I was very impressed with my answer to this student so I thought I would share it with you, oh beloved blog reader. In all honesty, I gave him three short reasons and I'm giving you three longer reasons. This only goes to show that I continue to impress myself with myself.
So why require this book for my Portraits of Jesus class?
1. If you want to understand Jesus, you have to understand something (really, many things) about ancient Judaism. Sad but true: I cannot assume that my students will come into my classes knowing anything about ancient Judaism. Worse, most classes on Jesus attempt to provide some instruction of Judaism (normally Second Temple Judaism) and this is done by viewing Judaism trough the lens of Christian literature. This is like introducing one's children to Star Wars by first exposing them to Spaceballs. Levenson's book is sensitive to the Hebrew Bible as sacred text and is also sensitive to the history(ies) from which the Bible emerged. One could hardly think of a better topical entry point into modern biblical theology than Levenson's longitudinal study of the Akedah.
2. My class is titled "Portraits of Jesus". I teach it with three key foci (that's the fancy plural form of "focus" #grammarsuperstar). In this class we study biblical portraits of Jesus; we study several historical reconstructions of Jesus; we study the various Jesuses of popular imagination. On every level, the most entrenched and recognizable portrait of Jesus concerns the legacy of the cross. It is almost impossible to say anything about Jesus that will overcome people's deceptively familiar images of the crucifixion. That said, Levenson's treatment of Golgotha in connection to the harrowing problems related to the Akedah comes close.
3. I think that every university-level class ought to invite students to read a classic or two. There is no better cure for cultural amnesia (we have an epidemic of this disease in North America) than exposure to great literature. So my students are required to read the Synoptics, John, Thomas, etc. Of course, it would be idiotic to equate any modern academic book with biblical literature. But it is no understatement to call Death and Resurrection of the Beloved Son a classic. A few days ago I told a Hebrew Bible scholar friend of mine that I had assigned this book. He replied, "It may well be the best book in biblical studies ever written."
If you have not read this book, treat yourself. I can not offer a higher recommendation... and I'm speaking as someone who has read Pride and Prejudice and Zombies.
-anthony
Post how student's respond to Levenson's book (which is beyond praise, but...best ever?). Also, curious what you cover in Jesus in the popular imagination.
ReplyDeleteEric
We do about 13 weeks on the Doobie Brothers and about half a class on Andy Warhol.
Delete-anthony
No Jesus Christ Vampire Slayer, then?
DeleteEric
Perhaps I could invite you to do a guest lecture on this topic. What are your regular range of fees?
DeleteOh, they range from a comped week-end in Vegas to an iTunes gift card.
DeleteEric
I took a class on the history of interpretation of Genesis 22 with Alan Segal where, of course, we read that book. Lot's of fun. Oh memories.
ReplyDeletejealous!
DeleteI love this book as a first introduction to Judaism for Christians, but as I mentioned to you, I think that those who encounter Judaism for the first time through this book are unlikely to ever hire a Jewish babysitter.
ReplyDeleteGive us a bit more credit, Larry. These texts represent our sacred stories too. We Christians are just as *bound* to the words of the Lord.
Delete-anthony
*rimshot*
DeleteAnthony, I think Jack understood my intent, as poorly expressed as it might have been.
DeleteYou yourself stated that you've assigned this book to give students an initial picture of ancient Judaism, and as terrific a book as this one is, I might wish for a less disturbing picture. While these may be your sacred stories, I don't know if you regard them as I do, as the stories of my ancestral family. The point I was making, albeit with a misplaced attempt at humor, is that I find it deeply disturbing that child sacrifice could be a part of my family's history.
I don't object to your assignment of this book -- quite the contrary, in fact. I think that it's not our job to whitewash our personal histories, but to confront them, and to struggle with them. Perhaps this confrontation is an opportunity for interfaith work.
Thanks Larry,
DeleteWell, according to Paul. I've been adopted in... whatever that means. Perhaps it means that I can be a consigliere, but not a wartime consigliere.
Whatever the case, my point is that we Christians must struggle with many of the same texts in much the same way. You're quite right, it would be interesting to see where the similarities and differences might be in dealing with problematic, embarrassing and/or downright repugnant sacred texts.
This is something I've considered much of late as I've been dealing with the topic of divine violence in the Bible. Should we do a blog duet on this topic?
-anthony
Ah, Paul. He has you adopted in, and me disowned. I prefer to think of the OT as something we share, along with Jesus and the entire first century. But I'll confess that there's a part of me that does not want to share at all.
DeleteA duet? You bet.
I venture here to read about Jesus studies... I leave satisfied by wit.
ReplyDelete