BCE / CE vs BC / AD

Bob Cargill's latest In My View over on Bible and Interpretation argues in favour of BCE / CE vs. BC / AD, Why Christians Should Adopt the BCE/CE Dating System . In my previous post, I looked at N. T. Wrong's take on the issue, but now I would like to make a few additional comments of my own.

For some, the usage will not in any case be a matter of choice. Within Biblical Studies, the usage is now so widespread that some authors will have had it imposed on them by publishers who make this an element in their house style. Indeed, the usage is much more widespread in our area than it is in any other discipline, and by a country mile. Bob speaks of "the increasingly accepted international scientific standard of BCE (“Before Common Era”) and CE (“Common Era”)": but I am not sure that it is so widespread. I rarely hear it outside of our field.

Bob's focus is on the BC / AD labels as they are used by Christians (note the title), but the difficulty is that everyone uses these labels. As Chris Heard points out in comments, Richard Dawkins uses it without apology.

Moreover, I don't think the term "dating system" is quite right. The dating system is the same, on BCE / CE and BC / AD; it is the labelling within the system that differs.

I would like to comment also on the following:

While the Gregorian calendar accurately represents years of 365.25 days, Dionysius’ calculations skipped the year zero, jumping immediately from the year 1 BC to the year 1 AD. The result is a calendar that claims to be based upon the birth of Jesus, but which skips the first year of his life.

There is also no "year zero" on the Gregorian calendar, so bringing it up in this context is a bit of a red herring. Dionysius did not "skip[] the year zero"; he did not factor in a year zero. It is true that there are astronomical calendars that subsequently have factored in a year zero, but this is not relevant to the Gregorian calendar, or to Dionysius Exiguus, which work with a transition from 1 BCE to 1 CE. There is no question of the first year of Jesus' life being "skipped".

Bob goes on to note that Jesus' birth can be located around 4BCE because it happens near to the death of Herod in Matthew 2:

If we add to these 4 years the fact that Herod the Great did not die immediately after the birth of Jesus, but, according to Matthew, ordered the death of all children two years of age and younger in an attempt to kill Jesus, we can add an additional two years to the birth of Jesus, making his birth approximately 6 BCE. If we also add the missing year zero, it is most likely that, according to the Gospel of Matthew, Jesus was born around 7 BCE!

I doubt that we can be too precise about Matthew's dating. I am a bit of a sceptic when it comes to the historicity of Matthew 1-2. At best, I think he had a vague idea of the rough time when Jesus was born. The murder of children of two years old and younger may also say nothing about the time elapsing; it may have to do rather with Herod's attempts, as Matthew conceptualized it, to be thorough. The extra year for year zero is not necessary and should be dropped too.

Bob goes on:

Thus, the BC/AD system is fundamentally flawed in that it misrepresents the birth of Jesus by approximately 7 years. This means that Jesus’ ministry did not begin around the year 30, but instead around the year 23. Likewise, Pentecost and the origin of the Christian Church should not be dated to “33 AD,” but to about 26 CE.

The "year 30" is presumably based on Luke's notice that Jesus was "about thirty years old" at the beginning of his ministry (Luke 3:23), working forward from 7 BCE to 23 CE. But there are other indicators of date here in Luke, most specifically the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberias (Luke 3:1), which places the beginning of Jesus' ministry in 29CE. Bob's "year 23" can't be right. Moreover, 23 CE is too early for the note that Pontius Pilate was governor of Judaea (Luke 3:1), which makes 26 CE the earliest possible date for this (26-36 CE).

I have one more concern. Bob notes rightly that Matthew dates Jesus' birth near to the death of Herod the Great (Matt. 2.15, 19-21) and that Luke apparently dates it at the time of the census that took place "when Quirinius was governor of Syria" (Luke 2.2). Since the latter probably occurred in 6 CE, Bob suggests that there is a 10 year (or so) discrepancy between the dates of Jesus' birth in Matthew and Luke. However, this cannot be the case. Luke 1.5 follows Matthew in dating the action during Herod's reign. Unless he thought that Elizabeth had a ten-year pregnancy, Luke is not dating Jesus' birth in 6 CE. What on earth he is doing with the mention of Quirinius in Luke 2.2. is a mystery, but my guess is that his dating is a bit off. He has things roughly in the right decade or so, but he is not precise enough here for us to work out exactly when he thought Jesus was born. (He is a bit more confident when he gets to the beginning of John's ministry, on the other hand, in 3.1).

See also comments on Daniel McClellan, Clayboy and The Sacred Page.

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.

Biblical Studies Carnival 46

Daniel and Tonya at Hebrew and Greek Reader do an outstanding job on the latest Biblical Studies Carnival:

Biblical Studies Carnival XLVI

Latest Biblioblog Top 50

It's been a stressful month on the biblioblogosphere, first with concerns about the continuing gender gap and subsequently much discussion and anxiety over an affiliation with the SBL, so it is nice to have the arrival of the latest Biblioblog Top 50 to cheer us all up. In checking for a couple of links, I noticed my comments a month ago to the following effect:

I must confess that there are far too many blogs in the top 50 that I don't yet subscribe to. I'll have to put that right. It's nice to see the NT Blog still in the top 10, and even more encouraging to see the NT Pod jumping a massive 78 places to 58. It's good to see James McGrath back in the top 10, but those of you who aren't reading Paleojudaica should be. I am sure Dr Jim (Linville)'s blog will continue to rise up the list in the future. It's one of the most entertaining of all the biblioblogs, in my humble opinion. One curiosity -- I don't see Bob Cargill's blog anywhere, and it certainly should be added. And congratulations to Jim West for holding on to the top spot for the sixth month in a row.

A month on, and Bob Cargill is included in the Top 50, Jim Linville continues to roar up to the top, James McGrath is making steady progress, and Jim West is number 1 for the seventh month, though with Joel Watts breathing down his neck and poised to take over. I am still disappointed by the fact that Paleojudaica polls where it does.

But I notice that the tradition in commenting on the Biblioblog Top 50 is to comment on your own ranking, and not others', so I will follow the trend and note that it's good to see the NT Blog in its highest ever post-split position, at Number 5, and to see the NT Pod making its debut in the Top 50, at 47. I think I'm the only person with two entries in the Top 50. I'm not playing fair! It's been a good month for the NT Pod, which is still in the iTunes U Top 40 downloads, with episode 13 apparently the most popular episode, with over 4,000 downloads.

Arthur Hunt and Doctor Who

I often find myself curious about genealogy, and I am a big fan of Who do you think you are? and Tracing Your Roots. I have stumbled across something of interest to me because it indirectly connects two worlds, Doctor Who and the Gospel of Thomas. Arthur Hunt, along with Bernard Grenfell, unearthed fragments of what turned out to be the Gospel of Thomas first in 1896 (P. Oxy. 1) and subsequently in 1903 (P. Oxy. 654, 655), alongside many other fantastic finds in Oxyrhynchus. I have been reading up a little on both of these men, and I noticed that Arthur Hunt's mother was called Emily Pertwee. Pertwee is a very unusual name; it comes from the French Huguenot family name "Pertuis". And the name of the third doctor is, of course, Jon Pertwee (pictured here). After casting around a bit, I am pretty sure that they are related, though I haven't worked out the precise relationship yet -- I have several old records to work through. I will report back when I have more. As it happens, Jon Pertwee's grandmother was called Emily but this is Emily Pertwee, née Moore.

Use of the Old Testament in the New Seminar

This one is via the British New Testament Society list:

Next year's "Use of the Old Testemant in the New" seminar will take place at St Deiniol's Library, Hawarden, N.Wales from Thurs 18 March to Sat 20th. The all inclusive cost will be around £140. Offers of papers (45 min or 30 min) to Steve Moyise (s dot moyise at chi dot ac dot uk) by Dec 15th.

Thomas and Q again

I have often talked about the argument for the existence of Q that appeals to the discovery of the Gospel of Thomas, most recently on the blog in a post on The Gospel of Thomas and Q, and most fully in print in the last chapter of The Case Against Q. Since my attention has turned to Thomas, I have returned again to the argument that aligns Q and Thomas. I notice that in studies of the Gospel of Thomas, the alleged similarity with Q acts to anchor Thomas (or early versions of Thomas) to the first century, on the grounds that Thomas shares a genre with Q. This genre is on a general level logoi sophōn ("Sayings of the Wise"), but more specifically "the Sayings Gospel", and it fell into disuse with the triumph of narrative Gospels. Q was absorbed into Matthew and Luke; Thomas was lost. Q must, of course, predate Matthew and Luke, so it it helps us to anchor the genre to the mid first century.

It is difficult for Q sceptics like me to know quite how to react to this kind of argument except to note that without Q, Thomas (or an earlier version of Thomas) looks a little more isolated as a first century text. Q and Thomas together are the major players in the Koester-Robinson inspired model that sees a Passion-free Christianity as a key trajectory in Christian origins. Thomas on its own would have a lot of work to do. It is unsurprising, therefore, that those influenced by the Koester-Robinson model are always adherents of the Two-Source Theory.

I remain puzzled by the argument that aligns Q and Thomas. Earlier today, I came across yet another iteration of the argument and it goes like this:

The discovery of The Gospel of Thomas in 1945 silenced those who claimed that there was no analogy in early Christianity for a collection of Jesus sayings without a narrative framework. (Robert E Van Voorst, Jesus Outside the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000), 157).

Van Voorst does not name these scholars who were “silenced” and I begin to wonder if in fact they existed at all. Who are these scholars, often alluded to but never named, who were sceptical about the existence of Q but who were silenced by the discovery of Thomas? It is possible that the general impression results from a misreading of Austin Farrer's "On Dispensing with Q", in which he attempted to point to the generic peculiarities of Q, but it may be that his point was too sophisticated to be persuasive, and his apparent ignorance of Thomas (in the late 40s and early 50s) too striking to carry the day.

SBL and the Biblilbloggers -- new Q & A

Included in the latest SBL e-Newsletter is a short piece about the recent and much-discussed affiliation between the SBL and bibliobloggers. I think it's a very helpful contribution and clarification of several of the key issues:

Q & A about SBL Affiliation with Bibliobloggers

The only minor addition that needs making is that the steering committee of the program unit here mentioned also includes Michael Barber and Chris Brady.

More Synoptic Problem chat

Over on Exploring Our Matrix, James McGrath began by asking Did Matthew use Luke? A Neglected Angle on the Synoptic Problem; I responded here with Why not Matthew's use of Luke? in which I sketched a few reasons for thinking that Luke's use of Matthew is more plausible than the reverse direction, from Luke to Matthew. Mike Bird helpfully provided a quotation from Martin Hengel,

[W]e must reckon that the later Matthew knew the earlier Luke, took over parts which seemed to him appropriate, i.e. the content of which was promising, and in the process of course also altered his theological wishes accordingly. This is already indicated by the fact that as a rule the more original version is attributed to Q-Luke as opposed to Q-Matthew. In addition - and here Papias can put us on the right road - there were certainly also one or more 'Logia collections'. But - as I have already said - we can no longer reconstruct these adequately, especially as we cannot know what the evangelists changed or omitted in the sources, unknown to us, which they probably had in more abundance than we suppose."

I think Hengel's relatively early date for Luke is in part a consequence of the stance he earlier developed on the historicity of Acts (e.g. in Paul from Damascus to Antioch) where he shows impatience for those with more radical perspectives. But the brief statement above is actually misleading. It is not the case that "as a rule", Luke is more primitive in double tradition material. If you work through the Critical Edition of Q and the volumes so far completed of Documenta Q, it's pretty much 50/50 in terms of alternating primitivity, hence the term alternating primitivity. I hate to say it of so great a scholar, and one so recently departed, but I don't see any evidence in Hengel's Gospels work that he has worked through the issues connected with the Synoptic Problem carefully.

James McGrath has an enjoyable and characteristically lively response to my post in Mark's Kung-Q vs. The Bolt from the Johannine Blue. With respect to my point about Matthean language, rhythm and imagery occurring in the double tradition material, James notes that "the bolt from the Johannine blue" (Matt. 11:21 // Luke 10:22) features language remarkably reminiscent of John in a passage that by most accounts pre-dates John. But within the context of discussing direction of dependence in material that is near verbatim identical (Matt. 3:7 // Luke 3:7; Matt. 3:10 // Luke 3:10), I was attempting to make the point that the direction of dependence is more likely to flow from Matthew to Luke than from Luke to Matthew.

What we have in the bolt from the Johannine blue is language that is similar to Johannine language, not language that is similar in a passage where there is verbatim agreement. It is an interesting point that this could be the seed out of which the Johannine discourses grow, but if so, what this gives us is an insight into the matrix of early Christian thought and its evolution. There is no verbatim agreement here between Matthew // Luke and John. In other words, no one seriously doubts that there is a literary link of some kind between Matthew and Luke at 3:7 (etc.), whether directly or mediated via Q. The question, once that literary link has been established, is where the direction of dependence goes.

With respect to my argument about editorial fatigue, James notes that Luke could simply be fatigued with Q. Two responses here. (1) I was responding to James's question "Did Matthew use Luke?" so pointing to Q effectively concedes my point. (2) Of course it could be that Luke was fatigued with Q; here is how I dealt with the issue in the article:

. . . The best way, therefore, to seek an answer to the question will be to bear in mind that if the Two Source Theory is correct, one will expect to see not only Luke but also Matthew showing signs of fatigue in double tradition material. Those who believe in the existence of Q will have to look for their own examples of editorial fatigue in Matthew's versions of double tradition material. I have looked for examples and cannot find any. On the Q theory it does strain plausibility that Luke should often show fatigue in double tradition material and that Matthew should never do so, especially [58] given Matthew's clearly observable tendency to become fatigued in his editing of Mark. (57-8)

.The Synoptic Problem is fascinating, isn't it? Can't imagine why so many apparently find it so dull!

Was Paul Really an Apostle? (NT Pod 14)

I released another NT Pod earlier this week, episode 14, in which I asked, "Was Paul really an "apostle"?" The simple answer is, of course, that it depends on your definition. As far as Paul was concerned, this is a table-thumping issue -- and he is insistent on the point (1 Cor. 9:1-2; 1 Cor. 15:1-11; Gal. 1:1; 1 Cor. 1:1; 2 Cor. 1:1; Rom. 11:13; 2 Cor. 12:12, among other texts). But were others reluctant to give him this designation? I argue that this is the case and that you can see this underlying texts like 1 Cor. 9:1-2, 1 Cor. 15:8-11 and 2 Cor. 12:12, among others. And the extraordinary thing here is that the controversial nature of Paul's designation as "apostle" continues at least until Luke writes Acts. Luke is famously reluctant to give his hero the designation "apostle" (only twice, of Paul and Barnabas, Acts 14:4 and Acts 14:14), no doubt because it does not satisfy the definition he gives earlier (Acts 1:21-26).

Duke Newt blog

The PhD students in New Testament at Duke (a bright bunch, to be sure) are gathering together to contribute to a new blog called Duke Newt:

Duke Newt

A Forum for Students and Others Associated with Duke's PhD in New Testament to Share their views

Why not Matthew's use of Luke?

Over on Exploring Our Matrix, James McGrath asks Did Matthew use Luke? A Neglected Angle on the Synoptic Problem. It is one of the rarer theories to come up in Synoptic studies and it has no detailed published case from recent times. It has been floated by Martin Hengel (alongside Q) and Ronald Huggins and it is now being explored fully in a PhD dissertation at Dallas Theological Seminary by Robert Macewen. I occasionally get asked myself about this view, presumably because it reverses the direction of dependence for which I argue, in The Case Against Q, and so, perhaps, it helps us to think through the plausibility of the case for Luke's familiarity with Matthew. Since James specifically tags me, as it were, in his post, and since it is difficult to resist a good, old-fashioned Synoptic Problem post, I will make a few comments.

My initial reaction when asked about this is usually simply to say that it's a radically different theory from the one I argue for (it reverses the key thing). Sometimes Q theorists imagine that the big issue for Q sceptics, like me, is dispensing with Q at all costs, and that Luke's use of Matthew just happens to be the way we have chosen to do it. On the contrary, I actually quite like Q, but I am unpersuaded that it exists because I think Luke knew Matthew. In other words, I, and others like me, have not begun from the premise, "We must get rid of Q at all costs. Now, what's the strategy?" We begin from finding Luke's use of Matthew, alongside Marcan Priority, to be more persuasive than the alternatives, and that theory entails the end of Q.

It is true that the rhetoric of our case often brings up Q, Farrer's "On Dispensing with Q", my Case Against Q, Goulder's "On Putting Q to the Test", and so on. But the reason for this is largely strategic. In a world where the vast majority of scholars are wedded to Q, one needs to gain their attention somehow. Would my book have been as successful if I had called it "Luke's use of Matthew", or "The Farrer Theory"? I doubt it.

Let me underline then that I really think that Luke knew Matthew. It's not just a game; I actually think that the Farrer theory explains the data far better than the opposing theories. Like others, I frame the case by arguing with Q theorists because that is the dominant alternative. Similarly, when arguing for Marcan Priority (Case Against Q, Chapter 2; Synoptic Problem: A Way Through the Maze, Chapters 3-4, etc.), I frame the case by arguing with adherents of the Griesbach Hypothesis because they have been the dominant group in the academy that opposes Marcan Priority.

But what about the case for Matthew's use of Luke? Could there be anything in it? Certainly it shares many of the strengths of the Farrer theory; it doesn't struggle over the Minor Agreements; it can explain the close verbatim agreement in double tradition material, and so on. But my main difficulties with it would be the following:

(1) Matthean language and imagery. Here it will be easiest if I borrow from an older blog post. The language, imagery and rhythm of the double tradition material can be Matthean through and through, often to the extent that we would not hesitate to ascribe it to Matthew if it were in Matthew alone. Matthew 3 and Luke 3 provide particularly clear examples:

(a) Matt. 3.7 // Luke 3.7: γεννήματα ἐχιδνῶν, τίς ὑπέδειξεν ὑμῖν φυγεῖν ἀπὸ τῆς μελλούσης ὀργῆς; ("Brood of vipers! Who warned you to flee from the coming wrath?"). Matthew will use this offensive vocative + rhetorical question (labelled an echidnic by Michael Goulder) twice again in remarkably similar forms, 12.34, γεννήματα ἐχιδνῶν, πῶς δύνασθε ἀγαθὰ λαλεῖν πονηροὶ ὄντες ("Brood of vipers! How can you speak good things when you are evil?") and 23.33, ὄφεις, γεννήματα ἐχιδνῶν, πῶς φύγητε ἀπὸ τῆς κρίσεως τῆς γεέννης ("Snakes, brood of vipers! How can you flee from the judgement of gehenna?"). I think we should resist the temptation to play these links down. We are not dealing with everyday phrases. The imagery (snakes' offspring), the rhythm (echidnic) and language (wrath / judgement / gehenna) is strikingly Matthean and tells us in which direction the borrowing is going.

(b) 3.10: πᾶν οὖν δένδρον μὴ ποιοῦν καρπὸν καλὸν ἐκκόπτεται καὶ εἰς πῦρ βάλλεται ("Therefore every tree not producing good fruit will be cut down and thrown into the fire"). Virtually the identical sentence occurs again in 7.19. Once again it is not just the language but also the imagery that is Matthean. Even my introductory New Testament class knows that Matthew's is the Gospel that exploits harvest imagery to the tell the story of judgement and hell-fire. The Matthean apocalyptic scenario, here appearing for the first time in the Gospel, will be repeated at regular intervals: (a) Demand for good fruits / good works; (b) Separation at the Eschaton; (c) Burning of those whose deeds are evil.

(2) Fatigue in the Synoptics: There are several examples of Luke's secondary nature with respect to Matthew in double tradition here -- see "Fatigue in the Synoptics". In researching that article, I found several good examples of Lucan fatigue in double tradition but none of the opposite. One of the best examples is, I think, the Parable of the Talents / Pounds, where Luke makes characteristically Lucan initial changes to the plot of Matthew's parable (ten servants, one pound each -- typically Lucan 10:1 ratio) but then steadily reverts to the Matthean plot, with its three servants ("the other", 19.20) and money (not city) rewards. In the article, I argue that since we know that Matthew is often fatigued in his rewriting of Mark, it is odd that he is apparently never fatigued in the double tradition material. The reason is that Luke is using Matthew, not vice versa.

(3) Luke's Preface with its "many" inclines one towards a Luke who is self-consciously second generation in a way that is less clear with Matthew. The general indications of date also tend to favour a later Luke.

(4) Luke is almost never the middle term: Mark is usually the middle term among the Synoptics, a scenario easily explained on the assumption of Marcan Priority. Sometimes Matthew is the middle term, a fact that Farrer theorists explain on the assumption that these are triple tradition passages where Luke is focusing on Matthew rather than Mark. It would be odd, if Matthew were the third evangelist, that his use of Luke never results in Luke-as-middle-term.

(5) Order: Why would Matthew break up Luke's superb ordering of the sayings, which are in highly appropriate contexts in Luke, tearing every little piece out of its context, only to lump them together in a wooden fashion in huge, unwieldy discourses? Such a theory would only tenable if we had reason to think that Matthew was a crank.

OK, admittedly my number 5 is a parody, but the other reasons sketch some first thoughts on why I would not find Matthew's use of Luke plausible, but the bottom line is that I am already persuaded by another theory that, in my opinion, explains the data much better.

NT Pod latest

I haven't had a chance this week to comment on the latest NT Pod over here. I don't have any special programme notes to add on this one, but I usually at least give the latest episode a mention, so before I release the next episode, I'll mention that NT Pod 13 deals with Mary Magdalene as "the first woman apostle", following on from the previous episode on Junia (NT Pod 12).

Since it appeared on the front page of iTunes U, it's been doing remarkable things in their chart and now sits at number 41 in their top downloads, and it's at number 2 in Duke's iTunes U top downloads. Apparently well over 2,000 people have downloaded episode 13 since last week. I suppose it's time I recorded another one. Thanks for all the encouragement, everyone!

Update (Wednesday, 16.39): NT Pod enters the iTunes U Top 40, at number 35 (iTunes U Top Downloads).

Celebrating the use of internet resources

My latest op-ed piece is up at Bible and Interpretation:

Celebrating the Use of Internet Resources

I am surprised by how often I hear scholars making disparaging remarks about the internet. It is still commonplace to find university professors discouraging their students to use the internet in their research, and to play off electronic resources against print resources, as if the medium of delivery is itself an indicator of the quality of the resource in question . . . .

Live Online Office Hours covered in the Duke Chronicle

The Duke Chronicle has a nice feature on the new phenomenon of Online Office Hours, in which I participated last Friday:

Professors offer online office hours
Jessica Chang

There is a pic. of me from the session. If you didn't catch it, most of the recording is archived for viewing at this link:

Online Office Hours with Mark Goodacre

It is missing the first five minutes or so, but otherwise it's all there, I am told. If you haven't the stomach for all that (and I know I haven't!), there is a brief clip over on Big Think:

Would Jesus tweet?
Duke University New Testament scholar Mark Goodacre says Saint Paul would be more inclined to Twitter.

Frank Deasy tribute and obituary

I mentioned the sad death of Frank Deasy last week. Matt Page has some comments on Bible Films Blog and tomorrow's Times has an obituary:

Frank Deasy: Film and Television Writer

Frank Deasy had a distinguished career as a television writer, winning an Emmy two years ago for the final instalment of Prime Suspect and injecting fresh drama and debate into the Gospel story with his BBC/HBO mini-series The Passion last year . . . .

. . . . Deasy attempted to put Christ’s final days into some sort of political context in The Passion, expanding the roles of Pontius Pilate and Caiaphas and presenting a sympathetic portrait of Judas Iscariot. “I’ve always had a problem with Judas in Passion stories in that he suddenly and inexplicably betrays Jesus,” said Deasy. “I was keen to develop a psychological reality to Judas’s portrayal.” Traditionalists accused the BBC of rewriting the Gospel, but the mini-series received generally favourable reviews.

"Generally favourable" is a bit of an understatement, but it's good to see The Passion getting a strong mention. This follows on from the obituary in yesterday's Observer, mentioned by Matt Page:

Frank Deasy Obituary

Scriptwriter whose work for television included The Passion and Prime Suspect 7
Ronald Bergan

Separated by a common language: the Biblical Studies edition

One of my favourite blogs, as a British resident alien living in America, is Separated by a Common Language, which offers some fascinating and, in my experience, always accurate reflections on the differences between British English (BrE) and American English (AmE). Well, now that AKMA has made the opposite journey from the one I have made, going from American academia to British, I thought I might offer a few suggestions about how things differ when lecturing on Biblical Literature and History. He's already attempting to master the art of adding "u" to certain words but here are a few more specific suggestions for being understood in being understood as a successful (BrE:) lecturer (AmE: professor).

Pauline: AmE: "PaulEEn"; BrE: "PaulIne". Similarly AmE: "PhilistEEns"; BrE: "PhilistInes"

1 Corinthians (etc.): AmE: "First Corinthians" (etc.); BrE: "One Corinthians".

Isaiah: AmE: "IzAYah". BrE: "IzIah"

Caesarea: AmE: "SEzarea"; BrE: "SEEzarea" (But I think Americans talk about "SEEzar and not SEZar).

There are one or two things in university life too that may be worth a mention. I caused all kinds of confusion over my misunderstanding about this one:

Review: AmE for BrE "revise".

And this is one that is still surprises me:

Freshmen: AmE non-gender-inclusive term meaning "freshers". I understand that in the UK, we went gender-inclusive on this one back in the 60s. I have begun the advocacy of the term "fresher" here in the US by using it in my classes at Duke, but it will be slow progress getting this one out there more generally. (But when it does happen, remember that the revolution began here!).

Update (19.06): I am grateful to Lynne Murphy, author of Separated by a Common Language, for her comments on this post. She points to her discussion of the review / revise issue and notes all the posts with the education label.

My Duke Live "Online Office Hours"

I am back in my real office now, having left the virtual office of Duke's "Online Office Hours" where I answered questions on the New Testament in front of a camera. The studio is actually just around the corner from where I am; it is in the bowels of the Bryan Center, not from from Gray Building. I never knew it was there, nor did the Duke Chronicle photographer, Robin Mi, who snapped the picture here.

These online office hours are a new venture at Duke and I enjoyed being involved. The basic idea is that you sit in front of a camera and people email in their questions. (In theory they tweet and facebook them in too, but I don't think there was much of that in practice). The most difficult question I was asked was the first, about Dan Brown, since I have never read the Da Vinci Code, nor have I seen the film. I enjoyed the chance to talk a little bit about The Passion (BBC/HBO), especially in light of the tragic death of Frank Deasy yesterday. I was also asked about homosexuality and the Bible, penal substitution, the extent of Christian orthodoxy in the first century, the Gospel of Thomas, my recent podcasts on Junia and Mary Magdalene, and a wide range of other things.

No questions on Q or the Synoptic Problem, which is probably a good thing since I might have yabbered on too long about that. In fact in general, I did a bit too much in the way of yabbering on and did not pause often enough, but there is something quite unusual about being in what seems like an empty room, with just a camera for company. James, who asked the questions, was behind a curtain, just like in The Wizard of Oz, but there was no Toto to reveal him and the levers he was pulling, so he stayed there until the end.

It was nice to be joined by several bloggers, with questions from Brian Tucker on Pauline influence on Matthew, Jim West on Biblical archaeology and TC Robinson on the new perspective on Paul.

Apparently the whole thing will be archived and available soon. I'll provide a link at that point.

Many thanks to my colleagues at Duke who invited me to do this, and thanks to those of you who took part.

Join me on Duke TV "Online Office Hours" today

I'll be appearing live on Duke University's Ustream Channel today at noon EDT (5 pm BST) for an hour in "Online Office Hours". Please email, tweet or Facebook in your questions:

Graham Stanton: The Church Times Obituary

Thanks to Steve Walton (offline) and Doug Chaplin for pointing to the Church Times obituary of Graham Stanton, which appeared last week in the print edition and now also online:

Obituary: PROFESSOR GRAHAM NORMAN STANTON
The Revd Professor Richard A. Burridge

It is a delightful obituary and through several personal reminiscences Richard Burridge gives the reader a real sense of the man. Once again the warm-hearted, kind nature of Graham Stanton comes through, as well as his importance in the field. Indeed Burridge regards him as having been "the foremost scholar on Matthew’s Gospel in the English-speaking world" and he suggests that his The Gospels and Jesus "has been the standard textbook of the past 20 years". For other tributes and obituaries, follow this link: Graham Stanton.