More Pseudo-Wrong

There's little enough real Wrong around these days, and now here's some more pseudo-Wrong:

New Testament Commentary Reviews

The blog's pseudonymous author is in fact "NTWrong" rather than "NT Wrong" and he introduces himself thus:

NTWrong is a former pastor, whose son is now attending Bible College. New Testament Commentary Survey is written with Mr. Wrong’s son in mind as the primary audience. There is no reason to suppose that thousands of people will make their way to this blog. However, Mr. Wrong hopes the site will be of utility to the occasional individual who stumbles across it.

It's interesting that the author is apparently unaware of real Wrong.  Perhaps the early Christians similarly hit on the idea of being pseudo-Paul independently of one another.

Thanks to Mike Grondin on the Gospel of Thomas e-list for the link.

The N. T. Wrong Archives

While doing a little googling tonight (about the pistis Christou issue), I happened, by chance, on the archives of the N. T. Wrong blog.  As a fan of the late, great anti-bishop, I had always been a bit disappointed that he had hidden his archives from his fans, and we had had to use nefarious means of digging them out.  But now, it seems that they have returned in all their glory, including all the pictures (like Captain Objective Genitive) and all the comments (like the legendary Place for all Off-Topic Hobbyhorse Comments).  Here is the place to go for all your favourite N. T. Wrong posts of yore:

N. T. Wrong
Contains the archives of the N.T.Wrong blog, April 2008-January 2009

Life after the Biblioblog Top 50

Seems I am a bit slow off the mark since returning from England last week. I hadn't noticed that the Biblioblog Top 50 had finally thrown in the towel, after threatening to do so for some time. The Biblioblog Top 50 blog has gone the way of its author's earlier NT Wrong blog and has decided to hide the whole thing behind password protection. For what it's worth, I think it's a real shame. Although not as much fun as the old NT Wrong blog where it originated, the Biblioblog Top 50 was still a good laugh. I always felt that the real interest was in the annotations that accompanied the chart, the pictures and the gentle humour and sarcasm. But there were other things of use too, not least the big list that had become a great resource in its own right, and which I had linked on my NT Gateway blogs page. So that link is going to have to go. It seems that the Biblioblog search engine is still working, and that the database was last updated in November 2009, but you can no longer access it from the Biblioblog Top 50 site itself (of course). Instead, go to this Google link, or search directly from my NT Gateway Blogs page. But a search engine is only as good as the database it is searching, and if the dean of the Biblioblog Top 50 has given up that blog, it's doubtful that he is going to continue updating the complete list that feeds the search.

I now understand what I had not realized earlier, that the Free Old Testament Audio Website blog is attempting to replace the Biblioblog Top 50 itself and not just the occasional updates that used to appear on Jim West's deleted blog. So thanks to Jeremy for that, and kudos to the artist formerly known as NT Wrong that his absence is so clearly felt that others spring up to fill the void. I wish people would not do this, though, and delete or hide old blogs. It doesn't make a lot of sense. Even if you become convinced that there is so little value in it yourself that it should be removed from the web, it might just be that others have a higher opinion of your efforts and that the archives might continue to be of use. Luckily, there are ways of accessing archive material if you know how, but it would be so much more beneficial to keep the archives for such blogs publicly available. So this is me informally registering some general grumpiness about the whole business of hidden and deleted blogs, with perhaps a bit more to come in due course.

N T Wrong's second death?

Drat! I hope it wasn't something I said. As regular readers will know, I've always been a fan of the Biblioblog Top 50 and now it seems that its anonymous author has departed in similar fashion to his earlier pseudonymous incarnation. Jim West says that he was bored and suggests that there will be more to come. Well, the artist formerly known as N T Wrong is one of the giants, so I certainly hope that he will be back again soon. (See further The Busybody, Kata Ta Biblia, Hypotyposeis).

Biblioblog Top 50 vs. N. T. Wrong

At the recent Society of Biblical Literature Annual Meeting in New Orleans, one of the real highlights was the paper given by James Crossley about the pseudonymous blogger known as N. T. Wrong. I asked a question at the end about the afterlife of N. T. Wrong. Because, of course, Wrong never really went away. He morphed into a more amorphous anonymous character (if such a thing is possible) at the head of the Biblioblog Top 50. James suggested that N. T. Wrong's politics were very much to the left of your average biblioblogger, and he repeated Wrong's notorious and hilarious descriptions added to his series of labels for the bloggers, from "very conservative" to "very liberal". At the same time that James was giving his paper, there was some discussion in the blogs about Biblioblog Top 50's suggestion about resuming these labels (Loren Rosson, Jason Staples, Stephen Carlson), perhaps itself generated by the discussion in James's SBL paper, which he had shared with the character he calls "Tom".

The suggestion, now dropped, illustrates for me the value of the pseudonymous blog over the anonymous one. I liked the N. T. Wrong character. He was a cheeky chappy, using his character to poke fun, to be subversive, to say things others might not say. Somehow, the character he created allowed him to make judgements (and misjudgements) about the politics of the blogs that were entertaining. I quite liked the fact that he wasn't sure where to place the NT Blog, for example, switching me twice across the boundaries. But the Biblioblog Top 50 does not have that clearly defined, cheeky character behind it, and the resumption of this categorization would not have worked with an anonymous author.

One of the curiosities about the afterlife of N. T. Wrong has been his failure to maintain the kind of subversive, counter-cultural, liberal persona. As I pointed out after James's paper in New Orleans, the Biblioblog Top 50 has been accused of being on the wrong side of the gender question, and of aligning itself with and also perpetuating the dominant male biblioblogging community. I think those charges are misguided, but the fact that they got such a hearing may be a testimony to the difficulty of blogging anonymously over against blogging in the name of an explicitly cheeky, subversive and fun character. And although it has always been clear to me that the Biblioblog Top 50 is supposed to be a laugh, the lack of a clearly identifiable author, even an artificially constructed one, ultimately makes it that bit less fun than when its author was Wrong.

Resurrecting NT Wrong on BCE and CE vs. BC and AD

Bob Cargill's latest In My View over on Bible and Interpretation is an excellent piece on the BC / AD vs. BCE / CE usage, strongly arguing that the former should be abandoned and the latter adopted by all:

Why Christians Should Adopt the BCE/CE Dating System

On occasions like this, I like to turn to NT Wrong. He wrote the following post on 4 January, in what is effectively an interesting counter to elements in Bob's article. I am not saying that I agree with everything NT says, but it's worth hearing again:

Use A.D. and B.C.! (Out with C.E. and B.C.E.!!)

The abbreviations C.E. (Common Era) and B.C.E. (Before Common Era) are commonly used in modern biblical scholarship to refer to the eras which were formerly known as A.D. (Anno Domini - The Year of The Lord) and B.C. (Before Christ). The usual rationale for the change is sensitivity to other religious and non-religious users of the Gregorian calendar. That is, given the number of worldwide users of the Gregorian calendar who don’t believe Jesus of Galilee is ‘The Lord’, a more neutral term is thought to be provided by ‘Common Era’.

However, what is ‘common’ about the Gregorian calendar? To the contrary, however the dating system is named, it refers to a specific tradition of the Christian West. The calendar has a very specific origin in the Christian tradition, and is calculated with respect to the estimated year of birth of the person central to the Christian tradition, Jesus Christ. (In actual fact, Dionysius Exiguus miscalculated the year of Jesus’ birth when he developed the calendar’s antecedent in AD 525, but that’s another story…)

By using ‘C.E.’ and B.C.E.’, we universalize a peculiar tradition. We make it out to be ‘common’ or ‘natural’, not requiring any special marking or qualification. As a consequence of the fact of Western power, the Gregorian calendar has been adopted as the most-used calendar in the world, and so does have some degree of ‘commonality’ in day-to-day use. But the change from A.D. to C.E. (and from B.C. to B.C.E.) obscures the particular Christian basis of this ‘common’ calendar, misrepresenting it as ‘normal’ - as somehow transcending historical particularities. By contrast, the other calendars are made out to be the only ‘localized’ and ‘particular’ calendars. While the Christian calendar is ‘naturalized’ by its designation as ‘common’, other calendars (Jewish, Persian, Islamic, Chinese, Hindu, Ethiopian, Thai, etc) are ‘artificial’ and ‘contingent’.

Stop this neo-colonialism! Use A.D. and B.C. again!! The specific marking of these older terms, which refers to the Christian concept of ‘Christ’, may well be offensive to some people. But this offence is substantial and systemic, not removeable by changing the name of the year which is dated from the birth of Christ. The hegemony of the Western calendar is a fact, and just one of the many effects of Western power in the world today — a minor but not insignificant fact, given the universal importance of local calendars in shaping culture. To obscure the Western calendar’s particularity by making it into a false universal is a double injustice – both the initial violence of changing local calendars, and then its covering up with the misleading term “common”. This is ideology at work.

Scholarship should be on the side of pointing out where injustices arise, not in covering them up.

The Dilettante Hobby Horse Biblioblog

The artist formerly known as N T Wrong has another new blog (see also The Biblioblog Top 50) and it resurrects one of the great innovations at the old NT Wrong blog, the dilettante hobby horse section, now given a whole blog to itself. If TAFKANT Wrong (for short) continues at this rate, we we will soon no longer be lamenting his demise:

The Dilettante Hobby Horse Biblioblog

Meanwhile a Facebook group called Come back NT Wrong continues on his trail.

Biblioblog Top 50

I am way behind on mentioning the February Biblioblog Top 50, put together by the artist formerly known as N T Wrong. As usual, it's an interesting read. I am amazed that the NT Gateway blog remained right up there in the top 3 given the general upheaval last month, and the bifurcating of the old blog to create that one and this one. It will, perhaps, be a long time before this blog will grace the Top 50, but who knows what the "Biblical Floccinaucinihilipilification Society" has in store? The one baffling factor remains the absence of Paleojudaica from the list, all the more strange given some of those that are present there.

On the trail of N T Wrong

As I mentioned last week, N T Wrong's Biblioblog Top 50 now has its own home, announced by Jim West, who now also republishes for our benefit N T Wrong's fine contribution to the series of Biblical Studies Carnivals, 37 (December 2008). If you thought you might be able to check out others of N T Wrong's old posts, the bad news is that you can't even retrieve them over on archive.org, usually the result of the author of the sites in question arranging to pull them off archive.org's space. For some reason, the author of the N T Wrong blog really does not want people to access his materials any more.

So where has the anti-bishop gone and what are the reasons for the disappearance? Is it connected with the recent postings on Hypotyposeis or is the timing a coincidence? There have, in fact, been a couple of recent sightings over in the comments section of James Crossley's blog, which, it turns out, is the place where all the cool kids hang out.

It seems that I am not the only one who misses the musings of the great man -- there is now a Facebook group devoted to the cause, Come back N T Wrong!

Biblioblog Top 50 new home

After N T Wrong cut transmission earlier this week, there was some speculation over what would happen to his Biblioblog Top 50, a favourite over at the N T Wrong blog. Well, the good news is that it is back, with a new look at a new location:

The Biblioblog Top 50

Thanks to Jim West for the announcement. The N T Wrong name has been dropped in favour of "the Biblical Floccinaucinihilipilification Society (”the BFS”)" (had to copy and paste that one). I think it is bad news, though, if this implies that we won't be hearing from N T Wrong again -- he will be missed.

N T Wrong: Transmission cut?

There was a moment almost exactly a year ago when transmission was cut on Jim West's blog. Now we are looking at something similar with N T Wrong, whose blog now appears to be hidden behind a protected sign. On occasions like this, I am reminded of one of my favourite scenes in The Truman Show when the failure to broadcast actually causes some of the highest viewing figures in the show's history as everyone wonders what has happened. With Wrong, it seems clear that the end of his blog was not the end of the story, first with the continuation of the Biblioblogging Top 50, then the biblioblogging interview and subsequently the missing December carnival. All the while, James Crossley's blog has what must be the longest comment thread of all time on the biblioblogs, generated at least in part by my distaste with Wrong's language in the interview previously mentioned. The current cut in transmission coincides with the recent blog discussions surrounding Ethical Considerations Relating to Pseudonymous Biblioblogging over on Stephen Carlson's Hypotyposeis.

So is this another one of Wrong's mini-deaths, with another resurrection to come soon? Or is it just a temporary glitch from the anti-bishop -- he cocked it up?

Biblical Studies Carnival XXXVII

N. T. Wrong once again emerges from the shadows, this time to provide an excellent, very thorough carnival for the missing month of December 2008:

Biblical Studies Carnival XXXVII

Biblioblogging Top 50 for January and other Wrongs

N. T. Wrong re-emerges twice this week, first to present the latest Biblioblog Top 50. It's good to see this blog maintaining a high position in the list, but I am puzzled by the absence of Jim Davila's Paleojudaica, down from 15 in December. This makes little sense, below blogs that have posted next to nothing throughout January.

And the second re-emergence is an interview with Jim West over at Biblioblogs.com, Blogger of the Month for February 2009. The interview is actually very entertaining, and the anti-bishop reveals a bit more of his voice. He is clearly enjoying trying to see what he can get away with, though, since there is an obscenity of the kind that is surprising (and frankly not entirely welcome) in an academic venue.

Update (Wednesday, 13.41): it appears that my comment above was unpopular, and several people have objected to it. For a fairly lengthy exchange, see the comments section on Earliest Christian History.

The Official Archives of N. T. Wrong

As lots of others have noted, N. T. Wrong has ended the fun and his blog now houses "The Official Archives of Bishop N. T. Wrong". There are no last minute reveals, unless you think that he is really William Dever or Morton Smith. We will miss him, but perhaps he threw in the towel at the right moment; the recent series on "100 Reasons πίστις Χριστοῦ is an Objective Genitive" looked suspiciously like the kind of every day nitty-gritty stuff that dominates the biblioblogosphere. We didn't want to see the bishop morphing into one of us.

Blog Carnivals, Top 50s, Interviews and more

It has been a cracking few days of activity on the Biblioblogs. Jim West once again shows us that he is master of the art of writing a clear, comprehensive Biblical Studies Carnival:

Biblical Studies Carnival XXXVI

Perhaps we should just ask Jim to do it every month? Meanwhile, over on Bibliogblogs.com, the latest interview is with Mark Vitalis Hoffman:

Blogger of the Month December 2008

This is a timely interview -- Mark's Biblical Studies and Technological Tools Blog has made a fantastic contribution to the blogosphere over the last eighteen months. And then N.T. Wrong has published his new Top 50:

Biblioblog Top 50

And I am happy to see that the NT Gateway blog is up at number 2. And speaking of N.T. Wrong, the speculation about his identity continues, with contributions from James McGrath On the trail of N.T. Wrong, On the Trail of N.T. Wrong, Part 2 and On the Trail of N.T. Wrong, Part 3, with J. C. Baker weighing in with The Identity of N.T. Wrong and More Proof that Mark Goodacre is N.T. Wrong, and Pat McCullough adding his own suggestion on The Identity of N.T. Wrong.

Orality and Literacy VI: Literate authors of ancient texts

N. T. Wrong has posted on the Relative Unimportance of Oral Culture for Interpreting Biblical Books, reminding us of the fact that "Of those who wrote biblical books, the literacy rate was 100%". With the antibishop (thanks to Andrew Criddle for the term), there is always an enjoyable element of facetiousness, but his reminder about this blindingly obvious fact is actually a useful one because it forces us to think again about the role of the literate in a culture where there was widespread illiteracy, to come to terms with the role played by this elite. As Harry Gamble says,

In a community in which texts had a constitutive importance and only a few people were literate, it was inevitable that those who were able to explicate texts would acquire authority for that reason alone (Books and Readers, 9-10).

Moreover, as I have argued here (Orality and Literacy V: Illiterate Tradents), it is not just a question of taking literate authors of literary texts seriously. It is also a question of focusing on literate tradents. The idea of illiterate early Christian tradents remains problematic. Most of the tradents we know about were literate, and one of the earliest pieces of known tradition (1 Cor. 15.3-5) presupposes literate tradents and the importance of tradition interacting with what is written.

Now in that post, I did promise a note on Acts 4.13, where Peter and John are described as ἀγράμματοι, sometimes translated as "illiterate". Many commentators suggest that the word is more appropriately translated "uneducated" than "illiterate", not least because the same text, Acts, depicts Peter as quoting extensively, verbatim, from the Hebrew Bible (or perhaps more accurately here in Acts, the Septuagint). I make no presumption of historicity since it seems likely that Luke has composed those speeches; the point is that the author who depicts Peter and John as ἀγράμματοι in the same text also has them quoting their Scriptures verbatim. Therefore the likely meaning of the word, as Luke uses it, is "uneducated" and not "illiterate", and this verse does not provide a one-stop response to arguments in favour of the likelihood of literate tradents.

Dating Sacred Texts on the Basis of Fulfilled Prophecy

In a recent post, the ever intriguing N. T. Wrong discusses the Scholarly Dating of Daniel to After the "Prophecies" were "Fulfilled". Here in the biblioblogging community, we are all on first name terms, so I hope the bishop will not mind my calling him Tom. Tom quotes and then argues against a character who sees "The practice of late-dating the books of the Bible . . . as a position of faith on the part of those scholars who do so"; Tom pays special attention to John J. Collins on Daniel, and the quotation is worth repeating here:

The issue is not whether a divinely inspired prophet could have foretold the events which took place under Antiochus Epiphanes 400 years before. The question is whether this possibility carries any probability: is it the most satisfactory way to explain what we find in Daniel? Modern critical scholarship has held that it is not.
- John J. Collins, Daniel, First Maccabees, Second Maccabees, with an Excursus on the Apocalyptic Genre (Wilmington: Michael Glazier, 1981): 11-12.

Tom's timely post coheres with what I have been arguing here (especially in Dating Game VI and Dating Game VII) with reference to the predictions of the temple's destruction in the Gospels. Allow me to quote from a section of my forthcoming SBL paper (31-32 in the current draft):

One of the standard arguments against the idea that Mark shows knowledge of the destruction of Jerusalem is the reassertion of the text’s own character here as prediction. In his Introduction to the New Testament, David A. DeSilva suggests that “The primary reason many scholars tend to date Mark’s Gospel after 70 CE is the presupposition that Jesus could not foresee the destruction of Jerusalem – an ideological conviction clearly not shared by all.” But this kind of appeal, while popular, tends not to take seriously the literary function of predictions in narrative texts like Mark. Successful predictions play a major role in the narrative, reinforcing the authority of the one making the prediction and confirming the accuracy of the text’s theological view. It is like reading Jeremiah. It works because the reader knows that the prophecies of doom turned out to be correct. It is about “when prophecy succeeds”.

My concern about the popular appeal to what Jesus could or could not have done is that it does not take seriously the real issue, which has nothing to do with making a judgement about the historical Jesus. Rather, it is about observing the literary function of successful prophecy in the narrative in which it appears. The prediction only gains traction because the reader is saying, "Hey, yes! I know what that's about!" The issue is parallel to the one discussed here by Tom Wrong, and I am grateful to have his Daniel discussion to inform my own. James McGrath weighs in on Exploring our Matrix, with similarly helpful observations.