Thoughts on Antiquity

A little while ago I posted on a new critical edition of the Hebrew Bible, the Oxford Hebrew Bible. Thanks to Stephen Carlson for pointing out they now have a website.

Go check it out!

Nikolaos Markoulakis asked me to share this:

From here:

Nottingham UK - The Journal of Hellenic Religion’s (JfHR) will proceed shortly to produce the third volume of the Journal, which will be forthcoming in the mid 2010.

The JfHR is a peer-reviewed annual periodical. It has as a main theme the original interdisciplinary study of ancient Greek Religion and Theology (i.e. history, philosophy, politics-sociology and archaeology-anthropology).

The theme / subject of the forthcoming Volume 3 will focus on the ancient Greek beliefs of afterlife and death, their mourning, lamentation and funeral practices.

The articles should include full bibliography and endnotes.

The editorial panel may request editions and small alterations and a summary of the peer-reviewed process will be send after the author’s request. The authors hold their article’s copyright. The contributors will be requested to sign the ‘Licence To Publish’ based on the JISC and Surf Foundation guidelines.

Please view (URL: http://www.journalofhellenicreligion.markoulakispublications.org.uk/about/guide) the Contribution Guideline for more information of the word limitation.

Submission of any material must be on electronic form (doc, rtf), accompanied with the legal name and a current email and postal address of the author and emailed it to the Editor (see contact details below)

Thank you in advance of your contributions.

I recently discovered an apparently unfinished draft of a post listing my most recently finished synopses; it listed the following synopses as new at the time:

The death of John the baptist.
John the baptist risen.
The anointing of Jesus.
Before my father.
Not peace, but a sword.
Take up your cross.
Finding and losing.
Receiving the sender.

Since then, I have also added the following:

The calming of the sea.
The controversy over fasting.
Plucking grain on the sabbath.
The healing of a man with a withered hand.
The healing at the request of a centurion.
The raising of the dead son in Nain.
The inquiry of John the baptist.
The family of Jesus.
The controversy over Beezebul.
The sin against the spirit.
The healing of a woman bent double.
The healing of a man with dropsy.

This project is ongoing, but not very quick. If you see any glaring errors, please feel free to report them.

While Alexander the Great probably has not been found, but perhaps Antony and Cleopatra have:

Archaeologists are to search three sites in Egypt that they say may contain the tomb of doomed lovers Anthony and Cleopatra.

Excavation at the sites, which are near a temple west of the coastal city of Alexandria, is due to begin next week.

Teams working in the area said the recent discovery of tombs containing 10 mummies suggested that Anthony and Cleopatra might be buried close by.

The teams also found a bust of Cleopatra and coins carrying her image.

The archaeologists from Egypt and the Dominican Republic have been excavating at the temple of Taposiris Magna for the last three years.

…

The Institute of Egyptian Art and Archaeology and the graduate students of the University of Memphis will have a few events this month. Please come- all are free and open to the public.

Wednesday, April 15
6th Annual Legacy of Egypt Lecture
“Flowers of an Antique Land: Decorated Textiles of the 1st Millennium A.D. in Egypt”
presented by Dr. Patricia Podzorski, Curator of Egyptian Art for the Institute of Egyptian Art and Archaeology
Lecture begins at 7:30 pm in Fogelman College of Business 128
Reception at 7:00pm in FCB 1st Floor Lobby

 

Saturday, April 18
Second Annual Student Symposium
presented by the Egyptology Graduate Student Association at the University of Memphis
“Egypt Through the Ages”
featuring the research of University of Memphis graduate students in Art History, History, and Egyptology
Keynote Speaker: Dr. Maria Gatto, Yale University
Special Presentation: Dr. Keita, Howard University
9:00am-4:00pm
Mitchell Hall Auditorium

 

Monday, April 27
Guest Lecture Series
“Excavating the Tomb of Harwa: In Search of the African Roots of the Pharaonic Renaissance”
presented by Francesco Tiradritti, Field Director of the Harwa Mission
Lecture begins at 7:30pm in Meeman Journalism Auditorium 100
Reception at 7:00pm in Meeman Journalism Lobby

 

See you there,
Suzanne Onstine
UM dept. of History

Hodie Aprilis Idus est. Today is the Ides of April. For fun, I decided to share with you a little bit about the Roman calendar. For starters, assuming January 1st as the first day of the week, as Ovid in his Fasti does, today would be the seventh day of the eight day week (marked A-H, hence the “G”).

As the thirteenth day of April, it is the Ides (which fall on the 13th in every month except March, May, July, and October (MMJO), which then fall on the 15th). The Ides are part of the Roman calender reckoning, where Romans counted from the three dates in a month, the Kalends (Kalendae; always on the first), the Nones (Nonae; on the 5th of every month except the MMJO months, where it is on the 7th), and the Ides (Idus). The older Latin way of spelling Idus was Eidus, hence the “EID”.

The NP is disputed. Most reckon it as nefasti publici, which would be nefasti days (or days which legal business could not be held on; think “bank holiday” except for the legal system) and publici days (or days with public festivals, called ludi). I have also seen it sometimes called nefasti parte, which would be nefasti days held only for part of the day. The latter identification makes some sense, since ludi were held on days marked C, F, and N (such as the day after today) as well. The days are important for marking what is permitted by the gods (fas) and what is not permitted by the gods (nefas). Nefasti are marked by N, fasti are marked by F, and comitiales, days which voting assemblies called comitiae are held, are marked by C.

The day, as aforementioned, also contains ludi, the great celebration games, some of which last for days. This particular day falls within the Ludi Ceriales, or the Games Dedicated to Ceres. The ludi were important festival days for the Gods in Ancient Rome, just as they were for the Etruscans and Greeks (the Olympics were a type of ludi in a sense). Typical of ludi would be horse races, competitions, and gladiatorial combat, as well as feasting and general jollities.

Here is what Ovid has to say about today:

(Loeb edition of Ovid’s Fasti with minor changes)

Occupat Aprilis Idus cognomine Victor
Iuppiter: hac illi sunt data templa die.
Hac quoque, ni fallor, populo dignissima nostro
atria Libertas coepit habere sua.

The Ides of April belong to Jupiter with the title
Victor: on this day a temple was dedicated to him. (1)
Also on this day, unless I am mistaken, Liberty began to
have her own atrium most worthy of our people. (2)

1. Although Ovid uses the plural for temple and atrium, it is most likely a poetic plural, and meant to be understood in the singular.

2. An atrium is a large open-air courtyard.

How about some historical points? The temple of Jupiter is referring to the temple dedicated in 295 BCE per a vow made by Q(uintus) Fabius Maximus Rullianus, dictator of Rome and victorious general during the Samnite Wars. The Atrium Libertatis (Atrium of Liberty) held censorial records and actually the first public library of Rome.

Cras erit XVIII a. d. Kal. Mai. H N LVDI. Tomorrow will be 18 days before the 1st of May, eighth day of the week, nefastus, with ludi.

Curate ut ualeatis!

As you can read from the transcription, Zahi Hawass probably also buys into the “Protocols of Zion” conspiracy clap-trap. And for doing this post, I may never get a chance to dig in Egypt. But do enjoy!

Following is an excerpt from an interview with Zahi Hawass, secretary-general of the Supreme Council of Antiquities in Egypt, which aired on Egyptian TV on February 11, 2009.

strong>Interviewer: So [the Jews were dispersed in 133 C.E.?

Zahi Hawass: That’s right.

Interviewer: And they didn’t reunite until 1900?

Zahi Hawass: Exactly.

Interviewer: So they were dispersed for 18 centuries?

Zahi Hawass: For 18 centuries they were dispersed throughout the world. They went to America and took control of its economy. They have a plan. Although they are few in number, they control the entire world.

Interviewer: Dr. Hawass, you are a great historian and archaeologist. I would like to figure out the mystery of how 15 million people, 5 or 6 million of whom do not share this vile Jewish logic… With regard to Israel and Zionism – we are talking about 7 or 8 millions. How is it possible that these 7 or 8 millions have taken control of the entire world, and have convinced the world of their cause, while we, over one billion Muslims, cannot convince the world of our cause? How would you explain this from a historical perspective?

Zahi Hawass: The reason is that they are always united over a single view. They always move together, even if in the wrong direction. We, on the other hand, are divided. If even two Arab countries could be in agreement, our voice would be stronger. Look at the control they have over America and the media.

Interviewer: So in your opinion, the secret lies in unity?

Zahi Hawass: Yes. It was unity that gave them this power…

Interviewer: You mean from a historical perspective?

Zahi Hawass: Of course.

H/T: Jim Davila

UPDATE: Here’s the video clip.

UPDATE 2: Zahi Hawass responds.

First, I want to thank James Crossley for my copy of Jesus in an Age of Terror: Scholarly Projects for a New American Century. In an excellent first entry of a handful BibleWorld volumes with his name attached (including, Jesus Beyond Nationalism & Judaism, Jewish Identities and the Gospel Tradition), Crossley sets a series of ambitious goals that are met with surprising proficiency in this book. John Hobbins, Jim West, and Crossley himself have already made a several posts about this monograph, but no real reviews have yet been posted from what I have seen. Bottom line: this book is worth far more than its cover price and I would encourage everyone who found edifying Jonathan Z. Smith’s Drudgery Divine, William Arnal’s The Symbolic Jesus, Shawn Kelley’s Racializing Jesus, or any other work on religious studies in the tradition of Michel Foucault (e.g., The Invention of World Religions, Theorizing Myth) to stop reading this review and purchase the book immediately.

Crossley’s book is based in large part on Noam Chomsky’s dictum that intellectuals serve as “experts in legitimation.” (4) In this, his work follows in the aforementioned tradition of Foucault’s genealogical critique and meta-scholarship more generally. The subjects of his study are all biblical scholars: bibliobloggers, Context Group members, and other influential figures in the field. Thus, the study concerns the political implications and assumptions of such scholars’ work. However, the difficulty in maintaining a “radical” posture as a scholar and in having substantial real-life implications flow from one’s work (“if [rock music] were really such a threat to the establishment ‘they would have banned it years ago.’” 8 ) means that his work delves into the difficult-to-detect subtleties and nuances of these matters. Similarly, he decries the position of biblical studies as a largely-confessional field, with the immediate relevance of the texts studied assumed by most scholars. Crossley, a secularist, laments the intellectual homogeneity and covert-supersessionism in which this results. Comparative efforts focusing on early Christianity still seek to assert the primacy of Christianity over roughly-contemporaneous religions (e.g., first-century and rabbinic Judaism) and assume Christianity’s uniqueness. By encouraging different – non-Christian – voices to enter the field of NT studies, he hopes to begin the process of rectification.

Crossley begins by justifying his discussion of bibliobloggers. They are important because 1) blogs are conducive to political – as well as academic – discourses because of the immediate gratification, 2) blogging bears several affinities to Chomsky’s propaganda model, and 3) the lack of advertising on blogs limits constraints on expression that come from commercialism. The importance of the first point comes forth in his analysis of biblical scholars’ discussions of the Iraq War. With ample quotations from scholars expressing anti-Iraq, anti-Arab, as well as more moderate sentiments, Crossley suggests that there is a latent racism lurking in the background. Such sentiments work with the notion of “unique suffering,” which is a common assumption of many post-9/11 discourses. Above all else, advocates of this view are incapable of engaging in a perspective empathic to Arabs. To be clear, Crossley expresses no sympathy for those who partook in horrendous acts of violence, but he contends that the failure to seriously attempt to understand the actors becomes clear in the propensity to label such individuals as unequivocally “evil.” This personified “evil” quickly translates into a “Muslim other” that becomes highly problematic for scholars who study the ancient Middle and Near East. Familiarity with the most popular bibliobloggers (e.g., Goodacre, West, Bird, Davila, Tilling, Rosson) would no doubt be helpful to understanding this section, but far from necessary.

The next chapter deals with a topic of interest to a wider readership: the social sciences and the problem of Orientalism. Edward Said’s important work on the topic was published around the same time that Bruce Malina began working his anthropology of the ancient Mediterranean world. Though placed under the veil of rejecting the ethnocentrism that had previously plagued NT scholarship, the work of Malina and other Context Group members inadvertently partakes in Orientalism, insofar as they essentialize this part of the world by ascribing to it characteristics that are fundamentally non-rational and undesirable. Because Malina claims that the continuity between the ancient and contemporary Mediterranean world is near-complete (New Testament World, 3rd ed., xii), his offensive characterizations bear immediate relevance for modern political issues. Crossley continues by discussing anti-Muslim, pro-Iraq-War rhetoric ranging from “politically incorrect” neo-rationalists such as Sam Harris to conservative news pundits like Geraldo Rivera. These disparate speakers are unified in their dehumanization of the Muslim “other,” ascription of agonistic values to Islam uniquely, use of “clash of civilizations” rhetoric, and use of polarizing us/them language.

This notion ties into the fact that Arabs are the only ethnic group against which one can openly express racist remarks today. Characterizations of the biblical world in PBS/Discovery/etc. documentaries often make recourse to negative stereotypes that validate the worldview expressed by pro-War advocates at the end of the previous chapter. The basis for these pop-academic depictions, of course, was in NT scholarship; moreover, he argues that the primary source within the field is Malina-influenced scholarship. Devoting considerable attention to Loren Rosson’s blog, Crossley argues that many of the models that Context Group scholars use (honor-shame, in particular) translate easily into degrading explanations of present political actions by Middle-Easterners. Muslims’ intolerance of other religions (a cringe-inducing stereotype, to be sure), for example, becomes explicable via simple reductionism in these terms. This applies equally to social-science-oriented scholars with teaching positions as well, who portray Jesus’ contemporaries as sex-crazed madmen intent on oppressing women. Jesus, within this system of logic, frees Jew and Gentile alike from the cultural-particularism and misogyny that defined his society; in short, supersessionism finds a new partner in cultural anthropology. Crossley’s arguments, however, become weak on occasion here. For example, Jerome Neyrey’s contention that “If Euro-Americans cannot understand the modern inhabitants of the Middle East, all the more should peoples from these same regions in the Fourth Gospel present severe problems for understanding” (116) is an example of reifying American-Middle-Eastern differences for Crossley. However, Neyrey’s intent could be much more benign: if we cannot understand people in our own time, how can we understand those some 2000 years ago? If this were the intended reading, the use of the “Middle East” is simply a heuristic and convenient analogy. Crossley notes that these representations are not exclusive to NT scholarship and he finds parallels in other academic work about the Middle East. Among these, the fetishization of Middle Eastern sexuality is strikingly ubiquitous, notably its portrayal of its men as sexual deviants and women as by-definition submissive. Continuing his attack against the Context Group, Crossley observes the extent to which they are dismissive of counter-arguments, frequently using arguments to the effect of “our opponents simply do not understand the ancient world as well as we do” without elaboration. This is significant, for it recalls and validates the “with us or against us” language that has been prevalent in the War on Terror. Nonetheless, this serves as the central chapter to his book and is among the strongest ideological analyses of NT scholarship I have come across.

The following chapter travels into far different territory and seeks to explain the upsurge of interest in Jesus’ Judaism in post-War NT scholarship. Within this, he sets his gaze towards “the stress on, and debates over, Jesus’ teachings as particularly Jewish, in contrast to the hard similarity with Judaism that dominated much of twentieth-century.” (145) While assuming Arnal’s suggestion of this interest as a knee-jerk reaction to post-Shoah charges of Christian anti-Judaism, Crossley targets the Six Day War of 1967 as the cause the major discursive shift in American and the U.K. about Judaism. Crossley describes the complex history of the Six Day War and its aftermath, which defy a brief explanation in a review like this. Regardless, this resulted in connecting any criticism of the state of Israel to antisemitism, especially by Christian Zionists. While Crossley probably overstates the influence of Christian millennialism in the United States, he cogently observes the ways in which their rhetoric has affected U.S. political leaders such as Rumsfeld and Bush. “Intercession” for the state Israel became the vocation of the U.S.A. for dubious reasons. In order to provide an academic example of the labeling someone critical of Israel as anti-Jewish, Crossley identifies the case of Nadia Abu el-Haj. Scholars of many stripes targeted Abu el-Haj’s suggestion that the fall of Jerusalem in 70 CE might possibly have resulted from intra-Jewish conflicts. The accusations are to the extent that her opponents stop just short of calling her a Holocaust-denier. Amazingly, her detractors successfully prevented her from gaining tenure. Her reviewers’ and opponents’ intense focus on one suggestion that could – but does not necessarily – break from the traditional narrative of Jewish history is interpreted as an expression of contempt against Jews across the world. The relevance to the thrust of Crossley’s argument is self-evident.

In his final chapter, Crossley takes on the portrayal of Jesus as “Jewish … but not THAT Jewish” in NT scholarship, especially among the most vehement advocates of the so-called “Jewish Jesus” (e.g., Wright, Theissen & Merz). Modifying his position somewhat from previous publications on the topic, Crossley continues to see absurd charges of antisemitism in NT scholarship, including insinuations against Burton Mack and other Cynic-like Jesus advocates, none of whom deny Jesus’ Israelite ethnicity and do combat negative stereotypes of Judaism that do permeate the field. Crossley makes an intriguing suggestion in that biblical maps are responsible to some extent for the re-structuring of Jewish identity that ought to garner some attention. But the chapter is dominated by his jeremiad against the crypto-supersessionism pervading NT scholarship. Jesus and his teachings are consistently framed as rising above his Jewish culture; Gerd Theissen and Annette Merz, for example characterize Jesus’ teaching in Mark 7 as that of “a radical Jew.” (178) Their (and others’) failure lies in the inability to concede that debates of this sort were not inherently radical and rather commonplace in ancient Israel. Moreover, the essentialism associated with this Theissen and Merz’s characterization recalls the Orientalism discussed earlier. Finally, Crossley points out that “no one in the synoptic tradition is shocked at Jesus supposedly undermining purity laws.” (181) This supersessionism finds analogues in scholarly reconstructions of early christology and in depiction of Jesus as the summation of God’s promises for Israel.

In sum, this book warrants several careful readings not only by bibliobloggers and Context Group members, but by NT scholars of any stripe. I should note that for a book of this sort, Crossley does a surprisingly good job of representing his subjects accurately and generally avoiding straw men. That said, I would be greatly interested in reading a response or review from Malina, Rorbaugh, or Rosson. It is unclear to me why Crossley targeted the Context Group in particular, especially given his social-scientific proclivities in Why Christianity Happened. I would, however, like to proffer a few minor criticisms myself.

Orientalism (or the type of Orientalism that interests Crossley) is never clearly defined and this presents some of the book’s biggest problems. First, the prescriptive element of how one should describe another culture is never clear. That is, the dual problem of fetishizing the weirdness of the “Other” and reduction of their differences to a bland “sameness” finds no clear resolution herein. Second, casting such a wide net for Orientalism will likely be off-putting to some, resulting in a damned-if-you-do-damned-if-you-don’t scenario on a different level. One can ascribe to the “other” positive valuation on “our” terms, but this remains ethnocentric. Granting them positive values on their own terms, however, assumes a transcendent posturing by the scholar that comes off as rather ridiculous. Again, he does not suggest a middle ground or third way. Third, there is the fact that any explanation must be comprehensible to its readership: it is therefore necessary that the Middle East (or any other culture) is framed in reference to the scholar’s own society. Though Crossley does not do so, one could easily slip into indiscriminate finger-wagging over this unavoidability. Therefore, it seems appropriate to delimit acceptable and unacceptable forms of ethnocentrism, given its inevitability. Each of these, I think, could be assisted by a succinct definition of the term.

At the risk of descending into gossip, I was struck by certain parts of his bibliobloggers discussion. In particular, Jim West is the only blogger to come out in a positive light, even when there are relevant criticisms to be made. I think especially of the idea that certain people are simply “evil” in his discussion of bloggers on terrorists (38–39). No better candidate comes to mind than West’s “total depravity” series, with this post serving as an example applicable to the book’s topic: http://jwest.wordpress.com/2008/07/02/more-mid-east-madness/. That said, Crossley criticizes scholars that I can only assume are his friends, so – in the same way – I do not mean this as a jab against West. Beyond this, Crossley appears to do an admirable job of not going too easy on his comrades.

Finally, it seems that Crossley’s work would have benefited from a discussion of secularization, especially as it relates to Orientalism and as a catalyst for focusing on specifically “religious” aspects of Israel as sites for potential “antisemitism” (e.g., the Temple, kosher lifestyle). The near-equivocation of “Israel” with “Judaism” in the media seems important to this point. Similarly, Richard King has written a very solid book (Orientalism and Religion) that deals with the characterization of “the mystic East” as a response to contemporary anxieties about secularity. The role of the non-rational in Malina’s work seems particularly ripe for analysis in these terms (I think especially of his chapter on envy). But this point might be moot, since Crossley’s work appears to focus more intently on the “what” and “how,” rather than “why,” questions.

But these are entirely minor quibbles that should not prevent one from spending worthwhile time with this outstanding book. I can only give it my highest recommendation.

Update: See comments for links to Loren Rosson’s review and “Leonard Ridge’s” review. Crossley has provided a rejoinder to my review here.

From the forum:

I will be giving 4 lectures on Egyptology in California and Oregon this month. The first two are in the Los Angeles area, the third at Berkeley, and the fourth in Portland, Oregon.

LECTURE: Sexism in the Temple? Women and the Religious Hierarchy of Ancient Egypt
Date: Saturday, March 21, 1:30 p.m.
American Research Center in Egypt Orange County, California Chapter
Presenter: Dr. Suzanne Onstine, University of Memphis, TN
Location: The Bowers Museum, Norma Kershaw Auditorium, 2002 N. Main, Santa Ana, CA
The lecture is free and open to the public

Egypt Exploration Organization of Southern California: http://www.egyptexploration.org/
March 21 5 pm
Lecture & Dinner:
Topic: “Sexism in the Temple? Women and the Religious Hierarchy of Ancient Egypt”
Speaker: Dr. Suzanne Onstine, University of Memphis, Tennessee
For lecture location and more information, please dial (323) 874-8681 or (818) 768-1236 or send us an e-mail through the website address above. Suggested donation for attending a lecture is $10; with dinner, $20.

LECTURE: Theban Tomb 16, The Tomb of Two Ramesside Chanters
Date: Sunday, March 22, 2:30 p.m.
Northern California (Berkeley) ARCE Chapter
Presenter: Dr. Suzanne Onstine, University of Memphis
Location:  20 Barrows Hall, U.C. Berkeley Campus

LECTURE: Discoveries in TT 16 - The Tomb of Panehsy, Overseer of Chanters
Date: Tuesday, March 24, 7:30 p.m.
American Research Center in Egypt Oregon chapter
Presenter: Suzanne Onstine, University of Memphis, TN
Location: Smith Memorial Student Union, Portland State University
Lecture is free and open to the public
Contact: jtsarr@comcast.net

For information about the lectures contact the individual chapters. For information about the content of the lectures, you can e-mail me at sonstine@memphis.edu.

Suzanne Onstine
University of Memphis

This post will serve as a conclusion to my series on ancient canonical lists. This series has been a long time in the making; my introductory post and this concluding post are separated by nearly two and a half years.

In this post I intend to do only two things. First, here is an index to all the posts in this series:

Introduction.
Marcionite canon.
Muratorian canon.
Origenic canon, part 1.
Origenic canon, part 2.
Eusebian canon, part 1.
Eusebian canon, part 2.
Cheltenham canon.
Apostolic Constitutions canon.
Canon of Cyril.
Canon of Athanasius.
Canon of Epiphanius.
Laodicean Synod canon.
Carthaginian Synod canon.
Claromontanus catalogue.
Stichometry of Nicephorus.
Conclusion (present post).

Second, here are several links that I have found useful for studying matters of canonicity:

Lists and Catalogues of New Testament Collections (Lee Martin McDonald, James A. Sanders).
The Development of the Canon of the New Testament (Glenn Davis).
The Canon of Scripture (Bible Research).
New Testament Canon Lists.
Loose Canons (Kevin Edgecomb).
A General Survey of the History of the Canon of the New Testament (B. F. Westcott; highly recommended; you can download the entire book to your hard drive for convenience).

I sincerely hope that this series has proven or will prove useful for anyone trying to trace the attestation and canonicity of the various New Testament (and related) texts.