“Noah” is Nowhere Near the Best Theological Acting Russell Crowe Has Ever Done—Chris Keith

I haven't seen "Noah" yet.  I already know one thing about it, however.  It's absolutely nowhere near the best acting Russell Crowed has ever offered the world of Theology.  Thanks to James Smith, I learned of this fantasic film.  I'm happy to see that Anthony Le Donne allowed Russell's friend in this video to borrow his jean shorts.

Christopher Rollston’s Syllabi at Academia.edu—Chris Keith

Over the weekend, Christopher Rollston, currently a Visiting Professor at Tel Aviv University and next year taking up a post at George Washington University, posted a treasure trove to his Academia.edu site.  By trade, Christopher is an epigrapher and archaeologist, as well as a Hebrew Bible/ANE specialist.  He is one of the true gems in biblical scholarship and cognate disciplines, as he is an even better human being and friend than he is a scholar, and that's saying something since he is a recipient of the Frank Moore Cross Award for this book, one of the new BASOR editors (with Eric Cline), and author of some of the most erudite scholarship you'll come across.  Christopher and I have some shared roots, but I first came across his scholarship in my study of ancient Israelite and Jewish literacy.  His interests and areas of expertise spread far and wide, though, and I'm excited to say that he'll be presenting a paper on "The Rise of the Satan in Early Second Temple Judaism" at our upcoming conference at the Centre for the Social-Scientific Study of the Bible on "Evil in Second Temple Judaism and Early Christianity."  That treasure trove I mentioned?  It's his syllabi.  There's everything there from an introductory course on the Septuagint to a course on Second Temple literature to introductory courses in Sahidic Coptic, Aramaic, and Akkadian!  The internet is incredible.  After this semester, you'll have to pay fees at George Washington University if you want to study with the Real McCoy, but you can have a version of the student experience for free thanks to Christopher's posting of these documents to Academia.edu.

Thate on the Criteria of Authenticity Doubters—Chris Keith

In a post yesterday, Michael Halcomb drew attention to Michael Thate's argument that the contributors to Jesus, Criteria, and the Demise of Authenticity are really just forwarding a program that is the criteria of authenticity in drag.  I first saw Thate's study at SBL this past year and was excited to start reading it.  Unfortunately, I was quickly disappointed in his assessment of Demise, and me in particular, because I didn't, and don't, feel that we were accurately represented.  I'm still going to finish Thate's book, which is a social history approach to "memory" in Jesus work.  I'm sure it's important and it seems promising.  He's a very interesting writer, but I'll mention just a few things that led to my disappointment.

Thate employs the Derridean term of "outbidding" to contextualize our opposition to previous historical Jesus methods (13).  I suppose this is true, but I'm not entirely sure what form of critical scholarship that entails disagreement with what-has-gone-before wouldn't qualify as "outbidding."

In a footnote on the same page (13n.86), Thate says regarding "post-criteria historical Jesus research":  "Later Keith attempts to mitigate the mounting suspicion one has while reading his chapter by stating that a 'post-criteria quest for the historical Jesus is not a post-critical quest' (p.205). It is not clear to me how this can possibly be the case given his lack of explication of what this might mean and how 'post-criteria' yet still critical engagements functionally differ from the post-critical convictions of say, Kaehler and McKnight."  He then proceeds to cite two publications of mine, a ZNW article and my monograph, Jesus' Literacy, but no pages for either. 

I have no idea what Thate's "mounting suspicions" might be, but it sure seems that he's insinuating that I'm not being honest when I say that a post-criteria quest is not a post-critical quest.  If this is the case, I can only say two things.  First, I think it's more professional to stick to someone's argument instead of what one suspects his or her motives to be.  Second, I really meant it when I said that a post-criteria quest is still critical, as I have argued both for and against the historicity of aspects of the gospels based on a post-criteria approach, which brings me to my next point. 

I'm particularly confused by his statement that I haven't given an explication of what post-criteria Jesus research might look like in light of the fact that he then cites two of my publications wherein I do precisely that.  One can argue about whether I am convincing, but I don't think it's up for debate whether I at least have made the effort.  Other scholars, at least, have not missed this.  For example, I quote Christopher Skinner's review of Jesus' Literacy:  "In my estimation, the WHAT of this book is not as important as the HOW. Here’s what I mean: Keith’s research topic (viz., did Jesus hold status as a scribal literate teacher?) is likely not as earth-shattering as some other questions we could ask about the historical Jesus (though I do believe he has demonstrated its importance relative to other questions). Rather, the strength of what Keith has done in this book is that he has provided us with a very good model of how to do responsible Jesus research on a specific issue using a social memory approach. Aside from his conclusions (which I think are plausible), I believe that the employment of his method is the greater contribution of the book."  I'll add that Dale Allison's foreword to Jesus' Literacy notes similarly that the book as a whole is an effort to make judgements about the historical Jesus sans criteria of authenticity.  Again, I could be completely wrong in my arguments, but I have at least made an effort to show examples of what post-criteria Jesus research could look like.

I suppose the oddest statement for me is on p.17:  "Though certainly promising on many counts, the purported 'post-criteria' approach adopted here cannot escape the erotics of 'authenticity' or the gaze of the originary.  This is a Quest for the pure genre; the authentic genre; the real genre.  As such, this amounts to little more than the criterion of authenticity in drag."  Hmmm.  Alrighty then.  As to the "erotics" and "drag" comments, I think this is a very strange way to sexualize one's interlocutors and I don't really think I have much more to say about that.  I am confused further, though, that Thate seems to think we have simply redressed the criteria of authenticity.  Speaking for myself, I think that he is discussing a different "authenticity" than I am.  I mean it specifically as the New Questers defined it--bits of the past detached from interpretive frameworks.  I don't think such a thing ever existed; so I certainly have not tried to redress it or apply it at a generic level, and I note that Thate provides no example where I have called upon a criterion of authenticity and cites no example to demonstrate that any of the contributors "cannot escape the erotics of 'authenticity.'"  I guess he means that we're still interested in "authenticity" in some way, but again, for me, I'm dealing with a very specific type of "authenticity" and one that's not possible in my opinion.  And to my knowledge, not a single contributor to Demise ever makes any reference at all to an "authentic genre." 

I'm sure I'm misunderstanding something here and I'm open to correction.  But I can't help the sense that I've been misrepresented, and at least join company with Dale Allison who, as Thate notes on 217n.235, also believes Thate had not understood him.

I should emphasize that I raise these issues mainly out of disappointment in light of the fact that the book shows great promise.  I think Thate's book could be very important, and I use the subjunctive there only because I haven't read it all yet.  Maybe I've misunderstood his misunderstanding, however, and I'd welcome clarification.

Being Fair to Reza Aslan - Le Donne

What do Bart Ehrman and Craig Evans have in common? Well, other than the fact that they both have never been in my kitchen, they both have a very low opinion of Reza Aslan's book about Jesus: Zealot. According to Ehrman, it is clear that Aslan does not possess the requisite expertise to write such a book. This fact

is both obvious and unfortunate. There are mistakes scattered throughout the book. I’d say 1/3 to 1/2 of the pages in my copy have bright yellow large question marks on them, where (when highlighting) I found factual errors, misstatements, dubious claims, inconsistencies of logic, and so on.

Evans writes that "Zealot is riddled with errors, probable errors, and exaggerations." Ehrman and Evans might seem like Montague and Capulet when juxtaposed in debate, but what insiders know is that they have much more in common than not. Both know the field, have mastered the material, and acknowledge the limits of historical reconstruction. What neither Ehrman nor Evans has done—because they do not have to and because it would be inappropriate to do so—is attempt to discredit Aslan based on his religious investments.

Quarterly Quote of the Month about Jesus for this Week

And Gran’ keep prayin’ and keep believin’

And Jesus, one day that ya see him

Till they walk in his footsteps and try to be him

The devil is alive I feel him breathin’

Claiming money is the key so keep on dreamin’

                 ~Kanye West (Heard ‘Em Say)

Jesus against the Scribal Elite has arrived—Chris Keith

Yesterday in the mail I received the first of my author's copies of Jesus against the Scribal Elite: The Origins of the Conflict, which Baker Academic will officially release next month.  There is a central question that this book answers:  "How did Jesus come to be on the radars of the scribal authorities in the first place?"  In other words, how did Jesus go from being one of thousands of Second Temple Jews to being someone who demanded their attention?  Scholars have typically given this topic very little attention, as most studies of Jesus treat the relationship between the-controversy-already-in-full-bloom and the end of Jesus' life instead.  This is natural and there's nothing wrong with it, but the focus of Jesus against the Scribal Elite is instead on the very early stages of Jesus' career.  When scholars have given this topic attention, they usually point to Jesus' reputation as a miracle-worker and exorcist or his particular views on the law.  These are all good possibilities, but it's also worth noting that Jesus wasn't the only miracle-worker or exorcist in his time, and he certainly wasn't the only person with a non-Pharisaic or non-Sadducean view of the law.  In the book, I complement these other views by proposing that a neglected factor in the inital emergence of the conflict was Jesus' debated authority as a teacher.  In other words, part of the problem wasn't what he taught or how he taught, but the fact that he was teaching at all, and having some success doing it.

I'm sure we'll have a giveaway here soon if Baker Academic will let us.  I've enjoyed working with this press, starting with James Ernest.  If you're interested in the book, you can click on the banner of the blog.

Cool Virtual Tour of the Second Temple

I'm probably late to the party here as it was posted in 2010. Even so, this virtual tour of the Second Temple is really fun. The background music might be a bit too french-horny, but the architects of this tour do a great job of illustrating the magnificence of the Jerusalem Temple.

-anthony

How to Teach a 20K Person Class: My Interview with Laura Nasrallah

A few weeks ago, the Huffington Post reported that the MOOC (Massive Open Online Course) for The Letters of Paul offered by Prof. Laura Nasrallah of Harvard would be "largest and most concentrated scholarly discussion of Biblical studies in history." The course is taught by Prof. Nasrallah and four PhD candidates has attracted over 20,000 registrants. I really cannot stop being baffled by this. In my experience most university professors pitch a fit over class sizes over 40! 

I recently had the pleasure of interviewing Laura about her experience so far. Keep in mind, she agreed to this interview in the middle of teaching this course. So she has basically ruined the "I'm a bit too busy right now" excuse for the rest of us. Seriously, the fact that she took the time to give this interview is remarkable given how many other emails she's been answering of late.

I hope you find this new pedagogical model as fascinating as I do. I am grateful to Laura for her pioneering efforts and willingness to reflect on her experience for our benefit.

ALD: It is my understanding that you've had over 20K students enrolled in your online Paul class. Is this true and are you crazy?

LN: I’ve heard different numbers with regard to my HarvardX Early Christianity: The Letters of Paul course module: that 22K, 25K, or 28K registered. Of course, all 22-28,000 students didn’t end up taking the course module or participating! And many of those who did chose to do so on their own timing or to pick and to choose the materials they wanted to explore—that independence and ability to choose is the beauty of an online learning forum!

And the Winner of Our Most Popular Giveaway Ever is...

According to the True Random generator (which never lies), the magic number is 82!

This means that "Mike S." wins three lovely books from T & T Clark.

Mike S., will you comment below with your email address (this will not be published).

Enjoy!

-anthony

Two Differing Points of Departure for Jesus and Memory - Le Donne

Yesterday I posted this reflection on the so-called (and perhaps misnamed) "Blow Up in Baltimore." My post basically questioned Paul Foster's conversational focus. I did also refer to Zeba Crook's paper indirectly. Zeb helpfully commented on this post regarding his thesis that memory studies leads to a new "No Quest" of Jesus research. I am quite happy that he chimed in because I think his comments reveal a great deal about our two different defaults.

Put simply: Zeb ends with the realization memory is problematic (at best) and "false" (at worst), and that people sometimes cannot tell the difference; whereas this realization is where I begin. He writes:

Nine Unpublished Fragments from the Dead Sea Scrolls

The Times of Israel is reporting that nine Dead Sea Scroll fragments have been brought to light. These are phylactery parchments.

Here is an excerpt:

Professor Lawrence Schiffman, a vice provost at Yeshiva University and expert on Second Temple Judaism, explained that some of the tefillin texts from Qumran were identical to those used today, but others have the same text with additional passages, extended to include the Ten Commandments. He also pointed out that it would be interesting to see the order in which the scrolls were placed inside the tefillin compartments — a practice debated by rabbis for centuries. 

“From my point of view, the most significant thing about all of this is that they actually have tefillin from 2,100 and plus years ago,” Schiffman said of the Dead Sea Scrolls generally. The continuity of phylactery traditions — over the centuries and across the various sects that comprised Second Temple Jewry — was something he found remarkable.

One expects that traditional Hebrew verses such as Deuteronomy 6:4f will be the extent of the contents. Even so, I will be interested to learn what the results reveal.

-anthony

The "Blow Up in Baltimore": Why It Was Disappointing - Le Donne

A couple months ago I posted a recording of a much-discussed recording of the papers and conversations of Paul Foster, Chris Keith, Zeba Crook, and Rafael Rodríguez. You can access the audio (albeit it faint - headphones will help) here. I was very grateful to have most of this Historical Jesus session recorded (thanks to James Crossley) because I was unable to attend.

After all of the discussion of this session, I was eager to hear what I missed. But I must say that I found it ultimately disappointing. The discussion was lively, but it could have been better informed. I'm thinking specifically of the paper by Paul Foster. I don't begrudge Paul for taking a skeptical position as to the value of "memory research" for the study of ancient history. Skepticism has always been a part of the game in Jesus studies. Par for the course, really. Most disappointing is that Paul had published his paper previously and was criticized for his deficiencies. Yet many of these deficiencies remained unaddressed in his presentation.

Well Done Ron Herms!

I received wonderful news today. Talented scholar, good friend, and all around mensch, Ron Herms has been named Dean of the School of Humanities, Religion and Social Sciences at Fresno Pacific University.

What has been Northwest University's loss is most definitely the gain of Fresno Pacific.

Very well deserved my friend!

-anthony