Holocaust or Shoah? : Scratching the Surface of How Christians and Jews Remember Differently - Le Donne

Over at Jewish-Christian Intersections, Larry Behrendt suggests that remembering the Holocaust ought not be a casual endeavor, but an act of commemoration that sets us in a principled stance against all forms of genocide. I hope that I've summarized him aptly (even if I've played the reductionist) because this post is part of an ongoing conversation between us about sacred identity and memory.

I am convinced that memory shapes identity. No controversy there, I would guess. Of course, some might state this more boldly (e.g. memory is identity!). I am also convinced that the ways that we remember are just as identity-forming (and informed by identity) as the content of our memories. I think that the ways that Christians and Jews remember the Holocaust is a great example.

It is all but impossible to be an adult, self-identifying Jew without bearing some existential relationship to the Holocaust. For many (most?) Jews, the Holocaust is a singular event that caps centuries of persecution, catastrophic violence, and attempted genocide. Indeed, I have been told by a senior colleague that the plural "holocausts" is an improper use of the word as it diminishes the singularity of the catastrophic violence done to European Jews during World War II.  It is for similar reasons that the term "Shoah" has come into use. Larry's post links to a definition of Shoah:

Shoah :The Hebrew word meaning "catastrophe," denoting the catastrophic destruction of European Jewry during World War II. The term is used in Israel, and the Knesset (the Israeli Parliament) has designated an official day, called Yom ha-Shoah, as a day of commemorating the Shoah or Holocaust.

By this definition of Shoah, we would be reminded that six-million Jews (mostly civilians) were murdered by the philosophers, theologians, scientists, architects, politicians, and soldiery that attempted to solve the "question of the Jews" with a final solution. Contrast this definition with Merriam-Webster's online definition of the Holocaust:

the Holocaust : 

the killing of millions of Jews and other people by the Nazis during World War II
: an event or situation in which many people are killed and many things are destroyed especially by fire
 1 : a sacrifice consumed by fire 2 : a thorough destruction involving extensive loss of life especially through fire <a nuclear holocaust> 3 a often capitalized : the mass slaughter of European civilians and especially Jews by the Nazis during World War II —usually used with the b : a mass slaughter of people; especially : genocide

As used when it is capitalized, "the Holocaust" occupies a different place and function in non-Jewish memory. Here "Holocaust" evokes a primarily Jewish catastrophe but also includes non-Jewish victims as well.  The phrase "Jews and other people" is significant. Using this definition, we are reminded that eleven-million civilians were murdered, including Jews, communists, gays, Jehovah's Witnesses, and other people deemed ideologically dangerous to the "common good".

So if you simply want a numerical difference, it could be counted in the millions.

But there is a more important difference to be drawn here. Christian memory (a subset of non-Jewish memory, in this case) tends not to think of the final solution in terms of "philosophers, theologians, scientists, architects, politicians, and soldiery". Your average Christian tends to think of the Holocaust as a politically motivated war crime.  In fact, it was not committed by Christians at all, but by an archetypal enemy: the Nazis. Indeed - still speaking as my hypothetically "average Christian" here - the "true Christians" were heroic during this period! We remember Bishop von Galen, Dietrich Bonhoeffer, Willhelm Rott, and the many sisters who aided Irena Sendler. No doubt there were many. But Katharina von Kellenbach reminds us that these "were a very small minority! These activists, as well as individual Roman Catholic priests and religious monks and sisters, risked their lives in the battle against Nazism. .... Their heroic resistance should not be forgotten or diminished. But it was only part of the story. On the whole, the churches colluded and compromised, and they failed to defend the victims of dehumanizing  policies and extermination" (42-43).

We Christians tend to use the Holocaust to celebrate our collective heroism. Nobody - nobody - who uses the word "Shoah" thinks of the Holocaust as a backdrop to celebrate Christian courage.  The Shoah was not a stage - it was genocide. This is not to mis-remember those who were courageous, but the memories of the "Shoah" and "Holocaust" tend to function differently depending on who is doing the commemorating.

Let's put it this way: there were more Christians who died in the Holocaust than there were operating the various resistance movements. Still more Christians were vocally anti-Jewish. Still more Christians looked the other way.

Yet we Christians choose to remember and celebrate Dietrich Bonhoeffer. We have chosen a heroic self-identity because of our memories and we have chosen our memories because of our heroic self-identity. But, and this point cannot be overstated, it is likely that your average Christian has no significant relationship to the memory of the Holocaust. It simply functions for Christians as an unfortunate historical fact of war.  In others words, it is possible (indeed likely) to be an adult, educated Christian and never commemorate the Holocaust. We have a better chance of being shaped by the words of Rich Mullins than Dietrich Bonhoeffer.

For many (most?) Jews, the Shoah is a culmination of centuries of victimization and dehumanization. So much so that I have been in several conversations wherein thoughtful Jewish educators have wondered aloud whether the "Shoah" should even be taught anymore. After all, "what more is there to say?" And "don't we want our children to have a positive identity, rather than a victimized identity?" As a Christian, I am baffled by such questions.

But the Holocaust / Shoah dichotomy is just one example of Christians and Jews remembering differently.  Indeed, our methods of remembrance have set us on different courses and have too often alienated us from the other.

-anthony

2013 Man of the Year

Today Pope Francis I won Time's Person of the Year. Now, the cynic in me wonders who we might see if the cameras were turned off. But I can't help but hope that the rumors are true. Truth be told, I care very little about who wins "Person of the Year". But I do care that people with power use it to serve the powerless.

At the risk of evoking "Jesus" during the most Jesusy time of the year on the most Jesusy blog that I know of, I care that the Pope is attentive to the longstanding portrait of a humbled and humbling Jesus. I am not the sort of fellow who forgets easily. A couple years of good PR and happy distraction cannot cover centuries of shame.

But in the face of systemic evil, a simple act of courage can do wonders.

-anthony

Richard Burridge's Award Shindig at King's College, London--Chris Keith

On Friday I will be heading over to King's College, London for a special day conference on the work of Rev. Prof. Richard Burridge upon his winning of the Ratzinger Prize for Theology.  Congratulations are in order, as Burridge is the first non-Catholic to receive the prestigious award.  I've pulled the information from KCL's website here.  Check out this incredible lineup and the audio of Burridge.  Anyone else going to be there?

The Gospels' Connection to Jesus of Nazareth

Location

The College Chapel

Category

Conference, Public Talk

When

13/12/2013 (10:00-18:30)

Description

On announcing Richard Burridge as one of the two recipients of the 2013 Ratzinger Prize for Theology, Cardinal Camillo Ruini, academic committee president of the Ratzinger Foundation, said “Richard Burridge today is definitely an eminent figure in the field of Biblical studies and not only of the English language. In particular, he has made a great contribution in that decisive area of the historical and theological recognition of the Gospels' inseparable connection to Jesus of Nazareth.”

This day conference will consider the work of Richard Burridge, especially how his biographical genre approach helps us establish “the Gospels’ inseparable connection to Jesus of Nazareth”.



10.00-10.30: Registration and coffee

10.30-10.45: Welcome and Introduction
Professor Sir Richard Trainor (Principal, King’s College London)

10.45-11.45: Session 1: The Gospels and the Biography of Jesus
Chair: Dr Eddie Adams
Professor Andrew Lincoln (Portland Professor of New Testament Studies, University of Gloucestershire) & Professor Steve Walton (St Mary's University College, Twickenham).

This session will consider the impact of Burridge’s doctoral research on Gospel genre within Gospels scholarship, and its implications for Jesus-centred readings of the Gospels.

11.45-12.00: Coffee break

12.00-13.00: Session 2: Telling the Story of Jesus
Chair: The Revd Robin Griffith-Jones
Canon Dr Paula Gooder (Theologian in Residence for the Bible Society and Visiting Lecturer, King’s College London) & Professor Francis Watson (Professor in the Department of Theology & Religion, Durham University)

This session will look at Four Gospels, One Jesus? and other more popular and church-related applications of Burridge’s Gospels research, such as his work for the Millennium Dome, the National Gallery, the Lambeth Conference Bible Studies (based on his John commentary, originally published by BRF in 1998 and reissued in a Lambeth Conference edition in 2008), theBible in the Life of the Church project for the Anglican Communion, events related to the 400th anniversary of the King James Version of the Bible in 2011, and numerous Diocesan study days and conferences.

13.00-14.15: Lunch

14.15-15.15: Session 3: What did Jesus Do and Say – Story and Ethics
Chair: Dr Chris Tilling
Professor David Horrell (Professor of New Testament Studies, University of Exeter) & Prof Jan van der Watt (Professor of New Testament, Radboud University, Nijmegen)

This session will discuss Burridge’s work on the implications of the narrative biographical reading of the Gospels for New Testament, and Christian, ethics. The session will especially focus on Imitating Jesus, including the extent to which South Africa influences and figures in reflections,but will also reference his ongoing research and writing in this area.

15.15-15.30: Tea break

15.30-16.30: Session 4: The Gospels and the story of Jesus
Chair: Professor Paul Joyce

Panel and round-up with all the participants (and Emeritus Professor Loveday Alexander, University of Sheffield), looking at coherence and impact, and considering what unites everything (essentially the concern for genre and for Biblical interpretation). Prof Burridge will offer a final response to the day.

16.30-16.45: Vote of thanks and closing remarks Vincent Nicholls, Archbishop of Westminster


16.45-18.30: Drinks reception

Tickets for the event are priced £7.50, with a limited amount that include a buffet lunch priced at £15.00.

Tickets can be purchased from the following link: http://estore.kcl.ac.uk/browse/extra_info.asp?compid=1&modid=2&deptid=17&catid=16&prodid=297

An Advent Song

I was just alerted to this wonderful song today by my friend Drew. Thank you, sir.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5nOm81MqeCI&feature=share

-anthony

Jesus and His World by Craig Evans—Chris Keith

I’ve finally gotten around to reading Craig Evans’s Jesus and His World: The Archaeological Evidence, published here in the UK by SPCK and in the USA by WJK.  If you’re looking for a supplementary textbook for a Jesus course next Spring, this has got to be a contender.  I’m not aware of a textbook exactly like it and highly recommend it.  Evans covers the archaeological evidence from first-century Palestine as it relates to the Gospels and so this is not an introduction to Jesus per se or even the Gospels (though there’s plenty of both) but an introduction to the socio-historical context as revealed by the realia of that time period . . . with pictures in tow!  For example, one chapter covers the archaeological evidence for synagogues and synagogue practices and another covers reading, writing, and literacy.  A final chapter covers Jewish burial traditions.  As far as I can tell, the book is aimed at students, but I found myself really enjoying the read.  The chapter on the synagogue, with all its pictures (especially of the Capernaum synagogue), was the best in my opinion.  The chapter I found least helpful was the one on literacy, etc., where Evans agrees with literacy estimates of 5 to 10 percent for Jesus’ world, but then goes on to argue that Jesus most likely could have read.  He cites considerable evidence of literate activity, and this alone is worth reading and interesting, but he ultimately mixes textuality (knowledge and appreciation of texts) and literacy (ability to access texts for oneself) in an unhelpful manner given the complexity of the issues, in my opinion.  But this is a minor quibble with an otherwise really great book.  I’m not teaching a course on Jesus or the Gospels this coming semester, but if I was, I wouldn’t hesitate to put this resource into my students’ hands.

Judy Redman on Memory and Jesus

If you aren't already a fan of Judy's blog, you will be:

http://judyredman.wordpress.com/2013/12/07/memory-in-real-life/

-anthony

Interview with Chris Keith

Over at Freedom in Orthodoxy, Johnny interviews our very own Chris Keith.

http://freedominorthodoxy.blogspot.com/2013/12/interview-with-jesus-scholar-chris.html

-anthony

Need a Gift Idea for that NT Scholar in Your Life?

Here at the Jesus Blog, we’re all about holiday merchandise.  Along with Sarah Palin [see min. 4:57-5:07], we believe that commercialization spreads the true reason for the season.  So here are a few gift ideas we’re working on for you this year:

Covenantal Nomism Slanket.  Kill the chill of first-century caricatures this Winter with a Covenantal Nomism Slanket!  Your friends and family will know that you have a new perspective on Paul when they see you ensconced in a collage of cover art from the books of E.P. Sanders and James Dunn.  A perfect holiday gift! [Some ongoing maintenance required.]

Apocalyptic Prophet Tea Sets.  Nothing says “the end of the world is upon you” like a nice cuppa served in this porcelain cup and saucer set.  Perfect for any occasion, but especially appropriate for bunker parties!

Gospel of Jesus’ Wife Coffee Table Coasters.  Protect your furniture and wow your friends with the hottest new designs in Copticware.  This two-sided replica of the famous “Gospel of Jesus’ Wife” comes in three colors: Egyptian copper; Nag Hammadi brown; or anonymous-collector beige.  [Ink-test replica shot glasses sold separately.]

Chris Keith’s Goatee.  Need a unique gift for that special someone?  Rekindle the flame with an authentic, game-used goatee from Chris Keith Inc. Supply limited.

“Historical Jesus Quest” for Nintendo 3DS.  Quest with Albert Schweitzer and Martin Kähler in this explosive new game from Nintendo.  Battle Nazi theologians to overcome “divine man” parallels and Renan’s phrenology. [Rated MATURE for ethnocentrism and historical positivism.]

St. Francis of Assisi Money Clip. You will always have the poor among you, but few people have this platinum-plated, sterling silver money clip with an engraving of the prayer of St. Francis. Be the first person in your pew to flash this beauty when the offering plate is passed!

Any other ideas that we should consider for production?

-anthony

Memories of Alan Segal

I did not know Alan Segal well. We were collaborating with him on this project when I learned of the illness that eventually took his life. I can say that he was kind, generous, and helped me navigate a few awkward "professional" moments. Moreover, he had very little to gain by being kind to me. He didn't know me from Adam when we began our project.  Understandably, he graciously withdrew his name from our roster, but remained open to emails and continued to offer guidance when I asked. It was only a few months after my last correspondence with Alan when I read the news of his passing.

Yesterday, Jared Calaway shared his memories of Alan in the comments section of our book giveaway. I felt that this deserved better visibility:

My reflections of Alan Segal as his final Ph.D. student. 

Alan was a brilliant man. He was the stereotypical absent-minded professor with his head in the clouds. Often I would walk into his office to discuss my research projects with him, and he seemed to be in another world. Nonetheless, months later he could quote what I said to him back to me verbatim. Who knows how many languages he knew!? He could recite poetry and/or order a meal in most of them. As an advisor, he let his students develop their own ideas and follow them wherever they led. That is, one thing I really appreciated was that he was not trying to create carbon copies of himself or make us elaborate his ideas, but was their to guide our very different projects to develop as independent scholars. Perhaps the greatest quality he inculcated in each of us is to develop an insatiable curiosity and if that meant that for our research we had to transverse usually disparate fields of Dead Sea Scrolls, New Testament, Rabbinics, Early Christianity, etc., so be it. 

That is, in my opinion, one of the greatest legacies of his own research. From Two Powers to Rebecca's Children to Paul the Convert, he pursued his research with little regard to traditional scholarly boundaries. For him, to focus exclusively on Christianity or Judaism in antiquity was at best a simple anachronism; at worst, bad history. In an era of scholarship in which are projects are increasingly smaller, focusing on our little boxes (NT, DSS, etc.), he taught us to think big. I only hope I can carry on that legacy as best I can.

Thank you, Jared.

-anthony

The Great Baylor Giveaway Continues with Alan Segal's Two Powers in Heaven--Chris Keith

The Jesus Blog is very pleased to bring you another opportunity to win a free book from Baylor University Press.  This time we're giving away a copy of the late Alan Segal's classic Two Powers in Heaven, a seminal contribution to understanding the development of early Christology.  From the BUP website:

"In his now classic Two Powers in Heaven, Alan Segal examines rabbinic evidence about early manifestations of the "two powers" heresy within Judaism. Segal sheds light upon the development of and relationships among early Christianity, Gnosticism, and Merkabah mysticism and demonstrates that belief in the "two powers in heaven" was widespread by the first century, and may have been a catalyst for the Jewish rejection of early Christianity. An important addition to New Testament and Gnostic scholarship by this much revered scholar, Segal's Two Powers in Heaven is made available once again for a new generation." 

Perhaps we could get Jared Calaway, Segal's final PhD student at Columbia, to share a few words in the comments on the significance of Segal and what it was like being his student.

To enter to win the book, you can (1) leave a comment, (2) share this on Facebook and leave a comment saying you did, (3) share this on Twitter and leave a comment saying you did, and (4) sign up to follow the blog and leave a comment saying you did.  For the wildcard entry, you can (5) name the most underrated country music singer living or dead.  In my opinion, it's not even close.  Dwight Yoakam is by far the most underrated country music singer.

Jens Schröter Weighs In, Giving Further Reason to Buy and Read his From Jesus to the New Testament—Chris Keith

During the Q&A of the Memory and Historical Jesus session at the SBL, Jens Schröter stood up and argued forcefully that “memory” is not antithetical to historical-critical research.  It is rather, he said, a hermeneutical perspective on what it means to approach the past.  In this context, he noted the contributions from Koselleck, Droysen, and Collingwood on what it means to write “history.”

Now, to defend myself slightly (I’ll let the others defend themselves), I want to make clear that I was asked to speak specifically on social memory theory, which begins with the work of Halbwachs in the twentieth century.  This is why I did not bother to go earlier and did not discuss, for example, Nietzsche either.  But Jens’s point is entirely correct and it was a missing element of the discussion.  I followed up on email with him and thought I’d put his comments here, with his permission of course:

Dear Chris,
I must confess that I was quite disappointed with the session on Monday. From my view, the specific contribution of memory (“Erinnerung”), at least as I would define it, to historical criticism was not made clear.  For me, the criticism that memory theory is not historical-critical research was useless because I have never and would never defend a view that claims they are the same. In my perspective, the category “Erinnerung” was never meant to replace or to question the meaning of historical criticism. I would also never argue that every kind of “memory” (i.e. every story about Jesus in the Gospels or other early Christian literature) is of the same value because it is some sort of “Jesus memory.” Also not clear in the discussion is how one has to distinguish between different stories about Jesus in early Christianity. Of course, individual and also collective memory can be distorted, but this is another usage of the category. For me the decisive point is that “Erinnerung” is a hermeneutical paradigm that makes us aware that every image of the past is in need of interpretation and historical imagination. That is true for ancient as well as for modern historical-critical Jesus accounts. As Koselleck puts it: “The sources hinder us to make certain claims about the past, but they do not tell us what we have to say.” This is what he calls the “power of veto” of the sources. In interpreting the sources, creating images of figures and composing narratives of the past we need imagination (“Einbildungskraft”) as Collingwood calls it or interpretation as Droysen puts it. Therefore, “Erinnerung” can never replace historical critical evaluation of the remains of the past. But it can make us aware that it is always our picture of the past and therefore an inextricable combination of present and past. Thereby, it is self-evident that since the rise of historical criticism we have to evaluate the sources critically. But with this undertaking we will never get behind the sources but always create our own image of the past, influenced by our own cultural values, our knowledge of the sources and our questions that we bring to the sources.

What was especially disappointing for me in the session was that this hermeneutical discussion, present in English, French and German speaking research since the 19th century, did not play any role. Therefore, the importance of “memory,” understood against this background, for hermeneutical and historiographical discussions about Jesus and early Christianity today, was not made clear.

All Jesus portraits are based on interpretation, combination of the remains from the past and historical imagination, because – here I repeat myself – the sources do not tell us what we have to say because they are not themselves the past and critical evaluation does not lead by itself to an image of the past. I have used the term “Erinnerung” especially for this mixture of present and past that characterizes all accounts or images of figures and events of the past – ancient and modern alike, although ancient historians worked under different epistemological presuppositions and with other methodological tools than modern scholars


Jens’s comments are important for at least two reasons.  First, he is entirely right that we overlooked the significance of “memory” for what it means in our historical work today in our (i.e., my and Rafael’s) attempts to explain what it meant for the ancient authors as “historians.”  To put his point in language he uses elsewhere, we are of course never getting “behind” the sources.  We are rather re-presenting the sources and narrativizing what could have been.  Indeed, the remains of the past only become “sources” in the process of narrativizing (see below).  In other words, even after historical criticism does its work of critically examining those remains, the remains do not offer explanations of themselves automatically.  The historian must weave a narrative of possible past reality that necessarily draws upon his or her own historical imagination and incorporates the remains of the past.

Second, it’s clear to me now that one stumbling block in the discussion has been the slippery nature of the word “memory.”  I am, for example, quite willing to refer to the infancy Gospels of the second century as “Jesus memory” as well as the first-century Gospels as “Jesus memory” even though I would treat these texts differently in terms of historiography.  And I do not think this is illegitimate because of the similarities in the transmission process.  (Jens tells me he agrees with this point.)  Both represent the past in light of the present, and this is the core insight of social memory theory and theories of history alike—memory is always a presentation of the past on behalf of and in light of the present.  But, as I said, this does not mean that we treat the late second-century infancy Gospels and the first-century Gospels the same historiographically.  Both are receptions of the “past” in their respective presents, but the past that the infancy Gospels receive is mainly the first-century texts.  They simultaneously provide both constraints and the basis for innovation; that is, they attempt to fill in gaps in the Jesus story but do so with familiar interpretive perspectives.  Thus, for example, the innovation of a child Jesus that kills other kids is a creative reception and development of the first-century texts that portray Jesus as having control over life and death.  The Jesus of the infancy Gospels, clearly, is not the historical Jesus.  With the first-century Gospel texts, we have greater warrant to assume that the “past” that they receive, develop, and re-present in their respective presents includes the impact of the actual past of Jesus of Nazareth.  (I, for one, also give great credence to the idea associated variously with Gerhardsson, Hengel, and Bauckham, that Jesus’ surviving followers exerted considerable—but not universal—control over the development of the early Christian memory of him.)

So, Jens is right that it is not the case that all Jesus memory is of the same value, not even in those first-century texts, and I’m not aware of anyone in the younger breed of historical Jesus scholars who would say that it is.  But I can see how our concentration upon the nature of the tradition itself and attempt to explicate the significance of Jens’s point about the ancient historian also working from a mix of past and present (and thus that all Jesus memory is of some historical value though not the same historical value), as well as our (ok, my) willingness to use “Jesus memory” for different types of Jesus memory, could have benefited from better clarity.

For those who are interested in this discussion further, I simply cannot recommend highly enough Jens’s From Jesus to the New Testament (Baylor University Press, 2013), the English translation of his Von Jesus zum Neuen Testament (Mohr Siebeck, 2007).  I am re-reading it in the wonderful English translation of Wayne Coppins and I honestly believe that Jens has here written the manifesto for a new stage of Jesus research.  (Yes, I’m fully aware of the audacity of that claim.  I think it’s true anyway.)  He articulates in great detail what “neutestamentliche Wissenschaft beyond historicism” looks like.  In particular, he gives much greater detail to his points about memory as a hermeneutical perspective on what historians do in their re-presentations of the past.  I leave you with this quotation from p.12–13, which I think sums up also his complaints about the SBL session.  I’ll note also that we will have a panel review of this book at the 2014 British New Testament Conference at the University of Manchester.  I think it would be worth the SBL Historical Jesus group considering something of the same.

“The present-day theory of history stands in the tradition of these insights.  As important as a critical penetration of the historical material is in dealing with the past, there is no way around Droysen’s insight that even criticism does not seek the ‘actual historical fact.’  Likewise, we must not fall behind Weber’s epistemological insight that cultural-scientific knowledge is not able to ground value judgments and the past is always questioned from the interests and with the heuristic methods of the present.  It is indisputable that the historical material first becomes a ‘source’ about the past through the lines of inquiry and instruments of knowledge with which it is processed and through the presentation of investigated facts by the interpreter.  Past facts are always only accessible in the form of various kinds of witnesses about them and are never, by contrast, directly accessible.  The transfer of these witnesses into history therefore represents a complex process of analysis, evaluation, and ordering of the historical material into a coherent course of events.  For this, the interpretive activity of the interpreter—the ‘historical imagination’—is indispensible, for it is only in this way that a ‘source’ for history comes into being from the historical material.  Thus, the sources alone do not lead to conceptions of history, but they guide the interpretations and simultaneously limit the possibilities for appropriating the past.”

Stewart Reflects on the "Blow Up" in Baltimore

Part I: http://ahabhuman.blogspot.com/2013/11/the-blow-up-in-baltimore-part-1-summary.html

Part II: http://ahabhuman.blogspot.com/2013/11/the-blow-up-in-baltimore-part-2-sparks.html

Less Serious Observations on the SBL Memory Session--Chris Keith

Since my last post dealt with the guts of the academic discussion in the recent SBL Memory and Historical Jesus session, I thought I'd make a couple less serious observations here.

The first observation is more of a question:  Are historical Jesus studies interesting again?  A number of people have commented that this session was their favorite one from this year, and a few have even said that it was their favorite ever.  This is interesting because it was not so long ago that historical Jesus studies seemed to be on their way out (or already out).  I thought this myself and even avoided the historical Jesus altogether when working on my PhD.  I've had some big names in the field tell me that they were altogether convinced that historical Jesus studies was dead.  It was during the writing of Jesus' Literacy: Scribal Culture and the Teacher from Galilee, however, that I first started to think some fresh discussions could occur and might be useful; that what was on the way out was business as usual but not the overall field.  In the very least, the session in Baltimore had good attendance and perhaps this indicates a renewed interest.

The second observation is that Zeb Crook by far wins the award for presentation.  He gave a master class on how to deliver a SBL paper.  It was funny, interesting, and thought provoking.  Reflecting on the session, I wonder why more people don't make their presentations interesting the way Zeb did.  Rafael, Paul, and I all settled for the standard read-your-paper-aloud bit and, though each of us had our moments of personality shining through, we all looked like dullards compared to Zeb.