Another Round on the Dearth of Female Bibliobloggers?
April DeConick raises the perennial isssue of the dearth of female bloggers in biblical studies. Deirdre Good follows up. Some time ago (June 2007 – while I was still blogging at Blogger), I raised the issue and got some discussion going. On that old post (now transferred to my new web location), I also summarized an even older discussion on the lack of female bibliobloggers sparked around the time of the Philly SBL meeting (Nov 2005). Looks like we’ve got a good two-year cycle or so.
So many theories have been posited and it’s difficult for any of them to avoid gender stereotypes. Is it that men like the geeky, techy blogging thing more than women? Well, my wife is getting started in the breastfeeding/mothering blogging world and there are tons of female bloggers who are activists for whatever type of mothering meets their passions. So, do we say that women prefer more “emotional” or “personal” sorts of bloggings than their more “intellectual” or “rational” male counterparts? Blech. How’s that for the cream of stereotypes? The percentage of women in biblical scholarship generally debunks the emotional women versus rational men theory. Pointing the finger at men, we all know that blogging is an attractive platform for narcissists. Are more men bibliobloggers because it feeds their male egos? But there are lots of women bloggers out there, just very few blogging on academic biblical studies.
It’s difficult to make heads or tails of this issue by focusing on stereotypes, male or female.
I have one more idea kicking around this time and I’m not certain if someone has mentioned it before–they probably have. This is less related to gender preferences and more so related to social realities. What about the perceived risk involved with biblioblogging? While job descriptions o’ plenty are saying “women and minorities are encouraged to apply,” is there not still an uphill struggle women have to fight to gain the same level of respect as their male colleagues? There is still plenty of doubt in the academy about whether blogging biblical studies is a valid medium for scholarly conversation–and then there are plenty who don’t even know what a blog is and how’s it’s different from a myspace account.
If female scholars are fighting harder for respect than male scholars already, and there is a risk of possibly even losing respect by blogging (or at least that may be the perception), then that may be a contributing factor as well. Just to throw one more idea out there into the ring.
New Testament Jobs for 2010 and "Ideological" Criticisms
SBL Career Center has been posting positions for 2010 and I thought I’d take a peek at the spots that are out there. I’m not applying for these spots as I’m not on the market yet, but it’s never too early to investigate the lay of the land. I noticed a common requirement. Historical-critical scholars who have no interest in “ideological” criticisms will be at a disadvantage!
Seattle University: Assistant Professor of New Testament & Christian Origins (Ph.D. Required; tenure track): “We are particularly interested in applicants with expertise in liberation, feminist, African-American, Latino/a, Asian, or ecological hermeneutics.”
Xavier University: Assistant Professor of New Testament (Ph.D. required; tenure track). “Candidates should have a facility with diverse interpretive methods and approaches to sacred texts as well as the ability to reflect on and communicate the theological and ethical implications of the early Christian traditions for an engagement with today’s pluralistic world.” Diverse interpretive methods. Today’s pluralistic world.
University of South Carolina: Assistant Professor of Early Christianity and Christian Scriptures [Canonical and Extracanonical] (Ph.D. required; tenure track). The description notes the need for strong candidates to have expertise in one of the following: “interdisciplinary approaches to Scripture; knowledge of various interpretive traditions, including postmodern, feminist, multicultural, or global; knowledge of popular/emerging cultures of the Mediterranean; or material culture.”
Kalamazoo College: Assistant Professor of Hebrew Bible and Christian (New) Testament (Ph.D. required; M.Div. desirable [!]; tenure track). “In addition to expertise in the textual traditions, candidates should be able to teach courses reflecting knowledge of the cultural contexts, interpretations and impact of those texts in Christian and Jewish communities.” Cultural contexts. Interpretations. Impact.
Pacific Lutheran University: Assistant Professor of New Testament (Ph.D. required; tenure track). “The Department seeks a candidate with a primary concentration in biblical hermeneutics, with special emphasis on biblical interpretation in a multi-faith context. Additional competencies expected in 1) Hebrew Bible or Greco-Roman religions and 2) critical methods.” Not quite the same emphasis as the others, but there is a need to be familiar with interpretation and not simply historical-critical research.
So, if you’re a young scholar focusing on historical-critical work, and nothing else, this seems to be a wake up call to think about diverse issues of interpretation in today’s world.
Generalist Versus Specialist in Biblical Scholarship?
Mike Bird notes his co-authored (with Craig Keener) piece in the SBL forum, “Jack of All Trades and Master of None: The Case for ‘Generalist’ Scholars in Biblical Scholarship.” While we need both specialists and generalists in academia, this article is an apology for a generalist approach–as the field of biblical studies has descended ever rapidly down a myopically specialist route.
I consider myself a generalist, even in my specialty. Obviously, in order to get our initial “stripes” in academic biblical studies, we need to specialize in something as we author our own little specialty showcase, the dissertation. The topic that I have chosen for myself, or I feel has almost chosen me, is indeed somewhat esoteric: apocalyptic thought. But, I have always had a wide range of interests in Hebrew Bible, history of Israel, Second Temple Judaism, New Testament, Christian origins, history of interpretation, etc. Studying apocalyptic literature and eschatology forces me to cover a wide range of historical sources and situations and has become something of a “bridge” for me to cover my wide-ranging interests as I pursue my own specialty. And I am concerned with not simply apocalyptic in its own right, but how it grows out of the social and theological environment of early Judaism and Christian origins.
So, I would say, why not be both/and–both generalist and specialist? Mike and Craig seem to be arguing for something like this. They mention well-known generalist scholars who, “though having a particular niche in which they cut their scholarly teeth, have produced works across the subcategories of their disciplines, revealing the value of operating trans-corpora or across the traditional subdisciplines.” They deconstruct the notion of one versus the other by noting that “the problem is not that of specialists versus generalists, but of specialists failing to recognize the value of other specialties.” That is, we are all specialists to some extent, but we should simply try to familiarize ourselves with other specialties: “One can stay in the preferred ‘zone’ and still produce specialist and generalist works.”
When I began to read their article, I was thinking what they eventually articulated about halfway through: that “the generalist may have an advantage over the specialist in the classroom.” Students need us to offer them some sort of walkable path to make their way through the trenches of complicated and nuanced arguments about difficult biblical texts. In order to do that, we need to be involved in a wider conversation than with our own little corners of dialogue.
Check out the article for yourself. Good reading.
See also: Goodacre, Gupta, Carey.
Near Perfect Agreement: Tom Yoder Neufeld
Nick asked an interesting question on his blog, a question that I often consider. Is there any person (“scholar, theologian, pastor, or just regular person in your life”) with whom you agree almost all the time? How about the reverse? A while back, I was answering one of my father-in-law’s theological or biblical questions. We were talking about some author and I said, “I don’t agree with him on everything, but I think he’s got a lot of good ideas.” My father-in-law asked me if there was any one author with whom I agree all the time. I couldn’t think of anyone, but the question stuck with me.
I think I have an answer. I put it in a comment on Nick’s blog, but I’d like to share it here as well: Thomas Yoder Neufeld. Tom is the son-in-law of the late (and legendary) John Howard Yoder. But for my proverbial money, Tom is the better scholar when it comes to the biblical text (not really fair, as JHY was not primarily a biblical scholar). At least, he’s the one I agree with more.
Tom is a Harvard-trained, Mennonite New Testament scholar, teaching up at the University of Waterloo. He has three books out, that I know of, showcasing his scholarly prowess: ‘Put on the Armour of God!’ The Divine Warrior from Isaiah to Ephesians, an Ephesians commentary in the Believers’ Church Bible Commentary Series (check out his treatment of the household code!), and most recently, Recovering Jesus: The Witness of the New Testament. He is currently working on a book addressing violence in the New Testament, which he predicts will be published in 2010 by Westminster/John Knox and SPCK.
Though I had known of his work, I had not yet read it until I saw him present in the Mennonite Scholars and Friends group at the 2007 San Diego SBL/AAR meeting (see my play-by-play of the session). That session may be the single most engaging session I have attended while at SBL (though, I have only been two years thus far). In that session, Tom seemed to be the greatest voice of reason on the topic of the Atonement. He showed himself to be deeply committed to Mennonite theology, but also capable of keeping a nuanced perspective of biblical theology in tension with his personal views. That is the mark of intellectual integrity, as far as I am concerned.
That session spurred me on to read Tom’s works. And I had the opportunity to get to know Tom a bit more during his sabbatical at Fuller Seminary, when he attended my church for several months. As a committed Anabaptist, with a nuanced and complex understanding of biblical scholarship, Tom is the model for the type of biblical scholar I aspire to be.
How does a professor take a furlough?
That is the topic of a deeply fascinating piece on the Chronicle Career website. Keith D. Miller, a professor of English at Arizona State University tackles both the pragmatic and philosophical problems related to mandated unpaid furloughs. Here is his opening set of questions:
I am taking 12 days of furlough — mandated, unpaid leave — this semester. Why am I, a professor of English, required to do that? Doesn’t that happen only to blue-collar workers at a GM assembly plant? And is it actually possible for an academic to take a furlough? If so, how?
Here are the specific requirements placed upon Miller and his colleagues:
Our administrators initially told us that we could not work on furlough days. Then they stated that we might volunteer to serve the university during some or all of our furlough time. They further informed us that in each department, a staff member would have to track which days we would select for our furloughs (presumably that would be done on one of the staff member’s nonfurlough days). We were not allowed to cancel classes or office hours.
So, work load does not reduce, but your only option for tackling that work load at the same pace is to “volunteer” to do so without pay. Miller’s analysis of the situation is insightful and enlightening. Give it a read!
Entering Acadadia
When my wife and I sat down in the middle of the night with a home pregnancy test in bewildered awe of the coming tectonic shift in our lives, I didn’t really consider the situation that I would be in when our little baby entered the world. From our calculations, it looked like he would enter the world around the time of my winter break after my first quarter in the PhD program. We thought that perhaps aiming for the summer break (which will be my first summer break in years!) might be more ideal, but winter break sounded like a good alternative.
His due date was actually slightly before the break began, just before finals week. Hmmm. Looking a bit less academically “convenient.” As it turned out, our boy thought he’d wait it out and came two weeks late and during the break. Before you think that this eased my end-of-quarter responsibilities, consider that rather than having a baby to care for, the situation left me with a very pregnant wife to serve (thus fulfilling our marital vows) just as the quarter was coming to a close. Some academic responsibilities were necessarily put on hold.
When Declan (our son) finally did come (after some encouragement), however, I was not “in the clear” with my academic responsibilities. I had grading to do. And lots of it. I had been used to Fuller Seminary’s policy of allowing professors until the second week of the following quarter–no matter how long the break is–to complete and submit grades. As a student, I didn’t like the wait. As a grader, I appreciated the breathing room. Now, at UCLA, my appreciation for Fuller’s policy is even deeper. You see, at UCLA, no matter how many students are on your class–thirty or three hundred–you have about one week to grade your assignments. I was the grader for a class of 120 students and my son was born on the one week I had to grade. The situation left me with final exams to grade, whilst on the maternity floor.
Such was my introduction to life as an academic dad.
Since I have intended this blog to explore the strange world of academia, I thought I might start blogging about my own transition into this world. I have seen some articles in the Chronicle of Higher Education in the past on similar themes. I will have to revisit them and see how true they have become for me. When I call this series of posts “acadadia” I do not seek to diminish academic moms, who face their own series of challenges. My own wife is very accomplished professionally, with more letters after her name than I have (at least so far–our competition isn’t over yet), and has plenty of challenges as she considers what it will mean for her to have a strong career and also be a dedicated mom. I would simply like to explore what it means for me to be a devoted father (and husband!) while also tackling my academic goals.
So many people have warned me about the challenges of a doctoral program. And now I am learning them first hand.
More to come.
Bad News for PhD Re-Applicants
I was flabbergasted to read John Stackhouse’s (theology prof at Regent College in Vancouver) recent blog post about applying to PhD programs. First, he warned applicants against asking to defer their acceptance (“It’s not like undergraduate acceptance”). Clearly, that is sage advice. I’m amazed that people even consider doing that. But the second bit in his post was what got me:
One more thing. I did hear from a senior professor who has held posts at two of America’s top universities that a student who has applied, is turned down, and then applies again the next year does indeed have a strike–or two–against him or her. He didn’t presume to speak for every school everywhere, of course, but he did seem to think this was the way it was commonly done, and he is very widely connected.
Wait, what? It’s counted against you if you reapply to a program that turned you down last year? My entire application strategy was based upon applying to the top tier programs first (all programs that I would say “yes” to without regret) along with some ThM (or equivalent) programs. If I got universally rejected at the PhD level, I’d do a ThM (or equivalent) somewhere and do a second round of applications the next year (with which I would widen the net to “second tier” schools). In the end, I did have two advanced one-year masters programs to choose from, but I am so happy that I got into UCLA as it is really the perfect program for my interests in New Testament social history.
John Stackhouse’s well-connected friend shares information that goes against what I thought to be true. If I had been universally rejected at the PhD level, I would be doing another master’s program right now and panicking a bit. I’m not sure I understand why a school would make it harder for a re-applicant the second time around, unless that applicant had done nothing to improve or had somehow gone backwards. In response to my amazement and confusion, Prof. Stackhouse commented:
I understand your confusion and, perhaps, dubiety, Brother McCullough. I strongly supported one of our graduates who was in precisely this case and whose case elicited this response from my friend. I only pass it along as something my friend sees as common in elite schools: If you’ve been considered and turned down once, you face a steeper hill the next time. It doesn’t make sense to me either, but there it is.
Something to consider very seriously for those who are applying!
I am now a master of divine things.
It hasn’t quite become official–I have to pass my classes after all 
–but I have handed in my last assignment for Fuller Theological Seminary. I have now finished all the work necessary to earn my Master of Divinity. I am so excited to start bossing around divine beings. I believe my first command will be a major windfall via the lottery. Then perhaps I will demand the peaceful end to violent conflict in the world. Let’s see how this goes.
This means that I am no longer a “seminarian.” I don’t have much time to relax and simply be for awhile. I begin my courses at UCLA on Thursday, when I will commence my career as a “doctoral student.” I actually began taking my Latin course at Pasadena City College already, so I have overlapped my courses to make sure that I would not give myself any break whatsoever. I shouldn’t complain, though. This is the academic life. Even without much mental rest, I am excited to finally dive deeper into my passions through doctoral work this fall.
Farewell, my dear Fuller! Until we meet again . . . which will be soon, because I will keep using your library . . . and at some point maybe you’ll let me adjunct?
The Bible influences culture even if nobody reads it . . .
Many may know about the discussion raised by Hector Avalos about the “end of biblical studies.” For those who don’t, I will catch you up a little bit. The issue is about whether we should teach biblical studies as an academic discipline and, if so, how we should go about it. The issue obviously hits close to home for me, since I’ll be looking for a job teaching biblical studies as an academic discipline in a few years.
Hector Avalos is a trained biblical scholar (receiving his Ph.D. from Harvard University in 1991), now teaching as a professor at Iowa State University, who has become somewhat (in)famous for criticizing his own field. The book that has pushed this discussion forward is his The End of Biblical Studies, which I have to admit I have not yet read. As I understand it (and I may not), Avalos suggests that the Bible is irrelevant to contemporary culture. For Avalos, the guild of biblical scholars falsely maintains the illusion that the Bible is relevant in the interests of academic preservation. In short, we only say the Bible is relevant because we don’t want to lose our jobs.
Now, there are plenty of things that academia studies, writes about, and teaches that are not exactly thought of as relevant in contemporary culture. I believe Avalos’ major bone with biblical studies is that our study of Christian origins should not be confined to a religiously defined canon of texts. Why not also teach the Gnostic literature alongside the New Testament?
More recently, Helmut Koester (longtime professor of New Testament at the aforementioned Harvard) wrote a critique of Avalos in the September/October 2008 issue of Biblical Archeology Review (pages 11-12), the periodical of a society criticized in Avalos’ book. Koester (not surprisingly) defends the relevance of biblical studies, concluding, “The relationship of American religious life, Bible and scholarship is a vital and undeniable factor in our society—especially in the United States—however, controversial.” Avalos responds to Koester on the Debunking Christianity blog in a post entitled “Prof. Helmut Koester: A Reality Check for Him.” Avalos accuses Koester of being “short on facts and long on routine religionist apologetics for biblical studies.” Responding to this discussion, you can find an excellent treatment done by April DeConick, who attempts a kind of middle ground between Avalos and Koester.
I would like to zero in on one particular point: the relevance of the Bible to contemporary culture. Avalos suggests that people don’t actually read the Bible much and, hence, the Bible is irrelevant. On the blog post mentioned, he cites studies showing “that 21.9% of Mainline Protestants and 33.1% of Catholics ‘never’ read Scripture” and that “even those who read scripture more than ‘never,’ don’t read or apply much of it.” He says:
In fact, most Christians probably use a miniscule amount of the Bible in their lives because they do not find most of it relevant. This is not just my judgment, but that of many conservative evangelical scholars and sociologists.
[ . . . ]
1) The Bible has already lost much of its influence in American religion;
2) Any influence still left is partly the result of an ecclesial-academic complex, of which Dr. Koester is himself a part, which keeps promoting the illusion that the Bible is important. Without the constant effluence of “new translations,” among other marketing devices, the Bible would probably die.
First, I would like to ask, do people actually have to read the Bible for it to be a relevant field for academic discipline? How many people actually read the U.S. Constitution? Clearly, the Constitution is relevant. Does the mere fact that the Bible is a religious document while the Constitution is a secular legal document make the former irrelevant and the latter relevant? The Constitution is the foundation for our society’s legal system and must be constantly studied. The Bible (particularly the religiously defined “canon”) is the foundational “document” for the largest religious group in American society (people who call themselves “Christians”). Shouldn’t the fact that the Bible is little read but highly revered warrant academic investigation and education?
I can understand Avalos’ concern about jobs in academia and the “religionist” bias stronghold on biblical research. On the other hand, why do people even pursue this career if our job options are so bleak? Isn’t it because so many of us were so affected by people’s readings of the Bible (one way or another) that we became passionate about studying and teaching biblical studies? I know that’s my story. It’s the story of most every grad student I know in the field of biblical studies.
April hits the nail on the head:
Where does this leave me in terms of my thoughts on the subject? I understand Koester’s position on the reality of American religiosity and what this means for those of us who study and teach early Christianity. I understand Avalos’ position to rid the historical study of early Judaism and Christianity from its canonical limitations (including the name “Biblical Studies”), because these limitations support religious and theological interests. I personally have negotiated this front by breaking canonical boundaries in my own scholarship, creating sections at SBL which cross canonical boundaries, and teaching beyond these boundaries. But this doesn’t mean to me that the biblical texts aren’t essential to early Judaism and Christianity. In fact, their importance reverberates for centuries and centuries, and yes, they are still with us. In my opinion, teaching the bible is more important than ever in America. . . .
Amen. I may indeed be teaching at a school with a confessional stance in the future. But my hope is to help students with confessional understandings of the Bible to be awakened to the nuanced issues of history and interpretation. I hope to do my little part in aiding students with high views of the Bible to understand and apply that collection of texts in a more responsible manner.
Looking for Some Academic Study Bibles on Libronix
There was a long stretch where Logos Bible Software was coming out with some powerhouse academic resources in their prepublication program. Bunches of stuff on Josephus, Philo, the Pseudepigrapha, Ancient Near Eastern books, great original language items. One of the most amazing offerings of this period was Hermeneia. More recently, they have offered the Anchor Yale Bible series (83 vols). That is definitely now at the top of my list (if Logos would like to send me a review copy once it’s done–I would be happy to oblige!).
However, the Anchor Yale series seems to be an exception for their most recent offerings. Lately, Logos has been offering items from a more “conservative” (and maybe less “academic”) interpretive angle. Consider the Holman Reference Collection (13 Vols.) (recently mentioned on Nick’s blog), a bunch of books from Baker, commentaries from Cornerstone, a little while ago they added the WallBuilders American Foundations Digital Library.
From a business perspective, these sorts of things are most likely better money makers than some of the hardcore academic stuff. I can’t say I blame ‘em. There are a LOT of conservative evangelicals out there who are very passionate about their Bible study. But it does feed into the stereotype that Logos is the less “serious” Bible software, academically speaking (compared to BibleWorks and Accordance). And believe me, that perception is there. Many people in my academic circles (professors, fellow grad students) are surprised that Logos is my software of choice. For me, though, I believe Logos simply has more to offer of everything: the “serious academic” stuff, the more “conservative evangelical” stuff, even the fluffy junk (which shall remain nameless). You just put together the pieces that make up your ideal electronic library.
So, I would like to offer a suggestion for an academic item that might have some broader appeal than just those stuffy elitists stuck in their ivory acadmic towers: Academic Study Bibles. Currently, Libronix offers (or is developing) the following study Bibles: The NLT Study Bible (the recent SBC banning of the NLT doesn’t help 
), The Apologetics Study Bible, Concordia Self-Study Bible Notes (a revised version of the notes written for Zondervan’s NIV Study Bible, emphasizing Lutheran themes), The MacArthur Study Bible, The Ryrie Study Bible, The Reformation Study Bible, and a few others.
To balance these out a bit, I think that Logos really should offer all the notes and resources of standards like the HarperCollins Study Bible, the New Oxford Annotated Bible, and perhaps also the New Interpreter’s Study Bible. I know plenty of layfolk who would love to have these perspectives so much more than all the currently Libronix offered study Bibles put together. Not only that, I think these could open a broad market for college and seminary students who are often required (or strongly encouraged) to buy HarperCollins or the New Oxford. So, Logos, have I convinced you yet?
-
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: