Finding your "niche" in Biblical Studies, #SBL10

A little later I am doing a stint in a section organized by Pat McCullough entitled "Finding your 'niche' in Biblical Studies" and featuring also Christopher Hays, Katharine Doob Sakenfeld, Dale Martin and Paula Fredriksen. One of the things I will be encouraging people to do is to treat all advice with a pinch of salt. When I was in the early stages of my doctoral research in Oxford, I was asked by one of the New Testament dons, "So what are you writing on for your DPhil, Mark?" I said that I had settled on a thesis about the work of Michael Goulder on the Gospels. "There are two things wrong with that topic," he replied, while we stood outside the Theology Faculty building at St Giles.  "It will be unpublishable, and you won't get a job." The problem was that that was what I really wanted to write about and I knew that the best chance I had of writing a decent DPhil (they are DPhils in Oxford and not PhDs) was to write about something that I was enthused about.

Luckily, there were others with different thoughts.  I suppose that the research would never have got off the ground if things had been different.  When I went to Ed Sanders with my idea about Michael Goulder, he said, "Well, I have said for years that someone should spend time with Goulder's work and I think it would be a fine topic for a doctorate."  And so I began the work on the thesis only for Prof. Sanders to tell me, not long afterwards, through clouds of pipe smoke in his room at Queen's College, that he would be leaving to go to a place I had never heard of in America, Duke University.  I was crestfallen and I remember thinking, "Why on earth would he want to do that?"

Well, I ploughed on with the research on Goulder and the Gospels, a DPhil orphan for a while, turned down by one potential supervisor, and only saved by the arrival of John Muddiman in Oxford in 1991, and I could not have had a more ideal supervisor.   As it turned out, I did get a job and I did get the thing published.  I enjoyed my doctorate and I am still pleased that I did not really listen to the naysayers.

I suppose that this is going to be the difficulty with the "Finding your 'niche'" session.  I imagine that there will be a lot of conflicting advice.  The thing is that every academic's experience is so different.  I am not sure that I would want to advise my students to choose to write about unpublishable, un-marketable topics.  And yet the key thing is to follow your nose and to write about the things that will enthuse you, whatever they might be.    I mean: I am baffled by the fact that many (most?) scholars appear to be so uninterested in detailed discussion of the Synoptic Problem, but I haven't let that prevent me from airing my own interest in it.

In fact, on this topic there is another piece of advice that I ought to offer, but which I have ignored: if you want a career, don't try to take on the establishment on a dearly loved, consensus topic.  I wrote a book called The Case Against Q in which I argued that the grounds for postulating the existence of Q are not as persuasive as the alternative, which accepts Marcan Priority but adds that Luke also knew Matthew.  Looking back on it now, I wonder if I might have been a bit naive to have been so confrontational so early in my career and to have taken so great a risk.  I could have played safe.

I suppose that the serious advice I would give here is that if you are going to take a risk like that, then make sure you fully understand your opponent's position, and make sure you go the extra mile to represent it as fairly as possible.  You will get nowhere if your readers can easily charge you with misreading, misunderstanding and misrepresentation.  In fact, that is probably much more destructive to a potential career than anything, the failure to attempt to represent the scholarship honestly and fairly.

I remember once talking to a PhD student about his plans for the future;  he handed me a sheet in which the research program was mapped out for the next twenty years, with projected publishing dates and everything.  I think what amazed me most about that was that the plan was made on the assumption that the student would have no new ideas for twenty years, that there would be a predictable pattern to his career.  One of the things that is so enjoyable about the academic's life is, for me, that it is unpredictable.  And you have new ideas all the time -- it's an inevitability of teaching and of continuing to read and research.

It is a question, I would say, of enthusiasm rather than obsession.  I have got pretty close to being obsessed with the Synoptic Problem, but I don't want to go the way of William Farmer and spend my entire career on it.  In fact, Ed Sanders once warned me that getting into the Synoptic Problem is like getting into quicksand -- he was concerned I would never emerge.  So I think it's good to put your ideas out there, to see what happens and to move on.

Sometimes the a major research project will emerge naturally from the topic you are studying.  I am finishing up a book on the Gospel of Thomas at the moment, but I got into Thomas because of Q.  While I was writing about Q, people kept saying, "What about the Gospel of Thomas?"  And so I became interested in Thomas.  And having become interested in Thomas, I began teaching courses on the non-canonical Gospels, which, in turn spawns further research into related topics of interest.

The process of scholarly interest in different topics is often accidental and unpredictable.  You simply don't know what new idea might pop into your head while you are teaching and researching, and I would discourage the tendency to identify yourself too strongly with any particular "niche" in Biblical Studies.  Very few of us only teach on our primary areas of interest and publication, and that breadth in teaching is our invitation to keep breadth in research and publication.  So finding a niche is good, but finding another after that, and another after that, is better.

SBL Atlanta -- 2010 vs. 2003, #SBL10

The last time the SBL was in Atlanta was in 2003.  It's funny to look back on the state of blogging at that time.  Now, you would struggle to keep up with all the SBL bloggers and tweeters.  Back then, we were only a handful, and it seems I was in prophetic mode in a post entitled Other SBL Blogs.  After having mentioned AKMA, Jim Davila's Paleojudaica and Stephen Carlson's Hypotyposeis, I wrote:

In years to come no doubt there will be myriads of other bloggers at the SBL and people will laugh as they look back to 2003 and say, "Good grief; were there really so few blogs in the olden days?" and we will be proud to have been there early on. AKMA will be prouder still -- he was even blogging at the SBL in November 2002.

Well, it's seven years later and now it does seem funny to look back on that simpler world.

Arrival at the SBL Annual Meeting Atlanta 2010, #SBL10

I've arrived in Atlanta for the Society of Biblical Literature Annual Meeting.  There are thousands here for this conference every year and already I have run into lots of attendees.  Some of the enthusiastic ones are already proudly wearing their big badges in the necklace fashion.  Even those who aren't, though, can be spotted a mile off, especially the jacketed men, who are everywhere, and looking very much like academics, some of them suitably earnest, others greeting old friends loudly in the foyers of the hotels to make clear to everyone standing around how important, popular and genial they are.

I look forward to blogging the conference over the coming days, as time allows, and also to tweeting the conference.  You can follow me on twitter, or for the real deal, just go to the #SBL10 tag and read multiple live updates on the conference in the coming days.  Bear in mind that you don't even have to be a twitterer / tweeter to enjoy reading others' updates, on the ground, as they happen.

My really busy day is tomorrow, with a presentation on "Paul's Letters: Men, Women and the End" at the Biblical Archaeology Society's BibFest XIII and then later, at one, a paper on the "James Crossley and the Politics of the Bibliobloggers" in the Ideological Criticism Section, where all the cool kids hang out. Also reviewing James's book in that session are Bill Arnal, Zeba Crook and Roland Boer, and James is giving a response.  And at four, I'll be speaking in an interesting session organized by Pat McCullough entitled "Finding your 'niche' in Biblical Studies" and featuring also Christopher Hays, Katharine Doob Sakenfeld, Dale Martin and Paula Fredriksen.

But of course there are about ten thousand other sessions on over the coming days too.  Luckily, Nathan Eubank has distilled all the really good sessions, i.e. the ones involving people from Duke, over on Duke Newt.

The Gospel of Judas and Stagnation at the National Geographic Website

In this week's Non-canonical Gospels class here at Duke, we discussed the Gospel of Judas and it gave me the opportunity to spend a bit more time thinking about the text and about the controversy it stirred up.  One thing is, I think, a bit disappointing.  Back in 2006, I praised the National Geographic website on the Gospel of Judas (Gospel of Judas megapost).  As well as being well designed and nice to look at, I was delighted that they had made available Kasser and Wurst's Coptic transcription as well as the committee's preliminary English translation, so that individuals could consult text and translation for themselves.

However, now over three years have passed and still the site has not been updated to reflect the corrected Coptic text and translation subsequently released in the critical edition of 2007 (Rodolphe Kasser, Gregor Wurst, Marvin Meyer, and François Gaudard, The Gospel of Judas, Together with the Letter of Peter to Philip, James, and a Book of Allogenes from Codex Tchacos: Critical Edition (Washington, D.C.: National Geographic Society, 2007)).  Those who go now to the text on the website are therefore still seeing a preliminary version of a piece that was later updated (and there is a still a typo).

As Stephan Witetschek pointed out in his review of April DeConick's The Thirteenth Apostle, several of the criticisms she makes of the National Geographic preliminary translation were actually adjusted in the Critical Edition.  But DeConick's criticism carries force for as long as the website, which is where many will still go to  consult the text, features the non-updated version.

Just how much do we forget?

In writing my paper for the SBL Ideological Criticism section, reflecting on James Crossley's Jesus in an Age of Terror, I have been shocked to find out just how much I have forgotten.  In order to get a feel for the blogs discussed by Crossley, I went back and re-read lots of blog entries and I was shocked to see just how much I had forgotten.  I am not just talking about blogs that I have paid scant attention to at the time, but also the old favourites, like Jim Davila's Paleojudaica or N. T. Wrong.  The biblioblogs are full of wonderful and fascinating posts and heaps of erudition, and yet the vast majority of the posts vanish from our consciousness extraordinarily quickly.  I am not quite sure whether I find this encouraging or discouraging.  I think it is fantastic that there are so many brilliant posts still out there for us tap into whenever we have the chance, like scholarly diaries of major events in the academic life.  But on another level it troubles me that here we are, busily writing away, for our thoughts to vanish in the wind, making scarcely the most fleeting impact, when all this time we could have been spending more time on books and articles that might actually have some kind of legacy.

Just how rubbish is the search function on blogger blogs?

Ever noticed how rubbish the search function is on blogger (blogspot) blogs?  I am writing my SBL paper about "the politics of the bibliobloggers" in response to James Crossley's Jesus in an Age of Terror and I have been going back and reading lots of interesting old posts on different blogs.  Often, when those blogs are hosted on blogger, I use the search box at the top of the page.  Time after time, it fails to find the key posts.  A case in point: James Crossley discusses Jim Davila on Gabriel Barkai (Jesus in an Age of Terror, 43);  I go to Paleojudaica to get the relevant posts but a search on "Barkai" brings up nothing.  I then go to google and search "Paleojudaica Gabriel Barkai" and all the relenvant posts come up.  Given that blogger is affiliated with Google, I wonder why the blogger searches are so completely rubbish?

Oxford Seminar on the Synoptic Problem

Thanks to Andrew Gregory for sending this notice over.  This is also available as a PDF flyer.
--

NEW TESTAMENT SEMINAR
2 December 2010

A special extended meeting of the New Testament seminar will take place on 2 December, when a Festschrift, New Studies in the Synoptic Problem (BETL 239; Leuven: Peeters Press, 2011), will be presented to Professor Christopher Tuckett. The seminar will take place in the Roy Griffiths Room, ARCO Building, Keble College, 2.15-6.00pm (with a break for tea from 3.45 to 4.15pm). Please note the extended time of the seminar.

________________________________________

New Studies in the Synoptic Problem
2.15-6.00pm



John Kloppenborg
Memory, performance and the sayings of Jesus

Joseph Verheyden
A road to nowhere? A critical look at the ‘Matthean Posteriority’ hypothesis and what it means for Q

Paul Foster
The extent of the recoverable Q material



Robert Derrenbacker
What’s the problem and why does it matter? The challenges and rewards of teaching the Synoptic Problem

Andrew Gregory
Studying and teaching the Synoptic Problem in Oxford, 1911-2011: some observations

with responses from Robert Morgan and Christopher Rowland

________________________________________

Tom Wright on the Apostles Junia and Mary Magdalene

I am teaching Paul this term at Duke and we have reached the part of the course where we look at issues connected with women and gender.  I was hoping to find some Elisabeth Schüssler Fiorenza on Youtube to show the class, but the only piece of her that I can find is her Burke Lecture from 2007 on another topic, and it is a video of her simply reading a script.  But while searching, I came across a short piece of a rather casual Tom Wright chatting about Junia and Mary Magdalene

 



It's an enjoyable piece, and it is good to see him so strongly behind the Junia reading given that he earlier assumed the Junias reading (Climax of the Covenant: 48, "these two men . . .").

Putting some of my articles online

I have been meaning to put some online reproductions of more recent articles on my homepage and I have now got round to it.  The newly uploaded pieces are:

“Mark, Elijah, the Baptist and Matthew: The Success of the First Intertextual Reading of Mark” in Tom Hatina (ed.), Biblical Interpretation in Early Christian Gospels, Volume 2: Matthew (Library of New Testament Studies 310; London & New York: T & T Clark, 2008), 73-84 [PDF]

"Scripturalization in Mark's Crucifixion Narrative" in Geert van Oyen and Tom Shepherd (eds.), The Trial and Death of Jesus: Essays on the Passion Narrative in Mark(Leuven: Peeters, 2006): 33-47 [PDF]

"The Rock on Rocky Ground: Matthew, Mark and Peter as Skandalon" in Philip McCosker (ed.), What Is It That the Scripture Says?: Essays in Biblical Interpretation, Translation, And Reception in Honour of Henry Wansbrough Osb (Library of New Testament Studies; London & New York: Continuum, 2006): 61-73 [PDF]

I have indexed these and other pieces on my articles page. I suppose I should add them to the NT Gateway too but it always feels a bit self-serving to be putting my own materials on the gateway.

Bible and Archaeology Fest, Atlanta, November 2010

BAS (the Biblical Archaeology Society) has details of its Bible and Archaeology Fest XIII, in Atlanta, GA from November 19-21.  I am one of the speakers again this year and the site now has details of my talk:

Paul’s Letters: Women, Men and the End
Paul’s attitudes to men, women, sex and gender are famously perplexing. Is he an egalitarian or is he a misogynist? Why does he appear to endorse women in leadership roles at some points, and prevent them from speaking in church at other points? Several key passages warrant careful examination: Romans 16, where he mentions several prominent women; 1 Corinthians 11, where he appears to insist on head-coverings for women; and Galatians 3.28, in which he says that there is no “male or female” and that all are one in Christ. In our context it is easy to miss the fact that Paul’s attitudes to men and women are driven by one over-riding concern: The imminent end.

There are details also of the entire program -- just go to 13th Annual Bible and Archaeology Fest .

Typo in National Geographic's Gospel of Judas ET

As I mentioned earlier, I'm checking up on materials for students in my Non-canonical Gospels class and spotted the following typo in the National Geographic English translation of the Gospel of Judas:

The cattle you have seen brought for sacrifice are the many people you lead astray [40] before that altar. […] will stand and make use of my name in this way, and generations of the pious will remain loyal to him. After hi another man will stand there from [the fornicators], and another [will] stand there from the slayers of children, and another from those who sleep with men.

It should, of course, be "him".

Is it illegal to call your son "Judas" in Germany?

I am preparing for a class tomorrow, as part of my course on Non-canonical Gospels, on the Gospel of Judas. While reviewing some video material for possible use in class, I came across this piece from the National Geographic documentary of a few years ago:



At 1:22, William Klassen says, "In Germany, of course, it is illegal to name your child Judas". This sounds like nonsense to me. I found the same claim made by William Klassen, presumably quoting from the same interview, in Herbert Krosney, The Lost Gospel: The Quest for the Gospel of Judas Iscariot (Washington, DC: National Geographic, 2006): 3.   A little googling appears to confirm that there is indeed no law in Germany that prevents parents naming their sons "Judas".  Whether parents are inclined to call their sons Judas, and whether officials might have objected to such naming, are, of course, different questions.

Dale Allison's Constructing Jesus and Facebook

It is clearly going to be an exciting few months for those interested in Historical Jesus research.  Not only is Maurice Casey's Jesus of Nazareth on the way soon, but Dale Allison's Constructing Jesus is now out (see Loren Rosson's review on The Busybody).  Allison's publisher, Baker Academic, has a Facebook page now advertising the book and giving you the chance to win a copy:

Confused or curious about the historical Jesus? It’s time to get some answers from a luminary in the field. Dale Allison, author of the new book Constructing Jesus, has agreed to answer a few questions on the historical Jesus from our Facebook friends. So, submit a question. Three of the best questions will be passed to Dale for answer that we will post here, and the authors of those questions will get a free copy of Constructing Jesus (which retails for $55)!

Go to http://www.facebook.com/bakeracademic to join in.

The Nativity: a new BBC drama for Christmas 2010

When I was watching the BBC Drama for Winter trailer below, in the hope of catching some Doctor Who, I was excited to see a very brief mention and still from a forthcoming new dramatization of The Nativity this Christmas. A little further exploration confirms that this is indeed a major new production, written by Tony Jordan, of Life on Mars, Eastenders and Echo Beach fame. The press release is here:

Stars align for Tony Jordan's Nativity on BBC One this Christmas

Andrew Buchan (Garrow's Law, Cranford), Peter Capaldi (In The Loop, The Thick of It) and rising star Tatiana Maslany (Cra$h & Burn, A Grown Up Movie Star) have been cast in a magical re-telling of the classic Nativity story.

Written by Tony Jordan (Life On Mars, Hustle, EastEnders) for BBC One this Christmas and produced by Red Planet Pictures in association with Kudos through BBC Wales.

Over four half-hour episodes the drama will tell the traditional tale known to millions from a very human perspective. With Mary and Joseph's enduring love story at the centre this familiar story is given a contemporary twist, as the drama follows Joseph and Mary from their initial courtship – Joseph desperate to win the heart of Mary – to his emotional turmoil at her unexpected pregnancy.

Tony Jordan said: "The challenge for me was to retell a story that has been told countless times before, a story that everyone knows intimately, yet to do so in a way that will still surprise and move you, to see parts of the story you'd never seen before. I really think that we've achieved that and I'm incredibly proud to have been asked by the BBC to be involved in such a wonderful project."

Although the press release does not mention The Passion, it looks to me like this project is inspired by its success, not least the idea of stripping a drama like this across several nights. The production team, however, appears to be different, and it does not look like the project has any tie-in with BBC Religion and Ethics. I will be on the look out for more over the next month or so, and will of course be commenting some more as the broadcast date draws near, and I look forward to reviewing. There are no pictures or clips yet, but there is the brief still in this preview, about two-thirds of the way through.



The still from The Nativity is at 1:57. But while one is watching, isn't it nice to see the ninth, tenth and eleventh doctors (Christopher Eccleston, David Tennant and Matt Smith) all appearing in the same trail?!

Update (Friday, 9.55am): Matt Page has an excellent round-up of what we know so far over on the Bible Films Blog (and I've pinched his screenshot for here too -- thanks).

Oktoberfest Biblical Studies Blog Carnival Extravaganza!

Jonathan Robinson of the ξἐνος blog has done an excellent job with the latest Biblical Studies Carnival, gathering together lots of highlights from biblioblogs from October:

Oktoberfest Biblical Studies Blog Carnival Extravaganza!

Next month, it is Deane Galbraith.

Teaching the Bible e-pub latest

November's Teaching the Bible e-pub from the Society of Biblical Literature is now available. There are several interesting pieces including an article Introducing the Real Mary Magdalene by Jaime Clark-Soles.

Charlesworth on Sunday on the Scrolls and Google

The big news items in our area this week was the story that the Dead Sea Scrolls are to go on Google Archive and it was widely covered on the blogs. This morning's Sunday programme had a feature on it, including an over-the-phone interview with James Charlesworth -- listen again for the next week or download the podcast.

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

The Strength of Duke's Graduate Program in Religion

Over on Duke Newt, Nathan Eubank draws attention to an article in First Things by Rusty Reno.  Its title is Schools of Thought and it offers reflections on the best places for graduate students to study Theology.  It is gratifying to see Duke once again placed at the top (along with Notre Dame) but it is disappointing to see similar errors once again being perpetuated about the program (see Duke the best place to study theology and First Things article rates Duke at the top for previous attempts to set the record straight).  Reno writes:

The main problem with Duke is, well, Duke. The Ph.D. program is run through the university’s department of religion, not the divinity school, and this has tended to restrict artificially the number of students admitted.

As I pointed out last time, this is incorrect. The PhD program is actually run by the Graduate Program in Religion, and not by the Religion Department. The Graduate Program in Religion is a collaborative venture involving both the Department of Religion and the Divinity School.  To illustrate the point, I might add that the current director, Grant Wacker, is housed in the Divinity School, and there are more Divinity School faculty in the program than there are Religion Department faculty.

The limited number of admissions to the PhD program is indeed disappointing, but this has nothing to do with the Religion Department but is related, rather, to the kind of pressures that are felt nationally (and internationally) at present, pressures shared by other great strong institutions and programs.  Nevertheless, one of the results of the highly competitive nature of the program is that it continues to produce the strongest students around.  A Duke PhD in Religion is a Rolls-Royce qualification.

As a member of the here maligned Religion Department, as well as of the Graduate Program in Religion, I would like to add that the collaboration between the Divinity School and us is one of the things that makes the program so strong.  It is not just that colleagues from the different entities get to work together, something that I value hugely, but it is also that the students get the best kind of experience because they are studying and working across the boundaries.   PhD students in the Graduate Program in Religion will often teach or teaching-assist in the Department of Religion, thereby gaining valuable experience in working with university undergraduates in the Arts and Sciences.  The same people also get the chance to teach and precept in the Divinity School, so working with students who are training for the ministry.

Young Jesus Chronicles

James McGrath draws attention to a great cartoon from a book called Young Jesus Chronicles, which has some nice previews online, including this one:

"Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, see me after class. Your book reports
are surprisingly similar."

It's a delightful cartoon and I suspect I will be using it in class too.  But it's clearly not a cartoon designed by an academic.  The saintly character on the right is the eponymous "Young Jesus" and an academic would never make Jesus contemporary with the evangelists.   And New Testament scholars would not dream of characterizing John's Gospel as "surprisingly similar" to the Synoptics.  This teacher might just deserve an F herself for not paying careful enough attention to the contents of the evangelists' book reports. Unless, of course, the younger author of the Fourth Gospel was inclined to be somewhat more "Synoptic" than he became in his maturity.

Powerpoint the "Ryan Air of Presentation Software"

Over on Bible Films Blog, Matt Page has a very helpful post on Using Video Clips in Presentations. He mentions that he is sad to hear that I have "now given up using video clips in lectures because they're too prone to go wrong". I had forgotten that I had said that in one of the extended episodes of the NT Pod, and I have long since repented of any such hasty decision and often show little clips in class. In fact just this morning, I shared a a Youtube clip of E. P. Sanders discussing Paul's concept of participation in Christ.

My reason for picking up on Matt's post, though, is to share a great line, to the following effect:

I know PowerPoint is the Ryan Air of presentation software (everyone slags it off but uses it anyway) and I know that smug mac types will be reading this safe in the knowledge that everything they do is better than if they did it on a PC, but here's something for us lesser mortals. I for one actually like PowerPoint. It's a tool that's widely abused, and the majority of presentations are just awful, but if you take your time to "get it" then it's a great, if somewhat flawed, tool.

The non-British readers may not be familiar with Ryanair, but it is the budget pack-em-in airline that everyone in the UK complains about but which nevertheless is widely used. Great analogy.

E. P. Sanders and Walter Matthau

I have always thought that E. P. Sanders looks a bit like Walter Matthau.  I remember sitting in one of his lectures in Oxford and watching someone in front of me produce a brilliant caricature, and it looked rather like Walter Matthau but with a bit less hair.  Unfortunately, there are not many pictures of Sanders available online so that I can compare the two men, but I am sure that those who have met Ed Sanders will know what I mean.

A Walking, Talking Cross or the Walking, Talking Crucified One?

One of the pleasures of blogging is that it gives you the chance to float ideas that may be worthwhile or that may come to nothing. This is one of those occasions. This is an idea that occurred to me last week while preparing for my Non-canonical Gospels course here at Duke.  It's week seven and we are looking at the Gospel of Peter.  There may be nothing in this idea, which I shared with my class today, but I want to go through the discipline of writing it up so that I can get a feeling for its merits.  Comments are gratefully received, but I ask that you bear in mind that this is just a thought, a sketch, an attempt to see if something works.

One of the great mysteries of the Gospel of Peter is what on earth could have inspired the following remarkable passage:

9. 34. Early in the morning, when the Sabbath dawned, there came a crowd from Jerusalem and the country round about to see the sealed sepulchre. 35. Now in the night in which the Lord's day dawned, when the soldiers were keeping guard, two by two in each watch, there was a loud voice in heaven, (36) and they saw the heavens open and two men come down from there in a great brightness and draw near to the sepulchre. 37. That stone which had been laid against the entrance to the sepulchre started of itself to roll and move sidewards, and the sepulchre was opened and both young men entered. 10. 38. When those soldiers saw this, they awakened the centurion and the elders, for they also were there to mount guard. 39. And while they were narrating what they had seen, they saw three men come out from the sepulchre, two of them supporting the other and a cross following them (40) and the heads of the two reaching to heaven, but that of him who was being led reached beyond the heavens. 41. And they heard a voice out of the heavens crying, ‘Have you preached to those who sleep?’, 42. and from the cross there was heard the answer, ‘Yes.’

The idea of a walking, talking cross is almost unbelievably absurd, all the more so given the lack of precedent for it in the text, in which the cross was earlier completely inanimate, and did not enter the tomb with Jesus at burial.  One of the difficulties with the Gospel of Peter is that the only major textual witness (P.Cair. 10759) is late (eighth century), unreliable and riddled with errors, including many in this passage.  And so I have begun to wonder whether there might have been another error in the scribe's transcription of his text here.  My suggestion is that we conjecturally emend the text from σταυρον to σταυρωθεντα, from "cross" to "crucified", so that it is no longer a wooden cross that comes bouncing out of the tomb but rather Jesus, the "crucified one" himself.

This might at first sound like a bit of a stretch.  But what if our scribe's exemplar here used the nomen sacrum στα?  It is worth bearing in mind that another second century Greek Passion Gospel, the Dura-Europos Gospel Harmony fragment (0212), uses the nomen sacrum στα for σταυρωθέντα in a similar context (the burial). Perhaps our scribe's exemplar had the nomen sacrum στα and the scribe incorrectly assumed that it stood for σταυρόν. It would be an easy mistake to make, and it is quite reasonable to assume that the scribe's source text might so abbreviate.   Other texts (Codex Bezae, P46) similarly abbreviate the verb.

If my suggested conjectural emendation has any merit, this is how the text would appear:

καὶ ἐξηγουμένων αὐτῶν ἃ εἶδον, πάλιν ὁρῶσιν ἐξελθόντας ἀπὸ τοῦ τάφου τρεῖς ἄνδρας, καὶ τοὺς δύο τὸν ἕνα ὑπορθοῦντας, καὶ τὸν σταυρωθέντα ἀκολουθοῦντα αὐτοῖς· καὶ τῶν μὲν δύο τὴν κεφαλὴν χωροῦσαν μέχρι τοῦ οὐρανοῦ, τοῦ δὲ χειραγωγουμένου ὑπ' αὐτῶν ὑπερβαίνουσαν τοὺς οὐρανούς· καὶ φωνῆς ἤκουον ἐκ τῶν οὐρανῶν λεγούσης᾽Εκήρυξας τοῖς κοιμωμένοις; καὶ ὑπακοὴ ἠκούετο ἀπὸ τοῦ σταυρωθέντος ὅτι Ναί.

At this point, the sharp reader will no doubt want to point out that the emendation cannot work because Jesus has to be one of the "three men" coming out of the tomb, "the two supporting the one", so that the cross is an additional figure, not identified with "the one".  This reading depends, though, on the translation of ὑπορθοῦντας as "supporting", as if the two angelic figures are holding Jesus up. But ὑπορθόω, a rare word, probably means something like "raise up", "lift up"; the text is saying that the two men, who have descended from heaven and entered the tomb, are lifting Jesus up from where he was lying, and they are leading him out, the crucified one following them. This scenario is clarified in the next line, where the men are leading him by the hand. Thus the English translation would go something like this:

And while they were narrating what they had seen, they saw three men come out from the sepulchre, two of them raising up the one, and the crucified one following them (40) and the heads of the two reaching to heaven, but that of him who was being led out by the hand by them reaching beyond the heavens. 41. And they heard a voice out of the heavens crying, ‘Have you preached to those who sleep?’, 42. and from the crucified one there was heard the answer, ‘Yes.’

There are certain additional advantages that this reading could bring.  For one thing, it has never made much sense that the three men all stretch as far as -- or beyond -- the heavens, but the voice from heaven then addresses the cross back on earth.  In the revised reading, the voice in heaven directly addresses the crucified one, who is beyond the heavens.  Moreover, on the usual reading, the witnesses should be able to see the cross speaking, so there is no need for the note that they "there was heard the answer, 'Yes'".  Rather, they only hear the answer because it is the crucified one speaking, and his head is beyond the heavens.  And finally, the allusion to the "harrowing of hell"  here makes far greater sense if it is the crucified Jesus who has done the preaching, as in 1 Peter 3.19-20, and not some kind of cartoon cross.

Seventh Birmingham Colloquium on the Textual Criticism of the New Testament

Thanks to Hugh Houghton for sending this over:
--
The Seventh Birmingham Colloquium on the Textual Criticism of the New Testament will be held in Birmingham from 28-31 March 2011.

The theme is "Early Christian Writers and the Text of the New Testament"

Proposals are invited for papers of 30 or 45 minutes on this topic. Suggestions for workshops, presenting work in progress, are also welcome.
These, and any enquires, should be sent to H.A.G.Houghton@bham.ac.uk

Further information (and a booking form) will be posted on the web page at
http://www.arts-itsee.bham.ac.uk/itseeweb/conferences/

Papers from the Fifth Colloquium have been published as:
Textual Variation: Theological and Social Tendencies? (Texts and Studies 3.6)

Boring book titles and interesting books

Sean Winter comments that one of the greats, E. P. Sanders, confessed to dull book titles.  But of course if you are E. P. Sanders and you write a book on Jesus and Judaism, then that combination automatically makes the book interesting.  Ed Sanders is one of the only scholars who combines expertise in New Testament scholarship with genuine expertise in early Judaism, so if anyone should write a book called Jesus and Judaism, he should.

It occurs to me as another element in this discussion that there are some books that have titles that degrade in translation.  Hans Conzelmann's brilliantly appropriate title Die Mitte der Zeit (The Middle of Time) was translated into the terribly dull and generic Theology of St Luke.  As it happens, though, it is a very boring book, perhaps the most boring influential book written in our area.  Legend has it that one of its early reviewers said that he only knew that he had come to the end of the book because there was no more of it.

Most boring book titles?

There is a great little discussion in the biblioblogosphere at the moment about the "most boring book title ever". It began on Biblical Hebraica et Graeca and has continued on a range of other blogs. Lots of the suggestions so far bring a smile, even if no one has yet mentioned Goulder and the Gospels: An Examination of a New Paradigm, which sounds like tedious stuff to me.  But speaking of doctoral dissertations that have been turned into publications, I think my favourite transformation ever is from The Rhetoric of Deracination in Q, a Reassessment which became, in its published version Jesus and the Village Scribes, which sounds much more interesting, not least because I didn't need a dictionary to find out what one of the words meant.

The difficulty with a lot of books that emerge from doctoral research is that there is something in the system that encourages us to write stuff that is boring.  When I mentioned to one of my teachers that I was trying to keep my style as lively as possible, he said, "But, Mark, DPhil theses are boring, bloody boring!"

Nevertheless, I rather admire those who manage to write something that is spectacularly precisely focused.  Many of the suggestions in the thread on boring book titles have isolated pieces that are actually somewhat admirable in their ability to spotlight something really specific.  Bear in mind that Darwin made his academic reputation on the study of earth worms.  All that stuff about evolution was a kind of subsidiary crater, of more peripheral interest.

I must admit that the things that I find boring are the books that are taking a well-trodden subject and exploring it for the umpteen-hundredth time.  I remember one of my fellow DPhil students in Oxford picking up a published dissertation in the Theology Faculty Library on St Giles, a book about Paul and the Law, and not one that anyone now remembers twenty years later.  "I ask you, what is the point?" he said.  That's what's really boring, hoping that you might have something fresh, persuasive and original to say about something like that.

Old Testament in the New Testament Seminar

Via the British New Testament Society e-list:

--
The next meeting of the Annual seminar for the study of the Old Testament in the New Testament will take place from Thurs dinner (14 April) to Saturday lunch (16 April) at St Deiniol’s Library, Hawarden, North Wales. The cost will be approximately £140 (the centre have not set their 2011 costs yet). The main papers are on the theme of Genesis in the New Testament (for the forthcoming Menken/Moyise publication) but there is space for 4-5 other papers. If you would like to offer a paper or find out more about the conference, contact Steve Moyise at s.moyise@chi.ac.uk.
--

The Orthodox Redaction of Mark and the Question of Jesus' Father

In Jesus, Mary and Joseph!, James McGrath responds to the first element in my post on The Orthodox Redaction of Mark (and we both get a nice thumbs-up from Doug Chaplin) to the following effect:

It seems to me that, on the one hand, to suggest that Mark's readers would have thought he did not have a human father is to make too much of silences. As a rule, we assume that people have fathers, even when we don't mention them, and it seems to me that an exception to that rule would have required an explicit claim rather than silence. And while it is common for commentators to suggest that "son of Mary" reflected rumors that Jesus was illegitimate and his father unknown, that too seems to be reading too much into Mark's language, which is not followed by any defence of Jesus' legitimacy.

Well, James may be right, but the difficulty is that the Gospel itself does not provide the necessary clues, and this is where Matthew's (and several scribes') "orthdox redaction" comes in.  I am not suggesting that the author of Mark's Gospel thought that Jesus had no earthly father.  I don't know what the author of Mark thought because he does not tell us.  That is the difficulty with "silences".  The absence of key information invites the reader to speculate.  And in the case of Mark's Gospel, the person that I called "the unwary reader" might well assume that Jesus had no earthly father.  He is not named in key contexts when one would expect him to be named, like when Jesus is first introduced in Mark 1, or when his family is first mentioned in Mark 3.21 and 3.31-34, or when Jesus returns to his patris in Mark 6.1-6, and members of his family are named.  And, moreover, there are repeated references to another father, Abba Father, who addresses Jesus as his son, and who addresses others about his son.

So the way that I look at it is that the invitation is there to read Mark in a certain way.  And Matthew, Mark's first reader, is a careful reader and is attentive to possible mis-readings (as he sees them) and he makes sure that they are corrected.  And the genius of Matthew's Gospel is that he was largely successful in this project.

Nevertheless, James is right to draw attention to the oddity of Matthew's own answer to the question of Jesus' parenting.  He affirms the genealogy through Joseph right at the outset of the Gospel (Matt. 1.1-18), something he affirms elsewhere too (Matt. 13.55), but then he sticks right next to it a story that is usually read as affirming a virginal conception (Matt. 1.18-25).  The addition of the latter only serves to underline the point, however, about Matthew's "orthodox redaction of Mark".  It is this story, and the tension it throws up between simultaneously affirming Jesus' human parents and his divine origin that finds its way into Christian orthodoxy.  And in this Luke too, following Matthew's lead, plays a key part.

Death of Margaret Thrall

Sad news via Catrin Williams on the British New Testament Society list:

--
It is with deep sadness I report that the Revd. Dr. Margaret Thrall has passed away at a home for the elderly on the island of Anglesey in North Wales.

Dr. Margaret Thrall was the first doctoral student of Professor C.F.D. Moule at Cambridge University, and, between 1962 and 1996, she had a distinguished career in the School of Theology and Religious Studies at the University of Wales, Bangor. She was associate editor of New Testament Studies, and Editor of the SNTS monograph series (1991-6). She published numerous books and articles during her career, including Greek Particles in the New Testament: Linguistic and Exegetical Studies (1962) and her magisterial two-volume commentary on 2 Corinthians in the International Critical Commentary series (1994, 2000). In recognition of Dr. Thrall’s significant contribution to Pauline scholarship, she was awarded the Burkitt Medal for Biblical Studies by the British Academy in 1997 and a Festschrift to mark her seventy-fifth birthday was published in 2003.

Dr. Thrall’s first monograph was The Ordination of Women to the Priesthood (1958), and in 1997 she was among the first women to be ordained to the priesthood in the Church in Wales. She was a member of the Church in Wales Doctrine Commission (1983-92) and served as Canon Theologian at Bangor Cathedral (1994-7). Margaret Thrall’s funeral was held on Monday, 11 October in Bangor Cathedral.
--

The Orthodox Redaction of Mark

I have spoken on previous occasions about Matthew's redaction of Mark as something that shows a rich understanding of what is happening in Mark, and which sometimes attempts to take Mark's interesting ideas a little further (e.g. my articles on Simon Peter and John the Baptist [PDFs]). It occurred to me recently that a lot of what is happening in Matthew might be seen as a kind of  "orthodox redaction" of Mark, an attempt to fix some of the potentially troubling ideas and implications in Mark.

Take, for example, the question of Jesus' father.  In Mark's Gospel, Jesus does not have a human father.  He is "the craftsman, the son of Mary" (Mark 6.3); his father is in heaven and addresses Jesus directly as his son (Mark 1.11, 9.7) and Jesus calls him "Abba" (Mark 14.36).  Other supernatural beings know that he is God's son too (3.11).  The unwary reader of Mark might easily assume that Mark's Jesus, who simply appears on the scene as an adult in Mark 1, is some kind of god, perhaps the product of a union between a god and Mary.  Matthew sees the problem.  He gives Jesus a father, named Joseph; indeed, he begins the book with him (Matt. 1).  In redacting the Rejection and Nazareth story, he makes Jesus "the son of the craftsman" (Matt. 13.55) so that there can be no doubt about the matter.

The same phenomenon appears elsewhere.  Mark's Jesus, at his first appearance in the Gospel, goes to a baptism (Mark 1.9-10) which we have just heard characterized as a "baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins" (Mark 1.4).  The unwary reader might easily assume that Jesus is going to John to repent and have his sins forgiven, so Matthew makes sure that there is no doubt about the matter and engages in an "orthodox redaction", making clear that this is an unexpected and anomalous event (Matt. 3.13-17).

Other examples include the abrupt ending of Mark, which concludes the story before Jesus has appeared to the disciples (Mark 16.1-8).  Indeed, the last time they were seen, they were fleeing from the scene (14.50).  For all the unwary reader knows, they might never have come back  But Matthew knows traditions like 1 Corinthians 15, and that Jesus appeared to Peter and the twelve and that these traditions were regarded as foundational by the earliest communities (1 Cor. 15.1-3), and he provides what Mark only leaves implicit, and narrates appearances to the disciples (Matt. 28.16-20).

Matthew's orthodox redaction of Mark was so successful that we now find ourselves reading Mark through Matthew's -- and also Luke's -- eyes.  His skill as a redactor with "orthodox" beliefs was that he rescued Mark from the potential to have been read and interpreted quite differently.

The Yeti has arrived and the NT Pod is back!

Those who follow the NT Pod will have noticed that today, at last, it returned, after a hiatus of two months.  As I reported at the beginning of September, the delay was caused initially by microphone problems.  Since the early days, I have used a nice Blue Snowball microphone for my recordings but when I sat down with it to record back in August, the recordings were emitting a high-pitched noise.  At first I thought that it might be a computer problem but no, it occurred on different machines.  I googled for the problem and thought I had found a solution and wasted time and money with an externally powered USB hub.  The theory was that power running through the USB was causing the high-pitched noise, and an external power source might fix it.  It did not.  The high-pitched noise was there just the same as ever.

As an interim measure, I tried on several occasions to record in two of Duke's sound booths but I did not find the results satisfactory -- much too much background noise was getting picked up.

And so, I just bit the bullet and invested in a lovely new state of the art USB microphone, Blue Yeti USB Microphone.  And it works just fine.  It turns out that the problem was simply that my Snowball had broken.  It is perhaps not surprising.  I was always moving it all over the house and recording in different places and with the pop filter attached, it often fell over and no doubt got damaged too.

It's good to be back at last with a new episode.  From now on, my plan is to return to a regular recording and release schedule.

Maurice Casey Colloquium

Over on the Biblical Studies e-list, a colloquium is now underway with Maurice Casey, whose magisterial new book on the Historical Jesus will be appearing shortly (see announcement by Jim West). You can submit your questions and Prof. Casey will be answering some of the best.  I am looking forward to the discussion.

Death of Franklin Young

I am sorry to hear from Richard Hays the sad news of the death of Franklin W. Young, the Amos Ragan Kearns Professor Emeritus of New Testament and Patristic Studies at Duke Divinity School. He passed away on 25 September at the Carolina Meadows community, where he had been in residence in recent years. Our local paper, the News and Observer, has an obituary:

Franklin Woodrow Young: Amos Ragan Kearns Professor of New Testament and Patristic Studies

Noted biblical and patristic scholar Franklin Woodrow Young died Saturday, September 25 at his home at Carolina Meadows. Young was Amos Ragans Kearns Professor Emeritus of New Testament and Patristic Studies at the Duke Divinity School, having retired in 1985 after a total of 23 years on the faculty there . . .

. . . . Young was educated at Dartmouth College and earned the bachelor of divinity from Crozer Theological Seminary. He then undertook doctoral studies at Duke University on a University Fellowship, and was an instructor in the Divinity school from 1944-1946. After receiving the Ph.D. in 1946, he was made assistant professor and dean of students. He held this position until 1950, when he joined the faculty of Yale Divinity School as assistant professor. In 1954, Young became professor of New Testament and patristic at Episcopal Seminary of the Southwest, and in 1959 he moved back east to serve on the faculty at Princeton; he was director of graduate studies in religion and then chair of department of religion. In 1968, Young returned to Duke Divinity School where his career had begun. He was professor of, New Testament and patristic studies until 1970, when he was awarded the Amos Ragan Kearns endowed professorship. Young served as director of graduate studies in religion at Duke for six years.

Young was known for courses on the Greek gospels and patristic texts, and for exegesis courses in English and Greek. He was the author of several books, among them “Understanding the New Testament” and “The Living World of the New Testament,” both with Howard C. Kee. He also contributed numerous articles to scholarly journals, bible dictionaries, and encyclopedias . . . .

I bet I am not the only one for whom The Living World of the New Testament was one of the first textbooks I read on the New Testament, back in my Sixth Form 'A' Level RE.

The obituary also features the remarkable note that Professor Young is survived by his "wife of almost seventy years", Jean Steiner Young .

"Biblical Gynaecology": Dan Wallace Responds

I am grateful to Dan Wallace for his thoughtful response to my post earlier this week questioning the use of the term "Biblical Gynaecology". It is in comments to that post, but I promote it here so that I can respond later:

Mark, thank you for your comments on my use of ‘gynecology’ as a description of a biblical view of women. In response, I would like to note four things.

First, I think it’s awfully restrictive and unnecessarily biased to speak of gynecology as only dealing with ‘functions and diseases of women.’ A good friend of mine, a female theologian, said, “I would prefer *he* chose one of the many more positively nuanced definitions that emphasized a woman’s reproductive *health* (not disease).” I agree.

Second, although you quoted most of the relevant section on my rationale for using this term, you didn’t quote all of it. The term was coined on the basis of Greek usage of the word γυνη in combination with λογος/λογια, as are many other terms that are used technically as a theological terminus technicus. And, as I mentioned in the article, I did this because it would avoid cumbersome circumlocutions.

Third, you are critical of not only the terminology but even the idea of discussing the role of women in the church as a discrete subject. You say, “The very problematizing of the female figure of authority as if it is in some way abnormal or surprising already casts the debate in terms that prejudice the outcome.” I simply can’t agree. The reality is that the role of men in church leadership has not been debated, but the role of women in leadership has been. Is it really prejudicial simply to address the issue of the role of women in the church, regardless of what one’s view is? Countless journal articles, books, Festschriften and other multi-author works, and the like discuss the role of women in scripture as a discrete topic. And these are written on both sides of the debate. Bruce Barron’s provocatively titled, “Putting Women in their Place,” published in the Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society, was written by an egalitarian!

In your own academic career, you have written much about Q. Some might say that to speak of Q is to prejudice the discussion at the outset. Yet your publications on Q leave little doubt as to where you are going. One might even say, “The very dismissal of Q as if it is in some way non-existent already casts the debate in terms that prejudice the outcome.” Yet, in my “Biblical Gynecology, Part 1,” where am I framing the debate in terms that prejudice the outcome?

Fourth, nevertheless, I want to build bridges rather than walls. And for this reason, I have asked the keepers of bible.org to change both the title of “Biblical Gynecology” (both parts) to “Women in Leadership.” If some of your readers can attack me personally without knowing anything about me, my guess is that they almost certainly did not read these two essays before they wrote their remarks. I don’t want to close doors, but open dialogue about this and other important issues facing the church in the twenty-first century.

Call me shallow, but the pleasant surprise to me about Dan Wallace's response was that he had heard of my work on Q! But back to business, I will comment later this weekend, as time permits.

Biblical Studies Carnival Latest

There is a new Biblical Studies Carnival online, for September 2010, over on a blog that's new to me, You Can't Mean That! by Steven Demmler:

Biblical Studies Carnival: September Edition

Raphael Golb convicted

I am sure that many of you will have seen this already, but the verdict is in on the Raphael Golb case:

Son of Dead Sea Scrolls Expert Is Convicted
By JOHN ELIGON

See Bob Cargill's blog for comment; remember that Bob's great detective work was absolutely key in unveiling the extraordinary and unsavoury story. Also covered by fellow bibliobloggers Jim Davila and Jim West, both of whom have been posting regular updates on the case.

Matthew Thiessen Blog

Former Duke PhD student in New Testament, Matthew Thiessen, now at the College of Emmanuel and St. Chad and Lutheran Theological Seminary, at the University of Saskatchewan, has a new blog:

Canadian Biblical Studies Blog

Farrer Theory ignored: yet another new example

Regular readers of the NT Blog will be familiar with my occasional notices on how the Farrer Theory often gets ignored in scholarship.  The attempt to make the Griesbach Hypothesis the sole alternative to the Two-Source Theory gives scholars an easier ride, especially in introductory works, in which the establishment of Marcan Priority becomes an argument for the existence of Q.  The latest example of the phenomenon is found in Grant R. Osborne, Matthew (Zondervan Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament; Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2010): 35-8, a preview of which can now be read online.

Osborne says that "now there are two major camps"..  The first is the "Griesbach Hypothesis" and he goes on, "there are stronger arguments for Markan Priority, especially the form called the "two- or four- source" hypothesis formulated by B. H. Streeter, which says that Matthew and Luke used Mark and Q as well as their own special material (M and L)" (36).   Osborne then provides four arguments for Marcan Priority (36-7) and concludes "All of this makes it likely that Mark was the first Gospel and that Matthew and Luke used Mark as well as Q" (37).  None of the arguments is in fact an argument for Matthew's and Luke's independent use of Mark, and so the conclusion that Marcan Priority necessarily leads to acceptance of the Q hypothesis is illegitimate.

Osborne briefly mentions the Gospel of Thomas as providing an analogue for Q, without exploring the important question of the apparent generic contrasts between the two and he adds that "recent work has made the likelihood of Q more viable" (37), footnoting Carlston and Norlin's 1999 article on statistics and Q. That article certainly points in the direction of a Q document on the assumption of the independence of Matthew and Luke, but it does not speak to the issue of Luke's familiarity with Matthew.

I am now so used to this kind of by-passing of the Farrer Theory that fresh examples come as no surprise.  I have in fact come to expect it whenever I open a new book.  I must confess to a touch of additional disappointment in this case, however, given my careful review of a book to which Osborne contributed, and concerning which we had corresponded, in which I spoke of the problems that arise from ignoring the Farrer theory and discussing the Synoptic Problem solely as a question of the Griesbach Theory vs. the Two-Source Theory (Mark Goodacre, Review of David Alan Black and David R. Beck (eds.), Rethinking the Synoptic Problem, NovT 49/2 (2007): 197-9).

"Biblical Gynaecology"

I have been doing some more reading recently on Romans 16.7, the verse in which Paul greets Andronicus and Junia, "prominent among the apostles" (NRSV).  (Cf NT Pod 12: Junia: the First Woman Apostle?; Programme Notes and Andronicus and Junia prominent among "the apostles"). In revisiting the article by Burer and Wallace (Daniel Wallace and Michael Burer, "Was Junia Really an Apostle?: A Re-examination of Romans 16.7", New Testament Studies 47 (2001): 76-91), I was struck by their use of the phrase "biblical gynaecology" (76 and 78).  The term seems quite inappropriate to me.

Gynaecology is the branch of medicine that deals with functions and diseases peculiar to women (OED).  In so far as there is "biblical gynaecology", I suppose that the material that would come closest would be the mention of the womb and breasts in Luke's Gospel (Luke 1.41,44, John the Baptist jumping in Elizabeth's womb; Luke 11.27-28, "Blessed is the womb that bore you . . ." and Luke 23.29, ". . . Blessed are the barren, and the wombs that never bore").  But this is not what Wallace and Burer are discussing in their article.  Rather, they are discussing the gender of the name Junia, and asking also whether she was indeed an apostle.  This is not gynaecology, Biblical or otherwise.

My surprise at seeing the expression in New Testament Studies sent me to the net to see if it is used elsewhere and it seems that one of the authors of the paper in question, Dan Wallace, has a piece called Biblical Gynaecology in which he comments:

The issue of the role of women in the church has become so central to how many Christians think that it even deserves its own theological label. Frankly, the best expression to use is “theological gynecology,” or “the doctrine of gynecology.” Too many associations with the medical profession will prevent some from seeing how appropriate this is at first. But ‘gynecology’ simply means ‘the study of women.’ And ‘theological gynecology’ means ‘the theological study of women,’ or ‘what the Bible says about the role of women.’ So I’ll use it sporadically throughout this paper.

But gynaecology does not "simply mean 'the study of women'", even if that is the etymology of the word.  It has a specific reference to the medical profession and to issues connected with female reproductive organs.  Rather than seeing "how appropriate this is", a moment's reflection confirms how problematic it is, especially if one is aiming at a discussion that does not unduly prejudice the interpreter before one has examined the texts. It is difficult to see how it can be helpful to use terminology that risks reverting to androcentric stereotypes in which a woman's identity and function is viewed solely in terms of reproduction.

I must admit that I don't even feel comfortable with this discussion being cast in terms of "the study of women" in Paul.  Rather, it's about the study of men and women in Paul.  That might sound like a fine distinction, but I think it is important.  Casting the debate in terms that focus specially on the status of "women" in Paul's letters tacitly assumes that maleness is the norm, the expected standard for authority and status that is challenged by apparent exceptions like Junia.  The same scholars do not speak with surprise about "andrology" every time a male authority figure appears in the text.  The very problematizing of the female figure of authority as if it is in some way abnormal or surprising already casts the debate in terms that prejudice the outcome.

Esther de Boer

I am really shocked to read on April DeConick's blog of the untimely death of Esther de Boer.  She was a fine New Testament scholar and her work on Mary Magdalene in particular made a very important contribution to scholarship.   I always found her a very positive and encouraging person too.  She will be greatly missed.

Romans as a "bread-and-butter" letter redux

Three years ago, almost to the day, I was teaching the Epistle to the Romans as part of my Life and Letters of Paul class, and I blogged about a quotation from J. Paul Sampley (Is Romans a "bread and butter letter"?):

It is an apostolic response to ethnic problems in those churches, and it is a “bread-and-butter” letter written in advance of his arrival, seeking support for his mission to Spain.

I raised a couple of questions about it, first the appropriateness of the term "bread-and-butter letter" and second the matter of where the quotation is from. I had copied out the quotation some years ago but somehow managed to lose the citation. In yesterday's class on the Life and Letters of Paul, I returned to the Epistle to the Romans and again mentioned this quotation. Happily, Ken Olson managed to find it for me, and it looks like something had happened in my transcription of the quotation.  Here it is with a proper citation:

A crisis brought most Pauline letters into existence. Even Romans, written to a church that Paul’s preaching did not establish, is a “bread-and-butter” letter written in advance of his journey, seeking support for his mission to Spain (cf. 15:22-24). Ephesians, however, lacks clues concerning a concrete crisis or occasion.

J. Paul Sampley, “The Letter to the Ephesians”, in Gerhard Krodel (ed.), Ephesians, Colossians, 2 Thessalonians, The Pastoral Epistles (Proclamation Commentaries; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1978):  9-39 (9)

Steve Black on the Minor Agreement at Mark 14.65

The latest Novum Testamentum features an article by Steve Black on the Minor Agreement at Mark 14.65. It's a subject that I have written about myself, first in Goulder and the Gospels (JSNTSup, 133; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1996), 101-7 and 125-30, and then in The Case Against Q (Harrisburg, PA: Trinity Press International, 2002), 157-62, so I turned to the new article with interest. The details are:

Steve D. Black, “One Really Striking Minor Agreement: ΤΙΣ ΕΣΤΙΝ Ο ΠΑΙΣΑΣ ΣΕ in Matthew 26:68 and Luke 22:64”, Novum Testamentum 52 (2010): 313-333

It is asserted that Matt 26:68|Luke 22:64(|Mark 14:65) is the most difficult of the minor agreements. Some advocates of the two-source theory have addressed this minor agreement by trying to make sense of the narrative as we have it, and others by making sense of the text as we have it (arguing for textual corruption or lost recensions). While some of these arguments are reasonable, in the final analysis they are not satisfying. Although we might remain persuaded that the two-source theory best integrates the data relating to the synoptic problem, this minor agreement reminds us that the synoptic problem is still a problem.

Black's article provides a useful and balanced discussion of the issues, even if he is inclined to be more sympathetic in his assessments of the arguments of Two-Source Theorists than I would be. I have a few comments on the article, several of which come out of my own discussion in The Case Against Q.

(1) Black uses the English translation “Who is striking you” throughout.  Although this coheres nicely with the idea that it is a "striking" Minor Agreement, I think the translation a little unusual given the aorist participle -- τίς ἐστιν ὁ παίσας σε;, usually "Who is the one who struck you?"

(2) Black notes Goulder’s contrasting explanations on the Minor Agreement, but treats them in reverse order (p. 329: “Elsewhere, Goulder suggests . . .”). His later explanation in "Two Significant Minor Agreements (Mat. 4:13 Par.; Mat. 26:67-68 Par.)," Novum Testamentum 45/4 (2003): 365-373 represents his mature, final position on the Minor Agreement and should be given priority in discussion.

(3) I argue in The Case Against Q (159-60) that Mark is here typically dark, enigmatic and ironic. The abusers are in the middle of fulfilling Jesus' prophecy as they taunt him to "Prophesy". Matthew attempts to explicate the Marcan enigma, and so to dilute Mark's dark irony, by adding "Who is it who struck you?" in a way characteristic of the evangelist.

(4) I also suggest (Case Against Q, 159, n. 26) that the parallel in the Gospel of Peter 3.9 is helpful -- here they spit into Jesus' eyes in a way that provides a helpful commentary on Matthew's spitting into the face.  It illustrates that the lack of the covering of the head in Matthew is unsurprising.

(5) The covering of the face in Mark (καὶ περικαλύπτειν αὐτοῦ τὸ πρόσωπον) is easy to understand once one notices the parallel in Cicero, Pro Rabirio 13 (Capvt obnvbito) and 16 (obductio capitis). Here, the covering of the head is a key prelude to the ignominy of crucifixion. The covering of the face in Mark is not about blindfolding and second sight but about covering and shame.

(6) Black feels that the problems here for the Two-Source Theory serve as a useful reminder of the uncertainty of the textual witness, and of the fact that our Synoptic theories are only models.  The difficulty about the idea of appealing to absent textual evidence, though, is that it cuts both ways, as I argue in The Case Against Q (161-2), in answering Kloppenborg’s position now quoted by Black:

On one level Kloppenborg is making an important point, offering a sober reminder to scholars of the Synoptic Problem that Nestle-Aland27 offers at best only an approximation to the original texts of the Gospels. The sophistication of the critical text can all too easily seduce scholars into imagining that they are dealing with something far more concrete and stable than is in fact possible.  But the relationship of our text-critical uncertainties to the question of the Minor Agreements by no means inevitably resolves itself in favour of the Two-Source Theory. There is a difficulty here that is rarely, if ever, recognised in the literature:  that while textual corruption may indeed have generated Minor Agreements, it may also has eliminated Minor Agreements. Thus the impossibility of reconstructing “with absolute precision the Greek text of any of the gospels” and our ignorance concerning “the transmissional processes by which one gospel came to be used by another evangelist” does not necessarily tell in favour of the Two-Source Theory. It is just as important a theoretical possibility that the transmissional processes, and the history of the manuscript tradition, might have limited the number of Minor Agreements we now see in our Critical Texts. Indeed one might say that the clear and well-known scribal tendency to harmonise Mark’s text towards that of Matthew may have significantly lessened the number of significant Minor Agreements we now see.

It is quite right, in other words, to bear in mind our uncertainty about the early stages of Gospel transmission when reflecting on the Synoptic Problem. But to appeal to this uncertainty as a means of dealing with the Minor Agreements is to appeal to the unknown in an attempt to avoid a stumbling block for the Two-Source Theory, an unknown that might just as plausibly reveal further and not fewer problems for the Two-Source Theory. Unless there are strong grounds for thinking that the absent evidence would indeed tell in favour of the Two-Source Theory, which there are not, the appeal to the absence cannot forward the debate.

Bible and Archaeology Fest, Atlanta, November 2010

Over on Paleojudaica, Jim Davila has news of the forthcoming Bible Fest in Atlanta:

Announcing the 13th annual Bible and Archaeology Fest in Atlanta
The Biblical Archaeology Society announces the 13th annual Bible and Archaeology Fest in Atlanta Georgia where 20 scholars will present the latest research on topics such as early Christianity, Gnostic scholarship, the Hebrew Bible, and more.

The press release includes a paragraph that made me smile:

Renowned speakers such at James Charlesworth of Princeton Theological Seminary, Bart Ehrman of the University of North Carolina, Mark Goodacre of Duke University, Craig Evans of Acadia Divinity College, Ben Witherington III of Asbury Theological Seminary and many more will be presenting participants with their latest research.

JSNT Latest

September's Journal for the Study of the New Testament is now available. As usual, lots of material of interest. Abstracts available for all; full articles to subscribers. And bear in mind that there is free access to all Sage Journals until 15 October.

--
Journal for the Study of the New Testament
1 September 2010; Vol. 33, No. 1

A New Perspective on Paul? Rereading Paul in a Time of Ecological Crisis
David G. Horrell
Journal for the Study of the New Testament 2010;33 3-30

Honour, Head-coverings and Headship: 1 Corinthians 11.2-16 in its Social Context
Mark Finney
Journal for the Study of the New Testament 2010;33 31-58

Adaptive Eschatological Inference from the Gospel of Matthew
Ben Cooper
Journal for the Study of the New Testament 2010;33 59-80

Why Does the Deliverer Come έκ Σιών (Romans 11.26)?
J.R. Daniel Kirk
Journal for the Study of the New Testament 2010;33 81-99

Kyrios in the Gospel of Mark
Daniel Johansson
Journal for the Study of the New Testament 2010;33 101-124
--

Tom Wright reads Humpty Dumpty

With thanks to Jason Hood, on the SAET Blog:

Tom Wright Reads Humpty Dumpty

Jesus as Dennis the Menace in the Infancy Gospel

In a recent post on the Infancy Gospel of Thomas, I mentioned John Dominic Crossan's comparison of the child Jesus in the Infancy Gospel with Dennis the Menace.  When I heard him say "Dennis the Menace", I instantly thought of the character pictured above on the left, Dennis the Menace from the British comic The Beano.  It occurred to me later that since this was an American programme, Banned from the Bible, broadcast on the History Channel, he was perhaps referring to the character pictured in the middle above, the American Dennis the Menace, who is almost exactly the same age as his British namesake, both first published in March 1951.

But which one was John Dominic Crossan referring to?  Both of them are mischievous young boys, but my ignorance of the American version makes it difficult for me to compare and contrast.  The British Dennis is undoubtedly a "brat", but which would Crossan have known?  His time spent in both Ireland and America will have given him exposure to both versions, but I'd guess it's the American one he will have known best, perhaps especially if he has children, grandchildren, nieces or nephews over here.

New Testament Scholarship Worldwide on Facebook

Johnson Thomaskutty has set up a new group headed New Testament Scholarship Worldwide on Facebook. He writes:

This group is exclusively a scholarly, theological, exegetical, hermeneutical, reflective, and open-minded one by combining both the past and present New Testament scholarship worldwide.

It's an open, public group and there are already 407 members.

Typo in Elliott's Apocryphal New Testament, on Infancy Gospel of Thomas?

There is a cross-reference in J. K. Elliott, The Apocryphal New Testament: A Collection of Apocryphal Christian Literature in an English Translation (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1993): 78 that I think may be in error. The passage is Infancy Gospel of Thomas 12.1-2:

Again, in the time of sowing the child went out with his father to sow corn in their field. And as his father sowed, the child Jesus also sowed one grain of corn. 2. And when he had reaped it and threshed it, he brought in a hundred measures, * and he called all the poor of the village to the threshing-floor and gave them the corn, and Joseph took the residue. He was eight years old when he performed this sign.

At the point marked here by the *, there is a footnote referencing Luke 16.7. Luke 16.7 reads, "Then he asked another, ‘And how much do you owe?’ He replied, ‘A hundred containers of wheat.’ He said to him, ‘Take your bill and make it eighty.’" That is clearly not right. I think the intended reference must be Luke 8.8, "Some [seed] fell into good soil, and when it grew, it produced a hundredfold.”

Update (Saturday, 13.25): In comments, Andrew Criddle notes that the word κόρος occurs both in Luke 16.7 (ἑκατὸν κόρους σίτου) and in Tischendorf's Greek A recension of the Infancy Gospel. Moreover, κόρος is a hapax in the New Testament. That is clearly the point of the cross-reference in Elliott, so I withdraw my suggestion that it is a typo, even if it is a strange choice of cross-reference given the clearer content parallels with the Synoptics here and elsewhere that are not marked. Incidentally, a look at Tony Burke's Critical Edition of the text shows some interesting variation in the Greek witnesses at this point, κόρους ρ in his Gs, μέδιμνους ρ in his Ga and μόδια ἑκατόν in his Gc (Burke, 192-3).

Infancy Gospel of Thomas on Youtube

We are into the second week of a junior / senior seminar on the Non-canonical Gospels here at Duke. It's the first time I have taught a course like this at the undergraduate level and it is already proving really stimulating. We took as our first text the Protevangelium of James and we are now moving on to the Infancy Gospel of Thomas. It gives me the opportunity to share one of my favourite Youtube clips, an animated version of Infancy Thomas 9:



There is another short video of interest on Youtube that relates to the Infancy Gospel. It is about four minutes long and is clearly a clip from a longer documentary. From the look of it, it is an American (Discovery Channel? History Channel?) piece surveying non-canonical Gospels. Of particular interest in this clip are the comments from John Dominic Crossan, who is as engaging as ever. He comments on Jesus as a "divine brat" in the text, "Dennis the Menace as god", but adds that Jesus learns ultimately that "The function of great power and great wisdom is to do good":



Update (Friday, 9.55): In comments, Tony Burke mentions that the clip above is from Banned from the Bible (History Channel, 2003).

New Testament Studies latest

The latest NTS is out:
--

NEW TESTAMENT STUDIES
Volume 56 - Issue 04 - October 2010

PDF version of this Table of Contents

Articles

The Eagle and the Dove: Roman Imperial Sonship and the Baptism of Jesus (Mark 1.9-11)
Michael Peppard
New Testament Studies, Volume 56, Issue 04, October 2010, pp 431 - 451
doi:10.1017/S0028688510000159

Die markinischen Summarien—ein literarischer und theologischer Schlüssel zu Mark 1–6
Eve-Marie Becker
New Testament Studies, Volume 56, Issue 04, October 2010, pp 452 - 474
doi:10.1017/S0028688510000093

Lilies Do Not Spin: A Challenge to Female Social Norms
Lee A. Johnson, Robert C. Tannehill
New Testament Studies, Volume 56, Issue 04, October 2010, pp 475 - 490
doi:10.1017/S0028688510000135

Abraham geschworen – uns gegeben. Syntax und Sinn im Benediktus (Lukas 1.68–79)
Friedrich Gustav Lang
New Testament Studies, Volume 56, Issue 04, October 2010, pp 491 - 512
doi:10.1017/S0028688510000147

‘Some were saying, “He is good”’ (John 7.12b): ‘Good’ Christology in John's Gospel?
Jane Heath
New Testament Studies, Volume 56, Issue 04, October 2010, pp 513 - 535
doi:10.1017/S0028688510000111

Mutual Brokers of Grace: A Study in 2 Corinthians 1.3-11
David Briones
New Testament Studies, Volume 56, Issue 04, October 2010, pp 536 - 556
doi:10.1017/S002868851000010X

The Son's Entrance into the Heavenly World: The Soteriological Necessity of the Scriptural Catena in Hebrews 1.5-14
Joshua W. Jipp
New Testament Studies, Volume 56, Issue 04, October 2010, pp 557 - 575
doi:10.1017/S0028688510000123

Short Study

Keine Quästoren in Korinth: Zu Goodrichs (und Theißens) These über das Amt des Erastos (Röm 16.23)
Alexander Weiss
New Testament Studies, Volume 56, Issue 04, October 2010, pp 576 - 581
doi:10.1017/S0028688510000160

Abstracts available for all at New Testament Studies, and electronic access to subscribers.

McAfee Symposium on the Johannine Epistles

This is from Tom Thatcher -- news of a symposium on the Johannine Epistles to take place beginning a couple of days before this year's SBL Annual Meeting:

--
McAfee Symposium on the Johannine Epistles

The 2010 Peter Rhea and Ellen Jones
Lectures in New Testament
McAfee School of Theology, Mercer University
Atlanta, Georgia

November 17-19, 2010
Registration: $150 payable to McAfee School of Theology
Location: Atlanta Academic and Conference Center, 2930 Flowers Road, Atlanta, GA 30341


The Symposium will feature major presentations by:

D. Moody Smith, Jr
Judith Lieu
Jan G. van der Watt
Urban C. (Cam) von Wahlde

and short papers by:

Paul Anderson
R. Alan Culpepper
Peter Rhea Jones
Craig Koester
Andreas Kostenberger
William Loader
Gail R. O’Day
David Rensberger
--
More details here: McAfee Symposium on the Johannine Epistles

Nathan Eubank, "A Disconcerting Prayer"

The best thing about Duke is the quality of its students.  Nathan Eubank, from our Graduate Program in Religion, has an article in the latest JBL,

A Disconcerting Prayer: On the Originality of Luke 23:34a, JBL 129/3 (2010): 521–536
Nathan Eubank

The online access is only available for SBL subscribers and for institutions with subscriptions to the JBL.

British New Testament Conference 2010

This year's British New Testament Conference began yesterday in Bangor. I have had to miss the BNTC for the last five years since I moved to the US and it always feels a bit odd not to be there. I was heavily involved with the organisation for several years, as the secretary and treasurer of the society, and I regret that I had only one chance (2005) to go along as a punter before moving away. Knowing that several bloggers are present, I am looking forward to hearing some reports. Jim Davila is a stalwart of the conference and will no doubt have reports for us; the new Sheffield Biblical Studies blog is already blogging on the ground, though without specific attribution (after the initial post from James Crossley); and Helen Bond mentions the conference on the new Centre for the Study of Christian Origins blog.

Microphone Problem Causing NT Pod Delay

If you are wondering what has happened to the NT Pod recently, I have been unable to record because my Snowball has gone on the blink. Recordings have a high-pitch noise. So I am moving over, for the time being at least, to recording in Duke's gret facilities. As it happens, these facilities are so good that I may continue to use these even after I have sorted out my microphone problem. So there should at least be a new episode next week, once I have worked out all the finer points of using the Duke facilities.

Sage Journals Free for Six Weeks

Brian LePort points out that Sage Journals are offering free online access to their journals for the next six weeks or so.  Details here:

Free Online Access to SAGE must-have content from 1999-current until October 15, 2010

Bear in mind that in our area that includes journals like the Journal for the Study of the New Testament and Expository Times.

NT Blog Seven Years Old Today!

Happy birthday to me, seven years old today. The first post on this blog was on 2 September 2003, Welcome to the NT Gateway Weblog where I wrote that

I've been inspired to set this up by Jim Davila's fine Palaeojudaica weblog at http://paleojudaica.blogspot.com/, not least because of a comment he made in that recently that it would be helpful to have more people doing the same kind of thing. I've very much enjoyed reading his blog over the last few months and while I doubt I will be able to do as good a job as he, I am nevertheless encouraged to try something similar myself.

Well, Jim's still at it, I'm still at it, and now there are lots more people too, as well as many others who have come and gone.

For the first five and a half years of this blog, I was blogging under the NT Gateway banner, but now, as I hope you know, that has a blog of its own where I post along with Holger Szesnat, mainly on new internet items of interest that appear on the site.   So this is the first full year of the morphed NT Blog and I continue to work on my NT Pod too, a podcast that now has forty episodes and is just over a year old.

Thanks for the continued encouragement and support for these seven years.  Here's to the next seven!

Teaching the Bible e-pub latest

The Teaching the Bible epub from the SBL is back after its summer break:

Teaching the Bible, September 2010

It includes an article by Jeff Staley on The Crucifixion of Jesus in Films and in the Gospels which looks well worth a read. Thanks to Jim Dvorak for pointing out that article to me.

Biblical Studies Carnival, and Other Blog News

For the second month running, Jim West has done an excellent job of producing a Biblical Studies Carnival, rounding up all sorts of interesting posts on Biblical Studies and related areas from all over the blogosphere:

August 2010 Biblical Studies Carnival

I am proud to say that I actually remembered and got round to nominating several posts this time around.

Meanwhile, several have the good news that the University of Sheffield Biblical Studies Department has a new blog.

For those interested in who has the most popular Biblical Studies related blogs at the moment, Free Old Testament Audio Website Blog has the latest.

And while we are on the subject, I was disappointed to notice recently that the Biblioblogs.com website had gone down. It looks like the domain name was not renewed, and the content has all gone, at least for now, which is a shame.