What more can be done for academics burned by Christian fundamentalists?

Over at NTweblog, Mark Goodacre reflects on the latest academic to be treated like garbage by an institution claiming to represent the Church. In this case, Mark witnessed one of his former students sent packing. One of the comments on Mark's blog noticed that, of late, this story is repeated almost monthly.

This leads me to ask: what more can be done for academics burned by Christian fundamentalists?

Yesterday my wife mentioned that there ought to be a retreat center specifically devoted to helping academics burned by the church to transition professionally, emotionally, and spiritually. After all, such unchristian administrative moves end up wounding more than just the fired employees. Such decisions can have devastating consequences for entire families.

Question 2: what sorts of resources might be tapped to build a ministry like this?

-anthony

The Jewish Annotated New Testament (ed. Amy-Jill Levine and Marc Zvi Brettler; Oxford University Press, 2011)

Our new Jewish-Xn dialogue consultation will be hosting a panel review of this new volume. It is no hyperbole to say that this is a landmark study. It is the first New Testament that has been annotated and edited (including short topical essays) all by Jewish scholars. It will provide a fascinating opportunity to discuss sacred texts.

S19-317--Jewish-Christian Dialogue and Sacred Texts
11/19/2012
4:00 PM to 6:30 PM
Room: W375c - McCormick Place

Theme: Panel Review: The Jewish Annotated New Testament (ed. Amy-Jill Levine and Marc Zvi Brettler; OUP 2011)
This session will review The Jewish Annotated New Testament edited by Amy-Jill Levine and Marc Zvi Brettler (Oxford University Press, 2011). In keeping with the aims of the newly formed Jewish-Christian Dialogue and Sacred Texts consultation, reviewers have been asked to focus in particular on the project’s implications for contemporary Jewish-Christian dialogue.

Anthony Le Donne, University of the Pacific, Presiding
Anthony Le Donne, University of the Pacific, Welcome (5 min)
Marc Brettler, Brandeis University, Introduction (15 min)
David Brusin, University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee, Panelist (15 min)
Larry Hurtado, University of Edinburgh, Panelist (15 min)
Cynthia Baker, Bates College, Panelist (15 min)
Matthew Levering, University of Dayton, Panelist (15 min)
Amy-Jill Levine, Vanderbilt University, Respondent (15 min)
Discussion (55 min)

-anthony

In Defense of Revisionist History (Part II)—Le Donne

Part I is here—and I found the comments for that post particularly helpful.

All history is revisionist to some extent. Sometimes we revise our histories because we stumble onto better data. Sometimes we do it because we learn to understand human behavior better. There are plenty of reasons to revise previously well-regarded histories. I’m fairly confident that this is what Matthew was doing with Mark. Matthew’s Jesus just makes more sense in conversation with first-century Judean synagogue culture (at least this is what Matthew seems to think). This is not to call Mark better or worse. Matthew’s revision of Mark just shows us how historical memory works.

I am well aware (perhaps more than most) that talking about genre issues in the Bible can make many Christians uncomfortable. But look, it is an important topic and one worth a bit of give and take. Unless we can work our way to a more sophisticated understanding of these issues, we’re doomed to repeat our heresy trials about dinosaur bones, big fish, and how many women were present at the empty tomb. Far too many of us were taught to think of the Gospels as supernaturally accurate courtroom transcripts. This notion lurks behind much of the hostile insistence that the Gospels are historical. Don’t get me wrong, the Gospels are historical; I just don’t take my cues from von Ranke (or Lonergan for that matter) when I make this claim.

I'm Really Excited About This! - Le Donne

I've invested a great deal of time seeing this new SBL session to fruition. I can honestly say that this SBL unit is unique in that it is explicitly designed to speak to matters of contemporary religious identity. This session will be a departure from the usual guise of secular "neutrality" in most Society of Biblical Literature Meetings. If you are planning to be in Chicago and have this slot free, you really won't want to miss this:

S19-125

Jewish-Christian Dialogue and Sacred Texts

11/19/2012

9:00 AM to 11:30 AM

Room: W194b - McCormick Place

Theme: Jewish-Christian Dialogue and Teaching Biblical Literature
This session will introduce and explore topics related to pedagogy and teaching biblical literature as informed by professors’ experiences in the classroom with a diversity of students and through their study of and participation in contemporary Jewish-Christian dialogue. Participants have been asked to reflect on their experiences teaching biblical literature to students who are Christian, Jewish, or otherwise, and how Jewish-Christian relations (and related concerns) have come to the fore.

Joel N. Lohr, University of the Pacific, Presiding

Mary C. Boys, Union Theological Seminary in the City of New York

Teaching and Preaching the Passion Narratives after the Shoah (20 min)

Bruce Chilton, Bard College

Analytic Comparison and the Challenge of Teaching (20 min)

Robert A. Harris, Jewish Theological Seminary of America

Improving the Quality of Our Disagreements: the Potential of ‘Scriptural Reasoning’ for Helping to Repair the World(20 min)

Rachel S. Mikva, Chicago Theological Seminary

What Progressive Protestants Can Learn from Jewish Engagement with Scripture (20 min)

R. W. L. Moberly, University of Durham

Jews, Christians, and the Social Nature of Biblical Interpretation (20 min)

Leonard J. Greenspoon, Creighton University

Synopsis and Reflections (20 min)

Discussion (30 min)

Book Drawing - Historical Jesus: What Can We Know and How Can We Know It?

This drawing has been closed... more coming soon.

Yes, pink... my name is in pink -
what of it?

IT IS NOT TOO LATE TO ENTER!

It seems we are still getting entries for our previous book giveaway. Allow me to reiterate that Will Varner was the lucky dude. The rest of you will have to settle for a re-entry to win my Historical Jesus: What Can We Know and How Can We Know It? 

We would like to thank Eerdmans for providing three copies. This means that three winners will be selected using the true random number generator at www.random.org. One of these lucky winners will also receive a gently used VHS copy of Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid. [WARNING: ONE COULD DROWN IN THE TWINKLING BLUE EYES OF PAUL NEWMAN!]

There are, once again, three opportunities to enter the contest:
1) comment here
2) sign up to follow the blog (leave a comment saying that you did) 
3) share this post on Facebook (leave a comment saying that you did)

We’ll announce a winner next week.

-anthony

Scot McKnight Clears Up the Whole Zombie Heresy Thing

I found this quite entertaining:

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/jesuscreed/2012/10/31/was-jesus-or-adam-a-zombie-jeff-cook-says/

By the way, when the Zombie Apocalypse goes down, it really boils down to good body armor and a Hattori Hanzō sword.  Don't get cute; just stick to basics.

-anthony

AAR/SBL special event:

I would like to put a very unique event on your radar. The below is from the pen of Holly Hearon:


The Rose Ensemble in Residence

The Bible in Ancient and Modern Media Section is proud to present the internationally acclaimed The Rose Ensemble as artists in residence at the 2012 SBL meeting. In the current global climate where peoples, faiths, and cultures regularly come into conflict, The Rose Ensemble offers us a unique opportunity to create common ground through the study and performance of a shared cultural phenomenon: oral tradition. Through workshops, papers, and performance, The Rose Ensemble will lead us in an exploration of the many ways faiths and cultures cross boundaries and influence one another through music, with particular given to the role of music in the preservation and transmission of religious oral traditions.

Founded in 1996, The Rose Ensemble, along with artistic director Jordan Sramek, has been the recipient of numerous awards. The Rose Ensemble is committed to reawakening the ancient with vocal music that strives to stir the emotions, challenge the mind, and lift the spirit. Their performances illuminate centuries of rarely heard repertoire, bringing to modern audiences research from the world's manuscript libraries and fresh perspectives on history, languages, politics, religion and world cultures and traditions. For more information see www.roseensemble.org.

Please join us for:

* A free concert, open to the public, focusing on musical traditions rooted in the three Abrahamic faiths. Chicago Theological Seminary, 1407 E. 60th St. Monday evening, 7:30-9:30.

* A panel, Oral Tradition and Music: Preservation, transmission, transformation and performance in Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, with papers by Elsie Stern, Holly Hearon, and Hasan El-Shamy and responses by Jordan Sramek and Dan Fitzgerald. S19-110 Sun 9-11:30


Three workshops led by Jordan Sramek and members of The Rose Ensemble:

* Research Methods and Critical Issues in the Recovery of Oral Traditions. Respondents: Dan Fitzgerald; Joanna Dewey. S18-107 Sun 9-11:30

* How Performances Shapes Tradition. Respondents: Antoinette Wire; Dan Fitzgerald. S18-303 Sun 4-6:30 * Preservation to Performance: Discovery and Re-oralization in the Modern Age. Respondents: Dan Fitzgerald; Richard Swanson. S19-206 Mon 1-3:30


The workshops and panel will all take place at McCormick Place, W183c.

This project is supported by a generous grant from the National Endowment for the Arts.

Additional sponsors include the NIDA Institute, Center of Christian-Muslim Engagement for Peace and Justice, and Christian Theological Seminary (Indianapolis).

Jesus in an Age of Neoliberalism (Part II) - Le Donne

I just finished chapter two of James G. Crossley's Jesus in an Age of Neoliberalism. I can tell already that I'm going to love about 80% of this book, perhaps more. This is my way of saying that I absolutely love this book so far. Crossley has a nails-scratching-the-chalkboard thing going for him. He tells you right up front that he's going to annoy the hell out you and he doesn't disappoint. I don't happen to mind being annoyed if I'm also entertained once every few pages. I had to force myself to put the book down to pound out a few thoughts. I honestly cannot wait to read his critique of bibliobloggers in chapter three.

A few thoughts on the first chapters:

Crossley swims gracefully from one complicated topic to another. He moves fluidly from power theory, the idea of a "liberal centre", Bart Ehrman, N.T. Wright, economics, popular media, liberation theology, etc. Normally, one might be tempted of accusing an author who attempts such a wide scope of "tinkering" rather than analyzing. The beauty of Crossley's introduction is that he is able to find common cultural threads that tie together conditions that seem disconnected otherwise. My interest is piqued from the start.

Crossley points out that authors who claim to represent a broad scholarly consensus (e.g. Bart Ehrman) tend to juxtapose and exploit fringe scholarship so to allow more mild theses to appear sane by comparison. The payoff here being the point that the "credible centre" is no less a scholarly construct than any other. It might be worth noting that Crossley points to E.P. Sanders, John P. Meier, and Dale C. Allison Jr. as the accepted "centre" construct with in historical Jesus studies.

His summary and adaptation of analytic / political philsopher Noam Chomsky is worth reproducing: "Chomsky spoke of what is perceived as the radical left in universities. He argued that it is possible to enter academia and be radical as long as the questions asked remain at least relatively incomprehensible or the dangerous questions of contemporary politics are not systematically addressed head-on and clearly. The scholar may feel like they are not selling-out by acting as, for instance, a Marxist economist, but in reality the individual has been neutralized and can keep working without being much of a danger to anyone. This seems to be a similar process to what is happening with the Jesus-the-radical in scholarship. By pushing criticism of imperialism back to the days of the Romans and Herodians, the effectiveness of criticism of the present has a tendency to be nullified..." p.15 (I'm not checking my work for typos here, so don't copy and paste this).

I do chafe a bit against his definition and use of "postmodernity" and "postmodernism" in chapter two. See my own take on this topic here.

http://www.bibleinterp.com/opeds/led368023.shtml 

If that doesn't work try this:

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:http://www.bibleinterp.com/opeds/led368023.shtml

...more on Crossley coming soon.

-anthony

Jesus among Friends and Enemies reviewed in most recent BBR—Chris Keith

The most recent edition of Bulletin for Biblical Research includes a review of my and Larry Hurtado’s Jesus among Friends and Enemies by Matthew D. Jensen on 441–2. Overall, it’s a positive and helpful review, for which I’m grateful. I want to draw attention to something he says at the end of his criticisms, though, because they’re very pertinent to some other discussions we’ve had on this blog.

Each chapter in that book breaks into an initial historical section on what we know about a character outside the Gospel texts and then a narrative section on how the Gospels present the character. In reference to this layout, Jensen says, “This very method devalues the Gospels as historical sources and gives the appearance that appealing to the NT documents is not objective. This devaluing of the historical reliability of the Gospels in turn can result in the appearance that the Gospel events did not happen but are narrated for literary purposes. To be fair, these two tensions have to be felt so that the book’s argument as a whole can work. However, I did not feel that they were clearly resolved in the conclusion.”

Of course, as editor, I respectfully disagree that the layout of the book devalues the Gospels as historical sources. The layout of the book serves a pedagogical aim that the Introduction clearly sets out. And, as the author of the final chapter, I underscore that the main thrust of that chapter is about how the Gospels have become more prominent as historical sources in historical Jesus research on methodological grounds.

My real concern, though, is the type of slippery-slope thinking at work in these criticisms, a thinking that was all too frequent among my and Anthony’s detractors at our former employer. Jensen’s criticisms focus not on what the layout sets out to accomplish (giving students an appreciation of the broader historical record and an appreciation of the intricacy of the Gospel narratives) and whether it does so, but rather “the appearance” that the method might give (from one perspective) and what this appearance “can” “in turn result in,” which happens to be another “appearance,” this time one that doubts the historical reliability of the Gospels. All of a sudden in the space of two sentences, we’ve gotten from the book’s layout to the position that, apparently, nothing in the Gospels that carries a literary purpose is historical—a position that no single contributor to the book would affirm. And we’ve gotten here not from actual arguments and statements, but rather impressions, and impressions that lead to impressions. Ultimately, he finds dissatisfaction in the book’s failure to resolve an issue that it never set out to resolve (the historical reliability of the Gospels). I suppose this is all worth mentioning because, at the end of this trek through Jensen’s impressions, we are back at the Modernist-Fundamentalist debates that divorced “history” from “literary purposes.” Reconciling those two things has been hard-fought historiographical ground, which some of us (Anthony and I included) would not want to give up.

Interview with Paula Fredriksen (Part III)

Parts I and II of my interview with Prof. Fredriksen are here and here. My thanks to Paula for her time.

ACLD: Presumably, there were multiple apocalyptic preachers, itinerant exorcists, etc. in Israel circa first century. In your estimation, what was it about Jesus’ career that was most memorable? Or, what made him different from others of similar ilk?

PF: What made Jesus different was the impact that he had on his followers — or, more cautiously, what was different was not Jesus, but Jesus' followers. They were so convinced that he was right in his apocalyptic conviction that the Kingdom of God was at hand that (some of them? many? most?) were also convinced, despite their certainty about his death, that he was raised — itself an apocalyptic 'sign' that validated their convictions. The second distinguishing feature about Jesus is that the movement that formed around his memory and mission, within very few years, penetrated diaspora synagogues, where it encountered interested pagans (= "god-fearers"). Their subsequent willingness to relinquish their own native gods and to worship only the god of Israel was itself another confirmation/validation of the movement's message, that the Kingdom of God was at hand. In short, what distinguished Jesus from other apocalyptic teachers was how long his followers were able to continue in their conviction that his prophecy was true. By the time that that prophecy is definitively disconfirmed (say, e.g., by the time of the composition of the Gospel of Luke), it is re-interpreted rather than discredited. By constant post-mortem morphing, Jesus' message had a much longer shelf-life than that of, say, Theudas or the Egyptian.

Quarterly Quote of the Month about Jesus for this Week

“I don’t really think the standard of judgment, the missing link, you spoke of that you find in my stories emerges from any religion but Christianity, because it concerns specifically Christ and the Incarnation, the fact that there has been a unique intervention in history. It’s not a matter in these stories of Do Unto Others. That can be found in any ethical cultural series. It is the fact of the Word made flesh.”

~ Flannery O'Connor

In Defense of Revisionist History - Le Donne

There are many, many of us who think that the Gospels are best understood as historical fictions. I am less comfortable with this genre designation than others because this category projects too much baggage onto ancient texts. I am more comfortable calling the Gospels “ancient biographies”. Please note that ancient biographies act a whole lot like what we would now call “historical fictions”. And if you think that your favorite Bible professor or pastor has a different view, ask him and her about the genre of John’s Gospel.

Unlike many of my colleagues, I think that every word in the Gospels reflects historical memory (except καί; all of those conjunctions were added by the Judaizers). I think that bracketing out the “fictive” portions of the Gospels is a deletion of valuable historical information. Even if we were to label the Gospels “revisionist history” from Matthew 1 to John 21, we would still have four extremely valuable narratives that guide us toward a reconstruction of the historical Jesus. Revisionist histories provide us with extremely valuable historical data. I would point you to Dale Allison’s comments on the temptation narratives in this book.

For example, let’s look at an example from contemporary American presidential politics. In 2011, Mitt Romney spoke openly about Obama’s “timetable for withdrawal” of U.S. troops from Afghanistan. Romney called this Obama’s biggest blunder in office: "In Afghanistan, the surge was right, announcing a withdrawal date was wrong. The Taliban may not have watches, but they do have calendars." No less than a year later, Romney adopted this very policy, claiming to withdraw troops in 2014.

Interview with Paula Fredriksen (Part II)

Part I of my interview is here. I started by asking Prof. Fredriksen about her book Augustine and the Jews.

ACLD: Augustine (like many others) seems to have continued the line of Christian supersessionism that he inherited. Do you think that this line was a misappropriation of Jesus’ apocalyptic urgency? I.e. was Jesus’ message of good news for insiders/bad news for outsiders the root of the problem?

PF: Gentile Christian supersessionism is a product of internal Christian arguments in the late first/early second century. Paul was not a Christian. He was an apocalyptic Jewish visionary who was convinced that he was right about who the messiah was, and about what time it was on God's clock: mostly he argues with or against other Christ-following Jews. Once the ethnic context of the readership of hellenistic Jewish texts (LXX, and the texts that will later make up the NT) shifts, their intra-Jewish arguments become anti-Jewish arguments. Jesus' apocalyptic urgency — again, about what time it was on God's clock — is not a first-order cause of any of this.