Doing Biblical Scholarship Online (with Google Books)
My blogging efforts have helped immensely as I have been seeking out my research interests as a student of New Testament and Christian origins. Before beginning the blogging journey, I had little idea what might be available for the student and scholar online. So, I have created a separate resource page for those interested in discovering what might be out there for scholars of biblical studies, Christian origins and Second Temple Judaism. I include helpful links to get introduced into the biblioblogging world (that is, blogs generally about academic biblical studies), though I don’t attempt any list of biblioblogs myself. I point to a few places where one might find some primary texts and full articles (there are too many articles available to list and more are coming available through university library searches).
My biggest resource on the page is my own attempt to list full-view books from Google Books available for scholars in our fields. I was inspired by Mischa Hooker’s list, and have included some of her findings, but I have mostly been tracking things down on my own as I think of authors to search for. It is primarily an interesting project for me. I am taking a class on the history of NT scholarship and it helps to see images of books published so long ago in the field. It makes the history come alive a little bit more. But I also thought others might find the links interesting, so I’m putting it out there for everyone. Let me know what you think. The bibliographic format is a little awkward with different volumes and editions available separately. I hope you can overlook that and perhaps I’ll come up with a better idea as time goes on. Feel free to leave comments on the page itself (or this post) with suggestions and I’ll look them up in due course.
Update (same day): It came to my attention that, in addition to Hooker’s list, Danny Zacharias and Bob Buller (SBL Editorial Director) maintain an incredible list as well. Their list also blows mine out of the water, but I’m enjoying the search, so I’ll keep plugging away.
As my list grows, I think I will try to add entries that include not only the big names of scholarship, but also representations of interesting interpretative debates from history, particularly social issues. I’ve already found a few on slavery, including from a pro-slavery perspective.
From Apocalyptic Fervor to Institutionalized Churches?
A little while ago, I came across an interesting article by a new Fuller professor in New Testament, David Downs. Downs came to us from his PhD program at Princeton Theological Seminary, where he wrote the article, “‘Early Catholicism’ and Apocalypticism in the Pastoral Epistles” (Catholic Biblical Quarterly 67, no. 4 [October 2005]: 641-661). For my class on the history of NT scholarship, I have to write a paper surveying a particular topic in the history of scholarship and I’m thinking about something within apocalypticism. Seems like Downs’ article is a good starting place.
What was the deal with apocalypticism in the early church? Where did the “apocalyptic mindset” of the early Jews and the early followers of Jesus come from? One theory posits that the early Christians (if we can call them that) increasingly set aside their radical apocalyptic fervor as the church developed more structure. It’s a bit like ABC’s Lost. Some people desperately want to get off the island, to get rescued, and will try anything (build a raft, make a huge S.O.S. sign) to accomplish that. Other passengers from Oceanic Flight 815 are more “realistic” about their chances for rescue and decide to set down roots and get comfortable (build a church, set up a kitchen on the beach).
Apocalypticism, the idea that there is a coming cosmic transition and an accompanying judgment of people by God, was common amidst early Jewish texts into the first century C.E., when the early followers of Jesus picked it up. “Early catholicism” (from the German Frühkatholizismus) refers to a growing inclination towards hierarchical church structure, distance between clergy and laity, establishment of a biblical canon, emphasis on sacraments, and a diminished apocalyptic expectation of the immediate return of Christ (the parousia). Some scholars think that traces of such “early catholicism” in the church can be found within the New Testament, particularly the Pastoral Epistles (those being 1 Timothy, 2 Timothy, and Titus).
At this point, David Downs would like to question a few established assumptions:
To what extent do these letters exhibit the primary feature of early catholicism, namely, a diminished apocalyptic worldview? Or, in short, are “early catholicism” and “apocalypticism” mutually exclusive categories? Is the dawn of the former necessarily tied to the eclipse of the latter? (644)
In other words, is it really such a simple transition from heightened apocalyptic anticipation to a more settled, structured ecclesiology? And is “transition” even the correct word? Can we truly characterize these two emphases as moving along a progressive continuum from one to the other?
First, Downs points out that “[o]ne could hardly imagine a religious group in the ancient (or modern) world simultaneously more apocalyptic and more highly structured than the Dead Sea sect” (648). In the Jews represented by the Dead Sea Scrolls, one finds both structure and fervor. Apocalypticism is seen in various places:
The ideas that the Qumran sect appears to have shared with—or, more likely, inherited from—the apocalypses include: (1) the belief that divine mysteries have been revealed to members of the community (1QH 9:21); (2) the perception of communion with the heavenly world, particularly angelic figures (1QM 7:5-6; lQSa 2:3-9; 1QH 11:20-23); (3) an affinity for the periodization of history (CD 2:9-10; 4Q552-553); (4) a strong dualism, possibly influenced by the Enochic tradition (1QS 3-4; 1QM); and (5) an eschatology shaped by the conviction that the last days have begun but are not yet completed (CD 4:4; lQSa; lQpHab 7:1-14; 4Q174). [649]
Hierarchy is seen, for example, in the Community Rule (e.g., 1QS 5:20-23, 6:2-3). Downs uses the Qumran community to show that “apocalypticism and institutionalism are not mutually exclusive categories” (651). Therefore, we should not see “church order” in and of itself as an indicator for diminished apocalyptic fervor.
On the other hand, Downs mentions earlier Dibelius and Conzelmann’s Hermeneia commentary on the Pastoral Epistles in which they conclude that the letters have an “ethic of good citizenship” in their attempt to fit into the Greco-Roman culture. 1 Timothy 2:1-4 is a classic demonstration of this:
First of all, then, I urge that supplications, prayers, intercessions, and thanksgivings be made for everyone, for kings and all who are in high positions, so that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and dignity. This is right and is acceptable in the sight of God our Savior, who desires everyone to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth.
The idea here (at least as the author writes it) is to be good citizen, so that your countercultural behavior might not hinder the spread of the gospel. We certainly don’t see such a desire in the Dead Sea Scrolls. I wonder if an increasing acceptance of Hellenistic culture and desire to be good Roman citizens can be an indicator of diminished apocalypticism, even if institutionalization cannot. If a group embraces their surrounding society and culture, what reason do they have for desiring the world to end?
And before getting into Downs’ assessment of the letters themselves, I’ll leave it there for the day.
Berlinerblau on Huckabee
Jacques Berlinerblau, of “What’s Wrong with the Society of Biblical Literature?” fame, has a new book out called Thumpin’ It: The Use and Abuse of the Bible in Today’s Presidential Politics. He has taken the opportunity to reflect the interests of this last book on the current race and has an excellent specimen in Mike Huckabee (I previously reflected about Huckabee and his “theology degree”). On his “The God Vote” column/blog at the On Faith website, Berlinerblau offers some brief, but good thoughts about Huckabee and conservative evangelical voters. Here’s a bit to get you started:
It seems doubtful, for example, that [Huckabee] will carry New Hampshire–if only because Evangelicals there do not comprise anywhere near the 38% of Republican voters that they do in Iowa. It is estimated that about 18% of the Republican electorate in New Hampshire is Evangelical (versus, incidentally, a whopping 53% in South Carolina).
It is for this reason that Tuesday’s New Hampshire primary is our friend, our teacher. It wants to help us answer a question and that question is: will Republicans and Independents with no particular investment in a biblical worldview (though with no particular disdain for it either) find something else about Huckabee that convinces them to vote for him?
Who doesn't want to be a "rich professor"?
One of the purposes of this blog is to reflect on the journey towards academia. I have been caught up in applying to my next step in that process, namely, doctoral programs. I am, of course, a bundle of nerves, excitement and bewilderment when I think about the fact that I will be somewhere else this fall. I probably won’t be relieved of that odd feeling until somewhere in the middle of the program, I say to myself, “Wait a minute. I’m here.” At that moment, the moment when I realize I really have become a doctoral student at Such and Such University, I imagine the next anxious moment in the academic journey will feel all the more tangible. That next step is, of course, getting a job.
There have been some interesting thoughts on academic jobs floating around. Just this past weekend, you may have heard the debates in New Hampshire. In the debate with the Democratic candidates, ABC’s Charlie Gibson made a false assumption about faculty salaries at Saint Anselm College in Manchester, New Hampshire (the host of the debate). Here’s the bit from the transcript:
GIBSON: If you take a family of two professors, here at Saint Anselm, they’re going to be in the $200,000 category that you’re talking about lifting the taxes on.
(LAUGHTER)
GIBSON: And…
(CROSSTALK)
(LAUGHTER)
CLINTON: That may be NYU, Charlie. I don’t think it’s St. Anselm.
The people at the event thought it was a humorous suggestion. After I came to the realization that my vocation was to be a professor, I talked to one of my professors from my undergraduate days about what salaries are like for new PhDs. He told me, “We’re not in it for the money!” Professors get way underpaid when one considers the amount of training that goes into it. In the article, “ABC Thinks You’re Rich; ‘U.S. News’ Says Your Job Is Cushy,” Inside Higher Ed had an interesting reflection on Gibson’s faux pas (he says a minute later, “Well, I shouldn’t have done that, apparently”) and one other bit from popular media. Here’s one correction from the article:
[Sherman] Dorn checked the annual data compiled by the American Association of University Professors and found that the average salary for a full professor at Saint Anselm is just over $77,000 while the average for assistant professors is under $50,000. Dorn said in an e-mail that the question showed “astounding ignorance” of faculty salaries. . . . He noted that the average salary for full-time professors nationally is about $73,000 in the AAUP survey, and that only about half of all professors nationwide have full-time faculty jobs.
This is all in line with what I’ve come to expect from speculative comments made by professors at both my undergrad and at Fuller. If a new PhD is lucky enough to land an Assistant Professorship, depending on the institution, they should probably expect somewhere in the 40 thousands. An adjunct instructor? Forget about it. That’s a whole other ball of wax.
The article also brought up a U.S. News and World Report feature which names the “31 best careers” for 2008. Along with investment banker and hairstylist/cosmetologists, also on the list were professor, higher education administrator, librarian, editor, and clergy. I think it’s worth taking a look at part of the brief report on professors:
If you can land a tenure-track position at a four-year institution, you’ll enjoy many advantages. You’ll get the pleasure of teaching—but only six to 15 hours a week, so you’re unlikely to burn out. Outside of class, you’re required to meet with students, but that too is just a few hours a week. Most of the time, you’ll do research or write on a scholarly topic that interests you. And in some specialties, you can pick up extra money by consulting. You also get to work in a delightful work environment: a college campus. Plus, after seven years, you get tenure—lifetime job security.
The downside? It’s tough to land a tenure-track job. It helps if you were a star in your Ph.D. program—and it helps more if that was at a prestigious university. It helps even more if you’re a woman or minority with the potential to bring in grant money. Obtaining a Ph.D. typically takes five to eight years once you’ve got a bachelor’s degree.
Also, the national average salary that they quote from PayScale.com is $85,300 (contrasted with the $73,000 in the AAUP survey). Interesting how they make it sound like after a blissful and relaxing seven years of wondrous life at your collegiate home . . . poof! You’ve got tenure. As if there is no question about it. Not to mention that not all institutions give you tenure for life, but some do a once every five year review or the like (I believe my alma mater does the latter). As the Inside Higher Ed article notes, the description omits the need to do class preparation and grading. They also point to a critique of the U.S. News feature by Karl Steel, an assistant professor of English at Brooklyn College, at his blog.
Another article of interest was published recently in Chronicle Careers by Claire Miller, which is the pseudonym of a Ph.D. candidate in religious studies. She reflects on the frustrating process of finding just the right “fit” in job descriptions that seem to be so strangely pieced together by vastly different specialties. Here’s her humorous fictional job description to demonstrate what she’s been seeing:
Nameless University invites applications for a full-time, tenure-track position in church history and applied ethics. Ability to teach ancient Greek and pastoral counseling desired. The successful candidate will also have competence in visual arts and international relations. Candidates with experience in administration and campus ministry are encouraged to apply.
After discussing with her graduate advisor, she reasons, “I’ve decided that if I can do less than half of a job description, I should let it pass. But if I can do more than half, it’s fair game.”
It all seems kind of crazy, how different this profession is from any other. If you include my undergraduate work, I am already in the seventh year of training in my field, biblical studies, and I’m going to near double that with my doctoral work. Then, after my twelve to thirteen years of training in biblical studies, I’m going to try to find a job that more than halfway matches my skill set. At that point, I hope to get paid at least as much as I could have made in my first year out of undergraduate studies if I had majored in, say, computer science or engineering.
Like my undergraduate professor told me, we’re not in this for the money. That’s right, I’m in it for the fame. Okay, maybe not that either. No, I’m on this strange journey because I want to engage difficult scholarly questions about the New Testament and early Christianity, while I also serve as an educator and mentor to students who wrestle with the same questions on the lay level. I’m on this road because I feel this is how I can make the biggest difference in the world.
So, I guess you could say that this post is me wrestling with the messy practicalities of future academic life, while also not losing my idealistic vision for why I’m motivated to enter the field in the first place.
On Faith: What is "Jewish Identity"?
A very important question has been asked on the On Faith blog, which is sponsored by the Washington Post and Newsweek. For those unfamiliar with the blog, it generally asks a controversial question relating to faith and gets several academics and religious leaders and others to respond. The responses are not always very long, but they are often quite interesting and from vastly different perspectives. This week the topic is:
Next week PBS will air a series on “the Jewish Americans.” We know what “Jewish identity” has meant in the past. What will it mean in the future? How does a minority religion retain its roots and embrace change?
So far the question has garnered responses from N.T. Wright, Arun Gandhi (who responds by talking about “Israel and the culture of violence”), Susan Jacoby, Jonathan D. Sarna, Willis E. Elliott, and Susan Brooks Thistlethwaite (the president of Chicago Theological Seminary). They will probably get some more respondents to the question, which tend to trickle in through the week. Intriguing and worth a gander.
-
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: