How is it that I can find in a top flight journal of biblical studies an article that does not offer hardly any evidence, but rather uses rhetorical devices that would give my own students poor grades? The current article I am reading is very interesting and I appreciate the scholar’s perspective quite a bit. The problem is that this is the author’s perspective and little else. It would make for a good lecture, perhaps.

But the article is pure speculation, even when the author contradicts other scholars. The author uses phrases such as “I would expect that” or “I imagine” or “I am inclined to see” or notes that something “seems to me to be unlikely.” Rather than citing evidence, the author merely states that something “certainly” or “surely” was the way he imagines. At every turn, I think I am finally going to find a single piece of solid evidence (even though the entire basis of the argument to this point is built upon a big “perhaps” cloud). But it never arrives. I might forgive one or two cases of “let us assume,” but not 20-plus pages of it.

Otherwise, the article is well written and the author’s insights are helpful and interesting. For those facts alone, I would probably give one of my undergraduate students at least a B+. But I’m afraid this scholar wouldn’t find a much higher grade without the use of evidence.

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.

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.

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.

Scholars need to get a hold of themselves with long sentences. This is one sentence, taken from a book on the historical study of Jesus:

The component features that have been chosen for inclusion in the historical reconstruction and the overall framework in which the details are examined involve awareness of the literary and rhetorical forms in which the ancient evidence has been transmitted, the social patterns of life of the people involved, and the unspoken but powerful assumptions that are operative in the thinking of the ancient speakers or writers, as well as of the ancient reporters who have preserved the records.

What? By the time I reach the end of the sentence, I have forgotten what it set out to do in the first place. The author also has a significant problem with long paragraphs.

I’m just reading through Josephus’ Against Apion and read this line:

There is the evidence which Apion should have considered, had he not himself been gifted with the mind of an ass and the impudence of the dog, which his countrymen are wont to worship. [2.85]

Beautiful, especially the last clause there. This statement comes after Josephus’ comment that Apion has not considered the appropriate sources and is ridiculous in his suggestion that the Jews’ have the head of an ass in their temple. Though I have seen some scholarly rhetoric get close to this, it sure would be fun to have people called out as having the “mind of an ass and the impudence of the dog.” Maybe it wouldn’t be very productive, but fun. Perhaps I will work it into my dissertation when I get there.

This past Monday, I gave my first oral presentation (my first assignment!) of my doctoral career at UCLA. For our class on “Jews, Gentiles, and Christians in the Roman World,” taught by Ra’anan Boustan, we first covered the historiography of how Christian writers have treated Judaism throughout the millennia. The major works that I presented on were George Foot Moore’s “Christian Writers on Judaism” (from Harvard Theological Review in 1921), a chapter out of E.P. Sanders Paul and Palestinian Judaism (“Tannaitic Literature,” pp. 33–59) and a hefty excerpt from Charlotte Klein’s Anti-Judaism in Christian Theology (pp. 1-66). Making my way through all that history of scholarship and planning a presentation on it was a beastly task. But the results were interesting, so I’d like to share it here with you all.

Part of the reason that this reading was so overwhelming, besides the overabundance of name after name, is because it was so negative. We read about one guy after another (yes, all men) who poorly interpreted Judaism. Moore begins his article with this statement: “Christian interest in Jewish literature has always been apologetic or polemic rather than historical.” That sets the tone for the whole reading. (To make a simplistic clarification, “apologetic” is defending that Christianity is true, while “polemic” is closer to a hateful attack on Judaism).

Moore first covers Christian writings on Judaism through the eighteenth century. In the early centuries of this period, Christian writers set up caricatures of Jewish apologists as straw-men that could easily be knocked down. After a few centuries, Jews and Christians both stepped up their game. Jewish authors challenged Christianity on the basis of Christian documents and doctrines. Christian authors used authoritative Jewish writings, such as the Targums and Midrash (going beyond merely the OT), to show that true Judaism actually verified the claims of Christianity. During this period, most Christian writers were polemical, though there were some exceptions that were merely apologetic.

In the nineteenth century, Christian scholars made an attempt to depict Judaism from an objective historical angle, though Moore believes they were unsuccessful. Judaism was viewed primarily through the lens of the New Testament. Judaism was addressed as the “background” of the New Testament. Many scholars worked on collecting parallels found in Jewish writings to the New Testament.

Ferdinand Weber stands out as one who represents another trend in Christian writing on Judaism. Weber sought to develop a systematic theology of Judaism, using the systems of Christian theology to depict historical Judaism. Within Weber and other authors of that time, we see a shift in thinking about Judaism. Now, the theology of Judaism is thought to be radically different (and inferior) from that of Christianity. The God of Judaism is far removed from humanity and inaccessible. Weber describes the “soteriology” of Judaism (a Christian term referring to the theology of salvation) as wholly legalistic. At the judgment, the Jew will stand before God with their transgressions on one side of the scale and their good works and acts of atonement on the other. Their works are what make them righteous, but their eternal salvation is uncertain according to Weber. If they do happen to lean on the righteous side, this leads to self-righteous pride in the faithful Jew.

Sanders and Klein pick up where Moore leaves off, showing that Moore made some headway in the study of Judaism, but ultimately his rallying cry for fair scholarship on Judaism was nullified. Klein notes that scholarship that perpetuates old biases is not malicious, hateful, or anti-Semitic (contrary to Nazi “pseudo-scholars”, like Kittel), but rather they show an ignorance of the sources and of their own bias. Sanders highlights the work of Billerbeck and Bultmann as nullifying the work of Moore. Billerbeck with his widely used parallels between rabbinic literature and the NT and Bultmann who added his supreme weight in NT studies to the Weber line of thinking about Judaism.

One of the key problems seen in this quick history of scholarship is that assumptions can become so deeply rooted as to go unquestioned and unsupported within scholarship. Even well-meaning and careful scholars fall prey to inherited harmful presuppositions.

Bias is a legacy that lasts generations in complicated and hidden ways. So, what do we do with our presuppositions? How do we approach historical documents? What sources do we use to talk about “normative Judaism”? Is there such a thing as normative Judaism?

These are all difficult questions, no doubt. And the track record of scholarship does not give us a heck of a lot of hope (though things have certainly gotten better since Sanders and Klein wrote in the seventies). But personally, I feel like we can make great progress by trying to be self-aware of our biases (what do we want the texts to say) and trying to be as honest as possible. I also think we can help things if we can just be a bit more sensitive to concerns that have been raised by others. For example, though this issue isn’t mentioned above, if you are going to use the term “conversion” for what happened to Paul, you should probably explain why and acknowledge the concerns raised by folks who think that’s an anachronistic or otherwise inappropriate term for Paul. I don’t think sensitive and self-aware scholarship is an impossibility!

One of the big themes in the history of research on the New Testament is the idea that the Bible should be read like any other historical book. This idea is sort of what kicked off modern research on the Bible in the first place. With the dawn of the Enlightenment, scholars started thinking, why don’t we put the Bible under the same historical scrutiny as we do other works? The historical-critical method is founded on this concept.

Of course, this raises special questions for the Christian scholar of the Bible. The Christian Bible scholar says, “Well, if I’m going to read my sacred text like I’d read any other book, what happens to its sacredness.” I think most balanced Christian scholars would like to hold onto their scholarly integrity, but also remain intentional about the Bible being a unique form of divine revelation. In that way, then, as scholars, they begin by reading the Bible as they would any other book. That is, they use all the tools to probe the text in its historical situation, its grammatical eccentricities, its social context, etc. But then, after they use their historical tools (the same tools that can be used by any other historical-critical scholar), they take a step back to think about the significance of their findings, synthesizing their conclusions about the larger meaning of the text, these scholars then start to emphasize the uniqueness of the Bible. It is in considering the consequences of historical study where the Bible is no longer merely any other book. Homer just doesn’t have the same kind of significance.

I’ll go a bit further and suggest that it’s not just Christian scholars who treat the Bible as a unique or special work. It seems to me that those who are proclaiming the death of the historical-critical method of interpretation are also fundamentally stating that the Bible is unique. One does not declare the death of attempts to read Homer in historical context. You don’t even have to declare the Bible to be special divine revelation to consider it to be a unique book. Look at the history of interpretation. Because western civilization has understood the Bible to be special revelation, it has by default given the Bible a place in history that is uniquely meaningful even beyond those revelatory claims. What I’m saying is that because the Bible means so much for people, it has unique sociological significance. Because it has shaped history, it has special historical significance (speaking of the history beyond the historical context of the Bible).

Therefore, even those who don’t “believe in” the Bible have to recognize that the Bible is not just any other book. This is why we have theological interpretation, post-colonial readings, feminist readings, or any other reading related to social location or founded upon postmodernism. Why read the Bible from so many various perspectives if it’s just the same as other works?

The question now is, will we lose the great birth of biblical scholarship and forget about our attempts to read the Bible like any other historical work? Will the historical-critical method really go the way of the Dodo? I have this feeling that perhaps the people who are announcing the death of the historical method are perhaps just louder than some others in the academy. I don’t think that history is going away. It seems to me that we cannot go back to a precritical reading. Even postcritical readings make use of the historical criticism.

I think some young scholars in the historical method are a little worried that they are going into a dead end job. I don’t think so. Well, at least I hope not, because I’m one of those young scholars!

Yesterday a friend of mine, who had just come back from an interfaith retreat and had picked up a cold, said, “The Jews made me sick.” Well, she was sitting in between two Jews, both with bad colds, at a dinner during the retreat and she happened to pick up what they had. But, given all the reading that I’ve been doing about the history of New Testament scholarship, it was almost a parody of some of the sadder moments in NT research. NT scholars throughout history have so often (and so easily) “blamed” the Jews for some theological problem they had.

For example, I have read in a few sources about how William Whiston (1667-1752), famous as the translator of Josephus’s works, demonstrated this tendency in dealing with the problem of Old Testament prophecy fulfillment in the NT. One of the major concerns for the early post-Reformation researchers in biblical studies was the fulfillment of prophecy. Alongside miracles, for them it was an indicator of the Bible’s divine origin. By Whiston’s time, however, much of the research on the “literal” sense of the putative “prophecies” in the Hebrew Bible was showing that these seemed to be misused by the authors of the New Testament. Read in their proper and “literal” or “plain sense” context, these were not prophecies at all, but mostly referred to historical events from their own historical situation.

Whiston’s solution? Blame it on the Jews! The early Christians used the original Hebrew texts appropriately, according to Whiston, attentive to their “literal” meaning. But then Jews, in reaction to Christian interpretations, went back and changed their own sacred Scriptures so that the literal meaning would not support the Christian claims of prophecy fulfillment.

I don’t doubt that there was back and forth between Jews and Christians and there was, at some point, some sort of “parting of the ways” between the two. I don’t doubt that such a parting led to the tweaking of some teachings on both sides of the equation (although, I’d imagine it was quite heavier on the Christian and anti-Judaism side of things). But to suggest that Jews would actually corrupt their own Scriptures to spite Christian interpretations, and to make this suggestion just so that Christians can hold onto a threatened belief in prophecy fulfillment . . . That’s just ridiculous.

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.