The most interesting thing I found about the book was Thiede’s insistence on pointing out that the Dead Sea Scrolls, as revolutionary their discovery was, are not actually all that odd. There have been other scrolls found in the same area which express the same things, and all the theology expressed in the scrolls can be pieced together from other sources. If nothing else, the DSS give definitive “proof” of many things in a field otherwise filled with conjectures. But one is left to wonder if the real “revolution” of the scrolls was in showing just how shaky and unreasonable many of the vaunted conjectures were.

Thiede is interesting in that he stands between two worlds. On the one hand there is the Evangelical-inerrancy type which subconsciously regards the MT as inherently holy, and on the other hand there is the irreligious scholars who are more than willing to mock anyone who thinks these writings are holy, if given half a chance. Thiede’s approach in balancing and reasoning between the competing arguments of these camps is refreshing, though in a popular book such as this one his discussion on this point is disappointingly thin. Thiede’s approach reminded me that, even at the time the DSS were written, many of the texts were already considered sacred scripture, which means discussion of their composition and history should carefully account for them being treated with piety and devotion, while taking account of the fact that such piety at the time did not include modern ideas of a fixed inerrant text.

Thiede occasionally seems to lose track of himself, and his narrative slips into side notes, bunny trails, and sub themes on a regular basis, interrupting his overall point. He also tends to slip into his “second job” as an Anglican priest and slips into pastoral mode, and seems to be on the verge of giving a homily. His pointed critique of some of the crazy ideas popular in Christian circles are entertaining, but not always entirely appropriate in a general popular book such as this one.

Finally, one can not give a full review without mentioning the New Testament Issue. Thiede goes through piece by piece all his reasons for suggesting that the unknown fragments belong to Mark and 1 Timothy, and all the reasons why he thinks the scholarly world refuse to consider his proposal. After going through all of it I can understand why he thought the whole thing was very frustrating (the frustration almost drips off the page at times). I’m inclined to give his theory a sympathetic consideration, but in the end I believe that it is impossible to prove that the fragments are not Mark and 1 Timothy, and I also believe it is impossible to prove that they are. There simply is not enough solid evidence to prove one way or the other.

The book is very helpful in that it clearly situates the DSS in it’s proper context within the theology of Second Temple Judaism. Even the discussion of the fragments is helpful in that it shows in an engaging way what is involved in manuscripts studies and forming conclusions from the raw evidence. It would be a good supplemental book to an advanced NT studies course, or a good read for any moderately religious armchair theologian who wants to know more about the DSS.

I found this book…oddly disappointing. The main problem is a problem that is my pet peeve about many biblical scholars. This is the practice of using a statement made in one part of the Bible to prove that a statement in another part of the Bible is false. It’s kind of like using inches to prove that centimeters are wrong. I mean, sometimes I can see the point of this method, but other times it just seems nonsensical, especially when there is a completely reasonable explanation for a seeming contradiction. Vermes makes much of the fact that it seems that the location of Jesus’ birth in Bethlehem is an invention made to make the event line up with an obscure prophecy and as proof he points to the verses where Jesus’ contemporaries in Galilee wonder how he could be the Messiah if he was born in Nazareth.

The exact placement of Jesus’ birth does have issues, but all canonical or non-canonical accounts place it somewhere around Bethlehem. The hoops Matthew and Luke jump through to get Joseph and Mary in Bethlehem are complicated and even historically questionable, but it seems unlikely that their audience would have accepted such a complicated account if it lacked some kind of historical precedent. As for the statements of others asking about Jesus’ birth in Nazareth, hasn’t Vermes ever heard of the idea that the Gospels have as a major theme the Messianic Secret? Or that the Gospels often use irony or rhetorical questions to advance that theme?

The other major problem I had was Vermes approach to Matthew’s use of proof texts. Matthew’s appeal to prophecies are sometimes odd (and maybe even made up) but Matthew does not do anything which his contemporaries among the Mishnah, the Dead Sea Scrolls, and the whole stream of Second Temple Jewish Literature were not also doing, or doing even more imaginatively. Vermes knows this, I know he knows this. So why does he characterize Matthew as a purveyor of falsehoods, half-truths, and outright deception? Unless, of course, that is also his opinion of nearly every other Second Temple Jewish author, but then he should have mentioned that.

Overall, I found the book interesting insofar as it let me get an understanding of Vermes own musings and opinions of the genre of Infancy Gospels. Some of his ideas I find unlikely (such that Mary’s virgin birth referred to her simply becoming pregnant by Joseph before the onset of menarche), but they are interesting ideas to grapple with. Whether it was responsible for him to express such unproven ideas as fact in a book geared to a general audience is quite another matter.

Featuring Professor Susan Ashbrook Harvey

Willard Prescott and Annie McClelland Smith professor and chair of Religious Studies at Brown University

~*~*~

April 11, 2010

Raynor Memorial Libraries
Beaumier Suites B and C

At Holy Cross Greek Orthodox School of Theology

Brookline, Massachusetts

March 19 – 21, 2009

Announcement and Call for Papers

The Stephen and Catherine Pappas Patristic Institute of the Holy Cross Greek Orthodox School of Theology is pleased to announce its fifth annual Archbishop Iakovos Graduate Student Conference in Patristic Studies on March 19 – 21, 2009.  The purpose of the conference is to bring graduate students together from the fields of Patristic Studies, Historical Theology, and the History of Christianity in Late Antiquity in a collaborative and theological setting to hear and discuss peer research.  The conference will begin on Thursday, March 19, at 5:00 p.m., and ends with dinner on Saturday, March 21.

Hear what doctoral students attending previous conferences have said:

“Be assured that your graduate conference is one of the best experiences I have had as a graduate student.”

“I have only been to a few other conferences so far, but this was by far the most enjoyable and profitable experience I have had at a conference. I look forward to submitting a proposal for next year’s gathering.”

We are now calling for paper proposals.  We strongly encourage all doctoral and masters students with research interests in Patristics, Historical Theology, or the History of Christianity in Late Antiquity to submit a paper abstract of approximately 250 words.   Topics relating to eastern Christianity are particularly encouraged.  For examples of the range of topics, look at the previous titles at http://www.pappaspatristic.hchc.edu/conferences_archive.html.  Each presenter will have up to 20 minutes to present, followed by a respondent’s comments and group discussion.  Please send abstracts to Dr. Bruce Beck at pappaspatristic@comcast.net by February 1^st. You will be informed about the status of your paper proposal on or before February 10th. The deadline for completed papers for distribution to your respondent is March 10^th.

For those living outside the Boston area who need financial assistance to attend the conference, partial financial aid is available to assist with your expenses.  To request aid, please pre-register for the conference by February 1^st and mention that you need financial assistance in order to participate.  Note that due to the recent precipitous decline of the financial markets, we will be limited in the amount of aid that we can provide this year.

To aid in our planning, please pre-register at  your earliest convenience.  There is no registration fee. A contribution of $25 for meals during the conference will be accepted upon arrival. To register, please send email to Dr. Beck (pappaspatristic@comcast.net) with your personal information, including address, phone number, institution, degree program, area of study, and dissertation topic (if applicable).

Conference lodging will be at the Dedham Hilton Hotel.  If you will need lodging, please register as early as possible to facilitate reserving a place for you to stay.  The rate per person with our group, discounted rate is $50 per night for a double occupancy room.  Hotel reservations will be handled through the registration process, and should not be made directly with the hotel.

Finally, we need volunteers to serve on two committees: 1) the Abstracts Review committee, which ranks the abstracts; and second, the program committee, that provides input into the program of the conference, including planning the sessions other than paper presentations.  Please indicate as soon as possible whether you would be willing to serve on one or both of these committees. The only pre-requisite is that you need to have attended previously at least one of our conferences.

I hope you will be able to join us this year for the fifth annual graduate student conference in patristic studies on the campus of Holy Cross Greek Orthodox School of Theology.

Sincerely,

Bruce Beck, ThD.

Director

Pappas Patristic Institute of Holy Cross Greek Orthodox School of Theology

Founded in 2003 by a generous grant from the late Stephen Pappas and his wife Catherine, the goal of the Pappas Patristic Institute is the advancement and promotion of primarily Greek and other eastern patristic studies in the service of the academy and of the Church.

The William and Maria Spears International Center for Orthodox Thought and Culture

Annual Day – Conference

Friday, December 5th 2008

Registration 9am-10am

Presentations 10am-5:15pm

(Evening reception and conference banquet)

Campus of Union Theological Seminary

3041 Broadway, New York, NY 10027

www.utsnyc.edu

Women & The Orthodox Church: Past Roles – Future Paradigms

Keynote Speakers Include:

Prof. Valentina Izmirlieva; Fevronia Soumakis; Teva Regule; Dr. Stamenka Antonova

There will be the oppurtunity to offer scholarly short papers (20 mins. duration) on the conference topic. Select papers will be published.

Offers of papers, with titles please, by Nov. 20th

To: Prof. J A McGuckin jam401at columbia dot edu

Day registration fee $25.00

Conference reception/banquet tickets $25.00 (Chamber Music and Chorale Concert of Orthodox Music – Nyack College Musicians)

Early-registration discount and enquiries to: Matt Pereira mp2587 at columbia dot edu

Jacob of Sarug and His Times

Studies in Sixth Century Syriac Christianity

Call for Registration

October 24-26, 2008

St. Mark’s Cathedral, on the occasion of its 50^th Anniversary, is holding an international symposium on Jacob of Sarug and His Times: Studies in Sixth Century Syriac Christianity. The symposium will be held on October 24-26, 2008 at 260 Elm Ave, Teaneck, NJ. The symposium speakers are:

· Susan Ashbrook Harvey, Brown University

· Sharbil Alexandre Bcheiry, Syriac Orthodox Archdiocese

· Sebastian P. Brock, University of Oxford

· Sidney Griffith, The Catholic University of America

· Mary Hansbury, Philadelphia

· Amir Harrak, University of Toronto

· George A. Kiraz, Beth Mardutho & Gorgias Press

· Edward G. Mathews, St. Nerses Seminary

· Kathleen McVey, Princeton Theological Seminary

· Aho Shemunkasho, University of Salzburg

· Lucas Van Rompay, Duke University

Symposium Chair: George A. Kiraz

Symposium Secretary: Jack C. Darakjy, Esq.

To attend the Symposium, download the Attendance Registration From (early registration ends September 1, 2008).

For Gorgias books on Jacob of Sarug, click here.

The Holy Trinity in the

Life of the Church

October 9 – 11, 2008

Brookline, Massachusetts

The conference will be held on the campus of Holy Cross Greek Orthodox School of Theology in Brookline, Massachusetts on October 9-11, beginning Thursday afternoon at 5:00 p.m. with Vespers and ending with supper on Saturday.  The conference will be held in the Reading Room of the Archbishop Iakovos Memorial Library.

Altogether, there will be 5 plenary session papers, 16 short communications, and one panel discussion. Please see the schedule below for a list of paper topics and times.  Registration is still open for those who may still wish to register for the conference (contact Dr. Bruce Beck, pappaspatristric@comcast.net. To register, please send an email to Dr. Beck with your name, institutional affiliation, address, and phone number.  There will be a $75 registration fee for the conference, payable upon arrival. This fee will cover the registration fee and all meals and breaks during the conference.  Student registration fee is $25.00.

On Saturday, October 4, 2008, St. Vladimir’s Seminary will once again host its annual Orthodox Education Day, a day of “homecoming” for alumni, friends, and the general public, which this year features the theme “Holy Icons and Sacred Arts.”

The campus-wide celebration will especially honor the holy icon-the early Christian art form uniquely and deeply associated with the worship and faith of the Orthodox Church, and one that has mesmerized poets, writers, and artists for centuries, and has inspired believers and non-believers alike.

Among the campus exhibits will be a magnificent, rare collection of fifteenth to twenty-first-century Russian icons from the Museum of Russian Icons in Clinton, Massachusetts (http://www.museumofrussianicons.org/) . The museum houses more than 350 Russian icons, the largest collection of its kind in North America and one of the largest private collections outside of Russia; icons in the museum span six centuries, dating from the earliest periods of icon painting up to the present. Gordon Lankton, founder of the museum, and curator Kent Russell will be on hand to explain the special and select icons loaned to the seminary for the day. Also on display will be unique icons on loan from the seminary library and chapel.

To augment these displays, artisans of the sacred arts will be demonstrating their fine iconography in various media, from egg tempera paint to exquisite embroidery. And, to accompany the festival of imagery, the renowned Boston Byzantine choir will present a musical, visual performance titled “The Sound of Icons.”

Additionally, the seminary has planned several events to educate visitors about the meaning and use of icons. Dr. Vasileios Marinis, Kallinikeion Assistant Professor of Byzantine Art, Queens College and specialist in Byzantine architecture and in the study of women in the Byzantine period, will deliver a keynote lecture titled “Holy Images or ‘Sacred Art’? Perceptions of Icons in Contemporary Society.” Following the keynote address, highly interactive workshops for adults, teens, and children will be conducted, including how to “read” an Orthodox icon and how to create an icon.

Visitors also will be able to enjoy an array of delectable ethnic foods, originating from Russia, Greece, Armenia, India, the Middle East, and other regions typically associated with Eastern Christianity.

Worship services in the Orthodox Christian tradition, beginning with a hierarchical Divine Liturgy, will be conducted throughout the day in the seminary chapel and at select campus sites, and the public will have a rare opportunity to venerate the relics and icons of Ss Herman and Innocent, the saints who founded Orthodoxy in America.

The exhibitions and workshops are open to the public without a cover charge, and a full schedule of the day’s events is available at www.svots.edu.

oed_flyer_vrtcl_pf6_21

The Holy Trinity in the Life of the Church

October 9-11, 2008

Holy Cross Greek Orthodox School of Theology

I received the OSB about a month ago and have been using it devotionally since then, which is how I think any Bible should be used before a final judgment is pronounced upon it. I have found a few issues with it (technical note: the tiny gutter really is annoying, I can’t imagine trying to use it in church to give a reading, perhaps they can produce a “pulpit” version next?). In general, I find most “study” Bibles to exhibit very poor scholarship, and this one is no exception unfortunately. The Author/Date/Theme sections beginning each book are generally not worth the paper they are written on. The “Date” section is the worst offender. It would have been far more useful to change “Date” to “Setting” and say that a particular book is “set” during a certain time. For example, Genesis is said to have been “written during Israel’s forty years of wandering in the wilderness, in the time between the crossing of the Red Sea and the entrance into Canaan.” Oh? Based upon what evidence? Not only is this information not useful, adding nothing to the text of the book itself, but it is quite questionable and misleading. It would have been far better to say that Genesis is “Set” during the time of the earliest history of the world until Israel’s entrance into Egypt. Also Daniel, never a fun book to date, but the OSB says “Traditionally thought to have been written during the Babylonian captivity (603-530 BC).” Never mind the fact that this is another example of the overuse of the passive voice throughout the OSB, but who are the people who “traditionally thought” about the dates Daniel was written? I can’t think of anyone in Second Temple Judaism or ancient Christianity who was interested in such a question, much less put forth a “traditional thought” on the subject. The only “traditional thought” which assigns such a date to Daniel are those who hold to verbal plenary inspiration, which is a rather peculiar Protestant construction which has little to do with Orthodox traditional thinking. Since this note also applies to Susanna and Bel and the Dragon it opens the distinct possibility that academia will simply hold the OSB up for ridicule, and on this point they would well within their rights to do so.

Also, I found many notes to be rather strained and ignorant. For example: Jeremiah 2:13 “For my people have committed two evils: They forsook Me, the fountain of living water, and hewed for themselves broken cisterns, unable to hold water.” The note reads “In both the old covenant and the new, the problem is the same: people forsake God, the living water, and damage the cisterns or containers, the places of God’s dwelling. As Orthodox believers, therefore, we adhere both to Christ and His Church.” Besides the awkward prose and the improper comma placement in the first sentence, this comment misses the point of the verse entirely. First, a cistern is not a container. Cisterns are large underground sealed caverns built in order to store water from the rainy season in order to have water in the dry season. Second, where you have “living water” you do not need to have a cistern. Living water unceasingly flows up from the ground, you don’t need to store it. Simply put, there are no cisterns in Dan. Such a thought is just silly. Third, it misses the connection of this verse to John 4, where Jesus tells the Samaritan woman, as she is drawing water from a cistern, that he is “living water.” Fourth, I think it is profanity to equate a cistern with God’s dwelling place. God’s dwelling place is the Temple, not a cistern filled with old, dirty, and stale water. Nothing in the rest of the Bible supports such an equation of images. In short, living water is good, cisterns are bad, having living water but building cisterns anyways, and leaky one’s at that, is an image which shows the stupidity of Israel’s unfaithfulness.

I also think it is unfortunate that Archimandrite Ephrem’s critiques were not the least bit engaged with. Sure, parts of his critique were subjective, a matter of personal taste, but other parts were spot on. He’s a good scholar, and a great Christian, ignoring him is rather inexcusable.

I would like to see us work towards a Revised version (ROSB?) which uses the research of the NETS and is less dependent upon “traditional” Protestant understandings of the Bible.