Maurice Casey (1942-2014)

Maurice Casey in April 2008,
Synoptic Problem Conference,
Lincoln College, Oxford

I was so sad to hear of the death of Prof. Maurice Casey at the weekend (see JimWest, Dominic Mattos, Larry Hurtado, Jim Davila).  Anyone familiar with contemporary New Testament scholarship will know of the massive contribution that he has made.

His enduring legacy will probably be the stimulation to rethink the Son of Man question, in two key works, one in 1979 (Son of Man: The Interpretation and Influence of Daniel 7) and the other in 2007 (The Solution to the Son of Man Problem), which we were delighted to have in the Library of New Testament Studies series.  Alongside this, and equally important, is his underlining of the necessity to study the Aramaic sources of the Gospels, especially in Aramaic Sources of Mark's Gospel (1998) and An Aramaic Approach to Q (2002).  In spite of the importance of these contributions, he made his mark in other major ways too.

His book on New Testament Christology, the result of his Cadbury Lectures in Birmingham in 1985, is probably the best, clearest presentation of the view he so clearly articulates in its title, From Jewish Prophet to Gentile God, and I still assign students passages from this book when we discuss early Christology.

Like almost all of his writing, the strength of that book is that it develops a coherent and stimulating thesis and argues it with clarity and force.  There is no messing about in Casey's writing.  He doesn't just present data for the sake of it but marshalls evidence as part of a stimulating argument.  He does what he needs to do without going on for ever, and his prose is crystal clear.  One of his much underrated books is Is John's Gospel True? (1996) in which he robustly lays out the case for distancing John's Gospel from the historical Jesus.  While many contemporary scholars disagree with the book, it's an ideal starting point for getting to the heart of the debate about John and history.

Casey was writing right to the end of his life and although I am not as fond as his recent book on Jesus mythicism as I am of his other works, it would be fair to say that his big book on the historical Jesus, Jesus of Nazareth: An Independent Historian's Account of his Life and Teaching (2010), makes a major contribution to Jesus research.  It's a lively read but it is also intense, passionate and full of the emphases that made Casey so important a scholar -- the emphasis on reading the source materials in their original languages, the importance of understanding accurately Jesus' historical context, and the stress on working as an historian and resisting the urge to warp the evidence with contemporary theological concerns.

I was lucky to meet Maurice on many occasions while I was teaching at the University of Birmingham.  Maurice was down the road at the University of Nottingham and was a regular at the conferences, and it was always a pleasure to chat to him at the British New Testament Conference.  I think the first time I met him was in a taxi I shared with Maurice and Michael Goulder.  They had been good friends for years, and my association with Michael instantly put me in Maurice's good books -- I always felt like I bathed a little in Michael's reflected glory.  Although I never heard them talk about this, I suspect that they respected one another not least because it's not always easy being a scholar of religion when you don't believe in God.

I have been sorry not to see more of him since I have lived in America, but I have happy memories of long discussions over dinner at the Oxford Synoptic Problem conference in April 2008.  In spite of his occasionally acerbic and witty remarks about others, I always found him delightful, kind and very funny.  I still remember clearly several elements in our conversation at dinner, at which his much-loved graduate student and close friend Stephanie Fisher was also present.  One was the observation that scholars often get much more conservative the closer they get to the grave -- they are trying to write their way into heaven, he claimed.  The other was a lengthy discussion about the properties of port, which, he felt, were insufficiently appreciated by many of those present at the conference.

And so I am pouring a glass of port now and raising it to Maurice, who will be dearly missed, and whose like we may never see again.

What type of scholar are you? Redux

Over on the SBL Forum, Michael Bird and Craig Keener have an enjoyable article entitled Jack of All Trades and Master of None: The Case for “Generalist” Scholars in Biblical Scholarship. The pieces picks up from one of Mike's old blog articles, Specialist or Generalist? from August 2005. I commented at the time with What type of NT Scholar are you? and I thought I would take the liberty of revisiting and revising that post here.

The title of my post on that occasion came from Sean Winter's on Sean the Baptist (post no longer available).  One of the elements that was in the Euangelion blog post but does not appear in the article is the following: 

If you can’t actually attend conferences at least read the seminar paper topics for various conferences like SBL, ETS, SNTS etc. Ask authors to email you their paper if you are interested in their seminar paper and you can’t attend.

This is a good suggestion, and will add: don't just go to papers in the narrow area of your own research -- try to take an interest in as many as possible. Always attend plenary sessions where possible. A related but key point I'd also add would be perhaps too obvious for mentioning, but still vital:

Talk to people: at the conferences take an interest in other people's research, and when they are working in an area you are not familiar with, ask them what one ought to be reading in that area. What are that person's pick of the last few years' books? What are the interesting ideas that deserve attention? Who are the "ones to watch" in that area?

I think the best way out of being a narrow specialist is to keep on talking, and to be humble.  Sean the Baptist went on, in the post no longer present, to quote a fascinating characterisation of the different kinds of scholar, from an assessment by John Knox of John A. T. Robinson:

To be sure, there are many scholars so gifted and accomplished as not to be typical in either sense ... But for the larger number of us I believe one may say that the worker in New Testament studies will belong to one type or the other - to the more knowledgeable or the more imaginative. And I would maintain that the door to being a true, and even a distinguished, scholar is as widely open to the second type as to the first

John Knox, "J. A. T. Robinson and the Meaning of New Testament Scholarship", Theology 92 (1989), 251-267 (here p.256)

It's a fabulous quotation, and I love the idea of being "as widely open to the second type as the first".  This is a great way of making sure that one avoids the pitfalls of both. I would add that it is not easy to answer the "Specialist or Generalist?" question towards the beginning of one's career.  And most of us bibliobloggers are relatively young, at least in sometmes crusty old academic world.  Sometimes we become associated with a particular narrow area because we have so far only published, on the whole, in one or two narrow areas, and that might make us appear to be specialists. Perhaps those who now appear "specialist" will in due course become "generalists". It's difficult to say. So I suppose it is something that one will be able to pronounce on more confidently when looking back at one's career rather than looking forward at it.

Here's a way of nuancing the question. What type of scholar do we most admire? I must admit to a fondness for what I would call "ideas" people, i.e. "the more imaginative" in Knox's characterisation above. Fundamentally, my favourite scholars are those who have the ability to think exciting new thoughts, to rework existing questions in interesting new directions. I am thinking in particular of scholars like Michael Goulder (I know, surprise, surprise) who might be criticized on various fronts, but who will never be criticized for being dull. He always makes me think about existing questions in new ways.

The example of a Michael Goulder, though, raises the question about the appropriateness of the terminology "specialist" or "generalist".   If the definition of a "generalist" is someone who has published in a variety of areas across the Testaments, then Goulder is definitely a "generalist".  But I wouldn't feel that that was a useful term to characterize him, as someone who is precise and specialized in his approach to a whole range of specific areas, from the Synoptics to Paul to Revelation, from Isaiah to Song of Songs to the Psalms.  Perhaps the ideal is to be both specialist and generalist, or, to be a specialist in a wide range of different areas.

It may be that the characterisation, then, is too simplistic to be useful. We can all think of work-a-day scholars whose special ability is to keep on top of a range of material, both primary and secondary, but who have nothing very interesting to say about any of it.  The best scholars are those who combine imagination and insight with knowledge and wisdom. The greatest of all living NT scholars in my book typifies this combination, E. P. Sanders. He radically rethinks consensus positions, lucidly explicating his own views, at which he has arrived on the basis of extensive but careful reading of the primary materials.

Harold Hoehner (1935-2009)

Several blogs have reported the sad news of the death of Harold Hoehner (Evangelical Textual Criticism; NT Resources; Green Baggins; Denny Burk; Rightly Dividing the Word of Truth; ΕΝ ΕΦΕΣΩ; Pursuing Truth; Confessions of a Closet Academic). Here is the piece in Dallas Morning News:

Harold Hoehner, renowned professor at Dallas Theological Seminary, dies at 74
By Sam Hodges

Harold Hoehner, a renowned professor of New Testament studies at Dallas Theological Seminary, died today. He was 74.

A seminary colleague, Darrell Bock, said Hoehner collapsed at home after jogging.

Hoehner taught at DTS for 42 years, and for long stretches oversaw its Ph.D. students and chaired its New Testament department.

He also published widely as a scholar.

“His magnificent commentary on Ephesians—his magnum opus—will continue to instruct and inspire pastors and teachers for many years to come,” the seminary said in a statement. “Because one of his books is entitled Herod Antipas, he became affectionately known to a generation of students as `Herod Hoehner.’” . . .

Dallas Theological Seminary apparently has a tribute, but there appear to be problems with their server at the moment. See also Justin Taylor, Between Two Worlds: Harold Hoehner (1935-2009) (with thanks to Michael Thompson for the link).

Happy Birthday, Albert Schweitzer

Albert Schweitzer was born on this day in 1875 and as good planning (or luck?) would have it, today we are looking at his Quest of the Historical Jesus in my Historical Jesus class at Duke. I am planning to show the students a couple of videos to celebrate the day:

First, a short one minute celebration of Schweitzer's life on History.com.

Second, a remarkable French piece featuring a fairly lengthy interview with Schweitzer (in French) from dailymotion.com: Video Docteur Albert Schweitzer, apparently from 1961.

Third, a clip of Eddie Albert meeting Albert Schweitzer, from American television in the 1950s, on Youtube (Schweitzer piece lasts about a minute and begins at about 1:17):



And finally, there is a clip of Schweitzer receiving his honorary degree at Cambridge in 1955 from British Pathe News; you can download this in reasonable quality for free onto your computer, or you can pay for a high resolution version.

Xavier-Léon Dufour Obituary

Tomorrow's Times has an obituary of Xavier-Léon Dufour who died on 13 November, aged 95.

Xavier-Léon Dufour
Liberal scholar who brought historical analysis to Bible study

Xavier-Léon Dufour was one of the greatest liberal Bible scholars of the 20th century. As such, he often found himself at odds with the conservative Catholic hierarchy, not least with Pope Pius XII himself.

Using historical and critical scholarship to challenge more fundamentalist approaches to the Bible was not, he insisted, to deny the divine element in the origin of Scripture. But the text as we have it today was written by men at specific periods of history.And a critical study of both the men and the history, Dufour maintained with passion, was vital to an understanding of the sacred text.

The new scholarship which had its origin in the work of 19th-century German Protestant scholars, met resistance both from the Catholic hierarchy and from parts of the Protestant establishment. Dufour himself was accused of seeking to deprive priests of their faith . . .

This was the first I had heard of Dufour's death (but I now notice that it was announced in Bibbiablog a few weeks ago). I never met him but one of my great influences, John Ashton, was taught by him and often used to sing his praises.

C. F. D. Moule Obituary: The Guardian

Yesterday's Guardian has a beautifully written obituary of Charlie Moule by Bob Morgan:

The Rev CFD Moule
Gentle theologian with unique insights into New Testament ethics
Robert Morgan

. . . . It is, however, the person, as much as the work, that will be remembered. The transfer of the label "Holy Mouley" (from his great-uncle, the first principal of Ridley and conservative scholar bishop of Durham) to the modest, approachable and pastoral professor, had substance as well as affection in it. Those who heard him preach or lecture sensed deep seriousness, humanity and devotion, but in conversation it was the light touch and puckish sense of humour that stood out . . .

. . . In the faculty, his wisdom usually prevailed, showing gentleness and humility are not to be confused with weakness.

This obituary gives more detail than the others of the career of Charlie Moule as a New Testament scholar. For the Times, Telegraph and Independent obituaries, see the C. F. D. Moule label. Thanks to Bridget Gilfillan Upton for letting me know about it.

Lives Remembered: The Rev Professor Charles Moule

Today's Times has several delightful reminiscences about Charlie Moule:

Lives Remembered: The Rev Professor Charles Moule

The first is from the well known journalist (and star of Grumpy Old Men) Matthew Parris, but the second is so good it's worth quoting in full:

The Rev Christopher Leffler writes: As a very new undergraduate in 1954 I went to a lunchtime meeting of the Church Missionary Society Association in Professor Moule's rooms. Nervously I knocked and undergraduate voices welcomed me in. It was not until the end when they thanked the great man for use of his rooms that I discovered that he had spent the meeting eating his sandwiches on the floor behind the sofa while the undergraduate officers and speaker had his best chairs. No wonder he was so loved as well as respected.

I can think of few academics who achieve this kind of humility. I met Charlie Moule once, when he came to preach at Exeter College chapel, when I was an undergraduate in Oxford, and it does not surprise me to hear such nice things being said about such a lovely man.

Times Obituary of C. F. D. Moule

This morning's Times has its obituary of C. F. D. Moule:

The Rev Professor C. F. D. Moule
Influential New Testament scholar whose deep learning and powers of sympathy won him many admirers at Cambridge

Death of C. F. D. Moule

I was sorry to hear this morning of the death of C. F. D. Moule:

The Reverend Professor CFD Moule

The Rev Professor C. F. D. Moule

The first of these obituaries is from the Daily Telegraph and the second is from The Independent. Thanks to Jim West for the note.

More on Metzger

Evangelical Textual Criticism is collecting tributes to Bruce Metzger, so far Iain Torrance, Princeton Theological Seminary and Mike Holmes. No doubt there will be many more to come. Here's an obituary from the LA Times:

Bruce Manning Metzger, 93; New Testament scholar helped edit, update Bible translations
By Mary Rourke, Times Staff Writer

The piece focuses on some of the gender inclusive language in the NRSV translation:

. . . . Soon after Metzger and his colleagues completed their work in 1989, he pointed out some of the changes in an interview with The Times.

The phrase, "Man shall not live by bread alone," from the Old Testament Book of Deuteronomy and the New Testament Gospels of Matthew and Luke, was adjusted to read, "One shall not live by bread alone."

"O men of little faith," in the Gospels of Matthew and Luke, became "O you of little faith." The original Greek text did not use the word for man in that phrase, Metzger said. To insert it was "an unnecessary, restrictive" addition, he told The Times . . .

This reminds me of the one occasion I met Prof. Metzger. He came to lecture in Birmingham on the NRSV in 1996 and my colleague David Parker, a friend of Metzger's, introduced me -- and he was as delightful in person as everyone says he was. I remember one thing in particular from his lecture. When discussing the issue of gender inclusive translation, he explained the difficulties over translating sentences traditionally translated with male-specific language, like "Whoever has ears to hear, let him hear". Prof. Metzger explained that he had received a letter from someone strongly urging him to use the new gender inclusive pronoun "thon", thus "Whoever has ears to hear, let thon here." He said that he replied to her by saying that he would be willing to consider the use of "thon" as soon as it appeared in the Oxford English Dictionary.

Bruce Metzger

On Evangelical Textual Criticism, P. J. Williams passes on the sad news of the death of Bruce Metzger yesterday. On the Novum Testamentum blog, Brandon Wason has links to news articles in the Home News Tribune and NewsDay.com