Dan Wallace’s post Frustrations from the Front: The Myth of Theological Liberalism has generated some really good discussion over the past couple of days. I haven’t found an occasion to comment since I don’t have anything to do with the academy in general and DTS or SBL in particular. I’ve not experienced anything spoken of in the post so it doesn’t hit home for me the same way it does for some folks who have attended conservative evangelical schools. But what did grab my attention was a comment that Vinny left in which he mentions me without saying my name. It seems to me that his recollection of the event mentioned is a bit off. Vinny said:
I have also been impressed by my exposure to DTS faculty scholarship, limited though it may be. I looked through Darrell Bock’s Blasphemy and Exaltation in Judaism and I was very impressed by the way that he fairly confronted competing perspectives that might normally be classified as liberal rather than ignoring them or cavalierly dismissing them. Moreover, I found him was circumspect in his conclusions, claiming neither greater breadth nor certainty than warranted by the evidence he presented. Although I have not read any of your works, I did listen to the 2008 Greer-Heard Forums, and I thought you engaged the liberal scholars on the program with a similar attitude.
On the other hand, I think there are many evangelicals who do not appreciate the subtleties of the DTS approach. The reason I got hold of Bock’s book in the first place was because I had been discussing Mark’s Christology with an evangelical blogger who seemed to think it had conclusively established several important points. My impression is that Dr. Bock would have seen his work as contributing to the discussion rather than settling it once and for all. By the same token, if I simply went by some of the Christian apologists who have cited your works, I might think that Bart Ehrman was an intellect charlatan whose writings you have conclusively debunked and refuted, claims I suspect you would be reluctant to make. My point is that the inability to appreciate nuance within evangelical scholarship often seems to pose as big a problem for other evangelicals as for liberals.
The “evangelical blogger” of which Vinny speaks is me, although I don’t self-identify as an evangelical. To be quite honest I find the term next to useless and I’m sure there’s any number of things I believe (or don’t believe) that would prohibit me from being properly evangelical. But that aside, Vinny was referring to this post and the discussion that ensued from it. In the post itself I addressed the claim that John’s was the only Gospel in which Jesus made any claims to divinity. I disagreed and referred to Mark’s Gospel, particularly Jesus’ trial in which Jesus claimed that he’d return enthroned at God’s right hand to judge his accusers. I quoted Bock to the effect that Jesus’ claim would have been perceived by his accusers as “a false claim that equates Jesus in a unique way with God.“ So that’s one, count it, one single point, not several and nowhere did I hint that Bock “conclusively established” anything. I think Mark established the point, sure, but I could have stated the same thing without reference to Bock because I reached the same conclusion independently of Bock. But it’s always nice to cite a scholar in support of one’s point as I’m sure we’d all agree.
Now perhaps Vinny has in mind the point on which I originally referred him to Bock’s work, which funnily enough had nothing to do with Mark’s Christology and everything to do with Vinny’s understanding about blasphemy. Vinny seemed to have thought that nearly anything constituted blasphemy in 1st century Judaism. For example, he said: “They might have thought that Jesus was claiming to be God or they might have thought that Jesus was usurping God’s prerogatives or they might have thought that claiming to be God’s anointed one was blasphemous given that he did not fulfill the expectations they had for the Messiah.” So I referred him to Bock’s book entitled Blasphemy and Exaltation in Judaism for the simple fact that Bock surveys a variety of ancient sources and documents exactly what constituted blasphemy. These were my exact words:
This is what I suggest if you’re actually interested in this subject: check out the Bock book I referenced in the post and brush up on what constituted blasphemy. As it stands you seem to think that just anything could constitute blasphemy and that’s just not the case (e.g., claiming to be the Messiah, even falsely, was not blasphemous).
How one gets the description that Vinny gives from the actual post and comments that he was referring to I do not know, but I’m glad that he was at least exposed to good critical scholarship from an evangelical (what’s that mean again?) scholar.
B”H
Wallace’s accusations against so-called “liberal” universities are outrageous and unsupported with proper evidence. This sort of behaviour reminds me of Ben Witherington. He even claims to know what people are thinking. I have expressed my disgust on Joel Watts’ post.
Steph: Perhaps. I wouldn’t know one way or the other. I tend to take him at his word on the personal anecdotes concerning individual students.
Do you take him at his word on what other people are thinking? His accusations are no more than libel without proper evidence to support them.
I know for a fact that there are independent British and New Zealand universities where phd candidates are chosen for academic merit regardless of religious or non religious affiliation and previous institutional experience.
Just who does Dan classify as liberal anyway? Does he include all american universities who don’t identify themselves with a denominational epithet (I doubt he includes any theological colleges – which I don’t regard as educational institutions anyway as they don’t allow any academic freedom at all). Does he include all British and European universities in which the academic staff have various beliefs and non beliefs?
Dan Wallace’s accusations are utterly outrageous and his claims to know what people are thinking are ludicrous. He should either withdraw his post or provide proper evidence to support his claims.
He’s no better than Blitherington.
Steph: No, I take him at his word on what he’s witnessed and what he’s been told by his students. I have no reason to think he’s lying about that. Mistaken maybe, but it’s not unfathomable that people would have a shift in attitude once they’ve heard a student graduated from DTS.
Like I said, I have no idea what so-called liberal schools take into account when choosing what students to let into PhD programs. But you can submit all of your questions at Parchment and Pen. They’re relevant to the topic of the post so I’m sure they’d be allowed and Dan would probably answer. The discussion over there has been pretty good.
I do. Academic merit. Of course I have no idea what goes on in American universities, but if his attack is against American universities, he should qualify his attack and identify the universities. He should also withdraw his speculative claims to know the minds of others. If Dan Wallace wanted to respond to my comment he should have responded on Joel’s blog. He responded to someone else there and the thread is much shorter than at parchment and pen.
Steph: If memory serves I think Wallace actually made a statement to the effect that UK schools are more welcoming of Evangelical students. Let me dig it up real quick. Okay, here it is:
So perhaps he was talking about American schools. I haven’t followed Joel’s posts or the comments but it’s possible that Wallace might not be following it either. He might have just left a comment and left it at that. He has been following and responding to the comments on Parchment and Pen though, and I think that your questions would add to the overall conversation going on over there. If you don’t feel like posting them do I have your permission to reproduce them and see what kind of response they get?
I will admit that I did not go back to reread our entire discussion before I posted my comment at Parchment and Pen. On the other hand, having now done so, I am not uncomfortable with the way I described it. I continue to believe that you are mistaken about the extent to which Bock’s work can be used to support the comparison you were making between John’s understanding of who Jesus claimed to be and Mark’s.
I will concede that my impression of what you thought Bock’s book established was formed in large part after I looked at the book and discussed it with you and was not, in fact, in my mind at the time that I requested Bock’s book from the library. On the other hand, to the extent that your misinterpretation of Bock’s book constituted your reason for citing it in the first place, it was also the cause of me getting the book so I think my comment at Parchment and Pen may still be accurate.
In any case, I don’t think that a detailed account of our exchange would have particularly helpful for purposes of the point I was trying to make at Parchment and Pen.
Steph,
I wouldn’t put Wallace in the same category as Witherington. Wallace, I’m sure, was talking mostly about American schools, and speaking from personal experience (unlike Witherington, who beknights himself as an expert on things he knows nothing about). I don’t care for what they teach at DTS, but I don’t think you’re representing Wallace accurately.
FWIW, I’ve witnessed the sort of thing he’s talking about. From what I’ve experienced, I think he could have gone on and on about this problem.
I thought it was pretty clear that Wallace was talking mostly about American schools. It’s pretty much a given (Isn’t it?) that American scholars recognize the (supposed) distinctives of DTS much more than overseas scholars do. If he forgot to be explicit enough about the differences between British and American schools, then that’s one thing, but it’s nothing to get all frothy about.
Vinny: You can believe I’m mistaken all you’d like, but that you can read my citing Bock in reference to a lone point and still be comfortable with your description of me thinking that Bock settles several points once and for all is alarming.
Concerning my alleged misinterpretation of Bock, you weren’t able to mount an argument for that back then and you won’t be able to do it now. And I’m not so concerned that you detailed the account of our exchange at Parchment and Pen, but rather I’m concerned that your memory might be slipping since you seemed to have remembered something else.
John: Yeah, I’ve gotten the brush off when referring to scholars from DTS in certain heated conversations or debates so I would imagine that there are plenty of scholars out there who look down on the school and its students/faculty. Whether they’re justified in doing so is another issue altogether.
Why are you throwing a hissy fit over this Nick?
You and I had a prolonged discussion of Bock’s book. What could possibly be alarming about me thinking of it as covering several points rather than just a single one? You mention two in this very post, i.e., (1) whether Mark 14:62 reflected the same kind of divine claim as John 10:30 and 12:45, and (2) the range of reasons why a statement might be considered blasphemous.
I was referring to the way I’ve been treated because I once attended Oral Roberts University. When I was refused admission to the Ph.D. program of my choice, I was told by the committee member who held my fate in his hands that it was because I had attended ORU. That’s part of the reason I pursued my doctorate in Jewish studies–the deck was stacked against my getting into a big name Christian studies program.
The stories Wallace relates are absolutely typical of how students from certain schools are treated by the big schools in America. This behavior is very, very common, and it’s exactly the way Wallace relates it. In fact, you might say that it shaped my life. I’m happy to hear that things aren’t that way in the UK, but if Steph doesn’t know American academia that well, she should probably not doubt Wallace’s word on it.
Oh I know it happens in America that way, where social sub groups are the way of life. although I wouldn’t put words into other peoples’ mouths like Wallace does. I’ve heard as good as that from the likes of Loftus and Zindler but they’re not biblical scholars. While DTS certainly does have a worldwide reputation it wouldn’t be a consideration in choosing a student – the consideration is academic merit. I’m very sorry about your experience. What are you doing now? I thought you were working on something with statistics and synoptics. Have you tried applying overseas?
You’re right too – I did misrepresent Wallace. I read the main accusations on Joel’s blog before I read the whole post which was tainted with my initial astonishment at Joel’s extract. However, although he added a note about UK universities, he still did not qualify his earlier accusations. Perhaps this is a reflection of his ethnocentricity but to an outside reader, seeing accusations against ‘liberal universities’ and ‘liberal scholars’ has no reason to be understood as ‘american’.
Frothy…. that’s kinda funny :-)
Isn’t Witherington the world’s leading expert on British academic law?
Well, it’s right, on your part, Steph, that you instinctively raise a flag when the word “liberal” is used without qualification. It means something different to just about every person.
Thanks for asking about what I’m doing. My interests are widespread, and, yes, I have dabbled some in statistics and the synoptic problem.
I think I’m through being a student, at least a student in a terminal degree program. (I completed my doctorate in Ancient Judaism several years ago.)
Ah, you look much younger than you really are then ;-) Did you ever publish anything on statistics and the synoptic problem? I think you have a website… And have you an academic post or have you gone into another field?
Vinny: What hissy fit? You’ve simply mischaracterized what I said and thought. I’d think after being shown this you could simply say, ‘hey, sorry about that, it’s been a while since I thought of it.’ But you’re defending your original statement like it was correct.
John: Like I said in the post, since I’m not a part of the academy in any sense I’ve not had those kinds of experiences. I’m not shocked that people have had them though, and I know how folks (even folks without any education at all!) feel about institutions like DTS and ORU. I have to be honest, when I meet someone who went to Rhema Bible Training Center I automatically think they’ll be a bit off because of my experience with various Word of Faith preachers who were trained there.
Steph: I’ll have to head over to Joel’s blog and see how he quoted Wallace. We both know it’s always good to go to the source because they might not always be quoted fairly. From what you said it seems like Joel might have taken him out of context.
Maybe, but Wallace should have qualified his accusations.
by the way, although we recognise american social sub group divisions into so called ‘liberal’ and ‘conservative’, the two terms are a bit of a misnoma in scholarship here. The qualification missing in Wallace’s accusations, if he meant it, was ‘american’.
I don’t think you responded to my point there Nick, which is that you yourself admit that you cited Bock for more than one point. Moreover, I think that I could go back over the discussion we had and find a number of issues that could legitimately be described as independent points. Therefore, my use of the term “several” was entirely appropriate.
If your quibble is with the phrase “once and for all,” then perhaps you might wish to reconsider the statement “you weren’t able to mount an argument for that back then and you won’t be able to do it now.” This bespeaks a person who thinks that a matter is pretty well settled.
My comment at Parchment and Pen was based on my analysis of your arguments. I really did not expect you to agree with it. It may surprise you to learn that I have not always agreed with the manner in which you have characterized my positions. I don’t expect you to say you’re sorry though because I have not taken offense.
Vinny: In the original post, as I documented in this post, I did not cite Bock as one who ‘settled’ anything. In the comments to that post, as I mention in this post, I referred you to Bock’s survey to learn about what constitutes blasphemy. On any reading your description was off, but I think what bugged me the most about it was that you had acted as if I somehow represented Bock as the be all, end all of divine Christology in Mark and you were quite surprised to read him for yourself and find out that he didn’t make the sort of outlandish claims that you had heard. Would you agree that your sentiments were to that effect?
Having said that, please do go over the discussion again. I re-read it yesterday. After you got the book we ended up discussing our interpretation of it but I hardly think that fits your description. And if you find me mischaracterizing your position on another blog then please feel free to call me on it.
Oh, and the matter is pretty well settled that I haven’t misinterpreted Bock. But what’s that got to do with what I claimed of Bock himself?
Nick,
I did not say anything about what you cited. I referred to what it seemed to me that you thought. If it bothers you that my impression of your position is not the same as your own, I really think you need to develop a thicker skin.
I would not agree that my sentiments were to the effect that you “somehow represented Bock as the be all, end all of divine Christology in Mark.” I do think that you read him as being much more definitive on several important points than I thought he intended to be.
As far as your assessment of your interpretation goes, be careful not to strain a muscle while you are patting yourself on the back.
Vinny: My skin is just fine. In the future I just won’t expect that anything I say will seem to you as it actually is. And I have long arms so that won’t be a problem. ;-)
Steph,
See my “Statistical Studies of the Verbal Agreements and Their Impact on the Synoptic Problem,” *Currents in Biblical Research* 7 (2008) 68-123.
I am currently revising my manuscript for a new type of synopticon which maps out all the verbal agreements, and presents them in tallies graded according to phrasal length. The manuscript was completed, but the publisher decided that I need to use the (free) Westcott-Hort text rather than the (royalty-bound) NA27 text, so I’m now in the process of changing it over.
I have an academic post, but it’s at a school that isn’t starting up until 2011.
Bless you! Thanks very much for this. I will have to look it up. I haven’t heard of the journal.
How frustrating!!!
I hope you have a good rest before term starts.
:-)
John: You wouldn’t be using the entire NA27 text with the apparatus right? Wouldn’t it then fall under the “fair use” copyright clause?
Ah I have heard of it. And we’ve just subscribed. Blinking Notts uni library don’t subscribe.
Steph: I have access but only up until 2007! I can’t get to John’s article!
How do you have access? There’s also an article on the Synoptic Conference I went to in Oxford last year that I need to – but you wouldn’t be able to get that either. They really should have it in our library. We have to rely on the British Library in London, which is expensive, and buying books, which sometimes is less expensive than a trip to London!
Steph,
If you want to read my article and can’t get it, write me at poirier[at]siscom[dot]net, and I’ll set you up.
Nick,
I don’t think “fair use” would include anything as extensive as what I did, and neither, apparently, did either of the publishers involved (viz. my publisher and the publisher of the NA27 text).
Steph: I have access through my sister’s university. She just finished her MA this past summer and I think her library access is good for a full year after that.
John: That stinks, all the more since they put the text on the internet for anyone to use freely.
Thank you!
Pingback: Is “Evangelical Scholarship” An Oxymoron? « The Golden Rule
Pingback: I Confess. I’m Biased Against Dallas Seminary. « kata ta biblia