I'm off to England for a Christmas break and so there'll be no blogging until the new year. Speaking of England, I did a guest blog yesterday on The Americanization of Emily on How to cope without British TV and radio, but happily that's not something I will have to worry about while I'm away.
Thank you very much for all the support with the blog over the last year, and for all the contributions, encouragements and comments. I look forward to more NT Gateway blogging in the new year and in the mean time wish all my readers a very happy Christmas. For those who don't celebrate Christmas, my very best wishes.
Thursday, December 22, 2005
Kloppenborg, Segal and Hurtado debate
Thanks to David Mackinder and John Marshall for mentioning this:
Jesus and the Gospel: What Really Happened?
It's an email debate between three of the top brass, John Kloppenborg, Alan Segal and Larry Hurtado. I've not had a chance to read it yet myself (and it's still ongoing) because I am on the road, but look forward to checking it out when I get back.
Jesus and the Gospel: What Really Happened?
It's an email debate between three of the top brass, John Kloppenborg, Alan Segal and Larry Hurtado. I've not had a chance to read it yet myself (and it's still ongoing) because I am on the road, but look forward to checking it out when I get back.
Tuesday, December 20, 2005
Response to Lüdemann
I have now finished my first set of final grading here at Duke so I have a moment to turn again to Gerd Lüdemann on Christmas. Lüdemann published a press release headed The Christmas Stories are Pious Fairy Tales to which I responded here on Friday, Lüdemann on Christmas. Prof. Lüdemann responded to my blog post yesterday, Response to Mark Goodacre and Stephen Carlson, and asked me to post it here. I would now like to respond to those comments.
It will perhaps not surprise the reader that I was a little taken aback by the rather strong tone of Prof. Lüdemann's response, some of which I thought went a little further than the kind of civil scholarly discourse I in general tend to prefer. I suspect that this was at least partly due to some misunderstanding of my own tone, which was attempting, at points, to be light hearted and a bit tongue-in-cheek. Of course one of the problems with blogging is that the intended tone does not always come out right, and what I am writing with a smile may be read with a frown. One of the reasons for the elements of levity in my response was that I found Lüdemann's tone in the press release so strident. So when I criticize Lüdemann's use of the term "pious fairy tales", e.g. by commenting that we have an angel rather than a fairy on the top of our Christmas tree, this is not to be taken too seriously. And when Lüdemann comments on my reference to troubles communicating with the 8th Century BCE Isaiah, where I mention the universal translator and babel fish (references to Star Trek and Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy for the uninitiated), I am simply having a bit of fun, so I take it as a compliment that Prof Lüdemann finds them "silly and irrelevant", which was the point. Perhaps I've been watching too much Monty Python since I came to the USA (it's the prime staple of BBC America).
I had commented on Lüdemann's insistence on "ten unquestionable facts", and what "historical research" had "demonstrated once and for all" by suggesting that this was stated too strongly. What historical research can do is "to show that elements in the story are implausible or problematic", to which Lüdemann responds:
Later, I asked "Is talk of "the Christmas story" itself unhelpful when one is talking about Matthew and Luke?" to which Lüdemann responded, "One cannot determine what this question means". I was a bit terse there. I was simply wondering whether it is helpful to talk about "the Christmas story" in a press release, the aim of which is presumably to communicate about the Biblical narratives to a broad audience, some of whom would not realize that "the Christmas story" was in fact a harmonized, popularized narrative based on elements derived from Matthew and Luke. It's not a particularly important point; I just wondered whether it gave the impression that you could go to the Bible and find something resembling "the Christmas story" that we see in nativity plays and the like.
More importantly, I went on to write:
Another particularly good contender for the phenomenon of tradition scripturalized (i.e. a pre-Matthean tradition that is overlaid with Matthew's own scriptural reference) is, I would argue, at 1.23, where Isaiah 7.14 LXX, "A virgin shall conceive . . ." is given as the scriptural text that explicates Jesus' unusual conception out of wedlock. If this tradition was well known -- and Jane Schaberg and others make a very good case that it was -- then Matthew has not derived the story of Jesus' conception from Isaiah 7.14. On the contrary, the tradition came first and the scripture that for Matthew explained it came afterwards. I think that Lüdemann in fact largely agrees with this scenario:
Lüdemann is concerned, though, that I may be ignorant of the issues connected with Isaiah 7.14 LXX:
On the issue of Jesus' birthplace, as I indicated before I am inclined to agree with Lüdemann. But I dislike the language of "unquestionable fact" when we do not have so much as a tradition to the effect that Jesus was born in Nazareth, let alone birth records. If there is some scope for doubt -- and who knows whether Jesus might have been born in Cana, Nain or Bethsaida or anywhere else -- then it is incautious to speak of birth in Nazareth as "unquestionable fact". Ancient history is about nuanced judgements.
Regarding angels in the story, Lüdemann had said that they "derive from primitive mythology". I facetiously mentioned fairies (referencing my comments at the beginning of the post) but more seriously added that the "derive from" is a little too strong given that even today, a person with a religious world view might articulate their experience of the world by using language of angels, demons, etc. The language often encapsulates or masks a description of reality that could be articulated using scientific language. In other words, the presence of religious language is not itself an index of lack of historicity. It is only an indication of the kind of world view witnessed in the text. Lüdemann's response, which suggests that I am splitting hairs and attempting to bolster a tenuous case, does not take seriously the nature of my objection, which is that Lüdemann's remarks were overstated, and his method questionable.
Lüdemann also commented on the lack of Magi in Luke's account, to which I responded that Luke would not be expected to include Magi given his known attitude to them in Acts, to which Lüdemann respnds:
Overall, this response, in addition to my previous comments, may give the impression that there is more distance between Lüdemann and me on the Birth Narratives than there actually is. What caused me to respond initially were what I regarded as some overstatement and unhelpful generalization which ultimately detract from the potential plausibility of the case. But my guess is that one of the reasons for issuing a press release is to generate not only attention but also discussion and intellectual exchange, and it is in that spirit, and in the appreciation of Lüdemann's scholarship, that I offer this response.
Update (19.41):
Response to Mark Goodacre
I agree that the two of us are not as far apart as our contentious words may have suggested. I do look forward to further mutually respectful exchanges with Professor Goodacre on matters of mutual interest.
Sincerely,
Gerd Lüdemann.
It will perhaps not surprise the reader that I was a little taken aback by the rather strong tone of Prof. Lüdemann's response, some of which I thought went a little further than the kind of civil scholarly discourse I in general tend to prefer. I suspect that this was at least partly due to some misunderstanding of my own tone, which was attempting, at points, to be light hearted and a bit tongue-in-cheek. Of course one of the problems with blogging is that the intended tone does not always come out right, and what I am writing with a smile may be read with a frown. One of the reasons for the elements of levity in my response was that I found Lüdemann's tone in the press release so strident. So when I criticize Lüdemann's use of the term "pious fairy tales", e.g. by commenting that we have an angel rather than a fairy on the top of our Christmas tree, this is not to be taken too seriously. And when Lüdemann comments on my reference to troubles communicating with the 8th Century BCE Isaiah, where I mention the universal translator and babel fish (references to Star Trek and Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy for the uninitiated), I am simply having a bit of fun, so I take it as a compliment that Prof Lüdemann finds them "silly and irrelevant", which was the point. Perhaps I've been watching too much Monty Python since I came to the USA (it's the prime staple of BBC America).
I had commented on Lüdemann's insistence on "ten unquestionable facts", and what "historical research" had "demonstrated once and for all" by suggesting that this was stated too strongly. What historical research can do is "to show that elements in the story are implausible or problematic", to which Lüdemann responds:
This is simply carping about blunt and straightforward talk that has no time for the nuances and niceties of scholastic debate. Soften a couple of phrases, add a few qualifiers and weasel-wording extenuations, if you like; but it will all come down to the same thing. [I have changed to lower-case here and throughout, which I find easier to read than upper case.]I do not share quite so low a view of "the nuances and niceties of scholastic debate" and think that precision in our language is important when we are engaging in scholarship, especially when we are encouraging our students to do the same. I don't think that it is "qualifiers and weasel-wording extenuations" to describe the academic task as precisely and clearly as possible. To be a good historian is not only to know what we can say about the past with confidence, but also to know what the limits of the historian are. I am keen to make clear that my own attitude to doing ancient history has been formed in interaction with Prof. Lüdemann's work; I have learnt much from his own cautious approach to history, and I frequently engage with it in my teaching (especially on Pauline chronology).
Later, I asked "Is talk of "the Christmas story" itself unhelpful when one is talking about Matthew and Luke?" to which Lüdemann responded, "One cannot determine what this question means". I was a bit terse there. I was simply wondering whether it is helpful to talk about "the Christmas story" in a press release, the aim of which is presumably to communicate about the Biblical narratives to a broad audience, some of whom would not realize that "the Christmas story" was in fact a harmonized, popularized narrative based on elements derived from Matthew and Luke. It's not a particularly important point; I just wondered whether it gave the impression that you could go to the Bible and find something resembling "the Christmas story" that we see in nativity plays and the like.
More importantly, I went on to write:
Some of the Biblical verses alluded to by Matthew are such an odd fit with the events narrated that it is difficult to imagine that Matthew, or anyone else, "derived" the narrative from the prophecies.And Lüdemann responded:
Call it "created” or "derived” or "inspired by”; it makes little enough difference. This admission shows beyond cavil that narrative elements have their roots in the Hebrew Bible and have resulted from a process of radical revision.My point is that given that some of Matthew's scriptural citations are a relatively poor fit for the material they are supposed to be confirming, it seems likely that at some points Matthew has not derived the tradition from the prophecy. Rather, the tradition sometimes comes first, and the Biblical citation comes afterwards. Whereas Lüdemann is working with a kind of "prophecy historicized" model, I am suggesting that sometimes the exact reverse is taking place, and we are dealing with tradition scripturalized. Let me clarify that I do not think that this is happening all the way through Matthew's Birth Narrative -- the prophecy historicized model sometimes works well, perhaps most obviously in the case of the birth in Bethlehem, which, I would guess is a prophecy historicized because it is a good fit. But there are other cases where the prophecy historicized model does not work, and the best example is Matt. 2.23, on which I commented as follows:
Where does it say that the Messiah would live in Nazara? Matthew is weakly scripturalizing the tradition he knows.And Lüdemann responds:
To be sure, in this one case, the author has manufactured out of whole cloth a citation in order to give scriptural authority to a simple biographical fact: Jesus came from Nazareth. Invention? Lie? Call it what you will.We are agreed, then, on the direction here, that the tradition (Jesus was from Nazara) has been scripturalized (though my preference is to avoid language like "invention" and "lie"). What I am suggesting is that this interesting, agreed phenomenon right at the end of Matthew's Birth Narrative, could give us a clue to what is going on elsewhere too.
Another particularly good contender for the phenomenon of tradition scripturalized (i.e. a pre-Matthean tradition that is overlaid with Matthew's own scriptural reference) is, I would argue, at 1.23, where Isaiah 7.14 LXX, "A virgin shall conceive . . ." is given as the scriptural text that explicates Jesus' unusual conception out of wedlock. If this tradition was well known -- and Jane Schaberg and others make a very good case that it was -- then Matthew has not derived the story of Jesus' conception from Isaiah 7.14. On the contrary, the tradition came first and the scripture that for Matthew explained it came afterwards. I think that Lüdemann in fact largely agrees with this scenario:
Granted that this line of argument has further support in Matthew’s curious inclusion in Jesus’ genealogy of four problematical pregnancies (Tamar, Rahab, Ruth, and Bathsheba), the Isaiah quote, coming as it does from perhaps the most revered of the prophets, is hardly thereby to be discounted.The four women are, following Schaberg and others, no doubt mentioned by Matthew because of unusual sexual unions outside of wedlock, and it seems likely that this points to a pre-Matthean tradition of Jesus' conception outside of wedlock. And if that is the case, the story of Jesus' conception is clearly not derived from, or invented on the basis of, Isaiah 7.14.
Lüdemann is concerned, though, that I may be ignorant of the issues connected with Isaiah 7.14 LXX:
Here Goodacre seems to be unaware that the Hebrew almah ("young woman", as opposed to betulah, "virgin”) was rendered by the Greek parthenos (often but not always intending "virgin”) in the Septuagint. Since Matthew apparently relied on the Septuagint, he would quite naturally cite it as evidence of a special birth.The latter clause here captures nicely the process of scripturalization, that Matthew "would quite naturally cite it as evidence of a special birth" -- he cites the text as evidence; he does not derive the story from there. Of course Matthew is working from the LXX of Isaiah 7.14 here, and of course I am aware of basics like that. My point is that even the LXX of Isaiah 7.14 is not especially appropriate -- it's nothing to do with the birth of a Messiah in the distant future. So Matt. 1.23 is a relatively weak scripturalization of the tradition, and my guess is that Matthew goes to it because he likes the "Emmanuel" part, which famously gets its pair at the end of the Gospel, 28.20.
On the issue of Jesus' birthplace, as I indicated before I am inclined to agree with Lüdemann. But I dislike the language of "unquestionable fact" when we do not have so much as a tradition to the effect that Jesus was born in Nazareth, let alone birth records. If there is some scope for doubt -- and who knows whether Jesus might have been born in Cana, Nain or Bethsaida or anywhere else -- then it is incautious to speak of birth in Nazareth as "unquestionable fact". Ancient history is about nuanced judgements.
Regarding angels in the story, Lüdemann had said that they "derive from primitive mythology". I facetiously mentioned fairies (referencing my comments at the beginning of the post) but more seriously added that the "derive from" is a little too strong given that even today, a person with a religious world view might articulate their experience of the world by using language of angels, demons, etc. The language often encapsulates or masks a description of reality that could be articulated using scientific language. In other words, the presence of religious language is not itself an index of lack of historicity. It is only an indication of the kind of world view witnessed in the text. Lüdemann's response, which suggests that I am splitting hairs and attempting to bolster a tenuous case, does not take seriously the nature of my objection, which is that Lüdemann's remarks were overstated, and his method questionable.
Lüdemann also commented on the lack of Magi in Luke's account, to which I responded that Luke would not be expected to include Magi given his known attitude to them in Acts, to which Lüdemann respnds:
Here is another irrelevant point, an objection for the sake of objecting. Their absence from Luke’s account was adduced only to show the irreconcilability (and therefore the all but certainly fictitious nature) of the two accounts.I don't think that this deals with the point. If Luke knew of the Magi, one would not expect him to include them given his antipathy towards Magi in general, so their absence from Luke at best simply reminds us of that antipathy. It can't tell us anything about the historicity or otherwise of the tradition in Matthew. Difference between Matthew and Luke cannot in itself be an index of lack of historicity, nor does Lüdemann treat it this way in other contexts.
Overall, this response, in addition to my previous comments, may give the impression that there is more distance between Lüdemann and me on the Birth Narratives than there actually is. What caused me to respond initially were what I regarded as some overstatement and unhelpful generalization which ultimately detract from the potential plausibility of the case. But my guess is that one of the reasons for issuing a press release is to generate not only attention but also discussion and intellectual exchange, and it is in that spirit, and in the appreciation of Lüdemann's scholarship, that I offer this response.
Update (19.41):
Response to Mark Goodacre
I agree that the two of us are not as far apart as our contentious words may have suggested. I do look forward to further mutually respectful exchanges with Professor Goodacre on matters of mutual interest.
Sincerely,
Gerd Lüdemann.
Monday, December 19, 2005
Response to Mark Goodacre and Stephen Carlson by Gerd Lüdemann
I have just received this response from Gerd Lüdemann to my comments on his press release (The Christmas Stories are Pious Fairy Tales) and Gerd asks if I would place this in my blog, which I am of course happy to do. I am knee-deep in grading (that's what they call "marking" here) at the moment but I am looking forward to commenting later. The message below is as I received it from Prof. Lüdemann, with my original blog post in lower case (but combining parts of the press release and my comments) and Prof. Lüdemann's responses in upper case:
-----------
RESPONSE TO MARK GOODACRE AND STEPHEN C. CARLSON BY GERD LÜDEMANN.
Friday, December 16, 2005
Lüdemann on Christmas
On Biblical Theology, Jim West gives the text of Gerd Lüdemann's thoughts on the Christmas story. A look at Lüdemann's homepage gives the text too, under a press release headed:
The Christmas Stories are Pious Fairy Tales
I'm not sure what's wrong with piety, and you'd expect the New Testament to feature some piety, and I don't think there are any fairies in the Birth Narratives (or at least we still call the doll on the top of our Christmas tree an angel rather than a fairy). Some of Lüdemann's content I am inclined to agree with (which NT scholars would not?), but there is something about the overstatement and the tone ("supposed Son of God", "unquestionable facts", "lies") makes me all the more keen to argue against at least elements in it. So here are a few thoughts:
COMMENT LÜDEMANN: APPARENTLY GOODACRE IS UNAWARE OF THE DIFFERENCE IN CONNOTATION BETWEEN "PIOUS” (AS IN PIOUS MYTHS OR PIOUS FAIRY TALES) AND "PIETY”. THE FORMER IMPLIES EXCESSIVE CREDULITY; THE LATTER REFERS TO DEVOUT FAITH. HE SEEMS TO SUFFER FROM A SIMILAR CONFUSION WITH RESPECT TO THE TERM "FAIRY TALE,” WHICH INDICATES AN INCREDIBLE STORY WITH OR WITHOUT FAIRIES IN THE CAST OF CHARACTERS. I SUGGEST THAT IN BOTH CASES HE IS GRASPING FOR STRAWS WITH WHICH TO CREATE OBJECTIONS.
The biblical accounts of the birth of the Jesus, the supposed Son of God, are mere inventions and have little relation to what really happened. Historical research has demonstrated this once and for all. Ten unquestionable facts argue against their historical credibility: Historical research has not "demonstrated" any of the elements here. What historical research can do is to show that elements in the story are implausible or problematic, but it misrepresents the historical task here to claim so much for it. Nor are the ten assertions all "facts", let alone unquestionable facts".
COMMENT LÜDEMANN: THIS IS SIMPLY CARPING ABOUT BLUNT AND STRAIGHTFORWARD TALK THAT HAS NO TIME FOR THE NUANCES AND NICETIES OF SCHOLASTIC DEBATE. SOFTEN A COUPLE OF PHRASES, ADD A FEW QUALIFIERS AND WEASEL-WORDING EXTENUATIONS, IF YOU LIKE; BUT IT WILL ALL COME DOWN TO THE SAME THING.
1. Written centuries earlier, the quoted words of Old Testament prophets did not predict the coming of Jesus, but referred to events and persons in their past or immediate future. They would have been shocked by the notion that Jesus' birth was the fulfillment of their prophecies. Perhaps so, but I am always puzzled by comments about how figures living centuries before later figures would have been "shocked" by what they saw. I can't even begin to get my head around the idea of Isaiah being told about what was going to happen 700 years later. His seeing the time machine would surely be a far greater "shock" than the substance of what Lüdemann would be able to convey. If I were in the time machine, I'd definitely want to make sure I had a universal translator switched on, or a babel fish in my ear because I wouldn't trust my 8th C. BCE spoken Hebrew.
COMMENT LÜDEMANN: TO OBJECT ON THE GROUNDS OF TRANSLATION PROBLEMS IS SILLY AND IRRELEVANT. TO BE PUZZLED BY THE IDEA OF AN ANCIENT PERSON TRYING TO MAKE SENSE OF THE MODERN WORLD SHOWS LITTLE MORE, I THINK, THAN A WEAKNESS IN IMAGINATIVE POWERS. AGAIN SAND IS BEING THROWN INTO PEOPLE’S EYES IN LIEU OF ARGUMENT.
2. The New Testament authors derived most events of the Christmas story from prophecies of the Old Testament and misrepresented their original intent in order to make them seem to point to Jesus. Is talk of "the Christmas story" itself unhelpful when one is talking about Matthew and Luke?
COMMENT LÜDEMANN: ONE CANNOT DETERMINE WHAT THIS QUESTION MEANS.
And far from an "unquestionable fact", this is actually highly debatable. Some of the Biblical verses alluded to by Matthew are such an odd fit with the events narrated that it is difficult to imagine that Matthew, or anyone else, "derived" the narrative from the prophecies.
COMMENT LÜDEMANN: CALL IT "CREATED” OR "DERIVED” OR "INSPIRED BY”; IT MAKES LITTLE ENOUGH DIFFERENCE. THIS ADMISSION SHOWS BEYOND CAVIL THAT NARRATIVE ELEMENTS HAVE THEIR ROOTS IN THE HEBREW BIBLE AND HAVE RESULTED FROM A PROCESS OF RADICAL REVISION.
On the contrary, the opposite process, of tradition scripturalized is far more plausible. e.g. Matt. 2.23 -- where does it say that the Messiah would live in
Nazara? Matthew is weakly scripturalizing the tradition he knows.
COMMENT LÜDEMANN: TO BE SURE, IN THIS ONE CASE, THE AUTHOR HAS MANUFACTURED OUT OF WHOLE CLOTH A CITATION IN ORDER TO GIVE SCRIPTURAL AUTHORITY TO A SIMPLE BIOGRAPHICAL FACT: JESUS CAME FROM NAZARETH. INVENTION? LIE? CALL IT WHAT YOU WILL.
3. The notion that Mary's pregnancy did not result from intercourse with a male is a canard. The claim of a virgin birth has two sources: the mistranslation of "young woman" by "virgin" (in a passage that clearly did not refer to Jesus!), and the desire of Christians to place their revered leader on the same level as other ancient "sons of God" who were likewise born without participation of a male. The first point is weak and self-defeating. If "young woman" is mistranslated as "virgin" in Matthew, then Isaiah 7.14 can hardly be the prophecy from which the story of the conception of Jesus is derived.
-- COMMENT LÜDEMANN: HERE GOODACRE SEEMS TO BE UNAWARE THAT THE HEBREW ALMAH ("YOUNG WOMAN, AS OPPOSED TO BETULAH, "VIRGIN”) WAS RENDERED BY THE GREEK PARTHENOS (OFTEN BUT NOT ALWAYS INTENDING "VIRGIN”) IN THE SEPTUAGINT. SINCE MATTHEW APPARENTLY RELIED ON THE SEPTUAGINT, HE WOULD QUITE NATURALLY CITE IT AS EVIDENCE OF A SPECIAL BIRTH.
No one would have derived the virginal conception story from that verse for the very reason Lüdemann adduces. More likely is that scripturalization is at work here -- Matthew has a tradition of illegitimate birth that he is attempting to explain and defend by providing a scriptural precedent. The one he chooses is not especially appropriate, but it is the best he can do, and has the advantage of allowing him to bring in "Emmanuel".
COMMENT LÜDEMANN: GRANTED THAT THIS LINE OF ARGUMENT HAS FURTHER SUPPORT IN MATTHEW’S
CURIOUS INCLUSION IN JESUS’ GENEALOGY OF FOUR PROBLEMATICAL PREGNANCIES (TAMAR, RAHAB, RUTH, AND BATHSHEBA), THE ISAIAH QUOTE, COMING AS IT DOES FROM PERHAPS THE MOST REVERED OF THE PROPHETS, IS HARDLY THEREBY TO BE DISCOUNTED.
4. The reported worldwide census ordered by Caesar Augustus did not occur.
5. The reported murder of children in Bethlehem ordered by Herod the
Great did not occur.
I'd prefer to state it a little less forthrightly, e.g. there is no other evidence in ancient texts for these, they are historically unlikely etc.
COMMENT LÜDEMANN: THAT’S FINE; WAFFLE A BIT IF YOU LIKE. I PREFER NOT TO. I ALSO PREFER NOT TO MAKE CASES ON THE BASIS OF LINGUISTIC PREFERENCES.
6. Jesus was born in Nazareth, not in Bethlehem. I'd be inclined to think that that is likely, but it's not an "unquestionable fact". It's one of those don't knows. The historian surely needs to keep open the possibility that it was Jesus' birth in Bethlehem that suggested to him and his family that he might be something special.
COMMENT LÜDEMANN: A PIOUS HOPE LIKELY UNDERGIRDS THIS INSISTENCE, BUT IT IS SO THIN AS TO BE EASILY DISMISSED – UNLESS ONE WERE WRITING A LENGTHY DISQUISITION RATHER THAN A ONE-PAGE ARTICLE.
7. The angels in the Christmas story derive from primitive mythology. Shouldn't that be "fairies"? "Derive from" is again too strong. Think only of contemporary stories told of meetings with angels in which it is the religious language being employed that potentially masks a story that could be told in other, non-religious language.
-- COMMENT LÜDEMANN: CAN IT BE THAT MR. GOODACRE DOES NOT RECOGNIZE THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN FAIRIES AND ANGELS? AND AGAIN, IF HE WOULD PREFER "MODELED UPON” INSTEAD OF "DERIVED FROM,” I WILL ACCEPT THE CHANGE. IT AMOUNTS TO A DISTINCTION THAT IS TO ALL INTENTS AND PURPOSE WITHOUT A DIFFERENCE. WHY MUST WE SPLIT HAIRS? IS IT TO REGISTER A PLETHORA OF OBJECTIONS IN AN ATTEMPT TO BOLSTER A TENUOUS CASE?
8. The shepherds who kept watch over their flocks are idealized representatives of the poor and outcast, persons emphasized by Luke. They do not appear in Matthew's story. Nobody said they did.
-- COMMENT LÜDEMANN: THIS IS MORE SAND IN THE EYES MASKING AS ARGUMENT.
I think that that's a good reading of Luke -- the whole Birth Narrative rings with the good news to the poor that is so characteristic theme in Luke. But it's worth bearing in mind that for many scholars (not me), the earliest stratum of Jesus tradition, in Q1 and Thomas, has "Blessed are the poor", and so the concern for the poor is bedrock, not Lucan redaction.
COMMENT LÜDEMANN: GIVEN THE SUPPOSITIONAL NATURE OF THE EVIDENCE, ONE IS IMPRESSED THAT MR. GOODACRE CAN CERTIFY WHICH IT IS.
9. The magicians from the East are idealized representatives of the Gentiles and of eternal wisdom. They do not appear in Luke's story. Well, of course they don't appear in Luke's story. We know from Acts that Luke doesn't like Magi; one of its villains is a Magus.
COMMENT LÜDEMANN: HERE IS ANOTHER IRRELEVANT POINT, AN OBJECTION FOR THE SAKE OF OBJECTING. THEIR ABSENCE FROM LUKE’S ACCOUNT WAS ADDUCED ONLY TO SHOW THE IRRECONCILABILITY (AND THEREFORE THE ALL BUT CERTAINLY FICTITIOUS NATURE) OF THE TWO ACCOUNTS.
10. The story of the star of Bethlehem is a fiction intended to emphasize the importance of Jesus - and, of course, to provide an entrance cue for the magicians from the East. I've nothing to say there, except that again it's not "an unquestionable fact"; it's a reminder of the kind of language and imagery that is being employed in Matthew's Birth Narrative.
COMMENT LÜDEMANN: YES, AN IMAGERY THAT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE HISTORICAL FACTS. THAT WAS MY POINT ALL ALONG.
I've adapted this post from a Xtalk post I wrote earlier.
Permalink | posted by Mark Goodacre @ 10:06 PM | Comments:
... universal translator or a babel fish ... :-)
# posted by crystal : 9:13 AM
Thanks for doing that. I thought about responding to point-by-point too,
but I found L.'s tone too "off-putting" for me to engage it.
# posted by Stephen C. Carlson : 12:26 AM
I AM SORRY THAT MR. CARLSON "... FOUND [MY] TONE TOO OFF-PUTTING TO ENGAGE IT." I WILL OFFER HIM, HOWEVER, THE FOLLOWING THOUGHTS: I WOULD NOT HAVE YOU ENGAGE MY TONE, SIR, BUT MY IDEAS AND MY ARGUMENTS; AND I WOULD NOT HAVE YOU PUT OFF DOING SO BECAUSE YOU ARE PUT OFF BY SO GOSSAMER A THING AS YOUR RESPONSE TO MY RHETORICAL STYLE. HAVING SMELLED WHAT SEEMS A FALLACIOUS PROPOSAL, YOU SHOULD NOT BE SO EASILY PUT OFF THE SCENT. IT WOULD BE BETTER TO DETERMINE JUST WHAT YOU CONSIDER ERRONEOUS AND ATTEMPT TO REBUT IT. THAT IS MORE HONEST AND FORTHCOMING THAN SIMPLY "PILING ON" BY SECONDING THE OPINIONS OF OTHERS.
AND AS FOR BEING ANNOYED OR OFFENDED -- OR WHATEVER YOU MEAN BY "OFF-PUTTING" -- PLEASE BE ASSURED THAT LIKE MANY OTHERS I AM EQUALLY RESENTFUL OF ATTEMPTS ON THE PART OF ORGANIZED RELIGION TO IMPOSE OUTMODED MYTHS AND CREEDS ON A PUBLIC AND A BODY POLITIC WHO PREFER TO LEAD THEIR LIVES IN ACCORDANCE WITH RATIONALLY AND SCIENTIFICALLY BASED PRINCIPLES OF HUMAN NATURE, MORALITY, AND ASPIRATION.
GERD LÜDEMANN.
----------
-----------
RESPONSE TO MARK GOODACRE AND STEPHEN C. CARLSON BY GERD LÜDEMANN.
Friday, December 16, 2005
Lüdemann on Christmas
On Biblical Theology, Jim West gives the text of Gerd Lüdemann's thoughts on the Christmas story. A look at Lüdemann's homepage gives the text too, under a press release headed:
The Christmas Stories are Pious Fairy Tales
I'm not sure what's wrong with piety, and you'd expect the New Testament to feature some piety, and I don't think there are any fairies in the Birth Narratives (or at least we still call the doll on the top of our Christmas tree an angel rather than a fairy). Some of Lüdemann's content I am inclined to agree with (which NT scholars would not?), but there is something about the overstatement and the tone ("supposed Son of God", "unquestionable facts", "lies") makes me all the more keen to argue against at least elements in it. So here are a few thoughts:
COMMENT LÜDEMANN: APPARENTLY GOODACRE IS UNAWARE OF THE DIFFERENCE IN CONNOTATION BETWEEN "PIOUS” (AS IN PIOUS MYTHS OR PIOUS FAIRY TALES) AND "PIETY”. THE FORMER IMPLIES EXCESSIVE CREDULITY; THE LATTER REFERS TO DEVOUT FAITH. HE SEEMS TO SUFFER FROM A SIMILAR CONFUSION WITH RESPECT TO THE TERM "FAIRY TALE,” WHICH INDICATES AN INCREDIBLE STORY WITH OR WITHOUT FAIRIES IN THE CAST OF CHARACTERS. I SUGGEST THAT IN BOTH CASES HE IS GRASPING FOR STRAWS WITH WHICH TO CREATE OBJECTIONS.
The biblical accounts of the birth of the Jesus, the supposed Son of God, are mere inventions and have little relation to what really happened. Historical research has demonstrated this once and for all. Ten unquestionable facts argue against their historical credibility: Historical research has not "demonstrated" any of the elements here. What historical research can do is to show that elements in the story are implausible or problematic, but it misrepresents the historical task here to claim so much for it. Nor are the ten assertions all "facts", let alone unquestionable facts".
COMMENT LÜDEMANN: THIS IS SIMPLY CARPING ABOUT BLUNT AND STRAIGHTFORWARD TALK THAT HAS NO TIME FOR THE NUANCES AND NICETIES OF SCHOLASTIC DEBATE. SOFTEN A COUPLE OF PHRASES, ADD A FEW QUALIFIERS AND WEASEL-WORDING EXTENUATIONS, IF YOU LIKE; BUT IT WILL ALL COME DOWN TO THE SAME THING.
1. Written centuries earlier, the quoted words of Old Testament prophets did not predict the coming of Jesus, but referred to events and persons in their past or immediate future. They would have been shocked by the notion that Jesus' birth was the fulfillment of their prophecies. Perhaps so, but I am always puzzled by comments about how figures living centuries before later figures would have been "shocked" by what they saw. I can't even begin to get my head around the idea of Isaiah being told about what was going to happen 700 years later. His seeing the time machine would surely be a far greater "shock" than the substance of what Lüdemann would be able to convey. If I were in the time machine, I'd definitely want to make sure I had a universal translator switched on, or a babel fish in my ear because I wouldn't trust my 8th C. BCE spoken Hebrew.
COMMENT LÜDEMANN: TO OBJECT ON THE GROUNDS OF TRANSLATION PROBLEMS IS SILLY AND IRRELEVANT. TO BE PUZZLED BY THE IDEA OF AN ANCIENT PERSON TRYING TO MAKE SENSE OF THE MODERN WORLD SHOWS LITTLE MORE, I THINK, THAN A WEAKNESS IN IMAGINATIVE POWERS. AGAIN SAND IS BEING THROWN INTO PEOPLE’S EYES IN LIEU OF ARGUMENT.
2. The New Testament authors derived most events of the Christmas story from prophecies of the Old Testament and misrepresented their original intent in order to make them seem to point to Jesus. Is talk of "the Christmas story" itself unhelpful when one is talking about Matthew and Luke?
COMMENT LÜDEMANN: ONE CANNOT DETERMINE WHAT THIS QUESTION MEANS.
And far from an "unquestionable fact", this is actually highly debatable. Some of the Biblical verses alluded to by Matthew are such an odd fit with the events narrated that it is difficult to imagine that Matthew, or anyone else, "derived" the narrative from the prophecies.
COMMENT LÜDEMANN: CALL IT "CREATED” OR "DERIVED” OR "INSPIRED BY”; IT MAKES LITTLE ENOUGH DIFFERENCE. THIS ADMISSION SHOWS BEYOND CAVIL THAT NARRATIVE ELEMENTS HAVE THEIR ROOTS IN THE HEBREW BIBLE AND HAVE RESULTED FROM A PROCESS OF RADICAL REVISION.
On the contrary, the opposite process, of tradition scripturalized is far more plausible. e.g. Matt. 2.23 -- where does it say that the Messiah would live in
Nazara? Matthew is weakly scripturalizing the tradition he knows.
COMMENT LÜDEMANN: TO BE SURE, IN THIS ONE CASE, THE AUTHOR HAS MANUFACTURED OUT OF WHOLE CLOTH A CITATION IN ORDER TO GIVE SCRIPTURAL AUTHORITY TO A SIMPLE BIOGRAPHICAL FACT: JESUS CAME FROM NAZARETH. INVENTION? LIE? CALL IT WHAT YOU WILL.
3. The notion that Mary's pregnancy did not result from intercourse with a male is a canard. The claim of a virgin birth has two sources: the mistranslation of "young woman" by "virgin" (in a passage that clearly did not refer to Jesus!), and the desire of Christians to place their revered leader on the same level as other ancient "sons of God" who were likewise born without participation of a male. The first point is weak and self-defeating. If "young woman" is mistranslated as "virgin" in Matthew, then Isaiah 7.14 can hardly be the prophecy from which the story of the conception of Jesus is derived.
-- COMMENT LÜDEMANN: HERE GOODACRE SEEMS TO BE UNAWARE THAT THE HEBREW ALMAH ("YOUNG WOMAN, AS OPPOSED TO BETULAH, "VIRGIN”) WAS RENDERED BY THE GREEK PARTHENOS (OFTEN BUT NOT ALWAYS INTENDING "VIRGIN”) IN THE SEPTUAGINT. SINCE MATTHEW APPARENTLY RELIED ON THE SEPTUAGINT, HE WOULD QUITE NATURALLY CITE IT AS EVIDENCE OF A SPECIAL BIRTH.
No one would have derived the virginal conception story from that verse for the very reason Lüdemann adduces. More likely is that scripturalization is at work here -- Matthew has a tradition of illegitimate birth that he is attempting to explain and defend by providing a scriptural precedent. The one he chooses is not especially appropriate, but it is the best he can do, and has the advantage of allowing him to bring in "Emmanuel".
COMMENT LÜDEMANN: GRANTED THAT THIS LINE OF ARGUMENT HAS FURTHER SUPPORT IN MATTHEW’S
CURIOUS INCLUSION IN JESUS’ GENEALOGY OF FOUR PROBLEMATICAL PREGNANCIES (TAMAR, RAHAB, RUTH, AND BATHSHEBA), THE ISAIAH QUOTE, COMING AS IT DOES FROM PERHAPS THE MOST REVERED OF THE PROPHETS, IS HARDLY THEREBY TO BE DISCOUNTED.
4. The reported worldwide census ordered by Caesar Augustus did not occur.
5. The reported murder of children in Bethlehem ordered by Herod the
Great did not occur.
I'd prefer to state it a little less forthrightly, e.g. there is no other evidence in ancient texts for these, they are historically unlikely etc.
COMMENT LÜDEMANN: THAT’S FINE; WAFFLE A BIT IF YOU LIKE. I PREFER NOT TO. I ALSO PREFER NOT TO MAKE CASES ON THE BASIS OF LINGUISTIC PREFERENCES.
6. Jesus was born in Nazareth, not in Bethlehem. I'd be inclined to think that that is likely, but it's not an "unquestionable fact". It's one of those don't knows. The historian surely needs to keep open the possibility that it was Jesus' birth in Bethlehem that suggested to him and his family that he might be something special.
COMMENT LÜDEMANN: A PIOUS HOPE LIKELY UNDERGIRDS THIS INSISTENCE, BUT IT IS SO THIN AS TO BE EASILY DISMISSED – UNLESS ONE WERE WRITING A LENGTHY DISQUISITION RATHER THAN A ONE-PAGE ARTICLE.
7. The angels in the Christmas story derive from primitive mythology. Shouldn't that be "fairies"? "Derive from" is again too strong. Think only of contemporary stories told of meetings with angels in which it is the religious language being employed that potentially masks a story that could be told in other, non-religious language.
-- COMMENT LÜDEMANN: CAN IT BE THAT MR. GOODACRE DOES NOT RECOGNIZE THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN FAIRIES AND ANGELS? AND AGAIN, IF HE WOULD PREFER "MODELED UPON” INSTEAD OF "DERIVED FROM,” I WILL ACCEPT THE CHANGE. IT AMOUNTS TO A DISTINCTION THAT IS TO ALL INTENTS AND PURPOSE WITHOUT A DIFFERENCE. WHY MUST WE SPLIT HAIRS? IS IT TO REGISTER A PLETHORA OF OBJECTIONS IN AN ATTEMPT TO BOLSTER A TENUOUS CASE?
8. The shepherds who kept watch over their flocks are idealized representatives of the poor and outcast, persons emphasized by Luke. They do not appear in Matthew's story. Nobody said they did.
-- COMMENT LÜDEMANN: THIS IS MORE SAND IN THE EYES MASKING AS ARGUMENT.
I think that that's a good reading of Luke -- the whole Birth Narrative rings with the good news to the poor that is so characteristic theme in Luke. But it's worth bearing in mind that for many scholars (not me), the earliest stratum of Jesus tradition, in Q1 and Thomas, has "Blessed are the poor", and so the concern for the poor is bedrock, not Lucan redaction.
COMMENT LÜDEMANN: GIVEN THE SUPPOSITIONAL NATURE OF THE EVIDENCE, ONE IS IMPRESSED THAT MR. GOODACRE CAN CERTIFY WHICH IT IS.
9. The magicians from the East are idealized representatives of the Gentiles and of eternal wisdom. They do not appear in Luke's story. Well, of course they don't appear in Luke's story. We know from Acts that Luke doesn't like Magi; one of its villains is a Magus.
COMMENT LÜDEMANN: HERE IS ANOTHER IRRELEVANT POINT, AN OBJECTION FOR THE SAKE OF OBJECTING. THEIR ABSENCE FROM LUKE’S ACCOUNT WAS ADDUCED ONLY TO SHOW THE IRRECONCILABILITY (AND THEREFORE THE ALL BUT CERTAINLY FICTITIOUS NATURE) OF THE TWO ACCOUNTS.
10. The story of the star of Bethlehem is a fiction intended to emphasize the importance of Jesus - and, of course, to provide an entrance cue for the magicians from the East. I've nothing to say there, except that again it's not "an unquestionable fact"; it's a reminder of the kind of language and imagery that is being employed in Matthew's Birth Narrative.
COMMENT LÜDEMANN: YES, AN IMAGERY THAT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE HISTORICAL FACTS. THAT WAS MY POINT ALL ALONG.
I've adapted this post from a Xtalk post I wrote earlier.
Permalink | posted by Mark Goodacre @ 10:06 PM | Comments:
... universal translator or a babel fish ... :-)
# posted by crystal : 9:13 AM
Thanks for doing that. I thought about responding to point-by-point too,
but I found L.'s tone too "off-putting" for me to engage it.
# posted by Stephen C. Carlson : 12:26 AM
I AM SORRY THAT MR. CARLSON "... FOUND [MY] TONE TOO OFF-PUTTING TO ENGAGE IT." I WILL OFFER HIM, HOWEVER, THE FOLLOWING THOUGHTS: I WOULD NOT HAVE YOU ENGAGE MY TONE, SIR, BUT MY IDEAS AND MY ARGUMENTS; AND I WOULD NOT HAVE YOU PUT OFF DOING SO BECAUSE YOU ARE PUT OFF BY SO GOSSAMER A THING AS YOUR RESPONSE TO MY RHETORICAL STYLE. HAVING SMELLED WHAT SEEMS A FALLACIOUS PROPOSAL, YOU SHOULD NOT BE SO EASILY PUT OFF THE SCENT. IT WOULD BE BETTER TO DETERMINE JUST WHAT YOU CONSIDER ERRONEOUS AND ATTEMPT TO REBUT IT. THAT IS MORE HONEST AND FORTHCOMING THAN SIMPLY "PILING ON" BY SECONDING THE OPINIONS OF OTHERS.
AND AS FOR BEING ANNOYED OR OFFENDED -- OR WHATEVER YOU MEAN BY "OFF-PUTTING" -- PLEASE BE ASSURED THAT LIKE MANY OTHERS I AM EQUALLY RESENTFUL OF ATTEMPTS ON THE PART OF ORGANIZED RELIGION TO IMPOSE OUTMODED MYTHS AND CREEDS ON A PUBLIC AND A BODY POLITIC WHO PREFER TO LEAD THEIR LIVES IN ACCORDANCE WITH RATIONALLY AND SCIENTIFICALLY BASED PRINCIPLES OF HUMAN NATURE, MORALITY, AND ASPIRATION.
GERD LÜDEMANN.
----------
Friday, December 16, 2005
Lüdemann on Christmas
On Biblical Theology, Jim West gives the text of Gerd Lüdemann's thoughts on the Christmas story. A look at Lüdemann's homepage gives the text too, under a press release headed:
The Christmas Stories are Pious Fairy Tales
I'm not sure what's wrong with piety, and you'd expect the New Testament to feature some piety, and I don't think there are any fairies in the Birth Narratives (or at least we still call the doll on the top of our Christmas tree an angel rather than a fairy). Some of Lüdemann's content I am inclined to agree with (which NT scholars would not?), but there is something about the overstatement and the tone ("supposed Son of God", "unquestionable facts", "lies") makes me all the more keen to argue against at least elements in it. So here are a few thoughts:
I've adapted this post from a Xtalk post I wrote earlier.
The Christmas Stories are Pious Fairy Tales
I'm not sure what's wrong with piety, and you'd expect the New Testament to feature some piety, and I don't think there are any fairies in the Birth Narratives (or at least we still call the doll on the top of our Christmas tree an angel rather than a fairy). Some of Lüdemann's content I am inclined to agree with (which NT scholars would not?), but there is something about the overstatement and the tone ("supposed Son of God", "unquestionable facts", "lies") makes me all the more keen to argue against at least elements in it. So here are a few thoughts:
The biblical accounts of the birth of the Jesus, the supposed Son of God, are mere inventions and have little relation to what really happened. Historical research has demonstrated this once and for all. Ten unquestionable facts argue against their historical credibility:Historical research has not "demonstrated" any of the elements here. What historical research can do is to show that elements in the story are implausible or problematic, but it misrepresents the historical task here to claim so much for it. Nor are the ten assertions all "facts", let alone "unquestionable facts".
1. Written centuries earlier, the quoted words of Old Testament prophets did not predict the coming of Jesus, but referred to events and persons in their past or immediate future. They would have been shocked by the notion that Jesus' birth was the fulfillment of their prophecies.Perhaps so, but I am always puzzled by comments about how figures living centuries before later figures would have been "shocked" by what they saw. I can't even begin to get my head around the idea of Isaiah being told about what was going to happen 700 years later. His seeing the time machine would surely be a far greater "shock" than the substance of what Lüdemann would be able to convey. If I were in the time machine, I'd definitely want to make sure I had a universal translator switched on, or a babel fish in my ear because I wouldn't trust my 8th C. BCE spoken Hebrew.
2. The New Testament authors derived most events of the Christmas story from prophecies of the Old Testament and misrepresented their original intent in order to make them seem to point to Jesus.Is talk of "the Christmas story" itself unhelpful when one is talking about Matthew and Luke? And far from an "unquestionable fact", this is actually highly debatable. Some of the Biblical verses alluded to by Matthew are such an odd fit with the events narrated that it is difficult to imagine that Matthew, or anyone else, "derived" the narrative from the prophecies. On the contrary, the opposite process, of tradition scripturalized is far more plausible. e.g. Matt. 2.23 -- where does it say that the Messiah would live in Nazara? Matthew is weakly scripturalizing the tradition he knows.
3. The notion that Mary's pregnancy did not result from intercourse with a male is a canard. The claim of a virgin birth has two sources: the mistranslation of "young woman" by "virgin" (in a passage that clearly did not refer to Jesus!), and the desire of Christians to place their revered leader on the same level as other ancient "sons of God" who were likewise born without participation of a male.The first point is weak and self-defeating. If "young woman" is mistranslated as "virgin" in Matthew, then Isaiah 7.14 can hardly be the prophecy from which the story of the conception of Jesus is derived. No one would have derived the virginal conception story from that verse for the very reason Lüdemann adduces. More likely is that scripturalization is at work here -- Matthew has a tradition of illegitimate birth that he is attempting to explain and defend by providing a scriptural precedent. The one he chooses is not especially appropriate, but it is the best he can do, and has the advantage of allowing him to bring in "Emmanuel".
4. The reported worldwide census ordered by Caesar Augustus did not occur. 5. The reported murder of children in Bethlehem ordered by Herod the Great did not occur.I'd prefer to state it a little less forthrightly, e.g. there is no other evidence in ancient texts for these, they are historically unlikely etc.
6. Jesus was born in Nazareth, not in Bethlehem.I'd be inclined to think that that is likely, but it's not an "unquestionable fact". It's one of those don't knows. The historian surely needs to keep open the possibility that it was Jesus' birth in Bethlehem that suggested to him and his family that he might be something special.
7. The angels in the Christmas story derive from primitive mythology.Shouldn't that be "fairies"? "Derive from" is again too strong. Think only of contemporary stories told of meetings with angels in which it is the religious language being employed that potentially masks a story that could be told in other, non-religious language.
8. The shepherds who kept watch over their flocks are idealized representatives of the poor and outcast, persons emphasized by Luke. They do not appear in Matthew's story.I think that that's a good reading of Luke -- the whole Birth Narrative rings with the good news to the poor that is so characteristic theme in Luke. But it's worth bearing in mind that for many scholars (not me), the earliest stratum of Jesus tradition, in Q1 and Thomas, has "Blessed are the poor", and so the concern for the poor is bedrock, not Lucan redaction.
9. The magicians from the East are idealized representatives of the Gentiles and of eternal wisdom. They do not appear in Luke's story.Well, of course they don't appear in Luke's story. We know from Acts that Luke doesn't like Magi; one of its villains is a Magus.
10. The story of the star of Bethlehem is a fiction intended to emphasize the importance of Jesus - and, of course, to provide an entrance cue for the magicians from the East.I've nothing to say there, except that again it's not "an unquestionable fact"; it's a reminder of the kind of language and imagery that is being employed in Matthew's Birth Narrative.
I've adapted this post from a Xtalk post I wrote earlier.
SBL Forum
There's a new issue of the SBL Forum available, for December 2005:
SBL Forum Vol. 3, No.11: December 2005
(1) Archives of previous issues. The individual articles are still available, but there is nowhere to browse through previous issues. I think that this acts as a disincentive to scholars to write for the forum -- articles are not "visible" for long enough. I think it would be useful to have specific issue archives, e.g. a link to "previous issues" on the first page, then an archive page with links to each issue and contents pages.
(2) More letters and reader comments should be encouraged since this will make it feel more like a "forum".
(3) Contact details: providing contact details would encourage people to get in touch, to contribute their own materials without every article having to be invited, as at present. Many newspapers, journals etc. have email addresses at the bottom of each article to encourage people to get in touch; but the forum should really have some contact details prominently. Indeed,
if you click "contact us" on the main page (bottom), it takes you to a page that doesn't even mention the forum.
So far I have not had any success on these, but I've had some encouragement that (1) at least is in process.
SBL Forum Vol. 3, No.11: December 2005
Strategies for Moving Students from Faith-based to Academic Biblical StudiesAs a member of the advisory board, I have been lobbying now for the last eighteen months or so for several simple things that in my opinion will improve the journal:
by Mary Bader
Is God Bipolar or Are We Just Crazy? A Psychology and Biblical Studies Section Report: Personality, Aggression, and the Destructive Power of Religion
by Daniel J. Gaztambide
A New Program Unit: Religious Experience in Early Judaism and Early Christianity
by Nicolae Roddy
Bible Literacy Polls
by Leonard Greenspoon
Review of "The Bible and Its Influence"
by Steven L. McKenzie
Bookends Review: Bibliographic Software For Mac
by Danny Zacharias
(1) Archives of previous issues. The individual articles are still available, but there is nowhere to browse through previous issues. I think that this acts as a disincentive to scholars to write for the forum -- articles are not "visible" for long enough. I think it would be useful to have specific issue archives, e.g. a link to "previous issues" on the first page, then an archive page with links to each issue and contents pages.
(2) More letters and reader comments should be encouraged since this will make it feel more like a "forum".
(3) Contact details: providing contact details would encourage people to get in touch, to contribute their own materials without every article having to be invited, as at present. Many newspapers, journals etc. have email addresses at the bottom of each article to encourage people to get in touch; but the forum should really have some contact details prominently. Indeed,
if you click "contact us" on the main page (bottom), it takes you to a page that doesn't even mention the forum.
So far I have not had any success on these, but I've had some encouragement that (1) at least is in process.
SBL Call for Papers goes live
The SBL Annual Meeting Call for Papers went live yesterday (15th). Or at least all the programme chairs were encouraged to get our calls for papers on-line by yesterday. In fact it looks like slim pickings at the moment. But some are available and here's the link:
SBL Annual Meeting 2006: Call for Papers
Jim West draws attention to the call from the Jesus, John and History section. Perhaps I might draw attention to our short call for papers in the Synoptics Section:
SBL Annual Meeting 2006: Call for Papers
Jim West draws attention to the call from the Jesus, John and History section. Perhaps I might draw attention to our short call for papers in the Synoptics Section:
Synoptic Gospels
Program Unit Type: Section
Accepting Papers? Yes
Call For Papers: The Synoptic Gospels section is planning a themed session on the Birth Narratives in Matthew and Luke. Participation in that session is by invitation of the steering committee only. In addition, paper proposals are being accepted for at least one open session. You are encouraged to submit your proposals on any subject relevant to the study of the Synoptic Gospels. Please make offers through the SBL Website only.
Program Unit Chairs
Mark Goodacre (Goodacre@duke.edu)
Greg Carey (gcarey@lancasterseminary.edu)
New Location for Phil Harland's Blog
Others will already have mentioned this by now, but I've been away from the blogging machine for a couple of days and this is the first opportunity I've had to mention it, the new location for Phil Harland's blog. Don't forget to update your blogrolls and your links:
Religions of the Ancient Mediterranean
Religions of the Ancient Mediterranean
Tuesday, December 13, 2005
NTS latest
The latest New Testament Studies has been announced and is on-line for subscribers and subscribing institutions (with abstracts available for all):
New Testament Studies
Volume 52 - Issue 01 - January 2006
Are there any Early Fragments of the So-Called Gospel of Peter?
PAUL FOSTER
Published Online: 12-DEC-05
[ abstract ] pp 1 - 28
Decrees and Drachmas at Thessalonica: An Illegal Assembly in Jason's House (Acts 17.1–10a)
JUSTIN K. HARDIN
Published Online: 12-DEC-05
[ abstract ] pp 29 - 49
Paul's Collection and the Book of Acts Revisited
DAVID J. DOWNS
Published Online: 12-DEC-05
[ abstract ] pp 50 - 70
Living Rewards for Dead Apostles: ‘Baptised for the Dead’ in 1 Corinthians 15.29
JAMES E. PATRICK
Published Online: 12-DEC-05
[ abstract ] pp 71 - 85
Galatians 2.20 in Context
SCOTT SHAUF
Published Online: 12-DEC-05
[ abstract ] pp 86 - 101
Paul's Allegory of the Two Covenants (Gal 4.21-31) in Light of First-Century Hellenistic Rhetoric and Jewish Hermeneutics
STEVEN DI MATTEI
Published Online: 12-DEC-05
[ abstract ] pp 102 - 122
La sagesse de la vie selon l'épître de Jacques: Lignes de Lecture
ERNESTO BORGHI
Published Online: 12-DEC-05
[ abstract ] pp 123 - 141
Abraham's Bosom, the Place Where he Belonged: A Short Note on απενεχθηναι in Luke 16.22
PIETER W. VAN DER HORST
Published Online: 12-DEC-05
[ abstract ] pp 142 - 144
New Testament Studies
Volume 52 - Issue 01 - January 2006
Are there any Early Fragments of the So-Called Gospel of Peter?
PAUL FOSTER
Published Online: 12-DEC-05
[ abstract ] pp 1 - 28
Decrees and Drachmas at Thessalonica: An Illegal Assembly in Jason's House (Acts 17.1–10a)
JUSTIN K. HARDIN
Published Online: 12-DEC-05
[ abstract ] pp 29 - 49
Paul's Collection and the Book of Acts Revisited
DAVID J. DOWNS
Published Online: 12-DEC-05
[ abstract ] pp 50 - 70
Living Rewards for Dead Apostles: ‘Baptised for the Dead’ in 1 Corinthians 15.29
JAMES E. PATRICK
Published Online: 12-DEC-05
[ abstract ] pp 71 - 85
Galatians 2.20 in Context
SCOTT SHAUF
Published Online: 12-DEC-05
[ abstract ] pp 86 - 101
Paul's Allegory of the Two Covenants (Gal 4.21-31) in Light of First-Century Hellenistic Rhetoric and Jewish Hermeneutics
STEVEN DI MATTEI
Published Online: 12-DEC-05
[ abstract ] pp 102 - 122
La sagesse de la vie selon l'épître de Jacques: Lignes de Lecture
ERNESTO BORGHI
Published Online: 12-DEC-05
[ abstract ] pp 123 - 141
Abraham's Bosom, the Place Where he Belonged: A Short Note on απενεχθηναι in Luke 16.22
PIETER W. VAN DER HORST
Published Online: 12-DEC-05
[ abstract ] pp 142 - 144
Monday, December 12, 2005
In the Footsteps of Jesus, Episode 4
The fourth and final part in the BBC Radio 4 series In the Footsteps of Jesus was broadcast earlier today, and it is available for listening on-line here:
In the Footsteps of Jesus: India
Click on the Listen to the Programme link. The transcript link is broken at the moment.
In the Footsteps of Jesus: India
Click on the Listen to the Programme link. The transcript link is broken at the moment.
Review of Biblical Literature latest
Latest from the SBL Review of Biblical Literature under the NT heading:
Harris, Murray J.
The Second Epistle to the Corinthians
Reviewed by Tobias Nicklas
Kinlaw, Pamela E.
The Christ is Jesus: Metamorphosis, Possession, and Johannine Christology
Reviewed by Donald Carson
Kinlaw, Pamela E.
The Christ is Jesus: Metamorphosis, Possession, and Johannine Christology
Reviewed by Tobias Nicklas
Koester, Helmut, ed.
Cities of Paul: Images and Interpretations from the Harvard New Testament and Archaeology Project
Reviewed by Ralph Klein
Rhoads, David, ed.
From Every People and Nation: The Book of Revelation in Intercultural Perspective
Reviewed by Pieter De Villiers
Harris, Murray J.
The Second Epistle to the Corinthians
Reviewed by Tobias Nicklas
Kinlaw, Pamela E.
The Christ is Jesus: Metamorphosis, Possession, and Johannine Christology
Reviewed by Donald Carson
Kinlaw, Pamela E.
The Christ is Jesus: Metamorphosis, Possession, and Johannine Christology
Reviewed by Tobias Nicklas
Koester, Helmut, ed.
Cities of Paul: Images and Interpretations from the Harvard New Testament and Archaeology Project
Reviewed by Ralph Klein
Rhoads, David, ed.
From Every People and Nation: The Book of Revelation in Intercultural Perspective
Reviewed by Pieter De Villiers
N. T. Wright and the Easter Oratorio
The N. T. Wright page carries details of a recording of an Easter Oratorio by Paul Spicer, the libretto for which is written by N. T. Wright, based on John 20-21:
Recording the Easter Oratorio, Paul Spicer (PDF)
Easter Oratorio Libretto, N. T. Wright (PDF)
N. T. Wright, "Resurrection: From Theology to Music and Back Again"
The latter is an article by Wright which explains how the oratorio came about, as part of the Lichfield Festival in July 2000 (the Lichfield Festival is a wonderful annual musical event and in my teenage and early twenties I often used to go, since I lived just thirty minutes drive from Lichfield). What's new is that the work has now been recorded and released on CD, just in time for the Christmas market. Given my own links with the Midlands, it's a pleasure to see that the recording has been made by the Birmingham Bach Choir.
Recording the Easter Oratorio, Paul Spicer (PDF)
Easter Oratorio Libretto, N. T. Wright (PDF)
N. T. Wright, "Resurrection: From Theology to Music and Back Again"
The latter is an article by Wright which explains how the oratorio came about, as part of the Lichfield Festival in July 2000 (the Lichfield Festival is a wonderful annual musical event and in my teenage and early twenties I often used to go, since I lived just thirty minutes drive from Lichfield). What's new is that the work has now been recorded and released on CD, just in time for the Christmas market. Given my own links with the Midlands, it's a pleasure to see that the recording has been made by the Birmingham Bach Choir.
Sunday, December 11, 2005
Bauckham articles on-line
On Biblicalstudies.org.uk, Rob Bradshaw announces that he has made available on-line two of Richard Bauckham's articles:
Richard J. Bauckham, "Weakness - Paul's and ours," Themelios 7.3 (1982): 4-6
Richard Bauckham, "The Relatives of Jesus," Themelios 21.2 (January 1996): 18-21
Richard J. Bauckham, "Weakness - Paul's and ours," Themelios 7.3 (1982): 4-6
Richard Bauckham, "The Relatives of Jesus," Themelios 21.2 (January 1996): 18-21
Saturday, December 10, 2005
Article on Wright
The N. T. Wright Page mentions this short article from Friday's Wall Street Journal Editorial Page:
Reform Party
A British theologian takes another stab at it.
BY JOHN WILSON
Reform Party
A British theologian takes another stab at it.
BY JOHN WILSON
. . . . This scholar contends that the leaders of the Protestant Reformation--Martin Luther especially--misread St. Paul on the subject of justification by faith. A self-described Reformed theologian, he proposes nothing less than a reformation of the Reformation, 500 years on--and he does so by appealing to the Reformers' own motto, sola scriptura, "going back to scripture over against all human tradition." . . . .
. . . . It is this unusual combination of prodigious scholarly achievement and pastoral concern that makes Dr. Wright's influence so pervasive. But not everyone is thrilled. When a scholar claims that his tradition has gotten one of its fundamental teachings wrong, some alarm-ringing is to be expected.
Friday, December 09, 2005
Bart Ehrman on the Diane Rehm Show
Since moving to the US, NPR (National Public Radio) has become part of my staple diet. It's no Radio 4 (what could be?), but it has some good programmes, one of which is the Diane Rehm Show. This programme was new to me when I arrived here, but it turns out that it's a real institution and has been going for years. It allows plenty of time for interviews and call-ins with guests of all stripes, politicians, biographers, academics and so on. Yesterday's guest (with thanks to Gail Dawson on Xtalk for the "heads up") was Bart Ehrman and you can listen to the archive on-line here:
Diane Rehm Show: Bart Ehrman, Misquoting Jesus
It's well worth a listen, with questions about the Birth Narratives, the crucifixion stories, women, homosexuality, and some of Erhman's own autobiography, from evangelical to "happy agnostic". There's a mention too of David Parker (not by name but "friend in Birmingham) concerning the Living Text of the Gospels.
Diane Rehm Show: Bart Ehrman, Misquoting Jesus
It's well worth a listen, with questions about the Birth Narratives, the crucifixion stories, women, homosexuality, and some of Erhman's own autobiography, from evangelical to "happy agnostic". There's a mention too of David Parker (not by name but "friend in Birmingham) concerning the Living Text of the Gospels.
Thursday, December 08, 2005
Paul Mirecki: assault, the media and protection
I was horrified to read of the assault on Paul Mirecki on Hypotyposeis, and the follow-up posts there. Paul Mirecki is Professor in the Department of Religion at the University of Kansas, and has been the subject of media reports recently on a course he was apparently to offer on "Intelligent Design and Creationism", subsequently withdrawn because of unfortunate remarks Mirecki made in a leaked email. Stephen Carlson mentions his work on Charles W. Hedrick and Paul A. Mirecki, Gospel of the Savior: A New Ancient Gospel (Calif. Classical Library; Santa Rosa, Calif.: Polebridge, 1999); he's also made his reputation on the study of magic and ritual in the ancient world, e.g. P. Mirecki and M. Meyer (eds.) Magic and Ritual in the Ancient World (Leiden, the Netherlands: Brill, 2002).
It emerged yesterday that Mirecki has resigned as chair of the dept, and there are some useful posts on Thoughts from Kansas (specifically here and here and a detailed post with lots of comments here). One of the things that I find something of a concern about this issue is the media pursuite of the professor, especially in the latter part of this kansan.com article:
Update (Sunday, 01.34): Jim Davila has a superb post on the topic on Paleojudaica and it includes a couple of new fullish newspaper reports:
Professor blasts KU, sheriff’s investigation
Mirecki says he may sue university
By Sophia Maines (Contact)
Embattled KU professor has long history with religion
By Sophia Maines (Contact)
But most importantly, let me agree with Loren Rosson on Jim Davila's post.
It emerged yesterday that Mirecki has resigned as chair of the dept, and there are some useful posts on Thoughts from Kansas (specifically here and here and a detailed post with lots of comments here). One of the things that I find something of a concern about this issue is the media pursuite of the professor, especially in the latter part of this kansan.com article:
Rausch said she last saw Mirecki at the religious studies department’s monthly faculty meeting on Monday and noticed “big swollen spots” on his face.Perhaps because I am now in American higher education myself, I find this report pretty depressing. The thought that a professor has now had to absent himself from class because of media harrassment, and that his colleagues and students are being interviewed on his character and integrity, is a very unhappy situation. I have long since ceased from releasing any personal information (address, phone number etc.) on phone-books, the web and so on (and I am surprised that Mirecki has been less careful) and this story hardly discourages me from that kind of course of action.
“It transformed his face,” she said.
Jesse Plous, New York senior, and Tiffany Jeffers, Shawnee senior, are enrolled in Mirecki’s Dead Sea Scrolls class. They said they didn’t notice bruises or scratches when they met for class at 12:30 p.m. Monday.
Lindsay Mayer, Holbrook, Ariz., junior, another student in the class, said she might have seen a small bruise on the side of his face, but said injuries weren’t extremely noticeable.
Mirecki didn’t show up for class on Wednesday. The students said Mirecki had never mentioned the controversy in class.
“It’s a good class, it really is,” said Plous. “It’s too bad he’s been steeped in controversy. I hope it pans out for the guy.”
Update (Sunday, 01.34): Jim Davila has a superb post on the topic on Paleojudaica and it includes a couple of new fullish newspaper reports:
Professor blasts KU, sheriff’s investigation
Mirecki says he may sue university
By Sophia Maines (Contact)
Embattled KU professor has long history with religion
By Sophia Maines (Contact)
But most importantly, let me agree with Loren Rosson on Jim Davila's post.
Magdalene Review
I'm behind everyone else (e.g. Michael Bird, Jim Davila and others) on this one, but I've enjoyed reading the following:
The Magdalene Review
Lesa is author of The Complete Idiot's Guide to Mary Magdalene and although I've not read that, she seems to have a sharp mind and good judgement if her recent review of Bruce Chilton is anything to go by. Anyway, I've added the blog to my blogroll, of course.
The Magdalene Review
Lesa is author of The Complete Idiot's Guide to Mary Magdalene and although I've not read that, she seems to have a sharp mind and good judgement if her recent review of Bruce Chilton is anything to go by. Anyway, I've added the blog to my blogroll, of course.
Now I know what I'd like on my epitaph
Courtesy of Michael Bird on Euangelion, now I know what I'd like on my epitaph.Update (20 December): thanks to Whit Stodghill for the pic.
Wednesday, December 07, 2005
Karamat's Xanga site
Another new blog, this one mentioned by Jim West, is:
Karamat's Xanga Site
It's by Kevin Wilson, Professor of Biblical Studies at Lithuania Christian College. This is not one that you can add to your blogroll, though, since there's no RSS feed.
Update (Thursday, 14.26): in comments, Edmund kindly gives a link to the RSS feed, http://www.xanga.com/rss.aspx?user=karamat, which I had missed.
Karamat's Xanga Site
It's by Kevin Wilson, Professor of Biblical Studies at Lithuania Christian College. This is not one that you can add to your blogroll, though, since there's no RSS feed.
Update (Thursday, 14.26): in comments, Edmund kindly gives a link to the RSS feed, http://www.xanga.com/rss.aspx?user=karamat, which I had missed.
Powerscourt
On Hypotyposeis, Stephen Carlson mentions a new blog by Suzanne McCarthy:
Powerscourt
The name is explained in Lady Powerscourt I. The blog looks likely to be touching on issues of interest to academic Biblical scholarship, and more besides.
Powerscourt
The name is explained in Lady Powerscourt I. The blog looks likely to be touching on issues of interest to academic Biblical scholarship, and more besides.
Belated congratulations to Michael Bird
I've been meaning to add my congratulations to Michael Bird of Euangelion for the award of his doctorate (the doctor is in!). His thesis sounds fascinating and I hope it will not be too long before it's available in published format.
Zhubert one year old today
The remarkable site Zhubert.com is one year old today:
Dec 7: www.zhubert.com turns one!
Congratulations -- it's a great site and it feels like it's been around for ever -- I was amazed to hear it's only a year old.
Dec 7: www.zhubert.com turns one!
Congratulations -- it's a great site and it feels like it's been around for ever -- I was amazed to hear it's only a year old.
Monday, December 05, 2005
Idols, Demons, Empty Spaces and 1 Corinthians
I taught a class on 1 Corinthians on Friday, and I began thinking about the contrast between 1 Cor. 8 and 10, a contrast that has always bothered me:
1 Cor. 8.4-6: "4. Hence, as to the eating of food offered to idols, we know that "no idol in the world really exists," and that "there is no God but one." 5 Indeed, even though there may be so-called gods in heaven or on earth—as in fact there are many gods and many lords— 6 yet for us there is one God, the Father, from whom are all things and for whom we exist, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things and through whom we exist. (NRSV)
1 Cor. 10.19-22: 19 What do I imply then? That food sacrificed to idols is anything, or that an idol is anything? 20 No, I imply that what pagans sacrifice, they sacrifice to demons and not to God. I do not want you to be partners with demons. 21 You cannot drink the cup of the Lord and the cup of demons. You cannot partake of the table of the Lord and the table of demons. 22 Or are we provoking the Lord to jealousy? Are we stronger than he? (NRSV)
There is a seemingly irreconcileable contrast here. What does Paul think? That idols have no existence or that they are in fact demons? Is the position of 1 Cor. 10 in conflict with the position of 1 Cor. 8? I was at a paper at the Duke NT colloquium a few weeks ago at which Joel Marcus was talking on the general topic of idolatry in the New Testament and it occurred to me that one way around the difficulty of the contrast between 1 Cor. 8 and 10 would be as follows. In the ancient world, demons were thought to inhabit empty spaces, to fill voids, to exploit nothingness. Could it be that the demons of 1 Cor. 10 exploit the empty spaces, the voids of 1 Cor. 8? Since, for Paul, pagan gods have no existence, since there is no God but one, the idols are empty, void, representations of nothing. Is the underlying thought that the demons take up occupation in that empty space, that void? Do they exploit the absence?
Update (9.57): lots of useful comments have been added to this post (8 so far), all worth reading. Mike Thompson also emails:
Update (Wednesday, 17.44): As Stephen Carlson points out in Hypotyposeis, there are loads of interesting comments to this post, and I want to draw attention to them here, especially for those of you who read the RSS feed.
1 Cor. 8.4-6: "4. Hence, as to the eating of food offered to idols, we know that "no idol in the world really exists," and that "there is no God but one." 5 Indeed, even though there may be so-called gods in heaven or on earth—as in fact there are many gods and many lords— 6 yet for us there is one God, the Father, from whom are all things and for whom we exist, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things and through whom we exist. (NRSV)
1 Cor. 10.19-22: 19 What do I imply then? That food sacrificed to idols is anything, or that an idol is anything? 20 No, I imply that what pagans sacrifice, they sacrifice to demons and not to God. I do not want you to be partners with demons. 21 You cannot drink the cup of the Lord and the cup of demons. You cannot partake of the table of the Lord and the table of demons. 22 Or are we provoking the Lord to jealousy? Are we stronger than he? (NRSV)
There is a seemingly irreconcileable contrast here. What does Paul think? That idols have no existence or that they are in fact demons? Is the position of 1 Cor. 10 in conflict with the position of 1 Cor. 8? I was at a paper at the Duke NT colloquium a few weeks ago at which Joel Marcus was talking on the general topic of idolatry in the New Testament and it occurred to me that one way around the difficulty of the contrast between 1 Cor. 8 and 10 would be as follows. In the ancient world, demons were thought to inhabit empty spaces, to fill voids, to exploit nothingness. Could it be that the demons of 1 Cor. 10 exploit the empty spaces, the voids of 1 Cor. 8? Since, for Paul, pagan gods have no existence, since there is no God but one, the idols are empty, void, representations of nothing. Is the underlying thought that the demons take up occupation in that empty space, that void? Do they exploit the absence?
Update (9.57): lots of useful comments have been added to this post (8 so far), all worth reading. Mike Thompson also emails:
Mark, on 1 Cor 8 & 10 I'm not sure the problem is so acute, or perhaps I'm missing something. What if ouden in 8.4 is a predicate, i.e. 'an idol is nothing'? In other words, it doesn't have the power or priority that the one (true) God has; an idol counts for nothing. Paul isn't denying the existence of idols in 8.4, but their power/essence/status etc in comparison to YHWH. On your reading, 8.5 would seem to be just as difficult as ch 10 for 8.4, since it too grants their existence.I should add that I don't have anything invested in the thoughts I placed up here -- it was something that occurred to me while listening to a paper and I have done no research on the question. My thoughts just appear to me to make sense of the cosmology behind Paul's thinking, which can maintain both that an idol is nothing and that to worship idols is to participate with demons. Let me add, though, that I may have overstated the apparent contrast between 1 Cor. 8 and 10 above, perhaps the result of having taught it recently, where one can play up contrasts a little to make the point. I hope to comment on the comments in due course.
Or is the issue the relationship between idols and demons?
Update (Wednesday, 17.44): As Stephen Carlson points out in Hypotyposeis, there are loads of interesting comments to this post, and I want to draw attention to them here, especially for those of you who read the RSS feed.
Hodges's Plagiarism Index
On Gypsy Scholar, Jeffery Hodges has helpfully gathered together all his fascinating posts on catching plagiarists:
Plagiarism Index
Plagiarism Index
Stop obsessing about biblioblogging
This has been pointed out by others (e.g. Stephen Carlson and Jim Davila) but it's worth another mention in spite of the fact that I had said that I would myself stop posting on this topic. Chris Weimer posts the following:
"Biblioblogging", "Femiblogging" and Blogdom
The post includes lines like "Personally I find the whole debate quite ludicrous" and "What is all this nonsense of being a club/association/whatever?" and "Honestly, folks, I don't see all the huff about this?" I feel a little chastened by some of Chris's remarks but in agreement with much of the post. Just a couple of minor points:
There's just one area where I think Chris misses it a bit:
"Biblioblogging", "Femiblogging" and Blogdom
The post includes lines like "Personally I find the whole debate quite ludicrous" and "What is all this nonsense of being a club/association/whatever?" and "Honestly, folks, I don't see all the huff about this?" I feel a little chastened by some of Chris's remarks but in agreement with much of the post. Just a couple of minor points:
". . . At the SBL conference, for some reason I'm not exactly sure of, there was a biblioblogging session . . ."It was because I was asked to put the session together, and was happy to do so. In fact the request came from two places, the SBL organizers, who wanted to find a space where blogging could be discussed at the meeting, and the CARG steering committee, who thought it would be a useful topic to discuss in their section. Perhaps we would have been better off not to have used the specific term "biblioblogging" (I wrote the title and blurb for the section), but I think it was a great idea to have a session to discuss blogging in our area. Why not? One of the most enjoyable sessions I've been to at the SBL, also one of the worst attended, was in 2002 (Toronto) on e-lists, in which I got together a panel to discuss e-lists in our area. Same reason: why not? It was also all white, male, and even had some of the same panelists as the blogging session three years later, and I think we also talked then about the lack of female e-listers. I've been thinking a bit recently about the comparisons between the e-lists and the blogs (e.g. in my Biblioblogger interview) and I find the some close comparisons -- comparatively few mainstream scholars, a good number of independent scholars, graduate students and so on. One difference is that no one ever (successfully) tried to create a collective name for e-lists in areas connected with academic Biblical Studies.
There's just one area where I think Chris misses it a bit:
Why are there not more female bibliobloggers? Does it really matter? Are we really going to quibble over whether results come from a male or female? In biblical and general antiquity studies, males dominate the field. Since blogging is merely an extension of a field, perhaps the problem lies deeper.Of course it matters that there are not more women bloggers in our area, and not because we are more or less inclined to listen to an opinion depending on the gender of the author, but because none of us presume that males have a monopoly on intelligent discourse in our area. Given that males are dominating the blogging field in our area, and in an even higher proportion than they are dominating the academy more broadly, there are far too many female voices that we are not hearing. The issue became serious because the claim was being made that we male bloggers are in some way not just a symptom of the problem but also the cause of it, albeit inadvertently, by naming, including and excluding. My concern (e.g. mentioned here) is that our inevitable concern about the issue has the wrong result -- it unduly problematizes something that we are unlikely to be able to do anything about, and which we may make worse by the way we potentially isolate.
In the Footsteps of Jesus, Episode 3 (Rome)
The third part of In the Footsteps of Jesus was broadcast at 8 pm GMT today (I managed to catch it live today, from my office at Duke). As usual, you can listen on-line if you missed it. At this stage, the website is showing the wrong URLs for transcript (broken) and episode (link is to part 2), but the main Radio 4 website has the correct link:
In the Footsteps of Jesus, 5 December
Today's is set in Rome and features a lot of Gerald O'Collins and snippets of Tom Wright and Bart Ehrman, among others.
In the Footsteps of Jesus, 5 December
Today's is set in Rome and features a lot of Gerald O'Collins and snippets of Tom Wright and Bart Ehrman, among others.
NT opening at Regent
On Bob's Blog, there's an opening at Regent College, Vancouver advertised:
REGENT COLLEGE, an evangelical graduate school of Christian studies located in Vancouver, British Columbia, invites applications for a position in New Testament with expertise in Pauline studies to begin on 1 September 2006. The deadline for applications for the position is 31 January 2006. The criteria for this position are more fully described at the following web address: http://www.regent-college.edu/about_regent/employment.html. Applications along with curricula vitae should be sent to: Dr. Donald M. Lewis, Academic Dean, Regent College, 5800 University Blvd, Vancouver, BC Canada V6T 2E4. While we welcome all applicants, in accordance with Canadian immigration requirements, priority will be given to Canadian citizens and permanent residents of Canada.
Saturday, December 03, 2005
Biblioblogs Blog of the Month
The NT Gateway blog has the privilege this month of a special feature on Biblioblogs.com:
Biblioblogs: Blog of the Month: December 2005
Thanks to Brandon Wason and Jim West for the interview.
Biblioblogs: Blog of the Month: December 2005
Thanks to Brandon Wason and Jim West for the interview.
Post: Warden of Tyndale House, Cambridge
The ad below is courtesy of Dr Andrew Clarke:
Warden / Director of Tyndale House, Cambridge
Applications are invited for the post of warden/director of Tyndale House, Cambridge. Tyndale House has an internationally recognised reputation as a leading library and residential centre for biblical research. It was founded in 1944 in a spirit of loyalty to the historic Christian faith and is the research division of the Universities and Colleges Christian Fellowship. It has close links with the University of Cambridge, including a formal association with St Edmund's College and a collaborative relationship with the Faculties of Divinity and Oriental Studies and the University Library.
For further particulars and an application pack, see
www.tyndale.cam.ac.uk/Post-Application
Warden / Director of Tyndale House, Cambridge
Applications are invited for the post of warden/director of Tyndale House, Cambridge. Tyndale House has an internationally recognised reputation as a leading library and residential centre for biblical research. It was founded in 1944 in a spirit of loyalty to the historic Christian faith and is the research division of the Universities and Colleges Christian Fellowship. It has close links with the University of Cambridge, including a formal association with St Edmund's College and a collaborative relationship with the Faculties of Divinity and Oriental Studies and the University Library.
For further particulars and an application pack, see
www.tyndale.cam.ac.uk/Post-Application
Friday, December 02, 2005
Plagiarists' Editorial Fatigue
On Gypsy Scholar Jeffery Hodges has some fascinating reflections on student plagiarism, utilizing some of my own academic work on editorial fatigue in the Synoptics:
Jeffery's discussion about plagiarism is useful and interesting, and draws attention ot the value of Google as a tool to catch student plagiarists. I have used it the same way myself and have frequently been able to convict students on the basis of searches done via Google. I remain concerned about several things, though, in the student plagiarist culture:
(1) It's easier to catch the weak plagiarists who betray their sources all too quickly because they do not think to hide or know how to hide the distinctive phrases of their sources. But how easy is it to catch the better plagiarists, who can see the distinctive, Google-friendly phrases in their source material, and who change words but not sentence structure?
(2) On-line plagiarism is so easy to do that, as Jeffery points out, it is relatively easy to catch. But does this mean that some of our students are getting away with book-plagiarism all the more easily? If someone plagiarizes Sanders, Crossan or Wright, you can bet that we'll be able to find it. But if they plagiarize Howard Clark Kee, are we going to spot it?
(3) Does our satisfaction in discovering the on-line plagiarists mask us from seeing the students who have paid someone $75 to write their essay for them, or who have pulled their essay from a model stock essay for which they have paid $25 access? Google is not going to spot those, and however much we might suspect, are we going to be able to convict?
One of the things that this convinces me of is the importance of maintaining examinations as a key element in undergraduate assessment, however much students might prefer the take-home essay. In my courses at Duke, I have a variety of assessment methods in the same course, but with at least 50% going in as examination, one of the advantages of which is the confirmation that this element cannot have been plagiarized.
Addendum: I was once faced with a situation in which we had two very similar essays, but one was inferior to the other. A colleague argued that he thought the worse essay had been copied from the better essay. I found myself arguing that both had been copying from a hypothetical lost source, to the amusement of several other colleagues present at the examiners' meeting. A means of resolving the situation was suggested: we get both students in and interview them separately. And it turned out that I was wrong: there was no hypothetical third source. One student confessed to having copied from the other, and the other student admitted to having lent their work to the other, and was very annoyed that the other student had copied their work. The moral of the story: is it (a) Don't hypothesize unnecessary documents or (b) it'd be great if we could interview Matthew and Luke?
Update (Monday, 21.18): Jeffery has a great follow-up, Netting Plagiarists.
By altering some words and deleting others, my student hoped to obscure the stolen material. This trick might have worked -- if I didn't have Google to track down phrases. Even with Google as an anti-plagiarist tool, the student might have gotten away with the plagiarism by altering more words.In fact one of the things that made me realize the value of editorial fatigue as a possible way of telling the direction of dependence was seeing it in student essays. I remember a student in one of the first classes I taught in Birmingham in 1995 copying a paragraph from Sanders and Davies's Studying the Synoptic Gospels in which reference was being made to something Sanders and Davies had previously discussed but the student had not.
Inevitably, though, Goodacre's principle proves its value, for somewhere in the paper of even a clever plagiarist, editorial fatigue sets in, and the plagiarist slips, allowing a telling phrase from the original to remain. In this particular case, the phrase, as noted above, was: "could not lead to large scale duplication."
Jeffery's discussion about plagiarism is useful and interesting, and draws attention ot the value of Google as a tool to catch student plagiarists. I have used it the same way myself and have frequently been able to convict students on the basis of searches done via Google. I remain concerned about several things, though, in the student plagiarist culture:
(1) It's easier to catch the weak plagiarists who betray their sources all too quickly because they do not think to hide or know how to hide the distinctive phrases of their sources. But how easy is it to catch the better plagiarists, who can see the distinctive, Google-friendly phrases in their source material, and who change words but not sentence structure?
(2) On-line plagiarism is so easy to do that, as Jeffery points out, it is relatively easy to catch. But does this mean that some of our students are getting away with book-plagiarism all the more easily? If someone plagiarizes Sanders, Crossan or Wright, you can bet that we'll be able to find it. But if they plagiarize Howard Clark Kee, are we going to spot it?
(3) Does our satisfaction in discovering the on-line plagiarists mask us from seeing the students who have paid someone $75 to write their essay for them, or who have pulled their essay from a model stock essay for which they have paid $25 access? Google is not going to spot those, and however much we might suspect, are we going to be able to convict?
One of the things that this convinces me of is the importance of maintaining examinations as a key element in undergraduate assessment, however much students might prefer the take-home essay. In my courses at Duke, I have a variety of assessment methods in the same course, but with at least 50% going in as examination, one of the advantages of which is the confirmation that this element cannot have been plagiarized.
Addendum: I was once faced with a situation in which we had two very similar essays, but one was inferior to the other. A colleague argued that he thought the worse essay had been copied from the better essay. I found myself arguing that both had been copying from a hypothetical lost source, to the amusement of several other colleagues present at the examiners' meeting. A means of resolving the situation was suggested: we get both students in and interview them separately. And it turned out that I was wrong: there was no hypothetical third source. One student confessed to having copied from the other, and the other student admitted to having lent their work to the other, and was very annoyed that the other student had copied their work. The moral of the story: is it (a) Don't hypothesize unnecessary documents or (b) it'd be great if we could interview Matthew and Luke?
Update (Monday, 21.18): Jeffery has a great follow-up, Netting Plagiarists.
Tyndale House Summer School
I am grateful to David Instone-Brewer for emailing with details of another excellent looking summer school to be run by Tyndale House (eg. see 2005)
------
Institute for Early Christianity in the Graeco-Roman World
Summer School, June 19- Aug. 4, 2006
Tyndale House, Cambridge UK
Essential Sources for the Study of the New Testament
Dates: June 19 - Aug. 4th, 2006
June 19 - July 1: Field trip in Greece & Turkey
July 3 - Aug 4th: Tyndale House Research Library
Accommodation is at Tyndale House, which has self-catering facilities and students have rights to eat at the University of Cambridge’s Graduate Centre.
Closing date for applications: 15th February. Successful applicants for the course will be advised within two weeks of this date.
The cost of the course is £2250 covers, breakfast, lectures, tuition and accommodation costs on the archaeological tour and the five weeks in Cambridge, plus estimated £250 travel expenses for the field trip. A non-refundable deposit of £200 is required on notification of acceptance for the course.
Airfares and travel costs will be the responsibility of the students. These include return fares to London for overseas students. These should not be booked without first consulting the Director for the exact departure dates and group travel.
Course credits can often be arranged for up to 9 semester units. Once we have received an application the Director will negotiate with your institution, explaining the syllabus and the uniqueness of the course in detail, in order to secure these credits.
Application Form
Please fill in the following and return via email or post:
PERSONAL DETAILS:
Title(s):
Forename(s):
Surname:
Date of Birth:
Nationality:
ADDRESS WHERE YOU CAN BE CONTACTED:
Full postal address:
Phone:
Email address:
NEXT OF KIN:
Name:
Full postal address:
Phone:
Email address:
QUALIFICATIONS:
College qualification(s) already attained
(Qualification and name of institution):
Course(s) in progress (Name of institution, Title of
qualification aimed for):
Classes in your present course relating to Biblical
Studies:
(only list those which you will have completed by the
time of the Summer School)
REFEREES:
Two academic referees (at least one at your institution)
Names and Email addresses:
----
------
Institute for Early Christianity in the Graeco-Roman World
Summer School, June 19- Aug. 4, 2006
Tyndale House, Cambridge UK
Essential Sources for the Study of the New Testament
Dates: June 19 - Aug. 4th, 2006
June 19 - July 1: Field trip in Greece & Turkey
July 3 - Aug 4th: Tyndale House Research Library
Accommodation is at Tyndale House, which has self-catering facilities and students have rights to eat at the University of Cambridge’s Graduate Centre.
Closing date for applications: 15th February. Successful applicants for the course will be advised within two weeks of this date.
The cost of the course is £2250 covers, breakfast, lectures, tuition and accommodation costs on the archaeological tour and the five weeks in Cambridge, plus estimated £250 travel expenses for the field trip. A non-refundable deposit of £200 is required on notification of acceptance for the course.
Airfares and travel costs will be the responsibility of the students. These include return fares to London for overseas students. These should not be booked without first consulting the Director for the exact departure dates and group travel.
Course credits can often be arranged for up to 9 semester units. Once we have received an application the Director will negotiate with your institution, explaining the syllabus and the uniqueness of the course in detail, in order to secure these credits.
Application Form
Please fill in the following and return via email or post:
PERSONAL DETAILS:
Title(s):
Forename(s):
Surname:
Date of Birth:
Nationality:
ADDRESS WHERE YOU CAN BE CONTACTED:
Full postal address:
Phone:
Email address:
NEXT OF KIN:
Name:
Full postal address:
Phone:
Email address:
QUALIFICATIONS:
College qualification(s) already attained
(Qualification and name of institution):
Course(s) in progress (Name of institution, Title of
qualification aimed for):
Classes in your present course relating to Biblical
Studies:
(only list those which you will have completed by the
time of the Summer School)
REFEREES:
Two academic referees (at least one at your institution)
Names and Email addresses:
----
Review of Biblical Literature Latest
Latest from the SBL Review of Biblical Literature under the NT heading, and just a short selection this time:
Barnett, Paul
The Birth of Christianity: The First Twenty Years after Jesus
Reviewed by Martin Albl
Barnett, Paul
The Birth of Christianity: The First Twenty Years after Jesus
Reviewed by Mark Fairchild
Barnett, Paul
The Birth of Christianity: The First Twenty Years after Jesus
Reviewed by Martin Albl
Barnett, Paul
The Birth of Christianity: The First Twenty Years after Jesus
Reviewed by Mark Fairchild
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)