“What is perceived here as the problem is precisely the Christian universalism: what this all-inclusive attitude (recall St. Paul’s famous “There are no men or women, no Jews and Greeks”) involves is a thorough exclusion of those who do not accept inclusion into the Christian community. In other “particularistic” religions (and even in Islam, in spite of its global expansionism), there is a place for others, they are tolerated, even if they are condescendingly looked upon. The Christian motto “All men are brothers,” however, means ALSO that “Those who are not my brothers ARE NOT MEN.” Christians usually praise themselves for overcoming the Jewish exclusivist notion of the Chosen People and encompassing all of humanity – the catch here is that, in their very insistence that they are the Chosen People with the privileged direct link to God, Jews accept the humanity of the other people who celebrate their false gods, while Christian universalism tendenti[ous]ly excludes non-believers from the very universality of humankind.”
(Slavoj Žižek, On Belief. Routledge, 2001: 143-144)
HT: Deane Galbraith
"Evangelically minded faculty, including Andrew Lincoln and Loveday Alexander, were not replaced with scholars who held similar views."
"Other faculty were "bent on the deconstruction of the Bible, and indeed of their students' faith," according to Ben Witherington, a New Testament scholar at Asbury Theological Seminary."
"It reminds me of the fine old German NT scholar Heinrich Schlier, who found that the only way to be a Protestant was to be a Bultmannian, so, because he couldn’t take Bultmann, became a Roman Catholic; that was the only other option in his culture. Good luck to him; happily, most of us have plenty of other options."Now who among us loves Bultmann? Perhaps this is why Jim West has yet to ask N.T. Wright into his heart.
Students had protested an early proposal to shut the department down.
Following student protests, the University of Sheffield in England decided to not close the department of biblical studies.
A review by the pro-vice-chancellor had recommended shutting down the department down after current and 2009-2010 students completed their degrees, citing the loss of staff and declining student demand.
At 8 a.m. today, 1,064 members had joined the Facebook group "Don't shut down Biblical Studies at Sheffield" and a website was created to send the vice chancellor petition letters, several of which were posted on the website. Ben Hurrell, who created the Facebook group, told CT that citing the lack of student interest and staff was "unjust."
"The number of entries last year were capped at eight, but this year's graduates and level three students represent all-time high figures," Hurrell said in an e-mail. "While five senior lecturers have left over the last 2 years, the university has not allowed the department permanent staff to replace them for a variety of reasons."
The university senate was supposed to vote on the department's future on October 7, but after students heard through the students' union and protested, the decision was postponed.
"The vice chancellor has said that he feels the faculty handled consultation with staff and students so badly that it cannot justify a closure," Holly Taylor, education officer for the students' union, said in an e-mail this morning.
Taylor said that the the faculty will draw up plans for the department, including new staff appointments.
Collin Hansen contributed to this report. Another report will be forthcoming.
From the Londonist
Was Charles Dickens the smuttiest writer of all time? On the face of it, the much-loved author would seem to be the ultimate purveyor of family-friendly literature. But if you read his novels with a 21st Century eye for the perverse then you begin to see all kinds of filth. Or maybe words have shifted meaning somewhat in the past 150 years. Who cares? It's Friday and we feel like unleashing some nonsense.
"'What, old Nobs!' ejaculated the son. And they shook hands heartily." - Pickwick Papers, Chapter 27.
"The jackal then invigorated himself with a bum for his throttle." - A Tale of Two Cities, Chapter 5.
"Tom had sat upon the bed, swinging one leg and sucking his walking-stick with sufficient unconcern." - Hard Times, Chapter 6.
"Mr. Jasper broke silence by declaring that he placed his whole reliance, humanly speaking, on Mr. Sapsea's penetration." - The Mystery of Edwin Drood, Chapter 15.
"Mr Brass's ejaculations died away in the distance (for he continued to pour them out, all the way down stairs)." - The Old Curiosity Shop, Chapter 48.
"When the throbbing I had seen before, came into it as I looked at her, she absolutely lifted up her hand, and struck it." - David Copperfield, Chapter 32.
![[4241_189893910712_672330712_6796753_3705096_s.jpg]](https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhKiRxo-FlKJbjRkAvEAfPN6anZQxtWh8RnlCfoSQ9GT4hg5c0xCGVtCeIFwimAFVflSgCKPr82VJYyTNTrXdXNZRhTS4kBAZhMOp1VfhwwhkdEbTSxNu4A4k_RuTHvSV6p8H1r/s220/4241_189893910712_672330712_6796753_3705096_s.jpg)
I find it interesting the hoopla that is surrounding the arrest of Professor Gates in his own home. For the record, I am by and large, a very law abiding citizen, and believe in being deferential to everyone I come in contact with. I am also a product of a very American white middle class sensibility, and even though feel that I have an educated knowledge of the “other,” my academic knowledge can never be translated into the heart pumping, sweat inducing fear, that is often the constant companion to those who find themselves on the other side of the tracks throughout American history.
That being said, do I think this arrest was about race? Yes and no. Firstly my initial inclination is toward yes, namely because if the Cambridge police came to check out a reported “break in” and found Timothy F. Geithner in the same position, the situation would probably have never escalated. Yet, I say no, because I don’t believe that once the Cambridge police found out that Professor Gates was the owner of the home, he would have been arrested, if, and this is the key, if he would have showed the proper deference. This, to me, is disconcerting to me on a number of levels.
Let me diverge from this particular situation, and reflect upon something that I have been ruminating on about for awhile, and have only recently been brought into focus with the recent arrest of Professor Gates. I was lounging around one Saturday flipping through the stations on my television when I happened upon a spring break version of cops. This episode took place on a lake in Arizona and consisted of a plethora of drunk, scantily clad spring breakers, blowing off some steam whilst boating. The show was entertaining in that it showed how uneducated the American college spring breaker really is, and how it must suck to be a cop who is charged with maintaining safety and order in such a chaotic situation. But over and over again, the editing of the show, focused on the lack of deference that was given to the cops on patrol, with those who showed deference were treated nicely, and those who did not show deference being verbally roughed up a bit, to the camera’s delight. There were funny moments, don’t get me wrong, one of the funniest was when a teen, tried to disallow the police from boarding his vessel, as if he was asserting some sort of seafaring law he had read in Sea Wolf and thought that it actually had legal bearing. This unlucky chap was hauled off and arrested for something…, the only discernible crime to the viewer was his utter lack of deference. This whole episode was made even more interesting because the Officers could have arrested everyone on the lake for either public intoxication, or underage drinking, but those that ended up making the final edit were those who by and large refused the officer deference. Now, let me be real clear here, I am in no way trying to equate the Gates incident with the drunken spring breakers in Arizona, in Arizona the kids were breaking numerous laws, Professor Gates broke none. The thread that ties these two stories together is thin at best, but I think it highlights an interesting subject.
Now in getting back to the Professor Gates story, I want to be clear that I think civility is key to a well functioning society, but I believe that Socratic questioning is even more important. So when discussing the Gates story, I wish at least part of the public debate would be upon deference, the lack of deference that Professor Gate’s showed the Cambridge police officer, and that Police officers response. If civil servants work for the people in a democracy, should they be able to arrest someone because of a lack of deference? Do the police receive their authority based on public trust or on public fear?
Just thinking out loud…
Go Here for more:
At their most repugnant, the belief that women must be subjugated to the wishes of men excuses slavery, violence, forced prostitution, genital mutilation and national laws that omit rape as a crime. But it also costs many millions of girls and women control over their own bodies and lives, and continues to deny them fair access to education, health, employment and influence within their own communities.
The question is, as the American democratic experiment has grown old, the challenge is for that experiment to really grow up. James Baldwin used to say that innocence itself is the crime prior to the committing of the concrete crime. And optimism. George Santayana put it so well in his essay on William James. He said, “Americans believe they’re always already on the right track,” so even if they fear they may have done something wrong, like the prison in Iraq, it’s just an abnormal, aberrational thing that couldn’t have anything to do with who we fundamentally are. He says, “Well, you’ve got to check yourself.” That wonderful moment in Melville’s Pierre where he says, “Look at that Christian gentleman dressed so sharp and beautifully, and yet just a few weeks ago he kicked his slave in the head, and three years ago he shot down an Indian.” So you get an Indian annihilator and a slaveholder dressed so smoothly, speaks with such eloquence, hiding and concealing his dark side. You see that in the vanilla suburbs, hiding and concealing the decrepit school systems in chocolate cities, hiding and concealing the inadequate childcare, unavailable health care, shortage of jobs of any quality, and yet still the sugar-coating. That sugar-coating is associated with the optimism.
Like the title of this post suggest these are the top five books that shaped my early biblical studies education. I will post these in chronological order and not necessarily in order of importance.
First up is Dunn's Jesus, Paul and Law, this is a book I read during seminary, mostly during our mandatory chapel sessions. I came into seminary with a strong background in Jewish History and I never really bought the simplistic interpretation of the Jews as the foil to Christianity which I was feed during my seminary days. Dunn's book was thus a breath of fresh air, as it gave a well thought out solution to an interpretative problem that I was working through at the time. Even though Dunn’s New Perspective was old when I found out about it, it still changed my fundamental approach to my understanding of the NT.
Dunn’s work naturally led me to Tom Wright and his NTPG. I read this book once in seminary, and twice whilst getting my doctorate, and certain sections even more than that. Wright’s work was responsible for shaking the epistemological ground I was so comfortable with, and was responsible for my red pill blue pill experience. It is strange to write this but Wright was the impetus for my love for poststructualism. I still find Wright a very good read, and even better speaker, even if I have strayed from his critical realist project.
After reading Wright I worked through Fishbane’s work on Inner-Biblical interpretation, this book was key to me in correcting a rather naïve view of the Hebrew Scriptures. I loved Fishbane’s interpretive logic, and immersed myself in his subsequent writings.
While Wright led me to explore literary criticism, Hays’ Echoes focused that exploration into the realm of intertextuality. Hays’ imaginative (re)construction of Paul’s use of the Hebrew Scriptures led me to explore the likes of Kristeva, Barthes, Genette, Eco, and Riffaterre.
Through the process of researching possible ideas for a thesis one is usually graced with discovering works that are simply majestical, these works captivate your imagination and even though they have little to do with your topic you end up being totally consumed by them. Polzin’s, Moses and the Deuteronomist, for me was just such a work. Polzin’s ability to work through a narrative is nothing short of brilliant, if I could copy just one scholar, it would be Polzin.
As argued in my last post, the historical questions surrounding the Edict of Claudius ought to give us serious pause when using it as an interpretive key to unlock Paul's letter to the Romans. From what I can make out, it seems that most of those who use the Edict of Claudius, as a key, do so only after reading the letter and coming to a position of Jew/Gentile conflict from their reading. The Edict, then corroborates that reading, so it is used to further substantiate their view. Of course many combine this with the reference in Acts, and are even further convinced that Claudius expelled the Jews and probably Jewish Christians from Rome. The point though, is that they don't need the Edict in order to hold this thesis, namely because this particular reading of Romans is sustainable without any Edict. The conflict, that may or may not be depicted in the letter, could just as easily represent the status that one group has achieved over another in the realm of followers, ideas, or theology; rather than due to a prolonged geographical absence and then return.
So what, if anything, lies behind this Edict? I will offer a preliminary sketch of what I believe the Edict tells us, and then in a future post will attempt to further develop what some of the implications are for Paul's letter to the Romans.
The Edict of Claudius: What does it tell us about Romans?
Erich Gruen in his masterful work on the Jews in the Diaspora (note: everyone serious about the study of Second Temple Judaism and its relationship to the NT ought to read this work) seems to offer a sober and reasoned response to the debate surrounding the Edict of Claudius. Gruen, a historian, notes that if you look at the actions taken against the Jews in antiquity the Jews were never the sole targets but always involved other groups. This is an important suggestion especially when we take into account the context of Claudius rule, namely that of Claudius' public concern over Roman religion and ritual. Claudius was mindful of the rumors surrounding his rise to power, and on many occasions during his rule took opportunities to distance himself publicly from the manner in which Caligula ruled, i.e. Caligula, if you remember, was known for openly mocking the average Roman’s relationship with the gods. Because many questioned Claudius right to the “throne”, he was careful to make sure that the ideology of the Roman Imperial Order prevailed, and as we all know, in antiquity; religion, ritual, and politics were all intermingled.
So due to the context of Claudius’ rule, coupled with the fact that actions against the Jews were usually grouped together with other outsiders; we may reasonably conclude that the Edict was more about imperial propaganda rather than the idea that a large number of Jews were actually forcibly removed from Rome. It is suggested then that Claudius took the disturbance fostered by Chrestus as an opportunity for political publicity against the “other”, rather than a showing of power to quell a real threat. Since it was key for Claudius to depict himself as a guardian of ancient Roman religion and ritual, and to show his continuity with the ancient traditions and power structures that were essential to the ideology of Roman rule, this Edict probably coincides nicely with his resurrection of ancient national rituals and actions against alien cults, then it does with forced exile.
Over on Chris (tea for the) Tilling(man)’s wonderful blog Chrisendom a discussion was started concerning the keys to interpreting Romans. Chris offered two, one of them being the Edict of Claudius. The reason this seems to be key is due to the supposed tensions between the Jews and the Christians throughout the letter, of which the Edict is the historical antecedent. Many think the Edict is crystal clear and quote Acts 18.2 as further evidence of the supposed tension between the two groups. But I wonder what the Edict really tells us? I hope to offer up my own interpretive possibility in an upcoming post, but first I think it is necessary to lay out some of the problems in interpreting the Edict.
'Iudaeos impulsore Chresto assidue tumultantes Roma expulit'
Problems of Reference:
1. Suetonius offers no chronology for this event, it could have happened any time during Claudius’ reign. So it could refer to the 41 event and Dio Cassius is correcting Suetonius (Although these two texts probably should not be amalgamated, too much conjecture), it could refer to an event that Orosius states happened in 49, or it could be a totally different event.
2. Orosius gives us the date of 49 ce, for this edict. And Acts 18.2 and the chronology of Paul’s life would seem to fit this date.
3. Chrestus and Christus were pronounced the same, and Sinaiticus spells Christian as “Chrestianos”, so Chrestus could be confused with Christ; although this would imply that Suetonius did not understand the differences between Christ and his followers, or thought that Christ was still alive.
4. Furthermore Suetonius links the conflict with Chrestus, not with his teachings, but with his presence (as noted above Jesus Christ was dead by then).
5. The opponents of Christianity occasionally referred to Christians as Chrestianos in an effort to imply that the followers got their name from a common slave, but this is later.
6. And Suetonius elsewhere uses the correct designation for Christianity, Christiani, in Nero 16.2.
7. Suetonius could have just copied his source without evaluation, but to postulate that Suetonius, or an official edict, mistook Christ for the followers of Christ is still highly speculative.
8. Chrestus was a common name and widely attested and common in Rome, although never for a Jew.
So Chrestus could have just as easily been an individual who stirred up nationalistic, messianic, or simply civil discord and incurred upon himself the wrath of the emperor. So historically it is just as likely that this incident had nothing to do with Jewish Christian relations, but was simply in response to civil discord. But what would this Edict have looked like on the ground in Rome around 49 ce.
Problems of Scope:
1. Estimates put the Jewish population to be approximately 15,000 – 50,000 at the time, so it is highly unlikely that all 15,000 – 50,000 were forcibly moved. Even if the edict was passed, and was for all Jews, it is doubtful it was ever enforced.
2. Iudaeos impulsore Chresto assidue tumultantes Roma expulit, can be translated as “since the Jews constantly made disturbances at the instigation of Chrestus, he expelled them from Rome.” Or “He expelled from Rome those Jews who were constantly making disturbances at the instigation of Chrestus.” Thus the expulsion could refer to only those key members responsible for making the disturbances.
3. Acts 18.2 and Luke’s use of “all” is more likely an instance of his typical hyperbole.
4. A small scale expulsion would explain why other historians of the time neglected to mention it.
The Edict of Claudius and its aftermath are simply not necessary for reconstructing an interpretation for Romans; there are more unknowns in this historical reconstruction to be of any use in sufficiently explaining the tensions and conflicts that were dividing the community that Paul addressed in Romans. If one wants to hold that a key to interpreting Romans is the tension between the Jews and Gentiles, the arena of differing ideas, beliefs, and interpretations of traditions is probably a much better place to stake your claim, then a nebulous cryptic saying in Suetonius.
Further Reading:
Esler, Philip Francis, Conflict and identity in Romans: the social setting of Paul's letter. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2003.
Nanos, Mark D., The mystery of Romans: the Jewish context of Paul's letter. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1996.
Fisk, Bruce N. "Synagogue Influence and Scriptural Knowledge among the Christians of Rome," Pages 157-185 in As it is written: studying Paul's use of Scripture. Edited by Stanley E. Porter and Christopher D. Stanley. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2008.
Das, A. Andrew, Solving the Romans debate. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2007.
Gruen, Erich S., Diaspora: Jews amidst Greeks and Romans. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2002.
http://www.bookreviews.org/pdf/6904_7479.pdf
Here is an interesting review by Steve Moyise on one of those awful “views” books. One gets the feeling that Moyise doesn’t really have the time to be bothered with the review, and who could blame him, even the cover of the book is clichéd.
Now I am deeply interested in the subject of the NT use of the OT, or at least the NT use of other texts, and what happens to texts when they are re-used in new contexts, but less concerned with how this book is framed.
But all that aside, Moyise does a wonderful job taking to task Kaiser’s rather antiquated views. If you are in the market for a book that grapples with this topic I suggest skipping this book and heading straight to more interesting treatments of the subject.
"Is there an exegetically sound approach to Paul that paints a different picture of the apostle than the one some Christians find distasteful, offensive, etc.? I think that there's a solid "Yes" to that question, but I need to make sure that the particular answers I give are directed at real-life concerns."
Pietas in its ancient Greco-Roman context has the connotations of "duty" or "devotion," and it simultaneously suggests both ones duty to the gods and ones duty to the larger family unit. In the Greek language the term is the all too familiar "pistis" of faith/faithfulness fame. Anyone familiar with Paul's appropriation of "pistis" and its cognates is aware that this term is at the center of a longstanding debate. Thankfully we are naturally going to side step that debate and focus on what is happening in Romans 4.
Paul's letter to the Romans has many perplexing and vexing little issues that are often glossed over in many of the popular attempts to deal with the work, and naturally so, because who in their right mind would want to read a digest of all the interpretive problems in Romans. Coherency is the name of the game in any successful reading of the letter, but working all these pieces into a readable whole is often more difficult than it would seem to appear.
One of these perplexing issues is why Paul highlights Abraham in Romans 4. Now many people at this point will say to them selves, well that is easy Paul wanted to prove that even the Hebrews of old were saved by faith/faithfulness and not by works (read circumcision). Elliott lays out a different position based on the Greco-Roman context.
Briefly the key to Elliott's interpretive move is to look at the role of ancestors in the Greco-Roman world, and specifically how Augustus was associated with piety and the vocation of civilizing the nations. Ancient figures were often seen as representative figures, thus Augustus represents a history that is closely intertwined with the residents of Rome and their ability to be ushered into the civilized world. Not to get into to much detail, but the crux of the problem is that the nations in Rome began to think of genealogy in a deterministic way, the Judeans deserve there present lot (jobless and homeless due to the recent mass deportations) because their God had lost. Imperial ideology, which always interprets the present, saw the Judeans as a people born to servitude. Paul's story about the Messiah and the program set forth in Abraham did not connect with the people on the ground because to them the Roman story seemed all too true. Thus for Elliott the issue was one of harmonization, could these two stories be effectively reconciled? This is what some in Paul's day were attempting to do, thus the term "Works of the Law," were those Judeans who sought to harmonize the two stories and gain acceptance by utilizing the Roman Law in an effort to further their movement/interests (this is an extremely generalizing account of Elliott at this point). Paul is thus contrasting two avenues, you could either, by following the works of Augustus, look for salvation through benefactions of the Caesar, or you could practice the kind of piety that Abraham is the representative of - a salvation through faithfulness that involves waiting patiently, expectantly, on the God who can reverse the present circumstances.
Here are two interviews on the Bill Moyers Journal you don't want to miss, first is William K. Blake who offers a scintillating analysis of the financial meltdown and how the media has failed us in reporting the news again.
Both segments speak to how the Propaganda Model is still a viable rubric for understanding how the
