Amy-Jill Levine delivers Clark Lectures at Duke

The Kenneth Clark lectures are an annual highlight of the Duke calendar.  This year, Amy-Jill Levine is the Clark lecturer, and the series kicks off today:

--
Kenneth W. Clark Lectures 2013:

Guest Speaker: Amy-Jill Levine

Amy-Jill Levine is University Professor of New Testament and Jewish Studies, E. Rhodes and Leona B. Carpenter Professor of New Testament Studies, and Professor of Jewish Studies at Vanderbilt Divinity School and College of Arts and Science; she is also Affiliated Professor, Centre for the Study of Jewish-Christian Relations, Cambridge U.K. Holding a B.A. from Smith College, and the M.A. and Ph.D. from Duke University, she has honorary doctorates from the University of Richmond, the Episcopal Theological Seminary of the Southwest, the University of South Carolina-Upstate, Drury University, and Christian Theological Seminary. Her recent books include The Misunderstood Jew: The Church and the Scandal of the Jewish Jesus and The Meaning of the Bible: What the Jewish Scriptures and the Christian Old Testament Can Teach Us (co-authored with Douglas Knight). With Marc Brettler she edited the Jewish Annotated New Testament (Oxford). A self-described Yankee Jewish feminist, Professor Levine is a member of Congregation Sherith Israel, an Orthodox Synagogue in Nashville, Tenn., although she is often quite unorthodox.

Schedule

Lecture 1
“’I didn't mean to sound anti-Jewish': Historical ignorance, cultural stereotype, and New Testament interpretation”
Wednesday, February 20, 2013
10:00 – 11:15 a.m.
0016 Westbrook, Duke Divinity School

Lecture 2
"Of Bridegrooms and Virgins: Jesus and Jewish Women"
Thursday, February 21, 2013
12:20 – 1:30 p.m.
0016 Westbrook, Duke Divinity School
--

Interpretation Latest Issue

There is a new issue of Interpretation available, and some of the content is available free on the web:

Interpretation Volume 62 Number 1, October 2008

The free material includes a book review by Mark Allan Powell of Amy-Jill Levine, The Misunderstood Jew: The Church and the Scandal of the Jewish Jesus (San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco, 2006)

The "Jesus Family Tomb": Amy-Jill Levine comments

On the Discovery: Lost Tomb of Jesus Discussion Forum, Amy-Jill Levine now responds to several of those who have posed their questions on the forum:

Expert Q&A: Dr Amy-Jill Levine

Perhaps her most interesting answer is the last one:

According to Acts (see above, on Mary), at least part of the family relocated to Jerusalem. We do know -- not only from Acts and from Paul, but also from the first-century historian Josephus -- that James the 'brother of the Lord' (as he is called) was the leader of the Jerusalem church. Thus, it is by no means inconceivable that there would be a family tomb in the environs of Jerusalem. The Church presents itself in Acts as comprised not just of James, but of multiple members, some of whom are wealthy or at least of some means (e.g., Mary the mother of John Mark, who seems to be the patron of a house church in Jerusalem; Ananias and Sapphira, Barnabas....). Again, it would not be surprising to think that the followers of Jesus would have had sufficient funds to set up a burial site for his relatives, such as James. My point is not to argue for, or against, the Talpiot tomb's being connected to the family of Jesus; it is simply to note that the idea of a family tomb for James et al. is not inconceivable.

Contrast the slightly different assessment of Jodi Magness on the SBL Site in Has the Tomb of Jesus been Discovered?. I must admit to finding the claim about an expected Galilean burial one of the weaker arguments against the Discovery film, as I previously commented in response to Ben Witherington III's article:

The problem with the original formulation [of Ben Witherington III] was that there is no claim by the film-makers that Joseph was buried in this tomb. I must admit to being unconvinced also by the reformulation of the point, though. There is nothing intrinsically unlikely about members of Jesus' family being buried near Jerusalem since our sources all place them there the last time that we hear of them, Mary and the brothers in Acts 1, James in Acts 21. We have no evidence of a return to Nazareth. In fact, we don't have much evidence at all for the family's movements. This is not a major point, but as one who is critical of the claims of the film-makers, I think it important that the grounds for one's criticisms are solid (Ben Witherington III on the "Jesus Family Tomb")