A long post weighing in on Avalos and Koester

I have been reluctant to become too involved in the controversy over biblical studies - not because I don't have an opinion, but because over the years I have come to realize just how complex this issue is. In many ways, it is a debate about idealism and realism, at least as it as played out in my own experience as a professor in the field.

When I first began teaching, I set up a proper curriculum in my mind at a liberal arts college in a religious studies department. I changed out the old curriculum which was canonically based with a new curriculum that did not include categories like "Old Testament," "Hebrew Bible," "New Testament," "Apocrypha" or the like. I did not want to continue to arrange the curriculum around religious categories that preferenced one particular religious tradition over another.

All went well until I offered my Christian Origins course. I enrolled six people. Then I offered my Ancient Israel course. Again I enrolled six people (not the same six, and in a different semester). Usually my courses enrolled 25-30, so these numbers were weird. So I decided to try an experiment. I changed the name of the Christian Origins course but kept everything else the same - course description, syllabus, exercises. I put it on the books as The New Testament and Christians Origins. The class enrolled at 25. I didn't get a chance to try out The Old Testament and Ancient Israel because I moved to Rice before I retaught the course.

Now I have thought about this experience a lot because it taught me something about the expectations of young people in America and their interests. The young people in my courses are not aware of the debates of the academy until they enroll and we get talking about them. What do most of them know? They know the words "Old Testament" and "New Testament" and they think they know what this means in terms of content.

Does the biblical canon influence us in America? Certainly, everything from politics (where I see the religious bible right moving to a hostile takeover [akin to what happened with the Southern Baptist Convention]) to literature. And wherever I have taught (Michigan, Illinois, Texas), it (as the "Word of God") has a prominent hold on a very large portion of our youth. And yet, in my experience as a teacher, these young people (before they enroll) know next to nothing about what the texts actually say, what the difference is between historical readings and doctrinal readings, how, when, and why the canon came together as it did and what the heck this means, and so forth.

So this has prompted me to create a 100-level course called "Introduction to Biblical Studies" (which I taught in Illinois for years) and now "Introduction to New Testament Studies" (which I teach here at Rice). In this course I cover everything from oral culture, literacy, manuscript traditions, development of canon, diversity of early Christianity, and historical readings (source, form, redaction, social scientific, feminist, tradition, rhetorical, literary, post-modern criticisms - and how these types of readings differ from doctrinal readings in terms of purpose and questions). Frankly, I wish that every college in America offered this type of course. It is unbelievable how much this information excites students and motivates them to want to know more.

There is another issue that we face in the academy. Jobs. There is a difference between seminaries, divinity schools, private (often religious-affiliated) universities, liberal arts colleges, and state universities. Each of these places has different needs in terms of teaching religion, and when you go on the job market, you need to be clear and honest with yourself about which of these types of departments you want to work in.

For a department in a religious-affiliated school, including seminaries, the concentration there is going to be teaching canonical materials, and often the historical method is trumped by theological hermeneutics. This doesn't mean that the historical method isn't taught, but that doctrinal issues and contemporary hermeneutics are going to be emphasized. The students who are enrolling in the courses are enrolling mainly to become ministers of a faith tradition, or who just want to learn more about contemporary hermeneutical readings of the material. Historical methods and linguistics are background or serve to support the doctrinal hermeneutics going on in the course. These schools need and want people in Old Testament, New Testament, Gospels, Paul, Systematic theology, Ethics, and so forth. There are a lot more jobs in these types of institutions than non-affiliated religious studies departments.

When non-affiliated religious studies departments post in Old Testament and New Testament, or Biblical Studies, what they are after is someone who handles the religious textual, exegetical and ideological traditions from a historical perspective. This is different from a post in Early Jewish or Christian Studies which is likely looking for a historian who handles social, political, gender and religious history.

The Society of Biblical Literature is a society that works with both of these constituencies, as does AAR. These are societies whose members include everyone from theologians, to philosophers, to historians, to textual critics, no matter the religious tradition studied. Neither society is exclusively secular or exclusively religiously-affiliated. Both interests are found among its members and its units.

It is not new news that there are over a hundred people who apply ever year and do not get jobs. In my time, fifteen years ago, it was even worse than this. In the eighties, PhD programs admitted many more people into their programs than could ever be employed by the market. This led to many people not getting jobs, and ending up with an enormous amount of debt that they couldn't pay off. And yes, they ended up driving cabs, or going back to law school. I ended up working in university administration part time for three years, until I finally got my first tenure-track position at Illinois Wesleyan. Helmut Koester is the one who encouraged me, telling me that the average wait was going to be 3 to 5 years post-graduation.

The universities sobered up to this fact and realized how unethical it was to continue to put out so many PhDs with so much debt and no way to pay. So in the nineties, they consolidated their funding. This meant that they began to let into the program far fewer people but funding each of these people more fully. This hasn't fixed the problem entirely - there are still PhDs that never get a tenure-track job - but it has helped - and it has made getting into PhD program highly competitive.

Where does this leave me in terms of my thoughts on the subject? I understand Koester's position on the reality of American religiosity and what this means for those of us who study and teach early Christianity. I understand Avalos' position to rid the historical study of early Judaism and Christianity from its canonical limitations (including the name "Biblical Studies"), because these limitations support religious and theological interests. I personally have negotiated this front by breaking canonical boundaries in my own scholarship, creating sections at SBL which cross canonical boundaries, and teaching beyond these boundaries. But this doesn't mean to me that the biblical texts aren't essential to early Judaism and Christianity. In fact, their importance reverberates for centuries and centuries, and yes, they are still with us.

In my opinion, teaching the bible is more important than ever in America. We are faced with the religious right taking over the Republican party, a party who has just reformed its platform to denounce abortion even in cases of harm to the mother and rape. How many of us are now seeing emerge in our communities public policies like teaching creationism as science? What is next?

So rather than debate the semantics of Biblical Studies, I say we need to concentrate on educating our youth about the history of the Bible and its influence, so that our young people will have the information to evaluate for themselves the claims that religious faith traditions make before it really is too late.

Hector Avalos' Response now available

Hector provided a link in one of the previous comments to his response to Helmut Koester. It is available HERE.

Apocryphote of the Day: 8-6-08

The human soul will clasp God to herself. Having nothing mortal, she is wholly inebriated from God. For she boasts harmony, in which the mortal body consists.

Chaldaean Oracles of Julianus 242 (second century CE)

Hector Avalos will respond to Helmut Koester

Hector Avalos left this message in the comments on my last post, bringing attention to Helmut Koester's criticism of Avalos in the recent edition of BAR.

Hello, Prof. DeConick,
I plan to respond to Dr. Koester quite thoroughly in an upcoming issue of BAR.

If BAR does not publish it, I will use a venue in the blogosphere that will be easily accessible to those interested.

Reaction to Hector Avalos by Helmut Koester

David H. brought to my attention a piece written by Helmut Koester in the most recent issue of BAR: "BAR most loved and most reviled" pp. 10 and 12 September/October vol 34/5 2008. It is unfortunate that the BAR website does not link up to this article since it is written by a scholar whose voice has shaped so much of our understanding of early Christianity and its origins.

Koester is very hard on Avalos, arguing that he reveals "a deep ignorance" of the realities of American religious life and Biblical scholarship in general. I find it telling that Koester, who has always argued for scholarship beyond the canon and the legitimacy of including non-canonical materials in our histories, finds Avalos' position too far afield. Koester writes, "The reality is that both Judaism and Christianity depend upon the Bible...The suggestion that the modern world does not need this book at the same time recommends the complete elimination of these Bible-based religions."

Koester goes on to defend BAR (which Avalos had criticized in the May/June "First person" column) and says that "most of its articles are well-reasoned and well-documented presentations of good scholarship. To be sure, some are controversial...but that is the normal business of scholarship." Koester cites and discusses many cases, even Hershel Shanks's initial criticism of the National Geographic's publication of the Gospel of Judas. Koester writes: "On the contrary, he (Avalos) should have congratulated BAR for this critique! The publication of this document by the National Geographic was a scandal." He goes on to severely criticize the National Geographic Society and the translators, saying that "numerous major mistakes" have now been discovered in the translation [with reference to my work (The Thirteenth Apostle: What the Gospel of Judas Really Says) and Birger Pearson's BAR article ("Judas Iscariot Among the Gnostics" May/June 2008)].

Apocryphote of the Day: 8-31-08

Whoever is near me, is near the fire. Whoever is far from me, is far from the Kingdom.

Didymus the Blind, In Ps. 88.8

What is your ultimate concern?

This week has been rough because we have started up courses. I have been organizing the Coptic seminar and the Mysticism Before Mysticism seminar, which takes quite a bit of energy. So I have been dragging this afternoon and just sat down to go to the next chore when I surfed to my husband's blog to see what he has been writing this week. And I came across his post on Tillich, which made me sparkle.

Apocryphote of the Day:8-26-08

Everything which is visible is a copy of that which is hidden.

The Teachings of Silvanus 99.5-7 (Alexandrian, second century)

Apocryphote of the Day: 8-25-08

Rice is starting classes today. I warmly welcome back the students with these words of Jesus:

"I say to you, as for what you seek after and you enquire about, look, it is in you!"

Dialogue of the Savior 16

A letter from Israel Knohl addressing some of the issues I raised about the Apocalypse of Gabriel

Israel Knohl sent me an e-mail message addressing some of the issues I raised in an earlier post about the Apocalypse of Gabriel. He has asked me to post the entire correspondence, which I gladly do. By the way, in another exchange I also asked him about the status of ink testing. It has not yet been done because it would mean destroying some of the letters.

It is my feeling that in this age of "perfect" frauds, it is absolutely essential to test scientifically whenever possible these types of finds, especially when their archaeological history is unknown. So I hope that the owner of the Apocalypse of Gabriel will agreed to this ink testing, and the sooner the better. Otherwise the Apocalypse of Gabriel will go the way of the James' ossuary and the Secret Gospel of Mark. Knohl also told me that writing on stone with ink is known in the Dead Sea area. There is an example from Qumran and many examples from Zoar, at the southern end of the Dead Sea. I have not studied these examples yet, so I cannot comment on them here.

Here is a copy of Knohl's letter:

Dear April,

I have read with interest your learned comment on my recent article in BAR and would like to respond to it.

You are absolutely right that ancient artifact should be checked by experts from various fields in order to establish their authenticity. In fact this is exactly what was done with regard to the Gabriel Revelation: The stone itself was checked by Prof. Yuval Goren, head of the Archeology department of Tel Aviv university. The script was checked by Dr. Ada Yardeni who is the best expert of the paleography of the Hebrew script of this period and the Languish was checked by Prof. Moshe Bar Asher, President of the Academy of the Hebrew languish. All three experts confirmed the authenticity of the artifact!

By the way, Ada Yardeni who was the first to read and publish this text agrees now with my reading of the crucial line, line 80 of the text where we have the words "In three day live, I Gabriel". She expressed her agreement with my reading in a letter to Hershel Shanks which is now published as an appendix to my article in the BAR website, under the title "web extras".

Finally, I would like to respond to your comment about the apocryphal writings that I have referred to in my article. You are of course right that these Jewish writings were later on edited by Christians thus there is a possibility of later Christian additions. In fact, I have dealt with this issue in length in my scholarly article at the April issue of the Journal of Religion. However, I do believe that the fact that "Ephraim" is mentioned in the Gabriel Revelation, which is clearly pre-Christian text, beside "My servant David" supports the view that these are not later Christian interpolations.

I would be happy if you could my response in you website.

Thank you in advance and best wishes,

Israel Knohl

--
Israel Knohl
Yehezkel Kaufmann Professor of Bible
The Hebrew University
Jerusalem

My questions about the Apocalypse of Gabriel

Professor Knohl's new article in BAR has been posted HERE. I have also put a link to it on my growing index for the Apocalypse of Gabriel HERE.

I am a bit disturbed about Knohl's argument in the BAR piece, since the second temple passages that he quotes as evidence for a Jewish suffering messiah are from texts that have clearly been revised by later Christians.

How can we tell if the expectation of the suffering messiah in these late sources is pre- or post-Christian? One way to solve this dilemma is to notice HOW MUCH of the early Christian literature is devoted to apology for the fact that the Messiah Jesus suffered and died, and how this was a "stumbling block" to the conversion of Jews. Why would the Christians have so much explaining to do if there existed a common Jewish expectation of a suffering messiah prior to Jesus? This is a question that is absolutely necessary for us to face, and it suggests that IF the expectation already existed, it was not well-known or well-liked. Or the expectation grew as a result of Christians explaining the historical experience of their crucified Messiah Jesus.

So nothing is as "sure" as Knohl's argument suggests.

It is necessary that we approach this new apocalypse cautiously, especially until we determine its authenticity. This is the FIRST step, something that National Geographic Society recognized about the Tchacos Codex. The Society did the right thing by authenticating the Gnostic codex through scientific methods. I am concerned about the Apocalypse of Gabriel, however, because it is unusual to have ink on stone for a literary document. How sure are we that it is not a fraud?

Apocryphote of the Day: 8-21-08

If people appoint you as their heads, be like tails.

`Abdallah ibn Qutayba, `Uyun al-Akhbar 1.266 (The Muslim Jesus)

Fall 2008 courses

I'm in the process of putting together syllabi for my fall 08 courses. Here are my two course descriptions:

Reli 309/593: Reading Coptic Texts

This is the third semester of the Coptic language. It has three goals: to read Coptic texts; to become familiar with Coptic dialects; and to review immediate grammar, syntax and vocabulary. This seminar is meant to be as flexible as possible, recognizing that students will be at various levels of competency. Our goal is to bring everyone to reading fluency with some ability to deal with different dialects by the end of the semester. Each student will be responsible for at least one Coptic text, creating a complete chrestomathy of that text.

Reli 483/583: Mysticism Before Mysticism Seminar

What is mysticism? How does it differ from esotericism and Gnosticism? Is there no mysticism in the west before Pseudo-Dionysius? Is there no mysticism without Plato? This course will explore pre-Dionysian mysticism within Jewish and Christian traditions. Two questions will drive the seminar: (1) what mysticism looks like within Second Temple Judaism and Early Christianity; (2) how mysticism emerges in different communal contexts in this period. The subject matter – mysticism in early Judaism and Christianity – has yet to be mapped, because traditionally it has been understood to have begun with Dionysius the Areopagite and envisioned as the product of (Neo-)Platonism. Any article or book on ancient mysticism will engage this period in terms of useful “background” to the “genuine” mysticism following Dionysius. The faults with this paradigm will be explored and a new paradigm put into place.

Apocryphote of the Day: 8-20-08

Everyone who is weary and heavy-laden, come to me and I will give you rest. For my burden is light and my yoke is gentle.

Pistis Sophia 2.95 (fourth century Gnostic text)

Apocryphote of the Day: 8-19-08

She said, "Blessed is the belly that carried you and the breasts from which you were fed."

Jesus said, "Blessed is he whom God has taught his book and who dies without having become haughty."

Ahmad ibn Hanbal, Al-Zuhd, p. 143 (no. 470) (The Muslim Jesus)

Dutch translation of The Thirteenth Apostle

Upon returning from vacation this morning, I found a package on my desk. I opened it and found inside a real surprise. My book has been translated into Dutch by W.G. Hurkmans. Here is the cover. The same artwork was maintained which I like.

Apocryphote of the Day: 8-13-08

Let the person who possesses power renounce it and repent.

Dialogue of the Savior 20 (second century, Syrian text, encratic)

Apocryphote of the Day: 8-11-08

He is everywhere, both under the earth and above the heavens and also indwelling us. He is everywhere.

Macarius, Homily 12.12

Apocryphote of the Day: 8-10-08

You are everything, and everything is in you. And you are what is, and there is nothing else that is except you alone.

Martyrdom of Peter 10