Winner of Jesus and Brian Giveaway

The true random number generator has spoken, and the winner of the Jesus and Brian giveaway is the owner of comment 25:

True Random Number Generator Min: Max: Result: 25 

That comment is from "slebyh": 

slebyhSeptember 21, 2015 at 4:46 PM

shared on fb!

ReplyDelete

"slebyh," if you'll write to me at chris.keith@stmarys.ac.uk, I'll arrange for you to receive your book!  Congrats!

Hidden from the world in German higher education

New Testament scholarship within the German system of higher learning works like this: You have to slog your way through the whole modern intellectual history of a topic and write at least two monographs with approximately 5000 footnotes. The second book is your postdoctoral thesis. At the end of this phase of research you will be rewarded with an academic title called “PD” (“Privatdozent”). With this title you still have one letter less than a PhD-holder in Anglophone countries—not to mention, that this person is very likely to be 15 years younger than you at this point. Perhaps the reason for this stony path is that, in the collective memory of Germans, the image of a widely educated scholar looks like this:

The generation of the so called “große Gelehrte” to whom Bultmann belongs is to this day very influential. Especially in the case of Rudolf Bultmann young, ambitious New Testament scholars have to deal with the fact that this professor from Marburg set the agenda in New Testament research for several decades until now. In modification of a famous quote one could say: New Testament scholarship consists of a series of footnotes to Bultmann. The topic of my doctoral thesis is no exception. I, like many others, am still wrestling with the consequences of his insights. Taking serious the end of the “Leben-Jesu-Forschung”, Bultmann focused resolutely on the synoptic tradition, its origin, and its pre-literate forms. Some of his students, above all Helmut Koester, followed up on the trace of the synoptic tradition in various early Christian writings, including the Gospel of Thomas and the letters of Paul. The research interest was in pre-literate, catechetic collections of early Christian tradition and in the question whether Paul and other early Christian authors included such collections in their writings. If so, the early dates and perhaps even the historical reliability of the primitive Gospel tradition could be proven. As a consequence the analysis of parallel tradition aroused new interest in the historical Jesus. And New Testament research turned to the letters of Paul hoping to find sayings of Jesus who match the criterion of multiple attestations. Programmatic in this field was Dale C. Allison’s influential article on “The Pauline Epistles and the Synoptic Gospels: The Pattern of Parallels” (NTS 28), published in 1982.

Often discussed analogies to synoptic tradition can be found, inter alia, in Romans 12:14-21 and 14:14, 20. The passage in Romans 12 seems to allude to a part of the Sermon on the Mount where Jesus commands non-retaliation and to love one’s enemies. Romans 14 on the other hand deals with purity. Paul here declares, that there is no impurity in “Kyrios Jesus” and hereby supposedly evokes the disputation passage in Mark 7:1-23. Traces of an “original Jesus tradition” have been claimed for this Pauline passage as it seemed necessary that Paul would use the authority of Jesus in a question as important as the suspension of the food laws. Following this thesis however, the lack of an original saying of Jesus seems all the more conspicuous. The missing command to love one´s enemy in Rom 12 is significant. Instead Paul cites Prov 25:21-22 as an example of how the congregation should deal with enemies! Wouldn´t it at this point have been much easier for the apostle to just cite Jesus and use his authority, had he possessed a such command from his master? And exactly how much is the criteria “multiple attestation” worth, when Paul in these cases doesn’t even mention Jesus? Even the only two unmistakable references to words of Jesus in 1 Cor 7:10-11 and 9:14 are actually just paraphrases. Paul creates his own context to use these words in and even changes the content of what the Lord had commanded. Paradoxically he sees himself authorized to do so by the lord Jesus Christ himself, since he himself in Jesus spirit can command independently (cf. 1 Cor 7:25,40; 14:37; Phlm 8-9). One could even go as far as to say, that Paul uses the authority of the lord against the Jesus tradition. 

And so the question remains, how much knowledge did Paul really have about the Jesus tradition? Furthermore, was at all important to him? He was surely not interested in Jesus of Nazareth in any modern historical sense and he seems to care very little for Jesus’ authoritative teachings.

Following Bultmann on this matter, Paul was much more convinced about the significance of the risen Christ, the healing implications of this event for the whole of humanity, and its overall influence on Christian living. It is precisely through this lens that Paul views the Jesus tradition. This circumstance raises the hermeneutic question as to whether it is even possible to examine the Pauline letters with an interest in the historical Jesus. As Paul’s letters follow a completely different agenda, on our search for traces of the historical Jesus do we not much more risk dragging our own interests into those texts?

Being a newcomer and researching, hidden from the world, in German higher education, I was able to meditate on and investigate these and other exegetical, theological and philosophical questions and surprisingly, many of my insights turned out to be very close to the theses of this famous man shown above. So I find myself asking: Are we living in a Bultmann-revival-era?

Christine Jacobi Joins the Jesus Blog!

Today we welcome the first of our new bloggers to the Jesus Blog—Dr. Christine Jacobi.  Christine is wissenschaftliche Mitarbeiterin at Humboldt Universität zu Berlin and is a perfect addition to the Jesus Blog because she is an innovative scholar working in the area of Jesus tradition in the writings of Paul.  As is standard in the German system, she is currently writing her second doctorate (Habilitation) under Prof Dr Jens Schröter, whom readers of the Jesus Blog will recognize as one of the leaders in recent historiographical shifts in Jesus studies.  Christine also wrote her PhD in Berlin under Schröter, which was published as Jesusüberlieferung bei Paulus? Analogien zwischen den echten Paulus-Briefen und die synoptischen Evangelien (de Gruyter, 2015).  In this study, Jacobi argues that restricting consideration of Paul’s knowledge of the Jesus tradition to mining his epistles for words and sayings of Jesus from the Synoptics is ill-conceived.  One must, according to Jacobi, be more attuned to Paul’s own conceptualization of Jesus and the Jesus tradition.  Focusing particularly on his usage of “in the Lord,” she demonstrates that Paul “receives” “Jesus” as more of a hermeneutical sphere or orientation toward the past than anything else, and thus his reception of Jesus and Jesus tradition amounts to much more than simply repeating some words that Jesus may have said.  This study is one of the first applications of the emerging “memory approach” to the Pauline epistles, and is thus groundbreaking in that and many other ways.  We could not be more pleased to have Christine join us and we look forward to her contributions.  I (Chris) should also mention that I’m particularly pleased to be working with Christine as a co-editor (along with Helen Bond and Jens Schröter) of the forthcoming 750,000-word Reception of Jesus in the First Three Centuries (Bloomsbury T&T Clark).  She is also the co-editor (with Jens Schröter) of the forthcoming Jesus Handbuch (Mohr Siebeck, 2016).

We will soon get her picture and books on the sidebar, but for now, welcome Christine!  We look forward to your first post!

The Christs of Faiths vs. the Jesuses of Histories

Yesterday's post included a rehearsal of that old chestnut: "the Christ of faith" vs. "the so-called historical Jesus." Part of the post(or hyper-)modern intellectual reassessment of previous theories is the problematization of simple dichotomies. Dale Allison plays a bit with the dichotomy in question with the title of his book The Historical Christ and the Theological Jesus. I'll admit that I disliked this title the first time I saw it. After all, don't we need to keep history distinct from theological concerns? But it is now clear to me - at a different stage in my life - that this is impossible. As Joseph puts succinctly:

The historical Jesus was a theologically-interested and invested human being. The Jesus tradition was created by theologically-interested and invested authors. Consequently, using theological language and vocabulary in order to understand the origin and development of this historical figure and tradition is virtually unavoidable. It is the interplay of social, economic, political, and theological forces that converge to create and sustain religious movements. The sociological structures of the Jesus movement, the economic pressures on rural Galilee, the political landscape(s) of the Herodian era, and the ideological and theological streams of thought and practice all shaped the lives of first-century Jews. History, in other words, is not simply a record or description of past events, but analytical explanations of the causal forces that generate events. So if our texts represent more than just the ideological thought-world(s) of the texts themselves, and we really want to understand them, then we need to understand and explain the historically enacted theologies of these particular ancient people.

He continues, "The Jesus tradition contains multiple historical theologies about Jesus." Let's reiterate that all historical reconstructions are plural. There is no such thing as the "historian's Jesus"; there are Jesuses of many and varied historical reconstructions. Of course, we try (or ought to) make sense among ourselves and thus attempt to create a coherent collection of narratives. Moreover, some of these narratives will prove better than others and eclipse others in our collective dialectics. Is this all that different than the theological process of creating doctrinal insiders and heterodox/heretical outsiders? Isn't a similar power dynamic at work in both dialectics?

The assumption that there is only one Jesus of history and only one Christ of Faith is ripe for reconsideration. Finally, if we decide that the numerous biblical portraits of Jesus and the numerous creedal portraits, alongside the numerous historical reconstructions form an ongoing conversation, shouldn't we also acknowledge that many of these Jesuses and Christs overlap on any number of levels?

-anthony

Is Historical Jesus Research Heresy?

Today Mike Bird plays the role of provocateur with this post:

I’ve been reading through Luke Timothy Johnson’s The Creed and found this provocative statement: 

"[T]he most remarkable evidence for Christianity’s confusion – at both extremes [progressive and conservative] – is the fact that since the time of the Enlightenment, the longest-running of all Christologies heresies has deeply infiltrated the church with scarcely any protest or controversy, much less the calling of a council of bishops to clarify and defend the faith of the church. I mean the replacement of the Christ of faith with the so-called historical Jesus." 

I wonder what the guys at The Jesus Blog would say to that?

I have a few thoughts on this. For a start, I might take issue with the claim that the discipline has infiltrated the Church "with scarcely any protest or controversy." Those of us fired and/or silenced because of our work on this topic have a different perspective.

But I'll put it to our readers to answer the more important question: is historical Jesus research heresy?

-anthony

My Interview on 'A Show of Faith'

I'll be talking a bit about my book, The Wife of Jesus: Ancient Texts and Modern Scandals (now in paperback) tonight on "A Show of Faith" hosted by Rabbi Stuart Federow, Fr. Mario Arroyo, and Rev. Dr. David Capes. 

If you live in the Houston area listen in on AM 1070. If you live elsewhere livestream it via the radio webpage: http://ashowoffaith.com/

My interview begins around 8pm central time (9pm eastern).

-anthony

Quarterly Quote of the Month about Jesus for this Week

“Jesus also, for a certain time, was very popular, and look at how that turned out.”


                       ~Pope Francis

Can We Separate Theology from History in Jesus Studies?

Can we separate theology from history in Jesus Studies? In a succinct and compelling post, Simon Joseph answers no.

The Historically Theological Jesus

Worth a look.

-anthony

New Contributors to the Jesus Blog!

And then there were six. Jesus scholars, it seems, are multiplying like rabbits these days. If we're not careful we will be dealing with a veritable plague of new voices in Jesus research. So to keep up with the times, the Jesus Blog will be expanding our roster of contributors from three to six.

Yes, yes. I'm aware that this Breakfast Club photo only pictures five characters. You can think of me as Principal Vernon if you need the 1985 typology to fit. So how am I doing with the "keeping up with the times" thing?

Next week we'll announce the first of our new cast of characters. I think you'll find her voice and perspective to be fresh, provocative, and interesting. Stay tuned.

-anthony

Book Notice: Christ Among the Messiahs

Matthew V. Novenson's new book, Christ Among the Messiahs is ascending my list of books to read this year.

-anthony

Who Were the Pharisees?

Joshua Garroway writes a must-read article for all Christian teachers, preachers, seminarians, social activists, auto-mechanics, astrophysicists, plumbers, theologians, sextons, and bros.

I will require all my Introduction to New Testament students to read this short but important article. And it's not just because I'm an avid Sound of Music fan.

-anthony

Reflections on Jesus and Brian—Chris Keith

Just this week I finished reading Jesus and Brian: Exploring the Historical Jesus and His Times via Monty Python's Life of Brian.  As mentioned before, I was at the conference, so I was interested to see if it captured the serious-but-lighthearted feel of the live presentations.  It did.  I enjoyed this book about as much as any I have read recently.  At times it's hilarious and at times it's penetrating.  Here are some random thoughts I had after finishing it.  (I'm not at all trying to write a formal review.)

First, I'm not sure that it was designed to be this way, but this book would make for an excellent textbook in a Jesus and Gospels class.  The chapters are short and thus able to be read quickly.  It's a Who's Who of Jesus studies, so you often  get big-name scholars addressing their pet topics in a very accessible, and often funny, way.  I laughed out loud reading Crossley's chapter, Levine's chapter, and several others.  From the perspective of classroom use of the book, I was particularly impressed with Steve Mason's chapter, which gives something of a short overview of his theory on the Jewish war with Rome.  He argues that it wasn't really about Jewish hostility toward Rome (that is, Second Temple Jews weren't, in general, all that anti-Roman) but Rome's ineptness in dealing with  inter-ethnic hostilities in the Palestinian regions (specifically Jewish and Samaritan hostilities).  This is a snapshot of his new monograph, but it essentially rehearses almost every major socio-political event in the Second Temple Period leading up to the war and provides a unified narrative for it all, a narrative that, to some extent, makes every effort to show all the exceptions that unified narratives usually cannot show. 

Second, it was interesting to see how many of the scholars brought up the Palin/Cleese "debate" with the Bishop of Southwark and Malcolm Muggeridge as well as the Not the Nine O'Clock News parody of the debate.  Burridge's chapter addresses it in depth, but many of the other authors also felt the need to defend Palin and Cleese and point out the ridiculous nature of their interlocutors' comments.  Of course, this is right.  Their interlocutors' comments were ridiculous.  But I couldn't help but wonder if some historical Jesus scholars feel a particular kinship with Palin and Cleese for having also suffered attacks and misunderstandings by ecclesiastical figures.

Third, the book has a tremendous amount of diversity in terms of topics and methods.  Ehrman takes steps into memory theory.  Levine addresses sexuality and gender.  Burridge addresses ecclesial issues.  Telford addresses Jesus films.  Brooke address the Teacher of Righteousness.  Stiebel addresses archaeology.  Mason, as mentioned, addresses socio-political upheaval.  Taylor addresses reception exegesis.  Bond addresses crucifixion.  Reinhartz addresses Jewish identity.  In one of the most interesting chapters, Katie Turner addresses how some Second Temple Jews dressed.  All of this happens with tie-ins to Life of Brian, multiple quotations of the movie, and not a few F bombs.  Indeed, I think this book probably wins the award for most F bombs I've read in an academic book, all well-placed.

In short, not only is this book extremely insightful and easy to read, it's actually fun to read.  Given how boring some books about Jesus can be, that's an accomplishment that editor Joan Taylor can hang her hat on!  Don't forget to sign up to win a copy here.