The Alleged Subversiveness of Jesus

Over a year ago Robert Myles (NT scholar) descended on Canterbury, taking the city by storm. His “winter” (crazy Antipodeans) break consisted of a nice stay in England. His time kicking around the city allowed for some interesting conversations, a few of which were recorded by moi.

Robert Myles finger

Robert was very excited about drinking some sweet British nectar.

Coinciding with last summer, Robert had an article published in the Journal for the Study of the Historical Jesus titled “The Fetish for a Subversive Jesus”, which critically engaged contemporary scholarship and questioned the various flavours of “subversive” Jesuses, figurations beloved by both sides of the ideological spectrum, from Tom Wright to John Crossan.

Thankfully, a wonderful discussion was caught on camera between Pauline scholar/philosopher/all-around-dude Ward Blanton and Robert.

Check it out here!

Advertisements

Jesus Mythicism: Ehrman and Price

I hate being salt in the wound, but one of the more funny things to do, as someone with a background in biblical studies, is watching the flailing and blind waffling of Jesus mythicists.

Mythicism is what happens when untrained, undereducated (in the particular subject being discussed), ideologically naive people gather into walled off groups and discuss the fanciful while pretending they are circumventing the ideology of the academy at large (assuming NT studies is corrupted by Christian practitioners).

Because of the bizarre nature of such debates, I decided I had to stay up until midnight (London Time) on October 20th to watch a nearly three hour event, a debate between Bart Ehrman and Robert Price. At times I was intrigued, but mostly I knew perturbation. That feeling probably peaked when Price had the gall to suggest that Paul didn’t write Galatians. What?!

I, obviously, had a side. I’m a Pauline scholar with a background working on, particularly, Paul and his reception and possible uses in political philosophy and critical theory. Because of this, I do often find myself in a strange spot where I rely on biblical studies and defend it, while still occupying a marginal space on the boundaries of the discipline.

But, I am also aware of the limitations in method for the work on the historical Jesus. These have been pointed out by plenty, including Ehrman, Crossley, R. Myles, D. Kirkman,  and scores of reasonably skeptical scholars (who note problems with, for instance, criteria like “embarrassment” or dissimilarity)

Because of this, I actually was looking forward to some interesting pushback, either through Price’s grappling with Ehrman, or through the audience Q & A. Instead, I found myself messaging a friend, lamenting that I had stayed up so late (he felt mutual). I also paid £6. I could have gotten 3 beers from Tesco and had enough change leftover for candy. Probably would have resulted in a more fun night.

Every point brought up by Price was easily countered by Ehrman (though he did make some mistakes, and acted a bit authoritative on points that aren’t quite concrete, like the ethnicity of Mark). The audience questions, likewise, were just silly. The type that could easily have been cleared up by reading a few surveys instead of getting one’s feet wet in the subject by  picking up mythicist literature.

Here, then, we can come to the crux of the issue. This is purely ideological, through and through. It isn’t really about scholarship, or finding Truth, or some other romanticized notion. It’s about forming scholarship that finds its guiding touchpoints through the broader cultural form of certain types of atheism.

There was, however, an enjoyable breakdown of the evening with scholars on an online podcast, consisting of James McGrath and James G. Crossley. This was the highlight of the night as they were given chance to discuss the some of the details of the debate. Several minutes in a mythicist joined the ranks, so at times it felt like a second mini-event. This was, perhaps, the saving grace of the evening. 

Jesus and Homelessness, with Robert Myles

Recorded earlier this summer, but only recently edited, was a nice discussion on Jesus and homelessness with Matthean scholar, Robert J. Myles (Auckland).

In this video he answers questions and discusses some of the topics related with his ground breaking study on homelessness, Jesus, and the gospel of Matthew using political philosophers like Slavoj Zizek and others.

Robert J. Myles and the Homeless Jesus

cov266

If interested in this book, here is a handy link.

Subversiveness and NT Materials

Prompted by the excellent work of James Crossley, Robert Myles, and Ward Blanton, I have been challenged to think recently about the themes of subversiveness, neoliberalism, and the bourgeois subject in connection with (primarily) the figures of Paul and Jesus.

James G. Crossley (the scholar, not the body builder, though James does have a

jamescrossley16

James G. Crossley

rather impressive jawline) has written numerous works that look at biblical studies from a cultural lens, noting the importance of paying attention to trends and critical theoretical frameworks so as to elucidate some of the ways in which scholarship is produced along ideological lines. So, one of his most recent books, Jesus in an Age of Neoliberalism, takes an in depth look at the nuances of neoliberalism and how certain aspects of its cultural power have pervaded and influenced Jesus scholarship.

41xulftmqel

An Excellent Book.

Robert Myles has focused on numerous aspects of Jesus scholarship, often noting the importance of attending to a Marxist reading of texts, but most recently publishing an article on the “Fetish for a Subversive Jesus” (Journal for the Study of Historical Jesus 14, no. 1), wherein he notes the varied constructions of ‘subversive’ Jesuses. Both Wright and Crossan provide these ‘subversive‘ Jesuses, despite their obvious differences within the range of NT scholarship. Subversiveness becomes a trope that allows for diametrically opposed readings of Jesus’ actions, and likewise allows for theological constructs that point to both conservative and liberal worldviews (the hippie Jesus of Crossan vs. the ‘doubly subversive’ Wrightian Jesus that follows conservative dogma). Jesus either authorises radical toleration, or provides the conservative with the authority to create boundaries which appear “counter-cultural” in a society which, for instance, allows for sexual expressions that fall from the (old) norms (note, here, how Wright approaches issues of sexuality in his various writings, and specifically of how his NT translation deals with thorny translation issues…).

This isn’t any different if applied to Paul who, like Jesus, often becomes a sort of prototype of the Great Man in history (the capitalist conception of history which often ignores social conditions which cause change), or becomes a thoroughly theologised and idealised figure of perfection, or possibly both.

Paul, then, embodies the “subversive” trope that allows for either liberatory or conservative action, deliberation, and thought. Neither, as well, does there appear to be room for maturation or error in the varied, and dynamic, moments that lay behind Paul’s epistles and projects.

These are errors of thought that I do notice in myself. My Pauline figuration skirts the theologization and idealism, though I do believe I have avoided turning him into a ‘Great Man’ of history; discussing my own faults, however, may be for another day.

It is, however,  through paying attention to bordered work in NT that I have come to notice these issues. This is, perhaps, one of the major problems with the attempt of “purity” within biblical studies. Blanton, Yvonne Sherwood, Crossley, and Myles are pushing the boundaries, many of which are ideological constructions of a relatively conservative academic discipline, and this is necessary for the discipline to be, going beyond its usual parameters, both interesting and dynamic. 

Pay attention to the buzzwords, the fetishes, the blind spots. We need to move past them.

Is Violence Insurmountable?

Several weeks ago Pope Francis admitted the need to do something about the growing destabilization of the Middle East, going as far as to urge governmental powers to step into the mix (admitting the need for violence to counter violence?). Displacement of people groups, militarized violence against religious minorities, and the destruction of peaceful religious/cultural structures in recent months has brought feelings of devastation and physical torment to thousands of people.

The Pope, yo.

Something has to be done. But what?

 

It seems that violence may be the only action, or systematized group of actions, that can have any relevant effect upon the tsunami of violence that has already engulfed large regions of the Middle East. But, is this really so? What do we admit when we react with violence against violence? Does violence, then, act as a sort of enveloping power, a punishment that causes those who are doing evil to come to terms with the evil that they have done? Or does violence beget violence?

Are there political theories of (non)violence that can point the way toward a sort of salve for such a situation (I am looking at you, Walter Benjamin, Simon Critchley, and Judith Butler)? Despite the many and varied theories about the origin of ISIS (such as the hypothesis that the US’s role in Iraq in the past 30+ years was the catalyst for such violence and extremism), the fact remains that cruel and unusual circumstances abound in the Middle East. Do we take the stance of a Zizek and passively wait? Do we take the conventional American approach and storm the gates of injustice (I mean, as long as there is oil to get as well….)? Or is there a Jesus option of nonviolent resistance (or an anarchic “nonviolence”, or, as Crtichley points to a “violent nonviolent” approach)?

 

I just want to hear YOUR answers with justifications given. Or are you too busy surfing the net to think about the cruelties going on abroad?

The Walking Dead and Ethics: Hershel as Virtuous

(WARNING: SOME SPOILERS CONTAINED)

The Walking Dead is an immensely popular show with a large fan base of people who are attracted to either the deep personal and emotional drama, the post-apocalyptic setting, the blood and gore, or perhaps a combination of several of the above.

As with all television, you can really just watch passively without even a modicum of interest in anything beyond a mere surface level of engagement. I think a lot of people do that, which is evident from  responses to those episodes that seem to drag along with no zombie action (though, this is judging from mere individual accounts I hear from people in my personal life). Television is naturally a passive medium of entertainment, one that beckons the watcher to “relax and enjoy the ride.” We all need those moments, sometimes.

Just some survivors survivin’.

But, I think The Walking Dead is ripe for the picking when it comes to philosophical, ethical, and theological questions. Perhaps that is why half of the Religion profs at my university are hooked on the show, some even incorporating ethical questions, and philosophical questions about the nature of the self mined from the show, into class. There are numerous avenues and areas to explore (what does the concept of “zombie” say about the metaphysics of the writers? To what end do we follow in order to survive? Is surviving more important than retaining humanity? Can one be properly human in the face of infinite consumption? Is killing a zombie “murder”?), but I want to focus primarily on Hershel as a sort of guardian of the ethical, and as following a sort of ethics that is counter to modern utilitarianism and contemporary “decisionistic” models that one finds in some circles.

Let us start by identifying “utilitarianism” and “decisionistic” ethics quickly, and perhaps identifying some TWD characters that can be classed into these categories, then we can contrast them with Hershel.

Utilitarianism can be summed up by the cliche adage: “the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few,” or, “the greatest happiness of the greatest number is the foundation of morals and legislation.” Here, of course, there is no transcendence, no actual right or wrong, except in regards to the overall end “number” of pain or pleasure. Of course, this requires  quite laborious calculation, what one could call hedonistic calculus, or “felicific calculus.”  The ethical agent takes into account various variables coming to an ultimate conclusion about which action to take; after all, it’s just the rational thing to do.

Look at the character of Shane. He commits unspeakable acts and threatens to throw away the humanity of the group in order to, hopefully, survive. He kills Otis because the action, perhaps, saves him and Carl and also keeps Lori and Rick from feeling infinite pain. The problem is the “perhaps.”

We cannot calculate these things.

Recently we can see Carol take the same route. She murders two members of the community because they are sick. If she eliminates the source of the illness then everyone lives. If she doesn’t, then everyone will get sick.

Not.

She’s wrong and everyone gets sick anyway. We don’t live in a pretty mechanistic universe where we can account for all of the variables, tidying the up into a pretty package like a nice little accountant. It doesn’t work like that. Utilitarian ethics is not a workable path because we do not have sufficient knowledge; but also, it does not work because even if we were able to break the epistemic (dealing with knowledge) problems we have a larger problem. When there is no “good,” or the good is primarily defined as “whatever makes the greatest number happy or safe” almost any thing can be seen as rightly justified, whether the calculations hold true or not. This is moral fiction, as Alasdair MacIntyre would say.  Perhaps the primary sin is emotivism, or, the appeal to manipulation or power in order to justify the “right” path.

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

Hershel in the sick zone.

And then there is Hershel. Before Hershel we had good ol’ Dale, the seemingly sole moral voice in the zombie apocalypse. Only he stood up against the desire to murder. He was killed off and Hershel became the medium, trying to guide the temporarily insane Rick during season three.

There is a direct contrast between Hershel and Carol in season 4. When the plague hits, Carol murders in order to “save”; Hershel sacrifices his self in order to save.

The context is dark. Almost everyone in the prison camp is sick, dying from this strange and quite catch-able flu. Entering the quarantine area almost certainly means sickness and probably death. But, Hershel is a healer and knows that he is not currently sick and that the sick need his help.  Hershel enters a situation that is unthinkable and works, slowing down the sickness with a tea concoction. There is no real calculation on Hershel’s part ; he does not excuse his behavior with vacuous”greatest good” talk; it is quite obvious he does this because of his character, and because he has a certain “good” in mind, the good of sacrificing oneself in order to provide service to the dying, whether they die or not, and despite his possible infection. He is a healer and so stays true to a character of healing and care, much like Jesus sacrificing his safety to cure the lepers, another people of contagion. He believes in an actual “good,” that human beings are worth it, that all life is valuable (that last point is important; he isn’t suicidal).

In the end of the mid-season finale Hershel is murdered. But, his murder is in the face of peace. His impact, the ethical transumptive echo seen through Rick’s requesting the unthinkable to the face of his enemy, brings death. But Hershel smiles in the face of death, a smile of peace because the ethical impact of his character has truly changed Rick.

Part of me wanted to lambaste Rick for not giving into the demands of the Governor; if he had maybe Hershel would be alive. What I did not immediately see is that Rick did not pick the route because he saw the death of one equating to goodness for the greater number, he picked an infinitely difficult third option not mentioned: peace. Co-existence is possible, both Rick and Hershel saw it and believed it.

Sometimes the correct path is a much harder road, one fraught with epistemic uncertainty, difficult trials, and perhaps even death; but, perhaps correct action is not resolutely attached to supposed empirical ends but is found instead in truths that go beyond frenzied survival.

Hershel just before the Governor murders him. He smiles, proud that Rick calls for peace between the two factions.

What do you think of utilitarianism? Have you noticed that you too often justify actions through unknown calculations in order to determine your actions as right? Do you think there is a different foundation, or non-foundation, to ethics? What would that foundation be?

Black Friday and the Spirituality of Shopping

This year some department stores decided to open up their celebration of shopping en masse during Thanksgiving. This is nothing entirely new, as last year Wal-Mart opened their doors only two hours later than today. Yes, last year many Wal-Marts released the floodgates at 8pm, and this year they did so at 6pm, enticing the crowds to gather and trample through the doors a few scant hours after celebrating a simple holiday of thankfulness. The memes abound. And, while rather simplistic, evoke a profound truth: the queerness of stacking holidays that promote such contrasting spirits.  I decided to drive past the Wal-Mart in our rather small town. I was quite shocked to see how full the parking lot was. Cars were stationed across the roads because there was too little room! Imagining what it may have been like in the store was a bit overwhelming. I do not think it is quite fair, nor would it be accurate, to claim that the entirety of people who participate in Black Friday are greedy people, or otherwise addicted to consuming products. But, ultimately, that is what the “holiday” celebrates. Perhaps the better course of action is to not give into such hype. There is a very real “spirituality” of shopping. I know too many whose lives reflect it. It is the unmitigated desire for the new, and it eschews the materialism of Christianity which is found within the bodiliness of reality and the conservation of “things.” Many things that are needed are necessary precisely because they exhibit a “newness” and thus become attractive to the consumer. The simplicity of the fathers of the faith is forgotten, and instead we consume things for the action and feeling of consuming. Such actions betray obsession. What is worse is fighting, trampling, feeling anger, and perhaps even cheating in order to obtain cheaper goods. Goods that waste away, become “outdated” in a few years because companies strategically release items in order to make the consumer feel behind the times, and are ultimately second order to time spent with family during  a holiday of thankfulness. Of course, the irony is that few items are actually reduced to a significant amount. And those items that are dramatically priced often require an amount of violence (whether physical or of the mind) to obtain. Stores understand that if you are drawn in for a few cheaply priced items then you are more likely to buy other things, no matter the amount of “savings” in the new price. They want to unload their products in order to impress shareholders, not give the consumer a “deal.” Do you think Jesus would jerk a Tickle-Me-Elmo out of another person’s hands? Or race to the last breadmaker? Or spent thousands on electronics that will be outdated by next Christmas and perhaps thrown away for the “new” next year? Is the unmitigated desire for “new” a vice or a good? What say ye?