N.T. Wright Covers Dylan?
I just saw this and had to post it. In addition to his many interests, Tom Wright is also a Dylan enthusiast. Who knew?
The Curious Case of Anthony LeDonne
Here’s the scenario: a bright young scholar publishes a helpful book that receives praise from several different segments within the academic world of biblical and early Christian studies. The book is devoted to understanding historical Jesus studies from a perspective informed by memory theory. The book is also bolstered by solid research, and is both witty and creative in its interaction with elements of popular culture and contemporary scholarship on the historical Jesus. Then, the school at which that young professor teaches decides the book and its take on Jesus are so scandalous that he must be removed from his academic post….at once! The scholar in question is Prof. Anthony LeDonne. The school in question is Lincoln Christian University, an institution of higher learning “affiliated with independent Christian Churches and Churches of Christ.” This story has been making rounds in the blogosphere over the past week or so (see here, here, and here), though I am just now getting around to blogging about it. I find this turn of events disappointing and terribly disturbing.
The promise of “academic freedom” is one of the most important and cherished values for anyone pursuing research in an institution of higher education. However, in our field of study the lines often blur. It can sometimes be difficult for scholars working at confessional institutions to pursue an argument where the evidence leads for fear that they will no longer have a job – something this case illustrates all too well. While I pity Lincoln Christian University and its cowering to pressure from what is surely a narrow-minded and Biblically-fundamentalist consituency, I feel the most concern for Anthony. I can only hope that his reputation and considerable abilities as a professor and scholar will not be stained by this dismissal.
I had a chance to meet Anthony last November at the Society of Biblical Literature meeting in San Francisco. I was attending a session devoted to another book he had co-edited. During the conference I also picked up the book which led to his dismissal and read it at the beginning of the spring semester. I appreciated the book so much that I contacted him by phone back in February to tell him so. We had a delightful conversation about teaching, writing, popular music, and baseball, and had planned to sit down for coffee at the forthcoming conference that was to be held at LCU. When I received word from Anthony a few weeks back that he had been fired over a certain constituency’s perception of the book’s contents (and presumably, the book’s implications for that constituency’s narrow understanding of “faith” and “history”), I was heartbroken for him and his family.
I don’t need to add to what’s already been said elsewhere on the web. However, as a personal and professional courtesy, I felt compelled to mention this here in an effort to shed further light on the travesty that has taken place. If you are interested in the current state of historical Jesus studies, check out Anthony’s research and don’t let one (very narrow) group’s opinion of his book cause you to form opinions that are unwarranted.
My book around the web
I have been too busy to note it here recently but my latest book, What Are They Saying About the Gospel of Thomas? has been mentioned, endorsed, and/or reviewed in a few places around the web (see here, here, here, here, here, here, and here). Yesterday, I was pleased to read Judy Redman’s sympathetic review. She seems to have gotten what I was shooting for – a way into Thomas studies for those on the “outside.” As she notes, since the entire book (per the series focus) is dedicated to discussing the views of other scholars, I spend very little space in the book discussing my own views. I have, however, decided that it’s probably time to write one more book about Thomas, and one that will consist of my own views about Thomas‘s date, theological outlook, and relationship to the NT. For now, it’s nice to have people appreciating what I’ve done with this little book.
Congratulations are in order!
I want to extend my heartiest congratulations to my friend, Josh Jipp, Lecturer in New Testament at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School. Josh successfully defended his dissertation today at Emory University. Congratulations, Dr. Jipp!
The Eagle Has Landed
My book on the Gospel of Thomas finally arrived yesterday! After waiting 16 months, I was glad to see it. The book lists for $16.95 but Amazon has it for $6.40. Disregard the information that says it won’t be released until May 1. It’s available now!
The book is dedicated to my friend and former dean, Dr. Michael J. Gorman. It would be difficult for me to recount all that Mike did for me during the five years I spent teaching at St. Mary’s Seminary and University in Baltimore. He gave me my first opportunity to teach while still pursuing the Ph.D., wrote numerous letters of reference for me, and has consistently provided sage advice in numerous areas. The first part of the book was written during a particularly difficult year in my life and Mike did a lot for me during that period. I owe a great deal to him and I wanted to publicly acknowledge his contributions to my personal and professional development. Here’s how I close the preface:
Lastly, I want to thank my friend and former dean, Dr.Michael J. Gorman. The first half of this book was written during a very difficult year in the life of my family. During that period no individual showed more concern, offered more support, or sought to create more avenues of benefit to me—and Mike did all of this on his own initiative. Since 2005, Mike has been a mentor to me both professionally and personally. His advice on a wide range of issues has enriched me as a teacher, as a scholar, and as a person.Mike is an excellent teacher and a gifted scholar. However, despite his scholarly acumen and teaching ability, I have been most impressed and impacted by Mike’s loyalty as a friend. The Johannine Jesus tells his closest followers, “By this all men will know you are my disciples if you love one another” (John 13:35). In all my dealings with Mike he has truly embodied the spirit of this verse. It is with admiration and tremendous gratitude that I dedicate this book to him.
Thanks, Mike!
Notes of Interest and Upcoming Events
The school where I am employed, Mount Olive College, is located in the booming metropolis of Mount Olive, North Carolina. If you haven’t eaten many pickles or driven through the backroads of eastern North Carolina, you’ve probably never heard of the town or the college. Therefore, you can imagine my amazement yesterday at finding a BBC story about Haitian immigrants who have relocated right here to our tiny town. Take a moment to watch the video.
Also, if you do find yourself in or around Mount Olive anytime soon, there are two upcoming events about which you might want to be aware. The first is our second annual Faith and Rural Life Conference, sponsored by The Mount Olive Area Ministerial Association, the Thriving Rural Communities Initiative at Duke Divinity School, and several other regional, faith-based organizations. The event will be held on Februray 27, 2012 on the campus of Mount Olive College. This year we will have keynote addresses from Steve Troxler, Fred Bahnson, and Billy Ray Hall, along with a number of workshops.
The college will also be hosting our annual Vivian B. Harrison Lectures on March 26-27, 2012. This is always a great event. Last year we had Dr. Kavin Rowe of Duke University Divinity School. This year’s speaker will be Dr. Ellen Ott Marshall, Associate Professor of Christian Ethics and Conflict Transformation at Candler School of Theology, Emory University. Her talks will be centered around the topic of “Christians in the Public Square.” Admission is free to the public. We invite you to come out and join us.
Final Page Proofs Are In!
Today I FINALLY received the final page proofs for my book, What Are They Saying About the Gospel of Thomas? Amazon lists May 1, 2012 as the anticipated date of publication, but the email I got today said the book will be in the warehouse by mid-March. The manuscript has been at the press since January 2011….so it’s somewhat overdue (in my humble opinion). Don’t forget to pre-order your copy. The book lists for $12.95 but Amazon has it for $6.40 (that’s a savings of over 50%!). It’s a steal, if I do say so. : )
Interview with Simon Gathercole on the Gospel of Thomas (Part II)
Here’s part two of my conversation with Simon Gathercole on the Gospel of Thomas:
(CWS) 4. I am looking forward to reading your forthcoming book, The Composition of the Gospel of Thomas: Original Language and Influences. Since this subject is addressed in your book, I would like to explore your understanding of Thomas’s compositional language. As you know, over the past decade Nick Perrin has sought to advance the position that Thomas was originally composed in Syriac and is dependent upon the Diatessaron. What are your thoughts on his thesis?
(SJG) One of the things I tried to do in my book was to take a very large sample of the “semitisms” that some have argued point in favour of a W. Aramaic or a Syriac origin for the book and show that they are basically all useless as evidence for a Semitic original. In terms of Nick Perrin’s thesis in particular, one of the difficulties is that we have hardly any Syriac literature from the first and second centuries CE, and so we can’t reconstruct the grammar and vocabulary of Syriac in that period with any degree of confidence. On the specific matter of Nick’s argument about the Diatessaron, the problem is compounded further, as we don’t have the Diatessaron in anything like its original form – not a word of the original Syriac (if that even was the original language of the Diatessaron) survives.
(CWS) 5. I know you’ve got a book to sell….so please don’t give away too much. But can you briefly provide an exposition of your view on Thomas’s relationship to the Synoptic Gospels?
(SJG) Part of it I’ve already given away in what I said about about Luke. I expand the argument to include Matthew as well. Matthew is an interesting case because the disciple Matthew is referred to in GTh 13 as an authoritative spokesman (alongside Peter) for a view contrary to that of Thomas. So I think it’s very likely that this in an attempt to undermine the Gospel of Matthew. There are also instances where, as with Luke above, Matthew’s redaction of Mark is clearly incorporated into Thomas. Overall, my view is that Matthew and Luke shaped the oral tradition upon which Thomas drew, and there is a substantial degree of influence upon Thomas from the Synoptic gospels.
(CWS) 6. What is your view on the compositional history of Thomas? In other words, do you regard Thomas as a compositional unity or are you persuaded by the piecemeal, “multiple accretions” approach advocated by April DeConick? Do you find either of these approaches convincing?
(SJG) I don’t find it too much of a problem to conceive of it as a relative unity. There are obviously a number of sources, and these haven’t necessarily been combined into a seamless whole. But I suppose I go slightly against the consensus in thinking that the Greek fragments are not too different from the Coptic version. It doesn’t seem to me that the text is very fluid and constantly open to extra accretions.
(CWS) 7. Another interest that I have, and one that I hope to promote on this blog, is research on the historical Jesus. In your opinion, is there anything in the Gospel of Thomas that goes back to the historical Jesus? If yes, what? If no, explain why not.
(SJG) I think that there is a lot in the Gospel of Thomas that – at least in broad general terms – goes back to the historical Jesus. The parable of the sower and the parable of the wicked tenants, for instance! One of the difficulties with this question is the demise (of which I approve) of the criteria of authenticity. How can you tell if something like Thomas’s parable of the assassin is authentic? I don’t know. My own preference is to look at the works as a whole for their portrayal of Jesus. In this respect, I think Thomas is miles away from the historical Jesus – rejecting the prophets and circumcision (GTh 52-53) and speaking in semi-Platonic language about the true image within (GTh 83-84). Thomas seems to me a far cry from the milieu reflected in the canonical gospels which fixes Jesus much more clearly in a real first-century Jewish world.
I’m sure Simon could have said a great deal more about these issues had it not been for time constraints. I do want to again offer my thanks to Simon for taking the time out of his busy schedule to answer our questions. 
His book, The Composition of the Gospel of Thomas: Original Language and Influences, is due to be released at the end of March. We look forward to the conversations that will surely take place at that time.
Interview with Simon Gathercole on the Gospel of Thomas (Part I)
It has been awhile since I conducted an interview with anyone working seriously on the Gospel of Thomas. Today I am glad to post the first part of my conversation with Simon Gathercole, Senior Lecturer in New Testament in the Faculty of Divinity at Cambridge University. Dr. Gathercole has published numerous books on topics as wide-ranging as the christologies of the Synoptic Gospels, the soteriology of Paul’s letter to the Romans, the Book of Tobit, and the Gospel of Judas. In recent years he has turned his attention to the Gospel of Thomas with essays on Thomas’‘s relationship to Paul and Luke, respectively. Dr. Gathercole’s forthcoming monograph, The Composition of the Gospel of Thomas: Original Language and Influences, is set to be released next month. I wanted to catch him in advance of the book’s publication and provide him an opportunity to discuss his views. Thanks, Simon for agreeing to participate.
(CWS) 1. I have asked this question of every scholar I have interviewed on this blog: What initially sparked your interest in studying the Gospel of Thomas?
(SJG) Since first studying the New Testament I have always been interested in different views about Jesus, whether those purport to come from the NT or elsewhere. I suppose that both in the popular realm and in some scholarly circles there has been a growing interest in seeing the apocryphal gospels as equally legitimate interpretations of Jesus by comparison with the canonical gospels. I’m interested in evaluating the differing portraits of Jesus that one finds in all the gospels, both canonical and non-canonical.
(CWS) 2. Several years ago you wrote an essay exploring Thomas’s relationship to the writings of Paul (“‘The Influence of Paul on the Gospel of Thomas [53.3 and 17]’, in J. Frey, E. E. Popkes, and J. Schröter, eds., Das Thomasevangelium: Entstehung – Rezeption – Theologie [BZNW 157; Berlin: de Gruyter, 2008]). Very little has been written on this topic to date. To your mind, what, if any, is the relationship between Thomas and Paul?
(SJG) I don’t think there’s any direct literary relationship – at least it can’t be demonstrated that Thomas had read Paul. (It’s impossible of course to prove that the author hadn’t.) But there are some telling similarities, in particular in sayings 3, 17 and 53 – the latter in particular with some very close parallels to Rom. 2.25-3.2. It may be, and here one is speculating, that Thomas emerged from a kind of “ultra-Pauline” circle, such as produced the Epistle of Barnabas, but it’s very difficult to know.
(CWS) 3. The relationship between the Synoptic Gospels and Thomas is a notoriously thorny issue for those working in Gospel studies. In a recent article on the relationship between Thomas and the Gospel of Luke, you write that “Thomas constitutes an interesting chapter in the reception history of Luke” ["Luke in the Gospel of Thomas,” NTS 57 [2011]: 114-44). Can you briefly summarize your position and explain why you think Thomas is (possibly indirectly) dependent on Luke rather than vice versa?
(SJG) I think that there are clear examples of instances where Luke has redacted Mark, and that some of those Lukan redactions of Mark appear in the Gospel of Thomas. I argued this in my NTS article (2011) [see bibliographic info listed above]. One of the things which strikes me most is that in three cases, Luke introduces an element into Mark, and then Thomas expands upon that Lukan element. So for example, in the image of the “light under the bushel”, Luke adds that the light is “for all who go in”, and Thomas expands it further to “all who go in and come out” (GTh 33); Luke adds a single “perhaps” into the parable of the wicked tenants, then Thomas includes this and adds another again (GTh 65); Luke adds a reference to prayer into the controversy about fasting, and Thomas includes this addition, and adds an extra reference to prayer (GTh 104). Again, I don’t think this is a matter necessarily of Thomas having read Luke (though this is impossible to rule out), but it reflects Thomas or his sources having known the stories in their Lukan forms, and elaborating on them further. So there is a gradual expansion, in these sayings at least, from Mark to Luke to Thomas, which I don’t think can be read in any other order (unless one denies Markan priority). The arguments for Thomas having influenced Luke in other sayings (which I also discuss in my article) seem to me to be based on very poor evidence.
Next time Simon will discuss his forthcoming book and his views on the recent theories of Perrin and DeConick. Stay tuned for Part II. . . .
Dramatized Irony, Markan Intercalations, and the Godfather
Commentators on the Gospel of Mark have been aware of the so-called “Markan Sandwich” passages for some time. There are some good treatments of this subject but I have always found Tom Shepherd’s dissertation, Markan Sandwich Stories, to be most helpful. 
I especially appreciate his emphasis on “dramatized irony” as one of the most important elements of these carefully intercalated passages. It’s been my experience that many undergraduates are unfamiliar with literary concepts like ”irony,” so lately I’ve been using as many examples from the movies and television as I can find to illustrate these concepts.
I have found the famous baptismal scene from the original Godfather movie (1972) to be the most effective for explaining to students what “dramatized irony” is and how it works. When I show students this clip and then read passages like Mark 5:21-43 or 11: 12-25, the text seems to come alive (and, they seem to understand what “dramatized irony” is much better than when I simply define it).
