As many of you know, (of course my students know because this is all I talk about!) I writing my dissertation (University of Wales, St Davids) on the Gospel of Mark. I am specifically investigating the relationship of Mark’s epigraph (1:1-3) to the body of Jesus’ interpreted story in Mark 1:4-16:8. I had a breakthrough this week and thought I would give you a snapshot of what I see.

For many years I have thought there was something going on behind the story (under, above, whatever preposition you like) which was driving it. I think, in light of the work of many a Markan scholars, etc., that “Mark” is subverting (this is by no means a new observation) the notion of Jesus not only being the Messiah, but also, subverting the role of the angel of the Lord-a warrior figure from the days of old! What caught my attention (I have been seeking a way to articulate this for sometime) this week is that unlike the work of the ο αγγελος του κυριου in the Torah/Tanakh where he/it is presented as a warrior who kills and drives (physically!) out the nations (cf., Exodus 23) from the land of Israel, in the Gospel of Mark Jesus is cast as this ο αγγελος του κυριου but he is NOT engaged in any physical activity reminiscent of the days of old-he speaks (…και ελαλει αυτοις τον λογον…ην γαρ διδασκων αυτους…(Mark 2:2; 1:22) and acts! In this way “Mark” is not only subverting the notion of Messiah, but also the angel of the Lord.

The pericope of the Blind man may provide an illustration; the blind man recognizes Jesus as “son of David” while Jesus and the boys are heading into Jerusalem through Jericho. The back story appears to be David’s capturing of Jerusalem and conquering of the nations residing there. The “flip” occurs (subversion) when Jesus does not perform acts of violence, but simply pronounces a judgment upon the temple and the people caring for it…the expectations of the people are subverted do to the fact that Jesus does not “act” like David but is cast as a servant…humbling submitting to the will of his Father. In the end, the Roman Centurion’s “confession” (I view this lads “confession” as dramatic irony) illustrates to the hearer/reader of the story that Jesus’ likeness to David has been flipped on its head-subverted; this son of David gains victory through suffering not violence…he dies and in his death procures victory.

Ok, I did not set out 14 days ago to hunker down and write; my adviser, asked me to complete a chapter the week before Thanksgiving by Christmas (without notice!). So, i took the challenge not knowing what I was in for. Here are some lessons from my journey to the abyss and back (I just sent the sections, so I thought I would muse a bit). (1) write more as you go along. I have a minimum of 300 pages of notes on three areas I am working on for this dissertation, and I realized I need to be better organized! One thing I realized is I need to write more often, little by little, chipping away at it; (2) do not trust Zotero to accurately compile your bibliography – it DID NOT COME THROUGH! I spent 13 hours today with almost 30 pages of bib information I had to correct! (3) As Jensen says, “Writing is rewriting!” Hopefully I am a better writer because of the hell I put myself through the last 14 days, but if I were more disciplined I would have had more time to edit (and one always needs more time to edit!) (4) Outline, Outline, and Outline…before the pressure is on, then it is like fill-in-blanks! (5) Exercise! I sacrificed exercise because I felt guilty working out instead of writing – big mistake. I found I myself feeling even more guilty while writing because I broke my exercise routine…which I had going for 7 months (guess what I am doing first thing tomorrow!); reflect. Reflection is like magic when you have researched for 2 years. I found myself so engrossed in my daily research that i did not give myself time to reflect. Now, this means we will have to set deadlines and stick to them! I know, this is difficult, I know, but in the end we will be better writers and thinkers; (6) find the time you write best and stick to it – like clock-work! For me, the best time is between 4am and noon, so this means I need to plan accordingly, and again, stick to the schedule. I kept a journal of my 14 days and realized there were hours when I was frustrated because I was trying to “write out of my writing zone.” Do not do it, “know thyself!” (7) This last one is going to sound weird (maybe not), but update facebook – use it as a journey log. I was encouraged on numerous occasions (even tonight!), by folks I really do not know, to keep going  – it helped! So, thank you for the words of encouragement and trust. IT really did get me through.

Writing is a life long process. We are all at different places. Some of us like it more than others. In the end, I realized I like it (again), it is hard work, laborious, tiresome, but in the end, the payoff for your labor might be learning…learning to disciplined, even when you thought you were.

The Muse

PS. this was not edited. Off to bed until next time.

One of the common misconceptions in Gospel studies is the fact that the Gospel writers are interpreters of Jesus. Let me explain. The Gospels were written some 30 plus years after the events they record. This means they were most likely not eyewitnesses and that they went to great lengths to compile the information we find in them (cf., Luke 1:1-4). This came up again in the midst of discussions in the Book of Genesis last week. I was explaining to my students the difference between text and event; I was trying to help them see that the relationship between the stories recorded in Genesis and actual writing of Genesis are vastly different (most scholars understand the stories in Genesis and the Pentateuch to be presented to the exilic or post-exilic community in Babylon.).

While working on Mark’s epigraph today I stumbled upon an excellent paragraph In Collin’s commentary on Mark (Mark: A Commentary) and I could not resist writing around it. Collins says,

“[I]t is preferable to speak of the ‘interpretation of Jesus’ in Mark, rather than the ‘Christology’ of Mark, because systematic, philosophical reflection on the nature of Christ had not yet begun in the movement carried on by the followers of Jesus. In composing his narrative, the author of Mark made use of traditions that already expressed an implicit interpretation of the person and activity of Jesus. He affirmed all of these by incorporating then into his narrative, even though, to a modern reader, there seem to be tensions among them. He highlighted some traditions by including a large number of examples-for example, miracle stories and didactic anecdotes-and others by placing them at prominent points in the narrative…”(44).

Her point is the implied author of Mark is presenting to his readers under the heavy hand of Rome as interpretation of Jesus and not a blow-by-blow presentation. The Jesus of Mark is an interpreted Jesus that readers then interpret! Let the reader understand.

Yesterday a student popped into my office to discuss Friday’s discussion; the student was obviously out of sorts with our discussion on the nature and meaning of Genesis 1:1-2. He told me several of his colleagues from the class had continued the class discussion over into the weekend and that X was rather confused – the student (X) had never heard the things we discussed in class. This led to a 30 minute discussion on the nature of learning and the reality of doubt that comes with it.

This is not the first time I have had students in my office over the last 13 years to discuss things they had never before (I give credit to this student for coming to talk to me before freaking out and running to other people…a biblical principle, if I remember!). This led to a lengthy discussion on the various positions surrounding Genesis (yes, there is more than on view!) and why individuals hold one position over the other; I reminded the student that the place X currently finds himself is an “ok” place and that the place to experience such a “crisis of faith” was among the community of scholars where X can wrestle, doubt, stumble, scream, etc.

I assured the student I did not have all the answers (like any of us do, right!) and that I trusted the process. After all, this is why the student (and I) came to Eastern University. I assured the student we welcome questions, disagreement, multiple views (yes, even on Genesis!), and dialogue about such things.

I also assured the student that this is the beginning of a lifelong journey of cognitive disequilibrium. The discussion did not end but was simply paused as it was time for class. The student left and I sat back to reflect on why I am an educator. Here are some reflections, think of them as pedagogical resolutions/reflections:

(1) I resolve to never force students to believe what I believe out fear they may either loose faith or have a crisis of faith; (2) I resolve to never criticize a student for holding to a position I do not – regardless of this position; (3) I resolve to never belittle or make a student feel inferior; (4) I resolve to create a space of safe engagement; (5) I resolve to help students make the transition to adulthood by having my classroom mimic reality as much as possible; (6) I resolve to be a student for my students and approach my profession with humility – as I ask them to! (7) I resolve to never lie to my students because I do not have an answer to a question (how many of us have done this because we fear not looking smart, after all, we are supposed to be the experts and have all the answers, right? How absurd!); (8) I resolve to provide multiple positions to complex and critical issues so the student will have an opportunity to sift through his/her options and arrive a their own position(s); (9) I resolve to always answer a question directed to me from a student, even if I do not have an answer at that moment; (10) I resolve to never stop reading so I am better situated to ask good questions and provide illustrations of the multifaceted nature of biblical studies, theological studies, science, literature, et al.

As I write these reflections/resolutions I am reminded of Parker Palmer’s excellent book The Courage to Teach where he says, “to teach is create space!” He encourages educators to create a space where neither they nor the student is the focus of that space, but the text, idea, etc., at hand reigns supreme.

While revisiting some notes and rereading Kugel and Childs today, I thought I would type up a section from Childs which accurately captures how I approach things methodologically. See here for my musings from digging through Kugel again today. If you have not yet read Childs’ Biblical Theology of Old and New Testament Theological Reflection of the Christian Bible I recommend it as an essential volume that deserves a place on every reader and interpreter of Scripture. Here are his thoughts on methodology:

“The witnesses of Moses and the prophets, of the psalmists and sages, all arose within Israel’s history and relate in various ways to it. Moreover, when these witnesses (my emphasis) were collected a scripture, Israel’s story of faith was largely preserved in a historical sequence (Genesis through Ezra) along with a variety of ‘commentary’ (Psalms, Prophets, Wisdom). The position which is here being defended in this book is that the object of historical study is Israel’s own testimony to God’s redemptive activity. In Israel’s sacred traditions we have its particular theological testimony (my emphasis) to those events which constituted its life before God” (97-98). The following are the implications of the above assertions by Childs:

(1) Israel’s voice is afforded a privileged status which sets the enterprise from the allegedly neutral stance of comparative religion; (2) The suggested approach builds on a distinction between treating the biblical texts as ‘witness’ rather than as ‘source.’ To hear the text as witness involves identifying Israel’s theological intention to bearing its testimony to a divine reality which has entered into time and space. Conversely to hear the text as source is to regard it as a vehicle of cultural expression which yields through critical analysis useful phenomenological data regarding Israel’s societal life; (3) the history which is being studied is Israel’s ‘canonical’ history, that is to say, that history as was heard and received as authoritative by Israel’s tradents” (98).

Again, this is a snap-shot. B. Childs continue to shape and challenge my thinking. Tolle lege

The Mere

According to James Kugel (Traditions of the Bible: A Guide to the Bible As It Was at the Start of the Common Era), “…the Babylonian conquest seems to make the dawn of a new age with regard to Scripture and its interpretation” (2). The last 5 weeks at The Well we have been studying the Apocrypha; we are doing this because we desire to understand the interpretative traditions leading up to the New Testament. One of the main questions asked over and over is the point of these writings. Kugel’s comment helps get to the heart of the matter. Displaced peoples have questions of their origins – especially after 70 years of assimilation! The next sentence in this section on “Ancient Biblical Interpretations” is instructive to not only the writing of the Hebrew Scriptures, but also those of the Intertestamental Period, “[M]any Jews did indeed return home, and the society that they established in Judea was one in which…the interpretation of ancient Scripture came to play a central role” (2); his point is, no portion of Israel’s Scripture is written or received without an interpretative tradition – the text is itself an interpretation! For, the purpose of writing in the first place is to explain the way things are, who they are, and how they will live in light of their current circumstances. This helps explain the collection of Apocryphal text currently available to us.”These books-expansive retellings of biblical stories, first-person narratives put in the mouths of biblical heroes, pseudonymous apocalypses, the sayings and proverbs of ancient sages, plus actual biblical commentaries, sermons, and the like-were composed from, roughly, the third century B.C.E. through the first century C.E.” (3). These texts with the Hebrew Scriptures provide a window into the world otherwise not observable. Tolle lege

Well, I am again on the eve of beginning another semester of teaching at Eastern University. This is my 14th year of teaching undergraduate students (my second semester at EU) and I never tire of the beginning – the anticipation of meeting freshmen who are making new friends, homesick, experiencing syllabi-shock, and the like, make it all the more important for me to greet them and assist them in the transition of another chapter in their journey.

Notes to self: (1) my students are human beings and not machines or robots; (2) they are more than likely scared to death, this means I do not need to add to the anxiety by being a jerk and power hunger educator; (3) shock and awe is not the purpose of teaching; while it is helpful to remind them (as I need reminding) how small we are all in the world, galaxy, and human history, they need an understanding professor, one who journeys well with them and helps them in the transition; (4) let them talk – learning happens in community, and this takes dialogue; (5) I need to make a concerted effort in a genuine way that I am not the “answer-man”, that is, I will not have answers to all their questions; I found it rather telling when I was an undergraduate student how often my professors outright lied to me out of fear of not being the expert, instead of just being honest and telling me, “hey, good question, I have not the answer now, but I will get back to you on that one!” It is ok if we do not (because we DON’T) have all the answers! In case you did not know, they see right through it anyway and will quickly loos respect for you; (6) a kind greeting to new and former students may very well go further than being caught up in my own head (which, I might add, is a dangerous thing in the first place!); and (7) learn their names! This is no doubt a hard one, especially when you have 80 students in two sections, but I will, I make the effort, it helps, it is never perfect and often not pretty, but I will, they deserve it, after all, they have chosen EU, signed up for my class, and are humans on an epistemological quest.

So it begins again; I am honored at the opportunity to teach at Eastern University where faith, justice, and reason are not simply a mantra. I trust all of us who educate in formal and non-formal settings realize the privilege and gift it is…let us begin well.

The Mere

I am rereading The Meaning of the Bible: What the Jewish Scriptures and Christian Old Testament Can Teach Us by Knight and Levine. It begins with an outstanding introduction discussing the nature of reading and how one’s context and religious tradition affects one’s interpretation (like, really, John!…yes!), etc. It is current – engaging science, ANE, et al. I may at some point write a complete review, but for now, tolle lege!