Hagner's Response to Nanos' Critique
I have just noticed that the SBL session reviewing “Jewish Christianity” (S19-116) is available for free audio download (HT: JC Baker). I will be reflecting on the exchange between Hagner and Nanos a little later (as has Matt Barnes on his blog), but I thought that I would share Hagner’s response to Nanos’ critique here for anyone who might be interested. You should note that this is a transcription of what was spoken, so pretend you’re hearing it:
I thank the chair for the privilege of having a few minutes to respond even though I’m not on the program. My good friend, Mark–my former good friend, Mark [laughter], is as usual always interesting, always stimulating, but, at least for me, not always persuasive. He accuses me of prejudging the issues and I have to say that I think Mark has at least as much of an a priori as I have. And I think he has more of an a priori than I have, if that’s okay. Mark tends to dismiss my view as the “traditional view.” I’d like to say that because an interpretation is “traditional” does not mean it is necessarily true, but it also does not mean it is necessarily false. I think it’s interesting to ponder the fact that so many have understood Paul in the traditional way. It doesn’t mean it’s right; it’s just an interesting observation.
Next, I’d like to say that the challenge for both of us is to make some coherent sense not just of a few texts, but of all of the texts… together. And I think that leads us to the necessity of affirming tensions, nuances, subtleties, things that you tend to refer to as “contradictions,” I’m afraid. It’s also not a matter of either/or; it’s a matter of both/and. It’s not whether Paul is a Jew or a Christian. He is both: a Jew and a Christian. But these subtleties, I think, sometimes seem to escape Mark. Somehow Mark has missed my affirmation that Paul is a Jew… that Paul is a Jewish believer in Jesus, that Paul has not changed his religion, that Paul upholds the righteousness of the law, but with a new dynamic, in a new way. I emphatically deny something that he has in his written statement, namely (this is a quote from him), he says that I think Paul “is engaged in a new religion that stands against his former religion” [pg 15]. No, no, no! I do not think that. Not at all. It’s the absolute opposite of what I think, in fact. Paul is affirming the true Judaism in his own mind.
Mark wants to push me into a simple “discontinuity” between Paul and Judaism in contrast to his simple “continuity.” But again, the issue is not that easy. We have to deal with both/and, both continuity and discontinuity in this matter. Mark’s view is just a little too simplistic for me. Galatians 1:13, Paul speaks of his Ἰουδαϊσμός as something of the past and I don’t think I can read it in the way Mark does, just moving from one form of Judaism to another. The Ἰουδαϊσμός is behind him, I think. And his Philippians 3:4 and following, Paul counts his Jewish pedigree, including his blamelessness as a Pharisee as worthless. What matters is Χριστὸς.
And it’s ludicrous, by the way, I think, Mark, to say that he would have to include his apostleship in that list [see pg 8]. That’s not giving him a fair chance to say what he means to say, what he wants to say. Because Paul doesn’t use the word “Christian” does not mean that he can’t be described or shouldn’t be described as a Christian. I fail to see how Mark can deny my two nonnegotiables. Are these two statements really questionable on a reading of the authentic Pauline letters? First, that Christians are no longer under the law. Second, that righteousness remains for Paul an indispensable priority. Can we really challenge either of those statements on the basis of the Pauline letters? I don’t think so. Mark’s Paul, for me, is not the Paul of the letters. I would ask him to make better sense of the texts than I have. And I think so far, he hasn’t. Thank you.
The Bible judged by its cover…
I just came across the article, “Selling the Good Book by its cover,” by Stephanie Simon at the LA Times. It is an interesting look at something I’m always fascinated by when I go to the bookstore: what do the Bibles look like here? Here are some excerpts from the article, which features the efforts of Zondervan publishers:
GRAND RAPIDS, MICH. — The original scribes of the Bible may have been inspired by God. Their modern-day successors? They find inspiration in vacuum cleaners, polka-dot bedspreads and a slick, hot-pink Juicy Couture purse.
This all may sound a bit irreverent. But consider it from the Bible publisher’s point of view: How do you sell a really old book that 91% of households already have?
You can’t update the content, or get the author on Oprah.
But you can make the look sizzle. If pink and shiny sells a purse, why not a psalm?
[ . . . ]
It’s still possible to purchase, for as little as $7, a traditional Bible with a stiff, dark, fake-leather cover, of the sort that used to be tucked into pews all across America. But if the industry had stuck to those, it wouldn’t be selling $770 million worth of Bibles a year in the U.S. alone.
Figuring an average price of about $30, which may well be conservative, that adds up to 25 million Bibles a year. By comparison, Scholastic has shipped 14 million copies of the latest Harry Potter book in the U.S. The second-hottest book this year, “The Secret,” has sold about 3 million copies.
In that context, the Bible’s success is phenomenal. Zondervan plans to keep stoking demand by making sure God’s word looks hip, sounds relevant and is advertised all over, including in Rolling Stone magazine and Modern Bride, on MySpace — even on a jumbotron in New York City’s Times Square.
[ . . . ]
Zondervan began churning out limited-edition, one-season-only Scripture: a thin checkbook-shaped Bible with jazzy blue and silver stripes for $30, a square Bible in meadow green for $35, a pocket-size edition in soft browns and oranges for $20. At least a third of Bibles are purchased as gifts, and Zondervan made sure there was one for every occasion — even sorority rush. (The light-pink and apple-green colors of Alpha Kappa Alpha have been a big hit.)
[ . . . ]
All this has raised predictable concerns.
“Where the fine line between accessibility and desecration is, is not real clear sometimes,” says Phyllis Tickle, a noted Christian author. “I find it really, really distressing to think that young people may have their first impression of Christian Scripture presented to them in an almost pandering way.”
[ . . . ]
In a way — an admittedly commercial way — theologian Kurt Fredrickson sees modern publishers as following the hallowed footsteps of Christian heroes such as Jan Hus, William Tyndale and Martin Luther, who risked their lives to bring God’s word to the masses.
“For centuries, there’s been a desire to make the Bible more accessible,” says Fredrickson, who directs the doctor of ministry program at Fuller Theological Seminary.
Yes, the concept of a trendy Gospel may sound tacky.
“But we’re Americans,” Fredrickson says. “We’re always trying to find a niche.”
I admit that I’m conflicted about this trend. I find myself probably somewhere between Tickle and Fredrickson. I am certainly disgusted by some of the gimmicks, but on the other hand, if the gimmicks get people to read the Bible (rather than letting it sit pretty on a shelf), then I think that’s a good thing. Sure, people who are not trained in biblical studies may not understand the historical situation and the nuances of literary criticism. But I think it’s still good for people to read it for themselves, and making it more “hip” looking may help some people do that. To be honest, I think my Quest Study Bible by Zondervan was one of the reasons I got so excited about the Bible in high school. And that initial excitement got me here, so I can’t argue with that.
Thanks, Hendrickson!
I received a Christmas gift from Hendrickson Publishers while I was away visiting my wife’s family. They have graciously sent along what is a very important publication on “Jewish Christianity”: Jewish Believers in Jesus: The Early Centuries edited by Oskar Skarsaune and Reidar Hvalvik. This book, along with Jewish Christianity Reconsidered edited by Matt Jackson-McCabe, was the subject of a particularly interesting session at this years meeting for the Society of Biblical Literature in San Diego last month. Joel Willits has been taking a look at the book and “Jewish Christianity” generally (see these two tags Euangelion). My fellow Fullerite, Matt Barnes, has taken on the topic of Donald Hagner’s chapter of Skarsaune/Hvalvik and Mark Nanos’ harsh critique of Hagner, given at the SBL session (see a PDF version of Nanos’ paper on his website). See other bits on Skarsaune/Hvalvik from Rick Brannon, Danny Zacharias, and Scot McKnight.
Since this book is not only commanding attention, but fits within my interests in the social history of the early followers of Jesus, I will be writing an extended review. I will keep an updated list of my posts reviewing Skarsaune/Hvalvik here.
Many thanks to Mary Riso at Hendrickson for sending my review copy of this tremendous book! Check out their website for PDF versions of its Table of Contents, the Preface, and Chapter 1.
Update (12/29/2007): I just noticed that the entire SBL session that I mentioned is available via audio downloads at TorahResource.com (HT: JC Baker). I actually remember seeing someone recording the session, but didn’t realize it would be available. This resource excites me because I wasn’t able to stay for the entire session. It should be helpful as I work on my review.
A "What’s in/on your" meme
I’ve been tagged by Nick Norelli to say what’s in/on my:
- CD Player
- DVD Player
- To Read List
- To See List
- Mind
So, here goes.
- What’s a CD player? Are CDs the things that look like DVDs?
- As for DVDs, we are going to watch Amazing Grace soon (yes, it is actually in the DVD player), but just watched Ratatouille, and before that Notes on a Scandal. We like cinematic diversity.
- Reading? Well, I’m reading some books for the seminar I’m taking next quarter on the history of NT scholarship, including Yarchin’s History of Biblical Interpretation, Neill and Wright’s The Interpretation of the New Testament, 1861-1986, and William Baird’s two volume History of New Testament Research. But right now, I’m thinking about what will get me through the cross-continental flights for our trip to Maryland and Virginia, which I think will be Hosseini’s Kite Runner and Dickens’ Hard Times along with some good magazines and my primary voter guide.
- To see? Atonement was on the “to see” list, but we watched that this past weekend. Other “to see” movies are No Country for Old Men, I Am Legend, Juno, and The Kite Runner (after I read the book). Though it isn’t a movie, quite high on my “to see” list is Wicked: The Musical at the Pantages Theater.
- What’s on my mind? Where we will be living and I will be studying in the fall of 2008. Also: Christmas.
I tag: anybody who so desires to answer 
Christian High School Student Sues his Teacher for "Anti-Christian" Remarks
Okay, so when I was a fundamentalist high school student, sure, I felt like I was an oppressed minority. This is the nature of fundamentalism, you think that your group (no matter how big) is a small minority facing attacks from all sides. So, all comments, especially from authority figures, are subject to this filter that is actively searching for “Anti-Christian” attacks. Now, I don’t know if this kid is actually a fundamentalist, but he and his parents seem to at least be acting with this “minoritized” suspicion.
A LA Times article reports an ongoing story at Capistrano Valley High in Orange County, noting that 16 year-old Chad Farnan, along with his parents, “filed a lawsuit alleging that [James] Corbett[, an Advanced Placement European history teacher,] had violated the student’s constitutional rights by making ‘highly inappropriate’ and offensive statements in class regarding Christianity.” What were the allegedly offensive statements?
At the heart of the Farnans’ lawsuit is a tape recording from what they said is a class lesson Corbett taught Oct. 19. The lawsuit notes that Corbett told students that “when you put on your Jesus glasses, you can’t see the truth,” and that religion is not “connected with morality.”
Hmmm. Well, perhaps the teacher could benefit from using a little more sensitivity and, well, precision in his comments. Unfortunately, we don’t have a transcript of what he was talking about, but as one perceptive supporter of the teacher points out in the article: “It’s hard to teach European history without being somewhat critical of organized religion. But aren’t we supposed to learn from our mistakes? Isn’t that why we study history?” The article also references a Quaker student and an Irish Roman Catholic student who have not been offended by any the history teacher’s remarks. The Catholic student adds: “For hundreds of years the church was corrupt, and that has to be discussed.”
I can certainly imagine a context in which the teacher is raising legitimate concerns about corruption in the religious institutions of European history. For example, let’s say that part of the lesson for the day is this: The state churches of Europe were not interested in worshiping God, but rather protecting their power. For the religious institution, religion was not “connected with morality.” Many Christians today don’t recognize the corruption of the church’s past because they are trying to see church history through rose-colored glasses. But we have to recognize the truth of history and “when you put on your Jesus glasses, you can’t see the truth.”
This is the context within which I imagine the teacher giving his comments. Like I mentioned, he probably could have been a little more careful about the way he made the comments, but if he said something like I imagine, then he’s raising a valid point about ideological presuppositions when studying history. It seems to me that an Advanced Placement course should address the issue of preconceived notions in historical investigation.
The article highlights the 300 or so supports outside the school rallying on behalf of the teacher, Dr. Corbett. They have cool signs like, “Who would Jesus sue?” I like that one. They also talk about a Southern Baptist pastor, Wiley S. Drake, in the crowd recording interviews with the supporters for his Internet radio show. Drake is a guy, by the way, who has called his own supporters to pray for his critics to die (see here too–so much for Jesus asking us to love our “enemies”). His comments for the LA Times article are entirely in line with the attitude I mention at the beginning of this post: “I’m tired of being criticized and ostracized for being a Christian. I’m glad Chad filed his suit. It’s time we Christians fought back.”
It’s this “fighting” mentality that leads this situation in to a frenzied circus. I don’t know the context, so I’m like every other observer, but I would think that a civil conversation with the teacher would do the trick. I’m not proud of the fact that I was a creationist in high school, but a friend and I raised concerns with my high school psychology teacher about how she talked about evolution “as if it were fact” (those were my words at the time). She told us that she had thought about the issue of creationism and was sensitive to our concerns. She just didn’t see the evidence for creationism, but she’d be willing to take a look at any evidence we might have had. No law suit. Just a conversation. And it worked out okay. And I changed my mind when I got to college anyway, so I completely agree with her now.
I know that it’s tempting to see the world against you as a Christian high schooler at a public school, but honestly, I’d hope that a Christian school would give you the same kind of critical reflection on the history of the church. Christians shouldn’t feel they have to defend all the despicable acts of Christian history. I can only hope that the fever dies down and conservative Christians start to see that “fighting” is not as productive as conversing. Who knows, people might actually learn something from the conversation.
Update (12/23/07): See some reflections on this article and my post over at if i were a bell, i’d ring.
Update (12/28/07): See this editorial at the LA Times.
Huckabee and his "Theology Degree"
Like Michael Westmoreland-White and Jim West, I am skeptical of thinking a “theology degree” could qualify a person for presidency of the United States. I do see some potential benefits, depending on one’s training in that degree. For example, if a person focused on the relationship between theology and culture in American society or perhaps comparative religion, I think that they would be well-trained with some helpful intellectual tools to assess the religious landscape of the United States and how it affects public policy. I think a theology degree could possibly help an elected leader critically evaluate the use and abuse of religious language to make public policy decisions. Huckabee’s rhetoric is something else. It seems that Huckabee is posturing himself as the most Christian candidate out of all the Republicans. Note this NPR piece highlighting one of his ads in Iowa playing “Silent Night” in the background and talking about the “celebration of the birth of Christ.” I especially liked the comment from NPR’s Martin Kaste afterwards: “Now there’s a wily trick: you get ahead in the polls and then you declare Christmas!”
Check out how he’s talked about his “theology degree”:
I’m as strong on terror as anybody. In fact I think I’m stronger than most people because I truly understand the nature of the war that we are in with Islamofascism. These are people that want to kill us. It’s a theocratic war. And I don’t know if anybody fully understands that. I’m the only guy on that stage with a theology degree. I think I understand it really well. [Interview with Christian Broadcasting Network on 11/8/2007]
Or in answering the creepy questioner who asked “Do you believe this book?” [holding up a King James Version of the Bible] on the CNN YouTube Debate on 11/28/2007 (See James McGrath’s post):
And as the only person here (probably) on the stage with a theology degree, there are parts of it I don’t fully comprehend and understand, but I’m not supposed to, because the Bible is the revelation of an infinite God and no finite person is ever going to fully understand it. If they do, their God is too small.
He made a few mistakes while answering the YouTube question, like calling the bit about “plucking out your eye” “allegorical” (perhaps it is hyperbole, but not allegory) and his mention of Matthew 25 is a particular interpretation of the text, an exegetically questionable one. But the second quote here is clearly a better use of his alleged “theology degree” than the former.
As it turns out, however, Mike Huckabee does not have a “theology degree.” He spent a year at Southwestern Theological Seminary and dropped out to go work for televangelist James Robison. Check out this bit in a NY Times interview Zev Chafets had with Huckabee:
If young Mike Huckabee was ever rebellious or difficult, there’s no record of it. He preached his first sermon as a teenager, married his high-school sweetheart and went off to Ouachita Baptist University in Arkadelphia. There he majored in speech and communications, worked at a radio station and earned his B.A. in a little more than two years. He spent a year at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary in Fort Worth, Tex., before dropping out to work for the televangelist James Robison, who bought him his first decent wardrobe and showed him how to use television.
During this interview, Huckabee also made the faux pas of wondering aloud about Mormonism:
I asked Huckabee, who describes himself as the only Republican candidate with a degree in theology, if he considered Mormonism a cult or a religion. ‘‘I think it’s a religion,’’ he said. ‘‘I really don’t know much about it.’’
I was about to jot down this piece of boilerplate when Huckabee surprised me with a question of his own: ‘‘Don’t Mormons,’’ he asked in an innocent voice, ‘‘believe that Jesus and the devil are brothers?’’
A theology degree doesn’t have to make you an expert in comparative religion. There are a lot of foci to a theology degree. I’m focusing on New Testament studies and by the time I finish my Master of Divinity this summer, I will not have had a single course on Mormonism. On the other hand . . . neither does it make you an expert on “Islamofascism” (a scary term in the mouth of someone running as the most Christian candidate for president), which Huckabee claims to “understand really well” because he is the only one with a “theology degree.” Even if he had a degree in theology, he would not necessarily be qualified to “understand really well” Islamofascism. Huckabee claimed both a degree that he didn’t have and expertise that such a degree would not have given him.
Mike Huckabee responds to the ensuing fuss:
I have a bachelor of arts in religion and a minor in communications in my undergraduate work. And then I have 46 hours on a master’s degree at Southwestern Theology Seminary. So, my degree as a theological degree is at the college level and then 46 hours toward a masters — three years of study of New Testament Greek, and then the rest of it, all in Seminary was theological studies, but my degree was actually in religion.
Did he really major in religion? Or communication like the NY Times article says? Is Mike Huckabee making his “theology degree” claims sound better by telling the world he was a religion major instead of a communications major? Ouachita Baptist University (who named its school of education after him) says that Huckabee graduated in 1976 with a degree in “pastoral ministry”:
Governor Huckabee and his wife, Janet, entered Ouachita as freshmen in the fall of 1973. The couple married following their freshman year. The Governor graduated from Ouachita in 1976 with a degree in pastoral ministry.
“Religion” sounds better than “pastoral ministry” when you’re in politics, I guess. Well, this mess clearly shows that Huckabee has some problems showing himself in an accurate light. But further, I’m just a little perturbed with how he used a “theology degree” to gain him some traction with voters. People already make assumptions about what my theology degree means. This just makes it worse.
Update (1/08/08): See also Dwight’s reflections on the issue at Versus Populum.
Reading the Bible "literally"
When I was in high school, I spent a couple years as a fundamentalist. To be honest, apart from the horror I caused my parents and the damage I did to my friendships with “unbelievers,” I am in many ways happy that I had this time. Not only did my close-minded bibliolatry (that is, worshiping the Bible) lead me to the kinds of probing questions that now drive my career in academic biblical studies (in many ways, I am often disproving assumptions I once ardently held), but it also gives me an “insider’s” point of reference for speaking of those we call fundies. One point that often confused me in those days was the need to read the Bible “literally.” My pastor mentioned that we need to read the Bible “literally” rather than “allegorically.” Apparently, “liberals” (i.e., any person who was not a fundamentalist) read the Bible “allegorically.”
Hmmm. I thought to myself: Maybe I misunderstand what an allegory is. Is it not a story in which each character, figure, or event could function as a representation of some abstract idea? Perhaps some “liberal” Christians read certain texts symbolically, such as the resurrection as a symbol of some kind of hope, rather than a historical reality. But allegorically? This is an allegorical interpretation:
The table made from acacia wood is the Holy Scripture composed out of the bold words and deeds of the holy fathers. . . . This [table] has length, because it suggests to us perseverance in religious undertakings; width, because it suggests the amplitude of charity; height, because it suggests the hope of the everlasting reward. (Bede, On the Tabernacle [Holder trans.], 21)
That didn’t seem to be what “liberals” were doing. Indeed, I left fundamentalism when I started studying the Bible academically as an undergraduate, and after making the shift, I have never taken a text “allegorically” that I didn’t think was supposed to be taking allegorically. Revelation, for example, has allegorical elements. Many parables are something close to allegories. But, after my transition, what set me apart from my fundamentalist brothers and sisters was my desire to locate the biblical texts within their own social, cultural, and historical environment. In Paul’s interpretation of the Greco-Roman “household code” in Ephesians, for example, I saw something quite revolutionary. Paul was not going to “rock the boat” and change the lingo for headship and submission in marriage, but instead he redefined it. What does it mean for a husband to be the “head” of his wife? To love her sacrificially . . . not to “tell her what to do” or “make the tough decisions” or “be the spiritual leader.” The verse 5:21 sets up the passage: Submit to one another. He doesn’t need to spend much time saying how wives submit to their husbands because this is an accepted cultural reality. He does spend some time, though, showing how being a “head” in marriage can actually mean submission. So, which reading is more “literal”? Mine? Or the endless horrid wedding sermons on this passage that talk about the husband being the “spiritual leader” of the household? Actually, I feel that my reading more accurately considers what the text “literally” meant for the author and his readers/hearers. My fundamentalist friends understand the “literal” meaning (or the “plain sense”) of the passage to be how these particular words sound today.
Whomever we decide is more “literal,” the fact remains that “literalness” is not the main distinguishing characteristic here. The main difference is how willing one is to contextualize the words of the Bible within their original situation. True, many fundamentalists work with the original context and do scholarship in this area, but usually (forgive me for my broad generalizations) with the intent of proving their understanding of the “literal” meaning is correct. So, let’s drop this whole litmus test of who “reads the Bible literally.” This is a remnant of the Protestants reacting against what they saw as convoluted allegorical interpretations of parts of the Roman Catholic Church of the time (something like what I quoted above) [Note: I'm not dissing Catholics here]. But the dichotomy has changed! I read literal texts literally. I read symbolic texts symbolically. I try to make sense of the evidence that we have as best I can, without trying to “prove” some particular doctrine. I’m not claiming that I am without an ideology or that I am some saintly or infallible interpreter of the biblical text. No, but I try to be willing to let the biblical text and its environs challenge my ideology, to let the text read me. And I think that’s the difference.
Permitting all goes as planned, I will be taking my third doctoral seminar next quarter while at Fuller for my MDiv. It is a class on the “History of New Testament Scholarship” taught by Donald Hagner. That’s why I’m thinking about interpretation these days. It strikes me that the study of the history of scholarship is the interpretation of interpretation. It is difficult to wrap my mind around how many interpretive layers we have to deal with to think about the Bible, in its many forms. I think we would all do well to remember just how much interpretation is going on and hope that it gives us a little humility as we try to be our own interpreters.
Christopher Hitchens, Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins, and . . . Rodney Stark??
This shot is from a book display in the Religion section at Borders. I guess some Borders employee thought this was their “atheist” shelf, but one of these things is not like the others. Or did said employee imagine that Stark was enough to take on the atheists all by himself?
Actually, someone (presumably someone who does not like to read differing opinions) had flipped the books over so you couldn’t see the covers (including Stark’s) . . . as if these books were pornographic and they don’t want little children to see them inadvertently.
April DeConick: Conservative or Liberal Scholar?
That title sounds almost polemical. No, it’s meant rather to point to her own interesting post of a similar title (a couple weeks old, I have to admit… I’m still catching up on my blog reading after the quarter has ended). She talks about her experiences with interviewers from the press about her new book The Thirteenth Apostle: What the Gospel of Judas Really Says. She reflects on how she gets asked what religion she is, which is most likely not a question received by, say, classicists or other types of historians. Naturally, the idea behind the question is to see how the person’s faith has affected their scholarship and perhaps even the conclusions they have come to. Here’s an excerpt:
That said, when I answer the reporter’s question, “What religion are you?”, with “A liberal Christian” or “A progressive Christian”, there is usually a pause as the reporter responds, “but your book is conservative.”
How delightful. How fascinating. How paradoxical.
I am not a liberal or conservative scholar. I am a historian of religion whose main goal is to reconstruct the history and theology of the ancient Christians as accurately as I can. If the text had said that he was a hero, I would have supported that position. But it doesn’t. So I have to follow through, maintaining academic integrity even if this means that I have to take a position opposite many scholars whom I consider to be friends. Judas is still a demon, even in the gnostic tradition. Epiphanius was wrong, as are the scholars who wish it to be otherwise.
I am in complete agreement here. I often say that it may be my deep commitment to Anabaptism that leads me to study social issues in the New Testament and early Christianity, but that I’m not out to prove anything in particular. I don’t have an Anabaptist ax to grind (a funny image, come to think of it). I simply hope to explore and discover the evidence of what may have been the social situation of the early Christians. I want to be completely honest about what I find.
One of the things I find humorous about April’s interviewers’ reactions is: I’m not sure I’d say her conclusions about the Gospel of Judas are conservative. She goes against what the “liberal scholars” (emphasis on the quotation marks here) are saying, but does that make her “conservative”?
It seems to me that a “conservative” would literally want to “conserve” tradition. The traditional understanding of the Gospel of Judas is that Judas is understood to be a “hero.” See Irenaeus and Pseudo-Tertullian, for example (April refers, I think, to the 38th chapter of Panarion by Epiphanius of Salamis, for which I can’t seem to find a good online resource). The “conservative” understanding of the Gospel of Judas, it seems to me, would be that it portrays Judas as a hero. It was considered heresy, after all. So, if anything, the so-called “liberal scholars” on the Gospel of Judas are really “conserving” the traditional understanding of the Gospel of Judas to some extent, whether or not they do so intentionally (they may, however, disagree with the value judgment of the traditional understanding–i.e., that it is heresy). April offers a “liberal” understanding in that it suggests a nontraditional view of the Gospel of Judas: that Judas is not the hero for the gnostics.
But the point is: April is not driven to find a nontraditional view and thus be a “liberal” scholar in this way, but rather that she is simply investigating and reporting what she finds. Just goes to show again the (non)usefulness of “conservative” and “liberal” as identifiers for scholarship.
Update (12/20/2007): See this post from April today regarding Robert Eisenman’s misreading of her work (he calls her a “theologically-minded scholar”).
Member of The Daily Scribe!
This news is a little late in coming, but a couple weeks ago I was welcomed into the family of The Daily Scribe, which has the description: “A growing compendium of exceptional Christian expression.” One of the things that the Scribe is looking for is open-mindedness and dialogue. I am honored and happy to be included in such a community as it is inventing itself. Here’s a little bit more from the “About” page:
Only the highest quality Christian writing and expression is aggregated on the pages of The Daily Scribe. All of the writers featured are dedicated professionals in their respective fields and faiths. Theirs is a passion which is obvious, mature and tuned – well tuned. Each aggregated member represents quality and honesty. Each of these individuals bring much of value to the craft.
For me, my membership in The Daily Scribe complements my understanding of my commitment to biblioblogging. I am deeply interested in intellectually engaging issues of scholarship in biblical studies and early Christianity, and I view that as the “biblioblogging” side to my blog. I also want to communicate these issues in a way that is accessible to those outside of scholarship who are still interested in the issues, and I guess I think of my newly formed commitment to The Daily Scribe as one representation of that passion to communicate to a wider audience. This melding of intellectual engagement with an attempt to communicate complicated issues of scholarship to a wider audience, by the way, is how I view my journey as a scholar and future educator. Engage in scholarship. Communicate and dialogue with students and other interested folks.
Since joining TDS, I have discovered a number of well-written and very interesting blogs on matters of faith. I highly recommend checking it out!
-
Elsewhere . . .- Blog titles beginning with "A" to "Z" on your reader Mark Goodacre
- Of making many books there is no end Chris Brady
- Free Online: The Liddell-Scott Jones Lexicon S and C
- Does Higher Criticism Attempt to “Destroy the Bible”? II agathos
- Steven J. Friesen and the Identity of Satan’s Throne in Pergamum alan
- Does Higher Criticism Attempt to “Destroy the Bible”? agathos
- Bloomsbury buys Continuum Mark Goodacre
- Imperial America Peter J. Leithart
- C.F.D. Moule on the Birth of the New Testament d. miller
- Responding to Kostenberger (with comparisons to Marshall) Jeremiah
-
As a member of RevGalBlogPals, I am committed to building a supportive online community for women clergy, women church professionals, and women in religious life.
Research assisted by: