The morning started with Brian Dennert, a first year PhD student at Loyola University Chicago, who argued that the Son of David in Matthew was a leader of national spiritual restoration rather than a political deliverer. He drew from Psalms of Solomon 17 and was quite persuasive, though I wonder what Warren Carter would have said?
Robert Kinney, a PhD researcher at the University of Bristol, UK, argued for a Hellenistic context for understanding Jesus and his approach to teaching in Matthew. Since I think that Jewish teaching and learning discourse is the proper background for understanding Jesus' approach to formation, I was highly interested in his argument. Kinney ultimately argued that characteristics of the philosophical schools is the proper framework for understanding Jesus' educational approach (e.g. the way Euthydemus became a disciple of Socrates). He rightly noted the lack of discipleship language in the Hebrew tradition, however, since the family was the primary focus of education, domestic/kinship language would provide a way forward in this regard.
Russell Sisson of Union College presented a paper that looked at possible sayings of Jesus in James. I found it interesting that the first clear allusion to James is in Origen. He noted that scholars see as little as 8 or up to 65 allusions to Jesus' teaching in James. The crux of the issue is the lack of exact wording. To solve this problem, Sisson relies on the concept of oral performance in which exact wording is not required, the text is ancillary. He suggests that the allusions are located in the so-called Q source (insert a question from Mark Goodacre here, if he were present). In addressing the question as to why James was not referenced clearly until Origen? Sisson concludes that if the early Church Fathers were looking for Jesus material they would not have looked to James, but they continue to be aware of the document.
Jeffrey Gibson from Harry S Truman College argued, quite persuasively, that the Sitz im Leben of Hebrews was the Jewish War. The writer of the letter was addressing issues of non-violence in the context of the threat of the Romans and Jewish desire for violent revolt by the zealots. I really enjoyed his discussion of Heb. 13.13 and the departure from the camp. I think Jeffrey is on to something here and hope others will consider this interpretive framework, originally put forward by Alexander Nairne.
This was a great morning of stimulating papers and good discussions with old and new friends. Afternoon sessions to follow soon but I should probably read over my paper, on identity formation and Paul, imagine that!
Saturday, February 13, 2010
Friday, February 12, 2010
SBL Midwest Night One - Texts and Jewish Identity
I Attended the Plenary Session tonight on Social Identity based on Texts and Archaeology: The Jews. Gary Knoppers, from Penn State University, presented a paper entitled 'Social Identity Based on Texts and Archaeology: The Jews of the Neo-Babylonian and Persian Periods'. Since I am writing a commentary on Ezra, I was most interested in this paper. He looked at recent archaeological evidence dealing with the 'town of Judah' and discussed the implications of vertical alliances and Artaxerxes' juridical charge to Ezra (Ez. 7.25-26). The Priestly linage of Ezra was discussed, his argument here is based an essay in his book, Community Identity in Judean Historiography (Eisenbrauns, 2009). He concluded with the role of the Temple in Jerusalem in the development of Judean identity (Ez. 7. 13-24). Overall it was a good paper, though, I am hesitant to use archaeology to determine specific nodes of social identity. However, he is right to note that there is a discernible diasporic Jewish identity during this period.
David Rudolph's paper was entitled 'Jesus-Believing Jews and Kol Yisrael: Rethinking Long-Held Assumptions'. David's paper felt like a summary of recent post-supersession reading of the NT. Furthermore, it was a nice summary of key arguments from his dissertation, which will be out next year, its entitled A Jew to the Jews: Jewish Contours of Pauline Flexibility in 1 Corinthians 9:19-23 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck). David is interested in understanding how Jewish Christ-followers understood themselves in relation to others. He focused on the parting of the ways, which he explains should be dated to the 4th century CE. Next he looked at how Jesus-believing Jews understood themselves, he built on Paul Foster's work on Matthew. Finally, he discussed halakhic interpretations within the early Christ-movement. David concludes that Paul understood the Christ-movement as two segments (Jews and gentiles) united by faith in Christ.
Carol Bakhos of UCLA presented a paper entitled 'The World of the Rabbis: Fact and/or Fiction'. She started out by saying that she would not be discussing Jewish social identity during the Rabbinic period because she is not convinced that we can discern this from the extant texts. Her approach reminded of Judith Lieu's but she is right in noting that there is a need for an awareness of narrative discourse, attention to the way others discuss the same communities, and that there needs to be a rubric of categories in which these texts can be organized into meaning artifacts for the analysis of identity (a taxonomy of identity? someone should write one, maybe I will?). She looked at how Arabs are depicted in the Talmud as a case study for her approach. She also mentioned that the Iranian context of the Talmud is an area of emerging research. I found her presentation quite interesting and thought provoking.
Monday, January 4, 2010
Mashup and Identity Studies
I’ve decided my approach to Paul and Christ-movement social identity may be described as mashup. I take data from two (or more) different sources and combine them into something new. Here is what is sounds like when Party Ben combines The Police and Snow Patrol.
So, I am wondering if mashup is the future of biblical studies? I’ve been amazed how much has been written in Pauline studies in the last few years and the field might benefit from a few DJs mixing things up resulting in densely complex and aesthetically pleasing scholarship. So, rather than using Tajfel and Turner’s social identity theory/self-categorization theory by itself, what if we combined it with Stryker and Burke’s identity theory. Or better yet, add some poststructuralist identities consideration into the mix. When we combine these resources with Paul’s fragmentary discourse what would result: fresh insights or scholarship that misses the mark? Maybe this would be like combining Beyonce with Andy Griffith but hey aren’t there single ladies in Mayberry?
If so, maybe using the image of music mashup is 'Just What I Needed' to trigger creative scholarly insights. What do you think?
Saturday, December 5, 2009
Rodney Dangerfield and Writing a Review Article
I am getting ready to write a review article for a journal and I am wondering, 'What makes for a good review article'? I've published these in the past and I thought I'd ask, 'What do you hope to find when you start to read a review article'? One article I read called review articles the 'Rodney Dangerfield of [academic] writing'. Why is it that these essays get so little respect, when they often have quite useful information?
Dobri Atanassov Batovski notes that 'a review article is expected to provide a summary and/or a synthesis of the findings of selected research contributions being published by other authors. The main purpose of a review article is to examine the current state of the relevant publications on a given topic and to initiate a discussion about the research methodologies and the findings related to the said topic'. Is this a valid and achievable goal?
I realize that there are at least two types of review articles: (1) an essay that reviews multiple books in an extended manner and provides pan-book remarks. (2) an extended argument dealing with one book, e.g. an review that addresses individual essays in a compilation (a review article on a monograph would be included here). The one I am currently writing is on one book that is a compilation of essays by various NT scholars.
Those interested, can see a recent review article that I wrote that looked at three books on identity formation in the New Testament. It is entitled, 'Christian Identity - Created or Construed' Journal of Beliefs and Values (2009) 30.1: 71-77. So, what makes for a good review article?
Wednesday, November 25, 2009
Magnus Zetterholm and Approaches to Paul Initial Thoughts
Magnus Zetterholm, Associate Professor of New Testament Studies at Lund University provides an excellent overview to current Pauline studies in his new book, Approaches to Paul: a student’s guide to recent scholarship. This work offers a history of scholarship dealing with the Apostle Paul that focuses on many of the key issues within the field. For example, after a chapter that covers Sanders, Dunn, and Wright, he notes that ‘an increasing number of scholars are now addressing issues pertaining to Paul’s relation to Judaism from the basic assumption that Paul was as Torah-observant as any other Jew during the first century' (2009: 10). Zetterholm’s work summarizes key Pauline positions while allowing his view to slowly come into view in the final chapter. He fits into the category of scholars loosely referred to as ‘Beyond the New Perspective on Paul’. This group includes: William S. Campbell, Kathy Ehrensperger, Mark Nanos, Terence Donaldson, Lloyd Gaston, Peter Tomson, Stanley Stowers, Pamela Eisenbaum, and Caroline Johnson Hodge. This group does not argue for a binary relationship between Judaism and the early Christ-movement and argues that Paul continued to be within Judaism. Furthermore, Paul is understood to only be writing to gentiles and thus his rhetorical constructs are addressing gentile concerns and are not to be understood as offering instruction to Jews. Also, this group focuses on the Roman empire as Paul’s concern rather than seeing a preoccupation with Judaism (2009: 230). This group also calls into question Lutheran readings of Paul. Zetterholm ultimately suggests that ‘the truth about Paul…lurks somewhere within the radical new perspective’ (2009: 239); this last phrase is his description of the above mentioned scholars. Zetterholm also calls into question ‘the amalgamation of normative theology and historical scholarship’ (2009: 238). This is a highly contested position and he suggests that scholars such as Thielman, Das, Gathercole, and Westerholm seek to understand Paul in the context of ‘normative Protestant theology’ (2009: 192); which Zetterholm suggests is highly problematic (2009: 238). Interestingly, he also provides a summary of scholars that provide cross-disciplinary readings of Paul, these include: Jacob Taubes, Neil Elliott, Kathy Ehrensperger, Davina Lopez. I have reviewed most of these works over the past few months. This is an excellent resource for the person who is attempting to keep current or catch-up with Pauline studies. A work like this is by its nature selective; however, I would have liked to have seen some discussion concerning William S. Campbell's work on Paul.
References:
Zetterholm, Magnus. Approaches to Paul: A Student's Guide to Recent Scholarship. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2009.
Zetterholm, Magnus. The Messiah: In Early Judaism and Christianity. Philadelphia, Pa: Fortress, 2007.
Zetterholm, Magnus. The Formation of Christianity in Antioch A Social-Scientific Approach to the Separation between Judaism and Christianity. London: Routledge, 2003.
Saturday, November 7, 2009
Baptism, Rites, and 'in Christ' Identity
I am putting the finishing touches on my SBL paper, Baths, Baptism, and Patronage and I thought I would post some of my reflections on Richard DeMaris' The New Testament in its Ritual World, first chapter. So, here they are. DeMaris rightly notes that scholars should question the ‘taken-for-granted status of baptism’ within the early Christ-movement (15). He also recognizes that ‘baptism’, in 1 Cor 1.10-13, is ‘the cause of controversy’ and ‘not a basis for solving’ the problem (16). Furthermore, ‘Paul implies that the conflicting loyalties that threaten group unity stem in part from who baptized whom’ (16). So, ‘Paul’s forgetfulness…betrays’ his ‘uneasiness about his involvement in baptism and his unhappiness that the rite has contributed to divisiveness among the Corinthian house churches and within them’ (16).
DeMaris calls into question the idea that baptism was a rite of initiation or a rite of passage and rather suggests that it should be understood as a boundary-crossing event with a primary focus on ritual and crisis rather than the ‘derivative status’ which focuses on ‘faith, sacred symbol, and sacred story’ to ‘inform or dictate what ritual is about’ (this is also a critique of Horrell (1996: 80)) (20, 22).
DeMaris points out that rites are public experiences and ‘not simply two-party transactions, between buyer and seller, between baptizer and baptizand’; rather they affect ‘existing social relations’ (24). He suggests that baptism ‘which brought new members into the group, was in effect a mechanism for crossing the domestic threshold and establishing kinship bonds’ (25). DeMaris suggests that ‘in the first-century Mediterranean world…family identity outweighed individual identity’ (25). However, DeMaris emphasizes the need to cut existing social ties but I would suggest that these existing ties remain expect in those places where they conflict with identity in Christ (e.g. idolatry and immorality).
DeMaris is correct to note that rites can generate conflict as easily as they can reduce it (27). So, baptism may actually be contributing to difficulties in interpreting the social implications of the gospel. DeMaris describes four aspects of rites that suggest that they contribute to ‘social crises’ and conflict (33). First, rites can misfire and produce ‘unintended consequences’ (27). I would suggest an unintended consequence in Corinth related to the patronage associations with Roman bathing practices (the argument of my SBL paper). Second, rites reinforce ‘social hierarchies’ (29). A trip to the bath likewise reinforced social hierarchies (just like the locker room did in Jr. High School, but I digress). Likewise, the asymmetrical relationship between the baptizer and the baptizand could have contributed to power issues within the Christ-movement. Third, rites present an ‘idealized situation’ that is not commensurate with reality (30). I would suggest that if language such as 1 Cor 12.13 was employed during the baptism, confusion could have arisen with regard to the continuing significance of ethnic identity and status categories in Christ. Fourth, ‘context is crucial for determining a rite’s effects’ (32). The social setting influences the effectiveness of a rite, especially in the context of its impact on existing social identities (e.g. baptism and circumcision and/or Eucharistic and dietary practices). If, central to Paul’s mission is the continuation of previous social identities in Christ (1 Cor 7.19) then, one should expect to see confusion, debate, and disagreement over how these identities continue in various social settings.
DeMaris also appears to disagree with me with regard to the continuing significance of previous social identities in Christ. For example, he writes ‘In the case of baptism, it would have concretized, enacted, and finalized the departure of individuals from their former social identity and their entry into a new identity’(31). Furthermore, ‘If baptism made the transition from old to new possible, the reality of living simultaneously in both persisted. The tension between ideal and real undoubtedly posed problems for members of the early church’ (31).
DeMaris notes with regard to 1 Cor 10.1-5 that ‘Paul stresses the clean break and new allegiance that ritual signals in his retelling of the Israelites’ Exodus and Wilderness experience – a thinly veiled reference to baptism and eucharist (10.1-5)’ (31). Though, he is correct to note that Paul is concerned about their inconsistency between lived and ideal experience. I would suggest that DeMaris overstates the discontinuity between Israel’s experience and that of those in Christ, in that he overlooks the comparative nature of Paul’s rhetoric in favor of a contrastive reading of the text (cf. 2 Cor 3 where Paul presents a similar argument). The implication of DeMaris’ approach is that ethnic identities and other existing identity position are irrelevant ‘in Christ’ rather than seeing the issue the way these continue ‘in Christ’, which would be an equally ‘messy’ scenario (31).
Well, so what do you think about DeMaris' work on the ritual aspects of baptism?
Whilst working on this, I came by a guitar solo that I couldn't pass up...passing on (thanks Greg Amburgy for the 'heads up'). Enjoy...
DeMaris calls into question the idea that baptism was a rite of initiation or a rite of passage and rather suggests that it should be understood as a boundary-crossing event with a primary focus on ritual and crisis rather than the ‘derivative status’ which focuses on ‘faith, sacred symbol, and sacred story’ to ‘inform or dictate what ritual is about’ (this is also a critique of Horrell (1996: 80)) (20, 22).
DeMaris points out that rites are public experiences and ‘not simply two-party transactions, between buyer and seller, between baptizer and baptizand’; rather they affect ‘existing social relations’ (24). He suggests that baptism ‘which brought new members into the group, was in effect a mechanism for crossing the domestic threshold and establishing kinship bonds’ (25). DeMaris suggests that ‘in the first-century Mediterranean world…family identity outweighed individual identity’ (25). However, DeMaris emphasizes the need to cut existing social ties but I would suggest that these existing ties remain expect in those places where they conflict with identity in Christ (e.g. idolatry and immorality).
DeMaris is correct to note that rites can generate conflict as easily as they can reduce it (27). So, baptism may actually be contributing to difficulties in interpreting the social implications of the gospel. DeMaris describes four aspects of rites that suggest that they contribute to ‘social crises’ and conflict (33). First, rites can misfire and produce ‘unintended consequences’ (27). I would suggest an unintended consequence in Corinth related to the patronage associations with Roman bathing practices (the argument of my SBL paper). Second, rites reinforce ‘social hierarchies’ (29). A trip to the bath likewise reinforced social hierarchies (just like the locker room did in Jr. High School, but I digress). Likewise, the asymmetrical relationship between the baptizer and the baptizand could have contributed to power issues within the Christ-movement. Third, rites present an ‘idealized situation’ that is not commensurate with reality (30). I would suggest that if language such as 1 Cor 12.13 was employed during the baptism, confusion could have arisen with regard to the continuing significance of ethnic identity and status categories in Christ. Fourth, ‘context is crucial for determining a rite’s effects’ (32). The social setting influences the effectiveness of a rite, especially in the context of its impact on existing social identities (e.g. baptism and circumcision and/or Eucharistic and dietary practices). If, central to Paul’s mission is the continuation of previous social identities in Christ (1 Cor 7.19) then, one should expect to see confusion, debate, and disagreement over how these identities continue in various social settings.
DeMaris also appears to disagree with me with regard to the continuing significance of previous social identities in Christ. For example, he writes ‘In the case of baptism, it would have concretized, enacted, and finalized the departure of individuals from their former social identity and their entry into a new identity’(31). Furthermore, ‘If baptism made the transition from old to new possible, the reality of living simultaneously in both persisted. The tension between ideal and real undoubtedly posed problems for members of the early church’ (31).
DeMaris notes with regard to 1 Cor 10.1-5 that ‘Paul stresses the clean break and new allegiance that ritual signals in his retelling of the Israelites’ Exodus and Wilderness experience – a thinly veiled reference to baptism and eucharist (10.1-5)’ (31). Though, he is correct to note that Paul is concerned about their inconsistency between lived and ideal experience. I would suggest that DeMaris overstates the discontinuity between Israel’s experience and that of those in Christ, in that he overlooks the comparative nature of Paul’s rhetoric in favor of a contrastive reading of the text (cf. 2 Cor 3 where Paul presents a similar argument). The implication of DeMaris’ approach is that ethnic identities and other existing identity position are irrelevant ‘in Christ’ rather than seeing the issue the way these continue ‘in Christ’, which would be an equally ‘messy’ scenario (31).
Well, so what do you think about DeMaris' work on the ritual aspects of baptism?
Whilst working on this, I came by a guitar solo that I couldn't pass up...passing on (thanks Greg Amburgy for the 'heads up'). Enjoy...
Sunday, November 1, 2009
Tweeting, PowerPoint, and Knowing Your Audience
I've noticed a new trend in class. Tweeting about the professor's lecture effectiveness (i.e. all my student's say mine are great!). This is one of the reasons why I encourage my students to follow me, so I can review these later. I came by an article recently that suggested that it is important to know your audience and remember they might be tweeting while you present (not to mention the importance of updating your lame PowerPoints). So, this is a new way to heckle the professor without her or him knowing it. For me, the bigger challenge here is how to make your classes more technologically aware. I recently received a message from my daughter who was in her class at CU, the message was a question from her professor that encouraged the class to tweet, instant message, or text people they knew and ask them a question concerning meaning making and hermeneutics. Her class received almost 200 responses throughout the class period. Heather Buckley concludes, 'Presenters beware – twittering will be around for some time, if you have a large audience be sure you know them well and give them what they want. Even if you know all this and are a great presenter following your audience reaction on twitter can only be a good thing, feedback is a good thing and now it is happening real time' .
So, what do you think about tweeting while in a lecture? Or better, what would tweeting while in church offer pastors looking for feedback? On a related note, has anyone started using Twitter lists effectively? If so, point out some good examples. How could Twitter lists be used in Biblical Studies?
So, what do you think about tweeting while in a lecture? Or better, what would tweeting while in church offer pastors looking for feedback? On a related note, has anyone started using Twitter lists effectively? If so, point out some good examples. How could Twitter lists be used in Biblical Studies?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)