that we might have an early example of a strict concern for intra-Jewish table purity given that seeds are not as susceptible to impurity according to Leviticus 11. But in terms of the main point it seems that foreign food is the problem.

Next, Judith 12:

So Holofernes said to her [Judith], “Have a drink and be merry with us!” Judith said, “I will gladly drink, my lord, because today is the greatest day in my whole life.” *Then she took what her maid had prepared and ate and drank before him.* Holofernes was greatly pleased with her, and drank a great quantity of wine, much more than he had ever drunk in any one day since he was born. (Judith 12.17-19)

Judith had different food made for her. Clearly table fellowship is made possible having kosher food made especially available. There are plenty of modern analogies to observant Jewish people eating with gentiles by having food prepared.

Next, some additions to Esther:

‘And your servant has not eaten at Haman’s table, and I have not honoured the king’s feast or drunk the wine of libations’ (Add. Esther C 14.17)

Here we have Esther avoiding eating at the table which may or may not be due to foods prohibited in the Torah. Still, the food is the centre of the issue. But clearly significant is avoiding of the wine of libation and thus idolatry. Important to note: there are specific circumstances given and there is NOT a blanket ban on eating with gentiles.

More food centred problems:

‘After I was carried away captive to Assyria and came as a captive to Nineveh, everyone of my kindred and my people ate the food of the gentiles, but I kept myself from eating the food of the gentiles.’ (Tobit 1.10-11).

Again, food is the problem and why would a Jew eat pork etc? Again, note that eating with gentiles as such isn’t the problem.

One of the most entertaining – and a little unclear – is retained in Joseph and Aseneth:

Joseph said…‘It is not right for a man who worships God, who with his mouth blesses the living God, and eats the blessed bread of life, and drinks the blessed cup of immortality…to kiss a strange woman, who with her mouth blesses dead and dumb idols, and eats of their table the bread of strangulation, and drinks of their libations the cup of treachery…it is not right for a woman who worships God to kiss a strange man, because this is an abomination in God’s eyes…’ (Joseph and Aseneth 8.5-8)

Whatever the provenance of the story, the context of idolatry is very strong here. Perhaps the ‘abomination’ refers to both idolatry and banned food (bdelugma certainly can refer to both). Again, no blanket ban: reasons are given.

Now you may notice how I keep talking about the reasons being given (food and idolatry) rather than a blanket ban. In this context, a sometimes misread text is particularly important, namely Aristeas 181 and the banquet between Egyptian king and his Jewish hosts:

“Everything of which you partake,” he [the Egyptian king] said, “will be served in compliance with your habits; *it will be served to me as well as to you*.” They expressed their pleasure and the king ordered the finest apartments to be given to them near the citadel, and the preparations for the banquet were made. (Letter of Aristeas 181)

The food is central and following the assumed logic of the previous texts comes to the fore here, i.e. when the conditions for the food are acceptable table fellowship is possible. Contrary to some uses of Aristeas, it is quite clear that the Jews and non-Jew will eat the same food and thus problem solved. Table fellowship is possible if the circumstances are right. Notice that circumcision is not mentioned here.

Of course, who knows how things varied on the ground, away from these texts…?

But let’s finally look at the famous extreme example from Jubilees and the following patriarchal advice:

‘Keep yourself separate from the nations, and do not eat with them; and do not imitate their rites, nor associate with them; for their rites are unclean and their practices polluted, an abomination and unclean. They offer sacrifices to the dead and worship demons and they eat among the graves; yet all their rites are worthless and to no purpose.’ (Jubilees 22.16-17)

As Sanders pointed out, this is sectarian so should be taken on its own terms and it may tell us little about how Jews throughout the ancient world behaved. However, note again, even in this extreme example, the reasons for separation and not eating with them is because of the naughty practices of non-Jews, including their idols etc. It isn’t that far removed from the logic underlying the other Jewish texts.

For this reason and several others I suspect the same kinds of issues underlying the Antioch incident recorded in Gal. 2. But that’s another story….

Anyway, I’ve discussed this and the scholarship in lots more detail in Date of Mark’s Gospel, ch. 5. And, believe it or not, though obviously in less detail, in the new Bird and Crossley book…

EABS Lisbon

2008-08-07T17:55:00.002Z

Lisbon is a great city. Very, very friendly. It was pointed out that I rate conferences by the food (it’s true) and this was as good as any. And as my paper discussed aspects of the rave scene, a big shout out to the great staff at Hotel Britana! But we were there to learn from the European Association of Biblical Studies and you don’t really want to hear the social side of things, do you?

John Lyons’ session on the biblical world and its reception was as good an academic session as I can remember. From children’s lit to San Francisco, from Dawn of the Dead to gloomy old Manchester, we saw lots of examples of how biblical texts were being creatively used, gaps filled, biblical questions answered. Quite to my surprise one of two people with some good knowledge of Manchester music and its social historical context were present. It was particularly fun to be in a context not only where this sort of stuff could be discussed but to be away from the often polemical contexts I at least have found myself in the past few years. I also liked the fact that theoretically I knew I could persuade people on the basis of argument alone because there weren’t as many deeply held views at stake (I mean, I know I wouldn’t be able to persuade lots of people in historical critical arguments no matter how strong the arguments are because commitment levels are so intense). The Q&A sections were a good standard and some of the questions raised on this blog were also raised (independently) at the session. The question of historical, social, political etc contexts of reception was raised a couple of times. Another question raised was one of audience and in particular who picks up on the allusions. That could be a tricky issue but one obvious worth exploring. Some will be easier than others. Let’s take the UK. Some areas have a more obvious Christian context than others. Some people (I know) just will not pick up on allusions whereas others it will part of their upbringing and contexts whether they believe or not. Notice how this kind of audience, like the various other questions, is not too removed from standard historical critical questions. As with historical criticism and NT it also shows the warnings of mirror reading texts in establishing audience.

I did detect a little bit of an inferiority complex or paranoia among some colleagues, namely that they won’t get taken seriously enough. I appreciate why they may think like this because would someone trained in reception alone be hired for a post at junior level at least…? But on the other hand, and more in more intellectual than practical terms, who cares? IF historical critics don’t like it, then let them carry on doing what they do. Reception history doesn’t need their endorsement intellectually just as historical critics don’t need the endorsement of reception critics, unless of course reception history tries to answer a classic exegetical question. In terms of the use of the Bible without trying to get to ‘the original meaning’ then we are virtually talking about two different worlds, right?

In terms of importance, I’ll give another example of no less a figure than John Lyons himself. John will probably write on his paper in due course but here we started getting into the reception of the reception. Given that Johnny Cash is the topic of John’s paper we might be able to answer some of the slightly snobbish questions that are sometimes raised against reception history, esp. the non-‘orthodox’ theology type, i.e. is it really relevant and who cares about all these views of crazy people (I remember this something like this said in a questions session by one very famous professor at a theology conference)? Firstly, I’ll just mention this: is it really fair to dismiss the history of anyone because it isn’t orthodox or mainstream? I’d hope that we are now in an era when all sorts of histories ‘from below’ were acceptable… Secondly, and in direct answer, Johnny Cash is an excellent example for a different reason, namely he is a figure of cultural significance, esp. since his death. John’s paper and papers on this have shown that he turns up in all sorts of different cultural contexts. If academic worth is measured on things like cultural significance and influence (not that it necessarily should), couldn’t a case for studying someone like Cash be particularly strong, even more so than much of historical criticism…?

RBL review of Boer

2008-07-24T20:45:00.004Z

There is a very polemical (and a bit odd) review of Roland Boer's latest book, Rescuing the Bible, by D. A. Carson. An authority no less than NT Wrong has fired back and makes some very telling counter arguments. Wrong said that Carson volunteered to review the book but (and I ask out of some ignorance), isn't there much more selecting reviewers by RBL these days (can anyone clarify?)? If this is the case, is Carson not a strange choice given Boer's background and interests in Marxist and critical theory. Not that different people shouldn't be allowed to review different books but it seems like a strange choice. Likewise, it would be an odd choice if Boer was chosen to review Carson on (say) divine sovereignty and human responsibility? I mean experts on Markan historical criticism tend to be chosen to review works on Markan historical criticism. I dunno, just an observation. But there are implications because I would have liked someone to critique and engage with Boer on his intellectual foundations and even the very genre of 'manifesto'.

To use an old phrase, Boer can defend himself so I won't defend Boer's book or Marxism (don't worry I won't be defending Carson either). Besides, Wrong has exposed some serious problems in the review. In the sprit of recent postings here, let's look at reception. It may not be much but it ain't pretty! And, unsurprisingly enough, it highlights some interested parties and those who want the Bible to support a certain position (clue: not Boer's).

Mike Bird mentioned the review and quoted the scathing remarks at length but made no particular judgment himself. In the comments, 'Wow! What a review! That was refreshing.' I'm not sure how it was refreshing (it was critical of a left wing and secularising position - how is that refreshing?) but presumably the rhetoric of the review has roused one interested party. Not the only one... Andy Naselli claims that, 'The analysis and conclusion are refreshingly blunt'. More refreshment! In the comments the support gets weirder and a mild hip-hop makeover: 'Wow. Go, Carson. Don’t even think about messing with D to the A.' Got that Boer? I wish he'd said 'you go girl!' though.

No need to read between the lines? Are other manifestos dictating certain receptions of Boer in blog circles?

BNTC Jesus Seminar (Durham, 2008)

2008-07-22T11:10:00.002Z

The historical Jesus seminar at the British NT Conference has been posted. Should be good and the topics should spark some heated debated, I'd have thought.

Session 1:
Justin Meggitt (University of Cambridge)
'How did Jesus cure?'

Given the historical likelihood that Jesus of Nazareth was believed by many of his contemporaries to have been a successful healer, how did he effect such cures? It has become common in NT studies to avoid such questions by either declaring them inadmissible or providing supernaturalist explanations which would be unacceptable in any other discipline and are not usually considered appropriate when looking at comparable figures with reputations as healers in antiquity. In recent years scholarship has tended to focus increasingly on how Jesus healed the social experience of illness, whilst largely avoiding the awkward question of why recipients also believed that they had been physically cured of disease. It is true that a number of scholars, often when providing justifications for accepting the historicity of the healing traditions, do venture some non-supernaturalist explanations, alluding to possible psychosomatic factors, but these remarks, although often quite central to their arguments, are inchoate, ill thought through, and surprisingly anecdotal. However, by engaging with more recent anthropological literature we may be able to go some way to providing a more plausible understanding of the processes that led contemporaries to make this assessment about Jesus.

Session 2:
Halvor Moxnes (University of Oslo)
'What was Galilean Identity like? The problem of describing Galilee as a place for the historical Jesus'

Due to renewed historical interest, as well as many recent excavations, there has been an explosion of studies on Galilee, many of them with explicit discussion of their relevance for Historical Jesus studies. In this way the question of how to describe 1st century Galilee has been linked to discussions of how to understand the Historical Jesus in the Third Quest. This paper will investigate the assumptions and presuppositions that underlie the constructions of Galilee in recent studies. In its simplistic form the most important question has been "was Galilee Jewish?"

Recent studies have developed more sophisticated approaches: e.g. in his Archaeology and the Galilean Jesus, (2000), Jonathan L. Reed has a chapter on "The identity of the Galileans: Ethnic and religious considerations," and various arguments are developed one of the most recent collections of studies, edited by J. Zangenberg, H.W. Attridge and D.B. Martin (2007) is titled Religion, Ethnicity and Identity in Ancient Galilee.

Yet in studies of the historical Jesus and early Christianity the terms "identity" and "ethnicity" are much used, but seldom discussed with regard to their history, development and use in current studies in social anthropology and sociology. To place the studies of 1st century Galilee within a wider context this paper will explore, for example, essentialist versus more process oriented understandings of these terms, and the links between "ethnicity" and "race", which were much used in the 19th and earliest 20th century. The term "nation" as an important identity category belongs also in this context; however, it is not discussed in recent studies of Galilee. Likewise there is a lack of awareness of the role that archaeology and historical descriptions play in constructions and legitimations of modern, national identities, so there is no discussion of the relation between the construction of ancient identities in Galilee and that of contemporary identities.

Respondent: James Crossley (University of Sheffield)

Session 3:
Michael F. Bird (Highland Theological College)
'Jesus the Messiah: A Role Declined? A Response to non-Messianic Jesus'

This paper examines recent arguments against the historical Jesus as a messianic claimant including arguments based on (1) Messiahship inferred from the resurrection; (2) The 'Messianic Secret' as proposed by William Wrede; (3) The disciples' enthusiasm for and the authorities' perception of Jesus as Messiah; (4) An inference from the titulus on the cross; and (5) Scripturizing of the tradition. In sum, this paper endeavours to demonstrate that the case against a messianic is Jesus is far weaker than it appears to be.

Evangelical erotica: an overlooked area in reception history?

2008-07-20T22:37:00.002Z

In response to Mike Bird's reference to a Sydney Morning Herald article on Christian Sex Guides, Doug Chaplin points out a load of exotic sounding practices and makes the following comment which may or may not be true:

I’m not quite sure why, since evangelical Christians (the only sort who would buy a separate “Christian” guide) seem to me to have bought fully into a late modern Western hedonistic relational pleasure-giving-and-receiving understanding of sex as a necessary means of human fulfilment – only adding the proviso that it really ought to happen only in marriage (straight of course!) whether it’s your first, second, third or more.

Earliest Christian History is a family blog and would never publish the sorts of descriptions Doug does. However, it seems that Mike may have been reading a bit more widely, perhaps from one of the aforementioned, I don't know, though he seems to be getting a little less elaborate in his old age:

Most nights I do a 10-15 minute reading from the Greek New Testament. Since I haven't mastered all of the Greek quite yet, I sit in bed with three books: Kubo's lexicon, an NIV Bible, and my trusty UBS4. With my little library in bed with me (next to the wife) it gets pretty crowded. Well I'm glad to say that I only take the one book to bed with me now which is the new UBS reader's edition of the Gk NT.

More reception history 2: stating more of the obvious

2008-07-16T00:09:00.004Z

[UPDATE: I should have mentioned the return of Rafael and Verily, Verily - see also the comments)

1. Some invented speculative questions now. One is on the influence of the Bible and biblical verses. Now that’s a big, big question and gets us back to the old issue of ideas versus more socio-economic ‘forces’. It is also one John Lyons discussed a while back and I develop some of those ideas in this post.

In many Western, obviously enough the Bible is a major cultural reference point, consciously or unconsciously. We might think of literary and theological traditions where the Bible has been integral and the old chesnut that is the weight/anxiety of tradition and influence is, obviously, very much present. Ok, but no general problem here.

But West is far too broad. Let’s take the US and UK for two very distinct views and politics in particular. A nice obvious example, yes, but one which should help make the point that this question is very complex. In the UK it is difficult to see how the use of the Bible has any significant impact on party politics. Certainly some politicians may well be motivated by faith and the Bible but there is not yet a big Bible-belt style vote to be won and things overtly biblical are usually avoided. In the US, well we all know how interpretation of the Bible is a big issue. But even then the problem is not simple. In terms of Christian Zionism and their currently influential interpretation of the Bible, it has only really emerged as a force, post-1967, post Six Day War. And even that shows greater problems of causality: CZ becomes a big influential issue after a major historical event which, for many, seemed to confirm biblical prophecy. And in turn, it is a particularly American issue, with all the history and theology underlying it. While it is relatively easy to explain the various influences on US politics, it is not so easy to make division in terms of primary influence and say just how much the Bible and biblical interpretation play a role and how much itself was a product of historical events or that history and ideology is just so embedded that the task is near impossible. Perhaps all we could do is suggest that the Bible and biblical interpretation is one factor among many, not as influential as wider geopolitical trends and urges but an influence…?

Another good example would be the current problems facing the Anglican Church over homosexuality. On one level there is a debate over interpretation of the key biblical verses and if it could be said that they are fairly explicitly anti-homosexual (or whatever terms you want) then the Bible is having an influence. But again, why now? Why not 150 years ago? Well the obvious reason is that more liberal views towards homosexuality have developed in the past 40 years and so it becomes an issue, with the Bible kind of dormant on the issue, just waiting to be woken. Then there are all sorts of complex local histories that need to be factored in and so on. So again, it starts to become a bit chicken and egg and again we are seeing another example of how broader cultural trends spring the Bible into action but with the influence of the Bible always lurking and perhaps its sheer presence always influencing and only now being reacted against…?

One example which I think shows how the Bible is being used and not a significant influencer is the emergence of liberal democracy. There is common rhetoric that the West is so wonderful and liberal because of the Bible in contrast to the East, Arabs, Muslims, Islam, or whatever. Now I’ll have more to say on the whole clash of civilisations stuff in the following months but I find the idea of the Bible somehow ‘causing’ liberal democracy a problem. For a start it took so long. Another point is that the Bible has nothing really to say on liberal democracy and most biblical writers would be most happy with some form of theocracy. We could invoke other influences, such as the taking up of certain classical Greek traditions as ‘Western’, perhaps add other things such as interlinked geographical and technological locations, among many, many things. Whatever, you get the point. More generally, is this not a good example of how the Bible gets invoked after the event rather than having any serious causal function?

Another twist, is the ‘unconscious’ use of the Bible. It is not difficult to find (as has well and truly hit home in writing a forthcoming paper) plenty of examples of the Bible and biblical language being used by people (esp. in pop cultural contexts) without any care for religion, Christianity, the Bible and so on. Famous words and lines are used for a variety of ‘secular’ and previously unheard of reasons. This takes us back to the general cultural and historical contexts and who knows where using and being influenced begin and end.

2. My own other question: what should reception history be like? Both its strength and weakness is that there is simply so much material waiting to be analysed. One problem for the commentary and a problem that presumably faces the writers of the Blackwells series on reception history is what to include and exclude. Selecting evidence is a problem at the best of times but selecting evidence for a reception-historical commentary is even more difficult, with the probable exception of If the commentary was a mainstream theological type of thing (something like Luz’s Matt commentary or Thiselton’s 1 Cor. commentary, say) then this the boundaries are relatively easy: look at the patristic, medieval, Reformation, modern etc. theologians. What is to be done is then another issue: explain why the given theologian made the interpretative decision they did or see whether they have interpreted the given verse ‘correctly’ or have a particular insight that historical criticism has missed.

But for a reception historical commentary that doesn’t want to go this way then what are the boundaries? A theme could be chosen but a theme for a whole commentary? Some verses might have an obvious route to choose (maybe) and perhaps it might be worth focusing on one tradition, an ideology (e.g. feminism, liberation etc) or what country or something like that. But, ultimately, how does a reception historical commentary of a more open variety avoid the problem of being sort of, well, random? The commentary format is something of traditional biblical studies and theology and there’s no reason (obviously!) why it should be the route for all, many, or most (likewise in traditional biblical studies) but for those working on commentaries there are problems of choice. I know one or two who hang out online and are working on such commentaries, so is this a fair comment?

There is a danger of a reception historical work being little more than cataloguing: this book says this about Luke 6, that text work of art says something else, this singer references this, that and the other biblical verse etc. (though collections of reference works would be very helpful). I suppose there are many ways in which to develop this. One way would be to emphasise the historical aspect and avoid simply the question of this person interprets this way, another that. And by historical…well that could mean a lot of things but how about this… If someone works on the reception of the Bible in art then it would no doubt be a good thing to get into art history and the historical and cultural context of the given work of art and explain why certain interpretative decisions were made in context, in addition to contexts in the history of ideas. Likewise, film, music, literature or whatever. That seems an obvious enough point and may seem banal to those trained in traditional historical criticism but I’ve been to enough reception historical papers to know that serious study of historical and cultural contexts is often avoided. In some ways, it is an extension of many of the methods used in conventional historical criticism of the Bible. Just lots of new detail with which to work.

More reception history 1: some responses

2008-07-16T00:08:00.003Z

More reception history…

A couple of further questions have been raised since the last post and ones that are, I think, worth addressing.

1. Geoff Hudson (see previous post comments) suggested that the emergence of reception history ‘Seems like a great escape from the earliest history.’ It depends what Geoff means here but it reminded me of common suggestion made about reception history and one I have actually made myself from time to time, i.e. reception history is a safe place to work and avoid all the tricky questions of historical accuracy (I’m not sure if Geoff actually meant this but it’s a common enough point so let’s develop it). Put it this way, it wouldn’t surprise me if people did get into, or have got into, reception history because it avoids problems such as (and I caricature, but you get the point) Jesus not necessarily thinking he was God, the historical Paul not really meaning what this or that theological tradition claims he meant and so on. Rightly or wrongly, it is obvious enough that the earliest history really does matter for many people (why else would Wright write a massive Jesus book and not deny historicity once [to the best of my knowledge])? All this could well partially account for the popularity, interest and potential in reception history. But…

The idea of reception history as a refuge for the frightened is not necessarily a good or bad thing in itself. It might be if everyone ran off and stopped doing the earliest history but even though there may be limited things to say it is difficult to see that happening in the foreseeable future. The fact that so many are concerned with history probably answers that already. Moreover, at present there is so much polemic and interest groups in the area of Christian origins and so much importance put on historical context for interpretation (hardly a bad point!) that it is difficult to see this pool full of scholars being drained just yet.

And we might add, so what if people are frightened of the earliest history? If they can do good things in reception history all the better, right? If I felt naughty, I could add that it is better people doing good reception history than making things up.

And another thing, not everyone can be classed as scared etc. Berlinerblau – he of Secular Bible fame – has now written on the Bible and American politics. It’s difficult to account for him being scared off by history giving uncomfortable answers (indeed one of his points in Secular Bible was a willingness to accept whatever answer emerges from interpretation irrespective of whether the answer coheres with personal theological/ideological views). There are others like him but he’s a particularly appropriate example I think.

2. Jim West gave a response and I responded back. Details available here.

3. Doug Chaplin added this:
One question it seems to me James doesn’t address, but which might in some ways be the most interesting is how the study of the reception of biblical texts might / could / should be influenced by the ways in which the one doing the study receives the texts.

As a preface, the issue of should is not something that could be imposed (thankfully) but it is certainly an interesting question. This question could be taken in a number of different ways I think (maybe even fuelling Doug’s question more). One way would be to interact critically with the objects of reception. An obvious example would be the reception of the biblical texts which discuss and/or supposedly discuss the issue of homosexuality, a particularly relevant issue at the moment and an issue with which Doug is constantly engaging. Alternatively, the work I have been doing on reception has involved the selection of people who interest me for whatever reason rather than the biblical verses themselves (other than most being NT). I suspect a few more people do this too. In my case, I am not so bothered about how I interpret the biblical texts in relation to the people I have studied (it usually has little relevance) but more on the reasons why people I study interpret the way that they do, irrespective of rights and wrongs of interpretation or at least largely irrespective of whether it is a ‘valid’ or ‘correct’ interpretation. To state the blindingly obvious (as much of what I am saying, and will say, frankly is), it is often going to come down to little more than what sort of commitment the academic has in relation to the Bible.

Reception history: some speculation

2008-07-11T14:58:00.003Z

Dedicated to John Lyons and Bishop Wrong, seeking out reception where angels fear to tread.

Reception history is becoming the next big thing in NT studies, or at least it seems that way to me. It may also be the future for the simple reason of how much interpretation of the same small collection of texts can be done without coming close to exhausting the options or doomed to repeating old arguments over and over (as Dale Allison showed)? The big advantage is that reception history has masses of material waiting to be exploited. Now, if we define this a bit more, how about two broad types of reception history, as several colleagues are now talking about… 1. The semi-official church based versions, something like Calvin’s view on this or that passage, Luther, Augustine, Liberation theologies, and so on, with some concern for a ‘correct interpretation’ of the biblical texts. 2. Whatever else is out there, irrespective of true meaning of the biblical texts and orthodoxy, but more how biblical texts influence, are used and are influenced (e.g. films, music, literature, popular culture and so on). And, yes, I know that, like most definitions, this definition will break down and people will cross over into both camps and one could (and often should) be influencing the other etc and so on but in general terms there are enough people now who would generally practice one or the other.

So now for some speculation…

What would this mean for the future of NT studies/biblical studies? Category 1 seems to be a continuation of traditional theology and would presumably have no problem surviving in church based contexts and theology departments. Presumably Category 2 could survive in church based context but not quite so easily if it is concerned less with theological truths (or whatever). It could obviously survive in a conventional university context but as what? If (say) 20-30 years in the future reception history was dominant and more and more people were looking at Category 2 (sounds like a disease or drug or something, sorry about that) then wouldn’t NT/biblical studies be more like cultural studies and/or critical theory? On the one hand, this could mean the end of NT/biblical studies as we know, with academics scattered around different university departments (film studies, English, French, religious studies etc). That certainly could be very interesting, though personally, I have found it much more beneficial being in a department where, for all the different interests, the common interest in biblical studies makes it far easier to learn all sorts of helpful things. On the other hand, and this seems more likely to me, biblical studies as a discipline could simply look very different in the future and could survive as a discipline. Another reason I say ‘more likely’ is because there is a massive biblical studies network. Most obvious is SBL and the recent issues with AAR might show how strong SBL and biblical studies actually is. Another reason I say ‘more likely’ is that there is obviously no collection of literature so deeply rooted and continually influential, or at least continually used, than the Bible in ‘the West’, not even Shakespeare (and even in ‘the West’ his influence has its limits). There has been a clear interest in the use of the Bible (and, of course, the Qur’an – scripture studies anyone???*) in different departments and disciplines, from politics to critical theory. Study of the reception of the Bible is currently at least pretty crucial I’d have thought.

How about that for a not-too-subtle ideological defence of careers?

I think Hector Avalos said something about the scholar as hero, finding a problem and then solving it (this is a blog so I don’t have to check the reference, right?). Well, that’s what I’m doing here, though un-heroically not solving the problem, more leaving it open…

*Sort of relevant, I just noticed this via Sean Winter: New Abrahamic Religions Chair at Oxford University.

Popery in Nottingham!

2008-06-23T15:27:00.002Z

As promised, a review of the Nottingham conference on the Ratzinger's Jesus of Nazareth...

This conference was a strange but definitely fun experience for me. It is one thing holding a minority position in biblical studies but another thing entirely in terms of theology and even more in terms of the Pope! There were various Catholic figures, including the Archbishop of Granada and people from the monastic orders and people from the Radical Orthodoxy crowd. I won’t say much on my paper about the Pope’s construction of Judaism and how it is not so different from the very problematic construction of Judaism in historical Jesus scholarship but I think it was the only paper consistently critical of the Pope’s book. Not surprising perhaps but presenting such a paper to such a crowd was nothing like I’ve experienced before. I’ve debated with WL Craig in front of a largely evangelical crowd and the SBL panel review of Bauckham’s book certainly had a very unusual crowd for an academic context (remembering whooping crowd members and being pounced upon by creationist types still makes me laugh) but I’m sort of used to a variety of evangelicals now. Giving such a paper to theologians brought back memories of postgraduate days but critiquing the Pope in front of devout Catholics was something very new for me. It was one thing being in the audience but another thing presenting to the audience, looking up and seeing the aforementioned good and great looking back and just wondering what on earth must be going through their minds. The question session was fun (I had the allegation of a hermeneutic of suspicion – yep, out and proud!) but what was best for me (and any potential conference organisers take note) was the drinks reception where I could talk things through and get to know potential opponents much better. Always have a healthy drinks reception, they really do help. As much as I think there’s little to top the social side of SBL, there is a tendency to drift off with likeminded people after a paper to the numerous things on offer. The drinks reception at the Pope conference was very helpful in clearing up and/or developing debates. I have to say, for sheer experience, this was one of my own papers I particularly enjoyed giving.

I won’t discuss other papers either because some papers were circulated for internal discussion only and presumably this means not discussing them on the internet. So forgive me for discussing in general terms but I think I portray things fairly and if anyone from the conference thinks I wasn’t and is reading this, feel free to let me know.

This conference revealed what seems to me (and others) a significant and very interesting tension between theology (probably more precisely systematic theology) and biblical studies (more precisely historical criticism). This tension came through in the Bible and Justice conference and other conferences I’ve been to where biblical studies and theology are brought together. This tension came through in virtually all the papers and discussion at the Pope conference. There was a tendency to see historical criticism as almost too secular and too non-theological which is particularly interesting for me as I’ve made opposite kind of suggestions. Many theologians wanted historical criticism to give them the answers they wanted for theology and discard views that were not helpful. Someone did bring the question of whether this could lead to making things up. This also raises the serious problem (and too easily dismissed with allegations of ‘empiricism’) of honesty to basic or contradictory evidence (I got a bit annoyed at the Pope accusing people in his book of imposing things on the text…like he didn’t!). So I was very curious as to how theologically minded people would deal with this.

I had a very interesting discussion with one theologically minded academic and I raised this issue and asked what would be the point of historical criticism if the answers were already known. I was pretty surprised to find that this wasn’t actually seen as a problem. I was even given this answer: the Pope’s Jesus or a sort-of-orthodox Jesus (some people still made minor criticisms of the book) is historically right (you know what I mean), has to be historically right and can be proven to be historically right through historical criticism. Incidentally, I was also told that the Pope’s Jesus is more historically plausible than Jesus as reconstructed by either Vermes or Sanders – can’t say I was convinced! Such an approach, obviously, doesn’t please me in historical-critical terms but it at least helps explain one element of the logic of some of the participants.

But not all. Some, I think, took a kind of Barthian line (am I being fair here…?) and came very close to bracketing out the reconstruction of the historical Jesus thing and some, I suspect, probably wished the Pope had too. Here I would also bring in, maybe unfairly, those advocating canonical criticism and the general role of a believing community. This may surprise some, but I’m starting think, if I were coming in from an overtly theological/faith perspective, I would be tempted to take this position because of the ‘what if’ issue of the historical Jesus actually being something theologically problematic (as I suspect the historical Jesus is). At least from this kind of perspective it can do what it is supposed to do, namely produce what is helpful for a believing community without worry that someone will come along and say ‘it never really happened that way’.

But I don’t come from a theological perspective and I personally wouldn’t be happy in the context of a believing community or any group that roughly knows the answers before hand (we could parallel this sort of theology with forms of Marxism, Freudianism etc, could we not?). Moreover, we should not forget that the Pope did explicitly put one foot in the historical critical camp and therefore opening himself up for criticism from historical critics. And I’m afraid now I start getting all protective of historical criticism (despite slagging it off from time to time) which the Pope seriously misused (if he really used it at all in practice) to come up with a fully orthodox Jesus and have John’s gospel as historically accurate. I know some biblical studies types more-or-less agree with me too on this (including at least one other blogger – you know who you are…!). Ultimately I find myself siding, to the surprise of no one, with Vermes and Luedemann on this and the serious, serious problems with the Pope’s book as a work of historical criticism.

Another notable point raised at this conference was that the Pope’s book is surprisingly not overtly Catholic – much, if not all, would be compatible with the main denominational strands. What wasn’t mentioned, I don’t think, was the obvious result of this, namely that people from main denominational strands at the conference really seemed to like the book. Is this not a notable development? I also thought about Mel Gibson’s Passion of the Christ in this context. For such a Catholic inspired film, it managed to do very well among evangelicals, including the Bible Belt. I wonder if this is anything to do with a general reaction to the prominence of aggressive atheism of the past decade, general issues surrounding secularisation and the whole culture wars thing (though that is more US)… It is still notable that there is such a bringing together of such denominational strands on such an issue because I was thinking some Protestants would have great fun in demolishing a very flawed book by the Pope. Perhaps I’m just far too cynical and perhaps Michael Ball really was right that love changes everything.

Another reason why I think along these lines was the ways in which the terms ‘secular’ and ‘secular academy’ were being used in opposition. It seemed to me that the term ‘secular academy’ – and maybe I’m wrong here – was not being used as a place for open debate but was being used as a description of non-religious or even anti-religious university setting. If so, I wouldn’t be a fan of such use: I much prefer the anything goes approach. As one colleague said to me, perhaps it is time to call it the ‘independent academy’ to avoid such (potential?) distinctions.

I wish more biblical scholars who would have been critical of the book had attended. The audience was largely sympathetic or at least not very critical of the book. It was also particularly sad that Vermes had to pull out because he would have been scathing given his review of the Pope’s book. I would like to have seen more conflict on the big issue of historical criticism v theology though perhaps that needs to be worked out in a conference of its own. That said, it was a conference I really enjoyed and it was good to see people from my Nottingham past and meet people from Nottingham present. Adrian Pabst and Angus Paddison saw a great opportunity in this conference and organised it well. I’m glad the British Academy funded it too. Whatever we think of the Pope’s book (not much in my case) its publication was a culturally significant event and needed academic discussion.

Mini-conference season

2008-06-15T20:49:00.003Z

In addition to this being the busiest time of year, there has been a bit of a mini-conference season. Due to workload, I've not blogged on the Bible and Justice (John Lyons - Reception of the Bible - has a pretty picture) and I've not blogged on the (virtually) annual Lausanne meeting and won't make any comments due to time constraints (though Sean 'the Baptist' Winter did a very nice paper on John's Gospel and the New Rhetoric). Given that this week SHOULD see the beginning of the easing off, I'm hopefully going to blog on the Pope and Jesesus of Nazareth conference in Nottingham at the end of the week. I've no concrete idea what I should be expecting from the papers (though I've just received most of them, even if I haven't read them) in terms of what kind of arguments they will make. There is no obvious Gerd Luedemann-style critique that I can tell from the titles, though Geza Vermes may go for Ratzinger's use of historical criticism. As there are several theologians present, it may mean that there will be more concern with the combining of theology and historical criticism and so not giving historical criticism so much weight. But I'm speculating, obviously. One thing I don't have to speculate on, obviously, is my paper. I've tried to steer clear of criticising Ratzinger purely on historical critical grounds (you can guess what I think of his reconstruction of Jesus). Instead, I'm looking at the ways in which Ratzinger's book parallels tendencies in historical Jesus scholarship in the construction of Judaism.

Staff-Student Biblical Studies Football

2008-05-29T13:51:00.004Z

Well, in the midst of the chaos of end of term there was the highly anticipated Staff-Student football/soccer match. I'll leave details of the commentary for another day but just to note the performance by Keith 'Anderson' Whitelam.

I heard on the terraces the following song and in the interests of taste and self preservation I couldn't find missing words:

'Whitelam-lam-lam' (tune: 'Agadoo'; lyrics: Black Lace; apologies to the Anderson song):

Whitelam-LAM-LAM
He's better than Kleberson,
Whitelam-lam-lam,
He's our midfield magician
On the left, on the right [well, left again really]
Do the samba dance tonight,
He is class, he is crass
and he [blank] on [blank]

Fergie in Franco Jibe at Real Madrid

2008-05-25T14:59:00.002Z

Or more reasons to like Fergie...

From the Mirror:

Sir Alex Ferguson last night taunted Real Madrid about their Franco past as he savaged them for trying to poach Cristiano Ronaldo.
Ferguson is furious with the Spaniards and club president Ramon Calderon over the way they have attempted to unsettle the winger.
And he hit back by dredging up Real's links with Spain's former fascist dictator, who made sure his favourite team benefited at the expense of their rivals.
"You get used to this, Madrid's behaviour on these things," said the angry Manchester United boss. "I read about Calderon making the great statement that slavery was abolished many, many years ago.
"Well, did they tell Franco that? Jesus Christ! Eh, give me a break!
"It doesn't matter which player it is, the ones you want to keep, you have to work hard to keep. In this modern day, that's a fact."
Ferguson reminding Real of a past they would rather forget is likely to stir up a hornets' nest in Spain, but he clearly feels it is time the gloves came off in the fight for Ronaldo.
He is sick of Real's antics and contrasted their arrogant and dishonourable behaviour with that of their bitter rivals Barcelona and Europe's other top clubs.
"Great clubs, clubs with great morals like Barcelona, have far better morals than Real Madrid will ever have," he added.
"We know Real Madrid aren't the only club who'd be interested in Ronaldo, but the others don't come out and say it.
"Do you not think we've had much interest from the big clubs in Europe about our best players? Of course we have, but they don't get into the nonsense Real get into. They've no moral issues at all. They think that they can ride roughshod over everyone, but they won't with us."

I like this story so much, I'll also mention the Telegraph version to bring out the nuances of another slice of classic Fergie:

Ferguson had become increasingly irritated by Real Madrid's public flirtation with Cristiano Ronaldo. And when he returned to Manchester after a long, draining and delayed flight from Moscow and saw that the Madrid president, Ramon Calderon, had reminded Ronaldo that "slavery was abolished a long time ago", his temper went.

"You get used to Madrid's performances on these things," said the Manchester United manager.
"Ronaldo has four years left on his contract and then Calderon makes this great statement that slavery has been abolished. Did they tell Franco that? Jesus Christ."
Even if Ronaldo demanded to be sold, it is unlikely that Ferguson would want to do business with Real. "In terms of clubs, there are some who have great moral issues, like Barcelona [a club persecuted by Franco because of their separatist, Catalan roots] and they have far more of a moral standing than Real Madrid will ever have," he said.
"Madrid have no moral issues at all. They think they can ride roughshod over everyone but they won't do it with us..."

Champions' League Final, Man United 1-1 Chelsea, 6-5 penalties

2008-05-22T21:44:00.002Z

Well, well, well. What an evening, eh? First the league and now the Champions’ League…if only the easier FA Cup was won and Portsmouth were put away as they should have been we’d have another treble on our hands. But hey can’t really complain, can I?

The game itself was more open than I expected. I was particularly pleased to see Tevez start. Vidic was probably man of the match for me though enjoyed that long, long pass from Rooney to Ronaldo. The opening goal was beautifully crafted. If United had put away some of those other chances in the first half it could easily have turned into a demolition. But the VERY flukey but typically Chelsea goal right on half time effectively turned the game.

The second half just screamed out for Anderson. I can hardly moan about Fergie’s management but Anderson could have made a big difference. Still extra time was more United I thought. Giggs every so nearly won it then…

Glad to see the big diver Drogba get sent off for a slap and then still moan. It seems (at least according to Chelsea) that he would have taken a penalty. Shame. Penaltieswere pretty unbearable but excellent drama. I also knew (as it seems everyone else did) Ronaldo would miss his penalty. Cech would never fall for the Ronaldo delay and was bound to be studying his technique all week. Ronaldo should have done what everyone else did: just hit it! Poor old John Terry slipping when he should have won it. Ah well, you win some, you lose some, eh? Disappointed that Ashley Cole didn’t mess up his penalty (though he gave it a good go) but on the plus side he has now lost two Euro finals so every cloud… Anelka, who didn’t look remotely bothered (he has a winners medal, doesn’t he?) hit an ok penalty but Van Der Sar (or Tsar as more than one newspaper put it – come on, be fair, it was a long night for those drunken hacks) apparently knew where he would hit it. Like a true pro…

Good to see Giggs not only break Bobby Charlton’s record but effectively get the winning penalty.

Another big, big achievement for the great Fergie. I still think his 1999 treble team was better, at least as a unit and for the massively attacking mentality, but this team could go on to win more and more. Anderson could turn out to be a crucial player in the long term and it sounds like Tevez will be around for some time now. A right back is needed even though Wes has done well this season.

Another great highlight 1. I’ll give Chelsea fans credit here: the banner with ‘Scouser Free Zone’.

Another great highlight 2. Watching Chelsea’s former United suit Peter Kenyon not winning. There’s nothing wrong with being motivated by hate.

Nottingham Conference on Ratzinger's Jesus of Nazareth

2008-05-09T12:07:00.003Z

The Dept of Theology and Religious Studies at the University of Nottingham are running a conference on Razinger's book on the historical Jesus, 'The Pope and Jesus of Nazareth' (19^th and 20^th June 2008). This is a paper I've particularly enjoyed working on. There are also some heavyweight scholars on the programme. Should be very good fun, I think. Here are the papers:

19th June

Keynote Address: Archbishop Javier Martínez (Granada): ‘Christ of history, Jesus of Faith’

Questions and Discussion (chaired by Prof. John Milbank)

20th June

Session 1: Perspectives from Biblical Scholarship
Prof. Walter Moberly (Durham): ‘The Use of the Old Testament in Jesus of Nazareth’
Prof. Markus Bockmuehl (Oxford): ‘Lessons learned from Reading Scripture with Pope Benedict’

Dr Roland Deines (Nottingham): ‘Can the “Real” Jesus be Identified with the Historical Jesus?’

Session 2: Perspectives from Systematic Theology

Prof. Henri-Jérôme Gagey (Paris): ‘Between Theology and History: A Question of Epistemology’

Olivier-Thomas Venard OP (Jerusalem): ‘Does the Jesus of the Synoptic Gospels really say nothing different from the Prologue of John?’

Dr Simon Oliver (Lampeter): ‘Jesus and Eucharistic Exchange: Reflections on Cudworth and Ratzinger’

Dr Angus Paddison (Nottingham), ‘Following Jesus with Pope Benedict’

Session 3: Panel Groups

Panel 1:
Dr Richard H. Bell (Nottingham): ‘On the Transfiguration’

Dr Douglas Knight (London): ‘Benedict on the Whole Christ’

Panel 2:
Dr Jane Heath (Aberdeen): ‘Burckhardt’s Greeks and Ratzinger’s Jesus’

Dr James Crossley (Sheffield): ‘Historical Criticism and the Construction of Judaism in Ratzinger’s Jesus of Nazareth’

Panel 3:
Luke Tallon (St. Andrews), ‘The Evangelical Dialogic of Joseph Ratzinger’s Own, Personal Jesusbild’

Martin Bauspieß (Tübingen), ‘Event and Testimony’

William Daniel (Nottingham), ‘Whose Jesus? Which Christology?’

Session 4: Historical, Jewish and Muslim Readings
Prof. Geza Vermes FBA (Oxford): ‘A Historian’s Perspective on the Pope’s Jesus’

Prof. Mona Siddiqui (Glasgow): ‘Seeing the Face of the Lord – Hope or Heresy?’

Session 5: Final Reflections
Fr Fergus Kerr OP (Edinburgh): ‘Reckoning with the Originality of Jesus: Where Did Christology Come from?’

Casey responds on son of man

2008-05-08T07:54:00.005Z

I received the following email from Maurice Casey in response to Mike Bird's review of his book. Just to be clear, these are Maurice's views and he asked if it was ok to post them and I happily will, of course. I believe he has also sent a version to Mike.

Dear Michael,

It was good of you to take the trouble to review The Solution of the ‘Son of Man’ Problem. It was also good that you summarised it at some length, as most of your readers are unlikely to read it, and a lot of the information in your summary is perfectly accurate.

There are however some serious misrepresentations, which I felt I should write to you about. One is your “implied reader”. His existence is just as mythical as you say it is, but it is you who invented him, not I. I tried to write as a critical scholar. I learnt to be a critical scholar at the university of Durham, where I was taught mostly by Christian scholars. In the preface to this book, I particularly thanked Kingsley Barrett, who supervised my doctoral thesis when he was more famous in the valleys of Durham as a charismatic Christian preacher than as a New Testament scholar. I always respected that, because he is a man of unimpeachable integrity who is never deliberately biased, and who never discriminated against anyone of different convictions, nor attributed to us opinions which we did not hold. Subsequently, I have learnt much from other critical scholars who are Christians, such as Roger Aus, Matthew Black and Ed Sanders, and from critical scholars who are Jewish, such as Alan Segal and Geza Vermes.
I have never claimed to be more objective than such scholars as these. Objectivity is in any case a limited virtue, unquestionably essential when for example counting how often an author uses any given word, so much so that objectivity in such circumstances needs no defence, because it is never questioned. It is however a limited virtue when trying to understand human beings, whether individuals such as Jesus, or major social events such as the Origins of Christianity, a process which requires more than learning and objectivity. What I do claim is not to be deliberately biassed, but that is something which I share with many critical scholars. On the other hand, I cannot see this quality in many evangelicals, nor in Jewish scholars such as Hyam Maccoby (Jesus was a Pharisee, and Paul never had been), nor in secular scholars such as Robert Price and Barbara Thiering, whom most people are right not to take too seriously. The latter group are more than sufficient to make me wary of claiming to find truth by liberating people from the shackles of theologically loaded interpretations.
It is quite normal not to discuss these things in scholarly monographs, because they are supposed to stand by evidence and argument. Consequently, one does not always know, where a given author stands on your trajectory, and it generally does not matter. For example, when I finished Martin Karrer’s outstanding monograph Der Gesalbte (1991), I assumed he was probably Christian because he had not been sacked, the fate of Gerd Lüdemann when he left the church, and of many other Christians who have exercised the independence of mind characteristic of all critical scholars. But this was not a matter of concern, because this was an outstanding monograph by a genuinely critical scholar whose work stood up because of his use of evidence and argument, not because of his ideological stance or lack of one.

Secondly, your comments on what I am supposed to think about the idiomatic use of bar (e)nash(a) and kebar enash in Daniel 7.13 are such a mixture of what I do and do not think, and such a muddle, that I hardly know where to begin. For example, the messianic interpretation of kebar enash is not found in the interpretative section of Daniel 7, or in the Syrian tradition, which preserved most of the original interpretation of the book of Daniel and should have loved it. It was however widespread in the West, a fact which I documented at very great length in my doctoral thesis (much abbreviated for SPCK [JC: Son of Man, 1979]). This is not however an argument for or against the authenticity of sayings attributed to Jesus which may be thought to use bar (e)nash(a) in general statements which may refer especially to the speaker. I simply cannot relate your comments to what I wrote.

Thirdly, I offered detailed discussions of cases where I think we know exactly which Aramaic word Jesus used, i.e. when there is only one possible Aramaic word for a given Greek word and we know what it is, and cases where we don’t know exactly which of two or three words but it doesn’t matter, and cases of serious uncertainty. So I do occasionally give the impression that I am providing the actual words of Jesus because that’s when I think I am, whereas at other times we have only a general approximation to what he said. All such claims are falsifiable e.g. by showing that there are more possible Aramaic words for a given Greek word than I noticed, or by giving reasons to believe that Jesus could not have said any given saying in Aramaic at all, or in other conventional ways.

You have naturally made some other comments with which I do not agree, but I have mentioned these because you could persuade people who will not read this book that I believe some things which I do not believe at all.

With best wishes,
Maurice.

When Wrong is Right

2008-05-04T10:28:00.002Z

The great Bishop Wrong has made comments which are of direct relevance for recent blog debates and blog debates over the years. In particular he engages with William Bartley and the apologetic move of 'you're biased too!'

Many scholars who engage in heavily theological interpretations of the Bible will, at some stage, come up with a tu quoque defence for defending their theological bias. The tu quoque defence begins by pointing out that all rational argumentation is ultimately ungrounded, and that all arguers have presuppositions which must be based on their (biased) preferences. This is true. But the apologetic use of the tu quoque defence involves the additional step of arguing that the theological bias is therefore as warranted as any other. This is more than highly questionable. By far the most developed exposé of the “But you’re biased, too!” defence of theological interpretation is by William Bartley, in The Retreat to Commitment (rev. edn. 1984)...
Bartley’s own solution is essentially Popperian. Bartley gives up the attempt to positively justify one’s position, on the recognition that the most one can do is to provide falsification of positions. That is, full positive justification of a particular interpretation is always out of reach. However, it is quite likely that some interpretations will turn out to be better than others in the light of critical discussion and tests. At the very least, it is possible to evaluate and rank interpretations according to their success in explaining all the evidence.
Bartley’s answer gives a good reply to those apologists who rely on the ultimate groundlessness of knowledge, so as to defend their fideism. I’m not so sure that it deals with the subjectivity involved in selecting and evaluating data, but the critical process to which this is subjected means that the relativistic argument is itself relativised. All up, Bartley provides a fine and detailed examination of the apologetic move of Barth and others, in which they appeal to the relativity of knowledge in order to make an argument–not for relativism, but–for fideism.

I always wondered about people who make this apologetic move if it is possible to go the step further and say each bias is therefore as ultimately meaningless as any other... This also got me wondering (and I happily admit to speculation here) if there has been an increase in the 'we might be biased but so are you' approach in NT studies or biblical studies as a whole of the past ten years? I am speculating because I think it can be shown pretty clearly that overt perspective approaches have increased from 'secular' to some very prominent conservative conclusions, not to mention very conservative and confessional sounding book titles in academic NT studies.

Just speculating...