Busybody: Dexter

  • Subscribe to our RSS feed.
  • Twitter
  • StumbleUpon
  • Reddit
  • Facebook
  • Digg

Wednesday, December 29, 2010

A Christmas Carol Moffatized

Posted on 3:12 AM by Unknown
There is a school of thought that goes out of its way to excuse the garish excesses of Doctor Who Christmas specials on grounds that they are, well, Christmas specials. These are the same apologetic members who have indulged the worst of the Russell Davies era, an overabundance of silliness, visual chaos, and Disneyesque non-narratives. In their heart of hearts I suspect some of them confess the truth: that The Runaway Bride (2006), Voyage of the Damned (2007), The Next Doctor (2008), and The End of Time (2009) are so bloody awful they could turn a saint into a scrooge, quite amusingly, the opposite of their intended effect.

Steven Moffat, however, is not Russell Davies, and the special he has served up this year is a gem. Gone is the usual cacophony and in its place a brilliant spin on a splendid classic, with plenty of soul. Though I tend to think Scrooge gets a bum rap, and I'm certainly no fan of the holiday season, there's something about A Christmas Carol I've always found endearing. It has little to do with Christmas per se, about which Scrooge's opinions actually have considerable merit. Dickens' story, at heart, is about a bitter man who wants to be happy but can't do so without taking a hard look behind, beside, and in front of him. That's a story for any season -- and one that happens to work perfectly in a Doctor Who context. Our Time Lord hero fills the roles of the ghosts of past and future, while sidekick Amy Pond appears as a hologram shade of the present, and between the two of them, with a little help from a dying woman, they manage to liberate a tormented man. That in the process they save over 4000 people from dying at this man's whim is almost ancillary.

The tormented Scrooge character is Kazran Sardick, an industrial overlord who despises all forms of good will, played brilliantly by Michael Gambon who channels even a bit of Albert Spica. Kazran is that grim (if not quite as oafish and vulgar), and I dare say this is Gambon's best performance since the infamous one in The Cook, The Thief, His Wife, and Her Lover. For him, unlike Spica, there is redemption in sight, though at serious emotional cost as he comes to terms with himself and the scars left by an abusive father.

As for the Doctor, he's in top form, and at his most scheming. Frankly he hasn't been this manipulative since The Curse of Fenric, when he used Ace as a pawn and put her through sheer emotional hell. Though he tried to save as many people as possible in carrying out his personal vendetta against Fenric, there is no reason why he couldn't simply have taken the flask he trapped Fenric in and dumped it in a black hole like he did with the deity-skull in Image of the Fendahl. Likewise, in A Christmas Carol, there's no reason he couldn't have gone back in time to prevent the Starliner from taking off in the first place instead of jumping through hoops to rewrite a man's life on the slim hope that he'll change his mind. As in the Fenric classic, there's a part of me that thinks the Doctor is getting off on using people as pawns, rewriting their lives, as Kazran rightly charges, "to suit himself".

Then there is Abigail, fated to die, who hit me rather hard with her transcendent singing. Never mind the absurdity of sharks being lullabied; I was almost as smitten as the young Kazran, and have to agree with Doug Chaplin, who writes:
"I never thought I would be moved by seeing a woman singing 'In the bleak mid-winter' to calm a hungry Jaws-style Doctor-chasing shark lost in the fog. For a scene that on every rational level ought to have been ludicrous, it was astonishingly affecting. In a sense that stands as a paradigmatic miniature of the whole project. This episode manages both more powerfully and more naturally the kind of emotional payload that Moffatt strained after (rather ineffectually, I thought) in The Beast Below."
That, incidentally, is a good comparison. While The Beast Below was decent (I gave it 3 stars), it was undercut by a lack of emotional payoff (unlike Abigail in A Christmas Carol, none of the kids who fall to the beast actually die) and a true sense of menace (after the opening scene, the Smilers weren't terribly threatening). Kazran is menacing on multiple levels. Not only will he let thousands of people die because he doesn't care enough to pull a switch, but there is a personal menace owing to inner demons. His transformation on account of Abigail, engineered by a master-manipulating Doctor, is so convincing, and I'm not sure whether that owes more to Michael Gambon's brilliant acting talents or the amazing script. Both are in full force as we see Kazran's nastiness crumble and give way to joy and inner peace, and he and Abigail share her last day of life together. In this sense, A Christmas Carol is a character piece -- a welcome change from the alien invasions of other Christmas episodes -- a lot like Dalek, Father's Day, Amy's Choice, and Vincent and the Doctor. That's pretty classic company, and Moffat's special is classic indeed.

Rating: 4 ½ stars out of 5.


Overview of all Doctor Who Christmas Specials

The Christmas Invasion -- 3 ½
The Runaway Bride -- 1
Voyage of the Damned -- 1
The Next Doctor -- 1
The End of Time -- 1
A Christmas Carol -- 4 ½
Read More
Posted in | No comments

Thursday, December 16, 2010

Dexter: The Seven Seasons Ranked

Posted on 2:00 PM by Unknown
I'm still reeling from the season-seven finale, and if I were wise I'd probably wait a few weeks before attempting a list like this. But forget emotional distance, I'm going for it now while everything's still fresh in mind. There's no question that the crown jewels of Dexter are seasons 2, 4, and 7, and any one of these could qualify as my top favorite; it was hard deciding how to rank this trio. The others fell into place without much thought. I have high hopes for season 8, as the show writers have proven they can still go to the right places. Laguerta's death left me speechless like Rita's. Dexter and Deb are now bonded in the unspeakable, and their fate will surely have to be as tragic as Walter White's. That's a lot of tragedy coming next year!

#1. Season Two: The Bay Harbor Butcher. 5 stars. The show has always been at its best when Dexter is the one being hunted, and Doakes is a more punishing adversary than someone like the Ice Truck Killer precisely because he's a good guy. Season two has all the wild supplements and roller-coaster rides that make it impossible to stop watching for a moment -- Dexter's whack-job girlfriend Lila, who fuels his dark passenger under the guise of therapy; FBI hound Frank Lundy, by far the most compelling guest star of the entire seven seasons. It's wonderfully ironic that Dexter's "recovery" from serial killing in episodes 5-7 comes from Lila's sponsorship; he then goes back to accepting his bloodthirsty nature when he returns to the normality of Rita at the end of episode 8. And it says something about how strong the script is when even the deus ex machina of Lila finding Doakes and burning down his cage (thus getting Dexter off the hook in more ways than one) plays so beautifully without feeling like a cheat. It's also worth noting that episodes 5-7 are the center masterpieces which play on Batman, a Soderbergh film, and the children's book "Where the Wild Things Are", respectively.

Best four episodes. (5) "The Dark Defender": Dexter takes a road trip with Lila to kill the man who murdered his mother. He fights his urge to kill, and has fantasies of himself as a comic book superhero. (6) "Dex, Lies, and Videotape": Dexter struggles with the lies Harry told him, and with threats of being discovered by Lundy's surveillance and Doakes' snooping. He begins a wild fling with Lila, and kills the copycat Bay Harbor Butcher -- not because he "needs to", only because he "has to", insisting on his free will and choice, per Lila's therapy. (7) "That Night a Forest Grew": Dexter seizes control on all fronts, sowing confusion amongst his colleagues, breaking into houses to have sex with Lila, and making an innocent man look guilty in order to make Doakes look bad; Doakes attacks him. (9) "Resistance is Futile": Dexter gets dragged in front of Lundy and Matthews, with his blood-slides waiting on a table. He and Doakes fence off in the Everglades.

#2. Season Seven: The Bay Harbor Butcher, Take 2. 5 stars. Jennifer Carpenter carries the drama almost entirely, and runs a gamut of emotions that frankly most actors wouldn't be able to pull off. I've re-watched her intimate scenes with Dexter so many times, they're that powerful: from learning Dexter's secret, to tortured attempts at understanding and reforming him, to near acceptance alongside guilt-ridden lust, to finally, committing cold-blooded murder in order to protect him. It's refreshing to see Laguerta finally pulling her head out of her ass, as I always found it incredible that she wouldn't have been suspicious of Dexter once Rita was killed by Trinity (out of pattern) and Quinn started hounding her about the sketch of Kyle Butler. The mafia boss Isaak Sirko is the best guest star since Trinity, hell-bent on vengeance only to bond strangely with Dexter in the end. And Hannah is the best woman to happen to Dexter since Lila, a killer who sedately accepts her own nature as much as his. This season marks an incredible comeback after the low-point of season 6, and I'm optimistic that season 8 will go out with the pulverizing tragedy that Dexter demands.

Best four episodes. (1) "Are You...?": Deb struggles with Dexter's killing of Travis. (2) "Sunshine and Frosty Swirl": Deb learns Dexter's full secret. Hand-in-hand with the first episode, this one showcases the most powerful Dexter-Deb moments in the show's history. (8) "Argentina": a gorgeous and artistic episode that features harrowing dialogue sequences between Dexter and everyone -- Deb (she pours out her guilt-ridden urges for him), Hannah (acceptance of each other, nature vs. need), and Isaac (who is moved by Dexter even while craving vengeance against him). (12) "Surprise, Motherfucker!": the highest rated episode in the show's history, for obvious reasons; Deb killing Laguerta outdoes even the shocker of Rita's murder at the end of season 4; I was left utterly speechless.

#3. Season Four: Trinity. 5 stars. An astounding comeback from the mediocrity of season 3 (much like 7 after 6). Here we have a villain who makes the Ice Truck Killer look like a home boy, a narrative crescendo that escalates without fail, and a script that matches the relentless tension of season two. Frank Lundy's return is used to great effect; his shocking murder causes Deb to meltdown big time (her scene from episode 5 had me in tears). But even that has nothing on Rita's demise. I had to rewatch the end of the finale after I first saw it, I couldn't credit what my eyes were telling me. As in seasons 2 and 7, Dexter finds himself out of control more than usual, killing his first innocent victim (the film director instead of his assistant), and letting Trinity get the upper hand too many times. The only slight weakness of this season (the reason I put it below 2 and 7, I suppose) is the side love affair between Batista and Laguerta: I didn't buy it at all. Did they have to throw these two together just because they're Hispanic?

Best four episodes. (5) "Dirty Harry": In the aftermath of Lundy's murder, Deb has a serious meltdown; Dexter sees Trinity kill his third victim and follows him home to his family, realizing that Trinity is "just like him". (9) "Hungry Man": Dexter spends a disturbing Thanksgiving with Trinity and his family, and ends up attacking him. (11) "Hello, Dexter Morgan": Trinity zeroes in on Dexter and confronts him at the police station -- in my opinion, the greatest cliffhanger of the entire seven seasons. (12) "The Getaway": the second-highest rated episode in the show's history -- Dexter desperately tries to get the upper hand, finally kills Trinity, then realizes Trinity killed Rita first.

#4. Season One: The Ice Truck Killer. 4 ½ stars. It's hard to remember the days when an insecure Rita gave Dexter a blow-job in Halloween costume, Deb was just graduating from blue uniform, and Astor and Cody were the size of hobbits. It was the season we got to know Dexter through his most iconic slayings (the child molester, the drowner of destitute immigrants, the psychiatrist counseling rich women to kill themselves), his trademark inner voice loaded with humorous subtext, and flashbacks of his childhood weaved brilliantly into the storylines. While an excellent season, the show was finding its footing, and the overarching drama doesn't carry the same unrelenting tension of the above three. The Ice Truck Killer's identity unfolds to a perfect beat -- revealed as Rudy at the end of episode 8, Dexter's brother at the very end -- as do our hero's repressed memories. This is classic Dexter.

Best four episodes. (6) "Return to Sender": Dexter is horrified to learn that a kid saw him kill the married couple who were drowning Cuban immigrants in the previous episode; great foreshadowing of season two, with Dexter so close to being discovered by his own police team. (8) "Shrink Wrap": Dexter seeks counseling from a therapist who encourages his depressed patients to commit suicide; great fencing between these two as Dexter sits on the psychiatrist's couch. (10) "Seeing Red": Dexter remembers his childhood trauma, triggered by a bloodbath left by The Ice Truck Killer; he also takes care of Rita's bullying ex-husband. (12) "Born Free": Dexter confronts the Ice Truck Killer, who is his own brother; this season finale is of course legendary.

#5. Season Five: The Barrel-Girl Gang. 4 stars. As in season three, Dexter acquires a partner in crime, but this time someone who remains faithful to him, even falling in love. Unlike season three, we now have engaging subplots: the Fuentes brothers, one of whom Deb ends up shooting at the night club, and of course Quinn's hiring Liddy to spy on Dexter. In fact, this season could have been a 4 ½ if they had only (a) cast someone other than Julia Stiles in the role of Lumen and (b) provided more payoff in the finale. (Deb confronting the "vigilantes in love" through the curtain without demanding they show themselves was preposterously unbelievable.) The idea of a fun-boys' rape club was a good move and offered something new in place of isolated and unrelated killings Dexter carries out in the other seasons. And the "Take It!" episode centered on Chase's convention was a jaw-dropper.

Best four episodes. (1) "My Bad": the aftermath of Rita's murder; Dexter comes to terms with grief. (4) "Beauty and the Beast": Dexter keeps Lumen locked up until he can trust her; shades of Doakes. (8) "Take It": the season's high point -- Dexter attends Chase's convention fueled by manic mobs; Cole Harman seizes Lumen, and Dexter executes him; Lumen realizes that Dexter kills not for justice but because he needs to. (10) "In the Beginning": a strong fan favorite involving a lot -- DVDs of the barrel girl victims getting raped and tortured; at the station Dexter quietly promises Jordan that he'll be safe from the police, though not from him; Liddy closes in on Dexter; Lumen's first kill.

#6. Season Three: The Skinner. 3 stars. Even the worst of Dexter is better than most of what runs on TV these days, but this season is relatively disappointing, especially in view of the top-notch seasons that sandwich it (2 and 4). Most of the subplots and side-stories go nowhere, and we don't care enough about them even if they did. Dexter gets increasingly domesticated by Rita who becomes rather irritating. The main feature, Miguel Prado, is however superb, and offers a fascinating sketch of what friendship with the true Dexter looks like, as well as the inevitable outcome when Miguel can't control his demons. The narrative crescendo reaches its peak in episode ten, then peters out to something less than impressive over the last two episodes. Dexter's marriage at the end is the inverse of Rita's shocking murder at the end of the next season: unpromisingly banal. As for the Skinner, he remains off-stage until the very end. It looked as though Dexter was on a downslide with this season, and few would have believed that the raging comebacks of seasons 4 and 7 were possible at this point.

Best four episodes (2) "Finding Freebo": Dexter questions the code Harry taught him, kills Freebo, and is caught by Miguel who thanks him for the murder. (6) "Sí Se Puede": Dexter has serious inner arguments with his father about having a friend like Miguel; he and Miguel abduct a convict being transferred. (8) "The Damage a Man Can Do": Dexter introduces Miguel to parts of Harry's Code, and they both kill a bookie together. (10) "Go Your Own Way": Dexter contemplates (a) killing Miguel, (b) dissolving the friendship, and (c) gaining the upper hand, until he realizes only (a) is the viable option after a big blowout.

#7. Season Six: The Doomsday Killer. 2 stars. The lowest point of the show's run consists of being jerked around by the obvious for too long, as it becomes clear by episode 4 that Gellar is imaginary. Travis Marshall is the true villain, and not a very good one. The season jumped the shark in other ways, such as with the "Nebraska" episode (the worst in the show's history), Deb's love-urges for Dexter (though lemonade was made of this drama in season 7), and the entirely unrealistic showdown between Travis and Dexter, as of course nothing bad will happen on a show like this to a child like Harrison. What saves this season from a rock-bottom rating of "1" is the apocalyptic backdrop: the Doomsday Killer is a great concept, and his tableau killings some of the most demented slayings that have ever been on display, from the dismembered horseman riding down the streets of Miami, to the angel of death, to live baby snakes being planted in a victim's abdomen. If this material had been worked around decent plotting, this season could have been very good.

Best four episodes. I honestly can't come up with favorites for this season. There are compelling moments with Brother Sam, who is well played by Mos Def. And as I mentioned, the Doomsday tableaus (the chopped up horseman, the brutal angel of death hanging, etc.) are priceless. Not to mention the scene where the homicide team stumbles into Travis' trap and gets dumped on by buckets of blood. But is there any episode which really impressed me on whole? Not really, no. The season's focus is on a mind-puzzle that we solve from the get-go, and once it is revealed, the rest of the season is substandard drama. I was personally let down by the over-arching theme of religion that had such potential but really went nowhere.
Read More
Posted in | No comments

Saturday, December 11, 2010

The Lion, the Witch, the Wardrobe, the Prince, and the Dawn Treader

Posted on 1:09 AM by Unknown
Before reviewing the films, I need to be upfront: Tolkien had it right about his friend's wonderland. Narnia is a horrendous mishmash of a fantasy world, a hodgepodge, a sophomoric blend of different myths -- Norse dwarves, Greek centaurs and fauns, Santa Claus + Christ -- its over-arching Christian allegory betraying a woeful lack of imagination. In my youth I just couldn't stand the Pevensie kids, but even then I was aware of Lewis' creative laziness. The books didn't come with maps, and even if they had, the world was too superficial and underdeveloped to appreciate. Narnia had nothing on the richly textured places I was inhabiting as a teen -- Middle-Earth, The Land, Earthsea, Pern. It was an afterthought, forgotten as soon as I put the books down.

So I'm surprised to be enjoying these film adaptations so far, The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe, Prince Caspian, and The Voyage of the Dawn Treader. They're not great by any means, but impressive all things considered -- certainly better than the Harry Potter films (two of which I slept through), and I'd take them over a train wreck like Willow any day. Andrew Adamson and Michael Apted have made Narnia entertaining enough that I can forget why I hate the place.

For the most part anyway. The Pevensie kids are still insufferable snots, except for Lucy who's impossible not to love. In the books she drew no sympathy from me when she was ridiculed and disbelieved, but now I feel for her. Her character dominates differently on screen, in contrast to her bratty siblings. Oppositely, the White Witch is a frightening piece of work, played very convincingly by Tilda Swinton. With Lewis' witch I could only imagine a caricature, but Swinton's incarnation is anything but (I was glad to see an evil witch with blond hair for a change), oozing fascist ice with glares and intonations. And the CGI Aslan looks like the real thing; Liam Neeson's voice was made for it.

The climactic battle between the forces of Aslan and the White Witch, described by Lewis in the space of two paragraphs, is appropriately drawn out, more gritty than you might expect in a PG film, and it doesn't hurt that CGI works wonders these days with arial views and other effects. Though if you've seen the vastly superior Lord of the Rings films (which were PG-13), this stuff is pretty substandard. Where The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe really triumphs is in the parallel "passion" climax, where Aslan allows himself to be humiliated and killed for Edmund's treachery. It's rather intense (for kids), and while the Christian allegory is intrusive, the emotional power makes up for it.

The second film is even better for its darker tone, less obvious biblical allegory, and the way it pushes more envelopes in a PG context. Adamson takes more liberties with Lewis' text to good effect. There's a particularly chilling scene where Caspian is tempted by the shade of the White Witch; and the business of Lucy seeing Aslan but having a hard time convincing the others is handled much better. There were gratuitous rip-offs of the Lord of the Rings films, but strangely enough they didn't bother me, probably because they were just so spectacular. Jackson's flood at the ford was superseded with a vengeance, and the Huorns were also outdone in a climactic tree-attack. I should say that Aslan's How was my favorite set piece: antiquated, dark, and haunting as hell.

The dark moments in the first film don't compare to those in the second, as noted by a reviewer:
"Times are dark in Narnia, and that's reflected in Prince Caspian's almost shocking violence. I don't remember huge amounts of mayhem being visited upon humans in the first film, so the fact that this movie's comic relief is a throat-slitting mouse should tell you how much the ante has been upped."
For a children's film Caspian is pervasively violent. The battles go on and on, though of course that's the story: the Narnians are fighting to take back their home from invaders. (With regards to Reepicheep: he delighted me to no end. It's of course ridiculous -- even in the context of a children's fantasy -- that a mouse wielding a sword the size of a needle could decimate human warriors left and right. But no matter, the scene in the woods where he kills Caspian's pursuers is hilarious.) Less magic, more savagery, less fate, more uncertainty -- especially without Aslan around for guidance until the very end -- makes the second film dramatically superior.

Many critics disagree with me and favor the first film, though the The New Republic is a refreshing exception:
"In technical terms, Prince Caspian is an improvement on its predecessor in almost every sense. Yet, like the book on which it is based, it lacks much in the way of deeper resonance. It is a considerably sharper entertainment than the first film, but little in it aspires to do more than entertain... The dialogue is crisper, the sets and staging more spectacular, the pace more lively (despite one or two plot twists too many), and the action sequences far more riveting. It may still lack the narrative depth and complexity of Jackson's Tolkien films, but those are difficult qualities to conjure in a film whose cast is made up almost entirely of teenagers and talking animals... The final act is more satisfying, too, striking an elegiac note of opportunities past, friends departed, dreams outgrown. Prince Caspian may be less full of innocent wonder than its predecessor, but it is a smarter, better film. Like its young stars, the Narnia franchise has, for better and worse, grown up."
Perhaps it's the "deeper resonance" of the first film that holds it back slightly. Perhaps Lewis should have been striving for plain entertainment all along with these stories. I'd rather take Aslan at face value, on his own terms as a primitive lion-deity, instead of a "supposition" of what Christ might look like in a child's fairy land.

Speaking of which, Aslan has always been a curious Christ-figure. He approves warfare and even glorifies it. This is a crusader's deity whose subjects are ever ready to take up the sword and kick ass. There's not much about turning the other cheek in Narnia, moments of warrior-mercy notwithstanding (like Peter and Caspian refusing to slay Miraz). Don't get me wrong: that's not a complaint (my complaint is not about the kind of Christ-figure Aslan is, only that he's a Christ-figure to begin with). I've made clear in my series on the medieval crusades that the crusaders have been overly maligned, and that Jesus' words themselves were pressed into a warrior mindset. I just find it curious that Lewis chose to fashion a Christ-figure for children in this image. It's hard to get a lion out of a lamb.

Which segues perfectly into the third film, which if faithful to the book would have at least given us a glimpse of the "Lamb of God". At the end of Lewis' Voyage of the Dawn Treader, Caspian and the kids come to Aslan's country and are confronted with a bleating sheep who invites them to a meal of cooked fish, obviously calling to mind Christ and his disciples in Jn 21. The lamb then turns into Aslan, who tells a despairing Lucy that she can never return to Narnia and must learn to know him by his name in her own world (i.e. Jesus). The same happens in the film, but without Aslan first appearing as a sheep, no doubt to tone down the Christian imagery for popular consumption. But the fact remains that only in the book of Revelation is Christ depicted as a feline warrior -- "the Lion of the tribe of Judah" (Rev 5:5) -- the lamb being the more abundant symbol (Jn 1:29,36; 1 Pet 1:19; Rev 13:8).

In any case, The Voyage of the Dawn Treader is as good as Prince Caspian, though in a different way, and takes even more liberties with the text. It was always my favorite book of the chronicles (not saying much, I know), probably for the same reason The One Tree is the best of the Thomas Covenant series. There's something about sea voyages to exotic lands that lends to an episodic pacing in which conflict isn't as necessary to the story. Gone are the big bad-asses like the White Witch and Lord Miraz, though we do get an impressive sea serpent, as well as a sinister mist that messes with your mind and gives literal life to nightmares. Caspian's quest for the seven lords has become a quest for their seven swords -- which must be placed on Aslan's table to banish the mist and liberate its captives. It's a refreshingly introspective film dealing with fear and temptation.

So despite my hard feelings for the books, the films work pretty well and allow me to suspend most of my dislike for Lewis' creation. Out of five stars, The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe gets 3, Prince Caspian gets 3 ½, and The Voyage of the Dawn Treader also 3 ½.
Read More
Posted in | No comments

Sunday, December 5, 2010

Top 20 U2 Songs

Posted on 7:55 AM by Unknown
The American Songwriter compiled what he considers to be The Top 20 U2 Songs, but you know these lists, they always cry for clearance. Here are my own essential 20 U2 songs, rated in descending order, which in some combination make their way onto playlists and CDs -- like the one I burned this weekend. Note that in many cases I prefer a live version over the original studio (or put them on equal standing). There's nothing from Zooropa or Pop (the band's nadir period), nor much from the most recent albums. Songs from Boy, War, The Unforgettable Fire, The Joshua Tree, Achtung Baby, and All That You Can't Leave Behind reign supreme here.

1. Ultraviolet (Studio, 1991, or Live, Sheffield, 2009)
2. Bad (Studio, 1984)
3. Where the Streets Have No Name (Live, Slane Castle, 2001)
4. The Fly (Studio, 1991, or Live, Boston, 2001)
5. Drowning Man (Studio, 1983)
6. Until the End of the World (Studio, 1991)
7. Kite (Live, Slane Castle, 2001)
8. With or Without You (Live, Denver, 1987)
9. Beautiful Day (Live, Slane Castle, 2001)
10. New Year's Day (Studio, 1983)
11. Stuck in a Moment You Can't Get Out of (Live, Slane Castle, 2001)
12. Red Hill Mining Town (Studio, 1987)
13. Out of Control (Live, Slane Castle, 2001)
14. City of Blinding Lights (Studio, 2004)
15. A Sort of Homecoming (Live, London, 1985)
16. Mysterious Ways (Studio, 1991)
17. Sunday Bloody Sunday (Live, Denver, 1987, or Live, Slane Castle, 2001)
18. Pride (Studio, 1984)
19. Running to Stand Still (Studio, 1987, or Live, Tempe, 1987)
20. All I Want is You (Studio, 1987, or Live, Slane Castle, 2001)

I was quite pleased to see Red Hill Mining Town in The American Songwriter's choices. Along with Drowning Man, Ultraviolet, and A Sort of Homecoming, they are terribly underrated songs, almost never played live, and I don't know why.
Read More
Posted in | No comments

Wednesday, December 1, 2010

Deane Galbraith's Biblical Studies Carnival

Posted on 3:39 AM by Unknown
The monthly carnivals have been falling off my radar over the last year, but Deane Galbraith's November roundup is mighty impressive, and not just because he awards The Busybody the #2 slot in "the top 30 biblioblogs worth reading for November 2010". Deane has canvassed quite a lot of material, and it's the best carnival I've seen in a long time.
Read More
Posted in | No comments

Sunday, November 28, 2010

Maurice Casey on Morton Smith

Posted on 2:15 PM by Unknown
At the end of an excellent treatment of Jesus' healings and exorcisms, Maurice Casey considers Morton Smith's Jesus the Magician, concluding that
"Smith has completely misrepresented the cultural worlds of Jesus and the synoptic Gospels. His accusation that Jesus was a magician appears to be due to malicious hostility to Christianity. His misrepresentation of primary sources is so gross as to be virtually fraudulent. This should be borne in mind when considering The Secret Gospel of Mark..." p 278)
Casey then later returns to Secret Mark in an appendix, underscoring Smith's disingenuous claims about the document he supposedly discovered: the rite of homoerotic sex "simply completes an exercise in sensationalist falsehood... nothing resembling the nocturnal initiation into mysteries described by Smith is known until more than a century after Jesus' death" (p 541); that the text of canonical Mark at 10:46 makes perfectly good sense contra Smith's claims (pp 541-542); and indeed "Smith's handling of supposedly primary source material, whether genuine or forged, is fraudulent from beginning to end" (pp 542-543). But in fact Smith did forge Secret Mark (p 543), and he "should have never been believed by anyone" (ibid). Casey then cites Stephen Carlson and Peter Jeffery, not "to imply that all their arguments are convincing, but that those of their arguments which are convincing, taken together with my comments here, and on Jesus the Magician, together form an overwhelming argument of cumulative weight" (p 543, n. 57).

I'd like to know which of Carlson's and Jeffery's arguments Casey finds unconvincing, but at least this new, solid work on the historical Jesus recognizes Secret Mark for what it is.
Read More
Posted in | No comments

Jesus Inside the New Testament

Posted on 7:33 AM by Unknown
My Historical Jesus Pick List includes three scholars who do an exceptionally fine job of blasting the use of non-canonical material in historical Jesus research. Two of them are secular liberals, so it's not as if plain sense flows only from Christian bias.
"In recent years we have been witnessing the 'selling' of the apocrypha under the guise of the quest of the historical Jesus. This is a misuse of useful material... What we see in [the agrapha, the apocryphal gospels, and the Gospel of Thomas] is the reaction to or reworking of NT writings by Jewish rabbis engaged in polemics, imaginative Christians reflecting popular piety and legend, and gnostic Christians developing a mystic speculative system. Their versions of Jesus' words and deeds can be included in a 'corpus of Jesus material' if that corpus is understood to contain simply everything and anything that any ancient source ever identified as material coming from Jesus. But such a corpus is the Matthean dragnet from which the good fish of early tradition must be selected for the containers of serious historical research, while the bad fish of later conflation and invention are tossed back into the murky sea of the uncritical mind... For better better or for worse, in our quest for the historical Jesus, we are largely confined to the canonical Gospels." (John P. Meier, A Marginal Jew, Vol I, pp 122-123 140)

"The most likely way to gain access to the historical Jesus is through the canonical New Testament... Here we enter the world of the big risk. We encounter a particularly aggressive cadre [who] have no tribal name, but 'liberal biblical scholars' is close to being an agreed, if irritatingly undefined label. This is a collection of individuals who place little credence in the direct historical accuracy of the canonical Christian scriptures; yet, in an attempt to jump back into the world prior to the great Destruction, they often embrace a bizarre range of possible pre-70 'gospels'... They are courageous; they have a sense of high intellectual adventure. They are trying to traverse a wide and unchartered ocean in order to find a rich prophesied land on the far side. They long to be able to step off their uncertain and pitching vessel and, even if it's just for a brief time, to their feet on solid land. When they cannot find any, they allow one of their leaders to declare that solid terra is dead ahead, just a few feet, maybe just inches, below the surface. They get to that point, step off, and plunge in far over their heads. The depths, it seems, always overwhelm." (Donald Akenson, Saint Saul: A Skeleton Key to the Historical Jesus, pp 116, 84, 94)

"The major sources for the life and teaching of Jesus are the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke. It is little short of tragic that I should have had to discuss the historicity of other Gospels... Most of them are Gnostic, or Gnosticizing, documents of much too late a date. They are valuable sources for our understanding the development of Christianity in the second to fourth centuries, but they have nothing to do with the historical Jesus. Some of the falsehoods surrounding them are due primarily to American feminists who wish to believe that Mary Magdalene was a major figure in the ministry of Jesus and in early Christianity. Others are due to pure sensationalism, some but not all of it centering on an American novel [The DaVinci Code]. The last one is a forgery by Morton Smith. In one sense, however, it is fitting that this appendix should end on this note. The major fault of the whole quest of the historical Jesus is that scholars have sought to find a Jesus who reflects their own concerns... this appendix merely catalogues extreme examples of that major fault." (Maurice Casey, Jesus of Nazareth, pp 543-544)
Negatively, these three writers are in perfect agreement. Positively, however, there is less agreement as to what should be used to derive the Jesus of history. Meier says the synoptics and John; Akenson says Paul, supplemented by the synoptics; and Casey says the synoptics -- coming down hard on John almost as much as the non-canonical gospels. I'm somewhere in between Akenson and Casey. I think Paul is more useful than John in gleaning the historical Jesus; but alongside him and the synoptic writers I would add the underrated epistle of James.
Read More
Posted in | No comments

Saturday, November 27, 2010

Historical Jesus Pick List

Posted on 4:02 AM by Unknown
With two landmark studies of the historical Jesus released recently, it's time to revamp a list I wrote five years ago: my pick list of HJ scholars, rated in descending order. The following authors are listed not, obviously, to endorse every thing they claim about the historical Jesus (though my #1 choice comes pretty close), but for contributions I believe to be crucially important. Some are well acclaimed; others under appreciated. Neither John Dominic Crossan nor Tom Wright finds a home on this list. This isn't a popularity contest -- and who wants a historical guide polluted with egalitarian fantasies and apologetic whitewashes of Jesus' delusions?

The first three are my crown jewels, (1) Allison for the imperative framework of millenarian movements, (2) Schweitzer for obvious reasons, (3) Herzog for the honor-shame models which correct uses of other social models, like those wielded by Crossan. The next three represent the halakic Jesus, (4) Casey the most comprehensively, (5) Meier the most objectively, (6) Sanders the most reactively. It was hard for me to rate this trio, as the strengths and weaknesses of each seem to be trade-offs, but ultimately I saw progression through refinement of Sanders' views, and so Casey placed at the top while the giant came last. As for the last four, most are relatively obscure achievements which illuminate Jesus in surprising ways.

1. Dale Allison. Millenarian Prophet (1998); Resurrecting Jesus (2005); Constructing Jesus (2010). Allison develops Schweitzer's eschatological prophet in view of millenarian movements, outlining the characteristics of apocalyptic groups and cargo cults which happen to fit the Jesus movement like a glove. Against George Caird and Tom Wright, he shows that Jesus' apocalyptic language, about which he was wrong, was intended literally. He locates Jesus as an ascetic (a celibate), a notion many people find as unattractive as eschatology, and more than most scholars allows Jesus his natural contradictions and inconsistencies. Jesus was strangely proclaimed to be risen from the dead, most likely on account of the empty tomb in conjunction with visions, since the disciples would have otherwise had no reason to revise standard Jewish beliefs about resurrection. As egocentric as it seems to us, Jesus had exalted thoughts about himself and embraced martyrdom. He may have even thought he had a heavenly alter-ego: the Son of Man. Allison's trilogy adds up to the finest and most persuasive work on the historical Jesus to date.

2. Albert Schweitzer. The Quest of the Historical Jesus (1906). Whose spine isn't chilled by the famous conclusion, "He comes to us as one unknown"? Hopelessly dated (most of Schweitzer's targets are straw men by today's standards), like Jesus himself, this classic won't let go of us, its influence simple and direct. It's a delight opening the book to a random page; reading the prose is like savoring Glenlivet: "As of old Jacob wrestled with the angel, so modern theology wrestles with Jesus of Nazareth and will not let him go until he blesses it -- that is, until he consents to serve it and suffers himself to be drawn into the midst of our time and civilization. But when the day breaks, the wrestler must let him go. He will not cross the ford with us. Jesus of Nazareth will not suffer himself to be modernized." Schweitzer's classic remains the most brilliant and poetic indictment on a plague that always comes back in every era of Jesus studies.

3. William Herzog. Jesus, Justice, and the Reign of God (1999); Parables as Subversive Speech (1994). Herzog sees Jesus as a threefold prophetic type. (1) A popular prophet who attracted crowds with the power to heal and an ability to outwit opponents in challenge-and-riposte; as a low-life artisan with no ascribed honor, Jesus acquired honor precisely by these means: exorcist-healing and shaming his rivals with counterquestions, rhetoric, insults, and scriptural one-upsmanship. (2) An oracular prophet who leveled social critiques through the veiled transcripts of parables. (3) A Deuteronomic prophet who critiqued the Torah while upholding it at the same time, primarily by playing the debt codes off the purity codes. Herzog, following Bruce Malina, explores a different way of understanding Jesus' eschatology, in what is probably the single most plausible alternative to apocalypticism. He fails to convince on this point, but there is some helpful discussion about the way peasants often perceive time in more cyclical than linear terms. Herzog's work represents the best comprehensive examination of Jesus as the product of an honor-shame culture in the Jewish prophetic tradition.

4. Maurice Casey. Jesus of Nazareth: An Independent Historian's Account of his Life and Teaching (2010); The Solution to the Son of Man Problem (2007). Casey's work offers a cousin of Sanders' prophet while delving more deeply into sayings, deeds, Torah disputes, Christological titles, and martyrdom issues. His command of Aramaic goes a long way in solving the "son of man" problem, particularly by making sense of both an idiomatic and general use of the term. Unlike Sanders and Meier, he takes seriously the pervasive testimony that Jesus' conflict with Pharisees was enough to be terminal, though also insists that Jesus never actually broke the law. His chapter on healings and exorcisms is nearly unassailable, and his view that Jesus expected to suffer an atoning death refreshing. While his defense of a completely Torah-obedient Jesus (even in the cases of "let the dead bury the dead" and the prohibition of oaths) isn't always convincing, and the early datings of Mark and Matthew obviously questionable, the end result is a remarkably decent portrait. Casey's is in fact the most impressive defense of a halakic Jesus.

5. John P. Meier. A Marginal Jew: Rethinking the Historical Jesus (1991, 1994, 2001, 2009, ?), 5 vols. This massive five-volume series (last volume still on the way) is the best reference source on the subject. Meier hypothesizes an "unpapal conclave" consisting of a Catholic, Protestant, Jew, and agnostic who must reach a consensus about Jesus -- an even-handed if not exactly ideal way to reconstruct a figure of the past. For the task at hand, it works reasonably well, because this is more a reference tool for the Anchor Bible series than an autonomous work. While Meier certainly advances his own portrait of Jesus (a cousin, in many ways, of Sanders' figure) it is exceedingly cautious and qualified with copious references and footnotes, weighing the pros and cons of rival theories. Meier's project is an exhaustive, objective portrait of Jesus which employs the classic criteria of authenticity as best as humanly possible.

6. E.P. Sanders. The Historical Figure of Jesus (1993); Jesus and Judaism (1985). Sanders' robust scholarship situates Jesus as a Jew of the first century rather than a Protestant born out of time and place: an eschatological prophet, obedient to the Torah, ultimately killed for acting against the temple in his belief that God would soon destroy it and raise another in the kingdom of God. Sanders sees most of the gospel reports of Jesus' conflict with the law as inventions used to vindicate the later Gentile mission. To an extent he's probably right. It's hard to believe that Jesus dispensed with some parts of the Torah as reported, since the disciples later had to struggle precisely with these issues; and Paul was unable to cite Jesus' supposed pronouncements on the matter (save in the case of divorce). But it's also hard to believe that all of Jesus' alleged custom-breaking behavior reflects later development. Sanders represents the best attempt to ground Jesus within a framework of covenantal nomism.

7. Pieter Craffert. The Life of a Galilean Shaman: Jesus of Nazareth in Anthropological-Historical Perspective (2008). Pleading that scholarship is everywhere methodologically flawed, and rejecting both postmodern and positivist approaches, Craffert uses cultural anthropology to reframe questions. He locates the Galilean not so much "underneath" the gospel traditions as "in" them, and finds a shaman who entered altered states of consciousness (spirit/divine possession, ascents to heaven, etc.) in order to heal, prophesy, and control spirits. Across cultures, shamans have assumed the multiple roles of prophets, healers, and sages, enjoined on them by their communities. Their exalted roles owed to personal intimacy and encounters (as they understood them) with their deities, and were not a mark of egocentrism. Craffert's anthropological framework is the most useful in understanding Jesus as an "alien other" who did peculiar things in the context of visionary possession states.

8. Paula Fredriksen. Jesus of Nazareth: King of the Jews (1999). Behold the historical passion: During his last trip to Jerusalem, in the days between his triumphal entry and last supper, Jesus fueled alarming amounts of messianic enthusiasm, during which time Fredriksen suggests that he stepped up the apocalypse's timetable from "soon" to "now" -- proclaiming that this passover would be the last before the kingdom arrived -- with increased amounts of crowds and pilgrims acclaiming him the messianic liberator. Pilate finally acted against Jesus to set an example for the masses and prevent riots. In many ways this book owes to Sanders' reconstruction of Jesus the eschatological prophet obedient to Torah, but while for Sanders Jesus was killed for acting against the temple, Fredriksen more wisely suggests that he was executed because Caiaphas was nervous about Pilate's itchy trigger-finger when dealing with popular prophets. Fredriksen offers the best account of Jesus' last days, and the smoking gun for his crucifixion.

9. William Arnal. The Symbolic Jesus (2005). Don't be fooled by the size; there's substance in this tiny book. And don't be surprised that it doesn't advance a portrait of Jesus; Arnal thinks the quest should be abandoned, for "ultimately, the historical Jesus does not matter". He's wrong about that -- we do need Jesus for history's sake -- but he's right that we don't need Jesus, or his Jewishness, to feel secure about ourselves. That's what the book is about: the loaded question of Jesus' Jewishness. Even if scholars like Sanders, Vermes, and Fredriksen avoid Schweitzer's trap, they have more oblique agendas which may be equally problematic: post-Holocaust biases (resulting in a Jesus who approaches a stereotype of modern Jews), the need to preserve religiosity (a Jesus who believed in Torah, temple, and purity is a bedrock of stability and weapon against the secular erosion of social identity), etc. Arnal's book is in fact the most important look at agendas since Schweitzer, exposing why scholars want so badly to believe in a Jewish Jesus.

10. Donald Akenson. Saint Saul: A Skeleton Key to the Historical Jesus (2000). This witty and polemical book insists that Paul knew more, cared more, and can tell us more about the historical Jesus than most give him credit for. As a pre-70 writer he provides in some ways a better window than the gospel writers, even if we have to read him in slant. Akenson sees a key to unlocking Jesus in Paul's "imitation of Christ": his sense of equilibration (not equality) with his Lord, his mission to the Gentiles being a simulacrum of Jesus' to the people of Israel. The contours of Paul's life mirrored those of his savior: poverty, celibacy, itinerancy. Both the Galilean and Diasporan were martyred for breaking Jerusalem Rules. Like most apocalyptic figures, they had wild ideas, and the wilder the ideas, the more shrewdly they were able to justify them by scriptural revision. Akenson makes plain that a sharp distinction between Paul's heavenly Christ and the synoptic earthly Jesus won't do.
Read More
Posted in | No comments

Thursday, November 25, 2010

SBL Roundup on PaleoJudaica

Posted on 5:29 AM by Unknown
Jim Davila has an impressive roundup of SBL reflections and links over on PaleoJudaica, and you can see that he's about to read the latest Thomas Covenant book, which I couldn't put down.
Read More
Posted in | No comments

SBL Reflections (III): Paul's Jewishness

Posted on 4:15 AM by Unknown
My last day at SBL involved a session on Paul's Jewishness. I got to hear Mark Nanos' full paper, "Locating Paul on a Map of First Century Judaism", and part of Paula Fredriksen's "A Way Forward for Research and Discussion of 'Paul and Judaism'", before drifting off to another session. People like Nanos and Fredriksen keep me honest since I understand Paul in significantly less clean terms than they do.

Mark's paper was vintage Nanos, revisiting arguments from his paper on I Cor 9:19-23 (that Paul never actually behaved like a pagan, only reasoned like one rhetorically to persuade Gentiles of Jewish truths), and urges that we attach a disclaimer to everything Paul says negatively about the law: the negativity applies to non-Jews alone, for Paul was Torah-observant, remained Torah observant, and would naturally have wanted other Jews to remain Torah-observant in the body of Christ.

In the part of her paper I heard, Fredriksen suggested that the term "conversion" needs to be dropped from discussion, for the standard view is upside down. Paul didn't urge conversion on pagans, but just the opposite: they did not have to become proselytes (Jews) when turning to the God of Israel. Nor was Paul breaking down ethnic boundaries: he in fact urged that Jews remain Jews, and pagans remain pagans, in the body of Christ.

Part of the problem, I think, is that the question of conversion can be looked at from so many angles, and it's hard to keep them straight. From the viewpoint of Paul himself, Fredriksen may be partly right (I think Paul did effectively break down ethnic barriers in Galatians, then later reinforced them in Romans), but both Jews and pagans had to "turn to" something rather different under the God of Israel, namely, Christ, who was at least on the road to being deified if not implicitly already so. From a more technical point of view (a la Zeba Crook), by the time of Hellenistic Judaism it was possible to be called and thus converted, in the sense that while Paul expressed his vocation in terms of a call or commission, that's exactly the language of patronage/benefaction -- he was invoking the Greco-Roman example of the call of the divine patron-benefactor ("conversion") and the call of the Hebrew prophets at the same time. And the issue doesn't stop there, for what ultimately matters, I think, is how Paul was perceived by others; he could express his calling like Isaiah and Jeremiah all he wanted, but if other Jews or Jewish Christians could readily deny the claims of his gospel, then he effectively taught apostacy, in which case the term "conversion" starts to look very appropriate. Fredriksen nonetheless scored some real zingers, not least in her observations (reinforcing Mark Nanos) about Paul's unyielding Jewish abhorrence of idolatry.

Mark has posted his paper on his website; click here.
Read More
Posted in | No comments

Wednesday, November 24, 2010

SBL Reflections (II): Accounting for Resurrection Beliefs

Posted on 3:31 AM by Unknown
Another SBL session I enjoyed was the social-scientific and cognitive-scientific approaches to Jesus' resurrection. The first two speakers in particular had my rapt attention: Pieter Craffert, who analyzed the resurrection from a neuro-anthropological perspective, and Colleen Shantz, who looked at the variety of early Christian resurrection beliefs from an evolutionary psychological angle.

Craffert's approach was already hinted at in his 2008 publication, The Life of a Galilean Shaman. He argues from the view of neuro-anthrolpology: that the dichotomy between seeing (vision) and hallucination (visions) doesn't hold everywhere, and that in polyphasic cultures like Jesus', visual perceptions which lack external stimuli aren't necessarily hallucinations. They can be as real as perceptions grounded in external stimuli. Ultimately it's not the brain which determines the reality of a perception (as it does among monophasic Western people), but rather the "consensus reality or intersubjective validation a community is the final arbiter of reality". Thus visions experienced through altered states of consciousness, if approved, are understood to be as real as anything seen objectively in the space-time continuum. Jesus' baptism experience involving the dove, and the disciples' witness of his resurrection, don't need to be categorized as tangible events recordable on a videocam or bogus hallucinations.

Craffert emphasized that the people of Jesus' culture could make distinctions between real seeing and visions as much as we do, but the point is that if the latter were approved, they were regarded as equally real, yet without being elevated to the status of an objective event. In my view, this all seems to be a roundabout culturally sensitive way of legitimizing hallucinations, and I wonder if the term can still be valid if used non-pejoratively.

Shantz looked at early resurrection beliefs from an evolutionary perspective, in view of how the mind deals with violations of ontologies. Drawing on the work of Pascal Boyer, Justin Barrett, and Jesse Bering People, she explained how people across all cultures find the violation of ontologies fascinating -- talking rocks, weeping statues, men who can fly, etc. are like "brain candy" -- provided that the violations aren't too numerous. In other words, something like a talking rock raptly engages the mind, but a talking rock that sprouts hair and then melts into a puddle will more likely be greeted with indifference and boredom. The evolved mind is evidently alerted to modest violations, probably having adapted this way in order to flag potential hazards from the unknown, but it also shuts down when violations get too out of hand to be taken seriously. Cognitive optimal religion involves beliefs in modest violations of reality, while cognitive costly religion involves beliefs in multiple violations of reality -- and requires a heavy infrastructure and ongoing reinforcements to keep such beliefs alive.

Thus, according to Shantz, evolutionary psychology cannot well account for Paul's view of the resurrection because it's a cognitive costly position, involving multiple ontological violations. Paul believed that Jesus was good and properly dead, that his body rotted, and he was raised into a non-fleshy spiritual existence; likewise, believers were fully dead but would be raised in the same way at a later time. Paul's views were hard to keep hold of, which accounts for the creative (and sometimes convoluted) explanations of I Thess 4 and I Cor 15. (a) To be totally dead (b) until some future time, (c) with the new existence involving serious discontinuities with life as we know it, was a costly belief, and it's little wonder that afterlife beliefs became more optimal after Paul -- as with meal accommodations at grave sites (now understanding that the dead needed food and drink), and more fleshy accounts of resurrection appearances in the gospels. Shantz noted that even Paul himself may have minimized his violations at times, as when he talks in Philip 1:23 of his "desire to depart and be with Christ" -- does that remove the intermediate phase addressed in I Thess?

It was an informative session.
Read More
Posted in | No comments

Tuesday, November 23, 2010

SBL Reflections (I): Panel Discussion for Crossley's Jesus in an Age of Terror

Posted on 5:44 AM by Unknown
Six days in Atlanta went fast. Good sessions, good food, and good company among friends and acquaintances. If it weren't such a pricey event, I'd attend SBL every year instead of settling for every other.

I listened to a lot of great papers, but for now will report on what was easily the most lively session: the panel discussion for James Crossley's Jesus in an Age of Terror, critiqued by Mark Goodacre, Zeba Crook, Bill Arnal, and Roland Boer, followed by a response from James himself. Philip Esler was also present in the audience and had a lot to say during Q&A, which was a treat. As Mark says, these folks are the "cool" guys of biblical studies. No tight-asses to be found here, and I enjoyed the odd mixture of pugnacity, uninhibited honesty, and even vulgar humor, but all of it collegial. Bill and Roland spoke most favorably about the book -- especially Bill, who is an outstanding speaker possessed by a rather terrifying enthusiasm -- and there is much about it that I too like, given my interest in the way agendas, however subterranean, can lurk under scholarship. Mark and Zeba, on the other hand, had less flattering things to say, and I'm going to focus on parts of their critiques that could use more fleshing out.

Mark essentially charged that James has made too much of bloggers' silence on political issues, or their implied endorsement of Anglo-American politics, however unintentional. His most striking point came in the analogy of Jim West, whose homophobia and sexism is well known. Most infamously, Jim likened homosexuality to bestiality on one of his deleted blogs, cited at length by Mark. In his response, James seems to have misunderstood Mark's point, which, as I understand it, is not so much that James was obligated to criticize Jim West for being homophobic and sexist in Jesus in an Age of Terror, but rather, given James' complaints about racist stereotyping and anti-Arab sentiments, there is a deep irony that the only biblioblogger who comes out clean in Jesus in an Age of Terror is a bigot. In other words, if the political silence of bloggers, or their approval of certain things said or done by Anglo-American politicians, is supposed to be meaningful in the way James urges on us, then what are we to make of James' own silence (on his blog, at least, if not his book) regarding Jim West's homophobia and sexism? Do his sympathies for Jim West's minimalist views of OT historiography imply a wider endorsement of Jim's other views (including homophobia and sexism) in the same way that Mark's endorsement of a single comment made by Tony Blair supposedly points to deeper issues? Don't get me wrong: I'm not at all suggesting that James Crossley is a homophobe or sexist (surely he is not), only pointing out that his rhetorical argumentative strategy can be used against him -- and this, I think, was the thrust of Mark's point.

Zeba delivered the most forceful, thorough, and impressive critique. Amusingly, this came somewhat at my own expense, for at one point Zeba pointed out (quite rightly) that I am not the "voice" of the Context Group (unofficial or otherwise), as I can hardly be the voice for a group I'm not a part of, especially as a non-professional in the field. To be fair to James, he seems to have just meant that Loren Rosson is the blogger who regularly uses Context Group models, and habitually defends the group's work -- as he basically said in his response -- but I'm not sure what the best catch-all phrase for this is (I've been called a "stooge" of the Context Group by someone less than kind). I do hope that Zeba's paper becomes available online at some point, and it will hardly surprise readers that I agree with about 96% of it. He comes down on James pretty hard, but rather than revel in what I agree with, let me mention one part of the critique where I think he actually slightly misunderstands James -- just to show how open-minded I can be during certain phases of the moon.

About halfway through his paper Zeba complains about James' parallels between Context Group scholars and right-wingers like Ann Coulter and Paul Wolfowitz: "To suggest, however remotely, that the work of the Context Group does the same thing [as right-wingers, who "condemn or mock others" for their cultural differences] is willfully to misread it." James responded that he never suggested such a thing, and he's actually right, though perhaps you'd not guess it on account of his strong polemic. When I wrote my own review, I tried to be fair and precise in nailing down these parallels between liberal academics and conservative media hounds, and I essentially see James as saying that Context Group members, for all their noble intentions -- and who indeed approach cultural difference out of an implied respect instead of mockery -- can still play unwittingly into the hands of these right-wingers. It's a fascinating point, but one I think is largely irrelevant. It's a bit like saying that scientists shouldn't emphasize nature over nurture for fear of racism, or that "survival of the fittest" is dangerous because of social Darwinism. Put simply: if the models of the Context Group are valid, they should be used regardless of the potential for abuse, or for whatever strange bedfellows could result. But of course, the question of validity bring us to the concern about evidence.

As I acknowledged, James' demand for more evidence is entirely reasonable. But the floor response from Context Group member Douglas Oakman also carries weight. In the session, Oakman pointed out that the Context Group originated in no small part in order to make sense of the real-life experiences of its members. I know that Dick Rohrbaugh lived on the West Bank for many years, and other members have evidently lived abroad too. For myself, I lived for two years in Lesotho, and while southern Africa is not the Mediterranean area, there are plenty of honor-shame behavior patterns to be found there. In this light, to people like myself who have lived and breathed shame-based cultures over an extended period of time, experience is all the evidence you can ask for.

And is there really a mystery here? Is there any doubt as to what formal studies of Mediterranean peoples would demonstrate? There have been studies of honor-shame subcultures of the United States. (The American south is an honor-shame subculture, meaning, more shame-based relative to the north, but compared to places like the Mediterranean region, it starts to look as guilt-based as any part of the U.S.) For instance, a 1996 study conducted at the University of Michigan found remarkable differences between northern and southern Americans, in how they react to people who bump into and swear at them. 65% of the northerners were amused by the bump and insult, and 35% got angry; but only 15% of the southerners were amused -- the other 85% got furious. On top of this, the studies showed that the southerners had strong physiological reactions to being bumped/insulted, with increases in cortisol (a hormone associated with high levels of stress and anxiety) and testosterone levels. Now, if differences like these between people in the United States can be verified and documented, there shouldn't be much doubt that studies of Mediterranean peoples would confirm what Context Group members have been telling us for years, based significantly on direct experience. In any case, formal evidence is always needed, so hopefully James' demand for such will be taken seriously at some point.

I wish more scholars would write books like Jesus in an Age of Terror. Like Bill Arnal's The Symbolic Jesus, it addresses socio-political undercurrents we may be oblivious to in academic research, however disagreeable we find the particulars. I also wish I had managed to keep my lunch appointment with James to hash some of these issues out at more length, instead of waiting for him exasperatedly in the wrong area. Mea culpa!
Read More
Posted in | No comments

Friday, November 12, 2010

How Similar is a Visionary Shaman to an Apocalyptic Prophet?

Posted on 3:57 AM by Unknown
In revisiting Pieter Craffert's The Life of a Galilean Shaman, I was struck by a few points where the author's methodology intersects with Dale Allison's in Constructing Jesus: the subject of memory and the reliability of the Jesus traditions, an intriguing resolution to the Son of Man enigma, and the question of how real/literal the NT authors understood their accounts of Jesus to be.

Memory and the Reliability of Traditions

According to Craffert, Jesus is not so much "underneath" the traditions as "in" them (p 90). While Christian prophets and visionaries undoubtedly created new sayings and modified old ones, they nevertheless seem to reflect the kinds of things from Jesus' life itself (p 112). Rumor and gossip, and the building on thereof, represent realistic and plausible transmissions of the Jesus stories (p 108). The idea that people in traditional societies have better memory than those in literate societies is not supported by the evidence (p 113), and rather than think of memory in terms of "actual accuracy", we should think in terms of "overall faithfulness" (pp 113-114).

All of this parallels or supports the arguments of Constructing Jesus. Allison thinks "frequently attested themes" (based on multiple performances of events) are more secure than "multiply attested sayings and deeds" (about which no consensus can be reached, because historians are essentially trying to know the unknowable). "Frequently attested themes" (Allison) and "overall faithfulness" (Craffert) may point to a trend of modesty in HJ studies. Allison thinks we can be sure that Jesus was an apocalyptic who had exalted thoughts about himself, though details are elusive. Craffert thinks Jesus was a shaman who had remarkable healing abilities, though again refrains from trying to guess exactly which healing and exorcist activities are authentic.

The Son of Man Enigma

Appreciating that the Son of Man debate is one of the most chaotic embarrassments of NT scholarship -- no one can even agree on the various ways the term is used in the gospels, let alone how Jesus himself may have used it (see p 314) -- Craffert steps out of the circle and suggests how the term might have been used and understood by a visionary healer. A son of man could have been a modest or reserved way of referring to the self in Jewish culture, and a modest way of relaying a heavenly journey or encounter, on account of sensitivities to direct encounters with Yahweh (pp 329-330). Instead of seeing the circumlocutional use of the son of man and visionary (heavenly) figures as two distinct references, Craffert shows that at least in some sources (notably the Book of Similitudes), a heavenly son of man figure seen in a vision turns out to be the visionary himself (pp 331-332).

This is remarkably similar to Allison's own proposal -- that Jesus referred to himself as the son of man, and that his earthly and heavenly/angelic identities were twin components which couldn't be neatly separated. Jesus, suggests Allison, in fact thought he had a heavenly twin or doppelganger.

What's Real?

Like Allison, Craffert insists that our modern sensibilities are deficient guides in assessing how literal the NT accounts about Jesus were intended. Ancient people obviously made a distinction between the literal and metaphorical, and between reality and fantasies, as much as we do, but not in the same way. But where Allison uses the index of humor as a helpful guide on this point, Craffert insists on an index of cultural determination (see pp 387-388). For instance, a resurrected body was understood to be a real and concrete afterlife form of existence, but that's a bit different from saying that the NT documents were describing a body of transformed physicality or a divinely created supernatural body (see pp 404-405).

None of this is to imply that Allison and Craffert are methodological equivalents, especially on the question of the reliability of documents. Craffert's brazen claim that "all documents from antiquity claiming to be about Jesus of Nazareth should be reconsidered as some form of residue of his life" (pp 94-95), particularly his defense of the Infancy Gospel of Thomas, is way too uncritical, and again, ignores the index of humor. My only point in raising these "parallels" between two books on the historical Jesus published recently (Craffert 2008; Allison 2010) is that there could be certain trends on the rise that can help propel HJ studies out of a rut, namely, a growing appreciation that the Jesus traditions are reliable but only in a general (and often unsatisfying) way, that Jesus believed peculiar things about himself in the context of visionary apocalypticism, and that many of our rationalist sensibilities need to be checked at the door when addressing these issues.
Read More
Posted in | No comments

Monday, November 8, 2010

The Human Centipede

Posted on 4:31 AM by Unknown
Ass to mouth will never be the same. Imagine three people having their kneecap ligaments severed so they can't stand, then being surgically joined so that the front guy's posterior is sown to the mouth of the woman behind him, whose own ass is sown in turn to the mouth of the woman bringing up the rear. (See below images.) The result is the ungodly Human Centipede, created by a doctor more diabolical than Josef Mengele, though the repeated claim that the basis for this operation is "100% medically accurate" is rather laughable. Director Tom Six may have consulted a professional surgeon, but somewhere along the line verisimilitude escalated into a bogus marketing ploy. Still, medical accuracy isn't the barometer by which this piece of cinema should be judged. The question is whether or not it excels as a horror film. It does and it doesn't.

As a European (Dutch) film it does everything Hollywood wouldn't dream of doing, and for that alone earns high marks. It's thoroughly demented -- the most transgressive movie I've seen since Martyrs -- and drastically symbolizes the surrender of individuality, the German reputation for fetishism, and medical god complexes. If Martyrs was about transfiguration through torture, The Human Centipede is about metamorphosis through conjoinment, with the same underlying hints of eroticism. The horror is hard-hitting, but mostly psychological. For all the scatological focus, we never see a single smear of feces -- not even during the notorious "Feed her!" scene, involving Dr. Heiter bellowing encouragement as the man in front uncontrollably unloads his bowels into the mouth of the middle woman stitched to his rear end. Six wisely leaves much to the imagination, and if you're cursed with an imagination like mine, that's worse than being graphic. So far so superb.

Other things are not so impressive. While the German Dr. Heiter is played brilliantly by Dieter Laser, the two American women start out as the phoniest performers I've seen in a long time. Crucial to a horror film's success are victims we care about, but Lindsay and Jenny can hardly utter a sentence of dialogue without sounding artificial. It is thus a grace that they become the middle and end pieces of the centipede -- stifling their ability to talk -- at which point their acting actually becomes thoroughly believable, as they writhe, weep, and gag in agony, enslaved to move around on all fours and feed on the excrement of the member in front. The male Japanese victim (the front piece) gives a decent enough performance, and his suicide at the very end is poignant, but he isn't the most sympathetic character either.

While Martyrs boasted top-notch acting and unpredictable turns in every frame, The Human Centipede stalls in places, and even leans on cliche. Lindsay and Jenny get a flat tire in the middle of nowhere, and can't get a signal on their cell phone -- lazy plotting to get them to the home of Dr. Heiter. The cops come calling, then come back with a search warrant, but stupidly fall prey to the doctor's entrapments. Little things, but enough to bring down what could have been a masterpiece with more intelligence applied. Curiously, Roger Ebert refused to apply the star system to this movie, on grounds that he couldn't decide whether it was too good or too bad -- ultimately, he says, the film "occupies a world where the stars don't shine" -- but that's a cop-out. If there's much to like and find fault with in a film, that usually calls for a middle-of-the-road rating, and that's basically where I fall on The Human Centipede.

Rating: 3 ½ stars out of 5.
Read More
Posted in | No comments

Saturday, November 6, 2010

Facebook Page for Dale Allison's New Book

Posted on 3:40 AM by Unknown
There's a Facebook page for questions about Dale Allison's new book which I reviewed a few days ago. Baker Academic advertises as follows:
"Confused or curious about the historical Jesus? It's time to get some answers from a luminary in the field. Dale Allison, author of the new book Constructing Jesus, has agreed to answer a few questions on the historical Jesus from our Facebook friends. So, submit a question. Three of the best questions will be passed to Dale for answer that we will post here, and the authors of those questions will get a free copy of Constructing Jesus."
(HT: Michael Bird.)
Read More
Posted in | No comments

Friday, November 5, 2010

Maurice Casey's Jesus of Nazareth

Posted on 11:31 AM by Unknown
The folks at Sheffield have begun reviewing Maurice Casey's new book about the historical Jesus.

Mike Kok reviews the first chapter.
Christopher Markou reviews the second chapter.
Mike Kok reviews the third chapter.
Read More
Posted in | No comments

Tuesday, November 2, 2010

Constructing Jesus: Memory, Imagination, History

Posted on 3:52 AM by Unknown
Outstanding sequels are rare, third sequels even rarer, but trust Dale Allison to deliver against the odds. Constructing Jesus: Memory, History, and Imagination caps off the author's work begun in the incisive Millenarian Prophet and the even more impressive Resurrecting Jesus, and is a powerhouse presentation of an apocalyptic Jesus who had exalted thoughts about himself, and saw death coming straight at him and didn't run away. Taken as a whole, the trilogy -- but especially this book -- puts to bed fantasies of a non-apocalyptic Jesus, and calls for new ways of assessing the Jesus traditions in place of the classic criteria.

The first part, "Memories of Jesus", covers the fallibility of memory, and is a healthy antidote to monographs which treat the gospels as robust eyewitness accounts. "Even where the gospels preserve memories, those memories cannot be pristine; they must often be dim or muddled or just plain wrong." At the same time, the Jesus tradition is saturated with certain themes, motifs, and rhetorical strategies, and it is in these places that the historian should expect to find at least some reliable memory. Frequently attested themes point to something more promising, albeit more generally, than multiply attested sayings & deeds (pp 19-20), about which no consensus can be reached regarding authenticity.

The second part, "The Eschatology of Jesus", revisits arguments from the previous two books, but with more muscle and finality. Again we see, beyond a reasonable doubt, that if we can't trust the massive traditions of apocalyptic eschatology, then we can't say anything about Jesus at all. Allison also revisits the hobgoblin of consistency -- this section would have someone like Douglas Campbell wailing like a banshee -- and underscores what, really, should be common sense: that even the best theologians are inconsistent, and the most effective charismatics are those who act strangely, unpredictably, and inconsistently. Apocalyptic eschatology, in particular, "has never incubated practical reason". These few pages alone (pp 88-97) should be required reading of every student of the New Testament, let alone the historical Jesus.

The third part, "The Christology of Jesus," is as strong as the eschatological part, and represents fresh material. Even if messianic complexes strike us as egocentric, they were not so in ancient Judaism, and in any case prophets could be reluctant about their divine callings even when accepting them. I think Allison's arguments would have been strengthened by the further observation that in dyadic cultures identity is provided by one's peers more than oneself; and that if certain roles were thrust on Jesus, he would have had to embrace them in some permutation to keep a strong core of followers.

The author proceeds by skewering the scholarly mantra that "Jesus preached not himself but the kingdom", one of the falsest dichotomies plaguing Jesus-scholarship. That Jesus thought he would rule on God's behalf in the future kingdom is more than likely: the Romans crucified him for being "King of the Jews" (and he doesn't seem to have distanced himself from the title any more than he explicitly accepted it), and only in four cases in Matthew's gospel is God himself portrayed as a king (which confirms, incidentally, my ongoing suspicions that if the parable of The Unmerciful Servant goes back to Jesus, it was originally about messianic kingship, not God). As for why Jesus accepted an "anointed" role, he had probably grounded his prophetic ministry in Isa 61:1-3. Allison also discusses the pros and cons of Jesus as Elijah or Elisha come again, finding the data rather murky, and then finds more promise in the idea that he saw himself as an eschatological Moses derived from Deut 18:15-18.

But by far the most intriguing contribution of the Christology section comes in the author's solution to the Son of Man enigma. Eschewing his earlier support for a collective understanding of the figure (see Millenarian Prophet, pp 65-66), Allison now affirms that Jesus believed the Son of Man to be an angelic figure after all -- indeed, his own heavenly twin or Doppelganger, with whom he was one, or would soon become one. Not only is there precedent for celestial doubles and heavenly alter-egos (see pp 296-300), this would resolve long standing puzzles:
(a) If Jesus and the Son of Man were two yet one, it would explain both the earthly human sayings and the heavenly angelic ones.

(b) Dan 7:14 is easily read as an angelic figure (whether or not the "one like a son of man" was originally intended it as a collective figure). The Book of Similitudes certainly read it this way, and, moreover, ultimately identified it with Enoch the seer: Enoch sees visions of the Son of Man (I En. 46, 48, 62, 69) and is eventually translated into him (I En. 71). Jesus may have correlated his own Son of Man identity with a heavenly counterpart.

(c) Hope for humanity's eschatological destiny is often angelic, which could have encouraged Jesus to imagine his future identification with an angelic savior.

(d) If Jesus believed he had a heavenly counterpart, then there is no mystery in the fact that he imagined himself coming on the clouds of heaven while having nothing to say about being removed from earth, and raised to heaven, before that could possibly occur -- he was already up there.

(e) There are traditions of Jesus having a twin (Acts of Thomas, Book of Thomas the Contender), which could possibly descend from a belief in his heavenly Doppelganger. (pp 301-303)
Like Allison, I've gone back and forth between collective and angelic interpretations of Daniel's "one like a son of man" and the synoptic Son of Man, but in recent years have been moving increasingly in the direction of the angelic. Allison's "Doppelganger" proposal (which he cautions is just that, a possibility rather than probability, p 303) reinforces my faith in this direction and invites more investigation.

The fourth part, "The Discourses of Jesus," is to me the least satisfying part of the book, no doubt for its reliance on Q, and its top-heavy focus on a single pericope. Here the author devotes over 75 pages to the Sermon on the Plain, arguing that Lk 6:27-42 points to a reliable recollection of discourses that Jesus uttered habitually, like a stock sermon, rather than on one occasion. It's not so much that I have a problem with the general conclusion. Allison is on solid ground about "stock sermons": as an itinerant, Jesus was surely "less like a modern pastor facing a single congregation and forced to come up with new ideas, and more like a seasoned professor teaching an introductory class for the umpteenth time" (p 24). I just see red whenever Luke's sermon is prioritized or held to be more historical than Matthew's, since there are powerful reasons to believe Luke truncated Matthew's unwieldy and unaesthetic version. The lesson of this section is nonetheless sound, that in addition to aphorisms and parables, at least one of Jesus' discourses owe to reliable memory derived from multiple episodes, implying that other discourses may too, though Allison is more reserved, for instance, about the eschatological discourse of Mk 13 and the instructions on mission in Mk 6:7-10/Mt 10:5-42/Lk 9:3-5; 10:2-16.

The fifth part, "The Passion of Jesus," argues powerfully that Paul was as much familiar with a passion narrative as the gospel writers were, and that it's a sure bet that Jesus was a martyr. "There is less evidence that Jesus cast out demons, yet who disputes that he was an exorcist?" (p 433) Paul spent enough time in Jerusalem not long after the crucifixion that he could have learned about the circumstances of Jesus's death from those who were with him, and like Donald Akenson (Saint Saul), I would go stronger than Allison on this point: it's incredible that he would not have learned about something like this. Regarding the passion narratives themselves, Allison upholds Mark Goodacre's contention that "history remembered" and "prophecy historicized" are not mutually exclusive, and that, contra Crossan, to biblicize is not necessarily to invent. The passion accounts are memories told in the language of scripture.

The sixth and final part, "How Much History?", addresses whether or not the gospel writers believed their own stories about Jesus, to which there is no tidy answer. On the one hand, the ancients didn't see history everywhere in the bible (in the Talmud one rabbi insisted that Job never existed and was just a "parable"; Origen was comfortable with spiritual truth being preserved in material falsehood in the gospels; and then there was Philo), on the other, they certainly believed things we deride as false (many miracles, the creations accounts of Genesis, apocalyptic prophecies of the end, etc.). Allison suggests an under-appreciated index that can help us gauge how literally an ancient author intended a story: humor. The hilarity and absurdity in (for instance) Judith, Jonah, The Acts of Peter and Andrew, The Infancy Gospel of Thomas, and The Testament of Abraham show these works to be products of authors who are declaring their nature up front, and advertising fiction. The canonical gospels, on the other hand, appear to do just the opposite. (Though as an aside, I must confess there's at least one synoptic text which makes me laugh uncontrollably when I try imagining the scenario: Jesus' cursing of the fig tree, which wasn't even supposed to be bearing fruit to begin with; I honestly find this as funny as Thomas' infancy report of him cursing & killing the boy who bumps into him.) The bottom line, says Allison, is that our critical sensibilities are deficient guides on this issue, and we shouldn't underestimate how literal minded people can be about stories that academics see as purely metaphorical.

Constructing Jesus beckons us to fields where memory patterns and themes supplant detailed sayings and deeds. I haven't given up on the classic criteria as much as Allison has -- and frankly, not even Allison has done so as much as he thinks. He half-acknowledges breaking his own rule in demonstrating the historicity of Pilate's sentence for the crime of being "King of the Jews" (pp 231, 233-240), basically wielding a version of both the criterion of discontinuity (with early Christianity) (p 235), and of course, execution. He thus implicitly acknowledges that there are at least some cases where the criteria work, and I'm again put in mind of Donald Akenson, who railroaded the criteria as almost completely useless, save in rare "glaring" cases where an eight-year old can see the process at work (i.e. the embarrassing account of Jesus' baptism by John).

More successfully -- in fact, completely so -- Constructing Jesus pounds the last nail in the coffin of minimalism. I've often said that it's better to be a mythicist than a minimalist -- the former at least don't pretend to be able to construct a historical Jesus on the assumption that our sources are so untrustworthy; the latter (read: Jesus Seminarians) cut their own throats. But it's even wiser to be a millenialist than a mythicist, because, as this book shows, our sources, while legendary, are more reliable than either mythicists or minimalists allow. It's Dale Allison's final say in a trilogy that stands as the definitive guide to what Jesus was about, and in many ways the best of the three.
Read More
Posted in | No comments
Newer Posts Older Posts Home
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)

Popular Posts

  • "Liberal" and "Conservative" Labels
    It looks like The Biblioblog Top-50 might reinstate the practice of labeling us by our liberal/conservative leanings. I can't say I...
  • Guy Gavriel Kay, Ranked
    Most fantasy readers are familiar with Guy Gavriel Kay. He practically invented the sub-genre of historical fantasy, that mixed tricky groun...
  • Classic D&D Modules Ranked
    Extending my earlier pick list , here are 40 classic D&D modules ranked from best to worst. I hold a classic to be a module published be...
  • D&D Campaign Settings Ranked
    Over a year ago I ranked what I consider to be the best D&D modules of all time . That post is still popular (currently averaging eight ...
  • Ingmar Bergman's Influence on The Exorcist
    Forty years ago was a special year. "1973 began and ended with cries of pain," wrote Roger Ebert . "It began with Ingmar Berg...
  • FAQ's about The Secret Gospel of Mark Unveiled
    Check out Peter Jeffery's excellent answers to the following FAQ's about his book : Morton Smith was an eminent scholar in his day,...
  • The Best D&D Encounter Areas
    Having ranked the Best Dungeons & Dragons Modules , I've now done the same for encounter areas. For purposes of this exercise, ...
  • Dexter: The Seven Seasons Ranked
    I'm still reeling from the season-seven finale, and if I were wise I'd probably wait a few weeks before attempting a list like this....
  • Is Professor James Gellar real?
    With eight episodes down and four to go in Dexter's sixth season, it's time to take the question head on: is Professor James Gellar...
  • A Tribute to Ellen Page
    On this day seven years ago, October 24, 2004, the premiere of the bio-tech thriller Regenesis aired on Canadian TV, with Ellen Page playin...

Blog Archive

  • ►  2013 (18)
    • ►  August (2)
    • ►  July (2)
    • ►  June (4)
    • ►  May (1)
    • ►  April (5)
    • ►  February (2)
    • ►  January (2)
  • ►  2012 (81)
    • ►  December (5)
    • ►  November (5)
    • ►  October (6)
    • ►  September (4)
    • ►  August (4)
    • ►  July (2)
    • ►  June (2)
    • ►  May (2)
    • ►  April (4)
    • ►  March (4)
    • ►  February (18)
    • ►  January (25)
  • ►  2011 (43)
    • ►  December (6)
    • ►  November (4)
    • ►  October (1)
    • ►  September (5)
    • ►  August (2)
    • ►  July (3)
    • ►  June (2)
    • ►  May (6)
    • ►  April (1)
    • ►  March (2)
    • ►  February (7)
    • ►  January (4)
  • ▼  2010 (107)
    • ▼  December (5)
      • A Christmas Carol Moffatized
      • Dexter: The Seven Seasons Ranked
      • The Lion, the Witch, the Wardrobe, the Prince, and...
      • Top 20 U2 Songs
      • Deane Galbraith's Biblical Studies Carnival
    • ►  November (12)
      • Maurice Casey on Morton Smith
      • Jesus Inside the New Testament
      • Historical Jesus Pick List
      • SBL Roundup on PaleoJudaica
      • SBL Reflections (III): Paul's Jewishness
      • SBL Reflections (II): Accounting for Resurrection ...
      • SBL Reflections (I): Panel Discussion for Crossley...
      • How Similar is a Visionary Shaman to an Apocalypti...
      • The Human Centipede
      • Facebook Page for Dale Allison's New Book
      • Maurice Casey's Jesus of Nazareth
      • Constructing Jesus: Memory, Imagination, History
    • ►  October (5)
    • ►  September (6)
    • ►  August (4)
    • ►  July (10)
    • ►  June (6)
    • ►  May (12)
    • ►  April (20)
    • ►  March (8)
    • ►  February (8)
    • ►  January (11)
  • ►  2009 (110)
    • ►  December (15)
    • ►  November (5)
    • ►  October (7)
    • ►  September (17)
    • ►  August (5)
    • ►  July (9)
    • ►  June (6)
    • ►  May (7)
    • ►  April (10)
    • ►  March (8)
    • ►  February (11)
    • ►  January (10)
  • ►  2008 (83)
    • ►  December (7)
    • ►  November (5)
    • ►  October (6)
    • ►  September (1)
    • ►  August (6)
    • ►  July (7)
    • ►  June (5)
    • ►  May (7)
    • ►  April (11)
    • ►  March (13)
    • ►  February (5)
    • ►  January (10)
  • ►  2007 (58)
    • ►  December (2)
    • ►  November (6)
    • ►  October (8)
    • ►  September (10)
    • ►  August (9)
    • ►  July (11)
    • ►  June (12)
Powered by Blogger.

About Me

Unknown
View my complete profile