Advice

Man muss immer lernen.

NC Boycott

The NC boycott has taken an interesting turn: pornographers have taken the "moral high ground". Sexual identity is something new to me, so I have little to nothing to say (at least in regards to public policy). As a Christian, I view gender as God-given, and not ambiguous, but that's for another discussion. Here, I see a strange reaction regarding the boycott in NC. Pornographers have boycotted the state. I can't see a better reaction! I have no respect for pornographers, so their opinion of morality is worthless. They are worse than Wall Street! Simply put, it's the pot calling the china black!
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/apr/11/xhamstercom-porn-site-blocks-north-carolina-users-/

Ehrman's New Book

Professor Ehrman is one of America's leading biblical scholars. He is brilliant, and writes well. He can be, at times, taken a being polemical. Recently, he spoke at our local community college, and I attended. The lecture wasn't too surprising, and many people had great questions. I was excited to see local Fresnans engaged in the New Testament. Also, I fanboyed a bit. Toward the end of his discussion, he mentioned about engaging into memory studies. I found this to be huge! I was interviewed by the school's newspaper and made that a point: memory studies is growing and the fact that Ehrman is taking this approach speaks volumes. My first introduction into memory studies was through The Jesus Blog. The contributors are some of the brightest scholars in Europe and US. (I am particularly a fan of Professor James Crossley.) The collectives discussion in memory studies seems to be some of the first to bright it into practice. These people are the frontiersmen (and women) of memory studies in New Testament, if you will. So, their voice (I feel) is to be regarded highly in reviewing Ehrman's book. Unfortunately, it doesn't look too well. The book wasn't released yet, and I have other reading to do before I get to his. (I recommend any of his books.) Here is a bit of the review of the introduction:
I was part of the early wave of Jesus historians and NT scholars who have turned to questions of memory—and especially social/collective memory—in order to recalibrate the study of Jesus and Christian origins. I care about this topic, and adding a name as big as Bart D. Ehrman to the list of historians recognizing the importance of memory in some way justified my own work.

At this point, I've only read Ehrman's Introduction (pp. 1–16), so I'm not yet ready to praise or critique the volume. But we can note how Ehrman approaches his subject, recurrent patterns in his discussion, and the expectations he establishes for the rest of the book.

Ehrman says early on that he spent "about two years" spending his free time "doing nothing but reading about memory" (2). He specifically mentions three areas of memory studies: cognitive psychology (the study of individual memories), sociology (the study of social memory), and cultural anthropology (the study of oral cultures and unwritten traditions). These are all very good and vibrant areas of research; NT scholars are vigorously engaging each of these fields (individually and in various combinations), so Ehrman's voice joins a chorus-in-progress.

And so I was surprised by his presentation of NT scholarship as a whole, which (as I've said) has increasingly engaged questions of memory over the last decade-plus.

The more I read [about memory], the more surprised I became that so many scholars of the New Testament—the vast bulk of them, so far as I can tell—have never explored this research, even though it is so fascinating and most immediately relevant. Even those New Testament specialists who have delved into such fields have in many instances limited themselves to just one, or possibly two, of them. But they are all important. (3)

In the Introduction, Ehrman does not refer to any "New Testament specialists who have delved into such fields," so I cannot evaluate his claim. Moreover, throughout this introduction he cites only one work of one memory theorist (Abraham Lincoln and the Forge of National Memory [University of Chicago Press, 2000], the first volume of sociologist Barry Schwartz's two-volume work on American memory of Lincoln). The Introduction, in other words, does not offer very much to substantiate either Ehrman's claim to have read broadly ("for about two years now") in memory studies or his claim about NT specialists. This is, however, only the Introduction, and I hold out hope that more meaningful and substantive engagements will come in the remaining chapters.

When Ehrman does acknowledge that "this book will not be the first to address such issues" (12), he links his work with Rudolf Bultmann and the form critics and never mentions contemporary scholarship on questions of media, memory, and testimony. He laments that "there is not a single book available on the topic for a general-reading audience, a book that explains the form-critics' views or delves into the issues they [!!] raised in an non-technical (and interesting!) way" (13; my italics and exclamation marks). If Ehrman were providing a nontechnical, interesting survey of contemporary NT scholarship on memory and media, I would cheer. I am disappointed, however, to find that he seems to intend to present the nearly century-old work of the form critics, with the subtle (but false) implication that he's the first to do by appealing to memory studies.

Read the rest! 

...sigh...

Admittedly, I'm not up to date with Biblical studies. I've been focusing on my undergrad work, which is classics. Either way, many people might be somewhat aware of Simcha Jacobvici and his sensationalist theories. Here's his latest bologna: finding Jesus in the DSS.
Here's a bit of a response:
"In his blog for The Times of Israel of March 25, 2016, journalist Simcha Jacobovici claims to have made a significant “discovery”. Jacobovici claims to have upset the current scholarly consensus that the community responsible for the Dead Sea scrolls was unconnected with the early followers of Jesus:

Now, I’ve made a discovery that may change all this. Put simply, I believe that one of the fragments called by scholars by the very unappealing name of “4Q541” explicitly refers to Jesus.

Jacobovici claims that the text in question, fragment 24 of 4Q541 (or “4QApocryphon of Levi”), mentions several items connected with Jesus: a “dove” (יונא), “crucifixion” (ותליא), a “nail” (וצצא), and the words “do not mourn for him” (אל תתאבל בה).

Jacobovici’s blog post goes on to claim that scholars have avoided what he has “discovered”. Jacobovici claims that Florentino García Martínez “must have been nervous about the original reference to ‘the nail’ [in Martínez’s earlier translation] and changed his translation”. In the Dead Sea Scrolls Study Edition, Martínez (with Eibert Tigchelar) translates וצצא as “night-hawk” rather than “nail”, and omits any translation of ותליא. Jacobovici infers that scholars are avoiding finding Jesus in the Dead Sea scrolls: “Were scholars worried about finding Jesus in any ancient texts other than the New Testament?” Jacobovici examined 4Q541 to check that the word ותליא is there, and acknowledges that the ת is fragmentary and less than fully certain. But he believes that it is ת, so comments, “So now I became really suspicious.” When he checks the translation with Dead Sea scrolls translator Émile Puech, Jacobovici concludes that, in omitting the translation “dove”, “Puech purposely fudged the translation so that the reference to Jesus would be lost”.

There are several things wrong with Jacobovici’s article, in addition to its conspiracy-theorist tone.

First, Jacobovici’s claim that “now, I’ve made a discovery that may change all this” makes it sound as if he is the first to discover possible references to a crucifixion and related motifs in 4Q541. He is not. In fact, Émile Puech, with whom Jacobovici spoke, had proposed such a meaning in the official publication of the text, fifteen years ago, in 2001. Not only that, but Puech’s interpretation of the text has been largely followed by George Brooke, in his comparison of the Dead Sea scrolls and New Testament (Fortress Press, 2005). This is by no means, contrary to Jacobovici’s sensationalism, a “discovery”.

Second, Jacobovici is simply flat-out incorrect that 4Q541 “explicitly refers to Jesus”. For there to be an “explicit” reference, the reference must be, er, just that: explicit. Yet there is no mention of the name Jesus/Yeshu(a) in 4Q541. It doesn’t appear explicitly. Therefore, it is wrong to claim that there is an explicit reference to Jesus in the text.

Third, there is a very good reason for the hesitation of many scholars to translate the text with the words “crucifixion”, “nail”, or even “dove”. 4Q541 is a fragmentary text, and its meaning – as a result – is unavoidably uncertain. It is normally the case, in any reconstruction of fragmentary Dead Sea scrolls, that different scholars come up with quite different meanings. Nothing is unusual here, let alone worthy of conspiracy-theory sensationalism. In particular: the ו and ת in ותליא are unclear, which makes the translation “crucifixion”/”suspension” uncertain. In addition, the term צצא is rare, so we can’t be at all sure that the text refers to a “nail”. On top of all this, there are gaps in the fragment which make the context and meaning difficult to determine. This is not an instance of scholarly bias, despite Jacobovici’s attempt to portray it that way. It is, rather, an example of appropriate scholarly caution. We have a fragmentary text and we are uncertain about its meaning and significance.

Fourth: the text predates Jesus by a century or more. Let’s assume that the text does mention crucifixion and nails, mourning, and a dove. Would we then be compelled to conclude that it must refer to Jesus? Not at all. Palaeographical (handwriting) analysis of 4Q541 indicates that the text dates to the end of the second century BCE or about 100 BCE. Its style of handwriting matches that of other texts from this period (eg. 1QS, 1QIsaa, and 4Q175). Although Jacobovici does not mention it in his blog post, Puech himself dated the text some 100-150 years before Jesus. The obvious conclusion is that 4Q541 cannot refer to Jesus." 

Read the whole thing! 

5 ἐμφόβων  δὲ  γενομένων  αὐτῶν  καὶ  κλινουσῶν  τὰ  πρόσωπα  εἰς  τὴν  γῆν,  εἶπαν  πρὸς  αὐτάς  Τί  ζητεῖτε  τὸν  ζῶντα  μετὰ  τῶν  νεκρῶν;  6 οὐκ  ἔστιν  ὧδε,  ἀλλὰ  ἠγέρθη.
Having been afraid, they bowed their faces toward the ground, and they (the angels) said to them, "Why do you search for the living among the dead, he is not here, but has risen." Luke 24: 5-6a

From Chaplin

Chaplin is one of the most important figures of entertainment. He embodied the humanity of mid-early 20th century progress. Here is his speech from "The Great Dictator". It's a beautiful speech. I hope you'll enjoy. Please excuse the music and the extra cuts. I wasn't able to find a clip without background music, naturally for a more dramatic feel. Either way, it's moving.

Themistocles

From Plutarch: "...on one occasion, when Themistocles was serving as general, Simonides of Ceos asked him to stretch a point in his favor and Themistocles told him: 'You would be a poor poet if you sang out of tune, and I should be a poor magistrate if I did people favours contrary to the law.' Another time he made fun of Simonides by pointing out that it was nonsense for him to attack the Corinthians because they lived in a great and handsome city, while at the same time he had portraits made of a face as ugly as his own." Ah, those Greeks!