Baker Academic

Was Billy Graham's Public Influence Generally Positive?

Friday, April 17, 2015

"John and Judaism" Pre-SBL Conference—Chris Keith

I am happy to pass along this notice for a pre-SBL conference on "John and Judaism" at McAfee School of Theology of Mercer University.  I attended the last pre-SBL meeting in Baltimore and it was wonderful.  I'd encourage you to consider attending this one.


Announcing

 

“John and Judaism”

A Pre-SBL Conference

Hosted by the McAfee School of Theology

at Mercer University

November 18-20, 2015

2930 Flowers Road

Atlanta, GA 30341

Building on the success of the Symposium on the Johannine Epistles, hosted by Mercer in 2010, and the conference on C.H. Dodd and Raymond E. Brown, hosted by St. Mary’s Seminary in Baltimore in 2013, the McAfee School of Theology at Mercer University is pleased to announce a conference on “John and Judaism,” that will begin with dinner on Wednesday, November 18, and end at noon on Friday, November 20. 

Following the keynote address by Prof. Jan van der Watt on Wednesday evening, the conference will address three topics:  (1) John as a Source for Understanding Judaism (Thursday morning), (2) aposynagogos? Reappraising John’s Relationship to Judaism (Thursday afternoon and evening); and (3) Reading John as Jews and Christians (Friday morning).  Major papers will be presented by Craig R. Koester, Adele Reinhartz, Craig A. Evans, and Reimund Bieringer, and nine short papers, three on each topic, will fill out the program. 

Registration for the conference (including dinner on Wednesday and lunch and dinner on Thursday) is $125.  Checks should be made payable to McAfee School of Theology and sent to

Ms. Diane Frazier
McAfee School of Theology
3001 Mercer University Drive
Atlanta, GA 30341

Please include your e-mail address.  Further information and the full program will be sent to registered participants.  Conference rates (and transportation to campus) are available at the Hampton Inn—Northlake; 3400 Northlake Parkway, N.E.; Tucker, GA 30084 (770-493-1966). 

For further information, please contact Diane Frazier (frazier_d@mercer.edu; 678 547-6470) or Alan Culpepper (culpepper_ra@mercer.edu).

 

Thursday, April 16, 2015

Are We Ready for an LGBTQIA Jesus?

Jesus is both an ancient historical figure and a contemporary mirror. In the first case Jesus represents a particular time and place. In the second he represents us. It will not take much effort to find images of a Scandinavian, African or Asian Jesus on the internet. Images abound of Jesus with a rifle, a cigarette, a tattoo, and/or boxing gloves. Such images are sometimes meant to shine a spotlight on a particular ideology. But, in many cases, these images are earnest attempts to make Jesus relatable to would-be religious followers. So, of course, you can also find a gay Jesus or two with google image search. I talk about the ways in which Jesus becomes an advocate for groups persecuted because of sexual orientation in my The Wife of Jesus (esp. ch.5).

Image from Rutgers University webpage
Today's post isn't about how the political left is recreating Jesus in their own image. Strangely we liberals are too fascinated with the possibility of Jesus' heteronormativity to seriously consider anything else. But today this article was brought to my attention:

College Prof. Doubles Down After Declaring That Christ Was ‘Potentially Queer’ and ‘Bigots Invented a White Supremacist Jesus’

Now if you're into self-reflection, you might take some inventory by asking whether you were more offended by the phrase "Potentially Queer" or the phrase "White Supremacist." Feel free to process it with your therapist this week.

The professor quoted in this article is Rutgers University's Brittney Cooper, Assistant Professor of Women's and Gender Studies and Africana Studies. And before you write her off, consider the quotation that spurred this headline. She says:
“The Jesus I know, love, talk about and choose to retain was a radical, freedom-loving, justice-seeking, potentially queer (because he was either asexual or a priest married to a prostitute), feminist healer, unimpressed by scripture-quoters and religious law-keepers, seduced neither by power nor evil.”
Let's leave aside, for the moment, the progressive tendency to place Jesus in opposition to "scripture-quoters and religious law-keepers." That is a different subject for a different day. Let's focus instead on the fact that Cooper loves Jesus and refuses to let the religious right co-opt him without a fight. If you happen to be a Christian reading this, you had better thank God for Brittney Cooper because she's represents your best hope. She is a university professor who is invested in your survival within the public conversation. Her Jesus, like the Pope's Jesus, is relevant. I might disagree with her historical reconstruction but I wish I had a professor like her when I was eighteen.

In order to understand what the phrase "potentially queer" means in this context, you might need to brush up on your initialisms. Here is is a footnote from my book that offers an (albeit skeletal) explanation:


What I don't state here that requires explanation is that "queer" can also be used as an umbrella category in academic circles (for example: Queer Theory). Unless you appreciate the way that Cooper is using this category, you will misunderstand her. Notice that she offers two possible ways in which Jesus might be "queer": Jesus is either (1) asexual or (2) married in a way that places him outside of social norms. Notice also that neither sense suggests that Jesus is homosexual. Like I told you, we liberals are preoccupied with Jesus and Mary Magdalene (who wasn't a prostitute, but she has become this in cultural imagination).

What is most interesting to me about Cooper's suggestion is the possibility that Jesus was "asexual." Asexuality is the new addition to our alphabet soup. For a quick introduction to asexuality, youtube might help. But, in short, asexuals simply do not experience sexual desire like most people do. This, as you might expect, is much disputed. Suspicion of asexuality creates difficulties for "A" folks who seem queer to both heterosexual crowds and LGBTQI crowds. "A" folks are often simply labeled disingenuous; i.e. they must just be hiding their sexuality from us. For the sake of this post, let's assume that those claiming to have no (or almost no) sexual inclinations are telling the truth. If so, these "A" folks are struggling not only with their "queerness" but also with the awkward ways they fit within the LGBTQI community. To the point, "A" folks are often not represented by the initialism.

So back to Cooper's interesting point: could Jesus have been "asexual"? I would tend to think not. But consider this queer saying: "For there are eunuchs who were born that way from their mother's womb; and there are eunuchs who were made eunuchs by men; and there are also eunuchs who made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. He who is able to accept this, let him accept it" (Matt 19:12). My take on this saying is somewhat unique and I won't rehash it here. But I cite it just to lend support to Cooper's possibility.

Getting to the point: There is an irony that is too wonderful not to recognize. Most Christians are extremely uncomfortable imagining Jesus with sexual inclinations. The religious right in particular seems to require an asexual Jesus. But as clever minds like Cooper know, "A" folk might be as queer as you get. As such, the conservatives who are most anti-gay have created a Jesus who aligns with their deepest fears.

-anthony

Tuesday, April 14, 2015

Poll: Billy Graham a Positive Influence?

For a better portion of a century you'd be hard pressed to find anyone willing to say a bad word about Billy Graham. In many ways, Graham's legacy remains unchanged. I did see this book yesterday (initial reaction here). Kruse's book isn't specifically about Graham. Billy Graham's relationship with the Oval Office does play an integral role in the narrative, I'm told.

The above poll is overtly and admittedly simplistic. No legacy can be boiled down in this way. I am curious, however, to learn how Graham's influence is felt by the readers of this blog. Feel free to vote above and then comment here.

NB: I am speaking about Graham in the past tense. It may be bad form to do so. But I think that it is safe to say that his public career is in sunset.

-anthony




Monday, April 13, 2015

Thomas Jefferson, The Under-appreciated Jesus Ideologue

Today is the birthday of Thomas Jefferson. There are perhaps more brilliant polymaths, more complex characters, and weightier influencers in American history. But Jefferson is a near rival no matter the name. Because of his multifaceted legacy, it is often forgotten that Jefferson was keenly interested in reconstructing Jesus: the ethics of Jesus, to be precise.

Jefferson had a sense that America was giving birth to something new but needed some sort of moral anchor. In a series of letters and then by way of literal cutting and pasting, Jefferson liberated "the most sublime and benevolent code of morals which has ever been offered to man" from the shackles of irrational superstition. The result was an 84-page "Bible" constructed of Jesus' teachings, but without any supernatural accounts. Like Spinoza who planted the seeds of the historical-critical method in biblical studies, Jefferson had no use for the supernatural. Both Spinoza and Jefferson reconstructed a Jesus that was a prototype for the Enlightenment. Jefferson, to this end, created a physical artifact that represented his heterodox revision.

The "historical Jesus" can be defined as a scholarly construct that incorporates but is not limited to the multiple biblical portraits of Jesus. This means that historical research does not (1) attempt to harmonize the canonical Gospels, nor does it (2) simply construct Jesus using the elements that cohere in these Gospels. I would also argue that historical Jesus research is always an attempt to "set the record straight" over and against some previous construction of Jesus. Given these parameters, the Jefferson Bible represents an under-appreciated artifact of historical Jesus research. See this book by Stephen Prothero for a more detailed introduction.

Jefferson' Jesus, of course, is a revisionist history. Now, I will say again what I've said before: all histories are in some way revisionist. It is up to the historiographer to determine how and why particular revisions manifest. Three aspects come to mind. (1) In Jefferson's case, it is clear that the criterion of analogy was at work. This criterion works from the logic that there are predictable constants in the natural world, both ancient and modern. Thus if there were no legitimate accounts of resurrections and water-walking in 1840, it stands to reason that there were no such happenings in the first century either. This logic stands in contrast to various forms of dispensationalism that took form in American Christianity. (2) Another factor that influenced Jefferson was a key element of Neo-romanticism. Jefferson believed that a great man's genius (it was always a man) had the power to create a new epoch in human history. In Jefferson's view the genius of Jesus had created a new epoch and was worthy of revitalizing alongside the birth of America. (3) Jefferson's political interests influenced his reconstruction of Jesus. The idea of private religion as tolerated by the state but not enforced by the state was important to Jefferson. As such Jesus became a teacher, not a preacher. Jesus became a guide, not the agent of an apocalyptic judge. More to this point, Jefferson seemingly had no intention for his "Bible" to be published or widely disseminated. It remained in his private library until his death.

Finally it is noteworthy that Bob Funk (1926-2005), the founder and chief voice of the Jesus Seminar, dedicated his The Five Gospels: What Did Jesus Really Say? to Thomas Jefferson. Prothero helpfully draws out Funk's interests in Jefferson's Jesus.

Yet another casualty of the standard "Three Quests" paradigm, Thomas Jefferson remains an under-appreciated remembrancer in historical Jesus research.

-anthony




Friday, April 10, 2015

The Most Underrated or Overlooked Book on the Historical Jesus?—Chris Keith

Readers of the Jesus Blog, I put to you this question:  "What is the most underrated or overlooked book on the historical Jesus, new or old?"  I was wondering this the other day as I was thinking about a book that I do not think has received the attention that it rightly deserves.  Once I hear what others think, I'll say more about that book.

Tuesday, April 7, 2015

Crossley on the Crucifixion—Chris Keith

Jesus Blogger Prof James Crossley blogs for the OUPblog on the crucifixion of Jesus here.  I especially appreciate his comments on method and the need to keep in mind that multiple interpretations of Jesus, and especially his crucifixion, would have existed from the beginning.  Here's a sample: 

"But at the same time we might embrace the role of relentless interpretation and reinterpretation in historical reconstruction, even when ostensibly discussing the historical Jesus. For instance, once the potentially controversial idea of the death of the elevated figure was known then how was this to be interpreted? One way (and one that the earliest followers obviously chose) was the idea that, borrowing from long-established ideas of martyrdom (e.g. the celebrated Maccabean martyrs), Jesus’ death had some sort of redemptive function. Much, of course, has been written on this.

Other interpretations were happening too. Part of the problem was that Jesus’ death involved questions of masculinity, as Coleen Conway has shown in detail. Jesus could, after all, be understood as another emasculated, passive victim at the hands of the Empire. There are indications of this sort of understanding in Mark’s Gospel. Others were less prepared to present Jesus so emasculated; Paul, for instance, constructs Jesus in more manly and heroic terms. And we should not necessarily succumb to the old temptation of layering these interpretations, as if the emasculated construction came first, followed later by the masculinizing of Jesus’ death. This theoretically could have happened, and indeed may have happened for all we know. Nevertheless, different, perhaps contradictory constructions could have co-existed from the moment that Jesus’s crucifixion became clear. This sort of scenario has to be taken as a serious possibility given that so much interpretation of Jesus’ death was happening so soon and among different audiences."

I suspect there's more where this came from in Prof Crossley's new book, Jesus and the Chaos of History.

Saturday, April 4, 2015

Happy Easter—Chris Keith

Happy Easter from the Jesus Blog!  For those of us who celebrate, let us celebrate today in solidarity with the friends and families of those Christians and others who were slain in the recent university attacks in Kenya.

Thursday, April 2, 2015

Did God Forsake Jesus on the Cross (according to Mark and Matthew)?—Chris Keith

Today we take a break from the historical Jesus and focus just on the Gospel narratives for a Passion Week-themed entry on the Jesus Blog.  In Mark 15:34 and Matt 27:46, the Gospel narratives portray Jesus as yelling from the cross, "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?"  I wrote my MA thesis on this verse in Mark many moons ago and have always found it interesting.  In my experience, preachers love to preach this verse because it makes for good pulpit drama, God abandoning his own son and whatnot.  I also think people tend to read Paul's statement that "God made him who knew no sin to be sin" (2 Cor 5:21) onto the Gospels here and say, "Ah, see, that's when he did it."  But we can't read Paul onto Mark or Matthew and the sinlessness of Jesus is not a prominent theme in Mark and Matthew at all, certainly not like it is for Paul or Hebrews (4:15) or some of the Johannine literature (Jesus as the "lamb" in the Gospel and Revelation, or 1 John 3:5) or the church fathers.  I'm also not concerned here with the theological implications of God's potential abandonment of Jesus.  There are other blogs dedicated to such topics.

I'd rather like to ask whether, on the level of the Gospel narrative, Mark and Matthew actually intend to claim that God did, in fact, "forsake" Jesus.  One can read the narrative in such a way as to support either claim.  For those scholars who see Mark 15:34 as a divine rejection of Jesus, they think this is the climax of Mark's dark and somber description of Jesus' demise.  Judas abandons Jesus when he betrays him (Mark 14:10), the disciples fail him in Gethsemane and abandon him (Mark 14:50), the naked young man abandons him (14:52),  the Jewish leaders reject him in his trial, Peter denies him (Mark 14:66-72), the priests and crowd reject him in favor of Barabbas (15:11) and now, God himself abandons Jesus.  Jesus thus dies as utterly and totally abandoned.

For those scholars who see Mark 15:34 as pointing to something more positive, however, the narrative can be read otherwise and as the climax of Jesus' distinct commitment to follow God in the midst of others' inability or unwillingness to follow.  Judas betrays Jesus, but Jesus presses on with the last supper, during which he states again his knowledge of how this will all end (Mark 14:17-20).  The disciples and the naked young man abandon Jesus in Gethsemane, but in the same location he commits himself all the more to God's will (Mark 14:36).  The Jewish leaders reject Jesus in his trial, but he affirms his identity as the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of God (14:62).  Peter denies Jesus, but Jesus fails to deny being the king of the Jews before Pilate (15:2).  (The translation of this verse as "Yes, it is as you say" or some equivalent is a travesty because it doesn't preserve the ambiguity of Jesus' answer in the Greek, which is literally "You say."  The point at present is that he doesn't say "no.")  In other words, from this perspective, Jesus becomes more and more committed to following a path he claims is God's will and foreshadowed in Scripture while others consistently fall off that path.

This brings us back to Mark 15:34, which is the next thing that Jesus says in Mark's Gospel after he answers Pilate.  As almost all scholars of the Gospels know and many lay readers of the Gospels do not (though some do), what Jesus says in Mark 15:34//Matt 27:46 is a verbatim quotation of Psalm 22:1 (Psalm 21 in the LXX).  (Check out this interesting post on the pronunciation of the Aramaic with some observations about the Greek transliteration.)  This is important because Psalm 22 is a lament psalm where the psalmist concentrates alternately on either his seeming abandonment by God to his enemies or his conviction that God can deliver him now in light of his deliverance of other Israelites in the past.  The downswings focused upon his present circumstances eventually give way to a triumphant finish to the psalm where the psalmist expresses his conviction that, despite how things look right now, he will praise the Lord (22:22-23, 25), who has, in fact, not abandoned him (22:24) and is working a great deed that will bring about the worship of all the earth (22:27).

The pertinent question here is whether Mark and Matthew desire us to read Mark 15:34//Matt 27:46 in light of all of Psalm 22 or just the bleakness of its opening verse.  If the former, the verse would be the ultimate expression of Jesus' commitment to the Lord despite the causes for despair that surround him.  If the latter, the verse indicates the final abandonment in a series of preceding abandonments. 

There has been some considerable debate over whether, for Jews in the time of Jesus, citation of the first verse of a psalm automatically indicated the rest of the psalm.  We intuitively know how this works from our own experience.  When I hear "Turn it up..." I automatically grow sideburns, a Justin Boots hat appears on my head, and a cold MGD appears in my hand.  I'm immediately ready to tell everyone that I hope Neil Young will remember that a southern man don't need him around . . . anyhow.  When Anthony Le Donne hears, "Yo fellas, y'all ready to do this?" his glasses become flip-ups and he's immediately ready to tell everybody that Motown Philly's back again.  And James Crossley is an undefeated pub quiz champion when it comes to identifying professional wrestlers based on just the first parts of their entrance music.  He's a particular fan of Steve Austin's shattering glass, which is also his ringtone. 

But was this common practice for first-century Jews?  It's clear that this happened sometimes, but not necessarily every time.  So it doesn't exactly solve the problem for us.  I don't think it needs to, though.  I think that Mark and Matthew do want us to understand Jesus' citation of Psalm 22:1 in the context of the broader psalm precisely because they contain several other allusions from the psalm.  (I'll focus just on Mark.)  The soldiers' casting lots for Jesus' garments in Mark 15:24 is definitely from Psalm 22:18.  The reference to the mockers "wagging the head" in Mark 15:29 is definitely from Psalm 22:7.  The taunt to save in Mark 15:30-31 is possibly an allusion to Psalm 22:8.  The "despise" or "reproach" of the two co-crucifieds in Mark 15:32 is possibly an allusion to Psalm 22:6.  The confession of a Gentile in Mark 15:39 is possibly an allusion to God's acknowledgment by Gentiles in Psalm 22:27.  The reference to the "kingdom/dominion" in Mark 15:43 is possibly an allusion to the "kingdom/dominion" of the Lord in Psalm 22:28.  The crucifixion of Jesus in general is possibly an allusion to Psalm 22:16.  Some of these are more possible than others, but at least three (Mark 15:24//Psalm 22:18; Mark 15:29//Psalm 22:7; and Mark 15:34//Psalm 22:1) are certain. 

For these reasons, I think it's more likely that the author wants his audience to understand Jesus' citation of Psalm 22:1 in light of more than just that verse of the psalm.  Let me say it another way.  The author's memory of Jesus' death has been conflated with Psalm 22 in several places.  Thus, when the narrative is read this way, Jesus' statement, far from communicating God's abandonment, communicates something along the lines of, "It looks really bad right now. It looks like I've been abandoned. It looks like my enemies have won. But in reality this is what God's deliverance and establishment of his kingdom look like."  In my mind, this makes more sense of the broader narrative of Mark's Gospel.


If you're interested in reading further on this topic, see Holly J. Carey's monograph, Jesus' Cry from the Cross.  Finally, I shouldn't pretend that this ties up every loose end.  The best arguments against this type of reading of Mark 15:34 and Matt 27:46 are that Luke and John both decided not to follow Mark and Matthew.  They change Jesus' last words from the cross, and scholars often think this is because they want to avoid such a negative portrayal of Jesus, which would reveal that they did indeed think of Mark's and Matthew's endings as negative.  Of course, this really reveals only how Luke and John read Mark and Matthew, not necessarily what Mark and Matthew intended.  Further, it might be the case that Luke and John agreed about Psalm 22 (they repeat some of the allusions) but simply wanted to avoid any chance of misinterpretation.  Every once in a while you'll run across statements in the literature saying that those who take the perspective I have here simply don't want to face the possibility that the authors think Jesus was abandoned.  Although that might be true for some, it's certainly not true for all of us.  Regardless, we rarely get entirely tied up loose ends anyway.  As it stands, though, I think there's much reason to read Mark's and Matthew's portrayals of Jesus' seeming abandonment by God as just that . . . seeming.  Thoughts?

Monday, March 30, 2015

Jesus and the Chaos of History competition winner is...

Daniel Gullotta!

This winner was chosen by an independent expert in witticisms. This is not to say we endorse or don't endorse the winner's comments but we thought we needed to distance ourselves from controversy by making the process suitably murky. It's the British establishment way.

An honourable mention must also go to the names Brian Maiden, Jeff Leppard and Jack Sabbath.

Sunday, March 29, 2015

Was Jesus' Jerusalem Entry a Royal Meeting?

Today many Christians celebrated "Palm Sunday." It is the day we commemorate Jesus entry into Jerusalem. It is sometimes called Jesus' "Triumphal Entry." As I've published elsewhere, I'm not certain if "triumph" is the best way to remember this story. If we follow Mark 11, at least a few of Jesus' followers shouted something related to Psalm 118's procession hymn. But aside from these followers, would anyone else have recognized this as a royal procession? I've suggested that this event might have seemed a bit embarrassing if compared with other "royal meetings" during this period. Mark tells of no great parade of war horses, no display of booty, and no slaves bring up the rear. (For more on standard expectations, see Brent Kinman's discussion.)

Mark seems to underplay his hand in this story. The donkey that Jesus rides is emphasized and reiterated inordinately. Mark wants us to understand that the donkey has been prepared specifically for Jesus and hasn't been ridden prior to this event. There is a certain virginal quality to this detail, but--let's be honest--is an immaculate donkey all that impressive? If the event was choreographed to enact Zech 9:9 (cf. parallels), Mark doesn't care to spell this out. Jesus' arrival in the Jerusalem Temple is the dictionary definition of an anticlimax: "Jesus entered Jerusalem and came into the Temple; and after looking around at everything, he left for Bethany with the twelve, since it was already late." No priestly endorsement. Not even a welcome. It is an odd and awkward story at best.

Today I was thinking again about this story and wondering if Mark even wants his audience to think in royal terms. When reading the Greek, I noticed another strange omission. Mark doesn't use the term ἀπάντησις. Apantēsis is the word that we might expect for a "royal meeting." In short, when dignitaries entered cities, they would often be greeted by a parade of people outside the city who would then accompany the person(s) of honor as they completed their journey. Josephus offers a great description of this:
But when the people of Antioch were informed that Titus was approaching, they were so glad at it, that they could not keep within their walls, but hasted away to give him the meeting; nay, they proceeded as far as thirty furlongs, and more, with that intention. These were not the men only, but a multitude of women also with their children did the same; and when they saw him coming up to them, they stood on both sides of the way, and stretched out their right hands, saluting him, and making all sorts of acclamations to him, and turned back together with him. (JW 7.100-102)
This term is used a few times in the New Testament, but never to refer to Jesus' entry [although, cf. 1 Thess 4:17]. If Jesus got "the meeting" from anyone in Jerusalem, Mark neglects to mention it. After a close reading of Mark 11, it seems that nobody (save a few boisterous disciples) knew or cared about Jesus.

Finally Jerusalem's collective disinterest in Jesus at this point might fit well with Mark's larger literary agenda. Jesus is on his way to conflict, betrayal, and crucifixion. But none of this has happened yet to draw anyone's attention. Jesus probably wasn't yet on anyone's radar in Jerusalem. If so, Jesus' entry would not have been seen as a "royal meeting" in anyway recognizable to the folks of Jerusalem.

-anthony

Friday, March 27, 2015

Jesus' Sex Life

Annette Merz offers a short assessment of Jesus' marital status. She kindly cites my book alongside a few others. New to me is the suggestion made by Martin Luther that Jesus employed prostitutes from time to time. After all, Jesus was fully human and therefore was a sexual person. Merz rightly points out that this reveals more about Luther's view of masculinity than it does about Jesus' sexuality.

-anthony