Near Emmaus


2 Comments

Scholarly Journals and Reviews (March-April, 2013)

This is a list of scholarly journals and reviews published in March-April, 2013. If you know of others please let me know in the comments:

Review of Biblical Literature (March 8th, 2013) ; (March 16th); (March 25th); (March 31st); (April 15) [David Stark]

Bulletin for Biblical Research 23.1 [David Stark]

Expository Times 124/6; 124/7; 124/8

Journal of Biblical Literature 132, no. 1 [David Stark]

Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 37/3

Journal of Semitic Studies 58/1

Journal for the Study of Pseudepigrapha 22/3

Scottish Bulletin of Evangelical Theology, no. 20 [Rod Bradshaw]

Irish Theological Quarterly 78/2

Criswell Theological Review  10/1

Journal of Theological Studies 64.1

Studies in Religion 42/1

Special thanks to Danny Zacharias’ Biblical Studies Journal Alerts for streamlining many of my updates!

About these ads


21 Comments

Commencing doctoral studies in September

homeI received notification late last week that I have been accepted as a doctoral student into Trinity College, Bristol, UK. I will begin this September. Trinity College is in affiliation with the University of Bristol, so if I complete my program my diploma will come from the university. Bristol is located in South West England. I won’t be relocating though since this program allows you to live elsewhere while visiting several weeks a year to earn residency.

imgresMy advisors will be Dr. David Wenham of Trinity College (internal) and Dr. Craig A. Evans of Acadia Divinity College (external).

David Wenham

David Wenham

Dr. Wenham received his Ph.D. from Manchester University and he has had a long career as a scholar and academic administrator. Currently, he is a part-time tutor. Wenham is a man who has a reputation for connecting the academy to the church. I appreciate this since I find the divide between the two to be quite concerning. Wenham’s scholarly expertise is the Gospels and Paul. Much of his academic career has been spent examining the connection between Paul and Jesus.  (Recently I reviewed Wenham’s Did St. Paul Get Jesus Right? The Gospel of Paul, found here.)

Craig Evans

Craig Evans

Dr. Craig A. Evans is the Payzant Distinguished Professor of New Testament Studies at Acadia Divinity College. He received his Ph.D. from Claremont Graduate University. He is a recognized authority on the Dead Sea Scrolls, the New Testament, and Christian origins. Evans has been producing high level scholarship on these topics for many years now (see his CV!) and I think he is one of the best scholars in the world. I am humbled and excited to be students of these two fine men.

In the UK a student begins the dissertation process immediately. My proposed dissertation is “Jesus the Spirit-Baptizer: Messiah, the Spirit, and the Juxtaposition between Jesus and John the Baptist in the Context of the First Century”. I have been fascinated with early Jewish and Christian pneumatology for a while now, especially after reading John R. Levison’s Filled with the Spirit (who has become a friend and an important mentor is recent years)I realize that I think of the holy S/spirit through the lens of Christian doctrine (which isn’t necessarily bad, but it can be anachronistic) to the neglect of how spirit language would have been used in the first century, both during the time of Jesus and as the Jesus movement evolved.

Similarly, the figure of John the Baptist is not given adequate attention. This is not to say that there are not fabulous books on John. Recently I had been reading through Joan E. Taylor’s The Immerser: John the Baptist within Second Temple Judaism and Robert E. Webb’s John the Baptizer and Prophet, but there is far more to say about John in my opinion. John is one of the most important figures for the early Jesus movement and all four Gospels and the Book of Acts have something to say about his identity, which means he remains a problematic figure into the late first century, at least. Whenever these works juxtapose Jesus and John the appeal is to Jesus’ identity as the one who will baptized or has baptized with S/spirit. Why? Why does this make Jesus greater than John? Does this solidify Jesus’ identity as the Messiah while disqualifying John from that title? Would this point have been readily received by the earliest readers? My goal is to answer questions such as these and many more.

Now, I am aware of the debate between studying in the US or the UK (or elsewhere). I know there are good reasons for both, but let me say that the two most important factors for me were (1) with whom I would study and (2) what I would study. Trinity College allowed me to study with Wenham and Evans and my proposal was accepted. Aaron White who is a student in the program I am joining has written a nice piece explaining the other important advantages/disadvantages of the program and I think he does a fine job at summarizing the matter so I will point you toward it: Advantages/Disadvantages to Long Distance PhDs.

A parting plea: pray for me! I’m nervous to say the least. I know the job market post-graduation is ugly. I don’t know what the future holds in that regard. I do know I want to do this though and I have the support of those closest to me. That makes me excited.


6 Comments

Central States SBL/ASOR Notes (Part 2)

Below is the second half of my notes from last week’s Central States SBL/ASOR meeting in St. Louis. You can read my notes on Part 1 here.

René Such Schreiner (Garrett-Evangelical Theological Seminary)—“Spiritual Culling for Remnant in John 6: Sign, Signified, Wisdom, and Idolatry”

Schreiner claims that the feeding of the multitude passage in John 6 perfectly mirrors the classic “culling narrative” motif found frequently throughout the OT (especially in the Exodus, where “grumbling” leads to action and divine judgment). In John 6, the crowds (and often, modern interpreters) mistake the true meaning of the sign of the loaves and fish—note the thematic element of “seeing” vs. “not seeing” in 6:30. Using the postmodern language of “sign” and “signified,” Schreiner illustrated that according to John, the focus of the passage is not that the bread is the “sign” of Jesus, but that Jesus himself is the “sign” of God. In keeping with the culling narrative motif, Schreiner pointed out that the classic culling narrative involves a clear progression from human action to divine judgment:

  • Person acts —> God judges —> God acts

However, in John 6, the culling narrative is reversed:

  • God acts —> Person judges —> Person acts

At the end of the presentation, Mark Given commented that Scheiner’s paper supported the new wave of scholarship claiming that Jesus is not to be understood as God in the Fourth Gospel, but is instead meant to be taken as the very image, the signifier or logos (“idea,” or “communication”) of God in human form. My comment regarding the postmodern separation of signifier/signified in surrealist painter Rene Magritte’s The Treachery of Images unfortunately went unappreciated.

John Christianson (Missouri State)—“The Centurion in History and Literature: A Context for Reading in the Gospels”

Christianson, a grad student at Missouri State, entered the NT presentation room dressed in full centurion regalia to present his paper’s thesis that the character of the centurion in the Gospels counts as a “credible witness” in the first-century literature. Apparently, Julius Caesar mentions centurions by name in his war commentaries with the supposition that if such honorable men followed Caesar, then by extension Caesar too must be honorable. Christianson suggested that since the vast selection of references to centurions among first-century literary corpora were positive, then the characterization of centurions in the Gospels should also be considered positive. By extension, then, the various iterations of the so-called “centurion’s confession” in the Synoptics should be taken seriously as an attempt by the authors to lend credibility to their stories by having such a positive, trustworthy character bear witness to the remarkable events reported in their narratives.

John Strong (Missouri State)—“Censoring the Prophetic Word: Translating Ezekiel’s Profane Speech for General Audiences”

In what was probably the most thought-provoking paper presented at the conference this year (at least among the presentations I attended), Dr. Strong spoke on Ezekiel’s use of profanity in his diatribes against the Jerusalemites, and the tendency by contemporary Western translators to defang the prophet’s speech when bringing the text to life in English. For instance, the word Ezekiel uses to characterize the idols worshiped by the Israelites (gililim, if I heard correctly—I haven’t studied Hebrew yet), comes from the root word meaning “dung,” and a more literal translation might be that Ezekiel is referring to the idols as “shit-gods.” Strong went on to point out the various and numerous sexual innuendos and downright vulgar tirades scattered throughout the book, and noted that Ezekiel primarily uses this obscenity as a rhetorical form of “controlled rage” to shame the Israelites. Strong ended with two pertinent questions: 1) Can we retain the spirit of Ezekiel’s crude edginess in modern English translations of the scripture? Or perhaps the better question is 2) Even if we could, should we? In short, Strong answered, no. Ezekiel worked within a totally different context than our own, never expecting his text/speech to be read by general audiences, let alone general audiences in the 21st century. In sum, Strong concluded that any translation must neuter the experience intended by the prophet himself. Consequently, I found myself wondering if the same is true of coarseness in the New Testament—for instance, should English texts of Philippians 3:8 include the literal translation of “σκύβαλα”?


17 Comments

Paper accepted to the 2013 SBL Annual Meeting

Irony of ironies: my first SBL Annual Meeting presentation will be a paper titled “The Dangers of Blogging as a Student” for the Blogging and Online Publications section. I received notice of its acceptance yesterday. The title may seem contradictory coming from someone with little to no academic reputation at this point in time, yet a bit of one as a blogger. I think I am aware of the benefits and disadvantages of blogging as a student though. Originally, I had planned on proposing a paper that would discuss both sides of the coin, but I learned that others were presenting on the positives, so I chose to address the negatives.

I’m excited and grateful to the people overseeing the section who are giving me this opportunity. The Annual Meeting has become one of my favorite events each year. If you’re in Baltimore I hope to see you there!

Screen shot 2013-03-27 at 6.42.42 AM

The type of greeting I hope to see with some frequency in future years!


2 Comments

Central States SBL/ASOR Notes (Part 1)

Last week I had the opportunity to attend the Central States Regional SBL/ASOR conference in St. Louis. In my humble opinion, the conference itself was a little lackluster—particularly so because of the notable lack of publishers in attendance. However, there were many good papers that were presented this year. Below are a few of my notes from the presentations I had the pleasure of attending.

Mark Nanos (Rockhurst University)—“Paul’s Polemic in Philippians 3”

Nanos began with a common thesis for those in the field of “New Paul” studies, namely that the apostle’s driving motivation is the desire for his audience to be enculturated into messianic Judaism. To that end, any reading of Philippians 3 that twists Paul’s words into an anti-Semitic polemic against first-century Jews must be abandoned in favor of a different interpretation. Nanos gave several possibilities for the referent of “Beware the dogs” in 3:2, including members of the Cybeline and Mithraic cults, but suggested that the phrase βλεπετε τους κυνας most likely refers to the Greek Cynics (i.e. “dogs”). Furthermore, Nanos pointed out that the polemic against the Cynics continues in 3:18–19, in which Paul characterizes adherents of the philosophical school as “enemies of the cross of Christ,” whose “end is destruction,” whose “god is the belly” and who “glory in their shame.” Nanos suggested that Paul here attempts to “out-Cynic” the Cynics by illustrating their motives as selfish and earthly in origin.

As a final note, Nanos pointed out a reference to a Talmudic characterization of Cynics as those who live in graveyards, burn incense, rend their clothing, and mutilate themselves (I can’t remember the specific reference here—does anyone have any idea where this came from?). Strangely enough, several of these descriptors seem to parallel descriptions of demonic possessions in the Gospels (see especially Mark 5:1–20, the “Gerasene Demoniac”).

Richard Freund (University of Hartford)—“The Church of the Annunciation (Greek Orthodox)/Mary’s Well”

I was primarily interested in this presentation because of the location of its subject—my wife Alyssa and I recently had the opportunity to visit Israel, and the Church of the Annunciation was one of my favorite sites. Freund, an archeologist and ASOR presenter, recounted the discovery of the remains of an ancient bathhouse beneath a series of tourist shops near the Greek Orthodox Church of Annunciation and Mary’s Well in Nazareth. A recent “sprucing up” of biblical sites by the Roman Catholic Church revealed the remains, which quickly (even if a bit sensationally) became referred to as “Jesus’s Bathhouse.” Freund and his team used GPR (ground-penetrating radar) on the site, which was discovered in the basement beneath “Cactus” gift shop/coffee house. The results revealed not only that the remains were of an Ottoman-era bathhouse most likely built upon a much older site, but also that the site spanned beneath several shops instead of just the one. Further research revealed that the older site likely dates to the Crusader period, but still probably sits upon an even older site still waiting to be excavated. Freund also included a brief excursus regarding the so-called debate over the historicity of the biblical village of Nazareth.

Joe Weaks (Raytown Christian Church)—“Formal Stylometric Tendencies in the Reconstructed Text of Q”

Disciples of Christ pastor and fellow biblioblogger Joe Weaks presented on his use of stylometry to “cast a wide net” in search of pertinent linguistic data while searching for similarities among texts, particularly among reconstructions of Q. While I am still fuzzy on the specifics of exactly how stylometry  works (I’m an arts and humanities guy, give me a break!), I was seriously impressed by Weaks’ creation of a digital database of the grammatically and syntactically tagged text of Q, as well as a program that he designed to search through a total of 26 ancient corpora (including all the Greek NT texts as well as other pertinent related first-century corpora such as the writings of Josephus, Philo, etc.) for grammatical, syntactical, and lexical similarities. The sheer number possibilities for this proram’s contributions to the field of NT biblical studies is dizzying, and I can’t wait to see how this technology is used in the future, particularly in the fields of textual and redaction criticism. I wonder how Mark Goodacre might have used Weaks’ program for his recently published Thomas and the Gospels?


15 Comments

Sex for survival and Jewish women disciples as research topics

51BlXK%2BkO0L._SY300_Last week I mentioned how Douglas Estes suggests in his book The Questions of Jesus in John: Logic, Rhetoric, and Persuasive Discourse that the the function of questions (non-declaratives) in Paul’s writings or the Synoptic Gospels may be ripe for further research (see Questions and question-asking as a potential thesis/dissertation focus). I have two more ideas for students needing guidance. Both come from Joan E. Taylor’s The Immerser: John the Baptist within Second Temple Judaism.

First, Taylor notes in a discussion on Matthew 21:31-32 that Jesus speaks of toll collectors and prostitutes entering the Kingdom ahead of the chief priests and elders. She investigates whether or not John the Baptist would have been known to tell prostitutes to reform certain behaviors like he told soldiers while not telling prostitutes that their profession was to be abandoned completely. She writes of prostitutes encountering John (p. 120),

“Prostitutes would have had to indicate in some way that they had borne good fruit worthy of repentance. Were they also to continue being prostitutes? This is an interesting question. The rabbis clearly considered prostitution sinful, but in ancient Israel prostitution was not unlawful under all circumstances. A father was not to prostitute his daughter (Lev. 19:29), though he was allowed to sell her as a concubine (Exod. 21:7). A priest was forbidden to marry a prostitute or a divorced woman, and a priest’s daughter who became a prostitute was to be burned (Lev. 21:7-9), but the rule for priests was not the rule for everyone. Prostitution was certainly frowned upon (Tob. 4:12; Prov. 7:9-23), but there was no specific law forbidding it. Certain noble prostitutes appear in Scripture–Rahab,for example (Josh. 2:1; 6:25). Samson visited one (Judg. 16:1). Prostitutes could appeal to the king for judgment (1 Kgs. 3:16-18), and they walked openly in the streets (Isa. 23:16). There were probably large numbers of prostitutes in Israel near to Roman military garrisons (Josephus, Ant. 20.356; cf. b. Sabb. 33b; b. Pesah. 113b). The idea that prostitutes could be righteous would nevertheless be shocking. The saying of Jesus in Matt. 21:31 is designed to play on the shock value of the statement. Yet would John, whose ethical standards were extremely high, have allowed that such women could be accepted by God upon immersion, if they, somehow, ‘bore good fruit’? Did he advise ethical conduct within their profession? What kind of advice would have have given to these women, if indeed we are to imagine that he objected only to abuses within their profession?”

Now, Taylor herself concludes, “It is highly unlikely that John thought professional prostitutes capable of living righteously while still keeping to prostitution.” She observes that the word זנה was used to described harlots and זונה is used of women who have committed a variety of sexual sins. The word πόρνη is used to translate these idea in the LXX and it appears in Matthew 21:31 (αἱ πόρναι). There is a connection between Jesus’ words and this OT concept of prostitutes, or women identified primarily by sexual sins committed outside the marriage covenant. This leads Taylor to ask (p. 121),

“Even if professional prostitutes are referred to in relation to John, it should be remembered that in a country of extreme poverty, in which women were a vulnerable group, prostitution proper might have been the only way of surviving for women who were divorced, widowed, or somehow on their own in need of money. The word could also refer to a woman who, though living with a man, was not married to him, that is, to a woman who was maintained by a man without a formal marriage contract. A woman could very easily earn the reputation of being a “prostitute,” even if she were not actually earning money for sex. In the story of Jesus’ meeting with the Samaritan women [sic], he refers to the man she is living with as her “husband,” to which she replies she has none. He then notes that indeed she has had seven “husbands,” though in fact the one she is living with now is not her real husband (John 4:16-18). In common appraisal, this unmarried and sexually active woman would have been considered a prostitute. Interestingly, in this story, Jesus does not advise her to go and “sin no more” (cf. the adulterous women [sic] of John 8:1-11). This subject is clearly one that requires more study…”

A few observations:

(1) One could study the role of women who had negative reputations based on their sexual activity among first century Jews. What differentiated prostitutes/harlots from unmarried, sexually active women who depended upon a man for their survival. In the patriarchal culture of the time there were few options for a woman who did not have a husband or another man to care for her.

(2) How did Jews handle the ethical problem of telling a woman to stop having sex for money if that was her only option?

(3) How does this impact our reading of early Christianity’s emphasis on caring for widows?

Second, Taylor observes (pp. 122-123),

“…Matt. 21:31-32 is the only specific mention of women among the disciples of John. This is important, because discipleship in later Judaism and in Graeco-Roman philosophy was typically a male preserve. Two key exceptions to this norm were found elsewhere in Judaic culture, in the community of Therapeutae living by the Mareotic Lake near Alexandria (Philo, On the Contemplative Life) and in the community of disciples of Jesus (see, e.g. Acts 8:3; 9:2, 36). Again, this subject requires greater study, but it should be noted here that women were probably among the disciples of John, and were, like the men, immersed after undergoing a period of instructions

I should clarify that Taylor establishes that people who came to be baptized by John were likely taught by John for some time as concerns fidelity to the Law prior to returning to their communities. If prostitutes came for baptism then these women received instruction making these women disciples.

A couple more observations:

(1) One could research Taylor’s claim that baptism is connected to discipleship in the community of the Baptist.

(2) Another area worth exploring would be the uniqueness of being a woman disciple in the ancient world. What did this do to the early Jesus movement? How would it have been perceived by the surrounding culture? What does it mean to be a woman disciples in juxtaposition with being a male disciple?