Theorizing ancient texts (and thus problematizing traditional scholarly narratives given for explaining such texts) seems to divide a lot of scholars. There are quite a few who just don’t want to bother with all this theory stuff, and its unnecessary jargon (so they perceive), and just continue along in the exegetical search of an author’s intention with little sprinkles of “historical background” for good measure. One may even find this to be the dominant perspective at SBL conferences, and not just by those working from an explicitly confessional perspective. At the same time, there is an ever-growing group of scholars of ancient texts (including biblical ones) who see various theoretical approaches and methodological considerations as essential for explaining the social functions of ancient texts.

Theory is not mere jargon, or at least it shouldn’t be, but rather more like a toolbox that assists us in deconstructing the rhetoric of ancient texts. In my initial post about Portier-Young’s recent book, Michael Helfield wondered aloud in the comments about the role of theory and what it might have to do with authorial intention, among other things. In her recent book, just reviewed in RBL, Ross Shepard Kraemer captures a sentiment that I have been trying to articulate for some of my friends still struggling with the idea of using theory in biblical and/or classical studies.

Alternative reading strategies, although not denying that authors have intentions and purposes, refuse to privilege authorial intentions and purposes. Instead, they attend to other things: to seeing the ways in which texts function regardless of authorial intention. One of these alternative practices, poststructuralism, explains narratives, texts, myths, and so forth in terms of structures that are inherent in human thinking but not consciously present (although perceptible to trained observers). The binary oppositions (e.g., good and evil, light and dark, right and left, soul and body, rationality and emotion, activity and passivity, masculine and feminine) that occur in many of the texts I treat in this study are aspects of these structures. This in turn is a theory of human activity that claims we do things without being fully conscious of them; that we utilize symbols, for instance, without a conscious awareness of what they are or how they work. Some theorists, particularly but not only the influential French sociologist, Pierre Bourdieu, have further argued for the centrality of “misrecognition,” to which I return in the last chapter. Humans engage in various practices that we explain in one set of terms even while they are clearly, at least to observers (and sometimes perhaps even to us), doing something else. For Bourdieu, misrecognition is specifically the “misrecognizing” of one’s interests in competitions for cultural and symbolic capital in diverse fields. [Unreliable Witnesses: Religion, Gender, and History in the Greco-Roman Mediterranean, page 9; emphases mine]

It is not that these ancient authors do not have intentions worth considering, but their apparent intentions (even if identifiable) may belie the complexity of their social and cultural anchors. “Alternative reading strategies,” as Kraemer calls them, help us to reconsider the often simplistic and narrow lenses with which traditional scholarship views ancient texts.

Update: A conversation with Jim West and Jason Staples on Google+ has me realizing that I should clarify and highlight something: theory remains a servant, not a master, to the task of doing history. Theory helps us do better history. The author’s intention is part of that history. Theory can help us peal back the layers of both explicit and implicit social/cultural assumptions in the author’s rhetoric. So, I’m not declaring the “death” of authorial intention here. I’m just saying that the way it traditionally has been done is problematic, and “well-applied theory” (Jason’s phrase) helps us sift through the confusion.

One of my professors—who interacts with biblical literature, but is not primarily a biblical scholar—recently told me that he thought “biblical scholar” sounded funny. I was talking generally about “biblical scholars” and their interaction with social theory, or lack thereof. He suggested “Bible scholar” or “biblical studies scholar.” Both of those sound less desirable to me, but he’s right about the funniness about “biblical scholar.” The apparently adjectival use of the term “biblical” would seem to imbue such scholars with biblical characteristics—whatever those might be.

I have been trying to think of another field that labels their scholars in this sort of way and have come up empty. You wouldn’t say “religious scholar” for a scholar of religious studies, or “classical scholar” for a classicist, or “historical scholar” for historian. All of these would seem to describe a characteristic about the scholar, not an indication of her field.

So, what are the options? Based on an unscientific search through my Google reader posts (lots of scholars-of-biblical-texts bloggers in there), Google at large, and the SBL website, I have found the following terms used (in order of frequency):

1. biblical scholar (by FAR) [SBL site: 596x]
2. Bible scholar [SBL site: 85x]
3. biblicist (although, this is also often used to refer to those who read the Bible “literally”) [SBL site: 26x]
4. biblical studies scholar (VERY rare) [SBL site: 2x]

I hadn’t really thought about this previously, but the term “biblical scholar” (let alone “biblical scholarship”) appears confessional. The term by itself describes a scholar who is (or scholarship that is) “biblical.” I suppose other uses of the term “biblical” could apply: as in, knowing a scholar in the “biblical sense”; or a scholar of “biblical proportions.” Any way you slice it, though, our field’s preferred designator feels quite problematic.

Out of the four options above (did I miss any?), I think I would prefer “biblical studies scholar” over “Bible scholar.” The latter feels very isolated and narrow–as if just the texts of the biblical documents. It also lends some weight to the idea that the Bible is one monolithic entity. If we say “biblical studies,” that feels to me like the biblical documents are the focus but are subject to a variety of “studies” (however those are conceived). Perhaps even better would simply be “scholars of biblical texts” (or “documents” or “literature”), which does occasionally make an appearance. We do tend to be a rather isolated group on the whole, detached from other disciplines. But should we reinforce that? As I see it, this is quite connected to many of the conversations we “biblical scholars” have been having lately regarding the ideological foundations of our field.

What say you? Have you given thought to this business of academic labels? What’s your preferred titular identity? Does it matter?

I’m excited to announce the scholars who will be coming together this fall to share thoughts on where the field is going. Part of my role as a member of the Student Advisory Board is to gather together a panel each year that addresses concerns that students in our field might have. This year, I invited scholars whom I felt could have a significant contribution regarding several related questions: What problems do you see in the field? What topics or approaches no longer need to be rehashed? What are issues that you have encountered that you don’t plan on pursuing yourself, but believe needs to be explored in the field? Are there certain methodologies or approaches that you believe are particularly ripe for exploration?

As the description states, “We plan to have a candid conversation, based upon the panelists’ own experiences, in which graduate students who feel stuck might find a glimmer of hope, a new path they might pursue, and/or a new set of questions to ask about their research.” Naturally, a grad student’s first resource is her own professors. But “outside the box” thinking often provides us with the sparks we need to realize a new question or insight for our research.

The panel is astounding and they have expressed excitement about the discussion and its importance. I can’t wait to see what they have to share on the topic. Included are a variety of perspectives coming from a range of specialties. See for yourself!

The panel I organized last year (“Finding Your ‘Niche’ in Biblical Studies”) was a huge success. I heard from more than one panelist that it was their most fulfilling experience in a session for some years. Students there told me that it was one of the most helpful sessions they attended. As one of the panelists, Mark Goodacre, remarked:

Pat McCullough organized a session entitled “Finding your ‘niche’ in Biblical Studies”.  There were five panelists, Christopher Hays, Katharine Doob Sakenfeld, Dale Martin and Paula Fredriksen and me. I have shared here in the blog the substance of my short presentation. I was hugely impressed with the other speakers, all of whom were witty, engaging, compelling. We had ten minutes or so each. The room was packed. There must have been two or three hundred people there, and there were people standing at the side. After we had finished speaking, the room emptied out a good deal, but then there was time for discussion of the topic and many of the contributions from the floor were excellent too.

I think the panel this year has the potential to be even more fulfilling than last year. Are there any questions or issues that you would like to see addressed by the panel (even if you won’t be able to be there)?

Update (6/24/2011): The discussion has already received some attention on the blogs, including a bit of satire from Deane Galbraith (see parts one, two, and three). Jim Davila offers his thoughts on what still needs to be done, namely reception history and bunches of textual criticism. Matt Dowling also spreads the news and shares his excitement–he was at the “niche” panel last year.

I noticed today that the preliminary program book is now available for searching online. Of course, my first instinct is to look up my own name and see my slots. As it stands now, it appears that Saturday will be a busy day for me! In the morning, I will present on a panel with the Letters of James, Peter, and Jude group and in the afternoon I will be presiding over a very impressive panel of scholars for the Student Advisory Board (I’ll announce that in a separate post). The Student Advisory Board will meet on Monday morning–with lots to discuss!

Do you see any sessions in the schedule that you can’t wait to attend? Are you presenting? If so, what are you presenting on and how does your slot look?

The panel I’m presenting on includes three papers on James and two on 1 Peter (including my own). From what I gather in the abstracts, it appears the James papers on the panel will host a discussion of the communal meal with plenty of exegetical parallels, a (postcolonial?) exploration of the “wisdom of the world” as Roman cultural features, and an intertextual examination of the use of Elijah in James. See the titles and presenters below.

I’m especially excited about Steve Black’s paper on the category of “social deviants” in 1 Peter. Like my abstract, Steve also mentions the Balch-Elliott debate. We are addressing very similar issues. I get the sense that his use of social theory might lead him towards a different emphasis than mine. I’m actually downplaying the “social deviancy” aspect and emphasizing more the Roman-ness of the author (and addressees?), even as a strong ingroup is reinforced. I’ll be interested to see if Steve interacts with some of David Horrell’s recent work (e.g., his “Between Conformity and Resistance: Beyond the Balch–Elliott Debate towards a Postcolonial Reading of First Peter”). I should note that while my abstract marginally mentions Balch and Elliott, the debate takes a more prominent role in the paper itself.

On the whole, the session looks to be a very robust conversation, offering case studies on a variety of approaches.

S19-127

Letters of James, Peter, and Jude
11/19/2011
9:00 AM to 11:30 AM
Room: Room TBD – Hotel TBD

Peter Davids, St. Stephen’s University, Presiding
Daniel R. Streett, Criswell College
Food, Fellowship and Favoritism: Early Christian Meals as the Setting for James 2:1–9 (30 min)
Jason Coker, Albertus Magnus College
Wisdom Two Ways: Identifying the Imperial Presence in James 3:13-18 (30 min)
Mariam Kamell, Regent College
The Prayer of Elijah in the Epistle of James (30 min)
Steve D. Black, Toronto School of Theology
Is 1 Peter’s Attempt of Casting off the Mechanisms of Social Control in a Responsible Manner Successful? (30 min)
Patrick George McCullough, University of California, Los Angeles
“What Does the Haustafel Have to Do with the Eschaton? An Exploration of Apocalyptic Identity Formation in First Peter” (30 min)

I know that the preliminary schedule is probably in flux, so I will not assume this time slot is its final home.

I was very pleasantly surprised — flabbergasted, one might say — to discover today that I was nominated and have been appointed as one of the very select group of 2010-11 California Humanities Scholars, a program sponsored by the University of California Humanities Research Institute. The program appoints only up to three graduate students per UC campus and the Scholars are expected to engage in online digital media together as a virtual network exploring Humanities research:

The purpose of the California Humanities Scholars Program is to recognize graduate students working across the broad range of humanities at the University of California and to use their collective expertise, interests and collaborative energy to create a dynamic and interactive virtual network. California Humanities Scholars are “Citizen Journalists,” reporting on the work happening on their campuses and in their various communities by blogging, tweeting, vlogging, podcasting and other forms of online networking.

It’s an exciting idea and opportunity. A related program, HASTAC (pronounced “haystack”), has been created for grad students “who are engaged with innovative projects and research at the intersection of digital media and learning, 21st century education, the digital humanities, and technology in the arts, humanities and social science.” I gather they have been active for a couple months now.

A few folks I have found online thus far include Desiree D’Allesandro (UCSB), Richard Mehlinger (UCR), Amanda Phillips (UCSB), Jessica Beard (UCSC), and some others too. Things are just kinda warming up and some have been more active than others.

Obviously this is something that has relevance to the blog and I hope to gather some posts on humanities here and elsewhere. I’ll keep you updated as I learn more.

Luca Signorelli's The Resurrection of the Flesh

I recently wrote a dictionary article dealing with the “last trumpet” and consequently gathered much more information than could be stuffed into the entry itself. And what are blogs for but to share your excess information, bursting out the seams? The phrase, of course, comes from Paul:

Listen, I will tell you a mystery! We will not all fall asleep, but we will all be changed, in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last [eschatos] trumpet [salpinx]. For the trumpet will sound, and the dead will be raised imperishable, and we will be changed.

(1 Cor 15:51-52; modified from the NRSV)

Michaelangelo's Last Judgment (Lower Center)

But the concept of an eschatological trumpet is certainly found elsewhere (Isa 58:1; Joel 2:1; Zeph 1:16; 2 Esdr 6:23; Matt 24:31; 1 Cor 15:52; 1 Thess 4:16; and a bunch in Revelation). The image of a final trumpet blast at the end of the age is a powerful one and it’s no surprise that it would have tremendous influence on intellectual and cultural traditions of Western history.

Literature

My search for how the trumpet has been used wandered about in different directions. In literature, the phrase is often used as literary device bringing out the dramatic effect of a moment.

Juliet: “Is Romeo slaughtered, and is Tybalt dead? / My dearest cousin and my dearer lord? / Then, dreadful trumpet, sound the general doom! / For who is living if those two are gone?” ~Shakespeare, Romeo & Juliet (1590′s)

Lucretia: “Hark, ’tis the castle horn; my God! it sounds / Like the last trump.” ~Percy Shelley, The Cenci (1819)

“For a moment, the old woman’s ghastly conception so engrossed the minds of her hearers that a sound abroad in the night, rising like the roar of a blast, had grown broad, deep, and terrible, before the fated group were conscious of it. The house and all within it trembled; the foundations of the earth seemed to be shaken, as if this awful sound were the peal of the last trump. Young and old exchanged one wild glance, and remained an instant, pale, affrighted, without utterance, or power to move.” ~Nathaniel Hawthorne, The Ambitious Guest (1835)

William Blake's The Last Trumpet

In these examples, the last trump mention just sort of pops up out of nowhere. It functions as a simile in Shelley and Hawthorne, comparing some dreadful sound with the anticipated awfulness of the “last trump.” In Shakespeare, it heightens the power of Juliet’s woeful cry — indicating that truly these two are the only persons of any significance in the whole of the world. If I had more time to think about these things, I would have to consider more whether such momentary mentions of the eschatological trumpet were simple dramatic devices or whether there was some more hefty mimetic allusion going on. Of course, there are examples of more head-on dealings with the last trumpet. For example, there is the poetry of Donne and Herbert:

“At the round earths imagin’d corners, blow / Your trumpets, Angells, and arise, arise / From death, you numberlesse infinities / Of soules, and to your scattred bodies goe . . .” ~John Donne, Holy Sonnet 7 (written by about 1609)

“Dust, alas, no musick feels, / But thy trumpet: then it kneels, / As peculiar notes and strains / Cure Tarantulaes raging pains.” ~George Herbert, “Dooms-day” (1633)

For now ignoring Hal Lindsay, Tim LaHaye, and the like, perhaps the most interesting and creative examples come from two short stories written by H. G. Wells: “A Vision of Judgment” (1899) and “The Story of the Last Trump” (1905). The former story begins with the sound of the last trumpet, which awakens the dead (“The last note jerked me out of my grave like a hooked minnow”) and initiates God’s judgment of all people in alphabetical order and ends with them being brought to a new planet: “now that you understand me and each other a little better . . . try again.” The second Wells story features the trumpet falling to earth:

“But one I may tell of, and that was a great brazen trumpet which the Lord God had made when He made the world — for the Lord God finishes all His jobs — to blow when the time for our Judgment came round. And He had made it and left it; there it was, and everything was settled exactly as the Doctrine of Predestination declares. And this blessed child conceived one of those unaccountable passions of childhood for its smoothness and brassiness, and he played with it and tried to blow it, and trailed it about with him out of the attic into the gay and golden streets, and, after many fitful wanderings, to those celestial battlements of crystal of which you doubtless read. And there the blessed child fell to counting the stars, and forgot all about the Trumpet beside him until a flourish of his elbow sent it over.”

Jacques Gamelin, "Surgite mortui venite ad Judicium"

The trumpet falls from heaven and lands on earth, giving humanity a glimpse of truth for a moment (“as if for an instant the world wasn’t the world”), before they quickly forget and go about their normal lives unchanged (“‘One might think I was going to be ill,’ she said, and resumed her toast”).

Artistic Renderings

In Western art, the last trump has often been depicted with some dramatic fanfare. Michaelangelo’s Last Judgment (a fresco on the altar wall of the Sistine Chapel) immediately comes to mind, but if you look at the whole painting, it’s easy to miss the trumpets themselves — the image above is just a closeup of the trumpeters. Michaelangelo had his forerunners, though, and Luca Signorelli is one of the most important. His The Resurrection of the Flesh (shown above) features giant angels blowing enormous trumpets. At the turn of the sixteenth century, Signorelli was commissioned to decorate the frescoes of the San Brizio Chapel in the Orvieto Cathedral, where he depicts a masterpiece of various eschatological scenes.

The emotional characteristics of Michaelangelo and Signorelli are quite different. While Michaelangelo’s judgment scene is fraught with urgency, Signorelli’s resurrected bodies seem as if they are at a cocktail party. Some of them have gotten their new flesh, others are still waiting. There is time to embrace and chat as people gradually seep their way up out of the earth. Both Michaelangelo and Signorelli, of course, use magnificent, herculean (European) bodies — apart for the skeletons still waiting for theirs. Speaking of which . . .

William Blake's "Skeleton Re-animated"

One can find more intimate, individualized renderings of the last trumpet, such as in the drawings of Jacques Gamelin (1738-1803) and William Blake (1757-1827). Gamelin was known for his renderings of skeletons in a work entitled, Nouveau receuil d’ostéologie et de myologie (published in 1779). The work depicts a variety of scenes with skeletons, some playful, others more serious — and even if he wasn’t successful at the time, it has found an audience with both artists and specialists in anatomy. Within the collection, there is included an image (see above) of a rather shocked skeleton in his grave, jolted out of his sleep with a trumpet blast straight at his face. Gamelin’s caption for the image reads: Surgite mortui venite ad Judicium (“Arise, dead one, and come to judgment”).

With many similarities to Gamelin’s great work, William Blake rendered several skeleton scenes to illustrate a publication of Robert Blair’s poem, The Grave (1808), including a last trumpet rendering on the frontispiece. In that drawing, “Skeleton Re-animated,” Blake depicts the archangel dangles upside down blowing a long trumpet into the face of a skeleton rising from the ground. The intimacy of the image is powerful. I find it intriguing how similar Blake’s skeleton is to Gamelin’s and I have to wonder whether there is some artistic dependence there (if you’re working on your art history dissertation, feel free to run with that idea — and you’re welcome ). Another work of Blake’s, a drawing in Indian ink simply titled “The Last Trumpet” (see above) is in the more epic tradition of Signorelli.

Odds and Ends

Those were the bulkiest things I found, though I did discover a few other odds and ends. Apparently heavily influenced by Hal Lindsay’s The Late Great Planet Earth, Bob Dylan wrote the song “Ye Shall Be Changed.” The song’s chorus includes a line: “In the twinkling of an eye, when the last trumpet blows / the dead will arise and burst out of your clothes.” Johnny Cash featured the last trumpet in his songs “When the Man Comes Around” and “Ain’t No Grave (Gonna Hold This Body Down).”

Writing in honor of Josef Goebbels, a Nazi propaganda mastermind, Alfred Frauenfeld wrote: “Josef Goebbels has worn down the nerves of the enemy: he played the register of the propaganda organ, so that they soon thought they were hearing the shrieks of the last trumpet.”

There are other items, but I’ll leave it here for now. Maybe I’ll pick it up later, if the trumpet still hasn’t yet blasted.

Last night and this morning, my blog made the transition from WordPress.com to WordPress.org (self-hosted) with no small thanks to Brandon who guided me through the process. Along the way, I have selected a new theme/look for the blog, updated some of my links, and started considering what to do with my newly earned freedom.

WordPress.com accounts are heavily restricted in what they can accomplish, but WordPress.org accounts have the freedom to adjust coding and add all kinds of plugins. For example, I have added RefTagger, the plugin created by Logos Bible Software. So, now, you can simply hover over something like Matt 9:17 and see the Bible verse pop up. They don’t have NRSV, so I chose TNIV as my default.

So, what are your favorite WordPress.org plugins? Anything I should add to enjoy the benefits of my new location?

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.

Dramatic movie preview voice: “Just when you thought all the dust had been settled, one man has come to shake it off. The writing was on the wall, and he decided to reread it. He enters the arena where two groups battle over the true meaning of identity. He searches through every city in the Empire to find the truth. Diving down into the well of time, Phil Harland discovers the hidden mysteries of the eternal question: ‘Who Are We?’ The general who became a slave. The slave who became a gladiator. The gladiator who defied an emperor. Read it here. Read it now.”

T & T Clark should totally hire me on their marketing team. I’m feeling a little sensational today (blame it on the imagery behind Phil’s recent post: Pompeii 2). But seriously, Phil Harland’s new book, Dynamics of Identity in the World of the Early Christians, looks very exciting! Here’s the description:

Drawing on insights from the social sciences, including social identity theory and migration theory, this study suggests that we can better understand certain dynamics of identity among groups of Judeans (Jews) and Christians by looking at archeological evidence (especially inscriptions) for other contemporary associations, immigrants, and cultural minorities. Ancient Judean and Christian answers to the question ‘Who are we?’ come into sharper focus through close attention to the cultural environments and real-life settings of associations in the cities of the Roman empire. Despite the peculiarities of both Judean gatherings and Christian congregations, there were significant overlaps in how associations of various kinds communicated their identities and in how members of such groups expressed notions of belonging internally. The work is particularly well suited as a course text or book for review in courses that aim to understand early Christian groups and literature, including the New Testament, in relation to their Greek, Roman, and Judean cultural contexts.

It’s available for preorder on Amazon and Phil has his own information page up, with the promise of a companion webpage coming.

After writing my previous post about RevGalBlogPals helping us out with the perennial women and biblioblogging discussion, I thought about their requirements for joining and realized, “Hey, that’s me!” So, particularly on the basis of their third criterion (“All committed to building a supportive online community for women clergy, women church professionals, and women in religious life”), I applied for and was accepted into membership for the RevGalBlogPals webring.

I don’t know that webrings are really a big part of internet traffic direction anymore — I used to use them quite a bit — but I am happy to be able publicly to show my support of women in ministry in some small quasi-”official” sort of way. I suppose I could go the extra mile and join RevGalBlogPals, Inc. by donating $25, but well, with the baby and the grad student thing and all . . .