I have nothing whatever to say against historical criticism. I recognize it, and once more state quite definitely that it is both necessary and justified. My complaint is that recent commentators confine themselves to an interpretation of the text which seems to me to be no commentary at all, but merely the first step towards a commentary. Recent commentaries contain no more than a reconstruction of the text, a rendering of the Greek words and phrases by their precise equivalents, a number of additional notes in which archaeological and philological material is gathered together, and a more or less plausible arrangement of the subject matter in such a manner that it may be made historically and psychologically intelligible from the standpoint of pure pragmaticism. Jülicher and Lietzmann know far better than I do how insecure all this historical reconstruction is, and upon what doubtful assumptions it often rests. Even such an elementary attempt at interpretation is not an exact science. Exact scientific knowledge, so far as the Epistle to the Romans is concerned, is limited to the deciphering of the manuscripts and the making of a concordance. Historians do not wish, and rightly do not wish, to be confined within such narrow limits. Jülicher and Lietzmann, not to mention conservative scholars, intend quite clearly to press beyond this preliminary work to an understanding of Paul. Now, this involves more than a mere repetition in Greek or in German of what Paul says: it involves the reconsideration of what is set out in the Epistle, until the actual meaning of it is disclosed. It is at this point that the difference between us appears. There is no difference of opinion with regard to the need of applying historical criticism as a prolegomenon to the understanding of the Epistle. (6-7)

Here’s a link to the entire 2010 program (WordDoc), but I have also listed belong the relevant sessions on NT, HB, early Christianity, and archaeology:

FRIDAY, March 5

6:00-8:00 pm (SESSION I)

SBL: Hebrew Scriptures/Old Testament I

Brian Alderman, Lee University, Presiding

Brandon J. Simonson, Vanderbilt University

• Was Sarai a naditum? Examining the Sexuality of Sarai in an Ancient Near Eastern Milieu

Kristen L. Cox, University of Georgia

• Moses and the Motif of Water: From the Nile to the Jordan River

William L. Lyons, Regent University

• The Forgotten Casualty: Children and War in the Hebrew Bible

Joseph F. Scrivner, Samford University

• Wisdom as Cultural Capital: Socioeconomic Interests in Proverbs 1-9

SBL: New Testament I

Theme: New Testament Themes

Mark Proctor, Lee University, Presiding

Alexander Stewart, Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary

• Eschatology and Soteriology in 1 Peter

Kevin Larsen, Mid-Atlantic Christian University

• Neglected Considerations in Understanding the Structure of the Book of Revelation

Ricky Shinall, Vanderbilt University

• One Saturday in Capernaum: Mark’s Gentile Appropriation of the Sabbath

John Daniels, Flagler College

• Gossiping Jesus Into Being: The Oral Processing of a Social Personage in the Gospels

AAR: History of Christianity I

Theme: Early Christianity

Michael Simmons, Auburn University, Presiding

Ryan T. Woods, Emory.

• Providence, Punishment, and Perfection: Clement and Basilides on the Suffering of Martyrs

Annie Tinsley, University of Birmingham, U.K.

• Response to Harold O. Maier’s ‘A Sly Civility — Colossians and Empire’

Jonathan Schwiebert, Lenoir-Rhyne University.

• The Meaninglessness of Baptism

Alan Knox, Southeastern Theological Seminary.

• Theological Sources of Ignatius of Antioch

John Stokes, Auburn University Montgomery

• The Cult of Mithras and the Early Christians: Conflict and Competition in the Second and Third Centuries

8:15-9:30 pm

Presidential Addresses:

AAR: Michelle Tooley, Berea College

• Beyond the Peace Dividend in Guatemala: Re-membering Women’s Bodies

SBL: Jodi Magness, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill

• Truth and Fiction: The Talpiyot Tomb in Context

SATURDAY, MARCH 6

9:00-10:45 am (SESSION II)

ASOR/SBL: Archaeology and the Ancient World I

Theme: ASOR Presidential Address

Greg Linton, Johnson Bible College, Presiding

James Riley Strange, Samford University

• Economics and the Archaeological Field School: Some Thoughts on the Production and Consumption of Education in the 21st Century

SBL: Hebrew Scriptures/Old Testament II

Robert Wallace, Shorter College, Presiding

Douglas Watson, Emory University

• The Rhetoric of Lament in the Book of Joel

Callie Plunket-Brewton, University of North Alabama

• Aesthetics and Architecture: The Rebuilding of Zion in Isaiah 49-55

Todd Hibbard, University of Tennessee, Chattanooga

• From Name to Book: Another Look at the Composition of the Book of Isaiah

Jerry Gladson, Columbia Theological Seminary

• The Deus Absconditus in Lamentations and in Postmodern Life

SBL: New Testament II

Theme: The Gospels

Kavin Rowe, Duke University Divinity School, Presiding

James W. Barker, Vanderbilt University

• John’s Use and Disuse of Matthew

David Moffitt, Duke University

• Jonah, Jews, Jesus, and Gentiles: Matthew’s Appropriation of the Sign of Jonah Saying in Light of the Gentile Mission

Tim Wardle, Wake Forest University

• Mark, the Jerusalem Temple and Jewish Sectarianism

Jason Robert Combs, UNC Chapel Hill

• Locating Luke 6:5d: Toward a Social Context for the Sabbath Worker

2:30-4:15 pm (SESSION III)

ASOR/SBL: Archaeology and the Ancient World II

Theme: Jesus and the Galilean Economy

Ralph K. Hawkins, Kentucky Christian University, Presiding

Mordechai Aviam, The Institute for Galilean Archaeology — Kinneret College, in Collaboration with the Miller Center for Contemporary Judaic Studies,

University of Miami

• Socio-Economic Conditions in Galilee at the Time of Jesus

SBL: Hebrew Scriptures/Old Testament III

Bryan Bibb, Furman University, Presiding

Theme: Emerging Technologies that Enhance Biblical Scholarship and Teaching

Panelists: TBA

SBL: New Testament III

Theme: Theological Issues in the Interpretation of the New Testament

Richard Vinson, Salem College, Presiding

Jason Staples, UNC Chapel Hill

• Lord, Lord: Jesus’ Use of the Divine Name in the Synoptics

Douglas A. Hume, Pfeiffer University

• The Economics of Friendship: An Interpretation of the Narrative Summaries in Acts 2:41-47 and 4:32-35

Michael Zolondek, Florida International University

• And They Threw Him Out of the Vineyard: An Analysis of the Parable of the Wicked Tenants

Alan Knox, Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary

• A Theology of Mutuality

4:30-6:00 pm (SESSION IV)

ASOR/SBL: Archaeology and the Ancient World III

Theme: Jesus and the Galilean Economy

Ralph K. Hawkins, Kentucky Christian University, Presiding

Panelists: Tom McCollough, Centre College

David Fiensy, Kentucky Christian University

Doug Oakman, Pacific Lutheran University

Mordechai Aviam, The Institute for Galilean Archaeology — Kinneret College, in Collaboration with the Miller Center for Contemporary Judaic Studies, University of Miami

SBL: Hebrew Scriptures/Old Testament IV

Nancy L. deClaissé-Walford, McAfee School of Theology, Mercer University, Presiding

Steve Cook, Independent Scholar

• The Biblical Hermeneutics of Margaret Walker: The Case of “Girl Held Without Bail” and Jephthah’s Daughter

B.J. Parker, McAfee School of Theology, Mercer University

• The Sublime, Terrible and Ezekiel 16

Jackie Wyse, Emory University

• A Book of Daniel(s): Characterization in Bakhtinian Perspective

Joshua Vis, Duke University

• The Sacrificial System of Leviticus in the Book of Hebrews

AAR: History of Judaism II

Theme: Second Temple Judaism

Gilya Schmidt, University of Tennessee, Knoxville, Presiding

Edmund Gallagher, Heritage Christian University

• The Greek Bible among Ancient Jews

Bennie Reynolds, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill

• Lost is Assyria: Locating ’svr on the Maps and the Lexicons of Jewish Writers from the Hellenistic Period

David Stark, Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary

• mvrh tzdqh as a Hermeneutical Functionary in the Qumran Sectarian Manuscripts

Kenneth Henson, University of Central Florida

• Prophetic “Light” Versus Qumranic “Darkness”: Isaiah’s Audacity of Hope

SUNDAY, MARCH 7

8:30-10:15 am (SESSION V)

ASOR/SBL: Archaeology and the Ancient World IV

Theme: Archaeological Investigations and Reports

Terry W. Eddinger, Carolina Evangelical Divinity School, Presiding

Dan Warner, The Virtual Bible Project

• A Re-Assessment of Canaanite Cultic Structures Based Upon a Functional/Utilitarian Approach

Sharon Lea Mattila, University of North Carolina at Pembroke

• Was There an Economic Crisis under Antipas? Revisiting the Questions of Royal Estates and Taxation in Herodian Galilee

Jeff Hudon, Andrews University

• Judahite Expansion into Philistia during the Early Eighth Century BCE: What is the Historical and Archaeological Evidence?

John Wineland, Kentucky Christian University

• A Report on the 2009 Season at Khirbet Mudaybi

AAR: History of Judaism III and Hebrew Scripture/Old Testament V (joint session)

Theme: The Handwriting on the Wall and Other Tales of Old

David Garber, McAfee School of Theology, Mercer University, Presiding

Cameron B. R. Howard, Emory University

• A Basic Conceptual Metaphor in the Serek ha-Yahad

Michael Fuller, Lee University

• Divine Intervention and Israel’s (”History’ of) Passivity in Josephus and Other Early Jewish Documents

Marian Broida, Emory University

• Textualizing Divination: The Writing on the Wall

SBL: New Testament IV

Theme: Reception History of the New Testament

Doug Hume, Pfeiffer University, Presiding

Diane Lipsett, Wake Forest University

• Stones, Scandal, and Seeing God: John Donne in the Reception History of Matthew

Wayne Coppins, University of Georgia

• Paul’s Juxtaposition of Freedom and Positive Servitude in 1 Cor 9:19 and its Reception by Martin Luther and Gerhard Ebeling

Ben White, UNC Chapel Hill

• How to Read a Book: Irenaeus and the Pastoral Epistles Reconsidered

Jeremy Barrier, Heritage Christian University

• The Earliest Christian Novels: An Analysis of the Manuscript and Literary Evidence for Christian Novel Writing in the Pre-Constantinian Era

10:30 am-12:15 pm (SESSION VI)

ASOR/SBL: Archaeology and the Ancient World V

Theme: Archaeological Method and Theory

Sharon Lea Mattila, University of North Carolina at Pembroke, Presiding

Ted Carruth, David Lipscomb University

• A Sculpture Fragment from Iron II Moabite Khirbet Mudaybi’: A Case Study of Inter-Disciplinary Inquiry for Interpretive Purposes

Robert Darby, University of Missouri-Columbia and Erin Darby, Duke University

• “Re”-Covering the Past: How Do We Protect and Study Jordan’s Threatened Ancient Sites? Approaches at “Ayn Gharandal”

Frederick L. Downing, Valdosta State University

• When the Center Cannot Hold: A Paradigm for Reading Near Eastern Archaeology

SBL: New Testament V

Theme: Paul

Diane Lipsett, Wake Forest University, Presiding

Mark Proctor, Lee University

• If Christ Has Not Been Raised — The Inefficacy of a Qualified Gospel in 1 Cor 15:17

Thomas Whitley, Gardner-Webb University

• From Qumran to Philo: Precedence for Paul’s Use of “Israel”

Annie Tinsley, University of Birmingham (UK)

• “Colossians and Empire”: A Response to Harold O. Maier

Presian Burroughs, Duke University

• Why Await the Apocalypse of the Sons of God? Reflections on Creation’s Liberation in Romans 8:18—22

I picked up LTJ’s book but haven’t had the opportunity to read through it thoroughly. From what I have read, I think it will be a great contribution to anyone studying Greco-Roman religion. Johnson seeks to dispel notions that early Christian religion was wholly different from that of pagan religion. “The heart of the book, ” Johnson writes, “is a close and (I hope) careful comparison between the ways of being religious among Gentiles and in Christianity” (ix-x). He emphasizes that his book is written from the perspective of religious studies and not theology.

Johnson develops four ways or types of being religious in Greco-Roman religion. These four categories are (1) religion as participation in divine benefits, (2) religion as moral transformation, (3) religion as transcending the world, and (4) religion as stabilizing the world. Johnson then uses these categories to describe how early Christians understood religion in similar ways to other religions in the ancient Mediterranean. This book should be useful for patristic scholars as well as students of the New Testament since his discussion of ancient religion spans from the New Testament to the post-Constantine era.

I felt like praying or something, when I was in bed, but I couldn’t do it. I can’t always pray when I feel like it. In the first place, I’m sort of an atheist. I like Jesus and all, but I don’t care too much for most of the other stuff in the Bible. Take the Disciples, for instance. They annoy the hell out of me, if you want to know the truth. They were all right after Jesus was dead and all, but while He was alive, they were about as much use to Him as a hole in the head. All they did was keep letting Him down. I like almost anybody in the Bible better than the Disciples. If you want to know the truth, the guy I like best in the Bible, next to Jesus, was that lunatic and all, that lived in the tombs and kept cutting himself with stones. I like him ten times as much as the Disciples, that poor bastard. I used to get in quite a few arguments about it, when I was at the Whooton School, with this boy that lived down the corridor, Arthur Childs. Old Childs was a Quaker and all, and he read the Bible all the time. He was a very nice kid, and I liked him, but I could never see eye to eye with him on a lot of stuff in the Bible, especially the Disciples. He kept telling me that if I didn’t like the Disciples, then I didn’t like Jesus and all. He said that because Jesus picked the Disciples, you were supposed to like them. I said I knew He picked them, but that He picked them at random. I said He didn’t have time to go around analyzing everybody. I said I wasn’t blaming Jesus or anything. It wasn’t his fault that He didn’t have any time. I remember I asked old Childs if he thought Judas, the one that betrayed Jesus and all, went to Hell after he committed suicide. Childs said certainly. That’s exactly where I disagreed with him. I said I’d bet a thousand bucks that Jesus never sent old Judas to Hell. I still would, too, if I had a thousand bucks. I think any one of the Disciples would’ve sent him to Hell and all—and fast, too—but I’ll bet anything Jesus didn’t do it. Old Childs said the trouble with me was that I didn’t go to church or anything. He was right about that, in a way. I don’t. In the first place, my parents are different religions, and all the children in our families are atheists. If you want to know the truth, I can’t even stand ministers. The ones they’ve had at every school I’ve gone to, they all have these Holy Joe voices when they start giving their sermons. God, I hate that. I don’t see why the hell they can’t talk in their natural voice. They sound so phony when they talk. (130-31)

Holden’s opinion about the disciples is certainly justified by the stories in the gospels, which portray the disciples very negatively at times—especially in the pre-Easter period. His remark that Jesus chose the disciples at random because he lacked the time necessary to vet them is a very interesting claim. Yet it misses the point of the gospels, which uses the disciples as examples of what it means or does not mean to follow Jesus. Nevertheless, for Holden the disciples merely represent all that’s wrong with the Bible. Perhaps Holden is actually waging a larger critique against Christianity, which is often thought of as hypocritical. Jesus is fine for Holden and even that lunatic living in the tombs is acceptable. Both are who they claim to be, but the disciples are flawed characters who never live up to their expectations. This is similar, then, to Holden’s disdain for ministers as hypocrites who talk in phony voices.

Arthur Childs accepts the disciples out of simple faith, but Holden maintains his skepticism. Who is the better reader of Scripture?
]]> http://sitzimleben.com/2010/01/29/j-d-salinger-and-jesus-disciples/feed/ 0 http://sitzimleben.com/2010/01/27/a-symposium-for-everett-ferguson/ http://sitzimleben.com/2010/01/27/a-symposium-for-everett-ferguson/#comments Wed, 27 Jan 2010 07:21:20 +0000 brandonw http://sitzimleben.com/?p=748

There will be a symposium celebrating the work of Everett Ferguson [wiki] at Lipscomb University in Nashville. The symposium, scheduled for June 4, 2010, is centered around Ferguson’s recent tome, Baptism in the Early Church: History, Theology, and Liturgy in the First Five Centuries. The participants include Carl Holladay, J. Patout Burns, Robin M. Jensen, Thomas M. Finn, Everett Ferguson, and Abraham J. Malherbe. Ferguson’s book, Backgrounds of Early Christianity is widely popular in the field and I expect this recent book with its detailed treatment of Baptism to become a standard text for years to come.

HT: Vita Brevis

Mike Kok(e) recently asked for some advice about the statement of purpose (SOP) for PhD applications. I wrote a few notes on his blog and thought that it might be appropriate to re-post them here in a slightly expanded form.

The SOP is a required component of every PhD application, although it varies in style from each school. Some will give clear guidelines such as page length, specific order, or additional questions. The applicant needs to pay close attention to those guidelines if they are included. The page length for the SOP is usually between 2 to 5 pages. The shortest SOP that I wrote was for UCLA at only two pages; the longest (Emory) was about five pages. Since the SOPs are so short, one needs to take off quickly and address their research. The readers are probably going to be more concerned with the applicant’s academic interests than their personal history. Nevertheless, the applicant will usually need to talk about their personal history at some level in order to contextual their academic interests.

Here is how I generally arranged my SOPs:

1. I generally started with a short statement about how my decision to do a PhD in New Testament (or early Christianity) was neither made in haste nor a recent development. Then I would highlight (very briefly) a few points in my history where this decision was solidified.
2. I then quickly moved into a discussion about the history of my education. I discussed my BA and MTS courses of study and how they prepared me to do PhD work in my field. Here I talked about the importance of my majors (classics and biblical studies), languages (both ancient and modern), and the world views of the programs (secular and theological).
3. The discussion about my education made for an easy transition into a discussion about my academic interests and the work I had already done on those topics. Here one my want to outline a specific dissertation topic or just explore their research in a nuanced fashion. Some schools, especially ones in the UK, will want the applicant to be specific about their intended dissertation, but for the most part the admissions committee wants to know if the student can perform research in a sophisticated way. This is where one needs to show that they can operate on a PhD level, and dispel any preconceived notions that the readers might have about their past. For instance, if an applicant went to a conservative seminary, they may need to demonstrate that they approach texts openly and critically, regardless of their theological dispositions.
4. After discussing my own interests, I then connected them to the academic interests of the faculty. It’s important for the applicant to apply to the schools where their interests are congruent with those of the faculty. For this reason, one should not simply apply to Yale, Harvard, Duke, Emory, Princeton, Chicago, etc., just because they are the “top” schools. The applicant should strategically choose the best fits. This will make this section of their SOP easier and more convincing. Again, this section will vary widely. I played up my interests slightly differently when applying to different schools. For instance, the two texts I had been interested in working on was Luke-Acts and the Didache. When I applied to Emory, I put more emphasis on the Luke-Acts section because it’s one of the strengths of the department. When I applied to UNC, I put more emphasis on text-critical and source critical issues related to the Didache. Of course, one shouldn’t contrive false academic interests just for the application because the committee will probably (hopefully) see through that.
5. Lastly, I brought in other reasons why the school was a good fit and how serious I was about attending the school were I admitted. If I had family in the region or there were other reasons that the institution was attractive to me, I mentioned them. This at least let the admissions committees know that I had good reason to accept their offer if they extend one. Common sense tells us that if an admissions committee has two equally qualified students they would select the one who is more likely to attend their school.

A couple of things to consider. The applicant will want to frame their SOP differently based on the type of school to which they are applying. For instance, I applied to schools that are religiously oriented, secularly oriented, and something in between. Therefore, my application to Marquette differed from my application to UNC. In the Marquette application I emphasized my theological training and commitment to the church, whereas in my UNC application I was more interested in historical-critical aspects, although I didn’t compromise my Christian background. The basic point that I am making is that Phd programs are housed in different types of institutions: seminaries, public universities, private research universities, and private religiously-affiliated universities. They are not all looking for the same type of student and the applicant needs to frame their SOP differently depending on the type of institution. Of course, there is no one right way of writing an SOP. Each school looks for something different and each person will have different advice. So whatever I said on this blog, take it with a grain of salt.

That’s basically how I approached my SOP. I ultimately applied to eight schools and it was a bit of a chore, but it was well worth it and I’m very grateful that it worked out. Remember, if you’re at the stage of writing your SOP, there is light at the end of the tunnel and you will have a social life again, I promise.

Thanks for Cliff Kvidahl for sending me an invite. I also have a number of invites left, so if you’re interested in checking out Google Wave, I can send you one. If you’re on Wave already, let me know (and I’ll send you spam).