Some theories from various social scientific disciplines make a singular appearance in our field, while others have a bit of staying power. Social Identity Theory (SIT)–or, as it has been called, the “social identity perspective” or the “social identity approach”–appears to fall in that latter category. The concepts are not entirely new (e.g., boundary markers between insiders and outsiders), nor even is the term “social identity” itself (see E.A. Judge, “The Social Identity of the First Christians” in 1980), but SIT relates data that otherwise wouldn’t often be considered together (e.g., the demarcation of group boundaries and “ethics”).

The approach is borrowed from social psychologists Henri Tajfel, John Turner, and those who have followed them. The literature within social psychology itself is vast and, at least to this biblicist, intimidating. The literature using the theory in biblical studies is much shorter . . . for now. Ben Byerly has a bibliography that he calls “Social Identity in the Bible,” but it is more expansive in its understanding of “social identity” (which isn’t a bad thing). In many of those works, you will not find any engagement with this particular social psychological approach. Since I’m currently trying to get a handle on this approach, I thought I would offer a more restrictive bibliography covering only those works explicitly applying SIT to biblical studies, some to a greater extent than others. This is not because I think SIT is the only good approach to discussing group identity in biblical studies or ancient history, but because I need to take it just one theory at a time for my own sanity.

As it stands now, I count a little over 40 books or articles in this category. As you can see, though, it’s heating up. I have found only one author in the 20th century: Esler, who claims to have inaugurated the theory in New Testament interpretation (See Galatians, p. 41 – I have found no evidence to the contrary). Around two-thirds of these sources have been published since 2007 alone!

It also appears that the members of the biblical studies researchers at the University of Helsinki (including Petri Luomanen, Raimo Hakola, Jutta Jokiranta, and Risto Uro) are in a competition for the most publications discussing identity in biblical studies (Uro is not on this list, but has related publications). Jutta Jokiranta seems to be the first person applying SIT to the DSS, while I believe the South African Jan Bosman is the first (and only?) scholar to apply the approach to the Hebrew Bible (Louis Jonker picks up on Bosman’s dissertation work as helpful, but doesn’t fully engage the theory himself).

Three of the entries are fellow bibliobloggers (Philip Harland, Brian Tucker, and Coleman Baker) two of whom are in the process of tidying things up on their dissertations for publication with Pickwick (an imprint of Wipf and Stock). Wipf and Stock seems to be picking up on the trend, as they also published Matthew Marohl’s dissertation listed below.

I am posting this list in hopes that it might be helpful to someone else, but also in hopes that others may help me fill in any gaps that I may have. If you notice any missing items, or know of forthcoming items that should be included, please let me know!

By the way, in addition to producing his own work, Brian Tucker is like a book review factory on identity issues–and a good one at that! See his blog for his coverage of a great many books dealing with identity and go looking for his various review essays as well.

And without further adieu, the bibliography (avec links):

Asano, Atsuhiro. Community—Identity Construction in Galatians: Exegetical, Social-Anthropological, and Socio-Historical Studies. JSNT 285. London: T & T Clark International, 2005.

Baker, Coleman A. Identity, Memory, and Narrative in Early Christianity: Peter, Paul, and Recategorization in the Acts of the Apostles. Eugene, Ore.: Pickwick, 2011. [See the dissertation version of this on ProQuest.] [Updated]

Bosman, Jan. Social Identity in Nahum: A Theological-Ethical Inquiry. Biblical Intersections 1. Piscataway, N.J: Georgias, 2009. [Link to the D.Th. thesis version of the work.]

Brawley, Robert L. “Social Identity and the Aim of Accomplished Life in Acts 2.” Pages 16-33 in Acts and Ethics. Edited by Thomas E. Phillips. New Testament Monographs 9. Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix, 2005.

_____. “From Reflex to Reaction? Identity in Philippians 2.6-11 and Its Context.” Pages 128-46 in Reading Paul in Context: Explorations in Identity Formation: Essays in Honour of William S. Campbell. Edited by Kathy Ehrensperger and J. Brian Tucker. LNTS, 428. London : T&T Clark, (forthcoming) 2010.

Byrskog, Samuel. “Ephesians 4:1-16 – Paraenesis and Identity Formation.” Pages 109-138 in Ethik als angewandte Ekklesiologie: Der Brief an die Epheser. Edited by Michael Wolter. MRB 17; Roma: Benedictina, 2005.

Cobb, L. Stephanie. Dying to Be Men: Gender and Language in Early Christian Martyr Texts. New York: Columbia University Press, 2008.

Esler, Philip Francis. “Group Boundaries and Intergroup Conflict in Galatians : A New Reading of Galatians 5:13-6:10.” Pages 215-240 in Ethnicity and the Bible. Edited by Mark G. Brett. Leiden: Brill, 1996.

_____. Galatians. London: Routledge, 1998.

_____.“Jesus and the Reduction of Intergroup Conflict: The Parable of the Good Samaritan in the Light of Social Identity Theory.” 8.4 (2000): 325-357.

_____. “‘Keeping it in the Family’: Culture, Kinship and Identity in 1 Thessalonians and Galatians.” Pages 145–184 in Families and Family Relations as Represented in Early Judaisms and Early Christianities. Edited by Jan Willem van Henten and Athalya Brenner. Leiden: Deo, 2000. [See Jan Willem van Henten's response in the same book: "The Family is Not All That Matters: A Response to Philip Esler."]

_____. “Social identity, the virtues, and the good life: a new approach to Romans 12:1-15:13.” Biblical Theology Bulletin 33.2 (2003): 51-63.

_____. Conflict and Identity in Romans: The Social Setting of Paul’s Letter. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2003.

_____. New Testament Theology: Communion and Community. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2005.

_____. “‘Remember my Fetters’: Memorialisation of Paul’s Imprisonment.” Pages 231-258 in Explaining Christian Origins and Early Judaism. Edited by Petri Luomanen, Ilkka Pyysiäinen, and Risto Uro. Biblical Interpretation Series 89. Leiden: Brill, 2007. [Google Books link starts on the second page of the article because the first page is missing in the preview.]

Esler, Philip Francis, and Ronald A. Piper. Lazarus, Mary and Martha: Social-Scientific Approaches to the Gospel of John. Minneapolis, MN: Augsburg Fortress, 2006.

Faulkner, Anne. “Jewish Identity and the Jerusalem Conference: Social Identity and Self–categorization in the Early Church Communities.” eSharp 1 (2005): 1-19.

_____. “The Emergence of Gentile Leadership and the Jerusalem Conference: A Socio-Psychological Approach to the Group Dynamics of the Participation of Gentile Believers in the Early Church.” Ph.D. Thesis, University of Durham, 2009.

Finitsis, Antonio. “The Other in Haggai and Zechariah 1-8.” Pages 116-131 in The “Other” in Second Temple Judaism : Essays in Honor of John J. Collins. Edited by Daniel C. Harlow, Karina Martin Hogan, Matthew Goff,  and Joel S. Kaminsky. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2011. [New Entry]

Guijarro, Santiago. “Cultural Memory and Group Identity in Q.” Biblical Theology Bulletin 37.3 (2007): 90-100.

Harland, Philip. Dynamics of Identity in the World of the Early Christians. London: T&T Clark, 2009.

Hakola, Raimo. “Social Identities and Group Phenomena in Second Temple Judaism.” Pages 259-276 in Explaining Christian Origins and Early Judaism: Contributions from Cognitive and Social Science. Edited by Petri Luomanen, Ilkka Pyysiäinen, and Risto Uro. Biblical Interpretation Series 89. Leiden: Brill, 2007. [The first several pages are missing from the Google Books preview.]

_____. “Social Identity and a Stereotype in the Making: The Pharisees as Hypocrites in Matt 23.” Pages 123–39 in Identity Formation in the New Testament edited by Bengt Holmberg and Mikael Winninge. Tübingen: Mohr-Siebeck, 2008.

_____. “The Burden of Ambiguity: Nicodemus and the Social Identity of the Johannine Christians.” New Testament Studies 55 (2009): 438-55.

Horrell, David. “‘Becoming Christian’: Solidifying Christian Identity and Content.” Pages 309-335 in Handbook of Early Christianity: Social Science Approaches. Edited by Anthony J. Blasi, Jean Duhaime, and Paul-Andre Turcotte. Walnut Creek, CA: Alta Mira, 2002. [See also this version online.]

_____. “The Label Christianos: 1 Pet 4.16 and the Formation of Christian Identity.” Journal of Biblical Literature 126 (2007): 361–81. [New Entry]

Jokiranta, Jutta. “Identity on a Continuum: Constructing and Expressing Sectarian Social Identity in Qumran Serakhim and Pesharim.” Ph.D. diss., University of Helsinki, 2005. Forthcoming in STDJ; Leiden: Brill.

_____. “Pesharim: A Mirror of Self-Understanding.” Pages 23–34 in Reading the Present in the Qumran Library: The Perception of the Contemporary by Means of Scriptural Interpretations. Edited by Kristin De Troyer and Armin Lange. Society of Biblical Literature Symposium Series. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2005. [Only mentions SIT somewhat generally.]

_____.“The Prototypical Teacher in the Qumran Pesharim: A Social-Identity Approach.” Pages 254-66 in Ancient Israel: The Old Testament in its Social Context. Edited by Philip Francis Esler. Minneapolis, Minn.: Augsburg Fortress, 2006. [Essay is included in her dissertation]

_____. “Social Identity in the Qumran Movement: The Case of the Penal Code.” Pages 277-298 in Explaining Christian Origins and Early Judaism. Edited by Petri Luomanen, Ilkka Pyysiäinen, and Risto Uro. Biblical Interpretation Series 89. Leiden: Brill, 2007.

_____. “Social Identity Approach: Identity-Constructing Elements in the Psalms Pesher.” Pages 85-109 in Defining Identities: We, You, and the Other in the Dead Sea Scrolls: Proceedings of the Fifth Meeting of the IOQS in Groningen. Edited by Florentino Garcia Martinez and Mladen Popović. STDJ 70. Leiden: Brill, 2008. [Essay is included in her dissertation - first page unavailable on Google Books preview.]

Kazen, Thomas. “Son of Man and Early Christian Identity Formation.” Pages 97-122 in Identity Formation in the New Testament edited by Bengt Holmberg and Mikael Winninge. Tübingen: Mohr-Siebeck, 2008.

Keay, Robert D. “Paul the Spiritual Guide: A Social Identity Perspective on Paul’s Apostolic Self-Identity.” Ph.D. Thesis, University of St. Andrews, 2004. [See his summary of the thesis in Tyndale Bulletin.]

Kuecker, Aaron J. “The Spirit and the ‘Other’: Social Identity, Ethnicity and Intergroup Reconciliation in Luke-Acts.” Ph.D. thesis, University of St. Andrews, 2008.

_____. “The Spirit and the ‘Other’, Satan and the ‘Self’: Economic Ethics as a Consequence of Identity Transformation in Luke-Acts.” Pages 81-103 in Engaging Economics: New Testament Scenarios and Early Christian Reception. Edited by Bruce W. Longenecker and Kelly D. Liebengood. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2009.

Lamoreaux, Jason T. “Social Identity, Boundary Breaking, and Ritual: Saul’s Recruitment on the Road to Damascus.” BTB 38.3 (2008): 122-34.

Lieu, Judith. Christian Identity in the Jewish and Graeco-Roman World. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004.

Luomanen, Petri. “The Sociology of Knowledge, the Social Identity Approach and the Cognitive Science of Religion.” Pages 199-229 in Explaining Christian Origins and Early Judaism: Contributions from Cognitive and Social Science. Edited by Petri Luomanen, Ilkka Pyysiäinen, and Risto Uro. Biblical Interpretation Series 89. Leiden: Brill, 2007.

May, Alistair Scott. The Body for the Lord: Sex and Identity in 1 Corinthians 5-7. JSNT 278. London ; New York: T & T Clark International, 2004.

Marohl, Matthew J. Faithfulness and the Purpose of Hebrews: A Social Identity Approach. Princeton Theological Monograph Series. Eugene: Pickwick Publications, 2008. [He is explicitly following Esler as an example “of the appropriate and effective use of social identity theory in biblical interpretations” (35). Esler was also his doctoral advisor.]

Roitto, Rikard. “Behaving Like a Christ-Believer, as a Household Member or as Both?: A Cognitive Perspective on Identity and Behavior Norms in the Early Christ-Movement.” Pages 93-114 in Exploring Early Christian Identity. Edited by Bengt Holmberg. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2008.

Shkul, Minna. Reading Ephesians: Exploring Social Entrepreneurship in the Text. LNTS 408. London: T&T Clark, 2009.

Tellbe, Mikael. “The Prototypical Christ-Believer: Early Christian Identity Formation in Ephesus.” Pages 115-38 in Exploring Early Christian Identity. Edited by Bengt Holmberg. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2008. [If you have a better link for Tellbe, please let me know. I'm not adept at maneuvering Swedish websites!]

_____. Christ-Believers in Ephesus: A Textual Analysis of Early Christian Identity Formation in a Local Perspective. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2009.

Tucker, J. Brian. ‘You Belong to Christ’ Paul and the Formation of Social Identity in 1 Cor 1–4. Eugene, Oregon: Pickwick Publications, (Forthcoming) 2010.

_____. “Baths, Baptism, and Patronage: The Continuing Role of Roman Social Identity in Corinth.” Pages 173-88 in Reading Paul in Context: Explorations in Identity Formation: Essays in Honour of William S. Campbell. Edited by Kathy Ehrensperger and J. Brian Tucker. LNTS, 428. London : T&T Clark, (forthcoming) 2010.

Ukwuegbu, Bernard O. “Paraenesis, Identity-Defining Norms, or Both? Galatians 5:13-6:10 in the Light of Social Identity Theory.” Catholic Biblical Quarterly 70.3 (2008): 538-559.

Vaccarella, Kevin M. “Shaping Christian Identity: The False Scripture Argument in Early Christian Literature.” Ph.D. diss., Florida State University, 2007.

As a member of the Student Advisory Group, I am currently putting together a panel discussion for this fall’s annual meeting for the Society of Biblical Literature. The panel is aimed at both master’s and doctoral students who are a bit desperate and frustrated to find their own niche in biblical studies. The panel will include a star-studded cast of established scholars, which isn’t completely in its final form yet. The panelists will share in an autobiographical way about their own struggles to find that initial starting point in scholarship.

The idea is that many graduate students, myself included, often start off loving biblical studies or some related field in general. At some point, however, we hit a wall where we have to settle into one little area of research — at least for the first chunk of our scholarly careers. Frustration ensues. Given that we’re doing biblical studies and it’s really hard to say something that nobody’s said before, we may have more headaches than other fields. And then, add the fact that our field is fraught with passionate religious perspectives from all sorts of directions. What’s a budding scholar to do?

I’d like to ask what you think an appropriate title for this session might be. I’m tentatively calling it, “Finding Your Niche in Biblical Studies.” It’s descriptive enough, I think, but there could easily be a better title. Here are some random ideas:

• Finding Your Niche in Biblical Studies
• Frustrations in Becoming a Biblical Scholar
• How to Begin in Biblical Studies
• Finding the Starting Gate for Your Scholarship [sounds like an infomercial]
• Starting the Scholarly Path
• So, I Like Biblical Studies. Now What?

If you were flipping through the SBL program, what title would most grab your attention and interest? Not necessarily among these possibilities, which I just threw together, but anything you can think of. Thanks!

Michael R. Cosby serves as Distinguished Professor of New Testament and Greek at Messiah College. He earned his Ph.D. from Emory University, with a dissertation on the rhetorical structure of Hebrews 11. In 1999, Mike published Portraits of Jesus: An Inductive Approach to the Gospels (Westminster John Knox). This year, he is publishing two works that have been a long‑time coming: Apostle on the Edge: An Inductive Approach to Paul (Westminster John Knox) and Interpreting Biblical Literature: An Introduction to Biblical Studies (Stony Run Publishing). On that last book, see the first part of my review here.

PM: Thank you, Mike, for taking the time to participate in this interview. You have had a profound impact on my own academic journey, as my advisor from my undergraduate days, and I am excited about the opportunity to pick your brain publicly!

I’d like to start by asking a bit about your background. You have lots of stories from your Montana upbringing that make their way into your teaching and writing. What was sort of religious influences did you have growing up?

MC: Most religious input came from my mother. Dad seldom went to church and seldom spoke about God. Sunday School and church services bored me. I was full of questions, but the message that I heard was “Our church teaches the truth. Your job is to memorize the truth, not ask questions.” It is a wonder that I continued attending after junior high school.

PM: As an undergraduate major at the University of Montana, you were a wildlife biology major. What turned you on to academic biblical studies? What drew you to the study of rhetoric in the New Testament specifically?

MC: I began attending InterVarsity Christian Fellowship my junior year of college. To be honest, I was lonely and wanted to check out the women in the group. I discovered much more. I ended up joining a student-led, small group Bible study of 1 Corinthians. It was life transforming.

The following summer, I attended an InterVarsity training camp and took part in a Mark seminar, where an energetic man named Paul Byer led us through a manuscript study of Mark 1–8. We studied the text of Mark on regular sized, 8 ½ by 11 inch paper. The manuscript contained no paragraphs or verse divisions. We had to deal with the text. That experience opened a new world of academic study of Scripture. Boredom with the Bible gave way to the excitement of discovery. This inductive Bible study experience shaped my approach.

PM: It’s amazing how simple exercises can have monumental consequences! What drew you to the study of rhetoric in the New Testament specifically?

MC: During my doctoral work at Emory University, while pondering a theological dilemma, I ended up doing research on Hebrews 11. As I searched the literature for what had been written about this chapter, I discovered a ton of sermons about the heroes of the faith; but I found very little scholarly work on it. I was shocked.

At first I thought that I would do a form-critical study, searching ancient documents for other lists of heroes. A consistent claim in commentaries was that Hebrews 11 represented a homiletical form, but no one actually documented it. That was to be my study. But I discovered no such form. I found a few lists of heroes or villains, but no form.

My study shifted to analyzing the rhetorical form of these lists. I discovered that they all used magnification techniques. In essence, the authors would list a few examples and then indicate in various ways that they could keep piling up more examples to prove their points. I became fascinated with ancient rhetoric, and that began a long journey into analyzing techniques for persuasive use of language.

PM: You have now published three survey textbooks on the Gospels, Paul, and now the entire Bible. What do you feel has been missing from textbooks already available on these topics and how do your own works address that need?

MC: My philosophy of education may be summarized as follows: Until students see for themselves the complexity of the New Testament documents, they will remain novices in the discipline of Biblical Studies. Reading good books about the Bible does not replace personal interaction with the Bible. My textbooks combine historical and cultural information with inductive questions that help students analyze NT books and discover for themselves the things that other authors mainly just explain to readers. My approach requires more effort from readers, but ultimately it is more rewarding for first encounters with the Gospels or Paul’s letters.

PM: What kind of “edginess” do you suggest Paul embodies in your new Apostle on the Edge?

MC: Paul was at the center of a raging theological storm in the early church. His forceful personality and no-compromise approach frequently put him into conflict situations not only with hostile Jewish crowds but also with Christians who resented his view that Gentiles did not need to obey the laws of Moses. Students are often shocked when they see the anger and sarcastic language in some of Paul’s letters as he lambasts his Christian opponents.

PM: While perhaps lacking in hot-headed attacks toward your opponents, your writing style in Interpreting Biblical Literature is conversational and often autobiographical. What inspired your personal writing style? Did it make writing the textbook easier or more difficult? Did you ever worry that you were taking a risk with this style?

MC: Various editors told me that I needed to write my book for professors, not for students. “Professors,” they said, “are the ones who order the books.” But I insisted that the book should be written for students, with their interests in mind. If students like the textbook and enjoy reading it and come to class prepared, professors will be pleased with better learning and classroom discussions.

Various readers criticized my use of personal stories in the book. They said that they wanted the textbook to just give the facts—that they would provide the stories in their lectures. But students consistently told me that one of the things that they most appreciated about the book manuscript was my stories. Students tell me Interpreting Biblical Literature is far more interesting than their other textbooks. Mission accomplished. I remain unrepentant.

PM: As well you should, of course! For your Interpreting Biblical Literature, you decided to start a new publishing company rather than publish with a household‑name company. Can you share a little about that process? What was your motivation and what were the hurdles to make it reality?

MC: My motivation was that I grew weary of dealing with editors who wanted me to write for professors instead of students. I also grew weary of dealing with transition in publication houses. An editor for McGraw-Hill was very excited about my book and promised to make it a best seller. But he was moved to the history division of the company, and his replacement in the religion division had no history with my project. My experience went from positive to infuriating.

I decided to do it myself. Starting my own publishing company allowed me the freedom to have artistic control over the format. But the amount of work involved in doing an entire project like this one is horrendous. Many times I wondered why I ever decided to embark on this path.

PM: Speaking of embarking on paths, many bloggers of biblical studies are young, aspiring scholars. Do you have any advice on deciding what sorts of books younger scholars should pursue? Do you have any suggestions on finding and working with publishers?

MC: Writing a book involves a great amount of time and effort. Finding a good editor who is interested in your work is difficult. My advice is to determine what you want to write and know your audience. Do your homework on what other books like the one you want to write are already in print. Profitability is the bottom line for publishing houses. They want to know who is going to buy your work. If you go to the trouble of identifying your target audience and explaining it to an editor, you have a much better chance of getting published. Don’t just submit a book proposal with what you consider to be a good idea. Think sales. That is what editors are thinking.

PM: With the beautiful presentation of your first project, many may want to know if you accepting new manuscripts at Stony Run Publishing. If so, what are you looking for in a manuscript? How would one go about submitting a manuscript?

MC: I am not even thinking about publishing other people’s books right now. Working with my own is keeping me insanely busy.

PM: Well, it seems to be paying off! I know that pedagogy is extremely important to you. It seems that most academics simply rehash the styles of their own educators. What have you learned in your years of reading about and experimenting with various teaching styles that these regurgitating academics might have missed?

MC: Try to think about how students learn and what facilitates that learning. Remember how bored you were with some of your textbooks and vow not to put others to sleep. Be creative. Think outside of the box. But you can’t get too far out of the box and be taken seriously by editors. Think through your pedagogy carefully and communicate it clearly to editors who publish works in the area that want to address. Do your homework on the kinds of things that various publishing houses print. Don’t do blanket submissions. Target your proposals.

PM: As a proud Messiah College alumnus (despite the name‑bashing we have received from Jon Stewart), I have to ask about the school. What led you to join Messiah’s faculty? What has kept you there?

MC: I came to Messiah College because of its academic reputation. Administrators here appreciate good teaching. They are pleased with my efforts in writing textbooks. I like my colleagues. My students are mostly polite and are open to learning. And I like the kayaking opportunities in the area.

PM: Would you mind sharing a little bit about what writing projects you might have coming in the future? More inductive textbooks? Any non‑textbooks in the pipeline? Commentaries?

MC: I am seriously considering doing an innovate NT survey.

PM: Thanks again, Mike, for indulging me here. I know my readers will appreciate hearing about your experience as an educator, author, and now publisher.

MC: I wish you the best in your doctoral studies. You have come a long way since your first semester at Messiah College when you were struggling with your initial exposure to academic study of the Bible. I find considerable joy in the successes of my students. I pray that as you and your blogger friends complete your formal studies and enter the teaching profession, you will remember that students are the highest priority. Too many academics publish just to advance their own stature. Do better.

Pay your dues and do good work. Advance the discipline. Be a credit to Biblical Studies. But never get into the cynical mindset that students are a necessary evil so that you can have a position just to do your research and impress others in the guild. Helping students develop their potential is an honorable occupation. If I understand anything about the Gospel of Jesus Christ, it is that serving others pleases God. Maintain your integrity.

And collaborate. You may take a bruising from others when they critique your work. But if your goal is to do a good job, you will brush yourself off, keep your hurt feelings and ego under control, and strengthen your writing in response to their sometimes harsh words. Learn to laugh at yourself. It will take you far. So will kindness. Treat others like you want to be treated.

Wise words, indeed! Stay tuned for more of that review.

Some believe that Mike’s meme is patronizing or amounts to tokenism. How dare he highlight women who are doing good scholarship! The audacity! Seriously, I do understand the concern, but I think it is only tokenism if it is a token and nothing else. That is, if one has  no interest in taking on the issue more deeply and doesn’t truly care whether women (or other minorities) succeed, or doesn’t genuinely seek parity in the field.

It is patronizing if you think the people who created these lists seriously had doubts as to whether women really are capable of scholarship. For example, if someone prefaced their list: “You know, when I started out in scholarship, I didn’t think women were capable of forming a logical sentence. I have since been pleasantly surprised that females have been able to do a few decent things. Boy, the gals in this list sure show some initiative.” It doesn’t have to be as blatant as all that, I know. But I think you get the point. For most of us who are participating in this meme, I don’t get the sense that we are either patronizing or offering mere tokens.

These have simply been lists of scholars who have influenced us and who also just so happen to be women. It is not that we are amazed that , “gee, women can write too!” Rather, it is that we want to recognize a few women who have changed the way we look at things. I affirm Mike Kok’s attempt at offering something positive and constructive while some others ratchet up the hostile rhetoric.

Update: Please see the comments below for clarification on James’ post and the “tokenism” issue. This update brought to you by the insistence of Stephanie Louise Fisher.

Picking up on the gender, gender, gender theme of the week, Mike has initiated a helpful new meme. As I was talking with a friend about the issue of female bibliobloggers, we wondered how the percentage of female bibliobloggers differed from the percentage of female biblical scholars. We tried to name as many female biblical scholars as we could off the cuff. It seems like a round on this meme would help that exercise be a little bit easier. Given the conversation we’ve been having, that seems like a good idea. This is what Mike has to say:

I want to propose a hopefully constructive way of responding to one underlying issue.  When Ken Brown summarized the results of his fantastic meme on the top 5 books, he noted “a shameful under-representation of women (only Margaret Barker and Toni Morrison received more than one vote, with two each).”  So I want people to list the 5 most influential female scholars on their scholarship and tag 5 or 6 others.

That last line is a little ambiguous, but I think he means for us to share those five female biblical scholars who have influenced us the most. So, here’s my (slightly extended) list:

1. Marianne Meye Thompson (books): Her particular interests in Johannine literature and her emphasis on theology in biblical interpretation are not exactly what set my heart a flutter. But no other female biblical scholar has had a greater influence on my scholarship, research methods, and writing. While at Fuller, I took three master’s level courses (NT 1: Gospels; The Cross in the New Testament; NT Exegesis: Gospel of John) and two doctoral level seminars (NT Research Methods; Johannine Theology) with her. She is known on campus as a stickler for precision, but also one to provide extensive feedback for each paper even for master’s students. While our primary research interests don’t perfectly align, she taught me how to ask better research questions, use primary sources more effectively, and make better arguments. [Update: Nick has reminded me that I should note here my gratitude for all MMT has taught me about John and using theology in biblical interpretation. I don't get as excited about those things as I do social history, identity formation, and apocalyptic thought, but that is precisely why here insight is so valuable to me. She has filled in an area that would otherwise constitute a gap in my attempt to be a generalist.]
2. Adela Yarbro Collins (books): Prof. Yarbro Collins’ is known for her work in apocalyptic literature and thought from a socio-historical perspective. Yarbro Collins is a solid historical-critical scholar and she has been a surefooted guide as I attempt my way around the maze that is apocalyptic thought and social history. She is also a very warm person to talk to in person, which is always a plus for any scholar.
3. Paula Fredriksen (books): Paula Fredrickson is just plain fun. Her scholarship is lively and asks intriguing questions. I appreciate her desire to question the “parting of the ways” assumptions of so many. I think I’m persuaded that, at the ground level, there was no great schism for centuries. Have you seen her most recent book on Augustine and the Jews? Very exciting! Incidentally, she is someone I’d very much like to see with a blog.
4. Martha Himmelfarb (books): I have been introduced to the writings of Prof. Himmelfarb via one of my profs at UCLA, Ra’anan Boustan, who worked closely with her getting his Ph.D. at Princeton. She is a master of apocalyptic thought and literature, writing her scholarship with precision and insight. Precision, when it comes to scholarship on apocalyptic literature, is a scarce resource. What I have appreciated about her scholarship is its ability to navigate visionary symbolism in a manner that makes logical sense! I am very excited about her forthcoming survey of apocalyptic writing.
5. Margaret M. Mitchell (books): Need I say more? I will simply say that I have a deep admiration for her skill with Greco-Roman literature and its relevance for the study of New Testament and early Christian writings, not to mention her seamless (and relevant) use of items from popular culture. Her article in the book that I am indexing is probably the best of the bunch and inspires me to become a better writer. She is another scholar I’d love to see with a blog. There is so much character and insight to her writing.
6. Judith Lieu (books): I am going to cheat and add a sixth. Judith Lieu is a thoughtful scholar, adept at handling complex problems with the utmost care. As I am entering into the fray of social identity and Christian origins, she is one of the able guides I am looking to for help!
7. Reta Halteman Finger (books): I am going to cheat some more and add a seventh. Reta was one of my professors in college. Though my feminism has many roots, her influence is among them. Interestingly, at the time I took her survey course on the New Testament (early as an undergraduate), I was not thinking I would become a biblical scholar. Also, I was not an Anabaptist yet. It was fun to catch up with her for the first time a couple years ago at SBL in DC and again in San Diego. She was surprised to find out that I had not only become an Anabaptist, but had also pursued social history in New Testament studies, which was her approach as well. Feminism, Anabaptism, social history. I can’t let that go unmentioned in this list. If any of those topics interest you, she came out with two books recently with Eerdmans that would be right up your alley.

Now for the tagging. First, I’d like to tag Daniel O. McClellan even though he already completed the meme, just so he knows he’s tag-worthy. Then, let’s see, how about my UCLA colleague Kevin Scull, upcoming SBL roommate Brandon Wason, Julia O’Brien because she’s got a great blog, Loren Rosson III (who extended a nice comment on my Jim West post), and Chris Spinks (who mediated what could have been a disastrous collision with Jim West ). And anyone else who feels like doing this one.

Thanks for getting the ball rolling, Mike.

Update: If I had been thinking clearly, I would’ve included Carolyn Osiek (books) as an 8th. Outstanding stuff.

Someone recently mentioned the upcoming Hebrew Bible conference at Notre Dame (“My Ways Are Not Your Ways“), which I hadn’t heard of before. This makes me wonder: what else am I missing? I hear of some cool conferences in the UK, but what biblical studies conferences (other than the obvious national and regional SBL meetings) are happening in the US? Is there a go-to website for this sort of information? I’d be interested in gathering not only info about conferences that are coming up, but knowing far enough in advance to find their calls for papers.

Update: Some Organizations’ Conferences to Follow:

• American Schools of Oriental Research: A nonprofit organization that supports and encourages the study of the peoples and cultures of the Near East, from the earliest times to the present. It is apolitical and has no religious affiliation. Annual meeting held in the days leading up to the SBL annual meeting in the same location. Regional meetings often held in tandem with SBL regional meetings.
• Catholic Biblical Association: From the context of faith, but you don’t have to be Catholic! The latest meeting was held Aug. 1-4, 2009 at Creighton University, Omaha, Nebraska. I don’t see information for next year’s meeting or calls for papers.
• Context Group: A relatively small gathering of biblical scholars interested in sociological methods for interpretation. The 2010 annual meeting will be held March 18-20, 2010 at the Menucha Center near Portland, OR.
• Evangelical Theological Society: Annual and regional meetings for those who ascribe to the ETS “Doctrinal Basis” (which affirms the Bible as “inerrant in the autographs”). Annual meeting held the days leading up to SBL’s annual meeting in the same location.

Okay, given my previous post about female bibliobloggers, my conscience as a feminist, and some negative comments I’ve gotten about #bibstuds as a potential Twitter hashtag, maybe we should reconsider. One person thought it sounded “sexist,” another “misogynistic,” and another explained with less charged language, “[I]t had occurred to me when I saw your previous post that ‘studs’ might give the wrong impression and discourage women from participating.” Let’s rethink–and remember, the idea here is to find tags that aren’t generally used for something else. This will hopefully make for some interesting conversations on Twitter in our field. So, here are some ideas…

General Biblical Studies Hashtag Ideas

• #biblicalstudies: to the point, but let’s face it, 16 characters is too long for a Twitter hashtag.
• #bibstuds: short for “biblical studies” (not sexy men who wear bibs), memorable, but apparently sounds sexist and misogynistic.
• #biblit: short for “biblical literature” (broadly defined, as in, the Society of Biblical Literature), nice and short, but “biblical literature” doesn’t seem as all-encompassing a term as “biblical studies.”

Hashtag Ideas for Biblical Studies Subfields (this may be a bit ambitious):

• Ancient Near East: #ane
• Hebrew Bible/Old Testament: #hbot, #othb, #hebbib, #oldtest
• Second Temple: #2temp
• Dead Sea Scrolls/Qumran: #dss, #qum
• New Testament: #newtest
• Christian Origins: #chrorg
• Greco-Roman society/culture: #grecrom

I’d like your feedback. Throw in your suggestions either for the general hashtag or for more specific ones. After I get some suggestions, maybe we’ll put up a poll. Then I’ll publish a list that we decide upon.

Yesterday I asked whether there were any good Twitter hashtags for biblical studies. The question arose from setting my wife up with some things on Twitter. She is interested in breastfeeding and there are quite a few actively used hashtags on her topics of interest. What about us? Shouldn’t there be an easy way to find people tweeting about biblical scholarship?

The tag #biblicalstudies is too long, of course. In a Facebook interaction of ours, Charles Puskas recommended #bibstuds. That sounds good to me, and kinda fun. So, I’m putting it out there as a suggestion to my fellow tweeters of biblical studies (you heard me, Jim ). I have added the tag as a postscript on my twitterfeed.

Find any posts tagged with #bibstuds here. At the moment, it’s just me, but I’ve got it as a saved search and I’ll keep my eye out for your tweets. I look forward to biblioblogging tweeters (I know you feel me, Jim) joining the #bibstuds revolution that will most certainly sweep the globe.

Update: See this post on rethinking the hashtag.

Interpreting Biblical Literature: An Introduction to Biblical Studies

Author: Michael R. Cosby
Paperback: 424 pages
Publisher: Stony Run Publishing
Year: 2009
ISBN: 9780982477403

Buy: See Stony Run Publishing Website for ordering information.

I would like to send my thanks to Mike Cosby and Stony Run Publishing for sending a copy of his book, hot off the presses.

Starting Off. In my experience, most introductory textbooks in biblical studies emphasize either the Old Testament/Hebrew Bible or the New Testament, or perhaps some smaller division (e.g., wisdom literature, the letters of Paul, etc.). Only a few have hit the market and not usually written by one person. The reason seems obvious: it’s hard for one person to be able to cover the entire biblical corpus! Most scholars are not only specialists within their “testament,” but also their own little corner of that larger area (e.g., the Gospels)–and even then, within their own particularly methodology (e.g., narrative criticism). But many institutions offer survey courses in the entire Bible, preferably calling for a single textbook to address the entire Bible. From my reading, Michael Cosby’s Interpreting Biblical Literature: An Introduction to Biblical Studies is now the textbook to beat in that market. Overall, Cosby offers an engaging and approachable style, while remaining impressively comprehensive in scope.

Cosby, Pedagogy, and Stony Run Publishing. First of all, Michael Cosby–Distinguished Professor of New Testament and Greek at Messiah College–is a good scholar. He received his Ph.D. in New Testament from Emory University (1985), where he specialized in rhetoric and wrote a dissertation on Hebrews 11. He worked closely with his dissertation advisor, Arthur W. Wainwright, and with William L. Lane. Cosby has since worked particularly with the rhetoric of Paul (e.g., see his essay, “Galatians: Red Hot Rhetoric”).

Cosby’s excellent textbook, however, was borne not only out of his own scholarship, but also his experience teaching countless introductory courses on the Bible, particularly at Messiah College. Cosby has been engaged in discussions regarding pedagogy of the Bible for some time. His other textbooks, Portraits of Jesus and more recently, Apostle on the Edge (Westminster John Knox Press; due out next month) take an inductive approach to the study of Jesus and Paul respectively, pushing students to engage the biblical texts themselves and try to work through important questions regarding historical and cultural contexts. I understand that he had a difficult time trying to publish a general guide to biblical studies with an attractive and interactive format for students–while also keeping the textbook affordable. That dilemma was the impetus for the creation of Stony Run Publishing, a newly established organization that is off to a good start with this textbook! The end product is a sturdy paperback with a beautiful presentation.

Full Disclosure. Mike Cosby was my undergraduate advisor at Messiah College and played a significant role in my own pursuit of biblical studies. This book is largely modeled after the lessons he would teach in his introduction to biblical studies courses. I can still remember many of his insights and analogies that are now printed in the book. I took the intro class during my first semester in college and it marked a transition for me, going from my fundamentalist high school days into a new, broader and critical engagement with the Bible. If it weren’t for his timely class, I may not be where I am today, pursuing the academic and pedagogical career that I am. I hope that others can now find similar inspiration from his printed introduction to biblical studies.

That said, I want to underscore the fact that my praise for this volume comes out of my own experience and research since my days at Messiah, which have only served to confirm how good I had it there as a biblical studies major.

A detailed review will follow . . .

HarperCollins Study Bible: Fully Revised and Updated – Student Edition

Editors: Harold W. Attridge (General Editor, Revised); Wayne A. Meeks (General Editor, Original)
Hardcover: 2128 pages
Publisher: HarperOne
Year: 2006
ISBN:9780060786830

Buy: HarperCollins; Amazon

Positives

• Excellent running commentary by world-class biblical scholars.
• More notes than other study Bibles based on critical research.
• The lack of a solidified confessional stance allows for less apologetically motivated notes than some other study Bibles on the market.
• Helpful essays added to the revised edition.
• Relatively thin for a study Bible of this magnitude.

Negatives

• Maps. The maps are terrible, looking like blurry photocopies from the previous edition. It’s not just my copy because this is a common criticism.
• General formatting: In order to get a thin feel, the font is quite small and cramped with very little margin space for note taking. The notes are not as clearly distinguished from the biblical text as in the New Oxford Annotated Bible.
• The “Student Edition” is nothing more than a cooler-looking cover and it lacks the concordance of the non-student edition, in order to have more blank “Notes” pages.
• More cross-referencing between topics found in various places would be helpful.
• Intermittent topical excurses, as found in many other study Bibles, would be helpful.

Revision. The back cover indicates the revised edition includes “completely new introductions and notes for select biblical books, plus a full revision and updating of all others–over 25 percent new or revised material.”  The Introduction to this volume has a paragraph on the differences between the original and this revised edition:

The present revised edition of the HarperCollins Study Bible has updated and expanded the annotations with the latest perspectives on the biblical text derived from historical, archaeological, and literary sources. The notes also provide more complete information on the ways in which various biblical books echo other parts of scripture. A series of introductory essays offer reflections about the contexts within which biblical books are currently read.

I find the decision to only give completely new introductions for select biblical books. Why were these books chosen over others? I suppose the research is moving faster regarding some books over others (or, perhaps in some cases the original work was not completely up-to-date in the first place?). The only books that we know for certain have been revised are those with two authors assigned (see my previous post on HCSB contributors). Here is a list of those books that have apparently been revised–to some extent–by a second author (for those books that have only one contributor, I can’t tell whether the original contributor revised his or her own content):

Genesis: originally done by Joel W. Rosenberg with apparently a completely new introduction (and notes?) by Ronald Hendel.

Joshua and Judges: originally done by Robert G. Boling (who died in a car accident doing research in Jordan in 1995) and revised by Richard D. Nelson.

Esther and the additions to Esther: originally done by W. Lee Humphreys and revised by Sidnie White Crawford.

Ecclesiastes: originally done by Raymond C. Van Leeuwen and revised by Kent Harold Richards.

Lamentations: originally done by Werner E. Lemke and revised by Kathleen O’Connor.

Daniel: originally done by Pamela J. Milne and revised by John J. Collins.

Hosea: originally done by James Luther Mays and revised by Stephen L. Cook.

Joel: originally done by Richard A. Henshaw and revised by Marvin A. Sweeney.

Amos: originally done by Gene M. Tucker and revised by J. Andrew Dearman.

Obadiah: originally done by Richard A. Henshaw and revised by Ehud Ben Zvi.

Micah: originally done by Philip J. King and revised by Carol J. Dempsey.

Wisdom of Solomon: originally done by David Winston and revised by Thomas H. Tobin.

Sirach: originally done by Burton L. Mack and revised by Benjamin G. Wright III.

Letter of Jeremiah: originally done by Richard J. Clifford and revised by Jeffrey C. Geoghegan.

Mark: originally done by C. Clifton Black and revised by Adela Yarbro Collins.

Luke: originally done by David L. Tiede and revised by Christopher R. Matthews.

John and the Johannine epistles: originally done by David K. Rensberger and revised by Harold W. Attridge.

James: originally done by Sophie Laws and revised by Walter T. Wilson.

1 Peter: originally done by David L. Balch and revised by Paul J. Achtemeier.

Comparison with New Oxford Annotated Bible. The back cover of the book boasts that there are “[t]wice as many notes as the leading study Bible.” Beyond sounding like a dish soap commercial, this comment has me wondering what precisely is the leading brand of detergent study Bible. Seeing as the New Oxford Annotated Bible (NOAB) weighs in at 15,200 on the Amazon rank, while the most popular edition of the HCSB ranks at 34,182, I suppose that’s the answer. Well, the note on the back cover invites us to compare the HCSB to the NOAB, so that’s what I’ll do. [I have just noticed that the New Interpreter's Study Bible actually slightly beats the NOAB on the Amazon sales rank at the moment, but I'm doubtful this would have been the "leading study Bible" in mind for Harper at the time of publication.]

Perhaps it is my predisposition (NOAB has been my standard hard copy Bible for some time), but I prefer the notes format in the NOAB to the HCSB. The HCSB goes for a two-column approach, which aligns with the two columns of biblical text. There are two things setting apart the notes from the biblical text in the HCSB: (1) smaller font and (2) a solid gray line. I actually appreciate this format within poetic portions of biblical text, such as the Psalms or parts of the prophets. But when combined with prose, there simply isn’t enough to distinguish the notes from the text of the Bible. It hurts the eyes a little bit. The NOAB, on the other hand, leaves the notes in a wide single column in contrast to the double column format of the biblical text. The NOAB has no need for a solid line to separate the text from the notes.

The typeface of the HCSB is about a point or two smaller than in the NOAB (for both the main biblical text and the notes), making it somewhat more difficult to read–but allowing for “twice as many notes.”

Content. The real reason why someone buys this study Bible is not format per se, but content. The book opens with five essays, which are new to this edition:

1. Strategies for Reading Scripture by John Barton. (This essay does a wonderful job of distinguishing and balancing the concepts of “critical” and “canonical” readings of Scripture.)
2. Israelite Religion by Ronald Hendel.
3. The Greco-Roman Context of the New Testament by David E. Aune.
4. The Bible and Archaeology by Eric M. Meyers.
5. Archaeology and the New Testament by Jürgen Zangenberg.

All of the introductions to the biblical texts that I was able to read through were very well done, though they could have been a tad longer given the complexities they address. The running notes are really where this volume shines. The notes are what makes the study Bible worth buying, even with any other shortcomings. On average, I would say the notes take up about 20-25% of each page, though there are a few rare pages with no notes and a several that hit 50% or more of the page. I believe the prize for most notes on a single page goes to the Proverbs duo (Camp/Fontaine) for about 80% of a page taken up by notes within Proverbs 1. All notes that I have seen have been extremely helpful and even more detailed than what you might find in the NOAB (though, of course, having both in front of you is even more helpful).

Each book’s introduction and notes is a kind of mini-commentary. Given this reality, therefore, some conclusions by the contributors may not align quite perfectly. Or one contributor may have mentioned important concepts to which another contributor should refer (sort of like a Bible dictionary might point you to other relevant articles), but this reference does not always occur. It would have helped to have some cross-referencing between introductions, particularly when major issues have been touched on in other introductions (such as the documentary hypothesis, the synoptic problem, or pseudonymity).

Actually, it might have been nice to have “excurses” included within the books: little mini-essays on topics pertinent to the passage at hand. That way, the notes could reference the excurses as necessary (e.g., “see Imprecatory Psalms, page 810″; “see Emperor Worship, page 2093″).

Of course, the greatest portion of “content” within the HCSB is the biblical text itself, in the NRSV translation. The back cover claims the NRSV is “the most accurate English Bible translation.” I can understand the marketing impulse here, but such an unsubstantiated claim is questionable.

Charts and Maps. The HCSB has several helpful charts and tables. Some of these charts are in between books or sections of books (such as parallel passages in the synoptic Gospels), while others are embedded within the text of certain biblical books (such as suggested fulfillments of Acts 1:8 within the book of Acts). The first chart of the study Bible is a very helpful historical timeline. One of the handiest charts is found in the back: “Quotations of the Jewish Scriptures in the New Testament.”

The maps, however, may be my least favorite part of the entire study Bible. HarperCollins was kind enough to also send along their newer HarperCollins Atlas of Bible History by James B. Pritchard. The maps embedded within the biblical texts of the HCSB are strangely out of focus–as if they had been photocopied from the first edition into this one. For the crisp and beautiful layout of their Atlas of Bible History, I would hope for more in the HCSB than blurry maps. The NOAB, by the way, has quite elegant maps. The maps at the back of the HCSB are in color and are not blurry, but still not quite as attractive as those found in HarperCollins’ atlas.

“Student Edition.” I do have one lingering question: What difference does the “student edition” make other than having (what I think is) a more attractive cover? I have the “college edition” of the NOAB and never figured out what that meant. Apparently, the only difference between the “student edition” of the HCSB and the normal revised edition is the lack of concordance in the “student edition.” The “student edition” trades the concordance for a little over ten additional blank “Notes” pages in the back — which are also an attempt to make up for the lack of margin space to take notes with the text. Don’t “students” appreciate concordances? It seems to me that a “student edition” should be more pleasing to the eyes, with helpful excurses, and perhaps even some color: something more akin to the study Bibles published by Zondervan perhaps.

The Bottom Line. As far as format goes, I personally prefer the wider single column notes and more elegant maps of the New Oxford Annotated Bible to the double column notes, smaller font, and blurry maps of the HarperCollins Study Bible. In my opinion, the trimmer size of the Bible in comparison to the NOAB is not worth the cramped font. What I would like to see out of a future edition of the HarperCollins Study Bible (particularly its “student edition”) is something more akin to what they have done in the revision of the HarperCollins Atlas of Bible Lands, which is light-years ahead of its original edition in its attractive and approachable presentation.

The primary reason a person should purchase the HCSB over the NOAB is in the extent of its notes. The NOAB excels in its maps, charts, and provides more extensive essays and introductions. But most readers, I imagine, will want to use a study Bible to actually . . . study the Bible. That is, study the biblical text itself. Thus, the mini-running-commentary proves more helpful in the day-by-day and longer term usage of a study Bible. Here the HCSB has an edge on the NOAB–two times more of an edge, if we take the back cover at its word. Both study Bibles have excellent scholars contributing (though the HCSB has a few more “household names” for those familiar with biblical scholarship) and the notes in both are well done for the most part. The HCSB just provides more notes, which helps the reader understand the text a little bit better.

Therefore, if you’re looking for the best running commentary notes in a study Bible, this is probably the best study Bible based on critical scholarship. If the presentation and format are important to you, then you may want to look into the NOAB. If you’d like a study Bible that holds a more confessional stance without neglecting critical scholarship, the New Interpreter’s Study Bible might be the one for you. Personally, I would recommend all three to round out your Bible study.