Follow-up to previous
16 March 2008
Well, the talk went well. And won’t you know it, none of the previously mentioned potential visitors showed up. Implications? Not sure. Maybe a lot of smoke and mirrors. Thoughts?
I did have one women, probably in her 70’s, who asked a few questions about Jesus and the Jews in the NT, and they were framed in such a way as to kind of suggest that she assumes the NT is the only real authority for Judaism in the first century. Another fellow wanted to drive the conversation into source critical analyses of the Hebrew Bible (especially Genesis) and another tried to argue that rabbinic Judaism owes more to ancient gnosticism (!) than to any other factor. All of which were dealt with pretty quickly; the NT is one of the precious few literary sources we have for first century Judaism, but to rely on it for real info on Judaism (as opposed to what late first century writers thought about Judaism) would be like relying on the Talmud as the authoritative source for Christianity. Not the best idea. The second question was largely irrelevant to the topic at hand (it came up during a discussion of holidays!) and the third was a classic case of someone reading too much and not digesting enough and came to a wild conclusion.
Anyway. I applaud this kind of lecture series by public institutions. I do think that scholars in this field (any field, really) ought to be engaged in more public venues to broaden awareness of issues that are close to home. Few disciplines these days are as well-placed for this as religion. And to have the chance to do some public scholarship was great; in some ways, because of my background in churches, I’m more comfortable in public scholarly atmospheres than in those locked into the ivory tower.
Anyway, I look forward to doing more of these kinds of things in the future.
Entry Filed under: Religion. .
3 Comments Add your own
Leave a Comment
Some HTML allowed:
<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>
Trackback this post | Subscribe to the comments via RSS Feed
1.
Ken | 17 March 2008 at 2:21 pm
I wonder why the public library invited a Christian religion scholar rather than a Jewish scholar, someone from a Judaic studies program, for example. I wonder if any Jews were in the audience. If they wanted to present Chinese culture would they invite someone who is Chinese, or would they invite a western anthropologist?
You wrote, “I do think that scholars in this field (any field, really) ought to be engaged in more public venues to broaden awareness of issues that are close to home.” Are the scholars the ones who need a broader awareness, or is it the public:-)?
2.
Benedict | 17 March 2008 at 6:28 pm
Well, the truth is that the library originally asked a Judaic Studies prof, but he was out of town, and he nominated me to do it instead. While my own religious “persuasion” is Christian (as anyone who reads this blog knows), my field of teaching is Abrahamic religions.
There were, in fact, at least two Jews in the audience, one of whom was quite vocal in her support of my talk during the actual discussion. And when it was over, I was asked point blank if I was Jewish. My answer was “To the extent that Christianity is, or at least once was, Jewish, yes indeed.”
Your last comment is actually a big hot-button issue at my university. I think it is the scholars who need the awareness, because many dont’ see the point in being engaged and active anywhere outside the Ivory Tower (Orthanc?)
3.
Ken | 17 March 2008 at 9:47 pm
It sounds like you received at least two very nice compliments: one from the professor who asked you to take his place and one from the one who was supportive during the presentation. I assume that you received at least a third in the form of the question as to whether or not you are Jewish. I have always thought that it is mark of a really good teacher to be able to present a point of view that is not your own so clearly that the students cannot detect a bias - you must be good.