The Database of Military Inscriptions and Papyri of Early Roman Palestine (DMIPERP) has launched! It’s been a lot of effort and is still a work in progress, so expect regular updates.
Check it out at http://www.ArmyofRomanPalestine.com
Author: Christopher Zeichmann
A recent guest blog post at The Shiloh Project that I wrote has recently been uploaded. The Shiloh Project is important work concerning rape culture and the bible – this particular blog post addresses the healing of the centurion’s slave and how rape culture informs certain interpretations of the passage.
You can find the post here: http://shiloh-project.group.shef.ac.uk/?p=2009
Getting the rights to publish images of Superman in my recent article was far more complicated than I had expected, so I wrote a blog post about it at the UofT Press blog.
I would just want to add, as an addendum to the post, that DC Comics granted me the rights to publish two of the four images requested, but did not elaborate on the reasons. The two they granted explicitly mentioned the Jewish judge Samson and were the two that had Superman in costume, so I would speculate that they were approved for some combination of those reasons, but who knows?
Just a quick update. An article I wrote for the Journal of the Jesus Movement in Its Jewish Setting was recently published. The article concerns Mark’s use of Latinisms and the location of its geographic setting. JJMJS is an open-access journal, so it can be found online free here: http://www.jjmjs.org/
Loanwords or Code-Switching? Latin Transliteration and the Setting of Mark’s Composition
Abstract
The composition of Mark’s Gospel is variously located in metropolitan Rome, Syria, and Palestine, with nothing close to a consensus emerging. This article takes up one particular line of argumentation for Markan provenance and provides it a clearer methodological and theoretical apparatus, namely the issue of Latin transliteration. Some commentators note that the prevalence of Latin suggests a Roman context, while others contend that Markan vocabulary is consistent with the Roman East. This article examines the distinctive ways in which Latin was transliterated in the aforementioned regions in epigraphs, papyri, and literary texts. Comparative work will indicate that Mark’s use of transliterated Latin verges on incompatible with pre-War Palestine, is quite dissimilar for the city of Rome, but overlaps in significant ways with that of Syria and post-War Palestine. Though this argument is not conclusive about Markan origins in its own right, it may clarify the utility of the argument from Latinisms for future discussions.
This summer has been eventful! Two articles I wrote are now in print:
“The Date of Mark’s Gospel Apart from the Temple and Rumors of War: The Taxation Episode (12:13–17) as Evidence.” Catholic Biblical Quarterly 79 (2017): 422–437.
“Capernaum: A ‘Hub’ for the Historical Jesus or the Markan Evangelist?” Journal for the Study of the Historical Jesus 15 (2017): 147–165.
Moreover, I have launched an Indiegogo campaign to fund a new website for the study of the military and the New Testament. Any contributions would be greatly welcome!
Luckily, nearly all the research is completed for this project! The issue now is funding the launch of a website for this, Database of Military Inscriptions and Papyri of Early Roman Palestine (DMIPERP). The website will have lots of neat features:
- Searchable collection of all known inscriptions and papyri concerning the military and Palestine 63 BC-132 AD, in their original language and English translation. Each will have a bibliography and a brief commentary on its significance. There are roughly 300 such texts.
- All inscriptions concerning Christians in the Roman army before Constantine’s reign (306 AD).
- A map and gazetteer of all military sites in early Roman Palestine, noting when they were used.
- Cameo essays by experts on how literary sources (Josephus, rabbinic writings, Philo of Alexandria, Tacitus, Eusebius, etc.) can aid the study of the military in early Roman Palestine.
- Regular updates to include the latest archaeological finds!
Moreover, this will help create materials necessary for my upcoming book, tentatively titled The Roman Army and the New Testament. This book aims to be both useful for academics and accessible to interested non-specialists – especially ministers, educated laity, and military enthusiasts. The book will cover a range of topics, including the demographics of the military in New Testament times, the role of the military in early Roman Palestine, and discussion of every single instance the military appears in the New Testament.
I have uploaded some images that may interest those who have read my article, “Champion of the Oppressed: Redescribing the Jewishness of Superman as Populist Authenticity Politics,” Journal of Religion and Popular Culture 29 (2017): forthcoming. The first four Figures are discussed in the article itself. I have included some other images and interesting links below them.
Who is Superman in his earliest stories? He’s referred to as the following: Champion of the Oppressed (AC #1), Dedicated to Assisting the Helpless and Oppressed (AC #6), Friend of the Helpless and Oppressed (AC #7), A One-Man Battle Against the Forces of Evil and Oppression (AC #8, 12), Savior of the Helpless and Oppressed (AC #9, 10), Champion of the Helpless and Oppressed (AC #11). Siegel and Shuster seem to be preoccupied with this phrasing, which I have tried to elucidate in my article.
I would strongly encourage anyone interested in these matters to visit your local comic book shop and pick up a collected version of these Superman stories, which are immensely entertaining. Four collections are available at a range of prices:
Siegel, Jerry and Joe Shuster. [1938-1940] 1997. Superman: The Action Comics Archives, vol. 1. New York: DC Comics. [Hardcover]
———. [1938-1939] 2006. The Superman Chronicles, vol. 1. New York: DC Comics. [Paperback]
———. [1938-1940] 2013. Superman: The Golden Age Omnibus, vol. 1. New York: DC Comics. [Hardcover]
———. [1938-1940] 2016. Superman: The Golden Age, vol. 1. New York: DC Comics. [Paperback]
This is a static URL that will have links to material from appendices for my dissertation.
[These appendices have been temporarily removed as they are edited for inclusion in DMIPERP]
[Edit: These appendices can now be read in revised form at www.ArmyOfRomanPalestine.com]
This post is intended to be an up-to-date collection of blog posts and online articles cited in the article “Gender in Biblical Studies after the Forgery of The Gospel of Jesus’ Wife.” Biblical Interpretation 26 (2018): 391-412. Links cited in the article are all collected here for ease of access. [Last Updated 30 Aug 2018]
Ahmed, S. 2004. “Declarations of Whiteness: The Non-performativity of Anti-Racism,” borderlands 3/2: n.p. <http://www.borderlands.net.au/vol3no2_2004/ahmed_declarations.htm>
Askeland, C. 2014. “Jesus Had an Ugly Sister-in-Law,” online post at Evangelical Textual Criticism <http://evangelicaltextualcriticism.blogspot.ca/2014/04/jesus-had-ugly-sister-in-law.html>.
Baden, J. and C. Moss. 2014. “The Curious Case of Jesus’s Wife,” The Atlantic 315/5: 74–81. <http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2014/12/the-curious-case-of-jesuss-wife/382227/>
DeConick, A.D. 2014. “Sexism and the Gospel of Jesus’ Wife,” online post at Forbidden Gospels Blog <http://aprildeconick.com/forbiddengospels/2014/5/9/sexism-and-gospel-of-jesus-wife>.
Depuydt, L. 2014b. “The Papyrus Fragment and the Crocodile: When Discerning a Blunder Is Itself a …” online post at NT Blog <http://markgoodacre.org/Depuydt.pdf>.
Gurry, P. 2016. “The Owner of the Gospel of Jesus’ Wife Unveiled,” online post at Evangelical Textual Criticism <http://evangelicaltextualcriticism.blogspot.ca/2016/06/the-owner-of-gospel-of-jesus-wife.html>.
Le Donne, A. 2016. “Jesus’ Wife: What Did We Learn?” online post at The Jesus Blog <http://historicaljesusresearch.blogspot.ca/2016/06/jesus-wife-what-did-we-learn.html>.
Mazza, R. 2016. “The Jesus’ Wife Fragment: End of Story?” online post at Faces and Voices <http://facesandvoices.wordpress.com/2016/06/17/the-jesus-wife-fragment-end-of-story/>.
Mroczek, E. 2014. ““Gospel of Jesus’ Wife” Less Durable Than Sexism Surrounding It,” online post at Religion Dispatches <http://religiondispatches.org/gospel-of-jesus-wife-less-durable-than-sexism-surrounding-it/>.
Roberts, M.D. 2014. “Was Jesus Married? Does the Gospel of Jesus’ Wife Help Answer This Question?” online post at Reflections on Christ, Church, and Culture <http://www.patheos.com/blogs/markdroberts/2014/05/05/was-jesus-married-does-the-gospel-of-jesus-wife-help-answer-this-question/>.
Sabar, A. 2016a. “The Unbelievable Tale of Jesus’s Wife,” The Atlantic 318/1: 64–78. <http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2016/07/the-unbelievable-tale-of-jesus-wife/485573/>
———. 2016b. “Karen King Responds to ‘The Unbelievable Tale of Jesus’s Wife’,” online post at The Atlantic <http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/06/karen-king-responds-to-the-unbelievable-tale-of-jesus-wife/487484/>.
Thompson, A. 2012. “Reality Check on Jesus and His ‘Wife’,” online post at Cosmic Log <http://cosmiclog.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/09/18/13945001-reality-check-on-jesus-and-his-wife>.
West, J. 2012. “No, People, A 4th Century Scrap Doesn’t Prove Jesus Had a Wife,” online post at Zwinglius Redivivus <http://zwingliusredivivus.wordpress.com/2012/09/18/no-people-a-4th-century-scrap-doesnt-prove-jesus-had-a-wife/>.
———. 2014. “What a Very Odd and Curious Response: Or, How Some Feminists Need to Learn about Adiaphora,” online post at Zwinglius Redivivus <http://zwingliusredivivus.wordpress.com/2014/05/08/what-a-very-odd-and-curious-response-or-how-some-feminists-need-to-learn-about-adiaphora/>.
———. 2016. “The State of Biblical Scholarship in America: An Observation,” online post at Zwinglius Redivivus <http://zwingliusredivivus.wordpress.com/2016/06/18/the-state-of-biblical-scholarship-in-america-an-observation/>.
Other links of interest:
The Smithsonian‘s initial announcement of GJW (2012)
Ariel Sabar’s update on GJW at The Smithsonian (2012)
An abbreviated version of Tony Burke’s “Heresy Hunting” article (2008)
e-Clavis entry on GJW, by Ian Brown with a thorough bibliography (2017)
A nearly comprehensive set of links to relevant blog posts by Michael Gondrin (2017)
Tony Burke’s Introduction to Fakes, Forgeries, and Fictions, which has an insightful discussion of GJW (2017)
Jesus’s Wife on the Web – Chance Bonar has an insightful article (2017)
A couple years ago Eva Mroczek wrote an excellent blog post on the open sexism surrounding academic discourse on the Gospel of Jesus’ Wife and it seems worth revisiting in light of the Atlantic article published yesterday. It’s difficult to know what to make of all of it, but a few things warrant further discussion.
1) In terms of the scholarly hype surrounding the article itself, in what ways is it being framed as a rehabilitation of “masculinized knowledge” against the ostensibly “hyperfeminist” theology advanced by King and GJW? That is, in what ways are scholars finding reassurance in the fact that “they were right all along” or that existing (often, but not always, patriarchal) knowledge regimes still hold a place of priority in the academy? It was clear from the beginning that certain sectors of the academy were doing their best to minimize or discredit GJW, even as King remained extremely measured in her claims about it.
2) In terms of the previous efforts to discredit GJW, how is it that the gospel was understood as representative of “hyperfeminist” concerns, when it is now clear that it was a product of a deep misogyny? How is it that the disciplinary knowledge of biblical studies is able to conflate the two? One notices that despite the complete dissolution of feminine agency in both GJW and Fritz’s thinking, this text has represented a threatening variety of feminism in certain sectors of the academy. What is that threat and how did it become proximate to discourse on feminism?
3) In terms of gendered knowledge, why do Nag Hammadi literature and other Christian apocrypha have much closer to gender parity among experts than male-dominated discourse on canonical literature? Why is “canon” so appealing to masculine scholars and why do non-canonical works seem to threaten that knowledge – we are always immediately reassured that the latest non-canonical work tells us nothing about the historical Jesus but is of interest only to historians of later periods? It’s difficult not to be reminded of the discussion of Secret Mark, which (regardless of authenticity) I think functioned to reassure us that there was nothing even vaguely queer going on in early Christianity. In what ways does “canon” itself represent an investment in existing sources of authority and knowledge regimes – or even things “worthy of study”?
Just to be clear, I’m not trying to “call out” anyone, but trying to think through the texture of scholarly discourse in a broader sense. I hope that the initial post was clear that not all who were gunning for it from the beginning are usefully labelled “sexist,” even if they (like all of us) are socialized in a patriarchal context. I’m mostly interested in how “legitimate” scholarly knowledge – knowledge inextricable from patriarchal norms and discourses – operates in this context. All of this to say, I’m not calling anyone in particular sexist on account of their early rejection of GJW; rather, I am trying to ask is “how do many dismissals function to reinforce the fundamental sexism of biblical studies regardless of the scholar’s intent?”
[This post is a modified form of a Facebook post I made to facilitate discussion on the matter – if you would like to participate, feel free to add me as a friend]
A manuscript I wrote recently saw publication, “Martial and the fiscus Iudaicus Once More” in the Journal for the Study of the Pseudepigrapha 25 (2015) 111-117.
A Pre-Proof version can be read here and the full published version can be read here.